The "Disclosure President"?

[Mendel]

Are there any other direct claims made by Stratton? In particular that he's personally seen a recovered alien craft and/or alien bodies inside a US government facility?

If it's just "I saw a spooky figure through a window in the middle of the night" it's pretty underwhelming to say the least.

AFAIK Jay Stratton hasn't personally seen anything of note inside a US government (or USG contractor) facility.

Like Grusch's testimony, these claims seem to all be second-hand; of the kind that ended at a "mundane" explanation when AARO got a chance to track it down. These turned out to be either actual projects that the witness misunderstood, or outright hoaxes/pranks.

 

[Alytha]

Stratton's got a new book out, review by Jason Colavito here:
https://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/review-of-out-of-the-shadows-by-jay-stratton

Much will likely be made of the claims Stratton makes in the book and his revelation that he has been secretly advising the Trump Administration on Disclosure, alongside talk show host Dr. Phil McGraw and rock star Tom DeLonge. He claims to have seen a space alien looking in his bedroom window after he awoke from sleep at 4 A.M. one morning in 2014. He alleges that he saw a screen grab from a video with a clear image of a triangular flying craft whose size he could not determine because the video contained no reference points. Someone told him Roswell was real! Such claims sound dramatic, but Stratton provides exactly no evidence for them, and at times he seems almost intentionally closed to considering that he himself might be mistaken. For instance, seeing space aliens in the middle of the night is a well-documented result of waking dreams (I've had the same experience, but never considered it a supernatural occurrence), and for all we know the triangle might have been a small drone. At one point, Stratton says he considered that he might have been "played" by people lying about UFOs, but he rejected the possibility for the same reason as every other ufologist: "Trust me, bro." Like most UFO Disclosure advocates, Stratton could not separate the person from the claim and therefore believed that if he liked and trusted someone, that person's claims must be true. The idea that someone might genuinely believe something untrue does not cross his mind.

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

The only thing I consider a bit controversial, or silly, or whatever, is some of the statements made by AARO directors, not just Kirkpatrick but also others like Kosloski, regarding "truly anomalous" signatures.
However, nobody within AARO has said publicly that it was likely aliens or anything of that sort, such as bodies or spacecraft from outer space.
No skeptic on this forum would call any sighting or event analyzed here "anomalous". They might call it rare or peculiar, making it difficult to identify, but still explainable in prosaic terms, like optical illusions, sensor errors, misidentifications, LIZ zone cases, or blurry dots on camera.
Kosloski had no problem stating that some cases they analyzed lacked an explanation, adding that he doesn't know anyone who can explain them. But again, that's just his word, as no actual evidence of anything particularly difficult to explain was brought forward.
Furthermore, AARO still needs to protect sensor data for national security reasons.
I just find it strange that among skeptics, almost no one seems to consider that UAPs might be hiding something interesting, even if not groundbreaking, like confirmation of alien life. Generally speaking, no skeptical UFO researcher would admit that some cases are truly anomalous. Does that make AARO directors believers? I don't think we have any evidence to support such a claim.
Figures like Grusch, Stratton, and others belong to a completely different category of UAP-involved people. They are the ones making extraordinary claims that remain unsubstantiated.
I trust AARO in its analyses. They have no issue admitting when videos simply show birds, balloons, or other conventional objects.
The UAPTF, on the other hand, was really poor. I remember they easily came to anomalous craft conclusions, even without any data to show.
It's not a matter of trusting AARO over UAPTF, it's just that one of the two groups came to certain conclusions without having sufficient evidence to support such conclusions, thus making it a case of bad science done on UAPs.
The only serious way to study UFOs is to exclude anything prosaic first.
If, for a specific case, we can categorically exclude any prosaic explanations, then we'll have something anomalous.
It seems that has never proved possible for UFO cases, at least in the last 80 years.

 

[RobertBillyBob]

The UAPTF, on the other hand, was really poor. I remember they easily came to anomalous craft conclusions, even without any data to show.

In their report the UAPTF said they identified ONE case out of 144 :

After carefully considering this information, the UAPTF focused on reports that involved UAP
largely witnessed firsthand by military aviators and that were collected from systems we
considered to be reliable. These reports describe incidents that occurred between 2004 and 2021,
with the majority coming in the last two years as the new reporting mechanism became better
known to the military aviation community. We were able to identify one reported UAP with
high confidence. In that case, we identified the object as a large, deflating balloon. The others
remain unexplained.
• 144 reports originated from USG sources. Of these, 80 reports involved observation
with multiple sensors.

As a comparison Geipan has a 66% succes rate (cases A and B) :

 

[Fritzkquzerk]

In their report the UAPTF said they identified ONE case out of 144 :

After carefully considering this information, the UAPTF focused on reports that involved UAP
largely witnessed firsthand by military aviators and that were collected from systems we
considered to be reliable. These reports describe incidents that occurred between 2004 and 2021,
with the majority coming in the last two years as the new reporting mechanism became better
known to the military aviation community. We were able to identify one reported UAP with
high confidence. In that case, we identified the object as a large, deflating balloon. The others
remain unexplained.
• 144 reports originated from USG sources. Of these, 80 reports involved observation
with multiple sensors.

As a comparison Geipan has a 66% succes rate (cases A and B) :

View attachment 93679

Almost any serious study group on UFOs, even civilian ones, usually come to the conclusion that 95/98% are prosaically explainable, whereas the 5/2% remains unexplained due to lack of data or lack of determinant data.
Quite a difference from what UAPTF has stated.