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