Is Sean Kirkpatrick Leaving AARO? [Yes]
- Thread starter DavidB66
- Start date
Mendel
Senior Member.
He says he has no evidence of UFOs, or of any secret government UFO stuff.
This goes against everything the UFO believers believe.
Ravi
Senior Member.
I see..
Last edited:
AARO (particularly after Sen. Gillibrand's involvement with the issue) was seen as the new agency that was going to get the ball rolling, kick down doors, start making some progress. When Kirkpatrick turned up, he was seen to clearly not be a UFO guy, and just one more dude who was happy to kick dirt over all the 'real evidence', whether because he just wasn't into it, or because he's beholden to 'secret keepers' in the Pentagon.
In the last week, a bio for Kirkpatrick went up at Oak Ridge National Lab - that may be where he's off to next. I understand that Batelle operate from there? They're allegedly all part of the coverup too (or part of 'The Programme'), so to many it looks like he's being given a cushy number for helping keep a lid on things.
The UFO community felt like it had a shiny new government office on its side, and it got hijacked.
No shooting! I'm aware of this stuff - not necessarily buying into it.
Ann K
Senior Member.
I think the key is in Kirkpatrick's comment "As that discussion gets closer to the solar system, somewhere around Mars, it turns into science fiction. And then as you get even closer to Earth, and you cross into Earth's atmosphere, it becomes conspiracy theory."
The "UFO community", which gives every hint of being a conspiracy theory group, absolutely hates being called conspiracists. Predictably, they respond with more hints of conspiracies that "the government is hiding the truth". There is no easy off-ramp from that cycle.
Mendel
Senior Member.
This is only a problem if you believe that there is progress to be made.
If there is no secret government UFO stuff, nobody can do better, and the believers will hate them—unless they keep everything vague and in the air like Grusch.
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
A few years ago the US government/military had "confirmed UAP were real" (statements relating to the authenticity of the 3 US Navy videos) now that same organisation/s is covering up the thing they apparently confirmed.
Mendel
Senior Member.
yeah but that was before the believers established that UAP means alien craft
Tezcatlipoca
Senior Member.
What Mendel said, the term "UAP" has undergone an interesting development.
"UAP" to the government represents a cumulative set of *unidentified* phenomena. Phenomena could include literal objects, or it could include phenomena such as atmospheric phenomena (something we know makes up a good chunk of claimed sightings). We know the DoD classifies UAP into a multitude of different categories.
What the government "confirmed" was the above - they did not "confirm UAP was real", they confirmed that the government takes UAP as a serious matter and that they actively look into it. This little wording difference is important because it has entirely different degrees of intent and meaning behind it.
This was quickly taken by the CT side of the larger community and an inaccurate conflation was made between the term UAP and UFO, where UAP to them became synonymous to UFOs. A large grouping of them also connect the term UFO to extraterrestrial matters, and they all roll into each other, and you can find other narrative splits like the government "confirmed aliens were real".
There is a further issue here, and that is how terminology is used by government bodies too. For them, a "UFO" is still not even how we'd use it. They have a relatively strict process for what ends up being considered "identified" and a lot of things we'd consider identified may not be to them for a variety of reasons.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
The "government just confirmed UFOs (or UAP) are real" line also grew out of the government confirming that the first three leaked Navy videos were real videos taken by Navy personnel. That was the first use of the phrase I saw online. The government confirming those as genuine videos, combined with them looking strange and otherworldly and being touted as "real UFOs" morphed into "the government confirmed UFOs are real," read as "the government just confirmed flying saucers from other worlds are real."
No question that the government knows UAP/UFOs are real, in the literal sense of what the acronyms stand for -- unidentified things in the air. That is a number of huge big giant large steps away from confirming that alien spaceships flying around in our atmosphere are real, of course. Similarly, their taking seriously that there are things flying around that are not identified yet and thus may represent a hazard to navigation or a threat to national security is also not even close to confirming aliens.
That was one of the sillier stories, as the advisory board has been public knowledge since 2021:
Article: Nov. 23, 2021
To provide oversight of the AOIMSG, the Deputy Secretary also directed the USD(I&S) to lead an Airborne Object Identification and Management Executive Council (AOIMEXEC) to be comprised of DoD and Intelligence Community membership, and to offer a venue for U.S. government interagency representation.
In 2022 AOIMEXEC was renamed AAROEXEC
Article: Jult 15 2022
The AOIMEXEC is renamed the AARO Executive Council (AAROEXEC). The mission of the AAROEXEC will be to provide oversight and direction to the AARO.
Article: July 20, 2022
The AARO Executive Council (AAROEXEC), led by Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence & Security (USD(I&S)) Ronald Moultrie, will provide oversight and direction to the AARO along these primary lines of effort:
Mendel
Senior Member.
"Well, I didn't know about it!"
Yeah, but the story is actually that this is a separate advisory board, in addition to the public one
From 18:40
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZaCB3pHvc8
Last edited:
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
That's the story. From your quote in the video above:
Proceeding that quote at 18:23 we get the source for this claim:External Quote:
But not really. It's, as usual, a 2nd hand claim from a "very high ranking" somebody that we don't get to learn about.
Interestingly, at about the 11:20 point in this video, the host plays a bit from Corbel and Knapp's Weaponized show. Here we have Corbel and Knapp, who still maintain the completely baseless story of Bob Lazar was reverse engineering UFOs with element 115 in the '80s, chatting with AAWSAP creator and SWR alum James Lacatski. What's notable is that Lacatski is now saying reverse engineering of UFO programs are real and he knew about them. Something he NEVER mentioned in his book he wrote with Knapp about AASWAP and SKR, Skinwalkers at the Pentagon. The book had several UFO sighting and other UFO related stuff. Lacatski is on the record saying AASWAP was all about UFOs but he never thought to mention the captured ones and the reverse engineering programs until now. After Grusch has mentioned them. May need its own thread.
I haven't watched the full 2 hours, but the first part seems to be Kirkpatrick is a shill because he won't give us the alien that we know are there.
Ann K
Senior Member.
@davo27
From your source:
From your source:
That sounds an awful lot like "It's secret. He won't name names. But I know ( nudge, nudge, wink, wink )". This guy has a story, a YouTube channel, and a willing audience, therefore a strong incentive to give them what they want, but do we have any reason to think that what he says should be considered reliable?External Quote:
AllTheQuestionsToday
Member
Either way, if they're 'real', whether or not they
Sincerely asking:
When high-ranking people known to be connected to "relevant" programs say something like "no proof of x," it's held up as reliable, even if they haven't shown their homework or sourcing.
But when equivalent people with equivalent connections to equivalent programs say "x is true," it's held down as unreliable, because they haven't shown their homework or sourcing.
Should standards not be equivalent?
Sincerely asking:
When high-ranking people known to be connected to "relevant" programs say something like "no proof of x," it's held up as reliable, even if they haven't shown their homework or sourcing.
But when equivalent people with equivalent connections to equivalent programs say "x is true," it's held down as unreliable, because they haven't shown their homework or sourcing.
Should standards not be equivalent?
Yep - who knows if it's reliable? (It is entertaining!) This started off from Ravi's question of why the UFO crowd doesn't trust him. I haven't seen enough of him to know whether he's trustworthy or what his story is. He does look a little stiff - I wouldn't be queueing up to go partying with him...
The UFO crowd would say that Lacatski's revelations are part of the 'slow drip' disclosure plan. And they're a bit cross that he wouldn't go any further than he did.
Ann, you could be right that these people are chasing clicks, but overall that's not my impression of them (well, perhaps Corbell...), they may be right or wrong, but I think they really believe in the stuff they're putting out, and are putting it out and being 'activists' for reasons which are to them, genuine.
The UFO crowd would say that Lacatski's revelations are part of the 'slow drip' disclosure plan. And they're a bit cross that he wouldn't go any further than he did.
Ann, you could be right that these people are chasing clicks, but overall that's not my impression of them (well, perhaps Corbell...), they may be right or wrong, but I think they really believe in the stuff they're putting out, and are putting it out and being 'activists' for reasons which are to them, genuine.
Ann K
Senior Member.
"No proof of X" is not the flip side of "X is true", so you are not presenting logical opposites. "No proof" may mean "no proof yet", or "I think it's true but I can't prove it", or "I think it's false because we can't prove it", or "I don't have proof but perhaps someone else does", or "my department didn't look for proof of this claim; you need to ask the guys across the hall". Whereas "X is true" might mean "I have proof it is true" or "I'm convinced it's true but I can't prove it".
In only one of these, "X is true", is there a necessity to show their evidence before we are justified in believing it.
Since I think your question refers to the video, IS Matt Ford (the guy who does this video) an "equivalent person with equivalent connections"?
AllTheQuestionsToday
Member
I was actually thinking of Dr. James Lacatski, among others who were in known "positions to know" whatever is actually happening or not.
I find it baffling that anyone who says X is true deviates from the "no NHI" line that the entire person becomes suspect.
Are all these hundreds of insiders nuts? That proposition itself is pretty preposterous, but it's routinely repeated, that they're all either fooled or making it up. To what end?
Many of them are overtly wealthy--Chris Mellon, for instance, is part of one of the wealthiest families of all time. His brother before he died was worth billions. Any "UFOlogy" money that someone like that may make off of books (he hasn't written any) or from appearances would be paltry and irrelevant against his personal and family wealth.
I'm just routinely flabbergasted that no matter how high level a person is in government or military-industrial spaces... the second they deviate from a certain line, they're branded unreliable and/or some degree of crazy or "grifter". I just don't get it.
I will be honest that I half expect that if the EAS went off tomorrow, along with equivalent EASs worldwide, all at once, and every head of state at once all said "Aliens are real, here's the deal, formal public first contact is in 24 hours over each capital," as in literally President Biden in the White House flanked by senior Congressional and military leaders saying this... we'd have people saying "Biden, the Congress and the military is full of shit and insane" until literally 00:00:01 on the countdown, no matter what evidence was offered.
I find it baffling that anyone who says X is true deviates from the "no NHI" line that the entire person becomes suspect.
Are all these hundreds of insiders nuts? That proposition itself is pretty preposterous, but it's routinely repeated, that they're all either fooled or making it up. To what end?
Many of them are overtly wealthy--Chris Mellon, for instance, is part of one of the wealthiest families of all time. His brother before he died was worth billions. Any "UFOlogy" money that someone like that may make off of books (he hasn't written any) or from appearances would be paltry and irrelevant against his personal and family wealth.
I'm just routinely flabbergasted that no matter how high level a person is in government or military-industrial spaces... the second they deviate from a certain line, they're branded unreliable and/or some degree of crazy or "grifter". I just don't get it.
I will be honest that I half expect that if the EAS went off tomorrow, along with equivalent EASs worldwide, all at once, and every head of state at once all said "Aliens are real, here's the deal, formal public first contact is in 24 hours over each capital," as in literally President Biden in the White House flanked by senior Congressional and military leaders saying this... we'd have people saying "Biden, the Congress and the military is full of shit and insane" until literally 00:00:01 on the countdown, no matter what evidence was offered.
deirdre
Senior Member.
although one shouldnt believe anyone blindly and i get the point you are making, that people pick and choose who to believe:
the standards really can't be equivalent because you cannot prove a negative, but you CAN prove a positive.
Kirkpatrick can't produce something he cannot find/seen.
Grusch can produce the somethings he claims he has found/seen.
it's like:
me: "i've seen a ghost. they're real, its true!"
you: "there is no proof of ghosts".
you have no way to prove my statement isn't true.
i do have a way to prove your statement isnt true... i can produce the proof.
Ann K
Senior Member.
Nuts? Not the word I'd choose, perhaps. Mistaken? Poorly informed? Deliberately misleading? Just plain wrong? As we have discussed previously on another thread, if there are no UFOs (in the "alien invasion" sense, not the merely "unidentified" sense), it then follows that yes, all of the people who claim there are must necessarily be wrong. Unless and until some genuine evidence is produced that points to their existence, I think that's a reasonable conclusion to draw. That doesn't tell us anything about the next event that happens, of course, but so far they are batting zero.
Eburacum
Senior Member.
The fact is, we really aren't being offered any solid evidence at the moment, just statements (often second-hand) and poor video clips from the Low Information Zone. Graves promised us some evidence about a red UAP as big as a football field, and what did we get? Another second-hand witness who didn't actually see it.
If there really is a massive cover-up of unmistakable evidence of alien contact with numerous world governments, then why haven't we seen anything on the level of the Pentagon papers? Instead what we do see comes off very much as a result of telephone games, people jumping to conclusions based off of secrecy relating to existing programs and misunderstanding objects they didn't have the full context for. Anyone can get sucked into that and wind up participating in it, no matter how qualified. And no, fear of reprisals is not sufficient to explain the absence-humans routinely leak classified data on the War Thunder forums to argue for the game to be rebalanced, there's no way to 100% prevent people from leaking something THAT juicy with the threat of consequences.
Why hasn't someone leaked detailed schematics of the inner workings of ufos? How is it that in the modern day, with UFOs allegedly zooming around everywhere seemingly heedless of our presence and cameras being ubiquitous that we haven't had a large close UFO show up within a few hundred feet of a daytime city center, in a fashion that percludes anything else? Why are so many of the alleged accounts strikingly different, involving radically different crafts that seem to mutate along with popular culture?
If I were given good evidence for aliens visiting us of course i would believe in them-we know life can come into existence in this universe, and that FTL travel might be possible using Alcubierre drives or wormholes (I'm very skeptical about it, but hey you never know). But it ALWAYS falls short.
AllTheQuestionsToday
Member
I have read compelling comparisons on a microlevel between Matt Gaetz of all people and Mike Gravel with the Pentagon Papers. Gaetz unsolicited blew the whistle on that Eglin pilot seeing a "giant silver sphere" hovering just over the sea in the Gulf of Mexico during the Grusch, Fravor and Graves hearing at the House Oversight Committee. That is the equivalent at least legally:
- Extremely classified data unknown to the public.
- A member of Congress dumps it on the public in-session, gaveled in, under their Constitutional protections.
- It was reported that some month or two later the USAF was forced to turn that over to AARO as an event.
- Thats when that particularly story left the public sphere, no pun intended.
I have a reasonable suspicion that the Speech and Debate clause is a major titanic reason that the DOD would, if NHI/reversal programs are true, would do everything in their power legally to keep that away from Congress for as long as is possible. Congress has absolute power and authority to disclose anything they learn about anything, legally speaking, as long as they simply say it was for a legislative purpose.
Short of a "JFK Solution", the DOD/Executive Branch would have zero power to stop anyone in Congress from doing so.
Mike Gravel for what he did with the Pentagon Papers should have gotten the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his actions, not attempted indictments that thankfully failed.
I actually sent this Reddit link to a friend that asked me this very question.
I even did some research for what there is on this character after I read this, about the guy that filed these hyper-detailed schematics and patents. I agree with the Reddit users... that guy, the "inventor", had absolutely no apparent background even slightly in the same realm as anyone who would be creating patents like this. No academic or professional background like this, and I found some evidence he was a retired truck driver (I found evidence of that and even found some of the persons family on Facebook, and I think the profile of the deceased--I did not engage them at all and left it alone) and hotel owner before he died, with no college education even.
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/16cni5w/who_was_the_inventor_gary_gochnour_he_has_a/
It's so absurd that using someone near to their deathbed to leak stuff like this into the patent system where you cannot possibly claw it back is sorta brilliant, if that's what happened.
^ file this one under a very firm "I want to believe", simply because there are so many incredible overlaps here among known history.
When it comes to patents that relate to nuclear fusion technology, I have some past experience in reading through and analyzing them. These strike me as the efforts of an enthusiastic amateur, possibly influenced by the LaRouche movement, a weird political cult whose leader was very worried about the depletion of fossil fuels and fond of fusion technology for power and spaceflight purposes, as well as by things like Project Daedalus and the early work of people like John Slough. nothing about that seems to indicate any kind of hyper advanced understanding of fusion technology-it's pretty standard stuff that would seem really out there to an average person. A dedicated amateur with a library card and an internet connection and enough spare time can absolutely put something like this together.
I have had extensive interactions with the fusion propulsion and power research communities, exchanging emails and friendly discussions on platforms like linkedin. I've never heard any of them reference these patents in any way. If they're so important and revolutionary, why do people capable of evaluating them seem so unimpressed? Have you thought about sending them to someone who could actually understand them before concluding that they're anything special?
Edit: someone on reddit did a deeper dive on these and yeah, they appear to just be echoing science fiction tropes and the patents of an earlier person:
getting back to what you said:
Mentioning an unsubstantiated sighting on the record doesn't strike me as anywhere near as impactful as verifiable logs and documents being leaked en mass.
Last edited:
JMartJr
Senior Member.
How would somebody possibly prove that they have no evidence of x? What could the "source" even be?
Well yeah. If you are making a claim, you might reasonably expect to be asked for your evidence. If you are saying "I don't have the evidence, you are saying "I have nothing to show you." Though I'd disagree that this makes such a person "unreliable," I'd phrase it more "has failed to demonstrate what they are claiming." But then, I'm a wordy so-and-so! ^_^
No, I don't think so. The claims are not of equivalent magnitude. Nobody has ever publicly presented clear, serious and probative evidence that at least some UFO reports are something new and groundbreaking (aliens, dimensional beings, time travelers or whatever.)
So even laying aside what would be evidence to confirm that you have no evidence... saying that you, also, have not seen such evidence is not an extraordinary claim. It is a claim either everybody or almost everybody in the world can make.
Saying that you HAVE got such evidence is an extraordinary claim. Nobody else has ever demonstrated such evidence exists. So, you know, the old "extraordinary claims/extraordinary evidence" thing kicks in.
My take, anyway.
Ann K
Senior Member.
Be careful if you go the "I want to believe" route, because your desire to believe makes you the legitimate prey of fraudsters and scammers. A much safer policy is to evaluate the evidence FIRST.
yeah, our bad drifting so badly off topic Landru-do you want to cut out our extended aside and put it in a separate thread?
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
EDIT: Cross posted with Landru on this. Sorry. Please redirect as needed.
We're getting off topic here, but I'm not sure where to move this too. Luckly I'm not a moderator, so I don't have to figure it out. Nevertheless...
Suppose I told you "I saw Bigfoot last weekend up in the mountains. He's real."
You have the option to just believe me or to say, "where is your evidence for this claim?" Note, if you don't believe me, it's NOT YOUR responsibility to now prove there is NO Bigfoot. I made the claim, I need to provide evidence for the claim. You are NOT making a specific claim, you're just saying "I see no evidence for NorCal Dave's claim of Bigfoot".
Now maybe I present you with a blurry photo and a number of other people that also claim to have seen Bigfoot. That's my evidence. IF you choose, you may engage with my evidence. You might say "Those are 2nd hand stories from other unknown sources and not really evidence and your blurry photo could be Bigfoot or a tree or a bear or whatever. You made the claim Dave, show me some real evidence."
You may even choose to present me with counter arguments. Like, there is no physical for evidence for Bigfoot. No DNA, no scat, no hair, no fossil record, no remains and so on. You attempt to prove a negative or at least raise the bar for me to prove the existence of Bigfoot.
Just as in UFOlogy, I will attempt to answer you in ever increasingly complex and layered answers. Bigfoots bury their dead, they are very shy, they are interdimensional and can phase in and out of our world and so on. Even if you could attempt to prove Bigfoot is NOT real, there
is no way you can prove Bigfoot is NOT an interdimensional entity.
Standards are not equivalent. IF one party is saying "there are UFOs" and the other party is saying "I don't see any evidence for UFOs", it's the party making the claim that has the onus to provide evidence for the claim.
We're getting off topic here, but I'm not sure where to move this too. Luckly I'm not a moderator, so I don't have to figure it out. Nevertheless...
As other have alluded too already. One cannot prove a negative. Some people are claiming that the government has crashed UFOs, alien bodies or maybe living ones and they have reverse engineered said UFOs. That is a claim. It is up to the claimant to provide evidence to convince the rest of us of the validity of the claim.
Suppose I told you "I saw Bigfoot last weekend up in the mountains. He's real."
You have the option to just believe me or to say, "where is your evidence for this claim?" Note, if you don't believe me, it's NOT YOUR responsibility to now prove there is NO Bigfoot. I made the claim, I need to provide evidence for the claim. You are NOT making a specific claim, you're just saying "I see no evidence for NorCal Dave's claim of Bigfoot".
Now maybe I present you with a blurry photo and a number of other people that also claim to have seen Bigfoot. That's my evidence. IF you choose, you may engage with my evidence. You might say "Those are 2nd hand stories from other unknown sources and not really evidence and your blurry photo could be Bigfoot or a tree or a bear or whatever. You made the claim Dave, show me some real evidence."
You may even choose to present me with counter arguments. Like, there is no physical for evidence for Bigfoot. No DNA, no scat, no hair, no fossil record, no remains and so on. You attempt to prove a negative or at least raise the bar for me to prove the existence of Bigfoot.
Just as in UFOlogy, I will attempt to answer you in ever increasingly complex and layered answers. Bigfoots bury their dead, they are very shy, they are interdimensional and can phase in and out of our world and so on. Even if you could attempt to prove Bigfoot is NOT real, there
is no way you can prove Bigfoot is NOT an interdimensional entity.
Standards are not equivalent. IF one party is saying "there are UFOs" and the other party is saying "I don't see any evidence for UFOs", it's the party making the claim that has the onus to provide evidence for the claim.
I would say it's more likely dozens, but consider: The US military and intell community is made up from the 350 million Americans citizens. How many of them are what we would call fundamentalist evangelical Christians? People that take the book of Genisis as the literal history of creation including the story of Noah's Ark. A small amount I would argue, but still an amount. That high level people consider Noah's Ark to be real, does that make it real? To that end:
Lacatski wrote a book with Knapp. In it he also described glowing orbs and 7' tall bipedal wolves that followed former UAPTF head Jay Stratton to his home in Viginia from Utah. In his book, he said they tracked the migration patterns of these "werewolves" in Utah. Should I believe him on this as he is in a "position to know"?
deirdre
Senior Member.
they followed him in their car? or you mean he saw them in Utah then saw them again in Virginia.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
I do like the idea of 7' werewolves driving cross country from SKR to suburban Virgina in an SUV of some sort. They're going to need something like an Expedition or the old Excursion. Imagiane 7' werewolves in a Honda Fit. IIRC from the book, after Stratton was at SKW the entities appeared again in suburban Viginia to his family. They're like a contagion. I think it's in this thread:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/the-origins-of-aawsap.12484/
Mendel
Senior Member.
Yep.
Conspiracy theories without names or evidence go in the trash bin.
That's my standard.
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
my conspiracy theory is that they're part of a "throw shit at the wall and see what sticks" plan
Edit: Lacatski is on the "believer" team, not with the government. That's why he's part of the Graves/Grusch effort to make it look like there's something when there's not, and that explains why he won't go further.
Last edited:
FatPhil
Senior Member.
Looks like a bit of a "can't prove a negative" fallacy, and in this particular story, it even comes with the additional conspiratorial twist:
A: We don't have X.
B: Show us!!!!
A: See, we don't have X.
B: That proves you've hidden it somewhere secret!!!!
FatPhil
Senior Member.
And, from the OP, "The alleged reason for his dismissal/resignation is ... distrust of Kirkpatrick". We still have posts circling that locus.
AllTheQuestionsToday
Member
So only actively now with the government, not former government, have more legitimacy?
Mendel
Senior Member.
I'm adressing the idea that Lacatski is part of some official "disclosure plan". He's on the wrong team for that.
@NorCal Dave already adressed Lacatski's legitimacy.
deirdre
Senior Member.
Similar threads
