Headquarters: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Headquarters
Washington, DC 20546-0001
Reply to attn. of: Office of Communications
October 18, 2022
John Greenewald, Jr.

The Black Vault, Inc.
27305 W. Live Oak Rd., Suite 1203
Castaic, CA 91384-4520
john@greenewald.com
Re: FOIA Tracking Number 21-HQ-F-00603
Dear Mr. Greenewald:
This is our sixth and final interim response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
request to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the clarified version
of which was received in this office on July 22, 2021. As further discussed, this is also our
final response to your FOIA request, as all responsive records have now been produced. In
sum, you requested the following:
ALL emails, with any level of classification (list of NASA personnel below), which
contain the following keywords:
“Unidentified Aerial” and/or

“Unidentified Flying” and/or
“UAP” and/or
“UFO” and/or
“Unidentified Spacecraft” and/or
“Unidentified aircraft” and/or
“UAPTF”
PLEASE INCLUDE ALL ATTACHMENTS TO EMAILS FOUND . . . search the

[following] e-mail boxes, with the time frames in the parentheticals:
• Mike Gold, Acting Associate Administrator, Office of International and Interagency

Relations (November 2019 - May 2021)
• Joel Montalbano, International Space Station (ISS) Program Manager (January 1,

2020, through the date of processing the request)
2
• Margaret Kieffer, Director of the Export Control and Interagency Liaison Division
(January 1, 2017 - the date of processing this request)
• Suzanne Gillen, Former Associate Administrator for Legislative Affairs (January 1,

2017 - January 20, 2021)
• Dr. Ravi Kumar Kopparapu, Research AST, Planetary Studies (August 1, 2015 - the
date of processing this request)
• Sandra E. Connelly, Deputy Associate Administrator (January 1, 2020 - the date of

processing this request)
• Karen Feldstein, Associate Administrator for International and Interagency Relations

(January 1, 2016 - the date of processing this request)
• Dr. Michael New, Deputy Associate Administrator for Research (June 1, 2018 - the
date of processing this request)
• Dr. Paul Hertz, Astrophysics Division Director (April 1, 2000 - the date of processing
this request)
• Bhavya Lal, Senior Advisor for Budget and Finance (January 1, 2020 - the date of
processing this request)
• Thomas Zurbuchen, NASA Science Associate Administrator (June 11, 2021 - the date
of processing this request)
Our previous responses dated October 6, 2021, January 11, 2022, March 25, 2022, July 19,
2022, and September 16, 2022 notified you that we tasked NASA’s Office of Information
Technology (IT) to search the email accounts of the above-named officials using the key
words and date ranges you specified. That search located voluminous records as further
explained in the fee section below. The September 16 response provided you with 370 pages
of records from the account of Dr. Ravi Kumar Kopparapu and notified you that we continue
to process remaining records which will be issued to you on a rolling basis.
At this time, we have completed the processing of this request. The enclosed records are from
the accounts of Ravi Kumar Kopparapu, Michael New, Karen Feldstein, Bhavya Lal, and
Margret Kieffer. This is our final response to your FOIA request, as all responsive records
have now been produced.
As noted above, we completed processing the enclosed portion of responsive records. We

reviewed them under the FOIA to determine whether they may be disclosed to you. Based on
that review this office is providing the following:
3
331 page(s) are released in full (RIF); 1

348 page(s) are released in part (RIP);
9 page(s) are withheld in full (WIF);
472 page(s) are duplicate copies of material already processed.
NASA redacted from the enclosed documents certain information pursuant to the following
FOIA exemptions:
Exemption 5, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5)
Exemption 5 protects “inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not

be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency.”
5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5). Courts interpret Exemption 5 to incorporate three primary privileges:
the attorney work-product privilege, the attorney-client privilege, and the deliberative process
privilege. NASA invokes the deliberative process privilege in this instance.
The deliberative process privilege is intended to protect the decision-making process of

government agencies and to encourage frank discussion of legal and policy issues. The scope
of the privilege covers documents reflecting advisory opinions, recommendations, and
deliberations comprising part of a process by which government decisions and policies are
formulated. To qualify for the deliberative process privilege, a document must be both “pre-
decisional” and “deliberative.” Documents are pre-decisional when they precede an agency
decision and are prepared in order to assist an agency in arriving at its decision. Documents
are deliberative when they comprise part of the process by which government decisions are
made. The type of records/information NASA withheld under this exemption consists of draft
documents, portions of emails containing analyses, and recommendations and/or opinions
expressed by employees. NASA considered the foreseeable harm that would result from the
release of this information and determined that its release would hinder the decision-making
process, create a chilling effect on internal deliberations, lead to uninformed decision-making,
and public confusion. Please note that as a matter of administrative discretion, I released
certain information falling under the umbrella of this exemption.
Exemption 6, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6)
Exemption 6 allows withholding of “personnel and medical files and similar files the
disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5
U.S.C. § 552(b)(6)(emphasis added). NASA invokes exemption 6 to protect unpublished
NASA cell phone numbers, personal phone numbers, the names and contact information of
third parties as well as any information that could identify such individuals.
1
All page counts are approximate numbers.
4
Referral
Additionally, we referred 3 pages to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), 3 pages to
the European Space Agency (ESA) and 4 pages to the United States Navy. OSD, ESA, and
the Navy will process those pages under the FOIA and respond to you directly. Should you
wish to contact that entity, their information is available at the following website:
https://www.esd.whs.mil/FOID
https://www.esa.int/Services/Contacts
https://www.cnic.navy.mil/About/Freedom-of-Information-Act/
Fees
Provisions of the FOIA allow us to recover part of the cost of complying with your request.
The fees that may be assessed to process a FOIA request vary depending on the category into
which the FOIA requester falls. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(I),(II),(III). Pursuant to the NASA
implementing regulations, 14 C.F.R. § 1206.507(b), media requesters will be charged for
duplication only, although the first 100 pages are free. Duplication costs thereafter are
charged at a rate of $0.15 per page. You have now been provided with a total of 602 pages.
You have agreed to pay the estimated fee total of $382.50 for the remaining records.
Appeal
You have the right to appeal this response. Your appeal must be received within 90 days of
the date of our final response. Please send your appeal to:
Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Executive Secretariat
ATTN: FOIA Appeals
MS 9R17
300 E Street S.W.
Washington, DC 2054
Both the envelope and letter of appeal should be clearly marked, “Appeal under the Freedom
of Information Act.” You must also include a copy of your initial request, the adverse
determination, and any other correspondence with the FOIA office. In order to expedite the
appellate process and ensure full consideration of your appeal, your appeal should contain a
brief statement of the reasons you believe this initial determination should be reversed.
Additional information on submitting an appeal is set forth in the NASA FOIA regulations at
14 C.F.R. § 1206.700.
5
Assistance and Dispute Resolution Services
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at Alyssa.k.bias@nasa.gov or (202)
358-4664. For further assistance and to discuss any aspect of your request you may also
contact:
Stephanie Fox
FOIA Public Liaison
Freedom of Information Act Office
NASA Headquarters
300 E Street, S.W., 5P32
Washington D.C. 20546
Phone: 202-358-1553
Email: Stephanie.K.Fox@nasa.gov
Additionally, you may contact the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) at the
National Archives and Records Administration to inquire about the FOIA mediation services
it offers. The contact information for OGIS is as follows: Office of Government Information
Services, National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road-OGIS, College
Park, Maryland 20740-6001, e-mail at ogis@nara.gov; telephone at 202-741-5770; toll free at
1-877-684-6448; or facsimile at 202-741-5769.
Important: Please note that contacting any agency official including the undersigned,
NASA’s Chief FOIA Public Liaison, and/or OGIS is not an alternative to filing an
administrative appeal and does not stop the 90 day appeal clock.
Sincerely,
Alyssa Bias
Government Information Specialist
Fro m:
To:
u: G
"~rf'!: !!:,::,,:;e: I ,II;
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] 1M PC SEn UFO text
Date: Saturday, May 8, 2021 4:29:26 PM
Hi All:
Sorry to take a while to weigh back in. I think this discussion has been extremely useful, and thanks,
Jason, for shepherding.
Over the last couple of weeks I have chatted a bit with severa l other colleagues, and I am now
looping in Steve Croft, who has expressed an interest in this conversation. (Steve, hi -- it was a long
journey to get t o the present draft, but I'm not forwarding all the prior correspondence in this
thread .)
At the risk of taking a step backwards, here is my current think~ which I hope speaks to some of
the questions a couple of people have asked .
I made an inquiry about the rejected abstract s which kicked off the larger conversation on the 1M
list, because I wanted some information that would help us separate out
• the larger question of defining SETl's edges, wh ich has both pragmatic and philosophical
aspects
• the practical question which has concerned some colleagues on this list, i.e. what is actually
being rejected and exactly why?
Obviously, th is query of mine was "iffy" because refereeing processes are not public. However, I
thought that the current circumstances warranted an inquiry about the contents of that particular
black box, because
• the specific rejection of UAP abstracts was mentioned by the committee' s Chair over an open
list, in a way that generated debate
• there is the practical question (what sorts of abstracts are actually being submitted and
rej ected?) as well as the principle question (what sorts of abstracts should be rej ected, and
why?)
If there isn't really a practical prob lem currently, that can shape our approach to the principle
question .
There is an entangled issue of "audience", i.e. who do we imagine w ill be reading this Statement
which would be posted on our website? E.g. Do we imagine that it would be the authors of rej ected
abstracts? UFO/UAP researchers? Astronomers? Students? Journa lists? General SETI com munity list
members who may have opin ions but aren't necessarily active researchers? I'm not sure we're all
th inking along the same lines.
Anyway, my understanding now, for whatever this is worth, is th at the recently rejected abstracts
were few in number and pretty clearly out of the ba llpark. That is, it does not seem that these were
papers grounded in solid scientific method with reasonable interpretation, and it sounds as though
there were problems of coherence as well as scope.
The question of "how exactly are abstracts for 1M SETI meetings actually refereed?" is also hovering
over this conversation - good questions have been raised about that. Historically, I believe, it has
been by subcommittee at in-person 1M meet ings in March in Paris, which is why I don't know
anything about the process - as a Canadian academic, there's no way I can participate in that, as
well as go to a fall meeting to present a paper. I don't know details of how this is being done now, or
will be done in future, given the remote transformation of work lately. I also do not know how much
latitude the 1M SETI committee has in terms of deciding how this process is conducted, or how
much is dictated by 1M rules . That is something that we can inquire about, and probably should,
particularly given that newer Committee members may not have this information, or know how to
become involved in refereeing if they wish to be. This inquiry does not have to be coupled with this
UFOjUAP issue, however.
So, about our current dr ••

(b) (6)
I'm close to signing it, but I'm not quite there.
I've just added some comments there, and have another observation to make .
I think this paragraph is giving me the most pause:
Regardless, this committee's exclusion of research into UFOs from its activities does not
stem out of any judgement that such research is necessarily inappropriate or unscientific.
The committee emphasizes that work on UFOs is not taboo, and that there is no ban on
membership on the committee for those who do such work. This committee appreciates
work to rigorously, scientific study of UFOs, including their societal impact.
Like all premises in science, our position that UFOs are not relevant to studies of alien
technology is open to revision if the evidentiary conditions can be met. Given the
committee's areas of expertise, we are not in a position to judge which claims for UFOs
being extraterrestrial in origin have scientific merit and which do not. Until other scientific
experts can confirm that UFO research meets the evidential requirement, the committee will
continue to focus its activities to its current scope of research, i. e. the astronomy-based
search for evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence and closely related topics.
Pragmatically speaking, I think this is inviting mult iple lines of contestation ... both from 1M SETI
members (some of whom will never want to expand the scope) and from any UFO researchers who
might be paying close attention (e.g. there are people with science degrees who some consider
experts, who do say that the evidential requirement has been met) . I appreciate that this is making a
statement about logical princip les, but I th ink we don't have to spell out the conditions for a future
change in scope. If something UFO-related is discovered and documented to a highly compelli ng
scientific standard, t he future Committee can deal wit h t hat.
So, here is a suggested ed it:

Although this committee does not generally include research into UFOs/UAP in its activities, we
do not assert that fli1 such research is necessarily inappropriate or unscientific, or that
Committee members should never individually engage in such work. Although as a committee,
we do not collectively evaluate the scientific merit of claims about UFOs being extraterrestrial
in origin, we do appreciate the value of such scientific reviews and assessments. Collectively,
our activities focus on the astronomy-based search for evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence
and closely related topics.
Sorry if these suggestions / observations disrupt an emerging consensus ..
Cheers all,
KD
On Thu, May 6, 202 1 at 6:24 AM Jason Wright .(b) (6) wrote:

Hi, all. An update:
In our straw poll to assess how close we are we have :
6 Sign as is: Anamaria, Jason, Hector, Greg, Steve, and Franck

2 Do not sign : Jacob and Ravi
6 Have not voted : Kathryn, Klara, Clement, Maggie, Chelsea, Julia.
We are also waiting on comments from Kathryn and Klara, who asked for more time .
Jason
From: Jason Wright
To:
C<co
,.
Subject: Re : [EXTERNAl] IM PC SEn UFO text
Date: Moodily, May 10, 2021 8:25:53 AM
Thanks for these detailed thoughts, Kathryn! Some thoughts in response:
On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 4:28 PM Kathryn E L Denning _ wrote :
There is an entangled issue of "audience", i.e. who do we imagine will be reading this
Statement which would be posted on our website? E.g. Do we imagine that it would be the
authors of rejected abstracts? UFO/UAP researchers? Astronomers? Students? JOllllalists?
General SET! COllllllUnity list members who may have opinions but aren 'f necessarily active
researchers? I'm not sme we 're all thinking along the same lines.
For what it's worth, I had imagined that the CllTent text was primarily a statement of principles
for committee members and the members of the commlmity list, to serve as a starting point for
the more detailed discussions we envision. My secondary audience is the general public.
Anyway, my lliderstanding now, for whatever this is worth, is that the recently rejected
abstracts were few in number and pretty clearly out of the ballpark. That is, it does not seem
that these were papers grOlmded in solid scientific method with reasonable intelpretation,
and it sOlmds as though there were problems of coherence as well as scope.
That's good to know. At the moment, would you say that it would seem that the cOlllllllttee is
erring on the side of being inclusive, since as we've seen there have been some UFO-related
abstracts in the past that were presumably of higher quality than these.
So, here is a suggested edit:
Although /!t;s comllliflee does 1I0t gelra~v if/elude research illto UFOs/UAP ill its
activities, we do not assert that all such research is necsari~v inappropriate or
unscientific, or that COlllmittee members should /lever ind;vidualzv engage in such work.
Although as a committee, we do 1I0t co/letiv~ evaluate the sciefllific merit of elaims about
UFOs being extraten"estrial in origin, we do appreciate the value of sllch sciefllific reviews
and assessments. Colectiv~, 0111' activities foclls 011 the astronomy-based search for
evidellce of extraterrestrial illfelligellce alld close~v related topics.
I do like this revised version, with the caveat that I might not include the emphasized "all"
because it can be read as a judgement that most UFO research fails this test (which I suspect is
tme but, as you say, invites debate). Unless I read objections in this thread (e.g. unless people
will withdraw their approval if it's included) I'll incorporate it .
Sony if these suggestions / observations dismpt an emerging consensus.
On the contrary, I think sharpening am meaning may help with consensus. Thanks for yom
input!
Cheers all,
KD
On Tim, May 6, 202 1 at 6:24 AM Jason Wright

Deletion Page
Requester: John Greenewald

Request #: 21-HQ-F-00603
_",-I_ page(s) containing duplicate

information is/are held in the file.
From: Julia De Marines
To: Kathryn E L Denning
C<co
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] 1M PC SEll UFO text

Date: Monday, May 10, 2:0211:2:3:14 PM
A quick chime in from me.

My last final is today and then my brain can think about this . I'm still here but hyper focused
on school at the moment.
Best,
Julia
On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 9:09 AM Katluy n E L Demling _ wrote:
Hi All,
Thanks Jason, Clement, Greg: all helpful input.
A couple of additional practical observations:
I' ve been on the committee since 2004-5 and in that time there has been a significant shift in
members and expansion in size, as well as time marching on and external situations
changing. I do think that some members have personally historically held, and may still
hold, an A position, although others have ranged through Band C.
From what I know of the present committee, I reckon there will be a full spectnml of
opinion between A-D with the maj ority coming down in B-C. But there 's only one way to
find out the distribution for sme, and that's to ask. I expect that some members will be set in
their opinions, and others will be more flexible and/or more cmious to learn about the
cunent state ofUFO/UAP work, though not necessarily able to devote much time/attention
to it. (If I were doing a questiomlaire, I'd be asking people not just to vote for one of A-D,
but about how strongly they agree/disagree with each statement, and why.)
I think one imp0l1ant difference between Band C in pragmatic tenllS is about the potential
consequences of a C position, i.e. whether or not one is willing to adopt a "C" position may
depend on risk aversion and similar factors, rather than pme logic. E .g .
• Some members who have had to fight for the recognition of the scientific legitimacy
of SETI and who have borne the consequences of a confusion between SETI and low-
quality UFO work, or who may have to defend this committee's work to scientific
peers, may strongly prefer B. There may be a generational effect here.
• Implementing a "C" position requires members to place a lot of tmst in referees.
AnY'vay, in reality, refereeing is a service performed by a few individuals, with their own
opinions, and thus any position taken will probably not be implemented with exactitude -
but that doesn' t mean we shouldn ' t by for some more clarity.
Cheers,
KD
PC SET! UFO text
Hi Everyone,
A few COllllllents on the most recent exchange.
I like the general thrust of Kathryn 's draft paragraph (though, stylistically, I agree with
Jason that one need not highlight "all," and there are two uses of the teno "collectively" one
after the other that requires revision). The more economical one can be in a statement such
as this, the more e ffective it is.
I sympathize with Kathryn 's point of not wanting to write a statement that only serves to
promote contestation. Contentiousness is perhaps inevitable to some degree - and it can
often be quite appropriate and productive - but I do think there is no need to lmduly weigh
in on issues that require addressing in other settings.
To my mind, I think Clement 's comments selve to reinforce the idea that we need to be
sparing in our wordsmithing: say only what needs to be said here. Personally, I think when it
comes to the spectmm of positions Clement outlines, position B (outside the scope of IAA)
is the most compelling. Others, however, may see it differently.
In any event, though, I think the discussion that has been going on among us demonstrates
that there is a need at some point in the future for IAA SETI scholars to concertedly study,
evaluate, and discuss the field 's relationship to UFOs/UAPs and UFO/UAP investigation.
I'm not sure whether this should be part of the general statement or not. It 's clear, however,
that we are not trying to be - and clearly can 't be - the la st word on this matter, and that
should be communicated (I read Jason 's comments as saying just this vel)' thing).
Greg
Greg Eghigian
Professor of HistOlY
Penn State University
Department of HistOlY
108 Weaver Building
Pellll State University
University Park, PA 16802
USA
Email: (b) (6)

From: Jason Wright
Date: Monday, May
To: Clement Vidal
PC SET! UFO text
On Mon, May 10,2021 at 5:36 AM Clement Vidal . (b ) (6) wrote:
Hi all,
Thanks for your inquuy into the abstracts and the insightful cotlllllents, Katluyn. I agree
that yom new paragraph is an improvement. I'm not ready to sign the document yet, even
with yom modifications, because it still lacks clarity and consistency.
Hi, Clement. Thanks for this.
I think the lac-k of clarity and consistency you have identified is actually intentional: we are
following a two-pronged approach where here we here briefly and loosely define tbe
curfe'" state of affairs (that UFO abstracts are generally excluded as out of scope but have
been occasionally accepted), and reconUllend that another committee do the necessary work
to establish clear and consistent rules regarding scope of the cOllUllittee and UFOs.
- The key question is: Should we consider UFOIUA V research? Here is a spectnllll of
positions:
A Never, this has always been pseudoscience (gist ofreason I)

B. Never, this is outside the scope and expertise of IAA (but other organizations
can/should do it). (reason 2)
C. Exceptionally (e.g. if good science and data is behind)
D. Always (UFOIUAV phenomena are COllllllon, so the systematic examination of
them lwder the ETI hypothesis should become routine and pali ofIAA 's mission)
I think we can summarize this document as trying to convey "B is the current principle, with
some historical exceptions, but there is a contingent that would like the larger committee to
adopt C, and we recommend another committee to study that".
The main problem is that the possibility C. is loosely and vaguely opened in the current
document. This is reflected in sometimes confusing and self-contradictory statements.
NO: “a document explaining the exclusion of such work”

YES: “explaining under what circumstances UFO abstracts could be accepted”
This is not really a contradiction. The first statement you quote is background describing the
purpose of this ad hoc committee, and the purpose of its output. The second is part of its
recommendation for the scope of another committee, which could do such a thing.
YES: “our position that UFOs are not relevant to studies of alien technology is open
to revision if the evidentiary conditions can be met”
NO: “we are not in a position to judge which claims for UFOs being extraterrestrial
in origin have scientific merit and which do not.”
Does Kathryn's revision of these statements help?
To sum up, to make the document more consistent, I’d either make the exclusion stricter
and clearer (i.e. stick to positions A. and B.); or better articulate the possibility of
exceptions (position C).
Yes, this is also Ravi's and Jacob's position. Our compromise is to leave this activity and
judgement for the next committee.
Does this distinction and Kathryn's edit bring the document up to where you would be
comfortable signing on?
One suggestion I'll repeat, which I think will help sharpen this document, would be for
Jacob, Ravi, and potentially Clément and others to draft a minority report laying out their
position. This would allow more of the perspectives shared here to be brought back to the
committee, and help clear some of the muddle that our attempts at consensus have
generated.
1--
Jason T Wright
Professor of Astronomy & Astrophysics
Director, Pelll State Extratenestrial Intelligence Center
Acting Director, Center for Exoplanets and Habitable Worlds
NEID Instrument Team Project Scjentjst
helhimlhis
https;/lsjtes.psu.edu/astrowrjght!
@ Astro Wright
Julia Dl'"l\1arines (s hl'"/hl'"r)
Berl:d~ PhD
Srudml
National ~hic
Bahl~y
Ra~lIch
SETIUC ~ '~"r_:iC!J(£-
Cenl~ I BU', hbwllgb I iSm l oW I
I Wl= I GJOSYrnor It¥brr Fellow I
I
BMS I m; tiu ~ of Sciena I &gNc,h Scjmtisll
1019 AGU VoKa ofSci~ I~ I
Ad ASfn Academy I EdugtiQQ Manager I
SAGANet org I Co-F0!f,da I
SpaCk ju Y our F ace '

JuljaDc M arinks com
"The UniveThe is a pretty big place, it's bigger than anything anyone has
eYer dreamed ofbefore . So if it's j ust us, seems like an awful waste of
space." - Carl Sagan (Contact)
From: dement Vidal
To:
II·
Subject: Re : [EXTERNAl] 1M PC SEll UFO text
Date: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 7: 23 :56 AM
Hi Jason,
Thanks for yom clarifying replies. I somehow did miss the layered aspect of the document and
the intention of creating a new ad hoc committee when I focused on re-reading the document
itself (and not the whole discussion thread). Sorry about that. But this may still reflect some
lack of clarity of the document as it stands, which may be clouded by om awareness of all the
"meta" discussion of this thread.
Taking into accOlmt yom replies, and in the spirit of Greg's recommendation to spare in am
wordsmithing and remain economical, here is my ClUTent lllderstanding of the core message :
- Recently, UFO abstracts were submitted and were rejected as out of scope
- This triggered discussions among IAA SETI PC members
- Historically and presently, UFO/UAP research ha s almost always been outside the scope and
expel1ise ofIAA SET! (see statement below).
- However, a contingent would like the larger committee to slightly widen the scope by
making exceptions to this IUle (e.g. when good data is available and good science is
conducted).
- As a compromise, we recommend the creation of a new ad hoc committee to do the
necessalY work to establish clear and consistent rules regarding the scope of the committee in
relation to UFOs/UAPs.
- In any case, IAA SETI is not trying to clainl- and clearly can't clainl- the last word on the
relationship between SET! and UFOs/UAPs.
So, concretely, I'd propose to simply delete the following two paragraphs (even the updated
version of Kathryn). They bring more confusion and potential points of contestation than
anything else, and what comes before is much clearer.
Regardless, this committee's exclusion of research into UFOs from its activities does
not stem out of any judgement that such research is necessarily inappropriate or
unscientific. The committee emphasizes that work on UFOs is not taboo, and that
there is no ban on membership on the committee for those who do su ch work. This
committee appreciates work to rigorously, scientifi c study of UFOs, including their
societal impact.
Like all premises in science, our position that UFOs are not relevant to studies of
alien technology is open to revision if the evidentiary conditions can be met. Given
the committee's areas of expertise, we are not in a position to judge which claims for
UFOs being extraterrestrial in origin have scientific merit and which do not. Until other
scientific experts can confirm that UFO research meets the evidential requirement,
the committee will continue to focus its activities to its current scope of research , i.e.
the astronomy-based search for evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence and closely
related topics.
We may instead end the statement along the lines of the humble words proposed by Greg: In
any case, IAA SETI is not hy ing to claim - and clearly can't claim- the last word on the
relationship between SETI and UFOs/UAPs.
With these edits, I'd be comfortable signing on.

What do you think?
Thanks for your patience and perseverance!

Best,
Clement Vidal.
http -JIwww c1emyjdal com I @c1emyjdal

~IBQokP.treuig I Erl
Center Leo Apostel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel
1160 Bmsseis, Belgium
From: Jason Wrjabt
To:
Subject:
Dat e: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 1:44:02 PM
Attachments: 1M SED PC !oR - Google Pocs,pdf
Because it's come up in the comments, here are the existing Terms of Reference for the
connnittee:
hnps:lljaasetj ,oralenltenns-referencel
and I'm attaching the draft ToR that Claudio sent arotuld with the draft charter last fa ll (email
to PC members on Dec, 7, 2020),
Jason
On Tue, May 11 , 202 1 at 12:37 PM KathIyn E L Delming ~ wrote:
Thanks Jason and Clement I'll add comments in the doc at

hnps ;//docs·aooale.com/docuwent/dl198Cs6C05w3x50151-
hS4uNzuuctojUlmJaWOspJDBYU/edjt
From: Jason Wright . (b)(6)

Sent: Tuesday, May
To: Clement Vidal
SUbject:
Hi, aiL
Thank you, Clement, for your analysis which I think has crystalized the discussion welL
Sensing no broad opposition to KathIyn's edits from those who have already signed on, I
have incorporated them (although if people agree with Clément's argument that they should
come out let me know). My sense is that a majority (though perhaps only a bare majority)
of the subcommittee would sign on as-is, and that we can continue to discuss and edit it.
Separately, I have produced an alternative report which I think may garner more support.
Based on Clément's summary, and in the spirit of not saying more than is necessary to
accomplish our task, this new alternative report is a statement of how this conversation has
gone, and the various positions that have been staked out. This also addresses Kathryn's
issue of audience: the audience here is simply the Permanent Committee.
To the degree that it simply and accurately reflects the status of our discussion, I think it
could garner a supermajority or perhaps even unanimous support. It is on page 3 of the
general Google Doc (which is where you should comment or make suggestions), but I'm
reproducing it below. Jacob and Ravi, I'm particularly interested in whether you'd sign on
to this statement.
In response to an online discussion on the community list regarding the rejection of

UFO-related abstracts at a Permanent Committee meeting, this ad hoc
subcommittee met to draft a document explaining the position of the permanent
committee on the topic, and to recommend further actions.
There was considerable discussion and difference of opinion in the subcommittee

on both the nature of UFO research and its propriety for the Permanent Committee.
Many members’ positions were nuanced, but broadly speaking many felt that UFO
studies were inherently inconsistent with the work of the committee and out of
scope; others felt that UFO studies should be included if they could satisfy certain
criteria for scientific rigor and relevance to the Permanent Committee’s goals.
Complicating the conversation was the fact that certain UFO-related abstracts have
been accepted in the past, and the strong desire from some members to lay out
explicit criteria under which they would be accepted in the future.
All or nearly all of the subcommittee supported the Permanent Committee

examining these potentially contentious issues in more detail, through polling of the
membership, defining the scope of the committee more precisely, and having more
guidance regarding the acceptance criteria for abstracts.
A majority of the subcommittee supported the following positions:
• UFO studies can , in principle, be conducted well and have significant scientific
value
• UFO studies are generally out of scope for the Permanent Committee
• One reason is that the PC has historically focused on astronomical and

social aspects of SETI, which use different methods (astronomy and
social science) than employed in UFO studies
• Another reason is that UFO studies in general have not met the
necessary evidentiary criteria for demonstrating that UFOs might have
anything to do with alien technology
• There is no bar or prejudice against any PC member who, in addition to their

work relevant to the PC , also engages in UFO-related research
Therefore, a majority of the subcommittee recommends that the Permanent

Committee
• Change the wording of the scope of the committee in its terms of reference to
read that it "examines topics related to the possible existence of extant or
extinct intelligent and/or technological life having arisen beyond Earth." [i.e.
strike "all" from "all topics"]
• Add to the terms of reference a UFO exclusion reading "the committee's work
excludes studies of UFOs or Unidentified Aerial Phenomena"
• Convene a subcommittee or subcommittees charged with some or all of the
following:
• Defining the scope of work of the Permanent Committee

• Formalizing the process by which abstracts are accepted or rejected
• Polling Permanent Committee members on their positions regarding
UFO research
• Exploring the boundaries between UFO research and SETI , in particular
the extent to which they complement or diverge from one another
• Considering and making recommendations regarding whether to uphold,
modify, or remove the exclusion on UFO research . This could include
laying out specific criteria whereby UFO abstracts would be accepted.
A minority of the subcommittee objects to a categorical bar against UFO-related

research at the present time, even paired with a recommendation that the
Permanent Committee re-examine that bar in the near future, and advises the PC to
reject the first two recommendations.
--
-
---------------
Jason T Wright
Director, Penn State Extraterrestrial Intelligence Center
NEID Instrument Team Project Scientist
he/him/his
https://sites.psu.edu/astrowright/
@Astro_Wright
--
-
---------------
Jason T Wright
he/him/his
@Astro_Wright
DRAFT: 28 November 2020 - PC Executive
International Academy of Astronautics
SETI Permanent Committee
Terms of Reference
The Search for ExtratelTestriallntelligence (SET!) Pennanent Committee examines all topics related to the possible
existence of extant or extinct intelligent and/or tedmologically capable life having arisen beyond Earth. lliese
topics include. but are not limited to. remote sensing of advanced extraterrestrial life through observable
manifestations of tedmology (teclmosignatures). procedures and protocols ill publicly conunlUlicati.ng the potential
disco\'ery of advanced extraterrestrial life and legal and social issues surrowuiing potential contact with advanced
extraterrestrial life. Special attention is paid to international and i.nterdisciplinary issues and activities. including
media and education.
TIle lUlderiyillg science of the study of life ill the lUli\'erse includes relevant astrophysical and astronomical
phenomena. the nanare and distribution of the biogenic elements and compolmds. the foonation of life-bearing
planets. the origin and evolution of biological systems . complex life and intelligence. and the emergence of
teclmological civilizatiolls. The science and teclmology of SEll itself includes the development of search strategies.
and the underlying intellectual fOlUldation. the design. de\·elopment. construction and operation of telescopes and
signal detection systems. studies of their future location ill space or 011 the surfaces of other planets or nanrral
satellites. mitigation of interference fromluUllaIl technology. e.g. radio frequency interference or optical reflections
from satellite constellations. the archiving of SET! data. aIld analysis of search results,
TIle SEll Penllanent Committee leads discussion of the implications of detecting evidence of advanced
extraterrestrial life: for exanlple. in the areas of philosophy. historical analogs. aIlthropology. legal. political and
institutional issues. sociology. psychology and theology. and interactions with the media and the educational system.
All issues concerning possible future transmissions from Earth deliberately intended to COllUlUUllcate with
extraterrestrial life will also be included. hi addressing many of these questions. the SETI Pennanent Conmllttee
collaborates with the lntemationallnstitute of Space Law and other releYant international orgatllzations. TIle SEn
PC proIllotes the interest aIld direct invo lvement of a di\'erse body of smdents atld scholars in its work. primarily
through the support of OrgatllSed outreach atld educational activities.
TIle SEn Peollanent COIllllllttee seeks leamed papers for presentation al the SEn sessions of the lntemationai
Astronautical Congress. publishes the best of these papers ill Acta Astronalltica or elsewhere, generates atld
conducts. or support special Academy conferences or studies on important topics. and plays a proacti\'e role in the
continuing Rtudy of advanced eXlTl!.terreRtrial life, inrelligence and technology. \\' here appropriate, the SETT
Pennatlent COllunittee collaborates with other conunittees of the Academy and the Federation. with the
Bioastronomy COIllUllssioll of the hltenl.1tional Astronomical Union. aud other nation.,1 and intemational bodies and
societies with atl interest in SETl.
From: Jason Wrjabt
To: Kathryn E L ()enning
C<,
Subject:
Date: Wedoesday, May 12, 2021 1:5<1:15 PM
On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 1:42 PM KatlllYJl E L Denning ~ wrote:
A more general cOllllllent, following on £i:om something Jason said about drift ing outside
one ' s training: SET! tends to encourage big thinking across disc iplinary lines, whic-h is often
a good thing, but I have often seen some overconfidellce/ovelTeach from SETI thinkers
along the lines of this XKCD comic: https:llxkcd.coml435/ So yeah, we should take this
question of expertise seriously.
Cheers,
KD
Aloug tbose liues, and to put a shalver point on it [or your amusement:
https:l/xkcd.coml793/
httvs:l/www.smbc-comics,eom!comic/2012-03-21
Jason T Wright
Director, Pellll Siale ExlratelTestrial Intelligence Center
NEro Instrument Team Project Scientist
helhim/his
bttps:l/sites,psu.edulastrowriaht/
@Astro Wright
Fro m:
To:
,.
Subject: Re : Book dJ b!
Date: Thursday, May 13, 2021 3 :34 :39 PM
Got both docs. Thanks, Ravi.
Lonnie Shekhbnan
Senior Science Writer
Solar System Exploration
NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center
301-61 4-6833
From: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kuma r (GSFC-6990) " <ravikuma r .kopparapu@nasa .gov>

Date: Thursday, May 13, 202 1 at 3:26 PM
To: "Shekht m an, Lonnie (GSFC-690.0)[AD NET SYSTEM S INC]" <Ionnie .shekht man@nasa .gov>,
"Tra n, Lina (GS FC-670.0)[SGT INC]" <Iina .tra n@n asa .gov>, " Hat f iel d, M iles S. (GSFC-130.0)
[TE LOPH ASE CO RP]" <m il es.s .ha tfield@n asa .gov>, " Barry, Caela E. (GSFC-690.0)[AD NET
SYSTE MS INC]" <caela.e.barry@nasa .gov>, " Lan da u, Elizabet h R (HQ-1 864)[ASRC FEDERAL
SYSTE M SO LUTIONS]" <elizabet h.r.landa u@nasa .gov>, "Tiedeke n, St aci L. (GSFC-690.0)[AD NET
SYSTE MS INC]" <st aci.l .t iedeke n@nasa.gov>, "Gran, Ra ni C. (GSFC-1300)"
<ran i.c.gran@nasa .gov>, "Thompson, Jay R (JP L-1867 )[J . II"· .
(b) (6)
<Jay.R.Thompson@jpl.nasa .gov>,JennyMarder Fadoul 'Hoover,
• • r@nasa .gov>, "Lonn ie Shekht man (via Google Drive) "
b) (6)
Subject: Re: Book club !
And here is a draft ema il w e wanted to send t o Leslie Kean.

I request you all not t o share either this attached document, or the one I sent in my earl ier email
beyond this group .
Thank you
Ravi
From: "Shek ht man, Lonn ie (GSFC-690 .0)[A DNET SYSTE MS IN C] "

<lonn ie .shekht man@nasa .gov>
Date: Friday, M ay 7, 2021 at 10 :06 AM
To: "Tran, Lina (GSFC-670 .0)ISGT INC]" <li na .tran@nasa.gov>, " Hatfield, M iles S. (GSFC-130.0)
[TELOP HASE CO RP]" <m il es.s.ha tfield@n asa .gov>, " Ba rry, Caela E. (GSFC-690.0)[AD NET
SYSTEMS INC] " <caela.e.barry@nasa .gov>, " Landau, Elizabet h R (HQ-1 864)[ASRC FEDERAL
SYSTEM SO LUTIONS] " <elizabeth .r.landau@nasa .gov>, "Tiedeken, Staci L. (GSFC-690.0)[AD NET
SYSTEMS INC] " <staci. l.t iedeken@nasa .gov>, "Gran, Ran i C. (GSFC-1300)"
<ran i. c.gran@nasa .gov>, "Thompson, Jay R (JPL-1867)[JPL Employee] "
<Jay.R.Thompson@jpl.nasa .gov>, JennyMarder Fadou l "Hoover,
Rachel L. (ARC- DO)" < rachel. hoover@nasa .gov>, "Lonn ie Shekht man (via Google Drive)"
(b) (6) Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990) "
<ravikumar .koppa rapu@nasa .gov>
Subject: Book club !
Adding Ravi to this invite, plus attach ing a scientif ic ana lysis article written by Prof. James Mc
Donald in 1969 of some UFO cases.
From Ravi: "He was a member of National Science Academy and his methodology is t he one 1try t o
emulate in scientifically investigating UFOs. You don't have to read all of it, but the intro is good . You
may see some of my comments in there which you can ignore if you want."
...
For next week, Vall: " How the penta~o St arted Takjn~ lJ F 0 s Serjously ."
Plus, t his related piece by a fabu lous exoplanet sc ientist , Rayj Kopparapu, in my division :
'Unidentified Aerial Phenomena.' Better Known as UFOs. Deserve Scientific Invest igation "
Don' t m iss out!
See you soon,

Lonnie
Leaving your read ing ,p,emmT'p"
Microsoft Team s meeting

Join on your computer or mobile app
Click here to join the meeting
ALERT: All meeting participants consent to, and will abide by, the terms and cond itions viewable at the
LEGAL link below. No ITAR/EAR content display or sharing without consent from Export Control.
Learn More | Help | Meeting options | Legal
________________________________________________________________________________
To
Hon. Sen. Marco Rubio
We are scientists with decades of research experience in different disciplines at various

academic and governmental institutions including NASA, University at Albany (SUNY), and Blue
Marble Space Institute of Science. We are writing to you regarding the availability of recorded
data on the recently reported Navy UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena), and to request your
support in providing access to any UAP data (current or prior) to the scientific community as
long as this would not compromise our national security interests.
We would like to first thank you for your leadership and efforts for including language about UAP
in the draft bill of Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2021. This is a great first step in
bringing UAP into the scientific purview, and not relegate it to undeserved taboo that is
prevalent within the science community and some in the general public. To avoid any premature
conclusions, we as scientists insist on strict agnosticism about the nature of UAP and suggest
an approach that is purely rational: UAP represents observations that are puzzling and waiting
to be explained. Just like any other science discovery.
UAP are a worldwide occurrence, and several other countries have studied them. There is a lot
of speculation around them in both academic and non-academic circles. Much of this
speculation tends to misidentify known phenomena as UAP, while others will outright dismiss all
UAP by assuming that every such phenomena must be explainable. The primary reason for all
this confusion is due to lack of a rigorous scientific analysis.
Our proposal to scientifically study UAP phenomena is not new. Scholars such as Dr. Carl
Sagan, Dr. J. Allen Hynek, Dr. James McDonald, Dr. Robert Hall and Dr. Robert Baker were
involved in research during the 1960s to understand the nature of UAP. A systematic
investigation is essential in order to bring the phenomena into mainstream science. For this to
happen, collection of hard data is paramount to establishing any credibility to provide an
explanation of the phenomena.
We sincerely (1) request you to help us in declassifying and making available any data related
to UAP, such as imagery, videos, electromagnetic spectra so that we scientists can analyze and
study the phenomena. (2) we would greatly appreCiate any encouraging statements from
government officials to conduct scientific investigations of UAP from traditionally trained
academics at U.S institutions, so that the taboo is minimized and more of us can partiCipate in
thorough and community coordinated UAP investigations providing them legitimacy to this topic.
There is a crucial advantage when multiple scientists with expertise in multiple disciplines work
on the same problem, so that unique perspectives can help understand the nature of the data
involved. We would be happy to discuss in person (or virtually) and outline the kind of data we
are requesting.
Sincerely
Ravi Kopparapu (Planetary Scientist, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center)
Jacob Haqq-Misra (Research SCientist, Blue Marble Space Institute of Science)
Matthew Szydagis (Associate Professor, UAlbany SUNY Dept. of Physics)
Kevin H. Knuth (Associate Professor of Physics, UAlbany SUNY Dept. of Physics)
Dear Ms. Kean,
I am Ravi Kopparapu, a planetary scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. I, along with
my colleague Jacob Haqq-Misra who is a senior research investigator at Blue Marble Space
Institute of Science, are writing to you to initiate a discussion regarding common interests in
UFOs/UAPs. We are traditional scientists, with backgrounds in astrophysics, planetary science,
meteorology, and astrobiology. We would like to immediately assure you that we are not writing
to you in the hopes of engaging in an alien-UAP connection. Being trained as traditional
scientists, we are not able to reach that particular conclusion (or any conclusion) regarding the
nature of UAPs. Our goal is to obtain your perspective regarding observations of UAPs, and
possibly engage with us in studying the nature of UAPs using scientific methods that we use in
our daily jobs.
Several years ago, we both read your book "UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials
Go on the Record." Your book was the one that made us consider the subject of UAP seriously.
Over the years, we have discussed on how to approach this subject scientifically. We realized
the "taboo· nature of this topic is quite strong in academia. Our discussions led us to write an
article in the Scientific American, explaining our views and potential pathways to investigate
UFOs. We firmly believe in the "militant agnostic· approach that you suggested in your book. It
is not just a belief, but it is literally how we do our day jobs as scientists.
We are attempting to gauge interest in the scientific community, as we think there are several
others who might be interested but may not be more open about their views for various reasons.
Taboo certainly is one, but the lack of reliable publicly available data is another. As scientists,
our sense of the world around us comes from the data collected. In this respect, there seems to
be a dearth of dependable data collection. Without it, it would be nearly impossible to 'buy-in'
even those who are on the 'fence'. We hope to discuss this and several issues with you.
Thank you
Ravi & Jacob
From : I<a!:hryn E l ()ennioo
To: Hector §m'§-Nayauo: Kopoarapu, Bayj KUmar fGSfC-699O)
C<,
~;
Subject:
Date: Thursday, May 13, 20219:12:32 PM
I love revisiting Cosmos tOO:) But interesting how Saga n's "p,s," t here is much less exuberant than
his early recordings: https:IIwww.youtube.com/watch?v-cOeOp?a80MI
I hear you, Hector, So many people believe in alien life

fhttps:lIglocaljtjes,comnatestlreports{ma jorjty-of-hymanjty-say-we-are-not-alone=jn-the=ynjverse)
and have reasons other than empirical astronomy for their belief - and we're really not positioned to
address the vast majority of those lines of thought.
From : Hector Socas-Navarro orb) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 20213:09 PM
To: Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990) <ravikumar,kopparapu@nasa,gov>
Cc: Kathryn E L Denning STEVE N DICK orb) (6) Jason
Wright Eghigian, Greg Haqq-Misra, Jacob D, (GSFC-
6062)[Science Clement Indal orb) (6)
Ju lia DeMarines
,(b) (6) Margaret Turnbull
Steve Croft
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAl]IAA PC SEll UfO t ext
LOL, thanks for the laughs Jason

I have a comment that is not directly related t o these documents but the overall scenario, We have
been centering this discussion around UFOs but I worry about the broader implications of being t oo
open in the research interests of this community, to the point that anything with some
vague cultural association to alien intelligence may be considered within the scope of SETI. For
instance some people claim that they regularly have telepathi c communication with aliens, It may
sound physically implausible but t hey are certainly entitled to the same argument of "advanced alien
technology looks like magic", So where do we draw the line? In my opinion, sticking to astronomy is
a good idea, I also believe that we should consider if the alien association is well motivated and not
j ust popular culture.
On a side note, I just rewat ched episode 12 of Carl Sagan's COSMOS for a public talk tomorrow,
That's the episode in which he talks about SETI, I found it very touching especially after the collapse
of Arecibo, Here is somet hing he said in the update (10 years later) and it's still true now, 40 years
later :
htt pS' {/Yoyt y ,belV? B2gRZhSo?t- 342 2
Cheers!
Hector
On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 7:22 PM Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)

q ayjkuma LkoRRa ra Ru@nasa.goy> wrote:
I li ke Steve's question! And I li ke Kathryn's second suggestion ("establishing collaborative

relationships with some outside the PC -- e.g. a PC subcommittee t hat lia ises with external experts
and annually reports back to the Pc, could work well. This might be a good first step.")
As Jason alluded to, as a rule, I do not venture into a new fiel d on my own. I was a physicist in
Gravitational-wave astronomy, t hen moved to planetary and exoplanet science, and did that only
working with experts in the fiel d. It did t ake time and it will take ti me. So, the ideas proposed by
Steve and Kath ryn would be a good start.
From : Kathryn E L Denn ing ~

Date: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 1:43 PM
To : STEVEN DICK .(b) (6) Jason Wr ight .(b) (6)
Cc: "Egh igian, Greg" "Haqq -Misra, Jacob D. (GSFC-6062j[Sc ience
Collaborat or] " Clement Vida l .(b) (6) Hector Socas-
Navarro .(b )(6) Anamaria Berea (b) (6) Kopparapu,
Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" < ravikumar .kopparapu@nasa.gov>, ' (b) (6)
.(b) (6) Julia DeMarines .(b) (6) Chelsea
Haramia ~ Margaret Turnbull .(b) (6) Franck
March is Steve Croft .(b) (6)
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] IAA PC SETI UFO text
Hi All,
Than ks for the good points and question, Greg, Jason, Steve.
Some info and some observations:
I' m updating my own annotated list of 1M SETI members (main list is here
https:l/iaaseti.org!en/membersl) - having a bit of trouble w ith the files so I don't have the full file
to share, but here's the gist:
On the subject of expertise in our 96 members:
Outside astronomy: we do have a few people from fields other tha n astronomy: severa l biologists,
several social scientists, several communications experts, severa l humanities scholars (history,
philosophy), severa l lawyers, several art ists. Of this group, some of us probably have expertise in
some aspects of UFO/UAPs, but from what I know, I wouldn't say it's a current major focus for any
of us, and many of us don't work in that area at all. E.g. there are psychologists, sociologists, and
anthropologists who work a lot in these areas - I can think of a few -- but I don't th ink any of our
current member social scientist s do. (AI Harrison did, but his expertise hasn't been replaced since
his passing.)
On the astronomy / physics / engineering front, the disciplines where most of our members come
from: adding to Jason's comment, most of our members primarily work in areas like stellar
astrophysics, cosmology, radio astronomy, masers, neutron st ars, galaxies, etc. Overall, not the
loca l ballpark, but rather, its opposite, exactly because SETI has usually focused on distant
horizons and the big picture. Some exceptions, of course, e.g. particle physics, electrical
eng i ne r in~ instrumentation, software, etc.
There's also the question of who could or would take the t ime to develop new expertises : we have
members at junior, mid, senior, and emeritus career stages, but realistically, at each level there
are barriers to devoting much attention to a new field with questionable ret urns and reputational
risk. More so in some countries than others - and this is an internationa l committee.
So yeah, as Steve says: to really address this in the SETI PC, we would need some additi onal
expertise, I think .... We could do that either by
• adding members, OR
• establishing collaborative relationships with some outside the PC -- e.g. a PC subcommittee
that liaises with external experts and annua lly reports back to the PC, could work well. This
might be a good first step.
A more general comment, following on from something Jason said about drifting outside one's
training: SETI tends t o encourage big thinking across disciplinary li nes, which is often a good thing,
but 1have often seen some overconfidence/overreach from SETI thinkers along the lines of this
XKCD com ic bttDs:/lxkcd.com/4351 So yeah, we should take this question of expertise
seriously.
Cheers,
KD
From : STEVEN DICK .(b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 12:47 PM
To: Jason Wright .(b)(6)
Cc: Eghigian, Greg (b) (6)
.(b) (6)
.(b) (6) Anamaria Berea KOIOP"ra IPU, Ravi Kumar
(GSFC-6990) qayjkumar kopparapu@nasalN'£->; Julia DeMarines
.(b) (6) Margaret Turnbull
.(b) (6) Franck M,,,ct,;s <
.(b) (6) (b) (6)
Subject: Re : [EXTERNAL] 1M PC SETI UFO text
Well sai d, Jason. I th ink Clement has laid out the options very well in his May 10 e-mail. I am not
opposed to his position C, considering UFO/UAV research if t here is good science and data beh ind
it. Then the quest ion becomes should we do that w ithout appropriately and professiona lly
evaluating the data (given your last paragraph), or recommend expanding the PC w ith appropriate
expertise. That is the question, and it's a big one.
Steve
Steven J. Dick
21406 Clearfork Ct
Space, Time, and Aliens: Collected Works on Cosmos and Culture

bttps-{Iwww sp [ in~e [ com/gp/book19783030416133
Astrobiology, Discovery, and Societal

Impact www. cambridgeorg/9781108426763
Classifying the Cosmos. https 'Ulink springer com/bookl10 1007/978-3-

030-10380-4
Website http"/Isteyen jdjckcom/indexhtml
On May 12, 2021, at 10:57 AM, Jason Wright .(b) (6) wrote:
My op inion:
I t hink as physicists we astronomers have a t endency (to a fau lt) to drift outside our
train ing in many matters; we are trained pretty broadly. That said, I th ink it's
im portant when moving into a fiel d where expertise already exists to work closely
with that expertise.
Solar System SETI, for insta nce, is presumably within the purview of the PC but I'm
not sure we have very many planetary scientists wit h the appropriate background to
conduct it. That being said, planetary science is closely related to astronomy: ma ny
of us astronomers teach it at the 101 level in our jobs, and it uses many of the same
methods and instruments as the rest of astronomy. As such we are well qualified to
evaluate, at least roughly, work done in the field, and to weigh in on matters
invo lving it. And if it became a major priority, we could presumably seamlessly add
such expertise to the PC with people who "speak our language."
I don't th ink this is true for UFOlogy. Beyond some rough knowledge of the
properties of detector tech nology and the physics of astronautics, I don't know if I
could tell good work from very sophisticated hucksterism . For instance, if someone
gave me raw gun camera footage, I don 't th ink I could confidently ana lyze and
interpret it because the camera, the detector, and the image processing are very
different from the sort of thing we do in astronomy (there is a lot of on-chip image
processing going on that we don't do in astronomy, the camera is moving along
many axes, I have no experience with how various phenomena typically and
atypically appear, etc.)
Greg, you know what sorts of experts could do good work in the field . Is the list we
have in the statement a good summary?
On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 9:15 AM Eghigia n, Greg wrote:

Hi All,
I posted this in the comments of Jacob's and Ravi's draft, but I'm postin g
here as well .
I fmd Jacob's and Ravi' s draft minority repOit vety intriguing. As a non-
astronomer, however, I'd like to make an observation and get some
clarification from everyone.
I've been lmder the impression that a key element in the majority draft is the
argument that IAA SETI scholars - whose backgrOlmd and training are
chiefly (wholly?) in astronomy and related fields - are not qualified to assess
ten estrial UFO reports and evidence, i.e. that this kind of stuff fa lls lmder the
jurisdiction of other disciplines. The minority draft report would seem to me
to take issue with this, assuming that IAA SET! scholars are in fac t qualified
to make these assessments.
My question for the group then is, is there in fact a disagreement on this
point? Or am I missing something? (perhaps Jacob and Ravi are addressing
this issue in the fmal sentence of their draft?)
Best,
Greg
Greg Eghigian
Professor of History
Department of History
108 Weaver Building
USA
Emai l' (b) (6)
From: Jacob Haqq Misra .(b) (6)

Date: Tu esday, May 11, 2021 at 3:01 PM
To: (b) (6)
I . (b) (6)
Cc: Kathryn E L Denning .(b) (6) Clement Vidal
. (b) (6) Hector Socas-Navarro .(b) (6)
(b)(6) STEVEN DICK
· (b) (6) Anamaria Berea (b)(6)
"Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <rayjkymar.kopoaraou@nasa.fZQY>,
Greg Eghigian .(b) (6) (b)(6)
.(b) (6) Julia DeMarines .(b) (6)
Chelsea Haramia . (b) (6) Margaret Turnbull
.(b) (6) Franck Marchis .(b)(6) Steve
Croft .(b) (6)
Subject: Re : [EXTERNAL)IAA PC SETI UFO text
Thanks Jason for this updated textl I like it much better, but I still would not feel
comfortable signing. I just circulated a "mi nority report" document, as per your
suggestion, that describes a different position. There is certainly some overlap
between the minority report and your text, but they are not entirely compatable.
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 1:41 PM Jason Wright ·(b) (6) wrote:
Deletion Page

4 page(s) containing duplicate

Fro m: Kooparapu Bavi Kumar (GSEC-699Q)
To: Bei!triz Yillarroe!
C<co Haqq Misra Jamb D (GSfC-60621[Scjeoce Collaborator]: lars rnat!wlO@Su se
Subject: Be: [EXTERNAl]
Date: Saturday, May 1S, 20212:)4:43 PM
HI Beatriz,
Thank you for your comments.
Regarding the UNESCO approach, I think the maj ority report is not restricting the academic freedom
of researchers to do UFO research. It is just that the IAA-SETI PC (Permanent Committee) is not
interested in doing it. They do not have any problem if _ individual_ members of the committee do it
on their own. Our report is urging that SETI researchers shou ld consider doing it because of the
reasons outli ned in our minority report.
I guess Jacob can expla in about the terms of reference. I think it is a good idea to expand the intro a
bit.
Regarding the methodology, we fu lly agree with you about the data-driven approach and not stress
on anecdota l experiences . Have you read our Scientific American article on UFOs?
We are waiting for the majority report and this report to be published simultaneously. That t imeli ne
is independent of the Pentagon UFO report. We need to find out what is the t imescale for both the
reports. Ideally, I want both the reports to published before the pentagon report.
Jacob, shou ld we ask the timescale for these reports? I guess it would be good to f ind out. I don't see
anyone changing their positions.
Thanks
Ravi
From: Beatriz Villarroel

(b) (6)
Date: Satu rday, May IS, 2021 at 12:39 PM
To: " Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>
Cc: " Haqq -Misra, Jacob D. (GSFC-6062 j[Science Collabora t or]"
(b) (6)
Subject: Re : [EXTERNA L]
Hi Ravi and Jacob!

I've read through the document. I'm 100% in agreement with you on the discussion.
I'm wondering about a few things:
Could it be helpful to argue that the cu rrent norm on excluding UAPs goes against UN ESCO
recommendations on academic freedom for t he scientists? Even if IAA SETI writes a document for
community norms, a good document w ill adhere to the norms of the "h igher" organs such as the
UN, etc.
I'm wondering if one could make the introduction slightly longer and explain better the "terms of
reference" before discussing the bullet points.
How about if you include examples on what is serious vs non-serious research on UAPs? For
example, data-driven searches for UAPs should be fine. Anecdotal testimonies I'd avoid touching at
all (but possibly collect into a giant database).
Are you waiting to make the report public until 1st of June 2021, when Pentagon will publish a new
UFO report? It could be a good moment, and possibly you could include one paragraph summarizing
their UFO reports until now?
All the best,

Beatriz.
Den ons 12 maj 2021 k119:31 skrev Beatriz Vil1a rroel (b) (6)
Thanks a lot, Ravi! That sounds great. :)
liB.
Den ons 12 maj 2021 k119:01 skrev Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)
<rayikumar kopparapu@nasa i:0Y>:
Hi Beatriz,
That sounds great! I enquired about the student who can help. Looks like they are committed
somewhere else. I may have another st udent in m ind but let me find out. In the meantime,
perhaps I could help you so that I know the scope and details of the proj ect. And when a
student comes over, I could help them with your guidance.
Few weeks to month timescale looks good.

Best
Ravi
From : Beatriz Villarroel (b) (6)

Date: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 at 1: 27 PM
Subject: Re : [EXTER NAL]
Thanks a lot!
From the document I sent you, please ignore Section 2 & 3 of the document we sent, as
they are only notes for ourselves. :) Section 4.1. is also missing, and the Discussion, ofc. :)
We are going to need a few weeks to get started with the actua l scientif ic analysis -- mostly
because of m ore workshops and travels -- but I am rea lly looking forward :)
I'll however send you some comments and ideas on your pa per draft over the weekend.
//B.
Den ons 12 maj 202 1 kI18:09 skrev Koppara pu, Ravi Kuma r (GSFC-6990)
q ayj ku rna L koopa ra pu@nasa ,goy>:
Tha nks Beatriz, here is the draft t hat Jacob put together.
(b] (6)
From : Beat riz Villarroel
To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kuma r (GSFC-6990) " <rayjklJmar kopparaplJ@nasa ~oy >
Subject: [EXTERNA L]
from:
To:
Subject: [EXTERtW..] Re: 1M PC SEn M"1I'IOIJ;y Report

Date: Monday, Hay 17, 2021 9:23:42 AM
Hi All,
I think you're making an excellent case for SETA 011 Earth. Sc ientifically and logically it makes to tal
sense. It would be stupid for ETs to send artefacts in the whole solar system except on Earth, and it
would be sfilpid for us to look for artefacts in the whole solar system except on Eal1h. This area of the
search space deselVes to be investigated. If there were no UFO investigations, this would be a 110-
brainer.
The core issue under consideration however is not scientific, but institutional and policy-related. TIlere
are two core constraints:
(a) PreselVe the legitimacy and scientific integrity of scientific SETI.
(b) PreselVe the limited resources of the small astrobiology/SETI conlllllmity.
The SETA on Earth you propose is acnlally a research program. It might for example:
- EXaluine past alld presently incoming UFOIUAP reports and data. TIlis might be a growing haystack
where there is a needle.
- Start fresh with SETA on Eanh with standard sciemific method I data. This needs not to focus on
UFOslUAPs.
Both efforts require a lot of resources (e.g. interdisc iplinar scholars and additional expert s) . To satisfy
(a). I think. it would make most sense to do like big companies do when they want to experiment new
things without risking to damage the main brand. i.e. to create a spin-off. In tltis case, a SETA spinoff
would not risk the credibility/integrity of existing SEn institutions. If successful , the new spinoff could
be later integrated as part of standard SETI instinnions and research programs.
In the meantime, as the majority report suggests, placing a high threshold -however vaguely it is
defined- on UFOs/UAPs abstracts would preserve the current resources and integrity (constraints (a) &
(b)). In Illy view, the opening to consider exceptionally UFOIUAP abstracts is already a great step
fOlward in comparison to an exclusion of this possibility without ally justification.
I hope this helps a bit..

Ch:ment.
On Tue, 11 May 202 1 at 20:43. Jacob Haqq Misra wrote:

Hi All,
I am brallChing this into a new email thread to not confuse the other ongoing discussion. Please see
the link. below fur the "minority report" drafted by myself and Ravi. TItis is intended to represent an
altemative position from the "majority report" being discussed by many of you.
Please take a look and pre,viele

thread. If you agree
Jacob
Clement Vidal.
hnp:lIwww.c1emyidal.coml@c1ewvidal
=
Center
IIlllllk I Patreon I Bhlg IEIlli
, Vrije Universiteit Brussel
, 1160 Brussels, Belgium
From :
To:
[EXTERNAl} Rf: 1M PC UFO Report

Monday, May 17, 2021 2:26:38 PM
Thanks Jason. I made a couple of sma ll edit suggestions, but I'm happy with this.
Jason, you might want to check in with the Exec before sen ding this to the whole committee. They
may have some preferences regarding timing, i.e. they might have other issues they are trying to
deal with.
n.b. PC members may not accurately gauge our collective qualifications to address this, i.e. it may be
that some members think we have all the in-house expertise necessary, even if we don't really. I
guess we'll see how that plays out. That question of available expertise within the committee could
be answered by a members survey.
Cheers all,
KD
From: Jason Wright .(b) (6)

Sent: Monday, May 17, 202110:28 AM
To: Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (G';FC -69 '90)

.(b) (6) STEVEN DICK 0-]m.i ~
Haqq-Misra, Jacob D.(GSFC-6062)(Science Collahorator)
Marchis
Subject: 1M PC UFO Report
OK, I think we have all but converged!
Having confi rmed with Jacob that the alternative text I wrote is fair and accurate. I have composed a
longer document. It uses the alternative text as an introduction, namely a description of the process,
our di sagreement and two competi ng sets of recommendations for the Pc. My intention is that this
is the consensus part of the document.
It is followed by two reports, a majority report and a minority report.
You can find it here:

Jacob and Ravi, I have made some minor edits to your document and altered the title to maintain
parallelism and symmetry with the other one. I hope this is OK—feel free to change things back.
By my count we have:
8 of us are happy with the majority report (names are on it)

2 of us are happy with the minority report (names are on it)
3 of us have not weighed in: Klara, Maggie, Julia. Also Steve Croft has been added to the group, so
that's 4.
Clément objects to one paragraph in the majority report, but others feel it is important to keep, so
I've kept it.
All: I've made minor edits to things so please look the whole thing over and let me know if you
object to anything, otherwise I'll assume you are happy to keep your names where they are.
Unless I hear an objection I'll plan on a deadline of Friday May 21 for submitting this to the PC.
--
-
---------------
Jason T Wright
he/him/his
@Astro Wright
From: Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)
To: Shekhtman, Lonnie (GSFC-690.0)[ADNET SYSTEMS INC]
Subject: Re: Canceled: Book club!
Date: Monday, May 17, 2021 2:37:53 PM
Ok great! Thank you.
From: "Shekhtman, Lonnie (GSFC-690.0)[ADNET SYSTEMS INC]"

<lonnie.shekhtman@nasa.gov>
Date: Monday, May 17, 2021 at 2:30 PM
To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>
Hey Ravi,
Yep, this is just the writers meeting. Weird that you and Andrea got the invite. I took you off of it.
And that it says “Canceled.” Anyway, I have some calendar stuff to figure out …
I’ll follow up with you, though, after we brainstorm on your behalf.
Lonnie
--
Lonnie Shekhtman
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center
301-614-6833
From: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>

To: "Shekhtman, Lonnie (GSFC-690.0)[ADNET SYSTEMS INC]" <lonnie.shekhtman@nasa.gov>
Hi Lonnie,
For my clarity, is this just you and others meeting, or do you want me to join as well? I have no
problem joining, just wanted to make sure I am not a third wheel in your meeting.

Date: Monday, May 17, 2021 at 11:24 AM
To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa .gov>, "Jones, Andrea
J. (GSFC-6900)" <andrea .j .jones@nasa .gov>, "Lonnie Shekhtman (via Google Drive)"
(b) (6)
Subject: Canceled : Book club!
Since we didn't rea ll y get t o delve int o t he UFO st ory last week, we'll do it th is week . Also,
we'll ta lk more amongst ourselves about Ravi's predicament.
...
For next week, y'all : " How the pental:on Sta rted Jakine lJ F 0 s Seriously ."
Plus, t his related piece by a fa bulous exopla net scientist , Rayi Kopparapu, in my division :
'Unidentified Aerial Phenomena.' Better Known as UFOs. Deserve Scientific Invest igat ion "
Don't m iss out!
See you soon,

Lonnie
Leaving your read ing r d r h

(b) (6)
Microsoft Team s meeting

Join on your computer or mobile app
Click here to join the meeting
ALERT: All meeting participants consent to, and will abide by, the terms and conditions viewable at the
LEGAL link below. No ITAR/EAR content display or sharing without consent from Export Control.
I earn MOre Il:ie.lp I Meeting options 1.Le.Q.al

Fro m:
To:
Subject: Re : Technosigllilw-es Re: [EXTERNAL] I nquiry f rom Washington Post about your pi!pef"
Date: Tuesday, May 18, 202112:32:43 PM
I sent Ravi an email asking for a debrief. I will let you know when I hear from him.
Thanks,
Nancy
On: 18 May 202 1 12 : 11 , "Jol111son, Alana R. (HQ-DGOOO)[ASRC FEDERAL SYSTEM

SOLlJITONS]" <alana rjohnson@nasa goy> wrote :
Thanks for the heads up, Nancy.
The SMD HQ SME for technosignatures is Michael New. I am adding him

here for awareness.
This unfolded quickly, so I doubt anyone in comms facilitate the interview

with Ravi , but are we able to get a wrap up from him?
Thanks!
Alana
Are you a journalist covering the Ingenuity Mars Helicopter or the Perseverance Mars
rover, please /ill out our media request form at httDS:IIJJjtlvlmars landinG media,
Alana R. Johnson
Senior Communications Specialist, PAAC V Contract
Planetory Science Division
(202) 358-1501 I
NASA Headquarters, '","0, uc.. 20546
asrcfederal com Purpose Driven. Enduring Commitment.
From: "Jo nes, Nancy N. (GSFC- 1300)" <oaocy.n.jooes@oasa.gov>

Date: Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 12 :00 PM
To: "Fox, Karen C. (GSFC- 1300) " <karen.c.fox@nasa.goy>, "Johnson, Ala na R. (HQ-
DGOOO)[ASRC FEDERAL SYSTEM SOLUTIONS] " q lana r johnson@nasa gov>,
"Handal, Joshua A. (HQ- DGOOO)[AS RC FEDERAL SYSTEM SO LUTIONS j "
< joshua a handal@nasa goy>, " Hauta luoma, Grey (HQ- NA020) "
<grey.hautaluorna l@nasa.goy>
Subject: Fwd : [EXTERNALj lnqu iry from Wash ington Post about your paper
All,
I am out of t he office t oday so I am checking email off and on. I just read through this
ema il exchange between one of our scientist s, Ravi, and a reporter at the Washington
Post.
Based on the email, the scientist did an interview with Post this morning. Ravi was the
author of a paper looking for technosignatures o n habitable pla nets. We did a story o n
it in February. The reporter wanted to know about his paper because of the recent UFO
stories.
Nancy
Begin Forwarded Message:

From: " Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)"
qayikumar kopparapu@nasaINY>
Subject: Re: [EXTE RNAL] In quiry from Washington Post about your paper
Date: 18 May 202111 :08
To: "Deily, Mary-Ellen" (b)(6)
Cc: "Andreoli, Claire (GSFC-1300)" <claire andreoli@nasa EOY>, "Jones,
Nancy N. (GSFC-1300)" <nancy n jones@nasaEoy>
Hi Mary-Ellen,
(b) (6)
That is good . My phone number is
Thanks
Ravi
From: " Dei ly, M"",-FU,'n "

Date: Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 11:07 AM
To: " Koppa ra pu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)"
<ravikumar .koppa rapu@nasa.gov>
Subject: Re : [EXTERNAL] Inqu iry fr om Wash ington Post about your
paper
Thank you, Ravi. What if I call you in 15 minut es or so?
Sent: Tuesday, May

To: Deily, I
Subject: Re : [ E Xlu r ~ 'ALj; ;;t;;;",vo,,, paper
ICAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER

Hi Mary-Ellen,
Sure, I wou ld be happy to talk. This art icle that I wrote last year might also
be relevant:
httRS; IlWo/fW. scientifi camerjca n. cornIa rtj clelu nj dentjfied aerjal
Rhenomena better known as ufos deserve scientjfic jnyestjgatjonl
[sci entifi camerj ca n. coml
I am free today except from 2-3pm.

Ravi
(b) (6)
From: "Dei ly, Mary- Ellen"
To: " Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)"
<rayjklJmar kopparaplJ@nasa ~oy >
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Inquiry from Wash ington Post about your paper
Dear Dr. Kopparapu,

I read about your recent paper on technosignatures and hoped t o
ta lk t o you about it. Obviously, the recent spate of news stories about
UFOs has piqued my (and others ') curiosity. I'm hop ing t o find an
interest ing and perhaps different take on what 's going on, and your
paper -- wh ich I learned ofthrough a SETl lnstitut e t weet -- caught
my attent ion.
Wou ld you have a few minutes to chat? I'd love to get your
perspect ive on th is or t ips on who else I shou ld contact. My cell phone
number is 571-265-9705. (I'm work ing from home.)
Thank you,
Mary- Ellen Dei ly
Mu lt iplatform ed itor
The Washingt on Post, Op inions department
To: Jones. Nancy N. (GSFC-l3Ml
C<co Andreoli Date (GSEC -1300)
Subject: Be: [EXTERNAl] Inquiry from Washington Post about your paper
Date: Tuesdi!y, May 18, 202112:40:00 PM
Hi Nancy,
The interview was about our ~ ~ on Tech nosignature science, and UAPs (or UFOs). They
asked about djfferences between biosignatures and technosignatures, and how the search would be
done. I talked about JWST and other potent ial missions. They were asking if I could write an article in
the Washington Post about how scientists should approach the study of UFOs, based on our last
year's article in Scientific American . This WaPo article wou ld be for non-scientific aud ience. They
wanted a draft {or at least few paragraphs of a text} to show it to their ed itors by Thursday this
week, and if they like it, then they might publish it after some edits. I plan to write this article w ith
my co-author of the above Scientific American article, Jacob Haqq-Misra . I will send a draft t o you,
Claire, Paul Mahaffy, Stephanie Getty, Cha rles Ma lespin {my direct supervisor in 699} and Scott
Guzewich (Associ ate lab chief of 699). This is the same st eps I went through for my SciAm article as
wel l.
Thanks
Ravi
From: "Jones, Nancy N. (GSFC-1300)" <nancy.n.jones@nasa.gov>

Date: Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 12:24 PM
To: " Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ra vikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>
Cc: " Andreoli, Claire (GSFC-1300)" <claire.and reoli@nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Inqu iry from Wash ington Post about your paper
Hello Ravi,
Can you please give Claire and I a debrief on how the interview went? What were some of the
questions? Was there a particula r slant to the interview?
Thanks
Nancy
On: 18 May 20211 1:08, "Kopparapu, Ravi Kuma r (GSFC-6990)" q aYikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>

wrote :
Hi Mary-Ellen,
That is good . My phone number is (b) (6)
Thanks
Ravi
From: "Dei ly, Mary- Ellen" .(b) (6) >
Date: Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 11 :07 AM
To: "Koppa rapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" q ayjklJmar kopparaplJ@nasa ~oy >
Subject: Re : [EXTERNAL] Inqu iry from Wash ington Post about your paper
Thank you, Ravi. What if I call you in I S minut es or so?
From: Koppa rapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990) <rayjkumaLkoooarapu@nasa.goy>

Sent: Tuesday, May
To: Deily, M ary-Ellen
Subject: Re : I EXlur~ Ai'J TiQ WrV ao.;utvOIJr paper
Hi Mary-Ellen,
Sure, I wou ld be happy to talk. This art icle that I wrote last year might also be relevant:
httos:/Iwww.scieotificamerjcan .com/artjde/unjdentjfied aerjal phenomena better
known as ufos deserve scientifjc inyestjgation/ [scjeotificamerjcao ,coml
I am free today except from 2-3pm.

Ravi
(b) (6)
From: "Dei ly, Mary- Ellen"
To: "Koppa rapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" < ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Inquiry from Wash ington Post about your paper
Dear Dr . Kopparapu,
I read abo ut your recent paper on technosig natures and hoped t o talk to you
about it. Obv iously, the recent spat e of news st ories about UFOs has piqued my
(and ot hers' ) curiosity. I'm hoping to f ind an interest ing and perhaps different
take on w hat's go ing on, and your paper -- wh ich I learned of t hrough a SETI
Institute tweet -- caug ht my attent ion .
Wou ld you have a few minutes to chat? I'd love to get your perspect ive on th is or
t ips o n who else I sho uld contact . My cell phone number is (b) (6) I'm
working from home.)
Thank you,
Mary-Ellen Dei ly
Mu lt iplat form ed itor
The Was hingt on Post, Op inions department
From : SbekhJman, lonnie 'GSfC-§9CJ.O)[A[)NEI S)'STEMS INC)
To: KopoaraptJ, Ray!KUmar CGSfC..6990l
Subject: Re: UAP
Da le: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 9:12:S5 AM
Hey Ravi-
I was writing you a long email, but then I thought let's just talk, I'm going to call you in a minute ",
l onnie
lonnie Shekhtman
301-61 4-6833
From: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar,kopparapu@nasa,gov>

Date: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 8:58 AM
To: "Shekh tm an, l o nni e (GSFC-690,O)[ADNET SYSTE M S INC]" <Ionnie,shekhtman@nasa,gov>
Subject: Re: UAP
Thanks lonnie, I was going to write to you about another thing, Yesterday, I was contacted by a
Washington Post reporter who wanted to talk about Technosignatures and UFOs, Towards the end,
they asked me to write about an article about UFOs from a scientist's perspective. The reporter
wanted to initially see a draft and send it to their editor. and if they like it, they want to publish it
(after some edits) before this month, So the deadline is pretty short. I need to give a draft by
tomorrow,
I already wrote a draft and I am waiting from my co-author Jacob Haqq-Misra to finalize it. I will send
you the draft once we have it ready.
will send you soon.
Ravi

Subject: UAP
Now it’s everywhere. I think it’s a good time to be digging for data.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/05/17/ufo-sightings-navy-ryan-graves/
https://www.vice.com/en/article/z3xnkx/watch-a-navy-pilot-explain-his-encounter-with-a-ufo?
utm_source=email&utm_medium=editorial&utm_content=daily&utm_campaign=210517
From : SbekhJman. lonnie 'GSfC-§9CJ.O)[A[)NEI S)'STEMS INC)
To: KopoaraptJ. KUmar CGSfC..6990l
Ray!
Da t e : Wednesday, May 19, 20219:50:2 1 AM
From: Guzewich, Scott D. (GSFC-6990)
To: Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990); Mahaffy, Paul R. (GSFC-6900)
Cc: Getty, Stephanie A. (GSFC-6900); Malespin, Charles A. (GSFC-6990); Domagal-goldman, Shawn D. (GSFC-6930);
Jones, Nancy N. (GSFC-1300); Andreoli, Claire (GSFC-1300); Shekhtman, Lonnie (GSFC-690.0)[ADNET SYSTEMS
INC]
Subject: Re: Washington Post article draft
Date: Thursday, May 20, 2021 8:47:04 AM
Ravi,
I think you struck a nice tone and have some good points! I’ll leave it to those above me to decide
what else needs to be done for legalities
Scott
Scott D. Guzewich
Associate Lab Chief, Planetary Environments Laboratory Code 699
NASA Goddard Spaceflight Center, Greenbelt, MD
(301) 286-1542

To: "Mahaffy, Paul R. (GSFC-6900)" <paul.r.mahaffy@nasa.gov>
Cc: "Getty, Stephanie A. (GSFC-6900)" <stephanie.a.getty@nasa.gov>, "Malespin, Charles A.
(GSFC-6990)" <Charles.A.Malespin@nasa.gov>, Scott Guzewich <scott.d.guzewich@nasa.gov>,
"SHAWN (GSFC-6990) DOMAGAL-GOLDMAN" <shawn.goldman@nasa.gov>, "Jones, Nancy N.
(GSFC-1300)" <nancy.n.jones@nasa.gov>, "Andreoli, Claire (GSFC-1300)"
<claire.andreoli@nasa.gov>, "Shekhtman, Lonnie (GSFC-690.0)[ADNET SYSTEMS INC]"
Subject: Washington Post article draft
Hi Paul, Stephanie, Charles, Scott, Shawn, Nancy, Claire and Lonnie,
I was contacted by a Washington Post reporter yesterday to talk about Technosignatures and UAPs.
The summary of that discussion resulted in them asking me to write an article for the Post related to
UAP (or UFOs), to provide a scientist’s perspective. If you remember, this was similar to the one I
wrote last year for Scientific American . I wrote a draft of the article and attached with this email.
Please let me know if you have any comments or suggestions (or concerns). I tried to stick to science
and availability of data.
My co-author is a colleague of mine at Blue Marble Space Institute of Science, Jacob Haqq-Misra.
Thank you
Ravi
--
Ravi kumar Kopparapu
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt, MD 20771
email: ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov
From: Shekhtman, Lonnie (GSFC-690.0)[ADNET SYSTEMS INC]
To: Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)
OK, go for it.
--
Lonnie Shekhtman
301-614-6833

Hmm…..that is certainly a possibility. And I indeed should consider this carefully.

Here is my thought: I cannot please everyone, right? He is a member of NAS and was well-respected
in his field. And from what I have heard from my colleagues, they barely remember him or don’t
have a negative opinion about him. On the SciAm article, I did not get any negative feedback about it
(In fact, the editor appreciated mentioning Hynek, Mc Donald and others). But as you said, this is a
public article. Let’s see how it goes. I am trusting that the scientific community is not ‘that’ careless.

I’m not questioning his integrity at all. I’m just trying to bulletproof. Do you think that anyone would
read your story and say: “Your inspiration is THAT kook?” If not, you’re all good.
--
Lonnie Shekhtman
301-614-6833
Ok.
Allen Hynek is more well-known than James Mc Donald. In fact, every sensational history channel
UFO series has his name portrayed by some actor, and there was an even a dedicated series about
him and his work on Project Blue Book.
James Mc Donald reputation may have taken a hit, but his science is absolutely solid. His science is
what I want to highlight here. He was not like some others whose science is bad and because of that
the reputation too ka hit. His _hypothesis_ is aliens, but he never went ‘overboard’ with it.
I mean, he is the one scientist that everyone should pay attention to, if they want to perform science
of UFOs.
Ravi

No not because of suicide, per se. But because it seems like his reputation took a hit due to his UFO
work, and that he was pro the ET hypothesis. He’s not a household name like Carl Sagan, so I don’t
even know if it makes sense to cite him in a general-interest pub. I also don’t know much about Allen
Hynek – don’t remember his story from the New Yorker article.
--
Lonnie Shekhtman
301-614-6833

Thanks Lonnie, A quick question. Why do you think mentioning James Mc Donald is a bit iffy?
Because he committed suicide?

Hi Ravi,
There are a lot of good ideas in here. I have some thoughts in the attached.
Lonnie
--
Lonnie Shekhtman
301-614-6833

(GSFC-6990)" <Charles.A.Malespin@nasa.gov>, "Guzewich, Scott D. (GSFC-6990)"
<scott.d.guzewich@nasa.gov>, "Domagal-goldman, Shawn D. (GSFC-6930)"
<shawn.goldman@nasa.gov>, "Jones, Nancy N. (GSFC-1300)" <nancy.n.jones@nasa.gov>,
"Andreoli, Claire (GSFC-1300)" <claire.andreoli@nasa.gov>, "Shekhtman, Lonnie (GSFC-690.0)
[ADNET SYSTEMS INC]" <lonnie.shekhtman@nasa.gov>
Thank you
Ravi
--
Greenbelt, MD 20771
To: Jacob Hagg Mjsra; Hagg-Mjsra. Jacob P. (GSEC-6Q62)[Scjeoce Collaborator]
Subject: Be: [EXTERNAl] Be: fW : Washington Post article draft
Da te: Thursday, May 20, 2021 9 :33:51 AM
Ok thank you . I am trying to stress less on the Navy videos and more on the genera l UAP phenomena
because it looks some of the Navy videos have some convincing explanations. If we focus on that,
the genuine ones (like the Mc Donald's cases) mayor wi ll also be categorized as expla inable wit hout
any thought. It is a sweeping generali zation people make. There are two aspects to the Navy videos:
the testimon ies of the pilots of some really weird UFOs in 2004 (I don't t hink we have data or videos
for that), and 2015/2019 videos wh ich could be explainable. A lot of people (including scientists who
dismiss them) combine these two and dismiss them, and others on other side also confuse these
events.
Navy videos may have highlighted the UAPs, but t he more I look at them, t he more I think that they
are explainable. I don' t understand the intent of releasing or leaking gra iny, edited videos that could
be explainable that obfuscate genuine UFO cases. This gives ammunit ion to critics to broad-brush
ALL t he UFO phenomena . UFOs are a much broader, worldwide phenomena than focusing on these
videos. This is t he point I think we should high light.
From: Jacob Haqq M isra

Date: Thursday, May 20,202 1 at 8:56 AM
Subject: Re: [EXTER NAL] Re : FW: Wash ingt on Post article draft
Sure, I just added some text in the second paragraph from the end . I ment ioned FOIA, but you can
delete it if you would prefer not to talk about it.
On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 8:21 AM Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)

<ravikuma r.kopparapu@nasa.gov> wrote:
Great! Can you include your last paragraph point in the text? I am trying to edit the document
already.
And yes, I want to keep Mc Donald. He has done more to UFO science than anyone. He deserves
credit.
Ravi
From : Jacob Haqq M isra <W'JIQJ_

Date: Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 8:17 AM
Cc: "Haqq-Misra, Jacob D. (GSFC-6062)[Sci ence Collaborator]"
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: FW: Washington Post article draft
Okay thanks! These are some good comments, especially about rearranging some of the content.
I have no problem including James McDonald, but if we must remove mention of him we can. He
is still mentioned in the SciAm article.
I also agree we can explain a bit more about the kind of data that is needed. We can talk about
how most data is limited in terms of recorded observations, and often eyewitness testimony is the
only way to cross-validate. But in other areas of science, we are able to compare multiple
independent measurements.
On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 4:48 PM Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)

<ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov<mailto:ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>> wrote:
One of our science writer sent these comments. I will update our google draft accordingly. My
guess is this is the only detailed comment from NASA side we will get. Others are just approvers.
I asked for further clarification on her reservations about Mc Donald (she did mention some time
ago he committed suicide because no one believed him).
She responded:
No not because of suicide, per se. But because it seems like his reputation took a hit due to his
UFO work, and that he was pro the ET hypothesis. He’s not a household name like Carl Sagan, so I
don’t even know if it makes sense to cite him in a general-interest pub. I also don’t know much
about Allen Hynek – don’t remember his story from the New Yorker article.
I said I am not worried because he is the one scientist everyone should pay attention to, if they
want to do science of UFOs.

<lonnie.shekhtman@nasa.gov<mailto:lonnie.shekhtman@nasa.gov>>
To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)"
<ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov<mailto:ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>>
Hi Ravi,
There are a lot of good ideas in here. I have some thoughts in the attached.
Lonnie
--
Lonnie Shekhtman
301-614-6833
From: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)"

<ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov<mailto:ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>>
To: "Mahaffy, Paul R. (GSFC-6900)"
<paul.r.mahaffy@nasa.gov<mailto:paul.r.mahaffy@nasa.gov>>
Cc: "Getty, Stephanie A. (GSFC-6900)"
<stephanie.a.getty@nasa.gov<mailto:stephanie.a.getty@nasa.gov>>, "Malespin, Charles A. (GSFC-
6990)" <Charles.A.Malespin@nasa.gov<mailto:Charles.A.Malespin@nasa.gov>>, "Guzewich, Scott
D. (GSFC-6990)" <scott.d.guzewich@nasa.gov<mailto:scott.d.guzewich@nasa.gov>>, "Domagal-
goldman, Shawn D. (GSFC-6930)"
<shawn.goldman@nasa.gov<mailto:shawn.goldman@nasa.gov>>, "Jones, Nancy N. (GSFC-1300)"
<nancy.n.jones@nasa.gov<mailto:nancy.n.jones@nasa.gov>>, "Andreoli, Claire (GSFC-1300)"
<claire.andreoli@nasa.gov<mailto:claire.andreoli@nasa.gov>>, "Shekhtman, Lonnie (GSFC-690.0)
[ADNET SYSTEMS INC]" <lonnie.shekhtman@nasa.gov<mailto:lonnie.shekhtman@nasa.gov>>
I was contacted by a Washington Post reporter yesterday to talk about Technosignatures and
UAPs. The summary of that discussion resulted in them asking me to write an article for the Post
related to UAP (or UFOs), to provide a scientist’s perspective. If you remember, this was similar to
the one I wrote last year for Scientific American<https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scientificamerican.com%2Farticle%2Funidentified-aerial-phenomena-
better-known-as-ufos-deserve-scientific-
investigation%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cravikumar.kopparapu%40nasa.gov%7C42415f265bab40c1af
4508d91b0423ef%7C7005d45845be48ae8140d43da96dd17b%7C0%7C0%7C6375705270138041
07%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiL
CJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=PPdGbbKoRYukMgsaIZEB2SCe40YPGiicLfq4JqhTf%2BY%3D&res
erved=0<https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?
url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scientificamerican.com%2Farticle%2Funidentified-aerial-phenomena-
better-known-as-ufos-deserve-scientific-
investigation%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cravikumar.kopparapu%40nasa.gov%7Cdd18e0e4aac04ecc1
e0308d91b893ba5%7C7005d45845be48ae8140d43da96dd17b%7C0%7C0%7C637571098493776
922%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwi
LCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=Ee7b6%2F5dDg1p9Ua2DuMm9OlFF9t1%2FlDeF4YN1pcZU1U
%3D&reserved=0>> . I wrote a draft of the article and attached with this email. Please let me
know if you have any comments or suggestions (or concerns). I tried to stick to science and
availability of data.
Thank you
Ravi
--
Greenbelt, MD 20771
email: ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov<mailto:ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>
<mailto:ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov<mailto:ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>>
Deletion Page
Requester: _Jo_hn_G_r_e_en_e_w_a_ld_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Requst # :~21 ~-HQFO 6~O3 ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
4
Page(s) is/are being withheld in full
by NASA and the following marked
exemption(s) is/are being claimed.
EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED:
FOlA: 5 U.S.C. § 552
D b(l ) D b(2) D b(3):
D b(4) IKJ
b(5) D b(6) D b(7XA) D b(7XC) D b(7)(D)
D b(7)(E) D b(7)(F)
PRIVACY ACT: 5 V .S.c. § 552.
D d(5) D j(l) D j(2) D k(l) D k(2) D k(3)
D k(4) D k(5) D k(6) D k(7)
Description of DO CUlllellt withheld: Intemal Draft article containing comments

To: Eghigian, Greg
Cc: Haqq-Misra, Jacob D. (GSFC-6062)[Science Collaborator]
Subject: Washington Post article on UFOs
Attachments: WaPo ver2.docx
Dear Greg,
We were recently contacted by a Washington Post reporter to talk about Technosignatures and
UAPs. The summary of that discussion resulted in them asking us to write an article for the Post
related to UAP (or UFOs), to provide a scientist’s perspective. This is similar to the one that we wrote
last year for Scientific American . Our draft of the article is attached with this email. We would
greatly appreciate your comments on this one. Currently, this draft is in the NASA review process
chain of approval.
Thank you
Ravi
--
Greenbelt, MD 20771
To: Malespjn, ChIde:; A, (GSfC-6990l
Subject: Be : Washington Post article draft
Da te: Thursday, May 20, 2021 9 :57:44 AM
Thanks Charles !
From: "Malespin, Ch arles A, (GSFC-6990)" <Ch arlesAMa lespin@nasa, gov>

Date: Thursday, May 20,202 1 at 9: S6 AM
To: " Koppa ra pu, Ravi Kuma r (GSFC-6990)" <ravikum ar. koppa rapu@nasa ,gov>
Subject: Re : Washingt on Post art icl e draft
Ravi,
This looks good to me, I w ill of course defer t o the HQ people on what is ok t o say and what isn' t, but
I cant imagine they have issues with this draft , Nice j ob!
Charles
Charles A Malespin
Chief, Planeta ry Envi ronments La b (Code 699)
NASA Goddard I
301-614-6042
From: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kuma r (GS FC-6990) " <ravi kuma r ,kopparapu@nasa ,gov>
Date: Thursday, M ay 20,202 1 at 9:12 AM
To: "J ones, Na ncy N, (GSFC-1300)" <nancy ,n,jones@nasa,gov>, "M aha ffy, Paul R, (GSFC-
6900)" <paul ,r ,mahaffy@nasa,gov>
Cc: "Getty, St ephanie A, (GSFC-6900)" <st ephanie,a,getty@nasa ,gov>,
"ch arles ,a,malespin@nasa,gov" <Charles ,A,Malespin@nasa ,gov>, "Guzewich, Scott D, (GSFC-
6990)" <scott.d ,guzew ich@n asa ,gov>, " Dom aga l-goldman, Shawn D, (GSFC-6930) "
<shawn ,goldman@nasa ,gov>, "Andreoli, Cla ire (GS FC-1300)" <cla ire,andreoli@nasa ,gov>,
"Shekht man, Lonn ie (GSFC-690 ,0)[AD NET SYSTE M S INC] " <Ionnie.shekht man@nasa ,gov>
Subject: Re : Washingt on Post art icle draft
Hi Nancy,
Thank you,
Yes, I do remember and is the reason I sent this article as well t o all of you, I can send a fi nal draft
once I have approval from all of you in this email. Thank you to those who have al ready responded,
Ravi
To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>, "Mahaffy, Paul
R. (GSFC-6900)" <paul.r.mahaffy@nasa.gov>
<shawn.goldman@nasa.gov>, "Andreoli, Claire (GSFC-1300)" <claire.andreoli@nasa.gov>,
"Shekhtman, Lonnie (GSFC-690.0)[ADNET SYSTEMS INC]" <lonnie.shekhtman@nasa.gov>
Hi Ravi,
When you have the final copy, I will send it to HQ so that they can have a look before it goes to the
Washington Post. If you recall, we sent the Scientific American article to HQ as well.
Thanks,
Nancy
--
Nancy Neal Jones
Senior Communications Manager
Solar System Exploration Division
Office of Communications
Nancy.N.Jones@nasa.gov

<shawn.goldman@nasa.gov>, "Nancy N. Jones" <nancy.n.jones@nasa.gov>, "Andreoli, Claire
(GSFC-1300)" <claire.andreoli@nasa.gov>, "Shekhtman, Lonnie (GSFC-690.0)[ADNET SYSTEMS
INC]" <lonnie.shekhtman@nasa.gov>
Thank you
Ravi
--
Greenbelt, MD 20771
~
:". ","":.,=
From : Kooparaou. RiM Kumar (GSfC-699(!1
To: Domagakloldmao. Shawn p. (GSfC..fj930): Mahaffy. paul B. fGSfC-69OOl
C<, Getty. Stepbapje A. 'GSfC..fj900l; Ma!espiv. 0lar1es A. 'GSfC.6990): Gurewjch. Srott p. fGSC.69O):~
Nancy N. fGSfC-1300): Andrco!i. Caire (GSfC.l300): ShcIshtINo. Lonnjc CGSfC-690.0}[AQNEI SYSTEMS INC)
Subject: Be: Washington Post article draft
Hi Shawn,
Thank you. Excellent point! Lonnie also suggested the exact same thi ng on moving up that
paragraph. I will do so.
Ravi
From: "Domagal-goldman, Shawn D. (GSFC-6930)" <shawn.goldman@nasa.gov>

To: "Mahaffy, Paul R. (GSFC-6900)" <paul.r.mahaffy@nasa.gov>, "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar
(GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>
Cc : "Getty, Stepha ni e A. (GSFC-6900)" <stephanie.a.getty@nasa.gov>, "Malespin, Charles A.
(GSFC-6990)" <CharlesAMalespin@nasa.gov>, "Guzewich, Scott D. (GSFC-6990)"
<scott.d.guzewich@nasa.gov>, "Jones, Nancy N. (GSFC-1300)" <nancy.n.jones@nasa.gov>,
"Andreol i, Cla ire (GSFC-1300)" <claire.andreoli@nasa.gov>, "Shekhtman, Lonnie (GSFC-690.0)
[ADNET SYSTEMS INCl" <Ionnie.shekhtman@nasa.gov>
Ravi,
I enjoyed reading thi s and thinks it makes excellent points and is perfect for
audience. I think a little more clarity is needed in the paragraph that begins
The other thing I'd suggest is moving that paragraph up. The point you are making in that
• h h h I ·d h • ! •h b df h·
(b ) (5)
shawn
Shawn Domagal-Goldman
he/him/his
Branch Chief, Planetary Systems lab (Code 693)
Note - If you receive an email from me on nights and/or weekends, that doesn't mean I expect
you to read it or reply at that time. If its urgent and I need an immediate reply, I'll be sure to
let you know. Otherwise, please read/reply when you can during whatever your working hours
happen to be.
From: Mahaffy, Paul R. (GSFC-6900) <paul.r.mahaffy@nasa.gov>

Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2021 9:57 AM
To: Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990) <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>
Cc: Getty, Stephanie A. (GSFC-6900) <stephanie.a.getty@nasa.gov>; Malespin, Charles A. (GSFC-
6990) <Charles.A.Malespin@nasa.gov>; Guzewich, Scott D. (GSFC-6990)
<scott.d.guzewich@nasa.gov>; Domagal-goldman, Shawn D. (GSFC-6930)
<shawn.goldman@nasa.gov>; Jones, Nancy N. (GSFC-1300) <nancy.n.jones@nasa.gov>; Andreoli,
Claire (GSFC-1300) <claire.andreoli@nasa.gov>; Shekhtman, Lonnie (GSFC-690.0)[ADNET SYSTEMS
INC] <lonnie.shekhtman@nasa.gov>
Ravi,
This is well written. I have no further suggestions or concerns.
Regards.
Paul
****************************
Paul Mahaffy
Director, Solar System Exploration Division
Greenbelt, MD 20771
science.gsfc.nasa.gov/solarsystem
*****************************

To: Paul Mahaffy <paul.r.mahaffy@nasa.gov>
<shawn.goldman@nasa.gov>, "Jones, Nancy N. (GSFC-1300)" <nancy.n.jones@nasa.gov>,
"Andreoli, Claire (GSFC-1300)" <claire.andreoli@nasa.gov>, "Shekhtman, Lonnie (GSFC-690.0)
[ADNET SYSTEMS INC]" <lonnie.shekhtman@nasa.gov>
Thank you
Ravi
--
Greenbelt, MD 20771
--. .,_. ._-_._---
:"
" ~ - '-
...
~-
= ;::-.....-::::..--
" ' ~- ' - .._-

~
."- - ,--.-.-- ~ '-

Date: Thursday, May 20, 2021 3:18:24 PM
Nice changes!
--
Lonnie Shekhtman
301-614-6833

Date: Thursday, May 20, 2021 at 12:01 PM
To: "Jones, Nancy N. (GSFC-1300)" <nancy.n.jones@nasa.gov>, "Mahaffy, Paul R. (GSFC-
6900)" <paul.r.mahaffy@nasa.gov>
Hi Nancy,
I am attaching a final version of the draft. Thank you l"> for those who gave comments.
Best
Ravi

Hi Ravi,
Thanks,
Nancy
--
Nancy Neal Jones

Thank you
Ravi
--
Greenbelt, MD 20771
Over the past few years, UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, more commonly known as
Unidentified Flying Objects or UFOs) have been reported in the news repeatedly. The most
obvious question everyone wants to know is, what are they? But these sightings are by definition
unidentified, so asking "What are UFOs?" will only lead to speculative answers that bring us no
closer to understanding them. Instead, we should be asking "how can we figure out what UFOs
are?" Framing this question with active inquiry in mind would allow a science-based approach to
investigate the identity of UAPs. And there-in lies the problem.
The language of scientists is data. But without access to full data, it is nearly impossible to verify
or explain any observation. The lack of robust data, including the lack of access to some existing
data, is the central problem for scientific study of UAPs. Science is unforgiving. Data is the
authority. Our feelings and opinions are irrelevant.
But in recent decades, the scientific study of UAP has become a taboo. A precipitating point may
have been the Condon report, commissioned by the US Air Force and conducted at the University
of Colorado in the late 1960s, which stated that “....nothing has come from the study of
UFOs….that has added to scientific knowledge.” This led to the close of the ongoing Air Force-
led UAP investigation named Project Blue Book. Prominent critics, such as Prof. Allen Hynek, an
Ohio State astronomer, who served as a consultant on the Project Blue Book, argued that the
work done in the Condon report was “inadequate” and “poorly organized.” Since then, little to no
interest has been given by the scientific community in the investigation of UAP. A big driver of
this is a self-perpetuating cycle of this being viewed as a taboo topic. Once scientists ignored
the subject, this created a vacuum of knowledge that was filled by conspiracy theories and
sensational claims. In a few cases, some scientists that did engage in this topic were viewed by
other scientists as putting conclusions before data, a troubling reversal of the scientific method.
This in turn fueled the taboo culture, driving away trained scientists, creating a never-ending-cycle
of prohibiting any scientific study of the subject.
UAP investigation by the scientific community is not new. Distinguished scientists like Carl Sagan,
James Mc Donald, Allen Hynek thought that UAP should be investigated scientifically. Project
Blue Book examined several hundred UAP cases from the 1950s and 60s. About 700 of the more
than 12,000 cases remained “unidentified” at the close of the project, although Hynek later argued
that the number of unresolved cases should have been higher. Astronomer Carl Sagan
recognized the need for scientists to discuss this problem, which already had widespread popular
interest, and co-organized a symposium of American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS) in 1969 titled “UFOs: A Scientific Debate.” Sagan remained skeptical of the extraterrestrial
hypothesis and would demand extraordinary evidence to justify such a claim; however, he also
saw the scientific study of UAP as a valuable way to teach the broader public about how science
is done. Most notably, the late Prof. James McDonald, a member of National Academy Sciences,
conducted a rigorous analysis of a few UAP cases that Project Blue Book highlighted as
unexplainable. His presentation at the AAAS symposium, titled “Science in Default,” is one of the
best scientific examinations of UAP cases. The discerning methods, evidence-based
investigation, and an approach that considers all the available data (rather than cherry picking
one instance of an event) used in this document provides a template of how trained scientists can
investigate UAP.
Lack of reliable data is another crucial reason why the scientific community gave little attention to
UAP. Most UAP sightings result in very limited data, usually video recordings from a single angle
that can only be cross-validated with eyewitness testimony. Some UAP sightings were also
observed on radar, which could assist in determining their identity. Without robust or credible data,
UAP studies will always be viewed as fringe science and will never be able to come into the
mainstream. No amount of grainy video snippets will help in de-mystifying the broader
phenomena. Systematic collection of new data, or the availability of existing data, is paramount.
While analyzing such data, strict agnosticism should be advocated to ensure an unbiased
scientific approach. The recent declassification of UAP videos by the Navy brought the topic of
UAPs out from the shadows of tabloid news and onto front page articles. While some of these
events seem to have possible explanations based on snippets of edited images and videos, the
history of UFO scientific studies in the U.S is not limited to these videos, and reminds us to not
paint the whole phenomena with one broad brush. This is not a U.S-specific occurrence, nor is it
limited to observations by U.S armed forces. Commercial pilots have also reported seeing UAP.
There may not be a single explanation to all such observations.
A notable aspect surrounding the media coverage of the U.S Navy videos is the absence of
scientific or expert opinion, in addition to government officials and witness testimonials. If we truly
want to understand what UAPs really are, then we need to engage the mainstream scientific
community in a concerted effort to study them. This should include the involvement of experts
and scientists trained in scientific methodology in such investigations. Make data available to
them. Speak their language. Remove any taboos surrounding free scientific inquiry of UFOs.
Because, ultimately, understanding UAP is a science problem.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are not
necessarily those of NASA or their employers.
, . . foIcy-fJom
,- _ _ _ ..,.. ""'" !SliR:-j?!!Ql
.... [E<TBtlW.J_""'" w......, ____ ..... _
n..m....... 2Q, 111214 "".11 PM
Excellent Thank you, Ravi. I'll keep my fingers crossed that NASA lets i t through
Mary- Ellen
f rom : Kopp" "'pu, Ravi Kum~r (GSFC-6990) <r~ v i k um~r.kopa@n",_gv>

Sent : Thursday, May 20 20214:05 PM
To: Deily. Mary-Ellen (b) (6)
Subject: Re: (EXTE RNAL] Inquiry f rom W ashington Post about your paper
fli Mary-Ellen,
My draft article is in review w ith NASA HQ I will u~ate you as soon as I he ar f rom them_
B"st
Ravi
f rom : "D<!ily. Mary- Ellen" tt!JIW_

Date : Tuesday, M ay 18, 2021 at 12:48 PM
To : " Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-699{))" <ra vikum •• _kopparap u@nasa .g ov>
Subject : Re: [ EXTERNAL! Inquiry from W ashington Post about your paper
I'll take a look shortly. Thank you.
Get Outloo' far Android !&Cc02 >afel jnk\ proteetioo 0111100< roml
f rom: Ko ppilra pu, Rav; Kumar [GSFC-6990) <r~ Y i k um~f.kop"r@n, •. gov>

S ent : T ue<d a v,M~Vl ~
To: Deily,M ary-Elien ~
Subject: Re: (EXTE RNAL) Inquiry from Washington Post about vour pape r
fli Mary-Ellen,
Th~nk you fo< talking with me todav
I am .ttaching the document written bV Prof. James Mc Donald bad in the 60. about the scientifIC study of UFOs. The introduction is where he advocate, for
scientists to paV ~tenio, and the rest of the document" ~bout how he hims-elf investigated few ""s-es using scientific metl1Od. I induded some of mv own
notes in the document when reading rt. Pie.,e ignore the notes ~ you are not interested
Kere isJ~cob H~q - M isr a', ema il:rti1lld
~"
Rayi
f rom : "Deily, Mary-Ellen" (b) (6)

Oate: Tue<day, May 18, 2021 at 11:57 AM
To : "Koppa rapu, Rayi Kumar (GSFC-699{))" <rayikumar.kopparapu@nasa .g ov>
Cc: "Andreoli, d aire (GSFC-1300)" <daire.andreoli@nasa.goY>, "Jones, Na ncy N (GSFC-1300)" <nancy.n .jones@nasa .gov>
Subject: Re: (EXTERNAL) Inquiry from Washington Post about your paper
bttp'· fiwww W i!'hD~Onpot comlmltiook/2020/1 2/31b[flaktmJ~_jsen-ichor, !iI'c02 safel;nks protection olltiook wm!
!~c02 ,afel ink' protection outlook com!
mage removed by sender 81 C 1 probably isn't an extraterrestrial

signal It's still an exciting step in the
•
search for life on other planets The
Washingt on post
[gccOZ.safelinks.protection outlook.com]
[gccOZ.safelinks.protection outlook.com]
rocc02 ,.feliot< protection Plltkmk com!
!iI'c02 sa/elink< protection outlook com! Now. however, the Ioog d",<'r1 of opportun ity m")l /inaly
be giving w")I to ~ roew era of growth. In 2015, Interroet
blliooa ire Yuri Mil"", pledged UOO m;lIk>n to create
B,e""th,ough li<len, a next
http ww .;h.,gtonpo<tcom
f rom: Kopp""'pu, Rayi I(um~' (GSFC-6990) <r ~Y i k um.r . "p,.u@n a .gov>

From: Jacob Haoo Misra
To: EahisiarJ· Greg
C<, KopparaPU. Bayj KUmar 'GSfC.§9!l; ~ HilOO·Misra. Jacob D. 'GSfC.§062)[Science
CoIh1boqttorl
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAl] Re: Washington Po5t ilrticle on UFOs
Date: Friday, May 21, 2021 8:58:21 AM
Thanks Greg! These are helpfu l COllllllcnts.
On Fri, May 21 , 2021 at 8:55 AM Eghigiau, Greg wrote:
Ravi and Jacob,
Attached is that last draft you sent me with my COllllllents inserted. Really fasc inating piece
and eminently reasonable.
Best,
Greg
Greg Eghigian
108 Weaver Building
Uuivmity Park, PA 16802
USA
Email: (b ) (6)
From: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <rayjlmmar kopparapll@nasa goY>

Date: Friday, May I at AM
To:
Cc: '
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Washington Post article on UFOs
Hi Greg,
Thanks, please take a look at *this* anached updated version.
Best
Ravi
From: "Eghigian , Greg"

Date: Friday, May 2 1,
To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <UllYi!m!llilUQI>Illilllil
C c: "Haqq-M isra, Jacob D. (GSFC-6062)[Science Collaborator] "
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re : Washington Post al1icle on UFOs
Sm e, Ravi. I'll have a look at tills today.
Best,
Greg
Greg Eghigian
108 Weaver Building
USA
Email: (b) (6)

From: "Kopparapn, Ravi Kumar (GSFC·6990)" < rayjlmmar knpparapll@nasa goy>
Date: Thursday, AM
To:
Cc: '
Dear Greg,
We were recently contacted by a Washington Post repoller to talk about Technosignantres and
UAPs. TIle SWlUnaty of that discussion resulted in them asking us to Wllte an article for the Post
related to UAP (or UFOs), to provide a scientist's perspective. nlis is similar to the one th~"'We
wrote last year for SdentijicAmerjcan . Our draft of the aJ.ticle is artached with tills email. We
would greatly appreciate your comments on this one. Currently, this draft is in the NASA review
process chain of approval.
1bank you
Ravi
Ravi hunar Kopparapu
Greenbelt , MD 20771
email: ravikllmar knpparapll@rJasa goy

Over the past few years, UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, more corrmonly knoYlll as
Unidentified Flying Objects or UFOs) have beerI reported in the mm. repeatedly The most
obvious question everyone wants to know is , what are they? But these sightings are by definition
unidentified, so asking "\'VIla1 are UFOs?" wilt only lead to speculative answers that bring us no
closer to understanding them. Instead, we should be asking "how can we figure out what UFOs
are?" Fmming this question with active inquiry in mind would allow a science-based approach to
investigate the identity of UAPs. And there-in lies the problem.
TIle language or scientists is data. But without access 10 full dala, il is nearly impossible 10 vefify
or eKplain any observation. The lack of robust data, including the lad< of access to some existing
data, is the central problem for scientific study of UAPs. Science is unforgiving. Data is the
authority. Our feelings and opinions are irrelevant
But in recent decades, the scientific study of UAP has become a ltaood A precipitating ooint ma Con. uurt.d fEG1] : I tWlk rt·s sale to SiJ)' that the
have beerI the Condon report, corrmissioned by the US Air Force and cond ucted at the UniV9fSity scientitIC study ~ UfOS as autheftic alien tecrnoIrJgy
has been SU'TwO;!(! b'J (Wl ::ua of IJlaCCeI)IabiIi ::nl
of Colorado in the late 1960s, which stated that • ....nothing has come from the study of rIaiWe since the staft in tile 19405. The sdentifIc SlUOy
UFOS .. .. that has added to scientific knowledge." This led to the close of the ongoing Air Force- ~ UfOS in order to debook ET claims, hoWeVer, lias
been seen as legitimale since at least ~ Menzefs
Ohio Slate astronomer, who served as a consultant on the Project B :t,

led UAP investigation named Project Blue Book. Prominent critics, such as Prot Allen Hynek, an
Book, argued that !he
wor1< done in the Condon report was "inadequate" and "poorIyp,ganiz • Since then little to no
wert in the 1IekI.
eon.n.-nt.d IE62]: I must acmt, 1\Ie alWays seen

interest has beerI given by !he scientifIC corrmunity in the investigation of~AP\ A bi driver of 1Ilese critidsmS macJe abOut tile COrdon COrrrriIlee's
wtrt, btf 1\Ie never rome <KroSS tile details aboU:
this is a self-perpetuating cycle of this being viewed as a taboo top ic. Once scientists ignored \ ....nat exacuy was 'M"OflQ WItIl lIS me 1'IOclS. I'm not
!he subted, Ihis created a vacuum of knowledge that was filled by conspiracy theofies and doubting tile diIim, but I WCUd like to see more
sensational claims. In a few cases, some scientists that did engage in this topic were viewed by -"".
other scientists as putting conclusions before data, a troubling reversaI of the scientifIC method. c:o.......nt.d lEG)]: ThIs Is actually not true. It's ooty
true ~ physical sdentists. Since 1970. thefe has beef!
This in tum fueled the taboo culture, driving away trained scientists. creating a never-eoding-cyde a !J'eat deal 01' resea-dl COOducted by social scientists
of prohibiting any scientific study of the subject. anci sdIoIars in Ihe runanties.
UAP investigation by the scientific community is not new. Distinguislled scientists like carl Sagan,
James Mc Donald, Allen Hynek thought that UAP should be investigated scientifically. Project
Blue Book examined several hundred UAP cases from the 195O5 and 605_About 700 of the more
than 12,000 cases remained · unidentifled" at the close of !he project, although Hynek later argued
that the number of unresolved cases should have been highef. Astronomer Can Sagan
recognized the need for scientists to discuss th is problem, which already had widespread popular
interost, and co-organized a symposium of American Association for tho Advancement of Science
(MAS) in 1969 titled ·UFOs" A ScteOllflC Debate." Sagan remained skeptical of the extraterrestrial
hypothesis and would demand extraordinary evidence to justify such a claim; however, he also
saw the scientific study of UAP as a valuable way to teach the broader public about how science
is done. Most notably, the late Prot James McDonald, a member of National Academy Sciences,
conducted a rigorous analysis of a few UAP cases that Project Blue Book highlighted as
unexplainable. His presentation at the MAS symposium. titled "SCI(!nc8 In Default," is one of !he
best sctenlrlic examlna!Jons 01 UAP cases. The dIscernIng methods, eVIdence-based
investigation, and an approach that considers all the available data (mtller than cherTy pid<ing
one instance of an event) used in this OOclment provides a template of how trained scientists can
investigate UAP.
Lack of reliable data is another crucial reason why the scientific community gave litue attention to
UAP. Most UAP sightings result in very limited data, usually video recordings from a single angle
that can only be cross-validated with eyewitness testimony. Some UAP sightings were also
ob5efV6d on radar, which could assist in determining their identity. Without robust or cred ble data,
UAP studies will tllwClYS be viewed as hinge science and will never be able to corne into the
mainstream. No amount of grainy video snippets will help in de-mystifying the broader
phenomena. Systematic collection of new data, or the availability of existing data, is paramount
While analyzing such data, strict agoosticism should be advocated to ensure an unbiased
scientific approach. The recent ~edasifcl of UAP videos b the Na br hi the t 'c of Comm.nted lEGe]: Actually. the UAP YIOeos IhaIIirst
UAPs out from the shadows of tabloid news and onto front page articles. While some of these c::ame out in 2011- I'm rot SIn aboIJ: the recent one-
apparenUy were never -dedassilled." because hey
events seem to have possible explanaltons based on snippets of edited images and videos, the were never -dassilled: but Idlher" <Wr.Iys
history of UFO scientific studies in the U.S is not limited to these videos, and reminds us to not "'OOdassII!ed.- Tl1aI doesnl mea"llhey werenl IXder
some level of seony conlrol. But \hat (deIibefate?)
paint the whole pheoomena with one broad brush. This is not a U.S-specifIC occurrence, ncM" is it
c:onfUsion !laS led many to project nefa10us IrIIer6:lns
limited to observations by U.S armed forees. CommerClSI Qllots have also reported seeing UAP. k1the Navy.
There may not be a single explanation to aI/ such observations.
A notable aspect surrounding the media coverage of the U.S Navy videos is the absence of
scientific Of export opinion, in addition to governmont officials and witness toslimonials. If we truly
want to understand what UAPs really are, then we need to engage the mainstream scientifIC
community in a concerted effort 10 study them. This should include lhe involvement of experts
and scienlists trained in scientifIC methodology in such investigations. Make data available 10
them. Speak their language. Remove any taboos surrounding free scientific inquiry of UFOs.
Because, ultimately, unde~taig UAP is a science problem.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are not
nxvSS8fi1y' ~o{ NASA ex fheir employers.
Fro m: Kooparapu Bavi Kuma r (GSEC-699Q)
To: Egh ioian. Greg
C<co Haqg Misra Jamb D (GSfC-60621[Scjeoce CoIlaboratorl
Subject: Be: [EXTERNAl] Be: Washington Post article on UFOs
Date: Friday, May 21, 20219:12:32 AM
Attachmen ts: [J)(dooald &ailS 69,odf
Thanks Greg, These are really great comments. Particularly the clarification about social scientists
resea rch on UAP. We will make clear that point.
Regarding the details about the criticism on the Condon report, I am attaching a report by James Mc
Donald ("Science in Defau lt") where he chose few cases and discussed them in depth, comparing
and contrast ing with Condon report conclusions. Contrary to the popu la r opinion t hat we have been
hearing from many physical scientists, Condon report did not say that the vast majority of the cases
are expla inable. Mc Donald ma kes this point explicitly in this report that
"... of the roughly 90 cases that it specifically confronts, over 30 are conceded to be unexplained. With
so large a fraction of unexplained cases. With so large a fraction of unexplained cases....... it is far
from clear how Dr. Condon felt justified in concluding that the study indicated "that further extensive
study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby."
~3% is not vast maj ority, and we would not accept such conclusion in our everyday science jobs. So
why are our colleagues making that conclusion in this case?
Jacob and I are trying to highlight this report by James Mc Donald, who was NAS member
(meteorologist, not an astronomer for a change) and we want ou r scientist critics to read t his report
carefully. We cannot forget or ignore history. I have included my own comments on t his draft, so
please feel free to ignore them if you wish .
Best
Ravi
From: "Egh igian, Greg "

Date: Friday, May 21, 2021 at 8:57 AM
To: "Koppa rapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa .gov>
Cc: " Haqq -Misra, Jacob D. (GSFC-6062 j[Scien ce Collabora t or]"
Subject: Re: [EXTERNA L] Re: Wash ington Post article on UFOs
Ravi and Jacob,
Attached is that last draft you sent me with my comments inserted. Really fascinating piece
and eminently reasonable .
Best,
Greg
Greg Eghigian
108 Weaver Building
USA
Email: (b) (6)
From: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GS FC-6990) " <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa .gov>

To: Greg Egh igian
Cc: ' (b) (6)
Subject: Re : [EXTE RNA L] Re: Wash ingt on Post art icle on UFOs
Hi Greg,
Thanks, please take a look at *this* attached updated version .
Best
Ravi

To: " Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa .gov>
Cc: " Haqq -Misra, Jacob D. (GSFC-6062 )[Science Collabora t or]"
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re : Washingt on Post art icle on UFOs
Sme, Ravi. I' ll have a look at this today.
Best,
Greg
Greg Eghigian
108 Weaver Building
USA
Email: (b) (6)
From: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990) " <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa .gov>
Date: Thursday, May 20,202 1 at 9:53 AM
To: Greg Eghigian
Cc: ' (b) (6)
Subject: Wash ington Post article on UFOs
Dear Greg,
We were recently contacted by a Washington Post reporter to ta lk about Technosignatures and

UAPs. The summary of that discussion resu lted in them asking us to write an article for the Post
related to UAP (or UFOs), to provide a sci entist's perspective. This is similar to the one that we wrote
last year for 5c;entificAmer;can . Our draft of the article is attached with this email. We wou ld
greatly appreciate your comments on this one. Currently, this draft is in the NASA review process
chain of approva l.
Thank you
Ravi
Ravi kuma r Kopparapu

Greenbelt, MD 20771
emai l: ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov
Science in Default - Twenty-Two Years of Inadequate UFO Investigations ... http://dewoody net/ufo/Science_in_Default html
Science in Default:
Twenty-Two Years of Inadequate UFO Investigations
American Association for the Advancement of Science, 134th Meeting
General Symposium, Unidentified Flying Objects
James E. McDonald, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences
The University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona
December 27, 1969
No scientifically adequate investigation of the UFO problem has been carried out during the entire 22 years
that have now passed since the first extensive wave of sightings of unidentified aerial objects in the summer
of 1947. Despite continued public interest, and despite frequent expressions of public concern, only quite
superficial examinations of the steadily growing body of unexplained UFO reports from credible witnesses
have been conducted in this country or abroad. The latter point is highly relevant, since all evidence now
points to the fact that UFO sightings exhibit similar characteristics throughout the world.
Charging inadequacy of all past UFO investigations, I speak not only from a background of close study of the
past investigations, but also from a background of three years of rather detailed personal research, involving
interviews with over five hundred witnesses in selected UFO cases, chiefly in the U. S. In my opinion, the
UFO problem, far from being the nonsense problem that it has often been labeled by many scientists,
constitutes a problem of extraordinary scientific interest.
The grave difficulty with essentially all past UFO studies has been that they were either devoid of any
substantial scientific content, or else have lost their way amidst the relatively large noise-content that tends to
obscure the real signal in the UFO reports. The presence of a percentually large number of reports of
misidentified natural or technological phenomena (planets, meteors, and aircraft, above all) is not surprising,
given all the circumstances surrounding the UFO problem. Yet such understandable and usually easily
recognized instances of misidentification have all too often been seized upon as a sufficient explanation for all
UFO reports, while the residue of far more significant reports (numbering now of order one thousand) are
ignored. I believe science is in default for having failed to mount any truly adequate studies of this problem, a
problem that has aroused such strong and widespread public concern during the past two decades.
Unfortunately, the present climate of thinking, above all since release of the latest of a long series of
inadequate studies, namely, that conducted under the direction of Dr. E. U. Condon at the University of
Colorado, will make it very difficult to secure any new and more thorough investigations, yet my own
examination of the problem forces me to call for just such new studies. I am enough of a realist to sense that,
unless the present AAAS UFO Symposium succeeds in making the scientific community aware of the
seriousness of the UFO problem, little immediate response to any call for new investigation is likely to appear.
In fact, the over-all public and scientific response to the UFO phenomena is itself a matter of substantial
scientific interest, above all in its social-psychological aspects. Prior to my own investigations, I would never
have imagined the wide spread reluctance to report an unusual and seemingly inexplicable event, yet that
reluctance, and the attendant reluctance of scientists to exhibit serious interest in the phenomena in question,
1 of 38 6/26/2009 3:41 PM
are quite general. One regrettable result is the fact that the most credible of UFO witnesses are often those
most reluctant to come forward with a report of the event they have witnessed. A second regrettable result is
that only a very small number of scientists have taken the time and trouble to search out the nearly puzzling
reports that tend to be diluted out by the much larger number of trivial and non-significant UFO reports. The
net result is that there still exists no general scientific recognition of the scope and nature of the UFO
problem.
Within the federal government, official responsibility for UFO investigations has rested with the Air Force
since early 1948. Unidentified aerial objects quite naturally fall within the area of Air Force concern, so this
assignment of responsibility was basically reasonable, However, once it became clear (early 1949) that UFO
reports did not seem to involve advanced aircraft of some hostile foreign power, Air Force interest subsided
to relatively low levels, marked, however, by occasional temporary resurgence of interest following large
waves of UFO reports, such as that of 1952, or 1957, or 1965.
A most unfortunate pattern of press reporting developed by about 1953, in which the Air Force would assert
that they had found no evidence of anything "defying explanation in terms of present-day science and
technology" in their growing files of UFO reports. These statements to the public would have done little harm
had they not been coupled systematically to press statements asserting that "the best scientific facilities
available to the U. S. Air Force" had been and were being brought to bear on the UFO question. The
assurances that substantial scientific competence was involved in Air Force UFO investigations have, I
submit, had seriously deleterious scientific effects. Scientists who might otherwise have done enough
checking to see that a substantial scientific puzzle lay in the UFO area were misled by these assurances into
thinking that capable scientists had already done adequate study and found nothing. My own extensive
checks have revealed so slight a total amount of scientific competence in two decades of Air Force-supported
investigations that I can only regard the repeated asseverations of solid scientific study of the UFO . problem
as the single most serious obstacle that the Air Force has put in the way of progress towards elucidation of the
matter
I do not believe, let me stress, that this has been part of some top- secret coverup of extensive investigations
by Air Force or security agencies; I have found no substantial basis for accepting that theory of why the Air
Force has so long failed to respond appropriately to the many significant and scientifically intriguing UFO
reports coming from within its own ranks. Briefly, I see grand foulup but not grand coverup. Although
numerous instances could be cited wherein Air Force spokesmen failed to release anything like complete
details of UFO reports, and although this has had the regrettable consequence of denying scientists at large
even a dim notion of the almost incredible nature of some of the more impressive Air Force-related UFO
reports, I still feel that the most grievous fault of 22 years of Air Force handling of the UFO problem has
consisted of their repeated public assertions that they had substantial scientific competence on the job.
Close examination of the level of investigation and the level of scientific analysis involved in Project Sign
(1948-9), Project Grudge (1949- 52), and Project Bluebook (1953 to date), reveals that these were, viewed
scientifically, almost meaning less investigations. Even during occasional periods (e.g., 1952) characterized by
fairly active investigation of UFO cases, there was still such slight scientific expertise involved that there was
never any real chance that the puzzling phenomena encountered in the most significant UFO cases would be
elucidated. Furthermore, the panels, consultants, contractual studies, etc., that the Air Force has had working
on the UFO problem over the past 22 years have, with essentially no exception, brought almost negligible
scientific scrutiny into the picture. Illustrative examples will be given.
The Condon Report, released in January, 1968, after about two years of Air Force-supported study is, in my
opinion, quite inadequate. The sheer bulk of the Report, and the inclusion of much that can only be viewed as
"scientific padding", cannot conceal from anyone who studies it closely the salient point that it represents an
examination of only a tiny fraction of the most puzzling UFO reports of the past two decades, and that its
level of scientific argumentation is wholly unsatisfactory. Furthermore, of the roughly 90 cases that it
2 of 38 6/26/2009 3:41 PM
specifically confronts, over 30 are conceded to be unexplained. With so large a fraction of unexplained cases
(out of a sample that is by no means limited only to the truly puzzling cases, but includes an objectionably
large number of obviously trivial cases), it is far from clear how Dr. Condon felt justified in concluding that
the study indicated "that further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that
science will be advanced thereby."
I shall cite a number of specific examples of cases from the Condon Report which I regard as entirely
inadequately investigated and reported. One at Kirtland AFB, November 4, 1957, involved observations of a
wingless eggshaped object that was observed hovering about a minute over the field prior to departure at a
climb rate which was described to me as faster than that of any known jets, then or now. The principal
witnesses in this case were precisely the type of witnesses whose accounts warrant closest attention, since
they were CAA tower observers who watched the UFO from the CAA tower with binoculars. Yet, when I
located these two men in the course of my own check of cases from the Condon Report, I found that neither
of them had even been contacted by members of the University of Colorado project! Both men were fully
satisfied that they had been viewing a device with performance characteristics well beyond any thing in
present or foreseeable aeronautical technology. The two men gave me descriptions that were mutually
consistent and that fit closely the testimony given on Nov. 6, 1957, when they were interrogated by an Air
Force investigator. The Condon Report attempts to explain this case as a light-aircraft that lost its way, came
into the field area, and then left. This kind of explanation runs through the whole Condon Report, yet is
wholly incapable of explaining the details of sightings such as that of the Kirtland AFB incident. Other
illustrative instances in which the investigations summarized in the Condon Report exhibit glaring deficiencies
will be cited. I suggest that there are enough significant unexplainable UFO reports just within the Condon
Report itself to document the need for a greatly increased level of scientific study of UFOs.
That a panel of the National Academy of Sciences could endorse this study is to me disturbing. I find no
evidence that the Academy panel did any independent checking of its own; and none of that 11-man panel
had any significant prior investigative experience in this area, to my knowledge. I believe that this sort of
Academy endorsement must be criticized; it hurts science in the long run, and I fear that this particular
instance will ultimately prove an embarrassment to the National Academy of Sciences.
The Condon Report and its Academy endorsement have exerted a highly negative influence on clarification
of the long-standing UFO problem; so much, in fact, that it seems almost pointless to now call for new and
more extensive UFO investigations. Yet the latter are precisely what are needed to bring out into full light of
scientific inquiry a phenomenon that could well constitute one of the greatest scientific problems of our times.
Some examples of UFO cases conceded to be unexplainable in the Condon Report and containing features of
particularly strong scientific interest: Utica, N.Y., 6/23/55; Lakenheath, England, 8/13/56; Jackson, Ala.,
11/14/56; Norfolk, Va., 8/30/57; RB-47 case, 9/19/57; Beverly Mass., 4/22/66; Donnybrook, N.D., 8/19/66;
Haynesville, La., 12/30/66; Joplin, Mo., 1/13/67; Colorado Springs, Colo., 5/13/67.
Some examples of UFO cases considered explained in the Condon Report for which I would take strong
exception to the argumentation presented and would regard as both unexplained and of strong scientific
interest: Flagstaff, Ariz., 5/20/50; Washington, D. C., 7/19/52; Bellefontaine, O., 8/1/52; Haneda AFB, Japan,
8/5/52; Gulf of Mexico, 12/6/52; Odessa, Wash., 12/10/52; Continental Divide, N.M., 1/26/53; Seven Isles,
Quebec, 6/29/54; Niagara Falls, N.Y., 7/25/57; Kirtland AFB, N.M., 11/4/57; Gulf of Mexico, 11/5/57; Peru,
12/30/66; Holloman AFB, 3/2/67; Kincheloe AFB, 9/11/67; Vandenberg AFB, 10/6/67; Milledgeville, Ga.,
10/20/67.
Illustrative Cases
The following treats in detail the four principal UFO cases referred to in my Symposium talk. They are
3 of 38 6/26/2009 3:41 PM
presented as specific illustrations of what I regard as serious shortcomings of case-investigations in the

Condon Report and in the 1947-69 Air Force UFO program. The four cases used as illustrations are the
following :
1. RB-47 case, Gulf Coast area, Sept. 19, 1957
2. Lakenheath RAF Station, England, August 13-14, 1956
3. Haneda AFB, Japan, August 5-6, 1952
4. Kirtland AFB, New Mexico, Nov. 4, 1957
My principal conclusions are that scientific inadequacies in past years of UFO investigations by Air Force
Project Bluebook have _not_ been remedied through publication of the Condon Report, and that there remain
scientifically very important unsolved problems with respect to UFOs. The investigative and evaluative
deficiencies illustrated in the four cases examined in detail are paralleled by equally serious shortcomings in
many other cases in the sample of about 90 UFO cases treated in the Condon Report. Endorsement of the
conclusions of the Condon Report by the National Academy of Sciences appears to have been based on
entirely superficial examination of the Report and the cases treated therein. Further study, conducted on a
much more sound scientific level are needed.
Case 1. USAF RB-47, Gulf Coast area, September 19-20, 1957.

Brief summary: An Air Force RB-47, equipped with ECM (Electronic Countermeasures) gear, manned by six
officers, was followed over a total distance in excess of 600 miles and for a time period of more than an hour,
as it flew from near Gulfport, Miss., through Louisiana and Texas, and into southern Oklahoma. The
unidentified object was, at various times, seen visually by the cockpit crew (as an intense white or red light),
followed by ground-radar, and detected on ECM monitoring gear aboard the RB-47. Simultaneous
appearances and disappearances on all three of those physically distinct "channels" mark this UFO case as
especially intriguing from a scientific viewpoint. The incident is described as Case 5 in the Condon Report
and is conceded to be unexplained. The full details, however, are not presented in that Report.
1. Summary of the Case:

The case is long and involved and filled with well-attested phenomena that defy easy explanation in terms of
present-day science and technology. The RB-47 was flying out of Forbes AFB, Topeka, on a composite
mission including gunnery exercises over the Texas-Gulf area, navigation exercises over the open Gulf, and
ECM exercises in the return trip across the south-central U.S. This was an RB-47 carrying a six-man crew, of
whom three were electronic warfare officers manning ECM (Electronic counter-measures) gear in the aft
portion of the aircraft. One of the extremely interesting aspects of this case is that electromagnetic signals of
distinctly radar-like character appeared definitely to be emitted by the UFO, yet it exhibited performance
characteristics that seem to rule out categorically its having been any conventional or secret aircraft.
I have discussed the incident with all six officers of the crew:
Lewis D. Chase, pilot, Spokane, Wash. James H. McCoid, copilot, Offutt AFB Thomas H. Hanley, navigator,
Vandenberg AFB John J. Provenzano, No. 1 monitor, Wichita Frank B. McClure, No. 2 monitor, Offutt AFB
Walter A. Tuchscherer, No. 3 monitor, Topeka
Chase was a Major at the time; I failed to ask for information on 1957 ranks of the others. McClure and
Hanley are currently Majors, so might have been Captains or Lieutenants in 1957. All were experienced men
at the time. Condon Project investigators only talked with Chase, McCoid, and McClure, I ascertained. In my
4 of 38 6/26/2009 3:41 PM
checking it proved necessary to telephone several of them more than once to pin down key points;
nevertheless the total case is so complex that I would assume that there are still salient points not clarified
either by the Colorado investigators or by myself. Unfortunately, there appears to be no way, at present to
locate the personnel involved in ground- radar observations that are a very important part of the whole case. I
shall discuss that point below.
This flight occurred in September, 1957, just prior to the crew's reassignment to a European base. On
questioning by Colorado investigators, flight logs were consulted, and based on the recollection that this flight
was within a short time of departure from Forces to Germany, (plus the requirement that the date match a
flight of the known type and geography) the 9/19/57 date seems to have emerged. The uncertainty as to
whether it was early on the 19th or early on the 20th, cited above is a point of confusion I had not noted until
preparing the present notes. Hence I am unable to add any clarification, at the moment; in this matter of the
date confusion found in Thayer's discussion of the case (1, pp. 136-138). I shall try to check that in the near
future. For the present, it does not vitiate case-discussion in any significant way.
The incident is most inadequately described in the Condon Report. The reader is left with the general notion
that the important parts occurred near Ft. Worth, an impression strengthened by the fact that both Crow and
Thayer discuss meteorological data only for that area. One is also left with no clear impression of the
duration, which was actually over an hour. The incident involved an unknown airborne object that stayed
with the RB-47 for over 600 miles. In case after case in the Condon Report, close checking reveals that quite
significant features of the cases have been glossed over, or omitted, or in some instances seriously
misrepresented. I submit that to fail to inform the reader that this particular case spans a total distance-range
of some 600 miles and lasted well over an hour is an omission difficult to justify.
From my nine separate interviews with the six crew members, I assembled a picture of the events that makes
it even more puzzling than it seems on reading the Condon Report -- and even the latter account is puzzling
enough.
Just as the aircraft crossed the Mississippi coast near Gulfport, McClure, manning the #2 monitor, detected a
signal near their 5 o'clock position (aft of the starboard beam). It looked to him like a legitimate ground-radar
signal, but corresponded to a position out in the Gulf. This is the actual beginning of the complete incident;
but before proceeding with details it is necessary to make quite clear what kind of equipment we shall be
talking about as we follow McClure's successive observations.
Under conditions of war, bombing aircraft entering hostile territory can be assisted in their penetrations if any
of a variety of electronic countermeasures (ECM techniques as they are collectively termed) are brought into
action against ground-based enemy radar units. The initial step in all ECM operations is, necessarily, that of
detecting the enemy radar and quantitatively identifying a number of relevant features of the radar system
(carrier frequency, pulse repetition frequency, scan rate, pulse width) and, above all, its bearing relative to the
aircraft heading. The latter task is particularly ample in principle, calling only for direction-finding antennas
which pick up the enemy signal and display on a monitor scope inside the reconnaissance aircraft a blip or
lobe that paints in the relative bearing from which the signal is coming.
The ECM gear used in RB-47's in 1957 is not now classified; the #2 monitor that McClure was on, he and the
others pointed out, involved an ALA-6 direction-finder with back-to-back antennas in a housing on the
undersurface of the RB-47 near the rear, spun at either 150 or 300 rpm as it scanned in azimuth. Inside the
aircraft, its signals were processed in an APR-9 radar receiver and an ALA-5 pulse analyzer. All later
references to the #2 monitor imply that system. The #1 monitor employed an APD-4 direction finding system,
with a pair of antennas permanently mounted on either wing tip. Provenzano was on the #1 monitor.
Tuchscherer was on the #3 monitor, whose specifications I did not ascertain because I could find no
indication that it was involved in the observations.
5 of 38 6/26/2009 3:41 PM
Returning now to the initial features of the UFO episode, McClure at first thought he had 180-degree
ambiguity in his scope, i.e., that the signal whose lobe painted at his 5 o'clock position was actually coming in
from the 11 o'clock position perhaps from some ground radar in Louisiana. This suspicion, he told me, was
temporarily strengthened as he became aware that the lobe was moving upscope. (It is important here and in
features of the case cited below to understand how a fixed ground-radar paints on the ECM monitor scope as
the reconnaissance aircraft flies toward its general direction: Suppose the ground radar is, at some instant,
located at the 1 o'clock position relative to the moving aircraft, i.e., slightly off the starboard bow. As the
aircraft flies along, the relative bearing steadily changes, so that the fixed ground unit is "seen" successively at
the 2 o'clock, the 3 o'clock, and the 4 o'clock positions, etc. The lobe paints on the monitor scope at these
successive relative azimuths, the 12 o'clock position being at the top of the scope, 3 o'clock at the right, etc.
Thus any legitimate signal from a fixed ground radar must move downscope, excluding the special cases in
which the radar is dead ahead or dead astern. Note carefully that we deal here only with direction finding
gear. Range is unknown; we are not here speaking of an airborne radar set, just a radar-frequency direction-
finder. In practice, range is obtained by triangulation computations based on successive fixes and known
aircraft speed.)
As the lobe continued moving _upscope_, McClure said the strength of the incoming signal and its pulse
characteristics all tended to confirm that this was some ground unit being painted with 180-degree ambiguity
for some unknown electronic reason. It was at 2800 megacycles, a common frequency for S-band search
radars.
However, after the lobe swung dead ahead, his earlier hypothesis had to be abandoned for it continued
swinging over to the 11 o'clock position and continued downscope on the port side. Clearly, no 180-degree
ambiguity was capable of accounting for this. Curiously, however, this was so anomalous that McClure did
not take it very seriously and did not at that juncture mention it to the cockpit crew nor to his colleagues on
the other two monitors. This upscope-downscope "orbit" of the unknown was seen only on the ALA-6, as far
as I could establish. Had nothing else occurred, this first and very significant portion of the whole episode
would almost certainly have been for gotten by McClure.
The signal faded as the RB-47 headed northward to the scheduled turning point over Jackson, Miss. The
mission called for simulated detection and ECM operations against Air Force ground radar units all along this
part of the flight plan, but other developments intervened. Shortly after making their turn westward over
Jackson, Miss., Chase noted what he thought at first were the landing lights of some other jet coming in from
near his 11 o'clock position, at roughly the RB-47's altitude. But no running lights were discernible and it was
a single very bright white light, closing fast. He had just alerted the rest of the crew to be ready for sudden
evasive maneuvers, when he and McCoid saw the light almost instantaneously change directions and rush
across from left to right at an angular velocity that Chase told me he'd never seen matched in his flight
experience. The light went from their 11 o'clock to the 2 o'clock position with great rapidity, and then blinked
out.
Immediately after that, Chase and McCoid began talking about it on the interphone and McClure, recalling
the unusual 2800 megacycle signal that he had seen over Gulfport now mentioned that peculiar incident for
the first time to Chase and McCoid. It occurred to him at that point to set his #2 monitor to scan at 2800 mcs.
On the first scan, McClure told me, he got a strong 2800 mcs signal from their 2 o'clock position, the bearing
on which the luminous unknown object had blinked out moments earlier.
Provenzano told me that right after that they had checked out the #2 monitor on valid ground radar stations to
be sure it was not malfunctioning and it appeared to be in perfect order. He then checked on his #1 monitor
and also got a signal from the same bearing. There remained, of course, the possibility that just by chance, this
signal was from a real radar down on the ground and off in that direction. But as the minutes went by, and the
aircraft continued westward at about 500 kts. the relative bearing of the 2800 mcs source did not move
6 of 38 6/26/2009 3:41 PM
downscope on the #2 monitor, but kept up with them.
This quickly led to a situation in which the entire 6-man crew focussed all attention on the matter; the
incident is still vivid in the minds of all the men, though their recollection for various details varies with the
particular activities they were engaged in. Chase varied speed, to see if the relative bearing would change but
nothing altered. After over a hundred miles of this, with the 2800 mcs source keeping pace with the aircraft,
they were getting into the radar-coverage area of the Carswell AFB GCI (Ground Controlled Intercept) unit
and Chase radioed that unit to ask if they showed any other air traffic near the RB-47. Carswell GCI
immediately came back with the information that there was apparently another aircraft about 10 miles from
them at their 2 o'clock position. (The RB-47 was unambiguously identifiable by its IFF signal; the "other
aircraft" was seen by "skin paint" Only, i.e., by direct radar reflection rather than via an IFF transponder, Col.
Chase explained.)
This information, each of the men emphasized to me in one way or another, made them a bit uneasy for the
first time. I asked McClure a question that the Colorado investigators either failed to ask or did not summarize
in their Report. Was the signal in all respects comparable to that of a typical ground radar? McClure told me
that this was what baffled him the most, then and now. All the radar signature characteristics, as read out on
his ALA-5 pulse analyzer, were completely normal -- it had a pulse repetition frequency and pulse width like
a CPS-6B and even simulated a scan rate: But its intensity, McClure pointed out, was so strong that "it would
have to had an antenna bigger than a bomber to put out that much signal." And now, the implications of the
events over Gulfport took on new meaning. The upscope- downscope sweep of his #2 monitor lobe implied
that this source, presuming it to be the same one now also being seen on ground radar at Carswell GCI, had
flown a circle around the RB-47 at 30-35,000 ft altitude while the aircraft was doing about 500 kts.
Shortly after Carswell GCI began following the two targets, RB-47 and unknown, still another significant
action unfolded. McClure suddenly noted the lobe on the #2 monitor was beginning to go upscope, and almost
simultaneously, Chase told me, GCI called out that the second airborne target was starting to move forward.
Keep in mind that no visual target was observable here; after blinking out at the 12 o'clock position, following
its lightning-like traverse across the nose of the aircraft, no light had been visible. The unknown now
proceeded to move steadily around to the 12 o'clock position, followed all the while on the #2 monitor and on
the GCI scope down at Carswell near Ft. Worth.
As soon as the unknown reached the 12 o'clock position, Chase and McCoid suddenly saw a bright red glow
"bigger than a house", Chase said, and lying dead ahead, precisely the bearing shown on the passive radar
direction-finder that McClure was on and precisely the bearing now indicated on the GCI scope. _Three
independent sensing systems_ were at this juncture giving seemingly consistent-indications: two pairs of
human eyes, a ground radar, and a direction-finding radar receiver in the aircraft.
One of the important points not settled by the Colorado investigations concerned the question of whether the
unknown was ever painted on any radar set on the RB-47 itself. Some of the men thought the navigator had
seen it on his set, others were unsure. I eventually located Maj. Hanley at Vandenberg and he informed me
that all through the incident, which he remembered very well, he tried, unsuccessfully to pick up the unknown
on his navigational radar (K-system). I shall not recount all of the details of his efforts and his comments, but
only mention the end result of my two telephone interviews with him. The important question was what sort
of effective range that set had. Hanley gave the pertinent information that it could just pick up a large tanker
of the KC-97 type at about 4 miles range, when used in the "altitude- hold" mode, with antenna tipped up to
maximum elevation. But both at the start of its involvement and during the object's swing into the 12 o'clock
position, GCI showed it remaining close to 10 miles in range from the RB-47. Thus Hanley's inability to detect
it on his K-system navigational radar in altitude hold only implies that whatever was out there had a radar
cross-section that was less than about 16 times that of a KC-97 (roughly twice 4 miles, inverse 4th-power
law), The unknown gave a GCI return that suggested a cross-section comparable to an ordinary aircraft,
Chase told me, which is consistent with Hanley's non-detection of the object. The Condon Report gives the
7 of 38 6/26/2009 3:41 PM
impression the navigator did detect it, but this is not correct.
I have in my files many pages of typed notes on my interviews, and cannot fill in all of the intriguing details
here. Suffice it to say that Chase then went to maximum allowable power, hoping to close with the unknown,
but it just stayed ahead at about 10 miles as GCI kept telling them; it stayed as a bright red light dead ahead,
and it kept painting as a bright lobe on the top of McClure's ALA-6 scope. By this time they were well into
Texas still at about 35,000 ft and doing upwards of 500 knots, when Chase saw it begin to veer to the right
and head between Dallas and Ft. Worth. Getting FAA clearance to alter his own flight plan and to make sure
other jet traffic was out of his way, he followed its turn, and then realized he was beginning to close on it for
the first time. Almost immediately GCI told him the unknown had stopped moving on the ground-radarscope.
Chase and McCoid watched as they came almost up to it. Chase's recollections on this segment of the events
were distinctly clearer than McCoid's. McCoid was, of course, sitting aft of Chase and had the poorer view;
also he said he was doing fuel-reserve calculations in view of the excess fuel-use in their efforts to shake the
unknown, and had to look up from the lighted cockpit to try to look out intermittently, while Chase in the
forward seat was able to keep it in sight more nearly continuously. Chase told me that he'd estimate that it
was just ahead of the RB-47 and definitely below them when it instantaneously blinked out, At that same
moment McClure announced on the interphone that he'd lost the 2800 mcs signal, and GCI said it had
disappeared from their scope. Such simultaneous loss of signal on what we can term three separate channels is
most provocative, most puzzling.
Putting the aircraft into a left turn (which Chase noted consumes about 15-20 miles at top speed), they kept
looking back to try to see the light again. And, about halfway through the turn (by then the aircraft had
reached the vicinity of Mineral Wells, Texas, Chase said), the men in the cockpit suddenly saw the bright red
light flash on again, back along their previous flight path but distinctly lower, and simultaneously GCI got a
target again and McClure started picking up a 2800 mcs signal at that bearing: (As I heard one after another
of these men describe all this, I kept trying to imagine how it was possible that Condon could listen, at the
October, 1967, plasma conference at the UFO Project, as Col. Chase recounted all this and shrug his
shoulders and walk out.)
Securing permission from Carswell GCI to undertake the decidedly non- standard maneuver of diving on the
unknown, Chase put the RB-47 nose down and had reached about 20,000 ft, he recalls, when all of a sudden
the light blinked out, GCI lost it on their scope, and McClure reported loss of signal on the #2 monitor: Three-
channel consistency once more.
Low on fuel, Chase climbed back up to 25,000 and headed north for Oklahoma. He barely had it on
homeward course when McClure got a blip dead astern and Carswell radioed that they had a target once more
trailing the RB- 47 at about 10 miles. Rear visibility from the topblisters of the RB-4 now precluded easy
visual check, particularly if the unknown was then at lower altitude (Chase estimated that it might have been
near 15,000 ft when he lost it in the dive). It followed them to southern Oklahoma and then disappeared.
2. Discussion:
This incident is an especially good example of a UFO case in which observer credibility and reliability do not
come into serious question, a case in which more than one (here three) channel of information figures in the
over-all observations, and a case in which the reported phenomena appear to defy explanation in terms of
either natural or technological phenomena.
In the Condon Report, the important initial incident in which the unknown 2800 MC source appeared to orbit
the RB-47 near Gulfport is omitted. In the Condon Report, the reader is given no hint that the object was with
the aircraft for over 600 miles and for over an hour. No clear sequence of these events is spelled out, nor is
the reader made aware of all of the "three- channel" simultaneous appearances or disappearances that were
so emphatically stressed to me by both Chase and McClure in my interviews with them. But even despite
8 of 38 6/26/2009 3:41 PM
those degrees of incompleteness, any reader of the account of this case in the Condon Report must wonder
that an incident of this sort could be left as unexplained and yet ultimately treated, along with the other
unexplained cases in that Report, as calling for no further scientific attention.
Actually, various hypotheses (radar anomalies, mirage effects) are weighed in one part of the Condon Report
where this case is discussed separately (pp. 136-138). But the suggestion made there that perhaps an inversion
near 2 km altitude was responsible for the returns at the Carswell GCI unit is wholly untenable. In an
Appendix, a very lengthy but non-relevant discussion of ground return from anomalous propagation appears;
in fact, it is so unrelated to the actual circumstances of this case as to warrant no comment here. Chase's
account emphasized that the GCI radar(s) had his aircraft and the unknown object on-scope for a total flight-
distance of the order of several hundred miles, including a near overflight of the ground radar. With such wide
variations in angles of incidence of the ground-radar beam on any inversion or duct, however intense, the
possibility of anomalous propagation effects yielding a consistent pattern of spurious echo matching the
reported movements and the appearances and disappearances of the target is infinitesimal. And the more so in
view of the simultaneous appearances and disappearances on the ECM gear and via visible emissions from
the unknown. To suggest, as is tentatively done on p. 138 that the "red glow" might have been a "mirage of
Oklahoma City", when the pilot's description of the luminous source involves a wide range of viewing angles,
including two instances when he was viewing it at quite large depression angles, is wholly unreasonable.
Unfortunately, that kind of casual ad hoc hypothesizing with almost no attention to relevant physical
considerations runs all through the case-discussions in the treatment of radar and optical cases in the Condon
Report, frequently (though not in this instance) being made the basis of "explanations" that are merely absurd.
On p. 265 of the Report, the question of whether this incident might be explained in terms of any "plasma
effect" is considered but rejected. In the end, this case is conceded to be unexplained.
No evidence that a report on this event reached Project Bluebook was found by the Colorado investigators.
That may seem hard to believe for those who are under the impression that the Air Force has been diligently
and exhaustively investigating UFO reports over the past 22 years. But to those who have examined more
closely the actual levels of investigation, lack of a report on this incident is not so surprising. Other
comparable instances could he cited, and still more where the military aircrews elected to spare themselves
the bother of interrogation,by not even reporting events about as puzzling as those found in this RB-47
incident.
But what is of greatest present interest is the point that here we have a well-reported, multi-channel, multiple-
witness UFO report, coming in fact from within the Air Force itself, investigated by the Condon Report team,
conceded to be unexplained, and yet it is, in final analysis, ignored by Dr. Condon. In no section of the Report
specifically written by the principal investigator does he even allude to this intriguing case. My question is
how such events can be written off as demanding no further scientific study. To me, such cases seem to cry
out for the most intensive scientific study -- and the more so because they are actually so much more
numerous than the scientific community yet realizes. There is a scientific mystery here that is being ignored
and shoved under the rug; the strongest and most unjustified shove has come from the Condon Report.
"unjustified" because that Report itself contains so many scientifically puzzling unexplained cases
(approximately 30 out of 90 cases considered) that it is extremely difficult to understand how its principal
investigator could have construed the contents of the Report as supporting a view that UFO studies should be
terminated.
Case 2. Lakenheath and Bentwaters RAF/USAF units; England, August 13-14, 1956.
Brief summary: Observations of unidentified objects by USAF and RAF personnel, extending over 5 hours,
and involving ground-radar, airborne-radar, ground visual and airborne-visual sightings of high-speed
unconventionally maneuvering obJects in the vicinity of two RAF stations at night. It is Case 2 in the Condon
Report and is there conceded to be unexplained.
9 of 38 6/26/2009 3:41 PM
1. Introduction:
This case will illustrate, in significant ways, the following points:
a) It illustrates the fact that many scientifically intriguing UFO reports have lain in USAF/Bluebook files for
years without knowledge thereof by the scientific community.
b) It represents a large subset of UFO cases in which all of the observations stemmed from military sources
and which, had there been serious and competent scientific interest operating in Project Bluebook, could have
been very thoroughly investigated while the information was fresh. It also illustrates the point that the actual
levels of investigation were entirely inadequate in even as unexplainable and involved cases as this one.
c) It illustrates the uncomfortably incomplete and internally inconsistent features that one encounters in
almost every report of its kind in the USAF/Bluebook files at Wright-Patterson AFB, features attesting to the
dearth of scientific competence in the Air Force UFO investigations over the past 20 years.
d) It illustrates, when the original files are carefully studied and compared with the discussion thereof in the
Condon Report, shortcomings in presentation and critique given many cases in the Condon Report.
e) Finally, I believe it illustrates an example of those cases conceded to be unexplainable by the Condon
Report that argue need for much more extensive and more thorough scientific investigation of the UFO
problem, a need negated in the Condon Report and in the Academy endorsement thereof.
My discussion of this case will be based upon the 30-page Bluebook case- file, plus certain other information
presented on it in the Condon Report. This "Lakenheath case" was not known outside of USAF circles prior
to publication of the Condon Report. None of the names of military personnel involved are given in the
Condon Report. (Witness names, dates, and locales are deleted from all of the main group of cases in that
Report, seriously impeding independent scientific check of case materials.) I secured copies of the case-file
from Bluebook, but all names of military personnel involved in the incident were cut out of the Xerox copies
prior to releasing the material to me. Hence I have been unable to interview personally the key witnesses.
However, there is no indication that anyone on the colorado Project did any personal interviews, either; so it
would appear I have had access to the same basic data used in the Condon Report's treatment of this
extremely interesting case.
For no justified reason, the Condon Report not only deletes witness names, but also names of localities of the
UFO incidents in its main sample of 59 cases. In this Lakenheath case, deletion of locality names creates
much confusion for the reader, since three distinct RAF stations figure in,the incident and since the
discharged non-commissioned officer from whom they received first word of this UFO episode confused the
names of two of those stations in his own account that appears in the Condon Report. That, plus other
reportorial deficiencies in the presentation of the Lakenheath case in the Condon Report, will almost certainly
have concealed its real significance from most readers of the Report.
Unfortunately, the basic Bluebook file is itself about as confusing as most Bluebook files on UFO cases. I
shall attempt to mitigate as many of those difficulties as I can in the following, by putting the account into
better over-all order than one finds in the Condon Report treatment.
2. General Circumstances:
The entire episode extended from about 2130Z, August 13, to 0330Z, August 14, 1956; thus this is a
nighttime case. The events occurred in east-central England, chiefly in Suffolk. The initial reports centered
around Bentwaters RAF Station, located about six miles east of Ipswich, near the coast, while much of the
subsequent action centers around Lakenheath RAF Station, located some 20 miles northeast of Cambridge.
10 of 38 6/26/2009 3:41 PM
Sculthorpe RAF Station also figures in the account, but only to a minor extent; it is near Fakenham, in the
vicinity of The Wash. GCA (Ground Controlled Approach) radars at two of those three stations were
involved in the ground-radar sightings, as was an RTCC (Radar Traffic Control Center) radar unit at
Lakenheath. The USAF non-com who wrote to the Colorado Project about this incident was a Watch
Supervisor on duty at the Lakenheath RTCC unit that night. His detailed account is reproduced in the Condon
Report (pp. 248-251). The Report comments on "the remarkable accuracy of the account of the witness as
given in (his reproduced letter), which was apparently written from memory 12 years after the incident." I
would concur, but would note that, had the Colorado Project only investigated more such striking cases of
past years, it would have found many other witnesses in UFO cases whose vivid recollections often match
surprising well checkable contemporary accounts. My experience thereon has been that, in multiple- witness
cases where one can evaluate consistency of recollections, the more unusual and inexplicable the original
UFO episode, the more it impressed upon the several witnesses' memories a meaningful and still-useful
pattern of relevant recollections. Doubtless, another important factor operates: the UFO incidents that are the
most striking and most puzzling probably have been discussed by the key witnesses enough times that their
recollections have been thereby reinforced in a useful way.
The only map given in the Condon Report is based on a sketch-map made by the non-com who alerted them
to the case. It is misleading, for Sculthorpe is shown 50 miles east of Lakenheath, whereas it actually lies 30
miles north- northeast. The map does not show Bentwaters at all; it is actually some 40 miles east-southeast of
Lakenheath. Even as basic items as those locations do not appear to have been ascertained by those who
prepared the discussion of this case in the Condon Report, which is most unfortunate, yet not atypical.
That this incident was subsequently discussed by many Lakenheath personnel was indicated to me by a
chance event. In the course of my investigations of another radar UFO case from the Condon Report, that of
9/11/67 at Kincheloe AFB, I found that the radar operator involved therein had previously been stationed
with the USAF detachment at Lakenheath and knew of the events at second-hand because they were still
being discussed there by radar personnel when he arrived many months later.
3. Initial Events at Bentwaters, 2130Z to 2200Z

One of the many unsatisfactory aspects of the Condon Report is its frequent failure to put before the reader a
complete account of the UFO cases it purports to analyze scientifically. In the present instance, the Report
omits all details of three quite significant radar-sightings made by Bentwaters GCA personnel prior to their
alerting the Lakenheath GCA and RTCC groups at 2255 LST. This omission is certainly not because of
correspondingly slight mention in the original Bluebook case-file; rather, the Bentwaters sightings actually
receive more Bluebook attention than the subsequent Lakenheath events. Hence, I do not see how such
omissions in the Condon Report can be justified.
a) First radar sighting, 2130Z. Bentwaters GCA operator, A/2c ______ (I shall use a blank to indicate the
names razor-bladed out of my copies of the case-file prior to release of the file items to me), reported picking
up a target 25-30 miles ESE, which moved at very high speed on constant 295 deg. heading across his scope
until he lost it 15-20 miles to the NW of Bentwaters. In the Bluebook file, A/2c _____ is reported as
describing it as a strong radar echo, comparable to that of a typical aircraft, until it weakened near the end of
its path across his scope. He is quoted as estimating a speed of the order of 4000 mph, but two other cited
quantities suggest even higher speeds. A transit time of 30 seconds is given, and if one combines that with the
reported range of distance traversed, 40-50 miles, a speed of about 5000- 6000 mph results. Finally, A/2c
_____ stated that it covered about 5-6 miles per sweep of the AN/MPN-llA GCA radar he was using. The
sweep-period for that set is given as 2 seconds (30 rpm), so this yields an even higher speed- estimate of
about 9000 mph. (Internal discrepancies of this sort are quite typical of Bluebook case-files, I regret to say.
My study of many such files during the past three years leaves me no conclusion but that Bluebook work has
never represented high-caliber scientific work, but rather has operated as a perfunctory bookkeeping and
filing operation during most of its life. Of the three speed figures just mentioned, the latter derives from the
11 of 38 6/26/2009 3:41 PM
type of observation most likely to be reasonably accurate, in my opinion. The displacement of a series of
successive radar blips on a surveillance radar such as the MPN-11A, can be estimated to perhaps a mile or so
with little difficulty, when the operator has as large a number of successive blips to work with as is here
involved. Nevertheless, it is necessary to regard the speed as quite uncertain here, though presumably in the
range of several thousand miles per hour and hence not associable with any conventional aircraft, nor with
still higher-speed meteors either.)
b) Second radar sighting, 2130-2155Z. A few minutes after the preceding event, T/Sgt _____ picked up on the
same MPN-11A a group of 12-15 objects about 8 miles SW of Brentwaters. In the report to Bluebook, he
pointed out that "these objects appeared as normal targets on the GCA scope and that normal checks made to
determine possible malfunctions of the GCA radar failed to indicate anything was technically wrong." The
dozen or so objects were moving together towards the NE at varying speeds, ranging between 80 and 125
mph, and "the 12 to 15 unidentified objects were preceded by 3 objects which were in a triangular formation
with an estimated 1000 feet separating each object in this formation." The dozen objects to the rear "were
scattered behind the lead formation of 3 at irregular intervals with the whole group simultaneously covering a
6 to 7 mile area," the official report notes.
Consistent radar returns came from this group during their 25-minute movement from the point at which they
were first picked up, 8 mi. SW, to a point about 40 mi. NE of Bentwaters, their echoes decreasing in intensity
as they moved off to the NE. When the group reached a point some 40 mi. NE, they all appeared to converge
to form a single radar echo whose intensity is described as several times larger than a B-36 return under
comparable conditions. Then motion ceased, while this single strong echo remained stationary for 10-15
minutes. Then it resumed motion to the NE for 5-6 miles, stopped again for 3-5 minutes, and finally moved
northward and off the scope.
c) Third radar sighting, 2200Z. Five minutes after the foregoing formation moved off-scope, T/Sgt _____
detected an unidentified target about 30 mi. E of the Bentwaters GCA station, and tracked it in rapid
westward motion to a point about 25 mi. W of the station, where the object "suddenly disappeared off the
radar screen by rapidly moving out of the GCS radation pattern," according to his interpretation of the event.
Here, again, we get discordant speed information, for T/Sgt _____ gave the speed only as being "in excess of
4000 mph," whereas the time-duration of the tracking, given as 16 sec, implies a speed of 12,000 mph, for the
roughly 55 mi. track-length reported. Nothing in the Bluebook files indicates that this discrepancy was
investigated further or even noticed, so one can say only that the apparent speed lay far above that of
conventional aircraft.
d) Other observations at Bentwaters. A control tower sergeant, aware of the concurrent radar tracking, noted
a light "the size of a pin-head at arm's length" at about 10 deg. elevation to the SSE. It remained there for
about one hour, intermittently appearing and disappearing. Since Mars was in that part of the sky at that time,
a reasonable interpretation is that the observer was looking at that planet.
A T-33 of the 512th Fighter Interceptor Squadron, returning to Bentwaters from a routine flight at about
2130Z, was vectored to the NE to search for the group of objects being tracked in that sector. Their search,
unaided by airborne radar, led to no airborne sighting of any aircraft or other objects in that area, and after
about 45 minutes they terminated search, having seen only a bright star in the east and a coastal beacon as
anything worth noting. The Bluebook case-file contains 1956 USAF discussions of the case that make a big
point of the inconclusiveness of the tower operator's sighting and the negative results of the T-33 search, but
say nothing about the much more puzzling radar-tracking incidents than to stress that they were of
"divergent" directions, intimating that this somehow put them in the category of anomalous propagation,
which scarcely follows. Indeed, none of the three cited radar sightings exhibits any features typical of AP
echoes. The winds over the Bentwaters area are given in the file. They jump from the surface level (winds
from 230 deg. at 5-10 kts) to the 6000 ft level (260 deg., 30 kts), and then hold at a steady 260 deg. up to
50,000 ft, with speeds rising to a maximum of 90 kts near 30,000 ft. Even if one sought to invoke the highly
12 of 38 6/26/2009 3:41 PM
dubious Borden-Vickers hypothesis (moving waves on an inversion surface), not even the slowest of the
tracked echoes (80-125 mph) could be accounted for, nor is it even clear that the direction would be
explainable. Furthermore, the strength of the individual echoes (stated as comparable to normal aircraft
returns), the merging of the 15 or so into a single echo, the two intervals of stationarity, and final motion
off-scope at a direction about 45 deg. from the initial motion, are all wholly unexplainable in terms of AP in
these 2130-2155Z incidents. The extremely high-speed westward motion of single targets is even further from
any known radar-anomaly associated with disturbed propagation conditions. Blips that move across scopes
from one sector to the opposite, in steady heading at steady apparent speed, correspond neither to AP nor to
internal electronic disturbances. Nor could interference phenomena fit such observed echo behavior. Thus,
this 30-minute period, 213O- 2200Z, embraced three distinct events for which no satisfactory explanation
exists. That these three events are omitted from the discussions in the Condon Report is unfortunate, for they
serve to underscore the scientific significance of subsequent events at both Bentwaters and Lakenheath
stations.
4. Comments on Reporting of Events After 2255Z, 8/13/56:

The events summarized above were communicated to Bluebook by Capt. Edward L. Holt of the 81st Fighter-
Bomber Wing stationed at Bentwaters, as Report No. IR-1-56, dated 31 August, 1956. All events occurring
subsequent to 2200Z, on the other hand, were communicated to Project Bluebook via an earlier, lengthy
teletype transmission from the Lakenheath USAF unit, sent out in the standard format of the report-form
specified by regulation AFR200-2. Two teletype transmissions, dated 8/17/56 and 8/21/56, identical in basic
content, were sent from Lakenheath to Bluebook. The Condon Report presents the content of that teletype
report on pp. 252-254, in full, except for deletion of all names and localities and omission of one important
item to be noted later here. However, most readers will be entirely lost because what is presented actually
constitutes a set of answers to questions that are not stated! The Condon Report does not offer the reader the
hint that the version of AFR200-2 appearing in the Report's Appendix, pp. 819-826 (there identified by its
current designation, AFR80-17) would provide the reader with the standardized questions needed to translate
much of the otherwise extremely confusing array of answers on pp. 252-254. For that reason, plus others,
many readers will almost certainly be greatly (and entirely unnecessarily) confused on reading this important
part of the Lakenheath report in the Condon Report.
That confusion, unfortunately, does not wholly disappear upon laboriously matching questions with answers,
for it has long been one of the salient deficiencies of the USAF program of UFO report collection that the
format of AFR200-2 (or its sequel AFR80-17) is usually only barely adequate and (especially for complex
episodes such as that involved here) often entirely incapable of affording the reporting office enough scope to
set out clearly and in proper chronological order all of the events that may be of potential scientific
significance. Anyone who has studied many Bluebook reports in the AFR200-2 format, dating back to 1953,
will be uncomfortably aware of this gross difficulty. Failure to carry out even modest followup investigations
and incorporate findings thereof into Bluebook case-files leaves most intriguing Bluebook UFO cases full of
unsatisfactorily answered questions. But those deficiencies do not, in my opinion, prevent the careful reader
from discerning that very large numbers of those UFO cases carry highly significant scientific implications,
implications of an intriguing problem going largely unexamined in past years.
5. Initial Alerting of Lakenheath GCA and RTCC:

The official files give no indication of any further UFO radar sightings by Bentwaters GCA from 2200 until
2255Z. But, at the latter time, another fast-moving target was picked up 30 mi. E of Bentwaters, heading
almost due west at a speed given as "2000-4000 mph". It passed almost directly over Bentwaters,
disappearing from their GCA scope for the usual beam-angle reasons when within 2-3 miles (the Condon
Report intimates that this close in disappearance is diagnostic of AP, which seems to be some sort of tacit
over- acceptance of the 1952 Borden-Vickers hypothesis), and then moving on until it disappeared from the
13 of 38 6/26/2009 3:41 PM
scope 30 mi. W of Bentwaters.
Very significantly, this radar-tracking of the passage of the unidentified target was matched by concurrent
visual observations, by personnel on the ground looking up and also from an overhead aircraft looking down.
Both visual reports involved only a light, a light described as blurred out by its high speed; but since the
aircraft (identified as a C-47 by the Lakenheath non-com whose letter called this case to the attention of the
Colorado Project) was flying only at 4000 ft, the altitude of the unknown object is bracketed within rather
narrow bounds. (No mention of any sonic boom appears; but the total number of seemingly quite credible
reports of UFOs moving at speeds far above sonic values and yet not emitting booms is so large that one must
count this as just one more instance of many currently inexplicable phenomena associated with the UFO
problem.) The reported speed is not fast enough for a meteor, nor does the low-altitude flat traJectory and
absence of a concussive shock wave match any meteoric hypothesis. That there was visual confirmation from
observation points both above and below this fast-moving radar-tracked obJect must be viewed as adding still
further credence to, and scientific interest in, the prior three Bentwaters radar sightings of the previous hour.
Apparently immediately after the 2255Z events, Bentwaters GCA alerted GCA Lakenheath, which lay off to
its WNW. The answers to Questions 2(A) and 2(B) of the AFR200-2 format (on p. 253 of the Condon
Report) seem to imply that Lakenheath ground observers were alerted in time to see a luminous object come
in, at an estimated altitude of 2000-2500 ft, and on a heading towards SW. The lower estimated altitude and
the altered heading do not match the Bentwaters sighting, and the ambiguity so inherent in the AFR200-2
format simply cannot be eliminated here, so the precise timing is not certain. All that seems certain here is
that, at or subsequent to the Bentwaters alert-message, Lakenheath ground observers saw a luminous object
come in out of the NE at low altitude, then _stop_, and take up an easterly heading and resume motion
eastward out of sight.
The precise time-sequence of the subsequent observations is not clearly deducible from the Lakenheath TWX
sent in compliance with AFR200-2. But that many very interesting events, scientifically very baffling events,
soon took place is clear from the report. No followup, from Bluebook or other USAF sources,'was
undertaken, and so this potentially very important case, like hundreds of others, simply sent into the Bluebook
files unclarified. I am forced to stress that nothing reveals so clearly the past years of scientifically inadequate
UFO investigation as a few days' visit to Wright- Patterson AFB and a diligent reading of Bluebook case
reports. No one with any genuine scientific interest in solving the UFO problem would have let accumulate so
many years of reports like this one without seeing to it that the UFO reporting and followup investigations
were brought into entirely different status from that in which they have lain for over 20 years.
Deficiencies having been noted, I next catalog, without benefit of the exact time-ordering that is so crucial to
full assessment of any UFO event, the intriguing observations and events at or near Lakenheath subsequent to
the 2255Z alert from Bentwaters.
6. Non-chronological Summary of Lakenheath Sightings, 2255Z-0330Z.

a. Visual observations from ground. As noted two paragraphs above, following the 2255Z alert from GCA
Bentwaters, USAF ground observers at the Lakenheath RAF Station observed a luminous object come in on a
southwesterly heading, stop, and then move off out of sight to the east. Subsequently, at an unspecified time,
two moving white lights were seen, and "ground observers stated one white light joined up with another and
both disappeared in formation together" (recall earlier radar observations of merging of targets seen by
Bentwaters GCA). No discernible features of these luminous sources were noted by ground observers, but
both the observers and radar operators concurred in their report-description that "the objects (were) traveling
at terrific speeds and then stopping and changing course immediately." In a passage of the original Bluebook
report which was for some reason not included in the version presented in the Condon Report, this
concordance of radar and visual observations is underscored: "Thus two radar sets (i.e., Lakenheath GCA and
RATCC radars) and three ground observers report substantially same." Later in the original Lakenheath
14 of 38 6/26/2009 3:41 PM
report, this same concordance is reiterated: "the fact that radar and ground visual observations were made on
its rapid acceleration and abrupt stops certainly lend credulance (sic) to the report."
Since the date of this incident coincides with the date of peak frequency of the Perseid meteors, one might
ask whether any part of the visual observations could have been due to Perseids. The basic Lakenheath report
to Bluebook notes that the ground observers reported "unusual amount of shooting stars in sky", indicating
that the erratically moving light(s) were readily distinguishable from meteors. The report further remarks
thereon that "the objects seen were definitely not shooting stars as there were no trails as are usual with such
sightings." Furthermore, the stopping and course reversals are incompatible with any such hypothesis in the
first place.
AFR200-2 stipulates that observer be asked to compare the UFO to the size of various familiar objects when
held at arm's length (Item 1-B in the format). In answer to that item, the report states: "One observer from
ground stated on first observation object was about size of golf ball. As object continued in flight it became a
'pin point'." Even allowing for the usual inaccuracies in such estimates, this further rules out Perseids, since
that shower yields only meteors of quite low luminosity.
In summary of the ground-visual observations, it appears that three ground observers at Lakenheath saw at
least two luminous objects, saw these over an extended though indefinite time period, saw them execute sharp
course changes, saw them remain motionless at least once, saw two objects merge into a single luminous
object at one juncture, and reported motions in general accord with concurrent radar observations. These
ground-visual observations, in themselves, constitute scientifically interesting UFO report-material. Neither
astronomical nor aeronautical explanations, nor any meteorological-optical explanations, match well those
reported phenomena. One could certainly wish for a far more complete and time-fixed report on these visual
observations, but even the above information suffices to suggest some unusual events. The unusualness will
be seen to be even greater on next examining the ground-radar observations from Lakenheath. And even
stronger interest emerges as we then turn, last of all, to the airborne-visual and airborne-radar observations
made near Lakenheath.
b. Ground-radar observations at Lakenheath. The GCA surveillance radar at Lakenheath is identified as a

CPN-4, while the RATCC search radar was a CPS-5 (as the non-com correctly recalled in his letter). Because
the report makes clear that these two sets were concurrently following the unknown targets, it is relevant to
note that they have different wavelengths, pulse repetition frequencies, and scan-rates, which (for reasons
that need not be elaborated here) tends to rule out several radar-anomaly hypotheses (e.g., interference
echoes from a distant radar, second-time-around effects, AP). However, the reported maneuvers are so unlike
any of those spurious effects that it seems almost unnecessary to confront those possibilities here.
As with the ground-visual observations, so also with these radar-report items, the AFR200-2 format
limitations plus the other typical deficiencies of reporting of UFO events preclude reconstruction in detail, and
in time-order, of all the relevant events. I get the impression that the first object seen visually by ground
observers was not radar-tracked, although this is unclear from the report to Bluebook. One target whose
motions were jointly followed both on the CPS-5 at the Radar Air Traffic Control Center and on the shorter-
range, faster-scanning CPN-4 at the Lakenheath GCA unit was tracked "from 6 miles west to about 20 miles
SW where target stopped and assumed a stationary position for five minutes. Target then assumed a heading
northwesterly (I presume this was intended to read 'northeasterly', and the non-com so indicates in his
recollective account of what appears to be the same maneuvers) into the Station and stopped two miles NW
of Station. Lakenheath GCA reports three to four additional targets were doing the same maneuvers in the
vicinity of the Station. Thus two radar sets and three ground observers report substantially same." (Note that
the quoted item includes the full passage omitted from the Condon Report version, and note that it seems to
imply that this devious path with two periods of stationary hovering was also reported by the visual observers.
However, the latter is not entirely certain because of ambiguities in the structure of the basic report as forced
into the AFR200-2 format).
15 of 38 6/26/2009 3:41 PM
At some time, which context seems to imply as rather later in the night (the radar sightings went on until
about 0330Z), "Lakenheath Radar Air Traffic Control Center observed object 17 miles east of Station making
sharp rectangular course of flight. This maneuver was not conducted by circular path but on right angles at
speeds of 600-800 mph. Object would stop and start with amazing rapidity." The report remarks that "...the
controllers are experienced and technical skills were used in attempts to determine just what the objects were.
When the target would stop on the scope, the MTI was used. However, the target would still appear on the
scope." (The latter is puzzling. MTI, Moving Target Indication, is a standard feature on search or surveillance
radars that eliminates ground returns and returns from large buildings and other motionless objects. This very
curious feature of display of stationary modes while the MTI was on adds further strong argument to the
negation of any hypothesis of anomalous propagation of ground-returns. It was as if the unidentified target,
while seeming to hover motionless, was actually undergoing small-amplitude but high-speed jittering motion
to yield a scope- displayed return despite the MTI. Since just such jittery motion has been reported in visual
UFO sightings on many occasions, and since the coarse resolution of a PPI display would not permit radar-
detection of such motion if its amplitude were below, say, one or two hundred meters, this could conceivably
account for the persistence of the displayed return during the episodes of "stationary" hovering, despite use of
MTI.)
The portion of the radar sightings just described seems to have been vividly recollected by the retired USAF
non-com who first called this case to the attention of the Colorado group. Sometime after the initial
Bentwaters alert, he had his men at the RATCC scanning all available scopes, various scopes set at various
ranges. He wrote that "...one controller noticed a stationary target on the scopes about 20 to 25 miles
southwest. This was unusual, as a stationary target should have been eliminated unless it was moving at a
speed of at least 40 to 45 knots. And yet we could detect no movement at all. We watched this target on all
the different scopes for several minutes and I called the GCA Unit at (Lakenheath) to see if they had this
target on their scope in the same geographical location. As we watched, the stationary target started moving
at a speed of 400 to 600 mph in a north- northeast direction until it reached a point about 20 miles north
northwest of (Lakenheath). There was no slow start or build-up to this speed -- it was constant from the
second it started to move until it stopped." (This description, written 11 years after the event, matches the
1956 intelligence report from the Lakenheath USAF unit so well, even seeming to avoid the typographical
direction-error that the Lakenheath TWX contained, that one can only assume that he was deeply impressed
by this whole incident. That, of course, is further indicated by the very fact that he wrote the Colorado group
about it in the first place.) His letter (Condon Report, p. 249) adds that "the target made several changes in
location, always in a straight line, always at about 600 mph and always from a standing or stationary point to
his next stop at constant speed -- no build-up in speed at all -- these changes in location varied from 8 miles to
20 miles in length --no set pattern at any time. Time spent stationary between movements also varied from 3
or 4 minutes to 5 or 6 minutes..." Because his account jibes so well with the basic Bluebook file report in the
several particulars in which it can be checked, the foregoing quotation from the letter as reproduced in the
Condon Report stands as meaningful indication of the highly unconventional behavior of the unknown aerial
target. Even allowing for some recollective uncertainties, the non-com's description of the behavior of the
unidentified radar target lies so far beyond any meteorological, astronomical, or electronic explanation as to
stand as one challenge to any suggestions that UFO reports are of negligible scientific interest.
The non-com's account indicates that they plotted the discontinuous stop- and-go movements of the target for
some tens of minutes before it was decided to scramble RAF interceptors to investigate. That third major
aspect of the Lakenheath events must now be considered. (The delay in scrambling interceptors is noteworthy
in many Air Force-related UFO incidents of the past 20 years. I believe this reluctance stems from
unwillingness to take action lest the decision-maker be accused of taking seriously a phenomenon which the
Air Force officially treats as non-existent.)
c. Airborne radar and visual sightings by Venom interceptor. An RAF jet interceptor, a Venom single-seat
subsonic aircraft equipped with an air-intercept (AI) nose radar, was scrambled, according to the basic
16 of 38 6/26/2009 3:41 PM
Bluebook report, from Waterbeach RAF Station, which is located about 6 miles north of Cambridge, and
some 20 miles SW of Lakenheath. Precise time of the scramble does not appear in the report to Bluebook, but
if we were to try to infer the time from the non-com's recollective account, it would seem to have been
somewhere near midnight. Both the non-com's letter and the contemporary intelligence report make clear that
Lakenheath radar had one of their unidentified targets on-scope as the Venom came in over the Station from
Waterbeach. The TWX to Blue book states: "The aircraft flew over RAF Station Lakenheath and was
vectored toward a target on radar 6 miles east of the field. Pilot advised he had a bright white light in sight
and would investigate. At thirteen miles west (east?) he reported loss of target and white light."
It deserves emphasis that the foregoing quote clearly indicates that the UFO that the Venom first tried to
intercept was being monitored via three distinct physical "sensing channels." It was being recorded by ground
radar, by airborne radar, and visually. Many scientists are entirely unaware that Air Force files contain such
UFO cases; for this very interesting category has never been stressed in USAF discussions of its UFO records.
Note, in fact, the similarity to the 1957 RB-47 case (Case 1 above) in the evidently simultaneous loss of
visual and airborne-radar signal here. One wonders if ground radar also lost it simultaneously with the Venom
pilot's losing it, but, loss of visual and airborne-radar signal here. One wonders if ground radar also lost it
simultaneously with the Venom pilot's losing it, but, as is so typical of AFR200-2 reports, incomplete
reporting precludes clarification. Nothing in the Bluebook case-file on this incident suggests that anyone at
Bluebook took any trouble to run down that point or the many other residual questions that are so painfully
evident here. The file does, however, include a lengthy dispatch from the then-current Blue book officer,
Capt. G. T. Gregory, a dispatch that proposes a series of what I must term wholly irrelevant hypotheses about
Perseid meteors with "ionized gases in their wake which may be traced on radarscopes", and inversions that
"may cause interference between two radar stations some distance apart." Such basically irrelevant remarks
are all too typical of Bluebook critique over the years. The file also includes a case- discussion by Dr. J. A.
Hynek, Bluebook consultant, who also toys with the idea of possible radar returns from meteor wake
ionization. Not only are the radar frequencies here about two orders of magnitude too high to afford even
marginal likelihood of meteor-wake returns, but there is absolutely no kinematic similarity between the
reported UFO movements and the essentially straight-line hypersonic movement of a meteor, to cite just a
few of the strong objections to any serious consideration of meteor hypotheses for the present UFO case.
Hynek's memorandum on the case makes some suggestions about the need for upgrading Bluebook
operations, and then closes with the remarks that "The Lakenheath report could constitute a source of
embarrassment to the Air Force; and should the facts, as so far reported, get into the public domain, it is not
necessary to point out what excellent use the several dozen UFO societies and other 'publicity artists' would
make of such an incident. It is, therefore, of great importance that further information on the technical aspects
of the original observations be obtained, without loss of time from the original observers." That memo of
October 17, 1956,is followed in the case-file by Capt. Gregory's November 26, 1956 reply, in which he
concludes that "our original analysis of anomalous propagation and astronomical is (sic) more or less correct";
and there the case investigation seemed to end, at the same casually closed level at which hundreds of past
UFO cases have been closed out at Bluebook with essentially no real scientific critique. I would say that it is
exceedingly unfortunate that "the facts , as so far reported" did not get into the public domain, along with the
facts on innumerable other Bluebook case-files that should have long ago startled the scientific community
just as much as they startled me when I took the trouble to go to Bluebook and spend a number of days
studying those astonishing files.
Returning to the scientifically fascinating account of the Venom pilot's attempt to make an air-intercept on the
Lakenheath unidentified object, the original report goes on to note that, after the pilot lost both visual and
radar signals, "RATCC vectored him to a target 10 miles east of Lakenheath and pilot advised target was on
radar and he was 'locking on.'" Although here we are given no information on the important point of whether
he also saw a luminous object, as he got a radar lock-on, we definitely have another instance of at least
two-channel detection. The concurrent detection of a single radar target by a ground radar and an airborne
radar under conditions such as these, where the target proves to be a highly maneuverable object (see below),
17 of 38 6/26/2009 3:41 PM
categorically rules out any conventional explanations involving, say, large ground structures and propagation
anomalies. That MTI was being used on the ground radar also excludes that, of course.
The next thing that happened was that the Venom suddenly lost radar lock- on as it neared the unknown
target. RATCC reported that "as the Venom passed the target on radar, the target began a tail chase of the
friendly fighter." RATCC asked the Venom pilot to acknowledge this turn of events and he did, saying "he
would try to circle and get behind the target." His attempts were unsuccessful, which the report to Bluebook
describes only in the terse comment, "Pilot advised he was unable to 'shake' the target off his tail and
requested assistance." The non-com's letter is more detailed and much more emphatic. He first remarks that
the UFO's sudden evasive movement into tail position was so swift that he missed it on his own scope, "but it
was seen by the other controllers." His letter then goes on to note that the Venom pilot "tried everything -- he
climbed, dived, circled, etc., but the UFO acted like it was glued right behind him, always the same distance,
very close, but we always had two distinct targets." Here again, note how the basic report is annoyingly
incomplete. One is not told whether the pilot knew the UFO was pursuing his Venom by virtue of some
tail-radar warning device of type often used on fighters (none is alluded to), or because he could see a
luminous object in pursuit. In order for him to "acknowledge" the chase seems to require one or the other
detection-mode, yet the report fails to clarify this important point. However, the available information does
make quite clear that the pursuit was being observed on ground radar, and the non-com's recollection puts the
duration of the pursuit at perhaps 10 minutes before the pilot elected to return to his base. Very significantly,
the intelligence report from Lakenheath to Bluebook quotes this first pilot as saying "clearest target I have
ever seen on radar", which again eliminates a number of hypotheses, and argues most cogently the scientific
significance of the whole episode.
The non-com recalled that, as the first Venom returned to Waterbeach Aerodrome when fuel ran low, the
UFO followed him a short distance and then stopped; that important detail is, however, not in the Bluebook
report. A second Venom was then scrambled, but, in the short time before a malfunction forced it to return to
Waterbeach, no intercepts were accomplished by that second pilot.
7. Discussion:
The Bluebook report material indicates that other radar unknowns were being observed at Lakenheath until
about 0330Z. Since the first radar unknowns appeared near Bentwaters at about 2130Z on 8/13/56, while the
Lakenheath events terminated near 0330Z on 8/14/56, the total duration of this UFO episode was about six
hours. The case includes an impressive number of scientifically provocative features:
1) At least three separate instances occurred in which one ground-radar unit, GCA Bentwaters, tracked some
unidentified target for a number of tens of miles across its scope at speeds in excess of Mach 3. Since even
today, 12 years later, no nation has disclosed military aircraft capable of flight at such speeds (we may
exclude the X-15), and since that speed is much too low to fit any meteoric hypothesis, this first feature
(entirely omitted from discussion in the Condon Report) is quite puzzling. However, Air Force UFO files and
other sources contain many such instances of nearly hypersonic speeds of radar-tracked UFOs.
2) In one instance, about a dozen low-speed (order of 100 mph) targets moved in loose formation led by three
closely-spaced targets, the assemblage yielding consistent returns over a path of about 50 miles, after which
they merged into a single large target, remained motionless for some 10-15 minutes, and then moved
off-scope. Under the reported wind conditions, not even a highly contrived meteorological explanation
invoking anomalous propagation and inversion layer waves would account for this sequence observed at
Bentwaters. The Condon Report omits all discussion of items 1) and 2), for reasons that I find difficult to
understand.
3) One of the fast-track radar sightings at Bentwaters, at 2255Z, coincided with visual observations of some
very-high-speed luminous source seen by both a tower operator on the ground and by a pilot aloft who saw
18 of 38 6/26/2009 3:41 PM
the light moving in a blur below his aircraft at 4000 ft altitude. The radar-derived speed "as given as
2000-4000 mph. Again, meteors won't fit such speeds and altitudes, and we may exclude aircraft for several
evident reasons, including absence of any thundering sonic boom that would surely have been reported if any
near hypothetical secret 1956-vintage hypersonic device were flying over Bentwaters at less than 4000 ft that
night.
4) Several ground observers at Lakenheath saw luminous obJects exhibiting non-ballistic motions, including
dead stops and sharp course reversals.
5) In one instance, two luminous white objects merged into a single object, as seen from the ground at
Lakenheath. This wholly unmeteoric and unaeronautical phenomenon is actually a not-uncommon feature of
UFO reports during the last two decades. For example, radar-tracked merging of two targets that veered
together sharply before Joining up was reported over Kincheloe AFB, Michigan, in a UFO report that also
appears in the Condon Report (p. 164), quite unreasonably attributed therein to "anomalous propagation."
6) Two separate ground radars at Lakenheath, having rather different radar parameters, were concurrently
observing movements of one or more unknown targets over an extended period of time. Seemingly stationary
hovering modes were repeatedly observed, and this despite use of MTI. Seemingly "instantaneous"
accelerations from rest to speeds of order of Mach 1 were repeatedly observed. Such motions cannot readily
be explained in terms of any known aircraft flying then or now, and also fail to fit known electronic or
propagation anomalies. The Bluebook report gives the impression (somewhat ambiguously, however) that
some of these two-radar observations were coincident with ground-visual observations.
7) In at least one instance, the Bluebook report makes clear that an unidentified luminous target was seen
visually from the air by the pilot of an interceptor while getting simultaneous radar returns from the unknown
with his nose radar concurrent with ground-radar detection of the same unknown. This is scientifically highly
significant, for it entails three separate detection-channels all recording the unknown object.
8) In at least one instance, there was simultaneous radar disappearance and visual disappearance of the UFO.
This is akin to similar events in other known UFO cases, yet is not easily explained in terms of conventional
phenomena.
9) Attempts of the interceptor to close on one target seen both on ground radar and on the interceptor's nose
radar, led to a puzzling rapid interchange of roles as the unknown object moved into tail- position behind the
interceptor. While under continuing radar observation from the ground, with both aircraft and unidentified
object clearly displayed on the Lakenheath ground radars, the pilot of the interceptor tried unsuccessfully to
break the tail chase over a time of some minutes. No ghost-return or multiple-scatter hypothesis can explain
such an event.
I believe that the cited sequence of extremely baffling events, involving so many observers and so many
distinct observing channels, and exhibiting such unconventional features, should have led to the most
intensive Air Force inquiries. But I would have to say precisely the same about dozens of other inexplicable
Air Force-related UFO incidents reported to Bluebook since 1947. What the above illustrative case shows all
too well is that highly unusual events have been occurring under circumstances where any organization with
even passing scientific curiosity should have responded vigorously, yet the Air Force UFO program has
repeatedly exhibited just as little response as I have noted in the above 1956 Lakenheath incident. The Air
Force UFO program, contrary to the impression held by most scientists here and abroad, has been an
exceedingly superficial and generally quite incompetent program. Repeated suggestions from Air Force press
offices, to the effect that "the best scientific talents available to the U.S. Air Force" have been brought to bear
on the UFO question are so far from the truth as to be almost laughable, yet those suggestions have served to
mislead the scientific community, here and abroad, into thinking that careful investigations were yielding solid
conclusions to the effect that the UFO problem was a nonsense problem. The Air Force has given us all the
19 of 38 6/26/2009 3:41 PM
impression that its UFO reports involved only misidentified phenomena of conventional sorts. That, I submit,
is far from correct, and the Air Force has not responsibly discharged its obligations to the public in conveying
so gross a misimpression for twenty years. I charge incompetence, not conspiracy, let me stress.
The Condon Report, although disposed to suspicion that perhaps some sort of anomalous radar propagation
might be involved (I record here my objection that the Condon Report exhibits repeated instances of
misunderstanding of the limits of anomalous propagation effects), does concede that Lakenheath is an
unexplained case. Indeed, the Report ends its discussion with the quite curious admission that, in the
Lakenheath episode, "...the probability that at least one genuine UFO was involved appears to be fairly high."
One could easily become enmeshed in a semantic dispute over the meaning of the phrase, "one genuine
UFO", so I shall simply assert that my own position is that the Lakenheath case exemplifies a disturbingly
large group of UFO reports in which the apparent degree of scientific inexplicability is so great that, instead of
being ignored and laughed at, those cases should all along since 1947 have been drawing the attention of a
large body of the world's best scientists. Had the latter occurred, we might now have some answers, some
clues to the real nature of the UFO phenomena. But 22 years of inadequate UFO investigations have kept this
stunning scientific problem out of sight and under a very broad rug called Project Bluebook, whose final
termination on December 18, 1969 ought to mark the end of an era and the start of a new one relative to the
UFO problem.
More specifically, with cases like Lakenheath and the 1957 RB-47 case and many others equally puzzling
that are to be found within the Condon Report, I contest Condon's principal conclusion "that further extensive
study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby." And I
contest the endorsement of such a conclusion by a panel of the National Academy of Sciences, an
endorsement that appears to be based upon essentially _zero_ independent scientific cross-checking of case
material in the Report. Finally, I question the judgment of those Air Force scientific offices and agencies that
have accepted so weak a report. The Lakenheath case is just one example of the basis upon which I rest those
objections. I am prepared to discuss many more examples.
8. The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis:

In this Lakenheath UFO episode, we have evidence of some phenomena defying ready explanation in terms
of present-day science and technology, some phenomena that include enough suggestion of intelligent control
(tail-chase incident here), or some broadly cybernetic equivalent thereof, that it is difficult for me to see any
reasonable alternative to the hypothesis that something in the nature of extraterrestrial devices engaged-in
something in the nature of surveillance lies at the heart of the UFO problem. That is the hypothesis that my
own study of the UFO problem leads me to regard as most probable in terms of my present information. This
is, like all scientific hypotheses, a working hypothesis to be accepted or rejected only on the basis of
continuing investigation. Present evidence surely does not amount to incontrovertible proof of the
extraterrestrial hypothesis. What I find scientifically dismaying is that, while a large body of UFO evidence
now seems to point in no other direction than the extraterrestrial hypothesis, the profoundly important
implications of that possibility are going unconsidered by the scientific community because this entire
problem has been imputed to be little more than a nonsense matter unworthy of serious scientific attention.
Those overtones have been generated almost entirely by scientists and others who have done essentially no
real investigation of the problem-area in which they express such strong opinions. Science is not supposed to
proceed in that manner, and this AAAS Symposium should see an end to such approaches to the UFO
problem.
Put more briefly, doesn't a UFO case like Lakenheath warrant more than a mere shrug of the shoulders from
science?
Case 3. Haneda Air Force Base, Japan, August 5-6, 1952.
20 of 38 6/26/2009 3:41 PM
Brief summary: USAF tower operators at Haneda AFB observed an unusually bright bluish-white light to their
NE, alerted the GCI radar unit at Shiroi, which then called for a scramble of an F94 interceptor after getting
radar returns in same general area. GCI ground radar vectored the F94 to an orbiting unknown target, which
the F94 picked up on its airborne radar. The target then accelerated out of the F94's radar range after 90
seconds of pursuit that was followed also on the Shiroi GCI radar.
1. Introduction:
The visual and radar sightings at Haneda AFB, Japan, on August 5-6, 1952, represent an example of a
long-puzzling case, still carried as an unidentified case by Project Bluebook, at my latest check, and chosen
for analysis in the Condon Report. In the latter, is putatively explained in terms of a combination of
diffraction and mirage distortion of the star Capella, as far as the visual parts are concerned, while the radar
portions are attributed to anomalous propagation. I find very serious difficulties with those "explanations" and
regard them as typical of a number of rather casually advanced explanations of long-standing UFO cases that
appear in the Condon Report. Because this case has been discussed in such books as those of Ruppelt,
Keyhoe, and Hall, it is of particular interest to carefully examine case-details on it and then to examine the
basis of the Condon Report's explanation of it, as example of how the Condon Report disposed of old "classic
cases."
Haneda AFB, active during the Korean War, lay about midway between central Tokyo and central
Yokohama, adjacent to Tokyo International Airport. The 1952 UFO incident began with visual sightings of a
brilliant object in the northeastern sky, as seen by two control tower operators going on duty at 2330 LST (all
times hereafter will be LST). It will serve brevity to introduce some coded name designations for these men
and for several officers involved, since neither the Condon Report, nor my copies of the original Bluebook
case-file show names (excised from latter copies in accordance with Bluebook practice on non-release of
witness names in UFO cases):
Coded Designation Identification
Airman A One of two Haneda tower operators who first sighted light; rank was A/3c.
Airman B Second Haneda tower operator to first sight light; A/1c.
Lt. A Controller on duty at Shiroi GCI unit up to 2400, August 5; 1st Lt.
Lt. B Controller at Shiroi after 0000, August 6; 1st Lt.
Lt. P Pilot of scrambled F-94; 1st Lt.
Lt. R Radar officer in F-94; 1st Lt.
Shiroi GCI Station, manned by the 528th AC&W (Aircraft Control and Warning) Group, lay approximately
20 miles NE of Haneda (specifically at 35 deg. 49' N, 140 deg. 2' E) and had a CPS-1 10-cm search radar plus
a CPS 10- cm height-finding radar. Two other USAF facilities figure in the incident, Tachikawa AFB, lying
just over 20 miles WNW of Haneda, and Johnson AFB, almost 30 miles NW of Waneda. The main radar
incidents center over the north extremity of Tokyo Bay, roughly midway from central Tokyo to Chiba across
the Bay.
The Bluebook case-file on this incident contains 25 pages, and since the incident predates promulgation of
AFR200-2, the strictures on time-reporting, etc., are not here so bothersome as in the Lakenheath case of
1956, discussed above. Nevertheless, the same kind of disturbing internal inconsistencies are present here as
one finds in most Bluebook case reports; in particular, there is a bothersome variation in times given for
specific events in different portions of the case-file. One of these, stressed in the Condon Report, will be
21 of 38 6/26/2009 3:41 PM
discussed explicitly below; but for the rest, I shall use those times which appear to yield the greatest over-all
internal consistency. This will introduce no serious errors, since the uncertainties are mostly only 1 or 2
minutes and, except for the cited instance, do not alter any important implications regardless of which cited
time is used. The over-all duration of the visual and radar sightings is about 50 minutes. The items of main
interest occurred between 2330 and 0020, approximately.
Although this case involves both visual and radar observations of unidentified objects, careful examination
does not support the view that the same object was ever assuredly seen visually and on radar at the same
time, with the possible exception of the very first radar detection just after 2330. Thus it is not a "radar-
visual" case, in the more significant sense of concurrent two-channel observations of an unknown object. This
point will be discussed further in Section 5.
2. Visual Observations:
a. First visual detection. At 2330, Airmen A and B, while walking across the ramp at Haneda AFB to go on
the midnight shift at the airfield control tower, noticed an "exceptionally bright light" in their northeastern
sky. They went immediately to the control tower to alert two other on-duty controllers to it and to examine it
more carefully with the aid of the 7x50 binoculars available in the tower. The Bluebook case-file notes that
the two controllers already on tower-duty "had not previously noticed it because the operating load had been
keeping their attention elsewhere. "
b. Independent visual detection at Tachikawa AFB. About ten minutes later, according to the August 12,
1952, Air Intelligence Information Report (IR-35-52) in the Bluebook case-file; Haneda was queried about an
unusually bright light by controllers at Tachikawa AFB, 21 miles to their WNW. IR-35-52 states: "The control
tower at Tachikawa Air Force Base called Haneda tower at approximately 2350 to bring their attention to a
brilliant white light over Tokyo Bay. The tower replied that it had been in view for some time and that it was
being checked."
This feature of the report is significant in two respects: 1) It indicates that the luminous source was of
sufficiently unusual brilliance to cause two separate groups of Air Force controllers at two airfields to respond
independently and to take alert-actions; and 2) More significantly, the fact that the Tachikawa controllers saw
the source in a direction "over Tokyo Bay" implies a line-of-sight distinctly south of east. From Tachikawa,
even the north end of the Bay lies to the ESE. Thus the intersection of the two lines of sight fell somewhere in
the northern half of the Bay, it would appear. As will be seen later, this is where the most significant parts of
the radar tracking occurred subsequently.
c. Direction, intensity, and configuration of the luminous source. IR-35-52 contains a signed statement by Air
man A, a sketch of the way the luminous source looked through 7-power binoculars, and summary comments
by Capt. Charle"s J. Malven, the FEAF intelligence officer preparing the report for transmission to Bluebook.
Airman A's own statement gives the bearing of the source as NNE; Malven summary specifies only NE.
Presumably the witness' statement is the more reliable, and it also seems to be given a greater degree of
precision, whence a line-of-sight azimuth somewhere in the range of 25 to 35 deg. east of north appears to be
involved in the Haneda sightings. By contrast, the Tachikawa sighting-azimuth was in excess of 90 deg. from
north, and probably beyond 100 deg., considering the geography involved, a point I shall return to later.
Several different items in the report indicate the high _intensity_ of the source. Airman A's signed statement
refers to it as "the intense bright light over the Bay." The annotated sketch speaks of "constant brilliance
across the entire area" of the (extended) source, and remarks on "the blinding effect from the brilliant light."
Malven's summary even points out that "Observers stated that their eyes would fatigue rapidly when they
attempted to concentrate their vision on the object," and elsewhere speaks of "the brilliant blue-white light of
the object." Most of these indications of brightness are omitted from the Condon Report, yet bear on the
22 of 38 6/26/2009 3:41 PM
Capella hypothesis in terms of which that Report seeks to dispose of these visual sightings.
Airman A's filed statement includes the remark that "I know it wasn't a star, weather balloon or venus,
because I compared it with all three." This calls for two comments. First, Venus is referred to elsewhere in the
case-file, but this is certainly a matter of confusion, inasmuch as Venus had set that night before about 2000
LST. Since elsewhere in the report reference is made to Venus lying in the East, and since the only noticeable
celestial object in that sector at that time would have been Jupiter, I would infer that where "Venus" is cited
in the case-file, one should read "Jupiter." Jupiter would have risen near 2300, almost due east, with apparent
magnitude -2.0. Thus Airman A's assertion that the object was brighter than "Venus" may probably be taken
to imply something of the order of magnitude -3.0 or brighter. Indeed, since it is most unlikely that any
observer would speak of a -3.0 magnitude source as "blinding" or "fatiguing" to look at, I would suggest that
the actual luminosity, at its periods of peak value (see below) must have exceeded even magnitude -3 by a
substantial margin.
Airman A's allusion to the intensity as compared with a "weather balloon" refers to the comparisons
(elaborated below) with the light suspended from a pilot balloon released near the tower at 2400 that night
and observed by the tower controllers to scale the size and brightness. This is a very fortunate scaling
comparison, because the small battery-operated lights long used in meteorological practice have a known
luminosity of about 1.5 candle. Since a 1-candle source at 1 kilometer yields apparent magnitude 0.8, inverse-
square scaling for the here known balloon distance of 2000 feet (see below) implies an apparent magnitude of
about -0.5 for the balloon-light as viewed at time of launch. Capt. Malven's summary states, in discussing this
quite helpful comparison, "The balloon's light was described as extremely dim and yellow, when compared to
the brilliant blue white light of the object." Here again, I believe one can safely infer an apparent luminosity
of the object well beyond Jupiter's -2.0. Thus, we have here a number of compatible indications of apparent
brightness well beyond that of any star, which will later be seen to contradict explanations proposed in the
Condon Report for the visual portions of the Haneda sightings.
Of further interest relative to any stellar source hypothesis are the descriptions of the _configuration_ of the
object as seen with 7-power binoculars from the Haneda tower, and its approximate _angular diameter_.
Fortunately, the latter seems to have been adjudged in direct comparison with an object of determinate
angular subtense that was in view in the middle of the roughly 50-minute sighting. At 2400, a small weather
balloon was released from a point at a known distance of 2000 ft from the control tower. Its diameter at
release was approximately 24 inches. (IR-35-52 refers to it as a "ceiling balloon", but the cloud-cover data
contained therein is such that no ceiling balloon would have been called for. Furthermore, the specified
balloon mass, 30 grams, and diameter, 2 ft, are precisely those of a standard pilot balloon for upper-wind
measurement. And finally, the time [2400 LST = 1500Z] was the standard time for a pilot balloon run, back in
that period.) A balloon of 2-ft diameter at 2000-ft range would subtend 1 milliradian, or just over 3 minutes of
arc, and this was used by the tower observers to scale the apparent angular subtense of the luminous source.
As IR-35-52 puts it: "Three of the operators indicated the size of the light, when closest to the tower, was
approximately the same as the small ceiling balloons (30 grams, appearing 24 inches in diameter) when
launched from the weather station, located at about 2000 ft from the tower. This would make the size of the
central light about 50 ft in diameter, when at the 10 miles distance tracked by GCI.... A lighted weather
balloon was launched at 2400 hours..." Thus, it would appear that an apparent angular subtense close to 3
minutes of arc is a reasonably reliable estimate for the light as seen by naked eye from Haneda. This is almost
twice the average resolution-limit of the human eye, quite large enough to match the reported impressions
that it had discernible extent, i.e., was not merely a point source.
But the latter is very much more clearly spelled out, in any event, for IR-35-52 gives a fairly detailed
description of the object's appearance through 7-power binoculars. It is to be noted that, if the naked-eye
diameter were about 3 minutes, its apparent subtense when viewed through 7X-binoculars would be about 20
minutes, or two-thirds the naked-eye angular diameter of the full moon -- quite large enough to permit
recognition of the finer details cited in IR-35-52, as follows: "The light was described as circular in shape,
23 of 38 6/26/2009 3:41 PM
with brilliance appearing to be constant across the face. The light appeared to be a portion of a large round
dark shape which was about four times the diameter of the light. When the object was close enough for
details to be seen, a smaller, less brilliant light could be seen at the lower left hand edge, with two or three
more dim lights running in a curved line along the rest of the lower edge of the dark shape. Only the lower
portion of the darker shape could be determined, due to the lighter sky which was believed to have blended
with the upper side of the object. No rotation was noticed. No sound was heard."
Keeping in mind that those details are, in effect, described for an image corresponding in apparent angular
size to over half a lunar diameter, the detail is by no means beyond the undiscernible limit. The sketch
included with IR-35-52 matches the foregoing description, indicating a central disc of "constant brilliance
across entire area (not due to a point source of light)", an annular dark area of overall diameter 3-4 times that
of the central luminary, and having four distinct lights on the lower periphery, "light at lower left, small and
fairly bright, other lights dimmer and possibly smaller." Finally, supportive comment thereon is contained in
the signed statement of Airman A. He comments: "After we got in the tower I started looking at it with
binoculars, which made the object much clearer. Around the bright white light in the middle, there was a
darker object which stood out against the sky, having little white lights along the outer edge, and a glare
around the whole thing."
All of these configurational details, like the indications of a quite un- starlike brilliance, will be seen below to
be almost entirely unexplainable on the Capella hypothesis with which the Condon Report seeks to settle the
Haneda visual sightings. Further questions ultimately arise from examination of reported apparent motions of
the luminous source, which will be considered next.
d. Reported descriptions of apparent motions of the luminous source. Here we meet the single most important
ambiguity in the Haneda case-file, though the weight of the evidence indicates that the luminous object
exhibited definite movements. The ambiguity arises chiefly from the way Capt. Malven summarized the
matter in his IR-35-52 report a week after the incident; "The object faded twice to the East, then returned.
Observers were uncertain whether disappearance was due to a dimming of the lights, rotation of object, or to
the object moving away at terrific speed, since at times of fading the object was difficult to follow closely,
except as a 3mall light, ObserverC did agree that when close, the object did appear
In contrast to the above form in which Malven summarized the reported motions, the way Airman A
described them in his own statement seems to refer to distinct motions, including transverse components: "I
watched it disappear twice through the glasses. It seemed to travel to the East and gaining altitude at a very
fast speed, much faster than any jet. Every time it disappeared it returned again, except for the last time when
the jets were around. It seemed to know they were there. As for an estimate of the size of the object -- I
couldn't even guess." Recalling that elsewhere in that same signed statement this tower controller had given
the observed direction to the object as NNE, his specification that the object "seemed to travel to the East"
seems quite clearly to imply a non radial motion, since, if only an impression of the latter were involved, one
would presume he would have spoken of it in some such terms as "climbing out rapidly to the NNE". Since
greater weight is presumably to be placed on direct-witness testimony than on another's summary thereof, it
appears necessary to assume that not mere radial recession but also transverse components of recession.
upwards and towards the East, were observed.
That the luminous source varied substantially in angular subtense is made very clear at several points in the
case-file: One passage already cited discusses the "size of the light, when closest to the tower...", while, by
contrast, another says that: "At the greatest distance, the size of the light appeared slightly larger than Venus,
approximately due East of Haneda, and slightly brighter." (For "Venus" read "Jupiter" as noted above. Jupiter
was then near quadrature with angular diameter of around 40 seconds of arc. Since the naked eye is a poor
judge of comparative angular diameters that far below the resolution limit, little more can safely be read into
that statement than the conclusion that the object's luminous disc diminished quite noticeably and its apparent
brightness fell to a level comparable to or a bit greater than Jupiter's when at greatest perceived distance. By
24 of 38 6/26/2009 3:41 PM
virtue of the latter, it should be noted, one has another basis for concluding that when at peak brilliance it
must have been considerably brighter than Jupiter's -2.0, a conclusion already reached by other arguments
above.
In addition to exhibiting what seems to imply recession, eastward motion, and climb to disappearance, the
source also disappeared for at least one other period far too long to be attributed to any scintillation or other
such meteorological optical effect: "When we were about half way across the ramp (Airman A stated), it
disappeared for the first time and returned to approximately the same spot about 15 seconds later." There
were scattered clouds over Haneda at around 15-16,000 ft, and a very few isolated clouds lower down, yet it
was full moon that night and, if patches of clouds had drifted very near the controllers' line-of-sight to the
object, they could be expected to have seen the clouds. (The upper deck was evidently thin, for Capt. Malven
notes in his report that "The F94 crew reported exceptional visibility and stated that the upper cloud layer did
not appreciably affect the brilliancy of the moonlight.") A thin cloud interposed between observer and a
distant luminous source would yield an impression of dimming and enhanced effective angular diameter, not
dimming and reduced apparent size, as reported here. I believe the described "disappearances" cannot, in
view of these several considerations, reasonably be attributed to cloud effects.
I have now summarized the essential features of the Haneda report dealing with just the visual observations of
some bright luminous source that initiated the alert and that led to the ground-radar and air borne-radar
observations yet to be described. Before turning to those, which comprise, in fact, the more significant portion
of the over-all sighting, it will be best to turn next to a critique of the Blue book and the Condon Report
attempts to give an explanation of the visual portions of the sighting.
3. Bluebook Critique of the Visual Sightings:

In IR-35-52. Capt, Malven offers only one hypothesis, and that in only passing manner: He speculates briefly
on whether "reflections off the water (of the Bay, I presume) were...sufficient to form secondary reflections
off the lower clouds," and by the latter he refers to "isolated patches of thin clouds reported by the F-94 crew
as being at approximately 4000 feet..." He adds that "these clouds were not reported to be visible by the
control tower personnel," which, in view of the 60-mile visibility cited elsewhere in the case-file and in view
of the full moon then near the local meridian, suggests that those lower clouds must have been exceedingly
widely scattered to escape detection by the controllers.
What Malven seems to offer there, as an hypothesis for the observed visual source, is cloud-reflection of
moonlight -- and in manner all too typical of many other curious physical explanations one finds scattered
through Bluebook case-files, he brings in a consideration that reveals lack of appreciation of what is central to
the issue. If he wants to talk about cloud-reflected moonlight, why render a poor argument even weaker by
invoking not direct moon light but moonlight secondarily reflected off the surface of Tokyo Bay? Without
even considering further that odd twist in his tentative hypothesis, it is sufficient to note that even direct
moonlight striking a patch of cloud is not "reflected in any ordinary sense of that term. It is scattered from the
cloud droplets and thereby serves not to create any image of a discrete light source of blinding intensity that
fatigues observers' eyes and does the other things reported by the Haneda observers, but rather serves merely
to palely illuminate a passing patch of cloud material. A very poor hypothesis.
Malven drops that hypothesis without putting any real stress on it (with judgment that is not always found
where equally absurd "explanations" have been advanced in innumerable other Bluebook case-files by
reporting officers or by Bluebook staff members). He does add that there was some thunderstorm activity
reported that night off to the northwest of Tokyo, but mentions that there was no reported electrical activity
therein. Since the direction is opposite to the line of sight and since the reported visual phenomena bear no
relation to lightning effects, this carried the matter no further, and the report drops that point there.
Finally, Malven mentions very casually an idea that I have encountered repeatedly in Bluebook files yet
25 of 38 6/26/2009 3:41 PM
nowhere else in my studies of atmospheric physics, namely, "reflections off ionized portions of the
atmosphere." He states: "Although many sightings might be attributed to visual and electrical reflections off
ionized areas in the atmosphere, the near-perfect visibility on the night of the sighting, together with the
circular orbit of the object would tend to disprove this theory." Evidently he rejects the "ionized areas"
hypothesis on the ground that presence of such areas is probably ruled out in view of the unusually good
visibility reported that night. I trust that, for most readers of this discussion, I would only be belaboring the
obvious to remark that Bluebook mythology about radar and visual "reflections" off "ionized regions" in the
clear atmosphere (which mythology I have recently managed to trace back even to pre-1950 Air Force
documents on UFO reports) has no known basis in fact, but is just one more of the all too numerous measures
of how little scientific critique the Air Force has managed to bring to bear on its UFO problems over the
years.
Although the final Bluebook evaluation of this entire case, including the visual portions, was and is
"Unidentified", indicating that none of the above was regarded as an adequate explanation of even the visual
features of the report, one cannot overlook extremely serious deficiencies in the basic report ing and the
interrogation and follow-up here. This incident occurred in that period which my own studies lead me to
describe as sort of a highwater mark for Project Bluebook. Capt. Edward J. Ruppelt was then Bluebook
Officer at Wright-Patterson AFB, and both he and his superiors were then taking the UFO problem more
seriously than it was taken by USAF at any other time in the past 22 years. Neither before nor after 1952-3
were there as many efforts made to assemble case-information, to go out and actually check in the field on
sightings, etc. Yet it should be uncomfortably apparent already at this point in this discussion of the Haneda
case that quite basic points were not run to ground and pinned down. Ruppelt, in his 1956 book, speaks of this
Haneda case as if it were regarded as one of the most completely reported cases they'd received as of
mid-1952. He mentioned that his office sent a query to FEAF offices about a few points of confusion, and
that the replies came back with impressive promptness, etc. If one needed some specific clue to the
regrettably low scientific level of the operation of Bluebook even during this period of comparatively
energetic case-investigation, one can find it in study of the Haneda report. Even so simple a matter as
checking whether Venus was actually in the East was obviously left undone; and numerous cross-questions
and followup queries on motions, angles, times, etc., not even thought of. That, I stress, is what any scientist
who studies the Bluebook files as I have done will find all through 22 years of Air Force handling of the UFO
problem. Incompetence and superficiality -- even at the 1952 highwater mark under Ruppelt's relatively
vigorous!
And in the final paragraph discussing this case, the Condon Report merely rounds it off to: "In summary , it
appears that the most probable causes of this UFO report are an optical effect on a bright light source that
produced the visual sighting..." (and goes on to a remark on the radar portions we have yet to examine here) .
There are some very serious difficulties with the more specific parts of the suggested explanation, and the
vagueness of the other parts is sufficiently self-evident to need little comment.
First, nothing in the literature of meteorological optics discusses any diffraction-produced corona with a dark
annular space extending out to three or four diameters of the central luminary, such as is postulated in the
above Condon Report explanation. The radial intensity pattern of a corona may be roughly described as a
damped oscillatory radial variation of luminosity, with zero intensity minima (for the simple case of a
monochromatic luminary) at roughly equal intervals, and no broad light-free annulus comparable to that
described in detail by the Haneda controllers. Thus, lack of understanding of the nature of corona is revealed
at the outset in attempting to fit the Haneda observations to such a phenomenon.
Second, droplets certainly do not have to be "spaced at regular intervals" to yield a corona, and Minnaert's
book makes no such suggestion, another measure of misunderstanding of the meteorological optics here
concerned. Nor is there any physical mechanism operating in clouds capable of yielding any such regular
26 of 38 6/26/2009 3:41 PM
droplet spacing. Both Minnaert and cloud physics are misunderstood in that passage.
Third, one quickly finds, by some trial calculations, using the familiar optical relation (Exner equation) for the
radial positions of the minima of the classical corona pattern, that the cited drop diameter of 0.2 mm = 200
microns was obtained in the Condon Report by back-calculating from a tacit requirement that the first-order
minimum lay close to 3 milliradians, for these are the values that satisfy the Exner equation for an assumed
wavelength of about 0.5 microns for visible light. This discloses even more thorough misunderstanding of
corona optics, for that first-order minimum marks not some outer edge of a broad dark annulus as described
and sketched by the Haneda tower operators, but the outer edge of the innermost annulus of high intensity of
diffracted light. This clearly identifies basic misunderstanding of the matters at hand.
Fourth, the just-cited computation yielded a droplet diameter of 200 microns, which is so large as to be found
only in drizzling or raining clouds and never in thin scattered clouds of the sort here reported, clouds that
scarcely attenuated the full moon's light. That is, the suggestion that "patches of fog or mist" collected under
an hypothesized inversion could grow droplets of that large size is meteorologically out of the question. If
isolated patches of clouds interposed themselves on an observer's line of sight to some distant luminary, under
conditions of the sort prevailing at Haneda that night, drop diameters down in the range of 10-20 microns
would be the largest one could expect, and the corona-size would be some 10 to 20 times greater than the 3
milliradians which was plugged into the Exner equation in the above computation.
Fifth, the vague suggestion that "Raman brightening" or other "interference effects associated with
propagation within and near the top of an inversion" is involved here makes the same serious error that is
made in attempted optical explanations of other cases in the Condon Report. Here we are asked to consider
that light from Capella, whose altitude was about 8 deg. above the NE horizon (a value that I confirm) near
the time of the Haneda observations, was subjected to Raman brightening or its equivalent; yet one of the
strict requirements of all such interference effects is that the ray paths impinge on the inversion surface at
grazing angles of incidence of only a small fraction of a degree. No ground observer viewing Capella at 8 deg.
elevation angle could possibly see anything like Raman brightening, for the pertinent angular limits would be
exceeded by one or two orders of magnitude. Added to this measure of misunderstanding of the optics of such
interference phenomena in this attempted explanation is the further difficulty that, for any such situation as is
hypothesized in the Condon Report explanation, the observer's eye must be physically located at or directly
under the index- discontinuity, which would here mean up in the air at the altitude of the hypothesized
inversion. But all of the Haneda observations were made from the ground level. Negation of Raman
brightening leaves one more serious gap in the Capella hypothesis, since its magnitude of 0.2 lies at a
brightness level well below that of Jupiter, yet the Haneda observers seem to have been comparing the
object's luminosity to Jupiter's and finding it far brighter, not dimmer.
Sixth, the Condon Report mentions the independent sighting from Tachikawa AFB, but fails to bring out that
the line of sight from that observing site (luminary described as lying over Tokyo Bay, as seen from
Tachikawa) pointed more than 45 deg. away from Capella, a circumstance fatal to fitting the Capella
hypothesis to both sightings. Jupiter lay due East, not "over Tokyo Bay" from Tachikawa, and it had been
rising in the eastern sky for many days, so it is, in any event, unlikely to have suddenly triggered an
independent response at Tachikawa that night. And, conversely, the area intersection of the reported lines of
sight from Haneda and Tachikawa falls in just the North Bay area where Shiroi GCI first got radar returns and
where all the subsequent radar activity was localized.
Seventh, nothing in the proffered explanations in the Condon Report confronts the reported movements and
disappearances of the luminous object that are described in the Bluebook case-file on Haneda. If, for the
several reasons offered above, we conclude that not only apparent radial motions, but also lateral and
climbing motions were observed, neither diffraction nor Raman effects can conceivably fit them.
Eighth, the over-all configuration as seen through 7X binoculars, particularly with four smaller lights
27 of 38 6/26/2009 3:41 PM
perceived on the lower edge of the broad dark annulus, is not in any sense explained by the ideas qualitatively
advanced.
Ninth, the Condon Report puts emphasis on the point that, whereas Haneda and Tachikawa observers saw the
light, airmen at the Shiroi GCI site went outside and looked in vain for the light when the plotted radar
position showed one or more targets to their south or south-southeast. This is correct. But we are quite
familiar with both highly directional and semi-directional light sources on our own technological devices, so
the failure to detect a light from the Shiroi side does not very greatly strengthen the hypothesis that Capella
was the luminary in the Haneda visual sightings. The same can be said for lack of visual observations from the
F-94, (which got only radar returns as it closed on its target).
I believe that it is necessary to conclude that the "explanation" proposed in the Condon Report for the visual
portions of the Haneda case are almost wholly unacceptable. And I remark that my analysis of many other
explanations in the Condon Report finds them to be about equally weak in their level of scientific
argumentation. We were supposed to get in the Condon Report a level of critique distinctly better than that
which had come from Bluebook for many years; but much of the critique in that Report is little less
tendentious and ill-based than that which is so dismaying in 22 years of Air Force discussions of UFO cases.
The above stands as only one illustration of the point I make there; many more could be cited.
Next we must examine the radar aspects of the 8/5-6/52 Haneda case.
5. Radar Observations:
Shortly after the initial visual sighting at Haneda, the tower controllers alerted the Shiroi GCI radar unit
(located about 15 miles NE of central Tokyo), asking them to look for a target somewhere NE of Haneda at
an altitude which they estimated (obviously on weak grounds) to be somewhere between 1500 and 5000 feet,
both those figures appearing in the Bluebook case-file. Both a CPS-1 search radar and a CPS-4 height-finder
radar were available at Shiroi, but only the first of those picked up the target, ground clutter interference
precluding useful CPS-4 returns. The CPS-1 radar was a 10-cm, 2-beam set with peak power of 1 megawatt,
PRF of 400/sec, antenna tilt 3 deg., and scan-rate operated that night at 4 rpm. I find no indication that it was
equipped with MTI, but this point is not certain.
It may help to keep the main sequence of events in better time order if I first put down the principal events
that bear on the radar sightings from ground and air, and the times at which these events occurred. In some
instances a 1-2 minute range of times will be given because the case-file contains more than a single time for
that event as described in separate sections of the report. I indicate 0015-16 LST (all times still LST) as the
time of first airborne radar contact by the F-94, and discuss that matter in more detail later, since the Condon
Report suggests a quite different time.
Time (LST) Event
2330 Tower controllers at Haneda see bright light to NE, call Shiroi GCI within a few minutes.
2330-45 Lt. A, Shiroi radar controller on evening watch, looks for returns, finds 3-4 stationary blips to NE of
Haneda on low beam of CPS-1.
2345 Lt. B comes on duty for midwatch at Shiroi; he and Lt. A discuss possible interceptor scramble.
2355 Lt. A calls Johnson AFB, asks for F-94 scramble. Fuel system trouble causes delay of 5-10 min.
0001 Lt. B has unknown in right orbit at varying speeds over north Tokyo Bay, 8 miles NE of Haneda. Loses
contact again.
28 of 38 6/26/2009 3:41 PM
0003-04 F-94 airborne out of Johnson AFB, Lt. P as pilot, Lt. R, radarman.
0009-10 Shiroi alerts F-94 to airborne target to its starboard as it heads down Tokyo Bay, and Lt. P visually
identifies target as C-54 in pattern to land at Haneda. Lt. B instructs Lt. P to begin search over north Bay area
at flight altitude of 5000 ft.
0012 Shiroi regains CPS-1 contact on unknown target in right orbit over same general area seen before, target
splits into three separate targets, and Lt. B vectors F-94 toward strongest of three returns.
0015-16 F-94 gets airborne radar contact on moving target at range and bearing close to vector information,
has to do hard starboard turn to keep onscope as target moves with acceleration across scope.
0017-18 After 90 seconds pursuit, with no lock-on achieved, target moves offscope at high speed; Shiroi GCI
tracks both unknown and F-94 into its ground clutter, where both are then lost in clutter.
0033 Shiroi releases F-94 from scramble-search
0040 F-94 visually spots another C-54, over Johnson.
0120 F-94 lands back at Johnson.
Thus the period 2330 on 8/5 through about 0018 on 8/6 is of present interest: Next, events in that period till
be examined in closer detail.
a. Initial attempts at radar detection from Shiroi GCI. When, at about 2335 or so, Haneda requested Shiroi to
search the area of the bay to the NE of Haneda (SSW from Shiroi, roughly), Lt. A, then duty controller at
Shiroi, found his CPS-4 giving too much ground clutter to be useful for the relatively low estimated heights
Haneda had suggested. Those heights are indicated as 1500-2000 ft in one portion of the case- file, though
Airman A elsewhere gave 5000 ft as his impression of the height. Clearly, lack of knowledge of size and slant
ranges precluded any exact estimates from Haneda, but they offered the above indicated impressions.
Trying both low and high beams on the CPS-1 search radar, Lt. A did detect three or four blips "at a position
050 deg. bearing from Haneda, as reported by the tower, but no definite movement could be ascertained..."
The report gives no information on the range from Shiroi, nor inferred altitude of those several blips, only the
first of a substantial number of missing items of quite essential information that were not followed up in any
Bluebook inquiries, as far as the case-file shows. No indication of the spacing of the several targets is given
either, so it is difficult to decide whether to consider the above as an instance of "radar visual" concurrency or
not. One summary discussion in the Bluebook case-file so construes it: "The radar was directed onto the
target by visual observations from the tower. So it can safely be assumed that both visual and radar contacts
involved the same object." By contrast, the Condon Report takes the position that there were no radar
observations that ever matched the visual observations. The latter view seems more justified than the former,
although the issue is basically unresolvable. One visual target won't, in any event, match 3-4 radar targets,
unless we invoke the point that later on the main radar target split up into three separate radar targets, and
assume that at 2335, 3-4 unknown objects were airborne and motionless, with only one of these luminous and
visually detectable from Haneda. That is conceivable but involves too strained assumptions to take very
seriously; so I conclude that, even in this opening radar search, there was not obvious correspondence
between visual and radar unknowns. As we shall see, later on there was definitely not correspondence, and
also the F-94 crew never spotted a visual target. Thus, Haneda cannot be viewed as a case involving the kind
of "radar-visual" concurrency which does characterize many other important cases. Nonetheless, both the
visual and the radar features, considered separately, are sufficiently unusual in the Haneda case to regard
them as mutually supporting the view that inexplicable events were seen and tracked there that night.
One may ask why a radar-detected object was not seen visually, and why a luminous object was not detected
29 of 38 6/26/2009 3:41 PM
on search radar; and no fully satisfactory answer lies at hand for either question. It can only be noted that
there are many other such cases in Bluebook files and that these questions stand as part of the substantial
scientific puzzle that centers around the UFO phenomena. We know that light-sources can be turned off, and
we do know that ECM techniques can fool radars to a certain extent. Thus, we might do well to maintain
open minds when we come to these questions that are so numerous in UFO case analysis.
b. F-94 scramble. When Lt. B came on duty at 2345, he was soon able, according to Capt. Malven's summary
in IR-35-52, "to make radar contact on the 50-mile high beam," whereupon he and Lt. A contacted the
ADCC flight controller at Johnson AFB 35 miles to their west, requesting that an interceptor be scrambled to
investigate the source of the visual and the radar sightings.
An F-94B of the 339th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron, piloted by Lt. P, with Lt. R operating the APG-33
air-intercept radar, was scrambled, though a delay of over ten minutes intervened because of fuel-system
difficulties during engine runup. The records show the F-94 airborne at about 0003-04, and it then took about
10 minutes to reach the Tokyo Bay area. The APG-33 set was a 3-cm (X-band) set with 50 KW power, and
lock-on range of about 2500 yards, according to my information. The system had a B-scope, i.e., it displayed
target range vs. azimuth. The case-file notes that: "The APG-33 radar is checked before and after every
mission and appeared to be working normally."
At 0009, Shiroi picked up a moving target near Haneda and alerted the F-94 crew, who had no difficulty
identifying it visually as an Air Force C-54 in the Haneda pattern. The crew is quoted in the report as
reporting "exceptional visibility." Shiroi instructed the F-94 to begin searching at 5000 ft altitude as it got out
over the Bay. But before proceeding with events of that search, a GCI detection of a moving target at about
0001 must be reviewed.
c. First GCI detection of orbiting object. Just before the F-94 became airborne out of Johnson AFB, Lt. B
picked up the first definitely unusual moving target, at about 0000-01. His statement in the Bluebook case-file
reads: "At the time of the scramble, I had what was believed to be the object in radar contact. The radar
sighting indicated the object to be due south of this station over Tokyo Bay and approximately eight (8) miles
northeast of Haneda. The target was in a right orbit moving at varying speeds. It was impossible to estimate
speed due to She short distance and times involved." That passage is quoted in the Condon Report, but not
the next, which comes from Malven's summary and indicates that Lt. B only meant that it was impossible to
estimate the target's speed with much accuracy. The omitted passage is interesting, for it is one of a number of
indications that anomalous propagation (which is the Condon Report's explanation for the radar sightings) is
scarcely creditable:
An F-94 was scrambled to investigate. The object at this time had left the ground clutter and
could be tracked (on the CPS-1) at varying speeds in a right orbit. Although impossible to
accurately estimate speed, Lt. B gave a rough estimate of 100-150 knots, stopping, and hovering
occasionally, and a maximum speed during the second orbit (just before F-94 was vectored in) of
possibly 250-300 knots.
A map accompanying IR-35-52 shows the plotted orbiting path of the unknown target. The orbit radius is
approximately 4 miles, centered just off the coast from the city of Funabashi, east of Tokyo. The orbiting path
is about half over land, half over water. The map sketch, plus the file comments, imply that GCI had good
contacts with the target only while it was moving out over the Bay. The ground-clutter pattern of the CPS-1 is
plotted on the same map (and on other maps in the file), and it seems clear that the difficulty in tracking the
target through the land portion of the roughly circular orbit was that most of that portion lay within the clutter
area. The presumption is strong that this set did not have MTI, which is unfortunate.
The circumference of the orbit of about 4-mi radius would be about 25 miles. Taking Lt. B's rough estimate of
100-150 knots in the first of the two circuits of this orbit (i.e., the one he detected at about 0001), a total
30 of 38 6/26/2009 3:41 PM
circuit-time of perhaps 12-13 minutes is indicated. Although the basis for this time-estimate is quite rough, it
matches reasonably well the fact that it was about 0012 when it had come around again, split up into three
targets, and looped onshore again with the F-94 in pursuit this time.
If the object executing the above orbits had been the luminous object being watched from Haneda, it would
have swung back and forth across their sky through an azimuth range of about 30 deg. Since no such motion
seems to have been noted by the Haneda observers, I believe it must be concluded that the source they
watched was distinct from the one radar-tracked in orbit.
d. Second orbit and F-94 intercept attempt. The times given in Lt. B's account of this phase of the sighting do
not match those given by the pilot and radarman of the F-94 in their signed statements in the file. Other
accounts in the file match those of the aircrew, but not the times in Lt. B's summary. This discrepancy (about
10-12 minutes) is specifically noted in Capt. Malven's IR-35-52 summary: "The ten minute difference in time
between the statement by Lt. B, 528th ACGW SQ, and that reported by other personnel concerned, is
believed to be a typographical error, since the statement agrees on every other portion of the sighting." That
Lt. B and the aircrew were describing one and the same intercept seems beyond any doubt; and in view of
Malven's quoted comment, I here use the times recorded by the aircrew and accepted as the correct times in
other parts of the case-file. Further comment on this will be given below.
After completing the first of the two orbits partially tracked by GCI Shiroi, the target came around again
where it was out of the CPS-1 ground- clutter pattern, and Lt. B regained contact. Malven's summary
comments on the next developments as follows: "At 0012 the object reportedly broke into three smaller
contacts, maintaining an interval of about 1/4 miles, with one contact remaining somewhat brighter. The F-94
was vectored on this object, reporting weak contact at 1500 and loss of contact at 0018. Within a few
seconds, both the F-94 and the object entered the ground clutter and were not seen again."
The same portion of the incident is summarized in Lt. B's account (with different times), with the F-94
referred to by its code-name "Sun Dial 20." Immediately following the part of his account referring to the first
starboard orbit in which he had plotted the target's movements, at around 0001, comes the following section:
"Sun Dial 20 was ordered to search the Tokyo Bay area keeping a sharp lookout for any unusual occurrences.
The obJect was again sighted by radar at 0017 on a starboard orbit in the same area as before. Sun Dial 20
was vectored to the target. He reported contact at 0025 and reported losing contact at 0028. Sun Dial 20
followed the target into our radar ground clutter area and we were unable to give Sun Dial 20 further
assistance in re- establishing contact. Sun Dial 20 again resumed his visual search of the area until 0014,
reporting negative visual sighting on this object at any time." If Malven's suggestion of typographical error is
correct, the in-contact times in the foregoing should read 0015 and 0018, and presumably 0017 should be
0012. But regardless of the precise times, the important point is that Lt. B vectored the F-94 into the target,
contact was thereby achieved, and Lt. B followed the target and pursuing F-94 northeastward into his ground
clutter. I stress this because, in the Condon Report, the matter of the different times quoted is offered as the
sole basis of a conclusion that ground radar and airborne radar were never following the same target. This is
so clearly inconsistent with the actual contents of the case-file that it is difficult to understand the Report
rationale.
Even more certain indication that the GCI radar was tracking target and F- 94 in this crucial phase is given in
the accounts prepared and signed by the pilot and his radarman. Here again we meet a code-designation, this
time "Hi- Jinx", which was the designation for Shiroi GCI used in the air-to-ground radio transmissions that
night and hence employed in these next two accounts. The F-94 pilot, Lt. P states: "The object was reported
to be in the Tokyo Bay area in an orbit to the starboard at an estimated altitude of 5,000 feet. I observed
nothing of an unusual nature in this area; however, at 0016 when vectored by Hi-Jinx on a heading of 320
degrees, and directed to look for a bogie at 1100 o'clock, 4 miles, Lt. R made radar contact at 10 degrees port,
6000 yards. The point moved rapidly from port to starboard and disappeared from the scope. I had no visual
contact with the target."
31 of 38 6/26/2009 3:41 PM
And the signed statement from the radarman, Lt. R, is equally definite about these events: "At 0015 Hi-Jinx
gave us a vector of 320 degrees. Hi-Jinx had a definite radar echo and gave us the vector to intercept the
unidentified target. Hi-Jinx estimated the target to be at 11 o'clock to us at a range of 4 miles. At 0016 I
picked up the radar contact at 10 degrees port, 10 degrees below at 6,000 yards. The target was rapidly
moving from port to starboard and a 'lock on' could not be accomplished. A turn to the starboard was
instigated to intercept target which disappeared on scope in approximately 90 seconds. No visual contact was
made with the unidentified target. We continued our search over Tokyo Bay under Hi-Jinx control. At 0033
Hi-Jinx released us from scrambled mission..."
Of particular importance is the very close agreement of the vectoring instructions given by Shiroi GCI to the
F-94 and the actual relative position at which they accomplished radar contact; GCI said 4 miles range at the
aircraft's 11 o'clock position, and they actually got radar contact with the moving target at a 6000-yard range,
10 degrees to their port. Nearly exact agreement, and thus incontrovertibly demonstrating that ground-radar
and airborne radar were then looking at the same moving unknown target, despite the contrary suggestions
made in the Condon Report. Had the Condon Report presented all of the information in the case-file, it would
have been difficult to maintain the curious position that is maintained all of the way to the final conclusion
about these radar events in the Condon Report's treatment of the Haneda case.
That the moving target, as seen by both ground and airborne radar was a distinct target, though exhibiting
radar cross-section somewhat smaller than that typical of most aircraft, is spelled out in Malven's IR-35-52
summary: "Lt.B, GCI Controller at the Shiroi GCI site, has had considerable experience under all conditions
and thoroughly understands the capabilities of the CPS-1 radar. His statement was that the object was a
bonafide moving target, though somewhat weaker than that normally obtained from a single jet fighter." And,
with reference to the airborne radar contact, the same report states; "Lt. R, F-94 radar operator, has had
about seven years' experience with airborne radar equipment. He states that the object was a bonafide target,
and that to his knowledge, there was nothing within an area of 15-20 miles that could give the radar echo." It
is exceedingly difficult to follow the Condon Report in viewing such targets as due to anomalous propagation.
Not only were there no visual sightings of the orbiting target as viewed from the F-94, but neither were there
any from the Shiroi site, though Lt. B specifically sent men out to watch as these events transpired. Also, as
mentioned earlier, it seems out of the question to equate any of the Haneda visual observations to the phase
of the incident just discussed. Had there been a bright light on the unknown object during the time it was in
starboard orbit, the Haneda observers would almost certainly have reported those movements. To be sure, the
case-file is incomplete in not indicating how closely the Haneda observers were kept in touch as the GCI
directed radar- intercept was being carried out. But at least it is clear that the Haneda tower controllers did
not describe motions of the intensely bright light that would fit the roughly circular starboard orbits of radius
near four miles. Thus, we seem forced to conclude either that the target the F-94 pursued was a different one
from that observed at Haneda (likely interpretation), or that it was non-luminous during that intercept
(unlikely alternative, since Haneda observations did not have so large a period of non-visibility of the source
they had under observation 2330-0020).
6. Condon Report Critique of the Radar Sightings:

The Bluebook case-file contains essentially no discussion of the radar events, no suggestion of explanations in
terms of any electronic or propagational anomalies. The case was simply put in the Unexplained category
back in 1952 and has remained in that category since then at Bluebook.
By contrast, the Condon Report regards the above radar events as attributable to anomalous propagation.
Four reasons are offered (p. 126) in support of that conclusion:
1) The tendency for targets to disappear and reappear;
32 of 38 6/26/2009 3:41 PM
2) The tendency for the target to break up into smaller targets;
3) The apparent lack of correlation between the targets seen on the GCI and airborne radars;
4) The radar invisibility of the target when visibility was "exceptionally good."
Each of these four points will now be considered.
First, the "tendency for the targets to disappear and reappear" was primarily a matter of the orbiting target's
moving into and out of the ground- clutter pattern of the CPS-1, as is clearly shown in the map that
constitutes Enclosure #5 in the IR-35-52 report, which was at the disposal of the Colorado staff concerned
with this case. Ground returns from AP (anomalous propagation) may fade in and out as ducting intensities
vary, but here we have the case of a moving target disappearing into and emerging from ground clutter, while
executing a roughly circular orbit some 4 miles in radius. I believe it is safe to assert that nothing in the annals
of anomalous propagation matches such behavior. Nor could the Borden-Vickers hypothesis of "reflections"
off moving waves on inversions fit this situation, since such waves would not propagate in orbits, but would,
at best, advance with the direction and speed of the mean wind at the inversion. Furthermore, the indicated
target speed in the final phases of the attempted intercept was greater than that of the F-94, i.e., over 400
knots, far above wind speeds prevailing that night, so this could not in any event be squared with the (highly
doubtful) Borden-Vickers hypothesis that was advanced years ago to account for the 1952 Washington
National Airport UFO incidents.
Second, the breakup of the orbiting target into three separate targets cannot fairly be referred to as a
"tendency for the target to break up into smaller targets." That breakup event occurred in just one definite
instance, and the GCI controller chose to vector the F-94 onto the strongest of the resultant three targets. And
when the F-94 initiated radar search in the specific area (11 o'clock at 4 miles) where that target was then
moving, it immediately achieved radar contact. For the Condon Report to gloss over such definite features of
the report and merely allude to all of this in language faintly suggestive of AP seems objectionable.
Third, to build a claim that there was "apparent lack of correlation between the targets seen on the GCI and
airborne radars" on the sole basis of the mismatch of times listed by Lt. B on the one hand and by the aircrew
on the other hand, to ignore the specific statement by the intelligence officer filing IR-35-52 about this being
a typographical error on the part of Lt. B, and, above all, to ignore the obviously close correspondence
between GCI and air borne radar targeting that led to the successful radar-intercept, and finally to ignore Lt.
B's statement that the F-94 "followed the target into our radar ground clutter", all amount to a highly slanted
assessment of case details, details not openly set out for the reader of the Condon Report to evaluate for
himself. I believe that all of the material I have here extracted from the Haneda case file fully contradicts the
third of the Condon Report four reasons for attributing the radar events to AP. I would suggest that it is
precisely the impressive correlation between GCI and F-94 radar targeting on this non-visible, fast-moving
object that constitutes the most important feature of the whole case.
Fourth, it is suggested that AP is somehow suspected because of "the radar invisibility of the target when
visibility was 'exceptionally good.'" This is simply unclear. The exceptional visibility of the atmosphere that
night is not physically related to "radar invisibility" in any way, and I suspect this was intended to read "the
invisibility of the radar target when visibility was exceptionally good." As cited above, neither the Shiroi crew
nor the F-94 crew ever saw any visible object to match their respective radar targets. Under some
circumstances, such a situation would indeed be diagnostic of AP. BUt not here, where the radar target is
moving at high speed around an orbit many miles in diameter, occasionally hovering motionless (see Malven's
account cited earlier), and changing speed from 100-150 knots up to 250-300 knots, and finally accelerating
to well above an F-94's 375-knot speed.
Thus, all four of the arguments offered in the Condon Report to support its claim that the Haneda radar
33 of 38 6/26/2009 3:41 PM
events were due to anomalous propagation must be rejected. Those arguments seem to me to be built up by a
highly selective extraction of details from the Bluebook case-file, by ignoring the limits of the kind of effects
one can expect from AP, and by using wording that so distorts key events in the incident as to give a vague
impression where the facts of the case are really quite specific.
It has, of course, taken more space to clarify this Haneda case than the case is given in the Condon Report
itself. Unfortunately, this would also prove true of the clarification of some fifteen to twenty other UFO cases
whose "explanation" in the Condon Report contains, in my opinion, equally objectionable features, equally
casual glossing-over of physical principles, of important quantitative points. Equally serious omissions of
basic case information mark many of those case discussions in the Condon Report. Here I have used Haneda
only as an illustration of those points; but I stress that it is by no means unique. The Condon Report
confronted a disappointingly small sample of the old "classic" cases, the long-puzzling cases that have kept
the UFO question alive over the years, and those few that it did confront it explained away by argumentation
as unconvincing as that which disposes of the Haneda AFB events in terms of diffraction of Capella and
anomalous propagation. Scientifically weak argumentation is found in a large fraction of the case analysis of
the Condon Report, and stands as the principal reason why its conclusions ought to be rejected.
Here are some other examples of UFO cases considered explained in the Condon Report for which I would
take strong exception to the argumentation presented and would regard as both unexplained and of strong
scientific interest (page numbers in Condon Report are indicated): Flagstaff, Ariz., 5/20/50 (p. 245);
Washington, D. C., 7/19/52 (p. 153); Bellefontaine, O., 8/1/52 (p. 161); Gulf of Mexico, 12/6/52 (p. 148);
Odessa, Wash., 12/10/52 (p. 140); Continental Divide, N.M., 1/26/53 (p. 143); Seven Isles, Quebec, 6/29/54
(p. 139); Niagara Falls, N.Y., 7/25/57 (p. 145); Kirtland AFB, N.M., 11/4/57 (p. 141); Gulf of Mexico,
11/5/57 (p. 165); Peru, 12/30/66 (p. 280); Holloman AFB, 3/2/67 (p. 150); Kincheloe AFB, 9/11/67 (p. 164);
Vandenberg AFB, 10/6/67 (p. 353).
Case 4. Kirtland AFB, November 4, 1957.

Brief summary: Two CAA control tower operators observe a lighted egg-shaped object descend to and cross
obliquely the runway area at Kirtland AFB (Albuquerque), hover near the ground for tens of seconds, then
climb at unprecedented speed into the overcast. On radar, it was then followed south some miles, where it
orbited a number of minutes before returning to the airfield to follow an Air Force aircraft outbound from
Kirtland.
1. Introduction:
This case, discussed in the Condon Report on p. 141, is an example of a UFO report which had lain in
Bluebook files for years, not known to anyone outside of Air Force circles.
Immediately upon reading it, I became quite curious about it; more candidly, I became quite suspicious about
it. For, as you will note on reading it for yourself, it purports to explain an incident in terms of an hypothesis
with some glaringly improbable assumptions, and makes a key assertion that is hard to regard as factual. Let
me quote from the first descriptive paragraph: "Observers in the CAA (now FAA) control tower saw an
unidentified dark object with a white light underneath, about the 'shape of an automobile on end', that crossed
the field at about 1500 ft and circled as if to come in for a landing on the E-W runway. This unidentified
object appeared to reverse direction at low altitude, while out of sight of the observers behind some buildings,
and climbed suddenly to about 200-300 ft., heading away from the field on a 120 deg. course. Then it went
into a steep climb and disappeared into the overcast." The Condon Report next notes that; "The Air Force
view is that this UFO was a small, powerful private aircraft, flying without flight plan, that became confused
and attempted a landing at the wrong airport. The pilot apparently realized his error when he saw a brightly-lit
restricted area, which was at the point where the object reversed direction..."
34 of 38 6/26/2009 3:41 PM
The Report next remarks very briefly that the radar blip from this object was described by the operator as a
"perfectly normal aircraft return", that the radar tract "showed no characteristics that would have been
beyond the capabilities of the more powerful private aircraft available at the time," and the conclusion arrived
at in the Condon Report, without further discussion, is that: "There seems to be no reason to doubt the
accuracy of this analysis."
2. Some Suspect Features of the Condon Report's Explanation

It seemed to me that there were several reasons "to doubt the accuracy of this analysis." First, let me point
out that the first line or two of the account in the Condon Report contains information that the incident took
place with "light rain over the airfield", late in the evening (2245-2305 MST), which I found to be correct, on
checking meteorological records. Thus the reader is asked to accept the picture of a pilot coming into an
unfamiliar airfield at night and under rain conditions, and doing a 180 deg. return at so low an altitude that it
could subsequently climb suddenly to about 200-300 ft; and we are asked to accept the picture of this highly
hazardous low-altitude nighttime turn being executed so sharply that it occurred "while out of sight of the
observers behind some buildings." Now these are not casual bystanders doing the observing, but CAA
controllers in a tower designed and located to afford full view of all aircraft operations occurring in or near its
airfield. Hence my reaction to all of this was a reaction of doubt. Pilots don't live too long who execute
strange and dangerous maneuvers of the type implied in this explanation. And CAA towers are not located in
such a manner that "buildings" obscure so large a block of airfield-airspace as to permit aircraft to do 180 deg.
turns while hidden from tower view behind them (at night, in a rain!).
3. Search for the Principal Witnesses:

The foregoing points put such strong a priori doubt upon the "private aircraft" explanation advanced in the
Condon Report that I began an independent check on this case, just as I have been checking several dozen
other Condon Report cases in the months since publication of the Report. Here, as in all other cases in the
Report, there are no witness-names given to facilitate independent check, but by beginning my inquiries
through the FAA, I soon got in touch with the two CAA tower observers, both of whom are still with FAA,
one in Oklahoma, one in California. Concurrently, I initiated a number of inquiries concerning the existence
of any structures back in 1957 that could have hidden an aircraft from tower view in the manner suggested by
the Report. What I ultimately learned constitutes only one example of many that back up the statement I have
been making recently to many professional groups: The National Academy of Sciences is going to be in a
most awkward position when the full picture of the inadequacies of the Condon Report is recognized; for I
believe it will become all too obvious that the Academy placed its weighty stamp on this dismal report
without even a semblance of rigorous checking of its contents.
The two tower controllers, R. M. Kaser and E. G. Brink, with whom I have had a total of five telephone
interviews in the course of clarifying the case, explained to me that the object was so unlike an aircraft and
exhibited performance characteristics so unlike those of any aircraft flying then or now that the "private
aircraft" explanation was quite amusing. Neither had heard of the Air Force explanation, neither had heard of
the Condon Project concurrence therein, and, most disturbing of all, neither had ever heard of the Condon
Project: _No one on the Condon Project ever contacted these two men!_ A half-million-dollar Project, a
Report filled with expensive trivia and matters shedding essentially no light on the heart of the UFO: puzzle,
and no Project investigator even bothers to hunt down the two key witnesses in this case, so casually closed
by easy acceptance of the Bluebook "aircraft" explanation.
Failure to locate those two men as part of the investigation of this case is all the more difficult to understand
because CAA tower operators involved as witnesses of a UFO incident were actually on duty would seem to
constitute just the type of witnesses one should most earnestly seek out in attempts to clarify the UFO puzzle.
In various sections of the Condon Report, witness- shortcomings (lack of experience, lack of familiarity with
observing things in the sky, basic lack of credibility, etc.) are lamented, yet here, where the backgrounds of
35 of 38 6/26/2009 3:41 PM
the witnesses and the observing circumstances are highly favorable to getting reliable testimony, the Colorado
group did not bother to locate the witnesses. (This is not an isolated example. Even in cases which were
conceded to be Unexplained, such as the June 23, 1955 Mohawk Airlines multiple-witness sighting near
Utica, N.Y. [p. 143 in Report], or the Jackson, Alabama, November 14, 1956 airline case, both conceded to
be unexplained, I found on interviewing key witnesses as part of my cross-check on the Condon Report, that
no one from Colorado had ever talked to the witnesses. In still other important instances, only a fraction of
the avAilable witnesses were queried in preparing the Condon Report. Suggestions that the Report was based
on intensive investigatory work simply are not correct.)
4. Information Gained from Witness-Interviews:

When I contacted Kaser and Brink, they told me I was the first person to query them on the case since their
interrogation by an Air Force captain from Colorado Springs, who had come to interview them at Kirtland just
after the incident. Subsequently, I secured the Bluebook case-file on this sighting, and ascertained that a Capt.
Patrick O. Shere, from Ent AFB did the interrogation on Nov. 8, 1957, just four days after the sighting.
The accounts I secured in 1969 from Kaser and Brink matched impressively the information I found in Shere's
1957 report in the Bluebook case-file. There were a few recollective discrepancies of distance or time
estimates in the witness accounts given in 1969, as compared with their 1957 statements to the Air Force, but
the agreements were far more significant than the small number of mismatches.
In contrast to the somewhat vague impressions I gained (and other readers would surely also gain) from
reading the Condon Report version, here is what is in the Bluebook case-file and what they told me directly.
The object came down in a rather steep dive at the east end of Runway 26, left the flight line, crossed
runways, taxiways and unpaved areas at about a 30-degree angle, and proceeded southwestward towards the
CAA tower at an altitude they estimated at a few tens of feet above ground. Quickly getting 7x binoculars on
it, they established that it had no wings, tail, or fuselage, was elongated in the vertical direction, and exhibited
a somewhat eggshaped form (KaCer). It appeared to be perhaps 15-20 ft in vertical dimension, about the size
of an automobile on end, and had a single white light in its base. Both men were emphatic in stressing to me
that it in no way resembled an aircraft.
It came towards them until it reached a B-58 service pad near the northeast corner of Area D (Drumhead
Area, a restricted area lying south of the E-W runway at Kirtland). That spot lay about 3000 ft ENE of the
tower, near an old machine-gun calibration bunker still present at Kirtland AFB. There it proceeded to stop
completely, hover just above ground _in full view_ for a time that Kaser estimated at about 20 seconds, that
Brink suggested to me was more like a minute, and that the contemporary Air Force interrogation implied as
being rather more than a minute. Next they said it started moving again, still at very low altitude, Still at
modest speed, until it-again reached the eastern boundary of the field. At that point, the object climbed at an
extremely rapid rate (which Kaser said was far faster than that of such modern jets as the T-38).
The Bluebook report expresses the witness' estimate of the climb rate as 45,000 ft/min, which is almost
certainly a too-literal conversion from Mach 1. My phone-interview notes include a quote of Brink's
statement to me that, "There was no doubt in my mind that no aircraft I knew of then, or ever operating since
then, would compare with it. " Both men were emphatic in stating to me that at no time was this object hidden
by any buildings. I confirmed through the Albuquerque FAA office that Area D has never had anything but
chain-link fence around it, and that no buildings other than scattered one-story metal buildings ever existed
either inside or outside Area D in that sector. The bunker is only about 15-20 feet high, judging from my own
recent observations and photos of it from the air. The Bluebook interrogation report contains no statements
hinting that the object was ever hidden from view by any structures (although the Bluebook file contains the
usual number of internally inconsistent and confusingly presented details).
36 of 38 6/26/2009 3:41 PM
I asked both men whether they alerted anyone else while the foregoing events were taking place. They both
indicated that the object was of such unprecedented nature that it wasn't until it shot up into the overcast that
they got on the phone to get the CAA Radar Approach Control (RAPCON) unit to look for a fast target to the
east. Kaser recalled that a CPN-18 surveillance radar was in use at that RAPCON unit at that time, a point
confirmed to me in subsequent correspondence with the present chief of the Albuquerque Airport Traffic
Control Tower, Mr. Robert L. Behrens, who also provided other helpful information. Unfortunately, no one
who was in the Albuquerque/Kirtland RAPCON unit in 1957 is now available, and the person whom Kaser
thought was actually on the CPN-18 that night is now deceased. Thus I have only Kaser and Brink
recollections of the radar-plotting of the unknown, plus the less than precise information in the Nov. 6, 1957
TWX to Bluebook. Capt. Shere did not, evidently, take the trouble to secure any information from radar
personnel.
As seen on the RAPCON CPN-18, the unknown target was still moving in an easterly direction when the alert
call came from the tower. It then turned southward, and as Kaser recalled, moved south at very high speed,
though nothing is said about speed in the Kirtland TWX of Nov. 6, 1957. It proceeded a number of miles
south towards the vicinity of the Albuquerque Low Frequency Range Station, orbited there for a number of
minutes, came back north to near Kirtland, took up a trail position about a half-mile behind an Air Force C-46
just then leaving Kirtland, and moved offscope with the C-46. The Nov. 8, 1957 report from Commander,
34th Air Div. to ADC and to the Air Technical Intelligence Command closed with the rather reasonable
comment: "Sighting and descriptions conform to no known criteria for identification of UFOs." The followup
report of Nov. 13, 1957, prepared by Air Intelligence personnel from Ent AFB, contains a number of relevant
comments on the experience of the two witnesses (23 years of tower control work between them as of that
date), and on their intelligence, closing with the remarks: "In the opinion of the interviewer, both sources
(witnesses) are considered completely competent and reliable."
5. Critique of the Evaluation in the Condon Report:

The Kirtland AFB case is a rather good (though not isolated) instance of the general point I feel obliged to
make on the basis of my continuing check of the Condon Report: In it we have not been given anything
superior to the generally casual and often incompetent level of case-analysis that marked Bluebook's handling
of the UFO problem in past years.
In the Bluebook files, this case is carried as "Possible Aircraft". Study of the 21-page case-file reveals that
this is based solely on passing comment made by Capt. Shere in closing his summary letter of November 8:
"The opinion of the preparing officer is that this object may possibly have been an unidentified aircraft,
possibly confused by the runways at Kirtland AFB. The reasons for this opinion are: (a) The observers are
considered competent and reliable sources, and in the opinion of this interviewer actually saw an object they
could not identify. (b) The object was tracked on a radar scope by a competent operator. (c) The object does
not meet identification criteria for any other phenomena."
The stunning non sequitor of that final conclusion might serve as an epitome of 22 years of Air Force
response to unexplainable objects in our airspace. But when one then turns to the Condon Report's analysis
and evaluation, a Report that was identified to the public and the scientific community as the definitive study
of UFOs, no visible improvement is found. Ignoring almost everything of interest in the case-file except that a
lighted airborne object came down near Kirtland airfield and left, the Condon Report covers this whole
intriguing case in two short paragraphs, cites the Air Force view, embellishes it a bit by speaking of the lost
aircraft as "powerful" (presumably to account for its observed Mach 1 climb-out) and suggesting that it was
"flying without flight plan" (this explains why it was wandering across runways and taxiways at night, in a
rain, at an altitude of a few tens of feet), and the Report then closes off the case with a terse conclusion:
"There seems to be no reason to doubt the accuracy of this analysis."
Two telephone calls to the two principal witnesses would have confronted the Colorado investigators with
37 of 38 6/26/2009 3:41 PM
emphatic testimony, supporting the contents (though not the conclusions) of the Bluebook file, and that would
have rendered the suggested "powerful private aircraft" explanation untenable. By not contacting the
witnesses and by overlooking most of the salient features of the reported observations, this UFO report has
been left safely in the "explained" category where Bluebook put it. One has here a sample of the low
scientific level of investigative and evaluative work that will be so apparent to any who take the trouble to
study carefully and thoroughly the Condon Report on UFOs. AAAS members are urged to study it carefully
for themselves and to decide whether it would be scientifically advisable to accept it as the final word on the
22-year-long puzzle of the UFO problem. I submit that it is most inadvisable.
38 of 38 6/26/2009 3:41 PM
From: Jason Wright
To: cbair@jaasetj ,org ; yjcecbajrs@jaasetj,QfQ ; :;euelarv@jaasetj,QfQ
C<co - j Haoq-Mjsra lamb D
ilj ,II; ; Steve Ooft

Subject:
Date: Friday, May 21, 202111 :06:43 AM
Attachments: 1M srn PC Ad Hoc Subcommittee 00 UFOs,pdf
To the Executive of the IAA PC on SET!:
Please accept the attached rep0l1 from the ad hoc subcommittee that fOimed to discuss the
inclusion/exclusion of UFO abstracts from PC meetings,
Jason T Wright
NEIl) Instmment Team Project Scjentj st
helhim/his
https'UsjtespsnedlliastrowrjghtJ
@Astro Wright
Report of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on UFO Studies wi th Respect to IAA
SETI Permanent Committee Business
In response to an online discussion on the community list regarding the rejection of UFO-related
abstracts at a Permanent Committee meeting, this ad hoc subcommittee met to draft a
document explaining the position of the Permanent Committee on the topic, and to recommend
further actions.
There was considerable discussion and difference of opinion in the ad hoc subcommittee on
both the nature of UFO research and its propriety for the Permanent Committee. Many
members' positions were nuanced, but broadly speaking many felt that UFO studies were
inherently inconsistent with the work of the committee and out of scope ; others felt that UFO
studies should be included if they could satisfy certain criteria for scientific rigor and relevance
to the Permanent Committee's goals.
Several factors complicated the conversation. One was that the existing terms of reference
explicitly exclude UFO studies, but the draft revi sion to the Terms of Reference circulated to the
Committee by the executive on 28 November 2020 do not. Another is that a few UFO-related
abstracts have been accepted in the past. and there was a strong desire from some members to
layout explicit criteria under which they would be accepted in the future .
A large majority of the subcommittee supported the Permanent Committee examining these
potentially contentious issues in more detail, for instance through polling of the membership,
defining the scope of the committee more precisely, and having more guidance regarding the
acceptance criteria for abstracts.
A plurality of the subcommittee supported the followi ng positions:
UFO studies can, in principle, be conducted well and have significant scientific value
UFO studies are generally out of scope for the Permanent Committee
One reason is that the PC has historically focused on astronomical and social
aspects of SETI, which use different methods (astronomy and social science)
than employed in UFO studies
Another reason is that UFO studies in general have not met the necessary
evidentiary criteria for demonstrating that UFOs might have anything to do with
alien technology
There is no bar or prejudice against any PC member who, in addition to their work
relevant to the PC, also engages in UFO-related research
Therefore , a majority of the subcommittee recommends that the Permanent Committee:

1. Change the wording of the scope of the committee in its terms of reference [Draft, 28
November 2020] to read that it ~ examins topics related to the possible existence of
extant or extinct intelligent and/or technological life having arisen beyond Earth.n [i .e.
strike "all " from ~ al topicsT If that draft is not adopted and the old terms of reference are
retained, similarly strike ~ alr from the second sentence of the old terms.
2. If the draft terms of reference are adopted, add a UFO exclusion reading "the
committee's work does not include studies of UFOs or Unidentified Aerial Phenomena"
(Le ., maintain the exclusion that was in the original ToR. )
3. Adopt a statement (given below) explaining this exclusion
4 . Convene a subcommittee or subcommittees charged with some or all of the following,
at the PC 's discretion:
Defining the scope of work of the Permanent Committee
Formalizing the process by which abstracts are accepted or rejected
Polling Permanent Committee members on their positions regarding UFO
research
Exploring the boundaries between UFO research and SETI, in particular the
extent to which they complement or diverge from one another
Considering and making recommendations regarding whether to uphold, modify,
or remove the exclusion on UFO research. This could , in principle, include laying
out specific criteria whereby UFO abstracts would be accepted.
A minority of the subcommittee objects to a categorical bar against UFO-related research for the
time being, even paired with a recommendation that the Permanent Committee re-examine that
bar in the near future, and recommends that the PC reject the first two recommendations. This
minority recommends that the PC:
1. Remove this sentence from the terms of reference: "These terms of reference exclude
any consideration of UFO phenomena."
2. If the draft terms of reference from 2020 are adopted, then they should not inclu Qeeny
statements that exclude the PC from consideration of UFO phenomena.
3. Draft a longer document that explains the criteria by which abstracts wi ll be evaluated for
relevance to the IAA SETI PC .
4. Consider performing further work to explore and constrain any boundaries between
ongoing UFO studies and astronomical SETI. Such efforts could include building
collaborations with existing organizations that engage in the scientific study of UFOs.
Attached below are the two reports from the subcommittee for the PC to consider when deciding
which recommendations to follow.
Majority Report of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on UFO Studies with Respect
to IAA SETI Permanent Committee Business
Anamaria Berea, Kathryn Denning, Steven Dick, Greg Eghigian, Chelsea Haramia, Franck
Marchis, Hector Socas-Navarro, Clement Vidal, Jason 1. Wright
Summary:
In response to an online discussion on the community list regarding the propriety of UFO-related
abstracts at Committee meetings, this ad hoc subcommittee met to draft a document explaining
the exclusion of such work and to recommend further actions. There w as considerable
discussion and difference of opinion regarding where the boundary between UFO studies and
the activities of the committee should lie. The majority opinion was to let the exclusion stand.
We recommend slightly altering the terms of reference to reflect this , issuing a statement
explaining the exclusion. We also recommend the committee consider an additional , longer
document explaining the full scope of the committee . We acknowledge the interest of
committee members and members of the community in more fully exploring the boundaries
between UFO studies and astronomical SETI, including whether it should be moved.
Recommendations to the PC :
November 2020] to read that it Mexamines topics related to the possible existence of
extant or extinct intelligent and/or technological life having arisen beyond Earth." [i.e.
strike Mall" from Mall topics1 . If that draft is not adopted and the old terms of reference are
retained , similarly strike ~ al " from the second sentence of the old terms.
2. If the draft terms of reference are adopted , add a UFO exclusion reading "the
(i.e., maintain the exclusion that w as in the original ToR. )
3. Adopt the below statement explaining this exclusion
4. Convene a subcommittee or subcommittees charged with some or all of the following,
research
or remove the exclusion on UFO research. This could, in principle, include laying
Statement:
The Permanent Committee on SETI for the International Academy of Astronautics ~ examins
topics related to the possible existence of extant or extinct intelligent and/or technological life
having arisen beyond Earth.n The question has arisen as to why the committee does not
consider the study of Unidentified Flying Objects (i.e. UFOs, or the related concept of
Unidentified Aerial Phenomena or UAPs) to be within its purview. Indeed, given that there is a
popular association of them with alien technology, it is understandable that it seems strange to
many that the committee does not include the investigation of UFOs as having extran:s~il
origin in its scope.
There are two reasons for this exclusion.
The first reason is based on the nature of the evidence for UFOs. The cultural association of
UFOs with alien spacecraft is primarily driven by social trends , not by strong, durable physical
evidence that has withstood objective scientific scrutiny. As such, their study has no strong
connection to the goals of the committee.
A second reason is related to the scope of work the committee does. Since its inception, the
committee has focused on the astronomical search for technological life, for instance using
telescopes to search for radio waves, and the policies and practice concerning potential
detection of alien life. As such, committee membership comprises primarily astronomers who
specialize in these detection methods (in addition to experts in other domains).
The committee appreciates that studies of UFOs are done around the world with varying
methods and varying degrees of rigor, but given that those studies are not our focus or our
expertise, we have not reviewed them as a committee. Such work is the purview of experts in
atmospheric science, aviation, military equipment, aircraft sensors and cameras ,
aerodynamicists, psychologists, and the like. The vast majority of their work will involve
identifying UFOs using methods that committee members are unfamiliar with, and so are
beyond the committee 's scope.
do not assert that such research is necessarily inappropriate or unscientific, or that Committee
members should not individually engage in such work. Although as a committee , we do not
collectively evaluate the scientific merit of claims about UFOs being extraterrestrial in origin, we
do appreciate the value of such scientific reviews and assessments. Collectively, our activities
focus on the astronomy-based search for evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence and closely
r,elated topics .
.'
Finally, we note that the committee does occasionally accept abstracts for topics outside its
scope at its meetings; however, we expect such exceptions to be rare and well justified.
Minority Report of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on UFO Studies with Respect
Jacob Haqq-Misra, Ravi Kopparapu
Summary:
A document drafted by an ad hoc subcommittee advocates for the exclusion of UFO studies
from the activities of the IAA SETI Permanent Committee (PC), w hich nominally represents the
majority opinion of the ad hoc subcommittee . As an alternative to this majority opinion , the
present document is a minority report that instead argues for the inclusion of UFO studies
among the activities of the PC in some cases . We recommend altering the terms of reference to
reflect this broadened scope. We acknowledge that not all committee members may be
personally interested in scientific investigation of UFOs, but we argue that any UFO
investigations that demonstrate genuine scientific merit and relevance to the IAA SETI PC
should not be automatically excluded.
Recommendations to the PC:

Remove this sentence from the terms of reference: ''These terms of reference exclude
H
any consideration of UFO phenomena .
If the draft terms of reference from 2020 are adopted , then they should not include any
Draft a longer document that explains the criteria by w hich abstracts wi ll be evaluated for
relevance to the lAA SETI PC.
Consider performing further work to explore and constrain any boundaries between
Statement:
The primary goal of the IAA SET! PC is "to examine all aspects of possible future contact w ith
extraterrestrial civilizations , w ith special reference to international issues and activities.~ The
terms of reference state that this goal should be supported by activities that include ~ planetry
science missions designed to search for evidence of extraterrestrial life, the astronomical search
for extrasolar planets , and the recovery of possible Martian microfossils on the Earth. " Similarly,
the draft terms of reference from 2020 state that the IAA SETI PC Mexamines all topics related to
the possible existence of extant or extinct intell igent and/or technologically capable life having
arisen beyond Earth" and emphasize that Mspecial attention is paid to international and
interdisciplinary issues and activities."
The question recently arose as to why the current lAA SETI PC terms of reference explicitly
exclude UFO (Unidentified Flying Objects) or UAP (Unidentified Aeria l Phenomena) studies
from consideration . We acknowledge that this exclusion may have been driven by a desire to
delineate the scientific activities of SETI from cultural trends that associate UFOs with
extraterrestrial life. However, we suggest that the broad exclusion of UFOs/ UAP from the IAA
SETI PC could undermine the ability of the committee to genuinely "examine all aspects of
possible future contact with extraterrestrial civilizations" because such an exclusion neglects an
important scenario that is otherwise considered within the scope of traditional SETI .
Earth provides the only known example of technosignatures . Any other concepts for
technosignatures arise from projections of future Earth based on concepts that are physically
plausible, even if they may not be realistic for the near future of our own civilization . The idea of
searching for radi%ptical beacons, megastructures, or terraforming all invoke future scenarios
of civilization on Earth that could lead to such detectable technosignatures . One such scenario
is the idea that extraterrestrials might send exploratory spacecraft to the Solar System.
Searching for evidence of such nearby extraterrestrial technology has been described as Solar
System SETI or the Search for Extraterrestrial Artifacts (SETA).
The SETA scenario was first proposed by Ron Bracewell in 1960 and has been explored by
many other SETI researchers since. A handful of SETA searches have been conducted, which
include observations of Earth-moon Lagrange points and analysis of high-resolution lunar
images. Such searches are motivated by the scenario that extraterrestrial technology could be
resident in the Solar System, and perhaps even on a planetary surface. If extraterrestrial
technology actually does exist within the Solar System, then its detection would be directly
relevant to the primary goal of the IAA SETI PC.
Free-floating extraterrestrial artifacts might be detectable with current or future observatories.

Any artifacts on the surface of a planet or moon might be detectable through analysis of
high-resolution images as well as robotic or crewed exploration. But what if an extraterrestrial
artifact were to enter Earth's atmosphere? The observation of such an artifact would technically
be considered a UFO/UAP until further data could be collected to assess its identity. Would the
observation of such a phenomenon be relevant to the SETI research community?
The blanket prohibition on "any consideration of UFO phenomena" by the IAA SETI PC thereby
remains at odds with full exploration of the SETA hypothesis. We acknowledge that the vast
majority of UFO/UAP sightings have nothing to do with extraterrestrials, and it is even possible
that there are no examples of known UFO/UAP events that would qualify as relevant to SET!.
But the SETA hypothesis includes the possibility that an extraterrestrial artifact could enter
Earth's atmosphere. Such a phenomenon would be classified as a UFO/UAP, and thus would be
out of scope for the PC. In such a scenario , the exclusion of uUFO phenomena" would prevent
the PC from achieving its ultimate goal of "contact with extraterrestrial civilizations ." Likewise,
this exclusion would contradict the goal of the PC to examine "all topics related to the possible
existence of ... technologically capable life."
We do not suggest that the PC invite any and all UFO/UAP abstracts for consideration, as we
fully acknowl edge that many such abstracts have nothing to do with scientific SETI or do not
follow agnostic scientific methodology. Instead, we urge the PC to clarify the process or rubric
by which abstracts will be assessed for relevance. We urge the PC to recognize that the
success of SETI wi ll require increasing interdisciplinary collaboration , and so the activities of the
1M SETI PC should be inclusive of all areas of scientific inquiry that cou ld lead to the discovery
of extraterrestrial technology_
From:
To:
'"
SUbject:
o..te:
Hi. Julia. I just submitted the report to the lAA PC SETI Executive. but I can resend another copy with your
name on !.he majority report if yOll like.
On Fri, May 21 , 2021 at 6:04 PM Julia De Marines

I think it reads well! Great job everyone! I any iiCidiiiiOiiai feedbadcor ,comments . Sony I
couldn't help more with this. I was a bit numel-visioned with school.
How do I sign on?
Best,
Julia
On TIm, May 20. 2021 at 5:35 AM Jason Wright ·(b) (6) wrote:
Reminder: I will submit !.his to the PC Executives tomorrow.
KIara, Maggit>, Julia, Oe-tnt>nl, and SIt>vt> I invite you to read and sign 011.
Jason
Deletion Page


From:
To:
""
Su bjed: [ElCTBIIW..] Re: 1M PC lR) ~
Dale: ~,May 21, 20.21 8:15:00 PM
That would be great. thank you!
And I have more dl0Ughts on Ihe minority report bUI I'm afraid I'm OUI of time.
I wanted to put oul there that IAA SETI PC is concerned with searching fo r extratelTestrial
inlelligence/tedmology and isn't cUlTelltly concemed wilh the search for teJTestrial·based artifacts even though
the mission statement of the PC is broad. There really isn'l a seT of methods or credible training/education
associated with that search at the present time, unless I am mistaken (there are very few "out" scientists in the
field), so there is not an established venillg process with qualified people. From my knowledge. it appears to be
individuals who have taken it upon themselves to sh ldy UFOIUAPs Ihal arc not really integrated or supported
by the Academy. I think it would be worthy to have qualified individuals be included in SETI meetings in the
future but how to vet them is another issue. For example, at the last SSOCIA conference. there was someone
there who presented who wasn't an academic who was spewing outlandish things like "life 011 Mars" and IMO
I'm !lot sure This is the COlTeCI venue 10 entert1'lin Ilon-credible opinions. Tknow there was some talk of Ihis in
the previous entail threads (I will have to go back and re-read) but wanted to at least say that I'm excited that we
can ltave these conversations and do this with careful thought/grace to be credible yet inclusive of this subject in
the future. It's a tricky line 10 walk and also a tricky subject to communicale to the public, as we've seen.
My thoughts are likely not Wlique and I look forward to seeing whal comes out of Ihis. Apologies for not being
more of a part of the conversalion earlier!
Best.
Julia
Deletion Page


From:
To:
C<co
. "~. ".
(b) (6)
-i Haoq-Mjsra lamb D
iii ,II: ; Steve Ooft

Subject:
Date: Saturday, May 22,202112 :18:38 PM
ImportalKe: High
Dear Ja son and All,
Thanks velY much for sending this Report to the Executives of the IAA SETI PelIDanent
Committee .
It is om intention to hold the flrst Online Meeting (after the pandemic) of the IAA SET!
Pennanent Committee on Wednesday, .June 23rd, 2021 , and I am now preparing the relevant
Agenda .
It is my intention to devote some time of this Online Meeting on June 23rd to allow a
preliminary dissemination of your Report alllong all Members of the IAA SETI Pellnanent
Committee as well as among other interested attendees, since the Meeting is in principle
OPEN to anyone interested in SET!. Please kindly SELECT the person(s) that will present
this Report and keep in mind that the allotted time may Dot be higher than fifteen
minutes.
Thanks velY much for yom work on this report and keep in touch soon again, when I will
make the Agenda public.
Sincerely,
Claudio (Maccone)
Chair, IAA SET! Pellnanent COlllmittee.
On 5/22/202 1 2 :2 1 AM, Jason Wright wrote:
Please accept the attached amended report from the ad hoc subcommittee that
fonned to discuss the inclusion/exclusion of UFO abstracts from PC meetings.
(We added a 13th-hom signatOlY).
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 11 :05 AM Jason Wright .(b (6

wrote:
To the Executive of the IAA PC on SET!:
Please accept the attached report from the ad hoc subcommittee that fonned to
discuss the inclusion/exclusion of UFO abstracts from PC meetings.
---------------
Jason T Wright
he/him/his
@Astro_Wright
--
-
---------------
Jason T Wright
he/him/his
@Astro_Wright
~"""'Mo~b" ""' ~ij ~
Fro m:
To: Jacob Hagg Mjsra; Hagg-Mjsra. Jacob P. (GSFC-6Q62)[Scjeoce Collaborator]
C<co . Whjgioo Greg ; Kathryn F I Pt'OOioo; .lu.lia
i - ; C!iment Yidal; Julia DeMarines; MawareI:
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAl] Ad

Date: Sunday, May 23, 2021 5:29:13 PM
Let me see if I can reschedule my other commitment ...
On SlID, May 23 , 202 1 at 5:27 PM Jacob Haqq Misra wrote:

I would be happy to, but I have already agreed to give a alliji!i<;r· group at lOam ET on
JlIDe 23.
On Slill, May 23 , 202 1 at 12:03 PM Franck Marchis ~ wrote :

I am planning to attend but it will be great to have ~
regards
F.
On May 23, 202 1, at 6:53 AM, Kopparapu, Ravi KlIDmr (GSFC-6990)

<rayjkmuar kopparapll@nasa goy> wrote :
Perhaps Jacob?
From: Jason Wright .(b) (6)

Date: Sunday, May 23, 2021 at 9:41 AM
To: "Eg hig ian, Greg"
Cc: "Haqq-M isra, Jacob D. (GSFC-6062 )[Science Collabora t or]"
.(b) (6) Kat hryn E L Denn ing .(b) (6) Ju lia De
Marines .(b) (6) Hect or Socas- Nava rro
.(b) (6) Anamaria Berea .(b )(6) Chel sea
Hara mia .(b) (6)
Julia DeMarines
.(b) (6) "Koppa rapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)"
qayjkumar kopparapu@nasa INY >, Margaret Turnbull
.(b) (6) STEVEN DICK .(b) (6)
Steve Croft .(b )(6) (b) (6)
.(b) (6)
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Ad Hoc Subcommittee Report
OK, the (virtua l) meeting is 7am PT = lOam ET = 14:()()UT on June 23 . I can make
that t ime, so I'll plan to present our report.
Who else plans to attend that could serve as my backup if 1can't ma ke it for
whatever reason?
Jason
On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 9:31 AM Eghigian, Greg qVJIW_ wrote :
Yes, I also agree.
Greg Eghigian
108 Weaver Building
USA
Email: (b) (6)
From : Jacob Haqq M isra

Date: Sunday, May 23,2021 at 7: 31 AM
To : Kathryn E L Denn ing ~
Cc : Julia De Mar ines .(b )(6) Hector Socas-Nava rro
.(b) (6) Anamaria Berea _ Che lsea
Haram ia .(b) (6) Clement Vidal .(b) (6)
Greg Egh igian {(iJJW_ Fra nck Marchis _ _
(b) (6) .(b) (6) (b) (6)
.(b) (6) Julia DeMarines
.(b )(6) "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)"
<ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>, Margaret Turnbu ll
.(b )(6) STEVEN DICK .(b) (6)
St eve Croft .(b) (6) (b) (6)
.(b )(6)
Subject : Re : Ad Hoc Subcomm ittee Report
Works for me.
On Sat, May 22, 202 1 at 6:47 PM Kathryn E l Denning .(b) (6)

wrote:
Ditto
From : Julia De Ma rines .(b) (6)

Sent : Saturday, May 22, 2021 2:23 PM
To: Hector Socas-Navarro ~
Cc: Anama ria Berea .(b) (6) Chelsea Haramia
.(b) (6) Clement Vidal .(b) (6) Eghigian,
Greg {(!)J(!)_ Franck M archis .(b) (6) Haqq-M isra,
Jacob D. (GSFC-6062)[Sci ence Collabo rato r] Jason W right
.(b) (6) Julia DeM arines
.(b) (6) Ka th ryn E L Denning
.(b) (6) Kopp arapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)
qayjkumaLkoR Dara Du@oa sa,goy>; Marga ret Turnbull
.(b) (6) STEVEN DICK .(b) (6)
Steve Croft .(b) (6) (b) (6)
Subject: Re: Ad Hoc Subcommittee Report
Agreed.
On Sat, May 22, 2021 at 11:08 AM Hector Socas-N avarro

.(b) (6) wrote:
I think you should do it if you ca n, Jason
Hector
EI sab., 22 may. 202118 :51, Jason Wright .(b) (6)

escribi6 :
Any ta kers t o do the presentation?
Depending o n the time zone, I could do it , but I need t o see w hen it is

exactly, first.
Jason
On Sat, M ay 22, 202 1 at 12 :18 PM Claudio M accone

.(b) (6) wrote:
Dear Jason and All ,
Thanks very much for sending this Report to the Executives of the IAA SETI
Permanent Committee.
II is our intention to hold the first Online Meeting (after the pandemic) of the IAA
SETI Permanent Committee on Wednesda y . J y ne 23rd. 2Q21 , and I am now
preparing the relevant Agenda.
II is my intention to devote some time of this Online Meeting on June 23rd to
allow a preliminary dissemination of your Report among all Members of the IAA
SETI Permanent Committee as well as among other interested attendees, since
the Meeting is in principle OPEN to anyone interested in SETI. Please kindly
SELECT the person(s) that will present this Report and keep in mind that
the allotted time may not be higher than fifteen minytes.
Thanks very much for your work on this report and keep in touch soon again,
when I will make the Agenda public.
Sincerely,
Claudio (Maccone)
Chair, IAA SETI Permanent Committee .
On 5/22/20212 :21 AM, Jason Wright wrote:
Please accept the attached amended report from the ad
hoc subcommittee that formed to discuss the
inclusion/exclusion of UFO abstracts from PC meetings.
(We added a 13th-hour signatory) .
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 11:05 AM Jason Wright

.(b) (6) wrote:
To the Executive of the 1M PC on SETI:
Please accept the attached report from the ad hoc

subcommittee that formed to discuss the
inclusion/exclusion of UFO abstracts from PC
meetings.
Jason T Wright
Director, Penn State Extraterrestria ll nteliigence
Center
Acting Director, Center for Exoplanets and Habitable
Worlds
NEID Instrument Team pro ject Scjentjst
he/him/his
httRs ://Sjtes.Rsu .edu/astrowrjghtl
@Astro Wright
Jason T Wright
Director, Penn State ExtraterrestriallnteJligence Center
Acting Director, Center for Exoplanets and Habitable
Worlds
NE1D Instrument Team Project Scjentjst
he/him/his
https ·/Isjtes PSll edu/astrowrjght/
@Astro Wr jght
Jason T Wright
Director, Penn State Extraterrestria l lnteliigence Center
Acting Director, Center for Exoplanets and Habitab le Worlds
NEID Instrument Team pro ject Scientist
he/him/his
httos :/Isi t es.osu .edu/astrowrightl
@Astro Wright
Julia DeMarines (she/ her)
PhD Sludenl UC Berkeley I Earth and Planetary Science Department I

Berkeley SEn Rese.rc h Cenler I Bre.kthrough I i,teo lab I
National Geographic I Explorer I Grosyenor Teacher Fellow I
BMS Institute of Science I Research Scientist I
2019 AGU Vo;ces 01 Sdence I ~ I
Ad ""Ir. Ac.demy I Educal ion M.nager I
SAGANet org I Cp_EOImder I
Space in Your Face!

JuliaDeMarines com
"The Universe is a pretty big place, it's bigger than anything anyone has
ever dreamed of before. So if it's just us, seems like an awful waste of
space." - Carl Sagan (Contact)
Jason T Wright
Director, Penn State Extrater restrial lnteliigence Center
NEID Instrument Team pro ject Scientist
he/him/his
@Astro Wright
further actions.
alien technology

retained, similarly strike ~ alr from the second sentence of the old terms.
4 . Convene a subcommittee or subcommittees charged with some or all of the following,
research
or remove the exclusion on UFO research. This could , in principle, include laying
2. If the draft terms of reference from 2020 are adopted, then they should not inclu Qeeny
Anamaria Berea, Julia De Marines, Kathryn Denning, Steven Dick, Greg Eghigian, Chelsea
Haramia, Franck Marchis, Julia De Marines, Hector Socas-Navarro , Clement Vidal, Jason T.
Wright
Summary:
discussion and difference of opin ion regard ing where the boundary between UFO studies and
the activities of the comm ittee should lie. The majority opinion was to let the exclusion stand.
We recommend slightly altering the terms of reference to reflect this, issuing a statement
explaining the exclusion . We also recommend the committee consider an additional, longer
committee members and members of the community in more fully exploring the boundaries
between UFO studies and astronomical SETI, including whether it should be moved.
November 2020J to read that it ~ e x amines topics related to the possible existence of
extant or extinct intelligent and/or technological life having arisen beyond Earth." [i .e.
strike uall" from "all topics,,]. If that draft is not adopted and the old terms of reference are
reta ined, sim ilarly strike "all" from the second sentence of the old terms .
committee's work does not include stud ies of UFOs or Unidentified Aerial Phenomena"
(I.e., maintain the exclusion that w as in the original ToR. )
3. Adopt the below statement expla ining th is exclusion
at the PC 's discretion :
Defining the scope of w ork of the Permanent Committee
Polling Permanent Committee members on their positions regard ing UFO
research
Exploring the boundaries between UFO research and SETI, in parti cular the
or remove the exclusion on UFO research . Th is could , in principle , include layi ng
Statement:
The Permanent Committee on SETI for the International Academy of Astronautics "examines
having arisen beyond Earth. ~ The question has arisen as to why the committee does not
consider the study of Unidentified Flying Objects (Le. UFOs, or the related concept of
many that the committee does not include the investigation of UFOs as having extraterrestrial
UFOs with alien spacecraft is primarily driven by social trends, not by strong, durable physical
atmospheric science, aviation, military equipment, aircraft sensors and cameras,
collectively evaluate the scientific merit of claims about UFOs being extraterrestrial in origin, we
related topics.
Summary:

Remove this sentence from the terms of reference: ''These terms of reference exclude
H
Statement:
of civilization on Earth that could lead to such detectable technosignatures . One such scenario
relevant to the primary goal of the IAA SETI PC.

Subject: Re: How Washington Got Hooked on Flying Saucers
Date: Monday, May 24, 2021 9:12:16 AM
Ok, Glad that science-based investigation is being advocated.

I don’t know the channels to go through to connect with him.

Date: Monday, May 24, 2021 at 9:03 AM
More later … but did you see this piece over the weekend?
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/21/special-series/harry-reid-ufo.html
Harry Reid might be a good person to connect with.
--
Lonnie Shekhtman
301-614-6833

Ok, Thank you for sending this article.
I read it. And I think it is useful information to keep in mind about the current fever of UAP _in the
United States_. However, I do keep coming back to the same point again and again, and I don’t
know how to tell these reporters writing these articles. Please do not be myopic and focus only on
the recent UAP events as the flagship events. Do not dismiss the whole UFO history because there
may be something nefarious _in these recent_ events. This is not specific to U.S. And not specific to
armed forces. As we mentioned in our WaPo article, UFOs are _not_ a such restrictive topic. Physical
scientists have studied them and found many to be unexplained. Some of them truly bizarre. I really,
REALLY, want people to read Science in Default document and my comments. We cannot forget
history as though it never happened.
I was thinking last night (late into night). My Twitter feed is full of ridiculing UFO phenomena.
Including some of my colleagues. How can they forget history and so fixated on one thing like navy
UAP that is popular now? Either they don’t know history, or don’t care to know the history to score
social points. This is becoming a very polarized subject, with even trained scientists not finding out
the historical context and ridiculing. I can only reach a conclusion that they are having a ‘group
approval’ syndrome on Twitter. I am scared, and I am very concerned that I am writing that WaPo
article. I might become another Avi Loeb. But somewhere in the back of my mind, there is a feeling
that I do not need to be. And that is because I feel the presence of the giants of our field (Carl Sagan,
James Mc Donald, Allen Hynek) standing behind me. They have done the work, and they think UFO
research is important. I can stand firm on their shoulders. The science is with me. If I find there is no
science in it, I will not bother about this topic.
Ravi

Subject: How Washington Got Hooked on Flying Saucers
https://newrepublic.com/article/162457/government-embrace-ufos-bad-science
--
Lonnie Shekhtman
301-614-6833

Ok great! Looking forward to talk to you on Monday.

From: "Shekht man, Lonn ie (GSFC-690 .0)[ADN ET SYSTE MS INC] "
Date: Thursday, May 20,202 1 at 3:43 PM
To: " Koppa rapu, Ravi Kuma r (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa .gov>
I know that you st ill have t o get th rough HQ. But for fu ture reference, WashPo should show you all
edits to you r story, and you' re allowed to rej ect any that you don't like. You shou ld see, weigh in on,
and approve the version that they're going t o publish, including the hea dli ne.
I also have some ideas from the writers grou p for you . I'm off tomorrow, so will ca ll you on Monday
to share them .
Lonnie
Lonnie Shekhtman
301-614-6833
From: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GS FC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa .gov>

Date: Thursday, May 20,202 1 at 3: 19 PM
To: "Shekhtman, Lon nie (GSFC-690.0)[ADN ET SYSTEMS INC]" <Ionnie .shekhtman@nasa.gov>
Thanks! Your comments * reallv* helped.
From: "Shek ht man, Lonn ie (GSFC-690.0)[AD NET SYSTE MS INC]"

<lonn ie .shekht man@nasa.gov>
To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kuma r (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa .gov>
Subjject:: Re: Wa,:hin€:ton
Deletion Page


From: Sbekbtman l onnie (GSEC-690 OlfApNfT SYSIFMS INC
To: KooparaPIJ, Ravi KYma r fGSFC-§9991
Subject: Re: !-low Washington Got Hooked on Flying Saucers
Date: Monday, May 24, 2:02:110:30:20 AM
You could start by messaging him/his people through Twitter or Facebook:

https '/ItwjttercomlSenatorRe jd
https 'IIWoNWfacebookcom/SenatorBe jd/
Lonnie Shekhtman
301-614-6833
From: "Kopparapu, Bavi Kumar (GS FC-6990) " <ravikumar .kopparapu@nasa .gov>
Date: Monday, May 24, 2021 at 9 :13 AM
To : "Shekhtman, Lonnie (GSFC-690.0)[AD NET SYSTEMS INCI" <Ionn ie.shekhtman@nasa .gov>
Subject : Be : How Wash ingt on Got Hooked on Flying Saucers
May be after ou r article in WaPo is published, they might take not ice. Someway we have to find
some con nection to him . Does your reporter colleagues have any li nks that could help us?
From: "Shekht man, Lonn ie (GSFC-690 .0)[ADN ET SYSTE MS INC] "

<lonn ie .shekht man@nasa.gov>
Date: Monday, May 24, 2021 at 9 :03 AM
To : " Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa .gov>
W"sh ;ngton Got Hooked on I i
Deletion Page


From: Jamb Haqq Mjsra
To: Franck Marcbjs
C<co Jamb Haqq Mjsra : Kocwrapu Ba» Kumar (GSfC-699Q); Haqq -Mjsra Jacob 0 (GSEC-6Q62J[Scienre
CoIlaboratorJ
Subject: Be: [EXTERNAl] 1M PC SEn UFO text
Date: Monday, May 24,202112 :17:3 1 PM
Thanks Franck! I will be cmious to hear what others on the full committee have to say about
the SETA comparison.
Jacob
On Still, May 23 , 2021 at 12 :25 PM Franck Marchis _ wrote :

Hello
Somehow I had missed yom email with yom recommendations which are better aligned
with my thoughts. You may have seen that I tried to provide inputs in the other one to get
closer to yom recommendations.
I like the SETA comparison and I think this argument deserves some discussions in om
committee.
I hope you can present yom ideas at the committee at the end of Jtille .
regards
Franck M.
On May 17, 2021 , at 5:35 AM, Jacob Haqq Misra wrote :
What are the next steps for this process? II seems like we are arriving at consensus for the
majority and minority reports. I'm not sure if there are stil l people on this thread who want to
contribute, but it seems like we have heard from almost everyone by now . Are we ready to send
these documents to the full PC for discussion?
On Fri, May 14 , 2021 at 7:58 AM Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)

<ravjkumar.koooaraou@nasa ,qov>wrote :
Thanks Steve, this quote from the article
The way I've framed the thought experiment in recent conversations is this: Imagine,
tomorrow, an alien craft crashed down in Oregon. There are no life-forms in it. II's effectively a
drone . But iI's undeniably extraterrestrial in origin. So we are faced w ith the knowl edge that
we're not alone, that we are perhaps being watched, and we have no way to make contact.
How does that change human culture and SOCiety?
seems close to what we mentioned in the m inority report:

But what if an extraterrestrial artifact were to enter Earth's atmosphere? The observation of
such an artifact would technically be considered a UFOfUAP until furthe r data could be
collected to assess its identity . Would the observation of such a phenomenon be relevant to
the SETI research community?
I also wish the writers of the articles in New Yorker and NYT link you sent below advocate for
data availability in their articles, in addition to focusing on the opinions on UFOs. Ultimately,
the nature of these objects will be known through the scientific analyses of such data.
Otherwise, they will always be relegated to fringe science and will never be able to come into
the mainstream . They will foreve r will fi nd home in sensational news and documentaries, and
the vacuum created by lack of a science investigation that will be fi lled by someone else w hich
feeds into the never ending cycle of it being a taboo subject.
Ravi
From : Kathryn E L Denning -(b) (6)

Date: Thursday, May 13, 202 1 at 8:55 PM
To: STEVEN DICK "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)"
li;~~ Jason Wright

Jacob D.
"Eghigian, Greg"
Collaborator]"
Thanks for sharing that, Steve . Hmm . Might be worth sharing w ith the whole comm ittee in due
course.
I love that Chiang short story he ends with.
Cheers,
KD
From : STEVEN DICK -(b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, May 13. 2021 6:51 PM
To: <ray jkumar kopparapu@nasagoy>; Kathryn E L
Jason Wright Eg higian, Greg
D. Collaborator]
(b) (6)
-(b) (6)
-(b) (6)
Today's Ezra Klein column in the NYT is relevant to our discussion. I get a sentence toward
the bottom . I told him about our ongoing discussion, but it didn't make it. Perhaps for the
better.
htWs ·1fwwyt nytjmes comf2021 f05113fopjnjonfufos-aliens-space html?

referrjngSource-artjcleShare<htWs·/Igcc02 safeljnks protect jon outlook com!?
ud-htWs%3A%2F%2Ewww nytjmes com%2F2021 %2F05%2F 13%2Fopjnjon%2Fufos-aliens-
space html%3FreferringSource%3partjcleShare&data=04%7CO 1%7Cravjkumar kO$lparapu%4
Onasa gov%7Cdff73225fa 134a59f4e008d91672b738%7C7005d45845be48ae8140d43da96dd
17b% 7CO%7CO%7C637565505317257713%7CU nkow % 7CIWE~bGZs3daey JW lio j MC4w
UAw MPAjLCJQ!jojV2luMzl jLCJBTjl6 1k 1haWwjLCJ XYC I6M nO% 3p% 7C 1OOO&sdata =% 2BoBSj
1ZIYtnEgcCLZEKOnyzUOxrOBLoJ rxPj2y2YQJA% 3p&reserved=0 >
Steve
Steven J . Dick
21406 Clearfork. Ct
Ashburn, VA 20147
(b) (6)
Space, Time, and Aliens : Collected Work.s on Cosmos and Culture

htWs'lfwwyt s~rjnge comlg~fbk97a30416 < htWs "IIgcc02 safelinks ~rotecjn outlook c
!!IllL1
ud-htWs% 3A% 2E% 2 Ewww s~rjnge r com % 2Eg~ % 2Ebok % 2E97a30416&dt-Q % 7C
01 % 7Cravjkumar kQ~aru % 40nas gov% 7Cdff73225fa 134a59f4eOOad91672b73a% 7C7005
d45845be48aea140d43da96dd17b%7CO% 7CO%7C637565505317267667% 7CUnknQWn% 7C
IWE~bGZs3d8eyJ l joMC4 w UA w MPA j LCJO l jo jY 2 I uMz lj lCJBT i I61k 1 ha Ww j lCJX Y CI6MnO
% 3P % 7C10&sdat- l aQAKUEoHV~ u XQ u RMmd % 2B957jQIEPX1gMK4 % 3p&resy
.e..d..=ll>

Impact www cambrjdgeorgl97a1108426763 <htWs'lIgcc02 safelinks ~rotecjn outlook coml ?
ud-htW% 3A% 2E% 2 Ewww cambridge org% 2E9781 108426763&data-04% 7C01% 7Cravjkumar
ko~paru % 40nas goy%7Cdff73225fal34a59f4eOOad91672b73a%7CZ005d45845be4aaea
140d3a967b % 7CO % 7CO % 7C635012 % 7CUnko w n % 7CIWE~bGZs3da
eyJWljojMC4w LjAw MPAjLCJOlioiY2 1uMz ljLCJBTII6 1k1haWw jlCJXVCI6MnO% 3p% 7C 1000&s

dat-T54R2w j d0 1 25JB9tMUSIs~Kdm7E4p % 2Bb~Q % 3p&resyd-O >
Classifying the Cosmos . htWs'lI!jnk s~rjnge coml bookf10 10071978-3-030-103aO-

~ < htWs"l gc02 safelinks ~rotec j o n oullook coml?
ud-htWs% 3A% 2E% 2Eljnk s~rj n ge r com % 2Ebook% 2E1 0 1007% 2E978-3-030-1 0380-
4&data-Q4% 7C01% 7Crayjkumar ko~a r a~ u % 40nas goy% 7CdffZ3225fa 134aS9f4eOO8d9167

2b738% 7C7005d4S845be48aea14Od43da96dd17b% 7CO%7CO% 7C637565505317277620%7
CUnko w n % 7CIWE~bGZs3daeyJ l jQMC4 w lJA w MPAjlCJO l jo iY 2 I uMzl j lCJBTj61k 1 ha Ww j
LCJXY CI6MnO% 3p% 7C1000&sdata=Wz% 2BQpwCw aXXESpxOxMUgfJ9metusZztCllYSyoBY

RNI%3p&reseryed=0 >
W ebsite ht~ "I steynjdck comlindex html<htWs"llgcc02 safelinks ~rotec j o n oullook coml?
ud-htW% 3A% 2E% 2Esteyenjd jck com% 2Ejndex html&data-04%7C01 % 7Crayjkumar kQ~ar
u%40nasa goy%7Cdff7322Sfa134a59f4eOoad91672b73a%7CZ005d45845be4aaea140d43da
96d17b % 7CO % 7CO % 7C635012 % 7CUnkow % 7CIWE~bGZs3daeyJlio j
MC4w lJAwMPAjLCJOI jojY21uMzI jlCJ BTjl6 1k1haWwjLCJXYC 16MnO% 3p% 7C 1000&sdata-% 2

EoWHboANj9H Y 5gEXAEo2nQrWmzZOMhc3y tcIYl jPAls% 3p&reseryed-0 >
On May 12, 2021 , at 2:22 PM, Kopparapu. Ravi Kumar (GSEC-6990)

Deletion Page


From: Domagal-goldman, Shawn D. (GSFC-6930)
Date: Tuesday, May 25, 2021 12:07:21 PM
Honestly that's better than I expected
------------
he/him/his
Branch Chief, Planetary Systems Lab (Code 693)
you to read it or reply at that time. If its urgent and I need an immediate reply, I'll be sure to
happen to be.
From: Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990) <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2021 12:02 PM
To: Domagal-goldman, Shawn D. (GSFC-6930) <shawn.goldman@nasa.gov>
Subject: FW: Washington Post article draft

Date: Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 12:02 PM
Hi Ravi,
Here is the guidance that I received from HQ.
He is cleared to go, with the caveat that he cannot identify himself as a NASA employee (no NASA job
title). It should be listed as his story not the agency’s.
Thanks,
Nancy
--
Nancy Neal Jones

To: "Nancy N. Jones" <nancy.n.jones@nasa.gov>
Hi Nancy,
Any news from HQ?
Thanks
Ravi

The draft is in review at HQ. I told them about the noon deadline.
--
Nancy Neal Jones

I am really, truly sorry to hear that. This is a really difficult time to focus. I completely understand.
Let me send the draft and see what the editors say. They may nor may not go ahead, who knows.

Nancy Neal Jones

Date: Tuesday, May 25,2021 at 8:35 AM
To: " Nancy N. Jones" <nancy.n.jones@nasa.gov>
Hi Nancy,
Oh, ... 50, I need to send it before noon today. I can make any final changes,. If any, later before
publication.
Ravi

Date: Tuesday, May 25,2021 at 8:29 AM
I sent the article to HQ. Somehow, I did not see your origi nal email. My apologies.
Nancy Neal Jones

From: "Nancy N. Jones" <nancy.n.jones@nasa.gov>

Hi Ravi,
I was unaware that you had the final. Please send it to me again.
Thanks,
Nancy
--
Nancy Neal Jones

Hi Nancy,
I am planning to send the article before noon today (it was due last Friday). Any suggestions on the
draft from HQ?
Thanks
Ravi

Hi Ravi,
Thanks,
Nancy
--
Nancy Neal Jones

Thank you
Ravi
--
Greenbelt, MD 20771
To: Jones.Nancy N. (GSFC-l3Ml
Date: Tuesday, May 25, 202112:42:40 PM
Hmm .. ok t hank you . I have a disclaimer at the end .
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are not necessarily those
of NASA or their employers.

Date: Tuesday, May 25,2021 at 12:02 PM
~: Re:~
Deletion Page


Fro m: Deily Mary Bien
To: Jacob Hagg Mjsra; Hagg-Mjsra. Jacob P . (GSFC-6Q62)[Scjeoce Collaborator]
C<co !<oooarapu Ravi Kumar fGSEC-699Ql ; rayj koppacapu
Subject: [EXITRNAl] Re : Your thoughts 00 a couple of points
Date: Wednesday, May 26, 20219:18:38 AM
Thank you Jacob !
From: Jacob Haqq Misra .qIiJU_

Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2021 9:17 AM
To: Deily, Mary-El len .(b) (6)
Cc: Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990) <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>; ravi kopparapu
.(b) (6) Haqq-M isra, Jacob D. (GSFC-6062)[Science Collaborator]
m'JUI;nrson a couple of points
Hi Mary-Ellen,
SUJe thing, here is some extra text addressing the questions you raised:
Ifwe want to learn what UAP really are, thell we lIeed to conduct a rigorous, i1lfematiollal,
a1ld illterdisciplillmy sciemific illvestigatioll that if/eludes e.xpertsfrom academia, industry,
a1ld governmellt. 17lis would require expertise ill a wide range of academic disciplilles that
illelude astrollomy, meteorology, and physics as well as p rofessiollal experts who are
Imowledgeable about military aircraft, remote sellsillgfrom the groulId, alld satellite
observatiolls. Such all investigatioll would need to be agllostic toward a1lY specific
e.'tplmlGtiolls with the primmy goal to collect enough data --ineludi1lg visual, illfrared, radar,
a1ld other possible observations-- that would evntual~y allow us to deduce the identity of such
UAP. Such an illvestigatioll would 1I0t lIeed to illelude all or 1II0St scielltists, as mallY may still
be ullinterested ill studyillg UAP. But following this agllostic approach, alld re~yilg Up01l
sound scientific alld peer-reviewed methods, would go a lOllg way toward lifting the taboo ill
maillstremll science.
Feel fre e to edit this down, of cOUJse.
Jacob
On Wed, May 26, 202 1 at 8:54 AM Deily, Maly -Ellen (b) (6)
wrote:
Hello Ravi & Jacob,
I st ill don 't have an answer for you, and I'm st ill working on t he draft , so I'm wa it ing to send
it to you . Toward that end, cou ld you send me a coup le of sent ences on what proper
scientific method around st udying UAP would look like, as in concret e steps ast ronomers,
physicists or others would t ake? Name t he fields of science important to t his, too . Also, is
t here anyth ing you recommend for lift ing t he taboo in t he scien ce commun ity, or is there
any sign that it is lifting?
Thanks again,
Mary-Ellen
Fro m: Kooparapu Ravi Kumar (GSEC-699Q)
To: Sbekbtman. Lonnie (GSFC-Y90.Q)fADNEI SYSTEMS INa
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAl] Your edited piece, please review and give me your thoughts
Date: Wednesday, May 26, 2021 10:48:20 AM
Attachments: Ql}-koopa-haoornisra docx
From: "Dei ly, Mary-Ellen" .(b) (6)

Date: Wednesday, May 26, 202 1 at 10:38 AM
To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kuma r (GSFC-6990)" <ravikum ar. kopparapu@nasa .gov>, "Haq q-Misra,
Jacob D. (GSFC-6062)[Science Collaborat or] "
Cc: "Deily, Mary-Ellen" .(b) (6)
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Your edit ed piece, please review and give me your t hought s
See below for a clean copy and t he attached, w hich should allow you t o do an "all ma rkup"
view in Track Changes. Plea se don't be t aken aback by all t he edit s. This is not unusual for ou r
pieces . You ha d a lot of grea t mat erial, but I needed t o edit it down a bit and do a litt le
reord ering t o make it comply w it h Post st yle . Also, unf ortunat ely, I ha d t o trim your bios . I w as
hoping t o include more det ail s, but my boss says w e need a 'just t he f act s' approach .
Please rea d over it carefully, and ma ke su re my synopses o f science -- and all else -- are
accu rat e! There is int erest on ou r en d on publishing t his, possibly in t omorrow's paper, so
please let me know your t hough t s as soon as possible .
Thank you again,

M ary- Ellen
We need to p ut scien ce at the center of the UFO question OR W hy asking what UFOs
are is the wrong question OR We ' re stiD not asking the right questions about UFOs
Ravi Kopparapu is a pla1letary sciefllisf. Jacob Haqq -Misra is a research sciefllisf at the Blue
Marble Space i1lstitute o/Scie1lce.
With a government report due in Jlme on illlidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) and a recent
" 60 Minutes" story on u.s. Navy pilots' sightings and videos of mysterious images, prominent
people in politics, the militalY and national intelligence are finally asking what we 're looking
at.
It 's the wrong question - or, at least, it' s premahrre.
Before we get to what these mysterious phenomena are, we need to be asking how we can
fi gure out what they are. This is where scientists, notably absent from the current UAP
conversation, come in.
For too long, the scientific study of unidentified flying objects and aerial phenomena -- UFOs
and UAPs, in the shorthand -- has been taboo. At the same time, public interest in
extraterrestrial life has surged, with two-thirds of respondents to a recent CBS News poll
saying they believe there is intelligent life on other planets.
In recent decades, science has focused on other aspects of extraterrestrial inquiry, including
the search for signs of life on other planets – think the Mars rover – and techno-signatures --
radio signals that appear to emanate from outside Earth.
The research has been complex, evidence-based and demanding, pulling in scientists from
across disciplines and all around the globe. The same should be true for the exploration of
UAP sightings. If we want to understand what UAP are, then we need to engage the
mainstream scientific community in a concerted effort to study them.
Decades ago, the notion of serious research on UFOs wasn’t out of the question.
In the late 1960s, a U.S. Air Force-led effort called Project Blue Book examined several
hundred[MD1] [MD1][MD2] [MD2]UFO reports from the 1950s and 1960s. In 1968, however,
another report, commissioned by the Air Force and conducted at the University of Colorado to
examine UFO research to that point, stated that “nothing [MD3] [MD3] has come from the study
of UFOs … that has added to scientific knowledge.” Soon after, the Air Force shuttered
Project Blue Book. About 700 of the more than 12,000 cases remained “unidentified” at the
close of the project.
Despite this, distinguished scientists including astronomer Carl Sagan, physicist James
McDonald and astronomer J. Allen Hynek [MD4] [MD4]thought UAP should be investigated
scientifically. McDonald, a professor of meteorology and member of the National Academy of
Sciences, conducted a rigorous analysis of a few UAP cases that Project Blue Book
highlighted as unexplainable.
McDonald documented his methods – extensive interviews with witnesses, detailed
accounting of their observations, examination of radar and other technology possibly
implicated in the sightings – in “Science in Default,” which he presented in a 1969 American
Association for the Advancement of Science symposium. He relied on evidence-based
investigation and consideration of all the available data (rather than cherry-picking one
instance of an event). He argued that much of the 1968 report was biased and shallow.
“Doesn't a UFO case … warrant more than a mere shrug of the shoulders from science?” he
wrote.
We agree. We need to frame the current UAP/UFO question with the same level of active
inquiry, one involving experts from academia in disciplines including astronomy,
meteorology and physics, as well as industry and government professionals with knowledge of
military aircraft, remote sensing from the ground and satellite observations. Participants would
need to be agnostic toward any specific explanations with a primary goal of collecting enough
data -- including visual, infrared, radar and other possible observations -- to eventually allow
us to deduce the identity of such UAP. Following this agnostic approach, and relying upon
sound scientific and peer-reviewed methods, would go a long way toward lifting the taboo in
mainstream science.
Without robust, credible data mined by mainstream scientists, UAP studies [MD5] [MD5] will
always be viewed as fringe science. With systematic collection of new data, and access to all
existing data, we can apply scientific rigor to what has been observed and documented.
Ultimately, understanding UAP is a science problem. We should treat it that way.
out of [MD1]several thousand cases? later you cite more than 12,000 cases.
[MD2]Hundreds or thousands? See more than 12,000 later in paragraph.
[MD3]Icouldn't find this abridged quote--or the two pieces of it in the condon report, at least the
version here: https://files.ncas.org/condon/text/sec-ii.htm
[MD4]add descriptions of these three
[MD5].
Date: Wednesday, May 26, 202111 :0l :18AM
Thank you . This looks good. I have two notable comments that I was hoping we can address before
publication.
1.
2.
From: Jones, Nancy N. (GSFC-1300)
Date: Wednesday, May 26, 2021 1:41:46 PM
Thanks for being patient. I hope they get back to us soon. I will follow-up with them at 2:30.
--
Nancy Neal Jones

Thank you!

Thanks Ravi. I sent it up.
--
Nancy Neal Jones

My comments if anyone asks about UFOs, is that majority of UFOs are likely mis-identified
phenomena. There are some few cases that are yet to be explained. We do not know what they are,
and to know what they are, a scientific investigation is needed and we should avoid _any_
speculation. There is no scientific evidence to say they are extra-terrestrials (in my talking points, I
do not even invoke ‘aliens’ or ‘life’ at all when I talk about UFOs.)

Basically , this is if someone in leadership is contacted.
--
Nancy Neal Jones

They want to know if you have talking points that you typically lean into.
--
Nancy Neal Jones

Thank you. Jacob Haqq-Misra from Blue Marble Space Instiute of Science.
If it helps, I have already published another article in Scientific American last year and used my
affiliation and HQ had no issues at that time. It was also on the topic of UFOs.
Ravi

Still going back and forth with HQ. Who is your co-author on the op-ed?
--
Nancy Neal Jones

Thank you. Today before 3pm. They plan to publish in tomorrow’s paper.

HQ asked when do they need an answer?
--
Nancy Neal Jones

Thank you

Hi Ravi,
I just sent an email to HQ requesting guidance.
Thanks,
Nancy
--
Nancy Neal Jones

Hi Nancy,
The Washington Post is asking if we can reconsider putting my affiliation. My co-author’s affiliation is
in there, and mine is not. People might google and find anyway and that may raise more questions
or un-necessary conspiracy talking points. If I am allowed, I will ask Post to include a disclaimer that
my opinions are not NASA’s.
Thanks
Ravi

Date: Tuesday, May 25,2021 at 12 :02 PM
Deletion Page


Fro m: Deily Mary Bien
To: KooparaPIJ. Ravi KYmar (GSFC-§9901 ; Haoo Misra. Jacob D. (GSFC-6Q62)[Scjeoce Collaborator]
Subject: Re : [EXTERNAl] O!ecking in: Are you dose to sending me those two changes?
Da te: Wednesday, May 26, 2021 2:15:56 PM
thank5, working on th i5 now .
From: Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990) <ravikumar. kopparapu@na5a .gov>

Sent: Wedne5day, May 26, 2021 2:13 PM
To: Deily, Mary-El len .(b) (6) Haqq-M i5ra, Jacob D. (GSFC-6062)[Science
Collaborator)
Subject: Re : [EXTIiRN:ALj Ch'ecking in: Are you clo5e t o 5ending me th05e two change5?
Ye5, that affiliation i5 good . And ye5, adding di5c1a imer would al50 be good.
Thanks
From: "Dei ly, Mary-Ellen" .(b) (6)

Date: Wednesday, May 26, 202 1 at 2:10 PM
To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>, "Haqq-M isra,
Jacob D. (GSFC-6062j[Science Collaborator)"
Subject: Re : [EXTE RNAL] Check ing in : Are you close t o sending me those t wo changes?
Excellent ! That's great ! Th is is good for Post readers and f or NASA, I believe. Thank you .
So should your bio read RK .. . is a planetary scient ist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center .
And we' ll add back in a discla imer .
From: Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990) <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa .gov>

To: Deily, Mary-Ellen .(b) (6) Haqq-M isra, Jacob D. (GSFC-6062)[Science
Collaborator)
Subject: Re : Ch,ecking in: Are you close to sending me those two changes?
So I hea rd back and HQ is ok to use my NASA affiliation .
From: "Dei ly, Mary-Ellen" •(b) (6)

To: " Haqq- Misra, Jacob D. (GSFC-6062j[Science Collaborator) "
Cc: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar .kopparapu@nasa.gov>, ravi kopparapu
.(b) (6)
Subject: Re : [EXTE RNAL] Check ing in : Are you close t o sending me those t wo changes?
Wonderful. I'm se nding it to o ur copy desk for their review. Thank you .
•(b) (6)
.(b)(6)
.(b) (6)
looks great, thank you!
On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 1:32 PM Deily, Mary-Ell en .(b) (6) wrote:
Got it. I think leaving o ut the inte rnational wording works. Th ank you. I'm hoping t o move
thi s t o our copy desk shortly. You 'll get a pre-publication co py t o sign off on ... but do let me
know, Jacob, if you have conce rns before then.
From: Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990) qayikumar,kooparapu@nasa.lwv>

To: Deily, Mary-Ellen ·(b)(6) ravi kopparapu
.(b ) (6) Haqq-Misra, Jacob D. (GSFC-6062)(Science Collaborator]
.(b) (6)
Subject : Re: (EXTERNAL] Checking in: Are you close to sending me those two changes?
Hi Mary-Ellen,
Thank you. Yes, I thought the ' alien' connection is more important to address (or not) than
pointing out that they are intemational.
The only place where I thought it could go was after this sentence (new sentence in italics).
«Decades ago, the notion of serious research on UFOs wasn' t out of the question. And they
seem to be studied by adler countries (that/archive lIeocities orgJ
[geeDl sa/elink:i protection outlook cow) [gecD2 sa/eliuk:i protectioll outlook COlli) as weir'
I think all else looks good. Jacob, any COIlllllents?

Ravi
From: "Deily, Maly-Ellen"

Date: Wednesday, May 26,
To: "Ko'ppa 1<>"""_ " ,on'l'" <rayil'11mar.koW)arapu@nasa.&oy>, ravi
kopparapu "Haqq-Misra, Jacob D. (GSFC-6062)[Science
Subject: Re: " '''''''''-J Che<:kir,S in: Are you close to sending we those two changes?
I've added your link, and hopefully I caught your other changes. See below. (I didn't see
anything added about an international approach, which is fine with me, but I wanted to
make sure I didn't miss it.)
Ravi Kopparapu is a planetary scientist. Jacob Haqq-Misra is a research scientist at the

Blue Marble Space Institute of Science.
With a government report due in June on unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) and a
recent “60 Minutes” story on U.S. Navy pilots’ sightings and videos of mysterious images,
prominent people in politics, the military and national intelligence are finally asking
[gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] [gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]
[gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] what we’re looking at.
It’s the wrong question — or, at least, it’s premature.
Before we get to what these mysterious phenomena are, we need to be asking how we
can figure out what they are. This is where scientists, notably absent from the current
UAP conversation, come in.
For too long, the scientific study of unidentified flying objects and aerial phenomena —
UFOs and UAPs, in the shorthand — has been taboo. A big driver of that taboo is the
vacuum of knowledge being filled by unscientific claims thanks to a lack of scientific
investigation.
In recent decades, science has focused on aspects of extraterrestrial inquiry, including
the search for signs of life on other planets — think the Mars rover
[gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] [gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]
[gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] — and techno-signatures
[astrobiology.nasa.gov] [gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]
[gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] — radio signals that appear to emanate from
outside Earth.
The research has been complex, evidence-based and demanding, pulling in scientists
from across disciplines and all around the globe. The same should be true for the
exploration of UAP sightings. If we want to understand what UAP are, then we need to
engage the mainstream scientific community in a concerted effort to study them.
In the late 1960s, a U.S. Air Force-led effort called Project Blue Book examined thousands
of UFO reports from the 1950s and 1960s. In 1968, however, another report,
commissioned by the Air Force and conducted at the University of Colorado to examine
UFO research to that point, stated that [gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]
[gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]
[gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] “nothing has come from the study of UFOs …
that has added to scientific knowledge.” Soon after, the Air Force shuttered Project Blue
Book. About 700 of the more than 12,000 cases remained “unidentified” at the close of
the project.
Despite this, distinguished scientists including astronomer Carl Sagan, physicist James
McDonald and astronomer J. Allen Hynek thought UAP should be investigated
scientifically. McDonald, a professor of meteorology and member of the National
Academy of Sciences, conducted a rigorous analysis of a few UAP cases that Project Blue
Book [gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] [gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]
[gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com] highlighted as unexplainable.
McDonald documented his methods – extensive interviews with witnesses, detailed
accounting of their observations, examination of radar and other technology possibly
implicated in the sighti ngs - in "Science in Df>fault
[gccD? safeli nks protectio n olltlook com] [gccD? safeli nks protectio n outlook com)
[gcc02.safelinks,protection,outlook,comj: which he presented in a 1969 American
Association for the Advancement of Science sympOSium. He relied on evidence-based
investigation and consideration of all the available data (rather than cherry-picking one
"Doesn't a UFO case ... warrant more than a mere shrug of the shoulders from science?"
he wrote.
We need to frame the cu rrent UAP/UFO question with the same level of active inquiry,
one involving experts from academia in disciplines including astronomy, meteorology
and physics, as well as industry and government professionals with knowledge of military
atf;Gfaft, remote sensing from the ground and satellite observations. Participants would
need io be agnostiC toward any specific explanations with a primary goal of collecting
enough data - including visual, infra red, radar and other possible observations - to
eventually allow us to deduce the identity of such UAP, Following this agnostic approach,
and relying upon sound scientific and peer-reviewed methods, would go a long way
toward lifti ng the taboo in mainstream science.
Without robust, credible data mined by mainstream scientists, UAP studies will always be
viewed as fringe science. With systematic collection of new data, and access to all
existing data, we can apply scientific rigor to what has been observed and documented.
Ultimately, understanding UAP is a science problem, We should treat it that way,
From: Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990) <rayjkumar.koW2arapu@nasa .aoy>

Sent: Ve dn e s da y , ~ay
6lra~, v~: '~ ~ l ): ~ :~ l~ Collaborator]

l:KNPlLl Checking in : Are you close to sending me those two changes?
Hi Mary-Ellen,
Thank: you. J was just about to send this. VVe are attaching our edits to the rutic1e. As we
discussed on phone, we think the article should avo id mentioning any hints about
connecting UFOs w ith extra-ten estriallife, as there is no solid scientific evidence .
Regru'ding Condon rep011 COllllllent, It is in Section J, "Conclus ions and Recollllllendations"

here:
https'/Ifil e s Bcas orglcoBdo ultext/sec-i htm [file s Bcas org]
(gcc02 safe ljnks protectio n o utlook com] [gcc02 safe liBks protect jon Ol ltl ook com]
[gcc02 safelinks protection outlook com]
I am still on hold with the affiliation usage from HQ. I w ill know one way or the other soon.
Best
Ravi
From : "Deily, Maly-Ellen"
Date: Wednesday, May 26,
To: "'!cOPI,a ;F' ~ -/i90)" <nwikumar,kol2J,1arapu@llasa,aoy>, ravi
kopparapu "Haqq-Misra, Jacob D. (GSFC-6062)[Science
Subject: l",~LC- . Are you close to sending me those two changes?
Hi Ravi (and Jacob),

Are you able to send me yom suggested updates yet? Sony to press.
Thanks,
Maly -Ellen
Thanks.
--
Nancy Neal Jones

Oh boy….i am working (‘sweating’) on it…will send asap.

FYI: The talking points will go to the Administrator’s level. We need them as soon as possible.
--
Nancy Neal Jones

Hi Ravi,
HQ said it's ok to use your NASA affiliation .
Please update and add to the following ta lking points.
• The majority of UFOs are li kely mis-identified phenomena . There are some few cases that are
yet to be explained.
• A scientific investigat ion is needed, and speculation should be avoided.
• There is no scientific evidence to say they are extra-terrestrials.
Nancy Neal Jones

From: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa .gov>

To: "Nancy N. Jones " <nancy.n.j ones@nasa .gov>
Subject: Re: Wash ington Post articl e draft
They said it will publish tomorrow's printed version . 50 they will need to finalize by this evening.
From: "Jones, Na ncy N. (GSFC-1300)" <nancy.n .jones@nasa.gov>

Subject: Re: Wash ington Post articl e draft
Next quest ion, when will this publish tomorrow?
Nancy Neal Jones

From: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (G5FC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa .gov>

To: " Nancy N. Jones" <nancy .n.j ones@nasa .gov>
Subject: Re : Wash ington Post article draft
Deletion Page


Fro m: Jones Nancy N rGSEC -1300)
To: KooparaPIJ, Ravi KYmar fGSFC-§9991
Subject: Re : Washington Post article draft
Da te: Wednesday, May 26, 2021 2:46:02 PM
Thanks I sent it up.
Nancy Neal Jones

From: "Kopparapu , Ravi Kum ar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>

Date: Wednesday, May 26,2021 at 2:34 PM
Hi Nancy,
Here :
• The majority of UFOs are li kely mis-identified phenomena . There are some cases that are yet
to be explained .
• A scientific investigation is needed, and speculation should be avoided. One should be strictly
agnostic.
• There is no scientific evidence to say they are extra-terrestrials.
• Data collection and availability is the on ly way to know what they are. Let the data and
science drive the discussion .
• Science is unforgiving. Data is the authority. Our feelings and opinions are irrelevant.
• Scientists use scient ific methods to validate cla ims. All claims must pass scientific test.
• A notable aspect surrounding the media coverage of UFOs is the absence of scientific or
expert opinion .

Date: Wednesday, May 26,2021 at 2:14 PM
To: , Ravi Kumar " <ravikumar.kopparapu @nasa.gov>
Deletion Page


Fro m:
To:
C<co
Subject: - of your column
Date: Wednesd<IY, May 26, 20213:51:16 PM
Looks good to me as well.
From: "Ma lhi, Sabrina " .(b) (6)

To: "Haqq- Misra, Jacob D. (GSFC-6062)[Science Collaborator]"
Cc: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>,
(b) (6) .(b) (6) "Johnson, Trey"
.(b) (6)
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: An ed it of your column
Great. I will wait to hear back from your coauthor, too. Thanks!
Thank you,
Sabrina Ma lhi
Multiplatform Editor, Opinions
The Washington Post
(b) (6)
From: Jacob Haqq Misra

To: Malhi, Sabrina .(b) (6)
Cc: ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa .gov; (b) (6) (b) (6) Johnson, Trey
.(b) (6)
Subject: Re : An edit of your column
Looks good to me !
On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 3:33 PM Ma lhi, Sabrina .(b) (6) wrote :
Hi all ,
Below is an edit of your column. If you need to many any changes, please do so in red font. We
also need you all to confirm your bios.
Ravi Kopparapu is a planetary scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. Jacob
Haqq-Misra is a research scientist at the Blue Marble Space Institute of Science. [Is this
accurate?]
With a government report due in June on unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) and a recent
“60 Minutes” story on U.S. Navy pilots’ sightings and videos of mysterious images, prominent
people in politics, the military and national intelligence are finally asking: What are we looking
at?
It’s the wrong question — or, at least, it’s premature.
Before we get to what these mysterious phenomena are, we need to be asking how we can
figure out what they are. This is where scientists, notably absent from the current UAP
conversation, come in.
For too long, the scientific study of unidentified flying objects and aerial phenomena — UFOs
and UAPs, in the shorthand — has been taboo. A big driver of that taboo is the vacuum of
knowledge that is being filled by unscientific claims thanks to a lack of scientific investigation.
In recent decades, science has focused on aspects of extraterrestrial inquiry, including the
search for signs of life on other planets — think the Mars rover— and techno-signatures
[astrobiology.nasa.gov] — radio signals that appear to emanate from outside Earth.
across disciplines and all around the globe. The same should be true for the exploration of UAP
sightings. If we want to understand what UAP are, then we need to engage the mainstream
scientific community in a concerted effort to study them.
In the late 1960s, a U.S. Air Force-led effort called Project Blue Book examined thousands of
UFO reports from the 1950s and 1960s. In 1968, however, another report, commissioned by
the Air Force and conducted at the University of Colorado to examine UFO research to that
point, stated that [files.ncas.org] “nothing has come from the study of UFOs … that has added
to scientific knowledge.” Soon after, the Air Force shuttered Project Blue Book. About 700 of the
more than 12,000 cases remained “unidentified” at the close of the project.
Despite this, distinguished scientists including astronomer Carl Sagan, physicist James E.
McDonald and astronomer J. Allen Hynek thought UAP should be investigated
scientifically. McDonald, a professor of meteorology and member [physicstoday.scitation.org] of
the National Academy of Sciences, conducted a rigorous analysis of a few UAP cases
that Project Blue Book [archives.gov] highlighted as unexplainable.
McDonald documented his methods — extensive interviews with witnesses, detailed accounting
of their observations, examination of radar and other technology possibly implicated in the
sightings — in “Science in Default [kirkmcd.princeton.edu],” which he presented in a 1969
American Association for the Advancement of Science symposium. He relied on evidence-
based investigation and consideration of all the available data (rather than cherry-picking one
“Doesn’t a UFO case … warrant more than a mere shrug of the shoulders from science?” he
wrote.
We need to frame the current UAP/UFO question with the same level of active inquiry, one
involving experts from academia in disciplines including astronomy, meteorology and physics ,
as well as industry and government professionals w ith know ledge of mi litary aircraft, remote
sensing from the ground and satellite observations. Participants would need to be agnostic
toward any specific explanations w ith a primary goal of collecting enough data - including
visual, infrared , radar and other possible observations - to eventually allow us to deduce the
identity of such UAP. Following this agnostic approach , and relying upon sound scientific and
peer-reviewed methods, would go a long way toward lifting the taboo in mainstream science.
Without robust, cred ible data mined by mainstream scientists, UAP studies will always be
viewed as fringe science. With a systematic collection of new data, and access to all existing
data , we can apply scientific rigor to what has been observed and documented.
Ultimately, understanding UAP is a science problem. We should treat it that way .
The views expressed are the authors ' own.
Thank you,
Sabrina Malhi
Multiplatform Editor, Opinions
The Wash ington Post
(b) (6)
To: Deity. Mary-Bien
Subject: Be: [EXTERNAl] Here is our standard disclaimer language
Da te: Wednesday, May 26, 2021 6 :00:13 PM
Thanks!
From: "Dei ly, M ary-Ell en" .(b) (6)

To: " Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (G5FC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa .gov>
Subject: Re : [EXTERNA L] Here is our st andard discla imer language
Shoot. I thought I emai led . It 's online now

he re : htt ps: IIwww.wa shingtonpost .com/opi n i 0 ns/20 21/05/261 we-need-p ut-sci ence-cen ter-
ufo questionl
Image removed by sender.

Opinion I We need to put
science at the center of the
• UFO question - The

Washington Post
Ravi Kopparapu is a planetary scientist at
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.
Jacob Haqq -Misra is a research scientist
at the Blue Marble Space Institute of
l
Science. With a government report due
in .
www.washingtonpost.com
And, it w ill go in t omorrow's print edition too.

To: Deily, Mary-El len .(b) (6)
Subject: Re : [EXTERNAL) Here is our standard disclaimer language
Hi Mary-Ellen,
Any update on when the article might be published? NASA folks are asking me.
Thanks
Ravi
From: "Dei ly, Mary- Ell en" .(b) (6)

To: " Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa .gov>, "Haq q-M isra,
Jacob D. (GSFC-6062)[Science Collaborator]"
Subject: Re : [EXTE RNAL] Here is our st andard discla imer language
Hopefully, it w ill go on li ne lat er today. I'm not sure yet if it w ill make print for tomorrow. I' ll
keep you post ed .
From: Kopparapu, Ravi Kuma r (GSFC-6990] <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa .gov>

To: Deily, Mary-El len .(b) (6) Haqq-M isra, Jacob D. {GSFC-6062)[Science
Collaborator]
Subject: Re: [EXl'ERrWi
Sounds good!
Was asked when this will appear? {as in today or tomorrow morning, or evening?}
From: "Dei ly, Mary- Ellen" .(b) (6)

To: " Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>, "Haqq-M isra,
Jacob D. (GSFC-6062)[Science Collaborator]"
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Here is our standard disclaimer language
The views expressed are the aut hors' own .

From: Jacob Haoo Misra
To: DejIy, Mary-Ellen
C<, Kooparapu, Bay; KUmar (GSfC.§99!!l; Hagg;Misra Jacob 0, (GSfC§062HScieoce Co!!aboratod
Subject; [EXTERNAL] Re; Looks like lhe piece will be in lOIIIOr lOW"S pilpef, lOO
Great, thank you!
On Wed, May 26, 202 1 at 4 :49 PM Deily, Mary-Ellen . (b) (6)

wrote:
Your op-ed is onl ine now here: https:l!www.wasbjngtonpost.comlopjoionsI2021/OSI26/we-
need-put -science-ceo te ( -u fo-g u est jon I
And, my understand ing is that it's also scheduled t o run in tomorrow's paper,
Opinion I We need to put

science at the center of the
• UFO question - The

Washington Post
Ravi Kopparapu is a planetary scientist at
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. Jacob
Haqq-Misra is a research scientist at the Blue
Marble Space Institute of Sdence. With a
government report d~ In'""
wyrw.washiogtonpost.com
To: Malhi, Sabrina: Hagg-Mjsra, Jacob p , (GSEC-6C!62lfScjence Collaboratprl
C<co Joboson Trey
Subject: Be: [EXTERNAl] BE: An edit of your column
Date: Wednesday, May 26, 20218:19:23 PM
Thank you ,

To: "Koppa rapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa ,gov>, "Haqq-M isra,
Jacob D, (GSFC-6062)[Science Collaborator]"
Cc: "Johnson, Trey" .(b) (6)
Subject: Re : [EXTERNA L] RE: An ed it of your column
Hi Ravi,
Here is a link to the online

vers ion : hU ps'llwww wasbjngtonpost com/opjnjons/2021/05/26lwe need put scjence
cent er ufo quest ionl
The print copy is go ing t o be in the paper tomorrow,
From: Koppa rapu, Ravi Kumar {GSFC-6990] <ravikumar,kopparapu@nasa ,gov>

To: Malhi, Sabrina .(b) (6) Haqq-Misra, Jacob D, {GSFC-6062)[Science
Collaborator] {(j)W_
Cc: Johnson, Trey .(b) (6)
Subject: Re : [EXTERNAL] RE: An ed it of you r column
Hi Sabrina,
NASA folks are asking when this piece would come out. Wi ll it be today in the evening? Or
tomorrow?
Thanks
Ravi

To: " Haqq- Misra, Jacob D, (GSFC-6062)[Scien ce Collaborator]"
Cc: " Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar ,kopparapu@nasa,gov>,
(b) (6) .(b) (6) "Johnson, Trey"
.(b) (6)
Deletion Page


.-. .~ . --__ ._ ·~ ·· · ·~- ~ · il;m:"
Final article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/05/26/we-need-put-science-center-ufo-question/
In recent decades, science has focused on aspects of extraterrestrial inquiry, including the
search for signs of life on other planets — think the Mars rover— and techno-signatures —
radio signals that appear to emanate from outside Earth.
across disciplines and all around the globe. The same should be true for the exploration of
UAP sightings. If we want to understand what UAP are, then we need to engage the
mainstream scientific community in a concerted effort to study them.
Hi Ravi,
Thanks for sending the link.
Thanks,
Nancy
--
Nancy Neal Jones

Hi Nancy,
Apparently it is online now:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/05/26/we-need-put-science-center-
ufo-question/

Thanks Ravi.
--
Nancy Neal Jones

Not from the previous one. Let me ask again.

Hi Ravi,
Has the contact given you an update?
Thanks,
Nancy
--
Nancy Neal Jones

HI Nancy,
I got this reply:
Hopefully, it will go online later today. I'm not sure yet if it will make print for tomorrow. I'll
keep you posted.
I can ask for specifics more.

Hi Ravi,
Can you send a quick note to your WP contact to verify that the op-ed will go online tomorrow
morning? We know that it will be in tomorrow’s printed paper, but will it be online early?
Thanks.
Nancy
Nancy Neal Jones

From: "Kopparapu , Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>

Subject: Re: i Post article draft
Deletion Page


From: Kooparapu Bavi Kumar (GSEC-699Q)
To: Jones,Nancy N, (GSFC-l3Ml
Date: Thursday, May 27, 20219:43:02 AM
Hi Nancy,
Sure, so fa r none,
Thanks
Ravi
From: "Jones, Nancy N, (GSFC-1300)" <nancy,n,jones@nasa,gov>

To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar,kopparapu@nasa ,gov>
Hi Ravi,
If you get media inqu ir ies, please notify me before doing interviews,
Thanks,
Nancy
Nancy Neal Jones

Nancy,N,Jones@nasa,gov
From: "Kopparapu , Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar,kopparapu@nasa,gov>

To: "Nancy N, Jones" <nancy,n,jones@nasa,gov>
Deletion Page


From: Shekhtman Lonnie (GSFC-690.0)[ADNET SYSTEMS INC]
To: Kopparapu Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] NASA Morning Briefing for Thursday, May 27, 2021
It’s the daily NASA-related headlines email that goes out to all comms and probably senior leadership.
--
Lonnie Shekhtman
301-614-6833

Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] NASA Morning Briefing for Thursday, May 27, 2021
Oh nice…Not sure what is this, but good. I hope it will make people think a bit on this.
From: "Shekhtman, Lonnie (GSFC-690.0)[ADNET SYSTEMS INC]" <lonnie.shekhtman@nasa.gov>

Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] NASA Morning Briefing for Thursday, May 27, 2021
In the Top Story list below …
--
Lonnie Shekhtman
301-614-6833
From: Bulletin Intelligence <nasa@BulletinIntelligence.com>

To: "nasa@BulletinIntelligence.com" <nasa@BulletinIntelligence.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] NASA Morning Briefing for Thursday, May 27, 2021
Click to access iPhone-optimized online version, download options, archive and an audio reader.
mage removed by sender. NASA Morni ng Briefing
Thursd;:ty, MCly 27, 2021 7:00 AM EDT
Editor's Note
To s ubscribe or unsubscribe, ple ase vi sit: htto:/loasa,bulletiojnte!ljoeoce.oom/sybsqibe. A NASA email

address lS required.
Today's Table of Contents

Top Stories
• NASA Tests TechnlQIJPs For X - 59 low- Boom Flights (Avlatjon Week)
• Intervjew Wi th NASA Admln jstrator On Cljmate Ch ange (Spectrum News J 3)
• NASA Industry Face Challenges 10 Free Elver Development (Av iation Week)
• tJ 5 Firms GM , l ockh eed Aim For The Moon With luoar Rover Ven ture (Reu t ers)
• Capital Calls: Jeff Bezos And Elon Musk's p,c. Space Battle (Reuters)
• Opinion: We Need To put Scien ce A t The Cen t er Of The UFO Question (Washingto n post>
• SotarWjn ds Hack 'A Big Wakeup Call.' NASA's Human Spaceflight Chief Says (SPACE)
Flight
• NASA Tests Techniques For X-59 Low-Boom Flights (Aviation Week)
• Watch NASA Prepare For Our Flying-car Future (Mashable)
Earth
• Interview With NASA Administrator On Climate Change (Spectrum News 13)
• Lunar Eclipse: Photos Of The Super Flower Blood Moon May 26 (Florida Today)
• Total Lunar Eclipse Turns Moon Red: Relive The ‘Super Flower Blood Moon’ (CNET News)
• Stunning Lunar Eclipse Photos And Videos Show 2021 Supermoon (Newsweek)
• Rare “Super Flower Blood Moon” Lunar Eclipse Captured In Stunning Photos From Around The
World (CBS News)
• Blood Moon Lunar Eclipse Enthralls Viewers (Fox News)
• Rising Global Temperatures ‘Inexorably Closer’ To Climate Tipping Point (Reuters)
• NASA To Design New ‘Earth System Observatory’ As Part Of National Push Against Climate
Change (SPACE)
Humans in Space
• NASA, Industry Face Challenges In Free Flyer Development (Aviation Week)
• This Is What It’s Like To Walk In Space (CNN)
• The Astronauts On Challenger Made Up The Perfect Crew (Air & Space Smithsonian Magazine)
• NASA Is Sending A Batch Of Adorable Squids To The Space Station (SlashGear)
• ISS Astronaut Snaps Super Flower Blood Moon And Lunar Eclipse From Orbit (CNET News)
• Astronauts On Set: Space Station May Host Wave Of TV Shows And Films (New York Times)
• SpaceX Cargo Mission To Carry Water Bears, Baby Squids To Space Station (UPI)
• NASA Astronaut Peggy Whitson Joining Private Mission To ISS (KTLA-TV Los Angeles)
Moon to Mars
• U.S Firms GM, Lockheed Aim For The Moon With Lunar Rover Venture (Reuters)
• Lockheed Martin And GM Are Working On An Electric Moon Buggy (The Verge)
• Lockheed Martin And GM Partner To Develop New Moon Buggy For NASA Astronauts And Cargo
(CNBC)
• GM And Lockheed Martin Are Making A Self-driving Moon Buggy For NASA (SlashGear)
• Lockheed Martin And GM Partner Up To Build Next-gen Lunar Rover (New Atlas)
• Lockheed Martin And GM Planning Self-Driving Rovers For NASA’s Return To The Moon (Forbes)
• Lockheed, General Motors Team Up On Lunar Rover Plan (UPI)
• GM, Lockheed Team Up On Potential New-Era Moon Rover For NASA (Bloomberg)
• GM, Lockheed Martin Developing A Next-generation Lunar Rover (NBC News)
• Lockheed Martin, GM Team Up To Build New Astronaut Moon Buggy (SPACE)
• GM’s Newest Vehicle: Off-road, Self-driving Rover For Moon (AP)
• GM Joins Lockheed Martin To Design A Moon Buggy For NASA Astronauts (CNET News)
• NASA’s VIPER Rover To Look For Water, Resources On Moon (Fox News)
• ‘Marscapes’ Plans Landscape Art Of Red Planet In Kickstarter Project (SPACE)
• Op-Ed | Artemis 2026: Celebrating America’s 250th With The Next Humans On The Moon (Space
News)
• Hawley, Sanders Decry $10B ‘Bailout’ To Jeff Bezos Tucked Into Bill To Rebuff China (Fox
Business)
• Capital Calls: Jeff Bezos And Elon Musk’s D.C. Space Battle (Reuters)
• Bernie Sanders Is Fighting A Massive ‘Bailout’ To Jeff Bezos’ Space Company (Vice)
• South Korea Is The Latest Nation To Join NASA’s Artemis Accords (SlashGear)
• NASA’s Artemis Mission (WESH-TV Orlando)
• China’s First Mars Rover Is Finally Cruising (BGR)
Solar System and Beyond
• Black Holes, Alien s, Multi verse & Mars: Space TED Talks You Need To Watch (SPACE)
• Jupiter's Ocean Moon Europa May Have Deep sea Vo lca noes (SPACE)
• Europa May Have Active Volcanoes On Its Ocean Floor (SlashGear)
Space Tech
• Russia To La unch Nuclear powered Spaceship To T he Moon , On 10 Venus, The n Ju piter (The Hill)
various
• Opin io n ' We Need To Put Scjence At The Cen ter Of The llEO O!!estion (Washington Post)
• SolarWinds Hack 'A Big Wakeup Call.' NASA's H uman Spaceflight Chie f Says (SPACE)
• New Documentary Explores 'Star T re k ,' Nichelle Nichols And NASA's 197Qs Ast ronaut Search
(SPACE)
• Nichelle Nichols' New NASA Documentary Is Rom a ntic And Unfli nching (09)
• NASA projects Over Budget And Beh ind Schedule, Accordi ng To GAO Report (Florida Today)
• f alcon 9 Completes Its 100th Successful f lig ht In A Row [ Updated] (Ars Technica l
• SpaceX I s About To Hit A Ridiculous Mi lestone (BGR)
• SpaceX Bo lsters Starlink Network With 60 More Satellites (Aviation Week)
• SpaceX Launches More Starlink Satellites As Orders Reach Ha lf A Mill ion (Florida Today )
• SpaceX Launches And Lands Falcon 9 Rocke t For 85th Time (Bloomberg)
• Viasat Threatens To Sue FCC Over SpaceX's Stadin k plan ([ aw360)
• I s SpaceX's Starlink Mega Constellation A n En viron m e ntal prob lem:> T he FCC Says 'No' (fortes)
• Starljnk Vl 0 I 28 Mission Completes First ~Shel" Of Satellites For Worldwide Coverage (NASA
Space Flight)
• Ell Court Rejects OHB Bid To Suspend Europea n Space Agencv Decjsio ns (Reuters)
• Editorial ' f lig ht puts Virqin NM In Space Race (Albuguerque Journal)
Top Stories
NASA Tests Te c hniques For X-59 Low-Boom Flights
Aviation Week (5/26) ~Validt n g t he q uiet supersonic performance of NASA's X- 59 QueSST low-
boom flig ht dem o nstrator will requi re precise m easu r ement of the shock waves generated by t he
aircraft and how t hey propagate t hroug h t h e atmosphere to t he ground, To t hat end, t he agen cy
has flight tested a visual naviga t ion .. ,"
Interview With NASA Administrator On Climate Change

Spectrum News 13 (ELlo (5/26) ~NAS is all abou t space exploration, But now its mission is
expanding to tackle a growing problem on our planet , Spectrum News 13's Samantha Joe Roth
speaks w ith NASA's new admi nistrato r about how t he agency plans to tack le climate change,"
NASA, Industry Face Challenges In Free Flyer Development

Aviation Week (5/26) ~Question surround NASA's strategy for t ra nsit ioni ng h uman activities in
low Earth ortit f ro m t he aging Interna tional Space St at ion ( I SS) to multiple commercial !Tee flyers,
with potential industry partners curious about t he agency's fu nding commitment, NASA plans a
two-phase, multiyear effort to","
U,S Firms GM , Loc kheed Aim For The Moon With Lunar Rover Venture
Reuters (5/26, Staff) ~U,S fi rms General Motors (GM) and Lockh eed Martin Corp will develop a
vehicle to drive NASA astronauts arou nd on t he moon's surface, th ey said on Wednesday,
competing for a space proj ect that could also promo te t heir brands on earth. GM and Lockheed
said they would collaborate to make a battery - powered, autonomous Lunar Terrain Vehicle for
NASA's Artemis lu nar landi ng program, which aims to return U.S. astronauts to the moon as early
as 2024."
Capital Calls: Jeff Bezos And Elan Musk's D.C. Space Battle
Re u ters (5/26) ~COUNTDW. A fight bet ween Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos over whose rocket firm
will dominate t he space race is about egos as big as t h e universe . Bu t a battle in Washing ton, D.C.
over funding for the Nation al Aeronau t ics and Space Administration shows the contes t centers just
as much on earthly influence. NASA wan t s to go to the moon by 2024, and Musk's SpaceX and
Bezos' Bl ue Origin both though t t hey would win fundi ng to do so. But in April, the agency made a
surprise decision to pick only SpaceX, citing a budget shortfall and technical factors. Blue Origin
challenged t he choice as unfair and risky."
Opinion: We Need To Put Science At The Center Of The UFO Question

Washington post (5/26) ~Ravi Kopparapu is a planetary scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight
Center. Jacob Haqq - Misra is a research scientist at t he Blue Marble Space Instit ute of Science.
With a government report due in June on unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) and a recen t '60
Minutes' story on U.s. Navy pilots' sightings and videos of mysterious images, prominent people in
politics, t he military and national intelligence are fi nally asking: Wh at are we looking at?"
SolarWinds Hack 'A Big Wakeup Call,' NASA's Human Spaceflight Chief Says
S£ACE (5/26, Wall) ~The effects of the SolarWinds hack extend out into the fi na l frontier. I n
December 2020, news broke that a cyberattack had breached the defenses of the U.S. Treasury
Department and one branch of the Department of Commerce . ... T hat same month , T he
Washington Post reported t hat NASA was one of those nine infiltrated agencies. NASA leaders
know tha t t he space agency, with its huge stores of advanced technical data, is an inviting target
fo r hackers and therefore ta ke significant measures to head t hem off. Even st ill it was
compromised, and tha t shook the agency up."
Flight
NASA Tests Techniques For X-59 Low-Boom Flights

Av iation Week (5/26) ~Validtng the quiet supersonic performance of NASA's X- 59 QueSST low-
boom flight demonstrator will require precise measuremen t of t he shock waves generated by t he
aircraft and how t hey propagate t hroug h the atmosphere to t he ground. To that end, the agency
has flight tested a visual navigation ... "
Watch NASA Prepare For Our Flying-car Future

Mashable (5/26, Lekach) ~Instead of taking a bus or train t o work, what abou t a flyi ng car? A Nova
TV special, The Great Electric Airplane Race, airing Wednesday night on PBS, explores the
possibility of u sing autonomous, battery- powered flight for commuting or taxi trips. As part of his
research into electric flight, reporter Miles O'Brien visi ted NASA's Ames Research Center and
hopped into its 10-story vertical motion simulator to see what it would be li ke to fly around San
Fra ncisco in one of these vehicles. "
Earth
Interview With NASA Administrator On Climate Change

Spectrum News 13 CEllO (5/26) ~NAS is all abou t space exploration . But now its mission is
expanding to tackle a growing problem on our planet. Spectrum News 13’s Samantha Joe Roth
speaks with NASA’s new administrator about how the agency plans to tackle climate change.”
Lunar Eclipse: Photos Of The Super Flower Blood Moon May 26

Florida Today (5/26, Rice) “Sky watchers in some parts of the country witnessed one of the
greatest sky spectacles of the year Wednesday morning as a full moon, supermoon and lunar
eclipse happened at the same time, creating the super flower blood moon. ... ‘Because the orbit of
the moon is not a perfect circle, the moon is sometimes closer to the Earth than at other times
during its orbit,’ according to NASA.”
Total Lunar Eclipse Turns Moon Red: Relive The ‘Super Flower Blood Moon’
CNET News (5/26, Kooser) “A total lunar eclipse turned our celestial neighbor a rusty red on May
26. If you were in Africa or Europe, or simply slept through the show, you can still enjoy the
images and livestream reruns of the ‘super flower blood moon’ and its lovely lava-like color. ... The
astronauts on the International Space Station got a look at the supermoon and the eclipse from
their vantage point in orbit around Earth. And photographers down on Earth also snapped some
stunners.”
Stunning Lunar Eclipse Photos And Videos Show 2021 Supermoon

Newsweek (5/26, Palmer) “Images and videos have been shared online of the rare ‘Super Flower
Blood Moon’ which is appearing in the night sky this week. ... The Earth’s atmosphere then filters
the light as it passes, giving the moon a dark reddish glow. According to NASA, the more dust or
clouds in Earth’s atmosphere there are during the eclipse, the redder the moon will appear.”
Rare “Super Flower Blood Moon” Lunar Eclipse Captured In Stunning Photos From Around
The World
CBS News (5/26, Lewis) “Skywatchers around the world were treated to the most spectacular full
moon of the year in the early morning hours on Wednesday. May 26 marked not just a
supermoon, but also a lunar eclipse, or so-called ‘blood moon.’ According to NASA, a blood moon
occurs during a total lunar eclipse, when the Earth is positioned directly between the moon and
the sun. Earth’s atmosphere filters the sunlight, scattering blue light but allowing red light to pass
through.”
Blood Moon Lunar Eclipse Enthralls Viewers

Fox News (5/26, Musto) “A super ‘Blood Moon’ captured the attention of viewers across the world
on Wednesday. ... According to NASA, the Blood Moon occurs during a total lunar eclipse when the
Earth aligns itself between the moon and the sun.”
Rising Global Temperatures ‘Inexorably Closer’ To Climate Tipping Point

Reuters (5/26, Januta) “There is now a 40% chance that global temperatures will temporarily
reach 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels in the next five years – and these odds are
rising, a U.N. report said on Wednesday. ... The WMO uses temperature data from multiple
sources including NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).”
NASA To Design New ‘Earth System Observatory’ As Part Of National Push Against Climate
Change
SPACE (5/26, Gohd) “NASA will design new, Earth-focused missions to support our growing
understanding of climate change and provide important information to those on Earth impacted by
its effects, the agency announced May 24 as part of a new Biden administration plan to ‘enhance
climate resilience.’ The Biden administration, prior to meeting with climate and homeland security
team members on May 24, announced earlier that day in a White House release that it will support
the development of NASA’s new ‘Earth System Observatory’ — a series of next-generation climate
data systems that will be used to better track climate change and its impact on communities
around the world.”
Humans in Space
NASA, Industry Face Challenges In Free Flyer Development

Aviation Week (5/26) “Questions surround NASA’s strategy for transitioning human activities in
low Earth orbit from the aging International Space Station (ISS) to multiple commercial free flyers,
with potential industry partners curious about the agency’s funding commitment. NASA plans a
two-phase, multiyear effort to...”
This Is What It’s Like To Walk In Space

CNN (5/26, Strickland) “When astronauts venture outside of the International Space Station to go
on spacewalks, the most important thing they have to do is focus. This may sound simple, but
imagine trying to focus on a memorized set of tasks while stepping out of an airlock and wearing a
300-pound spacesuit – with the glow of planet Earth and the sun and the dark void of the universe
all around you. A tether connects you to the space station, and the absence of gravity keeps you
from falling.”
The Astronauts On Challenger Made Up The Perfect Crew

Air & Space Smithsonian Magazine (5/26, Tedeschi) “On the morning of January 28, 1986, NASA
launched the space shuttle Challenger from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The crew
included the first Jewish astronaut, the second Black astronaut, and NASA’s first Teacher in Space,
Christa McAuliffe. In his latest book, The Burning Blue, Kevin Cook documents the crew’s many
achievements—and the flawed decision-making that led to their deaths. Cook spoke with Air &
Space senior associate editor Diane Tedeschi in April.”
NASA Is Sending A Batch Of Adorable Squids To The Space Station

SlashGear (5/26, Roston) “Early next month, NASA will load a bunch of scientific experiments onto
a cargo capsule destined for the International Space Station. One of these experiments involves a
bunch of tiny, adorable squids. According to the space agency, the critters will be part of an
experiment on the effects of spaceflight on beneficial microbes and their interactions with their
hosts.”
ISS Astronaut Snaps Super Flower Blood Moon And Lunar Eclipse From Orbit
CNET News (5/26, Kooser) “Life is a little different on the International Space Station. The
residents see 16 sunrises and 16 sunsets every day, and there are no pesky clouds to get in the
way of their moon views. Astronaut Akihiko Hoshide captured scenic views of the May 26
supermoon and lunar eclipse from orbit. Hoshide is with the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency
(JAXA) and is part of the SpaceX Crew-2 mission that arrived at the ISS in April.”
Astronauts On Set: Space Station May Host Wave Of TV Shows And Films
New York Times (5/26, Chang) “Who wants to be an astronaut? If the answer is you, there’s a
reality TV show, appropriately titled ‘Who Wants to Be an Astronaut?,’ that you ought to apply for.
The Discovery Channel is seeking to cast about 10 would-be astronauts to compete during the
series’s eight-episode run next year for a seat on a real-life trip to the International Space Station,
followed by live coverage of the launch of the winner on a SpaceX rocket.”
SpaceX Cargo Mission To Carry Water Bears, Baby Squids To Space Station
~ (5/26, Hays) ~SpaceX's 22nd cargo resup ply mission, slated to launch no earlier than June 3,
will see several unique scien ce experiments - involving water bears, baby squids and kidney
stones - ferried t o the International Space Station. Like so many experiments before them, the
bulk of the experimental setups being carried aboard SpaceX CRS - 22 are designed to illuminate
the health risks facing as t ronauts."
NASA Astronaut Peggy Whitson Joining Private Mission To ISS

KTI A TV I os AngelesD (5/26) "Re ti red NASA astronaut Peggy Whitson is dusting off her spacesuit
for another trip to space. But this time, she's flying private."
Moon to Mars
u.S Firms GM , Lockheed Aim For The Moon With Lunar Rover Venture
Reuters (5/26, Staff) ~U.S f irms General Motors (GM) and Lockh eed Martin Corp will develop a
vehicle to drive NASA astronauts around on the moon 's surface, they said on Wednesday,
competing for a space proj ect tha t could also promo te t heir brands on earth. GM and Lockheed
said they would collaborate to m ake a battery -powered, autonomous Lunar Terrain Vehicle for
NASA's Artemis lunar landing program, which aims to r eturn U.S. as t ronauts to the moon as ear ly
as 2024."
Lockheed Martin And GM Are Working On An Electric Moon Buggy

The Verge (5/26, Roulette) ~Lockhed Martin and General Motors unveiled plans o n Wednesday to
build an autonomous buggy-like veh icle that future as t ronauts can use to zip a rou nd the surface of
the Moon. The two companies collaborated to pitch a conceptual Lunar Terrain Vehicle to NASA's
Artemis program, a Moon exploration campaign that calls for various robo ts, vehicles, and
scientific bases to be plan t ed on t h e lunar surface wit hin the next decade."
Lockheed Martin And GM Partner To Develop New Moon Buggy For NASA Astronauts And
Cargo
c.t:iBC. (5/26, Sheetz) ~ L ockhed Martin and General Motors are partnering to develop a new type
of lunar vehicle fo r NASA to use during its upcoming Artemis m issions t o the moon, the companies
ann ounced Wednesday. 'Surface m obili t y is cri t ical to enable and sustain long - term exploration of
the lu nar surface. These next-generation rovers will dram atically ex tend the range of astronauts:
Lockheed Martin executive vice presiden t Rick Ambrose said in a statemen t ."
GM And Lockheed Martin Are Making A Self-driving Moon Buggy For NASA
SlashGear (5/26, Davies) ~NAS's astronau ts need a new Moon ride, and GM and Lockheed Martin
a re aim ing to hand t hem the keys to not just one bu t a whole fresh gen eration of lunar vehicles.
The Lunar Terrain Vehicle, or LTV, is t he first of a series o f e lect ric t ransporta t ion options w h ich
NASA has put the call out fo r, as it tries to r eplicate the success of the commercial crew program
for a new Moon rover."
Lockheed Martin And GM Partner Up To Build Next-gen Lunar Rover

New Atlas (5/27, Szondy) ~Lockhed Martin and General Motors are teaming up t o develop a next-
generation rover for NASA's Artemis program. Called the Lu nar Terrain Vehicle (LTV), it will not
only carry astronauts about, but will also operate autonomously. The 1972 Apollo 17 mission was
not only the last t ime astronauts walked o n t he Moon, bu t also the last time they drove on it.
Among the equipment packed in Cernan and Sch mitt's Lunar Modu le was a 460- lb (260 - kg)
electric -powered Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV) of a type that f irst flew on Apollo 15. Able to t rave l at
a blistering 11.2 mph (18.0 km/h), it carried the astronauts up to 4.7 miles (7.6 km) from the
landing site – allowing them to explore much more of the area.”
Lockheed Martin And GM Planning Self-Driving Rovers For NASA’s Return To The Moon
Forbes (5/26, Reimann) “General Motors and aerospace giant Lockheed Martin are teaming up to
develop new lunar vehicles that astronauts will use on NASA’s upcoming missions to the Moon, the
companies announced Wednesday, as the two push to join Elon Musk’s SpaceX as industry
partners to bring humans back to the Moon in the next few years.”
Lockheed, General Motors Team Up On Lunar Rover Plan

UPI (5/26, Brinkmann) “Two American corporate giants, defense firm Lockheed Martin and
automaker General Motors, will develop new lunar rovers for upcoming moon missions, the
companies announced Wednesday. Lockheed and GM plan a fleet of robotic and piloted rovers,
which would move farther than Apollo’s three so-called moon buggies, according to a news
release. The farthest distance an Apollo rover traveled was about 4.7 miles from the landing site.”
GM, Lockheed Team Up On Potential New-Era Moon Rover For NASA

Bloomberg (5/26, Bachman) “General Motors Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp. are teaming up to
develop a new lunar rover for the next time NASA has astronauts motoring around the moon. The
Lunar Terrain Vehicle will be designed to travel farther than the Apollo-era rovers, which drove 4.7
miles (7.6 kilometers) from the landing site, GM and Lockheed said Wednesday. While NASA
hasn’t announced a contract for a lunar rover, a formal request for proposals could come later this
year despite uncertainty about the timing and funding of the next moon mission.”
GM, Lockheed Martin Developing A Next-generation Lunar Rover

NBC News (5/26, Chow) “General Motors and the aerospace firm Lockheed Martin are teaming up
to develop a next-generation lunar rover that NASA astronauts could use on future missions to
explore the moon, the two companies announced Wednesday. The planned vehicle is expected to
be part of the companies’ efforts to bid on a contract under NASA’s Artemis program, which aims
to return astronauts to the moon by 2024.”
Lockheed Martin, GM Team Up To Build New Astronaut Moon Buggy

SPACE (5/26, Wall) “Two titans of industry are teaming up to build an astronaut car for the moon.
Lockheed Martin and GM announced today (May 26) that they’re developing a crewed lunar rover
for potential use by NASA’s Artemis program, which aims to establish a sustainable human
presence on and around the moon by the end of the decade.”
GM’s Newest Vehicle: Off-road, Self-driving Rover For Moon

AP (5/26, Dunn) “General Motors is teaming up with Lockheed Martin to produce the ultimate off-
road, self-driving, electric vehicles — for the moon. The project announced Wednesday is still in
the early stages and has yet to score any NASA money. But the goal is to design light yet rugged
vehicles that will travel farther and faster than the lunar rovers that carried NASA’s Apollo
astronauts in the early 1970s, the companies said.”
GM Joins Lockheed Martin To Design A Moon Buggy For NASA Astronauts

CNET News (5/26, Mack) “General Motors says it aims to help NASA bring electric and autonomous
vehicles to the moon this decade to allow Artemis astronauts to zip around the lunar surface. The
legacy car company announced Wednesday that it’s teaming up with longtime NASA contractor
Lockheed Martin to develop new moon buggies.”
NASA’s VIPER Rover To Look For Water, Resources On Moon
Fox News (5/26, Musto) “NASA’s ambitious lunar program Artemis will send the agency’s first
mobile robot to the moon in late 2023. The Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover, also
known as VIPER, would search the planet for ice and other resources on and below its surface that
could potentially be harvested for long-term exploration in the future.”
‘Marscapes’ Plans Landscape Art Of Red Planet In Kickstarter Project

SPACE (5/26, Howell) “A new art project on Kickstarter offers backers the chance to gain ‘raised
landscapes’ of Mars in celebration of the Mariner 9 spacecraft’s 50th anniversary. ... Mariner 9
made it to the Red Planet on Nov. 14, 1971 to do NASA’s first orbital mapping of Mars. To
scientists’ surprise, the spacecraft arrived in the middle of a dust storm — showing that the planet
was not a moon-like quiet desert, as previous flybys hinted. After the regolith subsided, Mariner 9
spotted several volcanoes (including the Arizona-sized Olympus Mons) along with a gigantic gulley
system (now called Valles Marineris) that dwarfs the Grand Canyon on Earth.”
Op-Ed | Artemis 2026: Celebrating America’s 250th With The Next Humans On The Moon
Space News (5/26, Bender) “On July 4, 2026, the United States will celebrate the 250th
anniversary of its independence. America should commemorate this historical milestone in 2026
by landing humans on the moon for the first time since 1972. Sending humanity back to the moon
in 2026 is not only technically feasible, but it also fits squarely in the projected timeline for NASA’s
already existing plan to return astronauts to the lunar surface — the Artemis program.”
Hawley, Sanders Decry $10B ‘Bailout’ To Jeff Bezos Tucked Into Bill To Rebuff China
Fox Business (5/26) “Former Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman (I) provides insight into the
Senate Republicans proposing a counteroffer on Biden’s infrastructure plan. Sens. Josh Hawley and
Bernie Sanders are speaking out against a $10 billion corporate ‘bailout’ to Blue Origin, a space
flight company founded by Amazon’s Jeff Bezos. ... The amendment would come after the
company lost out on a multibillion-dollar NASA contract to SpaceX, run by Elon Musk. It would
provide additional funding for NASA to carry out the Human Landing System program, and direct
NASA to have two lander programs, giving Blue Origin another shot.”
Capital Calls: Jeff Bezos And Elon Musk’s D.C. Space Battle
Reuters (5/26) “COUNTDOWN. A fight between Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos over whose rocket firm
will dominate the space race is about egos as big as the universe. But a battle in Washington, D.C.
over funding for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration shows the contest centers just
as much on earthly influence. NASA wants to go to the moon by 2024, and Musk’s SpaceX and
Bezos’ Blue Origin both thought they would win funding to do so. But in April, the agency made a
surprise decision to pick only SpaceX, citing a budget shortfall and technical factors. Blue Origin
challenged the choice as unfair and risky.”
Bernie Sanders Is Fighting A Massive ‘Bailout’ To Jeff Bezos’ Space Company

Vice (5/26, Ferreira) “The icy rivalry between space companies SpaceX and Blue Origin, which are
owned respectively by billionaires Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, has now spilled into the US Senate.
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) introduced an amendment to a funding bill on Monday
seeking to stop a plan to secure $10 billion in government funding, some of which would likely go
to Blue Origin to provide redundancy for a project contracted to SpaceX last month. Sanders called
the funding ‘the multibillion dollar Bezos Bailout’ in his amendment. Though Musk and Bezos have
traded personal taunts before, their feud has been amplified since April by NASA’s decision to
award SpaceX a prestigious $2.9 billion contract to build a ‘human landing system’ for the Artemis
program, which aims to return astronauts to the surface of the Moon this decade.”
South Korea Is The Latest Nation To Join NASA's Artemis Accords
SlashGea r (5/26, Rost on) "NASA has announced that Sou t h Korea is now a m ong t he countries that
have sig ned t he Artemis Accords, j oining other n ations like t he UK, UAE, Japan, Canada, Aust ralia,
and more. The Artemis Acco rds set forth a series of p rinciples that the countries will follow,
including everything fro m the public release of data to t he safe a n d peaceful exploration of ou r
Moon. "
NASA's Artemis Mission

WESH ]V Orlando CEllO (5/26) "NASA sent astronauts t o the moon with the Apollo prog ram an d
now we are going back with A rt emis. This prog ram will explore parts of the moon we've never
been to before."
China's First Mars Rover Is Finally Cruising

lliiR (5/26, Wehner) "On the list of big surprises in space science over t he past decade, the fact
that Chin a has rapidly become one o f th e m ajor players in space exploration has to be near the
top. The country, which watched fo r decades as the Unit ed States, Russia (and form erl y, t he
Soviet Union), a nd European countr ies launched ever more advanced orbiters, landers, and rove rs,
has caught up to and in some cases surpassed its peers by completing some very difficult
missions. The latest happens to be on Ma rs, whe re the Ch ina Nat ional Space Admi n istr ation sen t a
trio of high - tech machines last year."
Black Holes, Aliens, Multiverse & Mars: Space TED Talks You Need To Watch
~ (5/26, Plu mmer) "Th is enlightening talk cen t e rs o n ou r o ldest cosmic neighbors, as t eroids,
and thei r importance to us here on Earth. Not only can as te r o ids shed light on the beginnings of
the solar system, t hey also pose a m assive risk to ou r safety . .. . Carr ie Nugent is part of the team
that u ses NASA's NEOWISE telescope, a very valuable telescope that was pulled ou t of re tiremen t
and reprogra m med to search the skies fo r as t eroids and catalog them."
Jupiter's Ocean Moon Europa May Have Deep-sea Volcanoes

~ (5/26, Wall) "The Jupiter m oon Europa m ay be an even more promising abode for life t h an
scientists had thought ... . In a decade or so, researche rs should be able to tes t a n d supplement
such Eu ropa m odeling work with a wealth o f new data, t hanks to NASA's Europa Clipper m ission ."
Europa May Have Active Volcanoes On Its Ocean Floor

SlashGea r (5/26, McGlaun) "One of the more interesting obj ects in the solar syst e m , when it
co m es t o searching fo r the potential for extraterr estrial life, is Ju piter's moon Europa. On the
surface, Europa looks like a giant frozen eyeball cove red in veins. It's hard to imagine activi ty
under tha t frozen surface, but scientists believe that the rock y layer undemeath t hat frozen
surface could be hot e n o ugh to melt, creating undersea volcanoes. NASA scientists have
conducted new research and computer m odeling ind icat ing volcanic activity m ay have occu rred on
the seafloor of Europa in the recent pas t and could be happening still."
Space Tech
Russia To Launch Nuclear-powered Spaceship To The Moon, On To Venus, Then Jupiter

T he Hill (5/26, Srikanth) "More than half a cent u ry after NASA successfully sent the world's first
nuclear reactor into orbi t , Russia is moving forwa rd with plans to laun ch a nuclear- powered
spaceship into space. It’ll take quite the spacecraft to travel from the Moon to Venus and then
Jupiter over 50 months in deep space. Russia’s space agency thinks their nuclear-powered
transport and energy module will do it in 2030, reported TASS, the Russian News Agency.”
Various
Opinion: We Need To Put Science At The Center Of The UFO Question

Washington Post (5/26) “Ravi Kopparapu is a planetary scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight
Center. Jacob Haqq-Misra is a research scientist at the Blue Marble Space Institute of Science.
With a government report due in June on unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) and a recent ‘60
Minutes’ story on U.S. Navy pilots’ sightings and videos of mysterious images, prominent people in
politics, the military and national intelligence are finally asking: What are we looking at?”
SolarWinds Hack ‘A Big Wakeup Call,’ NASA’s Human Spaceflight Chief Says
SPACE (5/26, Wall) “The effects of the SolarWinds hack extend out into the final frontier. In
December 2020, news broke that a cyberattack had breached the defenses of the U.S. Treasury
Department and one branch of the Department of Commerce. ... That same month, The
Washington Post reported that NASA was one of those nine infiltrated agencies. NASA leaders
know that the space agency, with its huge stores of advanced technical data, is an inviting target
for hackers and therefore take significant measures to head them off. Even still it was
compromised, and that shook the agency up.”
New Documentary Explores ‘Star Trek,’ Nichelle Nichols And NASA’s 1970s Astronaut
Search
SPACE (5/26, Howell) “In the 1970s, ‘Star Trek’ actor Nichelle Nichols saw an astronaut corps
lacking in diversity and did what she could to change it. The story of how Nichols went about it –
and the various people she inspired – is told in the new documentary ‘Woman In Motion: Nichelle
Nichols, Star Trek and the Remaking of NASA.’”
Nichelle Nichols’ New NASA Documentary Is Romantic And Unflinching

io9 (5/26) “Early on in the new documentary Woman in Motion, Star Trek legend Nichelle Nichols
discusses the idea of the blurred lines between the fantastical and the real in her job as Lieutenant
Uhura, a character in equal parts history-making and yet also held back by the harsh realities of
the era her character was made in. The documentary itself, going far beyond that 23rd century
future and all the way back into our own history, is a similar adventure. Directed by The
Highwaymen’s Todd Thompson—and now coming to Paramount+ after a limited theatrical debut
earlier this year—Woman in Motion: Nichelle Nichols, Star Trek and the Remaking of NASA
showcases a fascinating balancing act.”
NASA Projects Over Budget And Behind Schedule, According To GAO Report
Florida Today (5/26, McCarthy) “NASA major projects continue to be behind schedule and over
budget, according to a new report from the Government Accountability Office. This is the fifth
consecutive year of cost overruns and lagging production, the report says.”
Other
Falcon 9 Completes Its 100th Successful Flight In A Row [Updated]

Ars Technica (5/26, Berger) “Update, 3:30 pm EDT: Under bright blue skies, the Falcon 9 rocket
took off from Florida on Wednesday afternoon and promptly delivered its Starlink payload into
orbit. This booster has truly become the workhorse of the global launch industry:”
SpaceX Is About To Hit A Ridiculous Milestone
BGR (5/26, Wehner) “If it seems like SpaceX launches have gotten a bit, well, boring lately it’s
probably because so many of them go off without a hitch. Sure, the SpaceX Starship prototypes
have been having a rough go of things, but the Falcon 9 is so reliable at this point that launches
come and go without much fanfare. In fact, the SpaceX Starlink launch that is scheduled to take
place today, May 26th, 2021, will be the 100th consecutive successful Falcon 9 launch, assuming
all goes as planned.”
SpaceX Bolsters Starlink Network With 60 More Satellites

Aviation Week (5/26) “A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket delivered the 29th batch of Starlink satellites into
orbit on May 26 as the company expanded beta trials of its high-speed internet service to Belgium
and the Netherlands. More than 500,000 people have placed orders or put down deposits to try
the service...”
SpaceX Launches More Starlink Satellites As Orders Reach Half A Million

Florida Today (5/26, Kelly) “A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket helped deliver another batch of 60 Starlink
satellites to low-Earth orbit Wednesday, further advancing the internet-beaming constellation that
has already secured half a million pre-orders. ‘To date, over half a million people have placed an
order or put down a deposit for Starlink,’ Youmei Zhou, a SpaceX propulsion engineer, said during
a webcast leading up to the 2:59 p.m. launch from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station.”
SpaceX Launches And Lands Falcon 9 Rocket For 85th Time

Bloomberg (5/26) “SpaceX Launches and Lands Falcon 9 Rocket for 85th Time”
Viasat Threatens To Sue FCC Over SpaceX’s Starlink Plan

Law360 (5/26) “Satellite provider Viasat Inc. has asked the Federal Communications Commission
to halt rival SpaceX’s updating of its Starlink satellite fleet, saying the proposed changes pose
environmental concerns that the FCC didn’t adequately consider and that Viasat plans to challenge
in federal court. In a recent filing, Viasat said the FCC should put SpaceX’s plan on ice while the
D.C. Circuit assesses whether the fleet of low-Earth orbit broadband satellites will cause harmful
light pollution and dangerous space debris.”
Is SpaceX’s Starlink Mega Constellation An Environmental Problem? The FCC Says ‘No’
Forbes (5/26, O'Callaghan) “The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has said SpaceX’s
Starlink constellation does not require an environmental review, after concerns were raised about
its impact on the night sky and the atmosphere. In May 2019, SpaceX began the launch and
deployment of its Starlink constellation, a planned group of up to 42,000 satellites in orbit
designed to beam the internet to Earth from space.”
Starlink V1.0 L28 Mission Completes First “Shell” Of Satellites For Worldwide Coverage
NASA Space Flight (5/26, Davenport) “SpaceX’s 16th Falcon 9 launch of the year on Wednesday
May 26 lifted off with 60 Starlink satellites to finish the first of five orbital shells for the
constellation. Liftoff from Space Launch Complex 40 (SLC-40) occurred on time at 2:59 PM EDT
(18:59 UTC). The Starlink constellation promises to provide high speed broadband internet to
millions worldwide that lack the ability to obtain this type of service now.”
EU Court Rejects OHB Bid To Suspend European Space Agency Decisions

Reuters (5/26, Staff) “Europe’s second-top court on Wednesday rejected an application by German
satellite company OHB System AG to suspend two public procurement decisions by the European
Space Agency. The luxembourg-based General Court also dismissed OHB's application for interim
relief. ~
Editorial : Flight Puts Virgin, NM In Space Race

Albuaueraue (NM) Journal (5/26) "Saturday was a big day for Virgin Galactic, Spaceport America,
commercial space flight and New Mexico. After years of delays, Virgin Galactic's VSS Unity
successfully shot Into space after breaking away from its mothershlp at 44,000 feet . Unity climbed
about 55 miles above Earth before gl iding down to Spaceport America, the world's first purpose-
built commercial spaceport near Truth or Consequences. ~
Copyright 2021 by Bul~in Intelig~ ~ LLC Reproduction or redistribution without permISSIon prohibited. Content IS drawn
from thousands of newspapers, nabonaI magazines, natJonaI and Iocallelevislon programs, radio broadcasts, social..fl1eda
platforms and acUtionaI forms of open-SOUlE data. Sources for Buletin Intelligence audience-size estimates ndude
Scarborough, GIK MRI, comScore, Nielsen, andlhe Aucit Bureau of CifClAabon. Data from and access to third party social media
platforms. oouding but not limrted to Facebook. Twitter, Instagram and others, is subject 10 the respective platform's tenns of
use. ServIces that Ifldude Factiva content are governed by Factiva's terms of use· 5efvIces inckJd~ embedded Tweets are also
subfed. to Twjtter for websjte's information and priyacy oo!jcjes. The NASA MornIng Briefing is published five days a week by
Bulletin Intelligence, which creates custom briefings lor government and COIpOf<Ile leadefs. We can be found on the Web at
Bulletinlntelligence.com, or called at (703) 483-6100.
From:
To:
C<co
Subject: [EXTERNAl] Re: WAPO article

Date: Thursday, May 27, 202111:15:39 AM
Thanks!
. Villan oel
lIB.
Den tors 27 Illaj 202 1 kIIS:37 skrev Jacob Haqq Misr a _

Attached!
On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 10:36 AM Carolyn Porco (b) (6) wrote :
Co uld someone attach the an ic le to an email and send it ... fo r tho se of us who don't subscribe?
Thank you
CP
On 5/27/2021 6:32 AM, STEVEN DICK wmte:
Yes, well said:
htfl,1s:lIwww.washingtonpost.cowlQJ.ljnjonsI2021 105126!we-need-put-
sc jence-cente r-llfo-qJlestjou!
Steven J. Dick
21406 Clearfork Ct
Asrlbur"n VA 20147
Space, Time, and Aliens: Collected Works on Cosmos and

Culture
htfl,1s:lIwww.sprjnger.cQw!gplbook!97830304161 33

Impact www cambridoeoro/9781108426763
Classifying the
Cosmos . https lLlink sprinoer com/bookl1 0 1007/978-3-030-
10380-4
Website http ;//stevenjdick.com/illdex.html
o ~ 7:19 PM, Kelly C Smith

~ wro te :
Jacob,
I just wanted to say nice job on the WAPD article! This is a very
tricky issue, but I think you guys hit ju st the right note.
Stay Safe,
Kelly
"Rank does not confer privilege or give power. It imposes

responsibility."
- Peter
Drucker
Kelly C. Smith, M.s ., Ph.D., Oa.D.
He/ him/ his
Alumni Master Teacher
Professor and Chair
Department of Philosophy & Religion
Clemson University
126C Hardin Ha ll
Clemson, South Ca roli na 29634 USA
(b) (6) ICeli1
Research Page : http://kcs098.wixsite,com/research
Find the IAA SETI website at https:Uiaaseti or9

Find the upcoming SETI meeting calendar
at https"/liaaseti org/en/meetinosl
Code of Conduct (Interim ):

https:/lwww.aiaa.org/abouVGovernance/Code-of-
Ethics
https://www.aiaa.org/about/Governance/Anti-
Harassment-Policy
---
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
emails from it, send an email
to community+unsubscribe@iaaseti.org.
--
Find the IAA SETI website at: https://iaaseti.org
Find the upcoming SETI meeting calendar at:
https://iaaseti.org/en/meetings/
Code of Conduct (Interim):

https://www.aiaa.org/about/Governance/Code-of-Ethics
https://www.aiaa.org/about/Governance/Anti-Harassment-Policy
---
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to community+unsubscribe@iaaseti.org.
--
Find the upcoming SETI meeting calendar at: https://iaaseti.org/en/meetings/

---
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
community+unsubscribe@iaaseti.org.
--
Find the upcoming SETI meeting calendar at: https://iaaseti.org/en/meetings/

---
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
From : Kooparaou. RiM Kumar (GSfC-699(!)
To: Bralriz Villarroe!; Htgg·Mi sra · Jacob D. (GSfC..§062)[Scjence CoIlaboratorJ
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAl) Re: WAPO artide
Da le: Thursday, May 27, 2021 11 :53:33 AM
Thanks Beatriz!
(b)(6)
From: Bea triz Villarroel
Date: Thursday, May 27,2021 at 11:10 AM
To: "Haqq-Misra, Jacob D. (GSFC-6062)[Science Co llaborator]" _ _
"Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: WAPO article
Great article! I enjoyed reading it a lot.
//B.
Den tors 27 maj 2021 k115 :37 skrell Jacob Haqq Misra «b )(6)
Attached!
Deletion Page

_=,-3_ page(s) containing duplicate

To: Hautaluoma, Grey (HQ-NA020); Jones, Nancy N. (GSFC-1300)
Thank you. I have asked my immediate supervisors and they provided similar answers. I am not
planning to accept any sort of payment anyway.
I am planning to reply to WaPo and tell them that I cannot accept (and do not want) the payment.
Thanks
Ravi
From: "Hautaluoma, Grey (HQ-NA020)" <grey.hautaluoma-1@nasa.gov>

To: "Jones, Nancy N. (GSFC-1300)" <nancy.n.jones@nasa.gov>, "Kopparapu, Ravi
Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>
Subject: RE: Washington Post article draft
Yes, please talk to the lawyers. I do not think you can accept payment for this.
From: Jones, Nancy N. (GSFC-1300) <nancy.n.jones@nasa.gov>

Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 12:29 PM
Cc: Hautaluoma, Grey (HQ-NA020) <grey.hautaluoma-1@nasa.gov>
Hi Ravi,
I have not heard of payment for an op-ed piece. I don’t think you can take payment from a news
organization for writing an op-ed. You may want to reach out to Paul and Stephanie for guidance.
If you want to reach out to one of our lawyers, I have worked with Matt Johnston in code 140.
Please relay any guidance you receive to me and Grey Hautaluoma before reaching back out to the
Post.
Grey is the Goddard News Chief. I will be out of the office tomorrow, so please follow-up with him.
Thanks,
Nancy
--
Nancy Neal Jones

To: "Nancy N. Jones" <nancy.n.jones@nasa,gov>
Hi Nancy,
I got an email from WaPo to fi ll some forms for 'payment' processing. I had not realized that they
were thinking to pay me. As a CS, am I even allowed to accept t his payment? I will not be
heartbroken, but I want to know more about the protocols to fo llow as a CS.
Thanks
Ravi
From: "Jones, Nancy N. (GSFC-1300)" <nancy.n.jooes@nasa,goy>

To: , Ravi Kumar <rayjkumar.kopparapu@nasa,goy>
II
Deletion Page


From:
(b) (6)
To: rayjkymar.kooparapy@oasa .gov: Koooarapy. RaYi KUmar 'GSfC-69901
Subject: [EXTERNAl] Asking the Right Q,Jestions
Dear Ravi,
Here is a narrative about an experience I had a few months ago in the Dominican Republic,
and how it could fa ctor into the UFO quelyienigma.
In 2002, 2 years after my father died from diabetes complications (in Santo Domingo),
neighbors told me that a basketball sized ball of green light hovered over am family home. I
lived in Rhode Island, USA at the time.
On a visit I asked around, and was told that many in the neighborhood knew of the incident.
Some years later the woman who cares for my aging stepmom (and my stepmom herself) had
also seen the light - which she described as "beautiful".
Needless to say I was always cmious about this, and have had an interest in UFO'S since I
was 14 (1969), as I then saw several round objects flying over that city.
A few months ago I spent a year in Guayacanes, a fishing village 12 miles from my father's
property (now being rented out).
I have a meditation practice, and one night, on the beach (dming a meditation) I asked the
universe for proof of the event on 2002 (19 years prior). Several days later, while on the roof
of our tiny hotel - a tiny but very bright green light flew overhead. 3 more lights would follow
in the foll owing days (as if to underscore the experience).
So how can I make sense of this?
I believe the questions must probe deeper into the areas of consciousness. And it makes
sense: science and technology are not the only frontier. Advanced beings are likely intimately
connected to us.
(b) (6)
To: Gran. Bani C. (GSEC 13(0): Hautalll9!llil. Grey rHO-NAn20) : Jones. Nancy N. rGSfC-lJOO)
C<co Sbekbtman l onnje (GSEC-690 Q)[ADNfT SYSIFMS INC
Date: Friday, May 28, 20211O:42:09AM
Hi all,
I did the interview, it was on ly for a few minutes and basically repeated ou r points from the WaPo
article. They also asked me about my own resea rch into exoplanets and life detection with upcoming
telescopes, so it was a pretty smoot h interview.
And yes, I would love to have one-on-one practice. I have been doing these interviews for many
yea rs but never formally had someone coaching me. I just picked up things as I went on . So it would
be great if I can get some coaching from professionals.
Also, an important question : If I do get any requests over the long weekend, should I go ahead and
do the interviews, after first informing you all about any upcom ing ones? I am sure you all have
better th ings to do over the long weekend than to respond to my ema ils.
Thanks
Ravi
From: "Gran, Rani C. (GSFC-1300)" <ranLc.gran@nasa.gov>

To: "Hautaluoma, Grey (HQ-NA020)" <grey. hautaluoma-1 @nasa.gov>, "Kopparapu,
Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>, "Jones , Nancy N.
(GSFC-1 300)" <nancy. n.jones@nasa.gov>
Cc: "Shekhtman, Lonnie (GSFC-690 .0)[ADNET SYSTEM S INC]"
<Ionnie.shekhtman @nasa.gov>
Hi,
Ravi, I suspect you are going to get a lot of interview requests over the weekend.
Do you want to do some one-on-one practice?
Rani
Rani C. Gran
Mail Code 420, 8 36, 5470
Greenbelt,
Work Cell
Phone:
"If we amplify everything, we hear nothing," Jon Stewart.
From: "Hautaluoma, Grey (HQ-NA020)" <grey. hautaluoma-1 @nasa.gov>

To: "Kopparapu , Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu @nasa.gov>,
"Jones, Nancy N. (GSFC-1 300)" <nancy. n.jones@nasa.gov>
Cc: "Shekhtman, Lonnie (GS FC-690 .0)[ADNET SYSTEM S INC]"
<Ionnie.shekhtman @nasa.gov>, Rani Gran <rani. c.gran@nasa.gov>
I'm sorry I missed this, Ravi. Did you do the interview?
From: Koppa rapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990) <ravikumar.koppa rapu@nasa .gov>

Sent: Thu rsday, May 27, 2021 8:04 PM
To: Jones, Na ncy N. (GSFC- 1300) <nancy.n .jones@nasa .gov>; Hautaluoma, Grey (HQ-NA020)
<grey.hauta luoma- l@nasa.gov>
Cc: Shekhtman, Lon nie {GSFC-690.0}[ADNET SYSTEMS INC] <lonnie.shekhtman@nasa.gov>;Gran,
Rani C. (GSFC-1300) <rani.c.gran@nasa .gov>
Subject: FW : Washington Post article draft
Hi all,
I sent t his email to Nancy but she is out of office. Can someone respond and let me know if t his is
ok?
Thankyou
Ravi
From: "Kopparapu , Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <rayjkumar kopparapu@nasa goy>

Date: Th ursday, May 27, 202 1 at 8:02 PM
To: "Jones, Nancy N. (GS FC-1 300)" <nancy n jones@nasagov>
Cc: "Hautaluoma , Grey (HQ-NA020)" <grey.hautaluoma-1@nasa.gov>
Hi Nancy and Grey

I was contacted by LBC radio in London for an interview tonight at lOpm ET. Should I say yes?
Thanks
Ravi
From: "Jones, Nancy N. (GSFC-1300)" <nancy n jones@nasa goy>

Date: Thursday, May 27, 202 1 at 9:42 AM
To: "Kopparapu , Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravjkumar kopparapu@nasa goy>
Deletion Page


To: Shekhtman, Lonnie (GSFC-690.0)[ADNET SYSTEMS INC]; Jones, Nancy N. (GSFC-1300)
Cc: Andreoli, Claire (GSFC-1300)
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Leonard David Media Inquiry: New UAP story
Date: Friday, May 28, 2021 10:45:33 AM
Thank you!!!!

To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>, "Jones, Nancy
N. (GSFC-1300)" <nancy.n.jones@nasa.gov>
Cc: "Andreoli, Claire (GSFC-1300)" <claire.andreoli@nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Leonard David Media Inquiry: New UAP story
I think this looks awesome, Ravi. Some tiny suggested tweaks from me, including using UAPs instead
of UFOs going forward to distinguish yourself from Ufologists …
Thank you for your inquiry. My approach to the upcoming Pentagon report is “wait and see.” It may
or may not reveal anything new to us. I would like to point out that the history of UAP scientific
studies in the U.S. is not limited to the released video snippets, which is a good reminder to avoid
painting the whole phenomena with one broad brush. Additionally, this is not a U.S.-specific issue,
nor is it limited to observations by U.S. armed forces. There may not be a single explanation
to all such observations. What I would like to suggest is that we not leap to any conclusions when
the findings of the report are made public. The report would be immensely helpful if the data that
informed it are made publicly available so that more experts can look at it and hopefully reach a
consensus on the nature of some of the unexplained events. Otherwise, there will always be
conspiracy theories shrouding, and inhibiting, a proper scientific method of investigating UAPs.
Lonnie
--
Lonnie Shekhtman
301-614-6833

To: "Shekhtman, Lonnie (GSFC-690.0)[ADNET SYSTEMS INC]" <lonnie.shekhtman@nasa.gov>,
"Jones, Nancy N. (GSFC-1300)" <nancy.n.jones@nasa.gov>
Cc: "And reoli, Claire (GS FC-1300)" <ci aire.and reoli@n asa .gov>
Subject: Re : [EXTE RNAL] Leonard Dav id Media Inqu iry: New UAP st ory
Here is my draft response:
From: "Shek ht man, Lonn ie (GSFC-690 .0)[AD NET SYSTE MS INC) "
Date: Friday, M ay 28, 2021 at 9 :27 AM
To: " Koppa rapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikum ar.koppa rapu@nasa .gov>, "J ones, Nancy
N. (GSFC-1300) " <nancy.n.jones@nasa.gov>
Cc: " Andreoli, Claire (GS FC-1300)" <ci aire.and reo li @n asa .gov>
Subject: Re : [EXTE RNAL] Leonard David M edia Inqu iry: New UAP st ory
.. . and so it begins!
Sending comments based on your original WashPo story is a good idea, Ravi. Let me know if you
need another pa ir of eyes on those.
Thanks,
Lonnie
Lonnie Shekhtm an
301-61 4-6833
From: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990) " <ravikumar .kopparapu@nasa .gov>
Date: Friday, May 28, 2021 at 9 :24 AM
To: "J ones, Nancy N. (GSFC-1300)" <nancy .n.j ones@nasa .gov>
Cc: " Andreoli, Claire (GSFC-1300)" <ciaire .andreo li @nasa .gov>, "Shekht man, Lonn ie (GSFC-
690.0)[AD NET SYSTE MS INC]" <Ionn ie.shekhtman@nasa .gov>
Subject: FW: [EXTE RNAL] Leonard David Med ia Inquiry: New UAP st ory
Hi Nancy, Clai re and Lonnie,

A reporter asked me for a comment on my WaPo story (see below ). My plan is to send comments
based on the origina l version of the WaPo story that I sent to all of you {and was approved by Pau l
Mahaffy and HQ}. The origi nal version is attached .
Thanks
Ravi
From: ' (b) (6) .(b) (6)

Reply-To: ' (b) (6) .(b) (6)
To: " Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikuma r. kopparapu@nasa .gov>,
(b) (6) .(b) (6)
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Leonard David Med ia Inqu iry : New UAP story
Ra vi :
I am writing a new story on the Unidentified Aeria l Phenomenon (UAP) task force rep ort - supposedly to
be issued late next month.
I'd like to add your voice to this ...! did see your new piece in the Washington Post - but perhaps you could
amplify your views?
Here's the premise of my story:
UAP Report: A "Nothingburger"? Some UFO/UAP experts see the Pentagon's rep ort late next month as
seminal - others see it as du bious and worthless.
I am asking leading skeptics and UAP/U FO believers what they think such a report could fwill not say
and ...what next?
Please do send any comments fo r consideration that you might have fo r this story.
Thanks,
Leonard
From:
To:
C<co
Subject: : Historical incidents of UFOs
Date: Friday, May 28, 202110:53:53 AM
Attachments: Reliability of eyewj!ness reports to a major aviation occident.pdf
Ravi,
Yes, I see where you are going here. Once again, I think the issue you raise is w0l1hy of
serious and lengthy discussion (and perhaps at some point we should chat via Zoom or phone
about all this).
I would argue that the distinction between "hard data " and "cultmal phenomena" should not
be viewed as itself a hard and fa st one. The two have historically been quite entangled.
UFO reports since the beginning have primarily relied on a number of som ces:
1. Witnesses
2. Radar
3. Physical traces (e.g. , grOlmd impression where a saucer supposedly landed)
4. Al1ifacts (presumed to be from the craft)
5. Photographs and film
#3 and #4 have been relatively rare and, to my knowledge, have not h111led up anything even
close to definitive . #5 has been the focus of a lot of attention, of comse. But to date, I'm not
aware of any photographic evidence or film footage that has been unequivocally deemed
indicative of something extraordinary/othelworldly (this includes the Navy film foota ge that
has gotten so much attention).
Radar - as you note - has been commonly used as compelling evidence. McDonald, as you
point out, placed great emphasis on this. I am not schooled in radar technology, nor am I a
historian of technology. So, I would have to defer to those who have more specialized
knowledge . So, I have more questions than answers. What was the nahrre of radar technology
at any given point in history? What could radar detect and also what could it not detect at any
given point in time? What kinds of false positives has radar been subject to? Al'e there cel1ain
kinds of conditions tmder which radar technology is especially taxed?
Without question, however, the "hard data" that has by far been relied upon for reports more
than anything else has been witness testimonials. In this regard, we should not forget that
"radar" falls tmder this category as well, since the radar technicians are brought in to discuss
their recollections and experiences. Witness testimony - even among those deemed to be
"trained" or "profe ssional" - has been shown to be remarkably unreliable and inconsistent
(see, for example, the article I've attached on eyewitnesses to aircraft accidents).
But it' s not just mueliability that I would emphasize. It is that time and time again, when you
dig into cases, you find two things: that witnesses ' stories change over time and that even
before any initial rep0l1, witnesses have discussed and shared their memories and thoughts
with others beforehand. The famous Rendelsham Forest case in the UK from 1980 is an
excellent example of this. My colleague David Clarke has shldied it in detail, talking to many
of the principals involved, and he has fOlmd time and again all s0l1s of "adjustments"
witnesses have made in their testimony. One need not attribute malice or deceit to witnesses,
in these cases, but rather what we see going on is a process of individuals halmonizing their
recollections with peer reflections and prevailing narratives - a rather natmal, mundane human
response.
So, from my perspective, if all we all we had to rely on were records of radar traces, we
wouldn 't have much of a UFO mystery. Conversation instead might well revolve arOlmd
trying to figme out what's wrong with the technology. Evidence from photography and
physical traces and artifacts has remained inconclusive and highly questionable. Witnesses
therefore serve as the fOillldation of the UFO phenomenon.
I make this point, then, less to say that this proves how spmious or illueliable UFO reports are
than to say that one cannot neatly excise the cultural and psychological facet s from the hard
data dimensions.
I 'll be interested hearing yom thoughts.
Indeed, I hope all this can be pmsued in a more sustained manner down the road. I hope om
institute here at Penn State or some other institution finds some funding to put together a
conference, workshop, or colloquium of some kind, so that those of working along these lines
can share om findings and thoughts.
Cheers,
Greg
Greg Eghigian
108 Weaver Building
USA
Email: (b) (6)
From: "Kopparap u, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@ nasa .gov>

To: Greg Egh igian
Cc: ' (b) (6)
Subject: Re: [EXTE RNAL] Re : Historical incident s of UFOs
Hi Greg,
Thank you . It is certainly interesting that the modern era of "flying saucers" and UFO reports in the
u.s took off after the Kenneth Arnold event. And before that, as you mentioned in your article,
phantom Zeppelin sightings.
I am trying to reconcile these "visua l" sightings in the history with physical data {radar observations}
in many of the unexplained cases discussed in proj ect blue book, and more im portantly in James Mc
Donald's "Science in Default" . If the cultural, societal, and environmental conditions at that time
could potent ially explain the interest and corresponding "sightings" by the general population, how
do we explain the hard data collected by these studies? How can we make sense of these diverging
views on UFOs by social scientists who studied the cultural association of UFOs with aliens, and
physica l scientists like James Mc Donald and Allen Hynek who actually looked at hard data?
I have been having a hard t ime coming up w ith a cohesive explanation that cou ld combine the two
aspects. Cultura l phenomena cannot explain the hard data . It appears to me that there are two
parallel li nes of thought here. There may be connecting points, but they do not overlap.
Any insights you may have on this w ill prove very valuable to me. I
Thanks
Ravi

Date: Thursday, May 27,202 1 at 5: 19 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Historica l incidents of UFOs
Hi Ravi,
It 's actually a rather challenging historical question. The issue is one of asking what exactly
one is looking for in the historical record.
Without question, societies dating back to antiquity have commented on anomalous things in
the skies. Historians generally agree that many - if not most - of these obselvations were
likely meteors and comets. Though one must be careful , since some sources were likely not
intended to be reporting some empirical reality, but rather to comment about the nature of the
divine, the gods, or the Creator.
"Celestial wonders" as such, however, are a long way from our more contemporary concept of
the UFO. Ufologists since the 1950s have attempted to pOitray these observations and reports
as instances of alien cra ft being spotted, but to do so is to take these observations out of their
historically specific contexts and grant the sources an accuracy and purpose they lacked. (The
most famous example of this kind of "research" is the work of Erich von Daniken, but he has
had imitators in numerous parts of the world) .
Now, we do have repol1s of sightings of odd airships in the 19 th centmy (before the invention
of the airplane and zeppelin, but after the development of hot air balloons) in the U.S., UK,
southern Africa, Australia, and New Zealand. These, however, were generally described as
vehicles that looked either like marine vessels (often equipped with steam engines) or like
elaborate hot air balloons. In other words, they appear to have been projections of existing
technologies. Media historians argue there is good reason to view these reports as likely
nothing more than fabrications of local newspapers in hope of selling more papers. Moreover,
commentators at the time viewed these "airships" as decidedly terrestrial in nahrre, likely the
invention of some eccentric tinkerer who had flllally cracked the key to flight (a big obsession
of the cenhuy ). I 've written a small article on this aspect of things. You can fInd it at:
htp s: / w.smithonagcQlby / how-ufrep o 1 s -chan~ewit o l ogy -time s -
1809680 11 1
As I point out in that article, there were other strange airship reports in the early part of the
20 th cenhrry, and most of these were linked to war scares.
What made the post-World War II era distinctive when it comes to llllidentifIed aerial
sightings wa s the minting of an image (the "flying saucer") and two narratives (they are the
work of extraterrestrials + the government knows more than it is telling). All three of these
elements originated in the u.s. and were "exported" throughout the world via international
news agencies. By the early-1950s, most of the world 's reading public - including those on
the other side of the "Iron Curtain" - were familiar with these three elements, and newspapers
and magazines all over began rep0l1in g on sightings in their home countries (Latin America
proved to be a major hotbed in this regard).
In the end, then, a lII contemporaly discussion of UFOs cannot be historically extricated from
its links to flying saucers and to the idea of advanced aeronautic technology. But, of COllIse,
that cognitive frame was lacking before the 18 th and 19 th cenhrries. So, when we go searching
for sightings before 1947, we almost invariably embark on a rather anachronistic search for
past candidates.
I hope that proves to be of some help.
Best,
Greg
Greg Eghigian
108 Weaver Building
USA
Email: (b) (6)
From: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kuma r (GSFC-6990) " <ravikuma r .kopparapu@nasa .gov>

Date: Thu rsday, May 27,202 1 at 2:29 PM
To: Greg Egh igian
Cc: ' (b) (6)
Subject: Hist orica l incident s of UFOs
Hi Greg,
I am writing to you about a nagging question that is on my mind for a long time now. First of all, I
have been reading your articles on the Air&Space magazine website, and in particular I liked your
2017 article. Most importantly, the link you provided about other countries setting up offices to
study UFOs is very helpful.
I am wondering if there are any reports about UFOs before World War II? I see Wikipedia lists quite a
few of them, but that may not be the most reliable source. The link above regarding other countries
setting up UFO offices is mostly western countries. Even if no offices were set up, are there not any
reports from developing countries? I find it curious that the modern era of UFOs started right after
World War II and in the west. I guess I am not fully aware of any historical (reliable) reports before
the 1940s or in other non-western countries.
Thanks
Ravi
--
Greenbelt, MD 20771
EMBRV-RIDDLE International Journal of Aviation,
Aeronautical University..
SCHOLARLY COMMONS Aeronautics, and Aerospace
Volume 1 I Issue 4 Article 9
11 -14-2014
Reliability of Eyewitness Reports to a Major Aviation Accident

Dave Engli sh
Arizona State University, dave.engl ish@asu.edu
Michael Kuzel
Arizona State University, MICHAEL. KUZEL@asu.edu
Fo llow t his and addit ional works at: https://commons.erau.edu/ijaaa
& Part of the Cognition and Perception Commons, Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons,
Forensic Science and Technology Commons. Industrial and Organizational Psychology Commons, and
t he Management and Operations Commons
Scholarly Commons Citation

Engl ish, D., & Ku zel, M. (20 14). Reliability of Eyewit ness Report s to a M ajor Aviation Accident. International
Journal of Aviation, Aeronautics, and Aerospace, 1(4). https:l/doLorgI10.1S394/ ijaaa.2014.1040
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarly Commons. It has been
accepted for inclusion in Internationa l Journal of Aviation, Aeronaut ics, and Aerospace by an authorized
administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact commons@erau.edu.
English and Kuzel: Reliability of eyewitness reports to a major aviation accident
Dr. Percy Walker, director of Britain's Ministry of Aviation accident

inspector branch in the early 1960's, was said by The Sunday Times to have
researched more crashes than anybody else in the world (Air Correspondent,
1962). In the same article he was quoted as saying that eyewitnesses to aviation
accidents are "almost always wrong" (p. 8). Contemporary accident investigation
textbooks employ more measured language (Strauch, 2002; Wood & Sweginnis,
2006) but they do note that inconsistences are often found among eyewitness
accounts. In the 50 years since Dr. Walker's statement, research into eyewitness
testimony has advanced considerably; however there remains a paucity of
published empirical studies regarding the validity and reliability of aviation crash
witness statements.
We have long known eyewitness testimony to be less than completely

reliable (Loftus 1996; Toglia, Reed, Ross & Lindsay, 2006). Over a century ago
Miinsterberg (1908) gave many examples, including the time a revolver was fired
during a lecture. The dramatic scene was all play-acting, part of a controlled
experiment. Similar experimental techniques are still used in eyewitness research,
but have limitations (Memon, Mastroberardino & Fraser, 2008). Field and
archival techniques further expand our understanding (Wells, Memon & Penrod,
2006), and have included studies of witness records of large traumatic events such
as the Titanic sinking (Riniolo, Loledin, Draknlic & Payne, 2003), the Oklahoma
City Federal Building bombers (Memon & Wright, 1999) and the 9/11 attacks
(Altmann, 2003). But despite over 100 years of research, and more than 2,000
papers published on eyewitness identification in the past 30 years, studies on
aircraft accident eyewitness reports remain scarce. Dodge (1983) found variability
in witness accounts of a major aviation crash, but the sample size (n = 20) was
relatively small and all witnesses were on-board survivors of the crash they were
describing.
There are many variables known to influence eyewitness accuracy

(Brewer & Wells, 2011). Memory of an event can by changed by exposure to
misinformation about the event (Zaragoza & Lane, 1994), by reactivating the
memory (St. Jacques & Schacter, 2013), by trauma and perceived culpability
(Foster & Naylor, 1999), by social conformity (Edelson, Sharot, Dolan & Dudai,
2011), and by talking about the event (Wright, Memon, Skagerberg & Gabbert,
2009). However people evaluating the statements are often not aware of these
issues. A review of eyewitness reliability in motor vehicle crashes (Robins, 2009)
notes that juries show a "marked preference" for eyewitness evidence over what
should be the more compelling physical evidence. A survey of potential jurors in
the District of Columbia (Schmechel, O'Toole, Easterly & Loftus, 2006) finds
they "misunderstand how memory generally works and how particular factors ...
Published by Scholarly Commons. 2014

International/ournal of Aviation. Aeronautics, and Aerospace, VoL 1 [2014], Iss. 4, Art. 9
affect the accuracy of eyewitness testimony" (p. 194). Even informed

psychologists may be misled. Chan, Thomas and Bulevich (2009) show "real-life
eyewitness memory may be even more susceptible to misinformation than is
currently envisioned" (p.66).
Following a summary of several aircraft accidents that seem to provide

some qualitative support to claims of mistaken eyewitness accounts, we subject
the extensive archival witness record of a major aviation accident to statistical
analysis. The aim of the stndy, to demonstrate the reliability of eyewitness reports
to a major aviation accident, is achieved with several statistical analyses
converging towards a conclusion of unreliability.
Qualitative Examples of Aviation Accident Eyewitness Validity and

Reliability
There are many aircraft accident reports where eyewitnesses are generally
in agreement with each other and the [mal accident probable cause; for example
the takeoff of a DC-9 seen by 100 external observers where ''none of the
witnesses described smoke or flames coming from any part of the airplane other
than the right engine" (National Transportation Safety Board, 1987). Sometimes a
single eyewitness can supply otherwise ephemeral evidence, as for example the
farmhand who reported that something fell off an accident aircraft: "Whizzed past
me [h]ead it did, and when I dug it out of ground a large chuck of ice it were"
(Brown, 1962, p. 38). The probable cause of the crash was determined to be
inflight icing based largely on the farmhand's account. However there are also
many well-recorded cases that support the late Dr. Walker's contention, cases
where aviation accident eyewitnesses report seeing things that did not happen or
substantially confuse the order of events.
At an airshow in 1952, a supersonic fighter disintegrated in the air causing

the death of both crew and 29 spectators (Staff, 1952). Over 100,000 people
witnessed the accident. A public appeal was put out for witness accounts and
photographs to help solve the mystery, resulting in several thousand letters being
collected. Rivas and Bullen (2008) found "many of the accounts are touchingly
detailed and well intentioned, but the whole of the vast mail was of little use" (p.
186). The vital clue that led to determination of probable cause was supplied by a
cine film. The in-flight breakup happened in less than a second, and almost all the
eyewitnesses, including experienced pilots, gave grossly inaccurate accounts
when compared to the film record.
https:llcommons.erau.edu/ijaaalvoll/isS419
DOl: https:/Jdoi.org/lo.153941ijaaa.2014.1040 2
Investigating the mid-air collision of a passenger DC-9 and a Marine

Corps F-4 the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) found "witnesses in
the area of the accident gave widely varying accounts" (NTSB, 1972). Five
people described both aircraft on steady courses prior to the collision, but fifteen
people described the fighter aircraft in a rolling or evasive maneuver prior to the
collision.
Wilikinson (1977) quotes an eyewitness to a crash describing a light

aeroplane just before impact as "heading right toward the ground-straight down"
(p.102). However photographs of the crash site clearly showed the aeroplane
plane hit flat and at a low enough angle to skid for almost 1,000 feet. Two expert
eyewitnesses to a crash on takeoff of a MD-82 stated that the wing flaps were
extended, but the Board determined the flaps were in fact not extended (NTSB,
1988). What was initially reported as a possible bombing of a B767 due to many
eyewitness accounts of the plane first exploding in fire (Johnson, 1991; Kelly &
Elliott, 1991) turned out to be caused by the uncommanded activation of an
engine thrust reverser (Aircraft Accident Investigation Committee, 1993).
When a fuel tank explosion caused a B747 to descend in pieces from

13,000 feet, the fireball was seen by hundreds of people, about one-third of who
reported that they observed a streak of light moving upward in the sky (NTSB,
20(0). However there was no evidence that a missile struck the plane, and
physical examination of the wreckage unequivocally supports the cause as a fuel
tank explosion. Thirty-eight of the witnesses described a streak of light as
ascending vertically. Forty-five reported that a streak moved to the east, 23 that it
moved to the west, 18 that it moved to the south, and 4 that it moved to the north.
When a MD-82 crashed on takeoff initial reports included eyewitness

accounts of an engine catching fire as the aeroplane heading down the runway
(Goodman, Todd & Koch 2008; Naughton & Strange, 2008). However analysis
showed that engine performance was normal on takeoff, and that the cause of the
crash was failure to set the flaps (CIAIAC, 2008).
A Cessna 310R that crashed following a steep descent was observed by

several witnesses. All described to the NTSB (2012) a nose-down, vertical
descent to ground contact. However some described the engine sound as "full
throttle," "wide open," ''really loud," and "never let up on [the] throttle" But
others stated the engine was "puttering" or "quit" before the descent (para. 3).
One witness believed he had seen a meteorite. A veteran aviation journalist wrote
of the eyewitness accounts, "as is often the case, they disagreed" (McClellan,
2013, p. 84).
Published by Scholarly Commons. 2014 3

Considering these examples, it's understandable that not just journalists

are unconvinced by accident eyewitness accounts. NTSB Member John Goglia
declared that eyewitness reports of aeroplane crashes are often mistaken
(Halbfinger & Wald, 2003), and NTSB spokesperson Ted Lopatkiewicz asserted
"eyewitness testimony at a plane crash ... is unreliable" cyvald, 2002, p. 5). These
professional opinions are not however shared by the general public (Simons &
Chabris, 2011). Eyewitness reports are often given prominence in press reports
and used in legal actions. Philosophers have long grappled with the dual ideas of
human conviction and disagreement, with Renouvier declaring in 1859 that
"properly speaking, there is no certainty; there are only people who are certain"
(Schulz, 2010, p. 159). Decades of experience have led aviation crash
investigators to discount eyewitness accounts, and instead rely on flight recorders,
radar recordings and physical evidence to determine cause. There are, however,
no systematic published studies of aviation crash eyewitness accounts to validate
investigators beliefs. This is due in part to the problems of creating a controlled
experiment. It is much easier for a psychology lab to stage a fistfight or a robbery,
than it is to stage a burning airliner coming out of the sky.
Description of AA587 Crash
On the morning of November 12'11, 2001, an American Airlines wide-body

A300 jet climbed into clear sunny skies over New York City on what was planned
to be a routine flight. A few minutes later flight 587 violently pitched down and
crashed into the middle of a residential neighborhood (Kleinfeld, 2001). All 260
people on board died, along with an additional five people on the ground. Coming
two months after the 9/11 attacks, there were initially fears that this may have
been another terrorist attack. A large NTSB and Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) effort was mounted to determine what happened, an investigation that
included interviewing hundreds of eyewitnesses.
The NTSB determined that the probable cause of flight 587' s accident was
co-pilot rudder inputs that resulted in the vertical stabilizer breaking off from the
fuselage and falling into Jamaica bay (NTSB, 2004). The loss of a primary
aerodynamic flight control surface and substantial change in center of mass
caused the jet to pitch down and dive towards the ground. Recovery was
impossible. Fifteen seconds after rudder separation the plane crashed into the
quiet Belle Harbor suburb of Queens, New York, a three-kilometer (1.8 mile) by
one kilometer (0.6 mile) (at its widest) neighborhood located on a barrier
peninsula between Jamaica Bay and the Atlantic Ocean (figure 1). The majority
of the aircraft made landfall close to the geographic center of the community,
destroying three homes and damaging six others in a post-impact fire. Both
DOl: https:/Jdoi.org/lo.153941ijaaa.2014.1040 •
Englllh. and K.uul: ReliabID.ty of ~" reportJ to I major aviation accident
engines separated from the wings before impact, landing about 200 metres from
the main wreckage. The accident was not survivable for the airplane occupants.
Figure 1. Photograph of Belle Harbor. Taken from an altitude of 2000 feet over
the Atlantic Ocean, looking northwest with Jamaica Bay and New York City in
the background; it was into the center of tltis neighborhood that American
Airlines 587 crashed. (Photo by author D. English.)
The weather that morning was clear and brisk. Immediately before the
accident JFK airport reported the wind to be from 310" at II knots, visibility
unrestricted, a few clouds at 4,300 feet with a temperature of 60 C. The sun was
positioned 22.50 above the horiwn, bearing 1420 true (NTSB, 2004). The Times
called it a brilliant, blue sky (Kleinfield 2(01). Belle Harbor residents are under a
busy flight path for JFK departures, so they are used to seeing airliners pass
overhead. Flight 587 was determined by the NTSB to have been viewed by a total
of 354 witnesses that provided sufficient detail to document. More pertinently, the
majority of witnesses were concentrated in Belle Harbor. It is extremely rare to
have such a numerous, compact group unexpectedly observe a nearby low-
altitude airliner crash in good weather from all angles. The fact that these
eyewitnesses must have had an emotional reaction to the disaster, and no doubt
later watched TV news reports, and/or read newspaper accounts of the accident,
and discussed their observations with others, before making their statements
might seem to diminish their use in eyewitness research. It is known that human
memory is strikingly susceptible to social (Wright, Memon, Skagerberg &
Gabbert, 2009) and other sullying influences (Foster & Naylor 1999; Robins,
2(09). But since we are concerned with real world accident investigations tltis
seeming contamination is the more expected condition, the reality of actual
witness statements, and maybe gives archival methodology more validity than
experimental techniques (Christianson, 1992).
Published by Scholarly CommOllll. 2014 ,

Materials and Methods
Recording witness statements was earnest work due to the number of

fatalities and the immediate lack of a clear cause. Interviews were undertaken by a
large number of NTSB, local police and FBI agents. Using the NTSB Witness
Group Factual Report (Schiada, 20(2) as a model, we created an Excel
spreadsheet containing all 354 witness summaries. While there are considerable
original records of the interviews, it was not recorded how the questions were
posed, or what other reports (media/social) may have influenced the witness. Our
dataset used only the original consensus NTSB Witness Group interpretation of
each witness's testimony.
Our goal in constructing a dataset to analyze was to have the highest

likelihood of finding reliability. By removing obvious outliers and controlling for
geographic position we stood the best chance of discovering patterns. And if no
patterns are found in this clean dataset, we strengthen the hypothesis that data
from eyewitness reports are unreliable. We removed witnesses that were moving
on boats, trains, planes or whose position was otherwise uncertain. We also
removed witnesses who were many kilometers from the crash site, resulting in a
dataset containing 239 Belle Harbor witnesses (defined as all ground witness
between 149th Street and lOSth Street). Coding the witness location into the
dataset would allow us to control for position relative to the crash. We determined
the geographic coordinates of the Belle Harbor witnesses using the information
reported in the NTSB Appendixes A and B (street address or textual description
of location) in combination with an examination of Google Earth and Google
Street View. The resulting Keyhole Markup Language (KML) file is rendered as
figure 2 using the USGS National Map Viewer. Location was initially coded into
the spreadsheet using a city-block grid centered on the crash site at 131 st Street
and Newport Avenue. We then performed a matrix rotation, giving us witness
location using Cartesian coordinates with origin at main crash site, abscissa as
position left or right of aircraft track, and ordinate as position along aircraft track.
We also converted the Cartesian coordinates into polar coordinates for analysis
based on distance from the crash site. The data were now in a useful format to
allow us to perform a series of statistical measures on the witness statements.
DOl: https:/Jdoi.org/lo.153941ijaaa.2014.1040 •
En~d K~1l'iabty of eyewitness reports to a major aviation accident
-~
Figure 2. Eyewi tness Locati ons. I In a red

marker shows the pat h 0 I E h gre rker is an
y r I c n I nd left wing
tip.
Ana lysis 1: Fire
or Ihe239 Be ll , Harbor w t e 183 e about the

fi flo t before it impacted the ground. T B aatcd that "'
the no- c nly e ns pecifica lly
di not see any fire" (Schiada, 2002, p. 4) leaves 56
s no opinion on th is question. Our analysis used mly those
witnesses th at expr e a definit e opini on, in a I pI :oll ect the
s "itness pool.
Belle Harbor witl s e r e being on

e acted the ground. The distribution of the 183 witnesses
that reported either :rvi ng no fi re (65) or some fire vestigated
using RStudio 0.97.3 11 (R Core Team, 2012) and MAT LA B 20 1 la ( l AT LA B,
Published by Scholarly Commons, 2014 ,

2011) software with all tests of significance at a p = .05 criterion. The majority
opinion of all eyewitnesses expressing an opinion on pre-impact fire is
statistically significant (using chi-square test with an equally divided fireln<>-fire
null hypothesis (if [I, N = 183] = 15.35, p < .(01). Graphical mapping shows
little discernable geographic pattern (figure 3). Separate logistic regression
analyses with firelno-fire as the binary categorical dependent variable and a
geographic dimension (in km) as the independent (predictor) variable reveals no
significant relationship along the abscissa (b = 0.39 p = .109), the ottlinate (b =
0.14 p = .788), or distance from the crash site (b = -0.22 p = .567). This confirms
the intuitive conclusion from the graphical mapping that there is no preferred
orientation for these eyewitness reports. Indeed, the overall distribution of the fire
witnesses compared to no-fire witnesses appears by eye to be about the same.
This more general assertion is harder to test, as the witness pool was drawn from a
decidedly non-uniformly distributed population (on a peninsula, tending to be on
busy streets or popular locations).
..--"
•
.-. . ,• -•.
•
•
-• -. .' °
•
,. .. ••
o
-
0 0) 0
• • .• •
.• • .- . - 000
,
: . ..
0"
0 0
0
·· .
,-
Figure 3. Was there pre-impact fire? Witnesses that reported seeing pre-impact
fire are in red, those that saw no fire in bluc. The gray line is the flight path. Some
locations jittered to prevent overplotting.
httpI:l/commonl.crau.cduliJuaIvoll/iJW5I
001: httpI:l/doiOl'gllo.lS3514/'iJIIIL201"-100l ,
We investigated independence with a two-tailed two-dimensional paired

Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Peacock's algorithm (Peacock, 1983) determines
whether two sets of data arise from the same or different distributions without
making any assumptions of the distribution. While the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test
has sometimes been considered a weak form of analysis, it has the required
advantage here that it is non-parametric and distribution free. Use of Peacock's
test for multi-dimensional data sets is well established (Lopes, Reid & Hobson,
2007). The null hypothesis is that both data sets are drawn from the same
continuous distribution. For the fire/no fire distributions, the null hypothesis is not
rejected (D = 0.167, p = 0.200), suggesting that indeed the fire and no-fire
distributions are the same.
Assuming the distribution of fire/no-fire witnesses to be uniform, we can

calculate the results of polling smaller samples of witnesses from the group
without regard to location. While the majority opinion is statistically significant,
the variance is considerable. This becomes increasingly important when
considering the small number of witnesses that view most aviation accidents.
Applying hypergeometric distribution analysis to the dataset values, a poll of 5
witnesses reveals a 24% probability that a majority of such a sample would have
reported seeing no pre-impact fire (the opposite of the majority opinion in the
population). With 10 witnesses there is still a 9% probability that a majority
would report no fire, and a 92% probability that 2 of the 10 would report against
the population majority opinion. Clearly the variance found in this compact
eyewitness population means that eyewitness consensus in commonly sized
witness samples is unlikely and that a majority of such a sample may disagree
with the population majority opinion.
As to location of the fire, Belle Harbor observers that saw fire offered
varying details: 7% said there was a fire in the right engine, 7% in the right wing,
6% in the tail, 41 % in the fuselage, 9% in the left engine, 17% in the left wing,
14% in a miscellaneous area, 4% in an undefined wing, and 4% in an undefined
engine. The NTSB determined ''witnesses who reported observing the airplane on
fire were most likely observing a fire from the initial release of fuel or the effects
of engine compressor surges" (NTSB, 2004). The engines themselves suffered no
in-flight fire, and there was probably no other pre-impact fire.
Analysis 2: Smoke
Belle Harbor witnesses were not in agreement about the airliner leaving a
smoke trail or not before it impacted the ground. The distribution of the 105
witnesses that reported either no smoke (60) or some smoke (45) was investigated

using the same tools and methods. Again, graphical mapping shows no
discemable geographic pattern (figure 4). The majority opinion of no smoke is not
statistically significant using a chi-square test with a no preference null hypothesis
f.:i' [I, N = 105] = 2.14, p = .143). Logistic regression analyses show no
significant relationship to the smokelno smoke reports along the abscissa (b =
0.30 p = .296) or the ordinate (b = -0.14 p = .818). There is an observed trend for
an increased probability to report smoke with increasing distance from the crash
site, but this was not statistically significant (b = 0.93 p = .066). A two-tailed two-
dimensional paired Kolmogorov-Smimov test does not reject the null hypothesis
that the two data sets are drawn from the same continuous distribution (D = 0.239,
p=0.200).
·•·
.. •
•
•
. .• '.
"
~
.'
•
•
Figure 4. Was there pre-impact smoke? Witnesses that reported seeing pre-impact
smoke in red, those that reported no smoke in blue. The gray line is the flight
path.
Hypergeometrlc distribution analysis reveals that if five random witnesses

were polled from the group, there is a 36% probability that a majority of them
would have reported prc-impact smoke, the opposite of the no smoke majority
with this population. With 10 witnesses there is still a 21 % probability that a
majority would report smoke, and a 97% probability that 2 of the 10 would report
against the population majority opinion.
httpI:l/commonl.crau.cduliJuaIvoll/iJW5I
001: httpI:l/doiOl'gllo.lS3514/'iJIIIL201"-100l
"
EnsJish and Kuzel; Reliability of eyewitness reports to a major uWion aa:ident
As to location of the pre-impact smoke, Belle Harbor observers that saw

smoke offered varying details: 2% reported the right engine, 13% the right wing,
7% the tail, 29% the fuselage, 9% the left engine, 7% the left wing, 42% from a
miscellaneous area, 4% an uudefined wing, and 2% an uudefined engine. The
NTSB report reached no conclusion about how much or from where the jetliner
was emitting smoke prior to impact
Analysis 3: Noise
The distribution of the 239 witnesses that reported either in-flight noise (156) or
no noise (83) was investigated using the same tools and methods. Graphical
mapping shows no discemable geographic pattern (figure 5). Logistic regression
analyses show no significant relationship to the noise/no noise reports along the
abscissa (b = -0.02 P = .287) or the ordinate (b = 0.01 P = .831). There is an
observed trend for a decreased pmbability to report noise with increasing distance
from the crash site; with about 70% of witnesses immediately adjacent to the
crash site reporting hearing noise, decreasing to about 50% reporting noise when
two kilometers (1.2 miles) away. However this was not statistically significant (b
= -0.04 p = .105). A two-tailed two-dimensional paired Kolmogorov-Smimov test
does not reject the null hypothesis that the two data sets are drawn from the same
continuous distribution (D = 0.210 P = 0.200).
.. • .
..
;.
"l'I"" •
••
·• . • 00 .
•
... ~
. •
•
..
• 0 . "
" " o '
•
'. , , "
.•• • '. ..' '

•
• • ••
•. · . '., • •. ...•
• • 0
. e. ••
... , "
·• -
- . · • •
• • - . •
•
•
•
Published by SclJ.o1arlyCommOllll. 2014 u

Figure 5. Was there pre-impact noise? Witnesses that reported hearing pre-impact
noise in red, those that reported no noise in blue. The gray line is the flight path.
The majority opinion of in-flight noise is statistically significant using a

chi-square test with a no preference null hypothesis, (y} (1, N = 239) = 22.30, p <
.001). Hypergeometric distribution analysis reveals that if five witnesses were
randomly polled, there is a 23% probability that a majority of them would have
reported no in-flight noise, the opposite of the in-flight noise majority with this
population. With 10 witnesses there is still a 9% probability that a majority would
report no noise, and a 92% probability that 2 of the 10 would report against the
population majority opinion.
Analysis 4: Explosion
Forty-one (17%) of the Belle Harbor witness pool reported that in addition
to noise, they heard a pre-impact explosion (or boom or loud pop). Geographical
mapping shows no discernible pattern (figure 6), confirmed by logistic regression
analyses that show no statistically significant relationship to the explosionlno-
noise reports along the abscissa (b = -.03 p = .282), the ordinate (b = -0.68 p =
.228) or distance from the crash site (b = 0.30 p = .486). A two-tailed two-
dimensional paired Kolmogorov-Smimov test does not reject the null hypothesis
that the two data sets are drawn from the same continuous distribution (D = 0.182
p=0.200).
The majority opinion of no explosion is statistically significant using a

chi-square test with a no preference null hypothesis (y} [1, N = 239] = 175.84, p <
.001). Hypergeometric distribution analysis reveals that if five witnesses were
polled from the group, there is a 4% probability that a majority of them would
have reported a pre-impact explosion, the opposite of majority opinion with this
population. This is a much lower probability that the other categories studied, but
even in this case the probability of all five witnesses agreeing there was no
explosion is only 61%. With 10 wituesses there is a 1.5% probability that a
majority would report an explosion, and a 54% probability that 2 of the 10 would
report against the population majority opinion.
EnsJish and Kuzel; Reliability of eyewitness reports to a major uWion aa:ident
. . • ..;..
. •,
•
•· •.
• .... .. ... . ... .,,- •
•· • •
.. ....
. . ... •
•
•. . · . .•..•... -. -.. . .. ..
·•
•
•
.' •. •
·• • •
•
Figure 6. Was there a pre-impact explosion? Witnesses that reported a pre-impact

explosion in red, those that reported no explosion in blue. The gray line is the
flight path.
Limitations
This study is subject to all the limitations inherent in archival eyewitness

research. This includes, but is not limited to, a limited sample size, a nonrandom
sample, participant self-selection, no control for retention interval, eyewitnesses
with varied vantage points, conflation of geographic position with other factors,
multicollinearity. lack of control of eyewitness interviews. no control for
emotional state. no control for post-observation social or media influence.
possible limited genera1izability of one specific type of accident to other aviation
accidents, and an inability to manipulate variables. Interviews were conducted by
three different organizations (local policelFBIINTSB) at varying times using
varying fonnats (written submissionsltelephonelface·to·face) with no records of
witness media or social exposure. The NTSB found disagreements between
statements given to different investigators at different times (Schiada, 2002). And
they noted that, "disagreement and direct conflicts also existed between
statements from the same source (e.g. two or more police statements
pertaining to the same witness)" (p.?).
Published by SclJ.o1arlyCommOllll. 2014

"
Despite the methodological limitations, many authors have supported

archival research as a naturalistic contribution to the use of multiple
investigational techniques to uncover reality (Christianson, 1992; Christianson,
Goodman & Loftus, 1992).
Discussion
Eyewituess reports to this airplane crash show considerable disparities.

Even with over two hundred wituesses in a compact geographic area stating an
observation, the variance was large enough to preclude forming a statistically
significant conclusion about a basic large-scale event (was the aircraft trailing
smoke). And while in three other cases a statistically significant conclusion could
be reached from the large 'clean' dataset, the observed variances were still
considerable. These quantitative results are in agreement with the apparent
variability of eyewituess statements qualitatively reported for other widely
observed aviation accidents.
Furthermore, analysis of the geographic distribution of the witness group

observations shows no significant pattern. Logistic regression showed no
statistically significant structure for four types of observation along three possible
dimensions of regularity. Two-tailed two-dimensional paired Kolmogorov-
Smimov tests showed that eyewitnesses reporting opposite observations were
drawn from the same continuous distribution. We might expect some directions
relative to the flight path of the aircraft to give a clearer view of an airborne event,
or people closer to an event to be better (or worse) witnesses, but our [mdings
show that in this case location of a witness does not appear to significantly affect
the validity of major observations reported. The variance was eveuly spread by
geographic location within the witness pool.
If the accident were to have been observed by ouly a small group of

witnesses (as is common), there is considerable probability that the witnesses
would not agree; and there is the possibility that a majority of the witnesses would
report against the population majority. That small groups have a remarkably high
chance of not following the population characteristics has been proven since
Pascal's Triangle in the 1600's (Mlodinow, 2008); and the mistaken intuition that
a small sample will accurately reflect underlying probabilities was called the law
of small numbers by Kalmeman and Tversky (1971). Thus, the [mdings for
commonly sized small samples are not surprising. However, the inability to make
a statistically significant conclusion about a basic large-scale event from the large
(N) 2(0) sample is unexpected.
Combining the high variances, the lack of any preferred observational

perspective and the law of small numbers, a conclusion of eyewitness unreliability
for aviation crashes is unavoidable. Although they sound compelling - "/ saw
the crash with my own eyes" - a small group of witnesses to an aviation accident
giving reports several days after the event may well not produce reliable
information. This is demonstrated to be true for a crash as seemingly perceptible
as a wide-body transport jet at low altitnde in clear daylight conditions. Dr. Percy
Walker's claim that eyewitnesses to aviation accidents are almost always wrong is
certainly not proven. But the current reported practice by accident investigators of
placing low value to eyewitness accounts of aircraft crashes is supported by the
empirical evidence.

References
Air Correspondent. (1962, March 11). 30 men who wait for an air crash. The
Sunday Times, London, UK, p. 8.
Aircraft Accident Investigation Committee (1993). Lauda Air Luftfahrt

Aktiengesellschaft, Boeing 767-300ER, registration QE-LA V, Dan Chang
district, Suphan Buri province, Thailand, 26 May B.E. 2534 (A.D. 1991).
Thailand: Ministry of Transport and Communications.
Altmann, E. M. (2003). Reconstructing the serial order of events: a case study of

September 11, 2001, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 1067-1080.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.986
Brewer, N. & Wells, G. L. (2011). Eyewitness identification. Current Directions

in Psychological Science, 20, 24-27.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721410389169
Brown, V. (1962, September). Accident aftermath. Aviation and Space Magazine,

38-39.
Chan, J. C. K., Thomas, A. K., & Bulevich, J. B. (2009). Recalling a witnessed

event increases eyewitness suggestibility. Psychological Science, 20(1),
66-73. http://dx.doi.org/l0.llll/j.1467-9280.2008.02245.x
Christianson, S. (1992). Emotional memories in laboratory studies versus real-life

studies: Do they compare? In M. A. Conway, D. C. Rubin, H. Spinnler, &
W. A. Waganaar (Eds.), Theoretical perspectives on autobiographical
memory (pp. 339-353). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7967-4_20
Christianson, S., Goodman, J., & Loftus, E. F. (1992). Eyewitness memory for
stressful events: Methodological quandaries and ethical dilemmas. In S.
Chistianson (Ed.), The handbook of emotion and memory: Research and
theory (pp. 217-241). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
CIAIAC. (2008). Interim report A-032/200B. Accident involving aircraft

McDonnell Douglas DC-9-B2 (MD-B2), registration EC-HFP, operated
by Spanair, at Madrid-Barajas airport on 20 August 2008. Madrid, Spain:

Ministerio de Fomento.
Dodge, R. E. (1983). Aircraft accident survivors as witnesses. Aviation, Space,

and Environmental Medicine, 54(2), 165-167.
Edelson, M., Sharot, T., Dolan, R. J., & Dudai, Y. (2011). Following the crowd:
Brain substrates of long-term memory conformity. Science, 333, 108-111.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1203557
Foster, A. R., & Naylor, K. (1999). Trauma and perceived culpability as factors in
eye-witness accounts. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference of
The Institute of Traffic Accident Investigators. Telford, UK. 73-79.
Goodman, A., Todd, B., & Koch, K. (2008, August 20). Passengers reportedly
saw flames before jet crashed, killing 153. Retrieved from
http://edition.cnn.coml2oo8IWORLD/europel08/20/plane.crash.madridlin
dex.html
Halbfmger, D. M" & Wald, M. L. (2003, January 9). 21 die in commuter plane
crash in North Carolina. The New York Times.
Johnson, S. S. (1991, May 29). Scavengers complicate crash probe. USA Today,
p.4A.
Kelly, N., & Elliott, H. (1991, May 28). Baggage bomb is blamed for Thai air
crash. The Times.
Kleinfield, N. R. (2001, November 13). The crash of flight 587: The overview.
The New York Times.
Loftus, E. F. (1996). Eyewitness testimony: With a new preface by the author.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lopes, R. H. C., Reid, 1, & Hobson, P. R. (2007). The two-dimensional

Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. XI International Workshop on Advanced
Computing and Analysis Techniques in Physics Research, Amsterdam,
Netherlands.
MATLAB. (2011). MATLAB and Statistics Toolbox Release R2011a. Natick,

MA: The Mathworks Inc.

McClellan, J. M. (2013). What you don't know can ... Sport Aviation, 62(1), 84-
86.
Memon, A., Mastroberardino, S., & Fraser, J. (2008). Miinsterberg's legacy: What
does eyewitness research tell us about the reliability of eyewitness
testimony? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 841-851.
Memon, A, & Wright, D. B. (1999). Eyewitness testimony and the Oklahoma

bombing. Psychologist, 12(6), 292-295.
Mlodinow, L. (2008). The drunkard's walk: How randomness rules our lives.
New York, NY: Pantheon.
Miinsterberg, H. (1908). On the witness stand: Essays on psychology and crime.

Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Page & Company.
National Transportation Safety Board. (1972). Aircraft accident report, Hughes

Air West DC-9, N9345, and U.S. Marine Corps F-4B, 151458, near
Duarte, California, June 6, 1971. NTSB-AAR-72-26. Washington DC:
National Transportation Safety Board.
National Transportation Safety Board. (1987). Aircraft accident report, Midwest

express airlines, inc., DC-9-14, N100ME, general Billy Mitchell field,
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, September 6, 1985. NTSB/AAR-87/01.
Washington, DC: National Transportation Safety Board.
National Transportation Safety Board. (1988). Aircraft accident report. Northwest

airlines, inc., McDonnell Douglas DC-9-82, N312RC, Detroit
metropolitan wayne county airport, Romulus, Michigan, August 16, 1987.
NTSB/AAR-99/05. Washington, DC: National Transportation Safety
Board.
National Transportation Safety Board. (2000). Aircraft accident report. In-flight

breakup over the Atlantic ocean, Trans World Airlines flight 800, Boeing
747-131, N93119, near east moriches, New York, July 17, 1996.
NTSB/AAR-00103. Washington, DC: National Transportation Safety
Board.
National Transportation Safety Board. (2004). Aircraft accident report, in-flight

separation of vertical stabilizer, American Airlines flight 587, Airbus
Industrie A300-605R, N14053, Belle Harbor, New York, November 12,
2001. NTSB/AAR-04/04. Washington, DC: National Transportation

Safety Board.
National Transportation Safety Board. (2012). Probable cause report

ERA11FA185. Retrieved from
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquerylbrief2.aspx?ev_id=2011 0311X65739&
ntsbno=ERA11FA185&akey=1
Naughton, P., & Strange, H. (2008, August 20). 152 burnt to death in Madrid
plane disaster. The Times.
Peacock, J.A. (1983). Two-dimensional goodness-of-fit testing in astronomy.

Monthly Notices Royal Astronomy Society, 202, 615-627.
http://dx.doi.org/l0.l0g3/mnras/202.3.615
R Core Team. (2012). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R

Foundation for statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-
07-0. http://www.R-project.orgl.
Robins, P. J. (2009). Eyewitness reliability on motor vehicle crashes: A primer for

practitioners. (2nd ed). Tucson, AZ: Lawyers & Judges Publishing
Company.
Rinio10, T. C., Ko1edin, M., Drakulic, G. M., & Payne, R. A. (2003). An archival
study of eyewituess memory of the Titanic's final plunge. Journal of
General Psychology, 130(1), 89-95.
http://dx.doi.org/l0.l080/00221300309601277
Rivas, B., & Bullen, A. (2008). John Derry: The story of Britian 's first supersonic
pilot (New Edition ed.). Yeovil, UK: Haynes Publishing.
St. Jacques, P. L., & Schacter D. L. (2013). Modifying memory: Selectively

enhancing and updating personal memories for a museum tour by
reactivating them. Psychological Science, 24(4), 537-542.
http://dx.doi.org/l0.1177/0956797612457377
Schiada, L. (2002). Witness group factual report: DCA02MA001. Washington,

DC: National Transportation Safety Board.
Schmechel, R. S., O'Toole, T. P., Easterly, C. & Loftus, E. F. (2006). Beyond the
ken? Testing jurors' understanding of eyewitness reliability evidence.
Published by Scholarly Commons. 2014 1.

Jurimetrics, The Journal of Law, Science, arul Technology, 46(2), 177-

214.
Schulz, K. (2010). Being wrong: Adventures in the margin of error. New York,
NY: Ecco Press.
Simons, D, J., & Chabris, C. F. (2011). What people believe about how memory
works: A representative survey of the U.S. population. PLoS ONE, 6(8),
e22757. http://dx.doi.org/1O.1371/journal.pone.0022757
Staff. (1952, September 12). The Farnborough tragedy. Flight arul Aircraft
Engineer, LXII(2277), p. 334.
Strauch, B. (2002). Investigating human error: Incidents, accidents, arul complex

systems. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
Toglia, M P., Reed, J. D., Ross, D. F., & Lindsay, R. C. (2006). The harulbook of
eyewitness psychology: Volume I: Memory for events. London, UK:
Psychology Press.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1971). Belief in the law of small numbers.
Psychological Bulletin, 76(2), 105-110.
Wald, M. L. (2002, June 23). For air crash detectives, seeing isn't believing. The
New York Times, Section 4, p. 5.
Wells, G. L., Memon, A., & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Eyewitness evidence:

Improving its probative value. Psychological Science in the Public
Interest, 7(2),45-75.
Wilkinson, S. (1977, July). Charade. Flying, 101(1), 120.
Wood, R. H., & Sweginnis, R W. (2006). Aircraft Accident Investigation (2nd

ed.). Casper, WY: Endeavor.
Wright D. B., Memon A., Skagerberg E. M., & Gabbert F. (2009). When
eyewitnesses talk. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 174-
178. http://dx.doi.org/l0.llll/j.1467-8721.2009.01631.x
Zaragoza, M. S. & Lane, S. M. (1994). Source misattributions and the

suggestibility of eyewitness memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology
Learning Memory and Cognition, 20, 934-945.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.20.4.934

From: Kooparaou. RiM Kumar (GSfC-699(!1
To: Hautalll!!fN. Grey (HO-NA020): Gran Ran; c. (GSfC- 1300)
C<, She!shtman. lonnie 'GSfC-620.0lfAQNET SYSTEMS INC)
Subject: Re: Washington Post ilflide dfafl
Dat e: Friday, May 28, 202110:57:15 AM
Thank you, I truly appreciate your willi ngness to help. And I will notify all of you before I accept any
interviews.
Ravi
From: "Hautaluoma, Grey (HQ-NA020)" <grey.hautaluoma-1@nasa .gov>

To: "Kopparapu , Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>,
"Gran, Rani C. (GSFC-1 300)" <ranLc .gran@nasa .gov>
Cc: "Shekhtman, Lonnie (GSFC-690.0)[ADNET SYSTEMS INC]"
<Ionnie.shekhtman@nasa.gov>
From: Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990) <ravikumar.kopparapu@ nasa.gov>

Sent: Friday, May 28, 202110M AM
To: Gran, Rani C. (GSFC-1300) <rani.c.gran@nasa.gov>
Cc: Shekhtman, Lonnie (GSFC-690.0){AONET SYSTEMS INC] <Ionnie.shekhtman@nasa.gov>;
Hautaluoma, Grey (HQ-NA020) <grey.hautaluoma-l @nasa.gov>
Hi RanL
Yes! My phone here are the talking poi nts that I sent to Nancy:
•
•
•
•
•
From: "Gran , Rani C. (GSFC-1300)" <ranLc,gran@nasa,goy>

To: "Kopparapu , Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravjkumar kopparapu@nasa goy>
Cc: "Shekhtman, Lonnie (GS FC-690.0)[AD NET SYSTE MS INC]"
<Ionnje shekhtman@nasagoy>, "H autaluoma , Grey (HQ-NA020)" <grey hautaluoma-
1@nasa.gov>
Hi Ravi,
Can I give you a call? Also, could you email me us tal king points you put together for HQ? I know
they are not finalized, but I like to have them for reference.
Rani
Rani C. Gran
Mail Code 420, 836, 5470
Greenbelt, ~
Work Cell tQJIW}-..
Phone: 301-286-2483
From: "Kopparapu , Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <rayjkumar kopparapu@nasa goy>

Date: Thursday, May 27,2021 at 8:04 PM
To: "Jones, Nancy N. (GS FC-1300)" <nancy n jones@nasagoy>, "Hautaluoma, Grey
(HQ-NA020)" <grey,hautaluoma-l@nasa,goy>
Cc: "Shekhtman, Lonnie (GSFC-690.0)[AD NET SYSTE MS INC]"
< 1l:'iw!shtIru.~>QY >" Rani Gran <ranj.c.gran@nasa.goy>
To: Hautal\lODJa. Grey (t-K}-NA02Q) : .lones. Nancy N. (GSfC- lJQ())
C<co Gran Rani C (GSEC 13(0): Sbekbtman lonnie (G;SEC-690 O)fADN FT SYSJFMS INC]
Subject: Be: [EXTERNAl] Nillional Geogrilphic Documentary I nquiry
Date: FridiIY, MiIY 28, 2021 12:14:09 PM
Thanks!
From: "Hauta luoma, Grey (HQ- NA020)" <grey.hautaluoma-1@nasa.gov>

Date: Friday, May 28, 2021 at 12:13 PM
To: " Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa .gov>, "J ones, Nancy
N. (GSFC-1300)" <nancy.n .jones@nasa .gov>
Cc: "Gran, Ran i C. (GSFC-1300)" <ran i. c.gran@nasa.gov>, "Shekhtman, Lonn ie (GSFC-690.0)
[ADNET SYSTEMS INC] " <Ionnie.shekhtman@nasa .gov>
Subject: RE : [EXTERNAL] Nationa l Geograph ic Documentary Inquiry
That sounds ok.

Sent: Friday, May 28, 202 1 11:44 AM
To: Jones, Nancy N. [GSFC-1300) <nancy.n .jones@nasa .gov>
Cc: Hautaluoma, Grey (HQ-NA020) <grey.haut aluoma-1 @nasa .gov>; Gran, Rani C. [GSFC-1300)
<rani.c.gran @nasa .gov>;Shekhtman, Lonnie {GSFC-690.0)[ADNET SYSTEMS INC]
<Ionnie.shekhtma n@nasa .gov>
Subject: FW : [EXTERNAL] National Geographic Documentary Inquiry
This is from National Geograph ic. They are not asking to interview me, but want to know if 1know
anyone who does scientific studies of UAP (I do) .
Should I t ake the caU?
From: "Rezvi, M isha X. - NO" .(b) (6)

To: " Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravjkumar .kopparapu@nasa.gov>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Nat iona l Geograph ic Documentary Inqu iry
Dear Dr. Kopparapu,
I read your op-ed in the Post . I am a producer w it h Nat iona l Geograph ic. We are wor king on
an hour-long docu m entary looking at the UFO report co mi ng out next m onth. We are more
interested in the scient ists who study these phenomena . We' re int erest ed in finding someone
who has dedicated their life t o st udying th is scient ifica ll y and thought of you as the best
person t o po int us in t he r ight direct ion . Wou ld you be ava ilab le for a qu ick ca ll on this?
I am based in DC and at (b) (6)
Tha nk you so much l
Misha Rezvi
From: Kooparapu Ravi Kuma r (GSEC-699Q)
To: Bezyi. Misba X. -ND
Subject: Be: [EXTERNAl] National Geographic Documentary Inquiry
Date: Friday, May 28, 202112:14:47 Pf>I
Hello,
Yes ! My phone number is
(b) (6) I am availa ble today, except from 2-3pm.
Thanks
Ravi
From: "Rezvi, M isha X. - NO" .(b) (6)

To: "Koppa rapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990 )" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Nat iona l Geograph ic Documentary Inqu iry
Dear Dr. Kopparapu,
I read your op-ed in the Post . I am a producer w it h Nat iona l Geograph ic. We are working on
an hour-long documentary looking at the UFO repo rt com ing out next month . We are more
interested in the scient ists who study these phenomena. We're int erest ed in finding someone
who has dedicated their life to studying th is scient ifically and thought of you as the best
person t o po int us in t he r ight direct ion . Wou ld you be ava ilab le for a qu ick ca ll on this?
I am based in DC and a ,(b)(6)
Thank you so much !
Misha Rezvi
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] National Geographic Documentary Inquiry
Date: Friday, May 28, 2021 1:47:30 PM
I don’t think they are going to do it with me. The focus is on struggles of one scientist, who against all
odds, continues to pursue what they think is a good science problem. I wish James Mc Donald was
alive today.

They’re going to have to profile you as they help you get the data you want …
--
Lonnie Shekhtman
301-614-6833

To: "Gran, Rani C. (GSFC-1300)" <rani.c.gran@nasa.gov>, "Jones, Nancy N. (GSFC-1300)"
<nancy.n.jones@nasa.gov>
Cc: "Hautaluoma, Grey (HQ-NA020)" <grey.hautaluoma-1@nasa.gov>, "Shekhtman, Lonnie
(GSFC-690.0)[ADNET SYSTEMS INC]" <lonnie.shekhtman@nasa.gov>
Hi all,
I just chatted with Misha from National Geographic. She is looking to talk to a scientist who
dedicated their life to scientifically study UFOs, so that they can spend an hour long documentary on
them. Unfortunately, the scientists who can fit their criteria are Prof. James Mc Donald and Allen
Hynek, both are deceased now. No one currently is doing the caliber or the level of the work that
they did. The closest is someone at University of New York-Albany that I suggested to contact. It is a
sad state of affairs that they could not find any scientist who is doing work on this topic to educate
the general public. There are a LOT of scientists who are ready to comment on UFOs, most likely to
dismiss them, but that is nothing new.
Ravi
From: "G ran, Rani C. (GS FC-1300)" <rani .c.gran@nasa .gov>

To: " Koppa rapu, Ravi Kuma r (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>, "Jones, Nancy
N. (GSFC-1300)" <nancy.n.jones@nasa.gov>
Cc: " Ha ut aluoma, Grey (HQ- NA020) " <grey.hautaluoma-1 @nasa .gov>, "Shek ht man, Lon nie
(GSFC-690.0)[AD NET SYSTEMS INC] " <Ionnie.shekhtman@ nasa.gov>
Subject: Re : [EXTERNA L] National Geograph ic Documen t ary Inqu iry
Hi Grey,
I ca lled the reporter. She is in the development stage for her documentary. She is interested in
science and wants to find sou rces for her story.
She wants to get more background on the story.
She got an excellent product ion background and contracted through Disney and ABC.
Rani
Rani C. Gran
Mail Code 420, 836, 5470
Greenbelt, MD. 20771
Work Cell (b) (6)
Phone: 301-286-2483
"If we amplify everything, we hear noth in g," Jon Ste wart.
From: "Koppa rap u, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990) " <ravikumar .kopparap u@nasa .gov>
To: "J ones, Na ncy N. (GSFC-1300)" <nancy .n.jones@ nasa.gov>
Cc: " Ha ut aluoma, Grey (HQ- NA020) " <grey.hautaluoma-1 @nasa .gov>, Ra ni Gran
<ran i. c.gran@nasa .gov>, "Shekhtma n, Lonnie (GS FC-690.0)[ADNET SYSTE MS INC]"
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Nat iona l Geograph ic Document ary Inquiry
Deletion Page


From: Keyjo Kouth
To: KooparaPIJ, Ravj KYma r fGSFC-§9991
Subject: Re : FW: [ EXTERNAL] Re: Historical iocKieots of UFOs
Date: Friday, May 28, 20212:23: 12 Pf>I
Hello Ravi,
Thank you for sending me this.

I look fOlward to reading this over.
I see that there is an article on eyewitness reliability to an aviation accident. That will be
imp0l1ant to read.
Thanks!
Kevin
Kevin H. Knuth, Ph.D.

Editor-in-Chief of Entropy
Associate Chair, Physics
Associate Professor of Physic s
University at Albany (SUNY)
Albany NY 12222
http://kuuthlab.org
On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 12:34 PM Kopparapu, Ravi Kmnar (GSFC-6990)

<rayjkumar kopparapll@nasa goy> wrote:
From: "Eghigian, Greg" "" (b) (6)

To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" . . .~
Cc: "Haqq-Misra, Jacob D. (GSFC-6062)[Science Collaborator]"
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re : Historical incidents of UFOs
Deletion Page


To: Egh joiao. Greg
Subject: Be : [EXTERNAl] Be: Historical incidents of UFOs
Da te: Monday, May 31,2:02:19:34:31 AM
Hi Greg,
Great! I might also ask Prof. Kevin Knuth, from U. New York-Albany, to join us. Kevin may address
some questions related to the radar that you asked in the ema il below. He also worked on a UAP
paper based on the lim ited data that is made available. We have some questions on it as well for
Kevin . So it will be 4 of us (You, Jacob Haqq-Misra, Kevin Knuth and I).
Let me copy all of us in an email for a deciding a date and t ime.

Thanks! And enj oy your vacation .
Ravi

Date: Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 5:00 PM
Subject: Re: [EXTERNA L] Re: Hi storical incidents of UFOs
Hi Ravi,
Yes, let 's chat. I'm heading off for a vacation this week, so perhaps some time after Jlme II .
Dates are pretty wide open after that, and any time after Ipm EST typically works for me. Just
let me know if there is a day and time that works best for you.
Best,
Greg
Greg Eghigian
Profe ssor of HistOlY
108 Weaver Building
USA
Email: (b) (6)
From: " Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa .gov>

To: Greg Egh igian
Cc: ' (b) (6)
Subject: Re : [EXTERNA L] Re : Hi storical incidents of UFOs
Hi Greg,
Thank you for your t houghts. Perha ps, it would be good to have a chat on zoom someti me. I have
more thoughts on t his, and it would be good to discuss one-to-one. If you could provide your
availability, say for 1 hour discussion, I could send a meet ing link. It is not urgent, of course .
Best
Ravi

Date: Friday, M ay 28, 2021 at 10:53 AM
To: " Koppa ra pu, Ravi Kuma r (GSFC-6990)" <ravikum ar.koppa rapu@nasa .gov>
Cc: " Haqq -Mis ra, Jacob D. (GSFC-6062 )[Science Collabora t or]"
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Hist orical incident s of UFOs
Deletion Page


Fro m:
To:
C<co : Haqq-Mjsra lamb D (GSEC-6Q62)fSejeoce CoIla boratorl
Subject: discuss UAP/UfO
Date: Moodily, MiIy 31,2:02:112: :13:06 PM
That works for me.
Greg
Greg Eghigian
108 Weaver Building
USA
Email: (b) (6)
From: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kuma r (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@ nasa .gov>

Date: Monday, May 31, 2021 at 9:4 1 AM
To: Greg Egh igian
Cc: ' (b) (6) Kevin Knuth ~
Subject: Meet ing to discuss UAPjU FO
Hi Greg, Jacob and Kevin,

We have had individual conversations on the common topic of UFOjUAP. I am copying all of us in a
common email to decide on a date and time to discuss our perspect ives on UFOjUAP and see if we
could learn new insights.
Are you all availa ble Tuesday June 15 from 1pm-2pm? Any later time works as well for me. I wi ll
send a ca lendar invite and a zoom lin k once we confirm.
Best
Ravi

Greenbelt, MD 2077 1
To: Clampin, Mark (GSFC-6000)
Subject: Re: Great WAPO piece
Date: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 7:31:48 AM
Hi Mark,
Thank you! When WaPo asked, We thought that this would be a great opportunity to explain the
scientific process to non-scientists, without outright dismissing the whole phenomena. We wrote a
more expanded article in Scientific American last year, expanding on our arguments and proposing
how to investigate UFOs scientifically. This is not new and has been an active topic 40 years ago
among scientists without any taboo.
Best
Ravi
From: "Clampin, Mark (GSFC-6000)" <mark.clampin-1@nasa.gov>

Subject: Great WAPO piece
Ravi
I wanted to congratulate you on the WAPO piece you wrote on bring science to
the understanding of UFOs. I found it a thoughtful and carefully balanced piece.
Great work!
Regards
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Mark Clampin
Director, Sciences and Exploration Directorate
mark.clampin@nasa.gov
http://science.gsfc.nasa.gov
---------------------------------------------------------------
To: Heather Hunter
Subject: Be: [EXTERNAl] Radio Interview - Washington, D.C.! Wt>W. Tuesday 2/1 - Ravi Kopparapu
Date: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 7:32 :37 AM
Thank you . My lastname can be pronounced as Koppa-rapu.

Ravi
From: Heather Hunter .(b) (6)

To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990 )" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNA L] Rad io Int erview - Wash ington, D.C. / WMA L - Tuesday 2/1 - Ravi
Kopparapu
.
(b) (6)
.. call you tomorrow (Tuesday) at 8:35 am ET. Backup # if you need it: Studio Ii
By the way, what is the best way to pronounce your last name? Thank you!
Heather
WMAL Radio
On Man, May 31,2021 at 7:29 PM Kopparapu, Ravi Kuma r (GSFC-6990)

qavjkumar koppa rapu@nasa goy> wrote:
Hello,
(b) (6)
I can join at 8:35am. My phone number i
Best
Ravi
From: Heat her Hunter .(b) (6)

Date: Monday, May 31,2021 at 10:44 AM
To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990) " <rayjkumar.kQQparapu@oasa.gov>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Rad io Interview - Washingt on, D.C. / WMAL - Tuesday 2/1 - Ravi
Kopparapu
WMAL's morning-drive radi o show in Washington, D.C. wou ld love to have Ravi Kopparapu j oin us
on Tuesday 2/1 at 6:35, 7:35 or 8:35 AM ET for 10 mins via phone.
TOPIC: Preview upcoming UFO report:
- Task Force Report On UFO Intelligence Expected By June 1

The Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force is set to sha re what it knows about UFOs by
June 1.
https:llwww.thedenyercban nel .com/report on ufo jntelligence eXDected by june 1
- Ravi Kopparapu: We're asking the wrong questions about UFOs
httos:/Jwww.washjngtonpost.comloojnjonsI2021IOSI26lwe-need-pyt-scjence-center-ufo-
qyestion!?
ytm campaign- wp opjnions&utm medjum- socjal&ytm source- facebook&fbcljd - lwAROX
M9YWoBezk012zyldL 61xEV5C8A9XAcKyEJ3bjy3fw3MBdwdnZO-oO
SHOW: W ashington, D.C's popu lar morn ing-drive news-tal k radio show "O'Connor and Company"
is on WMAL and hosted by LARRY O'CONNOR and guest co-host JOE CONCHA. The show ai rs in
the Washington, D.C. area (DC, VA, M D and West VA) f rom 5-9 AM ET on 105.9 FM and online at
W M Al.com. Twitter @WMALDC.
Please let me know if he ca n joi n us and the best number t o ca ll.
Tha nk you !
Heather Hunter
Executive Prooucer, O'Connor & Company
WMAL Radio 105.9 FM
4400 Jenjfer Street NW, 4th Floor
~
Twitter: @heatherhunterdc I @WMALDC
WMAL is the #1 radio station in the Washington, D,C. area,

Want to join the rest of Washington, D.C. in listening to WMAL ?
- Tune in to 105.9 FM on your radio dia'.
- Listen to our WMAL app on your smariphone or iPad.
- Listen online at WMAL com.
- Tell your Amazon Alexa: -Hey Alexa, play W-M-A-L -
hftps:lt\vww.wmal.comlJistenlivel
Heather Hunter
Executive Producer, O'Connor & Company
WMAL Radio 105.9 FM .
4400 Jenffer Street NW, 4th Floor
20015
Tw itter: @heatherhunterdc I @WMAI DC
WMAL js the #1 radio stam in the Wasbjngtoa. 0 C. area,
Want to join the rest of Washington, D.C. in listening to WMAL ?

- Tune in to 105.9 FM on your radio dial.
- Listen to our WMAL app on your smartphone or iPad.
- Listen online at WMAL.com.
- Tell your Amazon Alexa: "Hey Alexa, play W-M-A-L"
https://www.wmal.com/listenlive/
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/30/opinion/ufo-sightings-report.html?
referringSource=articleShare
From : Jacob Haoo Misra
To: Keyin Knuth
C<, Kooo!!raQU.Bay; KUmar (GSfC.§99!!l; Eghigiao. Greg: Hagg=Misrn. Jacob p. (GSfC.6Q62){Science Collaborator)
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL) Re: Meeting La discuss UAPfUfO
Date: Tuesday, June 1, 202111:)0:56 AM
Works for me too. Talk to you all then!
On Man, May 3 1, 202 1 at 2: 12 PM Kevin Knuth _ wrote:
Thank you, Ravi.

That is a good idea.
Cheers
Kevin

Associate Professor of Physics
Albany NY 12222
http://knuthlab.ora
On Mon, May 3 1, 202 1 at 2:03 PM Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)

<rayilllwcu.koLWaraplI@nasa.aoy> wrote :
Hi Kevin,
I think we will start with the fom of us fIrst and see how it goes. I had some other people
in mind as well, including Manhew, but maybe we can start the conversation first.
Best
Ravi
From: Ke v inKuth ~
Date: Monday, May 3 ~
To: "Kopparapll, Ravi qayjkumar.kouparapu®nas3,Kov>
Cc: "Eghigian, ' "Haqq-Misra, Jacob D. (GSFC-6062)[Science
Collaborator]"
Subject: [ E~T RN,\Lj Meetirlg to discuss UAPIUFO
Hello Ravi,
I think that this is an excellent idea.
I am available at that time and will put it on my calendar.
Ravi, did you want to include Matthew, or would it be better for it to be just the four of
us?
I should note that this is after the upcoming SCU meeting that you might like to attend:
https://scu.regfox.com/2021-scu-aapc
https://whova.com/embedded/speakers/svcft_202109/?utc_source=ems
I am putting together my presentation for that meeting, and when the slides are ready, I'll
share them with you.
Cheers
Kevin
------------------------------------
Albany NY 12222
http://knuthlab.org
On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 9:41 AM Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)

<ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov> wrote:
Hi Greg, Jacob and Kevin,
We have had individual conversations on the common topic of UFO/UAP. I am copying

all of us in a common email to decide on a date and time to discuss our perspectives on
UFO/UAP and see if we could learn new insights.
Are you all available Tuesday June 15 from 1pm-2pm ? Any later time works as well
for me. I will send a calendar invite and a zoom link once we confirm.
Best
Ravi
--
Greenbelt, MD 20771
To: Bei!triz Yillarroe! : Hagg Misra. Jacob D. {GSEC 60(2)[Scjeoce CoIlaboratorJ
Subject: Be: [EXTERNAl] Fwd: Tentative AGENDA [Of" the 1M SEll Permanent OJrnmittee"s ONLlNE MEETING to be held
on Wednesday, June 23rd, 2021.
Date: Tuesday, Ju ne 1, 2021 12:37:18 PM
Attachments: 1M SfD pc Ad Hoc SUbrnmmjttee on UFOs pdf
Hi Beatriz,
Spectral technosignatures are those when we observe the atmosphere spectra of a planet and see jf
we could detect any signs of extra-terrestrial technology. Pollution caused by technological activity is
one such signature. Here is a paper that we published as an illustrative example of how Nitrogen
dioxide can be used as one such technosignature:
httos:lluj.adsabs.harvard .edu/absI202 1AoJ .. .908 .. l64K/abstract
Jacob has a paper in review that discusses how Chloroflorocarbons (CFCs) can be used to detect ET
technology. The wonderful thing about this pollutant is that JWST may be able to detect CFCs on
Trappist-le, fast er than bio-signatures, if present. Jacob can send you the paper, if you want.
As for the 1M SETI UAP report, the majority report proposes to exclude UAP a bstracts for
consideration, and also suggests to propose criteria under which such abstracts would be
acceptable to 1M SETI. I am attaching both the majority and m inority reports with th is email. I
request that you to limit the distribution to on ly the three of us for now, unti l the committee makes
it public.
Thanks
Ravi
From: Beatriz Villarroel .(b) (6)

Date: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 12:06 PM
To: "Haqq- Misra, Jacob D. (GSFC-6062)[Science Collaborator]"
Cc: " Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Tentat ive AGENDA for t he IAA SET I Permanent Comm ittee' s
ONLINE MEETING to be he ld on Wednesday, June 23rd, 202 1.
Spectral technosignatures sounds rea lly exciting! Is it a new work or a published one already?
I'm looking very much forward to hear more.
I really hope you will have an opportunity to say something about the m inority report . I share
the same sentiments as you do about UAPs. I haven't quite followed the status of the majority
report -- what is the current conclusion from Jason Wright et al. ?
I haven't heard anyth ing more from Claudio. ""
Den t is 1 juni 2021 k1 16:35 skrev Jacob Haqq Misra .(b) (6)
Agreed that it is worth contacting Claudio to share about some of your efforts with VASCO in
Africa.
For the UAP part of the agenda, Jason is planning on leading the conversation and will talk about
the majority and minority reports. We may have an opportunity to say something briefly about
the minority report.
The astrobiology and SETI item on the agenda I believe is for us to ta lk about spectral
technosignatures, incl uding some of the work we have done and also mentioning the NExSS TS
working group.
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 9:47 AM Beatriz Villarroel .(b) (6) wrote:
I hope thattoo! :-)
Den t is 1 juni 2021 k114:46 skrev Koppa rapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)
qayj ku ma r. kOD Da raDu@nasa .goy>:
Wonderful! I hope they w ill get a chance to share their work .
From: Beat riz Villarroe l •(b) (6)

Date: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 9:43 AM
To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990) " <ravikumar .kopparapu@nasa .gov>
Cc: "Haqq- M isra, Jacob D. (GSFC-6062)[Science Collaborator]"
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Fwd : Tent ative AGENDA for t he 1M SETI Permanent
Comm ittee's ONLINE M EETI NG t o be hel d on Wednesday, June 23rd, 2021.
Hi Ravi!
Tha nk you so much for your kind help. I w rote a smal l note to Claudio about it,
and recommended him to contact either Onyeuwaoma or Khaoula regard ing t he citizen
science efforts.
He hasn't replied yet -- let's see where it lands :)
//B.
Den tis 1 ju ni 2021 k114:33 skrev Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)

<ravikumar. koppa ra pu@nasa .gov>:
Hi Beatriz,
I think you def initely should ask Claudio to include the African effort in the SET!. You are
the PI of the project, so your initiative in highlighting the great work of your team
members will go a long way in recognizing their efforts by the international SETI
community. If you cannot or do not wa nt to, I cou ld ask Claudio.
Ravi
From: Beatriz Villa r roel .(b) (6)

To: " Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" < ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa .gov>
Cc: " Haqq -Misra, Jacob D. (GSFC-6062)JScience Collabora t or] "
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Tentat ive AGENDA for the IAA SETI Per manent
Committee's ONLINE MEETING to be he ld on Wednesday, June 23rd, 202 1.
Hi Ravi!
I think we wil l get our referee reports within one or two weeks. I saw t hat one referee
already gave back the report wit hin one hour of receiving the paper -- so jf the second
isn't too late it might come soon ... Once I have t he paper accepted, I'll send jt t o you .
Yes, they are doing absolutely amazing efforts with the citizen science project.
Our leading f igures coordinating the citizen science efforts are Khaoula Laggoune and
Zeyneb Aissan i
in the Sirius Astronomy Associati on that involved several different amateur astronomy
groups in North
Africa, and Onyeuwaoma Nnaemeka Dom at the Center for Basic Space Science in Nigeria
who involved many
students and scient ists in Nigeria and Cameroon . In Nigeria, they struggle a lot with
accessibility to basic
tools as computers -- ma ny of the researchers and students t here don't even have
Internet. So I've been
app lying for grants to pay t heir wifi connection, at least. I can 't even express how valuable
work
they are doing. Even if we don't find ET in the long run, I really wish the VASCO citi zen
science project can help to inspire
the students into astronomy in less economically privileged countries and be a helpful tool
in their astronomy
education. The plan is to summarize our common effort s together into a paper after
summer and submit t o ApJ or AI .
Best wishes,
B.
Den t is 1 juni 2021 kl13 :53 skrev Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)
<ravi ku rna r. kop pa ra pu@nasa.gov>:
Hi Beatriz,
I had not realized that many African countr ies are part of (or lead ing) the VASCO citizen
science. This certain ly should be brought up to Claudio's attention. Otherwise, people
will not know or think that there is an active SETI sea rch is going on over there .
I am not hopeful that the UAP report w ill give us anything new. But we will see.
Ok, let's see what the reviewers comments are about the pa per. When are you
expecting them?
J think Jason is scheduled to bring up UAP. Jacob and I are scheduled for an astrobiology
session t ime, which I am not sure what it is about. Perhaps Jacob knows.
Best
Ravi
From : Beat riz Villarroel .(b) (6)

Date : Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 8 :24 AM
To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990) " <rayjklJmar kopparaplJ@nasa ~oy >,
" Haqq -Mi sra, Jacob D. (GSFC-6062)[Science Collaborator]"

Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd : Tent ative AGENDA for the 1M SETI Permanent
Comm ittee' s ON LI NE MEETING t o be held on Wednesday, June 23rd, 2021.
Hi Ravi and Jacob!

I just saw on the 1M SETI progra m you will bring up
UAPs on the 1M SETI meeting. This is rea lly great.
I'm looking forwa rd. I'll join the meeting.
Claudio forgot the entire continent of Africa

for the "reports around the globe" section on the 1M SETI meeting and their lead ing
role in the VASCO citizen science .. we crossed 110000 classifications
yesterday!
I'm quite wondering what the famous Pentagon UFO report will show today.
I really hope whatever they bring up, won't be used as a poli tical means to sti r
up a war...
I' m waiting for the second round of referee reports for the "simultaneous transients"
paper. We included a fairly extensive discussion about the possibility of gli nts from
small, metall ic and flat obj ects on the orbits around the Earth in 1950s, so I'm not sure
what the referees will say about it...
liB.
-------- Forwarded message --------
Fran: 8 eatriz Villarroel .(b) (6)
Date: t is 1 j uni 202 1 kl 12:17
Subject: Re: Tentative AGEN DA for the 1M SETI Permanent Committee's ONLIN E
MEETING to be held on Wednesday, June 23rd, 2021.
To: .(b) (6)
Hi Claudio,
Yo u missed to inclu de reports f rom Africa ...
liB.
tisdag 1 jun i 2021 skrev 'Cl audio Maccone' via community .(b) (6)
Dear SETI Supporters,
Please find attached herewith the Tentative AGENDA for the 1M SETI Permanent
Committee's ON LI NE MEETING to be held on Wednesday, June 23rd, 2021.
Suggestions welcome: if possible, I' ll be glad to take t hem into account.
Thanks for you r attention and best w ishes.
Claudio (Maccone)
Chair, 1M SETI Perma nent Committee
Find the 1M SETI website at: https·/Ijaasetj orE"

Find the upcomi ng SETI meet ing ca lenda r at: https ·//jaasetj orE"/en/meetjnE"sl
Code of Conduct (Interim) :

https·/IlW{Wajaa orE"/abolltlGoveroance/Code-of-Ethjcs
https ·/IlW{Wajaa orE"/abolltlGoyeroancelAntj-Harassment-poljcy
-- To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails f rom it, send an email to
commllnjtY+llnsllbscrjbe@jaasetj orE" .
further actions.
alien technology

retained, similarly strike ~ a l r from the second sentence of the old terms.
4 . Convene a subcommittee or subcommittees charged with so me or all of the following,
research
or remove the exclusion on UFO research . This could , in principle, include laying
2. If the draft terms of reference from 2020 are adopted, then they should not incluQeeny
Anamaria Berea, Julia De Marines, Kathryn Denning, Steven Dick, Greg Eghigian, Chelsea
Haramia, Franck Marchis, Julia De Marines, Hector Socas-Navarro , Clement Vidal, Jason T.
Wright
Summary:
discussion and difference of opin ion regard ing where the boundary between UFO studies and
the activities of the comm ittee should lie. The majority opinion was to let the exclusion stand.
We recommend slightly altering the terms of reference to reflect this, issuing a statement
explaining the exclusion . We also recommend the committee consider an additional, longer
C9m i te ~ members and members of the community in more fully exploring the boundaries
between 'UlFO studies and astronomical SETI, including whether it should be moved.
November 2020J to read that it ~ e x amines topics related to the possible existence of
extant or extinct intelligent and/or technological life having arisen beyond Earth." [i .e.
strike uall" from "all topics,,]. If that draft is not adopted and the old terms of reference are
reta ined, sim ilarly strike "all" from the second sentence of the old terms .
committee's work does not include stud ies of UFOs or Unidentified Aerial Phenomena"
(I.e., maintain the exclusion that w as in the original ToR. )
3. Adopt the below statement expla ining th is exclusion
at the PC 's discretion :
Defining the scope of w ork of the Permanent Committee
Polling Permanent Committee members on their positions regard ing UFO
research
Exploring the boundaries between UFO research and SETI, in parti cular the
or remove the exclusion on UFO research . Th is could , in principle , include layi ng
Statement:
The Permanent Committee on SETI for the International Academy of Astronautics "examines
having arisen beyond Earth. ~ The question has arisen as to why the committee does not
consider the study of Unidentified Flying Objects (Le. UFOs, or the related concept of
many that the committee does not include the investigation of UFOs as having extraterrestrial
UFOs with alien spacecraft is primarily driven by social trends, not by strong, durable physical
atmospheric science, aviation, military equipment, aircraft sensors and cameras,
collectively evaluate the scientific merit of daims about UFOs being extraterrestrial in origin, we
related topics.
Summary:

Remove this sentence from the terms of reference : ''These terms of reference exclude
H
Statement:
of civilization on Earth that could lead to such detectable technosignatures. One such scenario
relevant to the primary goal of the IAA SETI pc.

To: Bralriz Villarroe!
C<, Haoo·Misgt. Jacob Q. (GSfC.6062)fSciepc:e Co!!aboratgrJ
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL) fwd: Tentative AGENDA fOl tJJe lAA SETI ~manet Cornite~s ONUNE MEETING to be held
on Wednesday, June Brei, 202 1.
Date: Tuesday, June 1, 202112:54:39 PM
Thank you!
From: Bea triz Villarroel .(b) (6)

Date: Tuesday, Jun e 1, 2021 at 12:51 PM
To: "Ko pparapu, Ravi Kumar (G SFC-6990) " <ra vikumar.kopparapu@nasa .gov>
Cc: "Haqq-Misra, Jacob O. (GSFC-6062)[Science Co llaborator]" <!IjJIl!)_
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAl} Fwd: Tentative AGE NDA f or the IAA SETI Perman ent Committee's
ONLI NE MEETING t o be held on Wednesday, June 23rd, 2021.
Thanks a lot! I'd be happy to read the paper you have in review -- and I shall also
read the Nitron dioxide paper the coming days.
Thanks for sending the minority and majority report -- this will be read today.
Of course, I will not share the papers with anyone. In return, I attach links to the paper
about the simultaneous transients (the files are big, and need to be downloaded ):
Den tis 1 juni 2021 k117:37 skrev Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)
<rayj ku mac koppa rapu@nasa.goY> :
Deletion Page


information is/are held in the file .
From: L K Tucker
To: ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov; Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Your UFO article in Scientific American different explanation
Date: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 1:40:35 PM
II read your article _‘Unidentified Aerial Phenomena,’ Better Known as UFOs,

Deserve Scientific Investigation _ in Scientific American.
No one is publishing information to argue UFOs are a plasma phenomenon. Think of

Ball Lightening. There is video from aTV news repory showing ball lightning mooving
like the unidentified objects.
Thoughts?
Are sone of the single person sightings a problem everyone has discovered by design
engineers in 1964 when it caused mental breaks for office knowledge workers? Seen
as temporary panicked episodes of confusion, they are sometimes so severe as to
cause hallucinations.
Unknown in mental health services the episodes are mistaken for mental illnes. A
problem of the physiology of human sight, happening in places other than offices, no
one including NASA takes precautions to avoid Visual Subliminal Distraction
exposure in situations where the "special conditions" for it exist for long hours daily,
and for significantly long time periods.
The problem can explain psychological problems aboard space flights.
L K Tucker
VisionAndPsychosis (dot) Net .. is a collection of investigative materials for my

own use. Most site visitors are convinced when they perform my demonstration of
subliminal sight and habituation of conscious sight in peripheral vision linked at the top of
site pages. You will witness detected movement vanish, disappear from sight, while you
observe it in peripheral vision. That's how exposure begins, then continues, happens
subliminally, thus is UNDETECTABLE. The "Site Outline" page has the unrealized
history of the phenomenon, my investigation methodology, and two places to verify the
problem exists, believed harmless.
This demo tests the ability to suppress the vision startle reflex necessary for my
successful experiment to cause depression. Some cannot do that. They are immune
from Subliminal Distraction caused psychiatric symptoms. If the movement does not vanish,
have someone else perform the demo and report what happened
My site is organized around stories of unexplained mental events where the activity has the
"special circumstances" for Subliminal Distraction such as ICU Psychosis, QiGong & Kundalini
Yoga mental breaks, LGATS mental breaks, and some Culture Bound Syndromes. Those pages
redirect the site visitor back to the Home page.
No one would search for "visual subliminal distraction."
Email any questions.

Frolll: [-.arvin lames B (GSFC-6000)
To: Kopoaraoo. Ravi KYmar fGSFC-6990) ; Gran. Bani C. (GSFC 1300)
S ubject: RE: I need your help
Date: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 2:10 :20 PM
Great answer by David - he and I were college friends years ago at BROWN! He still dazzles me
JIM
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Dr. James B. Garvin [Senior Fellow & Chief Scientist]
DAVINCH Principal Investigator: A giant leap forward ill Vell1lS explorarioll
D --_ _-
...
8800 Greenbelt Road
Greenbelt, MD 20771 USA
(b) (6)
CELL
Email : james.b,garvjn@nasa.gov
** Recent finks to on-fine talks etc **

TED talk by Jim: https:/Iwww.youtube.comlwatch?v-8fOGh3Stflw
Video about Exp loration & Magellan at 500 (with Jim): https:Uvoutu.beI35Ih2 mup w
AGU StoryCorps interview: https:/larchjye,storycoros.org/jnterviewslthere is humor and
wonderment-jn-all-these-great-people-an-intervjew-with-james-garvinl
NASA PodCast: https:1IwWW,nasa.gov/medjacast/goddardI2020/the jnvjsjble network podcast
bon us-content -d r -ji m-ga rvj n
NASA YouTube Venus lecture: https:/Iwww.youtube.comlwatch?v-t0303T9zXQ8
Online Story of Jim in Science: https:/lsolarsystem,nasa.goy/people/402Ljames-jjm-brian-garvjnl
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
From: Kopparapu, Ravi Kuma r (GSFC-6990) <ravikumar.koppa rapu@nasa .gov>

Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 2:05 PM
To: Garvin, James B. (GSFC-6000) <j ames.b.garvin@nasa .gov>; Gran, Rani C. (GSFC- 1300)
<rani .c.gran@nasa .gov>
Subject: Re : I need your help
Hi Jim,
That is a good answer. "Life has withstood, despite all threats in the last ~3 bill ion yea rs old. If at all
there is any threat, it is better t o know before than be su rprised"
I also like another answer from David Grinspoon: "Life is somet hing that happens to a planet, rather
than on a planet. And once it takes hold, it is really difficult to get rid of it" (Thought Mars or Venus
may beg to differ).
Best
Ravi
From: "Garvin, James B. (GS FC-6000)" < james.b.garyin@nasa.goy>

To: "Gra n, Rani C. (GSFC- 1300) " <rani .c.gran@nasa.gov>
Cc: "Koppa rapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" qayjklJmar kopparaplJ@nasa jioy>
Subject: RE: I need your help
Rani
To me, what is "scary" - anything in space is "threatening" - - just look at incoming materials such as
NED's and comets etc.
We must be vigilant about everything, but life on Earth has been around for 3+ billion years against
all possible odds including large-scale impacts, microbia l "issues", and all the rest, and "life" is still
here.
I think the best answer is that it would be better to know there may be a "new threat" than to be
surprised, and to be able to consider life-saving responses as a world planetary community.
However, after aeons of "threats" that life has withst ood, I think we might consider anything we
don't understand as "scary" o r threatening, rather than otherwise.
But what do I know
jim
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
DAVINCH Principal Investigator: A giallf leap forward in Venus e.;'(ploration
--- _-
D -UNCI+ _.- ...
8800 Greenbelt Road
CELL (b) (6)

Email: james.b.garvjn@nasa.goy
.. Recent links to on-line talks etc ••

TED talk by Jim: httos://www.voutube.comlwatch?v-8fOGh3Stflw
Video about Explorat ion & Magellan at 500 (with Jim): https:Uvout u.beI35Ih2 mup w
AGU StoryCorps interview: httos:/Iarchjye.storvcorps.om/jntervjewslthere js humor and
wonderment jn all these great people an jntervjew wjth iames garvjn/
NASA PodCast: https;/IwWW.nasa.gov/rnedjacast/goddardI2020/the jnvjsjble network podcast
bon us-content-d r-ji m-garvj n
NASA YouTube Venus lecture: https:/Iwww.yout ube.comfwatch?v- t0303T9zXQ8
Online Story of Jim in Science: https:/Isolarsvstem.nasa.goy/people/402/james iim brjan garvjn/
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
From: Gran, Ran i C. (GSFC-1300) q ani c ~ran @n a sa ~ oy >
Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 20211:53 PM

To: Garvin, James B. (GSFC-6000) <james b ~ arvi n @n a sa ~ oy >
Cc: Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990) <rayikumar kopparap u@nasa ~ QV>
How do you answer?
How wou ld you answer,,,.
(b) (5)
Rani
Rani C. Gran
Mail Code 420, 836, 5470
Work Cell: (b) (6)
Phone: 30 1-286-2483
From: "Garvin, James B. (GSFC-6000)" < james b ~arYin@s i:0Y>

Date: Tuesd ay, June 1, 202 1 at 11 :13 AM
To: Ra ni Gran <rani c ~ran@s ~oy >
Cc: "Garvin, James B. (GSFC-6000)" <james,b.garvjn@nasa,gov>

Subject: RE: I need you r help
Rani
Good point...
My take on "aliens" has always been:
JIM
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>< ><><><><>< ><><><><>

DAVINCI+ Principal Investigator : A giant leap fonvard ill Velllls exploratioll
--... -- -...
~ .... ...
8800 Greenbelt Road
CELL (b) (6)
Email: james b ~arvin@os eoy
.* Recent links to on-line talks etc··

TED talk by Jim: htlps·Uwww yOlJtube comlwatch?Y-8fOGh3Stf1w
Video about Exp loration & Magellan at 500 (with Jim): https·/lyoutu be1351h2 mup w
AGU StoryCorps interview: https"/IarchjvestorycorpsQrelioteryjewslthere is humor and
woodermeot-jn-all-these-eTeat-people-an-jnterview-with-james-earyjnl
NASA PodCast: https"/Iwww nasa !:oy/medjacast/eoddardI20Z0/the inYisjble network podcast-
boolls-cooteot-dr-iim-earvjn
NASA YouTuhe Venus lecture: https-tIwWWyoutubecomlwatch-;Jy- tD303T9zX08
Online Story of Jim in Science: https"Usolarsystem nasa eoy/people/402liames iim brian earvjo/
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
From: Gran, Ra ni C. (GSFC-1300) qani. c.gran@nasa .gov>

Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 11:06 AM
To: Ga rvin, James B. (GSFC-6000) <james.b.garvjn@nasa.goy>
Subject: Re: I need you r help
I w ill definitely follow up.
We are going to put Ravi through a mu rder board .. asking every possible weird quest ion we ca n
t hink of relat ed to aliens.
Rani
Rani C. Gran
Mail Code 4 20, 8 36, 5470
Greenbelt, MD. 2077 1
Work Cell : (b) (6)
Phone: 30 1-286-2483
From: "Garvin, James B. (GS FC-6000)" < james,b.garyin@nasa .goy>

Date: Tu esday, June 1, 20 21 at 11 :03 AM
To: Rani Gran <rani.c.gran@nasa.gov>
Subject: RE: I need your help
Thanks for asking
For probably even better inputs than mine, we have Michelle Thaller and Giada Arney and others too
jim
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
DAVINCH Principal Investigator: A giant leap forward ill Venlis explorafioll
D ..... _---
8800 Greenbelt Road
(b)(6)
CELL
Email: james,b.garvin@nasa.gov
** Recent links to on-line talks etc ••

TED talk by Jim: bttps:/Iwww.youtube.com/watch?v=8fOGh3Stflw
Video about Exploration & Magellan at 500 (with Jim): https:Uvoutu.beI35Ih2 mup w
AGU StoryCorps interview: bttps:/larcbive.storvcorps,org/intervjewslthere is humor and
wonderment in all these great people an interview with-james garvinl
NASA PodCast: https:L/www .nasa.goy/mediacast/goddardI2020/the inYisible network podcast
bonus content dr iim garvin
NASA YouTube Venus lecture: bttps:L/www.youtube.comiwatcb?v-t0303T9zX08
Online Story of Jim in Science: https:l/solarsystem.nasa,goy/people/402Ljames jim brian garvin!
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
From: Gran, Ra ni C. (GSFC-13(0) <rani c ~ran@s ~oy >
Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 202 1 1O:4S AM

To: Garvin, James B. (GSFC-6000) <iames b ~aryio@ns ~oy>
You did thank you
Rani
Rani C. Gran
Office of Commun ications
Mail Code 420, 8 36, S470
Work Cell : (b) (6)
Phone: 301-286-2483
From: "Garvin, James B. (GSFC-6000)" < james.b.garvjo@na sa. goy>

To: Rani Gran <rani.c.grao@oasa.goy>
Subject: Re: I need you r help
Did I help?
Jim
Dr. Jim Garvin

NASA Goddard Chief Scientist
On: 01 June 202110:18, "Gran, Rani C. (GSFC-13(0)" qani c gran@nasa gOY> wrote :
One of our scientists had an interview this morning on UFOs. And ooe answer may get
taken out of context.
Could you help me find a better way for him to answer the following question? How
would you have answered and pivoted to a message point in a live interview.
The question, in the process of studying exoplanets and life, Do you worry that you are
poking a bear? What if you find something that you would prefer that would not come
out?
Rani
Rani C. Gran
Mail Code 420, 8 36, S470
Work Cell : (b) (6)
Phone: 301-286-2483

To: She!shtman. Lonnie 'GSfC-69Q.OXAPNEI SYSTEMS INC]
Da t e : Tuesday, June 1, 2021 2:57:29 PM
Fro m : Kgpp.yapy Rayj Kumar 'GSfC-6290)
To: Bratnz W!aqor!
Subject: Re: (EXTERNAl] Re : Tentative AGENDA for the 1M SEn Permanent Committee"s ONU NE MEETING tD be held
on Wednesday, June 23«1, 2021.
Date : Tuesday, June 1, 20215:46:30 PM
Yes! 2pm London/gam D.C t ime works great ! Here is the zoom link:
https:l/us02web zoom u s/j/64J J 0 16198
See you!

Date: Tuesday, June 1, 202 1 at 5:33 PM
To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990) " <ra vi kumar. kopparapu@nasa.gov>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Tent at ive AG ENDA for the IAA SET! Permanent Commi ttee's ONLINE
M EETING to be held on Wed nesday, June 23 rd, 2021.
How about at 2pm London t ime? (9 am for you?)
tisdag 1 juni 202 1 skrev Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990) <rayikumar kooparaou@nasa. gov>:
Absolutely, please choose your time ! I am t otally free t omorrow .
From: Beatriz Vi llarroel •(b )(6)

Oate: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 5:19 PM
To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kuma r (GS FC-6990)" qayikum ar.koppara pu@oa sa eoy>
Subject: [EXTER NAL] Re: Ten tative AG ENDA for the IAA SETI Permanent Commi ttee's
ONLI NE M EETING to be held on Wednesd ay, June 23rd, 2021.
Sure! How about tomorrow?
liB
tisdag 1 jun i 2021 skrev Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990) <ravikumar kopparapu@nasa INY>:
Beatriz,
Do you have few minutes to talk with me this week? I w ill send a zoom li nk.
Thanks
Ravi

Oate: Tuesday, June 1, 202 1 at 12 :51 PM
To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <rayikumar kopparapu@nasa ,goy>
Cc: "Haqq-Misra, Jacob D. (GSFC-6062)[Science Collaborat or]"
Subject: Re: [EXTER NAL] Fwd : Tentat ive AGE NDA for t he IAA SETI Permanent
Duplicate email cham - already processed
Deletion Page

_",-6_ page(s) containing duplicate

(b) (6)
From:
To:
Subject;
Dilte: Wednesd.:ly, June 2, 2021 5:46:14 PM
From: (b) (6)
If you need a time reference, I live in TEXAS in the Central nme Zone.
WILL YOU QUESTI ON THE REASON THE PENTAGON HAS NOT INVESTIGATED MY
ENCOUNTERS?
I have not heard a response. I have inform the Pentagon about my encounters with Supematural Beings.
I am not sure is President Biden Administration is as willing as the Trump Administration to reveal any
Iype
of information that is not Human.
I am not a Democrat nor a Republican. I am for the party that shows leadership.
(b) (6)
-AIRTiF. ,r.l' ~ from Supernatural Beings could help you excel (1 of 4 )
(b)(6)
FOlVlard to
(b) (6)
From:
If you need a time reference, I live in TEXAS in the Central Time Zone.
(b) (6)
Primary email
Secondary email: (b )(6)
fJMtNm~w: n Has 6 Months to Disclose What It Knows About UFOs I
Supernatural Beings showed me the MAP to the Garden of Eden EXACT location.
If you dig deep enough you might
find advance technology that Cherubims may have
left behind or artifacts that God touch.
The U.S. Government presenting plans to investigate my encounters could open the
doorway to some answers you search for.
»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»
SEND TO THE GOVERNMENT IN TH E FO LLOWING COU NTRIES IF TH EY PEAC EFULLY SEARCH FOR ADVAN CE TECH NOLOGY.
BELGIUM
CANADA
FRAN CE
ITALY
RUSSIA
UNITED KIN GDOM
UNITED STATES
»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»
How many artifacts have anybody found from other Beings or Spaceships?
You will gain knowledge and answers to some of your questions if you find artifacts from other Beings or
Spaceships that you search for. Something you can touch.
l ookinQ for answers by analyzing videos is not your only option, it can raise more questions. Exca vating
the Garden of Eden could answer some questions.
• Maybe the Cherubims left us information about the Spaceships.
• Maybe the Cherubims left a box of technology .
• Maybe the Cherubims left us artifacts.
Investigating my encounters involves digg ing . The U.S. Government should not avoid putting extra
effort
to investigate other abnormal findings.
The different committees in the U.S. Government might not have the same bel iefs because the Jewish
scholars agree that there are two types of spiritual places called HGarden in Eden H. The misconception is
taught because they can not fi nd the physica l location of the Garden of Eden on Earth . This could cause
un balance agreements and closed minds to investigate my encounters.
»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»>
In April 2021, I was watching a talk show and partially heard a person mention a UFO shape like a
pyramid. I google UFO pyramid and found a video of Jeremy Corbell.
Jeremy seems very worry about the Spaceships. If the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force
(UAPTF) would at least try to investigate all possibilities or abnormalities they might gain other
knowledge
that could be helpful. The Supernatural Beings showed me the map to the Garden of Eden exact location.
Buried underneath the Garden of Eden could have advance technology and artifacts that the Cherubims
may have left behind. There could be something unknown to Humans underneath the surface.
Searching for advance technology and artifact that the Cherubims may have left behind can be easier
than excavating 200 million years old Dinosaurs' bones because Dinosaurs' bones are buried deeper.
The DOWNFALLS of the PEOPLE that are looking for answers are; their minds are program to believe
the people that taught them in College, Church and at Work and not to believe abnormal information
available or not taught.
These people think the subject matters that was not taught are nonsense or not possible.
SUPERNATURAL BEINGS SLOWED DOWN MY AGE
#1. I am using the term Supernatural Beings in order to communicate with

the Atheists
and the different Religion groups. Afterwards you can give your
own interpretations
if it is God’s Angels or the reported Alien spaceships flying.
* October 1989 when I was 30 years old living in the Netherlands, a Supernatural Being dressed as a
Leopard gave me the formula to fight the aging process in my body. I now look ageless at 62 years old.
The person dressed as a Leopard came to me and said "Jeremiah 13:23, this will make you faster
and stronger."
* January 2019 after I turned 60 years old the Supernatural Beings forbid me to drink the RAELHU.
They wanted me to save the compound formula and to keep emailing the Biotech companies.
* January 2021 the Supernatural Beings came for the compound formula because the Biotech
companies were not interested.
* January 2021 the Supernatural Beings gave me a Nutritional Plan that is out of this world compared
to other Human-made Nutritional Plans.
The Nutritional Plan is catered to the people that are sitting most of the day, or for Heart health,
High Blood Pressure and Type 2 Diabetes.
* January 2021 the Supernatural Beings left Earth.
* 2009 I was given knowledge that the Being dressed as a Leopard was a Supernatural Being.
* 2009 the Supernatural Beings had me to buried one compound in a bottle. I do not know the reason,
but now the compound is 10 years old. The used bottle still has the expiration 23 Sep 2011 stamped.
(see photo in part 3 of 4 email)
* 2009 the Supernatural Beings gave me the summary of the correct interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27.
* 2009 the Supernatural Beings show rne the MAP to the Garden of Eden EXACT location.
* Supernatural Beings gave me over 100 predictions of dates for Sun Eruptions, Solar Flares and
other Sun activities that came true for 2011 to 2013. 1also emailed the dates to NASA before the
Sun activities occurred from 2011 to 2013 as proof.
My encounters with the Supernatural Beings has more trut h and evidence than
the people that you agree to believe.
The SUPERNATURAL BEINGS said your Minister, Preacher, Pastor, Rabbi, Bishop, Scholar, Public
Figure, Religion leader and teacher that say God spoke to them are LIARS and think they can repent
later to avoid Revelation 21 :8.
God left Earth during the ancient days. In Malachi 3:1 God is saying He will return to Earth after the
messenger and Jesus the Messenger of the Covenant.
I am a HEBREW like the others:

Genesis 14:13_ the messenger Abraham (Abram) was a Hebrew.
Genesis 39:17_ the messenger Joseph the son of Jacob was a Hebrew.
Exod us 2:7_ the messenger Moses was a Hebrew.
1st Samuel 29:3_ the king David was a Hebrew.
Jonah 1:9_ the prophet Jonah was a Hebrew.
THIS IS PROOF THAT THEY EXIST ...
Supernatural Beings showed me the MAP to the Garden of Eden EXACT location .
Supernatural Beings came to me PHYSICALLY. Their bodies you can touch . This is
not a mental thought in my brain .
#2. If you dig deep enough you might find advance technology that Cherubims may
have left behind or artifacts that God touch. If so, your findings should not be
deeper than the 200 million years old Dinosaurs' bones excavated in America.
#3 The Garden of Eden is smaller than some of the subdivisions in America . It

should
not take several mont hs to find the Tree of Life. Why wait several years for
Scientists to find a cure for aging and other death th reatening diseases.
#4. The location of the Garden of Eden IS safer than sections of Chicago, Detroit, and
New York City.
#5. I will show a picture as proof that the Supernatural Beings showed me the MAP
to
the Garden of Eden EXACT location in 2009. Now is the time to be reveal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"TREE OF LIFE WAS FOR THE CHERUBIMS THAT WERE STATION IN THE
GARDEN OF EDEN."
If you want a long youthful life like the Cherubims; the Tree of Life could still be yielding fruit or a partial
of the tree could be underground.
#1. I have learned that it would be more BENEFICIAL to reach out to Governments in countries that will
know how to manage the UNKNOWN findings in the Garden of Eden.
#2. The Government should think positive that the Cherubims might have left some technology behind.
The Government can gain faster results in searching for new technology in the Garden of Eden than
the billions of dollars spent on other Space projects.
#3. Concerning the Tree of Life; the Government would produce a powdered form or juice for Longevity,
Chronic Diseases, and Infectious Diseases.
#4. For a short period of time the Government can give portions of the Tree of Life to the people with
Chronic Diseases until they are heal. For now it is not good to try to supply over 7 billion people to
the Tree of Life to consume regularly.
"The Government can secure and protect the Tree of Life like it was Uranium."
Once you find the Tree of Life you can manufacture it in POWDERED FORM or a JUICE and grow
more trees in several gigantic greenhouses. (L ke App Harvest greenhouse in Kentucky the largest in North America)
Secure the factory and greenhouses like area 51 and military bases.
The fruit from the Tree of Life must be consume regularly, that was the reason the Tree of Life stayed
in the Garden of Eden for the Cherubims.
The Government Official must come to Texas to meet me in person so I can explain the MAP for the
Garden of Eden. The meeting location will be inside the airport terminal.
I will show the Government Official the EXACT location of the Garden of Eden. I have the special map
for the Garden of Eden that the Government Official will need.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
#1. There is a great chance of finding advance technology in the Garden of

Eden
because the CHERUBIMS lived in the Garden of Eden from the creation
of ADAM
through the ministry of EZEKIEL. The Cherubims were not living on a CLOUD.
#2. Also, after Elijah had crossed the Jordan River he was taken up to meet
God.
#3. Do not put all of your trust in the people with several degrees in Theology;
they were not taught the UNKNOWN.
Genesis 3:24_ So God drove out Adam; and God placed at the east of the Garden of Eden Cherubims,
and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the Tree of Life.
Ezekiel 10:1-22_ Then I looked, and, behold, in the firmament that was above the head of the
Cherubims there appeared over them as it were a sapphire stone, as the appearance of the likeness
of a throne.
2. And he spake unto the man clothed with linen, and said, Go in between the wheels, even under the
Cherub, and fill thine hand with coals of fire from between the Cherubims, and scatter them over the
city. And he went in in my sight.
3. Now the Cherubims stood on the right side of the house, when the man went in; and the cloud filled
the inner court.
4. Then the Glory of God went up from the Cherub, and stood over the threshold of the house; and
the house was filled with the cloud, and the court was full of the brightness of God's Glory.
5. And the sound of the Cherubims' wings was heard even to the outer court, as the voice of the
Almighty God when he speaketh.
6. And it came to pass, that when he had commanded the man clothed with linen, saying, Take fire
from between the wheels, from between the Cherubims; then he went in, and stood beside the wheels.
7. And one Cherub stretched forth his hand from between the Cherubims unto the fire that was between
the Cherubims, and took thereof, and put it into the hands of him that was clothed with linen: who took
it, and went out.
8. And there appeared in the Cherubims the form of a man's hand under their wings.
9. And when I looked, behold the four wheels by the Cherubims, one wheel by one Cherub, and another
wheel by another Cherub: and the appearance of the wheels was as the color of a beryl stone.
10. And as for their appearances, they four had one likeness, as if a wheel had been in the midst of a
wheel.
11. When they went, they went upon their four sides; they turned not as they went, but to the place
whither the head looked they followed it; they turned not as they went.
12. And their whole body, and their backs, and their hands, and their wings, and the wheels, were full
of eyes round about, even the wheels that they four had.
13. As for the wheels, it was cried unto them in my hearing, O wheel.
14. And every one had four faces: the first face was the face of a Cherub, and the second face was the
face of a man, and the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle.
15. And the Cherubims were lifted up. This is the living creature that I saw by the ri ver of Chebar.
16. And when the Cherubims went, the wheels went by them: and when the Cherubims lifled up their
wings to mount up from the Earth, the same wheels also turned not from beside them.
17. When they stood , these stood; and when they were lifled up, these lifled up themselves also: for
the spirit of the living creature was in them.
18. Then the Glory of God departed from off the threshold of the house, and stood over the Cherubims.
19. And the Cherubims Iifled up their wings, and mounted up from the Earth in my sight: when they
went out, the wheels also were beside them , and every one stood at the door of the east gate of God's
House; and the Glory of the God of Israel was over them above.
20. This is the living creature that I saw under the God of Israel by the ri ver of Chebar; and I knew that
they were the Cherubims.
21 . Every one had four faces apiece , and every one four w ings; and the likeness of the hands of a man
was under their wings.
22. And the likeness of their faces was the same faces which I saw by the river of Chebar, their
appearances and themselves: they went every one straight forward.
2 King 2:7-8_ And fifty men of the sons of the prophets went, and stood to view afar off: and they two
stood by Jordan River.
B. And Elijah took his mantle, and w rapped it together, and smote the waters, and they were divided
hither and thither, so that they two went over on dry ground.
2 King 2:11_ And it came to pass, as they still went on , and talked, that, behold, there appeared a
chariot of fire, and horses of fire , and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a w hirlwind into
Heaven.
.
(b) (6)
--
Frolll: Gran Bani C (GSEC 130())
To: Kopparaoo. Ravi KymarfGSEC-69901; Jone§. Nancy N. fGSfC-13001
Cc Sbekbtman J oonie fGSEC-690 Q)[ADNfI SYSTfMS INO; Andreoli Caire (GSfC 13(0)
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAl] Science Chlnnel- The UAP Report - Invitation
Date: Friday, June 4, 20219:50:06 AM
Thanks, I will send it to Hq and let you know ASAP.
Rani
Rani C. Gran
Mail Code 420, 8 36, 5470
Work Cell : (b) (6)
Phone: 301-286-2483
From: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GS FC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>

Date: Friday, June 4, 2021 at 9:43 AM
To: "Jones, Nancy N. (GSFC-1300)" <nancy.n.jones@nasa.gov>
Cc: Rani Gran <rani.c.gran@nasa.gov>, "Shekht man, Lonn ie (GSFC-690.0)[AONET SYSTEMS
INC)" <Ionnie.shekhtman@nasa.gov>, "Andreoli, Claire (GSFC-1300)"
<clai re .a ndreol i@nasa .gov>
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Science Channel - The UAP Report - Invit at ion
Hi all,
I received this email from t he Science Channel. Could you let me know how to proceed?
Thanks
Ravi
From: Stephanie Bianca (b) (6)

Date: Thursday, June 3,2021 at 9:02 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Science Channel - The UAP Report - Invitation
Hi Ravi,
I'm a p roducer on an upcoming national television event about Unidentified Aerial

Phenomena (UAP) for DISCOVERY NElWORKS and THE SCIENCE CHANNEL,
airing on June 30th, 2021. This 3-hour live special is primarily in response to the
overwhelming amount of incredible footage taken by military personnel that is -- for
the first time -- due to be reported by the Pentagon. This program will be a credible,
news and information format, which aims to educate the public by discerning,
ana lyzing, discussing, debating and anticipating what could be revelatory for us all.
I am writing to you to check your interest and availability to potentially join us

as a key guest on the program. We are only reaching ou t to preeminent scholars,
experts, scientists, creci ible witnesses anci distinguished national figures ; hence, you are
on our "wish list" of vital voices. Per your ava ilability, there are three ways by which you
could participate.
10studio appearance on our set in Las Vegas (filming 6/30)

On-! ,oratjon pre-taped interview, near you (filming as early as 6/15 or a date
TBD)
Oo-I.ocation pre-taped ioterview at our offices in Los Angeles (filming as early
as 6/11)
Ideally, we would like you to consider joining us in our studio in Las Vegas 00 June
30th. All travel expenses will be covered.
Attached, please find our one sheet on the program: THE UAP REPORT
I look forward to speaking with you as soon as possible so we can discuss your
availability, as well as your potential input for this unprecedented discussion about this
incredible moment in history.
Warmest regards,
Stephanie
STEPHANIE BIANCA
Segment Producer
PILGRIM MEOlA GROUP
A LIONSGATE Company
12020 Chandler Blvd., Ste. 200
I
PILGRIM
MEDIA GROUP
A LlONSGATE COMPANY
THE UAP REPORT

3 Hours Live
Air Date: Wednesday, June 30, 2021
Studio Location: Las Vegas, NV
SHOW DESCRIPTION:
Recent, bizarre sightings by U.S. military personnel of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, or UAPs
(commonly known as UFOs), have spurred a first-ever report to Congress. In turn, the Pentagon is
expected to release the official findings within weeks. This public revelation by the U.S. government
will be the first of its kind, and without a proper forum to sharply discuss the myriad of truly
unbelievable inter-stellar possibilities this conjures up, the breaking news could quickly be
misinterpreted and provoke fear in the hearts and minds of global citizens everywhere.
The question simply becomes: Are we being visited by intelligent life from other planels ... or is there
a gross deficiency within our government that is unintentionally allowing unidentified spacecraft to
enter our airspace? Either way: The outcome is shocking.
Now, Discovery Networks and the Science Channel will launch an unprecedented live television
event: a summit with the world's leading minds, who will converge in one forum, to discuss, explain,
debate and demonstrate this as-of-yel unexplained phenomena with never-befo.....seen footage and
first person, eye-witness accounts. Military commanders, national politicians, leading scientists,
professors, authors, theologians and technical experts will all weigh-in on this elevated conversation -
with the goal of determining just what exactly military pilots could be witnessing.
Of course, all of this pulls at the heart of one of the greatest questions of all time:
Are we alone in the universe ... or is the existence of life beyond our stratosphere not only possible -
is it probable? And if there is, indeed, intelligent advanced life, with technical capabilities beyond our
comprehension, have they visited Earth before? Are we - for the first time in recorded history -
documenting their visitations right now?
The urgency is palpable: The findings in the Pentagon Papers could change the course of human
history forever. The mission of this live summit is nothing short of relating crucial information to the
public in responsible, educated, informed ways, while leaving the door open to the unknown.
To: Gran. Bani C. (GSfC- l300l
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAl) Science Olannel - The UAP Report - Invitation
Da le: !'Tidily, Julie 4, 2021 9:56: IS AM
Yes. To at least dispel any mis-information.
From: "Gran, Rani C. (GSFC-1300)" <rani.c.gran@nasa.gov>

Date: Friday, Jun e 4,2021 at 9:55 AM
Subj ect : Re: [EXTERNAL] Science Channel- The UAP Report -I nvi tati on
Do you want to participate in this program?
Rani C. Gran
Office of Comm unications
Mail Code 420, 8 36, 8470
Work Cell :
,lit we amplify everything, we hear nothing," Jon Stewart.

From: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.koppa rapu@nasa.gov>
Date : Friday, June 4,2021 at 9 :43 AM
To: "Jones, Nan cy N. (GSFC-1300)" <nancy.n.jones@nasa.gov>
Cc: Rani Gran <rani.c.gran@nasa.gov>, "Shekh t man, l on ni e {GSFC-690.0)[ADNET SYSTEMS
INC]" <Ionnie.shekhtman@nasa.gov>, "Andreoli, Clai re (GSFC-1300)"
<cia i re.a nd r eo Ii@nasa.gov>
~ FW:
Deletion Page


From : Gran. Rani C. (GSfC-1300)
To: KopoaraptJ. Ray! KUmar CGSfC..6990l
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAl) Science Olannel - The UAP Report - Invitation
Da le: !'Tidily, Julie 4, 2021 12:)8:55 PM
What scient ific publication did you publish to kick off the UFO questions. I know it was on t echno
signatures?
Rani
Rani C . Gran
Office of Commu nications
Mail Code 420, 8 36, S470
NA SA Goddard Space Flight Center
Work Cell :
Phone:
"If we amplify everything, we hear nathing," Jon Stewart,

Date: Friday, June 4,2021 at 9:43 AM
To: "Jo nes, Nan cy N. (GSFC-1300j" <nancy.n.jones@nasa.gov>
Cc: Rani Gran <rani.c.gran@nasa.gov>, "Shekhtm an, Lonnie (GSFC-690.0)[ADNET SYSTEMS
INC]" <Ionnie.shekhtman@nasa.gov>, "Andreoli, Claire (GSFC-1300)"
<cia i re.a nd reo Ii@nasa.gov>
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL) Science Channel- The UAP Report - Invitati on
Deletion Page


From: Gran, Rani C. (GSFC-1300)
Date: Friday, June 4, 2021 12:42:55 PM
Do you have a second? Also why do UFO interview requests come in on Fridays?
From: SbekhJman. lonnie 'GSfC-§9CJ.O)[A[)NEI S)'STEMS INC) in Teams
To: [lIyilsymadsopparapu@nasa.gov: Kooparapu, Bayj KUmar (GSfC'6990'
Subject: [EXTERNAl] Lorrie sent a message
Da le : Monday, June 7, 20211 2;<17:36 PM
Attadlments:
Hi,
Your teammates are trying to reach you in Microsoft Teams.
Lonnie sent a message in chat
but got bumped for the UFO story
Reply in Teams
Install Microsoft Teams now
.. 'as • Android
Tivs email was sent from an UfV'DOOItored mailbox. Update your ema' preferences in Teams. Profile piaure > Setbngs >
NoI:mcatJOns
02019 MIcrosoft CorporatIOn. One MIcrosoft Wir'j. Redmond WA 98052-7329

Read O'Jr orrq;y oo!:cy
•• Microsoft
Frolll: newssnoc e
To: Kooparaoo. Ravi KUmar (GSFC-§9901
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAl] leonard David FYI: story posted - thanks for your assist
Date: Tuesday, June 8, 2021 12:22:27 Pf>I
Let's stay in touch. This is becoming a teachable moment.
LD
Sent from my iPhone
On JIll 8, 202 1, at 9:56 AM, Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)

<ravilcumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>wrote:
Hi Leonard,
Thank you for the article. It reads well and balanced. 1am uncomfortable to see in the
medi a for t he past weeks that a lot of talk is on extra-terrestri al topic rather than an
actual agnostic approach. 1am hoping some reason can be established with our voices.
Best
Ravi
From: ' (b) (6) .(b) (6)

Reply-To: ' (b) (6) .(b) (6)
Date: Tu esday, June 8, 2021 at 10:53 AM
To: " Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikuma r.kopparapu@nasa .gov>,
(b) (6) .(b) (6)
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Leonard David FYI: story post ed - t hanks for your assist
Kumar:
I can't get beyond a paywall at Scientific American to read my own story - but they sent me
this PDF of the artide , up this morning:
Expens Weigh In on Penragon UFO Repon

The vasr majoriry of examined incidenrs were nor caused by U.S. advanced
rechnology programs, rhe fonhcoming repon concludes. So whar's going on?
https:/fwv.rw.scientificamerican.com/artide/experts-weigh-in-on-pentagon-uto-report!
LD
Hats Off to Grads Give a Gift
SPA C E
Experts Weigh In on Pentagon UFO Report

The vast majority of examined incidents were not caused by U.S. advanced technology programs, the
forthcoming report concludes. So what's going on?
By leonard David on June 8, 2021

Still from a video released by the U.S. Department of Defense showing an encounter between 11 Navy F/A-IB Super HOfnet
and an unknown object. Credit: U.S. Department of Defense
For nrOlI8ttd18wa:dll'cade, the U.S. Department of Defense has been quietly cataloging and
investigating scores of bizarrc encountcrs most from the U.S. Navy of ships and
fighter jets tangling with, or being tailgated by, unidentified flying objects (UFOs).
Beginning in 2017, videos and eyewitness accounts of these weird sightings found their
way into public view, ultimately spuning Congress to demand that the Pentagon
produce a report summarizing all tlmt the u.s. government knows about so-called
unidentified aerial phenom ena, or UAPs (an alternate tenn with considerably less
stigma tllan tile much maligned "UFOs").
Produced under the auspices of a Pentagon group called the UAP Task Force, an
unclassified version of the report is expected to be released later this month. Upon
establishing the task force, the DOD released an accompanying statement explaining the
justifications for its existence: -rhe safety of our personnel and the secmity of our
operations are of paramount concern. The Department of Defense and the military
departments take any incursions by unauthorized aircraft into our training ranges or
designated airspace very seriously and examine each report. This includes examinations
of incursions that are initially repol1ed as UAP when the observer cannot immediately
identify what he or she is observing."
ASSESSING THE "ALIEN" HYPOTHESIS
Meanwhile all this strangeness has garnered considerable media attention, from front-
page stories in the New YQ1'k Times to 13,ooo-word ruticles in the New Yorker, as well
as prominent coverage on 60 Minutes and other prime-time television programs.
Through it all, a sizable contingent of true believers have steadily proclaimed, "We told
you so," insistent in their conviction that, whether called UFOs or UAPs, the entities
seemingly slipping through our skies are actually alien spacecraft- and have been
visiting Earth for a very long time.
ADVERTISEMENT
Those deeply entrenched public beliefs, paired with the apparent reinvigoration of
investigative interest in these incidents at the highest levels of government, can lead to
dazzling speculations. Might we be on the verge of a formal disclosure- backed by
irrefutable evidence- that humankind is not alone and is indeed being monitored by
extraterrestrial civilizations? Or could it be that UAPs are entirely homegrown products
of revolutionalY and clandestine technological advances, whether by other countries
now challenging American airspace or by the u.s. itself as part of some supersecret
dom estic program mea nt to detect flaws in the nation's defenses? The mind boggles.
Although the task force's unclassified assessment is not expected until June 25, the New
York Times provided a cursory preview of its contents in an article on June 3. Citing
anonymous senior officials familiar with the report's contents, the story said that the
assessment has come up short of explaining what UAPs are and that it provides no
evidence to link them with any putative alien visitation- despite reviewing more than
120 incidents from the past 2 0 years. TIle repOlt's firmest conclusion, it seems, is that
the vast majority of UAP happenings and their surprising maneuvers are not caused by
any U.S. advanced teclmology programs.
Lastly, according to the New York Times article, the final repOlt includes a "classified
annex" of infonnation deemed unsuitable for public release- leaving more than enough
room for die-hard UFO advocates to remain convinced that the U.S. government is
hiding the truth.
Andrew Fraknoi, an astronomer at the Fromm Institute for Lifelong Learning at the
University of San Francisco, echoes the widely held sentiment among scientists that, for
decades, the media has lavished too much attention on sensational claims that vague
lights in the sky are actually extraten estrial spacecraft. "Recently, there has been a fluny
of misleading publicity about UFOs [based on military reports]. A sober examination of
these claims reveals that there is a lot less to them than first meets the eye," Fraknoi
says. Given sufficient evidence (which, arguably, many of the recent reports fail to
provide), UFO sightings can essentially always be tied to terrestrial or celestial
phenomena, such as lights from human-made vehicles and reentering space junk, he
adds.
There is not going to be any "big reveal," says Robelt Sheaffer, a leading skeptical
investigator of UFOs. "There are no aliens here on Earth, and so the government cannot
'disclose' what it does not have. Some people think that the government knows more
about UFOs, or UAPs, than the public, but it's clear that they know less on the subject
than our best civilian UFO investigators, not more."
ADVERTISEMENT
The DOD employs some very competent photographic analysts and other technical
experts, "none of whom obviously were consulted in tlllS comedy of errors," Sheaffer
says. "The Pentagon has already suffered enough embarrassment from the [apparent]
incompetence of its UAP Task Force." He says it is time to rein in such "-rampant
foolislme.ss" and ensure that proper experts will shape the task force's conclusions
~ -
i'dtlter than "clueless, self-important people who don't even recognize out-of-focus
images when tlley see tllem."
REAL ISSUES
Skeptical science writer Mick West has taken on the chore of analyzing the spate of UAP
videos released by the U.S. military, steadfastly investigating how some of the incidents
could merely be mirages from flaws in newly deployed radar systems, as well as various
sorts of well-understood visual artifacts regularly seen in cameras. Despite his work to
debunk the recent claims, West maintains that reports of mysterious aircraft stalking
military assets should be taken quite seriously.
"'Firstly, there's a set of very real issues that could be grouped togetller as 'UAPs' or
'UFOs,''' West says. "'Any time something unidentified shows up in restricted airspace,
then tllat's a real problem that needs solving." There have been many reports of drones
above or near restricted areas, he notes. "We know that drones have been used for
terrorist attacks, and drones will very much be a significant factor in future conflicts,"
West says. "So we need to figure out how to identify and mitigate such things."
:;:'Ign up Tor ::'Clen(IfIC American S Tree newsletters.
-
Another ___ at pilots sometimes see things that they cannot readily identify,
West says, and they may misidentify such objects. Regardless of what such pilots
actually observe, this is a problem. "If something there is hard to identify- like a novel
drone- then we need to figure out how to identify it," he says. "If the pilots are making
mistakes, then we need to figure out why."
THE "DISCLOSURE" FEEDBACK LOOP
"!)l.f~¥Qcates of alien disclosure are encroaching on these real issues of UAPs," West
~'& : Thes believers take mundane videos of incidents that are simply unidentified, he
says, then reframe them as evidence of extraordinary technology-which, of course, is
intended to mean "aliens," even if enthusiasts for that hypothesis will not explicitly say
so. This cultivates credulous media attention, which in turn creates a feedback loop of
public interest, more media and then pressure on politicians to "do something."
ADVERTI SE MENT
"All the while, the military makes no comments, because that's their modus operandi.
Military things are assumed classified by default, and there is nothing compelling them
to clear things up," West says. In the end, he hopes that the forthcoming report
represents the views of seIious people finally stepping in to clear up what is-and is not
- gomg on.
"I expect much discussion and infonnation about the real issues of unidentified flying
objects. But I do not anticipate it will have much that will please the UFO enthusiasts,"
West says.
WAIT AND SEE

One person who is taking a "'wait and see" attitude about the upcoming report is Ravi
Kumar Kopparapu, a research scientist in planetary studies at NASA's Goddard Space
Flight Center. 11,e history of scientific studies of UAPs in the U.S. is not limited to the
recently released video snippets, which is a good reminder to avoid painting the whole
phenomenon with one broad brush, he says. Additionally, this is not a U.S. -specific
issue, nor is it limited to obseIVations by U.S. armed forces.
"111ere may not be a single explanation to all such observations. What I would suggest is
that we not leap to any conclusions when the findings of the report are made public,"
Kopparapu says. "11,e report would be immensely helpful if the data that informed it are
made publicly available so tl,at more experts and scientists can look at it and hopefully
reach a scientific consensus on the nature of some of the unexplained events. Otherwise,
there will always be conspiracy theories shrouding, and inhibiting, a proper scientific
investigation of UAPs."
A similar view is held by Mark Rodeghier, scientific director of the Center for UFO
Studies, who says openness should be prioritized as much as possible in future
investigations. "We don't know whether the UFO problem is an intelligence one, due to
foreign adversaries, but we do know, from its long histOlY, that it is absolutely a
scientific problem that deseIVes serious attention," he says. "In a subject that has been
too long ignored, downplayed and ridiculed, the government and scientific community
should study UFOs openly and, importantly, witll an open mind."
A DVERTISEMENT
WANTED: SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY
Harvard University astrophysicist Avi Loeb says the significance of the UAP Task Force
report will depend on the evidence it discloses, which at the moment remains mostly
unknown. "But this focus on past reports is misguided," he says. "'It would be prudent to
progress forward with our finest instruments rather than examine past reports. Instead
of focusing on documents that reflect decades-old teclmologies used by witn esses with
no scientific expertise, it would be far better to deploy state-of-the-art recording devices,
such as cameras or audio sensors, at the sites where the reports came from and search
[or unus ual signals."
Loeb goes a step further, saying he is willing to sign up to help unravel the UAP/UFO
saga. "Personally. I will be glad to lead scientific inquiry into the nature of these reports
and advise Congress accordingly," he says. "'This could take the form of a federally
designated committee or a privately funded expedition. Its most important purpose
would be to inject scientific rigor and credibility into the discussion."
HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF
For some seasoned investigators, such as William Hartmann, a senior scientist emeritus
at the Planetary Science Institute, headquartered in Tucson, Ariz., the current dustup
over an influential government report on UFOs is a reminder that, eventually,
everything old becomes new again.
Hartmann was a photography consultant and a co-author of the University of Colorado

UFO Project's repOIt Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects. Funded by the U.S.
Air Force from 1966 to 1968, that investigative effort was led by physicist Edward
Condon, and it had dismal effects on subsequent scientific investigations. The extensive
study of UFOs, Condon and his co-authors concluded, is simply not a fruitful field in
which to seek maj or discoveries and "'probably cannot be justified in the expectation that
science will be advanced thereby."
Reflecting on his work for the project, also called the Condon committee, Hartmann says
that none of the photographic evidence he examined could establish anything
extraordinary about the observed phenomena. "We proved that some of [the cases).
including classic photos still being trotted out, were fake," he says. "That fact alone
makes it extremely difficult to apply straight scientific techniques because we know
some, not necessarily all, of the data we were given were carefully prepared to delude us.
[That is] not quite like astronomy, where we can assume that the photons coming
through our telescope atop Mauna Kea in Hawaii are not put in there by a hoaxer."
ADVERT I SEMENT
"To put it another way, if you think there could be a real alien spaceship among a pile of
photos you are given, but you know that some of the photos are fakes, then it is very
hard to prove that any single one of them is proof of an alien visitation," Harhnann says.
"I'd want to see multiple, clear photos or detections by witnesses who don't know each
other, from multiple cities, viewing from multiple directions, before getting very
excited."
Still, he adds that ever since his experience working on the Condon committee, he
cannot escape "the feeling that there may be electromagnetic phenomena in the
atmosphere that we still don't understand."
THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE
Sarah Scoles is author of the recently published book They Are Already Here: UFO
Culture and Why We See Saucers. AltllOugh the report's full details remain to be seen,
she senses it will not be as revelatory as some hope.
"At various times during the 20th century, the military has undertaken studies of UFOs
to detennine, largely, whether what people are seeing represents a national security
threat," Scoles says. "This report doesn't, then, seem seminal, because it's doing a 21St-
centUlY version of that same thing."
That said, Scoles feels an unbiased analysis of available data could shed light on the true
frequency of UAP observations-and perhaps on the characteristics and possibly
identities of these sightings. ' One problem with UFO/UAP research is that it often
doesn't resemble traditional scientific research in terms of rigor," she says.
The task force report could quantify and analyze a wide swath of datal Scoles hopes, with
the requisite background knowledge of sensor capabilities, current domestic and foreign
military capabilities, and so on. If SOl that would be a welcome change from previous
high-profile studies, she concludes.
Where does this leave us? The truth, of course, is somewhere out there, whether or not it
appears in the pages of the UAP Task Force report. But for now, the odds seem to be
against the U.S. govenUllent knowing what it is, let alone revealing it anytime soon.
Rights & Permissions
ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)
leonard Davidis author of Moon Rush: The New Space Race (National Geographic, 2019) and
Mars: Our Future on the Red Pianet (National Geographic, 2016). He has been reporting on the
space industry for more than five decades.
Credit: Nick Higgins
Recent Articles by leonard David

Falling Uncontrolled from Space, Giant Chinese Rocket Highlights Risk of Orbital Debris
Space Junk Removal Is Not Going Smoothly

As Perseverance Approaches Mars, Scientists Debate Its Sampling Strategy
READ THIS NEXT
SPONSORED
What science says about how to brush your teeth
S PAC E
A Word about Those UFO Videos

May 6, 2020 - Katie Mack I Opinion
ARTS & CULTURE
Should Scientists Take UFOs and Ghosts More Seriously?

May 18, 2020 - John Horgan I Opinion
POLICY & ETHICS
'Unidentified Aerial Phenomena,' Better Known as UFOs, Deserve Scientific

Investigation
July 27. 2020 - Ravi Kopparapu and Jacob Haqq·Misra I Opinion
NEWSLETTER
Get smart. Sign up for our email newslettel:

Sign Up
Support Sciellce Jourllalism

Subscribe Now!
fOllOW US
SCIENTifiC AMERICAN ARABIC
Return & Refund Policy FAQs
About Contact Us
Press Room Site Map
Advertise Privacy Policy
SA Custom Media California Consumer Privacy Statement
Terms of Use Use of cookies/Do not sell my data
International Editions
Sclef1tlfic AmerICan IS part of Springer Nature, whICh owns Of has commercial relations with thousands of scientific publications (many
of them can be found at www.sprmgernature.com/us).Scientlfic AmerICan maintams a strict policy of editorial Independence in
reporting developments tn sctence to our readers.
© 202 1 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, A DIVISION OF SPRINGER NATURE AMERICA, INC.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Also, this (had no idea when i gave the interview):
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/experts-weigh-in-on-pentagon-ufo-report/
To: Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990); Gran, Rani C. (GSFC-1300)
Cc: Shekhtman, Lonnie (GSFC-690.0)[ADNET SYSTEMS INC]
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Media query for National Geographic on upcoming UFO/UAP report
Date: Wednesday, June 9, 2021 10:29:36 AM
Please continue to let me know about media inquiries.
--
Nancy Neal Jones

Date: Wednesday, June 9, 2021 at 10:25 AM
To: "Nancy N. Jones" <nancy.n.jones@nasa.gov>, "Gran, Rani C. (GSFC-1300)"
<rani.c.gran@nasa.gov>
Cc: "Shekhtman, Lonnie (GSFC-690.0)[ADNET SYSTEMS INC]" <lonnie.shekhtman@nasa.gov>
Thanks Nancy! Yes, that would be great!

Also, do you want me to continue to copy you in any future emails? Or would you rather not me
spam you?
Ravi

To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>, "Gran, Rani C.
(GSFC-1300)" <rani.c.gran@nasa.gov>
Cc: "Shekhtman, Lonnie (GSFC-690.0)[ADNET SYSTEMS INC]" <lonnie.shekhtman@nasa.gov>
Hi Ravi,
Rani is going to work this you and HQ. I’m working on a few other items.
Thanks,
Nancy
--
Nancy Neal Jones
NASA.s Goddard Space Flight Center

Date: Wednesday, June 9, 202 1 at 8:36 AM
To: "Nancy N. Jones" <nancy .n.j ones@nasa.gov>, "Gran, Rani C. (GSFC-1300) "
<ran i .c.gra n@nasa .gov>
Cc: "Shekhtman, Lonnie (GSFC-690 .0)[ADNET SYSTEMS INC]" <Ionn ie.shekhtman@nasa.gov>
Subject: Re : [EXTERNAL] Media query for National Geograph ic on upcom ing UFOjUAP report
Hi Nancy,
This is f rom National Geographic Travel website. This looks like a reasonable request and balanced .
Ravi
From: Jill Robinson .(b) (6)

Subject: [EXTERNAL] Med ia query for National Geograph ic on upcoming UFOjUAP report
Dear Dr. Kopparapu,
I'm a freelance j ournalist writing a story for National Geographic Travel about the upcoming report
on UFOjUAP data and intelligence that was spurred by the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2021. I realize that the unclassified version of the report has not yet been released, however I
wou ld like to ta lk with you once it is released to get your perspective on what you think these things
might actually be, the necessity for scientific analysis of this data, and whether you think it may give
us a more cohesive understanding of ourselves as a species and our planet as an ecosystem among
others (perhaps leading us to take more care with what we already have) .
My editor also wants me to address why there's a cult ural phenomenon of "extraterrestrial hot
spots," and certainly, if you think any of the sightings and their locations raise important scient ific
questions (whether or not it has anything to do with "aliens") or if you find any of them interesting
as a theory, I'd like to talk about that. But I'm not trying to make you acknowledge something you
don't believe.
Please let me know if you're open to talking with me for this article, and if you have any preferences
for timing once the report is released . Thank you in advance for your consi deration.
Best,
-Jill Robinson
Jill K. Robinson
Traveling Writer
Clips: dangerjillrobinson.com/writing
IG and Twitter: @dangerjr
Pronouns: she/her
From : Gran. Rani C. (GSfC-1300)
To: KopoaraptJ. Ray! KYmar CGSfC..6990l
Subject: FW: Media QUefY for National Geographit on upcoming UfONAP report
Da le : Wednesday, June 9, 202112:23:36 PM
Rani C. Gran
Mail Code 420. 836. 5470
Work Cell :
Phone:
Fro m: "Hautaluoma, Grey (HQ-NA020)" <grey.haut aluoma-1@nasa.gov>

Date: Wednesday, June 9,2021 at 12: 17 PM
To: "Fox, Karen C. (GSFC-1300)" <karen.c.fox@nasa.gov>, "Gutro, Rob (GSFC-1300)"
<robert.j.gutro@nasa.gov>, "Johnson, Alana R. (HQ-DGOOO){ASRC FEDERAL SYSTEM
SOLUTI ONS]" <alana.r.j oh nson@na sa.gov>. "Handa l, Joshua A. (HQ·DGOOO)[ASRC FEDERAL
SYSTEM SOLUTIONS]" <joshua.a.handa l@nasa.gov>
Cc: Rani Gran <ran i.c.gran@nasa .gov>
Subj ect : RE: M edia query for Nat iona l Geographic on upcoming UFO/UAP report
From : Fox, Karen C. (GSFC-1300) <karen. c.fox@ nasa.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, June 9,202110:41 AM
To : Gutro, Rob (GSFC-1300) <robert.j.gutro@nasa.gov>;Johnson,Alana R. (HQ-DG()(x))[ASRC
FEDERAL SYSTEM SOLUTIONS] <.Iana.r.johnson@nas•. gov>; Hand. l. Joshua A. (HQ·DGOOO)[ASRC
FED ERAL SYSTEM SOLUTIONS] <joshua.a. handal@nasa.gov>
Cc : Gran, Rani C. (GSFC-1300) <rani.c.gran@nasa .gov>; Hautaluoma, Grey (HQ-NA020)
<grey.hautaluoma-l@nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: M edia query for National Geographic on upcoming UFO/UAP report
Thanks, Rob!
As the reporter notes, the upcoming report is top secret and has not been released in
(b) (5)
any kind of public version yet - I don't know
(b) (5)
Th anks for all the coordination you all have been doing on this complex issue!
--Karen
Karen C. Fox
Senior Science Communications Officer
From: "Gutro, Rob (GSFC-1300) " <robert,j, gutro@nasa, goy>

Date: Wednesday, June 9,202 1 at 10:27 AM
To: "Fox, Karen C. (GSFC-1300)" <karen c fox@nasa i'0Y>, "Johnson, Alana R, (HQ- DGOOO)
[ASRC FEDERAL SYSTEM SOLUTIONS]" <alana r iohnson@nasa ~oy>, "Handa I, Joshua A. (HQ-
DGOOO)[ASRC FEDE RAL SYSTEM SOLUTIONSj" <joshua a haodal@nasa eoY>
Cc: "Gran, Rani C. (GSFC-1300) " <rani c eran@nasa iOV>, "Hautal uoma, Grey (HQ- NA020)"
<~rey haulalllDrna -l@nasa !lOY>
Subject: Media query for National Geographic on upcoming UFO/UAP report
Hi Karen, Alana and Josh - Rani recei ved a request from Nat ional
Geo about an upcoming UFO/UAP report, and wanted to know if Dr. Ravi
Kumar Kopparapu, Research AST, Planetary Studies cou ld talk with them.
I pasted Ra v i's bio belo w .
Please ad vise and provide guidance.
Thanks, Rob,
Brief Bio
My research interests are in e xtrasolar planet habitab ilit y, atmosphere m odeling and
cha racterization. Specifical ly, I use i-dimensional and 3-dimensional climate and photochem ical
models to deter mine the co ndit ions needed for a terrestri al planet to sustain liquid water on it 's
surface. Life, as we know it, requi res liquid water; therefore, finding worlds around other stars and
identifying the signatures of surface water can potentially allow us to discover extraterrestrial life. I
am a lso interested super-Earth and mini-Neptune atmospheres, and their characterization. There
are no such planets in our solar system, so they prov ide an excell ent opportunity to study planets
that are totally new to us.
I am a lso interested in identifying technosignatures . Just as biosignatures are signs of biology,

technosignatures are a signs of technology. This field is in it's nascent stage (just like biosignatures
was several decad es ago ), so its a good time to get involved.
Fro m: Gran, Rani C. (GSFC-1300) q ani.c.gra n@ nasa, goy>

Sent : Wednesday, June 9, 2021 10:23 AM
To: Hautaluoma, Grey (HQ-NA020) <greY,hautaluoma l@ oasa ,goy>
Cc: Gutro, Rob (GSFC-1300) <robert,j,gutro@oasa .goy>
Subject : FW : [EXTERNAL] Media query for National Geographic on upcoming UFO/UAP report
Hello another UFO/UAP request.
Could Ravi move ahead with this one?
Rani
Rani C. Gran
Mail Code 420, 836, 5470
Work Cell : (b) (6)
Phone: 301-286-2483
Fro m : " Kopparap u, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <rayjkumar,koopa rapu@oasa,goy>

Date: Wednesday, June 9, 20 21 at 8:36 AM
To : "Jones, Nancy N. (GSFC-1300) " < nancv ,o,jooes@oasa ,gov>, RaniGran
<ranj C ~ran@s ti0Y>
Cc: "Shekhtman, Lonnie (GSFC-690.0)[ADNET SYSTEMS INej " < Ionnie.shekht man@nasa.gov>
Subject: Re : [EXTERNAL] Media query for National Geograph ic on upcom ing UFOjUAP report
Hi Nancy,
This is from National Geographic Travel website. This looks like a reasonable request and balanced .
Ravi

To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" q ayjkumar.koQoarapu@nasa .goy>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Med ia query for National Geograp hic on upcoming UFO/UAP report
Dear Dr. Kopparapu,
I'm a freelance j ournalist writ ing a story for Nationa l Geographic Travel about the upcoming report
on UFO/UAP data and intelligence that was spurred by t he Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2021. I realize t hat t he unclassified version of t he report has not yet been released, however 1
would li ke to ta lk wit h you once it is released to get your perspective on what you t hink these things
might actually be, the necessity for scientific analysis of this data, and whether you th ink it may give
us a more cohesive understanding of ourselves as a species and ou r planet as an ecosystem among
others (perhaps leading us to take more care wit h what we already have) .
My ed itor also wants me to add ress why there's a cultural phenomenon of "extraterrestrial hot
spots," and certa inly, if you think any of the sightings and their locations ra ise im porta nt scientific
questions (whether or not it has anything to do w ith "aliens") or if you find any of t hem interesting
as a theory, I'd li ke to talk about that. But I'm not trying to make you acknowledge something you
don't believe.
Please let me know if you're open to talking w ith me for this article, and if you have any preferences
for timing once the report is released . Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Best,
-Jill Robinson
Jill K. Robinson
Traveling Writer
Clips: daneerWlrobjnson com/w rjtjoe
IG and Twitter : @dangerjr
Pronouns: she/her
From: Gran, Rani C. (GSfC-1300)
To: KopoaraptJ, Ray! KUmar CGSfC..6990l; Hautll1yoma Grey (HO-NA!!20)
Subject: Re: Draft: Response to Kational Geographic
Da le: Wednesday, June 9, 2021 1 :50:09 PM
Thanks Ravi,
Rani
Rani C, Gran
Office of Comm unications
Mail Code 420, 6 36, S470
Wo rk Cell : (b) (6)
Phone: 301 -286-2483

Date: Wednesday, June 9,2021 at 1:11 PM
To: "Hautaluoma, Grey (HQ-NA020)" <grey.hautaluoma-1@nasa.gov>, Rani Gran
<rani .c.gran@na sa,gov>
Subject: Re: Draft: Response to National Geographic
Thank you Grey. I will respond to t hem, copying you and Rani, with the suggested changes.
Ravi
From: "Hautaluoma, Grey (HQ-NA020)" <grey,hautaluoma-1@nasa,gov>

To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GS FC-6990)" <ra vikumar,kopparapu@nasa,gov>, "Gran, Rani C.
(GSFC-1300)" <ranLc.gran@nasa.gov>
Subject: RE: Draft: Response t o National Geographic
From: Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990j <ravikumar,kopparapu@ nasa,gov>

Sent: Wednesday, June 9, 202112:23 PM
To: Gran, Rani C. (GSFC-1300) <ranLc.gra n@nasa .gov>
Cc: Hau l aluoma, Grey (HQ-NA020) <grey.haulaluoma-l@nasa.gov>
Subject: Draft: Response to National Geographic
Hi Rani and Grey,
Here is the draft response to the National Geograph ic media enquiry. The enquiry is copied below:
******
Thank you for your query. I w ill be happy to ta lk after the report is released and have an opportun ity
to look at it carefully. I am copying our Public Office representatives Rani Gran and Grey Ha utaluoma
in this email as well to co-ordinate.
Best
Ravi

Date: Tuesd ay, June 8, 2021 at 7 :01 PM
To: " Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" < ravjkumar.kopparapu@nasa.goy>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Media query for Nat ional Geograph ic on upcoming UFO/UAP report
Dear Dr. Kopparapu,
I' m a freelance journalist writing a story fo r Nat ional Geograph ic Travel about t he upcoming
repo rt on UFO/UAP data and intell igence that was spurred by the Intell igence Aut horizat ion
Act for Fiscal Year 2021. I realize that t he unclassified version of the report has not yet been
released, however I would like t o t alk with you once it is released to get your perspective on
what you th ink t hese t hings might act ually be, t he necessity for scient ific analysis of th is data,
an d whet her you th ink it may give us a more cohesive underst anding of ourselves as a species
and our planet as an ecosystem among others (perhaps lead ing us to take more care with
what we already have).
My ed ito r also wants me to address why t here's a cu ltura l phenome non of "extrate rrestrial
hot spot s," and certainly, if you th in k any ofthe sight ings and their locations ra ise important
scientif ic quest ions (whet her or not it has anything t o do with "aliens") or if you find any of
t hem int erest ing as a theory, I'd li ke to t alk about t hat. But I' m not t rying to make you
ack nowledge someth ing you don't believe.
Please let me know if you're open t o ta lking with me f or t his article, and if you have any
preferences for t iming once t he report is re leased . Thank you in advance for your
conside rat ion .
Best,
-Jill Robinson
--
Greenbelt, MD 20771
To: Havta1uoma' Grey (HO-NA020): Gran Ran; c. (GSfC- 1300)
Subject: Re: Draft: Response to Kational Geographic
Da le : Wednesday, June 9, 2021 "I : 11:27 PM
Hi Grey and Ra ni,

Is there an updat e on the Science Chan nel request?
Thanks
Ravi
From: "Hautaluoma, Grey (HQ-NA020)" <grey.haut aluoma-1@nasa.gov>

To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>, "Gran, Ran i C.
(GSFC-1300) " <ran i.c.gran@nasa.gov>
Deletion Page


Frolll: Gran Rani C (GSEC 1301ll
To: St!i'Ilbaoje Bianca
Cc I<oooarapu Rayj KUmar {GSEC-6990l ; Halltaluoma frey (HO-NA020l
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAl] Be: Science OliInnel - The UAP Report - Invitation
Date: Thursdily, June to, 2021 to:31:0S AM
Hi Stephanie,
We can participate mid-June taping. Ravi will not be able t o travel t o l as Vegas.
Ravi will focus on the science of all th is .. He can also talk about the ways NASA is sea rching for life
beyond Earth's stratosphere.
I'm looking into setting up a taping at our visitor center.
Who else is on your commentary panel?
Rani
Rani C. Gran
Mail Code 420, 836, 5470
Work Cell : (b) (6)
Phone: 301-286-2483
From: St ephanie Bianca .(b) (6)

Date: Friday, June 4, 2021 at 12 :10 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Science Channel - The UAP Report - Invit at ion
Deletion Page


Frolll: Gran Rani C (GSEC 130())
To: Jobostro. Matthew E. (GSfC 1100)
Cc Koooarapu Rilyj KUmar fr,SEC -6990)
Subject: Personal Release-- The UAP Refx>rt - Invitation
Dilte: Thursday, June to, 20213:10:S2 PM
Attachments: UfOs DffIi!§Sified L.jye - Appeeraoce Release 20210528,00f
Hi Matt,
Could you please help us convert this personal release into a NASA release form for Ravi Ku mar
Kopparapu. I would like to get this back before June 30.
The science channel will interview Ravi about NASA's search for life outside Earth's stratosphere.
Rani
Rani C. Gran
Mail Code 420, 8 36, 5470
Work Cell : (b) (6)
Phone: 30 1-286-2483
"If we amplify everything, we hear nothing," Jon Stewart .
From: Stephanie Bianca •(b) (6)

Date: Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Science Channel - The UAP Report - Invit ation
Hi Rani,
Attached, please find a standard appearance release for Ravi. I'll be sending you a few adler form s
once Ravi signs and we lock down dle date.
Please don't hesitate to reach out if you have furdler qnestions.
Best,
Stephanie
From: Stephanie Bianca .(b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2021 10:54 AM
To: Gran, Rani C. {GSFC-1300} <rani.c.gran@nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re : Science Channel - The UAP Report - Invitation
Duplicate email cha in - already processed
Deletion Page


Date: Friday, June 11, 2021 9:21:02 AM
The truth may be out there: These days it almost seems obligatory to ask about UFOs, given
all the debate about a forthcoming report to Congress from the director of national intelligence
about recent sightings of “unmanned aerial phenomena.''
“A couple of years ago, as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I was briefed
on what those Navy pilots saw and I have talked to the Navy pilots,” Nelson recalled. “They
are quite convinced. And these are realistic folks. This isn't some UFO tin-foil hat kind. These
are pilots who locked their radar on it. They tracked and then they saw it move so fast that
they couldn't believe it. And then they went and tracked it again, locked their radar on it in a
new position. So there's some phenomenon that we need to explain.”
He said he’s put Thomas Zurbuchen, who runs NASA's science directorate, in charge of
looking into the reports. “I have had several conversations with him, most recently 10 minutes
ago, about this very topic and about what he has been doing on SETI and now what he is
further doing in an inquiry to see if we have any scientific explanation for some of this,”
Nelson said.
But why NASA? “NASA is a natural place,” said Nelson, who served in the House and
Senate from Florida. “Part of NASA's science missions is the search for extraterrestrial life.”
Hey do you have a minute. I had a talk with SMD this morning and got more clarification
about how we want to deal with the UFO report.
Frolll: Stephanie Bianca
To: Gran. Bani C. (GSEC 1300): KooparaDll. Ravi KuD\ilf (GSfC 6990)
Cc Caldwell Jobn H {GSEC 13(1 Q)[ApyocATES IN MAN POWER MANAGEMENT INC]
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAl] Re: Science OJanoe! The UAP Report -I nvitation
Date: Suodily, June 13, 202110:05:13 PM
Yes, not a problem regarding releases.
111ank you" I just learned something ne\v!
Best,
Stephanie
From: Gran, Rani C. (GSFC-1300) <rani.c.gran@nasa .gov>

Sent: Saturday, June 12, 202111 :30 AM
To: Stephanie Bianca .(b) (6) Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)
<ravi kuma r.koppa ra pu@nasa.gov>
Cc: Caldwell, John H. (GSFC-130.0)[AOVOCATES IN MAN POWER MANAGEMENT, INC]
<john. h.ca Idwell@nasa.gov>
Subject: Re : (EXTERNAL] Re : Science Channel- The UAP Report - Invitation
Confirmed . For Monday June 21.
We do not sign release forms. However, I can say you are free to use the interview and video we
shoot for your show. Since the video is from the federal government, its consider part of the pub lic
domain and is not copyrighted .
Rani
Rani C. Gran
Mail Code 420, 8 36, 5470
Work Cell : (b) (6)
Phone: 30 1-286-2483
From: Stepha nie Bianca •(b) (6)

Date: Satu rd ay, Ju ne 12, 202 1 at 12:39 PM
To: Ra n i Gra n <rani.c.gran @nasa.gov>, " Koppa rapu, Ravi Kum ar (GSFC-6990) "
<ravikumar .ko ppa rapu@na sa .gov>
Cc: "Ca ldwell, Jo hn H. (GSFC- 130.0)[ADVOCATES IN MANP OWER MANAGEMENT, IN C] "
<john.h .caldwell@nasa .gov>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Science Chan ne l - The UAP Report - Invitation
Hi Rani,
I'm confinning the time for Ravi's interview on Monday, 6/ 2 1:
2pm- Check in / Test (EDT)

2:15 pm - 3:15 pm - Interview
I've also attached a standard appearance, location and logo release (in case. you use a NASA logo
during dIe shoot). Please have Ravi sign and retmn as soon as you can.
I ·would love to have a few minutes widl Ravi next week to do a quick pre-inrelVie\v, e.idler ove.r
the phone or duough Zoom. I know he's very busy, so please let me know .:if this would be
possible.
Stephanie
From: Gran, Ran i C. (GSFC-1300) <rani.c.gran@nasa .gov>

Sent: Friday, June 11, 2021 9:26 AM
To: Stephanie Bianca .(b) (6) Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)
<ravi ku ma r. koppa ra pu@nasa.gov>
Cc: Caldwell, John H. (GSFC-130.0)[AOVOCATES IN MANPOWER MANAGEMENT, INC]
<john.h.caldwell@nasa .gov>
Subject: Re: (EXTERNAL] Re : Science Channel - The UAP Report - Invitation
Hello Stephanie,
We would like to do the interview on June 21, 2:00 pm EDT. I've included Ravi and John on this
email. John will set up the shoot for us in the studio ..
Rani
Rani C. Gran
Mail Code 420, 836, 5470
Work Cell: (b) (6)
Phone: 30 1-286-2483

To: Ra ni Gran <rani.c.gran@nasa .gov>
Subject: Re : [EXTERNAL] Re : Science Channe l - The UAP Report - Invitat ion
l1lankS so much! I know he'll be amazing on camera. I sent tile ap pearance agreement earlier.
Best,
Stephanie
From: Gran, Rani C. (GSFC-1300) <ra ni.c.gran@nasa.gov>

Sent: Thu rsday, June 10, 20213:10 PM
To: Stephanie Bianca (b) (6)
Subject: Re : (EXTERNAL] Re : Science Channel - The UAP Report - Invitation
FYI, Hakeem is a wonderfu l communicat or. He gave a talk in our science communication class. He
will be great on the show/
Ra ni
Rani C. Gran
Mail Code 420, 836, 5470
Work Cell: (b) (6)
Phone: 30 1-286-2483

To: Ra ni Gran <rani.c.gran@nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Science Channel - The UAP Report - Invit at ion
Hi Rani,
Attached, please find a standard appearance release for Ravi. I'll be sending you a few odler forms
once Ravi signs and we lock down dle date.
Please don't hesitate to reach out if you have furciler questions.
Best,
Stephanie

Sent: Thursday, June 10, 202110:54 AM
To: Gran, Rani C. (G5FC-1300) <rani .c.gran@nasa.gov>
Subject: Re : [EXTERNAL] Re : Science Channel - The UAP Report - Invitation
Hi Rani,
\Ve're very pleased dlat Ravi can participate. \Ve will most likely ser up a remote shoot from your
visitor center on dIe 21st if he's available.
(b) (6)
If you have time today, I'm available to speak:
Best,
Stephanie
From: Gran, Rani C. (GSFC-13(0) <rani.c.gran@nasa .gov>

Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2021 7:41 AM
To: Stephanie Bianca .(b) (6)
Subject: Re : [EXTERNAL] Re : Science Channel - The UAP Report - Invitation
HI Stephanie,
Could we please talk before the taping?
Rani
Rani C. Gran
Mail Code 4 20, 8 36, 5470
Work Cell : (b) (6)
Phone: 30 1-286-2483

Date: Friday, Ju ne 4, 2021 at 12:10 PM
To: Rani Gran <rani.c.gran@nasa .gov>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Science Channel - The UAP Report - Invitat ion
Hi Gran,
It looks like my message to Ravi \vas already forwarded to Bert Ulrich. J ust to be clear, we
understand that Ravi isn't an expert on UAPS. \\le would be primarily interested having him do a
segment to speak about his research and theories on extrasolar planet habitability.
I'm happy to answer any further questions you may have.
Best,
Stephanie
From: Gran, Rani C. (GSFC-1300) <rani.c.gran@nasa .gov>

To: Stephanie Bianca .(b) (6)
Cc: Ulrich, Bert (HQ-NA030) <bert.ulrich@nasa .gov>
Subject: RE: Science Channel - The UAP Report - Invitation
HeJ10 Stephanie,
I received your request f rom Ravi. Have you sent t his request to Bert Ulrich at NASA Hq ... cc on this
email? He is the first stop for documentaries . Once I get his sign off I ca n move forwa rd.
Rani

Date: Thursday, June 3,2021 at 9:02 PM
To: " Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.koppa rapu@nasa .gov>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Science Channel - The UAP Report - Invitation
Deletion Page


Frolll: Stephanie Bianca
To: Gran. Bani C. (GSEC 131)0): KooparaDll. Ravi Kumar (GSfC 6990)
cc Caldwell Jobn H (GSEC 13(1 Q) [ApyocATES IN MANPOWER MANAGEMENT INC]
Subject: Re : [EXT ~ ] Re: Science OliInoel The UAP Report -I nvitation
Date: Moodily, June 14, 202111 :56:36 AM
Of course! Not a problem.
From: Gran, Ran i C. (GSFC-1300) <ra ni.c.gran@nasa.gov>

Sent: Monday, June 14, 202 1 7:13 AM
To: Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990) <ravikumar.kopparapu @nasa.gov>; Stephanie Bianca
.(b) (6)
Cc: Ca ldwell , John H. (GSFC-130.0)(AOVOCATES IN MAN POW ER MANAGEMENT, INC]
<john . h.ca Idwell @nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: (EXTERNAL] Re : Science Channel - The UAP Report - Invit ation
HI Stephanie, I'd like to listen into the interview as well.
Ran i
Rani C. Gran
Mail Code 420, 8 36, 5470
Work Cell : (b) (6)
Phone: 30 1-286-2483
"If we amplify everything, we hear nothing," Jon Ste wart.
From: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kuma r (GSFC-6990)" <ravikuma r. koppara pu@nasa .gov>

Date : Monday, June 14, 2021 at 8 :2S AM
To: Ste pha nie Bianca Rani Gran <rani.c.gran@nasa .gov>
Cc: "Cal dwell, John H. (GSFC- 130.0)(ADVOCATES IN MA NPOWER MA NAG EM ENT, INC] "
<john .h.caldwel l@nasa .gov>
Subject: Re : [EXTERNAL] Re: Science Channel - The UAP Report - Invit at ion
Thank you. No w orries, I am most ly free Wednesday afternoon. 3pm is good. See you then.
Best
Ravi
From: St ephanie Bianca .(b) (6)

Date: Sunday, June 13, 202 1 at 9 :S2 PM
To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>, "Gran, Rani C.
(GSFC-1300)" <rani.c.gran@nasa .gov>
Cc: " Caldwell, John H. (GSFC-130.0)[AOVOCATES IN MA NP OWER MANAGEMENT, INej"
<john .h.caldwell@nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Science Channel - The UAP Report - Invit at ion
Hi Ravi,
Let's plan fO[ W1edneday at 3pm EDT. I will send you a zoom link and promise to not take up too
much of your time.
I look fonvard to virtually meeting you!
Best,
Stephanie
From: Kopparapu, Ravi Kuma r (GSFC-6990) <ravikumar.koppa rapu@nasa .gov>

Sent: Sunday, June 13, 202 1 9:3 1 AM
To: Stephanie Bianca .(b) (6) Gran, Rani C. (GSFC-1300)
<rani .c.gran@nasa .gov>
Cc: Caldwell, John H. (GSFC-130.0)[AOVOCATES IN MANPOWER MANAGEMENT, INej
<john.h.caldwell@nasa .gov>
Subject: Re: (EXTERNAL] Re : Science Channel- The UAP Report - Invitation
Hi Stephanie and Rani,

I am free o n the following Eastern times :
Monday June 14 from 2pm - 3pm ET, and 4pm-6pm ET

Wednesday June 16 from Ipm - 6pm ET.
Thursday June 17, flexible times from Ipm - 6pm .
Friday June 18 same as Thursday schedule.
Best
Ravi

Date: Saturday, June 12, 202 1 at 12 :39 PM
To: " Gra n, Ra ni C. (GSFC- 1300)" <rani.c.gran@nasa .gov>, "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-
6990)" <ravikuma r .kopparapu@nasa.gov>
Cc: " Caldwell, John H. (GSFC-130.0)[AOVOCATES IN MA NP OWER MANAGEMENT, INej"
<john.h.caldwell@nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: [EXTER NAL] Re: Science Channel - The UAP Report - Invitation
Deletion Page


From: Steobanie Bianca
To: KopoaraptJ, Ray! KUmar CGSfC..6990l; Gran Rani C, (GSfC- 1300l
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAl) Re: Science 0lanneI - The UAP Report - Invitation
Da le: Monday, June 14, 202 1 2:46:21 PM
Stephanie Bianca is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting,
Topic: Ravi Kopparapu Pre-Illtenriew

Time: Jun 16, 202 1 03:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)
Join Zoom Meeting

https: / / us04web,zoom,us/ j/ 6020004978?pwd=ZXRtL3pwalcyTEtDSGJ5UmlhM\VpmQT09
Meeting
From : Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990) <ravikumar,kopparapu@ nasa,gov>

Sent: Monday, June 14, 20215:25 AM
To: Stephanie Bianca .(b)(6) Gran, Rani C. (GSFC-1300)
<rani,cgran@nasa,gov>
Cc: Ca ldwell, John H.(GSFC-130.0)[ADVOCATES IN MANPOWER MANAGEMENT, INC]
<john,h,caldwell@nasa ,gov>
Deletion Page


To: Earl Sisson
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAl) NASA"s involvement in the UFO I UAP oontJOII'efS'f
Da le: Monday, June 14, 2021 6;39;05 PM
Dear Earl,
Thank you for your email. I do know about Paul's book and other people also informed me about
the book over the years. I do appreciate the book suggestion and my plan is t o take a look at it.
Best
Ravi
(b)(6)
From: Earl Sisso n
Date: Monday, June 14, 2021 at 2:49 PM
To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (G SFC-6990j " <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] NASA's involvement in the UFO / UAP co ntroversy
I am sure you may dismiss anything I would write, but please take a few moments to research one of
your own, a NASA aerodynamicist by the name of Paul R. Hill. After his death, his wife published his
manuscript "Unconventional Flying Objects - A Scientific Analysis.
Please take some time t o become familiar with his efforts.
Earl Sisson
From : Kooparaou, RiM Kumar (GSfC-699(!1
To: Adam Erapk
Subject: FW: Re: Historical incidents of UFOs
Da le: Tuesday, JUlie 1S, 2021 7:51:% AM
Hi Adam,
If you are able to make it to today'5 discussion at Ipm ET, here is the context (emails) that led to our
meeting today, Down the thread, there are some article links written by Greg,
Best
Ravi
From: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar,kopparapu @nasa.gov>

Date: Friday, May 28, 2021 at 12: 13 PM
To: Greg Eghigian
Cc: ' (b ) (6) .(b ) (6)
Deletion Page


Frolll: Adam funk
To: KopoaraPU. Ravi KYfTliI[ (GSFC -69901
Cc lamb Haqq Mjsra ; Haqq-Mjsra Jacob D {GSEC-W62)[Science (b!laboratorl
Subject: [EXTERNAl] Re : [EXT] UAP discussion
Date: Tuesday, June 1S, 20218:30:41 AM
Hi Ravi and Jacob
I hope to join the conversation for a time if possible. I am, lmfortunately preparing a big talk
for a conference this weekend and that may eat my brain for the day.
Thank you for inviting me and hopefully the day lets me attend for a bit.
My best
Adam
--------------------------------------------
Adam Frank
Helen F. and Fred H. Gowen Professor
Department of Physics and Astronomy
University of Rochester
Rochester New York 14627-0171
http Uwww adamfrankscience com
--------------------------------------------
On Jlll 15, 202 1, at 7:45 AM, Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)

<ravil..um ar.ko ~ a ra~u @las, g ov> wrote:
HeUo aU,
Just a reminder about our meeting today at I pm ET. Here is the connection
information .
See you all soon .

Best
Ravi

Greenbelt, MD 20771
Frolll: Koppa@P!l Bayj Kumar (GSEC-699Q)
To: Keyjn Knyth
Subject: Be: [EXTERNAl] Re: UAP disrussioo
Da te: Tuesday, June l S, 20218:44:11 AM
Hi Kevin,
Oh, wow l An all-nighter. Ok, let me ask others.
And yes, 1wanted to have us first start the discussion and then bring in more interested people at a
later t ime. Even I did not include some of my colleagues who expressed interest. My goal for this
meeting is to bring forth all our perspectives and identify which areas are physical observations and
which are sociological (so that the whole phenomena is not broadly brushed away as a cultura l
phenomenon).
Ravi
From: Kevin Knuth .(b) (6)

Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: UAP discussion
Hello Ravi,
Two questions.
First, I just pu lled an all-nighter writing a proposal, and I will not be finished until about 9:30am.
Then I need to get some sleep.
Is there any way that we can resched ule?
I am sorry to ask t his as I was looking forward to this conversation.
Second, did you intend to exclude Matthew Szydagis?
Thanks
Kevin
Kevin H. Knuth, Ph .D.

Editor-in-Ch ief of Entropy
Albany NY 12222
http://knuthlab.om
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 7:45 AM Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)
qayjkumaLkopparapu@nasa.goy> wrote:
Hello all,
Just a remind b t t' t d at Ipm ET. Here is the connect ion information .
(b) (6) •
See you all soon .

Best
Ravi

NASA Godda rd Space Flight Center
Greenbelt, MD 20771
email: rayjkumar kQPparaplI@nasa !l0v
Fro lll: Koppa@QU Bay] Kumar (GSEC-699Q)
To: EghjQian. Greg
Cc Kevjn Knuth : Haoo-Mjsra Jacob D (GSEC-6Q621fScjence Collaborator] : Adam Frank
S ubject: Be: [EXTERNAl] Be: UAP discussion
Da te: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 8 :55:06 AM
Great! Wonderful! Moving t o Friday al50 works for me, as I am changi ng my internet provi der at th e
exact same t ime as ou r meeti ng. I was worried if I will lose connectio n in the midst of our discussion .
Ok, does Friday June 18, 1pm work f or everyone? Or most ? I will send a calen dar invite.
Ravi
From: "Egh igian, Greg"

To : "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa .gov>
Cc: Kevin Knut h " Haqq -Misra, Jacob D. (GSFC-6062)[Science
Co llabo rat or]" Adam Frank .(b) (6)
Yes, moving it actually would work better for me. Friday at 1 pm is fine on my end.
Greg
Greg Eghigian
108 Weaver Building
USA
Email: (b) (6)
From: " Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa .gov>

To: Greg Eghigian
Cc: Kevin Knut h (b) (6) .(b) (6) Adam Frank
.(b) (6)
Subject: Re : UAP discussion
Hi all aga in,

So, it looks like some may not be able t o ma ke it t o today's meet ing. Is there any possibilit y we could
move our meeting t o this Friday (Ju ne 18) at Ipm?
Thanks
Ravi
Frolll: Koo[}jl@Qu Bayj Kumar (GSEC-699Q)
To: Kevin Knyth
Subject: Be: [ EXTERNAl] Re: [EXT] UAP discussion
Date: Tuesday, June lS, 20219:10:15 AM
Hi Kevi n,
Please fill t he poll below. Maybe you may not need to move your ot her meeting .
From: Kevin Knuth •(b) (6)

Date: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 9 :08 AM
To: " Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990 )" <ravikuma r.koppa rapu@nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [EXT] UAP discuss ion
Hey Ravi,
I just set the ball in motion t o move an appointment on Friday to ma ke this meeting.
Please give me a litt le time to see what people say.
Sorry to ca use problems.

Thanks!
Kevin
Kevin H. Knuth, Ph D .
Albany NY 12222
http://knuthlab,org
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 9:00 AM Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)

qavikumaL koppara pu@nasa.goy> wrote:
Here is a poll for three day times (June 17, 18 & 22) . Please fill your ti mes. I would *really* love t o
have a t ime that all of you ca n ma ke it.
https:/Iwww.when2meet.comI?12124110 ScgeJ
From: Adam Fra n k .(b) (6)

To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" qayjkurnar kopparapu@nasa e'O¥>
Cc: "Eghigian, Greg" Kevin Knuth "Haqq-Misra,
Jacob D. (GSFC-6062)[Science Collaborat or)"
Subject: [EXTERNAL) Re: [EXT) UAP discussion
Hi Everyone
Friday is my conference so J will not be able to attend at all then.
My best
Adam
Adam Frank
He[en F. and Fred H. Gowen Professor
http://www.adamfrankscience .com
On Jun 15, 2021, at 8:46 AM, Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990j

Subject: UAP discussion
Hello all,
Just a reminder about our meeting today at Ipm ET. Here is the connect ion
information.
(b )(6)
https·UzQorn
password
See you all soon .

Best
Ravi

Greenbelt, MD 20771
email : ravjkumar.koPDaraPu@nasa.goy
Frolll: Adam Frnnk
To: KopparaOlJ, Rayj KYfIliI[ (GSEC -69901
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAl] [EXT] UAP diSUlS'iioo
Date: Tuesday, June 15, 20219:51:44 AM
Hi Ravi
If you are cool waiting .. " Tuesday 6/22 at I pm. It's on the calendar.
My best
Adam
Adam Frank
http Uwww adamfrankscience com
--------------------------------------------
On Jlll 15, 202 1, at 9 :46 AM, Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)

< ravi1.lmko~u@nsg> wrote:
Hi Adam,
It looks li ke there are some t imes available next Tuesday June 22 .
Imps'!lwww when2meet ernul? 12 1241lQ-SeqeJ
Would you be able to make it? If not, we will do Friday and I can update you about our
discussion . I personally would love to have you in the meeting, but no worries if you are
busy.
Best
Ravi
From: Adam Frank .(b) (6)

To: "Koppa rapu, Ravi Kumar (GS FC-6990) " <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa,gov>
Cc: "Eghigian, Greg" Kevin Knuth
"Haqq-M isra, Jacob D.
Deletion Page


Froll1: I(oooorapu Ray! Kumar fGSFC-6990l
To: Eghjllian. Greg
Subject: Re : [ EXTERNAL] Accepted: Disrussion about UAP!UFO
Yes, no passcode .
From: "Eghigian, Greg "

To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa .gov>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Accept ed: Discussion about UAP/ UFO
Assuming there is no passcode?
Greg
Greg Eghigian
108 Weaver Building
USA
Email: (b) (6)
- . ~: :"'
-------------::c:--=
~ - - -
' -
- --
.. .....-.-. - -=--..
' Ii'! ' -
Frolll: Gran Rani C (GSEC 130())
To: Kopoarapu. Bavj KyUli![ (GSEC-6990) ; David Sloan
Subject: Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: [EXTERNAl] Media Request: - German Broadcasting
Date: Tuesday, June is, 2021 2:22:56 PN
nope
Rani C. Gran
Mail Code 420, 8 36, 5470
Work Cell : (b) (6)
Phone: 30 1-286-2483
"I[ we amplify everything, we hear nothin g," Jon Stewart.
From: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa .gov>

Date: Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 2 :20 PM
To: Ra ni Gran <rani.c.gran@nasa .gov>, David Sloan .(b) (6)
Subject: Re: Antwort : Re: Ant w ort: Re : Antwort : Re: Antwort: Re : [EXTER NAL] Media Request-
German Broadcast ing
Sure, works for me. Do I need to f ill in a center access form?
From: "Gran, Rani C. (GSFC-1300)" <rani.c.gran@nasa .gov>

To: "Koppa ra pu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.koppa rapu@nasa .gov>, David Sloan
.(b) (6)
Subject: Re: An two rt : Re: Ant w ort: Re : Antwort : Re : Antwort: Re : [EXTE RNAL] Media Request-
We could do the interview from outside the visitor center.
Ran i
Rani C. Gran
Mail Code 420, 8 36, 5470
Work Cell : (b) (6)
Phone: 301-286-2483
"If we amplify everything, we hear nothin g," Jon Stewart.

To: Rani Gran <rani.c.gran@nasa.gov>, David Sloan .(b) (6)
Subject: Re: Antwo rt : Re: Ant wort: Re : Antwort : Re: Antwort: Re: [EXTE RNAL] Media Request-
Hi Ra ni and David,
Yes, I am available on June nnd, except from I-2:30pm . Any time other than I -2:30pm should be
good.
Best
Ravi
From: "Gran, Rani C. (GSFC-1300)" <rani.c.gran@nasa.gov>

To: David Sloan .(b) (6) "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)"
<ravikuma r .koppa rapu@nasa .gov>
Subject: Re : Antwort : Re: Ant wort: Re : Antwort : Re : Antwort: Re : [EXTE RNAL] Media Request-
I'm adding Ravi to the discussion. Ravi, are you available to do the interview on t he nnd?
Rani
Rani C. Gran
Mail Code 420, 836, S470
Work Cell : (b) (6)
Phone: 301-286-2483
"If we amplify everything, we hear noth ing," Jon Stewart.
From: David Sloan .(b) (6)

Subject: Antwort : Re: An twort: Re: Ant wort : Re: Antwort : Re: [EXTERNAL] Media Requ est-
German Broadcasti ng
Hi Ran i:
It was great speaking with you. I just spoke with my team and we were th inking of doing it
on the 22nd, but we're pretty fl exible that week. l et me know! Th anks aga in.
Best,
Dav id
----- "Gran , Rani C. (r.<,.r ~ lJimaS.gp schrieb: -----

An: " David Sloan "
Von: "Gran, Rani C.
Datum: 14.06.2021 12 :06
Betreff: Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: [EXTERNAL] Media Request - German
Broadcasting
How about 10:00am. ?
Rani C. Gran
Mail Code 420, 836, S470
Work Cell : (b) (6)
Phone: 301-286-2483
"If we amplify everything, we hear nothing, " Jon Stewart.
From: David Sloan

Date: Monday, June
To: Rani Gran <ranj,c,Qran@nasa,Qoy >
Subject: Antwort: Re : Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: [EXTERNAL] Media
Request - German Broadcasting
Hi Ran i:
Certainly , do you have anyt im e tomorrow to chat? l et me know . Thanks.

- David
----- "Gran , Rani C. (GSFC-1300 )" < ranLc.gran @nasa.gov > schrieb: _u __
An: "Da vid Sloan" ~
Von : "Gran, Rani C.~ .gran @ nas.goy >
Datum: 11.06.202116:48
Betreff: Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort : Re: [EXTERNAL] Media Request - German
Broadcasting
Hi Da vid ,
Could we please talk by phone soon, so that I can get some more information about your
story.? I want to make sure we are on the same page. It will help me work the approvals
with my bosses too.
Do you have any questions you want to send us ahead of t ime .. .so I understand the thrust
of t he interview/story.
Rani
Rani C. Gran
Mail Code 420, 836, 5470
Work. Cell : (b) (6)
Phone: 30 1-286-2483

From: David Sloan
Date: Friday, June 1
To: Rani Gran < ranj.c.gran@nasa.goy >
Cc: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990 )"
< rayjkumar.kopparapu@nasa.goy >, "Jones, Nancy N. (GSFC-1300 )"
< nancy.n.jones@nasa.gov >, "Shekhtman, Lonnie (GS FC-690.0)[ADNET
SYSTEMS INC]" < Ioooie.shekhtmao@oasa.gov >
Subject: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: [EXTERNAL] Media Request -
German Broadcasting
That's works for us. That's closer to what we're looking for. Does the 21st work? let me
know and we can work around it. Tha n ks agai n .
Best ,
Dav id
----- "Gran , Ran i C. ( GSFC-1300 )" < rani.c.gran @nasa.gov > schrieb: -----
An: "David Sloan" ~ "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar ( GSFC-6990)"
< rayjkumar. koppara pu @nasa.gov >
Von: "Gran , Rani C. (GSFC-1300 )" < rani.c.gran @nasa.gov >
Datu m: 11.06.2021 16:35
Kop ie : "Jones, Na ncy N. (GSFC-1300)" < nancy.n.jones@nasa .goy> , "Shekhtman , Lonn ie
{GS FC-690.0)[ADN ET SYSTEMS I NC]" < Ionnie.shekhtman @nasa.gov >
Betreff: Re: Antwort: Re : [EXTERNAL] Med ia Request - German Broadcasting
Hello David ,
Because NASA has no involvement in t he UFOj UAP report, we don't know what it 's
goi ng to look like and cannot comment on how people should analyze it.
However, Ravi can talk more generally about t he type of information that would be
useful to scientists and the science case for studying UAPs .
Ra ni
Rani C. Gran
Mail Code 420, 836, S470
Work Cell: (b) (6)
Phone: 301-286-2483
"If we amplify every thing, we hear nothing, " Jon Ste wart .
From: David Sloan • (b) (6)
Date: Friday, June 11, 202 1 at 2:31 PM
To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC- 6990)"
< ravikumar, kopparapu@nasa,goy >
Cc: Rani Gran < rani.c .gran@nasa .goy >, "Jones, Nancy N, (GS FC-
1300)" < nancy.n.jones@nasa.gov >, "Shekhtman, Lonnie (GSFC - 690.0)
[ADN ET SYSTEMS INC]" < Ioooie.shekhtmao@oasa.goy >
Subject: Antwort : Re : [ EXTERNAL] Media Request - German
Broadcasting
Hi Ravi:
Thanks for getting back to , It's good to meet you Nancy and Rani. As I mentioned we
were hoping to do an person interview about t he UFOj UAP report and help expplain what
we shou ld take from it . We were actually hoping to do it on Monday the 21st. Please let
me know if this is possible and if you have any questions. Thanks again.
Best,
David
----- "Kopparapu , Rav i Kumar ( GSFC-6990 )" qavikumar,kopparapu@nasa.goy > schrieb:
An : "David Sloan " ~

Von: "Kopparapu, R~)" <rav ikum ar.kopparapu @nasa .gov >
Datum : 11.06 .2021 14:06
Kopie: " Gran , Rani C. ( GS FC-1300)" qan i.c,gran@nasa,goy>, "Jo nes, Nancy N, (GS FC-
1300)" < nancv,n,jones@nasa .gov> , "Shekhtman, Lonnie (GS FC-690,0)[ADNET
SYSTE MS I NC ]" <Ionn je.shekhtman @n asa.gov >
Betreff: Re: [ EXTERNAL] Media Request - German Broadcasting
Hi David,
Thank you for your request. I am copying our NASA Public office representatives Rani
Gran and Nancy Jones in th is email so that you can co-ordinate with them .
Best
Ravi
From: David Sloan

Date: Friday, June 1
To: "Kopparapu, Ravi (GSFC-6990)"
< rayj ku rna r. kop para pu@nasa.goy >
Subject: [E XTERNAL] Media Request - German Broadcasting
Hi Rav i :
My name is David Sloan and I am the Wash ington , DC based producer for Germany's
international broadcaster Deutsche Welle. We are producing a story on teh UFO/ UAp
report that will be delivered to Congress this month and we were hop ing you would be
able to help elaborate on what it means and how people should analyze it. Would you
be available fo r a few minutes later next week for an in person interview? Please let me
know if you have any questions and I hope to hear from you soon. Thanks aga in .
Best,
David Sloan
Reporter/ Producer
Deutsche Welle (DW)

2000 M St. NW Suite 335
Washington, DC 20036
M: (b) (6)
@DaveASloan
Al w ays up-to -date : Down load our app for i.QS. and Android
~ Made for minds. dw.com
To: Gran, Rani C. (GSFC-1300)
oh...this is for UAP right? hmmm

Frolll: Gran Bani C (GSEC 130!))
To: KooparaOlJ. Rayi KllfIlil[ (GSEC-§9901 ; SWpbanie Bianca
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAl] Re: Scierxe OJannei - The UAP Report Invitation
Date: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 12:00:33 PN
Same ...
Rani
Rani C. Gran
Mail Code 420, 8 36, 5470
Work Cell : (b) (6)
Phone: 30 1-286-2483
From: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.koppa rapu@nasa.gov>

To: Stephanie Bianca Rani Gran <rani.c.gran@nasa.gov>
Subject: Re : [EXTER NAL] Re: Science Channel - The UAP Report - Invitation
Thanks Stephanie. I personally have no problem recording our session .

To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.koppa rapu@nasa .gov>, "Gran, Rani C.
(GSFC-1 300)" <rani.c .gran@nasa .gov>
Subject: Re : [EXTERNA L] Re: Science Channel - The UAP Report - Invit at ion
Hi Ravi,
H ere are dle questions I'll be asking you today dilling the pre-interview. It's very info rmal and a
way for me to get YOIll take on different topics so we can tailor dIe actual taping questions more
specifically to you. If you're not opposed, I'd like to record the session so I can have YOIll answers
transcribed.
See you today at 3pml
Stephanie

Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2021 6:52 PM
To: Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990) <ravikumar.kopparapu @nasa.gov>; Gran, Rani C. (GSFC-
1300) <rani .c.gran@nasa.gov>
Cc: Caldwell, Joh n H. IGSFC-130.0)[ADVOCATES IN MANPOWER MANAGEMENT, INC]
<john.h. caldwell@ nasa .gov>
Subject: Re: {EXTERNAL] Re: Science Channel - The UAP Report - Invitation
Deletion Page


RAVI KOPPARAPU - PRE-INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
OVERVIEW OF CAREER WITH NASA
CURRENT MAIN FOCUS OF RESEARCH
DO YOU TIIINK IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THERE'S LIFE ON OTHER PLANETS?
WHAT DO YOU TIIINK IS THE MOST PROMINENT LIFE FORM - MICROBIAL? PLANT?
ANIMAL?
OUMUAMUA:
WHAT WAS YOUR INITIAL REACTION UPON SEEING IT?
WHAT DO YOU THINK IT'S COMPOSED OF?
WHERE DO YOU THINK IT CAME FROM?
DO YOU HAVE ANY THEORIES ON WHY IT MOVED THE WAY IT DID?
WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT UAPS?
HAVE YOU SEEN THE NAVY VIDEOS OF UAPS?
COMING FROM YOUR SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH BACKGROUND, DO YOU HAVE ANY

THEORIES ABOUT WHAT THEY MIGHT BE?
WHAT DO YOU TIIINK HAS BEEN THE MOST MYSTERIOUS DISCOVERY TO DATE?
ARE THERE ANY THEORIES FLOATING AROUND ABOUT UAPS THAT YOU DISAGREE
WITH?
WHAT'S THE ONE THING YOU WOULD LIKE TO SHARE WITH THE PUBLIC REGARDING
YOUR RESEARCH?
From : [)ornaoal-ooldmao. Shawn D. (GSfC=6930)
To: Arney. Gada N. (GSfC-6930); Koppara!!U. Bayj Kumar (GSfC-699!l1
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAl) Fwd; Is the Pentagon minds ~ oontJoIled? (PiIrt 1 012)
Da le: Wednesday, June 16, 20216: 16:32 PM
(b)(6)
Did you congratu late him o n his
he/him/his
Branch Chief, Planetary Systems Lab (Code 693)
you to read it o r reply at that time. If its urgent and I need an immed iate reply, I'll be sure to
happen to be.
From : Arney, Giada N. (GSFC-6930) <giada.n.arney@nasa.gov>

To : Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990) <ravi kumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>
Cc: Domagal-goldman, Shawn D. (GSFC-6930) <shawn.goldman@nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: (EXTERNAL] Fwd: Is the Pentagon minds being controlled? (part 1 of 2)
Ohmy...
From: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov,"

Date: Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 12:21 PM
To: "Arney, Giada N. (GSFC-6930)" <giada.n.arney@nasa.gov>
(c: "Do rnagal-goldrna n, Shawn D. (GSFC-6930)" <shawn.gol drnan@nasa.gov>
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Is th e Pentagon minds being controlled? (part 1 of 2)
This person hilS been spilmming me since the WaPo ilrticle.

Just wanted to share the pain.
(b) (6)
From:
Deletion Page


From: 5uvrath Mahadeyao
To: Koooo[l!QIJ, Ravj Kumar (GSFC-fj990)
Subject: Re : [EXTERNAL] HPf Validatioo of KOI-4777 (an USP Mars-sired ~ )
Date: Thursday, June 17, 2021 12:57:U] AM
Ravi,
Zoom Link bel • • •• •
(b) (6)
s
On Wed, JIm 16, 2021 at 5:56 PM SUV111th Mahadevan _ wrote:
l Oam is good
I can send out a zoom link later tonight when I get home.
s
On Wed, l un 16, 2021 , 17:49 Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)
<rayiklllllar kopparapu@na sa goy> wrote:
TomolTow moming is good. lOam?
From: Suvrath Mahadevan _

Date: Wednesday, lIme 16, 2021 at 5:12 PM
To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <rayjkllmar kopparapll@nasa goy>
Subject: Re : [EXTERNAL] HPF Validation ofKOI-4 777 (an USP Mars-sized planet)
>An interesting thing happened regarding fe llowships for technosignatmes while I was on
a panel. Will chat about it when we talk on zoom.
Yeah! We should definitely catch up ! Lots to catch up and talk about . How is yom
mom ing looking tomorrow? I can do anytime 9: 15-11 :30
On Wed, JIm 16, 2021 at 5:07 PM Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)

<rayjkllDl3r kopparapll@nasa goy> wrote:
Ultimately I think its imp0l1ant to nonnalize serious scientific pursuit of this so

fellowships go to jlmior researchers, and ensure grants flow to technosignatures etc.
Yes, NASA has significantly changed its perspective and is now actively funding
Technosignature work. IfLUVOIR!HabEX gets selected, I think Technosignatures will
play a big role . At least that' s how I am building things on the NASA side. We have to
actually do science and show these are possible to detect with missions, and are not
some sci-fi stuff. This is actually possible. My paper on atmosphelic pollution did just
that. I spoke their language and the LUVOIR team liked it.
An interesting thing happened regarding fellowships for technosignatmes while I was

on a panel. Will chat about it when we talk on zoom.
Ravi
From: Smrrath Mahadeva n _

Date: Wednesday, JWIe 16, 2021 at 5:00 PM
To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <rayjkumar.kopparapu@nasa.goy>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] HPF Validation ofKOI-477 7 (an USP Mars-sized planet)
Got it! Jason's been doing the same at this end on SET! stuff..though not on UFO stuff.
Ultimately I think its impOltant to nOlTIlalize serious scientific pursuit of this so

fellowships go to junior researchers, and ensme grants flow to technosignatures etc.
On Wed, JIm 16, 2021 at 4:49 PM Kopparapu, Ravi Klllmr (GSFC-6990)

<rayjkllmar kopparapll@na sa goy> wrote:
Okay! Now I am really cmious and have to ask : ) What?
I think I can better explain in person. Starting and building a new field of research
(Technosignatmes) takes time. " " And there are other things:
https://www.gQogle.comlsearch ?Q=ravi+kopparapu&cljent=firefox -b-l-

e&sOJ lfce=Jullls&thm nws&sa X&yed 2ahl TKEwjR6d7fgp3xAhXaSIABHS 7GAP
00 AUoA.,'XoECAEQAw&biw=1248&bih=591
Ravi
From: Suvrath M a h a d e v a n _
To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <nwikumaLkopvarapu@nasa. gov>
Subject: Re : [EXTERNAL] HPF Validation of KOI-4777 (an USP Mars-sized
planet)
> Other research and media stuff.
Okay! Now I am really curious and have to ask : ) What?
> The Venus phosphine thing celtainly helped, though not the way I would have done
it.
Indeed. THe future is unceltain. But also this was not a paper you or I would ever
have written the way they did.
Hard to argue with the outcome though .. its pretty positive for the Venus COIllllIWlity!
On Wed, Jlll 16, 2021 at 4:38 PM Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)

<rayjkllluar kO)lparalm@na sa goy> wrote:
Oh, its not the Astro2020 ... at least not yet. Other research and media stuff.
The three Venus missions are indeed exciting. And I am not worried about it. The
Mars COllllllUnity had several rovers and missions for decades, and it has
significantly advanced our lillderstanding of Mars. Venus, on the hand, we are
limited to models or decades old data. We will be fine for several decades to come,
and I don 't think this will be the end of it. The Venus phosphine thing celtainly
helped, though not the way I would have done it.
From: Suvrath Mahadevall ~
Date: Wednesday, June 16, 2~
To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <rayjkuwar.kopparapu@u3sa ,goy>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] HPF Validation ofKOI-4777 (an USP Mars-sized
planet)
>1 am a bit overwhelmed with other things not related to my core science. 13m
hoping July would be easy ....
Everything okay? Hope you are not too caught up in Astro2020 Decadal stuff
(which I hope to see at least sometime ill 2021).
Are you excited about the three Venus missions? I think they are cool, but do think
its a bit strange that there are now 3 when there were 0 for decades. N ot the best
way to build a balanced plalletalY science portfolio. Good for exoplanets though!
On Wed, lUll 16, 2021 at 4:08 PM Kopparapu, Ravi Kl1ll1ar (GSFC-6990)

<rayjkJlmar kopparapll@llasa goy> wrote :
Ok great to hear about NEID! That is indeed fanstastic. Thh, I don ' t think there
ever wa s a doubt it would clear. And yes, you defmitely need some downtime. I
hope you can have a relaxing: time.
As for tIle paper, let me take a look at it. My knee-jerk thought is it may be a
planet that may have lost its atmosphere and turned into a leftover rocky core.
But let me take a look.
I was going to write that SOllllY ah·eady submitted the paper a while back, and
then I checked with him just now. As you said, he is working on the appendix. I
told him to submit it without the appendix and we will see if we can add in the
review. I actually thought he had already submitted the paper (he was asking
about potential reviewers a month ago !) .
We are all wise, I am a bit ovelw helmed with other
things not r·"laleil Sciience. I am hoping July would be easy . .. .but
that' s just a hope.
Ravi
From: Suvrath Mahadevan _

Date: Wednesday, Jlme 16, 202 1 at 2:59 PM
To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" < ra v ik~ml a r.k o paru @ n as a.g ov>
Subject: Fwd: [EXTERNAL] HPF Validation of KOI-4777 (an USP Mars-sized
planet)
Ravi,
Just to follow up on Caleb's comment- this system is pretty interesting! Its the
smallest USP known and Mars-sized.
Freakishly faint and low amplihlde, both in transits and RVs, so not much else to
do from the ground beyond what we've done here with HPF.
I don't think there'd be much of an atmosphere, but there are probably a few
interesting things to mull about on that, which could use yom insight. What
angles did we miss?
On other matters
NEID has cleared its NASA Operational Readiness Review and is in full
operations! Whew! Didn't need a pandemic on top of evelything on that project.
[' h , I . I d d I PI , I . 10
(b) (6)
On Sonny's paper- That Appendix is getting to be a thesis in its own right! I think
it will be fantastic resomce to have the algorithms documented. But do wony
that if we keep delaying a mass measmement ofT0I1 266 b,c will emerge
rendering half the paper moot, and we'd have to rewrite a bunch. Not sure what
to suggest here ..to move this fOlward.
How aTe you Varada and kids doing?

Best,
Suvrath
best,
Suvrath
---------- Forwarded
From: Canas, Caleb
Date: Wed, lUll 16,
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] HPF Validation ofKOI-4777 (an USP Mars-sized
planet)
To: Kopparapu, Ravi Kum~ yj kum ar kopparapll@nasa goy>
Cc: Suvrath Mahadevan ~
Hi Ravi,
I attach a draft of the paper. You can fmd the overleaf here:
added some discussion as
to what we could expect LHS 3844 b as a larger
analogue to KOI-4777. However, if you think there are some valuable insights to
mention with regards to any potential atmosphere for a hot Mars-sized USP,
please let me know and I would be happy to add it in the discussion.
Best,
Caleb

<rayikumar kQpj."larapu@nasa goy>
Sent: Tuesday,
To: Cailas, Caleb
Cc: 'Suvrath ~: ~
Subject: Re : [ K(JI-4 777 (an USP Mars-sized
planet)
Hi Caleb,
Thanks for your email. I can try and help with discussion, if you think it is
relevant to yom paper. You can decide about the authorship, I am totally [me
either way. I like that you all are finding interesting systems filling parts of the
puzzle.
Ravi
From: (b)(6)
I
Date: Tuesday, Apnl

To: "Kopparapu, Ravi 1'.U"~!J( :;S . FC-6\)90 1 )" s
Cc: 'Suvrath Mahadev3n'
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 1'..<.,11-4777 (an USP Moos-sized
planet)
Hi Ravi ,
I am with Suvrath and I 3m drafting a manuscript for

an object we validated as a planet using HPF. We have precision
radial velocities on KOI-4777 , a mid-M dwarf (Teff - 3500 K) that hosts a hot
(Teq ~ 11 85 K), small planet candidate (R ~ - 0.4 7 Rearth) on a 0.4l2-day orbit.
This KO! was not in Kepler DR25 originally as the period was too Sh011 to pass
vetting from the pipeline. It was instead given the designation of a KOI after
manual vetting by the Kepler team.
Using a combination ofHPF radial velocities, Kepler photometly , AO imaging

we are able to statistically validate KOI·4 777b as a Mars·sized USP exoplanet. I
note that confmnation of the planet (detecting it in RVs) is beyond the elUTent
ability of existing instnllllents given the faintness of the target and the low
amplirude of the signal.
I wanted to know if you would be interested in joining as a co-author on this
manuscript. The current draft is here and I note the discussion is incomplete.
Suvrath suggested you may have some good thoughts and ideas about the
importance of these hot USP planets and I would be happy to talk with you about
science angles for KOI-4777. Any insights you might have regarding
atmospheres of such planets would be welcome topics for the discussion section.
Thanks in advance!
Best,
Caleb
Date: Thursday, June 17, 2021 9:14:45 AM
the topic is very apropos of the UFO situation

maybe he's following your UFO stuff

To: Gran, Rani C. (GSFC-1300)
Date: Thursday, June 17, 2021 4:13:01 PM
right...
"Ideally we want to understand what it means for the scientific study of UAP/UFO and explaining how the general
public should view this subject now, with the taboo is starting to shrink. Also, what does it mean for the study of
the habitability of other planets and potential life in other solar systems/planets/ect. When the report is made public
and whatever parts are not redacted, what will be NASA's interest be in studying this subject."
From: 6eatriz YiliarmeJ
To: ,@rob Hagg Mjsra: Hagg-Mjsra . .1dcob P. (GSEC 6!162)[Sqence Collabor;!wr]
Cc: KooparaQI! Bavj KUUli!r{GSEC-699())
Subject: Be: [EXTB~] Fwd : Tentative AGENDA for the 1M SEn Permanent Committee"s ONLlNE MEETING to be held
on Wednesday, J une 23rd, 2021.
Dilte: Thursday, June 17, 2021 5:12:11 PM
Hi Jacob!
So far media hasn't discovered it, but I guess we will see within a few days :)
lIB .
Den tors 17 juni 2021 kl1 7:50 skrev Jacob Haqq Misra ~
Congratulations! Yes, alxiv will probably gain some at~
Ha s there been any media interest yet?
wrote:
on arXiv yet :)
Den tors 17 juni 202 1 k113: 19 skrev Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)
<rayjknmar.kopparapu@nasa ,goy>:
nlanles Beatriz. Any feedback from anyone?
From: Beab'iz Villanoel (b) (6)

Date: Thursday, June 17, 202 1 at 6:37 AM
To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" < l1Yit! l<o ~", m.
Cc: "Haqq-Misra, Jacob D. (GSFC-6062)[Science Collaborator]"
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Tentative AGENDA for the
Committee's ONLINE MEETING to be held on Wednesday, June 23rd, 2021.
Hi Jacob and Ravi,
Here is the published version of am paper, fmallyout:
https: llwww.nature.com./articles/s41598-02 1-92 162 -7
lIB.
Den tis 1 jlmi 202 1 kl1 8:54 skrev Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)
<rayjkulllar ko.pparapll@llasa goy>:
Thank you!

Date: Tuesday, lIme I ,
To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" ~:
Cc: "Haqq-Misra, lacob D. (GSFC-6062)[Science
Subject: Re : [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Tentative AGENDA for the
Committee's ONLINE MEETING to be held on Wednesday, lIme 23rd, 202 1.
Deletion Page


..... _---_ ..
,----_._-----
'--".'-'
;:'-:'.,.
:. --_ ....._..__ ...

__
.--_..........
_.. ,.........
_ ..
--------- - --------------------
;-_._-
[:'=E-
;_ .... --_.-
F::'- ----- --
;:_._
: ---.-_-_.-------- -----.-. '.-
.. ... - .- " "'---
;:---._----_ ..
: .- -_._---_
--------.-- ...
E-- - - - -..- - .-- •.------ •.- -.--.------
:s~_-. - ....- -- - . - - .
:s::------........- '-----------..----... ------.. -
:-::;:----
§= ~
~ . :. :- .:=- ..-- -_ ..
:::::::--._ •.._-------_.-----_._-_._-_._---
I~:'- ~:- : :=- ~ - ------- ---------------------.. ---.-..
Frolll: KopparaQu Bayj Kumar (GSEC-699Q)
To: Egh jQiiln, Greg
Cc Keyjn Knuth: Haoq-Mjsra Jacob D (GSEC-6Q621fScjence CollaborntorJ : Adam Frank
Subject: Be : [EXTERNAl] Be: UAP disrussioo
Dilte: Friday, June 18, 20218:25:49 PM
Attachments: rwIonald was 69,odf
Hello all,
Just a reminder about our meeting on Tuesday, June 22 n d at Ipm ET.
Join Zoom Meeting: bttDs;/Ius02web ,zoom ,us/j/6411016198
Here are some articles from Greg. And I am re-attaching James Mc Donald's article "Science in
Default" that I must have sent a 100 t imes to you all .
The idea is to try and make sense of diverging views on UFOs by social scientists who studied the
cult ural association of UFOs with aliens (where there is ample 'data' ), and physical scientists li ke
James Mc Donald and Allen Hynek who actually looked at ava ilable hard data about the nature of
these objects.
httos;/Iwww.airspacemag.com/daily planet/secret government program track ufos jts not first

180967597/
https; llwww ,sullthsolljallmag.COUl/histru.y!how-ufo-repoI1s-challge-wjth-tecbuology-tirnes-

J 8096801 ]/
https;/IWWw,historians.org/publicatjons and directories/perspectives on history/march 20171more
human-thao-alieo-researching-the-bistory-of-ufos
Best
Ravi
From: "Eghigian, Greg "

To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa .gov>
Cc: Kevin Kn ut h ~ "Haqq- M isra, Ja cob D. (GSFC-6062 )[Science
Co ll aborator]" Adam Fra nk .(b) (6)
Deletion Page


From:
To: ~; KooparaPU. Bayj KUmar (GSfC'6990'
Subject: [EiiiW<Alj Leonard David Media InQUiry; New UN> story - thanks
Da le: Sunday, June 20,20213: 17:48 PM
Got this ... many thanks. Very useful comments!
Leonard
(m;FC:-69<.lO) <ravikumar. kopparapu@nasa.gov>
;a.9'O";; Shekhtman, Lonnie (GSFC-690.0)[ADNET

SYSTEMS INC] <Ionnie.shekhtman@nasa .gov>
Sent: Sun, Jun 20, 2021 11 :33 am
Subject: Re: (EXTERNAL) Leonard David Media Inquiry: New UAP story
Hi Leonard,
Thank you.
After the report is released, I hope the following things happen:
First. the scientific studies of UAP should not be a taboo anymore. This seems to be a real
scientific problem and having a taboo keeps it from studying scientifically. This WAS
scientifically studied several decades ago l We should remember our history. Scientists
should be able to openly talk about the detailed needs for a scientific study.
Second, reliable data collection and availability are paramount. Without complete data, the
scientific study of UAP will forever be a fringe topiC. Snippets of edited videos are not
reliable data and nothing meaningful can be deduced from them. Ideally, we would need
simultaneous data from different regions of the electromagnetic spectrum (optical, infra-red,
radio, for example). If there is such data available already, it would need to be analyzed by
appropriate experts and scientists, making sure they have comprehensive data. There may
be false positives, but that is the nature of science.
Third , there should be a coordinated effort from interested scientists of different disciplines
(atmospheric scientists, aerospace experts, physicists, experienced engineersnechnicians)
to look at the data to figure out the nature of this phenomenon. Again, removing the taboo
will significantly propel forward this particular collaborative effort among scientists.
Best
Ravi
From:
Date: Sllnd,iii
~ Kumar :-6!l90)" <ravikumar. kopparapu@nasa.gov>,
'~
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Leonard David Media Inquiry: New UAP story
Ravi:
I am writing a follow-up UAP/UFO story - this one for Space.com.
Can you provide another comment - as I can't use your quotes from the Scientific American story.
As the report apparently is forthcoming (I guess) - any new takes from you on how the Pentagon task
force report will shape Mure studies of the UFO phenomenon . Whafs the right course of action post-
report?
Leonard
-Original Message--
From:PIlI!!!I
To: rav1Uliiir. opparapu nasa.gov <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>
Sent: Fri, May 28, 2021 9:46 am
Subject Leonard David Media Inquiry: New UAP story - thanks!
Ravi: Many thanks for this ... much appreciated.
Leonard
-Original Message--
From: Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990) <ravikumar,kopparapu@nasa.gov>
TOSent
W~ .;:ay, :3 ~
Subject Re: (EXTERNAL) Leonard David Media Inquiry: New UAP story
Thank you for your inquiry. My approach to the upcoming Pentagon report is '\vait and see: It may or
may not reveal anything new to us. I would like to point out that the history of UAP scientific studies in the
U.S. is not limited to the released video snippets, which is a good reminder to avoid painting the whole
phenomena with one broad brush. Additionally, this is not a V S -specific issye, nor is it limited to
observations by U.S. armed forces. There may not be a single explanation to all such observations. What
I would like to suggest is that we not leap to any conclusions when the findings of the report are made
public. The report would be immensely helpful if the data that informed it are made publicly available so
that more experts and scientists can look at it and hopefully reach a scientific consensus on the nature of
some of the unexplained events. Otherwise, there will always be conspiracy theories shrouding, and
inhibiting, a proper scientific method of investigating UAPs.
Best
Ravi
From:
Lermai'd U'3VIO Media 1n00Jlrv : New UAP story

Ravi:
I am writing a new story on the Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon (UAP) task force report - supposedly to
be issued late next month.
I'd like to add your voice to this...I did see your new piece in the Washington Post - but perhaps you could
amplify your views?
Here's the premise of my story:
UAP Report: A "Nothingburger"? Some UFO/UAP experts see the Pentagon's report late next month as
seminal - others see it as dubious and worthless.
I am asking leading skeptics and UAP/UFO believers what they think such a report could/will not say
and...what next?
Please do send any comments for consideration that you might have for this story.
Thanks,
Leonard
;:' ~ ... ..,- ..-.,-.-.-..-..-.------
--- .....
- .~ -
-_...'.....-_........ ---.
- ~ .~- - ,. - - .~
Deletion Page


From: Gran Rani C (GSFC I3!K))
To: David Sloan
Ct:: KopwraQIJ Bay; KIJUlj! [(GSEC-699()) ; She kblman ! Q[Jnje (GSEC-W() !!lfNlNfI SYSJfMS 1NO; HaIJtalIJOffia
Grey rHO-NA02U)
Subject: Be: [EXTERI'W:] Antwort: NASA Interview
Date: Monday, June 21,2021 4:42:41 PM
I'mon (b) (6) I've cc'd my colleague on this email. She should be able to help
you out.
Rani
Rani C. Gran
Mail Code 420, 836, 5470
Work Cell : (b) (6)
Phone: 30 1-286-2483
"If we am plify everything, we hear nothing," Jon Stewart.
From: Da vid Sloan .(b) (6)

Date: Monday, June 2 1, 2021 at 4:39 PM
Cc: "Koppa ra pu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ra vikumar.koppa rapu@nasa.gov>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] An twort : NASA Interview
That's too bad . We tra vel next week, so can we set it up for t he week after? July 5th or 6th?
Let me know if that works. Thanks!
David
-- --- "Gran , Rani C. :arL@llO.....g<!ll> schrieb: -- ---

An: " Davi d Sloan"
Von: " Gran , Rani C.
Datum: 21.06.2021 16:29
Kopie : "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GS FC-6990 )" qay jkum ar. kopparapu @nasa,goy >
Betreff: NASA Interview
Deletion Page


Emili: G@n Rani C (GSFC I3(Kll
To : Adam frank
Cc: Koopa@pu Bavj Kurtljlr(GSEC-6990l ; Fyao [),aWSOO: Haqq-M!S{iI Jacob D fGSEC-6!162lfScience CoIlabocatorl ;
Sbekbtman (oonje (GSEC-690 ())[ADNFI SYSIFMS 1NO
Subject: Be: [EXTERI'W:] Radio interview
Dil te : Monday, June 21,20215:47:50 PM
Thank you. Adam.
Evan. my apologies for misspelling your name. Will this be a live interview or taped?
Rani
Rani C. Gran
Mail Code 420. B36. S470
Greenbelt. MD. 20771

Work Cell: (b) (6)
Phone: 301 -286-2483
"lfwe amplify everything. we hear nothing," Jon Stewart.
On 6i2 112 I. 5:29 PM. "Adam Frank"
Hi Rani
Evan Dawson is the host of Connections. an NPR talk show in Rochester.
I will let him answer the other questions:-)
Adam
> On Jun 21. 2021. at I I :28 AM. Gran, Rani C. (GSFC-1300) <ranLc .gran@nasa.gov> wrote:
>
> Thank: you Ravi and Even.
>
> Hello Adam. Nice to meet you.
>
> I need some more information about yom· show and what th e thmst of the mten'iew will be also.
>
> Also. we are not going to comment on the UAP!UFO report. Only because NASA was not involved in creating
the report and therefore, we don't know what is in it. However. we are open to talking about science and NASA
effOits to Search for Life in and outside our solar system.
>
>
> Rani
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Rani C. Gran
>
> Office of COIlllllunications
>
> Mail Code 420, B36. S470
>
> NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
>
> Greenbelt, MD. 20771
> Work Cell: (b) (6)
>
> Phone: 30 1-286-2483
>
>
>
> " Ifwe amplify everything. we hear nothing." JOIl Stewart.
>
> On 6/21 /2 1, 10:57 AM. "Kopparapu. Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar kopparapu@nasa .gov> wrote:
>
> Hi Adam and Evan.
>
> Thank you for the email.
>
> I am copying NASA's Public affairs office representative. Rani Gran. ill this email so we can coordinate the
interview and approval process. I am happy to be part of yo ur show.
>
> Best.
> Ravi
>
>
>
> 0116/2 1/21. 10:50 AM. "Adam Frank" wrote:
>
> Dear Ravi and Jacob,
>
> So this is an introduction to Evan Dawson Illy good friend who I often do radio inlen'iews with. He is the
wonderful NPR host o f Rochester's main talk show.
>
> He was thinking of doing something with the three of us ifyoll guys are interested.
>
> My best.
> Adam
>
>
>
Deletion Page
Requester: John Greenwald

3 page(s) originating with or of interest to

the European Space Agency (ESA) are being
referred to that agency for review and direct
response to you.
Frolll: newssnoc e
To: Kooparaoo. Rayj KYfIliIrfGSEC-6990J
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAl] leonard David FYI: UAP new story - thanks for the quotes!
Date: Tuesday, June 22, 202112:37:13 Pf>I
Sent from my iPhone
On JIll 22 , 202 1, at 10:22 AM, Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)

<ravikulllar.kopparapu@nasa.gov> wrote:
Tha nks!
From: ' (b) (6) .(b) (6)

Reply-To: ' (b) (6) .(b) (6)
To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.koppa rapu@nasa .gov>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] leonard David FYI: UAP new story - thanks for the quotes!
Skies alive w ith UFOs? Government report on mysterious sightings due soon
https:/lwww.space .com/us-government-ufo-report-due-soon
leonard
From: Koooorapu Bay! Kumar (GSFC-699Q)
To : Adam frank
Cc: Eghjgian Greg : Keyjn Knuth; Hilqq-Misrp Jamb D (GSFC-6()621!Scjeore Collilboratorl
Suhject: Be: [EXT] [EXTERNAL] Re: UAP discussion
Dilte: Tuesday, Ju ne 22, 20211:00:53 PM
Hello all,
I am in the zoom room:
in Zoom Meeting: lJ1u;,~Q2'i!>.z"
Ravi
From: Adam Frank .(b) (6)

To : " Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravi kumar.koppa rapu@nasa.gov>
Cc: "Eghigian, Greg" Kevin Knuth .(b) (6) "Haqq- M isra,
Ja cob D. (GSFC-6062)[Science Collaborator]"
Subject: Re: [EXT] [EXTERNAL] Re: UAP discussion
Hi Everyone
I look forward to our discussion t oday. I will be j oining by phone.
My best
Adam
Adam Frank
Department of Physics and Astronom y
http;Uwww adamfraokscieoce com
--------------------------------------------
On Jun 18, 2021, at 8:25 PM, Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)

Deletion Page


From: Kevin Knuth
Cc: Szydagis, Matthew; Peter Reali; Philippe Ailleris
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] AIAA Conference Invitation
Thank you Ravi!
We are interested in studying these things scientifically, which includes data analysis and
excludes wild speculation.
I think that the six of us will be in agreement on this.
See you in a minute or two.
Cheers
keV
------------------------------------
Albany NY 12222
http://knuthlab.org
On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 12:59 PM Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)

Hi Kevin (all),
Thank you. Nijo contacted me last week about this program. I mentioned to him that I am
interested in participating if the program strictly adheres to observed data (if any) and
analyses, or the topics advocating for scientific study of UAP. I expressed to him that I will
be dis-interested if the program deviates to speculation. From my side, if this goes through, I
plan to talk about the few cases discussed in James Mc Donald’s “Science In Default”. I am
hoping that we will have some in -depth conversation about any new observations and
related science Q/A just like conference talks.
Best
Ravi
From: Kevin Knuth
Date: Tuesday, Jlme
To: "Szydagis, Reali
Philippe Ailleris :Opjiiira,pll, Ravi ,,"rumar
Subject:
Deletion Page


From: Njio Abraham
To: KooparaPIJ, Ravj KYmar fGSFC-§9991
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAl] Contacting for an AIM Q)nferenre Paper
Date: Tuesday, Ju ne 22, 2021 2:08:49 PM
Attachments: AIM Session \JAP verI dOC)(
Good aftemoon Ravi,

Attached is the DRAFT that I will send up the chain in AIAA.
Yom thoughts/comments/edits to strengthen the case are welcome . Please let me know by
aftemoon tomorrow.
Nijo
On Fri, Jml 18, 202 1 at 6:06 PM Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)

<rayikumar.kopparapu@nasa.goy> wrote:
Ok sOlmds good. We are on the same page then.
Thanks
Ravi
From: Nijo Abraham

Date: Friday, June 18,
To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kovvaravu@na sa.gov>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Contacting for an AIAA Conference Paper
Ravi, you took the words out of my mouth .
There will be N.Q. talk on little green men. No such presentation will be considered. Hence,
why it is an "invitation only" presenter session
My goal is to have no media publicity, but a regular session for the aerospace community
where we make the case for studying UAPs seriously.
As a conference chair, I have to give a synopsis of what each presentation will consist of to
my technical committee. I can assure you that extraterrestrial is not a word they will
entel1ain and the session will get dismissed.
I have to write a synopsis of what the session will contain for the conference managers next
week. I will send it to your review after meeting with Kevin so that we all are on the same
page. I then plan to meet with each presenter to ensme the objective nahue of the session is
conveyed.
Nijo
On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 5:40 PM Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)

<rayjkllmar kopparapll@na sa goy> wrote:
Hi Nijo,
The dates are probably fine. My main hesitation is what kind of speakers are you planning
to invite? One of fhe main points that I insist while advocating for a scientific study of
UAP is that we should not assume that they are alien spaceships. There is no robust
scientific evidence for that. If the session 's focus is only on understanding the nature of
UAPs, and not speculating about where they could be (from any of the speakers), then I
am willing to present. I have seen in too many scientific conferences that abstracts about
UAP and a link to extra-tenestrialslspacecraftsletc. are considered fringe and lill-scientific
topics and do not get selected. F1II1hennore, any link between UAPs and aliens may
generate media attention (which is absolutely not my preference), but it will not be
seriously considered by the scientific community which I aSSlllle is the goal of your
seSSlon.
So I mge you to consider topics that strictly adhere to the observed data (if any) and
analyses, or the topics advocating for scientific study ofUAP. And I strongly recommend
not prioritize topics that have anything to do with extra-tenestrial connection.
Best
Ravi
From: Nijo Abraham (b) (6)

Date: Friday, Jlille 18, 202 1 at 5:21 PM
To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <raviktunar.kopparapu@.uasa.goy>
Subject: Re : [EXTERNAL] Contacting for an AIAA Conference Paper
The conference will take place virtually 2nd - 6th Aug this year.
(bttps: llwww.aiaa.orWayjatjon)
The session date is TBD. I will know by next week.

I plan to hold this session for 3 hams, 15-20 min per presentation with 5-10 minutes of
questions.
Do any of these dates work for you?
I I
On Fri, Jun 18, 202 1 at 5:08 PM Kopparapu, Ravi KUlllar (GSFC-6990)

<rayil'Umar.kopparapu@nasa.goy> wrote:
Can you tell me when is this conference? I may not have any new analysis to present
(because I do not know of any reliable scientific data where to get one), but I have read
Prof. James Mc Donald 's "Science in Default" where he discusses fom cases in detail. I
can potentially give an overview of those, if I can find some time .
From: Naa135 •(b) (6)

Date: Friday, June 18, 2021 at 4:31 PM
To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" qayjkllmar kopparaJm@nasa goy>
Ifheld, the session will be streamed live, and recordings will be available as well .
The attendees will be aerospace profe ssionals (national and intemational).
Below is the link to the organization and conference. However, we I can hold this
session only if I have enough (5) papers. Fingers crossed.
hUps·Uwww ajaa org/ayjatjoll
I tmderstand that we are primarily relying on observations. At the least the hope is spark
interest and introduce the topic to the aerospace comlllunity and away from the
fringes/stigma- to study it scientifi cally.
I am meeting with Kevin on Monday to see if there are other researchers I can contact.
His tentative paper will be on the physics of UAPs.
II
On JIm 18, 202 1 at 4:07 PM, <Rayj Kumar (GSFC-6990) KopparaJlu> wrote:
Will this session be streamed live? Or recording available? Can you tell me who else
are planning to attend?
I have no technical paper because I am not sme where the data to analyze the UAP
could be available.
From: Naa135
Date: Friday, lIme
To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <rayjlmmar knpparapll@nasa goy>
Subject: Re : [EXTERNAL] Contacting for an AIAA Conference Paper
Thank you Ravi,
I am in touch with Dr. Knuth, and have a technical presentation tentatively.
Nijo
On JIm 18, 2021 at 3:28 PM, <Rayj KJUuar (GSFC-6990) Kopparapll> wrote :
Hello,
Thank you for yom email. I cunently have no technical paper I can present on this
topic. I could reco1ll1llend contacting Prof. Kevin Knuth from University of Albany.
Best
Ravi
From: Nijo Abraham

Date: Friday, June 18,
To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <rayjkllwar.kopparapu@na sa.goy>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Contacting for an AIAA Conference Paper
Dear Dr. Kopparapu,
I hope this email fmds you well.
My name is Nijo Abraham, a conference chair
came across au you were 'StTo;;;;rv MVQ;:atililg

on UAP. And, from a scientific perspective, I am Cm-iOllS to
what we aerospace engineers can leam from these obseivatiolls.
If I advocate for an 'invited papers only' conference session on UAP topic at one of
the two AIAA conferences , would you be interested in presentiJl2 a technical
= ?
Additionally, if you know of any other researchers I can invite for this session to
present papers, please let me know.
Nijo A. Abraham
(b) (6)
To: Gran,Bani C. (GSfC-l300l
Date : Tuesday, June 22,20212:41:16 PM
(b) (5)
(b) (5)
To: Keyjn Knuth
C<co Haqq Misra Jamb D (GSfC-60621[Scjeoce CoIlaboratorl
Subject: Be: [EXTERNAl] Meeting Today
Date: Tuesday, Ju ne 22, 20214:4S:08 PM
Thanks Kevin, I think so too that it was productive. I am hoping this momentum can continue.
From: Kevin Knuth ~

To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990 )" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa .gov>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNA L] Meet ing Today
Thank you so much Ravil

It was a very enjoyable and productive conversation.
I look forward to our next one.
In the meantime, I will look at the document and add to it.
Cheers
Kevin
Kevin H. Knuth, Ph .D.

Albany NY 12222
http ://knuthlab .org
On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 8:53 AM Koppa rapu, Ravi Kumar {GSFC-6990]
<ravikumar.koppara pu@nasa.gov> wrote:
Hi Kevin,
I completely understand your hesit ation. Adam is actually open to at least listen, and he himself
asked us to add him to the meeting with Greg. As I mentioned in my earlier email, Greg is coming
from a cultura l study of UFOs, so for him, it is more about people's description than actua l
physical events. When I sent to Adam James Mc Donal d's paper, he mentioned that it made him
think a bit. For me that is a change! As you well know, in science, usually it is a slow process for
some change to begin. I am seeing the beginning of that change not only with some scientists, but
also at NASA. Don't look at the social media, though. There, people are more interested in making
snarky comments to get some li kes and social acceptance than interested in doing rea l work.
There is also a class of scientists who are more opposed to this that itself is a sociological
phenomenon (they don' t even recognize it), but we will do our work with science on ou r side.
I also understand your disinterest in working with scientists who are not interested . In my
interactions, I found that lack of awareness of how much work has been done is the primary
reason for people to have misconceptions. This is what you are referring to "I don't want to waste
my t ime helping people do their homework." I th ink for UAPs to gain w ider acceptance, or at least
gai n recognition that it is a legit imate field of work, some init ial outreach is necessary. If no one is
doing this outreach and we are all doing our own things, we will be divided and no bridges w ill be
built, or people who are interested but fear the t aboo may not come to us. That is the reason for
the articles that Jacob and I are writing, To remove the taboo. We have been contacted by young
scientists privately who are very much interested but fear that they may be ridiculed . But when
they see that their seniors are making some comments in support of it, that hesitation will reduce.
Heck, my Super boss, the SMD division head at Goddard, sent me a message that our article is
wel l written and happy to see finally we are t al king about science!! And lab chiefs with
instrumentation expertise, who are very conservative thought that the approach with science only
is very much needed . This is from traditional scientists! This will make your work more widely
recognizable and easier to communicate with broad audience.
I am glad to hear about your UAPx work. Let's t al k at a separate meeting about it. I have been
read ing Paul Hill's book about UAP scientific explanation and l have some thoughts about it that I
want to share with you both.
See you soon .
Ravi
From : Kevin Knuth ~

Hello Ravi and Jacob,
I am looking forward to our meet ing at Ipm this afternoon .
Ravi, I hope t hat you saw the invit ation to present at the upcom ing AIM aeronautics conference.
And I hope that you'll be able to accept.
I will admit that I am a little wary about meeting w ith Greg and Adam because I don't really know
either of them .
I know Adam from his days as a postdoc in Minnesota, when I was a graduate student. And his
recent NYT op-ed which states that UFOs don't interest him.
He probably doesn't remember me.
I am eager, and delighted, to discuss UAPs.

But I am wary of having to have the same old discussions as to whether they are interesting, or
real, or craft, etc.
I am now actively studying them with multiple teams of scientists.
My UAPx team collects its own data.
We are developing our own instrumentation.
And we have been learning things about them.
I really don't have the patience to get other scientists up to speed when these things have been
known and observed for 70 years.
One has to really do their homework, and that requires researching the topic.
I don't want to waste my time helping people do their homework.
I hope I am not coming off too strong or negative.

But just like so many scientists have publicly stated that studying UFOs is not worth their time,
it is not worth my time to educate disinterested and ignorant scientists.
I will have to leave the meeting before 3 pm.

I have a meeting with my UAPx team to plan our upcoming round of observations and I will have
some preparatory work to do.
Can't talk about UFOs... busy studying them!!!
I'll see you guys later today!

Cheers
Kevin
PS Here is an interesting article on UFOs observed at sea.

They are seen going into and coming out of water, as well as underwater.
So they are clearly not atmospheric phenomena.
------------------------------------
Albany NY 12222
http://knuthlab.org
From: Kooparapu Bavi Kuma r (GSEC-699Q)
To: Gran, Bani C. (GSEC 13001
Subject: Be: UAP/UfO talking points
Date: Tuesday, June 'l'l, 2021 7:18:35 PM
Attachments: TP 21 -016 Search for I ife UN's Rayj 00cx
Hi Rani,
Ravi
From: "Gran, Ran i C. (GS FC-1300) " <rani ,c.gran@nasa,gov>

To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990 )" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa ,gov>
Subject: FW : UAP/UFO t alking po ints
Rani C, Gran
Mail Code 420, 836, S470
Greenbelt, MD, 20771
Work Cell: (b) (6)
Phone: 301-286-2483
From: "Fox, Karen C. (HQ-1300)" <karen ,c.fox@nasa ,gov>

To: " Haut aluoma, Grey (HQ- NA020) " <grey,haut aluoma-l @nasa ,gov>, "Johnson, Alana R,
(HQ-DGOOO)[ASRC FEDERAL SYSTE M SOLU TIONS]" <a lana,r,joh nson@nasa,gov>, Ran i Gran
<ran i. c.gran@nasa ,gov>, "Jones, Nancy N, (GSFC-1300)" <nancy,n ,j ones@nasa ,gov>
Subject: Re : UAP/UFO talk ing point s
Here's the current talking pOints - working on a new version now that will include info
about the upcoming report, But for now these are good!
Karen C. Fox
Senior Science Comm un ications Officer
From: "Hautaluoma, Grey (HQ-NA020)" <grey.hautalu oma- l @n asa.gov>

To: "John son, Alana R. (HQ- OGOOO)[ASRC FEDERAL SYSTEM SO LUTIONS]"
<ala na.r .j ohnson@nasa.gov>, "Fox, Karen C. (HQ- 1300)" <karen .c. fox@nasa.gov>, "Gran, Ran i
C. (GSFC- 1300)" <rani.c.gran@nasa .gov>, "Jones, Nancy N. (GS FC- 1300)"
<nancy .n .jones@nasa .gov>
Subject: RE : UAPjU FO ta lking points
1didn't seen Tabatha's final edit. Did we get that?
From: Johnson, Alana R. (HQ-OGOOO)[ASRC FEDERAL SYSTEM SOLUTIONS]

<alana.r.johnson@nasa .gov>
To: Ha utaluoma, Grey (HQ-NA020) <grey .hautaluoma-l@nasa .gov>; Fox, Karen C. (GSFC-13(0)
<karen .c.fox@nasa .gov>;Gran,Rani C. (GSFC-1300) <rani.c.gran @nasa .gov>; Jones, Nancy N. (GSFC-
1300) <na ncy.n.j ones@ nasa.gov>
Subject: Re : UAPjUFO talking points
Grey-
Indeed , there is great interest in this topic and the agency's new "lean in" posture.
Attached are the finalized newsroom version (though, Tabatha has a minor edit
coming).
Karen is Marc's designated poe for developing a mini-comms plan for UFOs. She's
working on that , as well as bringing in others within the agency who are key players -
JD Harrington , Tylar Green, etc.
Have you received any further queries stemming from Ravi's OpEd?
Thanks
Alana
Are you a journalist covering the Ingenuity Mars Helicopter or the Perseverance Mars rover, please fill
out our media request form at httos:/Ibit./v/mars landing media.
Alana R. Johnson
Senior Communicotions Speciolist, PAAC V Contract
Plonetory Science Division
(2021358- 1501 I
NASA Headquarters, 300 E. St SW, Washington, DC. 20546
asrcfederal com Purpose Driven. Enduring Commitment.
From: "Hautaluoma, Grey (HQ-NA020)" <grey.hautaluoma-1@nasa.gov>
Date: Monday, June 7, 2021 at 11:34 AM
To: "Fox, Karen C. (GSFC-1300)" <karen.c.fox@nasa.gov>, "Gran, Rani C. (GSFC-1300)"
<rani.c.gran@nasa.gov>, "Johnson, Alana R. (HQ-DG000)[ASRC FEDERAL SYSTEM SOLUTIONS]"
<alana.r.johnson@nasa.gov>, "Jones, Nancy N. (GSFC-1300)" <nancy.n.jones@nasa.gov>
Subject: UAP/UFO talking points
Are these final then? Rob wants to send to Goddard SMEs who might get a question in this dept.,
although by and large I’d hope we could refer people to Ravi.
Do you have any insights on HQ policy about UAP interviews going forward? The administrator’s
interview, of course, has gotten some notice!
To: Njjo Abraham
Subject: Be: [EXTERNAl] Contacting for an AIM Conference Pa per
Date: Wednesday, June 2:3, 2021 7:34:58 AM
Attachments: mcdonald aaas 69 pdf
Hi Nijo,
""""'"
My ta lk will include brief discussion of the 4 cases highlighted in Prof. Ja mes Mc Donald's "Science in
Default", and my own short ana lysis of _one_ aspect of the Nimitz encounter based on what has
been reported . I included some comments in the PDF for the James Mc donald's document. I have
not published the second ana lysis anywhere because there is no data other than the news reports t o
support t he cla ims. I am uncomfortable publishing things based on just witness testimony and news
reports. The intent of my letter is to show that it cou ld not have been commercia l or military planes,
if the reports are true and accurate.
Ravi
From: Nij o Ab raham .(b) (6)

Subject: Re : [EXTE RNA L] Contact ing for an AIAA Conference Paper
Ravi, the topics of only two speakers are confirmed .

Kevin will be addressing the Physics of the observations (such as accelerations etc.), and the resu lts
of remote experiments they conducted (on their measured temperature pattern) .
Peter, technical analysis of the Nimitz encounter
Both of these are based on two papers they published .
Still waiting on others to reply to Kevin.

Dr. Richard Haines w ill be addressing the safety aspect for pilot s.
I will reiterate on not addressing any speculations, as speakers are confirmed.

Once I have everyone, I will send out the discussion poi nts.
Can you please elaborate on what you mean by 'Science of UAPs'? Are you referring to the
difference in behaviors from Past vs. Present ?
When you mention _reports..... does it include Nimitz or the papers from SCP
(https:/lwww.explorescu .org/research libraryftategories/scu papers)?
Please make su re it does not overlap with Peter's talk.
P.S. Removed the politicians out of the document
Nijo
On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 3:37 PM Koppa rapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)
<rayjkymar kopparapy@nasa,gov>wrot e:
Thank you Nijo. This looks good. The only thing that caught my attention is the mention of
president Obama and Sen. Harry Reid.
Also, could you let me know the topics that other speakers are planning t o ta lk about? I might
talk about "Science of UAPs: Past and Present". I will also include a brief analysis I have done
based on the Jeports~ from recent Navy UAPs. I would recommend to collect the discussion
points first from the speakers and then finalize the speakers. I am hoping none of the speakers
mention anything related to alien life or speculation about how UAPs can do interstellar travel or
exotic matter,
Best
Ravi
From: Nij o Abraham .(b) (6)

To : "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" qayjk!Jrnar kopparap!J@nasa i'O¥>
Subject: Re: (EXTERNAL) Contacting for an AIM Conference Paper
Deletion Page


From: NOO Abraham
To: KopoaraptJ, Ray! KUmar CGSfC..6990l
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAl) Contacting for an AIM Conference Paper
Da le: Wednesday, June 23, 2021 8:40:44 AM
Attadlments: proceedings-33-OOQ26,pdf
Thank you, Ravi, please fwd the attached fli ght analysis by Peter Reali 011 Nimitz, His
presentation will be based on it So kindly ensure there 1S no overlap,
Nijo
On Wed, Juu23 , 202 1 at 7:35 AM Kopparapll, Ravi KllInar (GSFC-6990)

<rayikmmu_kQlWarapu@llasa,iQ Y> wrole:
Deletion Page


. . . . proceedings
Proceedillgs
Estimating Flight Characteristics of Anomalous
Unidentified Aerial Vehicles in the 2004
Nimitz Encounter t
Kevin H. Knuth 1,2, _0), Robert M. Powe Il 1C!), and Pete r A. Reali 2
, Department of Physics, University at Albany (SUNY), Albany, NY 12206, USA

Scientific Coalition for VAr Studies (SCll), Fort Myers, FL 33913, USA;
robe rtmnxpowell@gm.:lil.com(R.M.P.);preali@Cableone.net(PAR. )
• Correspondence: kknuth@albany.edu
t Presented at the 39th International Workshop on Bayesian Inference and Maxi mum Entropy Me thods in
Science and Engineering. Carching. Germany, 30 June-5 July 2019.
Published: 16 December 2019
Abstract: A num ber of Uniden tified Aerial Pheno mena (VA P) encountered by military, comme rcial,
and civil inn a ircraft have been reported to be structured cr.:lft that exhibit 'impossible' fli ght
Cha.r:lcteristics. We consider the 2004 UAP encounte rs with the N imitz Carrie r Group off the coast
of California, and estimate lower bounds on the <lccelera tions exhibi ted by the craft during the
observed m,me uvers. Estimated acceler<ltions ra nge from 75g to more Ihan 5000g w ith no observed
<lir disturb,mce, no sonic booms, <lnd no evide nce of excessive hea t com mensurate wi th even the
m inimal estimated energies.. In accordance w ith observations, theestimaled paramelers describ ing the
behavior o f these craft <Ire both anoma lous and surprising. Theextreme estimated fli ght characteristics
revea l that these observa tions nre e ither fabri ca ted or serious ly in error, or that these craft ex hibit
technology fa r more advanced th<ln any known craft o n Earth. In the case of the Nimitz e ncou nters
the number and qunlity of wi tnesses, the vnriety of roles the y p layed in the e ncounters, and the
equipment used to track and record the craft favo r the latter hypothesis that these are technologically
advanced craft.
Keyw ords: UAP; UAV; UFO
1. Introduction
Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAPs) partially identified <IS being unknow n ano m<llous airc raft,
refe rred to.:lS Unidentified Anom.:llous Ve h icles (UAVs) or Unide n ti fie d Flying Objects (UFOs), have
been observ ed g loba lly for some time (1]. Such phe nomena were stud ied o ffici<llly by the U n ited
States Air Force in a series of projects: Project Sign (1 947), Project Grudge (1949) and Project Blue
Book (1952-1969) [2]. Other n<l tions, s uch as A us tralia, Bmz il, Cnnad<l, C hile (3], Denm<l rk, Fmnce,
New Zea la nd, Russia (the former Soviet Union), Spa in, Swed en, the United Kingdo m, U rug uay, a nd
the Vaticnn have nlso conducted s tud ies, or are currently study ing. UAPs (4]. In December of 2017 it
waS revealed Ihat the United Sta tes govern m ent had been stud ying UAPs throug h a t least one secret
prog ram called the Anomalo us Aeros pace Threa t Iden tific<ltio n Progr<lm (AATI P) [5], and that there
have been times at w hich United States Naval pilots have had to d e<ll w ith nearly d aily e ncounters
wi th UAVs [6,7]. These unidentified crnft typ ic<llly ex hibit a nom<l lous fl ig ht chamcteristics, su ch as
tr<lveling at ex tremely hig h speed s, changing direction or accele rating at ex treme ly hig h r.:ltes, and
hovering m otionless for long periods of time. Furtherm ore, these c raft .:lppe.:l r to v io lnte the laws of
physics in that they d o n ot have flig ht or control surf.:lces, any visible means of p ropu lsion apparently
ProcmJings 201 9, 33, 26; dOi:10.JJ90/pf'OCOOdings2019033026 www. mdpi.com/joumal/procoodi ngs

Procttdings 2019, 33, 26 20f11
violating Newton's Third Law, and can operate in multiple media, such as space (low Earth orbit), air,
and water without apparent hindrance, sonic booms, or heat dumps [4].
The nature, origin. and purpose of these UAVs are unknown. It is also not known if they are
piloted, controlled remotely, or autonomous. If some of these UAVs are of extraterrestrial origin, then it
would be important to assess the potential threat they pose [4]. More interestingly, these UAVs have the
potential to provide new insights into aerospace engineering and other technologies [B]. The potential
of a serious threat as well as the promise of advancements in science and engineering, along with our
evolving expectations about extraterrestrial life are important reasons for scientists to seriously study
and understand these objects [9-13]. We carefully examine a series of encounters in 2004 by pilots
and radar operators of the Nimitz carrier group, and estimate lower bounds on their accelerations. We
demonstrate that the estimated accelerations are indeed extraordinary and surprising.
2. Nimitz Encountem (2004)

For a two week period in November of 2004, the U.S. Navy's Carrier Strike Group Eleven (CSG-ll),
which includes the USS Nimitz nuclear aircraft carrier and the Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser
USS Princeton, encountered as many as 100 UAVs. We estimated the accelerations of UAVs relying
on (1) radar information from USS Princeton former Senior Chief Operations Specialist Kevin Day;
(2) eyewitness information from CDR David Fravor, commanding officer of Strike Fighter Squadron 41
and the other jet's weapons system operator, LCDR Jim Slaight; and (3) analyses of a segment of the
Defense Intelligence Agency-released Advanced Targeting Forward Looking Infrared (ATFLlR) video.
The following descriptions of the Nimitz encounters were summarized from the more detailed study
published by the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU) [14].
2.1. Senior Chief Operations Specialist Kevin Day (RADAR)

An important role of the USS Princeton is to act as air defense protection for the strike group.
The Princeton was equipped with the SPY-l radar system which provided situational awareness of
the surrounding airspace. The main incident occurred on 14 November 2004, but several days earlier,
radar operators on the USS Princeton were detecting UAVs appearing on radar at about BO,ooO+ feet
altitude to the north of CSG-ll in the vicinity of Santa Catalina and San Clemente Islands. Senior
Chief Kevin Day informed us that the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMO) radar systems had detected
the UAVs in low Earth orbit before they dropped down to BO,OOO feet [15]. The UAVs would arrive
in groups of 10 to 20, subsequently drop down to 2B,000 feet with a several hundred foot variation,
and track south at a speed of about 100 knots [15]. Periodically, the UAVs would drop from 2B,000 feet
to sea level (approx. 50 feet), or under the surface, in 0.7B seconds. Without detailed radar data, it is
not possible to know the acceleration of the UAVs as a function of time as they descended to the sea
surface. However, one can estimate a lower bound on the acceleration by assuming that the UAVs
accelerated at a constant rate halfway and then decelerated at the same rate for the remaining distance
so that
~d
2
= ~a
2
(!)2
2
(1)
The data conaisted of the change in altitude y± O"y = 8530 ± 90m (-2B,000ft± 295ft) and the
duration t' ± 0"1 = 0.7B ± O.OBs, where the goal was to estimate the acceleration, a. The dominant
source of uncertainty in altitude was due to the observed variation in altitude among the observed
UAVs, which was on the order of 200 to 300 ft .
In the first analysis, we assigned a joint Gaussian likelihood, P(y, tla, I) for the measured altitude
change and the duration of the maneuver. Since the altitude change and the duration are independently
measured, the joint likelihood is factored into the product of two likelihoods, and one can marginalize
over the duration of the maneuver to obtain a likelihood for the altitude y
ProcmIings 2019, 33, 26 30t 11
P(y Ia, 1) = L: dt P(y, t Ia,uy , tl, Ut, 1) (2)
= L: dt P(y I a, t,uy , I )P(t I t',Ut, I ), (3)
where the symbol 1 represents the fact that these probabilities are conditional on all prior information.
Assigning Gaussian likelihoods we have that
P(y la, 1) =
1 ~
- <><>
dt
y 2nuy
1 [ 1 (y + 1;aat2)'] 1 [1
r.:o= exp - 20'2
y y
r.:o= exp
2nUt
--2
2o't
, ,]
(t - t) (4)
~ --1 1 ~ dt exp [-=

1 ( + 1- at,), - 1 (t - 1') ,] .
y =-< (5)
2TruyUt _<><> 2o'y 4 2cr;
The integrand is the exponential of a quartic polynomial in t, which was solved numerically. Assigning
a uniform prior p robability for the acceleration over a w ide range of possible accelerations results in a
posterior that is proportional to the likelihood (5) above resulting in a maximum likelihood analysis,
which gave an estimate of a = 5600 ~ W ~ g, as illustrated in Figure 1A.
As a second analysis, we employed sampling fo r which the change in altitude and the e lapsed
time were described by Gaussian distributions with y ± Uy = 8530 ± 90m and t' ± Ut = 0.78 ± O.08s,
respectively. The most probable acceleration was 5370 :' ~ g while the mean acceleration was 5950 g
(Figure 16).
A B
Minimum Acceler.ilion (g) Minimum Acceleration (g)
Figu re 1. An analysis of Senior Chief Day'S radar observations. (A) 'The posterior probability indicates
the maximum likelihood estimate of the (lcceler(ltion to be 5600 ~ n~ g. (B) JOe acceler(ltiol'\S obt(lined
by sampling resu lted in the most probable (lccelerntion of 5370 ~ 1: g (red lines) w hile the me(ln
accelerntion is 5950 g (black dotted line).
With acceleration estimates in hand, we obtained a ballpark estimate of the power involved to
accelerate the UAV. Of course, this required an estimate of the mass of the UAV, which we did not have.
The UAV was estimated to be approximately the same size as an F/ A-I S Super Hornet, which has a
weight of about 32, OOO lbs, corn>Sponding to 14, 550 kg. Since we want a minimal power estimate, we
took the acceleration as 5370g and assumed that the UAV had a mass of 1000 kg. The UAV would
have then reached a maximum speed of abou t 46, 000 mph during the descent, o r 60 times the speed
of sound, at which point the required power peaked at a shocking ll00GW, which exceed s the total
nuclear power production of the United States by more than a factor of ten. For comparison, the
largest n uclear power plant in the United States, the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station in Arizona,
provides about 3.3 GW of power for about four million people [16].
f'roctedings 2019, 33, 26 ~ofl
2.2. Cmnmander Dtroid Fraoor (PILOT)
On Nov. 14, 2004, CSG-U was preparing for training exercises. Two F/ A-l8F Super Hornets were
launched from the Nimitz for the air defense exercise to be conducted in an area 80-150 miles SSW of
San Diego. Both planes, with call signs "FastEagle01" and "FastEagle02", had a pilot and a weapons
system operator (WSO) onboard.. VFA-41 Squadron Commanding Officer David Fravor was piloting
FastEagle01 and LCDR Jim Slaight was the WSO of FastEa.gIe02. CDR Fravor and his wingman were
headed for the Combat Air Patrol (CAP) point, which is given by predefined latitude, longitude and
altitude coordinates, where they would conduct the training exercises.
About a half-hour after take-off, Senior Chief Day operating the SPY-1 radar system on the
Princeton detected UAVs entering the training area. The training exercise was delayed and FastEag1eOl
and FastEagle02 were directed to intercept a UAV at a distance of 60 miles and an altitude of 20,000 feet
As the F-18s approached merge plot, which is the point at which the radar could not differentiate the
positions of the F-18s and the UAY, Fravor and. Slaight noticed. a disturbed patch of water, where it
appeared as if there was a large object, posSlbly a downed aircraft, submerged 10 to 15 feet below the
surface. As they observed the disturbance from 20,000 ft, all four pilots spotted a white UAV, shaped
like a large cylindrical butane tank, or a Tic-Thc candy, moving erratically back and. forth, almost like a
bouncing ping-pong ball making instantaneous clumges in direction without changing speed. The
Tlc-Tac UAV was estimated. to be about the size of an F-18, about 40-50 feet in length and 10-15 feet
wide, but had no apparent flight surfaces or means of propulsion, and its movement had no apparent
effect on the ocean surface as one would expect from something like rotor wash from a helicopter.
Figure 2. An analysis of CDR Fravor's encounter based on a 1hmcated Gaussian distribution

(1/30° ± 1/60°) of Fravor's visual acuity and a Truncated Gaussian distnbution (1 ± 1 s) of elapsed
time. A. Gaussian distribution of distances based on the visual acuity distribution. B. The distribution
of accelerations has a maximum at 150 ~ g (red lines) and a mean of 550 g (black dotted line).
Fravor started a descent to investigate while his wingman kept high cover. As Fravor drcled
and descended, the UAV appeared to take notice of him and rose to meet him. The F-18 and the UAV
circled one another. When Fravor reached the nine o'clock position, he performed a maneuver to close
the distance by cutting across the circle to the three o'clock position. As he did so, the TIc-Tac UAV
accelerated. ([14], p.12) across Fravor's nose heading south. Fravor said that the UAV was gone within
a second. As a comparison, Fravor noted. that even a jet at Mach 3 takes 10 to 15 seconds to disappear
from sight ([14], p.ll). LCDR Slaight descnbed the UAV as accelerating as if it was "shot out of a rifle"
and thatitwas out of sight in. split second. ([14], p. 12).
The engagement lasted five minutes. With the TIc-Tac gone, the pilots turned their attention
toward the large object in the water, but the disturbance has disappeared. The two FastEagles returned
to the Nimitz, without sufficient fuel to attempt to pursue the TlC-Tac. On their way back, they received
a call from the Princetrm that the TIc-Tac UAV was waiting precisely at their CAP point. Senior Chief
Day noted. that this was surprising because those coordinates were predetermined and secret. Given
that the CAP point was approximately R = 60mi away, the probability of selecting the CAP point out
of all the locations withln the 60 mile radius, to withln a one mile resolution (slightly more than the
resolution of the radar system), is
1 1
P{xII) = rrR2 = 11310 = 0.0088%, (6)
discounting the altitude. It appears that the Tic-Tac UAV intentionally went to that location, although
it is not clear how this would be possible.
To obtain a lower bound on the acceleration, we assume that the UAV exhibited constant
acceleration so that the distance traveled was given by
1
d= -at' (7)
2
during the elapsed time. The length of the Tic-Tac UAV was estimated to be about 40 ft with a cross
sectional width of about w = 10ft. Given that the acuity of human vision is about 9 = 1/600 the UAV,
at its narrowest, would be out of sight at a maximum distance of
w/2
(8)
d = tan{9/2)'
which is d '" 6.5 mi. It is difficult to know what Fravor's acuity was given the viewing conditions. For
this reason, we model the acuity conservatively as a truncated Gaussian distribution with a peak at
9 = 1/300 ± 1/600 • The truncation at 9 = 1/600 resulted in a discontinuity in the distribution of the
distances (Figure 2A), which peaks around 2.25 mi.
The elapsed time is modeled as a Gaussian distribution with a mean of 1 ± 1 s and truncated
for positive values of time. The resulting acceleration distribution was a skewed distribution of
140
accelerations (Figure 2B) with a most probable acceleration of 150+ g, indicated in the figure by
-80
the red vertical lines and a mean acceleration of about 550 g indicated by the black vertical dotted line.
Note that this is a lower bound, probably far below the observed acceleration if the UAV accelerated
briefly as if "shot out of a rifle" and then traveled at a constant speed.
2.3. ATFUR Video

Upon returning to the Nimitz, CDR Fravor requested that a crew equipped with the ATFLIR pod
obtain videos of the Tic-Tac UAV. Two F/ A-18Fs were launched under the guidance of an E-2 Hawkeye
airborne radar plane. The two planes separated in search of the UAV, with one plane heading south
toward the CAP point where the UAV was last seen on radar. That plane picked up a contact 33 miles
to the south on the Range While Search (RWS) scan. This TIc-Tac UAV was filmed using the ATFLIR
system, and the video was released to the public as the "Nimitz video" (Figure 3A).
We examined the last 32 frames of the Nimitz video in which the TIc-Tac UAV accelerated to
the left and the targeting system lost lock. The video frame rate was 29.97frames/s. As the UAV
accelerates the image of the UAV becomes elongated and blurred. If the shutter speed was known, then
this information could be used to better estimate the speed of the craft. This could be accomplished
by treating the shutter speed as a model parameter, but such analysis is beyond the scope of this
project. Instead, we concentrated on tracking the position of the right edge of the UAV and using those
positions to estimate the kinematics. The left edge of the UAV was also estimated in the first frame to
provide some information about the range, zo, to the UAV given that that UAV was estimated to be
about 40 feet in length. However, since the orientation was not known, this is modeled as a uniformly
distributed unknown angular parameter 4> E {0,3rr/8}, which allowed one to at least put an upper
bound on the range zoo
To estimate the position of the right edge of the craft in each frame (Figure 3A), the row of pixels
for which the UAV has a maximum intensity was examined. The pixel intensities along that row at the
ProcmIings 2019, 33, 26 60f 11
right edge of the VAP were fit (maximum likelihood method with a Student-t likelihood) to half of
a Gaussian curve. The center position of the Gaussian plus the standard dev iation was used as the
position of the right side of the UAV for that frame (Figure 38).
Horizontal positions of the VAV are related to the pixel coordinates by noting that the entire field
of view (approximately FOVpix = 606pixels) corresponds to an angular fie ld of view of 0.7" in the
narrow (NAR) mode, which is indicated in the upper left hand comer of the video. At the range, ~, of
the UAV this results in the proportion
FOVpix 12
X sca1t = 07<' (9)
Z" tan---r
where X sclllt has units pi:1s when Zo is in units of m. The ATFUR has a zoom feature that can change
the field of view. In the Nimitz video frames analyzed, the zoom is first set to unity in the NAR mode
so that the angular field of view is 0.7". However, at frame 16, the zoom changes to two, so that the
angular field of view in the NAR mode changes to 0.35°. This appears as a discontinuity in the data
('+' symbols) illustrated in Figure 3C.
B
,. \,
c
., l:I ·.·
., ~
.....
Figu re 3. (A) Frame 19 o f the last 32 frames of the Nimitz ATFLIR video. "The narrow hOrizontal and
vemcallines intersecting at the right edge of the UA P image indicate the position of the UAP. (8) "The
pixel intensities a long a row of the frame are plotted along w ith the best Gaussian curve fit The
rightmos t edge of the craft is defined as the teller position of the Gaussian p lus one standard deviation
(indicated by the vertical red line). (q This is an illustration the data (+), the most probable kinematic
fit (solid curves) to the UAV positions in the Nimitz ATFLIR v ideo, and the reSiduals (model minus
d ata) for the model described by (11). Details can be found in Table 1.
We analyzed four different kinematic models using nested sampling. and statistically tested
them by comparing the log BayeSian evidence. We used unifonn prior probabilities for the kinematic
piltilmeters as well as il Student-t likelihood function, which is robust to outliers, such ilS those due to
camera (airplane) motion. Model #1 considers constant acceleration to the left (-x directio n). Model
#2 conside rs constant acceleration both to the left (-x direction) and toward or away from the camera
(z-direction). The forward model provides the position of the UAV as a function of time, where ti is the
time of the i'h video frame :
= }axti2 + xo
Models #1 and #2 { X(ti ) const. accel., (10)
z(tj) = !a z t ?+~
for which ax E [-200,01g. Qz E 1-100,100] g. x" E 1-100, 100] px, ~ E [7.57,75.751mi, and Model #1
just considers the UAV's acceleration in the x-direction (to the left) so that az == O.
Models #3 and #4 describe the kinematics as constant acceleration followed by constant velocity
motion after Frame 15:
x(I;) = !aXti2 + Xo for I; < 116

x(I;) = !a X 1152 + ax I15(1; - 115 ) + Xo for I; ;::: 116
Models #3 and #4 (11)
z(I;) = iazt? +zo for I; < 116
z(I;) = !az1152 + azl15 (I; - 115) + Zo for I; ;::: 116
for which ax E [-200,0[g,a z E [-100,I00lg,xo E [-100,I00lpx,zo E [7.57,75.75l mi,and Model #3

just considers the UAV's acceleration in the x-direction (to the left) so that az ~ 0.
The models were analyzed using a nested sampling algorithm [17,18], which allowed for the
estimation of the logarithm of the Bayesian evidence, 10gZ, as well as the logarithm of the likelihood,
10gL, and mean estimates of the model parameters. The analysis was performed for N = 500 samples
and was run until the change in 10gZ from successive iterations was less than 10-5, ensuring a
reliable estimate of the log evidence. Tests were performed to ensure that the trial-to-trial variations in
parameter estimates were within the estimated uncertainties.
The results of the nested sampling analysis are listed in Table 1. The uncertainties in the 10gZ
estimates (not listed) were on the order of one or less. Model 4, which describes the motion of the UAV
as a constant acceleration to the left and away from the observer for the first 15 frames (approximately
0.53 s), is the most probable solution with acceleration components of ax = -35.64 ± 0.08 g and
az = 67.04 ± 0.18g for a net acceleration of about 75.9 ± 0.2g. The residuals indicate that a more
precise model would consist of multiple episodes of acceleration during the maneuver. This was
observed in seu's analysis [14] where the accelerations were estimated to vary from around 40 to 80 g.
Table 1. Kinematic Models for the Nimitz Video Given the log evidence (IogZ), Model 4 (bold) is most
probable with a net acceleration of 75.9 ± 0.2 g.
Model 10gZ LogL .x(g) az(g) xo(m) zo(m)

Modell -253,640 -253,614 -71.1±0.7 -15.40 ± 0.04 119,700 ± 1200
Model 2 -236,950 -236,287 7.564 ± 0.002 99.994 ± 0.005 -13.36 ± 0.04 12,193±1
Model 3 -53,282 -53,261 -40.2±3.8 -4.02 ± 0.05 49,700 ± 4800
Model 4 -52,084 -52,031 -35.64 ± 0.08 67.04±0.18 -3.89±0.05 43,870 ± 110
A more detailed analysis would involve modeling the motion of the UAV more precisely by
modeling the pixel intensities on the video frames themselves. By considering the shutter speed, the
blurring of the UAV image due to its motion would provide more information about its speed. In
addition, the "change points" at which the accelerations changed could be treated as model parameters
allowing for a more precise description of the UAV's behavior.
3. Discussion
In this paper, we have worked under the assumption that these UAPs were physical craft as
described by the pilots. The fact that these UAPs exhibited astonishing flight characteristics leaves
one searching for other possible explanations. One very clever explanation suggested by one of the
reviewers was that these UAPs could have been generated by the intersection of two or more laser or
maser beams ionizing the air, which could create a visual image, an infrared image, as well as a radar
reflective region pOSSibly explaining much of the observations.
While such an explanation could explain the visual, infrared and radar observations, it would not
be able to explain either the suborbital radar returns from the ballistic missile defense (HMO) radar
systems on the Prince/on before the UAPs dropped to 80,000 ft, or the sonar returns when the TicTac
UAPs went into the ocean [15], both of which are not as well substantiated or documented as the
other observations.
More importantly, the distribution of the UAPs ranged from over 100 miles to the north over
Catalina Island to about 70 miles to the west. This would reqtrire an array of widely distributed and
coordinated lasers situated on multiple ships or aircraft. However, it is known that there were no other
ships or airplanes in the area. In addition, the fact that the UAP reacted to CDR Fravor's maneuvers
would require that radar be used to track the F-18s so that the laser-produced imagery could react to
them. However, any such radar frequencies being used in the area would have been detected by the
Princeton, the E-2 Hawkeye, and the F-18s themselves.
If any such system were being secretly tested against CSG-ll, one would expect it to mimic
real-life events, such as an enemy aircraft, drone, or missile launch. But the UAPs and their behavior
were nothing like this. Furthermore, such powerful lasers might endanger the planes or personnel
if anything went wrong in the testing, and the fact that the pilots were forced to take evasive
maneuvers [19] reveals that they were being put in harms way. One wouldn't need to test a system in
this manner, and if such a test did take place it would very likely have been illegal. Furthermore, such
an explanation would have difficulty explaining the almost daily encounters experienced by pilots in
the Roosevelt Carrier Group both off the coast of Vuginia and during military operations in the Persian
Gulf [6,7], or earlier encounters, such as that by Lt. Bethune in 1951, two years before the invention of
the maser and nine years before the invention of the laser, which was analyzed in the extended version
of this paper [20].
4. Conclusions
We have carefully considered a set of encounters between the Nimitz CSG-ll and UAPs of
unknown nature and origin. Much of the information available consisted of eyewitness descriptions
made by multiple trained witnesses observing in multiple modalities including visual contact from
pilots, radar, and infrared video. While fabrication and exaggeration cannot be ruled out, the fact that
multiple professional trained observers working in different modalities corroborate the reports greatly
minimizes such risks.
The analysis aimed to estimate lower bounds on the acceleration. This was found by assuming
that the UAVs accelerated a constant rate. We worked to obtain conservative estimates by assigning
liberal uncertainties. It was found that the minimum acceleration estimates, ranging from about 70 g
to well over 5000 g, far exceeded those expected for an aircraft (Table 2). For comparison, humans
can endure up to 45 g for 0.044 s with no injurious or debilitating effects, but this limit decreases with
increasing duration of exposure [21]. For durations more than 0.2 s the limit of tolerance decreases to
25 g and it decreases further still for longer durations [21].
Table 2. Summary of Estimated Accelerations ranging from about 75 g to over 5300 g. Detection
Modalities refer to Multiple Pilots VISUal Contact (Vs), Radar (R), Infrared Video (IR).
Case Detection Modalities Kinematic Model Figure Min. Acceleration

Day R (1) Figure I B 5370!.~ g
Fravor R.Vs (7) Figure 2C 150!.~ g
ATFLIR R.Vs,lR (11) Figure 3C 75.9±0.2g
These considerations suggest that these UAVs may not have been piloted, but instead may have
been remote controlled or autonomous. However, it should be noted that even equipment can only
handle so much acceleration. For example, the Lockheed Martin F-35 lightning IT has maintained
structural integrity up to 13.5 g [22]. Missiles can handle much higher accelerations. The Crotale NG
VT1 missile has an airframe capable of withstanding 50 g and can maintain maneuverability up to
35 g [23]. However, these accelerations are still only about half of lowest accelerations that we have
estimated for these UAVs. The fact that these UAVs display no flight surfaces or apparent propulsion
mechanisms, and do not produce sonic booms or excessive heat that would be released given the
hundreds of GigaWatts of power that we expect should be involved, strongly suggests that these
anomalous craft are taking advantage of technology, engineering, or physics that we are unfamiliar
with. For example, the TIc-Tac UAV dropping from 28,000ft to sea level in 0.78s involved at least
4.3 x 1011 Jof energy (assuming a mass of 1000 kg), which is equivalent to about 100 tons of lNT, or
i
the yield of 200 Tomahawk cruise missiles, released in of a second. One would have expected a
catastrophic effect on the surrounding environment. This does not rule out the possibility that these
UAVs have been developed by governments, organizations, or individuals on Earth, but it suggests
that these UAVs and the technologies they employ may be of extraterrestrial origin. That being said,
it should be strongly emphasized that proving that something is extraterrestrial would be extremely
difficult, even if one had a craft in hand.
The purpose of this paper is to focus on the flight kinematics of these UAVs with the aim of
building up a body of scientific evidence that will allow for a more precise understanding of their
nature and origin.
As such, it is difficult to draw any useful conclusions at this point. We have characterized the
accelerations of a number of UAVs and have demonstrated that if they are craft then they are indeed
anomalous, displaying technical capabilities far exceeding those of our fastest aircraft and spacecraft.
It is not clear that these objects are extraterrestrial in origin, but it is extremely difficult to imagine
that anyone on Earth with such technology would not put it to use. Moreover, observations of similar
UAFs go back to well before the era of flight [1]. Collectively, these observations strongly suggest that
these UAVs should be carefully studied by scientists [9-13].
Unfortunately, the attitude that the study of UAVs (UFOs) is "unscientific" pervades the scientific
community, including SET! (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) [24], which is surprising, especially
since efforts are underway to search for extraterrestrial artifacts in the solar system [25-29], in particular,
on the Moon, Mars, asteroids [30], and at Earth-associated Lagrange points. Ironically, such attitudes
inhibit scientific study, perpetuating a state of ignorance about these phenomena that has persisted for
well over 70 years, and is now especially detrimental, since answers are presently needed [31-34].
Author Contributions: This work builds on analyses perfonned independently by K.H.K and by R.M.P., P.A.R.
and others [14]. For this work, KH.K determined the methodology, developed the software, perfonned the
analysis, and wrote the original draft. R.M.P. and P.A.R. both reviewed and edited the work verifying correctness.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: The authors thank Kevin Day for discussing his experiences during the 2004 Nimitz
encounters and patiently answering our numerous questions. KHK is especially grateful for the comments
and suggestions made by John Skilling, as well as the careful and thoughtful recommendations made by
Udo von Toussaint.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. Editorial decisions, including the decision to
publish this work, were made by the MaxEnt 2019 Organizers.
References
1. Vallee, J.; Aubeck, C. Wonders in the Sky: Unexplained Aerial Objects from Antiquity to Mm1ern Times; Penguin:
New York, NY, USA, 2010.
2. Unidentified Flying Objects and Air Force Project Blue Book. Available online: https:/ /web.archive.org/
web/20030624053806/http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fslD=188 (accessed on 9 June 2019).
3. CEFAA. Comite de Fstudios de Fen6menos Allreos An6malos. Available online: http://www.cefaa.gob.cl/
(accessed on 27 July 2019).
4. Elizondo L. The imminent change of an old paradigm: The U.S. government's involvement in UAPs, AATIP,
l
and TI'SA. In P.roceedings of the Anomalous Aerospace Phenomena Conference (AAPC 2019) P.resentation,
Huntsville, AL, USA, 15-17 March 2019.
5. Cooper, H.; Blumenthal, R.; Kean, L. Glowing auras and "black money": The Pentagon's mysterious U.F.D.
program. The New York Times, 2017.
Procttdings 2019, 33, 26 100f 11
6. Stieb, M Navy pilots were seeing UFOs on an almost daily basis in 2014 and 2015: Report. New YorkMagazine,
2019. Available online: http://nymag.com/intelligeru:er/2019/05/navy-pilots-are-seeing-ufos-on-an-
almost-daily-basis-report.html (accessed on 24 July 2019).
7. Rogoway, T. Recent UFO Encounters with Navy pilots occurred constantly across multiple squadrons.
The Drive, 2019. Available online: https:/ /www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28627/recent-ufo-encounters-
with-navy-pilots-occurred-constantly-across-multiple-squadrons (accessed on 24 July 2019).
8. Monzon, I. Tech CEOs want to capture UFOs and reverse engineer them. International Business Times, 2019.
Available online: https:/ /www.ibtimes.com/tech-ceos-want-capture-ufos-reverse-engineer-them-2803920.
9. Hynek, J.A The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry; Henry Regnery: Chicago, IL, USA, 1972.
10. Hill, P.R. Unconventional Flying Objects: A Scientific Analysis; Hampton Roads Publishing Co.: Charlottesville,
VA, USA, 1995.
11. Sturrock, P.A The UFO Enigma: A New Review of the Physical Evidence; Aspect: New York, NY, USA,2oo0.
12. Knuth, KH. Are we alone? The question is worthy of serious scientific study. The Conversation, 2018.
Available online: https:/ /theconversation.com/ are-we-alone-the-question-is-worthy-of-serious-scientific-
study-98843 (accessed on 24 July 2018).
13. Colombano, S.P. New Assumptions to Guide SETI Research. 2018. Available online: https:/ /ntrs.nasa.gov /
archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov /20180001925.pdI (accessed on 24 July 2018).
14. Powell, R.; Reali, P.; Thompson, T.; Beall, M.; Kimzey, D.; Cates, L.; Hoffman. R. A Forensic Analysis of
Navy Carrier Strike Group Eleven's Encounter with an Anomalous aerial Vehicle. 2019. Available online:
https:/ /www.explorescu.org/post/nimitz_strike...group_2004 (accessed on 9 July 2018).
15. Day; K (U.S. Navy (ret.)). Private Communication. 2019.
16. Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station. Available online: https:/ /en.wikipedis.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_
NucleacGenerating...Station (accessed on 8 Augest 2018).
17. Skil1ing, J. Nested sampling for general Bayesian computation. Bayesian Anal. 2006,1,833-&59.
18. Sivia, D.S.; Skilling, J. Data Analysis. A Bayesian TUtorial, second ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2006.
19. 2004 Nimitz Pilot Report. 2017. Available online: https:/ /thevault.tothestarsacademy.com/nimitz-report
(accessed on 7 October 2018).
20. Knuth, KH.; Powell, R.M.; Reali, P.A Estimating Flight Characteristics of Anomalous Unidentified Aerial
Vehicles. Entropy 2019, 21, 939.
21. Eiband, A.M. Human Tolerance to Rapidly Applied Accelerations: A Summary of the Literature. 1959.
Available online: https:/ /ntrs.nasa.gov /archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19980228043.pdI (accessed on
27 July 2019).
22. Kent, J. F-35 Lightning II News. 2010. Available online: http://www.f-16.net/f-35-news-article4113.html
23. Army-Technology.com. Crotale NG Short Range Air Defence System. Available online: https:/ /www.army-
technology.com/projects/crotale/ (accessed on 27 July 2019).
24. Wright, J. Searches for technosignatures: The state of the profession. arXiv 2019, arXiv:1907.07832.
25. Bracewell, R. Communications from superior galactic communities. Nature 1960, 186, 670--671.
26. Bracewell, R. Interstellar probes. In Interstellar Communication: Scientific Perspectives; Ponnamperuma, c.,
Cameron, AG.W., Eds.; Houghton-Mifflin: Boston. MA, USA, 1974; pp. 141-167.
27. Freitas, R.A, Jr. The search for extraterrestrial artifacts (SETA). J. Br. Interpmnet. Soc. 1983, 36, 501-506.
28. Tough, A.; Lemarchand, G. Searching for extraterrestrial technologies within our solar system.
In Symposium-International Astronomical Union; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2004;
Volume 213, pp. 487-490.
29. Haqq-Misra, J.; Kopparapu, R. On the likelihood of non-terrestria1 artifacts in the Solar System. Acta Astronaut.
2012, 72, 15-20.
30. Kecskes, C. Observation of asteroids for searching extraterrestrial artifacts. In Asteroids; Badescu, V., Ed.;
Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; pp. 633-644.
31. Haines, R.F. Aviation Safety in America: A Previously Neglected Factor; NARCAP TR 01-2000; National Aviation
Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena (NARCAP). 2000. Available online: http://www.noufors.com/
Documents/narcap.pdI (accessed on 27 July 2019).
Proctedings 2019, 33, 26 11 of 11
32. Bender, B.P. Senators Get Classified Briefing on UFO Sightings. Available online: https://www.politico.
com/story /2019/06/19/wamer-classificd-briefing-ufos-I544273 (accessed on 27 July 2019).
33. Golgowski, N.H. Congress Briefed on Classified UFO Sightings as 1hreat to Aviator Safety, Navy Says.
Available online: https:/ /www.huffpost.oom/entry/navy-briefs-congress-ufos_n_SdObaf7ge4b06ad4d25cflbe
34. Lutz, E.V.F. Congress Is Taking the UFO Threat Seriously. Available online: https:/ /www.vanityfair.com/
news/2019/06/oongress-is-taking-the-ufo.-threat-seriously (acct'ssed on 27 July 2019).
© 2019 by the au thors. Licensee MDP!, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the tenns and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http: //creativeoommons.org/licenses/ by/ 4.0/).
From: Njjo Abraham
To: Koooo[l!PU. Bayj Kumar {GSEC-69')01
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Contacting for an AIM Conference Paper
Date: Wednesday, June 23, 20219:19:42 AM
Excellent, thank: you Ravi. Please canyon with the presentation prep. The title I have for you
is as you suggested "Science of UAP - Past and Present".
Nijo
On Wed, JIll 23 , 202 1 at 9:08 AM Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)

<rayilllmar.koJ,:!J,:!arapll@nasa.goy> wrote :
Hi Nijo,
Yes, I am aware of this proceedings paper, and also the full version of the paper published
elsewhere. The analysis I have done is not in these papers, and my analysis is foc used on
only one aspect of it . So I don't think there is any overlap. As I said, all this work, including
mine, is based on data that is edited or not complete. I hope to discuss this and other cases in
James Mc Donald 's papers.
Ravi
From: Nijo Abraham

Date: Wednesday, June
To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov> u

Deletion Page


From: Gran Bani C (GSEC 1300)
To: KooparaPIJ, Ravi KYmar fGSEC-§999) ; O!rjstjoe Scb jffoer
C<co Sbekbtman l onnje (GSEC-690 Q)[ADNfT SYSIFMS INC
Subject: Be: [EXTERNAl] upcoming "UFO" report
Date: Wednesday, June 23, 2021 1:16:19 PM
3:00 works,
Christine, I want to listen in, but I don't want to be in the way of your production ..so I'm happy to
stay on mute, with camera off.
Rani
Rani C. Gran
Mail Code 420, 836, 5470
Work Cell : (b) (6)
Phone: 30 1-286-2483
From: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990) " <ravikumar .kopparapu@nasa .gov>

To: Christine Schiffner .(b) (6)
Cc: Rani Gran <rani .c.gran@nasa .gov>, "Shekht man, Lonn ie (GSFC-690 .0)[ADNET SYSTEMS
INC) " <Ionnie.shekhtman@nasa .gov>
Subject: Re : [EXTER NAL] upcom ing "UFO" report
I am good w it h either. We use Teams anyway, so we cou ld try that? If that doesn't work, my Skype id
is'ravikumarkopparapu'
Ravi
From: Christ ine Sch iffner .(b) (6)

Cc: "Gran, Ran i C. (GSFC-1300)" <ran i. c.gran@nasa .gov>, "Shekhtman, Lonn ie (GSFC-690.0)
[ADN ET SYSTEMS INC) " <Ionnie.shekht m an@nasa .gov>
Great! What about 3pm.

Would Skype be possible?
Or better Microsoft Teams ... any preference?
Thank you so much!
~ Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 23, 2021, at 12:44 PM, Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)

<ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>wrote:
Hi all,
I am free from 1pm-4pm tomorrow.
Best
Ravi
From: Christ ine Sch iffner .(b )(6)

To: "Gran, Ran i C. (GSFC-1300)" <rani.c.gran@nasa.gov>
Cc: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>,
"Shekht man, Lonn ie (GSFC-690 .0)[ADNET SYSTEMS INC) "
<lonn ie .shekht man@na sa .gov>
Subject: Re : [EXTERNA L] upcom ing "UFO" rep ort
Dear Rani and Ravi,
That is great news! Thank you so much!
Could we do the interview on Thursday afternoon? Wou ld Skype or Microsoft Teams

work for you? Which time would be best?
I look very much forward to the interview.
Best regards,
Ch ristine
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 23, 2021, at 12:31 PM, Gran, Rani C. (GSFC-1300)

<rani .c.gran@nasa .gov> wrote:
Hello Christine and Ravi,
We can go ahead w ith tomorrow's interview.
Christ ine, how can I help you with the set up?
For awareness we have a fu ll video gall ery of content/ animations and

data visualizations. All in many different video formats.
httos:/Isvs,gsfc,nasa ,goy/Gallerv/jodex,htmJ
While the search engine on this site is better, Google can be a better
opti on. Feel free to ask for help.
One note, I go on vacation starting Friday. So if something comes up,

please contact Lonnie Shekhtam, cc'd on this email.
Also, we would like to record the interview for our internal purposes.
Ran i
Rani C. Gran
Mail Code 420, 8 36, 5470
Work Cell : (b) (6)
Phone: 30 1-286-2483
"If we amplify everything, we hear nothing," Jon

Stewart.
From: Christ ine Sch iffner .(b) (6)

Date: Tuesday, June 22,2021 at 2:35 PM
To: " Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)"
<ravikumar .koppa rapu@nasa .gov>
Cc: Rani Gran <rani.c.gran@nasa .gov>, "Shekht man, Lonn ie (GSFC-
690 .0)[ADNET SYSTEM S INej " <Ionn ie.shekhtma n@n asa .gov>
Dear all,
Thank you so much aga in for signaling that you might be open to an
interview on t he UFO report later t his week.
After some more discussion here, we would li ke to ideally conduct th is

interview on Thursday afternoon. This could be via Skype or Zoom .
Could you kind ly let me know if this would be feasible?
Thank you so much!
Christine Schiffner
Ph . (b) (6)
On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 4:01 PM Christine Schiffner

.(b) (6) wrote:
Dea r Ravi,
Tha nk you so much for your prompt reply! Sounds great!
Rani - please let me know how I can help to set this up.
Best wishes,
Christine
On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 4:00 PM Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar {GSFC-6990}

<rayjkumar kopparapu@nasa i:0Y> wrote :
Hi Christine,
Thank you for you r email. I am copying our NASA public office
representative, Rani Gran, in this email to coordinate. J would be
happy to chat once we sort out the details.
Best
Ravi
From: Ch rist ine Sch iffner .(b) (6)

<rayjkumar kopparapu@nasa il"0Y >
Subject: [EXTERNAL] upcom ing "UFO " report
Dear Mr. Kopparapu,
I am a DC-based producer for Germany's largest 1V network ARD.

We are a public channel similar to PBS here in t he US.
As part of our upcoming coverage of the "UFO" report to be released
later this week, I read an article in the Scient ific American wh ich
quoted you among other scientists.
I was wondering if you might be available for a brief on-camera

interview later this week, ideally on Wednesday or Thursday. This
could be either done via Skype or we could meet you Greenbelt.
We would ask you j ust a few questions along the lines of the
Scientific American article.
Could you kind ly let me know if this would be doable?
Thank you so much in advance.
Kind regards,
Ch rist ine Schiffner
ARD GERMAN RADIO & TV

Studio Washington
3132 M Street NW
ARD GERMAN Television , with 22,000 employees is one of the wOOd's largest broadcast
organizations . Irs Germany's market leader in hard news, news magazines, and
documentaries. ARD also commits a large pe rcentage of its prime time programming to
features and documentaries from abroad. News bureaus in 27 countries underscore the
network's cornm ~ment to international reporting AmI with 13 radio and television
correspondents and a staN of over 30 specialists, ARD's Washington, DC Bureau runs one of
the largest foreign broadcast operations in the tity.
Froll1: G@n Bani C (GSEC I3IKll
To: OJrj:.1 jne Schj!fner
Cc: KooparaQU Bavj Kumar (GSEC-699()) ; Shekblman l onnie (GSEC 690 ())[NlNfI SYSJFMS INC]
Suhject: Be: [ EXT~] upcoming "UFO" report
Yep, I can call you r cell.
Rani
Rani C. Gran
Mail Code 420, 836, 5470
Work Cell : (b) (6)
Phone: 301-286-2483
From: Christ in e Schiffner •(b)(6)

Date: Wed nesday, June 23, 2021 at 1:59 PM
To: Rani Gran <rani.c.g ran@nasa.gov>
Cc: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar .kopparapu@nasa.gov>, "Shekht man,
Lon nie (GSFC-690.0)[AD NET SYSTEM S INC)" <Io nnie .shekhtman@nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: [EXTER NAL] upcom ing "U FO" report
Dera Rani and Ravi,
I just spoke w ith our techn icians here. We will use Skype for the interview.
Rani, could you call my phone and I put it on speaker for you to listen in?
Otherwise, we would see another person on screen w hich would make it a bit difficult for 1V editing
later.
Would that be fine w ith you? My cell number is
(b )(6)
Thank you so much again for arranging this interview.

I look forward to spea king w ith you t omorrow.
Regards,
Christine
Deletion Page


From: Fghjoian Greg
To: • • Koooarapy . Rayj Kumar (GSfC-69901; Hagg-Misra Jacob P. (GSFC 6(62)[Scjeoce
Cc: Adam Frank ' Kevin Knuth
Subject: Re: [EXT] [EXTERNAl] Re: UAP discussion
Hi All,
Thanks, Ravi, for the document. I'll take a close look soon.
Jacob, I know some of the people behind the UFODATA project. There is cel1ainly some
overlap between them and the seu group (in tenns of personnel). I've always had the sense
that UFODATA is more European-driven as an endeavor, but I might be wrong about that.
Kevin would know far more about the nuts-and-bolts of the operation.
Greg
Greg Eghigian
108 Weaver Building
USA
Email: (b) (6)
From: Jacob Haqq M isra

To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kuma r (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>
Cc: Adam Fra nk .(b) (6) Greg Egh igian Kevin Knuth
.(b) (6) (b) (6)
Subject: Re : [EXT] [EXTER NAL] Re: UAP discuss ion
Thanks Ravi for starting this document. I enj oyed our group discussion yesterday.
One question (possibly for Kevin) with regard to instrumentation : are you famil iar with the UFO Data
Acquisit ion Proj ect? They contacted me several yea rs ago when they were first crowdfunding, and it
seems now that they have developed hardware and software systems for data collection. Does th is
group have any connect ion to SCU or other groups conducting scientific research into UAP? I would
be curious if anyone has op inions on their hardware approach--if they are on the right t rack, then
the problem becomes more about finding funding to build a large enough detection network.
{Although I think we would also want rada r in addit ion to such a network.}
https:l/ufodap.godaddysites.com/
On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 4:04 PM Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)
qayjkumaLkoooarapu@nasa.goy> wrote:
Hello all,
Thank you again for taking the time to partici pate in today's telecon. Following the action item
that we discussed about drafting a whitepaper on what exactly is needed for a scientific study of
UAP, here are some points that I cou ld think of. If 1am missing anything, please let me know so
that I can add them, or please feel free to directly edit the document:
btt ps :l/docs.google.com/documentld/lfdYu Bj K7Z1 uyYEOcH EppskoM jyClaJ Ne90oBK4uZgwAledjt

?usp- sharjng
The intent is to make a robust case for scientifica Jly studying UAP, so please do not hesitate to add
some hard questions so that we could think about an effective response.
Thanks again
Best
Ravi
From : Adam Frank .(b) (6)

To : "Kopparapu , Ravi Ku mar (GS FC-6990) " <rav ikumaLkopparapu@nasa.gov>
Cc: "Egh igian, Greg" Kevin Knut h .(b) (6) "Ha qq- M isra,
Jacob D. (GSFC-6062)[Sc ience Collaborator]"
Subject: Re: [EXT] [EXTERNAL] Be : UAP discussion
Deletion Page

3 page(s) containing duplicate information

is/are held in the file.
hey, btw, i was asked to give a talk at an Aerospace conference, in a session exclusively for
technical study of UAP..
Froll1: G@n Bani C (GSFC 13(11))
To: O!ristjne Schiffner
Cc: Koooa@QU Bavj Kumar (GSEC-699()); Shekblroan (oonie (GSFC 69() ())[NlNfI SYSJFMS INC]
Suhject: Be: [EXTR~ ] upcoming "UfO" report
Could you send us the quest ions ahead of the interview to help with prep.
Rani
Rani C. Gran
Mail Code 420, 8 36, 5470
Work Cell : (b) (6)
Phone: 30 1-286-2483
From: Ch rist ine Schi ffner •(b)(6)

Date: Wednesday, June 23, 202 1 at 1:59 PM
To: Ran i Gran <ra ni.c.gran@nasa.gov>
Cc: " Koppa rapu, Ravi Kuma r (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar. koppa rapu@nasa .gov>, "Shekht man,
Lonni e (GS FC-690 .0)[AD NET SYSTE MS INC) " <Ionnie .shekht man@nasa .gov>
Subject: Re : [EXTE RNAL] upcoming "U FO" rep ort
Deletion Page


Please see a few talking points for the interview later today.
*What are your expectations with the release of the "UFO" report on Friday?*Do you believe
that we are alone in the universe? *What do you think about the flying objects observed by
various members of the US military?*What do you think about the suggested acceleration and
other flying capabilities of these aircraft? Human-made? Chinese or Russian
technology? *Do you think that contact with an extraterrestrial species could actually occur at
some point in the future and if so, what would you hope to find out?
Thank you so much - I look forward to our chat at 3PM.
~ -" ~- - - '-
;', " -":;'~ ,-
:"_M'~ _ -=t:' ___ '_M " _'__ _ " ~ ' _ _ ' _" "_"'_
1'- \ I~\
(b) (5)
-. ~ - ....... -.---- ..------,-.-----,---------.- ..-.."-.-,,-_ . -_ ...._-- ....-..--_._,
~- :~-. - - .~ - - - - - ;.:-
-.---
::-:='::":-':'0:::-- - -"
.......----..-..-.. -.--..•
:...-::-.!::.':".:=:-;::::=:-"
-----,----.-..
=- . -. - ~ ' -.
-
-
. -.
'
- - -.~ . - - .- - - ,- - , ,-~
~ , - . - - . - . -
-_._- -~ .- - . - - - . - , ...--------.-.-----.---. .-----.--_....._.._--.. ..........__. __

:':::·::::-ijfi:\:;'I\i"iiiiii'ii"'i- i-i'"iTii'-i7i"i--i"."'i-'i"'i'-i-i-i'-iiiii
-------·--,·,·,-·-····-------- ..._-_. _ ....-._-
'"
From: NOO Abraham
To: KopoaraptJ, Ray! KUmar CGSfC..6990l
Da le : Thursday, JUlie 24, 202 1 3:52: 19 PM
Attadlments: aii!areport.pdf
Ravi,
We have om 5th presenter, Ted Roe, is the Director of Research and co· founder of NARCAP,
He will be speaking on the safety concems to air travel based on the 24 years of pilot reports
and trends collected by NARCAP, (Dr, Richard Haines, his co·fOlmder retired due to old age),
Attached is a report that he sent me , It is an investigation of the phenomenon that was

perfonned by an AIAA Subcommittee from 197 1,
Thought it might be of interest to you,
Nijo
On Wed, lnn 23, 2021 at 2:33 PM Kopparapu, Ravi Klnnar (GSFC-6990)

Deletion Page


Astronautics & Aeronautics July 1971
UFO ENCOUNTER 1
Sample Case Selected by the UFO
Subcommittee of the AIAA
In its "Appraisal of the UFO Problem" NA Nov.1970, pp. 49- crew or by Wing Intelligence personnel, was submitted in
51, the Subcommittee pledged to give the members of this 1957, it apparently is no /ongerin existence. Moving pictul'9s
society an opportunity to form their own opinions with of radar scope displays and other date said to have been
respect to the type of observations which form the core of recorded during the incident apparently never existed.
the UFO controversy. Evaluation of the experience must, therefors, rest entiraly
The selected case, which occunred on July 17, 1957, is on the recollection of crew members ten years after the
treated in the Condon Report (Condon, E. U., 1969, event. These descriptions are not adequate to allow
Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects, Bantam identification of the phenomenon encountered. (Craig,
Books, N.Y., pp.56-58,136-139, 260-266, 750, 877-894). p.265).
During the study by the University of Colorado group, the 4. After review the unanimous conclusion was that the
case files were not located due to an error in date. In objeel was not a plasma or an eleelricalluminosity by the
addition, radar and weather analyses were made for atmosphere. (Altschuler, p. 750).
September 19, 1957, rather than July 17, 1957. The
conclusions drawn by members of the Condon Committee, Subsequently, James McDonald has been able to locate
based on available information are as follows: the case files. to correct the date of the flight and to draw
1. " the rsport is accurate, it describes an unusual, additional information from the files as well as from personal
intriguing, and puzzling phenomenon, which, in the absence interviews with the crew. At the request of the UFO
at additional information, must be /istad as unidentified. Subcommittee. he describes the case in the following
(Condon, p.57). article. It is left to the reader to draw his own conclusions.
2. In view of. .. the fael that additional information on this The aircraft Commander, Lt. Colonel Lewis D. Chase,
incident is not available, no tenable conclusions can be USAF (Ret.). has confirmed the accuracy of this report in a
reached. From a propagation [Based on a wrong date.] letter to the Subcommittee.
standpoint, this sighting must be tentatively classified as an This sample case may serve to illuminate the difficulties
unknown. (Thayer, p. 139). in deciding whether or not the UFO problem presents a
3. If a report of this incident. written either by the 8-47 scientific problem.
Air Force Observations rapidity of maneuvers beyond the prior page TWX filed firom the 745th
experience ofthe aircrew. ACWRON, Duncanville, Texas, at
of an Unidentified Object
1557Z 00 July 17, 1957. and a four
in the South-Central U.S., Introduction
page case summary prepared by E. T.
July 17,1957 In the early morning hours of July 17. Piwetz. Wing Intelligence Officer, 55th
1957, an RB 47 was flying out of Reconnaissance Wing, Forbes AFB,
Summary Forbes Air Force Base, Topeka, and transmitted to ADC Hq., Ent AFB.
Kansas, on a composite mission that Colorado, in compliance with a request
An Air Force RB 47, equipped with included gunnery exercises over the of August IS. firom Col. F. T. Jeep.
electronic couotermeasures (BCM) Texas Gulf area, navigation exercises Director of Intelligence, ADC. That
gear and manned by six officers, was over the open Gulf, and finally ECM summary, plus a 12 page Airborne
followed by an unidentified object for a exercises scheduled for the return trip Observer's Data Sheet, was forwarded
distance of well over 700 mi. and for a across the south central United States. 00 November 17 from ADC to Blue
time period of 1.5 hr., as it flew from The RB 47 was carrying a six man Book, and was evidently the first
Mississippi, through Louisiana and crew, of whom three were electronic
notification Project Blue Bookreceived
warfare officeni manning ECM gear in
Texas and into Oklahoma. The object
the aft portioo of the aircraft. Their
concerning this case.
was, at various times, seen visually by names are as follows: Lewis D. Chase, The 12 page Data Sheet (AlSOP #2)
the cockpit crew as an intensely pilot; James H. McCoid, co pilot; was prepared by Major Chase 00
luminous light, followed by grouod Thomas H. Hanley, oavigator; John J. September 10, and contains a number
radar and detected 00 ECM monitoring Provenzano, No.1 monitor; Frank B. of points of relevance not covered in
gear aboard the RB 47. Of special McClure, No.2 monitor; Walter A. otherparts ofthe case file.
interest in this case are several instances Tuchscherer, No.3 monitm: There is very relevant information in
of simultaneous appearances and I shall draw upon my interview with the the case file as to precise times,
disappearances on all three of those crew as well as case files which I finally locations, and other circumstances,
physically distinct "channels,1I and located. The files consist ofa three and the case file does have the great
66 Astronautics & Aeronautics

virtue of representing a summary under the influence of a large high- indicating a rapidly moving signal
account prepared while all of the pressure area extending throughout source; i.e., an airborne SauTce.
details were fresh in the minds of the the troposphere. There were no Signal was abandoned after
crew. showers or thunderstorms anywhere observation ...
Before describing the fIrst ECM along the flight route. Shortly after
contact, it is necessary to explain the coast near Gulfport was crossed at
briefly the nature of the ECM gear a point marked A on the map in page
involved in this case. (Details are no 68, McClure detected on the #2 Inidal Visual Contact
longer classifIed, although all of the monitor a siFl painting at their 5
basic case-file documents were o'clock position (all of the starboard If nothing further bad occurred on
initially SECRET.) This RB-47 bad beam). It looked to him as ifhe were that flight to suggest that some
three passive direction-fInding (DF) receiving a legitimate ground-radar unusual object was in the vicinity of
radar-monitors for use in seeming signal. Upon noting that the strobe the RB-47, McClure's observations
coordinate information and pulse was moving up scope, McClure undoubtedly would have gone
characteristics on enemy ground- tentatively decided that it must be a unmentioned and would have been
based radar. The #2 monitor, manned ground radar off to their northwest quickly forgotten even by him. He
by McClure, was an ALA-{; DF- painting with 180 deg ambiguity for was puzzled, but at that point still
receiver with back-to-back antennas some electronic reason. But when the inclined to think that it was some
in a housing on the belly ofthe RB47 strobe, after sweeping up-scope on electronic difficulty.
near the tail spun at 150 or 300 rpm as the starboard side, crossed the flight
it scanned an azimuth. (Note that this path of thc RB-47 and proceeded to The flight plan called for a turn to the
implies ability to scan at I O/sec past a move down scope on the port side west in the vicinity of Meridian and
fIXed ground radar in the distance.) McClure said he gave up the Jackson, Mississippi (point B), with
It's frequency range was 1000-7500 hypothesis of 180 deg ambignity as subsequent planned exercises
MHz. Inside the aircraft, the signals incapable of explaining such wherein the EWOs did simulated
from the ALA-6 were processed in an behavior. ECM runs against known ground
APR-9 radar receiver and an ALA-5 Fortunately, he bad examined the radar units. The contemporary
pulse-analyzer. All subsequent signal characteristics on his ALA-5 records confIrm what Chase and
references to the #2 monitor imply pulse-analyzer, before the signal left McCoid described to me far more
thatsystem. hi. scope on the port side all. In vividly and in more detail concerning
discussing it with me, his recollection the unusual events that soon ensued.
NumberIMonltor was that the frequency was near 2800 They turned into a true heading of
mes, and he recalled that what was 265 deg, still at Mach 0.75 at 34,500
The #1 monitor, manned by particularly odd was that it had a ft. At 1010Z (0410 CS1), Major
Provenzano, was an APD-4 DF pulse-width and pulse repetition Chase, in the forward seat, spotted
system, with a pair of antennas frequency (PRF) much like that of a what he fIrst thought were the landing
permanently mounted on either wing typICal S-band, ground-based, search lights of another jet coming in fast
tip. It was working at a higher radar. He even recalled that there was from near his II o'clock position at, or
frequency. The #3 monitm; with a a simulated scan rate that was normal. perhaps a bit above, the RB-47's
frequency range from 30-1000 MHz, Perhaps because of the strong altitude. He called McCoid's
was manned by Tuehscherer. It was similarities to ground-based sets such attention to it, noted absence of any
not affected and will not be described as the CPS-{;B, widely used at that navigatiouallights, and as the single
here. VHF communications were time, McClure did not, at that intense bluish-white light continued
likewise not affected. juncture, call this signal to the to close rapidly, he used the intercom
For emphasis, it needs to be attention of anyone else in the to aler! the rest ofthe crew to be ready
stressed that the DF receivers are not aircrall. The # I monitor was not for sudden evasive maneuvers.
radars and do not emit a signal for working the frequency in question, it But before he could attempt
reflection off a distant target. They later developed. The #3 monitor was evasion, he and McCoid saw the
only listen passively to incoming incapable of working the frequency brilliant light almost instantaneously
radar signals and analyze signatures in question, McClure and the others change direction and flash across
and other characteristics. When indicated to me. their flight path from port to starboard
receiving a distant radar set's signal, I next quote information transcribed at an angular velocity that Chase told
the scope displays a pip or strobe at an from the summary report prepared by me he bad never seen matched in all
azimuthal position corresponding to the Wing Intelligence OffIcer, of his 20 years of flying, before or
the relative bearing in the aircraft COMSTRATRECONWG 55, Forbes after that incident The luminous
coordinate systeuL For the case of a Air Force Base, concerning this part source had moved with great rapidity
fIXed ground radar, approached from of the incident that involved this from their II o'clock to about their 2
one side, the strobe is initially seen in aircraft(callsign "Lacy 17"): o'clock position and then blinked out
the upper part of the scope and moves The Airborne Observer's Data
down scope. a point to be carefully ECM reconnaissance operator #2
of Lacy 17. RB 47H aircraft. inter Sheet filled out by Chase as part of the
noted in interpreting the following post-interrogation gives the RB-47
discussion. cepted at apprOXimately Meridian, position at the time of that 10lOZlirst
Having completed the Mississippi, a signal with the visual contact as 32-OON, 91-28W,
navigational exercises over the Gulf, fol/owing characteristics: frequency which puts it near Winnsboro in east-
Chase headed across the Mississippi 2995 me to 3000 me; pulse width of central Louisiana (point C).
coastline, flying at an altitude of 2.0 microseconds; pulse repetition The descriptions obtained in the
34,500 ft, at about Mach 0.75 (258 kt frequency of 600 cps; sweep rate of 1969 interviews with these officers
IAS=500 mph TAS). The weather 4 rpm; vertical polarity. Signal are closely supported by the original
was perfect and practically cloudless moved rapidly up the DIF scope intelligence report:
July 1971 67
MAPOFTHE ,
'-,
!l
JULY 17, 1957, FORBES MB
UFO EBlSO!:!E. o
o
1"
,-- ...
o
o
.". --
--, r--
~
OKlAHOMA • '1
CITY• • G
/
-r -r\
t 0540 C
~-
. .. -.
\
\
WELLS E '...- \
ELPASO
MINERAL. .. • • •
F •• O f• DALLAS
JACKSON
0410 C , .MERlDlAN
)
FT WORTH ......... C B
o . •. .V\._ ......
• GULFPORT
".'\J-t~ o
o
0 0
.......... 0
o
o '01 200 300 ... 500

ILES
'"
• • • PATH OF ~7H DURING PERIOO OF CONllGTWITH UFO • • • O'O£R PORTDNS OF ~7H FLIGHT
A-$~T ECU CONTA.cT CNER GUlFPORT AIEA E-A,Ao. NEAR 'MIlCH ~IW'T OVERSHOOTS UFO
8-R8-t1H TURNS TO WEST NEAR ~CtAN F-oBJECT APPEARS TO RAPDLY 0A0f' 5000 n.
C-f'lRST vt:!IUN.. SIGHTING BY COCKPIT CREW THEN BlINKS OUT AS ~7H ATTaFTS TO OM: ON IT
()....R8.<I7H TURNS NORTIfNESlWARO TO PURSUE G-UoST ECUCONTACTNEAROIO..AHClMACIT'( 1.5 HR
AT FULL POWER AFTER FRS'T VISIJAl CONTACT
~1H lANDS ATH(II.E BASE
At 1010Z aircraft cmdr first Provenzano t o ld me that nothing seemed to change the relative
obserwd a very intenre while light immediately after that they checked bearing of the 3000-mes soun::e. They
with light bl!le tint at II o'e/ockfmm out the #2 monitor on other known crossed Louisiana and headed into
his aircraft, crossing info>nt to about ~round -r adr stations, to be sure that eastern Texas, with the object still
2:30 o'e/ode position, co pilot also It was not malfunctioning; it appeared ma intaining station with them.
to be in perfect workingorder. Eventually they got inlO the rOOar-
obsen'ed passage of light 10 2:30
o'clock where it apparemly He then nmed his own # I monitor coverage area of the 745th
to 3000mes and also got a signal from ACWRON, Duncanville, Teltas,
disappeared. and Chase dropped his earlier
Cha~ did nol observe any the same bearing. There remained, of
magneltCcompass anomalies during cowse, the possibility that, just by reluctarn::e about calling attention to
the flight. chance, this signal was from a real these peculiar matters and contacted
radar down on the ground and off in that statlon (code name "Utah'"). The
Actions O\'er l ouisia na-Texas An.'lil that relative direc tion. But as the crew was becoming uneasy about the
minutes went by and the RB-47 incident by this time, several of them
Immediately after the luminous continued westward at about 500 remarked to me. That phase of the
source bl inked out, Chase and mph, the relative bearing of the 3000 incident is tersely desc ribed in the
McCoid began talking about it on the mcs source out in the dark did not fo llowing quotes from the report of
interphone, with the already alerted move down-scope on the monitors as the Wing Intelligence Officer:
crew listening in. McClure, recalling should have occurred w ith any Aircraft comdr notified crew and
the unusual signal he had received on ground radar, but instead kept up with ECM operator Nr 2 searched for
his ALA-6 back near Gulfport, now me RB-47, holding a fixed relative signal described above, found same
mentioned for the first time that bearing. approximately 1030Z at a relative
pt'culiar incidellt and collcllJ"reIltly st:l I found these and en5uing portiOn5 bearing of 070 degrees; 1035Z,
his #2 monitor to scan at about 3000 of me ent ire episode still vivid in the relative bearing of 068 degrees;
mCS, tosee what might showup. minds of all the men, although their 1038Z, relativebearing040degrees.
He found he was getting a strong recollect ions fo r various details Note that the above time would
3000 mes signal from about their 2 varied somewhat, depending on the indicate that McC lure did not
o'clock position, just the relative panicular activities in which they immediately think of making' lili,
bearing at which the unknown were then engaged. ALA-6check, but rnther that some 20
luminous source had blinked out Chase varied speed, going to min went by before that was thought
moments earlier. m:u:imum allowed power, 1:)1]1 of. Note also that by 1038Z the
68 ASlronautics & Aeronautics

THE UFO SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE AIAA
Chairman
JOACHIM P. KUETTNER
Environmental Research Laboratories of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Boulder, Colorado
Members MURRAY DRVER ANDREW J . MASLEY

JEROLD BIDWELL Environmental Research McDonnell Douglas Missile &
Mar1ln-Marletta Laboratories of the National Space Systems
Denver, Colorado Oceanic and Atmospheric Santa Monica, California
Administration
GLENN A. CATO Boulder, Colorado ROBERT RADOS
TRW Systems NASA Goddard Space Flight
Redondo Beach, California HOWARD D. EDWARDS Center
Georgia Institute of Technology Greenbelt, Maryland
BERNARD N. CHARLES Atlanta, Georgia
Hughes Aircraft DONALD M. SWINGLE
EI Segundo, California PAUL MacCREADY Jr. U.S. Anny Electronics Command
Technical Consulting Fort Monmouth, New Jersey
Altadena, California
Secretary
VERNON J. ZUR1CK
Environmental Research Laboratories of the
Natlonal Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Boulder, Colorado
unknown source of the 3000 mcs prior to some of the above events and appeared to stop, and aircraft
radar-like signal was moving up that Utah was ground-painting the overshot. Utah reported they lost
scope relative to the 500 mph RB-4 7. target during the time it moved up- object from scopes at this time, and
The Wing Intelligence Officer scope and reappeared visually. As ECM #2 also lost signal.
continued: will be seen below, the contemporary Chase, in reply to my questions,
At 1039l aircraft comdr sighted account makes fairly clear that Utah indicated that it was his recollection
huge light which he estimated to be was not painting the unknown until a that there was simultaneity between
5000 [flJ below aircraft at about 2 bit la te r, after it had turned the moment when he began to sense
o'e/ock. Aircraft altitude was 34.500 northwestward and passed between that he was getting closure at
ft. weather perfectly dear. Although Dallas and Ft. Wort h. C hase approximately the RB-47 speed, and
aircraft comdr could not determine explained to me that he got FAA the moment when Utah indicated that
shape or size of object. he had a clearance to follow it in that off- their target had stopped on their
definite impression light emanated course tum (Point D) and indicated scopes. He said he veered a bit to
from top ofobject. that FAA got alljets out of the way to avoid colliding with the object, not
At about 1040Z ECM operator #2 pennit him to maintain pursuit. The then being sure what its alti tude was
reported he then had two signals al Intelligence summary continues: relative to the RB-47, and then found
relative bearings of040 and 070 deg. At 1042Z ECM #2 had one object that he was coming over the top of it
Aircraft comdr and co pilot saw these at 020 deg relative bearing. Aircraft as he proceeded to close. At the
two objects at the same time with comdr increased speed to Mach 0.83. instant that it blinked out visually and
same red color. Aircraft comdr turned to pursue, and object pulled disappeared simultaneously from the
received permission to ignore flight ahead. At 1042.5Z ECM #2 again #2 monitor and rrom the radar scopes
plan and pursue object. He notified had two signals at relative bearings at Site Utah, it was at a depression
ADC site Utah and requested all of040and070deg. At 1044Zhehada angle relative to his position of
assistance possible. At 1042Z ECM single signal at 050 deg relative something like45 deg.
#2 had one object at 010 deg relative bearing. At 1048Z ECM #3 was Chase put the RB-47 into a port
bearing. recording interphone and command tum in the vicinity of Mineral Wells,
In my interviews with the aircrew, I position conversations. Texas (Point E), and he and McCoid
found differences between the ADC site requested aircraft to go looked over their shoulders to try to
recollections of the various men as to IFF M ode 111 for p ositive spot the luminous source again. All of
some of these points. MeCoid identification and then requested
position of object. Crew reported the men r e called th e ncar
recalled that the luminous source position of object as 10 n. mi. simultaneity with which the object
occasionally moved abruptly from northwest of Ft. Worth, Texas, and blinked on again visually, appeared
starboard to port side and back again. ADC si te Utah immediately on the #2 scope, and was again skin-
Chase recalled that they had confirmed presence of objects on painted by ground radar at Site Utah.
contacted Utah (his recollection was their scopes. The 1957 report describes these
that it was Carswell GCI, however) At approximately 1050lobject events as follows:
July 1971 69
Aircraft began turning, ECM #2 3000 mcs signal on their tail, once
picked up signal at 160 deg relative they were northbound from Ft.
hearing. Utah regained scope Worth, but there was some variance in
contact, and aircraft comdr regained their recollections as to whether the
visual contact. At 1052ZECM#2had ground radar concurrently painted
signal at 200 deg relative bearing, the object. McCoid was unable to fill
moving up his DIF scope. Aircraft in any of those details. Fortunately
began closing on object until the the 1957 Intelligence Report
estimated range was 5 n. mi. At this summarized furlherevents in this part
time object appeared to drop to of the flight, as they moved
approximately 15,000 ft altitude, and northward into Oklahoma:
aircraft comdr lost visual contact. At 1120Z ailCraft took up heading
Utah also lost objectfrom scopes. for home station. This placed area of
At J055Z in the area of Mineral object offthe tail ofaircraft. ECM #2
Wells, 'li!xas, crew notified Utah they continued to [get} DIF signal of
must depart/or home station because object between 180 and 190 deg
of foel supply. Crew queried Utah relative bearing until I140Z, when
whether a CIRVIS Report had been aircraft was approximately abeam
submitted, and Utah replied the Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. At this
report had been transmitted. At time, signolfadedratherabruptly. 55
J057Z ECM#2 had signal at 300 deg SRW DOl [55th Strategic
relative bearing. but Utah had no Reconnaissance Wing. Director of
scope contact. At 1058Z aircraft Intelligence] has no doubt the
comdr regained visual contact of electronic D/F's coincided exactly
object approximately 20 n. mi. with visual observations by aircraft
northwest of Ft. Worth, 'iexas, comdr numerous times. thus
estimated altitude 20,000 ft at 2 indicating positively the object being
o 'clockfrom aircraft. the signal source.
Case added furlher details on this It was Chase's recollection that the
portion of the events, stating that he object was with them only into
requested and secured pennission southern Oklahoma; Hanley recalled
from Utsh to dive on the object when that it was with them all the way to
it was at lower altitode. He did not Oklahoma City area (point G); the
recall the sudden descent that is others remembered only that it was
specified in the contemporary there for some indefinite distance on
account, and there are a number of the northbound leg between Ft. Worth
other minor points in the Intelligence and Topeka, their home base.
Report that were not recollected by
any of the crew. He told me that when BlueBook
he dove from 35,000 ft to The records indicate that Project
approximately 20,000 ft the object Blue Book received summary
blinked out, disappeared from the information on this incident from
Utah ground-radar scopes, and ADC on Oct.25, 1957 (over two
disappeared from the #2 monitor, all months after occurrence ofthe event).
at the same time. McClure recalled A "Brief Summary" ends with the
that simultaneous disappearance, too. following paragraph:
It should be mentioned that the In joint review with the CAA of the
occasional appearance of a second data from the incident, it was
visual and radar-emitting source was definitely established by the CAA thot
not recalled by any of the officers object observed in the vicinity of
when I interviewed them in 1969. Dallas andFt. Worth was an airliner.
This refers to a near-collision of
Ac1ionsoverTexas-OkiahomaArea two DC-6 American Airliners near
McCoid recalled that, at about this Salt Flats, Texas, 50 mi. from EI Paso
stage of the activities, he was at 14,000 ft at 3:30 a.m. of this day.
becoming a bit worried about excess (See the map on page 68.) The case is
now carried in the official Blue Book
fuel consumption resulting from use files as "Identified as American
of maximum allowed power, plus a Airlines Flight 655."
marked departure from the initial
flight plan. He advised Chase that
fuel limitations would necessitate a
retom to the home base at Forbes
AFB, so they soon headed north from MacDonald Dies
theFt Worth area (Point F). On June 13, lames E. MacDonald
McClure and Chase recalled that was found dead in the desert near
theALA-6systemagainpicked up a Tuscon. He was 51 years old.
70 Astronautics & Aeronautics

To: MOO Abraham
Da le: Thursday, JUlie 24,202 14:23:07 PM
Attadlments: mcdonakl eae'" 69,odf
Hi Nijo,
Interesting! This case was the first case discussed in James Me Donald's "Science in Default"
document. It is one of the cases I am going to highlight in my talk, but won't have the time to discuss
in detail. This report also has a picture of the flight path, which was missing from Me Donald's
document,
Could you send the attached document of "Science in Default", with my comments, to Ted?
Thanks
Ravi
From: Nijo Abraham . (b)(6)

Date : Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 3:52 PM
To : "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar,kopparapu@nasa,gov>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Contacting f or an AIAA Confe rence Paper
Deletion Page


From:
To:
C<,
Subject;
Date:
.....
Bayj KUmar (GSfC.6990l Kopparapu; !Sooparapy, Bayj Kumar (GSfC.6990l
fwd: [EXTERNAL] Cootactiog fOi an AlAA Conference Paper
Thursday, June 24, 202 14;40;51 PM
Attachments: mcdonald aaas 69,prJf
Ted,
The case in the 1970 AIAA repol1 was one of the cases our opening presenter (Dr. Ravi
Kopparapu, cc'd) was going to mention in his talk ('Science ofUAP-Past and Present)
He wanted you to see the attached document he was basing his talk on. It includes his
COUllllents as well.
Nijo
---------- Forwarded message ---------

From: Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990) <rayilcumar.kcwparapu@nasa,&oy>
Date: Thu, JIUl 24, 2021 at 4:23 PM
Subject: Re: Conference Paper
To: Nijo Abraham
Deletion Page


To: Evan!)aytsoo: Gran. Ba ni C. (GSEC- 13QO); Adam Frank ; Hagg-Mjsra. Jacob P . (GSEC-6Q62)[Scjeoce
CoIlaboratorJ
Cc: Sbekbtmao I ooore {GSEC-690 Q)[ADNfT SYSJfMS INC
Subject: Be: [EXTERNAl] Radio intefview
Date: Friday, June 25, 2021 8 :45:25 AM
Thanks Evan, Next week Thursday (July st

1 ) and Friday (July 2nd ) are best for me. The week after that
(J uly 5th - 9th ) is essentia lly free.
If t hese are not possible, I could next week Monday , Tuesday, Wednesday (Jan 28, 29, 30) but we
will be cutting close to one or another meeting ending or a meeting beginning,
With regards to UAP and technological life, We are trying to decoup le these two and view them as
separate th ings. Only when the scientif ic evidence points to any connect ion can we consider them
together.
So far, we don't have that kind of evidence. HOWEVER, the core point is that scientific investigation
of UAP needs to be done and without any taboo. When scientists are missing from the scene,
conspiracy theories fill the void that perpetuates the taboo .
Best
Ravi
From: Evan Dawson ~

To: "Gran, Ran i C. (GSFC-1300)" <rani.c.gran@nasa.gov>, "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-
6990) " <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa .gov>,Adam Fra "Haqq-
Misra, Jacob D. (GSFC-6062)[Science Collaborator]"
Cc: "Shekhtman, Lonnie (GSFC-690 .0)[ADNET SYSTEMS INCI" <Ionnie.shekhtman@nasa .gov>
Subject: Re : [EXTERNAL] Rad io interview
Hello everyone -
Apologies for the sluggish response; I'm on a rare vacation.
We can work w it h the parameters some of you have set; specifically, if you can't comment on
spec ific report s, that's no problem . The goal of the conversation is to discuss what we have
learned -- or not learned -- about t he search for intel ligent life. The recent reporting (t hanks a
whole lot, 60 Minut es) has sparked a f lood of interest in t he subject. I'm not sure all of it is
part icu larly hea lthy. My own bias is that the vast numbers confronting us make it very likely
that there is or has been t echnologically advanced life elsewhere -- but we need someth ing
truly extraordinary to declare that we have glimpsed it. A bug on the lens of a camera is not
exact ly it.
We'd be looking to have t his conversation during the 1pm hour as soon as we can square
things up. Can I ask you to share some open 1pm hours next week and the following week? If
we have a good date, we'll lock it down.
Cheers and t hanks -
Evan
From: Gran, Rani C. (GSFC-1300) <rani .c.gran@nasa .gov>

To: Koppa rapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990) <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>;AdamFrank
.(b) (6) Evan Dawson .(b) (6) Haqq-M isra, Jacob D. (GSFC-6062)
[Science Collaborator] {IDW_
Cc: Shekhtman, Lonnie {GSFC-690.0)[ADNET SYSTEMS INC] <Ionnie.shekht man@nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: (EXTERNAL] Radio interview
Deletion Page


Date: Friday, June 25, 2021 10:54:14 AM
apparently, several ppl pointed out the prob with the UFO/search for life connection
From: Keyin Knuth
To: NjjQ Abraham
Ct:: Peter Reali; Ravi Kumar CGSfC-699(O !(gooarapu; Kpooarapu Rayj Kumar {GSfC-699!!l
Subject: [EXTERNAl] Re ; Good News; AIM Special Session Approved + Registration Fees Waived
Date: Friday, June 25, 2021 11;38;17 AM
This is great news!

Thank you Nijo.
Cheers
Kevin
On Fri, Jml2S , 202 1 at 10:31 AM Nijo Abraham wrote:

Hello Evelyone,
I have some good news to share with you: (see email below from AIAA)
1) Special session on the UAP topic has been APPROVED by AIAA for Aviation
conference.
2) Registration fee s of$600 has been WAIVED for all speakers.
They would like to prQlllQte the event likely on the AIAA website. This is a step towards
nOlmalizing the topic within the aerospace COllllllllllity.
If you have any reselvations against promoting this session please let me know by
Wednesday, 30th Jlllle.
Next Step: I am still ftnalizing the other speakers. Speaker credibility is imp0l1ant as was
told by my committee (STEM backgrOlllld + objective opinions on UAP).
Nijo Abraham
DETC, AIAA
---------- Fo"".r
From: Lisa Le
Date: Fri, Jml
Subject: RE : AIAA AVIATION: Special Session-- Requesting Speaker Fees Exemption
Hi Nijo,
I have some great news regarding your session.

1. Session topic: Our events team shared that this is certainly a timely topic and that they
appreciate the way they have laid it out to discuss the real issues and avoid the hype.
As long as all of the panelists are comfortable speaking in an unclassified, on-the-
record environment, we should be good to go. They wish we could promote it but
understand the concerns behind that.
2. Access to Session: Once the zoom link is created, I will share it with you to provide to
the panelists so they can access the session without registering. Please feel free to call
me/text me directly at 571.214.0343 to request the Zoom Link 1 or 2 hours before the
session, as my inbox may be overflowing during the week of the event. No event
registration is required, although we encourage all session participants to create a
Zoom account with their profile picture/name to access all the features in the app
instead of the web browser.
Session
DE-08
Abbreviation:
Advocating for Scientific Study of Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon
Session Title:
– with focus on Aviation Safety and Technical Perspective
Session Type: Technical Panel
Session Start
Fri 8/06/2021 11:15 AM
Time:
Duration: 240
SESSION
DE
LOCATION:
Chair(s): Moderator: Nijo Abraham
Session
Le, Lisa
Creator:
SESSION
EXPECTED
ATTENDANCE:
Session Notes:
SESSION Nijo Abraham will get back session description, panelist info.
NOTES TO NOTES TO PROJECT MANAGER: Presenters would like no
ADMIN: media attention/promotion. - Recording okay
I look forward to receiving the confirmed panelist information and final session description
to enter into ScholarOne. I suggest providing the information no later than 15 July as that is
usually when we receive the most uptick in registrations and attendees will be adding
sessions to their agenda.
Kind regards,
Lisa
Lisa Le
Technical Program SpeCi3~t
and A~tronauic www aiaa Qrg

(direct)
•
https'Uwwwajaa org/ayjatjon/programlvjrtnai-event-faqs
https'//www ajaa orglJuoplllsjoufnergyIJJrogram/vjrtllai-eyellt-faqs

Albany NY 12222
http; /lknuthlab.org
Froll1: Njjo Abraham
To: Koooo[l!Q!J, Ravj Kumar (GSFC-69'J(i)
Cc: Kevin Knuth: I'eter Rec1lj
Suhject: Re: [EXT~] Good News: AIM Special Session Approved + Registration Fees Waived
Ravi,
It will be restricted to registered participants.
I will insist on no media attention. I will request no promotion if there is a chance of media
being involved.
Nijo
On Fri, JlUl 25 , 202 1 at 11 :42 AM Kopparapu, Ravi KlUllar (GSFC-6990)

<rayjkumar.ko1212araPll@nasa,goy> wrote:
Hi Nijo,
Thank you.
The document looks good. When promoting, please insist on no media attention. And it will
be restricted to registered pru1icipants, right?
Ravi
From: Nijo A~ , raln <

Date: Friday,
To: Kevin Knuth
Ravi Kumar
Peter Reali i'a!- "Kopparapu,
Subject: [E;(TER1'UcL] Approved + Registration Fees

Waived
Deletion Page


From: H;!!ItilIUQ!lld Grey (HO-NA02!))
To: Stepbaoie Bianca; Gran, Rani C. (GSEC-BUQ)
Ct:: Kopparapu Bayi KUmar (GSEC-699())
Subject: Be: [ EXT~] Re: Science Olannel - The UAP Report -I nvitation
Date: Friday, June 25, 2021 1: 19 :4 3 PM
Thanks!
On: 25 Jlme 2021 12:07, "Stephanie Bianca" < (b) (6) wrote :
Hi Grey,
Yes, dus is correct, It's airing simultaneously on D iscovel), Ch alUlel, Travel Channel
and TIle Science Channel on 6/ 30/ 2021 at 8pm ET.
Best,
Stephatue
From: Hautaluoma, Grey (HQ-NA020) <grey,hautaluoma l@nasa.gov>

To: Gra n, Ra ni C. (GSFC-1300) <ran i,c.gran@nasa,gov>;Stephanie Bianca
.(b) (6)
Cc: Koppa rapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990) <ravikumar,koppa rapu@nasa,gov>
Subject: Science Channel - The UAP Report - Invit at ion
Hi, Stephanie,
For our internal tracking, could you please confirm that The UAP Report is
still scheduled to air on Discovery Networks and the Science Channel
June 30 and at what time? Thanks so much,
Grey Hautaluoma
Acting News Chief, Office of Communications
202-358-0668
grey hautaluoma -1 @nasa goy
From: Jill Bobinsoo
To: Koooaraoo, RaYi Kumar (GSFC-6990)
Ct:: I ronje Sbekblman: Gran Rani C (GSfC-I3!K!l: Hautai lloma Grey (HO-NA010l ; Sbekbtmao I POOle (GSfC-
69\) Ol fADNFT S'fSJfMS INC]
Subject: Be: [ EXTERNAl] Media query for National Geogra pbic on upcoming UFO!UAP report
Dilte: Friday, June 2.5, 202.18:43:45 PM
Let's do 9 a.m.l12 p.m. Thank you, Lonnie.
-jill
Jill K. Robinson
Traveling Wnter
Clips: daugeriilhobinson. comlwriting
IG and Twitter: @dangel]r
ProUOlUlS: shelber
On Fri, JlU1 25 , 2021 at 5:25 PM Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)

<rayikumar,kopparapu@nasa.goy> wrote:
We could do 9am PDT (1 2pm EDT), or Ipm PDT (4pm EDT). Either one is [me .
From: Jill Robinson • (b) (6)

Date: Friday, JlUle 25,
To: Lonnie Shekhtman
Cc : "Kopparapu, Ravi "Gran,
Rani C. (GSFC- 1300)" <rani.c,gran@nasa.gov>, "Hautaluoma, Grey
<grey hautailloma-l @nasa goy>, "Shekhtman, Lonnie (GSFC-690.0)[ADNET SYSTEMS
INC]" <Ionnie.shekhtman@nasa,goy>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Media quely for National Geographic on upcoming UFO/UAP
report
Excellent, thanks.
I'm free between 7:3 0-10: 30 a.m. PDT and 1-5 p.m. PDT on Tuesday.
-jill
On 11m 25 , 2021, at 5: 12 PM, Lonnie Shekhtlll3n

(b) (6) wrote:
Hi Jill --
Good on my end. Let's come up with a time on Tuesday and I'll set up a video
chat.
Best,
Lonnie
On Fri, JUll 25 , 2021 , 7:02 PM Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)

<rayjkumar,kopparapu@nasa .goy> wrote:
Hi Jill,
I am also copying: Lonnie Shekbtman, Senior science writer at Goddard, in

this email. Tuesday is more suitable for me, pending PAD response.
Best
Ravi

Date: Ftiday, Jlme 25 , 202 1 at 5:52 PM
<rayjkumar kopparapll@nasa goy>
Cc: "Gran, Rani C. (GSFC-1300)" <raui.c.grall@na sa.gov>, "Hautaluom3,
Grey (HQ-NA020) " <grey halltaluOIU3- J@nasa goy>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Media query for Natiollal Geographic on
upcoming UFO/UAP report
Hi Ravi,
Now that the rep0l1 is out (today!), I'd love to follow up with you.
Rani and Grey, can you tell me ifhe has any availability for a phone call next
week, ideally on Monday, Tuesday, or Friday?
Thanks again,
-jill
JiU K. Robinson
Traveling Writer
Clips: dan~eri l lrQbins.comw j' i t in~
IG and TWitter: @dangeLjr
PronOlms: shelher
On Wed, JIm 9, 2021 at 10:12 AM" Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)

<ray ik l.Warkop u @nas.~oy> wrote:
Hi Jill,
Thank you for yom quely. I will be happy to talk after the report is released
and have an opporh.mity to look at it carefully. I am copyin g om Public
Office representatives Rani Gran and Grey Hautaluoma in this email as
well so you can coordinate with them.
Best
Ravi
From: Jill Robinson (b) (6)

<rayjlm!llar kop,parapn @nasa gOY>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Media quely for National Geographic on
upcoming UFO/UAP repOli
Dear Dr. Kopparapu,
I'm a freelance journalist writing a story for National Geographic Travel

about the upcoming report on UFO/UAP data and intelligence that was
spurred by the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021. I
realize that the unclassified version of the report has not yet been released,
however I would like to talk with you once it is released to get your
perspective on what you think these things might actually be, the necessity
for scientific analysis of this data, and whether you think it may give us a
more cohesive understanding of ourselves as a species and our planet as an
ecosystem among others (perhaps leading us to take more care with what
we already have).
My editor also wants me to address why there's a cultural phenomenon of

"extraterrestrial hot spots," and certainly, if you think any of the sightings
and their locations raise important scientific questions (whether or not it
has anything to do with "aliens") or if you find any of them interesting as a
theory, I'd like to talk about that. But I'm not trying to make you
acknowledge something you don't believe.
Please let me know if you're open to talking with me for this article, and if
you have any preferences for timing once the report is released. Thank you
in advance for your consideration.
Best,
-Jill Robinson
Jill K. Robinson
Traveling Writer
Clips: dangerjillrobinson.com/writing
IG and Twitter: @dangerjr
Pronouns: she/her
From: Lonnie Shekhtman
To: Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990); Lonnie Shekhtman; Shekhtman, Lonnie (GSFC-690.0)[ADNET SYSTEMS
INC]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] NASA UAP FAQ
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/faq-unidentified-aerial-phenomena-uapsufos
From: newssnoc e
To: KooparaPIJ, Ravi KYmar fGSFC-§9991
Subject: Re : [EXTERNAl] l eonard David INquiry: UAP report reaction?
Date: Saturday, June 26, 2021 11:43:48 AM
Excellent and many thanks!

LD
Sent from my iPhone
On Jlll 26, 202 1, at 9 :39 AM, Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)

<raviktlllar.kopparapu@nasa.gov> wrote:
Hi Leonard,
(Copying our PAD representatives) .
From my perspective, the report is very similar to what I have been writing in my
articles. The summary is: We need more systemat ic collection of data, we need more
resources, it shou ld be scientifically studied, st igma should be removed, some of these
are rea l obj ects, some could be clutter, and some could be unexplained. I am gla d t o
see that the focus is on data collection and I really like that there was no speculation
about their nature. I am hoping that several independent groups could begin (or
continue) such data collecti on efforts to understand UA Ps without any prior
speculation and with the help of some resou rces.
Here is NASA's FAQ on UAPs.

httDs:/Iwww,nasa ,gov/feature/fag un identified aeria l phenomena uapsufos
Best
Ravi
From: ' (b) (6) .(b) (6)

Reply-To: ' (b) (6) .(b) (6)
Date: Saturday, June 26, 202 1 at 10:46 AM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Leonard David INqu iry: UAP report react ion?
Ra vi:
Any comments for a story I'll be turning in on Monday - reactions to the UAP Task Force
Report?
Thanks,
leonard
To: Gran, Rani C. (GSFC-1300); Hautaluoma, Grey (HQ-NA020); Hatfield, Miles S. (GSFC-130.0)[TELOPHASE CORP];
Landau, Elizabeth R (HQ-1864)[ASRC FEDERAL SYSTEM SOLUTIONS]; Hoover, Rachel L. (ARC-DO); Shekhtman,
Lonnie (GSFC-690.0)[ADNET SYSTEMS INC]; Tran, Lina (GSFC-670.0)[SGT INC]; Barry, Caela E. (GSFC-690.0)
[ADNET SYSTEMS INC]; Tiedeken, Staci L. (GSFC-690.0)[ADNET SYSTEMS INC]
Date: Saturday, June 26, 2021 11:44:35 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/ufo-report/2021/06/25/ba323b20-d52c-
11eb-ae54-515e2f63d37d_story.html
"While NASA was not involved in writing the public report, Nelson, who spent six days
orbiting the Earth during a space shuttle mission in the 1980s, said he had asked the agency’s
scientists to study the incidents that the report addressed and their potential explanations.
NASA has a small office devoted to searching for extraterrestrial life."
Do we know which office is this referring to?

Froll1: KoooaraolJ Bay] KU!Tli!r (GSFC-699!1l
To:
Cc:
Suhject:
reh ill!
Be; [EXT~]
c I3!Kll ; lonnie SlJekbtman
leonard David INquiry; UAP report reaction response
Date: Sunday, June 27,20211;01;55 PM
Hi Leonard,
I have no details about the science team, so I ca nnot comment on this aspect.
Best
Ravi
From: ' (b) (6) .(b) (6)

Reply-To: ' (b) (6) .(b) (6)
Date: Saturday, June 26, 202 1 at 7:55 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL} Leonard David INqu iry: UAP report react ion response
Ra vi: NASA Administrator Nelson has indicated that he's directed a science team to engage with further
UAP/UFO phenomenon.
How is that shaping up - are you on that group - and who's who?
Can you comment?
leonard
i INC) <Ionnie.shekhtman@nasa .gov> ; Gran ,

Rani C. (GSFC-1 300) <rani.c.gran@nasa.g ov>
Sent: Sat, Jun 26, 2021 9:39 am
Subject: Re: {EXTERNAL) leonard David IN quiry: UAP report reaction?
Deletion Page


From:
To: j, ,
: She!Itlbnan, Lonnie
Subject: [EXTERNAl}le<nard D<Md FYI: UAPIUFO - CitUen Science?
Date: Sunday, June 27,20211:39:26 PM
Ravi:
Ok, thanks, I'd encourage some thinking in that area,
I've been engaged with folks on this topic for quite a while· and you're right:
How best to sort out junk from beneficial observations?
Alison Parker at the Wilson Center in D,C, might be a good start for thinking on this:
(b) (6)
Thanks again for your weekend thinking on all this!
Later,
Leonard
(m;FC:-69'-lO) c::ravikumar,kopparapu@nasa,gov>
Shekhtman, Lonnie (GSFC-690.0)[ADNET SYSTEMS
(GSFc.1300) c::rani ,c,gran@nasa ,gov>; Lonnie
Sent: Sun,
Subject: Re: (EXTERNAL] Leonard David FYI: UAP/UFO· Citizen Science?
Hi Leonard,
Thank you, it is indeed a good thing whenever there is an opportunity to educate the public
about the scientific process. I am hoping to do such efforts through my writing initially, with
the limited time I have at this moment. Furthermore, I need to spend a bit of time educating
myself about potential false positives in any publicly available data so that I can
appropriately guide any citizen scientists. Such endeavors, while undoubtedly exciting, will
also be time and resource consuming, I am trying to see how to balance all these priorities,
But thank you for the suggestion. I will definitely keep that in mind.
Ravi
From:
; -6~)9Q" <ravikumar. kopparapu@nasa.gov>,

"Shekhtman , Lonnie (GSFC-69Q,Q)
"":• .gov·', "Gran , Rani C. (GSFC-
<rani,c,gran@nasa,gov>
SUbject: [EXTERNAL] Leonard David FYI: UAP/UFO - Citizen Science?
Ravi : Thanks for the comments and the NASA FAQ [ink.
While all this is going on, I am working with BryceTech on an Innovation
report, part of which details the role of "citizen science."
Putting the FAQ and my Citizen Science writing together - I think you may
have a match "made in heaven."
Why not have the public engaged in an educational opportunity with

UAPs...while also learning about atmospheric phenomenon?
What do you think?
From the NASA FAQ:
However, through our Earth-observing satellites, NASA collects extensive

data about Earth’s atmosphere, often in collaboration with the other space
agencies of the world. While these data are not specifically collected to
identify UAPs or alien technosignatures, they are publicly available and
anyone may use them to search the atmosphere.
Leonard
To: MOO Abraham
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAl) Good News: AIM Spedal Session Approved + Registration Fees Waived
Da le: Sunday, June 27,20218:49:16 PM
Hi Nijo,
I guess that's fine. l et's see how the session unfolds.
Best
Ravi
From: Nijo Abraham

Date: Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 6:11 PM
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Good News: AIAA Specia l Session Approved + Registration Fees
Deletion Page


Fro m: Brian M~ler
To: KooparaPIJ, Ravi KYmar (GSFC-§9991
C<co Haqq Misra Jamb D (GSfC-60621[Scjeoce Collaborator]: Gran Rani C CGSfC 13(0); I onnje Sbekhtmao
Subject: Re : [EXTERNAl] Emerging scientific discourse regarding ooidentified aerospace phenomena
Date: Monday, June 28,20218:)9:34 AM
Tlianks, Ravi. Totally makes sense. I appreciate you getting back to me and sending the link. Brian
> On Jtm 28, 2021, at 6: 13 AM, Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990) <ra viktunar.kopparapu@nasa.go v> wrote:
>
> Hi Brian,
> Thank you for your enquiry. I am tma vaila ble right now. In the meantinle. here is NASA FAQ on the topic of
UFOs. As yo u may have seen in the articles I have co-authored, my intent is to decouple the search for life and the
snldy of UFOs and look at them as independent scientific studies.
> h11lW 11wwy.· nasa i0ylfeahirelfaq,-lIujdentjfied-aeria 1-llhenomena-llallsufos
>
> Best
> Ravi
>
> On 6/27/21 , 1:06 PM. "Brian Miller" (b) (6) wrote:
>
> Ra vi/Jacob,
>
> I'm Brian Miller, (b) (6) I'm currently working on a piece about the emerging scientific
discourse on UAPs. I have already interviewed Dr. Matt Syzdagis, a dark matter researcher on this topic, and am in
the process of interviewing others.
>
> Would you cOlISidering being inten'iewed? If so, I can provide you a draft of my piece and the inten>iew I did
with Dr. Syzdagis. Then we can talk further to see if you would consent to an interview.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Brian
>
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAl] G>ntacting for an AIM O>nference Paper
Da te: Monday, June 28, 202110: 14: S1 AM
From: Nijo Abraham .(b) (6)

Date: Friday, Ju ne 25, 202 1 at 9:48 AM
To: "Koppa rapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>
Subject: Re : [EXTER NAL] Conta ct ing for an AIAA Con ference Paper
Will do,
Thank you
On Fri, Jun 25, 202 1 at 9:40 AM Koppa rapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)
<ravikuma r. koppa ra pu@nasa.gov> wrote:
Hi Nij o,
Jacob would be great. He and I have the same th inking and is the reason why we write articles
together. Please contact him and ask.
Ravi
From : Nijo Abraham .(b) (6)

To : "Kopparapu, Ravi Ku mar (GS FC-6990) " <ray jklJmar kopparaplJ@nasa goy>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Contact ing for an AIM Conferen ce Paper
Good Morning Ravi,
What do you think about inviting Dr. Jacob Haqq Mishra?

I came across an article you both co-wrote. Do you know if he would be able to make a case for
more studies required in terms of the UAP activities?
Nijo
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 4:30 PM Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)

<ray jkumar, kooparapu@nasa ,goy>wrote :
Hi Nijo,
I guess you can forward to him. We will see how it goes going forward .
Thanks
Ravi
To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" qavjkqm ar kopparapu@oasa iOY>
Subject: Re: {EXTERNAL] Contacting for an AIAA Conference Paper
Glad you have a picture to put it together.

Of cou rse, I will forward the document to him.
His email i (b) (6) n case you want to reach him directly.
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 4B PM Kopparapu, Ravi Kuma r (GSFC·6990)

Deletion Page


From : Barnes. Oustjo
To: KopoaraptJ. Ray! KUmar CGSfC..6990l
C<, Lonnie She!shtman: Gran. Bani C. CGSF~130l
Subject: Rf: [EXTERNAL] USA TODAY requtc'Sl; ~ to Conyressional UFO report
Date: Monday, June 28, 202112:43:47 PM
Thank you. Happy to work with them both to set this up.
Dustin Banles
NOW Reporter
(b) (6)
USA TODAY
From : Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990) <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>

To : Barnes, Dustin .(b) (6) >
Cc: lonnie Shekhtman ·(b)(6) Gran, Rani C. (GSFC-1300)
<rani.c.gran@nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] USA TODAY request; Response to Congressional UFO report
Hi Dustin,
I am copying our Public Affairs Office representatives, lonnie Shekhtman and Rani Gran to co-
ordinate. I am available unti15pm today.
Best
Ravi
From: "Barnes, Dustin" . (b) (6) >

To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <rayjkymaLkopparapu@nasa.goy>
Subject: [EXTERNAL) USA TODAY request: Response to Congressional UFO report
Good afternoon, Dr. Kopparapu,
I'm a reporter with USA TODAY and am working on a follow up story on the release of the
congressional UFO report last Friday.
I wanted to reach out to see if you could talk with me about your perspective on the unclassified
findings that were released. If so, I'd love to set up an interview with you over the phone today, or if
you prefer, I cou ld send over some questions via email.
Thank you for your time, and I hope to talk soon.
Dus tin Ban les

N OW Reporter
(b) (6)
USA TODAY
From: Koooorapu Ray] Kumar {GSFC-6990l
To: Dillon Gytbrje
Subject: Be: [EXTERNAL] UAP! UFO Whole of Government Science Op-Ed in The Hill
Date: Monday, June 28, 20211:D :54 PM
Thank you for the article li nk. I will read it with interest.
Best
Ravi

NASA Goddard Space Flight Cent er
email : rayjklJmar kop para pu@ nasa eoy
From: Dillon Gut hrie (b)(6)

Date: Sunday, June 27, 202 1 at 7:55 PM
To: "Koppa rapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990 )" <ravi kumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] UAP/ UFO Whole o f Government Science Op-Ed in The Hi ll
Dr. Kopparapu,
I hope that you're well. I thought you might be interested in an article I recently wrote for The
Hill: Amen·co needs a u·llOle-q,(:gol'emlllet/1 o.llPl"ooch to studying IIl1;denrified aerial phellwlleno I
TheHill. (I cited your and Jacob Haqq-Misra's excellent 2020 piece in Scientific American, whicil I
tlrink really changed the debate on this topic.)
TIlank you for the consideration.
Respectfully,
Dillon Gutluie
Date: Monday, June 28, 2021 2:49:47 PM
in fact, he's not going to be doing UAP interviews for a while

Date: Monday, June 28, 2021 2:55:15 PM
did the administrator had enough of UFo stuff?

Fro m: Barnes Dustin
C<co I<oooarapu Bavj Kumar (GSEC-699Q)
Subject: Be: [EXTERNAl] BE: USA TODAY request: Response to CorqessioOilI UFO report
Date: Moodily, June 28, 2021 3:05:2'1 PM
I 1mderstand. Thank you for your time.
Dustin
Sent from my iPhone. There are probably typos.
On J1m 28, 202 1, at 2:00 PM, Shekhtman, LOimie (GSFC-690.0)[ADNET

SYSTEMS INC] <Ionnie. shekhtman@nasa.gov> wrote:
Hey Dustin,
We ca n' t answer these specific questions about the report, as it is not ours and we
were not involved in writing it. I think you'd have better luck talking to someone else.
Thanks for reaching out and best of luck with your story.
Lonnie
Lonnie Shekhtm an
301-61 4-6833
From: "Ba rnes, Dust in" (b) (6)

Date: Monday, June 28, 2021 at 2 :07 PM
To: "Shekhtm an, Lonnie (GSFC-690.0)[AD NET SYSTEMS INC]"
Cc: " Kopparapu, Ravi Kuma r (GSFC-6990)" <ravikum ar .kopparapu@nasa .gov>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: USA TODAY request : Response t o Congressiona l UFO
report
Hi there.
My deadline is t oday. I' m f ree except for 2:30-3 p.m. ET. I can t alk at any other time.
I also got your email RE: questions. Below are some of the points I wanted to discuss
with Dr. Kopparapu.
• The government can't explain 143 of the 144 cases reported by milita ry officials.
Could further development of a reporting system help scientists/resea rchers
better identify these UAPs? And could t hat also help remove some of t he stigma
attached to reporting a UFO/UAP t hat's mentioned in this report?
• This report did not rule out extraterrestrial life. And there were 18 UAP incidents
mentioned that appeared to demonst rate "advanced technology." These are
some of the areas where enth usiasts may point to as proof of alien life. Are
there other key points in this report's findings t hat may support t hei r hopes?
• What do you see as the biggest revelations in this report? Where do you think
the government should go from here in regards to its awareness and
communication of UAPs?
Thank you for your ti me!
Dustin
From : Shekhtman, Lonnie (GSFC-690.0)[ADNET SYSTEMS INC]

Sent : Monday, June 28, 202112:40 PM
To: Barnes, Dustin .(b) (6)
Cc: Koppara pu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990) <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>
Subject : Re : USA TODAY request: Response to Congressional UFO report
Hey Dustin,
Just trying to sort out some schedules on our end. Is your story dead line today? What's
the latest you can t al k?
Thanks,
Lonnie
Lonnie Shekhbnan
301-614-6833
- -- Forwarded message -----
From : Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-69901 q ayjkuma L kQQRa rapu@nasa.goy>
Date: Mon, Jun 28, 2021, 12 :37 PM
Subj ect: Re : [EXTERNAL] USA TODAY request: Response to Congressiona l UFO report
To: Barnes, Dustin <dbarnes2@usat oday. com>
Cc: Lonnie Shekhtman .(b) (6) Gran, Rani C. (GSFC-1300)
<rao j,c.grao@nasa ,goy>
C<co Gran Rani C (GSEC 13(0)
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAl] Press Inquiry
Date: Tuesdi!y, June 29, 20218:43:04 AM
Hi Lonnie and Rani,

Another quot e request. Cou ld you send t he NASA FAQ to this query? It addresses how NASA is
searching for ext ra-terrestrial life, including technologica l life.
This is the space.com article they are referring to:
httos :/Iwww.soace.com/oentagon ufo report react ions uao
Thanks
Ravi

Greenbelt, MD 20771
ema il: rayjkumar. koooa rapu@oasa ,goy
(b) (6)
From: Steven Hall
To: " Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990 )" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa .gov>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Press Inq uiry
Hello I' m a reporter for the Daily Call er and I' m doing a story on the recent UFO report published
Friday, I saw your comments in the Space.com article. How concerned should Americans be about
the possibility these UFOs cou ld be aliens?
To: She!shtman. Lonnie 'GSfC-69Q.OXAPNEI SYSTEMS INC]
Subject: FW: (EX'TERNAl] Re: Press Inquiry
Da le: Tuesday, JUlie 29, 2021 9:04: 1"1 AM
Attadlments: -...I[

Greenbelt, MD 20771
email: rayjkumar.kopparapu@oasa, goy
From: Avi Loeb (b) (6)

Date: Tuesday, June 29 2021 at 9'03 AM
(b) (6)
To: Steven Hall
Cc: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC~690)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>
Subject: [EXTERNAL) Re: Press Inquiry
Dear Steven,
My view is summarized in the attached document below. Feel free to quote from there, Regarding
your question, I would not use the word "concerned" but rather "excited" or "intrigued", I am
intrigued enough by the report to initiate a related science research program.
With kind regards,

Avi
Abraham (Avi) Loeb

Frank B. Baird Jr. Professor of Science
Harvard Unil/ers,ity
On lue, Jun 29, 2021 at 8:33 AM Steven Hall (b)(6) wrote:
Hello I'm a reporter for the Daily Caller and I'm doing a story on the recent UFO report published
Friday, I saw your comments in the Space.com article. How concerned should Americans be about
the possibility these UFOs could be aliens?
Evidence Unpopular?
_______
By Avi Loeb on Ju 28, 2021
I topic
to benefit embraced
the - pioneer
evidence-
Strangely enough, advocated by
The self-
maintaining ignorance w
.
report th
scienti
-
established ,
- . -
made they national
Hence,
data .
origin - it book titled

Extraterrestrial one `Oumuamua
any observed before. quantum
mechanics e
. scientific
that a
force.
mainstream ,
would
interpreting
UAP.
t pushback from some

scientists including SETI advocates
follow-up hey telescopes
technology
Our c
windows
for wrong. Pretending
door. O at door indeed

, response.
must
-
-of-the-
phenomen Vera C. Rubin
Observatory c mined with
Legacy Survey of Space and Time (LSST) sensitive sun
Starlink theref meter size
.
F ,
nges
- .
t
encourage
?
respect
which drawn -
knowledge envisioned it.
entrep aspirations
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Avi Loeb
Avi Loeb is the founding director of Harvard University's Black Hole Initiative, director of the Institute for Theory
and Computation at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and the former chair of the astronomy department
at Harvard University (2011-2020). He chairs the advisory board for the Breakthrough Starshot project, and is a former
member of the President s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and a former chair of the Board on
Physics and Astronomy of the National Academies. Extraterrestrial: The First Sign of
Intelligent Life Beyond Earth and a co- Life in the Cosmos
So Jill Robinson today is going to ask about these ET hotspots:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/travel/article/five-ufo-hot-spots-in-the-southwest-u-s
* Now that the study has been released, one thing that’s clear is that there are no simple answers. Do you
have thoughts about what these sightings might actually be, and how do you suggest we proceed with
analyzing the data to move forward? (How should we be looking at this information?)
* Why do you think there’s a cultural phenomenon of “extraterrestrial hot spots”? Do you think any of the
sightings and their locations raise important scientific questions or do you find any of them interesting as
a theory?
* Acknowledging that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, how can we recalibrate our
expectations in a more scientific way with regard to UAP/UFO?
* Do you think our realization that we may not be alone in the universe may give us a more cohesive
understanding of ourselves as a species and our planet as an ecosystem among others (perhaps leading
us to take more care with what we already have)?
To: O!rjstioe Scbjffoer: Gran. Rani C. 'GSfC-lJOO)
C<co Sbekbtman l onnje (GSEC-690 Q)[ADN fT SYSIFMS INC
Date: Tuesdi!y, Ju ne 29, 202111:)J:S6AM
Hi Christine,
Not a prob lem . Thank you for letting us know.
Best
Ravi

Greenbelt, MD 20771
ema il: rayjkumar.koooa rapu@oasa ,goy
From: Christ ine Schiffner .(b) (6)

To: "Gran, Rani C. (GSFC-1300)" <rani.c.gran@nasa.gov>
Cc: "Koppa rapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>, "Shekht man,
Lonnie (GSFC-690 .0)[ADNET SYSTEMS INej" <Ionn ie.shekhtman@nasa .gov>
Subject: Re : [EXTERNA L] upcom ing "UFO" report
Dear Rani and Ravi,
Thank you so much again for taking the t ime for the fascinating interview the other day.
Unfortunately, due to the building coJtapse in M iami and a devastating tornado in the Czech
Republic, our news ed itors in Germany canceled the UFO report at the last minute - despite my
strong protest against the decision .
My deepest apologies.
Best of luck with your research!
Ch ristine
Deletion Page


Fro m: Sbekbtman l onnie (GSEC-690 Q)[ADNfT SYSIFMS INC
To: O!rjstioe Scbjffoer
C<co I<oooarapu Bavi Kumar (GSEC-699Q) ; Gran Rani C (GSEC 1300)
Date: Tuesdi!y, Ju ne 29, 202111: 35:57 AM
Hi Christine,
Sorry t o hear about your st ory, but we completely understand . No w orries at all. Happy t o t alk t o you
aga in any t ime.
Take ca re,
Lonnie
Lonnie Shekhtm an
301-61 4-6833
From: Ch rist ine Sch iffner .(b) (6)

Date: Tuesd ay, June 29, 2021 at 11:17 AM
To: "Gran, Rani C. (GSFC-1300)" <rani.c.gran@nasa .gov>
Cc: "Koppa ra pu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ra vikum ar .koppa ra pu@nasa .gov>, "Shekht man,
Lonnie (GSFC-690 .0)[AD NET SYSTE MS INCI" <Ionnie. shekht man@nasa .gov>
Subject: Re : [EXTE RNAL] upcoming "U FO" repo rt
Deletion Page


From: newssnoc e
To: KooparaPIJ, Rayi KYmar fGSFC-§9991
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAl] l eonard David FYI: story posted - thanks for the assist!
Date: Tuesday, June 29, 202111:46:17 AM
That is the issue. What next? Do keep me in the loop and onward!
LD
Sent from my iPhone
On Jlll 29, 202 1, at 7:45 AM, Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)

<ravilallIar.kopparapu@nasa.gov> wrote:
Thanks leona rd. let's hope all the attention moves the needle in the right direction of
scientific study of UAPs.

Greenbelt, MD 20771
email : ray jklJmar kopparaplJ@nasa coy
From: ' (b) (6) .(b) (6)

Reply-To: ' (b) (6) .(b) (6)
To: " Koppa rapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa .gov>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] l eonard David FYI: st ory posted - t hanks for the assist!
Ravi :
Up in the air! US government's UFO report stirs range of reactions
hUps:/lwww.space .com/pentagon-ufo-report-reactions-uap
Fro lll:
To: BYiln Grayes: [I.l~ ill• • •
Ct:: : Edward 1 Stanton l r: Schultz ¥irKenl p (tARe-E1A)
Subject: : AIM AVIATION UAP Session: Updates and Requests
Dilte: Tuesday, Ju ne 29, 2021 7 :28:01 PM
Attac hillents: ruM Sessjoo UAp,odf
Proposed schedule attached ..
On Tue, 11m 29, 202 1 at 7:25 PM Nijo Abraham .(b) (6) wrote:
Hello Team,
AIAA had a meeting today to discuss this session. The fo llowing were the outcomes. Let me
know if any concern s
By COB Friday, July 2nd, plea se send: (for advertising on program website)
- Title of Presentation
- Job TitlelDesignation
- Profile picnn e (any fOlliIat)
By COB Wednesday, July 7th, please send:

- Abstract « 300 words)
By COB Monday, Aug, 2nd, please send:

- Slides
- Expect attendance of greater than 100 aerospace professionals

- Proposed schedule attached
- 3 hours presentation + 1 hour panel session + two 10 min breaks
- Air Traffic Management technical committee will be co-sponsoring this session w ith the
Design Engineering technical committee. This eff0l1 will enable greater visibility and
participation
- AIAA will be advertising this event for maxinnml palt icipation.
- V ince Schultz (NASA Langley) and Ed Stanton (AIAA + fOim er NASAlLockheed) will be
co-moderators
- We will be scheduling a Zoom session during last week of July with all the presenters
together to ensure common message, intemet connection checks, flues of engagement .
Concem siQuestions?
Nijo Abraham
DETC, AIAA
Title: Advocating for Scientific Study of Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon - Technical Perspective
with focus on Aviation Safety
Venue: (Virtual) AIAA Aviation, Friday Aug 6th 2021 (11: 15 am - 3 :45 pm; EST)
Sponsored by:
Design Engineering Technical Committee
Aerospace Traffic Management Committee
The proposed technical panel will have an individual presentation format, and will advocate for an
unbiased, agnostic scientific study into the Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon (UAP). 1bis session is
inspired by a series of updates that occurred during 2020-21: release of videos from the U.S. Navy,
Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), upcoming UAP Task Force report. The
topics presented during this discussion will include: Physics of UAP, Impact on safety of air travel,
Technical analysis of encounters, Challenges in explaining the phenomenon; Proposed approach for
further study.
The technical presentations will be based on observations made from the unclassified release of videos,
radar observations and experiments performed.
The following are the objectives and why research into UAP should be of interest to AIAA community:
1) There have been multiple cases of this phenomenon violating restricted airspace and being in
proximity during flight as reported by pilots. Research is required to at least predict this
phenomenon, and ensure safer airspace.
2) Due to the novel nature in studying this phenomenon, normalizing this once stigmatized element
through sessions as through this panel is essential to hold technical forums and arrive at decisions
that identify areas where to begin and focus research.
3) [The panel that comprises physicists and engineers highlights the multifaceted nature of this
phenomenon that manifests in the Aviation domain. Therefore, the term 'Unidentified' to such
a phenomenon is a challenge to the technical prowess of the AIAA community.
Furthermore, investigation into UAP is not new to AIAA. The organization did have a dedicated
subcommittee, 'UFO Subcommittee of the AIAA' during 1970s. The following reports were generated
on this topic by this subcommittee.
Reports:
1) UFO Encounter 1, Sample Case Selected by the UFO Subcommittee of the AIAA (July 1971).
2) Appraisal of the UFO Problem, UFO Subcommittee of the AIAA (November 1970)
During this panel, there will be !!!!. speculations on the actors or fringe theories behind this phenomenon.
The panel will include five oral presentations, 15-20 minutes each, with 10 minutes questions. The
following are the proposed presenters (subject to change):
Introduction:
Time: 11:15 -11:20 (5 minutes)
Moderator - Nijo Abraham
Technical Characteristics ofUAP: (1 hour, 15 min)

Moderator - Ed StantonlVince Schultz
Time: 11 :20 - 11 :45 (20 min presentation, 5 min questions)
1. Dr. Ravi Kopparapu, Planetary Scientist, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
TOPIC: Science ofUAPs - Past and Present
Time: 11:45 -12:10 (20 min presentation, 5 min questions)

2. Dr. Kevin Knuth, Dept of Physics, University at Albany (Editor in Chief - Entropy Journal,
former NASA Ames Research Scientist)
TOPIC: Physics ofUAP
Time: 12:10 - 12:35 (20 min presentation, 5 min questions)

3. Peter Reali - Scientific Coalition ofUAP Studies (Retired Electrical Engineer (Silicon Valley);
BSEIMSEE from University of California, Berkley)
TOPIC: Technical Analysis of the USS Nimitz 2004 Encounter
BREAK -10 minutes (till 12:45 pm)
Safety Implications of UAP: 1 hour, 30 minutes

Moderator - Ed StantonIVince Schultz

4. Lieutenant Ryan Graves - Former U.S. Navy F-18 pilot
TOPIC: Firsthand Account! Squadron Safety Assessment from Encounters with UAP

5. Ted Roe - Executive Director, National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous
Phenomenon-NARCAP
TOPIC: Civilian Aircraft Safety Assessment due to UAP

6. Philippe Ailleris - Board Member, UFODATA
(project Controller, Space Research and Technology Center, European Space Agency)
Title: Mitigating Flight Safety's Hazards: Towards a Better Detection and Characterization
of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP)
BREAK-I0 minutes (till 14:10 pm)
PANEL DISCUSSION: 60 minutes, 14:10 -15:10

Moderator - Ed StantonIVince Schultz
From: Naa135
To: Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990) Kopparapu; Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: UAP Session: Analysis of Nimitz Video
Date: Friday, July 2, 2021 11:13:11 AM
Ravi, the problem is these are not scientists and they do not know the rigor involved that you
mentioned. Hence, why we need a scientific study instead of a pilot and a journalist posting
videos, and the public swaying from one to the other. Clearly it seems mick just comes with a
theory and supports it with math, without cross checking. As you said, there seems to be no
peer review by experts in this case.
Yes, thanks Ravi, the draft covers all the points we discussed. Since it is a draft, I presume all
the grammar and first person statements will be corrected.
briefly also include as a scientist, why this phenomenon interests you, and what questions you
hope to get answered, prior to referring the physical data required to answer these questions.
Also, can you mention why you think the objects are of the same nature from that mentioned
in the DoD report vs. McDonald’s? It helps make a connection to the audience.
Nijo
On Jul 2, 2021 at 10:13 AM, <Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990) Kopparapu> wrote:
Hi Nijo,
Thanks for forwarding Peter’s response. Intriguing indeed. I just wish both the youtube creators
(Chris Lehto and Mick West) actually respond to each other face-to-face (or online to online) and
discuss why they think they are right. This is what we do in science! And that is how we can make
any progress. Can you imagine how far we will be able to progress if scientists try to resolve each
other’s disagreements on youtube? We will get nowhere. We won’t even have Youtube. Someone
needs to get these people talking. If Mick is really interested in truth, he should talk to pilots and
see if his analysis is correct. Maybe he did? I do not know.
In any case, please see my attached draft of the abstract. Is this consistent with what you have in
mind?
Best
Ravi
--
Greenbelt, MD 20771

Date: Thursday, Ju ly 1, 2021 at 1:25 PM
To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" < ravikumar .koppara p u@nasa. gov>
Subject: [EXTE RNAL] Fwd: UAP Session : Ana lysis of Nimitz Video
Ravi,
Please see Peter's reply below .
-------- Forwarded message ---------

From: Peter Reali .(b) (6)
Date : Th u, Jull, 2021 at 1:10 PM
Subj ect: Re : UAP Session: Analysis of Nimitz Video
To: Nij o Abraham .(b) (6)
Hi Nijo,
I have ful ly analyzed the Nimitz Video and I will rep resent the seu's official analysis of this event.
The seu as an organization has no opinion on the Go Fast or Gimbal videos as these have not
been studied in detail as officia l projects. You have to rea lize that it took a year and a half to analyze
the Nim itz video to produce the 270 page report t hat I sent you . There is a huge amount of research
to understa nd and analyze the specifications for the Raytheon FUR ta rgeting pod,which is highly
classified
military gea r and it was only t hrough painstaking research that we found background information
on
the metadata to understa nd t he meaning of the data on the screen and interview the w itnesses, get
ship logs
from FOIA requests, and do time line analysis and peer reviews.
This was t he ta rgeting pod in 2004 the more recent video like Go Fast have similar information but
it is a more
modern version which has changed where the metadata on the screen has moved around some are
different
and t his would need to be researched to come up with a definitive report. I have partially analyzed
the go fast video.
I have not analyzed the Gimbal video so I will try and add rebuttals to t he go fast video but in
questions and answers
I will only be able to point out where I disagree with M ick's analysis. This will be a personal rebuttal
and does
not represent an official position of the seu and I wil l state that in any question and answer period.
Mick makes many obvious mistakes in his presentations and you must remember he is basically not
interested in scientific
analysis but entertainment for his Youtube audience. It is basically tabloid internet an the SCU was
formed to counteract
this type of misinformation but more to make the study of this phenomenon respectable to the
scientific community.
I will point out why the Go Fast video presents anomalous characteristics. You pointed to the Mick
West video
but there is a much better analysis by Chris Lehto who was a 16 year veteran who flew F18's and
understands
how these targeting pods work. He points out the errors in both Mick's analysis of the Go Fast and
Gimbal
videos and here is a link to the Go Fast video. Mick's analysis critically depends on the RNG reading
on
the meta data and as Chris points out this is wrong because the screen shows it is not locked and is
giving
a wrong indication that Mick uses to calculate his results. It is obvious he has not done any research
on obtaining
information and how to interpret the meta data on the screen. He has just borrowed the
information from the
TTSA website which was another entertainment site and did no detailed analysis of the videos. Here
is a link
for you or your friends to watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYLKK6ZlCHc&t=858s
Regards,
Peter
On Wednesday/6/30/2021 2:43:28 PM, Nijo Abraham wrote:

Peter,
Dr. Ravi Kopparappu and I were discussing the presentations and the audience for the
AIAA UAP session.
If there are questions based on Mick West's explanations to the Navy videos, would
your analysis/presentation be able to address them?
If you have not seen Mick's videos, the links are below. Please take them into account
to make a strong point that all explanations were considered.
Nijo
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 3:42 PM Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)

Hi Nijo
Here are some sample videos from Mick West, who seem to explain “Go Fast”
video:
https://youtu.be/PLyEO0jNt6M
And for “GIMBAL” video:

https://youtu.be/4Btns91W5J8
As I mentioned in our chat, these are the explanations that a LOT of people point to
reach a conclusion that the Navy videos are known objects or misunderstood
observations.
If the desire is to change minds, then these videos by Mick West must be addressed.
No one countered him on these explanations. So they stand as of now.
Some questions are: Is there anything in his analysis that he is missing? What is the
counter argument to his analysis?
Ravi
--
Greenbelt, MD 20771
Fro m: Kooparapu Bavi Kumar (GSEC-6990)
To: Yajdva. Yarada V.(GSfC-66Q.Q)[Soytbeastem Uniymjties Research Assoc·]
Subject: FW: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Be: Antwort: Be: Antwort: Re : Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort : Be:
[EXTERNAl] Media Bequest - German Broadcasting
Date: Friday, Ju ly 2,202112:11:26 PM
See the video from 02 :20 timestamp.

ema il: ray jkumar kopparapu@nasa coy
From: David Sloan .(b )(6)

Date: Friday, July 2,202 1 at 11: 19 AM
To: "Gran, Ran i C. (GSFC-1300)" <rani.c.gran@nasa.gov>
Cc: " Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar .kopparapu@nasa.gov>
Subject: Re : Antwort : Re : Ant wort: Re: Antwort: Re : Antwort : Re : Antwort: Re: Ant wort: Re:
Antwort: Re: Ant wort : Re: [EXTERNAL] Media Request - German Broadcast ing
Hi Rani :
I hope all is well. I j ust wanted to send you the link from our story. It was great having Ravi in the
piece. Feel free to share it.
Li nk: https:llm.dw.com/en/wor!d-ufo-dav-2021-i s-there-anvone-out-there/av-58134404
Best,
David
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Gran, Ran i C. (GSFC-1300) <rani.c.gran@nasa .gov>

Sent: Thursday, June 17, 20211:54:59 PM
To: David Sloan .(b) (6)
Cc: Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990) <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>
Subject: Re : Antwort : Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort : Re : Antwort: Re : Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re : Antwort:
Re: Antwort : Re : [EXTERNAL] Media Request - German Broadcasting
HI David,
Could you arrive at NASA Goddard Visitor Center by 9:30 am. We w ill be taping in the Visitor
Center's auditorium. I want to have everything set up, so when Ravi arrives, we can do the
interview.
How many people are coming f rom you r organizat ion?
One note, the visitor center Is closed to the public, but the VC manager is letting us in. We wi ll have
to be qu iet when we come in, beca use they are doing virtua l field trips.
Rani
Rani C. Gran
Mail Code 420, 836, 5470
Work Cell : (b) (6)
Phone: 301-286-2483
"If we amplify everything, we hear nothin g," Jon Ste wart .
From: Davi d Sloan •(b) (6)

Date: Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 11:47 AM
To: Ra ni Gran <rani.c.gran@nasa.gov>
Cc: " Koppa ra pu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990 )" <ravikum ar .koppa ra pu@nasa .gov>
Subject: Ant wort: Re : An twort: Re : Ant wort : Re: Ant wort: Re: Ant wort : Re : An twort : Re :
An twort : Re : Ant wort : Re : [EXTE RNAL] Media Request - Germ an Broadcast ing
Hi Ran i :
Sorry for the delay, sure thing
Ideally we want to understand what it means for the scientific study of UAPj UFO and
explaining how the general public should view th is subject now , with the taboo is starting to
shrink. Also, what does it mean for the study of the habitabi lity of other planets and
potential life in other solar systemsj planetsj ect. When the report is made public and
whatever parts are not redacted, what will be NASA's interest be in studying th is subject.
This is the broad scope of what we are looking for in the story. We welcome any other input
that will help move the story along.
- David
-----"Gran , Rani C. ( r.<,. r 2f'lll.Iiiffiit>il.&QP sc hri eb: - -- --

An : "David Sloan "
Von: "Gran, Rani C.
Datum: 16.06.2021 16:12
Kopie: "Kopparapu , Rav i Kuma r ( GSFC-6990 )" < ravikumar.kopparapu @nasa.gov >
Betreff: Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort:
Re: Antwort: Re: [ EXTERNAL] Med ia Request - German Broadcasti ng
HI Da vid,
Could you send us the questions ahead of time so we can prep , or hav e a better idea on
the th r ust of the interv iew .
Rani
Ra ni C. Gran
Mail Code 420, 836, S470
Work Cell: (b) (6)
Phone: 301-286-2483
From: David Sloan

Date: Tuesday, June
To: Rani Gran < ranj .c .Qran@nasa .Qoy >
Ce: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)"
< rayjkumar. kopparap u@nasa .goy >
Subject: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort:
Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: [EXTERNAL] Media Request - German
Broadcasting
Oka y . Sounds good. Also, would you or Ra vi be the point of contact?
----- "Gran, Rani C. (GSFC -1300 )" < ranLc.gran @nasa.gov > schrieb: -----
An: "Da vid Sloan " ~ "Kopparapu , Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990 )"
< ravikumar. kopparapu@nasa.gov >
Von: "Gran , Rani C. ( GSFC-1300)" < ranLc.gran @nasa.gov >
Datum: 15.06.2021 14:46
Betreff: Re: Antwort: Re: Ant wort: Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort:
Re: [EXTERNAL] Media Request - German Broadcasting
I need to heck with the people wh o run the Visitor center.
On: 15 June 202114:34, " Dav id Sloan " ~ wrote:
Great! Is there an ything we need to know as far as entering the grounds, etc.
Let me know. We look forward to it.
- Davi d
-----"Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)"
An: "David Sloan "

Von : "Kopparapu ,
<rayjkumar.kopparapu @nasa.goy>
Datum : 15 .06.202114:28
Kopie: "Gran , Rani C. (GSFC- 1300)" <ranLc·gran@nasa .goy>
Betreff: Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort : Re: Antwort : Re: Antwort:
Re : [EXTERNAL] Media Request - German Broadcasting
Sure, works for me.
From : David Sloan

Date: Tuesda y, June
< rayjkumar. koppara pu@nasa.goy>
Cc: "Gran, Rani C. (GSFC-1300)" <rani.c.gran@nasa.goy>
Subject: Antwort : Re: Antwort: Re : Antwort : Re: Antwort:
Re: Antwort: Re: [E XTERNAL] Media Request - German
Broadcasting
Does lOam work on the 22nd ?
-----" Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990 )"

1~Fc-: ,> ,schrieb: -----
I. <ranj.c.gran@nasa.goy>, "David Sloan"
Kurnar (GS FC-6990 )"

<rayjkumar.kopoarapy@nasa.goy>
Datum : 15.06.202114: 18
Betreff: Re : Antwort: Re : Antwort: Re : Antwort: Re : Antwort: Re :
[EXTERNAL] Media Request - German Broadcasting
Deletion Page


From: lamb Haoo Misra
To: Koooaraoo Ravj Kumar (GSfC-6990)
Subject: Re : FW: [ EXTERNAL] fwd: UAP Session: Analysis of Nimitz Video
Date: Friday, July 2, 20211 2: 20:53 PM
Thanks! I had not seen Mick's videos before.
The "debunking" video about focal lengths maybe makes some points, but the presentation
(toys on a tile floor) will make it difficult for many scientists to take seriously.
On Thu, Jull , 202 1 at 1:45 PM Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)

<rayjkuIlJar kopparapll@na sa goy> wrote:
FYI.
Ravi l·llmar Kopparapu
email: rayilmmar.kopparapll@na sa.goy
From: N ijo Abraham

Date: Thursday, July 1,
To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <rayikumar.kopparapu@lla sa.gov>
"
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: UAP Session: Analysis of N imitz Video
Ravi,
Please see Peter's reply below.
---------- Fotwarded message ---------

I
From : Peter R e a l i _
Date: Thu, Jull , 202 1 at 1:10 PM
Subject: Re : UAP .
To: Nijo Abraham
Hi Nijo,
I have fully analyzed the Nimitz Video and I will represent the sell's offic ial analysis of
this event.
The seu as an organization has no opinion on the Go Fast or Gimbal videos as these have
not
been studied in detail as offi cial projects. You have to realize that it took a year and a half to
analyze
the Nimitz video to produce the 270 page rep0l1 that I sent you. There is a huge amOlmt of
research
to lmderstand and analyze the specifications for the Raytheon FUR targeting pod,which is
highly classified
militalY gear and it was only through painstaking research that we fOlmd backgrOlmd
infonnation on
the metadata to lmderstand the meaning of the data on the screen and interview the
witnesses, get ship logs
from FOIA requests, and do time line analysis and peer reviews.
This was the targeting pod in 2004 the more recent video like Go Fast have sinlilar
infonnation but it is a more
modem version which has changed where the metadata on the screen has moved arOlmd
some are different
and this would need to be researched to come up with a defmitive report. I have partially
analyzed the go fast video.
I have not analyzed the Gimbal video so I will try and add rebuttals to the go fast video but
in questions and answers
I will only be able to point out where I disagree with Mick's analysis. I his will be a personal
rebuttal and does
not represent an offi cial position of the SCU and I will state that in any question and answer
period.
Mick makes many obvious mistakes in his presentations and you must remember he is
basically not interested in scientific
analysis but ente11ainment for his Youtube audience. It is basically tabloid internet an the
seu was fOim ed to cOlmteract
this type of misinfonllation but more to make the study of this phenomenon respectable to
the scientific cOllllnunity.
I will point out why the Go Fast video presents anomalous characteristics. You pointed to
the Mick West video
but there is a much better analysis by Chris Lehto who was a 16 year veteran who flew F1 8's
and lmderstands
how these targeting pods work. He points out the errors in both Mick's analysis of the Go
Fast and Gimbal
videos and here is a link to the Go Fast video. Mick's analysis critically depends on the RNG
reading on
the meta data and as Chris points out this is wrong because the screen shows it is not locked
and is giving
a wrong indication that Mick uses to calculate his results. It is obvious he has not done any
research on obtaining
information and how to interpret the meta data on the screen. He has just borrowed the
information from the
TTSA website which was another entertainment site and did no detailed analysis of the
videos. Here is a link
for you or your friends to watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=YYLKK6ZlCHc&t=858s
Regards,
Peter
On Wednesday/6/30/2021 2:43:28 PM, Nijo Abraham wrote:
Peter,
Dr. Ravi Kopparappu and I were discussing the presentations and the audience
for the AIAA UAP session.
If there are questions based on Mick West's explanations to the Navy videos,
would your analysis/presentation be able to address them?
If you have not seen Mick's videos, the links are below. Please take them
into account to make a strong point that all explanations were considered.
Nijo

Hi Nijo
Here are some sample videos from Mick West, who seem to explain “Go
Fast” video:
https://youtu.be/PLyEO0jNt6M
And for “GIMBAL” video:
https://youtu.be/4Btns91W5J8
As I mentioned in our chat, these are the explanations that a LOT of people
point to reach a conclusion that the Navy videos are known objects or
misunderstood observations.
If the desire is to change minds, then these videos by Mick West must be
addressed. No one countered him on these explanations. So they stand as of
now.
Some questions are: Is there anything in his analysis that he is missing? What
is the counter argument to his analysis?
Ravi
--
Greenbelt, MD 20771
----
--_.,...--..
--_.
---
--_
~-'
"'-"'---'
....... - --
- " - -" ="..." ...
h:\WB_
....
._,._..____. __ '__ A_._
-,--_......__ _ _
~-
_ _ _ _ . . . . _ _ _ ..... . " . ,_ _ _ _ _ _ ._ , ._ . _. ~ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _H .. _ .. . . . . .
---_ .. _-_ ...,- ....-,._

_._-".................. _ ... __
....... . .---. . . .. _-,,_..._._-_
_._-- .... _-, _-_
_---_. _-. ...._-_
.......,..._-- ---.... . ...---_.
----..---.--..---. --- ........ ..."'- ..- -,..-----....--
", .-
.. ...............
, ..- ...
"
_..-.--
.--- ~
.-
___ __ _--_
__ ,, ___ ,_ _ -.0. _ _...... _
---
.--
---_
_. ..... .._----" . .........- -""_ . _.. _. ....--_
.._--......, _..._...... _---_ ... _-
. .. ......-.- . _"'"
. _........ ....__ ........ _ .,.,,"",,"',,_ .............. __ ...'"""'--_ ...
--.,------.....,--_._--_
_------_..-.._--
.-"_ ...... _
.....--_
.._- ......
"""
-._-
_ ._ ..... _ _ _ " .... _ _'_ _ _ _ .... _ " .. _.._ _ _ _ ...... b_ .. _ _ -... .......... -. .. __ .... _ .. _
....... -- . -........ -- ...- .

..... _,
..........-...-.... - .....---
_ ... v..y --
.-'' --,-.-----''''-....-...'''--..
-~ ., -
._-
..._ .....--
..... _
...---
. -,,------.
.. _
__,_-._.......--- __
.. _ _ ,, _ _ "'_ .. - . . ............ _ _ ... _ _
...---------
...,-.... -"'----- ... .....- . -
-.,~ . . . . , _ ... " - _ _ ... _ " ...... ""' _ _ , .
...,.-.......--..-...
. . ... _ ..... 111' _ _ _
-_._
---
----
,..,-
........
_" _--,
_._-......__
___
---
. . . . . . . . " ' - ....
-----_
~-._no
-~
...
---.. ....._. ..-."""'
_. _.............
__
... _
.... _. _---.,-
. _.........
___ -.._-_
. -.----
- ~ -.
.. -.-.,-.
__ ,, _ _ _ _ ,_ _ .. _-~'*I
-
_ _ _~ ._.
- ,-
-
.._ . ......_...--
- ,-
,.,. "'--
. _. . __... .-. .....--
....... _
__ .... _ '... ___ ..__

""',,_ ...........n' ___ .. _ _ _ _ ....... _____ ...... __ ...
-...__ --
.... (:.II I _ _ "
.__...,w_.
_........__. . ..._...... .__........... ._--,
.... -~ __
-~ ,. , .....
_ " " ' ' ' " ' .... - - - - - . . . . . . . . - - -. . . - - - . . . -
--.-......._...._..................__.......
~
- ~
- -. . .
We shook hands and agreed to never forget that incredible sight.
Understanding the Impossible
A though this UFO sighting eventually opened up my imagination, I initia ly attempted to encapsulate the encounter within the limits of my young mind. I had a repeating dream where a similar disc approached in the sky unt l a mundane news headline appeared on ts
edge, assuring my psyche of its Earthly provenance. For the most part, the memory was repressed.
For over a decade, I rarely considered the incident. It was after seeing a book with photographs of some sim lar discs that I recalled that summer evening. I read about UFOs and the various theories about what they were. Attempts to explain them as meteors, solar
flares, balloons, or pranks were laughable, considering the details of my sighting.
Most press coverage explained UFOs within the boundaries of contemporary science or would mock people who dared to describe a sighting. Although this made me guarded about who I shared my story with, the inability to address the topic seriously seemed as
strange as the phenomena itself.
The general reluctance of media to even consider that these ships are unexplainable or extraterrestrial was a fascinating revelation.
There is little ability to perceive or process anything new without reference to what is already known. Scient fic method emerged from this sober impulse; the development of new ideas usually relies on foundational knowledge.
In the past month, as news of the government report leaked, many scientists and journa ists eagerly insisted that it would be mpossible for UFOs to be extraterrestrial in origin.
Proponents of this conventional wisdom confidently assure us that even if there are extraterrestrial beings, enormous interstellar distances will never be traversed by any ife form because of the limits on speed and the amount of energy required.
This unreasonable over-confidence that we have attained supreme knowledge of all manifestations of energy ends discussion of the topic before it begins. The skepticism about UFOs emanates from overt geocentric narcissism and a fear of the unknown.
Our grasp of wave energy, including light and grav ty has grown in the last one hundred years. However, we are only at the beginning of comprehending fundamental universal forces w th relatively primitive tools and references.
A l of our fa th in data of the scientific realm, from the sub-atomic to the astronomic, is bui t on observations that we define and evaluate within the electromagnetic spectrum. Much of this data is directly applicable to practical use. However, the dogmatic insistence that
this range of energy is all that exists has diminished our abi ity to more deeply understand both our planet and the stars.
Considering the history of scientific development and recent discoveries, it is likely that this lim tation of perception will be deemed naive in the not too distant future.
Small particles and waves have been observed behaving in a manner that defies known functional models, suggesting we have more to learn about the very nature of reality. Concepts that not long ago were completely speculative, including quantum
entanglement, wormholes, extra dimensions, and travel beyond the speed of light are the subject of experimentation and serious discussion among an increasing number of dedicated scientists.
We certainly have the abi ity to reach a greater understanding of our world, leading to possible contact w th other sentient l fe in the universe. But progress is predicated on our willingness to re-evaluate and go beyond self-imposed barriers.
Velocity is the Message
If spacecraft from our Milky Way or more distant galaxies are visiting, we should consider how ships could traverse mil ions of light-years to get here. We can start by evaluating how they navigate within our atmosphere.
If for a moment, we accept that interstellar ships have arrived and are moving about our planet, such super high-tech aircraft would be able to travel so fast that most of the time we would not even see them.
That we rarely catch a glimpse of the objects suggests that they are cloaking their ships, perhaps with exceptional hypervelocity. The meager information gathered to date supports this simp istic, yet profound evaluation of the enigma.
This is not just a wild guess. I had a second indirect encounter w th these phenomena that gives credence to the hypothesis that they are unident fied because of their speed.
While making a documentary a few years ago about an unrelated topic near San Francisco, I was filming some exteriors that included wide shots of the sky. Editing the material a few weeks later, I noticed something that seemed to blur across the mon tor. Slowing down
the footage substantially and looking at individual frames, there was what appeared to be a flying object. Similar images appeared in other shots and were compiled in a short assembly, which has not been released until now. (View by clicking here).
W th reference to some known locations in the footage, distances of various flying objects were estimated at one to four miles away from the camera. In one shot, an object crossing a five-mile-wide view within the frame was calculated to be traveling at about 18,000
miles per hour. Although the International Space Station is traveling at a very similar speed to neutralize the effect of Earth’s gravity, nothing just above the planet is known to travel that fast.
The key takeaway from this footage is that these silent disc-shaped objects were invisible to the naked eye and not noticeable when seen on-screen at standard frame rates. It could mean that the sightings we know about only represent a tiny fraction of the activity in the
sky above the Earth.
It does not require revolutionary cameras to better observe these objects. If the will to find the phenomena is applied, then it’s a matter of using appropriate techniques to make tracking possible.
If their technology greatly surpasses ours, most of their actions are very l kely evolved and intentional, including deciding how and where they might be observed. They could be stealthily speeding around us, in expectation of increased enthusiasm to perceive them.
US Navy p lots could not identify or stead ly track unknown flying objects, although, as the new report admits, their equipment was not designed to see them, so they are described as evasive.
Perhaps revealing themselves to the governments of a planet distracted by competitive materialism and warfare is not a priority. Interestingly, the most deta led and provocative sightings have been by non-mil tary observers.
The clearest images and reports over the last seventy-four years haven t changed the status of sightings beyond a mystery. Putting aside what governments might have or have not done to find out more, there hasn’t been a concerted program to ident fy this type of aerial
phenomena.
Until there is such an effort, it seems their veloc ty makes them virtually invis ble and is the main factor keeping the topic of UFOs in a realm of speculation. Their staggering pace raises questions that should be approached with open-mindedness as the foundation of
inquiry.
Once we accept that they exist, we might begin to understand why they are here.
—-
David Marks is a veteran investigative reporter and documentary producer. His work for PBS and the BBC includes the biographies of J mi Hendrix and Frank Sinatra and Nazi Gold, on the role of Switzerland in World War II. His recently published book, The Way, is an
interpretation of the Chinese classic, the Tao Te Ching, and is ava lable at LaoTzu-TheWay org
From: Shekbtman Lonrie ((]SEC 690 OXADNET SYSJEMS INC]
To : David Sloan: Kopooraou, RaY; Kumar (GSfC::Y990) : Gran Rani C. (GSEC-13!lO)
Subject: Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re : Antwort Re : Antwort: Re : Antwort: Re : Antwort: Re : Antwort: Re :
[EXTERNAl] Media Request - German Broadcasting
Date: Tuesday, July 6, 20219:05:42 AM
Tha nk you so much, David , Really !ike your story,
Regarding the f ull interview vid, I just want to confirm that you will let us see it befo re it's posted,
correct?
All the best,

Lonnie
Lonnie Shekhtman
301-61 4-6833
From: Dav id Sloan .(b) (6)

Date: Friday, Ju ly 2, 2021 at 6:12 PM
To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990) " <ravikumar ,kopparapu@nasa ,gov>, "Gran, Ran i C.
(GS FC-1300)" <ran i,c.gran@nasa ,gov>
Cc: "Shekhtman, Lonn ie (GSFC-690,0 )[ADN ET SYSTEMS INC] " <Ionn ie ,shekht man@nasa ,gov>
Subject: Re: Antwort: Re: Ant wort : Re : Ant wort : Re : Antwort : Re : An twort : Re: Antwort Re :
An twort Re: Antwort Re : [EXTERNA L] Med ia Request - German Broadcast ing
Hi Ravi :
So we're working on t hat, We have to work it out with our social media team , But, I'll let you know,
Thanks again !
Best ,
David
Get Outlook for jOS
From: Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GS FC-6990) <ravikuma r.koppara pu@nasa,gov>

Sent: Friday, July 2, 20215 :09:25 PM
To : David Sloan .(b) (6) Gran, Rani C. (GSFC-1300) <rani,c.gran@nasa,gov>
Cc: Sh ekhtman, Lonnie (GS FC-690 ,0)[ADNET SYSTEM S INC] <Ion nie ,shekhtma n@nasa ,gov>
Subject : Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort : Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort:
Re: Antwort: Re: [EXTER NAL] M edia Request - German Broadcasting
Hi David,
Thanks for the link. Have a great weeke nd .
Best
Ravi
P.S: Was the raw video posted anywhere7

Greenbelt, M D 20771
email: rayjkumar kopparapu@nasa goy
From: David Sloan .(b) (6)

Date: Friday, July 2, 202 1 at 11 :19 AM
To : "Gran, Ran i C. (GSFC-1300)" <ran Lc.gran@nasa.gov>
Cc : "Kopparapu, Ravi Ku ma r (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu @nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Ant wort: Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort : Re: Ant wort: Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort : Re:
Antwort: Re: Antwort : Re: (EXTERNAL) Media Request - German Broadcasting
Deletion Page


From: Shekhtman. Loooje CGSfC-69Q.O)[ADNEI SVSTEMS INC)
To: KopparaDtJ. Bayi Kumar (GSFC-6990); Gran. Rani r. (GSfC-13001
Subj(!(;t: Re: Antwort: Re: Alltwort: Re: Alltwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re:
(EXTIRNAl.] Meda ~est - German Bro&dcastiog
Date: Tuesday, July 6,20219:07:42 AM
Nice job, Ravil l think OW also did a great job. The story was cheeky but grounded.
lonnie
Lonnie Shekhtman
Senior Science Wriler
301-614-6833
From: "Koppa rapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.koppa rapu@nasa.gov>

Date: Friday, July 2, 2021 at S:09 PM
To : David Sloan "Gran, Rani C. (GS FC-1300)" <rani.c.gran@nasa.gov>
Cc: "Shekhtman, Lonnie (GSFC-690.0)[ADNET SYSTEM S INC)" <Ionnie .shekhtman@nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort : Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort : Re:
Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: (EXTERNAL] Media Request - German Broadcasting
Deletion Page


From:
To: """""
Bayi Kymar (GSfC-6990l Kooparapu; Kooo;!rapY . Bayi Kymar 'GSFC-699Ql
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Good News: AIM Special Sessioo Approved + Registration Fet'5 Waived
Perfect thank you, Ravi.
N ijo
On Ju16, 2021 at 9:23 AM, <Rayj KlimaI' (GSFC-699Q) Kopparapll> wrote:
Hi Nijo,
This is the final version that I could come up with.
Best
Ravi

Greenbelt MD 2077 1
email : rayjkIJrnac kopparamJ@nasa eoy

Date: Tuesday, July 6, 202 1 at 9:17 AM
To: "Koppa rapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990 )" qayjkIJmar kopparaplJ@nasa !l'0y>
Subject: Re: [EXTER NAL] Good News: AIAA Spec ial Session Approved + Reg istra t ion Fees
Waived
Thank you, Ravi, hope you rs went well too.
This abstract looks great, covers the points we discussed .

Is this the final version? Or do you have any further modifications?
Nijo
On Mon, Jul S, 2021 at 7:17 PM Koppa rapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)

<ravikumar .kopparapu@nasa.gov> w rote:
Hi Nij o,
I hope you had a nice long weekend. Please find attached abstract, and let me know if this is what
you have in mind .
Best
Ravi

Greenbelt. MD 20771
email: rayjkumar.kQRRaraRu@nasa.goy
From : Nijo Abraham .(b) (6)

Date: Friday, Ju ly 2, 2021 at 3:57 PM
To : "Kopparapu, Ra vi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumaLkoppa rapu@nasa. goy>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Good News: AIAA Specia l Sess ion Approved + Registration Fees
Wa ived
Ravi,
Note a correction in the title : changed from UAPs to UAP (I th ink we have UFOs in our mind)
Science of UAP - Past and Present

<ravikumar. kopparapu@nasa.gov> wrote :
Science of UAPs - Past and Present

Ravi Kopparapu, Planetary Scientist, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt. M D 20771
email: rayjkumaLkopparapu@nasa ,goy

To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" q avikumar,ko ppara pu@nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Good News: AIAA Special Session Approved + Reg istrat ion Fees
Waived
Thank you, Ravi,

Just sent you the invite for 2:00 pm EST t oday, If not received, see the link below,
https:/lgeorgetown,loom,us/il95720471433
~N

<ravikumaLkopparapu@nasa,goy>wrote:
Hi Nij o,
I am available from 2pm Spm t oday,
Ravi
Ravi kumar Koppa rapu

NASA Goddard Space Fl ight Center
Greenbelt MD 2077 1
email: rayjklJmar kopparaplJ@oasa INY
From : Nijo Abraham

Date: Wed nesday, Ju ne 30, 2021 at 12:04 PM
To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <rayj kumar.kooparaou@oasa ,goy>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Good News: AIAA Specia l Session Approved + Registrat ion
Fees Waived
Ravi, let me know if you would li ke to have a Zoom or phone call to have a clear direction on
the session/presentation to have an approp riate t it le/abstract. I have spoken to all other
presenters, except you.
I am avai lable today or tomorrow anytime.
Nij o
On Tue, Jun 29, 202 1 at 6:23 PM Nij o Abraham w rote:

No, I don't t hink he will add value. Your audience is experienced engineers and scientists
that have worked with actua l data and designed aviation technology. I don't thi nk West
has that experience.
You can consider the audience as a team of Mick Wests w/ actual experience.
Nijo
On Tue, Ju n 29, 2021 at 5:06 PM Koppa rapu, Ravi Kuma r (GSFC-6990)

qayjklJmar kopparaplJ@nasacoy> wrote:
Hi Nij o,
Have you considered asking Mick West?
Ravi
Ravi kumar Koppa rapu

NASA Godda rd Space Flight Center
Greenbelt MD 20771
email: rayjkumar.koDDarapu@nasa.coy
From : Nijo Abraham

Date: Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 6 :11 PM
To : "Kopparapu , Ravi Kumar (GS FC-6990) " <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Good News: AIAA Special Session Approved +
Regist rati on Fees Wa ived
Ravi,
I am leaning towards letting AIM promoting the session so that it generates the serious
discussion we hope this accomplishes.
I agree on having no media, but as long as they don't interfere, and contact t he
speakers for comment, promoting the event should be in the topic's favor.
Thoughts?
Nijo
On Sun, Jun 27, 202 1 at 5:56 PM Kopparapu, Ravi Kuma r (GSFC-6990)

<rayjkumaL koopa rapu@nasa .goy>wrote :
Hi Nijo,
Thank you . I need to mention this to my NASA Pu blic Affairs Office rep resentatives, in
case any media w rites any articles. I am still fine to give a talk, but would have
preferred no media presence. If they wa nt any comment, t hey can certa inly contact
me (or any other speakers) after the session . I am hoping that t his session in it iates
some serious discussion on how to move ahead with a scientific study of UAP.
Best
Ravi
From: Nij o Abraham

Date: Sunday, June 27, 202 1 at 4:26 PM
(b) (6) (b) (6)

Subject: Re : [EXTERNA L] Good News: AIM Special Session Approved +
Regist rat ion Fees Waived
Ravi,
I am cc'ing Lisa from AIM to address the med ia con cerns. Please see the
email chain below.
The media will be able to attend if they register.
Lisa,
Can you clarify what sort of promotion you were referring to?
If it w as only 10 people attended the session , it would not satisfy our
objective is changing the academic attitude on the phenomenon.
Were you referring to displaying it on the following
page: https'lJwww aiaaorg/aviation/program
Nijo Abraham
Hi Nijo,
Yes, I believe press can attend the session by registering with media
credentials.
See more information online here:

https:lIwww.ajaa.org/ayjatjoo/regjstratjon
Media Registration : Fill out the Press Credential Registration Form
If you have concerns about what type of questions are asked, we can discuss
this more with the events team . I have copied my colleague, Tobey Jackson,
Forum Program Executive, on th is email. She may be able to provide insight
and assistance to ensure this session is hosted in a manner that panelists
are comfortable.
I believe your moderation will be key in keeping the session focused on the
technical and academic nature of the content. A statement at the beginning
of the event and before the Q&A portion/on slides may be helpful to
steer{focus the questions.
Kind regards,
Lisa
Lisa Le
Techn ica l Program Specialist
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics wwwaiaa O[g
12700 Sunrise Valley Drive Suite 200
Reston. VA 20191-5807
800-639-AIM
(b) (6) (direct)
From: Martin 1 Kernan
To: KooparaPIJ, Ravj KYma r fGSFC-§9991
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAl] Journalist Inquiry
Thank you Ravi. You have provided an essential framework within which to think about tlris. I'll be working on the
story idea more the next month or so, and will likely be in touch again.
Best to you,
I • .,
(b) (6)
> On Jul 6, 202 1, at 9:57 AM, Kopparapu, Ravi K1UlIar (GSFC-6990) <ravikumar kopparapu@nasa.gov> wrote:
>
> Hi Maltin,
> I think so. What I would say is that having tile data available to a wider and diverse group of experts (aviation
experts, aerospace engineers, physicists etc.) may provide a much better IUlderstanding of tile phenomena. It will
also hopefully help in de-mystifying and reduce the pre-ponderance of speculation about tlleir natme. Data
availability and collection is critical. This is how we all in science work to make progress on something that initially
appears to be puzzling.
>
> And yes, I would be happy to respond the best way I can if you have any further questions.
> Best
> Ravi
>
>
> --
> Ravi bUllar Koppara pu
> NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
> Greenbelt, MD 2077 1
> email: ravikU1llar kopparapu@ nasa.gov
>
>
>
>
>
> On 7/ 512 1, 4:29 PM, "Martin J. Kernan" (b) (6) wrote:
>
> Thank you for your though tful response Ravi. You raise a very interested and exceLlent point, one I hadn't
considered. I I didn't realize (though I should ha ve) that the data collection being so fragmented, hampers if not
cripples scientists ' ability to intelpret it in a comprehensive way. I imagine the fact that tile US military is a big
collector, albeit lUlintentionally, certainly complicated matters. I'm starting to see tile outlines of a story here, we
have aU the brains and ability and teclmology to data visualize/interpret - but no system to fimnel that data to the
right people so that it can be reviewed in a comprehensive way. Is that right? Would you add to, revise that
statement?
>
> As I develop the story idea, I hope it's okay if I keep in touc h.
>
> Best to you,
>
> ,.1.".
> (b) (6)
>
» On Jul 5, 2021 , at 12:08 PM, Ko pparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990) <ravikumar kopparapu@nasa.gov> wrote:
»
» Hi Martin,
» Thank you for your question. The data visualization would indeed be a wonderful thing to identify patterns in
UFO phenomena. The only issue is th at there is not enough comprehensiv e hard data (radar, optical, thennal)
available to perfonn such kind of data vis ualizatioll. W itness testimonies might be useful to corroborate each
wimesses' accounts, but unfortunately they canllot be translated into hard da ta without measming with actual
instruments. This is what I have been advocating for: to ha ve access to any data. TIlere are some individuals and
independent groups, including traditionally trained scientists, who attempt to collect their own data. However, I am
1101 sure how that da ta was collected, IUlder what circumstances, that could affect the data quality.
»
» I w ould love to have a data visualization that could help us lmderstand the nature oftli e phenomena. I just
wonder w here to get such data from.
»
» Best
» Ra vi
»
» --
» Ra vi ktmlar Kopparapu
» NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
» Greenbelt, MD 2077 1
» email: raViklmlaf.kopparapu@nasa .gov
»
»
»
»
»
» On 7/3/ 21, 9:44 AM, "Martin J. Keman" (b) (6) wrote:
»
» Hi Dr. Kopparapu,
»
» Really enjoyed and appreciated your opinion piece in the Washington Post on ufos. I' m a contributing v.'li.ter to
Smithsonian Magazine exploring a story idea that involves the work of Dr. Robert Nathan, whom as you may know
perfonned the very first data visualization in connection with early NASA m issions. It's fascinating history, as the
teclmiques were later applied to medical teclmology to great effect. In any event, Nathan was also very interested in
ufos and used his expertise to analyze many SiglltingS. I would like to w rite something about how an understanding
of data visualization properly grounded in science can help people make sense of certain lIllUsual phenomena, and
highlight the history of the teclmology. I have a contact on the Mars mission perfonning data visualization, and he
said the foundational code hasn 't changed since Nathan invented it, but he is not involved in ufos. So, I was
wondering if you h ad any thoughts on the role of data visualization in ufos, how it might be leveraged to keep the
emphasis on scientific inquiry w ith respect to sightings, and whether you may be w illing to act as a source for the
story, more generally.l haven't pitched it to my editor yet, as he has been ill, but anticipate there will be interest.
»
» Best to you,
»
» " • I •• •
» (b) (6)
»
>
To: Gran, Rani C. (GSFC-1300); Hautaluoma, Grey (HQ-NA020); Hatfield, Miles S. (GSFC-130.0)[TELOPHASE CORP];
Landau, Elizabeth R (HQ-1864)[ASRC FEDERAL SYSTEM SOLUTIONS]; Hoover, Rachel L. (ARC-DO); Shekhtman,
Lonnie (GSFC-690.0)[ADNET SYSTEMS INC]; Tran, Lina (GSFC-670.0)[SGT INC]; Barry, Caela E. (GSFC-690.0)
[ADNET SYSTEMS INC]; Tiedeken, Staci L. (GSFC-690.0)[ADNET SYSTEMS INC]
Date: Wednesday, July 7, 2021 9:33:08 AM
Also,
The first step, according to Tough, would be to confirm that the craft really isn't from Earth, perhaps
from a secretive government. A smart, skeptical team, ideally composed of scientists from various
countries, would need to be recruited to examine the probe. If it's on land, the rover should probably
be quarantined at the area it touched down. If it's in space, a robotic or a crewed mission would
undoubtedly be required for an up-close look.Once the probe's authenticity is confirmed, Tough
stresses that the finding should be made public worldwide, with all collected data openly shared.
But what if we call it an UFO or UAP? Then will we be interested in studying it?
Date: Wednesday, July 7, 2021 11:04:36 AM
her...... yes, Passant's article on technosignature back in April led to WaPo reporter calling me
to write about technosignatures which led to the UFO article
From : Jacob Haoo Misra
To: Evan Dawson
C<, Koooara[)U, Bayj KUmar (GSfC.§99!!l; Hagg;Mjsra .locob 0 , (GSfC.6062HScjence Collaborator): Mam Frank:
Gran, Bani C. 'GSEC 130m; 5hc!dltrnpn, lonnie (GSfC"6?Q,O)[AQNEI SYSTEMS INC]
Subject: Be: [EXTERNAl] Radio interview
Date: Wednesday, July 7,20213:32:32 PM
Ycs, that works for mc ,
OllWed, Ju1 7, 202 1 at 3:3 1 PM Evall Dawson _ wrote:
How did I miss all of these emails? I was on vacation that week!
TIle week of the 12th, Wednesday, So next Wednesday, one week from today, TIle 14 d1 , Can
that work for you?
Thanks -
Evan
From:: ~ .a ;~ , Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990) [mailto;rayjklllllar.kopparapll@uasagoy]

Sent: F Jlme 25, 202 1 9:58 AM
To: J'C-60'62)I[Sc: ieDlce COllaborator] ~ Adam
Gran, Rani C. (GSFC-1300)

~ ;i:'~Et ilam, LC'lllle(GSFC-690.0)[ADNET SYSTEMS INC]
~ ~bject: Re; Radio intelv iew
That works for me as welL
From : Jacob Haqq Misra

Date: Friday,
To: Adam Frank
Cc: " :-606;!)[S:cience Collabolator]" <!IiDIiII
"Gran, Rani C. (GSFC-J300)" <1r :~ ;: : ~ :i=;.r ,
:-699'0)" <ravjlqunar.kopparapu@nasa,aov>, ,
Lonnie (GSFC-690.0)[ADNET SYSTEMS INC]" <lollllie.shekhlman@nasa.I!QV>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Radio intelView
The week of the 12th I can do Monday-Wednesday.
Jacob
On Fri, JUll 25, 2021 at 9:49 AM Adam Frank _ wrote:
Hi Evan
I am gonna ask if we can do this later in the week of the 12th. W.T or F
Adam
On JIll 25, 202 1, at 8: 46 AM, Jacob Haqq Misra wrote:
Hi Evan,
Sounds great! I am available at I pm on Monday-Thmsday the next two

weeks .
Jacob
On Fri, JIll 25 , 2021 at 7:26 AM Evan Dawson _

wrote:
Deletion Page


To: oosmoetjcaljst
C<co Sbekbtman l onnje (GSEC-690 Q)[ADNfT SYSIFMS INC : Gran Bani C (GSEC-l3OQ)
Subject: Be: Interview request on Pentagon UFO Report- RJ( Kopparapu
Date: FridiIY, July 9, 20217:40:45 AM
Hello Dan,
Thank you for your ema il. I am copying ou r NASA Public Affai rs Office representatives Lonni e
Shekhtman and Ra ni Gran to co-ordinate. We w ill wait for their response.
Best
Ravi

email: rav jkumar.koopa raou@oasa ,goy
(b) (6)
From: cosmoet icalist
Date: Friday, July 9,202 1 at 7:24 AM
To: "Koppa rapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Int erview request on Pent agon UFO Report- RK Kopparapu
My name is Dan Schneider and I am the founder and owner of the popular and influent ia l arts
website Cosmoetica . Here is a link: http-l/wwwcosmoetjca com/. I have a Youtube series that
interviews individuals and panels of people on the arts and sciences, called the Dan Schneider Video
Interview: https·//wwyoJvolJtubecom/user/cosmoetica. My interviews provide depth that harkens
back to the days of David Susskind, Dick Cavett, WF Buckley, and Ph il Donahue.
I wou ld like to do a panel show on the recent UFOjUAP report.
I am a great interviewer, and if you look thru some earlier shows you'll see I get to the core of an
issue like no one else.
Cosmoetica will go down as one of the most influential websites from the ea rly Internet years, and
easily the most influential in the arts. I hope you agree to be interviewed. If you agree, I can get
th ings ready. The interviews require a good Internet connection, Skype on both ends- a free
download, having a good webcam so we can see you, and my little recording device.
Please let me know if you wou ld be interested in an interview. I think it might be mutually
beneficial .
Thanks,
DAN
--
www.Cosmoetica.com, Cosmoetica: The Best In Poetica
https://www.youtube.com/user/cosmoetica, Cosmoetica's channel
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0zBf_K3uchXAPDzCsrQV5A, E-Cosmoetica
https://vimeo.com/user36938996, Vimeo channel
Amazon Books: https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=dp_byline_sr_ebooks_1?ie=UTF8&text=Dan+Schneider&search-
alias=digital-text&field-author=Dan+Schneider&sort=relevancerank
https://www.facebook.com/DanSchneiderVideoInterviews/
https://twitter.com/DanSchneiderVI
From: lamb Haoo Misra
To: KooooraRIJ. RaYi Kymar (GSFC-69901
Ct:: Adam Frank ' fun Dawson: Haqq-Misra Jacob D (GSFC-60621fScierre Coll a borator] : Gran R.am C (GSEC-
lll!!1l; Sbekhtman I nooK- (GSEC-WO QUA()NfT SVSIFMS JNC]
Subject: Re : [ EXTERNAl] Radio interview
Dilte: Monday, July 12, 2021 9:45:05 AM
Works for me too.
Oil Mall, Ju112, 2021 at 9:28 AM Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)

<rayjlaunar kopparapll@nasa goy> wrote:
Wednesday 14th Ipm works for me as well.
Greenbelt, MD 20771
email: rayi1..1I111ar ,koJ2J)araJ2u@nasa.goy
From: Adam F r a n k _
Date: Monday, July 12, 2021 at 9:26 AM
To: "Kopparapu,
Cc: Evan Dawson Jacob Haqq-Misra "Gran,
Rani C. (G~;FC : -130' "Shekhtman, LonnIe
[ADNET SYSTEMS INC]"
Deletion Page


From: Eyao DaW'i!lD
To: Adam frank : KoooaraDU. Rayi Kumar (GSFC-6990l
Ct:: Jamb Haqq -Misra : Gran Bani C {GSEC-1JOO1: Sbekbtman lonnie {GSfC-69!! Q)[ADNfT sysTFMS INCl : I::IiIQ!l:
Misra Jacob D {GSfC-6(!621fSrience Collaborator]
Subject: BE: IEXITRNAl] Radio interview
Dilte: Monday, July 12, 202.12:58:JJ PM
Hi everyone -
lpm it is . I'm go ing to follow up on a few points tomorrow; happy to lock down Ipm on Wednesday.
Evan
From: Adam Frank [mailto (b) (6)

Sent: Monday, July 12, 20219:27 AM
Cc: Evan Dawson Jacob Haqq-Misra Gran, Rani C. (GSFC-
1300) <rani.c.gran@nasa .gov>;Shekhtman, lonnie (GSFC-690.0) (ADNfT SYSTEMS INC]
Subject: Re : (EXTERNAL] Radio interview
If we could nail this down today that would be grand.
I am good noon or 1 this wednesday the 14th. I would prefer 1 pm.
My best
Adam
Adam Frank
U niversity of Rochester
R ochester New York 14627-01 71
http:Uwww.adamfrankscjence.com
On Ju19 , 202 1, at 4 :47 PM , A dam Frank

Deletion Page


From: Sbekbtman l onnie (GSEC-690 OlfApNfT SYSIFMS INC
To: KooparaPIJ, Rayi KYmar fGSFC-§9991 ; Evan [laWSOO; Adam Frank
C<co Haqq Misra Jamb p (GSfC-60621fScjeoce Collaborator]; Gran Rani C CGSfC 13(0)
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAl] Radio intefview
Date: Wednesday, July 14, 20219:36:29 AM
Evan,
I rea lly like the way you're thinking about this. I totally agree that UFOs shou ld not be the primary
focus of the discussion. The UFO topic is a nice hook, but a much more interest ing discussion would
be about what scientists are actua lly doing to find life out there. There's no speculation or
controversy: looking for evidence if life is one of NASA's primary drivers . There's technosignatures,
there's potentia lly habit able planets outside of ou r sola r system, there's James Webb Space
Telescope (which is about to launch), ocean worlds, Ma rs rovers and orbiters looking for dues of
past or present life, etc. Should be a fun discussion; your listeners are in for a treat !
Lonnie
Lonnie Shekhtman
301-614-6833
From: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar .kopparapu@nasa .gov>

Date: Wednesday, July 14, 202 1 at 9 :25 AM
To: Evan Dawson .(b) (6) Adam Frank .(b) (6)
Cc: " Haqq-Mi sra, Jacob D. (GSFC-6062)[Science Collabora t or]" "Gran,
Rani C. (GSFC-1300)" <rani.c.gran@nasa .gov>, "Shekhtman, Lonn ie (GSFC-690.0)[ADNET
SYSTEMS INC] " <Ionn ie.shekhtman@nasa .gov>
Subject: Re : [EXTER NAL] Radio interview
Hi Evan,
My phone number: (b) (6)
And I am a "Planetary Scientist at NASA Godda rd Space Flight Center"
And yes, let's separate the recent stuff on UAPs/UFOs and our work related to Technosignatures.
They are independent from each other. The first one needs a scientific investigation without
assumi ng anyth ing about their natu re (explained or not], and the second one (Technosignatu res) is
pointedly looking for other technological civi lizations that we are proposing to ca rry out with
traditional astronomica l sea rches. There are nuances in both that cannot be broadly brushed. That
is the point I am hoping to discuss.
Ravi

emai l: ravjkumaLkoooaraou@oasa .goy
From: Eva n Dawson ~

Date: Wed nesday, July 14, 202 1 at 9:09 AM
To: Adam Fra nk .(b) (6) " Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)"
<ravikumar .koppa rap u@nasa.gov>
Cc: "Haqq -Mis ra, Jacob D. (GSFC-6062 )[Science Collabora t or]" ~ "Gra n,
Ra ni C. (GSFC-1300)" < ran i. c.gran@nasa .gov>, "Shekhtma n, Lonnie (GS FC-690.0)[ADNET
SYSTEMS INC]" <Ionn ie.shekhtma n@nasa .gov>
Subject: Re : [EXTER NAL] Rad io interview
Good morn ing everyone -
As Adam Frank and I have discussed, I don't wa nt t o make t his conversat io n today ent irely
about the recent obsess io n with the declassified videos. I realize t hat t he ge nera l public has
bee n buzz ing about t hem . My ow n pe rso nal view -- pe rhaps a bias -- is that it 's a mistake for
t he med ia to t reat t he vi deos w it h such open speculat ion abo ut ali ens. Every video we've seen
so far, and every photograph, has ended up wit h a nat ural ex planat ion. A smudge on a came ra
lens, or a bug. A wea t her ba ll oon . Etc etc.
I t hink t here's rea l pot ent ial harm with st oking the public's belief in th is st uff. But I also tend to
believe t hat , just based on mat h, we're un like ly t o be the o nly technological civilizat io n that
has exi sted. I just haven't see n evide nce that confirms t his idea.
But maybe you fee l d ifferent ly, and yo ur expe rt ise is more important t ha n my lay specu lat io n.
So yes, we'll address t he recent videos and report.
I'd also like to give you t ime t o discuss yo ur work, and your views on how we can best
app roach -- or how w e can scient ifica lly app roach -- findi ng answers t o t hese quest ions.
I'll just need t he best phone number to call for our producer to lock you into the show. She
will ca ll around 103pm, during the NPR newsbreak. We start at 106.
I'll also need the exact title you want me to use to in t roduce you.
And if there are any discussion points that I'm missing, please feel free to send them my way.
l ooking forward to this! Cheers-
Evan
From: Adam Frank ·(b ) (6)

Sent: f riday, July 9,20214:47 PM
To: Kopparapu, Ravi Ku mar (GSFC-6990) <ravi kumar.koppa rapu @nasa.gov>
Cc: Evan Dawson Jacob Haqq- Misra Gran, Ra ni C. (GSFC-
1300) <ranLc.gran@nasa.gov>;Shekhtman, l onnie (GSfC-690.0)[ADNET SYSTE M S INC]
Subject: Re: (EXTERNAL] Radio interview
Deletion Page


Fro m: Beattjz Yillarroel
To: Jacob Hagg Mjsra; Hagg-Mjsra. Jacob P. (GSFC-6Q62)[Scjeoce Collaborator]
C<co !<oooarapu Bayj Kumar (GSEC-699Q)
Subject: Be: [EXTERNAl] Fwd: Tentative AGENDA for the IM SEll Permanent Committee"s ONUNE MEETING to be held
on Wednesday, June 23rd, 2021.
Date: Thursday, July 15, 202112 :45:53 PM
I am even more confused now.
Den tors 15 juli 202 1 kl 00:46 skrev Jacob Haqq Misra ~

No idea about the rAC. I guess we will have to wait a n~ e d quite sudden.
wrote:
I'm in complete agreement with your statement that we will shift away from the previous
taboo.
We need to make collective efforts, thereafter. The UAP question won't solve itself
without
some coordinated strategies ...
What achlally happened to the Majority and the Minority rep0l1, and
actually -- what happened to the rAC meeting? I never lmderstood why
it was cancelled or even why Claudio left. It all came so suddenly,
and without Claudio there is no rAC.
lIB .
Den man 12 juli 202 1 kl1 6: 10 skrev Jacob Haqq Misr a _

Hi Beatriz and Ravi,
Yes, I did read the report (within the hour of it being released), and I have already had a
couple of media inquiries about it. Doesn't seem like any have been published yet.
I wa s not surprised by the lack of a data relea se, and the short 9 pages was disappointing
but expected.
Even so, I do find the repol1 to be a step in the right direction because it explicitly
identifies UAP as an outstanding and important problem for which more data collection
is needed. Yes, this is what we have been saying, but this is a depal1ure from the
conclusion of the Condon Rep0l1 and the subsequent lack of interest by govel1l111ent
agencies to systematically Shldy UAP. The report also seems to me to be calling for
greater coordination among federal agencies to better identify UAP. The fact that
"expand collection" and "increase investment in R&D" are two conclusions of the report
is telling and an imp0l1ant shift from previous attihldes of taboo.
We will see what comes of this next.
Jacob
On SlID Julll 202 1 at 9·14 AM Beatriz Villarroel
.(b) (6) wrote:
HI RavI!
I have become a member of a scientific society "per invitation".
It was a - 1.5 - 2 hours UAP session, with invited comments.
Two US militaries and myself gave comments on the repol1. One
of them also slIDl1llarized the report and brought in extra infonnation
that wasn't explicit in the public report, but that he had fust hand access to.
On the first read through, I read the report as agnostic and "more data is needed".
Then I read it a second time, and mlless they have actually updated the online
version, I think there is more to it than what first meets the eyes.
lIB .
Den son 11 jllli 202 1 kl1 5:0 1 skrev Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)
<rayjkumar.kopparapu@nasa.goy>:
Hi Beatriz,
The report is as expected. Non-committal and agnostic. As we have been saying all
along, the report also concludes that we need to more data collection.
What kind of an UAP session did you give yom opinion? Was that a conference?
Ravi
Ravi IamIar Kopparapu
email: rayWuuar.kopparapu@nasa.goy
From: Beatriz Villarroel (b) (6)
Date: 10, 2021 at 12:40 PM
D. (GSFC-6062)[Science Collaborator]"
~;. ~KlIrna r (GSFC-6990)" < ravilmwar,kol2parapu@na sa.goy>

Subject: Re: Fwd: Tentative AGENDA for the IAA SETI
Pennanent COlllmittee's Vl"L.Ll"oMEETING to be held all Wednesday, Jlme 23rd,
2021.
Hi Jacob and Ravi!
How are you both doing? What did you think: of the UAP report?
I yesterday had an opporhmity to give an "expert opinion"
on a UAP session. I lea11led quite some things I didn't know!
(And don't know if they are tme,)
lIB.
Den tors 17 juni 2021 kl17 :50 skrev Jacob Haqq Misra _
Congrahtiations! Yes, arxiv will probably gain some attention for this.
Has there been any media interest yet?
On Thil. JUll 17. 2021 at 7:22 AM Beatriz Villanoel

(b)(6) wrote:
So far , nothing, but we haven't posted it on arXiv yet :)
I thought of waiting a little bit.
Den tors 17 juni 2021 k1 13:19 skrev Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)
<rayjkulllar kopparapll@nasa goy>:
I Thanks Beatriz. Any feedback from anyone?

From: Beatriz Villarroel (b )(6)
Date: Thursday, lIme 17,2021 at 6:37 AM
Collaborator] "
[EUERNflL] Fwd: Tentative AGENDA for the IAA SET!

Pennanellt COlllmittee's ONLINE MEETING to be held Oll Wednesday, lWIe
23rd, 2021.
Hi Jacob and Ravi,
Here is the published version of om paper, finally out:
https 'lIwww nahlre cOllllarticles/s41 598 -02 1-92 J 62-7
lIB .
Den tis 1 jUlli 2021 kl1 8:54 skrev Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)
<raviknmar.kopparapu@llasa,gov>:
Thank: you!
From: Beatriz VillalToel (b) (6)

Date: Tuesday, Jime 1, 2021 at 12:51 PM
D. (GSFC-6062)[Science Collaborator]"
CKNAL] Fwd: Tentative AGENDA for the IAA SETI

Pennanent COlllmittee's ONLINE MEETING to be held on Wednesday,
Jime 23rd, 202 1.
Thanks a lot! I'd be happy to read the paper you have in review -- and I
shall also
read the Nitron dioxide paper the coming days.
Thanks for sending the minority and majority report -- this will be read
today.
Of course, I will not share the papers with anyone. In return, I attach links
to the paper
about the simultaneous transients (the files are big, and need to be
downloaded):
Error! Filename not specified. MainLetter.pdfError! Filename not specified.
Error! Filename not specified SuppInfo.pdfError! Filename not specified.
//B.
Den tis 1 juni 2021 kl 17:37 skrev Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)
<ravikumar.kopparapu@nasa.gov>:
Hi Beatriz,
Spectral technosignatures are those when we observe the atmosphere

spectra of a planet and see if we could detect any signs of extra-
terrestrial technology. Pollution caused by technological activity is one
such signature. Here is a paper that we published as an illustrative
example of how Nitrogen dioxide can be used as one such
technosignature:
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...908..164K/abstract
Jacob has a paper in review that discusses how Chloroflorocarbons

(CFCs) can be used to detect ET technology. The wonderful thing about
this pollutant is that JWST may be able to detect CFCs on Trappist-1e,
faster than bio-signatures, if present. Jacob can send you the paper, if
you want.
As for the IAA SETI UAP report, the majority report proposes to
exclude UAP abstracts for consideration, and also suggests to propose
criteria under which such abstracts would be acceptable to IAA SETI. I
am attaching both the maj ority and minOlity reports with this email. I
request that you to limit the distribution to only the three of us for now,
Imtil the cOlllmittee makes it public.
Thanks
Ravi
From: Beatriz Villarroel (b) (6)

Date: Tuesday, Jime 1, 2021 at 12:06 PM
D . (GSFC-6062)[Science Collaborator]"
. KlUnar (GSFC-6990)"
<ravil,llllar,kopparapu@1l3sa. gov>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Tentative AGENDA for the IAA
SEll PelTIl3nent Committee's ONLINE MEETING to be held Oll
Wednesday, June 23rd, 2021.
Spectral techllosignatmes sOlmds really exciting! Is it a new work or a

published one aheady?
I'm looking vel)' much forward to hear more.
I really hope you will have an opportunity to say something about the
minority report. I share
the same sentiments as you do about UAPs. I haven't quite followed the
status of the majority
report -- what is the current conclusion from Jason Wright et al. ?
I haven't heard anything more from Claudio. AA
D~ 16:35 skrev Jacob Haqq Misra

~
Agreed that it is w0l1h contacting Claudio to share about some of your
efforts with VASCO in Africa .
For the UAP part of the agenda, Jason is planning on leading the
conversation and will talk about the majority and minority rep0l1s. We
may have an opporhmity to say something briefly about the minority
rep0l1.
The astrobiology and SETI item on the agenda I believe is for us to

talk about spectral technosignahues, including some of the work we
have done and also mentioning the NExSS TS working group.
On Tue Jun I 202 1 at 9·47 AM Beatriz Villarroel

.(b) (6) wrote:
I hope that toof :-)
Den tis 1 jlmi 2021 ki14:46 slcrev Kopparapu, Ravi Klllllar (GSFC-
6990) <rayjkllIuar kopparapll@na sa goy>:
Wonderful f I hope they will get a chance to share their work.

(b) (6)
Date: Tuesday, Jlme 1, 202 1 at 9:43 AM
~: D ~ . ( G~S F ~C -602)[Scien Collaborator]"
toKm;LjFwd: Tentative AGENDA for the

IAA SET! Pel1llanent Committee's ONLINE MEETING to be
held on Wednesday, Jlme 23rd, 2021.
Hi Ravif
Thank: you so much for yom kind help. I wrote a small note to
Claudio about it,
and recommended him to contact either Onyeuwaoma or Khaoula

regarding the citizen science effo11s.
He hasn't replied yet --let's see where it lands :)
liB.
Den tis 1 juni 202 1 kl14 :33 skrev Kopparapu, Ravi KUlllar
(GSFC-6990) <ravilmmar.kol1l1arapu@nasa.gov>:
Hi Beatriz,
I think you defrnitely should ask Claudio to include the African

eff0l1 in the SET!. You are the PI of the project, so yom
initiative in highlighting the great work of your team members
will go a long way in recognizing their efforts by the
international SEll COlllllllullty. If you cannot or do not want to,
I could ask Claudio.
Ravi
Cc: '
Collaborator] "
Subject: Re: AGENDA for the
IAA SETI Pennanent COllllnittee's ONLINE IvIEETING to be
held on Wednesday, lWIe 23rd, 2021.
Hi Ravi!
I think we will get am referee reports within one or two weeks.

I saw that one referee
already gave back the report within one hour of receiving the
paper -- so if the second
isn't too late it might come soon... Once I have the paper
accepted, I'll send it to you.
Yes, they are doing absolutely amazing efforts with the citizen
science project.
Our leading figures coordinating the citizen science efforts are

Khaoula Laggoune and Zeyneb Aissani
in the Sirius Astronomy Association that involved several

different amateur astronomy groups in North
Africa, and Onyeuwaoma Nnaemeka Dom at the Center for

Basic Space Science in Nigeria who involved many
students and scientists in Nigeria and Cameroon. In Nigeria,

they struggle a lot with accessibility to basic
tools as computers -- many of the researchers and students

there don't even have Internet. So I've been
applying for grants to pay their wifi connection, at least. I can't

even express how valuable work
they are doing. Even if we don't find ET in the long run, I

really wish the VASCO citizen science project can help to
inspire
the students into astronomy in less economically privileged

countries and be a helpful tool in their astronomy
education. The plan is to summarize our common efforts

together into a paper after summer and submit to ApJ or AJ.
Best wishes,
B.
Den tis 1 juni 2021 kl13:53 skrev Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar
(GSFC-6990) <rayik'1unar.kapparapu @nasa.goy>:
Hi Beatriz,
I had not realized that many African cOlmtries are part of (or
leading) the VASCO citizen science. This certainly should
be brought up to Claudio's attention. Otherwise, people will
not know or think that there is an active SET! search is going
on over there .
I am not hopeful that the UAP repmi will give us anything

new. But we will see.
Ok, let' s see what the reviewers comments are about the
paper. When are you expecting them?
I think Jason is scheduled to bring up UAP. Jacob and I are

scheduled for an astrobiology session time, which I am not
sure what it is about. Perhaps Jacob knows.
Best
Ravi

.(b) (6)
Date: Tuesday, Jlme 1, 2021 at 8:24 AM
To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kmnar (GSFC-6990)"
<ray jkulllar kQl1Parapu@nasa goy>, ,
(GSFC-6062)[Science Collaborator]"
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Tentative
IAA SET! Penllanent Committee's ONLINE MEETING to
be held on Wednesday, June 23rd, 2021.
Hi Ravi and Jacob!
I just saw on the IAA SEll program you will bring up

UAPs on the IAA SETI meeting. This is really great.
I'm looking forward. I'll join the meeting.
Claudio forgot the entire continent of Africa
for the "reports around the globe" section on the IAA SETI
meeting and their leading
role in the VASCO citizen science... we crossed 110 000

classifications
yesterday!
I'm quite wondering what the famous Pentagon UFO report

will show today.
I really hope whatever they bring up, won't be used as a

political means to stir
up a war...
I'm waiting for the second round of referee reports for the
"simultaneous transients"
paper. We included a fairly extensive discussion about the

possibility of glints from
small, metallic and flat objects on the orbits around the Earth
in 1950s, so I'm not sure
what the referees will say about it...
//B.
---------- FOlwarded message ---------
Subject Re : Tentative AGENDA for the IAA SEll

Pennanent Committee's ONLINE MEETING to be held on
Wedn~21.
To : ~
Hi Claudio,
You missed to include rep0l1s from Africa ..
lIB.
'Clawiio Maccone' via comnllllity
Dear SEll Supp0l1ers,
Please fmd attached herewith the Tentative AGENDA for

the IAA SETI Pelmanent Committee's ONLINE
MEETING to be held on Wednesday, June 23rd, 2021.
Suggestions welcome: if possible, I'll be glad to take them

into accoUllt.
Thanks for yom attention and best wishes.
Claudio (Maccone)
Chair, IAA SEll Pelmanent Committee
Find the IAA SETI website at: https:Ujaa seti,org

Find the upcoming SEll meeting calendar at:
https:Uiaaseti.org!eulmeetings/

https·llwww aiaa orglabouf/Goyemance/Code-of-Ethics
https:/Iwww,ajaa ,OJWabout/Goyeruance/Auti-Harassment-
I II Policy
--- To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
emails from it, send an email to
From: Njjo Abraham
To: Kevin Knuth; Peter Reali; Rya n Grayes: Pbjijooe Ajllerjs; tcl.M;
Cc: VilKffit P fI ARC- E1A Sch ultz ; Edward 1 Stanton lr; Schultz Vincent P fI ARC- E1A)
Subject: [EXTERNAl] Re : AIM AVIATION UAP Session: Updates and Requests
Date: Saturday, July 17, 20213:50:42 AM
Attachments: ruM UAr 2021 Abstracts ,pdf
ruM AlJ21 Short Bio,pdf
Good Moming Evelyone,
I hope you are doing well.

We are excited just as you are for tIus session and have been preparing for it in the background
arduously. There have been discussions going on in our cOllummity on this topic (for and
against) independent of our efforts. I hope our session will help solidify nonnalizing such
discussions and eventually translate to the scientific study we are looking for.
Few updates·
1. The abstracts were reviewed yesterday and have been approved.

Please find the attached document with all of the abstracts.
2. Also attached is the short bio of each of you I obtained via Google search.
The moderator will be using it to introduce you before your presentation.
If any changes are needed, let me know. If not, I will assume the version is fine as is.
3. Please note we would like to have the presentations sent to us by Aug 2nd, Monday.
4. We would like a short Zoom session to go through the logistics, lUles of engagement, etc.
prior to Aug 6th. I would like it to happen in a week or two before the 30th July. So expect
another email. If you are on vacation let me know.
Thank you for bearing with me when working on your abstracts to deliver a lmified message,
Nijo Abraham
DETC, AlAA
Deletion Page


Science of UAP - Past and Present
Ravi Kopparapu, Ph.D.

Planetary SCientist, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
The reported behavior of Unidentilied Aerial Phenomena (UAP), including their rapid acceleration and
maneuverability at high speeds, has generated significant discussion regarding the nature of these
objects. However, understanding their behaviour needs an interdisciplinary scientific investigation and
systematic collection of data that conforms to scientific method.
The talk will first summarize the findings of the preliminary assessment of Unidentified Aerial
Phenomena (UAP) provided by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DONI) that was
recently released. The Department of Defense Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force (UAPTF)
considered a range of infonnation on UAP described in U.S. military and Intelligence Community based
on reports that occurred between 2004 and 2021.
The talk will then briefly mention four cases from Prof. James Mc Donald's ·Science in Defaulf' report,
one of which was investigated by an AIM Subcommittee on UFOs from 1971. The objects discussed
in the document by Prof. Mc Donald seem to be exhibiting similar aerial behavior as recent Navy
reports. The document also provides a template to perform a thorough scientific investigation.
The talk will also discuss a short analysis, based only on the media reports (as comprehensive hard
data is unavailable), on one aspect of the recent UAP incidents where the objects apparently
descended rapidly. Assuming the flight characteristics from these published accounts are valid,
possible time of descent of these objects under the influence of gravity in an environment with
atmospheric drag acting as resistance will be discussed. Actual radar observations that could provide
size and positional accuracy will be immensely helpful in estimating the aerodynamical parameters of
these objects under the assumption that these are not radar anomalies. Further analysis w~h any
available data is very crucial in understanding the flight dynamics. No speculation on the nature of
these objects will be considered.
The Flight Characteristics and Physics of UAP
Kevin Knuth, Ph.D.

Associate Chair of Physics, University at Albany (SUNY) NY
Editor-in-Chief, Entropy Journal
1. Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU), 2. UAP Expeditions, Inc. (UAPx), 3. Project
Starlight International, Maryland, USA
One of the useful products of the M TIP Program wes the establishment of the Five Observables,
which characterize the exceptional and anomalous characteristics of UAPs allowing for them to be
unambiguously distinguished from conventional aircraft.
In this presentation, we describe and illustrate several physical observables which are physical
effects incurred by or related to UAP that stand to shed light on the physics involved and the
engineering employed in their operation. We begin by summarizing the ranges of observed speeds
and accelerations and the fact that they are not hampered by traveling through air or water. Some of
the other physical observables involve temperatures of the craft, high electric and magnetic fields
replete with plasma sheaths, and optical distortions in the vicinity of the UAP. These physical
observables speak to some of the hypotheses involving UAP lift and propulsion. Moreover, these
physical observables are useful in informing the design of UAP detection and UAP characterization
hardware and software.
Since it is possible that different technologies may be involved, these physical observables could be
useful in further classifying UAP. It is also expected that the delineation and demonstration of
multiple physical effects of UAP will provide a new focus for scientists and engineers interested in
studying UAPs.
Anomalous Aerodynamic Physics demonstrated by the 2004 USS Nimitz UAP Encounter
Peter Reali
Board Director, ScientHic Coalition of UAP Studies
The author will present the evidence from the best modern documented UAP event, The 2004 USS
Nimitz encounter. This event involving six pilOts, four of them actually seeing the object up close
visually and two of them seeing and recording it on an FI8 FLIR [Forward looking Infrared Cameral,
along with two other Radar operators remotely located but recording unprecedented velocity and
accelerations on the then state of the art SPYI radar.
The SCU had interviewed these pilots and radar operetors a good year before the incident became
famous by being published in the New York Times. The provenance of the video has been
guaranteed by the government's statement that the videos are real and the objects reported are of an
unknown nature and exhibit aerodynamic behavior far beyond the capability of the best technology
available today.
The presenter will examine 3 separate analyses from this incident that calculate the veloCity,
acceleration, and power requirements to perform the described maneuvers. A brief mention will be
made of one of the more modern videos and its anomalous behavior. The author will show that these
calculations demonstrate kinematics that violate current known laws of physics and aerodynamics.
An argument will be made on why this is important for the scientific community to take these reports
seriously and how it gives an existence proof of the possibility of developing ground breaking
advancements in our current science and technology.
Eye Witness Account: Persistent Detection of Non·Partlclpatlng Aircraft by USN Tactical

Aircraft (2014 • present)
Ryan Graves
U.S. Navy F/A-18F Pilot (Fonner)
Principal Investigator within R&D in defense industry (Current)
Navy F/A-18E1F aircraft equipped w~h APG-79 AESA radar have been detecting UnidentHied Aerial
Phenomena (UAP) regularly while operating in training ranges on the East and West Coast of the
Un~ed States. As reported by the UAP Task Force (UAPTF), there have been eleven 'near-miss'
reports by US Navy aircrew. While particular theories about providence may be dismissed, we
cannot dismiss the safety of flight risk these unknowns represent.
This presentation will be focused on discussing areas of scientific interest and evaluative measures,
with the u~imate goal of mitigating this flight safety risk and better understanding its circumstances.
UAP and Civil Aviation: Trends and Statisticslrom 20 Years 01 Reaearch
Ted Roe
Director of Research, National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena (NARCAP)
For over 100yrs pilots have been reporting observations and incidents involving unusual lights and
objects. Many of these reports include aviation safety factors like near midair collisions, collision
headings, close pacing, loss of separation, concurrent failures of electrical systems, direct physical
effects on aircrews like night blindness, intermittent radar detections, and intrusions into Class B
restricted airspace.
Though there have been many of these incidents and observations, the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) and the aviation system does not accept pilot reports of UAP and has made no
effort to understand these incidents and mitigate safety factors.
The National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena, NARCAP, was founded in 1999
to document and analyze these unusual reports, identify and explore trends in the data, examine
and understand the sociological and psychological factors that may affect reporting and study, and
promote further research and analysis by the aviation system and the science community through
publication and outreach. NARCAP adopted the reporting protocols of the confidential FAA Aviation
Safety Reporting System.
UAP observations and incidents involving aviation safety factors continue to be reported. Analysis of
UAP reports reveals four primary UAP profiles with common characteristics and unique flight
dynamics. Examinations of the sociological and psychological effects on witnesses and reporting
reveal an under-reporting bias among pilot witnesses and a refusal to engage the reports by aviation
authorities.
This presentation will include data and statistics that support statements, suggest trends in the data,
that may indicate new avenues of inquiry.
Mitigating Flight Safely Hazards: Towards Better Detection and Characterizstion 01 UAP
Philippe Ailleris
Project Controlier, European Space Agency"
Board Member, UFODATA
r The presentation is IItIdfJrtaksn lIS persons/ worn; not 6t'Idorsed IISI8888t'Ch activity by ESA)
The Aviation community is confronted by a lack of situational awareness regarding the UAP topiC,
potentially representing an in-flight safety hazard. Despite that for over 70 years, civilian and military
aircraft's pilots have reported many encounters with 4C objects ,. or « light phenomena,. which do not
exhibit the appearances or ftight characteristics of any known man-made or natural phenomena, no
progress has been made in learning more about the nature of UAP.
Following the publication of the United States Intelligence community's UAP report, this presentation
will highlight that some concrete strategies and plans of action can be envisaged for an unbiased
UAP scientific research. Such an effort could contribute to increased air safety in UAP encounters
with ai rcrafts.
A first recommended action, is to request access to databases of aviation incident reports (e.g.,
Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) in the USA, Mandatory Occurrence Reporting (MOR) in
the UK) and to extract UAP near-misses or sightings by civilian aircrafts. Such a comprehensive
study would be the first of its kind to examine official databases specifically for UAP encounters.
Next, we propose to examine Earth Observation (EO) satellite databases and search for imagery
data originating from the same UAP events. Retrieving such correlated data would provide important
information and help to predict eventual future occurrences. A complementary strategy would be to
use Artificial Intelligence techniques to analyse EO data sets in search of UAP. We will discuss a
potential application, using an image product acquired by the Sentinel-2 Multi-Spectral instrument
and list potential characteristics that could serve as searching criteria.
In conclusion, we will emphasize that only a systematic collection and sharing of detailed testimonies
from pilots and an open research by the scientific community will permit to learn more about UAP and
contribute to safer airspace.
z -0co
~o Z
~
0
-I-
~-«
U
=>
0
~
«:> I-
-z
SCIENCE OF UAP - PAST AND PRESENT
• Ravi Kopparapu. Ph.D.

Planetary Scientist. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
• His research interests are extrasolar planet habitability. atmosphere modeling and
characterization and. identifying technosignatures
• Awards: NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal. 2020

THE FLIGHT CHARACTERISTICS AND PHYSICS
OFUAP
• Kevin Knuth, Ph.D.

• Associate Chair of Physics, University at Albany (SUNY) NY
• Editor-in-Chief, Entropy Journal
• His other current roles include Member of the Board of Directors of the Dudley
Observatory, Editorial Board of Axioms journal, among others.
• Also served as a Research Scientist,lntelligent Systems Division, NASA Ames Research
Center.
• His research Areas are Quantum Mechanics and Physics, Relevance and Maximum Entropy,
and High-Quality Bayesian Data Analysis
ANOMALOUS AERODYNAMIC PHYSICS
DEMONSTRATED BYTHE 2004 USS NIMITZ UAP
ENCOUNTER
• Peter Reali
• Board Director, Scientific Coalition of UAP Studies (SCU)
• He is a retired electrical design engineer/manager from Silicon Valley.
• He earned his Bachelors and Masters in Electrical Engineering from University of

California, Berkley.
• At Silicon Valley, his specialty was in telecommunications, information technologies, where

he designed network communication systems, fiber optic ring networks and timing
synchronization.
EYE WITNESS ACCOUNT: PERSISTENT
DETECTION OF NON-PARTICIPATING AIRCRAFT
BY USN TACTICAL AIRCRAFT (2014 - PRESENT)
• Lt. Ryan Graves

• Former. U.S. Navy F/A-ISF Pilot who served for over 10 years.
• Current. Principal Investigator within R&D in defense industry

UAPAND CIVILAVIATION:TRENDSAND
STATISTICS FROM 20YEARS OF RESEARCH
• Ted Roe
• Director of Research. National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena
(NARCAP)
• He co-founded NARCAP (National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous

Phenomena). along with Dr. Richard Haines (a NASA Ames Senior Research Scientist)
during 1999.
• NARCAP documents and analyze UAP reports from pilots. explores trends in the data.
and promotes research and analysis through publication and outreach. NARCAP is a
non-profit research group.
MITIGATING FLIGHT SAFETY HAZARDS:
TOWARDS BETTER DETECTION AND
CHARACTERIZATION OF UAP
• Philippe Ailleris
• Project Controller. European Space Agency*
• Board Member. UFODATA

(* The presentation is undertaken as personal work; not endorsed as research activity by ESA)
• UFODATA is a project advocating to utilize a large network of automated surveillance

stations with sophisticated sensors to monitor the skies 24/7 looking for aerial
anomalies.
• In 2009. he also founded the UAP Observations Reporting Scheme Project. that collects
UAP reports from the astronomical community.
From: Keyjn Knuth
To: Njjo Abraham
C<co Edward 1 Stanton lr; Pete,.- Reali; Philippe Ajl!erjs; Rayj Kumar (GSfC-6990) Kopparapu ; Ryan Graves ; Yioreot P
(I ARC E1A Schu ltz ; ted....we; Kppparapu Rayj Kumar (GSEC 6990) ; Schultz Yjoceot P (I ARC-E1A)
Subject: [EXTERNAl] Re: AIM AVIATION UAP Session: Updates and Requests
Date: Saturday, July 17, 20216:31:56 PM
Thank you N ijo!
I am very excited about this season.
I should note that my bio is mostly good. Please take out the Dudley Obselvatory as I am no
longer on the board.
I will be away on vacation dming the end of July, but it is likely that I will be able to fInd time
to pal1icipate in the zoom meeting.
Cheers
Kevin
On Sat, Jull 7, 2021 at 12:50 AM Nijo Abraham .(b) (6) wrote :

Good Morning Everyone,
I hope you are doing well.

We are excited just as you are for this session and have been preparing for it in the
background arduously. There have been discussions going on in om cOlll1nmlity on this
topic (for and against) independent of om eff0l1s. I hope om session will help solidify
nOimalizing such discussions and eventually translate to the scientific study we are looking
for.
Few updates:
I. The abstracts were reviewed yesterday and have been approved.

Please find the attached doclmlent with all of the abstracts.
2. Also attached is the short bio of each of you I obtained via Google search.
The moderator will be using it to introduce you before yom presentation.
If any changes are needed, let me know. If not, I will assume the version is fine as is.
3. Please note we would like to have the presentations sent to us by Aug 2nd, Monday.
4. We would like a short Zoom session to go through the logistic s, niles of engagement, etc.
prior to Aug 6th. I would like it to happen in a week or two before the 30th July. So expect
another email. If you are on vacation let me know.
Thank you for bearing with me when working on yom abstracts to deliver a unified
message,
Nij o Abraham
DETC, AIAA
On Tue, Jun29 , 2021 at 7:25 PM Nij o Abraham wrote:

Hello Team,
AIAA had a meeting today to discuss this session. The following were the outcomes. W
me know if allY concerns.
By COB Friday, July 2nd, please send: (for advertising on program website)
- Title of Presentation
- Job TitlelDesignation
- Profile picture (any fonnat)
By COB Wednesday, July 7th, please send:

- Abstract « 300 words)
By COB Monday. Aug. 2nd, please send:

- Slides
- Expect attendance of greater than 100 aerospace professionals

- Proposed schedule attached
- 3 hours presentation + 1 hour panel session + two 10 min breaks
- Air Traffic Management technical committee will be co-sponsoring this session with the
Design Engineering technical c01ll1llittee. TIlis effort will enable greater visibility and
participation
- AlAA will be adve11ising this event for maximUlll pal1icipation.
- Vince Schultz (NASA Langley) and Ed Stanton (AIAA + fornler NASAlLockheed) will
be co-moderators
- We will be scheduling a Zoom session during last week of July with all the presenters
together to ensure C01ll1llon message, internet connection checks , lUles of engagement.
Concerns/Questions?
Nijo Abraham
DETC , AIAA

Albany NY 12222
http ·/lkullthlaborg
From:
To: """"'"
Bay! Kumar (GSfC-6990l Kooparapu : Kowi!rapu , Bayi IWmar (GSfC-6990l
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: AIM AVIATION UAP Session: Updates and Requests
Date: SabJrday, July 17, 20216:57:46 Pf.I
Of course Ravi,
Nijo
On Ju11 7, 2021 at 6:54 PM, <Rayj Kumar (GSFC-699Q) Kopparapn> wrote:
Hi Nijo,
Could you add
"Lead, Sellers Exoplanet Environment Collaboration (SEEC) at NASA Goddard"
to my bio?
Thanks
Ravi

Greenbelt MD 2077 1
email: ravjklJmar kopparaplJ@nasa €oy

Date: Saturday, July 17, 20 21 at 3:50 AM
To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" qayjkllmar kopparapll@nasa !':oy>, Kevin Kn uth
.(b) (6) Peter Reali .(b) (6) Ryan Graves
(b) (6) • h ilippe Ailleris .(b)(6) t ed roe
;;l1iflQenJ:.p..sd1llltzJ!jlrl<lliW:<"'->" "Edwa rd J. St a n to n Jr"

Deletion Page


From: I<eyin Knuth
To: MOO Abraham
C<, Edward J. Stanton Jr: peter Reali: f'hiliooe AjIIerjs; Bayj Kumar CGSfC.§99!!l Kopparapu: Ryan Grayes; yll!!.mt P.
ClABC-E1A Schultz: ~ Kopparnpu. 8ayj KUmar 'GSFC-6290': Schultz. y.x;CO!: p. ClABC-E1A)
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: AIM AVIATION UAP St'ssion: Zoom Meeting Date Request
Date: Tuesday. July 20, 2021 11 :15:01 AM
Hello Nijo
I will be traveling that week, but I can probably make either time work.
Cheers
Kevin
Deletion Page


To: MOO Abraham; Keyjn Knuth; peter Reali; Ryan Graves: Ph~ipe AilIeris: WI...rz
C<, Scbultz.vlnre1ll: e
HABC·ElA): Edward J. Stanton k
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL) AlAA AVIATION UAP Session: Zoo", Meeting Dale Request
Date: Tuesday, July 20, 202 1 11:19;56 AM
Hi Nijo,
I can do Thursday July 29, Spm - 6pm.
Best
Ravi
Ravi Kopparapu
Greenbelt, MD 20771
email : rayjkumar,koppara pu@nasa goy
From: Nijo Abraham . (b) (6)

Date: Tuesday, July 20, 202 1 at 11:09 AM
To: "Kopparapu, Ravi Kumar (GSFC-6990)" <ravikumar.kc'pr,arap'u@)n<lSa g(lV>
.(b) (6)
Philippe Ailleris
Deletion Page


Froll1: Ryan Graves
To: NijoAbrnham
Cc:
II
Subject: [EXTERNAl] Be: AlAA AVIATION UAP Session: Zoom Meeting Date Request
Dilte: Tue!rlay, July 20, 202111:59 :49 AM
I can do either time with a preference on Thursday.
Ryan
On Ju120, 2021 , at II :58 AM, Nijo Abraham .(b) (6) wrote:
Gentlemen,
the proposed timings below are for EST.
On Tue, Ju120, 2021 at 11:06 AM Nijo Abraham (b) (6)

wrote:
Hello Team,
As mentioned last week, we would like to have a I-hour Zoom meeting with
everyone to discuss the rules of engagement, progression of the 4-hom session,
introduce om two moderators and fellow speakers, and other logistics.
Proposed dates/times: (in order of preference)

I) Friday, 30th July, 5:00pm - 6:00pm, OR
2) Thursday, 29th July, 5:00pm - 6:00pm
Let me know if any conflicts by this Friday, 23rd July.
Regards,
Nijo Abraham
DETC, AIAA
On Sat, Ju11 7, 2021 at 3:49 AM Nijo Abraham .(b (6

Deletion Page


From: Feldstein Karen C ' HQ-JNK!Ill
To: Gold Michael N. tHO-MOOn)
Subject: Re : UFO Task force
Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 10:5 1:02 PM
Oh boy!
From: "Gold, M ichael N. (HO-AAOOO)" <m ichael.n.gold@nasa.gov>

Date: Tuesday, August IS, 2020 at 10 :50 PM
To: Karen Feldstein <karen .c.feldstein@na sa.gov>
Subject: UFO Task Force
https:l/www.defense.gov!Newsroom!Releases!Rel ease!Artici e12314065!esta bl ishment-of-

unidentified aerial phenomena task force!
Mike Gold
Acting Associate Administrator
Office of lntemational and Interagency Relations
NASA Headquarters
(D'''k) - 202-358-3808
(Cell)
From: KIf'ffff Margaret (HO-lli001!l
To: Flynn. Davjd T. (HQ-llilJOO) : Meidj[)Qf[ Jolene A. O-IO;Il10Q(l)
Subject: RE: OIIR Acress ill Systems - Week of September 14
Date: Friday, September 11, 2020 5:20:50 PM
Copy, and that works. M
From: Flynn, David T. (HQ-THOOO) <davidJlynn@nasa.gov>

Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 S:19 PM
To: Meidinger, Jolene A. (HQ-THOOO) <jolene .meidinger@nasa.gov>; Kieffer, Margaret (HQ-THOOO)
<margaret.kieffer@nasa .gov>
Subject: RE: OUR Access to Systems - Week of September 14
Marga ret/Jolene
I think I need to do (b) (5)
AltllOLlgn I asked for a bell ringer I don't think I can reply upon t hat. I see MK is in the
afternoon, I'll come in around 10 am and do our Monday t agup at HQ and then leave. I'l l use the 6 th
floor in case MK wants to use t he 5 th floor room in advance of her meetings.
David
From: Meidinger, Jo lene A. (HQ-THOOO) < jolene.mejdjnger@nasa.goy>

Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 S:12 PM
To: Feldstein, Karen C. (HQ-TAOOO) <karen.c.feldstejn@nasa.goy>
Cc: Kieffer, Ma rga ret (HQ-THOOO) <margaret.kjeffer@oasa.goy>; Flynn, David T. (HQ-THOOO)
<dayjd.flynn@nasa.goy>; McKay, Meredith (HQ-TEOOO) <meredjth.mckay@nasa.goy>; Kirkham, Gib
(HQ-TGOOO) <gjb.kjrkbam@oasa.goy>; Bress, Kent G. (HQ-TFOOO) <kent.g.bress@oasa.goy>
Subject: OUR Access to Systems - Week of September 14
Karen :
Below is a quick look at the OUR personnel accessing systems next week. The full OUR roster is
attached for your awareness.
Have a great weekend !
Meetings in OPS Space ICH29 or 6069)

• 09/14/20: Briefing on Activities of the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force (Jim
Morhard, Susan Gillen, M ike Gold, you, and Margaret Kieffer)
Best regards,
Jolene
Jolene A. Meidinger
Interagency liaison
Office of International and Interagency Relations
Designated Federal Officer

NSpC UAG National Security Subcommittee
NASA Headquarters
Office : 202-358-3880
I
jolene mejdjnger@nasa goy
(b) (6)
OI1R Senior leadership activated the OI1R SOP for Access to Secure Systems to Support Stage
Essential to address OIiR access
NASA Response Framework Stage 2-3: OIiR Esse ntial Personnel Rotation Roster
Updated: 09/11/20
The following roster lists the OIiR essential personne l that will access secure systems upon activation of
th is plan during NASA Response Framework Stage 3. The roster will be updated to record which
personnel reported to HQ and to track proposed report dates.
04/ 29/ 20
07/ 30/ 20
08/ 18/20
08/ 19/ 20
08/ 31/ 20
Deletion Page
Requester: _Jo_hn_G_re_e_n_ew_a_ld_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Requst # :~21 ~-HQFO 6~O3 ~ _________________________
3
Page(s) is/are being withheld in full
by NASA and the following marked
exemption(s) is/are being claimed.
EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED:
FOlA: 5 U.S.C. § 552
D b(l ) D b(2) D b(3):

D b(4) El b(5) El b(6) D b(7XA) D b(7XC) D b(7)(D)
D b(7)(E) D b(7)(F)
PRIVACY ACT: 5 V .S.c. § 552.
D d(5) D j(l) D j(2) D k(l ) D k(2) D k(3)
D k(4) D k(5) D k(6) D k(7)
Inter-agency document listing essential personel

Description of DOCUlllellt withheld: and security statuses
-------------------------
From : Gold. Michael N. 'tK>-MOQO)
To: McKay. Meredith 'HO-TEOOO): Kieffer· Maroaret (HO-ltlOOO): feIdstein. Karen C. 'HO-!A!XXl)
C<, Aynn. Qayjd L lHQ.JHOOO): Mejdjnger. Jolene A. 'HO-D1000): Kjrkham. Gib (HO;JGOOO): Mcsweeney. Depnis
( HO·TGOOO) : Parks. Andy (HQ-TEOOO); Finley. Patrjc.k T (HO-TEOOO)
Subject: Rf: UPOA.Tt: RE: Draft OIlR Weekly Report 09-10
Da t e: San.day, September-12, 2020 11:17:24 AM
Thanks for the heads-up Meredith. As soon as we get a solid date please let me know.
- Mike
From : McKay, Meredith (HQ-TE()(x)) <meredith.mckay@nasa.gov>

Sent: Friday, September 11, 2020 10:02 AM
To : Kieffer, Margaret (HQ-THOOO) <margaret.kieffer@nasa.gov>;Gold, Michael N. (HQ-AA()(x))
<michael.n.gold@nasa.gov>; Feldstein, Karen C. (HQ-TAOOO) <karen.c.feldstein@nasa.gov>
Cc: Flynn, David T. (HQ-THOOO) <david.fiynn@nasa.gov>; Meidinger, Jolene A. (HQ-THOOO)
<jolene.meidinger@nasa.gov>; Kirkham, Gib (HQ-TGOOO) <gib.kirkham@nasa.gov>; Mcsweeney,
Dennis (HQ-TGOOO) <dennis.mcsweeney@ nasa.gov>; Parks, Andy (HQ-TE()(x))
<andrew.d.parks@nasa.gov>; Finley, Patrick T (HQ-TEOOO) <patrick.t.finley@nasa.gov>
Subject: UPDATE: RE : Draft OIiR Weekly Report 09-10
Importance: High
Edit to one entry-Late breaking news:
Best guess, t hey may want
From : Kieffer, Ma rgaret (HQ-TH()(x)) <man:aret kjetier@nasa eov>

Sent: Thu rsday, September 10, 20209:13 PM
To: Gold, Michoel N. (HQ-AAOOO) <michoel.n.gold@noso,goy>; Feldstein, Karen C. (HQ-TAOOO)
<karen.c feldstejn@nasa goy>
Cc: Flynn, David T. (HQ-TH()(x)) <dayidJlynn@nasa.gov>; Meidinger, Jolene A. (HQ-THOOO)
<jolene,mejdioger@oasa,gov>; McKay, Meredith (HQ-TE()(x)) <meredjth mckay@nasa i0V>;
Kirkham, Gib (HQ-TGOOO) <gib.kirkham@nasa.goy>; Mcsweeney, Dennis (HQ-TGOOO)
<dennis.mcsweeney@nasa.gov>; Bress, Kent G. (HQ-TF()(x)) <kent i bress@nasa e0V>; Rausch,
Diane (HQ-T(xx)()) <diane.rausch@nasa.gov>; Flemi ng, Devon C. (HQ-TBOOO)
<devon.c.f1eming@nasa.goy>
Subject: Draft OIl R Weekly Report 09-10
Mike/Karen:
Courtesy of Jolene, below is the draft OUR weekly report for your review.
Jim:
From: Gold, Michael N. (HQ-AA000)
To: Bridenstine, James F. (HQ-AA000)
Cc: Morhard, James W. (HQ-AB000); Sherman, Gabriel J. (HQ-AH000); Jurczyk, Stephen G. (HQ-AI000); Saunders,
Melanie (HQ-AA000); Cremins, Tom (HQ-AH000); Cruz, Randy C. (HQ-AA000)[Affiliate]; Gillen, Suzanne M. (HQ-
VA000); Flaherty, Christopher J. (HQ-VA030); Kerwin, Mary D. (HQ-IA000); Inclan, Bettina (HQ-NA000); Jacobs,
Bob (HQ-NA000); Zurbuchen, Thomas H. (HQ-DA000); Bowersox, Kenneth D. (HQ-CA000); Feldstein, Karen C.
(HQ-TA000); Thomas, Camden D. (HQ-AA000); Mangum, Cathy H. (LARC-A); Yunaska, Kyle R. (HQ-AH000);
Lueders, Kathryn L. (KSC-CA000); Kieffer, Margaret (HQ-TH000)
Subject: OIIR Weekly Update
Date: Sunday, September 13, 2020 1:02:27 PM
Attachments: Draft Strengthening Implementation of China Restrictions Clean 9.13.20.docx
Jim, good afternoon to you and the rest of the crew. Below is the top-level weekly OIIR update. As
always, I’ll provide additional context and information at our various gaggles over the course of the
coming week.
Best,
- Mike
International
Telecon with the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA): On Wednesday,
September 16, I will speak with the Director of UNOOSA, Simonetta Di Pippo, to discuss the draft
Memorandum of Understanding between NASA and UNOOSA for cooperation in a variety of areas
including UNOOSA’s “Access to Space for All” initiative.
Bolstering the Implementation of China Restrictions: Last week the informal China restrictions
Tiger Team met for a second time to review proposed actions and assign responsibility for each
task. Attached is a summary of both what is currently being done regarding China restrictions for
research funded by NASA along with a series of holistic recommendations (divided into the
categories of: identify, inform, prevent, and enforce) to further strengthen our efforts.
UAE Training Agreement Public Announcement Postponed: At the request of the Mohamad bin
Rashid Space Center, the public announcement regarding the reimbursable agreement to train
Emirati astronauts at JSC has been postponed until next week to avoid conflicting with the signing of
the Abraham Accord on September 15th.
Marshall Association Artemis Accords Briefing: On Thursday, September 17, I’m speaking at a
meeting of the Marshall Association (a professional, employee service organization at NASA’s
Marshall Space Flight Center) to discuss the importance of the Artemis Accords and international
relations.
HEOMD AA Meeting with European Space Agency (ESA): On Tuesday, September 15, HEOMD AA
Lueders will hold a telecon with Dr. David Parker, ESA Director of Human Spaceflight and Robotic
Exploration, to discuss the International Space Station, Gateway, and potential future exploration
cooperation.
Interagency
Sub-Interagency Working Group (IWG) Forward Harmful Biological Contamination: On Tuesday,

September 15, NASA (OSMA and SMD) will lead a Sub-IWG virtua l meeting on forward harmful
contamination that will consider gaps and suggest inputs to the OSTP and NSpC-Jed IWG on
planetary protection. OIIR w ill participate.
NASA-Department of Energy (DOE) Teleconferen ce: On Wednesday, September 16, M for

Strategy and Plans Cremins and Deputy Chief of Staff Yunaska will participate in a weekly
teleconference with DOE senior policy advisors rega rding potential futu re act ivities. OIiR w ill
participate.
Briefing on Activities of the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force (UAPTF): At the request of
the UAPTF, Joel Montalbano, Ma rgaret Kiefer, Suzanne Gillen, and 1will receive a briefing on
activities of the Task Force via secure VTC. Per a public announcement, on August 4, 2020, Deputy
Secretary of Defense David l. Norq uist approved t he establishment t he UAPTF. The Department of
the Navy, under the cognizance of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and
Security, leads the UAPTF. Additional informat ion can be provided on the appropriate system .
M ike Gold
Acting Associate Administrator
Office of Intemational and Interagency Relations
NASA Headquarters
(Desk) - 202-358-3808
(C'lI) -~
Michaei.N,Gold@nasa.gov
September 2020
Recommendations for Strengthening Implementation of China Restrictions

Issue Response Current Actions Actions
Type
Identify •
Inform •
2
•
Prevent •
•
•
3
Enforce •
4
From: Krier Margaret (HQ-IljOOO)
To: Feldstein. Karen C. (l1Q-JA/lflfl)
C<co Gpld Mjrbael N (HO-AAOOQ)
Subject: Re : UAP bnefing - no KG'
Date: Moodily, September 14, 202:0 1:05:37 PM
Copy. Absolutely not worth your time or attention. Hopefully there is nothing to report out
other than Suzanne Mike and Jim enj oyed the infol1nation.
On: 14 September 2020 12:48, "Feldstein, Karen C. (HQ-TAOOO)"

<karen.c.feldstein@nasa.gov> wrote :
Hey Margaret, I didn 't realize I had calendar for today and
needless to say I'm not in the office.
I'll have to catch up another time in appropriate facilities.
K.
From: Feldstein, Karen C. (HQ-TA000)
Subject: <no subject>
Date: Friday, September 25, 2020 4:41:52 PM
Ask Sherice to coordinate with jay Stratton – for the boss.
Tasker from boss

Gabe and randy
Ufo brief find time 29-30 half day 1st
Outside briefer would be part of it,make the request and aval, kif not
mike gold and discuss with team briefed.
From: KIf'ffer Margaret (HO-IlJO()(ll
To: Meidinger· Jolene A. ( HQ-ll1OQO)
Ct:: Flynn Davjd T (HQ-IH()OOl
Subject: RE: Round 2 - UAP Briefing
Date: Monday, September 28,20201:07:13 PM
Interest ing. Support funding/support goi ng t he wrong way, but ok.
From: Meidinger, Jolene A. (HQ-THOOO) <jolene.mei dinger@nasa .gov>

Sent: Monday, Sept ember 28, 2020 12:45 PM
To: Kieffer, Ma rgaret (HQ-THOOO) <margaret. kieffer@nasa.gov>
Cc: Flynn, David T. (HQ-THOOO) <davi d.flynn@nasa .gov>
Subject: FW : Round 2 - UAP Briefing
FYI. I will work this aga in. We no longer have Robert Kaufman onsi te.
From: STOVALL, SH ERICE L. (HQ-TAOOO) <sherjce I st ovali@ nasa I:0v>

Sent: Monday, September 28, 2020 12:43 PM
To: Mei dinger, Jolene A. (HQ-THOOO) <jolene mejdjnl:er@nasal:0Y>
Subject: Round 2 - UAP Briefing
Hi Jolene,
Mike is sett ing up a second UAP briefing th is Thursday, 10-11 am . It's t he same briefing as the
last one, but t he attendees are : John St ratton, Jim Bridenst ine, Gabe Sherman, Randy Cruz
and either M ike Gold or Karen Feldst ein .
DOD POC:
Am I m iss ing anything?
Sfi e ri ce L. Stava{{
Office of International & Interagency Rela t ions (O IlR)
NASA HQ - Washington D.C.
Email: shence./.stoyqli@nqsq.qQY
Phone : (202) S49-9188
Teleworking M-F, 8 AM - 5 PM EDT

Offline daily 12 - 1 PM EDT
•
"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place." - George
Bernard Shaw
From : STOVALL SHEBlct: L (t1O-JAOOO)
To: Ee!ds!:ein. Karen C. 'tKHAQOO)
Subject: Rf: AfB meeting on 5eptentJef- 29th at 3pm
Da le : Tuesday, September 29, 2020 11:33:33 AM
Attadlments: imageOOl png
Wll iji o. Thursday's 10 am hold for the Administrat or's UAP briefing is just an FYI f o r Mike.
He's no t attending.
She rice
From : Feldstein, Karen C. (HQ-TAOOO) <karen.c.feldstei n@nasa.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 11:29 AM
To: STOVALL, SHERICE l. (HQ-TAOOO) <sherice.l.st ovali @nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: AEB meeting on September 29th at 3pm
Thanks! PLEASE protect that Exec performance meeting on Thurs., it's must do. Have a great day!
From: "STOVALL, SHER ICE l. (HQ-TAOOO)" <sherjce.l.stoyall@nasa.goy>

Date: Tuesday, September 29,2020 at 10:32 AM
To: "MCMAHON -BOGNAR, CHRISTIN E (HQ-TGOOO)" <chrisline,mcmahonbognar@nasa goy>,
Gib Kirkham <gjb.kjrkham@nasa.goy>
Cc: Karen Feldstein <karen c [eldstejn@nasa.goy>
Subject: FW: AEB meeting on September 29th at 3pm
FYI
From: STOVALL, SHERI CE L. (H Q-TAOOO)

To :
SubJect: RE: AEB meeti ng on September 29th at 3pm
H i~
Mike is ava ilable on Thursday, October 1 at 3 pm EDT. Wi ll you be sending out the meeting
invit ation o r sha ll I?
Sherice
Sent: Monday, S" Dte,mb,,,

To: STOVALL, SHERICE L (HQ-TAOOO) <shence.l.stoyali@nasa,wp:Gold, Michael N. (H Q-MOOO)
<michael.n.gold @nasa,gov>
Subject: (EXTERNAL] AEB meeting on Sept ember 29th at 3pm
Dear Mrs. St ovall,
On behalf of the Director of Strat egic Intelligence and New Business, Paulo Eduardo Vasconcellos
would like to request the possibility of scheduling a meeti ng tomorrow September 29 th at 3pm
(Washington DC time) or October l it same time.
Don't hesitate t o contact us if you need more information.
Sincerely,
AGbIcIA IiSPACIAI. BRASII.IiIRA
Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo sistema de antiv??rus e

ac r edita~s estar livre de perigo.
From: Kieffer, Margaret (HQ-TH000)
To: Bress, Kent G. (HQ-TF000); Gold, Michael N. (HQ-AA000); Feldstein, Karen C. (HQ-TA000); Kirkham, Gib (HQ-
TG000); Fleming, Devon C. (HQ-TB000); Flynn, David T. (HQ-TH000); McKay, Meredith (HQ-TE000); Finley,
Patrick T (HQ-TE000); Deihl, Jessica A. (HQ-VA000); Newman, Neal R. (HQ-TF000); Troxell, Jennifer L. (HQ-
TH000); Rausch, Diane (HQ-TD000); Mcsweeney, Dennis (HQ-TG000); Hamilton, Carol J. (HQ-TD000)
Date: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 2:58:43 PM
Copy on UAP rev 2 brief for JB; ECILD will cover if it proceeds.
From : Rynn. David L (HQIttOOOl
To: Ee!ds!;ein. Karen C. 'tKHAQOO)
C<, Kieffer' Margaret 'HQ.THOOO); Meidinger, Jolene A. ' HQ.lliOOO)
Subject: FW: POe for Penlayon VTC
Date: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 <1:<12:57 PM
Attachments: BE Round 2 - UAP Bliefjoo <22.2 1SB),!IlSQ
Karen
(b ) (5)
David
From : Meidinger, Jolene A, (HQ-TH(x)()) <jolene,meidi nger@nasa.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 20204:38 PM
To: Flynn, David T. (HQ-TH()()()) <david.flynn@nasa.gov>; Drew, Benjamin A. (HQ-TH()()())
<b.a,drew@nasa.gov>
Cc: Kieffer, Margaret (HQ-TH(x)()) <m argaret.kieffer@ nasa,gov>
Subject: RE : POC for Pentagon VTC
David :
were pursing an un{:las,sifi.>d

absolutely sure this was t he path forward before I canceled the meeting.
Regards,
Jolene
From : Flynn, David T. (HQ-TH()(x)) <dayjd.f1ynn@nasa.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 3:53 PM
To : Drew, Benjamin A. (HQ-TH()(x)) <b. a.drew@nasa.goy>
Cc: Kieffer, Margarel (HQ-TH()(x)) <rni;ugiuet kjef(er@pClsa,guy>; Meidinger, Jolene A. (HQ-THOOO)
<jolene.mejdjnger@nasa.gov>
Subject: FW: POC for Pentagon VTC
Alvin
The Administrator and Mike Gold are trying to set up
for tomorrow at 10:00 am, Mike G has asked if there
David
From: Feldstein, Karen C. (HQ-TAOOO) <karen c feldstein@nasa goy>
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 3:44 PM
To: Flynn, David T. (HQ-THOOO) <dayid flyno@oasa INY>
Subject: POC for Pentagon VIC
Jay Stratton, 10:00 tomorrow a.m.

Cell
From: STOVALL, SHERICE L. (HQ-TA000)
To: Meidinger, Jolene A. (HQ-TH000)
Date: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 10:53:56 AM
Attachments: image001.jpg
My plan is to update the invitation with the new meeting info, but if we don’t nail down a
date/time by lunch I’ll send out a cancellation.
Sherice
From: Meidinger, Jolene A. (HQ-TH000) <jolene.meidinger@nasa.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 10:36 AM
To: STOVALL, SHERICE L. (HQ-TA000) <sherice.l.stovall@nasa.gov>
Sherice: Understood. I will cancel the reservation for the secure room. Will you be sending a
meeting cancelation for the hold?
Thanks/Jolene
From: STOVALL, SHERICE L. (HQ-TA000) <sherice.l.stovall@nasa.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2020 8:17 AM
To: Meidinger, Jolene A. (HQ-TH000) <jolene.meidinger@nasa.gov>
Good Morning!
The briefer is unable to accommodate the Administrator’s schedule this week, so we are going
to schedule a unclassified briefing for him next week via MS Teams.
Thanks for everything, Jolene!
Sherice

To: STOVALL, SHERICE L. (HQ-TA000) <sherice.l.stovall@nasa.gov>
Sure. I am open 12-1 or after 1.
From: STOVALL, SHERICE L. (HQ-TA000) <sherice.l.stovall@nasa.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, September 29,202011:03 AM
To: Meidinger, Jolene A. (HQ-THOOO) <jolene,meidinger@nasa,goy>
Are you available to chat today?
From : M eidinger, Jolene A, (HQ-TH(xx)) <jolene mejdjneer@nasaeov>

Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2020 10M AM
To : STOVALL, SHERICE l. (HQ-TAOOO) <sberjce I,stoyal!@nasa,gov>
Subject: RE: Round 2 - UAP Briefi ng
Also, I have confirmation from OPS, the room will be CH 29 (same as last time),
We are good to go on our end for planning the support of this meeting, I will again be onsite to
handle any last minute issues (they definitely cropped up last time),
All the best,

Jolene
From : STOVAll, SHERICE l. (HQ-TA(xx)) <sherjce,l.stoyali@nasa,goy>

Sent: Monday, September 28,20201:36 PM
To : Meidinger, Jolene A, (HQ-THOOO) <jolene.mejdjnger@nasa.goy>
Subject: RE : Round 2 - UAP Briefing
Mike . and says he won't be attendirl' H h '

(b) (6)
unable to attend, the briefing cou ld take place at
(b) (b) (5) I told him I'd leave that up to
(6)
From : Meidinger, Jolene A. (HQ-TH(xx)) <jolene mejdjneer@nasaeoy>

Sent: Monday, September 28,202012:47 PM
To : STOVALL, SHERICE l. (HQ-TAOOO) <sberjce.l.stoyall@nasa.gov>
Copy, I will start working,
From: STOVALL, SHERICE l. (HQ-TA(xx)) <sherice.l.stovall@nasa.BOY::'

Sent: Monday, September 28, 2020 12:43 PM
To: Meidinger, Jolene A, (HQ-THOOO) <jolene,meidinger@nasa.goy>
Subject: Round 2 - UAP Briefing
To: Meidinger, Jolene A. (HQ-TH000); Flynn, David T. (HQ-TH000)
Subject: ECILD only UAP
Date: Thursday, October 1, 2020 8:48:30 AM
Jolene: Am hoping that OPS has the slides as well so this is not a heavy lift. Not sure about this
video, or who has. Please confirm you are working this and how David can assist.

Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 8:46 AM
To: Gold, Michael N. (HQ-AA000) <michael.n.gold@nasa.gov>; Cruz, Randy C. (HQ-AA000)[Affiliate]
<randy.c.cruz@nasa.gov>; Feldstein, Karen C. (HQ-TA000) <karen.c.feldstein@nasa.gov>; Meidinger,
Jolene A. (HQ-TH000) <jolene.meidinger@nasa.gov>; STOVALL, SHERICE L. (HQ-TA000)
<sherice.l.stovall@nasa.gov>
Cc: Flynn, David T. (HQ-TH000) <david.flynn@nasa.gov>
Subject: RE: UAP brief
Pardon, reading further down, yes, we have the slide deck from the prior briefing. It is the video that
may require more coord and for Jay to send something.

To: Gold, Michael N. (HQ-AA000) <michael.n.gold@nasa.gov>; Cruz, Randy C. (HQ-AA000)[Affiliate]
<randy.c.cruz@nasa.gov>; Feldstein, Karen C. (HQ-TA000) <karen.c.feldstein@nasa.gov>; Meidinger,
Jolene A. (HQ-TH000) <jolene.meidinger@nasa.gov>; STOVALL, SHERICE L. (HQ-TA000)
Copy. David is on-site at HQ today and can support on that end, if needed, although Jolene may be
able to coord receipt via OPS.
From: Gold, Michael N. (HQ-AA000) <michael.n.gold@nasa.gov>

To: Cruz, Randy C. (HQ-AA000)[Affiliate] <randy.c.cruz@nasa.gov>; Feldstein, Karen C. (HQ-TA000)
<karen.c.feldstein@nasa.gov>; Meidinger, Jolene A. (HQ-TH000) <jolene.meidinger@nasa.gov>;
Kieffer, Margaret (HQ-TH000) <margaret.kieffer@nasa.gov>; STOVALL, SHERICE L. (HQ-TA000)
I traded texts with Jay Stratton yesterday and he also didn’t think an unclassified brief would be
helpful. Margaret/Jolene/Sherice, if you all could see if we can get a hold of the video (perhaps
reach out to Jay over e-mail) and coordinate with Randy I would be grateful.
Thanks !
- M ike
From: Cruz, Randy C. (HQ-AAOOO)[AffiliateJ <randy c c(lJz@nasa COY>
Sent: Th ursday, October 1, 20208:32 AM

To: Gold, M ichael N. (HQ-AAOOO) <michael n cold@nasa coy>; Feldstein, Karen C. (HQ-TAOOO)
<karen c feldstein@nasacoy>; Meidinger, Jolene A. (HQ-THOOO) <jolene meidincer@nasacoy>;
Kieffer, Ma rgaret (HQ-THOOO) <marca ret kieffer@oasa coy>; STOVALL, SHER1CE L. (HQ-TAOOO)
<sherice I stoyali@nasa coy>
Subject: Re : UAP brief
If we have the materials, would like to share with Jim before he leaves for OK Today. Not sure an
unclassif ied version is scratching his itch. Let's see what's in the rea lm nifboisssinle for today please.
Thanks !
Vr,
Randy
Randy Cruz
Senior Advisor to the Administrator
NASA Headqual1ers
randy.c .cmz@Uasa .goy
Offi ce: (202) 358- 1441
Cell :
On: 01 October 2020 08 :29, "Gold, Michael N. (HQ-AA()(x))" <michael n E"old@nasa E"OV> wrote :
Hey Randy, I'm sony that we couldn 't get schedules to work with the head of the
UAP Task Force, Jay Stratton, for today . He is wrapped up in meetings at the
Pentagon. Margaret/Jolene, do we have the slide deck that Jay used when we got
the brief previously? Jay says there is a video version of the brief that is available
on SIPRNET or JWICS. Sherice has Jay's e-mail (he is not available by phone
today) and can reach out to hinl.
Thanks,
- Mike
From: Cmz, Randy C. (HQ-AAOOO)[Affiliate] <randy.c.cruz@nasa.goy>
Sent: Thlll'sday, October 1, 2020 8:07 AM
To: Gold, Michael N . (HQ-AAOOO) <uticbael.n .gold@llasa.goy>; Feldstein,
Karen C. (HQ-TAOOO) <karen c feldstejn@nasa goy>; Meidinger, Jolene A. (HQ-
THOOO) <jolene.mejdjllger@uasa.goy>
Subject: UAP brief
Mike,
Was looking forward to the cla ssified version of this brief. Is it possible to get the
slide deck sent to me this moming so I can review with Jim?
Randy
Randy Cmz
NASA Headqmu1ers
randy c clllz@nasa goy
Office: (2Q2) 358-1445
Cell:
From: Kieffer Ma((]clrrt (HO-IlJO!)(!l
To : Cruz.Randy C. (HQ-MOOI,lUNfjljatel
Ct:: Flynn David T (HO-ll1!)(IOl; Meidinger Jolene A (HQ-Jlj!)()(ll
Subject: RE; UAP brief
Da te: Thursday, October 1, 202:0 9;02:;17 AM
It may be on 5IPR. Am hoping OP5 also has and can (easi ly) forward wlo us being in the midd le, but
need Jolene to confirm if they have the set.
From: Cruz, Randy C. (HQ-AAOOO)[Affiliate] <randy.c'cruz@nasa .gov>

Sent: Thu rsday, October 1, 20208:55 AM
To: Kieffer, Margaret (HQ-THOOO) <margaret.kieffer@nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: UAP brief
Margaret,
He departs around 2:30.

If emailed to me, I can pull it up on the 9th floor acid.
Vr,
Randy
Randy Cruz
NASA Headqual1ers
raudy.c.cOlz@nasa.goy
Offi ce: (202) 3,8-144;
Cell:
On : 01 October 2020 08 :52, "Kieffer, Margaret (HQ-THOOO)" <margaret.kieffer@nasa.gov> wrote :
Randy: What is the departure time today?
From: Gold, Michael N. (HQ-AAOOO) <rnichael.n.gold@nasa.gov>

To: Kieffer, Margaret (HQ-THOOO) <margaret.kiefIer@nasa.gov> ; Cruz , Randy
C. (HQ-AAOOO)[Affiliate] <randy.c.clUz@nasa.g:ov>; Feldstein, Karen C. (HQ-
TAOOO) <karen c fe Jdstej n@nasa goy>; Meidinger, Jolene A. (HQ-THOOO)
<jolene.meidjllger@nasa,goy>; STOVALL, SHERICE L. (HQ-TAOOO)
<sherjce 1 stoyall@nasa goy>
Cc: Flynn, David T. (HQ-THOOO) <dayjd.flYW1@nasa.goy>
Great. Please coordinate with Randy to get him the slide deck to review with the
boss. At a minimum we can do that. Additionally, please work with Sherice to
reach out to Jay and see if you can get the video brief in time.
Thanks!
- Mike
From: Kieffer, Margaret (HQ-THOOO) <margaret kjeffer@nasa goy>

To: Gold, Michael N . (HQ-AAOOO) <m jc haeill gold@nasa goy>; Cmz, Randy C.
(HQ-AAOOO)[Affiliate] <randy.c ,cmz@nasa,goy>; Feldstein, Karen C. (HQ-
TAOOO) <karen c fe ldstejn@nasa goy>; Meidinger, Jolene A. (HQ-THOOO)
<jolene.mejdjllger@nasa,goy>; STOVALL, SHERICE L. (HQ-TAOOO)
<sherjce 1 stoyall@nasa goy>
Cc: Flynn, David T. (HQ-THOOO) <dayjd.flYll1l@llasa.goy>
Subject: RE : UAP brief
Deletion Page
pages containing duplicate information are

held in the file. The pages consist of emails
NASA already processed.
From: Kieffer MaWrrt rHO-W OOl))
To: SIQ\W,l... SHERIa: L lHO-JAOO(!l ; Meidinger. Jolene A. "iO-rullOl'll
Ct:: Flynn D.ayid T rHO-ll1!KIOl
Date: Thursday, October 1, 202:09:(14:53 AM
JB departs at 2 :30, so we would need it in hand by noonish .
From: STOVALL, SHER1CE L. (HQ-TAOOO) <sherice.l.stovall@nasa.gov>

Sent: Thursday, October 1, 20209:00 AM
To: Kieffer, Margaret (HQ-THOoo) <margaret.kieffer@nasa ,gov>; Meidinger, Jolene A. (HQ-THooO)
<joiene ,meidinger@nasa.gov>
Cc: Flynn, David T. (HQ-THOOO) <david,f lynn@nasa,gov>
Subject : RE: UAP brief
I' ll let yo u know as soon as I hear ba ck fr o m Jay regard ing t he video,
From: Kieffer, Marga ret (HQ-THOOO) <marearet kjetier@nasa eov>

To: Cruz, Randy C. {HQ-MOOO)[Affiliate] <randy c crlJz@nasa eov>; Meid inger, Jo lene A, (HQ-THOOO)
<jolene mej djneer@nasa eoy>; STOVALL, SHERICE L. (HQ-TAOOO) <sher jce I stoyaiJ@nasaeoy>
Cc: Flynn, David T. (HQ-THOOO) <dayjd flynn@ oasaeov>
Deletion Page

From: KIf'!fe= Margaret (HO-IlJ001!l
To: Flynn. Davjd T. (HQ-JHQQO): !>l ejdjnotr. Jolene A. (HO-Jl1()()()
Subject: RE: ONI Rep Mr. StTattoo <Urgent>

PI db· f , t Randy on jwics, (b) (5)

(b) (5)
From: Flynn, David T. (HQ-THOOO) <davidJlynn@nasa.goY>

To: Meidinger, Jolene A. (HQ-THOOO) <jolene.meidinger@nasa.goY>
Cc: Kieffer, Margaret (HQ-THOOO) <margaret.kieffer@nasa .gov>
Subject: RE: ON I Rep Mr. Stratton <Urgent >
Can we make some time available for Randy to show the slides with the Administrator this morning
in the appropriate space? (b) (5)
See note from Mr. Stratton via Sherise
(b) (5)
Vir, Jay"
From: Meidinger, Jolene A. (HQ-THOOO) <jole ne.mejdjnger@nasa,goy>

Sent: Thursday, October 1, 20209 :24 AM
To: Flynn, David T. (HQ-THOOO) <dayjdJlynn@oasa,goy>; Hiles, Robert M. (HQ-LP022)
<[obert,m.hjles@ nasa,goy>; Holman, Joshua F. (HQ-LP022)[Federal Government Detai lee]
<joshua.f,holman@nasa .goy>
Cc: Kieffer, Margaret (HQ-THOOO) <margaretkjeffer@nasa,goy>
Subject: RE: ON I Rep Mr, Stratton <Urgent>
Good morning: I have the presentation. It is classified.
Regards,
Jolene
From: Flynn, David T. (HQ-THOOO) <dayjd f1ynn@nasagoy>

To: Hiles, Robert M. (HQ-LP022) <robert m biles@nasagoy>; Holman, Joshua F. (HQ-LP022)[Federal
Government Detailee] <joshua f bolmao@nasa goy>
Cc: Meidinger, Jolene A. (HQ-THOOO) <jolene mejdjnger@nasagoY>; Kieffer, Margaret (HQ-THOOO)
<margaret kjeffer@nasa INY>
Subject: ONI Rep Mr. Stratton <Urgent>
Importance: High
Bob/Josh
Last week, Mr. Jay Stratton from ON I gave a briefing on "UAP" in CH29 last week. I was told that OPS
has the slide deck and possibly the video that was displayed. Can you confirm that you have the
slides? I believe they are unclassif ied . If so please forward to Randy Cruz in the Administrator's
Office ASAP as he would like to share with the Administrator before he leaves the building. Please
let me know if you have the video as well as the Administrator might want to stop by to view that as
well.
Thank you for your attention on this.
David
David T. Flynn
Deputy Director (SES)
Export Control and Interagency Liaison Division
NASA-HQ
From: Cruz, Randy C. (HQ-AA000)[Affiliate]
To: Meidinger, Jolene A. (HQ-TH000); Gold, Michael N. (HQ-AA000); Feldstein, Karen C. (HQ-TA000); Kieffer,
Margaret (HQ-TH000); STOVALL, SHERICE L. (HQ-TA000)
Hi Jolene,
I just pulled up the slides. Thank you for emailing. I think this will suffice.
Got time for a quick phone call?
V/r,
Randy
From: Cruz, Randy C. (HQ-AA000)[Affiliate]
To: Meidinger, Jolene A. (HQ-TH000) <jolene.meidinger@nasa.gov>; Gold, Michael N. (HQ-AA000)
<michael.n.gold@nasa.gov>; Feldstein, Karen C. (HQ-TA000) <karen.c.feldstein@nasa.gov>; Kieffer,
Margaret (HQ-TH000) <margaret.kieffer@nasa.gov>; STOVALL, SHERICE L. (HQ-TA000)
Hi Jolene,
Let’s target this afternoon around 1:30. This will give us time to try and get it together.
V/r,
Randy

To: Cruz, Randy C. (HQ-AA000)[Affiliate] <randy.c.cruz@nasa.gov>; Gold, Michael N. (HQ-AA000)
<michael.n.gold@nasa.gov>; Feldstein, Karen C. (HQ-TA000) <karen.c.feldstein@nasa.gov>; Kieffer,
Margaret (HQ-TH000) <margaret.kieffer@nasa.gov>; STOVALL, SHERICE L. (HQ-TA000)
Good morning Randy:
I have a copy of the classified briefing and will provide it to you on JWICS. I am not familiar with the
iVideo, so I have reached out to OPS. What time are you targeting today?
Thank you,
Jolene
From: Cruz, Randy C. (HQ-AA000)[Affiliate] <randy.c.cruz@nasa.gov>

To: Gold, Michael N. (HQ-MOOD) <michael n gold@nasa goy>; Feldstein, Karen C. (HQ-TAOOD)
<karen c feldstein@nasagoy>; Mei dinger, Jolene A. (HQ-THOOO) <jolene meidinger@nasagoy>;
Kieffer, Ma rga ret (HQ-THOOO) <marga ret kieffer@oasa goy>; STOVALL, SHER1CE L. (HQ-TAOOO)
<sherice I stoyali@nasa goy>
Subject: Re : UAP brief
Deletion Page

Cc: Flynn, David T. (HQ-TH000)
Subject: RE: ONI Rep Mr. Stratton <Urgent>
And another “pardon” needed…looks like outcome is well in hand. THANK YOU.

Pardon. Unclass…the narrowed down email that we and Randy are on.

To: Kieffer, Margaret (HQ-TH000) <margaret.kieffer@nasa.gov>
I do not understand what you mean by NIN email.
From: Kieffer, Margaret (HQ-TH000) <margaret.kieffer@nasa.gov>

When it is sent, pls move back to the NIN email the 4 of us are on and let Randy know it is available
for his use with JB whenever they are ready. Also let him know the video is 300mgs, not emailable,
but OPS may be able to pull, and you are happy to make that connection for him with the right OPS
POCs for that potential, if of interest.

Okay, I will send Randy the presentation. I have not been able to get a hold of OPS yet. Still working
that request…

To: Meidinger, Jolene A. (HQ-THOOO) <jolene.mejdjnger@nasa.goy>; Flynn, David T. (HQ-THOOO)
<dayjd.flynn@nasa.goy>
Please leverage Randy, he is offering to make it simple and use t he 9 th floor space (OPS wi ll still need
to support but we would be out of the scheduling),
From: Meidinger, Jolene A. (HQ-THOOO) < jolene mejdjnger@nasa gov>

Sent: Th ursday, October 1, 20209 :30 AM
To: Flynn, David T. (HQ-THOOO) <dayjd flyno@oasa goy>
Cc: Kieffer, Margaret (HQ-THOOO) <margaret kjeffer@nasa goy>
I will reach out to OPS to see who is in and what rooms are available. I have no idea what ivideo is ... l
will ask OPS.
From: Flynn, David T. (HQ-THOOO) <dayjd f1ynn@nasa goy>

To: Meidinger, Jolene A. (HQ-THOOO) <jolene mejdjnger@nasagoy>
Cc: Kieffer, Margaret (HQ-THOOO) <margaret kjeffer@nasa !lOY>
Deletion Page
page containing duplicate information

held in the file. The page consist of email
From: Meidinger )alene A (HO-llUIOm
To: Kieffer. Margaret (HQ-Jlj(lO(l): Aynn. David T. (HO-JljOOfl)
Subject: RE : a NI Rep Mr. StTattoo <Urgent>
Da te: Thursday, October 1, 2020 10:01:32 AM
Randy just asked me to come up to discuss the slides. I got a hold of Bob Hiles and he is also en route
to figure out the video (FYI its his last day)
From: Kieffer, Ma rga ret (HQ-THOOO) <margaret.kieffer@nasa.gov>

To: Flynn, Davi d T. (HQ-THOOO) <david .flynn@nasa.gov>; Meidinger, Jolene A. (HQ-THOOO)
<jolene .meidinger@nasa.gov>
Think we are good . Email sent/responded t o. Sorry, Jolene, we are in M staff and multi-tasking (not
very effectively, as you note) .
From: Flynn, David T. (HQ-THOOO) <dayjd.tlyno@oasa,goy>

To: Meidinger, Jolene A. (HQ-THOOO) <joleoe,mejdjoger@oasa,goy>; Kieffer, Margaret (HQ-THOOO)
<margaret.kjeffer@nasa ,goy>
Subject: RE: ONI Rep M r. Stratton <Urgent>
NIN = NASA unclassified system.
The attached is the email she was referring to. Rep ly all to that email and add Randy Cruz saying the
slide is available in his JW1CS email.
From: Meidinger, Jolene A. (HQ-THOOO) <jolene mejdjnger@nasa goY>

To: Kieffer, Margaret (HQ-THOOO) <margaret kjeffer@nasa goY>
Cc: Flynn, David T. (HQ-THOOO) <daYid f1ynn@nasa goy>
Subject: RE : ONI Rep Mr. Stratton <Urgent>
Deletion Page

Fro m: Meidinger Jolene A (HO-U1OOQ)
To: Kieffer. Margaret (HQ-JllOOO): Flynn. David T. (HO-lliOOOl
Subject: RE: ONI Rep Mr. StJ-attoo <Urgent>
Date: Thursday, October 1, 2020 11 :(I6 :S8 AM
Bob and I met with Randy Cr uz and Gabe Sherman . I provided additiona l insight into the briefing.
Randy was focused on any actions coming out of t he meeti ng (requests for support). I reiterated our
commitment to provide scientific expertise in regards to environmenta l phenomenon. Bob was able
to bring up the videos. We have covered all of the short tu rn asks for the ASuite review of t his
informa tion today at 1:30 PM.
Best/Jolene
From: Kieffer, Ma rgaret (HQ-THOOO) <margaret.kieffer@nasa .gov>

Sent: Thu rsday, October 1, 2020 10:01 AM
To: Flyn n, David T. (HQ-THOOO) <david .flynn@nasa .gov>; Meidinger, Jolene A. (HQ-THOOO)
<jolene .meidinger@nasa.gov>
Subject: RE: ONI Rep Mr. Stratton <Urgent >
Deletion Page

;~¥.n ; Kjeffer. Margaret
Fro m:
To: (HQ-Tl1001l) ; Feldstein. Karen C. 'HO-TAOOO); SJOIIAI.L
Cc:
Subject:
Date: Thursday, October 1, 202:0 11 :50:12: AM
Excellent! Great work Jolene! It's much appreciated.
- M ike
From: Meidinger, Jolene A. (HQ-THOOO) <j olene.meidinger@nasa .gov>

To: Gold, M ichael N. (HQ-AAOOO) <michael.n .gold@ nasa .gov>; Kieffer, Ma rgaret (HQ-THOOO)
<margaret. kieffer@nasa .gov>; Feldstein, Karen C. (HQ-TAOOO) <karen.c.feldstein@nasa .gov>;
STOVALL, SHERICE L. (HQ-TAOOO) <sherice .l.stova ll@ nasa.gov>
Cc: Flynn, David T. (HQ-THOOO) <david .flynn@nasa .gov>
Good morn ing:
I provided Randy with the slides and, at his request, briefed him and Gabe Sherman on the add it ional
informa t ion provided during the September 14 meeting. I gave him additiona l context on the slides
and the conversation concerning NASA support. Bob Hiles was able to access the videos and
provided those to Randy as well. Randy is all set for his 1:30 with the Administrator.
Best regards,
Jolene
From: Gold, Michael N. (HQ-AAOOO) <m jchael n cold@nasa coy>

Sent: Thursday, October 1. 20208:49 AM
To: Kieffer, Margaret (HQ-THOOO) <marcaret kjeffer@nasa coy>; Cruz, Randy C. (HQ-AAOOO)
[Affiliate] <randy c crtlz@nasa coy>; Feldstein, Karen C. (HQ-TAOOO) <ka ren c feldstejn@nasa coy>;
Meidinger, Jolene A. (HQ-THOOO) < jolene mejdjncer @nasa coy>; STOVALL, SHERJCE L. (HQ-TAOOO)
<sherjce I stoyali@nasa coy>
Cc: Flynn, David T. (HQ-THOOO) <dayid flynn@nasa coy>
Deletion Page

From:
Subject:
Feldstein Karen C 'HQ-TAI)()Q)
FW: [EXTERNAl] RE : UAPA Virtual Event
"'il•••, ~Extrem
with l; k:ceIefation by UAPs", introduction by
~ , Tue, Oct 6, 3-4pm EST
Dilte : "MOOitiY,"'Ianuay 4, 2021 2:28:00 PM
Date: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 at 3:02 PM

To: Karen Fe ldstein <karen.c.fe ldstein@nasa.gov>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: UAPA Virtual Event " Extreme Acceleration by
UAPs", introduction by _ , Tue, Oct 6, 3-4pm EST
Hi Karen,
Glad to bave you join us for tbis telecon!
fonvard to it,
We bave conflllned your registration for UAPA's telecon with Your RSVP
infonnation is below:
Event: 10/06 _
Attendee: Kru ~ dstein
Company: NASA
Please let us know if you have any questions or changes prior to the meeting.
Event ID: 353
Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2020 2:27 PM

To: Gold, Michael N. (HQ-AAOOO) <mjchael.n,gold@nasa,goy>;Gold Mike (b) (6)
Subject: (EXTERNAL] UAPA Virtual Event "Extreme Acceleration by UAPs",
introduction by _ Tue, Oct 6, 3-4pm EST
Deletion Page

Fro m: Gold Mjcbael N 'HQ-AAOOQ)
To: Feldstein. Karen C. (l10-JA/lflfl)
Subject: RE: GOLD REVIEW fW: Draft fAA Press Release
Da te: Wednesday, January 6,202111:23:08 AM
What do you think of this?
Thanks!
- M ike
Release)
From: Feldstein, Karen C. (HQ-TAOOO) <karen .c.feldstein@nasa.gov>

Sent: Monday, January 4,2021 7:54 PM
To: Gold, M ichael N. (HQ-AAOOO) <michael.n .gold@nasa .gov>
Subject: Re : GOLD REVIEW FW: Draft FAA Press Release
Thanks Mike! And yes it seems it's UFO's all over the place " I think this dude's book is generating
some new bUll.
From: " Gold, M ichae l N. (HO-M OOO)" < michael n eold@nasa eoy>
Date: M o nday, January 4,2021 at 5:56 PM
To: Karen Fe ld stein < karen c feldst eio@nasa EOY>
Subject: RE : GOLD REVIEW FW: Draft FAA Press Re lea se
I took a look at the Press Release and my edits are included in the attached redlined copy. I'll work
on the Tweet tomorrow.
Below is the latest on the UFO front. Is it just me or are we discussing UFOs more than even I would
have expected lately? Not that I' m comp laining!
A Harvard professor has claimed in his new book that alien debrjs passed near Earth in 2017. It has
attracted both skepticism and intrieue. J Business Insider India
From: Feldstein, Karen C. (HQ-TAOOO) <ka ren c feldstei n@nasa EOY>

Sent: Monday, January 4, 2021 3:30 PM
To: Gold, M ichael N. (HQ-AAOOO) <michael n Eold @nasa EOV>
Subject: GOLD REVIEW FW : Draft FAA Press Release
Hi Mike,
OComm is stand ing by for feedback t o the draft FAA press release, attached with a few comments
from me .
The proposed tweet is as follows:
My proposed rewrite (269 cha racters):
Welcome your further improvements!
Thanks,
Ka ren
From: Karen Feldst ein <karen.c.feldstein@nasa.gov>

Date: Thu rsday, December 31, 2020 at 11:40 AM
To: "Gold, Mi chael N. (HQ-AAOOO) " < michael.n.gold@nasa.gov>
Subject: Draft FAA Press Release
Hey M ike, attached is the latest FAA press release though I understand it's still being worked . I don't
think I've seen a tweet yet. I wanted you to have this as a companion to the briefer, but I expect
we'll get another rev. next week.
Wishing you a happy, healthy 202 1 !
Ka ren
Deletion Page
Pages are withheld in full and the

following marked exemption(s)
is/are claimed.
EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED:
FOIA: 5 U.S.C. § 552
b(1) b(2) b(3):
b(4) b(5) b(6) b(7)A b(8) b(9)
PRIVACY ACT: 5 U.S.C. 552a
d(5) j(1) j(2) k(1) k(2) k(3)
k(4) k(5) k(6) k(7)
Description of withholding: Draft the final version of which is

available online at:
.
To: Cruz, Randy C. (HQ-AA000)[Affiliate]
Date: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 1:49:11 PM
Believe it or not, I have a quick UAP question, if you have 30 seconds.

~
From :
To: ~sa·9Qv: feldstein· Karen c, CHO-JAOOO}
Subject: [EXTERNAl] REMINDER: UAP Assn mtg w ~ ~Posible ComrrMJnicCltions at X~Ray ilOO othef-Iligl
fJcqllCOCics with 1JAPs?", Mon, May 24, ~T
Dilt e: Tuesdily, MCly 18, 2021 11 :D:31 AM
Dear UAP Association Colleagues:

Please join us for " Possible at X-Ray and other high frequencies with
UAPs?", a discussion lead
may
•
Please click 011 Ihe /illk below 10 register, Ihis is ollr lIew process. After regislerillg YOll will
receive all email with the Teams /i"k you call use to access the meetillg. lJyou ha,,'e allY
problems, such as jirewal/s blocking c1ickillg 011 the Iillk, simply regisler using the email Oil
your pholle, or a home computer. Or just email u s alld we'll gel your registered.
Registration link
•
Looking forward to it!
Event ID: 428
-
Biogra pbies:
•
From: Erldstejo Karen C O-tQ-JA(K!Ill
To: WI. Bbawa (HQ-IAQOO) : Kieffer. Margaret (OO-ll!OIKI)
Subject: Re: Pentagon UfO report
Date: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 7:31: 12 AM
Sony, I don' t know. Margaret do you?
On: 19 May 202107:25, "Lal, Bhavya (HQ-IAOOO)" <hhavya lal@nasa goy> wrote:
Copy. And you don' t think we reviewed it either?
IiiIiIi·D.
On: 19 May 202107:22, "Feldstein, Karen C. (HQ-TAOOO)"
<karen.c.feldstein@nasa.gov> wrote :
I don 't have and haven 't seen the report.
On: 19 May 202107: 14, "Lal, Bhavya (HQ-IAOOO)"

<hhavya lal@nasa goy> wrote:
Did we help write it, or at least review it? Do you have a

copy? I can tty to get it.
Thanks,
Bhavya
-
~ . D.
From : Laj. Bhayya (HO-WlOO)
To: Matheny. Jason G. EOp!OSIp
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAl) R.E: UFO report copy or Poe. Ty xo
Da le: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 8:55:29 AM
I will also use my NASA poe to get it if yours fai l. XO
iiiIiIiID
00: 19 May 202 1 08:42 , "Malheny, Jason G. EOP/OSTP"
wrote:
Working on it. xo
From : Lal, Bhavya (HQ-IAOOO) <bhawa.lal@nasa.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2021 7:15 AM
To: Matheny. Jason G.
Subject: UFO report copy or Poc.
Bhavya Lal, Ph.O.

Fro m: I a l Bbavva (HO-INIIII))
To: Matheny. Jason G. EOPfOSTP
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAl] RE: Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon
I' ll share what I get. Same team !
IiiIiIi·D.
On: 19 May 2021 13 :40, "Matheny, Jason G. EOP/OSTP"
wrote:
Yes. I' ll follow-up .

(b)(5)
From: La!, Bhavya (HQ-IAOOO) <bhavva Jal@nasa IWV>

To: Matheny, Jason G. ED'P/C)STP
Subject: FW: Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon
Does this make sense?
From: Cruz, Randy C. (HQ-AAOOO)[AffiliateJ <raody.c'cruz@nasa.gov>

To: Lal, Bhavya (HQ-IAOOO) <bhawa.la l@nasa.gov>
Subject: Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon
From: Bhayya (HO-WlOO)
Laj,
To: Matheny. Jason G, EOp!OSIp
Subject: No <ire
Da le: Thursday, May 20, 20218:27:11 PM
I couldn 't get the UFO report . Were you able to get a hold of it?
From: Meidinger, Jolene A. (HQ-TH000)
To: Kieffer, Margaret (HQ-TH000)
Date: Wednesday, May 26, 2021 9:56:24 AM
FYI. I sent the updated UAPTF draft report this AM to your distro with a request for
comments by noon Tuesday June 1.
To: Lal, Bhavya (HQ-AA000)
Pardon, wanted to remind you that any comments on UAP task force report are due today.
From: lGeffer· Maroaret 'HCHttOOO)
To : Meidinger. Jolene A. ' HO-Jl1000)
C<, Aynor Qayid L lHQ.JHOOO)
Subject: Re: Not RepoItioy OrlSit.e
On: 08 l lme 202 1 07:32 , "Meidinger, Jo lene A. (HQ-THOOO)" <j:Q4:.ue.JJleidi9ger@nasa goy>

wrote:
I think
(b) (5) The previous version was reviewed by Karen St.
Germain (with Jay Pittman, Lawrence Friedl, and Christa Petrs~l i darl.
Best/Jolene
From: Kieffer, Margaret (HQ-THOOO) <margaretkieffer@nasa,go'l>

To: Meidinger, Jolene A. (HQ-THOOO) <jolene,meidinger@nasa,go'l>
Cc: Flynn, David T. (HQ-THOOO) <dayid.flynn@nasa,goy>
Subject: Re: Not Reporti ng Onsite
Copy. Very sorry to hear that FYI, We got the UAP report yesterday eve (saw it late, as
nal, exsec review. (b) (5)
(b) (5) I will look at more closely today.
On: 08 June 2021 07:14, "Meidinger, Jolene A. (HQ-THOOO)"

<jolene,mejdinger@nasa.goy> wrote:
I am not
meetil,gs o""',,e, it was just
a work day.
Thank you,
Jolene
To: Kenyon. James A (HQ-EMQQ(ll
Date: Tuesday, Ju ne 8, 2021 2:15 :21 PM
Calling about two items. You were

report. And, did you ever talk to
bubble.
From: McKay, Meredith (HQ-TA000)
To: Kieffer, Margaret (HQ-TH000)
Subject: RE: UAP messaging
Copy. T hx!

To: McKay, Meredith (HQ-TA000) <meredith.mckay@nasa.gov>
Subject: RE: UAP messaging
Spoke to Mark, circling to close shortly. He does want TPs this week. We will figure it out.
From: McKay, Meredith (HQ-TA000) <meredith.mckay@nasa.gov>

Subject: FW: UAP messaging
Was thinking you’d point to Jolene in this trail? If you want to funnel through her v Randy?
From: Feldstein, Karen C. (HQ-TA000) <karen.c.feldstein@nasa.gov>

To: Cruz, Randy C. (HQ-AA000)[Affiliate] <randy.c.cruz@nasa.gov>; Etkind, Marc R. (HQ-NA000)
<marc.r.etkind@nasa.gov>
Cc: Kieffer, Margaret (HQ-TH000) <margaret.kieffer@nasa.gov>; McKay, Meredith (HQ-TA000)
<meredith.mckay@nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: UAP messaging
Hi Randy, I’m out this afternoon but am looping in Margaret and Meredith.
Best,
Karen
On: 08 June 2021 13:29, "Cruz, Randy C. (HQ-AA000)[Affiliate]" <randy.c.cruz@nasa.gov> wrote:
Karen/Marc,
I understand that you two are working closely on the UAP messaging efforts and I don’t
want to stifle or confuse anything. I was preparing share an initial classified brief from
the UAP Task Force that is dated from August 2020 with Marc. It might be OBE at the
this point, but wanted to let you know that we can still do that if you desire. Let me
know how I can help.
VIr,
Randy
Randy Cruz
NASA Headquarters
358-1445
From: I ill BOOw (HOM!KKI)
To: Etkjnd Marc R. (HQ-NAQO!}l ; McGujO!le§5. Jadiie (HQ-NAQQO)
Subject: Fwd: [ EXTERNAL] RE : Talking points for UAP report
Date: Tuesday, June 8, 20215:36:49 PM
Attachments: 2!l21 ()6!13 Unidentified Aerial pbeoomena docx
Begin FOlWarded Message:
From: "Evans, Patrick L. EOP/NSC"

Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: TalkmgpOiiiiiS
Date: 08 Jlme 2021 17:32
To: "Lal, Bhavya (HQ-AAOOO)" <bhayya.lal@nasa.gov>
Resending with attachment and text below.

Very Respectfully,
Patrick Evans, APR

Di rector for Strategic Communications and Assistant Press Secretary
Nationa l Security Council
From: La l, Bhavya (HO-MOOO) <bbawa.lal@nasa.goy>

Sent: Tuesday, June 8,2021 5:07 PM
To: Evans, Patrick l. EOIP/~ I SC
Subject: Re : (EXTERNAL] RE, Talki,,,
Thanks Patrick. Can't open the fIrst atlaciunent. Can you pis tty again?
IiiIiIi·D.
Patrick L. EOP/NSC"
Good afternoon Bhavya -

Attached are two docs:
1) NSC Press Guidance for UAPs
2) OSD Briefing Card for UAPs
Also Here is the email add ress for OON I public affairs:
~ jODNI has the press and can speak to OONl's t al~'ing
the eventual rollout.
- is the lead at OSD Press

Operations.
Please let me know if t his is what you need. Thanks!
Patrick
Very Respectfully,
Patrick Evans, APR

Di rector for Strategic Communications and Assistant Press Secretary
Nationa l Security Council
From: Schaffer, Audrey M. EOPjNSC

Sent: Tuesday, June 8,202 1 4:37 PM
To: Lal, Bhavya (HQ-MOOO) <bhayya lal@nasacoy>
Cc: Forrest, Christopher D. EOPjNSC
. Evans, Patrick L. EOPjNSC
la lking points for UAP report
Bhavya,
I'm looping in Patrick Eva ns from NSC Press. In talking with Chris Forrest,
it sounds like Patrick can both send you the current EOP press guidance
on UAPs and connect you with PA folks from DOD and ONI PAwho would
have more detailed guidance that you can pull from.
Audrey
From: Lal, Bhavya (HQ-MOOO) <bhavya.lal@nasa.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, Jun e 8,20212 :33 PM
To: Schaffer, Audrey M. EOP/~SC :'
Cc: Forrest, Christopher D. EOP/NSC
Thanks Audrey! Hello Chris - Standing by for any guidance. Our

administrator is getting lots of media questions (plus questions from
the Hill too) and we 'd like to stay coordinated if possible. Thx!
Bhavya
IiiIiIi·D.
Audrey M. EOP/NSC"
wrote:
Bhavya
Thanks for the follow-up - great t o see you as well!
I'm looping in my colleague Chris Forrest. He is our lead for

the UAP report and should be able to share what we have
and/or point you to PA colleagues in DOD and ONI to work
directly with.
Audrey
From: La!, Bhavya (HQ-MOOO) <bhavva lal@nasa ~ov >
Sent: Tuesday, June 8,202 1 2:07 PM

To: Schaffer, Audrey M. EOP/NSC
Subject: Talking points for UAP report
Hi Audrey. Great seeing you today. Wanted to

coordinate NASA talking points on the UAP repol1 with
those ofN SC to the extent possible. Any thoughts on
that front would be most welcome! Best and come visit
us at NASA! Bhavya
IiiIiIi·D.
Deletion Page
pages originating with or of interest to the

Office of were
referred to that entity for review and direct
response to you.
Deletion Page
2 pages containing duplicate information are

held in the file. The pages consist of
Fro m: IO = EX01ANGfl AElSIQlI = EXQ1ANGE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP
(EYPlBOHF23SPP I DlCN = REOPlENIS/C14 = 669Bf(flOOES4[)f495F8E2J3ZFA4f19C-KIEfffR MA
To: McKay. Meredith O-tO-TAOOO): Feldstejn. Karen C. (HQ-TAOOO)
Cc: Flynn Dayid T (HO-JHOOQ) : Meidjnoer lolme A (HO-JljOOQ) : Kjrkham Gjb (HQ-TGOOO)
Subject: RE: SHORT TURN REVIEW -- RE : Upcoming UAP task force report
Date: Tuesday, Ju ne 8, 2021 5:56 :)9 PM
Small road hwnntnthe I;rr,mv. and he was contacted but never act ually did any
So we are down to a convo{s) several yea rs ago
w/ Sh ireman, no ARM D consult, no SMD ask. We will reach out to Dr. Denny tomorrow and gauge
his role, but seems that the NASA touch was even smaller than previously thought.
Spoke to Etkind briefly, and separately at more length, to Bob .
From: McKay, Mered ith (HQ-TAOOO) <meredith .mckay@nasa .gov>

Sent: Tuesday, June 8,20214:06 PM
To: Kieffer, M argaret (HQ-THOOO) <m argaret.kieffer@nasa .gov>; Feldstein, Karen C. (HQ-TAOOO)
<karen .c.feldstein@nasa.gov>
Cc: Flynn, David T. (HQ-THOOO) <david .flynn@nasa .gov>; Meidinger, Jolene A. (HQ-THOOO)
<jolene .meidinger@nasa.gov>; Kirkham, Gib (HQ-TGOOO) <gib.kirkham@nasa .gov>
Subject: RE : SHORT TURN REVI EW -- RE : Upcoming UAP task fo rce report
Support your recommen datio n- suggest we grab Karen on this tomorrow in the office?
From: Kieffer, Ma rga ret (HQ-THOOO) <marearet kjetier@nasa eov>

Sent: Tuesday, June 8,20213 :53 PM
To: Feldstein, Karen C. (HQ-TAOOO) <karen c feldstejn@nasa eov>; McKay, Meredith (HQ-TAOOO)
<mered jth mckay@nasa eoy>
Cc: Flynn, David T. (HQ-THOOO) <dayjd flynn@nasa eoy>; Meidinger, Jolene A. (HQ-THOOO)
<jolene mejd jneer@nasa eoy>; Kirkham, Gib (HQ-TGOOO) <ejb kjrkham@nasa eoy>
Subject: SHORT TURN REVI EW -- RE : Upcoming UAP task fo rce report
Ka ren :
The fina l iteration of the classified UAP Task Force report was ci rculated to the interagency by ODNI
for one last, short-turn review, responses due Thurs, June 10. As before, there is no NASA-specific
content. We are simply listed in a few places, along with other departments/agencies, as having
provided "outside subject matter expertise."
The NASA ind ividuals that provided this ad hoc SME consulting support were : former JSC/Kirk
Sh iremen, ARMO/Jimmy Kenyon, and GRC/Dhani reddy Reddy (Dpty Chief, Propulsion Div) . No one
from SMD was consulted, appa rently.
DON I is seek ing an SES/Flag-Ievel review/concurrence, or a no comment due to no equities.

Given the lack of specific NASA content, I would recommend we concur w/o comment and seek
ARMD AA final review as the most current/relevant SME. But defer to your, BL and/or TZ views.

To: Etkind, Marc R. (HQ-NA000) <marc.r.etkind@nasa.gov>; Feldstein, Karen C. (HQ-TA000)
<karen.c.feldstein@nasa.gov>; Kirkham, Gib (HQ-TG000) <gib.kirkham@nasa.gov>; Fox, Karen C.
(GSFC-1300) <karen.c.fox@nasa.gov>
Cc: McKay, Meredith (HQ-TA000) <meredith.mckay@nasa.gov>; Meidinger, Jolene A. (HQ-TH000)
<jolene.meidinger@nasa.gov>
Subject: RE: Upcoming UAP/UFO interagency document?
Copy. Note the current iteration of the report is highly classified, have not seen the unclass version
yet, which may influence what ODNI feels is appropriate to say officially at this juncture (despite the
informal chatter). We will ask ODNI about timing of the public report.
From: Etkind, Marc R. (HQ-NA000) <marc.r.etkind@nasa.gov>

To: Kieffer, Margaret (HQ-TH000) <margaret.kieffer@nasa.gov>; Feldstein, Karen C. (HQ-TA000)
<karen.c.feldstein@nasa.gov>; Kirkham, Gib (HQ-TG000) <gib.kirkham@nasa.gov>; Fox, Karen C.
(GSFC-1300) <karen.c.fox@nasa.gov>
Cc: McKay, Meredith (HQ-TA000) <meredith.mckay@nasa.gov>; Meidinger, Jolene A. (HQ-TH000)
Subject: Re: Upcoming UAP/UFO interagency document?
Thanks Margaret. We do have a few weeks before the report is released, but the questions are
already coming fast and furious so would be great to get our statement together this week. Much
appreciated.
From: "Kieffer, Margaret (HQ-TH000)" <margaret.kieffer@nasa.gov>

To: "Feldstein, Karen C. (HQ-TA000)" <karen.c.feldstein@nasa.gov>, "Kirkham, Gib (HQ-
TG000)" <gib.kirkham@nasa.gov>, "Fox, Karen C. (GSFC-1300)" <karen.c.fox@nasa.gov>
Cc: "Etkind, Marc R. (HQ-NA000)" <marc.r.etkind@nasa.gov>, "McKay, Meredith (HQ-TA000)"
<meredith.mckay@nasa.gov>, "Meidinger, Jolene A. (HQ-TH000)"
Karen :
We have some t ime before the report is released, but very m uch agree a TP o r two for public use is
warranted . FYSA, we have let DONI know we will be coordinating a short statement w ith them .
Folks seem to be interested in a NASA nexus, despite the fact that our role on this matter was
m inuscule.
Jolene Meidinger will reach out to you shortly to coordinate.
Margaret Kieffer
Director, Export Control and Interagency Liaison Division
NASA Headquarters
Room 5X53
Office phone (202)358-1905
secur: ~
margaret kjeffer@nasa gov
SIPR: b6
JWICS b6
From: Feldstein, Ka ren C. (HQ-TAOOO) <karen .c.feldstejn@nasa .goy>

Sent: Monday, June 7, 202 1 2:42 PM
To: Ki rkham, Gib (HQ-TGOOO) <gjb .kjrkham@nasa .goy>; Fox, Ka ren C. (GSFC-1300)
<kareo .c.fox@oasa .goy>
Cc: Kieffer, Ma rga ret (HQ-THOOO) <margaret.kjeffer@oasa .gov>; Etkind, Marc R. (HQ-NAOOO)
<marc.r.etkjnd@nasa .goy>; McKay, Meredith (HQ-TAOOO) <meredjth .mckay@nasa .goy>
Subject: Re : Upcom ing UAP/UFD interagency document?
Thanks, Gib! Hi Karen, I was also going t o connect you with Margaret, Director of OIi R's Export
Control and Interagency Liaison Division. I app reci ate that the Admin istrator made some comments
on this topic and it was a subject of discussion at our senior tag this a.m. Ma rgaret can help advise
on preparing for the report's release.
Best,
Karen
From: Gib Kirkham <gib .kirkham@nasa.gov>

Date: Monday, June 7, 20 21 at 1:53 PM
To: "Fox, Karen C. (GSFC- 1300) " < karen.c.fox@nasa.gov>, Karen Feldstein
<karen c felds t ejn@nasa goy>
Cc: Margaret Kieffer <margaret.kieffer@nasa.gov>
Hi Karen,
Copying Margaret Kieffer, who’s responsible for interagency collaboration in OIIR.
From: Fox, Karen C. (GSFC-1300) <karen.c.fox@nasa.gov>

Sent: Monday, June 7, 2021 1:09 PM
To: Feldstein, Karen C. (HQ-TA000) <karen.c.feldstein@nasa.gov>
Cc: Kirkham, Gib (HQ-TG000) <gib.kirkham@nasa.gov>
Subject: Upcoming UAP/UFO interagency document?
Cheers, Karen –
Thomas Zurbuchen let me know that as OIIR helps organize interagency collaboration, and
that you might be the best person to ask about the upcoming Unidentified Aerial Phenomena
document that is supposed to be released later this month.
Understood that it is confidential and that you can share no details about it. . . But I’m trying
to be prepared for when it is released. If you are able to share any information about whether
NASA participated and – even better -- in what capacity (provided technical expertise?
Discussed science research? Policy conversations?) that could help me be prepared for the day
of the release.
Anything you are legally allowed to tell me would be very helpful! (We also have several
people with top security clearance within the comms office, and so another alternative would
be to have them take a look at the document. . . )
The administrator has been actively discussing UFOs with the media, as you are probably
aware, and so I’d like to be able to react as quickly as possible to share information on the day
of the release about how we participated and who helped provide information.
Thanks so much!
--Karen
--
Karen C. Fox
Senior Science Communications Officer
NASA Headquarters
Karen.fox@nasa.gov
From : Etkjod, Marc g, (HQ-NAOQO)
To: L.W!;_!l!ll; paIton, Bale 'HO-N!!OO): Quinn, Susie perez rHO-
Subject: points fO( UAP report

Dilt e: Wednesd.:ly, June 9, 2021 1 :07:42 PM
All good guidance and appreciated!
On: 09 lIme 202 1 12 :00, "Brown, Alicia N, (HQ-VAOOO)" <alic ia D brown@nasa goy> wrote:
And t he search for life was added to NASA's charter in the 2017 auth bill, that Nelson
helped author,
From : Lal, Bhavya (HQ-MOOO) <bhawa,lal@nasa,goy>

Sent: Wednesday, June 9, 202111:55 AM
To: Dalt on, Bale (HQ-AHOOO) <bale dalton@nasa,gol{>; Etkind, Marc R, (HQ-NAOOO)
<marc,r,etkind@nasa,goy>; Brown, Alicia N, (HQ-VAOOO) <alicia,n,brown@nasa,goy>;
Quinn, Susie Perez (HQ-AHOOO) <susie'D,guinn@nasa,gov>; McGuinness, Jackie (HQ-
NAOOO) <jackie,mcguinness@nasa,gol{>
Subject: RE: Talking points for UAP report
Agree 100%, We don't have to repeat what they are saying

NASA' s charter is to discover life in the universe, and we are working
-
hard to do that.
From : Dalton, Bale (HQ-AHOOO) <bale dalton@nasa iOV>

Sent: Wednesd ay, June 9,202111:52 AM
To: Lal, Bhavya (HQ-MOOO) <bhawa,lal@nasa,gov>; Etkind, Marc R, (HQ-NAOOO)
<marc.r.etkind@nasa,gov>; Brown, Alicia N, (HQ-VAOOO) <alicja n bmwn@nasai0Y>;
Quinn, Susie Perez (HQ-AHOOO) <susje,D,Quino@nasa,gov>; McGuinness, Jackie (HQ-
NAOOO) <jackie,mcguinness@nasa,gol{>
Marc, Team,
our chal1er. Bottom line, we want to know!"
My two cents,
Thanks,
RED
From: La!. Bhavya (HQ-AAOOO) <bbawa lal@nasa !lOY>

Sent: Tuesday, June 8,20215:09 PM
To: Etkind, Marc R. (HQ-NAOOO) <marc.r.etkind@nasa, gov>; Brown, Alicia N. (HQ-
VAOOO) 9Iicia,Q,brown@nasa,gov>; Qui nn, Susie Perez (HQ-AHOOO)
<susie,D,auino@oasa,gov>; Dalton, Bale (HQ-AHOOO) <bale dalton@nasa eov>;
McGuinness, Jackie (HQ-NAOOO) <jackje,mcgujnness@nasa.cov>
Subject: Talking points for UAP report
See attached .
Marc - you know Patrick. Right? Feel free to follow up.
I'lll'ead the fina l clearance draft first thing t o m OIl"OW,
Begin Forwarded Message:
Talking points for UAP rep011

Date: 08 June 202 1 17:02
"La l, Bhavya (HQ-AAOOO)"
"
Deletion Page

held in the file. The page consist of emails
Fro m: 1a l Bhawa (HQ-MPOOl
To: Oyinn. Susie l'etez (HO-NiQOO) ; Brown. Alicia N. (HO-YAO(lO) ; Dalton. Bale "-K}-AHOO)) ; Elkind. Marc R. ( HO-
MOOO); McGv inness· Jackie " -to-NAOIIO)
Ya' il need to watch the movie Europa Report (2018 I think) this weekend. It's free on the interwebs:
https'IIWWWyoutubecom/watch?y- MIBxd2xxn74
From: Quinn, Susie Perez (HQ-AHOOO) <susie.p.quinn@nasa .gov>

Sent: Wednesday, June 9,20211:51 PM
To: La l, Bhavya (HQ-MOOO) <bhavya .l al@nasa .gov>; Brown, Alicia N. (HQ-VAOOO)
<alicia.n .brown@nasa.gov>; Dalton, Bale (HQ-AHOOO) <bale.daltoo@nasa.gov>; Etkind, Ma rc R. (HQ-
NAOOO) <marc.r.etkind@nasa .gov>; McGuinness, Jackie (HQ-NAOOO) <jackie.mcguinness@ nasa .gov>
wow
From: La!, Bhavya (HQ-MOOO) <bhavva lal@nasa eov>

Sent: Wednesday, June 9,20211 :09 PM
To: Brown, A licia N. (HQ-VAOOO) <alicia n brown@nasa eQY>; Dalton, Bale (HQ-AHOOO)
<bale dalton@nasa e0V>; Etkind, Marc R. (HQ-NAOOO) <marc r etkjnd@nasa eoy>; Qu inn, Susie
Perez (HQ-AHOOO) <susie p Qujnn@nasa e0V>; McGuinness, Jackie (HQ-NAOOO)
<iackie mceujnness@nasa i:0Y>
Subject: RE : Talking points for UAP report
Mark my words. This is what Europa's oceans would look like when we get there w ith our
submarine:
From: Brown, Alicia N. (HQ-VAOOO) <alicia.n.brown@nasa.@y>

Sent: Wednesday, June 9, 202112 :01 PM
To: Lal, Bhavya (HQ-MOOO) < bhawa,lal@oasa.goy>; Dalton, Bale (HQ-AHOOO)
<bale.daltoo@nasa.goy>; Etkind, Marc R. (HQ-NAOOO) < marc,Letkjnd@nasa,goy>; Quinn, Susie
Perez (HQ-AHOOO) <susje.p,gujon@oasa.goy>; McGuinness, Jackie (HQ-NAOOO)
<jackje.mcgujnoess@oasa,goy>
Deletion Page

From: Bhayya l al
To: La!. Bbavva (HQ-IAOOQl : La!. Bbayya (HO-MCIOOl
Subject: [EXTERNAl] Fwd: Nationa l Academy study
Date: Wednesday, June 9, 2021 4 :16:08 PM
_ hid
• ~>
Bhavya, I trust things are going well with you .
I'm in a JANNAF workshop right now talking about how the represented agencies should
approach research into advancedfbreakthrough propulsion. A side discussion that came up
refened to possible fallout/actions that may come up and get directed at Air Force and or
NASA after the UAP/UFO report is released.
One possibility (that could involve NIAC) would be to start a review of whether these UAP
could be providing hints of breakthrough propulsion . It was suggested that this could be a
topic for a National Academy study. It you think there could be merit in that, I would be
happy to help fOlIDulate a work statement that maintained a healthy dose of skepticism while
hearing from the more eager advocates.
Hope to see you some time!
RanT.
Business Sensitive Communication: The contents of this communication and any attachments hereto are
intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain ANSER proprietary and/or business sensitive
information. It is strictly forbidden to use , copy, or share any part of this communication or the
attachments other than for the intended business purpose or with the express consent of the sender. If
you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this
communication and any attachments.
copy, thank you! Closed out UAPTF...ended up removing 2 of the 4 NASA references.
Daily Report for Friday, June 18 to Monday, June 21
From: Margetta, Robert J. (HQ-NA020) <robert.j.margetta@nasa.gov>
To: HQ-DL-OCOMM-Daily <hq-dl-ocomm-daily@mail.nasa.gov>, code-
p@lists.hq.nasa.gov, nasa@bulletinintelligence.com
Sent: June 18, 2021 7:53:32 AM EDT
Received: June 18, 2021 7:53:50 AM EDT
Attachments: DAILY REPORT 06-18-2021.docx
Good morning.
Attached and below is the Communications Daily Report for products and activities Friday through Monday.
Thank you,
Rob Margetta
NASA Communications Daily Report
Friday, June 18 - Monday, June 21
FRIDAY, June 18
Activities
'Astronaut Drew Feustel for Rosedale School/Calgary Board of Education.
'Astronaut Victor Glover for Amazon Global Air.
'Anniversary: LROILCROSS launch
Social Media Activity
Humans in Space
-A new episode of the Houston We Have a Podcast episode entitled "200 Episodes" will be amplified on flagship social
media.
'A new episode of the Gravity Assist Podcast entitled "Climate Change" with Gavin Schmidt will be amplified on
flagship social media accounts
·A Tumblr post showcasing the new Sun Science stamps released by the United States Postal Service will be
amplified by flagship accounts. Additionally, a story will be shared on the @NASA Instagram account, and an
Instagram engagement will occur between NASA and the USPS accounts.
NASA tv
'11 am - SpaceCast Weekly - Johnson Space Center (All Channels)
Daily Report for Friday, June 18 to

Monday, June 21
HQ Products
Podcast
·10 am - Gravity Assist Podcast - Climate with Gavin Schmid!.
Center Products
Podcast
·Houston We Have a Podcast "Liftoff Live" episode 200 ! Johnson
ImageNideo
·10 am - Image feature- Summer Solstice in the Northem Hemisphere! Goddard
oJune 20 marks the summer solstice in the Northem Hemisphere. A solstice is the point in Earth's orbit where one half
of the planet is receiving the most daylight and the other the least.
·10 am - Hubble Friday image and caption! Goddard
Blog Post
·Artemis I LVSA Foaming and Integration! Kennedy
oBlog post on Artemis I Launch Vehicle Stage Adapter (LVSA) will be mated atop the core stage upon completion of
thermal protection system (TPS) foaming.
Web Articles
·Sun Science Stamps Highlight a Decade of Sun-Watching from Space! Goddard
·10 am - 2021 RASC-AL Forum Winning Teams Announced! Langley
Saturday, June 19
Activities
·Anniversary: Viking 1 Mars Orbit Insertion
Agency
·In celebration of Juneteenth an image feature will be shared on nasa.gov with original posts on flagship social media
accounts.
SUNDAY, June 20
Activities

Monday, June 21
·8 am - U.S. EVA 75 (Kimbrough and Pesquet) IROSA
oU.S. EVA 75 (Kimbrough and Pesquet) to install4B channellROSA solar panels, EVA start 8 a.m., live on NASA TV.
·Ingenuity Flight 8
olf the flight takes place, data will be down to Earth Monday evening.
·Anniversary: OSTMIJASON 2 Launch (2008)
Humans in Space
·Live coverage of Expedition 65 spacewalk with NASA astronaut Shane Kimbrough and ESA astronaut Thomas
Pesquet beginning at 6:30 am EDT on NASA TV, the NASA App, the agency website, and flagship social media
channels.
·To highlight the beginning of Summer Solstice flagship accounts will share original posts.
MONDAY, June 21
Activities
·10:50 am - Megan McArthur wi Bloomberg New Catalyst.
olSS Downlink: Megan McArthur and Mark Vande Hei with Bloomberg New Catalyst economic forum and deferred
release July 4 message .
. [TENTATIVEjWhite Sands' Julio Padilla with HBO docuseries "How To with John Wilson."
oJulio Padilla with HBO docuseries "How To with John Wilson," filming at White Sands Test Facility lab about tastes
and smells and his work on the Materials and Components team testing for odors inside a spacecraft, and why it's vital
that astronauts aren't exposed to malodors or toxic odors in space.
·Space.com interview with Webb's Lee Feinberg.
oPhone Media Interview: Chelsea Hohd, a reporter with Space.com, interviews Lee Feinberg, Webb's optical
telescope element.
·Interview: Science Channel with Ravi Kumar Kopparapu (moved from June 15).
oScience Channel interview with Ravi Kumar Kopparapu, Research AST, Planetary Studies about biosignalures
(based on the upcoming report on UFO/UAPS).
·Astronaut Jessica Meir for Raising A Reader Massachusetts, Boston.

Monday, June 21
Moon to Mars
·Flagship social media accounts will engage with and amplify posts published by LEGO in support of the LEGO
Education Artemis I lessons announcement.
HQ Products
Release
·Mechanicallntegration Services and Technologies (MIST) II.
Web Article
·3 pm - OSTEM MUREP OCEAN Award Announcement
oOSTEM awards institutions through MUREP's Ocean Biology and Biogeochemistry (OCEAN) solicitation to Minority
Serving Institutions (MSls).
Center Products
Blog Post
·2 pm - Boeing CFT Atlas V Rocket Arrives at KSC I Kennedy
oBlog post highlighting the arrival of the Atlas V rocket at the Florida spaceport.
Web Articles
·NASA Releases DRAFT RFP for xEVA spacesuits and services I Johnson
oNASA recenlly shifted its strategy for xEVA Artemis spacesuits to an industry-alntered approach. One or more
commercial partners, in collaboration with NASA, will design, develop, build, assemble, test, and maintain a fleet of
flight and training xEVA equipment.
·10 am - Looking to the Clouds to Improve Climate Models I Armstrong
oA web feature about the Nephelometer Experiment, or NephEx, scheduled to launch aboard a high-altitude balloon
(A nephelometer measures aerosol concentrations through photometry).
·11 :30 am - Sentinel-6 Michael Freilich First Data I JPL
oThe first low-resolution data products are in on Sentinel-6 Michael Freilich since its November 2020 launch.
·2 pm - Prototype Venus Balloon Detects Quake on Earth I JPL
oln a new study, a team developing a balloon prototype that would float above Venus, safe from its scorching
temperatures and crushing atmosphere, document how they were able to use a seismometer aboard the balloon to
detect 4.2 magnitude temblor 16,000 feet below in Richmond, Califomia.

Monday, June 21
Attachment
1. DAILY REPORT 06-18-2021.docx
Type: applicationlvnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 43 KB (44,485 bytes)

Monday, June 21
Attachment #1
CAlLY REPORT 06-18-2021.docx
Original view
4 pages (displayed on pages 7 to 10)

Monday, June 21
NASA Communications Daily Report
Friday, June 18 – Monday, June 21
FRIDAY, JUNE 18
ACTIVITIES
Astronaut Drew Feustel for Rosedale School/Calgary Board of Education.
Astronaut Victor Glover for Amazon Global Air.
Anniversary: LRO/LCROSS launch
SOCIAL MEDIA ACTIVITY

Humans in Space
A new episode of the Houston We Have a Podcast episode entitled “200 Episodes”
will be amplified on flagship social media.
A new episode of the Gravity Assist Podcast entitled “Climate Change” with Gavin
Schmidt will be amplified on flagship social media accounts
A Tumblr post showcasing the new Sun Science stamps released by the United
States Postal Service will be amplified by flagship accounts. Additionally, a story will
be shared on the @NASA Instagram account, and an Instagram engagement will
occur between NASA and the USPS accounts.
NASA TV
11 am – SpaceCast Weekly – Johnson Space Center (All Channels)
HQ PRODUCTS
Podcast
10 am – Gravity Assist Podcast - Climate with Gavin Schmidt.
CENTER PRODUCTS
Podcast
Houston We Have a Podcast “Liftoff Live” episode 200 / Johnson
Image/Video
10 am – Image feature- Summer Solstice in the Northern Hemisphere / Goddard
o June 20 marks the summer solstice in the Northern Hemisphere. A solstice is the
point in Earth’s orbit where one half of the planet is receiving the most daylight
and the other the least.
10 am – Hubble Friday image and caption / Goddard
Blog Post
Artemis I LVSA Foaming and Integration / Kennedy
o Blog post on Artemis I Launch Vehicle Stage Adapter (LVSA) will be mated atop
the core stage upon completion of thermal protection system (TPS) foaming.
Web Articles
Sun Science Stamps Highlight a Decade of Sun-Watching from Space / Goddard
10 am – 2021 RASC-AL Forum Winning Teams Announced / Langley
SATURDAY, JUNE 19
ACTIVITIES
Anniversary: Viking 1 Mars Orbit Insertion

Agency
In celebration of Juneteenth an image feature will be shared on nasa.gov with original
posts on flagship social media accounts.
SUNDAY, JUNE 20
ACTIVITIES
8 am – U.S. EVA 75 (Kimbrough and Pesquet) IROSA
o U.S. EVA 75 (Kimbrough and Pesquet) to install 4B channel IROSA solar panels,
EVA start 8 a.m., live on NASA TV.
Ingenuity Flight 8
o If the flight takes place, data will be down to Earth Monday evening.
Anniversary: OSTM/JASON 2 Launch (2008)

Humans in Space
Live coverage of Expedition 65 spacewalk with NASA astronaut Shane Kimbrough
and ESA astronaut Thomas Pesquet beginning at 6:30 am EDT on NASA TV, the
NASA App, the agency website, and flagship social media channels.
To highlight the beginning of Summer Solstice flagship accounts will share original
posts.
MONDAY, JUNE 21
ACTIVITIES
10:50 am – Megan McArthur w/ Bloomberg New Catalyst.
o ISS Downlink: Megan McArthur and Mark Vande Hei with Bloomberg New
Catalyst economic forum and deferred release July 4 message.
[TENTATIVE]White Sands’ Julio Padilla with HBO docuseries “How To with John Wilson."
o Julio Padilla with HBO docuseries “How To with John Wilson,” filming at White
Sands Test Facility lab about tastes and smells and his work on the Materials
and Components team testing for odors inside a spacecraft, and why it’s vital that
astronauts aren't exposed to malodors or toxic odors in space.
Space.com interview with Webb’s Lee Feinberg.
o Phone Media Interview: Chelsea Hohd, a reporter with Space.com, interviews
Lee Feinberg, Webb’s optical telescope element.
Interview: Science Channel with Ravi Kumar Kopparapu (moved from June 15).
o Science Channel interview with Ravi Kumar Kopparapu, Research AST,
Planetary Studies about biosignatures (based on the upcoming report on
UFO/UAPS).
Astronaut Jessica Meir for Raising A Reader Massachusetts, Boston.

Moon to Mars
Flagship social media accounts will engage with and amplify posts published by LEGO
in support of the LEGO Education Artemis I lessons announcement.
HQ PRODUCTS
Release
Mechanical Integration Services and Technologies (MIST) II.
Web Article
3 pm – OSTEM MUREP OCEAN Award Announcement
o OSTEM awards institutions through MUREP's Ocean Biology and
Biogeochemistry (OCEAN) solicitation to Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs).
CENTER PRODUCTS
Blog Post
2 pm – Boeing CFT Atlas V Rocket Arrives at KSC / Kennedy
o Blog post highlighting the arrival of the Atlas V rocket at the Florida spaceport.
Web Articles
NASA Releases DRAFT RFP for xEVA spacesuits and services / Johnson
o NASA recently shifted its strategy for xEVA Artemis spacesuits to an industry-
centered approach. One or more commercial partners, in collaboration with
NASA, will design, develop, build, assemble, test, and maintain a fleet of flight
and training xEVA equipment.
10 am – Looking to the Clouds to Improve Climate Models / Armstrong
o A web feature about the Nephelometer Experiment, or NephEx, scheduled to
launch aboard a high-altitude balloon (A nephelometer measures aerosol
concentrations through photometry).
11:30 am – Sentinel-6 Michael Freilich First Data / JPL
o The first low-resolution data products are in on Sentinel-6 Michael Freilich since
its November 2020 launch.
2 pm – Prototype Venus Balloon Detects Quake on Earth / JPL
o In a new study, a team developing a balloon prototype that would float above
Venus, safe from its scorching temperatures and crushing atmosphere,
document how they were able to use a seismometer aboard the balloon to detect
4.2 magnitude temblor 16,000 feet below in Richmond, California.

Monday, June 21
Fro m :
To : I
Ct:: Grove Jeoofu {HO-YA030l

Subject: RE: [EXTERNAl] Fwd: Congressional UAP Update
Dilte: Monday, June 21,20213:32:5'1 PM
Good afternoon - I would recommend reaching out 1spoke to

her this afternoon and she is happy to assist.
Best/Jolene
Jolene A. Meidinger
Interagency liaison
NASA Headquarters (5Y4 1)
Office : 202-358-3880
From: Kieffer, Margaret (HQ-THOOO) <ma rga ret.kieffer@nasa.gov>

To: Brown, Alicia N. (HQ-VAOOO) <alicia.n.brown@nasa .gov>; Irving, Richard R. (HQ-VA030)
<richard.r.irving@nasa.gov>; Fla herty, Christopher J. (HQ-VA030) <christopher.j .flaherty@nasa.gov>;
Drew, Benjamin A. (HQ-THOOO) <b.a.drew@nasa .gov>
Cc: Grove, Jennifer (HQ-VA030) <j enn ifer.grove@nasa .gov>; Meidinger, Jolene A. (HQ-THOOO)
<jolene .meid inger@nasa.gov>
Subject: RE : (EXTERNAL] Fwd: Congressional UAP Update
Ah, copy. Added Jolene in the event she has a better POC given ODNI ran the pre-OMB report
vetting.
From: Brown, Alicia N. (HQ-VAOOO) <alicja .n,brown@nasa.goy>

To: Kieffer, Margaret (HQ-THOOO) <margaret.kjeffer@nasa,goy>; Irving, Richard R. (HQ-VA030)
qichard,cjrvjng@oasa .gov>; Flaherty, Christopher J. (HQ-VA030) <cbrjstopher,jJlahertv@nasa.goy>;
Drew, Benj amin A. (HQ-THOOO) <b.a.drew@nasa,goy>
Cc: Grove, Jennifer (HQ-VA030) < jenojrer,groye@nasa,goy>; Meidinger, Jolene A. (HQ-THOOO)
<jolene,mejdjnger@nasa.goy>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Congressional UAP Update
House science understands we didn't have a role. They j ust wa nt us to get them a briefing bc
otherwise (b) (5) Tha nks for the POC!
From: Kieffer, Margaret (HQ-THOOO) < mar~et kietier@nasa goY>
To: Irving, Richard R. (HQ-VA030) <richard r irving@nasa ~oY> ; Fla herty, Christopher J. (HQ-VA030)
<christopher j flaherty@nasa ~oy >; Drew, Benj amin A. (HQ-THOOO) 
Cc: Brown, Alicia N. (HQ-VAOOO) <alicia n brown@nasa ~oy >; Grove, Jennifer (HQ-VA030)
<jennifer ~roye@nas INY>; Meidinger, Jolene A. (HQ-THOOO) <jolene meidn~ r @nas goy>
Subject: RE: (EXTERNAL] Fwd: Congressional UAP Update
Goodness, our role in th is assessment was almost non-existent. Suggest we defer/refer to Mr. Jay
Stratton from ON I, if possible. Separate from the poes at the bottom of the trail, below is the POC
who arranged last year's (NASA requested) brief by Jay Stratton on UAP report process.
DOD poe
From: Irving, Richard R. (HQ-VA030) <richard r iryjng@nasagoy>

Sent: Monday, June 21, 2021 9:20 AM
To: Fla herty, Christopher J. (HQ-VA030) <chrjstopher j flaherty@nasagoy>; Drew, Benj am in A. (HQ-
THOOO) 
Cc: Brown, Alicia N. (HQ-VAOOO) <alicia n brown@nasa goy>; Kieffer, Margaret (HQ-THOOO)
<margaret kjeffer@nasa goy>; Grove, Jennifer (HQ-VA030) <jennifer E:coye@nasa goy>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Congressiona l UAP Update
I do not.
Regards,
--R
Richa rd R. Irvin g
Office of leg islative and Interg overnmental Affairs
National Aerona utics and Space Administration
(202) 358-0084
richard r jrvjng@nasa goy
From: Flaherty, Christopher J. (HQ-VA030) <christopher.j.flahertv@nasa.goy>

To: Drew, Benjamin A. (HQ-THOOO) <b.a.drew@nasa.goy>; Irving, Richard R. (HQ-VA030)
qichard.r.jrvjng@nasa.goY>
Cc: Brown, Alicia N. (HQ-VAOOO) <alicia.n.brown@nasa.gov>; Kieffer, Margaret (HQ-THOOO)
<margaret.kjeffer@nasa.goy>;Grove,Jennifer (HQ-VA030) <jennifer.grove@nasa.goy>
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Congressional UAP Update
Alvin and Rick
So, it looks like back in 2019 NASA facilitated a briefing for House Science on Unexplained Aerial
Phenomena.
Do you know of a POC at DOD that we can reach out to on this?
From : Hammond, Tom

Sent: Sunday, June 6, 2021 859 PM
To: Brown, Alicia N. (HQ-VAOClO) <alicia,n,brown@nasa,goY>
Subject: (EXTERNAL] Fwd: Congressional UAP Update
Its that time again. Can you arrange for a classified briefing by NASA and Navy/DoD/IC on this topic?
We got the last one, but given the recent report release and thi s article referencing NASA, we'd like
everyone in one room for a classified Member brief.
Happy to work together on an agreeable time that works for everyone, but given the release if the
report, sooner is better than later.
Hope all is well.
Thanks.
Tom
Begin forwarded message:

Deletion Page


the US Navy are being referred to that agency
for review and direct response to you.
Re: UAP Report
From: Lal, Bhavya (HQ-AAOOO) <IO=EXCHANGELABS/OU=EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATIVE
GROUP
(FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)lCN=RECIPIENTS/CN=8F41245EAB914300A3D5B858A7F172
OC-LAL, BHAVYA>
To: Etkind, Marc R. (HQ-NAOOO) <marc.r.etkind@nasa.gov>, Cruz, Randy C. (HQ-
AAOOO)[Affiliate] <randy.c.cruz@nasa.gov>
Cc: McGuinness, Jackie (HQ-NAOOO) <jackie.mcguinness@nasa.gov>
Sent: June 25, 2021 3:57:06 PM EDT
Received: June 25, 2021 3:57:07 PM EDT
Ok. Using the time to reread the report.
Bhavya Lal, Ph.D.
(703)-203-9804
On: 25 June 2021 15:33, "Elkind, Marc R. (HQ-NAOOO)" <marc.r.elkind@nasa.gov> wrote:
And looking like 430.
On: 25 June 2021 12:32, "Etkind, Marc R. (HQ-NAOOO)" <marc.r.elkind@nasa.gov> wrote:
Thanks Randy. Adding Bhavya to see if she can join.
On: 25 June 2021 12:21, "Cruz, Randy C. (HQ-AAOOO)[Affiliate]" <randy.c.cruz@nasa.gov> wrote:
Scheduled the 6th floor SCIF at 4:15 with the Administrator and Margaret Kieffer to answer any questions he has.
Randy
From: Etkind, Marc R. (HQ-NAOOO) <marc.r.etkind@nasa.gov>

To: McGuinness, Jackie (HQ.NAOOO) <jackie.mcguinness@nasa.gov>; Cruz, Randy C. (HQ-AAOOO)[Affiliate]
<randy.c.cruz@nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: UAP Report
Will find a time to call you. In the next hour.
On: 25 June 2021 10:21, "McGuinness, Jackie (HQ-NAOOO)" <jackie.mcguinness@nasa.gov> wrote:
Hey Randy - if possible, would you mind providing some details before 11 :30am? Nelson is doing a Washington Post
interview at noon and it would be helpful for him to have a clearer understanding ahead of that.
Re_ UAP Report

Thank you!
Get Outlook for iOS

<https:/Igcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.coml?url=https:/Iaka.ms/oOukef&data=04101Ibhavya.lal@nasa.govI365c7c4
a8a4 74f82ccb608d9381 017a417005d45845be48ae8140d43da96dd 17blOlOl6376024640371489111UnknownlTWFpbG
Zsb3d8eyJWljoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQljoiV21uMzliLCJBTi 161k1 haWwiLCJXVCI6MnO=11 OOO&sdata=ZV7S2dj9m9VhI2+
H0614gnh5GtQHVF8ZzBN+Q35+zfU=&reserved=O>
From: Etkind, Marc R. (HQ-NAOOO) <marc.r.etkind@nasa.gov>

Sent: Friday, June 25, 202110:09:18AM
To: Cruz, Randy C. (HQ-AAOOO)[Affiliate] <randy.c.cruz@nasa.gov>
Cc: McGuinness, Jackie (HQ-NAOOO) <jackie.mcguinness@nasa.gov>
Subject: UAP Report
Hi Randy. With the UAP report coming out today, the Administrator would like some background on NASA involvement
in the report. I understand our involvement was minimal and that this is a DOD report. That said. Any chance I can get
some quick facts we can give him, including timing of our input and areas of discussion. Lmk if phone is easier.
Thanks.
Re_ UAP Report

To: Cruz, Randy C. (HQ-AA000)[Affiliate]
Date: Friday, July 2, 2021 11:18:02 AM
Have the UAP POC and am sending to Natalie to schedule.

From: Kieffer, Margaret (HQ-THOOO) <margaret.kieffer@nasa.goy>
Sent: Friday, July 2, 20211:18 PM
To: (IV USN DCNO N2N6 (USA)
Massey, Natalie (HQ-ABOOO) <natalie.massey@nasa.goY>; Miller, Helen G. (HQ-MOOO)
<helen.g.miller@nasa.goY>
Cc: Bray, Scott W SES USN DeNO NLNO(U:)A)
I INTEL & SEC
SES OSD OUSD INTEL (USA)
SES USN NIA WASH INGTON DC (USA)
Felelstein, Karen C. TAOOO)
< k,erl.cf( l ste,in~'ra.go\l>; "rc,"IY, Mlerediith (HQ-TAOOO) <meredith.mckay@nasa.gov>;
Meidinger, Jolene A. {HQ-THOOO} <jolene.meidinger@nasa.gov>
SubJect: [Non-DoD Source] RE: [EXTERNAL] briefing request for NASA Administrator and Deputy
Administrator on UAPTF report
-
Please reach out to Natalie Massey (cc:'d above, and at 202.358.1020) to secu re time on
Administrator Nelson's calendar for a briefing on the UAPTF report, including the classified annex.
The Administrator has requested two other NASA lead ers participate in the briefing: NASA Deputy
Administrator Pam M elroy, and the Associate Administrator for Science, Thomas Zurbuchen . Bios
below.
hUps:l/www,nasa,goy/oress-release/pam-melroy-sworn-in-as-nasa-deputy-administrator
htl ps :/Iscjence. nasa, goy/about-u s/Jeadershj pfTbornas-Zu rbuchen
Thank you again for responding so quickly to t he Administrators request.
Hope all have a restful and enjoyable holiday weekend,
Margaret Kieffer
Director, Export Control and Interagency liaison Division
Office of Intemational and Interagency Relations
NASA Headquarters
Room 5X53
Office phone (202}358-1905
secur :~
margare1,kierrer@lnasa,gQV
SIPR: b6
JWICS b6
From : Kieffer, Margaret (HQ-THOOO)

To : CIV USN DCNO N2N6
Cc: Bray, Scott W SES USN DCNO NLr'b \U,,')
b6 b6
Feldstei n, Karen C. (HQ-TAOOO)
<k,,,en.c. feldsteln,@,," sa .gov>; M"idin.,,,, Jolene A, (HQ-THOOO) <jolene, meidinger @nasa ,gov>
Subject: RE: (EXTERNAL] briefing request
-
W onderful, appreciate your rounding back so quickly, We will consul t with Administrator Nelson's
EA, and see if they want to proffer some options, or work scheduling with you directly,
Regards,
Margaret Kieffer
Director, Export Control and Interagency liaison Division
NASA Headquarters
Room 5X53
SIPR: b6
JWICS b6
RE : [EXTERNAL[ RE: Talking pOints for UAP report
To: Schaffer. Audrey M. EOP/NSC
Sent: July 6, 202 1 5 :06:21 PM EDT
Received : July 6, 202 1 5:06:19 PM EDT
H Audrey - Hope all is well. Quick question - do you know who was in the room with
Bhavya Lal, Ph.D.
(703)-203-9804
RE_ [EXTERNAL] RE_ Talking points

for UAP report
&tifti>,.....,r !mIJ<Q1),!H.> _lW-TNQl)
....,..-_Ioo ........
-
1IE,[E<mIIW.]lW'lF ...
""""",,101, It, '<Ill ".",,, ...
LoA.., _ _ Or ' ;!o 11. . . , "'IAn
Good .flern""",
Att.ched . re the fin.1t.llO"" points prepored by OOOMM (Koren f ox) fo r tne UAI'Tf report.
JoIe"" A. M eidinger
Inte'"i r~ lioi>of1
Offi<e ol l n tema;o~ a n<! Inte nll:ency Reioti"""
NIoSA He.dpu.rte<, (SY41)
Office: 1Q2-358-31!l!O
c.'ii!.
jp !<=oe meiding crjlloooa rOil
b6
b6
From : K i< ~r, Mor,aret (HQ-TflOOO) <mor",rel.li<fle r@ln.,."oy>
Sent: Mond.y, July 19, 202112:13 PM
f o: PottH, s.e.., (HQ-NIl020) <",.n .potte<!!'n . .. ,0",,"; Meidin,er, J~e A. (HQ-THOOO) <joi<ne.meid ina;er@l nos. ,"""
Cc: feld,te<n, ~ ..." C. (HQ-TAOOO) <bren d e i<htein l!' n ....",,,,,"; MrKo" Me r""ith (HQ-TAOOO) <"",redith.mdoy@ln.,aIOY>
Subfec:t: Rf: (fXTfRNAlJ UAPTf and NASA - Repue,t lor Comment
s.e. n:
Su<e , no proo. Ph ke .p Jolene on di,tro ., well. ~lu l y w. an pivot to t~ e interesti"" .nd ",lev.nt NASA/SMO wort in tl1e ",. rrlIlor 1m, Ii""n I~. minlm. 1 N.t.SA role in
the Tf report. Not. ~ ore n fO>! r"",dinated RTQs !of tl1e UAPTf ",lea", whrl mllY h.ve ~elpu ronlent. Jolene oon ",nd • wPV 01 finol to . 11 on di>l",.
"
From: Potter, SNn (HQ-NA020) <go n ootIc'lIIntiARO",,"
s.e ot: Mond.y, July 19, 20219:51 AM
f o: U.lfe r, M.,..",t (HQ-TtlOOO) <rnorg .... t . JI'ffrr.o ... """,,"
Subfec:t: fW: (UTfR NAI.j UAPTf and N.t.SA - Reque:st for Comm.nt
Hi, M.,..ret - Pl-e.",,.. below __
We're I:oinl to n"'" to W<rl a r"pon", to tl1~ ..,<1 St.p h.., .. Sd1i<rIloIz i< COOfdin.bnl with the ISS Proa;r.m, but I'm hopiflll VOU GOn help from an OIiR pe rspect;v,.
.,.
Th. nh,
)' o (HQ-NA020j" hing, which ~ unde . . >\rid de.dline tl1i' wee,-- I am writing .bout • new dowment obt. in"" by me from
NASA vi. f, eedom oIlnlonn.bon Art (faIA) GO,. 2HIQ-f-00507 (see '.Ie....
nt portion po,ted belowl.
Th~ ,. Ie.", re ... led tM< tl1e UAP To", fo,e. (UAPTfI rontoct"" NASA, .nd ",p"",ted thot tl1ev be boo"" on the UAP \<>pi<: ""ortl-; .fler tl1e UAPTf wos
announe"" as beinl .,tb~"ed I . m I>op<nl to l et ",me romme nt(s) rCj;ordiflll th~.
I. Wh~ did the UAPTf ,..,l out ro brief N.t.SA"

2. The br..1 wos . ilI 'ealre \!ideo teleronl .... nre; araJ",t. ro >IIY thl> wos a 'dil,~e brie/irll"?
3. Wby did NASA indude, • ...d/e< tbe UAPTf ",puc>!, tn. pre",nre 01 the ISS Prolnlm Man.~r? It'> been Ionl said tl1e UAP To, k fOf CC prim. , ..... locu"'d
on inw.-..ion, 01 miitilfjl t .. ini"" r""l"' ."d b.>e" '" thi' ",e m, to be • b;t OIJI 01 tbe puNicw 01 t~ e t a51: lorr.', object ive' .
•. I, tl1e", anvthinl tl1 .. ran be ""id .bout the ront.,,!.> 01 the brieli nl ?
S. [)e,p-;te tl1e UAPTf rontartinl NASA to brief tl1em "" the miIIte<; NASA ...., not port 01 the list 01 .,eneic, ro=~ed 10< the recent r.pon published by
OON I "'I.rdinl UAP,. Wa, tl1e r• • re.",n they w. re nol induded <X ron,ulted, riVen NASA', ",cent admi";o,, tl1evd be looi<inl into the m.tt. r"
Thank you so much for your time and consideration. Again this is a very tight deadline, so I hope someone can add comment to the above questions.
This is the highlighted portion of the document received via FOIA:
Sincerely,

CEO - The Black Vault, Inc.
https://www theblackvault.com
Toll Free: (800) 456-2228
International: 1 (818) 655-0474
Fax: (818) 659-7688
Mailing Address:
The Black Vault
27305 W. Live Oak Rd., Suite 1203
INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION ONLY
TP: XX-XXX Date , 2021
SUBJECT: NASA’s Interest in UAP/UFOs
BACKGROUND
Public and media interest in the topic of UAP/UFOs has seen an uptick in recent weeks
following reports related to the Department of Defense’s release of three unclassified
U.S. Navy videos as well as an upcoming Congressional report led by Naval
Intelligence on UAPs. The unclassified report is expected to be shared with Congress
by Friday, June 25.
STATEMENT
One of NASA’s key goals is the search for life in the universe. To date, NASA has yet to
find any credible evidence of extraterrestrial life; however, NASA is exploring the solar
system and beyond to help us answer fundamental questions, including whether we are
alone in the universe. We lead the U.S. government’s search for extraterrestrial life, be
it close to home, on the planets or moons of our Solar System, or deeper into space.
NASA does not actively search for UAPs and the lack of robust data is the central
problem for scientific study of UAPs and to determine whether they are natural or
human-made phenomena – there is no current data to support that UAPs or UFOs are
evidence of alien technologies.
KEY POINTS
Most UAP sightings result in very limited data, usually video recordings from a
single angle that can only be cross-validated with eyewitness testimony.
The language of scientists is data. Without access to an extensive set of data, it
is nearly impossible to verify or explain any observation. The lack of robust data,
including the lack of access to some existing data, is the central problem for
scientific study of UAPs.
Exploring the unknown in space is at the heart of who we are. The nature of
science is to better understand the unknown. Through our Earth-observing
satellites, NASA collects extensive data about Earth’s atmosphere, often in
collaboration with the other space agencies of the world. While these data are
not specifically collected to identify UAPs, they are publicly available and could
be used by anyone to search our atmosphere.
One of NASA’s key goals is the search for life in the universe. Although we have
yet to find signs of extraterrestrial life, NASA is exploring the solar system and
beyond to help us answer fundamental questions, including whether we are
alone in the universe.
From studying water on Mars, probing promising “oceans worlds,” such as Titan
and Europa, to looking for biosignatures in the atmospheres of planets outside
our solar system, NASA’s science missions are working together with a goal to
find unmistakable signs of life beyond Earth. We look for life in any form , not just
intelligent life
• We lead the U.S. government's search for extraterrestrial life, be it close to
home, on the planets or moons of our Solar System, or deeper into space.To
date, NASA has yet to find any credible evidence of extraterrestrial life .
• NASA efforts include search for biosignatures (signs of biology) and
technosignatu res (signs of technology). Given that a planet might support life for
billions of years before intelligent life evolves to create technology that ca n be
spotted from other solar systems - our own planet has only been creating
detectable technosignatures for a little over a century, for example - we have a
much better chance of finding life by looking at a broad spectrum of
biosignatures.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Ex oplanet background
• An exoplanet is a planet outside our solar system. Exoplanets are too far away to
visit but can be studied with space telescopes.
• So far, we 've confirmed more than 4 ,300 exoplanets in our galaxy, which
probably holds trillions. Thousands more are likely to be confirmed in the years
ahead .
• About a fifth of the planets confirmed so far are in Earth's size range , some in the
"habitable zone," the distance from the star that could allow liquid water on the
planet's surface.
• We also know that the building blocks of life are present throughout the solar
system and the cosmos , including water.
• Despite these encouraging signs, we have yet to find evidence of life anywhere
but planet Earth , in our solar system or beyond. We also haven't yet found a
planet like Earth orbiting a star like the Sun, with a "year" comparable to our own.
• We're now on the cusp of a potential revolution in the study of exoplanets:
detecting their atmospheres and searching for chemica l signatures that cou ld
indicate the presence of both microbial and more advanced or even intelligent
life.
• In the near-term , the James Webb Space Telescope . and the next generation of
ground-based telescopes, will be able to spread the light from a small sample of
Earth-sized exoplanets into a spectrum, potentially revealing the presence of
atmospheric gases.
• We'll probably begin with large, gaseous worlds unlikely to be habitable, but that
will pave the way for future instruments that could look in on a small, rocky world
- perhaps even one similar to OUf own.
• We might see signs of oxygen, methane and carbon dioxide in such a planet's
atmosphere - in other words, an atmosphere that reminds us of home.
Past Missions
Viking Proj ect: 1 & 2
o NA SA's Viking Project was the first mission to reach the martian surface and the
first to search for evidence of life on Mars. Viking was NASA 's first attempt to
search for life on another planet, and was thereby the first mission dedicated to
astrobiology. The project found a place in history when it became the first U.S.
mission to land a spacecraft safely on the surface of Mars and return images of
the surface.
Two identical spacecraft, each consisting of a lander and an orbiter, were
built. Each orbiter-lander pair flew together and entered Mars orbit; the
landers then separated and descended to the planet’s surface.
The landers conducted three biology experiments designed to look for
possible signs of life.
These experiments:
Discovered unexpected and enigmatic chemical activity in
the Martian soil, but provided no clear evidence for the
presence of living microorganisms in soil near the landing
sites.
Taught scientists a great deal about how little we knew about
life on Earth and how to detect it.
Continue to shape the development of life detection
strategies and equipment at NASA and other international
agencies.
NASA’s Viking Project took place before NASA’s Astrobiology Program
was founded, but many scientists from its precursor, NASA’s Exobiology
Program, participated in the mission.
Kepler and K2 Mission

o Kepler was a space observatory designed to survey a specific portion of our
region of the Milky Way galaxy. An important part of Kepler’s work was the
identification of Earth-size planets that orbit in the habitable zone of their host
star. Such observations are directly relevant to the study of life’s potential in the
Universe, and the search for life beyond Earth. Kepler discovered more than
2,600 exoplanets!
o Kepler’s observations suggest that there may be nearly 2 billion potentially
habitable planets in our galaxy around Sun-like stars. Not all of them may be
habitable, or inhabited, but the sheer number of them makes it likely that there
could be life on worlds.
Amongst the Kepler discoveries is Kepler-186f, the first validated Earth-
size planet in the habitable zone of a star other than the Sun. The vast
amount of data collected by Kepler will continued to be analyzed and used
to help to guide the future direction of astrobiology science.
Astrobiologists use this data to:
Develop new techniques for studying exoplanets in greater and

greater detail.
Help inform future missions to characterize exoplanets and
exomoons, and possibly identify signs of life by analyzing attributes
of these distant worlds, such as atmospheric composition.
Current Missions
MAVEN
o Data from MAVEN provides insight into the history of Mars’ atmosphere, climate,
liquid water, and planetary habitability. An important aspect of
the MAVEN mission is studying how early Mars lost much of its atmosphere.
o This atmospheric loss may have been partially responsible for Mars’ transition
from a planet capable of supporting liquid surface water to the dry, desert world
we know today.
Astrobiologists are working with data from the MAVEN mission in order to
understand how atmospheric loss led to the loss of liquid water on the
surface of the planet.
This work is important in constraining how and when Mars lost its water
and identifying periods in Mars’ history when habitable environments were
most likely to exist at the planet’s surface.
Mars Odyssey
o Mars Odyssey provides detailed maps of Mars that are used to determine the
evolution of the Mars environment and its potential for life.
Astrobiologists were directly involved in the development of the Thermal
Emission Imaging System (THEMIS) instrument onboard Mars Odyssey.
Visible and infrared observations by THEMIS are used to identify the
distribution of minerals on Mars, allowing astrobiologists to study how the
mineralogy of the planet relates to the landforms.
Astrobiologists also use data from Mars Odyssey to study the
geochemical makeup of Mars. This information is useful for:
Studying the evolution of Mars’ environment
Identifying locations that may have been habitable for life in the
past
Finding astrobiology-relevant landing sites for future Mars missions.
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter

o While other Mars missions have shown that water flowed across the surface in
Mars’ history, it remains a mystery whether water was ever around long enough
to provide a habitat for life.
Data from MRO:

Is essential to astrobiologists studying the potential for habitable
environments on past and present Mars.
Provides invaluable data used in selecting landing sites for future
Mars missions.
Is important in building climate models for Mars, and for use in
comparative planetology studies performed astrobiologists who
study the potential habitability of exoplanets that orbit distant stars.
Mars Exploration Rovers (MER) Spirit & Opportunity

o NASA’s twin Mars Exploration Rovers, Spirit and Opportunity, were designed to
last for 90 martian days, however both robotic explorers far outlasted their
original missions and spent years collecting data at the surface of Mars. Spirit’s
sent data back for over six years, while Opportunity returned data for an
incredible fifteen years.
MER mission was to search for and characterize a wide range of rocks
and soils that hold clues to past water activity on Mars. Studying the
history of water on Mars is essential in determining whether or not the
planet once supported environments that could have been habitable for
life as we know it.
MER data has been used to identify environments that may have
supported conditions suitable for life in Mars’ past and will guide the future
of Mars exploration for decades to come.
Mars Science Laboratory (Curiosity Rover)

o MSL’s Curiosity rover is studying whether or not Mars ever had environments
capable of supporting microbial life. Data from MSL will be used to develop future
missions to collect samples of the martian surface in the hopes of identifying
signs of past or present life.
The Curiosity rover is advancing the field of astrobiology by investigating
Mars’ habitability, studying its climate and geology.
Curiosity has provided evidence that liquid water once flowed at the
surface of Mars in Gale Crater.
The rover also discovered a site dubbed ‘Yellowknife bay,’ which once
supported an environment that was habitable for microbial life.
Mars 2020 Mission to Mars: Perseverance Rover

o Mars 2020 is the next step in NASA’s robotic exploration of Mars, a primary
target of astrobiology research in the Solar System, and will build on the
accomplishments of MSL. Many researchers supported by elements of the
Astrobiology Program are involved in the design and development of the Mars
2020 mission and its scientific goals.
The rover Perseverance is providing important data relevant to

astrobiology research, along with a vast amount of geological information
about the landing site and the planet at large that will help put the
astrobiological data into context.
One of the missions primary goal is to explore the geology of Jezero
Crater in order to assess past habitability.
Jezero Crater is a geologically rich terrain, with many features and
minerals formed by water that may date back as far as 3.6 billion
years ago.
Studying the geology and mineralogy of this site will provide a
window into the planet’s climate history, and allows astrobiologists
to determine if sites like these were persistent habitable
environments that could have supported life in the past.
Perseverance will not be looking for organisms living on Mars today.
However, the rover is collecting data that could be used to identify
biosignatures of ancient microbial life.
Previous missions, from Pathfinder to Curiosity, have helped
astrobiologists determine that habitable environments were present
on Mars in the planet’s ancient past.
While these environments may have been habitable, we do not
know if they were inhabited (i.e. if life was ever present).
Perseverance will be collecting a suite of samples to be returned to Earth
via a Mars Sample Return mission. The return samples from another
planet will allow our researchers to interrogate them with all of the
sophistication and thoroughness of Earth-based instrumentation, and will
provide an immense opportunity to dramatically advance our scientific
understanding of Mars.
Many of the goals for the Mars 2020 mission are directly relevant to
Astrobiology. These include:
Determine whether life ever arose on Mars
Seeking signs of past life (biosignatures) in the geological record
Characterize the climate of Mars
Characterize the geology of Mars
TESS Mission
NASA’s Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite is an all-sky survey mission
that will discover thousands of exoplanets around nearby bright stars.
TESS launched April 18, 2018 aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket.
To date, TESS has discovered more than 120 confirmed exoplanets and
more than 2,600 planet candidates
TESS has identified, and will continue to find, exoplanets targets that
Webb will study in further detail
Upcoming Missions
Dragonfly Mission to Titan

o This revolutionary mission concept includes the capability to explore diverse
locations to look for prebiotic chemical processes common on both Titan and
Earth. Titan is an analog to the very early Earth, and can provide clues to how
prebiotic chemistry under these conditions may have progressed.
o The NASA Astrobiology Program supports scientists involved at all stages of the
mission. Projects supported by the program have helped to define Titan as prime
target for astrobiology research in the Solar System.
Analog research on Earth and comparative planetology studies in order to
better understand the environment of Titan and to identify sites of
astrobiological interest.
Development of instrumentation that can be used to perform scientific
investigations at Titan.
Research in areas of prebiotic chemistry that inform our knowledge of
organic chemistry on the moon.
Europa Clipper Mission to Europa

o The Europa Clipper mission will place a spacecraft in orbit around Jupiter in
order to perform a detailed investigation of the giant planet’s moon Europa.
Europa shows strong evidence for an ocean of liquid water beneath its icy
crust and some astrobiologists believe that it could host conditions
favorable for life.
Astrobiologists are involved in the definition of science goals for Europa
Clipper and the design of scientific instruments for the mission.
James Webb Space Telescope (Webb)

o Webb will be the premier space-based observatory of the next decade. Webb is
a large infrared telescope with a 6.5-meter primary mirror. Data from Webb will
be used to study the formation and evolution of habitable worlds, and will be
invaluable in understanding processes that have shaped habitability in our own
Solar System.
o Webb will be capable of making detailed observations that might allow
astrobiologists to identify some potential signatures of life on Earth-like planets
beyond our Solar System.
Webb observations will be used to study:
Every phase in the history of the Universe, including the evolution
of the Solar System
The formation of distant solar systems capable of supporting life on
Earth-like exoplanets.
Observe the formation of stars from the first stages to the formation
of planetary systems
Measure the physical and chemical properties of planetary systems
and investigate the potential for life in those systems
PAOs:
HQ: Alana Johnson, alana.r.johnson@nasa.gov / 202-358-1501
HQ: Karen Fox, karen.fox@nasa.gov/301-286-6284
HQ: Liz Landau, elizabeth.r.landau@nasa.gov
Concurrences:
HQ: Mary Voytek, Senior Scientist for NASA Astrobiology
HQ: Lori Glaze, Planetary Science Division director
HQ: Michael New, Deputy AA for Research, Science Mission Directorate
HQ: Eric Smith, JWST Program Scientist
_ _ _ .. /lnJ U U!l
..... _!/9-!H!!C!Ol
-
_ ..""C !mJJ<Q1l;1Uoo _lW.]NQl) !lom.DoddI fln.DQDl; , - _.. /I"'llQ!IIl
... _ .. ...... r..IW'lF_ ... ...-
"""""', W, 't. ,.." "'''". PM
Copy l:un onsite 100000000w :mil will ~tTend
- - Ofigin>1 Me ... ~ - -
From: "Kidfer, M~t (HQ-TIlOOO)" ~g3fl kief~ gov>
Dale: Mon.1uly II', 20211:21 PM-MOO
To: "Meidinger, Jo1m< A (HQ-TIlOOO)" <jolene meidinget@lW.3gov>
CC: "Feldstein, Karen C (HQ-TAOOO)" <brmc ~ldsein@.:, gov>. " M c~, M=diTh (HQ-TAOOO)" <m=dith mcby@lW.3go\/>. "Flynn, o.vid T (HQ-
TIfOOO)" <david flynn@ ...... gov>, " ~ > Ikoj:uninA (HQ-TIlOOO)" 
SubjeCf: invite 10 NASA for UAPTF fullow 00 convo
Jolene:
(b) (5) n Vl t~ d
NASA to ""rtid""te in ~ ; ="ion a bout"
folowon U.<J> actiVIty, "e<:ur~ phone. ft;, tomrw/Tu~" 10:3G-noon . I forworded
the infof;n.;", to you and let foil< lncw I hod a confi ict, but we (yo<J, Alvin?) would try to attend, if pozible.
--
"
~
-=
~-
,
akeol"""- _
E>IportCoroml _ _ _ _ Laoon
~RdoOin>
o.-x.
From : Me Kiinrer, Jolen e A. (HQ-mODO) < joW:n e .m~idner ~no"' . lo"

.sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 2:41 PM
To: fiefter, MOfllore1 (HQ-mODO) <mofllo",Uil:ffe rf!'no .. I"">; Potter, s... n (HQ-NAOlO) < ,.a n.poter~"'-I
Cc: f efd,t';n, ~ or." C. (HQ-TAOOO) <oren cJeld,tein !!,"",",Ir'l""; McKay, Me redith (HQ-TAOOO) "'redith . mdov~ n ... loY>
Subject: Rt: ]txHRNAL j U.<J>TF and NASA - Reque,t for Comment
Deletion Page

From : Feldstein. Karen C. (tKHAOOQ)
To: McKay. Meredith 'HO-TAOOOl
Subject: Re: 010 YOU ANSWER KAnA ON 1lI1S ONE? FW: (EXTERNAl] RE: UAPTF Report f(X" NASA Administrator and
Deputy Administrator M\:g. Request
Dilt e: Monday, July 19, 2021 10;02:07 PM
Atlilchmen ts: jmage001.11D(]
I sent MK a note and told Kayla we'd let her know. Mtg isn't until August 17 th .
From: Meredith M cKay <meredith.m ckay@na sa.gov>

Date: Monday, July 19, 20 21 at 7 :31 PM
To: Karen Feldste in <kare n. c.feldstein@nasa.goY>
Subject: DID YD U AN SWER KAYLA ON THIS ONE? FW: [EXTERNAL) RE: UAPTF Report for NASA
Administrato r and Deputy Admini strato r Mtg. Request
From: Ratnasamy, Kayla R. (HQ-AAOOO) <kayla.r.ratnasamy@nasa.goY>

Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 9:4S AM
To: Feldstein, Karen C. (HQ-TAOOO) <karen.c.feldstein@nasa.gov>
Cc: McKay, Meredith (HQ-TAOOO) <meredith.mckay@nasa.goy>
Subject: FW: (EXTERNAL) RE: UAPTF Report for NASA Administrator and Deputy Administrator Mtg.
Request
Hi Karen and Meredith,
Hope you both had a wonderful weekend. Does the UAPTF report meeting need to be in a secure
room or will this happen in the Administrator's office?
Sin cerely,
Kayla R. Ratnasamy (she/her)

Special Assistant to Administrator Bill Nelson
Office of the Administrator
Mary W. Jackson NASA Headquarters Build ing
300 Hidden Figu res Way, SW
E-mail: ~!: lI)'@JiL:oY
•
From: Ratnasamy, Kayla R. (HQ-AAOOO) <kayla.r.ratnasamy@nasa.goy>
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 202112:07 PM
CIV USN DCNO N2N6 (USA)
SES USN NIA WASHINGTON DC (USA)
Bray, Scott W SES USN DCNO N2N6 (USA)
Massey, Ni,talile (fIQ-AB'()()(J) <natalje.massey@nasa.goy>; Miller, Helen G. (HQ-AAOOO)

<helen.g.miller@nasa.goy>; KIEFFER, ARTHUR G. (KSC-TOSC-6560)[Test and Operations Support
Contract] <arthur.g.kieffer@nasa.goy>; Kieffer, Margaret (HQ-THOOO) <marget.kif@n~ . goy~
Feldstein, Karen C. (HQ-TAOOO) <karen.deldstein@nasa.goy>; McKay, Meredith (HQ-TAOOO)
<meredjth.mckay@nasa.gov>; Johnson, Tricia L (HQ-DAOOO)[ASRC FEDERAL SYSTEM SOLUTIONS]
<trj cia .johnson@nasa.goy>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] UAPTF Report for NASA Adm inistrator and Deputy Adm inistrator Mtg.
Request
Good Morning,
I am following up on this request for a briefing. Our office is available August 17 at l1am, September
8 at 3pm, and September 9 at l1am. Please let me which date works best.
Sincer ely,
Kayla R. Ratnasamy (she/ her)

Special Ass istant to Administrator Bill Nelson
Office of the Administrator
Mary W. Jackson NASA Headquarters Building
300 Hidden Figures Way, SW
L •
From: Kieffer Margaret ( HO-lliU0!!l
To: Feldstein. Karf.1) C. (HQ-IAOOO)
Subject: Re : [ EXTERNAL] R£: UAPTF Report for NASA Admin&r.ltor and Deputy AOOlinistrator Mtg. Request
Date: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 7:23:00 AM
Yes. BN wants to discuss details of the (b) (5) . will _ fyi, and
recommend Jolene pal1icipate. She will be on a call secme today, an lllvlte from the UAP TF
folks to discuss the next stage of the eff0l1.
On: 19 July 202121:4 7, "Feldstein, Karen C. (HQ-TAOOO)" <karen c feldsteju @nasagoy>

wrote:
Assume this is a yes?
Thanks,
Karen
From: "Rat nasamy, Kayla R. (HO-MOOO)" < kavla ,r,ratoasamy@nasa.goy>

Date: Monday, July 19, 202 1 at 9:46 AM
To: Karen Fe ldstein < kareo,c.feldste jo@oasa ,gov>
Cc: Mered ith McKay <me redi t h mckay@nasa goy>
Subject: FW : [EXTERNAL] RE: UAPTF Report for NASA Administrato r and Deput y
Administ rator Mtg. Request
Deletion Page

From: frldstejn Karen C fli O-TAl)!)!)
To: B.:dnasamy. Kavla R. (HQ-MOOQ)
Ct:: McKay Meredjtb (HQ-TAOQl!l
Subject: Re : [EXTER1'W:] Sf: UAPTF Report for NASA Administrator and Deputy Administrator Mtg . Request
Da te: T uesday, July 20, 2021 7:40:02 AM
Good morning Kayla - yes this briefing will need to take place in a secure room.
Recommending that Jolene Meidinger of my staff and I join (Margaret Kieffer will be out of
the offi ce, and Jolene handles our intel liaisonlclassified activ ities).
On: 19 July 2021 21:48, "Feldstein, Karen C. (HQ-TAOOO)" <karel1 .c Jeld s tein @ ~
l1a s a . ~oy>
wrote:
Hi Kayla, I believe so but I' m confirmi ng.
Thanks!
Karen
From: " Rat nasamy, Kayla R. (HQ-AAOOO)" < ka yla r ratnasamy@nasa ~ov >
Date: Monday, July 19, 202 1 at 9 A 6 AM

To: Karen Fe ldst ein < karen c f eldstejn@nasa ~oy >
Cc: Me red it h McKay < merdjth , mckay@ns,~QY >
Subject: FW : [EXTERNAL] RE: UAPTF Report for NASA Adm inist rat or and Deput y
Admin ist rat or M tg. Request
Deletion Page

To: Meidinger. Jolene A. (HQ-JHIK)O)
Date: Wednesday, July 21, 20214:04:55 PM
fyi, I closed out the UAP TF TPs. Will close the room. Thanks again for umbrella, did not
need.
_ -.!tIl H"'lIIl
..".,....
(1d<q _ ....., c. !ID- T""";
tlI>-IJjJII) r"""''''''''' (OO.l!!X!!' ...v...r. JpIn " 1!!Hl«XQ)
... [EXtM\LI"'~ _kr<>--<

~,"'l.-
Hi, K",~n - I don'Un""",, but CO<1.,1:..
~."
f fOm: " f~d'tein, Karen C. (HQ-TAOOO)" <liIre n.cJe\d,tein@"""' .go>'>

Date: Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 'U6 PM
To : "Potter, Sean (HQ-N A020) " <sean . poter@na~ gOY>, "!Jeffer, Margaret (HQ-THOOO)" <marg e '-kiefr@lI~ go>'>, "Meidinger, Jolene A. (HQ- n.oool"
<jo.,ne.meidinger@nasa gOY>
Ce: "McKay, Merd;t~ (HQ-TAOOO)" <meredrtn.mckily@"""'go>'>
SUbject: Re: (EXTERNAL] RL (Non-DoD Source] UAPTf and NASA- Request for Comment
Tha nh,
~ , ~
On· 21 J u~ 2021 16:04, " P<>It ~ r, Se. n (flQ-NA020j" <.... n ooll.r.n., . gPY> wrote-
f rom : "I:le ffer, Margaret (HU-rnOOOI " < m.,~aJet lieffer[iilnasa !lllY>
Date: Wed"",day, JkJ1y 21, 2021 at 4:03 PM
To: "Potter, Sean (HU-NA020)" <S!:jn ootter@nasagoy>, "Meidinger, Jolene A. (HQ-THOOO)" <jo!ene meidmger@nasaKoy>
Ce: "feldstein , Karen C. (HQ-TAOOO)" <karen c feldllejn@naSii &!lV>, "McK"Y, Meredith (Ho. TAOOO)" <meredjtb mrtay@na\.il!lOll>
Subjed: RL (EXTERNAl] RE: (Non-DoD Soorce] UAPTf and NASA - Request lor Comment
Kf/MM: Rem inder, th~ fin . 1, put>i<: .. port does I>Ot 0.11 out NASA ,peciIiaolly.
--
M
-- Din>:n, Export c.nror _ _ _ '--'"

orr.o. aI lrterJ-..J _
- =
__ ~
~
From: Polt ... , Seon (HQ-M020) <"'00 patteren... g <>v>

Senl : W ~ dnes . y , July 21, 20213:20 PM
To: Kieffer, M",~ (HQ-THOOO) <",.",.re! ~ .. ffer"'nf'" 19Y>'; Meidin, ..-, JoIen ~ A (HQ-lHOOO) < jolene meid,n'cp!ll nll .. ;wy>
C<: Feld"'e in, Kl ren C. (ffO,-TAOOO) <,orCfl " lel<1:;\<:,n",o.,. oov>; McKoV, M.,edrth (HQ-TAOOO) <mc ,e dJth,rnWvj!lnla goy>
Subic<l : Re : [EXTERNAL] RE: {Non-OoD So<J r« ] UAPTF ~ nd NASA - ReqUC5t for Comment
Hi - Just chedinl in on thi,--. Steph.n ic ~ ,ettinl pin ~e d by DOD ..
f rom: "Potter, Sean (Ho.NA020)" <sean potler@o.>aiPV>

Date: Tuesda y, July 20, 2021 '114:52 PM
To; "Kieffer, Ma rgaret (Ho.THOOO)" < m.!~,e t ~iefr@na\. ~o V>, "Meidinger, Jolene A. (Ho.THOOO) " <jo[eOf' meid l n~er@f\a'¥] ~PV>
Cc: "f e ldstein , Karen C. (llo.TAOOO)" <k;m:ndeKlslein@nasaro\,>, "McKav, Mere<lith (Ho.TAOOO)" <meredth .md<ay@na:;;l.gov>
Subjed: fW: (EXTERNAL] RE: (Non-DoD Source] UAPTf ~n d NASA - Request for Comment
Hi, M . ....ct . nd Jc> ene - Pica"" ... e t he "'atement below (which I',"" hi(hhc hted I()( yoor con...,niencc) rcc.minl the UAPTF To>!: Force, who::h would come
Iro", ~ in the Defen"" Pre", "".... tion' .. .., you c. n , ec,. has .... adycoord inoted t h , with Stephan", l""" the HEO PAOteom, but we would I"'e
to l et OIIR', b).,"'i.... os well
from : "Gough. S~n t{SUe) C1VOSD
o..le: Tuesd3v. July 20. 2021 0It 14:S8
To; stephanie Schierholz «I'phaole KhlerhobCjloa sa IIIN>
SUbjfl;t: [EXTERNAl) RE : (Non-CoO Soura] UAPTf ;lnd NASA· Requffi for Comment
stephon ...
lOOb hk~ _ ..... eoo<"Iow. 00 you ".~ ony- inputs. ~1Iy '" the batt"", po ..... ph ? Ii N.o.5A roII\I to 'Ow~t ..,p.o .. t~?
Gree_old .. o"u" if fm ",,0, to be _obn, for NASA ~ I . esoond - which. of courw. I ""o't. but fm hoPP'I' to _ tho. tIw resporu.e w .. coordioated
woth NASA..nd th .... you '.0 .. y you don', ......., ... ytb""lurther beyond what I ..... - unItu. 01 ''''' ..... you do.
!WI '''''n.... look< ,ood; I modo, • f_ edit<. I·... od ~ on ~ dirtro. for CONI', .w.. ~ng, .•nd Stec>/l..... Sdllerf>oi, from NASA. ,o,tryOOII' ....... ony
cb;'ctions/com"",nU/edrt< to below'
Rna,d,.
'lim!!! rm tho OSO(PubIic: ,,".ID) pojnt poenon on UAI')

Deletion Page


the US Navy are being referred to that agency
for review and direct response to you.
Deletion Page

From : Bress. Kent: G. (11O-TfOOO)
To: Mer· Margaret fHO-Jtl!lOOl
Da t e : Thursday, July 22, 2021 9:52: 15 AM
From: Kieffer Mamarrt rHO-Jlj!HH))
To: Bress. Kent G. (HQ-IfOOOl (kent g.bress@!ljIS\I.goyl
Cc: Flynn David T (HO-ll1!HKil
Subject: ECILD topics
Date: Thursday, July 22, 2:02112::09:54 PM
• (b)(5)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
From: loop:; AIlqmn fHO:IHOOOl
To: t>teffe, MaruM fHO-JHOOOl
~ Bynn pam I (HP:THOOOI
SUbject: OIIR Weekly Update;
Ddte: ffidov,)JIy 23, 20211 :51:51 PM
Margaret,
Please se e below for OIiR Weekly updat es. There were no det ails for the CSWG meeting on 28 July. High lighte d ....please
remove if not re quired.
Thanks,
AI
Bob,
Be low is a list of top-level, OIIR-supported activit ie s of interest this week and some upcoming activit ies:
Pl ease let me know if you h ave any qu estions or would li ke addit jona l in formation.
Rega rd s,
Ka ren
Karl!fl C Feldstein
Associate Administrator far
International and Interagency Relations
NASA Headquarters
300 ESt SW, Washington DC 20546
Tel: (202) 358..()400
Mobile: !ln~· • • • •
From: Feldstein, Karen C. (HQ-TA000)
Subject: <no subject>
Date: Sunday, August 15, 2021 10:40:09 PM
Meetings:
MON:
Lunar Flight Opptys
ISS Extension Prep
Dep Sec Commerce
Tues:
UAPTF report
EOP re ISS extension
Weds
NOAA Administrator
ASI Discussion with HEOMD
Fri
HLS ASC
ASAP with Pam
From: Flynn, David T. (HQ-TH000)
To: McKay, Meredith (HQ-TA000); Feldstein, Karen C. (HQ-TA000)
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Request for Comment - UAP Briefing for Administrator Aug 17
Date: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 10:44:47 PM
Copy that
From: McKay, Meredith (HQ-TA000) <meredith.mckay@nasa.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 6:44 PM
To: Feldstein, Karen C. (HQ-TA000) <karen.c.feldstein@nasa.gov>; Flynn, David T. (HQ-TH000)
<david.flynn@nasa.gov>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Request for Comment - UAP Briefing for Administrator Aug 17
Importance: High
Hi David,
See questions OComm received below regarding the FOIA we received. It appears the reporter has
the document requested in the FOIA. We’ll need to help OComm with a draft response tomorrow.
Thank you!
M

Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 6:09 PM
To: McKay, Meredith (HQ-TA000) <meredith.mckay@nasa.gov>; Flynn, David T. (HQ-TH000)
<david.flynn@nasa.gov>
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Request for Comment - UAP Briefing for Administrator Aug 17
Thoughts please?
From: "McGuinness, Jackie (HQ-NA000)" <jackie.mcguinness@nasa.gov>

Date: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 2:39 PM
To: Karen Feldstein <karen.c.feldstein@nasa.gov>
Hi Karen – See below. Will let you know if I get more info.
In his FOIA request, Greenewald asked for “expedited” processing and as justification, he indicated
“this document has been released in full.” We don’t know if that’s true or not. So, he may have a
copy of it somehow (that we did not release) and is sending you the questions referenced below.
From: "Gramian, Nikki N. (HQ-NA040)" <nikki.n.gramian@nasa.gov>

Date: Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 11:02 AM
To: "McGuinness, Jackie (HQ-NA000)" <jackie.mcguinness@nasa.gov>
Cc: "Fox, Stephanie K. (HQ-NA040)" <stephanie.k.fox@nasa.gov>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Request for Comment - UAP Briefing for Admin ist rator Aug 17
To my knowledge the FOIA request Mr. Greenewald sent to obta in the OIiR Ju ly 25,2021 document
has not yet been processed . That request is FOIA tracking number 21-HQ-F-660 and it is still open in
our system. I am copying Stephanie who is handling this request.
A search request was sent to OIi R (copy attached) last week, but we have not received the
document yet.
In his FOIA request, Greenewald asked for "expedited" processing and as justification, he ind icated
"this document has been released in full." We don't know if that's true or not. So, he may have a
copy of it somehow (that we did not release) and is sending you the questions referenced below.
But, as of now, the case is still open and we have not yet received the document to be processed to
respond to Greenewa Jd.
Nikki
From: McGuinness, Jackie (HQ-NAOOO) < jackje mcelJjnness@nasa eoy>

Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 202110:37 AM
To: Gramian, Nikki N. (HQ-NA040) <njkki n eramjan@nasa eoy>
Hi Nikki - Did your team respond to the FO IA request mentioned below? Karen Feldstein sa id she
was still working with FOIA on this request, so wanted to check to see how John got the OIIR Week ly
Update.
Thanks,
Jackie
Date: Tuesday, August la, 202 1 at 1:42 PM

To:
(b) (6) • •. • • • •• • •• •.•
Cc:
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Request for Comment - UAP Br iefing for Adm inist rator Aug 17
Hello Jackie,
I hope you are doing well! I know you handle the PR for the Administrator, and I wanted to reach out
about a scheduled UAP briefing on August 17 for Bill Nelson.
I am writ ing a story on that, as revea led by the FOIA release of the OIlR Weekly Update for July 25,
2021, which mentioned the UAP briefing for Mr. Nelson on August 17.
W ith that, I wa nted to see if I cou ld get com ment on :
1) Is the briefing classified?

2) Who will be giving the briefing to Mr. Nelson? Can anyone be named specifically?
3) Is there a reason for the briefing specifically to NASA and the Admin istrator?
4) What is NASA's role with UAP investigations as pertaining to the UAPTF and its mission?
(b) (6) ,t the Pentagon, as I understand she often issues

Thank you for your time. I am cc' ing
the statements on behalf of NASA reg • g sue, but thought I would try wit h you direct first.
Thank you both again for your t ime ...
Sincerely,

CEO - The Black Vault, Inc.
httRs:l/www.lheblackyault.com
Toll Free: (800) 456-2228
International: 1 (818) 655-0474
Fax: (8l8) 659-7688
Mailing Add ress:
The Black Vault
27305 W . live Oak Rd., Suite 1203
From: Flynn, David T. (HQ-TH000)
To: Feldstein, Karen C. (HQ-TA000)
Cc: Kieffer, Margaret (HQ-TH000); McKay, Meredith (HQ-TA000)
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: [Non-DoD Source] FW: Request for Comment - UAP Briefing for Administrator Aug 17
Date: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 3:54:44 PM
No problem

Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 3:53 PM
To: Flynn, David T. (HQ-TH000) <david.flynn@nasa.gov>
Cc: Kieffer, Margaret (HQ-TH000) <margaret.kieffer@nasa.gov>; McKay, Meredith (HQ-TA000)
<meredith.mckay@nasa.gov>
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] RE: [Non-DoD Source] FW: Request for Comment - UAP Briefing for
Administrator Aug 17
Sorry for the double dribble, but I think this one was already handled. DoD responded I believe, but I
can ask if you’re not comfortable with the response.

Date: Monday, August 16, 2021 at 1:26 PM
To: Karen Feldstein <karen.c.feldstein@nasa.gov>, "Etkind, Marc R. (HQ-NA000)"
<marc.r.etkind@nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: [Non-DoD Source] FW: Request for Comment - UAP Briefing for
Thanks, Karen. It would be from DoD.
From: "Feldstein, Karen C. (HQ-TA000)" <karen.c.feldstein@nasa.gov>

Date: Monday, August 16, 2021 at 1:25 PM
To: "McGuinness, Jackie (HQ-NA000)" <jackie.mcguinness@nasa.gov>, "Etkind, Marc R. (HQ-
NA000)" <marc.r.etkind@nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: [Non-DoD Source] FW: Request for Comment - UAP Briefing for
Hi Jackie,
I have no concerns with how NASA’s role (or lack thereof) in the preparation of this report is
characterized, but defer to others on the characterization of NASA’s science activities and how the
information is used.
Will DoD be putting this out again, or NASA?

Date: Monday, August 16, 202 1 at 1: 21 PM
To: Karen Feldstein < kareo.c.feldstejn@nasa.goy>, "Etkind, Marc R. (HQ- NAOOO )"
<marc r etk ind@nasa i:0Y>
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] RE: [Non-DoD Source] FW: Request for Comment - UAP Briefing for
Administ rator Aug 17
Hi Karen and Marc - Are you ok with the statement below? It's from 000, but we can provide edits if
you'd like.
They're also wondering if ok to say

(b) (5)
Thoughts?
From:
(b) (6)
Date : Monday, August 16, 202 1 at 12:22 PM
To: " jackje.mcgujooess@oasa.goy" < jackje.mcgujooess@oasa.goy>, "Schierholz, Stephanie
(HQ- NA020)" <st ephanie schierholz@nasa goy>
Cc: CIV USN DCNO N2N6 (USA)"
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [Non-DoD Source] FW: Request for Commen t - UAP Briefing for
Administ rator Aug 17
Helio, NASA,
Anything on this? The reporter held off publishing since we didn't reply, but is asking again this
morning. Is the briefing still on? Are you going t o respond separately, or are you okay with us
responding?
From: (b) (6)

Sent: Thursday, August 12, 202112:31 PM
To: jackie .mcguinness@nasa.gov;Schierholz, Stephanie (HQ-NA020)
<stephanie schierholz@nasa I:0V>
Subject: RE: [Non-DoD Sou rce] FW : Request for Comment - UAP Brief ing for Administrator Aug 17
Jackie, Stephanie,
Back@21July,Greenewaldhadaskedaboutthe FOIA he mentions below, which showed a past
briefing to NASA, and he asked about it and why NASA wasn't listed in the UAP Report to Congress.
After coordination, including with Stephanie for NASA, I responded:
"During the course of its work, the UAPTF has reached out to organizations across 000, the
Intelligence Community, and the u.S. government. The list of organizations included in the UAP
Report to Congress were the ones who provided specific input in the preparation of the report. It
was not a comprehensive list of all the organizations which the UAPTF has contacted in the course of
its work. For security reasons, we w ill not detai l the contributions of specific organizations to the
UAPTF's work, nor the areas discussed w ith every organization as part of the UAPTF's investigations.
It is worth noting, however, that the Nat ional Aeronautics and Space Administration is an
organization with broad scientific responsibilities, including atmospheric research, etc. Such
information is vital to fully understanding the environment in which Navy aviators operate and the
conditions that may have been present during any particular observation."
For this particular query, I'm looking at pretty much just repeating the above, less the comment
about the report:
Let me know. Also, I'm not responding on NASA's behalf - the questions he asked before and now
are ma inly in DoD's lane.
Defense Press Operations
•• ·U' ••• 'I •• " •• ·U' ••• " •• "
Cc: (b) (6)

Deletion Page

Headquarters: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Headquarters: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Headquarters: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Reply to attn. of: Office of Communications

October 18, 2022

John Greenewald, Jr.

Re: FOIA Tracking Number 21-HQ-F-00603

Dear Mr. Greenewald:

“Unidentified Aerial” and/or

PLEASE INCLUDE ALL ATTACHMENTS TO EMAILS FOUND . . . search the

• Mike Gold, Acting Associate Administrator, Office of International and Interagency

• Joel Montalbano, International Space Station (ISS) Program Manager (January 1,

• Suzanne Gillen, Former Associate Administrator for Legislative Affairs (January 1,

• Sandra E. Connelly, Deputy Associate Administrator (January 1, 2020 - the date of

• Karen Feldstein, Associate Administrator for International and Interagency Relations

As noted above, we completed processing the enclosed portion of responsive records. We

331 page(s) are released in full (RIF); 1

Exemption 5, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5)

Exemption 5 protects “inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not

The deliberative process privilege is intended to protect the decision-making process of

Exemption 6, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6)

Assistance and Dispute Resolution Services

So, about our current dr ••

I'm close to signing it, but I'm not quite there.

I think this paragraph is giving me the most pause:

So, here is a suggested ed it:

Sorry if these suggestions / observations disrupt an emerging consensus ..

On Thu, May 6, 202 1 at 6:24 AM Jason Wright .(b) (6) wrote:

In our straw poll to assess how close we are we have :

6 Sign as is: Anamaria, Jason, Hector, Greg, Steve, and Franck

Thanks for these detailed thoughts, Kathryn! Some thoughts in response:

On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 4:28 PM Kathryn E L Denning _ wrote :

So, here is a suggested edit:

Sony if these suggestions / observations dismpt an emerging consensus.

On Tim, May 6, 202 1 at 6:24 AM Jason Wright

Requester: John Greenewald

_",-I_ page(s) containing duplicate

Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] 1M PC SEll UFO text

A quick chime in from me.

On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 9:09 AM Katluy n E L Demling _ wrote:

Thanks Jason, Clement, Greg: all helpful input.

A couple of additional practical observations:

PC SET! UFO text

A few COllllllents on the most recent exchange.

Penn State University

108 Weaver Building

Pellll State University

University Park, PA 16802

Email: (b) (6)

PC SET! UFO text

On Mon, May 10,2021 at 5:36 AM Clement Vidal . (b ) (6) wrote:

Hi, Clement. Thanks for this.

A Never, this has always been pseudoscience (gist ofreason I)

NO: “a document explaining the exclusion of such work”

Does Kathryn's revision of these statements help?

Director, Pelll State Extratenestrial Intelligence Center

Acting Director, Center for Exoplanets and Habitable Worlds

NEID Instrument Team Project Scjentjst

Julia Dl'"l\1arines (s hl'"/hl'"r)

SpaCk ju Y our F ace '

With these edits, I'd be comfortable signing on.