Speaker 1: Welcome to the KTPF Reload Show. In case you're wondering
what the Reload Show is about if you haven't heard
previous shows, these are the interviews that were conducted by
a good friends of mine, Steven Sue Tagget in the
days of the KTPF radio show. There are on radio
show around for just over four years, broadcasting every week
for over the three hours. I joined them in the
last eighteen months of the show's run, but eventually the
guys felt they've just about had enough. It was a
monumental effort to keep broadcasting every week for three hours.
It was a wonderful show, but unfortunately they are longer
involved and the shows have just sort of sat in
the archive. So I thought it would be nice to
bring them back to life and bringing you the interviews
that the guy has conducted over those four years and
include some of the most interesting people within the world
of the paranormal and some not so well numbers. Nevertheless
still very interesting. We even have one or two rather
unusual shows, including a live seance and other things along
those lines. Anyway, hopefully you enjoy tonight's show, and this
is the KTPF Reload Show.
Speaker 2: Enjoy This program deals with themes of an adult nature
and is intended for a mature audience.
Speaker 1: You're in the right.
Speaker 3: Place online, on Aware and on air all over the
world talk radio.
Speaker 4: You hear us, We hear you. Good even, ladies and gentlemen,
and welcome to another edition of the KTPF Community talk show.
My name is Suzanne and I'm Steve, and we're here
keeping the paranormal friendly. So sit back with your favorite
beverage whilst we bring you a relaxed show full of
the supernatural, paranormal and other strange phenomena. Now on tonight's show,
We've got Gary has some Time. He is well known
for in the field of UFO research. A married man
with two beautiful adult daughters, Scumfort born Carrie worked as
a detective in the British Transport Police for over twenty
years and was involved in the London bombing's inquiry as
a specialist interviewer of first first responding police officers. In
January two thousand and two, while still a serving police officer,
he launched an unofficial national database for police officers reporting
UFO sightings at www dot Proofospolice Database dot co dot UK.
The founder and editor of UFO Truth Magazine, tells us
about uthology, reported cases, credible witnesses, evidence evaluation and ET
visitations and the other opinions that he has rewarded neuthology
and how he got involved. So sit back and we'll
talking to him. Well, what we're going to do is
we're going to contact Gary.
Speaker 5: Now, I bet Gary doesn't say it's Pluto.
Speaker 4: Let's contact Gary and see what he thinks, what he's
got to tell us about uphology. And as I said,
he is a founder and editor of the magazine. Hello
UK Truth Magazine. Good evening, Gary, evening. How are you.
Speaker 3: I'm very well. Thank you, Thank you for inviting me
onto your show.
Speaker 4: That's fine, not a problem.
Speaker 5: You've been you can go now.
Speaker 4: Thank you for thank you for giving us your time.
We've just been talking. We've just been talking about did
you say that it's about Pluto recently this week the
NASA fly pass?
Speaker 3: Yes? Yeah.
Speaker 4: What do you think? Do you think it looks like
Pluto on the planet or was it a love heart?
Or do you think it's just paradolia.
Speaker 3: It's hard to know what it is.
Speaker 6: I think they must have a lot more images than
what they're releasing. Yes, seem to be just drip feeding it. Yeah,
but I mean it is fascinating. And what I always
find fascinating when you're hear NASA speak is that they say, oh,
it's going to have this and that on the surface,
and then actually when they get there, it's nothing like
they expect.
Speaker 3: So that always falls to me like, we.
Speaker 6: Really don't know what's going on, And as we explore
the universe, we're really just touching the tip of an iceberg.
Speaker 3: In hour. We really are the answering the playground. I think.
Speaker 4: Yeah, Okay, my listeners, don't forget. If you have any
problems and you're not hearing him properly, let me know
and I'll tweak the amp a bit more. But hopefully
you can hear them. Okay. As I said, welcome to
the show, Gary, And what we'd like to do is,
first of all, can you tell us about yourself and
how you've got involved in you.
Speaker 6: Well, I'm now a retired police officer. I retired in
March two and thirteen after a twenty four year career
with the Bridge Transport Police, most of which was spent
as a detective constable working on murder manslaughter rate that
kind of thing. I was an advanced interviewer of suspects
and witnesses. So that's my background. Previously that I spent
six years in the Arif Police. For joining the civilian police,
I got into UFOs in the sense of I had
a childhood sighting that stayed with me but in the
background for a long time, and then putting a long
story shot. In January two thousand and two, I launched
an unofficial national database for British police officers to record
their UFOUR sightings. And I started with about six cases
involved in ten British police officers, and now thirteen years on,
I have over five hundred and fifty cases involving around
one thousand and fifty British police officers, which.
Speaker 4: Is quite okay. Can I just ask before Steve asked
east first one, how did the FOCE feel about your interest?
Speaker 6: Initially it wasn't a problem, but as time went on,
some little changes happened and pressures were brought to Bay
That kind of culminated in one of the reasons why
I left the police early. I could have gone for
another six years. But as an example, the thing that
the straw that brought the camel's back as it were,
was that in two thousand and nine, when the Ministry
Defense suddenly closed its UFO reporting desk, I wrote to
all the police forces in England and Wales of my
own volition, as in an off duty capacity, stating that
I was an officer with the British Transport Police, stated
that my hobby was UFOs and that I had this
police database and how were they going to record sightings
that they were still going to have regardless of the
mod's decision and basically cutting a long story short. My
own chief Constable I wrote to as well as a
matter of courtesy. He apparently got a phone call from
another chief Constable I don't know which force who ridiculed him.
It was this UFO nutter that you've got in your
force and because of that he took a dim view
and then basically he then instigated my chiefs Throuperintendent to
instigate disciplinary hearings for bringing the force into disrepute and
cutting a long story short. Twelve months later I got
a twelve month written warning, even though it was a
private letter saying who I was, what I was doing
in a private capacity, asking for information. The reality is
you can't be a big organization, that twelvemonth written warning
where your job was potentially on the line.
Speaker 3: All through that process.
Speaker 6: It's very uncomfortable, and I thought, well, it's only going
to be a matter of time before they trump up
some kind of problem for me, and I ended up
getting sacked for some reason, so I chose to walk away, right.
Speaker 4: Okay, So what would happen in the police force? What
would happen if someone came in or phoned up and
said that they'd seen the sighting? Would it be taken seriously?
And if so, is this still the case?
Speaker 6: Well, what you've got to understand is from late I
think it was December two thousand and nine, the mod
close its UFO reporting facility, which meant that for the
previous fifty years, the usual procedure had been that if
somebody rang in called to the police station, the police
officer who took the call would then ask them to
complete or record details for an online form that would
then be facts teleexed in days of old, emailed in
recent years to the Ministry of Defense, and it would
be up to them whether they investigated it or not.
Speaker 3: Invariably they didn't.
Speaker 6: However, the reality is from two thousand and nine. No
force is obliged to record any information on UFOs as
far as I'm aware, although many still will do. And
what I would say is that if a member of
the public walked into a big police station, because most
of the small, rural, tiny police stations have disappeared, and
it nearly always is a big regional police station. Now,
if they went in and went to the front desk,
what should happen is that they should be treated sympathetically
and an incident log should be created and an offer
should be allocated to investigate if there is anything to investigate.
Tangible wise, if it comes into a control room, which
is you know, via a nine nine nine or one
or one number or whatever. Basically, again, everything in a
control room is recorded audio wise, everything so the way
that the responder, the civilian at the other end picking
up the line, that's all monitored. So they have to
be seen to be professional and they can't dismiss you
and call you a fool, perhaps in days of old
when things were more rural and less automated. So I
would say that if you rang into a police station,
it should be recorded. However, what the police will say is, well,
we've nobody to send it to, so what's the point
in telling us in a roundabout way? And I think
that's a real problem and that has never been addressed
since I wrote to the MD.
Speaker 3: And I could foresee that every force was.
Speaker 6: Still going to get anywhere between five and ten sightings
a year per force.
Speaker 3: Well, there's forty.
Speaker 6: Three county forces in England and Wales, in Scotland and Wales,
so that's a lot of sightings, and what are they're
going to do with them? So it's a major problem
because I think the original reason why the MOD did
it far from the cost cutting exercise that they said
it was at the time. In two thousand and nine,
UFO sightings has compared in previous years were at a
very high levels, considerably so, and the MOD were getting
bogged down in freedom of information requests and I think
that was the real reason they wanted to get rid
of the problem, which is, if you know your history
on UFOs is not too dissimilar to the way the
American US Air Force got.
Speaker 3: Rid of the Project Blue Book.
Speaker 6: They basically set it to a university that was trumped
up that it was always going to set to fail.
The university the Condon report came out, there was nothing
to it, and that's it, or there's no point in
carrying on blue book anymore. I think it was a
deliberate act to get people asking from asking questions.
Speaker 4: Right, Okay, So if you was to walk into the
police station today, just let me clarify this, Yes that
they would take notice or no they wouldn't, And would
it be passed on to the MD.
Speaker 3: Well, it won't go to the MRD.
Speaker 6: But certainly if you go to the front desk, all
everything in the front desk area is video recorded and
audio recorded. So again, if you walk in in all
seriousness and say I've just seen something and I'm really scared,
I'm sure a lot of people who've had sightings are
absolutely shocked at what they've seen. Whether it turns out
to be misidentification doesn't matter. The point is they've perceived
that they've had an experience and they may well be traumatized.
So nobody walked in traumatized looking like the scene of ghost,
then they should be dealt with very sympathetically. And what
should happen is that they should be set aside, an
officers should interview them, and a log should be raised
an incident log is created for virtually everything that either
comes to the police station via the front desk or
via a telephone call, and if not, there should be
a question as to why not?
Speaker 4: Right, Okay, Steve, you've got a question.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I got one that right at the start of
anybody's investigation. Really, we all know what people see. It
is unreliable due to how they perceive things. How do
we decide what is relevant or worth following up off?
Speaker 6: Well, in my experience as a police officer, you get
perception difficulties in the sense of yes, for example, let's
do it this way, and this is where the skeptics
make try to make hay, but it doesn't add up.
Speaker 3: It's a scrutiny in reality you can have.
Speaker 6: Are you in a let's let's do it as an example.
Speaker 3: Now, are you in a studio?
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 3: No, all right? Are you in a building that has windows?
Speaker 5: Yes?
Speaker 6: Okay, the windows outside are looking at what street? Okay,
let's imagine now we hear a loud explosion.
Speaker 3: What are you going to do?
Speaker 6: You automatically, as long as the windows haven't gone in,
You're going to go to the window and look down
and look.
Speaker 3: Are you not yep.
Speaker 6: So what you'll have then is everybody doing the same.
If they're in that area, everybody will look, so they
all become material witnesses.
Speaker 3: To an event, whatever it is.
Speaker 6: Everybody will see parts of that event slightly differently. For example,
you may think that it was an explosion by a
red car you when you give you a statements, the
police might say it's a green car. Somebody else down
the road might say it's next to a lorry. Some
people might say I saw four people on the other
side of the road. Other people will say I saw
too Other people will say I saw a guy riding
a bike.
Speaker 3: But the point is, and.
Speaker 6: This is the real fact of perception, is they all
see an incident. Parts of the description, their personal descriptions
may vary wildly, but they won't be wrong about the
actual incident. I hear an explosion, I went to the window.
That will all be the same. So do you see
what I mean? So when we look at evidence, for example,
if again something happened outside your room wherever you are,
and there's a UFO there, everybody would go rushing to
the window to look, and you've got then fifty hundred witnesses.
If it's in a built up town, So they become
witnesses and they should have their statements taken and all
essentially will they saw something in the sky. The variations
of size, shape, colors, et cetera maybe vary a lot,
but they'll all more or less say the same thing,
that there was something in the sky, and that should
is what should be remembered. Because when people talk about perceptions,
I always say, we'll hang on a minute. How can
you decry? First of all, you've got to look for
number of witnesses. Best, if you get what's called independent witnesses,
that's people who don't know each other, but all viewing
from different geographical vantage points, that's the best kind of scenario.
Then what you have to do is work out in
relation to a UFO sighting. All right, so people have
seen something, what is it?
Speaker 3: What is it?
Speaker 6: Then boils down to how they describe the size, shape, movement, noise,
et cetera. Well, if you have six people who don't
know each other viewing it from four or five different
geographical advantage points, and they're saying it's a cigar shape
and it's about two hundred foot long, then they're looking
at a cigar shape that's two hundred foot long. Then
you have to determine what is that object? Can we
explain that away in identifiable natural things? So you go
through the list. Is it microlight aircraft, helicopter. Well, there's
no noise, it's silent, it's two hundred foot long, there's
no appendages, there's no side of energes. And then suddenly
it shoots off in a blink of eye, instant acceleration
and stops two miles away.
Speaker 3: Well, we can't do that.
Speaker 6: So what you have to do is first of all,
established that something was in the sky, and then you've
got to examine the data to see what was described
and see if you can then pull anything from it.
But if an object did that, then we are not
looking at anything that we can do stealth for otherwise, Right.
Speaker 4: Okay, so what do you do? Then you've got you've
got the reports, you've intermid the witnesses, you've done all that.
Where do you go from there?
Speaker 6: Well it would depend if it's a multiple witness event.
We have got a real problem in the UK now
because say I do a great investigation and I have
fifty witnesses, I come up with a conclusion report based
on all this, I think this is a normalous to
me points to unknown technology in our airspace, or what
am I going to do with that?
Speaker 3: Well, literally, what can I do?
Speaker 6: I can publish it within the UFO community, which in
terms of mainstream is underground, so not many people see it.
Speaker 3: I can put a press release out.
Speaker 6: To the mainstream media, and the odds are that they'll
just totally ignore it, like they usually do.
Speaker 3: So what do you do? You tell me what you do?
Speaker 6: There's not a lot you can do when the mainstream
media don't give you a level playing field.
Speaker 5: No, they have a bad of ridiculing people, don't it
when it comes to things like that.
Speaker 6: Well, that is the historical problem, especially with the UFOs.
That's really carrying on from the nineteen fifties when the
CIA put the Robertson panel together. They commissioned the Robertson
Panel of top scientists and basically that panel quite openly
said we've got to strip the aura of flying sources
and we've got to work with the media to done
this subject down in the media. Now, you could argue
they did that for the right reasons and for the
wrong reasons. I think it was done because too many
people were genuinely interested and they didn't want to give
out the truth of what was going on.
Speaker 4: Okay, now you started the profiless police database. Can I
ask why you went down this road.
Speaker 6: It's a long story which i'll cut short, suffice to say,
having had a childhood sighting that stayed with me, but
then I went away, had a life, got married, had
a couple of kids, was in the Air Force, joined
the police, and it was kind of like in the background.
And then I basically came across a magazine called UFO Magazine,
which was a printed publication, and it was in wh
Smith on Leeds City railway station, and I thought, wow,
this is interesting. From years ago, it was just like
little old little white booklets, you know, a little lay
five booklets. But this was a proper glossy printed magazine
and it was all done nonsensationalistic, was done by geicolled Grain. Bertill,
sadly not with us now died in two thousand and
three of brain emorrhage. But it was a great magazine
universally regarded across the world ufour wise, and it told
things from pilot perspectives, air traffic controllers and from me
as a police officer and by then a detective, I
was always drawn to things that were evidential. What would
stand up in a court of law. Well, if a
pilot seis in broad daylight a UFO that's a structured object,
and he chases after it, and he can't get anywhere
near it, and the objects is playing games with him,
and maybe it's confirmed on ground radar, airborne radar, perhaps
other aircraft in the area, passenger aircraft, etc. Which has
happened many times, then in my opinion, it should have
been treated seriously. But because of this era of ridicule
from the nineteen fifties that's persisted until this day, then
basically we're still having the same arguments that we had
sixty years ago. We've not moved on because really the
mainstream media are working subtly and unbeknownst to themselves. Really
because it's not happening at low level. This comes from
on high that there's a policy to done this subject down.
They don't consistently come to people like me who could
take them to the top pilots, the astronauts, the cosmonauts,
the air traffic controllers and put forward the best three
percent of cases they don't do that. If you remember,
or some of your audience may remember, I made two
appearances on This Morning ITV Breakfast Big Show in the Morning,
and basically I challenged them to have a debate. Well,
they had this guy called Chris French who is a
well known skeptic psychologist on there, and it was a
real joke and they tried to literally tie my hands
behind me back.
Speaker 3: But I did a few things that surprise people.
Speaker 6: I like, especially with a live audience, because the can't
control live TV, and somebody like me is relatively dangerous
because I can tell the truth and will tell the
truth now. Unfortunately, at the end of the show, both
the presenters, Holly Willoughby and the other guy came to
me and said we should have you on every week,
and I said, well, I'll be more than happy to
come on and tell you the best cases, because I'll
only feature the best cases.
Speaker 3: But here's a story. They won't have me back on.
Speaker 6: And only recently a freelance journalist about ten days ago
rang me up saying they looking to do a program
on UFOs on This Morning I think it was on
last week or the week before, and I said, well,
let's see if you can just get me back on
that because I've done it a couple of times. Oh no,
we can't have you and why not? Or you've been
on it before, Well that's ridiculous. Chris French has done
it twenty times and he gets paid five hundred pounds
of time. You know, So that an argument didn't add up.
So the reality is the mainstream controlled the subject in
the way it's perceived to the masses. If somebody gave
me a TV series on the mainstream and just concentrated
on the top three percent cases by the end of
that series, no one of a sound mine who looked
at the show with an open mind would be in
any doubt that we're dealing with something very, very profoundly
strange and almost certainly his et in origin.
Speaker 5: Can I just at this point say more to our
listeners than yourself. UFO means just that unidentified flying objective
absolutely aliens coming from another planet, which is well, is
what a lot of people jumped to straight away, Dudley.
Speaker 6: Yes they do, and a lot of people would prefer
that the term r AP is used.
Speaker 3: But I personally like the UFO because I know what
it means.
Speaker 6: And yes, people do misinterpret, but the reality is is
and the general rule of thumb is that ninety five
percent of all reports turn out to have a mundane explanation,
whether it be misidentification, meteorological whatever. That's fine, and then
you have this hard core of five percent. Now, when
you really drill down into this five percent, you can
take away another two percent that after investigation, turn out
to have a conventional explanation, but you are always left
with this very hard core of cases. Now that's three
percent of millions. This isn't three percent of ten this
is three percent of millions of cases worldwide. So we're
talking about many, many thousands, tens of thousands of high
quality reports from all around the world that defy explanation
after investigation. Now, if you were an investigative reporter for
any other subject, you would go to the best evidence
as part of your start point of an investigation. Well,
why is it that in the mainstream we're still looking
at the same silly stories. They're still doing the same
silly shows for donkeys' years. The format never changes. The
first twenty minutes they give you a good pilot case
and the audience is going, this is very interesting. Then
the second twenty minutes, they start to go into the
iconography or the alien heads, the communion, the alien gray face,
the people that stand on the top of the hills
going on Mommy with tin lids on their head, and
they make it look crazy. Now, if you were an
investigator reporter for any other subject, you would start only
the best percent, the best top evidence. And in my case,
what I would say is that the mainstream media do
not do this. They continually fail to do this worldwide,
apart from South America, which are far.
Speaker 3: More open to the subject.
Speaker 6: And basically the start point should be only at the
beginning of the three percent. Why am I I'm not
bothered about the ninety seven percent that can be explained.
We should be starting and telling the public about the
three percent, and that's where your investigation starts.
Speaker 4: Okay, Now, do you believe that UFOs are extraterrestrial vehicles
or are they drone like objects scouting or is there
another explanation for the phenomena?
Speaker 6: Well that's two questions in one really, because if it's
drawn scouting, then you're implying that these aliens that are
sending them out as.
Speaker 3: Drugs were.
Speaker 6: Understan Yes, I do yes, I do believe that a
small proportion of cases, three percent of cases do for
me create the circumstantial past, the circumstantial evidence debt.
Speaker 3: Which is used in court of law all the time.
Speaker 6: People get convicted a murder without the body, sometimes because
the prosecution put forward what's called the circumstantial evidence case,
and that basically means is that if you've got enough
pieces of the jigsaw of the story, you can create
an overwhelming compelling.
Speaker 3: View of what's really occurred.
Speaker 6: Well, if you apply that test, you are force and
you look at the very top three percent, the pilots,
commercial and military astronauts, cosmonauts who have gone on the record,
radar operators, air traffic controllers, observation observer core sonar operators,
top military officials, scientists who go on the record.
Speaker 3: If you put in that hard.
Speaker 6: Cluster the very best cases, they do stand up to scrutiny,
and for me, overwhelmingly it points to et surveiling the earth.
Quite what they're doing is another question. But are they
here absolutely right?
Speaker 4: Okay? And why are we seeing these UFOs? Do you
think that they have shielding devices so that we cannot
detect them in our fly zone? But people can see
them or is it the government that are actually denying
everything that we're being visited?
Speaker 3: Well, two questions there.
Speaker 6: The first part is I do believe that one of
the characteristics of a UFO, a genuine U four ie T,
is the ability to render themselves invisible and visible at will,
cloaking for want of a better word. But this is
kind of evidence by many people around the world who
recorded footage and this is not CGI footage where people
are seeing objects often in the infrared spectrum that you
can't see visually, but with through night vision and infrared
lenses you can pick up objects that you can't see visually.
I myself are doing experiments with night vision and infrared
at the moment in broad daylight and picking up objects
long distance. But I'm picking up objects in broad daylight
you can't see visually, but you can see through an
infrared lens attached to the camera. So the night vision
itself uses a different spectrum. But they're clearly showing objects
that are moving in the sky with night vision equipment
that are making weird and wonderful maneuvers that we can't do,
right angle turns, reversals, instant acceleration, incident stop what's called
flaring up where the object is bright and then suddenly
it grows ten times the.
Speaker 3: Size, like flaring up like a flare, and then goes down.
You know.
Speaker 6: But these a scene often for many minutes, so you
often have multiple objects caught on night vision in weird
and wonderful patterns that are not birds, clearly not birds
that hold formation. So there's a whole plethora of really
good stuff out there. So they do have the ability
to be invisible if they want. I think most of
the time they are just like they're surveillers and just
watch us. I think we have to climb down a
little bit and think of ourselves as the ant on
the ground in the playground.
Speaker 3: Would we talk to an ant?
Speaker 6: No, we would, Why because we think, well, we've got
superior to let your tiny urine en. There's no point
you can't understand us. Well, how do we know that
aliens don't look at us as very primitive life phones?
Just because we think that we're clever and we can
fly jet aircraftter one thousand miles an hour doesn't mean
that they think that. And obviously they've traveled long distances,
so it's a perception thing. So the reality is is
that I think we have been watched most of the
time by probably many species who come and view the
earth much like we would swim with the fish in
the Great Barrier reef. We don't go break the coral
on the Great Barrier reef. That's a big no no,
because that's the natural habitat. We basically just watch the
variety of fish and observe in their natural environment. Well,
how do we know that the vast majority of UFOs
and aliens that are visiting here aren't doing the same?
Speaker 5: Yeah it. Alien technology has been rumored to have been
engineered back engineered by a scientists and military. But what
are your thoughts on such a potential earth shattering claims?
Why do you think these advancements have not been more
forthcoming by the powers that be?
Speaker 6: Right the reverse engineering? The reality is, you've got to
look at this subject from two perspectives. And I say
this to many people. There is the secret world of
intelligence services and governments, and we me or you will
never have what's called the need to know. We will
never have the authorization to find out those critical questions.
So we reli on to what happens in the public domain.
The reality is, though, that if something crashed at Roswell,
and I sincerely do believe that something did crash at Roswell,
naturally we would try to make whatever was recovered. If
it was a flying saurceer, for want of a better word,
we would want to try to make it work. Why
because if we did, our technological development would leap forward hundreds,
if not thousands of years very quickly. And as we
live in a world of militarism and America Earth, if
you think about this, were just won the Second World War,
UFOs begin to turn up after we start detonating atomic weapons,
that's no coincidence. In my eye, there's a crash at Roswell.
Now people lose this fact that people go, well, why
Roswell in little New Mexico, middle of nowhere, Why would
they turn up there? Well, the obvious answer is that
it's never really publicized that much. Is that Roswell just
happened to have the only world's atomic bomb squadron.
Speaker 3: Well, if you think about the big globe.
Speaker 6: If you've got a big rotating globe in your room
and you were to throw a dart at it, what's
the odds that UFO, it's going to turn up that
one little tiny place pretty pretty slim. So to my mind,
there's a definite correlation between atomic weapons and UFOs and
them turning up. I think that when the first atomic
weapon went off, he said a sound wave into space
that said, oh, this planet suddenly got to a level
of engineering and expertise that we didn't expect, and that's
why they start turning up in larger numbers. So the
reality is that I think there's many good reasons to
think that we would have if we've recovered anything, we
would try to naturally make it work.
Speaker 3: How would you do that?
Speaker 6: Well, what's believed to have happened is that they take
pieces from the craft and they go to the top
corporations and say, try to make that piece work. They
don't tell the other companies what they're doing, so it's compartmentalized,
and each person each company works in isolation, sworn to secrecy,
and eventually one or two of them might go, yeah, well,
actually we got that to work.
Speaker 3: And that's how things would have been done.
Speaker 6: And I think that's entirely feasible and almost certainly has happened.
Have we got reverse engineered man made UFOs. I suspect
that we do. People talk about the t R three
B and things like that. I suspect there are some
man made UFOs. But where I disagree with a lot
of people is I don't think that they explain the
many sightings worldwide. I still think those are et but
we I think we have developed levels of technology, whether
it's in association with or just through reverse engineering UFOs.
So I think it's a it's logical that we would
have reversed if we could, if something genuinely crashed, and
we do it because America certainly would want to be
the top military power in the world, which they think
they right.
Speaker 4: Okay, we've got a question for you in the chat room.
Speaker 5: Yes, ghost to come up the questions, you've actually answered
part of it. But he said, do you think some
UFOs could be ECO from the future or back in
time just crossing over somewhere.
Speaker 6: Well, what I've realized over the years is that there's
no simple answer to that question. Whilst I am very
much an evidential person because of my police background, detective background,
I kind of look at the nuts and bolts. However,
that's only a part of it, and I think study
as over many many decades. Now makes us realize that
we're dealing with possible inter dimensions. And you think of
the large Hadron collider in only in recent years do
they admit that they might be ten dimensions, twelve dimensions. Well,
this is absolutely earth shattering kind of technology that we're
just becoming aware of. That's why I say we're in
our infancy. I think we're just beginning to get to
a technological level where it won't be long. I think
within the next fifteen to seventeen years. And I say
that because two years ago mainstream science heavily reported that
the new radio telescopes coming online worldwide. They were saying,
within twenty years we'll get detect an intelligent signal, not
just a signal, and intelligence civilization through mainstream. So if
you set that as teching the clock running by twenty
thirty three, we will have made contact even in the mainstream.
Speaker 3: By twenty thirty three.
Speaker 6: But what I suggest what will happen is in the
five to ten years preceding that, and as each new
development comes along and discovery comes along, mainstream science and
television and the media are gonna think, well, lastly, it's
only going to be a matter of time now before
we've got to deal with the ET issue once and
for all, and perhaps or the ufologists out there, maybe
there is something to iscus. Within a few years, we're
going to meet these people or at least have contact
with them. So I think there will be a sea
change in the years running up to that, which some
people may call disclosure. But I think that once something
within a few years, within five to ten years, there
will be a breakthrough, and I think the real truth
will start to come out.
Speaker 5: How far do you think mainstream is behind the secret stuff?
Speaker 6: Well, certainly in aircraft, and I've always had a big
interest in aircraft development.
Speaker 3: The general rule is that like with.
Speaker 6: People who use the stealth argument, and undoubtedly stealth aircraft
have been responsible for a lot of UFO sightings over
the years, but the reality is it's generally twenty to
thirty years of secret development before it goes public.
Speaker 3: For example, the.
Speaker 6: The F one one seven, the stealth fighter, I think,
was first flew in nineteen seventy five, but it didn't
actually go public to the world until the Gulf War
was what nineteen ninety one, So they you had like
a fifteen year to sixteen year gap, and I think
that's probably twenty years. But this is this is an
argument that doesn't add up to me, the stealth argument,
because stealth does not operate anything like what we experience
with genuine UFO sightings. What I mean by genuine UFO
sightings over the last seventy years of research, you basically
can say that this about the genuine UFO ie T
that they have the ability to make instant acceleration, instant
stop reversals, instant reversal in flight, so you go forward
and then back on the same track, ninety degree right
angle turns, the ability to make high speed vertical jumps,
so ten thousand feet in a matter of a couple
of seconds in the blink of an eye, straight up
in the sky. Similarly, they can do dissent a high
speed ten thousand feet in a couple of seconds straight.
Speaker 3: Down to the ground.
Speaker 6: They have the ability to render themselves visible and invisible,
and generally most of the time there is no noise whatsoever,
even at close quarter. So those are the general characteristics
of what I would call genuine ETEA craft. Well, when
you look at stellth aircraft, what do they do? They
have a runway, they take off on wheels. They have wings.
However funny shape they are, they still have wings. They
generally have a tail configuration of some kind, and basically
stealth just means it's hard on radar to pick them up.
They still fly like a plane. They can't stop in
mid air. They can't move at slow speeds, as a
lot of people have said. In fact, I was looking
at watching a documentary today and the top aviation official
said a stealth aircraft like a Beta or whatever, they
would stall at slow speed and drop out the sky
because they need thrust to keep going. Well, genuine UFOs
don't do that. They don't just accelerate like a car
and get faster and faster.
Speaker 3: They just go bank bank, gone stop, gone stop. Yeah,
can do anything like that.
Speaker 5: I suppose the closest we had to that was the
old Herrea, which we wish we've no muffbolled.
Speaker 6: Yeah, but if you ever stood next to a harrier,
you know about it. Nois well absolutely, and it's like
a helicopter. They still make loads of noise. So when
people are saying that we're looking at huge triangle objects
just above tree top level but making no noise, the
size of a football pitch, and you've got multiple witnesses,
then I think we have to start listening to these people,
because a lot of the police officers that have come
to me over the years are reporting exactly that. One
such case, an officer said to me, I was with
my uniform colleague and we saw a huge black triangle object,
no noise, at about fifty feet height and it was
the size of three football fields.
Speaker 3: And that says three football fields. Come on, how do
you know.
Speaker 6: It's the size of three football fields? And he says,
because we saw it above three football fields. And I says,
that's a good answer. And that's called validation in terms
of police officer. When somebody says to you, you bounce
it back, yeah, at ten o'clock. How do you know
it was ten o'clock? Yeah, because Coronasha Street had just
gone off at ten o'clock and I went to make
a cup of tea.
Speaker 3: And that's validation to requestion it. And so when somebody
came out.
Speaker 6: And says that to you, it was above three football fields,
then we really should be listening to these people, But
unfortunately the mainstream are not interested. And I think that
is very much down to certain governments. America the most
secretive government in the world on UFOs, closely followed by Britain.
Because of our special inverted fingers relationship that we've had
all these years, we very much tore the line with America.
But if you went to South America, like I've spoken
in Brazil, you have thousands of people interested who will
queue up for conferences, and you will have representatives of
the military. Jajea Vard in Brazil and his team of
researchers actually sit down at ministerial level with the Brazilian
Defense Minister and the top people in the Brazilian Air
Force to talk about and discuss the release of cases.
Speaker 3: Well, that doesn't exist.
Speaker 6: Really anywhere else in the country, but you have had
official reports by the likes of Chile, Peru, Uruguay, Mexico,
completely different attitude. Many of those countries would openly say
our air forces have studied them and they basically conclude
they're not stealth.
Speaker 3: We're looking at et.
Speaker 4: Okay talking about that. Mazzi's in the chat room and
he said, what are your views on alien races? Do
you believe in any and if so, which ones?
Speaker 6: Well, yes, if I believe that UFO's visiting and engaging
the planet Earth. There must be somebody something inside it.
I personally have never met an alien, had any contact.
I'm not an abductee. I've never had an experience, but
I know many people are.
Speaker 3: I know many researchers who investigate those claims.
Speaker 6: Whilst some people I think are drawn to the abduction
phenomenon because they want to be included and may have
some psychological issues, the vast majority of people that do
so are genuine. They've had an experience, and there are
so many commonalities all around the world, and I still
know some of the top researchers. Dave Hodrien, who runs
the Birmingham UFO group, I would regard him as Britain's
leading abduction researcher.
Speaker 3: He's investigated something like one hundred and.
Speaker 6: Fifty cases in Britain and from around the world over
the last five or six years, and when you hear
his presentations there are so many commonalities.
Speaker 3: Mary Rodwell ex of Leeds, now lives in Australia.
Speaker 6: She's one of the most prominent people dealing with the
abduction experience worldwide. In Australia, she tours around the world
and basically there are again so many commonalities to the
abduction experience. How can it be that people in the
third world, who don't have access to the media, TV, radio, newspapers, etc.
We are more or less report in the same kind
of thing that they have an experience. They have what's
called missing time. A number of minutes disappear, hours, minutes.
They find themselves in a room being experimented on by
small creatures. Not always small creatures. There are many different
species allegedly out there. But this is not my personal
area because I see my personal area with upology is
trying to bring to the outside world the best credible evidence.
If you were to go down the high street with
a microphone and say have listened to this pilot report
about UFOs, they'd be interested because they're going to associate
with a pilot. But if you said to somebody, well
do you believe in alien implants? People are just going
to laugh at you and say you're an utter because
there's too much information and it's too far off the
credibility scale.
Speaker 3: So I come at it from a very evidential basis.
Speaker 6: You know, radar ground trace elements that are recording indentations
on the ground, things that can be physical, that's something
landed there, etc. And that's my sphere of youuthologies it were.
But yes, I'm asked this all the time, but it's
not my expertise and I leave it to people like
Dave Audren Barry Rodwell to do those kind of things.
Speaker 4: Okay, Now, as an experienced investigator and on the evidence available,
do you find Roswell and Renders some credible and why
choose those locations?
Speaker 6: Well, I think I've answered that earlier because the why
did Roswell happen? Like I say, get your globe, get
a dart board and throw it at the globe, and
I tell you what you want hit anywhere near Roswell.
But that's what happened in nineteen forty seven, in July
nineteen forty seven, and whined Roswell, New Mexico because it
was the first atomic bomb squadron And where was it
in Roswell, New Mexico? Water coincidence, middle of nowhere.
Speaker 3: So there's a.
Speaker 6: Different correlation as to why UF force turned up there.
So I think that answers that one rendols from forest Roswell.
Speaker 3: I do believe was et related.
Speaker 6: There's far too many people gone on the record that
the US Air Force lied repeatedly and tried to play
down and even when they did two explanations in the
late nineties, each one didn't stand up to scrutiny i e.
The weather Bloo when the crash test dummies explanations were
found to not add up.
Speaker 3: So I don't think that at all.
Speaker 6: I think the Ufair Force have pretty much lied throughout
all of this, and especially if you investigate Project blue Book,
they played lip service to it.
Speaker 3: Apart from the very early years.
Speaker 6: Of forty seven to forty nine what was called Project Sign,
which then became Project Grudge, which then became Project blue Book.
Project Sign was the most investigative period of genuine research
into the subject. And in the first year, after a
twelvemonth in investigation, they came up with what's called the
Estimate of the situation, and that was a report that
went to General Vandenberg, and it basically.
Speaker 3: Said, when we concluded.
Speaker 6: Are looking at about oney twelve hundred cases over the
preceding year, we think that this is almost certainly interplanetary.
Now that was the term in the forties, not extraterrestrial
as we've used now. Into planetary was the phrase of
the day, but it meant the same thing. Vandenberg says,
I ain't taking this to the president and basically ordered
all copies to be destroyed. How do we know it
exists because again, who wrote a very famous book called
The Reporter, and I'd identified flying sources in nineteen fifty
six was a guy called Captain Edward Ruppolt, and he
ran Project Blue Book for a couple of years in
the early fifties, and he said that he saw copy.
So one copy of that report did exist, and he
went public in his book, and it's a very famous book.
So we know it existed, and we know that it
concluded interplanetary and it was not bad. I think there's
maybe good reasons why governments have kept quiet about it, because, let's,
for example, America likes to think that it's the most
biggest superpower with huge influence all around the world, with
hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people worldwide. Americans
been involved in the armament industries, supporting lots of jobs
and families, et cetera, et cetera. Well would be why
for Barack Obama to stand up on the White House
lawn and say, well, actually, we've known about these things
for sixty seventy years. We can't get anywhere near them.
Were actually totally vulnerable to them. Our technology is far
inferior to theirs.
Speaker 3: Is he going to do that?
Speaker 6: Because all those armament contracts from around the world, supporting
thousands of jobs would not be then worth the paper
they're written on. So that's one of the reasons why
people at very high level dot come forward because they
don't want to admit that actually these things can go
come and go with impunity and there's nothing we can
do about it.
Speaker 4: Okay, Steve, Yeah.
Speaker 5: When it comes to Rendelsham kind of holds evidence should
be the most believable, considering the tape and a notebook,
but he seems to have changed and added to his
original evidence over the years, and yet Larry Robins has
fiercely stuck by what he says happened on that night.
Why do you say that?
Speaker 6: Is well, if anybody has noted the UFO Truth Magazine.
Speaker 3: Facebook page. On my Facebook page, I put a.
Speaker 6: Statement about the forthcoming Colonel Holt lecture at Woodbridge, which
was like ten days ago now, and basically I said
that I'd ended my association with Colonel Holt after seven
years of working with him to develop a film script,
a viable film script which I was writing in collaboration
with him, because of his attitude and the way he
treated Larry Warren, and it's it's I think it's he's
left himself wide open for legal redress. Larry Warren is
a friend of mine. I regarded Holt as a friend
of mine, but I could not stand by and letting.
Speaker 3: Burrate somebody who actually believe was involved.
Speaker 6: And what you must understand is that Larry Warren was
the original whistleblower who was in the public domain for
ten years a loan, totally alone in the world talking
about rendallstrom Forrest, in the public domain to the press
for ten years before any of the new principal witnesses
like Hault, Peniston, Jim John Borrows came out.
Speaker 3: Etc.
Speaker 6: Now, whatever did he make mistakes? Larry did make mistakes,
But why did he make mistakes? Because he was nineteen
when he got involved in what was a very bizarre
set of events. Now, where I take issue is that
Colonel Holt as the senior officer who saw multiple UFOs
himself and has recorded great evidence with the Halt Memorandum
as piece to documentary written evidence. The tape is a
piece of physical evidence you're produced in.
Speaker 3: A court of law.
Speaker 6: That's all well and good, but in reality, far from
bringing witnesses and encouraging witnesses to come out of the woodwork,
it seems to me that he is actually causing people
not to come forward because people just see the infighting
that's going on, and that for me, is wrong, that
policy is wrong, and why he has got a real
downer on Larry Warren. He said to me that he's
got lots of evidence against Larry Warren. So I said, well,
if you've got evidence, put it out there and the
evidence will fall where it falls.
Speaker 3: But he never does.
Speaker 6: And again, having heard his lecture and seeing the video,
he makes terrible accusations without presenting a shred of evidence
to back them up, and I think he's left himself
open to legal redress and I find that very disappointed.
But the rendel from Forest case is great. He adds
to it in the sense that wouldridge. He mentioned that
he got statements from radar operators. Well, I think the
reality is he'd can get the statements that it was
Robert Hastings, the researcher who wrote the book UFOs and
Nukes who identified and got to the radar operators. They're
in that book, so you can get that. And it's
very good statements that have come out. And that's very
interesting because it confirms very definitely that there was the
UFO recorded on radar and seen visually by these radar
operators over the base at the time of the incidents.
So that's a different department. It's not just one department.
It's now branched over into a different section of the
Air Force, air traffic control. So that's a major step forward.
So evidentally, things are still coming out.
Speaker 5: Can I intrupt you for a second? That radio operation
is on both notes or just one? Sorry said that again,
the evidence from the radar people is on both notes
or just one because it was over two nights, wasn't it.
Speaker 6: I understanding goes and I've emailed one of them to
try to get him to come forward more publicly, but
he basically only went public for the book. But their
names are in there, their statements are in there. They
are kind of shy because they don't want this media
circus around them, and you can't really blame anybody for
that because their lives would never be the same if
they go on TV, etc. In the same way that Holpe.
When I first met Holp in two thousand and seven,
I said, you've had a fantastic career. I said, but
when you die, you're not going to be remembered for
your military career. You're going to die. You'll be remembered
for one thing, and that's Rendles from Forest. So you
have to kind of come to get to groups with that.
And so's his life changed considerably when in a sense
it came out in nineteen eighty three as a result
of Larry Warren actions that that's what's led and he
always misinterprets that. But as my understanding that that was
not the sequence of events. It was Larry Warren that
got the document that led to the document, the Hope
Memore coming out.
Speaker 3: Through Larry Fawcett.
Speaker 6: But basically, when you look at the case, it still
sounds up to scrutiny, even if you take all the
personalities out of it. You have three successive nights. It's
definitely a nuclear base, which he won't say, but it
definitely is because I worked on two nuclear bases, one
of which was identical in its geographical layout, at Ari
flabru in what was then West Germany between eighty three
and eighty five or eighty five to eighty eight. I
work there, and basically, Larry warrener said it's nuclear And
basically you can tell straight away that it's a nuclear
bunkers weapon storage area. The Americans call it a weapon
storage area. That means nuclear bunkers. They a conventional bond
dump that does not have security police excess of thirty
to forty per night, twenty four hours a day, five
different shifts working on around the clock. You don't get
that with a conventional bondom. So straight away the guarding
something in the bunkers, that's what I did, and it
was the similar figures. And you know, Larry Warren is
the only one to say it's nuclear weapons. The others
stick to this stock phrase of oh well, I can
neither confirm or deny, which is the nick Pope's favorite
line in this.
Speaker 3: But realistically they're all playing politics.
Speaker 6: The reality is they won't say it for one very
simple reason. I know for a fact, and I was
told this, and I could leave you to work this out.
Speaker 3: Who told me.
Speaker 6: I can tell you for a fact that there were
more nuclear weapons in the Bentwaters Woodbridge storage area than
anywhere else in Europe. And the real answer why it
never comes out to that effect is because it broke
all the international nuclear arms treaties because everybody thought that
the nuclear weapons were at Greenham Common. Do you remember
years gone by there was the Peace campaign and protested
everywhere about cruising missiles going into Greenham Common, which want
a million miles aware, and all the time people were
laughing at bent Was and Woodbridge because the nuclear weapons
were there, and there were more nuclear weapons there than
anywhere else in Europe.
Speaker 3: Broke all the agreements.
Speaker 6: Now that is then a major political dynamite question and
that's why the higher echelon's witnesses do not come out.
Speaker 3: But that's the reality. This is about nuclear weapons.
Speaker 6: And this is what's often missed when you get TV companies,
mainstream TV companies making a documentary. They don't show you
all the evidence. They show you a bit of the evidence.
They don't show you the most telling parts of it.
They don't show you that radiar evidence that's been out
for the last four or five years at least, but
nobody's made a documentary on that and bring that extra
to it. People are still talking about the lighthouse when
it was never a lighthouse. How can a lighthouse stop
above halt at a thousand feet and shine a beam
down to his which he and his colleague saw. How
can the flying lighthouse do that?
Speaker 3: It's ridiculous, But every.
Speaker 6: Mainstream documentary still goes about it, every newspaper still goes
on about it.
Speaker 3: It's an absolute joke.
Speaker 6: So when people talk about Rendolstrom, they're not getting the
best evidence. If I did the documentary about rendolstroon forest,
the lighthouse wouldn't appear anywhere in it, or if it did,
he would be kicked out in the first minute because
it didn't stand up to scrutiny. And you get people
like Dr David Clark coming out and saying, oh, you
listen to the tape that he made always says yes,
it's there, and five seconds, yes it is. The reality
is he was out there for four and a half hours.
I defy anybody to look at the field and go, oh,
there's a light over there. Oh there's a light over there.
Oh there's a light over there, every five seconds without
going well that lights every five seconds, I think that's
a lighthouse.
Speaker 3: I'll tell you what they're looking at a lighthouse? Are they?
Speaker 6: It's ridiculous, but the TV put it in a spin.
The reality is Reynolds's Reformed is arguably the best case
in the world in terms of that. It's three successive nights,
different shifts of aim and involved numerous military wellitnesses, many
of which are still in those shadows yet to come
out because they see all this, who are and ridicules
Still that persists in the media, But it's it's got
ground trace evidence background radiation eight times above. It had
three indentations in the ground and thet and the guide
counter only peaked in each of the indentations, not next
to it, but in the peak, and one blast area
directly in the center of the triangle. Now that it's
not about how much it peaked, it's about the fact
that there was a change your counter. Take it out
of the pod, go to the next pod. The indentation
that means that something materially affected the background radiation. There
were trees broken, Something came through and punched its way
either up or down through the canopy of the trees.
When Holt looked up, he could see a hole in
the canopy of the trees where the objects had took
off and gone off up into the sky.
Speaker 3: Numerous objects seen to the north, numerous objects seen to
the south.
Speaker 6: Beams being shone down into the nuclear weapons storage area.
I'll tell you what, when we talk about Reynolson, Colonel
Holt did mention. He mentioned something I didn't know. I
knew that there were people on the ground walking around
machine guns in a weapon storage area because I'd done
that job myself, so I knew that there were more witnesses,
and he acknowledged there were more witnesses. But what he
actually said during that lecture, which I'd never heard ever before,
and I'd love him to answer it, he said that
he got statements from two of those people in the
weapon storage area on the ground. Well, nobody's ever said
that before, So he either that's either telling the truth
or he's hiding some part of the information. If those
statements are indeed have been taken, you should be releasing
those asap, because that would add a lot more vital
evidence to beams being shone down into nuclear weapons story.
Speaker 4: Jerry, Okay, we got Mozzi back. He's asking a delicate
question to you, have you ever been threatened by anybody
directly or indirectly to keep you quiet. No, No, that's
the easiest wonder that.
Speaker 6: The only thing that I got was over a period
of time in the last five or six years of
my police career, I started to have a lot more
hassle subtly within the police force. But nobody ever said
to me, don't do this else your career.
Speaker 3: Is this now? Okay?
Speaker 4: What are your views on UFO related subjects such as
animal mutilations, tubercarbra crop patterns. They've even said that maybe
Bigfoot is an extraterrestrial. It goes on to also ghost
riders question from earlier, what do you think about the
strange noises that we hear that a's worldwide? Do you
think they're all connected to UFO.
Speaker 6: Well, that's about eight questions in one. We'll take the
first pick. What's under the UFO umbreller. What's definitely under
the UFO breller is crop circles. There is a correlation.
I believe many people have seen UFOs in relation to
crop circles. Most are man made ninety I believe a
man made but I do think there's a correlation.
Speaker 3: It's under the umbrella of UFOs.
Speaker 6: Alien implants, alien abductions, human mutilations, animal mutilations are all
involved under the UFO umbrella. Definitely, What was the other
questions that you ask Cuba Cabra. Some people say that's
creature that's been dropped off by a spaceship, or it's
an escape from a spaceship, and it might just be
an animal running free. I had no idea to me,
I have no knowledge space that. I'll suffice to say
that I suspect that there are some very strange creatures, bigfoot, yetti.
I think it's all part of the same thing. I
do personally believe that there are still yet to be
found large guerrilla type It's in the very remote areas
of the world, and I don't think I don't think
they're personally eat related. But do I believe in bigfoot
and the yet, Yes, because the circumstantial evidence, the best
bit of evidence, footprints, casts, hairs, some dnare taken from
hairs of school caps and things like that would suggest
that we're dealing with a large primate.
Speaker 4: And the noises that we hear around the world.
Speaker 3: This is interesting.
Speaker 6: Undoubtedly, some may think that it's hoaxes, and maybe some
have been hoped but there seems to be quite a
lot of them over the last couple of years from
all around the world. And when you hear them, they
all sound strangely similar and they are kind of very eerie.
I have no idea what they are, suffice to say
that they appear to be coming from underground.
Speaker 3: And one thing.
Speaker 6: That I think we don't realize is, and especially I
think in America, is that we have the technology to
build very proficient underground tunnels. There is a lot of
technology that would say that there are major tunneling systems
for survival nuclear war, that kind of thing that have
been developed, and machines have been developed that can bore
and make vasting roads and connect I suspect underground, very
deep mile or two miles underground. There may well be
connections to other Citi's strategic points around the world. So
if I would hazard, I guess if indeed it's real,
I think it could be some kind of underground really okay.
Speaker 4: And when we hear a lot about grays and reptilians
being part of the government, what do.
Speaker 3: You think to that, I have no idea.
Speaker 6: It sounds crazy, you see what I mean? This goes
into the secret world of need know. Now, if, for example,
a UFO crashed in nineteen forty seven at Roswell and
one of the bodies that was allegedly covered survive for
a time, and there was able to be some limited
communication between the alien and the interrogators, then who knows
that somebody'd say, well, if we help you, we or
if you help us, we will give you certain technology.
We will give you certain things to help your civilization
advance more quickly. People speculate that fiber optics, night vision,
things like that came from reverse engineered things, but it
may well be that they were given to us in.
Speaker 3: Some kind of an exchange.
Speaker 6: Well, a lot of people have speculated with animal mutilations
that they take you know, put it this way, if
the argument against animal mutilations being man made is kind
of ridiculous.
Speaker 3: If you think about the scale.
Speaker 6: If you think that in America, a huge, big continent,
you could seal off the mountain range and have thousands.
Speaker 3: Of square acres.
Speaker 6: You could shoot them every day for the next fifty
years and black them to hell and do experiments to
millions of cattle and nobody.
Speaker 3: Would have a clue. So you can do it in
total secrecy.
Speaker 6: You don't need to have any who are Why are
you going to go on to somebody's farm and then
take fifty of their cattle and then dump them in
various places. They've all got these surgical marks that are
very similar, like laser coats with no blood.
Speaker 3: They're very common.
Speaker 6: There's very common wounds that are all around the recorded
all around the world.
Speaker 3: Why would you do that.
Speaker 6: You could important down to your heart's content, You don't
need to do it in this public way.
Speaker 3: So that takes me to think that they're doing this. Now.
Speaker 6: There's some speculation that certain amount of mutilations are allowed
to continue as part of perhaps a genetic ongoing program
that ET has, and that's why it's occurring, because they
tend to go to genitalia certain areas of the body.
Speaker 3: It may well be that that is needed.
Speaker 6: It sounds transiful, but I suspect that that aspect is real.
Whether they're in government is I will never know. You
will never know because we don't have the need to know.
Speaker 3: Qualification.
Speaker 4: Okay, what is your best evidence to date based on
UFO sightings that involve extra restials.
Speaker 6: Well, I think yeah, I mean in twenty thirteen, I
gave evidence on behalf of police officers worldwide in Washington,
DC at what was called the City Hearings, which was
mock congressional hearings, just two blocks short of the White House,
at the National Press Club, the same place where all
the leaders of the world have spoken Nelson, Mandela, Gorbachev,
et cetera, all the American presidents. So I was at
the same podium as that, and we're all giving our
evidence before five former congress men and women and one
former senator. Together the six of them had eighty years
of public service, so very experienced panel. And after one
day of presenting our best evidence or some of our
best evidents, it lasted for five full days. They stood
up and they basically said, we've heard enough. Yes, you
should have full congressional hearings. They're clearly is et visiting
or surveill in the earth now. One of those people
that gave testimony was a guy called Colonel Oscar Santa Maria,
and he was a Peruvian general, but he was in
his earlier career he had been a fighter pilot and
on one occasion he was flying a jet fighter and
in broad daylight, he was vectored to go to w
a radar confirmed stationary object.
Speaker 3: This is broad daylight.
Speaker 6: And as he approached on an attacking position.
Speaker 3: As he approached this a.
Speaker 6: Stationary object, which is very difficult for a pilot because
I'm not used to seeing stationary things, he immediately looked
at it and thought, oh, this looks like a balloon.
So he was ordered then to fire his machine guns
at this what he thought was a balloon. However, when
he fired his weapons, he hit his target, but the
bullets did nothing, and then the object suddenly jumped ten
thousand feet in two thousand in two or three seconds
up into the air, straight vertical into the sky in
the blink of an eye. Ten thousand feet not something
that our planes could do. So he then chased it
with his after burner in broad daylight.
Speaker 3: And this is all an on redar.
Speaker 6: And he goes up and he starts another attacking run
because it's stationary again at ten thousand feet, and.
Speaker 3: Just as he's about to fire his weapons again, guess
what it does.
Speaker 6: It does another ten thousand feet instant hight vertically into
the sky. Well, that's an intelligent act. And when you
hear the testimony of this pilot firsthand, given testimony to
these senators and congressmen and women. They had their jaws
round the floor. They were in awe. And there are many, many,
multiple pilot cases, multiple commercial pilot cases of similar kind
of events.
Speaker 3: And when you.
Speaker 6: Hear this testimony, you just realize that this is very
real and this is not stell and this is a
phenomenon that's intelligent under intelligent control and has a level
of technology way beyond anything we have got.
Speaker 3: That's my best evidence.
Speaker 4: Okay, Now do you think that there are more sightings
in America than anywhere else in the world, because we
seem to hear a lot from neuf ON about they've
seen this, that and the other, but not a lot
from the UK, not that I've seen anyway, and from
other places.
Speaker 6: Well, I think what you've got to understand is that
new Fon is doing a good job in the sense
that it's a nationwide American research group that have been
there now for many years. And so the America obviously
is a huge place, and I think UFOs are often
seen in the vicinity of military installations, power stations, nuclear facilities,
and America obviously has lots of those, so that might
be an explanation why there's a lot of sightings there.
Speaker 4: It's as if they're more interested in what's going on
in America.
Speaker 6: Well, I think I think personally America do hold the key.
As I said, they're the most secretive government and they
know the most about it. But reality, UFOs are seen
all over. But if you look at Britain, we've lost
our reporting desk so now it's fragmented, which is sure
what the mod wanted. So I could record sightings that
will come to me. Various other groups in the UK
will get sightings, but who coordinates it and that's what
we've lost. And similarly sightings that occur around the world.
But certain countries, if you go to Germany, they're very
reluctant to ever admit they've had any UFO sightings. But
only recently somebody has put a legal action and forced
the Germans to release their German documents on UFOs, so
that'll be interesting when they come out. So again, I
think there is a very little structure worldwide. But in
America with newphone you have a large nationwide organization that
many people instantly think of. Well, whereas we think of
Emergency nine ninety nine, a lot of people will have
heard a new phone and will have a number that.
Speaker 3: They can ring because they'll be one in their local area.
So we don't have that structure.
Speaker 6: And unfortunately, many of the British UFO groups that were
historical no longer operating or have the same level of
people involved as they once did, and there are many
factors as to why that is. But I think UFOs
have been seen much more. But it's down to the
person to report it. Who do you report it to.
You're hardly going to report it to the police if
they're not interested, if they're not going to do anything
with it, So therefore your option is you report it
to me or some UFO civilian group in the UK.
Speaker 3: But it's still fragmented.
Speaker 6: I think that's exactly what the MRD got and that's
the position we find in. But the sightings are happening
all the time. I would suspect sightings either one in ten,
one in twenty come forward to the vast majority do it.
Speaker 4: The other question I'd like to ask is about the
cover up of the government authorities. Do you think they
should be cover it up? Some people believe that it
might scare people and all this that and the other.
But there seems to be a lot of population that
wants to know that we are being visited and believe
that we are, and with alien inductions or contact eas
and stuff like that.
Speaker 6: You've got a very interesting disconnect in the media because
even when mainstream opinion polls are done anywhere in the world,
certainly in America and Europe, the vast majority end up
for about seventy to eighty percent saying one question, Yet
we believe that the governments have covering it up and
to it's usually sixty seventy percent.
Speaker 3: Believe that et is visited the earth.
Speaker 6: All right, Now, you'd think on that there would this
be this, you know, real change and openness from governments. Well,
if that's what they feel, perhaps we should tell the truth.
But it doesn't quite work like that at all. The
reality is it's about lots of power. That's why I
think it's secret. American doesn't want to lose its dominant arm.
I think the reality is is that in the next
three to five years, perhaps a South American country may
put pressure on Americans to say, well, look, we're going
to go public at government level. Our prime minister is
going to stand up and say UFOs exist. Our Air
Force says it researched it.
Speaker 3: Blah blah blah. Are you going to tell them world first?
Or a we goaner?
Speaker 6: And I think there will be some pressure to bear
on America. It's a very difficult thing, but sooner or
later it's going to happen and the truth will come out.
Definitely is secrecy, but it's American led and quite how
and when that breaks who knows?
Speaker 4: Okay, Now, we mentioned in your introduction about your UFO
Truth magazine, which you started when you retired. What did
Why did you decide to fill your time with this?
Speaker 6: Because as the years went on and as I was
doing the police database, something compelled me to do more.
And there had been various printed magazines you were for magazine,
the one that I mentioned with Grain Burstil that ceased
in two thousand and four when the editor died and
his wife decided to pull the plug on it. There'd
been various of the short limited printed magazines or subscription
based magazines, but didn't stand the test of time, you know,
over a period of time. And so as time went on,
I thought, well, I feel compelled to do something. So
as my interest in the subject became more and more
and I started to do public speaking and found that
I could do it. Not everybody can, by I found
that I could do it, and I enjoyed doing media
work that I thought, well, I'm going to retire purposely
early to launch an online magazine to tell the truth
from an evidential point of view.
Speaker 3: What would stand up in a court of Lord. That's
my particular bag, as it were.
Speaker 6: And so uf four Truth Magazine was launched with the
first issue in June of twenty thirteen. It's bi monthly,
which is every two months. It's ninety six pages. But
what makes it difference is two things. It features many
of the world's top UFO researchers from many countries around
the world South America, Europe, America, Britain, etc. And also
a third of all the money is that's raced through subscriptions.
Speaker 3: It's not free.
Speaker 6: The third of all moneys raced through subscriptions is set
aside for ufour causes.
Speaker 4: Just a quick question that's coming UFO London says, what
does Gary think of Chris French? You may have missed
something earlier that there is no science regarding expert witnesses.
Are we in danger? Of citing officialdom.
Speaker 6: Chris French I met him twice for This Morning. Sure,
affable blockoff camera, but he was a paid skeptic, getting
five hundred pounds of time. He'd done twenty twenty summer visits.
He was on a regular contract with ITV. Anything psychological ghost,
anything like that, he would be there to offset ghost,
offset your offset UFOs. It's that's part of the mainstream
and it's not right. But what can we do? What
was the part of the question, Are.
Speaker 4: We in danger of citing official dum? I don't know
what it means.
Speaker 5: By that, to the official report all the time?
Speaker 4: Are we going to come back to the official report
all the time? Maybe that's what you're saying.
Speaker 3: I think we're bogged down.
Speaker 6: Our big problem in upology is having a level playing field,
and we don't have a level of playing field in
the West, certainly, not in Europe, certainly not in America.
And whilst the main's dream, if you think about it,
there are only five or.
Speaker 3: Six big media corporations worldwide.
Speaker 6: If they control that media, then there's a very little
chance of ever I was making a big indentation unless
one et decides to show themselves that an event that
makes it, you know, if they did it the Olympics
kind of thing with all the cameras and if it
landed on the center circle, and I think even if
they cut the live feed of TV, you'd still have
one hundred thousand YouTube videos going straight on there. So
I think that would be very hard to contain a
major events possib.
Speaker 5: According to according to a lot of videos, Gary, they
actually did that the love of Olympics. This was probably
a little bit, a little bit tony in cheek. If
you had the chance, would you go on an alien spaceship?
If offered like they did in Close Encounters?
Speaker 6: I think would I do with Richard Dreyfus and leave
my family alone to fend for themselves.
Speaker 3: No part of me would want to go.
Speaker 6: But if it was at the expense of seeing my children, grandchildren,
et cetera, then the answer is now.
Speaker 4: Well, thanks Gary, it's been great avenue on the show.
Speaker 2: It really has well.
Speaker 4: Trying to get you for ages.
Speaker 3: Well you never asked me before long in asking me
to come.
Speaker 4: Back, I didn't. I didn't know how to get old
of you.
Speaker 3: Well, it's an amazing it's an amazing thing.
Speaker 6: The Internet isn't it is name, what's this? What's this
email address? It comes up quite easy on Google, so
I don't hide myself, so don't you know, don't wait
as long to have me back if you want me back.
Speaker 4: Oh, I definitely want you back. Thank you very much
for giving us your time. It's been brilliant.
Speaker 3: You're welcome. All right, bye bye, all right, thank you.
Speaker 4: That's it for that.
Speaker 3: That's it for the sea.
Speaker 4: That is it this evening.
Speaker 5: So I hope you enjoyed the show.
Speaker 4: And I say, and you went back next week, So
we hope you've enjoyed the savings show and we look
forward to having your company again next week. And as
I say, that's good night.
Speaker 5: For me, and it's good night for the.
Speaker 4: Until next time. All it's left to say is.
Speaker 5: Keep parormal friendly night guys.
Speaker 6: This is where it's at.
Speaker 2: Hellier Harry Price here, good evening. If there's nothing myself
and everybody else enjoy here on the other side, more
is the Sit back and relax and listen to Parasearch
Radio with its paranormal news, views and reviews from across
the UK and beyond. Make sure to find out more
about them on Facebook, Twitter and the world wide Web.
Whatever they are to keep up to date with all
their broadcast throughout the week, and I hope you enjoy
them as much as we do over here. Hello, is
anybody there