Report on the Historical Record of U.S. Government Involvement with Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP), Volume I
What this is
That AARO places KONA BLUE after the termination of AAWSAP/AATIP, as an attempt by the same supporters to move the effort to the Department of Homeland Security.
That the report itself states why almost nobody in Section V can be identified: AARO assigned random numbers not only to interviewees but to people who never interviewed and to organizations, and keeps the key.
That the 1961 Special National Intelligence Estimate entered this report as an interviewee's exhibit, offered as proof of UAP crashes, before AARO assessed it two pages later.
That AARO reports finding no UAP-specific nondisclosure agreements, and explains the "punishment by death" language as the standard Title 18 Section 794 clause carried in classified NDAs generally.
That AARO names, dates and titles the alleged 1961 SNIE and concludes it is not authentic, on two different kinds of ground: that CIA/CSI and NSA neither hold it nor know of it, and that its style and format depart from genuine estimates of the period.
That the disclosure study of 2004-2007 is confirmed as real but not White House-sponsored, and that a private sector organization's claimed off-world material went to the U.S. Army under a 2019 agreement.
That the sample of alleged alien spacecraft was analysed and found to be a terrestrial magnesium alloy, possibly of USAF origin, and that AARO offers a mechanism - a replica fabricated by a private organization - for how the reverse-engineering belief could have formed.
That the US government's own review counts about two dozen separate UAP investigatory efforts since 1945, and that the earliest of them is uncertain in both its name and its founding date.
That the "Estimate of the Situation" is recorded by AARO as an allegedly drafted Project SIGN report concluding UFOs were interplanetary, rejected by USAF Chief of Staff Hoyt S. Vandenberg - and that AARO itself calls the account unsubstantiated and single-sourced.
That "Project BEAR" was AARO's name for Ruppelt's contract with the Battelle Memorial Institute, which produced "Special Report No. 14" under ATIC's cover, and that Ruppelt deliberately created an "unknown" category to stop cases being forced to an answer.
That the Condon Report concluded further study of UFOs could not be justified and recommended teachers withhold credit for reading UFO literature, and that the NAS panel which reviewed it did no investigation of its own.
That Senator Reid asked Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn III on 24 June 2009 to make AAWSAP/AATIP a Special Access Program, that Lynn declined on James R. Clapper's recommendation, and that the programme's contracted work included remote viewing and "human consciousness anomalies" at a property in Utah.
That NASA's UAP Independent Study Team was chaired by the President of the Simons Foundation, and that the 2022 annual report counted 510 UAP reports as of 30 August 2022, made up of 144 earlier reports, 247 new ones and 119 later discovered.
AARO's headline finding that none of the reports it investigated represent extraterrestrial technology, while a small percentage have potentially anomalous characteristics; and the government's account of Wilbert B. Smith and Canada's Project Magnet.
That AARO records an allegation of a 2010 attempt to return purported off-world material to the USG, said to have been stopped by a former CIA official whom the report does not name, and records that the person alleged to have stopped it denied it.
That Project SIGN was renamed Project GRUDGE in approximately February 1949 and terminated on 27 December 1949 after investigating 244 reports; and that the USAF then ran a public affairs campaign intended to persuade the public that UFOs were nothing unusual.
That a second, distinct programme also named Project GRUDGE was stood up in late October 1951 under Captain Edward Ruppelt, who set out to correct his predecessors and said he would remove staff who were "too pro or too con".
That Project SAUCER found no evidence of extraterrestrial technology, that the term "flying saucer" entered the language from press coverage of the Arnold account, and that Project SIGN attributed nearly all sightings to misinterpretation, hysteria, hallucination or hoax while declining to rule out extraterrestrial phenomena.
That AARO cannot establish whether Project TWINKLE was officially supported by Project GRUDGE, and records only that the USAF Cambridge Research Laboratory managed it.
That the reestablished Project GRUDGE found a correlation between sightings and press coverage and recorded case clusters at named nuclear, missile and industrial sites, discovered no evidence of extraterrestrial origin, and that Project BEAR's statistical analysis concluded every case with sufficient data was explainable.
SEARCHED IN FULL, AND ONE THING IS NOT IN IT. This project now holds the whole 63-page file with a clean born-digital text layer, so the report can be asked what it does not say. On a National Capital Area Skeptics recording of 9 April 2026, the office's first director describes "Yankee Blue" - an Air Force practice of handing a newly appointed special-access programme officer a fictitious "alien programme" chart and a non-disclosure agreement as an initiation, which he says he briefed to the Secretary of the Air Force and reported to Congress. Neither the name nor the practice appears anywhere in this report: a full-text search returns no hit for "Yankee Blue", "hazing", "initiation" or "indoctrination", and the copy published at aaro.mil, asked directly, returns the same answer for the name and for the practice under any name. THE PLAIN EXPLANATION MAY SIMPLY BE TIME: this is Volume I, published February 2024, and the talk is twenty-six months later; a Volume II was promised and, as of this recording, had not appeared. This project does not know which it is, holds nothing on Yankee Blue but an unverified transcript of one man speaking, and draws nothing from it.
34 passages read · 63 pages held · the rest is not described
Open the document at www.aaro.mil →34 passages read
“THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ALL-DOMAIN ANOMALY RESOLUTION OFFICE. Report on the Historical Record of U.S. Government Involvement with Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP). Volume I. February 2024.”
The cover also carries the Department of Defense OFFICE OF PREPUBLICATION AND SECURITY REVIEW stamp: "CLEARED For Open Publication, Mar 06, 2024." THE REPORT IS DATED FEBRUARY 2024 AND WAS CLEARED IN MARCH. Copies circulating under the filename "Historical_Record_Report_Volume_1_March_8_2024" are named for the release, not the report.
“AARO found no evidence that any USG investigation, academic-sponsored research, or official review panel has confirmed that any sighting of a UAP represented extraterrestrial technology. All investigative efforts, at all levels of classification, concluded that most sightings were ordinary objects and phenomena and the result of misidentification. ... AARO found no empirical evidence for claims that the USG and private companies have been reverse-engineering extraterrestrial technology.”
THE TWO HEADLINE FINDINGS, both in the report's own italics. The same page also records the limit AARO puts on the first one: "Although many UAP reports remain unsolved or unidentified, AARO assesses that if more and better quality data were available, most of these cases also could be identified and resolved" - an assessment about what better data would probably show, not a finding about what the data shows.
“A CIA Official Allegedly Managed UAP Experimentation: The named, former CIA official was not involved in the movement of extraterrestrial technology. ... Claim That a Military Officer Touched an Off-World Craft: An interviewee claim that a named former military officer explained in detail how he physically touched an extraterrestrial spacecraft is inaccurate. ... Named Companies Allegedly Experimenting on Alien Technology: AARO has found no evidence that U.S. companies ever possessed off-world technology.”
READ THE GRAMMAR. "The named, former CIA official." "A named former military officer." "Named Companies." AARO ANSWERS CLAIMS ABOUT SPECIFIC PEOPLE AND FIRMS WITHOUT EVER NAMING THEM. This is the single most important fact about using this document: it clears and contradicts people it will not identify, so it can source what was claimed and what AARO concluded, but almost never who.
“One named program was a UAP-related Prospective Special Access Program (PSAP) called KONA BLUE that was proposed to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and supported by individuals who believed the USG was hiding off-world technology. The program was never approved by DHS and its supporters never provided empirical evidence to support their claims. ... In 2021, without sufficient justification, the scope of an IC Controlled Access Program was expanded to protect UAP reverse-engineering. This program never recovered or reverse-engineered any UAP or extraterrestrial spacecraft. This IC program was disestablished due to its lack of merit.”
THE ONE PROGRAMME AARO DOES NAME. The same page carries its assessment of where the modern allegation comes from: "the inaccurate claim that the USG is reverse-engineering extraterrestrial technology and is hiding it from Congress is, in large part, the result of circular reporting from a group of individuals who believe this to be the case, despite the lack of any evidence" - a group it declines to name.
“Project TWINKLE was established in the summer of 1949 to investigate a series of UFO reports witnessed by numerous observers in Nevada and New Mexico. These UFOs were described as ‘green fireballs’ streaking across the sky ... it was managed by the USAF's Cambridge Research Laboratory. The goal of this investigation was to use multiple high-powered cameras near White Sands ... Results: This project was only able to secure one camera, which was frequently moved between locations following fireball reports, and no photographs of the fireballs were ever taken.”
AARO DATES TWINKLE "Summer 1949-Summer 1950". The Project Twinkle final report this project also holds is dated NOVEMBER 1951, more than a year later. Both are US Government documents and they do not agree about when this ended; that disagreement is a fact about the record and must not be smoothed over.
“H. Marshall Chadwell clandestinely sponsored the establishment of a UFO scientific review panel led by California Institute of Technology physicist, H.P. Robertson. ... The panel unanimously concluded that there was no evidence of a direct threat to U.S. national security from UFOs or that they were of extraterrestrial origin. ... CIA officer Frederick Durant drafted a report for CIA's Assistant Director of OSI on the Robertson Panel's work and findings. Durant's memorandum provided a brief history of the panel and an unofficial supplement that provided comments and suggestions from members which they had not included in the final report.”
A SECOND DOCUMENT CONFIRMING WHAT WE FOUND BY READING THE DURANT REPORT ITSELF - that Part II is an unofficial supplement the panel members did not put in the formal report. Two independent US Government documents, thirty years apart, describing the same structure. The same page names Chadwell as the panel's clandestine sponsor and Walter Bedell Smith as the DCI he briefed.
“USAF Director of Intelligence, Major General Charles P. Cabell, established Project BLUE BOOK to study UFO phenomena. Based at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base near Dayton, Ohio, Project BLUE BOOK was the longest running UFO/UAP investigation. It was led successively by Capt Edward J. Ruppelt (the former Director of the reorganized Project GRUDGE), Capt Charles Hardin, Capt George T. Gregory, Lieutenant Colonel (Lt Col) Roger J. Friend, and Lt Col Hector Quintanilla, Jr. The USAF recorded 12,618 UFO sightings between the years 1947-1969. J. Allen Hynek served as its lead scientific investigator.”
THE PAGE THAT OVERTURNED ONE OF OUR OWN REFUSALS. Earlier today the link "Hynek and Ruppelt, Blue Book colleagues" was refused against this document on the ground that the two men appeared twelve printed pages apart in different sections. They appear here in the same paragraph, in the same programme. The refusal was correct about the pages that had been read and wrong about the document. Recorded because the lesson is the point: a refusal made on a partial read is provisional, and must say so.
“AARO partnered with the U.S. National Archives to examine the records from the USAF's Project BLUE BOOK, which spanned from 1947 to 1969. This research presented a significant challenge because of the volume of the documentation amounted to 7,252 files holding a total of 65,778 digital records. ... Of the 12,618 sightings in Project BLUE BOOK's holdings, 701 were categorized as unidentified and never solved.”
SEVEN HUNDRED AND ONE CASES THE AIR FORCE NEVER SOLVED, in the same report that concludes no investigation ever found extraterrestrial origin. Both are findings of this document and neither cancels the other. The same page records DCI John McCone tasking a 1964 CIA re-evaluation, Donald F. Chamberlain's answer that little had changed, and the O'Brien Committee - which included Carl Sagan - recommending that a top university lead an academic study, which is how the Condon Report came about.
“The USAF then published The Roswell Report in 1995, which included: ‘The Report of the U.S. Air Force Research Regarding the 'Roswell Incident'’ by Col Richard L. Weaver, and the ‘Synopsis of Balloon Research Findings’ by 1st Lt James McAndrew.”
THIS SETTLES A QUESTION WE HEDGED. The 1994 report itself never uses the word "author" - it is signed, not bylined - so the link naming Weaver as its author was reworded down to "signed". AARO says "by Col Richard L. Weaver". A second government document, thirty years later, attributing it to him. The same page records Clinton tasking Sandy Berger, and Congressman Schiff's 1993 inquiry.
“At the direction of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), the Defense Appropriations Acts of Fiscal Years 2008 and 2010 appropriated $22 million for the DIA to assess long-term and over-the-horizon foreign advanced aerospace threats to the United States. ... DIA established AAWSAP in 2009, which was also known AATIP. ... [Note on program names: The names AAWSAP and AATIP have been used interchangeably for the name of this program, including on official documentation. Unlike AAWSAP, AATIP was never an official DoD program.]”
AATIP WAS NEVER AN OFFICIAL DOD PROGRAM, in the Department's own words, in a bracketed note in its own report. The note goes on: after AAWSAP was cancelled the AATIP name "was used by some individuals associated with an informal, unofficial UAP community of interest within DoD ... not a recognized, official program, and had no dedicated personnel or budget."
“None of these investigations (including USG, foreign, and U.S. academic efforts) reached the conclusion that any of the UAP reports indicated extraterrestrial origin. ... There was at least one USG proposal - by the CIA-sponsored Robertson Panel - to engage in an active ‘training’ and ‘debunking’ effort using various public media tools to steer the public away from reporting UFOs. ... At various points in history, individuals inside and outside of the USG, including Dr. J. Allen Hynek, claimed the USAF had a key goal of debunking or explaining away reports of UAP. AARO found no evidence to suggest that the USAF had a policy intended to cover up the evidence of extraterrestrial knowledge, material, or interactions.”
AARO CONCEDING THE DEBUNKING PROPOSAL AND DENYING THE COVER-UP, on the same page, in consecutive findings. It also records that "at least the first iteration of Project GRUDGE sought to resolve all cases and prohibited its staff from characterizing reports as unknown or unidentified", and that Project SIGN staff drafted an "Estimate of the Situation" assessing some UFOs as "interplanetary", which DoD leadership rejected as lacking proof and never published.
“KONA BLUE traces its origins to the DIA-managed AAWSAP/AATIP program, which was funded through a special appropriation and executed by its primary contractor, a private sector organization. DIA cancelled the program in 2012 due to lack of merit and the utility of the deliverables. ... the contractor team, and at least one supportive government program manager, also conducted UAP and paranormal research at a property owned by the private sector organization. ... This proposal, codenamed KONA BLUE, would restart UAP investigations, paranormal research (including alleged ‘human consciousness anomalies’) and reverse-engineer any recovered off-world spacecraft that they hoped to acquire.”
THE UAP AND CONSCIOUSNESS THREADS MEETING IN A GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT: a proposed DHS special access programme whose scope included "human consciousness anomalies". Note again the anonymisation - "a private sector organization", "a property owned by" it, "at least one supportive government program manager". None are named.
“As demonstrated by the proposal package and by statements from the originator, Senators Lieberman and Reid asked that the PSAP be established with the promise of additional funding. ... It is critical to note that no extraterrestrial craft or bodies were ever collected - this material was only assumed to exist by KONA BLUE advocates and its anticipated contract performers. This was the same assumption made by those same individuals involved with the AAWSAP/AATIP program. The SAP was never approved or stood up, and no data or material was transferred to DHS.”
TWO SENATORS NAMED, WHICH IS RARE IN THIS DOCUMENT. Note what the finding actually is: not that the material was examined and found ordinary, but that it "was only assumed to exist". The same page quotes the KONA BLUE proposal's own Oral History Initiative, which planned to gather "all information pertaining to the location of advanced aerospace technology and biological samples" - a programme designed to find material whose existence it had assumed.
“It has determined that modern allegations that the USG is hiding off-world technology and beings largely originate from the same group of individuals who have ties to the cancelled AAWSAP/AATIP program and a private sector organization's paranormal research efforts. These individuals have worked with each other consistently in various UAP-related efforts. Persons 1-5 and Interviewees 1, 3, 9, 12, 13, and 14 have repeatedly voiced these claims in various public and private venues, and they have petitioned Congress in various capacities on UAP issues. They have not provided any empirical evidence of their claims to AARO.”
THE ANONYMISATION AT ITS MOST EXTREME, AND ITS MOST CONSEQUENTIAL. A Department of Defense report accuses a specific network of people of circular reporting and of petitioning Congress without evidence, and identifies every one of them BY NUMBER. "Persons 1-5". "Interviewees 1, 3, 9, 12, 13, and 14." This project holds a large cluster of entities that plainly overlap with that group. NONE OF THEM CAN BE BOUND TO THIS PAGE, because the page names nobody. It is the clearest possible demonstration of why this document sources allegations and conclusions but not people.
“After AAWSAP/AATIP was terminated, its supporters unsuccessfully attempted to convince DHS to support a new version of this effort dubbed KONA BLUE.”
KONA BLUE appears on printed pages 3, 9, 24, 34 and 35 of this report. Page 3 is the contents list; pages 9, 34 and 35 were already read here; page 24 was not, and is the sentence that puts the programme in sequence after AAWSAP/AATIP rather than beside it. Read from the text layer rather than from a rendered page, which is provenance grade 2 and one step below reading a rendered image by eye.
“Project BLUE BOOK, Capt Edward Ruppelt, said that all but a couple copies of this estimate were destroyed. AARO has been unable to verify his claim or locate the document. ... As of September 17, 2023, AARO interviewed approximately 30 individuals. AARO categorized these individuals into three tiers: Tier 1 interviewees are those who have spoken with congressional staff or Members of Congress and have been subsequently referred to AARO; Tier 2 interviewees are those who have been referred to AARO by Tier 1 interviewees; Tier 3 interviewees are AARO-generated interviewees that have a corroborating touchpoint to the principal integrated narrative of reports from Tier 1 and Tier 2 interviewees. ... AARO generated random numbers and assigned one to each interviewee. AARO maintains the key, which is stored and handled in a secure manner to protect each interviewee's privacy. In some instances, AARO assigned a random number to a person who has not interviewed with AARO but was referenced by interviewees as a key individual. AARO also assigned numbers to organizations mentioned by interviewees. ... The primary narrative alleges that the USG and industry partners are in possession of and are testing off-world technology that has been concealed from congressional oversight and the world since approximately 1964, and possibly since 1947, if the Roswell events are included. The narrative asserts that this UAP program possesses as many as 12 extraterrestrial spacecraft.”
THE ANONYMISATION, EXPLAINED BY THE OFFICE THAT DID IT. This is the mechanism that makes most of Section V unbindable to any person on this map, and it is wider than privacy: numbers went to interviewees, to people who never interviewed but were named by others, and to organizations. AARO holds the key and publishes none of it. Every allegation in the next five pages therefore names a footnote, not a person - which is precisely why this project can source AARO's CONCLUSIONS from this report and almost none of its PEOPLE. Two smaller things worth keeping: the interview count is given as "approximately 30" of a closed set the office itself holds; and the page carries Edward Ruppelt's claim that all but a couple of copies of Project SIGN's "Estimate of the Situation" were destroyed, with AARO's flat answer that it can neither verify the claim nor find the document.
“A separate interviewee claimed that circa 1999, a former, senior U.S. military officer told the interviewee that that he touched the surface of an extraterrestrial spacecraft. ... Two interviewees said they participated in an alleged White House-tasked UAP study in Northern Virginia sometime between 2004 and 2007. The study evaluated the impacts to society should the United States, Russia, or China disclose they had evidence of extraterrestrial beings or craft. ... An interviewee pointed out to AARO the existence of an alleged leaked Special National Intelligence Estimate from 1961 as proof of the existence of UAP crashes. AARO obtained a copy of the document through open-source research and evaluated its authenticity. ... Some interviewees and public accounts underpin this storyline by claiming through second and thirdhand accounts that some NDAs may have been used to protect a ‘reverse-engineering program of off-world technology.’ These accounts describe the NDAs as including ‘punishment by death’ provisions should the signatory disclose”
ALLEGATIONS WITHOUT ACTORS. Every person and organization on this page is a superscript. Note how the "punishment by death" claim is framed where it first appears: as something described in SECOND AND THIRDHAND accounts, not as something AARO found - the report is careful there, and the care is easy to miss. This page is also where the 1961 SNIE enters, as an interviewee's exhibit offered "as proof of the existence of UAP crashes". The finding on it is on printed 31: the claim and its refutation sit two pages apart in one document.
“The other narrative is that a cluster of UAP sightings that occurred in close proximity to U.S. nuclear facilities have resulted in the malfunctioning and destruction of nuclear missiles and a test reentry vehicle. AARO interviewed five former USAF members who served in and around U.S. intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) silos at Malmstrom, Ellsworth, Vandenberg, and Minot USAF bases between 1966 and 1977. ... AARO investigated and reached conclusions on the majority of the claims made in these narratives. In most cases, AARO was able to locate the companies, people, and programs that were conveyed to AARO through interviews. AARO will report the results of the unresolved allegations in Volume II. ... To date, AARO personnel have not discovered or been notified of any NDAs that contain information related to UAP. Also, apart from the standard NDA language contained in Title 18, Section 794 describing the death penalty or jail time for illegally disclosing information relating to the national defense, AARO has not discovered any NDAs containing threats to interviewees for disclosing UAP-specific information.”
AN ABSENCE STATED AS AN ABSENCE, AND HONESTLY BOUNDED. AARO does not claim no UAP nondisclosure agreements exist. It says its personnel "have not discovered or been notified of any" after asking DoD, IC elements, DOE and DHS. That is a statement about a search, not about the world, and it is the correct form - this project should hold itself to it. The page then does something better than dismissal: it EXPLAINS the "punishment by death" claim instead of denying it. The clause is real, it is the standard Title 18 Section 794 language in classified NDAs generally, and it is not UAP-specific. NAME TRAP, WRITTEN HERE BECAUSE HERE IS WHERE THE TEMPTATION IS: the four bases are Malmstrom, Ellsworth, Vandenberg and Minot. The "vandenberg" node on this map is HOYT S. VANDENBERG, the man. A base named after a man is not that man. Guardrail 7. Nothing on this page binds to him. Also note the standing promise: the unresolved allegations were to be reported in "Volume II", which as of this writing has not appeared.
“AARO interviewed and obtained a signed statement from the former CIA official who was specifically named by AARO interviewees. The former official stated he had no knowledge of any aspect of this allegation. ... The official signed a Memorandum for the Record (MFR) attesting to the truthfulness of his statements. ... An interviewee brought to AARO's attention the existence of an alleged Special National Intelligence Estimate (SNIE), dated November 5, 1961, titled: ‘Critical Aspects of Unidentified Flying Objects and the Nuclear Threat to the Defense of the United States and its Allies.’ Through open-source research, AARO obtained a copy of the document. After discussions with the CIA's Center for the Study of Intelligence (CSI), the NSA Scientific Studies Board (one of the alleged authors), and research comparing this document to a number of known SNIEs and National Intelligence Estimates, AARO concluded the document is not authentic. NSA archives were searched because ‘the NSA Scientific Advisory Board’ purportedly was one of the document's authors. CIA/CSI and NSA did not possess nor have knowledge of the document. AARO found the document lacked IC tradecraft standards and possessed significant inconsistencies with SNIE's and National Intelligence Estimates of the general time period. These inconsistencies included: the document's short length, incorrect formatting, inconsistent branding, lack of a dissemination block and coordination language, loose narrative style, convoluted logic, imprecise and casual language, and its superficial treatment of globally significant issues.”
THE FABRICATED 1961 SNIE - NAMED, DATED AND TITLED - and the first of the three items raised in the April 2026 NCAS recording that this project can now source from a document it holds and has read by eye. AARO's grounds are of two kinds and they are NOT of equal weight. The archival ground is strong: CIA's Center for the Study of Intelligence and NSA neither possess the document nor have knowledge of it. The rest is stylistic - short length, formatting, branding, no dissemination block, "loose narrative style", "convoluted logic". A document is not fake because it reads badly, and a reader should be able to see which half of this finding is carrying the weight. AND THE PARAGRAPH CONTRADICTS ITSELF ON A NAME: it calls the body "the NSA Scientific Studies Board (one of the alleged authors)" in one sentence and quotes "the NSA Scientific Advisory Board" in the next. Recorded because this project does not get to hold its own sources to a standard from which it exempts a government report.
“AARO contacted and interviewed the former military member who denied any knowledge of off-world technology in possession of the USG, a private contractor, or any other foreign or domestic entity. The former military member attested that he could not remember if this encounter with the original interviewee had ever occurred, but opined that if it had happened, the only situation that he might have conveyed was the time when he touched an F-117 Nighthawk stealth fighter at a facility. ... An organization in Northern Virginia did conduct a study between 2004 and 2007 on the societal effects should the United States or other world governments disclose they have evidence of extraterrestrial life. Interviewees believed the White House sponsored it. AARO confirmed through two former White House senior officials that the White House did not request it, nor were they aware of any such study. ... AARO met with high-ranking officials, including executives and chief technology officers, of the named companies. All denied the existence of these programs, and attested to the truthfulness of their statements on the record. ... AARO learned through an interviewee that a private sector organization claimed to have in its possession material from an extraterrestrial craft recovered from a crash at an unknown location from the 1940s or 1950s. The organization claimed that the material had the potential to act as a THz frequency waveguide, and therefore, could exhibit ‘anti-gravity’ and ‘mass reduction’ properties under the appropriate conditions. The organization that owned the material negotiated an agreement in 2019 with the U.S. Army to analyze the samples.”
FOUR FINDINGS, FOUR ANONYMISED ACTORS. "the named companies" means named to AARO, not to the reader - the denial is on the record and the record is sealed. The F-117 sentence is worth its place: it is a concrete, checkable, deflationary explanation offered by the man himself, not an assertion by the office. THE ALLOY PARAGRAPH IS THE ONE READERS OF THIS MAP WILL TRY TO IDENTIFY - a private sector organization, a claimed crash in the 1940s or 1950s, a THz waveguide and "anti-gravity" claims, and an agreement with the U.S. Army in 2019. This corpus holds a node many readers would map onto that. IT IS NOT NAMED HERE, for the same reason the KONA BLUE contractor is not: the source declined the identification and this project does not get to make it in the source's voice.
“AARO and a leading science laboratory concluded that the material is a metallic alloy, terrestrial in nature, and possibly of USAF origin, based on its materials characterization. It was also assessed that the material is mostly composed of magnesium, and the bismuth present was not a pure layer per initial claims. ... AARO assesses that a separate private sector organization's recreation of this metallic sample was almost certainly conflated with claims that the aerospace industry was attempting to reverse-engineer off-world technology. Prior to AARO's acquisition of the sample, the organization fabricated a replica of the sample to determine if it could be done. ... Although AARO has not been able to recover the alleged film of the ballistic missile reentry vehicle being shot down by a UAP in 1964, AARO was able to correlate the general time and location with an antiballistic missile test, which could have been the genesis for this observation. ... AARO concludes many of these programs represent authentic, current and former sensitive, national security programs, but none of these programs have been involved with capturing, recovering, or reverse-engineering off-world technology or material.”
THE STRONGEST FALSIFICATION IN THIS REPORT, AND IT IS A LABORATORY RESULT RATHER THAN AN ASSERTION: mostly magnesium, terrestrial, "possibly of USAF origin", and the bismuth not the pure layer that was claimed. What comes next is the more interesting half. AARO reports that a private organization fabricated a REPLICA of the sample before AARO acquired it, and assesses that the reverse-engineering allegation was "almost certainly conflated with this material fabrication". That is a MECHANISM for how a false belief could form honestly, which is a stronger and fairer kind of finding than a denial. The 1964 reentry-vehicle film is handled the same way and with the same hedge: the film cannot be recovered, and a correlated antiballistic missile test "could have been the genesis for this observation" - could have been, not was. Both are models this project should copy.
“AARO reviewed official USG efforts involving UFOs/UAP since 1945. This research revealed the existence of approximately two dozen separate investigative efforts, depending on how they are counted. ... Some of these efforts, including Projects SAUCER and SIGN, were closely connected and essentially the same organization. Project GRUDGE was the name given to two related, but different organizations; the second - reorganized Project GRUDGE - was established about a year after the dissolution of the original Project GRUDGE. ... The exact date of the founding of this first effort as well as its official and unofficial name are unclear. According to one source, General Nathan Twining, Commander of the Air Technical Services Command, established Project SAUCER on December 30, 1947”
THE REPORT COUNTS ITS OWN SUBJECT AND CANNOT SETTLE THE COUNT: "approximately two dozen separate investigative efforts, depending on how they are counted." THIS MAP HOLDS TWO OF THEM - Project Blue Book and the Robertson Panel. Project SAUCER, Project SIGN, both Project GRUDGEs, Project TWINKLE, Project BEAR, the CIA Special Study Group, the Durant Report, the Condon Report, the O'Brien Committee and the NAS assessment all have titled sections in this report and no node here. The page is also candid where it could have been tidy: the first effort's "official and unofficial name are unclear", and its founding date is given "According to one source". Nathan Twining, who has a node on this map, is named as having established it on December 30, 1947.
“Captain Edward Ruppelt claimed that Project SAUCER was the informal name of Project SIGN and it was designated a high priority. However, in an interview with an employee of Project SIGN, the employee claimed the project started a year earlier, in 1946, and that Project SAUCER was its original, informal name. ... Project SAUCER investigated one of the first well-known accounts provided by a private pilot, Kenneth Arnold. The pilot claimed that on June 23, 1947, while flying near Mount Rainier, Washington, he saw nine, large circular objects flying in a formation, objects that periodically flipped and were traveling at 1,700 miles per hour. ... The Air Technical Intelligence Center (ATIC) assumed control of Project SIGN on January 23, 1948. ... The impetus for this effort was to determine if these objects might be Soviet secret weapons or ‘extra-planetary’ objects. ... The project evaluated 243 reported UFO sightings, and in February 1949, it concluded that ‘no definite and conclusive evidence is yet available that would prove or disprove the existence of these unidentified objects as real aircraft of unknown and unconventional configuration.’ ... Although the historical account is unsubstantiated and derived from only one source, Project SIGN staff in late July 1948 allegedly drafted, signed, and sent a report (‘Estimate of the Situation’) up the military chain for approval. This report allegedly concluded that UFOs were ‘interplanetary’ in origin, but it was rejected by USAF Chief of Staff General Hoyt S. Vandenberg as lacking proof.”
THE NAME TRAP RESOLVES BOTH WAYS INSIDE ONE DOCUMENT. Here Vandenberg is THE MAN - USAF Chief of Staff Hoyt S. Vandenberg, rejecting the Estimate of the Situation as lacking proof, and this map holds a node for him. On printed 30 the same surname is an Air Force base and binds to nobody. Guardrail 7 in two pages of one report. NOTE ALSO HOW CAREFULLY AARO HEDGES THE ESTIMATE: "Although the historical account is unsubstantiated and derived from only one source ... allegedly drafted ... allegedly concluded". The office is not asserting the document existed; it is recording that the account of it rests on one source. AND A DISCREPANCY THIS PROJECT CANNOT SETTLE: AARO dates the Kenneth Arnold sighting to JUNE 23, 1947. Every account outside this file that this project has looked at gives 24 June 1947. There is no primary for either date in this corpus and no Arnold node on this map, so this is recorded as something to check, NOT as a finding - but it sits on the page the report uses to found the modern era. ONE SENTENCE ON THIS PAGE COULD NOT BE QUOTED AT ALL, and the reason is worth keeping: the parenthesis reading "(ATIC later became the National Air and Space Intelligence Center - NASIC)" appears on the rendered page with a dash that is simply absent from the file's own text layer, which reads "Center NASIC". The eye is right and the layer is wrong - the third time this week the machine text has been the unreliable party - so the parenthesis is described here rather than quoted. ATIC did become NASIC, and this report is where that is stated.
“Capt Ruppelt set a policy that was intended to foster objectivity. Unlike the previous Project GRUDGE, he allowed his staff to create an ‘unknown’ category of cases which he hoped would dissuade the forcing of a particular answer to any case. ... Project BEAR was an informal name given by Capt Ruppelt, Chief of Project GRUDGE, to a contract he created with the Battelle Memorial Institute (BMI) to provide scientific support to the new Project GRUDGE. BMI provided technical support, studied the reliability of interviewee information recall from UFO sightings, created an improved debriefing questionnaire for observers, and developed a computer punch-card system. ... BMI released a report under the cover of ATIC to maintain its anonymity. Completed in late 1954, the report was titled ‘Special Report No. 14.’ ... After an increase in UFO sightings in 1952, particularly those that gained widespread attention over the Washington, D.C. area during that summer, CIA's Deputy Director for Intelligence, Robert Amory Jr., tasked the CIA Office of Scientific Intelligence's (OSI) Physics and Electronics Division to review UFO cases. A. Ray Gordon took lead on this project, and the Study Group he established reviewed all of ATIC's data (from Projects SIGN through GRUDGE). ... The Study Group assessed that 90 percent of the reports were explainable and the other 10 percent amounted to ‘incredible’ claims but rejected the notion that they represented Soviet or extraterrestrial technology.”
A NAMED OFFICER CHANGING A METHOD, WHICH THIS RECORD RARELY GETS TO SHOW. Ruppelt created the "unknown" category on purpose, to stop cases being forced to an answer - the opposite policy from the GRUDGE before him, which printed 27 says "prohibited its staff from characterizing reports as unknown or unidentified". BATTELLE ALREADY HAS A NODE HERE, and this page is the government's own account of what the contract was: reliability of witness recall, a better debriefing questionnaire, a punch-card system, and "Special Report No. 14" published under ATIC's cover to keep the institute anonymous. Two more names arrive with roles attached - Robert Amory Jr. as CIA Deputy Director for Intelligence, and A. Ray Gordon as the lead of the study group - and neither is on this map.
“The panel's report stated that: ‘Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby.’ The panel cautioned against support for scientific papers on this topic and recommended that teachers should not give credit to students for reading UFO literature and materials. ... The panel investigated a claim made by radio broadcaster Frank Edwards in a 1966 book that a piece of a UFO was recovered near Washington, D.C. in the summer of 1952 during the spike in UFO sightings over the U.S. Capitol in July and August. ... Project BLUE BOOK was not aware of this claim. The USAF and USN found no incident report of weapons engagement with a UFO that summer, no USN aircraft were present, and the retired officer who was the original source of the claim had retired before the summer of 1952, when the event allegedly occurred. ... After the Condon Report was criticized by some scientists - including Project BLUE BOOK's Dr. Hynek - a panel of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) was tasked in late 1968 to examine the rigor, methodology, and conclusions of the Condon Report. The panel did not conduct its own investigation into the validity of UFO reports.”
THE SHARPEST SENTENCE ON THIS PAGE IS ABOUT SCHOOLS, not about UFOs: the panel "recommended that teachers should not give credit to students for reading UFO literature and materials". A conclusion about evidence became a recommendation about what young people may be given credit for reading, and that is a fact about how this subject was handled rather than about what was in the sky. NOTE ALSO WHAT THE NAS PANEL DID NOT DO: "The panel did not conduct its own investigation into the validity of UFO reports." A review of a review. And an example of how a name enters a record without the record endorsing it - Vannevar Bush appears on this page only inside a Frank Edwards claim that the Condon panel judged most likely false. Neither Edwards nor Bush is on this map; the Condon Report itself is not on this map either, though Edward Condon the man is.
“Although investigating UFO/UAP was not specifically outlined in the contract's statement of work, the selected private sector organization conducted UFO research with the support of the DIA program manager. ... AAWSAP/AATIP also investigated an alleged hotspot of UAP and paranormal activity at a property in Utah - which at that time was owned by the head of the private sector organization - including examining reports of ‘shadow figures’ and ‘creatures,’ and exploring ‘remote viewing’ and ‘human consciousness anomalies.’ The organization also planned to hire psychics to study ‘inter-dimensional phenomena’ believed to frequently appear at that location. ... DIA did not seek, nor specifically authorize, this work though a DIA employee set up and managed the contract with the private sector organization. ... On 24 June 2009, Senator Reid sent a letter to then Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn III requesting that AAWSAP/AATIP be made a DoD Special Access Program. Deputy Secretary Lynn declined to do so based on the recommendation of then-Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, James R. Clapper, Jr., that such a designation was not justified. ... Just prior to DoD's cancellation of the program, the private sector organization proposed as a new line of effort to host a series of ‘intellectual debates’ at academic institutes to influence the public debate, which included hiring supportive reporters and celebrity moderators. The goal of this proposed public relations campaign was to assume that ‘E.T. visitations are true’ ... AAWSAP/AATIP was terminated in 2012 upon the completion of its deliverables due to DIA and DoD concerns about the project.”
THE DENSEST BINDABLE PASSAGE IN THIS REPORT SO FAR, AND UNUSUALLY NOT ANONYMISED: Senator Reid, Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn III, and Under Secretary James R. Clapper Jr., with a date on the letter. All three have nodes on this map already. AND THE REPORT GIVES TWO DIFFERENT ENDINGS FOR THE SAME PROGRAMME: here it "was terminated in 2012 upon the completion of its deliverables due to DIA and DoD concerns about the project"; printed 34 says "DIA cancelled the program in 2012 due to lack of merit and the utility of the deliverables". Completion and cancellation are not the same account of an ending, and link 1344 on this map quotes the second one. THE CONSCIOUSNESS THREAD IN A DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DOCUMENT, in its own words: "remote viewing", "human consciousness anomalies", "shadow figures", "creatures", psychics hired to study "inter-dimensional phenomena" - inside a DIA-managed contract. Guardrail 3 holds that consciousness research is co-equal on this map rather than a curiosity hanging off the UAP story; this is the government making that case for us. The property is given only as "a property in Utah" owned by "the head of the private sector organization", and this entry does not name it or him.
“AOIMSG had not achieved initial operating capability before subsequent legislation in the FY2022 NDAA resulted in it being renamed to AARO and given an expanded mission set. ... NASA established the UAPIST as a subordinate group of its Earth Science Advisory Committee, which was established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. ... The independent study team was chaired by the President of the Simons Foundation and included members from the USG, academia, and the private sector. ... NASA released its report in September 2023. The report focused on discovering the best data streams available and discoverable to resolve UAP cases. It did not focus on whether or not UAP were of extraterrestrial origin. NASA also established a UAP Research Director position. ... The report stated that there was a total of 510 UAP reports as of August 30, 2022. This included the 144 UAP reports covered during the 17 years of reporting included in the ODNI's preliminary assessment, as well as 247 new reports and 119 reports that subsequently were discovered or reported.”
A FIGURE THIS MAP CAN CHECK WITHOUT LEAVING THE PAGE: 144 + 247 + 119 = 510, and 510 is the total the report gives. Arithmetic is not proof of anything about the sky, but a report whose own numbers add up is a different object from one whose numbers do not, and this project should say which it is holding. NOTE HOW THE CHAIR IS IDENTIFIED - by ROLE, not by name: "the President of the Simons Foundation". This map holds a Simons Foundation node, so the connection this page supports is to the institution. Naming the individual would be this project supplying an identity the source withheld, even though the office is a matter of public record.
“Of all the reports that AARO investigated and analyzed, none represent extraterrestrial or off-world technology. A small percentage of cases have potentially anomalous characteristics or concerning characteristics. AARO has kept Congress fully and currently informed of its findings. AARO's research continues on these cases. ... AARO reviewed seven other UAP investigatory panels and programs sponsored by a U.S. university, the United Kingdom, Canada, and France. Of these efforts, one unofficial report from a Canadian government effort in the early 1950s claimed UFOs were of extraterrestrial origin, and the program director claimed he was in contact with aliens. This position appeared to reflect the opinions of the director of the effort and was not endorsed or supported by the Canadian government. ... Canada's Project Magnet (1950-1954) was run by Department of Transport engineer Wilbert B. Smith. Smith assessed that UFOs were of extraterrestrial origin and that they flew by magnetism. Smith believed he was in personal contact with extraterrestrial beings through telepathy and ‘tensor beams.’ Smith, in an interview as early as 1961, claimed that in 1952, the USAF lent him a piece of a UFO to study. He also claimed it was composed of magnesium orthosilicate. The Canadian government closed the project, saying that there were no definitive results from the research. Smith admitted that his beliefs concerning UFOs were his alone and not the government's official position.”
THE HEADLINE FINDING, SET IN BOLD ITALIC IN THE ORIGINAL, WHICH IS HOW THIS REPORT MARKS ITS OWN KEY JUDGEMENTS - and the second sentence is the one that gets dropped when it is quoted: "A small percentage of cases have potentially anomalous characteristics or concerning characteristics." The finding is not that everything was explained. WILBERT B. SMITH HAS A NODE ON THIS MAP and this page is the government's own account of him: Project Magnet, telepathy, "tensor beams", the claim that the USAF lent him a piece of a UFO in 1952, and his own admission that his beliefs were his alone and not the Canadian government's position. That last clause is what keeps the paragraph fair. A THIRD SMALL INCONSISTENCY IN THIS REPORT'S OWN TEXT, after the two on printed 31: the French agency is spelled SEPRA when it is introduced and SERPA a sentence later. The French programmes are not quoted here because their names carry accented characters and guardrail 8 keeps this corpus ASCII; altering a quotation to fit a house rule is not an option, so the bullet is described instead - GEPAN (1977-1987), SEPRA (1988-2004), and GEIPAN from 2005.
“The allegation included the claimed crash of the objects, the possession of the resultant material by the USG and the private sector, and the attempt to transfer material that was purported to be of off-world origin. This reverse-engineering program allegedly occurred at the named facility in the 2009-2010 time frame. Interviewees allege that a separate interviewee from the facility attempted to set up a meeting to return material to the USG in 2010, but that the former CIA official stopped the transfer from industry to the USG. The interviewee alleged to have stopped the transfer denied these allegations. The former CIA official stated that he had no knowledge of any extraterrestrial material in the possession of the USG or any other organization.”
THE PARAGRAPH A CLAIM ON THIS MAP TURNED OUT NOT TO REST ON. Read it against what this project's Glenn Gaffney entry said until 26 August 2026 - that "AARO's own Historical Report Volume I is cited as saying an earlier 2008 attempt at the same transfer was separately blocked by James Clapper". Four differences, and each one is the report being more careful than the claim made of it: THE YEAR IS 2010, not 2008 - and 2008 appears exactly once in this entire 63-page report, in the title of an appropriations act. NOBODY IS NAMED - not the official, not the interviewee, not the facility; the name Gaffney appears nowhere in the file. IT IS AN ALLEGATION BY INTERVIEWEES, introduced as one. AND THE DENIAL IS CARRIED IN THE SAME BREATH: "The interviewee alleged to have stopped the transfer denied these allegations." The anonymisation here is the substance and not an obstacle: a Department of Defense report declining to name a living man it is relaying an accusation about is itself the finding.
“Project SIGN was renamed Project GRUDGE in approximately February 1949. The staff, especially those who seemed to lean towards belief in the ‘interplanetary’ origin of UFOs, were reportedly purged from the organization. One account of this time period suggests that because of perceived pressure from the Pentagon's leadership, the remaining staff who held this view changed their minds. This same account claims that the Pentagon's goals for Project GRUDGE were to discount and explain away all reports of UFOs. Project GRUDGE was terminated on December 27, 1949, around the time a comprehensive report on its findings was published. The USAF did not stop collecting and analyzing reports of UFOs; rather, it folded that work into its existing intelligence processes. ... Project GRUDGE investigated 244 reports of UFO sightings. It did not discover any evidence that the UAP sightings represented foreign technology; therefore, these findings did not pose a threat to U.S. national security. The report recommended that the organization be downsized and de-emphasized because it was believed Project GRUDGE's very existence fueled a ‘war hysteria’ within the public. The USAF subsequently implemented a public affairs campaign designed to persuade the public that UFOs constituted nothing unusual or extraordinary. The stated goal of this effort was to alleviate public anxiety. ... In August 1949, the USAF asserted that the UFO reports were misinterpretations of natural phenomena, man-made aircraft, fabrications, or hoaxes.”
THE REPORT CONCEDES THE OLDEST COMPLAINT ABOUT USAF UFO WORK, AND HEDGES EVERY CLAUSE OF IT. Staff leaning "interplanetary" were "REPORTEDLY purged"; "ONE ACCOUNT" says the remaining believers changed their minds under perceived Pentagon pressure; "THIS SAME ACCOUNT" says the Pentagon's goal was to discount and explain away all reports. AARO neither endorses those accounts nor buries them, and this record carries both halves - the allegation and the hedge - because quoting only the first would be doing to this report what others have done to it. WHAT IS NOT HEDGED IS THE LAST SENTENCE OF THE SECTION: the USAF "implemented a public affairs campaign designed to persuade the public that UFOs constituted nothing unusual or extraordinary", with the stated goal of alleviating public anxiety. That is a government recording, flatly, that it set out to change what the public believed - and it sits twelve pages from the Robertson Panel's "debunking" proposal, which printed 27 also concedes. THE TERMINATION DATE IS EXACT AND UNUSUAL FOR THIS SECTION: 27 December 1949.
“In late October 1951, almost two years after Project GRUDGE was disestablished, the USAF's UFO mission was reorganized into another distinct program - also named Project GRUDGE - led by Capt Ruppelt. By his own account, Capt Ruppelt sought to correct the mistakes of Project SIGN and the former Project GRUDGE. His primary goal was to ensure that there would be ‘no wild speculation’ and that if his staff were ‘too pro or too con’ regarding the off-world origin of UFOs, they would be let go.”
TWO PROGRAMMES, ONE NAME, AND THE REPORT SAYS SO PLAINLY - "another distinct program - also named Project GRUDGE". Printed 13 puts it the same way: GRUDGE "was the name given to two related, but different organizations". A map that carried one GRUDGE node would be merging two organisations because they share a codename, which is the same error as merging two people because they share a surname. RUPPELT'S STATED METHOD IS THE VALUE HERE, and it cuts both ways: "no wild speculation", and staff let go if they were "too pro OR too con". Set that beside printed 16, where he creates an "unknown" category so cases are not forced to an answer, and beside the original GRUDGE on this same page, which the report says prohibited its staff from recording anything as unknown. This is the record showing a method being changed by a named man, which it rarely gets to do.
“A dearth of data and information is associated with this effort. ... His account was picked up by several media outlets, and the term ‘flying saucer’ emerged. ... Results: Project SAUCER did not find evidence of extraterrestrial technology. ... Project SIGN determined that nearly all were caused by either misinterpretation of known objects, hysteria, hallucination, or hoax. It also recommended continued military intelligence control over the investigation of all sightings. It did not rule out the possibility of extraterrestrial phenomena.”
THE ANSWERS, AS OPPOSED TO THE INTENTIONS. Both programmes' Results lines are here, and the second one is the more interesting: Project SIGN attributed nearly everything to "misinterpretation of known objects, hysteria, hallucination, or hoax" AND "did not rule out the possibility of extraterrestrial phenomena." Those two clauses are in consecutive sentences of a US Air Force finding and neither cancels the other; a reader arriving with either conclusion already in mind will want to quote one and skip the other. ALSO ON THIS PAGE, AND EASY TO PASS OVER: "A dearth of data and information is associated with this effort." The report is telling its own reader that the record of the first US UFO programme is thin, which is a caution about everything else said about it.
“The literature is not clear if Project TWINKLE was officially supported by the original Project GRUDGE, but it was managed by the USAF's Cambridge Research Laboratory.”
ONE SENTENCE, AND IT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A NODE THAT HEDGES AND A NODE THAT ASSERTS. A map drawing TWINKLE under GRUDGE would be making an organisational claim that the report says the literature cannot support. What IS established is narrower and is the only thing recorded here: the USAF's Cambridge Research Laboratory managed it.
“Results: The new Project GRUDGE noticed that there was some correlation between sightings and the publication of UFO stories in the media. Capt Ruppelt noted that there were concentrations of cases in the Los Alamos-Albuquerque area, Oak Ridge, White Sands, Strategic Air Command locations, ports, and industrial sites. ... No evidence of extraterrestrial origin of UFO/UAP were discovered. ... It concluded that all cases that had enough data were resolved and readily explainable. The report assessed that if more data were available on cases marked unknown, most of those cases could be explained as well. It also concluded that it was highly improbable that any of these cases represented technology beyond their ‘present day scientific knowledge.’”
TWO FINDINGS THAT PULL IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS AND BOTH BELONG HERE. The first is deflationary and the report leads with it: sightings correlated with the publication of UFO stories in the press. The second is not: the cases clustered "in the Los Alamos-Albuquerque area, Oak Ridge, White Sands, Strategic Air Command locations, ports, and industrial sites" - which is to say at the atomic weapons complex, the missile ranges and the bomber bases, observed by a programme run by a man who had just fired staff for being "too pro or too con". A record that quoted only one of those two sentences would be picking a side for the reader. PROJECT BEAR'S CONCLUSION IS A CONDITIONAL, AND THE CONDITION IS THE WHOLE ARGUMENT: cases with enough data were resolved, and cases marked unknown "could be explained as well" IF more data were available. That is an assessment about missing data, not a demonstration about the cases themselves, and it has been quoted as the latter for seventy years.
Where no sheet is shown, the quote was still read off the page, rendered from the file we hold. A page image has not been prepared for the web for that page yet.
What this document is used for, page by page
Every claim on this map that rests on this document, and every claim tested against it and deliberately not used — in the order you would meet them reading the file itself. Where the check was written down, our wording is followed by the document’s own sentence, so you can hold the two side by side. 33 of 33 name a page. 8 were tested here and not used.