Speaker 1: Welcome to the show.
Speaker 2: We had a little bit of technical difficulties, but here
Speaker 2: we are.
Speaker 1: We made it and all's well that ends well.
Speaker 2: I'm currently in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, and this is the
Speaker 2: home of the Betty and Barney Hill Fame where they lived.
Speaker 2: The historical societies running and exhibit has been all summer
Speaker 2: long of the Betty and Barney Hill case right in
Speaker 2: downtown Portsmouth. So tonight we are joined by former senior
Speaker 2: NASA official and space policy expert Mike Gold, along with
Speaker 2: my special co host astronomer markt' antonio. We'll be talking
Speaker 2: about how NASA has handled unidentified anomalous phenomena and the
Speaker 2: powerful stigma that has kept the subject from being seriously
Speaker 2: investigated by the scientific community for decades. I've talked about
Speaker 2: this many times in past shows, and before twenty seventeen,
Speaker 2: it was hard to get any scientists to basically talk
Speaker 2: about the subject for.
Speaker 1: So many reasons, but mostly the stigma.
Speaker 2: Mike served on NASA's UAP Independent Study Team, but as
Speaker 2: he'll explain, the panel was never actually tasked with examining
Speaker 2: NASA's historic UAP evidence. Please visit our website podcast UFO
Speaker 2: to support the show. For only two dollars or more
Speaker 2: a month, you can enjoy an ad free audio podcast
Speaker 2: listening experience, and while you're there, be sure to explore
Speaker 2: hundreds of fascinating historical UFO blogs written by Charles Lear
Speaker 2: covering remarkable cases a lot of forgotten historic ones as well.
Speaker 2: Our blog this week by Charles is a policeman hit
Speaker 2: by one of those UFOs and that was a nineteen
Speaker 2: seventy five case in Wisconsin. And I've read a few
Speaker 2: of these blogs on this YouTube channel here people seem
Speaker 2: to like them. So next Tuesday, I have Luigi Venatelli
Speaker 2: and we're going to have a SOFF debate. I'm chuckling
Speaker 2: at that on Bob Bzar. A lot of my longtime
Speaker 2: listeners know how I feel about that, so don't forget.
Speaker 2: At nine pm right here on this channel, we'll be
Speaker 2: in our second live show for the evening, and that
Speaker 2: is with former NASA engineer Greg Martins.
Speaker 1: So let's get started and bring you both in. Hi, Mike,
Speaker 1: welcome to the show.
Speaker 3: Thank you for having me. And I've been in the
Speaker 3: space world my entire life. The hardest part of it
Speaker 3: is getting these streaming virtual meetings towards glad.
Speaker 1: We did.
Speaker 2: We made it happen, and I'm so glad to get
Speaker 2: that we figured things out, and it seems to happen
Speaker 2: a lot when it's live and it's pre recorded, always
Speaker 2: goes fine. But thank you so much for being here,
Speaker 2: and Mark and I will be asking questions tonight. But
Speaker 2: the first thing that I really wanted to ask you
Speaker 2: is you served on NASA's UAP Independent Study Team and
Speaker 2: what did you personally hope the team would investigate when
Speaker 2: you first joined it.
Speaker 3: So I think what I hope first of all with
Speaker 3: the UAP Independent Study Team was that just this existence
Speaker 3: would push back against the stigma. As you mentioned, there's
Speaker 3: really no arena, I think where the UAP stigma is
Speaker 3: stronger than in academia and NASA the meatball the agency.
Speaker 3: It carries so much credibility with it, and just the
Speaker 3: fact that there even was a nasty UAP Independence thirteen
Speaker 3: I think was so important. I give the agency and
Speaker 3: then Senator Nelson, who was the NASA administrator at the time,
Speaker 3: a great deal of credit for moving forward because I
Speaker 3: can assure you that due to the stigma, there were
Speaker 3: many I'm sure in the agency and outside advising Senator
Speaker 3: Nelson not to do this, not to get involved. So
Speaker 3: I hope that NASA justify getting into the topic, that
Speaker 3: it would help legitimize and ensure that we took the
Speaker 3: issue and data seriously. And I think there are some
Speaker 3: misperceptions relative to what the group was going to do
Speaker 3: and what it remit was and specifically we were never
Speaker 3: asked to look at data or review data. Instead, there
Speaker 3: was essentially two purposes, one for the UAP and Penn
Speaker 3: study teams men whether or not it was worthwhile for
Speaker 3: NASA to study UAP, and if so, what capabilities systems
Speaker 3: does NASA have that could be applied to the topic.
Speaker 3: So it wasn't so much about reviewing data, It was
Speaker 3: about should the topic be investigated by NASA and how
Speaker 3: should they investigate the topic.
Speaker 2: Now, one thing I was a little surprised of at
Speaker 2: first is that was I think I heard a number
Speaker 2: kicked out about one hundred thousand dollars start with this.
Speaker 2: To me, that just sounded so little money compared to
Speaker 2: all the money spent on so many other things. I
Speaker 2: was glad that was happening, but it just seemed like
Speaker 2: with such a slow amount of money, you couldn't do
Speaker 2: a whole lot, So what's your thoughts on that.
Speaker 3: I don't think there was ever any funding levels dedicated
Speaker 3: to UAP within the agency. There may have been some
Speaker 3: minor funds provided for the UAP Independent Study team, but
Speaker 3: that only would have been to cover travel, and I
Speaker 3: think we got some sort of nominal per diem as
Speaker 3: members of the team. Again, the idea was for the
Speaker 3: independent study team to recommend what should be done and
Speaker 3: as part of that what the costs may be. Unfortunately,
Speaker 3: coming out of it, there never was really any funding
Speaker 3: dedicated to UAP study without any people or offices or budget,
Speaker 3: there wasn't much coming out of that. There was a
Speaker 3: research director for UAP that was appointed after or the
Speaker 3: independent study team, but I believe even that individual was
Speaker 3: reassigned after time. I can say what the UAP and
Speaker 3: Penn study team did that I thought was very helpful
Speaker 3: was again a its existence, pushed back against the stigma,
Speaker 3: and b it was a positive recommendation from the team
Speaker 3: that NASA should look into the topic, and in particular
Speaker 3: that the agency should leverage artificial intelligence and machine learning
Speaker 3: to review the NASA archives to be able to find
Speaker 3: out what we can. As we've seen from some of
Speaker 3: the Department of War releases. There's some fascinating imagery coming
Speaker 3: out of the agency, and if we did a more
Speaker 3: comprehensive church, I think we could find quite a bit,
Speaker 3: or at very least it would be worth the effort.
Speaker 3: The second recommendation that was made by the UAP Independent
Speaker 3: Study Team was to add UAP to the ASRS system,
Speaker 3: the Aviation Safety Reporting System, and this is a system
Speaker 3: that NASA's and operating for decades to collect information confidentially
Speaker 3: on safety anomallies and then report those to the FAA.
Speaker 3: It's a great arms length way for pilots to report
Speaker 3: the safety anomilies, which of course can be challenging if
Speaker 3: you didn't have this degree of confidentiality, and hundreds of
Speaker 3: thousands of cases have been reported by this system. If
Speaker 3: we were to include UAP in ASRS, every pilot, crew members,
Speaker 3: even passengers could become sensors could become part of reporting UAP,
Speaker 3: leading to a treasure trove of additional data that could
Speaker 3: be gathered at very little additional costs. So going through
Speaker 3: the NASA archives with AI and mL I think would
Speaker 3: be invaluable and adding UAP to the ASRS system would
Speaker 3: allow us to get a lot more data with very
Speaker 3: little cost to the American taxpayer.
Speaker 2: I want to say I was there during this testimony.
Speaker 2: You're the one that actually started. I believe you were
Speaker 2: first in line, and you can see a little arrow.
Speaker 1: There's me standing behind you, well with my phone trying.
Speaker 3: To you without the arrow.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So but anyway, that was my second set, the
Speaker 2: one with David Rush was there and that was that
Speaker 2: felt really historical that day. That was really such an
Speaker 2: incredible experience, I thought.
Speaker 1: But anyway, I was glad that you were there.
Speaker 2: I remember listening to but when I saw that you
Speaker 2: were part of this, I thought it was really a
Speaker 2: great thing that there was some representation.
Speaker 1: Mark. Do you have anything you want to lead off
Speaker 1: with any questions or anything.
Speaker 4: I was just gonna mention, by the way, I Mike,
Speaker 4: nice to finally meet you. I was thinking about all
Speaker 4: of this and my mind is going one thousand miles
Speaker 4: an hour, unfortunately, so I have to pair it back.
Speaker 4: Because Mike got this wealth of information that we can
Speaker 4: all benefit from. I was trying to I don't want
Speaker 4: to jump ahead on anymoreton, but I was trying to
Speaker 4: figure out there's a few things. Okay. First of all,
Speaker 4: I've been involved in projects that I've worked for the
Speaker 4: Navy for decades and privately with my business, and I
Speaker 4: worked on projects that could be mistaken for UFOs, for
Speaker 4: instance UAP, and they were I received as MUFON's mutual
Speaker 4: Uphone Networks chief photo video analysts to run photo analysis teams,
Speaker 4: two photo analysis teams, one overseas one here. And I
Speaker 4: got photos of this thing flying around in the skies
Speaker 4: that they said, look, it's a UFO. I knew it
Speaker 4: wasn't because I was working on it. So now I'm like, oh, no,
Speaker 4: I know what this is like because I'm building these
Speaker 4: engineering models for the Navy guys, but I'm also this
Speaker 4: photo video guy. Which side the way I pick? I
Speaker 4: picked the photo video guy, and I decided to press
Speaker 4: the program office for an explanation, and they said, if
Speaker 4: they think it's the UFO, that's great, and I was like, no,
Speaker 4: it's not. You're going to muddy the waters. And unfortunately,
Speaker 4: as we've said and seen, a lot of the trans
Speaker 4: materials that were released were not EUAP. They were ordinary
Speaker 4: objects captured in an extraordinary way. But they were also
Speaker 4: captured and that's what made them classified. They were captured
Speaker 4: with technology they didn't want you to know about, and
Speaker 4: that's why they were classified. They ended up in that
Speaker 4: bucket because of the technology used to capture the images,
Speaker 4: not the image of the object itself. When I pressed
Speaker 4: the Home Office on this down in DC, I managed
Speaker 4: to get an email out of them and said, yeah,
Speaker 4: this is one of our special projects, and that's as
Speaker 4: far as they would go. But they liked the idea
Speaker 4: of it being mistaken for UFO. And then I said,
Speaker 4: you know what's going to happen, and people are going
Speaker 4: to come out of woodwork now I want to take
Speaker 4: pictures of this thing and someone's going to get pictures
Speaker 4: of it doing something you probably don't want them to see.
Speaker 4: If you give me an explanation that something can distribute,
Speaker 4: they'll probably all go home. And they did. They all
Speaker 4: went home. They were they said, oh, it's one of ours,
Speaker 4: is never mind? Okay. So muddying the waters is one
Speaker 4: of my big problems with the whole UAP process. People
Speaker 4: will send in things that they and a lot of
Speaker 4: military stuff comes in that is ordinary, but they try
Speaker 4: to make more on of it. So I want to
Speaker 4: know where you fall on that that's a sort of
Speaker 4: a convoluted question, isn't it there, Mike, I'm sorry about that.
Speaker 3: Sorry, I'm a recovering attorney. I'm used to I.
Speaker 4: Love that, attorney.
Speaker 1: I've heard you say that with Ross. Yeah, that was great.
Speaker 4: Yea, yeah yeah.
Speaker 3: Let me talk a little bit about national security, because
Speaker 3: that's an important point phrase and I think is critical
Speaker 3: aspect of the entire UAP phenomena. And forgive me if
Speaker 3: I repeat some of what I said after testimony or previously,
Speaker 3: but I think it bears revisiting. So if you look
Speaker 3: at what's happening in Ukraine right now and the war
Speaker 3: against Russia, Ukraine had thousands of drones that were hidden
Speaker 3: in sea containers, in trucks, in homes, in huts, and
Speaker 3: they then released those drones to cause literally billions of
Speaker 3: dollars of damage to the Russian Air Force and other
Speaker 3: Russian military facilities. And while I don't know for certain,
Speaker 3: I would be shocked if China didn't have similar drones
Speaker 3: hidden away near national security, critical infrastructure facilities here in
Speaker 3: the United States. And I suspect that many of the
Speaker 3: UAP sightings that we have are potentially adversary craft that
Speaker 3: are scoping out military facilities, military installations, critical infrastructure to
Speaker 3: support just such an attack when and if we get
Speaker 3: in a shooting war with China. And that's why, in
Speaker 3: part I'm so concerned with the stigma. That stigma not
Speaker 3: only prevents us from scientific study of maybe the more
Speaker 3: extraordinary aspects of UAP, but it also provides a cover
Speaker 3: in many ways for what you're saying, for adversarial aircraft
Speaker 3: and drones that are monitoring our facilities preparing for a
Speaker 3: drone strike. So I think it's very important that we
Speaker 3: take UAP seriously, not only for the potential that something
Speaker 3: extraordinary could be occurring, but so we don't provide a
Speaker 3: loophole or a cover for many and much of which
Speaker 3: I believe are likely adversarial drone technology on our chores.
Speaker 3: So that's one important aspect of this, and I would
Speaker 3: hate to see our adversaries exploiting the stigma of UAP
Speaker 3: to be able to get close to and eventually attack facilities.
Speaker 4: To best the claim, I agree. Okay, I add one
Speaker 4: more thing. Here in Connecticut where I live, the state
Speaker 4: legislature was setting aside money's under a million dollars to
Speaker 4: study UAP, and I was tapped to be on that team. Unfortunately,
Speaker 4: the state decided that money can be better spent elsewhere.
Speaker 4: So the point is they're not taking it seriously. I
Speaker 4: don't know what that was about. I don't know why
Speaker 4: they didn't pursue it. If they eventually get the money,
Speaker 4: I'll probably be on the team. But the fact of
Speaker 4: the matter is, just like with you, you never got to
Speaker 4: actually study any UAP right or analyze any UAP. I
Speaker 4: don't know what we would get.
Speaker 3: Never say never, that's true. Actually, I'm just goingting to
Speaker 3: hear that news about Connecticut. I provided some written testimony
Speaker 3: in my role as an advisor to Disclosure Found, supporting
Speaker 3: that work and hoping that they would move forward. And
Speaker 3: while the EUAP Independent side Team and n ACID did
Speaker 3: not necessarily get chance to review information again, still some
Speaker 3: very worthwhile outcomes of the independent study team relative to
Speaker 3: recommendations and pushing back against the stigma, generally under the
Speaker 3: auspices of the Disclosure Foundation, myself and another member of
Speaker 3: the team, doctor Reggie Brothers, who was on the UAP
Speaker 3: in Events study team with me, as well as not
Speaker 3: only Derek Shawnee who you may be familiar with his
Speaker 3: work and Beatrice Burial. And let me apologize profusely to
Speaker 3: my friends if I'm mispronouncing anyone's names, as I sure
Speaker 3: I am, and you can call me Nick Gould or
Speaker 3: something in return. But we've got a terrific team put
Speaker 3: together that is going to attempt, with our limited resources
Speaker 3: to implement the recommendations of the UAP Independent Study Team
Speaker 3: and conduct a review of various aspects of NASA archives
Speaker 3: using AI, using mL and following up on much of
Speaker 3: the incredible work that Beatrice and Money have been doing,
Speaker 3: as well as other aspects of the phenomena. And I
Speaker 3: know that everyone's looking for a smoking gun, and we'd
Speaker 3: all like to see some extraordinary proof. But I really
Speaker 3: do appreciate the release of information from NASA from the
Speaker 3: Department of War highlighting some of the more interesting imagery
Speaker 3: that NASA and other agencies of the federal government have captured.
Speaker 3: There's a terrific image of what looks like a triangle
Speaker 3: triangular craft, or at least lights in a triangular formation,
Speaker 3: taken from the surface of the Moon during Apollo seventeen.
Speaker 3: And as I mentioned, scientists, I'm a recovering attorney, I'm
Speaker 3: not qualified to say what it is or isn't, but
Speaker 3: I know that's something worth asking questions about. It's an
Speaker 3: image worth delving into. And I've been talking about that
Speaker 3: image as an example of why going through the NASA
Speaker 3: archives is worthwhile for over a year and felt very
Speaker 3: validated when that image was highlighted by the Department of War.
Speaker 3: And I think the releases from the Department of War
Speaker 3: really help internally at agencies validate the topic, legitimize the topic,
Speaker 3: and make it easier for those who want to do
Speaker 3: reviews and put information forward because they see they have
Speaker 3: the support and backing of the White House. So I
Speaker 3: really appreciate what Jared Isaacman and Pete Hegseth and are
Speaker 3: brave and courageous members of Congress, and the UAP Caucus
Speaker 3: of Congressman Burlison Burshett Luna are doing to get information released.
Speaker 3: I know we all want more, but I think it's
Speaker 3: phenomenal the progress that we have made. And while I
Speaker 3: can't do much relative to information that's classified, that process
Speaker 3: is currently ongoing within the Department of War in the
Speaker 3: White House try and get out as much as they can.
Speaker 3: What I can do in my personal capacity through Disclosure Foundation,
Speaker 3: with my colleagues is go through what's publicly available, and
Speaker 3: as you've seen from what's been released by the Department
Speaker 3: of War and the work that Monoly has done, and
Speaker 3: some of your listeners and viewers aren't familiar, he's produced
Speaker 3: some really interesting imagery from the surface of the Moon,
Speaker 3: from the surface of Mars, from Phobos of i'd say
Speaker 3: anomalous surface artifacts. And again not qualified to say someone
Speaker 3: that's extraordinary or not, or if there's prosaic explanations, but
Speaker 3: definitely some interesting imagery that bears further studies. So our
Speaker 3: group is hoping to apply AI and mL review those archives,
Speaker 3: and I guarantee they will be a treasure trove of information.
Speaker 3: And even if we don't discover anything extraordinary, what's the
Speaker 3: worst that happens that we discover some fascinating new natural
Speaker 3: phenomena relative to the Moon of Mar. Anomalies is how
Speaker 3: we make progress. Anomalies is how we learn. It's the inexplicable,
Speaker 3: it's the strange that creates progress, and that's why I
Speaker 3: think it's such a worthy endeavor to investigate.
Speaker 1: Yeah, very good points there.
Speaker 2: I will be asking Christopher as in chat has a question.
Speaker 2: Thank you all for being here in chat prior to that,
Speaker 2: I just want to ask this question because I've heard,
Speaker 2: I've watched things and heard things many things over the
Speaker 2: years about how imagery has been either altered. This is
Speaker 2: a NASSA for many years, it was a woman that
Speaker 2: said she worked there and walked in and saw people
Speaker 2: working on these images to get these anomalies off of
Speaker 2: them before they were really And I want to know
Speaker 2: what your answer is to those questions I've heard all
Speaker 2: for years and years.
Speaker 3: Sure, it's the interest the full disclosure. My grandfather worked
Speaker 3: on the Apollo program. My brother is still a STEM
Speaker 3: contractor for NASA helping support education. So I have NASA
Speaker 3: in my Genes show.
Speaker 4: And we can say we went to the moon, because
Speaker 4: I hate when people say we never went to the moon.
Speaker 3: That is such an insult is all of the great Americans,
Speaker 3: and then globally everyone who supported the Artemis program. To
Speaker 3: not believe that is to not believe in our nation,
Speaker 3: to not believe in its people. And I find that
Speaker 3: insulting to myself and the generations of people who risked it,
Speaker 3: in some cases lost their lives.
Speaker 4: That's right, accomplish there's some white and chaffee and it's just.
Speaker 3: Absolutely at Redwires. Matter of fact, we just opened up
Speaker 3: a new microgravity facility in Georgetown, Indiana, and we were
Speaker 3: honored to have Steve Grissom join us to Gus GRISSM
Speaker 3: and it was wonderful to carry forward that legacy of
Speaker 3: Chris Kersson, who paid the ultimate price to get us
Speaker 3: to the move. Why find those conspiracy theories so vaulting
Speaker 3: in relative to NASA in these accusations of airbrut Obviously
Speaker 3: I would be very disappointed if that's the case. We've
Speaker 3: also heard rumors of shutting off live feeds, whether that's
Speaker 3: from the Subtle or the International to cover things up.
Speaker 3: And again, I want to practice what I preach. That
Speaker 3: part of my criticism of academic early some academics in
Speaker 3: some cases UAP is they begin from a conclusion and
Speaker 3: then work backwards. I think it's so important to remain
Speaker 3: objective and begin from a place of modesty that we
Speaker 3: don't know the answer to a question, investigate, and then
Speaker 3: follow the data wherever it may lead. So when it
Speaker 3: comes to these accusations, of course, I hope that no
Speaker 3: one would ever do that at NASA, And during my
Speaker 3: tenure at NASA, I never saw anything that would indicate
Speaker 3: that or anyone who would do something like that. But
Speaker 3: then again, I don't know what was happening in the
Speaker 3: nineteen sixties. I don't know what was happening in the seventies,
Speaker 3: and even when I'm there, I'm not omniscient relative to
Speaker 3: what's happening. So part of our effort will be to
Speaker 3: look at accusations like that. And for example, in Money's work,
Speaker 3: there are some examples where we'll see an artifact in
Speaker 3: one version of the data, but then not in another.
Speaker 3: Now that can be differences in cameras, differences in recording,
Speaker 3: maybe not, and then looking at the imagery. If anyone's
Speaker 3: got examples where they think something's been airbrushed or to
Speaker 3: have been changes, let me just say that we're very
Speaker 3: open to looking at the information and if this is true,
Speaker 3: show us, show us the evidence. We're happy to take
Speaker 3: a look and try to get to the bottom of
Speaker 3: some of what I hope are misperceptions relative to what
Speaker 3: may have occurred in the past. But NASA's very mission
Speaker 3: is to go out and discover new life, to seek
Speaker 3: exactly so I'd be very disappointed if any of that
Speaker 3: was occurring. But again we want to take a look
Speaker 3: at the evidence and follow it wherever it may lead.
Speaker 4: That makes sense to me. I want to add to
Speaker 4: that if I could year for what I do. I've
Speaker 4: looked at hundreds and hundreds of Mars images one hundreds
Speaker 4: and hundreds of Moon images, and as a chief photo analyst,
Speaker 4: I've seen a lot of things and artifacts on the
Speaker 4: Moon on Mars that people make these claims about, and
Speaker 4: I look at them from I'm gonna let the science
Speaker 4: speak first, and if the science can decipher it. I
Speaker 4: put that out there of very thick skin. And there's
Speaker 4: a lot of people that get mad at me when
Speaker 4: I won't admit there was a big nuclear war on Mars. Okay, okay, yeah,
Speaker 4: and but I think it's.
Speaker 3: Important to have in your nuclear denial exactly.
Speaker 4: That's right. There's a one particular guy out there that
Speaker 4: I just love arguing with him about it. You do it,
Speaker 4: might me know them too, but it's okay. The bottom
Speaker 4: line is I understand how things work on other planets.
Speaker 4: I understand geology on other planets. That's been my Bailey
Speaker 4: Wickers and astronomer. I lived in the Earth science and
Speaker 4: the Moon science and the Marts science for a long time, decades.
Speaker 4: So I really think it's important to allow the science
Speaker 4: to speak and allow the people that know the science
Speaker 4: to at least register their opinions before you start to
Speaker 4: dismiss them. And people dismiss us all the time. But
Speaker 4: you know when I say, getting getting a degree on
Speaker 4: Google doesn't help you in this, and that's what happens.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Yeah, I'm very suspicious of anyone who begins from
Speaker 3: a place that is absolutely nothing extraordinary, or from someone
Speaker 3: who says this absolutely cannot be.
Speaker 1: Something that's not science. That's for sure.
Speaker 3: That is not the scientific method. It is the antithesis
Speaker 3: it is.
Speaker 1: Yeah, begin from a.
Speaker 3: Place of objectivity of O and then show me the
Speaker 3: data to support the conclusion. And this is where I
Speaker 3: get so frustrated, candidly with both ends of the spectrum
Speaker 3: on this topic in some cases and relative to what
Speaker 3: we're seeing on the planets in the work money is done. Again,
Speaker 3: I'm not qualified to say that this is extraordinary. It isn't.
Speaker 3: But again, what I can say is that these images
Speaker 3: are worth investigating. It's worth asking follow up questions, it's
Speaker 3: worth looking into because the answer isn't completely obvious. And
Speaker 3: on Mars certainly there's potential for past water, etc. Which
Speaker 3: could explain some of what we're seeing. Of course, no
Speaker 3: water on the Moon per se, so some of those
Speaker 3: anomalies are more interesting. But let's have a degree of
Speaker 3: modesty and say we don't know and look at these things,
Speaker 3: and again, what's the worst case phenomena that we discovered.
Speaker 3: There was some really interesting natural phenomena occurring millions and
Speaker 3: millions of years ago on Mars, or there's something we
Speaker 3: don't understand that shape formations on the Moon, or something
Speaker 3: extraordinary is occurring. I don't know. What I do know
Speaker 3: is it's worthwhile to ask the question. And what I'm
Speaker 3: also very certain about is no one should be punished
Speaker 3: for asking questions that also anti science and speaking of money,
Speaker 3: he lost his job, not for saying that there were
Speaker 3: alien artifacts on the Moon or that what he was
Speaker 3: imaging or showing the images of were absolutely extraterrestrial or artificial,
Speaker 3: simply for asking the question. He lost his job, and
Speaker 3: I find that to be pernicious, and again the exact
Speaker 3: opposite of what science should be agree.
Speaker 4: Look what happened to Avi Lobe, for instance, when all
Speaker 4: he said was we can't deny the possibility. He didn't
Speaker 4: say this is extra trustrial. He said, we can't deny
Speaker 4: the possibility. Okay, I've worked with him a couple of
Speaker 4: times on television shows. But the thing is he's never
Speaker 4: actually stated it is extraterrestrial, this is alien. He said,
Speaker 4: we can't ignore the possibility. He's only saying, let's ask
Speaker 4: the questions.
Speaker 3: Yes, such respect for AUV or anyone who takes a
Speaker 3: truly objective and scientific stance. What I get frustrated by
Speaker 3: is some of the academic community you declare bunk science
Speaker 3: on UAP or that this is nonsense. It is actually
Speaker 3: them who are abusing the scientific method by beginning with
Speaker 3: a conclusion and then working backwards. And that's why I
Speaker 3: have such respect for trailblazers like a V and Beatrice
Speaker 3: and Money who are willing to stick to their guns
Speaker 3: and ask the question. And they're not saying necessarily one
Speaker 3: way or the other. They're simply pointing to data and saying,
Speaker 3: give me an explanation, give me analysis. And by the way,
Speaker 3: on the NASCY UAP Independent Study Team, we saw this
Speaker 3: consistently and constantly, where most of the members of the
Speaker 3: team were from academia, and unfortunately there were threats for
Speaker 3: their careers, to their ability to publish, to their ability
Speaker 3: to get tenure. Again, not for saying that they found
Speaker 3: NHI or exterrestrials are real, but simply for having the
Speaker 3: temerity to participate in the UAP independent study team. How
Speaker 3: can we do good science when simply asking the question
Speaker 3: is caused for criticism or firing or worse.
Speaker 2: Exactly, exactly, So a couple things. First of all, I'm
Speaker 2: going to pull up a question here in chat, but
Speaker 2: we were talking earlier about being on the moon and
Speaker 2: people denying it. I actually had a conversation with Alan,
Speaker 2: being the fourth man on the moon, and I asked
Speaker 2: him that question. I said, how do you feel about
Speaker 2: people that say you never landed on the moon? And
Speaker 2: he says he was so funny. He goes, it doesn't
Speaker 2: bother me. They're not hurting anybody. That's how he was talking.
Speaker 2: But he says, you can't convince them either way, and
Speaker 2: which is true. People have their mind made up. And
Speaker 2: by the way, tomorrow there's supposed to be another release
Speaker 2: of files on war gov dot us slash UFO, supposed
Speaker 2: to be another file dumps. They say, Now, I don't
Speaker 2: know how true. That is, I just keep hearing it,
Speaker 2: but anyway, we'll see what happens.
Speaker 1: A question.
Speaker 3: What I can tell you on that point, and what
Speaker 3: makes me so excited is the Trump administration and the
Speaker 3: government Department of War. This is an ongoing effort to
Speaker 3: release information. This is not a one off, and we've
Speaker 3: seen that with several transhes, and having served in government, well,
Speaker 3: I know no one wants to hear this, and it
Speaker 3: is disappointing, but I don't think anyone be shocked that
Speaker 3: governments are bureaucracies. It takes time time to move a bureaucracy,
Speaker 3: particularly on topics as difficult as this, and I applaud
Speaker 3: the administration and as the Department of War for what
Speaker 3: they've released. And I think part of the reason that
Speaker 3: what we've seen so far has been not perhaps what
Speaker 3: people have wanted to see, although I hesitate to describe
Speaker 3: its mundane, there have been some pretty extraordinary things that
Speaker 3: we've seen, whether it's testimony or videos the ORBS I
Speaker 3: found particularly interesting. These have been some fascinating material that's
Speaker 3: been released. But what I expect is the best is
Speaker 3: yet to come. Because the government agencies were likely releasing
Speaker 3: whatever the low hanging fruit was what they could get
Speaker 3: to for because the administrate released whatever you can as
Speaker 3: quickly as you can.
Speaker 4: That's the key, as quickly as you can without paying
Speaker 4: so much.
Speaker 3: Attention exactly, and that's why they'll probably release what is
Speaker 3: unclassified easy to get out. Some things have been released
Speaker 3: previously to highlight it, but which again is helpful in
Speaker 3: terms of moving to bureaucracy, showing that the White House
Speaker 3: cares and empowering the champions for disclosure and transparency. But
Speaker 3: there's also a process occurring within government to declassify and
Speaker 3: give that a little bit of time to work through
Speaker 3: the system. I think what we'll see in the next trench,
Speaker 3: and the trench after that, and after that that the
Speaker 3: imagery and data will get increasingly interesting as the government
Speaker 3: has time to begin to classify and get to some
Speaker 3: of the more interesting data. At least, such is my hope.
Speaker 3: And again I give everyone down for the President. Pete
Speaker 3: Hegset Stephen Miller has been a strong advocate for this.
Speaker 3: I appreciate how everyone has been working hard to try
Speaker 3: to get to the truth, and I would compare it
Speaker 3: to what past administrations have done, but I can't because
Speaker 3: there's never been anything like this in history, and I
Speaker 3: get a little upset when I see a lot of
Speaker 3: the comments online that's critical or or show us the
Speaker 3: smoking gun and show us this, show us that, And again,
Speaker 3: like everyone else, I would love to see that, But
Speaker 3: I think we need to acknowledge the difficulty of doing this,
Speaker 3: and that we need to show support, appreciation, and encouragement
Speaker 3: for those who are working in government to continue and
Speaker 3: to show more, to get more. That's why I hope
Speaker 3: we can all be supportive and applaud the efforts that
Speaker 3: have been done to date, and certainly we should ask
Speaker 3: for more and encourage more. But at the same time,
Speaker 3: I think we need to show support to the champions
Speaker 3: who are trying to support transparency, who are trying to
Speaker 3: support disclosure in the truth.
Speaker 2: I was at the Disclosure forum a few weeks ago,
Speaker 2: a month ago, I guess it was, and I was
Speaker 2: the one that asked Earlson, where's the good stuff? That
Speaker 2: was only a couple of us got to ask question.
Speaker 2: So here's a question from Christopher Alexander, a longtime listener.
Speaker 2: Did the UAP study group study or address the policy
Speaker 2: of muddying the waters? Also related the release of the
Speaker 2: evidence that is silly and already understood.
Speaker 1: How can we stop that part of it?
Speaker 3: Yeah? Again, I think we should all try to be
Speaker 3: supportive and encourage champions like Congressman Burlson, like Congressman in
Speaker 3: er Chet, like the administration that has been trying to
Speaker 3: release information relative to this issue, and in regard to
Speaker 3: muddying the waters. I actually don't think that it's a
Speaker 3: bad thing that within the releases of information that there
Speaker 3: is some data imagery of prosaic activities, because then we've
Speaker 3: got something to compare it to that. I think it's
Speaker 3: great to see a little bit of oh, this was
Speaker 3: a bird, this was a balloon, or this was something
Speaker 3: an aircraft, et cetera, just because this is going to
Speaker 3: have a little bit of that mixed in so that
Speaker 3: we can compare and contrast somewhat for something that's a
Speaker 3: little more extraordinary. So I actually don't mind seeing a
Speaker 3: bit of what that looks like to create a baseline
Speaker 3: to compare and contrast to other imagery and video that
Speaker 3: may indeed have some thing as in an extraordinary So
Speaker 3: I think it's actually good in some ways to get
Speaker 3: some baseline materials. We have something to compare other images
Speaker 3: and videos too, just to.
Speaker 2: Let everyone know we're only on for another eleven minutes
Speaker 2: because we're going to have to jump over to our
Speaker 2: next show.
Speaker 1: Go ahead, Mark.
Speaker 4: I was gonna say, I find it interesting because in
Speaker 4: the prosaic objects that we determined were prosaic, in some
Speaker 4: of the trenches, I was doing things which kind of
Speaker 4: relate to what you just said. I knew they were balloons.
Speaker 4: We could see a payload hanging from and so forth.
Speaker 4: But I wasn't studying the balloon. I knew it was
Speaker 4: a bloom. I was looking at the emissivity. I was
Speaker 4: looking at what it was getting off. And that's data, yes,
Speaker 4: that we can use because if it looks different on
Speaker 4: something else, we know it's different.
Speaker 3: Exactly.
Speaker 4: I've been doing that for years. This stuff is so
Speaker 4: important to do. And see you set it right there,
Speaker 4: and I love it. This guy's good.
Speaker 3: I like him. But exactly it's not a bad thing necessarily,
Speaker 3: like to have the balloon video and then you see,
Speaker 3: for example, the heat signature, and then you can compare
Speaker 3: something else.
Speaker 4: And will exactly and say, this IR signature is not
Speaker 4: that IR signature. It's something different. And by the way, Martin,
Speaker 4: I have one of Allen Bean's paintings signed here in.
Speaker 1: My house one of his paintings.
Speaker 4: One of his paintings.
Speaker 1: You're sure it's not a print because he got big
Speaker 1: money for those paintings.
Speaker 4: Oh, it might be a print. Actually it's it's a print.
Speaker 1: But yeah, I love he was such an artist, such.
Speaker 4: A he's a great guy. Oh yeah, he asked me
Speaker 4: to go to dinner with him.
Speaker 3: Wi.
Speaker 1: I thought was pretty cool about that. Oh yes, I
Speaker 1: know that you worked some with Bob Bigelow, So I
Speaker 1: think that's pretty amazing.
Speaker 2: And here's a question for Matt. He wants to know,
Speaker 2: does Bob Biglow have any influence on Mofon anymore? I
Speaker 2: guess that question would be scared to mark a little bit.
Speaker 2: And how much does Elon Musk private space programs interact
Speaker 2: with NASA?
Speaker 3: So let me take that last question if you don't
Speaker 3: mind that. Sure, you're experiencing a second golden age of
Speaker 3: space exploration because of what SpaceX and other commercial space
Speaker 3: companies have done in noticable that eventually China will outspend
Speaker 3: us in space. We must out entrepreneur the Chinese. And
Speaker 3: it's the public private partnerships that's a good company like
Speaker 3: Blue Origin with SpaceX that have just revolutionized things, and
Speaker 3: my own company, Redwire. I'm so proud to be a
Speaker 3: part of a commercial space industry that is supporting NASA,
Speaker 3: providing innovations, new technologies, new capabilities that dramatically lower costs,
Speaker 3: that are benefiting not only the agency but the American
Speaker 3: people writ large. We've done hundreds of experiments on the
Speaker 3: International Space Station and at Redwire. For example, we print
Speaker 3: to the first human meniscus in space. I'm on the
Speaker 3: ISS that we build called the Biofabrication Facility, and there's
Speaker 3: not especial about space per ses. When you turn gravity off,
Speaker 3: you can print biologic structures in a way that you
Speaker 3: couldn't do in a one environment. If we tried to
Speaker 3: print that meniscus on Earth, it would just squish to
Speaker 3: the carman turn it's a slime, whereas in space we
Speaker 3: can print it, go through basically a curing process and
Speaker 3: bring it back down. Well, this won't be happening tomorrow.
Speaker 3: We have laid the foundations with the BFF of not
Speaker 3: only printing with meniscus. We printed cardiovascular tissue live, brought
Speaker 3: it back from the ISS still live. That could lead
Speaker 3: to tissue for heart patches to help with heart disease.
Speaker 3: We've also printed liver tissue on the ISS, so drink
Speaker 3: all you want tonight. We'll make you a new liver.
Speaker 3: While I'm being a little we are building the foundations
Speaker 3: of the ability to manufacture organs in space, and for example,
Speaker 3: the starship would be a wonderful vehicle to be able
Speaker 3: to conduct those activities in We've also got a system
Speaker 3: called pillbox where sea crystals, which are what drugs are
Speaker 3: made from, form and more uniform, larger fashion and microgravity,
Speaker 3: and those sea crystals can be brought down to Earth
Speaker 3: and be used to create drugs, pharmaceuticals with better longetivity,
Speaker 3: better solubility, fewer side effects. And this is all an
Speaker 3: example as to how commercial space can benefit not just exploration,
Speaker 3: not just NASA, but help everyone on Earth live a
Speaker 3: better life.
Speaker 1: That's amazing.
Speaker 2: I got to tell you just real quickly, and Mark,
Speaker 2: you've had to deal with this before. I was face
Speaker 2: to face the other day with someone that was a
Speaker 2: flat earther and I said, okay, I'm going to just
Speaker 2: bring up this one point. It says, if you're in space,
Speaker 2: you're in no gravity, and you take water, what does
Speaker 2: it do and it's what do you mean? I says,
Speaker 2: doesn't it go into a ball?
Speaker 1: That's what happen. Happens naturally.
Speaker 2: I can't believe that people are really buying that, but
Speaker 2: I don't want to get off on that topic.
Speaker 1: It's just, you know, a place in the world for everyone, right.
Speaker 4: Maybe not flat earthers, I will disagree.
Speaker 3: It's not a place on a round world forever.
Speaker 4: They don't understand physics, they don't understand a law of
Speaker 4: minimal surfaces, they don't understand how a sphere forms in
Speaker 4: the absence of gravity.
Speaker 3: So they don't let me say this relative to flat earthers, though,
Speaker 3: because I think it is actually relevant to the UAP commos.
Speaker 3: Okay that I think it's the lack of transparency on
Speaker 3: UAP is the sort of thing that drives these government conspiracies.
Speaker 3: And I actually think that the process and when we
Speaker 3: talk about disclosure, to me, it's a process. Disclosure is
Speaker 3: a process of objectively releasing and reviewing data and then
Speaker 3: following it wherever it goes. We can have disclosure and
Speaker 3: discover nothing extraordinary ory, we can discover something absolutely incredible.
Speaker 3: But it's that process and I think if we encourage
Speaker 3: transparency on this topic, then will be able to blow
Speaker 3: back harder against flat earthers and other nonsense conspiracies, because
Speaker 3: the government takes a credibility hit when we're not transparent,
Speaker 3: when we're not open, and when we dismissed topics like
Speaker 3: UAP without really following the scientific process.
Speaker 2: Very good point, and we had one more question, and
Speaker 2: then I'm afraid we're going to have to wrap up
Speaker 2: pretty quickly right here. Didn't someone recently propose to kickstart
Speaker 2: global warming on Mars using atmospheric nuclear detonations. I've heard
Speaker 2: something about this. They were going to try to and
Speaker 2: I think Elon had through thrown something out there about
Speaker 2: kickstarting Mars. I don't know if either one of you
Speaker 2: caught anything about that.
Speaker 4: I am, but I'm going to hear what Mike has
Speaker 4: to say.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I can't speak to it directly, but I'm certainly
Speaker 3: familiar with the concept that's terraforming and that there are
Speaker 3: activities that we could do to find a way to
Speaker 3: live on Mars. I think that's going to take a
Speaker 3: very long time and a lot of effort. I can't
Speaker 3: speak to whether setting off nuclear weapons is the best
Speaker 3: idea or not. But what I can say is I
Speaker 3: really appreciate and again can disagree or not with Elon's politics,
Speaker 3: but I really appreciate the investment that he's made in Starship,
Speaker 3: which is a craft design to carry humanity to Mars.
Speaker 3: And if all Elon wanted to do was to make money,
Speaker 3: believe me, there are a lot easier ways to make
Speaker 3: money than in the space industry and SpaceX. All they
Speaker 3: seem to do is develop a system and then use
Speaker 3: the profit from that or even Starlink to invest in
Speaker 3: creating an even better, more affordable system, not the activities
Speaker 3: to someone who's trying to squeeze dollars or even generate
Speaker 3: revenue for anything other than improving your product. And that's
Speaker 3: where I have to give huge kudos the SpaceX for
Speaker 3: the development of Starship, and for really Elon's singular goal
Speaker 3: to bring humanity to Mars and to create potential for
Speaker 3: ideas like terraforming. So I'm excited about the future and
Speaker 3: what we might be able to do. Although I can't
Speaker 3: speak specifically to that plan, Mark.
Speaker 4: I'm been the terraforming Mars is something I've always been
Speaker 4: interested in. I know we can't restart the Dynamo in
Speaker 4: the core of Mars. But the core of Mars is
Speaker 4: cooled enough so it doesn't have a magnetic field. We
Speaker 4: need the magnetic field to get an atmosphere to be retained.
Speaker 4: To do that, we can develop a and this was
Speaker 4: a project NASA. I don't know if you're aware of this.
Speaker 4: Mic there was a project on the docket to create
Speaker 4: an artificial magnetic field on Mars by putting a generator
Speaker 4: of some type. We don't have the technology to do
Speaker 4: it yet. At a lagron's point, a parking spot in
Speaker 4: space between Mars and the Sun where it would actually
Speaker 4: blanket because of the solar wind, it would blanket Mars
Speaker 4: with an artificial magnetic field, giving it water vapor capability
Speaker 4: in the atmosphere, which it doesn't have now because the
Speaker 4: UV radiation strikes it, disassociates it. Hydrogen gooser space, oxygen
Speaker 4: dive into the ground, further bonding with iron compounds, which
Speaker 4: is why Mars is red made rust. So clearly we
Speaker 4: want to be able to get around that. And so
Speaker 4: this artificial magnetic field process and project was out there
Speaker 4: as a hypothetical and I thought that was that's pretty cool.
Speaker 4: That's probably the only relatively realistic way we can do it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Mark is such a great point that you make.
Speaker 3: Members of your audience are familiar or fans of The Martian,
Speaker 3: as I'm sure many are the film book. Yeah, a
Speaker 3: friend of mine, NASA astronaut, was talking to Andy Weir,
Speaker 3: the author of The Martian, and asked, what's the biggest
Speaker 3: piece of science fiction in the movie and the book,
Speaker 3: and he said, protection against the radiation. That Matt and
Speaker 3: would have had a lot of different types of cancer
Speaker 3: because before he could eat that first potato. And we
Speaker 3: need to find ways to better protect our astronauts on
Speaker 3: the way to Mars. And then if you want to
Speaker 3: live long term on Mars, because those cosmic rays solar
Speaker 3: flayers are just deadly. So if we want to survive
Speaker 3: and thrive, as you describe, Mark, we've got to find
Speaker 3: better ways to mitigate against radiation.
Speaker 1: Exactly right.
Speaker 4: We need to let we need to let the Martian
Speaker 4: atmosphere build up naturally in some form, because we can't
Speaker 4: force a whole planet's atmosphere to retain the molecules that
Speaker 4: requires to create clouds and UV protection and so forth.
Speaker 4: But if we generate a magnetic field out there, we
Speaker 4: can because the solar flux drapes the magnetic field. You
Speaker 4: look at ours and it goes, ooh, look like that.
Speaker 4: I got you, Martin, time is up. I get it.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. I do have to jump right over. Thank
Speaker 1: you both so much. It was really wonderful. And I
Speaker 1: can't believe this.
Speaker 3: Mike.
Speaker 1: The whole time you're using your phone. It looks great.
Speaker 1: It worked great. We save the day with that phone.
Speaker 1: So I want to thank you.
Speaker 4: Look like you're on the phone. That's great.
Speaker 3: Which, by the way, the cameras where NASA spin off
Speaker 3: technology even part from Martian cameras.
Speaker 1: Wow, that's something.
Speaker 3: Thank you, thank you, and thank you to the Space program.
Speaker 1: Yes, yes, thank you so much. All right, so everyone
Speaker 1: you can look through the links.
Speaker 2: I'll have links in the show notes. And really enjoyed
Speaker 2: the topic and the talk tonight.
Speaker 1: Thank you both. Good night now,