UFOpedia

nasa-uap-independent-study-team-report-2023

3 min read

NASA UAP Independent Study Team Final Report

Summary

NASA’s first formal external study of UAP, convened June 2022 under Administrator Bill Nelson, with a charge to recommend how NASA’s tools of science could be applied to UAP — explicitly not to investigate specific cases. The report endorses NASA’s positioning as a contributor to AARO’s whole-of-government framework rather than as an independent investigator.

Key Findings

  • No evidence of extraterrestrial origin, but qualified: “there is no reason to conclude that existing UAP reports have an extraterrestrial source” (and the data is too limited for definitive conclusions in any direction).
  • Data quality is the bottleneck: “the current UAP data collection efforts are not systematic or comprehensive enough to address the full scope of the problem.” Calls for systematic sensor calibration, multispectral/hyperspectral data, metadata standards.
  • NASA assets that should be leveraged: Earth-observing satellite fleet (Terra, Aqua, GeoXO), commercial remote-sensing constellations (sub-meter resolution), NEXRAD Doppler network, Vera C. Rubin Observatory, NISAR synthetic-aperture radar, Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS, ~100K pilot reports/year).
  • Crowdsourcing recommendation: NASA should develop or acquire a smartphone-based citizen-reporting app capturing imagery + sensor metadata.
  • AI/ML for anomaly detection in large datasets — predicated on well-calibrated data.
  • Destigmatization of pilot reporting as a precondition for data flow.
  • Coordinate with FAA on UAP encounters affecting aviation safety.
  • Director of UAP Research appointed same day (Mark McInerney, embedded with AARO).

What the Report Did NOT Do

  • Did not investigate any specific case (no Nimitz, Gimbal, GoFast analysis; no engagement with military encounters)
  • Did not access classified data (operated entirely in unclassified domain)
  • Did not engage with Grusch’s July 2023 sworn testimony (released two months before the report)
  • Did not interview Navy aviators who recorded the GoFast video, despite GoFast being addressed in the report’s calibration discussion

Criticism

  • Marik von Rennenkampff (The Hill, Aug 2023): NASA’s approach “appears remarkably unscientific” — “like studying a disease while being barred from seeing the patients.”
  • GoFast FOIA finding: Panel never interviewed the aviators who recorded the footage. Panelist Josh Semeter acknowledged the limitation internally; Spergel pushed back on the report’s confident calibration-explains-it wording and urged revision.
  • The Director-of-UAP-Research has produced nothing in 22 months: McInerney retired July 2025 having published no research, released no datasets, issued no public reports, made no public statements. AIAA 2025 year-in-review: “NASA’s progress remains unclear.”
  • The 2025 Lavac FOIA records-destruction finding: Dr. Daniel Evans (the same DFO from the study) stated NASA holds “no records related to UAP” and acknowledged destroying public correspondence about sightings. The destruction may violate the 2024 NDAA prohibition on destroying UAP records.

Significance

The study is the strongest civilian-scientific institutional endorsement of UAP as a legitimate topic of investigation — a reputational rehabilitation. It also demonstrates the limits of the credibility-without-access model: a credentialed panel operating in the unclassified domain, declining to engage with specific cases or whistleblower claims, produced a roadmap for future data collection that NASA has not implemented and an oversight office that has published nothing. The report’s value is primarily symbolic (the involvement) rather than substantive (the findings).

Graph View