The Chile Effect is sponsored by Wallstreet, Window dot Com and listeners like you
now and now in our media Yach thirteenth day of March twenty twenty four.
Allegedly, according to that thing we call a calendar, this the o'celly effect.
You hearing it, whether it is on the live stream or via your
final slab of choice, your applicable application, your podcast, it is your
whatever it may be, welcome to it. So it is Wednesday, and
this will be the second live broadcast. But I'm not sure how we're going
to release it. Probably it'll be released by Thursday or Friday on the you
know, the regular feeds and all that stuff, because I spoke with Ed
Oppermann earlier today and that is a completely different show from what we're about to
do. Anyways, Larry Hancock is with me. The author takes up a
lot of room on my bookshelf. Because I've told you all the time,
more than any other author previous works, that we could discuss tipping points,
someone would have talked, Yes, those have to do with the jfk assassination,
but other works surprise attack, shadow warfare, creating chaos, various things
having to do with geopolitical affairs, warfare, all of that, although tonight
it might be more appropriate to mention the book Unidentified, and still I haven't
mentioned all of Larry's works, but if you go to Larrydashancock dot com,
you can get in touch with Larry, take a look at his blog,
explore his other works. I recommend absolutely all of them. So there you
go. And I think I actually own a physical copy of each and everyone
at this point. And I'm looking forward to Oswald in Three Dimensions, which
might be the title of that thing where he's going to take a new look
and a refreshed look at well, one of the most studied historical characters ever,
Lee Harvey Oswald. And you know, there might be a re evaluation
in there, but again that's not the topic of tonight's discussion. Indeed,
it might have a lot more to do with an Identified, which is a
book about guess what they used to say UFOs commonly now we say UAPs,
and you might know what that is, especially if you were paying attention to
the media well this past summer. Anyway, let's get to it and shut
me the hell up. Larry. How are you doing tonight? I'm doing
good, Jack we're having an early spring here, so I've been outside doing
lots of yard work and taking the consequence of sinus wise but loving the spring.
The sinus consequences, well, that almost sounds the book of consequences in
the sinus. I don't know. There almost seems like a book title in
there somewhere. I don't know what the topic would be, but almost seems
like a book title coming out. If we had done this last week,
it would have described itself just through the audio effects. But we'll leave that
lay. Well. Yeah, we did take a little pause there is you're
normally on here every two weeks to discuss something or other, and we did
take a little pause because you were kind of feeling a little under the weather
and I had other things going on, so it was like, you know
what, let's rest because you know, the sinuses were definitely giving you the
consequences. Anyway, enough of all that, let's get to some of the
topics at hand. If you will May thirty first, apparently in Huntsville,
Alabama, there will be an in person conference, but also it will be
conducted virtually from the thirty first of May to the second of June. And
this is the twenty twenty four AAPC, Right, the Anomalous Aerospace Phenomena Conference.
I guess we could just start there because we've talked about the Scientific Coalition
for UAP Studies before on the show. There was the paper, There was
a lot of work, and you and I discussed generally in the news what
was going on, as I referenced in the introduction, what was happening in
the summer of twenty twenty three here where we had remarkable alleged whistleblowers, right,
some pretty what would we call them, I don't know, a sort
of extraordinary claims that were entered into the public record through congressional hearings with the
House of Representatives. Indeed, there was a guy out there saying that we
have captured aliens, we have reversed engineered, excuse me, reverse engineered the
technology that we discovered, etc. Etc. And he claimed to be part
of that program and all this, and it did make headlines and ever after,
everything from PBS to News Nation, to Newsmax to Al Jazeera indeed decided
to create featured pieces of media focusing on the extraordinary claims that were being made
by an individual who does seem to have had a government job at some point,
Larry. But anyway, let's talk about that a little bit, not
the claims from then, but maybe what's happened since in the official public circles.
And we'll have to circle back around to this conference, which again is
and I'm going to give you guys the links to the conference and also the
document we're about to discuss. Those things will be in the show notes,
so when you go underneath the podcast, there that will be clickable links to
go follow along with what it is we're talking about, including to be able
to sign up for the twenty twenty four AAPC. But anyway, Larry,
where do we begin with this? I mean, the extraordinary claims. They
definitely had a ripple effect in the media. They definitely had a ripple effect
I would say, in the English speaking world's imagination, etc. Etc.
But simultaneously, you were engaged in real historical and scientific study regarding stuff like
unidentified objects, you know, aerial phenomena, right, all of these things
the UAPUF world. You were studying these things for a very specific purpose along
with this very interesting group of individuals in an academic sense. So let's put
that in context and talk about what's gone on since Please, Yeah, that's
it's been a difficult year for us. In one way, the group that
you refer to, the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies, has been really trying
now for about half a dozen years into this to kind of turn the focus
of attention to scientific studies, intelligent studies, which is what I've involved with
with a team that's working on it, and and kind of to move it
away from the sensational to the to the objective fact finding kind of like peer
reviewed, academically sound venue. And we've been working at that, and actually
we thought this summer we thought we might have some real help with that because
the Senate Senator Schumer introduced a bipartisan resolution that would have created legislation within the
Defense Appropriations Bill to act actually set up a government study committee somewhat on the
model of the JFK Records Act, the JFK Studies that would have would have
gotten us some a very structured approach to it, released some documents, gone
through a declassification process so we could get some technical details without jeopardizing national security.
So that was really exciting, and that was happening in the Senate.
Okay, hang on just a quick second, because I have a question here.
You mentioned, you know, Chuck Schumer. That's one person. But
over time, and especially in recent years, we've heard from time to time
about representatives, senators, presidents vice presidents being interested in the study of UAPs
why mainly for the purposes of do we have a national security problem? But
there have been other interests there, and it's been sort of floated out in
the public I think sometimes just to see, you know, the old run
it up the poll and see who salutes it kind of idea with politicians,
Let's see if we can get interest if the public actually cares about this a
bit. So some of it I think was sort of political testing to see
if, you know, they would be interested in having any sort of results
here. But then again, there are legitimate concerns, and I think Schumer
wasn't the only one during this past year and a half. There's been a
few who have kind of publicly signaled that they're very interested in this, so
please go ahead and tell us a little bit about that and go forward.
Difference really was what was going on in the Senate versus what was going on
in the House. Okay, there are three really political venues where this is
occurring. The Senate was approaching it and what you would call a more rigorous
scientific studies approach. In the House, you had both sides of the House
approaching it, uh, but probably anymore. You had actually two committees in
the House approaching it. One was a National Security Committee, which was approaching
it in much the same way the Senate was very factual the House that actually
committed a government body under DoD the Aerial Phenomena Office to deal with the project,
and it was it was running this new group that was there's legislation in
place for this group to do studies, to do it in an organize fashion,
to produce reports. So you know, between that Intelligence committee in the
House and what was going on in the Senate, that was pretty straightforward.
You know, it's going to take some time for things to happen. But
at the same time, another committee within the House actually began to approach it
in a much more sensational manner, surfacing a lot of claims in terms of
crash and recoveries, recovery vehicles, recovered bodies, threats to people who were
trying to come forth with this information, and those hearings were far different and
made. Some of the claims mentioned during those hearings were from former military pilots
that sort of thing, and were very straightforward with their personal experiences whatever.
Others ranged all the way to people's lives being threatened, assassinations, that sort
of thing, which generated the kind of media coverage you talked about a few
minutes ago, because the claims were so sensational. So you really had kind
of three things going on. You had an ongoing aerial, phenomenal research effort
going on under house legislation congressional legislation. Then you had humor looking to actually
broaden that, and then you had the sensational stuff going on at the same
time. So everybody is thoroughly confused about what UFOs and UAPs. You know,
what's the focus, what's really We're hearing all these different stories. Some
of them are straightforward, some of them are really radical. Where are we?
And that's that's kind of our whole Our whole year devolved into these different
platforms, some of it pretty clearly political. I listened to one lady in
the in the House hearings, who old older lady who just spent over Oliver
platform time talking about Chinese balloons, which actually had very little to do with
the UAP phenomena that we're interested in, But so it did become a platform
for some people on certain political issues that they were trying to promote, and
it makes things difficult for us, which is another reason why we have these
annual conferences to kind of try to restore a little stability and move people back
to the you know, scientific discussion mode and away from the politics. Although
there is I mean clearly there is a political issue. As you and I
have talked on many subjects, there's a the very political issue is how much
information is the government going to share and how much can it? From a
national security standpoint, Well, right now, let's place what's being held back.
That's always going to be an issue, right and let's place alongside of
this something that the commentators who even took interest to this in the media one
way or another, we're confused about. Honestly, I couldn't figure out by
listening to them whether they felt as though these video releases that came out also
you know which inspired which was it the movement in the House and Senate that
inspire hired these DD relay releases of videos or you know, previously seen on
the internet somewhere but never widely released. All of a sudden, there were
these images dropped out there, stuff that was filmed by pilots, et cetera.
You know, very similar to what you were just talking about. Which
inspired Which were the videos dropped in response to what was happening? Or were
the videos dropped? And then this was the response to the videos was a
confusing question even among interested parties in the media. So, you know,
maybe you could fill us in on that there a little bit good. The
videos that actually come out years earlier, the videos, the pilot stories,
the incidents over net Naval task Forces off San Diego and off Hampton Roads in
the Atlantic, this is years old, so that was old stuff. Actually,
we're kind of still staring stories over and over again as if they were
new that go back to twenty fourteen. But it was those stories that ultimately
did stimulate the House National Security Committee to get this legislation passed. So those
stories, years after the fact, did result in that one committee getting some
legislation through that created this office, this AAR Aerospace Resolution Office that did put
into play and it's now been in play for over two years, so you
know, this is not as brand new as some people might think it were.
But yeah, to answer your question is that it was the Navy incidents
and especially the increasing concern among Navy pilots over flight security and basically flying risk
that got this whole thing underway when that got to Congress basically right now,
that's very interesting to me only because again, like you correctly cite, these
videos had existed for like a decade, you know, or almost a decade
previous to people paying attention to them, but they were splashed across the uh,
you know, the media out there as if these were brand new releases,
you know, being acknowledged by the Department of Defense and all that.
And like you said, what's very interesting here is now for two years there
has been this brand new department and government. And when I take a look
at this document which you sent me, you know, the the Department of
Defense All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office, right, and you know here here we
go the aaar O. Right. That's a that's a pretty interesting development in
and of itself. I mean, they have to create an office to deal
with this. That means that there's you know, more than a handful of
incidents for sure, and maybe more than a handful of concerns if you need
to do this right, Yeah, good, It does indicate Chuck, It
indicates that. But it's kind of a There's a fascinating thing and one of
our speakers at the conference, friend of mine, Josh Pearson, will be
talking about it, is that the problem was, and the problem has always
been, this has been an area of national security interests since nineteen forty seven
A This went on for decades, you know. But the problem is in
recent decades, since nineteen nineteen seventies on, really, there has been no
single point of reporting within the government. There's been no government office that's chartered
with looking at it. Once the Air Force gave it up and essentially said
we're not doing this anymore, it was never picked up by anybody until AAR
was created. There literally, if you had a report, there was no
place to send it. You could send it to the FAA, they might
send you to the fire department. There's no place for it to go.
So there was no place looking no group looking at it overall. However,
the fascinating thing is AARO is the Department of Defense agency that is completely separate
from the rest of the intelligence community. It's outside the normal intelligence community.
So Congress did what it could, and it did what it thought was probably
right. But this entity now it can ask for information, it can ask
for reports, It can't order reports to be given to it from any agency.
And some thing's come up. Only within the last couple of weeks,
a document's been released regarding an incident that occurred within the last two years out
in the Gulf of Mexico off Elgin Air Force Base, over one of our
test ranges, where we dispatched an F twenty two interceptor to investigate a radar
track four UAPs flying information over the test range. That's something you really don't
want happening over test range. The two, which is our most advanced aircraft,
got out there, imaged the UFOs, got close enough so that the
pilot could sketch one of the UFOs. When he got that close, his
instruments started going out, as infrared detector went out, as radar went out,
so we ended up with hand drawn sketch. Right. He comes back
and a report is made of this, and the report is fascinating because a
senator did get the report released. The report is entirely redacted with the exception
of this sketch okay and the distribution of the report. The report was distributed
to sixteen government agencies, military by Homeland Security, and immense distribute. In
other words, it was distributed to the intelligence community standard practice. It did
not go to this Congressional office, to AAR because it's not part of the
intelligence community. So we still have kind of like a total disconnect between what
Congress thinks it's doing and what is actually happening within the intelligence community. And
it's like these people don't they don't understand in any of it. It remains
compartmentalized. You would think that that would be one of the top things that
this group would be investigating, and it didn't even get copied to them.
Well, so another question here comes up, and I wonder what the answer
is at this point, because you and I talked about this on previous shows,
and there is literally no mechanism or process or procedure in place to handle
these things in the first place. Have they corrected that issue where look,
at least there is some semblance of well, if you have a report of
this sort of anomaly, it should be offered to up to your chain of
command. Who should then turn it over to this agency or somebody? I
mean, has there been a directive issued? Yeah, let's give them.
Give you the best understanding that I have of it. Since it's a bit
mysterious. You can you can do a search for ARO and find their website.
Okay, Okay, they have a website. Quite prominently. They have
a mechanism for government agencies and the military services to offer them reports. And
there is a mechanism. So if I'm Homeland Security or FAA or whatever,
there's a mechanism for sen me to send a report to them. There is
no requirement that I do that, and there is no take asking within the
intelligence community to do that. It's strictly a voluntary matter, and they don't
have a mechanism for taking reports from the public at this point in time,
only government agencies. So a partial answer to your question is there is a
mechanism, but it's all voluntary and at the moment it only applies to government
agencies. There's also if you look at that website, there's also a mechanism
if you are a government contractor a government employee and you feel that you know
something that is classified or confidential relating to UAP technology, whatever, whatever you
might say. There's a mechanism for you to report that securely and be interviewed.
And the website calls out the fact that the law in place now aggressional
law require the you can't be identified and you can't be punished. I see,
well, now there's some there have been some as elements added. Okay.
When I go to UH the UH again, I went to A A
R. O. Dot Mill okay, which indicates that it's somehow part of
a military part of the government. That's the way you would identify a website
that is, you know, a military domain. When you go there,
they have current operational UAP reporting. All right, So reading from the website,
Larry, military personnel should report through their command or servance or service excuse
me, in accordance with G E N A, D M I N okay,
JEN Admin, Joint Staff J three Washington d C. All right.
And then they have an identification number and in quote unidentified anomalous Phenomena reporting and
material disposition end quote. That is where you're supposed to go if you're military
personnel. And it has a section here that says civilian pilots are encouraged to
promptly report UAP sightings to Air Traffic Control. AARO receives UAP related pilot reports
okay, pire EPs okay from the Federal Aviation Administration. So what they're saying
is that they should receive a civilian pilot stuff through the FAA, and when
it comes to military that should be sent through this General Administration Joint Staff.
Right. But they also have a contact form here which is like, you
know, hey, I want to report and this and that you must acknowledge
that you meet the criteria below in order to complete and submit a UAP report
at this time. And this is what you just mentioned. One of the
checkboxes is I am a former or current US government employee, service member,
or contract personnel. The other one that you can check is I have firsthand
knowledge of a US government program slash activity related to you AP. And it
says this form is to be used for official business with Department of Defense.
Okay, and then it gives you the warning you know, knowing and miss
misuse of this thing, this is a penalty blah blah blah. Okay.
I find this interesting because it almost says that even though we take the reports.
We don't take the reports directly from you, you know, unless you
meet these criteria. As I said, I think it's interesting though that you
could be a current or former US government employee, service member, or contract
personnel. So one of the reasons that's in their check specifically is that,
again, when these house hearings were held last summer, a number of claims
were made during the house hearings that people had information about crashes, technologies,
reverse engineering and they were afraid to come forward with it. The wording and
the language you see there is totally a reaction of that, saying officially,
legally, there are no restrictions. Contact us, we'll give you protection and
we'll talk to you. That website is a response to that house hearing,
There's no doubt in my mind, because those claims were made in front of
the public, and AAR has responded saying, look, we're serious. If
you've got it, come talk to us. That's why that's showing up there.
Fair enough, So okay, Larry, enough of my interruptions and questions.
I mean, what is it that is on the horizon here, what's
happening and what do we need to know about this document that again was released
through this aar O. I believe I have that right right aar oh,
yes, okay, aar O, which is a February twenty twenty four report,
Volume one is what you sent me here in PDF form and I'll give
you guys a link to it in the show notes and all that, and
also in the live chatroom atochelly dot com. If you ever want to roll
that back listeners of the program whenever you're hearing me, you can always roll
it back to the date. Anyways, So what is the main takeaway here?
What do we need to know about this report? What is actually happening
is their progress, I mean, go for it. The takeaway is basically
that RO has established an intake mechanism for reports on certain types of reports.
And you as you notice as I said, that those reports are it's an
invitation to issue the reports. There's no absolute requirement that it has to be.
I mean, a pilot can report to the FAA. There's nothing that
says pilots have to In the past decades ago, there was Ashley federal law
that said such things had to be reported. We're not at that stage now,
so there's some progress and that there's a vehicle that's been made available.
Reports are being encouraged, but reports are being taken in in terms of a
two or three hundred a year, not hundreds or thou I mean, and
they are being investigated. So ARO is doing that, so you'd have to
consider that is progress. AARO was also chartered to prepare reports to Congress on
the history of the subject. You know, what went on for the last
decades that when nobody was looking at it. So most recently this past week,
AARO issued its first history report basically, and I gave you the link
to that. And what AARO did is it's interesting in a couple of ways.
First of all, the report focused on two areas. One was literally
a history of the official investigations into UFOs and they went all the way back
to nineteen forty seven and literally gave a rolling summary of the different official projects
that it existed within the Air Force, the CIA and what their conclusions were,
right starting with Project Yeah, starting with Project Saucer in nineteen forty six
apparently, and then rolling on from there. They also give you an idea
about Grudge and Twinkle and Bear and a bunch of these other you know things.
That we have heard about before that were mainly about data collection and event
collection and things like that. Bluebook gets a mention here and the CIA's evaluation.
I mean, again, just skimming the table context you get an idea
of what it is they had collected together here in one place to give this
historical account. Go ahead, sorry, I'll say two things. First of
all, what the net of all of that is is somebody has done somebody
has sat down and done a summary of all the official studies that said that
there was nothing to it, and of course the conclusion would be then,
oh, there's nothing to it. So really this there's nothing new there and
what we know what we have been studying it now that they left out a
lot of things, and there are a lot of mistakes in that report.
I can assure you that that was not a report that was peer reviewed or
would have passed any of the any of the standards of the history that the
SEU or we would write. There are just mistakes all over the place in
it. But be that as made. The more important thing is since essentially
they all they did was present you the official synopsis of all this that says
there's nothing to it. They didn't present you all of the reports the work
that occurred during those studies that says just the opposite. They don't present you
the air Intelligence report from nineteen forty seven that says they're absolutely real and they're
concrete, and here's the technological profile. All that's left out. So they
just ended up. They gave you the end reports that said, oh,
we looked and we didn't find anything. So it's a history of negative reports,
which gives you a negative report. So that's part of it, well
more or less negative conclusions without the benefit of the data and stuff that was
allegedly examined to get there. At the end of it all, going nothing
to see here, pretty much like looking at the Warrant Commission report without ever
bothering to look at the volumes, right to say, well, Jesus,
this comport with it. Well, we won't even give you the volumes.
We're just going to tell you what we concluded here during each time period,
right, I mean, yeah, which we won't tell you about the ballistics
panel that says our CE three ninety nine doesn't work. You know, we
won't tell you about that. Absolutely the same thing here. So in a
way you have to say to yourself, well, this was a self fulfilling
prophecy, you know. But the other part of the report, which is
more perhaps more interesting, is again essentially a rebuttal that says, basically,
they contacted all of those people, interviewed all of those people, pursued all
the leads that they were given in terms of crashed UFOs, reverse engineered technology,
alien bodies, whatever. And they go into great detail and the fact
that they did pursue all of those They don't give you the names because the
names are protected. They just tell you, you know, persons one through
nine or whatever. And then they explained what they found and basically the net
of that is that they could find could come up with. They came up
with, i think, a couple of individuals that remembered things a certain way,
and they explain it because yes, they were working on classified information and
they misunderstood what they were seeing. Okay, other instances, they were literally
passing on stories from third parties and they did not have any firsthand information.
So the other part of the report, I think is a fascinating read because
it is it is definitely a rebuttal to what was given in those congressional hearing
committees, the Security not security the other one. So it is it's kind
of like, literally, these accusations were made, these statements were given.
Yes, we did investigate them, and we don't find anything right. And
just to give a refresher to the audience, what we're talking about specifically is
from a July twenty eighth, I believe. Let me just check July twenty
eighth article on NBC News okay, which is at nbcnews dot com. Will
also give you the link to that. Guys. In the show notes,
government is absolutely in possession of UAPs is one of the takeaways here. The
five biggest most memorable moments non human biologics in quote were found at a crash
site. Officials must establish a safe and transparent reporting process, okay, and
stigma associated with sightings silences possible witnesses. UFO spotted accelerating the supersonic speeds.
Okay. These were the five most memorable statements at that time, according to
NBC and this was as those hearings were going on in the summer of twenty
twenty three. Okay, I just wanted to point that out again. And
you're saying, in response to all that the report that did not deal with
they let's call it anomaloist technology like the superson flight or whatever. The report
did not deal with all the issues that SCU or my group really tackles from
a scientific standpoint. It totally I won't say sidestep those, but it totally
left those aside while it pursued the more sensational issues like literally these claims were
made. We investigated them. We couldn't find anybody who was willing to stand
up under oath or who could provide substantive information and people should should read it.
You can like it or not, but they hit a head on,
let's put it that way. So from our standpoint, they really really didn't
deal with the technological, the scientific questions of the history of UAPs that we
would like to explore. But I think what they felt that they were compelled
to do was to hit directly at these claims that were being you know,
that were being made that there obviously clearly was a massive gigantic government conspiracy to
suppress this information. And that's that's about half of what is in the report.
Okay, fair enough, So with that, I just have one final
question, because you know, I see at the at the main page here
about the conference, Okay, where they have you know, pictures of various
people that are involved there and people that are going to be speaking, et
cetera. Uh, they talk about the focus, uh, you know,
advancing in quotes, Advancing the scientific study of UAPs is at the heart of
our organization, and our annual conference is part of that mission, said executive
board member Rich Hoffman. This year's gathering is a continuation of our tradition of
bringing scientists and academics together to discuss our shared interest in an enigmatic global phenomenon.
Okay, that's a fairly good blanket statement. But how is this what
we've just been discussing going to be addressed at this conference? Do you think
or do you know, Well, we will have a person talking about this
particular issue, you know, the disconnect between academics and the government and the
media and the fact that these different stories are being told, and you can't
avoid that. You need to have somebody talking about the fact that there is
this issue of trust, you know, and how how do we resolve this
issue of trust with this the right way to do it? You know,
you can't if everybody keeps mistrusting all the information that you're given, it's not
going to work. So it's a problem that has to be handled. So
that will be the subject of the discussion. We will have one of the
speakers, Josh Pearson, who has his doctorate in national security, who will
be speaking on the intelligence community issues. Know and how how can you get
around that? How could you come up with a real signature for UAPs that
you could study and avoid this, you know, make it substantive, forget
all the the generic statements. But how can you get some real metrics and
study a scientific fashion. In fact, the majority of the speakers are PhDs.
They hold doctorates, and they hold academic positions. And our whole point
is that we've got to get academics engaged with this rather than people are just
writing books. I hate to say that the sad way, it has to
be studied as you would study any other anomalous phenomena. You can't study it
as a mystery in and of itself. You know, it will remain a
mystery if you do that, and it'll we'll be stuck in between, you
know, finger pointing one direction or the other. So the answer to your
question, literally is our goal is to have more academics not only from the
US, but internationally. We're very much engaging with international groups Italy, Spain,
France, across the globe, Latin America, trying to build a scientific
community that we'll address this and not get trapped into what happened in those congressional
hearings, right, So not just focusing on the American story here, but
the phenomenon that is worldwide, so you know, and that's fair enough.
And other governments have handled this a little differently, as you and I discussed,
I mean the very large data dump that came from the United Kingdom,
you know, not too long ago. We've talked about the transparency that is
present with some other places that may or may not be president in the US,
et cetera. And it's all they're fascinating. So I appreciate you taking
this time tonight, Larry. I know it's a shorter one that we're having.
Tonight's shorter discussion, but is there anything else we should add besides obviously
go to Larrydshhandcock dot com keep up with Larry's stuff on his blog, because
clearly he's going to be talking about this more in the next six or eight
weeks or so before the conference comes on. And you know, as your
work continues and you are part of this group that is studying the history and
the relevance of all this information, I'm sure there's going to be more stuff
coming out as we go here, So I would say keep up with everything.
And also those websites I've given you the links to, either in the
chat or in the show notes tonight. But is there anything else we should
know before we're out of here? And again I recommend all of Larry's work.
Unidentified is an interesting book which was published a few years back. We've
discussed it on this show many times. Not going to go back over that,
but it does have a lot of relevant themes that are part of our
discussion here tonight. Oh one last thing. In the live chat, somebody
asked if the Moury Islands discussion comes up, and I think it does in
that historical it would have to in the sort of the broad strokes of that
historical report that they put out right, the AAR must have had to cover
that somewhere, even if it was just really briefly to mention that that went
on. I know that's a point of interest for a lot of people.
But again it's clearly being discussed, but are they actually breaking it down looking
into the reports of anything. I think we already covered that so well.
Just specific answer to that one actually, since that overlaps with the JFK thing,
Yes it does. Moury Island was actually investigated intensely by the Air Force
at the time because a couple of the witnesses from the incident had called in
the Air Force and the Air Force went people to investigate it. Their plane
crash, there were deaths involved, and actually you know I have seen and
written about documents myself in this. The point was the Air Force was determined
the extent to which it was totally was a hoax and actually wanted to engage
in legal criminal actions against the guys that were involved in it, the so
called boat patrolman. But no, it's not covered quite frankly in the ar
work and the history work literally because it's been so fully deconstructed as a hoax
and was officially investigated at the time. The one thing I would add at
the end then is that actually my team will be presenting during the conference on
our newspaper which should be published by then, which is a study. Our
previous study was what were going on in the military domain during the Cold War.
Our new studies will revolve around what was going on with the public and
how was that different. So we will be involved in the as well.
So you're going to contrast how the military was handling this versus what the public
was seeing and doing. Actually more what the UAPs were doing with the military
versus what they then were doing with the public. Oh okay, so like
the the interactions that did go around military bases, you'd previously covered that,
Now you're going to talk about stuff that's happening, you know, in the
civilian quarters, if you will. Yep, yeah, totally totally different.
And actually a major change in focus and UAP focus started to occur in the
mid sixties, and that's one of the things we've been studying. Well,
that ought to be rather interesting because I'm sure, look, you know,
you're not going to find in private hands any nuclear assets, which it seemed
as though the UAPs, based on their behavior, had a very serious keen
interest in. But once you're starting to study the civilian population, not too
many people have nukes. So you know, just saying, well, what
we examined six different scenarios that would have represented a chance, like what's their
intention with the public. Okay, we saw what their intention was with the
military. What's their intention with the public. So that's that's what we're working
on. Now, there you go. And so that ought to be fascinating
again, Larrydashancock dot com. And about that particular conference, now, I
just had it in front of me. I think I accidentally closed the tab.
But let me let me get that website back up, if you will,
because I want to point people to it. You can register to participate
in it virtually or in person, all right, just so you know.
And the twenty twenty four AAPC, if you go to let's see explore SCU
dot org. Okay and slash about one. That'll get you to it.
But if you go to the SCU website explore SCU dot org. If you
go there, you can click on the link to the conference and find out
how to register or take a look at some of the people that will be
speaking there, etc. Again, it will be from May thirty first to
June two this year, and you'll be able to attend virtually or in person.
It's in Huntsville, Alabama, so you know. I don't know if
you're close to there or whatever. You know you listening. I know where
Larry is, but I don't know where you listening are. If you're close
to Huntsville, Alabama, maybe it's worth an in person visit. If not,
you can always attend virtually. It's not very expensive to my understanding,
and might be a very interesting consequence if this subject interests you and you want
something other than the official explanation from the government and the reaction of this new
agency, which we also just covered. So with that, Larry, I
want to thank you for doing this with me again, and we'll probably get
together in about two more weeks, and who knows, we'll discuss then.
What do you say? Sounds good to meet Chuck? Thank you, sir,
excellent. Anyway, Larrydshancock dot com. Any of his books that you
see with Larryhancock as the author or co author, guess what I recommend him
the awful grace of God, someone would have talked tipping point, you name
it, okay, shadow warfare, a surprise attack. I'm going to run
out of time on my own outro here if I keep giving the book titles.
But anyway, all of them were to read. Whether you buy him
in physical form or digital Larry Hancock highly recommended author. And if you didn't
know it already, welcome to my show once again, and welcome to planet
Earth anyways. No matter who you are, where you are, when you
are, I'm merely o'celly, and all of you are indeed the effect good
night dot com radio, if you was expressed by callers, stools, there
anyone else who happens to get on the air of Jelly dot com do not
necessarily views dot com or Jelly and we are not responsible for any stupidity which
might ensue. Thank you, Wall Street Window dot dot, the Silver the
stock market, Wall Street Window dot dot. Perhaps you're invested deeply, perhaps
you're not in deep enough. Maybe you're thinking about getting started Wall Street windows
on condos do com. Michael Swanson, the brilliant author of the War State,
understood these trends professionally for many years, and now he gives you the
benefit of his knowledge. Wall Street Street Window dot dot go there, now
go there, now go there now. In denial, secret Wars with airst
and tanks by Larry Hancock, Secret wars became a staple of us covert operations
and are still happening today. Larryhancock's book In Denial rips the cover off many
of them, using new files. It exposes things about the Bay of Page
that no one has ever written about before. It shows why it really failed
and why the United States did not learn from it. It also shows why
other countries today are doing secret operations with more success. This is the book
that puts what some want to deny into the light. In Denial secret wars
with air strikes and tanks Larryhncock. For more information, go to Larry hyphen
Hancock dot com. Pick up your copy of In Denial at Amazon dot com.
In Digital or Physical Force, The War State by Michael Swanson explains the
great national transformation that took place and put the Kennedy presidency in the context of
the times and revealed never before published information about the Cuban missile crisis. President
Kennedy would not have been assassinated if he had been president two hundred years ago.
His assassination took place in the context of the Cold War and the rise
of the national security state. Before World War II, the United States was
a continental republic. In the decade that followed it became an imperial superpower.
Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba, but knew that
there were short range missiles on the island armed with nuclear warheads that they could
not destroy because they were on mobile launchers. Their invasion could have led to
a Third World War, and they wanted to go to war anyway. The
War State by Michael Swanson reveals why, and we'll show you what President Kennedy
was up against. For more information, the war State dot com. Oh
Chili dot com, go ahead, call about the day the assassination? Right,
Well, what do you want to know? Judy Baker's wild claim Oswald
girlfriends he knew Ruby and Barry against the weapons. Really, I imagine I
could claim I have four wheels. It doesn't make me a wagon. But
okay, I'm the building and I'm trying to present the murder of John Kennedy.
Come on now, has a real effort on the DAFA assassination. Go
to Amazon dot com enter Judith Baker in her own words. You'll get the
results for a digital copy of a book where Walt Brown utilizes her own words
and the known evidence in the case to get at well a different perspective.
Let's say you can get Judith very Baker in her own words from the author
himself, signed if you request it by contacting doctor Brown at k I A
s JFK at aol dot com. It's a fun book and it actually dissects
the many, many fantastic claims. Judith Very Baker in her own words,
thank you for all the great information revelation through conversation. What would I do?
Revelation through conversation In the radio show slash podcast, do you want the
good news? Listen to the o'helley effect. Check o'ceelly is the most underrated
voice in all media, news, education, and entertainment. The daily bread
from o'helly dot com. Go there, save yourself from ignorance ochelly dot com.
But we all agreed to put o'helly dot com on and listen to the
o'helly effect revelation through conversation o'helly dot com. The War State by Michael Swanson
explains the great national transformation that took place and put the Kennedy presidency in the
context of the times and reveals never before published information about the Cuban missile crisis.
President Kennedy would not have been assassinated if he had been president two hundred
years ago. His assassination took place in the context of the Cold War and
the rise of the national security state. Before World War II, the United
States was a continental republic. In the decade that fought, it became an
imperial superpower. Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba,
but knew that there were short range missiles on the island armed with nuclear warheads
that they could not destroy because they were on mobile launchers. Their invasion could
have led to a Third World War, and they wanted to go to war
anyway. The War State by Michael Swanson reveals why, and we'll show you
what President Kennedy was up against. For more information The Warstate dot com,
Uncle, do you remember that time when Benjamin Fulford said that an Asian secret
society was going to dispatch ninja's to take down the Illuminati? Ooh, that's
interesting. Yeah in the Klatoon. Yeah, did that ever work out too
good? No? It didn't, did it? But here on o'chelly dot
com radio network, things work out a bit better, don't they. Much
better. Much many is clear and understanding about the programs. The programs,
how much clear? Getting live people into Oh wait, they really have a
good conversation going much better, much better scene. I say, forget Benjamin
Fulford and his Ninjas and listen to the Ochelly dot com radio network. I
agree, it's straight to the point, straight talk, and I like that
idea Olly dot com m HM