Become a Creator today!Start creating today - Share your story with the world!
Start for free
00:00:00
00:00:01
"No Verifiable Evidence" - AARO in the Senate.
0 Plays2 seconds ago
We begin a deep-ass dive into the recent briefing by AARO to the US Senate.
Please help spread the word!
Recommended
Transcript
Introduction to UAPs and Secrecy
00:00:00
Speaker
As we convene here, UAP are in our airspace, but they are grossly under-reported. These sightings are not rare or isolated, they are routine. We don't know where they come from, who made them, or how they operate. The U.S. government is operating with secrecy above congressional oversights with regards to UAPs.
00:00:21
Speaker
The United States government has gathered a great deal of information about UAPs over many decades, but has refused to share it with the American people. That is wrong, and additionally, it breeds mistrust. their The controller told us that these objects had been observed for over two weeks, coming down from over 80,000 feet, rapidly descending to 20,000 feet, hanging out for hours, and then going straight back up for those who don't realize above 80,000 feet of space. What is true?
00:00:50
Speaker
And i'm I'm actually being serious here is is that there's footage and records of objects in the skies that we don't know exactly what they are. We can't explain how they move, their trajectory. They did not have an easily explainable path. And so you know I think that people still take seriously trying to investigate and figure out what that is.
Podcast Introduction and Personal Note
00:01:22
Speaker
Hello and welcome back to UFO Focus. I'm your host Isaiah and I'm so glad to have you here and listening. I appreciate it. Welcome everybody who's new. ah Please do subscribe and please if you can share this on social media because I'm i'm trying to get more people hip to this podcast.
00:01:44
Speaker
Uh, you can reach me by email at UFO focused podcast at proton dot m.me. Now what we're going to do today is a deep dive on the, you know, still pretty recent, um, Senate briefing by arrow. That's the government's UFO office, the all domain anomaly resolution office arrow.
00:02:08
Speaker
Um, I had a briefing, as I mentioned last time, uh, before a Senate committee, uh, particularly before Senator, uh, Kirsten Gillibrand, who basically created Arrow. We'll get into all of that later.
00:02:24
Speaker
And I want to give a special shout out to ah my cousin Sarah.
Government's Stance and Evidence of Extraterrestrial Life
00:02:28
Speaker
Cousin Sarah is an avid listener to this podcast, even though she had no particular interest in UFOs prior to this. um And Sarah gave me a an interesting piece of input. She basically was like, could you just kind of sum it up at the beginning? Just tell you know what's give the headline.
00:02:50
Speaker
And I appreciate that input. And I don't know. I'm sort of... Thank you, Sarah, for the input. i I can understand it. And in my professional life, I'm a journalist and an editor. And actually, that's what I'm always telling my writers. Just put it up front. What's the deal?
00:03:10
Speaker
However, this is not like a wire service, right? This is a podcast. And at least for me, the whole point of the podcast really is to kind of work through the ideas. So I'm going to try and meet you listeners a little bit halfway. I'm going to try and give you a few quick tidbits, but then we're going deep and long.
00:03:39
Speaker
And we're doing that because I think there's there's a lot to talk about that this hearing, this particular briefing, even though many people feel that this briefing is a huge waste of time and stupid, and I don't disagree with them in in some ways, but I also think that in know other ways, it is a really good vehicle to get into a lot of like, what the heck are we talking about with UFOs? What's going on? What are we trying to understand? What are the questions?
00:04:14
Speaker
How do we begin to try and figure out the end? We can get to all these ideas, I think, through this this allegedly boring, stupid waste of time briefing. So that's what I'm gonna try to do today. Okay, so for those of you who want me to boil this whole thing down into one tiny sound bite, I will do that right now. Here you go.
00:04:40
Speaker
It is important to underscore that to date, Arrow has not discovered any verifiable evidence of extraterrestrial beings, activity or technology. Okay, so maybe you see what I'm getting at here.
00:04:53
Speaker
um There was a Senate subcommittee hearing hosted by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and another senator whose name I cannot for the life of me recall, um ah in which they were briefed by the new head of Arrow, which is the Pentagon's UFO office, whose name is John Kozlowski. And in the briefing, Kozlowski said he wasn't actually asked this, he offered it up unprompted.
00:05:25
Speaker
Exactly what you heard and if your only question or at least your main question in all of this is whether UFOs are aliens or something like aliens and The only thing you're looking to hear that could answer that question for you is some, let's say, high-ranking US official, let's say, Senator Gillibrand or ah Mr. Kozlowski saying, we believe there is evidence of aliens. We believe UFOs are aliens. If that's what you're looking for, then the answer is very simple.
Investigating UAPs: Evidence and Official Statements
00:06:03
Speaker
No, it didn't happen. The opposite happened with a few caveats.
00:06:08
Speaker
And if that's your personal standard of proof or even your personal standard of im of interest, um that's fair. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion. However, it's not my standard. I guess what I would say is that I have come to believe, ah not necessarily that UFOs are aliens, but that um there is abundant, abundant evidence that there is some great mystery, mean very likely many mysteries um in this topic. Something is deeply amiss. And so as a journalist, but also just as a person, I personally want to know the answers to the mysteries. And um
00:07:04
Speaker
I'm not content to sort of sit back and wait until somebody official sort of comes out with an announcement. And if you are, that's, I mean, that's a perfectly reasonable position to take. I mean, we have to do that in our day to day. I mean, in in some ways we're we're constantly relying on ah authority generally being reliable. And that's a perfectly reasonable position to take, I think. Because, you know, if you say, I am not going to dig into this thing until I hear something solid from somebody high up, hey, fair enough. But again, I am because I just I want to know and I don't want to wait. And so as a journalist, sorry to keep saying that, but it is kind of my M.O.
00:07:54
Speaker
um I want to pursue whatever clues I can get to the mystery. And I think this hearing is full of tantalizing tidbits, weird moments, interesting questions, all sorts of things that just might lead me and maybe us just a little bit closer to figuring out what the heck is going on. So with that, let's dig into this thing. Thanks once again for listening and here we go.
00:08:27
Speaker
So let's actually, since we've already heard one piece of the hearing, we heard that tiny little sound bite from Arrowhead John Kozlowski, let's listen to that again. Then I'm gonna play you something else.
00:08:44
Speaker
Here's Kozlowski in the recent Senate subcommittee hearing. It is important to underscore that to date, Arrow has not discovered any verifiable evidence of extraterrestrial beings, activity, or technology. Okay, so that was Arrow director John Kozlowski a few weeks ago. Here is former Arrow director Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick a year ago.
00:09:12
Speaker
I should also state clearly for the record that in our research, Arrow has found no credible evidence thus far of extraterrestrial activity, off-world technology, or objects that defy the known laws of physics." Okay, bonus points if you heard the difference that I'm thinking about. um There are actually quite a few differences between those statements, and I think all of them are potentially interesting. but but the little change that stands out to me, and I should preface this by saying I'm not about to imply a smoking gun here, but so just bear with me. The change that stands out to me is that a year ago, Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick said, let's see if I get this right now, no credible evidence. A few weeks ago, Dr. John Kozlowski said, no verifiable evidence of ET.
00:10:10
Speaker
Now, I have some theories, or a theory, informed speculation you might call it, as to what that difference in wording is all about. And I'm not trying to imply that there's some smoking gun here, I'll say that up front. um However, I do think there's potentially some very interesting things going on with that change in wording. But, before we get there, and we're gonna return to that, I promise,
00:10:38
Speaker
um We have to focus it before that I think logically we have to deal with it one word that is common to both Heads of arrows testimony and that is the word evidence What does it mean to say forget the difference between credible evidence and verifiable evidence for a second? What does it mean to say there is no blank evidence of extraterrestrials?
00:11:07
Speaker
Now, this is it's this is kind of its own deep subject. It's really its own, I was gonna say rabbit hole, but that sort of implies that it's a distraction, whereas I think this is actually a crucially important topic right here. What is meant by the word evidence?
00:11:29
Speaker
by the different people and actors using it. um And a lot has been said about this already, especially with regard to Dr. Kirkpatrick and and I guess, you know, now um by association, Dr. Kozlowski.
00:11:48
Speaker
A lot of different very smart people have spoken about this question very eloquently at length and with credentials that I do not have. ah um One of the people who has spoken eloquently and at length on this point is Dr. Gary Nolan, who I don't know if you listener have heard that name before, but if you haven't, he's a big shot in the UFO sphere and really one of the most One of the best credentialed individuals in the UFO topic right now doctor Nolan I'm reading this off a screen cuz I wanted to get his this is from Wikipedia is an American immunologist academic inventor and businessman.
00:12:36
Speaker
Oh, business executive it says. um He holds the Ratchford and Carlotta A. Harris. Okay, and the screen cut off there. Anyway, dude is a PhD. He's a scientist. He's an inventor. He's he's super credentialed.
00:12:53
Speaker
His critique is that it's scientifically meaningless to say that you've not, you've discovered no evidence when you don't sort of define what constitutes evidence in the first place. And that might sound like an academic point or something, but it really isn't. And I think it's worthy um of trying to just explore that a little bit more before we we we move on.
00:13:22
Speaker
even though instead of Dr. Gary Nolan, you've got me. Okay, so we're gonna do a few thought experiments as it were. It's what Einstein called Gedanka experiments, even though I'm no Einstein. But let's let's imagine, to do this, let's imagine a nameless, generic, imaginary head of arrow.
00:13:49
Speaker
So we don't have to get caught up in the actual personalities and stuff of the heads of it. There's just in a generic head of the Pentagon's UFO Department. OK. And we're going to be asking this imaginary arrowhead.
00:14:05
Speaker
hu Arrowhead. um
00:14:10
Speaker
what constitutes evidence or not of extraterrestrial visitation, and okay? So, okay, let's tank an extreme scenario. Let's have a UFO flying saucer lands on the proverbial White House lawn. um It lands. It sits there a little while. Thousands of people see it. It's photographed. It's captured on radar.
00:14:41
Speaker
Let's say it it it comes in like the um the UFOs and the Nimitz encounter. Let's say it comes in from an impossibly high altitude, the edge of space. We tracked it on radar, and it lands on the the White House lawn for about 10 minutes. Then it takes off again. OK. So if we were to go to our imaginary head of arrow and say,
00:15:08
Speaker
Okay, does that did that constitute evidence of extraterrestrial visitation? I'm guessing at that point the answer's gonna be yes, but not necessarily, right? Because there are still some some holes one could try and poke. For example, I mean, mainly around the word extraterrestrial. For example, I were ah Mr. Arrow, let's call him. So Mr. Arrow might say, well, that was indeed a remarkable and ah anomalous event, no question, but um where what's the evidence that it was extraterrestrial? And we say, what do you mean? You know, it it didn't resemble any known technology. Well, that
00:15:57
Speaker
isn't necessarily evidence of extraterrestrial. That could be evidence of a breakaway technology, some secret technology. We say, OK, well, it came from space. Well, again, you know that could be some terrestrial amazing technology that fluent you know that was deployed and flew in from space and flew back again.
00:16:19
Speaker
so And those are perfectly fine arguments. Those are good arguments. It's always good to have to offer counter hypotheses and to to challenge assumptions, et cetera, right? the part that So I have sort of agree with that line of thinking. The part that I don't agree with is that you would conclude that there's no evidence of extraterrestrial visitation.
00:16:49
Speaker
In other words, why is it okay to float some other hypothesis and say like, well, this could be evidence of that, but reject the extraterrestrial hypothesis and and and sort of hold it to a different standard. In other words, yes, both, you
The Nimitz Encounter and Its Implications
00:17:03
Speaker
know, the um secret domestic, secret terrestrial technology does fit the data, but so does an extraterrestrial hypothesis potentially. So, okay.
00:17:18
Speaker
Now let's take a much more kind of relevant ah pretend scenario.
00:17:30
Speaker
Actually, we really don't need to pretend. Let's just take the Nimitz encounter. And as I think I've said in previous episodes, if you don't know what that is, I definitely don't have time to break it all down for you. But but anyway, I'll go over some highlights. So you have, um
00:17:47
Speaker
ah an aircraft carrier and I think it's called a cruiser is the other boat the USS Nimitz and the USS Princeton out at sea off the west coast of the United States and a bunch of incredible things happen right objects are observed on radar dropping from space to right above the ocean and in so in matters of seconds and then zipping back up again um Eventually, ah David Fravor, super pilot, is deployed to go and see what's going on, encounters a tic-tac object that went is moving around, as he described it, like a ping pong ball. Boing, blaine boing, boing. Never seen anything like it.
00:18:31
Speaker
He engages with it. It then disappears in a flash and reappears on radar. It seems to reappear on radar at what's called, ah I think it's called a cap point, which is sort of a just a location that was miles and miles away that ah was a known rendezvous point in these naval exercises. OK, so that's completely bizarre. Then ah Captain, well,
00:18:58
Speaker
I don't know if it's Captain. ah Chad Underwood is dispatched by David Fravor when he gets back to go and try and get some video of this thing. He does. He captures the thing on video. So we have all sorts of events here, right, that are seemingly incredible.
00:19:17
Speaker
Now we know that Arrow is aware of the Nimitz encounter. Although, interestingly, It was not included in Arrow's historical report, which I found very telling. It has never been solved. Arrow, or you know really anyone else except some phony baloney debunkers, have um ever proposed some alternative explanation. The government has never said, oh, it was this, it was that, it was ours, it was nothing, nothing. And this is, two thousand that was years ago.
00:19:55
Speaker
So now we ask our invisible, head of arrow, invisible. Now we ask our imaginary head of arrow, Mr. Arrow. Well, what is that? Mr. Arrow seems to be saying, that's not evidence of ET. And while I can certainly agree with the conclusion that that's not proof of ET,
00:20:22
Speaker
evidence? Well, I mean, if you float a hypothesis, it's evidence of something and it's evidence that would seemingly fit an ET hypothesis, right? Now you could say, well, how do we even know what an ET ah visitation would look like. Well obviously we don't, but that's sort of the whole point. That's why it should be a viable hypothesis, because we don't actually know what we should expect, what we would expect. And this gets to the heart of what Gary Nolan is saying, that if you never define what constitutes evidence, or credible evidence, or verifiable evidence,
00:21:03
Speaker
then you can sort of always do this. You can always say, well, there you know there's no evidence. um and And you wind up very quickly at a point where you realize that that could almost always be said. I mean, even if they landed on the White House lawn, they got out of the spacecraft. They addressed the president and they said, we are aliens. Well,
00:21:28
Speaker
Maybe they're lying. I don't know. Is that evidence? I mean, it you know, what do you call evidence? So that's the evidence problem.
00:21:39
Speaker
And, you know, what is very similar about the remarks of ah Dr. Kirkpatrick one year ago and Dr. Kozlowski a few weeks ago, right, is that they basically say the same thing. No blank evidence. But here, now let's focus, now let's begin to focus on that blank.
00:21:59
Speaker
Well, it tells us one thing right off the bat, and I'm sorry, if you think that these folks wording isn't careful and scripted, I begged to differ.
00:22:11
Speaker
arrow, there is abundant evidence that arrow is tightly controlled when it comes to communications. And we can get into that another time, but I feel quite safe saying that. um And it's very clear. I mean, you know, these are prepared remarks also. I mean, it's very clear that these guys, I think, are being extremely intentional with their words.
00:22:36
Speaker
I mean, after all, we are talking, we're we're not talking about what they had for breakfast here. We're talking about, you know, the possibility of of alien visitation. So yeah, they should be careful with their words. Anyway, let's get to the blank.
Terminology and Public Perception
00:22:51
Speaker
No blank evidence. Forget about the difference between credible and verifiable again for a moment. Is it not notable that they're both hedging the word evidence?
00:23:05
Speaker
I'm a professional writer and we do this all the time, right? We do this all the time. the you know We cover our butts by saying the alleged this or that. um Because it's true, it's only alleged, we don't know. There's very good reasons to do that. But you know we do things like we say seemingly. we say you know We use words that hedge our assertions and we generally do that to cover our butts because we're not 100% sure.
00:23:35
Speaker
I see no reason to disregard the fact that they're hedging the word evidence with another word. There's a hedge in there. And the fact that the hedge, the word changes, doesn't change the fact that there's hedging going on. Why? Does it imply that there are, if you take the phrase, no credible evidence, well, does that imply that there's evidence but it's not credible? Yes, potentially.
00:24:05
Speaker
No verifiable evidence. Well, now there's no evidence that's verifiable, but it might be credible. You see where I'm going with this, I think. And that brings us back to the seemingly small, but mysterious change in wording between Dr. Kirkpatrick's testimony one year ago and Dr. Kozlowski's testimony a few weeks ago.
00:24:32
Speaker
The change from no credible evidence of ET to no verifiable evidence of ET. What are we to make of that? Now, in my opinion, the most credible, pun intended interpretation of that change is somewhat mundane, although I think still interesting.
00:24:59
Speaker
But, and I'll get to that in a second, what I think is going on. But I don't know what's going on, so let's let's explore a few other things first. I mean, changing the word credible to verifiable. Does that imply that Arrow has received evidence that is credible? Just not verifiable? Possibly. Here's another possibility. Is it in some way a correction, right? It was one thing and now it's been changed to another. In my line of business, when you change one word in a sentence, that's that's a correction. You're supposed to note it, actually. Explain why you were wrong about the thing in the first place, or at least what you stated was incorrect. And in some ways, actually, that is what I think is going on. So here's my theory, I guess.
00:25:59
Speaker
So one of the things, there's a lot of things we don't know about Arrow. This is not a city council or something. I mean, they're operating in a level of classification that that thwarts the public's ability to sort of know in detail what's happening over there. So we have to rely on these reports and these weird briefings and et cetera.
00:26:25
Speaker
We know that various people have gone to arrow with incredible stories. Let me give one example. Robert Salus, a former military guy, I don't know his rank, excuse me, Mr. Salus, who was working in a nuclear missile silo and had an incredible um experience that involved a reported UFO above the silo. We can get into that another time.
00:26:55
Speaker
The point of the story is, and he's been telling this story for decades, has never, has has stuck by it. um The point of this story is that we know from his own account, and Arrow I believe has confirmed this, or certainly hasn't denied it, that he went to Arrow and told them his story. And so he and a lot of other people were very upset when Kirkpatrick said, no credible evidence, because from their perspective,
00:27:23
Speaker
they were kind of like, well, what does that mean? I mean, we testified to these incredible things. Are you saying that we are not credible? So part of what's going on here, I think, is it is ah meant to, and and by the way, and that played into other reports that Gillibrand even talks about of people being reluctant to go to Arrow. So I think the main purpose of this was to appease folks who feel burned. And that's not just people who already approached Arrow, right? That's a whole community of people who might be thinking about approaching Arrow, that sort of thing. So i I think the big thing that's going on is they're being a little more conciliatory and they're saying, okay, it's not that it wasn't credible evidence, it's that it wasn't verifiable evidence. And fair enough. I mean, that seems like a ah fair and even kind of well-intentioned gesture.
00:28:20
Speaker
So one way to look at it is as kind of a political gesture in a way, or even a goodwill gesture, right? But another way to look at the same set of facts, right, is to look at it, as I hinted at before, as in effect, a kind of correction, right?
Conclusion and Call to Action
00:28:45
Speaker
A, you know,
00:28:48
Speaker
You can say, oh, well, it's it's just sort of for appearances, but I don't know. Do we know that? Does it not in some way potentially at least represent just a little bit? The government backing down on this one thing, taking a move backward, retrenching or whatever, right? What's really going on here? I think quite a lot.
00:29:16
Speaker
And one other thing I'll say, if I were a journalist covering that hearing and got to go up to Dr. Kozlowski at the end and ask him questions, which, by the way, in most of my career, that's exactly how it works. People go in front of a meeting or whatever and ah a briefing, you know.
00:29:35
Speaker
And then when they're done, reporters go up to them and ask a bunch of questions and they talk to them. It's not how it worked with this. Kozlowski was apparently escorted right out of there. Kozlowski, according from, I believe this is from Nick Gold, um who goes at Declassify UAP in one of his interviews said Kozlowski was whisked away anyway.
00:30:01
Speaker
If I was there, and I did get to talk to Kozlowski as a reporter, you better believe I would have asked about the difference between those. I would say, oh, it lasts a year ago. You said no verifiable evidence. This time you said no credible evidence. What's the difference? By the way, remember, we're talking about aliens.
00:30:21
Speaker
Now, is it disappointing that Senator Gillibrand didn't ask this question? Absolutely. Is it disappointing that the press didn't follow up this briefing by asking this question or posing this question or any number of other questions? That goes for Senator Gillibrand too. Yes, absolutely. But again, we only have to work with what we have to work with.
00:30:50
Speaker
if we're trying to figure this out using what we've got, which is what I'm trying to do. And on that note, I'm gonna end tonight's podcast. Thank you so much for listening. I hope you enjoyed it. Please do, especially if you've made it to the end, um if you could share this thing, kind of, you know, get it help me get it out there, that would be a huge help to me. um Take care and see you soon.