Speaker 1: I've been writing about and investigating UFOs for well over
Speaker 1: twenty years, and most of that time I've been employed
Speaker 1: full time to do that work. I've written dozens of articles,
Speaker 1: I've been on many UFO programs, and I'm often interviewed
Speaker 1: by news outlets. Claims from credible witnesses of incredible things
Speaker 1: have inspired me to keep an open mind to the
Speaker 1: extraordinary possibilities when it comes to the nature of UFOs,
Speaker 1: often referred to as UAP when it comes to scientific investigation.
Speaker 1: The goal of this podcast is to provide credible news
Speaker 1: and information to ground this cosmic conversation. Welcome to Open
Speaker 1: minds UAP News. My name is Alejandro Rojas and I'll
Speaker 1: be your host that Open minds YOUAP News. Some of
Speaker 1: you may have been longtime listeners to the show. In fact,
Speaker 1: we've been doing what We launched a show probably thirteen
Speaker 1: fifteen years ago, something like that, and I've got exciting
Speaker 1: news on the next episode. My co host from the
Speaker 1: original Open Mind jop News, Jason McClellan, will be joining
Speaker 1: us on the next episode. The format for this show
Speaker 1: going forward will be to go over the latest UFO news.
Speaker 1: We'll have a guest or I'll go over some information.
Speaker 1: In fact, on this episode, I'm going to kind of
Speaker 1: ground us on what is the status of things, how
Speaker 1: do we move forward, what I think is important moving forward,
Speaker 1: and what you can expect from this show. The last
Speaker 1: segment of each episode, we'll look at some videos where
Speaker 1: we either can't explain what it is and it's kind
Speaker 1: of an educational moment for all of us for what's
Speaker 1: going on in our skies, or more exciting, perhaps some
Speaker 1: videos at least that I can't explain that either you
Speaker 1: can help me with or perhaps we'll just go on
Speaker 1: explained and that's exciting. That's what we're looking for. Most
Speaker 1: of these videos will come from the Enigma app. It's
Speaker 1: an app where you can report UFO sightings. And what's
Speaker 1: cool is because it's at base, we're getting a lot
Speaker 1: of videos. I work with Enigma as a consultant and
Speaker 1: every day I look at the cool videos that are
Speaker 1: coming across. So that's why I have all these videos
Speaker 1: to look at, and of course I think, as all
Speaker 1: review momentarily that you know, when it comes to this topic,
Speaker 1: one of the most important things we can do is
Speaker 1: try to use center data such as the data we
Speaker 1: get through our phones to get that data analyzed and
Speaker 1: then hopefully, you know, get scientific analysis and papers written
Speaker 1: so we can have a consensus among the scientific community
Speaker 1: that at least one of these cases is truly anomalous.
Speaker 1: But first, let's go ahead and get into the news.
Speaker 1: I do want to inform people that if you're not
Speaker 1: following Open Minds on social media, you should, because if
Speaker 1: you see here on the right, you're going to see
Speaker 1: our Facebook posts and these are all the latest breaking
Speaker 1: news on UAP, updated on a nearly daily basis. But
Speaker 1: let's get into it. This is a new paper that
Speaker 1: just came out on Nature, really important. Nature is one
Speaker 1: of the most respective scientific journals, and this one is
Speaker 1: about UFOs, not necessarily in the light that many of
Speaker 1: us want to see it, but I wanted to review
Speaker 1: this news because I think it's really important, because this
Speaker 1: kind of sets the tone for the show that I
Speaker 1: and as people know my perspective, but it gives us
Speaker 1: more guidance on how to be careful and credible and
Speaker 1: make sure that we're sticking to science, so we're not
Speaker 1: just creating more conspiracies based off of information that really
Speaker 1: doesn't help anything. It doesn't help us get to the truth.
Speaker 1: It just keeps us chasing our tails, so we're not
Speaker 1: focused on gathering real data to really understand what's going
Speaker 1: on with this phenomenon. This paper is of course titled
Speaker 1: Exploring Expert Figures in Alien related UFO Conspiracy Theories, and
Speaker 1: they kind of review how these conspiracies theories get created.
Speaker 1: But the beginning of this paper goes over the whole
Speaker 1: idea of conspiracies altogether, for example nine to eleven conspiracies.
Speaker 1: In particular, it goes over conspiracies such as vaccines. It
Speaker 1: talks about how scientists, and you know, the belief of
Speaker 1: individual scientists is kind of conflated to verify scientifically some
Speaker 1: point of view, or papers that just have zero credibility
Speaker 1: being touted as science when they're not. The idea of
Speaker 1: autism being created by vaccines as an example of that.
Speaker 1: And yes, we're going to be looking at real science here,
Speaker 1: not conspiracy theories popular ideas. We're going to be looking
Speaker 1: at the data, and the data shows that that's not
Speaker 1: the case. But a paper written by some non credible
Speaker 1: people got out and it gets touted as science when
Speaker 1: it's not, And of course that happens in this field
Speaker 1: a lot. The other thing that this paper goes over
Speaker 1: is scientific validation versus consensus, and you often hear me
Speaker 1: talking about that. Just because a scientist comes out and
Speaker 1: says they believe X, Y or z, it doesn't verify
Speaker 1: the phenomena that they're referring to. When we're talking about
Speaker 1: science and really understanding, we're talking about a consensus among
Speaker 1: the scientific community. So what we have to do as
Speaker 1: a UFO community or those interested in UAP and going forward.
Speaker 1: I'll use that term mostly, which kind of essentially really
Speaker 1: means the same thing as UFO, but these days is
Speaker 1: looked upon as kind of the credible or scientific investigation
Speaker 1: of UFOs. But a consensus is what we're looking for.
Speaker 1: So what you want is a paper to be written,
Speaker 1: You want a community of scientists to look at it
Speaker 1: and to agree or to argue and debate it back
Speaker 1: and forth to be able to get to some sort
Speaker 1: of consensus. That's the goal, not just having one person
Speaker 1: here or there. And when it comes to UFOs, a
Speaker 1: lot of times you have scientists that are talking about
Speaker 1: fields that they don't really have expertise in and trying
Speaker 1: to make claims about these things. So this kind of
Speaker 1: goes over that. Some of the other things that it
Speaker 1: goes over is looking at social media. They found that
Speaker 1: there was a big problem with conspiratorial communities, especially UFO communities,
Speaker 1: sowing distrust and authorities, something that I've always talked against
Speaker 1: that I think is really dangerous and unwarranted. In my experience,
Speaker 1: I seek to work with authorities to see what they
Speaker 1: have to say. We'll interview people who are in positions
Speaker 1: of authority and in that they work for institutions that
Speaker 1: are credible. I've always sought to do that and get
Speaker 1: their insight and my experience, these people are very genuine,
Speaker 1: they're looking for answers, They're devoted to looking for answers.
Speaker 1: They're not prone to at least that wanting to just
Speaker 1: kind of make information out there and push an angle
Speaker 1: without that evidence. It also talks about the urgent need
Speaker 1: for enhanced scientific literacy and critical thinking, something I think
Speaker 1: is absolutely necessary, a very important point, and that's kind
Speaker 1: of the whole point of this show is to try
Speaker 1: to educate ourselves to enhance our scientific literacy so we
Speaker 1: understand what science is and how things work and why.
Speaker 1: You know, there's a perspective that you may not understand uh,
Speaker 1: and also critical thinking, you know, as opposed to just
Speaker 1: kind of going with whatever is popular out there using
Speaker 1: your brain, you know, to try to sess out the
Speaker 1: real kind of media information. That's the perspective that we're
Speaker 1: going to be looking at. And when I get into
Speaker 1: my talk and just a little bit, I'll go over
Speaker 1: more of how that works specifically for what's going on
Speaker 1: in the UFO community and how that's important. But I
Speaker 1: think this paper is really really good. I think it's great.
Speaker 1: It doesn't really talk about the evidence or whether UFOs
Speaker 1: are a thing or what they might be. It's more
Speaker 1: talking about how how alien related UFO conspiracies start and
Speaker 1: gets spread. All right. Next, so getting into some of
Speaker 1: what's out there and kind of an example, here is
Speaker 1: some of the news that is coming from the media
Speaker 1: on this event. So here is Jeremy Corbel. You know,
Speaker 1: I've interviewed him many times. Of course he goes way
Speaker 1: back with open minds, but we always don't necessarily agree
Speaker 1: on things, and that's certainly the case here where they're
Speaker 1: putting out this new video saying that it's an unidentified
Speaker 1: tic TAC object, that it was off the coast of
Speaker 1: California in twenty twenty three when this occurred. I'm going
Speaker 1: to go back so we can look at the object
Speaker 1: a little more in free s frame on it, and
Speaker 1: the reason being that so this object looks like a
Speaker 1: TikTok in this video, but there's a problem that get
Speaker 1: and something that gets lost in this messaging. And this
Speaker 1: is where it's really difficult and unfortunate the way a
Speaker 1: lot of these people are putting this information out and
Speaker 1: it doesn't help the situation. In fact, it hurts it
Speaker 1: many times. And what I mean by that is this
Speaker 1: is a fleer video. We should by now start to
Speaker 1: educate ourselves and know something about flair. Flair is where
Speaker 1: we're looking infrared radar. What that means is that this
Speaker 1: is a camera that's looking for heat signatures. In this case,
Speaker 1: you have a tic tac shaped or an oblong heat
Speaker 1: signature that is not an object. And that's what's really
Speaker 1: unfortunate for people like Jeremy and others to go out
Speaker 1: and say this is a tic tac object is completely inaccurate.
Speaker 1: We know this because we've looked at different cases. In fact,
Speaker 1: there's some flear cases that I think are mysterious and
Speaker 1: great and we'll review those over time. We have in
Speaker 1: the past, but you know, we've got to make sure
Speaker 1: we know what we're looking at to understand the sensor
Speaker 1: data that we're analyzing. In this case, this is only
Speaker 1: a heat signature. No indication here at all that we
Speaker 1: can see the actual shape of the physical object. So
Speaker 1: we don't know if that's a tic Tac shaped object,
Speaker 1: and it's inaccurate to go out and say it is
Speaker 1: a tic Tac shaped object when we just don't have
Speaker 1: that information with this video alone. The other thing with
Speaker 1: this video is uh that it just doesn't show the
Speaker 1: object doing anything anomalous. So it comes down to and
Speaker 1: we'll hear this a lot a lack of data. We
Speaker 1: don't really have enough data to show what's going on
Speaker 1: with whatever this object is, let alone to say that
Speaker 1: it's something anomalous or you know, something that could not
Speaker 1: or is not man made. Another problem with this new
Speaker 1: story is that there are a lot of alleged witnesses
Speaker 1: who saw this or that, and going forward, I'm not
Speaker 1: going to be covering a lot of whistleblowers and people
Speaker 1: unidentified people saying this or that because it's not reliable information.
Speaker 1: What can you do that with that. We've been getting
Speaker 1: that for decades. That's what I've been covering and writing about,
Speaker 1: and it gets us nowhere. So I'm you know this, obviously,
Speaker 1: I'm very critical of this situation. I think it's great
Speaker 1: that these guys are out there taking an interest in
Speaker 1: this and looking for data and collecting this data, but
Speaker 1: I wish it'd be a little bit more disciplined about
Speaker 1: how they release this data. You know, I'll be going
Speaker 1: over well, I'll be going over more about this in
Speaker 1: detail in just a minute. Another case sets out there,
Speaker 1: and I should back up a bit because I don't
Speaker 1: have it on here, but there was a group called
Speaker 1: the Skywatchers. They also have released some videos lately. But
Speaker 1: I've released a video and I'll put a link to
Speaker 1: it up here on the top ten and Enigma videos
Speaker 1: at re received according to me in twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1: And I feel that our videos are more interesting than
Speaker 1: what the Skywatchers got. Of course, we're collecting video that
Speaker 1: people are recording, mostly with their phones. That's what they got.
Speaker 1: The problem is that I think that they're just a
Speaker 1: little newer to this, so they are mistaking balloons and
Speaker 1: other things for UAP. The other thing that they do
Speaker 1: is that they say that they try to psychically call
Speaker 1: in aliens and then they get these objects. That's been
Speaker 1: going on for a long time too. I'll do a
Speaker 1: video in the future here, we'll all attempt to do that.
Speaker 1: But here's my prediction, because this is what I've experienced
Speaker 1: myself going out in the field many many times to
Speaker 1: look for UAP, is that when you go out and
Speaker 1: you meditate, you see things in the sky. You see
Speaker 1: planes or balloons or things that you can't understand that
Speaker 1: you record and can look like what the skywatcher's got
Speaker 1: or that we get at. I think a lot of
Speaker 1: times you can also go out there and not meditate
Speaker 1: and get the same thing, still get odd strange things.
Speaker 1: So I just don't feel that the the meditation or
Speaker 1: the psychic connection has been established. I think what I
Speaker 1: just described is the sort of work where you have
Speaker 1: a control and then you do your experiment, you know,
Speaker 1: is where you can kind of validate that sort of thing.
Speaker 1: That's really kind of how science works. So I wish,
Speaker 1: although these people are kind of espousing to do science,
Speaker 1: that they would do that sort of thing to verify
Speaker 1: whether there's some veracity to what they're saying, this is
Speaker 1: the kind of thing we should be doing. Here's a
Speaker 1: paper in Science Alert, an article in fair AI camera
Speaker 1: proposed to scan Earth's skys for science of alien visitors.
Speaker 1: In fact, that's what my talk is going to be about,
Speaker 1: why this is the sort of thing we should do.
Speaker 1: We need to gather data. If we don't have enough data,
Speaker 1: if all of these cases come down to a lack
Speaker 1: of data, then obviously we need to gather more data.
Speaker 1: How do we do that. We put out there more
Speaker 1: sophisticated technology sensors. So in this case, they are using
Speaker 1: what others are using out there, and I'm going to
Speaker 1: review some of the programs that are out there that
Speaker 1: are similar. But this one they call Daylek because their
Speaker 1: system that they've created looks like a Daylek from Doctor Who.
Speaker 1: But what they have is a system where they have
Speaker 1: an all sky camera, a bunch of other cameras, a
Speaker 1: bunch of other sensors that are detecting a bunch of
Speaker 1: information about UAP. So they can deploy these things and
Speaker 1: then hopefully capture something, and when they do, they've got
Speaker 1: a lot more telemetry and then just the video. As
Speaker 1: it says here it's multimodal, it's multi spectrum, it's ground based.
Speaker 1: And this is really this is another great point. And
Speaker 1: this is kind of frustrating because it's a preview of
Speaker 1: what I'm going to be reviewing with you all later.
Speaker 1: But Aviy Lobe says here, often in the US government
Speaker 1: data is classified, either because it was collected by classified
Speaker 1: sensors or because it is not fully understood and could
Speaker 1: potentially be relevant for national security. When in doubt, they
Speaker 1: decide not to release data. Alvi Lobe is a professor
Speaker 1: at Harvard who is actually in charge of the Galileo Project,
Speaker 1: which is a group that is putting this together. Incidentally,
Speaker 1: next month, I will be on a panel at Arizona
Speaker 1: State University with Abby Lobe, Micwest, and Lincoln Tai and
Speaker 1: we'll be talking about this sort of thing. But I
Speaker 1: agree with them one hundred percent. If they're not going
Speaker 1: to give us data, then we've got to go out
Speaker 1: there and get the data ourselves. And so that's what
Speaker 1: this is about, is them deploying a new system. So
Speaker 1: a really great article, and this is a direction that
Speaker 1: we need to go next an ad All right, let's
Speaker 1: see what's here. Here's more science and I love this
Speaker 1: UFOs in space is it possible to launch a flying
Speaker 1: saucer into space and return it to Earth? And what
Speaker 1: he's talking about is the shape a saucer. Is that
Speaker 1: really a shape that is conducive to flying around in
Speaker 1: our atmosphere or in space. He analyzes different projects that
Speaker 1: are similar to discs, and he talks about, you know, acceleration,
Speaker 1: whether or not it's a shape that kind of lends
Speaker 1: itself to being able to provide lift that sort of thing.
Speaker 1: So it's a very interesting article, something that I think
Speaker 1: would be interesting for everybody to look at. But this
Speaker 1: is a great one. This is just from today, or
Speaker 1: actually this video is going to launch tomorrow, So this
Speaker 1: is from Wednesday. So a really exciting piece of news
Speaker 1: that came forward. And this is scientist hailed the strongest
Speaker 1: evidence so far for life beyond our Solar System. So
Speaker 1: an astrophysicist team say, observation of chemical compounds maybe the
Speaker 1: tipping point in search for extraterrestrial life. So the James
Speaker 1: Web Telescope is able to look at planets at vast
Speaker 1: distances and they can use different things such as the
Speaker 1: coloring and other things to detect like what sort of
Speaker 1: gases are in the atmosphere in this case, and this
Speaker 1: planet is called K two eighteen B. Hopefully they come
Speaker 1: up with a more fun name than that. This planet
Speaker 1: is showing possibilities of having gases that are similar to ours.
Speaker 1: They call it a chemical fingerprints similar to those on
Speaker 1: Earth that have produced life. So they're saying that this
Speaker 1: right now is the best evidence that there could be
Speaker 1: life out there, extraterrestrial life. I think this is really
Speaker 1: important because if scientists, whether that beyond Mars, the Moon,
Speaker 1: or K two eighteen B, I think if they discover
Speaker 1: even micro or the possibility that life did exist on
Speaker 1: another planet, that's going to be really important. I think
Speaker 1: if people discover, hey, there actually is some life out there,
Speaker 1: then it will lend people to think, well, how advanced
Speaker 1: is that life? Where else can that life be? And
Speaker 1: I hope that will also try to begin to invigorate
Speaker 1: people to or begin to influence people to do more
Speaker 1: research into UFOs and UAP and investigate those the way
Speaker 1: that Avlobe and Galileo are and other organizations or the
Speaker 1: way that I'm going to be proposing here coming up
Speaker 1: in just a minute. So this is really exciting news However,
Speaker 1: you always need to temper your expectations when it comes
Speaker 1: to science or otherwise. If you hear things that are
Speaker 1: too good to be true, especially in UFOs, it's most
Speaker 1: likely they are not only too good to be true, unfortunately,
Speaker 1: sometimes they're just flat out life. In this case, the
Speaker 1: NPR story's title is is this a hunt for life
Speaker 1: on another world? Or just a lot of hot air?
Speaker 1: The article is similar to other articles that are coming
Speaker 1: out in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal,
Speaker 1: So lots of really important news outlets are covering this story,
Speaker 1: but this one they're also saying, you know, this isn't
Speaker 1: completely confirmed, so hold on, We're still doing work to
Speaker 1: confirm this. But if we can confirm this, it's going
Speaker 1: to be really exciting. And it does bring me to
Speaker 1: a quote one of the scientists said. She said, this
Speaker 1: is one of those cases where extraordinary claims are going
Speaker 1: to require extraordinary evidence, and we may know that. There
Speaker 1: are some people, especially in the UFO field, who don't
Speaker 1: like that, saying they're like, that's not it's not how
Speaker 1: science works. Science doesn't require extraordinary evidence. I completely disagree,
Speaker 1: and pleasure you're looking at the term extraordinary the idea
Speaker 1: that life is out there and we can confirm it.
Speaker 1: I think that's extraordinary. So any evidence we're going to
Speaker 1: have to that end is going to be extraordinary kind
Speaker 1: of by nature. But let's even back up a little
Speaker 1: bit and say, well, why does something Why do certain
Speaker 1: categories of scientific discovery need more evidence than others. Well,
Speaker 1: if they're remember we're getting back to this scientific consensus.
Speaker 1: Scientists don't want to be wrong, and you know, there
Speaker 1: are times where we get really excited about something that
Speaker 1: could be extraordinary and then it turns out to be wrong,
Speaker 1: and that's a huge letdown and it can be really
Speaker 1: damaging to that field of study. So you always need
Speaker 1: to temper expectations and you need to be really, really sure.
Speaker 1: So in this case, they are going to be looking
Speaker 1: for more evidence and for this extraordinary claim. It's just
Speaker 1: the way it goes. If you're looking for a scientific consensus,
Speaker 1: we're all humans, you're going to need some extraordinary evidence. Sorry,
Speaker 1: that's the nature of things. But it's probably better it's
Speaker 1: that way, because if we go off of bad information,
Speaker 1: we can make big mistakes, and we don't want to
Speaker 1: be doing that. We need to confirm these sort of
Speaker 1: extraordinary possibilities. So that's the news for this week. Exciting
Speaker 1: stuff for all of these news items. If there's any updates,
Speaker 1: I'll be sure to be letting you know in future episodes,
Speaker 1: and I'll bring on some people friends and researchers to
Speaker 1: talk about some of that news and experts that have
Speaker 1: something to do with that news that we're reviewing, including
Speaker 1: people from galawat Leo or otherwise. But next, let's get
Speaker 1: into my presentation. So this presentation I actually delivered at
Speaker 1: Phoenix MoveOn last week, and I really kind of felt
Speaker 1: that it was a good outline for my perspective looking
Speaker 1: for some common ground and looking for opportunities where we
Speaker 1: don't have to sit and wait for others to do
Speaker 1: the work and hopefully come up with something and we
Speaker 1: can do it ourselves. So I called this UFO Videos
Speaker 1: and the Need for UAP Data Collection and Analysis the
Speaker 1: UFO Video part. I reviewed some really cool Enigma videos
Speaker 1: that we got a lot of those you could see
Speaker 1: in that top ten video I talked about earlier. But
Speaker 1: I will also at the after we're done with this,
Speaker 1: we'll end with reviewing some cool Enigma sidings, so stay
Speaker 1: tuned for that. But let's take a look here. First
Speaker 1: of all, who am I? Just in case you're tuning
Speaker 1: into this new if you're from the Den of Geek group,
Speaker 1: Den of Geek is now sponsoring I'm partnering with them
Speaker 1: on this podcast, So if you're new to my show,
Speaker 1: who am I? I am the host of course, of
Speaker 1: Open Buying UAP News. I'm an editor and webmaster at
Speaker 1: Openminds dot tv. I'm a consultant for Enigma Labs, the
Speaker 1: app that we got these videos on that we'll be
Speaker 1: looking at later. I'm also the founder of UAP Discovery
Speaker 1: of five oh one C three, and I'll be talking
Speaker 1: more about what we do there in just a minute.
Speaker 1: And I'm a blogger and freelance journalist, so I've been
Speaker 1: writing about this topic for a long time. I've also
Speaker 1: been writing about science and sci fi, a lot of
Speaker 1: that on Huffington Post and much of it also on
Speaker 1: Den of Geek and others. Also. Formerly, some of the
Speaker 1: stuff that I've done in the past is I've been
Speaker 1: the director of education and a spokesperson for the Mutual
Speaker 1: UFO Network they're headquarters. Also, i was a host and
Speaker 1: coordinator of the International UFO Congress. Maybe some of you
Speaker 1: got to go to that, but that was kind of
Speaker 1: old school, one of the bigger conferences, and a lot
Speaker 1: of people say one of the best UFO conferences in
Speaker 1: the past, and that's me and my Like I said,
Speaker 1: I'm on a lot of television shows. I've been on
Speaker 1: Ancient Aliens quite a bit, and one of the time
Speaker 1: last times I was on was I brought my dog
Speaker 1: because he was really old, and they were really cool
Speaker 1: about it, and they were like, hey, bring him on
Speaker 1: set so we could get a picture and everything, and
Speaker 1: that's what this is. So that was a lot of
Speaker 1: fun I love how the backgrounds of the slide kind
Speaker 1: of fit the background of the show. It's kind of funny,
Speaker 1: not intended, but the point that I really want to make,
Speaker 1: and this is what my point is a lot of
Speaker 1: people think that I'm kind of nacying and I'm saying, oh,
Speaker 1: you know, these people are coming up with bad stuff
Speaker 1: or their stuff is no good or whatever. I'm not
Speaker 1: necessarily saying that. What I'm saying is that eufology, the
Speaker 1: search for the meaning behind UFOs or what's going on
Speaker 1: with the UFOs, its biggest asset is you you can
Speaker 1: do something, you can do more than just listen to
Speaker 1: You can do more than just you know, get on
Speaker 1: social media and hopefully are not fighting with people like crazy,
Speaker 1: because that's what social media, unfortunately is turned into. Stop
Speaker 1: that it's not helping anything. What we need to do
Speaker 1: is work together and you need to hit the ground
Speaker 1: and do what you can do to figure out what's
Speaker 1: going on. I like to say this, and if, of
Speaker 1: course this is to a local move on group, which
Speaker 1: is a pretty big group, but I've been you know,
Speaker 1: speaking to this group for a very long time. But
Speaker 1: I talked to them. You know, we were here before
Speaker 1: UFOs were cool, and we'll be here even if it
Speaker 1: fades from public attention again. And that goes for me too.
Speaker 1: You know, I've been doing this a long time. A
Speaker 1: lot of us have, some of you who listen to
Speaker 1: my show and our longtime listeners. You know, you know
Speaker 1: that we've been here a long time. We're going to
Speaker 1: be here a long time. We've seen a lot of
Speaker 1: people come to this topic recently and then leave, and
Speaker 1: then whenever there's a new news cycle, there's a bunch
Speaker 1: that come and they get all rowdy and crazy out something,
Speaker 1: and then when they get disappointed, they all leave, but
Speaker 1: a lot of us are going to be here for
Speaker 1: a while, and when I'm going to be sharing with
Speaker 1: you our learnings from just you know, doing this for
Speaker 1: for such a long time and the type of things
Speaker 1: I see. And this is why I say, you know,
Speaker 1: temper your expectations, because I've been hearing disclosures around the corner,
Speaker 1: you know, for years, for literally every year, there's somebody
Speaker 1: a big name in the UFO world, disclosures around the corner.
Speaker 1: I've got an anonymous witness who says this or that
Speaker 1: and nothing comes of it. And I know a lot
Speaker 1: of you have gotten frustrated lately because you know, we
Speaker 1: got all this big news and there are these big
Speaker 1: you know, whistleblowers coming out and saying we're going to
Speaker 1: find this and that, and nothing's come of it. No
Speaker 1: surprise to me. That's why people got frustrated with me.
Speaker 1: And when I'm like, hey, guys, chill out, I'm skeptical
Speaker 1: anything's going to happen. And it didn't. But people got
Speaker 1: frustrated with me kind of sharing that expectation. And I'm
Speaker 1: glad I b my expectations and didn't get myself excited
Speaker 1: about any of this because I learned the hard way.
Speaker 1: Getting really excited and let down is no fun. But
Speaker 1: if you temper your expectations, focus on on the road ahead,
Speaker 1: you know, we can make some progress. But let's look
Speaker 1: at some of the areas where information could come from
Speaker 1: or where people are expecting information to come from, and
Speaker 1: I'll kind of review, you know, some of the aspects
Speaker 1: of this information that I think people aren't paying as
Speaker 1: close attention to as maybe they should. So for example,
Speaker 1: ASAP and the UAP Task Force. So who's that? Well,
Speaker 1: that New York Times article in twenty seventeen that came
Speaker 1: out and kind of blew up everything that the government
Speaker 1: had a secret program that was looking into UFOs, even
Speaker 1: though that article was wrong and it said the name
Speaker 1: of that program that received all that money was a TIP,
Speaker 1: the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program. That wasn't the name,
Speaker 1: and that was actually a nickname for the bigger group.
Speaker 1: It said this group was some kind of official secret UFO program.
Speaker 1: That wasn't true. Most of this article was really really off.
Speaker 1: The actual program's name was os APP, the Advanced aerospaceed
Speaker 1: Weapons System Application Program, And what this program was built
Speaker 1: to do, on its face was to analyze weapon systems,
Speaker 1: theoretical science and weapon systems that could be created and
Speaker 1: deployed by our enemies, or perhaps something that we could
Speaker 1: deploy had nothing to do with UFOs. How do I
Speaker 1: know this? Go look at the contract, Go look at
Speaker 1: much of the information out there, including the members of
Speaker 1: this group who said we wanted it to look like
Speaker 1: it was kind of this mundane theoretical science research sort
Speaker 1: of group or project, when actually we were going to
Speaker 1: take that money and go look at UFOs. You know,
Speaker 1: Harry Reid and other senators put their blessing, they put
Speaker 1: this together. They were part of this whole plan. Even
Speaker 1: Robert Bigelow, a Nevada real estate tycoon who's really into
Speaker 1: the paranormal and has funded different paranormal programs for a
Speaker 1: long time. He owned famously the Skinwalker Ranch. He's the
Speaker 1: one who started investigating that. Of course, there's a big
Speaker 1: History Channel show on that where there's all this paranormal
Speaker 1: stuff happening. That's where this all comes from. These guys decided, Hey,
Speaker 1: we want to investigate all of this weird paranormal stuff
Speaker 1: at Skinwalker Ranch that we think that we're seeing. And UFOs.
Speaker 1: But when they put together this program, it was under
Speaker 1: the guys that there wasn't it was not a UFO
Speaker 1: research group. The other problem, of course, Skinwalker's weird. They
Speaker 1: wanted to do all this weird paranormal research stuff. But
Speaker 1: another member, the head scientists, his name was how put Off.
Speaker 1: Now how put Off was the guy who helped create
Speaker 1: remote viewing, which is essentially a psychic kind of law
Speaker 1: enforcement technique or intelligence gathering, where with the CIA and
Speaker 1: the Stanford Researched Institute they developed this program where they
Speaker 1: felt they could teach these remote viewers how to look
Speaker 1: for stuff and find, you know, solve crimes, solve cool cases.
Speaker 1: They claim that they did solve some cases. I've interviewed,
Speaker 1: you know, in my huge archives of previous versions of
Speaker 1: this very show, Joe McGonagall and others who were involved
Speaker 1: with that program. Joe McGonagall was supposedly the most prolific
Speaker 1: or the best at it, and he said he was
Speaker 1: only right twenty percent of the time. It doesn't sound
Speaker 1: like much, and it doesn't sound like much more than chance,
Speaker 1: and somewhat people will argue it wasn't more than chance.
Speaker 1: But either way, this is weird stuff. This is weird,
Speaker 1: fringy stuff. Now I say this having spent many, many
Speaker 1: years defending this group and defending their work because Robert Bigelow,
Speaker 1: for the longest time in the uf FO field, was
Speaker 1: the bad guy. Everybody loved to hate them. Everybody love
Speaker 1: to hate these guys. Their government. They're lying to us,
Speaker 1: they're the secret keepers all of this kind of thing.
Speaker 1: But I knew all those guys. I've interviewed them, I've
Speaker 1: worked with them, and although I do not agree with
Speaker 1: their findings, well I do agree that I don't agree
Speaker 1: that they can prove anything that they say is existing.
Speaker 1: They don't have findings. They have stories, and they have
Speaker 1: things that they say allegedly happen, and they say we
Speaker 1: can prove this or that, but they don't. But my
Speaker 1: point was, let them do their thing. I think it's
Speaker 1: great that they're out doing the research. I wish that
Speaker 1: they would temper expectations. Their big thing is to overpromise
Speaker 1: and underdeliver. Same goes with you know, I would have
Speaker 1: to say Jeremy Napp, George or Jeremy Corbellen and George
Speaker 1: Knapp kind of in that group where you know, a
Speaker 1: lot of big promises and they don't give us the
Speaker 1: full story. They often gloss over and spin these stories.
Speaker 1: What do I mean by that? We could get into
Speaker 1: more detail, but I won't want to bumm you guys
Speaker 1: out too much. But stories like Bob lazare who has
Speaker 1: a history of lying and criminality, and for some reason
Speaker 1: they don't cover any of that, which speaks to the
Speaker 1: credibility of this One soul witness who claims that he
Speaker 1: saw aliens at Area fifty one. Interestingly, he said this
Speaker 1: after some guy who said who worked for the Air
Speaker 1: Force and will go over this in a minute, said
Speaker 1: he was spreading disinformation and he said this for the
Speaker 1: very first time on LIFETV, that there's aliens at Area
Speaker 1: fifty one and they took this roswell crashed alien spacecraft
Speaker 1: to Area fifty one where they took over the base
Speaker 1: and we're battling people. All this crazy stuff this guy
Speaker 1: says on TV, which he says is disinformation his claim.
Speaker 1: Within weeks, Bob Lazaar is out there claiming that, oh yeah,
Speaker 1: I worked at Area fifty one on the spacecraft and
Speaker 1: with these aliens and talked about all these alien and
Speaker 1: battles and stuff. Information he's walked back since you know,
Speaker 1: it's just not very credible or substantial information. And I'm
Speaker 1: rooting for these guys. I want them to financers, but
Speaker 1: they haven't. Like I say here, anomalies confirmed zero, they
Speaker 1: have not confirmed anything. And I do want to back
Speaker 1: up to that last bullet point real quick. When it
Speaker 1: comes to government confusion about OSAP and a tip, you
Speaker 1: know them claiming, oh, they did look at UFOs. They
Speaker 1: didn't look at UFOs. They weren't an official group. They
Speaker 1: did look at UFOs, and the governments admits that. And
Speaker 1: this is where people get confer because there's nuance here.
Speaker 1: They looked into UFOs, but they weren't supposed to. This
Speaker 1: wasn't an official UFO research group, which makes that New
Speaker 1: York Times even more wrong. This was a Advanced Aerospace
Speaker 1: Weapons Application project where they were looking into advanced weapons systems,
Speaker 1: but behind the scenes they were looking into UAP. That's
Speaker 1: the confusion, and this is where people get mixed up.
Speaker 1: So it's absolutely accurate when the government says, and at
Speaker 1: least what I'm speaking to is the evidence we have
Speaker 1: right now, we have no evidence. If you look at
Speaker 1: the contract in the paperwork, this wasn't a UFO program.
Speaker 1: It was on the back end. People didn't know about it.
Speaker 1: And that's kind of difficult too, because it's disingenuous, dis
Speaker 1: ingenuous for someone to say, oh, I was hiding from
Speaker 1: the government when I was working on a government program
Speaker 1: that I was working on UFOs. I was telling the
Speaker 1: government I was working on these Advanced Weapons system's papers.
Speaker 1: And then later on when the government says, you weren't
Speaker 1: looking into UFOs in that program, we didn't tell you
Speaker 1: to do that, to say, oh, you're lying, I was too.
Speaker 1: You know, that's silly. You were the one hiding that information,
Speaker 1: and now you're blaming the government for not knowing that. Finally,
Speaker 1: the UAP Task Force, the UAP Task Force was obviously
Speaker 1: it's in their name, an official program to look into UFOs.
Speaker 1: Most of the members of the u I shouldn't say
Speaker 1: that because I don't know that for sure, but many
Speaker 1: of the primary members of the UAP Task Force, including
Speaker 1: the head of the UAP Task Force, worked with Robert
Speaker 1: Bigelow on Skinwalker and other places with ASAP. The head
Speaker 1: scientist for the UAP Task Force is now the lead
Speaker 1: scientists on the skin Hunt for the Skinwalker television show
Speaker 1: on the History Channel, So you know, they're totally connected
Speaker 1: and they're still chasing this weird paranormal stuff. But this
Speaker 1: is what's really interesting. The UAP Task Force were the
Speaker 1: first to write an official paper on the state of
Speaker 1: UAP for the government, and their conclusion was, when it
Speaker 1: comes to aliens, we don't have enough data to prove
Speaker 1: what's going on. This is difficult because now these people
Speaker 1: are coming out and saying we know it's aliens, and
Speaker 1: I think that they're speaking about their own personal experiences,
Speaker 1: which is completely fair. Who am I to say that
Speaker 1: their personal experiences didn't really happen. I don't know. Maybe
Speaker 1: they did, and that's probably what's driving them. A lot
Speaker 1: of these people in this kind of bucket on the
Speaker 1: left that I'm talking about have had personal experiences that
Speaker 1: we can't verify where they felt that they've had, you know,
Speaker 1: interactions with wolfmen and Dino Beaver's famously, and being abducted
Speaker 1: by aliens or whatnot. I can't say whether or not
Speaker 1: that that has occurred or not. I personally find these
Speaker 1: guys that I've worked with. I like these guys. I
Speaker 1: think they're, you know, their hearts in the right place
Speaker 1: for the most part. As far as I know that
Speaker 1: they're just trying to investigate and prove something that they
Speaker 1: think is real. But my point is we have to
Speaker 1: be careful about the way we go about that. And
Speaker 1: I think this was an absolutely accurate statement when these
Speaker 1: guys admitted they don't have enough data to say it's
Speaker 1: aliens or what it is. Erow, this is the latest
Speaker 1: version of a UAP research group that for the Defense Department.
Speaker 1: This is the All Domain Anomaly Research Office, all domain
Speaker 1: meaning that. And this was an important point because you know,
Speaker 1: there was some stonewalling coming across where they were saying,
Speaker 1: you know, we want to look at UAP, what about
Speaker 1: what's going on in space and being told well, UAP
Speaker 1: means unidentified aerial phenomena, So space is not aerial, it's
Speaker 1: not in the air, so that's none of your business.
Speaker 1: Congress made it very specific that UAP means unidentified anomalous phenomena,
Speaker 1: and that includes objects from every domain and trans medium objects,
Speaker 1: meaning that the domains of the atmosphere, space, water, you know,
Speaker 1: those are the separate domains trans medium meaning objects that
Speaker 1: then go in between all of those domains. So objects
Speaker 1: that go from the air into the water, or from
Speaker 1: the water into the air, or from the air into
Speaker 1: space or maybe all of those things. So that's why
Speaker 1: the all domain is in there. What has Aero said.
Speaker 1: Aero has said UAP are real. There are real phenomena
Speaker 1: and something that we should take seriously. People who say
Speaker 1: that Aero says UAP are false, even congress members like
Speaker 1: in the House, people who are part of these disclosure
Speaker 1: groups who are supposed to be leading the UFO field
Speaker 1: on all of this, Congressman Luna, are saying things like
Speaker 1: Aero says UAP are not real. That's not true, and
Speaker 1: you're not educating yourself on the very topic that you're
Speaker 1: trying to champion here. No aliens are separate from UAP.
Speaker 1: UAP has unidentified anomalist phenomena, and Arrow is very clear
Speaker 1: that they are real aliens. However, is what they say
Speaker 1: they don't have enough data for, just like the UAP
Speaker 1: task for us, so they agree that we don't have
Speaker 1: enough data to say that aliens are involved. Arrow also
Speaker 1: was supposed to come up with a historical report when
Speaker 1: they got into the history of UAP, such as Bluebook.
Speaker 1: I think that's a complete fail. That part of their
Speaker 1: report was really kind of littered with errors and things
Speaker 1: that were wrong. I think that they need to take
Speaker 1: another look at that and clean that up because I
Speaker 1: don't think that was an accurate representation of what was
Speaker 1: going on historically. I think that, you know, there was
Speaker 1: seemingly kind of some whitewashing when it comes to Bluebook.
Speaker 1: They got mostly military cases. They had twenty thousand cases.
Speaker 1: There were seven hundred cases when Bluebook closed in nineteen
Speaker 1: sixty nine that they could not explain. And this is
Speaker 1: after thorough investigation where they felt they did have information.
Speaker 1: Seven hundred cases. These are really good cases of military
Speaker 1: people police law enforcement having you know, multiple people law
Speaker 1: enforcement chasing objects over several counties. These are really good cases.
Speaker 1: And this is what I mean. And actually this term
Speaker 1: was used by the Air Force when there was an
Speaker 1: incursion over Washington, DC and airport in Washington, d C.
Speaker 1: Having on several occasions UFOs flying over the airport and
Speaker 1: jets coming in and chasing them away or really not
Speaker 1: chasing them away. That jets say we were outclassed by
Speaker 1: what was ever flying out there, just like our jet
Speaker 1: pilots have said more recently. You know, that's very credible
Speaker 1: stuff that warrants this worth a look. And I think
Speaker 1: that it's unfortunate that you know about more recent cases
Speaker 1: they say, hey, this makes it worth a look. A
Speaker 1: lot of this historical cases make it that way too. However,
Speaker 1: when they did review the history of ASAP and this
Speaker 1: alleged project ConA that never went anywhere because they didn't
Speaker 1: have any of the alleged again this ASAPP group that
Speaker 1: did not provide the evidence that they claimed to have,
Speaker 1: and that's really frustrating, imagine, you know, and this is
Speaker 1: where it creates a lot of this friction. Quick claiming
Speaker 1: things you don't have. Why do that, I don't understand.
Speaker 1: Just do your analysis, do some real regular science and
Speaker 1: say hey, we don't it doesn't indicate this, but it
Speaker 1: doesn't indicate this. Here are some possibilities. Instead of sexying
Speaker 1: it up and sensationalizing and saying we've got this, we've
Speaker 1: got that and then it not turning out to be
Speaker 1: the case, stop it, you know. And that's what happened.
Speaker 1: They said, oh, we've got evidence of materials of from
Speaker 1: extraterrestrial spacecraft or unknown craft, and sure enough they didn't.
Speaker 1: And then ASAPP this whole history I reviewed where they
Speaker 1: even say, you know, OSP was not tasked to look
Speaker 1: into UFOs and paranormal things. But the uh DA agent
Speaker 1: who was in charge of the program uh allowed them
Speaker 1: to and participated in doing that stuff, and so they
Speaker 1: did it, you know, and and that's what happened the
Speaker 1: historical So that part of the report I think is
Speaker 1: accurate from my and I've got for experience with a
Speaker 1: lot of that. At least, I saw a lot of
Speaker 1: this happening in real time. And you know, we've been
Speaker 1: able to examine the paperwork. So far what they've said
Speaker 1: seems to be accurate when it comes to the more recent,
Speaker 1: contemporary side of that report. The older stuff was really bad.
Speaker 1: The historical report is also incomplete. It was due completely
Speaker 1: on June twenty twenty four. So far they submitted part one,
Speaker 1: but we have no idea when they're going to do
Speaker 1: part two. That's important because there should be some other
Speaker 1: interesting information in part two and I'll look at that
Speaker 1: in a second. But my point being here is that, well,
Speaker 1: let me get into the next screen. What if either
Speaker 1: of these groups actually do find something, well, just like
Speaker 1: Jeremy released today or this week or others, what is
Speaker 1: everybody going to say, you got any proof? You know?
Speaker 1: And that's what people should say you know, prove it.
Speaker 1: And I don't think any any of us are going
Speaker 1: to take anybody's word for it. Certainly the scientific community
Speaker 1: isn't going to say, okay, Arrow, you say you've got
Speaker 1: evidence of something anomalous, show it, prove it. So you're
Speaker 1: going to have to have proof. You're still going to
Speaker 1: need to do the science. But what can the government
Speaker 1: responsibly share? Should we expect anything from the government, And
Speaker 1: this is where we talked about this earlier, and Abby
Speaker 1: Lobe had a great quote in that article earlier. No,
Speaker 1: you know, I don't think, but look at when I
Speaker 1: say responsibly. Let's say that you are in the government.
Speaker 1: So if you come across an object that you don't
Speaker 1: know what it is, an aircraft or some sort of
Speaker 1: craft or technology, that's going to go into the Foreign
Speaker 1: Technology Division, which is where it's supposed to go, where
Speaker 1: they analyze it try to figure out whose it is.
Speaker 1: But maybe even more importantly, and I've interviewed people in
Speaker 1: defense who say what takes priority over figuring out whose
Speaker 1: it is is how do we build this ourselves, how
Speaker 1: do we back engineer this, and how do we take
Speaker 1: this technology and exploit this technology as much as we
Speaker 1: can ourselves to enhance our technology. If you're part of
Speaker 1: an organization doing that, how do you responsibly say something
Speaker 1: you don't know what its origins is, is not Chinese
Speaker 1: or Russian or not, you know, an enemy of ours?
Speaker 1: It would be difficult and possible to say that. So
Speaker 1: can they responsibly even give us information without you know,
Speaker 1: tipping their hand or giving classified information. It makes it
Speaker 1: really difficult for the government to share information. And I
Speaker 1: don't expect that we will see much from them, and
Speaker 1: to be honest, we haven't seen anything from them. All
Speaker 1: of these videos that they've been analyzing have been retrieved
Speaker 1: from they've been leaked. They've been either leaked by the
Speaker 1: ASAPP group or you know, one of them was leaked
Speaker 1: to some researchers I was working with. The most recent
Speaker 1: analysis they did on the Aguada Puerto Rico case that
Speaker 1: was leaked from Homeland Security. These are leak cases, so
Speaker 1: they're not sharing anything as is. They're just looking at
Speaker 1: stuff that's already been leaked, and I don't expect them
Speaker 1: to share anything. In fact, the pr person for the
Speaker 1: DoD when it comes to UAP, Susan Goff, has said
Speaker 1: that they are not incumbent to share anything that they're
Speaker 1: working on or their findings that they do not plan
Speaker 1: to share anything. So I don't think we're going to
Speaker 1: see much there. The other difficult part is disinformation. This
Speaker 1: is something I harp on a lot, and we'll continue
Speaker 1: to harp on, and Congress mandated that in the aerow
Speaker 1: report they include disinformation any instances where the US government
Speaker 1: actively obfuscated or you know, put out bad information about UFOs,
Speaker 1: and AERO needs to address that. It's very important, and
Speaker 1: I've got cases where there is something there, there's something
Speaker 1: to write about here. In fact, the CIA wrote a
Speaker 1: paper in the nineties about how they spread disinformation about
Speaker 1: UFOs in the past. So the CIA was working with
Speaker 1: the Air Force when they were working on Project Bluebook
Speaker 1: and investigating UFOs, but they didn't want the public to
Speaker 1: know about it, so they lied to the public about it,
Speaker 1: and they asked the Air Force to lie about it
Speaker 1: as well. When it came to the U two space aircraft,
Speaker 1: which was created by Lockheed Skunk Works, which is what
Speaker 1: was actually going on at Area fifty one in the fifties.
Speaker 1: The U two started to be tested in the late
Speaker 1: fifties and when it was tested. You know, this was
Speaker 1: a spy plane that was flying really high with camera
Speaker 1: systems that could take pictures of like Russian assets, without
Speaker 1: the Russians being able to send missiles that high to
Speaker 1: take it down. Eventually they did develop them, and famously
Speaker 1: shot went down and captured a pilot. But the CIA
Speaker 1: had light about this, and when youtubes were seen by
Speaker 1: commercial airliners, because commercial airliners are like, hey, I see
Speaker 1: something really high up there, what is that? And they'd
Speaker 1: be like, oh, reported to Blue Book, it's a UFO.
Speaker 1: They wanted people to think it was a UFO, like
Speaker 1: I said. The CIA had the US Air Force also live.
Speaker 1: But in this report that the CIA wrote where they
Speaker 1: reviewed all of this history of their deception, they concluded
Speaker 1: that all of this made everything worse. They should have
Speaker 1: just told the truth about it. Eventually researchers started to
Speaker 1: realize the CIA was involved. The Robertson Panel, for example,
Speaker 1: was a CIA group that people knew met to talk
Speaker 1: about UFOs, but the CIA kept denying it. So it
Speaker 1: was really more and more people started to realize that
Speaker 1: the CIA was involved, yet they kept denying it, and
Speaker 1: sure enough created a bunch of conspiracy theories and just
Speaker 1: made the situation worse, as this paper concluded. The other thing,
Speaker 1: and this is something that I cover quite a bit
Speaker 1: that you can find on Open Minds, and I will
Speaker 1: continue to cover because I really think the Air Force
Speaker 1: needs to answer to This is another disinformation situation, which
Speaker 1: is Richard Doty. Richard Doty worked for the US Air
Speaker 1: Force Office of Special Investigations in the eighties at Kirtland
Speaker 1: Air Force Base. During this time, according to him, he
Speaker 1: was putting out disinformation, false information. That information included things
Speaker 1: like that there were aliens at Area fifty one, that
Speaker 1: there was this scroup Majestic twelve that was hiding all
Speaker 1: of the secrets. Sorry, people, these are total bs. They
Speaker 1: were made up by Richard Doty, enforced by people like
Speaker 1: Rob Bob Lazaar who lied about it and created these
Speaker 1: fantasies about it. This is all well documented. I've got
Speaker 1: articles on Open Minds. You can find I think a
Speaker 1: link even on the front page to my open letter
Speaker 1: to the Air Force about this, because he was really
Speaker 1: committing crimes and saying that he did this at the
Speaker 1: behest of THISDIA agent called Falcon. Interesting enough, in that
Speaker 1: television show that I told you about earlier where Dody
Speaker 1: actually went on television and spouted all this crazy stuff
Speaker 1: aliens like strawberries. You know, there's aliens and battling the
Speaker 1: military at Area of fifty one and all this crazy stuff.
Speaker 1: He said this on TV while he was anonymous and
Speaker 1: he was blacked out, and he was using the name Falcon.
Speaker 1: How do I know for one hundred percent it was Dody.
Speaker 1: Go on IMDb right now, look up this nineteen eighty
Speaker 1: nine television show UFOs Live, and you'll see in the
Speaker 1: credits Falcon is Richard Dody right there in the credits.
Speaker 1: It was obvious if you know who Dody is, many
Speaker 1: of you. For some reason, the UFO field still likes
Speaker 1: to interview him, so silly. This all goes back to
Speaker 1: that credibility in that paper about the UFO conspiracies and stuff.
Speaker 1: But yeah, people still air interview and take him seriously
Speaker 1: for some reason. But these were all lies. This was
Speaker 1: if Dody is telling the truth, and I don't know
Speaker 1: that he is. If Dody was telling the truth, and
Speaker 1: he started to do this at the behest of his boss,
Speaker 1: he said that he did this because there was an
Speaker 1: engineer or a actual vendor of theirs who is providing
Speaker 1: technical equipment, who lived near Kirtland Air Force Base. His
Speaker 1: office was right there actually, and he was recording videos
Speaker 1: and getting signals from the base. He thought they were
Speaker 1: aliens and yous, but according to Doty, he was actually
Speaker 1: recording stuff from top secret projects that they were doing
Speaker 1: so in order to throw them off, they made him
Speaker 1: believe that in UFOs and aliens, he was actually entrenched
Speaker 1: with the UFO community, so he was spreading this stuff
Speaker 1: out to the UFO community. Doty also brought someone and
Speaker 1: he lied about this. Linda Howe to the bait at
Speaker 1: Kurtland Air Force Base, gave her a bunch of disinformation.
Speaker 1: She believes this really wild stuff about Jesus being an
Speaker 1: alien and stuff that he gave her is real. But
Speaker 1: he often denies that he ever did this gave her
Speaker 1: this information, but sometimes he doesn't. He changes his story
Speaker 1: on a regular basis. But my point being is why
Speaker 1: did this OSI agent active OSI agent for many many
Speaker 1: years during the eighties, actively put out disinformation and then
Speaker 1: immediately after he retires goes on this television show and
Speaker 1: shares all this bs with people. How could he get
Speaker 1: away with this? How could the Air Force not have
Speaker 1: known and how could he have gotten away with it?
Speaker 1: And then if, of course he was doing this as
Speaker 1: an official project, well then he was committing crimes for
Speaker 1: the government. This is a big deal. But this is
Speaker 1: another area that they can look into. So there's stuff
Speaker 1: there to write about. Disinformation with the government we do
Speaker 1: know about without getting into crazy conspiracy stuff that is
Speaker 1: not verified. And I've got, by the way, FOYA documents
Speaker 1: and everything documenting everything that I said. You can find
Speaker 1: it on the website. Here's just a little bit of information.
Speaker 1: This is that article that the CIA wrote that I
Speaker 1: was talking about. You can find it on the CIA website.
Speaker 1: But this is a direct quote from it when they're
Speaker 1: talking about the U two disinformation. This led the Air
Speaker 1: Force to make misleading and accept this statement to the
Speaker 1: public in order to allay public fears and to protect
Speaker 1: an extraordinarily sensitive national skecurity project, of course, you two project,
Speaker 1: But they lied. It's right there and literally black and white.
Speaker 1: And this is what's funny too, because a U two
Speaker 1: aircraft was painted silver, so no wonder it was reflecting,
Speaker 1: you know, way up there in the sky, and it
Speaker 1: was flying about like like twice as high as commercial
Speaker 1: aircraft were flying at the time, so it was way
Speaker 1: up there. They no longer painted them silver. Soon after
Speaker 1: the testing, you know, they started paying a matte black
Speaker 1: so they wouldn't be reflective. Is theara there there? I'll
Speaker 1: go over this possibility really quickly, meaning, you know, while Aloandro,
Speaker 1: is there even something to the UFO mystery. I believe
Speaker 1: that there is. I think most of you listening probably
Speaker 1: believe that there probably is. I don't know for sure.
Speaker 1: I can't prove it, but that's what we're seeking to do.
Speaker 1: But what are the possibilities. Remember, there's more than aliens
Speaker 1: when it comes to possibilities, even with exotic possibilities. It
Speaker 1: could be aliens, could be people from the future. There's
Speaker 1: a professor at Montana Tech who has written a book
Speaker 1: and talks about this, and he's done research to justify
Speaker 1: his or to buttress you know, his argument other dimensions.
Speaker 1: There's actually a lot of scientists who feel there's you know,
Speaker 1: more of a probability that we can travel interdimensionally than
Speaker 1: travel vast distances in space, So that could be it.
Speaker 1: There's this inside the Earth kind of theory that there's
Speaker 1: people coming from the Earth. So these are the kind
Speaker 1: of the fringy, exotic ones and not so exotic. I've
Speaker 1: had a ball scientist, a ball lightning scientists on the show.
Speaker 1: Some of you might have heard a few months ago
Speaker 1: about a year ago. Ball lightning as this phenomena of
Speaker 1: these balls of orbs of light that fly around during
Speaker 1: lightning storms for about ten to twenty seconds. So it's
Speaker 1: a phenomena that has been observed but has not been proven.
Speaker 1: Earth lights, this is a phenomena that can be reproduced
Speaker 1: in a lab where you know, earth, or granted, is
Speaker 1: kind of smashed together and these little plasma orbs come
Speaker 1: off of it. So that's another phenomena. Everything on this list,
Speaker 1: though not one of these things have been scientifically confirmed,
Speaker 1: not one, So any of these things could be the possibility.
Speaker 1: The low hanging fruit, of course, is the ball lightning
Speaker 1: and the earth lights, which we have more kind of
Speaker 1: data for that they would be real. And that's what
Speaker 1: I think is really exciting. This work can help prove
Speaker 1: that there's some scientific validity to this work if we
Speaker 1: can help these people working on these areas to prove
Speaker 1: their point. But nothing on this page has been confirmed,
Speaker 1: So how do we do that? We need to do
Speaker 1: that well, NASA put together a UAP study group, and
Speaker 1: this group was just to give an advice to NASA
Speaker 1: on how whether or not to take on UAP and
Speaker 1: how to move forward if you do. Their conclusion in
Speaker 1: their last paper was the study of unidentified anomalist phenomena
Speaker 1: presents a unique scientific opportunity that demands a rigorous, evidence
Speaker 1: based approach. I agree with that one hundred percent. So
Speaker 1: they're saying that UAP should be investigated, and we should
Speaker 1: do it from an evidence based approach, not hearsay, not
Speaker 1: videos where that are being misrepresented or misinterpreted. And I'm
Speaker 1: not saying maliciously, but just you know, they're not demonstrating
Speaker 1: what we're being told is in the video, namely that
Speaker 1: flear tic TAC. We don't know that that object was
Speaker 1: a tictac. They also recommended a strategy that encourages citizen
Speaker 1: analysis of UAP data that would bring an element of
Speaker 1: transparent transparency to the field that could help combat biases,
Speaker 1: preconceived skepticism, and mistrust of authority. I absolutely agree, and
Speaker 1: I think we all agree that this needs to be transparent.
Speaker 1: Science is mostly and best done when it is transparent.
Speaker 1: Why when you say that oh, you know science is
Speaker 1: done in secret. No, you can't. It's difficult to do
Speaker 1: science in secret. Even if you listen to my interview
Speaker 1: with when of Bigelow's lead scientists, Eric Davis, he talked
Speaker 1: about doing science in a black project is really difficult
Speaker 1: because you can't work with other scientists, and when you're
Speaker 1: doing science, you have to rely on the expertise of
Speaker 1: many other people with different disciplines, and you can't do
Speaker 1: that if they're not read into the program. So not
Speaker 1: a lot of real science can be done on black projects.
Speaker 1: It makes it very difficult, and that's why that coupled
Speaker 1: with that, there needs to be a consensus in order
Speaker 1: to prove something scientifically. You just don't do it in
Speaker 1: your little lab in a corner. You write a paper
Speaker 1: and then the scientific community needs to look it over
Speaker 1: and bash it and try to come to a consensus
Speaker 1: on whether or not you know what you're writing is valid.
Speaker 1: So it needs needs to be done in a community.
Speaker 1: So science away, NASA does it. Science the way science
Speaker 1: has done best is transparent, and that's why this realm
Speaker 1: is what's most important. So this is where I fullheartedly
Speaker 1: believe we need to go. You and I can get
Speaker 1: involved with this right now enigmas an example. You can
Speaker 1: download this free app and you can upload videos and
Speaker 1: reports right now, and then my job is to look
Speaker 1: at those to recommend the best ones to people. But
Speaker 1: on the back end, I'm also getting those to scientists
Speaker 1: to hopefully get them to invest these gate these cases,
Speaker 1: write papers on them, and then get those out to
Speaker 1: the scientific community so we can get a scientific consensus.
Speaker 1: That's what we need to do, and that's what we
Speaker 1: can all work on. Other groups out there. Mofon is
Speaker 1: doing that, the Mutual UFO Network. It's kind of the
Speaker 1: largest kind of civilian group that kind of has boots
Speaker 1: on the ground doing this kind of work because a
Speaker 1: website that collects sidings, so these are all the groups
Speaker 1: collecting sidings. Then we have Galileo doing the both. Really Galileo,
Speaker 1: like we talked about earlier, putting together suites of sensors
Speaker 1: to try to gather data from the UAP to figure
Speaker 1: out what's going on with them. But they need the
Speaker 1: information from the other groups to know where to put
Speaker 1: those things. They've even asked us where do we where
Speaker 1: are the UFOs? Where should we put our devices? So
Speaker 1: we all need to work together on that. The Scientific
Speaker 1: Coalition for UAP Studies, you know, that was the group
Speaker 1: that I've been a part of and a board member.
Speaker 1: I was a founding member and I've been with them
Speaker 1: since the get go. But you know, we've collected scientists
Speaker 1: to analyze the data out there, and the SUS put
Speaker 1: together papers or helped in the creation of papers. You
Speaker 1: could go to their website and find those papers. I know.
Speaker 1: I'm forgetting others like the UAP X has done something
Speaker 1: similar as Galileo. That's an organization gathering data, the UAP
Speaker 1: Data Acquisition Project, And I love these guys because what
Speaker 1: they're doing is they're putting together systems like that Galileo
Speaker 1: Dale like system that we looked at earlier. But these
Speaker 1: are systems you could purchase and you could deploy at
Speaker 1: your house. You could put one of these up. So
Speaker 1: I love UFHODAP, the UFO Data Acquisition Projects. So I
Speaker 1: think that's really important because then we can have people
Speaker 1: all over the planet putting up these systems, getting getting
Speaker 1: sensor data, getting and what I mean by that is
Speaker 1: video cameras that have higher spectrum that can get video
Speaker 1: that is not visible flear, you know, things that are gathering, temperatures, radiation,
Speaker 1: all of these different types of systems, and some of
Speaker 1: the people out there have been like, well, you know,
Speaker 1: we need a the state. What are what is the
Speaker 1: scientific threshold to be able to prove something as anomaloists?
Speaker 1: And that I think to me is those people don't
Speaker 1: understand science. That's not how science works. You can't say
Speaker 1: we have something unknown out there. I need you to
Speaker 1: write a paper to tell me what we need to
Speaker 1: look for, and I what is my goal to prove
Speaker 1: to you that it's real. Well, we don't know if
Speaker 1: it's unknown, we don't know the nature of the phenomena
Speaker 1: at all. We need to start putting out these sensor
Speaker 1: systems in order to figure out what are the sensors
Speaker 1: that hit when a UAP flies over. If you get
Speaker 1: one for real, you know something that is demonstrating anomalist behavior.
Speaker 1: Not all your sensor systems are going to go off.
Speaker 1: It might not be any unique temperature. Maybe the temperature
Speaker 1: is the same temperature as you know the ambient air,
Speaker 1: but we're getting a weird type of radiation reading That
Speaker 1: means we need to look at that radiation and then
Speaker 1: that threshold is going to be based off of radiation
Speaker 1: readings along with maybe some other like cent data like
Speaker 1: video or something, or if it's something that creates heat,
Speaker 1: it is hot, you know, we're getting higher temperature readings
Speaker 1: when these things are around, but we're not getting radiation. Well,
Speaker 1: then we need to look at the temperature aspect. We
Speaker 1: don't know enough information to do. A lot of people
Speaker 1: feel like, oh, they're changing the goalposts. Nobody is changing
Speaker 1: any goalposts. We're just making better plays. We're getting further
Speaker 1: down the field, but we're not even close to being
Speaker 1: able to kick a fill goal. So to say the
Speaker 1: goalpost is being moved, it's just the wrong perspective. What
Speaker 1: we need to do is keep gathering data because we
Speaker 1: don't have enough information to say what those thresholds are.
Speaker 1: Science is the study of anomalous things, and there's many
Speaker 1: different manifestations because there's so much out there that the
Speaker 1: data can take. So we've got to gather data before
Speaker 1: we can get to that. And then finally I have
Speaker 1: here UAP Discovery. So that's a new five oh one.
Speaker 1: See I've created I've created it for doing what I do,
Speaker 1: gathering those videos and data. And this group is specifically
Speaker 1: focused on gathering data using sensor systems and then doing
Speaker 1: that analysis. So it's crowdsourcing data and crowd analyzing that
Speaker 1: data to get that too, scientists to hopefully find those
Speaker 1: needles in the haystack so that we can get that verification.
Speaker 1: And I think this is the common ground. This is
Speaker 1: what we all want. Whether you're really fringy, whether you're saying, hey,
Speaker 1: aliens are here and not being abducted, well, I'm working
Speaker 1: to prove that. Then we're all working to prove that
Speaker 1: by gathering this data and then getting that analyzed. If
Speaker 1: that's not happening and it's something else, well then we'll
Speaker 1: show that with the data. The point is is that
Speaker 1: all of us want to know, right, and so all
Speaker 1: of us needs, all of us benefit from this, and
Speaker 1: we don't have to necessarily. Maybe you're not interested in
Speaker 1: the scientific investigation of this, that's fine, you don't have
Speaker 1: to get involved or even pay attention. But we don't
Speaker 1: need to fight and call each other names. We can
Speaker 1: have a space where it's very inclusive, where we're all
Speaker 1: working positively together with NASA, with ARROW, with the debunkers,
Speaker 1: with everybody. And that's the plan. That's what UAP discovery
Speaker 1: is all about. This is just a picture on the
Speaker 1: left of kind of a Galileo system where they were
Speaker 1: putting and this is extraordinary to me. So this is
Speaker 1: a bunch of UFO hunting sensors on the top of
Speaker 1: a building out Harvard. Who would have imagined ten years
Speaker 1: ago that Harvard University would have all this UFO hunting
Speaker 1: stuff on it. On the right are the UFODAPT type
Speaker 1: of systems where you could purchase and put those together.
Speaker 1: I want to also encourage kids and students at universities
Speaker 1: and high schools to kind of do the work to
Speaker 1: put these together too and aid them. And that's what
Speaker 1: UAP discovery is about. Where we can all get together
Speaker 1: and do this sort of thing and gather this data
Speaker 1: and hopefully solve this. I think that we all together
Speaker 1: then solve this mystery. I think that all of us
Speaker 1: together doing this sort of work, have the best chance
Speaker 1: at discovering something. And I argue, you know, I love
Speaker 1: SETI I'm all for the search for extra terrestrial intelligence.
Speaker 1: But what have they gotten so far? Nothing? They haven't
Speaker 1: gotten anything. But I think people argue it's a worthwhile effort.
Speaker 1: So I think what we want to do looking closer
Speaker 1: to home for not just aliens, but other sort of
Speaker 1: anomalous phenomena is even just as valid, if not even
Speaker 1: even more valid effort. So I think it's worthwhile to look.
Speaker 1: It's fun, it's interesting, and I think it can even
Speaker 1: get students and people more interested in science. So that's
Speaker 1: why I love this, That's why I created UAP Discovery.
Speaker 1: I think it's the type of space that even NASA
Speaker 1: can be comfortable with, and to be honest, it's a
Speaker 1: model for what NASA could be doing to help in
Speaker 1: this area. But with the state of the DoD and
Speaker 1: the cuts and everything, I don't know that we're going
Speaker 1: to get anything or movement on any of that anytime soon.
Speaker 1: But this is kind of the focus, my focus, and
Speaker 1: the tenor in perspective that you will be getting on
Speaker 1: this show. I know it's a niche type of thing,
Speaker 1: and if it's not your cup of tea, that's fine,
Speaker 1: but you know, I want to make some real headway.
Speaker 1: I don't want to sit around listening to stories that
Speaker 1: never can be proven. I've done that for a very
Speaker 1: long time. I'm way past that. It's time to get
Speaker 1: evidence improve this stuff. Speaking of data and evidence, it's
Speaker 1: time to look at some UFO cases. All right, let's
Speaker 1: take a look at these. So, oh, this is a
Speaker 1: really fun one. Let me start this over. So this
Speaker 1: is new. We just got this. This was just taken
Speaker 1: April sixteenth, so just this morning. Actually, that's how new
Speaker 1: this one is. Of course, this is going to air
Speaker 1: on the seventeenth, but I'm recording on the sixteenth. This
Speaker 1: is over Arlington, Texas. And what is that? So we've
Speaker 1: got these blinking lights kind of a square configuration beaming
Speaker 1: this light down. What that is a drone? And I
Speaker 1: learned this weekend from at Movefund from some former law
Speaker 1: enforcement and others that you know, this is kind of
Speaker 1: a common thing these days that the law enforcement are
Speaker 1: flying around drones and they do have lights that can
Speaker 1: shine down like that. This is good to know because
Speaker 1: let's see if we can get a little more of them.
Speaker 1: But this is good to know because I it was
Speaker 1: recently on a PBS special PBS Nova, where they were
Speaker 1: looking at some of our Enigma cases. And on that
Speaker 1: show we showed this one here, this weird one from
Speaker 1: July third. This was actually Elwood, Pennsylvania. And in this object,
Speaker 1: you see this object coming to the screen, just this
Speaker 1: light and then later on it beams this very strong lightdown.
Speaker 1: This is from July third. Let's see if I can
Speaker 1: get that beam part again. But it's beaming this light
Speaker 1: down and I think this probably was a law enforcement drone.
Speaker 1: Now I wasn't sure what it was before, but it
Speaker 1: probably was a law enforcement drone and it would make
Speaker 1: sense that they're checking out fireworks on July third, you
Speaker 1: know who the heck is out there shooting off these
Speaker 1: fireworks and then it slowly moves away later, so that
Speaker 1: was probably. So this is an unknown for me that
Speaker 1: is solved. Maybe some of you out there are like, uh, duh,
Speaker 1: I always knew it was a drone. I wasn't sure,
Speaker 1: and you know what, that's fine. A lot of times
Speaker 1: I'll post some of these videos and people will be like,
Speaker 1: you idiot, that's a drone or that's this or that's that,
Speaker 1: and then I look at it and like, okay, it
Speaker 1: looks like you're right. It's okay. I think, you know,
Speaker 1: we got to quit beating each other up for stuff
Speaker 1: like that. It's okay to post something that you don't know.
Speaker 1: The Congressional definition for a UAP is something that is
Speaker 1: not immediately identifiable, and these were not Some of these
Speaker 1: are not immediately identified viable to me, maybe they are
Speaker 1: to you. A lot of people agree with me when
Speaker 1: I show these videos and they're like, wow, that does
Speaker 1: look weird. But that's part of the learning process. So
Speaker 1: I think we need to make a space where we're
Speaker 1: not embarrassed. And I'm not going to be embarrassed to
Speaker 1: post something that I don't know what it is, because
Speaker 1: I know if someone does figure out what it is,
Speaker 1: and I'm going to be educated on that now, I'm
Speaker 1: going to know going forward, and that's what's important. That's
Speaker 1: what analysis is. So that's that one. So here are
Speaker 1: a couple more from this year. And this is a
Speaker 1: really weird one to me. This was from January. And
Speaker 1: look at this. So this guy says he sees a
Speaker 1: blinking light, he zooms in, probably a plane. I don't
Speaker 1: know that that light's interesting. And then look at those
Speaker 1: two things shoot up in the air there together maybe birds,
Speaker 1: probably birds, but pretty weird. Video is pretty short. So
Speaker 1: here they'll come again. Here we go. Look at that.
Speaker 1: So they come together and shoot up in the air
Speaker 1: and boom they go away. That's pretty weird. Do you
Speaker 1: think that's birds kind of strange if it is, but
Speaker 1: I guess it could be. I like that video that's
Speaker 1: kind of strange. This is from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on January eleventh.
Speaker 1: But then the more recent one is this one. I
Speaker 1: really like this. This is from Jones, Oklahoma, April eighth.
Speaker 1: But this person got like three or four videos and
Speaker 1: there are multiple objects like this, and you see this
Speaker 1: object come in fade away, and that's what this one is,
Speaker 1: come in fade away. And they put another post out
Speaker 1: with a couple more videos that are similar, but with
Speaker 1: more objects doing this fading in and fading out. So
Speaker 1: he said over the night he saw several objects with
Speaker 1: doing this behavior. Now, if this was from an aircraft,
Speaker 1: I would say it was SpaceX because SpaceX looks like
Speaker 1: this pretty much exactly like that from an aircraft. You know,
Speaker 1: it's a racetrack phenomena. I interviewed Ben Hansen last year
Speaker 1: about these. He's a researcher who investigated these and in
Speaker 1: their investigation they figured out these were starlink. But I
Speaker 1: don't know that they can manifest like that from the ground,
Speaker 1: so we'll have to get more people looking at that.
Speaker 1: But that's pretty weird. I think, don't know what that
Speaker 1: one is. So I'll put the links to these of
Speaker 1: course in the bottom, so you can check those out yourself.
Speaker 1: But what the heck could that be? I don't know.
Speaker 1: Here's another video where the same type of things going on. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm just not sure even to kind of speculate a
Speaker 1: bunch of drones. You know Chinese lanterns, would they fade
Speaker 1: and float up in a while, But you see them
Speaker 1: lit and going. They're lit the whole time, not fading
Speaker 1: in and out. So I don't know what that one is.
Speaker 1: Pretty weird. Some good videos, so we will review. And again,
Speaker 1: you know, these are just unknown, there's no doubt. And
Speaker 1: just so you know, I expect when I post these videos,
Speaker 1: I expect that somebody somewhere is going to be able
Speaker 1: to figure out what they are. I do not expect
Speaker 1: that you know all of these videos or aliens, or
Speaker 1: that you know these are proof of something anomalists going on.
Speaker 1: But I think that they're worth looking into because they
Speaker 1: could be. And I am not a scientist. I'm not
Speaker 1: a physicist, and so I from experience don't know which
Speaker 1: of these videos is really going to excite a scientist
Speaker 1: where they're going to look at that and say, you
Speaker 1: know what, I can analyze that and really figure something
Speaker 1: out with that one. And that's what's exciting is to
Speaker 1: give them that sort of data to work with. And
Speaker 1: that's the whole point is crowdsourcing data and then getting
Speaker 1: that analyzed. So I'll bring to you in the future
Speaker 1: when some of these are resolved, just like that drone
Speaker 1: one that we looked at a little earlier that I
Speaker 1: think now is that the the law enforcement trone. So
Speaker 1: we'll check those out. That is it for this week's show.
Speaker 1: Thank you all so much for joining me. Stay tuned
Speaker 1: for more. I hope that you enjoyed this. We'll have
Speaker 1: interviews going on, so it's just not me blabbing away
Speaker 1: in the future. Of course, these are posted on YouTube
Speaker 1: also if you want to see the videos that I
Speaker 1: had posted. But thank you all so much for joining
Speaker 1: me again on the podcast. I think that the time
Speaker 1: is right. You know, there's a lot of wild kind
Speaker 1: of stuff going on out there in this field, but
Speaker 1: I think the time is right to take a new,
Speaker 1: sober examination of this. I think hopefully people did get
Speaker 1: snagged by some of the information that did not turn
Speaker 1: out to be accurate. But what's exciting That got a
Speaker 1: lot of people into taking another look at UFOs and
Speaker 1: then getting the Congress and NASA and DoD to say, yeah,
Speaker 1: UAPR are a real deal. We should take them seriously.
Speaker 1: And that's what we're doing here on this show. We're
Speaker 1: taking all of this seriously, taking a hard, skeptical, grounded,
Speaker 1: sober look at all of this information, not lying to
Speaker 1: ourselves or sensationalizing, to really try to figure out what
Speaker 1: is there and to investigate and hopefully finally come to
Speaker 1: some resolution or make some novel interesting discoveries when it
Speaker 1: comes to the uap phenomena. Thank you all for joining.
Speaker 1: Until next time. Audio Smooth Chaco's