Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to the show. Martin Wilts your host,
Speaker 1: and we have Joshua Bertrand on this evening. I had
Speaker 1: someone suggested him who I trusted to come on this
Speaker 1: show as a guest. We're going to be talking a
Speaker 1: bit about lighter than aircraft, the possibilities. I'm going to
Speaker 1: try to have an open mind of what the tic
Speaker 1: tac ufo was in Night two thousand and four off
Speaker 1: of the San Diego Coast. A couple of things here.
Speaker 1: We have our blog this week, which I forgot to
Speaker 1: mention the other day Tuesday, and it's un the UFOs.
Speaker 1: It's so funny because I have a camera in front
Speaker 1: of the screen. I can't read this. ICEU fon and
Speaker 1: SBI by Charles Lear blogs every single week a lot
Speaker 1: on the history of it. This has to do with
Speaker 1: stamps that were made for the Green for Canada.
Speaker 2: I believe it is.
Speaker 1: Oh no, I'm sorry. This is a whole different thing.
Speaker 1: This has to do with Lee Spiegel and sorry for
Speaker 1: the rant here. This has to do with Lee Spiegel
Speaker 1: when he had the United Nations back in nineteen seventy
Speaker 1: seven discussing UFOs. It's a great blog, and sorry for
Speaker 1: getting confused on that, So check that out over at
Speaker 1: podcastufo dot com. While you're over there, there is our
Speaker 1: merchandise store. You can check that out. There's also, like
Speaker 1: I say, there's hundreds of blogs, and there's also there's
Speaker 1: a place where you can leave a phone message.
Speaker 3: With UFO siting.
Speaker 1: We also have a form you can fill out that
Speaker 1: was very active for a while where we had people
Speaker 1: filling out there UFO encounters. I'd love to see that
Speaker 1: get reactivated again because there's some great ones, even one
Speaker 1: from a commercial pilot that was excellent. So a couple
Speaker 1: of things. This next week, I'm going to be in Sedona,
Speaker 1: going to be out that way, and I'm not going
Speaker 1: to be able to do a Thursday night show next week. However,
Speaker 1: on Tuesday Night, I will have Thiago to Chetty. He'll
Speaker 1: be on and he's going to be talking about cases
Speaker 1: in Brazil for you know, the UFO encounters and injuries.
Speaker 1: So that's there's some really fascinating cases of things that
Speaker 1: happen in Brazil. And again he'll be on next Tuesday.
Speaker 1: Welcome everyone in chat and good to see everyone there.
Speaker 1: We have a duckhead. We have Bob Blazaar. Is it
Speaker 1: the real Bob Blazar. It's got to be. I mean,
Speaker 1: it can't be anyone else's that's not a very common name. Hello,
Speaker 1: Wyatt Duckhead. So hello to you all, and thanks for
Speaker 1: being here tonight. And I'm going to bring in my guests. Joshua, welcome,
Speaker 1: thank you.
Speaker 2: Nice to be here with you, Martin and nice.
Speaker 1: Nice to have you on. And so I guess I'm
Speaker 1: going to ask you what is your background first of all,
Speaker 1: and what got you interested in looking at this topic.
Speaker 1: I'm going to say the UFO topic, because that's basically
Speaker 1: a lot of what we're going to be talking about tonight.
Speaker 2: Sure, my background, I'm a Bachelor of Mathematics from the
Speaker 2: University of Waterloo in two thousand and four. I spent
Speaker 2: twenty years working in industry as a database specialist for writers,
Speaker 2: the news agency, Electronic Arts, the video games company, SAP,
Speaker 2: the large Databases company, and I retired about a decade ago.
Speaker 2: In my retirement, I've been a fan of aerospace and
Speaker 2: air agel's and I started looking into the crossover of
Speaker 2: these technologies with the UAP phenomenon also a long term
Speaker 2: interest of mine. As you can see, my rooms sort
Speaker 2: of filled with a bunch of Star Wars lego. My
Speaker 2: interests in the topic Okay, fairly obvious, but I like
Speaker 2: to approach it looking at the technical aspects of our
Speaker 2: real craft programs. Some of them may have been dark
Speaker 2: for decades, but from what I've proven over the last decade,
Speaker 2: some of these programs get funded and have research and
Speaker 2: progress of prototypes happening at contractors and are outside the
Speaker 2: knowledge of general service members of the military, potentially leading
Speaker 2: to conflicts of misunderstandings I see.
Speaker 1: I had the pleasure of having Dave marl Rama show
Speaker 1: a couple of days ago Tuesday, and I mentioned him
Speaker 1: that I'm reading a book, Mysteries in the Sky in
Speaker 1: nineteen sixty eight, and it starts right out with the
Speaker 1: airship phenomenon eighteen ninety seven, eighteen ninety six, eighteen ninety seven.
Speaker 3: Fascinating.
Speaker 1: It's really fascinating to read the details. I never really
Speaker 1: looked into it deeply, and.
Speaker 3: So I'm really enjoying that book.
Speaker 1: And does any part I mean, eighteen ninety six, eighteen
Speaker 1: ninety seven, what do we have going on then? Were?
Speaker 1: I mean, there were people talking about these lights, and
Speaker 1: there were some things that, you know, really really bright lights.
Speaker 1: Sometimes people mentioned that they heard like a noise of
Speaker 1: some kind. But I'm trying to think of what would
Speaker 1: be powering something at that time. I mean, what do
Speaker 1: we have?
Speaker 2: Sure? So eighteen ninety seven you have the Aurora Texas
Speaker 2: UAP crash, which was attributed as potential airship design, and
Speaker 2: in eighteen ninety seven and you actually have airships in
Speaker 2: development in Europe and in North America. Airship history goes
Speaker 2: back as far as the sixteen hundreds. There was an
Speaker 2: airship named the Pasarola by Bartelmeo de Guzmau. In five
Speaker 2: hundred years. We seem to have been doing a lot
Speaker 2: of evolution of this technology. The Montgaulfier brothers in France
Speaker 2: in the eighteen hundreds are also doing ballooning. A man
Speaker 2: named Daniluski in Ukraine is doing a human powered air
Speaker 2: bike where a giant bag of lifting gas and a
Speaker 2: bike turning a motor behind it are flying around in
Speaker 2: the skies of Ukraine in eighteen ninety seven. So we
Speaker 2: certainly have the technology to mimic the craft that are seen.
Speaker 2: The question is, because that technology is so knew, was
Speaker 2: it indeed shocking an alien to the people that were
Speaker 2: encountering these not knowing that they had human developed craft
Speaker 2: that were similar at the same time.
Speaker 1: I brought this up recently on a show that I had,
Speaker 1: and this is the Simeon Perkins memo that talks basically
Speaker 1: about airships in seventeen ninety six. I mean, so that
Speaker 1: would that's a real crazy case. I don't know if
Speaker 1: you've ever heard about it, but I mean there are
Speaker 1: just a sample of a lot of things of people
Speaker 1: talking about, you know, and I understand, Yes, I know
Speaker 1: they had like a hot air type balloon situation pretty
Speaker 1: early on. I think it was even in I think
Speaker 1: China might have been the first country that actually held
Speaker 1: a hot to air balloon. Am I wrong?
Speaker 3: Like in the thirteenth century.
Speaker 2: Well, there's actually a theory going around right now that,
Speaker 2: if you know, the Nasca lines in Peu are some
Speaker 2: of those nascaline sites, they have found bags of animal
Speaker 2: skins and what they suspect is that a spotter was
Speaker 2: sent up in a hot air animal skinned balloon, and
Speaker 2: that the way the precise nascaline geometries were etched out
Speaker 2: was that they had a spotter up above them hundreds
Speaker 2: of years before that. They've found some evidence of this.
Speaker 2: I haven't looked into it too deeply because it's not
Speaker 2: specifically my interest, but I have heard the the beginnings
Speaker 2: of that research branch.
Speaker 1: Wow, pretty amazing, pretty amazing. So I guess I don't
Speaker 1: want to jump right to the tic TAC because I
Speaker 1: do I would do want to get there eventually, And
Speaker 1: I'm not really sure if I'm going to agree with
Speaker 1: you about that, but I want to be open minded
Speaker 1: and hear about that. But until then, let's go in
Speaker 1: to what you have seen in the evolution of these
Speaker 1: you know, these basically lighter than aircraft. I think that's
Speaker 1: what you people call them, correct, Yep, Yeah, that's.
Speaker 2: A good description of them. So if we have the
Speaker 2: eighteen ninety seven cases that we were just talking about,
Speaker 2: coming out of that, the US Army maintains an interest.
Speaker 2: So before eighteen ninety seven, the US Army had been
Speaker 2: using lighter than aircraft in the form of balloons, similar
Speaker 2: to this hypothetical NASCA spotter. The US in the Civil
Speaker 2: War would send spotters up in balloons to conduct reconnaissance
Speaker 2: on their enemies. By nineteen oh five, that has evolved
Speaker 2: to a powered blimp called the Gelatine, which the US
Speaker 2: Army produces and it does the first powered flight across
Speaker 2: the Columbia River Gorge. So it leaves from Portland, Oregon,
Speaker 2: travels across the Columbia River Gorge and successfully lands in Vancouver, Washington.
Speaker 2: So from there, two years later you have this massive
Speaker 2: six hundred foot long prototype by a man named Morrel
Speaker 2: and in San Francisco they fill up this six hundred
Speaker 2: foot long blimp with coal gas from the city's natural
Speaker 2: gas lines and it has I think three engines on
Speaker 2: it with three motors, and they try to do this
Speaker 2: test and the whole thing gets loose and eventually crashes down.
Speaker 2: But you can see that even at the start of
Speaker 2: the previous century, we're experimenting with things that are leading
Speaker 2: into the large airships, the Goodyear blimps that we see today,
Speaker 2: and the reconnaissance craft that the US government has that
Speaker 2: are a bit more secret than the Goodyear blimp.
Speaker 1: And you know, during the Civil War you mentioned that,
Speaker 1: and I remember reading about that and how they had
Speaker 1: to fill how they had to fill that, and it
Speaker 1: was so dangerous. A lot of them, you know, people
Speaker 1: blew up and burned and and I can't remember what
Speaker 1: it is that they were able to they had some
Speaker 1: type of machine they were able to pump it full
Speaker 1: of do you know what I'm thinking it.
Speaker 2: Was hydrogen gas at the time.
Speaker 3: Hydrogen And how could they do that back then?
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't understand what type of.
Speaker 2: Living through chemistry? Yeah, yeah, amazing, produce the gas on
Speaker 2: site from chemicals, fill it into a balloon.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and that was a tethered balloon.
Speaker 1: It used to go up and they used to just
Speaker 1: you know, which was really brilliant, you know, especially if
Speaker 1: they could do it at night, not make any noise
Speaker 1: and you know all that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they would send the guy up, pull him down
Speaker 2: to get a report, or they could actually yell between
Speaker 2: the person on the ground and the person up in
Speaker 2: the pollon.
Speaker 1: Yeah. For years I had a couple of menus from
Speaker 1: the Hindenberg and that was pretty cool to have that,
Speaker 1: but just as a collector. But that's you know, one
Speaker 1: that everyone remembers when it.
Speaker 2: The Hindenburg definitely leaves an impression in people's minds and
Speaker 2: shows why we for a century tended to use helium
Speaker 2: instead of hydrogen as our main lifting guys.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and is there it's just a limited resource.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So one of the issues that is being thought
Speaker 2: of these days is we've used helium for about a
Speaker 2: century in our lighter than aircraft, and we've used it
Speaker 2: to staggering extents. Recently, the US military had sixty nine
Speaker 2: lighter than air aristots created to provide reconnaissance craft for
Speaker 2: the Afghanistan War. And in each of those craft, you're
Speaker 2: filling it with a couple hundred thousand liters of helium,
Speaker 2: and when you when you need to bring the craft
Speaker 2: back down, you either winch it down or you vent
Speaker 2: that helium to the atmosphere. And if you're ever moving
Speaker 2: the craft from a single site to another site, you
Speaker 2: have to vent that helium. And it's rather difficult to
Speaker 2: recover when it ends up in the atmosphere because it's
Speaker 2: lighter than the typical concentrations of gas in our atmosphere.
Speaker 2: Helium rises to the top and hangs out in your space,
Speaker 2: so it's really hard to recover that way. The way
Speaker 2: that we get new helium these days is by fractionally
Speaker 2: distilling it from natural gas. So when the government is
Speaker 2: deciding that it's okay to pump natural gas, you can
Speaker 2: siphon some amount of helium off from that pumping station.
Speaker 2: The issue with that is eventually that's going to run out.
Speaker 2: If we keep putting hundreds of thousands or even sometimes
Speaker 2: millions of leaders of helium in these aerostats and blimps
Speaker 2: and venting it out into the atmosphere, eventually our use
Speaker 2: is going to outstrip our production. And because of that,
Speaker 2: people have been thinking about.
Speaker 1: How to.
Speaker 2: Replace these lighter than air reconnaissance craft once helium is
Speaker 2: a more scarce resource. Now we could go back to
Speaker 2: the dangerous hydrogen of the Hindenburg and the Civil War
Speaker 2: era balloons, but again that's quite dangerous, as the Hindenburg
Speaker 2: spectacularly showed. So one of the things that the National
Speaker 2: Labs have been doing at Los Alamo's National Lab is
Speaker 2: working on what's known as a vacuum balloon, and a
Speaker 2: vacuum balloon has been theorized all the way back to Aristotle.
Speaker 2: His concept of horror vacuue is well sort of basically
Speaker 2: described as what's lighter than hydrogen nothing, And so if
Speaker 2: you have the absence of a gas, it's actually lighter
Speaker 2: than if you have just basic atmosphere that you and
Speaker 2: I are breathing in. So if you're able to contain
Speaker 2: a vacuum within a solid shell, that craft itself would
Speaker 2: be lighter than the air around it and would have
Speaker 2: lift on its own. So the way that they've attempted
Speaker 2: to do this is by crafting the shell of these
Speaker 2: vacuum craft out of a material known as aerogel. And
Speaker 2: the unique properties of aerogel allow it to both resist
Speaker 2: the crushing pressure of the outer atmosphere attempting to get
Speaker 2: into that vacuum on the inside of the craft, and
Speaker 2: it also prevents the atmosphere from traveling through the shell
Speaker 2: and penetrating and diffusing into the vacuum on the inside.
Speaker 1: So as material, yeah, can you explain what that is?
Speaker 3: And is it.
Speaker 1: Something that is a compound and alloy? What is it? Exactly?
Speaker 2: Sure?
Speaker 1: So?
Speaker 2: Air agels are a material that goes back to nineteen
Speaker 2: thirty one. A man named Samuel Stephens Kissler first synthesized
Speaker 2: this material and wrote a paper in Nature magazine. In
Speaker 2: it he describes I think eleven different types of aerogel
Speaker 2: that he's synthesized, and how he does that is by
Speaker 2: taking gel like jello or gelatine, and if you remove
Speaker 2: all of the water from that gel, you're left with
Speaker 2: just the solids that would make it up for gello
Speaker 2: that's mostly like gelatine itself, like the airship from nineteen
Speaker 2: oh five was named. But if you make this gelatine
Speaker 2: out of different materials, like out of a silica or
Speaker 2: out of an alumina, what you're left with is the
Speaker 2: skeletal structure of that silica or alumina. And as you've
Speaker 2: removed this water, it's created a fine network of pores
Speaker 2: in the material. So the skeleton and the pores mean
Speaker 2: that the material is extremely lightweight after the removal of
Speaker 2: the liquids. So essentially you have a gelatin that has
Speaker 2: all of its liquid removed. That's what an aerogel is.
Speaker 3: And is it the strength of it? What would you
Speaker 3: compare it to.
Speaker 2: So each of the different materials that you can make
Speaker 2: an aerogel out of lens the final result in aerogel
Speaker 2: different properties, as well as the manufacturer manufacturing process of
Speaker 2: the aerogel itself. So if you have the typical blue
Speaker 2: silica aerogel, it's usually rather brittle as as it's pretty
Speaker 2: much just silica. There are some stronger variants of silica
Speaker 2: meta materials. L I nine hundred was manufactured by lockeed.
Speaker 2: They used it as a re entry tile on the
Speaker 2: Space Shuttle. But some aerogels aren't made of silica. Some
Speaker 2: are made of polyimides and aluminas, and these can be
Speaker 2: much more structurally rigid than the traditional blue silica aer agels.
Speaker 2: So they well have innovated a new process called air LOI,
Speaker 2: which is you take this skeleton of aerogel that's resulted
Speaker 2: by removing the liquids, and then you coat this skeleton
Speaker 2: with a polymer and that adds a structural rigid d
Speaker 2: to the material by binding it all together while still
Speaker 2: maintaining the porous structure that gives it its lightweight.
Speaker 1: So it has when you say it has a poor structure,
Speaker 1: I can't understand how it can. You can create a
Speaker 1: vacuum withinside a chamber.
Speaker 3: How does that?
Speaker 1: How does that work?
Speaker 2: Sure? So these pores are extremely small, we're talking on
Speaker 2: the nanoscale, pores, not not not large. So because the
Speaker 2: pores are so small, the mean free path for an
Speaker 2: atom of air or a molecule of our atmosphere won't
Speaker 2: be able to travel through that network of pores. The
Speaker 2: it bounces essentially off of the walls of the pores.
Speaker 2: And sort of gets trapped, so it'll never make it
Speaker 2: through the material itself if attempts to get into one
Speaker 2: of these pores. Because the size of the connectivity between
Speaker 2: the pores is so small, the essentially molecules of the
Speaker 2: atmosphere get trapped in this maze of porosity.
Speaker 1: I got it. And it's just so this is something
Speaker 1: I can't really understand how this was created and all that,
Speaker 1: but I mean it's just something that they can use,
Speaker 1: like nano. I can't forget what it was. But there's
Speaker 1: some type of like this weave that's really thin but
Speaker 1: very strong. Is that anything to do with it or
Speaker 1: can it be coated with something like that to make it?
Speaker 2: Are you talking about graphene?
Speaker 1: Yeah, graphine, that's it. Yes, Yeah.
Speaker 2: So one of the interesting aerogels is actually called aero graphene,
Speaker 2: and it is an aerogel that is made out of graphene.
Speaker 2: So you make a gel of graphene and a liquid,
Speaker 2: and you remove the liquid from this gel in a
Speaker 2: supercritical drying process, and what you're left with is a
Speaker 2: skeleton of interconnected graphine molecules called aerographine, and it has
Speaker 2: the same properties as some of the other aerogels, but
Speaker 2: the aerographine is also conductive because of the properties of graphene.
Speaker 1: Okay, we should say this to the listener. We're talking
Speaker 1: now about things since basically nineteen thirty, since this was invented,
Speaker 1: and you know, going forward. But let's talk about I
Speaker 1: know you have given me some graphics that I can
Speaker 1: pull up, but let's talk about the evolution of what
Speaker 1: we know.
Speaker 3: I know that is in one of these I think,
Speaker 3: is it here?
Speaker 1: Is that it? Yeah?
Speaker 2: Sure, that's a good graphic to start with.
Speaker 3: Okay, So.
Speaker 2: If you start over there at the left hand side
Speaker 2: at eighteen fifty, there is, as we've already discussed, predecessor airships.
Speaker 2: But as you go through this development from eighteen fifty
Speaker 2: to nineteen sixty, you can see the rapid technological process
Speaker 2: or progress that is being made. We start with a
Speaker 2: simple Giffard blimp, fairly low level flying in the atmosphere,
Speaker 2: and it progresses through these decades to getting the Hindenburg,
Speaker 2: the Akron, and the Macon, which were used by the
Speaker 2: US Navy.
Speaker 3: There was a.
Speaker 2: Staggering amount of progress made through the first half of
Speaker 2: the nineteen hundreds, and in nineteen sixty all of this
Speaker 2: progress seemingly stops. At the time. You have the US's
Speaker 2: Project Genetrix and Project Mogul, Project Skyhook, a bunch of
Speaker 2: balloon programs that are happening in secret because their intention
Speaker 2: is to conduct reconnaissance on the Soviet Union. So even
Speaker 2: if you were in the US Army at a base
Speaker 2: where these Project Mogul balloons are being launched from in
Speaker 2: the nineteen fifties, you would not know of their existence
Speaker 2: because they are being held as a closely held secret project.
Speaker 2: So this did result in some unfortunate encounters. I think
Speaker 2: there was a man named B. C. Moore, he was
Speaker 2: involved with Project Mogul. On his own obituary, he claims
Speaker 2: that one of the Project Mogul balloons that he launched
Speaker 2: was what crashed at Roswell, And of course there is
Speaker 2: going to be a lot of of a lot of
Speaker 2: pushback on that. But during the research of these programs,
Speaker 2: I found that man's obituary and he claims a very
Speaker 2: specific balloon and provides timings for it which do match
Speaker 2: up with the Roswell incident.
Speaker 1: Well, there would be a lot of questions when it
Speaker 1: comes to that, like, for instance, why if it was
Speaker 1: made of normal materials which it was, and it crashed
Speaker 1: from the ground. Why would it be such a secret?
Speaker 1: Why would they scan every single inch of the property
Speaker 1: where it supposedly was, and why would there be so
Speaker 1: many people involved and then flown to another air base
Speaker 1: and all that. I mean, there's a lot of there's
Speaker 1: a lot of moving parts that would have to be
Speaker 1: addressed if that was just the mogul. Sure so, yeah,
Speaker 1: And why would they Why would the Army Air Force
Speaker 1: claim that they captured a disc in the first place?
Speaker 1: You know?
Speaker 2: Sure? So. The balloon itself is made out of a
Speaker 2: fairly typical plastic at the time, But the sensor tether
Speaker 2: that is below the balloon, the image that you just showed,
Speaker 2: the sensors and the battery technology that is powering those
Speaker 2: sensors would be what is considered the top secret part
Speaker 2: of that mogul mission. Those were not widely known at
Speaker 2: the time. As you can see, they don't look like
Speaker 2: a balloon and they don't look like any kind of
Speaker 2: aircraft that would be expected to be in our skies
Speaker 2: at the time. So when that comes down surrounded by
Speaker 2: a bunch of lightweight metallized plastic, it could have been
Speaker 2: mistaken by the ranchers, who would have known nothing of
Speaker 2: Project Mogul, or balloons or sensor tethers or experimental batteries
Speaker 2: that are powering them. The reason that they recovered it
Speaker 2: and the reason that it was sent back to Wright
Speaker 2: Patterson Air Base. We can see in documentation from nineteen
Speaker 2: fifty six that Wright Patterson Air Base, Redstone Arsenal, and
Speaker 2: Los Alamos National Labs are designated as the three primary
Speaker 2: contacts for helium, hydrogen and aerogels research. So the three
Speaker 2: lighter than air technologies are all concentrated at Redstone Arsenal,
Speaker 2: Wright Patterson Air Base, and Los Alamos National Labs as
Speaker 2: far back as nineteen fifty six in AEC documentation. And
Speaker 2: AEC is the predecessor of the modern Department of Energy.
Speaker 1: Oh really, okay, I didn't know that. So are you?
Speaker 1: Basically on the school of that this was Roswell the Mogul,
Speaker 1: And that's explained.
Speaker 2: I am the man's obituary, as well as the fact
Speaker 2: that the material was sent back to Right Patterson, which
Speaker 2: if you look at Right Patterson, this went to hangars,
Speaker 2: which is where you develop later than air airships. We
Speaker 2: found that it is designated as the place for this
Speaker 2: research to be going on. So if there was a
Speaker 2: crash recovery of even a Mogul balloon, it would go
Speaker 2: back to right Patterson or Redstone, Arsenal or Los Almos.
Speaker 2: So it did line up with the facts to me,
Speaker 2: and as we have seen suggested by a recent New
Speaker 2: York Times article, even in modern days, the military does
Speaker 2: like to use UAP's UFOs and the suggestion of aliens
Speaker 2: as cover for real projects. So I believe that this
Speaker 2: has been going on as far back as Roswell.
Speaker 1: Well, okay, I just think there's too many things too.
Speaker 1: I personally disagree with you, and that's the end of
Speaker 1: the show. Good night. No, just.
Speaker 2: No, I've had that response before.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, I don't think we should waste a
Speaker 1: lot of time, and that I understand. You know, that
Speaker 1: is interesting what you're saying about this obituary, because I
Speaker 1: have heard the story about the Mogul before, but from
Speaker 1: what I understood, it didn't line up. So I would
Speaker 1: be interested if you wouldn't mind connecting me more to
Speaker 1: that information, you know, through email, just so I can
Speaker 1: read about it more.
Speaker 2: Definitely, continue this discussion after this. This doesn't have to
Speaker 2: be a single appearance. We can touch base on the
Speaker 2: back channels and see what we've gotten.
Speaker 3: Sure, I'll discuss it further.
Speaker 2: I'd also like to see that article you had from
Speaker 2: the eighteen hundreds.
Speaker 3: Seventeen ninety six.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so sure, i'd be glad to So let me
Speaker 1: just ask you this just outright. Do you think there's
Speaker 1: really something to the UFO topic?
Speaker 2: Oh, one hundred percent. Even in my first interview I
Speaker 2: think two or three years ago with Simon Holland, he
Speaker 2: asked me for what percentage of the cases do I
Speaker 2: believe or technological? And I think he was expecting me
Speaker 2: to say one hundred percent. I don't believe that there
Speaker 2: are cases that are not explained by these technological programs.
Speaker 2: I can't explain a giant red cube hovering out of
Speaker 2: the ocean and showing up at Vandenberg Military Base at all.
Speaker 2: There's clearly something there as well. The origins of all
Speaker 2: of these technologies are very undocumented. If you go back
Speaker 2: to that sixteen hundred's pass or airship of Bartelomeo de
Speaker 2: gouz Mao, there's no predecessors for that. I mean, we're
Speaker 2: talking about Aristotle vaguely discussing these theories centuries beforehand, and
Speaker 2: maybe some Peruvians sending a single person up in a
Speaker 2: goat skin version of a hot air balloon. But the
Speaker 2: craft that they're describing Bartolomeo de guz Mao having in
Speaker 2: the sixteen hundreds is a full featured modern airship, and
Speaker 2: for him to have just come upon that or invented
Speaker 2: that out of nowhere, you require a stretch of the
Speaker 2: imagination versus normal technological progress. We see these things happening
Speaker 2: in baby steps even today, versus you don't rarely see
Speaker 2: a new technology come from nowhere and enter the scene
Speaker 2: fully fledged.
Speaker 1: No, there's no leaps. There's no leaps in technology, and
Speaker 1: I totally agree with that. It's like you could say
Speaker 1: that the car was invented before the wheel, you know,
Speaker 1: I mean it just it can't happen. There is baby steps,
Speaker 1: and so I totally agree with that part of it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and you even see that the technology takes a
Speaker 2: rapid step backwards after that. So the balloons that the
Speaker 2: Montgolfiers are then doing in the eighteen hundreds are very simple,
Speaker 2: just a bag filled with lifting gas compared to a
Speaker 2: full featured airship existing two centuries beforehand. The bags filled
Speaker 2: with lifting gas could be our attempt at reverse engineering
Speaker 2: the full featured airship that has just come onto the
Speaker 2: scene from an unknown origin as well, when aer agels
Speaker 2: come onto the scene. In that nineteen thirty one Nature
Speaker 2: paper from Kissler, he's presenting thirteen new different era agels,
Speaker 2: and there was never an eer agel before his nineteen
Speaker 2: thirty one paper. If you go into his research and
Speaker 2: his lab notes, he credits the prior work of a
Speaker 2: Danish physicist named Nudsen who was working on gas flow
Speaker 2: theory in about nineteen twenty, So gas flow theory in
Speaker 2: nineteen twenty also very poorly sourced for prior art and
Speaker 2: Nudsen's work well, I've posited that these would have both
Speaker 2: been reverse engineering efforts that were tied together. As my
Speaker 2: friend Bob Spearing of Moufon has shown, Kistler actually goes
Speaker 2: over to Germany in the years before his invention of
Speaker 2: aerogel and meets Nudsen there. So if Nudsen was reverse
Speaker 2: engineering an extant material to come up with his gas
Speaker 2: flow theory and hands this material to Kissler to continue
Speaker 2: the development, Kistler then takes this material and reproduces it
Speaker 2: and within the same year, Einstein and Sialard have taken
Speaker 2: this material aer agel, which has just entered the technological scene,
Speaker 2: and have made a pump with it that functions with
Speaker 2: no moving parts. So for all three of those technological
Speaker 2: leaps to happen in such rapid fashion with no prior
Speaker 2: art also suggests that they were reverse engineering something. Now
Speaker 2: it's really amazing.
Speaker 1: Oh.
Speaker 2: There are potential sources as well of both natural materials
Speaker 2: that resemble aero agels and of aerogels themselves. So there's
Speaker 2: materials known as tech tites, which have similar porosity as aerogel,
Speaker 2: but are naturally formed. These are these regularly come down
Speaker 2: to our Earth through the atmosphere, and an interesting aspect
Speaker 2: of tech tites is when they've re entered our atmosphere
Speaker 2: and been cut open. Occasionally we will find biologic material
Speaker 2: that has been preserved through re entry into our planet.
Speaker 2: So there's discussion in the UA phenomenon of biologics, and
Speaker 2: they do use that term very specifically as a replacement
Speaker 2: for bodies sometimes. And I've also posited that I believe
Speaker 2: that these biologics that have been preserved and studied by
Speaker 2: the program are actually this biological material that is trapped
Speaker 2: in the pores of a tech tite or an aerogel
Speaker 2: when it re enters our atmosphere. So if you produced
Speaker 2: these in the correct way, you've got a von Neumann probe.
Speaker 2: You've got something that can take biological material, spread it
Speaker 2: throughout the galaxy, and it's preserved through re entry, it's
Speaker 2: preserved through space travel.
Speaker 3: And sounds like and spermia to me.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we've found these on Earth containing material that did
Speaker 2: not come from Earth. So I'd suggest if people are
Speaker 2: interested in that particular area of the topic, that Luella
Speaker 2: Zondo's book Imminent actually does contain some writing that alludes
Speaker 2: to this. He suggests that Monsanto had original control of
Speaker 2: the quote unquote biologics. Well in nineteen thirty one, when
Speaker 2: Kissler invents that aer agel stuff, who does he hand
Speaker 2: the patent off to Monsanto. Monsanto, by nineteen forty has
Speaker 2: control of the aer agel's is making their own versions
Speaker 2: of aerogel named Santo cell and by the fifties it's
Speaker 2: all been handed back to Wright, Patterson, Los Alamos and
Speaker 2: Redstone Arsenal.
Speaker 3: Wow, this is all fascinating.
Speaker 1: You mentioned Bob Spearing a minute ago and I remember,
Speaker 1: does this have anything to do with the medals? That
Speaker 1: it does? Doesn't it?
Speaker 2: It definitely does.
Speaker 1: Let me just ask you this. I was there the
Speaker 1: year before and I didn't go and this. I was
Speaker 1: there when this was Yes, I was there on the
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four, but I was not there in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five.
Speaker 3: Did they said they were.
Speaker 1: Going to release some information about that?
Speaker 3: And what do you know about that? Was this anything.
Speaker 1: Possibly off world? Or is it all explainable?
Speaker 2: Sure? So you were there in twenty twenty four when
Speaker 2: they received the sample from the Russian gentlemen. Since then,
Speaker 2: Moufon has contracted with a lab known as pr OUT
Speaker 2: of Australia. PRA did several thousand dollars I think Bob
Speaker 2: said forty thousand dollars of testing on these materials and
Speaker 2: the results that they came up with was that this
Speaker 2: substance was an aerogel. And more so than that, this
Speaker 2: substance that they've retrieved from Russia is an aerogel that
Speaker 2: had previously been in space. When they were doing their testing,
Speaker 2: the aerogel has been exposed to cosmic rays. Now, there's
Speaker 2: no way to do that in a guy's apartment in
Speaker 2: Russia that I know of. So how did an aerogel
Speaker 2: that has been exposed to the cosmic rays of space
Speaker 2: end up at this guy's desk in Moscow? And then
Speaker 2: how did it end up getting sent on to move
Speaker 2: on for analysis. I'm very glad that it did, because
Speaker 2: it's shown I think our first example outside of military
Speaker 2: contractors of this material. There are references in some of
Speaker 2: the UAP discussions and spaces to recovered materials that are
Speaker 2: being analyzed by defense contractors. One of the defense contractors,
Speaker 2: Lockheed Martin, has a whistleblower named Richard Bandurich. Bandurich alleges
Speaker 2: that Lockheed Martin has recovered extraterrestrial materials that they are
Speaker 2: analyzing and reproducing. And one of his claims about these
Speaker 2: materials is that if you put the material on a
Speaker 2: hot plate of three thousand degrees, it will suck the
Speaker 2: heat out of the hot plate. And one of the
Speaker 2: fascinating properties of air agels is that that's exactly what
Speaker 2: they do. So when Bandurich is describing that, he, in
Speaker 2: my mind, is describing that Lockheed Martin is in possession
Speaker 2: as well of these aerogels that have been reverse engineered
Speaker 2: by our government for at least ninety three years.
Speaker 1: Interesting, Well, I don't blame why. I said quite some
Speaker 1: time ago, let's get to the tic TAC and yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, we have talked quite a ways, and that
Speaker 1: is something that I.
Speaker 3: Do want to discuss.
Speaker 1: So I want to hear what you think that people
Speaker 1: were seeing off the post and two thousand and four
Speaker 1: off the San Diego coast. And I have a lot
Speaker 1: of questions about that because I did hear some of
Speaker 1: what you said with doctor Simon, and I thought of
Speaker 1: a couple things to ask you. So if you would
Speaker 1: try to explain what you think they are, and I
Speaker 1: know you were on the UAP Crossfire and they're all
Speaker 1: on board. They've been on board all along with us
Speaker 1: a secret military, and I would argue with them almost
Speaker 1: on a semi weekly basis about the tic TAC, you know,
Speaker 1: being something other than our technology. So I want to
Speaker 1: hear why you think it's our technology, and then I
Speaker 1: want to just maybe perhaps gently challenge you on some
Speaker 1: of my thoughts.
Speaker 2: Sure, so I think it'll be helpful if I go
Speaker 2: past that nineteen sixty cutoff date where we said all
Speaker 2: of this airship technology sort of disappears into the dark
Speaker 2: of the aerospace majors. Okay, So one of the images
Speaker 2: that I sent you, I think is called two poball s.
Speaker 1: Okay, I'll take a look. It's say that one more time.
Speaker 2: Two pball pob al d s looks like a white
Speaker 2: image of an airship drawn on paper.
Speaker 3: I got it right here, yes, sure.
Speaker 2: So by nineteen seventy two, the US Air Force and
Speaker 2: a company known as Raven Industries or working in secret
Speaker 2: on this pobals airship and the way that it's designed.
Speaker 2: It's going to have solar panels on the top part
Speaker 2: of the airship powering an engine and the lifting gas
Speaker 2: and the engine are going to keep this airship in
Speaker 2: the jet stream for thirty days. And they want to
Speaker 2: test whether they can keep a long endurance reconnaissance craft aloft.
Speaker 2: And it was successful. And this nineteen seventies program of
Speaker 2: Raven Industries led into an nineteen eighties and nineties program
Speaker 2: at DARPA called DARPA Project Sentinel. And Project Sentinel was
Speaker 2: working on an airship and the airship that they came
Speaker 2: out with, I believe was called the airship six hundred.
Speaker 2: The DARPA Project Sentinel. We end up in two thousands
Speaker 2: the timeframe of the tic Tech and in the two
Speaker 2: thousands DARPA starts up DARPA Project Walrus and DARPA Project
Speaker 2: Walrus is to take these high altitude, long endurance blimps
Speaker 2: and advance the technologies that are constituent to them. So
Speaker 2: you can see they're a slide of the Darper Project
Speaker 2: Walrus in its initial days discussing vectored propulsion technologies, aerogel,
Speaker 2: foam filled tanks, reduce drag skin. All of these bubbles
Speaker 2: of texts that are around this are the project areas
Speaker 2: that they are funding to produce advancements. So they've got
Speaker 2: the basic airship six hundred that came out of Project
Speaker 2: Sentinel of the nineties and they want to take that
Speaker 2: and make these more advanced, stealthier, higher endurance, longer duration capacity.
Speaker 2: So as this is all being worked on, there are
Speaker 2: prime contractors that are working on these airships with DARPA.
Speaker 2: So one of them is Lockheed Martin. You showed it
Speaker 2: briefly there was a silvery airship sitting in a hangar.
Speaker 2: This is the Lockheed HAA high altitude airship. It was
Speaker 2: tested and actually crashed, and all of that helium that
Speaker 2: is filling it. I think several million leaders is now
Speaker 2: vented to the atmosphere and gone forever. While they were
Speaker 2: doing this program, they weren't just testing these ultra large
Speaker 2: high altitude ships. They were also dealing with all of
Speaker 2: the aspects of the technology. So one of the other
Speaker 2: tech that results from this is the persistent Threat Detection
Speaker 2: System or TARS, tethered a radar system. You can see
Speaker 2: these right now in the US if you go to
Speaker 2: the southern border. They're used for reconnaissance of our own
Speaker 2: border by DHS in two thousand and two. One of
Speaker 2: the variants of this is a tethered submarine deployed aerostat,
Speaker 2: And what the aristat is designed to do is if
Speaker 2: the submarine is under the it can release this aerostat
Speaker 2: which will go above the water and provide a view
Speaker 2: down on all of the area around the submarine. So
Speaker 2: the submarine obviously doesn't have windows, you can't see what's
Speaker 2: outside of you other than with radar. Well now you
Speaker 2: can if you send an aerostat up that will look down.
Speaker 2: That aerostat will be capable of providing you with an
Speaker 2: enhanced tactical view of your surroundings up to a couple
Speaker 2: hundred kilometers if you tether them high up enough in
Speaker 2: the atmosphere. These things existed. They were known as the LASH,
Speaker 2: the littoral airborne sensor hyper spectral. The reason that it's
Speaker 2: called hyper spectral is because the sensor itself looks at
Speaker 2: multiple spectrum and can actually see through the water. So
Speaker 2: if you're a submarine and you're able to see what's
Speaker 2: in the water or under the water for hundreds of
Speaker 2: kilometers around you, well you have tactical superiority over any
Speaker 2: opposition submarine or surface vessel that doesn't have one of
Speaker 2: these hyper spectral tethered aerostat cameras.
Speaker 1: Can I ask you, how does that are you talking about?
Speaker 1: This would be something in the sky looking down and
Speaker 1: it can look through the water. Is that what you're saying?
Speaker 2: Correct?
Speaker 1: So this the first thing that comes to mind is
Speaker 1: sunken ships with gold treasure. I mean, do people use
Speaker 1: this to try to find a shipwreck?
Speaker 2: Yes, they use it to detect shipwrecks. They use it
Speaker 2: also to track marine animals. So one of the programs
Speaker 2: that the Department of Energy pubblicly discusses these LASH balloons
Speaker 2: regarding is that they were used to track pods of
Speaker 2: whales off the Atlantic coast, so they wanted to see
Speaker 2: how these whales were carrying out their adventures during a year,
Speaker 2: and since this sensor can look through the water, they
Speaker 2: were able to have a surface boat deploy one of
Speaker 2: these lash balloon sensors and just follow a pod of
Speaker 2: whales for I think a year. The submarine deployed version
Speaker 2: is not widely discussed as far as I can find.
Speaker 2: I can only find references to it in scattered Department
Speaker 2: of Defense documentation, but it is discussed specifically as being
Speaker 2: tested in San Diego between two thousand and two and
Speaker 2: two thousand and five. So we evidence that this lash
Speaker 2: balloon exists. We have evidence that it is tested at
Speaker 2: the same time as the Nimtz incident. We have a
Speaker 2: very visually similar look between the tic TAC and the
Speaker 2: airship six hundred and these submarine deployed lash balloons. So
Speaker 2: there's certainly something that should be considered and if anything
Speaker 2: at least ruled out, at least we should know that
Speaker 2: this isn't what Fraver saw. So that's sort of what
Speaker 2: I'm trying to do, just bring this into the discussion,
Speaker 2: as it is something that is relevant, and I'm not
Speaker 2: saying one hundred percent certainty that this was what it is,
Speaker 2: but it would have been an unknown too favor At
Speaker 2: the time, he would not have had a need to
Speaker 2: know about the submarine deployed lash balloons, and this would
Speaker 2: have been the first time that he would have ever
Speaker 2: encountered one, so to him it would have looked like
Speaker 2: a bunch of roiling water where the submarine is deploying
Speaker 2: this tethered balloon. When it breaks the water's surface. If
Speaker 2: there's any kind of surface wind near the surface of
Speaker 2: the ocean, the balloon itself will ping pong back and
Speaker 2: forth because of the wind, but the tether is holding
Speaker 2: it in place, so it can only pingpong in a
Speaker 2: certain rapid area. The tether also allows it to rise
Speaker 2: in the air column, which I think is what Fraver saw.
Speaker 2: And I don't recall any direct testimony from Fravor where
Speaker 2: he attributes the speeds that are later attributed by Kevin Kanno.
Speaker 2: Knooth does a calculation based on two positions reported by
Speaker 2: radar and interpolates that the craft is capable of traveling
Speaker 2: between these two positions at that speed. I would throw
Speaker 2: out that Kevin Day, the radar operator on the Princeton
Speaker 2: who's also involved in this incident, noted that for days
Speaker 2: before the incident, they had been observing multiple of these
Speaker 2: objects going up and down in the atmosphere column on
Speaker 2: their radars. So if they were testing this, there were
Speaker 2: multiple of these objects in the area at the time.
Speaker 2: We know this from Day's testimony. If the object that
Speaker 2: goes up in the air column at Fraver's position is
Speaker 2: entirely a different, distinct object than the object that later
Speaker 2: shows up at the cap point, then Kevin Knooth's assumption
Speaker 2: that this is one object with incredible speeds falls apart.
Speaker 1: Okay, I want to play let's see. I'm going to
Speaker 1: keep you a little bit longer, and we're going to
Speaker 1: say goodbye to everyone over at KGr A Radio. And
Speaker 1: because i'd like to play I was in the room
Speaker 1: when this was I was in the room when David
Speaker 1: Fraber was speaking, and I looked at my film and
Speaker 1: I was behind him, right behind him, and the audio
Speaker 1: wasn't good. So I decided that I was going to
Speaker 1: take the opening statement that was you know, on commercial
Speaker 1: TV at that time, and I'd like to share that
Speaker 1: now with what he says.
Speaker 4: We arrived at the location at approximately twenty thousand feet
Speaker 4: in the controller called merge plat, which means that our
Speaker 4: radar blip was now in the same resolution cell as
Speaker 4: the contact. As we looked around, we noticed that we
Speaker 4: saw some whitewater off our right side. It's important to
Speaker 4: note that the weather on this day was as close
Speaker 4: to perfect as you could ask. We're off the coast
Speaker 4: of San Diego Skies, light winds, calm seas, no white
Speaker 4: caps from waves, so the white water stood out in
Speaker 4: a large blue ocean. All four of us because we
Speaker 4: were in F eighteen F so we had pilots and
Speaker 4: Wizow in the back seat, looked down a small salt
Speaker 4: white tic TAC object with a longitudinal axis pointing north
Speaker 4: south and moving very abruptly over the water like.
Speaker 2: A ping pong ball. There were no roadors, no rotor.
Speaker 4: Wash, or any sign of visible control surfaces like wings.
Speaker 4: As we started clockwise towards the object, my wiz and
Speaker 4: I decided to go down and take a closer look,
Speaker 4: with the other aircraft staying and high covered to observe
Speaker 4: both us and the TICTAC. We proceeded around the circle
Speaker 4: about ninety degrees from the start of our descent, and
Speaker 4: the object suddenly shifted its longitudinal axis, aligned it with
Speaker 4: my aircraft, and began to climb. We continued down to
Speaker 4: another two hundred and seventy degrees nose low where the
Speaker 4: tic tac. We consented two hundred and seventy degrees toward
Speaker 4: and we went nose load to where the tictac would
Speaker 4: have been. Our altitude at this point was about fifteen
Speaker 4: thousand feet in the tictack was about twelve thousand. As
Speaker 4: we pulled nose onto the object within a a half
Speaker 4: mile of it, it rapidly accelerated in front of us
Speaker 4: and disappeared. Our wingmen, roughly eight thousand feet above us
Speaker 4: lost contact.
Speaker 1: Also.
Speaker 4: We immediately turned back to see where the white water
Speaker 4: was at, and it was gone also, So as you
Speaker 4: started to turn back towards the east, the controller came
Speaker 4: up and said, sir, you're not going to believe this,
Speaker 4: but that thing is at your cat point roughly sixty
Speaker 4: miles away in less than a minute. You can calculate
Speaker 4: the speed. We returned to Nimitz. We were taking off
Speaker 4: our gear. We were talking to one of my crews
Speaker 4: that was getting ready to launched. We mentioned it to
Speaker 4: him and they went out and luckily got the video
Speaker 4: that you see that ninety second video. What you don't
Speaker 4: see is the radar tape. It was never released and
Speaker 4: we don't know where it's at the act of jamming
Speaker 4: that the object put on an APG seventy three radar
Speaker 4: and I can get into modes later if you're interested.
Speaker 4: What is shocking to us is that the incident was
Speaker 4: never investigated, none of my crew ever questioned, tapes were
Speaker 4: never taken, and after a couple of days it turned
Speaker 4: into a great story with friends.
Speaker 3: Well there it is.
Speaker 1: Let me just take that down and so just basically,
Speaker 1: you know, you heard all that, and so let's address
Speaker 1: a couple of those things. First of all, when it
Speaker 1: ended up showing up fifty miles away, are you just
Speaker 1: going to say that was another one?
Speaker 2: Is that what you mean? Yeah, My assumption is that
Speaker 2: the one that showed up fifty miles away is totally
Speaker 2: distinct from the object that disappeared at FRAVR. My assumption
Speaker 2: is the object exited above fravor And during his discussions
Speaker 2: on several other podcasts like The Joe Rogan Experience, he
Speaker 2: does indicate the object exited his observational area going up.
Speaker 2: It didn't wink out of existence.
Speaker 1: And how can this thing move so fast? You have
Speaker 1: wind resistance, you have all these things involved. Where you're
Speaker 1: talking about a tether when he's talking about it being
Speaker 1: at twelve thousand feet, are you saying that it's a
Speaker 1: tether at twelve thousand feet?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I believe that these were tethered balloons at the time.
Speaker 1: They would have a tether from a submarine going up
Speaker 1: to twelve thousand twelve.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I sent you. I sent you a patent describing
Speaker 2: how this technology works, just to show that these can exist.
Speaker 2: It's five Boeing patent describes a saunobuoy deployed aerostat which
Speaker 2: is deploying from a saunobuoi under the water and having
Speaker 2: a tethered aerostat deployed from that. So similarly to the
Speaker 2: Sauno booi, you can have one of these in the
Speaker 2: vertical launch cells of a submarine.
Speaker 1: Okay, But to me, I just I can't imagine something
Speaker 1: having I can't imagine that we have tethers that long.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's just one thing we actually do have
Speaker 1: twelve thousand feet tethers.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the balloons that are conducting the reconnaissance at the
Speaker 2: southern US border themselves are also tethered.
Speaker 1: Oh, I can believe that. I just just for this
Speaker 1: to come out of a submarine. And so how did
Speaker 1: it do the dogfight type of situation.
Speaker 2: You know where he describes it mirroring his movements as
Speaker 2: they cross the circle. I believe what that is. And
Speaker 2: this is a speculation on my part, and none of
Speaker 2: us know.
Speaker 5: The actual facts of this because the radar tapes, as
Speaker 5: Fraver noted there, were confiscated and are gone, so all
Speaker 5: we can do really is speculate.
Speaker 2: My theory is that the crossing motion that he was
Speaker 2: experiencing is because of the bow shock that his jet
Speaker 2: is producing. The tethered aristat itself does not have much
Speaker 2: inertia to it. It's very low mass, so if you
Speaker 2: int a source of wind or a source of external
Speaker 2: force to that aerostat, it will produce outsized motions in response. So,
Speaker 2: because it is very light, the amount of force needed
Speaker 2: to move it is not the same as the amount
Speaker 2: of force needed to move an F eighteen, which I
Speaker 2: think weighs twenty thousand kilograms. So as his plane is
Speaker 2: moving through the atmosphere as he describes, he's coming down
Speaker 2: and moving in a circular pattern to descend. He is
Speaker 2: producing what's known as a bowshock from his plane, so
Speaker 2: that's moving the atmosphere out of the way of the plane.
Speaker 2: When that motion, when that air that's been pushed away
Speaker 2: encounters the aerostat, it is going to also douce a
Speaker 2: responsive motion in the aerostat. And I think that that's
Speaker 2: why he says it was responding to my movements, is
Speaker 2: because his bow shock of his plane is inducing movement
Speaker 2: in the aerostat itself. That that's my best yes, quote
Speaker 2: unquote as to that part of the technique of the encounter.
Speaker 1: All right, what about the the image I'm going to
Speaker 1: try to pull it up where there's a video of
Speaker 1: someone taking I believe it was a Flair video that
Speaker 1: they were taking of and they actually did capture the
Speaker 1: tic tac. I just can't get it up because it's
Speaker 1: a different format, but they capture it. They go fast
Speaker 1: in fact, Nope, not the go fast Nope, it's it's
Speaker 1: the actual tic tac shape. Unfortunately, I just tried to
Speaker 1: download the image that came up as a as an
Speaker 1: image that won't let me show it to you, But
Speaker 1: it shows a tiktac it's being tracked and all of
Speaker 1: a sudden it goes off screen really fast.
Speaker 2: And I've seen a couple of videos like that that
Speaker 2: can be Flur operator causing that motion. So if you
Speaker 2: assume that you have a Flur operator who has a
Speaker 2: camera and he's focused on a object, if he then
Speaker 2: slews his camera view to the left, it'll look like
Speaker 2: the craft is traveling rapidly to the right, but the
Speaker 2: craft itself may be stationary. So you would need to
Speaker 2: know the angles that the Flur camera were pointed at
Speaker 2: at the time of the apparent motion to rule that
Speaker 2: camera operator motion out.
Speaker 1: Okay, well, I do believe that people have tried to
Speaker 1: debunk that particular one in that type of fashion, and
Speaker 1: someone can correct me if I'm wrong, But I don't
Speaker 1: think they've been able to actually debunk that one as
Speaker 1: like the operator or any other type of situation like that.
Speaker 1: Maybe I'm wrong about that, and if so, someone feel
Speaker 1: free to contact me and let me know. So just
Speaker 1: another thing, how could something like this move like you
Speaker 1: talked about Kevin Kanouth. Are you saying you believe his
Speaker 1: theory about the eighty thousand foot or whatever. It was
Speaker 1: dropped down to the ocean in less than a second
Speaker 1: and the really high g force. Do you think that
Speaker 1: was all incorrect?
Speaker 2: So one of the issues with the radar is it
Speaker 2: had just been upgraded at the time, so it's seeing
Speaker 2: these objects for quote unquote the first time during that incident,
Speaker 2: as it had just been upgraded. One of the issues, sorry,
Speaker 2: hour of talking, I need to take a little bit
Speaker 2: of a drink. One of the issues with balloons them
Speaker 2: is that they're largely radar transparent. So if you have
Speaker 2: a balloon today, even a hot air balloon, it needs
Speaker 2: a transponder on it to comply with FAA regulations. Because
Speaker 2: our own radars are going to look at that plastic
Speaker 2: bag filled with gas and they're going to see right
Speaker 2: through it. Maybe you'll see radar reflection off of the gondola,
Speaker 2: or if it's a weather balloon, maybe you'll see a
Speaker 2: reflection off of one of the toad sensors of the
Speaker 2: sensor teather. But because they don't show up very well
Speaker 2: on radar, and they're in fact showing up for quote
Speaker 2: unquote the first time during this incident, I think what
Speaker 2: the radar is having an issue with is detecting these
Speaker 2: objects at all, and when it's saying that it's seeing
Speaker 2: them going up and down from eighty thousand feet to
Speaker 2: sea level. One of the issues with the eighty thousand
Speaker 2: feet is that it's not having objects that are disappearing
Speaker 2: at eighty thousand feet. Eighty thousand feet is the service
Speaker 2: ceiling of that radar, so that's as high as the
Speaker 2: radar can actually see. So if we have a balloon
Speaker 2: that's being deployed to a typical weather balloon station of
Speaker 2: one hundred thousand feet, the radar is going to lose
Speaker 2: track of it at some point and it's going to
Speaker 2: quote unquote disappear. Okay. Other problem is the radar is
Speaker 2: going to have a really hard time seeing that balloon
Speaker 2: because there's no transponders on these prototypes that they're testing
Speaker 2: at the time. If it's getting a rough detection. We
Speaker 2: haven't verified this, but I've put it forwards and it's
Speaker 2: going to be tough to verify this because you're going
Speaker 2: to need specs of military radar. But if there's a tough,
Speaker 2: a hard to see detection, it may not know what
Speaker 2: the height of the object is it may know the
Speaker 2: rough angle to the object that it's seeing something when
Speaker 2: it's scanning that part of its sweep angle, but it
Speaker 2: may not be able to get an accurate reading of
Speaker 2: what the height is. So on the radar's display it
Speaker 2: may be saying that there's an object going from the
Speaker 2: max height eighty thousand feet to the mid height of
Speaker 2: sea level, but the object itself may just be a
Speaker 2: hard to detect object that is not even itself moving
Speaker 2: up and down.
Speaker 1: Well, it seemed like there was fury. Yeah, there was
Speaker 1: a lot of information on that. I thought. Also, I
Speaker 1: just pulled this from the internet, you know, confirmed behavior.
Speaker 1: The hawkeyes radar, along with other systems like the USS
Speaker 1: Princeton Inspire radar confirmed the objects we're dropping from a
Speaker 1: high altitude of sixty thousand feet, So it's not just
Speaker 1: the USS Princeton. They had the Hawkeye up at twenty
Speaker 1: five thousand feet or something over the testing when they
Speaker 1: were doing the exercises.
Speaker 2: Yeah, this would be a general problem of detecting blimps
Speaker 2: aerostats with radar though, so it would affect the Hawkeye equally,
Speaker 2: as as the software on the Princeton and the limits.
Speaker 1: All right down do you have a picture of this slash?
Speaker 2: Yeah, so five underscore LASH is a Department of Defense
Speaker 2: cover photo from two thousand and six where they've finally
Speaker 2: shown one of the LASH blimps. This is a larger
Speaker 2: blimp known as the Airship six hundred that was developed
Speaker 2: out of that prior DARPA Sentinel program. It has the
Speaker 2: LASH pod underslung on that large blimp as well. These
Speaker 2: LASH pods are on smaller tethered blimps that are able
Speaker 2: to be deployed from the submarine. So the craft that
Speaker 2: Fraver saw may not have looked exactly like that. That
Speaker 2: was one of the airships that carried these LASH blimps.
Speaker 2: I'd like to also add, since it came up during
Speaker 2: Fraver's testimony he said that the object jammed his own.
Speaker 1: I meant to ask you about that.
Speaker 2: Yes, So, as well as having this LASH littoral airborne
Speaker 2: Sensor hyperspectral pod, these likely also had counter I SR pods. Now,
Speaker 2: I don't have the actual specifications for the US's counter
Speaker 2: I SR pods. When we discuss things later, I can
Speaker 2: provide you with a variant used by the Israeli military
Speaker 2: that has been publicly acknowledged. Uh, these existed at the.
Speaker 1: Time and.
Speaker 2: Would have also been on one of these blimps. So
Speaker 2: why would I believe that the gem the gems sound dangerous?
Speaker 1: I mean to me, why would you know? When I
Speaker 1: mentioned up to Kevin Day when I saw him in
Speaker 1: person last year, and I mentioned to him that, you know,
Speaker 1: it may have been that people are saying it may
Speaker 1: have been a test out to see, he got really angry, so,
Speaker 1: you know, putting people's lives at risk, you know, and
Speaker 1: bs he was like really upset. So I just when
Speaker 1: they jamming, when there was a jamming of radar, if
Speaker 1: that indeed did happen, Uh, you know, what's the deal
Speaker 1: with that?
Speaker 2: I completely agree with Kevin Day. This was an entirely
Speaker 2: reckless endeavor. If this is what occurred, whoever authorized it
Speaker 2: should be stripped of all rank that they had. If
Speaker 2: the commanding officer of the NIMTZ Task Group knew that
Speaker 2: this was occurring and authorized one of his pilots to
Speaker 2: be to have a prototype tested against him in this fashion,
Speaker 2: it's incredibly reckless. I agree with Kevin Day. But reckless
Speaker 2: is what they do.
Speaker 1: Well, I have to say the only part that I
Speaker 1: don't want to say I agree with you. Okay, yeah,
Speaker 1: you don't have I don't want to go there.
Speaker 2: I'm just I'm just presenting my theory.
Speaker 1: I know, but I do want to say. The one
Speaker 1: thing that has not made any sense that would fit
Speaker 1: with what you're saying is that when they were talking
Speaker 1: to upper level officers, they acted like it was nothing.
Speaker 1: And to me, that's always been such a puzzle, like
Speaker 1: why would they.
Speaker 2: And there were people ready to come aboard in such
Speaker 2: a rapid fashion since they're off the coast of California.
Speaker 2: They're having a helicopter with people wearing what I think
Speaker 2: our Department of Energy suits come aboard the Nimits and
Speaker 2: the Princeton and retrieve the tapes afterwards. Well that's not
Speaker 2: something that you just like, oh, we just saw an
Speaker 2: alien get on your helicopter and come out here. That's
Speaker 2: they knew that these tapes were going to be produced.
Speaker 2: They were already ready to get on that helicopter and
Speaker 2: they were ready to fly out when their test was over. That,
Speaker 2: as you said, the commanding officer seemed nonplussed about his
Speaker 2: top pilot encountering a UFO is potentially because he knew
Speaker 2: that that was going to happen, and he potentially had
Speaker 2: authorized this dangerous test against his top pilot.
Speaker 1: Now, if you had a chance, would you sit down
Speaker 1: and try to explain this to David Fraverer and Alex Dietrich.
Speaker 2: Oh, one hundred percent. The first time I came on
Speaker 2: the LASH information which I had to dig up because
Speaker 2: all of the articles about it have been memory hold,
Speaker 2: They've all been deleted off the Internet. The only way
Speaker 2: that you find information about the LASH is by going
Speaker 2: back through Internet archive. As soon as I found the article,
Speaker 2: I sent it to Alex Dietrich on X and tagged
Speaker 2: her in the post that had this archived copy of
Speaker 2: the article and said, Hey, found this article, think that
Speaker 2: it might have been tested in San Diego at the time.
Speaker 2: Can you make any comment? And I'd still be open
Speaker 2: to discuss these technologies with them. I think by this
Speaker 2: point they probably know about tethered balloons. I just don't
Speaker 2: know if they know that tethered balloons were being tested
Speaker 2: in San Diego back in two thousand and two, which
Speaker 2: they most certainly were.
Speaker 1: And how do you know this as far it was
Speaker 1: just through a FOYA. Did you do a Freedom of
Speaker 1: Information Act?
Speaker 2: No? Actually, I actually found these in documents that had
Speaker 2: existed publicly at the time but have been since scrubbed
Speaker 2: from the Internet.
Speaker 1: And do you have these documents?
Speaker 2: Yep, so you do, yeah, And I've shaed them on
Speaker 2: my account.
Speaker 1: Okay, and I don't know if you'd like to share
Speaker 1: them with me, but I will tell that anyone that
Speaker 1: is listening to this through audio only, I will have
Speaker 1: these images that we've talked about in the show notes.
Speaker 1: All you have to do is click on that and
Speaker 1: you'll see all the images we're talking about. So would
Speaker 1: you be also open to the idea that this could
Speaker 1: be an off world technology?
Speaker 2: As I've said, I think that there is an extant
Speaker 2: source of these craft that are better than anything we
Speaker 2: can produce. If we've found something as far back as
Speaker 2: sixteen hundred and we're trying to emulate it through these
Speaker 2: decades and centuries of lighter than error programs in the military,
Speaker 2: then there is an existing source outside of humanity. And
Speaker 2: so maybe there's one craft that was found I think
Speaker 2: they've said in archaeological contexts, but that also doesn't rule
Speaker 2: out that some of these encounters may be those same
Speaker 2: things to this day. I just think that we need
Speaker 2: to have an understanding of the technological programs that our
Speaker 2: own human race is developing and fielding before we make
Speaker 2: the leap to extraterrestrial and aliens. So, if there is
Speaker 2: a white cylindrical craft that is capable of being deployed
Speaker 2: from under the water in two thousand and two that
Speaker 2: we have in our own arsenal, I think that that
Speaker 2: needs to be examined with the same seriousness as we're
Speaker 2: examining claims that it could be extraterrestrial.
Speaker 1: What about the antennae or what appeared to be something
Speaker 1: like antenna? Did you ever see that on any type
Speaker 1: of prototype.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So he mentions that there were two what looked
Speaker 2: like maybe p to's under the craft. They could be
Speaker 2: attachment points for the tether. They could be the LASH
Speaker 2: pod and the ISR pod itself. As I don't have
Speaker 2: an actual visual representation of what he saw other than
Speaker 2: some of the CGI renderings that other people have made
Speaker 2: based on the testimony, I can't be sure, but both
Speaker 2: of those things would have external visual appearances, the attachment
Speaker 2: for the tether and the pods themselves.
Speaker 1: Well, the one thing I'm glad to hear you say,
Speaker 1: and duck Head, one of the regulars. Here.
Speaker 3: He keeps wanting you to show.
Speaker 1: Here's Star Wars toys, but I know you can't.
Speaker 3: You can't move them off the shelf.
Speaker 2: But anyway, they're all around. It's an obsession that had
Speaker 2: to stop a couple of years ago because I ran
Speaker 2: out of space.
Speaker 1: Well, I got to tell you, I do like the
Speaker 1: State sales, and I did this to State Sales. And actually,
Speaker 1: I have to say it's from a really famous family.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's got big movies out there. And anyway,
Speaker 1: they had I had their Star Wars toys. The name
Speaker 1: is Eggers. Anyone knows he's a director. I had Star
Speaker 1: Wars toys and a guy came. There was one toy
Speaker 1: that he paid seven hundred dollars for without a blink
Speaker 1: of an eye. And it's just it's so silly. I
Speaker 1: think the whole thing is so silly. How because I'm,
Speaker 1: you know, an antiquees guy, and anyway.
Speaker 2: So an antiques lego guy.
Speaker 1: So this is just a statement. There's no way they
Speaker 1: had this tech back in the eighteen hundreds. What type
Speaker 1: of what is the best tech that we had in
Speaker 1: the eighteen hundreds, would you say.
Speaker 2: The Pasarola airship that existed in the sixteen hundreds, would have,
Speaker 2: had a mentioned earlier, been better than any of the
Speaker 2: tech that we had in the eighteen hundreds. As far
Speaker 2: as the most advanced looking craft in the eighteen hundreds,
Speaker 2: I'd probably say Daniluski's air bike. Imagine a big gas
Speaker 2: bag of helium with a man on a bike slung
Speaker 2: underneath it, and then two giant wings sprouting.
Speaker 1: Outside of the I've seen a graphic of that. I
Speaker 1: know exactly what you're talking about. Boyd. Is that something
Speaker 1: that I would never get on in a million Yes.
Speaker 2: So imagine you're a farmer in eighteen ninety seven and
Speaker 2: this crashes down in your field and you've never heard
Speaker 2: of balloons or blimps or aerostats before in your life.
Speaker 2: How do you make any sense of this thing that's
Speaker 2: crashed out of the sky.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, all right, Before we close here, I'm just
Speaker 1: going to ask you one other question here. What do
Speaker 1: you think is the most mysterious unexplained UAPUFO case that
Speaker 1: you've looked at.
Speaker 2: I have no idea what the red object that Jeff
Speaker 2: Nucitelli described in the most recent hearing is. If someone
Speaker 2: wants to put a prosaic technological explanation for a giant
Speaker 2: red object coming out of the ocean. Go for it.
Speaker 2: But I've that's unexplained to me.
Speaker 3: Yes, I do have. I will send you this.
Speaker 1: I do have a diver that was an extraordinary you
Speaker 1: know what am I trying to say? He had over
Speaker 1: fifteen thousand hours of underwater time and he had an
Speaker 1: encounter with a cube but it was a gold cube.
Speaker 1: But he was sixty miles off shore off the Baja,
Speaker 1: and you know, sixty miles off shore and heap down
Speaker 1: to four hundred feet and no other you know, this
Speaker 1: thing was acting intelligently. It was really quite crazy. And
Speaker 1: he had nothing to do.
Speaker 2: Never have recordings at the time. He did.
Speaker 1: He did film at the whole time. Unfortunately, he's very
Speaker 1: sick right now because I keep, you know, reaching out
Speaker 1: to him, and unfortunately he's got cancer, not doing well.
Speaker 2: But he had my sympathies for anyone with cancer. I've
Speaker 2: also gone through that several times myself, and oh it's
Speaker 2: not terrible.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So he has a twenty five hundred film said
Speaker 1: he was looking through that. I was trying to get
Speaker 1: him initiated to try to find this thing, and he
Speaker 1: says he was so well now organized in all these
Speaker 1: reels of film. He doesn't even know where to where
Speaker 1: to look, but he supposed he did film at the
Speaker 1: entire time.
Speaker 2: If that ever comes forward, send it to me.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, we have so many people that want to see.
Speaker 2: I think you have a couple of things to hang
Speaker 2: me about afterwards, and one hundred percent send you everything
Speaker 2: that I've got. Just remind me what we what we need.
Speaker 1: Okay, all right, well excellent, Well, thank you so much.
Speaker 1: I don't see any recent questions here, so besides your
Speaker 1: star Wars, so thank you all for being with us
Speaker 1: tonight and trying to.
Speaker 2: Do a little pen around the room for your fanis.
Speaker 1: Oh there, okay, that'll make it.
Speaker 2: Oh my, there's a couple there. There's a big Superstar
Speaker 2: storer up there, and then there's a minifigure shelf there.
Speaker 3: Excellent.
Speaker 1: Okay, all right, well, thanks so much and we'll see you.
Speaker 1: Everyone will be back next week at Tuesday only and
Speaker 1: with Thiago to Chetti and it should be a great show.
Speaker 1: And that's about Brazil UFOs again, thanks so much for everyone,
Speaker 1: and remember to keep your eyes to this The