Further Thoughts on AARO

The AARO report’s historical understanding of the UFO phenomenon is deeply flawed and riddled with errors. Barry Greenwood, a prominent UFO historian, pointed out several glaring inaccuracies in the report’s timeline of early UFO investigations.

According to Greenwood, the report incorrectly places “Project SAUCER (1946/1947 – January 1948)” before “Project SIGN (January 1948 – February 1949),” which contradicts the established understanding that Project SIGN was the beginning of official UFO investigations. Moreover, the report refers to an unnamed “1945” program without providing any details, further obfuscating the historical record.

Greenwood also highlighted the report’s puzzling reference to “Project SAUCER” in 1946, noting that the term “flying saucers” was not coined until 1947 after Kenneth Arnold’s famous sighting. This anachronism suggests a lack of familiarity with the historical context and terminology surrounding early UFO reports.

Another significant error pointed out by Greenwood is the report’s mention of “Project BEAR (Late 1951 – Late 1954),” which never existed as an official UFO investigation. The report appears to have confused this with Project STORK/WHITE STORK, a Battelle Memorial Institute project that partially contributed to Project Blue Book Special Report 14. This inaccuracy could lead researchers down the wrong path when attempting to access relevant documents through FOIA requests.

Robert Powell, another researcher, identified additional flaws in the report, including:

  • Broken links in the cited references
  • Incorrect date (June 23 instead of June 24, 1947) for Kenneth Arnold’s famous sighting
  • Mischaracterization of Arnold’s sighting as involving “circular objects” when he described curved objects tapering into a triangular shape
  • Failure to address key historical UFO cases as required by Congress, such as the McMinnville photos, Tremonton film, East Coast events of 1952, Levelland case, Minot AFB incident, and Mansfield helicopter incident

The report’s lack of historical understanding and factual errors undermine its credibility and raise doubts about the thoroughness of the investigation. Overlooking significant UFO cases and misrepresenting well-documented accounts suggests a superficial examination of the phenomenon’s history, contrary to the stated goals of the AARO project.

The AARO report’s oversight of several significant UFO cases is a glaring omission that undermines its credibility as a comprehensive examination of the phenomenon’s history. Robert Powell rightfully criticized the report for failing to address many well-documented and extensively investigated incidents, as required by Congress.

Notable cases that the report egregiously ignored include:

  • The McMinnville, Oregon photos from May 11, 1950, which captured clear images of an unidentified flying object.
  • The Tremonton, Utah film from July 2, 1952, showcasing a mysterious object maneuvering in the sky.
  • The East Coast events of the summer of 1952, during which military personnel received orders to fire upon UFOs.
  • The July 17, 1957 incident where a USAF RB-47 aircraft was trailed by an unidentified object for over two hours.
  • The Levelland, Texas case from November 2-3, 1957, involving a high number of witnesses, vehicle stalling, and a reported landing trace, spanning 81 pages in Project Blue Book files.
  • The Minot AFB, North Dakota incident on October 24, 1968, involving a B-52 bomber, ICBMs, and radar tracking of an unidentified object.
  • The Mansfield, Ohio Coyne helicopter incident on October 18, 1973, where a UFO approached and disrupted the helicopter’s systems.

These cases represent some of the most well-documented and intriguing UFO encounters in history, with numerous credible witnesses, physical evidence, and official investigations. By overlooking them, the AARO report fails to address a significant portion of the historical record surrounding the UFO phenomenon.

For instance, the Levelland case involved dozens of witnesses from various backgrounds, including law enforcement officers and military personnel. The reported landing trace and vehicle interference effects suggest a genuine physical phenomenon that warrants thorough examination. Similarly, the Coyne helicopter incident presents compelling evidence of a UFO’s ability to disrupt aircraft systems, a claim that demands rigorous scrutiny.

By neglecting to analyze and address these cases, the AARO report perpetuates a pattern of selective omission that has plagued previous official investigations into the UFO phenomenon. Such glaring oversights undermine the report’s credibility and raise doubts about the objectivity and thoroughness of the investigation.