Speaker 1: You.
Speaker 2: Chilly effect is sponsored by Wallstreet, Window dot Com and
Speaker 2: listeners liking Yeah, I know, most aggravated noise media.
Speaker 3: Believe it or not, it is a Wednesday. It is
Speaker 3: March eighteen, twenty twenty six, allegedly according to that thing
Speaker 3: we call a calendar. Funny thing is we're past the
Speaker 3: IDEs of March. And did anybody notice? Also, I think
Speaker 3: Saint Patrick's Day might have happened a couple of days ago.
Speaker 3: But again, you know, with the disconnected world, how do
Speaker 3: I know it's it's a legend. I don't know. I
Speaker 3: did see something about leprechauns. I think they recycled a
Speaker 3: clip online and went viral again, or maybe maybe it's
Speaker 3: a new one. It's weird and it's funny, and I'm
Speaker 3: waiting for somebody to just start pulling out lucky charms
Speaker 3: boxes and get it over with for Saint Patrick's Day
Speaker 3: in America. Any who. That's not what we're here to
Speaker 3: talk about today, not at all, and not the eye March.
Speaker 3: And I wish I was talking about the assassination of Caesar,
Speaker 3: because I do find it fascinating, But that's not what
Speaker 3: we're discussing. We're going to go way out there with
Speaker 3: Larry Hancock, who is the author of a great many things,
Speaker 3: a great many informative pieces on the behavior of the
Speaker 3: national security state of the United States as well as
Speaker 3: other foreign nations, and in a diverse library of stuff
Speaker 3: you can get. I recommend all of Larry's works, but
Speaker 3: today's focus, you might want to have the book called Unidentified.
Speaker 3: I believe that's the main title. It's got a longer title,
Speaker 3: but Unidentified is a kind of a departure for Larry
Speaker 3: where indeed he's talking about UFOs.
Speaker 4: But.
Speaker 3: They don't call him that anymore. They're UAPs, etc. And
Speaker 3: Larry's active with people that are actually getting some oversight,
Speaker 3: getting some hearings, occasionally getting some headlines, but not his people.
Speaker 3: His people are involved in the more historical, scientific, statistical,
Speaker 3: that kind of stuff. And other people are out there
Speaker 3: telling you we have stolen alien technology that we reversed engineered,
Speaker 3: and I know so, and they'll probably kill me for it.
Speaker 3: Congress headlines that all happens at the same time, But
Speaker 3: Larry's group does not do that. They look at the
Speaker 3: historical record as it stands, what is open to be
Speaker 3: known and what has become known, and in fact, they've
Speaker 3: tracked a great interesting pattern search throughout the behavior of
Speaker 3: what they call UAPs and other unexplained or semi explained
Speaker 3: phenomena that have occurred in real time in relatively recent history.
Speaker 3: But then again, the declassifications and the disclosures continue anyhow, Larry,
Speaker 3: I don't even know where to begin, because we haven't
Speaker 3: talked about this in a while, but it is relevant
Speaker 3: and it's something again unidentified as that book you want
Speaker 3: to check out. It's kind of got a funky, sort
Speaker 3: of bluish green tinto it. If you notice that, that'll
Speaker 3: stand out among Larry's books when you go on Amazon
Speaker 3: or anything else, or you go to Larry's blog, which
Speaker 3: there will be a link to in the show notes.
Speaker 3: At all times, where do we begin talking about, you know,
Speaker 3: not all the past. I don't want you to rehash
Speaker 3: it because if they don't know, they don't know. But
Speaker 3: what's going on currently or recently when it comes to
Speaker 3: the study of UAPs and the behaviors of our national
Speaker 3: security state, our military, et cetera. Regarding this, Where should
Speaker 3: we begin about you know, maybe new stuff that you're
Speaker 3: discovering or unpacking or bringing to light or working with
Speaker 3: other people to identify among the unidentified.
Speaker 5: Well, I think there are a couple of threads that
Speaker 5: are going on. One is a constant news thread, I
Speaker 5: mean as constant as anything can be these days. It's like, okay, no,
Speaker 5: no news headline continues for more than two or three
Speaker 5: days unless it's a war, okay, and then that subsumes
Speaker 5: everything else. But in the last what in the last
Speaker 5: eight months, we have had congressional hearings on the JFK assassination,
Speaker 5: the more MLK assassination, on UFOs or as you said, UAPs,
Speaker 5: which is a new term term for it, which I
Speaker 5: can comment on separately. Uh, we've it's even the thread
Speaker 5: of constant interruption of theme is even going down in Congress.
Speaker 5: You know, you have one congress person, Representative Luna, who
Speaker 5: is holding oversight committees on like five different mysteries. So
Speaker 5: what's up this week? You know what, what's today's topic
Speaker 5: of We don't know about it? Will you give us
Speaker 5: the documents that? That's kind of the world we're in.
Speaker 5: So there's an ongoing drum beat. It's unusual if you
Speaker 5: go for more than two or three weeks without seeing
Speaker 5: a story on UAPs. I mean we're in a particularly
Speaker 5: it's not quite true at the moment, because when you
Speaker 5: go to war, you know, that tends to shove it
Speaker 5: off the page. But even within the last couple of weeks,
Speaker 5: I've seen news articles about unidentified anomalous phenomena, which is
Speaker 5: the new term for entified flying object UAP, and that
Speaker 5: that term comes out of a government office that was
Speaker 5: actually mandated by a congressional inquiry. Uh, and it chose
Speaker 5: to use introduce this new term and go back to
Speaker 5: actually the term phenomena, which you know is a lot
Speaker 5: more general, a lot less structured, a lot less tangible
Speaker 5: than flying a object. Right, Yeah, So immediately by changing
Speaker 5: course and calling it a phenomena, you've diffused some concern
Speaker 5: about it. Yeah, it's a phenomena. It's not an object.
Speaker 5: So how much do I worry about phenomena?
Speaker 3: Well that's the other qualifier, Yeah, Yeah, that's the other
Speaker 3: qualifier here, because recently, right, there was this leak which
Speaker 3: is from a few years back, where apparently some fighter
Speaker 3: jets were scrambled to intercept something that they couldn't describe
Speaker 3: as an object, but they fired missiles at it, and
Speaker 3: this thing took the missiles and I saw this piece
Speaker 3: of tape and don't know what to make of it
Speaker 3: except a spherical thing which might not be an object,
Speaker 3: might be something else, a field of sorts. It seemed
Speaker 3: like seemed to grab hellfire missiles and just like, okay,
Speaker 3: I'll absorb that and take it with me, and then
Speaker 3: it zipped off of the observing camera. Did you see
Speaker 3: that footage? Because I was like, well, I got to
Speaker 3: say that I'm gonna stop arguing with the word phenomena
Speaker 3: because I don't even know if that was an object
Speaker 3: given what I'm looking at and given the reports of
Speaker 3: the pilots allegedly. Right, So, I mean, you got a
Speaker 3: lot of things going on here, and indeed, yeah, it's
Speaker 3: difficult to compete with a war, the Epstein files, whatever
Speaker 3: the latest controversy is from Air Force one. Uh, you know,
Speaker 3: the news media shakeups, et cetera. I mean, it's it's
Speaker 3: almost a strange land we're in where UAPs or UFOs
Speaker 3: even are battling for some sort of pop in the headlines.
Speaker 3: But that is the current reality of twenty twenty six, right.
Speaker 5: Yeah, yeah, there's there's there's nothing that's going to have
Speaker 5: any continuity to it. It pops up, it goes under
Speaker 5: the under the radar, as it were, comes back up,
Speaker 5: and and so it's it's difficult to really say where
Speaker 5: you are on those various instances. And and the other
Speaker 5: thing we're facing is the fact that we're face in
Speaker 5: our investigations. As you mentioned that film footage, we have
Speaker 5: no background on that film footage. It just appears on
Speaker 5: the internet. Okay, we don't know have an exact location,
Speaker 5: We don't actually have reports from the pilots. We have descriptions.
Speaker 5: It's being investigated, it's not It looks really concrete when
Speaker 5: it shows up on Facebook or YouTube or something like that,
Speaker 5: but no more or less than something that shows up
Speaker 5: every week like that. And it's getting harder and harder
Speaker 5: to track the real from the artificial. We don't I
Speaker 5: can't show you. Maybe we will see it. The group
Speaker 5: that's supposedly investigating those reports is likely going to be
Speaker 5: issuing a report for twenty twenty five sometime in the
Speaker 5: next six months, and we might actually be able to
Speaker 5: say something about what you saw on the video. What's
Speaker 5: happening now is I think because of frustration, because of
Speaker 5: other motivations, this stuff is just being leaked out, you know,
Speaker 5: kind of like in the olden days, a story would
Speaker 5: show up in Life magazine or post or you know,
Speaker 5: newspaper headline, and you would see it before it was
Speaker 5: even really investigated. The same thing is still happening to
Speaker 5: us today. It's just showing up on YouTube or Facebook
Speaker 5: or Reddit or something like that, and we're in the
Speaker 5: same place we were back then. It's kind of like, huh,
Speaker 5: you know, is that real? Is it not real? What
Speaker 5: do I have to go on to make that judgment?
Speaker 5: I don't have anything other than what I'm seeing. Right
Speaker 5: then I get to make the call and from the
Speaker 5: group that I work with, which is the Scientific Coalition
Speaker 5: to look into these subjects. That's almost meaningless to us
Speaker 5: because we don't have data. Do we take report? Sure?
Speaker 5: Would we analyze the film, you bet? We analyze the
Speaker 5: video yet, but we've got to have the originals. We've
Speaker 5: got to have the metadata for that, because ninety percent
Speaker 5: of what we see showing up from everywhere is bogus.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 5: You know, it was bad enough when people were just
Speaker 5: creating it with tools. Now they're using AIS and ais
Speaker 5: with tools, right, and we're it's just becoming a nightmare
Speaker 5: as far as reports are concerned.
Speaker 3: Well, so that was the reason why I brought it up,
Speaker 3: because it's spectacular in its appearance, but at the same time,
Speaker 3: when it comes to actually studying the event, you don't
Speaker 3: have any of the data. Like you said, we don't
Speaker 3: know where the original is, We don't know, you know,
Speaker 3: what the pilots reported with their line of sight. We
Speaker 3: don't know any of that stuff except what we have
Speaker 3: a couple of descriptions, but those are not necessarily verified
Speaker 3: either until they are and it's going to take a
Speaker 3: release right now. Like you said, it could be frustration
Speaker 3: that causes these leaks, and it could be that there
Speaker 3: are dozens of these events or hundreds of them, or
Speaker 3: maybe it's just the one. That's another thing we don't know, right,
Speaker 3: Is this a common occurrence at this point? And if
Speaker 3: it is, you know, are we worried? Because obviously, from
Speaker 3: the look of the video, our technology is not able
Speaker 3: to compete with whatever is happening there. So let's just
Speaker 3: say it was another nation state that has developed a
Speaker 3: new weapon and they're just pinpricking us to see what
Speaker 3: we'll do. That's another story. If it's off world, yet
Speaker 3: another story, and we have no leads to give us
Speaker 3: any indication as to where it came from, what it
Speaker 3: actually is, or anything else.
Speaker 5: And a simpler and even probably more likely explanation is
Speaker 5: it's a balloon, okay, and the hellfire missile is not
Speaker 5: going to do anything to it except pass by it
Speaker 5: very quickly. You know, we don't know why the pilots
Speaker 5: fired a really expensive missile when we were talking about
Speaker 5: millions of dollars. We don't know what system was used
Speaker 5: to track it, engage it. We don't know what happened
Speaker 5: to the missile. We just really don't know except from oh,
Speaker 5: the missile approached this thing, it didn't do anything to it.
Speaker 5: Helf Our missiles are not decided designed to cope with balloons.
Speaker 5: But then again, I don't know what system was used
Speaker 5: in the missile to track it. Was it infrared, was
Speaker 5: it radar, home any what? I just I don't know.
Speaker 5: But to get back to your basic point, something most
Speaker 5: people don't realize and probably needs to be restated for
Speaker 5: the general audience at this point in time, is that
Speaker 5: is that the the group, the organization responsible for collecting
Speaker 5: reports these days, and the only official organization responsible for
Speaker 5: collecting reports is a group called the All Domain Anomaly
Speaker 5: Resolutions Office AAR. An AR was established by the Defense
Speaker 5: Department in response to an Act of Congress and response
Speaker 5: to congressional hearings, and AAR is a new, a relatively new,
Speaker 5: just a few years old group that was set up
Speaker 5: to take reports and do thorough investigations of them. However,
Speaker 5: at this point in time, that group is only taking
Speaker 5: reports from the military, only taking reports over military operations areas,
Speaker 5: and only taking reports that, you know, it's not at
Speaker 5: all close to what Bluebook was doing historically. It's not
Speaker 5: all close to what civilian groups are doing. So we
Speaker 5: have no insight into total numbers, you know, and the
Speaker 5: total numbers at this point in time. There are civilian
Speaker 5: groups that take reports over the internet, you know, and
Speaker 5: do collect reports and publish numbers, and their numbers are
Speaker 5: orders of magnitudes higher than what we see coming from AAR.
Speaker 5: But of course the majority of their reports are just that,
Speaker 5: they're just reports, they're not investigated, they're not confirmed. So
Speaker 5: we really don't have any idea at all of the
Speaker 5: numbers going, you know, even across the United States. So
Speaker 5: your point is well taken. We don't have an idea
Speaker 5: of the overall true, any vetted level of activity, any
Speaker 5: vetted level of presence. What we're just coping with is
Speaker 5: the good news is that the Congress had passed the legislation,
Speaker 5: did create the office, and the office is going, you know,
Speaker 5: in a rigorous process of collecting what you might consider
Speaker 5: would be the best reports that are coming from you know,
Speaker 5: military pilots or military installations, a lot of them with
Speaker 5: tracking data, instrumental data. This is this is the good stuff.
Speaker 5: This is better than you know, me walking out across
Speaker 5: my front yard and seeing an ORB and getting on
Speaker 5: the internet and logging it in. So you know that
Speaker 5: they're they're probably getting the highest quality reports available, and
Speaker 5: they are. They are reporting on them like Bluebook did. Uh. Unfortunately,
Speaker 5: they're reporting on them in somewhat of a summary fashion.
Speaker 5: We're not seeing we're seeing a few sample reports in
Speaker 5: some detail, but we're not seeing all of them. And
Speaker 5: then when we see them, we don't see all the
Speaker 5: data that was used in their analysis. And so there
Speaker 5: are a few instances where our group, our SEU group
Speaker 5: has looked at their analysis and said, you know, we
Speaker 5: looked at this, We had scientists look at it, and
Speaker 5: we came to a different conclusion. Let's talk. You know,
Speaker 5: did you guys consider this, did you guys consider that?
Speaker 5: And so that process is a good thing, but it
Speaker 5: gets back to your overall question, which the question being
Speaker 5: how are UAPs or UFOs really being treated? And the
Speaker 5: answer is they're treated in a better fashion than they
Speaker 5: were between nineteen seventy and you know, twenty twenty, but
Speaker 5: not in a comparable fashion in term of scope of collection,
Speaker 5: you know, scope of investigation. You're dealing with dozens of reports,
Speaker 5: not thousands of reports.
Speaker 3: Right, so look, in a limited way, data is being
Speaker 3: collected properly, but you know, a lot more could be done.
Speaker 3: You know, how seriously is this being taken? I mean,
Speaker 3: is it just the public kind of outcry? Because in
Speaker 3: a way, some of the sensational, less reliable stuff has
Speaker 3: a purpose in that I think it provokes some actions
Speaker 3: right by the Congress, et cetera. Because if people weren't
Speaker 3: asking about this, I don't think they'd even you know,
Speaker 3: bother with the hearings, because as you said, they've been
Speaker 3: busy with a lot of historical issues, let's call them,
Speaker 3: you know, and of course with the recent idea that
Speaker 3: maybe we're going to have a problem with Cuba again.
Speaker 3: I mean, that could be another thing that's got to
Speaker 3: go before the Oversight Committee, like, hey, let's revisit what's
Speaker 3: already happened in Cuba before we go, you know, before
Speaker 3: we going Iran on it, because I mean, that's another
Speaker 3: mess and you and I are going to have to
Speaker 3: talk about that in the near future again, I think.
Speaker 3: But sadly, I mean, you got to say that some
Speaker 3: of the more outlandish or extraordinary let's be generous, extraordinary
Speaker 3: you know, leaks and things may have served a purpose
Speaker 3: in that it moved the needle so that you know,
Speaker 3: Congress had to react, so therefore something serious had to
Speaker 3: be done. So therefore at least an organization to collect
Speaker 3: this data, which previously for many years did not exist
Speaker 3: at all, was at least in stated was created. Would
Speaker 3: you argue that that, I mean, I know you're not
Speaker 3: thrilled with a lot of the stuff that's come out
Speaker 3: because it's not very useful historically, etc. But in a way, strategically,
Speaker 3: one could say, if you wanted to provoke action from
Speaker 3: the US government to put some resources into collecting these things,
Speaker 3: if you wanted to provoke a Larry Hancock and his
Speaker 3: group of people that are studying this from an academic
Speaker 3: point of view. I mean, this kind of thing does
Speaker 3: help I think in that way, would you would you
Speaker 3: say that's true or.
Speaker 5: No, it's certainly helpful. But I think I have to
Speaker 5: backtrack in one aspect it really was is this is
Speaker 5: quite different than the first UFO investigations back in the
Speaker 5: fifties and sixties were triggered because the Defense Department, the
Speaker 5: Air Force seriously thought what they were seeing might be
Speaker 5: is a threat, you know, Soviet threat in particular right now,
Speaker 5: the congressional hearings, I would say the only reason that
Speaker 5: this came forward out of the Congressional hearings was they
Speaker 5: took testimony from a number of pilots, primarily Navy pilots,
Speaker 5: who responded to this and were putting it forth as
Speaker 5: a matter of air safety that these objects were actually
Speaker 5: a potential threat to Navy air operations, training operations. They
Speaker 5: could be an equal threat to commercial air you know,
Speaker 5: whatever they are. They're not equipped with transponders, they don't
Speaker 5: file flight paths, and we have such intense amounts of
Speaker 5: air activity going on that you know, their view actually
Speaker 5: one of the first and of these current contemporary encounters
Speaker 5: actually from a decade ago now came out because the
Speaker 5: Navy group involved was deployed in a staging area to
Speaker 5: prepare the task force for deployment overseas, and they're going
Speaker 5: about their normal business and they got to see these
Speaker 5: highly capable objects descending from extreme altitude at extreme deccelerations
Speaker 5: into their practice area where they would be coming through
Speaker 5: aircraft that were going out in practicing combat and various exercises.
Speaker 5: And the order to engage them was given not because
Speaker 5: there were a military type threat, but because they were
Speaker 5: a threat to air safety, and that is carried on that. Uh,
Speaker 5: the Navy pilots were in both the Pacific and the
Speaker 5: Atlantic became very concerned that these objects were appearing in
Speaker 5: staging deployment. Uh, you know, sanctioned test areas where you're
Speaker 5: not you know, the commercial and private aircraft are not
Speaker 5: supposed to be there at all, and these things were
Speaker 5: there routinely, and you know, they're seeing them and it's
Speaker 5: not like somebody's going to run into one of these things.
Speaker 5: We're going to lose people, and and that's really Congress
Speaker 5: responded more to the air safety issue because drones obviously
Speaker 5: come into that too, where you know, we've had lots
Speaker 5: and lots of incidents of near collisions uh drones being involved,
Speaker 5: and so the answer question the point is we're approaching it,
Speaker 5: and I think they're approaching it as much as an
Speaker 5: air safety issue. One of the people test giving presentation
Speaker 5: or upcoming conference has been with the government, been with
Speaker 5: the Defense Department, and very much engaged with it from
Speaker 5: an air safety issue. So the government's not really approaching
Speaker 5: it as a threat. If I look at the tasking
Speaker 5: for the National Intelligence Community, it's not on there. It's
Speaker 5: not being treated at those levels as a as something
Speaker 5: to be investigated and analyzed as a potential threat from
Speaker 5: an adversary. As a military it's just it's not task
Speaker 5: I mean. And you can understand right now if you
Speaker 5: look at the laundry list of what the military is
Speaker 5: supposed to be worried about, you know, including how quickly
Speaker 5: they're going to run out of munitions period, you probably
Speaker 5: wouldn't put that very high on the list. They've got
Speaker 5: a lot of concerns. So this is does not make
Speaker 5: the short list for military consideration. It has made a
Speaker 5: list for air safety concerns, which kind of takes us
Speaker 5: into what I just said, And that's why AARO is
Speaker 5: really primarily concerned about what's going on with these unidentified
Speaker 5: objects over insecure military flight zones, over restricted training areas,
Speaker 5: over basis, you know, where there's not supposed to be
Speaker 5: anything without a file flight plan or identifying itself.
Speaker 3: Well, right now, that leads to the bigger question that
Speaker 3: there seemed to be a pattern that was assumed by
Speaker 3: a lot of people where look, they whatever this is,
Speaker 3: you know, whatever the phenomena is, there seemed to be
Speaker 3: a focus or a special interest, say in the weapons
Speaker 3: of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons, nuclear facilities, things like that,
Speaker 3: Like they wanted to get a look at the most
Speaker 3: destructive weapons. It seemed like if you were trying to
Speaker 3: ascribe a mindset to these phenomena, and that again, you
Speaker 3: know that now there's a military issue, So it must
Speaker 3: not be that there's a particular focus there if the
Speaker 3: intelligence committee a community is not activated about it, if
Speaker 3: the military is not you know, trying to seek a
Speaker 3: defensive posture. I mean, really, it could just come down
Speaker 3: to an air traffic issue where indeed we have a
Speaker 3: complex system where you know, planes are meant not to
Speaker 3: run into each other and helicopters and stuff, and it's
Speaker 3: done through a varying set of means and a fairly
Speaker 3: sophisticated group of systems, with the military and the civilian involved.
Speaker 3: And you have to consider if you have something you
Speaker 3: can't communicate with, you can't direct at all, all that
Speaker 3: becomes a problem if it's up in the sky, regardless
Speaker 3: of who put it up there, and that could be
Speaker 3: drones or you know, these mini vehicles, or civilian air
Speaker 3: traffic because you know somebody's taking up the hobby of
Speaker 3: trying to fly assessment for some reason. All these things
Speaker 3: come into play, and you don't want them banging into
Speaker 3: stuff that we can't communicate with, no matter how well
Speaker 3: it moves or whatever, or what it is or where
Speaker 3: it came from. I mean, that's what it comes down to.
Speaker 3: So all right, let's get into progress though, because you
Speaker 3: did mention that there's an upcoming conference.
Speaker 5: Cut I get. I need to get a cavy out
Speaker 5: on that check. You bring up a good point. All
Speaker 5: I'm seeing are those things having to do with their safety.
Speaker 5: I have no idea what's being reported from our missile bases,
Speaker 5: our strategic bomber bases, are nuclear sub bases, that's not
Speaker 5: even in the equation that doesn't go into this system.
Speaker 5: All of that would be considered security. You know, I
Speaker 5: don't know that there's anything going on there. I don't
Speaker 5: know that there's not anything going on there. It's it's
Speaker 5: not going into the system in a fashion that I
Speaker 5: can see it. We know historically that even back in
Speaker 5: the seventies, there were things that were being reported in
Speaker 5: regard to the missile basis that nobody was seen. They
Speaker 5: stay strictly compartmentalized under National Security Seal with no red
Speaker 5: the North Defense Command. So just to comment on your
Speaker 5: point is, I don't know that there's not a strategic
Speaker 5: element going on. All I know is that it's not
Speaker 5: been tasked to anybody. That's been announced. You know, it's
Speaker 5: not on the national intelligence community testing. Is the Air
Speaker 5: Force looking into it? Is Space Command looking into it?
Speaker 5: We absolutely know Space Command sees and tracks things that
Speaker 5: it can't explain. But all of that is done, and
Speaker 5: people understand it's not that that isn't done when it happens,
Speaker 5: and it is reported within this system within operational reports
Speaker 5: or situational reports or threat reports, and if nothing happens,
Speaker 5: you know, if nothing gets blown away, nothing gets the
Speaker 5: story whatever, and it goes away. Then it just is
Speaker 5: flushed out of the system after a certain period of time.
Speaker 5: There does not be seen to be a connection between
Speaker 5: that and what AAR is doing. We don't know that
Speaker 5: they are collecting those We've not seen any reports from
Speaker 5: those sorts of sources analyzed, you know, So I just
Speaker 5: it's important to realize what the limitations of the data is.
Speaker 5: What we know is AR is looking at exactly what
Speaker 5: you do just described. Are they looking at the other part,
Speaker 5: the strategic threat part? We don't know. And since I
Speaker 5: don't have and they're not publishing a total list of
Speaker 5: their incident reports or where they're coming from, I just
Speaker 5: can't tell. We've asked them for that. But obviously the
Speaker 5: response is they operate under They don't report to a
Speaker 5: civilian agency. They do public reports to Congress, but they
Speaker 5: work for the Department of Defense, so what they actually
Speaker 5: do is controlled by the DoD and obviously all of
Speaker 5: the security restrictions are in play. So just just just
Speaker 5: a caveat to what we know and what we don't know.
Speaker 3: No, I got you. So what you're warning me is that,
Speaker 3: as per usual, every government agency has a public face
Speaker 3: and then a you know, a behind the wall sort
Speaker 3: of a situation that could or could not be occurring
Speaker 3: concurrently with the public facing part of it, and we
Speaker 3: won't know about that until many years later when things
Speaker 3: are declassified. I mean, that's just the way everything works,
Speaker 3: whether it's the FBI or it's the Department of Homeland
Speaker 3: Security or anything else, you know, like in other words,
Speaker 3: the whole idea of you know what, you haven't seen
Speaker 3: any terrorist threats, so maybe everything's okay, But then again,
Speaker 3: maybe it's just been kept quiet, that it's been neutralized
Speaker 3: and you don't know, And that's something that needs to
Speaker 3: be kept in mind with all things, not just UAPs,
Speaker 3: but I mean, everything, right, there's always.
Speaker 5: And we know that. We know that historically. We can
Speaker 5: look back and say, there were periods of time, you know,
Speaker 5: during the forties, fifty sixty seventies where the Air Force,
Speaker 5: or the FBI or the CIA were absolutely concerned that
Speaker 5: there was a national security threat, okay, right, but that
Speaker 5: never showed up in a press release, that never showed
Speaker 5: up in a statement. We can find it now, you know,
Speaker 5: in their internal communications, and maybe fifty years from now,
Speaker 5: somebody will find it in today's contemporary But historically that
Speaker 5: is absolutely correct. What is said from the public facing
Speaker 5: side is never the full story of how concerned about
Speaker 5: anybody is about anything. Give another example that maybe people
Speaker 5: will relate to. We know that prior to nine to
Speaker 5: eleven that the CIA was concerned enough about a terrorist
Speaker 5: attack on US soil to send agents to the President
Speaker 5: and personally brief him on that threat, which he rejected,
Speaker 5: you know, and nobody said anything about that until it
Speaker 5: was revealed by the investigation after. You know, if you
Speaker 5: don't have congressional investigations after the back, you'll never know
Speaker 5: because it's not going to happen. But that's a recent
Speaker 5: occurrence where there absolutely was extremely high level about a
Speaker 5: strategic threat which was totally concealed.
Speaker 3: Right and even then with all of the eyes on it.
Speaker 3: I mean, it took like almost a decade to even
Speaker 3: hear about the fact that drills were being run, you know,
Speaker 3: or being confirmed. Anyway, we had heard rumors of it,
Speaker 3: and then we have confirmation on different drills. And you
Speaker 3: don't run drills without the idea that it might be
Speaker 3: something that will happen. I mean, that's why they do it.
Speaker 3: So you know that that intelligence had already made its
Speaker 3: way through the community through the different channels, and whether
Speaker 3: the President rejected it or not, the military and the
Speaker 3: intelligence communities might be drilling on it in real time
Speaker 3: and not telling people obviously that they're doing that. You know, Oh,
Speaker 3: this is just part of normal maneuvers and so on
Speaker 3: and so forth. And then yeah, like you said, years later,
Speaker 3: without a congressional investigation where they pry things loose, why
Speaker 3: bother it doesn't come out because you didn't know it,
Speaker 3: then you don't need to know it now. I mean,
Speaker 3: that's just pretty much.
Speaker 5: But it's embarrassing. Yeah, you really, you know what political
Speaker 5: party is kind of want to bring that is? Who's
Speaker 5: going to volunteer that information?
Speaker 3: Huh?
Speaker 5: I don't think you buddy, right.
Speaker 3: Right, Like nobody was thrilled when the President's Daily brief
Speaker 3: I literally said, bin Laden, you know, planning to strike
Speaker 3: within America. And the next thing you know is, hey,
Speaker 3: because it makes you look stupid, why didn't you pay
Speaker 3: attention to the warning? Well, you know, and then the
Speaker 3: argument becomes, listen, if I pay attention to every single warning,
Speaker 3: we would do nothing. But you know, panic and prepare
Speaker 3: and drill, and you know, so I get it, But
Speaker 3: at the same time, yeah, nobody wants to look like
Speaker 3: they drop the balls. What it comes down to, even
Speaker 3: historically later, even when people are all dead, they don't
Speaker 3: want to, you know, And that's part of the struggle
Speaker 3: we're still looking at with the JFK assassination. But let's
Speaker 3: not go there right now because that's not the topic.
Speaker 3: Although some people do bring up stuff regarding JFK and
Speaker 3: you know, UAPs UFOs, et cetera. And I always laugh
Speaker 3: because it's like, you know, I start picturing the strings
Speaker 3: on the wall to tie things together, you know, typical
Speaker 3: conspiracy theorist meme on it, and it just drives me
Speaker 3: a little nuts where it's like, look, Kennedy in three
Speaker 3: short years was trying to deal with a bunch of things,
Speaker 3: and you know, maybe he didn't do so good with
Speaker 3: some of them, but he did very well with others.
Speaker 3: And what are you gonna do? He had three years
Speaker 3: to work with less whatever. Anyway, So back to this, though,
Speaker 3: what do we know about what's going on? And also
Speaker 3: maybe you could tell us a little about the conference
Speaker 3: before I let you go, because I don't want to
Speaker 3: keep you more than an hour on this. But I
Speaker 3: would like to give people a briefing sort of what's happening,
Speaker 3: what they could observe in the near future, what has
Speaker 3: already been done, what you're working on all that. So,
Speaker 3: you know, if you could give us an idea, I'd
Speaker 3: be really appreciative.
Speaker 5: Yeah. I think the real answer is we discussed the
Speaker 5: fact that ar AAR was established and it's doing a
Speaker 5: job and it's preparing reportion. I think I send you
Speaker 5: some links. One of the links was to its twenty
Speaker 5: twenty four report. If you publish that, everybody can get
Speaker 5: a good feel for the work that they're doing. Okay,
Speaker 5: but because of the limitations that they themselves have from
Speaker 5: a security standpoint, can't share a lot of data. You know,
Speaker 5: we we're at the point where literally if you start
Speaker 5: sharing censored data, then you tell the other guy exactly
Speaker 5: what you can detect and what you can't detect, and
Speaker 5: then they can hide from you. So we're not going
Speaker 5: to see that. So the scientific groups, the you know,
Speaker 5: you've always got sets of people that want to look
Speaker 5: for it for the more sensational, the more dramatic, and
Speaker 5: that's going on, and that's why you will find something
Speaker 5: on UFOs on YouTube every day. But the more structured
Speaker 5: groups are doing their own work. They're doing studies of
Speaker 5: you know, particular incidents, new incidents where we have collected data,
Speaker 5: you know, independently going back to some old One of
Speaker 5: the things that's going on these days, I would say
Speaker 5: a big thing within the scientific community is looking at
Speaker 5: what you would call signature analysis, uh, looking at technical signatures.
Speaker 5: You know what, when we have an image that we
Speaker 5: can source that is credible that we can get the
Speaker 5: metadata on, what does that tell us about emissions from
Speaker 5: that object at a whole range of different spectral frequencies,
Speaker 5: and and how anomalous is that? You know, certainly you
Speaker 5: can quickly write off lots of incidents and say no
Speaker 5: that you know, that's that wasn't aircraft, that was a drone. Okay,
Speaker 5: because when we know what those signatures look like, everybody's
Speaker 5: everybody's probably seen a movie like you know, Red October
Speaker 5: where the sonar technician is there sitting looking at the
Speaker 5: sono display of a Soviet submarine engine and going, okay,
Speaker 5: that's the I know what frequencies. I know what that is.
Speaker 5: In fact, I've got a little map here that tells
Speaker 5: me it's a particular type of submarine you can do
Speaker 5: that work. And so that's one area of work that
Speaker 5: is going on. It's called techno signatures analysis, and you
Speaker 5: get some physicists in and it becomes interesting. It's like,
Speaker 5: what sort of system would exhibit gamma rays? You know,
Speaker 5: do we fly anything that emits gamba rays?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 5: Okay, that's interesting. So there's a work that's going on
Speaker 5: on the techno signature side. There's also work that's going
Speaker 5: on which my team is involved in, is the behavioral
Speaker 5: signature side. Are there patterns of activity, are their patterns
Speaker 5: of presence over time? Are there things going on that
Speaker 5: let you, you know, evaluate different types of missions that
Speaker 5: you might map to that different types of So there
Speaker 5: is a lot being done with technical signatures and behavioral signatures.
Speaker 5: You know, the physicist on one side of the aisle
Speaker 5: and the behavioral scientist on the other side of the aisle.
Speaker 5: So that is real professional grade academic work that is
Speaker 5: going on within the civilian community, and we published reports
Speaker 5: on that. We've my groups published four papers on that
Speaker 5: and coming out with a fifth paper on UFO presence
Speaker 5: over the period of our study sample over three decades plus.
Speaker 5: So that work is going on, and you can find
Speaker 5: those papers at the SEU side, and you can find
Speaker 5: papers being presented in conferences, and more and more of
Speaker 5: those papers are actually making it into more mainstream scientific journals,
Speaker 5: which it makes sense because if these even are phenomena,
Speaker 5: you get to study them like phenomena in a scientific fashion.
Speaker 5: So that work is going on, and I think that
Speaker 5: that kind of balances the story of what AAR is
Speaker 5: doing versus what we're doing. And then occasionally we'll get
Speaker 5: together and we'll look at one of their cases, they'll
Speaker 5: look at our study of the same case, and then
Speaker 5: you start to kind of peer review each other. If
Speaker 5: did you guys forget something? Did you forget something that's
Speaker 5: very that's very important from a you know, a really
Speaker 5: scientific standpoint. But I think from the terms, what you'll
Speaker 5: see at our conference which is upcoming in two or
Speaker 5: three months, and I posted gave you a link for that,
Speaker 5: is you'll see a lot of people talking about those
Speaker 5: types of studies. You'll see some of our leading spe
Speaker 5: speakers talking about what's what's going on with AA. Some
Speaker 5: of them have been involved with it and they're out
Speaker 5: of it now so they can talk to us, so
Speaker 5: they'll give you a good, much better government level insight
Speaker 5: than I would be able to give. That's one of
Speaker 5: the things. That's why we have an annual conference. But
Speaker 5: the other thing that's going on that hardly discussed here
Speaker 5: at all is this is something that is global. There
Speaker 5: are UFO UAP reports from around the world. So one
Speaker 5: of the things is to reach out and say, you know,
Speaker 5: what are other nations. Are there groups and other nations
Speaker 5: studying this or their scientific groups. Turns out that there
Speaker 5: are very active groups in Europe, very professional, very scientific
Speaker 5: groups in France, Italy, Spain, other areas over there that
Speaker 5: are looking at what's going on in their own environments.
Speaker 5: They are also talking about how would it be possible
Speaker 5: to study this on a global base, because that hardly
Speaker 5: ever makes the headlines. You know, drones over New Jersey
Speaker 5: make the headlines, Drones over Colorado and Montana make the headlines. Nothing.
Speaker 5: We don't have global news coverage in the US has
Speaker 5: devolved into pretty much where we're performing a military operation
Speaker 5: and if you give the time, you don't see the
Speaker 5: global news the way you used to, other than what
Speaker 5: we're doing in to somebody not at all or not
Speaker 5: doing So that's another important part of the dialogue and
Speaker 5: the conversation because whether you call them UFOs or UAPs,
Speaker 5: it really is a global question. Is is something going
Speaker 5: on particular to the US? Is something going on particular
Speaker 5: to Europe. One fascinating thing that occurred during the seventies
Speaker 5: and eighties is that you had a new type of
Speaker 5: UFO come into play. These are very large black train
Speaker 5: or shaped objects that were reported in the US, and
Speaker 5: then you had within a year or so, you had
Speaker 5: this exactly the same sort of objects being reported not
Speaker 5: just by people like someone who had read and used
Speaker 5: coverage from the US, but by police in Belgium, by
Speaker 5: F sixteen interceptor crews in Belgium tracking these things with
Speaker 5: instrumented you know, video and cameras, that sort of thing.
Speaker 5: You know, what does that say for what's going on
Speaker 5: with the UFOs globally? Certainly it tells you if you
Speaker 5: know something new was introduced, it wasn't just introduced into
Speaker 5: the US. So there's this global part of the overall
Speaker 5: equation that we that my group tries to get involved
Speaker 5: with and network to take a look at. But that's
Speaker 5: another part of our conference because we have several global
Speaker 5: speakers and this year. We will actually be holding our
Speaker 5: conference in Canada, and Canada has an extremely active governmental
Speaker 5: UFO investigation and inquiry going on and has had. They
Speaker 5: were early into the game back in the fifties. And
Speaker 5: I will say another thing that's going on that's new
Speaker 5: is a couple of the states are actually beginning to
Speaker 5: take this because of so much activity over certain types
Speaker 5: of military installations, let's say New Jersey, Arizona, it begins
Speaker 5: to become a safety and security issue even at a
Speaker 5: local level, and the states are getting involved in doing
Speaker 5: their own investigations. I mean, when you have incidents in
Speaker 5: Arizona of police helicopters going after drones and not being
Speaker 5: able to catch them when the drones fly away at
Speaker 5: them several hundred miles faster than they are, you know,
Speaker 5: is this is this a bad actor operating the drones?
Speaker 5: What could what else could they do with that drone?
Speaker 5: You know? So it's it's also going from from the
Speaker 5: global level down to the inn you know, the local level,
Speaker 5: state and local government taking an interest in them, perhaps
Speaker 5: as much as the national government.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, there you have it. I mean, it's just
Speaker 3: amazing what you know could be covered if there was
Speaker 3: global cooperation over all this and what could be discovered
Speaker 3: if we were able to, you know, again work together.
Speaker 3: But it's always a problem, right because the politics because
Speaker 3: of who pays for what? Uh, you know. So, I
Speaker 3: mean there's all these issues that come up when you
Speaker 3: try to create sort of an international coalition with a
Speaker 3: particular focus. But it would help us a lot if
Speaker 3: we knew for certain that certain things were occurring over
Speaker 3: you know, completely disconnected places. Is there a pattern that
Speaker 3: can be discerned from it, and so on and so forth. Which,
Speaker 3: by the way, there's going to be a link to
Speaker 3: the conference that Larry talked about in the show notes.
Speaker 3: Let's see really quickly explore SCU dot org is the
Speaker 3: is the one link that definitely I want you to
Speaker 3: pay attention to. But also, as Larry said, the aa
Speaker 3: r O Report and the aa r O dot mill
Speaker 3: website as well are all in play, and we'll all
Speaker 3: be listed in the show notes for tonight, so you
Speaker 3: can follow up for yourself and see what it is
Speaker 3: has been reported, captured and shared, you know, by the
Speaker 3: governmental agencies, and also catch up on what Larry's group
Speaker 3: is doing, because I'm sure they're already talking about the conference.
Speaker 3: It's coming up pretty soon, isn't it.
Speaker 5: It is, Yes, it is. Registration is open as we
Speaker 5: speak in it's an in person and virtual conference. So
Speaker 5: actually I think virtual registration's only seventy five dollars, which
Speaker 5: is probably one of the least of conferences you can
Speaker 5: go to on visually anything, right, I would something I
Speaker 5: neglected to say that that we'll be discussed in the conference,
Speaker 5: and it's being discussed across the community. I talked about
Speaker 5: techno signatures and people might be interested in the fact
Speaker 5: that to really do a good technical signature, you've got
Speaker 5: to have a lot of instrumentation. You've got to have,
Speaker 5: you know, a lot of spectral cameras, magneto detectors, all
Speaker 5: parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, and it's fascinating. Obviously, the
Speaker 5: government has the ability to do that, and AAR always
Speaker 5: announced that they're even developing, you know, specially sensor packages
Speaker 5: that they could put it a military base or somewhere else.
Speaker 5: Of course, they're not really sharing the specs for that
Speaker 5: with us as far as I know, so in our
Speaker 5: field people have to do that by themselves, and I
Speaker 5: saw some collected by a pair of guys that built
Speaker 5: their own like van bigger than a van. The investment
Speaker 5: and equipment that they put into that technical Collection Collections
Speaker 5: vehicle is over quarter million dollars wow of hardware. Just
Speaker 5: to kind of give you. If the government's not going
Speaker 5: to do it, and you want to step and play
Speaker 5: in this in a real professional fashion, you need to
Speaker 5: have a foundation, a grant, or a very rich uncle.
Speaker 3: Right if you're not a you know, if you're not
Speaker 3: a self made man. Kind of kind of looks interesting.
Speaker 3: I mean, have there been appeals to people like and
Speaker 3: this is just a weird, wide open question. I don't
Speaker 3: even know if you'd know the answer, But I mean,
Speaker 3: have there been appeals to like the Elon Musks out
Speaker 3: there to say, listen, you know, we could use a
Speaker 3: grant and our information could be highly useful to you
Speaker 3: and some of your projects, et cetera. And perhaps you
Speaker 3: could make an investment in the data that you'll need later.
Speaker 3: I or if that is you know, on the table here,
Speaker 3: I throw out Musk because he's got that you know,
Speaker 3: SpaceX rocket thing and uh, you know, in his whole
Speaker 3: grandiose idea to maybe one day bring people to Mars
Speaker 3: and all this, you know, does it make sense that,
Speaker 3: you know, so I can.
Speaker 5: Confirm that there have been outreach to what in the
Speaker 5: the business are known as angels, right, you know, this
Speaker 5: is just somebody that shows up and they have money
Speaker 5: and they're so interested in this. And we've seen that
Speaker 5: in the JFK assassination work. Mary Mary Farrell Foundation was
Speaker 5: created by an angel who had made a lot of
Speaker 5: money and decided he was really interested in the subject
Speaker 5: and he was that's where he put his money. So
Speaker 5: that absolutely has gone on in the UFO field. Nobody's
Speaker 5: going to talk about it because obviously everybody wants those people, right,
Speaker 5: We're not going to share information on who's who has
Speaker 5: money and who is in interested. But absolutely that is
Speaker 5: something that goes on because you're either going to have
Speaker 5: to find that where you're going to find have to
Speaker 5: find a university that is in a position to go
Speaker 5: a let you go after grants, and you have to
Speaker 5: be an academic. But yeah, all of those avenues are
Speaker 5: being explored because especially if you want to play on
Speaker 5: that the techno signature side, you're you're going to need
Speaker 5: big money. And that's when I talk about that van.
Speaker 5: The reason they put in the van obviously is be
Speaker 5: so they can move it around. You know, you can't
Speaker 5: if you invested quarter million dollars in one observation station,
Speaker 5: you know, what are my odds? You know, how often
Speaker 5: is something going to come by?
Speaker 3: Uh?
Speaker 5: That's that's the other trick is that I can invest
Speaker 5: the money in the in the equipment and if I
Speaker 5: don't have a good idea for where to put it,
Speaker 5: and as you can imagine, there has to be a
Speaker 5: lot of testing. You know, first you go out and say,
Speaker 5: you know, can this detect and identify an aircraft? Can
Speaker 5: this detect? And yeah, like okay, Once I get past
Speaker 5: that stage, then we'll worry about the UFOs. But it's
Speaker 5: it's a fascinating business for any anyone listening that has
Speaker 5: kind of a has technical interest, because how you would
Speaker 5: do that is is is very challenging. Me. I'm happy
Speaker 5: to be over on the you know, behavioral signature standpoint
Speaker 5: because that's it's less expensive.
Speaker 3: Right, Okay, Well, look, I just thought it was a
Speaker 3: fair question to throw in there. Is there anything else
Speaker 3: that we need to know about this currently? Outside of
Speaker 3: the fact that the conference is upcoming. Work is still ongoing,
Speaker 3: It has not ceased, and who knows, maybe you'll even
Speaker 3: get another hearing in front of the committee before you know,
Speaker 3: the election. I don't know, but before the election, or
Speaker 3: at least before people change offices, and then who knows
Speaker 3: if it'll be this you know, yeah, I got.
Speaker 4: We might.
Speaker 5: But one of the things actually, and here's where it
Speaker 5: breaks down. The legislation that Congress passed is very good
Speaker 5: in one aspect. It allowed the creation of you know,
Speaker 5: tasking the Defense Department and creating ar but it also
Speaker 5: included a legislation that protects the so called whistleblowers if
Speaker 5: you think you've seen something that represents alien technology or
Speaker 5: alien bodies. This legislation absolutely guarantees you you can go
Speaker 5: to talk with a ar O and you're protected. You know,
Speaker 5: there's there even if you're a government employee, if you're
Speaker 5: within the system. So that was established. What wasn't established
Speaker 5: And the big thing that's still on the plate that
Speaker 5: there are Congress people pushing for is there they're advocating
Speaker 5: for a congressional level investigation, you know, not just collecting data,
Speaker 5: not just collecting data and evaluating reports, but going to
Speaker 5: take a look at it as we would as we
Speaker 5: did with the House Select Committee on assassinations right to
Speaker 5: really look at the whole subject from an investigative, you know,
Speaker 5: with subpoena power, with legal powers. That's still in front
Speaker 5: of Congress, and well, someone will bring it in front
Speaker 5: of Congress every session. And so that's something that is
Speaker 5: still on the plate. I think it does. It's not
Speaker 5: that it doesn't have enough support, but everybody is so
Speaker 5: diverted into other areas. I mean, if you can't pass
Speaker 5: a spending resolution and you know there's so little compromise
Speaker 5: going on that that's the last you know, down at
Speaker 5: the bottom of the list. But that's something that's still
Speaker 5: on the table that could really open this up. But
Speaker 5: that's probably the biggest next step that could be done
Speaker 5: when you ask, you know what more could happen? More hearings.
Speaker 5: Quite frankly, we all already we've already heard from the people.
Speaker 5: We've heard from, you know, we've heard from the whistleblowers,
Speaker 5: and now they have to go do their thing, you know,
Speaker 5: and when they do their thing, quite frankly, they're going
Speaker 5: to do it in a skiff. You know, it's going
Speaker 5: to be compartment as they and AARO is going to
Speaker 5: investigate it behind the scenes, and you know, maybe they
Speaker 5: will if they reach a conclusion, they'll put it in
Speaker 5: a report, but that's got to happen on its own.
Speaker 5: But those those bases are covered to extent. But what
Speaker 5: we don't have and it's kind of like people people
Speaker 5: misunderstand the House Oversight Committee, Luna's committee. I mean it
Speaker 5: has the authority to go look for documents and chuck
Speaker 5: when we talk about JFK MLKA. We can tell congress
Speaker 5: Person Luna about specific documents and things to go get
Speaker 5: and that's that's working relatively well, except you know, she's
Speaker 5: going to see I A and they're saying, oh, yeah,
Speaker 5: we had that document, but it's gone okay, fine with
Speaker 5: with UFOs, that's a good deal. Harder that is, you know,
Speaker 5: that's what happens, is anything that's sitting there that could
Speaker 5: be released as at the National Archives, but you know
Speaker 5: somebody would have to go on an expedition. Well because
Speaker 5: for the UFO stuff.
Speaker 3: I was just going to say, that's only because we
Speaker 3: have the advantage in the JFK community. We know what's
Speaker 3: missing in a lot of cases from files. Over time,
Speaker 3: we've discovered what is missing, what should be there that
Speaker 3: isn't And you know.
Speaker 5: We had three investigations. We had the Warrant Commission, we
Speaker 5: had the Church Committee, we had you know, we had
Speaker 5: another Congressional committee, We had the HSCA, we had the ARB.
Speaker 5: So we have a wealth of leads on a where
Speaker 5: to look. We have nothing like that in regard to
Speaker 5: UFOs since nineteen seventy.
Speaker 3: Well, right, because the documents themselves have not been revealed
Speaker 3: as much to even give us an idea of what's
Speaker 3: being you know, like in other words, if you don't
Speaker 3: know that you have a document with redactions on it,
Speaker 3: you can't figure out what the redactions might even be
Speaker 3: because you've never seen it. I mean, this kind of thing,
Speaker 3: this is where we're at. It's way behind a lot
Speaker 3: of these other controversial things in history, right, you know,
Speaker 3: in England it's a control oversy, but here it's a
Speaker 3: controversy and we don't have the leads because just simply
Speaker 3: those documents have not been given to us, even in
Speaker 3: a half shredded form like they used to be with JFK,
Speaker 3: where we get a whole blacked out in blank pages
Speaker 3: and we go, okay, now what would go in there?
Speaker 3: We haven't had that opportunity here, so you know, it's
Speaker 3: it's the reverse engineering you can't do without you know,
Speaker 3: some of the original engineering, right.
Speaker 5: Well, and that's that's why we went to the trouble.
Speaker 5: And I will say, you know, I and my team
Speaker 5: do have a book coming out in October. It's called
Speaker 5: UFO Intentions be published by Skyhorse Nice and we went
Speaker 5: to the trouble of putting a chapter in that book
Speaker 5: to tell a ar O and anybody else who's capable
Speaker 5: of doing for you where to go to look for
Speaker 5: this stuff, because we know where you'd have to go look.
Speaker 5: We know what military command, we know what kind of reports,
Speaker 5: but somebody would have to fall back to the kind
Speaker 5: of grunt work we were doing, uh you know forty
Speaker 5: years ago that Mary Ferrell was doing on the JFK
Speaker 5: assass Nation request.
Speaker 3: I like to tell you, oh god, yeah.
Speaker 5: I can tell you to go to the you know,
Speaker 5: to No Red and ask for uh National Command authority
Speaker 5: reports generated during this period of time by this by
Speaker 5: this command right by sack. Okay good and people have
Speaker 5: done good work with that, so it's possible to do it.
Speaker 5: But it's like a new era of grunt work on
Speaker 5: UFOs starting like in about nineteen fifty five seventy five
Speaker 5: to current. So anybody wants to do that, you get
Speaker 5: it's it's possible. But that's that's where we are with UFOs.
Speaker 5: We're nowhere comparable in terms of historical data recovery to
Speaker 5: where we are in the assassination.
Speaker 3: So for the grand research projects, you have fifty years
Speaker 3: of grunt work to cover, possibly and likely.
Speaker 5: So we need a thirty year old that will call
Speaker 5: me up and I'll tell you where to go. We
Speaker 5: need somebody, We need another generation.
Speaker 3: Right, and then by the time that thirty year old
Speaker 3: is my age, guess what, they'll actually have some documents,
Speaker 3: you know, in full, and be able to put them
Speaker 3: in order and say this is what happened. I know
Speaker 3: it sounds like I'm being facetious and making jokes, but
Speaker 3: i am because this is literally what has to happen,
Speaker 3: step by step. This is the thing. I think a
Speaker 3: lot of people that have gotten accustomed to the you know,
Speaker 3: the the immediate gratification, the instant gratification of the Internet
Speaker 3: has spoiled a lot of people and they think they're
Speaker 3: doing research by googling something. No, the reason why that
Speaker 3: data exists is because people sat there and went through
Speaker 3: tons of useless, pointless, counterproductive, blank pages, duplicate things. My
Speaker 3: favorite always to bring up is newspaper articles that were
Speaker 3: in somebody's stupid workfolder that were classified and you finally
Speaker 3: get them, and you got three copies of the same
Speaker 3: badly cut out news clipping, you know, in this workfolder,
Speaker 3: and it's just the amazing mountains of paper that we
Speaker 3: used to have to go through. I mean, we definitely
Speaker 3: destroyed some pars getting it done. And that data is
Speaker 3: now in your ais, it's now in your Google searches,
Speaker 3: it's now been scanned, it's now you know. The whole
Speaker 3: thing with that Angel Investor was hilarious because Mary Farrell's
Speaker 3: still alive. She needed help with her medical bills, and
Speaker 3: that Angel Investor covered that and also covered the initial
Speaker 3: costs of I'm willing to pay somebody to literally scan
Speaker 3: this like small house, and I'm pretty sure Mary had
Speaker 3: the small house full of papers, and it was like, yeah,
Speaker 3: good and scan those so people can see him on
Speaker 3: the internet. And that has become the Mary Faraoll Foundations,
Speaker 3: you know, or at least the foundation of the Mary
Speaker 3: Paraoll Foundations, you know, document Archive, which is currently as
Speaker 3: far as I know, more extensive than what the US
Speaker 3: government has online in the same vein. I'm not sure
Speaker 3: if that's exactly correct still, but it has been for
Speaker 3: many years, right.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I think we pretty much have everything they have,
Speaker 5: plus some other things. And of course, one like with
Speaker 5: the recent releases Rex Rex has gotten the release the
Speaker 5: releases that are coming out of the you know, Luna
Speaker 5: Committee to come out of the They this year's releases,
Speaker 5: last year's. He has them online usually within three weeks,
Speaker 5: which is amazing.
Speaker 3: Right, And Rex has been doing this for what decades now,
Speaker 3: you know, just trying to keep and he's not done.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's just continuous. But nonetheless, people are spoiled
Speaker 3: by the fact that that's there, is all I'm saying.
Speaker 3: They're spoiled by that, because otherwise to have that, you
Speaker 3: would have had to have it in your house and
Speaker 3: at least a full room of your house dedicated to
Speaker 3: you know, your your fileboxes to even have a chance
Speaker 3: to find this stuff. And you know, you see Larry's
Speaker 3: laughing because I know he's got a garage somewhere or
Speaker 3: he had a garage.
Speaker 5: Absolutely, it sounds all too familiar to what's in the
Speaker 5: right garage.
Speaker 3: Yes, there you go. See I told you, and I
Speaker 3: have never been to Larry's house for the record, I
Speaker 3: just know that it's either a garage, an attic or
Speaker 3: a basement depending on where you live, that is full
Speaker 3: of this stuff. If you were there doing this, because
Speaker 3: you just do, you hang on to it. And probably
Speaker 3: that's not even the that that he didn't keep everything.
Speaker 3: Larry didn't keep everything, and still he's got a garage.
Speaker 3: Fust Am, I am I telling a lie? Larry helped me.
Speaker 5: No, that's exactly right. You just and one of these
Speaker 5: days I am going to start taking it, you know,
Speaker 5: taking it to recycling. But it's just after you've put
Speaker 5: you know, you put thirty years into collecting it, and
Speaker 5: even though you suspect some of it's on Mary Ferrell,
Speaker 5: it's hard to part with it. I'm like, Okay, this
Speaker 5: is my life's work and I'm going to take it
Speaker 5: to recycling. Uh darn, let's wait another month.
Speaker 3: Well, look, I'm not looking forward to this day, but
Speaker 3: I know a university should come by and pick up
Speaker 3: your archive is what should happen. Uh, But I don't
Speaker 3: know if one will. Uh, but I'd like to see it,
Speaker 3: and you know, you'd be one of the few archives
Speaker 3: I'm aware of different archives of different researchers, different authors
Speaker 3: in different universities, and tell you the truth, I have
Speaker 3: not physically visited any of them. But if I'm still
Speaker 3: around and there's a Larry Hancock archive, I'm gonna go
Speaker 3: because I want to go through all this stuff and
Speaker 3: you know, and see a lot of what it is
Speaker 3: that you thought was worthy to hang on to, even
Speaker 3: because that'll tell me a great deal. Anyway. I know
Speaker 3: Larry has told you guys a great deal during this hour,
Speaker 3: and I think we might have gone slightly over an hour.
Speaker 3: As per usual, I always keep people longer than I
Speaker 3: plan to, but it's not my attention, Larry. You know
Speaker 3: that I'm trying to get you through in an hour.
Speaker 3: But is there anything else that we need to know
Speaker 3: before we go? Or do you feel like we covered
Speaker 3: this pretty well?
Speaker 5: I think that pretty well covers what's going on now,
Speaker 5: and you know it will pop up again. Like I say,
Speaker 5: for those that are really interested, be looking for the
Speaker 5: AAR report there. I think they're supposed to be coming
Speaker 5: out with a twenty twenty five report within probably within
Speaker 5: six months, and that'll be very interesting. So that's something
Speaker 5: to look forward to. And so I say, we turned
Speaker 5: the manuscript on the book over to the publisher to day,
Speaker 5: and it should be it should be out in October.
Speaker 5: We'll see well.
Speaker 3: And as with all Larry's books, I'm always happy to
Speaker 3: announce them promote them when they are available to you.
Speaker 3: Which does bring me to just a quick, totally off
Speaker 3: topic question, what about the Oswald Puzzle? Update? Is that out?
Speaker 5: Now?
Speaker 3: What's going on.
Speaker 5: The OSW the Oswald Puzzle. Two things will happen to it.
Speaker 5: The update, which is basically two more chapters, yes, will
Speaker 5: be added to the paperback version, which will come out
Speaker 5: I think April eleventh or something like that. It's it's
Speaker 5: on Amazon now for pre order. And after that Chips
Speaker 5: within oh I think within a month. Skyhorse plan is
Speaker 5: to move those new chapters and add them to the
Speaker 5: kindle version as well. Okay, so to go on to
Speaker 5: the e book So that way the paperback version and
Speaker 5: the e book version would both have those new chapters.
Speaker 5: So that by me into April, that's that's done. Deal,
Speaker 5: they've had that, So that's we're through that part.
Speaker 3: Excellent. So my birthday's April seven, so right after my birthday,
Speaker 3: you should see the updated Oswald Puzzle begin to come out,
Speaker 3: either in paperback form or whatever other form, and then
Speaker 3: a little later it'll be added to the kindle. So
Speaker 3: by the time say May comes around, you definitely have
Speaker 3: to have your copy of the updated version in order
Speaker 3: to get the two new chapters, no matter what format
Speaker 3: it is.
Speaker 5: Yeah, go ahead and you'll and you'll see our opinion, David,
Speaker 5: in my opinion on how Lee Oswell was of operational
Speaker 5: use to both the CIA and the conspiracy and where
Speaker 5: that overlapped.
Speaker 3: And the funny thing is, you know, it's weird because
Speaker 3: some people are not thrilled with some of the things
Speaker 3: that you and your co author have written there because
Speaker 3: it contradicts a lot of their longstanding you know, challenge
Speaker 3: me works out there. But the truth is, it confirms
Speaker 3: the suspicions I've always had about a bunch of things
Speaker 3: and even just what I know, the little bit I
Speaker 3: know about from you know, the further developments in New
Speaker 3: Orleans and actually taking a whole lot of stuff from
Speaker 3: the past that has been speculated about, and then Larry
Speaker 3: explores it along with his co author there you know
Speaker 3: whose name I always pronounced wrong, helped me out.
Speaker 5: With that, David Boilin.
Speaker 3: Yeah. See, now I always I'm Boiland. You know, I'd
Speaker 3: like I put the wrong accent on his name all
Speaker 3: the time, Boilin, David Boylin. Okay, there we go, and
Speaker 3: I'll forget that five seconds later, so you know, because
Speaker 3: I'm a guppy right now. But but the thing is,
Speaker 3: it's it is so well done. I tell you, I'm
Speaker 3: totally thrilled. This is the best book that you've written
Speaker 3: on the assassination, in my opinion, and it is a
Speaker 3: perfect companion with it, especially with David, which you know,
Speaker 3: no offense to any of the previous works you've done
Speaker 3: with others or on your own. But the point is,
Speaker 3: I think that this is a really excellent piece. It's
Speaker 3: a it's a deep examination of what we know now
Speaker 3: about Oswald, you know, not what we assumed in the
Speaker 3: seventies and eighties that people are still parroting and watching
Speaker 3: on YouTube. And by the way, I found it funny
Speaker 3: that people were like, oh my god, YouTube channels have
Speaker 3: misinformation about JFK stuff. I went, come on, have I
Speaker 3: not been telling you this? Yeah?
Speaker 5: You know, I think we knew.
Speaker 3: That, you know me, the illiterate just with a hat.
Speaker 3: You know, I'm not illiterate, but I mean I have
Speaker 3: a high school graduation. I graduate. I have a high
Speaker 3: school graduation. Nice, I have a high school diploma. That's it. Okay,
Speaker 3: So I'm not an academic at all. And I've been
Speaker 3: telling you this, you know, for over a decade. No,
Speaker 3: the YouTube channels, there's all kinds of mess on there
Speaker 3: that's meant to mislead you, and it sounds interesting, but
Speaker 3: it's garbage. And now there's AI channels on there, literally
Speaker 3: Larry where it's an AI voice. Somebody fed a script
Speaker 3: into it, and you can tell the scriptwriter is very
Speaker 3: very casually informed on the assassination and it's meant to
Speaker 3: sound very serious, like a Bill Curtis documentary, which, by
Speaker 3: the way, I think they AI hijacked Bill Curtis's voice.
Speaker 3: I don't know if you know that.
Speaker 5: Oh they're doing that. We ran into that. Actually, one
Speaker 5: of our papers got cited in an academic AI production
Speaker 5: on YouTube and we saw it and we read it
Speaker 5: and we get well, that wasn't us, and somebody had
Speaker 5: just let has created Iiyes, they just let them loose
Speaker 5: on a subject, right, and they'll go out and write
Speaker 5: it and produce it and and it's just it's horrible.
Speaker 5: It's oh, well, anyway, I guess it's not as bad
Speaker 5: as because it could be, because it's not actual fraud.
Speaker 5: But yeah, it's and it sounds like a very real
Speaker 5: literate person talking to you. And you go, right, gosh,
Speaker 5: who put that together? And you start researching the origin
Speaker 5: and you go, oh, there was no person and they're
Speaker 5: really behind this. It's an AI thing.
Speaker 3: There's no attribution, right, I mean, you know, it was
Speaker 3: bad in the days when you know, the person who
Speaker 3: was articulating words on a screen had no idea what
Speaker 3: they were saying. That was one thing. And they just
Speaker 3: read the script and they were good at reading a script,
Speaker 3: so that's why they had that job. That was one thing.
Speaker 3: But now when you're letting a you know, a computer
Speaker 3: program that's not super well informed or doesn't have a
Speaker 3: lot of good guardrails against making mistakes, you let that
Speaker 3: thing loose, do the voice and the writing, and you
Speaker 3: put it out there and go, well, I'll just collect
Speaker 3: my you know, ad revenue from it. You're not doing
Speaker 3: anybody any favors. I mean, you're really not. But you know,
Speaker 3: people are being fooled by it, like, oh, there's this
Speaker 3: guy on YouTube and I go to look at it
Speaker 3: and it's not a guy. It's an AI voice. And
Speaker 3: as a matter of fact, it's one of the most
Speaker 3: overused AI voices possible. And the thing is mixing things up,
Speaker 3: you know, literally doing like that Lauren Bobert move of
Speaker 3: you know, accusing Oliver Stone of basically be and Rogerstone.
Speaker 3: You see that stuff in these AI videos. It's like,
Speaker 3: you know, they'll convolute things because last name is Stone.
Speaker 3: That works. No, it's not the same guy, you know anyway,
Speaker 3: And and really it gets money when they start going
Speaker 3: into these uh you know, the the uh what should
Speaker 3: we say Latino names and they start mixing those up
Speaker 3: in the discussion, it becomes really comical because they've got
Speaker 3: people mixed up with all kinds of things, you know,
Speaker 3: like they don't even have the right Castro running the
Speaker 3: country at the time when JFK was assassinated, I mean
Speaker 3: stuff like that. It's hilarious. You know, Raoul Castro, he
Speaker 3: wasn't running the country then, you know, like.
Speaker 5: Of course it's only it's only funny when you know
Speaker 5: it's not true for everybody that doesn't know it's not
Speaker 5: you know, it's like, okay, that was hilarious. Now how
Speaker 5: many people watched it and have no clue that it
Speaker 5: was not right?
Speaker 3: And they're going to repeat it. That's the bad part.
Speaker 3: They're going to come out and go, well, I know
Speaker 3: Raoul Castrow had something to do with because he was
Speaker 3: running Cube at the time, and it's like, ah, slow down,
Speaker 3: I know which AI you were watching. Anyway, Larry, we
Speaker 3: are not AI. So I'm glad that we get to
Speaker 3: do this and I really thank you for taking the time.
Speaker 3: So again, there'll be links to the you know, to
Speaker 3: the conference. There'll be links to the stuff that Larry
Speaker 3: mentioned here. Let's see, let's be specific about it. You know,
Speaker 3: the aa r O top Mill website is there. The
Speaker 3: explore sc you dot org website will be there in
Speaker 3: the show notes and a few other things, along with
Speaker 3: some links to Larry's work and his blog, et cetera,
Speaker 3: his WordPress dot com Larryhancock dot WordPress dot com. Check
Speaker 3: that out. And I always like to include the aa
Speaker 3: r C library dot org Larryhancock archive as well. So
Speaker 3: I'll give you all those links in the show notes
Speaker 3: if you go to check them out. And click on them.
Speaker 3: And that's all there is for this Wednesday. Larry, Unlissa,
Speaker 3: you got something else?
Speaker 5: Now, I'm good.
Speaker 3: There you go. So we thank Larryhncock for coming by
Speaker 3: and keeping us soberly looking at methodologies as well as
Speaker 3: the history because his storiography history.
Speaker 4: Are in Denial Secret Wars with air strikes and Tanks
Speaker 4: by Larry Hancock. Secret wars became a staple of US
Speaker 4: covert operations and are still happening today. Larry Hancock's book
Speaker 4: In Denial rips the cover off many of them, using
Speaker 4: new files.
Speaker 6: It exposes things about the Bay of Pigs that no
Speaker 6: one has ever written about before. It shows why it
Speaker 6: really failed, why the United States did not earn from it.
Speaker 6: It also shows why other countries today are doing secret
Speaker 6: operations with more success. This is the book that puts
Speaker 6: what some want to deny into the light. In Denial,
Speaker 6: Secret Wars with air strikes and tanks Larryhancock. For more information,
Speaker 6: go to Larry hyphen Handcock dot com. Pick up your
Speaker 6: copy of In Denial at Amazon dot com. In digital
Speaker 6: or physical force?
Speaker 2: Do you like history? Real history that you were never
Speaker 2: taught in schools? Why the Vietnam War Nuclear Bombs in
Speaker 2: Nation Building in Southeast Asia by author Mike Swanson, with
Speaker 2: new documentation never seen before that'll open your eyes to
Speaker 2: events that led up to this Why the Vietnam War
Speaker 2: Nuclear Bombs in Nation Building in Southeast Asia nineteen forty
Speaker 2: five through nineteen sixty one. Get your copy today at
Speaker 2: Amazon dot com. Why War by author Mike Swanson, Wall.
Speaker 3: Do, Wall Street, Windows, don com Tho, don khm Michael Swanson,
Speaker 3: the brilliant author of The War State, gives you the
Speaker 3: benefit of his knowledge.
Speaker 4: Wall Street, Do.
Speaker 3: Go there, now go there, now, go there now.
Speaker 1: The War State by Michael Swanson explains the great national
Speaker 1: transformation that took place and put the Kennedy presidency in
Speaker 1: the context of the times, and reveals never before published
Speaker 1: information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would not
Speaker 1: have been assassinated if he had been president two hundred
Speaker 1: years ago. His assassination took place in the context of
Speaker 1: the Cold War and the rise of the national security state.
Speaker 1: Before World War II, the United States was a continental republic.
Speaker 1: In the decade that followed, it became an imperial superpower.
Speaker 1: Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba,
Speaker 1: but knew that there were short range missiles on the
Speaker 1: Eye Island armed with nuclear warheads that they could not
Speaker 1: destroy because they were on mobile launchers. Their invasion could
Speaker 1: have led to a Third World War, and they wanted
Speaker 1: to go to war anyway. The War State by Michael
Speaker 1: Swanson reveals why and will show you what President Kennedy
Speaker 1: was up against. For more information, The Warstate dot.
Speaker 5: Com revelation through conversation.
Speaker 3: Irish and seciliation, you the first double nigga I ever.
Speaker 5: Met in my life.
Speaker 2: Oh Chili dot Com.
Speaker 4: In Denial The Secret Wars with air strikes and Tanks
Speaker 4: by Larry Hancock. Secret wars became a staple of US
Speaker 4: covert operations and are still happening today. Larry Hancock's book
Speaker 4: In Denial rips the cover off many of them, using
Speaker 4: new files. It exposes things about the Bay of Pigs
Speaker 4: that no one has ever written about before. It shows
Speaker 4: why it really failed and why the United States did not.
Speaker 6: Learn from it. It also shows why other countries today
Speaker 6: are doing secret operations with more success. This is the
Speaker 6: book that puts what some want to deny into the light.
Speaker 6: In Denial secret wars with air strikes and tanks Larry Hancock.
Speaker 6: For more information, go to Larry hyphen Handcock dot com.
Speaker 6: Pick up your copy of In Denial at Amazon dot
Speaker 6: com in digital or physical fool.
Speaker 3: I'll never deny amatic statum at atter Rgewater. We have
Speaker 3: one reason.
Speaker 4: Beneath the ANSI dots and.
Speaker 3: Anything they would seem worthy of orty completely divide it
Speaker 3: adam without the liberty that being freely of justice. The
Speaker 3: only the elite that can afford the man.
Speaker 4: But not.
Speaker 2: I'm justice for the seas, unact brow space as.
Speaker 3: The rest of us all.
Speaker 1: Delight country, which is my wicked. So the funnest me.
Speaker 5: There, the lady of life, will make some horror.
Speaker 1: Jesus gets a.
Speaker 3: Third story because that is gods raged or take go
Speaker 3: crazy from this guy Dans Margo and Jesus leftsness setting
Speaker 3: ourselves from communism.
Speaker 2: And fascism with me, but we go Fascism and ytopathy
Speaker 2: is in the New Strung Bible bad Stree, where the
Speaker 2: anti Christ is a transgender whore.
Speaker 1: Babylonists franchise isn't merely encluded from Hour