Speaker 1: Tim, so glad to have you back. Welcome to the show.
Speaker 2: Hey, thank you, Martin. Glad to be back.
Speaker 1: And I got to tell you since you were on,
I think it's possible that I was maybe the second
person interview. It doesn't matter, But since that interview, you
have done so much and I love the way you
have treated this topic with such high respect, and you
bring respect to the topic. And it was great to
see you at Contact in the Desert and more recently
on the twenty fifth at the forum event down there,
the Disclosure Forum. It was just you did such a
great job and I'm so happy that you're involved the
way you are. And so I want to ask you,
besides having that event, when the email and disappearing video
and all that, did you have an interest in any
of this before that?
Speaker 2: Or is that what really started the whole thing. I
was always interested. As a young kid growing up in
southern California. There was a show on that Leonard Nimoy
hosted called In Search.
Speaker 1: Of and I love that one.
Speaker 2: Yeah, jobs, of course he would treat the topic and
I was fascinated by back then, just the thought that
we might not be alone in the years and all
these different sightings that have been reported up until then,
and then, and then of course over time. I told you,
I think that I was the superintendent of the Naval Observatory,
so I had a whole team of astrophysicists who worked
for me, whose jaga was to observe the stars, their
locations and magnitudes that satellites used to navigate, including GPS,
and just knowing how large the universe was. After working
with them, it made me just think it was impossible
that if there's one hundred billion stars in our galaxy
and there's trillions of galaxies in the observable universe, how
could we possibly be alone? So those were always lingering
in the back of my mind before I actually saw
ferstand video evidence on the Navy's classified systems of UAP.
Speaker 1: I love the saying, what a waste of space if
we're alone? You just think about it is it's so
hard to try to understand, like if you took every
single grain of sand on the Earth, on every beach,
that there's more stars than that. That's so hard to picture,
but it gives you some type of guideline to use
to say it's enormous, on and on in the distance.
Between them and all that, it's just baffling. First of all,
I want to congratulate you on your appointment to the
White House UAP Advisory with AVI Low. How did that
come about? Sure?
Speaker 2: First, let me make a correction Martin, It's not a
White House body. It is a report We report as
a Science Advisory Council to the Office of the Director
of National Intelligence, so that's who we fall under. However,
we do not have been established unless the White House
approved it. So it is sanctioned by the White House,
but we do not report to the White House. So
that's an instinction has to be clarified because E's saying
it's a White House body and it is not. However,
I see it's notable and it is an official executive
branch Federal Advisory Council, which is absolutely I think a
monumental in terms of a development in our field of
UAP research.
Speaker 1: So what is basically the advisory panel and what do
you expect your role to be in it?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Just and again being very specific about this, because
I was in the government, if you recall, both in
the Navy and as an appointee during the first Trump administration,
So we have to be really precise about language. It's
an advisory council, that's our name, and our charter is
to make recommendations to the od and I regarding UAP
research broadly. And so our first task basically was to
look at all the white part of the Pentagon UFO
files and request characteristics and data sets associated with them
so that we can perform proper analysis to determine how
anomalists or not the different videos and reports are. So
we've submitted a list of about fifty items we requested
and they only involved Pentagon, probably the Pentagon UFO files,
but our own private research for example. Again, people know
that from my experience as notionographer in the Navy and
in the government, I'm very interested in the occurrence of
UAP and the ocean. And so I've had three different
submarine officers and sailors come to me who had reports
of anomalists phenomena moving very rapidly faster than any objects
that we know of that can do that in the water,
and those three people basically I have dates, I have
the submarine names and locations, and we've requested acoustic information
from the sonars of those submarines that we can make
proper analysis. And that's just one example of the data
we're requesting. We have a challenge. I'd be clear that
some of the data, because of the sensors or locations,
may be classified and may never be declassified, and that
that's going to possibly hold us back. But our first
step is at least asked, and then we're to continue
to go forward to do the kind of research that
actually obvious doing with the Galileo project. He's setting up
a network of very different observing systems and to determine
and characterize precisely the nature of UAP movement and the
characteristics of the phenomenon and crap. And so we're we're
going to do the same with the DoD data that exists.
So step back for a minute and appreciate what's going
on here, because we've had these recent UFO file releases,
basically hundreds of them, and before that we only had
three or so videos that we know, the go Fast,
the gimbal and I believe the tic TAC. And look
what we have now. We have a real trove of
data that has been classified until now and it's now
been declassified. So that's a Milestone's really remarkable. And I
think we have to appreciate where we are. We have
to appreciate that we're now a sanctioned government body to
do this kind of research being acknowledged in the open press,
and with a spokesman like Auviy Lobe who but just
disappoints me. He's an esteemed ask a physicist, and he's
taking a great amount of courage to address this topic.
And of course you go on social media and he's
got a ton of haters already, and that's just people
aren't being objective about the important we are right now.
Speaker 1: I agree, and I've had Avy on the show, I
don't know, maybe four times, I believe, and I love
the way he approaches this. He admittedly says he approaches
it like a child, a curious child. And I love that.
I know that's, for instance, that's where AI, that's where
it's making all the leaps and bounds as someone was
watching a toddler and thinking, wow, that is curious and learning.
And I think, as we get more and more into
AI or AGI, that's artificial general and tell. Since they're
using the model of an infant learning, I think it's great.
And he said that he took like an inspiration from
his daughter who was asking him questions, and he thought,
why not ask in science? Why not ask these questions?
So I love the fact that people you can't get
more credibility than his position at Harvard. And there's people
that will complain, unfortunately about everything. I've been watching this
for a while, and you know, especially on Twitter, Twitter,
it's they used to say, oh ufo Twitter, what a
hey ache, Stay away because there are people is very divisive,
and so you just have to tune all that out
and just keep moving on and do the right thing.
Speaker 2: What I like about Auvi too, is he has this
courage that so few people today have had in really
looking at the nature of our universe. And he's concluded
wisely in my opinion, that Okay, we know life is
a property in the universe. We've evolved in a very
short time frame, by the way he says, we're newcomers
on the cosmic block, being not only for about four
point or Earth being about four point so what billion years?
And then and then as a species, my gosh, we're
just very much a sliver of time compared to the
fourteen or so billion years of the universe. Why would
not another intelligence, civilization have evolved and possibly been exterminated,
and then another one involved, et cetera. The universe is
likely teeming with intelligent life, and that's the sort of
reasoning he takes to this, which, like he says, it
would be extraordinary if an other intelligent life wasn't in
the universe, that would be and I wish more scientists
we just think about this topic and admit so.
Speaker 1: And I remember I was with hanging out with doctor
Michael Masters. I'm not sure if you know who he is.
He's a professor. Yeah, and his theory is the time travel.
We've had some great discussions. But I was hanging out
with him, and he went up to this scientist that
happened to be somewhere. I'm trying to remember where we were.
In the conversation, he's saying, what's wrong with you for
not being curious about this? This could be the one
of the biggest puzzles we'd ever solved, And aren't you
open to science? Real science? And that would be discovering
what this is and with an open mind. Basically, he
was chewing the guy out. And I don't remember what
the conversation was, but yeah, and I got to say
over and over again, I've thanked Leslie Kine and other people.
Ralph Blumenthal, I've never met the third author of the
December seventeenth New York Times article sixty twenty seventeen. Yeah,
I can't believe how many years that is. Nine years now.
But it's incredible what that has done for people of science.
Avi Lowe and all the people that have come forward,
Kevin Kanuth, all these people that were heavily involved with science,
and they were saying they're going to dip their toe
in the water because if that comes out and the
Pentagon is saying that there's something to this, then I'm
not going to get as much ridicule. I think we
all get a little ridicule. And let me ask you this,
Have you, from any of your friends or colleagues or
anything like that, had any ridicule for this part of
interest in your life.
Speaker 2: It's a great question. And this is what's so interesting
about that. No, in my whole professional and personal life,
family members included, who were skeptical have embraced this topic
and begun their own personal research and have come back
to me with interest. And my brother in law is
a great example. He's a very senior person in the Smithsonian,
and he was scoffed at all this, but then he
started to do research and he realized, my gosh, there's
something here. And this goes from colleagues in my professional life,
both in the Navy and when I worked at Noah.
And that's what's absolutely remarkable. The only people who are
saying negative things about my speaking out are the well
known folks on social media who I believe are on
the payroll of some of the former government institutions or
potentially contractors that are working to actively debunk the phenomena.
And that's a whole nother storyline if we want to
talk to that, But make a point here, Martin quickly,
because our Science Advisory Council is entering into this with
basically two potential answers or results. One is these phenomena
represent adversary technology, and if that's the case, we got
some serious national security concerns, and therefore it does behoove
us to openly research and study the nature and characteristics
of UAP. The other possibility is that it represents some
non human intelligence offworld, not we are not alone. Conclusion,
which is the biggest discovery in the history of science period,
so our options are quite important either way.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, yeah, and that's why it's so hard to see
it dismissed. And then we can go into talking about
not talking too much about it, But those drone incursions,
there's so many weird things that are just very strange
about that last year, and some people are still saying
that it's happening in different places, and I think that's
still There's been all types of various reporting on that.
Plus when there were actually incursions and bases and things
like that, then the FAA said no, nothing was happening,
and then they said it was happening. So it's just
so bizarre. I really, that's another whole puzzle.
Speaker 2: I wish I had more to say on that.
Speaker 1: I don't.
Speaker 2: I just don't know. But yes, it's concerning when we
have these drones or whatever they appear to be freely
maneuvering in our airspace with impunity. That's not a good
place to be in either situation. And again, that's our
intent is going to be, is to research all of
these sightings rigorously scientifically too, and it acquire as much
data as possible.
Speaker 1: Now, there was a case and I pardon me for
not knowing what it was. But it had to do
with one of our subs and something was clocked I
think more than one us, soa some aware of.
Speaker 2: Three different instances. Those are the cases that I reported.
And this one instance was in the eighties and the
North Atlantic during a very high strong storm, very high
see states and ambient noise they call it from ways
breaking and there shouldn't have been an object detecting this submarine,
and there was an object that came by and closed
on them very rapidly, so much so that it had
all the signatures of being a Russian torpedo. And they
had trained to avoid these, so they did an emergency
dive they called emergency deep maneuver and approaching near crushed
depths because this was closing on them so rapidly. And
then when it became very close, the objects stalled and
then maneuvered it around the stern of the submarine and
then slowly exited the area. And they couldn't explain it.
And that's happened twice. An another submarine officer, he's openly
public about it. It's posted on the web. His name
is Keith Mahaski retired as a captain in the Submarine Force,
and he has this report is something very similar. Eighty
knots was the recording speed on sonar and they formed
another emergency deep maneuver. And yes, so these this is
what we want to get to the bottom of. What
are these objects that they're either undersea warfare, threats of
national significant or again anomaly is that we're not alone.
Speaker 1: And I've heard Mark d' antonio talking about what they
called a fast mover or something like that when he
was out on a test and he had mentioned two
it or not. So I don't know has anyone ever
mentioned anything of that type of speed.
Speaker 2: Other than him, And I can't verify if that term
is a standard term. I've heard him say as fast walkers.
I believe, but I just I can't verify that because
that that never crossed my desk or I've never heard
a report like that when I was in the Navy.
Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, one last thing before we talk about your book,
and that is I was thrilled that I made a
connection with you and Scott to sell the Undersea I
don't want. I don't know. He's like a superhuman person,
five thousand hours a rebreather, or something like. It's statistics
is twenty thousand hours under the water, which is just amazing,
and I'm so glad that you two connected and are
interested in doing some exploration. That's great.
Speaker 2: He's really remarkable. It makes my resume listen pale in comparison,
but his I think he has hundreds of submersible dives
in addition to scuba dives and rebreather dives. So yeah,
I'm excited to team up with him, and our goal
is to start conducting some USOS search expeditions. That's a
challenging thing because the data on these objects is still
lacking and sparse. Web to start somewhere, and he's got
the credential to team up and hopefully do something and
discover some things.
Speaker 1: Just for the listener and the watcher. Scott Cassell was
the first one to ever film the giant squid in
the wild, first of all, and then when he was
on my show, he talked about an encounter and I
think it's one of the most downloaded shows I've ever
had of a gold cube off the coast of Mexico
and the Sea Cortes. He was sixty five miles off shore.
He was a couple hundred feet down and he went
down to four hundred feet with this, saying under intelligent
control of bright gold Cube. Pretty amazing.
Speaker 2: But anyway, for your audience may not know about scuba diving,
that that dive is like climbing Mount Everest. It's so
dangerous and so few people have dived that deep. He's
really superhuman and deserves a great deal of credit.
Speaker 1: He almost had his arm ripped off from I can't
remember the name of the type of squid. It's about
a five foot long squid. They're very vicious. And a
day later he was in a shark cage. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so we actually share the experience. I and my
wife have both been cage diving with sharks off Guatealuba
in Mexico. And that'll get your adrenaline up. But magnificent
creatures and something very exciting to do.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he says he treats him like a little dog,
a little doggy.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they're much the same because they follow up just
like it's like a beagle. And so you're in clear
water and you're not bleeding, you you don't appear and
you don't appear to be like prey. Then they're really
not going to be very interesting humans because he just
don't present like that. Tip people pray.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but the movies like Jaws and things like that,
doesn't They don't really help people in the way they
look at sharks. But anyway, so let's talk about your book.
The title first, and what made you decide to write
this book?
Speaker 2: There you go here. It is Holding Fast and Heavy
seas appropriate from my career as an oceanographer. It's out
in July, July seventh, I think on bookshelves. I wrote
it because it's mostly about leadership. There's only a little
bit about my UAP experience, just a small part in chapter,
but it's all about speaking truth to science. And of
course I recount the first half all my Navy career
and the great people who taught me how to be
a better leader. So there are a lot of fun
see stories in it. And the second half is about
me leading the Science Agency Noah, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration during Trump's first term. Anybody who watches just
a sliver of news nowadays knows that President Trump is
not a needy executive to work for, and so those
I had challenges, and that's Holding Fast but as the
leader of NOAH, we had a number of really significant
ocean related winds. We established new ocean marine protected areas
called National Marine Sanctuaries for example, that are like the
National Parks underwater. We advanced a number of different strategies,
for example, and plants to help repair dying coral reefs
in Florida. And then we worked on this other area
that we call our Blue Economy Strategic Plan, which is
really helping the American shore side, coastal and ocean economies
and great Lakes advanced with our data and services, which
is a great news story. All of those were good wins.
Of course, the media at the time, because it was
anything good that Trump Agency were doing, they wouldn't report
on it. And so I used my book to tell
a story of really making a number of really big
wins when it was challenging. We had budget cuts and
a lot of firings like you've read about in the
federal government when the Trump administration had the second time around,
But we persevered, And that's the book is about this
leadership when it's difficult, and staying true to science because
we were a science agency.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's so important, and science isn't something I've seen
this happen unfortunately, things like Neil de Grassis and and
things like that. Science should always be open minded and
not trying to fit things in place in which he
had previously always done. In the with the UFO topic
that there was really nothing to it, and well we
don't really need to go into that. But can we
talk about in the book? What is the shopgate incident?
Speaker 2: Okay, yea, I will.
Speaker 1: Gate is shoppagate? Is that what I think it is?
With him doing them thing on the on the math, Yeah.
Speaker 2: I remember that the biggest biggest challenge re encountered during
that time period. They call it Sharpie Gate because happened
was there was a time when this hurricane named Dorian
was approaching the US and the Trump was tweeting about
the storm and giving updates, and at one point he
he looked at it spread of the models, the spaghetti
plot that has been advertised of hurricane tracks, and a
few of the models showed the storm going into Alabama. However,
most of the models had the storm turning around the
Carolinas and going off to the Atlantic. And that's eventually
what happened. But Trump, like he would do he often
tweeted with old information, and he mentioned that Alabama was
at risk. So our National Weather Service, which is responsible
for keeping all citizens safe all around the country, the
office in Alabama. What happened is they started getting all
these calls after Trump tweeted that, asking if Alabama was
going to be at risk and if they needed to evacuate,
and so they ended up posting Alabama's going to be fine.
The storm is not going to affect the state. And
again Trump tweeted this based on old information. And then
what happened, though, is that he had a press conference
and he wanted to justify his tweet of days ago,
and he had a staffer drew on the official forecast
track that now actual hurricane center under Noah, under the
National Weather Service. That he drew an extension of this
official track around Alabama, and it appeared to be with
his sharpie. And that's what he signed all his executive
orders and whatnot, with a big heaving sharpie. In fact,
my presidential appointment letter is hanging right up here and
it's signed by Trump with a big sharpie. And so
of course American scientists went nuts because here is an
official forecast product by a science agency that affects millions
of people in terms of their safety, and like a
forgive me for those who would really admire President Trump,
but it was he was being like a child who
was just trying to defend what he said with an
official scientific product. So that just ended up creating a
storm of controversy and scandal. And then there was a
further extension about it that I'm not going to address here,
but some political officials in the Department of Commerce and
in my agency ended up defending Trump's Trump's statements and whatnot.
And that's all in the book. And that was a
big challenge. And again, like I said, we really were
in a crisis mode because so many people were upset
with what we were doing. And I was ready to
quit over this, but I had individuals in the National
Weather Service come to me and say, Hey, if there
was ever a time where we needed solid leadership, leaders
with integrity, it's now, so please don't lead. And that
happened on more than one occasion during my tenure at NOAH.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Wow, So speaking of Trump, he's at least you
said earlier, even if you don't like him, you have
to congratulate when things are done right, And I never
get political on this show, and I don't pay attention
to politics. I just it's better for me not too
so I just say out of all that. But still
I will tell you that if he seemingly is open
to transparency, now, I don't know if he's going to
have any roadblocks like often happens. It seems to often
happen when someone tries to find out information like this.
How do you feel this is going.
Speaker 2: So far better than ever before? You have to admit,
look at the progress we've made, with files being released,
with the Science Advisory Council being established, public statements and
now granted his personal public statements or as president pardon me,
where he just basically said, here are all the files.
It's up to you to decide. I think that was
a little like a blank. I'm not sure that was.
I don't know what to do with that right now.
But all I know is he's charged a body that
I'm a part of now to go do the research
on it. So at least that's happened and now so
it remains to be seen. It remains to be seen
how much liberty and license will have to conduct that
kind of research. We're going to go and do the
best we can with what we have and follow our
charter to make recommendations about data to release and information
to share with us, and so we'll see. There is
a concern, of course, any minutes, whether it be a
Republican or Democrat, they put out information that's advantageous to
their position, and so we don't it's some people think
that this is possibly just so he can make the
statement that he's being transparent and more transparent, but maybe
real information is not going to be provided, But there's
no we can't really say that way conclusively or not.
So I think we just need to follow the Council's
work and research, and if real information starts coming forward
in real progress and UAP research occurs, then will be
in a good place.
Speaker 1: Often wonder if there's some things that are somehow tucked
away in a way that cannot be discovered, that maybe
a little too much. Now I'm just going to give
us For instance, Matthew Rogers was in Navy intelligence, but
he was also on board of the ship and I
cannot remember the name of it, but when the gimbal
happened and he watched that over and over again while
he was on board, and he said, when he went
up to office or officer or whatever, they had color
video of it. They had video of it, not the
floor video. So he said, I saw that they were
actually watching it, and where is that? Where would where
do those things go? That really puzzles me.
Speaker 2: Right, So I know of other data video evidence that
has not been shared that are more conclusive in terms
of their resolution and content about the anomalist nature of
the objects being no possibility that it's our technology, is
what I mean. So I know that that kind of
video evidence exists, we've not yet seen that. For example,
let me share and share a story with you after
I was giving a lecture at Yale University and I
never say no to a college or university that asked
me to speak on this topic. So that's the next
generation and they're open, and I think that's really what's
going to move the needle. So if any of you
are out there that represent university departments or or affiliated groups,
I'm really open to visiting and putting this message out. Anyway,
A person came down from the audience afterwards and he said, Hey,
I was a sailor on a helicopter squadron that was
flying off the USS Dwight the Eisenhower, a nuclear powered
aircraft carrier in twenty twenty one, and we were on
deployment and I think, I believe the Middle East, and
he was called, he was called to get the helicopter
ready to fly, and he was a crew chief, by
the way, senior enlisted person. And it turned out that
the mission they had was to collect floor video data
of a UAP and this was not just a some
kind of spherical orb that was a morphous if you will.
This was a very clear metallic sphere the size of
a Waymo vehicle and that so we have very clear
video evidence of these metallic spheres. The most soul ORB
has been that's been declassified and shared, and there are
many like it. I think getting more data about those
and how they operate and do what they do would
could potentially really reveal some phenomenal either technology or just
phenomena that I want to see and study.
Speaker 1: I don't know if you were in the room when
I asked the question, and at the forum the other day,
where's the good stuff? Because that's what people are asking
me and saying to me. I don't think we've seen
it all, but I'm hoping that there'll be transparency all
the way through this thing. That's really the only way
we're really going to move forward, and I think your
efforts are going to help a lot with that.
Speaker 2: That's our goal. And we know that data exists, they're
there is good stuff out there, no question about it,
and in fact, and we know of course that we
have retrieved crash vehicles and that's how Prudolph stated that
on Jill Rogan and I trust him completely. So this
is we know we have these programs and the good
stuff will be video evidence of that and even materials
to study in a lab.
Speaker 1: I was really shocked after talking to him the other
day that he's ninety years old. He's so sharp to
really with it. You't believe.
Speaker 2: He's a fantastic, great human being too, just a quality
human And I just got off a call with him.
He has a he's developing a communications technology that's very advanced,
more than anything I've ever seen. And we were just
speaking with a potential, very accomplished and wealthy investor on
there and he led the whole presentation. And yeah, he's
ninety years old. Quite an inspiration on every level.
Speaker 1: Now, do you think that AI will help in research
in the future. I personally think it can help in
a lot of ways. But in the research that you're doing,
is there any type of work that you can do
using AI? Oh?
Speaker 2: Yeah, And it's a funny thing about AI being addressed.
It's this big frontier technology wish it is. But I
did a master's thesis that I started working on that
in nineteen eighty nine that used machine learning to study
satellite images of the ocean, And so I developed a
big pattern matching algorithm and work and other type of
AI topics, and so it's not very new. There's new
developments for sure, and certainly large language models are new
were but it's just the fact that our computing power
is so vast and that the models will begin advancing
so rapidly. And now we're using AI to write AI
code like vibe coding. If you've ever heard of that,
look it up. It's a crazy So I think the
answer is definitely. Certainly, with image and video data, machine
learning can do things that human analysts cannot. And then
I think we can apply AI in differentely novel ways.
Large language models can be used to study open source
reporting and develop trends and patterns. So I think absolutely yes.
A new and more interesting area of thought is the
intersection of AI and the non human intelligence or NHI
that we know have controlled the uat. Diana Pasilka is
professor of Religious Studies at University of North Carolina Wilmington,
and her new book The Others, I believe is the
first complete treatment of that intersection AI and any shock
and it is a fantastic read. I got the honor
of doing a review for her, and so I readers
to check that book out after they checked my book out.
Speaker 1: I was I was kind of disappointed she was going
to be a contact that desert something happened, but I
was literally looking forward to meet meeting her. She had
been on the show in the past. And but yeah,
that that sounds that's the book I'm going to get.
I didn't realize. I remember seeing it briefly but not
really looking at it. But that if that's I'm very
fascinated and all that, and I think that's really yes, yes,
And do you feel as though you might have inspired
any other people to look at this topic. You talked
about your brother in law, but other people like that
any colleagues many.
Speaker 2: I can't tell you how many books from my different
professional and devil that one me and said, hey, we're
looking at this. Wow, but what been fun? And I
now and so that's I think I continue to give.
Speaker 1: I have to tell you this is a silly story.
But my sister could care less about this top topic
at all. And my brother in law, her husband was
a scientist for a long time at Lost Almost Labs,
and he's I told him what I was doing, and
I says, it's a possible extra trust her. I don't
know what it is, but I never say it's the aliens.
I don't really know. But he says, well, it's very
possible like that. But he doesn't really care. He doesn't
really It's nothing that he's interested in. And that's okay.
But my sister, I tried to show some things that
I thought you're gonna look at this. The aerial phenomenon
of the aerial school incident, to me is one of
the top incidents that ever happened. And she's what's for dinner?
And why do you think that is? With so many people?
It just baffles me. Do they have to have an
encounter like I did? To turn the page and to
take a look at this. What do you think it
is why there's so few people interested? We're just a
small niche of society. It's interest in this.
Speaker 2: Look at the film that, Yeah, it's why acclaim, and
that in itself shows the popularity of this topic. And
then there's the UFO website for the Department of War
that has over a billion and a half his that's
true a book bar in terms of acceptance and awareness.
Speaker 1: I guess it's I guess why I'm saying that is
that when I'm in the public, talking to the public
out there and around, it's just so few people. If
you bring up the topic, sometimes you get the rolling
eyes and some people say yeah. But then when I
ask the question, have you seen the hearings in Washington,
d C? Have you seen what's going on? No? I
had no idea. So maybe it's the media. I don't
know what it is. I know News Nation is doing
a wonderful job. Fox News covers it, CNN every once
in a while does But I just can't understand why
no major networks are on such a fascinating topic. And
I love what Ross Coldheart has done with News Nation
and the coverage of this.
Speaker 2: I'm this is just so intrinsically fascinating, and that's why
I pursued it, is I understand the truth.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Yeah, And I don't know. I've said a number
of times in the show I've kind of given up
on thinking that we'll ever have disclosure because when I've
seen this. I've been doing this for fifteen years, the
show for fifteen years, and I've seen like movements forward
and back and forward and back, and then some real
bloopers some people have done over the years. I don't
even want to get into it, but just that makes
us look like tenfoil hatters type of thing. This time,
I want to say, things feel a little different and
I just feel like maybe I will understand. But my
thing that I bring up often in the show is
I don't think anyone really knows one hundred percent. I
think possibly some parts of the government may know a
lot more than we know, but I don't know if
they know the whole picture. And I would just wonder
what your thoughts are in that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I do believe they're apocable to the government, and
the government is very good about can part many any
different special actress programs, but just as a data play.
I met with the former director or commanding officer of
the Naval Intelligence while he was still this is twenty
twenty two or so, when we were talking about some
common ocean related in clues. So when I at the
end of the meeting, I brought up the AP and
he just looked at me with all seriousness and says,
we still don't know what they are.
Speaker 1: Ah.
Speaker 2: So that's one data point that at least at that level,
and you would think he would be read intel everything
like they were still uncertainty, more research and studies.
Speaker 1: I was the MC at the move On event out
in Cleveland and twenty twenty four and I met with
a former CIA member and a former FBI member that
were there out of interest John and I sat with
them and we had an incredible conversation and he mentioned
the stove piping the FBI or retired FBI, the stove
piping that these agencies do and which leads to trouble
like nine to eleven things like that because the information
is kept so carefully. I'm wondering if that is the
same and when it comes to this topic, I think
so four you have.
Speaker 2: That with special a special and you do what we
know if we look at the pentagonmatic files, all videos,
classics for years, so we know we're sting a lot
of information post which if that's what's good. And again
the power thing that there are these in the atmosphere
this year. It's something that American people have a right
to know.
Speaker 1: Now as far as I know, it's something like the
water on the Earth or something like of the earth
or something like that. So but I think we only
know something like twelve or twenty percent of the ocean
bottom something like that.
Speaker 2: We have mapped the ocean sheaf or or about twenty
seven pretended it to modern standards, which means where they
really them sonar well depth measure man PPS or a
so on the position that's and then the ocean volumes
even less rarely observe volume with either drone or remotely
operative vehicle. So that's a lot of water that's beach
part of the plant when nothing about it.
Speaker 1: And so there's all these people that have been saying, oh,
they have these things undersea and all that. Logically it
doesn't make any sense, like why would they want to
live under pressure and how and in the dark pitch
black down there, just a few hundred feet down and
what would be the attraction to being there and the
only attraction at all would be the vastness and to
be away from being seen obviously.
Speaker 2: These crap then do what they do and rid angle
turns just need to accelerate some They a one of
them going in there the water and wets our own
vehicles to do. They're pretty you're allowed them to potentially
do that. In my opinion though it's pretty obvio.
Speaker 1: They want you to remain a root thing.
Speaker 2: No, you riding on the lights help down?
Speaker 1: Yeah, and.
Speaker 2: So the supposed to be where lied they undertacted long
periods of time would g ocean.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'd see that. One of the things that people
say when you talk about that they're elusive is they say,
not come they have lights. That's a lot of people
like will say that. And one person that a researcher
that I had and said might have something to do
with propulsion of some type. But I but they have
had all types of lights on them, and bizarre doesn't
really fit with trying to be away from visual.
Speaker 2: I would recommend your leaders rely he investigating so many
and there is there is a phenomena that was a
limited way, and that's that's when you see why various maneuvers.
And again it doesn't seemed to want to be a
full connecting and apple fietal awareness by the ens controlling
we're just right now. It's still is deal of un
thirty and that's why we are going to be researching
the phenomena more.
Speaker 1: You know, one of the things you're talking earlier about
going in and out of the sea, and I know
that it's been witnessed a lot that there's no splash
or there's no slowing down because the one in was
it Puerto rican off Puerto Rico. I can't remember them
where it was, but it went into the water and
the camera was following where it would be if it
didn't go into the water and came right back up
with the same speed. You hear about things like that,
then you hear about these things taking off at a
tremendous speed supersonic without doing a sonic boom, and all
these things. They just seem to make no sense. So
I don't know what it is, but I don't think
it's from here exactly.
Speaker 2: And I think the way to characterize it best not
that there's some new going on.
Speaker 1: Is that there.
Speaker 2: Engineering not learn.
Speaker 1: How to do yeah, or something discovered in physics so
we haven't couldn't imagined maybe, but this has been a
wonderful conversation. The name of the book is holding fast
and Heavy seas.
Speaker 2: That's a metaphor the fact that I paid the lever
challenges leading the Satia and a lot of times I
wanted to.
Speaker 1: To I think the I want to thank you so
much for everything you do. It's been such a pleasure
to have you on and to meet you in person.
It's been a real pleasure. And thanks so much.
Speaker 2: Hey, Martin, thanks for having me ither thing. I closed
by saying happy birthday, and Donna, I know we're having
that special book comes out so invested both of you.
Speaker 1: That's right, we have our birthday the same day. I
don't want to get into it too much, but it
is very interesting and thanks so much to take care now.
Speaker 2: Thank you great to be very Martin