Yankee Blue - The Hazing Ritual Responsible for Some Military Belief in UFOs?

[Hwy666]

From 1955 onwards, the CIA's highly classified U-2 aircraft flew at altitudes far above ordinary commercial air traffic.

Pilots and observers reported unusual objects, particularly when sunlight illuminated the aircraft at dawn or dusk.

Air Force Project Blue Book investigators could sometimes identify the objects as U-2 aircraft through classified channels.

Rather than reveal the secret aircraft, investigators sometimes supplied alternative explanations involving atmospheric effects.

That's where the contradiction lies.

After the Roswell PR debacle, Blue Book's doctrine was to use literally anything but flying saucers to explain away or run interference for classified aircraft like the U2 and generic UFO sightings.

Even an explanation as dubious as marsh gas was better than saying it was a flying saucer.

Until that evidence is available, the claim remains an unverified allegation, not an established historical fact. You're criticising the logic of an operation whose existence hasn't yet been independently demonstrated. Unless I stated in my opening I have your point

It's both the lack of evidence and methodology that makes me question Yankee Blue. With Roswell in the rearview mirror, I have a really hard time believing anyone in the military especially would use something as inflammatory as alien flying saucers as a cover story for anything.

It reminds me of a quote from a pretty good movie:

"Martin, it's all psychological. You yell barracuda, everybody says, 'Huh? What?' You yell shark, we've got a panic on our hands on the Fourth of July."
Mayor Larry Vaughn, Jaws.

 

[John J.]

...I have a really hard time believing anyone in the military especially would use something as inflammatory as alien flying saucers as a cover story for anything.

"Yankee Blue" was unofficial, unapproved. Probably just some old hands having a laugh at the newcomer's expense.
I guess it's possible (conjecture) there were similar pranks that were not part of an organised or coordinated "campaign" of any sort, e.g. maybe not all used the phrase Yankee Blue. People, including generally responsible people, sometimes do silly things. Others sometimes believe tall tales that most don't fall for.

Whether the subject of flying saucers/ UFOs is inflammatory is perhaps subjective; if they exist as (e.g.) alien spacecraft might be a matter of debate for some, but there are many real-world subjects of undoubted seriousness that might have served as the basis for irresponsible pranking of military/ defense staff- perhaps more believable narratives with potentially more serious consequences if believed. If those perpetrating a Yankee Blue-type prank didn't take UFOs seriously themselves, they might not have considered it inflammatory. Maybe they half-expected that the newcomer wouldn't really take it seriously, or would be put right by their colleagues in short order, just like most guys sent to get the tartan paint know it's a gag (and maybe their boss knows that they know, but the mark has to go along with it).

 

[Hwy666]

"Yankee Blue" was unofficial, unapproved. Probably

I would hope so.

Otherwise that would be like taking the ship used in Project Azorian, renaming it to NESSIE HUNTER and telling the port authority that it was going to be fishing for plesiosaurs in the ocean.

Even normal people would click on that story.

 

[Mendel]

The DoD banned hazing and all other forms of harassment in 2018. The UAPTF wasn't formed until 2020.

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/102003p.PDF?vext

I did find this, which I find ridiculous:

"One such incident, first uncovered by the Wall Street Journal, involves an Air Force colonel who, in the 1980s, handed fake photos of flying saucers to a bar owner near the top-secret Area 51 base in Nevada. The colonel, now retired, later admitted to investigators that he was acting under official orders to deflect attention away from the then-classified F-117 Nighthawk stealth fighter."
https://www.ktvu.com/news/ufo-disinfo-cold-war-stealth-coverup

Seriously? That's like loading a fire extinguisher with napalm.

I mean, you could've "found this" by scrolling up:

The "photos in the pub" item is the least fleshed out in the whole article, though on the surface it seems to most fit the headline:

The congressionally ordered probe took investigators back to the 1980s, when an Air Force colonel visited a bar near Area 51, a top-secret site in the Nevada desert. He gave the owner photos of what might be flying saucers. The photos went up on the walls, and into the local lore went the idea that the U.S. military was secretly testing recovered alien technology.

We don't know which photos are involved. They're public, so why not? Were they existing hoaxed UFO photos already part of the UFO lore? We don't know what the colonel represented them to be, either.

The fact that we don't even know which photos these are indicates to me that the impact of this event was not very high.

 

[John J.]

"Yankee Blue" was unofficial, unapproved. Probably

I would hope so.

Oops, my apologies for any confusion, in my post "Probably" was followed by "just" but with a capital "J", making it unclear if "probably" applied to the first sentence or the second. (It's the second, "Yankee Blue" and any similar practices were definitely unofficial and unapproved).

 

[jon_eir]

That's where the contradiction lies

I see no contradiction, . Maybe I'm missing something again? If your originally post was pointing to a contradiction state that and support it evidence, even if you think its obvious others (like myself) may not. Your post may in the future be taken out of context. This leads to my larger point maybe tried to reference more relievable primary sources not circular or dependent ones.

After the Roswell PR debacle, Blue Book's doctrine was to use literally anything but flying saucers to explain away or run interference for classified aircraft like the U2 and generic UFO sightings.

What backs these claims of the Roswell PR debacle and Blue Books doctrine to use anything but flying saucers to explain away or run interference for classified aircraft like the U2 and generic UFO sightings. If you source these in some respect that can be discussed.

I think the thread has discussed lots of the aspects surrounding yankee blue in all sorts of ways with supporting evidence.

 

[NorCal Dave]

With Roswell in the rearview mirror, I have a really hard time believing anyone in the military especially would use something as inflammatory as alien flying saucers as a cover story for anything.

That depends on the time frame. One Army media relations guy used the word "flying saucer" in reference to what Brazel had found on his ranch near Roswell. Possibly because the whole notion of flying saucers and the phrase had recently been in the news after the Kenneth Arnold sighting. This was in 1947 and it was quickly retracted. After that, the whole Roswell thing went away.

It was only resurrected 30 years later in 1980 with the publication of a rather fanciful retelling in The Roswell Incidence by William Moore and Charles Berlitz, who popularized The Bermuda Triangle. IF any Air Force or CIA people in the '50s, '60s or '70s allowed sightings of secret aircraft to be reported as UFOs, it's not with some "PR debacle" and "Roswell in the rear-view mirror". Roswell wasn't part of the UFO zeitgeist until the '80s and especially into the '90s. Don't confuse the more modern, and heavily augmented, canonical version of Roswell we all know now with what people thought about it pre-1980. For the most part they didn't think of it at all and few had heard of it.

 

[MonkeeSage]

Hundreds of them in decades? But just 3/4 people talked?

The alleged hazing involved swearing to an NDA, so whether people subjected to it bought into it or not, they may have believed the NDA was real and binding. "These men signed NDAs. They thought it was real." (WSJ article).

If that is true I would expect the leak rate to be low, on par with other leaks of real secrets.

 

[illiniflyer]

The alleged hazing involved swearing to an NDA, so whether people subjected to it bought into it or not, they may have believed the NDA was real and binding. "These men signed NDAs. They thought it was real." (WSJ article).

If that is true I would expect the leak rate to be low, on par with other leaks of real secrets.

I have a very, very dumb question that I should know the answer to: do military members or civilian intelligence officers sign an actual NDA for anything? Doesn't that simply come with the territory when possessing an active security clearance?

 

[MonkeeSage]

I have a very, very dumb question that I should know the answer to: do military members or civilian intelligence officers sign an actual NDA for anything? Doesn't that simply come with the territory when possessing an active security clearance?

Yes, though I am not sure if it's a separate thing or part of the clearance process.

Here's an example from DoD:
https://www.dcsa.mil/Portals/91/Documents/CTP/CUI/DOD-CUI_Non-Disclosure_Agreement.pdf

And here's one from DHS:
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/dhs_form_11000-6.pdf

And an older one from CIA:
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP87B01034R000500040005-2.pdf

In a recent article by Douglas Dean Johnson (@Dean) about alleged threats to UAP whistleblowers (worth a read and touches on Yankee Blue) he includes a PDF of a "security termination briefing" packet from Sandia National Laboratories that has similar language.

Article: https://douglasjohnson.ghost.io/sen-rounds-no-to-ufo-assassin-theories/
PDF: https://douglasjohnson.ghost.io/content/files/2026/10/Sandia-DOE-F-472.12-1.pdf

 

[MapperGuy]

I have a very, very dumb question that I should know the answer to: do military members or civilian intelligence officers sign an actual NDA for anything? Doesn't that simply come with the territory when possessing an active security clearance?

Yes, when I retired I had to sign a bunch NDA's. When being briefed into some compartments you have to sign that you have been briefed in, and when you move on to another job you have to sign an acknowledgement that you no longer have access to that particular compartment and won't talk about it. Depends how often you move from one assignment to another.
And on the topic of people not talking about Yankee-Blue.
I have been retired for some years now and not once has anyone from the government contacted me and told me that something I was read into is no longer classified and I am free to talk about it. Even though I am sure that somethings have been declassified, from reading the news. But until I am officially notified of that fact I consider all those NDA's to still be in force, and I suspect most retirees do as well. Secrecy becomes a habit.

 

[jackfrostvc]

I have a very, very dumb question that I should know the answer to: do military members or civilian intelligence officers sign an actual NDA for anything? Doesn't that simply come with the territory when possessing an active security clearance?

 

[Hwy666]

I think the thread has discussed lots of the aspects surrounding yankee blue in all sorts of ways with supporting evidence.

Ok. I'll let AARO speak for themselves on this.

From page 7 of Report on the Historical Record of U.S. Government Involvement with Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) Volume 1:

"UAP Nondisclosure Agreements (NDA): AARO has found no evidence of any authentic UAP-related NDA or other evidence threatening death or violence for disclosing UAP information"

https://www.aaro.mil/Portals/136/PDFs/AARO_Historical_Record_Report_Vol_1_2024.pdf

 

[MonkeeSage]

Ok. I'll let AARO speak for themselves on this.

From page 7 of Report on the Historical Record of U.S. Government Involvement with Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) Volume 1:

"UAP Nondisclosure Agreements (NDA): AARO has found no evidence of any authentic UAP-related NDA or other evidence threatening death or violence for disclosing UAP information"

https://www.aaro.mil/Portals/136/PDFs/AARO_Historical_Record_Report_Vol_1_2024.pdf

The operational word being "authentic", which the alleged Yankee Blue NDAs would not be. DoD said via Gough that we will get more information about the alleged hazing in the next report.

 

[Mendel]

DoD said via Gough that we will get more information about the alleged hazing in the next report.

Which is about a year overdue by now. (Or perhaps they only produced a classified version?)

 

[MonkeeSage]

Which is about a year overdue by now. (Or perhaps they only produced a classified version?)

Yeah, and lack of a public version (even if the classified version was already produced) makes people inclined to distrust AARO even more suspicious, which is somewhat understandable. I would think their workload for the last year has increased from the UAP Caucus requests behind closed doors and the PURSUE work for the last six months.

 

[jon_eir]

I think the thread has discussed lots of the aspects surrounding yankee blue in all sorts of ways with supporting evidence.

Ok. I'll let AARO speak for themselves on this.

From page 7 of Report on the Historical Record of U.S. Government Involvement with Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) Volume 1:

"UAP Nondisclosure Agreements (NDA): AARO has found no evidence of any authentic UAP-related NDA or other evidence threatening death or violence for disclosing UAP information"

https://www.aaro.mil/Portals/136/PDFs/AARO_Historical_Record_Report_Vol_1_2024.pdf

I can only assume that you are referring to what you quoted from me in respect to your AARO quote and that you believe the topic of the whether NDAs hasnt been discussed "in all sorts of ways" with supporting evidence.

Apologizes for my language here. I should be been more explicit. I was referring to the fact that I believe this threads has discussed a range of aspects on the titled topic "Yankee Blue - The Hazing Ritual Responsible for Some Military Belief in UFOs" in a pro and con fashion while using well founded, strongly sourced supporting evidence. For example:

Post #3 — Mendel: Argued that the allegations had official corroboration, quoting Pentagon spokeswoman Sue Gough:
"The department is committed to releasing a second volume of its Historical Record Report, to include AARO's findings on reports of potential pranks and inauthentic materials."Source: Wall Street Journal.

Post #100 — Mendel: Provided Sean Kirkpatrick's own account describing how officers were allegedly given fabricated programme information and additional NDAs:
"They give you another NDA that signs Yankee Blue."Source: Kirkpatrick's recorded presentation.

Post #128 — MonkeeSage: Argued that participants might have remained silent because they believed the alleged NDAs were genuine, quoting the Wall Street Journal:
"These men signed NDAs. They thought it was real."Source: Wall Street Journal.

Post #130 — MonkeeSage: Addressed whether military and intelligence personnel actually sign NDAs, supplying examples from the Department of Defense, DHS and CIA. These support the general practice, although not the existence of Yankee Blue agreements. Source:muilpe directly link gov/mil pdfs & Douglas Johnson articles.

In the interest of fairness there is are also unsupported opposing dicussons without external supporting evidence.

Post #11 — PublicStranger: Argued that agreements concerning fictional programmes would be "null and void."

Post #12 — flarkey: Disagreed, arguing that a real classified programme containing false information could still have enforceable NDAs:

But these in my opinion are not expressed in such definitive terms as in your original post when you take the quote used into account.

Seriously? That's like loading a fire extinguisher with napalm.

"One such incident, first uncovered by the Wall Street Journal, involves an Air Force colonel who, in the 1980s, handed fake photos of flying saucers to a bar owner near the top-secret Area 51 base in Nevada. The colonel, now retired, later admitted to investigators that he was acting under official orders to deflect attention away from the then-classified F-117 Nighthawk stealth fighter."

There's nothing wrong with expressing an opinion or proposing a hypothesis, provided it isn't presented as an established fact without supporting evidence.

That's also consistent with Metabunk's posting guidelines, which emphasise reliable sources, direct quotations and distinguishing evidence from conclusions.
2.Back it up
5.Be Concise.
8.Don't hint or give "clues"
12.Avoid Humor and Sarcasm.

It's good practice for all of us to revisit those guidelines occasionally.

So in the interest of stay on topic in the guidelines for responding, I think we have addressed everything (this was a little meta and topic maybe imo) But its all back on track now and the finer points of what you brought up are being discussed again


Its was not my goal to have some kind confrontational engagement. In my first reply #117 I basically describe aswhat did you mean by this? and im not sure of that source. If you want to discuss this further direct message here, Im happy to do so

 

[JMartJr]

2.Back it up
5.Be Concise.
8.Don't hint or give "clues"
12.Avoid Humor and Sarcasm.

It's good practice for all of us to revisit those guidelines occasionally.

Good advice which I will follow, too.

 

[jon_eir]

Yeah, and lack of a public version (even if the classified version was already produced) makes people inclined to distrust AARO even more suspicious, which is somewhat understandable. I would think their workload for the last year has increased from the UAP Caucus requests behind closed doors and the PURSUE work for the last six months.

These are just my opinions, and perhaps they're more feelings than anything else, so please consider them as such. I can't help feeling some empathy for the people tasked with investigating all of this and the release of AARO's second historical report. Perhaps it's a combination of institutional self-preservation, genuine concern for the people involved, legal complications, and an understandable reluctance to open another enormous can of worms.

Take Sean Kirkpatrick, for example. He has publicly acknowledged that he didn't particularly want the job in the first place. In an interview with Peter Bergen and its leading someone turning up at his home.

Peter Bergen: Were you volun-told, then, to run the office?

Sean Kirkpatrick: Yeah, basically.

"I even had some guy show up at my house. It makes it very difficult to do this job.

When Bergen asked him to explain, Kirkpatrick said:

And unfortunately, my wife came across him

He's spoken about threats against his wife and daughter, attempts to compromise their online accounts,

I've had people threaten my wife and daughter, and try to break into our online accounts

That's an appalling situation for somebody simply trying to do their job.

I believe this was all an unofficial, elaborate hazing ritual and a disinformation campaign carried out by individuals who genuinely believed they were doing the right thing. But that's hardly a comfortable discovery for these individuals/institutional. If this is the case, we're potentially dealing with something much more consequential than a practical joke. I struggle to imagine there being much institutional enthusiasm for bringing all of this into the open.

Because what happens next? Let's suppose the investigation identifies the individuals involved.

There would almost certainly be demands for accountability. Some people might call for disciplinary action or even criminal prosecution, depending on what actually happened and whether any laws were broken.

But beyond the potential legal consequences, there's also the personal dimension. What if those names eventually become public, whether through the report itself or Freedom of Information Act requests? I suspect some of the same people who have relentlessly targeted Kirkpatrick would turn their attention towards these individuals and their families.

So where does that leave the people responsible for writing and releasing this report?

They're almost caught in a catch-22. This reminds me of the empathy I sometimes feel for people working in classification reviews or handling Freedom of Information requests. It's almost a Type I versus Type II error problem, in the sense that the costs of making one kind of mistake may be perceived as vastly greater than the costs of making the other. The potential benefits of disclosure might seem very abstract, while the potential consequences are painfully concrete.

I wonder whether all of this is why we're seeing the continued absence of Volume II.

Personally, I think they should make a clean breast of the whole situation. They should withhold the names of the individuals involved, handle any disciplinary issues internally, and introduce some in-house training to address whatever went wrong. They should also publicly acknowledge that they're taking these steps.

If the concerns I've outlined are genuinely part of the reason for the delay, I think they should come out and say so in plain language. Something along the lines of: "This shouldn't have happened. We're going to handle it internally, and we're taking steps to make sure it doesn't happen again. But we're also concerned about the possibility of reprisals against the individuals involved and their families from some members of the UFO believer community."

Notwithstanding the fact that it's easy for those of us on the outside to demand disclosure, it's quite another thing to be the person who has to sign off on releasing material that could have serious consequences for real people. And I do wonder whether we're giving that side of the equation enough consideration.

 

[Mendel]

I can only assume that you are referring to what you quoted from me in respect to your AARO quote and that you believe the topic of the whether NDAs hasnt been discussed "in all sorts of ways" with supporting evidence.

Well, I assumed your quote was in there by mistake, and @Hwy666 was contributing to the topic of NDAs that the previous posts were about; at least that makes sense to me, given what Hwy666 actually wrote.

 

[Mendel]

Yeah, and lack of a public version (even if the classified version was already produced) makes people inclined to distrust AARO even more suspicious, which is somewhat understandable. I would think their workload for the last year has increased from the UAP Caucus requests behind closed doors and the PURSUE work for the last six months.

And the declassification process is largely out of their hands, too.

 

[JMartJr]

Personally, I think they should make a clean breast of the whole situation. They should withhold the names of the individuals involved, handle any disciplinary issues internally, and introduce some in-house training to address whatever went wrong. They should also publicly acknowledge that they're taking these steps.

If the concerns I've outlined are genuinely part of the reason for the delay, I think they should come out and say so in plain language. Something along the lines of: "This shouldn't have happened. We're going to handle it internally, and we're taking steps to make sure it doesn't happen again. But we're also concerned about the possibility of reprisals against the individuals involved and their families from some members of the UFO believer community."

That would be, I think, the right thing to do, but maybe not the smart thing. I would bet the screaming of "this is just scapegoating poor innocent sevice members, just more cover up!" would be deafening, and possibly lead to more people going down the UFO rabbit hole than just continuing to release fairly boring videos.

(I have watched with some amusement as my Facebook reels feed begins to show more and more AI faked "military fighter plane real footage of UAP from the latest release by the Pentagon!!!!" which is so much more exciting than the stuff actually being released, with interesting shapes and much clearer imagery and just generally a lot better than the dull stuff actually released. You can't drive traffic to your video with the dull-but-real stuff, I guess.)

 

[Hwy666]

The operational word being "authentic", which the alleged Yankee Blue NDAs would not be. DoD said via Gough that we will get more information about the alleged hazing in the next report.

The best thing I can say to anyone who wants to defend AARO: At least take the time to read Volume 1 of their report, which by the way contains zero references to Yankee Blue.

Page 30 of Volume 1 goes into more detail on UAP-related NDAs:

"No Official UAP Nondisclosure Agreements Discovered

In the conduct of this review, and to meet the direction of Section 1673 of the NDAA for FY 2023, AARO sent guidance and requests to DoD, IC elements, DOE, and DHS to review and provide any NDAs pertaining to UAP (or its previous names). 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."

 

[John J.]

The best thing I can say to anyone who wants to defend AARO: At least take the time to read Volume 1 of their report, which by the way contains zero references to Yankee Blue.

Page 30 of Volume 1 goes into more detail on UAP-related NDAs:

"No Official UAP Nondisclosure Agreements Discovered

In the conduct of this review, and to meet the direction of Section 1673 of the NDAA for FY 2023, AARO sent guidance and requests to DoD, IC elements, DOE, and DHS to review and provide any NDAs pertaining to UAP (or its previous names). 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."

So AARO has said it has not found any evidence of NDAs related to UAP. I've not seen any other reliable source saying otherwise.
"Yankee Blue"-type pranks don't involve real NDAs, and their subject matter is hoaxed.
Yankee Blue does not involve "Official UAP Nondisclosure Agreements", so the AARO report not mentioning it in the context of official (real, enforceable) NDAs isn't a strange oversight.

I think there are reasons to criticize AARO (e.g. some of the videos etc. released under PURSUE appear to have undergone very little informed examination, meaning footage etc. with almost certainly mundane explanations gets put into the public domain as "unexplained" when no serious effort seems to have been taken to explain it).

But I don't think AARO can be criticized for not finding evidence of "Official UAP Nondisclosure Agreements" when there is no other credible evidence that they exist (beyond anecdotes, whose credibility depends entirely on faith in the then-interpretation, recall and honesty of the source. Unfortunately the UFO field is rich in unsupported, improbable anecdotes and deliberate hoaxes).

 

[MonkeeSage]

So AARO has said it has not found any evidence of NDAs related to UAP. I've not seen any other reliable source saying otherwise.
"Yankee Blue"-type pranks don't involve real NDAs, and their subject matter is hoaxed.
Yankee Blue does not involve "Official UAP Nondisclosure Agreements", so the AARO report not mentioning it in the context of official (real, enforceable) NDAs isn't a strange oversight.

I think there are reasons to criticize AARO (e.g. some of the videos etc. released under PURSUE appear to have undergone very little informed examination, meaning footage etc. with almost certainly mundane explanations gets put into the public domain as "unexplained" when no serious effort seems to have been taken to explain it).

But I don't think AARO can be criticized for not finding evidence of "Official UAP Nondisclosure Agreements" when there is no other credible evidence that they exist (beyond anecdotes, whose credibility depends entirely on faith in the then-interpretation, recall and honesty of the source. Unfortunately the UFO field is rich in unsupported, improbable anecdotes and deliberate hoaxes).

I agree. The first historical report addressed official NDAs, and according to Gough the second will contain details about hazing and inauthentic materials.

According to the WSJ article "Kirkpatrick had briefed lawmakers on the episode", so AARO may have discovered the fake NDAs as part of their statutory mandate to review all NDAs and report findings to Congress, codified in 50 U.S.C. § 3373b.

(3) Nondisclosure agreements

(A) Identification
The Secretary of Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the heads of such other departments and agencies of the Federal Government that have supported investigations of the types of events covered by subparagraph (A) of subsection (a)(1) and activities and programs described in subparagraph (B) of such subsection, and contractors of the Federal Government that have supported or are supporting such activities and programs, shall conduct comprehensive searches of all records relating to nondisclosure orders relating to the types of events described in subsection (a) and provide copies of such orders, agreements, or obligations to the Office.

(B) Submission to Congress
The head of the Office shall—(i) make the records compiled under subparagraph (A) accessible to the congressional defense committees, the congressional intelligence committees, and the congressional leadership; and (ii) not later than September 30, 2023, and at least once each fiscal year thereafter through fiscal year 2026, provide to such committees and congressional leadership briefings and reports on such records.

Source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg...DE-2023-title50-chap45-subchapIV-sec3373b.pdf

 

[NorCal Dave]

The best thing I can say to anyone who wants to defend AARO: At least take the time to read Volume 1 of their report, which by the way contains zero references to Yankee Blue.

I've seen similar arguments from other members in other threads. It seems to amount to "AARO sucks". Like those other posts, you seem to be unable to explain exactly why "AARO sucks", other than they claimed there was a hazing ritual. I agree evidence for a hazing rituals appears weak and anecdotal, at least to us in the public, but so does any evidence for alien UFOs. IF there were hazing rituals, it's not for AARO to uncover and investigate. They can only pass on the information to the appropriate people.

Like other posters, there seems to be this assumption that AARO can and will uncover and investigate any and all claims and completely resolve them. AARO has no subpoena power. They can investigate historical claims and take testimony from those who chose to talk to them. At best, the hazing rituals are a minor part of an ongoing UFO game of telephone, often between people who were never in a position to even be hazed.

 

[MapperGuy]

I may have missed it but has anyone claimed they found actual signed fake UFO NDA's? Or have they just been told by people that they signed such documents thinking they were real? Or have people admitted getting new people to sign them?

Remember that a 'fake' UFO NDA would probably have had actual classification and portion markings reflecting the alleged level of classification. And a document with such markings has to be treated as if it was real, and protected/stored as if the program is real. Until declassified by some classification authority. Or destroyed.

So I would expect that most such bogus NDA's would have been shredded or put in a burn-bag just as soon as the signer left the room. If you hang onto it you have to protect it as if it was real. And they would hardly put any mention of someone signing one into that persons official personnel record. Carrying such an NDA out of the SCIF will get you in all sorts of trouble, because the guards at the door don't know it's fake, and will treat you as if you were taking real classified material home.

So I would suspect there are not many signed ones still in existence. Some might be sitting in file folders somewhere, but probably only in some ancient SCIF that has not been sanitized in years.

 

[John J.]

So I would expect that most such bogus NDA's would have been shredded or put in a burn-bag just as soon as the signer left the room.

Very much so (if they existed in the first place). I doubt that filing spurious documents with fake security classifications and hoaxed legal authority would be seen as a good idea or a wise career move. That said, people do stupid things, I wouldn't 100% rule out some evidence surviving somewhere. But from what we know from AARO it's not in an official filing cabinet marked "UAP Nondisclosure NDAs".

 

[Hwy666]

I've seen similar arguments from other members in other threads. It seems to amount to "AARO sucks". Like those other posts, you seem to be unable to explain exactly why "AARO sucks",

I never said that.

I've actually been using AARO's Volume 1 as a reference throughout this thread. It's not my fault if other posters never bothered to read it.

From page 15 of Volume 1:

"

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."

But now you want me to believe that at the same the USAF who reached that conclusion was seeding war hysteria and anxiety among their own ranks via Yankee Blue. That the USAF was intentionally planting a belief in UFOs into fellow military personnel that they were standing shoulder to shoulder with as the US participated in one war after another over the decades since.

From page 17 of Volume 1:

"The Robertson Panel (January 1953)
Results: The panel reviewed all USAF data and concluded that most reports had ordinary explanations. 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. •

The panel was, however, concerned with the outbreak of mass hysteria and how the Soviets could exploit it. They recommended the USG use various channels to debunk UFO reports and suggested monitoring domestic UFO enthusiast organizations."

The USAF repeatedly studied UFO reports, repeatedly found no proof of alien craft and repeatedly concluded that no good would come out of anyone believing UFOs were real. Yankee Blue is a complete contradiction of the USAF's own studies and conclusions.

https://www.aaro.mil/Portals/136/PDFs/AARO_Historical_Record_Report_Vol_1_2024.pdf

 

[RobertBillyBob]

But now you want me to believe that at the same the USAF who reached that conclusion was seeding war hysteria and anxiety among their own ranks via Yankee Blue

The USAF is not a monolithic entity. The actions of some of its members can contradict the stated goal of the organization.

 

[NorCal Dave]

But now you want me to believe that at the same the USAF who reached that conclusion was seeding war hysteria and anxiety among their own ranks via Yankee Blue. That the USAF was intentionally planting a belief in UFOs into fellow military personnel that they were standing shoulder to shoulder with as the US participated in one war after another over the decades since.

I'm unsure of what you're claiming. Project GRUDGE, which you referenced (bold by Hwy666) :

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.

Was from 1949 and the Robertson Panel, which you referenced was from 1953 (bold by Hwy666):

The panel was, however, concerned with the outbreak of mass hysteria and how the Soviets could exploit it. They recommended the USG use various channels to debunk UFO reports and suggested monitoring domestic UFO enthusiast organizations.

We can have discussions about Cold War thinking from the time, but yes, back in the '50s some DoD leaders felt UFO talk could lead to panic or Soviet exploitation. Fear of what the Soviets could, would or might be doing, what we call FOMO today, was the rational for a lot of bad decisions. Project Stargate, which tested people for ESP and other paranormal fringe stuff went on for 20+ years, because military and intelligence people thought the Soviets were doing it.

So, back in the '50 and '60s the USAF thought UFO talk was not good. I'm not sure what bearing that as on the current claims of a possible unauthorized hazing rituals. From the article in the Opening Post (my bold):

The officers were told that the program they were joining, dubbed Yankee Blue, was part of an effort to reverse-engineer the technology on the craft. They were told never to mention it again. Many never learned it was fake. Kirkpatrick found the practice had begun decades before, and appeared to continue still. The defense secretary's office sent a memo out across the service in the spring of 2023 ordering the practice to stop immediately, but the damage was done.

IF, IF a hazing ritual like Yankee Blue existed and had for "decades" prior to AARO uncovering it, I would take decades to mean back to the '90s or possibly the '80s. And again the whole notion is that, as a hazing ritual, Yankee Blue was NOT officially sanctioned USAF policy. Your quote I used above says: "That the USAF was intentionally planting a belief in UFOs into fellow military personnel..." despite their conclusions back in the '50s. No. The USAF was NOT intentionally planting UFO beliefs. Rather the claim is that certain people in the USAF were taking it up on themselves to use a fake UFO reverse engineering program as a hazing ritual.

Hazing rituals are a known thing, particularly in closed groups and even more so for people entering closed groups. The local University nearby has banned multiple fraternities over the years do to hazing ritual fatalities. The USAF academy has had multiple hazing incidents over the years:

In a reported decades-old ritual that took place last fall, new members of the Air Force Academy's swim team were allegedly forced to binge all-you-can-eat pasta, chug milk and run until they vomited — a rite known as 'The Chunker.'

The decision to take them to court martial has raised eyebrows; despite a long history of hazing, the academy usually chooses to discipline its cadets in-house.

https://www.businessinsider.com/cad...emy-hazing-ritual-may-end-up-in-prison-2018-9

An investigation found roughly 30 players on the Air Force Academy's lacrosse team were involved in hazing of freshmen cadets to varying degrees, the academy said in an email Wednesday.

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/...for-hazing-now-some-of-them-may-not-graduate/

Even the GAO looked into hazing at the military academies:

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the treatment of fourth class midshipmen and cadets at Department of Defense service academies, focusing on the: (1) extent of hazing at each of the academies; (2) academies' actions to control and eliminate hazing; and (3) impact of hazing on cadets and midshipmen.

https://www.gao.gov/products/nsiad-93-36

Unofficial, non-sanctioned hazing happens.

Note also, the claim in the OP Yankee Blue article is about a "reverse engineering" program dealing with UFOs. While the original Roswell incident did involve military personal picking up bits of junk consistent with high altitude balloon of some kind, the whole trope of a government "crash retrieval and reverse engineering program" has its origins in the late '70s. At a MUFON conference, a UFO enthusiast named Leonard "Leon" Stingfield coined the term:

Students of ufology will recall that Leonard Stringfield was best known for his research into so called "UFO Crash/Retrievals." During the mid-1970s, Leonard accumulated reports from military sources who claimed they had first-hand knowledge of crashed saucers and bodies being recovered by elements of the United States government.

His ground breaking lecture titled "Retrievals of the Third Kind" at the 1978 International MUFON Symposium held in Dayton, Ohio caused a sensation and introduced the general public to the possibility that UFOs may have crashed on Earth, and that their occupants might have been recovered by elements of the United States government. He ultimately coined the term "UFO Crash/Retrieval." Between 1978 and 1994, Leonard published seven "status reports" which kept readers informed regarding his on-going research.

https://avalonlibrary.net/ebooks/Mi...s of the Third Kind (version 5, Dec 2013).pdf

Stringfield would go on to issue "Status Reports" about UFOs and crash retrievals into the early '90s. I would argue, that as the crash retrieval trope grew in UFO circles through the '80s it became part of the popular zeitgeist with the success of The X Files (1993-2002) on TV.

So, IF the Yankee Blue hazing ritual involved "crashed and reverse engineered UFOs", it is almost certainly a product of '90s and into the 2020s. Even IF Yankee Blue was known to USAF leaders and tolerated, not likely, it's probably unrelated to USAF cold-war policy from the '50s.

 

[Mendel]

I've actually been using AARO's Volume 1 as a reference throughout this thread. It's not my fault if other posters never bothered to read it.

I suspect most of us have read it; but it's been a while ago, and we weren't focused on NDAs then.

But now you want me to believe that at the same the USAF who reached that conclusion was seeding war hysteria and anxiety among their own ranks via Yankee Blue. That the USAF was intentionally planting a belief in UFOs into fellow military personnel that they were standing shoulder to shoulder with as the US participated in one war after another over the decades since.

You are arguing as if Yankee Blue was official policy, and you are also assuming that many people hazed this way actually believed it, and kept believing it. I find it more likely that most people figured out they had been pranked; and we know Yankee Blue was not an official program.

 

[Hwy666]

The USAF is not a monolithic entity. The actions of some of its members can contradict the stated goal of the organization.

You're completely free to believe whatever you want on this topic but as AARO said, they found no evidence of it.

I should also clarify that I don't yet have any problem with AARO's findings.

Where I take issue is with the allegations made by Mr. Kirpatrick, Mr. Philips and Susan Gough without providing any form of evidence for their allegations.

Especially when it contradicts the findings of AARO's initial report.

This alleged Volume 2 report shouldn't even be necessary to clear the air. The documents and other hard evidence to confirm Yankee Blue shouldn't be a major undertaking for AARO to make public since they've allegedly been recovered already. The WSJ story that first alleged Yankee Blue was dated June 6, 2025.

https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/ufo-us-disinformation-45376f7e?eafs_enabled=false

Complete objectivity can be a tough pill to swallow. Without evidence I have no reason to believe Mr. Kirpatrick's stories any more than I would someone like Luis Elizondo or David Grusch. That also means I'm willing to change my mind if we finally get the evidence that's taking a suspiciously long time to be made public.

That's where I stand on this.

 

[JMartJr]

This alleged Volume 2 report shouldn't even be necessary to clear the air. The documents and other hard evidence to confirm Yankee Blue shouldn't be a major undertaking for AARO to make public since they've allegedly been recovered already. The WSJ story that first alleged Yankee Blue was dated June 6, 2025.

Is exposing or dealing with a hazing ritual that involves no UAP even in their remit? I wouldn't think so. I could see them passing info to the appropriate folks to deal with it inside DoD, I can;t see why they would make that info public, such is not their mission, is it?

 

[Mendel]

Especially when it contradicts the findings of AARO's initial report.

We've explained to you that there is no contradiction.

 

[John J.]

The USAF is not a monolithic entity. The actions of some of its members can contradict the stated goal of the organization.

You're completely free to believe whatever you want on this topic but as AARO said, they found no evidence of it.

I'm not sure I understand your point.
@RobertBillyBob was referring to "Yankee Blue" (please correct me if I misunderstood, RBB!)
Sean Kirkpatrick has said AARO found evidence of a hazing practice / series of pranks which made use of the imagined name "Yankee Blue".
It is very clear that Yankee Blue, as described, was not a USAF or other defense-related program, project, exercise or experiment.
It was the fictitious title used in some unauthorised and unapproved hazes/ pranks. It seems unlikely the perpetrators put any great effort into it or thought it served any serious purpose. It was probably done just to have some brief fun at the newcomer's expense.
RobertBillyBob is saying that if some members of the USAF did this, that doesn't mean their activities were condoned, or wanted, by the USAF.

In contrast, AARO has found no evidence of official UAP non-disclosure agreements, anywhere. This might be because there weren't any.
"Yankee Blue"-type hazes might have happened. Official, real UFO-specific NDAs probably didn't.
There is no contradiction at all.

...you want me to believe that at the same the USAF who reached that conclusion was seeding war hysteria and anxiety among their own ranks via Yankee Blue.

(1) Yankee Blue was the unofficial activity/ activities of some people in the USAF, not by the USAF. If, say, some people in the USAF pilfer supplies, that doesn't make it the policy of the USAF.
(2) How would Yankee Blue have seeded war hysteria? I doubt that the (I hope few) who might have taken it seriously went on to devote their careers to the forthcoming conflict with Epsilon Eridani or wherever. If anything it would have been a distraction from real potential threats.

The USAF repeatedly studied UFO reports, repeatedly found no proof of alien craft and repeatedly concluded that no good would come out of anyone believing UFOs were real. Yankee Blue is a complete contradiction of the USAF's own studies and conclusions.

I'm not sure we can say the USAF "repeatedly concluded that no good would come out of anyone believing UFOs were real."
@NorCal Dave's post #151 describes concerns that (hypothetical) hysteria caused by UFO reports might be exploited by the USSR. That isn't the same thing.

As you say, Yankee Blue contradicted the USAF's own published studies. It said alien craft are visiting Earth and some have been recovered.
It contradicted the USAF's findings because it was an unofficial, unauthorized prank or hazing ritual.
The whole point of Yankee Blue was probably to make someone believe (or pretend to believe) something that the perpetrators regarded as self-evidently foolish. Supposition; there probably wasn't much consideration about, or interest in, what the "mark" believed going forward.

Complete objectivity can be a tough pill to swallow. Without evidence I have no reason to believe Mr. Kirpatrick's stories any more than I would someone like Luis Elizondo...

Well, one has said that he's seen blue orbs vaporize dogs, that orbs frequently flew through his house and that a photo showed a huge "mothership" over a Romanian city in broad daylight. He has supported other questionable and comprehensively debunked claims.
The other says his organisation found evidence of a UFO-themed hazing ritual, a finding accepted by the Dept. of Defense (now Dept. of War),

The Defense Department (DoD) acknowledged "pranks" as described by AARO in 2025

(Wikipedia, Yankee Blue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yankee_Blue), but that they didn't find any evidence of official UAP nondisclosure agreements.

We can't be certain about the veracity or accuracy of any of these claims (maybe apart from the Romanian mothership, a reflection of a light fixture in an apartment window), but one set of claims is more extraordinary than the other.