Statement by AARO Head Sean Kirkpatrick on the HOC UAP Hearing

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.
The fact remains that for incidents for which we are not given the information (for whatever reason) the only possible conclusion is "We don't know". It would be a mistake to read one's own preconceptions into their desire to keep things confidential.
 
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?
What form would you suggest the analysis takes?
 
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.

I don't think denying FOIA requests tells us anything about a coverup regarding aliens. I think it's fair to say a lot of folks around here who are skeptics (and again, I count myself as a skeptic) would also be in favor of more transparency with regards to this topic or just the topic of UAPs in general. I agree that transparency should always be weighed against the interest of national security. I accept that the United States government has a responsibility to keep its citizens safe, and to keep its citizens safe it must keep many secrets. The most obvious example is information regarding nuclear weapons. I don't want, or need, to know anything about how said weapons are made, how they're stored, or any kind of in formation that if placed in the wrong hands could lead to the deaths of millions of people. Such secrets are morally justified and I have no objection to them.

Where we seem to be disagreeing is the extent of the secrecy and how much credence we give the claim that any and all UAP related footage is classified for the sake of national security. All of it? If I believe, for good historical reasons, that these departments have a tendency to over-classify things under the guise of "national security", when in fact the real reason for many instances of classification have nothing to do with national security but rather because it exposes a lot of immoral shit they've done, and reveals embarrassing information about the agencies in question, then I'm going to be less inclined in the future to simply accept at face value any and all claims of classification on the basis of national security.

The declassification of JFK related files is a good historical example of what I mention above. Rather than reveal any kind of conspiracy behind the scenes to assassinate JFK, said files just revealed a lot of embarrassing and immoral things that the CIA and other government agencies were involved with both domestically and abroad:

External Quote:

Of the documents' delayed release, Robert Kennedy Jr. once asked, "What are they hiding?"

The answer, I strongly suspect, is activities of the CIA and other U.S. government agencies and actors in foreign countries that could embarrass the federal government and compromise the relationship the current administration has with these nations.

As revealed in the 1975 Church Committee report on Foreign and Military Intelligence and many documents since, for decades, the CIA was directly involved in overthrowing foreign leaders, including Patrice Lumumba of Congo, Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam, Indonesia's President Sukarno, and Chile's President Salvador Allende and General Rene Schneider.

Let's not forget that the CIA attempted to assassinate Cuba's Fidel Castro so many times that Fidel famously said, "If surviving assassinations were an Olympic event, I would win the gold medal." And the CIA did assassinate Castro's revolutionary co-conspirator, Che Guevara, in Bolivia in 1967. The CIA was also involved in rigging elections in Latin American counties to favor dictators and politicians friendlier to American business interests.

Then there's the CIA's Project MK-ULTRA, also exposed by the Church Committee, showing that since the 1950s, the agency had engaged in mind-control experiments involving LSD and other mind-altering drugs on unsuspecting people—including U.S. citizens protected by the Constitution—with an aim toward developing drugs and procedures that could be used in interrogations.

As well, there is the Kennedy-era document called Operation Northwoods, officially titled "Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba." It included numerous false flag operations as a pretext to killing Castro and overturning his Communist regime, such as staging a phony attack on the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, employing a fake Russian MIG aircraft to buzz a real U.S. civilian airliner, hijacking planes, faking an attack on a U.S. ship to make it look like Cubans did it, and developing "a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington" that would harass U.S. citizens, all to be blamed on Castro.
The point being, previous examples of declassification throughout our nation's history tend to reveal some fodder for conspiracy theorists (MK Ultra, Operation Northwoods), but by and large the biggest threat of releasing such documents was not the threat to national security but rather threats to public perception of the agencies involved, of our government, and of historical figures. Even if we grant that declassifying certain materials can present threats to national security, that doesn't settle the question because the immediate follow-up question is how risk averse are these agencies and just how much of a threat is allegedly being claimed here? Take for example a scenario where we're debating whether or not to release the photos of how prisoners were treated at Abu Ghraib prison. A case can be made that releasing said photos can pose a threat to national security on the grounds of international outcry against the US, and the photos bolstering anger and resentment among individuals already at high risk of becoming radicalized. How is this kind of alleged threat quantified so that we can assess the relative merit of releasing such photos weighed against the potential risks? If you're an extremely risk averse agency, you might never release such photos because any declassification that could, no matter how unlikely, lead to any potential risk would be deemed unacceptable to release. Do we have any idea how risk averse they are? Such information matters when deciding how much to trust their claims of risks to national security, dont you think?

Kirkpatrick has testified to the following:

External Quote:

"I want to underscore today that only a very small percentage of UAP reports display signatures that could reasonably be described as anomalous," Kirkpatrick stated in Wednesday's hearing. "The majority of unidentified objects reported to AARO demonstrate mundane characteristics of balloons, [uncrewed] aerial systems, clutter, natural phenomena or other readily explainable sources."
I believe him. This has nothing to do with distrusting his assessment, this has to do with transparency. Considering that most cases resolve into perfectly mundane phenomena, can we at least see those? Of the over 600 or so cases in your portfolio, there doesn't exist a single one that can be shared with the public without it potentially being a threat to national security? Does he believe that? Do you?

We know how quickly they're able to declassify footage from otherwise classified systems like the MQ-9 when it serves propaganda (I don't mean it derogatorily here, merely descriptively) reasons such as this one:


Source: https://youtu.be/8-DMtqJoJ7I


And most recently they did the same with the footage released a few days ago. But when it comes to UAP related footage, including any footage obtained on that same MQ-9 platform, said footage is deemed classified and unreleasable due to all footage pertaining to said platform being classified (even though they just demonstrated, twice, how easy it is to remove or blur information from said videos that reveal info about the drone's capabilities without said footage posing a threat to national security).

My skepticism extends to being skeptical about claims made by government officials and agencies considering the long documented history of the self-serving nature of many of its justifications for keeping said material classified.

Nothing about what I'm claiming assumes or implies an alien coverup of any kind. When it comes to anything related to the UAP topic, transparency is the last thing they should be taking credit for. And they certainly have not earned the public's trust to the extent that I should always just accept at face value any claim they make about the necessity of secrecy for the sake of national security. They don't have a track record that should give anyone confidence that their stated justifications for secrecy are their real motivations for such, whatever those may be.
 
Last edited:
The fact remains that for incidents for which we are not given the information (for whatever reason) the only possible conclusion is "We don't know". It would be a mistake to read one's own preconceptions into their desire to keep things confidential.

I agree with this. I was merely criticizing their claims of being dedicated to openness and transparency. I wasn't using the lack of transparency as evidence for anything.
 
We do not disagree on the existence of the overall phenomenon of over-classification especially within the military (partly necessary, partly paranoid) as well as the phenomenon of wrongful classification to cover up embarrassments, mishaps, crimes and reputational risks.

And most recently they did the same with the footage released a few days ago. But when it comes to UAP related footage, including any footage obtained on that same MQ-9 platform, said footage is deemed classified and unreleasable due to all footage pertaining to said platform being classified

I've already responded to the same point raised by itsme.

1) How would Greenewald know the publicly available instances not dealing with UAP have used exactly the same platform if the Navy denied him access to the UAP videos? Is he a clairvoyant?

(2) I work in a Western defence establishment. In our secrecy protocol, whenever we classify anything and are asked about it, we are never to offer any specific reasons for the classification (such as 'sensitive sensor systems') for the obvious reason that any such specifics would say too much and defeat the very purpose of classifying the capability in the first place. All classifications are legally required to be based on a consideration of national interest, which remains the only, boring and the non-scoopworthy reason for the classification we offer if ever asked.

(3) For us, there's a big difference between a classified military capability with particular classified specs (say an imaging system) and 'similar' civilian / public military capability with whatever specs they have. Generally it's the exact specifics of a sensitive military capability, installation, geographic location, facility, program, procurement, research, investigation, mission, function, task, role, troop strength, plan, timing, personnel, you name it, that need to be classified the most. A capability that's public and similar to a classified military one might not have the critical specs that would require classification. Even if it's a piece of technology from the very same manufacturer and represents a similar model available for, say, commercial usage.
 
Last edited:
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:

"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."
Keep in mind, Ms Gough is about as close to the Antichrist as can be these as days in the eyes of ufology. I can envision some of those guys with dartboards with her face attached to them.
 
Keep in mind, Ms Gough is about as close to the Antichrist as can be these as days in the eyes of ufology. I can envision some of those guys with dartboards with her face attached to them.

It's horrifying. I saw on the UFOs subreddit the other day calls for arresting her, Kirkpatrick, and I forget who else on the grounds of Grusch's testimony "proving" these people are liars and yeah. I suspect if it wasn't a military base these people would have absolutely done a January 6th type event at Area 51 back in 2019 and I'm sure several of them would have brought make-shift guillotines.
 
Last edited:
Where we seem to be disagreeing is the extent of the secrecy and how much credence we give the claim that any and all UAP related footage is classified for the sake of national security. All of it? If I believe, for good historical reasons, that these departments have a tendency to over-classify things under the guise of "national security", when in fact the real reason for many instances of classification have nothing to do with national security but rather because it exposes a lot of immoral shit they've done, and reveals embarrassing information about the agencies in question, then I'm going to be less inclined in the future to simply accept at face value any and all claims of classification on the basis of national security.
Point taken.

Yet.

On the modern battlefield, a lot rides on information. You need to know what the enemy knows, you don't want them to know what you know, you want to be able to deceive their sensors, but not be deceived yourself,but ideally let the enemy think that they did deceive you, etc. Therefore, a lot of security rides on the exact capabilities of classified systems remaining secret.

Military UAP observations are test cases for these capabilities, and the more of them become public, the more the adversaries know about the capabilities of the systems involved, under real-world conditions.

So there is a legitimate reason for keeping this data classified.
Even if it may be tainted by a CYA mentality that avoids some hard decisions on what might be declassifiable anyway, in the public interest.

You need to weigh two public interests against each other:
1) for advanced sensor capabilities to remain secret that protect the nation
2) for UAP data to become public that doesn't actually involve ETs or NHIs

We're agreed that we do want to know as soon as NHI contact has been established.
Where we differ is that the skeptics see no reason to assume it has been, while the believers think it has. (That's why we call them believers.)

Personally, I believe, based on precedent, that if the US declassified everything tomorrow, we'd be no closer to having proof of alien contact, whereas the US would have severely compromised their military edge.
 
How is this kind of alleged threat quantified so that we can assess the relative merit of releasing such photos weighed against the potential risks?
"WE" are not the people to be assessing the relative merits, and we are most certainly not the people to assess any associated risks. That needs to be done by people who know what the information is.You seem to be asking why a particular thing is classified, but in many cases it would not be possible to give the reasons without spilling the beans to people with no need to know. In other cases, it needs to go in the classified bucket, even if it at first seems benign, until such time as a full analysis can be completed, and the public's impatience to see it is not sufficient reason to circumvent that process.
 
"WE" are not the people to be assessing the relative merits, and we are most certainly not the people to assess any associated risks. That needs to be done by people who know what the information is.You seem to be asking why a particular thing is classified, but in many cases it would not be possible to give the reasons without spilling the beans to people with no need to know. In other cases, it needs to go in the classified bucket, even if it at first seems benign, until such time as a full analysis can be completed, and the public's impatience to see it is not sufficient reason to circumvent that process.

My use of the word "we" was incorrect here. I didn't mean so that we (as in you and I) can judge the merits of releasing something versus keeping it classified ourselves in each individual case. I don't need to know the details of each case to make these determinations. Obviously that's unworkable. But more transparency with regards to at least how interests are weighed against each other and just how risk averse these agencies tend to be would go a long way towards facilitating more trust in the decisions they do make.

Cases like the one I mentioned of the Abu Ghraib photos, there is some vague threat posed by the release of those photos, but to do a proper risk assessment that kind of threat needs to be operationalized in such a way that takes a vague claim such as "this might stoke more anger among certain groups of people prone to being radicalized" to something more concrete that can then be weighed against other concerns important to the country such as transparency and accountability. If we don't even know what the process of risk assessment they employ in such situations is, and how they generally weigh those interests relative to each other, a person standing outside of that entire process (like myself) doesn't have much of a compelling reason to trust that process, given historical precedent coupled with the opaque nature of what they do.
 
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?
I would guess they thought that way would be understandable to a larger proportion of their audience, compared to jargon like AARO which many would not be familiar with.

I doubt it would even have crossed their minds that it might be seen as nefarious by people already fully invested in the conspiracy theory, who are not and should not be their main concern.
 
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?
I'm hopeful they will release more of this with the next report. Kirkpatrick has said that their analyses go through some type of peer review, and they want to share them were possible. Government bodies are slow and cautious.
 
My use of the word "we" was incorrect here. I didn't mean so that we (as in you and I) can judge the merits of releasing something versus keeping it classified ourselves in each individual case. I don't need to know the details of each case to make these determinations. Obviously that's unworkable. But more transparency with regards to at least how interests are weighed against each other and just how risk averse these agencies tend to be would go a long way towards facilitating more trust in the decisions they do make.

Cases like the one I mentioned of the Abu Ghraib photos, there is some vague threat posed by the release of those photos, but to do a proper risk assessment that kind of threat needs to be operationalized in such a way that takes a vague claim such as "this might stoke more anger among certain groups of people prone to being radicalized" to something more concrete that can then be weighed against other concerns important to the country such as transparency and accountability. If we don't even know what the process of risk assessment they employ in such situations is, and how they generally weigh those interests relative to each other, a person standing outside of that entire process (like myself) doesn't have much of a compelling reason to trust that process, given historical precedent coupled with the opaque nature of what they do.

Abu Ghraib photos, My Lai photos, or any photo or footage involving individuals committing a crime represent a category entirely of its own. They cannot be classified using any national security pretext (unless they feature sensitive information on capabilites, troops and locations). However, in most Western countries, in order to protect the privacy of the individuals involved or a sensitive investigative process, the timing (during or after the investigation) and the nature (blurred faces or non-blurred after a statute of limitations) of their declassification requires judgment and trump any and all notions of 'the public's right to know everything, right now', which is another extreme of thinking about classifications. And which I know you're not suggesting.
 
I'm hopeful they will release more of this with the next report. Kirkpatrick has said that their analyses go through some type of peer review, and they want to share them were possible. Government bodies are slow and cautious.
Apparently it exists: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...er-radar-at-congressional-hearing/ar-AA1ex2h2
379DBB75-C5AC-42F2-B456-26CF0D4E5577.jpeg
 
"Capabilities of the peformance" Sounds a little like that SCU paper.

External Quote:
We consider a handful of well-documented encounters, including the 2004 encounters with the Nimitz Carrier Group off the coast of California, and estimate lower bounds on the accelerations exhibited by the craft during the observed maneuvers. Estimated accelerations range from almost 100g to 1000s of gs with no observed air disturbance, no sonic booms, and no evidence of excessive heat commensurate with even the minimal estimated energies.
https://www.explorescu.org/post/est...ics-of-anomalous-unidentified-aerial-vehicles
 
"Capabilities of the peformance" Sounds a little like that SCU paper.

External Quote:
We consider a handful of well-documented encounters, including the 2004 encounters with the Nimitz Carrier Group off the coast of California, and estimate lower bounds on the accelerations exhibited by the craft during the observed maneuvers. Estimated accelerations range from almost 100g to 1000s of gs with no observed air disturbance, no sonic booms, and no evidence of excessive heat commensurate with even the minimal estimated energies.
https://www.explorescu.org/post/est...ics-of-anomalous-unidentified-aerial-vehicles
Perhaps but the article mentions a contracted agency, I don’t think the government were involved in the SCU paper. Moreover the SCU paper is only 19 pages long and is publicly available.
 
Perhaps but the article mentions a contracted agency, I don’t think the government were involved in the SCU paper. Moreover the SCU paper is only 19 pages long and is publicly available.
I'm not saying it is the same paper just that I am wary of a paper that seems to be along the same lines.
 
that's not from the AARO, that alleged report is allegedly by the Bigelow team. or so says George Knapp.

The contract for AAWSAP was awarded to a subsidiary of Bigelow Aerospace, owned by Robert Bigelow. And the focus of the study was much broader than the military-only encounters investigated by AATIP
..
The data base included reports from civilian organizations and foreign governments, as well as new investigations conducted by boots-on-the ground teams dispatched by AAWSAP’s manager in Las Vegas, Dr. Colm Kelleher. It was an astonishing effort that also produced more than 100 highly detailed research papers, many of them more than 100 pages long. The very first case investigated by AAWSAP was the Tic Tac incident from 2004. An initial report was compiled by DIA personnel then shared with AAWSAP. A much larger 140-page report, packed with detailed analysis of the Tic Tac and its capabilities, was written by AASWAP scientists and engineers. Neither Congress nor the public has ever seen the Tic Tac report or any of the other 100-plus research papers
 
that's not from the AARO, that alleged report is allegedly by the Bigelow team. or so says George Knapp.

The contract for AAWSAP was awarded to a subsidiary of Bigelow Aerospace, owned by Robert Bigelow. And the focus of the study was much broader than the military-only encounters investigated by AATIP
..
The data base included reports from civilian organizations and foreign governments, as well as new investigations conducted by boots-on-the ground teams dispatched by AAWSAP’s manager in Las Vegas, Dr. Colm Kelleher. It was an astonishing effort that also produced more than 100 highly detailed research papers, many of them more than 100 pages long. The very first case investigated by AAWSAP was the Tic Tac incident from 2004. An initial report was compiled by DIA personnel then shared with AAWSAP. A much larger 140-page report, packed with detailed analysis of the Tic Tac and its capabilities, was written by AASWAP scientists and engineers. Neither Congress nor the public has ever seen the Tic Tac report or any of the other 100-plus research papers
So Travis Taylor et al then.
 
that's not from the AARO, that alleged report is allegedly by the Bigelow team. or so says George Knapp.

The contract for AAWSAP was awarded to a subsidiary of Bigelow Aerospace, owned by Robert Bigelow. And the focus of the study was much broader than the military-only encounters investigated by AATIP
..
The data base included reports from civilian organizations and foreign governments, as well as new investigations conducted by boots-on-the ground teams dispatched by AAWSAP’s manager in Las Vegas, Dr. Colm Kelleher. It was an astonishing effort that also produced more than 100 highly detailed research papers, many of them more than 100 pages long. The very first case investigated by AAWSAP was the Tic Tac incident from 2004. An initial report was compiled by DIA personnel then shared with AAWSAP. A much larger 140-page report, packed with detailed analysis of the Tic Tac and its capabilities, was written by AASWAP scientists and engineers. Neither Congress nor the public has ever seen the Tic Tac report or any of the other 100-plus research papers

That's weird. Last I had read they had only produced 38 papers which can be downloaded here. Wondering if these 38 are a subset of the 100 plus ones mentioned in the quote. I know the document Burchett submitted for the record at the beginning of the hearing last Wednesday was one of them (fifth one on the list).
 
that's not from the AARO, that alleged report is allegedly by the Bigelow team. or so says George Knapp.

The contract for AAWSAP was awarded to a subsidiary of Bigelow Aerospace, owned by Robert Bigelow. And the focus of the study was much broader than the military-only encounters investigated by AATIP
..
The data base included reports from civilian organizations and foreign governments, as well as new investigations conducted by boots-on-the ground teams dispatched by AAWSAP’s manager in Las Vegas, Dr. Colm Kelleher. It was an astonishing effort that also produced more than 100 highly detailed research papers, many of them more than 100 pages long. The very first case investigated by AAWSAP was the Tic Tac incident from 2004. An initial report was compiled by DIA personnel then shared with AAWSAP. A much larger 140-page report, packed with detailed analysis of the Tic Tac and its capabilities, was written by AASWAP scientists and engineers. Neither Congress nor the public has ever seen the Tic Tac report or any of the other 100-plus research papers
AASWAP or not it would be useful if it provided additional data which could be independently scrutinised. As it’s classified it might well do.
 
That's weird. Last I had read they had only produced 38 papers which can be downloaded here. Wondering if these 38 are a subset of the 100 plus ones mentioned in the quote. I know the document Burchett submitted for the record at the beginning of the hearing last Wednesday was one of them (fifth one on the list).

The folks at AASWAP produce 38 DIRDs. Specific papers supposedly about future technology and some other stuff. Puthoff's EarthTech company is responsible for several of them including some by his employee Eric Davis.

But Lacatski and Knapp claim that AASWAP produced all kinds of reports:

External Quote:
Lacatski published the last of the 38 DIRDs on January 11, 2011. Voluminous high-quality material (more than a hundred separate reports, as detailed in Appendix I) was submitted to the DIA in just over two years of the program’s existence.
Most of it was UFO case studies I think, but included gems like this:

External Quote:
A 360-page report that included comprehensive descriptions of the plant and seed data obtained by the AAWSAP BAASS team on Skinwalker Ranch was delivered to the DIA in April 2010. The purpose of the plant research on Skinwalker Ranch was to obtain pilot experimental data on whether plants could function as biosensors or reporters for any putative electromagnetic energy or other radiation on the property.
As for the TicTac report, it was 13 pages and compiled by Jay Stratton later head of UAPTF who is giving the nom de plume "Axelrod" in the book:

External Quote:
Since the Tic Tac investigation was initiated and executed by AAWSAP BAASS, Axelrod’s 13-page report was one of the 100 reports AAWSAP submitted to the Defense Intelligence Agency. Once The New York Times had broken the story in December 2017 and apart from extensive media coverage of the event, the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies (SCU) also conducted an in-depth forensic investigation of the incident and in April 2019 released a 270-page report that included an analysis of the speed and acceleration of the Tic Tac.12 The SCU report corroborated the main elements of Axelrod’s June 2009 report, which had been written and submitted fully ten years before the SCU report.
Kelleher, Colm A.. Skinwalkers at the Pentagon: An Insiders' Account of the Secret Government UFO Program. RTMA, LLC. Kindle Edition.
 
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?
Um, I thought almost none of it was in the public domain - only Fravor's story. My understanding is that the "Tic Tac" video was at a different time from Fravor's encounter. Fravor has stated there is radar, and other systems, data out there that haven't seen the light of day. What do you mean by "almost everything"? And are you referring to Fravor's encounter or the "Tic Tac" video?
 
Um, I thought almost none of it was in the public domain - only Fravor's story. My understanding is that the "Tic Tac" video was at a different time from Fravor's encounter. Fravor has stated there is radar, and other systems, data out there that haven't seen the light of day. What do you mean by "almost everything"? And are you referring to Fravor's encounter or the "Tic Tac" video?
The Tic Tac "event" as told

Starts with Kevin Day's anecdotal recollection of weird RADAR returns on the USS Princeton's RADAR.
Middles with Kuth and then Fravor and Dietrich's respective anecdotes of their whitewater/Tic Tac encounter after being vectored by Day.
Ends with Underwoods Tic Tac ATFLIR video apparently taken on a flight a few hours after the Fravor/Dietrich's encounter.
 
Kirkpatrick interview from 22 July which responds to Grusch's claims ahead of the hearing, and essentially stands unchanged as per his written response to the congressional hearing referenced in the OP. What stood out for me is that (1) Kirkpatrick is yet to see a "technical surprise" (which is very much Mick's approach), that (2) while there's yet no evidence to suggest aliens, he doesn't rule out the ET hypothesis, that (3) he has all the access to everything that he needs and there's no evidence of any secret alien craft crash retrieval program, that (4) with the Fravor/tic-tac case he's looking into similar shaped objects already in existence, that (5) he believes in "rigour", that (6) the AARO mandate renders it ideal for all whistleblowers to approach them safely, and that (7) his demeanour is that of a scientist.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHOiIDCAh_Y
 
7) his demeanour is that of a scientist.
I'm laughing at that one, because one thing I learned from my career in a research lab is that there's no such thing as "the demeanor of a scientist". One mustn't conflate a solemn presentation with either sincerity or accuracy. Don't get me wrong; I think Kirkpatrick is accurately describing what he knows, but his demeanor in front of a camera isn't part of that.
 
I'm laughing at that one, because one thing I learned from my career in a research lab is that there's no such thing as "the demeanor of a scientist". One mustn't conflate a solemn presentation with either sincerity or accuracy.

It isn't the solemn presentation for me at all, but a certain dutiful commitment to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Einstein certainly wasn't solemn. And Grusch outwardly certainly came across professional and put-together.

I've worked long enough alongside people with a 'demeanour' to carry out a public service with integrity and commitment to assigned objectives. In this case scientific principles. I may be wrong in detecting that but that's anyway how it came across to me.
 
Last edited:
The release of all UAP related videos have been denied citing the following rationale:
you hyperlinked quote doesn't prove "ALL uap related videos"

this is your quote:
“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.”
am i to believe 'Gary Carson, Deputy director, DON FOIA Program Office, said in the response letter' "The UAP Task Force has responded back to DNS-36 and have stated..." ??? no.
perhaps you should just quote what Gary Carson actually said.


again. hearsay. if the DOD cited this, then post the citation.

or say "Greenwalde claims the DOD has started to cite a new exemption"
 
you hyperlinked quote doesn't prove "ALL uap related videos"

this is your quote:

am i to believe 'Gary Carson, Deputy director, DON FOIA Program Office, said in the response letter' "The UAP Task Force has responded back to DNS-36 and have stated..." ??? no.
perhaps you should just quote what Gary Carson actually said.


External Quote:

"In the course of processing your FOIA request, our office
contacted the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force (UAP Task
Force) to conduct a search for applicable records. Accordingly, that
office searched their local files for records relating to “a copy of
records, electronic or otherwise, of all videos with the designation
of "unidentified aerial phenomena" or UAP, as archived by the U.S.
Navy...”.
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. 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. 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. 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."
again. hearsay. if the DOD cited this, then post the citation.

or say "Greenwalde claims the DOD has started to cite a new exemption"

External Quote:

"After review of your request, it has been determined that the fact of the existence or
nonexistence of records which would reveal a connection or interest in the matters relating to
records compiled for law enforcement purposes pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(A), which
authorizes the withholding of "records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes,
but only to the extent that production of such law enforcement records or information . . .could
reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings”; and (b)(7)(E), affords
protection to all law enforcement information that "would disclose techniques and procedures for
law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law
enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to
risk circumvention of the law.
" Please note that we have considered the foreseeable harm
standard when applying exemptions under the FOIA in the processing of this request."

This denial was in response to a FOIA request for case details and information regarding the Mosul Orb and Baghdad phantom.

Btw, @LilWabbit , we were discussing this a few days back and at the time I couldn't find the specific source I mentioned regarding statements of all reaper drone footage being classified. It turns out it was in this article. Just curious what you make of this:

External Quote:
"Although FOIA requests are still outstanding about this specific case, the footage originally shot of a “cylindrical” shaped UAP, and released in the form of six still frame images, is likely classified. The footage was captured by an MQ-9 “Reaper” drone, and according to the Air Combat Command (ACC) when speaking to The Black Vault, all footage captured by that platform is inherently classified.

“In accordance with general operational security practices and the MQ-9 Security Classification guide, all imagery captured by the MQ-9 is typically classified unless mission requirements dictate the need to sanitize any video footage for lower classification or public release purposes,” the emailed statement said. “The MQ-9 Security Classification guide and the details within is not releasable or available to the public in accordance with its own level of security classification.”

The Black Vault further pressed for the classification level of the footage, but that would not be answered by the ACC as they stated, “Per the MQ-9’s SCG, we are unable to provide additional clarity into what kind of level of classification video footage is by default other what was mentioned previously.” ACC further stated, “Air Combat Command is unable to verify the validity of the [Baghdad Phantom imagery]… but U.S. Central Command [CENTCOM] may be a better point of contact.” When The Black Vault contacted CENTCOM for comment, they stated, “We have nothing for you on this.”"
 
Btw, @LilWabbit , we were discussing this a few days back and at the time I couldn't find the specific source I mentioned regarding statements of all reaper drone footage being classified. It turns out it was in this article. Just curious what you make of this:

External Quote:
"Although FOIA requests are still outstanding about this specific case, the footage originally shot of a “cylindrical” shaped UAP, and released in the form of six still frame images, is likely classified. The footage was captured by an MQ-9 “Reaper” drone, and according to the Air Combat Command (ACC) when speaking to The Black Vault, all footage captured by that platform is inherently classified.

“In accordance with general operational security practices and the MQ-9 Security Classification guide, all imagery captured by the MQ-9 is typically classified unless mission requirements dictate the need to sanitize any video footage for lower classification or public release purposes,” the emailed statement said. “The MQ-9 Security Classification guide and the details within is not releasable or available to the public in accordance with its own level of security classification.”

The Black Vault further pressed for the classification level of the footage, but that would not be answered by the ACC as they stated, “Per the MQ-9’s SCG, we are unable to provide additional clarity into what kind of level of classification video footage is by default other what was mentioned previously.” ACC further stated, “Air Combat Command is unable to verify the validity of the [Baghdad Phantom imagery]… but U.S. Central Command [CENTCOM] may be a better point of contact.” When The Black Vault contacted CENTCOM for comment, they stated, “We have nothing for you on this.”"

Is this Greenewald? Can you provide me a link.
 

Thanks.

The Mosul Orb picture/footage was taken on 16 April 2016 when Mosul was still under ISIL (ISIS) control. In addition to intelligence and reconnaissance, the US was at the time carrying out airstrikes against ISIL targets. Mosul was liberated in July 2017.

Disproportionate airstrikes against ISIL commanders or fighters using densely populated civilian settlements as human shields are a violation of proportional response required under US law and International Humanitarian Law. Such cases would require criminal investigation and the Mosul Sphere picture may well be material to such an ongoing investigation.

Whatever be the case, the policy of the DoD (and/or the legal requirement of any government agency under US FOIA Act) appears to be to cite the relevant statute under which each denial of a FOIA request made. In this particular case the reason for classification could be an ongoing criminal investigation into disproportionate or mistargeted US airstrikes in Mosul claiming significant civilian casualty. There could be many other similar pieces of criminally relevant evidence accidentally featuring other objects as far as a defence establishment in an active theater of war is concerned. The DoD seems to be just following protocol.

Greenewald is reading heavily into all these FOIA denials and seeing all manner of sinister motives on the part of the DoD even where there's zero evidence of any.

He seems to mistakenly assume AARO is conducting 'investigations' into these UAP under this statute to keep the information classified. AARO has no criminal investigative authorities at least as far as its founding documents are concerned which I discussed in an earlier post on this thread. Should they carry out UAP investigations as criminal investigations without any such corresponging authorization, they would be committing a serious crime.

It doesn't seem to be even remotely something that Sean Kirkpatrick would consider nor allow.

The reaper footage classification, in turn, is a standard military classification to prevent exposing specs of a sensitive capability.
 
Btw, @LilWabbit , we were discussing this a few days back and at the time I couldn't find the specific source I mentioned regarding statements of all reaper drone footage being classified. It turns out it was in this article. Just curious what you make of this:

External Quote:
"Although FOIA requests are still outstanding about this specific case, the footage originally shot of a “cylindrical” shaped UAP, and released in the form of six still frame images, is likely classified. The footage was captured by an MQ-9 “Reaper” drone, and according to the Air Combat Command (ACC) when speaking to The Black Vault, all footage captured by that platform is inherently classified.

“In accordance with general operational security practices and the MQ-9 Security Classification guide, all imagery captured by the MQ-9 is typically classified unless mission requirements dictate the need to sanitize any video footage for lower classification or public release purposes,” the emailed statement said. “The MQ-9 Security Classification guide and the details within is not releasable or available to the public in accordance with its own level of security classification.”

The Black Vault further pressed for the classification level of the footage, but that would not be answered by the ACC as they stated, “Per the MQ-9’s SCG, we are unable to provide additional clarity into what kind of level of classification video footage is by default other what was mentioned previously.” ACC further stated, “Air Combat Command is unable to verify the validity of the [Baghdad Phantom imagery]… but U.S. Central Command [CENTCOM] may be a better point of contact.” When The Black Vault contacted CENTCOM for comment, they stated, “We have nothing for you on this.”"
The statement I bolded above is key to answering the whole "they can release video of harrassment of US drones, but hide behind security to cover up drone videos of UFOs" arguement.

The key to protecting the effectiveness of any intel gathering resource is to not let the world know that resource's means/methods/capabilities. In most cases, from where and how intel is gathered is more important than what is actually gathered. The guys you are spying on already know the existence of what you found, what you want to keep from them is what you know and how you know it.

That having been said, there are instances where governments make the difficult decision to embarrass or otherwise put an adversary in a bad light at the expense of revealing a capability. Two that come to mind were the release of clandestinely obtained audio of the Russians shooting down the Korean airliner in 1983 and the Brits releasing the contents of the Zimmerman Telegram in WW1. In both cases, a decision was made that making the information public for propaganda purposes was more important than disclosing the existence of the capabilities allowing the gathering of the information. Same thinking I'm confident that drove the release of the Russian fighters harassing the Reapers.
 
Last edited:
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!
Given that he did list "Presidential Daily Brief coordinator" on his resume for this time period, I think it's fair to assume he had access to at least a one way pipe in that direction. (From the other megathread, hat tip I forget whom: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/GO/GO06/20230726/116282/HHRG-118-GO06-Bio-GruschD-20230726.pdf , April 2016-Nov 2021)
 
And Grusch outwardly certainly came across professional and put-together.
This may be a cultural think (in particular since I've been surrounding myself with Finns and Estonians for nearly 3 decades, we recognise and value different traits), but that, erm, deviates significantly from how I read him. Unsure if 90 degrees or 180 degrees is the best angular analogy to use, let's call it 135.
 
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.
isnt this like the lou elizondo situation all over again?
 
Back
Top