Highlights

• UAP (formerly known as UFOs) are a long-standing global phenomenon.
• UAP (UFOs) have been observed and studied by engineers, scientists, and astronomers.
• There exist several serious academic and private efforts to scientifically study UAP.
• Scientific studies of UAP rely on a diverse array of scientific instrumentation.

Abstract

After decades of dismissal and secrecy, it has become clear that a significant number of the world’s governments take Unidentified Aerospace-Undersea Phenomena (UAP), formerly known as Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs), seriously—yet still seem to know little about them. As a result, these phenomena are increasingly attracting the attention of scientists around the world, some of whom have recently formed research efforts to monitor and scientifically study UAP. In this paper, we review and summarize approximately 20 historical government studies dating from 1933 to the present (in Scandinavia, WWII, US, Canada, France, Russia, China), several historical private research studies (France, UK, US), and both recent and current scientific research efforts (Ireland, Germany, Norway, Sweden, US). In doing so, our objective is to clarify the existing global and historical scientific narrative around UAP. Studies range from field station development and deployment to the collection and analysis of witness reports from around the world. We dispel the common misconception that UAPs are an American phenomenon and show that UAP can be, and have been, scientifically investigated. Our aim here is to enable future studies to draw on the great depth of prior documented experience.

Introduction

Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP), which have been referred to as Unidentified Aerospace-Undersea Phenomena by the United States Congress to emphasize their multi-media characteristics [1, p. 12], are currently more simply referred to as Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena. While it is not widely appreciated that UAP have been observed and reported for centuries [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], investigation into reports of unusual objects and light phenomena in the sky has resulted in the identification, characterization, and scientific understanding of a great number of aerial and astronomical phenomena, such as planets, comets, asteroids and meteors, auroras, lenticular clouds, parhelia (sundogs) and halo phenomena [8], [9], [10], and even St. Elmo’s fire [11], ball lightning [12], [13], elves and sprites [14], [15], [16], as well as earthquake lights [17], [18], [19]. Several of the latter examples have been recently considered pseudoscientific [20], but are now recognized by the scientific community as real phenomena worthy of study. To this day, there remains a residuum of phenomena that continue to defy explanation.

The study of UAP suffers from two main difficulties. First, the phenomena are neither repeatable nor controllable. This makes scientific data collection extremely difficult, since one must be resigned to setting up observing stations and waiting for events. In some ways this makes collecting data on UAPs similar to collecting data on earthquakes, gravitational waves, dark matter, or rare astronomical events, such as supernovae, except that the observation of particular UAP of interest is potentially more rare. The second difficulty is that it has often been asserted that witness reports are not of anomalous phenomena and can be readily explained in terms of well-understood natural phenomena, misidentifications, exaggerations, and/or hoaxes; and therefore they are not worthy of serious scientific study. This latter assertion has been widely held and promoted by the authorities and the scientific community for over 70 years, thus preventing study, discovery, and understanding; consequently, leaving us in a rather disconcerting state of ignorance.

The problem and opportunity that we face today is that the situation has changed dramatically. In December 2017, the New York Times (NYT) published an article [21], which revealed that the US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) had conducted a six-year covert program, the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), to study UAP. AATIP, which was led by Luis Elizondo [22], focused on military-only encounters and existed by operating under the more extensive Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Application Program (AAWSAP), which was funded by $22 million secured by Senators Reid, Inouye, and Stevens. The objective of AAWSAP was to study the many aspects of UAP, which included the psychic and paranormal correlates to UAP interactions [23], [24], [25], [26], while identifying “potential breakthrough technology applications employed in future aerospace weapon systems.”[26], [27] AAWSAP was managed by veteran intelligence analyst and rocket expert James Lacatski [22], [25], [26], [27], [28]. At its peak, the effort employed 50 full-time investigators (far more than any other program), which compiled the largest UFO data warehouse covering more than 200,000 cases. George Knapp, in his statement to Congress [27], noted that the AAWSAP Program produced more than 100 research papers on UAP, some of them more than 100 pages long. He also noted that the first case investigated by AAWSAP was the 2004 Nimitz TicTac event and that the report on the TicTac and its capabilities, written by the AAWSAP scientists and engineers, was more than 140 pages long. None of these papers or reports have ever been seen by Congress or the public [27].

In conjunction with the NYT article, Luis Elizondo worked to have several infrared videos of UAP taken by the US Navy publicly released [29]. Later, it was revealed that the US Navy has had ongoing [30], and at times daily [31], encounters with UAP operating with impunity in restricted airspaces and harassing naval pilots during military exercises and wartime operations [31], [32], [33], [34].

In response, the United States Navy has changed its procedures for reporting such encounters [35], and enlisted Congress to take action [36], [37], [38], [39]. The Pentagon officially released three UAP videos in April 2020, confirming that UAPs regularly operate in restricted airspace [40], [41], [42]. In June 2020, the Senate Intelligence Committee voted to require the US Department of Defense and the US Intelligence Community to detect, track, compile, catalog, and analyze information on UAPs through a program called the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force (UAPTF) [41].

In June 2021, the UAPTF presented its preliminary report toCongress, reconfirming that these UAP are not of American origin and are unlikely to come from any other country. The possibility was left open that they are craft of potentially non-human origin. In response, US Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) introduced the UAP amendment into the FY22 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA 2022) to establish a formal office to report and respond to UAPs and provide the scientific capabilities needed to track and share data, investigate sightings, and develop a response to this growing security threat. This led to the legislation 50 U.S.C. §3373 (NDAA 2022 and NDAA 2023), which authorized the establishment of the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO), which is directed to continue the duties of the UAPTF. This includes “developing procedures to synchronize and standardize the collection, reporting, and analysis of incidents, including adverse physiological effects, regarding unidentified anomalous phenomena across the Department of Defense and the intelligence community”, “developing the processes and procedures to ensure that such incidents from each component of the Department and each element of the intelligence community are reported and stored in an appropriate manner that allows for the integration of analysis of such information”, “evaluating links between unidentified anomalous phenomena and adversarial foreign governments, other foreign governments, or nonstate actors”, assessing possible threats, coordinating with other federal departments and agencies, “consulting with allies and partners of the United States to better assess the nature and extent of unidentified anomalous phenomena”, and “preparing reports for Congress, in both classified and unclassified form” [43].

Although people are generally aware that there have been several programs run by the US government to study UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objects) and UAP, it is not generally known precisely what was done and, more importantly, precisely how little was done. Moreover, it is generally believed that serious scientists, academics, and especially astronomers do not believe in the reality of UFOs, have not seen them, and certainly do not study them. By going into some detail on efforts to study UAP in the late 1940s and early 1950s, we learn that some prominent and serious scientists have been involved, that they have witnessed UFOs of many types, and that they took the matter quite seriously. Such details add context to Sturrock’s (Appendix A.15) 1977 survey of members of the American Astronomical Society [44] in which he found that out of the 1356 respondents, 23% stated that UFOs should certainly be studied and 30% said that UFOs should probably be studied as opposed to 17% saying that UFOs should probably not be studied and 3% that said that UFOs should certainly not be studied. Moreover, Sturrock found that 62 of the respondents had witnessed or obtained an instrumental record of something that they could not explain, and that of the respondent witnesses, 63% of them were night-sky observers.

This paper provides some background on UAP, followed by a detailed exposition of previous and concurrent efforts to scientifically study UAP in the expectation that a careful examination of these efforts will provide a great deal of information relevant to current and future efforts. By focusing on what scientific studies of UFOs have taken place, future studies can draw on their experience, which includes both their successes and failures, and can better equip themselves to select the best instruments, design the best observation strategies, and identify the most promising locations to study.

Since many countries, research groups, and individuals have participated in the scientific study of UAP for almost a century, there are several ways in which the information in this article could be presented. Unfortunately, there is no single presentation style that appears to be optimal. In some situations, the chronology of events and efforts is central, suggesting that a presentation based on chronology is obligatory. However, at other times, once efforts became more focused, it appears to be best to separate out efforts based on the nations, research groups, or the individuals involved. As a result, the presentation in this paper is mixed to a great degree. At some times, especially early on and during wartime, the interactions among different nations dominated the efforts to understand these phenomena. For this reason, the paper begins with a chronological, or historical, treatment which, as efforts shift to become more isolated, gives way to a presentation based on the nations, groups, or individuals involved. An appreciation of both of these differing perspectives is necessary to understand the importance and impact of efforts to study UAP in the past century.

Section snippets

What are UAP?

The acronym UAP can stand for Unidentified Anomalous Phenomenon or Phenomena, although the A can also stand for Aerial or Aerospace. The US Congress recently redefined the acronym UAP as the more descriptive Unidentified Aerospace-Undersea Phenomena [1, p. 12], but this has since migrated back to the Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena. The term aerospace broadens the study of UAP to include the Earth’s atmosphere and outer space; whereas the term undersea extends it to underwater and oceanic

Government efforts to study UAP

This paper focuses on the historical efforts to scientifically study UAP. Recent articles by Ailleris [63], [64], Stahlman [65], Villaroel & Krisciunas [66], and Watters et al. [62] provide excellent summaries of such efforts. For those interested in the history of the role of government in this rich and involved topic, we recommend the detailed text by Swords et al. [67], as the governmental aspects of our exposition are guided by their work. As much of the relevant information exists in the

UAP and nuclear weapons

One of the most disturbing and important aspects of UAP is the fact that they have been observed for decades to be active around nuclear power plants and nuclear weapon sites. Robert Hastings has been studying UFO incursions at nuclear sites for more than fifty years (since 1973), having interviewed over 150 former and retired military personnel involved in such cases in addition to having identified and acquired supporting declassified and FOIAed (Freedom of Information Act) government

Physical evidence

The fact that there have been relatively few efforts thus far to collect data on UAP in the field means that most UFO/UAP cases rely on witness testimony. However, there have been some cases in which physical evidence could be studied afterward [194].

Transmedium travel and water

While the main historical and current focus has been on the aerial aspects of UAP, their transmedium capabilities and relationship with water are an extremely important aspect of their characteristics and performance.

The three videos released by the US government were taken by Naval aircraft at sea, and in the 2004 Nimitz encounter case (FLIR 1 video: Section 3.3.10) the Tic-Tac-shaped UAP was first observed hovering over the roiling sea surface, which could have been an effect of the UAP on

Scientific field studies

There are several scientific studies currently being conducted by academics, scientists, and private citizens. In this section, we briefly describe several prominent and notable studies. These studies vary dramatically in focus and scope, as well as in structure and relationship to the academic and scientific communities.

To put these current studies into context, it is important to review prominent past efforts and individuals. Although a comprehensive review is beyond the scope of this

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)

The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) established the Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Integration and Outreach Committee (UAPIOC) in 2021 to advance the scientific understanding of Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) and improve aerospace safety. Serving as a neutral, scientifically focused group, the UAPIOC brings together aerospace professionals, academics, industry experts, and policymakers to collaboratively address the challenges associated with UAP research and

Social sciences

Although this paper has focused mainly on the physical sciences, it is important to recognize that UAP have also been the subject of considerable research within the social sciences. While a thorough analysis of UAP research in this field would require an exploration as detailed as the current one on the physical sciences — a task beyond the scope of this paper — we can nonetheless identify key limitations that the social sciences have encountered and suggest alternative directions they might

The scientific methodology and best practices for collecting UAP data

In this section we summarize the scientific methodology that has been found to be useful, as well as best practices, to detect, monitor and study UAP. Several papers have been published that present useful summaries. Most notable are the papers by Ailleris [63], [64], the Galileo Project [62], [329], [331], [333], [334], the Hessdalen Project [315], [316], [317], [318], [391], the UAlbany-UAPx Collaboration in this volume [61], the UAP Tracker Project [350], [351], the Tedescos’ Eye On The Sky

Conclusion

It is important to keep in mind that UAP are a class of unknown phenomena, and not a single thing [107]. For this reason, the instruments used to study them need to be sufficiently diverse to be able to provide useful information about a wide class of phenomena.

We have seen that, as a class, UAP describe a wide range of at least initially unidentifiable aerial and sometimes undersea phenomena with characteristics that present to the sciences a number of challenges — both in terms of their

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Kevin H. Knuth: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Supervision, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Conceptualization. Philippe Ailleris: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. Hussein Ali Agrama: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft. Eamonn Ansbro: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Conceptualization. Phyllis A. Budinger: Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Tejin Cai: Writing

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgments

The authors express their gratitude to Peter Sturrock, who passed away while this paper was being written, and whose influence on UAP studies cannot be overstated. There are a number of UFO researchers who could have been mentioned along with their colleagues in the appendix. In the end, both space and time became constraining factors, but we wish to emphasize that this in no way lessens our appreciation of their contributions. In this spirit, the authors express their gratitude to Jan Aldrich

Author links open overlay panel Kevin H. Knuth 1 31 29 27 26 24, Philippe Ailleris 16,Hussein Ali Agrama 3,Eamonn Ansbro 28,Phyllis A. Budinger 21 26 33 34 a,Tejin Cai 26,Thibaut Canuti 19,Michael C. Cifone 7 29,Walter Bruce Cornet Jr. 35 b,Frédéric Courtade 5 4,Richard Dolan 38,Laura Domine 6 26,Luc Dini 18,Baptiste Friscourt 2,Ryan Graves 15 17 c,Richard F. Haines 36 37 d,Richard Hoffman 26,Hakan Kayal 8 24,Sarah Little 14 26,Garry P. Nolan 12 27…Wesley A. Watters 14

For full references please use source link below