AARO's Historical UAP Report - Volume 1

They include reams of data and the methodology used to collect and analyse it.

I guess I fail to see what the point of a detailed analysis of Art's Parts is going to show. The real question is why AARO was fooling around with them at all? I suppose it's because some credulous member of congress insisted on it. The result is we now have AARO giving credence to this sample and a purported cover up by not sharing all the relevant data.

To review, these bits of junk have been floating around the UFO community for over 25 years and have been repeatedly analyzed. It's pretty common knowledge what they are made of and where they came from to a point.

1710002902652.png


The particular piece from Art's Parts collection mentioned by AARO is the sample of layered magnesium and bismuth. It has ZERO provenience. It just showed up in the mail addressed to Art Bell of the fringe late night radio show Coast to Coast AM as part of a collection of "recovered" pieces from the Roswell UFO crash. Or that's the story told in the bonkers set of anonymous letters that accompanied it. Again, zero provenience, nobody knows where it originated or how it was collected.

It has a checkered provenance after showing up in Art Bell's mail. He seems to have given it to "investigative UFO journalist" Linda Moulton Howe (LMH), a regular on his show up until she pushed a story about the Apollo 20 mission finding aliens on the moon. Apollo 17 was the last mission. She had a number of people look at it including, a then unknown Travis Taylor, now a regular on Ancient Aliens, the star of Secrets of Skinwalker Ranch and former chief scientist for the UAP Task Force. In a demonstration he did in the '90s for LMH it appears he first suggested this material would be weightless if enough current was run through it.

LMH would occasionally take Gorgio Tokoplos of Ancient Aliens to some secret looking room to show him Art's Parts, including the one in question. At some point former Blink 182 front man Tom DeLong got a hold of this sample in an undisclosed way. He had the busniess accument to then sell the sample to his own company for a cool $35K. His company, The To The Stars Acadamy (TTSA) was founded by him, an ex-CIA guy and Dr. Hal Putoff. I think we will be hearing Putoff's name a lot in this thread.

Puthoff and DeLong managed to convince some US Army people that this bit of junk was special and entered a non-paying contract to study it. It appears form the AARO report that TTSA, or whatever is left of that company, gave the sample to AARO for yet more testing.

My own personal opinion is that AARO should have just said: "This piece of junk has no known origin and despite all the claims of its current and former owners, no one has EVER, EVER, EVER demonstrated any thing remotely close to the claims associated with it. Until such demonstrations are made, we will ignore it."

History of the sample here:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/meta-materials-from-ufos.12995/

EDIT: @deirdre pointed out to me that TTSA actually had other parts of Art's Parts, besides the Mg-Bi layered one. Like the Mg-Bi sample, they were sent in the mail but turned out to be just bits of aluminum, including some sort of vent. Those parts were covered in this thread and shows that Art's Parts were simply pieces of junk that were only associated with the Roswell UFO crash because of the previously mention fantastical letters that accompanied them:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ttsas-metamaterials.10840/
 
Last edited:
I'm constantly seeing claims from UFO believers along the lines of, "Of course AARO didn't find anything, they don't have title 50 clearance". Metabunk user Martinicus1 brought it up in this thread:

but I'm not sure I've ever seen a satisfactory rebuttal.

Is "title 50 clearance" a thing AARO needs?

If so, are they lacking it?



External Quote:
Rosen: Quickly do you have the authorities you need to extend your collection posture between agencies or or branches of the military? Because that seems to me to maybe be a sticking point...

...

Kirkpatrick: There are some authorities that we need we currently are operating under title 10 authorities, but we have you know good relationships across the other agencies, but having additional authorities for collection tasking counterintelligence that's something those are all things that would be helpful yes.

...

Gillibrand: Thank you, to follow up Dr Kirkpatrick, will you help us write that language so we can put it in the defense bill this year so that we know what authorities you need?

There is no such thing as "title 10" or "title 50" clearance. Title 10 and Title 50 in this context reference authorities and generalized permissions attributed to specific services, agencies, and other government departments. AARO is mandated under Title 50 but primarily has Title 10 relevant authorities.

In this hearing, what he is asking for is expanded authorities under Title 50, which would enable AARO to do things within the Intelligence Community that they could not do themselves, such as integrating and synchronizing sensory data and reporting mechanisms.
 
I guess I fail to see what the point of a detailed analysis of Art's Parts is going to show. The real question is why AARO was fooling around with them at all? I suppose it's because some credulous member of congress insisted on it. The result is we now have AARO giving credence to this sample and a purported cover up by not sharing all the relevant data.

To review, these bits of junk have been floating around the UFO community for over 25 years and have been repeatedly analyzed. It's pretty common knowledge what they are made of and where they came from to a point.

View attachment 66590

The particular piece from Art's Parts collection mentioned by AARO is the sample of layered magnesium and bismuth. It has ZERO provenience. It just showed up in the mail addressed to Art Bell of the fringe late night radio show Coast to Coast AM as part of a collection of "recovered" pieces from the Roswell UFO crash, or that's the story told in the bonkers set of anonymous letters from accompanied it. Again, zero provenience, nobody knows where it originated or how it was collected.

It has a checkered provenance after showing up in Art Bell's mail. He seems to have given it to "investigative UFO journalist" Linda Moulton Howe (LMH), a regular on his show up until she pushed a story about the Apollo 20 mission finding aliens on the moon. Apollo 17 was the last mission. She had a number of people look at it including, a then unknown Travis Taylor, now a regular on Ancient Aliens, the star of Secrets of Skinwalker Ranch and former chief scientist for the UAP Task Force. In a demonstration he did in the '90s for LMH it appears he first suggested this material would be weightless if enough current was run through it.

LMH would occasionally take Gorgio Tokoplos of Ancient Aliens to some secret looking room to show him Art's Parts, including the one in question. At some point former Blink 182 front man Tom DeLong got a hold of this sample in an undisclosed way. He had the busniess accument to then sell the sample to his own company for a cool $35K. His company, The To The Stars Acadamy (TTSA) was founded by him, an CIA guy and Dr. Hal Putoff. I think we will be hearing Putoff's name a lot in this thread.

Puthoff and DeLong managed to convince some US Army people that this bit of junk was special and entered a non-paying contract to study it. It appears form the AARO report that TTSA, or whatever is left of that company, gave the sample to AARO for yet more testing.

My own personal opinion is that AARO should have just said: "This piece of junk has no known origin and despite all the claims of its current and former owners, no one has EVER, EVER, EVER demonstrated any thing remotely close to the claims associated with it. Until such demonstrations are made, we will ignore it."

History of the sample here:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/meta-materials-from-ufos.12995/
I was in the process of making a similar post when I saw this come up. Well done. Wonder why TTSA didn't announce the results?
 
It just showed up in the mail addressed to Art Bell
with identified radiator parts, also claimed to be from the ufo crash.

I would personally always link the metamaterial slab with the radiator part debunk...because laymen can relate to radiator parts. And if the ufo community doesnt know it came with identified radiator parts, then they can continue to wonder what the slab of slag might be. (i like that term 'slab of slag"..not sure if its scientifically accurate so i hope the "Word _ _zi's on MB dont come after me!)
 
my favorite bits

SmartSelect_20240309-161411_Samsung Notes.jpg
SmartSelect_20240309-161455_Samsung Notes.jpg
AARO investigations may start with interviews, but they end with evidence.


SmartSelect_20240309-161552_Samsung Notes.jpg
This clarifies that while there are hundreds of UAP sightings, they're typically sightings of completely different phenomena, which means the big number does not make for "weight of evidence".

SmartSelect_20240309-163127_Samsung Notes.jpg
UFO study has not advanced science, and is not likely to. This holds true today, despite claims to the contrary.

SmartSelect_20240309-163727_Samsung Notes.jpg
SmartSelect_20240309-163957_Samsung Notes.jpg
AAWSAP was useless, and AATIP was a hobby.

About Bigelow's BAASS:
SmartSelect_20240309-163902_Samsung Notes.jpg
SmartSelect_20240309-183726_Samsung Notes.jpg

I did not know that. But a campaign intended to disseminate a specific belief, and to discourage following evidence? I think I found the bad guys!

SmartSelect_20240309-164522_Samsung Notes.jpg
Pushing for "disclosure", fomenting distrust, and misinformation are not neutral.


SmartSelect_20240309-165640_Samsung Notes.jpg

AARO had full access, and used it, both inside the government and out.
 
Last edited:
It's explicitly labeled as "ordinary" in the report.

View attachment 66586
View attachment 66587
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.
I still dont understand how A) this is any different to Grusch interviewing people who stated they worked on these projects, following up and also hitting dead-ends? And B) how the above constitutes "evidence" which is any more compelling than what Grusch told us? - Im assuming the argument being that it's because it came from AARO rather than Grusch?

On another note, does anyone know if AARO ever got Title 50 authority to actually investigate these claims as thoroughly as the report states? Last thing I can find on it is SK stating:

External Quote:
Mr. Kirkpatrick: There are some authorities that we21 need. We currently are operating under Title 10 authorities but we have good relationships across the other agencies.
Source: Page 31- https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/23-31_04-19-2023.pdf
 
I still dont understand how A) this is any different to Grusch interviewing people who stated they worked on these projects, following up and also hitting dead-ends? And B) how the above constitutes "evidence" which is any more compelling than what Grusch told us? - Im assuming the argument being that it's because it came from AARO rather than Grusch?
The evidence is in the case files.

I wrote, "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." My excerpt shows that AARO bases its claims on evidence. AARO has facts and signed statements in its case files.

Grusch, on the other hand, is "credible". He has not found a single secret program (though he can tell you "where to look"), no material (animate or inanimate), and no scientists, which, if he was able to follow through on an investigation, he should have found. So either, a) Grusch was not in a position to follow through on his investigations, or b) there are no UFOs.

On another note, does anyone know if AARO ever got Title 50 authority to actually investigate these claims as thoroughly as the report states? Last thing I can find on it is SK stating:

External Quote:
Mr. Kirkpatrick: There are some authorities that we need. We currently are operating under Title 10 authorities but we have good relationships across the other agencies.
Source: Page 31- https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/23-31_04-19-2023.pdf
Neither this nor the AARO report sound like any of the claims was not investigated thoroughly. If AARO got the information they needed, it doesn't matter what authority they got it under.
 

Attachments

  • SmartSelect_20240309-165640_Samsung Notes.jpg
    SmartSelect_20240309-165640_Samsung Notes.jpg
    184.4 KB · Views: 22
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.
That assumes the "owners" of that technology consent to having it declassified.

Even identifying what fields of study are considered important to the US military might be a useful lead to potential adversaries.
There are people in certain nations, well-educated and well-resourced, who would be only too happy if the purposes of American research programs were clarified, especially if descriptions of the more exotic / interesting properties of resulting work were included.
 
If they had shown some examples the argument would simply be "Oh, but they didn't show this example, clearly they just picked the one thing that wasn't actually aliens and used it to cover up the aliens".

The validity of this report is 100% dependent on your trust of the government, if you think the government has secret programs that reverse engineer alien tech then there aren't many reasons to believe a report that denies that statement. If you trust the government probably didn't have these things then there aren't many reasons not to believe a report that denies that statement.

This report was never going to definitely prove that there isn't a giant conspiracy, it just serves to something to point out to people so that they get an idea on what the government thinks about the conspiracies.

If this truly is just "made up nonsense" then with time UFOlogists might release their insane footage that they for sure have and it will all be obvious, or the witnesses might rise up after AARO claimed they were all mistaken. Time will tell.
Or Coulthardt might tell us the location of the giant UFO, covered by a building, in plain sight. C'mon, Ross. You say you know where it is.
You've got the burden of proof entirely backwards. They're only saying "We don't have any evidence for the claim". It isn't possible to "prove" a negative. It's up to the people who claim extraterrestrials / alien craft / extra dimensional beings, etc, to provide the evidence that such things exist, and so far that has not happened. Never.

Thanks. All good.
 
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.
But AARO has a number of personnel, and they have higher authorisation and a wider remit than Grusch, as a single individual, ever had.
As far as I know none of the senior personnel in AARO have recently, knowingly and willingly, consorted/ aligned themselves with others who have a track record of making extraordinary claims without evidence.

AARO released a report; Grusch gives press statements and talks to magazine reporters.

Grusch et al.s' claims are extraordinary, but they lack testable evidence that supports their claims.
The AARO reports' conclusions are not extraordinary, unless you believe that AARO's implied claim that there aren't organisations in the US which possess extraterrestrial artefacts (including spacecraft and alien cadavers) is in itself extraordinary.
 
Last edited:
That assumes the "owners" of that technology consent to having it declassified.
Commercial entities have no authority to classify/declassify anything, that authority rests with the government. Commercial entities ("owners") may declare their technology proprietary, but that's not a security classification. Before DoD personnel are granted access to proprietary information, it's very common for us to be required to sign a corporate (not government) NDA.
 
knowingly and willingly, consorted/ aligned themselves with others who have a track record of making extraordinary claims without evidence.
i'm guessing people who think they have seen a ET UFO for real, feel saying "there is no evidence of aliens" is an extraordinary claim.

As someone with no dog in this race, who couldn't care less about ufos..there have been a few comments from "our side" in this thread that i've read and thought...you're literally doing and saying what you are accusing Grusch's side of doing and saying.
 
Im assuming the argument being that it's because it came from AARO rather than Grusch?

I agree with you a bit, that Grusch and AARO are talking to the same people. Without all the case studies, we are forced to choose between Grusch and AARO's interpretation of what they were told. Grusch was told there were secret UFO retrieval and reverse engineering programs operating without government oversite. Project Kona Blue seems to be a likely candidate for one of these claims and I find very educational as how the Skinwalker Ranch crowd moves the narrative on UFOs and aliens. Relevant section from the report below. Grusch seems to have believed these claims.

AARO was told the same story, Project Kona Blue was a UFO retrieval and reverse engineering program that did not have government oversite. Unlike Grusch, AARO was able to determine that Kona Blue was a proposed follow up to AASWAP/AATIP to continue BAASS's work with UFOs, the paranormal and Skinwalker Ranch. As it was never stood up and never existed, it never had government oversight, though the proposal was reported to congress.

Same story. Grusch bought it, AARO did not. AARO did not, likely because they could see the story originated with the same small group of people associated with Skinwalker Ranch, TTSA, BAASS and they have been making these claims for years. With NO evidence. The likely culprits only worked for the government as sometime contractors, often removed further by contracting to BAASS that was contracting to AASWAP.

Kona Blue (bold in the original):

External Quote:
KONA BLUE: A Proposed UAP Recovery and Reverse-Engineering Program

KONA BLUE was brought to AARO’s attention by interviewees who claimed that it was a sensitive DHS compartment to cover up the retrieval and exploitation of “non-human biologics.”114 KONA BLUE traces its origins to the DIA-managed AAWSAP/AATIP program, which was funded through a special appropriation and executed by its primary contractor, a private sector organization. DIA cancelled the program in 2012 due to lack of merit and the utility of the deliverables.

As discussed in Section IV of this report, while the official purpose of AAWSAP/AATIP was to conduct research into 12 areas of cutting edge science, the contractor team, and at least one supportive government program manager, also conducted UAP and paranormal research at a property owned by the private sector organization.When DIA cancelled this program, its supporters proposed to DHS that they create and fund a new version of AAWSAP/AATIP under a SAP.115 This proposal, codenamed KONA BLUE, would restart UAP investigations, paranormal research (including alleged “human consciousness anomalies”) and reverse-engineer any recovered off-world spacecraft that they hoped to acquire.

This proposal gained some initial traction at DHS to the point where a 35Prospective Special Access Program (PSAP) was officially requested to stand up this program, but it was eventually rejected by DHS leadership for lacking merit. As demonstrated by the proposal package and by statements from the originator, Senators Lieberman and Reid asked that the PSAP be established with the promise of additional funding.116

The proposed KONA BLUE lines of effort closely mirrored those conducted by the private sector organization for AAWSAP/AATIP.KONA BLUE’s advocates were convinced that the USG was hiding UAP technologies. They believed that creating this program under DHS would allow all of the technology and knowledge of these alleged programs to be moved under the KONA BLUE program. The program would provide a security and governing structure where it could be monitored properly by congressional oversight committees. This belief was foundational for the KONA BLUE proposal, based on the proposal documents and several interviewees who have provided the same information to AARO and Congress.117

The Oral History Initiative section of the KONA BLUE proposal was to collect data:“…from an already identified and calibrated list of retired, previously highly placed government, armed services, contractor and intelligence community individuals. The oral history project will include gathering all information pertaining to the location of advanced aerospace technology and biological samples, including records, files, reports, photographs, as well as physical samples.”118

It is critical to note that no extraterrestrial craft or bodies were ever collected—this material was only assumed to exist by KONA BLUE advocates and its anticipated contract performers. This was the same assumption made by those same individuals involved with the AAWSAP/AATIP program. The SAP was never approved or stood up, and no data or material was transferred to DHS.119•

KONA BLUE was not reported to Congress at that time because it was never established as a SAP and, therefore, did not meet the threshold for congressional reporting. However, the Deputy Secretary of Defense provided a Congressional Notification concerning the program when it was identified in the spirit of transparency.
pg. 34-35
 
But AARO has a number of personnel, and they have higher authorisation and a wider remit than Grusch, as a single individual, ever had.
As far as I know none of the senior personnel in AARO have recently, knowingly and willingly, consorted/ aligned themselves with others who have a track record of making extraordinary claims without evidence.

AARO released a report; Grusch gives press statements and talks to magazine reporters.

Grusch et al.s' claims are extraordinary, but they lack testable evidence that supports their claims.
The AARO reports' conclusions are not extraordinary, unless you believe that AARO's implied claim that there aren't organisations in the US which possess extraterrestrial artefacts (including spacecraft and alien cadavers) is in itself extraordinary.
Well said.
 
But AARO has a number of personnel, and they have higher authorisation and a wider remit than Grusch, as a single individual, ever had.
As far as I know none of the senior personnel in AARO have recently, knowingly and willingly, consorted/ aligned themselves with others who have a track record of making extraordinary claims without evidence.

AARO released a report; Grusch gives press statements and talks to magazine reporters.

Grusch et al.s' claims are extraordinary, but they lack testable evidence that supports their claims.
The AARO reports' conclusions are not extraordinary, unless you believe that AARO's implied claim that there aren't organisations in the US which possess extraterrestrial artefacts (including spacecraft and alien cadavers) is in itself extraordinary.

Grush's claims are indeed extraordinary and frankly some are unbelievable. His insistence that things were not briefed to Congress. As I said somewhere else on MB there is NO WAY that he would know every single program that had been briefed to the Gang of Eight. Any record of that would be extremely close hold, because it would reveal the existence of each program on the list. So this "fact" is something he was told by someone else, and where would they get that knowledge?

At this point the ball is in the other court. Time for the Whistle Blowers to come forward and reveal themselves. Time for the list of where those nine UFO's are buried to be revealed. This report essentially calls them liars.

And I suspect all we will get is more declarations of things to "be revealed real soon now".
 
https://www.aaro.mil/Portals/136/PDFs/AARO_Historical_Record_Report_Volume_1_2024.pdf
AARO found no evidence that any USG investigation, academic-sponsored research,or official review panel has confirmed that any sighting of a UAP represented extraterrestrial technology

[/EX]
...which what you'd expect them to say, if they're covering it up.

I was listenening to an interview on NPR last night and that's what thw interviewee said. I didn't catch his name, but I expect that's what many would say. How would you respond to that?
 
This opinion piece from Tom Rogan claims the report shows analytic bias

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ntagon-ufo-agency-report-shows-analytic-bias/

External Quote:

AARO also deserves credit for meeting with private defense industry leaders to ask them directly whether their organizations are in possession of “extraterrestrial technology.” Those leaders said they are not. The organization also rightly points out that some UFOs of a strange nature actually constitute secret U.S. government programs that otherwise credible witnesses are not aware of. And AARO deserves praise for meeting with and requesting information from a wide number of personnel and military/civilian agencies in relation to historic witness reports.


The problem comes with the nuances. Politico says AARO’s report has now “debunked decades of speculation about UFOs.” I would challenge that thesis.

A major problem is AARO’s reassessment of historic UFO reports, such as the purported 1947 UFO crash in Roswell, New Mexico, because these reassessments appear to center very heavily on the replication and synthesis of other prior reports of questionable quality. This reassessment strategy negates the full range of evidence and the opportunity for a less biased analysis of the events in question. Prior studies sometimes offered poorly justified conclusions with incomplete data foundations, along with ignorance of highly credible witness reports and sensor data.

...

The broader challenge here is the obvious cherry-picking by AARO as to what it assessed or reassessed in order to reach its assessment conclusions. This approach bears much similarity to the intelligence community’s study of the so-called Havana Syndrome problem of American personnel suffering strange, apparently noise-related illnesses. And while it is true that AARO cannot be expected to reassess circumstances where limited evidence exists, there is a vast portfolio of cases that the study ignores or simply closes by accepting verbatim the conclusions of prior reports. As with Havana Syndrome’s links to the Russian intelligence services, AARO’s selective analysis allows for the mitigation or elimination of challenging evidence in order to provide an indirect but seemingly credible route to reach a desired conclusion.

To be sure, this concern of rigorous analysis goes both ways. Those passionate about UFOs are too often unwilling to accept internal scrutiny.

...

It suggests that AARO seems more interested in controlling the narrative on UFOs than actually figuring out what the very small percentage of extremely strange UFOs might be. Even though I’ve written extensively on this topic, including offering reports AARO’s assessments would appear to align with, I was not invited to a media briefing with AARO’s acting Director Tim Phillips in advance of this report. Even the New York Post’s Steven Greenstreet, who has written extensively offering a far more skeptical stance toward the suggestion that some UFOs represent a non-human technology, was not invited. He told me that “it’s clear they don’t want any actual tough questions asked.”

This is not good for transparency or for AARO’s credibility — especially when the Chinese are confident they are seeing highly advanced non-U.S./other nation technology in their airspace.

...

But ask yourself one final question: Why do members of Congress, especially officials on the Senate Intelligence Committee, keep pushing legislation for greater disclosure and clearer reporting requirements? Does that suggest they are satisfied with the status quo? And if not, why not? After all, this is a topic imbued with stigma, and politicians don’t like to waste capital on endeavors that end up making them appear to be fools.
I don't really agree with the likelihood of UFOs being "something more".

And maybe someone has access to read the China article, but from the little I see it says
  • Chinese researchers confirm that sighting reports from across the country are on the rise but aliens are unlikely to be responsible
which isn't really in line with what the author claims China's stance on UFOs is.

Overall, I do see the point they are trying to make, even if I don't entirely agree with it.
 
there is NO WAY that he would know every single program that had been briefed to the Gang of Eight. Any record of that would be extremely close hold, because it would reveal the existence of each program on the list. So this "fact" is something he was told by someone else, and where would they get that knowledge

This is worth reiterating. Grusch can't possibly know what the Gang of 8 is briefed on, certainly not in total. If he doesn't know, he can't know that they were NOT briefed on some program.

As you say, he must have been told this by someone and how does that someone know all of this? They would have to know EVERYTHING that the G-8 is briefed on. That might be a member of the G-8, but then if they're not briefed on a secret program, then they wouldn't know about it and therefore not know they were not briefed, right?

Maybe Grusch's source for the claim is someone that works in one of the secret programs. But we're back to how does that person know that the G-8 is not being briefed about the program the source is working on? Even if his superiors told him that was the case, he still wouldn't know, as he's not in the briefing.

Very, very few people would be in a position to know about secret UFO programs that are purportedly spread throughout the government and the private defense industry AND also know that the G-8 is not being briefed about them. And if these people are at this level, why confide all of this to Grusch? And not just Grusch.

Recall our discussion about Diana Pasulka's claims about UFOs and government. Among other things in a rambling spot on Joe Rogan's podcast, she claimed that when she started to study UFOs, she was informed by CIA and FBI operatives that she was putting herself in danger, there is a secret cabal of UFO people in government that only use oral traditions, there is a crash retrieval program outside the purview of congress. While these claims below are from a more recent podcast, I have heard these before and her claim is that her studies go back to 2012, so prior to Grusch going public. Here is some of it heavily edited for brevity (link below):

External Quote:
37:54
that there's an oral tradition that is part of the communities that run this run these
38:02
programs like the UFO programs right um and that it that information is carried
38:10
within people it's not written down they even have a word for not writing it down when they're going to have these

meetings they they have this special term and everybody puts down everything

you know what's the term I don't it's called it's called pencils up pencils up

39:00
information from oral traditions and this is actually how a lot of classified

information is kept through oral tradition especially in a very disciplined and structured environment

like high level military yeah so so they have a perception and one of the things

40:13
and then quickly having people come into

my sphere research sphere who are you know part of CIA part of FBI that kind

of thing and then getting a shock that you know whoa this could be dangerous and maybe I shouldn't be doing this

it's dangerous it indicated to me that there was something that I shouldn't maybe be doing that it could be

dangerous right that you could suffer consequences for your curiosity or for your research yeah and that they would


41:20
part this is before crash retrieval became a term that Congress used
41:26
right so I was um what year are we talking about so I started in 2012 okay
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/di...gion-other-dimensions-jre-podcast-2091.13336/

So, one could argue that whoever the unicorn like person that knows all about all the secret UFO programs AND knows that the G-8 doesn't know about them not only shared this with Grusch, a person with top secret clearance in the intelligence space, but previously shared this info with a professor of Religious Studies for some reason.

Or, one can search for common links between Grusch and Pasulka, that is, people that were telling these stories not just to them, but publicly. People that might have something to do with the CIA in a roundabout way. People that are connected to Skinwalker Ranch and AASWAP and BAASS. People that might infuse their stories with a bit of "cloak and dagger" and the MiBs. Someone that claims to know about the supposed UFO material AARO tested. People that we are told went to AARO to tell their secrets. People Gary Nolan, who has Pasulka and previously Grusch on the board of his UFO organization, might phone up concerning questions about UFO materials. People, it should also be noted, that would have no way of knowing what the G-8 was or was not briefed on. Just guessing here:

1710023854044.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.
This one is so funny. Person A tells person B about a really cool advanced craft that they saw that looked like no prior human-made craft, and person B inferred that person A meant it was actually created by non-human intelligent beings more advanced than humans, but person A never meant that and was fully aware that this craft was made by humans. So then person B goes off with this deeply-held view that they have received a firsthand account of an NHI-engineered spaceship and starts retelling this story to other people and it becomes solidified as a piece of UFO lore, based entirely on a misunderstanding.
 
After all, this is a topic imbued with stigma, and politicians don’t like to waste capital on endeavors that end up making them appear to be fools.
(from Tom Rogan's opinions)

Politicians don't think they're "wasting capital" if they can speak on topics that both get publicity and excite a segment of their voters. And yes, there is a long history of political figures that "appear to be fools" by so doing, yet continue to be reelected, because they are reading their constituents correctly. Which means, of course, that it becomes difficult to distinguish those who actually believe the more fanciful stories, and which are merely making use of them, while spending taxpayer dollars.

The same can be said of journalists.
 
Commercial entities have no authority to classify/declassify anything, that authority rests with the government. Commercial entities ("owners") may declare their technology proprietary, but that's not a security classification. Before DoD personnel are granted access to proprietary information, it's very common for us to be required to sign a corporate (not government) NDA.
I was referring to the fact that the DOPSR can't release anything on their own; I think they basically have to go to the unit where that information originated to get their consent? which I'm referring to as "owner" in quotation marks, because it's an inexact, layman's term, and I apologize for oversimplifying what must be a heavily regulated, complex process. The point is, AARO puts cases together from a wide variety of sources, and the passage about concealing interviewee identities hints at the constraints they're operating under. I'm sure there are "many fingers in the pie" when it comes to declassifying AARO cases.
 
Last edited:
This opinion piece from Tom Rogan claims the report shows analytic bias

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ntagon-ufo-agency-report-shows-analytic-bias/

External Quote:

A major problem is AARO’s reassessment of historic UFO reports, such as the purported 1947 UFO crash in Roswell, New Mexico, because these reassessments appear to center very heavily on the replication and synthesis of other prior reports of questionable quality. This reassessment strategy negates the full range of evidence and the opportunity for a less biased analysis of the events in question. Prior studies sometimes offered poorly justified conclusions with incomplete data foundations, along with ignorance of highly credible witness reports and sensor data.
I don't follow that claim. In section IV, AARO usually goes with the findings of the report in question, except in cases where the report was authored by a lone believer and the government distanced itself from that person's report.
The reports on Roswell are full of high quality evidence.
These "incomplete data foundations" don't become more complete over time, and AARO refuses to waste time on (re-)analyses that must fail for lack of data.
External Quote:
The broader challenge here is the obvious cherry-picking by AARO as to what it assessed or reassessed in order to reach its assessment conclusions.
The AARO report did not cherry-pick when (re-)assessing previous reports, they included everything.
External Quote:
there is a vast portfolio of cases that the study ignores or simply closes by accepting verbatim the conclusions of prior reports.
As befits the scope of AARO's legal mandate.
External Quote:
It suggests that AARO seems more interested in controlling the narrative on UFOs than actually figuring out what the very small percentage of extremely strange UFOs might be.
There are no reports of "extremely strange UFOs" that are founded on reliable evidence. The report is clear on that, as are many previous reports.
External Quote:
But ask yourself one final question: Why do members of Congress, especially officials on the Senate Intelligence Committee, keep pushing legislation for greater disclosure and clearer reporting requirements? Does that suggest they are satisfied with the status quo? And if not, why not? After all, this is a topic imbued with stigma, and politicians don’t like to waste capital on endeavors that end up making them appear to be fools.
Congress does this because certain interests have engaged in a public opinion campaign for years; Congress is being pushed by people whose motivations for pushing are less than clear.
Overall, I do see the point they are trying to make, even if I don't entirely agree with it.
I don't. The article is a biased hit piece that demands things of AARO it was not tasked to achieve (and that are impossible to achieve).
 
I find it remarkable that people are accepting this without evidence. Pure dogma
I agree with you that there is not much substantive evidence in the report, it's been a waste of money on a silly endeavour (*), at least for what the general public is concerned (It's probable there exist substantive evidence which we are not shown, as would be expected from any unclassified report tied to classified programs, but of course nothing can be argued from informations we do not have).

I also speculate that many who are now dismissing the report as unsubstantive would have accepted it without any problems had it said that indeed there were secret reverse-engineering programs, even without the report giving any evidence or informations at all about them.

(*) doomed both from the infinitesimal prior probability of actually finding extraterrestrial crafts to reverse engineer inb the first place, and by the ~100% prior probability of the promoters/believers to just dismiss negative results as 'without enough proof' or just the trusted 'being part of the cover-up'.
 
Can you give any examples of the type/format of evidence that could be produced that would convince you that nothing out of the ordinary of happening?

What would that evidence look like?
Not what I said. That's a strawman.

I want evidence of the experimental evidence AARO claim to have obtained.
 
I agree with you that there is not much substantive evidence in the report, it's been a waste of money on a silly endeavour (*), at least for what the general public is concerned (It's probable there exist substantive evidence which we are not shown, as would be expected from any unclassified report tied to classified programs, but of course nothing can be argued from informations we do not have).

I also speculate that many who are now dismissing the report as unsubstantive would have accepted it without any problems had it said that indeed there were secret reverse-engineering programs, even without the report giving any evidence or informations at all about them.

(*) doomed both from the infinitesimal prior probability of actually finding extraterrestrial crafts to reverse engineer inb the first place, and by the ~100% prior probability of the promoters/believers to just dismiss negative results as 'without enough proof' or just the trusted 'being part of the cover-up'.
Not me. I stated that the recent legislation needed to pass to prove or disprove these claims. I demand evidence from both sides.
 
Not me. I stated that the recent legislation needed to pass to prove or disprove these claims. I demand evidence from both sides.
That implies an equivalence between positions where no such equivalence exists. By extension, aren't you essentially asking for proof of a negative?
 
SmartSelect_20240310-121154_Samsung Internet.jpg

assumedly.
Yes. I'm assuming that because the footnotes to the claim refer to the case file. I am reading that to indicate that that's where the supporting evidence is, as that is how footnotes are commonly used, and this report's other footnotes are no exception.
 
I find it remarkable that people are accepting this without evidence. Pure dogma
I find it remarkable that people think AARO is lying without evidence. Pure dogma.

Not what I said. That's a strawman.

I want evidence of the experimental evidence AARO claim to have obtained.
Why "evidence of evidence"? I want the experimental evidence. Unfortunately, I often don't get what I want.
 
I find it remarkable that people think AARO is lying without evidence. Pure dogma.


Why "evidence of evidence"? I want the experimental evidence. Unfortunately, I often don't get what I want.
I didn't say they're lying. I asked where the evidence is. I also ask for Chuck Schumer's evidence to be released. Why is it wrong to ask for evidence?
 
To be clear you want evidence on the specific claim that some UAP sightings were found to be of experimental craft/projects?
 
I agree with you that there is not much substantive evidence in the report, it's been a waste of money on a silly endeavour (*), at least for what the general public is concerned (It's probable there exist substantive evidence which we are not shown, as would be expected from any unclassified report tied to classified programs, but of course nothing can be argued from informations we do not have).
The report is really not intended for the public: the "real" version is the classified version.
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
I think the report does a very good job of summing up the history, including the most recent claims. It had information (e.g. about KONA Blue or the BAASS propaganda proposal) that was new to me. I wish I had the kind of access that the aforementioned people have to peruse all of the details. That does not mean that releasing as much as they did release is silly. It helps that they state their findings unequivocally and clearly, even if they have to be vague on the details.

This is really comparable to Grusch's "I can tell you in a SCIF", except that Grusch wasn't that clear to begin with.
 
To be clear you want evidence on the specific claim that some UAP sightings were found to be of experimental craft/projects?
To review, we were more focused than that earlier:
What data, specifically, would you expect to exist?
Are you joking? They describe material analysis. Where is the data?
The report says the data was analysed.
Stryer admits here that the report is testimony to the "experimental evidence".

I would advise against broadening the scope of the discussion, away from specifics, because that'll just go in circles of generalities.

P.S. There can be no evidence of the absence of UFOs. There is evidence of AAROs investigation into that issue, and the report is a testament to that evidence.
 
Last edited:
To review, we were more focused than that earlier:



Stryer admits here that the report is testimony to the evidence.

I would advise against broadening the scope of the discussion, away from specifics, because that'll just go in circles of generalities.
Oh it relates to the metal materials.
 
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.

There is a longish (3/4 page) report in yesterday's (UK) Times ( paywalled). Fairly straightforward account of the report, plus some quotes from Sean Kirkpatrick and Tim Phillips, the new (acting) director of AARO. I'm not sure if Phillips's comments are taken straight from a press release or from additional reporting. May be of interest:

Phillips cited a personal experience in which, while serving as a US Marine on exercise in Arizona, he and his unit could see and hear an object flying over them but could find no trace of it on radar. It turned out to be a classified flight test of the F-117 Nighthawk, the first aircraft to test 'stealth' technology.
 
Back
Top