00:00:00
00:00:01
25: #80 Matthew Szydagis , Michael Masters & Rich Hoffman - UAP & Science
360 Plays2 years ago
Professor Matthew Szydagis received his B.A., M.S., and Ph.D. from the University of Chicago in 2005, 2006 and 2011 respectively, then continued his work in physics as a postdoctoral scholar at the University of California Davis (2010-2014). Since 2014, he has been a professor at the University at Albany Department of Physics, pursuing experimental particle astrophysics. He realized that the UAP phenomenon may be tied to real-life extraterrestrial incursion after the AATIP reveal and the numerous trusted media outlets following up on it and the Nimitz incident, along with similar incidents.
Richard Hoffman has a B.A. in Organizational Communication from Wright State University. He is an Information Technology Consultant and Strategist , currently working as an Enterprise Architect at Redstone Arsenal and the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. He has over 50 years of experience in the research and investigation of UAP Phenomena.
Rich Twitter: https://twitter.com/ufoxprt
Rich Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ufoxprt/
Link to SCU: https://www.explorescu.org/
Dr Masters is a Professor of Biological Anthropology at Montana Tech of the University of Montana. His further research interests center on investigating hominin biocultural evolution, astrobiology, astronomy and the physics of time as they relate to the UFO phenomenon. His new book, Identified Flying Objects: A Multidisciplinary Scientific Approach to the UFO Phenomenon, cautiously examines the premise that “UFOs” and “Aliens” may simply be our distant human descendants, using the anthropological tool of time travel to visit and study us, as members of their own hominin evolutionary past. This text challenges readers to consider new possibilities while cultivating conversations about our ever-evolving understanding of time and time travel.
Dr Masters Twitter: https://twitter.com/morphotime
Dr Masters Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/morphotime/
Dr Masters Website:
Richard Hoffman has a B.A. in Organizational Communication from Wright State University. He is an Information Technology Consultant and Strategist , currently working as an Enterprise Architect at Redstone Arsenal and the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. He has over 50 years of experience in the research and investigation of UAP Phenomena.
Rich Twitter: https://twitter.com/ufoxprt
Rich Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ufoxprt/
Link to SCU: https://www.explorescu.org/
Dr Masters is a Professor of Biological Anthropology at Montana Tech of the University of Montana. His further research interests center on investigating hominin biocultural evolution, astrobiology, astronomy and the physics of time as they relate to the UFO phenomenon. His new book, Identified Flying Objects: A Multidisciplinary Scientific Approach to the UFO Phenomenon, cautiously examines the premise that “UFOs” and “Aliens” may simply be our distant human descendants, using the anthropological tool of time travel to visit and study us, as members of their own hominin evolutionary past. This text challenges readers to consider new possibilities while cultivating conversations about our ever-evolving understanding of time and time travel.
Dr Masters Twitter: https://twitter.com/morphotime
Dr Masters Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/morphotime/
Dr Masters Website:
Transcript
Introduction to the Anomalous Podcast Network
00:00:01
Speaker
You're listening to the Anomalous Podcast Network. Multiple voices, one phenomenon.
Introduction of Guests and Discussion Context
00:00:48
Speaker
Hello, everybody, and welcome back to the Disclosure Team YouTube channel. This is a conversation I've been looking forward to for some time now. Originally, we started out with four guests. Unfortunately, Dr. Gary Nolan couldn't make it, which is fair enough. And then, unfortunately, today, Kevin Knuth came down not feeling very well.
00:01:11
Speaker
send my best wishes to Kevin. But we do have three gentlemen here for the discussion. So first of all, Rich Hoffman has a BA in Organizational Communications from Wright State University. He is an information technology consultant and strategist. He has worked as a defense contractor for over 20 years, working primarily for the Army Material Command HQ with a variety of companies.
00:01:36
Speaker
Currently, Mr. Hoffman works as an Enterprise Architect at Redstone Arsenal and the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. He has over 54 years of experience investigating and research in the UFO subject. So let me please introduce Mr. Rich Hoffman. Rich, how are you doing? I'm well. Thanks. How are you, Vinny? I'm doing very well. Thank you.
00:01:58
Speaker
Next up, Michael Masters received his BA in anthropology and French in 2000 from Ohio University in Athens, Ohio and completed his PhD at the Ohio State University in Columbus in 2009. He has taught biological anthropology, cultural anthropology, archaeology, economic anthropology and globalization, sociology and cultural diversity at the Ohio State University,
00:02:22
Speaker
and a number of other places. His research includes investigating hominin, biocultural evolution, astrobiology, astronomy, and the physics of time as they relate to the UFO phenomenon. Please welcome Dr. Michael Matthews. Michael, how are you doing? Great, good to see you again Vinny. Rich, always a pleasure. Good to see you too.
00:02:44
Speaker
And finally, Matthew Shaddagas received his BA, MS and PhD from the University of Chicago in 2005, 2006 and 2011 respectively, then continued his work in physics as a postdoctoral scholar at the University of California, Davis. Since 2014, he has been a professor at the University of Albany Department of Physics pursuing experimental particle astrophysics.
00:03:07
Speaker
Matthew is also a member of UAPX and recently featured in the documentary A Tear in the Sky. So please welcome Professor Matthew Shaddagas. Matthew, am I saying your name OK?
00:03:18
Speaker
Thank you so much. That's been playing on my mind for the last hour or so. So thank you gentlemen so much and Matthew thank you because I know this is very short notes for you and it's really truly appreciated.
Rich Hoffman's Perspective on UFO Hearings
00:03:31
Speaker
That's okay. Now I'd love to start this conversation off with a discussion on the recent congressional hearings that just happened. So let's start with you Rich. I know that the SCU submitted some questions for
00:03:45
Speaker
for discussion there. Are you able to just go over some of the important questions that you did submit and the importance of them? Thank you. Actually, I'm not prepared to talk about the questions. Sorry about that. I can go into the details of how we led up to the questions. For the most part, what we did is we started off looking and saying, well, we need to be able to get something up there to the hill to basically help
00:04:11
Speaker
carry on the conversation and also inform a lot of the individuals that would be attending or other congressional leaders. And so we as a group begin drafting some questions that were relating to the subject that was on hand and wanting to know more.
00:04:30
Speaker
And we basically went through and pretty much collaborated with a whole variety of people to go and get those questions ironed out. Sadly, I'm aware of the fact that, having watched that, that they weren't asked. And a lot of them were not even addressed in the actual hearing.
00:04:52
Speaker
I watched the hearing. Like many, I think I was pretty disappointed by just overall what they didn't talk about. And also I was very disappointed that they didn't seem to have a good understanding of even the history of the actual phenomenon itself. When you're going in front of an intelligence committee, you would think that if you've mentioned something along the lines of the nuclear cases that have been well publicized and are all over the board,
00:05:21
Speaker
that you would certainly expect that the individuals with briefing would be able to mention that, especially since that they're allegedly the head of UAP projects, right? And so I was very taken back by that.
00:05:37
Speaker
Not that I expect them to know what happened before Project Blue Book and the various projects like Sinai Grudge, but nevertheless about a nuclear question, you'd expect that that would be something that they could talk about. So I came away pretty much disappointed. I think a lot of the people that I saw in not having the questions addressed as well as also finding out just that they didn't cover that was disappointed.
00:06:04
Speaker
We do have the questions, by the way, online. So they are available at our website, so you can go up and take a look at them. And so I encourage people to do that at exploresu.org. And I'll just shut up for a minute and let you ask the other people. No problem. Thank you. Okay. Can I jump in on that? Maybe Rich could actually answer this better. It seems to me, I've only been researching the UFO aspect of this.
00:06:30
Speaker
for probably 10 years compared to Rich's 50. So he might have better insight on this, but it seems to me that from the very beginning, it was the Air Force that was involved with all of this and all the different committees. I mean, obviously the Office of Special Investigations is always a name that comes up in interrogating witnesses, especially military witnesses. So where are they in all of this? I haven't seen them
00:06:57
Speaker
even make a peep this entire time and I guess from my point of view it seems that we're not going to get any more meaningful information until they're involved. I'd be happy to answer that because I do work in the DoD and I can also tell
Matthew Shaddagas on Navy's Role and Positive Hearing Outcomes
00:07:11
Speaker
you about some of the challenges that they have from a DoD context especially and also working cooperatively and in conjunction with the IC part of that.
00:07:20
Speaker
you know, there's a title 10 and a title 50 organizations here. Then you're also talking about bringing in things like NOAA and NASA and a whole bunch of other organizations that not, I mean, a lot of these organizations have not been investigating UFOs.
00:07:38
Speaker
that's not even a topic that they address. And so what I picked up from the hearings was a lack of maturity of their overall program and processes. So I think that what's happened is that it's gone from an unfunded task force that was made up of people that were working other duties as assigned. They didn't have official positions and getting a resource to the point where now what they're doing is they're trying to get their structure built up. They're also trying to be able to get
00:08:08
Speaker
cooperation from government agencies, which is not always easy to do, by the way, and to then bring all that stuff together, if you would, into some cohesive, like maybe database or structure where they can actually do something about it.
00:08:24
Speaker
So you're actually right, Michael, that going back to when I got started, it was Project Blue Book in Dayton, Ohio, and that was an Air Force project. They were responsible for it at that time. Yeah, right, Pat, wasn't it? Yeah, right, Pat, where I lived. I lived just down the street from right, Pat. In fact, I went over to Project Blue Book when I was still there. So I got to know the parties and the players. In fact, I investigated UFO cases with a Blue Book officer sitting next to me.
00:08:52
Speaker
So the point that I'm trying to say is that the Air Force got into it, got started with it. They found out that they were starting to get some good reports. Certainly they didn't get every report because a lot of people don't trust reporting to the government about anything, right? So they didn't report.
00:09:10
Speaker
And a lot of people will never report. I mean, that's just the nature of the problem because they didn't want to be crazy or considered nuts or whatever like that. So again, it went to the Air Force. The Air Force did their best with it, hypothetically.
00:09:26
Speaker
And they only looked at things that they got from the citizenry They weren't necessarily focused in on a lot of times the military well now you've got coming all this length of time later you suddenly don't have much engagement in the Air Force and you suddenly have the Navy coming up and there were the they were the lead to be able to get this whole thing going because they were seeing them all around their their carrier ships and the water coming out, you know and all this other stuff and so that now they take the lead and
00:09:55
Speaker
And you got them now building the structure if you would And and and so that's what's happened is it's shifted over and then you have to also be fair to the the UAP task force They were they were not looking at the citizen cases. They were looking at now the military cases, right? So it's the exact opposite of what you had with the Air Force and
00:10:17
Speaker
in the context of now getting these reports and looking at all that scientific data. So I believe it's a lack of maturity. They haven't got their processes in place. They're still not connected to the full government. And so consequently, that's what you saw was the fact that, well, we can't address those questions. We haven't looked at those.
00:10:37
Speaker
They talk about their cases, there's talk about 144 cases that they looked and then they went up to 400. Now it's a shift over to the fact that those are again just military cases. Does that help? Yeah, definitely.
00:10:54
Speaker
Could I get it a chance here to voice my opinion on the on the hearing? Yeah So
Challenges in UFO Research and Overcoming Preconceived Notions
00:10:59
Speaker
yeah, I might I might be the only one who's not as disappointed as everyone But that's because I use the trick going into the hearings. I use the same trick I use after Star Wars Episode one phantom menace which enabled me to enjoy episodes two and three is I kept my expectations low expecting to be disappointed and that's what enabled me to
00:11:20
Speaker
to look at the silver lining. I think I found a lot of silver linings actually. One of them was, you know, admission, for example, that the 2004 Nimitz encounter is still unknown. That's really important because then that means people like Mick West are claiming to be smarter than entire teams of military experts. And he's got his video to video of like, look, it was a bug in the camera and this like,
00:11:46
Speaker
The US military has admitted it's still unknown to this day. So I thought that was a key moment. The other key moment was like, USO's, oh, we can't talk about multi-medium, where that's going to be the closed session. I'm like, that is an important clue. And that ties in with why is the Navy leading versus the Air Force. That seems to go hand in hand. The Navy is leading, and somehow water is connected. I think that there were important hints and clues there, important silver linings.
00:12:15
Speaker
I am very grateful to SCU that actually a small number of the questions submitted were ones that I had come up with. I think I was at the right place at the right time on email chains because I'm on UAPX, but also SCU. And some of them were.
00:12:32
Speaker
accidentally covered, not from us, not from our document, but the silos, for example, the missile silos was a question I made sure we got in there. I was really happy when the one congressman pushed on that and he's like, wait a second, you guys never heard of this? How can you have never heard of this? That's ridiculous. That was a good moment. That was a positive moment. Rich is right that it's embarrassing that they wouldn't know.
00:12:57
Speaker
But I'm looking at the positive. I'm trying to focus on the positive. The fact that it got brought up at all, and that the congressman hounded them on it and be like, how can you guys not know this? Oh, no one in authority told us, well, I'm an authority. I'm telling you to check this out. I think that that's really good, that that was being hounded and that the multi-medium, that was the other one, did get brought up, even though then it was shunted to like, oh, we'll talk about that in the closed session.
00:13:25
Speaker
So certainly there's a lot to be disappointed about. I don't have the same 50 years of history as Rich, so I understand that it's very easy to get like, don't take this the wrong way, Rich. It's easy to get cynical or jaded, but I think I'm not at that point yet. So I actually wasn't that disappointed with the hearing. I was actually surprised by the number of admissions of things that like, yeah, we don't know. There are things we still don't know.
00:13:53
Speaker
and this and that. So yes, my take on it was actually more positive than anyone else I've talked to so far in the community.
00:14:01
Speaker
I agree with you a bit there because I tempered my expectations, but I was surprised to not hear the word transmedia mentioned once or something about space-based geospatial systems or underwater. I can understand that deep conversations on it have to be had behind closed doors in the classified area, but it baffled me that I didn't hear that word once.
The Importance of Scientific and Military Collaboration
00:14:26
Speaker
I think we did hear underwater at least. I agree with you Matt. I think that there were definitely positive moments in it. I thought that it was interesting that while you had the one guy that was talking, the congressman that was talking and bringing up the fact that he knew about the nukes and he knew about everything,
00:14:45
Speaker
Then you had this other congressman that's over there sitting in and saying, well, we should go after UFO groups and we should basically go after them and find them or put them in jail or something like that because they might be misleading information. I'm thinking like, wow, that's a great idea. Let's just go after your- That was a scary part. Whatever happened to the First Amendment, this was still a free country. Exactly. That definitely was a scary moment in which you're absolutely right.
00:15:15
Speaker
So, I mean, you know, coming back to the point where like, you know, yeah, I've been in it for a long time, I would love to be able to see a really right, an appropriate congressional hearing.
00:15:26
Speaker
even with potentially having witnesses and things like that, like Ryan Graves or something like that, even talking to the general public. And that wasn't part of that. These were two people that were leading a program that were doing nothing more than just answering what they maybe roughly knew. And you didn't get a really proper perspective on the overall UFO or UAP equation. And I think that that would have been more dynamic for the public
00:15:53
Speaker
uh you know to have had and so go ahead where was Kevin Day? Where's Kevin Day? Where was Gary Varese? Where was it? Where was Dave Fraver? Where was Alex Dietrich? Like where's Ryan Graves? Where are the actual witnesses? Shouldn't they be before Congress? Yeah that's why my disappointment was there. I mean you know I mean I've been waiting a long time to hear something in 50 years right from when we had the last one right
00:16:21
Speaker
that my expectations were that it was not that significant. I'm sure that there was going to be problems, but I thought a little bit more would have been helpful. It didn't happen. Anyway, that was why. But yeah, you're right. There's silver linings in the fact that we're just even having this conversation.
00:16:43
Speaker
Now towards the end of last year when the Gillibrand Amendment first came up it had wording in there that would there would be collaborations with private scientific organizations but that didn't really make it through to the NDAA 2022. Do you think that there's over classification or over secrecy that's stopping the scientific community from being able to work with the information and data?
00:17:08
Speaker
Yes, I mean, to be honest with you, you heard very loud and clear about the fact that it's sources, tactics and the type of equipment they're using. So they don't want to let on necessarily and share that type of information.
00:17:26
Speaker
But let me put it to you this way. You don't have to have that. You can get rid of the edit videos. You can edit this or that. And you can still pass those out to the scientific community and have it do it like we did with an image. We put a 277 page paper together on that study. Knuth was a part of that and Robert Powell and a whole bunch of others. And it was actually taken up to the hill.
00:17:52
Speaker
We got word that it was passed up. So you can include the people if you're just willing to edit the video, take out maybe some of the sensitive information and have them or scientists analyze that and come up with a legitimate report. So I hope that they can do that and they can come to grips with that at some point.
00:18:13
Speaker
I think it comes down to intent as well and how much they want us to know at any given time.
Citizen Science and Technological Advancements in UFO Research
00:18:19
Speaker
Because it can't just all be about things that are intelligence risks or they put us at risk with other nations. It seems just looking at the draconian history of the way they've treated the public, the scientists, everybody involved in researching this over the last
00:18:35
Speaker
70 plus years I mean it's always been here's a little tidbit to snack on and then they rip everything away so it seems like yeah things are different things are better things are changing but I don't think you're just gonna get rid of that long history of of Just leaking out what little bits they want to I think that's always gonna be there
00:18:55
Speaker
I will point out that I am a defense contractor. I'm contracted to work with Army Material Command. And the other thing that I'll bring up is the fact that there's a tremendous industry out there that they can also rely on.
00:19:08
Speaker
they have their own, we have our own military labs with scientists and everything else. So I mean, you know, to be fair, they don't necessarily have to come out to the general public. They've got a tremendous military, you know, group of scientists and people like that, that they can go within the organization that do have
00:19:30
Speaker
that can see classified material. Yeah, that's kind of anti-science though, because it's about doing the research and then publishing, getting it out there, having other people look at your data, looking at your results and then trying to repeat it, get the same thing. So yeah, I mean, I understand the reasons behind it when you interject intelligence that innately means only some things can be known, but I don't know, it flies in the face of science. They have their own scientists, but the scientific community as a whole is being left out of the conversation.
00:19:59
Speaker
You're absolutely right. I think it's, and that's what creates this like huge chasm between the two worlds, if you would, the end class and that. And so if they are going to try and balance transparency, they say that they're going to try to do transparency.
00:20:16
Speaker
a suggestion would be to also allow the other people, the scientists out there to be able to do something with it and actually be able to publish it and you know let's look at the farm it's it's out there right yeah i want to bring up something that that relevant here that kevin would say if he were here which is this is
00:20:33
Speaker
The issue here is that there's the tautology that it can't be broken because of all this classified data. That's the tautology of scientists are not allowed to look at UFOs. Why not? Because there are no published papers. Why are there no published papers? Because you're not allowed to look at it. So it's circular. We're never going to break out of that circle until you have some brave journals and editors that do allow rigorous work
00:20:58
Speaker
But how's that even going to start if the juiciest data is still classified, right? And we just get the lowest quality stuff. So that's why I think citizen science is going to be the way to push this, is to use modern technology, use the fact that cameras have gotten so good. The camera in my pocket right now on my iPhone 13 is better than by orders of magnitude what existed in the 1960s with the space program.
00:21:24
Speaker
So I think what we need to push citizen science forward to get data so good that it's the same quality the government has. Because civilian sector will be behind technologically, depending on the type of technology by 20, 30 years. But that means we are right now with our cameras and our tech that we have access to as non-government people is just as good as what they had decades ago, roughly, very roughly speaking.
00:21:50
Speaker
Do you think that would force the hand of the government to say, we don't want to be left behind? Oh, yes, absolutely. I think that's the only way to do it is to come out. And that was also part of our mission at UAPX is to try to collect eventually.
SCU Conference and Scientific Collaboration Opportunities
00:22:03
Speaker
I mean, I'm not saying we have a smoking gun yet or anything, but we're getting there. But to get data that's so good that the government's like, well, crap, now they've got equal or better data than we have. And so now there's no longer any point to classifying a lot of it.
00:22:19
Speaker
spot on. Yeah, that's, that's right. I mean, with the with the equipment you all had, and the the advance of technology and tools that we could get and the affordability of it, it now lends itself to being able to have those types of things out there where you will just collect it on our own, you know, and you know, and we'll do our own analysis. And I think that that's very doable. Exactly. Yeah.
00:22:44
Speaker
Now, Matthew, you obviously featured recently in the documentary, A Tear in the Sky. But I think for a lot of people in the UFO community as researchers, they are really looking forward to the data and the information that's being looked at, which I think is going to be presented at the SCU conference. That's correct. Is there anything you can tell us about the process and how it's been going relating to that area of the investigation?
00:23:07
Speaker
yes absolutely so we for our most interesting potentially interesting events we talk to camera experts already atmospheric science experts to look for and rule in or rule out any mundane or prosaic explanations basically make mick west redundant people like him just do the self skepticism ourselves and and so that if something really is weird it really is weird because we
00:23:35
Speaker
double check, triple check, and try to be our own worst critics. Unfortunately, there's always some bias if it's just internal, and that's why, as we said already, we are going to seek open-minded journals and editors because science is not complete without external
00:23:54
Speaker
unbiased peer review because we could triple quadruple check everything but there's still be things that we haven't thought of yet that does show something we caught that we thought was anomalous interesting really does have a prosaic explanation. So we've already if you've watched the YouTube roundtable on Jeremy McGowan's channel after the movie you'll see we've already knocked out a couple things that are in the movie we're like ah well
00:24:19
Speaker
That turns out to have a boring explanation. That wasn't weird. And so we're trying to knock things out like that to really whittle it down to what was truly anomalous and doesn't allow for an easy, simple explanation. So really, I'm hoping that gives you a glimpse into our process.
00:24:39
Speaker
Yeah, absolutely. I'm really looking forward to seeing what comes with the conference. So let's discuss the conference, Rich. Can you give us kind of the, because I know that, is it in collaboration with the AIAA or Ryan Graves? Well, Ryan of course is with them and we have a number of SCU people, even Kevin. Kevin is a part of, I believe that community of interest. I mean, he presented
00:25:04
Speaker
But Ryan is and then we also have Peter reality is on I believe working with them as well So we are connected with them We're not partnered with them We are just members of that community of interest that he's gonna be responsible for I hope I'm looking forward to being able to have the conversation with Ryan and You know at the conference to see if there's anything that we can do to help more I guess or something of that nature
00:25:34
Speaker
But anyway, yeah, the conference is coming up in a little bit less than two weeks. In fact, it was yesterday. We were two weeks out from having it. And I'm very excited about it. I know that Michael presented, and Matt presented last year, we had a virtual conference and they did a fabulous job. It was an excellent conference. This year I'm taking on a bigger challenge.
00:26:00
Speaker
The first year we did it was in person. The second time we did it was like all, you know, because of COVID, we were all virtual. And now it's a hybrid. So I'm going to be balancing between hybrid world, you know, and virtual world. And so I continue to make it more challenging to myself. I must be crazy. But anyway, but anyway, the one last year was great. I thought it went off without a hitch. So you've got the digital side on lock, at least.
00:26:26
Speaker
Yeah, I think, you know, we're using the same tool, Michael. So I think it's going to be, you know, again, it's like, you know, let everybody love that. So the virtual world, it's not just, you know, just watching a Zoom conference or something like that. It's got a lot more to it. And then the in-person is, you know, I've got to actually I only have three seats left because I'm so, you know, I've got I'm excited. We have a limited capacity in the place.
00:26:51
Speaker
I've worked out some incredibly fabulous meals for it. And suddenly we're getting a lot of interest from different media types that also want to come in. And so I've got a little separate room over there and another nearby room that we can have media interviews and stuff like that. But anyway, it's turning out to be great. I'm excited.
Interdisciplinary Approaches to Understanding UFO Phenomena
00:27:12
Speaker
The number of people we have are fabulous. I mean, Matt's going to be in Dr. Knuth. We got Alexander Went.
00:27:21
Speaker
We have John Alexander that's going to be presenting. We have a whole host of people. We're going to be discussing about the national security implications and working with science and how do you do that. We're going to be talking about the SU projects that we've got going on, which include a Nuke study that we're going to be talking about.
00:27:39
Speaker
Yeah, and so there's there's a lot of good stuff that's going to be there. We got three panels and anyway It's it's a great thing you all if you can join virtually because I'm going to be probably just about shutting off the in-person ticket But it's virtual as well. So join in and you can find us at explore su org
00:27:57
Speaker
And there's a link there that will take you over to it. Thank you. Fantastic. I know. Thank you. I think it's a very exciting time. But do you hope that there'll be conversations had at the conference that afterwards will lead to new directions for collaborations and projects and things like that? It's not just people speaking. There is stuff happening as well. Yeah. I've already got a number of topics to work with. Matt, we're talking about a whole host of things. We need to compare notes.
00:28:27
Speaker
Because actually, you know, we're partnered with UAPX. And of course, Matthew is part of both organizations. But I mean, ultimately, to see how we can help with that data that they have, if there's a way for us to help out, or even on the help out on the peer review type of aspects. There's a whole host of ways we can do that. And so we're going to have a conversation at the conference.
00:28:49
Speaker
about that. It's going to be great because, yeah, we're so as Richard said, we're UAPX is liaising, liaisoning, I don't know the proper way to make that a verb with SCU because we have so much data and such a vast amount of data. We all the ambiguities or anomalies you talk about was from like less than one percent of the data. We have hundreds of hours, especially a flier of infrared imagery.
00:29:14
Speaker
And we need people to go through that. And so SCU is going to help us classify things. That's a bird. That's an airplane and help narrow down to like, oh, this object is not an airplane. It doesn't match. So we really look forward to working with, UAPX really looks forward working with SCU to get through this giant amount of data we have from just our one week long expedition.
00:29:40
Speaker
Excellent. Yeah, that's fantastic. I think it's it was really great when I think, you know, towards the end of last year, people were really focusing on the scientific organizations to really come through. And it seems that it's happening, you know, big time at the moment with with yourself, Rich and the SCU and UAPX and also the Galileo project. Do either of your groups speak or collaborate in any way with with Avi Loeb and his team?
00:30:05
Speaker
I'll speak from the SCU side, but we do have people that are attending the meetings. We also, you know, like I think Robert Powell or some others are possibly they're listed as being affiliates or research affiliates or some sort of like way of doing that.
00:30:21
Speaker
But we are attending meetings and trying to provide input where it's accepted and stuff like that. They seem to be wanting to though pretty much stay within their own community in the context of truly wanting scientists that are out there that Avi maybe knows or something like that. But he's
00:30:42
Speaker
And he's trying to stay away from also the maybe anybody that's connected with UFOs, believe it or not. But it's pretty much, you know, trying to be as objective and scientific as he possibly can. And I understand that. And I mean, he doesn't want to bring in, you know, the woo woo groups or anything of that nature, which might want to be able to be in that.
Material Evidence and Challenges in UFO Research
00:31:02
Speaker
But anyway, it's a good relationship, and we are trying to help out.
00:31:06
Speaker
That's great to hear. I'm not sure what's happening with Michael. Michael, if you can hear us, it might be easy just to leave and jump back in again. So Matthew, what about yourselves and UAPX? Are you having conversations or any work with Professor Loeb?
00:31:24
Speaker
Well, it's a bit difficult, like Rich said, they really want to forge, Avi really wants to forge his own path. So we have a different approach, though, on UAPX, as we just said, in liaising with SCU. The philosophy that I've told Rich in the past, my own personal philosophy is,
00:31:42
Speaker
We have way too many groups. There's like an alphabet soup of acronyms, right? We've got like GP and UAPX and SCU and Kufos and Mufon and Skyhub and G2P and all this. I envision that I hope someday we can consolidate
00:31:58
Speaker
to a much smaller number of groups and pool our resources together. Because I think that's the best way to make progress. Because I worry that sometimes we all have different pieces of the puzzle. But if we don't play with the other people and bring our puzzle pieces and put them on the table, then we're really going to have a tough time making progress. I think it's extremely important to collaborate and work together.
00:32:28
Speaker
I'd like to make a point on that, because I think that when we initially formed SCU, we saw this as a coalition. It's called a coalition for a reason. It's a coalition of people. It doesn't matter whether you're a part of any other group. It's about the fact that we're getting together and having a discussion together. And that's where, and it's all disciplines and all views should be brought together, right? So I mean, it's not like we have any answers to this.
00:32:57
Speaker
whether it be extraterrestrial source or whether it be time travel or whether it be anything else, which nobody knows. So let's all have a combined discussion about this and see if we can use our coalition to be able to help have those conversations, communicate with each other, bump into each other, and have scientists, researchers and stuff like that talk about what they've done. So that's where we're trying to be. I don't care whether you're a part of another organization.
00:33:26
Speaker
If you want to do that, that's great. But let's do something. Go ahead. I agree with Matt. I think that's important. Do you see the SU as being that, like the place where everyone can come together? Because I feel it's definitely already doing that, and it still has room to grow.
00:33:45
Speaker
Yeah, absolutely. That's why I'm still a member of SCU even though I was doing UAPX because they serve different purposes. And I do wish Galileo Project was at the SCU conference because see that the thing is we do need to talk to each other. And SCU really is this wonderful umbrella that can bring disparate individuals and groups together.
00:34:11
Speaker
I'm thrilled the fact that we have people from Japan that are coming. We have people that are part of the ESA, the European Space Agency that are coming or are going to be attending. And so again, we're starting to see that there's a footprint of a whole variety of disciplines and organizations and people that are treating it seriously that are actually now wanting to come together and are going to be attending this meeting, by the way.
00:34:37
Speaker
I'm the attendance we're getting. I think when you look at the actual, probably their capabilities and the types of things that they bring to the table, it's very exciting. So it's happening. Yeah, it's very refreshing to hear all the collaborative efforts coming together and not being competitive with each other. And then especially with overseas organizations as well, that's absolutely fantastic. Now, when you do have these conversations as scientists and you're talking about the data that's been collected,
00:35:08
Speaker
does it ever get to that point where the conversations become speculative and you go back over maybe what these things could possibly be? Does that conversation still happen? Of course. Yeah. Absolutely. Michael and I will go back and forth on, because time travel is one of my favorite topics, and I'll be like, well, it's almost impossible. It'll be really hard. So of course, we have these fun, speculative conversations. And that's part of what makes this conference that Rich always works
00:35:36
Speaker
so hard on annually putting together with the board. I see what was so wonderful is it's a safe space where you can also exchange some of the speculative ideas without fear of being labeled crazy. So that's absolutely part of it. Yeah, I think it's also important to point out though that it's not just to say what these things are, who they are, where they're coming from, when they're coming from. It isn't innately speculative. And we have to be careful using that word because
00:36:05
Speaker
We can make observations of what these things are doing. We can look at their flight characteristics. We can look at the blue shift, how Putov talked about this a lot in last year's conference where he's talking about how they can
00:36:18
Speaker
blue-shift light that can speed up and slow down time. They have these characteristics that we can observe and make logical inferences about why they're doing that, what they're doing, how they're doing it, and use that observational data to make informed guesses about other aspects of their origins. So I think we still need to connect the dots, especially if they are from time.
00:36:38
Speaker
We're not just making speculative guesses about when they come from or how they're traveling through
Speculative Discussions on UFO Entities and Time Travel
00:36:44
Speaker
time, but we're observing the characteristics of these craft and the beans and then using that to what I try to use as an abductive approach, find logic to the best inference, the best way of understanding with the fewest assumptions. And yeah, there are ways to speculate and things that are speculative, but I think we need to be careful in saying when we start talking about their origins, it's not innately speculative.
00:37:08
Speaker
It doesn't mean we're speculating. We can still garner information from what's observed in an observational study context. It's not the same type of data that we get from one observer going out and seeing, like, sitting and watching the house, then that house, then that house. So it's a different type of evidence than what we're used to, but it's still eyewitness testimony, and we should take those seriously as well. I mean, it's not just the cockpit videos anymore. We've got to look at the whole phenomenon.
00:37:37
Speaker
I agree with Michael that speculative doesn't necessarily mean untestable. As a scientist, I think all these hypotheses are testable, extraterrestrial time travel, doesn't matter. They all make predictions on the properties of the objects, et cetera. And not perfectly, of course, this is difficult because reproducibility is hard, right? You've got to be lucky, right? This isn't something you can do in the lab. It's an observational science, just astronomy and cosmology.
00:38:06
Speaker
where like you only have one universe to study and so similarly you have to get lucky but i do think you can you can while being speculative you can still tether your speculation to particular hypotheses that you can try to prove or disprove so i absolutely agree with michael in fact his mentioning of the blue shift that's one of the reasons why we brought some of the equipment we did on uapx and it really helped us hit the jackpot
00:38:30
Speaker
to find strange anomalies because we listened. We listened at the last SCU conference, which was, as Rich said, online fully due to the pandemic, but we listened to Hal Puthoff, Eric Davis, we listened to Michael, we listened to others, and we got ideas. Okay, we're going to bring such and such equipment. We're going to do it this way because this is how we can test these ideas. So we've already had the discussions at the SCU conferences have borne incredible fruit
00:38:56
Speaker
already by pointing us the direction to go and what kind of data do we want to take that will increase, that will go beyond, as Michael said, go beyond eyewitness testimony and camera images. How can we do even better than that? Yeah, absolutely. And you know, it's funny because we can't necessarily apply the same standards of evidence that we've used in
00:39:17
Speaker
Science for for decades and there's like rich was saying too When when we come together we have these conversations and then things come out of that and you make networks You meet people you make new collaborative connections with people and and and it's so different from the past because When people are trying to do this before is the invisible college is shock valet It's jail and heineck and they had to do it behind closed doors, but now we can openly talk about this with each other and then
00:39:47
Speaker
not have to fear, you know, game-ridicule retribution from our institutions for the most part, though there are exceptions. So it's an incredible time, I think, where we can have these conversations openly and learn from each other, especially coming together interdisciplinary. I mean, I think it's going to take that. We can't understand a complex and mysterious phenomenon like this from one scientific discipline or one viewpoint. It's going to take all of us just
00:40:14
Speaker
throwing everything in there like matt said putting the puzzles on the table and seeing what fits together yeah and to uh michael's point as well uh the you know i mean it's not like we all have to have the same opinion or even view on this just the fact that we're sharing
Public Perception and Scientific Challenges with UFOs
00:40:32
Speaker
it is is very important uh alexander went is going to be doing a uh presentation that would be
00:40:39
Speaker
Maybe many people would probably say is a little bit counter to the typical thinking. He's going to be talking about the fact that, you know, is actually contact real. It's almost like the Michio Kaku perspective where it's it's like, you know, do we really want to let the people out there know that we're here? Do we expect them to be all friendly and like ET?
00:41:00
Speaker
Do we really want that? And so he's going to be talking about, well, is actually exploring UFOs and doing scientific study? Is that really a good thing for us? And so it's going to be a different perspective. And we need to hear that, right?
00:41:16
Speaker
to balance our views, balance our perspectives. And so what we've tried to do with the present presenters we've had at conferences is try to get a mix of different views and have that come together so that we can all have a conversation about it. And, you know, some, you know, Matthew talked about, you know, dark, dark energy and how that that wow, that just opened up doors for me in terms of thinking, well, that could be, you know, potentially how that they're using it. Right. It's great. Let's go check into that.
00:41:45
Speaker
You know, and I'm hearing about time travel in the context of, you know, the study that Michael Masters has done in the context of just looking at it while the beings that are described are bipedal. They're very much like us to arms to all this other stuff. Wow, that's an interesting perspective. Like, you know, are they human? You know, and so you start to have those kind of like perspectives that that you maybe want to go off on and think about a little bit differently. Right.
00:42:13
Speaker
And of course, so it's good. I think it's important also, I have to stress that, and my colleague Kevin, who just wrote a medium essay about this, that's getting a lot of reads, is that his humility is so important. I think, like you said, Rich, different perspectives. I think we have to let the truth and facts speak for themselves.
00:42:34
Speaker
I don't care if it's extraterrestrials. I don't care if Michael's right and the time travels to the future. That'd be great because then that means that probably means we survive, you know, the nuclear war Putin's about to start. You know, that's good news. And so, like, I as a scientist.
00:42:50
Speaker
I want to be proven wrong with my ideas because that keeps me honest. And so I don't care if the vast majority are atmospheric phenomena and are not, you know, intelligent crap. Wherever the truth leads us, wherever the facts lead us is what's important. And that's why it's totally OK for everyone to have their favorite hypothesis, extra dimensional, interdimensional, extra stress. That's fine. As long as we're not married to it, when the facts say
00:43:20
Speaker
Otherwise, that's yeah, and it's hard you see it in academia as well. I mean in paleoanthropology especially there's so much debate and infighting about whether this should be a new species or whether it's morphologically similar enough to these that we should group it in with those and we've been going at it for
00:43:37
Speaker
for decades about these little nuances and things. And you see dogma, you see people adhering to this ideology that they embrace and they think is right no matter what. But I think the UFO community, and especially in science, it's more ripe for that same type of thing because there's so many unknowns. It's easy to jump on something and look for things that back it up, confirmation bias, selection bias.
00:44:02
Speaker
I think as scientists, if we're really focused on learning what this is, we need to recognize any of those biases and get rid of those, leave them at the door and just open our minds to whatever this might be.
00:44:16
Speaker
Yeah, absolutely. The technology advances that we're going through I think are going to help us because that's going to give us some other, you know, and we've just so badly needed that. I go back to my early days, even with the Project Blue Book, you know, and all that whole time period.
00:44:32
Speaker
I didn't even have something like a tape recorder that I could go out with at that time. That was before that. I was going out and investigating cases where people, I had to hand them a piece of paper and a colored crayon or something like that and say, draw your picture of what you saw. That's the kind of tools that I had back when I was doing investigations.
00:44:53
Speaker
And you think about that in the context of, well, did the Air Force maybe have that? Because they sent out investigators like me that were sitting there doing the same thing and then maybe had a form. And that's all they did. They filled it out.
00:45:04
Speaker
But now we've moved over to a completely, you know, where we've got multi sensory kinds of data, all different types of data that we can use technology tools that are now going to give science a little bit more information than this crude drawing with a crayon. Right. You know what I mean? And so, you know, I'm excited about the time that we're in right now. And I'm thinking that, man, the potential here is that we're going to have maybe answers within
00:45:31
Speaker
I don't know for my lifetime, but maybe within maybe a couple decades or something anyway. Yeah, that'd be awesome. Am I right in saying, Rich, that in the last few months the SCU opened up the reporting system through the SCU website for public sightings and things? Yeah, so let me
00:45:52
Speaker
Talk about that for a second. We do have a group of people that we're all looking to do investigations with. We're not looking to do, though, Mufon's job. We're not trying to replace what Mufon does or anything of that nature.
00:46:06
Speaker
We're looking for the reports with credible data or information or some of the better cases, if you would. The ones that we can pass off to science that would be helpful. So in other words, if you've got like, let's say you've got like a sighting that was in a given area and you've got three people who took video of it from different angles, you might be able to triangulate where that's at.
00:46:33
Speaker
Or if they had some other kinds of tools like air traffic controllers, maybe in the area might have also witnessed it, right? And they picked it up on radar. So you could add to that some actual data, you know, and start to look at it again, that we can go with, as opposed to just an anecdotal, you know, story that somebody's coming up with, which, you know, it's hard to be able to determine truth and fact from that, right? Because humans are fallible.
00:47:02
Speaker
even as observers, you know, and so that's what we're looking for. And that's the kind of reports that we want to get, not the, you know,
00:47:12
Speaker
I took a picture and I pointed it toward the sun and I have a little blue orb down there which is basically a lens reflection. Now I think a conversation that always crops up that I certainly see a lot but we don't necessarily get a lot of information on is materials, metamaterials and things like that. We know people like Gary Nolan speak about it and we know in the past Jacques Vallée has as well but
00:47:41
Speaker
do gentlemen have any conversations information or does that conversation come up more in the scientific community than maybe in the public realm well the that would be you know if we had materials that we could test and show have you know for example an isotopic content that's not that's not terrestrial that's really that's a huge smoking gun you always hear about these claims but the thing is is it's um
00:48:06
Speaker
Again, not seeing anything published. I think Gary Nolando and many of his working hard on this as well as Jacque Valet and others really look forward to some results that are really solid that say here's a piece of here's some piece of some stuff and either it has isotopic content that doesn't match doesn't match the Earth-Moon system
00:48:28
Speaker
or and slash or it's got like materials manufactured at a scale smaller than we can you know on some sort of nano scale that we find that's that's really the smoking gun I was really disappointed during the hearing this did came up and they're like oh I don't have any wreckage
00:48:47
Speaker
Well, I hope that's wrong, because that would be great. At the same time, I've always been really, really skeptical about wreckage because the way, actually, a friend of mine, Bob, put it is, if they're so advanced, why are they always crashing? So it's kind of bizarre to think about the possibility of wreckage because if they're so advanced, that shouldn't be happening.
00:49:11
Speaker
But I'm definitely open to the possibility, especially because that's way better than even multiple sensors, like Rich said, like radar and stuff. If I have a hug of material I can test in the lab and prove it's not of this earth with current technology, that's it. That's game over. That shuts up every skeptic, the bunker. That's the, that is it. That's the holy grail. So I'm open to the possibility and I would love, love it if we had something like that. Yeah.
00:49:41
Speaker
I think that in the context of the military world, let me just speak for that, because basically what happens in a lot of the cases of any material or anything that falls on the sky, it does go into the military world. And the military world has specific routes that it passes things to. So like, for example, here in Huntsville, we have a missile and space intelligence center. So if you get a gun,
00:50:05
Speaker
from the Iraqis or something like that. Guess where it's going to go? It's going to go here. You're going to have scientists that are up there doing re-engineering of it. And it'll stay within the military world as to Michael's point earlier about the fact that this somehow stays in the military world and doesn't get out to the scientific world.
00:50:21
Speaker
So I think I'll point to the fact that there's you know, there's been reports like on the scale of about 200 crashes that have happened over throughout the world. I worked with Len Stringfield on and he was working on these crash retrieval types of things. But what I'm going to say to you is that anything that the military does get or picks up is within the military. And then it's classified beyond anything you've ever known.
00:50:50
Speaker
and you'll never know about it, right? So it's quite feasible that within the realm of the military, and it's been documented that they've been out at many sites, the Kecksburg crash that took place with military, right? Allegedly, Roswell was all picked up by military, right? So I think that that could potentially exist within the military world.
00:51:15
Speaker
It's not necessarily as known to us. And I'm thrilled with the fact that Gary Nolan at least has some material from somewhere that he can work with. But the problems we have with material is that we don't know necessarily the chain of custody and where it came from. And those types of things lead into problems for scientific research and study.
00:51:40
Speaker
Because if you don't have that chain of evidence or where it was passed or where it came from, then who's to say where it's from? And that's always going to be a question mark with the rest of the world in terms of trying to figure out
00:51:56
Speaker
Does it have any unearthly types of material types of situations? We do have within SCU, besides the fact that there's people like Gary Nolan out there, but we do have other people who have done lab work.
00:52:15
Speaker
The Delphos Kansas case, for example, the soil samples that were taken from that were analyzed by Phyllis Budinger and a number of people that actually are in SCU. And they did a tremendous amount of work on those types of debris, those effects, if you would, which showed that there was definitely something that was very profound there, right?
00:52:35
Speaker
So we can get that type of information from at least some of the effects to the soil. And we need to keep from having that. And that's areas where we as a organization are continuing to strive to improve how we do that, get labs on board, where we're going to send things over and that type of thing. Excellent, yeah. I suppose sometimes it doesn't have to be the actual materials. It could be traces or radiation or things like that that can
00:53:04
Speaker
I think, yeah, I might personally probably forget that and all you can think about is a solid or something. A biological sample would be great too. I'd love to have like an alien's leg or something. I mean, I even take a toe. I just give me something and it's always about these materials that come from the ship, but I'd be over the moon if there was some sort of biological sample.
00:53:30
Speaker
What's amazing to me is that, you know, don't they have DNA? I mean, it seemed like you would find DNA trace evidence somewhere where they were walking around some sort of skin sample or something. Yeah. I mean, we haven't been looking for it though, either. We don't treat it like a crime scene. Exactly. If we did. Yeah. If we treated it like a forensic crime scene, maybe we'd find, I mean, they seemingly don't have hair, at least the majority of them. But yeah, there might be something else.
00:53:57
Speaker
That's the thing, we seem to change the way we conceptualize this and change the way we conceptualize evidence and look for things that fit the description of abductions or close encounters or sightings and then try to see maybe what else we could get from it. Yeah, that's a great idea. I'm gonna go into the next abduction with some rubber gloves and some tweezers.
00:54:17
Speaker
try to find something. Well, Mr. Kakko always says if you get abducted, steal something. I think he forgot the fact that people get stripped naked, though. Yeah, and Tony of the Us Boys tried to steal a clock when he was abducted, and they caught him and got all pissed off about it. Yeah. A clock? A clock, yeah. They said he tried to steal. What he assumed was a clock.
00:54:37
Speaker
that had all the little dashes around the same place as ours. I always get a kick out of the cases where they're in their bed and they're somehow moving through walls. It's like, well, I wonder if they came back with a cloth, would they be able to get that through the wall? That's a good question.
00:54:58
Speaker
There was a woman, Amy Rylance in Australia, who was abducted through a window and she was being carried out. Her friend, Petra, saw her being carried out the window with the contents of the coffee table. Petra went through the window and all the contents of the coffee table fell to the floor. So it kind of indicates maybe you can't take the other stuff too. I mean, nobody knows how the hell they do this in the first place. People go through solid matter.
00:55:24
Speaker
Yeah, that might be some indication that you can't necessarily take things with you. Now, Michael, just theoretically, if we found one of these time travelers to be or look exactly like we do as human, would that surprise you? Would you have expected them to have evolved and to look different?
00:55:45
Speaker
No, in fact, in my new book, I think it's probably in about a week and a half, I think it'll publish. But the first two case studies, the first one in particular, it's an entirely modern human looking individual. He spoke vocally, wore the one piece bodysuit, came out of the same silvery metallic craft. It was actually right here in Montana. Joan Byrd talks about it.
00:56:10
Speaker
in more detail in her book Montana UFOs, but he was getting water out of the sluice stream. There was a miner up there who heard the low buzzing sound, went around the corner and was like, oh, it's this guy walks out, says, can we take some water? We extract the hydrogen as our fuel source, gives him a tour of the ship. He writes Senator John Glenn, former astronaut about this, great detail about everything he learned about
00:56:34
Speaker
inner workings, the mechanics of this ship, which he didn't have a full grasp on as a miner. But no, it indicated to me, and many other cases I've come across like this in researching this new work, is that if they are time travelers, and I'll put that out there, if this is the case, it indicates that we're going to be doing it much sooner than I previously thought. When I wrote the first book, it mostly focused on the grays and
00:56:59
Speaker
the derived synapomorphic characteristics where they have the bigger heads, smaller face, bigger eyes, all these traits we'd expect to see tens of thousands of years in the future. But then you have these cases where it's an entirely modern looking person just like us. So I don't know, I've kind of revised my understanding of the...
00:57:17
Speaker
or at least the way I conceptualize it, where it's not just a prediction about our long-term evolutionary, not just physical, but cultural and technological evolution, but it may actually occur sooner than later.
00:57:29
Speaker
I just wish someone, this would happen again in the smartphone era. I want somebody to be like, so here's the spaceship. And like, that's really what we need because otherwise there'll always be a way to say it was imagined. It never happened. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. And I, and I talk about that a lot in the book, you know, what, how do we, how do we take this information? And there's things that can be corroborated. For instance, Amy Rylance being taken out the window that was seen by her friend.
00:57:56
Speaker
And there were three different jurisdictions involved. She was taken to a hospital, so you have all of the doctors and the nurses report. So we can find ways to substantiate certain things. But yeah, I've always said that the abduction aspect is a more tenuous as investigation, but it shouldn't just be thrown out. We should be considering it as well. And especially if we see consistent patterns across all of these cases,
00:58:22
Speaker
take that into consideration and use that to try to get as much information as we can with the overtly stated caveat that it's never going to be as reliable as many other forms of data. Yeah, no, I'm not saying throw it out. I've said this to Rich many times. People laugh whenever I say this. And many people claim to be repeat abductees, experiencers.
00:58:46
Speaker
Great. We should like totally wire up their bedroom with like every possible camera imaginable. And I, all I've ever heard when I've said that is like, Oh, how put off already did that. And the following happened. I'm like, um, can you show me that on paper? That's just hearsay prove it to me. I'm absolutely not saying throw it out. I would want to study the crap out of it.
00:59:05
Speaker
If I had time and money and people willing, I would have so many cameras of different types in that bedroom. We would know one way or another right away, whether it's in the head or if it's a real abduction. And again, I don't buy the like, oh, well, Hal tried that and it didn't work. Prove it. Show me. Next time I see Hal, I hope he comes as to you and be like, well, where did you publish that, Hal? Like, it's not good enough to say like, oh, I tried it and it didn't work. That's not good enough.
00:59:32
Speaker
Yeah. Yeah. And that's what I was saying. Like if I could be the observer or any trained observer that went from place to place, we could use that observational data, but it's coming from different people with their own fuzzy memories, their own way of conceptualizing things, their own belief systems that come into play. But like what you said too, if we could have the sensors, if we could have cameras, if we could have anything that's checking for electromagnetic anomalies, have that in that place where sometimes these people claim to be taken upwards
01:00:00
Speaker
50 to 60 times throughout the course of, you know, 15, 20 years. So clearly, you know, or even just one data point where you can capture that on video or whatever's happening and it would be phenomenal.
01:00:17
Speaker
You know what I've heard is allegedly again, this was not proven to me. Oh, when we've tried to do it, then the abduction stop. And I'm like, yeah, that, that, that's very smelly. That's very fishy to me. Yeah. Okay. So yeah. I was going to share with you that, that, that I know move on. Apparently it tried that as well, where they had the devices that they were putting in the rooms. And of course.
01:00:40
Speaker
It's like, like everything else it's like you know how do you predict when these things and then think about the sheer volume of data you're collecting, you know, in terms of just every day I'm recording my bedroom when I go to bed at night or something of that nature over like a period of years and then they come back but anyway.
01:00:56
Speaker
There's challenges with it, but I agree with you. It's pretty logical. Go where the objects tend to go. If you're going to do a study, well, hang around a nuke site. Go to an abduction and basically set up as much as you can to be able to do something with it.
01:01:17
Speaker
And so those are two convenient spots. The thing I want to come back to was just want to mention, you know, going back to the humanoid, the human being, the alien, if you would, so to speak. Let me clarify that in the early days of the ufology, when I was running around doing all these studies and things like that back in the 50s and everything else,
01:01:37
Speaker
you know, some of them look like us, some of them didn't look like us, some are like the the Kelly Hopkinsville or the little robot, the little robot types of things. You've got creatures like a mummy, if you would, that Charlie Hickson and Calvin Parker saw in Pascagoula. Well, they think it was a robot. I think it was a robot that abducted them. Sort of maybe like a robot or something like that. And then you have all these other types of beings that are seen in around the world that
01:02:04
Speaker
that are very unique or have characteristics. Some were like little dwarves. If you take a look at the Tom Reed, I think in Matt Reed cases up, you'll see that in that case where there was actually some physical trace evidence that was also supporting it, that these are looking more like the typical reptilians. They didn't have an appearance very much like at all, like with human.
01:02:34
Speaker
But anyway, I guess what I'm trying to get at is that there's all these variations of beings that make you like tend to like wonder like, well, what are we a zoo? I mean, is this a visitation? This is the natural park where I come to do it and they're coming from multiple sources?
01:02:51
Speaker
Is it not just from the future? Is it from somewhere else? So is any one hypothesis necessarily proven? No, there's multiple hypotheses. And maybe it's many origins. I guess this is what I'm trying to get at. But it just seems that there's all these variations. But when you look at the actual object maneuverability, like the UFO or something, how it maneuvers, that remains kind of consistent with all of them.
01:03:20
Speaker
Regardless of the size, you can have an object that's reported the size of a grapefruit that's hovering and then shoots off at an incredible rate of speed. At the same time, you can have something that's huge, like the Alaskan sighting, where it's also doing a very kind of similar motion or something of that nature. And they all typically, that's pretty consistent. So how do you explain the different, in terms of the beings,
01:03:49
Speaker
Well, I'd like to point out real quick that, and there's always problems with survey data, but the Dr. Edgar Mitchell Foundation Free Study did a massive, and it's continuing, they're up to over 5,000 abductees and contactees, but they showed statistically, at least in analyzing what people report, that those who witnessed these beings, the majority were described as human.
01:04:12
Speaker
not just humanoid or human-like, but human, exactly like us. After that was the short graze and then the tall graze, and only about 5% of all of these abductees reported seeing something like a reptilian or a mantid or some sort of insect. So, I mean, if we can consider survey data in this, in a survey of abductees, and again, it's a little more tenuous because of their experiences now they remember it, but the fact that the majority are described as human, despite you're always going to have outliers in any data set.
01:04:40
Speaker
And it almost seems like these Mothman, Dogman type creatures are very, very rare examples, which could be attributed to something entirely different. But in the one scene in association with the craft, especially, are almost ubiquitously described as human. So I think there is more consistency in the craft and the beans than maybe what you're giving it credit for. So prior to the Betty and Barty Hill case,
01:05:08
Speaker
I rarely have ever heard anything that looked like the grays at all, described in any case that I went to, or any case that I ever read. Yeah, Antonia Villas Boas was kind of a hybrid. Yeah, it was great. Right. Yeah, that's, that's the one case that's prior that kind of sticks out. But, but my point is, I guess I'm trying to say is that it seemed like, you know, and this is part of how myth creations happen.
01:05:34
Speaker
you know, people see something, they watch something, and then it becomes part of the culture where that they see them too. How much has that come into play? And are all these cases generally showing that type of thing from like about 1961 going on? And so I guess what I'm trying to get at is, you know, if I have a great case like Betty and Barney Hill seeing these things, how much does that plant into the consciousness mind that these are necessarily the same things? And I'm going to report it that way.
01:06:04
Speaker
Yeah, and that's one of the main reasons I tried to get pre 1947 pre Betty and Barney Hill cases because yeah, you have a collective consciousness that can be affected by these things and and I address the psychosocial Hypothesis with the fact that we try to anthropomorphize things. It's natural for us to do that Are we imposing a human form on these things because we're human?
01:06:25
Speaker
And it's understandable to us regardless of where or when they come from. So we definitely have to acknowledge that. And it's what I keep coming back to is, is what is evidence? How, how can we understand these things? And we've just dismissed it for so long, but all these people are having such consistent experiences. And I, I didn't select any case for any one particular reason. I was just diving in to find the most vetted, the most, the ones that have, like Travis Walton, where people saw him taken, he's gone, the police come up, they're looking.
01:06:54
Speaker
where we can look at these facts associated with the disappearance and understand how anomalous it is, but then also focus on the way it happened, what he described seen, what other people described seen, and try to put together this massive amount of observational data that we can then go through and look for patterns in. Because there are patterns. There's so much consistency across these accounts, regardless of when they happen, post,
01:07:19
Speaker
1947 pre Betty and Barney Hill. There's so much consistency and I think it needs to be a part of the conversation to be honest. Excuse me.
01:07:29
Speaker
Yeah, I thought that, you know, like, for me, it was always when I got started with this whole thing, it's like it was always curious to, to hear that other countries were reporting the same things, you know, and so like, you know, you had the Reverend Gill and Papua New Guinea that was talking about seeing an object and even waving at beings and they wave back on top of the graph, right? So nations of that are hilarious, too, where he's waving at the sky.
01:07:52
Speaker
Yeah, exactly. But I thought it was interesting in the context that, for me, it just told me that, look, it's just not a US phenomenon. It goes beyond the US. It's in other places. And there seems to be this inherent consistency, even with people who don't have TVs, can't watch the science fiction shows that I'm doing. And this is a tribal area. And they're describing the same type of thing, right? Absolutely. Yeah. I recently went on a two-week trip to Zimbabwe.
01:08:22
Speaker
Yeah, we did an investigation in Colombia recently, and it's ingrained in the society. Everybody wants to talk about UFOs. There's murals and pictures everywhere. It's just completely different out there. So it's funny how it does in certain cultures and countries and things. It's the norm. There's no stigma. There's no taboo. So yeah. One question that really I keep seeing is this statement from people. And it seems to, it bothers me a bit. And that is, if they were a threat,
01:08:51
Speaker
they would have done something by now, which I disagree with, because that's just us humanizing it. Well, they've been around for a long time. You know, something would have happened. What do you guys think about a statement like that? What is a long time?
01:09:05
Speaker
So if you look at my colleague, Professor Kevin Knuth's talk from SCU, I don't remember which one, 19 or 20-20 hybrid or 21, but relativistic time violation means that if you've got beings that can travel at relativistic speeds,
01:09:26
Speaker
It could have been a few months ago that they were watching the Wooly Mammoth and then the Stone Age, or it could even be five minutes. So when people are talking about being visited by beings, the scary thing is
01:09:45
Speaker
it could be the same ones because of relativistic time dilation. So what does that mean? Oh, but we've been seeing them a long time. That would be like saying, so I am partially agreeing with you. I want to be optimistic and positive, but your point is very valid because that would be like the aunt saying, well, that boot didn't crush me the last 10 times or a hundred times that boot walked by. That means that boot will never crush me. Ah, crap. And then I'm an aunt and I even squish.
01:10:15
Speaker
So I think that that might be, even though, like I said, I tend to be more positive and optimistic. I also think we shouldn't be naive. Look at what Stephen Hawking said, for example, about how things didn't go too well for the Aztecs and the Mayans and things like that. These are valid considerations, definitely valid points. We should not be comfy, cozy, and naive.
01:10:42
Speaker
Let me give you another reframe on on that too, because it might be a, you know, just to argue that a little bit. If you take a look at the caloric incident in Brazil.
01:10:55
Speaker
Would you describe that as and these people were being like attacked by these things? Would you say that that's necessarily friendly? I mean, and so I mean, part of what we say is, you know, that they're not going to hurt us. We're not going to do that. Well, these people would say that definitely that they're out to hurt us. Right. I mean, because that's that's their experience. Right. Whatever that was that was going on.
01:11:14
Speaker
But why is it black and white? It's like earlier you were saying how there could be, if there are intelligent races, if they exist, there could be different species. There could be, and Travis Taylor gave a talk on this at the very first conference, right, in 2019. Travis Taylor's point was, what if it's random and 50% evil and 50% bad if there are intelligences out there? I think that's a very fair point, is why do we have to assume that technological superiority automatically means moral?
01:11:44
Speaker
Moral superiority. I I don't think that's the case just looking humanity with nuclear weapons I really don't think I think that one can be technologically superior but still evil But I don't think it's black and white because we could be different dealing with different phenomena We could even if eating the ETH hypothesis is true could be different species. I mean, there's there's many explanations there. I
01:12:08
Speaker
I guess that's why I was going to go with my point. I was just merely pointing out the fact to the people in Brazil who experienced that, their perspective was that this was evil. What about the people that are being picked up allegedly for the abduction cases, stuff like that, and being checked on? Would you say that that's a very friendly thing, that going against your will and taking and dragging you out of your home and suddenly putting and allegedly doing these types of things? Exactly.
01:12:37
Speaker
So if that's going, you know, if we, you know, it is, if we, if the, the middle is activated or activated. Yeah. Yeah.
01:12:48
Speaker
But if we can trust the survey data from the free study, the Dr. Edgar Mitchell Foundation study, 85% of those who have an abduction experience stated that it was either benign or positive. If the ones that they were interacting with were more human-like, it was only 5% that said they had a negative experience. So that might come back to your point, too, about there being different types, different varieties, whatever you want to call them, who maybe don't have
01:13:17
Speaker
of that same connectedness for whatever reason, I'm not necessarily just saying if they're us from New York, more humanity being shown from ones that are more like us, especially if we evolve our consciousness, if we evolve our sense of empathy, which I think is a very commonly reported thing in these abduction accounts is they feel a deep sense of love and empathy, even though
01:13:36
Speaker
they're being probed in the rectums and having, you know, eggs and sperm extracted, which is a very invasive procedure. It's a kidnapping, it's rape in some cases. There's ethical issues involved with this, but people still come away with it more often than not feeling like they're contributing to something bigger than themselves. They're contributing to some greater good that they feel almost proud to be a part of in many cases. And it kind of comes down to the difference between a contactee and an abductee at that point.
01:14:02
Speaker
But I think it's important to acknowledge those cases where you do have, and especially statistically, if we can trust the survey data, where the statistics show that people are genuinely okay with or really enjoy their experiences. Whitley Streber is one of the best examples. He came to crave this interaction with these people and longed for future contact.
01:14:26
Speaker
Yeah, and I think, I don't know if I caught it, but again, activating missiles or deactivating missiles, is that good, bad? Do we really know? And then there's the problem also, the fact that there are these phenomena that, for example, on the military side anyway, we have to look at defense and we have to perceive it being a threat because we don't understand what it is and where it's from and everything else and what it's doing. We don't know what its intent is, right?
01:14:54
Speaker
So when you have these drones that are plaguing these ships, these military ships, and they're spending time and following them and everything else, is that a threat or is that not a threat? And do we really know where the origin is? Is that really the Russians or the Chinese that are doing something and they've just advanced the technology? So from a military standpoint and the defense standpoint, you have to treat it as being a critical threat
01:15:23
Speaker
and then determine from your analysis or whatever it is, whether it could be potentially this was maybe a UAP or this is really a drone from another country. So it's one of those things you have to consider and look at it from that standpoint as
01:15:41
Speaker
Well, the drone from the other country thinks so. This really irks me, and this will be something you'll probably agree with me, Rich, about the hearing, is we want to pretend, oh, there's no cases before 2004. And I don't want to get into a rabbit hole of what the motive could be for that, but I wanted to point out that in the movie, A Terror in the Sky, there's a scene where I'm sitting with Travis and Kevin and talking, and I point out
01:16:08
Speaker
that there are there were these you'll probably know which documents you know I'm talking about this was in the history channel show on identify talking about flying white butane tanks in the 1940s 50s that sounds a lot like a tic-tac to me a 40 foot white butane tank that sounds like exactly the same thing almost
01:16:26
Speaker
And let's see Russia and China, let's see Russia was recovering from World War II, China was recovering from World War II, and a civil war, communist and nationalist. Oh, but I'm sure they had, you know, breakthrough attack in, you know, why didn't they use it against the Nazis and Japanese? So, like, the absurdity of the, oh, it's Russia, China. If that's true, why the hell are there cases from the 40s and 50s describing what sounds like the Nimitzen count?
01:16:56
Speaker
How do you explain that? Let me do a counter argument with you. If there's any truth to a crash, the crashes that have happened and other countries have had them, then there's no reason why they couldn't have had a breakthrough technology in terms of using the material that they got from the crash or doing something like that with re-engineering it.
01:17:18
Speaker
So they might not be going on a full scale tic-tac, but maybe they're using some of this as drones technology. And by the way, you know, I'm right now in the process and I have a project with the Army where I'm putting in, we're putting in at the Army material command and throughout the DOD drone killing devices.
01:17:37
Speaker
And we're putting in and spending a lot of money at all of our installations, our ranges, and all of our, maybe like the ships, to be able to do that because we know that drones are advancing in terms of their technical understanding and abilities across the world. And so I'm just going to say that we have to play, you have to determine which is which. Is that really the Russian drone? And I'm not talking about tic-tacs.
01:18:05
Speaker
yeah no i know what you mean but look i'm skeptical in the whole reverse engineering angle that ties into what we're talking about earlier in my opinion if we have stuff and like i said i'm not at all convinced we have stuff if we do we don't have the faintest idea how to reverse engineering it would be like giving a laptop
01:18:22
Speaker
to Michael Faraday in the 1890s, one of the most brilliant scientists, or James Clerk Maxwell, Maxwell's equations, and be like, hey, figure this out. They could spend the rest of their lives on it. After the battery died, they would have no idea. And to corroborate what I'm saying, Kevin has talked to, I don't know if it was a private conversation, so I won't say who he talked to, but famous person at SCU,
01:18:45
Speaker
Kevin confronted someone on this who is alleged to be working with parts and be like, oh, you know, I think this part is that part. This is the computer and this is the navigation. And this scientist said to Kevin, Kevin, we wouldn't even know the difference between the navigational computer and a sandwich.
01:19:04
Speaker
And so this was even admitted by the people who claim to be reverse engineering for the government, even admitted that to Kevin Knuth saying, yeah, we have no clue. No clue. Like I said, laptop. Imagine Michael Faraday with a laptop. Hell, imagine Albert Einstein with an iPhone. He would never figure it out, ever, I claim. Even if he had a team of people, he would never figure out how an iPhone works before he would die.
01:19:33
Speaker
That's where we're at, I think, if we have anything, if we have something. I think it's hopeless. I beg to differ. But anyway. I hope you're right. I hope you're right. But that's OK. That's OK. You know what I mean?
01:19:48
Speaker
I missed part of the conversation because my internet's absolute garbage, but my understands you're talking about if something crashed, how would we reverse engineer it without the technology or knowledge to figure it out? I think I agree with both of you. If something, say, say Roswell happened and it's a highly sophisticated craft.
01:20:07
Speaker
But I mean, at 1947, we would have no idea what any of it was, how it worked. But by now, with some 70 years to figure it out, I mean, couldn't we be at a place where now we're implementing that technology and using some of its basic elements, at least in the present? No, but my point was that wasn't possible in the late 40s. I was discussing with Rich the thing about the flying white butane tanks that people saw in the 40s. And I'm saying that there's no way
01:20:34
Speaker
We could have reversed engineered something that fast and that was my point No decades that I will give you and i'll give rich that point Is is when I was saying now it's impossible What I meant is you're not going to like take two or even five years and figure it out It's going to take decades of the best and brightest minds. It's going to take and there's so much back in antiquity, too I mean jack valet's book wonder in the sky
01:20:57
Speaker
And so Richard Stuthers, too, traced all of these cases back thousands of years, which is the same thing. And I like Matthew's point, too, about the relativistic time dilation thing. I talk about that a lot in my new book and how it could be the same beings being perceived in different ways by these different groups who, as you go back farther in time, are more primitive, have fewer things they can compare it to to understand it. But as we get more evolved and we start to have more of these technologies ourselves,
01:21:24
Speaker
we can start to put it in more comprehensible terms.
01:21:28
Speaker
And to my point was that not necessarily that I'm expecting that the drone is necessarily something that was built back from Roswell or whatever. But my point was that the materials might give unique properties or something of that nature that you can figure out. And you might be able to utilize that.
Speculation on Alien Technology and Military Responses
01:21:47
Speaker
And there's also the belief that, for example, nitinol or shape memory alloys did come from going to Battelle Memorial Institute, which actually was contracted with Blue Book.
01:21:57
Speaker
That would have had maybe the Roswell materials passed off to it and maybe that's helping To be able to push us ahead with that particular shape memory alloy So I guess what I'm trying to say is and that's not necessarily figuring out the craft But it's you figuring out how you can utilize the materials in the engineering. No, you may be right rich I'm open to that possibility and that's that's what I was trying to say. I was not necessarily saying that I
01:22:23
Speaker
that we have figured it out and we're flying them. I'm saying that materials or something of that nature could be actually reutilized, and we're starting to see some of that happen from previous crashes. I can give you a story that actually corroborates what you just said. That's a really good point that I had forgotten, myself even. Actually, I just remembered that once when I was
01:22:48
Speaker
I remember watching Unsolved Mysteries and there was the Robert Stack and talking about the Roswell crash. And then they were showing people describing the materials. And I was like, ah, well, that's boring. That's just aluminized mylar. I use that as a grad student.
01:23:06
Speaker
But then I googled it and I realized aluminized mylar had not been invented yet. And similarly, Teflon and other description materials were originally, I was very, very extra skeptical. I was like, yeah, but that's just aluminized mylar and Teflon. But then I googled it and I'm like, wait, that wasn't invented until 10 years after.
01:23:24
Speaker
So then I started to question that. So yeah, no, that is a valid point. I was saying that, but figuring it all out and like flying drones around, yeah, I am very skeptical would be able to do that easily, not without decades of hard work.
01:23:40
Speaker
Yeah, and my point about the drone thing was literally that just that the military has to treat it both from a standpoint of it's potentially earth-based or it might be something else. I'll point out to you that I heard recently, it's been all over the news about the fact that they tried to use these drone killing technologies on one and it didn't work.
01:24:04
Speaker
So obviously it might have been utilizing some other kind of technology other than what we think that a drone should be. But my point is that you still have to, from a defense posture, you still have to look at it as a potential threat. And you don't know where it's from. And that's why you see these things as being.
01:24:22
Speaker
in the hearing they claim that the green triangles well they're not green you know what i mean night vision oh we've we've solved that one um okay so was that russia china tell us what the hell so yeah that was that was intriguing they're like oh we we figured that one out um okay great can you tell us
01:24:39
Speaker
Yeah, I can help you out with that because I actually studied that myself. So what you had is a situation where an individual's got like a Gen 1 type of night vision kind of like lens. It doesn't have the means of recording.
01:24:55
Speaker
So he holds up his SLR camera. Oh, no, no, that aspect. I know we did that on UAPX. All right. No, no, no. I get the triangles fake. It's with filtering. Dave Mason already explained that he figured that out. The aperture was a creates a bokeh effect. Yeah, that I got. But what are they? What are they? But the blink rate also from the lights was fill it was exactly what we have as a standard for navigation lights. It was blinking at the rate.
01:25:25
Speaker
that you have for other aircraft. So I mean. Who's were they then? Well, again, the origin, you wouldn't be able to determine, right? And that's why we're concerned about it, because we're saying, like, we don't know. Could a submarine have been over there and launched drones, and they're testing it on our people, and then they're underwater, and it comes back? Or was it launched from space or something of that nature, dropped from an aircraft?
01:25:50
Speaker
People are doing, I mean, groups are testing military swarm technology. They've got other kinds of fuel systems on these things. And so you have to understand that, you know, I used to think, well, I've got a drone, I fly it out here, but I have a battery on it, right? Well, these things are, you've got fuel on them and they could stay up for a long time and shoot up at incredible. And so that's what we're talking about. We have to like understand that drone technology is way advanced.
01:26:16
Speaker
And we're putting together across the world all different kinds of drones with all kinds of capabilities that have themselves that can do jamming. They can do a whole variety of things that the objects allegedly are doing as well. So we have to now discern between those.
01:26:33
Speaker
You to point out to me some country other us or Russia China that can pull a few hundred G several tens of thousands of miles an hour Like I said before it's not gonna explain the tic-tac. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, I got you, you know, I mean that So you're you might have a mixture of both, you know, and we just have to know right? Yeah. Yeah
01:26:56
Speaker
Well, listen, gentlemen, we're closing in on the hour and a half mark. So before we go, if you could each just give us a little bit of what's going on for you next. Obviously, Rich, we discussed about the conference, but anything else you're working on and all your links will be in the description below. But yeah, if you could just give us that little bit of info before we say goodbye, that would be great. Thank you.
01:27:15
Speaker
Well, I mean, yeah, my life's eaten up by conference. In fact, you know, that whole thing is every day. I mean, Matthew probably can tell you, Michael can tell you that these things are pretty complex. So my life is, my life is, that's why I didn't know about the answers or the questions that we were asking to, because I haven't had time to deal with that, right?
01:27:35
Speaker
So to be fair, I'm glad that I was able to share with you what I could about it. But that's where I'm at right now.
Breaking Stigma in UAP Research
01:27:43
Speaker
My life is all conference. So I'll pass over to Matthew or somebody else to be able to say what they're doing.
01:27:54
Speaker
Well, like I said earlier, we've got a ton of data to go through that we want to share with SCU. And the long game is we want to be able to break the cycle of there are almost no publications. There are exceptions, as you mentioned, Rich, there's the paper that Kevin
01:28:11
Speaker
Peter reality, Robert Powell got in a journal in entropy. Those are more the exception than the rule. I can probably count on the fingers of you. I'm sure you're familiar with all of them. I've seen like rush. This is a Russian one and stuff. I can count on the fingers of one hand. The number of papers on UFOs and UAP published in real journals, like high quality, high impact factor scientific journals. It's like maybe a second hand. I don't think I need the second hand yet though.
01:28:39
Speaker
And so I think that we want to break through that stigma more and that taboo because everyone's talking about, oh, the stigma is gone. No, it's not. It's definitely reduced. It's mitigated. And I'm glad they brought this up at the hearing. But again, mitigation is not the same thing as elimination. There's still plenty of stigma and taboo. And so we know on UAPX, as has been on SCU, it's going to be an uphill battle.
01:29:05
Speaker
to get anything published because people will be like UFOs and laugh at us and so but that's the long game is to publish actual papers saying here's some atmospheric anomaly you know we've we've we found so so that's really where we're focused right now although i have to confess
01:29:24
Speaker
It's really a side job because my day job is to look for dark matter, and I'm paid to do that. Unfortunately, I can only do UAP stuff in my free time, which I put in air quotes because I have none because I have four children. Really, this year, the dark matter experiment that I've been working on probably over 10 years, largest one in the world is turning on, has already turned on.
01:29:46
Speaker
And so I've really got to focus on the mainstream, my mainstream scientific effort. That's another reason why we need more people when we're bringing in people to help look through the UAPX data. So I mean, if you want a near future summary for me, there you have it. Looking forward to the conference, really looking forward to seeing Rich in person.
01:30:05
Speaker
and everybody else I'm really really great to see people to see people in person again looking forward to the conference and I really we really hope that our talk that Kevin and I and Christopher Altman will be giving will really blow you away we hope. I'm sure it will. So Michael before we leave what have you got going on? Yeah I see you just hit the 90 minute mark so I'll try to keep it short but
01:30:32
Speaker
much like rich, uh, my life has been consumed by one thing and one thing only, um, I've been putting in 14, 16 hour days, trying to get this book finished, get the audio book recorded. Um, but it's almost done. I think it'll be out June 1st and all three formats, paper back.
01:30:49
Speaker
I know, I'm excited too. It's different than the first one. It really goes deep into the abduction aspect, sort of a John Mackean approach to some extent, and cautiously examines the abduction and contactee aspect of the phenomenon. I've met so many experiencers over the last three years, and it's just amazing to me the consistency across their reports and what happened to them.
01:31:11
Speaker
by who, what type of ship, what type of experience they had. So I'm just trying to look for patterns across these cases and it's been a tremendously fun thing to research. I mean, it's something I didn't really have much of a background in when researching my first book and I felt that was kind of a flaw.
01:31:30
Speaker
in that research, but it's been really fascinating to look at this and it has kind of been, I feel fortunate because it's been the thing I've been researching. My university lets me do this.
01:31:44
Speaker
Actually, I won a research award this week for excellence in research and scholarship. And all I've been doing is they gave me an award for UFO research. So I mean, talk about the stigma. Yeah. I want to join your university. It's one of the top science and engineering schools in the Pacific Northwest. It's Montana technological.
01:32:07
Speaker
University. And I've got great respect for my administrators, my colleagues. They've been so supportive with all of this. And I mean, I might be the exception to the rule, but it's still been good. I wanted to just tell people that, you know, not to brag about my little word, but to let them know that it's changing, the stigma is changing. And you can work in a place and talk about UFOs openly where your administrators and your colleagues are supportive. So I just wanted to get that out there. But
01:32:35
Speaker
I should say our university is supportive too, but not that kind of level of support of like, my goodness, I'm thrilled to hear that. I hope. Yeah, I was too. And yeah, I think, you know, my dean sent me an email on Tuesday and I said, thank you. She said, you're incredibly deserved of this. And I was like, wow, what is happening? What world am I living in now?
01:32:56
Speaker
That's amazing. Congratulations. Well, listen, gentlemen, I'm just going to give a quick shout out to R&R and Jimmy the Earthling. They gave us a little donation during the livestream. So thank you to those guys. But also to everybody that's been having a really great conversation in the live chat tonight. I'm sorry we didn't get to focus on you as much as maybe we like to, but it was a conversation that
01:33:18
Speaker
I didn't want to break. It was flowing. It's exactly what I wanted. Gentlemen, thank you so much. It was an honor to speak to you all. For everybody watching, I'm going to be back on Tuesday for 30 minutes with Gary Nolan. He has gladly offered me a half an hour to speak with him. So follow me on my socials. You can check out all the times there. But one more time, gentlemen, thank you so much. I wish you nothing but the best in everything you're doing at the moment. I will certainly be tuning in where I can and promoting anything I can.
01:33:48
Speaker
Once again, thank you so much. Thank you, Vinnie. Always great talking to you. Yeah, thank you, Vinnie. Appreciate it. On that, everyone will say goodbye. Bye. Cheerio. Bye-bye. Bye. Bye, Rich. You're listening to the Anomalous Podcast Network. Multiple voices, one phenomenon.