AARO's Historical UAP Report - Volume 1

[deirdre]

the analysis itself is pointless without asking "What are we trying to analyze and where did it come from"

that's opinion.

Many people think "trying to have a level headed discussion with alleged skeptics is pointless".
And while i see the merits to both claims, doent mean either are true.

youre analyzing a hunk of "rock" that looks like a slab of slag.
technically i could come up with a reasonable scenario of the "where did it come from" question, that would mean we should dismiss the story part and just consider the rock chip.

 

[Ann K]

that's opinion.

No, that's fact. I've got some rusty clothes hangers in the basement, and nobody is interested in their elemental analysis. The only reason someone in AARO looks closely at the objects under discussion is because of the claim that "they came from a UFO, honest!", and if the claim is worthless, the analysis doesn't matter.

 

[jarlrmai]

I hereby claim all metal on Earth to be from alien spacecraft, only once I have reviewed the sextillion peer reviewed mass spectrometry analysis papers you must submit to me will I be convinced that they are not and if you miss one, hey there's a still a chance it was aliens.

 

[Mendel]

No, that's fact. I've got some rusty clothes hangers in the basement, and nobody is interested in their elemental analysis. The only reason someone in AARO looks closely at the objects under discussion is because of the claim that "they came from a UFO, honest!", and if the claim is worthless, the analysis doesn't matter.

The UFOlogist's hope is that the claim is true, and that someone can come up with a way to prove it: a scientist in a lab coat puts the sample under a microscope and shouts, "hoo boy, that one sure looks extraterrestrial", or engineers replicate the material and find it has magical properties (e.g. reducing inertia). In that case, lack of provenance wouldn't matter.

The disappointment is that that sort of Hollywood plot fails to happen in reality.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Agreed. Seems some people are happy to pick and choose when the science is required for them to determine a conclusion. The underlying bias here is disappointing I have to admit.

It's not a scientific or academic paper intended for peer review. It's simplified report to congress about old cases (some for the third of forth time) and claims of a secret UFO retrieval and reverse engineering program. What exactly are you looking for?

Aside from the analysis of Art's Part, they weren't doing science. They were doing what congress told them to do, go back and look at a bunch of old cases as if yet another look at Roswell will suddenly turn up the bodies or the Aztec UFO hoax will be revieled as real. And to see if there is any validity to the claims, touted by many with Grusch being the most famous, about a secret UFO program.

AARO can not scientifically prove that there is NO secret UFO program. It can just say that the people making these claims did not provide evidence for the secret UFO program. Some were confused or mistaken about some real classified non-UFO programs and others, like the Skinwalker Ranch crowd, just keep making these claims without evidence.

 

[krautbernd]

Right, now, put into perspective what actually enabled this. [...] To put the onus on the government there is a bit of a false start.

It's good thing I am not doing that then, but am simply using the evolution of the term as an example to point out that there is no equivalence between positions here. "Asking both sides" is misleading at best. If anything "the onus" is on the ones making extraordinary claims.

 

[Mendel]

Agreed. Seems some people are happy to pick and choose when the science is required for them to determine a conclusion. The underlying bias here is disappointing I have to admit.

Before March 6: there is no evidence for aliens
March 6: AARO report comes out
After March 6: still no evidence for aliens

Explain to me what's invalid or biased about this, please?

When it comes to whose claims I trust more, an ex-IC UFO believer on TV or a goverment agency with filing cabinets full of paper trails and 12 oversight committees breathing down their neck, I feel justified to be biased in favor of the agency; keeping in mind that nobody is infallible.

Yes, I like evidence, but I don't stop thinking when I don't get it.
(And there is already public evidence for many claims in the report.)
It looks like the DHS is going to release the evidence for Kona Blue soon.

Aside from the analysis of Art's Part, they weren't doing science.

History is a science. They were doing that.

 

[deirdre]

Before March 6: there is no evidence for aliens
March 6: AARO report comes out
After March 6: still no evidence for aliens

Explain to me what's invalid or biased about this, please?

many people (including the media and courts) call testimony 'evidence'. That has always been a pet peeve of mine, i prefer we only used the word evidence to mean tangibles/verifiables.

 

[jarlrmai]

A common theme/retort/strawman in Ufology is

"Skeptics say there is no evidence, but we have all this testimony and testimony is considered enough evidence for the courts to sentence someone to life in prison etc"

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

Before March 6: there is no evidence for aliens
March 6: AARO report comes out
After March 6: still no evidence for aliens

Explain to me what's invalid or biased about this, please?

When it comes to whose claims I trust more, an ex-IC UFO believer on TV or a goverment agency with filing cabinets full of paper trails and 12 oversight committees breathing down their neck, I feel justified to be biased in favor of the agency; keeping in mind that nobody is infallible.

Yes, I like evidence, but I don't stop thinking when I don't get it.
(And there is already public evidence for many claims in the report.)
It looks like the DHS is going to release the evidence for Kona Blue soon.



History is a science. They were doing that.

I wonder if the angle is...

1. People didn't believe person because person didn't have the science to provide the people.

2. People now don't believe person because of science that hasn't been provided to the people.

If that is the angle then I can kinda see the point, but I think extraordinary claims might play a key role. While science could prove the person correct, it's not the lack of science which leads people to not believe the claim in the first place.

I dunno, it's a weird one.

 

[Mendel]

I wonder if the angle is...

1. People didn't believe person because person didn't have the science to provide the people.

2. People now don't believe person because of science that hasn't been provided to the people.

If that is the angle then I can kinda see the point, but I think extraordinary claims might play a key role. While science could prove the person correct, it's not the lack of science which leads people to not believe the claim in the first place.

I dunno, it's a weird one.

I'm not quite sure I follow, because I don't understand what "people" and "person" signify.

Before: "We don't trust Kirkpatrick because nobody knows what he does."
After: "We don't trust Kirkpatrick because there's no evidence he did what he said he did."
It's a variation of the conspiracy theorist's mantra, "the government is lying to us".

If the classified AARO case files provide the evidence (as is likely), then the report is very useful. The adressees in Congress have access to those files, so we wait for their reactions.

The reason I don't trust Grusch is that he's only claiming third-hand evidence that does not sound reliable.

The reason I don't trust Elizondo is that he's claiming second-hand evidence, which we have sampled (the Navy videos) and found to be worthless.

The reason I don't trust Fravor is that, while I believe he saw something first-hand, I don't think he understood what he saw (not his fault).

First-hand evidence would be someone who said, "I touched this UFO", bonus points for "... and I took this photo of it". Physical evidence would be, "come with me, I can show you the UFO that they built the house around", and it's actually there.

You can see this playing out in the report:

The "former military member" is the first-hand witness, the "interviewee" is the second-witness, and if Grusch talked to them, that makes Grusch's knowledge third-hand. It's all a big game of "telephone" at this point, with people hearing/remembering what they expect to hear.

It is clear from the report that AARO's approach is to dig down to the direct evidence, and Kirkpatrick hired the seasoned law enforcement and intelligence investigators who are capable of doing that. AARO is aided here by the legal provisions that protect anyone who talks to them, no matter what NDAs etc. they may have signed. If you saw a UFO, and lie to AARO about it, you're in trouble; if you tell them the truth, you're not.

The game of the disclosure activists is to keep banging their "don't trust the government" drum, but there's absolutely no evidence that supports the idea that the government is lying about UFOs. The underlying rationale is simply, "the government contradicts what we believe, so they must be lying to us". People have to be willing and able to examine the evidence for their own belief to break free here, and that's just hard to do.
(But you already know that, because your mate's brainwashed. )

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

I'm not quite sure I follow, because I don't understand what "people" and "person" signify.

I was referring specifically to the whole material testing case.

People are us, the layman. Person would be the one making a claim, TTSA in this case.

People wouldn't believe them before without the science.

People don't believe them now, still technically without the science.

Please note I am not pushing this angle, just wondering if it's the angle that some people are approaching it from.

 

[Mendel]

I wonder if the angle is...

1. People didn't believe person because person didn't have the science to provide the people.

2. People now don't believe person because of science that hasn't been provided to the people.

If that is the angle then I can kinda see the point, but I think extraordinary claims might play a key role. While science could prove the person correct, it's not the lack of science which leads people to not believe the claim in the first place.

I was referring specifically to the whole material testing case.

People are us, the layman. Person would be the one making a claim, TTSA in this case.

People wouldn't believe them before without the science.

People don't believe them now, still technically without the science.

Ah, right.

Well, I'd say I didn't believe them before because the material has neither provenience nor provenance (we don't know where it came from and how it got here), because the claims are physically impossible, and had not been demonstrated ("no science").

5 years ago TTSA entered a CRADA with the army, which had the aim of analysing the material and demonstrating its capabilities: to do "the science", as you will.

The fact that the claims still haven't been demonstrated makes me think that they can't be demonstrated, reasoning that TTSA would demonstrate them if they could. So, yes, the fact that they did science, but kept it secret, strengthens my non-belief.

The whole question, "how do they know their claims are true?", never had a satisfying answer.
"We'll know they're true once we've done the science" was the idea, they did the science, so...?

 

[Ann K]

A common theme/retort/strawman in Ufology is

"Skeptics say there is no evidence, but we have all this testimony and testimony is considered enough evidence for the courts to sentence someone to life in prison etc"

I have a problem with written statements being called "testimony", because I think it necessary that a judge or jury have the person who made the statement appear for questioning. They have to be able to assess the truthfulness and reliability of the one testifying.

The same is true outside a court, regarding things like UFOs. "Somebody told me they saw____" is pretty weak compared to the ability to question that somebody first-hand.

 

[MyMatesBrainwashed]

I have a problem with written statements being called "testimony", because I think it necessary that a judge or jury have the person who made the statement appear for questioning. They have to be able to assess the truthfulness and reliability of the one testifying.

The same is true outside a court, regarding things like UFOs. "Somebody told me they saw____" is pretty weak compared to the ability to question that somebody first-hand.

My beef is you can't prove someone didn't see something.

I could see something that looked like a ghost even though I don't believe in ghosts.

No one can tell me I didn't see what I saw.

I could stand up in a court of law and say I saw something that looked like a ghost and I wouldn't be lying.

This doesn't prove ghosts.

 

[Ann K]

My beef is you can't prove someone didn't see something.

I could see something that looked like a ghost even though I don't believe in ghosts.

That's the gist of much of the opposition to the AARO report on this thread, the simple fact that they can't "prove they didn't have proof".

And when someone says "something that looked like a ghost", (or alien, or interstellar craft, or bigfoot, or leprechaun), it's not because there is an actual ghost to compare it to. It's because there's an image in his mind of what he thinks it ought to look like. It's first assuming that ghosts exist, then attributing characteristics to something without any real knowledge of the thing, and that, of course, is colored by popular fiction. When people say "I saw a UFO", when what they actually saw was a much more mundane "light in the sky", they're doing the same thing.

 

[Skalman]

Me too, for a number of reasons....

1. The testimony in court is not usually the only 'evidence' given against someone. There is usually a heap of other evidence - a body, a weapon, a picture foresnic evidence, - which backs up the testimony. I doubt that anyone convicted on murder would be convicted on testimonly alone.
2. The witness giving the testimony is cross examined by those with counter claims, which are then assessed by an independent assessor - the Judge.
3. The testimony in court describes things that we know have actually happened before. People kill, people break the law. We have shown that these things have happened before. We have never proven that an extraterrestrial spaceship has flown in our atmosphere or crashed on Earth.
4. The 'testimony' assumes that the witness is familair with what they are seeing and are accurately describing it. Saying they saw someone 'cross the road' is not the same as saying 'I saw what I'd describe as an orb fly past me and then disaapear into what looked like a portal'.

I agree and I was writing something similar when I saw that this was posted, but I'd like to add with regards to wether people get convicted of murder based on testimony alone that well, it does happen, but it is as far as I know very rare. The last example I know of is the conviction of Chris Dawson for the murder of his wife Lynette Dawson. She disappeared from their home in a suburb of Sydney in 1982 and her body has never been found. Chris Dawson has always claimed that she kept in contact with him for a while after the disappearance, and a few other witnesses claim to have seen her from a distance at some point or other over the years. Though two coronial inquests in 2001 and 2003 had found that she had been murdered (and Chris Dawson was the only reasonable suspect) the case was cold for years, until the journalist Hedley Thomas made the podcast The Teacher's Pet about it in 2018 and the public outcry made the police take a look at it again, and this time they actually charged him and got him convicted. I followed it closely at the time, and when the police failed to locate the body or any forensic evidence during the course of the new investigation, I thought that was that, but he was still charged and convicted.

I am no judge (and living in another country with another judicial system which of course colours my perception) but I personally thought there wasn't enough evidence to reach "beyond reasonable doubt" (that he actually committed the crime was something I didn't doubt) and was surprised when it happened. Still, it was a case where someone who was undeniably once a real, living being had disappeared, which already puts the quality of evidence way above what any of the ufologists have ever presented.

 

[FatPhil]

My beef is you can't prove someone didn't see something.

I could see something that looked like a ghost even though I don't believe in ghosts.

Take care with your indefinite pronouns - You've used "something" in two different ways there, and are on the verge of equivocating.

In the former, the object of "see", "something", is indefinite and is being used as a placeholder. You're creating a generic statement with the implication that any specialisation of it with a specific replacement of "something" with some thing also holds.
Alas, because a replacement of "8-dimensional superluminal black hole fairies" causes the statement to become falsifiable, the generic statement, the one you made, cannot hold.

In the latter, the noun phrase that is the object of "see" is "something that looked like a ghost". It's not a placeholder, it's a single clearly defined concept. It covers a large and varied set of things, many of which look nothing like each other, but that is irrelevant to the parsing of the sentence. Indeed, I cannot prove that you didn't see something that looked like a ghost, your statement holds.

 

[JackTReason]

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.

Yes, and the burden of proof that the government is covering up "the truth" is on those claiming it is, and not the government's job to prove it isn't. (Except for obvious needs of transparency in accordance with law, the government's silence on any matter should not be taken as admission of any accusation).

 

[JackTReason]

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.

When they "think they have seen "a ET UFO for real," what are they basing that conclusion on? Have they compared it to all of the confirmed real ET UFOs?
Someone reaching a conclusion about the identity of something that is "unidentified" isn't evidence, it's testimony. And it is unreliable testimony at that. Unreliable because the witness is prone to confirmation bias.

 

[Mendel]

My beef is you can't prove someone didn't see something.

I could see something that looked like a ghost even though I don't believe in ghosts.

No one can tell me I didn't see what I saw.

I could stand up in a court of law and say I saw something that looked like a ghost and I wouldn't be lying.

This doesn't prove ghosts.

But nobody knows what a ghost looks like!
We all know what Hollywood thinks ghosts look like.
(The same goes for UFOs—it's the reason genuine UFO experts don't exist.)

What we think a unicorn looks like:

What it actually looks like:

 

[JMartJr]

What it actually looks like:

I debunk thee! (That is clearly a bi-corn.)

 

[deirdre]

Give me a break. If he says he saw something that looked like a ghost, you can't prove he didnt see something that looked like a ghost. period.

 

[deirdre]

I debunk thee! (That is clearly a bi-corn.)

the rhino hypothesis is old school, like Pluto.

 

[Mendel]

I debunk thee! (That is clearly a bi-corn.)

Spoiler: historic description of unicorn

Article:

In the 1st century CE, Pliny the Elder writes of a fierce animal he calls the 'monokeros' (or 'single horn', a word with etymological links to 'unicorn') which "has the head of the stag, the feet of the elephant, and the tail of the boar, while the rest of the body is like that of the horse; it makes a deep lowing noise, and has a single black horn, which projects from the middle of its forehead, two cubits in length". Not the usual imagery we'd associated with these majestic beasts, and no prizes for guessing the animal he was actually describing! Later, in the 13th century, Marco Polo would add to this unflattering description of a unicorn by adding that "they spend their time by preference wallowing in mud and slime" – hardly rainbows and sparkles!

Source: https://www.stneotsmuseum.org.uk/articles/unicorns-a-brief-history/

 

[PublicStranger]

An issue I have with this report is that it failed to equivocate the difference between 'extra-terrestrial' and 'non-human intelligence'. It has now left the door wide open for hard-core believers to adopt a paradigm shift and concentrate their efforts from the NHI/Paranormal angle. Considering David Grusch's allegation specifically were centred around the term NHI and not extra-terrestrial or Aliens, I found the lack of referencing to the term disappointing.

 

[jarlrmai]

They would just come up with some other terms and declare it wasn't addressed, trandimensional etc etc

 

[Mendel]

An issue I have with this report is that it failed to equivocate the difference between 'extra-terrestrial' and 'non-human intelligence'. It has now left the door wide open for hard-core believers to adopt a paradigm shift and concentrate their efforts from the NHI/Paranormal angle. Considering David Grusch's allegation specifically were centred around the term NHI and not extra-terrestrial or Aliens, I found the lack of referencing to the term disappointing.

The report uses "extraterrestrials" once, and "aliens" several times, usually adopting the nomenclature of the claim being adressed.

I'm not sure that adopting the terms of the disclosure propagandists is a good thing. It bestows a legitimacy that it doesn't deserve.

 

[NorCal Dave]

An issue I have with this report is that it failed to equivocate the difference between 'extra-terrestrial' and 'non-human intelligence'.

It bestows a legitimacy that it doesn't deserve.

Agreed!!

Just because Grusch and others have come up with some scientific sounding acronyms like, Non Human Intelligence (NHI) or Non Human Biologicals (NHB) doesn't mean that are not really talking about aliens. Whether a disembodied "intelligence" of some sort or a classic Grey, they are talking about entities from outside Earth or possibly our dimension. NHI isn't refereeing to dolphins or AI, it's refereeing to aliens.

This why we have pages of arguments with some folks faulting the report for not containing the raw data from the analysis of Art's Part. The sample now has been legitimately analyzed by AARO, so there must be something to the story of it coming from a UFO, right? If they didn't think there was a possibility that the UFO story might be true, then they would have just ignored the sample, right? And now the data is being cover-up, sounds suspicious.

Adopting UFOlogists new terms is the same as testing Art's Part. Despite the various claims made about it the sample that have never been demonstrated, and after analyzing, declaring it terrestrial, the UFOlogist concludes "So, you're saying there's a chance!"

 

[Todd Feinman]

Agreed!!

Just because Grusch and others have come up with some scientific sounding acronyms like, Non Human Intelligence (NHI) or Non Human Biologicals (NHB) doesn't mean that are not really talking about aliens. Whether a disembodied "intelligence" of some sort or a classic Grey, they are talking about entities from outside Earth or possibly our dimension. NHI isn't refereeing to dolphins or AI, it's refereeing to aliens.

Completely agree. I have made this point in the past too; they could all be classified as "alien". I actually began using the term "non-human technology" some time ago, based on my experiences, and later heard others using it.

 

[Mendel]

I suspect "NHI" is a ploy to get the Flat Earthers to buy in.

 

[deirdre]

This why we have pages of arguments with some folks faulting the report for not containing the raw data from the analysis of Art's Part. The sample now has been legitimately analyzed by AARO, so there must be something to the story of it coming from a UFO, right? If they didn't think there was a possibility that the UFO story might be true, then they would have just ignored the sample, right? And now the data is being cover-up, sounds suspicious.

that is a silly and unfair portrayal of what was asserted in this thread.

1. the report DOES assumedly have the raw data. (just not what was released to the public)
2. The only argument was that noone should blindly believe anything in the report without seeing the backup evidence...because...that's what we do on MB. examine the evidence.

If i missed the assertion that the data is now being covered up, then you can point me to it and i'll apologize for missing it.

 

[NorCal Dave]

that is a silly and unfair portrayal of what was asserted in this thread.

I'm just referring to the idea that we've been discussing this bit of data about the samples a lot. I've said multiple times, the data should be available.

1. the report DOES assumedly have the raw data. (just not what was released to the public)
2. The only argument was that noone should blindly believe anything in the report without seeing the backup evidence...because...that's what we do on MB. examine the evidence.

Agreed. But my main point is the data about the sample, whether shared or not, is irrelevant because the sample is irrelevant, unless they made it float.

@Duke has suggested, given the CRADA contract TTSA entered with the Army, TTSA may have the final word on releasing the data. I would argue, if that's true and if TTSA is refusing to allow the data to be shared, it confirms the data is useless because the sample is meaningless.

IF there were any truth to the origin story of the sample which makes its analysis compelling, then TTSA is in possession of stolen government property and has no say in the matter. Recall, this sample is considered special, not just because of its unusual make up, but because it's claimed 'Ol Grandad "appropriated" or "nicked" in UK speak, these samples from a crashed UFO at Roswell during the government's recovery operation.

The government had taken possession of the crashed UFO and in the process of his government job, 'Ol Grandad stole parts of the craft for his personal collection and/or potential gain.

 

[deirdre]

I've said multiple times, the data should be available.

you are still seemingly misunderstanding what the guys (and i) were saying. add* it doesnt matter, let's drop it. The lab results will be available soon and 90-95% of people looking at it will have no idea what it means anyway!)

(and yes, i know what your point is regarding the slab of slag having no provenance.)

 

[john.phil]

I've said multiple times, the data should be available

It looks like some of it is available independently (Stanford University, The Sol Foundation):

Council Bluffs - (10:00 - 19:45)

Ubatuba - (19:45 - 28:20)

Socorro, Zamora - (28:25 - 31:10)



Old video on basic examination of Angel hair -> (42:21 - 54:55)

 

[Todd Feinman]

"Angel hair" was also collected during this mass sighting:
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29342407

 

[Ann K]

It looks like some of it is available independently (Stanford University, The Sol Foundation):

He pompously refers to the "primary witness" at Ubatuba, a journalist who didn't "witness" anything at all, and "received physical evidence from an anonymous source". I'd think that would be a "witness of the nth degree", because we have no idea how many hands things went through before those anonymous sources gave him the findings.

Edit to add: He is waxing lyrical about the purity of quartz sand and claims it is "obviously" the result of an industrial process. Why didn't he analyze a sample of the beach sand to be found there, for comparison?

He is also exclaiming over a sample where the zinc is all at one end. Is this a thing that you would expect to see from a molten sample that exhibited differential crystallization as it cooled?

 

[NorCal Dave]

It looks like some of it is available independently (Stanford University, The Sol Foundation):

I don't think so. The only reference to an analysis of materials in the AARO report that I'm aware of concerns a sample from a "private sector organization" that entered an agreement with the US Army in 2019:

The organization that owned the material negotiated an agreement in 2019 with the U.S. Army to analyze the samples.

https://www.aaro.mil/Portals/136/PD...olume_1_2024.pdf?ver=hqUUJmBEFELwdKX1QqF5XQ==

This is undoubtably TTSA and TTSA had Art's Parts, in particular the layered Mg-Bi sample that TTSA, and others, claimed would float if "hit with a terahertz". This was the sample analyzed by AARO (and yes the data should have been made available).

Council Bluffs - (10:00 - 19:45)

The "paper" Nolan and Vallee published concerning "debris" recovered at Council Bluffs is discussed at length here:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/is...vallee-jiang-lemke-2022-a-useful-paper.13286/

Bottom line, after not really finding anything other worldly or alien about some collected bits of slag associated with some sort of UFO sighting, Nolan and Vallee speculate about "advanced propulsion systems" anyway. Much of the paper is just a "cut and paste" of Vallee's earlier speculative work on the case. Not in AARO.

Ubatuba - (19:45 - 28:20)

The supposed "samples" from the supposed 1957 Ubatuba UFO crash are bits of magnesium. Like Art's Parts, and I would argue the template for Art's Parts, these were samples sent anonymously to a gossip columnist at a Rio De Janero newspaper, El Globo with a story of a crashed UFO. No one, including Nolan's Stanford colleague Peter Struck, who is the current custodian of these samples has ever found records or stories of a UFO crash in Ubatuba in '57 aside from the anonymous letter that accompanied the sample. Not in AARO.

Discussed in the OP here:

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

Socorro, Zamora - (28:25 - 31:10)

I'm not sure what was recovered at Sirocco. There were some samples of the ground if I remember, again nothing remarkable. And not in AARO

 

[Rationalman]

I suspect "NHI" is a ploy to get the Flat Earthers to buy in.

Is a flat earther a group of people with similar beliefs, kind of like ufologists? Just curious?

 

[Mendel]

Is a flat earther a group of people with similar beliefs, kind of like ufologists? Just curious?

This goes further off topic than I intended my short quip to go, so have a new thread: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/flat-earth-and-ufology.13383/