As the saying goes, it’s not the crime that gets you, it’s the coverup. Prosecutors in many cases will interview the defendants only after they have gathered all the answers, in a bid to fool the defendant into documented lies that seal their case. To succeed, the prosecution must mitigate suspicion from the defendant of their intentions and what they know.
My tinfoil theory is based on the assumption that the SSCI has been receiving compelling whistleblowers all the way back to 2017 as some claim, and that they’ve been convinced beyond reasonable doubt years ago. Up to you if you consider it true or false. Please don’t destroy me, it’s experimental and for fun, because these past few weeks have been miserable if we all can agree.
What if the final step of the SSCI investigation was to create AARO to catch the DoD in their lies, potentially paving the way for criminal prosecution?
I find the charter of AARO unusual. Those of us that believe in UAPs might agree that AARO (specifically the historical report) is a fool’s errand, and I can only imagine the greater non-believing public may see it as another disappointing chapter of government mismanagement of funds to investigate something they already know boils down to balloons and flares. It would only serve to duplicate past efforts like Blue Book and Condon (with Kirkpatrick reaching the same conclusion for the third time), and the DoD certainly hasn’t changed its stance lately, leaving a small amount of room to justify an expensive and high-profile repeat. Despite this, Kirsten Gillibrand, ostensibly a senior member of the Senate, a member of the SSCI and SASC, and a presidential hopeful, has been so eager and proud to create AARO in her name. Why?
Up until now I and many others have been frustrated by Gillibrand’s negative attitude on UAPs. She’s spoken dismissively on video to her constituents about Grusch, which I didn’t like because he should be taken seriously whether he’s right or wrong, for the sake of public trust. She’s enthusiastically supported Sean Kirkpatrick up until his exit, causing me to question my sanity and wonder if I had been deluded by every other piece of independent information that had convinced me. She’s spoken to Matt Ford about “enthusiasts,” paying no credence to the ET hypothesis. How could she sit on the same committee as Marco Rubio and Charles Schumer (ex-officio), who evidently are taking this seriously, and yet come to a conclusion opposite of theirs? And if she doesn’t believe, why is she so happy to spend the money on AARO’s inevitable conclusive denial of all things aliens? This, along with Kirkpatrick, has done a lot of damage to my confidence. There doesn’t seem to be a consensus even on the SSCI, especially given Warner’s silence.
I had a (half-hearted) comeback once I fully considered that the SSCI might have known the truth before AARO was created in 2022. Had the SSCI received compelling information as early as 2017, as I’ve heard alleged? The question then is: if the truth was already known about coverups as early as 2017, why form AARO in 2021/2022 to investigate past accounts? That must have been a late stage in their investigation of the biggest story in human history – surely they would have known already.
I hypothesize that it’s the final step in an effort by the SSCI to catch the DoD in a lie, to gather statements from the DoD without arousing suspicion. AARO, with their comprehensive report on all past sightings including interviews of key figures, was a brilliant way to engineer that. I think it was the only way to engineer it. How could Congress come to the DoD asking pointed questions without showing their cards? The stigma has destroyed Congressional interest in the topic; questions could only start coming when there was compelling information backing them up.
Was this the SSCI’s true intention with AARO? Curiously, the SSCI’s continual silence and avoidance of the UAP topic and their appearance of cluelessness would be explained by this hypothesis. Mark Warner told Laslo that there were no SSCI investigations into UAPs. Marco Rubio distanced himself from the topic late last year, saying it was an ICIG matter and they were waiting for the investigation to finish before continuing. Before that, he claimed that serious people were coming forward, and that they still had to get to the bottom of this (i.e. investigation in its early stages). Gillibrand’s Grusch comments made it seem that they had no idea if Grusch’s claims were founded, and that they were still skeptical. Rubio and Gillibrand had to file a bill just to get people to come forward with amnesty. Looking back on these statements and actions, it’s clear that the SSCI has tried to signal that they don’t know a whole lot and are struggling to get answers. Perhaps this is an intentional false signal to lure AARO into a confident denial of UAPs?
Have they also been deliberately hiding their relationship with whistleblowers in preparation for this? I recall the spat between Gillibrand and Grusch, where Gillibrand responded to a question on future Grusch Senate testimony, claiming Grusch demanded that Gillibrand pay travel costs (which Grusch later claimed was a lie.) Gillibrand seemed to be caught off guard with the question, coming out with an unprepared reply. Did this question potentially catch Gillibrand with no good options other than to lie? Between having to acknowledge that future Grusch testimony was on the SSCI radar, having to claim that Grusch wasn’t being interviewed and/or taken seriously by the SSCI (which might be a red flag to the DoD – they must follow through no matter how unbelievable Grusch is), and dodging the question, a little lie seems alright. By accusing Grusch of being unwilling to pay for travel, she implied that the investigation was happening but wasn’t serious enough to help key witnesses afford it, another great move to signal that the SSCI didn’t value the whistleblower testimony.
Gillibrand’s support of Kirkpatrick begins to make sense from this angle. As the spearhead of AARO’s formation, Gillibrand has an obligation to appear supportive. Her continued ego-stroking of Kirkpatrick sends an important signal that she depends on Kirkpatrick for the answers, giving him the false confidence to write angry OpEds that attack whistleblowers and our elected leaders. AARO itself would be confident to file a conclusive report full of lies, seeing that the Senate depends solely on them for their facts. Honestly, the SSCI couldn’t have gotten luckier with the head of AARO; Kirkpatrick has a propensity to go on angered tirades that risk admitting too much. Others have accused him of egotism, and if true, he was an easy mark for Gillibrand’s flattery. If someone knows whether the SSCI played a role in the appointment of Sean specifically, let us all know, because they were brilliant if they did.
Marco Rubio’s comments to Laslo on why AARO was created under the DoD despite whistleblower pushback also become interesting. Rubio himself acknowledged the conflict of interest, and that the whistleblowers were suspicious of AARO under the DoD. So why did they put it in the DoD anyways, if they had reason to believe AARO would never receive the most important testimony? After all, there’s no reason AARO couldn’t have been an independent commission just like the UAPDA prescribed. The SSCI’s own stated goal for AARO to get to the bottom of this was handicapped from the start, and they were fully aware of it when they created AARO. Why would the SSCI deliberately damage their efforts? Now it sorta makes sense. Maybe their true goal for AARO was to be under the DoD all along.
Aside: Rubio’s same comments also support what I claimed about signaling trust in the DoD; AARO’s placement under the DoD was perhaps the greatest signal of all that the SSCI trusted the DoD over the whistleblowers.
We now have Kirkpatrick’s inflamed OpEd and the AARO report imminent. Kirkpatrick has denied that “conspiracy-minded” individuals came to AARO, whereas Mellon has alleged the opposite, and moreover that they went to the Senate. Is the SSCI preparing to bring these same individuals forward to cast doubt on the DoD’s own accounts of their testimony (if they don’t omit them completely)? Are we going to see Puthoff and Davis (according to Mellon) in front of the Senate accuse AARO of withholding their sworn testimony?
I think there’s other circumstantial information to support that.
One is Mellon himself. He has been instrumental in the SSCI’s investigation. He has presented witnesses to AARO and presumably the SSCI, and gave a farewell to a Senate staffer late last year that purportedly was at the center of the Senate investigation, thanking him for his work on disclosure. He’s plugged in. If you don’t believe that, heck, he was the former Senate Minority director for the SSCI! What I find interesting is that Mellon oddly seems to be looking forward to the AARO report. Why, especially following Kirkpatrick’s OpEd tirade? Why, given Mellon’s own past doubt of AARO’s efforts (e.g. his disappointment that the UAPDA was stripped and AARO was all that was left)? Isn’t the report going to be full of lies that will unwind Mellon’s years of disclosure efforts in the eyes of the public? Is it possible his close involvement with the SSCI has made him aware of their hidden intentions with AARO, and that a report full of lies is the best outcome? Now that I think of it, there are two outcomes for the report: honesty or lies. I think both would benefit disclosure.
Another breadcrumb of circumstantial information is the Schumer bill (UAPDA). I noticed something conspicuously missing that is inconsistent with the allegations it contains: there is no mention of investigating crimes. Schumer’s ultimate goal was to end public mistrust, which is unachievable if the crimes are not exposed in addition to the UAPs. And with that goal in mind, how could they think ahead of the base allegations and propose eminent domain over private contractor materials, but not consider a role of the review board to investigate crimes that were potentially committed in dispersing those materials to them? I’ll make the assumption that they do believe crimes were committed, as Grusch and others have alleged. Therefore, there’s a missing component we aren’t aware of yet.
I again hypothesize that it was partly left out purposefully as a (false) signal of the Senate’s good intentions with the DoD. But to address the elephant in the room: if not the commission, who’s going to prosecute this and hold the DoD to account? It sounds to me that it would be the SSCI/HPSCI/HASC/SASC (indeed, this was what Turner and SCIF Congressmen allegedly wanted; for Congressional committees to handle this). The question is, how would they establish probable cause in the public eye to begin a criminal investigation without the Schumer bill containing any measure to expose the crimes? UAP info is only going to be circumstantial at best. Again, I hypothesize: the AARO report is necessary to establish the irrefutable cause that the DoD is lying, justifying an investigation into the DoD itself.
It’s also odd that Schumer proposed this rather than SSCI leadership. It’s their investigation, so why did they put it to him? A potential explanation: Schumer’s status as Senate Majority leader allowed maximum public impact, conveniently without directly implicating the SSCI in the investigation. Except for Rounds I guess, but they have been quite careful to rest their case on whistleblower testimony, which they call out as a “vast web” that is sometimes dubious but enough to justify looking into it (again, signaling they have no compelling evidence yet other than possibly-dubious whistleblowers). Interesting.
Lastly, if Danny Sheehan is correct, February 9th is when Senate efforts will start to be revealed. I can’t help but notice it directly follows the imminent release of the declassified AARO report.
Will Grusch’s OpEd be the opening salvo, deliberately delayed until after the AARO report is released?
submitted by /u/xristaforante
[link] [comments]