Speaker 1: I love Christmas. I love the decorations, quiet times, getting
Speaker 1: you know later and I have time to reminisce a
Speaker 1: little bit. I hope you're doing well, Hide Cliff, your
Speaker 1: host of birthday, and it is Christmas time, and my
Speaker 1: best to you and your family. And this is the
Speaker 1: end of twenty twenty four a whole. It really went quick.
Speaker 1: If something is special, it's sacred. Christmas is a sacred time,
Speaker 1: and it's time to reminisce about the year that's ending,
Speaker 1: considered the year that's coming up, and all the good
Speaker 1: things always the family gathering, friends and family, and some
Speaker 1: of us become I mean, I'm included in this introspective
Speaker 1: thinking about what happened in the year and all the good,
Speaker 1: all the challenging, the traumatic, the sad. Life moves on,
Speaker 1: friends and family move on, or you discover new friends
Speaker 1: and family. So whatever it is, I hope you are
Speaker 1: thinking about the holidays, and it is a time for
Speaker 1: you to celebrate. So I wish you a happy holiday,
Speaker 1: be it Christmas, Hanukkah, or whatever you celebrate in your home.
Speaker 1: Today's a special edition of Earth Ancients. We are delving
Speaker 1: into the question of these drones that have been found
Speaker 1: primarily on the east coast New Jersey, Maryland, parts of Vermont,
Speaker 1: North and South Carolina, all the way down to as
Speaker 1: far as Florida. And we really have not been getting
Speaker 1: a sufficient explanation. And this is surprising. You know, when
Speaker 1: you have a flying vehicle flying over military installations over
Speaker 1: populated areas, usually the FAA or the Pentagon or someone
Speaker 1: in the local government speaks up and says, hey, this
Speaker 1: is what's going on. Don't be worried, don't you know,
Speaker 1: don't get upset about it. But in the case of
Speaker 1: these drones, we haven't heard a great deal of anything,
Speaker 1: and that leads to all kinds of speculation and rumors
Speaker 1: everything from there are ships off the coasts sending these
Speaker 1: drones up to These are UAPs, otherwise known as UFOs,
Speaker 1: and they are here to make you aware of their presence. Well,
Speaker 1: we're not hearing much from even the muffon groups, the
Speaker 1: UFO organizations that track UFO activity around the world. And
Speaker 1: so today i'mresenting a panel discussion with a few experts
Speaker 1: to give us their points of view and their reference
Speaker 1: as to what the hell is going on? What are
Speaker 1: these drones all about? And as I've been reading and
Speaker 1: kind of preparing for this group, this panel discussion. I
Speaker 1: have run across some of the most strange and anomalous
Speaker 1: and wild explanations for these drones that you know, are
Speaker 1: scan the possibilities everything from the typical prop driven drones
Speaker 1: that we can purchase it, you know, at any Best
Speaker 1: Buy or on Amazon for a few hundred dollars, all
Speaker 1: the way up to these military grade drones that are
Speaker 1: as big as a bus and have been reported in
Speaker 1: the skies above New Jersey. Now, just a few days ago,
Speaker 1: I saw an article where apparently a drone had crashed
Speaker 1: into a freeway and they showed the body of this
Speaker 1: drone which was cylindrical. The base body was cylindrical, surrounded
Speaker 1: by propellers. This thing was huge. It must have weighed
Speaker 1: several hundred pounds. And we don't know if it was
Speaker 1: battery driven or if it was it had propane or
Speaker 1: gasoline or whatever. It was the damnedest looking thing, and
Speaker 1: it came out of the sky and according to witnesses,
Speaker 1: just smashed into the divider, the cement divider on a highway.
Speaker 1: And these reports are becoming stranger and stranger. There are
Speaker 1: airline pilots one in Oregon who reported seeing a drone
Speaker 1: which it turned out to be a UAP because it
Speaker 1: flew up around twenty thousand feet and tailed him and
Speaker 1: then blinked out. In other words, the lights went out
Speaker 1: and he lost it. He didn't even see it on
Speaker 1: his radar anymore. So that has all the trimmings of
Speaker 1: a UAP and identified aerial phenomenon. Now, remember is the
Speaker 1: rebranding of the classic u fo's Unidentified Flying objects, and
Speaker 1: so the new terminology is Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon u A P.
Speaker 1: And when they speak of UAPs, we're talking about exotic,
Speaker 1: highly advanced, and in many cases extraterrestrial propulsion systems. And
Speaker 1: it gets dimensional too. We have vehicles that are run
Speaker 1: by gravitational fields. We have translucent drones, which in other words,
Speaker 1: are orbs you can see through them, which which which
Speaker 1: is also curious because are they manned drones? Are they
Speaker 1: remote drones driven by somebody in another planet, another location?
Speaker 1: We don't know. So I got tired of this and
Speaker 1: I was like, well, let's let's pull some of our
Speaker 1: experts together, some old, some new, and get their perspective
Speaker 1: on just what is going on. And I don't want
Speaker 1: to frighten anybody. But there are a group of people
Speaker 1: who believe these are off world and that means that
Speaker 1: they are alien craft, alien design, alien physics. And whenever
Speaker 1: we talk about alien physics, we're talking about vehicles that
Speaker 1: can defy our gravity. They can link in, blink out,
Speaker 1: they can pass through portals in the sky, they can
Speaker 1: shadow planes, helicopters, even people have been shadowed by some
Speaker 1: of these drones. So we want to get a sense
Speaker 1: of what's going on, and we'll do that today with
Speaker 1: a panel discussion of experts. So today's special edition of
Speaker 1: Earth Ancients is Drones, u APS and First Contact. And
Speaker 1: my guests are Greg Gons, doctor Michael Clawson, and doctor
Speaker 1: Mark Carlato. This is gonna be a good one today.
Speaker 1: This is a special edition of Earth Ancients that we
Speaker 1: are producing, and it is one that I have a
Speaker 1: personal interest in a numbers of different levels anomalies, u A, P,
Speaker 1: s UFOs, alien interactions, government discretion, disclosure and so forth.
Speaker 1: And mid November of this year and right up to now,
Speaker 1: there have been waves of drones hovering over New Jersey
Speaker 1: at night. There's been a number of other sightings up
Speaker 1: and down the East coast. Some of these are very
Speaker 1: recognizable drones. Others are displaying unusual pulsion systems, movements, lights,
Speaker 1: levels of design that are much more advanced that we
Speaker 1: are used to, and we can't get any information from
Speaker 1: the government. These are in many cases what we think
Speaker 1: of typical drones with flashing lights, hovering propeller sounds. But
Speaker 1: when they are reported to the authorities that be that Pentagon,
Speaker 1: the government of whatever state, there are no reactions, no
Speaker 1: definitions of any of this, and it has become a huge problem.
Speaker 1: The FAA is giving light responses, the Pentagon is disavowing
Speaker 1: most of these as unknown to them. And today we're
Speaker 1: going to discuss this in detail with my panelic group here.
Speaker 1: My first guest is Greg Goins. Greg is from New Jersey.
Speaker 1: He's a New Jersey resident who has been outspoken for
Speaker 1: the lack of government transparency in the face of this
Speaker 1: mass drone sighting. He has actually traveled to Washington, DC
Speaker 1: and spoken to various congressional groups and individuals to discuss
Speaker 1: this issue and to promote a UAP Disclosure Act that's
Speaker 1: been around for a few months, and we'll learn more
Speaker 1: about that. Greg's also appeared on Fox News to discuss
Speaker 1: this UAP situation, and he recently wrote a op ed
Speaker 1: article for the Philadelphia inquir which I read, which was excellent,
Speaker 1: and we'll also ask him a little bit about that.
Speaker 1: My next guest is doctor Michael Glaussan. He is the
Speaker 1: co host of the podcast The Anonymalous Review. He's a
Speaker 1: professor of biomedical ethics at the College of Charleston in
Speaker 1: South Carolina. He's also a member of the Scientific Coalition
Speaker 1: for UAP Studies and he's written on UAPs and UFO,
Speaker 1: The UFO Question, and a number of publications. My final
Speaker 1: guest is returning doctor Mark Carlotto Marcus an aerospace engineer
Speaker 1: with over forty years of satellite imaging, remote sensing, and
Speaker 1: image processing field work. He has written over one hundred
Speaker 1: technical papers and is the author of the Martian Enigmas,
Speaker 1: The Sidonia Controversy and Beyond and Atlantis. We've had Mark
Speaker 1: on a couple of different times. Gentlemen, Welcome to Earth ANXIO.
Speaker 1: Is great to have you on the program.
Speaker 2: Thanks for having us.
Speaker 3: Yeah, thanks, Greg.
Speaker 1: I want to start with you, describe, if you will,
Speaker 1: what has happened and what is the settings in numbers
Speaker 1: that we see in New Jersey. Talk a little bit
Speaker 1: about your neighbors and perhaps what's going on there.
Speaker 3: Sure, I mean, at this point, everybody's seeing something, you know,
Speaker 3: whether or not they're actual drones or airplanes. But but yeah,
Speaker 3: a lot of people are seeing some very unusual craft
Speaker 3: in the sky. Almost every day I get a friend
Speaker 3: or a neighbor texting me videos. Many of them are aeroplanes,
Speaker 3: but some of them really you can't tell what they are,
Speaker 3: you know. One friend just texted me today a picture
Speaker 3: of fourteen to sixteen objects that were just lights and
Speaker 3: groupings above his house, and it was very odd. So
Speaker 3: there's a lot of different things people are seeing. People
Speaker 3: have seen suv sized drones over their homes, and it's
Speaker 3: really the talk of the town. You know, everywhere you go.
Speaker 3: People are talking about it. Right now, is at the
Speaker 3: bank today, and they're really talking about it. We were
Speaker 3: getting into it. So there's a lot of confusion among
Speaker 3: everybody wanting answers, and there's a lot of a little
Speaker 3: bit of fear too. I had a buddy that saw
Speaker 3: something recently and he said, I'm going to Dominican Republic,
Speaker 3: booked a ticket and got out of the here. So
Speaker 3: it's kind of the atmosphere that we're dealing with in
Speaker 3: New Jersey.
Speaker 1: Is it a problem that the local authorities can't define
Speaker 1: what they what you guys are seeing, or is it
Speaker 1: more of the fact that nobody can answer any questions.
Speaker 3: I mean, they definitely can't define, you know, what they're seeing. Again,
Speaker 3: some of it, the majority of it you're going to get,
Speaker 3: are minist identifications right now. You know, airplanes that people see,
Speaker 3: or typical drones or something else. But the objects that
Speaker 3: fall outside of that, they can't really define it. You know,
Speaker 3: a police helicopter got above one of these six foot
Speaker 3: drones and as soon as they got above it, the
Speaker 3: drone turned off their lights and completely were undetectable by
Speaker 3: the police State Police chopter. So you know, they're having
Speaker 3: a difficult time identifying what these items actually are. All
Speaker 3: they see are lights sometimes that go away, And yeah,
Speaker 3: it's a big confusion. The federal government's not providing any
Speaker 3: answers either.
Speaker 1: And when you went to visit your congressmen in Washington
Speaker 1: and confronted him or his staff, what was the reaction.
Speaker 3: Sure, So this was a couple of months ago that
Speaker 3: I did this to support the UAP Disclosure Act which
Speaker 3: was making its way through the House and Senate, and
Speaker 3: mostly the staff did not know about the UAP Disclosure
Speaker 3: Act or UAP in general. There was a lot of
Speaker 3: lack of information, lack of knowledge on their end. So
Speaker 3: there were some that did and the few that didn't
Speaker 3: know about it, you know, took it very seriously and
Speaker 3: we're appreciative of it. But yeah, it wasn't taken seriously before.
Speaker 3: I have a feeling now it's being taken more seriously
Speaker 3: in Congress.
Speaker 1: And one last thought on that is when you hear
Speaker 1: that the Pentagon is not talking at all about this
Speaker 1: and rather just kind of giving some weak excuse for
Speaker 1: not reporting that, what does that make you feel?
Speaker 3: Yeah, the Pentagon. I have a problem with the Pentagon
Speaker 3: right now, you know, that's who my My big issue
Speaker 3: is the Pentagon knows what these are. The Department of
Speaker 3: Defense knows what's happening. They have the satellites, they have
Speaker 3: the technology, they have the eight hundred and fifty billion
Speaker 3: dollar budget next year. They know, and they're not taking
Speaker 3: responsibility for informing not just the public, but even converse.
Speaker 3: You know, the different legislators are asking to be informed,
Speaker 3: asking for these briefings and they're not getting any information
Speaker 3: in them, So the Pentagon's holding whatever information they have,
Speaker 3: and it's very frustrating because you know, there was a
Speaker 3: secure skiff briefing recent and a congress person came out
Speaker 3: and said they still don't know what they were from
Speaker 3: Langley a year ago. You know, they're not getting answers
Speaker 3: on that, and so any information is just being held
Speaker 3: within the Department of Defense, and you know, it's time
Speaker 3: that it comes out.
Speaker 1: That's weird. Mark, I'm curious, you've been studying this phenomenon.
Speaker 1: Do we have a sense of the technology in place?
Speaker 1: Are these typical prop drones or are we seeing all
Speaker 1: types of propulsion systems driving these things?
Speaker 4: You know, I think the drones are sort of the
Speaker 4: latest manifestation of the phenomenon. I mean, my interest is
Speaker 4: in the anatomy of the phenomenon, which I you know,
Speaker 4: I think has been occurring for not just tens of years,
Speaker 4: but hundreds of perhaps thousands of years. So I mean,
Speaker 4: I think drones is sort of like the technology to Jore.
Speaker 4: But you know, in the seventies it was these enormous
Speaker 4: triangular craft.
Speaker 5: People were saying.
Speaker 4: In the fifties it was it was saucerss and it's
Speaker 4: been really a continuous evolution of the phenomenon and why
Speaker 4: they're drones now.
Speaker 5: Uh, it's it's sort of.
Speaker 4: Made their investigation even more challenging because it's very similar
Speaker 4: to technology that we have, and like you know, Greg,
Speaker 4: you were saying, it's kind of hard to sort out,
Speaker 4: you know, the more mundane explanations the hobbyists, the the
Speaker 4: standard government uh, you know, devices and vehicles from those
Speaker 4: that are more extraordinary and the ones that are more
Speaker 4: extraordinary sound like UAP. And as far as the propulsion,
Speaker 4: it's a big question mark.
Speaker 5: No one knows.
Speaker 4: Uh, they're they're able to execute maneuvers and you know
Speaker 4: pull g forces that would crush any kind of physical instrumentality,
Speaker 4: let alone.
Speaker 3: A human oct.
Speaker 4: You know, people have used the terms, you know, I
Speaker 4: have characterized them as as defying the laws of physics,
Speaker 4: and uh, you know, a lot of the strange phenomenon
Speaker 4: your uh you know, I've heard reports of drones switching
Speaker 4: off or these these crash switching off drones and you know,
Speaker 4: vehicles in pursuit similar to h you know, in the sixties,
Speaker 4: reports of when there were sightings there would be power.
Speaker 5: Failures, you know.
Speaker 4: So I think my my perspective on this is not
Speaker 4: so much because I'm gonna I'm learning a lot from
Speaker 4: you guys, but it's sort of like the broad brush,
Speaker 4: how does this fit into a more evolving perhaps historical.
Speaker 5: Context with you know, in the age, with in humanity.
Speaker 3: In the eighteen hundreds and these mystery airships too. You know,
Speaker 3: it's kind of to go with the times throughout history,
Speaker 3: you know, these sightings, so like whatever time you're in,
Speaker 3: you kind of have a sighting similar to what you're
Speaker 3: knowledgeable about now. So right now it's drones because that's
Speaker 3: what we all will. But I agree, I think that
Speaker 3: you know, UAP have evolved to kind of.
Speaker 4: When it goes back, you know, it goes back to
Speaker 4: the Bible, the wheels of Ezekiel.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 4: There are all sorts of unusual descriptions in the Bible
Speaker 4: which were you know, attempts to describe what was being
Speaker 4: observed with the technology of the time. And uh, you know,
Speaker 4: I think I think some you know, like you know,
Speaker 4: some like von Danigan uh attributed a lot of the
Speaker 4: stuff to extraterrestrials and that's you know, that's one hypothesis.
Speaker 4: But Uh, you know, I think that's that's problematic given
Speaker 4: kind of where we are now with SETI, and you know,
Speaker 4: we haven't really detected any signs of light outside of
Speaker 4: the Earth, at least not in terms of physical you know,
Speaker 4: signatures that we emit. So there are extraterrestrials out there,
Speaker 4: why can't we find them?
Speaker 5: Why can't we detect them?
Speaker 4: And and so it's yeah, it's it's puzzling. I'm just
Speaker 4: kind of curious. Greg, you you think that the government knows?
Speaker 5: Why do you say that? I'm just kind of curious.
Speaker 3: Sure, No, that's a good question. And let me clarify.
Speaker 3: I don't necessarily think they know everything. Like they might
Speaker 3: not know where these uap originate from, but they have
Speaker 3: satellite imagery. I'm sure they see them going into the ocean,
Speaker 3: you know, and then where do they go after that?
Speaker 3: I don't know if the government knows that, but I
Speaker 3: know they have a lot more information than their sharing,
Speaker 3: you know, they just have the technology for it. Again,
Speaker 3: when it was Langley, they had a NASA reconnaissance shuttle
Speaker 3: hovering over it trying to take images. But even if
Speaker 3: they didn't get information, like say, the NASA reconnaissance Shuttle
Speaker 3: couldn't identify these objects. That's information, you know, that's information
Speaker 3: I want to know. So they definitely have a lot
Speaker 3: more information, even if it's the lack of information that
Speaker 3: tells us something about the technology, tells us something about
Speaker 3: the origin. So, uh, there's that's That's what I meant
Speaker 3: by that. There's definitely information that they're not sharing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Mark on that note, why don't we why are
Speaker 1: we not hearing from NASA? We have heard nothing from
Speaker 1: NASA on any of these things.
Speaker 4: Well, you know, I think it was a year or
Speaker 4: so ago they had a big NASA meeting, a conference
Speaker 4: on on U A P and you know, they give
Speaker 4: the number of presentations by f A A and and
Speaker 4: and D O D and and NASA and uh. NASA's
Speaker 4: approach to the problems seems to be they want to
Speaker 4: study it, you know, as they want to study it
Speaker 4: as a scientific problem. They want calibrated data sets, they
Speaker 4: want they want all sorts of information that is just
Speaker 4: not you know, practical. It's sort of like beggars can
Speaker 4: be choosing as you.
Speaker 5: Got to you gotta take what you get.
Speaker 4: And I don't know if you got If you remember
Speaker 4: this conference, it was being streamed live and a lot
Speaker 4: of people the reactions were really kind of interesting. People
Speaker 4: are like they couldn't believe what NASA was saying. It's
Speaker 4: certainly not an agile approach to the problem. I think
Speaker 4: the agile approach is you've got to be able to
Speaker 4: use all this information and use you know, smart techniques,
Speaker 4: maybe use AI to do some information fusion and try
Speaker 4: to find where.
Speaker 5: The gaps are.
Speaker 4: But yeah, I don't think NASA doesn't know. People are
Speaker 4: looking to the government, to NASA to try to explain this,
Speaker 4: and I don't think they know the answer. That's that's
Speaker 4: the reason for the silence.
Speaker 1: Strange, Michael, Can we speculate on why this is happening now?
Speaker 6: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Absolutely. One thing that I think is helpful when we
Speaker 2: start speculating is to make a distinction between a few
Speaker 2: different kinds of phenomena. So one thing that's going on
Speaker 2: now are these drones settings over in your Jersey And
Speaker 2: we might ask why has that gotten in the news
Speaker 2: when lots of other sightings of strange phenomenon. This guy
Speaker 2: don't get attraction, And I think there's a pretty simple
Speaker 2: explanation for it. A New Jersey congressman went on Fox
Speaker 2: and said that it was an Iranian mothership that was
Speaker 2: launching drones from off the coast of America, which is
Speaker 2: just not true. That just can't be true. I mean,
Speaker 2: Iran is to busy getting it's you know, ass destroyed
Speaker 2: in Syria right now, it's and their technological capabilities just
Speaker 2: aren't there. It's just not the case. That's why it
Speaker 2: got picked up. So probably there's lots and lots of
Speaker 2: cities in the world where there are pretty frequent drone sightings,
Speaker 2: and we might speculate why is that the case. Maybe
Speaker 2: it's aliens that I guess is possible, but maybe a
Speaker 2: more prosaic explanation that might fit the data is that
Speaker 2: there are a lot of startups that are testing drone
Speaker 2: software and drone designs for things like deliver uber eats,
Speaker 2: and they're really paltry regulations about drone operations. I mean,
Speaker 2: it's not clear how you apply for a certificate to
Speaker 2: test experimental drone designs and urban environments, for instance, And
Speaker 2: if you were running a startup, you might think, well,
Speaker 2: let's just not apply for such a certificate and just
Speaker 2: test our drones over the city and see what happens.
Speaker 2: And then you have a lot of people who are confused,
Speaker 2: and it doesn't really go anywhere until the Congressman says
Speaker 2: something really stupid and then it gets on the news.
Speaker 2: That's one I think that could explain most of the
Speaker 2: drones sightings that people see. And I mean, drone is
Speaker 2: kind of a fuzzy term in the first place, but
Speaker 2: that doesn't explain everything. I haven't heard anything so far
Speaker 2: about the New Jersey flat that tells me that these
Speaker 2: objects have really extraordinary technological capabilities. Maybe they do. I mean,
Speaker 2: there's lots of people calling in, and I haven't heard
Speaker 2: all the calls, but we might distinguish those from lots
Speaker 2: of other sightings of strange objects callum drones or call
Speaker 2: them whatever, that do exhibit really bizarre flight characteristics. So
Speaker 2: they don't have, you know, surfaces that give them lyft,
Speaker 2: they don't have any sort of identifiable propulsion system. They
Speaker 2: can do things like Mark said, They can accelerate in
Speaker 2: a way that should just like annihilate whatever's inside of it.
Speaker 2: They can go between air and water. We know that
Speaker 2: there are versions of drones that can do this trans
Speaker 2: medium thing from low earth orbit to air to water
Speaker 2: and back out again without stopping or changing their propulsion method.
Speaker 2: Those are truly bizarre, and calling them drones all just
Speaker 2: kind of muddies the water because we don't even have
Speaker 2: a consistent definition that FAA doesn't have a consistent definition
Speaker 2: of what a drone is. They don't even really use
Speaker 2: it in their language. They just say in the cases
Speaker 2: where we do to talk about drones, we're relying on
Speaker 2: Dictionary common definitions of it they use like remote aerial
Speaker 2: vehicles or something. So well, if we want to speculate
Speaker 2: on why this is happening now, we need to be
Speaker 2: clear about what is the thing that we're asking. Why
Speaker 2: are there lots of drones? There's lots of drones and
Speaker 2: lots of companies and people operating them, and not a
Speaker 2: lot of good rules about who can and when, and
Speaker 2: those rules are going to eventually catch up to our technology.
Speaker 2: But we're way better at making technology than we are
Speaker 2: at regulating it, so the new technology is always like
Speaker 2: several steps ahead of our regulations. But that doesn't mean
Speaker 2: I mean, so I'm sort of probably sounding like Mick
Speaker 2: West right now, like it's all just you know, people
Speaker 2: mistaking planes and people getting weirded out about actual consumer drones.
Speaker 2: But that's not the only set of phenomenon that are
Speaker 2: going on. There really are objects that exhibit utterly bizarre
Speaker 2: and incomprehensible behavior that we don't even know how to
Speaker 2: begin speculating on the engineering that's behind them. And it's
Speaker 2: probably not helpful to call them drones. But it's probably
Speaker 2: actually less than helpful because if you use the term drone,
Speaker 2: then it's easy to kind of dismiss it and say, well,
Speaker 2: you're just seeing something that somebody brought off of him
Speaker 2: on for two hundred bucks and your iPhone camera didn't
Speaker 2: do a good job of taking a picture of it
Speaker 2: or whatever. Now you're freaked out aliens, which I actually
Speaker 2: don't think that any of these things are aliens, but
Speaker 2: I think they're really, really weird.
Speaker 1: Greg, I've read somewhere that over five thousand people have
Speaker 1: reported sightings. Is this I mean, I've seen pictures of
Speaker 1: drone groups, like hundreds of drones and grouping creating patterns
Speaker 1: and things like that. Is it the spectrum of sightings
Speaker 1: where you see one, you see a few, and then
Speaker 1: you see a whole bunch or what is the typical sighting?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean the typical sighting is an airplane. But
Speaker 3: there are sightings of groups of drones. You know, they
Speaker 3: range from a few to eight to ten. Say, there's
Speaker 3: not too many above ten. Like I said, my buddy
Speaker 3: sent me a picture earlier today that I had like
Speaker 3: fourteen or sixteen in there. That is very odd. But
Speaker 3: that's typically where it is, between the four and eight range,
Speaker 3: i'd say. And to Michael's point, you know, New Jersey
Speaker 3: is also the most populous state, so you have a
Speaker 3: lot more people in a very dense area, So there's
Speaker 3: a lot more people looking up at the sky and
Speaker 3: seeing things. So there's gonna be more people, you know,
Speaker 3: reporting in this small area, so it might seem amplified.
Speaker 3: There's definitely some mass hysteria going on, there's no question
Speaker 3: about that. But I also agree that there are objects
Speaker 3: up there that defy explanation, you know. And John Kozlowski
Speaker 3: from ARROW, the older Main Anomaly Resolution Office, just brought
Speaker 3: that up in hearing last month at the same time
Speaker 3: this drone incursion was going on, when he said that,
Speaker 3: you know, ARROW is not just investigating birds or balloons
Speaker 3: or drones. They're investigating truly anomalous objects that defy any explanation.
Speaker 1: HM, We're got to take a short commercial break to
Speaker 1: allow our sponsors to identify themselves, and we will return
Speaker 1: shortly with my panel discussion on drones, UAPs and first contact.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back.
Speaker 6: Drive alone in de sembery.
Speaker 1: That plame a favorite song see us no fake, not.
Speaker 2: For call hovning for the holiday, calling days until your day.
Speaker 4: I'll be wading in this aldia.
Speaker 3: Dear Christmas, Christmas, Christmas Lime know you may supper, but
Speaker 3: to get.
Speaker 1: The today's program is drones, UAPs and first contact. And
Speaker 1: I have a special group of experts from around the
Speaker 1: United States and we're learning exactly what they believe is
Speaker 1: happening with these sightings on the East coast of America. Mark,
Speaker 1: why would the Pentagon be so quiet on something like this.
Speaker 1: Wouldn't it be to their advantage to at least speculate
Speaker 1: in a more grounded, educated view as to this not
Speaker 1: being a threat to citizens, but also perhaps being a
Speaker 1: contractor military contractor testing drones or I mean, we've heard
Speaker 1: nothing of any substance from the Pentagon.
Speaker 4: You know, people are concerned about credibility of sources, and
Speaker 4: if sources start speculating, then there's no credibility. You know,
Speaker 4: everything becomes that it's perial and there's no news is no,
Speaker 4: there's no fact base, and I think it's to the
Speaker 4: would be to the government's detriment to to to speculate.
Speaker 4: I think honestly it would be better than to say
Speaker 4: they don't know, rather than to make up x you know,
Speaker 4: you know, crazy explanations or or just be silent. I
Speaker 4: think I think they should simply say they don't know.
Speaker 4: But you know, take the historical perspective again, that this
Speaker 4: has been this is this is an ongoing phenomenon. It's
Speaker 4: not it's not new. You know, back back in the sixties, uh,
Speaker 4: and in the fifties and uh, you know it really
Speaker 4: started in the early forties.
Speaker 5: Has always been a fraction of craft.
Speaker 4: That could not be identified, you know, fact that it
Speaker 4: was swamp gas the planet venus. Uh, you know, this,
Speaker 4: that and the other thing. Now you have more uh,
Speaker 4: you know, more rational kinds of you know, explanations or
Speaker 4: false alarms, hobby drones and so forth. I mean, those
Speaker 4: are totally believable, but there's always been that traction that
Speaker 4: have been unexplainable. And I think the government should say, hey, look,
Speaker 4: this has been ongoing and it probably is not a
Speaker 4: threat to us because it's been happening for such a
Speaker 4: long period of time, and so this is sort of
Speaker 4: like the latest manifestation, the latest version of it, and
Speaker 4: we should we should really try to study it and
Speaker 4: be open minded and not not be fearful, but be
Speaker 4: And I think they need to be honest, because otherwise
Speaker 4: I don't think at least any any good outcomes.
Speaker 1: What does this tell us, though? Would you say that
Speaker 1: it tells us that they, as you say, are they
Speaker 1: don't know what's going on. They don't know, so that that,
Speaker 1: I mean, that says pretty amazing to me when you
Speaker 1: think this governmental agency that it's tens of billions of
Speaker 1: dollars every year, has nothing to say of any concrete nature.
Speaker 2: Well, they might be able to say things that are
Speaker 2: of a concrete nature. Not to jump in and cut
Speaker 2: Mark off, but they might be able to say things
Speaker 2: about what they've observed that make them conclude that they
Speaker 2: don't know. And I agree with Mark. I think the
Speaker 2: government probably doesn't know what these really anomalous ones are
Speaker 2: that are doing things that we can't attribute to prosaic means.
Speaker 2: But saying what they know that baffling to them runs
Speaker 2: the risk of giving away their sources and methods sort
Speaker 2: of intelligence, like what sort of sensors they use to
Speaker 2: make these observations. And I think it runs another strategic risk,
Speaker 2: like we might want the government to be transparent with
Speaker 2: us and say we just don't know what these things are.
Speaker 2: But one of the incentives that's bearing upon them is
Speaker 2: that the second the CIA or the Department of Intelligence
Speaker 2: says we don't know what these things are, Russia or
Speaker 2: North Korea is going to say, well, yeah, we've got
Speaker 2: some stuff that America doesn't know about, which probably is
Speaker 2: not really true, but they're gonna love that opportunity to
Speaker 2: create a sense of imminent sort of superiority over US.
Speaker 2: And that's a huge risk for just national security, the
Speaker 2: perception national security at least.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean, I'd hate to be a politician, you're exactly,
Speaker 4: You're right, Michael. And and I think maybe the situation
Speaker 4: now is maybe as maybe maybe it's just managed. Maybe
Speaker 4: it's being managed the best it can.
Speaker 5: You know, the.
Speaker 4: Government's doing the best they can, and which isn't good
Speaker 4: enough really for some of us, but it could be
Speaker 4: a lot worse. And you know, like they say, and
Speaker 4: this too, you know this too, shall pass.
Speaker 5: It'll come and go.
Speaker 4: And we'll be again wondering what it was, but it'll
Speaker 4: be forgotten until until it happens maybe in another decade,
Speaker 4: you know, it was again. These things are happen in ways,
Speaker 4: and I really think we need to take a historical
Speaker 4: perspective on it.
Speaker 3: I'm curious to think what you guys put your opinion
Speaker 3: of like whistleblowers like David Rush and lou of Alizondo
Speaker 3: and people like Carl Nell who have come out and
Speaker 3: said that the government has all of this information about
Speaker 3: non human intelligence presence on Earth. You know, do you
Speaker 3: guys take that with a grain of salt? Do you
Speaker 3: give any credence to it? Because according to those people,
Speaker 3: you know, the government knows exactly, you know, what we're
Speaker 3: dealing with, or at least they can surmise that we're
Speaker 3: dealing with the non human intelligence based on the technology.
Speaker 3: So I'm just curious if you guys you know what
Speaker 3: your position is on that.
Speaker 4: Well, I don't know, No, I mean, they're they're they're
Speaker 4: they're they're they're they're they're really smart. They're they're well educated,
Speaker 4: they're totally plugged in.
Speaker 5: They know what's going on, and I don't.
Speaker 4: I would not doubt anything they say. I think this
Speaker 4: is also kind of a heterogeneous phenomenon. You know, we're
Speaker 4: talking about just the distribution of of what's seen.
Speaker 5: There's all kinds of stuff and.
Speaker 4: There could be all there could be all sorts of
Speaker 4: things going on. Uh, reality is is is probably much
Speaker 4: more complicated and more nuanced and uh, you know then
Speaker 4: than we.
Speaker 5: Could possibly imagine.
Speaker 4: And so who knows, But I really think there is
Speaker 4: a class of of of of phenomenon that is I
Speaker 4: want to I want to say I'm most timeless. It's
Speaker 4: almost always been with us and you know, my my slands.
Speaker 4: Maybe a little bit towards towards more.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 4: Uh, you know, I'm not I'm not limiting our our understanding.
Speaker 4: I don't think we should view this as purely a
Speaker 4: physical phenomenon.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 4: It's sort of like if you're, if you're, if you're
Speaker 4: you know, if your world is is a is a
Speaker 4: desktop and there's some sort of three D phenomenon that's
Speaker 4: interacting with that. You can't possibly know that reality it's
Speaker 4: beyond you, and I I feel that this is an
Speaker 4: ext you know. Jacques Ballet, Ballet talked about, you know, uh,
Speaker 4: extra dimensional sort of phenomenon. It goes beyond our physics
Speaker 4: and our understanding. But you know, I think we have
Speaker 4: to leave the door open for for for that we
Speaker 4: have to realize that our science and our physics is limited.
Speaker 4: And so you know, I think we just have to
Speaker 4: be a little bit open minded and maybe and maybe
Speaker 4: patient about it. And and you know, again, I don't know,
Speaker 4: So I'm the short answers.
Speaker 3: I don't.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Michael, I want to look at this from a
Speaker 1: philosophical point of view.
Speaker 2: Can I answer? Can I answer Grege's questions ahead? Because
Speaker 2: I do have an answer, and it's a it's a
Speaker 2: totally legitimate question, like what to say about these whistleblowers
Speaker 2: or whatever. So I just spent a weekend at Yale
Speaker 2: with Danny Sheen and a few other people. Danny is
Speaker 2: the is the lawyer for louel is Ondo and for
Speaker 2: David Grush, And yeah, we got to talk a lot
Speaker 2: about this. But my my perspective, the way I think
Speaker 2: about it, is that in the way I think others
Speaker 2: should think about it, obviously, is that it seems inconceivable
Speaker 2: that nothing that they're the whistleblowers are saying it's true,
Speaker 2: and it seems equally conceivable that there's no misinformation or
Speaker 2: mistake in it. And I don't know where to draw
Speaker 2: the lines in those but I know this that if
Speaker 2: the government has found a bunch of crashed craft that
Speaker 2: have beings in them or tech in them, the obvious
Speaker 2: conclusion is that, well, we've just found like aliens or something. Right,
Speaker 2: But it seems to me that anything that's powerful enough
Speaker 2: and technologically advanced enough to create those things that we've
Speaker 2: found could create them just as decoys or just as
Speaker 2: misleading objects too. And we might not know what's on
Speaker 2: the other side of the phenomena either way. So all
Speaker 2: we can really know is whatever the truth is, where
Speaker 2: we don't know how to draw that line about what's
Speaker 2: true or not in the whistleblower testimony. Whatever the truth
Speaker 2: actually is, that's all we have. We don't know what
Speaker 2: to infer on the basis of it. It might just
Speaker 2: be created simply for the sake of misleadings.
Speaker 1: Yeah, But on that note, Michael, is somebody trying to
Speaker 1: tell us something, Oh, you mean in the government, I
Speaker 1: don't know. I just if this is off world And
Speaker 1: as Mark speculates, this is a historic kind of a
Speaker 1: regular occurrence every decade. It's a perhaps a symptom of
Speaker 1: what Earth is going through politically, mentally, whatever social media
Speaker 1: maybe has opened us. I've always said that the military
Speaker 1: shouldn't be asking the priests about the reaction of the Americans.
Speaker 1: They should be asking the people who are ahead of
Speaker 1: social media. For all the ins and outs and all
Speaker 1: the functions of the world, be it macro or macros,
Speaker 1: levels is always revealed. So what is what is happening here?
Speaker 1: What can you what do you speculate on that thought?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'll speculate. I think that well, first of all,
Speaker 2: when you ask the question, is somebody trying to tell
Speaker 2: us something that seems to be like gesturing at the
Speaker 2: question of whether the things we observe, the really strange
Speaker 2: things we observe, are things that we're just like kind
Speaker 2: of passively observing, as if like there's an expedition that
Speaker 2: somebody else is running and we just happened to see
Speaker 2: them flying around in the sky while they were doing it,
Speaker 2: or is it an intentional sort of signal. If we
Speaker 2: take the whole history of phenomena and like try to
Speaker 2: sort out the best evidence that we can the most
Speaker 2: reliable accounts. It does seem like at least some aspect
Speaker 2: of this phenomena has the ability to choose how it
Speaker 2: appears right. And if that's the case, then it suggests
Speaker 2: to me that at least a lot, if not all,
Speaker 2: of the sightings that we do have, they could have
Speaker 2: just cloaked themselves or whatever. Why did we Why do
Speaker 2: we see it at this point? Or if they can
Speaker 2: fly as fast as they seem, they could fly so
Speaker 2: fast that you would never catch them with your eye,
Speaker 2: you know. So I think it is reasonable to say
Speaker 2: that whenever we make these observations of truly strange phenomena,
Speaker 2: it was in some way intended as a kind of
Speaker 2: message we're kind of signed, or at least they didn't
Speaker 2: care whatever's behind it, that we saw it. And then
Speaker 2: you have to speculate why, I don't know that there
Speaker 2: seem to be patterns of UAP above nuclear sites that
Speaker 2: seems to be really really consistent since we started being
Speaker 2: able to harness nuclear energy. If that's the case, and
Speaker 2: if it's intended, why, I mean pretty easy to draw
Speaker 2: the conclusion that they're saying, you know, we see you
Speaker 2: in when we're advanced than you or something might be
Speaker 2: that the world's in such turmoil now that after an election,
Speaker 2: they start rising out of the ocean, trying to remind
Speaker 2: us that the country that just divides itself so much
Speaker 2: isn't really the one that's you know, on top of
Speaker 2: the world or something. I mean that that is pure speculation,
Speaker 2: but I think that's the realm that these phenomena push
Speaker 2: us into. It's really hard to just stay in the
Speaker 2: like nuts and bolts technology realm, where all you ask is, well,
Speaker 2: how do they how do they stay aloft for so long?
Speaker 2: Like what kind of batteries do they have on them?
Speaker 2: Which are good questions, but there I think this phenomenon
Speaker 2: it always pushes you outside the realms of what you
Speaker 2: consider like normal, respectable discourse and into this realm of
Speaker 2: kind of like religious, spiritual political speculation. That's just where
Speaker 2: we always land.
Speaker 1: But yeah, it's funny that you say that, because I've
Speaker 1: always felt that the first contact is either being cloaked
Speaker 1: by the military or they're they're feeling our off world. Brother,
Speaker 1: whoever they may be, may not feel we're ready for
Speaker 1: this kind of content, you know, as the Brookies Institute document,
Speaker 1: which was written in nineteen sixty has to say, is
Speaker 1: that what we'd kill ourselves, we jump out of buildings,
Speaker 1: religion would fail, institutions would fall apart, and maybe that's
Speaker 1: We're beyond that now. Maybe it's time to get these
Speaker 1: little sightings, be it large or small. And I'm wondering, Greg,
Speaker 1: is that something that you ever consider when your writing,
Speaker 1: is the possibilities that maybe we are seeing the real thing,
Speaker 1: the real first contact.
Speaker 3: I mean, I think we've been seeing first contact for
Speaker 3: thousands of years, possibly, you know, these things have been
Speaker 3: going on to both third points for millennia likely, But
Speaker 3: are they recognized, you know, are they being recognized by
Speaker 3: the mass population? And they haven't been recognized yet, and
Speaker 3: they are very vague and they're there, but you can't
Speaker 3: really get a good idea of what they are. So
Speaker 3: that does seem to be an intentional thing, you know,
Speaker 3: an intentional form of communitytion.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 3: I kind of look at as we're in this ecosphere
Speaker 3: where we, you know, are on a very very thin
Speaker 3: piece of reality, and there's a lot going on around
Speaker 3: us that we don't perceive, you know. I mean, if
Speaker 3: you're think about even the light spectrum we see in
Speaker 3: such a short you know, fandwidth of the light spectrum.
Speaker 3: But then you have dark matter and dark energy, which
Speaker 3: is ninety five percent of the universe supposedly. You know,
Speaker 3: we have no idea what's going on there. So are
Speaker 3: these you know, UAP from dark energy, dark mass sources,
Speaker 3: something in between, something below. I'm not sure. I just
Speaker 3: know that our perception is very limited, and there's definitely
Speaker 3: the possibility that these objects, these crafts come from outside
Speaker 3: of our ability to perceive them. They're just like touching
Speaker 3: our reality a little bit.
Speaker 7: Man.
Speaker 2: I'll tell you, whenever I go on a podcast, I'm
Speaker 2: always like really nervous that I'm gonna find myself with
Speaker 2: a group of just crazy people and I'm gonna have
Speaker 2: to like train wreck the whole discussion just to prevent
Speaker 2: it from going on. But I, like every one of you,
Speaker 2: like everything.
Speaker 1: We've already been through the acid test of insanity on
Speaker 1: the whole topic.
Speaker 4: Well, we're not We're not done yet, because because Cliff
Speaker 4: usually pushes me at the end and I start saying things.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we're not done by judgment, maybe we're all the
Speaker 2: same kind of crazy.
Speaker 8: I'm okay with that, but but Michael, let me let
Speaker 8: me pick I just want to respond to something you said,
Speaker 8: you know, is what is it bad.
Speaker 4: To push it towards the spiritual and the psychology and
Speaker 4: all that. I feel that in some sense, and you
Speaker 4: make a really good point about how they're allowing us
Speaker 4: in a sense.
Speaker 5: To observe them.
Speaker 4: They could be totally they could be there and totally
Speaker 4: hidden all the time. Could it be that, you know,
Speaker 4: we think that we're in control, we own all this,
Speaker 4: and maybe the reality is they're the landlord and they're
Speaker 4: here and they're checking up on things they don't you know.
Speaker 4: You know, they appear around military bases where they're exercises.
Speaker 5: There's also a long term interest in in the health
Speaker 5: of our planet in terms of you know, how we're
Speaker 5: utilizing it and you know, pollution and so forth.
Speaker 4: It could be that they're just they just want, you know,
Speaker 4: to keep the property in you know, in good repair.
Speaker 5: They're the sort of the you know.
Speaker 9: The the uh the Vedix would sort of uh sort
Speaker 9: of a liken them to uh sort of like the
Speaker 9: Avatar's addition new you know, vis News the preserver, right,
Speaker 9: Brahma creates Shiva destroys, but Vish News.
Speaker 4: Preserves and uh, you know, maybe someone needs to be
Speaker 4: around and take care of this because maybe we're not capable.
Speaker 1: Mm hmm.
Speaker 7: I like it.
Speaker 2: I don't think that it's a bad thing to push
Speaker 2: into the realm of sort of spiritual manners or whatever.
Speaker 2: I think, in fact, that one of the problems humanity,
Speaker 2: at least Western humanity, has dug itself into, is that
Speaker 2: we've drawn these really artificial boundaries between disciplines like science
Speaker 2: is one thing, in religion is another, in histories and
Speaker 2: other and philosophies another, and tried to chop up reality
Speaker 2: into the disciplinary borders. But that doesn't work, and it
Speaker 2: makes it impossible to ask certain questions that humanity has
Speaker 2: taken really seriously for like thousands and thousands of years
Speaker 2: and now are just like nowhere in the landscape of
Speaker 2: serious discourse, like spiritual questions and religious questions. And I
Speaker 2: think that's a problem.
Speaker 3: Amen, Amen, no question about it. We've lost that, you know,
Speaker 3: what's natural to us. You know that once we got
Speaker 3: out of the cave and looked up at the sky
Speaker 3: and like the spiritual connection to our universe. We definitely
Speaker 3: don't have that no Western culture right now, and it's
Speaker 3: kind of sad, you know, Shamanism, you know, and the
Speaker 3: plant medicine and just the real world of natural around us,
Speaker 3: and it's just kind of go on from our society's
Speaker 3: I think we'll get back to it. I kind of
Speaker 3: feel like we are getting back to a little bit,
Speaker 3: and maybe that's part of this phenomenon as well. You know,
Speaker 3: maybe there's some connection there, but I know there's pushing
Speaker 3: to kind of recapture that. It's sad because there's so
Speaker 3: much of a loss of you know, the religious institutions.
Speaker 3: I'm not a big fan of. I was born, I
Speaker 3: was raising a Catholic family, I went to Catholic school,
Speaker 3: and I you know, that kind of got me to
Speaker 3: realize that things aren't what people tell you. You have
Speaker 3: to question everything, you know, but there is this spirituality
Speaker 3: that you know, religions bring out, and that Christianity even has,
Speaker 3: you know, in a connection with each other that we're
Speaker 3: losing because we're ignoring the other aspects of it, you know.
Speaker 3: So I think getting rid of the institutionalized religions and
Speaker 3: dogmatic practices and kind of looking at the bigger picture
Speaker 3: and connecting it to other sciences would be useful.
Speaker 2: I agree, and I think that that one of the
Speaker 2: consequences of this view that we're all kind of espousing
Speaker 2: is something that you Greg hinted at, which is that
Speaker 2: it may be that first contact is behind us, or
Speaker 2: maybe that there was never a moment that we weren't
Speaker 2: in contact with this thing. We've just sort of developed
Speaker 2: in the last few hundred years into this collective mindset
Speaker 2: where we think that most of reality, it just doesn't
Speaker 2: exist at all. It's just you know, the whole spiritual
Speaker 2: world or whatever. It's just nonsense.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but I think beyond and I hear what you're saying, Michael,
Speaker 1: But for me, it's like land your ships, get out
Speaker 1: and say something. This clandescent hiding in the dark behind trees,
Speaker 1: out in the in clouds, turning your invisibility cloak on,
Speaker 1: turning it off. That's gotten out of control. It's time
Speaker 1: for the next phase of a first contact. We're going
Speaker 1: to take a short commercial break to allow our sponsors
Speaker 1: to identify themselves, and we will return shortly with my
Speaker 1: team of panelists discussing drones, UAPs and first contact. We'll
Speaker 1: be right back with you. Today's panel of experts is
Speaker 1: discussing drones, UAPs and the possibility of first contact with
Speaker 1: an alien race. We're getting a sense of their expertise
Speaker 1: in how they define the current wave of drones that
Speaker 1: are found in a number of states on the East
Speaker 1: coast of America. That's how I feel. I've been studying
Speaker 1: the phenomenon for thirty years, and it seems like they're
Speaker 1: very advanced. And I'm just generalizing. It could be many, many,
Speaker 1: many different groups, but we are not getting enough interaction
Speaker 1: for my taste. I think we're getting just one point
Speaker 1: zero versions of hey, here we are, goodbye, take a look.
Speaker 2: I feel the frustration. I think though, that that frustration
Speaker 2: arises out of a belief, a sort of half conscious
Speaker 2: belief that we really, ultimately do know what it is,
Speaker 2: and they're just like not coming out and saying the thing,
Speaker 2: like we think they have bodies, they're from a surface
Speaker 2: of another planet somewhere else. They got technology faster than
Speaker 2: we did or sooner than we did, and then they
Speaker 2: came over here and another just like zooming around our
Speaker 2: skies and being coy about it, right, and why don't
Speaker 2: they just come out and say it it? Maybe though
Speaker 2: that the truth is something that just cannot be said,
Speaker 2: or that like defeats the purpose like that could say
Speaker 2: it to your face, but you wouldn't hear it. There's
Speaker 2: this line from Wittgenstein where he says, if a lion
Speaker 2: could speak, we couldn't understand him. It may be like
Speaker 2: that that the most that they can say is hanging
Speaker 2: out in the clouds and annoying you and destabilizing your
Speaker 2: sense of reality until we get hit some gooestalt shift
Speaker 2: and we realize, oh, maybe the point is that I
Speaker 2: don't know, and then it's some unsayable.
Speaker 4: Thing or maybe or maybe we can understand the lion,
Speaker 4: and what the lion says we can't possibly accept. And
Speaker 4: and that might be something like we're not in control
Speaker 4: of the situation. This is not our game. Like you
Speaker 4: want you want, you want them to just sort of
Speaker 4: come out from behind the bushes. Well it's it's it's
Speaker 4: their game, if you will. We're not in control. And
Speaker 4: that may be the lesson We don't. We think we're
Speaker 4: the latest, and we think the greatest on this planet,
Speaker 4: but we just may be the most recent, and there
Speaker 4: may have been countless generations and ages and civilizations and
Speaker 4: who knows, you know, Like like Greg mentioned, where this
Speaker 4: very thin a slice of the universe that we understand,
Speaker 4: we can perceive, we can understand, we can deal with.
Speaker 4: There's so much more and and maybe the messages we're
Speaker 4: not in control.
Speaker 3: Thing it's simple. I don't think there's like a simple
Speaker 3: I don't think we can compare ourselves to them and
Speaker 3: look at it as apples and apples, like we will
Speaker 3: come out of a craft and we'll like introduce ourselves.
Speaker 3: But I just don't think the answer is that simple.
Speaker 3: To Mike's point, you know, we don't know what they're
Speaker 3: capable of. We don't really know where they reside, you know,
Speaker 3: in the universe and our reality, in our oceans, and
Speaker 3: they might not be compatible with us. We might only
Speaker 3: be able to see like a shadow of their what
Speaker 3: we're viewing may even be a shadow, even if it's
Speaker 3: a technical logical shadow, you know that has mass and material,
Speaker 3: it might not be the actual reality that they experience.
Speaker 3: So I just think that whatever the answer is is
Speaker 3: not that simple, and I wish it was. I would
Speaker 3: love for it to happen, but I don't expect it
Speaker 3: to occur right now.
Speaker 1: Ultimately, I think you're right. Yeah, Hey, Greg, talk a
Speaker 1: little bit about these drones that have been cited over
Speaker 1: military installations in New Jersey. What is a what are
Speaker 1: we what are we seeing there?
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's a good question. I mean, there's not many
Speaker 3: details released on what those are other than their anomalist
Speaker 3: to drones. You know, I haven't seen anything to say
Speaker 3: if they're the large ones or the small ones. I
Speaker 3: just know that Piccadilly and Earl Stations both experienced swarms
Speaker 3: of them over their bases in the last few weeks.
Speaker 3: I think Piccadilly had like eleven. So you know, when
Speaker 3: that happens, there's a lot of questions about what are
Speaker 3: these drones? Where they come from? You know, with them
Speaker 3: flying over the bases, you kind of makes you think,
Speaker 3: first off, they're probably not military. If our own military
Speaker 3: is trying to figure out what they are, you know,
Speaker 3: like I said about Langley, if they're sending out shuttles,
Speaker 3: reconnaissance shuttles and moving F twenty two fighter jets, I
Speaker 3: doubt there are military as you know, I mean, they're
Speaker 3: they're pretty bad with communication, but I doubt that it's them.
Speaker 3: And there's geo fencing up, so we can't be a
Speaker 3: hobbyist drone you know, that would get returned to the sender.
Speaker 3: They're not allowed to go over these sensitive sites. So
Speaker 3: it really does make you question, well, what is it
Speaker 3: flying over these sensitive facilities? I mean, could it be
Speaker 3: an advisarial drones could be, but it's been happening forever
Speaker 3: and if we haven't solved that problem yet, that's an issue.
Speaker 3: So yeah, again, like everything in this topic, it leaves
Speaker 3: you with more questions than answers.
Speaker 1: The thing that's odd about that though, is I FAA
Speaker 1: has specific guidelines for flying your drone, and if a
Speaker 1: drone is found in a military installation, that's breaking so
Speaker 1: many rules, if not laws.
Speaker 6: What the hell?
Speaker 1: I mean, this needs to be brought up and you know,
Speaker 1: discussed more. I don't understand the quiet nature of these
Speaker 1: official agencies. Have you followed up on FAA, Greg Gun?
Speaker 3: Yeah, again, most drones you can't even fly over like
Speaker 3: in order. My understanding, I'm not a drone expert, but
Speaker 3: from my understanding is you can't fly over these restricted airspaces.
Speaker 3: The drone has a you know, there's a geo fencing
Speaker 3: and there's the GPS chip and it'll prevent the drone
Speaker 3: from crossing that boundary. So you know, it's not hobbyist
Speaker 3: drones and it's not. You know, people people are obviously
Speaker 3: trying to get around the FAA regulations. You know, they're
Speaker 3: not following them on purpose. If if that's what's occurring,
Speaker 3: very strange.
Speaker 2: I can say a little bit about that from some
Speaker 2: of the people at SCU that I've talked to who
Speaker 2: do military history or who in the intelligence world. This
Speaker 2: is like a whole separate category of drone phenomena. These
Speaker 2: military base some military airspace incursions. They're totally different from
Speaker 2: what people are seeing over cities and just civic space.
Speaker 2: There's lots of them, sometimes like uncountably many of them.
Speaker 2: They can stay in flight for a really long time.
Speaker 2: They seem to have they seem to be immune to
Speaker 2: some of the not exactly weapons, but anti drone technology
Speaker 2: use lasers and other sorts of energy to confuse them
Speaker 2: or just get them to shut down. They don't seem
Speaker 2: to be affected by that. They seem to have software
Speaker 2: or some sort of control mechanism that allows them to
Speaker 2: behave and swarm behavior that we don't quite understand. And
Speaker 2: then we don't know where they come from, because when
Speaker 2: we try to send a plane to follow them back
Speaker 2: to wherever they go, they can either stay in the
Speaker 2: air longer than air planes can fuel themselves, or they
Speaker 2: accelerate so fast that we can't follow them out that's
Speaker 2: not obvious drones, and it really in those cases, I
Speaker 2: think there's been several hundred of these incursions that have
Speaker 2: been well documented. In those cases, every option is really bad.
Speaker 2: Either it's some adversary that we have that has some
Speaker 2: really intense gary technology they've developed that we don't have,
Speaker 2: and not just one, but like three or four different
Speaker 2: technological advancements that we haven't made, and that's that's no good,
Speaker 2: especially since they seem to be using it to like
Speaker 2: intentionally spoof our airspace over military bases, or it's one
Speaker 2: branch of the government like going rogue and terrorizing another branch,
Speaker 2: which would be really disastrous for America because the civilian
Speaker 2: control of the military is like one of the founding
Speaker 2: principles that keeps America from turning into a military, you know,
Speaker 2: just a military state dictatorship. So if our military is
Speaker 2: going rogue against other branches are just acting without oversight,
Speaker 2: then that it's pretty disastrous. Or tailing in sports something
Speaker 2: something we don't have a category for, which is kind
Speaker 2: of ry highly.
Speaker 1: One of the things that I've found is really fascinating
Speaker 1: is the various sizes and shapes of these so called
Speaker 1: drones of the And this is the problem because of
Speaker 1: artificial intelligence, people can manipulate photographs on different levels. I mean,
Speaker 1: if you go do a search right now for drones,
Speaker 1: you'll get a million different variations. But the other day
Speaker 1: I saw a picture of a drone apparently that had
Speaker 1: crashed in a freeway. And this thing looked like a
Speaker 1: small bus. The body was long elongated. I didn't see
Speaker 1: the propellers. I didn't know what the propulsion system was,
Speaker 1: but it was a monster. And I don't know who's
Speaker 1: putting out drones of that size with propellers, but I
Speaker 1: would think our military. And this comes to my next question.
Speaker 1: A number of UFO groups are speculating that this is
Speaker 1: a black ops program that's gone a right ye, and
Speaker 1: I'm wondering, Mark, I guess if that was the case,
Speaker 1: the Pentagon wouldn't want to say a thing, because that's
Speaker 1: they're people who have got gone rogue and are flying
Speaker 1: these without permission, or they're testing them in highly populated areas,
Speaker 1: which would probably not be wise. You would typically want
Speaker 1: to test a new aircraft in a desert area that
Speaker 1: is not populated.
Speaker 5: Yeah, you know so, so I think this also appears.
Speaker 4: I think the answer to that also really, you know,
Speaker 4: sort of touches down on the whole, you know, the
Speaker 4: tic TAC phenomenon from which was sort of like the
Speaker 4: previous version of this, right, but you're you know, they're
Speaker 4: being cited over sensitive areas, the military exercises, they're exhibiting
Speaker 4: all these word behaviors. I just I, you know, I
Speaker 4: wanted to ask a question or because I think the
Speaker 4: answer sort of there relates to you know, it's to
Speaker 4: your point about you know, the government the overlap between
Speaker 4: I just wonder what the overlap between the tic TACs
Speaker 4: and the drones are.
Speaker 5: Did the is it is?
Speaker 4: I haven't followed the you know, the sightings of the
Speaker 4: logs of you know, what's been observed aware at what
Speaker 4: period of time, but you know, the tic TACs were
Speaker 4: the it was that way for a while and then
Speaker 4: now we have this is there overlap between the two?
Speaker 4: Do you sense that there one transition into another that
Speaker 4: is sort of another again a more recent manifestation of
Speaker 4: that phenomenon, because that was also you know, very problematic
Speaker 4: and raised a lot of these same questions that that
Speaker 4: Flip's asking. I just wonder, you know, from you see
Speaker 4: the theme.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think you see the same thing over time.
Speaker 3: You see the tic TACs now, even you see them
Speaker 3: twenty years ago, you see him hundreds of years ago.
Speaker 3: You know, I think you see the rag in the
Speaker 3: green or red and blue flashing lights. We call them
Speaker 3: drones now, but they had those, you know also decades,
Speaker 3: if not centuries ago, there are reports of these flashing
Speaker 3: lights red in the and blue. So I think I
Speaker 3: think it's always been there. But you know, now you
Speaker 3: your mind, because you are familiar with drone technology, it
Speaker 3: goes to drones. But I think that, uh, that there's
Speaker 3: been an overlap and uh, I think it's it's been
Speaker 3: going on like that for for a long time. I mean,
Speaker 3: look at them. Look at the Nuremberg Celestial Battle. Are
Speaker 3: you familiar with that from the fifteenth Yeah, you know,
Speaker 3: they have a depiction of things that people talk about today.
Speaker 3: You know, in World War two, the Foo fighters, you know,
Speaker 3: the orbs, and there were sightings of these rods, these
Speaker 3: giant rods that had four or five orbs in them.
Speaker 3: You know, that's exactly what the Nuremberg, you know, photo depicts.
Speaker 3: So I think there's a consistency with all these sightings
Speaker 3: throughout time, and maybe now people are a little bit
Speaker 3: more geared towards drones and what things look like drones
Speaker 3: because it's a technology of today.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so you know, just just to circle back and
Speaker 4: ask your question clip, you know, the you know, the
Speaker 4: black ops sort of that that's that's kind of like
Speaker 4: a modern thing now that we talk about, But you know,
Speaker 4: one hundred years ago, what was what would the equivalent
Speaker 4: of you know, that have been, you know, would there.
Speaker 5: Have been such a thing?
Speaker 4: Certainly the technology to support that didn't exist. So it's
Speaker 4: sort of like this is why I'm saying that.
Speaker 5: I think when you look.
Speaker 4: At it historically, certain things just fall out as being
Speaker 4: just implausible.
Speaker 5: Anymore of that.
Speaker 4: I mean, you're left with more questions than answers, unfortunately,
Speaker 4: but I think it can rule out like you know,
Speaker 4: row governments and foreign adversaries and you know, black ops
Speaker 4: programs because they've been going on for so long.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I just wonder if we're at a state in
Speaker 1: our evolution, especially a young country like the United States,
Speaker 1: where we are changing to the point now where we're
Speaker 1: not reporting things as regularly as we would perhaps in
Speaker 1: the last ten years. And I don't know if it's
Speaker 1: a lacks of protocol, but there seems to be a
Speaker 1: huge void in trying to define these things. And this
Speaker 1: makes me think more and more that this is off
Speaker 1: world tech that is not able to be easily explained,
Speaker 1: or they are moving more towards wanting to explain off
Speaker 1: world types of tech, but letting people kind of come
Speaker 1: up with their own conclusions, which is a problem because
Speaker 1: people go off the deep end and if you don't
Speaker 1: have some form of foundation, either a scientist, a military person,
Speaker 1: or a governmental representative saying hey, take care, you're okay,
Speaker 1: this is nothing to worry about. We're kind of getting that,
Speaker 1: but not really what you say to that, Michael.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't think they know what to follow that
Speaker 2: up with. I mean, the narrative for a really long
Speaker 2: time from the US government at least, was these things
Speaker 2: either aren't real, or they're like, we've got some military
Speaker 2: craft that we're testing, so don't worry about that, or
Speaker 2: their balloons or whatever. When they knew that wasn't the case.
Speaker 2: I mean, genuinely, this is just a manner of like
Speaker 2: documented fact that since the forties, the US government has
Speaker 2: known there are things that.
Speaker 6: Are moving around in our.
Speaker 2: Airspace in ways that we can't explain, but they don't
Speaker 2: seem to be a threat. And that's really the only
Speaker 2: question that the US military is like officially tasked with
Speaker 2: in this case is like determining. It's just doing threat
Speaker 2: assessment and if we don't think it's a threat, it's
Speaker 2: a potential threat. We don't think it's an actual threat
Speaker 2: because it seems like it could have done as harm
Speaker 2: if it wanted to, and it hasn't. So that's their
Speaker 2: only question. And you do want, like you do want
Speaker 2: a government office that just does that. That's like our
Speaker 2: job isn't to speculate about anything other than that. We
Speaker 2: just see if we're safe. And once they've done that analysis,
Speaker 2: they're good. But they just don't know what else to say.
Speaker 2: I think if they did have applausible even if it
Speaker 2: was a plausible lie and they knew it was a lie,
Speaker 2: that that's what we'd be hearing. Silence in this case
Speaker 2: is pretty conspicuous. It's sort of deafening, and I think
Speaker 2: that we can interpret that silence as them not being
Speaker 2: able to come up with any kind of plausible, comforting
Speaker 2: narrative to give us.
Speaker 1: I mean, Greg, doesn't this feel like off the wall,
Speaker 1: Twilight Zone kind of reaction? It's like, what the hell? Yeah,
Speaker 1: you would You would think somebody would step up and go,
Speaker 1: this is what we think, don't worry about it. You know,
Speaker 1: we haven't had any crashes into any towers in New
Speaker 1: York or anything like that. You know, these aren't foreign adversaries.
Speaker 1: It's just seems so unusual to me.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it seems like they know that it's not foreign adversary,
Speaker 3: like they've said, and they also know that it's something
Speaker 3: a novelists, you know, and not specifically about the drones
Speaker 3: in New Jersey, but in general, you know, the UAPs
Speaker 3: that we're dealing with. And honestly, I kind of see
Speaker 3: it as they created this construct of withholding information and
Speaker 3: denying you know, UAPs that now when you deal with
Speaker 3: possibly an actual drone situation, they don't know what to do.
Speaker 3: It's like, we're talking about UAPs here, but are we
Speaker 3: handling the same way we handle the drones?
Speaker 6: You know.
Speaker 3: I feel like they've created this own bed for themselves,
Speaker 3: and you know, I kind of hope that certain Congress,
Speaker 3: people like Senator jillibrandt is using that to their advantage
Speaker 3: to force some type of a more transparency from them,
Speaker 3: you know, kind of playing to this concern with not
Speaker 3: knowing what these drones are and hopefully from trying to
Speaker 3: get the information and create laws like they're trying to
Speaker 3: pass now about taking out drones and about getting more information,
Speaker 3: hopefully that leads over into the UAP issue and we'll
Speaker 3: get more information there.
Speaker 2: The point of what Greg just said is that the
Speaker 2: problem that he said, you know, we've made our own
Speaker 2: bed of sort of history of being silent, the government's
Speaker 2: history of being silent. Part of that is baked into
Speaker 2: the structure of the government, Like there is no official office,
Speaker 2: no person whose job it is to tell the American
Speaker 2: we do not know what this is, so it's never
Speaker 2: going to get done. We'd have to like create an
Speaker 2: office for the community public communication of what we're ignorant about,
Speaker 2: and then nobody want that job. But that's like it
Speaker 2: really would take something like that to get the government
Speaker 2: to be like, Okay, here's the stuff we don't know
Speaker 2: and that we're concerned about, but you have a right
Speaker 2: to know about.
Speaker 1: Office of anomalist studies.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, or but in the Office of Public Communicators,
Speaker 2: the Department.
Speaker 3: Of Members.
Speaker 2: Man incoming, the incoming administration would be really super qualified
Speaker 2: to create such a department. I think that that's something
Speaker 2: that's going there.
Speaker 3: I'll tell you though, if you look at if you
Speaker 3: look at it right now, nobody even knows how to
Speaker 3: handle this situation. The FBI saying, oh, it's not us.
Speaker 3: The Department of Homeland Security is saying, you know, they're
Speaker 3: all looking at the Department of Defense, They're looking at
Speaker 3: the FAA. Nobody is catching this hot potato and saying,
Speaker 3: this is our responsibility. That's just how bad and discombobulated
Speaker 3: that our government operates. And this is really shining a poor,
Speaker 3: poor light on how how the government communicates with one another.
Speaker 1: And I totally agree with you. This is a growth
Speaker 1: uh spurt that we're having as a nation. And you
Speaker 1: would think that somebody in the know would say, we
Speaker 1: do need a department to discuss this. We do need
Speaker 1: individuals who have certain types of edgy ocasion too, uh,
Speaker 1: explain this to the press, to explain this to the
Speaker 1: country in so many words, And it seems like this
Speaker 1: is an opportunity but who's going to take the mantle
Speaker 1: and consider it an office. That's the key. So we're
Speaker 1: going to take a short commercial break and allow our
Speaker 1: sponsors to identify themselves, and we will return shortly with
Speaker 1: my penel discussing drones, UAPs and first contact. We'll be
Speaker 1: right back.
Speaker 2: Oh holy, nice to start brightly shining.
Speaker 1: Each the night, Oh the dear, say you spur.
Speaker 6: Loan lay the world an error pine and.
Speaker 1: To the and so fathy thou weary world rejoice. Our
Speaker 1: program today features panelists discussing drones, u aps, and first contact.
Speaker 1: I have a small gallery I'll placed on the Earth
Speaker 1: Ancients Facebook page and you can see some of the
Speaker 1: sizes of these drones and also evidence of alien propulsion systems.
Speaker 1: I want to move. I want to move on a
Speaker 1: little bit. Uh Earlier, Greg made a reference to orbs,
Speaker 1: and I've spoken to Mark, doctor Mark a couple of
Speaker 1: times on this, and Mark, we brought brought this up
Speaker 1: when we began speaking on orbs, talking about dimensional beings,
Speaker 1: and orbs have been seen around drones, and it's been
Speaker 1: reported that when these drones come close to these orbs,
Speaker 1: they lose power and they actually fall out of the sky.
Speaker 1: What do you say to that, Michael, And what do
Speaker 1: you think that's an important consideration.
Speaker 2: There's a great I don't know if it's a paper
Speaker 2: on its own, but Kevin Kanouth, who's at Sunny Albany,
Speaker 2: he's a physicist astrophysicist, has done a really good calculation
Speaker 2: on the using the idea that some UAP are powered
Speaker 2: using a really powerful electromagnetic field. And if that's the case,
Speaker 2: what he's shown that is that these UAP would disable
Speaker 2: not only electronics, but like regular internal combustion engines too
Speaker 2: because they would ionize the air in a way that
Speaker 2: would prevent combustion from taking place. Than once they left,
Speaker 2: the sort of ionization with the air would clear and
Speaker 2: the engines would be able to work. So that that
Speaker 2: sort of evidence might give us a little clue as
Speaker 2: to what's powering these things and how they work, and
Speaker 2: also like what kind of phenomenon they are, whether they're
Speaker 2: like just pure luminosity in some way, whether they are
Speaker 2: ionization themselves, or whether they're an object that's emitting an
Speaker 2: electromagnetic field or something. I think that's a really cool
Speaker 2: and empirical piece of evidence that we could do good science.
Speaker 1: I only have I guess my problem with that is
Speaker 1: that we don't have a physics to understand these orbs.
Speaker 1: And I've seen some photographs in different publications that somewhat
Speaker 1: show close ups of these orbs, and they're very complex looking,
Speaker 1: almost cellular in some capacity. Are these ships? Are these
Speaker 1: are these intelligent? These we don't know? Mark, talk a
Speaker 1: little bit about your feeling on this topic.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I mean some some I believe that.
Speaker 4: I think they're called plasmoids or something, right, I mean,
Speaker 4: they're called by a number of names. And again it's
Speaker 4: interesting because they're we're kind of ubiquitous.
Speaker 5: You find them, you can go.
Speaker 4: I I did a study on crop circles, and there's
Speaker 4: some really interesting sightings. Uh in fact of video that
Speaker 4: shows the formation of a crop circle, and there's a
Speaker 4: couple of words moving through a field and these things
Speaker 4: just sort of take shape. Now again, you know a
Speaker 4: lot of people would say, oh, crop circles, that's that's
Speaker 4: a lot of nonsense. But you know a lot of
Speaker 4: them have been disproven, as you know, or proven to
Speaker 4: be hoaxes. But again there are some anomalies there. So
Speaker 4: again I think this is this is again a widespread
Speaker 4: phenomenon that can also have been mistaken. It can be
Speaker 4: mistaken for like sprites or elves above thunderstorms, you know, space.
Speaker 4: I don't have seen similar things in lower Earth orbit,
Speaker 4: so you know, against it's another kind of phenomenon that
Speaker 4: needs to.
Speaker 5: Be sorted out.
Speaker 4: Some some you know, instantems may be prosaic, but others
Speaker 4: may be you know, maybe extraordinary, maybe something that we
Speaker 4: don't understand.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I don't know, Greg, Do you have any
Speaker 1: feeling on on the orbs. Have there been sightings in
Speaker 1: New Jersey of of ORB like craft?
Speaker 3: There have been recently, but again I don't you know,
Speaker 3: I haven't seen any. I haven't gotten any videos from
Speaker 3: family or friends, so you just don't know. But I
Speaker 3: know there was one by UH that's kind of making
Speaker 3: its winning around social media right now from UH from
Speaker 3: Matthew Nelson, the retired Air Force vet near Atlantic City,
Speaker 3: and it shows an ORB like object and there, I know,
Speaker 3: I've seen a couple other ones where it's not New
Speaker 3: Jersey but it's out Midwest where there you see the
Speaker 3: drone go up to it, get closer and then fall
Speaker 3: out of the sky. Seeing those videos, But yeah, I
Speaker 3: did I tell you guys about my sighting of an ORB. Yeah, okay, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3: So let me tell you about how I got interested
Speaker 3: in this topic. Okay, so two thousand and thirteen, Before that,
Speaker 3: I was a big skeptic. I was in college and
Speaker 3: there's a buddy of mine that I served with, and
Speaker 3: he was a huge UFO guy talking about roswell and
Speaker 3: conspiracy theories and government cover ops and we used to
Speaker 3: get in the lively debates about it. So I didn't
Speaker 3: believe him anyway. Twenty thirteen, me and my wife are
Speaker 3: driving down a rural road in New Jersey by our
Speaker 3: house and were going through like a wooded area and
Speaker 3: we come up to a straight line street for a
Speaker 3: back road and as we get up there, one hundred
Speaker 3: and fifty feet away from us to our left is
Speaker 3: an ORB size of a small school bus floating, hovering
Speaker 3: over the trees and the trees. This is interesting to
Speaker 3: me out because I'd like studied it. The trees underneath
Speaker 3: were whipping around feverishly, and so we're driving in the
Speaker 3: same direction as this thing for like fifteen twenty seconds
Speaker 3: and it just it's literally driving parallel to us, and uh,
Speaker 3: we're cursing. We're like, what the is that? You know,
Speaker 3: and uh, it was it was mind blowing. So that's
Speaker 3: that's what got me into it. And when I saw
Speaker 3: that it definitely had some type of intelligence to it,
Speaker 3: you know, it seemed it I mean, it almost seemed
Speaker 3: like a celestial event, like a micro black hole or something.
Speaker 3: But it seemed to move with purpose. So that that
Speaker 3: that's why I got into the UFO and started like
Speaker 3: researching it, and uh, it's you know, I see the
Speaker 3: plasmoid conversation about sentient plasmoids sometimes there's papers on that.
Speaker 3: I don't know if you guys haven't oi on that,
Speaker 3: you know, I lean to that though from my experience
Speaker 3: not being some like alien craft, you know, I think
Speaker 3: of it as something else. I think it's it's a
Speaker 3: it's a different type of universal phenomena.
Speaker 5: Like a fourth kind of life. That's that's that's character.
Speaker 3: Yeah, a fourth life, you know, or maybe even just
Speaker 3: like like a connection to another universe or another parallel
Speaker 3: dimensions something like that, like a way to observe our universe.
Speaker 3: I'm not sure, but there seemed to be some intelligence
Speaker 3: behind it, and it definitely, uh, it was mind blowing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's that's an eye one On that note, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna bring up another anomalist feature, and this is strange.
Speaker 1: Some people who have had some close encounters with these
Speaker 1: drones are reporting radiation like sickness. There's a woman who
Speaker 1: apparently was ill and I can't remember what state it was,
Speaker 1: but she was in the proximity and I don't know
Speaker 1: how close she was to this drone, but she had
Speaker 1: and others apparently in her group had what appeared to
Speaker 1: be radiation sickness of some kind. And I'm wondering if
Speaker 1: any of you had any anything to say about that.
Speaker 3: I haven't really heard that myself.
Speaker 2: Hmm, yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 7: I haven't.
Speaker 2: I haven't heard radiation sickness from drone encounters. I mean
Speaker 2: that would be where what would that mean? That would
Speaker 2: mean that there's some radioactive like really radioactive opponents.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, there have been people who have had close encounters,
Speaker 1: who have touched the ships that have had what looked
Speaker 1: like radiation burns. And we don't know if it's because
Speaker 1: the outer haul has a energy filled around it that
Speaker 1: is tough on biology, but it could be something like that.
Speaker 1: So that's interesting. As we conclude, I want you all
Speaker 1: to kind of comment on some of the comments that
Speaker 1: are coming up on the various news wires. One is
Speaker 1: that this is a psyops possibility where they are testing
Speaker 1: the public's reaction to UAPs, and this is a considered
Speaker 1: effort to kind of do a test so that when
Speaker 1: we have the real event, they'll know more about it.
Speaker 1: Go ahead, Greg, we'll hear from you, sure.
Speaker 3: I mean, I don't rule anything out until I have
Speaker 3: a reason to roll it out. I'll leave it on
Speaker 3: the table, you know. But I like to give likelihood
Speaker 3: to certain scenarios, So I would, you know, say that
Speaker 3: that's somewhat a possible scenario. I don't think it's the
Speaker 3: most possible, but I haven't ruled it out yet, and
Speaker 3: I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case, but
Speaker 3: I don't think it's one of.
Speaker 7: The more likely scenarios personally, Okay, Michael, Yeah, that's a
Speaker 7: that's a really bad scenario because it would be really legal,
Speaker 7: seriously illegal, to terrorize the US public just to get
Speaker 7: some data.
Speaker 2: It would also not be like very useful because we
Speaker 2: already have, you know, about seventy years of data about
Speaker 2: what the public does in response to UFOs. We've had
Speaker 2: a lot of UFO sightings, and it would also be
Speaker 2: a national security threat because what if the what if
Speaker 2: the answer is you terrorize the US and then like
Speaker 2: a you know, a chaos ensues and we start burning
Speaker 2: things down, people die, Right, So if that's the case,
Speaker 2: it's another one of these versions of like a part
Speaker 2: of the US government that's gone rogue and is defying
Speaker 2: its charter and is operating without congressional or civilian oversight.
Speaker 2: And that would be like kind of the the way
Speaker 2: that America goes down. So I really hope it's not
Speaker 2: that we shouldn't just blithely throw that possibility out there
Speaker 2: without realizing that it has serious US awful consequences for America.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you're right about them going rogue without any oversight.
Speaker 1: That's a serious issue because that means they can do
Speaker 1: anything they feel they can do. Sky's a limit, uh,
Speaker 1: Mark any any comments on that?
Speaker 4: Yeah, you know, orson Wells Radio broadcasts in theyde you know,
Speaker 4: invaders from Mars. You know that was you know, a
Speaker 4: cheap way of maybe testing public reaction. This is kind
Speaker 4: of an expensive way and think about it. The technology
Speaker 4: that's the case. The technology they're using is probably indistinguishable
Speaker 4: from the kind of technology they're they're trying to warn
Speaker 4: us against. I mean, it's it's it's inexplicable, it's extraordinary technology.
Speaker 5: Where did that come from?
Speaker 4: So it's I mean, it's just sort of that whole
Speaker 4: question is sort of problematic. If they were using you know,
Speaker 4: like just cheap drones or things that you know, drones
Speaker 4: and they put a saucer around it's something really you know,
Speaker 4: like really cheesy and you know, like really flaky like that, well, okay,
Speaker 4: you know maybe, but you know, just a poorly executed
Speaker 4: syop campaign. But I mean, this is if this is
Speaker 4: the case, is being executed with you know, extraordinary technology,
Speaker 4: where did that come from? So sort of it doesn't
Speaker 4: really it doesn't really answer the question in my mind,
Speaker 4: because it's the technology that we're it's the phenomenon itself
Speaker 4: that is, like, you know, what are they?
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 4: I'm just kind of losing it in terms of what
Speaker 4: would the point be.
Speaker 2: I thought he was asking about the specifically about the
Speaker 2: New Jersey drones, and in that case, I haven't seen
Speaker 2: anything that makes me think that they are extraordinary technologies.
Speaker 1: I'll throw that out to the whole country or actually earthwise,
Speaker 1: if it's psyops operations, you're.
Speaker 2: Just UAP all uf here or are kind of siops
Speaker 2: the idea.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, I did start off with the United
Speaker 1: States because this is what we're focusing on for this program,
Speaker 1: but there's other countries that are reporting similar types of
Speaker 1: sightings and they're also dealing with unusual craft. So but well,
Speaker 1: I mean, one of my thoughts on this whole thing
Speaker 1: is if the days of scrambling at fifteens at fourteens
Speaker 1: to intercept the UFO are over and these drones are
Speaker 1: now the new response. Is it possible that they are
Speaker 1: responding to a UFO UAP in a certain area and
Speaker 1: immediately flooding these areas with drones to analyze them, and
Speaker 1: we're getting confused as to which is the alien craft
Speaker 1: and which is the UAP. It seems to me, especially
Speaker 1: where you are greg, there's so many of these drones
Speaker 1: that are seen in these waves. Are they going are
Speaker 1: they being ordered to go to a site to inspect
Speaker 1: a UAP UFO and this is the problem.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So you know, I that scenario is more likely
Speaker 3: than the last one we discussed. For me, you know,
Speaker 3: I'm still not sure if that's the case, But that's
Speaker 3: definitely a more likely scenario. But to Michael and Mark's point,
Speaker 3: there does seem to be some confusion about whether these
Speaker 3: are truly anomalous, you know, because most of the reporting
Speaker 3: doesn't have them being truly anomalous. But at the same time,
Speaker 3: there's such a similarity between this case and other ones
Speaker 3: that have happened in recent years where it seemed like
Speaker 3: there was truly anomalous behaviors, like from Langley and Colorado.
Speaker 3: So it's a very confusing situation for me because, yeah,
Speaker 3: most of the technology doesn't seem very far out there.
Speaker 3: I mean, there are some verbs, who knows if those
Speaker 3: are real or not, but most of the technology doesn't
Speaker 3: seem like it's a UAP next level technology. So I
Speaker 3: just wanted to throw that distinction out there because I
Speaker 3: do think that's part of the confusion that everybody's dealing with,
Speaker 3: and why I would like to see the government kind
Speaker 3: of more be more open and transparent about UAP and
Speaker 3: this issue, so that we can kind of say, no, no,
Speaker 3: this isn't the technology that you know, reps were saying
Speaker 3: our fifty two one hundred years ahead of us, or
Speaker 3: John Ratcliffe was saying, you know, we don't have the
Speaker 3: capability to defend it against It's not that it's a
Speaker 3: different type of UAP. But yeah, So to answer your
Speaker 3: actual question, though, I do think that that situation where
Speaker 3: there might be a UAP and then the place gets
Speaker 3: flooded with drones as a response to it, I do
Speaker 3: see that being as a possibility in this situation and
Speaker 3: in the future going forward.
Speaker 1: All right, here's one last one for each of you.
Speaker 1: We've been talking about what we think is military or
Speaker 1: commercial craft if it is off world. Are we ready
Speaker 1: for this? Are we ready for accepting that we are
Speaker 1: part of a brotherhood of planets and we were being
Speaker 1: welcomed in by whatever means we're seen to begin acknowledging
Speaker 1: that we're not alone.
Speaker 2: Michael, No, we're not ready, But it's exactly what we need,
Speaker 2: is my answer. I think that it would disturb a
Speaker 2: lot of the basic conceptions that make up our worldview,
Speaker 2: at least in the West and probably in all all
Speaker 2: sorts of parts of the world that are really technologically advanced,
Speaker 2: you know, by human history standards. No, it would, it
Speaker 2: would totally upset that. I don't think that our economic
Speaker 2: system would know how to adjust. I don't think our
Speaker 2: scientific theories about the world, are theories of political power
Speaker 2: and governance, would be ready for it. But all of
Speaker 2: those systems are broken. They're all they're all sort of
Speaker 2: irretrievably sick. And maybe this is the poison that would
Speaker 2: cure us, or at least would shake us out of
Speaker 2: the dream of this worldview that we've fallen into where
Speaker 2: we think that we're you know, that science is going
Speaker 2: to fix everything, that we've dominated the universe, that we
Speaker 2: understand everything, we're on the cusp of just like cracking
Speaker 2: all the codes and figuring it out, and then we'll
Speaker 2: be able to exploit all of reality for purposes of
Speaker 2: you know, economic production or whatever. That is what needs
Speaker 2: to be fixed. So I really, I really hope that no,
Speaker 2: we're not ready, but that it is the truth. But
Speaker 2: I don't think it is the truth. I don't think
Speaker 2: that these are I like.
Speaker 1: Your scenario though, Michael, because you're like, everything's kind of
Speaker 1: broken right now, in disarray. Here in the United States,
Speaker 1: We've got a lot of systems that are beginning to fail.
Speaker 1: We're a young country and other countries are also having
Speaker 1: their issues. Is this a time when are the powers
Speaker 1: it be the off world types are saying, maybe we
Speaker 1: need to help, or maybe we this is what we
Speaker 1: had planned all along. Earth falls into this phase and
Speaker 1: we come and we re educate, or we we help
Speaker 1: with an evolutionary cycle. So interesting thoughts, Greg, What do
Speaker 1: you say?
Speaker 3: I like to think of a Plato's cave allegory, you know,
Speaker 3: where the prisoners weren't ready to be free from the cave.
Speaker 3: You know, when they went out, it was a different
Speaker 3: reality to them. You know, they weren't prepared, they didn't
Speaker 3: want to go out. And I think that's where we
Speaker 3: are right now, like we are not ready. You can't
Speaker 3: be ready for it. You don't know what to expect.
Speaker 3: But in the end, if anything like that did occur,
Speaker 3: I think it would be for the benefit long term
Speaker 3: for humanity.
Speaker 1: Mm okay, Mark, Yeah.
Speaker 4: I mean, you know, we're we're very heterogeneous, and I
Speaker 4: think some would welcome it, some would be extremely fearful,
Speaker 4: and I think the vast majority nowadays probably would be like,
Speaker 4: you know, who cares? I mean, I hate to be cynical,
Speaker 4: but a lot of people are so immersed in technology
Speaker 4: and their devices in just what's going on in their
Speaker 4: lives that you know, how does how do the people
Speaker 4: just aren't interested in the big questions anymore?
Speaker 5: You know, where do we come from? Nature of life?
Speaker 4: Are we alone in the universe? So would it be
Speaker 4: totally disruptive? I kind of agree with Mike. I think
Speaker 4: it probably would wreck hapick to the financial institutions, but maybe,
Speaker 4: you know, maybe it gets rid of the banks, but
Speaker 4: big points in the cryptocurrencies they survive. Who knows, So
Speaker 4: it could be it could be a good thing, uh
Speaker 4: penning it where you sit on that, But I think it'd.
Speaker 5: Be kind of a mixed bag clip.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I personally think this is a wake up call,
Speaker 1: even though it does turn out to be military or
Speaker 1: private contractors flying their drones without permission and kind of
Speaker 1: harrowing situations, uh whatever. But if this is some form
Speaker 1: of communication from off world, I welcome it, and I
Speaker 1: think that it's time that we take it to the
Speaker 1: next level where we have necessarily government sponsored disclosure, but
Speaker 1: maybe it has to go beyond the government to individuals
Speaker 1: in the private sector, be it whole states of people
Speaker 1: or various groups getting an understanding that we're not alone.
Speaker 1: Because I think we need to move beyond where we
Speaker 1: are right now. On an evolutionary pattern and this could
Speaker 1: be some form of evolution where we and I've always
Speaker 1: said this, when we know we're not alone, we immediately
Speaker 1: evolve because we know we are not the only beings around.
Speaker 1: There's higher intelligences obviously they're in these crafts, so forth
Speaker 1: and so on. We are forced to evolve. And if
Speaker 1: that is at the demise of religion, unfortunately, I think
Speaker 1: that's just part of our evolution. And so that's my feeling. Uh, Greg, Michael,
Speaker 1: and Mark, thank you for joining me. I want to
Speaker 1: give everyone, because this is a podcast, we want everyone
Speaker 1: to have access to you individually. Give us your contact information. Greg,
Speaker 1: won't you give us your contact details?
Speaker 3: Sure?
Speaker 1: Sure?
Speaker 3: You go to Greg Goins GEO I N S unidentified
Speaker 3: dot com or email me at Gregorytgoins at gmail dot com.
Speaker 3: Thank you so much for having me, Cliff, I really
Speaker 3: appreciate it.
Speaker 2: All right, Thanks Michael, Yeah, thank you for being for
Speaker 2: letting me be here. This is a fantastic conversation. You
Speaker 2: can reach out to me if you want to talk
Speaker 2: to me, if you want me to talk to you.
Speaker 2: And Michael Glasson at me dot com. That's Michael G.
Speaker 6: L A W.
Speaker 2: S O.
Speaker 1: N at m E dot com And when is the
Speaker 1: Anomalous Review air? Michael, we want to hear about that too.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we put out an episode every other Tuesday if
Speaker 2: if possible. I mean holidays are in the way right now,
Speaker 2: but every every platform and on YouTube, so it's just
Speaker 2: the Anomalous Review. It's the official podcast of the Scientific
Speaker 2: Coalition for you AP studies, and you can email me
Speaker 2: about that too if you're if you're interested in finding
Speaker 2: out more.
Speaker 1: Fantastic, Mark Carlotto.
Speaker 5: I'm gonna do shameless self promotion.
Speaker 4: This is my non in this world and it's my
Speaker 4: analysis of UFO phenomenon over the last thirty forty years,
Speaker 4: going back the sixties, and you can contact me at
Speaker 4: Markcarlatto dot com.
Speaker 1: Fantastic guys. I really appreciate your time. I get a
Speaker 1: little I feel a little warmer now that we've talked,
Speaker 1: and I kind of have a sense of these these
Speaker 1: drone phenomenon Personally. I hope there are UFOs u aps myself,
Speaker 1: but it remains it be decided. So Hey, happy holidays
Speaker 1: to each of you, and thanks for joining me.
Speaker 3: Thanks thanks talking to you guys. Take care.
Speaker 1: I hope you got some clarity on the on the issue.
Speaker 1: I as I'm re listening to this, the interviews of
Speaker 1: the panel participants, we get some we get some daylight,
Speaker 1: but I think we also because we don't know the
Speaker 1: truth behind the these waves. I think we're still left
Speaker 1: with lots of questions. And again, we are at a
Speaker 1: strange type time period governmentally, because we are not getting
Speaker 1: any satisfaction from government agencies. And that is for me,
Speaker 1: that's the first I fully expected FAA, FBI, Pentagon, military,
Speaker 1: even the White House to say something more substantial than
Speaker 1: don't worry. I mean, really, just to say don't worry
Speaker 1: seems dis genuine. It seems very unlike our government to respond,
Speaker 1: and it makes me think things are changing. Things are changing,
Speaker 1: not necessarily for the better. So what's going to happen
Speaker 1: when we do have the identification of an alien craft?
Speaker 1: How are we going to react to that?
Speaker 6: Now?
Speaker 1: We've had many discussions in the past on the Brookies
Speaker 1: Institute Document of First Contact. We've had this last couple
Speaker 1: of years, the NASA going to various theologians around the
Speaker 1: world to ask them kind of ask backwards way of
Speaker 1: reviewing how people react. But they ask these guys, these
Speaker 1: priests and pastors and rabbis, how are you going to
Speaker 1: react to the first contact? And most of them said,
Speaker 1: or are very uncomfortable, because most advanced cultures are advanced
Speaker 1: civilizations are going to look at religion probably and go,
Speaker 1: what are you doing? You know it's man made? You know,
Speaker 1: perhaps they'll show us that there is a creator in
Speaker 1: some form of tapping the a kashak record, And I
Speaker 1: fully expect a kashk record which will probably be probably
Speaker 1: be defined as some other level of reality, a reality
Speaker 1: that they are alien brethren can access more readily. I
Speaker 1: fully expect them to go, hey, well, we don't call
Speaker 1: it the akashik, we call it the whatever. You know,
Speaker 1: this is a source of information, it's a source of
Speaker 1: a source of confirmation. And there may be much much
Speaker 1: deeper levels to this thing we call the Acajuk records.
Speaker 1: Then we under stand so lost to look forward to.
Speaker 1: I hope in my lifetime we do have some form
Speaker 1: of contact, some form of clarification that we're not all
Speaker 1: alone in our cosmos. I mean, I know for a
Speaker 1: fact that the Maya knew and regularly had contact with
Speaker 1: off world beings. It's thought that the early Dynastic Egyptians
Speaker 1: had the same kind of communication. And we don't know
Speaker 1: about the Chinese, we don't know about the other ancient cultures.
Speaker 1: But it's a fascinating thought. I hope you enjoyed that. Hey,
Speaker 1: we got a spot left on our Rappahannui tour. It's
Speaker 1: March fifty to the twenty third. We all meet in Santiago, Chile,
Speaker 1: and then we all get on a plane and fly
Speaker 1: to Easter Island. Our host is doctor Edwin Barnhardt, who's
Speaker 1: been there a number of times and has surveyed the island,
Speaker 1: and we will follow his survey path and really see
Speaker 1: some unusual sites when we're there with him. If you
Speaker 1: like to learn more about it, go to Earthancients dot
Speaker 1: com forward slash tour, look for the banner, click on it.
Speaker 1: You'll see the full itinerary as well as information. If
Speaker 1: you have any information. If you have any questions whatsoever,
Speaker 1: so me an email, send it to Earth Ancients the
Speaker 1: number four the letter you at gmail dot com and
Speaker 1: I'll get right back to you. I mean, we probably
Speaker 1: can squeeze another person into make twenty one, but Ed
Speaker 1: was telling me the other day he prefers twenty. That's
Speaker 1: one person. So if you have the adventure Bug going
Speaker 1: to join us twenty people and a very intimate tour
Speaker 1: with doctor Edwin Bonhardt. Join us. Go to Earth Ancients
Speaker 1: dot com, forward Slash Tours. Check it out and if
Speaker 1: you're interested register otherwise let me know in an email
Speaker 1: if you have any questions. It's gonna be a last
Speaker 1: all right, that's it for this program. I want to
Speaker 1: thank my panel is today, Greg going coming to us
Speaker 1: from New Jersey, Michael Glassan coming to us from South Carolina,
Speaker 1: and doctor Mark Carlato coming to us from the East Coast.
Speaker 1: As always, thank you to Gail Tour, Mark Foster and
Speaker 1: everyone who makes this thing happen. You guys rock Merry
Speaker 1: Christmas and we will see you and we'll see you
Speaker 1: after Christmas next week.
Speaker 6: Cheers, back back, back and dick dock bock and b
Speaker 6: and dock and bock bock and buck bangle b a
Speaker 6: back of dick and back and back and back and
Speaker 6: back and back and back and bock a bock and
Speaker 6: pock a peck and back a back and back and
Speaker 6: back and back a back and back and back and
Speaker 6: b