Skip to main content
Spooky Valley Archive 5,455 cases indexed Declassified sources
Analysis

The Pentagon Paid for a Paper Saying UFO Injuries Are Real. Here Is What It Actually Argues.

Among the AAWSAP papers released on September 18 is a 2010 study arguing that people have been burned and sickened by 'anomalous vehicles', and that the injuries look like microwave exposure. Read closely, it starts from its conclusion and rests on data no reader can check.

#disclosure#PURSUE#AAWSAP#DIA#DIRD#Cash-Landrum#AARO#microwave

The paper opens with three men. They were fit and active, it says, until an “anomalous aerospace-related event” left them within 72 hours with reddened, burning skin, fever, headaches, numbness, diarrhoea and hair loss. Two developed inflamed eyes and could not bear light. One went on, over several years, to show “signs of malignant transformations.” Investigators, the preface continues, concluded that all three had been caught in the near field of a broadband radio-frequency and microwave source centred at about 785 megahertz.

The document is DOW-UAP-D128, “Anomalous Acute and Subacute Field Effects on Human Biological Tissues,” dated 11 March 2010. It runs to 38 pages and is one of the 37 Defense Intelligence Reference Documents the Department of War published on September 18, 2026, in the sixth PURSUE tranche. The cover names the Defense Intelligence Agency’s Defense Warning Office as preparer. The author appears only as “AAP Person 81,” a pseudonym applied in the release. Of all the papers written under the Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program, the DIA contract run by Robert Bigelow’s company, this is the one that deals most directly with UFO encounters, and the one most often quoted as proof that the Pentagon takes UFO injuries seriously.

What the paper claims

The summary is written as a confident list of findings. “Based on historical cases, humans have been found to have been injured from exposures to anomalous vehicles, especially airborne, and when in relatively close proximity.” “The primary mechanisms of injury are related to electromagnetic radiation field effects.” “The biophysical characteristics of the injuries are well understood.” The propulsion systems behind them, it adds, are not. From there the paper makes its boldest claim: enough incidents have been “accurately reported, and medical data acquired, as to support a hypothesis that some advanced systems are already deployed, and opaque to full US understanding.” It also suggests that doctors’ diagnoses of injured witnesses could be used to “reverse engineer” the physical characteristics of the craft.

The core of the argument sits at the end of a section on how radio-frequency energy affects hearing and the brain. “In summary,” the author writes, “the evidence is solid that the military and aerospace industries’ own classified, proprietary and unclassified literature, as well as the certain evidence of many aerospace RF-related microwave, antenna-related, high power (HP) microwave, infrasonic/sonic, and thermal (from any source) energy deposition accidents … is congruent with the anomalous vehicle reports. This means that one can not discount the claimed and often observed injuries as being real-world … technologies, and which are causes of these effects and injuries.”

Put plainly: microwave accidents cause burns and headaches, UFO witnesses report burns and headaches, so real technology could be behind the UFO injuries. Later the paper goes further. In the cases the author studied, it says, “there are no significant differences in either the reported acute effects (symptoms) or the physician-observed (signs) between the case of three antenna engineers and the Cash-Landrum cases.” It calls this “a convincing” observation and says it seems “highly unlikely that imagination or delusion of laypersons could mimic the science of thermal injury patterns.”

The three engineers were never near a UFO

The source for those three men is reference 1 in the bibliography (which spells the name “Shilling”): C. J. Schilling, “Effects of acute exposure to ultrahigh radiofrequency radiation on three antenna engineers,” published in Occupational and Environmental Medicine in 1997. That paper describes an industrial accident. The three men were working on a television mast and were exposed to high levels of radio-frequency energy at a mean frequency of 785 megahertz. The emitter was known, and nothing about the event was anomalous. The DIRD’s preface does say, in one line, that they were “antennae engineers subjected to an anomalous ‘accident’,” but it puts accident in quotation marks and frames the whole episode as an “anomalous aerospace-related event.” A reader who stopped at the preface would think the paper opens with a UFO case, a point the researcher Adam Kehoe made in 2022 after tracing the citation.

The comparison still has some value. Schilling’s engineers are a real, measured baseline for what a strong 785 MHz field does to a person. But the paper sets that measured case beside an unmeasured one and treats the similarity of symptoms as meaningful. That is the weak step in the argument, and the whole paper depends on it.

Cash-Landrum

The unmeasured case is Cash-Landrum. On the night of December 29, 1980, Betty Cash, Vickie Landrum and Vickie’s seven-year-old grandson Colby Landrum were driving home to Dayton, Texas, on a rural road near Huffman when, they said, a blazing diamond-shaped object hovered over the road ahead, throwing out flames and heat, and was then escorted away by a large group of helicopters. In the days that followed all three reported burns, nausea, blisters and eye trouble. Betty Cash, who had been outside the car longest, was hospitalised and lost hair. They sued the United States government for $20 million, and in August 1986 a federal judge dismissed the case after the government testified that it owned no such craft. John Schuessler, the aerospace engineer and Mutual UFO Network figure who investigated the case, published on it in the MUFON UFO Journal in November 1981. The DIRD cites that article, and its Appendix A is a table from Schuessler’s 1996 catalogue of 356 UFO cases with physical effects, running from 1873 to 1994. Its reference list also points to Brazilian Air Force records of the 1977 Colares wave, where villagers reported being struck by beams of light.

Cash-Landrum is often called the strongest injury case in UFO literature because doctors treated and recorded the witnesses’ symptoms. It is also the case where nobody knows what the witnesses were exposed to. No one measured a field, identified a source or recovered anything, and even the timing of the symptoms rests on the witnesses’ own accounts. The paper admits that its microwave model explains only part of the case. It cites a cell study at 849 MHz and high absorption rates that found no detectable damage, and concludes that in Cash-Landrum “one must assume that the RF and tissue heating, clearly responsible for the erythema and burns, did not cause the cell dyscrasia and subsequent gastrointestinal and malignant transformations; one assumes the cells DNA damage was secondary to ionizing radiation.” The key case therefore needs a second mechanism, and the paper supports it only with two citations: Schuessler’s 1981 article and “Green, CC 2001, 2009 Unpublished HIPPA files.” Its chapter on scope says it will not discuss ionizing radiation “except by reference,” unless the exposure is a “Mixed Field” one such as Cash-Landrum, yet that one sentence is all the analysis it gives the case.

What microwaves do to tissue

Microwave and radio-frequency energy heats tissue mainly by making water molecules oscillate in the changing field, and that motion becomes heat. How deep the heat goes depends on frequency. Millimetre waves, like the 94 GHz beam of the military’s Active Denial System, which the paper discusses, are absorbed in the outer fraction of a millimetre of skin and cause intense surface pain. Lower frequencies, in the few-hundred-megahertz to few-gigahertz range, pass through fat and deposit energy in wetter, deeper tissue such as muscle and brain. That fits what Schilling reported: the engineers’ worst and longest-lasting headaches affected the part of the head that had been most exposed. Enough energy for long enough produces redness, blistering and burns.

None of that physics is in dispute. The problem is the word “congruent.” Reddened skin, blisters, headaches, nausea, diarrhoea, anxiety and insomnia are among the least specific signs in medicine. Sunburn, chemical burns, some infections, toxic exposures and acute stress can cause most of them. A match between a list of UFO witness symptoms and a list of microwave-accident symptoms shows that both groups had symptoms microwaves can cause. It does not show that microwaves caused them, still less that a vehicle produced the microwaves. To establish cause you would need a measured exposure, a dose that fits the severity, and some way of ruling out other explanations. The paper has none of these for any encounter case, because nobody measured anything at the time.

The paper also runs its argument backwards. It opens by stating as a finding that people have been injured by anomalous vehicles, then searches the biophysics literature for a mechanism that fits. The mechanism section even suggests that a craft bending spacetime might “blue-shift” its own heat radiation into microwaves, ultraviolet and soft X-rays. The next sentence says “Medical data supports this option,” but the data it cites is the unpublished Green and Schuessler case pair. Nothing in the paper tests the idea. It is there because it would fit the injuries if the premise were true.

Data the reader cannot check

The evidence that would decide the question is out of reach, and the paper says so. The preface mentions 42 cases from the medical literature and “an additional un-published similar 300 cases.” The biophysics section rests one claim on “Green & Schuessler, unpublished findings of a pair of well-documented human cases,” and cites Cash-Landrum. It then states that “these cases and all other clinical data in this report are HIPAA-protected.” Two other references read “Green C. 2009 & 1983 {Unpublished Personal Archives}” and “Green C. 2009 & 1978 {Unpublished Personal Archives}.” Appendix C, a table matching diagnostic codes against encounter ratings, is labelled as a draft in progress. The contents page still carries a word-processor error, “Error! Bookmark not defined.”

Protecting patient privacy is legitimate, but a paper whose central claim depends on protected, unpublished case files is asking the reader to trust the author, whose name the released copy withholds. The references do point to one person: “Green C.” for the personal archives, “Green & Schuessler” for the key finding, and a “Green/Morris” appendix. Researchers who have written about the paper since the 2022 FOIA copy appeared attribute it to Christopher “Kit” Green, a physician and former CIA analyst who worked with Bigelow’s organisation. In remarks quoted by the UFO Trail blog, Green said of the witnesses, “I didn’t do research on these people. I did case studies.”

What the government now says

The Department of War’s own summary is blunt. Every DIRD in the release carries the same note: they “are best understood as reference and synthesis products rather than as original research,” and the summary “should not be read as implying current validation of the concepts discussed.” On this paper specifically, the government says it “does not establish a direct causal link between the reported injuries and any specific source,” and that its findings “rely heavily on case comparisons lacking physical examinations, untestable exposure conditions, and a mix of established science and more controversial literature.”

The All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office said much the same about the whole program in its 2024 historical report. The AAWSAP papers “were never thoroughly peer reviewed,” and across every U.S. government investigation to date, officials “have not found even one case of UAP representing off-world technology.”

That leaves an odd document. It was paid for with public money, carries DIA markings and reads like a clinical review. Its real contribution is a sensible idea: injured witnesses should be examined properly, and their injuries compared against known exposure data. Its weakness is that it treats that proposal as if the work had already been done. It declares injuries from “anomalous vehicles” to be a finding, builds on a comparison with an industrial accident that involved no vehicle at all, and rests the rest on files no one outside the author’s circle can open. Cash, Landrum and the many less famous witnesses in Schuessler’s catalogue deserved that careful medical investigation, and this paper does not supply it.

Sources