And it hits me, Oh my gosh, this is a triangle. You know, there's explanation for everything that occurred in the Randallsham parsncident. It doesn't involve aliens at all. It was completely silent. It comes right over our heads. Classic fly. He's also really standing into clearing. He turned over to my father and held his hand, and he looked in his eyes and said, we're not alone. Welcome to Podcast UFO for our live show. During the show, feel free to participate live in our chat room, and don't forget to like us on our very active Facebook page. All right, and welcome to the show. This is Martin willis your host. We have Robbie Graham on with us tonight and I got the chance to meet him in Arizona a few years ago and great guy. Really looking forward to speaking with him. Before that, we have Alejandro Rojas coming up with the UFO news. We have a new blog. I actually wrote the blog this week over at podcast ufo dot com. You want to go check that out because I talk about talking with Lewis Alexando. On Friday, everything kind of crashed and I hope it's an entertaining plog. Check it out over at podcast ufo dot com, and I want to thank everyone that helps support the show. And let's let's get into it. Alejandro, how are you. Let's get into it. I'm doing very well. How are you? I'm doing okay, a little slow start, but we're here all right. So what's going on in the UFO world? Quite a bit, isn't it. Oh? Of course there's all kinds of stuff going on, and that a couple of the stories that are out there. I think Robbie will probably refer to your guest at I know what his interests are, and there is a lot of interesting information out there. So of course everything out there is controversial. You can just you can practically anything you say and someone will see it as controversial. But this is a great one. Tyler Rogueway, who I believe you've interview so I he writes for the Drive war Zone. He has a couple of stories now he has a new one out where he interviewed Graves, who's one of the pilots from the twenty fifteen incident that will be in the upcoming episode of Unidentified. And I had posted some clips with Graves at open mind stat TV and on my blog on one hundred ti Rojas dot com. But that's not the story I want to talk about actually, because that one, actually, you know, it's good, but people can take a look about that. The one that was more controversial is this one that he has titled Tom Delong's Origin Story for the Tow the Stars Academy describes a government UFO info operation and it's an interesting article. And I've got to admit, you know, I have kind of not tackled all of the history of how Tom DeLong came to create Two the Stars, and because it's weird. I mean, there's so many different stories and all the different things he said, So Tyler tackled this an essential Actually, he's making the argument that he believes that, you know, this is kind of a propaganda a bit where the government is kind of working with Tom to make them look better kind of essentially, and that's what Tom DeLong says. He how he tried to hook them is to say, hey, look, with all this conspiracy stuff, you guys look bad. Every nobody believes you. They all think you're jerks, especially the millennials. I want to change that around because I don't believe that to be the case. And I have heard through some history that Tom DeLong actually has his brother was in a kind of a high ranking person in the military, and he's done a lot of working with the military because he likes the military. He's done, you know, lots of concerts and stuff like that for the military. In fact, I'm going to save this for my podcast, sorry Martin's, but along these lines, I do have some information nobody else has, and I forgot to share this at my last podcast, but people have to listen. But the point being that he's arguing that perhaps there's more of a handshake there, more of a back and forth there than we may realize. Now, that's why I asked Alesando along those lines, and what he said was and at least from my point of view, I think we see a lot of to the stars driving their own efforts in their own work. But Alesando did say, we are going to work with the Navy. And one of the things I brought up is these pilots they're active, right, so the Navy had to have given permission, And he said that's true. So I think we do have a pretty extraordinary level of cooperation with the Navy that they're allowing these pilots to talk that they have also, of course come up with these UFO protocols. So Alesando says, however, you know, we will work with a navy. Why wouldn't we. They're a partner. We don't want to make them mad. We want to work nicely together. So you can infer from that what you will, and I'm sure Robbie will in your upcoming interview with him. But really interesting points. Another interesting article, and I of these discussions that are coming from traditional mainstream defense writers. These are not UFO people. These are people who work in defense that are taking their own look at this. But this is from an article from Task and Purpose and this writer. It's a short article, but he went to the Navy and to the Air Force to get their opinions. One of the interesting things he was told is that this could be drones. There's proliferation of drones out there, so who knows what they could be interacting with our drones. We don't know yet. But then an army he had talked to the Air Force, and we haven't heard anything from the Air Force really regarding all of this. But the Air Force did reply and say, Noah, probably not drones. The Chinese and Russians that drones would have to be huge, you know, they'd have to have traveled these vast distances, which they can't do. The performance that we see exhibited just doesn't fit drones. So we've got kind of this back and forth conversation now between the Navy and the Air Force, at least in regards to this letter. So really interesting stuff going on out there. One other thing I do want to add is, and I think this is important, Brian Bender has kind of been you know, if you get into UFOs. You just mentioned the word UFOs and you're going to get attacked by a lot of the trolls out there. And Brian back Bender, who is in unidentified and writes for Politico. He writes about defense as well and politics and policy around these issues. I've actually talked to him and he's got a rich history. He's done war correspondence, he's got a lot of connections back there. But as he said in his tweet, he has taught to many of his contacts inside to verify that a tip was real and that they had been briefed by lou Elizondo and they had come back and confirmed yes, they're like I don't want to go on the record, please don't use my name, but because but you know, we ran across this. Harry Reid wanted to do it. We said, okay, we said we didn't want anything to do with it. But so Bender has tweeted about and I've talked to him more so that has happened. I think that's just interesting because you know, the organization is known to those who were privy to it or who had to give kind of the blessing for the program to go forward, but it sounds like a lot of people didn't really want much to do with it. So unpacking, you know, really kind of what's going on behind the scenes there is difficult. And Bender has made the point that we probably never will I mean after the funding ended in twenty twelve. I think the program was more akin to what Nick Pope was doing. He had a UFO desk, but it was like him maybe one other people. It's a very small operation where and even smaller in the case that lou was doing this on the side. He was doing it when he had time. It wasn't like his primary responsibility. So that causes a lot of confusion and as we've seen, but some really interesting stories. One last story is there's a battle. Our buddy Tom Reid, who you've interviewed, I know, and and so if I he had in a monument to this event that he had experienced and it was taken down. And surprisingly this is kind of neat the Berkshire Edge, which is the local paper. They wrote about this, and then they also did an op ed saying, hey, you need to give that back and put that back up. So some local controversy there around a UFO encounter that's going on out there, which I think is kind of another fun story that gets lost in all of this other stuff going on. Well, yeah, I know that's something. I mean, second time it moved, it's really something. I know, it keeps getting moved. I mean, it's mostly it's twofold. It's because of the rights to the ground around this bridge that they want to put this monument near it to an iconic bridge. In fact, it was featured in Bridges of Madison County and that's where this whole incident had occurred. But the other so there it's issues with the rights to where the ground is and so they just keep choosing the wrong place unfortunately. But there's also some locals who are not cooperating, who feel that, you know, putting this UFO monument next to this bridge is making them look silly and it hurts their reputation, and so they want no part of it. So they're really challenging him. So you have two parts of this city. So I'm saying, hey, you know, what's the big deal. We like this, even the city. Some of the historians have said, we like this historic event that happened here with the UFO thing, why not kind of you know, call attention to it or have this monument to it, and others are like, no way, we don't want anything to do with this. So it's kind of similar to what we were talking about with the military people inside, kind of some of them saying, yeah, I go for it. We need to figure this out, or maybe even we need to use this to help us look better, and others saying, no, I don't want anything to do with this. This makes makes us look bad. So we've ran across this. You know throughout that this has always happened with this topic. Yes, I do believe it is getting better. I see signs of it almost every day. It just seems I'm really optimistic that this topic is really getting taken seriously. I love it. Yeah, me too. It's an exciting time for this topic. It really is. Yeah, it really is. Hey, Hele Hundre, thanks so much, my pleasure, Thank you. All right, So I'll be talking to you next week. Talk to you tune and and one last point is to check out the UFO Congress dot com. We've got a lot of great speakers being listed up there, and we are have the proud honor I think of being the only US UFO conference that brought Robbie Graham, and we're very proud of that. He was Oh wow, Yes, I'm honored that was him behind the fourth wall as they say. Anyway, thanks so much, talk to you next week later, all right, our guest. Robbie Graham has lectured around the world on the UFO subject and has been interviewed for the BBC Channel four, Vice and Vanity Fair, among others. His articles have appeared in numerous publications, including The Guardian, New Statesman, The Fourteen Times. He studied film at the Universities of Staffordshire in Bristol, and he's the author of silver Screen Sauces. We're gonna be talking about that and also UFOs reframing the debate that was out in twenty seventeen. Welcome to the show, Robbie, thanks so much. Yeah, good to be with you. Yes, and you are in the UK, so you're staying up late, and I just wanted to say I do appreciate that. I will all but pretty name by side. This is this isntable. Yeah, losing a little bit on Skype right there. Hopefully you've got a good connection, Robbie for the person that I've basically said, your brief background there, but for them, what actually got you interested in this topic in general? M interest in it goes back to my childhood. I have always just been sort of naturally drawn to weird topics, and that was from an early age. But it wasn't until my mid teams, probably fourteen years of age, that I started to become quite obsessional about UFOs. It is the kind of subject that invites obsession, I think. And yet despite the fact that I hadn't had my own UFO experienced to speak of. Really, as I said, I've seen unidentified flying objects a handful over the years at a distance, things that could be literally, you know, terms unidentified flying objects but nothing earth earth shattering, nothing that would that would you know, that would indicate anything of unearthly origin. But yeah, as I say, there was a there was an incident in my childhood why my one of my friends had a close encounter with it with an apparent UFO and that that really captured my imagination, and I think that fueled me. And then really by the age of sort of fourteen, um, the X files had started, and maybe that that that probably did feed into my imagination. And then I started to buy a lot of the UFO literature. UM and by my late teens, I'd read most of the core UFO literature. And I started attending my local UFO group staffer to UFO group, which is actually when Nick RedPhone used to frequent as well. And so that's where I met met Nick Redfern. And so I was just you know, why did teenager really and not knowing really what to believe, but wanting to believe and a very firm proponent of the extraterrestrial hypothesis and yeah, so so so that was that was that was my my early years in the UFO field. I didn't start to write about UFOs until my mid twenties. By the time i'd reach my early twenties, that's bout the time I'd reached my late teens. In fact, I started to become obsessed with with the film um and sort of UFOs felt by the wayside, and I started to study film at college and and then university at undergraduate and postgraduate levels, and so the film sort of became my new obsessions. But UFOs never really went away from me. And then in my mid twenties, I sort of made the conscious decision to merge my my my passions and to write about UFOs through the lens of Hollywood. Well, now, had you ever did you ever get any you know, backlash from from this topic and anywhere along the line. A lot of people talk about that, but it's it's usually pretty um, it's usually pretty good in the film business. I mean it is it is something that seems to do pretty well some way, you know, in different ways in the film business in general. So what was that like starting something like that? Sorry, could you just repeat the question? Did I get any did you get any backlash? You know? I mean, did you did you have any trouble because of the topic itself? Basically in terms of oh, in terms of my writings on the subject, in terms of people accepting it in the you know, like a movie company or you know, when you when you went to get funding, say for for producing something, did did you have any issues with the topic. Basically, I guess that's a question. Oh no, no, no, no. To clarify my my background in film is is theoretical, not practical. So so you know, I was a film studies student and then lecturer at college and so so my background in film studies is largely theoretical. Um, and so so I was writing about film, yeah, in terms of film theory really and film history. I specialized in looking at Hollywood propaganda and looking at how the entertainment industry really aises with and has sort of formed a symbiotic relationship with the US intelligence community and defense establishment, and looking at the extent to which this relationship informs the content of UFOs themed movies and TV shows. Oh, in that's so basically how the book These Silver Screen Starters basically is that kind of on the lines, that's right. So, so you know, my I started to write on the subject for fourteen Times magazine, and I wrote a sort of a string of articles looking at the history of Hollywood depictions of of extraterrestrial visitation of the UFO phenomenon, and the extent to which Hollywood is engaged with the UFO law through it throughout the decades, and the extent to which those depictions, those Hollywood depictions have actually informed our own perceptions and expectations of the phenomenon in itself. So so yeah, I've approached this from a large theoretical standpoint, and I interviewed various screenwriters, directors, producers, and I've sought to understand, you know, how these movies come to be interesting. It is. It is kind of amazing, you know. You I hear things. I have heard things over the years about how, you know, UFOs and abductions and all that ors has a lot to do with pop culture. There is some type of influence through pop culture, and you know, going all the way back to the nineteen fifties when they, you know, the UFO movies were coming out left and right, and people were seeing flying sarcers all over the place, and there's a lot of speculation out there that the mass hysteria actually was spawned from you know, these movies. Is what are your what are your thoughts along those lines. Yeah, it's a common misconception. Skeptics loss and level the argument that I mean no longer, of course, because the whole UFO field has changed quite significantly in the past couple of years. But traditionally, the skeptical argument was that the UFO phenomenon was the result of mass hysteria partly brought about by pop cultural iconography found in movies and TV shows and things like that that you know, The idea was that the UPHO phenomenon was the dream of of Hollywood's screenwriters. But actually it's the way around. The phenomenon itself. The UFO phenomenon predates Hollywood's depictions of it by several years. So of course that in the modern era, the modern UFO era beginning in nineteen forty seven, it wasn't until three years after, in nineteen fifty that Hollywood produced its first movie about UFOs and flying sources. And now it was actually called The Flying Sourcer, and so it was yeah, there was. So it's always been the case that Hollywood is several steps behind uthology and euthological understandings of the phenomenon and what Hollywood does What it has traditionally done is screenwriters created people with people within the industry. They look to the UFO subject, They look to euthology and UFO research for creative inspiration, and so, you know, you do have a great many people in the industry who are interested in UFOs will have a passing interest in it. Think it's interesting, think it's creatively rich material. And they you know, they read some of the books, they watch them the documentaries, and they incorporate this sort of real life, these real life events encounters ideas, and they incorporate those into their own fictional Hollywood narratives, effectively blurring the lines between facts and fantasy. Now, this is a natural cultural process for the most part. Um you know, it's not It's not by and large, a gigantic, well organized Hollywood conspiracy where screenwriters are actively seeking to mold our perceptions towards some sinister agenda. There are examples of that, and I document those extensively in my own work, But but largely this is a natural cultural process where there's a there is a phenomenon that interacts with us. It affects people's lives quite profoundly on an individual level, and it sort of seeps into the popular consciousness at a subcultural level, initially through the subculture of uthology. But then, as I say, you get people from outside of the field, screenwriters and things like that, who decide to tap into this rich law, this rich veins of mythology that goes back seventy years or more, and then they take certain ideas, so for example, men in black, or the idea of close encounters that the terminology close encounters, the third kind, the iconography of the gray alien, for example, there's big guys. They take these things which have been reported in actual, real life UFO reports from lived historical reality, and then they sow them into their into their fictional narratives just for you know, for creative value. But the result is that the phenomenon itself, which does seem to have a you know, it is rooted in in an ontological reality. For anyone not well versed in the UFO literature, their only understanding of the phenomen comes through the lens of Hollywood, and so the boundaries between fact and fantasy of instantly being blurred. Wow, this is really fascinating. Um, I didn't know this is actually the the route that you went down with this book is and um, you know, because um, they're they're actually feeding off of things that really happened. Now, I do know that Close Encounters of the Third Kind was very much in that way because of you know, Steven Spielberg. I've just heard you know that through different people that have been on the show that you know, that's what inspired him. And you know, that's a really good example of using what people are talking about in you know, creating a movie around it. Yeah. I mean, of course, Spielberg's the most famous sort of example of a Hollywood filmmaker, you know, popularizing eupho mythology. Spielberg grew up reading the literature. He was completely obsessed and in his teens he made a film when he was sixteen years old. It's actually made a feature length film, sixteen millimeter film called Firelight, which is about UFO visitation. And actually that was the blueprint for Close Encounters of the Third Kind, which he made over a decade later. And so so yeah, Stilbo has always been fascinated by it, and he's you know, Close Encounters of the Third Kind is quite a uphologically authentic movie. Of course, it's a fantasy, but there are many aspects of that movie, many aspects of the close encounters that occur in that movie which have been taken directly from real life reports. And of course the chief consultant on the movie was jail and Heinek himself, who makes a cameo in the latter scenes of the movie. So this is a film that absolutely sprung from from euthology and owed entirely to euthology and the UFO phenomenon itself. Yes, yeah, and that was great. He'd had that cameo on it, and the very end that was that was great when he was on that, I remember, of course some you know at the end. Back then, I had no idea myself. I was, you know, not really that much into the topic. I had no idea who Jacques Valet or j L and Heinick had no idea who they were. M Yeah, it's great, it's great. So are there some other examples that that of a certain incident that you're aware of that they actually made a film around. Yeah. So there's only a handful throughout the decades of movies which have actually been based directly on individual UFO close encounter cases or abduction cases. For example, mostly how the I'll talk about those in a moment, but mostly how Hollywood engages with UFO or is it sort of takes little ideas, themes, motifs, iconography from the literature and incorporates it into its narratives in it in just a sort of a haphazard way. But but yeah, there are a number of movies which have been made which are direct adaptations of for examples, uphological literature. Films that come to mind would be okay, let's go back in in chronological lauder. One of the earliest was the movie Caught My Brain Spruzzled. Now it's late, let me think it's called. It's the adaptation of the Interrupted Journey, the Bettian Bonnie story, the the UFO incident and starring James L. Jones. And so this was a direct adaptation of the Bettian Barney Hill story. That was one of the earliest movies which was made for TV. You had, then, of course, um into the into the eighties. You had Communion, based on Wiley Stuba's novel from nineteen eighty five, and that was nineteen eighty nine, was the adaptation. You had a mini series in nineteen ninety one or two called Intruders, which was based on Bud Hopkins's work and very specifically or sort of inspires an amalgamation of several cases across Bud Hopkins's work, and Fire in the Sky of Course nineteen ninety three and adaptation of the Walton Experience Charles Walson's famous close encounter. So, yeah, there's been a number of direct adaptations over the years, but for the most part it's more subtle and interact. The influence how these how these creatives engage with this literature is less direct. M Now, I just I just was sent a text saying that they are I think I did hear this as well. They're making a true dramatic movie about renderssom forests, which I think is going to be really good. I hope that's a very difficult one. I'm sure you know that one, just because it kind of gets convoluted. There's a lot of twists and turns, a lot of different different accounts, a lot of blurry lines. Say, um, so that that's going to be That'll be really interesting to see how that one in particular comes out. Yeah, that's been in the works for quite some time. The last I read about that, I think Lawrence Fishburn was attached as both star and co producer as well, so that could be interesting. But of course the one I missed there was nineteen ninety four to the Movies for Showtime Roswell for the adaptation of the of the Roswell Story and all the you know, sort of the first on the first full length fiction feature film to be exploring the Roswell incident. And that was produced and written by Paul Davids. And that's a starring Carl McCloughlin and Martin Sheen. That's a very interesting, very entertaining, you know, reasonably faithful, but obviously highly speculative version of the Roswell story. So that so there have been a number of these and I'm sure that will see them any more in the future as well. Right right, we had over on the YouTube chat, we had Diana Pulska um about private announce your name wrong, um Paslica anyway, Um, she hopefully we're going to get her on the show. Hopefully won't have any technical difficulties. Um. But I know she wrote the forward in your book. She's done some great work from what I understand. Yeah, she wrote the forward for your Phosy Frame in the debate and known Diana for a few years. We met in California at the athen Institute and we were sort of part of the symposium delivering um presentations on your foes and so that was. Yeah. I had the privilege of spending some time with um Diana and Jacques Ballet and a few of the people. So that was that was fascinating experience for me. I bet i bet um Yeah. Um, So I met you out in Phoenix. I think it was what two was that two years ago when you were out there. Uh, yeah, it was twenty twenty eighteen. It was October October last year. Actually, oh no, that's not um No, I met you at the UFO Congress in February, Um, februarys right, yeah, every last year. Yeah yeah. So uh and and I I think I was I was behind the scenes, helping in the back, so I didn't get to catch your your talk too well because I was, you know, just paying attention to all the technical work back there, which right now I don't seem to be doing too well with technical work. It's not going my way here, um, but uh, I got to get my engineer back helping helping me on Tuesday nights. Um so, uh as far as uh, I think it wasn't. Paul David's there as well. At that time, I didn't see him. Okay, he was, It was a year before then. Yeah, he's he's really a character. He's a great guy. And uh yeah, I interviewed pull from my for several screen sources. He sort of gave me the whole inside scoop on my line side scoop, but the whole inside story on on on how that movie came to be and how it's produced and sort of the interesting um sort of anecdotes from the from the production of that movie involving you know, real men in black and they were they were worried they were being snooped on by by intelligence agencies. Um so that's that's that's you know, that was very interesting. Yeah, yeah, that's great. And so all right, getting over to your other book, Reframing the Debate, can you explain kind of what that encompasses, you know? Yeah, so, so reframing the debate, you're phosi reframing the debate. This this um as I think I said to you early on. I'm not sure if we picked it up or if we were cut off at that point. But you know, as many people, UM, you can appreciate, the extraterrestrial hypothesis for your phosi is a very appealing one, and it's um it makes sense on a lot of levels. U. And you look at the phenomenon, I think at a fairly superficial level. But as the years went by, beginning of probably around twenty and twelve twenty thirteen, I started to challenge myself and be challenged by other people. I started to surround myself with more progressive, iconoclastic thinkers who really pushed me out of my comfort zone and got me to question my own assumptions about UFO origins and the nature of this bizarre phenomenon. And I, you know, I, like I said, I've been involved in this. I'm thirty eight years old now, and I've been completely obsessed with it since I was fourteen, and interested and interested in it for longer than that's going back to early childhood. So when you're that wrapped up in a particular subject, especially a subject like UFOs which has a religious overtones, really in the sense that you know, if you know it's popular in its popular conception, you are UFOs would would too many people represent higher intelligences, superior intelligences, interacting with us and potentially offering us some kind of salvation in the future from you know, from the from the past that we're on we're on path to self destruction. But perhaps if there are other intelligences out there who are more sophisticated, more advanced than we are, who have solved their own problems and they're here now, then perhaps they can help us solve our own. And you know, your identity starts to become really bound up in in this idea and ideas related to it and in the whole subject. And I think I've suffered an identity crisis. Really, um you know when you start to really question, I mean, anyone listening to this or not anyone because a lot of people listening to this, and this is meant with no offense, but people listening to this. And I can say this because I was one of those people, and I know firsthand. I know, I know the experience, right you you know, if I've had many conversations with people face to face, and you can you can just say something completely innocuous about UFOs that would be deemed kind of vaguely skeptical, and you can be met with a really, you know, in your face outraged response, and that response is a defensive response, and it's one way you feel that your identity and your belief system is being attacked. And I know because I was that guy. I was that guy I was at fourteen Times. I spoke at fourteen Times convention in twenty ten at the University of Westminster, delivering a lecture with my colleague Matthew Orford on your foes in Hollywoo and CIA involved specifically. At that point I was into in twenty ten, I was still very much an eh extraterrestrial hypothesis proponent, and I was I found myself talking to a number of the UK's at that conference, sort of leading best known skeptical authors and writers on the subject, and I found myself in a conversation with him and I got so angry when they were just that seeing some really basic questions or sort of challenging and making remarks that I felt were derogatory or that all that were sort of challenging my beliefs and assumptions. And my response was to get, you know, really quite upset and angry about it, and it wasn't until years I thought, quite, I really shouldn't have done that, and I didn't look I thought I didn't look good there at all. I thought, what was what was all that about? And it wasn't really even me speaking. It was my belief. It was my belief with my religious belief acting to that, you know, to what they were saying. And I felt wow. And anyways, a few years later that again some of my colleagues and friends started to really challenge me. And I like to be challenged, and I've got a very open mind and I do take on new ideas and I can adapt my outlooking paradigm, and indeed I have and it continued to adapt, and I just felt that by sort of the year twenty thirteen, I wrote an article called Letting Go of UFOs. I published this on my on my blog at the time, and it got quite a lot of attension in the UFO community. And I published it because of the things I said in it, and I was it was a very personal piece sort of trying to deconstruct my own belief and the beliefs of the UFO community, the assumptions and looking at the phenomenon itself, you know, not trying. You know, the as I said, the extratrastural hypothesis is very appealing, and it's appealing I think because if the UFO phenomenon represents something that is strictly nuts and bolts, that we are being visited and interacted with by biological beings that have evolved on another planet in our galaxy, in our dimension, and they are traveling here in technological spacecraft. Then if that's the case, then at some point we can prove that because we can have physical evidence, and there will be some kind of notable change that occurs within our society and civilization as a result of understanding the nature of the phenomenon and of interacting with it. And I'm talking here about the popular uthological concept of disclosure with a capital D, as popularized by Stephen Greer and others. And if you know, the entire UFA community in sort of in the modern era, I would say, and want to say, in one day, I'm talking more about like late nineties, early two thousands onwards, the focus of the UFA community became less looking at individual cases and trying to understand the individual cases, and it's we arrived at a point where an assumption started to arise that we definitely understand the phenomenon. Now, we get it, we know what it is. They're aliens. Now all we have to do is push the government to release the information that it's got and we can all live in a utopian society walking down the high street with our alien brethren. And that's essentially, and of course I'm being a bit facetious there, but that that is essentially the disclosure concept in a nutshell. That's a hugely simplified version of it. And it's much monuments than that, of course, but that's the idea, and it's it is frankly ridiculous. I bought into it for a long time, and I think most people do. But I think if you stay in the subject for long enough, and you are brutally honest with yourself, then it's very hard to cling to the notion of disclosure, and even to cling to the idea that we're dealing with the purely physical technological phenomenon. That's not to say that there isn't a physicality to it and there isn't technological aspects to it, because there certainly would appear to be. But in my experience and based on the research that I've done it and people who have spoken to and the conclusions tentatively that I've slowly begun to draw, as I say, without ever reaching a solid one, because I think when you reach a sort of conclusion in this subject, you've you know, that's not really helpful, to be honest with you, because I think we're very far from understanding it. But this is a phenomenon that's multifaceted. People like to put it into a box. So uthologists like to put the phenomenon into the into the extraterrestrial box. Crypto Zoologists like to put Bigfoot into the into the physical unknown animal box, something that's just sort of slipped through the net that we can one day discover. They don't like Cryptosologists do not like the idea what I say, Some do, but most don't in my experience, like the idea the Bigfoot, for example, or other bizarre cryptids could be actually something far weirder than just unknown animals. They could be potentially interdimensional or extraterrestrial or paranormal, and paranormal researchers don't like overlapping cases with UFOs and where UFOs and poltergeists and big foot overlap. Yet there are countless cases where paranormal phenomena, including your phos, overlap, And we're dealing with a multifaceted phenomenon. And the phenomenon, as it's called and referred to by those in the know, not the UFO phenomenon, not UAPs, not the UFOs, but simply the phenom. It can manifest in many different ways, and it has many different faces and can be interpreted in many different ways across time and culture. As it has been. This is an age old phenomenal. This did in begin in nineteen forty seven. It goes back thousands of years, and so it's far more complicated, I believe, than than simply being visiting us from another planet and taking samples and abducting us, etcetera, etcetera. It's half far more bizarre, I think than most people on the planet can even conceptualize, and so I think we are. I think we are very far from understanding it. That's not to say we shouldn't pursue it, because I think it's profoundly important, but I think that we should be in terms of disclosure, I realize I'm runting now, but but I'm on a role, so I'm going to keep going. You feel free to interrupt me a well, actually we are really to go and break here of it. Okay, let's stop there, but I will get right back and this because they have a lot of questions to actually what you just spoke about. So this is well, elst. My guest is Robbie Graham, and hang in there. We'll be right back right after these messages. All right, welcome back. This is Martin Willis. My guest is Robbie Graham. And right before break we were talking about the phenomenon in general putting things into boxes. I do want to address that in a little while. Here we'll be taking calls and I'll give out that number in just a minute. Actually, I think we got one already coming in. Might as well take it now. All right, here we go, caller. Welcome to the show. Hi, your first name? Where are you calling from? My name is Dave Altimate. Oh it's Dave. Hey, Dave, how are you? Dave? You saved me? Are good? Thank you for saving me. In the chat room over there, I see it's still active, which is pretty amazing. The YouTube I've been posting the link for the show and posting links for robbie stuff and Diana's stuff po still active there. You know, that's great. I appreciate it. Do you do you have a question for for Rabbie? Yeah? Yeah, you know, Robbie, you have so many amazing researchers, you know that contributed to reframing the debate, like you know, great Bishop and red Pill and all the others. I was just wondering, you know, how you went by choosing who you would like to submit the essays and if there were any people that you really wanted that maybe you weren't available at the time. Yeah, thanks, a good question. Um. So I wanted to just uh yeah, I knew this was going to be an edited volume. I knew that this was going to be beyond my capabilities to write this book. It went beyond the scope of my knowledge and so, but I knew that that this is I wanted to explore different aspects of the phenomenon that's the were sidelined in popular uthology. Um. And so I yeah, I looked into the field and I'd already got a lot, you know, I already knew most of the people had connections with most of them, Um, some not, And I just know through the net out and I wanted to get people who who who would actually challenge me. This book was about challenging me as much as it was challenging any readers. And so I don't you know, I didn't even agree with with all of the contentions of some of the authors of the book, and I thought that was the point, because I think it's good to be challenged. I think it's it's good to to to disagree sometimes, you know, to have a debate, and so to have your assumptions and beliefs challenged, and and so yeah, people like you know, Greg Bishop, as you say, I mean, Greg's fay in the in the in the in the book is fantastic, and he's actually right now doing a full length book based on that essay, which is looking at the idea of co creation, the co creation hypothesis wherein you know, an exotic, unknown stimulus, for example, beyond essentially regular human comprehension does interact with us, and it manifests, and we can only understand it and see it or perceive it rather according to limited human perceptual apparatus. And so therefore that stimulus, whatever it is, can appear to different people in different ways and take on different forms. And so Gregg looked at this idea of this co creation hypothesis and looks at the idea that we need to actually more fully understand human consciousness and cognition before we can understand anything else. If we don't understand that the processes of our own brains, which we barely do, then we can't really hope to understand anything else out there that might be interacting with us. So Grace sort takes it back to the human, to the human angle, not discounting that there might be extraterrestrials or anything else exotic interacting with us, but actually saying, we'll look look at the primary instrument that we have for for perceiving and understanding anything in our world, which is our brain. And so so so Greg ad say that he's doing a link book on that right now. But you there were great essayists and there, I say, Redpaul Junkie, Susan's Saint, Clair, Robert Brands, Joshua Cutchin, who's written a whole bunch of great books over the past few years, like A. Hanks, Ryan Sprague, and I don't have the book in front of me, So I've I've apologized to all the other authors whose names I'm forgetting right now. But there were fourteen in total, and yet Diana Pisoko wrote the forward as well. There were others who I approached who were too busy with Some of them are university professors and just simply couldn't manage the workload because of deadlines, et cetera, and marking that they had to do. Yes, certainly, it was conceived as as potentially a multi volume project, so it may it may be that in the next few years I do reframing the debate volume two with fifteen new authors. You know, it's something that could go on and on. It's it's an ongoing dialogue, I suppose. But yeah, thanks very much for that. I mean, what would just answer the question, I mean, would you like specially Yeah, yeah, definitely, definitely, definitely. Yeah. I appreciate it, and I really hope that you do do another volume. You know, I really enjoyed it. Great, Thanks so much. Thanks, thanks guys. Hey, thanks for the call, Dave. So let me just get the number out there to anyone listening live over at KGr A Radio. That number is six zero three nine six seven four h three zero. And if you have a question for our guests, feel free to give a call. And what basically happens is I would take the call in and just wait for me to introduce you. So anyone wants to call again, that number write it down is in case you think of a question, and that's six h three nine six seven four h three zero. You know, getting back to what you were talking about in the belief system or the belief of what um. You know, people are thinking that they're seeing or UM. That's kind of a and I understand, you know you're saying this is across you know, the different the different uh through cryptos through crypto cryptozoology, cryptosology and uh UFOs, any paranormal you know, the phenomena UM. But you know, then it just brings me back to UM, the nuts and bolts of what people see, you know, I mean, UM, you know I personally had and you know I personally had what I wouldn't. I don't know if it was a ghost, but it was something weird happened to me and uh uh and and it really happened, I really experienced. It's not like it could have happened or I thought it could have happened. Um, you know this thing whatever when it happened to me, it really did happen. But I've never I'm one I'm getting as I've never pointed the finger at saying you know that was definitely a ghost or but you know it made things happen that you know, people more like poltergeist than ghosts. But then there's also the situation where you know, I saw an object above my head. Uh, you know, the UFO encounter that I had. And when you actually see something physical you can even talk about it in you know, when I talk about nuts and bolts, like David Fraber during the Nimits encounter actually seeing this tik tak and other people witnessing it too, you know, eye witnesses seeing these things. How does that all fit into like a belief system when you're actually seeing something physical? Very good question. Um, so there's I mean, there's no definitive answer to that question. This is something so in terms of beliefs. So for example, you can you can witness an anomalous event or animalless phenomena, a ghost or what appears to be a ghost or a spirit, or you can see what appears to be a UFO very close range, and even touch it. I've been writing an article today about the famous Falcon Lake from nine Team. Yeah you know this is this is This is one of the best documented focuses in history, and Chris Wikowski and Stan Mahalak have just written a book about it that I published, called When They Appeared. And this is sort of a definitive accounting of that close encounter in which a man literally watched the UFO land a few hundred feet in front of him. He proceeded to walk over to it, touched it, got radiation burns from it, seriously injured. Undeniably, this is a physical event. He didn't see any alien. He heard voices from inside the craft, the language of which he couldn't identify. What happened there, There was physical traces, something clearly physical happened. And yet, and yet, and there are many thousands of these kinds of cases documented in your FORO literature, very credible, some more credible than others. Of course, UM, clearly people are having these experiences. This is this is not in question at all. People having these experiences, and these experiences can profoundly affect people's lives. My wife has had one of those experiences, you know, So this is something I mean, like I had not experienced in myself, but I, you know, spend my life now with this one who has had one of these life changing experiences, and so um and and so. But in terms of belief, so okay, I will. I'm sure she went mind here so to to to specifically, um, answer that question about belief. So so in my wife a close encounter of this of the second kind, very close, very close, and she witnessed this with her then partner at the time, she was about ten years ago. Unmistakable flying sourcer, very close up. But she has refused, used to this day to settle on a hypothesis for what she saw. They both saw it, but she has refused to sort of settle on this is aliens and this is their agenda, and this is why it happened, etc. She's refused to say that, and she's refused to say, well, this was maybe some kind of an experimental aircraft or this was a hallucination. She's just she's considered all theories but refused to settle on any particular one. She's got an open mind that's good. It is, but it's a very rare position to take because most people in my experience, when they do experience something like that, are desperate to make sense of it, and depending on and they will form beliefs about what they've seen. So, yes, they will have experienced something, but they will have formed beliefs about it, both almost in the moment of seeing it, which is something that greg Bishop explores in his theories about co creation had had the brain when it, when confronted with exhaust to stimuli, tries desperately to make sense of what it's seeing and can only understand it within the limited perceptual apparatus that we have, which is sort of cultural conditioning and all sorts of things cultural expectations. But of course then then that that then that the process of memory formation plays a part as well, and we tell ourselves stories about what we've seen, and then we tell stories about what we've seen to other people, and as we tell those stories, we create a narrative, and then we start to believe in that narrative, even though it maybe taking the steps further away from what we've actually experienced. Again, this is all inverted to grow. Bishops research here. So just because you experience something or see something doesn't mean you can't then form beliefs about it. And those beliefs might actually be very far away from the truth of what you've actually experienced. And so so we should be careful about that. We liked, we like to understand things, especially things which don't seem to make any sense at all, and so we create narratives. And the UFO communities is one of of sort of dominant narratives and the dominant narrative of the Otho community and the Afo subcultures. Extraterrestrials have been visiting US since the late nineteen forties. The US government has been aware of this from the outset. They have recovered crashed vehicles from extratrustrial civilizations. They have successfully reverse engineered them, mastered the technology, formed treaties with these beings, and that it's now any amount of time before the government releases this information to the public, and we live in a new gold nera blah blah blah blah. That's the narrative. That's the narrative which is, and you can trace it back and how it formed and actually how it formed, which I've documented quite extensively, and others have as well, Mark Pilkington and Greg Bishop in his book Project Be During, Mark Pilkington's Mirage Man, and in my own silver Screen sources you can trace back these ideas. These receeded into the EARTHO community very consciously by disinformation operatives named disinformation operatives, namely Richard Doughty and others in the late nineteen seventies, early nineteen eighties, and then throughout throughout the eighties and nine. And they've been a number of efforts over the years where these efforts have been repeated and they've been trying to sew particular ideas into the UFO community to form particular ideas and control the narrative and shape popular perceptions of a phenomenon that the powers that be in actuality don't really understand at all. Wow, very interesting. I do understand where you're going with this narrative that you know, people may tell themselves by the way, I should announce this as unpopular as he is in the UFO community, Richard Doughty. Richard Doughty has agreed to be on this show in August, so I will I will get back to the listening post has to be really important. You know, that's be fantastic opportunity. You know, I asked him, if I asked him, I said, I only want you on the show if all my questions can be answered, or you will address any of my questions. You know, I didn't want him to say, oh, you can't talk about Paul Dnowitz. I said, in particular, I didn't want to talk about Paulowitz. And who said you can ask me anything. So he's as long as it's not classified, he'll answer it. That's great. Interesting. Yeah, so that should be good. But now going the narrative, is it sounds like you're talking about kind of the narrative that can be believed in um. You know, I personally think a couple of different things. First of all, I'm on the side of your wife. I think it's important to have an open mind and not to put something in a box and say this is definitely aliens or anything like that. Starting to think more and more as time goes on that the government has as much of an idea what these things are as we do, even though it's pretty much a proven fact that they have more information when it comes to either films or you know, I mean there's many, many stories go ahead. Yeah, undoubtedly, undoubtedly that the powers that we shall we say, would would have you know, they're just conducted, poured great amount of funds and to researching this subject over many decades and will have drawn certain conclusions about it, or attempted to draw certain conclusions. And yet they will have far more information at their disposal than do most of us. But that does not mean that they've understood the phenomenal corractive you know, unlocked it. We are, we forget that we are an incredibly primitive civilization. We are you know, the dominant trend in our civilization globally is with war and have been for centuries many we still haven't really even progressed out of that. You know, one of the biggest industries in America is defense, is war, and in the UK and in a number of Western countries, particularly America, and you know, so we are, you know, we are very primitive. You know, people are murdered on mass every day around the world, thousands and thousands and tens of thousans of people murdered every day all around the world, or wars waged over petty thing like religion. I mean it's tick. It's absolutely we are. We are pretty we are we you know, we are we are not very far along our evolutionary scale at this point. I agree. I've had these conversations actually with my son. He's a pretty deep thinker, and you know, he's the one he said the last thing we were talking about this type of thing. He said, humans are just primitive and he and you know, but it comes to the monkeys, monkeys with machine guns. We're just smart enough to kill each other, you know. Yeah, and yeah, sadly we are. But but you know, but we're also incredibly you know, egotistical. And we said, we like to think that we are the pinnacle of intelligence in the universe, very very very far from it. And so we don't even again, we don't understand our own abilities as as as as sort of biological entities, either we don't understand fully or even we've only begun to scratch the surface of PSI phenomena, of the capabilities of our own brains. We've got a long, long, long way to go. And so to think that we could have after just seventy years in the modern era of studying a phenomenon in a serious, organized way, behind the scene. To think that anyone that we will have cracked this is laughable, is frankly laughable based on and I say that based on the grassroots reports, based on what people actually report about this phenomenon, because because you know, the nature of these encounters that people are reporting are so bizarre. But but you know, clearly people are experiencing these things. You know, some people, some people are lying, some people are fantasists, et cetera. But I'm talking about there are most that they go a great many of these cases are very credible or off, shall we say, from very credible people who are clearly are telling the truth or the truth as they perceive it. And so there is a phenomenon, but it seems to be so so bizarre in many cases, almost theatrical, like you know, it's playing with us. It's a trickster intelligence in phrasing, and it seems to manifest and also of ways, and there is a strong paranormal dimension to it. And you know, these things that can just appear disappear, they don't seem to be They seem to be absurd, absolutely absurd in many cases, especially if you if you do your your historical research, and look at many of the cases throughout the fifties, sixties seventies, especially from South America and Europe, people were reporting, you know, regularly close encounters with entities in close proximity to these these communities UFOs, shall we say, flying sources craft. But the nature and variety of these entities just would defy logic in the context a bit of terrestrial hypothesis. We would have to be being visited, if we are to take as many disreports to face value, we would have to be being visited at any one time by dozens or hundreds of extraterrestrial intelligences, all at the same time, all over And why would they, you know, if they're so advanced and presumably there several thousand years more a dance than we are. If they're getting here and we're not able to get there. If they're advanced, why are they needing to sort of land their craft in full view of people and take soil sam we can we can analyze Mars from a different planet. We're on a different planet, and we can analyze the surface of Mars and and do a lot of and take a lot of scientific readings of great value without even having to set foot on Mars, different satellites and probes and all sorts of things. And we're very primitive. But imagine what an alien civilization could do. They wouldn't have to show themselves at all. They wouldn't have to show themselves at all. Ever, Yeah, there is a puzzling that is a total puzzle. I'm sorry to interrupt you, but that is I want to focus on that just a little bit, because you're right, there's no reason they have to have lights, you know, for one thing. And it's it's almost like they want to be seen, if they if that's what it's like. It's like it's almost like a show, and it's almost like trying to prompt responses from us and the you know, these are the lines of inquiry that people like Jack Valet and John Keeler and had been going down, you know, as early as that, as early as the late nineteen sixties. So this isn't a new idea, but I do think that it's an idea that needs greater attention than it has fallen by the wayside. Unfortunately, because the extraterrustrial hypothesis and the idea of disclosure is far sexier and far easier to rub your head around, right right, Um, as far as this is, sorry, I just wanted just to clarify as well, you know, just by the entertaining this hypothesis of you know, maybe sort of some interdimensional tricks and intelligence or whatever, which obviously is hugely problematic because we're trying to solve the Uther enigma by proposing something which seems even even crazier. And I get that, and I've experienced that, you know, I sort of well, it doesn't sort of really make much sense, but but but it does have values, just have merit. And I think, but just to entertain that hypothesis as I do, doesn't mean that I discount the extraterrustrial hypothesis. It doesn't mean that I don't believe that people aren't experience are not experiencing actual, you know, profound encounters with with with beings and technological or apparently technological craft. And you know, so because people are or they they seem to be. And but but I think that again the nature of your FOS is strange because there are sightings of if you'd have you know, okay, so if I if I were to see a UFO at a great distance, maybe you over like half a mile away, or you know, a mile away in the sky, a couple of miles away. It's just a dot in the sky acting erratically. There are literally probably millions of your reports along those along those lines, millions over over decades, as it's certainly hundreds of thousands. That kind of sighting is a completely different animal to a close encounter. They seem almost you know, you could have one hundred people, thousand people link for example in Belgium, London, whatever, who looking up into the sky and seeing something at a distance, acting erratically in what would conform to an unidentified flying object. Those kind of mass sightings happen all the time. But what happens when people encounter an object at close range, you know, within say five hundred feet or closer. When that happens without exception, things get very very weird, almost too weird, and memories get distorted. At perception gets distorted, reality seems to change the nature of reality, The nature of the reality of the perceiver seems to change in the moment. The closer the object to them, the closer the entity to them, the nature of reality seems to change. So, for example, the you know, the famous UFO researcher and author Jenny Randalls called the term the odds factor in relation to UFA close encounters, where people frequently report to change in the sort of an eerie silence, like everything there's no even a lot of people who experience these things will will notice that there's no animal life, no sound of birds or crickets or everything just goes deadly silent. When these things too silent, like impossibly silent. There's not even any ambient noise at all. Everything's just deadly silent. But also reality seems somehow changed and weird and heightened. What is that? What is that? What do we do? What are we dealing with? You know? So there's something very very very very bizarre going on, and I think it's There's not to say that extraterrestrials are not involved. They may very well be, but I think it goes beyond just extraterrestrial visitation. This is a multi faceted phenomenon and it needs to be treated as one. And if it's not, then people are gonna just miss a greater truth. Yes, multi facetted. I like that. Speaking of that, I recently had some communication with Lauren Christiansen, who was a police officer studying. You know, he's into the UFO topic. But he also talked about a military encounter UM where all the dogs became very quiet, started with the dogs and this came right over a base UM whereas at that had some weapons, UM not much more UM. But he said it was right near the um the everglade. So he said, the insects were really really loud, and he said everything went completely silent, and then this big triangle came right over right over him. What an encounter. But you hear that's like you said, you're mentioning that because a lot of people say the same thing, and you know, and I think, what is that is the question to start with? You know, what makes this thing happen? What could make something like that happen and distort reality? So you know, this is the whole premise of the of the boat reframing the debate really was to try to think outside the box, to try to let go of preconceived ideas and firmly held beliefs, and to let go of even the need for an answer, but simply to ask questions and to see those to see where those questions take us. Um, you know, several of the contributors to the to the book are actually your four experiences themselves. They've had, you know, profound experiences with your fos themselves, but they've sort of refused to to put those experiences into a particular box at the particular label, and they've tried to to um, you know, to to to understand them through a different framework. Hence we frame in the debate. And so this is this is I said, I think I think that the the disclosure term, as popularized by Stephen Greer, Stephen Basket, others, but particular Stephen Greer and with his disclosure projects in two thousand and one, that that what what he did there was changed the landscape. It changed the landscape of uthology and the UFO stop culture completely and almost instantly. And from then on, I just say, it became less about just trying to understand the nature of the phenomenon and analyzing individual cases and stuff, and it became about, well, we understand it now, we get we know what it is because these insiders have told us that it's death. And you know, we're putting all our faith in these insiders that they're telling the truth or that they understand it, and so we're just gonna say, well, they understand it. We're going to put our face our faith in sort of authority figures, and we're going to say, well, we just now knew for you to tell us what you know, and we'll accept it. Which is kind of counterintuitive because for so many years we've distrusted authority figures when it comes to the UFA phenomenon, because we know from documented records that from the earliest years of the phenomenon in one era, official interactions with the phenomenon have been characterized exclusively by deception. We've been repeatedly deceived, lied to disinform over many decades. And yet, so you know, I write in my in one of my books or essays a kind of mb where I've written it, but I wrote that the ultimate irony and I'm paraphrase myself, kind of remember the exact quote, but the ultimate irony of the disclosure movement is that it looks to official them for the truth. So it deeply distrust official them whilst simultaneously looking to official them for the truth. Absolutely, and that's unavoidable. You can't get away from that fact. And I will repeat that because it's really important. You know, the ultimate irony of the disclosure movement is that it deeply distrusts official them while simultaneously looking to official them for the truth. Now, you either believe what they're telling you what you don't. You can't have it both white, both ways. My inclination is to actually instantly dismiss or seriously distrust anything that any official body puts out on the office subject. And if you don't, if you don't, if you're not highly suspicious of any any statement that's put out by any any official body concerning rfos in this day and age, if you're not highly suspicious of that, you're simply you've not done your research. And I suggest you read some a lot of historical YOURFO literature and get up to speed on on many of the well documented for your PHO disinformation campaigns they think about many years. Um so, So, I mean, that's that's that's what I want to say about the disclosure that I think the disclosure movement has been tremendously damaging to your PO research because it's essentially you declared an end to the to the offer mystery. It said, we know what the album which is going to wait for the government to tell us what it knows and just hopefully believe what the government has to say. Um, And so it's effectively ended deeper questions about the phenomenon itself. And I think those questions need to be um the forefront of your poe research really, rather than when is the government going to tell us? And who's going to tell us? Is it going to be times as long? Is it going to be a bog blah blah? You know, I just think it's Um, it's very Missley, and I think it's a read. I think it's it's counterproductive, and I think it tends to quite dangerous. Well, I understand what you're saying. It would almost be like, okay, so we found out that these UF encounters are a sou you know, say, all right, let's just say extraterrestrial. Oh well that's it, okay, So end a story. No, No, there's so much more of a story. There could be so much more of a story. Um. I also you want to get into a little bit of what you are thinking about. Um, you're you're just again I'm paraphrasing here, but you said something along the line. So you don't want to believe anything that government has to say. So I want to address that. But before that, I want to say something about someone you mentioned a few different times. Here is Greg Bishop. I love Greg, He's he's awesome. He has a great, great podcast too, And so Greg, I like what Greg has to say about encounters. You said, the weirder they are, the more I believe that, you know, the more validity. Yeah. I think he talks about a woman driving by and seeing a teddy bear or something, and he says, now, that's important to me. You know, it's something you know, no one would talk about, but he said, that's that's an important part of you know what she saw? Yeah, yeah, and you'll you'll you'll find that in great many, a great many close encounter cases where people have experienced these things close up, either beings or craft or both. There are aspects to those encounters which are utterly absurd, like an outside of the accepted um, the accepted narrative of how something like that should occur, like for example, a teddy bear like talking teddy bear or or you know which, of course ABDUCTI or whatever would say, oh it's a screen memory or something like that. But there are far weirder things than that, you know, or tremendous synchronicities, interactions with nature and animals and things which sort of all seem to be linked into the experience, very very very strange things that happened within the encounter itself or surrounding the encounter itself. And Greg Grey asked the question in the book. He says, you know, he's interested in and we should be asking not just what did you see, but what was happening in your life in the days, weeks, months leaning up to this experience, What happened afterwards, what happened surrounding this event? What was your what was what was your frame of mind? What events? What other events happened in your life? What events framed this experience? Because that's crucially important. Because of course, and as M. J. B and Ia says in his book The Ufo People, which has just come out, you know, central to any Ufo experience is the witness. There is no there is no Ufo experience without the witness, without the human experience. We need to be looking far more at at ourselves, as much at ourselves, if not more so, at ourselves than the understing which is witnessed really, yeah, that's true. We take ourselves, we take ourselves out of the equation. And this is against something I say in the book, you know, we take we make the mistake of taking ourselves as as as witnesses, as as a human instrument. We take ourselves out of the equation. And we just think, oh, well, it's something that's we conceive the phenomenon, conceive of it as an external thing that is happening to us. But actually it may be far more interactive than that, far more participatory, far more is something that that there is an element of co creation. That, of course there is, because we you know, and as as theoretical science is now showing that we actually create our own realities in a moment by moment basis as individuals, we create our own reality. Our brain is everything, you know, and so we need to be looking at ourselves. We need to be understanding ourselves far more in order to fully understand what we have to be a phenomenon of view sis right right, I want to remind people over at KGr Radio that the phone line's open and that number is six h three nine six seven four h three h. I love the story. I'm not sure if you heard about or ever read this story about Um, this Polish gentleman in a small village, and he told the story about how he Um was. I think he was in his wagon or something going across the field and this craft can are you from? Are you familiar with that? I love that one. Yeah, it's actually recounted in me in the book Game Reframing the one, Robert Branstad talks about it and as an example of one of these really high strange cases which don't think like any sense at all. And yet there are many cases like that, many many cases were absolutely absurd things happen. Yeah, comical, comical, absurd things happening in these in these cases with strange contraptions being saying, strange things appearing in a strange way. It's just like far beyond, I mean, fast ranger than just aliens. You know, it just doesn't make any sense on any level at all. And it seems theatrical. It seems like it's playing with us, um, And so maybe that our reality and maybe that the reality is far far strange than any of us have ever conceived, you know, And so yeah, I think we are simplifying, oversimplifying the phenomenon in order to try and make sense of it, in order to in order to feel more comfortable about it. Um and so I so, just to go back to what I was saying about, I think how disclosure, how the disclosure movement and the disclosure term. God, it's used endlessly, the terms, the term disclosure. When's disclosure going to happen? Disclosure, disclosure, disclosure. Everyone talks about disclosure and have been constantly from the two thousand and one and it's it's it's hugely dowaging because in this direct people the government or the people the secret keepers show we So people who have an interest in this behind the scenes, in positions of authority and power, they don't talk about disclosure. This is not something that's ever been something that you know, they're not thinking, oh when when are we going to disclose? When are we go It's never been about we need to we need to replace the term disclosure with perception management. It's only ever been about managing popular perceptions of this phenomenon and of officialdom's relationship to the phenomenon. So, you know, the government is let's just use the captual terms of the government. It's not it's not it's not particularly fitting, but let's use because it's year. So the government, in terms of their interactions with the public on this issue, it's only ever been about perception management, about managing how the general public perceives both the phenomenon and specifically officialdoms with historical relationship to the phenomenon. They're trying to manage and mold popular perceptions of that. They're not concerned with disclosing anything because they don't understand the phenomenon of themselves and it would to be so problematic to disclose anything like that. Now people are saying. People will say, well, we're seeing disclosion now, We're seeing disclosion now with all of the Pentagon and along stuff. No we're not. We're seeing more perception management, and we are seeing more perception management now. Granted they've gone further than they've ever done before up to this point in what they're doing here, but make no mistake, our perceptions of being molded, manipulated, and I see what is happening now, Yeah, absolutely fascinating, but I'm more concerned about it than excited. All right, So this is where I wanted to get back to. You're considering it perception management. What would you what would be the purpose of saying the government taken this by the horns and doing this perception management, What would be their advantage? It's not okay, So it's not so much an advantage as an accessity. So beginning, so let's so okay. We have abundant documentation and reports to show that for whatever reason. And as I said before, this is an age old phenomenon and it's manifested many different ways across different eras, different cultures, as Jack Valley is shown in his research. But in the modern era it seemed to explode into the popular consciousness in a round nineteen forty seven. Of course, had Foo fighters before that in the Second World War, but the flying discs, you know that the term flying source was coined in nineteen forty seven, and it became part of the popular consciousness. Now the public became very very interested in at this point throughout the nineteen fifties and around that time, and the CIA decided, according to their own official declassified documentation through the Robertson Panel and things like that, that decided that they would undertake an effort to debunk and demystify UFOs in the popular consciousness through media channels. They so the effort was to try to make people disbelieve in UFOs and think it was all a load of hokum. Now, I contend that the CIA and other agencies fairly quickly realized that their strategy of debunk and demystify was not going to work because they could not. You you can't realistically convince the world that a phenomenon does not exist when the phenomenon itself continues to manifest itself spectacularly around the world and is seen by people from more works of life and all professions and all standings in society. As a phenomenon itself continues to manifest all over the world with impunity, then you're going to struggle to convince the world that it doesn't exist. But what you can do, and this is what they realized, but you can do, is you can manage how people perceive the phenomenon. Okay, And you can do that, and you can do that quite effectively through media channels and through all sorts of efforts by by sort of steering the narrative with the neo fo subculture which emanates out into popular culture. And you can then do it directly through populiar culture, through media, through news media, entertainment media, etc. And you can manage how people perceive the phenomenon, and you can manage how people perceive the government's historical relationship to the phenomenon. And that's what they've been doing ever since the early nineteen fifties is trying to manage constantly, desperately try to manage how people perceive this phenomenon which is not going anywhere, and they need to manage people's perceptions of it because they themselves don't really fully understand what they're dealing with either. Does that Does that make any sense? Yeah, well, I totally agree about that. I don't think that they understand anything about it any more than anyone else. I just that they have more, possibly more information, and so they're releasing let's say they're releasing videos, and in terms of in terms of in terms of why they would need to manage perceptions, it's a self serving thing. So so so, first of all, um, I would if I would, you know, I've try. It's just a it's a thought experiment. Try to put yourselves in their position. Obviously it's difficult to do, and all we can do is is you know, it's just a good experiment, but um, yeah, you know that there is something really profound interacting with us. Maybe it's part of us, but we just don't fully understand it yet. Whatever it's maybe you know, but but we we really can't get a handle on it, and it's completely be under control. Um. With that in mind, this phenomenon could actually manifest in such a way that it's undeniable to everyone. It could just do it now or tomorrow, right, and then it's completely out of your control. In that event, people look at the government for answer and support and security. What the good We're going to say, well, we don't really understand it ourselves, sorry, And then they look They look incompetent, they look useless, say you know, they look at ignorant, uninformed. So what I believe they've attempted to do very successfully is to convince people that this phenomenon is representative of one thing, which is extraterrestrial visitation. More than that, they've attempted to convince people that they've actually understood the phenomenon and sort of master the technology, mastered the technologies that are involved. This serves several purposes. By doing this you can scare terrestrial foreign enemies such as Russia or China into believing that you have mastered the technology, which is why you get stories like a Bubblers A fifty one. Now, Bobbles are clearly, in my opinion, absolutely telling the truth about his time area fifty one. You think that, I I believe he's telling the truth as he believes, as he believes it. I bet my life on it. But really, well the truth. But yeah, but the truth that he's telling is definitely not the truth. And he's sort of opened to that idea himself as well. He's hinted at that himself. He was heavily manipulated. He was a pawn, and he wasn't the first, and he wasn't the last, and the most recent one is a form of pop punk singer, Hm, you're talking about Blink, mister time Delane. Yeah, yeah, so you think you I mean, clearly, okay, no question about it. So you think, so time DeLine gets, he gets he starts out at a skunk works party or something like that, talks to someone, gets a little further, a little deeper in, a little deeper in, and you think this is all all orchestrated more or less not necessarily. So mean, this is highly know I don't like to well, I'll tell you what I mean. You can't really talk about you follow you without speculating. But I think it's really important to to clarify what is speculation and what is not. And here we're into highly speculative territory, and so I don't have definitive answers on any of this. All I have is our theories based on very well documented historical cases and timelines, and this is just an outgrowth of sort of four decades of history. So we can make some logical assumptions based on historical research, and this fits into it perfectly seamlessly. Um so so so DeLong, Yeah, I think, I think. Yeah. I'm not sure I'm even ready at this point Martin, to venture specific speculations among these lines, because I would actually like to do more detailed research into it and publish it, and publish it in the form of several articles or or something among those lines in the very near future, and I'm in the process of doing that right now. I don't want to add further to to the world speculation. But I think it's fair to say, very fair to say and actually I would go as far as to say idiotic for anyone who believes otherwise that what the narrative we're being presented with here by to the Stars and Tom DeLong and the former and Louis Alazondo and fans of people depend again, is not as it seems. If people are taking this at face value, I mean, you can't possibly take this at face value. This is a project. To the Stars is a project which is almost entirely constructed by intelligence, a career intelligence people, and anyone who who spent a lifetime in the intelligence community, you don't really ever, you're always part of that, and you're always kind of on call if if if you if if people need to call on you. That's that's kind of how it worked. Um My speculation, and I stressed speculation at this point, is that yes, come belong obviously going intest in the UFOs for a very long time, and he took it upon himself to his own initiative to to look into this subject and to try to make some headway behind the scenes. And because of who he was, and he had, you know, and you know, celebrities carried some cachet. He was managed, he managed to make certain connections, and he started to get his own projects underway to his own to his credit. What I very confidently speculate is that not too long after, he started to gather his former intelligence officials together as advisors. By the way, those advisors were all given to him by his own admission, by serving General. This is the General mccaslan basically chose his advices for him, selected his advice. Tom DeLong didn't select his advisors. They were selected for him by sitting General, right, So the government chose Tom Delong's advisors. This is really important. This is not an autonomous project. Please don't make the mistake of thinking that to the Stars is an autonomous project. It is anything but it is being steered and guided. As Alejandro himself said at the beginning of the show, as these mainstream journalists are very quickly realizing, it's only people within the UFO community who are blinded by it. Anyone who's approaching us from the outside, like mainstream journalists, actual journalists with journalistic integrity looking at this and seeing very clearly quite you know quite quickly what this actually is and it's not what it appears to be. And this is a This is a perception management project, and it's a self serving militaristic project which is designed to rewrite UFO history for the powers that be, to absolve the powers that be of historical wrongdoing and illegality over the years in their relationship to the phenomenon. And it's an attempt to present the military industrial complex is actually that the heroes of this, of this story, and I then to sanitize it all, but also to present the phenomenon, and this is crucial to this story, to present the phenomenon as a military threat, which of course will justify increased defense spending, etc. Etc. Tom DeLong himselves has made no secret of the fact that this is intended to burnish the image of the military industrial complex. He is quite proud of that fact. Um so yeah, so if you're so so. My confident speculation is that people who are actually involved in new fassified projects behind the scenes very quickly got wind of what Tom DeLong was doing and they thought, okay, well we can we can we can use this, we can exploit this, this, this is a good opportunity for us here. So I'm going to go out on a limb here. Um this if Luis Elizondo is not he's not still on the payroll of the US government. I would I would be deeply shocked. Are you asking that question? Actually, I directly, And of course he's not going to say of course he's going to say no. Of course he's going to say no. He just started laughing and said, well, I'd like to beginning the money for it. Then yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm sorry. There's there's there's simply no way he's not on the payal of the US government. I believe that the story that they've constructed there is you know, he's like, oh, he quit his job and stuff like that. I think that, you know, they they've said to him, what, look, what we want to do is we want in order to control or to steer Delong's efforts here and take control of them essentially and use them for a self serving purpose. What they need to do is they need to have a man on the inside so they get Elsondo. This is speculation. I can't prove this at all. This is speculation, and I will be very clear about that. But have you have you put this out there, because I'm sure there's going to be a lot of debates on this one. No, I've not not to this extent. Now, this isn't it that I'd not put this out there to this extent, Okay, And but I detailed I've detailed, you know, my my position on DeLong extensively in two articles that I wrote three years ago for Mysterious Universe called the DeLong Delusion, and I was saying, it's three years ago, very clear in my opinion that this is a perception management project, that that DeLong is being used. I was very clear about that, there's no question that he's being used. And I present a lot of historical evidence to suggest why this is why I believe this to be the case. And if you want to read these articles, will the DeLong the Delusion, and it's a two part articles. You can read it on the steriosh Universe. It's very detailed. I'd strongly encourage everyone to read that, especially if you're if whether you agree or disagree with what I'm saying here, you owe to yourself to read those those articles. This is three years ago, okay. And the new article that came out just recently, like last week, where the Alejandra reference at the beginning of this this podcast here um that's saying basically exactly what I said, but the sort of more up to date, and so this isn't a new idea. So yeah, so so the you know, one scenario here is that they said to Alexando, who's a career intelligence man. He spent you know, decades in intelligence and encounter intelligence. Is his job to deceive people, to walk between the shadows, to play roles. That's his job. That's what we paid for for decades to do. But in order to control. So if you want to control a situation, a group, infiltrated group and this is the history of the intelligence community, the entire history of therfe intelligence community is infiltrating groups to control them. And you know, so you want a man on the inside, so you have to have so you get someone like Alexando. This is speculation that getting it's someone like Alexando. He plays a role because he's been used to doing this for years. He's done this is nothing new to him. He's been doing it for years, sees, you know. And yeah, so he makes cozy with with with DeLong says oh, yeah, you know, I'm going to come join I've quit my job now and I'm going to join you, which is good. So he quit the story, the official story, but he quit his job and Itch like a week later joined DeLong company. That's kind of convenient, isn't it. So yeah, just just to let you know. We only have about a minute here left, okay, But I want to be able to um, I want to be able to have the listener to this, be able to reach out to you. Is there a way to do to do that? My website is down at the moment, but you can you can. I'm on Facebook on Facebook email and you can email me. My website be back up. Is being refurbished at the moment, but it will be back up as soon as possible. Um, but yeah, you can email me. I'll be happy to read emails and can Okay for now I will. I will forward any of them to you. Again, we only have a minute and a half. But just one quick question is why would the pay any attention to the UFO community. Great question, because the UFO community is sort of the bedrock of where beliefs are formed, of popular beliefs and form people wouldn't necessarily think that. But actually, as I say, so, much of what we see in popular culture has stemmed from the UFO subculture. It began within the UFO subculture. So the UFO subculture, a lot of the machinations and internal disputes and squabbles are unknown to anyone outside of it. But some of that stuff, some of the iconography into core themes and ideas, they filter out into popular culture and shape a popular belief So if you want to shape popular belief then then you can't hurt to actually sort of have some influence over where those beliefs are rooted. Excellent, we have to go. I'm sorry to say, Robbie, thanks so much. It's an interesting, interesting discussion. Thank you, thanks so much. All right, and get to sleep. Let's relate to you there, all right. Thanks again, take care now, I'll talk to you soon. All right. Bye, all right, everyone, So that's it for our show. Thank you so much for listening. Next week we'll have another British accent. We have Jay Matthews. He's going to be on the show in the middle of the night over there as well. So thanks for everyone that helps out with the show, and thanks to each and every listener, and remember to keep your eyes to the sky.