AARO's Historical UAP Report - Volume 1

You are missing the elephant in the room, which is the possibility that the whistleblowers were either the liars, or to give them the benefit of the doubt, were just plain mistaken or wrong in their assertions. You've chosen which one to believe with pretty much the same expected accuracy of sticking a pin in a paper at random. Don't do that, please. If you're going to call the agency liars, you really should have some evidence to back that up, and I've seen none of that.
Yep but at least one gave a complaint which was found to be urgent and credible by the IGIC.
 
I would like them to have detailed the original report from the interviewee. Would be nice to know what characteristics they stated the observed so we can compare it with we do know exists. If the description matches the authentic non-UAP technology it would be great to know what that description was.
Everybody would like that! But I wouldn't expect classified informations to be revealed in a report meant for general public.

I'm not sure if this is true, but I've read the report is an unclassified version, so there should be a classified version where, I guess, more informations are shown:
External Quote:

Tim Phillips, the acting director of the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO), discussed the Gremlin "kits" with reporters ahead of the release earlier today of an unclassified version of the first volume of a Congressionally-mandated review of U.S. government involvement in matters related to UAPs.
https://www.twz.com/air/dod-to-depl...-collect-intel-on-unidentified-flying-objects


On a side note, it looks to me this report is getting very little traction in the media, contrary to what happens to any other piece of UFO-related news. I think it's really bad when sensationalism trumps truth.
 
Because there is no reason to do the report at all otherwise.

Whistleblower: "they're lying to us"

The liars: "no were not!"

Skeptics: "Ahh see the goverment never lies!"
That's an oversimplification.

First, "the government" doesn't exist. Any government, especially in a non-totalitarian state, is an agglomeration of diverse bodies, agencies, and people. David Grusch was "the government" at one point, and he didn't know what was going on. Government investigating itself is absolutely normal (that's why the Inspectors General exist), and it's supposed to cut through the "the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing" mess that comes with such huge organisations.

David Grusch's narrative was that there some secret programs, kept from most of the rest of government, that dealt with these UFO contacts—an elite cabal, if you will. AARO investigated that, and it's bunk. As a conspiracy theorist, you can no longer propose a small, bijou conspiracy made up of a small number of people—it has to be a big thing, but still kept secret for decades, which is much less plausible.

AARO also documented officially @sgreenstreet 's (and others) findings about AAWSAP and AATIP—that these programs were effectively run by a small number of people in a conspiratorial manner using funds that were kept from congressional oversight. I bet that nobody in Congress (except for Harry Reid, and maybe Lieberman) knew that Congress was paying for werewolf hunting on Skinwalker Ranch. AARO also documented that the people behind behind this operation, and their friends, are behind the current push to get Congress to waste more money on that kind of research "for safe aerospace".

AARO has documented who the people are that spread misinformation, and that some of this group has a history of grift. There is evidence for that, and Congress should no longer listen to those people—and neither should anyone else. (Unfortunately, some people love liars if the lies please them.)

Literally show us what the flares were in phoenix. Anyone who says that is a matter of national security is a liar.
So they declassify some documents, you say "obviously they faked it", back to square one?
I don't think there's anything that could convince you, when the publicly available debunk of the actual evidence did not.
Look:
View attachment 66347

Audio transcript: This is a loop which repeats this disappearing sequence over and over again and the one thing that we see here which is striking is that at no point the lights disappear above the ridge of the mountain and at no point the lights descend below the ridge of the mountain. The disappearance of the light coincides precisely with the point in time when the light is exactly at the top of the mountain and that happens not with one light, not with two lights but with all the lights that we see on the videotape therefore the only conclusion we have is that those lights are behind the mountains, not in front of the mountains
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/phoenix-lights.11938/#post-311609
 
Last edited:
I'm not a fan of the alien hypothesis. My idea is that there are secret black projects hidden from Congress.

That said. You're right. We have a situation where members of the house intelligence committees are saying one thing and this report is saying the opposite.
Nope.
The AARO report says that there are no "secret black projects" related to UFOs (any more). There could still be others.

I don't remember any member of Congress confirming that such a project exists, could you cite a source on that?
 
Last edited:
Nope.
The AARO report says that there are no "secret black projects" related to UFOs (any more). There could still be others.

I don't remember any member of Congress confirming that such a project exists, could you cite a source on that?
What data, specifically, would you expect to exist?

Are you joking? They describe material analysis. Where is the data?
 
Literally show us what the flares were in phoenix. Anyone who says that is a matter of national security is a lair.
They were flares. They "disappeared" as they went behind the mountains. That has been shown again and again, and there is nothing mysterious about military planes dropping flares.
I find it difficult to believe that anyone is in doubt about the Phoenix lights after all this time. The answer is even given in Wiki.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Lights#Explanations
The second incident, described as "a row of brilliant lights hovering in the sky, or slowly falling" began at approximately 10:00 pm, and was due to a flare drop exercise by different A-10 jets from the Maryland Air National Guard, also operating out of Davis-Monthan AFB as part of from Operation Snowbird.[9] The U.S. Air Force explained the exercise as utilizing slow-falling, long-burning LUU-2B/B illumination flares dropped by a flight of four A-10 aircraft on a training exercise at the Barry M. Goldwater Air Force Range in western Pima County, Arizona. The flares would have been visible in Phoenix and appeared to hover due to rising heat from the burning flares creating a "balloon" effect on their parachutes, which slowed the descent.[11] The lights then appeared to wink out as they fell behind the Sierra Estrella mountain range to the southwest of Phoenix.
Are you calling them a 'lair'?
 
At least 1 bit of data wouldn’t go a miss! I’m struggling to see any?
The report wasn't meant to be a scientific academic paper. It was a conclusion on the evidence they had seen or been presented with, the absence of data in the report doesn't mean there was none.
 
I don't get why anyone would expect detailed data in this report. It's a summary of their findings after they were ordered by congress to look into everything and provide a summary. It's one part of the government asking another part to do something and report their findings. It is implicit in the relationship and mission of AARO that congress is supposed to trust them. The politicians aren't supposed to be in need of the detailed data and proof-of-work from AARO's investigation. I honestly don't think they could make much sense of it anyways (but that is just my personal bias). If they want more details, they can ask for them. It is of course frustrating for us, but we are not the intended audience, and we don't know how much of the data is classified/sensitive for whatever reason. Not including it can be preferable both from a security perspective as well as for readability.

I also don't understand what the ufologists expected. If the USG or some deep state/shadowy cabal part of it is suppressing knowledge of NHI (a term that they really should have used in the report, since people on reddit are of course seeing this as a way to weasel out of a perjury charge or something, obfuscating the extra-dimensional hypothesis) and has done so successfully since the 40's, why would they stop lying now? The "truth" would never come from any other source than a whistleblower with first-hand knowledge and tangible proof. They can subpoena everyone they suspect to be involved in these programs and it wouldn't change a thing, because of course will they say there's nothing to it. It's amazing to me that the same people who thinks that MJ-12 is real also to a large extent seem to think that the people involved in the cover-up wouldn't dare to lie under oath?

Grush, Elizondo and the rest of them have been claiming for over a year now that there are people with first-hand knowledge out there who are supposed to disclose it all anyday now, soon, honest, it's coming! Grusch will have time to rewrite his coming op-ed to refute this report. Elizondo and the rest of the Invisible College could reveal all that amazing evidence they are constantly hinting at. But I don't think it will change anything, because I think that the navy UAP videos were the best evidence they had and apart from that, all they have is oral accounts, most of them second or third hand. Now they also have to deal with the fact that AARO has stated on public record that a lot of those accounts are sourced from themselves in an ourobouros of rumours and claims and that the only project related to UAP's that was misleading congress was AASWAP/AATIP, which they were in charge of.

I think they should be thankful that AARO is taking the whole confidentiality thing seriously, because I imagine it would be hard to get anywhere near a respectable media publication or congressional hearing again if you were outed as a conspiracy theorist that had spent millions of taxpayer dollars ghosthunting and then, after being shut down because of, well, everything you claim being completely unfounded and you not having anything substantial to show for it, and then tried to get even more funding for it and when that failed, used your own failed proposal as the basis for claims of a secret UAP program. It is embarassing enough as it is without their names actually being in the report.

Well, the ball is in their court now. If they have anything more than hearsay to offer, now should be the time to do it.
 
They describe material analysis. Where is the data?
In the AARO case files. They're unpublished and possibly classified. I hope the usual suspects use the report's footnotes to FOIA as much as they can.

pp.32/33:
SmartSelect_20240309-135856_Samsung Notes.jpg

SmartSelect_20240309-135913_Samsung Notes.jpg

Footnotes (in full):
SmartSelect_20240309-140018_Samsung Notes.jpg
 
The report wasn't meant to be a scientific academic paper. It was a conclusion on the evidence they had seen or been presented with, the absence of data in the report doesn't mean there was none.
OK.......

Do you not see the problem with the last sentence?

Put it this way. I don't accept conclusions without data.
 
That's ridiculous to think that spectroscopy of materials would be confidential.

Why would it be? Especially if it's ordinary material.
Nobody thinks that. And nobody claimed it's confidential.

But I hope you can see why a report of this scope differs from the case file you'd like to see.

The point here is that the USG did not retrieve the material, it came from the ufologists with unclear provenance. It can be replicated with current techniques, and similar material is used by the USAF. All of that is in the case file as well.
 
Last edited:
Is this date or an approximation of it public in some way? The way I understand Section 6802 is kinda like a statement that says "The requirements have been modified"
p.11
SmartSelect_20240309-144906_Samsung Notes.jpg


Volume 1 took 4 months after the cutoff date to be published.


External Quote:

SEC. 1683. ESTABLISHMENT OF ALL-DOMAIN ANOMALY RESOLUTION OFFICE.
[...]
(j) Historical Record Report.--
(1) Report required.--​
(A) In general.--​
Not later than 540 days after the date of the enactment of the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023, the Director of the Office shall submit to the congressional defense committees, the congressional intelligence committees, and congressional leadership a written report detailing the historical record of the United States Government relating to unidentified anomalous phenomena, including--​
(i) the records and documents of the intelligence community;​
(ii) oral history interviews;​
(iii) open source analysis;​
(iv) interviews of current and former Government officials;​
(v) classified and unclassified national archives including any records any third party obtained pursuant to section 552 of title 5, United States Code; and​
(vi) such other relevant historical sources as the Director of the Office considers appropriate.​
(B) Other requirements.--​
The report submitted under subparagraph (A) shall--​
(i) focus on the period beginning on January 1, 1945, and ending on the date on which the Director of the Office completes activities under this subsection; and​
(ii) include a compilation and itemization of the key historical record of the involvement of the intelligence community with unidentified anomalous phenomena, including--​
(I) any program or activity that was protected by restricted access that has not been explicitly and clearly reported to Congress;​
(II) successful or unsuccessful efforts to identify and track unidentified anomalous phenomena; and​
(III) any efforts to obfuscate, manipulate public opinion, hide, or otherwise provide incorrect unclassified or classified information about unidentified anomalous phenomena or related activities.​

(2) Access to records of the national archives and records administration.--​
The Archivist of the United States shall make available to the Office such information maintained by the National Archives and Records Administration, including classified information, as the Director of the Office considers necessary to carry out paragraph (1).​
 
Last edited:
Listen, from one skeptic to another I would warn against accepting word of mouth. I would further warn against accepting arguments of authority e.g. AARO are trusted by Congress.

We could equally come to the same conclusion about Chuck Schumer who said that credible witnesses have come forward in regards to hidden SAPs. Chuck is a member of the Gang of Eight and doubtlessly briefed to a far higher level than anyone at a UFO research organisation.

I think I'll accept neither until more data comes forward.

The skeptic community missed a beat by not campaigning for that legislation.
 
Nobody thinks that. And nobody claimed it's confidential.

But I hope you can see why a report of this scope differs from the case file you'd like to see.

The point here is that the USG did not retrieve the material, it came from the ufologists with unclear provenance. It can be replicated with current techniques, and similar material is used by the USAF. All of that is in the case file as well.
The report says the data was analysed.

Sorry, but I don't take anyone's word for a scientific conclusion without data. Please also stop saying that government reports do not do that. They do. They include reams of data and the methodology used to collect and analyse it.
 
Sorry, but I don't take anyone's word for a scientific conclusion without data. Please also stop saying that government reports do not do that. They do. They include reams of data and the methodology used to collect and analyse it.
Can you show me a declassified report on something recent that does this?

This report is 63 pages and took 3 months to pass DOPSR.

If it included all of the case files, it'd probably be an unreadable 1000-odd pages, and take a year to pass DOPSR. I hope AARO can add the cases referenced in this report to their public case files as soon as possible.
 
Listen, from one skeptic to another I would warn against accepting word of mouth. I would further warn against accepting arguments of authority e.g. AARO are trusted by Congress.

We could equally come to the same conclusion about Chuck Schumer who said that credible witnesses have come forward in regards to hidden SAPs. Chuck is a member of the Gang of Eight and doubtlessly briefed to a far higher level than anyone at a UFO research organisation.

I think I'll accept neither until more data comes forward.

The skeptic community missed a beat by not campaigning for that legislation.

This is where I’m kinda with it too. Right now it feels like we’ve got just as much detail / evidence on how they came to their conclusions as we have with how Grusch came to his own conclusions.

Fair enough if this report was never designed to provide said data / evidence but that just makes it a load of hot air to me and pretty pointless.

Is my understanding that volume 2 will be providing what I’m after correct?
 
Put it this way. I don't accept conclusions without data.
Then don't accept the conclusions, that's fine. I advise anyone in this thread to not accept the conclusions of this report if they don't want to, and not push it as if it were a scientific paper if you do accept the conclusions.

We now know what AARO thinks about the matter and can maybe speculate about who they interviewed.
 
Listen, from one skeptic to another I would warn against accepting word of mouth.
Why would you label a first-hand written report as "word of mouth", aka oral communication?

Unlike David Grusch's testimony, this report is not rumors and hearsay, it's based on first-hand testimony and evidence. Its quality is well above much that the UFO community has to offer, even though it lacks the AARO case files that it references.

(Nobody claims AARO is infallible.)
 
Last edited:
That's ridiculous to think that spectroscopy of materials would be confidential.

Why would it be? Especially if it's ordinary material.
"Terrestrial material" is not the same as "ordinary material". I can well believe that there are substances under development, especially in the field of aeronautics, that are known only to the developers, and that are, quite frankly, none of our business. As far as AARO is concerned, we are all a bunch of civilians with no security clearances, and they are under no obligation to provide us with technical specs.
 
The report says the data was analysed.

Sorry, but I don't take anyone's word for a scientific conclusion without data. Please also stop saying that government reports do not do that. They do. They include reams of data and the methodology used to collect and analyse it.

No one is saying that government reports do not include data and methodology. But not all of them do. This one doesn't, for what is to me very obvious reasons: scope, time restraints, intended audience, questions of classified information. One can agree with them or not, but it is in no way surprising.

For me, this report contained two extra interesting tidbits:

1. That the claims of the secret UAP retrieval program might be a failed attempt from the Invisible College/AASWAP people to get one rolling.

2. That Michael Herrera actually has spoken to AARO and that they are actually investigating his claims and have yet to resolve them.

Considering the nature of those claims, that is, in my opinion, quite remarkable. I suspected he was lying about talking with them and would use any denial from AARO as "proof" of a cover-up in the same wheelhouse as Bob Lazar's "missing" university records. Herrera's story fascinates me because of how fantastical it is taken at face value and I'm looking forward to reading AARO's conclusions (if they have any) in vol. 2.
 
"Terrestrial material" is not the same as "ordinary material". I can well believe that there are substances under development, especially in the field of aeronautics, that are known only to the developers, and that are, quite frankly, none of our business. As far as AARO is concerned, we are all a bunch of civilians with no security clearances, and they are under no obligation to provide us with technical specs.
The composition of the material might be unclassified, but the methods (and personnel) used to analyse and replicate it might be classified, and that may make it difficult to declassify the whole case file; but that's what we'd want. So I hope that AARO is going to (or made to) release declassified versions of these case files.
 
For me, this report contained two extra interesting tidbits:

2. That Michael Herrera actually has spoken to AARO and that they are actually investigating his claims and have yet to resolve them.
Herrera claims that "his six-man unit saw a hovering octagonal UFO being loaded with weapons by unmarked US forces who threatened them at gunpoint while serving in Indonesia in 2009". Where did you see that referenced in the AARO report? I couldn't find it.
 
Herrera claims that "his six-man unit saw a hovering octagonal UFO being loaded with weapons by unmarked US forces who threatened them at gunpoint while serving in Indonesia in 2009". Where did you see that referenced in the AARO report? I couldn't find it.

On p. 29:

External Quote:
An interviewee who is a former U.S. service member said that in 2009, while participating in a humanitarian and security mission in a foreign country, he encountered “U.S. Special Forces” loading containers onto a large extraterrestrial spacecraft.
 
Herrera claims that "his six-man unit saw a hovering octagonal UFO being loaded with weapons by unmarked US forces who threatened them at gunpoint while serving in Indonesia in 2009". Where did you see that referenced in the AARO report? I couldn't find it.
I was curious enough to search for his name, and got only stuff from such questionable sources as "the Daily Mail" (tabloid) and Reddit. His account continues with claims that he was "threatened" to keep quiet ...and yet, as we have seen in other claims, he has not kept quiet. So far his story is just that, a story.
 
On p. 29:

External Quote:
An interviewee who is a former U.S. service member said that in 2009, while participating in a humanitarian and security mission in a foreign country, he encountered “U.S. Special Forces” loading containers onto a large extraterrestrial spacecraft.
Thank you!
External Quote:
Findings
AARO investigated and reached conclusions on the majority of the claims made in these
narratives. In most cases, AARO was able to locate the companies, people, and programs that
were conveyed to AARO through interviews. AARO will report the results of the unresolved
allegations in Volume II. AARO's findings to date are as follows:
and that case isn't listed. Footnote 94 is another "AARO case file" as reference.
 
Why would you label a first-hand written report as "word of mouth", aka oral communication?

Unlike David Grusch's testimony, this report is not rumors and hearsay, it's based on first-hand testimony and evidence. Its quality is well above much that the UFO community has to offer, even though it lacks the AARO case files that it references.

(Nobody claims AARO is infallible.)

It’s exactly the same as Grusch’s testimony. “First hand testimony and evidence” - can you link the source to this please?
 
I was curious enough to search for his name, and got only stuff from such questionable sources as "the Daily Mail" (tabloid) and Reddit. His account continues with claims that he was "threatened" to keep quiet ...and yet, as we have seen in other claims, he has not kept quiet. So far his story is just that, a story.
Yes, I agree. It is an extremely weird and unbelievable story (and there is a guy on reddit who claims to have been in contact with Herrera and some other people from his unit and claims to have corroborated some of the claims) which is why I find it interesting that AARO is actually investigating it. I don't think that there were some black ops SF squad in a flying saucer, of course, but I hope that the investigation will bring some insight into what is actually behind the claims (grifting? Mental illness? Some weird CIA shit?) and also into how AARO conducts their investigations when they have no objective data to go on, only people to find and interview and stories to corroborate.
 
It’s exactly the same as Grusch’s testimony.
i agree with all that this report as we the public have it is hearsay. But i thought Grusch only had second hand testimonies? (or in the case of the guy reporting what his great uncle told him 4th hand testimony).
 
but I hope that the investigation will bring some insight into what is actually behind the claims (grifting? Mental illness? Some weird CIA shit?)
or U.S troops selling assets to an enemy faction. (human enemy of course)
 
This may be a bit off topic, but reading this

External Quote:
An interviewee105 stated that a former military member, who was also an interviewee, had stated that he had touched an off-world aircraft. AARO contacted and interviewed the former military member106 who denied any knowledge of off-world technology in possession of the USG, a private contractor, or any other foreign or domestic entity. The former military member attested that he could not remember if this encounter with the original interviewee had ever occurred, but opined that if it had happened, the only situation that he might have conveyed was the time when he touched an F-117 Nighthawk stealth fighter at a facility. The former military member signed an MFR attesting to the truthfulness of his account.
And seeing an image of a F-117 Nighthawk
1710000873333.png

I can totally see how confusion may have happened, that plane looks sick and "off-world" is one of the words I would use to describe it.
 
"Terrestrial material" is not the same as "ordinary material".
It's explicitly labeled as "ordinary" in the report.
It’s exactly the same as Grusch’s testimony. “First hand testimony and evidence” - can you link the source to this please?
SmartSelect_20240309-161411_Samsung Notes.jpg

SmartSelect_20240309-161455_Samsung Notes.jpg
There are several instances in the case descriptions where AARO followed up interview leads until they either ran into a dead end (on-the-record denial) or identified a source for a misunderstanding.

Grusch was in no position to do that.
 
They were flares. They "disappeared" as they went behind the mountains.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/phoenix-lights.11938/post-311609

The Phoenix lights consisted of two separate sightings, the flares and an earlier triangular formation of lights, which were observed through a telescope by an amateur astronomer as the flew past -- they were seen to be a formation of airplanes which, to those without a telescope, gave the appearance of a single object with multiple lights.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/phoenix-lights.11938/post-311617

That thread would be a good place for any additional discussion of this incident, I guess. It's relevence to THIS thread was pretty much summed up here:
Has Phoenix lights been pushed by any whistleblower as this beacon of proof? Why would AARO just bring up a nearly 30 year old event when doing a report on the claims of secret government programs?
 
I can well believe that there are substances under development, especially in the field of aeronautics, that are known only to the developers, and that are, quite frankly, none of our business.
and its allegedly from the 1950s.
1710002881357.png
 
Back
Top