AARO’s 2024 Historical Report (Volume I)--an Objective Summary
Disclosure Yearbook Series (2024)
The AARO historical report was mandated by the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act, which was signed into law December 22, 2022, and which gave AARO 540 days to produce the report, with a due date of July 2024.
The purpose of this chapter is to compare the contents of the report to the statutory requirements. With AARO’s annual reports, this is a straightforward task because there is generally a one-to-one correlation between the requirement and the content of the report. For this first historical report, however, much of the content is besides the point of the original requirements, and seems to reflect a contrary interpretation of the requirements. It is as though AARO’s director Sean Kirkpatrick and his team of researchers disagreed with the premise of Congress’s questions, and therefore provided an answer to a different question, one that they thought better fit the available evidence. That said, what follows strives to be an objective summary of what the report actually says. Analysis and commentary will be reserved for a later chapter.
Requirement 1: Due Date
“Not later than 540 days after the date of the enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023…”
Representative excerpts related to this requirement:
“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.”
The report was most likely submitted to Congress in the first week of March 2024. The report was made available to a select number of reporters by March 6, when AARO Acting Director Tim Phillips conducted a media engagement to announce the report. AARO released the report to the public on its website on March 8. Data collection for Volume I was completed by October 2023, and the draft was written up by December.
Volume I was completed significantly ahead of the deadline, and is the first AARO report to be submitted early. The reason is that Kirkpatrick led the research team that compiled the information in the report, and was the primary author of the report, and Kirkpatrick wished to complete Volume I before his retirement effective December 1, 2023. For personal reasons (which are not clear from the report, but may be inferred from his subsequent public statements) Kirkpatrick felt compelled to see the report to completion himself rather than hand it over to his Deputy Director, Tim Phillips. Perhaps Kirkpatrick felt it would be unfair for Phillips to have to take over such a complex congressionally mandated assignment before completion. Perhaps he had a specific vision for the report’s content that he wanted to make sure survived though the final draft.
This personal decision may be insignificant, but it cast Volume I with an odd sense of incompleteness. It is not clear why Kirkpatrick and Phillips felt a Volume II would even be necessary. The 2023 NDAA stated that the historical scope of the report should end “on the date on which the Director of the Office completes activities under this subsection,” meaning the authors should incorporate historical information up to the present day, stopping when they complete the report. Why did Kirkpatrick not simply state that the report period ends in October 2023 and leave it at that? Why did a report that covers 78 years necessitate a sequel that covers only six months, especially when AARO was not legally required to cover those six months from November 2023 to April 2024? Is it because AARO believed in the fall of 2023 that there would be several witnesses and/or incidents that would provide relevant information in those six months but not before December? We do not know. The question of why the reports were split may become clearer when we can read Volume II. I will offer some speculation based on his media statements in a later chapter.
Requirement 2: Information Sources
“...including—(i) the records and documents of the intelligence community; (ii) oral history interviews; (iii) open source analysis; (iv) interviews of current and former Government officials; (v) classified and unclassified national archives including any records any third party obtained pursuant to section 552 of title 5, United States Code; and (vi) such other relevant historical sources as the Director of the Office considers appropriate.”
Representative excerpts related to this requirement:
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“AARO successfully located the USG and industry programs, officials, companies, executives, and documents identified by interviewees. …The executives, scientists, and chief technology officers of the [third party] companies named by interviewees met with the Director of AARO…”
“When industry partners were named, AARO interviewed senior level, appropriately cleared executives, department leads, senior scientists, and engineers.”
“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 [Special Access] programs; AARO was granted full, unrestricted access by all organizations.”
“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…
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.
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.”
“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.”
Whether the primary source inputs listed above were sufficient to the historical task will be an ongoing matter of debate. The quantity and quality of sources was called into question immediately upon release of Volume I, which will be explored in the following chapter.
Requirement 3: Historical Content & Scope
“a written report detailing the historical record of the United States Government relating to unidentified anomalous phenomena… The report submitted under subparagraph (A) shall—(i) focus on the period beginning on January 1, 1945, and ending on the date on which the Director of the Office completes activities under this subsection…”
Representative excerpts related to this requirement:
“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 assertions and claims without any particular pre-conceived conclusion or hypothesis. AARO is committed to reaching conclusions based on empirical evidence.”
“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.”
“Resources and staffing for these programs largely have been irregular and sporadic, challenging investigatory efforts and hindering effective knowledge transfer.”
“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 USAFestablished 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
The congressional mandate—“a written report detailing the historical record of the United States Government relating to unidentified anomalous phenomena”—reads as sweeping and broad, but it is not clear from the language of the 2023 NDAA just how comprehensive Congress wanted this report to be. After all, there are entire libraries and archives devoted to answering the question Congress seems to be asking. The table below depicts how AARO chose to apportion its answer in Volume I, across nine sections and 42 pages of text.
The history of the U.S. government's relationship with the UFO phenomenon was the leading and primary requirement for the historical report. It comprises the longest single section of Volume I, at 36% of the total pages. However, more pages were devoted to addressing and debunking the allegations of hidden UFO Special Access Programs, covering four sections and a combined 45% of the total pages.
Volume I interprets the “relating to” requirement as government-led investigations of UFOs, and thus provides brief summaries of 22 offices, projects, panels, and reports, as well as 6 foreign and academic efforts. These are thumbnail sketches, including little more than dates, names of personnel, and a brief summation of each effort’s findings. Reading the list straight through gives the impression that each time, government officials were motivated by unexplained UFO sightings to open an investigation, and each time it was concluded that there was no evidence the sightings represented anything that could be characterized as extraterrestrial. No nuance or alternate perspectives are offered. The fact that contemporaries and participants of these programs had conflicting or nuanced views is not mentioned. Little to no context about the periods in between the 22 programs, and how they are or are not related, is provided.
Requirement 4: Intelligence Community Involvement
“...a compilation and itemization of the key historical record of the involvement of the intelligence community with unidentified anomalous phenomena…”
Representative excerpts related to this requirement:
“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.’”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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.”
Whatever institutional insights Congress hoped to learn through this requirement about the Intelligence Community’s decade’s-long “involvement” with UFOs, no insights are provided here. The few examples from Volume I suggest a passing interest by a few intelligence officers in only a few instances.
Requirement 5: Undisclosed Programs
“…any program or activity that was protected by restricted access that has not been explicitly and clearly reported to Congress.”
Representative excerpts related to this requirement:
“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.”
“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.”
“To date, AARO has not discovered any empirical evidence that any sighting of a UAP represented off-world technology or the existence of a classified program that had not been properly reported to Congress.”
“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 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.”
“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.”
“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 found no evidence that U.S. companies ever possessed off-world technology. The executives, scientists, and chief technology officers of the [third party] 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.”
“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 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 canceled AAWSAP/AATIP program and a private sector organization’s paranormal research efforts.”
On Congress’s question about whether there is a secret UFO Restricted Access Program, AARO’s answer is an emphatic no. Furthermore, because AARO partnered with the Special Access Program Control Offices, it was “granted full access to all pertinent sensitive USG programs.” AARO used this access to cross-reference programs that were mentioned by interviewees.
Requirement 6: Efforts to Identify and Track UFOs
“...successful or unsuccessful efforts to identify and track unidentified anomalous phenomena…”
Representative excerpts related to this requirement:
“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.”
“No evidence of extraterrestrial origin of UFO/UAP were discovered”
“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.”
“Project BLUE BOOK determined that: …
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.”
“AARO investigated numerous named, and described, but unnamed programs alleged to involve UAP exploitation conveyed to AARO through official interviews… 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. 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.”
“Like all historical UAP cases, very little actionable data exists beyond limited firsthand narrative accounts.”
“AARO found no empirical evidence that any UAP investigatory effort since 1945— foreign, domestic, government, private, or academic—has ever uncovered verifiable information 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.”
The plain English interpretation of this requirement is that Congress wanted to know to what extent the U.S. government has been able to positively identify and track a UFO. Has anyone within the government concluded that a UFO was an extraterrestrial craft, and has anyone pursued or somehow engaged with a UFO? Again, AARO’s answer is an emphatic no.
Requirement 7: Government Disinformation
“...any efforts to obfuscate, manipulate public opinion, hide, or otherwise provide incorrect unclassified or classified information about unidentified anomalous phenomena…”
Representative excerpts related to this requirement:
“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.”
“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.”
Curiously, this requirement is almost totally ignored in Volume I, beyond the two oblique examples excerpted above. Unlike other requirements, this one does not garner an emphatic and categorical denial.
Non-required Content: AARO’s “Historical Context”
With its NDAA requirements for the historical report, Congress was asking AARO to seek answers to five straightforward questions?
What has been the U.S. government’s relationship with UFOs since 1945?
How has the Intelligence Community involved itself in that relationship?
Has there ever been any Special Access Programs related to UFOs that have not been reported to Congress?
Has any part of the U.S. government ever positively identified a UFO as extraterrestrial?
Has any part of the U.S. government deployed a public disinformation campaign about UFOs?
Rather than provide straightforward answers to these questions, AARO’s staff (Kirkpatrick and his research team) opted to use the report to argue that the premise of Congress’s questions is all wrong because extraterrestrial UFOs do not exist. The information in Volume I is selected and organized in such a way as to teach Congress and the public why UFO belief occurs and why it is a false belief.
Volume I lists eight factors that have given rise to false belief that UFOs are a real phenomenon rather than misidentifications. Representative excerpts for each factor are listed below (emphasis added), with a brief explanation of how AARO is suggesting the factor contributes to false UFO belief.
“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.”
Factor 1: International Security Environment and Technological Surprise
“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. …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.”
Implication: Interest in and investigations of UFOs had a legitimate, real-world origin point, rooted in the Cold War and the proliferation of advanced manmade technology in the skies that needed to be identified and tracked.
Factor 2: Secrecy
“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.”
Implication: Standard government secrecy about advanced manmade technology created space in public discourse for the false belief about extraterrestrial UFOs to form and spread.
Factor 3: 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.”
Implication: False UFO belief quickly became embedded in and perpetuated by popular culture.
Factor 4: 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.”
Implication: Typical bureaucratic deficiencies of any government program also occurred with UFO efforts, thus hindering their effectiveness in resolving cases and/or creating the impression of an intentional lack of seriousness toward the topic. This perpetuated false UFO belief because the investigation resulted in unresolved, unidentified cases that might otherwise have been resolved as known terrestrial objects, or by allowing for allegations of a government UFO cover up.
Factor 5: Insufficient Data and Information
“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.”
Implication: Insufficient data contributes to false UFO belief because investigators are unable to conclusively prove that seemingly anomalous cases are not in fact anomalous.
Factor 6: 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. 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.”
Factor 7: Decreased Public Trust
“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.”
Implication: The perception that the government has a practice and policy of lying to the public perpetuates false UFO belief because government backed conclusions that UFO sightings are the result of misidentified terrestrial objects are less likely to be believed. Same with claims that the government is not in possession of extraterrestrial craft.
Factor 8: Popular Culture
“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 through traditional and social media has increased the number of Americans who believe that UAP are of extraterrestrial origin, based on a 2021 Gallup poll.”
“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.”
Implication: UFO content on the internet, and repeated UFO imagery in the media, create a self-reinforcing information ecosystem where false UFO belief flourishes, and where it is hard for evidence-based conclusions about UFOs to penetrate.
Circular Reporting
One other significant factor perpetuating false UFO belief mentioned several times in Volume I is “circular reporting,” defined in the excerpts below (emphasis added):
“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 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 canceled AAWSAP/ATIP 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.
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.”
Implication: False UFO belief has been boosted in recent years, circa 2008 to the present day, by a group of UFO influencers who succeed in popularizing their ideas not only with the public and media, but also in Congress. This has supercharged the previous eight factors in making false UFO belief more prevalent today.
Volume I concludes with a list of 28 advanced technology programs “that AARO assesses probably were associated with erroneous UAP reporting” from the early 1940s to the present day. These include the Manhattan Project, the space program, the U-2 spy plane, and military drones. These were the historical antecedents that set modern societies down the path of false UFO belief, egged on by pop culture myths, ostensible government interest, an environment of mistrust and confirmation bias, and the promotional efforts of true believers. None of this “historical context” is related to a single statutory requirement for the report. It was provided not to answer a question Congress was asking, but to answer the questions AARO believed Congress should be asking.
Analysis of Volume I’s accuracy, effectiveness, and intentions, as well as a survey of the responses it generated, will be provided in the following chapters.