AARO's Historical UAP Report - Volume 1

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


The "Stanford University" connection is a tenuous one. It's held in a room in an engineering faculty there, but such rooms are available for hire - renting a room is not endorsing. And the fact that Nolan is employed by Stanford's medical school is again not an endorsement - I notice no mention at all of any of his more dubious endeavours or interests on his faculty page https://med.stanford.edu/profiles/garry-nolan . This is a Sol event by Sol people, nothing more.

However, my main reason for posting was to confess that I did attempt to listen to that video, in order to evaluate the evidence, but was unable to get past his very first sentence
"So, what's inevitable - inevitably we're gonna come across something out there that is alien." timestamp 01:06.
No, that is not inevitable, unless you make assumptions that have no reason to be true (an eternally-expanding civilisation that has started in our local galactic cluster is a prerequisite, but even that isn't enough to reach the conclusion, and there's no firm reason to believe that's true given current knowledge of how special earth is. Adding the assumption of humans surviving eternally as a species would get you much closer to the conclusion, but again there's absolutely no reason to expect the truth of that, all the evidence we have is to the contrary.)

(I'm glad that there was the "we're proud to be associated with [Grusch]" affirmation just before he starts his talk - the closer they bind themselves together, the quicker taint spreads.)
 
(I'm glad that there was the "we're proud to be associated with [Grusch]" affirmation just before he starts his talk -
Article:
According to Grusch’s résumé, he had served since May 2023 as the Sol Foundation’s Chief Operating Officer (COO), an organization described on the document as “The premier center for research in the natural and social sciences, engineering, and the humanities” which “also extends activities to advisory and policy work for the U.S. government/public outreach.”
During our interview, The Debrief inquired with Nolan and Skafish about Grusch’s résumé, as well as his current position with the Foundation, and was told that the whistleblower’s title has since changed to Senior Founding Advisor, rather than Chief Operating Officer.
 
Ubatuba, a journalist who didn't "witness" anything at all, and "received physical evidence from an anonymous source"
The chain of custody for the Ubatuba samples is a bit complicated (for a quick summary read only the text in bold):

Ufologist
and retired bank manager Edison Boaventura Junior tells the story (01:51 to 04:10 and 14:50 to 16:20):



In 1957, an anonymous alleged witness of the crash sent the material to a famous journalist, Ibrahim Sued. The alleged witness wrote a letter to the newspaper (03:05), translated below (clarifications enclosed within brackets are mine, independent translations are also available in the referenced documents):

"Dear Mr. Ibrahim Sued. As a regular reader of your column and your admirer, I want to give you a true journalistic scoop about flying saucers, if you believe in them. I also didn't believe what I heard or read (about the subject), until a few days ago, near Ubatuba, while fishing with several friends, I saw a flying saucer! (generic term, not necessarily saucer shaped). It approached the beach at incredible speed, seeming about to crash into the sea, when, with a fantastic impulse, it quickly gained altitude. Astonished, we were following this spectacle with our eyes, when we saw the disk (UFO, UAP) explode in flames. Falling into thousands of pieces that looked like fireworks, despite it being twelve o'clock, that is, noon, with a very bright glow. These pieces, almost all fell into the sea, but many small pieces fell close to the beach, and we collected a good number of this material, so light that it seemed like paper. Here I bring together (in the letter's envelope, not in person) a small sample of this material, which I don't know who I should trust to analyze. I have never read that a flying saucer had been collected or that pieces of a saucer had been collected (i.e. I believe it's a first), unless the military authorities did so in secrecy. I am sure that this subject will be of great interest to the brilliant chronicler (Ibrahim Sued), and I am sending this in duplicate, to the newspaper and your residence..." From your admirer. (illegible signature)". (Ibrahim confirms to his audience) Attached, I received debris from a strange metal.

Ibrahim Sued then gave the material to ufologist Dr. Olavo Teixeira Fontes, M.D, who contacted him after learning about the samples and sent it to APRO (Aerial Phenomena Research Organization). Several decades later in 2007, a man named Emanuel claimed to be in possession of other samples collected by a seaman in the early 80's, and offered to donate them to a ufology museum in Argentine (Museo OVNI; this is important, more about it later). The Museu already had samples donated by ufologist Nicolas Manuel Ojeda, who received directly from the hands of Olavo Fontes (according to the museum).

Samples from Dr. Olavo Fontes were
then analysed in Brazil (1957, timestamp 03:48). The lab technician Luisa Maria A. Barbosa determined through chemical spectral analysis that the sample (0.6 grams) was almost pure Magnesium, with no traces of other metals. In the same year (timestamp 17:08), X-ray crystallography was conducted by another team, which independently confirmed the previous results. The Center for Space Science and Astrophysics at Stanford University received a sample for analysis (17:18) (under the custody of Peter A. Sturrock; see attached paper "Composition Analysis of the Brazil Magnesium" - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237233241_Composition_Analysis_of_the_Brazil_Magnesium). Other samples were being held at APRO, in Tucson (since 1961 or earlier, timestamp 17:30).

The Condon Committee took interest in the analysis published by Coral E. Lorenzen and Jim Lorenzen (APRO founders; authors of the book "The Great Flying Saucer Hoax", 1962, where they described the results), and requested a sample for detailed analysis under the Colorado Project (see attached "Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects", Vol. 1, page 54 - https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD0680975.pdf). The result of the neutron activation analysis indicated that the magnesium purity was much less than produced by the Dow Chemical Company, but barium and strontium were unusually high; however, the same company had produced similar compositions in the past for experimental purposes (p. 55, p.138-143).

Many analyses later (see Sturrock's paper referenced above), fast forward to 2016, an anonymous individual contacted Edison Boaventura and sent him alleged samples, which were supposedly inherited from his father, an army soldier, and it's not known how the father got hold of the samples. Edison sent the samples for an X-ray fluorescence spectrometric analysis, which detected mostly pure magnesium with traces of silicon, calcium, potassium and sulphur (24:30). And then requested a quantitative analysis, which determined 99.3% magnesium and ~0.07% of magnesium oxide.

In 2016, Jacques Vallée went to the Argentinian museum (03:09 in the video below and https://www.visionovni.com.ar/archivos/1395), met ufologist Silvia Pérez Simondini and requested samples (03:16) for an isotopic analysis at Stanford (to determine the origin of the magnesium), conducted by Garry Nolan (04:15). The museum gave him samples from Emanuel and Nicolas Ojeda. Stanford already had samples from APRO.



Minimum chains of custody in no particular order (years are approximate; main source Peter A. Sturrock, "Composition Analysis of the Brazil Magnesium"; final name in the chain does not necessarily hold a sample anymore, as either it was destroyed in the process, lost, passed on, or sent back to the customer):
  1. (Mineral Lab, Brazil) -> (1957) Anonymous, (1957) Ibrahim Sued, (1957) Olavo Fontes, (1957) Dr. Feigl and Dr. David Goldscheim, (1957) Luisa Maria A. Barbosa, (1957) National Laboratory of Mineral Production (Laboratório Nacional de Produção Mineral, Brasil).
  2. (Brazilian Army) -> (1957) Anonymous, (1957) Ibrahim Sued, (1957) Olavo Fontes, (1957) Major Roberto Caminha, IMT (now IME, Military Institute of Engineering - Instituto Militar de Engenharia. Previously Military Institute of Technology - Instituto Militar de Tecnologia).
  3. (Brazilian Navy) -> (1957) Anonymous, (1957) Ibrahim Sued, (1957) Olavo Fontes, (1957) Navy Commander José Geraldo Brandão, Arsenal de Marinha - AMRJ (Navy Arsenal Rio de Janeiro, an engineering and technology centre).
  4. (APRO) -> (1957) Anonymous, (1957) Ibrahim Sued, (1957) Olavo Fontes, (1961) Jim Lorenzen, (1961) APRO.
  5. (Sturrock) -> (1957) Anonymous, (1957) Ibrahim Sued, (1957) Olavo Fontes, (1961) Jim Lorenzen, (1961) APRO, Peter Sturrock.
  6. (Stanford) -> (1957) Anonymous, (1957) Ibrahim Sued, (1957) Olavo Fontes, (1961) Jim Lorenzen, (1961) APRO, Peter Sturrock, Stanford, (1978) Chris Zercher, (1997) Michael Kelley.
  7. (NASA) -> (1957) Anonymous, (1957) Ibrahim Sued, (1957) Olavo Fontes, (1961) Jim Lorenzen, (1961) APRO, Peter Sturrock, (1977) David Williamson Jr, Code AX Special Projects (NASA contractor), (1981) NASA.
  8. (Caltech) -> (1957) Anonymous, (1957) Ibrahim Sued, (1957) Olavo Fontes, (1961) Jim Lorenzen, (1961) APRO, Peter Sturrock, Stanford, (1975) Gerald Wasserberg, (1976) Caltech, Typhoon Lee & D. A. Papanastassiou.
  9. (Charles Evans lab) -> (1957) Anonymous, (1957) Ibrahim Sued, (1957) Olavo Fontes, (1961) Jim Lorenzen, (1961) APRO, Peter Sturrock, Stanford, Jack Cheng, Charles Evans & Associates.
  10. (Canada) -> (1957) Anonymous, (1957) Ibrahim Sued, (1957) Olavo Fontes, (1961) Jim Lorenzen, (1961) APRO, Peter Sturrock, Stanford, (1997) Elemental Research (lab).
  11. (France) -> (1957) Anonymous, (1957) Ibrahim Sued, (1957) Olavo Fontes, (1961) Jim Lorenzen, (1961) APRO, Peter Sturrock, Stanford, Jean Jacques-Velasco, (1986) CNES (Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales - National Centre of Space Studies), Marie Curie University, (1986) J. C. Lorin & A. Havette.
  12. (USAF) -> (1957) Anonymous, (1957) Ibrahim Sued, (1957) Olavo Fontes, (1961) Jim Lorenzen, (1961) APRO, USAF.
  13. (Dow) -> (1957) Anonymous, (1957) Ibrahim Sued, (1957) Olavo Fontes, (1961) Jim Lorenzen, (1961) APRO, (1961) Dr. R. S. Busk, Dow Chemical Company, (1970) Walter W. Walker and Robert W. Johnson (17:35 in the first video).
  14. (Emanuel) -> (1980) Anonymous seaman, Anonymous grandfather, Emanuel.
  15. (Museum) -> (1980) Anonymous seaman, Anonymous grandfather, Emanuel, (2007) Museum.
  16. (Nicolas) -> (1957) Anonymous, (1957) Ibrahim Sued, (1957) Olavo Fontes, Nicolas Ojeda.
  17. (Museum) -> (1957) Anonymous, (1957) Ibrahim Sued, (1957) Olavo Fontes, Nicolas Ojeda, Museum.
  18. (Nolan, Sample A) -> (1957) Anonymous, (1957) Ibrahim Sued, (1957) Olavo Fontes, Nicolas Ojeda, Museum, Silvia Simondini, (2016) Jacques Vallée, Garry Nolan.
  19. (Nolan, Sample B) -> (1980) Anonymous seaman, Anonymous grandfather, Emanuel, (2007) Museum, Silvia Simondini, (2016) Jacques Vallée, Garry Nolan.
  20. (Colorado) -> (1957) Anonymous, (1957) Ibrahim Sued, (1957) Olavo Fontes, (1961) Jim Lorenzen, (1961) APRO, Mrs. Coral Lorenzen, (1967) Dr. Edward U. Condon, Dr. Roy Craig, (1969) Colorado Project.
  21. (ATF Lab) -> (1957) Anonymous, (1957) Ibrahim Sued, (1957) Olavo Fontes, (1961) Jim Lorenzen, (1961) APRO, Mrs. Coral Lorenzen, (1967) Dr. Edward U. Condon, Dr. Roy Craig, (1968) ATF Lab.
  22. (MIT) -> (1957) Anonymous, (1957) Ibrahim Sued, (1957) Olavo Fontes, (1961) Jim Lorenzen, Mrs. Coral Lorenzen, (1967) Dr. Edward U. Condon, Dr. Roy Craig, (1969) Colorado Project, Coral and Jim Lorenzen, (1978) Harold Lebelson, (1979) Robert E. Ogilvie, MIT.
  23. (IBM?) -> (1957) Anonymous, (1957) Ibrahim Sued, (1957) Olavo Fontes, (1961) Jim Lorenzen, Mrs. Coral Lorenzen, (1967) Dr. Edward U. Condon, Dr. Roy Craig, (1969) Colorado Project, Coral and Jim Lorenzen, (1978) Harold Lebelson, (1979) Robert E. Ogilvie, MIT, (1984) Fishkill(?), IBM(?) [This is supposedly informed by Ogilvie, see Sturrock paper referenced above for details].
  24. (Achzehnov) -> (1957) Anonymous, (1957) Ibrahim Sued, (1957) Olavo Fontes, (1961) Jim Lorenzen, (1961) APRO, (?), Robert Achzehnov, (1986) Peter Sturrock.
  25. (Edison) -> Anonymous father, Anonymous heir, (2016) Edison Boaventura.
  26. (IPT) -> Anonymous father, Anonymous heir, (2016) Edison Boaventura, IPT (Instituto de Pesquisas Tecnológicas - Technology Research Institute).
  27. (USP) -> Anonymous father, Anonymous heir, (2016) Edison Boaventura, DEMP LCT Poli-USP (Polytechnic School, São Paulo University, Department of Mine Engineering and Petroleum, Technology Characterization Lab - Escola Politécnica da Universidade de São Paulo, Departamento de Engenharia de Minas e Petróleo, Laboratório de Caracterização Tecnológica).
 

Attachments

  • Composition_Analysis_of_the_Brazil_Magnesium.pdf
    294.3 KB · Views: 19
  • Scientific_Study_of_UFO_Vol1.pdf
    21.1 MB · Views: 16
Last edited:
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
You mentioned "samples" and complained about the lack of public data/transparency in general, not specifically the piece of slag they analysed, although I reckon it may have been implied in context with all other posts where people were arguing for several pages. The AARO report contains references to other sources that discussed samples extensively, hence my post reflecting on some of those analyses that are available in the public domain.
 
I did attempt to listen to that video, in order to evaluate the evidence, but was unable to get past his very first sentence
"So, what's inevitable - inevitably we're gonna come across something out there that is alien." timestamp 01:06.
He's speaking to an audience that wants to hear those assertions, thus I'd recommend sticking to the data analysis around the time stamps I quoted, although the post was in response to whether there is publicly available data on materials tested using public funds, which may not interest you.
 
You mentioned "samples" and complained about the lack of public data/transparency in general, not specifically the piece of slag they analysed, although I reckon it may have been implied in context with all other posts where people were arguing for several pages. The AARO report contains references to other sources that discussed samples extensively, hence my post reflecting on some of those analyses that are available in the public domain.

Perhaps I was not clear. The 1 and only "sample" that it appears AARO analyzed is from a set of "samples" collectively known as Art's Parts. TTSA acquired these samples in ~2019 then entered into a contract with the US Army to study them:

San Diego, CA (July 25, 2019) - To The Stars Academy of Arts & Science (TTSA) has acquired multiple pieces of metamaterials and an archive of initial analysis and research for their controversial ADAM Research Project. ADAM, an acronym for Acquisition and Data Analysis of Materials, is an academic research program focused on the exploitation of exotic materials for technological innovation.
Content from External Source
https://dpo.tothestarsacademy.com/b...akes-groundbreaking-metamaterials-acquisition and http://archive.is/VxZtZ

Most of the samples in question are ordinary terrestrial aluminum and there is no mention of AARO of testing these. One of the samples is known to be layered magnesium and bismuth. AARO mentioned testing a sample from a "private organization" that had a "contract with the Army" that consisted of magnesium and bismuth. AARO was analyzing a sample from a collection of samples known as Art's Parts. I may have inadvertently used the plural "samples" when it appears AARO only looked at a single "sample".

While I agree that the data should be released, I was not complaining about that in the context of this analysis, because I think it's a big red hearing. The ONLY reason this sample was looked at is because a number UFOlogists think it came from a crashed UFO at Roswell. And the only thing linking this sample to a crashed UFO at Roswell, is a set of goofy anonymous letters making the claim. Much like the supposed Ubatuba samples.

The AARO report contains references to other sources that discussed samples extensively, hence my post reflecting on some of those analyses that are available in the public domain.

Please post the relevant quotes for this.

From your informative post:

Nolan, Sample B) -> (1980) Anonymous seaman, Anonymous grandfather, Emanuel, (2007) Museum, Silvia Simondini, (2016) Jacques Vallée, Garry Nolan.
Content from External Source
I didn't know one of Nolan's samples had an even more dubious origin story that the already dubious standard Ubatuba story. An anonymous seaman found more of the crashed UFO 30 years later, then it took another 20 years for this piece to surface?

@john.phil if you get a chance, can you copy your post #284 and also post it to this thread about meta materials? We discussed Ubatuba, but you found some new stuff and it would be good to have it as part of that thread.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/meta-materials-from-ufos.12995/
 
@john.phil if you get a chance, can you copy your post #284 and also post it to this thread about meta materials? We discussed Ubatuba, but you found some new stuff and it would be good to have it as part of that thread.

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

The entire tail end of this thread from #275 should be moved over, as this is all wildly off topic to this Aaro report thread. and just serves to confuse the issues.
@Mick West
 
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've driven along I-8 between Gila Bend and Yuma many many times. A few times I got to see the flares! So cool.
 
Are there no comments here yet on Christopher Mellon's comprehensive and scathing critique of the AARO report?

The paper was published here on April, 12:
https://thedebrief.org/the-pentagons-new-uap-report-is-seriously-flawed/

Here's just a short quote; the whole article is a long one (Mellon had busy helpers):


The AARO report (AAROR) is pervaded by hundreds of unfortunate errors and absurdities involving the history, science, and facts presented in its 63 pages, with dozens–or more–errors on some pages (see graphic below of 14 errors alone just on the first page of the Table of Contents).

The report is replete with so many mistakes and misunderstandings that, page for page, it appears to be the greatest single repository of UAP errors, arguably surpassing even the Air Force’s Project Blue Book.
Content from External Source
 
Are there no comments here yet on Christopher Mellon's comprehensive and scathing critique of the AARO report?

The paper was published here on April, 12:
https://thedebrief.org/the-pentagons-new-uap-report-is-seriously-flawed/

Here's just a short quote; the whole article is a long one (Mellon had busy helpers):


The AARO report (AAROR) is pervaded by hundreds of unfortunate errors and absurdities involving the history, science, and facts presented in its 63 pages, with dozens–or more–errors on some pages (see graphic below of 14 errors alone just on the first page of the Table of Contents).

The report is replete with so many mistakes and misunderstandings that, page for page, it appears to be the greatest single repository of UAP errors, arguably surpassing even the Air Force’s Project Blue Book.
Content from External Source
It's a hit piece and gish gallop. If you want to focus on individual claims, it'd be useful to quote them, perhaps in individual threads.
 
It's a hit piece and gish gallop. If you want to focus on individual claims, it'd be useful to quote them, perhaps in individual threads.
Who would ever read and check this in all the details if not directly involved the one way or another?
This piece can indeed be discussed in general and be placed in the given context. Although I wouldn't even know right now where to start and where to stop. I was particularly surprised that this article had not been mentioned yet.
Perhaps the crucial question is whether Mellon & Co. will succeed in exerting so much pressure and creating such an opinion that Part 2 of the AARO report will have no choice but to respond to it — or to put the agency under pressure in general. These determined and severe accusations, and the overall claim that the AARO has not fulfilled its mandate with this version of the report, can hardly be ignored or brushed aside.
 
Who would ever read and check this in all the details if not directly involved the one way or another?
This piece can indeed be discussed in general and be placed in the given context. Although I wouldn't even know right now where to start and where to stop. I was particularly surprised that this article had not been mentioned yet.
Perhaps the crucial question is whether Mellon & Co. will succeed in exerting so much pressure and creating such an opinion that Part 2 of the AARO report will have no choice but to respond to it — or to put the agency under pressure in general. These determined and severe accusations, and the overall claim that the AARO has not fulfilled its mandate with this version of the report, can hardly be ignored or brushed aside.
I skimmed through Mellon's piece and the first part of it has a lot of arguments about how the Congressional requirements should have been interpreted. There's a lot of legalese in there, something that requires a lawyer's understanding of the context.

And the first "errors" cited in the AARO report are that it should have started with WW2-era investigations of pilot-reported Foo Fighters and "Ghost rockets" (near Finland and Sweden, which were thought to be rockets and which the CIA later determined to be Soviet rockets). Which, maybe so, but a lot of these "flaws" don't seem to be aimed at the substance of the report, and Mellon seems to demand that AARO account for every UAP report by anyone, ever. He seems to want every unresolved case to be acknowledged as a potential exterrestrial something, while the report seems to conclude that no investigation found solid evidence of extraterrestrial anything. Kind of speaking at cross-purposes.
 
Perhaps the crucial question is whether Mellon & Co. will succeed in exerting so much pressure and creating such an opinion that Part 2 of the AARO report will have no choice but to respond to it — or to put the agency under pressure in general. These determined and severe accusations, and the overall claim that the AARO has not fulfilled its mandate with this version of the report, can hardly be ignored or brushed aside.
Well, it seems that the AARO report put severe pressure on Mellon and friends, judging by this reaction. Chris Mellon is almost certainly among the clique singled out by the report for spreading/creating misinformation.

Whether AARO fulfilled its mandate is for Congress (and the recipients of the classified version) to decide. It seems clear to me that AARO was not staffed to review tens of thousands of Blue Book pages (for the fifth time?), and therefore that can't have been its mandate.
 
It's a hit piece and gish gallop. If you want to focus on individual claims, it'd be useful to quote them, perhaps in individual threads.
Very much a gish gallop.

Lots of criticism of AARO for not worshiping the same sources and saints that Mellon & Co. do.

No consideration that perhaps AARO had better access to original documents than others have had. In particular there are claims that dates are wrong in the AARO report. Ignoring the fact that AARO will have had access to original documents on past projects and programs, so it is likely that AARO's dates are MORE accurate then the umpteenth generation copies that appear elsewhere.

No report will satisfy Mellon & Co. unless it parrots their views line by line.
 
Well, it seems that the AARO report put severe pressure on Mellon and friends, judging by this reaction. Chris Mellon is almost certainly among the clique singled out by the report for spreading/creating misinformation.
Of course Mr. Mellon is upset. Congress got rid of his collaborators (Jay Stratton, Travis Tayler, David Grusch) at UAPTF and stood up AARO, who actually did their job impartially and cut through the lies, rumors and misunderstandings to find that people were essentially just repeating propaganda originating from Mellon's own circle. AARO also uncovered the group's previous failed attempts at creating a new SAP, which they were claiming was a real secret program, and their attempts at influencing public opinion. This must have ruined their whole scheme (and it's not hard to speculate they used Grusch as an attempt to save it). Mellon isn't even denying the plot anymore, he's trying to spin it as him just being a huge Disclosure advocate.

Article:
Mellon says that after learning of the extent of UFO sightings by U.S. pilots, he wanted to spread the word about the issue. “I came up with a simple plan to do that, which involved going to the press and going to Congress,” said Mellon. He then relays to me a familiar tale that has made its way into numerous news reports, which is the origin story of how a famous UFO video—the 2004 Nimitz episode—was leaked. According to Mellon, a person met him in the parking lot of the Pentagon and handed him an envelope containing a USB drive. Inside the USB drive were three videos taken by F-18 pilots that showed “real UAP,” as Mellon puts it. Mellon says he then decided to share the videos with the press.

The way Mellon explains it, the pivotal New York Times story that is largely credited with helping legitimize UFOs within the broader culture never would have happened without his direct involvement. “This was not investigative journalism,” Mellon tells me. “I handed them the evidence, introduced them to Lue Elizondo, gave them a stack of documents, arranged for them to meet and interview Harry Reid, and made a deal with them. They ran the story, which appeared on December 16 of 2017 on the front page.”

Mellon says this was part of a broader plan on his part to spread the word about UFOs and to get Congress to take some sort of action on the matter.

The pro-ET crowd are quite accepting of a career IC spook admitting to running a public influence campaign. I guess they don't remember the whole "Dulce Base" affair with Paul Bennewitz where Rick Doty and Bill Moore passed on propaganda to Bennewitz. But it's different this time because...Disclosure.
 
Of course Mr. Mellon is upset. Congress got rid of his collaborators (Jay Stratton, Travis Tayler, David Grusch) at UAPTF and stood up AARO, who actually did their job impartially and cut through the lies, rumors and misunderstandings to find that people were essentially just repeating propaganda originating from Mellon's own circle. AARO also uncovered the group's previous failed attempts at creating a new SAP, which they were claiming was a real secret program, and their attempts at influencing public opinion. This must have ruined their whole scheme (and it's not hard to speculate they used Grusch as an attempt to save it). Mellon isn't even denying the plot anymore, he's trying to spin it as him just being a huge Disclosure advocate.

Article:
Mellon says that after learning of the extent of UFO sightings by U.S. pilots, he wanted to spread the word about the issue. “I came up with a simple plan to do that, which involved going to the press and going to Congress,” said Mellon. He then relays to me a familiar tale that has made its way into numerous news reports, which is the origin story of how a famous UFO video—the 2004 Nimitz episode—was leaked. According to Mellon, a person met him in the parking lot of the Pentagon and handed him an envelope containing a USB drive. Inside the USB drive were three videos taken by F-18 pilots that showed “real UAP,” as Mellon puts it. Mellon says he then decided to share the videos with the press.

The way Mellon explains it, the pivotal New York Times story that is largely credited with helping legitimize UFOs within the broader culture never would have happened without his direct involvement. “This was not investigative journalism,” Mellon tells me. “I handed them the evidence, introduced them to Lue Elizondo, gave them a stack of documents, arranged for them to meet and interview Harry Reid, and made a deal with them. They ran the story, which appeared on December 16 of 2017 on the front page.”

Mellon says this was part of a broader plan on his part to spread the word about UFOs and to get Congress to take some sort of action on the matter.

The pro-ET crowd are quite accepting of a career IC spook admitting to running a public influence campaign. I guess they don't remember the whole "Dulce Base" affair with Paul Bennewitz where Rick Doty and Bill Moore passed on propaganda to Bennewitz. But it's different this time because...Disclosure.
Don't forget the whole "Aviary" crew is still tied up in all this through Puthoff and Green. Doty was brought back around as a contractor thru Puthoff. Green is still active in the space too. There's been some mild success pointing this out to some crowds but alas it's whisked away with a lot of others.
 
Of course Mr. Mellon is upset. Congress got rid of his collaborators (Jay Stratton, Travis Tayler, David Grusch) at UAPTF and stood up AARO, who actually did their job impartially and cut through the lies, rumors and misunderstandings to find that people were essentially just repeating propaganda originating from Mellon's own circle. AARO also uncovered the group's previous failed attempts at creating a new SAP, which they were claiming was a real secret program, and their attempts at influencing public opinion. This must have ruined their whole scheme (and it's not hard to speculate they used Grusch as an attempt to save it). Mellon isn't even denying the plot anymore, he's trying to spin it as him just being a huge Disclosure advocate.

The pro-ET crowd are quite accepting of a career IC spook admitting to running a public influence campaign. I guess they don't remember the whole "Dulce Base" affair with Paul Bennewitz where Rick Doty and Bill Moore passed on propaganda to Bennewitz. But it's different this time because...Disclosure.

Doty is actually one of the examples Mellon mentions in his article as something that AARO should have brought up in the report:

Article:
Air Force Intelligence “efforts to … obfuscate [and] manipulate public opinion” on UFOs since the 1950s are primarily what caused the harsh stigma attached to the entire UFO subject in society. But this anti-UFO stigma is not investigated or historically documented by AARO – or even mentioned – contrary to its legal obligation.


This is despite the public admission by former USAF OSI officer Richard Doty that his official assignments included spying on US civilian UAP researchers and breaking into a private home, spreading disinformation about UAP, misinforming two US Senators, and spreading fake UFO documents including some so-called “MJ-12” documents that turned out to be a hoax (Doty radio interview Feb. 27, 2005; see Rojas, “Open Letter,” posting May 6, 2014, OpenMinds).


And I agree with him there. I don't think it is just a gish gallop to point out these errors and omissions. Getting dates and names wrong may not be very substantial mistakes in themselves, but it compounds and together with things like the non-working links to sources, not mentioning the Air Force's attempts to obfuscate and mislead (which I frankly think are not in dispute, with regards to how Project Blue Book was run and the activities of Doty) and apparently missing quite a few documented efforts from different government entities to study UAPs it paints a picture of an investigation that was not conducted in a serious enough manner. While I don't agree with Mellon in that people like himself and Vallée needed to be interviewed or consulted, I think AARO would have benefitted from hiring a serious historian with experience in looking through old government records and writing historical reports. I mean, the US government literally has an office equipped to handle such things: The Office of the Historian!

Very much a gish gallop.

Lots of criticism of AARO for not worshiping the same sources and saints that Mellon & Co. do.

No consideration that perhaps AARO had better access to original documents than others have had. In particular there are claims that dates are wrong in the AARO report. Ignoring the fact that AARO will have had access to original documents on past projects and programs, so it is likely that AARO's dates are MORE accurate then the umpteenth generation copies that appear elsewhere.

No report will satisfy Mellon & Co. unless it parrots their views line by line.

I have to disagree here, on principle. I don't think it is much better to accept the excuse "they had access to better source materials" for these kinds of errors than when the ufologists accept claims of more clear-cut vidoes and photos being available but classified. It's an appeal to authority, and it goes contrary to the principle of looking at the available data. When every open source Mellon (or I, for that matter) can find on the Kenneth Arnold case says it happened on June 24 1947, why should we accept that AARO has somehow unearthed completely new files claiming another date? Because they are the government? The National Archive says it happened on the 24th. The Project Blue Book files says it happened on the 24th. Unless you want to claim that those files either have the wrong date or that copying them somehow turned a "3" into that "4" I think the more plausible explanation is that the observation took place on the 24th and AARO simply wrote the wrong date and no one in the office double-checked it. Is it immediately discrediting the rest of the report, or even the broad strokes? Of course not! It is, in itself, completely inconsequential. But the optics of making such errors on numerous occassions does, as I said above, paint an unflattering picture of the overall quality of the work effort that went into writing the report.

I think Mellon raises some valid points in his article. The research seems sloppy and not mentioning any of the cases of government obfuscation is a glaring omission (EDIT: I misremembered what was in the report, probably too influenced by having read Mellon's article more recently than it, no excuse for that, but anyways, the report does mention some claims that USAF was trying to cover things up, but I feel that it isn't engaging especially honestly with the question, saying its only finding was that they could find no evidence of an official or unofficial policy on the matter, which is a rather narrow/naive focus in my opinion) especially since the US Code establishing AARO was very explicit on that point:

Article:
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.
(my emphasis)

I find his argument that AARO didn't do that hard to argue against, however you interpret the legalese. Could it be part of the classified report? Maybe, but we don't know that, and it would be ironic to say the least if AARO classified the parts that explicitely dealt with government deception.

So over all I think Mellon raises some valid points with regard to the quality of the report and how genuine the US government (through AARO) really are in its efforts with regards to the UAP phenomenon, especially when it comes to the more shady parts of its own historical involvement. Where he loses me is when he try to make the claim that there are many excellent cases with data pointing to the extraterrestial hypothesis, because I think he is simply wrong about that and when he describes the case he focuses on the most (The Nimitz encounters) he himself makes glaring omissions and logical leaps in trying to establish it as beyond reproach, and that AARO's sloppy work on the report is just the latest in a long line of conspiratorial efforts to cover up the truth. At most I think it points to the tendency of the US government (which it has in common with most governments, companies, groups and individual humans) to gloss over or try to hide embarrassing historical attempts at lying in its past, and generally it just feels like an indifference towards the subject matter at hand, and that the people writing it didn't think it was very important work. I have the (completely unfounded) feeling that AARO might not be the most attractive workplace in the Pentagon.

It is of course telling that Mellon himself glosses over the, in my opinion, only "bombshell" in the AARO report: the embarassment that is KONA BLUE and the deceptive ways the Invisible College has used their knowledge of that project proposal to implicate a government coverup of a UAP recovery and reverse-engineering program. That whole charade has emphatically showed that they are not acting in good faith and casts serious doubts on any other claims about government sources and insights that they make. Unfortunately for Mellon, that overshadows the rest of his critique of the report and AARO, valid or not. Owning up to that fiasco would have been a much better look, but it is understandable that he didn't since he is either a true believer (and thus, the goals justify the means) or a grifter, in which case he has no incentive to apologize at all for his involvement with the whole thing. But I still think that just dismissing everything he writes in that article as gish gallop because of that isn't fair nor constructive since some of his arguments do have merit regardless, and those are worthy of discussion.

I feel that the tone of the comments regarding Mellon and this article is reminiscent of how redditors on r/UFOs write about Mick (and the skeptic community as a whole) and that is not a good look.
 
Last edited:
Doty is actually one of the examples Mellon mentions in his article as something that AARO should have brought up in the report
I wonder how much evidence actually exists that proves Doty was not acting on his own. If AARO did not find records of it (or witnesses), they wouldn't have added it to the report.
 
I'm fairly sure Corbell's Mellon's confidence is misplaced.

https://thedebrief.org/the-pentagons-new-uap-report-is-seriously-flawed/
SmartSelect_20240419-141823_Samsung Internet.jpg
Page 1 of the table, page 2 of the report.

Mellon:
SmartSelect_20240419-141913_Samsung Internet.jpg
AARO:
SmartSelect_20240419-143707_Samsung Notes.jpg
I expect that the investigations Mellon lists are not "programs", and therefore they're not listed, they're just the Air Force doing their job?

Mellon:
SmartSelect_20240419-141945_Samsung Internet.jpg
AARO:
SmartSelect_20240419-142038_Samsung Notes.jpg

SmartSelect_20240419-142056_Samsung Notes.jpg
AARO states that there is conflicting information, Mellon does not.

SmartSelect_20240419-142151_Samsung Notes.jpg
AARO states that SAUCER and SIGN are essentially two phases of the same project—that is pretty much Mellon's claim.

Mellon:
SmartSelect_20240419-142306_Samsung Internet.jpg
AARO has an exact date, and sources.
SmartSelect_20240419-142357_Samsung Notes.jpg
AARO footnotes (Mellon cites no primary sources):
SmartSelect_20240419-142515_Samsung Notes.jpg
https://www.academia.edu/43389931/Project_GRUDGE_Report_1949USA excerpt:
SmartSelect_20240419-142833_Samsung Internet.jpg
This excerpt from the Grudge report indicates that the publication of the report was not its end point: "Work is continuing".
 
Last edited:
I wonder how much evidence actually exists that proves Doty was not acting on his own. If AARO did not find records of it (or witnesses), they wouldn't have added it to the report.

If that was the case, don't you think it would have been better of them to write that they found no records indicating anything but that he was acting on his own without authorization? Interestingly, regarding the same subject matter, they commented when they found no records of an official USAF policy on obfuscating evidence pointing towards UFOs as extraterrestrial:

AARO report p. 27-28 said:
At various points in history, individuals inside and outside of the USG, including Dr. J. Allen Hynek, claimed the USAF had a key goal of debunking or explaining away reports of UAP. AARO found no evidence to suggest that the USAF had a policy intended to cover up the evidence of extraterrestrial knowledge, material, or interactions. Rather, the USAF instead sought to focus on what it determined to be more important concerns, such as Soviet technology and U.S. defense readiness. Similarly, at least the first iteration of Project GRUDGE sought to resolve all cases and prohibited its staff from characterizing reports as unknown or unidentified.

• AARO notes that there was possibly one unofficial estimate stating otherwise. Project SIGN staff allegedly drafted and signed a report that was circulated for review and approval. It was titled: “The Estimate of the Situation” and assessed that at least some UFOs were of “interplanetary” origin. The DoD leadership rejected this report on the basis that it lacked any proof, and it was never published. The first Director of Project BLUE BOOK, Capt Edward Ruppelt, said that all but a couple copies of this estimate were destroyed. AARO has been unable to verify his claim or locate the document.

I feel that there was an excellent opportunity there to add a paragraph about Doty's "extracurricular" activities, especially if they had found no evidence that it was sanctioned by his superiors. But then I am also of the opinion that AARO didn't do a very good job with this report, especially when it came to anticipating and quelling the complaints from their critics in the ufology circuit. Sure, one can argue that it isn't part of what they are tasked to do, but by being this sloppy they invited a lot of "low-hanging" criticism that distracts the conversation from their central findings (no evidence of aliens, the purported craft retrieval and reverse-engineering program was the Invisible College's KONA BLUE proposal) could have been easily avoided I personally suspect that they didn't even know about Doty and thus didn't look him up.

I'm fairly sure Corbell's confidence is misplaced.

I expect that the investigations Corbell lists are not "programs", and therefore they're not listed, they're just the Air Force doing their job?

You mean Mellon (though I understand full well why you would make that mistake, I had to double-check the article myself after I read your post)? Good work, though! Yeah, I would like to add that I thought it to be very unlikely that every "error" he listed is an actual error and not just things he (or rather, his helpers) has gotten wrong or are just arguing over semantics, but I failed to include that in my initial post, so a bit of egg on my face for what could be interpreted as a claim that I thought all the "hundreds of errors" were factual. I mean, that's what I'd expect from that camp anyways. I'm just irritated that AARO gave them as much ammunition as they did, when they had a great chance to show people what a truly serious and well-researched investigation of the USG's historical approach to the UAP phenomenon looked like, especially the people who became interested in the topic through all the excitement over Grusch and who have swallowed a lot of BS from Knapp, Mellon, Corbell, Elizondo et al. over a fairly short period of time and aren't that invested yet.
 
If that was the case, don't you think it would have been better of them to write that they found no records indicating anything but that he was acting on his own without authorization? Interestingly, regarding the same subject matter, they commented when they found no records of an official USAF policy on obfuscating evidence pointing towards UFOs as extraterrestrial:
Generally, I don't expect them to report on things they did not investigate.
The question is, should they have investigated Doty? How?
 
I am also of the opinion that AARO didn't do a very good job with this report, especially when it came to anticipating and quelling the complaints from their critics in the ufology circuit. Sure, one can argue that it isn't part of what they are tasked to do, but by being this sloppy they invited a lot of "low-hanging" criticism that distracts the conversation from their central findings (no evidence of aliens,
It sounds as if you think that their task should have included something about "anticipating and quelling the complaints", but quite simply, it didn't. That is far outside the scope of any factual investigation. There is, moreover, a vast gulf between "anticipating" (which I'm sure most of them did) and "quelling" such complaints, and I'll be darned if I know how on earth they could possibly do the latter. Speculation about extraterrestrials has always been a popular hobby, and now that anyone can have a YouTube channel on which to air his sensationalist views for fun and profit, it's probably here to stay. I think the sloppiness you find in the report is a very minor factor in public belief; the task of undoing generations of weird beliefs in the public sphere is a Herculean one.
 
not mentioning the Air Force's attempts to obfuscate and mislead (which I frankly think are not in dispute, with regards to how Project Blue Book was run and the activities of Doty)
It might be in dispute. Doty's story is a fascinating one but I've never seen any evidence (other than his own word) that he spread disinformation as part of his official duties. AARO leaving him out implies that he was simply lying about that. It also implies that no one interviewed by AARO has pointed to Doty as a source of knowledge for them to follow-up with.

Is there any fact check of Doty's story that corroborates this specific claim? The claim about him willfully spreading UFO disinfo seems indisputable. But his claim that he was ordered to do so by the Air Force is suspiciously unsupported.

I think Mellon's objection to Doty's absence in the AARO report is sort of "begging the question" in that it presupposes that Doty is telling the truth about an Air Force disinformation program. It would only belong in the report if that part of his claim was true.
 
Mellon:
SmartSelect_20240419-154919_Samsung Internet.jpg
Ruppelt calls it "project bear" in his book, but implies that it's not the real name. Mellon appears to be correct.

Mellon:
SmartSelect_20240419-154936_Samsung Internet.jpg
AARO:
SmartSelect_20240419-154653_Samsung Notes.jpg
SmartSelect_20240419-154729_Samsung Notes.jpg

I'm not going to chase down the other dates.
 
Doty is actually one of the examples Mellon mentions in his article as something that AARO should have brought up in the report:

Article:
Air Force Intelligence “efforts to … obfuscate [and] manipulate public opinion” on UFOs since the 1950s are primarily what caused the harsh stigma attached to the entire UFO subject in society. But this anti-UFO stigma is not investigated or historically documented by AARO – or even mentioned – contrary to its legal obligation.


This is despite the public admission by former USAF OSI officer Richard Doty that his official assignments included spying on US civilian UAP researchers and breaking into a private home, spreading disinformation about UAP, misinforming two US Senators, and spreading fake UFO documents including some so-called “MJ-12” documents that turned out to be a hoax (Doty radio interview Feb. 27, 2005; see Rojas, “Open Letter,” posting May 6, 2014, OpenMinds).


And I agree with him there. I don't think it is just a gish gallop to point out these errors and omissions. Getting dates and names wrong may not be very substantial mistakes in themselves, but it compounds and together with things like the non-working links to sources, not mentioning the Air Force's attempts to obfuscate and mislead (which I frankly think are not in dispute, with regards to how Project Blue Book was run and the activities of Doty) and apparently missing quite a few documented efforts from different government entities to study UAPs it paints a picture of an investigation that was not conducted in a serious enough manner. While I don't agree with Mellon in that people like himself and Vallée needed to be interviewed or consulted, I think AARO would have benefitted from hiring a serious historian with experience in looking through old government records and writing historical reports. I mean, the US government literally has an office equipped to handle such things: The Office of the Historian!



I have to disagree here, on principle. I don't think it is much better to accept the excuse "they had access to better source materials" for these kinds of errors than when the ufologists accept claims of more clear-cut vidoes and photos being available but classified. It's an appeal to authority, and it goes contrary to the principle of looking at the available data. When every open source Mellon (or I, for that matter) can find on the Kenneth Arnold case says it happened on June 24 1947, why should we accept that AARO has somehow unearthed completely new files claiming another date? Because they are the government? The National Archive says it happened on the 24th. The Project Blue Book files says it happened on the 24th. Unless you want to claim that those files either have the wrong date or that copying them somehow turned a "3" into that "4" I think the more plausible explanation is that the observation took place on the 24th and AARO simply wrote the wrong date and no one in the office double-checked it. Is it immediately discrediting the rest of the report, or even the broad strokes? Of course not! It is, in itself, completely inconsequential. But the optics of making such errors on numerous occassions does, as I said above, paint an unflattering picture of the overall quality of the work effort that went into writing the report.

I think Mellon raises some valid points in his article. The research seems sloppy and not mentioning any of the cases of government obfuscation is a glaring omission (EDIT: I misremembered what was in the report, probably too influenced by having read Mellon's article more recently than it, no excuse for that, but anyways, the report does mention some claims that USAF was trying to cover things up, but I feel that it isn't engaging especially honestly with the question, saying its only finding was that they could find no evidence of an official or unofficial policy on the matter, which is a rather narrow/naive focus in my opinion) especially since the US Code establishing AARO was very explicit on that point:

Article:
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.
(my emphasis)

I find his argument that AARO didn't do that hard to argue against, however you interpret the legalese. Could it be part of the classified report? Maybe, but we don't know that, and it would be ironic to say the least if AARO classified the parts that explicitely dealt with government deception.

So over all I think Mellon raises some valid points with regard to the quality of the report and how genuine the US government (through AARO) really are in its efforts with regards to the UAP phenomenon, especially when it comes to the more shady parts of its own historical involvement. Where he loses me is when he try to make the claim that there are many excellent cases with data pointing to the extraterrestial hypothesis, because I think he is simply wrong about that and when he describes the case he focuses on the most (The Nimitz encounters) he himself makes glaring omissions and logical leaps in trying to establish it as beyond reproach, and that AARO's sloppy work on the report is just the latest in a long line of conspiratorial efforts to cover up the truth. At most I think it points to the tendency of the US government (which it has in common with most governments, companies, groups and individual humans) to gloss over or try to hide embarrassing historical attempts at lying in its past, and generally it just feels like an indifference towards the subject matter at hand, and that the people writing it didn't think it was very important work. I have the (completely unfounded) feeling that AARO might not be the most attractive workplace in the Pentagon.

It is of course telling that Mellon himself glosses over the, in my opinion, only "bombshell" in the AARO report: the embarassment that is KONA BLUE and the deceptive ways the Invisible College has used their knowledge of that project proposal to implicate a government coverup of a UAP recovery and reverse-engineering program. That whole charade has emphatically showed that they are not acting in good faith and casts serious doubts on any other claims about government sources and insights that they make. Unfortunately for Mellon, that overshadows the rest of his critique of the report and AARO, valid or not. Owning up to that fiasco would have been a much better look, but it is understandable that he didn't since he is either a true believer (and thus, the goals justify the means) or a grifter, in which case he has no incentive to apologize at all for his involvement with the whole thing. But I still think that just dismissing everything he writes in that article as gish gallop because of that isn't fair nor constructive since some of his arguments do have merit regardless, and those are worthy of discussion.

I feel that the tone of the comments regarding Mellon and this article is reminiscent of how redditors on r/UFOs write about Mick (and the skeptic community as a whole) and that is not a good look.
We should be really careful with theorizing what the extent of the Air Forces messaging in relation to the UFO community was. The extent of this is still mostly stories drawing back to Doty post-service, where he has ran a wile-coyote career disinforming these communities, in some cases explicitly about the US government (ala the Serpo conspiracy project where they re-amplified claims about US govt interaction with ETs). The critique he makes, is a bit of a flag for this reason, considering Mellon himself is part of the same correlational network there.

This also hits an entirely different functional area and is not at all related to what the AARO reporting covers. As you referenced
"any efforts to obfuscate, manipulate public opinion, hide, or otherwise provide incorrect unclassified or classified information about unidentified anomalous phenomena or related activities."

So, I could write an entire book on breaking down how our nation participates in these activities contextually. I'll try and package it up tidy though-
Deception in Support of OPSEC channeling misleading materials or creative deceptive signatures, targeting individuals attempting to procure classified information, critical information, or indicators - is not an attempt at the above.

Offensive CI programs doing the same as the above - is not an attempt at the above

Inform & Influence Activities targeting foreign populations where the information happens to come back to US audiences - is not an attempt at the above.

Further, the contextual examples given of US government interaction here, is not about UAP or related activities.
If you're working on a team creating some fancy drone, and you have some UFOlogists sitting outside the base trying to snap pictures and breach your comms, and you have your guys make some funny radio transmissions. There is no "unidentified anomalous phenomena or related activities" taking place.
Similarly, if we're targeting foreign audiences in another nation with narratives as such, this is equally not "unidentified anomalous phenomena or related activities".


I wonder how much evidence actually exists that proves Doty was not acting on his own. If AARO did not find records of it (or witnesses), they wouldn't have added it to the report.
I've brought this up before. I don't believe Doty was to be honest. The entire sourcing we have about Doty's specific activities being ordered or some sort of actual concerted effort by the government, is from Doty himself. Who, touching on the comment I made in the other portion, his entire existence in the UAP space has patently been disinformation.
After that very incident, he was moved jobs, was part of a security scandal, then got shunted to a job as a cook.
With everything we have, which, unfortunately, is still mostly Doty's sourcing, but comparing to how some other CI activities take place - Doty was likely ordered, in a very broad sense, to investigate Bennewitz, who at the time was literally conducting espionage against classified R&D projects. Generally in cases like this, in some form or another, there tends to be a bit of offensive CI or DISO that goes on. Beyond that specific point, the rest we hear about, was probably just Doty running with broad approval to implement measures & countermeasures, not because he was ordered to use UFOs as a theme or anything.



Also just a note, they weren't going to dive into Doty's "extracurriculars" because most of his interaction as an actual key node towards these matters ends off at the 2010ish and before. Doty also wasn't just Doty, he was part of a larger group that also includes individuals part of the current larger grouping (though, make up two kind of distinct but correlated networks over time).
I think it's pretty clear they wanted to focus more on the current bout of narratives of relevancy spawning from Grusch, and in those cases, Grusch is a more important COG placement as an individual than Doty.
 
Mellon:
SmartSelect_20240419-154919_Samsung Internet.jpg
Ruppelt calls it "project bear" in his book, but implies that it's not the real name. Mellon appears to be correct.

Mellon:
SmartSelect_20240419-154936_Samsung Internet.jpg
AARO:
SmartSelect_20240419-154653_Samsung Notes.jpg
SmartSelect_20240419-154729_Samsung Notes.jpg

I'm not going to chase down the other dates.
Not going to waste time arguing dates per Mellon and AARO, but I will point out DoD programs officially start/stop when funding officially starts/stops. That does not mean work isn't undertaken before and after programs are officially funded, however.

I worked on a program several months before it was officially funded as a member of a grey beard "Tiger Team" formed to study how such a program should be structured and administered. By the time we were officially funded/green-lighted, we had completed market research, and had a draft RFP and draft source selection criteria already in the can. It was also no coincidence the core program team was made up of all the Tiger Team members, sans one who retired just before we got our funding. The program was fleshed out with junior workers bees and we were off to the races.

I've also known work on programs to continue after funded ended by having elements of the now non-funded program assigned to other programs. The newly tasked programs weren't always thrilled with such situations, especially if they received no additional assets/staff to undertake the new workload. This was termed "out of hide."
 
Generally, I don't expect them to report on things they did not investigate.
The question is, should they have investigated Doty? How?

If there is one thing that AARO was NOT going to do it was give some named individual an excuse to sue the government for slander/libel or accusations of whatever.
 
Not going to waste time arguing dates per Mellon and AARO, but I will point out DoD programs officially start/stop when funding officially starts/stops. That does not mean work isn't undertaken before and after programs are officially funded, however.
Yep. And Mellon picks whichever option contradicts AARO: on GRUDGE, it's pretty clear that AARO's start date is the funding start, while Ruppelt worked months before to set it up.
For Blue Book's end date:
Article:
The last publicly acknowledged day of Blue Book operations was December 17, 1969. However, researcher Brad Sparks,[31]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Blue_Book#cite_note-31 citing research from the May 1970 issue of NICAP's UFO Investigator, reports that the last day of Blue Book activity was actually January 30, 1970. According to Sparks, Air Force officials wanted to keep the Air Force's reaction to the UFO problem from overlapping into a fourth decade, and thus altered the date of Blue Book's closure in official files.
So, AARO went with the date they could source, while Mellon doesn't source anything.
And ultimately, for the purposes of the report, the exact date is a mostly irrelevant detail (though not as irrelevant as whether you're referring to a "report" or a "project").
 
I don't even understand these two.

SmartSelect_20240419-212703_Samsung Internet.jpg
The Robertson panel issued a final report, and then Durant wrote another report about the work of the Robertson panel. There is no "Durant Project", so what is Mellon's point here? Does he think AARO needed to ignore this report?

SmartSelect_20240419-212720_Samsung Internet.jpg
Similarly, there is no "Condon Project"—the Condon Committee issued the Condon Report.

It feely like Mellon is nit-picking here, but I don't even get what about.
 
It feely like Mellon is nit-picking here, but I don't even get what about.
He probably means "Program" not "Project" (you'd think a guy nit pickign wouldnt make mistakes like this in his nit picking)

It is a section for "Programs", and those two reports had the same font size as other things that were technically Programs?, when maybe they should have been just a section under the program they were reporting on. or at least the title indented. ?

a formatting issue.
 
He probably means "Program" not "Project" (you'd think a guy nit pickign wouldnt make mistakes like this in his nit picking)

It is a section for "Programs", and those two reports had the same font size as other things that were technically Programs?, when maybe they should have been just a section under the program they were reporting on. or at least the title indented. ?

a formatting issue.
"AARO. Wrong on fonts. Wrong for America."
 
"AARO. Wrong on fonts. Wrong for America."
the funny part is i can totally picture the department arguing about it around the typists desk.
"yea but those sub sections have 'background' and 'results' too and if we make their font smaller then it is normal type size. The only fix is to make all the others larger which looks silly and hinders ease-of-read!!" (voted down)
"we could put a bullet point before all the proper Programs" (voted down)
"we could indent the reports" (voted down)
etc
etc
then... "screw it, who cares" (voted approved)
 
He probably means "Program" not "Project" (you'd think a guy nit pickign wouldnt make mistakes like this in his nit picking)
Speculation.
(well lately MB has been sliding on the 'evidence' bit).

It is a section for "Programs", and those two reports had the same font size as other things that were technically Programs?,
The Condon Committee was as much of a "program" (it really was a study) as the Robertson Panel was, which Mellon has no beef with in this table of contents. So that can't be it.

Edit: I do not know if Durant's activity was set up as a program or not. Do you? Since you seem to claim it wasn't.
 
Last edited:
@Mendel I really appreciate you going into detail. That was necessary. Checking a few single points already allows conclusions to be drawn about the accusations as a whole. I wouldn't have had the patience for that, to be honest.
 
"AARO. Wrong on fonts. Wrong for America."
A hate to nit-pick at this point in the thread, but if you could just change "Wrong on fonts" to "Wrong on all fonts" it would be three times funnier from my perspective, as it would then hint at "all fronts" too.
 
Back
Top