Alan, I think the best way forward is for Congress to allocate funding for the scientific community and academia to work on the UAP issue. The military tends to keep information behind closed doors.
When the Galileo Project have a hit with everything normal ruled out that will set the cat amongst the pigeons and funding should take off. And also shut up some of the academic naysayers.
Either David Grusch or Sean Kirkpatrick is lying about their communications with each other and ARRO. Each is saying the opposite of the other. With the recent publication of an interview with Kirkpatrick on political.com, Sean seems to be upping the game and standing his ground. Has anyone really investigated to get to the bottom of this? Another thing that comes to mind is why UFO whistleblowers now are always using their NDA's and security clearances as the main excuse for not providing public evidence that give substantive support to their claims? Does that really fit in with the definition of a whistleblower? Edward Snowden or Daniel Ellsberg to me were actual whistleblowers in the fact that they got actual evidence into the public domain. You can argue whether their actions were the right thing to do but they certainly left a mark on history and we may be better for it. We hear of at least 30 or more persons in government/military/defense contractor positions who have allegedly come forward and supported David Grosch's claims one way or another but again whatever they said may never get to the public domain. I do not equate the secrecy of reverse engineering of non-human intelligence tech with that of when we developed the first atomic bomb. But this is the excuse so often given even amongst persons like Leslie Kean and others. It is very difficult for me to understand why the public should know only the bits and pieces. It seems really dangerous to have a few who make the ultimate decisions on this subject that effects the whole world at large.
I don't think we know enough about alleged reverse engineering projects to know how their significance fits into the larger context. But you raise valid points. At various stages, both Ellsberg and Snowden were and have been accused of treason. History vindicated DE, and legally the verdict's still out on Snowden. Certainly, whoever comes up with the material goods on UFOs will inevitably face the same accusations. Given the stakes, and the crimes they'll be exposing, they will be absolved -- a lot depends on execution. But who wants to go first?
Yes we do not know enough about the reverse eng projects and thats the point. Who really does? Who is in charge and where is the oversight? Why is the public completely kept out of the picture? Trying to reverse eng non-human tech is one thing but what are the consequences of the larger picture? The idea that our adversaries can be kept in the dark about any of this is ridiculous and could be(?) an excuse for something far more nefarious. We just don't know. IMO there is no treason blowing the lid on treason itself. Treason to the whole of humanity cannot be justified in any context. Otherwise we could end up like a 'hunger game' type scenario or worse (maybe we are going there already). Again we just don't know.
It didn't take long after JFK was taken out of the picture for Lyndon Johnson to crank up the Vietnam War. Which made the Hunger Games look like a walk in the park.
Always follow the money if you want to know who really benefits from the "national security" excuse. That is just as applicable to reverse engineering off world craft, as it is to any conflict.
Thanks, really enjoyed! He'd surely be given the brief at the very start by superiors that *you* won't be the one to say it's NHI. But I respect him as a scientist that he's given strong hints (the ABC news interview 3 months ago)
1. His concern of "extraterrestrial technical surprise",
2. "Wouldn't that be fun?" if he found ET on his watch and the paper with Avi Loeb which I thought really bold early on.
And the last one recently about "aliens or a "foreign power", knowing full well it's not a foreign power.
Really looking forward to the Historical Review, Volume 1 which he wants to finish. I hope he includes some of the old declassified documents like the Nathing Twining memo, the Project Sign stuff etc. So much is out there!
Billy, this just came up on Politico today 12/11/23 ... Are Aliens Real? We Asked the Pentagon’s Outgoing UFO Chief.
Also the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 link in that has 8 hits of the term "historical record" to do with the above work by Kirkpatrick. FYI.
Interesting to read where Loeb published that speculative paper w/o SK's permission. Wonder what he might've edited out? As for AARO's upcoming Historical Review, if it's just a rehash of books like "UFOs and Government," "Clear Intent," or "UFOs and the National Security State," that'd be a bore. Maybe there's value in putting an official government imprimatur on a compendium of caseloads and trends gathered by independent researchers decades ago, but I'd hope AARO's effort would dig deep enough to uncover new primary-source and contemporaneous material.
I love that about Avi - and he's a modern day Feynman. Maybe it was the bit about the mothercraft releasing probes to Earth which seems logical anyway! I remember once someone said they'd given just a few dollars literally to help the GP in it's early stages. The reply was "we won't let you down". I hope too about the history!
Quote from Politico: “I’m ready to move on. I have accomplished everything I said I was going to do,” Sean Kirkpatrick said.
I remember when he said his goal was to provide (my words) a cheat sheet for agencies to refer to when determining what any particular UAP was - I remember because it implied, from the very start, that Kirkpatrick had no expectation of finding anything that defied explanation.
Now he declares victory and slinks away having avoided an interview with Ross Coulthart.
Compare the statements from AARO to the findings of Blue Book Special Report 14, the latter completed 70 years ago. Anyone with an appreciation for the history of ufology knows there have been many interesting cases pre 2004. But listening to official public statements today one would think none of that existed at all.
Looking at his career reinforces my assumption that he was handpicked because he'd be a 'sound' man for the job. Odds are, he wasn't chosen for his open mindedness or willingness to be the public face of AARO and engage with the press, but because the people who selected him knew what he would deliver. (The odds always favour the house.)
Even if there wasn't national security involved, or potential illegal activity, the exercise would still be one of PR and controlling the information. Government's primary concern is not looking inept.
Richard's a good speaker who's done thankless research. Interesting that so many positive reviews of "Gov't and UFOs" were anonymously submitted by CIA/NSA types. Glad he's still in the game.
Hi Billy. Nice interview of Mark Rodeghier. My take is similar. How in the heck can you not disclose your organizational structure and its qualifications to do the job! Kirkpatrick's contribution to the job was close to nil in my opinion.
With respect Robert, do you not think his staff have to be protected from those who want to disrupt the whole AARO process? The NASA panel have had their fill of that and now have security on board. I do also remember once he spoke of, I think, of having a "red" team and a "blue" team who study the same cases totally separately and then confer. Also mentioned the types of analysts (electro-optic etc.) on the job. He does say in the 12 11 23 Politico (just out) link I gave above they're trying to rush through Volume 1 of the Historical Review. That's not bad.
Hi Alan. You bring up a good point. There are a lot of people out there that have no respect for the privacy of other people. And it's rampant on both sides of the coin. Look what happened to Grusch (whether one believes him or not) with the article on his private life. I've digressed a little, because I like your point. Nonetheless, AARO can provide information on their organizational structure without divulging an individual's identity. They can also provide background information on the qualifications of individuals within their organization.
AARO has not met the requirements made by congress in the NDAA of 2021, which are actually quite onerous. The historical review had two components. One was to review the history of UAP since 1945 based on what has been released to the public. I think it is a fair assessment that this has not been done. The second was to review all UAP data since 1945 that has been classified and hidden. Somehow, AARO has interpreted that to mean "find a hidden government program that has all the secrets". That could be a subcomponent but there are many many documents that have just been squirreled away and forgotten. Those would not be related to a hidden government program.
Robert, something I picked up on in SK's yesterday Hayden Center interview. He mentions the Strategic Technical Advisory Group - also a generic term used in other fields (pick up the question at 1:03:45 and his answer). Then SK talks about harassment issues, esp. to himself which I find staggering and didn't know of. He also says "I have some of the best professionals on the face of the planet working some of this". This looks to be all one can get re any structure of science/technical analysts at AARO, maybe there's more out there? Don't know.
Ok, I wasn't sure whether you wanted names and everything re ARRO staff! Re the review I am a little curious how you know what hasn't been published yet as this Volume 1 isn't yet out. In the Bill above
Will look, thanks. BTW, really liked your detailed reverse engineering tweet and the pretty well impossibility of it. Perhaps progress chances now? - I've sometimes referred people to the arxiv.org as the source of all physics present in fundamental form, esp. quantum fundamentals and particle theory (also there's the Particle Data Group for properties).
But *the* glaring hole right now is no truly unified model of the four "forces". And string theory *still* doesn't touch reality and experiment (but ... wonder if you knew Ed Witten said string theory predicted general relativity? - who could argue with Ed?!).
I've mentioned before that with UAP sightings/analysis (e.g. Project Sign) in the late '40s, what the heck could physics offer at the time? Feynman (1949) had conjured up his personal quantum physics model and QED (a quantum version of electromagnetism only) that eventually led to the widely used Feynman diagrams (Oppenheimer preferred his to Schwinger's complex (equivalently correct) version). The electroweak (for 2 forces) unified model was 1967 and the quark model 1964. General relativity (1916) for gravity only and correct in the '40s of course. Yet the US Gov probably had a craft. Also no nuclear model at the time could touch this tech. (besides, no quark model).
Sean Kirkpatrick would know all this, being a physicist (a smart undergraduate would know this!), and surely would be shocked at the historical reports. So I wasn't that surprised at his comments in the recent Politico article. And he wears a lot of hats! Military, intelligence, scientist. Quite a straddle. And the Grusch spat? What's going on there!
The handwriting is on the wall as far as Hicks is concerned.....She's simply having staff put out a shallow PR statement. It's clear she has no idea or interest in the topic and simply relies on underlings to disseminate B.S. regarding Kirkpatrick, who was just the perfect foil for the Pentagon agenda
Blogger Matt Ford has already displayed Kirkpatrick's "Pinocchio's nose" in a recent blog.
I also viewed the Ford blog interview with David Schindele and that no official transcription service was included or provided per Kirkpatrick's telephonic interview with Schindle ..Just an informal casual interview
IOW: "Thank you for your input.. Have a nice day"
Kevin Randle's blog predicted that AARO was a sequel to Bluebook's operation.. "Bluebook 201"
IOW: "Lets go through the motions and pretend that we're interested in getting to the bottom of the phenomena" .. while behind the scenes " We cannot publicly proclaim that we have no idea or clue about the origins of the mystery, but can assure the public that its no threat to national security" (as far as we're concerned)
Who is the next sacrificial lamb or stooge that will be brought forth to take over as Director??
Sean Kirkpatrick is a liar.
The U.S. Congress needs to establish a genuine UFO office.
Alan, I think the best way forward is for Congress to allocate funding for the scientific community and academia to work on the UAP issue. The military tends to keep information behind closed doors.
When the Galileo Project have a hit with everything normal ruled out that will set the cat amongst the pigeons and funding should take off. And also shut up some of the academic naysayers.
Either David Grusch or Sean Kirkpatrick is lying about their communications with each other and ARRO. Each is saying the opposite of the other. With the recent publication of an interview with Kirkpatrick on political.com, Sean seems to be upping the game and standing his ground. Has anyone really investigated to get to the bottom of this? Another thing that comes to mind is why UFO whistleblowers now are always using their NDA's and security clearances as the main excuse for not providing public evidence that give substantive support to their claims? Does that really fit in with the definition of a whistleblower? Edward Snowden or Daniel Ellsberg to me were actual whistleblowers in the fact that they got actual evidence into the public domain. You can argue whether their actions were the right thing to do but they certainly left a mark on history and we may be better for it. We hear of at least 30 or more persons in government/military/defense contractor positions who have allegedly come forward and supported David Grosch's claims one way or another but again whatever they said may never get to the public domain. I do not equate the secrecy of reverse engineering of non-human intelligence tech with that of when we developed the first atomic bomb. But this is the excuse so often given even amongst persons like Leslie Kean and others. It is very difficult for me to understand why the public should know only the bits and pieces. It seems really dangerous to have a few who make the ultimate decisions on this subject that effects the whole world at large.
I don't think we know enough about alleged reverse engineering projects to know how their significance fits into the larger context. But you raise valid points. At various stages, both Ellsberg and Snowden were and have been accused of treason. History vindicated DE, and legally the verdict's still out on Snowden. Certainly, whoever comes up with the material goods on UFOs will inevitably face the same accusations. Given the stakes, and the crimes they'll be exposing, they will be absolved -- a lot depends on execution. But who wants to go first?
Yes we do not know enough about the reverse eng projects and thats the point. Who really does? Who is in charge and where is the oversight? Why is the public completely kept out of the picture? Trying to reverse eng non-human tech is one thing but what are the consequences of the larger picture? The idea that our adversaries can be kept in the dark about any of this is ridiculous and could be(?) an excuse for something far more nefarious. We just don't know. IMO there is no treason blowing the lid on treason itself. Treason to the whole of humanity cannot be justified in any context. Otherwise we could end up like a 'hunger game' type scenario or worse (maybe we are going there already). Again we just don't know.
As far as the MIC is concerned, we are one of the "adversaries".
Next Wednesday will be the 60th anniversary of the assassination of JFK, and they still haven't declassified all of the JFK files.
He gave this speech about "peace" 6 months before his death:
PEACE SPEECH BY PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY, JUNE 10, 1963
https://www.bitchute.com/video/XUusM6FFnspt/
It didn't take long after JFK was taken out of the picture for Lyndon Johnson to crank up the Vietnam War. Which made the Hunger Games look like a walk in the park.
Always follow the money if you want to know who really benefits from the "national security" excuse. That is just as applicable to reverse engineering off world craft, as it is to any conflict.
David Grusch is just the most recent iteration of Elizondo and Mellon.
I'm fully expecting a new History Channel series featuring Grusch as the latest "whistleblower" du jour, titled "Inside the Alien Files".
Thanks, really enjoyed! He'd surely be given the brief at the very start by superiors that *you* won't be the one to say it's NHI. But I respect him as a scientist that he's given strong hints (the ABC news interview 3 months ago)
1. His concern of "extraterrestrial technical surprise",
2. "Wouldn't that be fun?" if he found ET on his watch and the paper with Avi Loeb which I thought really bold early on.
And the last one recently about "aliens or a "foreign power", knowing full well it's not a foreign power.
Really looking forward to the Historical Review, Volume 1 which he wants to finish. I hope he includes some of the old declassified documents like the Nathing Twining memo, the Project Sign stuff etc. So much is out there!
Billy, this just came up on Politico today 12/11/23 ... Are Aliens Real? We Asked the Pentagon’s Outgoing UFO Chief.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/11/12/sean-kirkpatrick-ufos-pentagon-00126214
More there on the David Grusch issue.
Also the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 link in that has 8 hits of the term "historical record" to do with the above work by Kirkpatrick. FYI.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/7776/text
Interesting to read where Loeb published that speculative paper w/o SK's permission. Wonder what he might've edited out? As for AARO's upcoming Historical Review, if it's just a rehash of books like "UFOs and Government," "Clear Intent," or "UFOs and the National Security State," that'd be a bore. Maybe there's value in putting an official government imprimatur on a compendium of caseloads and trends gathered by independent researchers decades ago, but I'd hope AARO's effort would dig deep enough to uncover new primary-source and contemporaneous material.
I love that about Avi - and he's a modern day Feynman. Maybe it was the bit about the mothercraft releasing probes to Earth which seems logical anyway! I remember once someone said they'd given just a few dollars literally to help the GP in it's early stages. The reply was "we won't let you down". I hope too about the history!
Quote from Politico: “I’m ready to move on. I have accomplished everything I said I was going to do,” Sean Kirkpatrick said.
I remember when he said his goal was to provide (my words) a cheat sheet for agencies to refer to when determining what any particular UAP was - I remember because it implied, from the very start, that Kirkpatrick had no expectation of finding anything that defied explanation.
Now he declares victory and slinks away having avoided an interview with Ross Coulthart.
Compare the statements from AARO to the findings of Blue Book Special Report 14, the latter completed 70 years ago. Anyone with an appreciation for the history of ufology knows there have been many interesting cases pre 2004. But listening to official public statements today one would think none of that existed at all.
Well, maybe he'll feel inclined to speak more freely with Ross and Bryce when he takes his leave of AARO. That's my hope.
Looking at his career reinforces my assumption that he was handpicked because he'd be a 'sound' man for the job. Odds are, he wasn't chosen for his open mindedness or willingness to be the public face of AARO and engage with the press, but because the people who selected him knew what he would deliver. (The odds always favour the house.)
Even if there wasn't national security involved, or potential illegal activity, the exercise would still be one of PR and controlling the information. Government's primary concern is not looking inept.
You've done a heck of a job, Brownie, er, Sean.
Hello Billy, Do you know Richard Thieme? While waiting for "disclosure" this is probably the most information that will be shared outside of a SCIF. He has recruited and tended to the intelligence community for over 30 years. Have a look at his DEF CON 30 presentation. https://thiemeworks.com/videos/def-con-30-richard-thieme-ufos-alien-life-and-the-least-untruthful-things-i-can-say/
Richard's a good speaker who's done thankless research. Interesting that so many positive reviews of "Gov't and UFOs" were anonymously submitted by CIA/NSA types. Glad he's still in the game.
Hi Billy. Nice interview of Mark Rodeghier. My take is similar. How in the heck can you not disclose your organizational structure and its qualifications to do the job! Kirkpatrick's contribution to the job was close to nil in my opinion.
With respect Robert, do you not think his staff have to be protected from those who want to disrupt the whole AARO process? The NASA panel have had their fill of that and now have security on board. I do also remember once he spoke of, I think, of having a "red" team and a "blue" team who study the same cases totally separately and then confer. Also mentioned the types of analysts (electro-optic etc.) on the job. He does say in the 12 11 23 Politico (just out) link I gave above they're trying to rush through Volume 1 of the Historical Review. That's not bad.
Hi Alan. You bring up a good point. There are a lot of people out there that have no respect for the privacy of other people. And it's rampant on both sides of the coin. Look what happened to Grusch (whether one believes him or not) with the article on his private life. I've digressed a little, because I like your point. Nonetheless, AARO can provide information on their organizational structure without divulging an individual's identity. They can also provide background information on the qualifications of individuals within their organization.
AARO has not met the requirements made by congress in the NDAA of 2021, which are actually quite onerous. The historical review had two components. One was to review the history of UAP since 1945 based on what has been released to the public. I think it is a fair assessment that this has not been done. The second was to review all UAP data since 1945 that has been classified and hidden. Somehow, AARO has interpreted that to mean "find a hidden government program that has all the secrets". That could be a subcomponent but there are many many documents that have just been squirreled away and forgotten. Those would not be related to a hidden government program.
Robert, something I picked up on in SK's yesterday Hayden Center interview. He mentions the Strategic Technical Advisory Group - also a generic term used in other fields (pick up the question at 1:03:45 and his answer). Then SK talks about harassment issues, esp. to himself which I find staggering and didn't know of. He also says "I have some of the best professionals on the face of the planet working some of this". This looks to be all one can get re any structure of science/technical analysts at AARO, maybe there's more out there? Don't know.
Ok, I wasn't sure whether you wanted names and everything re ARRO staff! Re the review I am a little curious how you know what hasn't been published yet as this Volume 1 isn't yet out. In the Bill above
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/7776/text
I searched with the term "historical record" (8 hits) and got some detail (the 3rd hit).
I did also just quickly search AARO.mil with the terms "history" and "historical". Not much detail.
AARO
Search on the word "unidentified". The key parts are listed in Section 1673 and Section 6802 of the law.
Will look, thanks. BTW, really liked your detailed reverse engineering tweet and the pretty well impossibility of it. Perhaps progress chances now? - I've sometimes referred people to the arxiv.org as the source of all physics present in fundamental form, esp. quantum fundamentals and particle theory (also there's the Particle Data Group for properties).
But *the* glaring hole right now is no truly unified model of the four "forces". And string theory *still* doesn't touch reality and experiment (but ... wonder if you knew Ed Witten said string theory predicted general relativity? - who could argue with Ed?!).
I've mentioned before that with UAP sightings/analysis (e.g. Project Sign) in the late '40s, what the heck could physics offer at the time? Feynman (1949) had conjured up his personal quantum physics model and QED (a quantum version of electromagnetism only) that eventually led to the widely used Feynman diagrams (Oppenheimer preferred his to Schwinger's complex (equivalently correct) version). The electroweak (for 2 forces) unified model was 1967 and the quark model 1964. General relativity (1916) for gravity only and correct in the '40s of course. Yet the US Gov probably had a craft. Also no nuclear model at the time could touch this tech. (besides, no quark model).
Sean Kirkpatrick would know all this, being a physicist (a smart undergraduate would know this!), and surely would be shocked at the historical reports. So I wasn't that surprised at his comments in the recent Politico article. And he wears a lot of hats! Military, intelligence, scientist. Quite a straddle. And the Grusch spat? What's going on there!
The handwriting is on the wall as far as Hicks is concerned.....She's simply having staff put out a shallow PR statement. It's clear she has no idea or interest in the topic and simply relies on underlings to disseminate B.S. regarding Kirkpatrick, who was just the perfect foil for the Pentagon agenda
Blogger Matt Ford has already displayed Kirkpatrick's "Pinocchio's nose" in a recent blog.
I also viewed the Ford blog interview with David Schindele and that no official transcription service was included or provided per Kirkpatrick's telephonic interview with Schindle ..Just an informal casual interview
IOW: "Thank you for your input.. Have a nice day"
Kevin Randle's blog predicted that AARO was a sequel to Bluebook's operation.. "Bluebook 201"
IOW: "Lets go through the motions and pretend that we're interested in getting to the bottom of the phenomena" .. while behind the scenes " We cannot publicly proclaim that we have no idea or clue about the origins of the mystery, but can assure the public that its no threat to national security" (as far as we're concerned)
Who is the next sacrificial lamb or stooge that will be brought forth to take over as Director??