American Alchemy with Jesse Michels - UFO Believer vs. UFO Skeptic: Are Aliens Visiting Earth? (Ft. Mick West and Marik von Rennenkampff)

Episode Date: January 27, 2025

UFO skeptic Mick West and national security analyst Marik von Rennenkampff debate some of the most famous “UFO” videos, including newly surfaced footage from Iraq. Mick insists they're camera illusions; Merrick highlights experts who refute simple glitches. Will definitive proof soon emerge in the open, or is the real evidence forever sealed behind classified doors? SPONSORS (Check them out to support our endeavors): LUCY: Let’s level up your nicotine routine with Lucy. Go to https://lucy.co/jesse and use promo code JESSE to get 20% off your first order. Lucy has a 30-day refund policy if you change your mind. CORNBREAD HEMP (CBD): Go to https://www.cornbreadhemp.com/jesse and use code JESSE at checkout to save 30% on your first order of Cornbread Hemp CBD. Cornbread Hemp: This is the good life. Join our Whop! Exclusive Videos & Community Calls ➤ https://whop.com/americanalchemypremium CLIPS CHANNEL ➤ https://www.youtube.com/@UC8ZKTXN9trt5dhixz6b6l6w SUPPORT THE GUEST BELOW: Mick West: https://www.metabunk.org/home Marik von Rennenkampff: https://x.com/MvonRen Chapters 00:00 Introduction 01:07 Introducing the Guests 08:53 Belief in Extraterrestrials 09:58 Historical Figures in Ufology 12:52 The Shift in Government Attitudes 14:33 The Emergence of AARO 16:40 The Challenge of Hard Evidence 17:42 Social Media and UFO Hype 18:07 Theories of Mass Hysteria 23:14 Whistleblowers and Credibility 25:12 Discussion of the Nimitz Case 35:37 The Swamp Gas Analogy 49:22 Analyzing the FLIR Video 1:00:51 Transition to GoFast 1:10:59 The Importance of Eyewitness Accounts 1:12:36 Acknowledging the Complexity of Evidence 1:17:27 Balloon Theories 1:19:01 Go Fast Video Introduction 1:22:10 Arrow's Oversight 1:29:50 Gimbal Video Insights 1:40:58 Gimbal Analysis 1:51:34 Occam's Razor Debate 1:59:58 Fleet Formation Discussion 2:10:57 Operational Perspectives 2:35:05 Exploring the USS Omaha Incident 2:35:30 Unraveling the Aguadilla Video 2:49:38 The Nimitz Debate 3:00:20 The Nuclear Connection 3:14:45 The Egg Video Mystery 3:45:34 The Debate on Anomalies 3:52:35 Closing Thoughts and Future Insights Become a Member of American Alchemy ➤ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuG2KzrIMe3qoNcuDVpwnXw/join CLIPS CHANNEL ➤ https://www.youtube.com/@UC8ZKTXN9trt5dhixz6b6l6w INSTAGRAM ➤ https://www.instagram.com/jessemichelsofficial TWITTER ➤ https://twitter.com/AlchemyAmerican EMAIL/BOOKINGS ➤ [e-mail] #uap #debate #aliens #disclosure #ufo #extraterrestrial Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Make Mother's Day even more special at Whole Foods Market. Kick off brunch or dinner with quality cheese and charcutory with no synthetic nitrates. Then go seafood. There's an abundance on sale at Whole Foods Market, where it's all sustainable while caught are responsibly farmed. At the bakery, grab seasonal treats like their strawberry pretzel cream pie, and you can't go wrong with a ready-to-heathe Kish Lorraine, Deviled eggs, and fresh-cut fruits to go. Celebrate Mom with Whole Foods Market. No expert in the world agrees with you.

I know you're eager for error to debunk this. There's zero evidence of what you're proposing. None. This isn't remarkable. What we're seeing here is a curve that's basically an mathematical projection. It's not. Like, propose one plane that would fly like this. Well, why don't you propose one type of UFO?

The broader problem with ufology is that it's always been the battle between hard evidence and cool stories. There just happened to be a disjad. Exactly where the close thing is. Is that what you're saying? Behind it somewhere. Really? You're very familiar with this theory of my mind. I think this is playing into the crowd here a little. I brought all the experts to you. Bring some experts to the public. Unfortunately, the stigma that you promote is a big part of why they don't want to come out. These guys are fighting a stigma. I encourage them to come forward. Like, come forward and no, I won't laugh at you. Different parts of the brain have different activities. But you know that, don't you?

Maybe you should interview me. I am here with Mick West and Merrick von Rennon-Rennon. And this couldn't be. better timing for this debate. We planned this maybe a couple weeks ago. Both of you are very well known. Merrick, kind of on the pro-side in certain cases where I wouldn't call you dogmatically pro-UFO, but there are a few videos that you've looked at where you think there's something substantial or worthy of investigation there. And Mick has done an amazing job. I think you're doing a service of debunking a lot of UFO videos that just are clearly fake. And so, I'm honored to have you both here because I think you're both the most serious on the sort of, you know, this is a poor way of saying of a pro and anti-side. And this couldn't be better timing, right? It's just insane how many quote-unquote drones we're seeing over Air Force bases all over the world right now. And so, yeah, I'm very excited. You kind of came on my radar because you publish in the Hill and you're a former DOD employee. And so you kind of know that world. And you were publishing really.

substantive pieces around some of these videos. And you, Mick, have been doing this for how long, like five plus years or? 2016. Since 2016. And I think you've always done a pretty good job. And I've heard things from, you know, UFO junkie friends of mine, like, oh, Mick's like a bad faith actor. But all of our conversations we've had, I find you to be pretty earnest and cool. So why don't you guys kind of introduce yourselves and tell the audience how you got into this sort of vigilantey job of debunking or, you know, confirming UFO videos to begin with. I'll start with you, Mary.

Well, Jesse, thanks for having us and Mick, thanks for being here. So I will be very honest. I didn't think about this topic. I thought it was squarely in tinfoil hat territory. This is not anything on my radar. I missed the big 2017 story with Leslie Kane and Ralph Blumenthal. It's just as a testament to how little I was tracking this. But I did stumble upon, I think it was late 2019, the interview that Commander Fravor did on Joe Rogan.

And I previously worked at the Pentagon. I worked with some Navy aviators, naval aviators, more rotary-wringing guys. But I knew the type, the bravado, the way they carried themselves. And as soon as I watched five minutes of Fravor and this guy is the real deal, right? He's a skipper of a storied squadron out on the West Coast, the VFA 41, Black Aces. And he tells a pretty, an incredible story. And oh, by the way, it wasn't just him. It was three other aviators that were out there.

And that was my ticket kind of down the rabbit hole. And then, believe it or not, Mick West has a lot to do with my kind of my interest in this topic. We exchanged a whole lot of emails. I think we did a few Zoom calls. Yeah. This is years ago. And, you know, just be transparent. The deeper I dug into mixed theories.

First of all, I'll just say, like, who's this McWest guy? Who thinks he knows more than the government? Like, okay. And, you know, there's some pretty deep nuance. And from my perspective, I found, again, from my opinion, in my opinion, he was wrong about a lot of his theories. And the deeper we dug, I'm like, my goodness, there's something to this. And that was really kind of the twin tickets down the rabbit hole, dug into the history and started writing articles about it. Awesome.

And before we get to you, Mick, for context for the audience, we're going to be going over kind of the classic historic landmark cases. So Nimitz, Fleer videos, or video, rather, the gimbal and go fast videos, which were taking at the USS Roosevelt, 300 miles off the coast of Jacksonville. Mick, what about you? you get into this? Well, I am a retired video game programmer, which is very different background to Merrick. And I after I retired, I took up writing. And I was

just doing stuff like writing for game development magazine. So eventually kind of moved into the skeptical arena, like investigating conspiracy theories, things like that. One of the first things I did was, I was on Wikipedia,

just messing around with, I used to edit Wikipedia about, I guess, 18 years ago. And I saw this article on the chem trail conspiracy theory, which is this fun theory where the government was spraying things behind planes. And I did some work on that, on my blog. And that blog kind of evolved into my current site, Metabunk.org.

Metabunk is just a forum where you have lots of people just chatting about various different conspiracy theories. It's kind of grown now to be more UFO focused. But we have a lot of older stuff like 9-11 conspiracy theories. is false flags and even the flat earth stuff. But with the Kemp Trail stuff, I got really into doing things like tracking planes and trying to figure out what people were seeing in their videos. And so after that, it became kind of a natural thing for me to start looking at UFO videos. And occasioned it a few over the years. But it really kind of took off in, I think it was

2016, or perhaps the start of 2017, with this case from Chile, Chilean Navy video. And this is a video looks really spectacular. He was released by Leslie Keene, who you mentioned, in the Huffington Posts in 2016 and 2017. And she was very effusive about how amazing it was. And me and a few other people looked into it and we very quickly determined that she was wrong about that. It wasn't that amazing. And it was actually just a distant plane. And we were able to prove that pretty conclusively. Not everybody agrees straight away. But I think America you would agree that case is pretty much solved. And that really got me hooked on UFOs.

And that kind of almost coincided with the 2017, December 2017 release of a New York Times article, which came with these other videos, Gimble, and the FLIO-1 video, and GoFast was released a little later. And, you know, when I first looked at them, when I looked at the FLIO-1 video, it seemed very similar to this Chilean video. And so I thought perhaps it's the same type. of things. So I started delving into it. It turned out it wasn't exactly the same type of thing, but there were related aspects. And I really enjoyed the process of investigating UFO videos

because it was so similar to the work I used to do with video games, except kind of in reverse, but it was all the same mathematical techniques, all the analysis techniques, debugging and debunking are very similar things because they're both about finding the boot cause of something. And so I got hoped and I've been doing it ever since, and I've done a whole bunch of of different videos. Marika and I have agreements on several of these, and we have disagreements on a few of them, and I think a lot of the time those disagreements kind of fall in the videos that are somewhat more ambiguous, and this is a problem in general with the UFO videos, but I'm keeping going.

I want to ask real quick, before we get into the actual substance, about kind of your priors, do you believe in the possibility of UFOs, notwithstanding the fact that you don't don't, you know, sort of agree that any of these videos are legit. No, yeah, definitely. I mean, I would certainly agree. People ask me, do you believe aliens might exist? And yeah, I think, obviously, in the universe, almost certainly, there's some type of alien life, probably some type of alien civilization. I just don't see that there's good evidence of them visiting us here. I wouldn't rule it out, but I just don't think there is good evidence of that happening. Okay. What about you, Mer?

I previously before I went down the rabbit hole I was in McWest camp I thought the universe I mean the universe is exceptionally large we just cannot conceive how large it is and I firmly believe that there was life out there not that it was here fast forward over the last I'd say three four years I have done it I'd say a deep dive into the history of this topic and I've read the the raw case files the raw Blue Book casebook. No analysis, just, right? Just a straight reports. And I've come to a very different conclusion. I'm a big fan of James McDonald. I don't know if you guys are familiar with him, but very, very prominent figure in the history of this topic. He's an atmospheric

physicist. I encourage anybody watching to read anything and everything that he has written. Start with science and default. It's a remarkable critique of the condominable. committee, which we can get into. But in his, his bottom line assessment was that the extraterrestrial hypothesis is the least unsatisfactory hypothesis for what hundreds and thousands of people have observed at close range over the last 80 years in many cases. I am, I'd say I'm partial to that because of just the long historical record. And I've got a ton of cases that I'd like to get into, because I think they are related to some of these videos, and we can talk about that. Fellow alchemists, Lucy Breakers are changing the game for nicotine users.

If you're looking for 100% pure nicotine product that's tobacco-free, Lucy Breakers are where it's at. Each pouch has a cool twist. Inside is a capsule that can pop to release an extra burst of flavor and hydration. It's a unique experience that makes your nicotine routine more enjoyable and convenient. As someone who delves into the most heretical thinkers and ideas of our time, I appreciate products that challenge the norm. Lucy breakers do just that. My personal go-to flavor is mint.

Whether I'm deep into a podcast discussion, exploring new frontiers, or brainstorming ideas, throwing in a Lucy is an easy way to keep the day moving. Plus, the flexibility and strengths lets you choose what suits you best. Let's level up your nicotine routine with Lucy. Go to lucy.co slash jesse and use promo code jesse to get 20% off your first order. Lucy has a 30-day refund policy if you change your mind. Again, that's lucy.com and use code jesse to get 20% off. And here comes the fine print. Lucy products are only for adults of legal age.

Every order is age verified. Warning, this product contains nicotine. Nicotine is an addictive chemical. Thanks so much to Lucy for sponsoring today's episode. So I think we should just dive into the footage. And, you know, get me. Not to just interrupt, but I just want to quickly just acknowledge. And again, I bring a historical kind of government perspective of this.

Can we just acknowledge what has happened over the last five years? We've gone 80 years. And we are literally at the 80 year anniversary of the first reports of foo fighters. Like that happened November of 1944. 80 years of denial, radicule obfuscation to, and I love this quote from Mick. June 20th, 2020, this is when Rubio snuck a provision into, you know what we're talking about, right? Stuck a provision into Senate Intelligence Committee language. And mixed quote is, years will pass.

It will recede in memory. Little will come of it. I assure you in June of 2020, I probably would have agreed with you. Now we have Arrow. I think it's about three, four dozen. We just heard yes with this week that they're at full operational capability. three, four dozen people working at a, at a UFO office, right? 1,600 cases as of last count.

And his director just came out and said, in essence, I'm baffled. I have an engineering and science degree. I'm baffled. I don't know what's going on. And I don't know anybody else who knows what's going on with some of these cases. That's pretty extraordinary. He was a former NSA director. He was an essay scientist.

Scientist. Yeah. So it is pretty remarkable. We had just about every single, we had former. CIA directors, former national intelligence directors, just extraordinary things. You know, Radcliffe has said, UAP UFOs exhibit technologies that we do not have and cannot defend against, right? They appear to. Right.

I'm just saying, I'm just trying to acknowledge where we've come. It is extraordinary. It is astounding, right? I don't think, I suspect, if I had shown you a picture of Dave Grush testifying under oath with the former inspector general, the intelligence community sitting right behind him four years ago when you wrote that tweet. You would probably thought I was crazier than I... Well, what I meant there. Nothing will happen was not that nothing would happen.

It was more that nothing would happen in terms of giving evidence that aliens are visiting, which is the thing they really want. I'm actually really happy that we've got all this progress and we've got these investigations and the Arrow is doing a lot of work, even the spending millions of dollars on investigating it and hopefully they will release their information. I don't think we've really got much further along the road in terms of actual evidence of genuinely anomalous phenomena that didn't exist five years ago. The stuff that ARA's released, obviously, like, people are disappointed with that, and their overall assessment is, you know, there's no evidence of alien life. We have lots of talk about things going on behind curtains and in skiffs and in secret and things that people can't talk about.

And that's, you know, that's interesting. But I think it kind of speaks to the broader problem with euophology, is that it's always been a bit of a battle between hard evidence, hard data, and cool stories. We have a lot of really amazing eyewitness accounts. A lot of the Blue Book stuff is eyewitness accounts, and there's very little that you can actually get this tangible data. There's some data that's written down, but there isn't really very much we can actually analyze.

and that's what we really need to move the conversation forward. Having people come forward and say, I worked on a program in the 60s that did crash retrieval, I don't think it's really going to move the needle very much unless they can actually produce some evidence of something. It's just more cool stories, which maybe they're true, maybe they're not, but we can't actually do very much with them, and that's always been the problem.

And then there's the intersection of the cool stories with the data, with the videos, which we'll get into later, where people are talking about, you know, I'll take, give you two points that maybe, maybe give us a little bit of hope to really address your point. And I think Kozlowski has said, and the quote here is, um, and Kozlowski is the director of era, the new director. Dr. Kozlowski is the new director of ERA, which is the government's UFO analysis office. And his direct quote is, we're going to need the help of academia and the public to address some of these cases. And he's pledged to release them.

Now, I'm skeptical, right? I know how the government works. They don't release anything. They don't have to. But he said this. So just to just kind of address your point, maybe we'll see some more. I don't know. I think that's notable.

And then secondarily, Dr. Kozlowski in his hearing said that at least two, multiple firsthand witnesses have gone to arrow. Witnesses are what? Unreported UAP programs. That was the question from Jill O'Rand. So anyway, we can go down that round. I'm just saying like, you know, the story of UFOs, right, is, okay, there's something coming, but there is. We'll see. But there is some chatter about it. Mick, how do you, to Merrick's point, there has been a lot of momentum if you're just tracking social consensus, hype around this stuff. I mean, I run a YouTube channel that is, you know, really surrounds this topic, particularly. I've seen a lot of interesting.

My site is all UFOs now. Well, there you go. So how do you explain that? Do you think it's some sort of coordinated site? Do you think it's just this contagion mass, you know, social psychosis thing? What's going on? I think it's something that was maybe bubbling beneath the surface and it's just being kind of allowed to come out. The New York Times story basically opened the floodgates. It was something that gave validity, gave, allowed people to talk about it, allowed other journalists to talk about it. And once you get that going, it becomes this kind of feedback loop. People talk about it in the media, the general public talks about it. and then Congress gets involved because it's what people are interested in.

And then you can kind of push these things perhaps without the stigma that you had before. And if there are things like unacknowledged SAP programs, which I wouldn't rule out, of course, you know, it's entirely possible that people were running crash retrieval programs for things that they thought were UFOs, you know, back in the day.

But perhaps some of those were under the radar. We know the government has done dodgy things before in the past. So that's the type of thing that should come to light. You know, there's the church commission. Was the church commission? Yeah, church commission. Yeah, they're something like that where we can actually get these things out. And I've been pretty enthusiastic about people like David Grush testifying,

and I wish he would come out and actually say more. Because I want this to come into the sunlight. I want to know what's actually going on. Well, if that's your goal, that's, I think, the goal of everybody here. Absolutely. And we, yeah, we'd love, I would love for this to either be, falsified forever or... No, that's not going to happen.

It's one of those things that's impossible to falsify, because there's always the idea that that light over there might be an alien. Well, what I would say... You can prove it's true. I think there's not a lot of daylight

probably between us where, like, I think whatever is going on is interesting. If it's mass, social psychosis, a coordinated sciop, I think those are extremely interesting because I think it's the best sciop, maybe of all time, if it's a sciop or something. Guys, we can talk about this for hours without even get.

I will say the commentary, direct commentary from Rubio, Gallagher, Kirk McConnell, former Senate staffer, Sass, Sissy, sorry, Senate Armed Services and the Senate Intelligence Committees, they have all stated. Jill O'Brien, her first question in the hearing, there are, as she said, right, there are reports that firsthand witnesses are reluctant to go to the UFO, the Pentagon's UFO office. Rubio has stated very clearly over and over. These are credible people with high clearances and high positions and they fear for their lives. He said that on camera.

That's fascinating. So if it's mass psychosis and people in high positions in government are saying, yes, I was on a retrieval program, then we have a major, major problem because they're just fantasists out there that are in important positions. And very sensitive areas. Correct. I mean, the other thing I would say is say this is all. unacknowledged deep black programs. I find that fascinating too. Yeah, absolutely. Maybe it's a bit of both. I mean, we do know that there are people in governments who are fantasists. Not everybody who's in government or in the military is going to be

like on the level. Well, the thing that I've found, because I've met all these people deep inside the government, you know, post doing this show, they are often more conspiratorial than people who are civil side. And that could be one of two things. That could be like, oh, that like discredits them in some way. Or it can be like they are somehow privy to a lot, crazier stuff. And that makes them more conspiratorial. Mick, can I put you on the spot, actually? Just curious. When Grush says under oath, I had the firsthand people go to the Inspector General to submit a complaint. Louis Elizondo goes under oath. Yes, we have crashed retrieval programs. Rubio says,

not under oath, but he says publicly in a very long interview, first-hand witnesses, they fear further lives. Kirk and Connell has been tracking this and is, and is convinced that there's something to this. I talked to a congressional source told me, I asked, point blank, what's your confidence level in the existence of such programs? The answer was hovering around 100%. What am I, as an analyst, supposed to do with that? What do you think? I wouldn't be surprised if there were such programs. I mean, this is something I've been saying for a while. Sorry, and that it's NHI and it's non-human intelligence. No, there's actually NHI there, but those programs that existed in the past, possibly even now, where some people who work on

those programs think that it's in the HAC. It's quite clear from people like David Grush that people do actually believe these things happen. They believe that we have bodies. They believe that we have crashed alien craft and they believe that these programs to study them. Maybe the programs exist, but what were they actually studying?

Why do you think the Inspector General didn't just shut this down immediately? I've no idea. I'm not really familiar with what the Inspector General does. But Grush's claims covered a range of things. There's the whistleblower recrimination. and it seems a little bit mixed up as to what the Inspector General was actually investigating

and what they're referring to when they said. Rubio is very clear. He's a vice chairman of the Senate intelligence. Rubio said that the unreported, the misuse of funds, that portion of it, they didn't say anything about the reprisal part, but the misallocation of funds was to deem credible energy. Yeah, well, if there are unacknowledged special access programs, I'd be happy to see them. I work that way, but it's interesting because that's also unfalsified.

That's like also in Feynman's not even wrong sort of category. If they deny it, you can't, you can say they're lying. If they admit it and show it, then that's one thing. It's like anything, you only need one. You just need one ace to win the game. But everything that's not an ace doesn't mean there's no aces. So you think it's going to stay in this sort of liminal category for a very long time? I would hope it doesn't, but I think all we can hope for really is to get more sunlight on it.

And if there is something there, something will eventually pop out. And if there isn't something there, we will see that, you know, all the things from the dark corners become illuminated and we see that there was nothing there. And perhaps there's something in one of the dark corners is really interesting. That would be great. How did non-human intelligence get into a bill sponsored by Chuck Schumer and signed onto by Rubio, Gillibrand, former presidential candidates, 22 times. And then biological evidence of non-human intelligence. Oh, you'd have to ask Schumer about that. Schumer said he was doing it to kind of honor the legacy of his friend Harry Reid.

So he just randomly puts in aliens into 64 pages? That's just because he's buddy. I mean, maybe, I don't know. But it's... His sappers did it. Some sapper do those. Well, he wrote his name next to it, right? He does that for everything, doesn't he?

But it's, he doesn't write a legislation? To Schumer put his name next to Bigfoot legislation, right? Like, he goes down the list. Well, I think, I think, okay, this is great. I think we should get into, because this is all dealing with sort of social proof, which does carry for a lot of people, we should get into first principle. We should.

That's where I think both of you add really tremendous unique value. And so why don't we start with the famous Nimitz case of 2004, this amazing Fleer video, thermal video caught in November of 2004. You have eyewitnesses, David Fravor, who you mentioned, who is really, I think, a source of belief for a lot of people, kind of proxy belief, because he's a very serious sounding guy. You heard him on Rogan and like, I think he was tasked with defending L.A., actually, around 9-11. I don't know if you're familiar with that.

Yeah. Didn't know that. Because it was like unclear how many planes were in the sky, how big the threat was. And you can hear him speak and he seems very sort of matter of fact. And so, but Mick's done a great sort of debunk on this. So why don't we watch the video and we'll get both of your assessments. But before we do that, why don't we do a little rock paper scissors to see who we'll go first? I'm also having to kick it off.

Do you want to take it? Oh, you want to take it out. No, no, no, he's trying to psych me out. Okay, let's do a little rock paper scissors. That's right. Ah. I knew it. I'm too honest for my own good.

Wait, wait. I don't even see who won that. So, just for the audience, before we went live here, Mick said, we agreed to rock paper scissors. Mick said he's going to go with paper and I went with scissors. So here we are. Here we are. All right. Well, Merrick, you take the first one.

Yeah. So, but seriously, please jump in if, you know, if I misstate anything. But so the background is in November of 2004. The Nimitz carrier strike group, so it's the Nimitz and other vessels, Navy ships, or out for pre-deployment workups, pre-deployment training, basically, to make sure their equipment is working before they deploy and go to combat. I think they're setting out for Iraq. So this is right. There's early stages of the Iraq war. Very high operational tempo.

during their training missions. The USS Princeton is a guided missile cruiser, and it is part of this Nimitz strike group, and it is over the course of, I think, a week, according to one of the witnesses, the key witness, Kevin Day. Maybe 10 days, I think. 10 days, sure, okay. They begin tracking anomalous objects at 28,000 feet,

heading south at 100 knots. Very strange tracks. That's odd. occasionally, if I understand right, they, you know, they were tracking them coming from above 80,000 feet, zipping down into the surface of the ocean, or they'd hover around 28,000 feet. Notably, Kevin Day has been very specific about this and consistent, 28,000 feet, 100 not south. And Kevin Day oversaw radar operations. Correct. So he's the...

Kevin's the story has actually changed a few times, and he's given different figures. Okay. 28,000 feet, 80,000 feeds, and 20,000 feeds. And it's changed in other ways as well. I've only seen 28,000 feet, all the interviews I've seen. I think he wrote it down and he kind of memorialized it. He wrote a little novella. Yeah, sailors anthology.

I did find this interesting. They wrote this like, you know, they were clearly stuck with a lot of these people, right? Anyway, so we digress. And one day, so Kevin Day is concerned that this is flight safety. It is, right? I mean, you have objects. I mean, you sanitize your airspace, and you want to know what's out there.

So when your, when your air crew are out there, that they're not going to have, you know, potential collision risk. So one day, he, vector, you know, sends out two F-18 Hornets. Commander Fravor is flying one of them. We have not heard from his backseater publicly yet. The other plane, Friver's wingman,

wing woman was commander Alex. She's pretty new to the squadron of this month. It's probably a lieutenant. Alex Dietrich. Alex Dietrich, correct. And her backseat is Jim Slate. Wizzo. Sorry, Wizzo is the weapon systems officer.

That's the backseater that does kind of all the, a lot of the tactical systems. And they get out to this, they call a merge so that they're basically in the same airspace as where one of these tracks is. look out and see an object doing basically kind of like a weird ping ponging, zigzagging pattern apparently right over the ocean. And there's this roiling water underneath. Very strange. And so you have these two jets, if I understand correctly, Fravor departs.

Dietrich stays up high and start circling and they both start circling. And Fravers go in lower and lower. And as he goes down, the jet. Yet, according to Fravor, kind of reacts to him coming down, and it kind of does a, Favre does a boop noise. I don't know if you guys have seen that, but that is somebody did a pretty good compilation of his reenactment. And then it kind of shoots off at just unbelievable speeds, according to the witnesses. Anything else before?

A couple, a couple other interesting things. Yeah. He said, so it goes, you know, it's 80,000 feet, and then, you know, right above the surface of the water. And then he says, goes back up 80,000 feet. And then he says, and he goes, 80,000 feet is space. So that was like this interesting line. And then he also says when he sees the craft, and this is, I found very interesting. He was like, it almost seemed like it knew that he saw it. Yeah. And he recognized him or something. There's some kind of a awareness. Yeah, that's right. No, I'm sorry. Good point. Yeah. Now that you mentioned, it kind of,

so as Fravers going out in the circle, the thing does one of these like kind of a counter circle, right? And I think it's called a tooth. But it shoots off and apparently ends up at a predesignated rendezvous point, let's call it a cap point. And that is an area known to aircrew. So that is interesting. Yeah, it is interesting. A lot of this information kind of come secondhand by various people. They were talking about the 80,000 feet.

And you said, Fravor said that. Fravor didn't see that himself. and he didn't even get a blip on the radar. They didn't actually see it on their own planes radar. And when they arrived at this location, they didn't at first see anything. And the jets are hauling along 600 miles per hour, which means that you're not just hovering over one spot

waiting for something to appear. You end up a few miles down the road very, very quickly. So, Commander Dietrich, or Alex Dietrich, disputes that very clearly. She disputed that to you, as you know, because and Fravor has said that that log is third hand. It's just inaccurate. Well, they both said that they, they arrived at 20,000 feet, and there was nothing at 20,000 feet.

So they both said that when they heard merge plot, they looked out and they saw it. Like, you're suggesting that there's no link between the radar. They dispute that. I'm just trying to be clear. And she disputed that to you, as you know. Right. Yes. I think Praver himself has actually said that when they arrived,

they had to look around a little while before they saw it. I think they was pretty quick. Dietrich. Well, of course, like Dietrich's account. Let's just leave it. There's a discrepancy. Well, no, there's a big discrepancy. If you're saying that Dietrich's account matches Fravers account, you have to say that also

Dietrich says her experience and he lasted five minutes, sorry, eight to ten seconds. The entire thing, prom merge plot to the thing flying away. Right. And Commander Fraber says it lasted about five minutes. And he said that all four pilots had eyes on for five minutes. So using one person's account, you know, we don't really know which one was the more accurate. I would think probably Frava because it's a more experienced pilot. But he himself said that it did take a little while to define the object.

And Dietrich has addressed this and we can go down this rabbit hole. But she said, like, as a number two, like she's watching him. She's not watching the target. She's watching him. Yeah, but she said from Merge Blot. Okay. On Twitter, which she was very specifically as he was from Merge Plot to when the thing shot away. Fair enough.

I'm acknowledging that there's a dispute there, and that's fine. That's all right. Big discrements here. Well, one other thing I think to discuss is just this idea that this was caught by many censors. So all we have and all we can go off of on a first principles analysis, semi-distrustful of government in a lot of cases, is this Fleer video. And we're going to play that in post-production. We can also watch it here if it's useful to both of you.

But they say that they caught it on phased array radar. and then you also have, you know, eyewitnesses as well. And so can we even use that as data or what do you guys think? Go ahead. Yeah, I think it's a bit of an issue. Like some of the stuff like dropping from 80,000 feet was something that Kevin Day said that someone else told him, the people that work in the kind of the missile defense program on shore, told him that they saw it later.

He didn't actually see that at the time. He says like, you know, 28,000 feet, but they went in at 20,000 feet and it wasn't there either. So there's a lot of, in actual verbal accounts, there's a lot of variation. I think we can get an overall sense that something happened. There was something that was showed up on the radar and they did see some object. But there is quite a bit of variation. Was it a seagull? Because I've seen a video of you suggesting it might have been a seagull.

I don't think it was a seagull. I suggested that when Frava was looking down, there might have been a variety of things that he liked to see and looking down, like white caps and boats and things. And the seagulls was one of the things I said. I think he said, I hate to say this, but there would have been seagulls out there. Yeah, there would have been. Yeah. Seagles, like, I actually looked this up. Seagulls really don't go.

I'm not an orthologist. Let's be clear, they don't venture very far from the shore. So anyway, this real thing is, I don't think it was a seagull. So you got to go down. It's kind of interesting, a little segue. We were talking about Heineck earlier. Yeah. And then later kind of admitted that he was long.

lying and covering things up. I think he was lying about that particular case. I think then he actually thought that might have been a reasonable explanation because there was a marsh in the middle of where they were looking across. But it was a pretty silly explanation, and it was kind of rightly ridiculed by the press. Then it was seized upon by kind of UFO fans to label any explanation of UFOs as being like,

you know, they just say it's swamp gas or they just say it's a weather balloon. And I think to a degree, the Siegel explanation has become like the modern swamp gas. So I get Siegel comments almost every day. Okay, got it. Almost every day on Twitter. So you're saying you would admit that Siegel is not your base case? Absolutely.

No, I mean, what Fraveys saw was some kind of tick-tac-shaped object. Yeah. And it appeared to be moving around. And, you know, if it was a Siegel, I don't think he would have made that mistake. Let's talk about a guilt-free alternative to alcohol. that's perfect for your dry January or any time you want to unwind. Cornbread's organic CBD gummies. These gummies are an absolute lifesaver for my evening routine. They're a natural way to relax, celebrate, or wind down without the hangover. I've cut back

a lot on my alcohol consumption over the last few years. For a lot of you trying out dry January or cutting back generally, it's not always easy. But swapping that glass of wine for cornbread's CBD gummies is a total game changer. It's a simple upgrade to. It's a simple upgrade your evening routine that leaves you feeling great the next day without sacrificing the fun. Plus, with all natural ingredients, they're the perfect way to stay balanced. Cornbread hemp isn't just a product, it's a small way to bring balance into your life. Whether you're journaling, meditating, or simply enjoying some downtime, these gummies elevate the experience without any of the guilt.

It's like having a moment of calm in your pocket, ready whenever you need it. Alcohol doesn't have to be the default anymore, whether you're cutting back for dry January or just looking for a healthier way to relax, you've got to try cornbread CBD gummies. Right now, American Alchemy listeners can save 30% on their first order. Just head to cornbreadhemp.com slash jessie and use code jesse at checkout. Again, that's cornbreadhemp.com slash jessie code jessie. Cornbread hemp, this is the good life. And then how many eyewitnesses do we have?

Because you have... It's a great, yeah. We have a few, right? Can I just quickly back up maybe? And gosh, me, the setup has taken so long. We've not even looked at the video. But there's another, there's a, I believe a squadron from a Marine Corps squadron that was actually flying by Kirth, I think is his name. Kurtz.

Kerth, whatever. And he, they decided not to vector him out there, I think, because of fuel issues, I'm not sure. But he saw the roiling whitewater. Didn't see the Tic-Tac, but the roiling whitewater. That's interesting, right? Yeah. But to your point, for that first encounter, which. talking about eight eyeballs on this thing.

Yeah. One of them is squadron commander. The others are, you know, pretty well trained. Right, right. And what do you think about that? Yeah, I wish that we'd get more witnesses coming forward. Yeah. I think it's difficult now because it's literally 20 years since this happened. Yep. And memory faith and Alex Dietrich herself has said that she doesn't really remember the details that

well now and probably the other people won't either. But, you know, I think once you've got past the... initial year or so of people remembering things, it's very difficult to get that much more good information and using accounts from the time, if available, is usually the best way. But we don't really have those. Alex does say she has some notes that she made and some diagrams. How do we get those? Well, you give her a call. That's right.

Yeah, let's try to, yeah, reach out. Well, there are a couple other interesting things. I think there were two radar systems, the SPY-1B radar and the APS-145 radar. And we've seen neither of those. We just have the Fleer, you know, geosarmored. And this is recorded after. This is like an hour or two after the video, which I think that's when you had the E2 Hawkeye and then the Princeton. So just to back up, the E2 is like a flying radar basically, right? And it had a week, apparently had a weak hit on this, this target, the, what's in the video. And the Princeton did as well, which is how, and Underwood had it on his radar too, he said. That's right. Yeah,

He said he got a hit on his radar. He had three radar systems on whatever that is. Indeed. And this is Chad Underwood. Correct. Sorry. Yeah. So that original air crew, the four aircrew and those two jets go back to the carrier.

They get out. Apparently, Fravor tells Underwood, hey, we just saw something weird. Try to go catch it. And Underwood's really gung-ho about it, apparently. And, yeah, I'm going to go get it. And, yeah, he's vectored out. out. I'm guessing like an hour or two after. It's not clear. They don't know.

They don't say. Okay. So they cycle through. People about it and they said they don't want to. I think I asked Kevin about it and he didn't want to tell me. Yeah. But they cycle through the Underwood gets out and gets these hits on the E2. Was the E2 on the first encounter or was on the second one? And I like I just don't remember. I'm not sure. I think there were some eyewitness accounts from the E2. People they said they saw it out the window. But I don't think they'd actually really come forward to. swear on it. Possible interesting piece of information, which I'll just speculate on,

and that maybe we'll never get to the bottom. We probably will never get to the bottom of is you have this interesting nuclear connection with past UFO sightings. This seems to be some possibly repeatable thread. You have a great book called UFOs at Nukes by a guy named Robert Hastings, which I always tell you, I think you should read. I was reading it on the way here. I appreciate that.

Excellent book, yeah. And so what's interesting about, you know, the Nimitz Carrier Strike Group is there were likely tactical nukes on board. Oh. Yeah, just when it comes to, I think, yes, when it comes to ships like that. I know I can say with certainty that I think the Nimitz is a nuclear power carrier.

I don't know about the weapons, and that's out of my expertise. Yeah, it's both nuclear powered and then most of those hold tactical nukes is my understanding. It's about my paper. That is, yeah. You got me there.

My source there is Robert Hastings. Okay. I'm a big Robert Hastings fan. Well, yeah, you would say that's biased. You would say that's pretty good. I think Hastings is very, it is a tangent we can, you know, get into this later. But I think Hastings is pretty solid. Yeah.

He is, yeah, go for it. That makes a bad guy, I would say, I think. How's that? Listening to his book, he does a pretty good job of doing all the research. He's very detailed. But it just seemed very, very. much bias towards

trying to prove that point. And it'll lay out a few things. Well, it could be this, it could be that. But I think he's actually aliens. On the theory side, but on the kind of what happened side, he's like pretty empirically rigorous, right? He's repeating things. It's mostly ironics.

I got to give him credit. I mean, he's compiled from a, I take an intelligence analysis approach to this topic. Much more than Mick takes a much more technical approach, but the documentation that Robert Hastings is secured is unbelievable. It is I mean, it'll, it's extraordinary. It's 170 eyewitnesses. It's incredible. And also the government documents, right? That is what that to me is also of interest. Anyway, we can go, that's a whole other rest of it's a whole other revel. But I think it's important for establishing some

sort of priors on this stuff because, you know, just to kind of out myself here as I want to be as much of kind of a non-factor and just, you know, honest judge and let you guys have at it. But my own kind of way I process this is I usually think these things are prosaic or explainable way they're, you know, air trash or balloons or whatever, or exotic, you know, craft. But I think in the case of nuclear, that might be the exception. Just because I think you have this repeatable, you know, they say science needs to be repeatable and you do have this like really interesting repeatable thread where you have all these witnesses who have, you know, cue clearances, it's hurt their careers to come out. Their

incentives are not to come out. And if 170 have come out in the form of this book and you have a researcher who's now in his 70s, how many more that have not come out there? That would be my question. To your point, we wouldn't know about these videos if they hadn't been leaked. Right. To your point. Right. Well, this is interesting too, because let's talk about the provenance of Nimitz. because Nimitz, Gimble and GoFest were popularized in this New York Times article in 2017. But Nimitz, I believe, the video itself was kind of floating around on Reddit, and it was even on a German server. And you can still access it via the archive.org, the Waybank Machine. So there's actually a live link to this from, I think, I'm not sure exactly where in like 2010.

So what German, this is like a CGI. I did a little digging into this. I quickly just make a point here. like this is when debunking goes wrong because when that came out and it was on above top secret all these message boards or whatever people had decided oh that's a hoax that's not real and then Mick I got I love this so in December of 2017 I think to the Stars Academy put out an interview with I think it's commander Alex Dietrich and you your quote here on Metabunk on December 30th is, and she kind of described the whole encounter and described everything that, you know, that we just discussed. And your quote here is, frankly, it's laughable that anyone is taking this seriously, right? I'd have to save it in my context about what the rest of it was. It's Metabunk Post 84 December 30th, 2017.

Is it 84? Show me, Moonfly. Well, so, but on a particular thread, on a flare one thread. So, so I just want to be caught, like, right? Debunking can can, can. It can really go wrong because this is the most perplexing, arguably the most perplexing case. I assume this video was real from the start, as I recall. I'm not accusing you of... So, I mean, taking it seriously must have been like, you know, taking it seriously that this was something performing amazing maneuvers, which is something I wanted to bring up. With all these videos, there's really two questions that we've got to ask. The first one is, is this object on the screen doing anything amazing?

Is it demonstrating unique physics that we don't understand or advanced technology? and then have to have answered that question or address that question, the question is what actually is it? What might it be? Do you have a base case assumption? Because it doesn't seem to be flying normally. Well, my base assumption for, well, my base determination for these three videos is that they don't demonstrate anything amazingly anomalous.

And so with Fleer specifically, like Siegel is not the base case? Do you have any other sort of? explanations or you're just like not anomalous. As Maric knows, I think it's some kind of distant aircraft that is not moving not moving lashily. When these

videos first came out, there were, people talked about how amazing they were. Fleur 1 in particular was deemed to be amazing because the object appears to zip off screen. There's parts of the video where it seems to accelerate very rapidly and then it loses track at the end.

And that's one of the first videos that I analyzed. And I kind of went frame by frame, and I think I showed fairly conclusively that all those things are just camera movement. So, and you really think David Fraver saw just a normal aircraft? No, I don't think so. Okay. No, these are two separate things. You know, Fravor and Dietrich had an encounter with a little tick-tack of some sort, and then this media was taken hours later.

It may be the same thing. But I think it's probably a different thing. Despite the fact that the sightings had gone on in this little week-long stretch in Noviour. November, you think they're different. The sightings, they hadn't. The radar returns had. We had weeks of radar returns. And then they went out for intercept on November 14. Yeah. And then apparently it sucked. That was it after that. That's what Kevin Day said. After that encounter, they didn't, nothing ever happened afterwards. But yeah, it's, the video itself, I don't think shows any, like a bounce physics or anything like that. We don't know exactly what it is. I think it's some type of distance.

aircraft that's flying away, but as Merrick will explain later, there are issues with determining what type of aircraft it is, you know, because of the angles of the image and things like that. Merrick, if you just had the video and he didn't have the eyewitness accounts, is there anything that would lead you to believe that this is anomalous? That's interesting. Without the eyewitness accounts, I probably would have, that's a really good question. Old Me would have just dismissed it. Yeah. The me who's engaged with Mick, who has studied this topic, would be much more interested. With absent the eyewitness accounts.

Absent the eyewitness accounts. But, you know, maybe with the promise of other, you know, sensors that pick this up, but that are too sensitive to release or something. Yeah, yeah. It is weird. And yeah, it's odd, obviously. Sorry, just removing the context, it is odd on its face. Yeah.

On its face. And I'll just, just to counter Mick and just to maybe respond. I'm very much on the opposite of the spectrum. I'm glad we started with this case because ruling out a plane is probably the easiest thing we can do today. Like it is pretty simple. That's fine. We'll get to that. But so look, I mean, it is fascinating.

I have, based on the analysis that, and it's not just me, but the analysis that some of my colleagues and one of them, as you know, is a science university, California scientist, bring superb expertise to the table. And I would say I'll speak for myself, but I have fairly high confidence that that was a tick-tap shape crafting. And we can go through the data as we... And then to kind of flip it on you, Mick, if the video didn't exist and you couldn't easily strawman it with a debunk and you just had like these super credible pilots, like eight plus all saying, you know, we've seen this anomalous thing, would that lend all of this more credence? I think the Dietrich and Fravor encounter stands by itself as being an really interesting event. And it's Frava's account of it that convinces people. It's what convinced you with this Joe Rogan thing. And a lot of people on the hill have talked to Frava and heard his account, and they've been convinced by it.

So this video isn't what's convincing people. It's the eyewitness accounts, then do it. Having this video as well kind of lends some cretance to those eyewitness accounts. It says, like, we saw an object and here's a video of an object. It doesn't really look like the same object, but it's extra evidence that something was there. And the more witnesses you have, the more likely something is to have actually happened. So, Mick, can I just quickly say this video is not convinced it to folks on its own. And I think my job here today is to make it convincing and thank you for giving me the opportunity,

because I think we have some compelling data to show. Absolutely, yeah. Well, the final other thing that I'll say about this case, which I find interesting is I think a new Raytheon Fleer system had just been installed before detection. And Raytheon, I think, came out with a statement because they were like, what's going on with our Fleer system? This is kind of crazy. And Raytheon was like, we're not responsible for what you detect with our system, which I found

very interesting as well. Yeah, I think they just upgraded the system, upgrade the software, perhaps. Okay, okay, software. It wasn't actually. I mean, this wasn't known publicly, right? So nobody knew about this until, I mean, 2007. Some people didn't know about it. I think it was 2015 when Fravor started talking on like fighter pilot pod like podcasts and stuff. And it really didn't bubble up until 1516. The German server thing is fascinating. Yeah, it's super bizarre. Because it's like was it was like a graphic design shop or something like that. I think it's CGI or something like. CGI. I think my mind, when I hear that, my mind goes to like they were trying to see if you could possibly recreate it with CGB.

Yeah. I think what happened there was that it was just. just basically a site where you could upload stuff. Like an open FTP server. Back in the day, you would use that for uploading stuff. And they just dropped it there. Who dropped it there? The person who leaked it from... So is it just a leak?

But on a German... So it was like a place you would leak a video like that? The U.S. military doesn't have the original. The one that they release is the same. It's the one that they got from the German FTP server. And then they released it. That's fascinating. Well, they just re-recorded over the...

Can they now release the original? They probably don't have it. They don't have it. They don't have it. I strongly doubt. There's a wrinkle there. There are allegations from some of the sailors aboard the Princeton, I think, that people in suits landed in helicopters and took all the radar data. I don't know what to make of that.

Who says that? Is it Vorhees? Gary Rojas. I think he's mentioned that. And there are a couple others that have said it. Okay. Sean Cahill. I don't, I apologize, I just, I just don't know.

I know Fravor has been. PJ Hughes, I think. PJ Hughes, yeah. Yeah, I mean to be better for the moment. Fravor's been skeptical of that publicly. But I don't know what to make of that. So just to the point of data retention, like it is, it adds a spooky, it has a spooky, it adds a spooky immaculate constellation level.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Because that's what the allegation of immaculate constellation is. That all this stuff is siphoned off. Yeah. I don't know what to make of that. That's another good example. I have the stories very quite a lot. You got all these enlisted men on the boat who have these.

Who have these. this story about how the data bricks were stolen, and then Frava just takes happen. Exactly. It's difficult to reconcile. Correct. Yeah. But, you know, obviously maybe Farie didn't know. Who knows?

Who knows? Should we dive into the... Yeah, should we watch the video? Yeah. Can you guys both see this? Yeah. We're familiar. Yeah.

This is the start here. So it's in infrared mode. And let's explain. So thermal imaging, what is like this white dot in the middle mean? Well, it's not actually a white dot. It's actually kind of a spiky shape at the start. It's interesting. It's a bit valid point.

Then it switches to TV mode. And a TV mode means it's basically a video camera, like a white video camera. And we see it's black here. Now, I originally thought this was infrared and this is what makes, because it looks almost exactly like the Chilean case. But of course, it's this TV mode. So this is actually... You know, what you would theoretically see, like, with your own eyes.

It switches back to infrared. You can see the object kind of moved around a little bit. Little spin there. Now, that's the camera doing a gimbal roll. It's kind of the camera has to readjust itself occasionally. There's not a little roll there. Do we want to get into symbology all, Mick? Yeah.

Well, it's just going to do some interesting stuff in a second, but, yeah. Well, that's kind of one boring part, I guess. Okay, so it looked there like it zoomed off screen, and then this is the end thing where it appears to zoom off to the left and side. So yeah, the symbology, we've got like a whole bunch of stuff, numbers on screen, and this is how we kind of get to do the analysis. Like we have the angles. We have the top of the screen.

We have the heading, the azimuth, and then we've got the elevation, which is, what is it, like six degrees here? I can't remember. You mean from right to left? No, the elevation. I think it's five up. It's six up and then five. Yeah, six and five.

Yeah, exactly. So that gives us kind of a line of sight. So we know that it's somewhere along this line of sight and this line of sight moves from right to left and fairly levely. And so we can kind of correlate that with the other numbers on the screen, which is the airspeed of the jet, which is expressed in calibrated airspeed. You have to convert it to true airspeed.

And then the altitude. You know the altitude of playing from that. So you can use all that to kind of set up a model of what we're looking at and what's actually happening. That's kind of like almost like the second part of the analysis. The first part is actually, is it doing anything amazing? And we saw at the end of the video, it kind of zooms off to the left of the screen. And there's kind of two parts of that. There's one where it kind of, well, first of all, it kind of drifts a little bit,

and then it seems to shoot off very rapidly. And people initially thought that that was it, accelerating very rapidly. But it's actually just changing zoom level. kind of halfway through the movement. If you kind of undo that zoom back from two times to one time, it just basically smoothly goes off. And the analysis I did on there, using all the angles and everything,

was that the drift that it moved off from left to right was exactly the same as the drift that the camera was moving it. So I think what we're actually looking at here is the camera was tracking something like this, and then the camera lost lock, and the object just kept going at exactly the same speed. So it gives the same effects of the object zooming off to the side, but it isn't actually moving.

Mick, are you familiar with Yonix analysis that it actually drifts off? It moves off four times faster at the very end than it does during the other losses of luck? Are you familiar with that? No, I wouldn't be surprised because it's only a partial loss of lock. And the other ones, it's still basically kind of tracking it. I don't think, yeah, when you see it's losing lock, it's not really lost luck at those points. Can I just say, we're getting so in the weeds.

And I think part of, I just want to say just maybe for the audience that part of the reason that I'm doing this is I want to engage more people. I want more people mathematically, scientifically inclined folks to grapple with this stuff. That's why I write these articles. I'm trying to encourage interest, spur interest in this. I 100% agree. We should teach this in colleges because it's a fun analysis exercise that people can get their Sorry for that PSA, but I really just want to convey that.

And that's part of the whole problem here between you and I is it's just you and me. Right. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. And there's other people. And there's no reason why other people can't analyze these videos. Exactly. But it does take a long time, though.

It does. It is quite a lot of work. I mean, this is like years of work that we've put into these. And Leonic does all the hard work on my side. So I got to give them credit in Zane and Chris Fitzer's. well. So, yeah. And they would say that the loss of lock just wouldn't account for that sort of Zima. That's, it's ambiguous. Chad Underwood, who's the Wizzo, who filmed it, he said, nope, there's no way the system would have lost it. I've talked to an active duty whizzo serving now. And he said,

it's a finicky. I sent you the emails, right? You remember this? And I made a point to it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But the system can be finicky and can lose a lock. So it's a wash. I don't know what to make of that. Is the Fleer auto-tracking or is there somebody operating that? That is auto-track. So, yeah, that is correct. Yeah. It's a pixel. Exactly. It's using basically the contrast between pixels. It's just like image tracking and after effects. You just lock onto that something and it follows it. Got it.

It doesn't do a very good job. It's kind of interesting comparing the technology in 2004 with the later things in Gimble and GoFest, which the lock seems a lot more solid. What I like about this is I feel like both of you are being very reasonable. And if anything, I'm more confused in a healthy way. You know, I really, I mean, in my mind, the assessment there might be like the net assessment, quote-unquote,

it would be like, you know, really interesting eyewitness accounts and then kind of inconclusive on the video front. Just wait until we get to the analysis. Okay. Yeah, yeah, yeah, cool. Yeah, yeah. Huge news, everyone. We've been sitting on a ton of unreleased footage that we will now be releasing weekly

in our new Wop. Our first episode is a completely uncut, heated discussion between Hal Putoff and Eric Weinstein on remote viewing. Yeah, you heard that right. I still can't believe I experienced that firsthand, and now I'm happy to share. it with you all as our first exclusive video on WOP. Head over to WAP.com slash American Alchemy Premium to become a premium member today. By becoming a member, you'll gain access to weekly premium videos, behind the scenes footage, and monthly group calls where we discuss the ideas we love most.

Plus, you'll get early access to merchandise drops and be the first to know about the upcoming conference we'll be holding later in 2025. Our WOP community will serve as a private space where curious individuals and tech enthusiasts can come together to challenge the status quo and explore ideas shaping our future. If you're passionate about exploring unconventional ideas and want to dive even deeper into our content, I invite you to join our WAP today. Head over to wop.com slash American Alchemy Premium to become a premium member today. Thank you so much and enjoy the rest of today's episode. All right. Should we move to Go Fast? Can we go to the slideshow real quick? Oh, yeah, yeah, sure, sure, sure, sure sure show you the, kind of the, what, what wrote in, and Mick, you know, you know this, this is the video that you still have up and I got a bone to pick with you, right?

This video is still up and that it's clearly not an airline. I mean, you, let's describe what I'm talking now. Yeah, do you want to set it up. Yeah. So Mick has several videos up looking at the Fleer one video, and one of them, he hypothesizes that it's a distant airliner. I think you've said on a podcast that it's probably 50 to 100 miles. miles away. Yeah, I think this video I made is like, do you remember what it was? Like 20, 2019 or something like there. And I think that's, that's misinformation. I have added to the description of the video. You put one sentence on there. Nobody's going to read that one sentence. I think it's very misleading to have that video still up there. If, if, if you said it's an airliner at 100 miles away. What's in the video, like that thing's what I do. At 66,000 feet. It's impossible. Originally, I hadn't done this analysis, very much analysis. This was pretty early on. in the discretion thread. And so I was saying like what it might look like. Right. And I picked a airliner because that's what I'm going to use to from this Chilean case. I was still kind of maybe biased by that Chilean case.

And I kind of did a little side-by-side comparison. And they look somewhat similar. You can kind of see they look somewhat similar, not the same. Will you remove that video? Because it's clearly... No, I think the basic analysis is right. And I can maybe change the title of it. The analysis isn't that this is what he did.

is, is that a blurry shape can look like another blurry shape. You, I mean, you clearly say in the video, like, oh, it looks kind of like an airliner going off to the right. It does kind of look like one. Yeah, but it can't be. Yeah, but it can't be. So why wouldn't you, yeah, but the analysis of the video is still valid that, but it's, it kind of looks like that. You know, it's not. Maybe you understand my point, right? I think it's misleading. I think it's misleading to keep it out. I added that to the description of the video. Nobody's going to read. Okay, let's not. So this is why, this is why it's so easy to rule out a plane. Number one, there's no tail.

Boom, simple. Number two, if you're looking five degrees up, right, the perspective is, if mixed theory is that it's another plane, he uses an F8, another F18 in his example. It'll, I'm trying to do this for the camera. If you're looking five degrees up, it'll have the jet will have kind of like a downward slope like this. Clearly, the object is tilted up this way. And there's no plane. You can change the plane type. There's no plane that'll fly.

Like, what do you have this distant plane going on, like, 2505? 50 knots, whatever. No plane is going to fly at like a 13, 15, 20 degree angle of attack and 300 knots. It's just not reasonable. There's no tail. Ruling out a plane is the easiest thing we'll do all day today, from my perspective. Yeah, I don't think you can, though. I think the problem with this video is that it's a super low-resolution video.

But the angle is really, it's crystal clear. It's not really. Like, you will talk later about how the angle of the sun is going to affect where you're looking at things. And we don't know exactly what we're looking at here. We're looking at a dark shape, maybe some parts of that. that are being eliminated by the surname. Where's the tail? I mean, it's a similar.

Maybe that's a similar color to the sky. Lots of planes have been different. No, no, no. So this works by contrast. It could be a private jet. Contrast, right? Well, in contrast in the optical spectrum. Yeah, there's a white tail?

Plains can not have white tails. This is black against the sky. You're saying that it's a white tic-tac shape, you're an actual tic-tac shape. Yeah, absolutely, it is. And you're saying that it's got, it's this funny, weird shape. Yeah, we address that.

Because of the lighting. Okay, so it's not a plane, from my perspective. If it could be a Tick-Tac shape that somehow morphed into this bizarre peanut shape because of the sunlight and these little legs that are supposedly sticking out, then why couldn't it be a different type of plane? Perhaps not this FAA 18. There's a whole bunch of different types of plane. What plane flies like at this angle? I don't think it's just flying at that angle.

So your eyes are to see me like it's really not at that angle? No, I don't think what we're looking at it isn't representative of the actual. shape or the object. Great. So anybody who can see, okay, it's pretty clear that it's, it's tilted up.

Why wouldn't it be represented? What do you mean? It's pretty clear that it's up. It's tilted up. You can see it with your own eyes. It's got a pointy bit at one end. Yeah, and we'll get to that.

So if it's tilted up, then it's, yeah, then it's not, if it's, it's got a pointed bit at one end, that means it's not really a tic-tac shape, isn't it?

Well, that is an artifact that your software, and this is why you make you've been so helpful. Like, you, I've shown you this. Like, You can recreate that effect with your software.

You can probably recreate it with a different plane as well. It's something I haven't done. You're a big evidence guy. Try. Why can't you find me something with no tail?

I feel it's kind of a fool's errand because there is not enough data in that video to determine, you look at it. It's this blurry blob. The video is probably out of focus. You see the attitude,

the tilt. Is that just, And if you watch the whole video, you can see that till it's crystal clear. You see it turning as well, which is something that's kind of weird that doesn't really work, I think, with the TikTok model. Do you want to just go to the next image?

Because this is super interesting, and I owe credit to, I think somebody on, I think his name was Paul, but he did very simple edits, brilliance in contrast. And there's no trickery here. It's very simple. If you go to the next one, please.

We did a 3D model. And this is kind of a Rorschach test, right? The UAPs and the eye of the beholder. But, and I just, I need to quickly add that both Commander Fravor and Lieutenant Commander Dietrich have stated that when they reviewed Underwood's tapes afterwards, they saw these little appendages, these protrusions. Which is impossible. I mean, is it Lonnie Zamora? Like, that reminds me of a Lonnie Zamora craft, what he described. But, we know it's completely out of focus, so you wouldn't be able to see this.

Lonnie's Amore is a famous craft that came down in 64 and in New Mexico. Allegedly had little legs, but anyway. Allegedly had little legs. This image here, I think, is very misleading. I think it's basically being that you've tweaked the amount of brightness to bring in the edges. If you do that with, you were just sliding the middle slider in the levels adjustment. So we can find a tic-tac shape if you just do basic edits is a bottom line. You can find the gimbled shape in the flow and video.

Brilliant and contrast. Brilliance and contrast. And what exactly? So contrast, I think, is probably pretty obvious. You're increasing the contrast. Right. And then brilliance is... I think he turned it up.

Again, I didn't do this. Anybody can go... That's the beauty of this, and this is why... Anybody can do this. The level slider would do that, I think. It's as brilliance, like light saturation, or what? Sure, actually.

I'm not an opt-off. I think it's a specific filter, so I didn't do this. No, so it's an unstandard term. It's not like a Photoshop term. So what it gets really interesting is, and we can really drill down to, you see that little kind of that sunlit, section on the top. Yes. That, in fact, we can place this object and we can see,

we can actually find which direction under what it was flying and we can see where the sun was at around 3.30, 320-ish, give or take, and you can recreate that in a three, and this is the first time I'm really presenting this. We're very excited. We're going to put this in a paper very soon, but you can actually recreate that effect and see where the sun is. And in 3D, you can move the sun and it gives you that effect. Interestingly enough... And that lines up with his position in reality. Correct.

So let's go to the next one. You make you brought up, oh, it's black. Well, this is TV mode. Those F-18s are not black. They're light gray, right? That's how the system works. It's a backless silhouette. Yeah.

So that's why we have a black shape. It's not something you can't say that it's the same because it's the same color. It doesn't mean it's a different color either. We don't know what color is. But you've moved off the. plane thesis. You don't think that. I don't think we can rule it out. Okay. But you have to provide, just give us one option.

Like, just prevent some kind of, like, propose one plane that would fly like this. Well, one end. Propose one type of UFO that could fly like this. Right there. It's a Tick-Tac. UFO is just unidentified by nature. A model of a Tick-Tick-Sach UFO. It's a sport model, obviously. That's impossible for him to answer.

A plane that fits, uh, that could, you know, flits that, you know, that profile, the silhouette with the license. You know, we just don't know what you have. I have a couple more. Just you want to, do you mind going? Sure. Yeah, sorry, run through this. So this is, you talked about that peanut.

Yeah, so this is, I used mix. This is mixed. Oh, weird. Well, just, you know what's in a bit. Yeah, so. Just say it, we'll put it in post-production more. Yeah, so when you, when you actually edit the video to kind of recreate the graininess and the out of focus, you can recreate the Tick-Tac shape.

You can recreate it. I mean, it's not a playing guy. It's, it is just, it's extraordinary to find a match, like a remarkable match with what eight eyeball saw two hours earlier. You can recreate that with Mick's software. With my software, yeah, I wish I did. No, thank you. And I, I did that for you, Merritt.

So you could do that. But isn't that compelling that maybe this is just sensory data that is? There's a couple points. I'll say one thing. Thank you, Mick. We owe the UFO world owes you a huge debt of gratitude for the amount of work that you put into. I'm glad you're finally getting paid.

I don't know who's paying you. but no. Wait, what is, are you going to be? By who? Someone I can't name. Okay. What Mick has done is incredible and it allows us to test out everybody's theories. Not each of yours, not ours, not anybody's. And so, so thank you for that. I mean, that's sincerely. Just real quick, like, the reason this software exists is actually because of you. I appreciate it. And we were, we are.

So what are the odds? Not just this, the original gimbal simulator. Yeah, no. Thank you. The granddaddy of this was because Marrick was getting so annoying with these, consistent criticism that I had to like finally make a good like video and I had to write all this software to do it and then I wrote this nice long video and but make you always say like oh god you know these I was in the count I win this account are always so incredible but there's never any data to back them up here's a tic tack with little legs which is exactly what Fravor and the amount of blur that you have to add that to make the match would mean that they wouldn't

be able to see those legs give me a plan any plan SR 7 any one. Any time. You too? I don't care. How big in the legs? Well, how can I make, I'm mad. Like,

it's a mad. All right. You can we go on. Blurry. Well, what, I guess, Mick, would you say to the fact

that you can use some slight edits with a program that you built that allows you to go? This is just to recreate one frame. I think what would be interested. No, it's a video. Oh, okay. Fair enough.

Yeah. The actual object yourself appears to do this kind of weird rotation and get a bit more pointy at one end. Yeah. Which, I kind of interpreted it as. being like a plane turning. But the pointiness is recreated.

It's an artifact of that front appendage. I've sent you the video. The lighting, but we don't have the rotation that matches. And your highest percentage likelihood thing is plain still, even though there's some issues. I don't know. Like, you know, Marit brings up some good points. Yeah. And Yannick.

So, you know, I think what I would say is you can't 100% rule out to play. I feel comfortable doing it. There's no tail. And it matches what. And I think 100% ruling out things is a huge mistake that people have historically made. I think of the Chilean case. They spent two years ruling things out. And they were wrong because they ruled out a plane right at the start.

And then there's no tail. You can't see a tail. Of course you can. What about the, remember the video that Jesse Sanders a few days ago of the Tick-Sack? Shaped out of thing. And you said that you agreed with me. It was a play. It has a common reason. It has no wings. And that's a very common thing that people say.

So what was that? It would have been another plane. I'm sure there's another plane, yeah. You want to go to the next plane. It's a real quick. Sure. I think. So this is how we were able to place it. There's a consistent rightward banking. You can kind of see it here. And that's how there's a strong. Thank goodness, Yonick is a climate scientist. Sorry, buddy. I hope it didn't out you. But he has access to extremely nuanced weather data. And we can find out, we can, if you go to the next slide there, we can look at the weather data from that time at that altitude and there's an extremely strong northerly wind coming from, from the north, about 100, 110 knots. And then the video, you see this kind of this consistent rightward banking, which is the autopilot compensating to maintain a straight heading as it goes. And that allows us to place that, the heading of that plane and see, okay, well, now we know where the sun is and then we can we can match the sun with the top of that that illuminated.

Issue with that is that planes don't need to bank to maintain a heading. Is that true? Yes. Okay. And then we discussed this. So you said that you thought that they did, but so yeah. So in a bunch of chat GQT things. You're talking about crabbing, right? No. Well, I'm talking about the industry in like the true heading, the ground heading. Right. And the air heading. Right. So to maintain a particular ground heading, you just need to have an air heading that incorporates the wind vector. So the autopilot you can see at the bottom, it says HDG.

That's heading. So it means the nose is going to maintain a heading. Yes, it's the same thing. Ground tracks are relevant. It's the same thing. Ground tracks are relevant. It only would need to bank if the wind was changing. No, it needs to stay. The nose is going to stay at, let's say, 270, right? It doesn't matter. Doesn't matter. So how is it maintaining?

You point it in the direction you want to go, and you go in that direction. or as you point the velocity of your plane in the direction you want to go, which might involve you turning a bit to the side, but you don't need to bank to do that. If you bank, you'll keep turning. But it's consistent, right? It does this.

It's just wobbling a little bit. That was greatly magnified. That was the thing I sent you years ago. And it goes in both directions. It goes a little bit more to one side. It's only right. It just go actually to the other side a little bit. Anyway,

it doesn't. You're fundamentally wrong with the idea that you need to bank to turn to the, to the site. So it's a hundred not winds coming in. It doesn't matter. So it's completely irrelevant. It could be a thousand not winds. So if the wind is pushing the aircraft, planes fly relative to the air. Yeah. That altitude of the air is basically just a constant homogeneous mass. And there's no real turbulence to speak of in terms of like differentials between the wind directions. So if you, if the wind is moving like this and you want to fly in that direction,

direction, you'll just have to like turn a little bit into the wind. That's called craving. No, that's called changing the heading of your plane. Craving is something where you actually kind of slide the plane a little bit. Right. And you're using rudder, exactly. Yeah, but that's... We're not talking about that.

No, we're not talking about that. Right. Okay. Yeah, your velocity relative to the air is just, you know, straight through the air. You're great of protecting your data, but lots of places could still expose you to identity theft. I thought it was safe. If that happens, LifeLock gives you a U.S.-based rest. restoration agent who will stick by your side from start to finish. Phone calls, filing documentation, preparing insurance claims, your agent handles it all.

In fact, we're so confident restoration is guaranteed. Pour your money back. Isn't it nice to have someone like that on your side? Save up to 40% your first year at lifelock.com slash Spotify. Terms apply. Okay, let's move on. We're going to get in the audience on whether a plane would need to. We can cut that out or whatever, yeah.

High, let us. No, leave it in. Leave it in, yeah, yeah. But would a plane need to bank in this scenario? There's a consistent right-word banking, which our hypothesis is because of the 110-100-0-wins. So real quick, last point on this. You might just going up one more. Sure.

This is one more. Sorry, just one higher. Yep. Sorry, the other way. Oh, up. Gotcha. Last but not least, we can actually, so Kevin Day said that these objects were at 28,000 feet. I'd be curious to see if he had said other, but everything that I've seen is he said that 28,000 feet heading south at 100 knots.

can find that in the data. We can find the Chad Underwood object moving south at 100 knots at 28,000 feet descending slowly, but we can find that as a very, very anomalous flight path. So again, we can find very, very specific descriptions of what the witnesses recall in the data. That is critical, and we see that with Gimble as well. Do you not find that compelling? You can find all kinds of things in the data, depending on what parameters you put into it. And this is at the distance roughly that Underwood gave. That's important, right? You can find basically a straight line path as well of the object moving away,

consistent with it being a plane or some similar type of aircraft. And, you know, if you change things around, change with the way the wind direction is, then you can find different things. If you move, change the distance, you can find different things again. I don't think, like, this is the only solution here. No, but it's, it is a potential one. It is remarkable to find that in the data. It just doesn't happen by accident.

That, of course, suggests that what we're looking at is actually a balloon. That is absolutely a possibility. Yes. And balloon would explain the radar targets possibly because they're moving with the wind. You know, we have this wind, as you described earlier, moving from north to south. I think a far more reasonable explanation than plane. I wouldn't rule it out. I don't really tell.

I think, you know, like I said before, my analysis of these videos is kind of two parts. Like, is it doing anything amazing? And what is it? and I don't think he's doing anything amazing. I don't think drifting south at 100 knots is doing something amazing. It is very weird. At 20, what, 20,000 feet? What do you know that does that?

That is that size. A balloon? That's that size. Why would a balloon be that far off the coast? I don't know. It could be some kind of military balloon. Uh-huh. A balloon used for surveillance, or it could be a weather balloon.

So this is 20 years ago now, literally. What kind of propose them up? You can throw spaghetti right against the wall. This is a debunking playbook. provide some options. What could it be? I don't know. I think we can move on. Let's do it. Yeah, this is a great. I love it. This is awesome. And I think there are a lot of open questions we just presented that the audience should go out and investigate.

Please, by all means. Yeah. And so let's. I don't rule out, I don't rule out these options, but I don't think you should also run out a plane. Okay. Let's get into the Go Fast video, which was recorded in January of 2015, 300 miles off the plane. coast of Jacksonville, the USS Roosevelt. So, Merrick, you set up the last one. Right. Why don't you set up this one, Mick? This is a fan one.

This appears to be something that's moving very fast over the surface of the water. It's similar to the Flea of 1 video in that it's thermal footage. This is all thermal. There's no TV mode. So I think they do switch between black hot and white hot. But what we're looking at here is the surface of the ocean, and we see this object, and the object appears to be, colder than the service of the ocean, which is very unusual for a powered craft.

We have a variety of numbers on the screen. We have the angle down minus 23 at that point, is it? 229. Again, we need my glasses. And then we have the heading, which is off the top of the screen. We actually do have that. And then we have a range value. Now, unlike in the FLIR 1 video, when they lock onto this object,

they actually do get a range number. There's some of these few tests are actually where that number comes from, like how far away is this object? We don't know if it came from a radar hit or if it was some other way of doing it. So we're not entirely sure how accurate it is, but if you assume that that number there is relatively accurate, you can do a reconstruction of this object. And it turns out to be going a lot slower than initial estimate.

Like initial estimates predict, I think, is somewhere in a 600 knots, Mac 6. Something or other. And it turns out to be going much, much slower. So definitely under 100 knots. Some disputes are exactly how fast it's going. I've done some reconstructions where it's about 60 knots. Yannick just pointed out one where he's done where he's more like 90 knots. And he said that's also consistent with the wind speed.

So my hypothesis about this one is that it's probably just a windblown object. like a balloon. If we do some analysis as to the size of the object, we can determine it's not particularly big. It's about three to six feet in diameter. So something just like a weather balloon seems like a reasonable explanation for me, especially as it doesn't really do anything amazing. And this one's really interesting because Arrow just came to the All Domain Anomalous Resolution Office. We just, you know, we're talking about its director, came out and they said that this is possibly parallax. And so they're saying that there are probably, you know,

certain things in the sky that we can't classify, but they are kind of coming out against this video in particular. This video is also interesting because you have audio associated with the video. And the guy goes, whoa, got it. And I just interviewed Navy fighter pilot Ryan Graves. He testified before Congress, also under oath. And he kind of admitted it was a buddy of his who he thinks is kind of beyond approach. They're very close friends.

I mean, they're super close. Close friends. So, yeah, what's your response to make here? I think we would, I'm very confident that we would have not had Arrow come out with this assessment at the recent hearing if they had actually talked to the aircrew. And I have a major bone to pick with Arrow. They didn't talk to the air crew about this. Why wouldn't they talk to the air crew? I don't know.

And it fits in with the blue book, the debunking playbook of never talk to witnesses. Just throw something out there. I don't know if this is part of the old guard, the previous director who I think has rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. Rubbed me. I had a long discussion with him. Rub me the wrong way. So I think that's a massive oversight. It is an analytic failure for them not to talk to the aircrew because clearly those guys were excited by something.

There's a reason you don't just lock up some little random object in the middle of, you know, 300 miles off the coast of Jacksonville, Florida. oh, by the way, this is 10 minutes before the gimbal video. Oh, by the way, this is amid daily observations or, you know, sensor observations of spherical objects off the East Coast that are, as Ryan told you, and has been very public about, were, A, a safety of flight concern, and B, we're operating in very anomalous ways per their, you know, their systems. They're locking them up on Fleer on their training, their infrared training missiles on their radar, right?

You have multiple three, four sensors. Their eyeballs are seeing them sometimes, occasionally. So it is a massive analytic oversight. I have a major bone to pick with error about that because Ryan just came out on your show and in your discussion said that this was part of, and I think you said it previously, but shocker, this was part of, this was one of four objects that were in a line of breast formation, right? So they're kind of like cruising along all next to each other. That's not weather balloons down to do that, obviously.

So I don't think we would be having a very, different discussion of Arrow had actually done their job. And this is, it's right above the surface of the water, right? No, no. I actually, I, I, I, I think. It is or it's not? No, it's not. No, no.

So the air crew did not name this. Go fast. I don't know who named it. So I, you know, I think Ryan has said, command, Lieutenant Graves has said, you know, all the Pentagon did is debunked the name, which the Pentagon, I think the Pentagon itself gave the, the video. So, I, I, you know, look, there's a, I want to just be very, clear. There's a reason you don't just, this is like a tiny needle in a haystay. You don't just

find something just sluing your targeting pot around in the ocean. There, there was a radar hit that gave them some kind of an indication that there's something there. And by the sounds of their voice, what they were seeing visually did not match up with the radar that they were, the data that they were getting. That's really a reach, I think. What's it doing? What are the, whatever they said. Like, they're, they're very surprised by it. It was surprised that they caught it on the, their at flirt. But to look at it fly is the actual word. Yeah, well, it looks like it's going very fast.

Well, I don't think they're stumped by parallax. They might have been, but the bottom line is... You'd be surprised. I mean, the pilots are stumped by parallax all the time. Bottom line is, okay. Can we describe what parallax is to the audience? Yeah, parallax is just when your viewpoint changes, things that are closer to you appear to move faster.

So if you're, you know, looking at the wall over there, and you're looking at my thumb and you move your head, my thumb appears to move that way. And you think that multiple eyewitnesses saw parallax, even though the gimbal video was recorded like minutes after this? No, the GoFass thing isn't multiple eyewitnesses saying things. It's these people, these two guys in a plane, seeing this thing probably just on the screens.

And so all they're seeing is this display. The field of view here is about, it's less than one degree. It's tiny. Which is a really, really powerful zoom lens. Which is like the biggest zoom lens you could get. it's equivalent, I think, of over 2,000 millimeters, SLR. And this is in... This is in an F-18 super...

Correct. Okay. Correct. Yeah, two-seater. Yeah, I just mean eyewitnesses. Like, they're actively looking... They're looking at the nivots thing. That's what I mean.

Not eyewitnesses and that they're seeing the object. Yeah. People did look at the video afterwards. Ryan Graves said he distracted looking at the nimble video. At least, I'm sure he must have seen this one of the world. It's really interesting that we have all these witnesses coming forward now. It's a shame that they didn't come forward years ago. Because this is new information.

Absolutely. And we might be hearing more from, as Ryan said on your show. And sorry, Ryan, if you're watching, I think he's annoyed at me because I, hey, man, when's your buddy coming out? When are they going to come out and talk? Yeah, I would love that. More information. It's great for everyone.

Absolutely. Because it's the same guy who recorded the Kimball video, which is the poster child, right, of this whole. Well, that guy needs to come out. Yeah. I'll do an interview with you. Guy, wherever you are. Yeah. But again, I cannot stress enough.

I'd love to hear him expound or kind of expand rather on the formation. You mean, your point here is that you don't think he's doing anything amazing in this video, but you think there's something amazing about the situation. If it's fine formation, absolutely, absolutely. When the video doesn't show that, we've got this kind of secondhand 10 years later, a year's later thing. To your point. Yes, it might actually be doing something.

Yonik, put this in all-c. Assuming the range is exact. The best visual match, this is a scientist, folks, not me, the best visual match in Mick's simulation has the object around 100 knots, not 60 knots as Mick claims, end quote.

Yeah, that's assuming this accurate, which is, as we discussed earlier, is a very devious thing. And was it not moving against the wind, or was that just Gamble? Gamble is moving. Well, we don't know that. Because if the, if the, if the, the, the, the, the, the aviator who recorded it comes out and says, oh, yeah, we were freaked out because it was moving against the wind.

Well, that would be great, but that hasn't happened yet. I'm just saying that's why we really need to hear from. But we, I really want to hear about the formation. And if, if there's any way he remembers what direction, maybe that's why they're so surprised that it, wow, that tiny thing is moving against the wind. We don't know. Bottom line is arrow drop the ball, in my opinion. Yeah, well, we need more. We need these guys to come out.

Now, yeah, and they need to at least behind the scenes interview. And Arrow, I'm going to put on my old, my ex-government hat here. Arrow kind of put themselves in a really tough spot because they came out and did this. Now you're going to have an air crew come out and contradict you. That's a terrible position for a government agency to be in, potentially. Well, he already did, right? I mean, what are they contradicting? I mean, and all they said was the dip his to be going slow.

I'll tell you exactly why. Because it says the arrow conclusion, what is it, it does no anomalous maneuver. All right. Okay. If it's part of formation, it doesn't do any anomalous maneuvers in this video. If it's holding formation, that is anomalous maneuver. Well, in strong winds. No, four objects blowing in the wind will stay in the same formation. For like the 300 miles off the coast? Well, really? Then they're in, there are in a perfect, or we don't know what's perfect, but you. We don't know exactly what the formation was. Or was it a perfect straight line? We got to hear more. We were going to hear more from this person? I agree.

Track him down, Jesse. I'll do my best. Yeah, I'm going to have Brian right after this and say we should do something. And I, again, the context is so critical. Ten minutes before Gimble, ten minutes before the, like, the most, right, anomalous, or at least strange video that a lot of people have seen. Was that very high the time that it was before? Yeah, you can see the time stamp on the bottom.

That kind of wraps around, I think. It doesn't show the... I'm pretty, I did. I'm pretty confident it was right before. So it could be in a way. Yeah, he doesn't rely on that much, but I just wondered if there was some verbal confirmation from a witness. Should we watch it? Anything else on GoFast before we go to Gimble?

No, I don't think there's as much the... Okay. ...that we discussed. Okay. Yeah, we can play it in post. Again, I'll just... Guys, Arrow, your job is to investigate UFO videos and data, and this is one of three of the most recognizable video. How do you not talk to the aircrew?

Arrow should release their analysis. Do you agree that it's kind of egregious that Arrow did not interview the air crew? I don't see why they wouldn't have done. It seems like it's a data point. I mean, they even got the year wrong in the slide. It said January 16th. That's weird. I mean, I have a major bona pick with the analytic side of Arrow.

As we all know, that they have really done a poor job on a lot of their reports. So I don't need to believe that. I'm optimistic that the new director will. change things around. I think, you know, you and I both know that Arrow have said some things that are incorrect. You have a conversation with Kirkpatrick. Basically, it was astounding, and I don't need to get into it. He said various things in public as well, which didn't really tell you with reality. That's a very diplomatic way of place. At the NASA hearing, he, you know, he said some speckles on the screen with stars when they were obviously not stars. Weird. I think he phoned it in. I think he was

close to retirement. I don't know. I think he's more there as a person to. standing up the organization rather than being an analyst himself, so he wasn't that familiar with everything. And to his credit, he did stand up the, so I'm grateful first time that he's doing things, but I was. And they solved a lot of cases. Do you guys ever wonder if any of these things are sort of Rorschach tests or like initiation paths for, you know, your analytical rigor abilities or whatever? And so like some of these videos are like halfway truths and it's like, you know, our job to somehow solve it. And then you solve it. You get in the program or something. Because the taxpayers need to get their money back.

This is pretty awesome. It's a waste of time in a nuclear multipolar world that's heating up. It's kind of a, why are you playing puzzle games? Yeah, exactly. Right. Okay. Well, and during it, because of that legislation. Yeah.

Well, I do want to say it's interesting that just on the TikTok video, so my buddy, Chris Ramsey, amazing magician, has a channel called Area 52. But he's actually kind of good when it comes to this stuff because he's, area 52 is about around the UFO thing. He actually believes in a lot of the UFO stuff. As a magician, he debunks other magicians. That's great. So he's kind of like a good person to like throw at this whole topic.

He was flying a commercial flight over Nellis testing range, and he saw that Tick-Tac that I showed you guys. You both said probably prosaically explained. I'll play the video. But why prosaically explained? Because it is interesting in the context of favorishing a Tick-Tac too. It's a super common sighting. and before they would describe them as being cigar-shaped.

And what it is is just planes, the fuselage of a plane is eliminated by the sun, but the wings are either a different color, if you're from above, like the grey wings, you're seeing plainly in the grey wings, or they're not being eliminated by the sun because the sun's above them and you're below them.

So you will see basically just the fuselage of the plane, the bright white thing, and at that distance, you just can't make out the wings, and when you take a video of it, it doesn't show up on the video. and we've seen this numerous times with tracks

I've seen myself flying down to LA once and you can just like you know get the location and find which of the planes were in the area and just drop it in to sit wreck by my software and you can see what it actually was Gotcha well yeah no that's that's good to hear I mean the way in which that didn't comport at all

with the Fravor eyewitness account is it wasn't you know going right next to the water shooting off you know exhibiting all these anomalous flight characters I've never see these amazing maneuvers unambiguously on video. It's, you know, either it's a fuzzy dot in the distance. You certainly do in Gimble. You see very anomalous, and it's fantastic.

It's just compatible. And then the, like, Hal put off rebuttal to what you just said, Mick, is, especially when it comes to kind of optical sensors, like just cameras, you get these kind of, you know, blue shift, red shift effects where you're stretching light if you're kind of moving away, you're kind of crunching it if you're moving close. so you get these kind of ultraviolet. Doesn't make any sense, though. There's an excuse for why we can't get these things on video.

But people see these things, and they have these eyewitness accounts of them. It's not like your eyes somehow physically different to a camera. They're little photoreceptors in the back, and there's a lens in the front, and it works basically exactly the same way. It's just, you know, it's a chemical, electrochemical reaction rather than a sensor array. Well, do you think, I mean, that's somewhat of a biochemical reductionist view of, like, the way we see things. Do you think that consciousness is...

Well, the way we see things, It's extraordinarily consistent with the way cameras see things. If you take your camera and take a picture of this, you're going to see pretty much the same thing. It's not like we're magically conjuring up things in this room in our brains. There's a physical reality that we can see, and the same physical reality is what cameras take pictures of. And so if UFOs exist in physical reality and we can see them, then we can also take pictures of them. Yeah, I think that's fair. I think you'd have to get into kind of trippy philosophical discussions around, you know,

widening the doors of perception or can kind of glitch in to like, other realities and we don't need to go there but basically magic at that point oh magic or a different theory of mind indeed which you could you know get into i mean like that a lot of you know uh pretty well respected philosophers and and and people like aldous huxley william james and you know there's even modern neuroscientists would would you know possibly agree with you have donald hoffman talking about the the brain is sort of an interface but anyways we don't need to get so let's let's get Can I say one more quick thing on GoFASS because it does appear spherical, right? If it's a balloon, it's very hard to say.

Hard to say. It's about six pixels across. And I already mentioned this. This is amid daily encounters. But the sphere is that one morphology, that shape that keeps propping up just over and over in the historical record, starting with 80 years ago with the foo fighters. Then you have metallic. I'm going to quote, right, there's a whole bunch of stories in 1944 Newsweek. ran the Silver Sphere puzzle Christmas Day in 1944.

Associated Press, balls of silver seen over the German Reich, intrigued science, right? So there is a consistency if you read Captain Ed Ruppelt. He's the first director of Blue Book, his book, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects in 1956 is a remarkable read. And that is just, it is staggering. And that was, that would really got me down the rabbit. He mentions just over and over these sightings of these metallic spheres, silver spheres, metallic spheres, flying in formation, V-shaped formations. We'll see that in Gimble. We'll talk about that. We have more photos of metallic spheres. It is extremely interesting. Eisenhower was aware of the foo fighters issue. From 42 to 45, you had around or possibly over 200 fighter pilot witnesses when it came to allied fighter pilots seeing these things. You had some that were kind of prominent. Ted Stevens, who later became Senator. in Alaska and co-sponsored UFO research with Harry Reid through ASAP saw a foo fighter.

Ossap is why we're having this whole discussion. There's a chain. You can draw a direct link, Ossap to ATIP to ATIP to Luzano to New York Times. That's why we're having this conversation, right? So it's fascinating. And just, I'll quickly, this is wrap up. Kurt Patrick, former director of Aero said, quote, we're seeing metallic orbs, direct quote, making very interesting apparent maneuvers all over the world.

That's interesting. Nobody in the NASA panel, by the way, raised their hand when he said that. Like, these are scientists. Why didn't every hand go up? Excuse me? Could you clarify a little bit? Right. Nobody asked a question.

The chair of the panel was texting on his phone as he was saying that. It's pretty astounding. Top gun pilot, Jack Stewart, came out a couple maybe a year ago. I think Ryan mentioned this on your discussion, but he's flying along and notices something whizzed by his canopy kind of thought it was a balloon. Okay. His wingman saw it, right? He's flying, I guess, somewhere in a position to see his tail. And he said, yeah, dude, that thing turned around and followed you.

Goes on. Donald Trump has said, I've had Air Force pilots, you know, very good guy better than Tom Cruise. And come out and say, you know, we've had spherical objects, circular objects, outfly our F-22. So that's one of the most advanced aircraft in our arsenal. this consistency in the Korean War you see this reporting in these old documents

for this consistency. I think there are good reasons for this consistency. I think there's two reasons why you see spheres all. One is that there's balloons up there. And the other one is that a lot of people are just seeing

very small things that are far away and they interpret that as a point of light as a sphere because they're asked what shape it is. That's one of kind of almost like a mistake that people make in UFO reporting is that they ask what the shape is and they give them a list of things to do

and they don't say, it's a tiny dot that we couldn't say. But the balloon thing is interesting. You mentioned the German things. Weather balloons get a bad rap. But Germany at that time was actually using metallic silver balloons as sighting balloons, which was an old-fashioned way of determining

the wind speed at altitude. You would release a balloon some known distance away, and then you'd use a theodolite, I guess, to measure the angle. But the footh fighters were not really described. No, that's different range. It's different things.

So they would follow vapor trails that seem to lock on to flight or fight past. So it's really interesting government report that, I think, was the earliest known assessment, I think it was a 48. And I'd credit to John Greenwald for putting it on his site. And I think his project signed one of their first reports. I think it was late 48. But it said the most commonly reported shapes or morphologies are silver discs and spheres and balls of fire. And then they go on to hypothesize that the balls of fire viewed at night and the metallic spheres, which again, there's that through line all the way through, are viewed during the daytime. Did they all disappear when cameras were invented?

Kirkpat, there's the Middle East orb is a metallic sphere. Like, like the Navy's a small video is a metallic sphere. Go fast, arguably, is a sphere. In the public domain, like America is a big country. And there's like a billion cameras in America. And we don't really have any good videos of these metallic spheres. I disagree. Oh, actually, that's not true. There's a top. That's not true. L.A.S. That's not, that's absolutely not true. The Manchester one? Sorry? Do you think it in the Manchester one?

No, no, LAX. Let's keep going. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. We can go on and on. Okay, so let's go Gimble. Gimble. Do you think there's anything, there's probably enough unique to say here that we should, we should hit this? Because we are a little pressed for time? Yeah, I think we can wrap up here, absolutely. Yeah, yeah. No, but I want to get into contemporary stuff, too, but do you think this is definitely worth touching. 100%.

Absolutely. I think this might be the most compelling. So should I set it up real quick? Yeah, yeah. So very quickly, this is Ryan Graves Squadron, I think it's VFA 11, the Red Rippers. They had just done a fairly complex air-to-air training mission. They're just like the Tic Tac incident. They are, I believe this is a pre-deployment workup cycle.

So they're doing their training before they ship out to the Middle East. And they had done a, um, a. pretty complex air to air mission off of Florida. So the carriers out there, they're heading back to the ship. And one of Ryan's buddies, the Wizzo, the backseater that we were talking about, their, the weapons systems officer. Thank you.

They're circling the land. So they don't all come down at once. They kind of, they hang out. So, you know, they clear the airspace. And they got a hit on their radar and to this object. and they went to go investigate. And the video kind of picks up as they're kind of trying to sneak in behind it, what they call it a stern conversion.

And, yeah, the video captures some very interesting maneuvers. And this is, yeah, so that's why it's called the gimbal, right? You see it's sort of rotating in this interesting way. Well, that's interesting point. Look, go fast. Who named GoFast? Clearly the name wasn't correct, right? The air crew didn't name it.

Somebody at the Pentagon named it. So is the name Gimble correct or not? Because it could be correct because they're calling it down because it's tilting or it could be correct because it's the gimbal motion of the camera, which is causing the rotation. I love one of your first thoughts was that it was a training video. People told me it was a training video. Who told you that?

I don't remember now, but I asked Susan Goh. That's important. And she told me it wasn't a training video. Who set the last? Susan Goff. Oh, Susan Goff. But didn't Susan Goff like run Sciop for the DOT or something? something when it came to rallying support for the app, Danny War?

I'm just telling you what she told me. Yeah. Okay. She didn't take that free with Fischer. She wrote a, uh, an academic paper on psychological operation. Okay. So that's why there is a suspicion of her. Yeah. Then she seems to be kind of tight with Kirkpatrick or at least in the context of one

conference. They were kind of very. I met Kirk Patrick in person and I was there at that incident and she was attached at his hip. Would not leave. So that's interesting. you have this is the former director of Aero, this office we keep bringing up the kind of authoritative all domain anomalous research office. And you have its former director, Kirkpatrick speaking at some event, and then Susan Goff is just kind of like trailing. Correct. So this is like November

2023, I think at George Mason University. So I was there. I just happened to be in D.C. for for other business. And I went and had a chat with Kirkpatrick afterwards. And Susan us right there. And that continues. If you saw the current director, John Kozlowski, just testified. And Susan Goff's in the background, right? I mean, right in the background. Yeah, right in the right. And so there's this like, you could probably find like millions of Reddit threads that she's like the handler. I mean, there must be a reason why she's there. So, I mean, the simplest reason is that she's there so that he doesn't say things that he's not supposed to say. Uh-huh. Not because there's something I would like him to say things that he's not supposed to say. Well, yeah, I'd probably work.

but it's just like the lawyers you see behind people and they never whispered to or and asked her whether he should say anything but then she would leap in and stop him if he said something about. I've been around a lot of senior government we talked about that like that is unique. That is unique. It does seem a little strange

I would like to hear what the explanation is. But she said that the gimbal video is not a training video. Yeah. They asked a couple of years ago. Did she say anything else? Did she say I think this video? No, she gives these boilerplate answers for a lot of stuff. Gunn based. It's a bit frustrating.

Okay, this is like, say a lot without saying anything. You have that's like, it's like, ten questions, and seven of them come back as like, we don't discuss that in more words. Gotcha. It's a little frustrating. How are you able to get in touch with it? Just email, though. Wow.

All right. She doesn't answer my emails. Yeah, I was going to say, I doubt she would answer mine as well. Okay, so, yeah, so I guess it's probably, you know, you set this up, right? Yeah. So do you have anything to say on the gimbled? Yeah, Gimble. Yeah, Gimble.

I think again we've got the two aspects of it. Is it demonstrating something anomalous and what is it? And with the anomalous thing that people claim in this video is that it's a saucer shaped craft like a flying saucer that kind of tilts up on its side, which is aerodynamically impossibly. We kind of fall out of the sky if it did that.

And that proves that it's some kind of advanced technology of possibly aliens. The analysis I've done suggests that it might actually be a camera artifact rather than the actual shape of the object. So what we're seeing here is a source of shape. It could be just the glare. I know Merrick doesn't like the word glare.

The experts don't like it. They don't know what I'm talking about when I say it. And the problem with that is that we don't actually have in optics the terminology for things like glare and lens flare often overlaps. It's called blooming. It's a well-known word of fact. Sense of Bloom is something that people sometimes call glare as well, but we don't know what's actually going here.

But basically, there's an optical effect here, and there's a number of indications in the video. You can see, for example, there are bands of light and dark in the background that rotate with the object itself when it's rotating, which kind of suggests that it's the camera that's doing the rotating rather than the object itself. There's things that look like little diffraction spikes on the top and bottom, left and right, and even a little bit hint of that at 45 degrees on this object.

which make it look like it's some kind of optical effect. There's instances where the turn rate of the object kind of seems to deviate from the turn rate of the horizon. And then perhaps the biggest thing is that the amount that it rotates and the speed and the time is all exactly the same amount that would be required for the camera to have to rotate to traverse the forward-looking direction. Because these cameras, it's going to talk to the down a little bit,

it's not mounted like the cameras you see under like helicopters or even like a drone where the camera's like this and it can rotate around like this. It doesn't have the ability to rotate around. So it has to rotate using a kind of a roll plus a tilt, which means the camera rotates. And then that makes the picture rotate. So it has to derotate that afterwards inside the camera using a device or using some kind of software to rotate the image.

And that rotates the image back the right way. So nothing appears to rotate, but this optical effect within it, because it's tied to the camera, the optical effect rotates. So it's like a glare that rotates. Like if you look at, say, this light over here, you can kind of see, like, around the light, there's kind of a shape, little spikes and things. If you turn your head, let's see,

a better thing, if you look at that light, squint a bit, like that's squint with your eyes, and then kind of rotate your head left and right. You'll see the kind of the rays that come from, kind of rotating around. And that's what happening, I think, in this mini-era. There's an optical effect, similar to what you saw there. It's got spots in my eyes now.

And the rotation plus the re-rotation creates this illusion. So it's like a camera turning plus lack of focus or something. Yeah, the lack of focus actually might be something that's actually going on there as well, which the focus is something that actually changes the shape of these, these optical effects. And Mary doesn't like glass, I'm going to call it an optical effect. I think there's enough evidence in there

that that's actually happening. Beyond that, we don't actually know for sure what we're looking at. And my hypothesis is that it's a distant jet. And the reason I think that is that if you do this analysis with the lines of sight, you can find a path in the distance. That's more or less a straight line.

It's kind of like a slight lip S turn about that. And if you come closer, you get these kind of weird, kind of like jhooks. They've been described by Ryan Graves, I think. And there's some debate as to whether this straight line of a possible jet engine powered aircraft or this jhook powered by some kind of weird anti-gravity thing is the more plausible of the two explanations. And a lot of people, oh, yeah, UFO fans, would go with. this one because it matches the verbal description and the distance that was given. I think it started

out they originally said like 8 to 10 miles and changed the 6 to 8. I think 6 to 8 is the current estimate of the distance. 6 to 8 nautical miles. And if you do the analysis there, you do get this kind of j-hook, which does somewhat resemble the verbal description of the pilots or Ryan Gray specifically when he describes what he saw on the radar page, the SRP. So that's the kind of a Super simple theory It makes guy What do you say Merckham? I say Occamom

So I put the, you've seen this before But it's quite simple On one side What the aviator, what the air crews say Is a remarkable match with the data And the video On the other side you have these cascading Malfunctions in this this anomaly

This artifact that nobody's ever heard of And I've looped you in with I think several of the top experts in the world. Not heard of it when we've got videos of it. Not this video. Not this video. Other videos. There's no, there's zero evidence of what you're proposing.

There's zero empirical evidence of what you're disposed. There's evidence of glare, like they found just videos, for example. That's all blooming. So, the point is, I'm on, I'm on team Occam here, and I'm on all the data lines, the video, the rotation. You're referring to Occam's Razor? Sorry, yes. So Occam's Razor, named after William of Occam. Yes.

The most parsimonious simplest explanation is usually the right one. It is the assumptions here, the cascading of failures and malfunctions and unseen artifact that Mick proposes and requires for his theory is just, we'd be here all afternoon and probably through the weekend. There's got a lot missing from the left side of that page. Oh, okay. You have to kind of, you know, my side of the page basically gives a complete explanation. Your side of the page just says, oh, it was some kind of thing that was moving. Can I bring my analytic kind of perspective to this real quick?

Yeah, yeah. Why is it Occam's razor? Well, because I don't have to account for an extraordinary amount of malfunctions and never before seen. New technology. So Occam says nothing about the nature of an assumption. He's talking about purely about volume and the number of assumptions. He's not talking about assumptions. He's talking about entities.

It's the least number of entities to explain it. Correct. You have to create quite a big new assumption. entity, which is an entirely new form of a proposal. Let me just bring him the analytic perspective. So, so what's super interesting. You can just count entities and say, like, I have one. Yeah, let me respond. I mean, it's not mine. Person, right? I think Ockham will be rolling in his grave if he, he would have used in a rationalist framework because he was a 13th century monk. And so I think the fact that, you know, he probably wouldn't mind invoking angels. What's that? He wouldn't mind invoking angels. Oh, he wouldn't. He wouldn't, he wouldn't

in mind invoking God because that's the least number of entities to explain any miracle. But, uh, so let me, let me just, let's, let's just operate off a hypothesis that this was, in fact, a very bright, very anomalous, let's just say sauce or shape crop. Let's just, we'll just go with that. Just for hypothesis. At the end of the video, it's, it's on its edge, right? Slightly over. Okay.

Fair enough. But it's on its edge. It goes past vertical. Okay. Fine. No, I'm just, sorry. No, no. No.

Fiddly with my details. No. That's fair enough. And according to the air crew, there's no evidence for this, but according to the air crew, it wobbles after the video cuts out. Yeah. Yeah, that's, I think Brian Graves, did he say that? Correct. And he saw it.

Yeah. So maybe we'll hear if the aviator comes down and he says, that wobbled, that's interesting. So let me just put on my analytic hat real quick and bear with me. I'll do this as quickly as I can. You mentioned the Theodolite, the tracking. So in the 1940s, I'm going to. lists several cases here and they get very interesting. April, 1947, this is months before Kenneth Arnold's citing, which kicked off the flying saucer craze, if you want to call it that.

Four months prior to that, two Weather Bureau employees observed four metallic discs, flat on the bottom, domed on the top. And the U.S. government assessed because of, because they occurred previous to Arnold's citing, they were not influenced by hysteria, mass media. media and anything like that. They reported internally. They never actually said this publicly. So that's, that that is quite interesting. Now, let's move on Portland, 1947, July. Five law and five police officers see a total of nine discs going in different directions. So five cops, three cops, and one copse, see different discs going in different directions wobbling or oscillating. You can see this in the project sign raw reporting. New Mexico. This is in, uh,

the very famous Life magazine article of 1947, one of the Navy's top astronomers observes and takes various precise measurements of a disc that, and he observes it wobbling. Masawa, Japan, 1952 training exercise. A guy's flying, doing intercepts, and he sees a disc come up to his plane that engages in a slow fluttering motion,

rocks back and forth, and flipped on its edge, direct quote, direct quote, flipped on its edge. Southern California, Lockheed Martin aircrew is in the air. They see a metallic, sorry, elliptical object flying over the Channel Islands, kind of a hot spot if you're following this. Kelly Johnson, who is the skunk works, basically the most famous, the most well-known aeronautical engineer in American history,

sees the same object from his ranch. So you have two different perspectives. and they both saw this object. Pretty credible. He actually goes on to say, I'm a believer in flying saucers, the most kind of credentialed aeronautical engineer that we know of in American history. Exeter, New Hampshire, 1964, four people, two cops, see a large disc from 100 feet away and 100 feet altitude engaging in a wobbling motion.

Westall, 1966, Australia, 200 or 300, depending on the account. students and a teacher see a silver disk sort of banked on its side, then took off at a thousand miles per hour. Beverly, Massachusetts, 1966, nine witnesses to law enforcement officers see a metallic plate-like object that hovers 20 feet, according to three women over their heads. 20 feet. I see Mick's rolling his eyes. I'm just reporting what people have said. mine not air force base home of nuclear weapons missiles a border patrol officer sees a metallic disc direct quote wobbling on its edge 30 feet wide 100 feet away six day five days later the air force space a lot of UFOs wobble the air force these are these are all in government

records right are we are we noticing a consistency I'll finish up will be Well, yeah. Portage County. You pick the ones that wobble. Yeah, they're, these are the close encounters and, and probably the best known encounters, and you do see a consistency here, right? Well, I had to see what this stuff is up. If you're close enough, if these witnesses are close enough to observe wobbling,

I think they can see the shape, right? Anyway, quickly, um, finish up Portage County. Uh, law enforcement officers chase a large metallic disc-like object for 90 minutes, going 86 miles, um, Michigan, uh, swamp gas. You also see large disk like objects. Redlands, California. This is one of the most extraordinary cases that really hasn't got a lot of press. 200 people.

See silver disk, 40, 50 feet in diameter, 200 feet altitude. 1968, Redlands, California, James McDonald did it. Fair enough. Broadhaven, UK, 10 students, see a silver disc. They draw pictures. They're identical. Ariel. We all know the Ariel case.

a lot of people know the aerial case. 62 students see a silver disk. Pictures are identical. This disc is surrounded by the one. The pictures are not identical. There's a huge variety of pictures. It's all the same. It's all the same kind of shit.

They look vaguely like a variety of children's drawings of going. So what I'm saying is you have this extraordinary amount of failures, never before seen artifacts that just happened to. I agree with all the things that are on nothing. And then they all have to happen. I think that's something. What are the failures? Yeah.

So listening everything that I've had a hypothesis. as if everything has to happen all at the same time, which isn't true. Of course it has to happen, right? So you have a radar malfunction or... So what's on the radar? I don't know what's on the radar. We have to account for it, right? In your theory, you have to account for it.

Well, it could be a distant plane. Well, what's on the radar that's six miles away? I don't know. It could be like a training exercise site thing, which they said it wasn't, or it could be a malfunction, or it could be some kind of weather or normal, it could be balloons.

We don't know what it is. Well, they're going west, so it's coming from the east, so it's going against very strong. I mean, we could rule a balloons on... You could just cross that out. Like the air crew saw something on the radar. Yes, I agree with it. You don't account for what it is.

You didn't account for what the object actually is. You just said the air crew saw this object. You're not telling me what it is. So it's the same thing. I'm not falling. But the bottom line is, can we pull up the video? Because the match, the match between the flight path that we can reconstruct. I don't mind the F bombs.

We'll go against the wind. The wind's a hundred and why not? The wind. And that's the anomalous thing about this video is you have 120 miles not wind and getting against the object. Well, it's not like planes can't fly against the wind. Well, you just suggest a balloon. So could we rule out balloons? No, I don't think this is a balloon.

Balloon was why. No, the objects. The objects. The fleet is going against the wind. Right. So you just said that those could be balloons. Are they balloons? No, I didn't say, no, it could be balloons.

That's a different fleet. This is a fleet of five objects. Would a plane be able to rotate like that? I mean, that doesn't... The fleet described by Ryan Graves, there's nothing at all like the GoFast fleet. We should really dive into the empirical evidence. Let's get to the evidence, right?

And we have a lot, if you mind just flipping over to the... Video is the evidence. We have empirical evidence of what jets look like with this camera system. So if you just cruise down, maybe... We don't have time to get through all this. I mean, we have a ton of...

Let's just start there. That's, yeah. Yep. Actually, yeah. So maybe we can... I don't know if we can play it here, But we can add this in. Yeah, yeah.

But there's a, we can reconstruct. And Mick mentioned this kind of this, this vertical you turn, this j-hook path that that matches precisely with what the aircrews say that the object on, that was tracked on radar does. And when you play that video, you'll see that there's a series of rotations. And then there's one really kind of pronounced one that is, that is slower than the others. and that coincides with the apex of that turn. And if you play it, it is a remarkable match. And I got a couple other videos there that maybe we can throw in when we edit this. But using Mick Sim, and again, Mick, thank you for making this possible.

It is a remarkable. When you watch that thing just ride up the reconstructed flight bath. It is a remarkable. You keep saying remarkable. I think you use that word a little bit too much because this isn't remarkable. What we're seeing here is a curve that's basically an mathematical projection. It's not. It's flat. Of the path of the jet onto a straight line in the distance.

If you used to take what the actual jet did with the camera did, which was just basically do a little turn like that, and then draw a line over here, which is another jet, and then draw the lines of sight between the two, you're going to get these j hooks if you slice a plane through the lines at that point. And if you move them closer, it gets a bit more curvy, and then it kind of flattens out. But if you draw it there, it's just a mathematical projection.

It looks the same. It looks like the same curve. And this rotation of the object that Merrick talks about, Yes, it happens at about the same time as that curve ends. It's exactly the same time. But that's the same time that we're traversing the singularity in the gimbal. And it has to do these rotations. So it's doing these big rotations.

And it's not the same. It doesn't match the curve. It does. It happens roughly in the same region. We can pull up your sim right now. You want to pull up your sim right now and do it? There's three other rotations that don't match. The one big one is kind of roughly at the end, but it doesn't really match.

It's kind of like a bit of a reach. It's not a remark. It's not a remarkable correlation. I will let the viewers, maybe we can edit, you know, put this in, but I really want to show people what, and this is directly from Mixim. I think more importantly, let's just bottom line this. Well, real quick, though, just the audio associated with this, do you think the operators of these systems are confused at what they're seeing?

Because they seem to think it's remarkable. So they sort of buy tricks on them or something? They obviously don't know what they're seeing, which means either it's just something that they don't recognize, Yeah, but if you're using the camera's rotation as a way to explain it away, then presumably that would be very easy to be like, that was just the camera's rotation. That's not, there's no wow factor involved.

The smoking gun for me was that it rotates in steps and that system. There's zero empirical evidence. We talked to Mr. Snow. There's no evidence in that system. You asked him if he had seen that before and he said yes. Yeah, I don't. He has seen it. You don't believe him.

He's the expert. It's absolutely possible. Nobody else has seen that and is aware of that. That's fair enough. But we did talk to truly the top experts in the world on this. I won't go on the record, surprisingly. And that is part of the stigma. I had a Zoom call with one of those individuals.

I sent you. Can we say who this is? I can't, unfortunately. And I had a Zoom call with... And when you say experts, experts from the military perspective. So let me just run through. So we talked to a senior Raytheon engineer who is, let's say, intimately familiar with the system.

I don't want to give away too much. We talked to two of the, I'd say the, I think it's fair to say that the two top academic experts on this type of technology, not the flea, not the, so we have the ATFleer. SETA technology. Yeah, it's called Indian Antiminide. Right. Right. So, and they were all truly perplexed by it. They, the one that I talked to and to your point about why won't they go on the record.

He said, I am, I am intrigued by this. I sent you an email. This is very interesting. We had a long talk. I don't want to get involved in this, but highly credentialed, but just the stigma is still there. And what did they say, did you give them a mix hypothesis around camera rotation? So basically they debunked mix glare on the glass.

Would you agree that they debunked your glare on the glass? The glare on the glass is a pretty old notion of the theory. No, that's what you've been saying until we indicate these extra. That was your theory. You could just say old version of the theory is if you're, the theory is. Oh, no, glare on the glass, like, was just one possible way that you could get this.

But that's the only thing you said for seven years about this place. You never sit. No, it could be something along the internal optical paths of the thing. And I, you basically the aperture of the camera creates this. There's no such thing as glare. When Mick talks,

I really want to show people what this looks like. What he says glare is glare is called blooming. And that's when, and I'm not a scientist, but I've read enough of the, and this is part of why I want people to get engaged. Blumming is when there's so much energy being directed at a pixel that it overcharges it and it spills over. And there's no way that that could result in that.

We agree. The blooming is not. Sorry? I disagree. How could blooming? Blooming could create a shape. I don't think it is blooming. I've got one of the experts right here said no blooming in the Indian, Antimmonite.

I would not explain this rotation. Right after he said, Mick might be right, but for the wrong reason. No, this is a different expert. And then we had here, I'll just, I'll just leave it at this. One of the top academic experts deferred to one of the top government experts on air-to-air fleer imagery. This guy, and you saw this, right? He specifically refuted your theory. And I will read it, I'll read it.

The object in the video is definitely maneuvering, causing the appearance of rotation. I think a der-roll axis of the payload would not make this phenomenon of rotation. This is specifically to your theory. And this is arguably the top expert in the U.S. government. I think... In air-to-air, Fleer imagery. I think really he... You're interpreting things that he told you.

No, no, no, no. I'm talking about the government expert. Are you reading verbatim? I'm directly quoting, and I put this out publicly. Let me quote him. He said to me, I would not want my response sent out as I am government. And he might be seen as an expert official response rather than an opinion based upon limited real information. Okay. I just wanted to point some things out that others may have missed.

Okay. Well, I'm reading what he said. Well, we all have limited info. I guess specifically, you know, to Merrick's glare point, uh, you mentioned, okay, that, that's probably like the earliest version of the argument. You've updated it. You're talking about the internal optical system. What does mean? What is your argument now? Because now that glare has been rolled out, what, what is it? Because these guys are saying glare in quotes. Yeah, but then they don't want to talk about it. He said there isn't a point spread function. Then he talks about a point spread function. He puts glare in quotes and he says it's all an internal.

And Yanik did it. He did a great job. Yonick said, how do you reconcile this quote, glare on the glass, all the self-congulating discussions on Metabunk about glare spread for glare being a simple art of that. That grows with the, you know,

right, how do you, and this is the best part. So Mick's big explainer videos based on a, a cheap, what is it, 200 bucks, Fleer camera that this expert said is not a good comparison. That was just an example of how you can get a rotation glare. He literally calls you out.

It's just not a good comparison. There is no empirical evidence. A FLIR 1, which costs $200 versus an AT FLARE which costs a million dollars, is not going to do a very good comparison. So anyway, bottom line is we have a lot, we have a ton of air-to-air footage, and there's zero empirical evidence. Experts who don't want to be quoted. Okay.

Do you want to loop me in? Because I looped you in all the experts. I loop you in or what? Emails. That was it. That was email. I asked him if I could reuse his material. I thought you're bringing somebody new to the table.

So every expert. The other expert, the rating engineer. He said, he told you not to include him. Like he said, like he says, I gave him permission to publish to share any of our discussion. I now regret any discussion with him. I'm putting out, I believe that this is more important than the stigma. These guys are fighting a stigma. So you think that you are, they're, and you are.

They just won't talk. They won't go on the record. No expert in the world agrees with you. I know you're eager for Arrow to debunk this because you thought they were doing lab experiments that Kirkpatrick was talking about. It's been seven, how long has it been since this video came out? Almost a decade. Actually, gosh, we're on a decade now.

Well, Arrow's only been working on. a couple of years, I guess. Yeah, you think... They're very slow. Very slow. Well, they did Aguadilla. They're doing a whole... Don't you want to show?

It's an interesting thing. I see Aguadilla. Like, when you talk about experts... Well, no, no, let's stay on Gimble. Well, it's very, very quickly. I think Aguida has the... The... SCU, the coalition for a study of...

Yeah, and they did like a... 200-page document on a bunch of experts, people with PhDs. They think it's... They think it's some kind of... Why do you think Arrow hasn't... or anybody hasn't... Why has nobody backed you on your, on the theory? And why?

They backed me on Agriety and they back me on the triangles. On gimbal. On gimbal. Because they haven't finished their analysis yet. Okay. I think that's a stretch. Why is there no, why is there no academic literature that supports your glare theory? It's all blooming.

Because it's not a very common thing. It's not something that happens all this time. I mean, it was common. We wouldn't be having this discussion. This is an anomalous event. This is something that happened that was weird. And the pilots didn't recognize it. it because it isn't something that happens every day.

There's an active duty whizzo. Based on them being a narrow field of Zoom, I sent this to you years ago, narrow field of view Zoom 2, he uses this system daily and the fidelity of the picture, they're probably less than 10 miles away. He uses the system every day, life and death, right? They rely on the system.

Yeah, but I never see how that can be determined from what we're seeing on screen. Yeah. If you point the camera of the sun, it doesn't look like it's 10 miles away, but you'll get something like that. One other fact I just want to introduce is that, possibly this was also involved the formation of other?

Correct. That's the fleet. And Ryan has done it to his credit, and we can maybe throw this up. I put it in the slides, but he's recreated this, and it's kind of a V-shaped formation. When the object does this very bizarre kind of reversal of direction with no radius of turn, they kind of do a jumbled turn, and then they proceed and go in the same direction as that object. So they're all moving together in concert, basically, is the really. recollection from the top-down view from the radar. His recreation isn't actually like good because it doesn't incorporate the rotation of the plane.

That's fair. But what is your theory now? Now that the glare in the glass has basically been ruled out, what is your theory? I think what we see here is some kind of optical effect that is rotating because of de-rotation mechanism? And what evidence do you have for that? Well, there's first start. There's the bands of light and dark.

They're rotating in the background. Does the fact that the rotation exactly matches the needed rotation? So no, it doesn't, right? You don't know what the pitch angle of that yet. You picked a random number. No, it changes. It was not a random number. It was 3.6, which is exactly what the F-16s.

F-18. So they were in a max-angle towards. You were in a max-range profile. You're already wrong right there. Well, if you change that, it doesn't really change it very much. It's just slightly offsets the curve. It changes. Anyway, it does change it.

We can go down that rabbit hole. But we're good. We should. Not right now, obviously. bottom line is I think we need to hear from hopefully from the backseat you can see by looking at it that there's an optical effect

but if you actually look at this thing and you see the the light and dark rotation in the background I know you said you've I talked to anonymous experts who won't go on record I shared you I sent the email to you yeah but like if it's not going to record it's kind of useless we okay what you know I do I loop you into

so you've brought none at no experts to me I brought all the experts to you. That's great, but it brings some experts to the public. It's not that useful. Unfortunately, the stigma that you promote is the big part of why I don't want to. I encourage them to come forward. Like, come forward and I won't laugh at you. I mean, I don't think, I don't think. I don't think. I'm afraid of being, being, being proper analysis. I'll kind of straw me in both the arguments. Please do. I think on Merrick, your side, I think we need more of these people to come out to to gain confidence on this, both on the expert side and then the operators of these Fleer systems and the pilots themselves. And then on your side, Mick, I think you probably

have to take prima facie, you know, this operator of this Fleer system, this pilot, who is saying, whoa, like this is crazy. Like that, I mean, they have to, I mean, the idea that it's an F-18 and that this is happening around the GoFast as well, and that it's in this bizarre formation. And if you turn the camera and you're the person turning the camera, you're actually operating the system, there's no reason to freak out. There's no reason to, like, attach that audio. They're not turning. It turns automatically. Sure. But if you're, like, if you're, like, highly aware of, like, the camera turning. If you're like... David Freyvon, like, kind of discuss this hypothesis and he said the camera does that turn, which it's just probably wrong.

because from his perspective, the camera appears not to turn. The camera up turns when it tracks something going underneath the plane, it means to do that. You're saying David Faber isn't, like, familiar with, like, basic. It's not familiar with the inner workings of the camera. He's familiar with using it. So he knows what buttons to press and, you know, what appears on screen and what it actually means in terms of what's in the air. But he doesn't know what's actually going on in the optics, what the lenses do, the mirrors do, and how it rotates. So you think it's like, and then that's,

same guy who, you know, presumably, I mean, we have to figure out who he is, but has like some history doing this stuff. Right. After he sees this, he doesn't see anything like it. Nobody's seen anything like this. That's why we got this video. Is this once in a 20 year thing that happened? When the pilot says, they won the lottery of, he was a little bit of jargon here. And it just happened to occur right amid all these encounters. When the pilot says that, that, is the LNS, and I'll just explain, the L&S is the launch and steering, which is the selected radar target. What does that mean to you?

Sorry, let me just explain. The WISO says, hey, is that our radar target on our Fleer, on the camera? And the pilot says, yes, that is our selected radar target, which is six to eight miles away. What do you think the pilot meant when he says that is, and what do you think he meant when they briefed Congress and says, we knew it was not a false head? we knew we had a stable radar lock, a stable track file on it when they mentioned closest point of intercept

you know what the Jehemic system is right it places how does your theory square with all the technology let me just quickly it's basically like an Apple Vision kind of thing visor that puts all the data yeah it pumps all the data and you'll get a little box like where if there's a target somewhere Ryan talked about it in your...

So how do you square... Let's just start with the L&S, right? The pilot says that is... Yes, that's our radar target. It's a bit instinctist of what he actually says. But what we see on... Because that is the L&S... What we see on the screen here is an optical track.

It's actually tracking it using the contrasts on the screen. So what you might be referring to is something that's on the essay page, which would be like the nearer radar target. No, the wizard asks, hey, is that... is that thing that we're looking on the fleer, the select. He said, is that, I don't know how I'm trying to remember. Is that LNS, dude? Is that an, that is the LNS?

And then the other guy said, yeah, that is LLS. Yeah. We didn't know what he's referring to. It could be like, the selected radar target. That's what the LNS is. Well, yes, but like, is that that? Or is that a difference target? Because they also saw this fleet of thing.

So, so there just happened to be a distant jet exactly where the close thing is. Is that what you're saying? behind us somewhere. Really? So it just happened. Like, this is the odds of this. So you're saying that they're referring to another... You're very familiar with this theory of my and mark. I think this is a... Wait, so let me just... Playing us with a cryot here a little.

Hold on, hold on. So you... They have this radar target, right? It's six miles away. And directly behind it... More or less, yeah. ...is some other jet and doing, like, showing a, in a... It's heat, sore, an engine in a way that's never been seen before in a malfunctioning. pod and a, what else we have, a malfunctioning of all the electronic identification system is like, it's just cascading failures. I can't wrap my head. I hope I'm like getting through to people, but it just, it is, it is pretty wild to me. Yeah, it seems unlikely, right.

It's perfectly lined up. So that is what? You would just say, what, like law of large numbers? And we've never, the AT FLIR does not rotate in steps. If it's malfunctioning, maybe I don't, I, I just find that hard to believe. By the way, the patent, literally the patent, which you looked up, the patent, there's a sentence in there that explicitly, we can pull it up explicitly, just proves your theory. Why is it, why is the patent explicitly? Well, we can go, I know we have to wrap up. No, no, we have to until four now.

Oh, wow. Geez, okay. Yeah. I don't know if I can, I listen. You tell me where the patent is. There's a lot of things at the very end. It says, for example, they will avoid using role in the fashion. So this is super jargony.

Mick knows what I mean. this on its face just proves your theory. Basically saying that it avoids rotation of the... One of the three words before that paragraph. In some embodiments. That is, any patent experts will know that is in every single patent, that language.

Yeah. And it's not unique. For example, these patents are very broad. Like in some environments... Wait, wait, wait, we have to describe to the audience. Yeah, I know, I know. I know.

So this explicitly... So Mick says, this is so... I can't... It hurts. feed it. Like, it's so complex. Like, so he, he says that, like, so normally the pod will just do a nice, slow rotation like this to find out. We'll put the video up. We modeled it out. And it's just like this super chill. It doesn't do this for rotation. Right. Because you remember the, in the gimbal video, it does one, one, two, three, four, right? Normally, the patent says it would just do a very

simple, very gradual, nothing aggressive. It doesn't say with us. Absolutely. So it says, it says, It says in some embodiments he only uses the two axes, which would do that smooth rotation. Correct. But it doesn't say that the app floor that was used that day is that particular embodiment. And also this was a patent from, I believe, 2006. And we're talking about the gimbal video, which was filmed several years later. And Gino, from talking to Mr. Snow, these systems change quite a lot over time. But when they get smoother, not less, not more.

Mechanically, it makes no sense to do. do this crazy stuff. The image is what you want to be smooth. And if you notice in the gimbal video, it actually kind of like loses lock, weirdly quite a lot throughout the thing, even though it's not moving around very much. There's little gimbal rotations

and it moves off to the side. You don't see that. But the rotation, the rotation wouldn't be more jagged, right? It wouldn't be more like, the two things they have to bounce. There's the actual mechanics of the pot itself and then what the pilot sees.

And they wants to make the tracking as accurate as possible for. Is there a trade off? Is there a trade off? is the worst part, because it's you're like starting, stopping, starting, stopping. Well, not if you have a very agile mirror system in there that can counter those. So which is what they're purely in speculation. That's what we actually have.

And that explicitly disproves your theory. They also have the description of the mirror systems in there with plus or minus three degrees of sorts. And that's nothing to deal with Kimball. Which is about the same deviation from the way we get with the steps. Sorry, I don't follow. But the point is the pattern. We know that we don't have to point directly. something, we can use the mirrors to steer, the extra mirrors.

No. It just doesn't move that way. There's no evidence of that. You need evidence. There's no evidence of glare. There's no evidence of rotating glare. There's no evidence of any of this. Well, we just gone over all the evidence on it. You can see it on the screen that we have an optical effect. You can't use the gimbal video to prove your theory for the gimbal video. That's impossible. I'm just using it to show that there's actually some kind of optical effects going on. We can maybe, if you wanted to quickly look at some imagery of what the camera, how it actually records jet engine exhaust. So where are we here? Yeah, yeah, exactly. Yeah, while you're doing that,

I would like to encourage anybody out there who understands this to weigh in. Yeah. Because we need more people looking into this. I think that's the, it's just me and Mary. That's a big takeaway. No, we could, no, we need, we need more analysis, more credible eyes, people with rigorous backgrounds. We need experts to actually speak on the record. Agreed. But, and also people. people who know because a lot of this stuff is just the systems and how they work. Like, we're debating these, you know, obscure, like, Raytheon patents. This is absurd.

I know. I know. Can I make that I don't think of that all two points. I'm just giving something that's 30 miles away. And by the way, to the extent you're not compromising American national security. Yes, please. If you are not, I think it's your patriotic duty to come out. And if you are, then maybe stay where you are.

I agree. So varying distances, the engine exhaust. It gets bigger and bigger. No, it doesn't. In fact, it gets smaller, and I have a video. I can show it. So this is from the same video, and this is a lot further away at the end of it, and it gets smaller. So Raytheon, I believe it looks like they have some anti-blooming effects on there.

So that is the opposite of what you are suggesting. And if you go down one more. So this is the Galerda wing size. I'm sorry. That's exhaust. Glare, don't use glare. Glare doesn't exist. It really doesn't.

I'm telling you, like, there's a lot of papers about blooming. If you go down to that one where your mouse is right there, compare that to mixed theory. That's mixed theory right there. Yes, a point light source

will create a thing that's a specific size on the sensor. So it doesn't really matter how big is. If that light was a very, very small. What is the light source, though? Internal optical light. It's the heat of the engines. There's a thermal camera.

So we're looking at these. the camera of this chat. Essentially, it's a very, very bright, brilliant light source, and the camera for some reason has created this kind of glare, this optical effect. There's perhaps a sense of blooming. Probably not, though.

I'm, look, I'm just a bystander. I'm open to both of you guys being right. I think it's kind of scary from an American National Security perspective, if you're right. Because that's such as so bad. If it's just like this heat source, it's fuzzy, and it's just like, what's that?

It doesn't happen every day. It's not like this is going on all the time. But if that's an F-18 at a base that's frequently flying F-18, it's like that's... I mean, I don't know. It's like pretty bad detection. Arrow thinks it's a glare. Arrow thinks the glare. That's not true.

That's not true. Did you do that? No. Well, I don't know. Kurt Patrick thought Gimbel was filmed during the daytime. Yeah, but they thought what they're actually working on is like the assumption that this is some kind of glass, some kind of, well, an optical effect. I don't think there's any evidence of that.

Well, we'll see. Well, you said that. You said that right before this hearing. You're like, oh, well, you're very excited. Oh, we can't wait to see what Arrow has to say about this. The hearing came and went. The game is GoFAS and Aguadia, which was good. Well, now they're a tough spot with GoFast, as we said, because Aircrew is going to contradict them.

Yeah, well, then they'll take that new information into their analysis. So there's, that is just absurd to me based on the empirical evidence, right? That shape. That matches the Chilean case. Yeah, almost exactly in terms of size. So, first of all, that's blooming, right? Chilean, the Chilean case is blooming yet? Yeah.

So it's, again, when, like, a sensor gets hit with, a pixel gets hit with too much energy, that it'll spill over to other pixels. Yeah. Right? And that's what we see in the Chilean case. That is an apples to orange. Can you explain what glare is? It's relevant to this conversation.

Oh, but you said, like, it doesn't exist. exist. Sorry, in infrared. Why not? I'm going off of the people who are experts on this. Why do they talk about a point spread function if glad doesn't exist in infrared? He was talking, I'm pretty sure he was talking about your Fleur 1 example. No. What point spread function?

Point spread function is when how, it's a mathematical model of how light spreads from a point. So any point on the same thing? This is a photo of the scene here. So in what context are they bringing up the point spread function? in the context of glare, essentially. Nick, it was a little confusing as paragraph and it was something I wanted to talk to him more, but he never responded to my emails. I emailed with him this morning, actually.

The second expert. If you, usually the point spread function is kind of like a curve that goes like this, a very, very sharp curve like that. And that's how light spread from any pixel on the entire scene spreads according to this dysfunction. So for things that are pretty dim,

like most of the stuff in this room, you get a very, very sharp pixel because the stuff that's to the side is very, very low level. But around a bright light like this, everything is kind of boosted up, so you actually start to get the effects of the edges of this point spread function. And you can use this to basically model optical effects,

and they use it to model glare in various optical systems. and you would have a point spread function for an infrared thing. There's simply no way of not having it, because you're going to get some scatter from imperfections in the mirrors, possibly in the lenses, and you can also incorporate that into the sensor blooming as well. This is called, I think, optical transfer function is the entire thing.

It's point spread plus the sensor spread as well. And these are details that I think experts should be able to weigh in. Absolutely. So I'm a little skeptical of it because you spent years, you went on CNN with your little glass, right? That's the glare on the glass that was disproven, what, two months ago, three months ago? No, that it's. Yeah, you literally, we've got you, you're saying, oh, well, if it's not, I got you here. Briefly, if the glare effect is indeed all in the sensor, then you shift here to another.

It's showing that if part of the camera rotates or if the camera itself rotates, then it rotates, that was the easiest way of demonstrating. Since then, I've been doing it by rotating a camera, like you can actually, you know, whole two people are going to say. I think for seven years is wrong. No, no, no, it's improved. No, no, no, no. The glare on the glass has been disproven, which you've been... Well, according to you, it's been disproven, but I don't think it has been disproven. How do you...

From Yonick, how do you reconcile this with the glare on the glass? Well, according to Yannick, your co-author on the paper, it's a quoted, he quotes the effort. The quote, glare that Mick mentions is likely from boost filters, high-pass filtering, edge, that's all internal. That's not on the glass. Yeah, but he's assuming that the glass is clean. Oh, so we're back to the...

At one point, at one point, at one point, Mick thought that he, some source told him or somebody apparently told him that crew chiefs in the military just wiped the glass. I've got video that happening. The guy just manhandling one of those systems with his hands. And I'm sure it was cleaned after because there's pretty darn good maintenance on these, on these systems.

As soon as they get up in the air, they're going to throw clouds up there. The assault sprain. So your theory at one point was like that some crew chief wiped a greasy sleeve on it and that's what gave us this. I've heard people say that. I mean,

I don't think that's what happened because the glare on the glass thing would probably give a less even shape. I think it's probably more to do with the internal optics. I've got a camera that gives a very similar shaped glare to that. So my little helmet's a camera.

Maybe you can recap. So you have a malfunctioning, a mechanical malfunction. It has to be. No, no, we don't know that to show it because, see, we don't know if there's an embodiment that doesn't have smooth steps. There's zero evidence for that. You have to provide evidence. You don't have evidence either way, really. Absolutely. There's tons of footage of, you know this. I've, like, well, you once, like used Top Gun Maverie because that is. I was joking. Oh, my God. You realize I was joking, right? No, because you didn't, you seem very, very serious at the time. It was on a tweet for crying out loud. We have, there's tons of, what I said, on tweet. There's tons of actual video evidence of how these systems rotate and it's a nice, gradual,

simple. Not really. Absolutely. We see it from the outside rotating in a way that's tracking. I have a two minute long video, a very nice, smooth. Let's move on before you guys can follow up. You can follow up with the smooth rotation. If you want to follow up with any videos that show the jagged, I just want to quickly reiterate how, like you're saying there's a distant jet right. Literally exactly in the line of sight. Roughly. Uh-huh. Okay.

And then we have a malfunctioning pod. And then you have an artifact that nobody's ever seen before and no expert know about and no aviator who's ever used. And you're saying that it's like this new advanced technology, possibly aliens. I'm only saying it is a, there's a spectacular match between the eyewitness accounts, right? Of that anomalous trajectory, that direction reversal with no radius of two. turn, the rotation we see in the video, and the flight path we can reconstruct. Well, you bring up an interesting point.

You say, you know, new advanced technology or possibly aliens, Dr. Stephen Greer is obviously outspoken person when it comes to the UFO issue, very polarizing figure on the topic. He will come out and say things like, oh, the Nimitz stuff, you know, that's all, Lockheed Martin, special access programs. And we'll say that, you know, they're red-teaming our detection. systems or spoofing us or something. Which people say it doesn't happen.

So do you guys have opinions on that? Do you think that that's at all possible that some of these exercises? Well, I think if these guys are training for war, they're not going to do that to guys that are training for war in a training airspace. It's all right. That was when I spoke to Ryan Greys. I can't leave aliens. Sorry, when I spoke to.

My basic point here is that if we're going to entertain extraordinary options like aliens or even advanced technology being used by the Chinese or the Russians, then we should also entertain things like maybe there's a series of coincidences that happen. You really say it's less like. Entertain all options, but at some point it just borders on the line, on the ridiculous. I'm sorry. But aliens borders on the ridiculous.

The historical record is pretty remarkable of identical performance characteristics, wobbling or identical eye witness reports and people are very similar. They've got similar brains and they report things in the same way. You picked all the ones that wobble. I picked the ones that

I roll the videos of wobbling discs. I picked the ones that are the best known, and they just happen to wobble. When it comes to, you know, secret American craft, again, I normally don't find myself kind of steel manning this position. But it's probably more conspiratorial to say that we don't have craft that is classified that exhibits exotic characteristics than the inverse. So like 80% plus of Lockhe, I think of Skunk Works projects currently. are classified. And so, yeah, are there things red teaming our systems? And to Steelman, your point

that you just made is I just spoke to Ryan Graves. We had a great conversation. And he was like, yeah, you know, maybe that's happening in spots. But like, in his case, he was stationed at Naval Airspace, Oceania in Virginia. And he basically, one of his people in his squadron, fighter pilots, the object almost hit the pilot. And it was this. spear inside a cube. And he was like, they're not going to put us in danger if they're kind of red-teaming our system. So I don't know. And you don't, yeah, you don't do that over international. We have ranges for that. We have designated airspace for this kind of stuff. I think it's possible that the radar hits were some kind of red-teaming thing because he doesn't really put anybody in

danger because there's no actual targets. But in this case, it was a pilot almost hitting the object. In that case, yeah, that's the same thing. But in the gimbal thing, for example, there's some kind of radar interference. Perhaps there was a distant jet and the radar got messed up and they made it appear. So one actually told me that as a possibility. How does it account, like, how did, if it's something like that, how do you get five, what, five or six objects moving in concert like that? Well, it's the same. It's just one object. He's getting five like echoes of it. So I don't understand the details, but someone did actually mention that to me as a possibility. Someone who was familiar with radar, obviously doesn't want to speak on the record because of the

stigmas I'm perpetrating. But yeah, it's, I don't know. How can we move forward with this? I think we actually do need more input. Let's get the whizzo out there. Get the whizzo. Let's get people who actually understand the system to speak on it. That would be really good.

Please. Come out. Talk to us. I mean, I've tried to contact Raytheon and they said, oh, you should talk to the Navy. And of course, the Navy doesn't. Right. Well, nobody wants to talk to anyone. They claim up.

As soon as it's UAP, they clam up. It's, I see it over and over and over again. Arrow will eventually release something, but yeah, I'm skeptical what is going to be a comprehensive explanation of what's going on. You were, okay. You were very, yeah. We should, we should move on. We should. Yeah, okay, so USS Omaha, this is a very controversial, interesting case.

July of 2019, off the coast of San Diego, was released by, I believe, George Knapp and Jeremy Corvel. Correct. Admiral Galadette, who just testified before Congress, might have some more interesting info about this case. I think it's mixed turn to TSO. I'm not actually that familiar with, but I'll give you my take on it. The video we're going to look at is the sphere descending into the sea. Yeah, so this is taken off the screen in the command center of the ship. We're looking at thermal video again, so we're seeing like a heat source, possibly glare or blooming.

and it's, it kind of looks like it was moving around at first, but that's actually just the camera moving, the camera that's actually recording the thing, not the other camera. There's a cut in the video where it kind of jumps down to a lower level. It's actually descending really, really slowly, there's cuts to where it's just above the horizon. It's not really moving at all.

It's just kind of slowly, slowly descending to the ocean. And when it gets to approximately the high, horizon, it shrinks down to a point, then it kind of like pops up again and expounds and then it shrinks again and disappears. And I think at the end of it, they say

splash down, splash, splash mark bearing a range. So they think that it's actually gone into the water. But if you zoom in on the video, I think it actually looks more like it's actually going, it's actually a heat source that is expounded, piece of the blooming or glaring, and then it goes

behind the horizon. And there's some dispute as to exactly where the horizon is. You can move the horizon up or down one pixel. It's in front of it. If you move it a pixel the other way, it's behind it. There was a guy, I think Dr. Phil Metzzer. He did some analysis of that. I published it on Twitter and said it was very ambiguous as to where the actual horizon

was. But it's very similar to like a light going behind a solid object will actually shrink if it's a point source as it goes behind it rather than just disappear. hearing. So we don't know why it is. It appears to be moving, I think it appears to be moving northly and the wind is coming from that direction. Pretty strong winds too. It's apparent motion is against the wind, but I think, I don't know what it is, but I think my best guess is that it's a strong heat source that's actually moving away, and it goes behind the horizon. But there's various interpretations and there's more analysis. Yeah, well, maybe just paint a broader

picture. This is part of six, five or six months long incursions over these naval vessels off the Channel Islands and off the coast of Southern California, multiple ships. And they were reporting. In fact, Jeremy and George released a video of basically two red lights from the Omaha that night. And we know that the ship was being, sorry, and they were just hovering there. And I think another one kind of cruises me, we can splice this in. But another one, one kind of cruises by it. So clearly there were objects around the ship. There's no question, right? We have, there's radar footage from that same night. And the ship is getting swarm. I think at one point I counted 10, 12. It's up to 14 objects were observed simultaneously. The objects were described

as self-illuminated spheres, approximately six feet in diameter. So kind of comports with your kind of orb, you know, generic description. Back to the, back to the orb thing that has been consistent. So, you know, where to begin? Jeez. Number one, you can see in the indicator that they did have a radar contact at one point. It's slayed to the radar. You saw that R. We know the symbology. So again, this is like the gimbal.

Like the system says it's tracking a radar target. The system's saying that. But it clearly isn't in this one. It's been done by a joystick. Someone's manually moving the camera around. And they probably just like with gimbal, the same thing. They probably had the radar drop it off in this. So you're saying the same thing happened again?

Like they missed the actual radar target and then they focused on? happening, maybe that was the actual radar target. Okay. Maybe. And we have the radar, and it's all within like six miles, five, six miles, all those radar contact. Well, yeah, but that doesn't mean that's the only contact. Like you can... So you don't, so you think, so, so you think, so they're surrounded by like 14 odd, whatever it is, I accounted what, there's a lot right on that radar footage.

And you think they decided to focus on the object that's 60 miles away, slowly going over the horizon? It was something what the video looks like. It looks like... Come on, you've got to imply a little common sense here. Well, it looks like a plane flying away to me. It's very, very similar to the... Do you have any empirical evidence of blooming?

Which is your theory. That is that perfectly spherical? Any... Perfectly spherical. Really? Let's go take a look. Like, compare it to, like, one of the engines of the Chilean... Right. It's all... No, those...

It's just... It's not circular, right? Yeah, we're kind of getting... No, no, no, there's just zero evidence for... for your client. I've looked at a lot of DeFaulch's fleurvid and thanks Dave for all your work. There's no engine that looks like a perfectly round sphere. They're generally perfectly round. Really? Okay. Well, if you could show me one, we can go back. I mean, we looked at it. It's all jagged. It's flickering. Like, you know what I'm talking about. You know that there's frequently.

Right. No, it's the Falsh ones do flicker a little bit more. But I think this is a much more distant object and it's zoomed in a lot more system. So you have no evidence. You have no evidence that it's, that it's blooming. It seems very similar to, other thing. Well, the evidence is blooming is that it shrinks. Right. So, do you mind if you go to the slideshow real quick? Because we can, we can test that very. So this is just, this is the shot. You can, if you look closely, you can see the horizon, right, the horizon line. And, and the key here is the horizon is above the center point of that sphere. So if you go down. It's about the same as the same. We go down to that one. That's a line that I drew.

we'll leave it up you know a uap is in the eye of the beholder this is this is right horizon i see quite a bit of sky underneath that horizon do you i don't but if you go to the next one you see it's a lot lighter than the rest if you go to the next one we can see the line that you drew and i see a lot of ocean above your line so right i see i see an enormous amount of ocean above and if you go down to the next one i zoomed in on one section there's i mean there's clearly ocean above your line this this pixel there's dark pixel yeah so i this is this is a problem with this thing is you can't and this one Dr. Phil was saying that you can't touch you determine exactly where it is.

We know where it looks like it's almost exactly at the horizon, maybe pixel bur, pixel below. And it shrinks in exactly the same way, the Blair would shrink. It's probably, well, if you watch like SpaceX capsules go down, it does the same thing. Remember, we pulled those up and they look exactly the same. Yes. We should just view that. So, again, you have no evidence, like no empirical evidence that an engine actually has that very, very clear circular. Do you think there's an actual circle that shrink?

It goes on the water. That is one thing. You see it gets small water. Let's talk to the air crew. Sorry, the air crew. Like, let's listen to what they say, right? They say, first thing that the guy says, it took off, it's booking it. Where does that imply?

Which? Play the video. Do you want to play it? Like, the first thing he says it took off. In this one? It's booking it. The Emma Houseveath? Took off. It's booking it.

It's no one they're looking at the radar? there's multiple radar targets right there you said that it's not moving he said okay what is it implies that it left the vicinity and it's moving very fast but it's not doing that it took off it's booking it's booking it means it's going very fast so correct so the implication as tim mentioned recently and i think some of the folks that have that were on the the bridge of the omaha at this point during this incident said these things were hovering we have video of these things hovering. Jeremy Corbell, those two red lights hovering and another one kind of cruising by it. It took off its booking it implies to me it was sitting there and then it started moving.

It's not moving though. Yes, it is. It's clearly moving left to rate. It doesn't suddenly start moving in that video. It doesn't change. So the assumption is it was stationary. It's he's, it starts moving and he records it. It took off. Is that a fair interpretation? It took off. It's It's very speculative, I think. Really? You're interpreting what you want to be happening. A few words that somebody said in this video. But we have evidence of these objects hovering over the deck of the Ovalh.

The drones? Whatever they are, it's something with red lights. Right. Yeah. That video is terrible video, the Corbell video. It doesn't ratio anything. It could be drones. It could be planes.

You don't talk about any number of things. The two red lights with the other one. Yeah. Most people think it is a silly video. And a lot of the eyewitness stuff. So what were those objects? Were they just drones flying around? I don't know what they were.

So here's where it gets really interesting. 24 hours later, the U.S. is Paul Hamilton. It's FOIA, you can find it, and we'll put it up. Reports the same thing. One of the objects splashes. You can see it in the deck log or in the briefing of the event. If you look at, I don't know if this is diagnostic, but if you look at the video footage from the Omaha,

to those contacts are cruising around, they just disappear off the radar. Went in the water. It could be in the water. I'm not saying that it is. That's not done. We're working under the assumption, I think, that there were drones in the area because they reported drones. Who knows? The only evidence we have shows a spherical.

There's no evidence. Like, there's no empirical evidence that a... You're taking that splash just to be the same as that splash when it was probably... Well, they're getting ready to get a... They asked three ships around them to get a helicopter out. Yeah, because they thought that there were drones in the area. They thought it was close. Yeah.

There's a lot of issues with the whole drones thing. Like the army, the military of the Navy has missing. interpreted a lot of things as drones. I just tweeted earlier today about how they once put out a photo of a jet and said it was a drone. We know that the Snoopy team, the trained observers on a Navy vehicle, have misidentified stars as drones. And what does that have to do with the spherical looking object? Well, we were talking about these I-Winders accounts of things that happened that go along with these videos, maybe they mistook something else. Maybe they thought that Venus was a spherical object because it looks like a bright light in the sky, like hundreds of yards away.

Can you provide a single piece of evidence that blooming looks like that, like that very rounds? I'll give it a go. I looked at a lot of infrared imagery now, and I've seen nothing. That's the natural shape for blooming there. all in your name. Save on the stay. Oh, and free waffles are yours to claim. Book direct at storeshiltails.com. I think we should move on.

Admiral Deladette says that he has a firsthand witness who might be coming out soon. So let's both. With some video potentially. I think you mentioned there's some video. Well, that would be incredible. It would be great. Yeah.

Love it. I will say, just quickly, so there was another ship that reported an object splashing in the water. Yep. this is where it gets kind of very from an analytic perspective interesting that ship the Paul Hamilton so this is the day after the Omaha video it's swarmed by a group of drones UAP they depart we can actually track this

they depart on a heading that goes right towards Guadalupe Island and I bring that up because there's a series on I think it's National Geographic unidentified Lou Elizondo and I think Sean Cahill went down to Guadalupe Island because there have been reports of spheres going into the water. And you can see, and I spliced the interviews together, he had five or six fishermen out there, including one of the world's most renowned shark experts, a scientist, said they've seen these objects. The fishermen all say, yeah, I've seen these lighted luminous orbs spheres going into the water. That's interesting, right? So you have one group of UAP, one splashes or recorded is recorded as going in the water. And then this other group goes right towards the location where, oh, by the way, witnesses have been reporting, reporting spheres going in the water.

There's a military testing area there, isn't there a drone base down there where they test military drones? That's the island. It's Mexican. No, but north of that, there's an island. So we're talking about, no, we're talking about well south of those islands. And Danny Sheen just came out as well as a famous American lawyer who represents a lot of, you know, UFO whistleblowers. and he said that he has coordinates for a UFO underwater base. Let's go.

I have nothing out. I said we should all do a boat trip out there, and we got some Twitter momentum. I think that's interesting, right? Sure. But it's just a lot of eyewitness accounts. It is, but it just happens to align with two splash events. A splash just means something fell in the water. Correct.

Do you think these guys are genuinely mistaken? Do you think they have some sort of incentive? Okay, so they... Well, the people may be. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. So you don't think they're like, uh, siopping the American public or... No. No. Like, money or fame out of it. Yeah. Jay Stratton took this slide of three stars and presented it to people in Congress. He thought that it was triangular drones. You know, this, this kind of types of mistake goes all the way up the chain. Do you think that's still happening today at Arrow? And I'm sure that I'm making mistakes still.

They couldn't get the date right and then go fast. Slide. All right, let's move on to Nellis, Tonepah. Yep. So this is a restricted airspace, you know, testing range. Nellis is famous. There's a lot of UFO lore. You have this object moving towards the Black Mountains.

Why don't we play this video? It's a little lesser known. 1994. There's two videos, actually. within this clips you mean you mean there's two clips here within this video I don't actually

there's a different video following was it stabilized I just throw my my thesis on the table here I think that's just a balloon or a bunch of balloons floating in the wind it's

the camera is thrown a lot there's no actual movement of the object itself we do have a range indicator which tells you how far away it is And if you use that, we see that the range indicator isn't very accurate. It kind of like zips back and forward.

I just think if you're operating these machines at Nellis testing range, you have to be pretty familiar with probably exotic stuff. Yeah, but look at it. What can you see that? It does basically a 90-degree turn. It doesn't. Sure does. A guy made a metabunk in 1996 or a sit-wreck, and he did a good job.

Remember, I sent you the video? I put this in Sit-Reck, and you can see that the range data is like, you know, bullshit, basically. And if you just use the lines of sight, there's a perfectly reasonable path, wind-driven path for a balloon. So I'd love to see that because... I'd like a triangle shape. This isn't... This isn't speed for red, I think. No.

Yeah, I mean, you asked me to do it in set-rex, so I did. And then you took my results, and you said that it drew what you'd... originally thought. But I don't think it does. I think the results show that the range data is very inaccurate. It looks like it's morphing in shape. Like a bunch of balloons, kind of rotation in the sky. It does a little bit of like an Apollo, you know, like very bizarre.

This is maybe the weirdest video. It is bizarre. So, so. Isn't that a little like a bunch of balloons to you? And it's, right? It kind of pivots. Yeah, but it looks like the balloons are like, malleable and morphing. Well, it does a weird.

And it stops. It looks like it rotates. It rotates like in the one steps, which is very bizarre. I just think if it were balloons and you're operating these systems at, you know, restricted airspace, like you have to have some protocol for balloons. Like, you have to know what we would track it. Yeah, but you wouldn't be freaking out. Like, you know, it's, there's just balloons. What's interesting is it's coming from.

Arrow should analyze it. It's coming from Area 51. That is very interesting. Yeah, well, that's, no, it's testing range. No, but it's actually, like, if you, if you, you could trace. where like it's moving west at first and then it takes basically a right turn and goes north. So shouldn't that, shouldn't your Occam's Razor be, you know, well, it depends on what you think, what's going on at Area 51, but shouldn't Occam's Razor be?

It is an interesting twist. It's an military base. Yeah. No, why didn't they scramble jets and go after it? They didn't seem to think it was a threat. They were all in shock. You could hear them like, what is that? Well, they were too surprised to scramble jets and do anything.

No, they didn't do anything. Nothing happened. You know, I had a. I have no idea. That's all we know. All we so. Maybe they scramble jets as soon as that. Maybe they realized it was some balloons and didn't scramble jets.

So it's, it's zipping along, right? And it's going due west. And then it basically does a 90-degree turn. If you take the range data. No, you can see it visually. Like, you can actually see it visually. Yeah.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. I mean, do you want to play it again or? We'll have to revisit this then. Yeah, no. I mean, it's quite clear, right? It's because it's like, okay. The camera moves.

Let me do this. Let me do this for the folks at home. It's going this way, right? Going kind of away from you. And then it does one of these and flies over the camera. Yeah, if the range laser is correct. No, no, you can see it visually. You don't even need the range.

Wait, it's moving towards the camera. You can see. So at first he's doing this, it's moving perpendicular, and then it does this. We shall revisit. Okay. Okay. Next one.

I like it. We're moving. Okay, Aguadilla. Aguadila. So this is off the coast of Chile? Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico, okay. And this is 2013. It's on the coast of Puerto Rico.

2013 on the coast of Puerto Rico, where there are a lot of sightings. This is over the airport at Aguida, a big tourist destination. There's a bunch of hotels up of the beach. It shows an object that appears to be flying in a circle around the airport. And this is something that's been analyzed by our, lot of people. And the interesting thing about it is that it applies in a circle, which is kind of

unusual for such a small object to be doing. And then later it appears to go underwater. It looks like it goes underwater. And then it applies to spit into two. Spit into two parts. But a lot of people have analyzed this. And pretty much

everyone who has analyzed it has realized that if you take the lines of sight, which you can get from the camera here, or the numbers on the screen. The lines of site all intersect over the airport, not just at the intersection, a line over the airport, and that line represents a vector

that's moving more or less at wind speed, about 18 miles per hour, and it kind of decreases a little bit as the balloon, the object sinks to a lower altitude. And a theory that was proposed by the head of Brazil's UFO investigation department,

Ruben Leamsa, is that it's actually two Chinese lanterns, wedding lanterns, kind of tied together. And that's why you see early on in the video, you see kind of like two shapes kind of like moving around each other. Partway through the video, you see the heat source, and then you see kind of the paper canopy of the lanterns behind it. And then when it gets to this section here, this is where we see it kind of disappear. Now, this is thermal footage. so we're seeing the black is the hot of the flame and there's some blooming

or glare and then when it moves so that's hidden by the paper, the paper canopy, it becomes, you know, it's almost the same color as the ocean and the media compression just can't keep up with it so it disappears, you can more or less see it that a lot of time and then it reappears and it

kind of like splits into two which ties in with the earlier observations that there appears to be two heat sources that there's actually two to wedding lanterns. And more research was that there were actually hotels up the beach, upwind from this location, which release these types of wedding lanterns.

And then this was all confirmed, basically, by Arrow analyzing this and coming to the same conclusion. What do you think, Merritt? It'll probably cost me some Twitter followers. Great, I agree. I don't have any objections. Okay. So this is good to hear.

So you guys agree on something? No, absolutely. There are people who won't agree. with the SCU, for example. I mean, just be clear, I agree with the vast radio mix work. Yeah, yeah. Because, as we know throughout history, right, 80, 90% of these things are prosaically explained, misidentified. We've seen this in New Jersey, right?

People are literally videotaping or recording aircraft. Speaking of which, the world is going crazy. They're drones in sensitive air spaces, quote-unquote drones. And I'm just saying, quote, unquote, because nobody has any good, even you have to admit, Mick. nobody's coming out and saying anything clear about these things on either side. One thing that's very, very clear is that there's a lot of misidentifications. I believe that. I'm sure.

I'm sure. And there really aren't any good videos that are unambiguously of drones or, you know, some kind of beyond drone type things. Sure, but would you admit that there's a spike globally of these weird sightings and sensitive air spaces? Is this because there actually are more of them, or is it because people are reporting more of them because of this story is kind of blossomed up from these, these, these, these original stories of drones over air bases. I don't know the data, but my strong bias would be that there are more sightings going on. All these false sightings are just people looking at planes. So there's a huge spike in those.

So why wouldn't it be like all just this from this huge spike? I'll push back slightly, Mick. Just a little bit. You're right. People misidentify things. But I think we're, I think you might be pushing this narrative a little too far because it really the very obvious plane videos, there's only like three or four of them.

They're obvious, like, that are planes. There's not that many. There's a lot more that are resolvable as planes if we know the actual location. I got sent one the other day and tracked down the actual planes.

And it just looked like these little points of light. Let's get into the weirdest one. You know, this one, it's gone completely viral on Twitter. It says Manchester Airport, June 2024, citing.

And you have, you know, an employee, an anonymous pilot and co-pilot. you know, see this thing. And I think the quote is, like, you know, I've worked, you know, in, you know, aviation for a very long time. And, you know, I know what a weather balloon looks like. And the report is that this orb comes down, hits the tarmac, and then shoots up. Yeah.

But he also said it was the size of a small car. And that's 24 inches tops. We did very detailed analysis, 3D recreation of this thing. from the exact viewpoints and using the other data there, at the most 24 inches. Okay, and Merrick, what do you think? I got nothing, guys. I really, like, it's, it's, I don't know.

So you basically agree with me? I think it's a balloon and some, like, artifacts in the image there. Uh-huh. I got nothing. Okay. Yeah, sorry. Now you have this interesting case of, quote-unquote, UAP activity near Duke Energy's nuclear facility in North Carolina.

I personally find this interesting because my Occam's razor belief generally is that it's, you know, prosaically explainable way. The thing I hold out, you know, interest in is when the siting occurs around a nuclear facility. I find it very fascinating that there is a town next to the Fukushima Prefecture in Japan called Eno, which is dedicated to UFOs, and it's where they had their famous 2011 spill, you know, nuclear. And then, you know, there have been sightings in Bariloche, Argentina, which has its own civilian nuclear grid. And then if you look at Edward J. Rupelt, the book you cited, a vast majority of the sightings that he take seriously occur around sensitive nuclear facilities in the U.S.

And then you have Robert Hastings work. And so if I had to, you know, again, Steelman the UFO position, it would be around this nuclear connection. So this I find interesting because you have UAP activity around this nuclear power plant. Should we just watch the video? And I'll just quickly say, Jesse, to your point, The nuclear connection is extraordinary. It is remarkable. And I've written about it.

Sorry, go ahead. No, I mean, it's amazing. And more and more, Roswell itself, the site of the 509th Atomic Bomber Squadron, the first bomber squadron in the U.S. You have, you know, the Trinity test site, possibly. There was a crash there. Uncle you have D.D. Johnson on one side. You have Jacques Fulay on the other side.

They're kind of arguing. Well, Lani's Amora happened a couple miles from the trip. A couple of miles from there. It would be the reason that new men. Mexico is such a hot spot. I think I'm kind of with Arrow on this one, though. I think there's a lot of a reporting bias.

You get reports on highly sensitive sites just because people are much more vigilant. People who work on these sites are trained to report things, and people who work at Walmart are not trading to report things. You've got to read the cable, and

this is, again, to John Reed Greenwald's credit, like, you've got to read the cave, like 1975. Are you where, do you know anything about those incursions? Where you can see in a, in a literally a cable to the Pentagon. Is that nucleus? Absolutely.

A hundred percent. And it says the language is a clear intent. So there's objects hovering 10 feet above. They're nuclear weapon storage facilities, right? And there are videos of the plume of various detonations where you see the UFOs. Like there's one Blue Gild Triple Prime. Yeah, I think they were either spotter plane or something else. But I can't remember what they were exactly, but that was resolved, as I recall.

Was it? Was it? We'll look it up. We should look at it. I'd love to resolve. And then another, I mean, even Virginia in Brazil, where, you know, James Fox went down and investigated for a moment of contact where you have all these, you know, hapless local citizens who don't seem like liars. Is there a nuclear power station that? Yeah, they, that was the start of their nuclear program is what I've heard.

And so I don't know. It just keeps popping up with a nuclear thing. And it does, it does cut through. Lake and Heath just recently. Lincoln Heath, there you go. Allegedly, according to open source reporting, that it's supposed to host U.S. nuclear weapons. Lake and Heath was one of the site of one of the most extraordinary historical accounts. Right.

Right. Right. James McDonald wrote quite a bit about this in folks at home. Like, just look up Lake and Heath, 1956, McDonald. You'll find CIA documents. You'll find a really lengthy write-up on the Princeton.edu website. That is just absolutely astounding. Also, Royal Air Force Bentwaters.

Correct. In 1980, you have a bunch of witnesses. Because it was joint, you know, managed by the U.S. and the Royal Air Force. You have a bunch of, you know, John Burroughs, Jim Peniston, Colonel Halt, who did the investigation. And the audio and the, yeah, yeah. I was listening to the book on the way here, UFO and New. Yeah.

Yeah, what do you think about that? Because that's, I told you you read that. I'm certainly the areas would seem compelling because there's a count after account after account of the something seen by. And if you meet, like, I actually get. the sense from you, I don't think you're a liar at all. Like, I think you're very, no, I mean it. I really, I get this, like, clear attention to detail, like, um, good earnest vibe. And that's the same vibe I get from Robert Hastings. In fact, like, the way I connected with Robert

Hastings, I think he's lying in the book. No, I'm not, I know you're not accusing him to that, but his, he's dedicated his life to this and the amount of granular detail. I mean, you should meet him if you're interested. He reached out to me. This is how. I got in touch with him. I made my piece with David Grush. And I screwed it up and I overstated the case. I was like, you know, UFOs and nukes, you have, you know, over 100. And I go, Missileers, ICBM security personnel, like a few other do.

And it was, it's 170 total witnesses, but it wasn't 100, you know, radar operators or whatever. And I just dispersed in the moment. Yeah, yeah, I see. Yeah. But I love it. He emailed me and he said, Jesse, it was only like 12 to 15. I don't remember the exact number. But radar operators, the rest were ICBM security personnel,

you know, missile technicians, you know, whatever. And it was, and then that's been literally like all of my communications with him have been around that and he'll correct you immediately if you're wrong. And if you're overstating a case. Hastings is outstanding. Statistics here, like actual statistical analysis of, you know, citing near-nukes versus other ways that are actually invalid. Well, yeah, it would be Edward J. Rupelt's original study where he came in, that was done from 1947 and 1952, and then he wrote a book about it in 1956.

I mean, the Colorado sightings, right? In 2019, 2020, those were over those nuclear missile silos, partially, partially, and they mirrored 1965, the same exact, like their witnesses are talking about up and down movement, bright flashing lights. Where have we seen that before? And it's undocumented, right? 140 some, somewhere. And I've met Robert Salas at Malmstrom in 1967. You know, that was his siting where, you know, 10 of these sites were disarmed, according to him. And I've also met Mario Woods, who was stationed at, you know, South Dakota, Ellsworth Air Force Base in 1978. He claimed to have boarded a craft and been abducted. But this guy maintained acute clearance for 20 years after this. And all these guys are, it's the most sensitive clearances. They're on what's called the PRP program where they have to report if they're taking ibupin.

So I do find that compelling. It speaks to the whole like issue with, you know, Marco Rubio, we're talking at the start. Like, you know, either there's some crazy people in power or, you know, what they're saying is true. And he leans towards true, right? Just to be clear. Rubio's very clearly leaning towards, I trust them.

Well, there is evidence that there are crazy people, but people with very strange ideas. But who... Likatsky, for example. Like, he's like a rocket scientist. Right. Yeah, but I think the more you go into, like, you know, highly competent,

you know, impressive circles of people, the more you realize a lot of these people are weird. But who? Tim Taylor. Yeah, Tim Taylor's super weird, but he's also, you know, working with Elon Musk around, you know, various launches. How weird. That's interesting. That just speaks to like how much weirdness you can actually get. But at what point do you say, at what point do you say, are they weird or? At what point do you say reality is weird and that a proxy for somebody's credibility is actually how high functioning they are in society? Or just a big tolerance for. for weird within the Pentagon. Can that's how weird do you have?

Like, you have to be pretty darn weird to go to the ICIG, Specter General, and say, I was part of a, I was part of a reverse engineering program. That's, right? 40 people have done. Allegedly, right? That's what grotes, fine, and our oath. Does that make sense, right? Okay, there's, there could be weird people, but there's a different level of, I was on this program.

And I, those are the weird people. I worked on this NH Highcraft. That's border. That's delusion. Like, there's weird, and then there's delusion if they're not. We don't know what they said, but enough. Enough for, right, the Senate Intel could make good. We should move forward, but you should meet Hastings at one point.

Let's, let's watch this Duke video. Oh, my God. Oh, what's fucking God? Oh, my wish. No, that ain't no point, yo. It's always a point. We said, we just got free, cut. It's blast you.

a plane. Well, the top one looks like a landing light of a plane. It made a perfect triangle. It made a fucking triangle. It's three lights in the sky. We actually got to fuck you at Bowen. Oh my God.

Oh, my God. Yeah, you can't get much from that. Wait, so one of them, so it's a triangle and then one seems to kind of beer off. One thing's out, yeah. The bottom window is this sitting on the Thornton, I'm not, it's became The light coming

Okay, what do you guys make of this? Mick? Well, the wiped light at the top you can see there He's got two lights, which kind of suggests to me that it's the landing lights of a distant plane, very far away. We see this quite a lot in these videos. People will see a plane that's coming directly towards them. It could be like, you know, 40, 50, 100 miles away

we don't know how far. And it looks like this. It just sits there and it kind of eventually raises up and it will eventually go over them. The other lights, I don't know. They were kind of orange looking. Yeah, I'm not sure whether they were. Could be helicopters.

Could be drones. If they're landing lights, can we test this, right? Because if I were... What? Yeah, we could. I'm just saying like, because we know where this, do we know what facility this was? Yeah, Duke's Energy.

Do we have the time location? Well, no, no, but landing lights implies that there's an airport and a final approach path somewhere close by. We can test. If you have the location. Yeah, so it's Southport, North Carolina. So we should look into that.

It's not really accurate enough. You need it. Okay, fair enough. Down to the street, pretty much. And then we have some other people commenting. I have seven videos of them from last night, around 30 minutes of good video. I'm in Asheville, North Carolina. The two mean ones were in red, were a red and blue one.

The blue one was amazing to watch. Pulsate grow 5x larger than shrink back to size. I don't know. People post videos are things that are obviously, planes and think they're the UFO. So it's not surprising people will post videos of lights in the sky and think they're the UFO. I'm buddies with Tyler, so I'll get some more. What I find more compelling maybe than this is, and I'll just be very quick, the Langley

incursions, if you, there's a, there's a witness video where the guy zooms out and you can see, I don't know, 10, 15 flashing light. And you can tell they're very, very far out. Now, that is interesting in itself, but you see that over the Goldwater Training Rangers, of video. Same thing. Just, just unbelievable amounts of flashing lights in the sky. Drones. And, oh, by the way, Air Force pilots have been reporting drones up to 36,000 drones, up to 36,000 feet. There's like 30 or 40 reports over the last couple of years that they, metallic objects, eight or nine. It's all documented. You know, it's all out there.

Can we all agree that we need to figure out what is going on? More information would be great. More videos would be great. More analysis from Arrow would be great. And more experts should weigh in. Absolutely. I think that's the takeaway. Please, if you're watching at home. We have to wrap up in a minute, but do you guys have any opinion on this New Jersey thing? Should we play this?

Look, I wish there were from the New Jersey. I'll just say quickly, we have the FBI. We have FAA. There's drone restrictions in place. There's the governor's involved. All the elected officials. It's a flap. You think it's a flap?

Yeah, I think it's a flap. I don't think there's very much there. Do you think like Colorado, 2019, 2020 was a flat? Oh, very much so. Can I read a couple emails or do we have to go? Quick. Okay. So thanks to Doug Johnson, I'll make this very quick.

Drone activity, here we go. Reports from Colorado indicate that drones were not flying as a group or pack, but as a single unit. Chase County, Nebraska Sheriff Deputy reported observing 30 to 50. He's the sheriff. I mean, he's not. Exactly. Hold on.

30 to 50 flying independently of each other with a larger, quote, mother ship hothering. hovering for hours. He's seeing planes flying overhead. Yeah, this idea of a mothership and then other crafts coming out of the mother ship, Chris Mellon, former deputy assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence under both Clinton and Bush,

said that there was this mother ship dynamic going on with the Hampton Air Force Base incursion as well, where you have these little saucers flying out of a mother ship. I don't know. Here's a hypothesis for the green meteorites in UFOs and nukes. There was a mother ship outside the atmosphere and the green meteorites

were... UFOs and nukes mentions this as well, yes. Here's a K9 trooper from, I'll be very quick, K9 trooper from Kansas. He had these fly right over his head. He said one of the drones had a really bright light on it, like a spotlight. That drone stayed relatively stationary at that location.

He then said there were anywhere from 10 to 15 drones that flew all kinds of patterns around that stationary drone. At one point, one of those flew directly over his house. He had night vision with him, so he tried to look at it, made no sound, even though the wind was calm. All right. I win this accounts. Great. Video for what we need. Merrick, Mick, this was awesome. I appreciate you guys both.

Thanks for doing this. Mick, thank you. Yeah. This was great. I mean, you guys were, I felt like, you know, mostly pretty civil and cool with each other. And I think both of all of us want just more experts to look at this, more data and more witnesses, again, to the extent you're not compromising American national security, come out and talk about this stuff. I enjoy this very much. I enjoy solving cases and investigating them. And if you turn, out that I'm wrong about things, that would be really interesting. You'll buy me a beer. Agreed. And if Kimball's debunked, I'll bet you a bear. And I have a bet that I guess we never resolved. We were talking about this before the show.

I bet you $10,000, which is insane because I gave you one-to-one odds. And it should be a million-to-one odds that 80% we'd get 80% consensus in like academia, military, and civilian sector that non-human intelligence or future humans are occupying these sort of anomalous crafts and that people would, this would become the consensus in 10 years, which is, as you pointed out, kind of hard to verify, ultimately this 80% consensus. But you moved that number from 10,000 to 1,000. I just like more reasonable bets because they deployed's legalized. I think it's an unreasonable bet for me. It's like a joke for me. I'm giving you free money.

Let's just bet a beer then. Okay, let's do it. Awesome. Thanks, man. We appreciate it. Thank you guys. This is great. All right. Cool. So we're back with Mick and Merrick and we felt compelled to extend our debate somewhat because so much bombshell footage has been released since our long debate. Specifically, we're talking about this egg video that has kind of broken the internet over the last couple of days associated with Ross Kulthart's News Nation story involving psionic assets, specifically a guy named Jake Barber who was part of a crash retrieval team involving these psionic

assets, people psychically calling in exotic material of which this egg is claimed to be kind of a part of that and it's being hooked on to well I guess you want to play it Nick and we can kind of analyze it from there. Yeah, so it looks like it's on the end

of a long rope. It looks like a big egg. Yeah. It's kind of swaying around and it hits the ground. and you see it kind of roll over and you see the kind of the wrapping around it loose and then you see these wires and this is from the TV show

they kind of went in and slowed it down a little bit and you can see like you know there's there's lighting coming from over here there's a shadow in this direction there's a little bit of a roll when it hits the ground which shows he has a little bit of inertia and it's not

a super high quality video but you can see that it is kind of like an egg-shaped object on the end of a rope of some sort. We don't know whether it's, is this a real video? Is it something that someone's faked? I think it was sent anomalously, anonymously to Ross. It wasn't actually taken by the Jake Barber guy, was it? It was sent anomalously. No, I'm just trying to.

I'm slick an anomaly. Yeah, it was. It was sent by a third party. team these nation, not by Jake. And it doesn't show that the actual event that he was talking about, which is awkward, that means that there's multiple versions of these eggs being picked up by different people, which apparently there's all these different eggs that people are picking up.

Maybe it's a very common shape, but it's kind of a new shape to me like the egg. I guess it's one of the ones that crops up, but it's not like a tick-tac. It's not like a flying saucer. It's an egg. I did spend a little bit of time trying to replicate this, and I made a little egg in a little sling. So I've got like the whole caboodle, which is, you know, kind of led me to think it's probably not a scale model.

I don't think it's actually an egg-shaped thing. I think it's probably something larger. I think it might actually be from a helicopter, and it might be something being moved. But, yeah, it's like all these videos, though, quality really isn't there. It's just very low resolution and it's very short. where did they chop it off.

So not a lot to go by. Interesting, though. Oh, and the backstory, of course, is very interesting. I saw Mariky were talking to Ross Colfert and Tim Gallaudet about this. And they were talking all about all kinds of strange things, like the psychic powers and stuff like that, which was kind of an interesting mixture of things. I think, you know, we've got this, you know,

a lot of this UFO survey is just nuts and bolts. This would be nuts and bolts if it was just, just like an object being retreat, but then we've got the whole psychic, scianic aspect of it, which is a bit, a bit weird. Yeah. Merrick, what's your take? Damn it, it looks like an egg. That's all we got, really.

What I do find interesting is, and again, I try to bring a bit of an analytic perspective, but there's a gentleman named Eric Tabor who went to Arrow. I don't know, Jess, if you're familiar with this, but he did speak to Arrow and he spoke of an egg-shaped craft being retrieved. And I believe this is at Area 51. I don't believe he was a first-hand witness, so take it as you will. But again, that shape does come up. I agree with Mick. It's not your standard saucer. It's not your orb. It's not your sphere. The stuff that you hear a lot, it's not a triangle. But, you know, there is, it seems like there is some precedent for Ace, another story of, you know, of this nature and involving an anomalous craft that is egg-shaped.

It's just a shame we don't have a better video of it because it just remains somewhat ambiguous. Yeah, it definitely felt like, you know, this like high-resolution footage promise, you know, maybe, you know, it's slightly underwhelming. And then at the same time, in the instance in which this was a real thing, this is actually like very good footage comparable to like what we've had in the, past. So it kind of depends on like the objective truth, which is, you know, it's this weird epistemic impasse that we're facing where if it is true, it's actually like a really good video. And then if it's not, you know, obviously not. I guess that's all like all these videos is

big, big if true. Like all these claims are big if true, but. But better, better than Fleer and Gimble and go fast. And, you know, these are, these are different sensor modalities. I'm back to differ, Jesse. Well, not better from like an analytic perspective, the way you're looking at it, Merrick, but better for like just like, again, like if we were to get corroborative sensor data, it would like be better for the eye.

Yeah, this isn't doing anything there. This is just inertly hanging on the end of a rope. And, you know, we've got, UFP is supposed to have all these observables, like sudden acceleration, the defying gravity, being, you know, hard to seat, I think,

what was the, low observability and transmedium travel. It's doing none of these things. So it's hard to kind of classify this even as a UAP. I guess it's the context of the story that's around it that makes it interesting. And then we got this Jake Barber

who, you know, is, I believe it was a mechanic on the helicopter and not the pilot. I'm not sure. Yeah. I would be, I think we might be learning more about that, Mick. Okay, that sounds cool.

Yeah. But, you know, it's, uh, he did some kind of crash retrieval, apparently. And, you know, there's an interesting story and also all kinds of other aspects of that story. But, you know, it's not doing anything. Right. It's what we need. We need videos of things doing things.

What, what do you guys make a, you know, I feel like UFO world took a bit of a hard left turn away from Cartesian space, you know, aliens from a distant galaxy and into kind of sci, parapsychology, almost more in line with like occult practices or

something. How do you guys feel about that? It seems like there's a lot of that just suddenly cropped up. It was weird because like, you know, before it was all nuts and bolts and then we suddenly had this drone stuff, which was even more nuts and bolts. Everybody's getting into drones.

And then it's kind of like a hard swing now to psionic powers and like Stephen Greer type stuff, like Dr. Stephen Greer who does this CE5 stuff. And then Ross Colfert who brought this out, says that he went out with the people and they had these psionic assets who could take control of craft, which sounds bizarre and frankly ridiculous claim that you could actually cyclically take over an alien craft. do you think the aliens would be able to stop that type of thing? But it does seem like a weird shift. And someone mentioned that they thought, like, you know, things were kind of dying down a bit in the UFO space. And so perhaps people are reaching for more interesting things. I don't know.

But it was weird, definitely. What do you think, Merritt? I agree. It's a shift. Again, I, you know, I have focused on the nuts and bolts aspect. I will say just my own personal progression. I was, and I've been very open about this, I was deeply skeptical of UFOs. I missed the 2017 story.

I think I mentioned this in the longer version, but I've gone through a few of my own mini-oncological shocks throughout this journey, right? And, you know, again, I'm skeptical of everything I see just kind of right off the bat. I would need to see evidence. I have seen evidence now. The gimbal video, Mick knows that we've talked to some experts, and none of them agree with his theory and one of the most important ones explicitly disagrees with this series. So that those are those are steps on my journey from from this is all tinfoil hat,

watchabry to wow, there's something to this. Then the next step was I had people telling me, guy, hey man, there have been crash retrievals. And I was deeply skeptical of that having been in the government. I was like, there's no possible way that secret could have been kept for X amount of years. And now we have people under it. We had Chuck Schumer alleging that in, um, in congressional legislation, right?

So it's remarkable. I've gone through the several ontological shocks, and I might go through another one with a science. I don't know. Keeping an open mind. Very interesting. I'm a typical right off the bat, but I'm keeping an open mind.

And I'll just say last, I'll add that Jake and I think the other special operator, Fred Baker, who's truly a legend in the community I've found in over the last 24 hours, they've said openly, don't trust us, we'll show you. So, okay. They got a timeline on that?

You know, we're doing it when it's going on? But I think that's great. That's the right attitude. Yeah, definitely. Definitely. I would definitely appreciate seeing more data and, you know, just, you know, the stories aren't cutting it. We need to see actual evidence.

I agree. I think everybody agrees on that, right? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And Merrick, you had something you wanted to bring up as well. Yeah, roll, real quick. So I'll just tee this up.

And Jeremy Corbell, there's a video, Mick, I think you figured out when this is posting first, but this is the quote-unquote Iraq gimbal video. But I'll just cheat up first. Jeremy got an interview with the Marine who actually recorded this. This is a in 2008. And he's in what's called a lav, lap 25, I think it's a lightly armored vehicle. He's got a thermal site. and they're out there in the middle of the desert, truly in the middle of nowhere,

close like 100 miles from the Syrian border, doing Overwatch and reconnaissance. So he's looking around to see what's around and make sure nobody, the bad guys aren't sneaking up on them at night. So he's got this thermal site. And he sees an object rising, in his words, rising up off of the desert floor. And he says it goes up about 25 meters. Then it moves to his about 30 to 50 meters to his left. Comes back to that center point, moves about,

30 meters to his right and then goes back to that center point and then slowly starts climbing. And then at that point, he's like, this is bizarre. I'm going to record this. And he starts recording the screen. And then we have this video. I won't bore people with the full video, but I do want to maybe quickly just point out if I can share my screen.

There are some intriguing similarities. Is that coming through for you guys? Yeah. Yeah. There are some intriguing similarities to, to, Gimble. I think we can agree on that. And if Gimble is this never before seen anomaly, no expert has ever seen this before. I mean, we were on the call with the AT FLIR expert, he says, this is, quote, bizarre. I've never seen anything like this. No idea of seeing anything like

this. So when you see these matches, that's, that's interesting to be. Oh, and by the way, these anomalies just happen to look like the classic saucer. What are the odds, right? That's what makes it fun, isn't it? It makes it more interesting. classic saucer. I'll just quickly add one more thing. There's an interesting video and Mick, I know you did a, you did a semi-debunk of this, but I do have a few bones to pick per usual. Is that coming through for you guys? Yeah, I see it. Yep. It's kind of stepping or you don't play it. Yeah, yeah. So it does this, all right. This stepping thing, right? And then it's slow down at half speed. So he moves it, he moves the camera up and you see it jolt down.

Right? So that's your moving the camera. Right. So this system is a thermal. It's a thermal system. You can move it left, right, up, down. And it's a thermal site. So the barrel, the gun barrel, there's video of this online. The gun barrel is actually pointed to where he, this is how they shoot the weapon without getting out in the vehicle, right? Yeah, it's a gun site. Exactly. It's literally a gun site. So, so you can see them moving, but, but that, that up and down, that kind of that, that jittery, that jumpy assent is very interesting. interesting to me. Yeah. Yeah, it's an interesting little thing. I think, again, we have the issue of being very poor quality we see here. Like, you see all the compression blocks and everything and the pixels. I think there's a couple of points I'd like to make. The first is like you did that comparison earlier where you did two frames that look very similar with the gimbal and this Iraqi gimbal. One of them is in the gimbal frame that you show was in black hot mode and this is in white hot. And the contrast curves are very different. for those two modes. It's not really, one isn't the inverse of the other. So you're comparing a black hot to a white hot

isn't a very good comparison. And if you were to take the white hot images, which are at the start of the gimbal video, they're actually quite different shape to the rest. You see a more irregular shape. It's kind of like, you're familiar with it. It's kind of like narrower at one end

and then wider at the other. It doesn't really look like that. So if you were to actually to take that. I saw your comment. And as you know, Mick, over the course of the gimbal video, the object grows. It gets bigger and it does actually become that shape. So I think you're missing the point.

Anyway, we could talk. Well, why is it changing shape, though? Is it magically morphing from one shape into another? It doesn't really make any sense. As the jet gets closer, it becomes more defined, right? Yeah, well, I think, you know, as you know, I think that the gimbal shape is actually, you know, a camera artifact. I know you don't like the word glare.

You don't like the word glare. A lot of people agree with me, but not the people. The world's experts that you found, we went over this before. The experts you found, they also thought that it looked like an SR 71, which it looks absolutely nothing like an SR 71. So, you know, really are best experts really very good at analyzing this particular video. They took a quick take. And the guy told you that it was just a quick take and it wasn't meant to be an assessment.

Let's get to that rule. What do you think this video? What do you think we're looking at right here? I don't know what we're looking at. But, like, I think it, again, it's something that doesn't show the observables. It doesn't, you know, it's far away, so we can't really see it. What do you make of this? The motion, yeah, the motion, yeah, the motion, I think, you know, there's, obviously, we didn't, we don't see the really dramatic movements that he talked about.

You know, he's rising it from the desert, moving left and right. We see it moving slowly up. Now, we see it kind of looking like it's kind of moving a little bit like this up and down, like kind of relative to, to the background. I think what we're seeing there is actually the turret of the vehicle, or perhaps, the vehicle itself with the engine, just moving a tiny little bit up and down, which would make the camera move. He talked about how he was raising the, I have to be careful not to do a Nazi salute here, like Elon Musk just did, raising up the camera thing. So it was always pointing in the sky, and he got embarrassed that he thought other people might be looking at him, and so he lowered it down.

But I think doing that is going to make it kind of a wobble a little bit, because we're kind of zoomed in quite a lot here. So I think we're just seeing camera movement. He doesn't register exactly with the cloud. because the clouds are very low, low frequency in technical terms. They're the very smooth curves, so they don't move very much because of the video compression. Now, this video, I think it was part of a dump that somebody did. There's a UFO site on Twitter, I think it's called Ray Fios or something like, Ariyafo, US, UFOs. And they uploaded a whole bunch of stuff to mega.co.com, New Zealand, NZ.

And so there might actually be a better version of this out there, which might actually help resolve some of these things. So if someone knows of that better version, then that would be good to have. This is thermal. This is thermal. You incorrectly thought this was a night vision and thought that was. Oh, yeah. What do you think it is?

Well, yeah, I still think the most likely thing is essentially the landing lights of an aircraft, which do show up in thermal, because if the halogen lights, the hot lights. But, Mick, how to be? NADD lights wouldn't show up. How would they be bouncing up and down, like that if they're LED. Oh, they're not. They're not.

That's the camera bouncing up and down. So it's like very little like jiggles of the camera like here would actually make things move around. Why would the lights be irregularly shaped? Why wouldn't they be like sort of uniformly distributed? Because it's bright. It's looking directly into the camera. You know, it's like the usual kind of glare type thing.

So I think it would be like, you know, bright light in the middle on the landing gear and maybe two lights on the side. I don't know, though. I mean, it could be that this is visible light, landing lights, why would there be landing lights a hundred miles from the Syrian border in the middle of the desert in Anbar province or wherever this was? Well, maybe because it was landing somewhere. It's a plane, you know, it's a military plane. It's not like every single fire is black. You can't see lights in thermal. Like, you just cannot see. Oh, you can see heat in thermal, though, and some lights are very hot. So, like, you know, the halogen lights. You're telling you that as well. I don't know. I don't know.

But I don't think I'm not ready to rule it out. Where's the engine exhaust if this is a plane? The engine exhaust? It would be behind the... If it's coming at you, you'd be seen... Yeah. No, it's behind something. When something comes at you, you don't see the things that are behind it.

I mean, you can't see the back of my head, can you? It's coming at you like this, right? You can see the plumes going this. No, you really can't. You really can't because if it's far away, like... I've taken lots of video of planes that are, say, like, 50 to 100 miles away and where they're coming towards you, the angle between like the plane and, you know, and you really isn't that much.

They're essentially kind of flatly. That's one thing we're looking at. Like, it's just just so bizarre to me. It is pretty bizarre, isn't it? Yeah, but I don't know what it is. I mean, it could be like a weird drone or something. But I don't really think it just shows any kind of. Stumped, I'm done here.

Well, that's fair enough. It just happens to look like, you know. I mean, look at this video. It's like, you can barely read the time. code at the top of it. It's a crappy video. If we had the original video, maybe we'll be able to see a little bit more. Maybe we'll be able to prove that it was, you know, one thing or the other, but I really don't think we can rule things out from this particular video. I see like the plain thing isn't like, you know, super compelling. It's not compelling at all. I don't,

what I think is it doesn't actually demonstrate any of the observables. It doesn't demonstrate like extraordinary emotion. It's just something. It just happens to look like the gimbal in this particular frame. And as I said, you're taking white hot against black hot. And if you take all the black, the white hot frames from gimbal, they don't actually match. Because the, the, because it's not morphed into a different shape yet. Gets closer to it. It gets 15% larger as it gets closer, which is the exact size at the correct distance.

Why is it changing shape? And getting larger doesn't change shape. You know, sure, you pick some frames here that look the same. You're flying in a jet, Mick, you're pilots. You know this, right? If you're flying at something, it gets larger as you get closer to. I'm familiar with perspective. Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly.

So that's what happens in Gimble. And it just happens to grow at the exact same size. But it doesn't change shape. I mean, this egg isn't changing shape from here to here. It's just a bigger egg. It's not going to get one end isn't going to get thicker, which is the one having to see in gimbal. You realize perspective, right?

and the way they come up from behind, right? Or they're moving, they're maneuvering to come in behind it, right? So it's not like they're coming directly at it, Mick. You know that. So you're saying the angle of the object changes. Yes, absolutely. I look forward to you doing a 3D model of the gimbal object that will demonstrate this change in shape.

It's already in your Syrac. Anyway, we can go on for days. We could go on for days. I just need her, and I go under this in the longer interview, but again, the bottom line is no experts agree with Mick, and literally one of the top infrared air-to-air infrared experts explicitly disagree with this theory. Yeah, I came up with another Cochamane theory, which is completely wrong as well, so what are you going to do? I think we've got some crappy videos here, which are unfortunately the best videos that we have, and I think that in itself is a huge clue about Uphology. The only videos that we get are crappy videos. And the reason that we only get crappy videos

is if the videos were better quality, would be able to tell what the thing was. And then we'd know it was a UFO or not. None of the good videos show UFOs. All we're left with is these crappy videos. It's the low information zone. That's how UFOs work. I don't think so, Mick.

And I hope we learn more, but the Pentagon has said that they have, quote, true anomalies that they're so stumped. This is Cuzzle of the new director of the Pentagon's UFO office has said, we have true anomalies that I as an engineer and a physicist, I'm paraphrasing, do not understand, and I do not know anybody else who understand. So let's see what those videos are. That's because they haven't got the information.

But, yeah, I'm looking forward to seeing those true anomalies. They said they're so stump that they need the public. So that's me. That's me. That's everybody. That's everybody that's watching. They can use my software, open source, sit rec. anyone can use it and hopefully they will and maybe it'll help themselves.

I'd be happy to help. Well, whatever we're seeing is definitely at the margins of reality. And so I think we wouldn't be having this debate if it was like super clear. The margins of perception, which isn't really the margins of reality. Well, there you go. Now you're talking like us. I mean, I think, yeah, the margins of our, because we, there are doors of perception, to quote William Blake or Aldous Hux.

and you know in the optical range that involves 400 to 700 nanometers and uh if you have these things traveling uh you know close to the speed of light they're probably doing two one of two things they're probably uh you know if they're moving away from you they're stretching light and so that's like the low the you know the bottom end of the visible band but but probably lower than what we can actually see and then if they're coming towards you they're they're crunching light and so that's you know your microwaves and so it's either you know it's going to be infrared or infrared or microwave and you need these sensor modalities. Normal civilians

don't have those sensor modalities and so it kind of makes sense that you would either get blue shifted or redshifted optical or you would get like other sensors and you'd have to debate it endlessly because it wouldn't really look to the normal eye. Ask some non-UFO physicists about that. I mean, Hal Putoff says things like that.

Yes, but I think you should need to ask some hesitate to say real physicists, but someone who isn't perhaps so enmeshed in this whole UAP thing. What would they set? Yeah, go for it. Just very quickly, and Jesse, to build on that,

there is a documented history of, the most important kind of, one of the most important historical documents in this whole topic is what's called the Twining memo from, from 1947. General Nathan Twining, who I believe went on to become the chairman

of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He wrote a memo that said, listed all the kind of the characteristics of UFOs. I think the one word that was underlying was that they are evasive. As soon as they are contacted by... That's how they work. But you've had aviators that have seen metallic disks within a few hundred feet.

And I laid this out, right? There's I think at least 30 cases where multiple credible witnesses, police officers, pilots, engineers have seen these objects 100 feet away. And they all just happen to look like the gimbal and the Iraq. It's the evasive, but not when they're... there's no camera available. They're evasive, but they appear 100 feet away where you would be able to get wonderful 4K

video if you had your camera with you. They're not really evasive. They're just evading cameras. This is the flaw in your analytic approach. And this is, but you, I wish you took some time to read through the actual, and I'm happy to send you the most, most compelling ones.

And you have to read through the compelling, the most compelling reports that are out there, multi-witness within several hundred feet. Shake your head. Go ahead. That's fine. I'm just telling you, that's my analytic basis.

That's what I go off. Yeah, your analytic basis is stories from 70, 80 years ago. It's not really very useful. In video and the Gimble video. Well, I would also... I would also say if we're talking about things that travel the speed of light or do any of the things that seem to break are conventional physics.

You know, and then you accept any of these stories. around consciousness, they probably know how to evade perception on more of a root level than we're able to even understand. And we're getting away from the nuts and bolts here. This is kind of like, it's kind of speculative. I wouldn't say it's getting away from nuts and bullets. It's just, you know, goes toward the Arthur C. Clark quote that any sufficiently advanced

technology appears to be magic. Can you demonstrate that is happening, though? Demonstrate what is happening. Any of what you just said, they're detecting cameras and avoiding them. Well, that's it's all good science is the interplay between experimentation and theory, and I would bucket in anomalies with experimentation where you see these observable things. You can't just snap them to grid on present theory of, you know, this can't exist because of present physical models.

That would have, you know, stagnated science in all sorts of cases in the past, whether it's black body radiation or the orbit of mercury, which were both very anomalous. And so in this case, you're seeing this anomalous thing. It's actually somewhat repeatable with two things, nuclear in consciousness. And it's kind of on us to theorize. And we could, again, snap it back to the grid of, like, general relativity and say it's impossible. But usually that loses the snapping back to the grid. And maybe, you know, the person, you know, making theories around this thing is a heretic of the present,

but they're often vindicated in the future as kind of the hero of the future, scientifically speaking. So I'd say if you're looking at it from like a meta-scientific, you know, Thomas Coonion model of like the structure of scientific revolutions, you'd probably bet on the anomaly. You wouldn't bet on the present physics model. The present physics model always goes away. You can't just bet on every single anomaly out there. I can expect them all to be true. It's not like, you know, they laugh at you and you're right.

It's the most things that are weird, aren't actually real. there are very few of them that actually turn out to be interesting things. And those are things that where we do have repeatable and measurable data, like the orbit of Mercury and things like that. We don't have that. We've got an accumulation of anecdotes, an accumulation of stories, and we've got lots of lots of them. It seems compelling.

It seems compelling because you just gather together all the ones that seem similar. Here are all the ones from nuclear power stations. Here are all the ones that show like shiny disks. So, yes, of course, though, they're remarkably consistent. system because you've gathered them together. Do some actual statistical analysis on this and see what comes out. Well, that my mind, yeah, go for it. Yeah. Eric, you did. Go ahead. No, you go. You go. But Tell, Batel put on a very, very deep analysis of the 1947, 1952 sightings. And guess what? Fascinating. 33% of the most credible sightings were unknown. And those are ones that had

enough data to be analyzed. Sure, but we have no idea what they're considered to be enough dates, and we don't know any of those cases. And it was like 80 years ago. It's useless. And then at Rijerickle also, you know, did a, you know, study for pre-Bluebook signing bridge, and it's the same thing. He was like 70% of these cases show up around nuclear. That's the reason Battelle was involved in the first place, because they're managing all this, you know, nuclear stuff to begin with. And then you have, again, we, you know, my editor's going to kill me because I wanted to keep this kind of targeted. But we have 167 guys with few clearances who have no reason they've, they haven't made a dime from this. They're, you know, they're sort of,

they've been castigated and shamed and, and, and, and they're depoted. If they have to report it, right? And exactly, they've reported it. If they're on the personal reliability program. And so, and that has to be an. extremely depressed number. That 167 has to actually be 10,000 to 700 or something. You really have to multiply that by a ton. How many people have Q clearance and how many of them are in positions where they have to report things regardless? And so they end up reporting a whole bunch more stuff than your regular guy at Walmart would. That is a very high subset of people with Q clearance. And it's not just people, you know, seeing these things in distant places in the

the sky because of hypervigilance around nuclear assets. It's them shutting down the power around these nuclear sites, disarming the nukes themselves, and in certain cases, these guys claim to board crafts and have things implanted inside them. Yeah, well, it just sounds a bit implausible to me. Those guys control the nuclear button, if they're all insane. Because either... Right. They're not all insane. They're just the normal people. They're regular people. They have normal human failings. But come on. I mean, if a guy was... was guarding these nuclear assets and claimed these things. And it wasn't repeatable.

Like I just interviewed a guy named Mario Woods, 1977 Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota, you know, boarded a craft or whatever and, you know, woke up nine miles and Lake Newell away from the base and has marks on his body. And, you know, it was just a really crazy experience. And he had his cue clearance and retained it and worked at Sandia and all sorts of other DOE labs, I think Oak Ridge, for another 20 years. If you're like a higher up, you know, person in, you know, the DOE, and you see that, and you see, you have this one guy claiming this crazy shit, why would you continue to hire him for the next 20 years unless that was actually just this

repeatable thing happening to a lot of people? And you were hyper aware of the phenomena overall. And you didn't blame the guy and you realized he was totally lucid and mentally sound. I wouldn't He looked that guy near my nuclear house. If he was the one guy, if he was just the one guy. It's not like he had his finger on the bottom and he could launch things. He was someone who worked there. He had acute clearance. And people like, you know, David,

Grush has like, you know, psychotic episode and was voluntarily hospitalized. And he kept his clearance because, you know, people, just because they have episodes, doesn't mean automatically lose that, you know, losing. He didn't have a psychotic episode at all. He had too much to drink one night. And his buddy next to him was blown up in war because. I don't want to get into PTSD. So it's, you know, it's arguable.

But I'm just saying you don't lose your clearance just because you have, you know, one thing happened to you. If you get cleared by a doctor later, you go to therapy, whatever, you can carry on working. Obviously, like, we don't know the details of that, you know, hippo and everything. I don't know if he, like, you know, volunteered exactly what happened. We did he just go back to work the next day and say, I saw aliens. I saw aliens. And they're, okay, go back to work. No, there was a very clear protocol he underwent.

due to obviously the Air Force having seen this before. They checked him for certain things. They checked it. To you. I'll just say in the post, in the post-Global War on Terra era, their PTS has been a significant issue. And yes, Jesse's correct that military services have had to deal with this a lot. And there are protocols. Indeed.

Jesse's correct about that. that had to be followed for Grush to retain his clearance. But I don't want to get into personal stuff. Mick, can I just quickly? I will shut up after this. Mick, can I pin you down? The experts have spoken. They say,

glare is not a thing. They say, what we're seeing in those engines is what's called blooming, which is a well-known artifact at infrared technology. And they've said, and you know exactly what I'm talking about, the credentials are impeccable. Blooming would not have resulted in that rotation.

What's the theory for the gimbal video? Yeah, I think there's two possibilities. Well, there's three possibilities. One is a real craft that's rotating. One is that, you know, what I suggested is correct. Then there's some kind of obstacle artifact that happens before the sensor. And the other one is, yeah, like glare. And the other ones, I know, I know.

You said you shut up, Merrick. Like, then the third one is that the derotation happens after the sensor. Like it's a digital derotation, which is something that's, you know, in the patent. So I don't know which one of those it is. I do know that it looks like it's an optical artifact that's rotating because of de-rotation because of all the various observables that I list in my video. And one of the experts says that he thought I was right, but for the wrong reason. Another one said that he looked like an SR-71. Well, they both said that actually. So, you know, I think perhaps we need to talk to these experts in a bit more detail, drill down

into this. And for the record, the one who said you were right, he actually did not say that. Let's be clear. And I'll put out those emails happily after this. And we can, we can have that discussion. You know that's not true. I said, I think Mick is right, but for the wrong reason. I don't think that's correct. And I put that out there. Sure, well, I'll check me out. I might. It could be wrong too, but that's how I recall it. Please do, because everything he described was an internal thing. It's not on the glass. Anyway, bottom line is the experts have basically Arrow is not

Arrow is not The patent doesn't say anything You know those experts did not give a definite answer They gave an opinion

based on limited data The one I read the email to you explicitly ruled it out He explicitly said This was an initial impression based on limited data And that it was not intended

To be something It wasn't even something He wanted to share He didn't want his emails to be shared and he didn't come to an actual conclusion. I did it anonymously because I think it's important to hear those voices. He didn't want to share it anyway. Did you get permission from him to share those emails?

I did not. I put it out anonymously. I anonymized it because I think it's important for people to see what the world's leading experts say about this footage. I asked him for permission because I wanted to share it myself and he said no. And the other one didn't reply. I already heard that. Does it bother you that Arrow does not endorse your theory? No, I think they got around to it yet.

It's the most recognized little footage of all time. No, they did. They did Aguadir, which is just one that existed before that. I think the fraction of people who see... I don't know, you see Aguadilla come up all the time. It's a very famous UFO video, and you agree with them on that one. I do, actually.

I do. Yeah, like, I know you've had, like, you've talked to Kurt Patrick, and he told you some ridiculous interpretation of top of his head and then other people have said twice. Yeah, yeah. So, you know, and, you know, it's disappointing that we're not getting more information from Arrow, but we haven't got the official word yet from them. Maybe we can leave it at let's hope Kozlowski is Trudeau's word and he can, whatever

bureaucratic classification issues, he has to overcome to get the really anomalous stuff that he said he is stumped by that the true the quote true anomalies maybe we can leave it leave it here let's hope that'd be great yeah yeah yeah get stuff out there in the meantime why doesn't someone leak something that's really good why are we getting these crappy egg videos and these bouncy objects leak the 4k stuff please well i think we can all let's end on that note of uh you know collegiality between us we would all like to see better better footage um indeed no matter what our takes are on the existing record and what we currently have. So Mick, Merrick, appreciate you guys. We're going to put this out pretty soon and just

tag it on to our finished video. So, um, sounds good. Yeah. Cool. Thanks again, guys. Appreciate it. All right. Thank you. All right. Later. Good night. Bye.