A modern “paper trail” for UAP reporting in the United States is shaped less by folklore and more by a small set of named military aviators, official acknowledgments, and public hearings. The core story is not “aliens confirmed.” It is that trained observers (pilots) reported unusual objects or tracks in restricted training areas, argued that stigma discouraged reporting, and pushed for formal channels and transparent oversight.

Two pilot-centered clusters repeatedly appear in sworn testimony and public record:

1) The 2004 USS Nimitz “Tic Tac” event (West Coast training)
In written testimony, former U.S. Navy Commander David Fravor described a white, oblong object (“Tic Tac”) observed visually during a training mission. He emphasized an absence of obvious wings or control surfaces, no visible exhaust plume, and maneuvers he considered inconsistent with the performance envelope of known aircraft. He also described a localized ocean-surface disturbance near where the object was first observed and said the object later appeared to anticipate the fighters’ rendezvous (“CAP”) point.

Public materials do not settle what the object was. What they do provide is a stable baseline for what was claimed by a named witness under oath, and what categories of supporting context were asserted (visual observation, shipboard radar tracking, multiple aircrew present).

2) The 2014–2015 East Coast training range reports (carrier air wing workups)
In written testimony, former U.S. Navy pilot Ryan Graves described repeated encounters during training workups off the U.S. East Coast. He framed this primarily as an aviation-safety issue: objects appearing in or near controlled training airspace, some described by pilots as a “cube inside a sphere,” plus incidents characterized as near-misses or persistent range incursions.

Graves’ central claim is procedural rather than exotic: that pilots needed a stigma-free, standardized mechanism to report anomalies; that reporting friction created blind spots; and that better data capture is required before strong conclusions are justified.

Congress as the anchor for what is actually claimed
On July 26, 2023, the House Oversight subcommittee held a public hearing where Graves and Fravor testified under oath. The transcript and written statements provide a concrete baseline: what they personally claim to have observed, how they describe the objects, what they say exists in terms of supporting data, and what changes they advocate (reporting, oversight, transparency).

What is officially acknowledged (and what is not)
The U.S. Department of Defense formally released three UAP-related videos in April 2020, stating the intent was to address public confusion about authenticity while not identifying what is shown. The ODNI’s 2021 unclassified “Preliminary Assessment” to Congress described limited military UAP reports, stressed that most cases lack enough data for attribution, and recommended improved collection and analysis. NASA’s 2023 independent study report similarly frames UAP as a data quality and measurement problem and argues for better sensors, metadata, and transparent scientific handling.

None of these materials confirm extraterrestrial origin. They do confirm: pilots and military personnel have reported unresolved observations; parts of the U.S. government have treated some reports as matters of flight safety and national security; and oversight bodies have held public hearings with sworn testimony from named witnesses.