Many people who interacted with Sean have negative things to say about him. A number of people who contacted AARO with their claims found him to be dismissive. Stratton thinks he was working for the Legacy Program. People should be cautious when listening to anything he says.
Why is Jay Stratton credible but we should be cautious of Kirkpatrick?
We should be asking why the Trump administration has been sitting on the AARO report that contains info on government disinformation about UFOs while they flood the internet with “tranches” of information that attempts to give UFO stories credibility with no proof.
I find Stratton more credible than Kirkpatrick because I have seen many people vouch for Stratton. They hold him in high regard. Just about everyone I have read about or seen who has had contact with Kirkpatrick has negative things to say about him, and about AARO when he was running it. I don’t think Trump gives a hoot about UAP. He said, fine, release stuff, but I think it is just a curiosity to him, and not something that he thinks about very much. The bigger question is what happened to Rubio? He was briefed when he was in Congress and seemed to take the matter seriously. Now, crickets. The actual people in the know don’t want to release any proof, so it will have to come out another way. We need a Pentagon Papers type of incident to bring the truth out.
I really don’t know anyone who is respected in the UAP community who has negative things to say about Stratton, except perhaps that he should provide proof, but secrecy and the nature of the UAP phenomenon seem to preclude that.
I’d love to see an objective (outside the UFO bubble) legal analysis of the annual UAP NDAA campaigns. Who’s writing this legislation, who’s lobbying for it, what business, personal and national interests do they have, what is the broad legal interpretation of the language (what is and what isn’t a UAP, NHI, etc) and its implications of both what they were seeking and what was passed etc
Honestly I can’t understand how a major media organization hasn’t scrutinized this yet. Elected leaders are giving legal status to “non-human intelligence” in our defense spending bill and no one is paying attention.
Many people who interacted with Sean have negative things to say about him. A number of people who contacted AARO with their claims found him to be dismissive. Stratton thinks he was working for the Legacy Program. People should be cautious when listening to anything he says.
Why is Jay Stratton credible but we should be cautious of Kirkpatrick?
We should be asking why the Trump administration has been sitting on the AARO report that contains info on government disinformation about UFOs while they flood the internet with “tranches” of information that attempts to give UFO stories credibility with no proof.
I find Stratton more credible than Kirkpatrick because I have seen many people vouch for Stratton. They hold him in high regard. Just about everyone I have read about or seen who has had contact with Kirkpatrick has negative things to say about him, and about AARO when he was running it. I don’t think Trump gives a hoot about UAP. He said, fine, release stuff, but I think it is just a curiosity to him, and not something that he thinks about very much. The bigger question is what happened to Rubio? He was briefed when he was in Congress and seemed to take the matter seriously. Now, crickets. The actual people in the know don’t want to release any proof, so it will have to come out another way. We need a Pentagon Papers type of incident to bring the truth out.
Who has vouched for Jay Stratton?
Have you read his book?
I really don’t know anyone who is respected in the UAP community who has negative things to say about Stratton, except perhaps that he should provide proof, but secrecy and the nature of the UAP phenomenon seem to preclude that.
I’d love to see an objective (outside the UFO bubble) legal analysis of the annual UAP NDAA campaigns. Who’s writing this legislation, who’s lobbying for it, what business, personal and national interests do they have, what is the broad legal interpretation of the language (what is and what isn’t a UAP, NHI, etc) and its implications of both what they were seeking and what was passed etc
Honestly I can’t understand how a major media organization hasn’t scrutinized this yet. Elected leaders are giving legal status to “non-human intelligence” in our defense spending bill and no one is paying attention.