Transcript
Speaker: You're listening to the Anomalous Podcast Network. Multiple voices, one phenomenon.
Speaker: Welcome back, everybody, to the Disclosure Team channel. Anybody has any questions during the interview, please pop them in capital letters as I have a better chance of seeing them, and then I can pin them and ask them at a relevant point. Thank you so much to everybody that's here in the live chat. I really do appreciate you being here for this. If you could just please keep the chat nice and cordial. I'm all for differences of opinions and a good bit of banter.
Speaker: you know, just keep it nice. That'd be highly appreciated. So yeah, without further ado, I'd like to introduce my guest tonight. So this is somebody I've wanted to speak to for some time. We recently connected privately and yeah, I'm really excited for this conversation. So I hope you guys enjoy it too.
Speaker: So Frank Milburn is a former UK Defense Intelligence Officer and Army paratrooper with over 23 years of experience producing threat and risk assessments for clients operating in hostile environments. His experience includes providing strategic and operational assessments of prevailing business environments for extractive industries, as well as a variety of Fortune 500 aerospace and government clients. Frank is an alumnus of the Royal Military Academy at Sanhurst and the London School of Economics.
Speaker: He has written peer -reviewed papers for a number of globally ranked think tanks, including the Middle East Economic Survey, the Combating Terrorism Centre at West Point, and the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University. He is an affiliated researcher with the Begin Sadat Centre for Strategic Studies and is a member of the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies. So please welcome Frank Milburn. Frank, how are you? Thank you very much, brother, and it's a real honour to be on. Thank you.
Speaker: That's my pleasure, absolute pleasure. I'm gonna do something which I don't normally do at the start of a show, and I'm gonna jump straight to a couple of questions that have come in. And this one isn't even UFO related, but I just thought I'd jump in with it. So it says, Frank is a military man. Please ask him why, when a clearly insane leader is single -handedly holding the whole world to ransom, this monster has not been assassinated.
Speaker: Okay, so I assume that we're referring to Putin here, right? To Vladimir Putin. I would have thought so. Yeah, I'd say I don't consider him personally to be insane. Certainly a megalomaniac, and certainly has a violent dislike of anybody who is not Russian. But I think it's a question of, he was a former colonel in the KGB.
Speaker: So if you rise to power as a former colonel, the KGB, you're going to have people around you who will protect you because, you know, it's the kind of job that you do, right? So he's pretty switched on that way. I think he's not very switched on at all in the way that he invaded Ukraine because that's a whole another question. But he completely.
Speaker: overestimated the abilities of the Russian military and completely underestimated the will of Ukrainians to resist and also of the Western military powers in the EU and NATO to support the Ukrainians. Yeah. Are you surprised at all that there haven't been any assassination attempts at all? Well, there have been assassination attempts. If you look at opponents of Putin, there have been plenty of assassination attempts.
Speaker: uh... but uh... you know he is a former KGB lieutenant colonel so uh... you know he's gonna have people around he's gonna be very aware of his own security i mean if you like me I'm uh... you know i used to work with uh... you know state department and with uh... U .S. DOD and special forces in Iraq right and you know i'm uh... i'm a trained uh... well counter intelligence professionals and also a code protection professional
Speaker: it would become like the same for me if I were looking to somebody to protect myself and my family, I'm a professional. So I would know the kind of people that I want to surround myself with protect myself. Yeah, that makes sense. Now I appreciate that. So let's start now where I probably would normally start. So I'd like to know when you first got interested in the whole UFO subjects in general. When I was a very young child, I was brought up with a UAP phenomena. My mother
Speaker: My grandmother and my grandfather are what you would call experiences, or in those days they used to call psychics or mediums. I'm an experiencer, I had visions as a teenager. When I told my grandmother about this, she told me it's no surprise whatsoever. My house in London where I used to live was always full of mediums coming from Israel, the United States,
Speaker: people like, you know, Phyllis Schlemmer, like, you know, famous, you know, a famous, you know, Israeli medium. That was kind of like my upbringing. And as far as UAP goes, I was always open -minded to it. I was sent to, when I was at university, when I was 20, I'd already been a paratrooper. I had a
Speaker: While I was at university, I was sent by my grandmother and my mother to study under a medium called Inez Nicholson, and also another medium called Owen Potts. And I did past life regressions with them. And that was nothing to do with UAP, but that definitely put me in touch with what you call the psychic side. And then when I was in the military, shortly after that, there was no doubt in my mind that UAP exists.
Speaker: that UAP were penetrating the UK air defense region. And since that time, I left the military kind of like late late 90s. I read books like, you know, Timothy Goode, Nick Pope. Okay. And
Speaker: Then I got more interested in 2016. I got in touch with Richard Dolan. And then I got on his website. And from there, it all snowballed. And then I started gathering information. And then by 2020, November, I'd already written my first paper. Because I decided, why am I being on the sidelines? I'm obviously interested in this. And I obviously have some kind of
Speaker: I have something to contribute which comes from an intelligence background and that's why I got involved. Excellent. Thank you. I appreciate that. That kind of leads me into this question from Ryan Sprague. He says, did Frank ever come across UAP related issues or the topic in general during his intelligence career or his contracting work after?
Speaker: Yes, I did in my military intelligence career. I came in contact with pilots who had performed interceptions with UAP. Are you able to expand on that at all? Yes, there was a kinetic effort to shoot down the UAP because they were over sensitive areas in the UK air defense region.
Speaker: The RAF weren't able to shoot them down. They tried with homing missiles, radar homing missiles. They tried with infrared -seeking missiles. And then they closed within three kilometers. And they tried with the internal cannon the aircraft had. And they were not able to shoot down the UAP. But the UAP was considered a threat.
Speaker: Do you think that the reason why they weren't able to shoot them down was it weapons malfunctioned caused by the UAP? Or was it something to do with the materials in the almost the field around the UAP? From the information I got from the pilots, I believe that it was there was some kind of field around the UAP that basically it, you know, the the radar home missiles had no lock on effect.
Speaker: Initially they had a lock on effect, but when they left the aircraft, they had no lock on effect. Then the infrared missiles, they left the aircraft and then they had no lock on effect. And then when they closed to within less than three kilometers, the cannons that the aircraft had had no effect. So I can only put that down to superior advanced technology that the UAP had as an intelligence officer.
Speaker: And has this specific case, is it noted anywhere in the National Archives files that have come out? And do you know if it was investigated by DI55? I know it's investigated by me. Oh, right. OK. That's intriguing. That's very intriguing. I mean, it
Speaker: It almost reminds me of a case that I wanted to talk to you about, which we might as well jump into as well, which is the 1976 Tehran incident, a case that I'm definitely fascinated with. I know I saw, obviously, Ryan Sprague's question there for us. And I know Ryan has written recently about the case, a fantastic article. So if you don't mind, Frank, would you be able to just give us a quick overview of the case and what it involved? Because I believe it involved two specific incidents within that one.
Speaker: Yeah, sure. It was 1976. It was basically north of Tehran, which is the capital of Tehran. People have to understand that in that time,
Speaker: We're talking about the Imperial Iranian Air Force, and that Iran was a major ally of the United States and NATO. And it was a major recipient of the latest American technology. And there were two interceptors which were launched in relation to this UAP. Both of them were F -4 Phantoms. They were the latest F -4 Phantoms that the Americans had, which they had given to the Iranians.
Speaker: and they had the latest Sidewinder missiles. The first encounter the pilot took off, he saw the object but he returned to base because basically
Speaker: His communications were shut down and his navigation systems were shut down. The second pilot took off with his back seater and it was absolutely terrifying for them. They confronted the object. The pilot saw a bright orb detach from the major object.
Speaker: and fly towards them. He thought that it was an air to air missile and he went to his own weapons and he tried to select a missile to fire and his weapons panel went off and also his intercom went off so he had to scream at his backseater and also his UHF communications back to base went off. So then he turned very sharply away from this object that was streaking towards him because he thought it was a missile and then he returned to base
Speaker: And then when he was on the ground, he was subjected to major tests. And Bashar of Iran actually approached him and said, what do you think is the, you know, who is the intelligence or what is the technology behind, you know, this kind of craft? And Jafari, who is a pilot, he said, well, I think it's something from beyond this world, because if anybody on this earth had that kind of technology, then, you know, they would rule the earth.
Speaker: Yeah, it's an absolutely fascinating case. And I was just going to add as well. Also, there was an American team because there was an American team that was training the Iranians and there was a Colonel on the ground.
Speaker: And he actually said to Jafari, he goes, oh, actually, it's very good that you didn't fire upon them, because it could have been a lot worse. And then that same colonel sent a sent a signal via Defense Intelligence Agency, which reached all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and also the the White House. And then there was a follow up by another an Air Force intelligence officer who said this is the best example of a UAP
Speaker: Wow, that's amazing. And you mentioned that the Shah of Iran and we know that he has had an interest in UFOs and actually came out as an experience to himself, which I believe is, I mean, you posted something on Twitter the other day and that's the first I'd heard of that. So can you tell us a little bit about that?
Speaker: Yeah, well, sure. I was looking for Biden's 60 Minutes talk. And I wanted to hear about him talking about Ukraine and Taiwan. And so I watched that. And then it had, like, then on YouTube, it showed me, like, you know, old 60 Minutes talks. And one of them was about the 1973
Speaker: oil crisis so I clicked on that and the Shah of Iran came up talking 1973 and then he's talking about being an experiencer and the actual the the interviewer actually says to him oh but you know you know you're the Shah of Iran but you've had like experiences
Speaker: And then the Shah of Iran starts talking about, you know, he had dreams, and then he started having visions about his future. And then that made me think, well, actually, this is actually really incredible. And that's why he actually had a lifelong interest in UAP. That's incredible. That's absolutely amazing. I mean, there seems to be a lot of, obviously, cases involving aircraft and military aircraft in particular, going back decades. Do you ever see any kind of pattern in any of those cases at all?
Speaker: In terms of what? Well, I mean, there's weapons shutdowns or the inability to fire upon these things. Do they always see them as a threat? And is it generally, are they seen over sensitive airspace? Well, I'd say the SCU, the scientific coalition for UAP studies, for those who didn't go to their their summit in June,
Speaker: There's some very incredible work that's being done exactly on UAP and nukes from 1945 onwards in terms of the interest of UAP. And I've actually correlated it statistically in terms of interest in nuclear bases,
Speaker: in terms of nuclear missile silos and also in terms of initially where the nukes are being produced. And it's very, very intelligent. There's no doubt in my mind that there's a high interest by UAP in every aspect, in every level.
Speaker: of the human nuclear phase from designing of a nuclear weapon to production of a nuclear weapon to deployment of a nuclear weapon. And so that includes all sort of warships and anything with sort of nuclear capabilities then? Anything with a nuclear reactor, yes. Leithmeen, I've got a question here about the nuclear aspect from Dave Mills.
Speaker: With their long -standing interest in nuclear, do you think they would allow a nuclear strike? Well, they did in 1945. You know, the Japanese got wiped out. So a lot of people ask me this and a lot of people say, oh, you know, like they're here to help us. Well, they've been something like I think it's like
Speaker: Well, hundreds of nuclear tests above ground or atmospheric, above ground, underground and undersea since 1945. So if they were here to help us, then why haven't they done it by now? That's a good point. That's absolutely a good point.
Speaker: Now, obviously, I mean, I just brought up there like the warships and things nuclear powered, which leads me just I just I can't not speak about the tic -tac with you, because it just seems that that area, whether it be military or anything in general off of Catalina Island in the channel, as it always seems to have been a hotbed. And, you know, nuclear or not, there's, you know, magnetic anomalies in there. So do you think what is it? Do you think that attracts these things to that area and have done for so long?
Speaker: Well, I talked to Kevin Day about this, and I did a presentation that people can look at. It's under APEC, Frank Milburn, Catalina Sightings. And I talked to Kevin Day about this, Kevin Day being one of the witnesses to the Nimitz, and basically a surface -to -air expert. There's nothing that that bloke doesn't know about surface -to -air combat, right?
Speaker: And he also told me, he said, that whole area. And I asked him, I said, well, how easy it would be to sneak a submarine in. And he said, the US Navy owns that whole coast, like air, surface, and subsurface. So I think there are definitely anomalies in that area. I mean, the area is so deep. But I also think that,
Speaker: is absolutely real what the US Navy have been seeing. And I don't think there's any kind of doubt about that. Yeah, so I mean, what are your thoughts then if we move forward to the 2019 sightings, you know, the swarms off of the coast, you know, with multiple Navy warships, you know, and it's been the drone thing has been thrown in there so many times now. And we've seen these clips from Jeremy Corbyn. We've seen the recent footage that's come out. I think the war zone might have brought something out.
Speaker: I mean, personally, I'm quite at a loss with it. I don't know which way to look, which way to think. So I'd love to know what you think of that currently. Well, I'll tell you, I'll tell you, Vinny, I wasn't there. I didn't see them with my own eyes. And I haven't had access to the classified intelligence, right? So all I can do is speculate. Of course. Sorry.
Speaker: I mean, what are your thoughts on sort of radar spoofing technologies, holograms and that kind of thing? Do you think that that could possibly be a serious contender or possibility for these incidents?
Speaker: No I don't because again I spoke to Kevin Day and also don't forget you know when I was a military intelligence I worked with the Royal Air Force I used to fly on AWACS okay so I was privy to you know beyond top secret intelligence and I knew what kind of spoofing technology we had okay that was like you know the mid 90s
Speaker: But I know for a fact that when you're engaging in a large NATO exercise or a national exercise, you do not inject something else from outside that exercise into the exercise. Because especially when, in the case of the Nimitz in 2004, when they're preparing for war, you do not do that.
Speaker: because it would cause basically, well, that's when I spoke to Kevin Day and he said, well, the reason why the officer on the deck listened to me is because he said, I said that this was an anti -air threat, that there was a threat of these objects in the air that could cause a problem for our aircraft.
Speaker: And that's precisely why you wouldn't do, you wouldn't use spoofing or you wouldn't use some kind of exotic technology. You would not inject that into an exercise.
Speaker: No, absolutely. I mean, these cases, specifically the Nimitz, you know, has really thrown this subject into, you know, the eyes of the Congress and people like that. And then, you know, last year we got the preliminary assessment, you know, which saw the UAPTF then morph into newer offices with new acronyms and that. So I'd love to know your thoughts on where we stand right now with the current play, because, you know, we've got this new Arrow office, but we heard even today that
Speaker: John Greenwald of the Black Vault put in a FOIA request for more information on the last iteration of AOIMSG and they're just not releasing anything at all. So it almost feels like we're taking a step back again, but I'd love to know what you think.
Speaker: Well, I mean, now it's the, um, now it's the unidentified aerospace undersea phenomena, uh, task force group, right? I believe so now it's changed again. And you know, for the best, because that means that, uh, you know, Congress has taken charge. Um, but I don't think, um, that we in the public are going to see, uh, you know, anything like fantastic, because, you know, all this is designed basically to bring to the attention of Congress, uh, classified.
Speaker: you know, classified incidents which are happening and which they can never release to the public. But I mean, we've heard recently about the Navy is saying that they're not going to release any more videos. And then people are saying that it's over classification. And if they wanted to, they could sanitize any images and videos to not give away, you know, data on the sensor systems themselves. Do you agree with that? Well, I spoke, I asked Chris Mellon about this.
Speaker: last week and I said to him well you know one person told I said I said look Chris one person told me
Speaker: The US Navy don't want to release this information because the videos are so game changing and so indisputably alien that it would be like game over for anybody in the kind of background who's trying to keep the cover on UOP secrecy. And Chris Mellon came back and he said to me, and don't forget, he's like an advocate for transparency, at least with Congress. And he came back and he said, no, that's not the case at all.
Speaker: He said, I know the person who did the classification. And he said, that's not the reason at all. He goes, it's for national national security reasons. Wow. OK. Interesting. That's very. And I trust him. I mean, you know, the guys never bullshit me.
Speaker: I asked him questions. I asked him questions. Sometimes he just blanks me. He doesn't answer. And I just take that, well, OK, that means is it yes or no? I just don't read anything into it. But he either answered me in the yes or he answered me in the no. And that's what that's what I say. And I always ask him, you know, can I can I quote you or can I not quote you?
Speaker: No, that's fair enough. Appreciate the answer. Thank you. So I guess, you know, it would be good for people to temper their expectations going forward with relation to any new information coming out from the government side of things for now anyway. So obviously we've got a lot of other entities, the Galileo project, UAPX, so many companies, entities coming into this subject. Do you think we'll see much from them? Do you hold much weight in the work they're doing?
Speaker: I do very much in the Galileo project, but as a former British military intelligence officer, I would be looking much more to the possibility that the UK has affected crash retrievals, at least one crash retrieval. The UK? Yeah. Okay, that's new to me. I mean, I've heard
Speaker: things in the past about it. But are you able to tell us anymore? I can't give you dates, but a bloke that I trust very much. And when I left the military, we used to hang out a lot together. And he was head of a very
Speaker: a very secretive UK unit that conducted the kind of missions that you need to have done overseas, but you don't want to have acknowledged overseas. And he told me that he had been head of a crashed retrieval train that secured a site in northern UK
Speaker: And when they arrived the site, his team, they discovered evidence that there were biological entities that were occupants of the craft and that they had basically, you know, effectively done, you know, escape innovation. And then he said to me, then it became a hunt to find those biological entities.
Speaker: Wow. Okay. That's thrown me completely sideways. Yeah. I appreciate that a lot. That's making me think for a second. Sorry, everyone. It's making me think, have I got any information to go and do some digging or asking some questions? Because I'm just intrigued by that a lot.
Speaker: I was going to ask you questions about the UK. I genuinely appreciate it. And I didn't expect to get that kind of answer from you. So a little bit mind blown right now. I'm not going to divulge who, when or where or why. No, it's not just about I've got to be very careful about the
Speaker: I signed the Official Secrets Act, right? So I've got to be very, very careful. But also, it's much more about, you know, I'm not going to throw, you know, a mate of mine under the bus. Because, you know, when you're in the military, when you're a paratrooper, you know, I was a paratrooper. I worked with SAS, I worked with SBS, okay? I worked with, you know, Special Forces. And it doesn't matter who you're working with. It's like you don't throw your comrades under the bus.
Speaker: Absolutely. It's one thing I've learned in a very short time is that you protect your sources to the, you know, massively. That's something I do. And so I honestly, I respect that so much. Well, we've seen that I did that. I mean, with, for example, with Amy Eskridge, right? I mean, you know, loads of people were pinging me where I got where I was getting my information from. But it wasn't until, you know, her demise that, you know, I revealed that she was one of my sources. Ross Coulthard, even he didn't know, he kind of suspected
Speaker: Um, but, uh, it wasn't until she died that he realized that I said to him, yeah, but because, uh, you know, I'm a former intelligence officer. Okay. I, I was trained to identify people who, who have access to specific information. And I was trained, uh, how to, uh, you know, persuade them to give me access to that information and then how to manage that relationship. Right. That's what you do. It's called agent handling.
Speaker: Yeah, absolutely. And a big part is you never, never, ever shaft your sauce. Well, I mean, it's, you know, if you burn one, you might as well burn the rest because people aren't going to trust you ever again. That's the way I look at it. Exactly. And that's why, you know, for example, you know, I was in Northern Ireland. That's for example, why, you know, the British Northern Ireland.
Speaker: were so successful because they offered, for example, you know, members of the IRA who were dissatisfied. They said, OK, well, you grass up other members of the IRA and, you know, we'll send you to Belgium or Germany and you'll have like a new life and you'll have like money to set yourself up and like a new job. And we won't grasp you up because if you fuck your sources, nobody will come back to you.
Speaker: Exactly. That's it. So now I really do. I appreciate that a lot. And one thing I did want to talk to you about with regards to the UK is that after sort of Project Condign, you know, we didn't really hear much from the UK. We had the National Archives releases over, you know, three years towards the sort of 2007, eight, nine kind of period. But it seems to have gone completely dark. And I've spoken to people who have been previous
Speaker: members of the MOD, etc., who aren't so sure that they've stopped looking into this. They've probably just buried it deeper in some obscure annex. What do you think about that? I don't know, because I left the military in 1998, right? So I can't say for sure. But you'd be absolutely stupid. And based on my knowledge of working with the RAF,
Speaker: on, you know, high readiness units, you know, flying in AWACS and seeing, you know, being in an AWACS and seeing, you know, like a Russian bear aircraft, you know, approaching the UK Air Defence Identification Zone and then seeing, you know, tornadoes, you know, being, you know, sent to intercept them. I would say,
Speaker: Of course, you know, UAP happenings are still, you know, are still going on. And it's interesting if you look at Project Condign, it says that, you know, UAP would never be considered, would only be considered to be a threat to the UK if they were
Speaker: entering the UK air defence region with impunity in time of crisis or war, if they were entering the UK defence region and ground -based radars and fighters in the air were unable to intercept them. And then thirdly, if UAP were able to enter the UK air defence region and
Speaker: and to scour eelids, electronic intelligence, signals intelligence, yeah? Yeah. The thing is, wouldn't they be considered a potential threat even if they just entered into our airspace and we couldn't, A, identify them. That's what doesn't make sense to me. Why does there have to be a specific time? Surely it's all the time. If an unidentified aircraft comes into British airspace, surely it's setting off alarm bells left right and center.
Speaker: Well, that's the whole thing. It does. I mean, if it's like an airliner and don't forget since you know, since, you know, 9 11, especially you've got like, you know, you've got tornadoes, you've got fighter aircraft in every NATO country on standby in case there is an airliner which has been taken over, you know, by Islamic crazies and they will shoot, they will shoot it out the sky.
Speaker: Yeah, absolutely. I'd love to move on to this question here, which I thought was great from Linda Thompson. Hello, Linda. Do you think King Charles now will be more open about UAP? Hi, Linda. And that's a beautiful question. I think that King Charles will be. I think that he has an intrinsic interest in that. And beyond that, I think he will be a fantastic king.
Speaker: because he cares about the environment and he also cares deeply about, you know, disadvantaged people. Excellent. That's really good to hear. I think I agree. I think he'll be a really good king. Yeah. Well, he's a paratrooper. I was a paratrooper. I swear lawyer. And the thing is, the people don't understand, right? Is it like people like me, right? I swore allegiance to the Queen like twice. Yeah.
Speaker: And, uh, my allegiance, uh, I'm not serving anymore, but my allegiance transfers automatically to, uh, the King because it says, I promised you, uh, I promised to serve Her Majesty, the Queen Elizabeth and her heirs and successors. So if she dies automatically in the military, your, uh, it's transference of your allegiance to, uh, the heir and successor in this case, Prince Charles or King Charles.
Speaker: Wow, okay. I didn't know that. That's really cool. Well, Prince Charles is airborne and I will serve him. I'm to death. There we go. I appreciate that man. I appreciate all military people who have served in this country and anywhere in the world. I think it's to do that. Your duty for your country is, you know, it's something to be respected. So yeah, I mean, I just say on that, it's like, you're not just doing it for your country. You're doing it for like, you know, your family.
Speaker: I mean, for example, my family, my dad was, my dad was, was Royal Scots Graves, then he was airborne, then he was SAS. My stepdad was a Royal Scots Graves, then paratrooper, then SAS. My godfather was Coldstream Guards and then paratrooper. And my other godfather was, you know, Sir Peter the Billier, right? Who, who, who commanded British forces in the first Gulf War.
Speaker: I come from a long line of military soldiers, and it's something that's imbued to you, that is loyalty to the difference between family, regiment, country, and army. It is very, very small. Yeah, I can imagine, definitely. My grandfather was in the Navy, but we don't come from a line like a line or a family of military men.
Speaker: But like I said, I do respect it heavily. So, yeah, I appreciate that. Actually, let's stick with the military theme, because one gentleman who I know you're friends with who I have had the pleasure of interviewing and would love to talk about is retired Colonel John Alexander. So I'd love to know how how that sort of relationship came about, how you met John and and anything from there, really. Yeah, I met, well,
Speaker: I basically, I saw him on the Jack Sarfati email list. And then I thought, right, I'm going to be cunning. I'm going to be coming here. And then I approached, I approached the Colonel and I said, oh, do you know, do you know the, the head of Delta force, right? And he's like, yes, I do. He said, we served, we served together in 1958.
Speaker: We were both on the range, of course. And I said, oh, well, you know, that gentleman, my old man knows him from Hereford because
Speaker: that gentleman was at Hereford and basically served with SAS for two years before going back to America and then forming Delta Force. So that was my end to Colonel John Alexander. Basically that we were both airborne and that I don't have a Special Forces background. I was never bad Special Forces. I was never bad SAS or SBS. I was bad paratrooper and then intelligence corps. I was never bad Special Forces, but I've been around Special Forces all my life.
Speaker: Yeah, I mean, I enjoyed my conversation with John. You know, he gets a lot of schtick from people. I think it's hard. It's hard to kind of see why sometimes I wanted to speak to him. I did. I found him very engaging. I think he's a great bloke. So, you know, well, I'll tell you, you know, like he knew he knew Charlie Beckwith, right? Who my dad knew, right?
Speaker: Charlie Beckwith, who set up Delta Force. And my dad knew Charles Beckwith. So when I said to Colonel John Alexander, my dad knows, my dad knew Charles Beckwith. He now deceased. And that gave me an end to Colonel John Alexander. And Colonel John Alexander, he said to me, OK, you sent me some papers that you wrote for various papers. He said, OK, I don't think that those are so stupid. He goes, I will talk to you about UAP.
Speaker: He's very no nonsense. He's very no nonsense. But I have to say, he's become a mentor to me. He's become a mentor to me. And I always call him Colonel. He always calls me Frank and he signs off as John. But I always call him Colonel. It's a mark of respect. Yeah, absolutely. It's a military mark of respect. Yeah, I'm sure he appreciates it. But have you had conversations with him about the early days at Skinwalker Ranch, for example?
Speaker: And I just wondered what your thoughts were. You're talking somebody who was, and this isn't like anything covert. He was a member of the Phoenix program in Vietnam, which was basically to assassinate members of the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese. And as a special forces officer, he was involved in that.
Speaker: So he's a highly trained military officer and also an assassin. Okay, as you know, all special forces personnel are, we're assassins. And
Speaker: when he told me that he got recruited by pre -NIDS and he said that he went to basically the ranch like pre -NIDS and he said that he was sitting out there night after night and I was just thinking like man it's like you know only a badass American army Green Beret doing that just like I'd be shitting myself
Speaker: I agree, I would too. I like to think that if invited, I would say yes and I would go, but you know, I have heard some stories. Vinny, I think I'm a badass, right? I think I'm a badass paratrooper, but that would make me shit myself. Yeah, but it kind of, for me, yeah, of course you would, but I mean, of course I would, but surely it's like an opportunity to be up close and personal potentially with the phenomena.
Speaker: the fifth
Speaker: Wow, okay. That's just my personal reference. Maybe you've heard some things that maybe I haven't then. Maybe that's the thing. No, it's just I can't control the paranormal. But if somebody is trying to shoot at me and kill me, then I can control that and I can control them. But if it's something paranormal, then I can't control them. So as a former professional military officer,
Speaker: I am more comfortable with being in war against humans than I would be on some remote ranch dealing with, you know, some disembodied entity that I have no control over. And that's, you know, even if I had, you know, weapons on me, I couldn't kill. That makes sense. Yeah, I appreciate that. I do. I do. I mean, just sticking with Skinwalker Ranch. I mean, obviously, there's it gets a lot of
Speaker: negative, uh, fingers pointed at it, especially Brandon and his team on Twitter. You know, people saying that they're doing it just for TV and all these purposes. Personally, I, you know, I've spoken to some of the guys on the ranch. I believe there's something genuine going on. Um, so I'd just like to know what your views are. I mean, if you've had any conversations about any specific aspects of it, because it seems like it's multiple phenomena that could be working there. So yeah, I'd love to know what you think about that. All I can say is, um,
Speaker: John Alexander is a mentor to me and he's talked to me about Skinwalker Ranch from the earliest days. I've been on various email threads, including with Dr. Travis Taylor. There is no doubt in my mind that there is some highly crazy anomalous activity going on at Skinwalker Ranch.
Speaker: Okay, and you know, for me, as you know, if I put my head on as if I put my hat on as a former counter intelligence investigator, there's, there's so much that meets the eye, that I cannot explain. And therefore, for me, it's anomalous. And I, I have to believe in the anomalous. Right. Does that make sense? It does. Yeah, yeah, it does.
Speaker: I mean, you've mentioned there a few times, and this is something that I guess I wanted to ask, but I didn't know the right time. So I'm just going to ask is counter intelligence gets again, something is something that people see or hear about and they go, oh, it's negative. They can't be trusted. It's, you know, their job was counter intel for goodness sake. So.
Speaker: How should people understand the true meaning of counter -intel and why it isn't a bad thing? It frustrates me when I see, well, you can't trust... And Lou Elizondo gets it the most, as I'm sure you might have seen, but if you could just kind of clear that up for me and for people, I'd really appreciate that.
Speaker: Yeah, sure. I mean, I've had it a lot as well. Like, you know, you're kind of like, you know, a deep state agent and, you know, some kind of other bullshit. It's like, well, I'm sorry, but, you know, while you're sleeping in your bed.
Speaker: people like me, we are doing two different kind of jobs. One, we are investigating the penetration of Russian and Chinese and foreign hostile intelligence activities and how they are trying to basically penetrate our security and how they are trying to
Speaker: basically recruit our people. Okay, that's called security intelligence. And then the other side of counter intelligence is physical security, which is the physical measures that you take to protect, you know, people, locations, operations, you know, bases, information, you know, information technology, right? That's the other side of counter intelligence.
Speaker: But there is a dark side of counterintelligence, which is you do investigations into who is trying to penetrate your networks. So that's when it gets kind of tasty. But it's nobody that you should not trust, because basically we are here and we are protecting you or trying to protect you from things like the Novichok nerve agent attack that Russians perpetrated in 2018 in the UK.
Speaker: Okay, we didn't succeed then, but you have to understand that in America, the UK and allied forces, you only see a very small percentage of the successes that we have. You will never see the vast majority of the successes that we have because that has to be highly protected. I mean, I understand that people
Speaker: can be dubious sometimes, but it doesn't take much to have a few conversations, do a bit of research, and I think it becomes a bit clearer as to the real direction and the meaning of what people are doing, especially if they have counter -intel backgrounds.
Speaker: Well, I'd say to anybody who doubts my loyalty, it's like, well, you know, I've been to war, I've been to two different wars and, you know, I've served my country. So, you know, how am I being a deep dark state? You know, I've been protecting my country from like the word goes since I was 17 years old, since I joined up as a paratrooper. Yeah, no, absolutely.
Speaker: Now, I can't do this interview without asking you about, specifically, the two papers you wrote for BISA, the beginning of that centre. So basically, I'd first like to know how you got involved with them and come to write the papers. I will just bring them up on screen and they are linked in the description of this video. So we've got the first way. Was this the first one that you wrote? That's the first one, yeah.
Speaker: Yeah. And then you went on. So this is the, about the Pentagon's UAP task force. And then you wrote this one, American development of UAP technology of fader complete. So yeah. How, how did they come about? You know, I've read, I've, I was aware of these almost before I was aware of you. And I've read them multiple times and I've reverted back to them on multiple occasions. I think they're fantastic pieces of work. So yeah. Thank you, brother. Yeah. How did they come about?
Speaker: Yeah, I basically I wanted to write about UAP, but I didn't just want to write on a blog or some kind of like, you know, UAP blog. I was very determined that, you know, given my London School of Economics background and my military intelligence background, I wanted to have, you know, some kind of like, you know, finite, kind of like, you know, granite wall behind what I was writing. And so then I persuaded Beggins to that center to
Speaker: you know, to let me write these, these, these two papers, because my, my key objective was to inject UAP, not the woo woo stuff, but inject UAP, and the national security aspects into the mainstream of war studies, national security studies. Yeah. And, and that's what I did.
Speaker: It's amazing. It's fantastic. My concept was to penetrate the wall of basically ridicule and to force academia by having two papers published by a major university think tank, a globally ranked think tank, so that nobody could ignore what I was saying. You did just that. That's the thing. When I saw these, I was blown away. I didn't know anything like that existed at the time.
Speaker: Yeah, my hat's off to you completely, because, yeah, like I said, I've reverted back to them in my research many times. So, yeah, thank you. Because I was actually at the time, I was thinking about doing, you know, a master's degree with, you know, King's College London, right, and National Security Studies. And then I started thinking, I got into UAP stuff and I was going, but hang on, they're not into UAP stuff. But actually, if you look at
Speaker: you know, what the Russians want, the Chinese want, and potentially, you know, the threat posed by UAP. This is the most important, you know, strategic study subject that is not being taught in universities. And then I just thought, why the fuck would I do a master's? Because it basically doesn't, it's basically completely, in Spanish you say, it's blind. Wow.
Speaker: That's an amazing answer. I appreciate that. I'm sorry, I've just seen this question here, which I think, because you mentioned that you're kind of focusing a bit on the nuts and bolts, as I suppose you could call it, in that work. But I know that you're open to the woo and the consciousness as well. Oh, totally, yeah. So this question from Dave Smithers. Shout out, Dave. Does Frank think there is credibility to the ultra -terrestrial explanation Hal put off, recently put forward?
Speaker: i .e terrestrial based and complex paranormal interactions as well as nuts and bolts stuff uh yeah big shout out to you smethers um thank you very much for that question uh yeah i absolutely agree with you uh but as always i say you know i'm not a guru i don't know i mean not even uh you know uh you know keel or valeno right
Speaker: But it's a speculation, and this is the thing, I think sometimes I know in the past I've been really nervous to speculate on things, but I think it's not wrong to speculate as long as you're careful and coordinated and you don't put it across like it's a really solid belief. And I do, I think people want to know how you think, so if you were to speculate, it kind of gives a good picture of that.
Speaker: Vinny, the way I think is I think like a military intelligence officer. That was like, you know, years ago, it's like ingrained. Yeah, once you've been part of the system, you never escape. But it teaches you to think in a very, very logical, in a very, very logical way. And, you know, not in a in a way that, you know, that negates, you know, kind of like, you know, outbound hypotheses.
Speaker: And I think, I like to think that I carry that forward. I mean, obviously, you know, I'm a believer. So I say a believer. Sorry, sorry. I'm not a believer. I'm an experiencer, right? Believers are on word. I'm an experiencer. I believe they're a phenomena that we cannot as yet, you know, assess through scientific means, because we do not have the physics to understand, you know, what is going on.
Speaker: Um, but at the same time, I'm a very, I'm a very logical human being. I'm a former military intelligence officer. So I'm a very logical human being. And I will, I will always try and find the most prosaic, uh, the most prosaic, uh, you know, reason or conclusion, uh, towards what I'm thinking about. So, you know, like we were talking about earlier tonight, uh, before the show, uh, we were talking about, you know, Calvin case, and I gave you like, I think four or five different reasons why.
Speaker: I thought that the Culvine UAP was not exotic American technology, because I'm always trying to look for the most prosaic reason possible. And that makes me happy, because I look for the most prosaic reason, and then there's some other reason that I can't figure out. Then I'm like, OK, yeah, then it's something beyond what I understand.
Speaker: I think that's a great rule of thumb as well. I tried to do the same. Absolutely. Put everything before, you know, in that scale of ticking everything off first before you get to the, you know, the. And that's sorry. That's why I hate the bunkers because they start with, you know, this is all bullshit and, you know, experiences like you're all fucking idiots, right? Sorry. Excuse my language. No, don't worry. It's cool. Yeah. Um, whereas I'm like in the middle and I'm like, um, okay, if you're going to talk woo woo, then like, you know, show me some proof. Okay.
Speaker: But at the same time, I'm open -minded. I'm open -minded to the fact that there are things that I've experienced. There's things that I know about from my military intelligence background. And there are things that I know from, for example, Skinwalker and Nimitz and other cases. They're not explainable. You cannot rationalize them in terms of normal physics.
Speaker: or in terms of terrestrial platforms? No, absolutely. I don't tend to mention the debunkers or the aspects of things. I tend to just stay away purely because I don't have time. I'm busy. But one thing is I think that they
Speaker: They think that there's a problem that we shouldn't have an open mind or that we having an open mind automatically means that you jump to that higher belief and you're just like, oh, we'll forget about all the possible pros and explanations. That's simply not the case. And so I tell you what it is, it's like they're terrified of the reality. They're terrified of the reality that there could be beings from extraterrestrial beings or ultra terrestrial beings. They are terrified of the reality that
Speaker: You know, there are, you know, invisible entities that can, uh, you know, exangulate cows, uh, within sight of, uh, you know, a rancher 400 meters away. Uh, they are terrified of the reality that, uh, you know, these invisible beings may be able to interact, interact amongst us. And, you know, we have no ability to, uh, you know, no control over that. That is what they are afraid of because, uh, no, they,
Speaker: Look, I'm afraid when I think about these things, right? And like, you know, I'm a former army paratrooper, right? There's not many things that make me afraid. When I start thinking about, you know, the possibility of, for example, in, you know, the close protection team for the American president, are there invisible entities who could intervene and, you know, cause a launch of a nuclear missile?
Speaker: How secure is, you know, the United States president? How secure is, you know, the Russian president? That's a good point. You see where I'm going with this? Absolutely. The valid points. Absolutely. And, you know, I've deeply into, you know, Dr. Jacobs, right? You know, walking amongst us, you know, the threat and all that kind of stuff.
Speaker: Eric Davis told me that he was a great academic, but then he started to lose it towards the end of his life. But also, if you look at Timothy Goode's books, he's talking about beings in Italy that are benign and that live amongst us.
Speaker: So if you accept that, then maybe you could accept the fact that there are malign beings living amongst us. And being a former counterintelligence officer, I am highly suspicious. Absolutely. That makes perfect sense. But this is the thing. You get so many angles and points of view of these beings, them beings, and the here, there, and everywhere. And I mean, it does kind of
Speaker: There's no data to say which is right and which is wrong. So I believe that we have to keep an open mind. I think that's number one. And yet, you know, we seem to get vilified for that. And, you know, on I don't know, it's our side of the community. I don't like talking sides, but it seems that it feels like that at the moment, you know, that people are just getting shot down for having a certain way of thinking on that. And I just it baffles my mind and.
Speaker: I don't give any time to it, so that's all I've got to say about that. I've got a very simple way of thinking. It's like if I can identify something, it's either a threat or it's not a threat. You're either on my side or you're not on my side. If you're not on my side, then prepare to be killed. OK, yeah. There you go. I like that. I'll take that on board, absolutely. Well, listen, Frank, before we finish off, I'd just like to know what you've got going on now or moving forward and what we're likely to see from you in the future.
Speaker: That's a very good question. I'm engaging in some private research on UAP, which I won't be divulging to the public. And that's what I will be doing going forward.
Speaker: That's fair enough. I can't argue with that. Well, listen, Frank, thank you so much. It has been an absolute honor to speak to you. It's an open invitation. You're welcome back here absolutely anytime. One thing I have started doing is a lot more panel discussions. So I think you'd be great on a panel discussion with maybe some other Intel or former military officers. That could be something that would.
Speaker: Vinny, I'd always be happy to be back on and always happy to talk with anybody you want me to talk to. Very, very happy. Thank you, brother. That's fantastic. If you hang around, we'll have a chat after the stream finishes. But yeah, thank you again. And thank you to the chat. Thank you for the great questions. I'm sorry if I didn't get to them all. I will give a quick shout out to Jimmy for the $5 donation. Thank you so much, brother. I really do appreciate that. And thank you to all the listeners. Thank you.
Speaker: Yeah, you guys rocked. Thank you so much. And like I said, I think Frank will be back multiple times in the future. So for now, guys, go check out all my social medias where you'll see upcoming interviews and other things that I'm up to at the moment. For now, enjoy your evening. Take care. Goodbye.
