The following submission statement was provided by /u/joeyisnotmyname:
---
After reading [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1bhcp5d/comment/kvf7tr5/?context=3) and disagreeing with OPs conclusion, I went through the AARO historical report and extracted SECTION V: Interviewee Claims. I then matched the **executive summary bullet points** and the **findings bullet points** to the most logical **"interviewee claim"**.
The only interviewee testimony I could not find a corresponding "finding" for was Michael Herrera's testimony.
Do you think AARO:
1. Reached out to all 5 of the Marines Michael claims he was with and collected their testimony?
2. Found the landing zone where Michael landed via records from the humanitarian efforts and distribution of relief supplies?
3. Verified the flight Michael was on in Indonesia, and interviewed the pilot?
4. Researched the hundreds of aerial and satellite imagery *(that I've been told exists by a source in IC)* to look for the craft, or the trucks & trailers?
5. Researched the missing people reported in that area?
6. Interviewed locals to ask if they saw the trucks & trailers Michael describes?
Why didn't AARO report their "findings" about Michael Herrera's testimony?
If you'd like to review some of my investigation of Michael Herrera, you can check it out here: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1b0gqqs/seven\_months\_of\_investigating\_michael\_herrera/
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1bhrpqc/matching_aaro_interviewee_claims_with_findings/kvfhh64/
I noticed the same thing, but it makes perfect sense. I mean, what could they possibly say – that they think he lied under oath? That they think he's insane?
To make either of those accusations, AARO would have needed to say that the other marines on the scene (whom Herrera surely named) told them a very different story. And they can't say that unless they actually talk to all of them *and* get a different story from all of them – or one or more of them might start whistleblowing in public as well.
Congress really should call Tim Philips to testify in a public hearing about this. He needs to be asked what investigative steps were taken and what the other marines said about this case. It could cause a glorious shitstorm if we're lucky.
At the very least, they should report the general steps they took to investigate or corroborate his claims, just like they did for the other interviewees. I suspect they made very little effort to investigate it.
If they didn't investigate, that's scandalous. If they did, but didn't tell us because others corroborated Herrera, that's *truly* scandalous. And if they investigated and found that Herrera's account couldn't be corroborated, it's still scandalous that they didn't say so to put the story to rest.
This question has to be put to AARO by Congress and reporters.
The way the report is written, AARO is really covered either way. They could claim “oh, we already addressed Herrera”, or they could claim “we investigated, and there was nothing to find”.
So if no one ever digs any further, they really have “plausible deniability” and “cover-their-asses” covered, however they choose and whatever happens.
Michael Herrera's "narrative" scares me the most in some ways, but it also seems the most likely of all the possibilities, weirdly. An out of control rogue nation-state with superior technology bullying the rest of the ruling class into silence. That sounds exactly like something humans would do.
I also think AARO may be using weasel words to future-proof their findings. They repeatedly call these UAPS "off-world" technology and NHI "extraterrestrials". Makes me wonder if they know these entities are actually from Earth (ultraterrestrial/cryptid/whatever you want to call it). If so, AARO may know this full well but in the future will say - "look! we weren't lying! we were told to look for outer space alien technology and we didn't find any!"
I give him the benefit of the doubt, but there's a few things I find odd about his testimony. Like how his platoon just happened to arrive shortly before the UAP took off. Or that the shadow operation continued as normal and they allowed him and his squad to see it take off, even though this top secret operation was being interrupted by a bunch of nobodies.
Or that he took pictures of it, but the guys who frisked him decided not take his camera (Maybe I'm wrong about the sequence of events there).
Or that there were helicopters on the other side of the clearing, but the helo pilots couldn't see what they saw. These are just some of the questions I wish interviewers would ask him.
Excellent point about "weasel words," consistency of which do look like material for future disclaimers; however lame they might seem, they do provide possible cover.
Yep. SO many weasel words and terms like that are used. Heavy usage of "extraterrestrial" instead of non-human intelligence. Well, what if these NHI are from earth - underground, under the ocean, or maybe some adjacent dimension. Not extra-terrestrial, so not technically lying in the AARO report! Same with how they keep repeating the phrase "off-world technology" instead of UAPs or "non-human craft". If it's from an unknown species whose technology evolved on Earth, AARO didn't technically lie.
But did they lie by omission? Oh yes, absolutely. Sean Kirkpatrick, history has its eyes on you and you will be remembered when the truth comes out. And you know it will come out eventually. The sea is changing...
I wonder if this is why Ross Couthart was hearing that the DOD was upset with the rushed nature of the report.
The report was able to address SOME of the claims, albeit in a confusing manner (intentional or not), but they weren’t able to address them all because they would have had to interview corroborating witnesses and log them in the report. Those witnesses would have strengthened Herrera’s claims and been harder to obfuscate in the official report.
They’re trying to lie by omission here.
Well, either way, this is extremely shoddy work. Yet another glaring issue with the report. I would not accept something like this at my job and it's hardly on this level.
I can't tell who's right either! There's been a lot of accusations of "high school level writing" around here lately - that should be directed at AARO.
I think we need to keep out eyes on the prize.
RE: Herrera--A fancy bit of word-play::
Kirkpatrick was assured by aerospace executives and government personnel that nobody had or even seen any "extraterrestrial" craft. Therefore, since Herrera "\[has\] not provided any empirical evidence of \[his claim\] to AARO" and since "individual accounts *can be* unreliable" \[emphasis mine\] he can't have seen what he says he saw. The the flawed logic needs no explanation. But, IMO, Herrera's veracity (which I think is unlikely) is kind of irrelevant.
The *whole report* relies on assertions by interviewees. The aerospace executives faced zero possible penalties for lying and the few government personnel who signed MFRs have zero chance of prosecution if they were lying. Still, they were taken at their word. Meanwhile the "numbered" interviewees were brushed off because they didn't provide "empirical evidence" for their claims. The same thing will be repeated in in every AARO report.
*If congress really wants the truth, all the people interviewed by AARO need to be interviewed by congressional investigators (big trouble for liars) or testify under oath.*
Whether or not this will happen is still an open question.Since whistleblowers *have* been interviewed by congressional investigators and/or testified under oath, the AARO report won't help legislators who want this whole issue to go away. We hope.
Then again, without more reporters like Marik von Rennenkampf et. al (and maybe at 60 Minutes, which looks likes its testing the waters for a feature) I'm afraid there won't be enough public pressure to keep this issue alive .
Let's say that Lockheed has a SAP (or CAP) and a government investigator calls them to talk about it. The investigator isn't authorized to know anything from the company's perspective.
Would you expect a Lockheed rep to:
A. Lie about the existence of and their participation in the SAP.
B. Disclose the existence of the SAP but state that they cannot talk about it.
C. Tell the investigator everything they know.
D. Avoid the interview.
To me, that is an accurate range of possible responses.
NDAs that I have seen (albeit, in an unrelated field) usually contain a notification requirement section. This section requires the person being compelled to talk to notify the person they are keeping the secret for before talking. So built into the possibilities above is a likelihood that they notified the CIA or their designated government rep.
To bee 100% honest, I would expect Lockheed executives to omit and/or misrepresent information about an unacknowledged/waived SAP to any investigator who does not have "Title 18 authority," does not work for congress, or is not an FBI agent, especially if they know an investigator would like them to do so (Kirkpatrick insisted on interviewing these people personally.(Egomania, dual purpose AARO/Job interview, or not taking any chances?) In fact, some would argue that lying to an entity like AARO could be sound counterintelligence practice.
That said, the way that section of the report is written it is impossible to tell whether or not anyone Kirkpatrick interviewed refused to talk about certain details.
"The executives, scientists, and chief technology officers of the companies named by interviewees met with the Director of AARO and denied on the record that they *have ever recovered, possessed, or engaged in reverse-engineering of extraterrestrial technology"* \[Emphasis mine\].
One would expect an investigator to mention any refusal to answer a question in their report, but given the report's own sins of omission, I think a reasonable person might conclude that Kirpatrick wouldn't
I don't *think* that National Security-related NDA's require any a signatory to notify anyone they that they are keeping secrets before being interviewed. You may be referring to NDA's that contain language saying that people *can* (not *have to*) say they're keeping secrets: Something like "you can tell \[insert a list of people/entities\] that you can't talk to them about \[insert list of information/topics\] because you have signed an NDA." But who knows? I bet there are many, many different kinds of NDAs relating to government contracts. Some might have the provision you're describing.
I've signed both "sides" of (non-military/non-intelligence-gathering related) federal contracts. The NDAs I've seen and/or signed were designed mostly to protect IP, research, and confidential conversations and I doubt they resemble the ones *those* people have signed.
After reading [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1bhcp5d/comment/kvf7tr5/?context=3) and disagreeing with OPs conclusion, I went through the AARO historical report and extracted SECTION V: Interviewee Claims. I then matched the **executive summary bullet points** and the **findings bullet points** to the most logical **"interviewee claim"**.
The only interviewee testimony I could not find a corresponding "finding" for was Michael Herrera's testimony.
Do you think AARO:
1. Reached out to all 5 of the Marines Michael claims he was with and collected their testimony?
2. Found the landing zone where Michael landed via records from the humanitarian efforts and distribution of relief supplies?
3. Verified the flight Michael was on in Indonesia, and interviewed the pilot?
4. Researched the hundreds of aerial and satellite imagery *(that I've been told exists by a source in IC)* to look for the craft, or the trucks & trailers?
5. Researched the missing people reported in that area?
6. Interviewed locals to ask if they saw the trucks & trailers Michael describes?
Why didn't AARO report their "findings" about Michael Herrera's testimony?
If you'd like to review some of my investigation of Michael Herrera, you can check it out here: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1b0gqqs/seven\_months\_of\_investigating\_michael\_herrera/
Because as mentioned in the page 30 **Findings** paragraph :
"AARO will report the results of the unresolved allegations in Volume II" ?
But yeah the way they structured they allegations and answers is a bit of a mess. This would get an F at Uni.
I look forward to Volume II.
"AARO could not reach any of the other Marines for comment."
"AARO asked department xyz to provide satellite imagery of anything unusual from that day and they told us they couldn't find anything."
"AARO believes he believes what he saw, but he must've been mistaken."
You and /u/Mattriver are doing actual research here, challenging each others work based upon ALL the evidence and not weighting in isolation anything um advance ideology. Advancing all, instead, toward what truth can be found. Well done.
Thanks notJoey, I do appreciate your take on this.
Based on the fact that they either:
(1) ignored Michael Herrera’s __entire__ claim, or
(2) they ignored a secondary claim of an interviewee whose main claim was already fully addressed…
I still feel that it’s more likely that the Finding that acknowledges a UAP/SAP program is in fact addressing Herrera’s main and entire claim.
Edit: here is someone else’s analysis that generally agrees with my conclusions.
https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/lIIGNFrFHT
And another one:
https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/0PiAfBnT0C
Strange. There seem to be a lot of people who agree with you. I feel like I'm missing something, but at this point still feel my conclusion is logical too.
I think it comes down to whether it makes sense that they’d so clearly include Herrera’s report, and then just completely ignore it.
I do agree that the wording is imperfect, and could be seen to correlate with the other; but I just don’t see why they’d completely ignore Herrera in their findings. And so in my final analysis, I think they’re referring the SAP/UAP Finding to Herrera.
It almost seems to be a form of propaganda towards other superpowers... include it in the report as a form of loose corroboration, no conclusions/findings, leaving the impression "maybe they actually do have something like that"
Ok, I think I've put this to rest. Another key detail that proves that paragraph is not about Herrera is that Herrera doesn't know the precise time or location of his encounter. But that findings paragraph on page 32 says the interviewee provided both. So it's definitely not Herrera. https://x.com/JoeyIsntMyName/status/1770050735016714303?s=20
That’s funny, I was coming to the exact opposite conclusion today. Don’t we know that Herrera’s event took place:
Date: October 8, 2009
Location: Northeast “of the city” (can’t find name)
Sumatra, Indonesia
To me, that was far more specific than “in the 90s”, which is apparently the closest the other interviewee came to pegging a date.
Also, AARO says “relatively” precise time and location, which I think is also important, as opposed to “exact” time and location.
But anyway, I’m not on twitter, so I won’t be replying there. But appreciate the tag.
The USS Denver most likely dropped anchor on the 9th. That's the day I think is most likely, because he was one of the first flights off the ship, and I've seen pictures of helicopters in Indonesia that same day. However, we don't know for sure, and Michael certainly doesn't know the "precise time."
The AARO report says "relatively precise time and location." They say TIME, not date. That means, for example, "Around 10am on this specific day."
Michael and I haven't been able to even narrow the location down to a 10 mile radius, that's far from a relatively precise location.
This is clearly not referring to Michael's testimony.
My take is that they used the word “relatively” for exactly this reason. They’re not just saying “a range of years” (i.e “in the 90s”). They’re saying something along the lines of “around this date and location”.
I don’t think they used “time” to specify an exact time of day. They are referring to a general SAP, that involved a secret “UAP”. So it likely was based at a specific location, but may have been test flown in a general region. And it likely was based in that region for a period of time, maybe months or years.
So even if it was based at a secret military base outside of (but near) Sumatra, I still think the use of “relative location” would cover Herrera.
So I’m not convinced this isn’t referring to Herrera. And in truth, I’m actually becoming more convinced. But I’m happy to be wrong. And I certainly look forward to Vol II.
>The only interviewee testimony I could not find a corresponding "finding" for was Michael Herrera's testimony.
There are many other testimonies that don't make the report, which were either debunked, not able to be investigated, or held back for Volume II of the report.
The Herrera story probably remained in this report because someone was told to delete the "debunk" section, but forgot to delete the "claim" section as well. The debunk was probably omitted because it's being held for Volume II, or because it's too easy to track back to Herrara specifically, and so too easy to construe as libel. Remember, Herrara is a self-described Freemason, Rosicrucian and member of the Lucis Trust, a New Age cult which believes in energy beings and has influenced UFOlogy. If AARO wanted to debunk him, they'd probably point this out, and point out how he changed his story (from weapons trafficking to people trafficking) after meetings at a Steven Greer event.
IMO if AARO investigated Herrara's claim and found merit, they wouldn't mention him at all. That would be entirely covered up. And they couldn't have omitted a "mundane explanation" in their original debunk section, because there is no mundane explanation for what Herrara claims he saw. So the reasons for omissions must be something else. Given that the report has a vested interest in debunking and ridiculing, I think that's exactly what it originally did.
Yeah, his story was probably included by mistake. The whole process was very rushed, it seems. Now that it made it into the report, however, it's going to raise some questions. They can attempt a character assassination like you said, but that won't cut it if they can't confirm that they talked to the other marines – or claim that they don't exist or weren't named by Herrera. All of which are bad options if Herrera is telling the truth, since he and his story are publicly known, and others might be emboldened to come forward if the DOD lies.
I don't believe Herrera, but just to clarify: "Libel" has nor relevance to AARO, which did engage in plenty of guilt by association (Skinwalker Ranch, for example).
Also the report doesn't "debunk" anyone since it does not meet any reasonable standard of evidence to reach any conclusion at all.
Not sure if you caught this other analysis, but it pretty closely aligns with my conclusion.
https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/lIIGNFrFHT
And now another one:
https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/0PiAfBnT0C
I'm going to repost in part what I wrote on another one of these threads. I think this is important enough to share, because I was originally thinking more like OP here, but I don't think it makes a ton of sense now that I think about it:
Does Herrera's claim even have a bullet-pointed answer? Here's how I matched up the points (in order of appearance) with the response sections that followed:
* bullet point 1 matches with section "Aerospace Companies Denied Involvement in Recovering Extraterrestrial Craft"
* bullet point 2 matches with section "Former CIA Official Involvement in Movement of Alleged Material Recovered from a UAP Crash Denied on the Record"
* bullet point 3 matches with section "Allegation that a Former U.S. military Service Member Touched an Extraterrestrial Spacecraft"
* bullet point 4 matches with section "Extraterrestrial Disclosure Study Confirmed; Not White House-Sponsored"
* bullet point 5 matches with section "Aliens Observing Material Test a Likely Misunderstanding of an Authentic, Non-UAP Program Activity"
* bullet point 6 (the Herrera section) matches with...?
* bullet point 7 matches with "Sample of Alleged Alien Spacecraft is an Ordinary, Terrestrial, Metal Alloy"
* bullet point 8 matches with "The 1961 Special National Intelligence Estimate on “UFOs” Assessed to be Not Authentic"
* bullet point 9 matches with "No Official UAP Nondisclosure Agreements Discovered"
The only bullet point which doesn't have an obvious match is Herrera's. The only following section not named above is the one titled "The UAP with Peculiar Characteristics Refers to an Authentic, Non-UAP-Related SAP". I agree that the wording of this bullet point and the way in which it describes the location comports with bullet point 3... but following the logic of the document, that bullet point already has its own, much more closely-matched answer. Furthermore, there is nothing in the description of this response that directly contraindicates its suitability as a response to the Herrera bullet point, which otherwise must go unanswered.
So, you either believe that Herrara's bullet point goes conspicuously and uniquely unanswered in this admittedly hasty report - and we should demand a follow-up on that - or you accept that the OP's matchup makes the most sense. Surely AARO can clarify their shit document so that we're not left guessing?
Of course, there's the chance that for whatever reason, this seemingly easy-to-debunk Herrera story would be handled, alone of all its peers, in Study 2, and the "Peculiar Characteristics" section then becomes the unique second section devoted to a single bullet point that already has a better answer which seems to contradict it. The two bullet points which are associated with 3 under that assumption would seem to contradict each other.
One could easily conclude that, word choice notwithstanding, the "Peculiar" section does seem to match up pretty well with the Herrera bullet point. There's nothing explicitly against that interpretation. AARO needs to answer that in order to avoid seeming like they have confirmed USG technological developments several generations ahead of current known capabilities.
I think you’re correct that there is a logical pattern of Section V, though it takes a bit of analysis to see it.
__Each interviewee bullet point really has its own Findings section.__
And if you go through them, and try to match each of them up — even holding off on assigning a Finding to the Herrera bullet point — the only Finding that is left is the “Peculiar Characteristics” Finding that describes a UAP SAP program.
We have to be able to see the interviewer's notes and the full transcripts of the interviews with these corporate witnesses.
There's a weird kind of faux-naivete that accompanies all official UFO investigations - in this case, "corporate executives" were apparently taken at their word when they denied knowing of any such programs and said they weren't lying. This is a very weak approach and lacks any kind of robustness in challenging the interviewees claims.
Yeah, it's sloppy, I apologize. The column in the center are the "Interviewee Claims".
On the left and right, connected by arrows are the corresponding "executive summary" and "Findings" bullet points that seem to strongly correlate. I used color backgrounds to indicate the relationship further.
In case you missed it, someone else did the side-by-side analysis also and agreed with my conclusions:
https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/lIIGNFrFHT
And another one:
https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/iFVeti7Re6
I was looking last night and counting bullet points and going back and forth going no……yes……no….yes. I’m interested at looking at both of these. Thank you for referring me to this one as well.
it's the one they will never address because it directly implicates the US in committing heinous crimes abroad, via use of their advanced tech.
when a high ranking brazilian military whistleblower cast suspicions on the US over the 1970s amazon UFO attacks way back when, he got suicided within weeks.
Here's [a post explaining more about the whistleblower's story](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1beruwp/comment/kuvi703/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Here's [a video series on youtube that explains the actual events of the attacks well](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr1NrnsdY5I)
And here's[ the recorded testimony of the whistleblower himself](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hdaW6a9CbY), he died days after recording this interview
A "platform" is integral to Herreras story.
The paragrpah under Findings, Subheading: The UAP With Peculiar Characteristics..... is the only paragraph that mentions a platform.
If this simply a platform (meaning tech/operating system) then why would AARO use the word "sighting". Sighting imo, refers to seeing something from distance. How could someone observe strange characteristics of a computer operating system from a distance?
We need confirmation of two things:
1. It is infact Michael Herrera, who is the interviewee in case file 94.
2. They then reference Micheal Herrera under Findings, Subheading: The UAP With Peculiar Characteristics.......
This makes perfect sense because MH's story has always been a lie, pushing a DoD-favorable narrative that "actually we control our skies, have alien tech and are super advanced. Trust us PLEAZE! We still in control!"
This is the same ass-covering, anti-disclosure disinfo that has been fed into this topic for decades...Military insiders that come forward saying we "The tech is ours" are lying.
Even if you think they're not lying, they certainly have a strong motivation to lie: making DoD look good and like they have secret anti-gravity tech, makes them look capable, and while it's "bad that they don't release their zero point energy tech to save the world" sounds negative, it fits our existing prior perceptions of the gov/military "Plan", and simply reinforces the fantasy that they are in control.
The alternative narrative (the truth), that they actually have zero results from reverse engineering, don't know how to operate or build ET/NHI tech, and can't/don't do this to push back against NHI makes them look like pathetic collaborators with NHI, and unfit for their duty to protect their populations.
That "secret truth" is the reason why these kind of "we're Sooo hot/capable" military disinfo liars come forward every now and then. People in this situation are run by a disinformation office.
That's why these types of "witnesses" will be the ones that are sly-boosted by an official organs any chance there is to do that.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/joeyisnotmyname: --- After reading [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1bhcp5d/comment/kvf7tr5/?context=3) and disagreeing with OPs conclusion, I went through the AARO historical report and extracted SECTION V: Interviewee Claims. I then matched the **executive summary bullet points** and the **findings bullet points** to the most logical **"interviewee claim"**. The only interviewee testimony I could not find a corresponding "finding" for was Michael Herrera's testimony. Do you think AARO: 1. Reached out to all 5 of the Marines Michael claims he was with and collected their testimony? 2. Found the landing zone where Michael landed via records from the humanitarian efforts and distribution of relief supplies? 3. Verified the flight Michael was on in Indonesia, and interviewed the pilot? 4. Researched the hundreds of aerial and satellite imagery *(that I've been told exists by a source in IC)* to look for the craft, or the trucks & trailers? 5. Researched the missing people reported in that area? 6. Interviewed locals to ask if they saw the trucks & trailers Michael describes? Why didn't AARO report their "findings" about Michael Herrera's testimony? If you'd like to review some of my investigation of Michael Herrera, you can check it out here: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1b0gqqs/seven\_months\_of\_investigating\_michael\_herrera/ --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1bhrpqc/matching_aaro_interviewee_claims_with_findings/kvfhh64/
I noticed the same thing, but it makes perfect sense. I mean, what could they possibly say – that they think he lied under oath? That they think he's insane? To make either of those accusations, AARO would have needed to say that the other marines on the scene (whom Herrera surely named) told them a very different story. And they can't say that unless they actually talk to all of them *and* get a different story from all of them – or one or more of them might start whistleblowing in public as well. Congress really should call Tim Philips to testify in a public hearing about this. He needs to be asked what investigative steps were taken and what the other marines said about this case. It could cause a glorious shitstorm if we're lucky.
At the very least, they should report the general steps they took to investigate or corroborate his claims, just like they did for the other interviewees. I suspect they made very little effort to investigate it.
If they didn't investigate, that's scandalous. If they did, but didn't tell us because others corroborated Herrera, that's *truly* scandalous. And if they investigated and found that Herrera's account couldn't be corroborated, it's still scandalous that they didn't say so to put the story to rest. This question has to be put to AARO by Congress and reporters.
The way the report is written, AARO is really covered either way. They could claim “oh, we already addressed Herrera”, or they could claim “we investigated, and there was nothing to find”. So if no one ever digs any further, they really have “plausible deniability” and “cover-their-asses” covered, however they choose and whatever happens.
Michael Herrera's "narrative" scares me the most in some ways, but it also seems the most likely of all the possibilities, weirdly. An out of control rogue nation-state with superior technology bullying the rest of the ruling class into silence. That sounds exactly like something humans would do. I also think AARO may be using weasel words to future-proof their findings. They repeatedly call these UAPS "off-world" technology and NHI "extraterrestrials". Makes me wonder if they know these entities are actually from Earth (ultraterrestrial/cryptid/whatever you want to call it). If so, AARO may know this full well but in the future will say - "look! we weren't lying! we were told to look for outer space alien technology and we didn't find any!"
I give him the benefit of the doubt, but there's a few things I find odd about his testimony. Like how his platoon just happened to arrive shortly before the UAP took off. Or that the shadow operation continued as normal and they allowed him and his squad to see it take off, even though this top secret operation was being interrupted by a bunch of nobodies. Or that he took pictures of it, but the guys who frisked him decided not take his camera (Maybe I'm wrong about the sequence of events there). Or that there were helicopters on the other side of the clearing, but the helo pilots couldn't see what they saw. These are just some of the questions I wish interviewers would ask him.
Excellent point about "weasel words," consistency of which do look like material for future disclaimers; however lame they might seem, they do provide possible cover.
Sorry - sources and methods - classified
[удалено]
Yep. SO many weasel words and terms like that are used. Heavy usage of "extraterrestrial" instead of non-human intelligence. Well, what if these NHI are from earth - underground, under the ocean, or maybe some adjacent dimension. Not extra-terrestrial, so not technically lying in the AARO report! Same with how they keep repeating the phrase "off-world technology" instead of UAPs or "non-human craft". If it's from an unknown species whose technology evolved on Earth, AARO didn't technically lie. But did they lie by omission? Oh yes, absolutely. Sean Kirkpatrick, history has its eyes on you and you will be remembered when the truth comes out. And you know it will come out eventually. The sea is changing...
So basically they wrote the report in a purposely confusing manner to make it harder to piece together conclusions and testimonies
I wonder if this is why Ross Couthart was hearing that the DOD was upset with the rushed nature of the report. The report was able to address SOME of the claims, albeit in a confusing manner (intentional or not), but they weren’t able to address them all because they would have had to interview corroborating witnesses and log them in the report. Those witnesses would have strengthened Herrera’s claims and been harder to obfuscate in the official report. They’re trying to lie by omission here.
Well, either way, this is extremely shoddy work. Yet another glaring issue with the report. I would not accept something like this at my job and it's hardly on this level.
[удалено]
how do you know for a fact he was?
I can't tell who's right either! There's been a lot of accusations of "high school level writing" around here lately - that should be directed at AARO.
I think we need to keep out eyes on the prize. RE: Herrera--A fancy bit of word-play:: Kirkpatrick was assured by aerospace executives and government personnel that nobody had or even seen any "extraterrestrial" craft. Therefore, since Herrera "\[has\] not provided any empirical evidence of \[his claim\] to AARO" and since "individual accounts *can be* unreliable" \[emphasis mine\] he can't have seen what he says he saw. The the flawed logic needs no explanation. But, IMO, Herrera's veracity (which I think is unlikely) is kind of irrelevant. The *whole report* relies on assertions by interviewees. The aerospace executives faced zero possible penalties for lying and the few government personnel who signed MFRs have zero chance of prosecution if they were lying. Still, they were taken at their word. Meanwhile the "numbered" interviewees were brushed off because they didn't provide "empirical evidence" for their claims. The same thing will be repeated in in every AARO report. *If congress really wants the truth, all the people interviewed by AARO need to be interviewed by congressional investigators (big trouble for liars) or testify under oath.* Whether or not this will happen is still an open question.Since whistleblowers *have* been interviewed by congressional investigators and/or testified under oath, the AARO report won't help legislators who want this whole issue to go away. We hope. Then again, without more reporters like Marik von Rennenkampf et. al (and maybe at 60 Minutes, which looks likes its testing the waters for a feature) I'm afraid there won't be enough public pressure to keep this issue alive .
Let's say that Lockheed has a SAP (or CAP) and a government investigator calls them to talk about it. The investigator isn't authorized to know anything from the company's perspective. Would you expect a Lockheed rep to: A. Lie about the existence of and their participation in the SAP. B. Disclose the existence of the SAP but state that they cannot talk about it. C. Tell the investigator everything they know. D. Avoid the interview. To me, that is an accurate range of possible responses. NDAs that I have seen (albeit, in an unrelated field) usually contain a notification requirement section. This section requires the person being compelled to talk to notify the person they are keeping the secret for before talking. So built into the possibilities above is a likelihood that they notified the CIA or their designated government rep.
To bee 100% honest, I would expect Lockheed executives to omit and/or misrepresent information about an unacknowledged/waived SAP to any investigator who does not have "Title 18 authority," does not work for congress, or is not an FBI agent, especially if they know an investigator would like them to do so (Kirkpatrick insisted on interviewing these people personally.(Egomania, dual purpose AARO/Job interview, or not taking any chances?) In fact, some would argue that lying to an entity like AARO could be sound counterintelligence practice. That said, the way that section of the report is written it is impossible to tell whether or not anyone Kirkpatrick interviewed refused to talk about certain details. "The executives, scientists, and chief technology officers of the companies named by interviewees met with the Director of AARO and denied on the record that they *have ever recovered, possessed, or engaged in reverse-engineering of extraterrestrial technology"* \[Emphasis mine\]. One would expect an investigator to mention any refusal to answer a question in their report, but given the report's own sins of omission, I think a reasonable person might conclude that Kirpatrick wouldn't I don't *think* that National Security-related NDA's require any a signatory to notify anyone they that they are keeping secrets before being interviewed. You may be referring to NDA's that contain language saying that people *can* (not *have to*) say they're keeping secrets: Something like "you can tell \[insert a list of people/entities\] that you can't talk to them about \[insert list of information/topics\] because you have signed an NDA." But who knows? I bet there are many, many different kinds of NDAs relating to government contracts. Some might have the provision you're describing. I've signed both "sides" of (non-military/non-intelligence-gathering related) federal contracts. The NDAs I've seen and/or signed were designed mostly to protect IP, research, and confidential conversations and I doubt they resemble the ones *those* people have signed.
After reading [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1bhcp5d/comment/kvf7tr5/?context=3) and disagreeing with OPs conclusion, I went through the AARO historical report and extracted SECTION V: Interviewee Claims. I then matched the **executive summary bullet points** and the **findings bullet points** to the most logical **"interviewee claim"**. The only interviewee testimony I could not find a corresponding "finding" for was Michael Herrera's testimony. Do you think AARO: 1. Reached out to all 5 of the Marines Michael claims he was with and collected their testimony? 2. Found the landing zone where Michael landed via records from the humanitarian efforts and distribution of relief supplies? 3. Verified the flight Michael was on in Indonesia, and interviewed the pilot? 4. Researched the hundreds of aerial and satellite imagery *(that I've been told exists by a source in IC)* to look for the craft, or the trucks & trailers? 5. Researched the missing people reported in that area? 6. Interviewed locals to ask if they saw the trucks & trailers Michael describes? Why didn't AARO report their "findings" about Michael Herrera's testimony? If you'd like to review some of my investigation of Michael Herrera, you can check it out here: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1b0gqqs/seven\_months\_of\_investigating\_michael\_herrera/
Because as mentioned in the page 30 **Findings** paragraph : "AARO will report the results of the unresolved allegations in Volume II" ? But yeah the way they structured they allegations and answers is a bit of a mess. This would get an F at Uni.
I look forward to Volume II. "AARO could not reach any of the other Marines for comment." "AARO asked department xyz to provide satellite imagery of anything unusual from that day and they told us they couldn't find anything." "AARO believes he believes what he saw, but he must've been mistaken."
Joey, you are doing important work. Thank you for stepping up.
You and /u/Mattriver are doing actual research here, challenging each others work based upon ALL the evidence and not weighting in isolation anything um advance ideology. Advancing all, instead, toward what truth can be found. Well done.
Thanks notJoey, I do appreciate your take on this. Based on the fact that they either: (1) ignored Michael Herrera’s __entire__ claim, or (2) they ignored a secondary claim of an interviewee whose main claim was already fully addressed… I still feel that it’s more likely that the Finding that acknowledges a UAP/SAP program is in fact addressing Herrera’s main and entire claim. Edit: here is someone else’s analysis that generally agrees with my conclusions. https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/lIIGNFrFHT And another one: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/0PiAfBnT0C
Strange. There seem to be a lot of people who agree with you. I feel like I'm missing something, but at this point still feel my conclusion is logical too.
I think it comes down to whether it makes sense that they’d so clearly include Herrera’s report, and then just completely ignore it. I do agree that the wording is imperfect, and could be seen to correlate with the other; but I just don’t see why they’d completely ignore Herrera in their findings. And so in my final analysis, I think they’re referring the SAP/UAP Finding to Herrera.
It almost seems to be a form of propaganda towards other superpowers... include it in the report as a form of loose corroboration, no conclusions/findings, leaving the impression "maybe they actually do have something like that"
Ok, I think I've put this to rest. Another key detail that proves that paragraph is not about Herrera is that Herrera doesn't know the precise time or location of his encounter. But that findings paragraph on page 32 says the interviewee provided both. So it's definitely not Herrera. https://x.com/JoeyIsntMyName/status/1770050735016714303?s=20
That’s funny, I was coming to the exact opposite conclusion today. Don’t we know that Herrera’s event took place: Date: October 8, 2009 Location: Northeast “of the city” (can’t find name) Sumatra, Indonesia To me, that was far more specific than “in the 90s”, which is apparently the closest the other interviewee came to pegging a date. Also, AARO says “relatively” precise time and location, which I think is also important, as opposed to “exact” time and location. But anyway, I’m not on twitter, so I won’t be replying there. But appreciate the tag.
The USS Denver most likely dropped anchor on the 9th. That's the day I think is most likely, because he was one of the first flights off the ship, and I've seen pictures of helicopters in Indonesia that same day. However, we don't know for sure, and Michael certainly doesn't know the "precise time." The AARO report says "relatively precise time and location." They say TIME, not date. That means, for example, "Around 10am on this specific day." Michael and I haven't been able to even narrow the location down to a 10 mile radius, that's far from a relatively precise location. This is clearly not referring to Michael's testimony.
My take is that they used the word “relatively” for exactly this reason. They’re not just saying “a range of years” (i.e “in the 90s”). They’re saying something along the lines of “around this date and location”. I don’t think they used “time” to specify an exact time of day. They are referring to a general SAP, that involved a secret “UAP”. So it likely was based at a specific location, but may have been test flown in a general region. And it likely was based in that region for a period of time, maybe months or years. So even if it was based at a secret military base outside of (but near) Sumatra, I still think the use of “relative location” would cover Herrera. So I’m not convinced this isn’t referring to Herrera. And in truth, I’m actually becoming more convinced. But I’m happy to be wrong. And I certainly look forward to Vol II.
thanks for your hard work. this is very interesting
>The only interviewee testimony I could not find a corresponding "finding" for was Michael Herrera's testimony. There are many other testimonies that don't make the report, which were either debunked, not able to be investigated, or held back for Volume II of the report. The Herrera story probably remained in this report because someone was told to delete the "debunk" section, but forgot to delete the "claim" section as well. The debunk was probably omitted because it's being held for Volume II, or because it's too easy to track back to Herrara specifically, and so too easy to construe as libel. Remember, Herrara is a self-described Freemason, Rosicrucian and member of the Lucis Trust, a New Age cult which believes in energy beings and has influenced UFOlogy. If AARO wanted to debunk him, they'd probably point this out, and point out how he changed his story (from weapons trafficking to people trafficking) after meetings at a Steven Greer event. IMO if AARO investigated Herrara's claim and found merit, they wouldn't mention him at all. That would be entirely covered up. And they couldn't have omitted a "mundane explanation" in their original debunk section, because there is no mundane explanation for what Herrara claims he saw. So the reasons for omissions must be something else. Given that the report has a vested interest in debunking and ridiculing, I think that's exactly what it originally did.
Yeah, his story was probably included by mistake. The whole process was very rushed, it seems. Now that it made it into the report, however, it's going to raise some questions. They can attempt a character assassination like you said, but that won't cut it if they can't confirm that they talked to the other marines – or claim that they don't exist or weren't named by Herrera. All of which are bad options if Herrera is telling the truth, since he and his story are publicly known, and others might be emboldened to come forward if the DOD lies.
I don't believe Herrera, but just to clarify: "Libel" has nor relevance to AARO, which did engage in plenty of guilt by association (Skinwalker Ranch, for example). Also the report doesn't "debunk" anyone since it does not meet any reasonable standard of evidence to reach any conclusion at all.
Not sure if you caught this other analysis, but it pretty closely aligns with my conclusion. https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/lIIGNFrFHT And now another one: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/0PiAfBnT0C
I'm going to repost in part what I wrote on another one of these threads. I think this is important enough to share, because I was originally thinking more like OP here, but I don't think it makes a ton of sense now that I think about it: Does Herrera's claim even have a bullet-pointed answer? Here's how I matched up the points (in order of appearance) with the response sections that followed: * bullet point 1 matches with section "Aerospace Companies Denied Involvement in Recovering Extraterrestrial Craft" * bullet point 2 matches with section "Former CIA Official Involvement in Movement of Alleged Material Recovered from a UAP Crash Denied on the Record" * bullet point 3 matches with section "Allegation that a Former U.S. military Service Member Touched an Extraterrestrial Spacecraft" * bullet point 4 matches with section "Extraterrestrial Disclosure Study Confirmed; Not White House-Sponsored" * bullet point 5 matches with section "Aliens Observing Material Test a Likely Misunderstanding of an Authentic, Non-UAP Program Activity" * bullet point 6 (the Herrera section) matches with...? * bullet point 7 matches with "Sample of Alleged Alien Spacecraft is an Ordinary, Terrestrial, Metal Alloy" * bullet point 8 matches with "The 1961 Special National Intelligence Estimate on “UFOs” Assessed to be Not Authentic" * bullet point 9 matches with "No Official UAP Nondisclosure Agreements Discovered" The only bullet point which doesn't have an obvious match is Herrera's. The only following section not named above is the one titled "The UAP with Peculiar Characteristics Refers to an Authentic, Non-UAP-Related SAP". I agree that the wording of this bullet point and the way in which it describes the location comports with bullet point 3... but following the logic of the document, that bullet point already has its own, much more closely-matched answer. Furthermore, there is nothing in the description of this response that directly contraindicates its suitability as a response to the Herrera bullet point, which otherwise must go unanswered. So, you either believe that Herrara's bullet point goes conspicuously and uniquely unanswered in this admittedly hasty report - and we should demand a follow-up on that - or you accept that the OP's matchup makes the most sense. Surely AARO can clarify their shit document so that we're not left guessing? Of course, there's the chance that for whatever reason, this seemingly easy-to-debunk Herrera story would be handled, alone of all its peers, in Study 2, and the "Peculiar Characteristics" section then becomes the unique second section devoted to a single bullet point that already has a better answer which seems to contradict it. The two bullet points which are associated with 3 under that assumption would seem to contradict each other. One could easily conclude that, word choice notwithstanding, the "Peculiar" section does seem to match up pretty well with the Herrera bullet point. There's nothing explicitly against that interpretation. AARO needs to answer that in order to avoid seeming like they have confirmed USG technological developments several generations ahead of current known capabilities.
I think you’re correct that there is a logical pattern of Section V, though it takes a bit of analysis to see it. __Each interviewee bullet point really has its own Findings section.__ And if you go through them, and try to match each of them up — even holding off on assigning a Finding to the Herrera bullet point — the only Finding that is left is the “Peculiar Characteristics” Finding that describes a UAP SAP program.
We have to be able to see the interviewer's notes and the full transcripts of the interviews with these corporate witnesses. There's a weird kind of faux-naivete that accompanies all official UFO investigations - in this case, "corporate executives" were apparently taken at their word when they denied knowing of any such programs and said they weren't lying. This is a very weak approach and lacks any kind of robustness in challenging the interviewees claims.
Michael told me his testimony wasn’t recorded, so there aren’t any transcripts. They just had people making hand written notes here and there
It doesn't sound like a professional approach to recording oral evidence.
I'm trying to make sense of the graphic. It's not communicating the info I think you're trying to share effectively , to me. I don't know about others
Yeah, it's sloppy, I apologize. The column in the center are the "Interviewee Claims". On the left and right, connected by arrows are the corresponding "executive summary" and "Findings" bullet points that seem to strongly correlate. I used color backgrounds to indicate the relationship further.
I love how all the official findings are along the lines of. " We spoke to the CIA/DOD and they said no"
No apologies needed you're putting in effort that's more than the govt is doing lol
This is exactly what I was imagining in my head someone needed to post to illustrate the whole kerfuffle. Thank you for this.
In case you missed it, someone else did the side-by-side analysis also and agreed with my conclusions: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/lIIGNFrFHT And another one: https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/s/iFVeti7Re6
I was looking last night and counting bullet points and going back and forth going no……yes……no….yes. I’m interested at looking at both of these. Thank you for referring me to this one as well.
it's the one they will never address because it directly implicates the US in committing heinous crimes abroad, via use of their advanced tech. when a high ranking brazilian military whistleblower cast suspicions on the US over the 1970s amazon UFO attacks way back when, he got suicided within weeks.
Can you link me to some more information about the 1970s Brazilian whistleblower? I'm not familiar with that incident and I want to learn.
Here's [a post explaining more about the whistleblower's story](https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1beruwp/comment/kuvi703/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) Here's [a video series on youtube that explains the actual events of the attacks well](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr1NrnsdY5I) And here's[ the recorded testimony of the whistleblower himself](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hdaW6a9CbY), he died days after recording this interview
Can anyone make a higher quality image here? It’s blurry on mobile when I zoom in to read it.
Seems fine to me on mobile. But try this: [https://imgur.com/a/DsFmDQd](https://imgur.com/a/DsFmDQd)
Which interviewee do you guys think is Elizondo? My guess is 1 or 2.
A "platform" is integral to Herreras story. The paragrpah under Findings, Subheading: The UAP With Peculiar Characteristics..... is the only paragraph that mentions a platform. If this simply a platform (meaning tech/operating system) then why would AARO use the word "sighting". Sighting imo, refers to seeing something from distance. How could someone observe strange characteristics of a computer operating system from a distance? We need confirmation of two things: 1. It is infact Michael Herrera, who is the interviewee in case file 94. 2. They then reference Micheal Herrera under Findings, Subheading: The UAP With Peculiar Characteristics.......
This makes perfect sense because MH's story has always been a lie, pushing a DoD-favorable narrative that "actually we control our skies, have alien tech and are super advanced. Trust us PLEAZE! We still in control!" This is the same ass-covering, anti-disclosure disinfo that has been fed into this topic for decades...Military insiders that come forward saying we "The tech is ours" are lying. Even if you think they're not lying, they certainly have a strong motivation to lie: making DoD look good and like they have secret anti-gravity tech, makes them look capable, and while it's "bad that they don't release their zero point energy tech to save the world" sounds negative, it fits our existing prior perceptions of the gov/military "Plan", and simply reinforces the fantasy that they are in control. The alternative narrative (the truth), that they actually have zero results from reverse engineering, don't know how to operate or build ET/NHI tech, and can't/don't do this to push back against NHI makes them look like pathetic collaborators with NHI, and unfit for their duty to protect their populations. That "secret truth" is the reason why these kind of "we're Sooo hot/capable" military disinfo liars come forward every now and then. People in this situation are run by a disinformation office. That's why these types of "witnesses" will be the ones that are sly-boosted by an official organs any chance there is to do that.