UFOs and AARO and the Future of Disclosure

Show Transcript

It's been six days since the release of the latest Arrow UAP report, and some things need to be said. And I know that you have things in the back of your mind that you want to say as well. And these six days have given myself and others to see the reaction and the fallout, as well as look at the possible future for UFO disclosure. (00:34) Hello and welcome to this episode of Mysteries with a History, where you'll be taken on a wild ride into the unknown, the strange, and the mysterious. Like you, I have questions, and like you, I have answers. Questions. And I want answers. Oh my goodness, I've been saying that intro for like several years now. (00:52) We messed it up. Can you believe that? Anyways, we have a lot to cover, so let me bring in my co-host, Jimmy Church of Fate of Black Radio. Jimmy, what a fun way. You're supposed to be rehearsed. You're supposed to be professional. After this many shows, you should be on autopilot. I know. Autopilot, autopilot. (01:14) Now, it's funny that you mention it like that because welcome, everybody. How you doing? It's going to be a great show today. um in in that yeah you go into autopilot mode and then you catch yourself right when you flub right and that's it's it's it's just really strange for for the audience they catch it too you know that right oh yeah they catch it because they're here every day and And they know. (01:45) So I'm moving some stuff around on my screen. I like the way that you put that in your intro. It's only been six days. And there has, I don't have to ask you where you got the idea for this week's show. But I want to start off with just a very, very general statement that I have been making publicly. (02:13) I have refrained from other commentary and insights on the report. There are a lot of excellent researchers out there and people that have read through this, and they have their own takes. I don't want that at this point through this broadcast, and you will be joining me tonight on Fade to Black for another version of this same show. (02:41) another version. Okay. Today is Christina's show. This is her take on the report. Tonight, it'll be my take and then her response to my take along with the audience. And then you have the audience in the middle hearing not only both versions of the show, but they will be able to then go and read the report and assess through everybody else's comments throughout social media and the news and the media. (03:13) on the report and come to your own conclusions. And that's our goal today in doing two different shows. So, but I need to really press that point that I have read through the report now so many times and I keep coming to I'm fine-tuning it, I should say, but I'm coming to other conclusions and other conclusions. (03:40) So I'm excited about this. And my first question to you as we start through this, how many times have you now read through the report? If I had to be brutally honest, because that's the only way I like to do these things, about three times. That's a lot. It's a lot. It's a lot. Now, the report itself, to get to a technical part of this, I'm going to pull this up. (04:08) And I did notice this after my like 10-3 through. There's the file itself. Do you have a download up for everybody? I do. You want me to pull it up? Okay. No, no, no. I mean, in the comments. Pop it up in the chat. If you don't have your own downloaded version of the report, let's get that up there so you can go back and reference this either during the show, of course, but for later reading. (04:46) And, okay, I think Zenzibille just got it up. Yeah, and I'm putting it in now as well. Okay, good, good, good, good, good. Is this... It's 64 pages in the PDF. But if you scroll to the bottom and you get to the end of the report, everybody, there are, let me make this kind of semi-official. The last 10, it ends on page 64. (05:26) Do you want me to share my screen or do you want to? I'm sorry. It ends on page 46 and then you have the cover page and then you have the title pages. So the report itself sits in the middle and it is between 30 and 40 pages because once you get past, you know, page four is still the table of contents and And then page five is blank. (05:53) And then the introduction starts on page seven. And that goes through page 46. That is the body of the report. After that, it's footnotes and references in the end of the report. And then the first seven pages, six pages, are the table of contents and the introduction. the introduction of the report with its cover page. (06:20) So there you go. So the bulk of the report sits in the middle between pages 7 and 46. Which in all honesty has been yet our best report that we've received where we get anywhere from seven to 11 pages and even that's being generous. So to be able to receive a 40 plus page paper with more chewable information, this is something that a lot of people saw as a plus that saw this in a more positive light than our previous reports. (06:54) But honestly, With more information, with more words, with more data collected, there is more space for flaws. There is more space for incorrect information compared to the previous reports. Before we even get into this one, let me just kind of lay a foundation. When we received our preliminary reports from the UAPTF, from the AOI, MSG, even from Arrow not too long ago, they were short they they were very word salad e papers where they try to use as many words as possible to tell you absolutely nothing the only thing that we were able to (07:35) grab from any of those reports was the term balloon-like entities people were like whoa what is that and many were grabbing on to that. For this one, there's a lot to look into, some information that people weren't familiar with prior. And so when you look it up, you still can't really find too much information. (07:56) But let's let's go ahead and get started with the report looking on page six, which is the introduction. And I'm going to read this to you. I even have it highlighted. And if you like, I can share show the PDF on screen. But let me just read this for now. Because it says, in completing this report, Arrow reviewed all official USG, which is United States government, investigatory efforts since 1945, researched classified and unclassified archives, conducting approximately, approximately, 30 interviews and partnered (08:31) with the intelligence community, the Department of Defense officials responsible for controlled and special access program oversight, respectfully. So just from that point, that one sentence, two sentences, there are two words that promptly come out and that is approximately 30 interviews. Why can't you just tell us the exact number? Like you're not cutting a person in half and only asking their top part or their bottom part. (09:00) You're asking an entire person. And then also they end the sentence with respectively. What does that mean? Starting off your entire paper, with that first paragraph. And now with that, and it's written from the introduction forward from a single perspective. So this would indicate to me that this was written by one person. (09:39) This wasn't a team effort. And missing from this report are the authors of the report. It doesn't list anywhere. It says we, it says Arrow, but it doesn't say Sean Kirkpatrick. It doesn't have another list of names. It doesn't have co-authors. That is very, very, very strange to me. When you write any scientific paper, anything of this nature, It is then peer-reviewed. (10:17) The authors are named and cited. That is missing from this report. Now, I don't know if this is a key component that others have noticed and have commented on. Like I said, I have refrained from reading everybody's assessments on it, but that is the one thing, I wanna know who wrote this report. So as you start to read from the introduction, you get the feeling that it's written by one person from one perspective. (10:51) And I think that that is a very important component to this as we go through the report. You can go to the end of the report and go to the last page. There's no authors listed. There's nothing on the cover page about who the authors are. It is just from Arrow. And it seems to be written from a single person perspective. (11:17) The other comment that I have to make that starts with the introduction, it reads like, this is my take after reading this report many times, it reads like a report that was written, and I'm not saying this in a derogatory sense, but it is like a high school level report freshman college level book report, a report on the, the Punic Wars, whatever, you know, it's like, it's, it's written like that. (11:59) All right. It is it is it's candy coated and it's from a personal perspective and it's written as a single person's opinion of a situation or or an historical event. And you get that from the word go right at the introduction. And this is important to talk about. But first, Decker, thank you so much for that. (12:26) And Chris, that made me laugh. Thank you so much as well. It says that error report should be printed on toilet paper so we can put it to its proper use. That's funny. Okay, so going to your point, Jimmy, about how it was written and in the sense of the format for... Okay, if it was to be a scientific paper using all of this jargon that your average person isn't familiar with... (12:52) No one was going to read it, which maybe that wasn't a bad idea for them because as we're going to go along, we're going to tear this apart. But the thing is that When you are writing a report, you have to consider as many people as possible. And they want to just have an assumption that maybe you don't have a super high education, but you still want to understand the report. (13:15) And while that might sound insulting because it is, that's just kind of the mentality. It's the same thing as that like content today. you only have the first three seconds to get someone's interest. We have a shorter attention span, as the saying goes, as a goldfish. And that's changed over the last few years. (13:33) Our education and our attention spans have shrunk significantly. And maybe this report could potentially be hinting at that with the way it was written, because it is easy to follow. There isn't any big... fluffy words in there. Your average person was able to read it and follow along. And so was that the purpose so that more people could maybe agree to the report versus those that said, oh, it's too complicated. (14:00) Therefore, it's all false. Let's throw it down the toilet. I mean, do you see what I'm saying here? Does that make sense to you? It does make sense. And there's another, staying on your point and going back to what I just said, it reads like... just a book report. And so when you do a book report or you've got to turn in some kind of paper on some kind of subject, you are going to pull information from your research and compile your, your said document. (14:40) Okay. And for those like the teacher, uh, that is giving these instructions. And for those that understand the subject matter, they're going to read the report and understand it because they know the contents of it. That's what we have here. It is a historical perspective from one person's search into the subject. (15:06) It is glaringly missing quite a bit of information that is not included in here. And I'll say specifically for the record, The Tic Tac and the Nimitz are not included in this report. And that I find highly suspect. And I don't know why it was not included here when we were talking about military professionals that were involved in that case. (15:32) The reason why Aero exists today is because of the revelations that Captain David Fravor brought forward in December of 2017. That is why Aero exists. And that's why this report was written today, was because of that moment in December of 2017. And it's not included in this report. Amongst other modern historical cases which were neglected and were not only... (16:04) Were they not included in the report? But you have to go back and ask yourself why. Why were those, when you have something very, very concrete that you can go and analyze, that is not included in this report. What this report is about is about smearing Not only individuals, but also the community in general. And that's the way that this report is written. (16:31) Also, one last comment. Everything in this report, except for Kona Blue, which I did not know about until this report, and I was very interested in that. Aside from Kona Blue, there is nothing in this report that you cannot get from public information. Okay? It's that simple. There is nothing new here. Anybody that has a general interest in this subject got nothing new from this report. (17:01) There's nothing in there. Not a single thing except for Kona Blue. Emphasizing on your point on your point on how it was written, kind of like a college paper, a high school paper. There are some opinions in here, which is always dangerous. And we're actually able to see it right here in the next or so paragraphs, for instance. (17:24) Let me just kind of start off here. Because it says that these investigators were managed and implemented by a range of experts, scientists, academics, military and intelligence officials under differing leaders. But then there's a bit more because it talks about and I emphasize this actually on strange news. (17:42) I found it so profound. And it was talking about belief, talking about conspiracy theories. And the way I read it, it was the Internet is lying to you. Do not believe the Internet. Believe the government. Believe this report that I am giving out to you. And it's just something that I don't think landed the way that maybe they anticipated for. (18:07) And I'm going I'm trying to just I'm reading through it as fast as I can and attempting to to find it. Here it is. Talking about a consistent theme in pop culture. And then it goes on talking about like off world spacecraft and extraterrestrial biological remains. And then it says that like Arrow recognizes that many people sincerely hold versions of these beliefs. (18:31) And I want beliefs to be in all caps and in bold, which are based on their perception and past experiences, right? But then it's saying with television programs, with books, with movies and the vast amount of Internet and social media content centered on UAP related topics are most likely most likely has influenced the public conversation on the topic. (18:55) And so this is where I'm saying, OK, we understand just from that paragraph alone, we understand their viewpoint of it is because of it's because of media altogether that you are getting it wrong. When it comes to aliens, extraterrestrial spacecraft, reverse engineered technology, blame them. But everything the government has ever said, according to this report, or what they're attempting to provide to the public, is that it's true. (19:26) They're telling you the truth while the media is not. Am I wrong for thinking it like that? No, that's exactly the point. That is exactly the point. It is because there is a singular, appears to be a singular author of this report writing from their position with their opinion. This report isn't based on facts. (19:53) It's not. And the citations that are at the end of the report are public information. That what is missing from this report, and if you are going to go on the record and write a report like this representing the government, you know what's important? Names. You cannot gloss over. There is not a name in this report. (20:23) There's not a name anywhere. So if you're going to go and interview 30, right? 30 interviews. Approximately. Right. Heads of corporations. Okay. Well, who? What CEO? What CEO went on the record? And in this report where they don't name those names, and obviously, and I'm going to say this on the record, the report takes a direct crack at Lou Elizondo. (20:58) Now, your opinion of Lou Elizondo does not matter here. But clearly, there is something going on with Arrow and Lou Elizondo. But they don't mention Lou Elizondo by name. To say OSAP and AATIP and this group of individuals wanted to influence and wanted to do this, wanted to do that, but they don't name names? Well, go on the record. (21:26) If that's the case, if you've got something personal here that is so deeply rooted and burning inside of you that you can't, Put the person's name in the report because you're afraid of the repercussions of that because you've got a personal ax to grind. No, put that name in there. If you interviewed the CEO of Lockheed or Northrop Grumman or Raytheon, wherever you went with this, where are those names? What dates were the interviews and what was said? The only explanation for that is this is an opinion piece. (22:08) This is an editorial piece. This is no different than anything else if I'm going to pay to have an op-ed inserted into the New York Times or the Washington Post. It's an opinion editorial piece. I'd like to emphasize on that because we're looking at page, about page 30, page 30 to 33 here. Talking about no names being mentioned, not even authors, just quickly backing it up. (22:35) Back in November, Kirkpatrick did allude to this report, saying that we were going to get new, interesting information to give people a better perspective. But on page 33... It says here, Arrow and a leading science laboratory concluded that the material is metallic alloy. But then what scientists, which lead scientists and what lead science laboratory are you referring to? But there's a little bit more because they kind of answer, they attempt to answer your question, Jimmy, on why there weren't names in the report. (23:10) And it had mentioned that because they were under NDAs, these people, they weren't able to They really weren't supposed to talk about these government projects and things like that. And they emphasized in the report, actually, that if you infringe on an NDA, it could be punishable by death. And they actually put that in bold. (23:32) And I'll find it for you in just a moment. But also there's also jail time. So that could have possibly have been a reason. And there's a bit more to that because then it said in volume two names would be released. Right. Yeah, and also right there it says, on the next page, we'll circle back to it, but it says, Arrow found no evidence of any NDF or any NDAs signed by anybody. (24:02) And I was like, wait a minute, okay, who said that? It's just an opinion. And obviously, if that is the case, then you're taking somebody's word. Now, also, on page 30 in the summary, right at the top of page 30, it says, It says this, and I quote, as of September 17, 2023, Arrow interviewed approximately 30 individuals. (24:30) Arrow categorized these individuals into three tiers. Tier one, interviewees who are those who have spoken with congressional staff members of Congress and have subsequently referred to Arrow. Tier 2 interviewees are those who have been referred to by Arrow by Tier 1 interviewees. And Tier 3 interviewees who are Arrow-generated interviewees that have a corroborating touchpoint to the principal integrated narrative of reports from Tier 1 and Tier 2 interviewees. (25:02) Priority is given to those interviewees who claim the first-hand knowledge of government programs, events, or details about any resulting material. Interviewees relaying second or third hand knowledge are lower in priority, but Arrow has and will continue to schedule interviews with them nonetheless. Now, to say something like that in such a general sense without breaking it down, you can. (25:34) go pop a number on it and then refer to who those interviewees were and on what date. It's so obvious that this kind of content is opinions and the cognitive dissonance, which is referenced in this report, by the way, is being worn, those blinders are being worn by the report writer. They want to ignore anything else out there that may change their opinion. (26:17) And that's what the report is. It's very, very obvious from the word go. Now, can we back up? Are you backing up? Let's go to the beginning of the report. And let's start at page 9. Okay, page eight going into page eight. And I'm going to read through these one by one, these bullet points. (26:54) UAP non-disclosure agreements, NDAs. Arrow has found no evidence of any authentic UAP-related NDA or other evidence threatening death or violence for disclosing UAP information. I'm going to stop right there and say that this is a direct crack at Lou Elizondo. Luella Zondo and David Grush as well. Well, many, many. (27:19) Right. But that claims that they're hiding behind an NDA. And this is this is that nobody can comment about that at this time. So there's that bullet to a CIA official allegedly manage UAP experimentation. The named former CIA official was not involved in the movement of extraterrestrial technology. The same former CIA officer signed a memo rejecting a claim made by interviewees that he managed the movement and of experimentation of off-world technology. (27:54) Says right here he's named. Or she. Who? What's the name? You can't, at this point, you can't hide behind, well, it's CIA, we can't reveal. You say it's a named former CIA officer. Okay? Right there, give us the name. Because at this point, the rumors, the innuendo, the soap opera drama that is social media that the report author is complaining about is doing it themselves right here. (28:34) Because this is innuendo. Bullet point three, alleged UAP intelligence community document, an alleged 1961 special national intelligence estimate that was leaked to online sources and suggests the extraterrestrial natures of UFOs is inauthentic. Bullet point number three, aliens present during a DOD technology test. (29:00) Arrow reviewed information related to an account of an interviewee overhearing a conversation about a technology test at a military base where aliens allegedly were observing, and Arrow judges that the interviewee misunderstood the conversation. Stop right there. Arrow judges, right? Arrow judges the interviewee is crazy. (29:28) That's what that says. That's it. Bullet point three, claim that a military officer touched an off-world craft. And this bullet point was, well, the interviewee actually touched an F-117 Nighthawk stealth fighter and thought it was an alien craft. That's right. And it says that it was misconstrued by the interviewee, although the named former officer does not recall having this conversation with the interviewee. (30:03) Again, we're lacking names, innuendo, and opinion. Test of off-world technology. An interviewee claimed that he witnessed what he claimed, right? wording. What he believed to be testing of extraterrestrial technology at a United States government facility almost certainly was the observation of an authentic non-UAP related technology test that strongly correlated in time, location, and description provided in the interviewee's account. (30:34) What test? Where was it? What are we alleging here? This is just a statement by the author. UAP disclosure study. Interviewees claims that between 2004 and 2007, the White House requested a research institute in Virginia study that theoretical societal impacts of disclosure in the UAP are extraterrestrial in origin. (30:58) Arrow confirmed the study was conducted but was not requested by the White House. It's opinion. Let's move on. No citations. Named companies allegedly experimenting on alien technology. This is one of the points that I'm going to make quite a bit. Arrow has found, Arrow, has found no evidence that U.S. (31:26) companies have ever possessed off-world technology. The executive scientists and chief technology officers of the companies named by interviewees met with the director of Arrow and denied on the record that they have never recovered, possessed, or engaged in reverse engineering extraterrestrial technology. Okay, so we don't know who these companies are. (31:46) We don't know who was interviewed. We don't have their names. But Arrow has found no evidence. So apparently, and we don't know who, the CEO of Lockheed comes into Sean Kirkpatrick's office, and I'm making assumptions here, and Sean Kirkpatrick says, okay, Do you have any flying saucers? No. (32:07) Okay, cool. You're going to say that on the record? Yes. Okay. Next. Bring in the next. Right? That's what we're talking about here. You're just going to take somebody's word just like that without naming who you interviewed? That the press, the media, and members of Congress, our elected officials can do follow-up on this? It's very interesting. (32:33) There probably was no follow-up. It's a huge point. Experimentation on alleged extraterrestrial spacecraft samples. Arrow has concluded, again, Arrow, has concluded that a sample from an alleged crashed off-world spacecraft that Arrow acquired from a private UAP investigating organization and the U.S. Army. (32:56) Now, is he talking about... Is he talking about Tom DeLonge? right, because the U.S. Army is mentioned here, right, is a manufactured terrestrial alloy and does not represent off-world technology or possess any exceptional qualities. The sample was primarily composed of magnesium, zinc, and bismuth with some other trace elements such as lead. (33:21) This assessment was based on its materials characterization. Okay, lab test. Who did the test at Arrow? Arrow concluded that And what were they testing? I need all of that information. I need all of that information. So it sounds like, again, because this is so empty in words and information, that I'm jumping to the conclusion, because it says U.S. (33:51) Army, that this is Tom DeLonge and arts parts and the piece that was purchased by a making... very, very broad conclusions here. Purchased from Linda Moulton Howe, turned over to the U.S. Army, and they used the U.S. Army's labs on that piece. So is that what is being referenced here? It's just from the... (34:25) metallic uh composition and the bismuth and the mention of that and zinc alloy I'm pretty safe in saying that except there's no no information here okay all right um okay now uh going on to page 10 aero assesses Not independent. This is Arrow. Arrow assesses that all of the name and described alleged hidden UAP reverse engineering programs provided by the interviewees either do not exist, are misidentified authentic, highly sensitive national security programs that are not related to extraterrestrial technology exploitation, (35:11) or resolved to an unwarranted and de-established program. Okay, now there's a lot of information on this statement in the rest of the report. One, the de-established program, we'll get to that in a little bit. But to say that everybody involved didn't know what they were talking about, didn't have access to the real information, or this is a national security issue. (35:40) That's it. There's no other conclusion to come to that the author is the judge and jury here. And the disappointing part is that because there are no author names, if it was one person or several people, we're not able to question them on why they thought the things that they did or how their investigations went, which I think in their mentality was a brilliant idea because Arrow... (36:10) It's this whole agency that you're not able to pinpoint and grab a person out of it. And what I think is really interesting about this, Jimmy, is that Kirkpatrick left in December. He had alluded to this paper in November. The report was released in March. So three months after him leaving Arrow. And now the current director, like for the time being, Is Timothy Phillips. (36:35) But but what's interesting here is why was the report released several months after Kirkpatrick left? Who wrote the paper and how many people proof read the paper? There's all these really valid questions. And when you're releasing anything that requires scientific analysis, it has to be peer reviewed. (36:59) And those that peer review it need to put their name on it to be held accountable. Here, from what we're seeing, is that no one is being held accountable, which it's child's play. The point that you're making is so important. When you read through this... Now, I'm not a New York Times bestselling author. (37:27) I'm not a book editor. I'm not any of that. I write the way that I speak. Actually, I write a little better than I speak for some reason. I don't know why that is. But... I have a general grasp on the English language and grammar. And reading through this, I've just got to say, there are some points of this, the way that it's written. (37:55) It's like nobody did a proofread and nobody did an edit on this and let it get out in its current state. Again, I'm not going to sit here and pick apart this and grade the paper on its grammar, but it reads funky to me. It does. It reads funky. It doesn't flow right. But that's my opinion, and you can read through this yourself. (38:21) Now, I want to get to Kona Blue. at staying in the flow here, because on page 10, it goes straight into Kona Blue. Now, this caught my attention. Everybody knows, I don't need to state my credentials, but I have probably interviewed more people than anybody on the subject, okay? I can say that with a fair amount of confidence. (38:53) And so in doing so, I have a lot of information. I've read all the books, not all of them, but I've been doing this for 50 years. I'm 60 years old and I have a pretty firm grasp on timelines, on projects, on cases. I just do. Okay. All right. That being said, Kona Blue, right? Even for me, for me, you know, because I'm reading through this. (39:24) Christina, I'm telling you, right? I was like, Kona what? Kona who? What? What? Okay, here we go. Now, Kona Blue, I was hoping it was going to be something more than it turned out to be, but I didn't know anything about it. So for those that haven't read the report, and I've heard me mention Kona Blue now a half a dozen times since the start of the show. (39:50) Here we go. This is page 10. The interviewees and others who have mistakenly associated authentic, sensitive national security programs with UAP had incomplete or unauthorized access to these programs. I find that a very interesting statement. Discussion of these programs outside of secure facilities presents a high risk of exposing national security information. (40:17) Yes, I get that. I also call BS. One named program was a UAP related prospective special access program or a PSAP. That's an SAP that hasn't gotten to SAP level. It's just a suggested program. Let's go and see if this has merit and see if we can get it funded. So the idea is there. You've written up the idea and it is called a PSAP. (40:52) This PSAP was called Kona Blue. That was proposed to the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, and supported by individuals who believe the United States government was hiding off world technology. The program was never approved by DHS, and its supporters never provided empirical evidence to support their claims. (41:16) Now, I'm going to come back to this because the third bullet point here on page 10 is, in 2021, without sufficient justification, the scope of an IC-controlled access program was expanded to protect UAP reverse engineering. What? Right? Oh, we're getting somewhere, aren't we? This program never recovered or reverse engineered any UAP or extraterrestrial spacecraft. (41:46) This IC program was de-established due to its lack of merit. This was referenced in the introduction page of this report. Now, let's go back to bullet point number two, because it directly reflects into bullet point number three. And that is this. Kona Blue appears to be, if we read this correctly here, Christina, a Lou Elizondo OSAP ATIP extension suggested by those involved with OSAP to extend this program. (42:29) Now, I'm going to say Lou Elizondo and those around him. But what I find interesting about this, and I'm going right back to Lou Elizondo, why didn't Lou Elizondo mention Kona Blue? Kona Blue... If we read this correctly, was a suggestion about backwards and reverse engineering craft, and this new project is going to go and investigate this, and it's going to be called Kona Blue, apparently spearheaded by the OSIP ATIP Bigelow crowd and Circle. (43:11) Why are we reading about this in this report? And why wouldn't Lou Elizondo mention this in the past? I have interviewed him multiple times. Okay. He had every opportunity to mention Kona blue. Um, I now, unless I missed something in the past, I haven't listened to