In Defense of AARO
I’m about to do something that may raise some eyebrows here: I’m going to argue that AARO operates with integrity.
We’re entering a troubling time in the U.S., where institutions are being systematically dismantled under the Trump administration, and genuine scientific inquiry is being openly rejected.
Consider the facts:
– Alzheimer’s research is being defunded.
– The NIH is facing layoffs that jeopardize years of cancer research.
– Social Security and Medicaid are under threat.
– We’re witnessing outbreaks of measles.
It’s evident that the distrust being fostered by this administration is part of a broader political agenda to undermine federal institutions, with a clear trend towards denying science at its core.
So, let’s talk about AARO. This team was assembled to uncover the truth, yet many in the community were disappointed by their findings, which emphasized a lack of substantial evidence.
When I first read that article in 2017 and learned about figures like Mellon, Elizondo, and Grusch, I was convinced there was something significant happening in the UFO phenomenon.
However, as I observe the current actions of these key players, it’s hard not to see the grift at play.
Grusch? He’s attending a conference at Esalen about psychedelics and alien summoning.
Barber? Running a for-profit venture that seems more like an episode of The X-Files than a genuine scientific endeavor.
Nolan? Right there with them, validating outlandish claims and engaging with critics on social media.
Elizondo? Off on a book tour.
We’re hearing about orbs invading homes, UFO summonings with privileged attendees on yoga mats, interdimensional werewolves, Chris Bledsoe, angels, demons—DINOBEAVERS? What on earth is happening?
It’s becoming clear that even those within the inner circle, who seemingly have the credentials, have bought into the spectacle, causing the scientific integrity we once associated with this subject to dissolve rapidly.
From my viewpoint, Kirkpatrick was being honest. What I see is circular reporting, sensationalism, and a pursuit of profit that has evolved into a pseudo-religious money-making venture.
Occam’s razor suggests we should look for the simplest explanation—and let’s be honest, that’s what we have here.
Remember, if what they claim is true, there’s a secret location somewhere housing intact crafts and bodies.
Enough with the empty promises. Where’s the evidence? And if you believe figures like Nancy Mace, Luna, and Moskowitz are going to uncover the truth for humanity, let’s touch base again in three years. My guess is that the evidence will remain just as elusive as it is today—only with even more absurdity added to the mix.
You make some compelling points about the current state of affairs, both in relation to AARO and the broader context of science and governance in the U.S. I agree that the erosion of trust in institutions is alarming, and it’s clear that the AARO was assembled during a time when transparency and scientific inquiry are needed more than ever.
However, your critique of AARO and its members highlights an important tension within the UFO discourse. While you point out the questionable behaviors of certain individuals associated with the UFO community, it raises the question: Is this indicative of the entire endeavor, or are there still individuals and factions within these movements striving for genuine inquiry and evidence-based conclusions?
Kirkpatrick’s insistence on rigor aligns with the need for scientific integrity, especially when so much is at stake in terms of public trust and credibility. The notion that circular reporting and sensationalism could undermine this inquiry resonates strongly, particularly in an age where media and social platforms amplify misinformation.
It’s also worth considering that the sensationalism surrounding UFOs can often overshadow legitimate research. Just because some figures are engaging in questionable practices doesn’t mean the entire field lacks merit. Perhaps there’s an opportunity for advocacy for more disciplined exploration, higher standards for evidence, and, ideally, clearer communication to the public.
Ultimately, while skepticism is warranted—especially when it comes to extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence—there’s also a backdrop of genuine intrigue that shouldn’t be dismissed outright. As you pointed out, if the truth is out there, it should be pursued with scrutiny and integrity, free from the malaises of exploitation and sensationalism. Perhaps this call for accountability could invigorate the conversation around AARO and elevate the discourse to where it needs to be.