Saturday, May 22, 2021

The Pentagon's Updated Statement: AATIP Studied UAPs

Mobile users, use this link for best viewing:


Ever since the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) story broke in 2017 there have been contradictory statements coming from the Pentagon about the AATIP. First the Pentagon admitted that the program did study Unidentified Aerial phenomena (UAP), but that statement was later withdrawn and up till now the Pentagon’s position has been that AATIP did not study such things. This position has now changed.

In a recent statement given to me by the Pentagon they now confirm that AATIP did study Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, but it was not its primary purpose. The purpose of AATIP has earlier been outlined by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) who explained that:

 “The purpose of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) was to investigate foreign advanced aerospace weapons system applications with future technology projections over the next 40 years and to create a center of expertise on advanced aerospace technologies.”

The DIA also added that its goal “was to help understand the threat posed by unconventional or leap ahead aerospace vehicles/technologies that could have national security implications for the United States.”

Going back to February 2020 spokesperson Susan Gough announced that she was working on “an update to previous statements about AATIP.” Time went by and after the announcement of the creation of the UAP Task Force she again told me that she had an update coming out within a week, but that updated statement never came. I recently again asked for the update on AATIP, and this time she sent me the update. AATIP has been depicted as either being a UAP study or an advanced aerospace study. In the updated statement a new picture of AATIP is presented that shows it was both. Susan Gough explains that:

"In developing the reports and exploring how to create a ‘center of expertise,’ the contract allowed for research drawn from a wide variety of sources, including reports of UAPs. However, the examination of UAP observations was not the purpose of AATIP.”

This new depiction of AATIP still differs from how Mr. Luis Elizondo is describing the program. Pentagon has said that the “AATIP was the name of the overall program” and that all work was done under a single contract, and that the “contract was known as the Advanced Aerospace Weapons System Applications Program (AAWSAP).” Mr. Elizondo, in an interview with George Knapp, differs the two programs saying that “AATIP grew out AAWSAP”, and become its own thing “run primarily through government people,” thus not bound to the contract and handled more as an effort within the DOD - not that different from how the UAPTF is handled today. Mr. Elizondo states that AATIP “morphed into what we now know, as the UAP Task Force.” But according to the Pentagon “The UAPTF is not a continuation of AATIP.” The Pentagon explains that “Department of the Navy had been leading assessments of UAP incursions into DOD training ranges and designated airspace since approximately 2018,” and that, “Beginning in 2019, DOD undertook efforts to formalize the good work done by the Navy for DOD.” So according to them it was an informal effort started in 2018 that morphed into UAPTF. Susan has also stated that “Prior to then, each military department handled their own examinations of UAP incursions/sightings.”

So even though Pentagon says some element within AATIP did look into reports of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, there are still many sides of this story that is not clear. But maybe it is just two sides of the same story. Two different perspectives.

Following is the full updated statement from the Pentagon issued May, 21, 2021 , which in part also includes previous statements communicated by the DIA.

Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP)

The purpose of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) was to investigate foreign advanced aerospace weapon system applications, with future technology projections over the next 40 years, and to create a center of expertise for advanced aerospace technologies. The goal was to help understand the threat posed by unconventional or leap-ahead aerospace vehicles and technologies that could have national security implications for the United States.

The program commenced in Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 with $10 million appropriated in the Defense Supplemental Appropriation Act. DIA awarded a contract to a sole bidder, Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies, LLC.  The contract was known as the Advanced Aerospace Weapons System Applications Program (AAWSAP).

The contract goal was to study 12 technical areas: lift, propulsion, control, armament, signatures reduction, materials, configuration, power generation, temporal translation, human effects, human interface, and technology integration.  The contractor identified and worked with academics and scientists to produce technical reports.  In developing the reports and exploring how to create a “center of expertise,” the contract allowed for research drawn from a wide variety of sources, including reports of UAPs.  However, the examination of UAP observations was not the purpose of AATIP.

The first 26 reports were completed by late 2009. The Defense Appropriations Act for FY 2010 included an additional $12 million for the program, and 12 additional reports were produced. A total of 38 technical reports were delivered.  The list is below.  All of the reports are either classified or marked For Official Use Only.  Only a few have been released to the public.

After a review in late 2009, it was determined that the reports were of limited value to DIA.  The department terminated AATIP when funding for the program ended in 2012.

Reports produced under AATIP:

1.  Inertial Electrostatic Confinement Fusion

2.  Advanced Nuclear Propulsion for Manned Deep Space Missions

3.  Pulsed High-Power Microwave Technology

4. Space Access

5.  Advanced Space Propulsion Based on Vacuum (Spacetime Metric) Engineering

6.  BioSensors and BioMEMS

7.  Invisibility Cloaking

8.  Traversable Wormholes, Stargates, and Negative Energy

9.  High-Frequency Gravitational Wave Communications

10.  Role of Superconducters in Gravity Research

11.  Antigravity for Aerospace Applications

12.  Field Effects on Biological Tissues

13.  Positron Aerospace Propulsion

14.  Concepts for Extracting Energy from the Quantum Vacuum

15.  An Introduction to the Statistical Drake Equation

16.  Maverick Inventor Versus Corporate Inventor

17.  Biomaterials

18.  Metamaterials for Aerospace Applications

19.  Warp Drive, Dark Energy, and the Manipulation of Extra Dimensions

20.  Technological Approaches to Controlling External Devices in the Absence of Limb-Operated Interfaces

21.  Materials for Advanced Aerospace Platforms

22.  Metallic Glasses

23.  Aerospace Applications of Programmable Matter

24.  Metallic Spintronics

25.  Space-Communication Implications of Quantum Entanglement and Nonlocality

26.  Aneutronic Fusion Propulsion I

27.  Cockpits in the Era of Breakthrough Flight

28.  Cognitive Limits on Simultaneous Control of Multiple Unmanned Spacecraft

29.  Detection and High Resolution Tracking of Vehicles at Hypersonic Velocities

30.  Aneutronic Fusion Propulsion II

31.  Laser Lightcraft Nanosatellites

32.  Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) Air Breathing Propulsion and Power for Aerospace Applications

33.  Quantum Computing and Utilizing Organic Molecules in Automation Technology

34.  Quantum Topography of Negative Energy States in the Vacuum

35.  Ultracapacitors as Energy and Power Storage Devices

36.  Negative Mass Propulsion

37.  State of the Art and Evolution of High Energy Laser Weapons  [SECRET//NOFORN version]

38.  State of the Art and Evolution of High Energy Laser Weapons

 

AATIP vs. UAP Task Force (UAPTF)

The UAPTF is not a continuation of AATIP.  Since the majority of reporting about UAP observations in recent years came from naval aviators, the Department of the Navy had been leading assessments of UAP incursions into DOD training ranges and designated airspace since approximately 2018.  Beginning in 2019, DOD undertook efforts to formalize the good work done by the Navy for DOD.  Former Deputy Secretary Norquist approved the establishment of the UAPTF on Aug. 4, 2020.

Monday, May 17, 2021

Understanding the US Government's UFO Programs

 


UFOs have been in the news lately. On December 28, 2020, legislation was signed that included the requirement for US defense agencies to submit a report to “the congressional intelligence and armed services committees on unidentified aerial phenomena." Government involvement is often what it takes for the UFO topic to be considered newsworthy. With the UAP report due in June, major media outlets have been trying to catch up on the topic and recent history. However, with the unfamiliarity with the topic, and the constraints of time and space, a lot is left out of the story.

The scientific study of UFOs is a worthwhile pursuit, but it’s unclear if that’s what the government is interested in. According to Senator Harry Reid and Luis Elizondo, AATIP began under national security concerns about unidentified aerial phenomena, but the Pentagon contract indicates it was a weapons program. Examining the work of the subcontractor suggests it was a way for Robert Bigelow to get funding to continue his research into paranormal and UFO topics. Roger Glassel has been pursuing the truth behind the news, and with his help we’ve tried to get to the bottom of things. Below is a recap with links to previous articles from Blue Blurry Lines on the Pentagon’s AAWSAP, AATIP, and the new UAP Task Force.

The Pentagon UAP Article Collection

The New York Times from Dec. 16, 2017 story and subsequent press identified the Pentagon’s UFO study as the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), but documents surfaced showing the original name Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program (AAWSAP). Roger Glassel asked the Pentagon’s spokesperson and was told, “Same program. Just an alternative name for AATIP.”

Pentagon Confirmation: AATIP = Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program May 3, 2018

Since there was no clear history of what AATIP did or the size of the operation, it caused much speculation and controversy, particularly after the Pentagon spokesperson issued the statement, “Mr. Elizondo had no assigned responsibilities for AATIP…”


Documenting Luis Elizondo's Leadership of the Pentagon's UFO Program 
June 13, 2019


Roger Glassel uncovered a trove of information about the origins of AATIP, about the contract between the Pentagon and Robert Bigelow (BAASS), and secret subcontracts with the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) to produce technical papers and furnish them with case files and access to investigation sites. Documents were reproduced from the MUFON Advanced Technology Establishment (MATE) and the contracts between the group and Bigelow.

The Pentagon UFO Program’s Secret Partner 
March 17, 2020


In the second part of the article, participants of the secret MUFON contracts spoke about their involvement and the fact that most of them were unaware that Bigelow’s sponsor was secretly the US government.

Breaking the Silence: AATIP's Secret Partner Speaks March 23, 2020


Continuing the examination, we probed the $22 million government funding for Robert Bigelow’s company under the AAWSAP contract. We attempted to trace where the money was spent.

In Roger Glassel’s correspondence with the Pentagon it was disclosed that while AATIP was defunct, there was a new UFO investigation, “an interagency team charged with gathering data and conducting investigations into range incursions… the Navy is leading much of the effort.”

Pentagon Answers on Navy UAP Investigations May 18, 2020


Further correspondence revealed the name of the interagency UFO team was the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force, or UAPTF.

UAP Task Force: The Pentagon Responds to Questions September 2, 2020

 The Pentagon issued a long-awaited statement on AATIP, its origin, goals and function on May, 21, 2021. It consolidate previous statements into a single document and made several updates, admitting that reports of UAPs were included, "However, the examination of UAP observations was not the purpose of AATIP."

To understand the goals of the UAPTF, it's important to know the above history. The US government's goals may be very different from what its citizens want when it comes to UFO investigations and the sharing on information on the topic. The reporting of the story so far has not been transparent from either government officials or the media. We need more than agenda-driven press releases dressed up as news.
















Friday, December 11, 2020

40 years and the Cash-Landrum UFO Case

 

The 1980 Texas Piney Woods UFO incident is one of best known, thoroughly documented cases in UFO history. Much of the enduring appeal of this story is due to the investigation of it led by John F. Schuessler, then deputy director of MUFON, but the other reason is the dramatic story itself and the apparent credibility and sincerity of the witnesses. 2020 marks the 40th anniversary of the case, and this provides links to research, articles, and documents on the legendary Cash-Landrum UFO story.


 On December 29, 1980, friends Betty Cash (51), Vickie Landrum (57) and Vickie's grandson Colby (one month shy of 7) had been out for the evening. Betty was originally from Alabama, Vickie from Mississippi, and both had been living in Dayton, Texas, for many years. Betty had owned a truck stop cafe where Vickie was employed as a waitress. Colby lived with Vickie and she was his legal guardian. Although Betty had undergone heart surgery in 1977, all three were reported to be in good health at the time. 

For anyone unfamiliar with the case, Vickie’s call to report the UFO incident is a good place to start. 

Vickie and Betty eventually connected with UFO researchers and the media, but they got no real help or answers. In late July 1981, Senator Lloyd Bentsen replied by letter to Betty, advising her to contact Bergstrom Air Force Base (near Austin, TX) to make an official report and file a damage claim form. The three witnesses gave statements to AF officials during a lengthy interview. It was recorded and later transcribed, and it provides us with the closest thing we have to the witnesses giving their story in court.

From their own lips: Betty, Colby & Vickie tell their story

While they were in Austin, Vickie visited the office of state representative - Larry Browder, which led to an investigation of the UFO sighting in the fall of 1981 by the Texas Department of Health’s Bureau of Radiation Control. It was the first official investigation of the case, and the results were ignored by UFO investigators since they were unfavorable. 


Myths, Mistakes, Rumors, and Legends

In the absence of many solid facts, rumors and speculation flourished, and some of the stories took a life of their own. Here’s articles on some of the myths and misinformation, and how they were disproven. 

  • The allegations that a stretch of road on FM 1485 was burned and secretly removed:

Cash-Landrum UFO Case: The Legend of the Scorched Road

  •  Locating a CH-47 Pilot from the UFO mission:

  •  The Helicopter SNAFU:

Cover-Up: 100 helicopters- Robert Grey airfield, came in, for effect

  • The witnesses’ testimony was overwritten by UFO investigators:

The Cash-Landrum UFO: The True Picture

Despite all the exaggerations and distortions, most people familiar with the case think that there's still something genuine at the story's core.   


Where the Case Stands Today

The rumors, myths, and mistakes are piled high, and the problems with the case seem insurmountable. While the UFO investigation was flawed, it does not necessarily reflect on the credibility of the witnesses. Whatever happened, the story transmuted into legend long ago. All that has surfaced in the 40 years since amounts to stories. Even so, the case remains an enduring mystery, and there are lessons to be learned from studying it.

Since 2012, Blue Blurry Lines has been gathering documentation on the Cash-Landrum case, and in 2017, published files previously unseen from the original investigation. Readers can see for themselves the differences between the information that was gathered, and the story that was spun around it.

The Original Cash-Landrum Case File, 3/4/81: Transcript & Analysis

There's much more to the case than the original report, however. For the complete set of documents on the events, investigation and aftermath, see:

The Cash-Landrum UFO Case Document Collection



Friday, November 6, 2020

Flying Saucer Swindlers: Four Convictions

 


Hoaxing UFOs is not a crime. 

Bob Considine, from "The Disgraceful Flying Saucer Hoax!", Cosmopolitan magazine, January, 1951:

"However plain the hoax, the Air Force often feels that it must take samples of the 'wreckage' for study in its Wright Field laboratories... And nothing can be done about such frauds.  A man who pilfers a three-cent stamp from the Post Office Department can be fined and sent to a Federal prison.  One who turns in a false alarm that routs out the local fire department on a Halloween night can also be jailed, as can a man who writes a check for a dollar when he has no bank funds to cover it. Yet the most callous and cynical saucer­hoaxers will continue to go scot free, with a cackle of delight, until a penal act is created to check such offenses."

Unless the act involves something like public endangerment or filing a false police report, it’s not a matter for the law. There have been some notable exceptions, and they all involved money.

The Saucers That Time Forgot is a project by Curt Collins and Claude Falkstorm that looks at little-known aspects of UFO history. The specific focus is on events from the first twenty years of the era that shaped our knowledge, beliefs, and myths about aerial phenomena and extraterrestrial life. The STTF series, “Flying Saucer Swindlers,” examines the incredibly rare instances where UFO-related hoaxes or fraud resulted in arrest and convictions. Here are links to the four major cases:


Silas Newton and the UFO Crash



Reinhold O. Schmidt: The Trial of a UFO Gold Digger



The Life and Legend of Otis T. Carr

There's a rich history to the UFO subject, and like the rest of the human experience, it's rife with frauds and counterfeits. Studying the past can prepare us to avoid the old pitfalls. In this way, we can make progress, entirely new mistakes.  


Wednesday, September 2, 2020

UAP Task Force: The Pentagon Responds to Questions



UAPTF: Pentagon Responds to Questions 
by Roger Glassel of UFO-Aktuellt

In a previous email sent to me back in May, 2020, the Pentagon stated that there was already a interagency team/task force under the cognizance of the OUSD(I) that was analyzing sighting reports, and as most of the reports were from Navy pilots, the Navy did much of the effort. In Pentagon's recent press release it is stated that the UAPTF, established on August 4, 2020, under the oversight of the OUSD(I) and lead by the Navy. This contributed to some confusion, and I contacted Susan Gough and Joseph Gradisher to comment on the contradiction. Here are their answers.

September 2, 2020

Re: Questions about UAPTF - Roger Glassel

Hi, Roger, sorry for the delay. Here are our responses to your questions, including your latest.

1) What is the difference between the newly established UAP Task Force and the previous running task force investigating Unidentified Aerial Phenomena?

Since the majority of recent reporting about UAP observations have come from naval aviators, since approximately 2018, the Department of the Navy has been leading assessments of UAP incursion into DOD training ranges and designated airspace.  Over the last year, DOD undertook efforts to formalize the good work done by the Navy for DOD.  This effort was an informal task force that I referenced to you earlier.  Deputy Secretary Norquist approved the formal establishment of the UAPTF on Aug. 4, 2020.

2) Why did the OSD/OUSD decide to establish a new UAP Task Force superseding the previous task force investigating Unidentified Aerial Phenomena?

The task force was established to meet congressional guidance, including the report directed by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.  Over the last year, DOD undertook efforts to formalize the good work done by the Navy for DOD in leading assessments of UAP incursions into DOD training ranges and designated airspace.  Deputy Secretary Norquist approved the establishment of the UAPTF on Aug. 4, 2020.

3) As the OUSD(I) was also the cognizant authority for the previous UAP interagency task force, was this the task force that former OUSD(I) employee Mr. Luis Elizondo was providing coordination and professional connections/liaison for?

No.  Luis Elizondo departed DOD in 2017. 

4) What was the name of the previous Task Force investigating Unidentified Aerial Phenomena?

There was no previous formal task force.

5) Will the newly established UAP Task Force look into other aspects of the nature and origins of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, or will the UAPTF just look at the aspect of UAP being a potential threat to U.S. national security? 

The Department of Defense established the UAPTF to improve its understanding of, and gain insight into, the nature and origins of UAP incursions into our training ranges and designated airspace.  The mission of the task force is to detect, analyze and catalog UAP incursions that could potentially pose a threat to U.S. national security. 

6) Will the public be informed about any findings from the UAPTF of the nature and/or origins of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena?

Thorough examinations of any incursion into our training ranges or designated airspace often involves assessments from across the department, and, as appropriate, consultation with other U.S. government departments and agencies. To maintain operations security and to avoid disclosing information that may be useful to our adversaries, DOD does not discuss publicly the details of either the observations or the examination of reported incursions into our training ranges or designated airspace, including those incursions initially designated as UAP.

7) If an observer initially characterize an observation as unidentified aerial phenomena, that he or she cannot immediately identify, and the observation cannot later be explained after an analysis by the UAPTF, or any other component, what will such observation be categorized as?

Unidentified


Regards,

Sue Gough

Department of Defense Spokesperson




Sunday, June 28, 2020

UFO Documents: Provenance and Credibility by Barry Greenwood







Barry Greenwood's name came up during a discussion with Paul Dean. Paul recently published an article, The Fake 1961 "Special National Intelligence Estimate", and a $1000 Offer To Prove It Genuine... at his blog, UFOs - Documenting The Evidence. The alleged SNIE recently received attention when it was identified as the MJ-12 document endorsed as being authentic by Dr. Hal Puthoff of To The Stars Academy. Majestic 12, or MJ-12 is the alleged US government group in charge of covering up the UFO secrets, supported only by counterfeit documents from anonymous sources.
Talking to Paul about UFO documents (genuine and otherwise) and the role they played in UFO research, I wondered if anyone had ever done a historical overview. Paul suggested I check with an expert.

Barry Greenwood is a UFO historian, and he is currently engaged in diligent work to archive original literature and documents for posterity. He co-authored Clear Intent with Lawrence Fawcett in 1984, later reprinted as The UFO Cover-Up


In 2007, Barry co-authored a paper with Brad Sparks, “The Secret Pratt Tapes and the Origins of MJ-12.” With Paul’s prompting, I emailed Barry and asked him for his view, noting:

This recent noise about the SNIE document has me wondering about the contrast between the fakes and the genuine instances of leaked documents. …Donald Keyhoe received some leaked material, but it was contemporary, not the allegedly decades-old stuff that periodically surfaces. 

Barry Greenwood promptly replied and graciously gave me permission to share his thoughts, presented here as a guest column.


UFO Documents: Provenance and Credibility
by Barry Greenwood

With regard to Keyhoe, he received contemporary documents from known sources. Sometimes, sources were not named but the information was not sensationalized and survived the passage of time. In Flying Saucers- Top Secret, he talked of "Hidden Cases" where they were aggravatingly thin on researchable detail. I spent time over the last three years in the NICAP files looking for these reports but they are missing. Keyhoe was derelict in not having safety copies of these reports in a safe place and now they are lost to history. I asked Gordon Lore about this but he was not in the loop. I guess Keyhoe thought he could live forever!

There was always hoaxing in this subject but the transition of the usual hoaxing to deliberate falsification of government documents crossed a line in the late 1970s. We finally had achieved some sort of credibility in what the government knew about UFOs by gaining access to official inquiry and investigations that revealed they didn't quite know what it was with what they dealt. Then a few fakes appeared followed by one in the military [Richard Doty] who planted fakes in government files and had those officially released via FOIA, a nefarious act that was eventually supported by major names in UFO research. This same source continued to circulate questionable documents as real. But by then every government paper officially released had a taint of "how do you know that is real?" A more effective watering down of what we had achieved, I can't recall and it took little effort.

So now more "leaks" about the same topic [MJ-12] still appear over 40 years later and are still embraced as genuine despite this long history of hoaxing and taint. The persistence is eye-opening and has the appearance of a cult relentlessly pushing their agendas. What really astonishes me is how a very simple rule of thumb has been, and is being, ignored. I explained very clearly in Clear Intent that provenance of documents is vital to the credibility of the information. We filed FOIAs and kept cover letters to establish the sources of the information as authentic, already knowing that fakery was underway and illegitimately competing for the attention of UFO researchers. The common theme of the fakes was that the sources were mysterious and it took a leap of faith to accept the contents. A large percentage of people are gullible, even very gullible, about the sensation of information on UFOs. If the information promised to satisfy articles of belief, it was embraced before any investigation as to the authenticity of that information. I think this contributed to Stan Friedman's rabid promotion of questioned documents. Not knowing from where information came opens the door to fiction becoming fact in the minds of ones seeking quick conclusions about a mysterious topic.

With regard to the SNIE paper, Paul may have told you the details but he approached me a while back with this document. He said it came from a prominent person [affiliation redacted] who wanted input as to whether or not is was genuine. It took about ten seconds to see it was another MJ-12 hoax, again unattributed as to source and likely from the Richard Doty/Tim Cooper school of document fakery. Cooper has said he had about 4000 pages of “leaks" acquired under very suspicious circumstances, which could provide a years-long supply of continuous attention to the MJ-12 conspiracy. Cooper eventually admitted all the documents were fake

But what is disturbing is that despite the history of this story churning like an upset stomach, seemingly high profile people involved with the effort to get Congress to investigate UFOs appear to be giving such unattributed ”releases" a stamp of approval. I understand Hal Puthoff declared the SNIE to be genuine along with who knows who else in that group [TTSA]. It is nonsense from a long-term hoax effort but linking this to the new efforts to get the military and Congress to research will do profound damage to these efforts. The UFO subject needs to grow up and pay more attention to what has happened which provides perspective to what is happening.

. . . 

The CUFOS site hosts a nice biography of Barry Greenwood, and he also maintains his own site, Barry Greenwood UFO Archive.






Monday, May 18, 2020

Pentagon Answers on Navy UAP Investigations





Swedish researcher Roger Glassel has been pursuing the details of the Pentagon's UFO investigation since the AATIP story broke in 2017. On Sept. 16, 2019, he queried Navy spokesman Joseph Gradisher, asking for their definition of UAP or Unidentified Aerial Phenomena. Later, Susan Gough was formally designated the Pentagon's spokesperson and point of contact for UAP inquiries.

The Pentagon's Investigation of Navy UAP Reports

by Roger Glassel

In comments given to me by the Pentagon they have stated that they are investigating incursions and sightings of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP), and said that ”reports of unidentified aerial phenomena by military aviators are investigated by the military department of the aviator who made the report”. 

The Navy has elaborated on the matter by explaining that ”the information obtained in these reports will be catalogued and analyzed for the purpose of identifying any hazard to our aviators”, and that ”this process could involve multiple Department of Defense and Intelligence Community organizations”. This indicates that there is indeed a centralized effort. 

Statements from the Navy have also indicated that the UAP investigations is done in relation to the counter Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) effort, by saying that the term UAP is defined as ”any aerial phenomenon that cannot immediately be identified”, and that incursions/sightings since 2014 ”may be referred to as either UAS or UAP, depending on the circumstances surrounding the specific incident in question”. The Navy clarified that ”it’s just when the UAS is NOT immediately identifiable we refer to it as UAP”. Others, such as Luis Elizondo, have stated that UAP is something else, and in a report on the Nimitz case at TTSA's website there are talks about the term Anomalous Aerial Vehicles being used in relation to UAP investigations.

In regards to the AATIP the Navy has explained that the Program involved offices from across the Department of Defense, but that details remain classified. 

With this information, I sent new Navy specific questions to the Pentagon, asking them to be answered by both the Pentagon and the Navy.

"Dear Susan and Joseph,

In an email from Joseph Gradisher (USN) dated February 20, 2020, he told me that I should feel free to cc him on Navy specific issues, as he is working together with you on such issues. Following are my Navy specific questions, that I like you and the Navy to answer.

On May 18, Susan Gough sent a detailed reply:

Roger,
Here are our responses to your questions.

1) In the Navy's effort to investigate sightings of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) is there a centralized office, program or council, that analyse such sightings?

A: Under the cognizance of the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence (USD(I)), there is an interagency team charged with gathering data and conducting investigations into range incursions. As the preponderance of recent/reported sightings are from naval aviators, the Navy is leading much of the effort. All reports of range incursions are sent to this team for inclusion in the overall effort, thus maximizing the data available for analysis.

2) Are the Navy using the term Anomalous Aerial Vehicles, AAV, in relation to investigation of UAP incursions?

A: When an observed object is NOT immediately identifiable, the Navy/DOD refers to it as UAP (unidentified aerial phenomena). The generic term UAP is used in communications to avoid pre-judging the results of any investigation. If we are able to identify the object, we would use the appropriate term.  For example, a quadcopter would be referred to as an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) or Unmanned Aerial System (UAS). The U.S. Navy does not use the term “Anomalous Aerial Vehicles.”

3) If so, what is the definition of AAV used by the Navy and the U.S. Defense Department?

A: Neither the Navy nor the Department of Defense (DOD) use the term “anomalous aerial vehicles.”  In DOD, the acronym AAV stands for amphibious assault vehicles.  The contractors who prepared the 38 technical reports under AATIP occasionally used the term “anomalous aerial vehicles,” but it is not a DOD term.

4) How many UAP contacts/sightings are still categorized as unidentified by the Navy?

A:  As the investigation of unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) sightings is ongoing, we will not discuss any aspect of individual sighting reports / observations, including frequency of sightings.

5) Are the Navy's effort to investigate UAP incursions part of the overall C-UAS [Counter Unmanned Aircraft Systems] effort? 

A:  The U.S. Navy and the Department of Defense take these reports very seriously and investigate each and every report. Any incursion into our ranges by any aircraft, identified or not identified, is problematic from both a safety and security concern. Safety of our aircrews is paramount. Unauthorized and unidentified aircraft pose a risk to flight safety. Additionally, it is vital we maintain security on our operations. Our aviators train as they fight. Any intrusions that may compromise the security of our operations, tactics, or procedures is of great concern.

6) As the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) involved the Navy, which of the 38 DIA reports produced by the AATIP was the Navy involved in?

A: The contractors who produced the 38 technical reports under AATIP consulted with many experts across DoD, including Navy.  As these involve intelligence matters, we’re not to comment on specifics.

7) Without going into classified details, what was the Navy's role in the AATIP?

A: The contractors who produced the 38 technical reports under AATIP consulted with many experts across DoD, including Navy.  As these involve intelligence matters, we’re not to comment on specifics.

8) Are the Navy proactively investigating UAP, or are investigations only being done after a reported observation?

A:  The U.S. Navy and the Department of Defense take these reports very seriously and investigate each and every report. Documented reports of sightings by military personnel form the basis for the investigation process. The investigation of UAP sightings by the multi-agency task force is ongoing.

Regards,
Sue Gough
Pentagon Spokesperson"
 . . .

This response raises further questions, if Luis Elizondo was part of such interagency team as he claims, and if AATIP indeed was a UAP study, as the contractors used the term Anomalous Aerial Vehicles? Further questions have now been sent to the Pentagon.