Speaker 1: All right, so I want you to just imagine this
for a second. You're a pilot. You're in a small
white aircraft cruising at about five thousand feet and you're
flying just off the glittering packed coastline of southern California.
Below you, there's just the Pacific and you're heading out
toward Catalina Island.
Speaker 2: Okay, I'm with you.
Speaker 1: You're not just joy riding though. You are running a
very sophisticated, meticulous grid search. You're sticking to a target
zone that was scientifically calculated for you.
Speaker 2: So this is a mission.
Speaker 1: It is. And then all of a sudden, everything goes wrong,
not one thing after another, but all at once. It's
like the world just turns against your instruments. Your GPS
on your iPad, the one feeding your transponder data, which
you are legally required to have, it just vanishes. Your
plain icon is gone. Then your main communication radio, the
one you just used perfectly to avoid a huge Southwest airliner,
it goes completely silent just when you're trying to call
air traffic.
Speaker 2: Control, so you're blind and your death exactly.
Speaker 1: And the weirdest part that specialized cutting edge particle detector
you have sitting on the floor next to you. It
registers an immediate off the chart's energy spike and then
just freezes.
Speaker 2: It freezes, not turns off.
Speaker 1: No, not a loose wire. It's still powered on. It's
just completely frozen, like it's been overwhelmed by something that
just shouldn't be there in that little patch of air.
Speaker 2: Okay, that's a lot to happen at once, right, So.
Speaker 1: What is that? Is that just a crazy confluence of random,
highly improbable glitches. Is it some weird, undiscovered geological quirk
of the California.
Speaker 2: Bite, or is it something far stranger.
Speaker 1: Something far stranger and something highly localized, maybe a deliberate
or even an unavoidable byproduct of some kind of non
human technology operating right off the coast of Los Angeles.
Speaker 2: And that's what we're getting into today.
Speaker 1: Welcome to Thrilling Threads. Today, we are taking exhaustive deep
dive into a set of sources that I think represent
a massive institutional shift in how the unexplained is being studied.
Our source material is coming primarily from the News Nation
program Reality Check.
Speaker 2: Right with host Ross Killer, and he interviewed two really
key figures who are leading this charge to apply hard
science to this mystery.
Speaker 1: We're talking about the renowned UAP investigator and former FBI
agent Ben Hansen and the esteemed physicist, Professor Matthew Jaddagus
of SU and y Albany.
Speaker 2: So our mission today is really to unpack the journey
of their joint effort, the UAPx expedition. And you need
to understand this isn't just about, you know, collecting anecdotal sightings.
This is about applying particle physics and real statistical rigor
to phenomena that for decades have just been dismissed. We're
going to be dissepting their work, their actual published paper
in a top aerospace journal, and the really dramatic localized
events that happened when a pilot flew directly into their
mathematically predicted target zone.
Speaker 1: We're looking for those precise nuggets of knowledge, you know, yes,
startling connections, the quantifiable data points that pop up when
cutting edge science confronts events that just refuse to be
categorized as normal.
Speaker 2: What does it actually mean when the instruments themselves fail
in the face of the unexplained.
Speaker 1: Okay, so let's unpack this roster of experts because their
combined backgrounds are really what give this UAPx expedition so
much weight.
Speaker 2: Yeah, these aren't just enthusiasts, as the source noted, they
are highly credential professionals, and their whole approach is one
of painstaking scientific.
Speaker 1: Caution, which ironically makes the weird data they did collect
all the more compelling.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, the credentials are the key here to unlocking academic acceptance.
You start with Professor Matthew Jadagus. His background alone signals
a complete paradigm shift in this whole discussion.
Speaker 1: He's the real deal.
Speaker 2: He has a PhD from the University of Chicago. He's
a specialist in particle and astroparticle physics, and his day job,
his main professional focus is dark matter detection.
Speaker 1: So we're talking about someone who spends his career trying
to contect the fundamental invisible components of the entire universe.
Speaker 2: Yes, and then you get this little detail that just
humanizes all that high level expertise, which.
Speaker 1: I love, the Star Trek connection.
Speaker 2: The Star Trek connection. His stated inspiration for getting into
science wasn't just some abstract theory. He specifically cited commander
data from Star Trek the Next Generation, which.
Speaker 1: Is perfect right, that blend of high level academia, understanding
the deep, dense rules of physics, but also having this
accessibility in this this willingness to explore the unknown.
Speaker 2: It shows you the exact mindset you need to tackle
problems that other people just deem too out there.
Speaker 1: Precisely, his presence just lends immediate credibility, and then you
pair them with Ben Hansen.
Speaker 2: Who provides that necessary grounding in actual field investigation. I mean,
he's a former FBI agent with specific experience in counter
terrorism and behavioral analysis, and that kind of training is
just invaluable.
Speaker 1: Why specifically because it.
Speaker 2: Gives him an immediate understand of things like establishing a
chain of custody for evidence, assessing how reliable a witnesses,
and crucially pattern analysis. He knows how to filter out
all the noise and identify a genuine, recurring phenomenon.
Speaker 1: And let's not forget his other experience. He's a pilot,
he's an emergency manager, and he's a very well known
UAP investigator from shows like fact or Faked and UFO Witness.
Speaker 2: So you have this perfect team. A top tier particle
physicist who focuses on invisible things and a meticulous former
federal agent who focuses on verifiable facts and human behavior.
Speaker 1: That collaboration, it feels like it was engineered specifically to
bypass decades of institutional stigma.
Speaker 2: And this combination led them directly to their groundbreaking achievement,
the publication of the UAPx peer reviewed paper summarizing their
initial field expedition right co.
Speaker 1: Authored by JADDIGUS Professor Kevin Kanuth, Professor Cecilia Levi.
Speaker 2: Who, by the way, insists on trying to find prosaic
explanations for absolutely everything. She's the skee on the team.
Speaker 1: The perfect person to have and engineer Ben Kogelski. And
this work was accepted and published in the highly respected
journal Progress in Aerospace Sciences.
Speaker 2: And we really have to dwell on that journal for
a moment. Progress and Aerospace Sciences.
Speaker 1: It sounds like the kind of publication where you find,
you know, design specs for jets or papers on orbital mechanics,
not not UFO reports. So why is that specific journal
acceptance such a critical breakthrough.
Speaker 2: It's all about the deeply entrenched academic taboo for nearly
a century. Any serious scientists who touched UAP research, you know,
they often saw their careers stall, their funding dry up,
or their credibility just questioned.
Speaker 1: So to be published here is it's a huge deal.
Speaker 2: It is, in Jatigus's own words, it's either the number
one or tied for the number one highest reputation journal
to carry UAP research anywhere in the world. This acceptance,
it's like a signal flare to the entire scientific community.
Speaker 1: It's saying this research has statistical rigor, we can no
longer afford to just dismiss it out of hand.
Speaker 2: Exactly. It's the institutional risk that the editors and the
peer reviewers took that matters just as much as the
paper itself. They risked their own professional standing to acknowledge
that this subject deserves a serious investigation.
Speaker 1: Which reduces the ability of other scientists to just label
it junk science.
Speaker 2: Right. And this wasn't just a one off publication slip.
This was a special edition of the journal that contained
three major foundational works. Okay, So alongside the UAPx paper,
there was Professor Kevin Kanooth's massive, over one hundred page
summary of the entire UAP field.
Speaker 1: One hundred pages published in a top journal that essentially
institutionalizing the entire historical context of the UAP field.
Speaker 2: It's providing a comprehensive objective record for anyone who wants
to dive into the background without having to rely on
you know, niche blogs or forums. It legitimized the entire
history of the topic.
Speaker 1: Wow. And the third paper.
Speaker 2: The third paper was penned by the celebrated ufologist and
scientist Jacques Valais. It focused specific on power and energy
output in luminosity related to UAP observations.
Speaker 1: So Valat's bringing his decades of data collection and categorization.
Speaker 2: To the table, all wrapped within a single, highly reputable publication.
These three papers collectively, they just represent a title shift.
They're setting a new bar for what constitutes acceptable serious
scientific inquiry into the unexplained.
Speaker 1: So with all that rigor established, let's turn to the
specific terminology they chose for their findings. They didn't call
their initial data points anomalies. No, they call them ambiguities.
And we need to really dive into the philosophical distinction there.
Speaker 2: This distinction, it really defines the entire scientific philosophy of
the UAPx team. The term ambiguity, which was suggested by
Professor Canus is defined as a potential anomaly, potential that
has not yet risen to this statistical and quantitative rigor
that's necessary to rule out a prosaic or a boring
explainable source.
Speaker 1: So, in Layman's terms, they saw some strange on the camera,
but they hadn't yet amassed the overwhelming evidence that five
sigma proof we'll talk about later that's required to say definitively,
this cannot be a helicopter or a fly or space jump.
Speaker 2: Precisely, they're establishing a hierarchy of certainty. An anomaly is
an event where the mundane explanations have been statistically eliminated,
and ambiguity is an event that defies an immediate mondane explanation.
Speaker 1: But they still recognize there's a good chance that with
more data a simple answer might emerge.
Speaker 2: Yes, and the purpose of using that word is so crucial.
It prevents the premature labeling of something as extraordinary.
Speaker 1: They're protecting their data from being immediately dismissed by skeptics,
right while also protecting themselves from being accused of jumping
to the alien conclusion.
Speaker 2: Exactly. The scientific approach requires healthy skepticism of both the
prosaic hypothesis and the extraordinary one. The ambiguity is the
scientifically honest data point that says, we can't explain this
simply yet, but we also can't yet declare it truly
anomalist because we haven't established that five sigma proof.
Speaker 1: It's a crucial takeaway. They're looking for objective proof or
objective disproof, not just confirmation of a belief.
Speaker 2: That's real science.
Speaker 1: With that necessary scientific groundwork laid, let's zoom in on
the location itself, the Channel Islands, specifically the area around Catalina. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Ben Hanson described this stretch of ocean as a decade
long hotspot for him personally, but the activity there has
a shockingly long history.
Speaker 1: The persistence is what makes this area so compelling, isn't it?
Speaker 2: It really is. Hanson notes UAP activity in this specific
region going all the way back to the eighteen hundreds.
We have persistent anecdotal accounts and then eventual photographic and
video accounts like the famous nineteen sixties case.
Speaker 1: The one with the Coastguard helicopter pilot.
Speaker 2: That's the one he filmed an object flying over the
backside of the island. This isn't a flash in the
pan This is a recurring, generational phenomenon that's anchored to
a specific geography, and.
Speaker 1: The reason for that persistence seems absolutely rooted in the
unique geography of the area. It's not just beautiful out there,
it's highly peculiar and strategically perfect.
Speaker 2: That's the key what makes this area so distinct from
a geological or navigational perspective. That is it first, the
sheer proximity of these truly deep channels. Catalina Island is
unique along the entire US coast because just a quarter
mile off the shore, sometimes even closer, the ocean bottom
just drops.
Speaker 1: Precipitously down thousands of feet.
Speaker 2: Thousands of feet down into the deep abyssle plane. You
basically go from the beach to a mile deep canyon
almost instantly.
Speaker 1: It's an immediate, perfect hideout. You could conceal something the
size of a naval fleet thousands of feet down, and
yet you are right on the doorstep of the largest
concentration of human activity in North America.
Speaker 2: La County with nine million people, Orange County with three million.
The observation deck is perfectly hidden and yet perfectly situated.
Speaker 1: And beyond the depth. Hanson notes this specific recognized geophysical feature.
That's the marked on official navigational charts.
Speaker 2: The magnetic anomalies.
Speaker 1: Exactly warnings about magnetic anomalies. These warnings appear on both
marine charts and air charts.
Speaker 2: So pilots and sailors are explicitly warned that their compasses
may be off by several degrees in this specific region.
Speaker 1: And this isn't just some pilot rumor, this is institutionalized
data warning people away from trusting their magnetic compasses. What
could cause something like that, Well, that's where.
Speaker 2: The speculation comes in and where marine geologists have raised
their eyebrows. You know. Potential prosaic causes could be unusually
concentrated iron deposits in the seafloor rock or maybe ancient
volcanic vents that introduce magnetically strange minerals.
Speaker 1: But the sources also mentioned marine geologists seeing features under
the water that are just difficult to explain whether they're
volcanic or not.
Speaker 2: It suggests an underlying, very active and geophysically strange patch
of the Earth's crust.
Speaker 1: Which maybe is why the United States government recognized the
strategic value of this area decades ago. For the exact
purpose of concealment exactly.
Speaker 2: Hanson discussed Project.
Speaker 1: Rock Site, a nineteen sixties Navy project.
Speaker 2: Yes, and they weren't just curious about the area, They
were specifically surveying it to determine its suitability for building
a massive concealed underwater.
Speaker 1: Base, an underwater base like a deep refuge for world
elites in case of a nuclear exchange, built right into
the bottom of the island itself.
Speaker 2: That's the concept. It's staggering, But think about the logistics.
The Navy explored the idea of carving out a gigantic
protected insulation.
Speaker 1: So if the government's own top engineers and geologists recognized
that the extreme depth and the geophysical strangeness of Catalina
made it the single best place on the entire US
coastline for deep concealment.
Speaker 2: Then the idea of unidentified submerged objects utilizing that same
natural perfect feature is not really ridiculous at all. To
use Hanson's words.
Speaker 1: It's a logical conclusion based on established strategic thinking.
Speaker 2: This confluence of factors, the history, the depth, the magnetic quarks,
the government's own desire to use it for concealment. That's
what forms what they call the Catalina Triangle.
Speaker 1: The primary hotspad of UAP and USO incursions.
Speaker 2: The triangle is roughly triangulated between Santa Barbara and the
Channel Islands, Catalina Island and then down to Guadalube, Mexico.
It defines that whole region along the coast where you
have these immediate, extremely deep channels.
Speaker 1: If you need to observe a major civilization while maintaining
maximum stealth, this is geographically the perfect spot.
Speaker 2: It is.
Speaker 1: Now, speaking of things that are supposedly hidden, we have
to address that persistent Internet controversy that Ben Hansen helped clarify.
The infamous Malibu UFO base ah.
Speaker 2: Yes, the one spotted on Google Earth. This caused a
massive stir. Maybe a decade ago.
Speaker 1: Satellite imagery captured what looked like a complex structure on
the seafloor off Malibu. People said it looked like the Millennium.
Speaker 2: Falcon, or that it had these strange pillar like structures
suggesting a huge artificial gateway.
Speaker 1: And the narrative was that people would post the exact
coordinates and then the image would disappear or get blurred
out by Google, fueling the idea that there was a
cover up.
Speaker 2: Right, Hanson confirms he and his team investigated that specific
landmark extensively using geological data, and he clarifies that for
the record, the specific feature in that image was determined
to be a known geological feature, so.
Speaker 1: It was definitively debunked as an artificial structure. It was
of the famous Malibu UFO base was just a trick
of the light in Beth imagery.
Speaker 2: Case closed, not entirely, and here is Hanson's crucial caveat
which keeps the idea alive despite that specific image being debunked.
Hanson emphasizes the overwhelming number of witnesses he has.
Speaker 1: Interviewed, pilots, mariners, fishermen.
Speaker 2: Exactly people who have seen cracked emerged directly from the
water near those deep canyons off Malibu and Ronando Beach.
Speaker 1: So the structure in the photo might have been natural,
but the phenomenon of objects emerging from the deep right
where the seafloor drops thousands of feet lends powerful credence
to the idea of an underwater facility or presence.
Speaker 2: Precisely, the debunking of a single satellite photo does not
debunk the cumulative weight of decades of witness testimony that
confirms the strategic value of that location.
Speaker 1: The scientific approach demands ruling out the rock formation, but
the investigative approach acknowledges that the sightings of usos emerging
there remain highly.
Speaker 2: Relevant, and that's the balance they're trying to strike.
Speaker 1: So, armed with all this knowledge of this unique geological
setting and the decades of history, the UAPx team launched
its scientific expedition. They set up in July twenty twenty
one near Laguna Beach.
Speaker 2: Right. They were perched on a high rise house overlooking
the channel, looking directly toward Catalina Island, and this was
a very sophisticated multisensor operation.
Speaker 1: They deployed some cutting edge gear designed to capture evidence
across multiple spectra, including a system called the UFODAP camera, which.
Speaker 2: Was run in a motion triggered night vision mode. They
were essentially running the highest tech security camera you can imagine,
pointed at the sky and the sea, waiting for anything
unusual to cross its path.
Speaker 1: And they caught something, something that became the centerpiece of
their published paper. Let's detail the specific ambiguity that launched
a thousand hypotheses.
Speaker 2: The primary visual finding was a strange dark spot with
white speckles that was captured across multiple camera frames and
multiple videos over a short period.
Speaker 1: This is the event that was popularized in the documentary
A Tear in the Sky.
Speaker 2: That's the one and the name is dramatic, suggesting a
portal or a literal rip in space time. But Professor
Jadigus was incredibly cautious in his scientific analysis, as he
should be, he was required to be. Jadigus notes that
after extensive review, their most likely prosaic explanation ended up
being something utterly.
Speaker 1: Mundane, a fly.
Speaker 2: A fly on the lens. The dark spot with speckles
could have simply been an insect taking off from the
camera lens, momentarily blocking the light and creating that effect.
Speaker 1: So if the most likely explanation is just a bug,
why didn't they just dismiss it? Why did this bug
become an ambiguity worthy of publication in a top aerospace journal.
Speaker 2: Because of the temporal coincidence. That's the key. What prevented
it from being completely dismissed was that the precise moment
the camera captured this visual event, it coincided with an
unexpected ionizing radiation event.
Speaker 1: Detected by the team's other instrumentation running at the same time.
Speaker 2: Exactly the data just refused to fully align with a
simple fly on the lens explanation.
Speaker 1: This brings us to the cosmic watch. We referred to
it as a digital Geiger counter, but we need to
explain its function a bit more deeply.
Speaker 2: The cosmic watch is an ingenious, low cost, high precision
particle detector. It was developed at places like MIT. It's
essentially a USB enabled detector designed to measure high energy particles.
Speaker 1: Specifically ionizing radiation like muons.
Speaker 2: Right, the UAPx team deployed several of these devices in
the field, including the one Ben Hansen later flew in
the plane.
Speaker 1: So what are muons and why are they important?
Speaker 2: Muons are fundamental articles. You can think of them as
heavy electrons. They're created when cosmic rays, these extremely high
energy particles from distant supernovae, black holes, or the Sun,
smash into the Earth's atmosphere.
Speaker 1: Now they're just constantly raining down.
Speaker 2: On us all the time. They can penetrate deep into
rock and water, which is why we use them for
things like scanning pyramids. The cosmic watch is essentially just
counting these natural high energy particles.
Speaker 1: Now, when most people hear ionizing radiation, they immediately think danger,
nuclear fallout. We need to be clear that the cosmic
Watch is just measuring a constant natural phenomena.
Speaker 2: That's a crucial clarification. We are constantly bathed in naturally
occurring background radiation. The key significance in the UAPx finding
wasn't danger, It was the timing and the rate of energy.
Speaker 1: They were looking for a non random correlation.
Speaker 2: Exactly, a statistically significant hit of higher than average energy
or rate that occurred at the exact same time as
the visual camera anomaly.
Speaker 1: So the argument is a fly lands on the lens,
that's boring, But a fly lands on the lens at
the precise moment a statistically anomalous energy spike hits our
particle detector.
Speaker 2: Now, that is a remarkable, low probability coincidence that demands
further investigation.
Speaker 1: Exactly. Even though they could later find more evidence to
suggest a prosaic explanation for the visual part the temporal
coincidence with the measurable particle physics anomaly meant the event
couldn't just be closed as a simple case of a bug.
Speaker 2: That combination the visual ambiguity and the highly improbable coinciding
particle spike is what elevated it to an official ambiguity
and form the basis for the next phase of the investigation.
Speaker 1: And that journey from ambiguity to anomaly it's defined by
scientific patients and statistical rigor.
Speaker 2: Professor Jatagus constantly stressed that the most important takeaway from
the initial UAPx work wasn't the fly or not a
fly question. It was the need to establish proof or
disprove without immediately resorting to the non human intelligence the nhipothesis.
Speaker 1: And that commitment to precision is what allows them to
push back against the academic stigma. They're injecting the rigorous
standards of particle physics, probably the most demanding science on Earth,
into a field that's historically relied on fuzzy data.
Speaker 2: And this commitment led them to formally challenge Karl Sagan's
famous and often weaponized adage extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Speaker 1: That phrase has been used to bludge in UAP researchers
for decades. Right it demands a level of proof that
was basically impossible to achieve given the elusive nature of
the phenomena. It sets a hurdle without defining how high
it is.
Speaker 2: So the UAPx paper formally addressed this. They quantified what
extraordinary evidence actually means in the hard sciences. They established
the standard for declaring a UAP event a true anomaly
at five sigma.
Speaker 1: Five sigma for our listeners. That's not just some fancy term.
That is the gold standard used in particle physics to
declare discovery like.
Speaker 2: The discovery of the Higgs boson at the large Hadron.
Speaker 1: Cool It means the statistical probability that your result is
just due to random chance is about one in three
point five million.
Speaker 2: That is the level of certainty required to move from
a theory to a declaration in fundamental physics, and applying
this standard to UAPs is a revolutionary step. It moves
the discussion beyond semantics and personal belief.
Speaker 1: Now scientists can look at a data set and say, okay,
this observation is a two sigma so it's still a
fascinating ambiguity, or this is at five sigma and we
can now tentatively declare a new unexplainable phenomenon.
Speaker 2: It provides a globally accepted statistical mechanism for vetting the extraordinary.
Speaker 1: Beyond just defining that threshold, the UAPx team had to
develop brand new methodologies because the existing tools for UAP
analysis were either inadequate or classified.
Speaker 2: They basically had to invent the means to analyze their
own data, and two new techniques really stand out. First,
they developed custom AI and machine learning software for video analysis.
Speaker 3: This is k TAP, the Custom Target Analysis Protocol right,
and this software was designed specifically for automated motion detection
in fleer cameras, the military grade thermal imaging systems.
Speaker 1: And why is that so significant?
Speaker 2: According to Jadagus, this is among the first, if not
the first, non governmental and non classified software of its
kind developed for this purpose. Historically, only classified labs had
access to this level of analytical automation.
Speaker 1: So they're democratizing sophisticated UAP detection for the wider scientific community.
Speaker 2: They're moving the field out of the realm of proprietary
military data and into open source science. It's a true
academic breakthrough.
Speaker 1: And the second technique.
Speaker 2: Second, they utilized publicly available data for cross corroboration. They
started analyzing Doppler weather radar data.
Speaker 1: The same data meteorologists used to track storms exactly.
Speaker 2: This allowed them to check if the radar systems also
registered anything unusual in the atmosphere that coincided with their
camera and radiation hits.
Speaker 1: Did the weather radar prove anything?
Speaker 2: They found some hits, but again Jadagus noted they were
ambiguous and on the border of statistical significance. They were
consistent with the difficulty of the finding, but not conclusive
enough to establish five sigma proof.
Speaker 1: But the fact they're using public data streams to try
and corroborate events is part of this new commitment to
verifiable Mulli source evidence.
Speaker 2: Absolutely.
Speaker 1: Okay, let's pivot to the speculative side of things. Professor
jattigis explicitly mentioned wanting to bring atomic clocks on future expeditions.
Why would a particle physicist need an incredibly precise, millisecond
accurate timekeeping device to investigate things flying off the coast
of LA This sounds like it's leaning into the WU
side of the discussion.
Speaker 2: That's a fair challenge, but the scientific philosophy here is crucial.
You have to test even the craziest hypotheses rigorously. Okay,
Jaddig has admitted this directly addresses One of the most
speculative effects alleged in UAP accounts, especially from hot spots
like Skinwalker Ranch, the idea of localized time distortions, the claims.
Speaker 1: That clocks speed up or slow down, or that people
lose minutes or hours near. These phenomena class spacetime.
Speaker 2: Weirdness exactly, and Jadagus argues that instead of just dismissing
these consistent anecdotal reports, you have to test them. He
believes that if UAPs are manipulating space time or generating
massive localized energy fields, they might be inducing subtle gravitational
or temporal distortions that could be measurable with an atomic.
Speaker 1: Clock, and those might correlate with the GPS disruptions.
Speaker 2: Potentially, if you can precisely measure time down to nanoseconds
using atomic clocks, you can begin to prove or disprove
the influence of a UAP on spacetime itself.
Speaker 1: I really appreciate that intellectual honesty instead of ridicule. The
response is just robust, cutting.
Speaker 2: Edge testing, and that's the entire point of this new era.
Jadagus emphasized that they shoved all these achievements the definition
of five sigma the KTEP software. The Doppler use the
need for atomic clocks into one peer reviewed paper. Because
due to the decades of taboo, they knew they might
not get another chance to publish UAP work in such
a major journal.
Speaker 1: They had to maximize the impact immediately to push the
field forward. That extensive background sets the stage for what
is I think the most thrilling part of the investigation,
Ben Hansen's attempt to get corroborating data directly in the
sky above the initial ambiguity.
Speaker 2: This wasn't just some random flight. This was a targeted
scientific search that resulted in a series of localized, cumulative
electronic nightmares.
Speaker 1: Hanson's plan was meticulous. It was based directly on the
UAPx findings. He took off from Long Beach Airport in
a light plane flying at five thousand feet.
Speaker 2: An altitude that was roughly estimated by Professor Kanuth as
the potential height of the original terror in the sky ambiguity,
assuming it was a real airborne event, and he flew.
Speaker 1: That lawnmower grid pattern back and forth, gradually heading further
out toward the ocean, inside a rectangular area that Professor
Kannuth had geometrically calculated based on the physics of the
twenty twenty one ambiguity.
Speaker 2: He was flying into a mathematically predicted box of weirdness.
Speaker 1: He was, and as he conducted the survey, he also
did a little secondary mission. He briefly checked the San
Pedro area, which is near the hotspot for the notorious
jetpack lax man sightings.
Speaker 2: Right and Hanson theorizes that those sightings might not be
a man in a jetpack at all, but could be
low altitude components of these deeper offshore phenomena.
Speaker 1: But the real action, the real drama, happened when he
approached the boundary of that mathematically predicted target zone.
Speaker 2: And what makes this so compelling is the cumulative nature
of it all. It wasn't one piece of equipment failing.
It was three simultaneous, localized anomalies that you just can't
easily attribute to pilot error or poor maintenance.
Speaker 1: The first, and maybe most concerning from a data perspective,
involved the Cosmic Watch particle detector he had running inside
the cockpit.
Speaker 2: Okay, so as he neared the boundary of the calculated zone,
the cosmic Watch started picking up particles, muons and other
high energy radiation at rates that were suddenly off the charts.
Speaker 1: It wasn't just a slight increase, No, it.
Speaker 2: Was a massive, non prosaic data spike, and then just
as suddenly it froze. The device stopped taking data entirely,
even though the internal power remained on.
Speaker 1: His team member confirmed it. The unit was powered, but
the data logs were empty, as if the device had
been overwhelmed and just crashed.
Speaker 2: And let's just re emphasize the chilling analysis that Professor
Jaddigus provided about this failure mode. Yeah, he could only
replicate that exact stoppage when the cosmic Watch was exposed
to extremely high, potentially lethal levels of ionizing radiation, far
beyond what is naturally occurring.
Speaker 1: Now. Jadigus was quick to reassure everyone that those lethal
levels did not actually happen to Hansen, or he'd be
severely injured, of course.
Speaker 2: But the fact that the detector suffered that specific rare
failure mode overwhelmed and frozen, and only resumed normal operation
immediately after the plane left that rectangular target area that
is hugely significant.
Speaker 1: It suggests a temporary, highly localized non natural energy spike,
or maybe a localized electromagnetic field that scrambled the device's
internal processing.
Speaker 2: It experienced the effect of legal radiation without the actual cause,
a localized, concentrated assault on the instrumentation itself.
Speaker 1: Then there was the second anomaly, and for a pilot
in that airspace, this is unnerving. The GPSADSB disappearance.
Speaker 2: Hanson was using his iPad with the four flight app
which relies on GPS data and ADSB. As he flew
into the boundary box, his plane icon instantly vanished. He said,
it was as if I just disappeared off the planet.
Speaker 1: Just think about the implications of that. His plane is
legally mandated to broadcast its position via ADSB to air
traffic control and to other aircraft for collision avoidance.
Speaker 2: And the GPS unit was still powered on, but the
ability to transmit accurate position data was just gone. And
this was repeatable.
Speaker 1: The icon returned as soon as he left the box
and disappeared again when he flew back in.
Speaker 2: Which raised a severe aviation security concern. Hanson noted that
this kind of signal block goods or spoofing is exactly
the type of incident that worries federal regulators because of
fears of terrorism or external interference.
Speaker 1: If an external source can suddenly blind air traffic control
to a plane's presence, that's a major immediate hazard.
Speaker 2: And this leads to that ultimate unanswered question that the
critique highlighted. If this is an NHI base, and they
prioritize concealment, why would their technology interfere in a way
that so obviously flags its presence by causing a failure.
Speaker 1: Wouldn't it be more effective to just spoof the data
make the signal look perfectly normal.
Speaker 2: It suggests two powerful possibilities. One, their technology, while advanced,
is imperfect, and the interference is just an unavoidable byproduct
like engine noise.
Speaker 1: Or Two, the intent isn't concealment from aircraft, but maybe
a kind of localized defense mechanism, a sort of electronic
keepout field designed to disrupt human monitoring.
Speaker 2: And finally, the third anomaly, the VHF radio failure.
Speaker 1: Hanson had been talking with air traffic control the whole
flight on his primary radio one. He'd even done an
evasive maneuver with the Southwest flight hours earlier using that exact.
Speaker 2: Radio, But when he needed to contact SoCal approach for landing, clearance.
As he was leaving the area, Radio one went completely silent.
He got crickets.
Speaker 1: He had to immediately switch to his backup radio two
to regain communication.
Speaker 2: So you stack them up. A radiation detector shut down,
GPS signal loss, and a VHF radio failure, all happening
within the scientifically predicted target area. The cumulative coincidence is
statistically very very difficult to dismiss as just three separate,
random technical glitches.
Speaker 1: It strongly implies that something non prosaic is affecting the
electromagnetic spectrum in that specific geographic area.
Speaker 2: Moving from that localized, verifiable data to the broader hypothesis
unidentified submerged objects or USOS.
Speaker 1: Ben Hansen's a professional skeptic, but his cumulative experience in
this area led him to a very specific, high confidence
conclusion about the Catalina triangle.
Speaker 2: He starts with the op via strategic reality. Seventy percent
of the Earth is covered by water. Statistically, it's just
probable they operate there. But strategically the ocean provides the
perfect environment for long term stealthy reconnaissance.
Speaker 1: And we keep coming back to that unique depth profile
near Catalina. That's the key.
Speaker 2: Yes, the deep channels offer an immediate thousand feet deep
hidden vantage point right next to the massive population centers
of La and Orange County. Hanson notes that every local pier,
every major beach in that region connects to an underwater
canyon that quickly drops thousands of feet.
Speaker 1: Which means an NHI could be observing humanity's most active,
technologically advanced coastal zone while staying thousands of feet below
the surface, undetectable to all but the most specialized sonar.
Speaker 2: It makes the idea of a base, which the US
Navy itself wants surveyed for with Project Rock site incredibly
plausible for anyone seeking permanent strategic concealment.
Speaker 1: It's not a crazy fantasy, it's a geographical opportunity.
Speaker 2: And Hanson brought up the fascinating pigeons analogy.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this is from the experience of a radar operator,
Kevin Randall Right.
Speaker 2: Randall observed objects near Catalina that would essentially behave like
pigeons in a park. When naval forces approach, the objects
would scatter, disappear, and evade detection, But as soon as
the ship's.
Speaker 1: Left, the objects returned to their original positions.
Speaker 2: It's a brilliant analogy. Pigeons in a park don't want
anything to do with you. They're there for their own purposes,
but they are clearly aware of your presence and they
have an immediate, repeatable evasion strategy.
Speaker 1: It suggests awareness, intelligence, and emission that is not directly hostile,
but highly protective of its own operation.
Speaker 2: This raises the essential question about intent. Are they observing
us or are they here for resources or something else entirely,
and a huge clue might lie in the extensive local
military presence that overlaps with this hotspot.
Speaker 1: The backside of Cataline Island, San Clemente is primarily owned
by the Navy and used constantly for demolitions, naval exercises,
advanced training. It's a highly active, highly restricted military zone.
Speaker 2: So the question becomes one of causality. Is the NHI
interested because the Navy trains there, meaning they're monitoring our
most advanced military capabilities, or is.
Speaker 1: The Navy training there because of the known NHI activity
hoping to monitor, counter, or understand it.
Speaker 2: It's a classic chicken and egg scenario, but the correlation
is undeniable.
Speaker 1: So after all this analysis, the history, the unique geography,
the institutionalized government interest, the confirmed magnetic anomalies that scientifically
defined the ambiguity, and finally, the triple localized equipment malfunction
in the predicted zone. I think we have enough to
ask about Ben Hansen's final.
Speaker 2: Assessment after years of skeptical investigation and debriefing witnesses, does
he personally believe there is a non human intelligence presence
in the Catalina Triangle.
Speaker 1: His answer was unequivocal. He gives it a good ninety
percent chance.
Speaker 2: A good ninety percent chance. He says that if he
were to bet money on where to search for NHI
presence on Earth, that area the Kabalina Triangle would be
the absolute best place to.
Speaker 1: Look, and he ties this high confidence level back to
his own significant, high impact sighting of a large black triangle.
Speaker 2: Craft that came from the direction of Catalina and moved
over Huntington Beach. For Hanson, the combination of his personal
sighting with the cumulative objective evidence collected by UAPx has
just solidified his conviction that this specific coastal region is
active and utilized by something non prosaic.
Speaker 1: The scientific data and the physical experience now reinforced the
historical claims. We've moved from relying solely on eyewitness accounts
to having verifiable data, a frozen radiation detector, a block
GPS signal, all converging on one specific point in the ocean.
Speaker 2: It shifts the debate from belief to quantifiable fact.
Speaker 1: So what does this all mean for you listening to this?
We started this thrilling thread with a very cautious, pure
reviewed scientific paper that carefully labeled an event and ambiguity
and just urged further study.
Speaker 2: And we followed that study, which led directly to Alet
experiencing three simultaneous severe equipment failures, including GPS signal loss
and a radiation detector shut down in the exact target
zone mapped out by the physicists.
Speaker 1: We've seen how serious scientists are now pushing back against
decades of stigma, defining statistical proof with a five sigma standard,
publishing in top academic journals, and developing brand new tools
like k tap software, and using particle detectors to quantify
these extremely elusive effects.
Speaker 2: The discussion is no longer about greeny photographs. It's about
verifiable physical interference with advanced instrumentation repeatedly occurring in a
highly strategic patch of ocean.
Speaker 1: So here's the final thought. If a non human intelligence
or whatever is operating thousands of feet beneath the ocean
utilizes a mechanism whose primary defense is simply to interfere
with the detection systems of anyone who gets too close.
Does the sheer cumulative and mathematically improbable coincidence of those
three localized malfunctions, the GPS loss, the radio silence, the
detective freeze. Does that become stronger, more reliable evidence than
any clear picture could ever be.
Speaker 2: What do you think is happening in the deep dark
channels off the coast of California.
Speaker 1: Let us know your thoughts. Thank you for diving deep
with us on thrilling threads