— p. 1 — 1
THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
ALL-DOMAIN ANOMALY RESOLUTION OFFICE
Report on the Historical Record of U.S. Government Involvement
with Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP)
Volume I
February 2024
— 第 1 页 — 国防部
全域异常解决办公室(ALL-DOMAIN ANOMALY RESOLUTION OFFICE)
关于美国政府涉及不明异常现象(UAP)历史记录的报告
第一卷
2024年2月
<!-- p.2-5(目录) -->
目录(节选;页码为原文页码)
第一节:引言(6)
第二节:执行摘要(7)
第三节:范围与假设(11):范围、假设、关于“UAP”术语的说明、国会监督、AARO 的 HR2 分析项目
第四节:1945年以来美国政府 UAP 调查项目纪要(13):Project SAUCER(1946/1947–1948年1月)、Project SIGN(1948年1月–1949年2月)、Project GRUDGE(原组织,1949年2–12月)、Project TWINKLE(1949夏–1950夏)、Project GRUDGE(重建,1951年10月–1952年3月)、Project BEAR(1951末–1954末)、CIA 特别研究组(1952)、Robertson 小组(1953年1月)、Durant 报告(1953年2月)、Project BLUE BOOK(1952年3月–1969年12月)、CIA 对 UFO 的评估(1964)、O'Brien 委员会(1964)、Condon 报告(1968年4月)、国家科学院对 Condon 报告的评估(1968末)、卡特政府委托 NASA(1977)、Roswell 调查(1992-2001)、AAWSAP(2009–2012)/AATIP、UAP 工作组(UAPTF)(2020年8月–2021年11月)、《初步评估:不明空中现象》(2021年6月)、AOIMSG/AOIMEXEC(2021年11月–2022年6月)、UAP 独立研究小组(UAPIST)(2022年6月–2023年9月)、全域异常解决办公室(AARO)(2022年7月15日设立)、外国与学术调查努力、关键发现
第五节:对受访者关于美国政府涉及隐藏 UAP 项目之说法的评估(28)
第六节:对具名美国政府敏感项目的调查(33)
第七节:1945年以来 UAP 调查努力的历史背景(36)
第八节:美国国家安全与太空项目的测试与研发很可能解释了部分 UAP 目击(39)
第九节:结论(45)
— p. 2 — 2
Table of Contents
SECTION I: Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 6
SECTION II: Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 7
SECTION III: Scope & Assumptions ........................................................................................................ 11
Scope ......................................................................................................................................... 11
Assumptions .............................................................................................................................. 11
Note on “UAP” Nomenclature .................................................................................................. 12
Congressional Oversight ........................................................................................................... 12
AARO’s HR2 Program of Analysis .......................................................................................... 12
SECTION IV: Accounts of USG UAP Investigatory Programs Since 1945 ............................................. 13
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 13
Project SAUCER (1946/1947–January 1948)........................................................................... 13
Project SIGN (January 1948–February 1949) ........................................................................... 14
Project GRUDGE (Original Organization) (February–December 1949) ................................. 15
Project TWINKLE (Summer 1949–Summer 1950).................................................................. 15
Project GRUDGE (Reestablishment) (October 1951–March 1952) ......................................... 15
Project BEAR (Late 1951–Late 1954) ...................................................................................... 16
CIA Special Study Group (1952) .............................................................................................. 16
The Robertson Panel (January 1953) ........................................................................................ 17
The Durant Report (February 1953).......................................................................................... 17
Project BLUE BOOK (March 1952–December 1969) ............................................................. 18
CIA Evaluation of UFOs (1964) ............................................................................................... 19
O’Brien Committee (1964) ....................................................................................................... 19
The Condon Report (April 1968) .............................................................................................. 19
National Academy of Sciences Assessment of the Condon Report (Late 1968) ...................... 20
Carter Administration Tasking to National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
(1977) ........................................................................................................................................ 21
Roswell Investigations/Inquiries (1992-2001) .......................................................................... 21
Advanced Aerospace Weapons System Application Program (AAWSAP) (2009–2012)/
Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP)................................................. 22
Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force (UAPTF) (August 2020-November 2021) ......... 24
Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (June 2021) .................................. 24
— 第 2 页 —
— p. 3 — 3
Airborne Object Identification and Management Synchronization Group (AOIMSG) /
Airborne Object Identification and Management Executive Management Committee
(AOIMEXEC) (November 2021-June 2022) ............................................................................ 24
UAP Independent Study Team (UAPIST) (June 2022-September 2023)................................. 25
All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) (Established July 15, 2022) ....................... 25
Foreign and Academic Investigatory Efforts ............................................................................ 26
Key Findings ............................................................................................................................. 27
SECTION V: Assessment of Interviewee Claims of USG Involvement in Hidden UAP Programs ......... 28
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 28
Primary Narrative ...................................................................................................................... 28
Secondary Narrative .................................................................................................................. 30
Findings............................................................................................................................................... 30
No Official UAP Nondisclosure Agreements Discovered .................................................................. 30
Former CIA Official Involvement in Movement of Alleged Material Recovered from a UAP Crash
Denied on the Record.......................................................................................................................... 31
The 1961 Special National Intelligence Estimate on “UFOs” Assessed to be Not Authentic ............ 31
Aliens Observing Material Test a Likely Misunderstanding of an Authentic, Non-UAP Program
Activity ............................................................................................................................................... 31
Allegation that a Former U.S. military Service Member Touched an Extraterrestrial Spacecraft ...... 32
The UAP with Peculiar Characteristics Refers to an Authentic, Non-UAP-Related SAP.................. 32
Extraterrestrial Disclosure Study Confirmed; Not White House-Sponsored ...................................... 32
Aerospace Companies Denied Involvement in Recovering Extraterrestrial Craft.............................. 32
Sample of Alleged Alien Spacecraft is an Ordinary, Terrestrial, Metal Alloy ................................... 32
AARO Investigating Unresolved Historical Nuclear-Related UAP Cases ......................................... 33
SECTION VI: Investigation into Named USG Sensitive Programs .......................................................... 33
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 33
Process for Protecting Sensitive Programs while Investigating Interviewee Claims................ 34
Findings ..................................................................................................................................... 34
One Private Program Mistaken for USG Program .............................................................................. 34
KONA BLUE: A Proposed UAP Recovery and Reverse-Engineering Program ............................... 34
Unnecessary IC Program Expansion................................................................................................... 35
Nexus of Proponents of the USG UAP Reverse-Engineering Allegation .......................................... 35
SECTION VII: Historical Context of UAP Investigatory Efforts Since 1945 .......................................... 36
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 36
Commonalities of 20th and 21st Century UAP Investigations ................................................... 37
— 第 3 页 —
— p. 4 — 4
International Security Environment and Technological Surprise ....................................................... 37
Secrecy ................................................................................................................................................ 37
Public Interest ..................................................................................................................................... 38
Alleged Bureaucratic Barriers ............................................................................................................. 38
Insufficient Data and Information ....................................................................................................... 38
Perceived Deception ........................................................................................................................... 38
Differences between 20th and 21st Century UAP Investigations ............................................... 39
Decreased Public Trust ....................................................................................................................... 39
Popular Culture ................................................................................................................................... 39
SECTION VIII: Testing and Development of U.S. National Security and Space Programs Most Likely
Accounted for Some Portion of UAP Sightings ......................................................................................... 39
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 39
Manhattan Project (August 1942) ............................................................................................. 40
V-173/XF5U-1 “Flying Pancake” (1942) ................................................................................. 40
Project Mogul (1947-1949) ....................................................................................................... 40
Project High Dive (1950s)......................................................................................................... 40
Project Aquatone/Dragon Lady (1954) ..................................................................................... 41
WS-117L/CORONA (Late 1956) ............................................................................................. 41
VZ-9AV Avrocar/Project Silver Bug (1958) ............................................................................ 41
Explorer 1 (January 1958) ......................................................................................................... 41
Oxcart/A-12/SR-71 (1958) ........................................................................................................ 41
Project Mercury (1958-1963) .................................................................................................... 42
TATTLETALE/GRAB (September 1960)................................................................................ 42
Project Gemini (1961-1966)...................................................................................................... 42
Project Apollo (1961-1972) ...................................................................................................... 42
Poppy (1962-1977).................................................................................................................... 42
Gambit (1963-1971) .................................................................................................................. 42
Hexagon (1971- 1986) .............................................................................................................. 42
Space Transportation System/Space Shuttle (1972 - 2011) ...................................................... 43
HAVE Blue/F-117A Nighthawk/TACIT Blue (1975) .............................................................. 43
Advanced Technology Bomber/B-2 Spirit (1980) .................................................................... 43
Strategic Defense Initiative (March 1983) ................................................................................ 43
Advent of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles 1980s-Present............................................................... 43
— 第 4 页 —
— p. 5 — 5
GNAT 750 .......................................................................................................................................... 44
Predator ............................................................................................................................................... 44
Reaper ................................................................................................................................................. 44
Dark Star ............................................................................................................................................. 44
Polecat ................................................................................................................................................ 45
Sentinel ............................................................................................................................................... 45
Global Hawk ...................................................................................................................................... 45
SECTION IX: Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 45
— 第 5 页 —
— p. 6 — 6
SECTION I: Introduction
This report represents Volume I of the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office’s
(AARO) Historical Record Report (HR2) which reviews the record of the United States
Government (USG) pertaining to unidentified anomalous phenomena (UAP). In completing this
report, AARO reviewed all official USG investigatory efforts since 1945, researched classified
and unclassified archives, conducted approximately 30 interviews, and partnered with
Intelligence Community (IC) and Department of Defense (DoD) officials responsible for
controlled and special access program oversight, respectively. AARO will publish Volume II in
accordance with the date established in Section 6802 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2023 (FY23); Volume II will provide analysis of information acquired by AARO
after the date of the publication of Volume I.
Since 1945, the USG has funded and supported UAP investigations with the goal of
determining whether UAP represented a flight safety risk, technological leaps by competitor
nations, or evidence of off-world technology under intelligent control. These investigations were
managed and implemented by a range of experts, scientists, academics, military, and intelligence
officials under differing leaders—all of whom held their own perspectives that led them to
particular conclusions on the origins of UAP. However, they all had in common the belief that
UAP represented an unknown and, therefore, theoretically posed a potential threat of an
indeterminate nature.
AARO’s mission is similar to that of these earlier organizations. AARO methodology
applies both the scientific method and intelligence analysis tradecraft to identify and help
mitigate risks UAP may pose to domain safety and to discover, characterize, and attribute
potential competitor technological systems.
A consistent theme in popular culture involves a particularly persistent narrative that the
USG—or a secretive organization within it—recovered several off-world spacecraft and
extraterrestrial biological remains, that it operates a program or programs to reverse engineer the
recovered technology, and that it has conspired since the 1940s to keep this effort hidden from
the United States Congress and the American public.
AARO recognizes that many people sincerely hold versions of these beliefs which are
based on their perception of past experiences, the experiences of others whom they trust, or
media and online outlets they believe to be sources of credible and verifiable information. The
proliferation of television programs, books, movies, and the vast amount of internet and social
media content centered on UAP-related topics most likely has influenced the public conversation
on this topic, and reinforced these beliefs within some sections of the population.
The goal of this report is not to prove or disprove any particular belief set, but rather to
use a rigorous analytic and scientific approach to investigate past USG-sponsored UAP
investigation efforts and the claims made by interviewees that the USG and various contractors
have recovered and are hiding off-world technology and biological material. AARO has
approached this project with the widest possible aperture, thoroughly investigating these
— 第 6 页 — 第一节:引言
本报告是全域异常解决办公室(AARO)历史记录报告(HR2)的第一卷,回顾了美国政府(USG)关于不明异常现象(UAP)的记录。在完成本报告时,AARO 回顾了自1945年以来所有官方的美国政府调查努力,研究了保密与非保密档案,进行了约30次访谈,并与分别负责受控项目和特殊访问项目监督的情报界(IC)和国防部(DoD)官员合作。AARO 将依照《2023财年国家国防授权法》(FY23)第6802节所确立的日期发布第二卷;第二卷将对 AARO 在第一卷发布日期之后获取的信息进行分析。
自1945年以来,美国政府资助并支持 UAP 调查,目标是确定 UAP 是否代表飞行安全风险、竞争国家的技术飞跃,或处于智能控制下的外星技术的证据。这些调查由一系列专家、科学家、学者、军方和情报官员在不同领导下管理和实施——他们都持有各自的观点,导致他们对 UAP 的起源得出特定结论。然而,他们的共同点是相信 UAP 代表一种未知,因此在理论上构成一种性质不确定的潜在威胁。
AARO 的使命与这些早期组织相似。AARO 的方法论同时运用科学方法和情报分析技艺,以识别并帮助缓解 UAP 可能对领域安全构成的风险,并发现、表征和归因潜在竞争对手的技术系统。
流行文化中一个一贯的主题涉及一个特别顽固的叙事:美国政府——或其内部一个秘密组织——回收了若干外星飞行器和地外生物遗骸,运营着一个或多个项目对回收的技术进行逆向工程,并自1940年代以来一直密谋向美国国会和美国公众隐瞒这一努力。
AARO 认识到,许多人真诚地持有这些信念的各种版本,它们基于他们对过去经历的感知、他们所信任之人的经历,或他们认为是可信且可核实信息来源的媒体和在线渠道。围绕 UAP 相关主题的电视节目、书籍、电影,以及大量互联网和社交媒体内容的激增,很可能影响了关于这一主题的公共讨论,并在部分人群中强化了这些信念。
本报告的目标不是证明或证伪任何特定的信念体系,而是运用严谨的分析和科学方法,调查过去美国政府资助的 UAP 调查努力,以及受访者关于美国政府和各承包商已回收并隐藏外星技术和生物材料的说法。AARO 以尽可能宽广的视角对待这一项目,在没有任何特定预设结论或假设的情况下彻底调查这些
— p. 7 — 7
assertions and claims without any particular pre-conceived conclusion or hypothesis. AARO is
committed to reaching conclusions based on empirical evidence.
Lastly, AARO thanks all participants in this review who made this report possible, to
include the interviewees who came forward with information.
SECTION II: Executive Summary
AARO found no evidence that any USG investigation, academic-sponsored research,
or official review panel has confirmed that any sighting of a UAP represented extraterrestrial
technology. All investigative efforts, at all levels of classification, concluded that most sightings
were ordinary objects and phenomena and the result of misidentification. Although not the focus
of this report, it is worthwhile to note that all official foreign UAP investigatory efforts to date
have reached the same general conclusions as USG investigations.
• Although many UAP reports remain unsolved or unidentified, AARO assesses that if
more and better quality data were available, most of these cases also could be
identified and resolved as ordinary objects or phenomena. Sensors and visual
observations are imperfect; the vast majority of cases lack actionable data or the data
available is limited or of poor quality.
• Resources and staffing for these programs largely have been irregular and sporadic,
challenging investigatory efforts and hindering effective knowledge transfer.
• The vast majority of reports almost certainly are the result of misidentification and a
direct consequence of the lack of domain awareness; there is a direct correlation
between the amount and quality of available information on a case with the ability to
conclusively resolve it.
AARO found no empirical evidence for claims that the USG and private companies
have been reverse-engineering extraterrestrial technology. AARO determined, based on all
information provided to date, that claims involving specific people, known locations,
technological tests, and documents allegedly involved in or related to the reverse-engineering
of extraterrestrial technology, are inaccurate. Additional claims will be addressed in Volume
II. AARO successfully located the USG and industry programs, officials, companies,
executives, and documents identified by interviewees. In many cases, the interviewees named
authentic USG classified programs well-known and understood to those appropriately accessed
to them in the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch; however, the interviewees mistakenly
associated these authentic USG programs with alien and extraterrestrial activity. AARO has
reached the following, high confidence conclusions related to:
• UAP Nondisclosure Agreements (NDA): AARO has found no evidence of any
authentic UAP-related NDA or other evidence threatening death or violence for
disclosing UAP information.
— 第 7 页 — 断言与说法。AARO 致力于基于经验证据得出结论。
最后,AARO 感谢使本报告成为可能的所有此次审查的参与者,包括挺身提供信息的受访者。
第二节:执行摘要
AARO 未发现任何证据表明,任何美国政府调查、学术资助研究或官方审查小组曾确认某次 UAP 目击代表地外技术。所有调查努力,在所有保密级别上,都得出结论:大多数目击是普通物体和现象,是误识别的结果。尽管不是本报告的重点,但值得指出的是,迄今为止所有官方的外国 UAP 调查努力都得出了与美国政府调查相同的总体结论。
• 尽管许多 UAP 报告仍未解决或未识别,AARO 评估认为,如果有更多、更高质量的数据,这些案例中的大多数也可被识别并解析为普通物体或现象。传感器和目视观测并不完美;绝大多数案例缺乏可操作数据,或可得数据有限或质量差。
• 这些项目的资源与人员配置在很大程度上是不规律和零散的,挑战了调查努力并阻碍了有效的知识传递。
• 绝大多数报告几乎肯定是误识别的结果,是缺乏领域感知的直接后果;案例可得信息的数量与质量,同确定性解决该案例的能力之间存在直接关联。
AARO 未发现任何经验证据支持“美国政府和私营企业一直在对地外技术进行逆向工程”的说法。基于迄今为止提供的所有信息,AARO 判定,涉及特定人物、已知地点、技术测试,以及据称涉及或与地外技术逆向工程相关的文件的说法是不准确的。进一步的说法将在第二卷中处理。AARO 成功定位了受访者所指认的美国政府和工业项目、官员、公司、高管和文件。在许多情况下,受访者所指认的是真实的、为行政部门和立法部门中获得适当授权者所熟知和理解的美国政府保密项目;然而,受访者错误地将这些真实的美国政府项目与外星和地外活动联系起来。AARO 就以下方面得出了如下高置信度结论:
• UAP 保密协议(NDA):AARO 未发现任何真实的 UAP 相关 NDA,或任何以死亡或暴力威胁披露 UAP 信息的其他证据。
— p. 8 — 8
• A CIA Official Allegedly Managed UAP Experimentation: The named, former
CIA official was not involved in the movement of extraterrestrial technology. The
same former CIA officer signed a memo rejecting a claim made by interviewees that
he managed the movement of and experimentation on off-world technology.
• Alleged UAP Intelligence Community Document: An alleged 1961 Special
National Intelligence Estimate that was “leaked” to online sources and suggests the
extraterrestrial nature of “UFOs,” is inauthentic.
• “Aliens” Present During a DoD Technology Test: AARO reviewed information
related to an account of an interviewee overhearing a conversation about a technology
test at a military base where “aliens” allegedly were observing, and AARO judges that
the interviewee misunderstood the conversation.
• Claim That a Military Officer Touched an Off-World Craft: An interviewee
claim that a named former military officer explained in detail how he physically
touched an extraterrestrial spacecraft is inaccurate. The claim was denied on the
record by the named former officer who recounted a story of when he touched an
F-117 Nighthawk stealth fighter that could have been misconstrued by the
interviewee, though the named former officer does not recall having this conversation
with the interviewee.
• Test of Off-World Technology: An interviewee claim that he witnessed what he
believed to be the testing of extraterrestrial technology at a USG facility almost
certainly was an observation of an authentic, non-UAP-related, technology test that
strongly correlated in time, location, and description provided in the interviewee’s
account.
• UAP Disclosure Study: Interviewees’ claims that between 2004 and 2007 the White
House requested a research institute in Virginia study the theoretical societal impacts
of disclosing that UAP are extraterrestrial in origin; AARO confirmed the study was
conducted, but it was not requested by the White House.
• Named Companies Allegedly Experimenting on Alien Technology: AARO has
found no evidence that U.S. companies ever possessed off-world technology. The
executives, scientists, and chief technology officers of the companies named by
interviewees met with the Director of AARO and denied on the record that they have
ever recovered, possessed, or engaged in reverse-engineering of extraterrestrial
technology.
• Experimentation on Alleged Extraterrestrial Spacecraft Sample: AARO has
concluded that a sample from an alleged crashed off-world spacecraft that AARO
acquired from a private UAP investigating organization and the U.S. Army is a
manufactured, terrestrial alloy and does not represent off-world technology or possess
any exceptional qualities. The sample is primarily composed of magnesium, zinc,
— 第 8 页 — • 据称一名 CIA 官员管理 UAP 实验:被指名的这位前 CIA 官员未参与地外技术的转移。同一位前 CIA 官员签署了一份备忘录,驳斥了受访者关于他管理外星技术的转移与实验的说法。
• 据称的 UAP 情报界文件:一份据称被“泄露”到在线来源、暗示“UFO”具有地外性质的1961年《特别国家情报评估》是不真实的。
• DoD 技术测试期间“外星人”在场:AARO 审查了与一名受访者偶然听到一段关于某军事基地技术测试(据称有“外星人”在观测)对话的叙述相关的信息,AARO 判断该受访者误解了这段对话。
• 一名军官触摸过外星飞行器的说法:受访者关于一名被指名的前军官详细解释他如何亲身触摸一艘地外飞行器的说法是不准确的。该说法被被指名的前军官当场否认,他讲述了一段他触摸 F-117 Nighthawk 隐形战斗机的经历,这可能被受访者误解,尽管该前军官不记得曾与该受访者有过这段对话。
• 外星技术测试:一名受访者声称他目睹了他认为是在美国政府设施中对地外技术进行测试的情形,这几乎肯定是对一项真实的、与 UAP 无关的技术测试的观测,该测试在时间、地点和受访者叙述所提供的描述上高度吻合。
• UAP 披露研究:受访者声称在2004年至2007年间,白宫请求弗吉尼亚州一家研究机构研究披露“UAP 具有地外起源”的理论性社会影响;AARO 确认该研究确实进行过,但并非由白宫请求。
• 据称的具名公司对外星技术进行实验:AARO 未发现任何证据表明美国公司曾拥有外星技术。受访者所指名公司的高管、科学家和首席技术官与 AARO 主任会面,并当场否认他们曾回收、拥有或从事地外技术的逆向工程。
• 对据称外星飞行器样本的实验:AARO 得出结论,它从一家私营 UAP 调查组织和美国陆军处获取的、据称来自一艘坠毁外星飞行器的样本,是一种人造的地球合金,并不代表外星技术,也不具备任何非凡品质。该样本主要由镁、锌、
— p. 9 — 9
and bismuth with some other trace elements, such as lead. This assessment was based
on its materials characterization.
AARO assesses that all of the named and described alleged hidden UAP reverse-
engineering programs provided by interviewees either do not exist; are misidentified authentic,
highly sensitive national security programs that are not related to extraterrestrial technology
exploitation; or resolve to an unwarranted and disestablished program. AARO created a
secure process in partnership with the highest-level security officials within the DoD, IC, and
other organizations to research and investigate these programs; AARO was granted full,
unrestricted access by all organizations. It is important to note that none of the interviewees had
firsthand knowledge of these programs—they were not approved for access to nor did they work
on these efforts—which likely resulted in misinterpretation of the programs’ origins and purpose.
• The interviewees and others who have mistakenly associated authentic sensitive
national security programs with UAP had incomplete or unauthorized access to
these programs; discussion of these programs outside of secure facilities presents a
high risk of exposing national security information.
• One named program was a UAP-related Prospective Special Access Program (PSAP)
called KONA BLUE that was proposed to the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) and supported by individuals who believed the USG was hiding off-world
technology. The program was never approved by DHS and its supporters never
provided empirical evidence to support their claims.
• In 2021, without sufficient justification, the scope of an IC Controlled Access
Program was expanded to protect UAP reverse-engineering. This program never
recovered or reverse-engineered any UAP or extraterrestrial spacecraft. This IC
program was disestablished due to its lack of merit.
AARO assesses that the inaccurate claim that the USG is reverse-engineering
extraterrestrial technology and is hiding it from Congress is, in large part, the result of
circular reporting from a group of individuals who believe this to be the case, despite the lack
of any evidence. AARO notes that although claims that the USG has recovered and hidden
spacecraft date back to the 1940s and 1950s, more modern instances of these claims largely stem
from a consistent group of individuals who have been involved in various UAP-related
endeavors since at least 2009.
• Many of these individuals were involved in or supportive of a cancelled DIA program
and the subsequent but failed attempt to reestablish this program under DHS, called
KONA BLUE.
AARO assesses that UAP sightings and reports of these sightings to USG organizations
and claims that some UAP constitute extraterrestrial craft and that the USG has secured and
is experimenting on extraterrestrial technology have been influenced by a range of cultural,
political, and technological factors. AARO bases this conclusion on the following factors:
— 第 9 页 — 铋及一些其他微量元素(如铅)组成。这一评估基于其材料表征。
AARO 评估认为,受访者提供的所有具名和描述的、据称隐藏的 UAP 逆向工程项目,要么不存在;要么是被误识别的真实、高度敏感的国家安全项目(与地外技术利用无关);要么归结为一个不正当且已被撤销的项目。AARO 与 DoD、IC 及其他组织内最高级别的安全官员合作,建立了一个安全流程来研究和调查这些项目;AARO 获得了所有组织的完全、不受限制的访问权限。重要的是要注意,没有任何一位受访者对这些项目拥有第一手了解——他们未获准接触这些努力,也未参与其中——这很可能导致了对项目起源和目的的误解。
• 那些错误地将真实敏感国家安全项目与 UAP 联系起来的受访者及其他人,对这些项目的访问是不完整或未经授权的;在安全设施之外讨论这些项目存在暴露国家安全信息的高风险。
• 一个具名项目是一个名为 KONA BLUE 的 UAP 相关“预期特殊访问项目”(PSAP),它被提议给国土安全部(DHS),并得到那些相信美国政府正隐藏外星技术的个人的支持。该项目从未获得 DHS 批准,其支持者也从未提供经验证据支持其说法。
• 2021年,在没有充分理由的情况下,一个 IC 受控访问项目的范围被扩大以保护 UAP 逆向工程。该项目从未回收或逆向工程任何 UAP 或外星飞行器。这个 IC 项目因缺乏价值而被撤销。
AARO 评估认为,“美国政府正在对地外技术进行逆向工程并向国会隐瞒”这一不准确说法,在很大程度上是一群相信此事属实的个人(尽管缺乏任何证据)进行循环报告的结果。AARO 指出,尽管关于美国政府已回收并隐藏飞行器的说法可追溯至1940和1950年代,但这些说法的较现代实例在很大程度上源自一群自至少2009年以来参与各种 UAP 相关活动的一贯个人。
• 这些个人中许多人参与了或支持一个被取消的 DIA 项目,以及随后但失败的、试图在 DHS 之下重建该项目(名为 KONA BLUE)的努力。
AARO 评估认为,UAP 目击、向美国政府组织报告这些目击,以及关于某些 UAP 构成外星飞行器、美国政府已获取并正在对外星技术进行实验的说法,受到一系列文化、政治和技术因素的影响。AARO 基于以下因素得出这一结论:
— p. 10 — 10
• The aggregate findings of all USG investigations to date have not found even one
case of UAP representing off-world technology.
• None of the programs mentioned by interviewees are UAP reverse-engineering
programs, and all the authentic programs have been properly notified and reported to
Congress through the congressional defense and/or intelligence committees.
• AARO has no evidence for the USG reverse-engineering narrative provided by
interviewees and has been able to disprove the majority of the interviewees’ claims.
Some claims are still under evaluation.
• AARO determined that a piece of metal alleged to be recovered from an off-world
spacecraft is ordinary, of terrestrial origin, and possesses no exceptional qualities.
Several factors—domestic and international—most likely influenced sightings, reports,
and the belief by some individuals that there is sufficient proof that some UAP represent
extraterrestrial technology. AARO’s examination of the historical context of UAP
investigations from 1945 to the present reveals that these factors—some common to and distinct
between the earlier era of UAP investigations (pre-2009) and the modern era (post-2009)—
undoubtedly influenced the direction of these investigations, the volume of and spikes in
sightings, and the overall public interest, concern, and debate. These periods are divided into
pre- and post-2009 timeframe because this is the year of the standup of the Advanced Aerospace
Weapons System Application Program (AAWSAP) and Advanced Aerospace Threat
Identification Program (AATIP) efforts. Prior to AAWSAP/AATIP there was about a 40 year
gap in UAP investigation programs since the termination of Project BLUE BOOK in 1969.
• Common contextual factors between earlier and modern investigations include a
rapidly evolving and dynamic national security environment, concern about
technological surprise, intense secrecy related to government military programs,
public interest in UAP, perceived bureaucratic barriers, and the persistent lack of
quality data.
• Some contextual factors that were distinct between earlier and modern investigations
include: differences in the level of public trust in the government; the large volume of
popular culture content related to UAP; the perception within some segments of the
population that the USG is hiding extraterrestrial technology; unauthorized
disclosures of classified programs mistaken for UAP observations; the proliferation of
online sources that reinforce these beliefs; the impact that social media has had on
circular reporting; and the rapid spread of misinformation.
AARO assesses that some portion of sightings since the 1940s have represented
misidentification of never-before-seen experimental and operational space, rocket, and air
systems, including stealth technologies and the proliferation of drone platforms. From the
1940s to the 1960s especially, the United States witnessed a boom in experimental technologies
driven by World War II and the Cold War.
— 第 10 页 — • 迄今为止所有美国政府调查的综合发现,未发现哪怕一例 UAP 代表外星技术的案例。
• 受访者提及的项目中没有一个是 UAP 逆向工程项目,所有真实的项目都已通过国会国防和/或情报委员会得到适当通报和报告。
• AARO 没有任何证据支持受访者提供的美国政府逆向工程叙事,并已能够驳斥大多数受访者的说法。部分说法仍在评估中。
• AARO 判定,据称从外星飞行器回收的一块金属是普通的、地球起源的,不具备任何非凡品质。
若干因素——国内和国际的——很可能影响了目击、报告,以及部分个人认为“有充分证据表明某些 UAP 代表地外技术”的信念。AARO 对1945年至今 UAP 调查历史背景的检视揭示,这些因素——在早期 UAP 调查时代(2009年前)与现代时代(2009年后)之间,有些是共同的,有些是不同的——无疑影响了这些调查的方向、目击的数量与激增,以及总体的公共兴趣、关切与争论。这些时期以2009年前后划分,因为这一年是先进航空航天武器系统应用项目(AAWSAP)和先进航空航天威胁识别项目(AATIP)努力的启动之年。在 AAWSAP/AATIP 之前,自1969年 Project BLUE BOOK 终止以来,UAP 调查项目有约40年的空白。
• 早期与现代调查之间共同的背景因素包括:迅速演变且充满活力的国家安全环境、对技术突袭的担忧、与政府军事项目相关的高度保密、公众对 UAP 的兴趣、所感知的官僚障碍,以及持续缺乏高质量数据。
• 早期与现代调查之间不同的背景因素包括:公众对政府信任水平的差异;与 UAP 相关的大量流行文化内容;部分人群中“美国政府正隐藏外星技术”的认知;被误认为 UAP 观测的保密项目的未经授权披露;强化这些信念的在线来源的激增;社交媒体对循环报告的影响;以及错误信息的迅速传播。
AARO 评估认为,自1940年代以来的部分目击代表了对前所未见的实验性和作战性太空、火箭与航空系统(包括隐形技术和无人机平台的扩散)的误识别。尤其是从1940年代到1960年代,美国在二战和冷战的推动下见证了实验技术的繁荣。
— p. 11 — 11
• Many of these technologies fit the description of a stereotypical Unidentified Flying
Object (UFO). It is understandable how observers unfamiliar with these programs
could mistake sightings of these new technologies as something extraordinary, even
other-worldly.
• Along with these conventional technology research areas, the USG started the
Manhattan Project in 1942. This program operated in secrecy and led to the
establishment of several “secret cities” across the United States to support the
development of the nuclear bomb. Any misunderstanding stemming from the intense
secrecy surrounding this and similar programs could have been misconstrued for
other efforts.
SECTION III: Scope & Assumptions
Scope
This HR2 is provided by DoD in response to a requirement established in the National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 2023, Section 6802(j), which states: “Not later than
540 days after the date of the enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2023, the Director of the Office shall submit to the congressional defense committees, the
congressional intelligence committees and the congressional leadership a written report detailing
the historical record of the United States Government relating to unidentified anomalous
phenomena.” This report, pursuant to the legislation, is based upon the records and documents
of the IC and DoD, oral history interviews, open source analysis, interviews of current and
former government officials, and classified and unclassified archives.
AARO will provide its findings to Congress in two volumes:
• Volume I contains AARO’s findings from 1945 to 31 October 2023 based on the
requirements, and:
• Volume II will include any findings resulting from interviews and research
completed from 1 November 2023 to 15 April 2024.
AARO interviewed approximately 30 people who claimed to have insight into alleged
USG involvement in off-world technology exploitation or to possess knowledge of UAP that
have allegedly disrupted U.S. nuclear facilities in the past.
Assumptions
AARO and DoD assume that individuals convey their accurate recollection of their
perception of the events they observed or heard. It is important to note that AARO cannot
discount nor rely on interviewee accounts alone because of the extraordinary claims contained in
their reports. Although individual accounts are important, they are only one element of the
larger picture and provide AARO with the opportunity to initiate an investigation. However, any
final assessment on the veracity of these accounts must be accompanied by provable facts.
— 第 11 页 — • 这些技术中许多符合典型“不明飞行物”(UFO)的描述。可以理解,不熟悉这些项目的观察者可能将对这些新技术的目击误认为某种非凡之物,甚至是来自异世界的东西。
• 除这些常规技术研究领域外,美国政府于1942年启动了曼哈顿计划。该项目秘密运作,并导致在全美各地建立了若干“秘密城市”以支持核弹的研发。围绕这一及类似项目的高度保密所引发的任何误解,都可能被误认为其他努力。
第三节:范围与假设
范围
本 HR2 由 DoD 依据《2023财年国家国防授权法》(NDAA)第6802(j)节所确立的要求提供,该节规定:“在《2023财年情报授权法案》颁布之日起不迟于540天,该办公室主任应向国会国防委员会、国会情报委员会及国会领导层提交一份书面报告,详述美国政府关于不明异常现象的历史记录。”依照立法,本报告基于 IC 和 DoD 的记录与文件、口述历史访谈、开源分析、对现任和前任政府官员的访谈,以及保密和非保密档案。
AARO 将分两卷向国会提供其发现:
• 第一卷包含 AARO 基于上述要求得出的、从1945年至2023年10月31日的发现,以及:
• 第二卷将包括从2023年11月1日至2024年4月15日完成的访谈与研究所产生的任何发现。
AARO 访谈了约30人,他们声称对据称美国政府涉及外星技术利用拥有洞察,或拥有关于过去据称扰乱美国核设施的 UAP 的知识。
假设
AARO 和 DoD 假设个人传达的是他们对所观察或听闻事件的感知的准确回忆。重要的是要注意,由于其报告中包含非凡的说法,AARO 既不能轻视也不能仅依赖受访者的叙述。尽管个人叙述很重要,但它们只是更大图景的一个要素,并为 AARO 提供了启动调查的机会。然而,对这些叙述真实性的任何最终评估都必须伴有可证明的事实。
— p. 12 — 12
• Some literature suggests individual accounts can be unreliable as they are subject to a
person’s interpretation of sensory data through the filter of their experiences, beliefs,
or state of mind during the event. A person who reports a case might be credible, in
that they believe the elements of their account to be accurate. However, their
reliability, which is their ability to accurately interpret events—as well as to recall
and convey those events due to a range of factors—is altogether different from their
inherent sincerity.1
• Similarly, confirmation bias is a recognized subconscious cognitive process whereby
a person tends to seek and believe information that supports their hypothesis and to
discount information that undermines their hypothesis.2
• AARO remains open to additional, verifiable information that may alter the
conclusions rendered in Volume I and will note any changes to the findings in this
report in Volume II.
Note on “UAP” Nomenclature
Use of the UAP naming convention, while imperfect, is the best manner in which to
characterize the multitude of unidentified reported sightings. AARO understands that the use of
“UAP” to refer to all potential possibilities provides a false sense of commonality; such as their
origins, identity, purpose, type, and threat they may pose. The only commonality that they all
share, at least initially, is that they are each unidentified. Beyond initially being unidentified or
misidentified, drones, balloons, aircraft, rockets, rocket exhaust plumes, satellites, infrared (IR)
aberrations, sensor artifacts, birds, stars, planets, indistinct lights, vague radar returns, meteors,
and optical effects—such as parallax—have nothing in common.
Congressional Oversight
DoD is committed to providing timely and thorough reporting to Congress and to
transparency with the American public. Since its establishment, AARO has endeavored to keep
Congress fully and currently informed of its activities and findings at all levels of classification.
AARO and DoD will continue to share the status and findings of its research at the appropriate
level of classification with Congress.
AARO’s HR2 Program of Analysis
AARO established six complementary lines of effort (LOEs) to conduct the HR2 research
with the goal of ensuring this report conveys an accurate and complete picture. LOEs were
conducted in parallel and reinforced each another; a lead in one LOE drove new research and
pursuits in another. AARO’s goal was to conduct thorough cross-checks to vet all information to
discover and close gaps in its understanding. These LOEs were to:
• Conduct open-source research on claims (through historical interviews) about USG
investigations of, contact with, and recovery of UAP, as well as exploitation of
alleged UAP material and technology.
— 第 12 页 — • 一些文献表明,个人叙述可能不可靠,因为它们受制于一个人在事件期间通过其经历、信念或心理状态的过滤对感官数据的诠释。报告案例的人可能是可信的,因为他们相信其叙述要素是准确的。然而,他们的可靠性——即由于一系列因素而准确诠释事件、以及回忆和传达那些事件的能力——与其内在的真诚性是完全不同的。¹
• 同样,确认偏差是一种公认的潜意识认知过程,一个人倾向于寻求并相信支持其假设的信息,而轻视削弱其假设的信息。²
• AARO 对可能改变第一卷所作结论的额外可核实信息保持开放态度,并将在第二卷中注明对本报告发现的任何更改。
关于“UAP”术语的说明
“UAP”命名惯例的使用虽不完美,却是表征众多未识别报告目击的最佳方式。AARO 理解,用“UAP”指代所有潜在可能性会提供一种虚假的共同性感觉,例如它们的起源、身份、目的、类型以及它们可能构成的威胁。它们所共有的唯一共同点(至少最初)是它们各自都是未识别的。除了最初未被识别或被误识别之外,无人机、气球、飞机、火箭、火箭尾焰、卫星、红外(IR)畸变、传感器伪影、鸟类、恒星、行星、不清晰的灯光、模糊的雷达回波、流星以及光学效应(如视差)之间毫无共同之处。
国会监督
DoD 致力于向国会提供及时而彻底的报告,并向美国公众保持透明。自设立以来,AARO 一直努力在所有保密级别上使国会充分且及时地了解其活动和发现。AARO 和 DoD 将继续在适当的保密级别上与国会分享其研究的状态和发现。
AARO 的 HR2 分析项目
AARO 确立了六条互补的工作线(LOE)来开展 HR2 研究,目标是确保本报告传达准确而完整的图景。各 LOE 并行开展并相互强化;一条 LOE 中的线索推动了另一条 LOE 中的新研究和追查。AARO 的目标是进行彻底的交叉核查,以审核所有信息,发现并弥合其理解中的空白。这些 LOE 为:
• 就(通过历史访谈得来的)关于美国政府对 UAP 的调查、接触和回收,以及对据称 UAP 材料和技术利用的说法,开展开源研究。
— p. 13 — 13
• Conduct classified program research across the IC, DoD, and interagency to
validate or invalidate any claims of classified programs derived from historical
interviews.
• Conduct historical interviews of individuals who claim knowledge of alleged USG
activities related to UAP.
• Partner with the U.S. National Archives on locating UAP data, refining requests
based on the discovery of new leads derived from historical interviews, as well as
open-source and classified research.
• Engage with commercial entities on named companies alleged to have worked with
the USG on UAP recovery and alleged exploitation of UAP technology.
• Partner with the archives of key intelligence and national security agencies such
as the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA),
Department of Energy (DOE), National Security Agency (NSA), the National
Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), the Services, and DoD Combatant
Commands.
SECTION IV: Accounts of USG UAP Investigatory Programs Since 1945
Summary
AARO reviewed official USG efforts involving UFOs/UAP since 1945. This research
revealed the existence of approximately two dozen separate investigative efforts, depending on
how they are counted. These efforts ranged from formal, distinct programs employing a
dedicated staff with some measure of longevity including: Projects SAUCER/SIGN, GRUDGE,
and BLUE BOOK, the DoD UAP Task Force (UAPTF) led by the U.S. Navy (USN), the
Airborne Object Identification and Management Synchronization Group (AOIMSG), and the
All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO). There were also short-term projects that
supported some of these established programs including: Projects TWINKLE and BEAR and
short-term inquiries into or reviews of specific cases, such as the USAF’s two Roswell reports.
Additionally, there were efforts that amounted to short-term, outside reviews of USAF-
established programs; such as the CIA-sponsored Study Group, the Robertson Panel, the Durant
Report, and the University of Colorado’s Condon Report (contracted by the USAF). Some of
these efforts, including Projects SAUCER and SIGN, were closely connected and essentially the
same organization. Project GRUDGE was the name given to two related, but different
organizations; the second—reorganized Project GRUDGE—was established about a year after
the dissolution of the original Project GRUDGE.
Project SAUCER (1946/1947–January 1948)
Background: The exact date of the founding of this first effort as well as its official and
unofficial name are unclear. According to one source, General Nathan Twining, Commander of
the Air Technical Services Command, established Project SAUCER on December 30, 1947, to
— 第 13 页 — • 在 IC、DoD 和跨机构范围内开展保密项目研究,以验证或证伪从历史访谈中得出的任何保密项目说法。
• 对声称了解据称美国政府 UAP 相关活动的个人进行历史访谈。
• 与美国国家档案馆合作定位 UAP 数据,根据从历史访谈、开源和保密研究中得出的新线索来精炼请求。
• 就据称曾与美国政府就 UAP 回收及据称的 UAP 技术利用合作的具名公司,与商业实体接洽。
• 与关键情报和国家安全机构的档案馆合作,如国防情报局(DIA)、中央情报局(CIA)、能源部(DOE)、国家安全局(NSA)、国家地理空间情报局(NGA)、各军种以及 DoD 各作战司令部。
第四节:1945年以来美国政府 UAP 调查项目纪要
摘要
AARO 回顾了自1945年以来涉及 UFO/UAP 的官方美国政府努力。这项研究揭示,视计数方式而定,存在约二十多个独立的调查努力。这些努力从正式、独立、配有专职人员且具有一定持续性的项目(包括 Project SAUCER/SIGN、GRUDGE 和 BLUE BOOK、由美国海军(USN)领导的 DoD UAP 工作组(UAPTF)、空中物体识别与管理同步组(AOIMSG)以及全域异常解决办公室(AARO)),到支持其中一些既定项目的短期项目(包括 Project TWINKLE 和 BEAR)以及对特定案例的短期问询或审查(如美国空军的两份 Roswell 报告)。此外,还有一些对美国空军既定项目进行的短期外部审查;如 CIA 资助的研究组、Robertson 小组、Durant 报告,以及科罗拉多大学的 Condon 报告(受美国空军合同委托)。其中一些努力(包括 Project SAUCER 和 SIGN)密切相关,本质上是同一个组织。Project GRUDGE 是两个相关但不同的组织的名称;第二个——重组后的 Project GRUDGE——是在原 Project GRUDGE 解散约一年后设立的。
Project SAUCER(1946/1947–1948年1月)
背景:这第一个努力的确切成立日期及其官方和非官方名称尚不清楚。据一处来源称,空中技术服务司令部司令 Nathan Twining 将军于1947年12月30日设立了 Project SAUCER,以
— p. 14 — 14
collect and evaluate all information relating to UFO sightings which could be construed as of
concern to the national security. Captain Edward Ruppelt claimed that Project SAUCER was the
informal name of Project SIGN and it was designated a high priority. However, in an interview
with an employee of Project SIGN, the employee claimed the project started a year earlier, in
1946, and that Project SAUCER was its original, informal name. 3 A dearth of data and
information is associated with this effort.4
Project SAUCER investigated one of the first well-known accounts provided by a private
pilot, Kenneth Arnold. The pilot claimed that on June 23, 1947, while flying near Mount
Rainier, Washington, he saw nine, large circular objects flying in a formation, objects that
periodically flipped and were traveling at 1,700 miles per hour. He also compared the flight
characteristics as the “tail of a Chinese kite.”56 Arnold described their shape as “saucer-like
aircraft.” His account was picked up by several media outlets, and the term “flying saucer”
emerged.7
Results: Project SAUCER did not find evidence of extraterrestrial technology.
Project SIGN (January 1948–February 1949)
Background: Project SAUCER was formalized into an official, high-priority program
named Project SIGN. The Air Technical Intelligence Center (ATIC) assumed control of Project
SIGN on January 23, 1948. (ATIC later became the National Air and Space Intelligence Center -
NASIC). The impetus for this effort was to determine if these objects might be Soviet secret
weapons or “extra-planetary” objects. The staff seemed confident that after a few months of
work they could reach a conclusion. As part of their work, the staff at Project SIGN reviewed all
of the military’s intelligence on German weaponry and aeronautical capabilities to determine if
some might have fallen into Soviet possession.8
Results: The project evaluated 243 reported UFO sightings, and in February 1949, it
concluded that “no definite and conclusive evidence is yet available that would prove or disprove
the existence of these unidentified objects as real aircraft of unknown and unconventional
configuration.”9 Project SIGN determined that nearly all were caused by either misinterpretation
of known objects, hysteria, hallucination, or hoax.10 It also recommended continued military
intelligence control over the investigation of all sightings. It did not rule out the possibility of
extraterrestrial phenomena.
• Although the historical account is unsubstantiated and derived from only one source,
Project SIGN staff in late July 1948 allegedly drafted, signed, and sent a report
(“Estimate of the Situation”) up the military chain for approval. This report allegedly
concluded that UFOs were “interplanetary” in origin, but it was rejected by USAF
Chief of Staff General Hoyt S. Vandenberg as lacking proof.11
• This rejected report may have resulted in the Pentagon leadership’s loss of confidence
in the staff at Project SIGN leading to the establishment of Project GRUDGE, which
some sources claim possessed an institutional bias for debunking UFO claims.12
— 第 14 页 — 收集和评估所有与 UFO 目击相关、可能被视为关乎国家安全的信息。Edward Ruppelt 上尉声称 Project SAUCER 是 Project SIGN 的非正式名称,并被指定为高优先级。然而,在对一名 Project SIGN 员工的访谈中,该员工声称该项目早一年、即1946年就开始了,且 Project SAUCER 是其最初的非正式名称。³ 与这一努力相关的数据和信息匮乏。⁴
Project SAUCER 调查了由私人飞行员 Kenneth Arnold 提供的最早的著名叙述之一。该飞行员声称,1947年6月23日,在华盛顿州 Mount Rainier 附近飞行时,他看到九个大型圆形物体以编队飞行,这些物体周期性翻转,以每小时1,700英里的速度行进。他还将其飞行特征比作“中国风筝的尾巴”。⁵⁶ Arnold 将其形状描述为“碟状飞行器”。他的叙述被多家媒体报道,“飞碟”一词由此出现。⁷
结果:Project SAUCER 未发现地外技术的证据。
Project SIGN(1948年1月–1949年2月)
背景:Project SAUCER 被正式确立为一个官方的、高优先级项目,名为 Project SIGN。空中技术情报中心(ATIC)于1948年1月23日接管了 Project SIGN。(ATIC 后来成为国家航空航天情报中心 - NASIC)。这一努力的动因是确定这些物体是否可能是苏联秘密武器或“星外”物体。工作人员似乎确信,经过几个月的工作他们就能得出结论。作为其工作的一部分,Project SIGN 的工作人员审查了所有军方关于德国武器和航空能力的情报,以确定其中一些是否可能落入苏联手中。⁸
结果:该项目评估了243起报告的 UFO 目击,并于1949年2月得出结论:“目前尚无确定且决定性的证据能够证明或证伪这些不明物体作为未知和非常规构型的真实飞行器的存在。”⁹ Project SIGN 判定,几乎所有目击都是由对已知物体的误解、歇斯底里、幻觉或骗局所致。¹⁰ 它还建议继续对所有目击的调查保持军事情报控制。它没有排除地外现象的可能性。
• 尽管这一历史叙述未经证实且仅来自一处来源,据称 Project SIGN 工作人员于1948年7月底起草、签署并将一份报告(《形势评估》)逐级上报军方审批。该报告据称得出结论 UFO 在起源上是“星际的”,但被美国空军参谋长 Hoyt S. Vandenberg 将军以缺乏证据为由驳回。¹¹
• 这份被驳回的报告可能导致五角大楼领导层对 Project SIGN 工作人员失去信心,从而设立了 Project GRUDGE,一些来源声称该项目具有揭穿 UFO 说法的机构性偏见。¹²
— p. 15 — 15
Project GRUDGE (Original Organization) (February–December 1949)
Background: Project SIGN was renamed Project GRUDGE in approximately February
1949. The staff, especially those who seemed to lean towards belief in the “interplanetary”
origin of UFOs, were reportedly purged from the organization. One account of this time period
suggests that because of perceived pressure from the Pentagon’s leadership, the remaining staff
who held this view changed their minds. This same account claims that the Pentagon’s goals for
Project GRUDGE were to discount and explain away all reports of UFOs.13 Project GRUDGE
was terminated on December 27, 1949, around the time a comprehensive report on its findings
was published. The USAF did not stop collecting and analyzing reports of UFOs; rather, it
folded that work into its existing intelligence processes.14
Results: Project GRUDGE investigated 244 reports of UFO sightings. It did not
discover any evidence that the UAP sightings represented foreign technology; therefore, these
findings did not pose a threat to U.S. national security.15 The report recommended that the
organization be downsized and de-emphasized because it was believed Project GRUDGE’s very
existence fueled a “war hysteria” within the public. The USAF subsequently implemented a
public affairs campaign designed to persuade the public that UFOs constituted nothing unusual
or extraordinary. The stated goal of this effort was to alleviate public anxiety.16
• In August 1949, the USAF asserted that the UFO reports were misinterpretations of
natural phenomena, man-made aircraft, fabrications, or hoaxes.17
Project TWINKLE (Summer 1949–Summer 1950)
Background: Project TWINKLE was established in the summer of 1949 to investigate a
series of UFO reports witnessed by numerous observers in Nevada and New Mexico. These
UFOs were described as “green fireballs” streaking across the sky, moving in odd ways, and—in
at least one account—the fireball navigated near an aircraft. The literature is not clear if Project
TWINKLE was officially supported by the original Project GRUDGE, but it was managed by
the USAF’s Cambridge Research Laboratory.18 The goal of this investigation was to use
multiple high-powered cameras near White Sands with the hope that if at least two images of the
fireballs were captured, then their speed, altitude, and time could be discerned.19
Results: This project was only able to secure one camera, which was frequently moved
between locations following fireball reports, and no photographs of the fireballs were ever
taken.20
Project GRUDGE (Reestablishment) (October 1951–March 1952)
Background: In late October 1951, almost two years after Project GRUDGE was
disestablished, the USAF’s UFO mission was reorganized into another distinct program—also
named Project GRUDGE—led by Capt Ruppelt. By his own account, Capt Ruppelt sought to
correct the mistakes of Project SIGN and the former Project GRUDGE. His primary goal was to
ensure that there would be “no wild speculation” and that if his staff were “too pro or too con”
regarding the off-world origin of UFOs, they would be let go. He claimed to have fired three
— 第 15 页 — Project GRUDGE(原组织)(1949年2–12月)
背景:Project SIGN 约在1949年2月更名为 Project GRUDGE。据报道,工作人员——尤其是那些似乎倾向于相信 UFO 具有“星际”起源的人——被从该组织清除。对这一时期的一处叙述表明,由于感受到来自五角大楼领导层的压力,持此观点的剩余工作人员改变了主意。同一叙述声称,五角大楼对 Project GRUDGE 的目标是轻视并解释掉所有 UFO 报告。¹³ Project GRUDGE 于1949年12月27日终止,大约在其发现的综合报告发布之时。美国空军并未停止收集和分析 UFO 报告;相反,它将这项工作并入其现有的情报流程。¹⁴
结果:Project GRUDGE 调查了244起 UFO 目击报告。它未发现任何证据表明 UAP 目击代表外国技术;因此,这些发现不对美国国家安全构成威胁。¹⁵ 报告建议缩小该组织规模并降低其重要性,因为人们认为 Project GRUDGE 的存在本身就在公众中助长了一种“战争歇斯底里”。美国空军随后实施了一项公共事务活动,旨在说服公众 UFO 并不构成任何不寻常或非凡之物。这一努力的既定目标是缓解公众焦虑。¹⁶
• 1949年8月,美国空军断言 UFO 报告是对自然现象、人造飞行器的误解,或是捏造或骗局。¹⁷
Project TWINKLE(1949夏–1950夏)
背景:Project TWINKLE 于1949年夏设立,以调查内华达州和新墨西哥州众多观察者目击的一系列 UFO 报告。这些 UFO 被描述为划过天空的“绿色火球”,以奇怪的方式移动,并且——至少在一处叙述中——火球在一架飞机附近航行。文献不清楚 Project TWINKLE 是否得到原 Project GRUDGE 的官方支持,但它由美国空军的剑桥研究实验室管理。¹⁸ 这项调查的目标是在 White Sands 附近使用多台高性能相机,希望如果至少能捕获到火球的两张图像,就能辨别它们的速度、高度和时间。¹⁹
结果:该项目只能获得一台相机,它频繁地随火球报告在各地点之间移动,且从未拍到火球的照片。²⁰
Project GRUDGE(重建)(1951年10月–1952年3月)
背景:1951年10月底,在 Project GRUDGE 被撤销近两年后,美国空军的 UFO 任务被重组为另一个独立项目——同样名为 Project GRUDGE——由 Ruppelt 上尉领导。据他本人叙述,Ruppelt 上尉力图纠正 Project SIGN 和前 Project GRUDGE 的错误。他的首要目标是确保不会有“狂野的猜测”,并且如果他的工作人员对 UFO 的外星起源“过于支持或过于反对”,他们将被解雇。他声称解雇了三名
— p. 16 — 16
staff. He also realized that he needed a range of scientific expertise which he sourced through a
contract he dubbed Project BEAR. Capt Ruppelt set a policy that was intended to foster
objectivity. Unlike the previous Project GRUDGE, he allowed his staff to create an “unknown”
category of cases which he hoped would dissuade the forcing of a particular answer to any case.
The new Project GRUDGE reviewed all of the previous cases in Project SIGN, old Project
GRUDGE, and from the ATIC interim period.21
Results: The new Project GRUDGE noticed that there was some correlation between
sightings and the publication of UFO stories in the media. Capt Ruppelt noted that there were
concentrations of cases in the Los Alamos-Albuquerque area, Oak Ridge, White Sands, Strategic
Air Command locations, ports, and industrial sites.22
• No evidence of extraterrestrial origin of UFO/UAP were discovered.
Project BEAR (Late 1951–Late 1954)
Background: Project BEAR was an informal name given by Capt Ruppelt, Chief of
Project GRUDGE, to a contract he created with the Battelle Memorial Institute (BMI) to provide
scientific support to the new Project GRUDGE. BMI provided technical support, studied the
reliability of interviewee information recall from UFO sightings, created an improved debriefing
questionnaire for observers, and developed a computer punch-card system. This system helped
automate the statistical study of all the UFO reports in Project GRUDGE’s holdings and those in
Project BLUE BOOK.23 BMI released a report under the cover of ATIC to maintain its
anonymity. Completed in late 1954, the report was titled “Special Report No. 14.”24
Results: The Project BEAR report was based on a statistical analysis of UFO sightings
and contained graphs showing their frequency and distribution by time, date, location, shape,
color, duration, azimuth, and elevation. It concluded that all cases that had enough data were
resolved and readily explainable. The report assessed that if more data were available on cases
marked unknown, most of those cases could be explained as well. It also concluded that it was
highly improbable that any of these cases represented technology beyond their “present day
scientific knowledge.”25
CIA Special Study Group (1952)
Background: After an increase in UFO sightings in 1952, particularly those that gained
widespread attention over the Washington, D.C. area during that summer, CIA’s Deputy Director
for Intelligence, Robert Amory Jr., tasked the CIA Office of Scientific Intelligence’s (OSI)
Physics and Electronics Division to review UFO cases. A. Ray Gordon took lead on this project,
and the Study Group he established reviewed all of ATIC’s data (from Projects SIGN through
GRUDGE).26
Results: The Study Group assessed that 90 percent of the reports were explainable and
the other 10 percent amounted to “incredible” claims but rejected the notion that they represented
Soviet or extraterrestrial technology. The group also studied Soviet press and found no reports
of UFOs, leading the group to assume that the Soviets were deliberately suppressing such
— 第 16 页 — 工作人员。他还意识到他需要一系列科学专业知识,他通过一份他称为 Project BEAR 的合同获取了这些专业知识。Ruppelt 上尉制定了一项旨在培养客观性的政策。与之前的 Project GRUDGE 不同,他允许其工作人员创建一个“未知”案例类别,他希望这能阻止对任何案例强加特定答案。新的 Project GRUDGE 审查了 Project SIGN、旧 Project GRUDGE 以及 ATIC 过渡期的所有先前案例。²¹
结果:新的 Project GRUDGE 注意到目击与媒体上 UFO 报道的发布之间存在某种关联。Ruppelt 上尉指出,案例集中在 Los Alamos-Albuquerque 地区、Oak Ridge、White Sands、战略空军司令部所在地、港口和工业区。²²
• 未发现 UFO/UAP 具有地外起源的证据。
Project BEAR(1951末–1954末)
背景:Project BEAR 是 Project GRUDGE 负责人 Ruppelt 上尉为他与 Battelle 纪念研究所(BMI)创建的一份合同所起的非正式名称,以为新的 Project GRUDGE 提供科学支持。BMI 提供技术支持,研究受访者对 UFO 目击信息回忆的可靠性,为观察者创建了改进的汇报问卷,并开发了一套计算机打孔卡系统。该系统帮助自动化对 Project GRUDGE 所持和 Project BLUE BOOK 中所有 UFO 报告的统计研究。²³ BMI 以 ATIC 的名义发布了一份报告以保持其匿名性。该报告于1954年末完成,题为《第14号特别报告》。²⁴
结果:Project BEAR 报告基于对 UFO 目击的统计分析,包含展示其按时间、日期、地点、形状、颜色、持续时间、方位和仰角划分的频率与分布的图表。它得出结论:所有有足够数据的案例都已被解决且易于解释。报告评估认为,如果标记为未知的案例有更多数据可用,那些案例中的大多数也能得到解释。它还得出结论:这些案例中的任何一个代表超出其“当今科学知识”的技术的可能性极低。²⁵
CIA 特别研究组(1952)
背景:在1952年 UFO 目击增加之后——尤其是那年夏天在华盛顿特区上空获得广泛关注的目击——CIA 负责情报的副局长 Robert Amory Jr. 委托 CIA 科学情报办公室(OSI)的物理与电子处审查 UFO 案例。A. Ray Gordon 主持这一项目,他设立的研究组审查了 ATIC 的所有数据(从 Project SIGN 到 GRUDGE)。²⁶
结果:研究组评估认为,90% 的报告是可解释的,另外 10% 构成“难以置信”的说法,但驳斥了它们代表苏联或地外技术的观点。该组还研究了苏联新闻,未发现 UFO 报道,使该组假设苏联在蓄意压制此类
— p. 17 — 17
reports. The Study Group also believed that the Soviets could use reports of UFOs to create
hysteria in the United States or overload the U.S. early-warning system.27
• In December 1952, H. Marshall Chadwell, Assistant Director of OSI, briefed the
Director of Central Intelligence (DCI), Walter Bedell Smith, on the subject of UFOs.
Chadwell 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 U.S. defense
installations are of such nature that they are not attributable to natural phenomena or
known types of aerial vehicles.”28
• The source material does not suggest that Smith believed that these sightings were of
extraterrestrial origin only that he believed they were not natural phenomena or
known competitor technology. It is not clear from the source material why Chadwell
seemed to hold a different view than that of the Study Group. It is possible that he
suspected that UFO reports represented unknown Soviet technology and therefore
posed a national security threat. His concerns about and interest in the topic led to the
establishment of the Robertson Panel.
The Robertson Panel (January 1953)
Background: H. Marshall Chadwell clandestinely sponsored the establishment of a
UFO scientific review panel led by California Institute of Technology physicist, H.P. Robertson.
This action followed a recommendation from CIA’s Intelligence Advisory Committee to enlist
the services of selected “scientists to review and appraise the available evidence in light of
pertinent scientific theories.”29 The panelists had expertise in a range of fields, including nuclear
physics, high-energy physics, radar, electronics, and geophysics.30
Results: The panel reviewed all USAF data and concluded that most reports had
ordinary explanations. The panel unanimously concluded that there was no evidence of a direct
threat to U.S. national security from UFOs or that they were of extraterrestrial origin.
• The panel was, however, concerned with the outbreak of mass hysteria and how the
Soviets could exploit it. They recommended the USG use various channels to debunk
UFO reports and suggested monitoring domestic UFO enthusiast organizations. 31
• The Robertson Panel discussed the complete lack of the recovery of any “hardware”
resulting from “unexplained UFO sightings” which contributed to its assessment that
the reported UFOs were neither a foreign threat nor of extraterrestrial origin.32
The Durant Report (February 1953)
Background: CIA officer Frederick Durant drafted a report for CIA’s Assistant Director
of OSI on the Robertson Panel’s work and findings. Durant’s memorandum provided a brief
history of the panel and an unofficial supplement that provided comments and suggestions from
members which they had not included in the final report.33
— 第 17 页 — 报道。研究组还相信,苏联可能利用 UFO 报告在美国制造歇斯底里,或使美国的预警系统超载。²⁷
• 1952年12月,OSI 助理主任 H. Marshall Chadwell 就 UFO 主题向中央情报总监(DCI)Walter Bedell Smith 作了简报。Chadwell 敦促采取行动,因为他确信“有某种必须立即关注的事情正在发生”,并且“在美国主要防御设施附近,在极高高度以高速飞行的不明物体的目击,其性质不能归因于自然现象或已知类型的空中飞行器。”²⁸
• 源材料并未表明 Smith 相信这些目击具有地外起源,只是他相信它们不是自然现象或已知竞争对手的技术。从源材料中不清楚为何 Chadwell 似乎持有与研究组不同的观点。他可能怀疑 UFO 报告代表未知的苏联技术,因此构成国家安全威胁。他对这一主题的关切和兴趣导致了 Robertson 小组的设立。
Robertson 小组(1953年1月)
背景:H. Marshall Chadwell 秘密资助设立了一个由加州理工学院物理学家 H.P. Robertson 领导的 UFO 科学审查小组。这一行动是在 CIA 情报咨询委员会建议征用选定“科学家根据相关科学理论审查和评估现有证据”的服务之后采取的。²⁹ 小组成员在一系列领域拥有专业知识,包括核物理、高能物理、雷达、电子学和地球物理学。³⁰
结果:小组审查了所有美国空军数据,得出结论大多数报告有普通解释。小组一致得出结论:没有证据表明 UFO 对美国国家安全构成直接威胁,或它们具有地外起源。
• 然而,小组担忧大规模歇斯底里的爆发以及苏联可能如何利用它。他们建议美国政府使用各种渠道来揭穿 UFO 报告,并建议监视国内 UFO 爱好者组织。³¹
• Robertson 小组讨论了“无法解释的 UFO 目击”完全没有回收任何“硬件”,这有助于其评估所报告的 UFO 既非外国威胁也非地外起源。³²
Durant 报告(1953年2月)
背景:CIA 官员 Frederick Durant 为 CIA 的 OSI 助理主任起草了一份关于 Robertson 小组工作和发现的报告。Durant 的备忘录提供了该小组的简史,以及一份非官方补充材料,其中包含成员未纳入最终报告的评论和建议。³³
— p. 18 — 18
Results: The report offered no distinct or separate findings of note and mostly
summarized the findings of the Robertson Panel.34
Project BLUE BOOK (March 1952–December 1969)
Background: USAF Director of Intelligence, Major General Charles P. Cabell,
established Project BLUE BOOK to study UFO phenomena. Based at Wright-Patterson Air
Force Base near Dayton, Ohio, Project BLUE BOOK was the longest running UFO/UAP
investigation. It was led successively by Capt Edward J. Ruppelt (the former Director of the
reorganized Project GRUDGE), Capt Charles Hardin, Capt George T. Gregory, Lieutenant
Colonel (Lt Col) Roger J. Friend, and Lt Col Hector Quintanilla, Jr. The USAF recorded 12,618
UFO sightings between the years 1947-1969. J. Allen Hynek served as its lead scientific
investigator.35
Project BLUE BOOK organized its cases into one of three categories: identified,
insufficient data, and unidentified. For those reports that were categorized as identified,
Project BLUE BOOK staff used the following categorization schema:
• Astronomical Sightings: These consisted of bright stars, planets, comets, fireballs,
meteors, auroral streamers, and other celestial bodies. When observed through haze,
light fog, moving clouds, or other obscurations or unusual conditions, the planets—
including Venus, Jupiter and Mars—were often reported as UFOs.
• Balloons: These included weather balloons, radiosondes, and large research balloons
with diameters up to 300 feet, which together accounted for several thousand cases.
Balloons were released daily from military and civilian airports, weather stations, and
research activities. Reflection of the sun on balloons at dawn and sunset sometimes
produced strange effects which led to many UFO reports. Large balloons can move
at speeds of over 100 miles per hour when in high-altitude wind streams.
• Aircraft: According to Project BLUE BOOK, various aircraft accounted for another
major source of UFO reports; particularly during adverse weather conditions. The
staff noted that when observed at high altitudes and at a distance, the reflection of the
sun on aircrafts’ surfaces can make them appear as “disc” or “rocket-shaped.” They
also noted that vapor or condensation trails from jet aircraft will sometimes appear to
glow fiery red or orange when reflecting sunlight.
• Afterburners: Bright afterburner flames from jet aircraft were often reported as
UFOs since they could be seen from great distances when the aircraft was not visible.
• Other UFO resolutions included stellar mirages, satellites, missiles, reflections,
searchlights, birds, kites, false radar indications, fireworks, flares, and some
confirmed hoaxes.36
Secretary of the Air Force Robert C. Seamans, Jr. announced Project BLUE BOOK’s
termination on December 17, 1969.37
— 第 18 页 — 结果:报告未提供任何值得注意的独特或单独发现,主要总结了 Robertson 小组的发现。³⁴
Project BLUE BOOK(1952年3月–1969年12月)
背景:美国空军情报主任、少将 Charles P. Cabell 设立了 Project BLUE BOOK 以研究 UFO 现象。Project BLUE BOOK 设在俄亥俄州代顿附近的 Wright-Patterson 空军基地,是运行时间最长的 UFO/UAP 调查。它先后由 Edward J. Ruppelt 上尉(重组后 Project GRUDGE 的前负责人)、Charles Hardin 上尉、George T. Gregory 上尉、中校 Roger J. Friend,以及中校 Hector Quintanilla, Jr. 领导。美国空军在1947-1969年间记录了12,618起 UFO 目击。J. Allen Hynek 担任其首席科学调查员。³⁵
Project BLUE BOOK 将其案例归入三个类别之一:已识别、数据不足和未识别。对于那些被归类为已识别的报告,Project BLUE BOOK 工作人员使用以下分类模式:
• 天文目击:这些包括亮星、行星、彗星、火球、流星、极光流,以及其他天体。当透过霾、薄雾、移动的云或其他遮蔽或不寻常条件观测时,行星(包括金星、木星和火星)常被报告为 UFO。
• 气球:这些包括气象气球、无线电探空仪,以及直径达300英尺的大型研究气球,它们合计占了数千起案例。气球每天从军用和民用机场、气象站和研究活动中释放。黎明和日落时太阳在气球上的反射有时会产生奇怪的效果,导致许多 UFO 报告。大型气球在高空风流中时速可超过100英里。
• 飞机:据 Project BLUE BOOK,各种飞机是 UFO 报告的另一主要来源;尤其是在恶劣天气条件下。工作人员指出,当在高空和远距离观测时,太阳在飞机表面的反射会使它们看起来像“圆盘”或“火箭状”。他们还指出,喷气式飞机的蒸汽或凝结尾迹在反射阳光时有时会显得火红或橙色发光。
• 加力燃烧室:喷气式飞机明亮的加力燃烧室火焰常被报告为 UFO,因为当飞机不可见时,它们可从很远处看到。
• 其他 UFO 解析包括恒星蜃景、卫星、导弹、反射、探照灯、鸟类、风筝、错误的雷达指示、烟花、照明弹,以及一些经确认的骗局。³⁶
空军部长 Robert C. Seamans, Jr. 于1969年12月17日宣布 Project BLUE BOOK 终止。³⁷
— p. 19 — 19
AARO partnered with the U.S. National Archives to examine the records from the
USAF’s Project BLUE BOOK, which spanned from 1947 to 1969. This research presented a
significant challenge because of the volume of the documentation amounted to 7,252 files
holding a total of 65,778 digital records. The vast majority of the files are populated with USAF
documentation. Some cases contain media clippings and images, but these instances are rare.
Results: Project BLUE BOOK determined that:
• No UFO reported, investigated, and evaluated by the USAF demonstrated any
indication of a threat to national security.
• There was no evidence submitted to, or discovered by, the USAF that sightings
represented technological developments or principles beyond the range of then-
present day scientific knowledge.
• There was no evidence indicating that sightings categorized as unidentified are
“extraterrestrial vehicles.”
• Of the 12,618 sightings in Project BLUE BOOK’s holdings, 701 were categorized as
unidentified and never solved.3839
CIA Evaluation of UFOs (1964)
Background: Following high-level White House discussions on what to do if alien
intelligence was discovered or there was a new outbreak of UFO sightings, DCI John McCone
tasked the CIA to update its evaluation of UFOs. The CIA’s scientific division officially
acquired UFO-sighting case information from the director of the National Investigations
Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP), a private organization founded in 1956. 40
Results: Donald F. Chamberlain, Assistant Director of OSI, subsequently informed
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.” 41
O’Brien Committee (1964)
Background: Dr. Brian O’Brien, a member of the USAF Scientific Advisory Board,
chaired the USAF Ad Hoc Review of Project BLUE BOOK. The committee included Carl
Sagan, a prominent astronomer from Cornell University.42
Results: The committee’s report stated that UFOs did not threaten U.S. national security
and that it could find no UFO case which represented technological or scientific advances
outside of a terrestrial framework. The committee’s primary recommendation was that this topic
merited intensive academic research and that a top university should lead the study.43
The Condon Report (April 1968)
Background: Dr. Edward U. Condon, a physicist and former Director of the National
Bureau of Standards, was the scientific director of an 18-month study on “flying saucers” funded
under a $325,000 USAF contract to the University of Colorado. This panel took a narrow and
— 第 19 页 — AARO 与美国国家档案馆合作检视了美国空军 Project BLUE BOOK 的记录,时间跨度从1947年到1969年。这项研究构成重大挑战,因为文档数量多达7,252份文件,共持有65,778份数字记录。绝大多数文件由美国空军文档填充。一些案例包含媒体剪报和图像,但这些情形很罕见。
结果:Project BLUE BOOK 判定:
• 美国空军报告、调查和评估的 UFO 中,没有一个显示出对国家安全构成威胁的任何迹象。
• 没有任何证据被提交给美国空军或被其发现,表明目击代表了超出当今科学知识范围的技术发展或原理。
• 没有任何证据表明被归类为未识别的目击是“地外飞行器”。
• 在 Project BLUE BOOK 所持的12,618起目击中,701起被归类为未识别且从未解决。³⁸³⁹
CIA 对 UFO 的评估(1964)
背景:在白宫就“若发现外星智慧或出现新一轮 UFO 目击爆发该怎么办”进行高层讨论之后,DCI John McCone 委托 CIA 更新其对 UFO 的评估。CIA 的科学处正式从全国空中现象调查委员会(NICAP,一个成立于1956年的私人组织)主任处获取了 UFO 目击案例信息。⁴⁰
结果:OSI 助理主任 Donald F. Chamberlain 随后告知 McCone,自1950年代初以来变化不大;仍然没有证据表明 UFO 对美国安全构成威胁,或它们具有“外国起源”。⁴¹
O'Brien 委员会(1964)
背景:美国空军科学咨询委员会成员 Brian O'Brien 博士主持了美国空军对 Project BLUE BOOK 的特设审查。委员会包括来自康奈尔大学的著名天文学家 Carl Sagan。⁴²
结果:委员会报告称,UFO 不威胁美国国家安全,且它找不到任何代表地球框架之外技术或科学进步的 UFO 案例。委员会的首要建议是,这一主题值得深入的学术研究,应由一所顶尖大学主导研究。⁴³
Condon 报告(1968年4月)
背景:物理学家、国家标准局前局长 Edward U. Condon 博士是一项为期18个月的“飞碟”研究的科学主任,该研究由美国空军一份325,000美元的合同资助给科罗拉多大学。该小组对 UFO 调查努力采取了狭窄而
— p. 20 — 20
somewhat unique view of UFO investigatory efforts, primarily focusing on whether or not UFO
phenomena merited formal scientific research in terms of academic or USG-sponsored research
and in secondary schools. The panel said their remit did not include the study of UFO
phenomena as a potential risk to U.S. national security interests.44 Among other duties, it closely
examined 59 specific case studies.45
Results: The panel’s report stated that: “Our general conclusion is that nothing has
come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge.
Careful consideration of the record as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further
extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be
advanced thereby.” The panel cautioned against support for scientific papers on this topic and
recommended that teachers should not give credit to students for reading UFO literature and
materials.46
• The panel also investigated and studied a small number of cases of alleged physical
evidence of UFO visitations—from imprints on the ground and residue allegedly left
behind from UFO landings (such as a white powder and ethereal strands dubbed
“angel hair”)—to metallic debris. The panel found ordinary explanations for each of
these cases. Some of these cases originated in Brazil, Norway, and Washington,
D.C.47
• The panel investigated a claim made by radio broadcaster Frank Edwards in a 1966
book that a piece of a UFO was recovered near Washington, D.C. in the summer of
1952 during the spike in UFO sightings over the U.S. Capitol in July and August. He
claimed that a USN jet fired on a two-foot diameter glowing disc and dislodged a
one-pound fragment that was recovered by a ground team. Project BLUE BOOK was
not aware of this claim. The USAF and USN found no incident report of weapons
engagement with a UFO that summer, no USN aircraft were present, and the retired
officer who was the original source of the claim had retired before the summer of
1952, when the event allegedly occurred.48
• Edwards also made the claim in 1966 that the USG had loaned the Canadian
government fragments of a UFO it had allegedly recovered. It is not clear if this
claim was linked to the alleged Washington, D.C. incident. He also claimed that Dr.
Vannevar Bush, a prominent inventor, defense industry scientist, and founder of the
National Science Foundation, led the effort to study the fragment. The Condon panel
determined that these claims most likely were false.49
National Academy of Sciences Assessment of the Condon Report (Late 1968)
Background: After the Condon Report was criticized by some scientists—including
Project BLUE BOOK’s Dr. Hynek—a panel of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) was
tasked in late 1968 to examine the rigor, methodology, and conclusions of the Condon Report.
The panel did not conduct its own investigation into the validity of UFO reports.50
— 第 20 页 — 某种程度上独特的视角,主要关注 UFO 现象是否值得在学术或美国政府资助研究以及中学层面进行正式科学研究。小组表示,其职权范围不包括将 UFO 现象作为对美国国家安全利益的潜在风险进行研究。⁴⁴ 在其他职责中,它密切检视了59个具体案例研究。⁴⁵
结果:小组报告称:“我们的总体结论是,过去21年对 UFO 的研究没有产生任何增进科学知识的成果。对我们可获得的记录的仔细考量使我们得出结论:进一步广泛研究 UFO 很可能无法以‘科学将因此得到推进’的期望为理由加以证明。”小组告诫不要支持关于这一主题的科学论文,并建议教师不应因学生阅读 UFO 文献和材料而给予学分。⁴⁶
• 小组还调查和研究了少数据称有 UFO 造访物理证据的案例——从地面上的印痕、据称 UFO 着陆留下的残留物(如一种白色粉末和被称为“天使发”的飘渺细丝)到金属碎片。小组为这些案例中的每一个都找到了普通解释。其中一些案例源自巴西、挪威和华盛顿特区。⁴⁷
• 小组调查了广播员 Frank Edwards 在1966年一本书中提出的说法:1952年夏天,在7月和8月美国国会大厦上空 UFO 目击激增期间,在华盛顿特区附近回收了一块 UFO 碎片。他声称一架美国海军喷气机向一个两英尺直径的发光圆盘开火,击落了一块一磅重的碎片,被一支地面小组回收。Project BLUE BOOK 不知晓这一说法。美国空军和海军未发现那年夏天有任何与 UFO 武器交战的事件报告,没有美国海军飞机在场,且作为该说法原始来源的退役军官在据称事件发生的1952年夏天之前就已退役。⁴⁸
• Edwards 还在1966年声称,美国政府将其据称回收的 UFO 碎片借给了加拿大政府。不清楚这一说法是否与据称的华盛顿特区事件有关。他还声称,著名发明家、国防工业科学家、国家科学基金会创始人 Vannevar Bush 博士领导了研究该碎片的努力。Condon 小组判定这些说法很可能是虚假的。⁴⁹
国家科学院对 Condon 报告的评估(1968末)
背景:在 Condon 报告受到一些科学家(包括 Project BLUE BOOK 的 Hynek 博士)批评后,国家科学院(NAS)的一个小组于1968年末受命检视 Condon 报告的严谨性、方法论和结论。该小组没有对 UFO 报告的有效性进行自己的调查。⁵⁰
— p. 21 — 21
Results: The NAS review concluded that, “We are unanimous in the opinion that this
has been a very credible effort to apply…techniques of science to the solution of the UFO
problem.”51
Carter Administration Tasking to National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
(1977)
Background: Dr. Frank Press, Science Advisor to President Jimmy Carter, sent a letter
to Dr. Robert Frosch, NASA Administrator, on July 21, 1977, suggesting that a panel be formed
by NASA to see if there had been any new significant findings on UFOs since the Condon
Report.
Results: Five months later, NASA responded by stating that it was not warranted “to
establish a research activity in this area or to convene a symposium on the subject.”52
Roswell Investigations/Inquiries (1992-2001)
President Clinton and Chief of Staff Podesta Inquire about Roswell (1992 – 2001)
The Roswell Report: Fact versus Fiction in the New Mexico Desert (1995)
The GAO Roswell Report (1995)
The Roswell Report: Case Closed (1997)
Background: According to press reports, President Clinton tasked former National
Security Advisor Sandy Berger to determine if the USG held aliens or alien technology.
President Clinton said, “As far as I know, an alien spacecraft did not crash in Roswell, New
Mexico, in 1947…if the USAF did recover alien bodies, they didn't tell me about it…and I want
to know.”53
In 1993, Congressman Steven H. Schiff (R-New Mexico) made inquiries about the
Roswell incident to DoD. The Roswell incident refers to the July 1947 recovery of metallic and
rubber debris from a crashed military balloon near Roswell Army Air Field personnel that
sparked conspiracy theories and claims that the debris was from an alien spaceship and part of a
USG cover-up. He asked the General Accounting Office (GAO) (subsequently renamed the
Government Accountability Office) to determine the requirements for reporting air accidents,
such as the crash near Roswell, and to identify any government records concerning the Roswell
crash.54
The USAF conducted a systematic search of numerous archives and records centers in
support of GAO’s audit of Roswell. As part of this review, the USAF also interviewed
numerous people who may have had knowledge of the events. Secretary of the Air Force Sheila
E. Widnall released them from any security obligations that may have restricted the sharing of
information. The USAF then published The Roswell Report in 1995, which included: “The
Report of the U.S. Air Force Research Regarding the ‘Roswell Incident’” by Col Richard L.
Weaver, and the “Synopsis of Balloon Research Findings” by 1st Lt James McAndrew. 55
Results: The report stated that the USAF’s research did not locate or develop any
information that indicated the “Roswell Incident” was a UFO event, nor was there any “cover-
— 第 21 页 — 结果:NAS 审查得出结论:“我们一致认为,这是一项将……科学技术应用于解决 UFO 问题的非常可信的努力。”⁵¹
卡特政府委托美国国家航空航天局(NASA)(1977)
背景:吉米·卡特总统的科学顾问 Frank Press 博士于1977年7月21日致信 NASA 署长 Robert Frosch 博士,建议由 NASA 组建一个小组,看自 Condon 报告以来是否有任何关于 UFO 的新的重大发现。
结果:五个月后,NASA 回应称,“在这一领域设立研究活动或就该主题召开研讨会”没有正当理由。⁵²
Roswell 调查/问询(1992-2001)
克林顿总统和幕僚长 Podesta 问询 Roswell(1992–2001)
《Roswell 报告:新墨西哥沙漠中的事实与虚构》(1995)
GAO Roswell 报告(1995)
《Roswell 报告:案件了结》(1997)
背景:据新闻报道,克林顿总统委托前国家安全顾问 Sandy Berger 确定美国政府是否持有外星人或外星技术。克林顿总统说:“据我所知,1947年没有外星飞行器在新墨西哥州 Roswell 坠毁……如果美国空军确实回收了外星人尸体,他们没有告诉我……而我想知道。”⁵³
1993年,国会议员 Steven H. Schiff(共和党-新墨西哥)就 Roswell 事件向 DoD 提出问询。Roswell 事件指的是1947年7月 Roswell 陆军航空基地人员在附近回收一架坠毁军用气球的金属和橡胶碎片,引发了阴谋论以及关于这些碎片来自外星飞船、是美国政府掩盖一部分的说法。他要求总会计办公室(GAO,后更名为政府问责办公室)确定报告空中事故(如 Roswell 附近坠毁)的要求,并识别任何与 Roswell 坠毁有关的政府记录。⁵⁴
美国空军为支持 GAO 对 Roswell 的审计,系统地搜索了众多档案和记录中心。作为这次审查的一部分,美国空军还访谈了
— p. 22 — 22
up” by the USG. Rather, the materials recovered near Roswell were consistent with a balloon of
the type used in the then-classified Project Mogul. No records showed any evidence that the
USG recovered aliens or extraterrestrial material.56
• The USAF subsequently published a follow-on report in 1997, The Roswell Report:
Case Closed, with additional materials and analysis which supported its conclusion
that the debris recovered near Roswell was from the U.S. Army Air Force’s balloon-
borne program.57
• The alleged “alien” bodies reported by some in the New Mexico desert were test
dummies that were carried aloft by U.S. Army Air Force high-altitude balloons for
scientific research.58
• Reports of military units that allegedly recovered a flying saucer and its “crew” were
descriptions of Air Force personnel engaged in the dummy recovery operations.
Claims of “alien bodies” at the Roswell Army Air Force (RAAF) hospital were most
likely the result of the conflation of two separate incidents: a 1956 KC-97 aircraft
accident in which 11 Air Force members lost their lives; and a 1959 manned balloon
mishap in which two Air Force pilots were injured.59
The GAO’s 1995 report on the results of its investigation found that that the U.S. Army
Air Force regulations in 1947 required that air accident reports be maintained permanently. Four
air accidents were reported by the Army Air Force in New Mexico during July 1947. All
involved military aircraft and occurred after July 8, 1947—the date the RAAF public information
office first reported the crash and recovery of a “flying disc” near Roswell. The military
reported no air accidents in New Mexico that month. USAF officials reported to GAO that there
was no requirement to prepare a report on the crash of a balloon in 1947.60
Advanced Aerospace Weapons System Application Program (AAWSAP) (2009–2012)/
Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP)
Background: At the direction of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), the
Defense Appropriations Acts of Fiscal Years 2008 and 2010 appropriated $22 million for the
DIA to assess long-term and over-the-horizon foreign advanced aerospace threats to the United
States. In coordination with the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, DIA
established AAWSAP in 2009, which was also known AATIP. The contract for this DIA-
managed program was awarded to a private sector organization.61 [Note on program names:
The names AAWSAP and AATIP have been used interchangeably for the name of this program,
including on official documentation. Unlike AAWSAP, AATIP was never an official DoD
program. However, after AAWSAP was cancelled, the AATIP moniker was used by some
individuals associated with an informal, unofficial UAP community of interest within DoD that
researched UAP sightings from military observers as part of their ancillary job duties. This
effort was not a recognized, official program, and had no dedicated personnel or budget.]
• The primary purpose of AAWSAP/AATIP was to investigate potential next
generation aerospace technologies in 12 specific areas—such as advanced lift,
— 第 22 页 — 可能了解事件的众多人士。空军部长 Sheila E. Widnall 解除了他们可能限制信息分享的任何保密义务。美国空军随后于1995年发布了《Roswell 报告》,其中包括:Richard L. Weaver 上校的《美国空军关于“Roswell 事件”的研究报告》,以及中尉 James McAndrew 的《气球研究发现综述》。⁵⁵
结果:报告称,美国空军的研究没有定位或得出任何信息表明“Roswell 事件”是一起 UFO 事件,也没有美国政府的任何“掩盖”。相反,在 Roswell 附近回收的材料与当时保密的 Project Mogul 所用类型的气球一致。没有记录显示任何证据表明美国政府回收了外星人或地外材料。⁵⁶
• 美国空军随后于1997年发布了后续报告《Roswell 报告:案件了结》,附有支持其结论的额外材料和分析,即在 Roswell 附近回收的碎片来自美国陆军航空队的气球载运项目。⁵⁷
• 一些人在新墨西哥沙漠报告的所谓“外星人”尸体是美国陆军航空队高空气球为科学研究而载运升空的测试假人。⁵⁸
• 关于据称回收了一架飞碟及其“机组人员”的军事单位的报告,是对从事假人回收行动的空军人员的描述。关于 Roswell 陆军航空基地(RAAF)医院有“外星人尸体”的说法,很可能是两起独立事件混淆的结果:1956年一起11名空军成员丧生的 KC-97 飞机事故;以及1959年一起两名空军飞行员受伤的载人气球事故。⁵⁹
GAO 1995年关于其调查结果的报告发现,1947年美国陆军航空队的条例要求永久保存空中事故报告。1947年7月,陆军航空队在新墨西哥州报告了四起空中事故。所有事故都涉及军用飞机,且发生在1947年7月8日(RAAF 公共信息办公室首次报告在 Roswell 附近坠毁并回收一个“飞行圆盘”的日期)之后。军方报告那个月在新墨西哥州没有空中事故。美国空军官员向 GAO 报告称,1947年没有要求为气球坠毁编写报告。⁶⁰
先进航空航天武器系统应用项目(AAWSAP)(2009–2012)/先进航空航天威胁识别项目(AATIP)
背景:在参议院多数党领袖 Harry Reid(民主党-内华达)的指示下,2008和2010财年的《国防拨款法案》为 DIA 拨款2,200万美元,以评估对美国的长期和超视距外国先进航空航天威胁。在国防部主管情报的副部长办公室的协调下,DIA 于2009年设立了 AAWSAP,也被称为 AATIP。这个由 DIA 管理的项目的合同被授予一家私营部门组织。⁶¹ [关于项目名称的说明:AAWSAP 和 AATIP 这两个名称被互换用作该项目的名称,包括在官方文档上。与 AAWSAP 不同,AATIP 从来不是一个官方的 DoD 项目。然而,在 AAWSAP 被取消后,AATIP 这一称谓被一些与 DoD 内部一个非正式、非官方的 UAP 相关兴趣社区相关联的个人使用,他们作为其附带工作职责的一部分研究来自军方观察者的 UAP 目击。这一努力不是一个被认可的官方项目,没有专职人员或预算。]
• AAWSAP/AATIP 的主要目的是调查12个特定领域的潜在下一代航空航天技术——例如先进升力、
— p. 23 — 23
propulsion, the use of unconventional materials and controls, and signature
reduction.62
• Although investigating UFO/UAP was not specifically outlined in the contract’s
statement of work, the selected private sector organization conducted UFO research
with the support of the DIA program manager. This research included: reviewing
new cases and much older Project BLUE BOOK cases, operating debriefing and
investigatory teams, and proposals to set up laboratories to examine any recovered
UFO materials.63
• AAWSAP/AATIP also investigated an alleged hotspot of UAP and paranormal
activity at a property in Utah—which at that time was owned by the head of the
private sector organization—including examining reports of “shadow figures” and
“creatures,” and exploring “remote viewing” and “human consciousness anomalies.”
The organization also planned to hire psychics to study “inter-dimensional
phenomena” believed to frequently appear at that location.64
• DIA did not seek, nor specifically authorize, this work though a DIA employee set up
and managed the contract with the private sector organization.65
• On 24 June 2009, Senator Reid sent a letter to then Deputy Secretary of Defense
William Lynn III requesting that AAWSAP/AATIP be made a DoD Special Access
Program. Deputy Secretary Lynn declined to do so based on the recommendation of
then-Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, James R. Clapper, Jr., that such a
designation was not justified.66
• Just prior to DoD’s cancellation of the program, the private sector organization
proposed as a new line of effort to host a series of “intellectual debates” at academic
institutes to influence the public debate, which included hiring supportive reporters
and celebrity moderators. The goal of this proposed public relations campaign was to
assume that “E.T. visitations are true” and that the moderators would steer debate
away from “dead-end discussions” and the “morass” about discussing “evidence.”67
A stated goal of this proposal was to increase public interest in government
“disclosure” around the “E.T. topic” and explore the consequences of disclosure on
the public.68
Results: The AAWSAP/AATIP contract with the private sector organization produced
exploratory papers addressing the 12 scientific areas tasked in the contract’s statement of work.
These scientific papers were never thoroughly peer reviewed.
• AARO has yet to uncover any other substantive UAP case work conducted by
AAWSAP/AATIP. Instead, AAWSAP/AATIP reviewed a large number of Project
BLUE BOOK and private cases and conducted interviews of UAP observers and
conducted unrelated work on alleged paranormal activities at the private sector
organization’s property in Utah.
• AAWSAP/AATIP was terminated in 2012 upon the completion of its deliverables
due to DIA and DoD concerns about the project.
— 第 23 页 — 推进、非常规材料和控制的使用,以及特征削减。⁶²
• 尽管调查 UFO/UAP 并未在合同的工作说明书中具体列明,但所选的私营部门组织在 DIA 项目经理的支持下开展了 UFO 研究。这项研究包括:审查新案例和更早的 Project BLUE BOOK 案例、运营汇报和调查小组,以及建立实验室检视任何回收的 UFO 材料的提议。⁶³
• AAWSAP/AATIP 还调查了犹他州一处房产据称的 UAP 和超自然活动热点——该房产当时为该私营部门组织负责人所有——包括检视关于“影子人形”和“生物”的报告,以及探索“遥视”和“人类意识异常”。该组织还计划雇佣通灵者研究据信经常出现在该地点的“跨维度现象”。⁶⁴
• DIA 既未寻求也未具体授权这项工作,尽管一名 DIA 员工设立并管理了与该私营部门组织的合同。⁶⁵
• 2009年6月24日,Reid 参议员致信时任国防部副部长 William Lynn III,请求将 AAWSAP/AATIP 设为 DoD 特殊访问项目。基于时任国防部主管情报的副部长 James R. Clapper, Jr. 关于此种指定缺乏正当理由的建议,Lynn 副部长拒绝了这一请求。⁶⁶
• 就在 DoD 取消该项目之前,该私营部门组织提议作为一条新工作线,在学术机构主办一系列“知识辩论”以影响公众辩论,其中包括雇佣支持性的记者和名人主持人。这一拟议公关活动的目标是假定“E.T. 造访属实”,并使主持人将辩论引离“死胡同式讨论”和关于讨论“证据”的“泥潭”。⁶⁷ 这一提议的一个既定目标是提高公众对围绕“E.T. 主题”的政府“披露”的兴趣,并探索披露对公众的后果。⁶⁸
结果:AAWSAP/AATIP 与该私营部门组织的合同产出了处理合同工作说明书所委托的12个科学领域的探索性论文。这些科学论文从未经过彻底的同行评审。
• AARO 尚未发现 AAWSAP/AATIP 开展的任何其他实质性 UAP 案例工作。相反,AAWSAP/AATIP 审查了大量 Project BLUE BOOK 和私人案例,对 UAP 观察者进行了访谈,并就该私营部门组织在犹他州房产上据称的超自然活动开展了无关的工作。
• AAWSAP/AATIP 于2012年在其交付物完成后,因 DIA 和 DoD 对该项目的担忧而被终止。
— p. 24 — 24
• After AAWSAP/AATIP was terminated, its supporters unsuccessfully attempted to
convince DHS to support a new version of this effort dubbed KONA BLUE.
Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force (UAPTF) (August 2020-November 2021)
Background: Deputy Secretary of Defense David L. Norquist approved the
establishment of the UAPTF in August 2020. Under the cognizance of the Office of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security (USD(I&S)), the Department of the Navy was
asked to lead the task force. It was established to improve understanding of, and gain insight
into, the nature and origins of UAP. The task force’s mission was to detect, analyze, and catalog
UAP that could potentially pose a threat to U.S. national security.69
Results: The UAPTF helped standardize, destigmatize, and increase the volume of UAP
reporting. Its work also helped calibrate sensors to improve the quality of data collected. Its
methods and processes directly led to the identification of the People’s Republic of China’s
(PRC) high altitude balloons that traversed over the continental United States.70
Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (June 2021)
Background: Senate Report 116-233, accompanying the Intelligence Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2021, directed the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) in
consultation with the Secretary of Defense to submit an intelligence assessment of the threat
posed by UAP and to report on the progress the UAPTF had made in understanding this threat.
Results: The preliminary assessment concluded that: (1) the limited amount of high-
quality reporting on UAP hampers the ability to draw firm conclusions about their nature or
intent; (2) in a limited number of incidents, UAP reportedly appeared to exhibit unusual flight
characteristics; although those observations could be the result of sensor errors, spoofing, or
observer misperception and require additional rigorous analysis; (3) there are probably multiple
types of UAP requiring different explanations based on the range of appearances and behaviors
described in the available reporting; (4) UAP may pose airspace safety issues and a challenge to
U.S. national security; and (5) consistent consolidation of reports from across the USG,
standardized reporting, increased collection and analysis, and a streamlined process for screening
all such reports against a broad range of relevant government data will allow for a more
sophisticated analysis of UAP.71
Airborne Object Identification and Management Synchronization Group (AOIMSG) /
Airborne Object Identification and Management Executive Management Committee
(AOIMEXEC) (November 2021-June 2022)
Background: The Deputy Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of
National Intelligence (DNI), directed USD(I&S) to establish AOIMSG to succeed the USN’s
UAPTF.72
Results: The organization helped initiate synchronization of efforts across the
Department and the broader USG to detect, identify, and attribute objects of interests in “Special
Use Airspace,” as well as to assess and mitigate any associated threats to safety of flight and
— 第 24 页 — • 在 AAWSAP/AATIP 被终止后,其支持者未能成功说服 DHS 支持这一努力的新版本,名为 KONA BLUE。
不明空中现象工作组(UAPTF)(2020年8月–2021年11月)
背景:国防部副部长 David L. Norquist 于2020年8月批准设立 UAPTF。在国防部主管情报与安全的副部长办公室(USD(I&S))的认知下,海军部被要求领导该工作组。它的设立旨在增进对 UAP 性质和起源的理解并获得洞察。该工作组的使命是探测、分析和编目可能对美国国家安全构成威胁的 UAP。⁶⁹
结果:UAPTF 帮助使 UAP 报告标准化、去污名化并增加其数量。其工作还帮助校准传感器以提高所收集数据的质量。其方法和流程直接导致了对穿越美国大陆的中华人民共和国(PRC)高空气球的识别。⁷⁰
《初步评估:不明空中现象》(2021年6月)
背景:参议院第116-233号报告(随附《2021财年情报授权法案》)指示国家情报总监办公室(ODNI)在与国防部长协商后,提交一份关于 UAP 所构成威胁的情报评估,并报告 UAPTF 在理解这一威胁方面所取得的进展。
结果:初步评估得出结论:(1)关于 UAP 的高质量报告数量有限,妨碍了就其性质或意图得出确定结论的能力;(2)在数量有限的事件中,UAP 据报告似乎表现出异常飞行特征;尽管那些观测可能是传感器误差、欺骗或观察者误判的结果,需要额外的严格分析;(3)根据现有报告中描述的外观和行为范围,很可能存在多种类型的 UAP,需要不同的解释;(4)UAP 可能构成空域安全问题和对美国国家安全的挑战;以及(5)持续整合来自整个美国政府的报告、标准化报告、加强收集和分析,以及建立一套精简流程以对照广泛的相关政府数据筛查所有此类报告,将有助于对 UAP 进行更精密的分析。⁷¹
空中物体识别与管理同步组(AOIMSG)/空中物体识别与管理执行管理委员会(AOIMEXEC)(2021年11月–2022年6月)
背景:国防部副部长在与国家情报总监(DNI)协商后,指示 USD(I&S) 设立 AOIMSG 以接替美国海军的 UAPTF。⁷²
结果:该组织帮助启动了整个国防部和更广泛的美国政府在“特殊用途空域”中探测、识别和归因关注物体的努力的同步,以及评估和缓解任何相关的飞行安全和
— p. 25 — 25
national security.73 AOIMSG had not achieved initial operating capability before subsequent
legislation in the FY2022 NDAA resulted in it being renamed to AARO and given an expanded
mission set.
UAP Independent Study Team (UAPIST) (June 2022-September 2023)
Background: NASA established the UAPIST as a subordinate group of its Earth
Science Advisory Committee, which was established in accordance with the Federal Advisory
Committee Act. The UAPIST examined UAP from a scientific perspective, focusing on how
NASA can use data and the scientific tools to achieve a better understanding of UAP. The
Assistant Deputy Associate Administrator for Research at NASA’s Science Mission Directorate
was responsible for orchestrating the study. The independent study team was chaired by the
President of the Simons Foundation and included members from the USG, academia, and the
private sector.74
Results: NASA released its report in September 2023. The report focused on
discovering the best data streams available and discoverable to resolve UAP cases. It did not
focus on whether or not UAP were of extraterrestrial origin. NASA also established a UAP
Research Director position.
All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) (Established July 15, 2022)
Background: In response to the NDAA for FY22, the Deputy Secretary of Defense in
coordination with the DNI, conveyed direction to the USD(I&S) by renaming the AOIMSG as
AARO, and expanded its scope and mission.75 AARO organized itself around four functions
(analysis, operations, science & technology (S&T), and strategic communications). AARO is
developing IC and S&T analytic tradecraft practices, implementing a science testing plan,
implementing a secure interviewee debriefing program, and is working to standardize UAP
collection and reporting across the DoD and the IC.
Results: Consistent with congressional direction, AARO provides quarterly reports,
semiannual briefings, and an annual report to Congress in coordination with the ODNI. In
addition, on January 12, 2023, the ODNI submitted the 2022 Annual Report on Unidentified
Aerial Phenomena to Congress. This report was drafted in partnership with AARO and based on
AARO’s data.
• The report stated that there was a total of 510 UAP reports as of August 30, 2022.
This included the 144 UAP reports covered during the 17 years of reporting included
in the ODNI’s preliminary assessment, as well as 247 new reports and 119 reports
that subsequently were discovered or reported.
• The report also stated that UAP events continue to occur in restricted or sensitive
airspace, highlighting possible concerns for safety of flight or adversary collection
activity.76
— 第 25 页 — 国家安全威胁。⁷³ 在《2022财年 NDAA》中的后续立法导致其更名为 AARO 并被赋予扩展的使命集之前,AOIMSG 尚未达到初始作战能力。
UAP 独立研究小组(UAPIST)(2022年6月–2023年9月)
背景:NASA 将 UAPIST 设立为其地球科学咨询委员会的下属组,后者依照《联邦咨询委员会法》设立。UAPIST 从科学视角检视 UAP,专注于 NASA 如何运用数据和科学工具更好地理解 UAP。NASA 科学任务理事会负责研究的助理副副署长负责统筹这项研究。该独立研究小组由西蒙斯基金会主席主持,成员包括来自美国政府、学术界和私营部门的人士。⁷⁴
结果:NASA 于2023年9月发布了其报告。报告专注于发现可用且可发现的、用于解决 UAP 案例的最佳数据流。它不专注于 UAP 是否具有地外起源。NASA 还设立了一个 UAP 研究主任职位。
全域异常解决办公室(AARO)(2022年7月15日设立)
背景:为回应《2022财年 NDAA》,国防部副部长在与 DNI 协调后,向 USD(I&S) 传达指示,将 AOIMSG 更名为 AARO,并扩展其范围和使命。⁷⁵ AARO 围绕四项职能(分析、行动、科学与技术(S&T)、战略沟通)进行组织。AARO 正在发展 IC 和 S&T 分析技艺实践、实施科学测试计划、实施安全的受访者汇报项目,并致力于在整个 DoD 和 IC 范围内标准化 UAP 收集和报告。
结果:依照国会指示,AARO 在与 ODNI 协调下向国会提供季度报告、半年简报和年度报告。此外,2023年1月12日,ODNI 向国会提交了《2022年度不明空中现象报告》。该报告与 AARO 合作起草,基于 AARO 的数据。
• 报告称,截至2022年8月30日共有510份 UAP 报告。这包括 ODNI 初步评估中涵盖的17年报告期内的144份 UAP 报告,以及247份新报告和119份随后被发现或报告的报告。
• 报告还称,UAP 事件继续在受限或敏感空域发生,凸显了对飞行安全或对手收集活动的可能担忧。⁷⁶
— p. 26 — 26
• The AARO Director reported to Congress that the majority of cases in AARO’s
holdings have ordinary explanation and that AARO has not seen any evidence that
any of these cases represent extraterrestrial technology.
• Of all the reports that AARO investigated and analyzed, none represent
extraterrestrial or off-world technology. A small percentage of cases have
potentially anomalous characteristics or concerning characteristics. AARO has
kept Congress fully and currently informed of its findings. AARO’s research
continues on these cases.
Foreign and Academic Investigatory Efforts
AARO reviewed seven other UAP investigatory panels and programs sponsored by a
U.S. university, the United Kingdom, Canada, and France. Of these efforts, one unofficial report
from a Canadian government effort in the early 1950s claimed UFOs were of extraterrestrial
origin, and the program director claimed he was in contact with aliens. This position appeared to
reflect the opinions of the director of the effort and was not endorsed or supported by the
Canadian government.
• Stanford University’s Sturrock Panel (1998) found no convincing evidence for the
extraterrestrial origin of UFO/UAP.77
• The United Kingdom’s Flying Saucer Working Party (1950–1951) concluded that
“flying saucers did not exist.”78
• Canada’s Sky Project (2023) is currently ongoing, and the program will release its
findings in 2024.79
• Canada’s Project Second Storey (1952-1954), an advisory committee that advised
the government, never reached any significant conclusions.80
• Canada’s Project Magnet (1950-1954) was run by Department of Transport engineer
Wilbert B. Smith. Smith assessed that UFOs were of extraterrestrial origin and that
they flew by magnetism. Smith believed he was in personal contact with
extraterrestrial beings through telepathy and “tensor beams.” Smith, in an interview
as early as 1961, claimed that in 1952, the USAF lent him a piece of a UFO to study.
He also claimed it was composed of magnesium orthosilicate. The Canadian
government closed the project, saying that there were no definitive results from the
research. Smith admitted that his beliefs concerning UFOs were his alone and not the
government’s official position.81
• The French government sponsored three comprehensive investigatory programs:
Groupe d’Etude et d’Information sur les Phénomènes Aérospatiaux Non-identifiés
(GEPAN, 1977-1987), Service d’Expertise des Phénomènes de Rentrées
Atmosphériques (SEPRA, 1988-2004), and a new version called Groupe d’Etudes et
d’Informations sur les Phénomènes Aérospatiaux Non-identifiés (GEIPAN) that stood
up in 2005. When it dissolved, SERPA concluded that the vast majority of cases
— 第 26 页 — • AARO 主任向国会报告,AARO 所持的大多数案例有普通解释,且 AARO 未看到任何证据表明这些案例中的任何一个代表地外技术。
• 在 AARO 调查和分析的所有报告中,没有一个代表地外或外星技术。一小部分案例具有潜在的异常特征或令人关注的特征。AARO 已使国会充分且及时地了解其发现。AARO 对这些案例的研究仍在继续。
外国与学术调查努力
AARO 审查了由一所美国大学、英国、加拿大和法国资助的其他七个 UAP 调查小组和项目。在这些努力中,1950年代初一个加拿大政府努力的一份非官方报告声称 UFO 具有地外起源,且该项目主任声称他与外星人有联系。这一立场似乎反映了该努力主任的个人意见,未得到加拿大政府的认可或支持。
• 斯坦福大学的 Sturrock 小组(1998)未发现 UFO/UAP 具有地外起源的令人信服的证据。⁷⁷
• 英国的飞碟工作组(1950–1951)得出结论“飞碟并不存在”。⁷⁸
• 加拿大的 Sky Project(2023)目前正在进行中,该项目将于2024年发布其发现。⁷⁹
• 加拿大的 Project Second Storey(1952-1954),一个向政府提供建议的咨询委员会,从未得出任何重大结论。⁸⁰
• 加拿大的 Project Magnet(1950-1954)由运输部工程师 Wilbert B. Smith 主持。Smith 评估认为 UFO 具有地外起源,并通过磁力飞行。Smith 相信他通过心灵感应和“张量束”与外星生命有个人联系。Smith 早在1961年的一次访谈中声称,1952年美国空军借给他一块 UFO 供研究。他还声称它由硅酸镁组成。加拿大政府关闭了该项目,称研究没有确定性结果。Smith 承认,他关于 UFO 的信念是他个人的,而非政府的官方立场。⁸¹
• 法国政府资助了三个综合调查项目:不明航空航天现象研究与信息组(GEPAN,1977-1987)、大气再入现象专家服务处(SEPRA,1988-2004),以及2005年成立的新版本,名为不明航空航天现象研究与信息组(GEIPAN)。当 SEPRA 解散时,它得出结论:绝大多数案例
— p. 27 — 27
possess ordinary explanations, while 28 percent of its caseload remained unresolved.
None of these organizations have found evidence of extraterrestrial visitations to
Earth.82
Key Findings
• None of these investigations (including USG, foreign, and U.S. academic efforts)
reached the conclusion that any of the UAP reports indicated extraterrestrial origin.
• All of these efforts and reviews concluded that the vast majority of UAP reports could
be resolved as any number of ordinary objects, natural phenomena, optical illusions
or misidentifications. Many of the cases, however, remain unresolved.
• The lack of actionable, researchable data—specifically the lack of speed, altitude, and
size of reported UAP—combined with resource constraints, high volumes of cases,
and perceived differing levels of support from USG officials were factors in all
investigative efforts. Even with the significant advancements in ground- and air-
based sensors, the apparent inability to collect sufficient and high-quality data for
scientific analysis continues to plague investigations.
• Three efforts investigated reports of direct or indirect physical evidence of UFOs
(from depressions on the ground to metallic debris) and found nothing of foreign or
extraterrestrial origin.
• There was at least one USG proposal—by the CIA-sponsored Robertson Panel—to
engage in an active “training” and “debunking” effort using various public media
tools to steer the public away from reporting UFOs. The proposal reasoned that it did
not believe UFOs were foreign technological threats or of extraterrestrial origin;
rather, it viewed the persistent flood of reports as cluttering and bogging down
government processes, expressing the concern that such reports could create “mass
hysteria” to the benefit of the Soviet Union.
• At various points in history, individuals inside and outside of the USG, including Dr.
J. Allen Hynek, claimed the USAF had a key goal of debunking or explaining away
reports of UAP. AARO found no evidence to suggest that the USAF had a policy
intended to cover up the evidence of extraterrestrial knowledge, material, or
interactions. Rather, the USAF instead sought to focus on what it determined to be
more important concerns, such as Soviet technology and U.S. defense readiness.
Similarly, at least the first iteration of Project GRUDGE sought to resolve all cases
and prohibited its staff from characterizing reports as unknown or unidentified.
• AARO notes that there was possibly one unofficial estimate stating otherwise.
Project SIGN staff allegedly drafted and signed a report that was circulated for review
and approval. It was titled: “The Estimate of the Situation” and assessed that at least
some UFOs were of “interplanetary” origin. The DoD leadership rejected this report
on the basis that it lacked any proof, and it was never published. The first Director of
— 第 27 页 — 具有普通解释,而其案件量的28%仍未解决。这些组织中没有一个发现地外造访地球的证据。⁸²
关键发现
• 这些调查中(包括美国政府、外国和美国学术努力)没有一个得出结论认为任何 UAP 报告表明地外起源。
• 所有这些努力和审查都得出结论:绝大多数 UAP 报告可被解析为任意数量的普通物体、自然现象、光学错觉或误识别。然而,许多案例仍未解决。
• 缺乏可操作、可研究的数据——具体而言是缺乏所报告 UAP 的速度、高度和大小——加上资源限制、大量案例,以及所感知的美国政府官员不同程度的支持,是所有调查努力中的因素。即使地基和空基传感器有了显著进步,似乎仍无法收集足够且高质量的数据供科学分析,这继续困扰着调查。
• 三项努力调查了 UFO 直接或间接物理证据的报告(从地面凹陷到金属碎片),未发现任何外国或地外起源的东西。
• 至少有一项美国政府提议——由 CIA 资助的 Robertson 小组提出——开展一项使用各种公共媒体工具的积极“训练”和“揭穿”努力,以引导公众远离报告 UFO。该提议的理由是,它不相信 UFO 是外国技术威胁或具有地外起源;相反,它将持续涌入的报告视为扰乱并拖累政府流程,并表达了担忧:此类报告可能制造有利于苏联的“大规模歇斯底里”。
• 在历史的不同时点,美国政府内外的个人,包括 J. Allen Hynek 博士,声称美国空军有一个关键目标是揭穿或解释掉 UAP 报告。AARO 未发现任何证据表明美国空军有一项旨在掩盖地外知识、材料或互动证据的政策。相反,美国空军转而寻求专注于它认为更重要的关切,如苏联技术和美国防御战备。同样,至少 Project GRUDGE 的第一次迭代寻求解决所有案例,并禁止其工作人员将报告表征为未知或未识别。
• AARO 指出,可能有一份非官方评估持相反意见。Project SIGN 工作人员据称起草并签署了一份供审查和批准而传阅的报告。它题为《形势评估》,评估认为至少一些 UFO 具有“星际”起源。DoD 领导层以其缺乏任何证据为由驳回了这份报告,且它从未发布。第一任
— p. 28 — 28
Project BLUE BOOK, Capt Edward Ruppelt, said that all but a couple copies of this
estimate were destroyed. 83 AARO has been unable to verify his claim or locate the
document.
SECTION V: Assessment of Interviewee Claims of USG Involvement in Hidden UAP
Programs
Summary
As of September 17, 2023, AARO interviewed approximately 30 individuals. AARO
categorized these individuals into three tiers: Tier 1 interviewees are those who have spoken
with congressional staff or Members of Congress and have been subsequently referred to AARO;
Tier 2 interviewees are those who have been referred to AARO by Tier 1 interviewees; Tier 3
interviewees are AARO-generated interviewees that have a corroborating touchpoint to the
principal integrated narrative of reports from Tier 1 and Tier 2 interviewees. Priority is given to
those interviewees who claimed firsthand knowledge of government programs, events, or details
about any resulting material. Interviewees relaying second or thirdhand knowledge are lower in
priority, but AARO has and will continue to schedule interviews with them, nonetheless.
AARO generated random numbers and assigned one to each interviewee. AARO
maintains the key, which is stored and handled in a secure manner to protect each interviewee’s
privacy. In some instances, AARO assigned a random number to a person who has not
interviewed with AARO but was referenced by interviewees as a key individual. AARO also
assigned numbers to organizations mentioned by interviewees.
AARO assesses that two main narratives have emerged, with various and potentially unrelated
offshoots:
Primary Narrative
The primary narrative alleges that the USG and industry partners are in possession of
and are testing off-world technology that has been concealed from congressional oversight
and the world since approximately 1964, and possibly since 1947, if the Roswell events are
included. The narrative asserts that this UAP program possesses as many as 12 extraterrestrial
spacecraft.
• An AARO interviewee84 claimed in a thirdhand account that an organization85 was in
possession of 12 spacecraft recovered from different crash events prior to 1970.
Some of the craft allegedly were “intact.” The interviewee also stated that the CIA
had a partnership with the company that ended in 1989 and wanted all material
returned to the CIA. AARO discovered no empirical evidence supporting these
claims.
• An interviewee86 claimed that an organization87 was in possession of off-world
material in 2009 and 2010. A separate interviewee stated they participated in
negotiations to return the material to the USG. The same interviewee stated that a
— 第 28 页 — Project BLUE BOOK 主任 Edward Ruppelt 上尉说,这份评估除了几份副本外全部被销毁。⁸³ AARO 一直无法核实他的说法或定位该文件。
第五节:对受访者关于美国政府涉及隐藏 UAP 项目之说法的评估
摘要
截至2023年9月17日,AARO 访谈了约30名个人。AARO 将这些个人分为三个层级:第一层级受访者是那些曾与国会工作人员或国会议员交谈、随后被转介给 AARO 的人;第二层级受访者是那些由第一层级受访者转介给 AARO 的人;第三层级受访者是 AARO 自行产生的受访者,他们与第一和第二层级受访者报告的主要整合叙事有佐证性的接触点。优先处理那些声称对政府项目、事件或关于任何由此产生的材料的细节拥有第一手了解的受访者。传达第二或第三手了解的受访者优先级较低,但 AARO 仍已并将继续安排与他们的访谈。
AARO 生成随机数并为每位受访者分配一个。AARO 保留密钥,以安全方式存储和处理,以保护每位受访者的隐私。在某些情况下,AARO 为未与 AARO 访谈但被受访者提及为关键个人的人分配了随机数。AARO 还为受访者提及的组织分配了编号。
AARO 评估认为出现了两个主要叙事,带有各种且可能无关的分支:
主要叙事
主要叙事声称,美国政府和工业伙伴拥有并正在测试外星技术,这些技术自约1964年以来(如果包括 Roswell 事件则可能自1947年以来)一直对国会监督和全世界隐瞒。该叙事断言,这个 UAP 项目拥有多达12艘外星飞行器。
• 一名 AARO 受访者⁸⁴在一份第三手叙述中声称,某组织⁸⁵拥有从1970年前不同坠毁事件中回收的12艘飞行器。其中一些飞行器据称是“完整的”。该受访者还表示,CIA 与该公司有一项于1989年结束的合作关系,并希望所有材料归还 CIA。AARO 未发现支持这些说法的经验证据。
• 一名受访者⁸⁶声称,某组织⁸⁷在2009年和2010年拥有外星材料。另一名受访者表示,他们参与了将材料归还美国政府的谈判。同一受访者表示,一名
— p. 29 — 29
former named senior CIA official quashed the proposal to remove the material from
the corporation.
• A separate interviewee88 claimed that circa 1999, a former, senior U.S. military
officer89 told the interviewee that that he touched the surface of an extraterrestrial
spacecraft. The interviewee stated that the senior officer gave a detailed description
of a craft floating in a building. The officer told the interviewee that approximately
150 individuals were working on the program and that the program was kept “outside
of government” so the technology could remain proprietary.
• Two interviewees90 said they participated in an alleged White House-tasked UAP
study in Northern Virginia sometime between 2004 and 2007. The study evaluated
the impacts to society should the United States, Russia, or China disclose they had
evidence of extraterrestrial beings or craft. One interviewee assumed these
governments possessed such evidence.91 The study was conducted by approximately
12 participants who evaluated 64 different aspects of society, such as religion and
financial markets, which could be impacted by such a disclosure.92 The study lasted
one day, and the interviewee was not aware of any final report or to whom any report
may have been delivered.
• Another interviewee claimed that in the 1990s he overhead electronic communication
of a conversation between two military bases where scientists claimed “aliens” were
present during specialized materials testing.93 The interviewee also reported that on
another occasion in the 1990s he observed an “unidentified flying object” at a U.S.
military facility. The interviewee described the object as exhibiting a peculiar flight
pattern.
• An interviewee who is a former U.S. service member said that in 2009, while
participating in a humanitarian and security mission in a foreign country, he
encountered “U.S. Special Forces” loading containers onto a large extraterrestrial
spacecraft. 94
• A separate interviewee said that a family member was part of an effort to reverse-
engineer an object assumed to be off-world technology in the 1980s.95 The engineers
failed to reverse-engineer the object and it was sent to a different facility for further
evaluation.
• An interviewee pointed out to AARO the existence of an alleged leaked Special
National Intelligence Estimate from 1961 as proof of the existence of UAP crashes.96
AARO obtained a copy of the document through open-source research and evaluated
its authenticity.
• Some interviewees and public accounts underpin this storyline by claiming through
second and thirdhand accounts that some NDAs may have been used to protect a
“reverse-engineering program of off-world technology.” These accounts describe the
NDAs as including “punishment by death” provisions should the signatory disclose
— 第 29 页 — 被指名的前 CIA 高级官员压制了从该公司移除材料的提议。
• 另一名受访者⁸⁸声称,约1999年,一名前美国军方高级军官⁸⁹告诉该受访者,他触摸了一艘地外飞行器的表面。受访者表示,这位高级军官详细描述了一艘漂浮在建筑物中的飞行器。该军官告诉受访者,约有150人在该项目上工作,且该项目被保持在“政府之外”,以使该技术能保持专有。
• 两名受访者⁹⁰表示,他们在2004年至2007年间的某个时候参与了一项据称由白宫委托、在北弗吉尼亚进行的 UAP 研究。该研究评估了如果美国、俄罗斯或中国披露他们拥有地外生命或飞行器的证据,将对社会产生的影响。一名受访者假定这些政府拥有此类证据。⁹¹ 该研究由约12名参与者进行,他们评估了社会的64个不同方面(如宗教和金融市场),这些方面可能受到此类披露的影响。⁹² 该研究持续了一天,受访者不知道有任何最终报告,或任何报告可能被递交给谁。
• 另一名受访者声称,在1990年代,他偶然听到两个军事基地之间一段对话的电子通信,科学家声称在专门的材料测试期间有“外星人”在场。⁹³ 该受访者还报告称,在1990年代另一个场合,他在一处美国军事设施观察到一个“不明飞行物”。受访者将该物体描述为表现出一种奇特的飞行模式。
• 一名前美国军人受访者表示,2009年,在某外国参与一项人道主义和安全任务时,他遇到“美国特种部队”将集装箱装载到一艘大型地外飞行器上。⁹⁴
• 另一名受访者表示,一名家庭成员是1980年代逆向工程一个被假定为外星技术的物体的努力的一部分。⁹⁵ 工程师们未能逆向工程该物体,它被送往另一处设施作进一步评估。
• 一名受访者向 AARO 指出,据称泄露的1961年《特别国家情报评估》的存在,作为 UAP 坠毁存在的证据。⁹⁶ AARO 通过开源研究获得了该文件的副本并评估了其真实性。
• 一些受访者和公开叙述通过第二和第三手叙述声称,某些 NDA 可能曾被用于保护一个“外星技术逆向工程项目”,以此支撑这一故事线。这些叙述将 NDA 描述为包含“死刑惩罚”条款,以防签署者披露
— p. 30 — 30
information about the program. Some interviewees claimed “verbal” and written
NDAs were administered in several instances.97
Secondary Narrative
The other narrative is that a cluster of UAP sightings that occurred in close proximity to
U.S. nuclear facilities have resulted in the malfunctioning and destruction of nuclear missiles
and a test reentry vehicle. AARO interviewed five former USAF members who served in and
around U.S. intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) silos at Malmstrom, Ellsworth,
Vandenberg, and Minot USAF bases between 1966 and 1977.98 Some of these individuals claim
UAP sightings near the silos, while others claim UAP disruptions to ICBM operations.
Specifically, they said the ICBM launch control facilities went offline or experienced total power
failure. Additionally, one interviewee and a USAF videographer claimed to have observed and
recorded a UAP destroying an ICBM loaded with a “dummy” warhead, mid-flight. AARO is
researching U.S. and adversarial activity related to these events, including any U.S. programs
that tested defensive ballistic missile capabilities.
Findings
AARO investigated and reached conclusions on the majority of the claims made in these
narratives. In most cases, AARO was able to locate the companies, people, and programs that
were conveyed to AARO through interviews. AARO will report the results of the unresolved
allegations in Volume II. AARO’s findings to date are as follows:
No Official UAP Nondisclosure Agreements Discovered
In the conduct of this review, and to meet the direction of Section 1673 of the NDAA for
FY 2023, AARO sent guidance and requests to DoD, IC elements, DOE, and DHS to review and
provide any NDAs pertaining to UAP (or its previous names). To date, AARO personnel have
not discovered or been notified of any NDAs that contain information related to UAP. Also,
apart from the standard NDA language contained in Title 18, Section 794 describing the death
penalty or jail time for illegally disclosing information relating to the national defense, AARO
has not discovered any NDAs containing threats to interviewees for disclosing UAP-specific
information.
Historically, most if not all NDAs contained standard language stating that the death
penalty can be applied for the crime of disclosing classified information. Title 18, Section 794,
is referenced in typical NDAs in several places in relation to the transmission of classified
information:
“Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United
States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or
transmits…information relating to the national defense, shall be punished by death or by
imprisonment for any term of years or for life….”
— 第 30 页 — 关于该项目的信息。一些受访者声称在若干情况下实施了“口头”和书面 NDA。⁹⁷
次要叙事
另一个叙事是,发生在美国核设施附近的一组 UAP 目击导致了核导弹和一个测试再入飞行器的故障与摧毁。AARO 访谈了五名曾在1966年至1977年间在 Malmstrom、Ellsworth、Vandenberg 和 Minot 美国空军基地的美国洲际弹道导弹(ICBM)发射井中及其周围服役的前美国空军成员。⁹⁸ 其中一些人声称在发射井附近有 UAP 目击,而另一些人声称 UAP 扰乱了 ICBM 行动。具体而言,他们说 ICBM 发射控制设施离线或经历了完全断电。此外,一名受访者和一名美国空军摄像师声称观察并记录了一个 UAP 在飞行中摧毁了一枚装有“假”弹头的 ICBM。AARO 正在研究与这些事件相关的美国和对手活动,包括任何测试防御性弹道导弹能力的美国项目。
调查结果
AARO 调查并就这些叙事中提出的大多数说法得出了结论。在大多数情况下,AARO 能够定位通过访谈传达给 AARO 的公司、人物和项目。AARO 将在第二卷中报告未解决指控的结果。AARO 迄今为止的发现如下:
未发现官方 UAP 保密协议
在本次审查的开展中,为满足《2023财年 NDAA》第1673节的指示,AARO 向 DoD、IC 各部门、DOE 和 DHS 发送指南和请求,以审查并提供任何与 UAP(或其先前名称)相关的 NDA。迄今为止,AARO 人员未发现或被告知任何包含与 UAP 相关信息的 NDA。此外,除了《美国法典》第18编第794节中描述的、对非法披露关乎国防的信息处以死刑或监禁的标准 NDA 措辞外,AARO 未发现任何包含对受访者披露 UAP 特定信息之威胁的 NDA。
历史上,大多数(如果不是全部)NDA 都包含标准措辞,说明披露保密信息的罪行可处以死刑。《美国法典》第18编第794节在典型 NDA 中关于保密信息传输的若干处被引用:
“凡意图或有理由相信将被用于损害美国或有利于外国,而传达、递送或传送……关乎国防的信息者,应被处以死刑,或处以任何年限的监禁或终身监禁……”
— p. 31 — 31
Former CIA Official Involvement in Movement of Alleged Material Recovered from a UAP
Crash Denied on the Record
AARO interviewed and obtained a signed statement from the former CIA official who
was specifically named by AARO interviewees. The former official stated he had no knowledge
of any aspect of this allegation.99 The allegation included the claimed crash of the objects, the
possession of the resultant material by the USG and the private sector, and the attempt to transfer
material that was purported to be of off-world origin. This reverse-engineering program
allegedly occurred at the named facility in the 2009-2010 time frame. Interviewees allege that a
separate interviewee100 from the facility attempted to set up a meeting to return material to the
USG in 2010, but that the former CIA official stopped the transfer from industry to the USG.
The interviewee alleged to have stopped the transfer denied these allegations.101 The former CIA
official stated that he had no knowledge of any extraterrestrial material in the possession of the
USG or any other organization.102 The official signed a Memorandum for the Record (MFR)
attesting to the truthfulness of his statements.
The 1961 Special National Intelligence Estimate on “UFOs” Assessed to be Not Authentic
An interviewee 103 brought to AARO’s attention the existence of an alleged Special
National Intelligence Estimate (SNIE), dated November 5, 1961, titled: “Critical Aspects of
Unidentified Flying Objects and the Nuclear Threat to the Defense of the United States and its
Allies.” Through open-source research, AARO obtained a copy of the document. After
discussions with the CIA’s Center for the Study of Intelligence (CSI), the NSA Scientific Studies
Board (one of the alleged authors), and research comparing this document to a number of known
SNIEs and National Intelligence Estimates, AARO concluded the document is not authentic.
NSA archives were searched because “the NSA Scientific Advisory Board” purportedly was one
of the document’s authors. CIA/CSI and NSA did not possess nor have knowledge of the
document. AARO found the document lacked IC tradecraft standards and possessed significant
inconsistencies with SNIE’s and National Intelligence Estimates of the general time period.
These inconsistencies included: the document’s short length, incorrect formatting, inconsistent
branding, lack of a dissemination block and coordination language, loose narrative style,
convoluted logic, imprecise and casual language, and its superficial treatment of globally
significant issues.
Aliens Observing Material Test a Likely Misunderstanding of an Authentic, Non-UAP
Program Activity
AARO determined this account most likely amounted to a misunderstanding. The
conversation likely referenced a test and evaluation unit that had a nickname with “alien”
connotations at the specific installation mentioned. The nature of the test described by the
interviewee104 closely matched the description of a specific materials test conveyed to AARO
investigators.
— 第 31 页 — 前 CIA 官员涉及移动据称从 UAP 坠毁中回收材料的指控被当场否认
AARO 访谈了被 AARO 受访者具体指名的那位前 CIA 官员并获得了一份签署声明。该前官员表示,他对这一指控的任何方面都不知情。⁹⁹ 该指控包括所声称的物体坠毁、美国政府和私营部门对由此产生材料的拥有,以及试图转移据称具有外星起源的材料。这一逆向工程项目据称在2009-2010年时间段于具名设施发生。受访者声称,该设施的另一名受访者¹⁰⁰试图在2010年安排一次会议以将材料归还美国政府,但前 CIA 官员阻止了从工业界到美国政府的转移。被指控阻止转移的受访者否认了这些指控。¹⁰¹ 该前 CIA 官员表示,他对美国政府或任何其他组织拥有任何地外材料毫不知情。¹⁰² 该官员签署了一份备忘录(MFR),证明其陈述的真实性。
1961年关于“UFO”的《特别国家情报评估》被评估为不真实
一名受访者¹⁰³向 AARO 提请注意一份据称的《特别国家情报评估》(SNIE)的存在,日期为1961年11月5日,题为:《不明飞行物的关键方面及对美国及其盟友防御的核威胁》。通过开源研究,AARO 获得了该文件的副本。在与 CIA 情报研究中心(CSI)、NSA 科学研究委员会(据称的作者之一)讨论,并将该文件与一些已知的 SNIE 和国家情报评估进行比较研究后,AARO 得出结论该文件不真实。之所以搜索 NSA 档案,是因为“NSA 科学咨询委员会”据称是该文件的作者之一。CIA/CSI 和 NSA 既不拥有也不知晓该文件。AARO 发现该文件缺乏 IC 技艺标准,并与该大致时期的 SNIE 和国家情报评估存在重大不一致。这些不一致包括:该文件篇幅短、格式不正确、品牌标识不一致、缺乏分发栏和协调措辞、叙述风格松散、逻辑混乱、用语不精确且随意,以及对全球重大问题的肤浅处理。
外星人观测材料测试很可能是对一项真实的、与 UAP 无关项目活动的误解
AARO 判定,这一叙述很可能构成一种误解。该对话很可能指的是在所提及的特定设施处一个带有“外星人”含义昵称的测试与评估单位。受访者¹⁰⁴所描述测试的性质,与传达给 AARO 调查人员的一项特定材料测试的描述高度吻合。
— p. 32 — 32
Allegation that a Former U.S. military Service Member Touched an Extraterrestrial
Spacecraft
An interviewee105 stated that a former military member, who was also an interviewee,
had stated that he had touched an off-world aircraft. AARO contacted and interviewed the
former military member106 who denied any knowledge of off-world technology in possession of
the USG, a private contractor, or any other foreign or domestic entity. The former military
member attested that he could not remember if this encounter with the original interviewee had
ever occurred, but opined that if it had happened, the only situation that he might have conveyed
was the time when he touched an F-117 Nighthawk stealth fighter at a facility. The former
military member signed an MFR attesting to the truthfulness of his account.
The UAP with Peculiar Characteristics Refers to an Authentic, Non-UAP-Related SAP
AARO was able to correlate this account with an authentic USG program because the
interviewee was able to provide a relatively precise time and location of the sighting which they
observed exhibiting strange characteristics. At the time the interviewee said he observed the
event, DoD was conducting tests of a platform protected by a SAP. The seemingly strange
characteristics reported by the interviewee match closely with the platform’s characteristics,
which was being tested at a military facility in the time frame the interviewee was there. This
program is not related in any way to the exploitation of off-world technology.
Extraterrestrial Disclosure Study Confirmed; Not White House-Sponsored
An organization107 in Northern Virginia did conduct a study between 2004 and 2007 on
the societal effects should the United States or other world governments disclose they have
evidence of extraterrestrial life. Interviewees believed the White House sponsored it. AARO
confirmed through two former White House senior officials108 that the White House did not
request it, nor were they aware of any such study.
Aerospace Companies Denied Involvement in Recovering Extraterrestrial Craft
AARO met with high-ranking officials, including executives and chief technology
officers, of the named companies. All denied the existence of these programs, and attested to the
truthfulness of their statements on the record.
Sample of Alleged Alien Spacecraft is an Ordinary, Terrestrial, Metal Alloy
AARO learned through an interviewee that a private sector organization109 claimed to
have in its possession material from an extraterrestrial craft recovered from a crash at an
unknown location from the 1940s or 1950s. The organization claimed that the material had the
potential to act as a THz frequency waveguide, and therefore, could exhibit “anti-gravity” and
“mass reduction” properties under the appropriate conditions. The organization that owned the
material negotiated an agreement in 2019 with the U.S. Army to analyze the samples. With
permission from the stakeholders, AARO acquired this sample to conduct more in-depth
analyses.
— 第 32 页 — 关于一名前美国军人触摸过地外飞行器的指控
一名受访者¹⁰⁵表示,一名也是受访者的前军方成员曾表示他触摸过一艘外星飞行器。AARO 联系并访谈了该前军方成员¹⁰⁶,他否认对美国政府、私营承包商或任何其他外国或国内实体拥有任何外星技术的任何了解。该前军方成员证明,他不记得与原受访者的这次接触是否曾发生,但认为如果它发生过,他可能传达的唯一情形是他在某设施触摸一架 F-117 Nighthawk 隐形战斗机的那次。该前军方成员签署了一份 MFR,证明其叙述的真实性。
具有奇特特征的 UAP 指的是一个真实的、与 UAP 无关的 SAP
AARO 能够将这一叙述与一个真实的美国政府项目相关联,因为受访者能够提供他们观察到表现出奇怪特征的目击的相对精确的时间和地点。在受访者所说他观察到该事件的时间,DoD 正在测试一个受 SAP 保护的平台。受访者报告的看似奇怪的特征与该平台的特征高度吻合,该平台在受访者在场的时间段内正在一处军事设施进行测试。该项目与外星技术的利用毫无关系。
地外披露研究得到确认;非白宫资助
北弗吉尼亚的一个组织¹⁰⁷确实在2004年至2007年间就“如果美国或其他世界政府披露他们拥有地外生命的证据将对社会产生的影响”进行了一项研究。受访者相信白宫资助了它。AARO 通过两名前白宫高级官员¹⁰⁸确认,白宫既未请求它,也不知晓任何此类研究。
航空航天公司否认涉及回收外星飞行器
AARO 与具名公司的高级官员(包括高管和首席技术官)会面。所有人都否认这些项目的存在,并当场证明其陈述的真实性。
据称外星飞行器样本是一种普通的、地球的金属合金
AARO 通过一名受访者得知,一家私营部门组织¹⁰⁹声称拥有从1940或1950年代某未知地点坠毁中回收的外星飞行器材料。该组织声称该材料有可能充当 THz 频率波导,因此在适当条件下可表现出“反重力”和“质量削减”特性。拥有该材料的组织于2019年与美国陆军谈判达成协议以分析样本。在利益相关方许可下,AARO 获取了这一样本以进行更深入的分析。
— p. 33 — 33
• AARO and a leading science laboratory concluded that the material is a metallic
alloy, terrestrial in nature, and possibly of USAF origin, based on its materials
characterization. It was also assessed that the material is mostly composed of
magnesium, and the bismuth present was not a pure layer per initial claims.
• The U.S. Army had also conducted in-house analysis on the sample, and while
AARO generally agrees with its conclusions, AARO found that the structure was not
purely layered magnesium alloy and bismuth.
AARO assesses that a separate private sector organization’s recreation of this metallic
sample was almost certainly conflated with claims that the aerospace industry was attempting
to reverse-engineer off-world technology. Prior to AARO’s acquisition of the sample, the
organization fabricated a replica of the sample to determine if it could be done.110
• The same organization111 made an attempt to replicate the sample at the same
specific location cited by the interviewee112 as the location where the interviewee
alleged to have participated in discussions about transferring UAP crash materials.
The claim that extraterrestrial technology was being reverse-engineered almost
certainly was conflated with this material fabrication.
AARO Investigating Unresolved Historical Nuclear-Related UAP Cases
Like all historical UAP cases, very little actionable data exists beyond limited firsthand
narrative accounts. Nevertheless, AARO continues to investigate these cases due to the sensitive
nature of these events potentially impacting the readiness of the U.S. nuclear program. Although
AARO has not been able to recover the alleged film of the ballistic missile reentry vehicle being
shot down by a UAP in 1964, AARO was able to correlate the general time and location with an
antiballistic missile test, which could have been the genesis for this observation.
SECTION VI: Investigation into Named USG Sensitive Programs
Summary
AARO investigated numerous named, and described, but unnamed programs alleged to
involve UAP exploitation conveyed to AARO through official interviews. Although at least one
interviewee claimed to have seen a captured UAP, none of the interviewees had direct access to
or firsthand knowledge of the programs alleged to be UAP-related. One interviewee had access
into one authentic program, but his position was such that he had only limited access to its
complete details. Interviewees’ indirect and incomplete knowledge of authentic efforts most
likely contributed to their misinterpretation of what they heard or saw.
• AARO concludes many of these programs represent authentic, current and former
sensitive, national security programs, but none of these programs have been
involved with capturing, recovering, or reverse-engineering off-world technology or
material.
— 第 33 页 — • AARO 和一家领先科学实验室基于其材料表征得出结论:该材料是一种金属合金,本质上是地球的,可能源自美国空军。还评估认为,该材料主要由镁组成,且其中存在的铋并非如最初声称的那样是纯层。
• 美国陆军也对该样本进行了内部分析,虽然 AARO 大体上同意其结论,但 AARO 发现该结构并非纯层状镁合金和铋。
AARO 评估认为,另一家私营部门组织对这一金属样本的再造,几乎肯定与“航空航天业试图逆向工程外星技术”的说法混为一谈。在 AARO 获取样本之前,该组织制造了样本的复制品以确定是否可以做到。¹¹⁰
• 同一组织¹¹¹在受访者¹¹²所引述的、即受访者据称参与讨论转移 UAP 坠毁材料的同一特定地点,尝试复制该样本。“外星技术正在被逆向工程”的说法几乎肯定与这一材料制造混为一谈。
AARO 正在调查未解决的历史核相关 UAP 案例
像所有历史 UAP 案例一样,除了有限的第一手叙述外,几乎不存在可操作数据。尽管如此,由于这些事件的敏感性质可能影响美国核项目的战备,AARO 继续调查这些案例。尽管 AARO 一直无法找回据称1964年弹道导弹再入飞行器被 UAP 击落的胶片,但 AARO 能够将大致的时间和地点与一次反弹道导弹测试相关联,这可能是这一观测的起源。
第六节:对具名美国政府敏感项目的调查
摘要
AARO 调查了众多通过官方访谈传达给 AARO 的、据称涉及 UAP 利用的具名以及被描述但未具名的项目。尽管至少一名受访者声称见过一艘被捕获的 UAP,但没有任何受访者对据称与 UAP 相关的项目拥有直接访问权或第一手了解。一名受访者拥有对一个真实项目的访问权,但他的职位使他只能有限地访问其完整细节。受访者对真实努力的间接和不完整了解,很可能导致了他们对所听闻或所见之物的误解。
• AARO 得出结论,这些项目中许多代表真实的、当前和以往的敏感国家安全项目,但这些项目中没有一个涉及捕获、回收或逆向工程外星技术或材料。
— p. 34 — 34
• All the programs assessed to be authentic were or—if still active—continue to be,
appropriately reported to either or both the congressional defense and intelligence
committees.
Process for Protecting Sensitive Programs while Investigating Interviewee Claims
AARO instituted a secure process for handling information to allow interviewees to come
forward to provide their statements to AARO within secure facilities. AARO established a
partnership with the Special Access Program Control Offices for the DoD, IC, and DHS to
review programs identified in interviews by name or description to determine if the programs
correlated in time and location to historic SAP or Controlled Access Programs (CAP). This
agreement details how interviewee claims concerning the names and descriptions of the alleged
programs are handled, stored, and protected so that their veracity can be determined in a secure
manner. A key part of this agreement is that AARO investigators have been granted full access
to all pertinent sensitive USG programs.
• When industry partners were named, AARO interviewed senior level, appropriately-
cleared executives, department leads, senior scientists, and engineers.
Findings
One Private Program Mistaken for USG Program
AARO determined that the following alleged USG program name was portrayed
inaccurately by the interviewee:
• Virtual Institute for Satellite Integration Training–This program is not a USG-funded
and supported effort. It was a program operated by a private UAP organization and
had a NASA engineer as a participant. NASA verified that it did not sponsor the
project.113
KONA BLUE: A Proposed UAP Recovery and Reverse-Engineering Program
KONA BLUE was brought to AARO’s attention by interviewees who claimed that it was
a sensitive DHS compartment to cover up the retrieval and exploitation of “non-human
biologics.”114 KONA BLUE traces its origins to the DIA-managed AAWSAP/AATIP program,
which was funded through a special appropriation and executed by its primary contractor, a
private sector organization. DIA cancelled the program in 2012 due to lack of merit and the
utility of the deliverables. As discussed in Section IV of this report, while the official purpose of
AAWSAP/AATIP was to conduct research into 12 areas of cutting edge science, the contractor
team, and at least one supportive government program manager, also conducted UAP and
paranormal research at a property owned by the private sector organization.
When DIA cancelled this program, its supporters proposed to DHS that they create and
fund a new version of AAWSAP/AATIP under a SAP.115 This proposal, codenamed KONA
BLUE, would restart UAP investigations, paranormal research (including alleged “human
consciousness anomalies”) and reverse-engineer any recovered off-world spacecraft that they
hoped to acquire. This proposal gained some initial traction at DHS to the point where a
— 第 34 页 — • 所有被评估为真实的项目,曾经或——如果仍活跃——继续被适当地报告给国会国防委员会和/或情报委员会中的一个或两个。
在调查受访者说法的同时保护敏感项目的流程
AARO 设立了一个处理信息的安全流程,以允许受访者挺身而出,在安全设施内向 AARO 提供其陈述。AARO 与 DoD、IC 和 DHS 的特殊访问项目控制办公室建立了合作关系,以审查访谈中按名称或描述识别的项目,确定这些项目是否在时间和地点上与历史 SAP 或受控访问项目(CAP)相关联。该协议详述了如何处理、存储和保护关于据称项目名称和描述的受访者说法,以便能以安全方式确定其真实性。该协议的一个关键部分是,AARO 调查人员已被授予对所有相关敏感美国政府项目的完全访问权。
• 当工业伙伴被指名时,AARO 访谈了高级别、获得适当许可的高管、部门负责人、高级科学家和工程师。
调查结果
一个私人项目被误认为美国政府项目
AARO 判定,以下据称的美国政府项目名称被受访者不准确地描绘:
• 卫星集成训练虚拟研究所(Virtual Institute for Satellite Integration Training)——这不是一个美国政府资助和支持的努力。它是由一个私人 UAP 组织运营的项目,有一名 NASA 工程师作为参与者。NASA 核实它没有资助该项目。¹¹³
KONA BLUE:一个拟议的 UAP 回收与逆向工程项目
KONA BLUE 由声称它是一个 DHS 敏感分隔项目、用以掩盖“非人类生物制品”回收与利用的受访者提请 AARO 注意。¹¹⁴ KONA BLUE 的起源可追溯至 DIA 管理的 AAWSAP/AATIP 项目,该项目通过一项特别拨款资助,并由其主要承包商——一家私营部门组织——执行。DIA 于2012年因缺乏价值和交付物的效用而取消了该项目。如本报告第四节所讨论,虽然 AAWSAP/AATIP 的官方目的是对12个前沿科学领域开展研究,但承包商团队,以及至少一名支持性的政府项目经理,还在该私营部门组织拥有的一处房产上开展了 UAP 和超自然研究。
当 DIA 取消该项目时,其支持者向 DHS 提议,由他们在一个 SAP 之下创建并资助 AAWSAP/AATIP 的新版本。¹¹⁵ 这一代号为 KONA BLUE 的提议将重启 UAP 调查、超自然研究(包括据称的“人类意识异常”),并逆向工程他们希望获取的任何回收的外星飞行器。这一提议在 DHS 获得了一些初步进展,以至于一个
— p. 35 — 35
Prospective Special Access Program (PSAP) was officially requested to stand up this program,
but it was eventually rejected by DHS leadership for lacking merit. As demonstrated by the
proposal package and by statements from the originator, Senators Lieberman and Reid asked that
the PSAP be established with the promise of additional funding.116 The proposed KONA BLUE
lines of effort closely mirrored those conducted by the private sector organization for
AAWSAP/AATIP.
KONA BLUE’s advocates were convinced that the USG was hiding UAP technologies.
They believed that creating this program under DHS would allow all of the technology and
knowledge of these alleged programs to be moved under the KONA BLUE program. The
program would provide a security and governing structure where it could be monitored properly
by congressional oversight committees. This belief was foundational for the KONA BLUE
proposal, based on the proposal documents and several interviewees who have provided the same
information to AARO and Congress.117 The Oral History Initiative section of the KONA BLUE
proposal was to collect data:
“…from an already identified and calibrated list of retired, previously highly placed
government, armed services, contractor and intelligence community individuals. The oral
history project will include gathering all information pertaining to the location of
advanced aerospace technology and biological samples, including records, files, reports,
photographs, as well as physical samples.”118
It is critical to note that no extraterrestrial craft or bodies were ever collected—this
material was only assumed to exist by KONA BLUE advocates and its anticipated contract
performers. This was the same assumption made by those same individuals involved with the
AAWSAP/AATIP program. The SAP was never approved or stood up, and no data or material
was transferred to DHS.119
• KONA BLUE was not reported to Congress at that time because it was never
established as a SAP and, therefore, did not meet the threshold for congressional
reporting. However, the Deputy Secretary of Defense provided a Congressional
Notification concerning the program when it was identified in the spirit of
transparency.
Unnecessary IC Program Expansion
AARO confirmed the existence of one IC CAP that was unnecessarily expanded in 2021
to include a UAP reverse-engineering mission. This program was expanded despite the lack of
any evidence or mission need to justify the expansion. The appropriate congressional
committees were notified. This program never recovered or reverse-engineered any technology,
let alone off-world spacecraft. This CAP was disestablished due to its inactivity, absence of
mission need, and lack of merit.
Nexus of Proponents of the USG UAP Reverse-Engineering Allegation
AARO found no empirical evidence that any UAP investigatory effort since 1945—
foreign, domestic, government, private, or academic—has ever uncovered verifiable information
— 第 35 页 — “预期特殊访问项目”(PSAP)被正式请求以启动这一项目,但它最终被 DHS 领导层以缺乏价值为由驳回。如提议文件包和发起者的陈述所表明的,Lieberman 和 Reid 参议员要求设立该 PSAP,并承诺提供额外资金。¹¹⁶ 拟议的 KONA BLUE 工作线与该私营部门组织为 AAWSAP/AATIP 开展的工作线高度相似。
KONA BLUE 的倡导者确信美国政府正在隐藏 UAP 技术。他们相信,在 DHS 之下创建这一项目将允许所有这些据称项目的技术和知识被移至 KONA BLUE 项目之下。该项目将提供一个安全和治理结构,使其能被国会监督委员会适当监督。基于提议文件和若干向 AARO 和国会提供了相同信息的受访者,这一信念是 KONA BLUE 提议的基础。¹¹⁷ KONA BLUE 提议的口述历史倡议部分旨在收集数据:
“……来自一份已识别和校准的、由退休的、此前身居高位的政府、武装部队、承包商和情报界个人组成的名单。该口述历史项目将包括收集所有与先进航空航天技术和生物样本位置相关的信息,包括记录、文件、报告、照片,以及实物样本。”¹¹⁸
至关重要的是要注意,从未收集到任何外星飞行器或尸体——这一材料仅被 KONA BLUE 倡导者及其预期合同执行者假定为存在。这与那些参与 AAWSAP/AATIP 项目的同一批个人所作的假设相同。该 SAP 从未获批或启动,也没有数据或材料被转移给 DHS。¹¹⁹
• KONA BLUE 当时未向国会报告,因为它从未被确立为 SAP,因此未达到国会报告的门槛。然而,当该项目被识别时,国防部副部长本着透明的精神就该项目提供了一份国会通知。
不必要的 IC 项目扩展
AARO 确认了一个 IC CAP 的存在,它于2021年被不必要地扩展以包括一项 UAP 逆向工程使命。尽管缺乏任何证据或使命需要来证明这一扩展的正当性,该项目仍被扩展。相关国会委员会得到了通知。该项目从未回收或逆向工程任何技术,更不用说外星飞行器。这个 CAP 因其不活跃、缺乏使命需要和缺乏价值而被撤销。
美国政府 UAP 逆向工程指控倡导者的关联网络
AARO 未发现任何经验证据表明,自1945年以来任何 UAP 调查努力——外国、国内、政府、私人或学术——曾发现关于回收或存在外星生命或飞行器的可核实信息。尽管 AARO 继续开展访谈、研究项目并追查调查线索,但 AARO 的工作已利用这些说法中作出的可核实信息
— p. 36 — 36
regarding the recovery or existence of extraterrestrial beings or crafts. Although AARO
continues to conduct interviews, research programs, and pursue investigatory leads, AARO’s
work has resulted in disproving the majority of these claims using the verifiable information
made within those claims.
AARO researched and interviewed numerous people, programs, and leads. It has
determined that modern allegations that the USG is hiding off-world technology and beings
largely originate from the same group of individuals who have ties to the cancelled
AAWSAP/AATIP program and a private sector organization’s paranormal research efforts.
These individuals have worked with each other consistently in various UAP-related efforts.
• Persons 1-5 and Interviewees 1, 3, 9, 12, 13, and 14 have repeatedly voiced these
claims in various public and private venues, and they have petitioned Congress in
various capacities on UAP issues. They have not provided any empirical evidence of
their claims to AARO. 120
• Persons 1 and 3 and Interviewees 1, 3, and 12 were involved with the paranormal
research conducted under AAWSAP/AATIP. 121
• Person 5 and Interviewees 3, 9 and 14 were involved with the alleged crashed UAP
materials that were provided to the U.S. Army and subsequently to AARO for
examination.122
• Persons 4, 7, and 8 and Interviewees 1, 3, and 13 investigated UAP on their own and
were responsible for successfully expanding the remit of an existing IC program to
include UAP exploitation language.123
• AARO notes that Persons 1 and 4 never formally sat down with AARO to provide
official, signed statements; these individuals have been mentioned by other
interviewees frequently as sources of their claims. Person 8 held an informal
interview and Interviewee 14 sat for an official interview but has not signed the
memo for the record documenting this interview.
SECTION VII: Historical Context of UAP Investigatory Efforts Since 1945
Summary
AARO assesses that the incidents of UAP sightings reported to USG organizations, the
claims that some constitute extraterrestrial craft, and the claims that the USG has secured and
is experimenting on alien technology, most likely are the result of a range of cultural,
political, and technological factors. AARO bases this conclusion on the aggregate findings of
all USG investigations to date, the misinterpretation of all reported named sensitive programs,
the lack of empirical evidence to support the USG reverse-engineering narrative, and AARO’s
assessment that the piece of metal alleged to be recovered from an alien spacecraft in the late
1940s is ordinary, of terrestrial origin, and possesses no exceptional qualities.
• Although many cases remain unsolved—primarily because of the lack of actionable
and researchable data—AARO and its predecessor organizations concluded that the
— 第 36 页 — 驳斥了大多数此类说法。
AARO 研究并访谈了众多人物、项目和线索。它判定,关于美国政府正隐藏外星技术和生命的现代指控,在很大程度上源自同一群个人,他们与被取消的 AAWSAP/AATIP 项目以及一家私营部门组织的超自然研究努力有关联。这些个人在各种 UAP 相关努力中一贯地相互合作。
• 人物1-5和受访者1、3、9、12、13、14在各种公开和私下场合反复表达这些说法,并以各种身份就 UAP 问题向国会请愿。他们未向 AARO 提供其说法的任何经验证据。¹²⁰
• 人物1和3以及受访者1、3、12参与了 AAWSAP/AATIP 之下开展的超自然研究。¹²¹
• 人物5以及受访者3、9、14参与了提供给美国陆军、随后提供给 AARO 检视的据称坠毁 UAP 材料。¹²²
• 人物4、7、8以及受访者1、3、13自行调查 UAP,并负责成功扩展一个现有 IC 项目的职权范围以包括 UAP 利用措辞。¹²³
• AARO 指出,人物1和4从未正式坐下来向 AARO 提供官方签署的陈述;这些个人被其他受访者频繁提及为其说法的来源。人物8进行了一次非正式访谈,受访者14接受了一次官方访谈,但尚未签署记录这次访谈的备忘录。
第七节:1945年以来 UAP 调查努力的历史背景
摘要
AARO 评估认为,向美国政府组织报告的 UAP 目击事件、关于其中一些构成外星飞行器的说法,以及关于美国政府已获取并正在对外星技术进行实验的说法,很可能是一系列文化、政治和技术因素的结果。AARO 基于迄今为止所有美国政府调查的综合发现、对所有报告的具名敏感项目的误解、缺乏经验证据支持美国政府逆向工程叙事,以及 AARO 关于据称1940年代末从外星飞行器回收的金属块是普通的、地球起源的、不具备任何非凡品质的评估,得出这一结论。
• 尽管许多案例仍未解决——主要因为缺乏可操作和可研究的数据——但 AARO 及其前身组织得出结论,
— p. 37 — 37
vast majority of cases report on events that amount to ordinary objects, atmospheric
and natural phenomena, and observer misidentification.
• Although many UAP/UFO cases remain unsolved, based on the lack of evidence of
the extraterrestrial origin of even one UAP report and the assessment that all resolved
cases to date have ordinary explanations, AARO assess sightings and claims of
extraterrestrial visitations have been influenced by a range of factors.
Commonalities of 20th and 21st Century UAP Investigations
International Security Environment and Technological Surprise
In both periods, changes in the international order brought uncertainty. Concern about
the Soviet Union’s desire for regional hegemony and military and political superiority
contributed to U.S. involvement with conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, and elsewhere, sparked a
boom in U.S. technological innovation, and led to widespread fear within society about Soviet
capabilities and intentions.
One primary means of competing with the Soviet Union was to collect intelligence on
Soviet leadership intentions and military capabilities. The means by which the U.S.
accomplished this goal was to develop a range of air- and space-based reconnaissance systems to
collect an array of intelligence on the Soviet Union—especially over its territory. During some
early UFO investigation efforts, it was deemed essential to determine if UFOs were Soviet
“secret weapons” or psychological warfare operations aimed at causing public fear and
generating hysteria to undermine U.S. societal morale.
Today’s global security environment is similarly dynamic. Both the Russian Federation
and the PRC seek to alter the international system at the expense of the security of the United
States. AARO recognizes that concern with competitor technological surprise is still a real and
legitimate driver of UAP investigations today. It is imperative to determine whether or not these
sightings represent a risk to flight safety, and whether these sightings represent technological
advances that could pose counterintelligence and national security threats.
Secrecy
The USG’s need to maintain secrecy to protect classified information about intelligence
sources and methods, military operations and technology, and U.S. vulnerabilities is also a
shared context among all UAP investigations. While secrecy is essential to protect U.S. national
security interests, it can reduce the public’s trust in government. With a gap in information about
UFO/UAP investigations, other information sources and narratives, including private UFO
investigative organizations and “UFOlogy” emerged to fill that gap. AARO assesses that the
classification of prior USG investigations have fueled speculation that the government was
hiding knowledge of extraterrestrials, when, in fact, secrecy was and still is intended to
deliberately and thoughtfully protect sensitive military and intelligence community programs,
capabilities, sources, and methods.
— 第 37 页 — 绝大多数案例报告的事件归结为普通物体、大气和自然现象,以及观察者误识别。
• 尽管许多 UAP/UFO 案例仍未解决,但基于哪怕一份 UAP 报告都缺乏地外起源证据,以及迄今为止所有已解决案例都有普通解释的评估,AARO 评估认为,目击和地外造访的说法受到一系列因素的影响。
20世纪与21世纪 UAP 调查的共同点
国际安全环境与技术突袭
在两个时期,国际秩序的变化都带来了不确定性。对苏联追求地区霸权及军事和政治优势的担忧,促成了美国卷入朝鲜、越南及其他地区的冲突,引发了美国技术创新的繁荣,并导致社会内部对苏联能力和意图的广泛恐惧。
与苏联竞争的一个主要手段是收集关于苏联领导层意图和军事能力的情报。美国实现这一目标的手段是开发一系列空基和天基侦察系统,以收集关于苏联——尤其是其领土上空——的各类情报。在一些早期 UFO 调查努力中,确定 UFO 是否是苏联“秘密武器”或旨在制造公众恐惧、产生歇斯底里以削弱美国社会士气的心理战行动,被认为至关重要。
今天的全球安全环境同样充满活力。俄罗斯联邦和 PRC 都寻求以损害美国安全为代价改变国际体系。AARO 认识到,对竞争对手技术突袭的担忧今天仍是 UAP 调查的一个真实而正当的驱动因素。确定这些目击是否代表对飞行安全的风险,以及这些目击是否代表可能构成反情报和国家安全威胁的技术进步,是当务之急。
保密
美国政府需要维持保密以保护关于情报来源和方法、军事行动和技术,以及美国脆弱性的保密信息,这也是所有 UAP 调查的共同背景。虽然保密对保护美国国家安全利益至关重要,但它可能降低公众对政府的信任。由于关于 UFO/UAP 调查的信息存在空白,其他信息来源和叙事(包括私人 UFO 调查组织和“UFO 学”)应运而生以填补这一空白。AARO 评估认为,先前美国政府调查的保密助长了“政府正在隐藏外星人知识”的猜测,而事实上,保密过去是、现在仍是为了刻意而审慎地保护敏感的军事和情报界项目、能力、来源和方法。
— p. 38 — 38
Public Interest
Segments of the American public have been interested in this topic since the term “flying
saucer” emerged after Arnold’s sighting in 1947, as evidenced by the proliferation of television,
books, movies, and podcasts today on the topic. The subject is deeply rooted in popular culture
with its own themes, mythologies, and conspiracy theories. Capt Ruppelt, who was involved
with three UFO investigations efforts, including being the initial leader of Project BLUE BOOK,
noted that there would be spikes in reported sightings after official press events mentioning
UFOs; suggesting that reports of sightings can influence the incidence of additional reported
sightings.124
Alleged Bureaucratic Barriers
Alleged bureaucratic barriers including indifference, cognitive dissonance, lack of
support or resources, and deliberate obstruction are also similarities. Some members of
investigatory panels have claimed official obstruction, ranging from lack of access to senior
decision-makers to insufficient staff and resources.
Insufficient Data and Information
Previous and current investigations have been challenged by insufficient data and
information for intelligence and scientific analysis to resolve anomalous incidents. Insufficient
data and information was compounded by inconsistent reporting and lack of continuity among
investigations and investigative practices. Capt Ruppelt, the first director of Project BLUE
BOOK, noted that the inability to collect the UFO’s altitude, size, and speed was a recurring and
significant obstacle to resolving cases.125 A similar challenge remains today, even with the
advancement in technology. Most UAP sightings have no data associated with them beyond an
often vague narrative account; and when there is hard data, it is often incomplete or of poor
quality. In terms of military reporting, the sensors on which UAP most frequently are captured
are calibrated and optimized for combat. UAP are not routinely captured by exquisite, high-
definition, multi-capability, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance collection platforms—
a threshold which is often required to successfully resolve a case.
Perceived Deception
There is a conviction among some Americans that the USG has conducted a deception
operation to conceal the fact that it has recovered extraterrestrial spacecraft and alien beings as
well as systematically exploited and reverse-engineered extraterrestrial technology.126 This
perception probably has been fueled by key UFO investigators’ public comments. For example,
J. Allen Hynek of Project BLUE BOOK, said that the USAF expected him to perform the role of
debunker; and Capt Ruppelt, the first chief of BLUE BOOK, later wrote that he was expected to
explain away every report and that the USAF sought to produce press stories in alignment with
the USAF’s position.127
— 第 38 页 — 公众兴趣
自1947年 Arnold 的目击后“飞碟”一词出现以来,部分美国公众一直对这一主题感兴趣,今天关于该主题的电视、书籍、电影和播客的激增即为明证。这一主题深深植根于流行文化,有其自己的主题、神话和阴谋论。参与了三项 UFO 调查努力(包括担任 Project BLUE BOOK 初任领导)的 Ruppelt 上尉指出,在提及 UFO 的官方新闻事件之后,报告的目击会激增;这表明目击报告可影响额外报告目击的发生率。¹²⁴
所谓的官僚障碍
所谓的官僚障碍(包括冷漠、认知失调、缺乏支持或资源,以及蓄意阻挠)也是相似之处。一些调查小组成员声称遭到官方阻挠,从无法接触高级决策者到人员和资源不足。
数据和信息不足
以往和当前的调查都受到数据和信息不足的挑战,无法为情报和科学分析提供足以解决异常事件的依据。数据和信息不足又因调查及调查实践之间报告不一致和缺乏连续性而加剧。Project BLUE BOOK 首任主任 Ruppelt 上尉指出,无法收集 UFO 的高度、大小和速度是解决案例的一个反复出现的重大障碍。¹²⁵ 即使技术有所进步,类似的挑战今天依然存在。大多数 UAP 目击除了往往含糊的叙述外没有相关数据;而当有确凿数据时,它往往不完整或质量差。就军事报告而言,最常捕获 UAP 的传感器是为作战而校准和优化的。UAP 通常不会被精密、高清、多能力的情报、监视和侦察收集平台捕获——而这往往是成功解决案例所需的门槛。
所感知的欺骗
一些美国人坚信,美国政府开展了一项欺骗行动,以掩盖它已回收外星飞行器和外星生命、并系统地利用和逆向工程外星技术的事实。¹²⁶ 这一认知很可能被关键 UFO 调查者的公开评论所助长。例如,Project BLUE BOOK 的 J. Allen Hynek 说,美国空军期望他扮演揭穿者的角色;而 BLUE BOOK 首任负责人 Ruppelt 上尉后来写道,他被期望解释掉每一份报告,且美国空军寻求制作与美国空军立场一致的新闻报道。¹²⁷
— p. 39 — 39
Differences between 20th and 21st Century UAP Investigations
Decreased Public Trust
Polling data on public trust reflects Americans’ changing views over time. According to
the Pew Research Center, polling on this topic began in 1958, when about 75 percent of
Americans trusted the USG “to do the right thing almost always or most of the time.” Since
2007, however, that figure has not risen above 30 percent. This lack of trust probably has
contributed to the belief held by some subset of the U.S. population that the USG has not been
truthful regarding knowledge of extraterrestrial craft.128
Popular Culture
Though there were waves of public interest in UAP in popular culture during the Cold
War, especially during the 1950s, AARO assesses that UAP content in popular culture is more
pervasive now than ever. The speed of discovery, and the ubiquity of information available
through the internet on the topic is unprecedented. Frequent exposure to the topic though
traditional and social media has increased the number of Americans who believe that UAP are of
extraterrestrial origin, based on a 2021 Gallup poll.129
Aside from hoaxes and forgeries, misinformation and disinformation is more prevalent
and easier to disseminate now than ever before, especially with today’s advanced photo, video,
and computer generated imagery tools. Internet search and content recommendation algorithms
serve to reinforce individuals’ preconceptions and confirmation biases just as much as to help
educate and inform.
SECTION VIII: Testing and Development of U.S. National Security and Space Programs
Most Likely Accounted for Some Portion of UAP Sightings
Summary
We assess that the majority of UAP sightings in the earlier decades of UAP investigations
were the result of misidentification of ordinary phenomena and objects, based on AARO’s
findings of its own cases to date and the findings of all past investigatory efforts. However, we
assess that some portion of these misidentifications almost certainly were a result of the surge in
new technologies that observers would have understandably reported as UFOs.
Along with these systems, a broad and varying technology industry emerged along with a
network of highly secretive national laboratories across the United States to support these efforts.
AARO’s review of Project BLUE BOOK cases shows a spike in reported UAP sightings from
1952-1957 and another spike in 1960.130 These reporting spikes most likely are attributed to
observers unknowingly having witnessed new technological advancements and testing and
reporting them as UFOs. The below examples represent formerly classified and sensitive
programs that involved thousands of test flights, rocket launches, and extensive experimentation
which AARO assess most likely were the cause of many UAP reports. AARO assesses that this
common and understandable occurrence—the misidentification of new technologies for UAP—
— 第 39 页 — 20世纪与21世纪 UAP 调查的差异
公众信任下降
关于公众信任的民调数据反映了美国人随时间变化的观点。据皮尤研究中心,关于这一主题的民调始于1958年,当时约75%的美国人信任美国政府“几乎总是或大多数时候做正确的事”。然而,自2007年以来,这一数字未曾超过30%。这种信任的缺乏很可能助长了美国一部分人群所持的信念,即美国政府在关于外星飞行器知识方面一直不诚实。¹²⁸
流行文化
尽管冷战期间(尤其是1950年代)流行文化中曾有过几波对 UAP 的公众兴趣,但 AARO 评估认为,流行文化中的 UAP 内容现在比以往任何时候都更为普遍。关于这一主题的发现速度和通过互联网可获信息的无处不在是前所未有的。基于2021年盖洛普民调,通过传统和社交媒体频繁接触这一主题,增加了相信 UAP 具有地外起源的美国人数量。¹²⁹
除骗局和伪造外,错误信息和虚假信息现在比以往任何时候都更普遍、更易传播,尤其是借助当今先进的照片、视频和计算机生成图像工具。互联网搜索和内容推荐算法在帮助教育和告知的同时,也在强化个人的先入之见和确认偏差。
第八节:美国国家安全与太空项目的测试与研发很可能解释了部分 UAP 目击
摘要
基于 AARO 迄今对自身案例的发现以及所有过去调查努力的发现,我们评估认为,UAP 调查较早几十年中的大多数 UAP 目击是对普通现象和物体误识别的结果。然而,我们评估认为,这些误识别中的一部分几乎肯定是新技术激增的结果,观察者可以理解地会将其报告为 UFO。
伴随这些系统,一个广泛而多样的技术产业以及遍布全美的高度保密国家实验室网络应运而生以支持这些努力。AARO 对 Project BLUE BOOK 案例的审查显示,1952-1957年报告的 UAP 目击有一次激增,1960年又有一次激增。¹³⁰ 这些报告激增很可能归因于观察者在不知情的情况下目睹了新的技术进步和测试,并将它们报告为 UFO。下面的例子代表了涉及数千次试飞、火箭发射和广泛实验的以往保密和敏感项目,AARO 评估认为它们很可能是许多 UAP 报告的成因。AARO 评估认为,这种常见且可以理解的现象——将新技术误识别为 UAP——
— p. 40 — 40
is present today, such as in cases where rocket exhaust plumes, micro-satellite trains, and UAS
systems with odd morphologies are reported as UAP.
The below examples represent a sample of the unclassified and declassified authentic
national security programs that AARO assesses probably were associated with erroneous UAP
reporting:
Manhattan Project (August 1942)
The U.S. effort to build an atomic bomb, the Manhattan Project, was named after the
location of its initial offices in what became known as the Manhattan Engineer District at 270
Broadway, Manhattan, New York City. General Leslie R. Groves, head of the project, followed
the custom of naming the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ districts after the city in which they
were located.131 The secrecy surrounding the Manhattan Project and the establishment of several
other national laboratories, such as Los Alamos National Laboratories, Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and
Oak Ridge National Laboratory to support this effort probably contributed to the spike in
reported UAP.132
V-173/XF5U-1 “Flying Pancake” (1942)
The V-173 aircraft flew for the first time on November 23, 1942.133 It was believed that
maintaining a uniform airflow over the wingspan—or “pancake” fuselage—would allow the
aircraft to take off and land at exceptionally low speeds without sacrificing high-speed
performance qualities that appealed to the USN for its fighter aircraft.134 The V-173 could take
off vertically, had a circular wing 23.3 feet in diameter, and could almost hover. The XF5U-1’s
design was largely similar to the V-173. However, the USN cancelled the project in 1948 in
favor of a switch to turbojet engines.135
Project Mogul (1947-1949)
The U.S. Army Air Force Air Materiel Command operated Project Mogul between 1947
and 1949. The aim of this program was to secure intelligence on Soviet nuclear weapons testing
and to provide an early warning mechanism for Soviet ballistic missiles. Specifically, Project
Mogul scientists worked on developing high-altitude balloons that would carry sensors capable
of detecting long-range sound waves from weapons tests or missiles traveling through the
atmosphere. A crashed balloon associated with Project Mogul outside of Roswell, New Mexico,
is assessed to be the source of early UFO claims.136
Project High Dive (1950s)
Project High Dive was a program that conducted tests on large balloons and used test
dummies in its experimentation. The goal of this program was to research the effects on pilots
when they ejected from aircraft, especially pilots’ tolerance to deceleration from wind drag.137
— 第 40 页 — 今天依然存在,例如在火箭尾焰、微型卫星列车,以及形态奇特的 UAS 系统被报告为 UAP 的案例中。
下面的例子代表了 AARO 评估很可能与错误 UAP 报告相关联的非保密和已解密真实国家安全项目的一个样本:
曼哈顿计划(1942年8月)
美国建造原子弹的努力——曼哈顿计划——以其初始办公室所在地命名,该地后来被称为位于纽约市曼哈顿 270 Broadway 的曼哈顿工兵区。项目负责人 Leslie R. Groves 将军遵循以所在城市命名美国陆军工兵团各区的惯例。¹³¹ 围绕曼哈顿计划的保密,以及为支持这一努力而设立的若干其他国家实验室(如 Los Alamos 国家实验室、Lawrence Livermore 国家实验室、Sandia 国家实验室、Pacific Northwest 国家实验室和 Oak Ridge 国家实验室),很可能助长了报告 UAP 的激增。¹³²
V-173/XF5U-1“飞行薄饼”(1942)
V-173 飞机于1942年11月23日首飞。¹³³ 人们相信,在翼展(或“薄饼”机身)上维持均匀气流将使该飞机能以极低速度起降,而不牺牲吸引美国海军用于其战斗机的高速性能品质。¹³⁴ V-173 可垂直起飞,有一个直径23.3英尺的圆形机翼,几乎能悬停。XF5U-1 的设计与 V-173 基本相似。然而,美国海军于1948年取消了该项目,转而改用涡轮喷气发动机。¹³⁵
Project Mogul(1947-1949)
美国陆军航空队航空器材司令部在1947年至1949年间运营 Project Mogul。该项目的目的是获取关于苏联核武器测试的情报,并为苏联弹道导弹提供预警机制。具体而言,Project Mogul 科学家致力于开发能搭载传感器、能探测武器测试或穿过大气层的导弹的远程声波的高空气球。一架与 Project Mogul 相关、在新墨西哥州 Roswell 外坠毁的气球,被评估为早期 UFO 说法的来源。¹³⁶
Project High Dive(1950年代)
Project High Dive 是一个对大型气球进行测试并在其实验中使用测试假人的项目。该项目的目标是研究飞行员从飞机弹射时所受的影响,尤其是飞行员对风阻减速的耐受度。¹³⁷
— p. 41 — 41
Project Aquatone/Dragon Lady (1954)
President Eisenhower authorized Project Aquatone to develop the U-2 Dragon Lady, a
high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft to collect intelligence on Soviet nuclear deployments. More
than half of the UFO reports investigated in the 1950s and 1960s were assessed to be U.S.
reconnaissance flights, according to a declassified CIA assessment on reconnaissance aircraft.138
The report noted that UFO reports would spike when the U-2 was in flight, especially from
airline pilots to Air Traffic Control. At that time, commercial flights typically flew below 20,000
feet while the U-2 flew at 60,000 feet. The report noted that when commercial pilots were flying
east to west, with the sun below the horizon, the sunlight would illuminate the U-2.139
WS-117L/CORONA (Late 1956)
In 1956, the USAF initiated the WS-117L satellite reconnaissance program equipped
with a film-return vehicle. Following the launch of Sputnik, the Eisenhower Administration
made this program a high-priority. In February 1958, President Eisenhower decided the CIA
would have the lead role in the program, called “CORONA,” and that it would be jointly
managed alongside the USAF. The CORONA program performed 140 launches between 1959
and 1972, with many returning film from space to the Earth for recovery.140
VZ-9AV Avrocar/Project Silver Bug (1958)
Canada initially led an effort to develop a supersonic, vertical takeoff and landing fighter-
bomber in the early 1950s. A.V. Roe (Avro) Aircraft Limited (later Avro Canada) led the design
for the concept, and this effort yielded the Avrocar, an aircraft with a circular shape that gave it a
stereotypical “flying saucer” appearance.141 Canada pulled its support when the project became
too expensive. The U.S. Army and U.S. USAF took over the project in 1958 when Avro offered
it to the USG, when it became known as “Project Silver Bug.”142 143 Avro built two test vehicles
that were designated as the VZ-9AV Avrocar, but the project was cancelled in December 1961
when the vehicle could not lift more than a few feet off the ground.144 Project Silver Bug was
declassified in 1997.145
Explorer 1 (January 1958)
The United States launched its first satellite, Explorer 1, into space on January 31, 1958.
Explorer 1 carried a cosmic ray detector and was designed, built, and operated by the NASA Jet
Propulsion Laboratory.146
Oxcart/A-12/SR-71 (1958)
President Eisenhower approved this CIA-led program to develop a successor to the U-2
spy plane in 1958, which became fully operational in 1965.147 The U-2’s successor, the A-12
OXCART sustained a speed of Mach 3.2 at 90,000 feet altitude.148 By the time the A-12 was
deployed by the CIA in 1967, CORONA satellites were being used to collect imagery of denied
areas with less provocation than aircraft overflights.149 In 1968, President Johnson ordered the
retirement of the A-12 when it was replaced by the SR-71, which itself was a modified version of
the A-12.150
— 第 41 页 — Project Aquatone/Dragon Lady(1954)
艾森豪威尔总统授权 Project Aquatone 开发 U-2 Dragon Lady,一种用于收集苏联核部署情报的高空侦察机。据一份解密的 CIA 关于侦察机的评估,1950年代和1960年代调查的 UFO 报告中超过一半被评估为美国侦察飞行。¹³⁸ 报告指出,当 U-2 在飞行时,UFO 报告会激增,尤其是来自航空公司飞行员向空中交通管制的报告。当时,商业航班通常在20,000英尺以下飞行,而 U-2 在60,000英尺飞行。报告指出,当商业飞行员由东向西飞行、太阳在地平线以下时,阳光会照亮 U-2。¹³⁹
WS-117L/CORONA(1956末)
1956年,美国空军启动了配备胶片返回飞行器的 WS-117L 卫星侦察项目。在斯普特尼克发射后,艾森豪威尔政府将这一项目列为高优先级。1958年2月,艾森豪威尔总统决定 CIA 将在这个名为“CORONA”的项目中担任主导角色,并将与美国空军共同管理。CORONA 项目在1959年至1972年间进行了140次发射,许多次将胶片从太空返回地球以供回收。¹⁴⁰
VZ-9AV Avrocar/Project Silver Bug(1958)
加拿大在1950年代初最初领导了一项开发超音速垂直起降战斗轰炸机的努力。A.V. Roe(Avro)Aircraft Limited(后为 Avro Canada)主导了这一概念的设计,这一努力产出了 Avrocar,一架圆形外形、使其具有典型“飞碟”外观的飞机。¹⁴¹ 当该项目变得过于昂贵时,加拿大撤回了支持。当 Avro 于1958年将其提供给美国政府时,美国陆军和美国空军接管了该项目,此时它被称为“Project Silver Bug”。¹⁴²¹⁴³ Avro 建造了两架被指定为 VZ-9AV Avrocar 的测试飞行器,但当该飞行器无法离地数英尺以上时,该项目于1961年12月被取消。¹⁴⁴ Project Silver Bug 于1997年解密。¹⁴⁵
Explorer 1(1958年1月)
美国于1958年1月31日将其第一颗卫星 Explorer 1 发射入太空。Explorer 1 搭载了一个宇宙射线探测器,由 NASA 喷气推进实验室设计、建造和运营。¹⁴⁶
Oxcart/A-12/SR-71(1958)
艾森豪威尔总统于1958年批准了这一由 CIA 领导的、开发 U-2 间谍机继任者的项目,该项目于1965年全面投入运行。¹⁴⁷ U-2 的继任者 A-12 OXCART 在90,000英尺高度持续保持3.2马赫的速度。¹⁴⁸ 到 A-12 于1967年被 CIA 部署时,CORONA 卫星已被用于以比飞机过飞更少的挑衅性来收集禁区图像。¹⁴⁹ 1968年,约翰逊总统下令 A-12 退役,由 SR-71 取代,后者本身是 A-12 的改进版。¹⁵⁰
— p. 42 — 42
Project Mercury (1958-1963)
Project Mercury, America’s first human space program made six flights. The
objectives of the program were to orbit a manned spacecraft around Earth, investigate
humans’ ability to function in space, and recover astronauts and spacecraft safely.151
TATTLETALE/GRAB (September 1960)
The United States was the first nation to deliver a reconnaissance satellite to space. This
electronic intelligence (ELINT) satellite was developed by the Naval Research Laboratory in
early 1958 under the code name “TATTLETALE” with the mission of intercepting Soviet radar
signals.152 The program later became known as GRAB (Galactic Radiation and Background),
after public disclosure of the ELINT satellite project.153 154
Project Gemini (1961-1966)
The Gemini program was a U.S. human spaceflight program that took place between the
Mercury and Apollo programs. Similar to Project Mercury, Project Gemini spacecraft was
launched using ballistic missiles that were designed to carry nuclear payloads.155 Project Gemini
conducted 12 missions.156
Project Apollo (1961-1972)
Project Apollo was a NASA human spaceflight program conducted after Project Mercury
and Project Gemini.157 Project Apollo totaled 14 missions, 11 spaceflights, and 12 astronauts
walking on the moon.158
Poppy (1962-1977)
The successor to GRAB, Poppy was an ELINT satellite system developed by the
National Research Laboratory that operated from 1962 to 1977 to collect Soviet radar
emissions.159 A total of seven Poppy missions were launched between December 1962 and
December 1971.160 The program was declassified in 2004.161
Gambit (1963-1971)
The National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) launched its first high-resolution
photoreconnaissance satellite system in 1963, which became known by its codename, Gambit.162
Two Gambit systems were developed: Gambit 1, initially launched in 1963, and Gambit 3,
which was first launched in 1966.163 The Gambit 1 satellite’s exposed film was returned to Earth
in reentry vehicles, or “buckets,” that separated from the satellite, fell through the atmosphere
and descended by parachute until obtained by USAF aircraft at about 15,000 feet altitude.164
Gambit was declassified in 2011.
Hexagon (1971- 1986)
Similar to Gambit, Hexagon was an NRO photoreconnaissance satellite system. It was
launched in 1971 to conduct wide-area searches of denied territory.165 From 1971-1986, 19
missions collected imagery over 877 million square miles of the Earth’s surface.166 The
— 第 42 页 — Project Mercury(1958-1963)
Project Mercury,美国首个载人太空项目,进行了六次飞行。该项目的目标是使一艘载人飞船环绕地球轨道、研究人类在太空中运作的能力,并安全回收宇航员和飞船。¹⁵¹
TATTLETALE/GRAB(1960年9月)
美国是第一个将侦察卫星送入太空的国家。这颗电子情报(ELINT)卫星由海军研究实验室于1958年初以代号“TATTLETALE”开发,使命是拦截苏联雷达信号。¹⁵² 在 ELINT 卫星项目公开披露后,该项目后来被称为 GRAB(银河辐射与背景)。¹⁵³¹⁵⁴
Project Gemini(1961-1966)
Gemini 项目是介于 Mercury 和 Apollo 项目之间的美国载人航天项目。与 Project Mercury 类似,Project Gemini 飞船使用为搭载核有效载荷而设计的弹道导弹发射。¹⁵⁵ Project Gemini 进行了12次任务。¹⁵⁶
Project Apollo(1961-1972)
Project Apollo 是在 Project Mercury 和 Project Gemini 之后进行的 NASA 载人航天项目。¹⁵⁷ Project Apollo 共计14次任务、11次航天飞行,12名宇航员登上月球。¹⁵⁸
Poppy(1962-1977)
作为 GRAB 的继任者,Poppy 是由国家研究实验室开发的 ELINT 卫星系统,在1962年至1977年间运行以收集苏联雷达辐射。¹⁵⁹ 在1962年12月至1971年12月间共发射了七次 Poppy 任务。¹⁶⁰ 该项目于2004年解密。¹⁶¹
Gambit(1963-1971)
国家侦察局(NRO)于1963年发射了其首个高分辨率照相侦察卫星系统,以其代号 Gambit 为人所知。¹⁶² 开发了两个 Gambit 系统:Gambit 1,最初于1963年发射;以及 Gambit 3,于1966年首次发射。¹⁶³ Gambit 1 卫星曝光的胶片被装入再入飞行器(或“桶”)返回地球,这些飞行器与卫星分离,坠落穿过大气层,并由降落伞下降,直到由美国空军飞机在约15,000英尺高度获取。¹⁶⁴ Gambit 于2011年解密。
Hexagon(1971-1986)
与 Gambit 类似,Hexagon 是一个 NRO 照相侦察卫星系统。它于1971年发射以对禁区进行大范围搜索。¹⁶⁵ 从1971-1986年,19次任务收集了超过8.77亿平方英里地球表面的图像。¹⁶⁶
— p. 43 — 43
Hexagon system was the last satellite employing film reentry vehicles.167 Hexagon was
declassified in 2011.168
Space Transportation System/Space Shuttle (1972 - 2011)
The Space Shuttle program was NASA’s fourth human spaceflight program and was
comprised of the first reusable spacecraft to carry humans into Earth’s orbit.169 The space shuttle
fleet—Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavour—flew 135 missions, serviced
the Hubble space telescope, and helped construct the International Space Station.170 The first
shuttle launch, Columbia, was conducted on April 12, 1981.171
HAVE Blue/F-117A Nighthawk/TACIT Blue (1975)
The Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) oversaw the development of
HAVE Blue in the mid-1970s, which was the first practical, combat-stealth aircraft. HAVE Blue
completed its first test flight in 1977, and the success of this program led the USAF to later
produce the F-117A Nighthawk, as well as the TACIT Blue aircraft. The HAVE Blue, F-117A
Nighthawk, and TACIT Blue programs laid the foundations for the later development of the B-2
stealth bomber.172
Advanced Technology Bomber/B-2 Spirit (1980)
The B-2 is a USAF low-observable stealth bomber capable of delivering conventional
and nuclear payloads. It uses a combination of reduced infrared, acoustic, and electromagnetic
signatures. It was first publicly displayed on November 22, 1988 in Palmdale, California and
conducted its first flight on July 17, 1989. The first aircraft was delivered on December 17,
1993.173
Strategic Defense Initiative (March 1983)
At the initiative of President Ronald Reagan, the Strategic Defense Initiative
Organization was established in 1984 to explore a multi-layered strategic defense against
ballistic missiles; this program involved research into space-based and ground-based systems
including laser and interceptor missiles. This intensive research effort involved national
laboratories and academia. Some of the technologies researched were determined to be years
from development, and funding was reduced. The program ended in 1993 and was replaced by
the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.174
Advent of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles 1980s-Present
The research and development, flight testing, evaluation, deployment, and the operation
of drones—Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS), Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV), Remotely
Piloted Aircraft (RPA), and Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS)—almost certainly
resulted in reported sightings of UAP. Some of these systems had a “saucer” or triangle-shaped
appearance and were capable of loitering aloft.
The USG acquired and operated a number of systems for a range of missions including
intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and strike, among others. The below systems
— 第 43 页 — Hexagon 系统是最后一个采用胶片再入飞行器的卫星。¹⁶⁷ Hexagon 于2011年解密。¹⁶⁸
太空运输系统/航天飞机(1972-2011)
航天飞机项目是 NASA 的第四个载人航天项目,由首批将人类送入地球轨道的可重复使用飞船组成。¹⁶⁹ 航天飞机机队——Columbia、Challenger、Discovery、Atlantis 和 Endeavour——执行了135次任务、维修了哈勃太空望远镜,并帮助建造了国际空间站。¹⁷⁰ 首次航天飞机发射,Columbia,于1981年4月12日进行。¹⁷¹
HAVE Blue/F-117A Nighthawk/TACIT Blue(1975)
国防高级研究计划局(DARPA)在1970年代中期监督了 HAVE Blue 的开发,这是第一架实用的作战隐形飞机。HAVE Blue 于1977年完成首次试飞,这一项目的成功使美国空军后来生产了 F-117A Nighthawk,以及 TACIT Blue 飞机。HAVE Blue、F-117A Nighthawk 和 TACIT Blue 项目为后来 B-2 隐形轰炸机的开发奠定了基础。¹⁷²
先进技术轰炸机/B-2 Spirit(1980)
B-2 是美国空军一款能投送常规和核有效载荷的低可探测性隐形轰炸机。它结合使用了削减的红外、声学和电磁特征。它于1988年11月22日在加州 Palmdale 首次公开展示,并于1989年7月17日进行首飞。第一架飞机于1993年12月17日交付。¹⁷³
战略防御倡议(1983年3月)
在罗纳德·里根总统的倡议下,战略防御倡议组织于1984年设立,以探索针对弹道导弹的多层战略防御;该项目涉及对天基和地基系统(包括激光和拦截导弹)的研究。这一密集的研究努力涉及国家实验室和学术界。所研究的一些技术被判定离开发尚有数年,资金被削减。该项目于1993年结束,由弹道导弹防御组织取代。¹⁷⁴
无人航空飞行器的出现(1980年代至今)
无人机——无人航空系统(UAS)、无人航空飞行器(UAV)、遥控驾驶飞机(RPA)和遥控驾驶飞机系统(RPAS)——的研发、飞行测试、评估、部署和运行,几乎肯定导致了报告的 UAP 目击。其中一些系统具有“碟形”或三角形外观,并能在空中徘徊。
美国政府为一系列使命(包括情报、监视、侦察和打击等)获取并运营了若干系统。下面的系统
— p. 44 — 44
represent a sample of those that have been operationally deployed since the 1994 Bosnia conflict
and subsequently employed in counterterrorism operations around the world.175 Since then, their
form and use have spread to civil and commercial applications.
GNAT 750
The GNAT 750 was developed in the late 1980s by General Atomics Aeronautical
Systems, Inc. The prototype served as the basis for a more advanced design under DARPA.176
It was first used in 1994 during the Bosnia conflict where satellites were not optimized to
collect for extended times over such small areas and where the airspace was heavily defended
by capable anti-aircraft missile systems.177
Predator
The Predator system, also built by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc., was
based on the GNAT-750.178 It was initially a joint USN and U.S. Army project but
transitioned to the USAF in 1996.179 It was known as the RQ-1.180 The system possessed
synthetic aperture radar, electro-optical, and infrared sensors. 181 It was used to support United
Nations and North Atlantic Treaty Organization efforts in Bosnia and was widely used in
counterterrorism operations.182 It became a platform with a wide array of technical
capabilities that performed a variety of missions—such as close air support, combat search and
rescue, precision strike, convoy/raid over watch, target development and terminal air
guidance.183 The USAF retired the fleet in 2018.184
Reaper
General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. also built the MQ-9 Reaper—a newer,
larger version of the MQ-1 Predator UAV.185 This platform is faster, equipped with more
advanced sensors, can carry more munitions than the Predator, and can be easily tailored
with a variety of mission-specific capabilities.186 The system requires a pilot to control the
aircraft and an aircrew member to operate the sensors and weapons.187 188 It has an
operational altitude of 50,000 feet.189 The aircraft is operated out of a variety of locations
worldwide, including Creech Air Force Base (AFB) in Nevada.190
Dark Star
The RQ-3 Dark Star was a remote pilot-assisted stealth system intended to conduct
reconnaissance missions in high-threat areas. Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and DARPA developed
Dark Star in the mid-to-late 1990s.191 It never entered production, but the research conducted on
Dark Star led to subsequent advances used on other platforms. Some observers asserted that
Dark Star resembled a flying saucer with long narrow wings.192
It was designed to be fully autonomous from its launch, mission engagement, and return.
It used satellite links to transmit sensor data. The first prototype flew in 1996, but crashed a
month later on its second flight. The system completed five test flights before DoD terminated
the program in 1999 due to cost and instability problems.193
— 第 44 页 — 代表了自1994年波斯尼亚冲突以来作战部署、随后在世界各地反恐行动中使用的系统的一个样本。¹⁷⁵ 从那时起,它们的形式和用途已扩展到民用和商业应用。
GNAT 750
GNAT 750 由 General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. 在1980年代末开发。该原型成为 DARPA 之下一个更先进设计的基础。¹⁷⁶ 它于1994年波斯尼亚冲突期间首次使用,当时卫星未被优化以在如此小的区域上空长时间收集,且该空域被强大的防空导弹系统严密防御。¹⁷⁷
Predator
Predator 系统,也由 General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. 建造,基于 GNAT-750。¹⁷⁸ 它最初是美国海军和美国陆军的联合项目,但于1996年转交美国空军。¹⁷⁹ 它被称为 RQ-1。¹⁸⁰ 该系统拥有合成孔径雷达、光电和红外传感器。¹⁸¹ 它被用于支持联合国和北大西洋公约组织在波斯尼亚的努力,并在反恐行动中被广泛使用。¹⁸² 它成为一个拥有广泛技术能力的平台,执行各种任务——如近距空中支援、作战搜救、精确打击、车队/突袭监视、目标发展和末端空中引导。¹⁸³ 美国空军于2018年使该机队退役。¹⁸⁴
Reaper
General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. 还建造了 MQ-9 Reaper——MQ-1 Predator UAV 的一个更新、更大的版本。¹⁸⁵ 该平台速度更快,配备更先进的传感器,比 Predator 能携带更多弹药,并可轻松定制各种任务专用能力。¹⁸⁶ 该系统需要一名飞行员控制飞机,以及一名机组成员操作传感器和武器。¹⁸⁷¹⁸⁸ 它的作战高度为50,000英尺。¹⁸⁹ 该飞机从世界各地的多个地点运营,包括内华达州的 Creech 空军基地(AFB)。¹⁹⁰
Dark Star
RQ-3 Dark Star 是一个遥控飞行员辅助的隐形系统,旨在在高威胁区域执行侦察任务。Lockheed Martin、Boeing 和 DARPA 在1990年代中后期开发了 Dark Star。¹⁹¹ 它从未投入生产,但对 Dark Star 开展的研究带来了用于其他平台的后续进步。一些观察者断言 Dark Star 类似于一个有着长而窄机翼的飞碟。¹⁹²
它被设计为从发射、任务执行到返回完全自主。它使用卫星链路传输传感器数据。第一个原型于1996年首飞,但一个月后在其第二次飞行中坠毁。该系统完成了五次试飞,之后 DoD 因成本和不稳定问题于1999年终止了该项目。¹⁹³
— p. 45 — 45
Polecat
Lockheed Martin’s Advanced Development Program organization, also known as
“Skunk Works” developed the P-175 Polecat UAV to better understand the flight dynamics
of tailless, bat-wing- shaped, 90-foot wingspan high-altitude UAV, including the next
generation of structural composite materials and configurations.194 The Polecat made its
first flight in 2005, and Lockheed Martin disclosed its existence in the Farnborough Airshow
in 2006.195
Sentinel
The RQ-170 Sentinel is a UAV developed by Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works for
the USAF.196 It is a low observable platform with a variety of intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance payloads. The Sentinel is operated out of Creech AFB and the Tonopah Test
Range in Nevada.197
Global Hawk
Built by Northrop Grumman, the RQ-4 Global Hawk is the largest UAS in operation
by the USAF.198 It can fly at 65,000 feet more than 34 hours and is also capable of loitering
at 60,000 feet while monitoring almost 58,000 square miles.199 The aircraft is currently
fielded in three different models.200
SECTION IX: Conclusion
To date, AARO has not discovered any empirical evidence that any sighting of a UAP
represented off-world technology or the existence a classified program that had not been
properly reported to Congress. Investigative efforts determined that most sightings were the
result of misidentification of ordinary objects and phenomena. Although many UAP reports
remain unsolved, AARO assesses that if additional, quality data were available, most of these
cases also could be identified and resolved as ordinary objects or phenomena.
This report represents Volume I of AARO’s HR2. Volume II will be published in
accordance with the date established in Section 6802 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2023 (FY23) and will provide additional analysis on information not yet secured
and analyzed, interviews not yet conducted, and additional avenues of investigation not yet
completed by the date of the publication of Volume I.
— 第 45 页 — Polecat
Lockheed Martin 的先进开发项目组织(也被称为“Skunk Works”)开发了 P-175 Polecat UAV,以更好地理解无尾、蝙蝠翼形、90英尺翼展高空 UAV 的飞行动力学,包括下一代结构复合材料和构型。¹⁹⁴ Polecat 于2005年首飞,Lockheed Martin 于2006年在 Farnborough 航展上披露了其存在。¹⁹⁵
Sentinel
RQ-170 Sentinel 是由 Lockheed Martin 的 Skunk Works 为美国空军开发的 UAV。¹⁹⁶ 它是一个低可探测性平台,搭载各种情报、监视和侦察有效载荷。Sentinel 从内华达州的 Creech AFB 和 Tonopah 测试靶场运营。¹⁹⁷
Global Hawk
由 Northrop Grumman 建造,RQ-4 Global Hawk 是美国空军运营的最大 UAS。¹⁹⁸ 它能在65,000英尺飞行超过34小时,还能在60,000英尺徘徊,同时监视近58,000平方英里。¹⁹⁹ 该飞机目前以三种不同型号列装。²⁰⁰
第九节:结论
迄今为止,AARO 未发现任何经验证据表明,任何 UAP 目击代表外星技术,或存在一个未被适当报告给国会的保密项目。调查努力判定,大多数目击是对普通物体和现象误识别的结果。尽管许多 UAP 报告仍未解决,AARO 评估认为,如果有额外的、高质量的数据,这些案例中的大多数也可被识别并解析为普通物体或现象。
本报告是 AARO HR2 的第一卷。第二卷将依照《2023财年国家国防授权法》(FY23)第6802节所确立的日期发布,并将对截至第一卷发布日期尚未获取和分析的信息、尚未进行的访谈,以及尚未完成的额外调查途径提供进一步分析。
<!-- p.46-63(尾注) -->
【尾注 1–200】本报告原文 p.46–63 为200条来源引文(学术著作、政府文件、URL 等书目条目)。依照惯例,引文保留英文原样、不作翻译;完整引文见英文 Layer 1 提取与原始 PDF。
— p. 46 — 46
1 Anjali Nandan, “Eyewitness Testimony: A Psychological and Legal Perspective,” Journal of
Positive School of Psychology, 2022; Biswa Prakesh Nayak & H. Khajuria, “Eyewitness
Testimony: Probative Value in the Criminal Justice System,” Egyptian Journal of Forensic
Science, 2019; Stephen L. Chew, “Myth: Eyewitness Testimony is the Best Kind of Evidence,”
Association for Psychological Science, 2018; Fangting Liu, “The Reliability of Eyewitness
Testimony,” from the Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Public Relations and
Social Sciences, Atlantis Press, 2021.
2 Daniel Khaneman, “Thinking Fast and Slow,” Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux, 2013; Helen Lee,
“Don’t Let Anchoring Bias Weigh Down Your Judgment,” Harvard Business Review, August
30, 2022; Richard J, Heuer, Jr., “Psychology of Intelligence Analysis,” Novinka Books, 1999;
Drake Baer, “Kahneman: Your Confirmation Bias Acts Like an Optical Illusion,” The Cut,
January 13, 2017; Ben Yagoda, “The Cognitive Bias Tricking Your Brain,” The Atlantic,
September 2018.
3 https://military-history.fandom.com/wikiProject-Sign; Connors, Wendy, Project Blue Book
4 Edward J. Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (Doubleday, 1956),
https://ia801304.us.archive.org/22/items/FritjofCapraTheTurningPoint/Edward%20J%20Ruppelt
%20-%20The%20Report%20on%20Unidentified%20Flying%20Objects.pdf
5 Gerald K. Haines, “CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90,” Studies in Intelligence,
Vol 1, No. 1, (1997), pp. 67-84.
6 Russell Lee, “1947: Year of the Flying Saucer,” June 24, 2022,
https://www.airandsapce.si.edu/stories/editorial/1947-year-flying-saucer
7 Hector Quintanilla, Jr., “The Investigation of UFOs,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 10, No. 4
(Fall 1966), pp. 95-110, https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7282832
8 Edward J. Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (Doubleday, 1956),
https://ia801304.us.archive.org/22/items/FritjofCapraTheTurningPoint/Edward%20J%20Ruppelt
%20-%20The%20Report%20on%20Unidentified%20Flying%20Objects.pdf; USAF
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/UFOsandUAPs/2d_a_
1.pdf
9 J. Marker, “Public Interest in UFOs Persists 50 Years after Project Blue Book Termination,” 2019;
Hector Quintanilla, Jr., “The Investigation of UFOs,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 10, No. 4 (Fall
1966), 95-110.
— 第 46 页 —
— p. 47 — 47
10 Hector Quintanilla, Jr., “UFOs: An Air Force Dilemma” (unpublished manuscript, 1974).
https://ia902205.us.archive.org/28/items/ufos-an-air-force-dilemma/quintanilla.pdf; Edward J.
Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (Doubleday, 1956),
https://ia801304.us.archive.org/22/items/FritjofCapraTheTurningPoint/Edward%20J%20Ruppelt
%20-%20The%20Report%20on%20Unidentified%20Flying%20Objects.pdf
11 National Archives and Records Administration,
https://www.archives.gov/news/articles/project-blue-book-50th-anniversary; Edward J. Ruppelt,
The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (Doubleday, 1956).
https://ia801304.us.archive.org/22/items/FritjofCapraTheTurningPoint/Edward%20J%20Ruppelt
%20-%20The%20Report%20on%20Unidentified%20Flying%20Objects.pdf
12 Edward J. Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (Doubleday, 1956).
https://ia801304.us.archive.org/22/items/FritjofCapraTheTurningPoint/Edward%20J%20Ruppelt
%20-%20The%20Report%20on%20Unidentified%20Flying%20Objects.pdf
13 Ibid.
14 Ibid.
15 Gerald K. Haines, “CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol 1,
No. 1, (1997), pp. 67-84; USAF
https://www.secretsdeclassified.af.mil/Portals/67/documents/AFD-110719-005.pdf?ver=2016-
07-19-142520-690; Project Grudge Report,
https://www.academia.edu/43389931/Project_GRUDGE_Report_1949USA
16 Gerald K. Haines, “CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol 1,
No. 1, (1997), pp. 67-84; Mihm, S., “US Government Has Been Dancing Around UFOs for 75
Years.” The Washington Post. 2023, https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/us-government-
has-been-dancing-around-ufos-for-75-years/2023/02/22/7ce50280-b2c4-11ed-94a0-
512954d75716_story.html
17 https://www.archives.gov/news/articles/project-blue-book-50th-anniversary
18 Edward J. Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (Doubleday, 1956).
https://ia801304.us.archive.org/22/items/FritjofCapraTheTurningPoint/Edward%20J%20Ruppelt
%20-%20The%20Report%20on%20Unidentified%20Flying%20Objects.pdf.
19 Ibid.
— 第 47 页 —
— p. 48 — 48
20 Ibid.
21 Ibid.
22 Ibid.
23 Ibid.
24 Hector Quintanilla Jr., “The Investigation of UFOs,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 10, No. 4
(Fall 1966), pp. 95-110, https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7282832; U.S. Congress, House of
Representatives; https://history.house.gov/Blog/Detail/15032395730
25 Ibid.
26 Gerald K. Haines, “CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 1,
No. 1, (1997), pp. 67-84; https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC 0000838058.pdf
27 Ibid.
28 Ibid.
29 “The Robertson Panel Report,” https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-
rdp81r00100030027-0
30 Hector Quintanilla, Jr., “The Investigation of UFOs,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 10, No. 4
(Fall 1966), pp. 95-110, https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7282832; Gerald K. Haines, “CIA's Role
in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 1, No. 1, (1997), pp. 67-84;
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000838058.pdf
31 “The Robertson Panel Report”, https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-
rdp81r00100030027-0; Gerald K. Haines, “CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90,” Studies
in Intelligence, Vol. 1, No. 1, (1997), pp. 67-84;
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000838058.pdf
32 Ibid.
33 The Durant Report, https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp81r00100030027-0;
Gerald K. Haines, “CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 1,
No. 1, (1997), pp. 67-84; https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000838058.pdf
— 第 48 页 —
— p. 49 — 49
34 Ibid.
35 National Archives and Records Administration (NARA),
https://www.archives.gov/research/military/air-force/ufos#bluebk; NARA,
https://www.archives.gov/news/articles/project-blue-book-50th-anniversary; Department of the
Air Force, Project Blue Book, (February 1, 1966); USAF,
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/UFOsandUAPs/2d_af
1.pdf; Hector Quintanilla, Jr., “The Investigation of UFOs,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 10, No.
4 (Fall1966), pp. 95-110., https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7282832; Hector Quintanilla, Jr.,
“UFOs: An Air Force Dilemma” (unpublished manuscript, 1974);
https://ia902205.us.archive.org/28/items/ufos-an-air-force-dilemma/quintanilla.pdf; Edward J.
Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (Doubleday, 1956),
https://ia801304.us.archive.org/22/items/FritjofCapraTheTurningPoint/Edward%20J%20Ruppelt
%20-%20The%20Report%20on%20Unidentified%20Flying%20Objects.pdf; Gerald K. Haines,
“CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 1, No. 1.
36 National Archives and Records Administration (NARA),
https://www.archives.gov/research/military/air-force/ufos#bluebk; NARA,
https://www.archives.gov/news/articles/project-blue-book-50th-anniversary; Department of the
Air Force, Project Blue Book, (February 1, 1966), USAF,
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/UFOsandUAPs/2d_af
1.pdf; Hector Quintanilla, Jr., “The Investigation of UFOs,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 10, No.
4 (Fall1966), pp. 95-110., https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7282832; Hector Quintanilla, Jr.,
“UFOs: An Air Force Dilemma” (unpublished manuscript, 1974);
https://ia902205.us.archive.org/28/items/ufos-an-air-force-dilemma/quintanilla.pdf.
37 Department of Defense, Press Release, 17 December 1969.
38 National Archives and Records Administration (NARA),
https://www.archives.gov/research/military/air-force/ufos#bluebk; NARA,
https://www.archives.gov/news/articles/project-blue-book-50th-anniversary.
39 National Archives and Records Administration (NARA),
https://www.archives.gov/research/military/air-force/ufos#bluebk; NARA,
https://www.archives.gov/news/articles/project-blue-book-50th-anniversary; Department of the
Air Force, Project Blue Book, (February 1, 1966), USAF,
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/UFOsandUAPs/2d_af
1.pdf; Hector Quintanilla, Jr., “The Investigation of UFOs,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 10, No.
4 (Fall1966), pp. 95-110., https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7282832; Hector Quintanilla, Jr.,
“UFOs: An Air Force Dilemma” (unpublished manuscript, 1974);
— 第 49 页 —
— p. 50 — 50
https://ia902205.us.archive.org/28/items/ufos-an-air-force-dilemma/quintanilla.pdf; Edward J.
Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (Doubleday, 1956),
https://ia801304.us.archive.org/22/items/FritjofCapraTheTurningPoint/Edward%20J%20Ruppelt
%20-%20The%20Report%20on%20Unidentified%20Flying%20Objects.pdf; Gerald K. Haines,
“CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 1, No. 1.
40 Gerald K. Haines, “CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 1,
No. 1, (1997), pp. 67-84, https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000838058.pdf
41 Ibid.
42 Ibid.
43 Ibid.
44 “The Condon Report,” https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD0680976.pdf,
https://files.ncas.org/condon; Dr. Edward U. Condon, Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying
Objects (Bantam, 1968)., University of Colorado, Boulder,
https://www.colorado.edu/coloradan/2021/11/05/condon-report-cu-boulders-historic-ufo-stu
45 Ibid.
46 Ibid.
47 Ibid.
48 Ibid.
49 Ibid.
50 The National Academy of Sciences Panel Assessment of the Condon Report;
https://www.apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADO688541.pdf
51 Ibid.
52 Richard C. Henry, “UFOs and NASA,” Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 2, No. 2,
(1988). https://henry.pha.jhu.edu/ufosNASA.pdf; The Washington Post,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1977/04/30/ufo-over-georgia-jimmy-
loggedone/080ef1c3-6ff3-41a9-a1e4-a37c54b5cbca/
— 第 50 页 —
— p. 51 — 51
53 Presidential Papers of the United States, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PPP-1995-
book2/html/PPP-1995-book2-doc-pg1813-2.htm; “Bill Clinton Phones Home on Aliens,”
Politico, Tal Kopan, April 3, 2014; The Washington Post,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/08/the-long-strange-history-of-
johnpodestas-space-alien-obsession/; New York Times,
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/11/us/politics/hillary-clinton-aliens.html
54 Government Accountability Office, https://www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-95-187.pdf
55 U.S. Air Force, The Roswell Report: Fact versus Fiction in the New Mexico Desert
(Government Printing Office, 1995), https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA326148.pdf
56 Ibid.
57 U.S. Air Force, https://www.af.mil/The-Roswell-Report; USAF, The Roswell Report: Case
Closed (Government Printing Office, 1994),
https://media.defense.gov/2010/Oct/27/2001330219/-1/-1/0/AFD-101027-030.pdf
58 Ibid.
59 U.S. Air Force, https://www.af.mil/The-Roswell-Report; USAF, The Roswell Report: Case
Closed (Government Printing Office, 1994),
https://media.defense.gov/2010/Oct/27/2001330219/-1/-1/0/AFD-101027-030.pdf; U.S. Air
Force, The Roswell Report: Fact versus Fiction in the New Mexico Desert (Government Printing
Office, 1995), https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA326148.pdf
60 Government Accountability Office, https://www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-95-187.pdf
61 Info Memo, From Former Defense Intelligence Agency Director to the Undersecretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, December 1, 2010.
62 Info Memo, From Former Defense Intelligence Agency Director to the Undersecretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, December 1, 2010.
63 Review of Report from a private sector organization 1, July 30, 2009.
64 Ibid.
— 第 51 页 —
— p. 52 — 52
65 Defense Intelligence Agency, https://www.dia.mil/FOIA/FOIA-Electronic-Reading-Room;
New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo-harry-
reid.html.
66 Memorandum, from the Under Secretary of Defense James Clapper to the Deputy Secretary of
Defense, 17 November 2009.
67 Review of Report from a private sector organization, July 30 2009.
68 Ibid.
69 Department of Defense,
https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/2314065/establishment-of-
unidentifiedaerial-phenomena-task-force/
70 AARO discussions with UAPTF leadership.
71 Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial
Phenomena, Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena
72 Department of Defense,
https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/2853121/dod-announces-
theestablishment-of-the-airborne-object-identification-and-manag/; DoD,
https://media.defense.gov/2021/Nov/23/2002898596/-1/-1/0/ESTABLISHMENT-OF-
THEAIRBORNE-OBJECT-IDENTIFICATION-AND-MANAGEMENT-
SYNCHRONIZATIONGROUP PDF
73 Ibid.
74 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, https://science.nasa.gov/uap; National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, https://science.nasa.gov/science-
red/s3fspublic/atoms/files/UAPIST%20Terms%20of%20Reference%20-%20Signed.pdf;
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-announces-
unidentified-anomalous-phenomena-study-teammembers/
75 Department of Defense,
https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3100053/dod-announces-
theestablishment-of-the-all-domain-anomaly-resolution-office/
— 第 52 页 —
— p. 53 — 53
76 Office of the Director of National Intelligence, 2022 Annual Report on Unidentified Aerial
Phenomena.
77 P.A. Sturrock, et. al., “Physical Evidence Related to UFO Reports: The Proceedings of a
Workshop Held at the Pocantico Conference Center, Tarrytown, New York, September 29 -
October 4, 1997,” Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 12, No. 2, (1998).
http://www.jse.com/ufo_reports/Sturrock/toc.html; Stanford University
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/07/980701082300.htm
78 United Kingdom National Archives. https://cdn.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/briefing-
guide-12-07-12.pdf; Gerald K. Haines, “CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90,” Studies in
Intelligence, Vol. 1, No. 1, (1997), pp. 67-84;
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000838058.pdf
79 Department of National Defense,
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21885184/documents-obtained-through-access-
toinformation-ufo-files.pdf; CTV News; https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/document-reveals-
first-known-canadian-ufo-study-in-nearly-30-years-now-underway-1.6293124
80 University of Ottawa, https://biblio.uottawa.ca/atom/index.php/project-second-story
https://biblio.uottawa.ca/atom/index.php/project-second-story-defence-research-board-
meetingminutes; Mathew Hayes, “A History of Canada’s UFO Investigation, 1950-1995,”
Dissertation Submitted to the Committee on Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Arts and Science.
81 Rod Tennyson, University of Toronto Institute for Aerophysics Studies, “1960s: Dr. Gordon
Peterson Establishes the UTIAS UFO Project; https://www.utias.utoronto.ca/2018/08/15/1960s-
dr-gordon-patterson-establishes-the-utias-ufo-project; Timothy Good, “Above Top Secret,”
William Morrow & Company, 1988; Matthew Hayes, “Then the Saucers Do Exist?”: UFOs, the
Practice of Conspiracy, and the Case of Wilbert Smith,” Journal of Canadian Studies, University
of Toronto Press, Volume 52, Number 3, Fall 2017, pp. 665-696
82 CNES, https://cnes.fr/en/web/CNES-en/5866-geipan-uap-investigation-opens-its-files.php;
https://cnes-geipan.fr.en.node/5891
83 National Archives and Records Administration,
https://www.archives.gov/news/articles/project-blue-book-50th-anniversary; Edward J. Ruppelt,
The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (Doubleday, 1956).
https://ia801304.us.archive.org/22/items/FritjofCapraTheTurningPoint/Edward%20J%20Ruppelt
%20-%20The%20Report%20on%20Unidentified%20Flying%20Objects.pdf
— 第 53 页 —
— p. 54 — 54
84 AARO case files
85 AARO case files
86 AARO case files
87 AARO case files
88 AARO case files
89 AARO case files
90 AARO case files
91 AARO case files
92 AARO case files
93 AARO case files
94 AARO case files
95 AARO case files
96 AARO case files
97 AARO case files
98 AARO case files
99 AARO case files
100 AARO case files
101 AARO case files
102 AARO case files
103 AARO case files
— 第 54 页 —
— p. 55 — 55
104 AARO case files
105 AARO case files
106 AARO case files
107 AARO case files
108 AARO case files
109 AARO case files
110 AARO case files
111 AARO case files
112 AARO case files
113 AARO case files
114 AARO case files
115 AARO case files
116 Senator Harry Reid Letter to Deputy Secretary of Defense, William Lynn III; Memorandum,
from the Under Secretary of Defense James Clapper to the Deputy Secretary of Defense, 17
November 2009; program documentation from ARRO case files
117 AARO case files
118 Program documentation, from AARO case files
119 Senator Harry Reid Letter to Deputy Secretary of Defense, William Lynn III; Memorandum,
from the Under Secretary of Defense James Clapper to the Deputy Secretary of Defense, 17
November 2009.
120 AARO case files
121 AARO case files
— 第 55 页 —
— p. 56 — 56
122 AARO case files
123 AARO case files
124 Edward J. Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (Doubleday, 1956).
https://ia801304.us.archive.org/22/items/FritjofCapraTheTurningPoint/Edward%20J%20Ruppelt
%20-%20The%20Report%20on%20Unidentified%20Flying%20Objects.pdf. Page 93.
125 Ibid, page 91.
126 J. Allen Hyneck, “The UFO Experience,” Da Capo Press, 1977; Edward J. Ruppelt, The
Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (Doubleday, 1956),
127 Ibid.
128 Pew Research Center, “Public Trust in Government: 1958-2022,” June 6, 2022.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/06/06/public-trust-in-government-1958-2022/
129 “Do Americans Believe in UFOs,” Gallup,
https://www.news/gallup/com/poll/350096/americans-beleive-ufos.aspx
130 National Archives and Records Administration,
https://www.archives.gov/research/military/air-force/ufos#bluebk; National Archives and
Records Administration, https://www.archives.gov/news/articles/project-blue-book-50th-
anniversary; National Archives and Records Administration,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlmwakUTo3M; Department of the Air Force, Project Blue
Book, (February 1, 1966), USAF,
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/UFOsandUAPs/2d_af
1.pdf; Hector Quintanilla, Jr., “The Investigation of UFOs,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 10, No.
4 (Fall1966), pp. 95-110., https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7282832; Hector Quintanilla, Jr.,
“UFOs: An Air Force Dilemma” (unpublished manuscript, 1974);
https://ia902205.us.archive.org/28/items/ufos-an-air-force-dilemma/quintanilla.pdf; Hector
Quintanilla, Jr., “UFOs: An Air Force Dilemma” (unpublished manuscript, 1974);
https://ia902205.us.archive.org/28/items/ufos-an-air-force-dilemma/quintanilla.pdf; Edward J.
Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects (Doubleday, 1956),
https://ia801304.us.archive.org/22/items/FritjofCapraTheTurningPoint/Edward%20J%20Ruppelt
%20-%20The%20Report%20on%20Unidentified%20Flying%20Objects.pdf; Gerald K. Haines,
“CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90,” Studies in Intelligence, Vol. 1, No. 1
— 第 56 页 —
— p. 57 — 57
131 Department of Energy (DoE), https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-
history/Events/1945/trinity.htm, Leslie Groves, Now It Can Be Told (Harper, 1962).
Richard Rhodes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb (Simon and Shuster, 1986), Kai Bird and
Martin J. Sherwin
132 Department of Energy (DoE)
https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Events/1945/trinity.htm; Leslie Groves,
Now It Can Be Told (Harper, 1962); Richard Rhodes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb (Simon
and Shuster, 1986).
133 Norman Polmar, “The Pancake that Didn't Fly,” Naval History Magazine, Volume 33,
Number 3, (June 2019); https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-
magazine/2019/june/pancake-didnt-fly
134 National Air and Space Museum, https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/vought-v-173-
flying-pancake/nasm A19610120000; Norman Polmar, “The Pancake that Didn't Fly,” Naval
History Magazine, Volume 33, Number 3, (June 2019); https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-
history-magazine/2019/june/pancake-didnt-fly
135 Ibid.
136 U.S. Air Force, The Roswell Report: Fact versus Fiction in the New Mexico Desert
(Government Printing Office, 1995); https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA326148.pdf; U.S. Air
Force, The Roswell Report: Case Closed (Government Printing Office, 1995),
https://media.defense.gov/2010/Oct/27/2001330219/-1/-1/0/AFD-101027-030.pdf
137 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, https://history.nasa.gov/afspbio/part4-4.htm;
U.S. Air Force, The Roswell Report: Case Closed (Government Printing Office, 1995),
https://media.defense.gov/2010/Oct/27/2001330219/-1/-1/0/AFD-101027-030.pdf; U.S. Air
Force, https://www.secretsdeclassified.af.mil/News/Photos/igphoto/2000345085/
138 Gregory W. Pedlow and Donald E. Welzenbach, The CIA and the U-2 Program, 1954-1974
(CIA Center for the Study of Intelligence, 1998), https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/books-
monographs/the-cia-and-the-u-2-program-1954-1974/; Gregory W. Pedlow and Donald E.
Welzenbach, The Central Intelligence Agency and Overhead; Reconnaissance Program, The U-
2 and Oxcart Programs 1954-1974 (CIA History Staff, 1992),
https://www.archives.gov/files/declassification/iscap/pdf/2014-004-doc01.pdf; Central
Intelligence Agency, https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-
RDP62B00844R000200070131-1.pdf; Central Intelligence Agency,
— 第 57 页 —
— p. 58 — 58
https://irp.fas.org/program/collect/u2.pdf; National Security Agency,
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB54/docs/doc_40.PDF
139 Ibid.
140 Bruce Berkowitz, A Brief History of the NRO (NRO Center for the Study of National
Reconnaissance, 2018,
https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/history/csnr/programs/NRO Brief History.pdf;
National Reconnaissance Office, https://www.nro.gov/History-and-Studies/Center-for-the-Study-
of-National-Reconnaissance/The-CORONA-Program/; Dwayne Day, et. al., eds., Eye in the Sky:
The Story of the Corona Spy Satellites (Smithsonian, 1998)
141 U.S. Air Force, https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-
Sheets/Display/Article/195801/avro-canada-vz-9av-avrocar/
142 Ibid.
143 American Heritage Center, “Flying Saucers—For Real! The Papers of Jack D. Pickett,”
https://ahcwyo.org/2022/04/04/flying-saucers-for-real-the-papers-of-jack-d-pickett/
144 U.S. Air Force, https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-
Sheets/Display/Article/195801/avro-canada-vz-9av-avrocar/
145 American Heritage Center, “Flying Saucers—For Real! The Papers of Jack D, Pickett,”
https://ahcwyo.org/2022/04/04/flying-saucers-for-real-the-papers-of-jack-d-pickett/
146 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/explorer-
1
147 National Security Archive, https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB74/
148 Central Intelligence Agency, https://www.cia.gov/legacy/museum/exhibit/a-12-oxcart/
149 Central Intelligence Agency, https://www.cia.gov/legacy/museum/exhibit/a-12-oxcart/;
National Security Agency Archive, https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB74/
150 Ibid.
151 National Air and Space Museum, https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/what-was-
mercury-program
— 第 58 页 —
— p. 59 — 59
152 Robert A. McDonald and Sharon K. Moreno, Raising the Periscope: Grab and Poppy:
America’s Early ELINT Satellites (NRO History Office, 2005).
https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/history/csnr/programs/docs/prog-hist-03.pdf
153 Robert A. McDonald and Sharon K. Moreno, Raising the Periscope: Grab and Poppy:
America’s Early ELINT Satellites (NRO History Office, 2005).
https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/history/csnr/programs/docs/prog-hist-03.pdf; U.S.
Naval Research Laboratory, https://www.nrl.navy.mil/Media/News/Article/3074375/grab-i-first-
operational-intelligence-satellite/
154 Ibid.
155 National Air and Space Museum, https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/what-was-
gemini-program
156 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, https://www.nasa.gov/gemini/; National Air
and Space Museum, https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/what-was-gemini-program
157 National Archives and Records Administration, Kennedy Library,
https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/historic-speeches/address-to-joint-session-of-
congress-may-25-1961
158 National Air and Space Museum, https://airandspace.si.edu/explore/topics/space/apollo-
program; National Aeronautics and Space Administration, https://www.nasa.gov/learning-
resources/for-kids-and-students/what-was-the-apollo-program-grades-5-8/; National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, https://www.nasa.gov/specials/apollo50th/missions.html
159 Robert A. McDonald and Sharon K. Moreno, Raising the Periscope: Grab and Poppy:
America’s Early ELINT Satellites (NRO History Office, 2005),
https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/history/csnr/programs/docs/prog-hist-03.pdf
160 Bruce Berkowitz, “A Brief History of the NRO” (NRO Center for the Study of National
https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/history/csnr/programs/NRO_Brief_History.pdf
161 Ibid.
162 National Reconnaissance Office,
https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/history/csnr/gambhex/Docs/GAM_1_Fact_sheet.pdf
— 第 59 页 —
— p. 60 — 60
163 National Reconnaissance Office, https://www.nro.gov/About-NRO/history/more-historical-
programs/
164 National Museum of the United States Air Force,
https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-
Sheets/Display/Article/195925/gambit-1-kh-7-film-recovery-vehicle/
165 National Reconnaissance Office, https://www.nro.gov/About-NRO/history/more-historical-
programs/
166 National Museum of the United States Air Force,
https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-
Sheets/Display/Article/195921/hexagon-kh-9-reconnaissance-satellite/
167 National Reconnaissance Office,
https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/history/csnr/gambhex/Docs/GAM_1_Fact_sheet.pdf
168 The National Reconnaissance Office, https://www.nro.gov/About-nro/history/more-historical-
programs
169 National Air and Space Museum, https://airandspace.si.edu/explore/topics/space/space-
shuttle-program
170 Gamillo, E. (2023). “From Space to Museum Showcase: the Shuttles’ Final Mission.”
Astronomy. https://www.astronomy.com/space-exploration/from-space-to-museum-showcase-
the-space-shuttles-final-mission/
171 National Aeronautics and Space Administration, https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-
space/nasa-day-of-remembrance-pays-tribute-to-fallen-astronauts/
172 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), https://www.darpa.mil/about-
us/timeline/have-blue
173 U.S. Air Force, https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104482/b-2-spirit/
174 Department of Defense, https://www.mda.mil/about/history.html; Department of State,
http::2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/rd/104253.htm
175 Frank Strickland, “The Early Evolution of the Predator Drone,” Studies in Intelligence 57, no.
1 (2013): 1-6. https://www.cia.gov/static/Early-Evolution-of-Predator.pdf; Defense Advanced
— 第 60 页 —
— p. 61 — 61
Research Projects Agency (DARPA), “Predator.” https://www.darpa.mil/about-
us/timeline/predator
176 Roger Connor, “The Predator, a Drone That Transformed Military Combat,” National Air and
Space Museum, March 9, 2018, https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/predator-drone-
transformed-military-combat
177 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, “Predator.” https://www.darpa.mil/about-
us/timeline/predator; Strickland, “The Early Evolution of the Predator Drone,” 1-6; Roger
Connor, “The Predator, a Drone That Transformed Military Combat,” National Air and Space
Museum, March 9, 2018, https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/predator-drone-transformed-
military-combat
178 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, “Predator.” https://www.darpa.mil/about-
us/timeline/predator
179 Ibid.
180 Predator RQ-1/MQ-1/MQ-9 Reaper, Air Force Technology, https://www.airforce-
technology.com/projects/predator-uav/; Christian Clausen, “The evolution of the combat RPA,”
Air Force, December 17, 2016, https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1032544/the-
evolution-of-the-combat-rpa/
181 DARPA, https://www.darpa.mil/About-Us/timeline/predator; U.S. Air Force,
https://af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104469/mq-1b-predator
182 Predator RQ-1/MQ-1/MQ-9 Reaper, Air Force Technology, https://www.airforce-
technology.com/projects/predator-uav/; Strickland, “The Early Evolution of the Predator Drone,”
1-6.
183 Christian Clausen, “The evolution of the combat RPA,” Air Force, December 17, 2016,
https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1032544/the-evolution-of-the-combat-rpa/
184 John R. Hoehn and Paul R. Kerr, “Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Current and Potential
Programs,” Congressional Research Service, Report R47067,
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47067
185 U.S. Air Force, “MQ-9 Reaper.” https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-
Sheets/Display/Article/104470/mq-9-reaper/; John R. Hoehn and Paul R. Kerr, “Unmanned
Aircraft Systems: Current and Potential Programs,” Congressional Research Service, Report
R47067. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47067
— 第 61 页 —
— p. 62 — 62
186 U.S. Air Force, “MQ-9 Reaper,” https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-
Sheets/Display/Article/104470/mq-9-reaper/
187 Ibid.
188 Ibid.
189 U.S. Air Force, “MQ-9 Reaper,” https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-
Sheets/Display/Article/104470/mq-9-reaper/; Predator RQ-1/MQ-1/MQ-9 Reaper UAV, Air
Force Technology, https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/predator-uav/
190 U.S. Department of Defense, “Air Force to Retire MQ-1 Predator Drone, Transition to MQ-9
Reaper,” https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/1095612/air-force-to-
retire-mq-1-predator-drone-transition-to-mq-9-reaper/; Predator RQ-1/MQ-1/MQ-9 Reaper
UAV, Air Force Technology, https://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/predator-uav/
191 U.S. Air Force, https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-
Sheets/Display/Article/195774/lockehhed-martin-rq-3-darkstar/;
https://www.airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/lockheed-martin-boeing-rq-3a-dark-
star/nasm_A20070230000; https://www.armypress.army.mil/Portals/7/combat-studies-
institute/csi-books/OP37.pdf
192 Ibid.
193 Ibid.
194 Lockheed Martin, “Popular Science Awards Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II and Polecat
UAV Best of What’s New for 2006.” https://investors.lockheedmartin.com/node/17136/pdf;
“From the Skunk Works, a New Polecat Emerges,” Air & Space Forces Magazine,
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/1005polecat/
195 Ibid.
196 U.S. Air Force, “RQ-170 Sentinel.” https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-
Sheets/Display/Article/2796993/rq-170-sentinel/
197 Ibid.
— 第 62 页 —
— p. 63 — 63
198 John R. Hoehn and Paul R. Kerr, “Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Current and Potential
Programs,” Congressional Research Service, Report R47067.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47067
199 Ibid.
200 John R. Hoehn and Paul R. Kerr, “Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Current and Potential
Programs,” Congressional Research Service, Report R47067.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47067; U.S. Air Force, “RQ-4 Global Hawk.”
https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104516/rq-4-global-hawk/; U.S. Army
https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/combat-studies-institute/csi-books/OP37.pdf
— 第 63 页 —