David Rudiak and a Quick Response to AARO

 

David Rudiak, who has been around the UFO field for a long time, provided an analysis of the AARO report. He had appended it to the comment section on one of my rants about the report. The information contained in his contribution deserved more than to be attached to a posting. Following is another analysis of the report.

 

David Rudiak in Roswell. Not the best picture, but it is one
of mine.

The AARO report got my blood boiling again too. Hence the following screed from a quick read.

Sean Kirkpatrick last January foreshadowed what AARO was going to say about Roswell, namely instead of doing a real independent investigation, simply adopting what AF counterintelligence said happened back in the 1990s in order to derail Congressman Schiff's inquiry for his NM constituents. So Roswell was again a nonexistent Mogul balloon flight that they invented out of thin air, along with time traveling wooden crash dummies from the 1950s and an aircraft accident from 1956.

I noticed a number of obvious omissions from this cursory history and often disingenuous distortions of studies. E.g., the 1947 Twining memo after Roswell was never mentioned but was highly important, since Twining declared the flying discs real, not imaginary, described their anomalous shape and flight characteristics, and urged an obvious back-engineering effort involving multiple government R&D groups, which were included in the distribution list. The memo was based primarily on the conclusions of the various engineering departments at Wright Field and was a key step in getting Project Sign initiated.

Or AF Reg 200-2 by Twining in 1953 when he was now AF C/S, defining UFOs (anomalous shapes and/or flight characteristics, not identifiable even after investigation by their experts) and stating they were to be studied for national security reasons and their "technical aspects." The “technical aspects” again suggests interest in back-engineering. Also’ how the press was only to be informed of solutions for cases, but not to be informed of more puzzling cases, only that they were under investigation. There was also a directive to reduce the unknowns to a minimum. (After which the “unknowns”, plummeted from over 20% of cases down to 1 or 2% a year.)

AARO did mention Project Blue Book Special Report #14 by the Battelle Memorial Institute, but disingenuously badly misrepresented the substance of the report, claiming: "It concluded that all cases that had enough data were resolved and readily explainable. The report assessed that if more data were available on cases marked unknown, most of those cases could be explained as well." This was simply a flagrant lie.

Instead, it was a team of 4 Battelle scientists going through all of PBB's 3200 cases to date. All four had to agree that there was no plausible solution in order for the case to be labeled "Unknown", but only two had to agree on a solution for it to be labeled "Known". Still after this stringent criterion, 22% remained "Unknown". And this number went up to 35% for those cases labeled as "Excellent", i.e., having ample data to determine what they were and the best witnesses, vs. only 18% for the "Poor" cases. This is the exact opposite from AARO's claim that all cases with good data could be "readily explained", and nearly all cases could be explained if only they had more data. In fact, BBSR#14 had a separate category for cases with "insufficient information" to make a determination, numbering 9%. These were neither "Known" nor "Unknown" cases. Even among the 69% deemed "Known", 31% were still considered "doubtfully" explained.

AARO did mention that Battelle analyzed six characteristics. But then they curiously omitted the fact that they found a highly statistically significant difference between the "Knowns" and "Unknowns". In 5 of the 6 characteristics, the odds that they were the same were less than 1%. Across all six, the odds were less than 1 in a billion. The late Stan Friedman touted BBSR#14 for good reason. At the very least, it demonstrated a high probability that UFOs (the "Unknowns") overall did not have a conventional explanation, and it wasn't because the data was inadequate.

They also did an extremely cursory examination of other country UFO investigations. They mentioned, e.g., the decades-long French investigation, but failed to mention it was done within the French space agency (CNES). Their summary is also highly misleading: "When it dissolved, SERPA [sic] concluded that the vast majority of cases possess ordinary explanations, while 28 percent of its caseload remained unresolved. None of these organizations have found evidence of extraterrestrial visitations to Earth."

In reality, of 1600 cases examined, only 42% were actually labeled identified (only 9% as definite, 33% as probable), thus NOT "the vast majority". 30% were labeled unidentified due to lack of sufficient information (junk cases), thus neither explained or unexplained, while the 28%, which they say "remained unresolved", were the unidentifieds that DID have sufficient information, and still did not have “ordinary explanations”. While the parent organization did not give an opinion as to the nature of the true UFOs, three of the directors publicly stated these were hard core cases which they believed couldn’t be explained (or ultimately “resolved”) and were most likely ET in origin.

There is no mention of the 1999 French COMETA Report, although not an official French government investigation, was nonetheless done primarily by high-level military intelligence analysts and then submitted to the French government. They concluded about 5% of the cases they examined were unexplained and most likely extraterrestrial in origin. (This included Roswell.) They also accused the US government of a massive coverup.

No mention of the 1946 "ghost rocket" wave in Europe, the first major post-war UFO wave. If they had discussed this, they could have mentioned the USAF Europe was briefed by Swedish intelligence in 1948 that many of their analysts also believed the ghost rockets and later flying saucers were extraterrestrial in origin. (In a Top Secret document that was classified for nearly 50 years.) Or they could have mentioned that Greek physicist Paul Santorini, who led the Greek military investigation, would later publicly state they were forced to stop their inquiry because U.S. officials told them they already knew the objects were extraterrestrial and were too advanced to have any defense against.

No mention of the totally unexplained Belgium UFO wave of 1989-1990 of large triangles (maybe several thousand witnesses, including many police), Rendlesham 1980, Tehran 1976, Colares Brazil 1977-1978, thoroughly documented by Brazilian military intelligence, and many, many other inexplicable cases.

Most mysterious of all, why are there all these government UFO studies all over the world if there is absolutely nothing to it? It sounds like many governments and militaries, including the U.S., were treating UFOs as something very important, worthy of repeated, serious and often secret study. Why no fairy or leprechaun studies? Maybe because they don't show up on radar, cameras, infrared and microwave sensors, cause EM interference including the jamming of radios and weapons systems, stall internal combustion engines, leave landing traces, cause spiked radiation readings and radiation poisoning, cause other physiological effects, intrude in sensitive military areas, especially those having to do with nukes, etc., etc.

That’s why the USAF used to have “UFO officers” at bases to order jet intercepts and write up reports, and not leprechaun officers. There is no equivalent Twining memo or AFR 200-2 saying leprechauns are real and are to be investigated for national security reasons and their technical aspects. Presidents dating back to at least Truman have been briefed on UFOs but not leprechauns.

And they left out Project Moon Dust, a very real, very secret space object crash retrieval program. They weren’t just going after Russian satellites. But Kevin is the expert on that. A whole book could be written on what AARO omitted from or badly distorted in UFO history.

 

As I say, this is just another analysis of the report that finds fault with it. More to come as more of the UFO community responds to the report. You do have to wonder why they didn’t bother to consult with someone who could have pointed out their errors… Oh, wait. I think I know. Anyone who has been around for a while knows.

More to follow…