Speaker 1: A new force in Washington for UAP transparency. May one,
twenty twenty five, Washington, DC, the UAP Disclosure Fund holds
a experts panel on Capitol Hill attended by members of Congress.
UAP subject matter experts made their case for UAP transparency.
Experts such as former Pentagon official lou Elizondo, retired Navy
Rear Admiral Tim Gallaudette, Harvard professor and founder of the
Galileo Project, doctor Avi Lobe, physicist, doctor Eric Davis, former
NASA Associate Administrator, Mike Gold, former senior staff member for
the Senate Armed Services and Senate Intelligence Committee, Kirk McConnell,
former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, Christopher Mellon,
doctor Anna Brady Estevez. So, who is doctor Anna Brady Estevez.
Let's find out. Hey everyone, I'm Matt Ford and welcome
to the Good Trouble Show. For almost a year, I
served as director of Strategy for the UAP Disclosure Fund.
Last month, I flew to Washington with the UAPDF team
for the UAP Experts Panel, held in coordination with the
House Oversight Committee. One of the absolute highlights of the
trip was meeting doctor Anna Brady Stevez.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: While she was a new face to me for UAP Transparency,
it turns out she has actually been a force behind
the scenes for quite some time. Anna joins us today
for part one of an exclusive two part interview. But
first please hit the subscribe and thumbs up buttons on YouTube,
leave a comment and let us know what you think
about this episode. You can also find us on x
at Good Trouble Show and everywhere else at The Good
Trouble Show. You can also find us wherever you enjoy
your podcasts. Search for The Good Trouble Show with Matt Ford.
And if you want to chip in to keep the
lights on, you can become a Patreon member of the
Good at a Trouble Show by going to www dot
patreon dot com forward slash the Good Trouble Show. Sign
up and you can support this wonderful show. Super chats
are also open and a great way to lend your
financial support. All that allows us to bring you great
shows like we have today. Okay, our guest today is
the founding partner of American Deep Tech, a deep technology
investment firm. She previously co chaired the US National Research
Agenda in Digital Assets with the White House Office of
Science and Technology and led interagency efforts on space economy
and commercialization alongside NASA. That's a mouthful right there. She
also served as a program director at the National Science Foundation,
focusing on digital assets, space tech.
Speaker 2: Energy, and clean tech.
Speaker 1: She recently joined the Board of Advisors of the UAP
Disclosure Fund. Here is part one of our conversation with
doctor Anna Brady Estevez.
Speaker 2: Anna, how are you.
Speaker 3: Doing great, Good to see Matt. Thanks so much for
having me on.
Speaker 1: So I have the pleasure meeting you in Washington, DC
as part of the UAP Disclosure Fund Experts Panel. Tell
us about your professional background for those in the audience
that are not familiar with you.
Speaker 3: So, my background has been more on the investment and
the strategy side, So you know, spent a couple decades
now in strategy and investments, both in the private sector.
So worked on multi billion dollar investments and energy. Made
a recommendation that years later was about a five billion
dollar IPO was involved in what became a transformation that
went out at over a trillion dollars in the public market.
So it kind of wasn't an early stage part of
that corporate transformation. So worked with corporations and investments, and
then had the pleasure of coming into the National Science Foundation,
where I was able to lead a number of the
country's most active portfolios in energy, sustainability and space technology.
So really it was just tremendously privileged to work with
a wide range of high performing, high growth entrepreneurs you
know in those portfolios, and just exceptional, extraordinary people. So
I'd say, you know somebody who's you know, been involved
in billions of dollars in the private sector of investments
and investment strategy and a quarter billion while at NSF.
Most of my portfolio and certainly where the returns have
been so far have not been on the UAP side.
But the UAP portion of the portfolio is something you know,
that a number of us see as important, you know,
in terms of an area where meaningful work is being done.
So certainly a positive disruptor that I've had the privilege
of being supportive of while in the government.
Speaker 1: Now we did again just kind of filling in maybe
some of the blanks in terms of your your career.
We did a bit of research on you here and
uh so we found out you are a Kaufman Fellow
and Kaufman has a list that is comparable to Forbes
Midas List, which is called the Kaufman Funds of Returners Index.
And in spite of the index not giving any credit
for UH, for early investors like you versus someone who
came in later, out of over nine hundred fellows nine
hundred fellows globally, you are in the top five percent
of fund returners. Per that list, you are the number
five woman in the United States, number number seven, number
seven woman fund returner globally. I mean, wow, you know
what what contributes to that? That's that's uh, that sounds
like really some pretty significant accomplishments here.
Speaker 3: It's certainly been humbling. I never thought that I would
be that high up on the list, but I think
it's really been a mark of working with great people
but really focusing on strategy and listening to the entrepreneurs. So,
I mean, it's definitely the emphasis has been trying to
figure out what would be highly impactful, you know, and
racing towards those opportunities and helping the entrepreneurs shape it. So,
you know, while we're doing this with you ap right now,
have done you know, quite a bit of that UH
and energy and manufacturing, you know, advanced materials and space tech.
So I think it's really a function of listening and
helping entrepreneurs build, and it's just it's just amazing what's possible,
and you know, going after these things that you know,
on individual company basis, it's not guaranteed. But what we've
seen is that as a portfolio, you know, when you
support great people and when you move towards those things
that would be most impactful, we see that growth. So
on the NSF side, about a quarter billion out you
know what, And this is I guess I'll also include
one of the IPOs from my corporate career, but around
a quarter billion out, you know, even an early stage
portfolio eight point five billion in fall on financing and
just the publicly visible pitch book portion, so no, no
multiples on revenues, no non disclosed acquisitions factored in a
well over seventeen point five billion portfolio. So there are
places around the country who are very, very good at
supporting early stage, high growth innovation. NSF is one of them,
and I certainly went in, you know, with the intent
to figure out how to be most supportive of high
growth companies with societal impact.
Speaker 1: And we also dug some other stuff too, So so
for instance, you were perhaps the first and you know,
maybe you, if not one of the first people advocating
for digital currency and blockchain in the federal government. I mean,
how did you get involved with that that kind of stuff, which,
by the way, blockchain is completely over my head, I
don't understand it.
Speaker 3: Well, you know, I think it's one of these areas.
It was very interesting because sometimes these technologies are really
convergent and people across industries see the potential. So coming
from an energy background, I think energy people really understood
blockchain very early on. So I had the opportunity to
pitch what might have been the government's first dedicated portfolio
and blockchain. And then something you know that the federal
government does is when they're building out strategies, they reach
out across the agencies and they say, what can you
tell us about this? You know, and sometimes you know,
you'll be in the you can be deep in an
agency and you'll send some comments back and then all
of a sudden, the agency says, wow, a lot of
the content is coming from this person. So then they
onboard you to more of these national strategies. So I
had the opportunity, you know, and I think some of
the insights are ones that would have been very parent
to people in the private sector. But I had the
opportunity to frame out, you know, probably twenty seventeen, twenty eight,
maybe it was earlier, but early on in the Trump administration,
you know, why does blockchain matter? What are the ten reasons?
And so that went up through OSTP and they said
that they conveyed that, you know, in its entirety to NSC.
So I think part of what I've done is not
needing to be one of these visionaries. I mean, there's
so many people that are twenty years out. I typically
try to understand what's going on right as we get
to an inflection point, and you know, so people put
out the case, you know, well before and then right
before the market gets really active, try to boil it
down to why does this matter and what can we
do with it? So blockchain is certainly one of those
cases that there's so much that you can do with
these high performing digitally native tools. So I was I
was able, I was later asked so. So worked on
it both in the first Trump administration where we had
many of our high growth companies during Trump won and
then worked throughout the Biden administration and was asked to
co chair alongside the White House the Digital Asset are
and D Agenda, including assessments for what we could do
with digital currencies and digital assets.
Speaker 1: And tell us a bit about the National Science Foundation portfolio,
which was one of the highest growth national one of
the highest growth nationally in terms of portfolios with from
what I read, well over like ten times growth. What
were the keys to making that so successful?
Speaker 3: So, I mean, one of the things that's amazing about
the National Science Foundation is just how innovation forward it is,
so I mean, really supportive of all areas of science
and innovation. And you know, I remember when I went
into the NSF, there were so many things that we
didn't understand, you know, back in twenty seventeen, about how
to support innovation, you know, and then really coming in
every day to figure out what are we doing? How
can we do this better? I spent about nine years
kind of trying to figure out how do you really
really support and accelerate innovation? And so what I would
say is interesting is right now, you know, to time
when so much can be accomplished nationally and you know,
this administration, I think really does want to lead an
innovation and wants to lead in global markets. I stepped
into the private sector because I think this is amazing
time for the private sector. That said, I don't see
the government as competitive, you know, so if you know,
our fund is able to raise capital, you know, to
bring to these markets and to create these high growth portfolios.
But some of these agencies, like NSF, you know, are
so complimentary the private sector and have been so high performing.
So before the NSF really even knew what it was doing,
because some of that analysis is much more recent, you know,
I've spent years doing it with just three I asked
a colleague recently and he pulled the public data for me.
But forty eight years of SBI R SO and D
do they call it sibber, But it's an SBI R
an sttr SO small business and Innovative research and the
translational research. These programs that you know, if you're if
you're not from a wealthy family, you know, you're maybe
not going to be asking friends and family, you know,
to get money for your startup. So the federal government
has provided these small grants of you know, two hundred
two seventy five k you know, a million you know
at the at the phase two and so this capital
that's gone out to so many companies over forty eight years.
The National Science Foundation had initiated that program, and it's
now forty eight years and over time recent years it's
been two fifty million out. It was obviously much smaller
in the early days my understand So if it was
today's dollars all the way through, that would be twelve billion.
It wasn't twelve billion because it was so much smaller
early on. So three point six billion dollars out to
small businesses. Wow, and those small businesses, those entrepreneurs went
on to catalyze. You know, I'm going to give a
big range here because some of these large companies, the
market valuations have flux sctuated, you know, with what's going
in the market. It's with tariffs. You haves a qual
common you can say that's a big range, you know,
Andqualcomm is in that one hundred two hundred billion range
and three seventy billion you know, on the top thousand
at the low mark. And when I ran those numbers
about a month ago, it looked like when I made
some adjustments that it was five hundred billion, so less
than four billion out five hundred billion of market capitalized.
And so when I saw that, I thought, WHOA, we
could do so much more. You know, Why isn't this
a multi trillion dollar program? Why are we only putting
you know, four out you know over this many years
when we're seeing this extraordinary value, we're seeing winning in
these markets. So I see the potential, you know, both
in high high performing government agents and certainly in the
private sector make the right investments and catalyze these multi
hundred billion you know, and even trillion dollars of solutions,
you know, because much of this has been health benefits,
higher performing you know, chips, you know, semiconductors, energy solutions, sustainability, autonomy, robotics.
I mean, NSF was active in the early days and
the internet. You know, that's kind of outside of the
SBI our program. But if you think about all these
things that it's possible to create, NSF has really been
at the table writing those aggressive first checks and the
results are just astounding. So when you're putting out less
than four, you know, and due respect to the private sector,
you know, tremendous fall on investment that has come in
to catalyze those total market caps. But these are just
this has got to be amongst the highest performing investments
that we have nationally. So I'd say time to do more,
not less. We're out there to do this in the
private sector right now with our firm, American Deep Tech.
We hope more qualified deep technology investment firms and venture
firms build on you know what some good firms have
done and do more, but there's a shortfall of capital.
I can say from that vantage point that there was
so much innovation that was being underfunded and not funded.
So tremendous things accomplish, but very you know, it's like
a low tide mark compared to where the country could be.
Speaker 2: Of course, So so what was your PhD?
Speaker 1: And I'm curious about your educational background, you know, what
what was it in? What did you learn and how
how did that set you up for your success today?
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, I guess just so, so I guess
the first thing that I should say is yes, I
do hope PhD. And one of the funny things is
sometimes people will try to call call me doctor, you know,
And what I realized is, you know, in the private sector,
you know, most of these high performers, you know, the
emphasis is not you know, on the PhD. And you know,
it's interesting some of the highest performing people, I know,
they actually don't have a PG. Someone will have their
bachelors and NSF. There was a little bit of a
tendency towards focusing on you know, professor, this doctor that
we were doing. We were working with so many amazing people.
I couldn't keep it straight. You know, who has a PG,
who doesn't. So I would always say, you know, just
call me in. We had a joke when somebody would
get IO was a Yale when we would when somebody
would get their PhD. And this was before I got mine,
but you know, our friends would get their PG, and
I would say, congratulations, you're a doctor. Congratulations, really enjoy,
We're so happy for you. Right. And when you're on
a plane and somebody says, is there a doctor, you
know yes, you know, we know the answers yes, but
just really the answers no, you know you're congratulations, but
we're not that type of doctor, so just say no.
When you're on a plane, you call us by our
first name. And obviously, these high performing entrepreneurs they go
by first name. But I think what I learned while
you know, obviously there was the opportunity to to work
with amazing people, you know, both the Johns Hopkins in
my undergraduate and then at Yale. But I worked, I
worked on solving problems. So the first problem, so we're
a couple problems that I didn't think were easily resolvable.
So I think the fast pivoting away from something that
doesn't work. So I was working with DNA aftimers, you know,
in the wrow Breaker lab. But you know, he was
one of like the top leaders in biology, and we
were gonna do it for the one of the early
first times, this is the early two thousands, for use
of DNA aftimers in water to detect contaminants. And we said, okay,
there's so many people they're dealing with arsenic poisoning. Let's
try to do that. And then we realized, wow, these
these DNAs, it could be like a glove to a molecule.
It doesn't always work that way. Different salt solutions, you know,
they don't behave the way we expect them. And so
about six months in said, I actually don't think that
this is necessarily going to work. So I think that
kind of fast fail was important. And then I moved
into really the focus on another aspect of global water health,
which was and it's gotten a bit better, you know,
but it's still problematic. Which at that time I think
there was over five million deaths from water borne illness globally,
and much of that was children and the world's pore
So you just you know, when you think about these
are some of the things that we're passionate about, is
where are these extraordinary gaps where a solution can save
lives or transform lives. So I spent about four and
a half years on the PhD and and worked alongside
some great people. So used carbon nanotubes for water treatment,
so it was in advanced materials, low cost, low energy,
removal pathogens from water, and you know, and I was
a little bit nervous about some of the potential health
aspects of carbon nanotubes in water. So you know, that
was both you know, adding to the knowledge, but also
some concern you know for the underlying materials, which we
didn't get completely stabilized. But I would say just working
alongside people to see that, Wow, when you're working with
the people or the leaders in their field. The biggest
part is there's lots of things that we don't know
and we're building knowledge, you know, and it's kind of
the equations are new, you know, the the boundary conditions
are beyond nanom materials were earlier, you know, at that stage.
So we're just all these new things and the answer
of humility as a scientist, you know, which investors also have,
which you know, it's like you make money, you lose money,
and just that we don't know what we don't know.
So just to see the world experts and just realize
we're so far from where we're going to be in
fifty or one hundred years. So let's not get worked up
by you know, whatever the current understanding is.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: So I'd like to read a bit from your CV
on LinkedIn just to give some folks an even greater
idea that clearly you're not an underachiever.
Speaker 2: I'll say that.
Speaker 1: So so Anna Brady Estavaz, early stage venture funderbacker of
high growth startups including assend Elements, imperious fluence.
Speaker 2: I mean, the list goes literally on and on.
Speaker 1: In MITI great companies who've been a privileged state to
work for your senior investment advisor and partner venture the
Small Business Administration Office of Innovation and Investments, working closely
with SBA's SBIC program, focused on venture capital and private
equity funds.
Speaker 2: The SBA's SPIC program has over.
Speaker 1: Forty billion in assets under management across investment funds and
over five billion expected in FY twenty four. You were
co chair along side White House OSTP of the United
States National R and D Agenda Development in Digital Assets
and Technologies related to Central Bank Digital Currencies. You were
co chair alongside NASA of United States Agency Space Economy
Working Group. You were co chair alongside NASA ISS and
NIH of United States Inter Agency Space Commercialization Working Group.
You were co chair a Space Capital Formation Working Group.
And then here, you know, here experienced a director who
led the National Science Foundation Foundations Investment nationwide and energy, power,
space technology, sustainability, chemical technology, and distributed ledger, digital assets,
blockchain technology for startups and small businesses focused on innovation,
investing and strategy supporting high growth startups. I mean, that's
that's just amazing what you've accomplished in your life.
Speaker 3: Sat in a little bit longer than I initially intended
in terms of public service. But so it was several
years beyond where I thought I would have stepped out.
But I think it's just you know, there it was
having the opportunity to work with so many amazing people.
And I do think, you know, for those who have
considered public service, I mean, you know, definitely do refresh
to the private sector, probably you know, faster than eight
and a half years. But you know, there's really so
much that you know, in these nationally central roles that
you know, people can contribute. So it was it was
a privilege to serve, you know, in these roles alongside
amazing people and really the entire time and support of
the private sector.
Speaker 2: When I was in Washington, d C.
Speaker 1: I had the pleasure of attending a dinner party that
you hosted, and yeah, I had to say, they're probably
about anywhere between sixty and one hundred.
Speaker 2: Maybe you would have a better idea of people that
were at this thing.
Speaker 1: And it was my first time to meet you in person,
and that was a real pleasure meeting you and your
husband and and.
Speaker 2: All of the people that were there.
Speaker 1: And what I found just incredibly refreshing is that these
were all people from all different nodes of government, various
three letter agencies, government scientists. I mean, a really wide
spectrum of incredibly intelligent, highly successful people, and in almost
all of them had from from my conversations with folks,
almost all of them had had firsthand encounters with UAP.
Speaker 3: And I think that leaders in innovation both and there
were plenty of entrepreneurs there as well, but I think
that leaders you know, both in the private sector and
the government. You know, we see I mean that was midweek,
you know, is there wasn't a lot of planning that
went into that gathering. So I think that yes, you know,
in any given zip code, you know, to the extent
that you're connected with innovators, you know, people you know
that have a forward view that yes, like dozens or
one hundred people can come together quite quickly on so
you know, certainly we saw many more people able to
come together online. So uh, you know, you know, really
just back to people. People are interested in solutions, They
want to know what's real. There's no you know, I
think a lot of things we're done away with, you know,
in terms of you know, during COVID, you know, and
you know, people are just really focused on what's real,
what's impactful. You know, there's there's a lot of anticipated
changes with regards to what's going to happen with AI.
So I don't I don't think anybody's kind of I
don't think people with a forward view are resting on
their laurels. You know. There's just there's an openness to seeing,
you know, what's going on, what's possible. Many people actually
have a responsibility, you know, whether whether their portfolios are
looking for high performance in some of these fields of technologies.
Be then in the private sector and the government. Uh,
but people are just open and it's backed by you know,
people have seen a wide range of interesting things, and
so for those that are connected and talking, they're sharing information,
you know when they can.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know, I can just speak for myself. When
I first got into this, to be honest, I wasn't
very open with people that I know in my day
job about what the show was about, et cetera. And
it was probably about a year into it, I was like,
you know what, I'm having fun.
Speaker 2: I believe in what I'm doing.
Speaker 1: I believe firmly that what I'm doing is in service
to this nation that I love.
Speaker 2: So I began telling people.
Speaker 1: About it and I would easily say at least fifty
percent of the folks that I shared my personal experience with.
Speaker 2: As far as having orbs show up above the home and.
Speaker 1: Having various guests talk about their experience with UAP, well
over fifty percent would say, well, you know, when I
was a kid, this happened, I saw this, or or
you know when I was in college, I saw this
out in the field or whatever. Almost well over fifty
percent had had experience with UAP. And when you would
ask them, well, you know, do you think you could
have misidentified it as a balloon or something like that,
almost all of them they were very sure of what
they saw. But anyway, I just I thought it was
really refreshing at your dinner gathering to see so much openness,
so much certainty.
Speaker 2: You didn't have people saying, oh, well, it could have
been a balloon.
Speaker 1: I saw whatever. Everyone knew what they saw. May not
have known what it was, but they knew it wasn't
anything anything prosaic.
Speaker 2: And I do.
Speaker 1: Agree the number of people in the world that have
had these experiences, it's it's it's got to be huge.
Speaker 2: I mean, it truly truly is. Now I want to
I want to.
Speaker 3: Do for us. I think that was a big unlock
for us because I think if you contrast it fact
to you know, when people were first kind of sharing
this like on a high level, you know, in the
two thousand and nine time frame, it was more you know,
comment this, and you know kind of you know, it
wasn't it wasn't anything like the dialogue we're seeing today.
And so we were in a position where because we
had these communities of hundreds of entrepreneurs, which you know,
I think there's a little bit of a misperception. You know,
I've seen it directed at some people online where people
will say, you know, okay, well you know there's a distrust,
right you know, maybe it's that it's threatening, you know,
and they're kind of saying, well, this person's doing this.
You know, people are getting called grifters and things like that,
right and not I don't think anybody's making money really
off the UAP thing, or hardly anybody. And these entrepreneurs,
they these researchers usually at the early stage they're starting out,
you know, and they're getting two hundred thousand dollars to
pursue an idea, you know, and build something, and so
they're bringing in very low amounts of capital and they
really only have time to focus on the things that matter.
You know, as somebody who's been an investor who's been
successful in other sectors, I've had to just front personal
bandwidth standpoint, reduce my activity in some very high performing
sectors where I've backed high growth companies. It's just you
bandwidth constraints. So there's really you know, for people to
begetting engaged in this, it's like they're voting with their feet.
These are people that there's no upside for an entrepreneur
to build something that is impossible, right, So if people
are trying to build something, it's because they believe in
good faith and they're voting with all their time and
energy and there's something being there. If an investor is
spending their time and energy to understand this space, it's
because they think, you know, there's potential impact and upside.
So so I think that we had we have this
community of people that regardless in the field of technology,
there's always questions or for something that hasn't hit the
market yet, there's the this isn't going to happen, why
it won't work. That's quite common. So these are people
who were used to being there and building something before
something's readily acknowledged, so and they're just focused on what matters, right.
So in that conversation, as we started talking to this,
we to this issue and UAPs, you know, we weren't
really sure how the community was going to take it. So,
you know, we we brought in some experts that spoke
to the UAP phenomenon what was being built, and afterwards,
you know, we I kind of did this debrief of
what do you think? And so I remember one scientist said,
who's an entrepreneur, said, well, this is science, you know,
we've got to know, you know, what's what's possible, what's here,
what's not type thing? You know. I thought, okay, that's interesting.
And then the next person said, this is up in
Pilot's faces all day every day, you know. So I
think just the level of openness, you know, And because
we had these communities of people who are so focused
on building things, we were able to very easily have
this dialogue with hundreds of builders and entrepreneurs who are scientists,
who are trained observers. And that's when there was that
inflection point for me where it's not okay you know,
in this environment, somebody who's super in the know is
aware of this too. You know, it's almost like the
emperor has no clothes. You know, this is so far
beyond an open secret. You know, it's just and it's
so interesting to see. I mean, I had an investment
banker who is a great, great person who was saying
to me something like, well, you know, is this something
that you know, you know, is this seen as credible
you know and you know or does this cause problems?
I say, yeah, you know, this is this is happening
and you know certain people are aware of this, and and
then he said, he interrupted me. So he's asking me,
you know, is this something that people think it's less
serious when you talk about this, And he says, I
know this is real. I've seen it, and it's like, okay, yeah, yeah,
one out of two people have seen and experience is
so yes. You know, you're asking if it's credible, but
you've personally seen it. And you know, I think there's
so many great people from so many walks of life
that they've seen something. And so you know, there are
cases like in mind where it wasn't directly applicable to
what I was doing at the time, so it's kind
of you walk away interesting open and then there are
people who are building things for which this could be
the source of creating higher performing solutions, driving abundance, solving problems,
you know, or competitive advantage. So those so people are
not just taking note, They're trying to figure out what
they can build.
Speaker 2: And do you think that.
Speaker 1: If could you have had that same conversation with these
individuals in twenty seventeen, entrepreneurs, people involved in tech and finance,
would you have had what do you have been able
to have had the conversation that you can have now?
Could you have done that in twenty seventeen prior to
the New York Times article?
Speaker 3: You know, you know, it's interesting. I think there's been
so much that's been accomplished, and you know, I think
with all the contributions, you know, with the New York
Times article, you know, with with so many of these
people who have come out, you know, leaders from government,
leaders from duty, I think they're you know, there's so
much that's been done to make this conversation a safe
conversation where there's these credentialed, high performing people, you know,
So I think that's made it easier. You know, it's
almost kind of more I see that it's more flipped
where at this point, you know, if there are really
smart people who are skeptical you know, and have questions,
and that's very different from being closed minded, you know.
So if somebody comes across as closed minded, you know,
I would say that's really a liability nowadays, because it's
more viewed that that person might be not have connectivity.
You know. So for somebody who is an entrepreneur and investor,
you know, when we're looking at such high levels of
sightings and experience, you know, if somebody is completely closed
to it, it makes us wonder do people not talk
to them? Like are they not trusted for receiving information?
You know? So one thing is, you know, we have
like highly highly respected colleagues who are skeptical but open.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 3: But for people who are just certain of something, you know,
you know, it's kind of you know, all those hazards
for investors or entrepreneurs, you know, why are you certain
about something for which there is not certainty necessarily? So yeah,
I think we could have I didn't try to have
the conversation in twenty seventeen. I'm an optimist so I
feel like for many people it's it's not based on
post twenty seventeen, but many things have changed, and the
drive for clean energy, you know, the understanding that big
shifts are coming with AI, you know, the dedication of
people to care for you know, a valued and aging
population that's going to have needs. You know that we
want to support, you know, our elders, We want to
support the young, you know, and create that abundance and
quality of life. I mean, the inflationary environment we're in.
I mean, I think there are so many the being
back to a near peer environment that we hadn't been in.
I mean, I think there are so many macro drivers
today that contribute to real reasons that there's perhaps more
of a need for openness than would have been ready
recognized in twenty seventeen. But if people had seen it
before twenty seventeen, maybe they would have been ready to
have the conversation. We were just blind to. We thought
something was rare, that was quite common. So that's why
I like to say, you know, well, my it was
funny because I had people telling me, you know, as
I was funding UAP related adjacent inspired technologies visibly, you know,
my role with the NSF something you know, the people appreciated.
I mean I would kind of say, you know, should
I share more of this? And some of the entrepreneurs said, well, no, don't,
don't share that you've seen this. We want you to
be an honest broker. You know, I've seen as an
honest broker. And I was thinking, how can you be
an honest broker by pretending something you know that's ubiquitous
that you haven't seen it or heard about it. So
it's just kind of interesting that there was such a
disparity between sharing information on what it's like so far
beyond an open secret. I mean, how many things have
fifty percent of people experience? I mean some of Americans
I don't think have been to Europe, you know what
I mean. It's right, so like a shared experience is
so abnormally high, you know. And not to say that
there aren't differences between people have experienced craft versus ORBS
versus some some sort of other things. There's a wide range,
you know, perhaps in that fifty percent of what people
have experienced.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we had a doctor Jacques Valet on our show
last and one thing that that he said that really
really caught caught my attention. I forget exactly how he
put it, but I think we were talking about like
hearing something from the government saying it's real or whatnot.
That whole conversation, and doctor Valet basically said, look, the
best witnesses are the farmers, the people out in the
middle of nowhere that.
Speaker 2: His whole families have seen these things.
Speaker 1: It's it's as Gary Nolan likes to say, you don't
need big daddy government to tell you this stuff is real.
Speaker 2: Well, most of us have seen it and we know
that it's that it's real.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So I do appreciate that so many people, you know,
in the US government up to the presidential level, have
to a certain extent shared there's something here, right, So
I think there is value to having those anchors. But
you know, and I think the potential you know of
you know, the fortune one, you know, the US federal government.
I think the potential for what can be achieved, you know,
when we bring our resources together is tremendous. But there
is absolutely nothing to wait for. We have what we need,
you know, and the private sector is certainly moving forward
and it's understanding, you know. And and for those that
you know, are looking at what are the potential impacts
and opportunities. You know, as you've said, this is this
is something that is common part of our experience. And
the farmers are out there, you know, in many cases
with more access to the open you know, highly visible,
less light polluted skies. There's just people across the country
who you know, they see it and then they decide what,
if anything, you know, they could could do from it,
regardless of the origin. You know, I think there there
is a wide range of opinions you know, or expertise
on what the origins are, you know, whether it's off planet,
whether it's advanced you know, military, ours, theirs, interdimensional.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 3: That said, uh, there's certainly phenomena that is occurring, and
you know, most people or you know, a significant percentage
of people can speak to it firsthand. There are things
that I've seen firsthand. And then there's you know, I
guess also just to anchor on yes, in an official
government role, you know, there was exceptional levels of openness
to this. You know, there's understanding and knowledge about this.
You know, many of the people you know who you
see you've come out on this. You know, I was
in a position to know they did hold those roles.
You know, they are taken seriously by their government interagency colleagues.
There's many other people say, thank goodness, we can finally
talk about this. So uh, you know, with there there
is that recognition you know by people. You know, again
you don't need to look to the government, but that
understanding is both in the private sector and in the government.
Speaker 1: I wonder if, and I totally get your point, all
of us or most of us have had had these exacts.
Speaker 3: Which try to be open about that from the government standpoint.
So we had we did have open discussions on that
to try to share that openness like last fall.
Speaker 1: I think though, that where in my view, kind of
the the confusion is from, you know, because you've you know,
you've had the government say things that that are essentially disclosure.
You've had ex government officials, uh, you know, like you said,
former uh, former CIA director, former presidents and whatnot all
say that there is definitely something going on. And you've
got a lot of people like Marco Rubio and whatnot.
If you if you keep up with what they are
saying and read between the lines, it's clear that they
know that something is going on.
Speaker 2: But what I think.
Speaker 1: Sort of muddies the water, and where I think it
would be beneficial for the government to just unequivocally state
that this is going on is you know, you'll have
like people from the Pentagon throwing cold.
Speaker 2: Water on it. For instance, the.
Speaker 1: Former deputy director of the Pentagon Zero Office All Domain
Anomaly Resolution Office, Tim Phillips was recently on LinkedIn saying, Oh,
this is all a bunch of bologney. There are no hidden,
hidden programs. You had doctor Sean Kirkpatrick saying essentially the
same thing. So if I were the public, and I'm
not someone that is really following the people and what
they are the saying, you know, the people what they're saying,
the people that are.
Speaker 2: That are really in deep with this, I would.
Speaker 1: I would in a way be sort of confused, because
it's like almost I get the impression that the left
hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing in
terms of the government. And I'm curious if you have
any insight on as to why it seems to be
so mixed in terms of the government messaging.
Speaker 3: I mean, I think that the you know, the that
it is something that you know, most people probably haven't
been asked to come out officially, you know, in terms
of stating something you know that that is of such
high levels of importance. And I guess what I would
just note is, you know, so I do think that
there are some additional complexities here. You know that a
number of people have spoken quite eloquently to some of
that is structural, but you know, on the more normal
side of things. I mean, I'm just going to tell you.
I mean, if you if you knew the percentage of
the government that didn't think blockchain was a thing, right,
you know, so if you you know, like you know,
like we you know, the United States disagrees on climate,
you know, we disagree on you know, just about everything.
So let's just agree to disagree. You know. So there
are intelligent people that you know, might so a very
normal thing, you know, outside of the ape space. And
not to say that there aren't additional elements potentially in
play here. But you know, if we talk to somebody
about something that isn't right in their face operating, you know,
they're gonna scientists, top level scientists are going to say, uh,
not a thing half the time, right so, or more
than half the time. So if it's if it's innovative.
If you can get one person out of four, one
person out of five, to say, yes, this is possible, Yes,
this is the thing, that's a good day. I mean
I use the analogy of we know how it went
for the Rights brothers. But like when I talk about innovation,
we you see these even today, you know, you see
this this photo of right. You know, it's kind of
he's I think he's on. You know, he's not planking,
but he's on. You know, he's leaning forward, and you know,
I think, like, does your family know you're doing this?
This looks like a bad idea, right, we don't know
what right. So if you can imagine being on the
beach in North Carolina and somebody says these right bicycle
Brothers are going to do this thumbs up, thumbs down.
If you get one person who says, well, let's give
it a try, that's a pretty good day on the beach. Yeah,
you know, for innovation. So I think it's possible. So
I will say in all areas we see scientists take
different takes on the data. I mean, you know, as
we know scientists that presumably have access to a much
smaller subset of data than some of these entities and
our scientists say, wow, there's something here, you know. So
there's plenty of room to disagree, you know, or agree
to disagree.
Speaker 1: But is there a influential scientist or someone in technology
who has had the most really kind of profound impact
on your views about UAP and advanced technology? And and
what are some of the types of fields of technology
that you are you know, that you're interested in related
to the UAP phenomena.
Speaker 3: Well, we've just been privileged to work with so many
scientists and entrepreneurs, so I would just say that, you know,
it's really just learning from every scientist and every entrepreneur.
So I mean there were people that there were people
that I had known for fifteen years, you know, and
we hadn't had the have you had a have you
seen a UAP conversation? You know, So these weren't These
weren't people that the basis of the relationship was a
UAP situation. But it's more when the conversation evolved that ability,
you know, for that person or that investor, that financier
to say yes, I've seen this. I think that cumulation,
accumulation of experience and just that that calm acknowledgment. We
talked to people about this, and h seems like there's
something going on. You know, what is you know, what
do you think? You know what? What can we do
from this? So I would say, there's so many great people.
We had a an advanced working group of people from NASA,
d O, d DOE, DJHS, you know, so many, so
many of these different agencies that we're really coming together
to look at advanced energy and advanced communications. And you know,
we kind of like, as we think about where are
we in the scope of what's possible and what's discussfule,
we would get into some really exciting field of technology
and then somebody would say, should we even be talking
about this? You know, we're not we're not in a skiff.
And then we would say, well, actually, it's online, and
here's where the Russians are talking about it, here's where
the Chinese are talking about it, and we might wonder
if there's something that we can talk about, but but yes,
it's actually it's it's so much as publicly visible now.
So we would have those conversations and then we would say, oh,
they're entrepreneurs that we know for advancing this work. So
we bring the entrepreneurs in the rooms. So I would say,
you know, there are a lot of good people. We
we were really more the way we got brought back
into this was we were talking about advanced energy, advanced
advanced communications. One of those leaders, Larry Forsley, you know,
who's a fusion leader. Uh, he had actually brought in
been brought in to some by some members you know,
might at one of the high level duty or intel committees,
you know, basically being asked about fusion and UAP. So
that's something that he's spoken to readily, you know, as
we talked about different areas of science, you know, and
faster than light communications. You know, that brought us to
you know, I it up. Well, you know some of
the information, uh that there is declassified. CIA programs on
remote viewing showed that the information was received, you know,
before the probe you know, reached this planet. So we said,
that's been declassified and that's a pretty cheap piece of
paper pen type experiment, you know, see if there's anything there.
So then we brought in hal Putov you know, kind
of you know along that you know, we had this question,
it's been declassified. Let's bring in one of the experts,
and when we brought in Hell, he just very calmly said,
you know, would you like my ED presentation, my UAP
presentation or my remote viewing presentation. Then I said, yes,
you know, we'd like we'd like all three of those.
And so he came in and he gave a presentation
on his work across decades, you know, on the government's
UAP programs, and obviously you know some of that is classified.
Say's not that everything can be discussed, but he brought
that forward. We thought the content was so interesting and
rather than saying, Okay, you know, here's kind of this
information that we're sitting on and oh, like, aren't we
lucky to know this? You know, I went back to
him a week later and said, is this something that
we can disseminate more broadly to a large number of entrepreneurs.
We put the invitation out to the four hundred startups
I've worked with. You know, over one hundred companies came forward,
and we just saw that outpouring of interest. So we
brought other We brought other folks forward, Charles Chase, who
was the head of Lockkeey Martin skunk Works, Ryan Graves,
who was seeing these every day, you know, or almost
every day as a pilot. Diana Paselka, who's talking about
the interdimensional I'm sorry, the faith dimensions of this. So
we really you know, I had the opportunity to meet
people like Chris Bledsoe, you know, who has a lot
of experience in these areas. So I do think you know,
those people have really you know, just kind of that
catalyzing of a higher cadence of information flow. And so
many many people, uh, you know, the Julia Moss bridges
this area, Gamsane fink Housen. There's just so many good
people you know, in this space right now. And but
but Chris Bloodsoe is definitely one of them that you know,
really kind of challenged my view of some of this. Yeah, others.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I've spent some time speaking with him, and yeah,
it can be mind bending, it's it's but what a
what a lovely, lovely.
Speaker 2: Human human being.
Speaker 1: So, and I'm curious, You've had this great career that
has spanned you know, both government and private sector innovation,
your work at the National Science Foundation and deep tech.
How did that shape your current perspective on UAP technology.
Speaker 3: Well, so, I think that you know, what's been amazing.
What the National Science Foundation is the call to serve
you know, the country. So I'm trying to remember the
mission state, but it's to serve the nation's economic, good, health,
and defense. So really that the NSF has funded you know,
a considerable portion of the United States fundamental and early
stage research over time. So that that openness to all
fields of disruptive technology, and that respect for the researcher,
for the entrepreneur, that's something that's also big has been
bigging the Kaufman Fellow's environment is at respect for the entrepreneurs.
So when entrepreneurs bring forth ideas and potential, just you know,
listening to them in earnest and really trying to figure
out how does this drive towards societal impact. Something that
was interesting to me and NSF is sometimes we saw,
you know, this is something that's come out as a
criticism you know, in you know, in the UAP community.
So I think it's good to tackle it head on
it and people are going to disagree, but it feels
like people want somebody to come out and just deal,
you know, sometimes deal with all aspects of the UAP issue.
And so so I would say that we came back
into this through what are the technologies that the United
States is building, you know, and what might be competitive advantages.
So it's not to say that that's the best lens,
but that we did this through our work, like, through
our existing authorities and what we were being asked to do
in our day to day job. Let's try to help,
you know, in terms of medical benefits, higher performing energy,
you know, and propulsion. So that's kind of where we
came from. There is sometimes the question of profit versus
societal impact. And what was very interesting to me about
the end portfolio is that support. So my own portfolio,
you know, I've done early stage about seventeen and a
half billion in its early stages, you know, in terms
of what those companies on the low end have grown too,
because it's higher than that, you know, my colleagues like
in total, it's been about seventy billion probably over the
last ten years. That program has gone from over forty years,
So the NSF SBIR has gone from I think it's
under four billion dollars out to catalyzing, you know, somewhere
between because the market market caps shift on these companies
with a wide range of economic impacts. Three seventy billion
to five hundred billion dollars on the top thousand companies.
So NSF represents exceptionally high performing economic growth right small
dollars out, you know, tremendous follow on capacity, great people
in the private sector to that job growth, that economic growth.
But then these high growth companies are typically it's the
societal benefits. So in my own portfolio, it was never, well,
here's this company that doesn't have a societal benefits. It's
things like proteins. You know, it's it's higher performing and cleaner,
more efficient energy. You know, it's it's therapeutics, it's it's
better energy, better cybersecurity. So this consistency between bringing societally
impactful beneficial solutions, you know, if you help people, that's
also something that corresponds with financial value. So I think
NSF has done a great job of that and they're
always looking to support the next thing. So at NSF,
when there's an area of higher performing technology, we would
go to support the entrepreneur and we would take these
high impact you know, maybe it's a ten percent chance
of working out, we do more than ten of them.
And but if but if it works, you know, it
it changes the art of the possible. So so that's
what NSF has really been amazing, is taking those chances
alongside the researchers and entrepreneurs. We also recognized that the
entrepreneurs and the researchers, they've experienced UAPs. So so it
was clear to us that there's no point of credibility
to telling people who have seen something, oh no, no, you
haven't seen something. I mean that that doesn't work with scientists.
So in terms of being an agency that would be open,
you know, and and shit and have these forums alongside
tremendous leaders, you know, and it's like Rema Trocy, Donna,
you know, Curtis, you know, Kevin, like so many folks,
David lenn you know, across the interagency. Some of them open,
some of them skeptical but open, but just tremendous people
that they they were just able to go into it.
So I think that that that openness is what's so important.
And NSF, it has, you know, has offered to lead
a UAP program to the extent that there's budget there,
NSF would be ready to lead, just as NSF is
always ready to lead in all areas of potentially impactful
innovation and they are a high performing entity that is
there for the impact and is there for the entrepreneurs
and the researchers regardless of the field of technology, and
then includes UAP.
Speaker 1: So let's say within a year, you would not be
surprised if the NSF stood up a group like that.
Speaker 3: We have already visibly funded UAP technologies and that's something
that's been acknowledged. You know, We've we've hosted that publicly.
The entrepreneurs have explained that they've done that, you know,
and this is some thing that you know, when I
when I brought some of the top people in the
NSF has been briefed by highly regarded UAP experts and
the level of scientific sophistication within the NSF and openness
to entrepreneurs. I mean, one of one of the entrepreneurs was,
you know, you know, kind of laying the groundwork and
this and that, and uh, the NSF leader, you know,
who's just tremendous and very innovation forward, said, uh, you know, basically,
we watch the news, so we understand there are skeptics,
right you know, Uh, we're we're not skeptics here, so
you don't need to talk to us like we're skeptics.
So I mean, that's not to say that there can't
be a range of scientific opinions within the NMSF. And
you know, certainly, I'm sure there are skeptics, just like
there's a range of opinions. But as scientists and innovation
forward leaders the National Science Foundation, if I provide a
budget and ask to stand up a UAP office we
funded previously, we're ready to do it. You know, it's
just just a high performing entity that can do so
much with funds in any field of technology. I mean,
it's been remarkable to see that, you know, at a
time when the country can do so much, that there
appears to be a pulling back on request.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 3: You know, I think that it's a great opportunity for
those who want to forward US innovation to just give
a high performing entity in innovation funding to continue. You know,
if an entity is provided catalyzed half a trillion dollars
with very little money, my question is, why aren't they
catalyzing trillions? You know, if they had better These are
very lowly resourced programs. With more capital, you know, and
more resources, I believe, you know, teams like that could
do so much more. I've moved out into the private
sector because I believe there's more capital and more agility
that can be put to play in these markets. But
if the federal government wants to do it, what an
amazing scientific and innovation forward team of people that have
have stood up and said they're ready to move the
ball downfield.
Speaker 2: Love that now, of course we and that's been in the.
Speaker 3: Media, so it hasn't right, well, it hasn't been confirmed.
Like I can tell you that I've been in those conversations,
and I know that we've both publicly released our activity
while I was at the NSF. You know, there's much
online from conversations we held across the inter agency over
the last year. But I can say, you know, there
is that openness at the leadership level, certainly in the
tip director, at the commercialization director at FOLKS.
Speaker 1: If you enjoyed part one of our interview with doctor
Anna Brady Estevez, you are going to love part two,
where Anna discusses her UAP conversation with a former CIA director,
a CIA director that you have not heard of.
Speaker 2: Hit the subscribe button and stay tuned.