New AARO Chief Dr. Jon T. Kosloski
- Thread starter Eburacum
- Start date
Tezcatlipoca
Senior Member.
Great to see Kosloski here, definitely has it in him to run the shop. Kirkpatrick was great for standing it up but Kosloski definitely has the edge to see it into the future.
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Day 1 schedule
Call Raytheon and / or the US Navy, acquire use of 2-4 aircraft, pilots and flight planners, one an F/A 18 with ATFLIR pod, one another fighter jet of some type and some observer planes.
Day 2 (lol)
Have one aircraft fly in a relatively straight line at around 30NM and the F/A 18 turn to follow it whilst using optical tracking on the other aircraft with the ATFLIR pod.
Video the whole thing including the cockpit of the F/A 18 and the retrieve the video from the MFD recorder.
Bonus if you can see whether you need some marking or smearing on the ATFLIR external elements to get a shaped glare that then shows apparent movement when de-rotated.
Call Raytheon and / or the US Navy, acquire use of 2-4 aircraft, pilots and flight planners, one an F/A 18 with ATFLIR pod, one another fighter jet of some type and some observer planes.
Day 2 (lol)
Have one aircraft fly in a relatively straight line at around 30NM and the F/A 18 turn to follow it whilst using optical tracking on the other aircraft with the ATFLIR pod.
Video the whole thing including the cockpit of the F/A 18 and the retrieve the video from the MFD recorder.
Bonus if you can see whether you need some marking or smearing on the ATFLIR external elements to get a shaped glare that then shows apparent movement when de-rotated.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Too much effort.
Airliners flying straight and level are plentyful, follow schedules, and can be tracked on FR24. Some Navy training supervisor just needs to set some suitable F-18s up to notice a suitable airliner in a GIMBAL-like fashion while they're on a training exercise.
The believers will still keep pointing at the anecdotal evidence about the radar targets doing strange things, demand the "missing" data that wasn't archived back then, and complain about a coverup.
Tezcatlipoca
Senior Member.
I wouldn't expect him to spin back around on this anyways honestly. Like Kirkpatrick mentioned, there's no actual reason for the government to hold these up as key - there are far more recent incidents with far more data to cover their purposes. Technically speaking it's very unlikely the Nimitz incidents would be the "best" if we are talking about actual government data and accessibility. Plus not really within their remit.
If their SC Division picked up more steam on doing Public Affairs maybe they touch on it but probably not that deep, we maybe just get a light reference summarizing what's already known and that, they're not gonna waste time on it.
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Airliners won't be a close enough match to the apparent single heat source (single/dual engine with close exhaust) present in Gimbal.
Also although I am sure it could be possible the press of "AARO targets airliner in effort to disprove UFOs" might be counterproductive.
Maybe just target training jets on routine flights at a US Navy base.
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Gimbal is not from Nimitz.
The reason I go on about this is Gimbal is literally THE poster child of this. It's on the cover of Lue's book, it's on all the new stories and was featured heavily in the political posturing of Reps Luna and Burchett to get the hearings and UAP amendments etc. It's a huge PR success story for Ufology.
It's clearly heavily influential in the minds of the people pushing the policy inside congress. I don't think this should be ignored. There's political pressure on AARO that is spearheaded by that video and I think addressing it directly would be useful.
It won't be long (if it hasn't happened already) that the airframes and targeting pods used for Gimbal will be grounded/mothballed etc. So if anyone ever wants to try and show that the most influential UFO video of all time is likely mundane with a visceral demonstration now is the time.
Last edited:
RTM
Senior Member.
That kind of plays into the whole Pentagon is hiding things, why set up another entity of the back of a lobby group if things were being hid so well already? It seems a bit of another department spun out of bureaucracy to me, maybe some people see it as an easy job. In the case of Kirkpatrick, it looked like he was embarrassed to be dragged into the whole thing.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Kirkpatrick's position was that he'd love to find the truth, but it's a cold case with insufficient data. No matter what you do, that's not going to change.
It not so much "wants" as "can't".
It might be good PR to produce a GIMBAL-lookalike, but that's not AARO's mission. The words "waste of taxpayer money" come to mind.
It seems like a no-win job, at least on the public/Congress-facing side. You're either catering to the credulous crowd or supposedly helping to hide the biggest secret of modern civilization.
As a practical matter, it seems useful for the government to have someone making sure pilots aren't being spoofed by some secret program testing metaprojectors and that facilities aren't being spooked by swarms of mystery drones.
RTM
Senior Member.
I doubt the military is letting any incidents go un-investigated, it also seems a bit egotistical of the UFO lobby to suggest that they are the only group interested in investigating threats, accidents etc.
Someone had mentioned somewhere else that more accidents are caused by birds than from unknown craft, but many of the ET hypothesis supporters on twitter etc. always trot out birds as a way of mocking skeptics.
Rather than miximumg up with commercial traffic, It would probably be easier (and more useful) to just have them video their wingman flying away while they did a bunch of S-turns to gradually increase space.
AARO (or their S&T partner) are doing a bunch of experiments with the ATFLIR, but it sounds like they are more in-lab than in the field. That's probably a necessary step, as they need to understand what circumstances would make a glare (and maybe what would make it step-rotate)
It's a slow process. I just hope something useful comes out of it.
Mendel
Senior Member.
from the OP:
External Quote:
They're not investigating everything Joe Public comes up with, but they do it.
I did that because the premise of Ryan Graves's Americans for Safe Aerospace is that you can make aviation safer by lobbying for disclosure. I think that's misguided because UAP have historically not been a threat to aviation or spaceflight. Birds are a threat.
Ask them when the last time was that an ET forced an airliner to ditch on the Hudson river.
Actually it would not be a waste of taxpayer money. And it's a resource AARO will need to perform its mission.
AARO needs to create and make available on the internet a visual encyclopedia of "WHAT SKY STUFF LOOKS LIKE". Still photos and videos of objects in the sky: meteors, starlink satellite trains, aircraft, balloons and the almost endless list of the other things that people see in the sky and can't identify.
AARO will be receiving reports from people who have seen something and are trying to pass along what they saw. Maybe they have pictures and maybe they don't, but they will have a description of whatever it was.
When communicating with these people it will be very helpful if AARO has a resource like this they can point people to, to help them describe what they saw. "Did it look like one of these...?" Like a police line-up of potential suspects.
People outside of AARO could also find this a useful resource when people report stnange things in the sky. (police, news reporters, etc.)
An encyclopedia like this would need constant maintenance and updating, and the contents would need to be well documented and sourced. Not just photos from the internet and government archives but also content produced specifically for AARO, like that GIMBAL-lookalike video. It might help take some of the mystery out of what's in the sky and show people that AARO (and the government in general) is not constantly trying to hide things.
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
AARO seems to setup and have been directed or want to work on new cases where they have the information that is fresh, which is totally understandable and offers the best chance of solving those cases.
There then was pressure on them to look at historical cases, which I think they did to the best of their ability given the age of the cases and the lack of information. Which of course led to the expected outcome of them finding nothing conclusive and being called liars.
The problem comes in that they don't seem to have a brief for speculative debunking (essentially could actually be a mundane thing viewed in an unusual way) like we do here, I get that might be hard in a government setup where things need to measurable and have clear goals.
The other issue is of course the classified nature of the source material, the systems and missions etc.
There then was pressure on them to look at historical cases, which I think they did to the best of their ability given the age of the cases and the lack of information. Which of course led to the expected outcome of them finding nothing conclusive and being called liars.
The problem comes in that they don't seem to have a brief for speculative debunking (essentially could actually be a mundane thing viewed in an unusual way) like we do here, I get that might be hard in a government setup where things need to measurable and have clear goals.
The other issue is of course the classified nature of the source material, the systems and missions etc.
taurusclover21
Senior Member.
Mendel
Senior Member.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/house-oversight-hearing-on-uaps-july-26-2023.13049/post-294535
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/wh...mostly-reported-from-planes.12720/post-305030
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ry...-square-over-vandenberg-afb.13066/post-305219
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ry...-square-over-vandenberg-afb.13066/post-305221
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/discussing-ufos-why.13438/post-314761
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/discussing-ufos-why.13438/post-315763
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/discussing-ufos-why.13438/post-315794
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/can-ufo-uaps-be-studied-scientifically.13556/post-319337
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/wh...mostly-reported-from-planes.12720/post-305030
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ry...-square-over-vandenberg-afb.13066/post-305219
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ry...-square-over-vandenberg-afb.13066/post-305221
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/discussing-ufos-why.13438/post-314761
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/discussing-ufos-why.13438/post-315763
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/discussing-ufos-why.13438/post-315794
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/can-ufo-uaps-be-studied-scientifically.13556/post-319337
Resistor
New Member
I don't know for sure but it would be a safe assumption that he reviewed the intelligence sources and data sets collected during the periods of time these videos were captured to support the analysis of what the objects in the videos are and more important what they are not. He may have supported the investigation from the previous director who debunked Elizondo's claims. He is now the gatekeeper for all UAP investigations. He knows and understands all the technical collection capabilities that exist, the data sets generated and he has the clearances and accesses to review them. I will assume that the DoD and Intelligence Community is putting more rigor and scrutiny of any videos claiming to be UAP's that are a threat to US National Security.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Revisiting this:
But pitch that one alien against tens of thousands of geese, and the picture looks different.
And then consider that the birds are where the aircraft are, they get scraped off the windshields and the turbine inlets every day, but the aliens don't.
If you think, well, that's because the ETs are smart and avoid hitting aircraft, then there you have it: they're no threat to aviation. Dumb birds are.
The mockery results from a mental image where they compare an alien with a ray gun with a goose, and with that in mind the alien looks more dangerous.
But pitch that one alien against tens of thousands of geese, and the picture looks different.
And then consider that the birds are where the aircraft are, they get scraped off the windshields and the turbine inlets every day, but the aliens don't.
If you think, well, that's because the ETs are smart and avoid hitting aircraft, then there you have it: they're no threat to aviation. Dumb birds are.
The curse of AARO will be members of Congress and figures from the mass media endlessly demanding they look back at historical UFO reports rather than looking at new reports. On the assumption that AARO somehow has access to classified information about those past events that doesn't, in fact, exist. Failure to find and divulge this information that doesn't exist will then be the grounds for endless cries of cover-up. AARO directors will need thick skins and great patience.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Perhaps they can read your post, and explain the situation as clearly as you did. That would not totally lay that issue to rest, but it might help folks, even strong believers, to see that focusing on the NEXT few cases is more valuable than trying to go digging for data on the ones that happened years ago.
And of course if the believers get the answer they don't want from the next few big cases, they'll cry "cover up!" at that point anyway.
Last edited:
Eburacum
Senior Member.
Hopefully, in the 'next few big cases', AARO will be able to access all the data that is missing from past cases. Radar returns, camera tapes, weather reports, civilian aircraft records, and so on. Hitherto, this sort of data has been discarded or disregarded. If the 'next few big cases' can be solved using this data, then maybe some members of Congress and reporters will think again.
If only.
If only.
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
My feeling is there will be no new 'big cases' from the military, they all came leaks that were got by the UAPTF/AATIP people when they were "inside"
The only thing that made them 'big cases' as far as we can tell is that the people who were supposed to investigate them were wrong and had a predisposition towards UFOs.
I for one don't expect to see much if any more footage from classified sensors.
elvenwear
Active Member
If there was another event like the Nimitz encounter, and all of the data were stored and available, it's possible it would be solved quickly and explained to the pilots right away. We would never hear about it because there would be nothing to tell. There would be no need to disclose a glitchy radar system and a bait ball driven to the surface by dolphins which attracted predatory sea birds. Solved cases would end up in the file draw and not be published. Insoluble cases would also likely end up in the file drawer alongside the solved ones.
It's also not clear to me that more data and better instruments will lead to less events that occur in the low information zone. So should disclosure be required if we don't know what something is? I think the people that think so are probably more likely to think that a UAP is automatically considered an alien spacecraft. If we know there are alien spacecraft, we should certainly disclose this. If we see a distant object whose movements can be explained in mundane terms, I don't think disclosure is necessary.
We will only stop talking about unidentified alien craft flying around earth when we can talk about identified alien craft flying around earth.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Historically, there has been "disclosure" of what the government knows several times -- I am thinking specifically of the release of the Blue Book files, the CIA files on UFOs and to at least some extent the Condon Report. What was disclosed was "We don't see a whole lot of substance in this topic, we can identify most of them with minimal effort as mundane things, we don't know of ANY cases that were proved to be anything extraordinary, sorry."
With that not being the desired disclosure, it is ignored or distrusted by hard-core beleivers, and after a time for new converts to come on board who do not recall how unsatisfying "disclosure" is, calls for disclosure resume.
LilWabbit
Senior Member
Seems to boil down to the classic 'absence of evidence is evidence for cover-up' vicious thought cycle of the believer.
Tezcatlipoca
Senior Member.
Do you mean "next few big cases" to the public here?
AARO looks at all of this for their current cases already, it has not been discarded or disregarded.
I think we really need to narrow our expectations with AARO. AARO is an office conducting intelligence into potential emerging threat technology. They do not exist to tell the public anything. It was not set up to inform or educate the public. It was set up to inform and educate policy makers and the DoD. Not that you are but there's a lot of commentary from "both sides" that seem to hold the belief AARO exists to do this, or it's part of their mission - it's not.
This.
Hasn't popped up here too much but we have gotten a lot of commentary about like, why don't they go back to these "best" cases?
Well, they're not the best cases. It's just what those guys took public and what the public has. Kirkpatrick has flat out stated, at least under his term, they would not be looking back that far, nor is it "the best". They have cases with more data, and they have more modern cases they can functionally do things with. When we call these "the best cases" - we are unironically promoting a perception Elizondo and co sought us to have.
The Intel community has traditionally been very publicity adverse. But times are changing, just a little bit.
AARO's internet site does contain some information intended for public consumption. The members of Congress that are active on the UFO topic can also be depended on to spread unclassified information they receive from AARO to boost their public profiles.
People who frequent this site should make themselves familiar with the public faces of the various intel community members by checking out their internet sites. The following ones might be of interest for those interested in UAP.
www.AARO.mil All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office
www.NRO.gov National Reconnossaince Office
www.NGA.mil National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
Some of you will be surprised by how much information, some once highly classified, is sitting on these sites.
NSA started a podcast, after all, snarkily titled "No Such Podcast."
Though the content is pretty much the rah-rah "we're great, a great place to work, and a value to taxpayers" material you'd expect from any three-letter agency.
John J.
Senior Member.
Putting solved / probably solved sightings into the public domain might be useful, if we're talking about reports from USAF/ USN and USMC aircrew etc.
Otherwise there might be an unintended selection bias- the wider public only gets to hear of military aviators reporting things that can't be adequately explained at that time: People might get the impression that all reports of suspected UAP by military aircrew remain unexplained, because that's all they hear about.
If explained sightings/ sensor contacts of claimed anomalous aerial phenomena are also released, I suspect they would outnumber the unexplained, and it might be more widely realised that aircrew can make the same misidentifications as others.
It should be handled professionally; aircrew etc. should be assured that their personal details won't be made public (unless the law demands it) and that an analysis of all misperceptions and unusual sensor readings is useful in refining service efficiency, no matter how mundane (or to some sections of the media/ Twitterati, humorous) the underlying explanation may be.
There are a number of good reasons where reports by military personnel might not be put into the public domain, of course.
Tezcatlipoca
Senior Member.
Indeed, things are posted publicly. That is very different though from speaking to any specific function and their missions, and how that impacts what they release. That's why I made my note around over-expectation. AAROs mission is not public oriented, it is not their primary purpose, expecting them to go on a flurry of releasing cases as if they are a public body is a bit of a faulty expectation that will lead to disappointment. That doesn't exclude us getting public information still.
elvenwear
Active Member
I see your point.
What link? All they seem to have there is a link to the original Gimbal video:
https://www.navair.navy.mil/foia/sites/g/files/jejdrs566/files/2020-04/2 - GIMBAL.wmv
Is that geo-locked?
Mendel
Senior Member.
It gave me a page to that effect yesterday; today, it's unresolvable.
Eburacum
Senior Member.
As I understand it, the radar data from the Nimitz case, and from GIMBAL and GOFAST, was all discarded, and is only available via unreliable memories. Or am I being misled?
So are AARO keeping secret the cases with the best data? What do we know about these secret best cases - are they being kept secret because they contain information about US defence technology, or because they contain information about alien or extradimensional intruders?
I'm a believer in the 'cock-up' theory of history rather than the 'conspiracy' theory; I tend to think these cases are in the low information zone because of poor record-keeping and disinterest. If they are actually part of a conspiracy of silence that changes things significantly.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Compare:
I think we have other quotes, but I can't find them right now.
Mendel
Senior Member.
You really gotta ask this about Elizondo's AATIP. Elizondo is on record as saying AAtIP had better evidence than the Navy videos, and in his book he recounts conducting several telephone interviews with UAP reporters. On the other hand, AATIP is characterized by the DoD as an unofficial unclassified and unpublished effort, so Elizondo should be able to FOIA the heck out of this, or at least tell John Greenewald (of The Black Vault) what to ask for. But he hasn't done that.
AATIP discovered these Navy videos, Elizondo should have found the data if it existed, and then there should be evidence of it.
AARO was legally set up such that Elizondo could disclose everything about AATIP to AARO and not suffer any repercussions. Yet he hasn't done that, either.
Similar threads
