Speaker 1: The paranormal UFOs, Monsters, Mysteries that you're listening to Talking
Speaker 1: Weird and know from a Kevin deep in the northwards
Speaker 1: your host, Doctor Dean Bertram.
Speaker 2: Oh, greetings, or my fellow widows and widows, welcome to
Speaker 2: Talking Weird on the un Told Radio Network. Happy New Year.
Speaker 2: I'm grateful that you're all here again tonight. I hope
Speaker 2: you had a wonderful New Year and Christmas period. I'm
Speaker 2: delighted because I've got my old co host of Mysterious
Speaker 2: Library with me and one of my best friends in
Speaker 2: this wonderful country, Manley Jason McLean.
Speaker 3: Greetings and salutations, Weirdians. Uh yeah, we're not gonna do
Speaker 3: introduction for me today. We all we're all family here,
Speaker 3: you know me, I know you. You know, we're we're all
Speaker 3: friends here. So we're just gonna kick this shindn't dig off.
Speaker 2: Sounds good, sounds good.
Speaker 3: With my over abundance of beard, I'm I'm growing it
Speaker 3: out for a little bit, so I have I can
Speaker 3: you know, I was just telling Dean, so I can
Speaker 3: trim it up here in a little bit. I got
Speaker 3: a project that I'll be on that we can when
Speaker 3: there's spoken of yeah, well there's more to be spoken of.
Speaker 3: I'll speak of it. So my my Santa Claus look
Speaker 3: will not be lasting too too long.
Speaker 1: I thought it.
Speaker 2: I thought you've just grown it out for your side
Speaker 2: Giga sand or the local more holidays.
Speaker 3: I'm honestly too busy at your normal job to do that. Man.
Speaker 3: So okay, funny story, I funny story, and this is
Speaker 3: one true. My wife knows a man who is a
Speaker 3: professional year around Santa Claus, and she did work with
Speaker 3: his family and his website and the home. Dude has
Speaker 3: a Santa's workshop that he that he keeps on his property.
Speaker 3: He gets moved, you know, when it's time to go
Speaker 3: out and do the Santa Claus thing. Dude looks like
Speaker 3: Santa Claus. His car is done up with Santa on it.
Speaker 3: Dude is a The dude looks like Santa Claus like
Speaker 3: he came out of a Coca Cola ad from the thirties.
Speaker 3: It's nuts wow m hm.
Speaker 2: So before we get into the weed and he and
Speaker 2: he tells about Christmas on New Year that McLean residents.
Speaker 2: She would like to share with us any Jason misadventures
Speaker 2: over the.
Speaker 3: Holidays, Actually, no misadventures. This year is quite quite calm,
Speaker 3: quite chill, you know, very RESTful. That's good, you know,
Speaker 3: I mean there was there was a family in Caso.
Speaker 3: It doesn't get better than that. That's yeah, that's perfect.
Speaker 3: We've got a lot of snow here in the north Woods.
Speaker 3: So we've had a very white Christmas in New Year's period.
Speaker 2: Literally at the moment, there are icicles hanging around all
Speaker 2: my warnings outside, it looks like something out of a
Speaker 2: out of a holiday Christmas.
Speaker 3: We've been much warmer than usual, Like we've gotten believed
Speaker 3: that at night a couple of times, like I've got
Speaker 3: the things on my on my outside water hose attachments.
Speaker 3: But it's like I feel like I could have kept
Speaker 3: I could have kept everything, all my hoses connected so
Speaker 3: I could keep watering my plants because like it was
Speaker 3: in the we've been in the seventies and eighties. Last
Speaker 3: couple of days. Now, yeah, it doesn't usually Again, a
Speaker 3: white Christmas is almost Yeah, it happens from time to time.
Speaker 3: It's not unheard of, but it is infrequent. Usually our
Speaker 3: really cold stuff happens in January. But yeah, it's been
Speaker 3: really warm this year. So yeah, that's probably the weirdest thing.
Speaker 2: My brother's in Houston. He said they had a heat
Speaker 2: wave down there.
Speaker 3: Well, it's Houston, and we don't know. As Texans, we
Speaker 3: are specificly as a Dallas site, I am genetically required
Speaker 3: to dislike Ustonians.
Speaker 2: Huh, that's interesting. I know about the rivalry there. I
Speaker 2: did see last night. Their fireworks in Dallas are pretty impressive.
Speaker 2: I don't always watch fireworks around the world, but after
Speaker 2: the countdown and everything, I think we because I had
Speaker 2: a very quiet New Year's Eve this year. I just
Speaker 2: had my mother's visiting from the holidays for the holidays
Speaker 2: that anybody who was watching talking weird last week, we'll
Speaker 2: see where she guested with me, so it was just
Speaker 2: my mother and my and my daughter. My girlfriend was
Speaker 2: with her own children last night and the weather was
Speaker 2: too terrible to drive to drive here anyway. She's like,
Speaker 2: she's a good hour or more away, and in this
Speaker 2: Northwoods at some area it's crave. The roads get like diabolical.
Speaker 2: You don't want to go. But no, it was a
Speaker 2: lovely holidays. I don't think anything super weird happened here
Speaker 2: over the holidays. I've heard a lot of ours, which
Speaker 2: always creep my daughter out. These days which I've talked about.
Speaker 2: It's a very hourly season for so I've never heard
Speaker 2: so many hours in the whatever. This year, they have
Speaker 2: been out of control. And they do say the owls
Speaker 2: are not what they say, so maybe that indicate something
Speaker 2: weird going on. Who knows.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, I mean that's owls are I'll say it
Speaker 3: this way. I have no problem with owls, but I've
Speaker 3: had enough reports enough people where owls are doing weird things.
Speaker 3: I always give him an extra little, you know, little
Speaker 3: extra observation from time, because yeah, there's a lot of
Speaker 3: weird stuff that happens with them, particularly at night. And
Speaker 3: you know, one report I have, I will keep some
Speaker 3: things vague, and I've had several other reports like this.
Speaker 3: Of this one particular account, again, I gotta keep a
Speaker 3: little vague. Dude was asleep, right, so we'll keep it
Speaker 3: at that. He was asleep, but he had this weird
Speaker 3: dream where he was being watched by this he called
Speaker 3: it a hag and this tree that was just outside
Speaker 3: of his of his home, and like so he has
Speaker 3: the stream where he's in the chair that he fell
Speaker 3: asleep in, but he's in his room and the window,
Speaker 3: you know, the like so it's everything is as it
Speaker 3: had been set up when he fell asleep, and he's
Speaker 3: in his room and he sees this old hag on
Speaker 3: this tree branch staring at him, just staring at him,
Speaker 3: and he's like, what is going on because he's in
Speaker 3: his in his head, he's like, this is weird. Like
Speaker 3: it like he could see the hag, but it like
Speaker 3: the feeling he got was he wasn't supposed to see her.
Speaker 3: And then he hears this voice from behind him, in
Speaker 3: what he believes to be an angel, said am and
Speaker 3: it's he wasn't even talking to the eyewitness. He was
Speaker 3: talking to the hag. He goes, you realize he can
Speaker 3: see you, right, And then he wakes up. And as
Speaker 3: soon as he wakes up, he looks he looks out
Speaker 3: the window and there's an owl that is staring right
Speaker 3: at him and flies off.
Speaker 2: So that's super weird. I was trying to look for
Speaker 2: an illustration I think as an illustration of a like
Speaker 2: a strg Oya or the Undead, which is oursc or
Speaker 2: hag Esk as well. But certainly I mean like there's
Speaker 2: a book The Messagers by Mike Clelland which deals with
Speaker 2: these kind of things. If I recall that's the title
Speaker 2: of the book. Certainly, throughout the history of the occult,
Speaker 2: the owls known as some type of you know, wiser thing,
Speaker 2: and the history of abduction law, owls are often, you
Speaker 2: know involved, there's people perceive things they think are ours
Speaker 2: and are meant to actually be something else. So yeah,
Speaker 2: an our is you know, it's certainly certainly a symbol
Speaker 2: of something. I remember speaking of ols and pop culture
Speaker 2: and weirdness. I remember one of my favorite shows of
Speaker 2: all time, Millennium. In the second season of that show,
Speaker 2: which starred Lance Henrickson, was originated by Chris Carter. I
Speaker 2: love it's one of my favorite television shows of all time.
Speaker 2: The second season of that show might be the greatest
Speaker 2: season of network television ever. It's so good Fox or
Speaker 2: whatever it was on any television ever. But there are
Speaker 2: two groups. The Millennium group meant they're meant to try
Speaker 2: to be stopping, you know, or fighting the horrors of
Speaker 2: the millennium because this was made before nineteen ninety nine,
Speaker 2: where everybody was still in the world man then, so
Speaker 2: it was very well timed. But one of the groups
Speaker 2: was called the Owls, and the owls thought that we
Speaker 2: actually had longer that it was the middle of the night. Well,
Speaker 2: the roosters, the other group were like, you know, alarmists,
Speaker 2: They thought the millennium was about to take place. So
Speaker 2: even in pop culture, the owl becomes a signifier of
Speaker 2: a secret society or other things, something mysterious about that bird.
Speaker 3: Well you got the cord of owls and batman lore,
Speaker 3: and Lilith is literally a screech out like it's Lilith
Speaker 3: is an owl. The that's not just that's not just
Speaker 3: a biblical concept. That is a Mesopotamian concept right in
Speaker 3: Nana is believed to have had at least some influence
Speaker 3: on on on Lilith, but she's often depicted as having
Speaker 3: owl like specifically owl like features, with owls being familiar
Speaker 3: to hers. So yeah, there's a very very long long
Speaker 3: tradition of owls and similar and again similar night creatures
Speaker 3: because when you get into like the Philippines, right, Indonesia
Speaker 3: where they don't have a lot of owls, but they
Speaker 3: have very large bats.
Speaker 2: Like in Australia we do as well. Oh yeah, what's
Speaker 2: from Minnostia. Yeah, absolutely, things which are denizens of the night,
Speaker 2: you know, the creatures of the nightwak music, you know
Speaker 2: they make anything which is nocturnal is perhaps it goes
Speaker 2: back to when we're around the campfires of you know,
Speaker 2: hiding in our little mud huts or whatever. The thing's
Speaker 2: moving and you know, lurking outside things that can see
Speaker 2: in the dark and we can't see them, that there
Speaker 2: is something innately, regardless of the supernatural paranormal realities of
Speaker 2: the connections of these creatures with those things, just the
Speaker 2: fact that there's things out there which are prowling around
Speaker 2: when we can't see them, it's scary.
Speaker 3: One hundred percent. And again, there's definitely a and we've
Speaker 3: talked about this a lot, right, that a lot of
Speaker 3: this does see a lot of supernatural manifestation seems to
Speaker 3: use the medium of cultural concepts and contexts to to
Speaker 3: communicate with us and to interact with us. And yet
Speaker 3: while that is one hundred percent true, there are themes
Speaker 3: that seem to transcend culture to a degree, right, it
Speaker 3: seemed to be some degree of cultural universal you know
Speaker 3: the wild man mythos where you have a humanoid figure
Speaker 3: that is also part uh usually it's a goat, but
Speaker 3: I mean that's probably the most traditional version. But you know,
Speaker 3: bowl legs again digitrade hoofed legs is the best way
Speaker 3: to look at it. And horns or antlers, that's pretty universal.
Speaker 3: As are going back to the idea that the idea
Speaker 3: of owls very specifically being connected to these and it's
Speaker 3: and it's really weird because it's almost always goddess or
Speaker 3: witch connections rather than because some of these things, some
Speaker 3: of the you know, some symbols sort of jump around
Speaker 3: as to who has them and what they're doing. But
Speaker 3: owls are almost very very universal, except for again, except
Speaker 3: for those areas where there aren't owls and bats take
Speaker 3: that place, so it's all and again even then it's
Speaker 3: witches that they're connected to and goddesses even in Indonesia,
Speaker 3: so in the Philippines. So it's yeah, it's just one
Speaker 3: of those weird things that it's It does seem culturally
Speaker 3: derived and yet maybe larger than culture itself, so who knows.
Speaker 2: Certainly, Minerva, you know, of the Greek Roman tradition, was
Speaker 2: associated with an owl and owl with her symbol, and
Speaker 2: of course we and the antler thing. It's interesting because
Speaker 2: that almost that always becomes masculine, the antlered thing, like
Speaker 2: it's the the horned man, for example, is the equivalent
Speaker 2: of the goddess in those supposedly in those older you know,
Speaker 2: pre Christian traditions, you know of the Europe. But we
Speaker 2: could talk about this stuff as you and I could
Speaker 2: go down the road holes focal.
Speaker 3: Yeah, this is all. Yeah, this is the entire night.
Speaker 3: We need to do that Van. This is just the vamp.
Speaker 3: We haven't even kicked off the.
Speaker 2: No, we haven't even kicked whip. It's certainly the the
Speaker 2: certainly the weird though. But to jump more to perhaps
Speaker 2: the more recent past twenty twenty five, which is what
Speaker 2: I promised our audience, who would talk about tonight. We've
Speaker 2: got all kinds of wonderful people who take my girlfriends there. Hey,
Speaker 2: Sam Horace is here and mentioned that if if the
Speaker 2: year opens with Danan Chason, it's already a year of weirdness.
Speaker 2: It has to be true, Ken Morock, all kinds of
Speaker 2: wonderful regulars. What were your what do you think the
Speaker 2: highlights not necessarily your personal highlights, but what were the
Speaker 2: highlights of the weed do you think what were the
Speaker 2: things which were significant in twenty twenty five in the
Speaker 2: broader forty and weed space.
Speaker 3: Honestly, I really I was thinking about this, you know,
Speaker 3: for you know, the last week while we were talking
Speaker 3: about this. Really I think that there's two major highlights,
Speaker 3: right and sort of the same thing with the passing
Speaker 3: is like there's a lot of people who've passed, there's
Speaker 3: a lot of you know, news that both sections seem
Speaker 3: to have like two highlights or two issues of real
Speaker 3: broader prominence. And I think the first one because the
Speaker 3: second one is definitely gonna take up the rest of
Speaker 3: the episode. The first one is Katie Elizabeth. Uh has
Speaker 3: had a really really big year with again material from
Speaker 3: twenty twenty four, but it came to prominence in twenty
Speaker 3: twenty five. If you don't know who Katy Elizabeth is,
Speaker 3: she's a zoologist who focuses on lake monsters, specifically Lake Champlain,
Speaker 3: but she's recently been out to lock Nest. It's some
Speaker 3: really great work out there. She's one of the researchers
Speaker 3: who has gathered multiple accounts or not just accounts, but
Speaker 3: actually made the recordings. And there's been other evidence, but
Speaker 3: specifically of echolocation in lank Champlain, which is a freshwater lake.
Speaker 3: Nothing in that lake is supposed to echo locate, and
Speaker 3: yet we have multiple confirmed recordings that have been tested
Speaker 3: by numerous labs, and it's not supposed and it's clearly
Speaker 3: not supposed to be there. It's echolocation. To this point,
Speaker 3: the only creatures we know that echo locate are essentially
Speaker 3: I mean, there are some fish that will do it,
Speaker 3: but again nothing in water and freshwater specifically. But you're
Speaker 3: usually talking about things like porpoises or whales, and they're
Speaker 3: not supposed to be there, right, So whatever's doing the
Speaker 3: echo locating in lank Champlain ain't supposed to be there.
Speaker 2: Yes, it's certainly weird. I'm again if I've told you
Speaker 2: in the audience many times, cryptozoology is in my wheelhouse.
Speaker 2: But I've always been fascinated as a child, and lake
Speaker 2: monsters are one of the things I've been most fascinated with.
Speaker 2: Lake monsters and sea serpents. There's something very i don't know, primal,
Speaker 2: or there's something very mysterious again, like we were talking
Speaker 2: about night before. But the water is something which is
Speaker 2: a place which we're not really designed to spend time
Speaker 2: in as opposed to the creatures that might live in there.
Speaker 2: So there's an extra scare or an extra perhaps psychological
Speaker 2: predisposition to think something in the water might be alien
Speaker 2: or foreign or threatening to us. And certainly, certainly, I
Speaker 2: often think of all the cryptozoological stories out there, of
Speaker 2: all the things, if there are physical creatures that are
Speaker 2: well and truly, you know, not just an undiscovered fish
Speaker 2: or something, but something like you know, a sea burnt
Speaker 2: or you know a really plessia saw, or an undiscovered,
Speaker 2: very strange, larger creature. I think the waters are probably
Speaker 2: where they would be, maybe more likely the sea than
Speaker 2: interior lakes. But some of these lakes have supposedly entry
Speaker 2: ways to you know, to like Lockness I think is
Speaker 2: meant to be accessible what used to be. I think
Speaker 2: there are dams and things there now, but it used
Speaker 2: to be accessible I think to the North Sea or
Speaker 2: wherever somewhere there right via river.
Speaker 3: So yeah, the river nests actually does go out to
Speaker 3: the ocean, uh and the and they've actually been so
Speaker 3: funny story about that. And we'll come back to Keeler's
Speaker 3: but although she's she was literally just in Scotland doing
Speaker 3: what I saw. Yeah, yeah, so it absolutely connects. So really,
Speaker 3: the modern sightings of NeSSI don't occur until that, until
Speaker 3: that causeway is actually built allowing larger boats access to
Speaker 3: lockness from the sea. So, yes, the river nest has
Speaker 3: always existed and it's technically always had access to the
Speaker 3: ocean and how the salmon get in. But there's several
Speaker 3: areas of the river nest where it's very shallow, very
Speaker 3: very shallow. But once that this sort of you know,
Speaker 3: causeway was built so ships can come in and out,
Speaker 3: much larger ships. It's after that that we get the
Speaker 3: sort of modern lockedness sightings. So it's a kid. Garrett
Speaker 3: has speculated that it may be while there's accounts of
Speaker 3: weirdness in the lock going back, the fact that it
Speaker 3: doesn't that we don't really have a lot of modern
Speaker 3: settings until that causeway is built is very very telling
Speaker 3: that this may be something that's actually coming and going
Speaker 3: out of the lock. So and yeah, again, Lake Champlain
Speaker 3: freshwater lake odds are it's probably not connected to the
Speaker 3: ocean somewhere that we are aware of, but it is
Speaker 3: very deep, it's very very large. The simple fact of
Speaker 3: the matter is, I'm with you that again. My favorite stuff,
Speaker 3: even though you know what I saw was air was airborne.
Speaker 3: I'm a big fan of water monsters, I really am.
Speaker 3: My favorite CRYPTI is is Champ not Champ Caddy. Sorry,
Speaker 3: I was just I had Champ on the mind because
Speaker 3: it's like Champlain Caddy the cad Borsaurus, right, That's my
Speaker 3: favorite thing, And what I find really interesting about what Again,
Speaker 3: Katy Elizabeth has probably one of the best years of
Speaker 3: any cryptis who all just this year, and one of
Speaker 3: the things I find very very intriguing about her work
Speaker 3: in research is that if it is echolocation that we're hearing, right, Jen,
Speaker 3: and that's what it's you know again, it sounds like
Speaker 3: echo location. But until we have the creature, we kind of,
Speaker 3: you know, we can actually observe it. We don't know
Speaker 3: that's what it's doing precisely, though it's a solid theory.
Speaker 3: It actually suggests that what we're looking for is mammalian
Speaker 3: and that matches very neatly with the cad or a
Speaker 3: source which is been reported by some to have essentially
Speaker 3: a main on the back of its head, and people
Speaker 3: talking about having that sort of a horse like head.
Speaker 3: I think as Zulidan fits or something. Xulodan is a
Speaker 3: classic name for a Basillosaurus. I prefer ulidan. I just
Speaker 3: I think it sounds cooler than the best than a basillo. Source.
Speaker 3: But those are ancient whales, they don't, you know. They
Speaker 3: depending on how they're rendered, they would look like a
Speaker 3: very very aggressive maybe beluga whale, right, both the more
Speaker 3: narrow face, but something of that nature, not necessarily of
Speaker 3: that exact genus, but something more in say the porpoise family,
Speaker 3: you know, or that we would that's how we would
Speaker 3: see them, just maybe something a little bit older, something
Speaker 3: a little less adapted to the modern world, which is
Speaker 3: why the population is so low. I think that's very concept.
Speaker 2: I think Ry mackell suggested way back in the day
Speaker 2: in his luck Miss book that it was could be
Speaker 2: some type of unknown or large as seal variant, like
Speaker 2: it might be something like that. Yes, I think it
Speaker 2: was something for so that would go with the mammal
Speaker 2: position you were talking about before as well.
Speaker 3: Yes, yes, seal sort of these massive seals have been
Speaker 3: theorized for since like the eighteen hundreds. Actually I just
Speaker 3: forgot the name. There's one, oh man, I cannot remember
Speaker 3: the name of it. But he had actually, yeah, there
Speaker 3: were claims to have seen something that he claimed that
Speaker 3: he thought was a giant seal. So that's very much
Speaker 3: on the table as well. Since we don't know, we
Speaker 3: don't know of seals echo locating though, that's why I'm
Speaker 3: I'm not opposed to it in any stretch of the imagination.
Speaker 3: But since we have this, it's like, you know that
Speaker 3: it fits, since we since we see such a variety
Speaker 3: in porpoise physiology, I wouldn't be surprised or something like
Speaker 3: Azulugan still being around our Basilla's horse, but something of
Speaker 3: that family. It's some sort of an ancient whale that
Speaker 3: we know echo locates and can take on different body shapes,
Speaker 3: and we have fossil evidence of them having sharp teeth
Speaker 3: and longer faces. It seems like a can fit. But again,
Speaker 3: until we got a body right, we don't know. Horse
Speaker 3: had a great question.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I was kind to throw it up for you.
Speaker 2: There you go.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So I actually in my in my book talked
Speaker 3: to you know, I actually got a chance to talk
Speaker 3: to the interview the gentleman who headed up the e
Speaker 3: DNA search at Luckness. H e DNA is a really
Speaker 3: fascinating thing. And what's interesting is theoretically you can get
Speaker 3: a really really good look at the biodiversity of any
Speaker 3: you know, really anywhere, but specifically water right any you know,
Speaker 3: lakes and things like that, you can get a really
Speaker 3: good chance. I'm not convinced that if the population is
Speaker 3: all enough that can still go undetected, Like you kind
Speaker 3: of still have to get lucky right to get that DNA.
Speaker 3: So if the population is small enough or transitory, like
Speaker 3: we were talking about with lockness, if it's coming in
Speaker 3: and out and it's not there all the time again,
Speaker 3: then you're you're probably not going to get those that DNA. Additionally,
Speaker 3: the real sort of asterisk that needs to be mentioned
Speaker 3: with the DNA, the DNA kind of has to already
Speaker 3: be on record, Like we It's like drugs, right, if
Speaker 3: you test somebody, you can only test them for the
Speaker 3: drugs you know exist, and so if you don't, if
Speaker 3: you have if they've taken a drug that you don't
Speaker 3: know exists, you can't test for it. It's kind of
Speaker 3: in the same thing. We kind of have this idea
Speaker 3: that if we that you'll run all the DNA's like, hey,
Speaker 3: here's DNA we don't recognize. That's not really the case.
Speaker 3: You kind of have to have something to bounce it
Speaker 3: off of. And if the DNA is close enough to
Speaker 3: something that you would recognize, like my question would was
Speaker 3: the idea of giant eels.
Speaker 2: That was what the New Zealand academic team is several
Speaker 2: years ago, and it made the news. It was a
Speaker 2: very front page story because supposedly they found a lot
Speaker 2: of eel DNA in the walk. So the theory was
Speaker 2: perhaps the Lockness monster is a large eel because supposedly
Speaker 2: eels that live for a very long time, you're almost
Speaker 2: like reptilian in the sense that they can keep growing,
Speaker 2: like if the crocodile. If the crocodile lives for one
Speaker 2: hundred years, it's going to be a ridiculously massive size.
Speaker 2: And supposedly eels are like that as well. They can
Speaker 2: just keep growing and growing and growing.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the European eel can get very very large. And
Speaker 3: if there's a species of eel that we're unfamiliar with
Speaker 3: and we haven't cataloged, it would just it would just
Speaker 3: tag as eel DNA. So it wouldn't that we wouldn't say.
Speaker 3: In fact, that's my questions, like if there were some
Speaker 3: unknown species of eel or you know, had a very
Speaker 3: low population or some sort of weird mutation, would we
Speaker 3: see that. He's like, no, we wouldn't. It would just
Speaker 3: come back as eel DNA, so it wouldn't necessarily come
Speaker 3: back as something saying, hey, it's unknown. So I'm a
Speaker 3: huge fan of this technology. The problem is we just
Speaker 3: need to understand limitations, and it's only going to get
Speaker 3: better as we go, right, Like, that's the other thing
Speaker 3: we need to remember. This stuff is going to keep
Speaker 3: getting better over the next ten to twenty years. And
Speaker 3: so I think we're on this. We really are, and
Speaker 3: we'll talk about this when we talk about what we
Speaker 3: expect for twenty twenty six. I doen'tinely think we're on
Speaker 3: the edge of this precipice where we're going to start
Speaker 3: getting more information than we've ever had before from stuff
Speaker 3: that we haven't because we just haven't had the technology
Speaker 3: to even see it. So yeah, I'm very optimistic about that.
Speaker 2: Your faith and optimism, Jason, never surprises me. We have
Speaker 2: some other questions for you, and or I be off
Speaker 2: triveing to you first. That's Kite You Ninja asked too,
Speaker 2: And I'll ask them both in quick succession because the
Speaker 2: first one should be relatively quick to answer. Kid You
Speaker 2: Ninja or eighty five asked, are you aware of any
Speaker 2: recent lockness? Monster sietings and these. Other question was, does
Speaker 2: it surprise you that bodies of lake monsters and sea
Speaker 2: serpents showing up on shores? Yes, I know they're a
Speaker 2: recent luck ness sighting. Is any saw an article the
Speaker 2: other day. I think it's actually a registry online where
Speaker 2: people can log them and you can go and read them.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I believe. Yeah, I've been a little out of
Speaker 3: look because I've been busy with what I've been working on.
Speaker 3: But yeah, I've heard of a couple of sightings. But
Speaker 3: like you said, there is a registry for it, so
Speaker 3: you can actually just go and look it up. As
Speaker 3: far as the question of bodies not showing up, so
Speaker 3: here's the thing. There are there have been accounts of
Speaker 3: of anomalous bodies washing I'm sure briefly on ocean beaches,
Speaker 3: but obviously they're deteriorated a lot. There's there have been
Speaker 3: accounts of these things. However, what we have to remember
Speaker 3: is that when you're in the ocean, you're in the food.
Speaker 3: You're in the food chain, right. I mean, do whale
Speaker 3: carcasses show up on shore, yes, but usually they've beached
Speaker 3: themselves while they were live. Right, It's very very rare.
Speaker 3: Than a dead way washes up. Usually it's been beached
Speaker 3: and dies. And think about like, I've got a pond
Speaker 3: next to my house, right, I have seen one or
Speaker 3: two things that died naturally and sort of wound up
Speaker 3: in the shallows. When things die in the water, they
Speaker 3: are consumed and usually like whales, their bodies just sink
Speaker 3: to the bottom and they keep the crabs very happy
Speaker 3: for a very long time because it's so cold down
Speaker 3: there that actually preserves the bodies they're eating like forever.
Speaker 3: So a lot again, a lot of this is like
Speaker 3: you know, why don't we find bodies of Bigfoot. Well,
Speaker 3: if you don't come across them in like the first
Speaker 3: couple of days, that body's gone in a week, right,
Speaker 3: nature will consume it. So it's not really that shocking
Speaker 3: that we don't have sea monster bodies washing up all
Speaker 3: the time. But they have. Again, there have been accounts
Speaker 3: of this happening. So yeah, you take it, you take
Speaker 3: it with the you take it with what you got.
Speaker 2: I remember I seem to recall a very famous tale.
Speaker 2: All of these are that, like you know, they're like
Speaker 2: fairy faith. Though somebody has the evidence and then has
Speaker 2: to discard it or it turns to dust. I remember,
Speaker 2: I think it was. It was even in one of
Speaker 2: my monster books when I was a kid. Monster books,
Speaker 2: I mean like cryptod books, although they weren't called cryptids
Speaker 2: and they were just called monsters. I think there was
Speaker 2: a story of a Japanese fishing crew or something essentially
Speaker 2: dragging out a plesiosaw and then it was smelt so
Speaker 2: bad or something the captain made it that they threw
Speaker 2: it overboard. But there's always those tales of the evidence
Speaker 2: was almost in our hands, and every single thing in
Speaker 2: Fortyana has that almost had the proof, you know, whether
Speaker 2: it's the mythical crash of roswell material, or whether it's
Speaker 2: you know, a bigfoot body you know that's a hunter
Speaker 2: shot and then buried, or whether it's a plesiosaul you
Speaker 2: nobody pulled out of pulled out of the sea and
Speaker 2: then throwing over aboard again because it smelt so much.
Speaker 2: It's always we've almost got that evidence that it's like
Speaker 2: in a fairy tale when they come home and that
Speaker 2: you know, the they call fairy land has turned to
Speaker 2: dust in their pockets, so it's all turned into leaves
Speaker 2: in their pockets. It's just I think it's part of
Speaker 2: the part of the pattern of the phenomenon.
Speaker 1: We had.
Speaker 2: Oh, my wonderful girlfriend Samantha just just mentioned that that
Speaker 2: I don't know if you recall, but when we met
Speaker 2: you at the for Flesh for the first time, I've
Speaker 2: obviously only for years, but when we went to Crossing
Speaker 2: Realms conference in Missouri, my girlfriend and I were you
Speaker 2: guys kindly invited me into show the Shaver mystery and speak.
Speaker 2: You did a wonderful drawing because you're a very talented artist.
Speaker 2: For those who don't know, if I think of Sam's
Speaker 2: son pitching in baseball, it was like, you know, a
Speaker 2: cartoon kind of thing, and she just wanted to say
Speaker 2: how much, how much he appreciated and how he loves
Speaker 2: that picture that you did for him, So thank you.
Speaker 3: Well, I'm glad he I'm really glad he likes it.
Speaker 3: And that's you know, that's that's my favorite thing about
Speaker 3: doing live drawings and sketches is you know, giving people
Speaker 3: something that they want you will you aren't going to
Speaker 3: get anywhere else, and it's my favorite thing.
Speaker 2: Now, he just quickly before we jump back into our chat,
Speaker 2: we have the wonderful squatch Mama says regarding you know,
Speaker 2: I asked people to chip in and say it, or
Speaker 2: chime in and say what they thought was, you know,
Speaker 2: the most interesting things in twenty twenty five Squatch Mama
Speaker 2: says most exciting twenty twenty five Cascade Range incidents. Within
Speaker 2: forty eight hours, researchers documented forty plus footprints, thermal footage
Speaker 2: from two separate teams, strange vocalizations, and consistent eyewitness reports.
Speaker 2: Now you might know something about that, Jason's again the
Speaker 2: neadfoot world. It's a little more outside of my wheelhouse.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: No, I've heard a lot about it, and again unfortunately
Speaker 3: been very very busy, so I haven't had a chance
Speaker 3: to be as familiar with it as I would like.
Speaker 3: There's a lot there, and I think we are finally
Speaker 3: at a point in this realm where we can start
Speaker 3: doing really good metadata analysis and so that that is
Speaker 3: I think going to be a huge that again, because
Speaker 3: we have two separate teams working, the data that's been
Speaker 3: collected is going to allow us to kind of take
Speaker 3: that bigger step back and actually start cruss referencing material
Speaker 3: on again a metadata level, which I think is actually
Speaker 3: going to reveal a lot more than we've been able again.
Speaker 3: This is part of my optimism. I think we are
Speaker 3: finally to a point where we can start seeing a
Speaker 3: lot more of what's really going on, rather than where
Speaker 3: we've been over the last sixty years, where it is
Speaker 3: kind of disjointed. Here's this thing over here, here's this
Speaker 3: thing over here, and everyone's sort of doing their own thing.
Speaker 3: As we've been growing as a science, right that essentially
Speaker 3: we've come to that point where people are in there
Speaker 3: doing better, more sophisticated, more systematized scientific efforts, and I
Speaker 3: think it's allowing us finally to start taking a metadata
Speaker 3: analysis level, which is really going to allow us to
Speaker 3: start seeing patterns and behaviors and evidence in ways that
Speaker 3: we haven't been able to see it before. I think
Speaker 3: it's going to move everything forward. So yes, that's actually
Speaker 3: one of the I would say, just the highlight of
Speaker 3: twenty twenty.
Speaker 2: You and Horrace and your science and evidence never alone,
Speaker 2: I should just say quickly because it was in the
Speaker 2: show notes, but we didn't say it on the show.
Speaker 2: If anybody does have a highlight of the weird, the
Speaker 2: forty and the cryptozoological, the euthological, the specter hunting world,
Speaker 2: please feel free to share it in the chat and
Speaker 2: we will put it on screen. Or if you have
Speaker 2: any which we're going to get into in a little bit,
Speaker 2: if you have any predictions for where you think twenty
Speaker 2: twenty six is going, or have you seen any trends
Speaker 2: or anything you expect to see in the broader world
Speaker 2: of forty on, please let us know, and Jason and
Speaker 2: I will at least share it. We might even chat
Speaker 2: about it.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I think really though, this year for twenty twenty five,
Speaker 3: I think we kind of have to say the star
Speaker 3: was the congressional hearings.
Speaker 2: On UAP's second year of them.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yep, it was the second year, and I would
Speaker 3: suggest this year was bigger than the first because I
Speaker 3: think there were things that were said in twenty twenty
Speaker 3: five that built on what happened in twenty four but
Speaker 3: were I think more explosive but much more quiet in
Speaker 3: a way. Right, And we talked about when it happened, right,
Speaker 3: there is this consistent use of interdimensionality, right that it
Speaker 3: was like this, these it's kind of hard to say
Speaker 3: fringe in the in the UFO community, but concepts of
Speaker 3: high strangeness of interdimensionality. These were fringe topics amongst ufologists.
Speaker 3: Even a few years ago, Moufon basically had a you know,
Speaker 3: it was nuts and bolts all the way over the
Speaker 3: last couple of years that I mean, really what just
Speaker 3: before we had to shut down Mysterious Library, that's where
Speaker 3: that's the first time I had seen in the documentary
Speaker 3: that Moufon had sort of changed its position a little
Speaker 3: bit on elements of ice strangers, and we both thought
Speaker 3: that was weird. And now here we have again twenty five,
Speaker 3: Autopoli and Luna come up and start talking about interdimensionality
Speaker 3: with these crafts and the phenomena itself. Multiple times during
Speaker 3: twenty twenty five in these hearings that took a very
Speaker 3: prominent role in I was shocked by how much they're
Speaker 3: they're leaning into this idea of they're not from They're
Speaker 3: not just not from here, they're not from our realm
Speaker 3: of existence, and the phenomena is different.
Speaker 2: It's become it's become the main talking point of the
Speaker 2: people who are at the forefront of the disclosure movement.
Speaker 2: It hasn't become, I don't think a main pointing talk
Speaker 2: in the broader press yet, but if you're paying attention
Speaker 2: the mainstream media journalists, talking head pundits who've been at
Speaker 2: the front of this, whether it's a Tucker Carlson or
Speaker 2: a Leslie Kane, or whether it's Chaneau whistleblowers, or whether
Speaker 2: it's Chaneau Foundation founders like you know, Tom DeLong, after
Speaker 2: the Stars Academy. The list goes on and on and on,
Speaker 2: help poots off. All of these people are pushing that ultraterrestrial,
Speaker 2: antidimensional spiritual They they all use slightly different language, but
Speaker 2: what they're all essentially saying is whatever this modern human
Speaker 2: intelligence is, it's not extraterrestrial. It's something fast, stranger.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and that again, I think that's one of the
Speaker 3: that's one of things that really took me aback with
Speaker 3: all of this, because again I've ran eschatology and things
Speaker 3: like that for years, and I do think this plays
Speaker 3: a you know, ufology plays a big role. I but
Speaker 3: if you'd asked me even three or four years ago,
Speaker 3: I would have said they're gonna it's gonna be about
Speaker 3: physical craft and physical people walking around that kind of thing.
Speaker 3: Now I'm not. I think it's I think they're gonna
Speaker 3: lean very heavily into interdimensionality. I I'm shocked by how
Speaker 3: quickly they've spun on their heels and went from nuts
Speaker 3: and bolts to this other stranger, you know, existence sort
Speaker 3: of thing happening. So yeah, I'm that I have. That
Speaker 3: was one of the things that really shocked me about
Speaker 3: about the hearings is how profoundly they're leaning into it.
Speaker 3: But again it's still quiet. Like you said, it's not
Speaker 3: amongst the normies, right, they're not really talking, but it's
Speaker 3: I've had people who have no interest in any of
Speaker 3: this asked me what the heck is an is this
Speaker 3: interdimensional thing that they're talking abo like while it is,
Speaker 3: you know, again the normies isren't really talking about it.
Speaker 3: It's there and people are hearing it. But for people
Speaker 3: in the know, right, people who are here, the fact
Speaker 3: that I'm hearing this on c SPAN freaks me out
Speaker 3: to no ends. I'm like, this is this is weird.
Speaker 3: Like it went from nuts and bolts to things walking
Speaker 3: through walls overnight and that, and again the I kind
Speaker 3: of have a feeling this is the way it was
Speaker 3: going to go. When they changed the UAP, right, instead
Speaker 3: of Unidentified flying object to Unidentified aerial phenomena, I thought
Speaker 3: that was sort of a giveaway too. It's like, hey,
Speaker 3: that they're telling you this is something else.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you could see you could see it slowly being
Speaker 2: interjected into the conversation where the normies might get turned
Speaker 2: onto it is. I have no idea yet what Spielberg's
Speaker 2: Disclosure Day is actually going to contain, but I have
Speaker 2: certainly heard people analyze that trailer, including people I respect
Speaker 2: in the forte in world, suggest that it might he
Speaker 2: might be pointing at something other than extraterrestrial. Now, of course,
Speaker 2: the great disappointment of closing Counters of the Third Kind,
Speaker 2: which is probably still the greatest movie ever made about
Speaker 2: about extraterrestrial visitation and contact or alien or UFO visitation
Speaker 2: and contact, is that the ending had to be so
Speaker 2: literalized and disney afired, while the rest of the movie
Speaker 2: coined or those elements of high strangeness and weirdness where
Speaker 2: you weren't sure what it was yet, which is kind
Speaker 2: of this space where we're trapped in this kind of
Speaker 2: liminal space where we don't know the answers. Spielberg, whether
Speaker 2: just for narrative reasons or for his own belief system,
Speaker 2: felt the incredible urge to literalize it at the end
Speaker 2: and have these you know, nuts and bolt spacecraft come
Speaker 2: down with these you know, childlike extraterrestrials inside, which of
Speaker 2: course upset Jacques Valet immensely at the time because Vlat
Speaker 2: and Heineck were both were both I suppose feeding or
Speaker 2: they were both consultants for close Encounters, and the lay obviously,
Speaker 2: particularly then, even more so maybe than now was even
Speaker 2: was much more hostile or much less or much more
Speaker 2: suspicious of a nuts and Bolts interpretation, and he didn't
Speaker 2: like that Spielberg ended the movie that way. And to
Speaker 2: be honest, it is now as much fun as it
Speaker 2: is when the Disney type of you know, when you
Speaker 2: Wish upon a Star tune is playing and the music
Speaker 2: John william Score, you know, raises and we all get excited,
Speaker 2: and you know, it's just a powerful, you know, motion
Speaker 2: picture moment. The reality is that movie is so much
Speaker 2: stronger up until that final final act reveal of what's
Speaker 2: going on. If they could have I would love the movie.
Speaker 2: I do love it, but I'd love it much more
Speaker 2: evid it stayed weirder, perhaps perhaps disclosure Day's Spielberg's film
Speaker 2: coming out? I think is it later this year at
Speaker 2: the end of this year. I think, is it set
Speaker 2: for December of this year or something?
Speaker 3: I think, yeah, I can't remember. Maybe it's this summer.
Speaker 2: It's a ways off anywhere, at least I'm guessing six
Speaker 2: months from it. But perhaps that will do that normally convergence.
Speaker 2: Maybe if all of a sudden the Spielberg movie suggests
Speaker 2: that this is something beyond the extraterrestrial, then the same
Speaker 2: way Close Encounters of the Third Kind injected all these
Speaker 2: ideas of the whole I mean the whole, the language
Speaker 2: which Heine could had for Close Encounters of the First
Speaker 2: Guy and the second kind of the third Kind that
Speaker 2: was injected into the public consciousness overnight by Spielberg's movie.
Speaker 2: So perhaps Disclosure Day will do the same thing if
Speaker 2: the revelation is, well, this is something more mysterious.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 2: I don't know if that's what's going to happen, but
Speaker 2: that would certainly be your the normies on board now
Speaker 2: and understand the dialogue or you know, the conversation we've
Speaker 2: been having for the last seventy years in eupology.
Speaker 3: I think your suspicions may be very well born out
Speaker 3: because the thing I think you're forgetting is he had
Speaker 3: another crack at the Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Speaker 3: when he did Indiana Jones four. Right, the crystal skull,
Speaker 3: that's how it ends, right, it's very clearly a gray
Speaker 3: alien skull that's a crystal that wasn't cart and he
Speaker 3: put it on the on the body. You know, spoilers
Speaker 3: for anyone who hasn't seen it. It's it's not my
Speaker 3: favorite Indiana Johnes movie. But they put it on the
Speaker 3: on the head, or they put their head on the body,
Speaker 3: and they start moving around and they become they go
Speaker 3: back to life as these aliens. And the guy who's
Speaker 3: been a raving lunatic the entire movie because the crystal
Speaker 3: skull had power over he explains what it is. Now
Speaker 3: the trance has sort of taken off of him and
Speaker 3: he's back to his right mind. That the UFO that
Speaker 3: they're in they run out real quick. He's like, it
Speaker 3: doesn't it comes from someplace else. It's not just that
Speaker 3: it's from another planet. It's from place between worlds, is
Speaker 3: what he is literally what he says. So I think
Speaker 3: given that he was that he went that way the
Speaker 3: sort of the more ultraterrestrial interdimensional craft in Indiana Jones movie.
Speaker 3: I think you're probably gonna be I think it's going
Speaker 3: to be born out that the disclosure is probably going
Speaker 3: to go more towards the again, something that is different
Speaker 3: from the traditional you know, alien UFO movies of the
Speaker 3: you know, forty years ago.
Speaker 2: I think while we're on this, it's probably worth mentioning
Speaker 2: the incredibly successful documentary which came out a month or
Speaker 2: two ago here after playing at south By Southwest earlier
Speaker 2: in the year, and that's that's Age of Disclosure documentary
Speaker 2: by Dan farwre and executive produced by Luella Zondo of
Speaker 2: all people and a movie which really the level of
Speaker 2: the people in it, from Marco Rubio on you know,
Speaker 2: down through all the usual you know, government, usual suspects
Speaker 2: through in the UFO phenomenon euthologist to Luella Zondo himself.
Speaker 2: That movie was directed by Dan Farrer, who'd earlier produced
Speaker 2: another significant UFO documentary a number of years ago. But
Speaker 2: he also was a producer of Spielberg's Ready Player one,
Speaker 2: so he's obviously buddies with Spielberg. So it's introduced. It's
Speaker 2: interesting that it's almost like a one two punch that
Speaker 2: this year we get Age of disclosure from Spielberg's producer,
Speaker 2: and next year we get disclosure Day, like a year
Speaker 2: later from from Spielberg. I mean, this might be a
Speaker 2: level of paranoia or just me trying to overthink it,
Speaker 2: but it seems it seems to me that those guys
Speaker 2: must have had a conversation, given that they're both clearly
Speaker 2: really interested in the UFO phenomenon presenting it, you know,
Speaker 2: in one way or another on the silver screen, they
Speaker 2: must have talked about this. Was it just like, oh,
Speaker 2: funnily enough, I've got a movie coming up call, you know,
Speaker 2: disclosure Day. Well, that's weird, Steve, and I just make
Speaker 2: I'm just making age of disclosure. I just find that
Speaker 2: something bigger, potentially is going on behind the scenes. That
Speaker 2: doesn't mean it's notorious, that doesn't mean it's so. It
Speaker 2: could very well be, but there's some coordination here. It
Speaker 2: seems like to me.
Speaker 3: I would suggest there is. I mean, again, it's Stephen Spielberg, right,
Speaker 3: Like the dude is in he's in the know on
Speaker 3: a lot of stuff. And I don't mean that again,
Speaker 3: like you said, I don't mean that nefariously, like the
Speaker 3: like the government's taking them out and it's like here's
Speaker 3: the bodies in the in the fridge, right, like they
Speaker 3: didn't bring out an ice schooler, and like here it
Speaker 3: is making make et. What I mean is he's he
Speaker 3: is very much in the UFO community, and he's very
Speaker 3: well connected. He's he is a big fan of all
Speaker 3: of it. So I wouldn't be surprised that there is
Speaker 3: you know, back again, not not nefariously, but back room communication,
Speaker 3: and that they're talking about this and there is this coordination.
Speaker 3: I wouldn't be shocked at all to find that out.
Speaker 3: In fact, I would I would suggest it's almost one
Speaker 3: hundred percent. That's there is that they are coordinating to
Speaker 3: some to some degree, well, the late.
Speaker 2: Great and unfortunately we lost him a year or to ago.
Speaker 2: Robbie Graham, who wrote the book, I think it's silver
Speaker 2: screen sources or something. And other people as well have
Speaker 2: talked about the connection between various intelligence agencies and Hollywood.
Speaker 2: And we know that for a fact, regarding non UFO materials,
Speaker 2: like clearly in World War Two and you know, into
Speaker 2: the Cold War there were deals between studios and you know,
Speaker 2: and rightfully they probably should be. I mean, to a degree,
Speaker 2: you want to present America and its best during the
Speaker 2: Cold War and during World War Two. Obviously you want
Speaker 2: a degree of propaganda going on to ry, you know,
Speaker 2: get the people excited at home to fight the good fight.
Speaker 2: But there probably has been some degree of intelligence manipulation
Speaker 2: of the way that UFOs are presented on the screen.
Speaker 2: And there's all kinds of stories, I mean, there's all
Speaker 2: kinds of anecdotal stories about you know, documentarians being promised
Speaker 2: footage of you know, Eisenhower meeting you know Aliens a
Speaker 2: Holman Air Force Base and then it being pulled at
Speaker 2: the last minute, or that's a very common trope, the
Speaker 2: idea that we're about to give this production this footage
Speaker 2: and then it's pulled. These stories already a journalist or
Speaker 2: whatever go on again and again and again. The fact
Speaker 2: that Heinech was you know, consultant for close encounters of course,
Speaker 2: he was you know, the Air Force's major scientific officer,
Speaker 2: and the investigation of this over multiple projects, culminating in
Speaker 2: Project Bluebook, and that he also, I mean, there's a
Speaker 2: dark side potentially to Heinek. There's certainly been accusations and
Speaker 2: he was involved in psyops as well. Whether true or not,
Speaker 2: who knows, but he'd certainly been a great front man
Speaker 2: if you wanted to push this stuff or suggest Spielberg,
Speaker 2: how maybe we approach this. So these connections, they're undoubtedly there.
Speaker 2: Again Dan Fower's film Age of Disclosure, which is a
Speaker 2: fascinating documentary, but it's clearly pushing a certain line. Loue Elizondo,
Speaker 2: who's essentially the main interview subject of that movie, is
Speaker 2: also the executive producer of that movie, and Lo's clearly
Speaker 2: an insider who might or might not be intentionally leaking
Speaker 2: information or disinformation or depending on what your position is.
Speaker 2: So clearly there's we can see they're two very clear,
Speaker 2: genuine contacts from defense UFO insiders directly into Hollywood productions
Speaker 2: being made. I'm sure Day of Disclosure or Disclosure Day
Speaker 2: has people who are you know, pushing it in a
Speaker 2: certain direction, because you don't make a movie like that
Speaker 2: and you don't say, hey, you say who are we
Speaker 2: going to talk to? Who we're going to consult with,
Speaker 2: and then you'll get the people who will convey the message.
Speaker 2: I'm anyway, again a little paranoid, but maybe not. And
Speaker 2: so that's my suspicion is I don't think we're going
Speaker 2: to get disclosure in twenty twenty six, I'll say that now,
Speaker 2: but I think we're going to keep We're keeping, We're
Speaker 2: going to continue on the track that we've been on
Speaker 2: since twenty seventeen, which seems to be, if not accelerating
Speaker 2: the disclosure because I'm not somebody who thinks we're about
Speaker 2: to get disclosure, but still continuing in the direction that
Speaker 2: it's going. And with the new Spielberg movie, clearly even
Speaker 2: using the term disclosure, we're clearly getting a cultural push,
Speaker 2: a cultural excitement, you know, a cultural encouragement to look
Speaker 2: in that direction.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Now, I'm Nick Rudifer and I have had this
Speaker 3: disagreement for a long time. He was again, I don't know,
Speaker 3: I'm talking about it in a couple of years. I
Speaker 3: don't know if he's changed his opinion, but he one
Speaker 3: of the things we would disagree on is he would
Speaker 3: think that there's never going to be a disclosure. And again,
Speaker 3: disclosure meaning I think this is the problems everyone has sarved. Well,
Speaker 3: here's the file, and this is the truth about UFO's
Speaker 3: kind of thing. And I'm like, well, you're assuming they
Speaker 3: even know what the truth is about this stuff, right,
Speaker 3: But I figured I've always said that it would be dripped.
Speaker 3: It was going to be this slow disclosure, but disclosure
Speaker 3: not necessarily meaning the truth, disclosure meaning the story they
Speaker 3: want us to think. And it may be the story
Speaker 3: that they themselves believe. That's always on the that's always
Speaker 3: on the table. But it would be a slow walk.
Speaker 3: Has always been my opinion, right that this was always
Speaker 3: going to be they're slow walking us into a viewpoint
Speaker 3: that they want us to have. Now again, it may
Speaker 3: be the viewpoint that they themselves have or the other
Speaker 3: those within the government have maybe don't know, you know,
Speaker 3: there's no way for us to know. But it was
Speaker 3: going to be this very slow process of getting people
Speaker 3: used to certain concepts. I think the fact that again
Speaker 3: I still think that the fact they said UAP was
Speaker 3: the most telling thing ever as far as saying this
Speaker 3: is where we're going. They wanted us to start thinking
Speaker 3: about something else. And again, it maybe that there's multiple
Speaker 3: phenomena going on. That's kind of what they're talking about.
Speaker 3: Is there may be something even weirder out there than
Speaker 3: necessarily you know, we're thinking UFOs and little green men.
Speaker 3: It's like there could be in organics, the skyfish thing
Speaker 3: that we've talked about right, that there's other forms of
Speaker 3: life out there that may be part of all of this,
Speaker 3: and like, hey, we kind of need to tell you something, right,
Speaker 3: but we don't know. But I do think this is
Speaker 3: part of a very slow walk. I don't think anything
Speaker 3: as dramatic as a mile long spacecraft hanging out over
Speaker 3: New York is going to happen this year. But you know,
Speaker 3: you never know A bought a lottery ticket, and maybe
Speaker 3: you know you never know about these things.
Speaker 2: I think we will get crazy. I shouldn't say crazy
Speaker 2: because that means I'm dismissing it, but I'm meaning more
Speaker 2: extreme claims. I think what will happen is the same
Speaker 2: way we had Grush coming far and talking about you know,
Speaker 2: well that's over a year ago. Now that's twenty twenty four.
Speaker 2: But coming forward this supposedly you know, high end, you know,
Speaker 2: in the know whistle blower saying that where we have
Speaker 2: alien biologics, do you know what I mean? We definitely
Speaker 2: have crash sources. We've been retrieving them since the thirties.
Speaker 2: I mean, these were the type of this was a
Speaker 2: type of dialogue that you couldn't imagine happening in a
Speaker 2: congressional investigation even ten years ago, so I think we're
Speaker 2: going to keep having these kind of claims. I was
Speaker 2: watching only because I saw on my Facebook feed that
Speaker 2: had something about UFOs. I watched an episode of It
Speaker 2: was a free because I think it's normally behind the paywall,
Speaker 2: but there was a There was an episode of the
Speaker 2: Glen Beck Program where they were predicting what was coming
Speaker 2: in in twenty twenty six, and one of the things
Speaker 2: was UFO, so I thought I'll listened to it. They
Speaker 2: didn't talk about it even for that long, but one
Speaker 2: of one of the four or five people on the
Speaker 2: panel said their prediction for twenty twenty six was that
Speaker 2: an elected official somewhere is going to make the claim
Speaker 2: that they've actually had genuine community cation with a non
Speaker 2: human intelligence. Now I don't know if I'll go that far,
Speaker 2: but what I do agree with, I think we are
Speaker 2: seeing an acceleration of the type of claims being made
Speaker 2: by government officials or in front of the Congress, which
Speaker 2: were the type of claims that were only being made
Speaker 2: in fringe magazines and UFO books. We know ten, twenty, thirty,
Speaker 2: forty fifty, going back years ago, this isn't something that
Speaker 2: was talked about in government circles or something that was
Speaker 2: seriously talked about by writers for the New York Times
Speaker 2: or by people with the type of profile of Tucker Carlson.
Speaker 2: This was something which was very much on the fringes,
Speaker 2: maybe not saying well, are there flying sources, but actually saying, well,
Speaker 2: you know, there are entities who are evil, or there
Speaker 2: are alien you know, dead bodies or that stuff was
Speaker 2: always fringe stuff. Now it's like mainstream, yeah, conversation.
Speaker 3: Now yeah, and again you have again anapoline Luna on
Speaker 3: Joe Rogan talking about this in talking about interdimensionality. Right, yeah,
Speaker 3: this is again twenty seventeen. This was this pivot point,
Speaker 3: and it's become acceptable to talk about it again, even
Speaker 3: I mean really like you said ten years ago, even
Speaker 3: I mean very public like the Stephenville event, right, that
Speaker 3: happened here in Texas, that was taken kind of seriously,
Speaker 3: but at the same time not like even like there
Speaker 3: was a degree of serious tones taken, but at the
Speaker 3: same time you could see the news media it was like, yeah,
Speaker 3: but maybe it was just military stuff. And here's the
Speaker 3: military saying it's fine, and they were just running exercises
Speaker 3: and they left it alone, and all the rest of
Speaker 3: us were like, what are you talking about. You don't
Speaker 3: there is no military exercise where you break the sound
Speaker 3: barrier over a populated area. And how as it went
Speaker 3: from well it was like two planes to well we
Speaker 3: were doing war games and we just forgot to tell
Speaker 3: somebody like that doesn't work. So again it's been this
Speaker 3: was a very recent heel turn on how all this
Speaker 3: is addressed. And I think the second thing, you know,
Speaker 3: because I don't want to go too long, we got
Speaker 3: questions I'd like to look at. So they were great questions.
Speaker 3: I think the second thing that's really again very very quiet,
Speaker 3: but I think the most profound in those hearings was
Speaker 3: essentially all of these people almost unanimously saying the money
Speaker 3: that you as Congress are putting out are not is
Speaker 3: not going where you think it's going. I mean, the
Speaker 3: people you're trying to pay off aren't getting their cash
Speaker 3: because it's being stolen by essentially what is a secret government.
Speaker 3: In a way, they've been told, and we've been told
Speaker 3: very publicly by people who again are supposedly in the know,
Speaker 3: you don't have a government. That's what we've heard, Like
Speaker 3: Congress isn't really isn't capable of doing its job because
Speaker 3: these people that are again the aspect of ufologe of
Speaker 3: the you know government and UFO you know UAP stuff,
Speaker 3: they're taking your money and it's being allocated to something
Speaker 3: else entirely.
Speaker 2: Yeah, something, It's something we've been warned about. I mean,
Speaker 2: Eisenhower warned about the realities that we are facing today.
Speaker 2: We're clearly non elected officials who are members of whether
Speaker 2: you want to call it the deep state, or whether
Speaker 2: you want to call it the military industrial complex or
Speaker 2: whatever you want to call it, there are people who
Speaker 2: are in positions of incredible power who, let's you say,
Speaker 2: there really is a UFO mystery that the US government understand.
Speaker 2: I myself, I'm not sure I actually believe that, but
Speaker 2: let's just say there really is, and somehow elements of
Speaker 2: the deep state be that, again, unelected bureaucrats be that,
Speaker 2: as is being suggested, more and more potentially corporations in
Speaker 2: the military industrial space that we offloaded or somehow acquired
Speaker 2: the Roswell material years ago, so they've been able to
Speaker 2: keep that outside of the public purview because it's locked
Speaker 2: in you know, private industries. Safebox somewhere. But regardless, I
Speaker 2: find it, I find it difficult to believe that, I mean,
Speaker 2: something like that isn't going on. But that doesn't Again,
Speaker 2: that doesn't mean necessarily that it's extraterrestrial, but it does
Speaker 2: as I think the point you're making is it definitely
Speaker 2: points Perhaps that's the value of all of this, forget
Speaker 2: the metaphysical value. Perhaps the value of all this investigation
Speaker 2: is that it points to the fact that there are
Speaker 2: people outside of what we consider a constitutional republic, getting
Speaker 2: incredible amounts of money and making incredible, you know, decisions
Speaker 2: regarding advanced technology, whether it's ours or somebody else's, or
Speaker 2: of planets or interdimensional and there's no way we can
Speaker 2: even get it. The fact, I mean, if it is
Speaker 2: true just for a moment, the fact that the Congress
Speaker 2: can't just open the door and see where it is,
Speaker 2: you know, I mean, that's not exactly what the founders
Speaker 2: had in mind when they were they put together this
Speaker 2: wonderful experiment new government. You know, they didn't ever imagine
Speaker 2: a time where the through via their elected officials, couldn't
Speaker 2: find that exactly what their text dollars were being spent on.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Well, and we've actually talked about this back in
Speaker 3: the Mysterious Library in days oh I forgot his name.
Speaker 3: You know how bad I am with names. The gentleman
Speaker 3: who claimed that he was in an underground base he
Speaker 3: lost some fingers and a fight. Bill Schneider, thank you,
Speaker 3: And there was something. There was several others who died
Speaker 3: around the same time, under again similarly weird circumstances. One
Speaker 3: was shot out. We had a weird shootout with police,
Speaker 3: and everyone's like, this feels weird. Bill Cooper, Bill Cooper,
Speaker 3: thank you. I would not be surprised if And again,
Speaker 3: the argument for why goes all the way back to
Speaker 3: the gentleman who designed the YouTube spy plane, the s
Speaker 3: R seventy one. It feels like people who are in
Speaker 3: the know, who are really looking at the ufology you
Speaker 3: know UFO stuff right, and are actually on the government side.
Speaker 3: It feels like a lot of the times they show
Speaker 3: up to talk about all of this stuff, and it
Speaker 3: almost feels like the UFO and alien material aspect of
Speaker 3: it is like a front because they always focus on
Speaker 3: your government is not is not your government anymore. They're
Speaker 3: they're all stressing this, Hey, the money isn't going where
Speaker 3: you think it's going you're being fleeced. The people who
Speaker 3: you think are in charge are not actually in charge.
Speaker 3: And there's this weird, thin veneer of of of high strangeness,
Speaker 3: almost like it's like they're trying to protect themselves saying
Speaker 3: I'm going to tell you the truth, but I got
Speaker 3: to put it to you in this way that allows
Speaker 3: me to say it again. The guy who I cannot
Speaker 3: remember his name off the top of my head, who
Speaker 3: who developed the s R. Seventy one Blackbird, who was
Speaker 3: the head of Skunk Works for.
Speaker 2: A long time, is it Ben Rich? Is that who
Speaker 2: it is?
Speaker 3: No, No, no, it's not him. Anyway, I'll think about
Speaker 3: it later. He claimed that he got his idea for
Speaker 3: the blended wing design from looking at UFOs right, and
Speaker 3: we've talked about forever that the Kenneth Arnold siding was
Speaker 3: actually probably experimental Nazi aircraft right captured during World War Two,
Speaker 3: and we got a lot of the material from there.
Speaker 3: And it was almost like he was using the UFO,
Speaker 3: this UFO sighting as a way of saying because he
Speaker 3: was by all accounts he was a really good guy. Yes,
Speaker 3: or seventy one is my favorite jet of all time.
Speaker 3: So I really love his work, and I've read a
Speaker 3: lot about him. Everyone says he was a great guy.
Speaker 3: I could see him saying, I can't say what this was,
Speaker 3: I can't release, you know, operation paper clip information. So
Speaker 3: I'm going to use the whole UFO thing as a
Speaker 3: way of saying, of admitting that I didn't come up
Speaker 3: with this technology right, as a just his way of
Speaker 3: clearing his conscious So I would not be surprised if, again,
Speaker 3: regardless of whatever the facts are truth about the up
Speaker 3: stuff is going on, there is this undercurrent It's been
Speaker 3: there for a very very long time of saying, guys,
Speaker 3: your government is not in control anymore. And all of
Speaker 3: these people that are like, there's it's all this stuff
Speaker 3: on the fringe. The money isn't going where you think
Speaker 3: it's going. They don't have control. And that is a
Speaker 3: very prominent but very quiet theme of all of these
Speaker 3: congressional hearings. So that's just more interesting.
Speaker 2: That's a good point. It's interesting somehow who that type
Speaker 2: of dialogue benefits. Does it maybe benefit us the you know,
Speaker 2: the US tax paying public maybe, or does it maybe
Speaker 2: cause more contention at home like this is a ridiculous idea,
Speaker 2: But it's not an impossible idea. Could these ideas be
Speaker 2: encouraged by foreign operators who would like the US public
Speaker 2: to doubt the veracity of their own government? Is there
Speaker 2: a benefit there or the other side, Is there a
Speaker 2: benefit of plays within the US governments to have to
Speaker 2: have foreign countries concerned that the US has far more
Speaker 2: than we can conceivably no hidden in there? You know,
Speaker 2: in these these back room deals, we better not you know,
Speaker 2: mess with them, because they got flying source of technology
Speaker 2: they're going to zappas with. I mean that the discussion
Speaker 2: might have more to do with whether things are alien
Speaker 2: or ultra terrestrial or anything else, which is obviously our
Speaker 2: focus because that's where that's where we know we reside
Speaker 2: in right the weird before there might be bigger things
Speaker 2: going on. So what was that I missed that?
Speaker 3: Look at the symbol, man, We're we're talking weird here.
Speaker 3: We're gonna here's the thing that's all of the above,
Speaker 3: like like you know, like maybe it's all of the
Speaker 3: above on this That's where things get very convoluted. But
Speaker 3: we can go on on this for an hour because
Speaker 3: we've done whole shows on it. Let's get to the
Speaker 3: questions before we before we bail on the beautiful.
Speaker 2: People sounds good. Did you have one you wanted to
Speaker 2: bring up? Your hit them?
Speaker 3: Well, I figured you'd hit them.
Speaker 2: I mean, okay, well we have We have a question
Speaker 2: from Oh No, that was that was flat Rockland, I
Speaker 2: think talking about Llewellen's though, saying that he talks for
Speaker 2: hours but doesn't really say anything. We had a question
Speaker 2: from a Horrors which was directed at me, which was
Speaker 2: very nice, saying we're twenty twenty six seed the release
Speaker 2: of Dean's Palmer Shaver documentary. I think we'll see the
Speaker 2: completion of Dean's Shaver Palmer documentary Horror the Man who
Speaker 2: Invented Flying Sources, and hopefully it beginning to be submitted
Speaker 2: to festivals, but I don't think it will be in
Speaker 2: wide release this year. No, maybe you'll be able to
Speaker 2: catch it a festival in twenty twenty seven after it's submitted.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that'd be fun. I'm waiting for it. I still
Speaker 3: have to record my scenies.
Speaker 2: Yes, we still have to do stuff with you, Jason
Speaker 2: will which some of it we were meaning to do
Speaker 2: when we were in Missouri, but it was kind.
Speaker 3: Of hectic conference.
Speaker 2: So now were there other questions you wanted to hit
Speaker 2: that I missed.
Speaker 3: I'm just I still have access.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you must be the only guest on this program
Speaker 2: who still has the untold radio network in a backdoor
Speaker 2: key to get into all the into a little secret
Speaker 2: niches of the network. That's how much. That's much You're
Speaker 2: revered and trusted.
Speaker 3: Again. Flat Rockland says, maybe we'll get Legend Meet Science too.
Speaker 3: I very much hope to see that this year as well.
Speaker 3: That is as much as twenty twenty five has, I
Speaker 3: think really been the year of the UFO, just like
Speaker 3: twenty twenty four was. If the Legend Meet Science two
Speaker 3: comes out this year, and again, I don't have any
Speaker 3: more behind the scenes stuff than anybody else, right, I'm
Speaker 3: gonna ask. I've wanted to stay sort of out of
Speaker 3: the loop on it a little bit because I don't
Speaker 3: want I don't want it spoiled. I want to be
Speaker 3: surprised too. But I genuinely think from what has been
Speaker 3: publicly available that if it comes out this year, I
Speaker 3: think it will change the conversation in a lot of ways.
Speaker 3: I would like to think that my new project may
Speaker 3: change some conversations about that as well.
Speaker 2: How can you tell us a little bit about your
Speaker 2: new project, or is that totally hush hush.
Speaker 3: I can only say that I'm working on the project
Speaker 3: and it'll I don't know if I'll get it out
Speaker 3: this year. I would like for it to be out
Speaker 3: this year, but I can't promise it. But science, too,
Speaker 3: I think, is going to help move this conversation forward,
Speaker 3: and so I'm hoping that twenty twenty six is the
Speaker 3: year of changing not just bigfoot, but specifically changing conversations.
Speaker 3: I'll say it that way.
Speaker 2: Before we do go. I know you made a point
Speaker 2: of saying it, and I totally agree with you. We
Speaker 2: should talk about some of the people we lost in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty with including somebody who was a big part
Speaker 2: of legendmate science one.
Speaker 3: If I recall, right, yes, doctor Meldrum did pass this year.
Speaker 3: It's a huge blow. If you haven't read his paper,
Speaker 3: and this is for everyone, not just the you, the you,
Speaker 3: the beautiful people in the chat and watching on pre
Speaker 3: record later, if you have not read his paper on
Speaker 3: defining and sort of proving how the foot, how footways
Speaker 3: and trackways should be regarded as its own phenomenon, because
Speaker 3: that's until you have the body that goes into the footprints.
Speaker 3: It's only the footprints. He also has a great paper
Speaker 3: breaking down the Patterson Genland footage. I highly recommend it.
Speaker 3: It is very much worth your time, even if you're
Speaker 3: not necessarily a Bigfoot fan, although odds are if you're
Speaker 3: watching this channel you know, but even if you're not,
Speaker 3: it's worth reading the papers that he put out on
Speaker 3: Bigfoot because it's really good to see how I want
Speaker 3: people to start thinking about how to do the science
Speaker 3: aspect of this and how to think about things. This
Speaker 3: is I know we have this conflict here on science
Speaker 3: versus this, but I think beyond science, learning how to
Speaker 3: collect data, learning how to think about things and how
Speaker 3: to ask certain questions is valuable even in life. Right
Speaker 3: Oftentimes we do a lot of jumping to conclusions, We
Speaker 3: build parameters and paradigms within our own thinking, and we
Speaker 3: don't realize it. Again, one of the most I've said
Speaker 3: this a thousand times, and I probably will do an
Speaker 3: episode of I'm not doing a lot of serial paper stuff,
Speaker 3: but I do this one episode with this one e'misde
Speaker 3: I think it's something everyone should see. It's I think
Speaker 3: one of the most valuable exercises I ever did was
Speaker 3: an archaeology was called the Bottle Paper, and it was
Speaker 3: an entire freaking semester of how to describe a bottle.
Speaker 3: And I know that sounds insane. What we all know
Speaker 3: a bottle is stop to think about everything you call
Speaker 3: a bottle and then historically what's been called a bottle?
Speaker 3: And you tell me how you would describe that to
Speaker 3: people as different from any other container or a glass,
Speaker 3: or a cup or a jug, Like, what's what's the
Speaker 3: difference between a bottle and a jug? Reading his papers
Speaker 3: will help your research tremendously. So, Yeah, a giant was
Speaker 3: lost this year in the field and his his his
Speaker 3: passing is a hole in the in our little niche
Speaker 3: of the world. And I don't think that's a hole
Speaker 3: that will ever really be filled.
Speaker 2: No, I was. I mean again, I'm not a big
Speaker 2: foot guy, but I was always anybody who has even
Speaker 2: a vague interest was super aware that he was one
Speaker 2: of the maybe the heaviest hitter in the space, in
Speaker 2: the at least the scientific aspect of the space. Of
Speaker 2: course you mentioned before. I'm glad you did that. We
Speaker 2: also lost Dennis Stacy this year.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, I had to write I had to write down.
Speaker 3: So I didn't forget because he was a euthologist and author, right,
Speaker 3: I know you probably knew who he was. He was
Speaker 3: from Texas. That's why. First, Yeah, I'm not gonna lie.
Speaker 3: It's one of the big things that helped him stand
Speaker 3: out for me. But not only was the Texas journalist.
Speaker 3: He wrote about the marpl Lights, which is one of
Speaker 3: the things I really got to go see. But in
Speaker 3: nineteen ninety five he won the Donald Keyhole Journalism Award
Speaker 3: and he was the co founder of The Anomalist. Well,
Speaker 3: I mean he was a big I mean, yeah, Dennis
Speaker 3: Stacey was a big name.
Speaker 1: He was.
Speaker 2: He was like a Mufon di He was some high
Speaker 2: high hitter in Mufon for a while. I remember, I
Speaker 2: I don't know if I think it was in my
Speaker 2: library in Australia which I which I lost. But he
Speaker 2: wrote a fairly well regarded UFO book as well, which
Speaker 2: was kind of a history from nineteen forty seven and
Speaker 2: nineteen ninety seven, which he co wrote I think with
Speaker 2: Hillary Evans, which was fifty years of Flying. So I
Speaker 2: think UFO was ninety forty seven and ninety ninety seven,
Speaker 2: fifty years of Flying sources. So when I was doing
Speaker 2: my you know, my academic work, that was one of
Speaker 2: the books which was which was everywhere at the time,
Speaker 2: So yeah, he was. He was a significant contributor to
Speaker 2: the UFO space. So yeah, it's we lost another another
Speaker 2: important forty in there, that's for sure.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Now on.
Speaker 3: The one question I wanted to this will just take
Speaker 3: a second and then we can wrap it up however
Speaker 3: you'd like. Since it is your show, though, you.
Speaker 2: Tell me what you want to address and we will
Speaker 2: address it. Yeah.
Speaker 3: By the way, people, just so you know how bad
Speaker 3: and how much control I have, I can do this.
Speaker 3: Oh you fool, you fools, you poor, poor fools. But yeah,
Speaker 3: no w u NMW Northwest Native tracker asked, how would
Speaker 3: you match behavior to crypto type? So sort of going
Speaker 3: the idea of the meta analysis that we're doing, you know,
Speaker 3: the materials and the money that's finally out there is
Speaker 3: allowing us to do stuff that we could do on
Speaker 3: a more uh And I did mention behavior on a
Speaker 3: meta on a meta analysis level, it's not so much
Speaker 3: necessarily that we can we could say one hundred percent
Speaker 3: this is bigfoot or this is whatever. But what we
Speaker 3: can do is we can start seeing patterns, ecologies, We
Speaker 3: can start associating better details, and that may actually allow
Speaker 3: us to see behavior. When are we seeing them during
Speaker 3: the day, Are we seeing them at night? Are we
Speaker 3: seeing them in the mornings and evenings? Where where are
Speaker 3: we seeing the activity? That kind of thing that will
Speaker 3: allow us to extra act data about behavior, and we
Speaker 3: can start seeing things that may be weird over here
Speaker 3: and say, well, maybe this behavior over here because we're
Speaker 3: not seeing it here here and here, this is an
Speaker 3: anomalous behavior. It may indicate that we're looking at something else.
Speaker 3: Not necessarily. Again, we've talked to forever. I think that
Speaker 3: the problem, one of the things that's held us back
Speaker 3: in particularly sasquatch research, is that we are throwing a
Speaker 3: lot of different material in the box. So if there
Speaker 3: is a you know, a physical, biological what I call
Speaker 3: it naturally occurring biological entity or nob running around, that's great.
Speaker 3: But if we're also calling a lot of stuff that
Speaker 3: isn't right there is maybe more fortean to use Deans parlance,
Speaker 3: then it's high. Then Essentially, what we've done is we've
Speaker 3: muddied the waters so much that we can't see it.
Speaker 3: But if we have the data, and we're just looking
Speaker 3: at data, not necessarily names that we can start seeing
Speaker 3: stuff that maybe doesn't fit other patterns, including behavior like
Speaker 3: when is it, when are we seeing it, where is
Speaker 3: it happening the environment that I think we could say, Okay,
Speaker 3: this is different from all of this, and so that
Speaker 3: will allow us to start asking I think better, more
Speaker 3: piercing questions that actually allows us to come to conclusions
Speaker 3: faster and get us down the road. I think we've
Speaker 3: been unfortunately, we've sort of been tripping over ourselves because
Speaker 3: we haven't really been doing things the right way, cataloging
Speaker 3: things correctly. We've been caught up in our own paradigms
Speaker 3: and being able to break that down and be more systematized.
Speaker 3: And I know people says, see, you're bagging on research. No,
Speaker 3: every science takes time to warm up and figure out
Speaker 3: what it's doing. Right. Archaeology, were there people doing archaeology
Speaker 3: before one hundred years ago? Absolutely, look at Heinrich Schleiman.
Speaker 3: But people who are archaeologists hate Heinrich Schleman because of
Speaker 3: the damage he did. But I'm like he was one
Speaker 3: of the first people doing you know, while there were
Speaker 3: archaeologists in the eighteen hundreds. It's really not until the
Speaker 3: twenties and thirties that archaeology is really systematized in a
Speaker 3: way that we can get much better, more productive data.
Speaker 3: That's where we are, where we've done We've done this
Speaker 3: research long enough that it's like, hey, we figure out
Speaker 3: how to do it better, and it's coming into its own.
Speaker 3: It's you know, we've had this teething process. Now we
Speaker 3: can we can get what I would say this is
Speaker 3: more productive data.
Speaker 2: So no, I see your point. I obviously completely disagree
Speaker 2: because I think all this is unknowable inherently. That's my
Speaker 2: my negative fourteen had going on. I will say that
Speaker 2: we were talking about Spielberg before we were talking about
Speaker 2: the ending of Close Encounters of the third kind, which
Speaker 2: has to literalize the phenomenon, like Hollywood almost always has
Speaker 2: to literalize the phenomenon because it's very difficult to tell
Speaker 2: a story cinematically or at least it's discouraged where you
Speaker 2: stay in the space of the fantastic. In other words,
Speaker 2: before we know whether it's genuinely marvelous like angels or aliens,
Speaker 2: or before we just find out it's a weird psychological condition.
Speaker 2: I it's the uncanny, so very few films stay in
Speaker 2: that fantastic space before we know what it is. I
Speaker 2: did again watch two of my favorite movies in the holidays,
Speaker 2: which I would encourage everybody to watch if they haven't
Speaker 2: watched them or watched them again. And that, of course
Speaker 2: is The Wonderful Mothman Prophecies, which I've heard some people
Speaker 2: in the fourte in world complain because it's not an
Speaker 2: exact adaptation of Kill's book. I do know John Keel
Speaker 2: liked it because I met Keil and spent a little
Speaker 2: bit of time with him. I know that he really
Speaker 2: did enjoy the film and captures the spirit of the book,
Speaker 2: if not the details, and it certainly captures Kiel's position
Speaker 2: that this stuff is you're not going to ever get
Speaker 2: to the bottom of it, and it's going to just
Speaker 2: mess with you. And the other movie I watched only
Speaker 2: for the second time the other night with my daughter
Speaker 2: again and she really loved it. She loved it the
Speaker 2: first time, and he watched over a year ago and
Speaker 2: she loved it again. And that's Nandor Fodor and the
Speaker 2: Talking Mongoose, which is about Jeff the Talking mongoos starring
Speaker 2: Simon Pegg is the famous, the famous, the famous I
Speaker 2: guess Psychic Investigator and and Or Photoor And it's an
Speaker 2: incredible movie. It's so, it's a wonderful it's I think
Speaker 2: I think it's free on Prime at the moment. Again, anyway,
Speaker 2: it's Nandor Fodoor on the talking mongoause it's amazing because
Speaker 2: again it's like, is it a hoax? Is there something
Speaker 2: else happening? Like you're stuck in this space of You're
Speaker 2: stuck in the space of the main protagonist, Nandor Fodor,
Speaker 2: who's incredibly frustrated and trying to work this out. And
Speaker 2: I think that's where every fourteen Investigator really is. Although
Speaker 2: many think they're going to get the secret, I think
Speaker 2: they're ultimately going to be like, you know, Nandor fod
Speaker 2: Or at the end of that movie. Still I won't
Speaker 2: don't want to spoil it, but you know, battling this uncertainty.
Speaker 3: So no, I will watch it this week and I hadn't.
Speaker 3: I don't think I've heard of it.
Speaker 2: Oh, you're going to love it. It's so good.
Speaker 3: One of those weird again pull you off topic, but
Speaker 3: on the topic of weird things you find on Amazon
Speaker 3: everyonce a while I just read the name of it.
Speaker 3: But it's about this artist. It's played by Benedict Kumberbach.
Speaker 3: It's about it's this weird, weird, sort of biopic about
Speaker 3: the dude who paints who painted cats in the eighteen hundreds.
Speaker 3: It is just look at Benning kambra Buck and it's
Speaker 3: an artist. The guy had schizophrenia that that got worse
Speaker 3: as time went on. But the paintings are and it's
Speaker 3: the story of him painting these paintings and his life
Speaker 3: and it's beautifully tragic and it's one of those things
Speaker 3: where it's weird, but it's a lot of fun is
Speaker 3: the wrong word. I really appreciate it from an artistic
Speaker 3: perspective as well, and sort of it's it's worth watching,
Speaker 3: that's all I'll say.
Speaker 2: What was the title? Can you remember the title?
Speaker 3: Hold on, let me see if I can find it,
Speaker 3: because it's he's painting like he's painting these these wild
Speaker 3: painting of cats the entire time moment and.
Speaker 2: Flat Rockland offered it Touist, Thank you, Flat The Electrical
Speaker 2: Life of Louis Wayne. Yes, that's it, thank you for Yeah, Lewis,
Speaker 2: how do you pronounce that?
Speaker 3: I think it's Louis, Yeah, Louis, Uh, maybe it's Lewis
Speaker 3: Wayne anyway, Yeah, the electrically, Yeah, put it up on there.
Speaker 3: Go watch this, Go watch the Mongoose movie first. But yeah,
Speaker 3: this one is a lot of like, it's a really
Speaker 3: interesting film. The production quality is this. It feels almost
Speaker 3: like a really weird nineties made for television movie, right.
Speaker 3: All the actors in it are amazing, So you're like,
Speaker 3: what is happening here? It's it's it's something that should
Speaker 3: be observed and should be watched and appreciated for what
Speaker 3: it is, and it's it's really cool.
Speaker 2: So it's amazing, it's amazing. Well, I'm sure wish you
Speaker 2: the very best, and you're always in my prayers, Jason.
Speaker 2: I hope you have an incredible twenty twenty six, and
Speaker 2: I hope we get to see each other in person
Speaker 2: and they're not too distant future. Of course, I'm not
Speaker 2: going to let you be a stranger. You're talking, Wed.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much for coming on. It's always so
Speaker 2: much fun to chat to you.
Speaker 3: Always a pleasure, really appreciate it.
Speaker 2: Well, until I talk to you Jason again, hopefully very soon,
Speaker 2: until I talk to everybody else out there, firstly, Happy
Speaker 2: New Year, and secondly, please check me out again, same
Speaker 2: weird time, same weird network, The Untold Radio Network next
Speaker 2: Thursday night at nine pm Central. Keep it weird.