Jun 30 2026 UAP GERB BRIEFING DOCUMENT Manhattan Project 2.0 Special Access Required RECOMMENDED AS A COMPANION TO THE VIDEO PRESENTATIONS This document was assembled for research and reference purposes by a n anonymous UAP Gerb follower . Its purpose is to organize and synthesize the core arguments, historical analysis, and structural claims presented across two video presentations by UAP Gerb, namely “ Manhattan Project 2.0 - the secrecy o f UFO Crash Retrieval Programs ( VOL. 1) ” and “ Special Access Required - the secrecy o f UFO Crash Retrieval Programs (VOL.2) ” GBD / V1.1 - 1 - SUMMARY ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 4 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 10 The Legacy Pyramid ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 10 Security Apparatus ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 12 Onion Structure ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 12 History ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 13 PART I MANHATTAN PR OJECT 2.0 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 19 THE ORIGINAL MANHATTAN PROJECT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 20 1. COMPARTIMENTALIZATION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 21 2. ORGANIZATIONAL ARCHITECTURE ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 23 MED (Manhattan Engineer District) ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 23 The example of Air Force legacy operations copying Manhattan Project structure 23 3. PHYSICAL SECURITY ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 28 FFRDC/GOCO security enforcement ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 28 A legacy from the old Manhattan Project: to hide in plain sight ................................ .............. 29 4. CLASSIFICATION AND INFORMATION CONTROL ................................ ................................ ................................ 31 Two Classification systems ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 31 Ab use of DOE controls and Special Teams ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 34 5. POLITICAL SHIELD / COVER ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 37 Top Policy Group ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 37 The NSC ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 37 Majestic 12 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 38 5412 Committee ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 39 National Security Council (NSC) ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 40 MANHATTAN PROJECT - SHARING THE SECRET ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 42 Vannevar Bush ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 42 Robert Oppenheimer ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 45 George C. Marshall ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 46 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 50 COLD WAR AND FRAGMENTATION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 51 Fragmentation ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 51 GBD / V1.1 - 2 - An example of a clandestine USAP being discovered: The Yellow Fruit and Iran - Contra ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 55 The example of the Wilson - Davis memo ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 56 The end of the “wild, wild west” days of legacy activities ................................ ............................... 57 Polaris and Sand dollar ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 57 CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 61 PART 2 PART II SPECIAL ACCESS REQUIRED ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 62 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 63 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 65 SPECIAL ACCESS R EQUIRED ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 70 SPECIAL ACCESS PROGRAMS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 71 Need to know ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 73 SAPs "umbrellas" ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 73 SAPs names ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 74 CLASSIFICATION MAIN CATEGORIES (AQ - SAP, IT - SAP, OS - SAP) ................................ ................................ ....... 75 Acquisition programs (AQ - SAP) ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 75 Intelligence Programs (IT - SAP) ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 77 Operations & support programs (OS - SAP) ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 79 Classification Protection levels (SAP, USAP, W/USAP) ................................ ................................ ..................... 80 SAP GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 83 SAPCO ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 83 OSD SAPCO ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 83 DoD SAPCO ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 84 SAPOC and SRG ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 84 EXPLOITING LEG AL LOOPHOLES TO HIDE FROM SAP OVERSIGHT ................................ ............................... 86 Covert Action Programs (CAPS) ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 86 National Special Access Programs (NSAPs) ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 87 Content Only SAPs ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 88 DOE SAPs ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 89 Day - to - Day Operations and SAP Facilities (SCIFs, SAPFs etc.) ................................ ........................... 90 PROGRAM PROTECTION AGENCIES AND EXPOSURE MANAGEMENT ................................ ............................... 92 AFOSI/PJ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 92 DARPA SID ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 93 GBD / V1.1 - 3 - Dr. Peter Highnam ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 94 System High ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 94 AFLCMC IP (Information Protection Directorate) ................................ ................................ ........................... 95 DOE OICI ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 96 NARRATIVE CONTROL ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 98 AARO, Kirkpatrick and disinformation ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 98 AATIP and Elizondo ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 100 To The Stars Academy (TTSA) ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 101 Age of Disclosure ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 101 UNRIVALED SECRECY – FUNDING AND FINCANCIAL SECRECY ................................ ................................ ... 103 Wetworks and Administrative Terrorism ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 104 SUMMARY OF THE TWO - PART BRIEFING DOCUMENT ................................ ................................ .............................. 106 GBD / V1.1 - 4 - SUMMARY Excecutive summary One of the most appropriate and poignant questions asked about the existence of UFO legacy programs is: H ow can such technology, biologics, crash retrievals, and programs be kept secret — and kept secret for 80 years at that. A cadre of covert, compartmented, and beyond - top - secret programs facilitate knowledge and need - to - know access to the greatest secret in the history of mankind: the presence and procurement of non - human technology and their biological operators, existing as a hidden shadow symbiotically attached to the US government, armed forces, and intelligence community. This would require an ever - evolving, impenetrable, and stalwart architecture to stay hidden from even presidents and other elected "temporary employees." This investigation aims to study the layers of the so - called UFO legacy onion — critical individual layers and concepts paramount to obfuscating the core of the 21st century legacy apparatus. The project peel back layers of embedded secrecy where layers protect layers that obscure core secrets. This includes conceptualizing Special Access Programs (SAPs), uncovering loopholes for managed need - to - know compartmented programs legacy operations have used with "non - covert" White House programs, and examining program protection agencies deputized to enforce insider and outsider threat protection to maintain total program secrecy. The investigation also cover what could be described as "antibodies" David Grusch awoke when investigating the topic in a legal and empowered manner, the disgraced Sean Kirkpatrick and his ineffective All - domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO), the AATIP program perception management campaign and attempts to talk about the subject outside the proverbial onion, and the myriad criminal actions taken that aid the all - encompassing subject of "unrivaled secrecy." Manhattan Project 2.0 Part one focuses predominantly on the rise of the Manhattan Project 2.0 security infrastructure and its fall from grace during the Cold War into the fragmented and siloed program infrastructure of today. Within the Manhattan Project 2.0, we listened closely to David Grusch, who directly stated that the Manhattan Project secrecy apparatus was translated directly onto early UFO retrieval and exploitation efforts. GBD / V1.1 - 5 - Grusch stated that they took the Manhattan Project secrecy and overlaid it on this issue because that secrecy worked well for atomic bomb developments. Grusch summarized the 90 - plus years of history as a reverse engineering program to garner some kind of insight. We then explored five critical concepts of secrecy translated from the Manhattan Project directly onto the Manhattan Project 2.0: o Compartmentalization o organizational architecture o physical security o classifi cation & information control, and o P olitical shield/cover. Compartmentalization Compartmenting programs or information operates as a defensive security mechanism, reducing attack vectors for espionage, leaks, and intrusions. The practice of compartmentalization sees program personnel granted access only to the specific information they need to perform their duties, even if they hold the necessary clearance level. The Manhattan Project served as a period of tremendous innovation of compartmented programs, leading to the modern - day basis for Special Access Programs. Organizational architecture We discuss organizational architecture being weaponized and leveraged for secrecy. The Manhattan Project was conducted out of the Manhattan Engineer District (MED), which served as the legal and administrative entity through which the Manhattan Project operated. The MED was chosen to be inconspicuous and essentially a container within the US Army Corps of Engineers to house the top secret atomic project. We compared this secrecy practice with the early days of the "hidden wing," an Air Force series of UFO test and evaluation programs housed as a shadow hidden in plain sight within the Department of the Air Force. Physical security Physical security saw translation of the Manhattan Project's most secret and heavily guarded sites — Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, and soon - to - be Los Alamos Z Division at Sandia Base (aka Sandia National Lab) — onto the Manhattan Project 2.0. GBD / V1.1 - 6 - W ithin that section, we discuss alleged classified executive orders signed by Truman in 1948, which relegated custody of recovered discs to Atomic Energy Commission National Laboratories to be studied by Dr. Vannevar Bush. Classification and information control Classification and information control proposes a discussion of self - imposed and mandatory self - classification protocols for atomic scientists, as well as a deep investigation into the 1946 and 1954 Atomic Energy Acts. One of the most critical discussions is the introduction of two separate tracks of classification within the United States upon establishment of the Atomic Energy Commission: 1. Track one is the standard executive order - based system (confidential, secret, and top secret levels of classification). 2. Track two is the statutory Atomic Energy Commission/DOE and NNSA system, whose authority is derived from the 1954 Atomic Energy Agreements. The second track sees equivalents to secret and top secret classifications with L and Q clearance respectively, but also restricted data , formally restricted data and special nuclear materials — all information "born classified." This second system is not subject to executive order and will likely prove to be a real can of worms for any president to take full steps to disclose. Thanks to the sage council and discussion of Grusch, we know both systems of classification are used by legacy programs to maintain secrecy. Political shield/cover The political shield/cover existed as the Top Policy Group at the apex of the Manhattan Project. The Top Policy Group was the narrow and strict chain of command to which General Leslie Groves reported, consisting of a handful of powerful figures: FDR/Truman, Army Chief of Staff General George C. Marshall, Secretary of War Henry Stimson, head of the OSRD Vannevar Bush, and his assistant. The purpose of this group was to keep read - in personnel and the existing control group small, minimize a paper trail, and maintain presidential control. Interestingly, Truman was not briefed on the Manhattan Project as a senator or even vice president; only when he was sworn in as president after FDR's death was he read in. GBD / V1.1 - 7 - We discuss how Truman relegated control over the UFO portfolio to the National Security Council after the establishment of the 1947 National Security Act. Of significantly greater consequence, we discuss how in 1954 and 1955, President Eisenhower created the NSC 5412 Committee Special Group and designated such a body focused on covert action as the Manhattan Project 2.0's control group — this is Majestic 12, appropriately called at this time MAJ - 12. Changing Tides We discuss the Cold War and the concept of changing tides, where the “ Wild , Wild West ” days of the legacy program ran from the 1950s up until the early 1980s. This epoch saw several executive orders expand and contract oversight over special access program precursors (aka black projects). Nixon's Executive Order 11652 saw tremendous concern over ad hoc security protocols, including top secret code word access. We concluded that the great schism that ended the Manhattan Project 2.0 was actually Ronald Reagan's 1982 Executive Order 12356, which ended the Wild West days of legacy activities by effectively curtailing top secret code word read - on access and other ad hoc security protocols. The 1983 revelation of Yellow Fruit — an Army SOD (Special Operations Division) Unacknowledged Special Access Program (USAP) — was a key factor for this. This USAP was discovered through a series of normal audits and revealed a shady world of data masking, cover offices, staged retirements, funding schemes, illegal covert activities, and so on. Yellow Fruit partially led to the uncovering of the Iran - Contra affair and directly led to massive SAP reforms. Such reforms forced legacy activities to sever off their own limbs to hide and silo themselves within cover offices and programs. As a finishing bow , we discuss how legacy operations, fearful of Clinton's disclosure appetite, permanently vested the UFO legacy program control group in 1994 into a quasi - industry and government control group of just over two dozen. David Grusch appears to agree with this statement, noting that in previous administrations like Clinton's, the program thought Clinton was going to disclose in the '90s, and there was a burn bag and shred party at a particular agency in the mid - '90s. The Onion model The Manhattan Project formed our proverbial onion GBD / V1.1 - 8 - However, unlike the great schism of the Manhattan Project 2.0 — which led to tremendous fracturing and weakening of the overall national effort to retrieve and exploit non - human technical vehicles — every special access reform period (whether expansion or retraction of oversight), every time legacy was forced to silo one of its limbs within a cover office like SAF/AA, and even when the legacy program vested control into a quasi - government and industry control group, all of this saw amplification, strengthening, and new layers added to the onion. In a sense, the Manhattan Project secrecy apparatus itself can also be represented by a proverbial onion An illustration: o If you were a low - level physicist, you were subject to Vannevar Bush's system of self - censorship, Groves' compartmentalization, need - to - know access, the Manhattan Engineer District, the Top Policy Group — numerous layers that kept ordinary people on the project always a step away from the core of the atomic project. o Now recontextualize that atomic project onion model for the Manhattan Project 2.0 in the 1950s with the addition of ‘ restricted data ’ classification and ‘ special nuclear materials ’ under the 1954 Atomic Energy Act, custody of non - human materials being delegated via classified presidential executive order, a special group focused on covert activities being established within the National Security Council, top secret code word program access similar to NRO by man, and a litany of security protocols even more strict and expansive than the atomic project overlaying this project portfolio. o Now imagine that same security system in the 1980s, but with a fractured centralized leadership group to direct and establish security baselines for this once mighty national effort, where program elements were forced to burrow even deeper into the shadows to hide from Pentagon audits. o Throw in the Air Force and NRO program involvement being broken off and hidden within the Air Force SAF/AA, and understand that Naval involvement is hidden within programs hidden within other programs themselves, hidden within even further programs like the Polaris pro gram and Sand Dollar. o Observe instances of projects within the armed forces and intelligence community being siloed into their own containers with a flat hierarchy. o This leaves you with an onion model that quite literally doubles, triples, or even exponentially grows in size. o Add to that concentrated efforts in the early 2010s by specific FFRDCs and elements of the US government to quite literally restrict program history briefings on legacy incumbents, to purposefully keep new program personnel ignorant to the scope GBD / V1.1 - 9 - and history of the legacy program portfolio and their specific siloed project. Thus today we are left with an onion model of secrecy that is so vast, convoluted, and severe that most likely only 40 to 50 people alive at any given time know the full breadth and history of the programs GBD / V1.1 - 10 - INTRO DUCTION The Legacy Pyramid In his research, Gerb arrived at a functional model to represent the modern - day UFO legacy program structure, which he calls the "legacy pyramid." The model: 1. The control group This pyramid was once governed by a now - amorphous centralized control group: Truman, Eisenhower, the National Security Council (NSC), its 5412 Committee Special Group, and that Special Group's MAJ - 12 (or Majestic 12). This position was lately occupied by presidents, career senior executive officials, like Dick Cheney, Clapper, etc. When Dick Cheney, the last man to harness centralized leadership of these activities, left office, this position became allegedly empty, ultimately degrading into the quasi - industry and government control group of today (control group of 27), that features a flat hierarchy where nobody after Dick Cheney operates full control and oversight of all siloed program directives. This is now the only powerful control group of individuals today who still have understanding of the full scope of NHI retrieval and exploitation efforts. 2. Program administration Best thought of as several silo containers housing specific programs and directives under specific elements of the Armed Forces and Intelligence Community (IC). o An example here includes the National Security Council (NSC) still allegedly maintaining a recovery effort of technical vehicles of exotic origin. o And another specific example, a selection of Air Force programs involving numerous offices listed below for a short, narrow, and strict oversight chain that operates out in the western ranges that performs test and evaluation on airframes incorporating one or more elements of non - human technologies. 3. FFRDCs Below the administrators sits Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) and GOCOs (Government - Owned, Contractor - Operated institutions), which allow the US government to attract the brightest industry and subject matter experts while still retaining strict control over programs, materials, and breakthroughs. Such FFRDC/GOCO efforts have been critical to the legacy program effort since the Truman administration, all the way back to the late 1940s, in which custody of recovered vehicles were given to now Department of Energy and former Atomic Energy Commission national labs, like Sandia, Los Alamos, and Oak Ridge. More specific examples of FFRDCs and GOCOs include the MITRE GBD / V1.1 - 11 - Corporation, RAND Corporation, Aerospace Corporation, CNA Corporation, and Air Force Plant 42 within Palmdale, California. 4. DIB Prime At the bottom layer of the pyramid sits the most security - vulnerable aspect of the legacy structure: defense industrial - based prime contractors and their subcontractors , where only specific personnel (including executive - level positions, C - suite executives, or special program directors) are read into the legacy effort at a functional level. 5. US defense industrial base The mortar that binds this structure together, well, this is the US defense industrial base , whose authoritative channels are often bypassed to allow UFO legacy programs to harness any US military and intelligence asset needed to accomplish these covert mission directives. 6. Security Apparatus The outer casing of the pyramid is the UFO legacy program security apparatus The security apparatus is analogous to an onion , where the core secrets and extant presence of the UFO crash retrieval and exploitation portfolio are always hidden and obscured by another layer of protection and secrecy. The present briefing addresses the Security Apparatus level 1. PROGRAM LEAD(S) 2. DOD/IC ADMIN 3. FFRDCs 4. DIB PRIME CONTRACTORS 6. SECURITY APPARATUS 5. INFRASTRUCTURE GBD / V1.1 - 12 - Security Apparatus Question: How could such technology, biologics, crash retrievals, and programs be kept secret, and kept secret for nearly 90 years at that? Conventional wisdom holds that the US government is generally incapable of keeping secrets. However the UFO legacy programs, including related technologies, biologics, and crash retrievals, indeed have existed and been kept secret for nearly 90 years. There is a specific security apparatus behind UFO legacy programs, distinct from general government secrecy. Classification systems and executive directives provide the foundational legal and administrative cover for covert UFO programs. Covert and highly compartmented Waived Unacknowledged Special Access Programs (W/USAPs) exist within this framework. These W/USAPs facilitate and gatekeep knowledge and need - to - know access to the core secret. The overall secrecy apparatus is organized in a seemingly infinitely layered manner. This hidden program exists as a shadow symbiotically attached to the US government, armed forces, and intelligence community. Specific individuals and program protection offices have been responsible for safeguarding these secrets for decades. The secrecy architecture is designed to remain hidden even from presidents and other elected officials (who are treated as "temporary employees"). Furthermore, disinformation and narrative shaping are intentionally used to reinforce a strong stigma around the UFO topic. The core secret is believed to be the presence and procurement of non - human technology and their biological operators. Onion Structure The legacy security architecture can be accurately modeled as an onion — layers of protection where the core secrets are always obscured by outer layers. LEGACY CORE GBD / V1.1 - 13 - This onion - like structure applies not only to modern - day program protection but also to past decades and the program's inception. The program's inception is comparable to a "Manhattan Project 2.0." Specific historical elements are part of this layered secrecy: stripping the Manhattan Project's secrecy model, Truman and Eisenhower’s executive orders, the 1954 Atomic Energy Agreements, Cold War expansions of special access programs, black project oversight reforms, and close - shave Pentagon audits. Every specific instance of program protection and secrecy mentioned, along with many others over decades, can be understood as layers of this onion. At the core of this onion are the program's fundamental elements: senior leaders, materials, biologics, recovered craft, and internal documents. These core elements are protected and obfuscated by endless layers of protection. Even seasoned flag officers and intelligence agency directors (such as Admiral Thomas Wilson) can only get so close to UFO recovery and exploitation activities before program "antibodies" push back. The onion structure is designed to be impenetrable and impossible to navigate for outsiders without proper read - on or need - to - know clearance. The structure is also designed to be impossible for actual legacy program personnel to peer across or further down the onion, even within their own compartmentalized activities. The core of the system holds the beating heart of UFO legacy activities: the retrieval , storage , exploitation , and derivation of non - human technical vehicles and their occasional biological occupants. An anonymous Gerb whistleblower, who claimed to have operated for years on legacy program security for the Navy and a specific FFRDC's operations regarding USO activity, said he was tasked with giving what he referred to as the "onion briefing" to specific senior statesmen, general and flag officers, and other relevant special programs personnel hundreds of times. Several other people who Gerb has contacted, who are first - handers, commented on the existence of the "onion" within and across their respective program silo. This's the reason of Gerb's "onion" analogy. History The original body of this onion was established in 1947 under President Harry Truman's administration. Elements of US leadership likely had awareness of crashed non - human technical vehicles before 1947. We are specifically referencing the 1933 Magenta, Italy crash. GBD / V1.1 - 14 - Organized and empowered efforts to collect and exploit these technologies appear to have begun immediately following the 1947 Roswell incident. Derivation from the Manhattan Project The early UFO legacy program structure was directly copied from the United States Atomic Weapons Project (the Manhattan Project). This copying included compartmentalization, organizational architecture, physical security, classification and information control, and political shielding and cover. The compartmentalization system worked so well for the Manhattan Project that it was directly translated onto a national effort even more secret than the atomic project. Several figures likely served paramount roles in draping Manhattan Project secrecy blankets over UFO crash retrieval and exploitation programs. These figures include Dr. Vannevar Bush and George C. Marshall. A clear inspiration for the architecture of clandestine UFO crash retrieval teams can be observed from Bush's and Marshall's work on the Manhattan Project during World War II: the Alsos missions and T - Force were organized Manhattan Project intelligence operations to physically secure Nazi scientists, facilities, laboratories, technology, and materials on the war's front lines. These operations operated completely separate from traditional military intelligence channels. The late 1940s and early 1950s saw the Truman and Eisenhower administrations employ several classified presidential executive orders, sometimes referred to as PEADs (Presidential Emergency Action Documents) that equipped, emboldened, weaponized, and galvanized early legacy efforts. There is an alleged 1948 classified presidential executive order by Truman that gave custody of recovered UFOs to Atomic Energy Commission GOCO (government - owned, contractor - operated) national laboratories. These laboratories would evolve into modern - day federally funded research and development centers (FFRDCs). It was President Dwight D. Eisenhower who conducted the lion's share of establishing the early framework for UFO legacy activities. Eisenhower is the one who established a covert UFO control group hidden within the National Security Council's 5412 Committee. GBD / V1.1 - 15 - Notes: The AEC was established by the U.S. Congress in 1946 through the Atomic Energy Act (also known as the McMahon Act), and President Harry S. Truman officially brought it into being on August 1 of that year. Its creation represented the transfer of control over atomic energy from the military (which had run the Manhattan Project) to civilian hands, reflecting postwar optimism. The commission's declared mission was twofold: "to foster and control the peaceful development of atomic science and technology." In practice, this meant the AEC was to promote the use of nuclear energy for public welfare, world peace, and the strengthening of free competition in private enterprise, while simultaneously safeguarding national security. To fulfill this role, the AEC was granted extraordinary powers and significant independence. It became responsible for a vast network of national laboratories, most of which were former Manhattan Project facilities. These included the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the Argonne National Laboratory, and the Brookhaven National Laboratory. These laboratories were the heart of atomic energy research and development, housing reactors, particle accelerators, and other large ‑ scale infrastru cture. AEC policy was carried out through a complex structure. It was directed by five civilian commissioners appointed by the president, with a chairman and a general manager functioning similarly to a board of directors and a chief executive officer of a private corporation. The commission also had a Military Liaison Committee to coordinate with the Department of Defense, as well as a civilian advisory committee. The AEC's budget was immense. In the early 1960s, for example, annual spending authorizations totaled hundreds of millions of dollars, with total costs in some years exceeding the $2 billion mark. To put this in perspective, the AEC's annual budget was comparable to the total cost of the Manhattan Project itself, which was about $2.2 billion. A large portion of this budget went to national security — the development and maintenance of the nuclear arsenal — but a significant share was also directed toward peaceful uses, such as nuclear power generation, biomedical research with radioisotopes, and even ambitious projects like the development of a nuclear ‑ powered aircraft. According to public knowledge, the AEC is therefore known as the agency that managed the U.S. nuclear program during the Cold War, symbolizing the nation's scientific and military effort. It was also the subject of controversies due to regulatory and safety failures, which eventually led to its abolition in 1974. It was replaced by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for oversight functions and the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) for promotional functions, which would later become the Department of Energy. However, the real purpose behind the AEC, or at least behind a shadowy part of its operations, would have been very different and far more secret. The claim is that President Eisenhower, using the already existing and highly GBD / V1.1 - 16 - secretive structure of the AEC, entrusted it with the custody and study of recovered non ‑ human technology, including vehicles and possible biological operators. From this perspective, th