Statement by AARO Head Sean Kirkpatrick on the HOC UAP Hearing

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The following was posted by Kirkpatrick on LinkedIn on July 27th. Writer D. Dean Johnson verified with Kirkpatrick that he wrote it.


Hearings and Transparency
Sean M. Kirkpatrick, Ph.D.


Let me begin by saying that the following are my own personal observations and opinions, which do not necessarily represent official DoD or IC positions.

Yesterday, the Subcommittee on National Security, the Border, and Foreign Affairs held an open hearing on UAP during which a government cover-up of extraterrestrials was alleged. I wholeheartedly applaud Congressional efforts to get to the truth about what UAP are and the risks to both pilot safety and national security. I am also absolutely committed to transparency on both the historical mission and the operational mission.

As the Director of AARO's amazingly talented, devoted, and highly motivated team, however, I cannot let yesterday's hearing pass without sharing how insulting it was to the officers of the Department of Defense and Intelligence Community who chose to join AARO, many with not unreasonable anxieties about the career risks this would entail, that have been working diligently, tirelessly, and often in the face of harassment and animosity, to satisfy their Congressionally-mandated mission. They are truthseekers, as am I. But you certainly would not get that impression from yesterday's hearing.

AARO was established, by law, to investigate the allegations and assertions presented in yesterday's hearing. Allegations by its witnesses of retaliation, to include physical assault and hints of murder, are extraordinarily serious, which is why law enforcement is a critical member of the AARO team, specifically to address and take swift action should anyone come forward with such claims. Yet, contrary to assertions made in the hearing, the central source of those allegations has refused to speak with AARO. Furthermore, some information reportedly provided to Congress has not been provided to AARO, raising additional questions about the true commitment to transparency by some Congressional elements.

The Subcommittee, whose questions and oversight duties are irreproachable and in genuine need of answers, has never asked AARO for an update on the reporting system, the historical review, the operations, and the S&T strategy that AARO leads and is undertaking. A rational person watching the hearing might reasonably assume that both the witnesses and the members had an understanding of the Department's and the IC's progress since the establishment of AARO around this time last year, only naturally leading them to conclude that AARO has been ineffective, non-transparent, and delinquent in its legislated mission. AARO briefs the Defense and Intel committees regularly, and since the last NDAA, the Homeland Defense, S&T and several other committees as well.

I am deeply disappointed at the denigration of AARO's dedicated men and women hailing from the Department of Defense, Intelligence Community, and Civil partners who are pouring their hearts out working this issue on the behalf of Congress. AARO has the authorities and resources necessary to execute this mission to meet Congressional intent, and as we've stated before, AARO welcomes anyone with knowledge of any of these allegations or programs to talk to us in a safe, secure, and appropriately cleared environment. Rest assured, AARO will follow the data wherever it leads.

Finally, to be clear, AARO has yet to find any credible evidence to support the allegations of any reverse engineering program for non-human technology. Also, to be clear, none of the whistleblowers from yesterday's hearing ever worked for AARO or was ever a representative to AARO, contrary to statements made in testimony and in the media.
Content from External Source
(The above is OCRed from a screenshot posted on Twitter (attached) but seems an entirely accurate transcription.

Probably the most significant point there is "Yet, contrary to assertions made in the hearing, the central source of those allegations has refused to speak with AARO." - Which suggests Grusch is being untruthful.
 

Attachments

  • F2FyM2YXgAAIYS4.jpg
    F2FyM2YXgAAIYS4.jpg
    290.4 KB · Views: 74
Last edited:
The following was posted by Kirkpatrick on LinkedIn on July 27th. Writer D. Dean Johnson verified with Kirkpatrick that he wrote it.
...

A sad but important read, thank you.

I think it's time to once and for all take off all rose-tinted glasses regarding Grusch himself acting with 100 % integrity and transparency during this whole charade.

Could relationships have soured between Grusch and Kirkpatrick because he's a true believer whilst Kirkpatrick seems to have adopted a more impartial stance to the investigations, as he should? Something similar seems to have happened with Elizondo earlier and him being replaced with Brennan McKernan.

P.S. Kirkpatrick's statement corrected my false impression (based on a CBS News article) that Grusch worked as a NRO representative to the AARO at some point.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Grusch didn't work with AARO? Interesting.
I understand he worked with, rather than for, the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force, which was the predecessor of the AARO. Is that a mistake, too? Sometimes the acronym salad gets a bit confusing.
 
I don't really get who he means by "central source" in that context. Does he mean Grusch, since he is the one who has openly spoken about retaliation, or is he aware of who Grusch's source is (or simply that Grusch has a source who has claimed people have been murdered), but that source has refused to talk to AARO?
 
Finally, to be clear, AARO has yet to find any credible evidence to support the allegations of any reverse
engineering program for non-human technology

This is where wording is so important.

Does this mean no evidence at all has been found, that evidence has been found but is still being investigated, or that evidence has been found but dismissed as 'not credible'. I mean....so much for 'transparency'.

Also, why wasn't Kirkpatrick at the hearings ? Was he not invited ? Did he even ask to attend ?
 
Last edited:
I don't really get who he means by "central source" in that context. Does he mean Grusch, since he is the one who has openly spoken about retaliation, or is he aware of who Grusch's source is (or simply that Grusch has a source who has claimed people have been murdered), but that source has refused to talk to AARO?
I think that "Yet, contrary to assertions made in the hearing, the central source of those allegations has refused to speak with AARO." can really only refer to Grusch
 


Finally, to be clear, AARO has yet to find any credible evidence to support the allegations of any reverse engineering program for non-human technology. Also, to be clear, none of the whistleblowers from yesterday's hearing ever worked for AARO or was ever a representative to AARO, contrary to statements made in testimony and in the media.
Content from External Source

Grusch worked for the UAP task force, which predated AARO, no?
 
I think that "Yet, contrary to assertions made in the hearing, the central source of those allegations has refused to speak with AARO." can really only refer to Grusch
That is really damning for Grusch and I wonder if the speculated falling out between them never really happened, but instead Grusch wasn't even invited to join AARO and felt snubbed in someway and the animosity was there from the start?
 
So Kirkpatrick threw down the gauntlet and is essentially saying at least one thing that Grusch stated in front of congress is a knowing lie: that he presented his findings to AARO and they snubbed him. I can't recall if Grusch made that specific claim -- did he say he met with AARO or just Kirkpatrick before the AARO was formed?

I was assuming up to this point that Grusch did talk to them and they simply didn't find his "evidence" "credible".
 
That is really damning for Grusch and I wonder if the speculated falling out between them never really happened, but instead Grusch wasn't even invited to join AARO and felt snubbed in someway and the animosity was there from the start?
That's in reference to the physical harm, murder allegations no? During the heating Grusch said he referred individuals who had direct knowledge about this to the appropriate authorities.

That's consistent with Kirkpatrick saying Grusch hasn't specifically come to AARO himself about this if his reaction was to refer people with alleged firsthand knowledge of it to the authorities instead of he himself, a secondary source, doing so.
 
Grusch worked for the UAP task force, which predated AARO, no?

He claims he was the representative from the National GeospatialIntelligence Agency to UAPTF and then to the follow up AARO. UAPTF was run by SWR alum Stratton who brought on Ancient Aliens regular Taylor and there are photos of Grusch chumming around with Stratton and Knapp, the creator of SWR, so it's reasonable to assume he did work with the UAPTF.

But Kirkpatrick flat out contradicting him about working with AARO is a big deal. IF true, it calls into questions about a lot of what he's saying. This was under oath. Maybe he was around for a short time as UAPTF was transitioning to AARO, if such a transition happened and in his mind that counts as "working with AARO". But if he had nothing to do with AARO while claiming he did under oath, he starts to sound a bit delusional.

The plot thickens.
 
He claims he was the representative from the National GeospatialIntelligence Agency to UAPTF and then to the follow up AARO. UAPTF was run by SWR alum Stratton who brought on Ancient Aliens regular Taylor and there are photos of Grusch chumming around with Stratton and Knapp, the creator of SWR, so it's reasonable to assume he did work with the UAPTF.

But Kirkpatrick flat out contradicting him about working with AARO is a big deal. IF true, it calls into questions about a lot of what he's saying. This was under oath. Maybe he was around for a short time as UAPTF was transitioning to AARO, if such a transition happened and in his mind that counts as "working with AARO". But if he had nothing to do with AARO while claiming he did under oath, he starts to sound a bit delusional.

The plot thickens.
I do wonder if "working with the AARO" is vague enough to be technically true while also misleading.
 
That's in reference to the physical harm, murder allegations no? During the heating Grusch said he referred individuals who had direct knowledge about this to the appropriate authorities.

That's consistent with Kirkpatrick saying Grusch hasn't specifically come to AARO himself about this if his reaction was to refer people with alleged firsthand knowledge of it to the authorities instead of he himself, a secondary source, doing so.
I remember a bit from the hearing where they were complaining that AARO didn't interview them and that they, especially Grusch, would have been able to pull the wool from their eyes. That's also consistent with Kirkpatrick's statement...
 
Grusch worked for the UAP task force, which predated AARO, no?
Kirkpatrick's clarification might have been aimed at Grusch's opening statement. I'd have to watch the hearing again to see if there were any other references.

I was my agency’s co-lead in Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) and transmedium object analysis, as well as reporting to UAP Task Force (UAPTF) and eventually the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO).
Content from External Source
Source: https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Dave_G_HOC_Speech_FINAL_For_Trans.pdf
 
Kirkpatrick's clarification might have been aimed at Grusch's opening statement. I'd have to watch the hearing again to see if there were any other references.

I was my agency’s co-lead in Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) and transmedium object analysis, as well as reporting to UAP Task Force (UAPTF) and eventually the All-Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO).
Content from External Source
Source: https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Dave_G_HOC_Speech_FINAL_For_Trans.pdf

I'm thinking a separate thread on "What did Grusch actually do and for Whom?" The statement you quote makes it sound like HE was the co-lead in UAP and transmedium (underwater) object analysis for the National GeospatialIntelligence Agency, which is the agency he worked at. I think that means he looked at satellite imagery. Then reported to UAPTF and AARO.

But other times he says he was his agency's representative to UAPTF and the head of UAPTF told him to go find SAP's related to UAPs. I think his original Kean and NewsNation interviews were a bit different again. Have to dig it up.
 
Finally, to be clear, AARO has yet to find any credible evidence to support the allegations of any reverse engineering program for non-human technology
Content from External Source
Does this mean no evidence at all has been found, that evidence has been found but is still being investigated, or that evidence has been found but dismissed as 'not credible'. I mean....so much for 'transparency'.
There's evidence in the public domain, debunked on metabunk, that isn't credible (e.g. Roswell, or the Italian UFO thing that Grusch brought up in his interview). So we know evidence exists.

Kirkpatrick says his team is following up on all evidence; so while the latest evidence might still be under investigation, I expect a lot of evidence has been investigated by his team, and found not credible because it couldn't be corroborated.

This parallels our debunking experience here at metabunk: lots of claims of evidence that don't hold up under scrutiny.

I'm unclear on what you expect Kirkpatrick to do to be more transparent than he is.
 
Can anyone identify what may have been said at the hearing that would have been so upsetting to Kirkpatrick so as to release this statement? I certainly didn't come away from listening to the hearing with the impression that anyone was taking shots at AARO.
 
I'm unclear on what you expect Kirkpatrick to do to be more transparent than he is.

He could state which particular cases he has looked at, and the conclusions and reasons for conclusions. A generic statement that does not even state which cases are involved is most definitely not 'transparency'.
 
Can anyone identify what may have been said at the hearing that would have been so upsetting to Kirkpatrick so as to release this statement? I certainly didn't come away from listening to the hearing with the impression that anyone was taking shots at AARO.
Taking his statement at face value, witnesses, Grusch in particular, refused to co-operate with AARO, Congress withheld info from AARO, and Congress never consulted AARO about any concerns with the process. Then add Burchett repeatedly calling AARO incompetent bureaucrats and part of the cover up all over the media. Then add a nationally televised Congressional hearing where Grusch espouses a government cover up that implicates AARO. I would be a little annoyed too if I were him.
 
Taking his statement at face value, witnesses, Grusch in particular, refused to co-operate with AARO, Congress withheld info from AARO, and Congress never consulted AARO about any concerns with the process. Then add Burchett repeatedly calling AARO incompetent bureaucrats and part of the cover up all over the media. Then add a nationally televised Congressional hearing where Grusch espouses a government cover up that implicates AARO. I would be a little annoyed too if I were him.

Then add the non-trivial fact that AARO was established by congressional mandate to carry out the very investigations it's now being publicly discredited for by the self-same congress without any chance of responding to these implicit or explicit accusations that would even remotely resemble a due process.
 
I'm thinking a separate thread on "What did Grusch actually do and for Whom?"
It's in his opening statement from the senate hearing:
In the USAF, in my National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) reservist capacity, I was a member of the UAPTF from 2019-2021. I served in the NRO Operations Center on the director’s briefingstaff, which included the coordination of the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) and supporting contingency operations.
In 2019, the UAPTF director tasked me to identify all Special Access Programs & Controlled Access Programs (SAPs/CAPs) we needed to satisfy our congressionally mandated mission.
from 2021-2023, at the National GeospatialIntelligence Agency at the GS-15 civilian level, which is the military equivalent of a full-bird Colonel. I was my agency’s co-lead in Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) and transmedium object analysis, as well as reporting to UAP Task Force (UAPTF) and eventually the AllDomain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO).
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Dave_G_HOC_Speech_FINAL_For_Trans.pdf
 
Grush did contact Kirkpatrick a few months before Kirkpatrick became head of AARO:
QUESTION: Kirkpatrick, head of AARO, had said that he did not find any evidence of UAPs. You also stated that you had in your interview that you had briefed him on information that you were uncovering, but that he did not follow up with you.
GRUSH: Him and I had a classified conversation in April 2022 before he took over AARO in July 2022. And I provided him some concerns I had.
QUESTION: Do you know why he might not have followed up with you?
GRUSH: Unfortunately, I cannot read his mind. I wish he did. I was happy to give sage counsel to him on where to look when he took the helm of AARO
https://picdataset.com/ai-news/full...-hearing-on-unidentified-anomalous-phenomena/

I guess Grush could not provide him with all the details, since Kirkpatrick did not have the appropriate clearing. Kirkpatrick has a Title 10 authorization, Grush a Title 50.
This could have been the reason for Kirkpatrick's remark in the OP:
Yet, contrary to assertions made in the hearing, the central source of those allegations has refused to speak with AARO
Note that new legislation has now made it possible to report anything UAP related to AARO without repercussions for NDA violations. That was not the case back then.
 
Last edited:
He could state which particular cases he has looked at, and the conclusions and reasons for conclusions.
That strikes me as a bad way to protect whistleblowers.

And it would make a large report, not a press release.
I understand AARO provides these reports regularly to Congress and certain agencies.
 
Last edited:
Another relevant bit in the senate hearing is this (emphasis mine):
QUESTION: Several other former military and intelligence officials have come forward with similar allegations, albeit in non public settings. However, Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, the director of Aaro, previously testified before Congress that there has been, and I quote, no credible evidence thus far of extraterrestrial activity or of, quote, off world technology brought to the attention of the office.
To your knowledge, is that statement correct?
GRUSH: It’s not accurate. I believe Dr. Kirkpatrick mentioned he had about 30 individuals that have come to Arrow thus far.
A few of those individuals have also come to Arrow that I also interviewed, and I know what they provided Dr. Kapatrick and their team.

The actual statement made by Kirkpatrick was (see video, emphasis mine):
I should also state clearly for the record that in our research, AARO has found no credible evidence thus far of extraterrestrial activity, off-world technology, or objects that defy known laws of physics.
 
And then the remark in the OP:
none of the whistleblowers from yesterday's hearing ever worked for AARO or was ever a representative to AARO, contrary to statements made in testimony and in the media.
Technically, that is correct. But I don't think Grush ever said he worked for AARO, see post #19 above. He worked for the UAPTF and later reported to AARO.
 
Grush did contact Kirkpatrick a few months before Kirkpatrick became head of AARO:
GRUSH: Him and I had a classified conversation in April 2022 before he took over AARO in July 2022. And I provided him some concerns I had.
Content from External Source
I was happy to give sage counsel to him on where to look when he took the helm of AARO
Content from External Source
I guess Grusch should've provided evidence, not "concerns" and "counsel"?

Please use EX tags for external content, quote tagged material can't be replied to.
Screenshot_20230311-061134_Samsung Internet.jpg.
 
Technically, that is correct. But I don't think Grush ever said he worked for AARO, see post #19 above. He worked for the UAPTF and later reported to AARO.
"report to" implies a working relationship, and Kirkpatrick denies there was one.

Let's wait for Grusch's reaction.
 
I guess Grush could not provide him with all the details, since Kirkpatrick did not have the appropriate clearing. Kirkpatrick has a Title 10 authorization, Grush a Title 50. This could have been the reason for Kirkpatrick's remark in the OP:

And from the other thread:

I'm sorry but it's his job to uncover the truth on this. If it's black programs that are unaccounted for then that's wrong.

As far as I've glanced upon its founding documents, AARO is not a line management entity vested with a mandate to issue legally binding information requests to DoD compartments the non-compliance to which is tantamount to disobeying direct orders. It's a line management support entity to the DoD Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security (currently one Ronald Moultrie) that can, at best, issue information requests to various DoD compartments which they are advised, by said Office of the USD(I&S), to collaborate with. They are expected to report to AARO in a timely manner and to provide UAP data, but they're not legally bound to provide any information on UAP or to respond to any specific information requests by AARO, especially if by so doing they would compromise any classified capabilities. Even if Grusch had a higher clearance than Kirkpatrick, this basic limitation would have still applied.

Even the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Kathleen Hicks, as is evident in the third point of her Memorandum for Senior Pentagon Leadership (dated 25 June 2021 and written in compliance with the congressional assignment to collect information on UAP) can at best direct Moultrie's office to coordinate with the other (read: core) DoD compartments. These include "Principal Staff Assistants, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretaries of the Military Departments, and the Commanders of the Combatant Commands". None of them are under the direct command of USD(I&S).

Sean Kirkpatrick is very aware of how the DoD line management works. He will not dig up nor expect any video or other material that compromises classified capabilities nor demand information from any DoD compartment knowing he doesn't have the authority to do so.

Based on all that we've seen and heard, Grusch clearly misunderstood his mandate perhaps based on the fact that he thought his Title 50 authorization would grant him a direct legal access all the way to the White House!
 
Last edited:
Another relevant bit in the senate hearing is this (emphasis mine):

Whichever individuals Grusch claims he interviewed which AARO didn't and who provided him information on non-human biologics / alien craft reverse-engineeing programs, it's perfectly plausible it had nothing to do with Grusch's higher security clearance. It's plausible they were UFO believers bursting with personal theories whilst marginally associated with some secret programs. They did not want to be interviewed by AARO because Kirkpatrick is more interested in hard evidence and less inclined than Grusch to naively believe in stories regurgitated by in-house UFO believers.

Mellon, a protector of his comrades, adds the spin that 'these sources possess information on a delicate and potentially explosive matter and don't trust AARO' to cover up the above fact. Why is this not plausible? Because nobody on the ufologists' side lies nor misrepresents the truth ever? It must be the Pentagon, including Pentagon spokeswoman Sue Gough below who certainly represents the top echelon of the DoD with access to all Pentagon's secret programs unlike Grusch:

Article:
In a separate statement, Pentagon spokeswoman Sue Gough denied other allegations made by Grusch before a House Oversight subcommittee.

The Pentagon “has no information that any individual has been harmed or killed as a result of providing information” about UFO objects, Gough said. Nor has the Pentagon discovered “any verifiable information to substantiate claims that any programs regarding the possession or reverse-engineering of extraterrestrial materials have existed in the past or exist currently.”


Mellon's/Grusch's words against Gough's/Kirkpatrick's.

P.S. Security clearance reduction from AARO's precursor's (UAPTF) investigators' Title 50 authorization to AARO's Title 10 need not have anything to do Grusch being personally entitled, due to his rank and position, to a higher authorization. It could simply mean that after UAPTF, Elizondo, Grusch et al, the DoD wanted to have less UAP investigators snooping around classified programs which have nothing to do with aliens.
 
Pentagon spokeswoman Sue Gough below who certainly represents the top echelon of the DoD with access to all Pentagon's secret programs unlike Grusch:

Article:
In a separate statement, Pentagon spokeswoman Sue Gough denied other allegations made by Grusch before a House Oversight subcommittee.

The Pentagon “has no information that any individual has been harmed or killed as a result of providing information” about UFO objects, Gough said. Nor has the Pentagon discovered “any verifiable information to substantiate claims that any programs regarding the possession or reverse-engineering of extraterrestrial materials have existed in the past or exist currently.”


Mellon's/Grusch's words against Gough's/Kirkpatrick's.
These were not Gough's words. She said:
Article:
The Department has no information that any individual has been harmed or killed as a result of providing information to AARO. Any unsubstantiated claims that individuals have been harmed or killed in the process of providing information to AARO will serve to discourage individuals with relevant information from coming forward to aid in AARO’s efforts.”


So, why did ABC news twist her words into
as a result of providing information” about UFO objects
Why not quote her full sentence? It's even shorter: 'to AARO' is just two words, 'about UFO objects' is three. Why break off the quote mid-sentence and leave out these crucial two last words but replace them by something generic instead, which basically falsifies the statement that this was what Gough said?
 
"report to" implies a working relationship, and Kirkpatrick denies there was one.

Let's wait for Grusch's reaction.
There is no need for a reaction.
Kirkpatrick stated:
Article:
none of the whistleblowers from yesterday's hearing ever worked for AARO or was ever a representative to AARO

Grush stated:
Article:
I was my agency’s [the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency] co-lead in Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) and trans-medium object analysis, as well as reporting to UAP Task Force (UAPTF) and eventually the All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO).

So, Grush analyzed UAPs for the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency and channeled any reports that were interesting to AARO. This is not in contradiction to 'not working for AARO' (i.e. being on AARO's payroll/working under Kirkpatrick), nor is it in contradiction to 'being a representative to AARO' (which he was not, he just channeled UAP reports to them).

He was, however, working for AARO's predecessor, the UAP Task Force, from 2019-2021. This was long before Kirkpatrick started heading AARO in July 2022.

Kirkpatrick's statement only serves to discredit Grush and paint him as an outsider, which he was not.
 
These were not Gough's words. She said:
Article:
The Department has no information that any individual has been harmed or killed as a result of providing information to AARO. Any unsubstantiated claims that individuals have been harmed or killed in the process of providing information to AARO will serve to discourage individuals with relevant information from coming forward to aid in AARO’s efforts.”


So, why did ABC news twist her words into

Why not quote her full sentence? It's even shorter: 'to AARO' is just two words, 'about UFO objects' is three. Why break off the quote mid-sentence and leave out these crucial two last words but replace them by something generic instead, which basically falsifies the statement that this was what Gough said?

True, that bit wasn't properly quoted. But my point concerned in any case the latter portion of the quote. Sue Gough would be in a position to clarify if either past or present reverse-engineering programs that AARO hasn't discovered "any verifiable information"
about would not represent the entire Pentagon's honest position. It's Grusch's words against hers. She surely speaks on behalf of people who know more than AARO or Grusch ever could. Also the part in bold is relevant:

Article:
"To date, the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) has not discovered any verifiable information to substantiate claims that any programs regarding the possession or reverse-engineering of extraterrestrial materials have existed in the past or exist currently," Sue Gough, a Pentagon spokesperson, tells TIME in a statement. "The Department is fully committed to openness and accountability to the American people, which it must balance with its obligation to protect sensitive information, sources, and methods," the statement continued in part. "DoD is also committed to timely and thorough reporting to Congress."
 
There is no need for a reaction.
Kirkpatrick stated:
Article:
none of the whistleblowers from yesterday's hearing ever worked for AARO or was ever a representative to AARO

Grush stated:
Article:
I was my agency’s [the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency] co-lead in Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) and trans-medium object analysis, as well as reporting to UAP Task Force (UAPTF) and eventually the All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO).

So, Grush analyzed UAPs for the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency and channeled any reports that were interesting to AARO. This is not in contradiction to 'not working for AARO' (i.e. being on AARO's payroll/working under Kirkpatrick), nor is it in contradiction to 'being a representative to AARO' (which he was not, he just channeled UAP reports to them).

He was, however, working for AARO's predecessor, the UAP Task Force, from 2019-2021. This was long before Kirkpatrick started heading AARO in July 2022.

Kirkpatrick's statement only serves to discredit Grush and paint him as an outsider, which he was not.

Or Grusch was trying to paint himself as an AARO insider which he wasn't. Reporting to AARO is not the same as "being a representative to AARO".
 
That strikes me as a bad way to protect whistleblowers.

And it would make a large report, not a press release.
I understand AARO provides these reports regularly to Congress and certain agencies.

Well, no.....you can't have transparency and have lack of specifics. Which is it ? Proper science ( Kirkpatrick is after all a scientist ) does not consist of simply saying ' I had a look at the data for X phenomenon and its all a load of hooey'. It consists of publicly available peer reviewed data on every incident, with as much detail as possible.....so that everyone else can be brought to the same conclusions. That is transparency.
 
True, that bit wasn't properly quoted. But my point concerned in any case the latter portion of the quote. Sue Gough would be in a position to clarify if either past or present reverse-engineering programs that AARO hasn't discovered "any verifiable information"
about would not represent the entire Pentagon's honest position. It's Grusch's words against hers. She surely speaks on behalf of people who know more than AARO or Grusch ever could. Also the part in bold is relevant:

Article:
"To date, the All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) has not discovered any verifiable information to substantiate claims that any programs regarding the possession or reverse-engineering of extraterrestrial materials have existed in the past or exist currently," Sue Gough, a Pentagon spokesperson, tells TIME in a statement. "The Department is fully committed to openness and accountability to the American people, which it must balance with its obligation to protect sensitive information, sources, and methods," the statement continued in part. "DoD is also committed to timely and thorough reporting to Congress."

Regarding the openness and accountability part, I'm tempted to say "that's an outright lie", but the nicer way to phrase it is "they must be operating under a very unusual understanding of the word 'openness'". Here's what you get back when you FOIA the Navy's UAP security classification guide:

F2DnE0ObgAAoNq6.jpg

The release of all UAP related videos have been denied citing the following rationale:


“The UAP Task Force has responded back to DNS-36 and have stated that the requested videos contain sensitive information pertaining to Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) and are classified and are exempt from disclosure in their entirety under exemption 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(1) in accordance with Executive Order 13526 and the UAP Security Classification Guide,” Gary Cason, Deputy Director, DON FOIA/PA Program Office, said in the response letter. “The release of this information will harm national security as it may provide adversaries valuable information regarding Department of Defense/Navy operations, vulnerabilities, and/or capabilities. No portions of the videos can be segregated for release.”

Potentially seeing a justification of an appeal, the U.S. Navy uncharacteristically gave additional details for their decision, which cited the previous release of three UAP videos.

“While three UAP videos were released in the past, the facts specific to those three videos are unique in that those videos were initially released via unofficial channels before official release,” Cason stated in the letter. “Those events were discussed extensively in the public domain; in fact, major news outlets conducted specials on these events. Given the amount of information in the public domain regarding these encounters, it was possible to release the files without further damage to national security.”
Content from External Source

And most recently, for the first time since John Greenwald has been filing FOIA requests on this subject, the DOD has now started to cite a new exemption as the rationale for denying the release of any and all UAP related videos:


The use of Exemptions (b)(7)(A) and (b)(7)(E) by the DoD in response to a FOIA request for records related to the “Mosul Orb” highlights the DoD’s growing concern when in comes to their involvement in UAP-related matters. The exemptions point towards an ongoing “law enforcement investigation” and reveal an intent to protect the “techniques” used in such investigations. Is this in relation to the leak of material relating to this case? Does that indicate that investigation(s) is/are ongoing? Or is this a broad-stroke attempt to exempt ALL information relating to UAP and/or AARO, essentially thwarting any effort to get this type of related information via the FOIA? That has yet to be seen. However, two related in subject matter request denials from the DoD came within 60 seconds of the “Mosul Orb” denial, which may further shed light on the tactics now employed by the DoD to withhold all UAP-related documentation and AARO-related material.

These two other cases resulted in the same exact invocation of Exemptions (b)(7)(A) and (b)(7)(E) just like the “Mosul Orb” request, suggesting a pattern of usage that could indicate all UAP-related cases are now considered part of a law enforcement investigation. And that is trouble for anyone who advocates for transparency on this issue. It should be noted that these two cases, contrary to the “Mosul Orb” FOIA case, did not invoke the (b)(1) [classified information]exemption cited in their letter.

The use of Exemptions (b)(7)(A) and (b)(7)(E) by the DoD in response to FOIA requests such as these may indicate that the DoD now considers AARO, and their investigation into UAP, as an ongoing law enforcement investigation into these phenomena. And if so, and this is speculatory as of the writing of this article, that may mean that any AARO/UAP/UFO or any related acronym or keyword related request is met with the same result. All information relating to the aforementioned may just simply be lumped in to AARO’s efforts, and considered a “law enforcement investigation”, thus exempting 100% of anything relating to AARO, UAP or any related acronym a FOIA requester wants to fill in — classified or not.
Content from External Source
The fact that Greenwald has stated several times in recent videos that anything UAP related is now even more difficult to obtain than ever before, and that the government is now clamping down on such requests more than ever, carries quite a lot of weight considering the source. Gogh and Kirkpatrick may pay lip-service to openness and accountability, but words are cheap, the paper trail suggests otherwise.
 
Regarding the openness and accountability part, I'm tempted to say "that's an outright lie", but the nicer way to phrase it is "they must be operating under a very unusual understanding of the word 'openness'".

Sue Gough's gist to state the bolded bit (once more cited below) was decidedly not about arms-wide openness, but the latter part whereby DoD continues to reserve the right, and indeed to dutifully uphold its obligation, to protect sensitive information, sources and methods. All the FOIA requests you cited are precisely a testimony to what Gough stated, rather than proof of the opposite. They tell us absolutely nothing about a coverup of aliens.

"The Department is fully committed to openness and accountability to the American people, which it must balance with its obligation to protect sensitive information, sources, and methods."

P.S. By the way, you dont seem even a bothsidesist anymore who's impartial to both 'sides' (was that all just a veneer?). Now you seem resolutely far more distrustful of any and all USG sources than you are of Grusch. You're fully entitled to do so, but you didn't seem transparent about it at first.
 
That is never going to happen.
If we can't even do it with Aguadilla or the Chilean UFO, there's no hope of that.

Of course no amount of science is ever going to convince the die-hard believers. But really they are doing it for the sector of the public which is the ' I simply don't know...and I want to' people that think its all baloney but are not quite 100% sure. That would include me.
 
If AARO is all for openness, then where is their analysis of the Nimitz tic-tac event? Almost everything about this event is already in the public domain, so what is AARO's analysis and related conclusion?
 
Back
Top