Description

Introduction

Hello everyone. The point of this post is to go over observations, criticisms, and concerns that I and others have expressed since the hearing yesterday (November 19^(th), 2024). While I understand that it is easy to lose hope or be disappointed in this subject, some complaints are simply not based in fact or reason (I’ve made similar posts in the past (https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/16in94b/the_nasa_report_why_it…) about NASA’s UAP report (https://science.nasa.gov/uap/) *and* last year’s hearing (https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/158gbeg/treat_wednesday_as_you…)).

This post will be discussing 2 main things, formatted in a way that is easy to read and to follow:

1. Misinformation I have seen spread about the hearing and it’s contents, as well as sources to combat said misinformation.
2. Concerns that I have seen expressed both in this subreddit and elsewhere, and sources that are meant to neither confirm nor deny said concerns.

I already compiled some information on Dr. Jon Kosloski and how he differs heavily from Sean Kirkpatrick, which garnered a lot of *attention* (https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1gueubc/dr_jon_kosloski_why_aa…). Speaking of which…

Am I Real?

Before I begin, let me be clear: no, I am *not* a “disinfo agent”. I am not from Eglin AFB, I am not from Wright Patterson AFB,

I know what you’re thinking: “that’s exactly what a disinfo agent would say”, and I get it. Astroturfing is not a conspiracy theory by any means, and I’ve been accused before (https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1gv2zw7/comment/ly07rjc/?utm_s…). However, let me just bring up some points that I believe “prove” that I’m “real” (skip this if you don’t care):

1. I’ve been heavily invested in the topic since I was young, with an increase in interest within the past 7-8 years and a much larger spike within the past 1-2 years. I’ve always wanted this subject to be taken seriously by the scientific community, and I have tried my hardest to remain open-minded and rationally skeptical.
2. I’ve had my own sighting(s) over the years, with a truly intriguing sighting happening around this time last year (which I even made posts about both here (https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/17a15ow/pulsing_satellitelike_…) and in the stargazing subreddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/Stargazing/comments/17997ac/pulsing_satellit…))
3. I have been actively researching this subject (primarily within this subreddit) and am a very firm disclosure advocate. Examples of this :
1. I have multiple FOIA and NARA requests out for leads with regards to UAP. A specific example right now is the “Zodiac” file unit (see part 0 (https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/14zll8w/no_records_found_for_m…), part 1 (https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1gmv3zn/foia_request_through_d…), and part 2 (https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1gqm0ql/update_foia_request_sa…)), which I actually *just* got off a phone call with a NARA official for an update.
2. I’ve contacted my senators and representatives regularly (https://www.reddit.com/r/disclosureparty/comments/16zbb1y/rep_sharice…) (another post (https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/16zb6sh/rep_sharice_davids_dks…), and another (https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/163593w/i_just_wrote_to_all_my…)
3. Reached out to individuals regarding “woo” to attempt to find patterns in their methods (on hold for now)
4. I have a YouTube channel, where I made an hour long YouTube video essay on the 2023 UAP hearing (https://youtu.be/FZzIPPaw8S8?si=XdJ4tz_FA2hm2FRU) and also an amateur video analysis of a UAP video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDb-pd7yPRQ) that mirrored my previously mentioned sighting.
5. I make posts (and comments) in this very subreddit all the time (1 (https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1gb689x/project_blue_book_file…), 2 (https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1g016s2/update_battelle_memori…), 3 (https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1ftx68g/it_appears_battelle_me…), 4 (https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1f0gn9w/has_an_aaro_or_pentago…), 5 (https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/147da08/a_continually_updated_…), etc.)
4. I’ve been actively thinking of ways to incorporate my technical and professional skills (computer scientist/engineer) to help with the subject; both in terms of data collection and in terms of destigmatization. I have been working hard on these ideas (life and college willing) and have made great progress which I can hopefully share in detail when it is ready. Here are specific examples:
1. I had the idea for a civilian UAP reporting app that took ALL the phone’s sensors into account. Unfortunately, I lost motivation due to mobile application development hassles (specifically with iOS, like needing a Mac and having to pay monthly) and life events. (Note: this was *before* Enigma Labs and the NASA UAP Report)
2. I am currently working (solo) on an open-source sensor system (both hardware and software) in C++ utilizing machine learning to detect and catalog UAP sightings both in real time and historically. I’ll be making a post about it once I’ve got it in a good state (Note: this was *long* before the Galileo Project’s recent report on their sensor system for detecting UAP)

I could likely go on, but honestly I’m tired and I have much bigger plans for this post than attempting to “prove” to people that I’m real. Let’s get started.

Misinformation #1: “They said UAP are not a security threat”

An hour after the hearing, this post (https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1gv91s2/aaro_are_liars/?utm_so…) blew up with the following claim:

…Before that, he said: We have found no evidence of extraterrestrial life. He admitted that they are anomalies but stated they are not a security concern…

The comments of the post began to immediately dismiss the hearing as “a complete waste of time” (https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1gv91s2/comment/ly01sxf/?utm_s…) and similar negative comments followed.

OP’s claim of them stating “they are not a security concern” is *SEVERELY* misinterpreted, whether that be intentionally or unintentionally. The quote that OP is referring to was during Kosloski’s explanation of declassification, *not* overall UAP (ABC livestream (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swxMIQIT4uE)):

…In some cases, it may be unclear why the DoD classified a piece of information in the first place. Why are photos of seemingly benign objects, such as balloons, classified? It is often the case that an object or phenomenon isn’t *itself* a security concern, but the location, source, or method used to capture it *is* still sensitive. Many cases are difficult to quickly release to the public… (01:25:27 – 01:25:52)

Here is what was *actually* said about UAP being security threats:

Unidentified objects in any domain pose potential threats to US safety and security. Reports of UAP activity, particularly near national security sites, must be treated seriously and investigated with scientific rigor by the U.S. government. – Dr. Jon Kosloski (01:22:10 – 01:22:25)

…We find it very concerning that our pilots, that our Navy officers, that people who have sightings of UAPs are denigrated, are somehow dismissed or disregarded. They need to be protected. This is a huge issue for national security because #1, we don’t have domain awareness, which is very problematic; #2, we don’t have domain superiority if we don’t understand how different UAPs are flying, what technology they are using, what their mission is, what their purpose is, and at the *base* level we have so many UAPs around our bases, around our military sites, around our nuclear sites, that it’s deeply disturbing that adversaries, at a minimum, could be using these opportunities to spy, to glean intelligence that will harm our long term national security…I’m grateful that AARO is trying to integrate the private sector, the public, into their work… – Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (01:36:22 - 01:37:25)

Misinformation #2: “Gillibrand seemed disinterested/in on it”

I’ve also seen comments such as “Gillibrand has to be in on it” (https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1gv91s2/comment/ly01wof/?utm_s…), “Gillibrand is part of their team” (https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1gv91s2/comment/ly04ia9/?utm_s…), etc. However, these words fall flat when compared to Gillibrand’s actions both during the hearing and in the past.

Yes, she has said good things about Sean Kirkpatrick. Yes, she directly helped to create AARO. But at the same time, she was a major part of the UAP Disclosure Act and is heavily involved in pushing for UAP transparency. Here’s what she *actually* said at the hearing:

I recently just read your report from March, your Historic report, and I would encourage anyone who is interested in this topic to read that report because when I was asked by a reporter about it they said “well it doesn’t show any evidence of secret programs that have aliens”. *That’s not how I read the report.* The way I read the report is that the US government took sightings extremely seriously over the last 75 years, put some of the greatest minds ever to analyze these cases because they assess them as deeply unknown phenomena that may or may not cause threats that may or may not be related to adversaries, but are certainly something that the U.S. government needs to know about. And what I read from this report is that we’ve resolved numbers of cases, but in almost every instance- whether it was the 40’s, the 50’s, the 60’s, the 70’s, the 80’s, the 90’s, the naughts- half the cases were unresolved. So I don’t think this is an example of the government not taking these cases seriously. I think this is an example of our government spending 75 years taking these cases very seriously. And interestingly, for the group that put together this report, they didn’t have access to any first-hand reporting, and so from my perspective, for whistleblowers and people who want to come in: please come in, because the purpose of AARO is so that the senators can do our job to provide oversight, accountability, and transparency… – Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (01:35:03 - 01:36:22)

Concern #1: GoFast

One of the resolved cases/videos they presented at the hearing was GoFast. This should *not* have come as such a surprise to those following the UAP subject, as the object recorded in GoFast was already mathematically calculated to only be going ~40mph during the NASA UAP study. Ryan Graves has even said as much (https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1gvmite/ryan_graves_responds_t…):

The Go Fast *video itself* was never really interesting because it was going fast. The pilots certainly didn't say that, nor did they name the video. If anything, the Pentagon simply debunked their own naming for that video. – Ryan Graves


However, there *are* genuine critiques and concerns that people (including myself) have brought up from this “resolution”. One of which is that while the individual video might be mundane, that does not necessarily mean the entire *event* was. Specifically, Graves has directly commented on the matter (https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1gvmite/ryan_graves_responds_t…), stating the following:

If the AARO office actually spoke with the pilots that were involved in that incident, they would know the objects were part of a larger formation of objects…that video was captured within minutes of the GIMBAL video… – Ryan Graves

If it is true that AARO did not even attempt to contact the pilots about this, or the pilots went to AARO and were rejected, that is a direct indication of a lack of effort and potentially a coverup. At the same time, whistleblowers and witnesses are *consistently* being told NOT to go to AARO by notable figures like Gary Nolan (https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1gvdqtn/joe_murgia_and_gary_no…), Lue Elizondo, etc. Additionally, their words are echoed (https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1gvmite/comment/ly2wqu0/?utm_s…) in forums (https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1gv91s2/comment/ly00mb7/?utm_s…) like this one. This could absolutely be a contributing factor as to why these pilots were not contacted, especially since they have kept their identities private since 2017.  

However, at the end of the day, it is up to AARO to build their trust with the public, witnesses, and whistleblowers. I see a silver lining with the new director, but Rome wasn’t built in a day, and neither is trust.

Concern #2: “They only showed resolved cases.”

Unfortunately, the vast majority of UAP sightings *are* going to turn out to be prosaic objects; *especially* now considering how young AARO is and how short of a time the reporting system has been in place. This is an undeniable fact. And yet, people were *still* extremely let down that they only showed data of resolved cases, even though they stated they would only be showing resolved cases before the hearing.

With that being said, unresolved and *anomalous* UAP data *should* still be declassified and shared with the public. It only takes one anomalous object to be confirmed as NHI for it to be real. The *good news* is that this new director seems *extremely* more open to declassifying truly anomalous information for the public than his predecessor:

Recognizing the talent and expertise that resides outside of the government, AARO will continue to explore new ways to partner with the academic and scientific communities to investigate it’s *most complex UAP cases*. A related priority for AARO is transparency. Our ability to collaborate with key partners, including the scientific community and the public, relies on information sharing to include downgrading and declassifying UAP related information… - Dr. Jon Kosloski (01:25:00 – 01:25:27)

[Declassification] can take time. Nonetheless, the department is committed to declassifying and publicly sharing more information on UAP while protecting sensitive sources and methods. – Dr. Jon Kosloski (01:26:13 – 01:26:23)

…and, to be clear, AARO does not believe that every object is a bird or a balloon or a UAV. *We do have some very anomalous objects*, it’s just the nature of resolution: we can only resolve things that we understand, so we’re now working on additional products where we can *inform the public*, congress, and others of the objects *as we’re studying them* rather than once we’ve resolved them. – Dr. Jon Kosloski (01:33:20 -  01:33:41)

Additionally, from yesterday’s hearing alone, we can already see AARO presenting itself much more professionally when it comes to resolutions. For example, here is a slide from the previous Senate Armed Services hearing in 2023 with Sean Kirkpatrick.

Slide from AARO's Senate Armed Services hearing in 2023 (led by Kirkpatrick) (https://preview.redd.it/jvbxpxqn962e1.png?width=1322&format=png&auto=…)

Compare that with this slide from yesterday:

Slide from yesterday's Senate Armed Services hearing with AARO (led by Kosloski) (https://preview.redd.it/ovhzqekq962e1.png?width=1333&format=png&auto=…)

From this comparison alone, one can clearly see there was much more effort put in; not to mention the numerous diagrams shown for each “resolved” case.

Concern #3: Susan Gough

During the hearing, this post (https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1gv9evv/susan_gough_is_still_h…) was made claiming that “Susan Gough is still handling AARO”. This comes after the House UAP hearing, where Lue Elizondo (indirectly) claimed that Susan Gough is a “psychological operations officer” (https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1gqsn3u/elizondo_in_the_ufo_he…), confirmed the same day by u/blackvault.

This is certainly concerning, given her history with the subject (https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a30916275/governme…) and numerous discrepancies; however, I have seen this concern *solely* be used to discredit the entire hearing. To be clear, Susan Gough’s official title is ”Strategic Planner & Spokesperson”. *Just because she was in the room does not necessarily mean she “handles AARO”*. It’s her job to be the mouth of the DoD, so obviously she must be at least *somewhat* informed on current events, especially those of public interest. It might be useful to check in on the other hearings she participates in and see if this AARO hearing is an outlier (for example, check the House UAP hearing crowd).

Conclusion

To wrap this post up, here is what I am *NOT* trying to convey:

* You should blindly trust AARO.
* Dr. Jon Kosloski is doing a great job.

The main messages I am trying to convey are this:

* Set your expectations low, but not too low.
* Progress is being made. Stop with the nihilism.
* Stay focused.

There is a *big* difference between *tempering your expectations* and *being nihilistic*. This hearing *WAS* different from AARO hearings prior, even if by just a little. It is understandable to feel defeated after decades of secrecy, but this is not the time to throw in the towel and call it quits. This is not the time to lose hope and throw facts and reason to the side. This is the time we need to be as vigilant as possible. See things for yourself before making decisions. Fact check everything, and don’t give in to echo chambers.

There is truth to this topic.