Camp Gagnon - Ex-Military Insider Exposes Biggest UFO Facts In History

Episode Date: March 21, 2024

Nick Pope is a former member of the British Ministry of Defense and spent many years assigned to the UFO task force investigating the bizarre sightings around the UK. Today we're talking about the biggest cover ups in UK history, all of the bizarre sightings he's worked on, and confirms the existence of remote viewing programs. Edited and produced by @99OvrAll Thank you to Morgan & Morgan ZippexBluechew For making this the best show ever 00:00 Intro01:44 Ar...

Sir, it's back. And everyone was like, what do you mean? The UFO's back. This was December 1980. This involved US Air Force bases in the UK. It's sometimes called Britain's Roswell. But it was an alleged landing. Security police and law enforcement saw a strange light in Randlesham Forest.

Two of the witnesses saw a landed craft, no more than nine feet. They walked around it. One of them touched it. And at one point, it fired a narrow beam of light down at the ground, took off vertically, cleared the treetops, and then shot away at high speed. Was this a weapon? A warning? Was this communication? He doesn't know, but what he has said is that it was under intelligent control. This is where it gets really far out.

When he touched the side of the craft, he received a sort of jolt, and a few days later, he reached for a notebook, as if he said he was under some sort of compulsion, wrote down 16 pages of ones and zeros. Well, that must be binary code. and promptly forgot about it for 30 years. He writes it all down, and then they get it translated. And what does the translation say?

Let me get this right. This is Nick Pope. He spent 21 years working within the British Department of Defense, many of those years working specifically on the unit for UFOs and unidentified aircrafts. And today, he's going to discuss all of the bizarre UFO sightings that he's ever worked on. He's going to even tell us about the biggest UFO cover-up in all of British history. And he even gives an interesting explanation, as to why governments around the world

are using psychics to try to spy on their enemies. This is an absolutely fascinating conversation. Nick is the man, so without any further ado, enjoy my conversation with Nick Pope. Welcome to camp. Basically what I think everyone wants to know,

are aliens real? I think they are, but I don't know that they are. This is a view that gets me in trouble. I managed to upset I think both ends of the spectrum when it comes to the UFO community because taking that view,

I don't go far enough for the true believers, but I go too far for the skeptics. But I always, in my Ministry of Defense career, which was 21 years and which encompassed a lot of other things aside from UAP, a lot of things that I did, ranging from finance policy through to counterterrorism, whatever it was,

A lot of what I did was being a briefer. So I was the subject matter expert on various things. And it was my job to then translate all the data into clear briefs for senior people, including the politicians, to make policy decisions based on my advice. So I had to always differentiate between what I know and what I think. Now, that's not to say you won't be put on the spot and say, hey, come on, you must have an opinion. But you have to be very clear when it is that you're talking about what you know and what you think. So that's a very long-winded way of saying, I'm pretty sure there are aliens out there and may be coming down here. But I'm not one of these people who is going to sit here and say, yeah, there's definitely like crashed spaceships and dead aliens in the Pentagon basement somewhere.

Right. Yeah. Unfortunately for you, as the old quote goes, the only thing in the middle of the road is roadkill, right? That's the problem with having a nuanced take is that everyone gets pissed off about it. But I think that's reasonable and that's kind of why I'm excited to talk to. I feel you have a very grounded view and a nuanced view on this topic specifically. Yeah, I have been accused of being constantly on the fence and I say no, I take a data-led approach to this and therefore if somebody comes to me with story A and I'm, I look into it and I think it's BS, I will say that's BS. And if someone comes to me with Story B and I think it's credible and there's some good pieces

of evidence to support it, I will put my sort of stamp of approval on it and say, hey, this looks good. And people will say, oh, well, he says one thing to one lot and one, no. You know, I take this on a case by case basis, which is really the only way to go. So with that groundwork created in your opinion, purely in your opinion, purely in your Do you believe that aliens, quote, unquote, have visited Earth? I am open-minded on the possibility. I realize that I'm sounding like a civil servant.

No, no, I like the diplomacy. I think there is some, I don't know, intriguing evidence, but no definitive, you can take it to the bank proof. Right. I mean, when you look at, for example, some of the material that the U.S. government itself has put into the public domain recently or some of the things that have been leaked but which the DOD have subsequently said, yes, this is official US military footage. So we've all seen, for example, those videos of the US Navy jets, the Tick-Tac, the GoFast, Gimble, all that. That sort of thing.

The report published in, I think, June 2021, the preliminary assessment from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which talked about some of these objects demonstrating things like signature management, those sorts of things which say there's a technology behind some of this. And that technology in terms of things like it speeds, maneuvers, accelerations, seems to go beyond the cutting edge of anything we've got. There's always a debate, of course, what do we have? what do adversaries have that push the boundaries of that,

but seems to go beyond the cutting edge of our own tech. That sort of thing, I think you bring that to the table, and I say that that's evidence. And, you know, overlay on that, the pilot testimony that we have from people like Alex Dietrich, Ryan Graves, Dave Fravor, the radar operators like Kevin Day. And you've got this layered approach that you've not just, got a single thing. And again, the June 2021 O'DNI report stressed this that it's the verification,

the independent corroboration. So it's not just the pilots saying, we saw this. It's tracked on radar. It's filmed on Ford looking infrared. You've then got the paper trail of government documents laying that out and trying to analyze it. So that, I think, is some pretty intriguing evidence. But It's not proof. Hey, what's up, guys? Sorry to interrupt this amazing program, but I need a little bit of help. If you're watching this on YouTube, you can probably see our subscriber number right down here. And if you're able to, it would mean the world if you could subscribe.

That is the best way to support this show. Because when you subscribe, I'm able to show it to potential guests or to different brands and stuff like that. And it really, really helps grow the show, get us cooler guests, have cooler conversations. And it helps everything so, so much. So if you don't mind, thank you so much. Let's get back to it. Right. I think that's a completely reasonable and nuanced answer.

And this is, I feel like the table is set. There's possibility that aliens exist and we're open to them coming to Earth. And in your opinion, there's a lot of circumstantial evidence that has been released, both from the US government as well as the British government, to suggest that there might be technology that's interacting with humans that we're not aware of what it is or where it comes from. Yes. Now, when you take it then, sorry. No, please.

Just while it's in my head, when you take it the next step and say, well, what about the opinions of people like David Grush who've said, no, we have, we have, hardware. There are crashed and largely intact craft and, as he puts it, biologics. Right. Non-human biologics. Yeah, that's binary. I mean, you can look at the UFOs and you can say, well, there's a whole spectrum of possibilities with that. Misidentifications, hoaxes, delusions, censor errors. Sciop. Sciop. Black program tech. But with those claims, they're either true or they're not. And that's why that represents, I think, the best way to determine whether this is true or not.

Let's let Congress give them a push, but do their job and get into those very specific quotes and say, well, look, those allegations that there are crash retrieval programs, that there are reverse engineering programs, that there's crash chips and bodies. It's either true or not. And if it's true, it's got to be somewhere and somebody must know about it. Right. Okay. Yeah, I completely agree. Okay, this is fun. Now I think the stage is set.

Now I'm curious about you and your background and kind of your work. So you're working within the Ministry of Defense and you've been there for a couple years through the 90s. And then you get put onto this specific task force. What is your thought when you're put into this UAP alien thing? Do you write it off completely or are you open-minded at the time? I'm open-minded. I have mixed opinions. Part of it is like, wow, the UFO job. I mean, how cool is that? When I joined, one of the things that we all got our hands on was the telephone directory, which is about this thick at the time. And it was a classified document itself because it went into some fairly detailed descriptions. So you would thumb through it and, try and pick out the next posting that you wanted. And some of it's really technical.

It would say things like air defense, ground environment, radar, over the horizon systems for monitoring Soviet and Warsaw Pact, blah, blah, blah. One job just said UFOs. And everyone kind of looked at that and was like, ooh. And I happened to luck my way into that particular job. So part of it was like UFOs. But part of it was like, is this going to be? to be the kiss of death to my career because even though you could say that the subject is mainstream

now in the US, it wasn't at the time and certainly wasn't, isn't now even in the UK. So I thought, is this a little bit of a backwater? So I had mixed feelings going in. Yeah. And your work prior to that, it had nothing to do with UFOs. I mean, were you personally, were you invested in this topic from a young age? Were you doing a lot of personal research? Had you seen a UFO when you were a kid, anything like that?

I'd never seen a UFO, still haven't. I had done zero research and investigation. This subject was not on my radar. I had seen the movie, Close Encounters of the Third Kind. I'd probably read a couple of books as a teenager, but didn't we all like Eric von Danikin chariots of the gods, Charles Berlitz, the Bermuda Triangle, which had a chapter on UFOs.

That was it. No. So I came to it pretty cold. And yeah, my previous jobs in the ministry, nothing to do with that. My first job was deconflicting the Royal Navy and the oil and gas industry in the North Sea. My next job was doing briefs on Air Force personnel issues, everything from medical and dental through to pay and pensions. Nothing to do with UFOs. And so how quickly within your time with that task force were you starting to read documents in literature relating to the topic that kind of raised your eyebrows or surprised you or made you curious? Day one. Oh, absolutely day one. There was an archive going back really to the Second World War. We had the so-called foo fighters. So there were some files, I think, from 42 and 43, old bomber. command files, part of the Royal Air Force, saying how air crews on their way to and from bombing raids over occupied Europe encountered these things, not just balls of light, sometimes structured craft.

So that was the start point. Then you can go through the history of this subject. Can you expound on that topic specifically like World War II sightings? Yeah. I mean, the foo fighters from which the band get their name were these mysterious objects and bolts of light that pilots saw. US pilots, UK pilots. It transpired, I mean, at the time the theory was, is this just some sort of Nazi rancis secret weapon? Is it just AAA?

obviously if you're on a bombing raid there's a lot going on you know searchlights and and AAA and all of that what is AAA? Like flag so ground to air. Got it. I think anti-aircraft artillery. Oh, two nations divided by a common language. I thought that I had used the US term. You might have.

I just might be a dumb guy. Yeah, it's more likely. So anyway, yeah, so obviously it's very crowded skies. So those were the skeptical theories. But after the war, it transpired that German and Japanese pilots had seen similar things. And like I say, although we don't have much data on this, and there's one very famous blurry black and white picture of an aircraft with some sort of fuzzy ball of light somewhere in it and people are like oh okay is that it well no that's not it

these bomber command files talk sometimes about objects of like 200 feet in diameter apparently metallic looking tracking the aircraft apparently flying alongside them but not engaging them in any ways well obviously if you were a bomber crew in those days your number one priority was just to get home safely, as many, of course, did not. So this maybe wasn't given the prominence that it should have been at the time. And now it's just a little footnote

in the history of World War II. But it was a thing. And going back to the question, yeah, from day one, when I delved back through the archives, there was a lot of stuff like that for me to get my teeth into because for me it was essential. I didn't just want to get the sightings on a kind of day-by-day basis. I was like, well, what's the backstory here?

And there was a backstory. Is that as far back as those documents went to about World War II? Did it go even farther than that? In terms of what we had, I think World War II was it. and from memory, I think 42 was the first report that we had. There was an earlier wave of sightings in about 1909. And they were, I'm doing this from memory. It's been a long while since I've sort of thought about that.

110 years, actually. It's been a while. They were called scareships. Now, obviously, for that word to work, there had to be, obviously, the concept of an airship. So it did overlay with the period when airships were being first developed. But there were reports of mysterious airship-like objects. And I know there's a case, actually in the US, Aurora, Texas, I think, from 1897, where it's claimed that one of these things crashed and that,

small entities were buried and still are in the graveyard somewhere. I think the skeptical theory there, which I inclined towards is that this was a mixture of a sort of practical joke and a publicity stunt by the town who I think were maybe competing with another town that had just got the railway or something like that. So I don't know. But in the UK, yeah, we did have some strange. reports from, like I say, about 1909, 1910, 1911.

But they were almost certainly prototype Zeppelin's, say. And I don't know. A lot of the records for that period have probably been lost. We may never know the story. So for all intents and purposes, 42, 43, was about as far as it went back for me. Why do you think that time? Like, obviously, World War II is a significant global feature in human history,

but why do you think 42 that these sightings came up within the UK? Well, I have, okay, I've heard this theory from the UFO community, and you've probably heard it too. So I'll just unpack it to get it on the table. Please. The believer theory is that as an emerging civilization, we were of interest to other civilizations in the cosmos, but we were not of any concern until two things happened.

Firstly, we developed the atomic bomb, understood and used nuclear technology, and secondly, in conjunction with that, that we developed rocketry. And therefore, you had, I guess, two things. had this destructive power of nuclear forces that we were now capable of unleashing, plus rocket technology, which is obviously the infancy of a space program that takes you out into the wider universe.

So the theory from the believer community is that this is what puts emerging civilization on some sort of almost like a watch list. Well, you could say that you're already on the watch list, but this then became. comes the action list. Okay, the kids have found the matches. We need to keep a closer eye on this civilization now. And I don't know whether I believe that, but it has got a kind of seductive logic about it.

And I know that we can only come at this from a sort of anthropocentric viewpoint. But in terms of what sound like logical assumptions that you would think would read across, As I say, it has a certain appeal. Yeah, absolutely. Now, it makes sense. Like, if we're looking at this purely hypothetically, you know, if these things are extraterrestrial, if they created us, we can get into all those things.

But assuming, you know, around that time, there is very public use, I guess, of military weaponry and weapons of mass destruction of humankind has never seen before. So it would follow to reason that if there was something else intelligent in the universe, that they would be potentially. interested. And I don't, I mean, hypothetically, it makes sense. And so around that time, you have these pilots that are saying, hey, there's 200-foot crafts that are tracking us in the sky. I mean, that's a pretty significant claim to make, especially in that time. Do you think when those pilots during World War II were making those claims, were they taken seriously by ministry of defense, were they kind of like written off? Do you know what the attitude amongst the government officials at the time were? It was mixed. I think there was

a little bit of derision, not maybe that's the wrong word, but a little suspicion from some of the more senior people in the Air Force that this was a mix of war nerves and just conventional atmospheric phenomena, the flack being fired up, searchlights, people were under extreme stress. PTSD, whatever else. Yeah. And so, but in a sense, those were just excuses. It all, it fell into the all too difficult category for them to actually do anything about. So I think people noted all these reports, but didn't really do much more with them. And in a sense, there wasn't much more to be done. And so now you, a couple days into your job, are reading these documents from World War II about these crafts that pilots are seeing that, you know, to this. this day, just to actually backtrack a second, I know people will say, oh, there's military

technology. A lot of this is military technology. People will write it off and they'll say this is all military technology. But if you look at World War II, people could have said it was military technology, but yet the technology that they're claiming to have seen still hasn't been declassified all this time later. Like it's not like they are describing, you know, military weapons that then we now know about. And so it follows to reason, like, It's perhaps that you can't just say it was military craft at the time because there still is nothing today that could even come close to what those quote unquote military craft were doing. Is that fair? It is.

I mean, I think a couple of things on that. Yes, it's a given that military tech runs a few years. You can have a debate about how many that is, but a few years ahead of what's public knowledge. But in the system, I mean, when we're doing. this in government, A, we know what we've got. Even if you're not read into a specific program, you kind of know where the operational ceiling is. And if you stumble into something, someone will come and have a quiet word and say, look, don't push on that. That's one of ours. And you've also, people say, oh yeah, but what about Russia or China? You've also, through intelligence, got a fairly

good idea of where their operational ceiling is. So what you do is you look for the quantum leaps. So in other words, if you're, you know, speaking historically, say, if your ceiling is about 500 miles an hour and somebody sees something and you have fairly good indication, let's suppose it's an Air Force witness, or let's suppose even better, you've got a radar track. If you see see something then do, I don't know, six or 700 miles an hour, you can say, oh, that's interesting. But it's not earth-shattering. But when you see the quantum leap, say, if your ceiling is 500, and then you see something do 5,000, and if you see it do a right-angle turn, those are the sorts of things that say, okay, yeah, we've got black programs and secret prototype aircraft,

missiles and drones, but that's not it. Right. Yeah, this technology is significant. And it is greater than, you know, 20 or 30 years down the line. It's more like, you know, 300 or 400 years down the line or something like that. Yes. And as you say, when you look historically back at some cases from, I don't know, the 70s, 80s or whatever. And you say even, I don't know, it depends which aviation journalists you talk to. But if people say there's 10, 20 years ahead, you then can look back and say, well, if that was the case, If this sighting was one of ours, we would be seeing that at the big air shows by now. And you can point to something like stealth.

And you can say, okay, you know, stealth was publicly declared in what, 89, I think, something like that. It had been flying for some years before that, but not 50. Right. Yeah, I just think that's an interesting point to mention that these things, I guess, have been on military records since World War II, certainly. And still the technology they're talking about has not been declassified or even come close to. And I just think that's an important thing to note when sort of digesting all this information. Yeah. And I'm curious, can you take me through more cases that you either had directly come across your desk

or that you went back and retroactively researched that you think are of significant interest in painting a picture for the evidence of, you know, these types of craft? One really interesting case from my time on this program was 1993, and it involved a wave of sightings over large parts of the UK, over a period of about six hours, often involving a large triangular-shaped craft. Some people saw three lights in a triangular-shaped craft. shape with a larger but fainter light in the middle, as if this was on the underside of a

sort of flat, triangular shaped craft. People describe this thing as being immense. I had heard the phrase flying football field before from some UK cases, some US cases. Obviously, when I got this job, I went back not only through the archive of files, but through. the UFO literature, the books and magazines and things. So I had to, as I say, it's all part of reading into the backstory of this. I'd heard the phrase flying football field. With some of these triangular craft, that came into play, I remember one witness who I spoke to was about 16 at the time.

He was going, he was an army cadet, I think. He was going to, it was the evening. And he heard a strange, not that strange at the time, maybe a kind of low frequency humming sound. And he thought, is it a motorcycle or something? But he couldn't see anything on the road. And then he looked up and he couldn't really see anything. And then he saw that the stars were one by one disappearing.

And he thought, that's a cloudy night. and then when he just got a better handle on it, he realized that there was this immense, silent, almost silent black triangular-shaped craft at very low level, passing directly overhead. It was what was blocking out the stars. And this sound was not a distant motorcycle, but some sort of sound coming from this craft.

And so that was, was typical of the reports on that night. One family of four, the father was so excited when this thing came overhead that he leapt into the car with the family still in the back and they were chasing this thing down a country road. The family was kind of screaming to stop and that this was probably not a good idea. So they all saw it. But he was so. overcome with excitement and enthusiasm to find out what this was. I had a scout leader who was out with a troop of scouts on an evening hike. They saw this thing.

He described it as being the size of two Concord aircraft, kind of almost locked together. I had multiple police witnesses, several military witnesses, two Air Force bases were directly overflown by this thing. One of them, I had a whole patrol of Air Force police make reports. I had at another base, the meteorological officer report, that he, he, he, he, got a signal, a military signal came in about one of the sightings earlier in the night. And then he saw some lights and he thought, well, this can't be the UFO, can it? He walked out and it was like this time.

This was, I think, the very last sighting of the night. It was about 240 in the morning. He walked out. He saw these lights coming towards the base. Sure enough, again, it was this huge triangular-shaped craft. He described it midway in size between a sea. He said it was a Boeing 747.

He said it was really slow speed which is kind of counterintuitive. You always look for these counterintuitive points. He said it was moving maybe 30 or 40 miles an hour, maybe no more than 200 feet above the ground, slightly to the side of the base. He said it seemed to be over the fields just beyond the perimeter.

and he said a narrow beam of light kind of fired down from the craft and was tracking backwards and forwards as if it was looking for something. Then he said, I'll never forget this. He said there was something really weird about the light. He said the light didn't behave like normal light. And when the beam flicked off, instead of going off, it almost gradually turned off, which he'd never seen before.

It's kind of hard to describe. And then he said, and you'll probably, you will have guessed what's coming next. From this very low speed of 30, 40 miles an hour, you know, it just went womp off to the horizon in like a second. No sonic boom. And here's a guy with eight years experience, and he said to me,

spoke to him the following morning. His voice was still shaking. He said, Nick, I've been in the Air Force eight years. I've never seen anything like that before in my life. He has someone who sees military jets, fast attack helicopters, almost every day of his life. So when it comes to people, I know there's no such thing as an infallible observer, but when it comes to somebody who regularly sees and is familiar with aircraft, and he's also the meteorological officer. So again, he's, he's used to to looking at the sky in both the day and the night. So things like that. Wow.

Quite extraordinary. And the file on that, incidentally, my case file is, I mentioned, I think, that some of this has been declassified and released. My case file on that, which runs to about 110, 120 pages of documentation, has been declassified and people can read it at the National Archives. So none of this is in dispute. What is in dispute, of course, is what the heck it was. And we don't know.

And this is a very good case to illustrate the frustrations of UAP investigation within government because obviously we investigated. And the investigative methodology is fairly standard. standard. You know, you interview the witnesses. You then have on our wall, we had a big map of the UK with all the flight paths, all the weather balloon launch sites, and we got all the times and dates for those. Anything, we've got the no-tams, the notices to airmen with anything unusual in terms of aerial activity. So we can correlate. the time and the location and the description with things that we know about or can find out about. We speak to the Met Office, the Meteorological Office in the UK. We speak to the astronomers at the Royal Greenwich Observatory. We speak to the radar. People see if anything was tracked.

All of that. And normally we got about two or three hundred cases a year. normally when you do that, you either turn up an almost certain explanation because you find a match. Oh, look, somebody's seen this and it just so happens that there was a military exercise in that area.

They dropped flares. And maybe it's never quite 100%. But if it's 99.9, you pretty much close the case. But then you hit the catch-22 that the really interesting cases, like the one I've just discussed, you do all that, you don't find the explanation. So people, the next question is, oh, what do you do then? And the answer is, well, not much, because you've kind of done it.

Right. So you brief it up the chain of command and say, hey, boss, interesting case. And it just comes down with a, yeah, interesting case, but you've obviously, you've done all the checks, you know, noted. And I often use this analogy that it's like cops investigating crimes. And those unsolved crimes and those unsolved UFO cases have a lot in common because you interview the witnesses. You recover what evidence you can.

You know, bloody knives and fire guns in the case of crimes. Radar evidence, photos and videos, if you're lucky enough to have them with UAE. cases, but the unsolved cases, they just sit there until someone does a cold case review. Wow. I mean, that's a pretty wild case. So how, this all happened in one night? One night, over about six hours from 8.30. The first case, first sighting was the, it was actually the troop of scouts, I think, 8.30.

The last sighting, 240 was the meteorological officer at Royal Air Force. And how many people did you speak to that reported it? Personally, I spoke to maybe, I don't know, 20 or 30 different witnesses, but in all, we were aware that there were hundreds of reports because sometimes you would get a report and it would say this witness saw this, but he was with a family of, you know, X number of people. So in terms of how many actual witnesses, there were much more than the 20 or 30 that I spoke to individually,

probably 100, 200. And then you've got to figure, what about the people who saw it and didn't report either because they feared being not believed, they feared being ridiculed, they didn't know who to contact. They just wrote it off as a delusion or something? delusion or

possibly with a lot of military or ex-military people, maybe they self-censored and thought, it's one of ours. Wow, that's wild. So you spoke to multiple people on your own personally the next day.

Yes. And you found that all of the people you spoke to or a vast majority were credible of sound mind not under the influence of drugs or psychosis or anything like that. Like that's obviously a part of the process that you do? It is. You have to apply a bit of common sense. You have to get the sense of

reading people with this. There are certain things that you look for. If somebody has a pre-existing interest in UFOs, for example, is it just a question of confirmation bias or something like that? But the phrase that sticks out to me is that we had a hotline for this. I mean, it sounds kind of a little odd now, but like Project Blue Book, as I say, we were a public-facing program. Most of our data came from the public. So whilst we did some classified work, we weren't a secret ourselves. In fact, to get the data, you have to put yourself out a bit. And so we had a national reporting system whereby there were kind of standard operating procedures promulgated to every single military base, airport, police station, because a lot of people report to cops, in the country that said,

if you receive reports of UAP, this is the place in the Ministry of Defense to send them. Now, sometimes somebody will already have told their story to somebody at those places, and you will have the report ready made. We even had a form for it, typical government bureaucracy, and our form was very closely modelled on the old Blue Book form, of course. But sometimes people will just call up and somebody will know. and say, oh yeah, contact the Ministry of Defense. So we had a hotline.

And what you looked for was the people who were almost hesitant and apologetic. And they would, a lot of times they would preface what they said with, look, I hope you don't think I'm crazy. And I'm sorry if you think I'm wasting your time. But, and very often these people would be serving police or military themselves or retired. those were the sorts of people that tended to find their way into the system maybe a little bit more easily.

Interesting. And you would look for that because what they were saying was in one sense a lot of them would really rather this hadn't happened to them and they weren't trying to write themselves into and make themselves out

to be a hero in some great story but they were caught up in something and a little bit not ashamed or embarrassed, but I don't know, a bit, just reluctant. Right. These are not enthusiastic observers that are excited to regale their story of the time an alien abducted them. These are somewhat reserved and borderline, like hesitant or ashamed people that have seen something that they just want to disclose. Yes. Interesting.

And they often, they're calling, and this is why I say maybe the system was better configured towards our own people. But often there was a sense of, I'm reporting to you because I think it's my patriotic duty and maybe they were thinking, well, could it be some sort of Soviet spy plane? Interesting. Something like that.

And that was one of the things that obviously the program was set up and there is an overlap between UAP work and the idea that some of this does have its roots in concerns that Soviet and Warsaw Pact are constantly probing at our air defenses. They do have, I'm sure, cutting-edge spy planes just as we have. And we need to guard against them, but wouldn't it be good to find data on them, particularly photos and videos? Absolutely. And I want to get back to this, but just as a slight deviation, I don't want to lose anybody.

You mentioned Operation Blue Book, obviously, as a U.S. operation. Would you mind just in brief kind of just explaining what that is for people that don't know? Sure. From the very outset of the modern UFO phenomenon, the U.S. Air Force had a program to research and investigate it. And it operated under three different names, Project Sign, Project Grudge. But the best known was Project Blue Book, which, ran from I think 52 or maybe 53, I can't remember which offhand, through to the end of 1969. And they investigated thousands of cases. And they were headquartered at the Air Technical

Intelligence Centre at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. A lot of that archive has now been declassified. And yeah, it's the best known of the U.S. Air Force Base. And, yeah, it's the best known of the US government's UFO programs. And of course, it's a nice segue and a bridge between the old and the new because when it closed at the end of 69, after that, if you phoned up, as a journalist, say, the DOD, and he said, what's the line on UFOs? You would be told, oh, yeah, we used to have a program, but it closed. Nobody's doing this anymore. And of course, that was pretty much. much the case until 2017 when the New York Times broke the story of ATIP, advanced aerospace threat identification program, which did look at UAP.

And so that kind of blew the U.S. government's line out of the water. But, yeah, publicly, they said there hadn't been anything since Blue Book. So that's what Blue Book was. That makes sense. And I just want to make sure everyone is on board. It's effectively the American version of what you were doing. It's a public facing forum to have open investigation into unidentified crafts or aerial phenomena, etc. Correct. And I mentioned a few moments ago. We even, in our methodology was our terms of reference were almost identical. Look at the phenomenon to assess the defense and national security implications. Our methodology in terms of investigations. was almost identical. Even I mentioned the forms. If you look at, in some of the declassified UK files, our form, I mentioned the national reporting

system. A lot of this was done back in the days where somebody would phone up, a police station, a military base, somebody would take the report. And we had this ready-made form that had all the data that we needed, you know, date, time, description, meteorological conditions. our form was almost a mirror copy of the Blue Book form. Got it. What's up, guys?

We're going to take a break really quick because we got to talk about your amazing dick game. Yes, you. You right now, listen to my voice, my deep soothing voice. You have an amazing dick game. Or maybe you know some of an amazing dick game. Maybe you got a boyfriend.

Who knows? But if you have an amazing dick game, there's a way that you can make it better. And that's with the good people over at Blue Choo. Mm-hmm. Blue Chew is an amazing service that basically delivers a chewable tablet that has the same active ingredients as Viagra, Seales, all that stuff. But this is the chew. It's at fraction of a cost.

And it's never been easier to get your hands on the greatest dick game of your life. Mm-hmm. Never been easier. I'm telling you. You can go to bluechew.com. And you can submit all your information to a licensed person, a legit person that will then mail you a discreet, very unassuming, but very, very powerful package. You know what I'm talking about? The powerful package.

To your home. That's how easy it is. You don't got to go talk to a doctor and be like, yeah, you know, I want, no. Nope. Easy. You got to just go on the internet. Yo, bluechew.com, I want to get the best dick given of my life. And that's how you do it.

Easy is that. And for the listeners of this show, of this program, you are going to get free first month of bluechow. You were going to be getting bluechew for free. All you got to do is pay $5 a cup of coffee. Black to be delivering that BBC. You know what I'm saying? That's bluechew.com,

B-L-U-E-C-H-E-W.com. Use the promo code Gagnon, G-A-G-G-N-O-N-N-N, and receive your first month for free. That's Blu-C-C-O-C-C-2. For more details and important safety information. And thank you so much, Blu-choo. I'm telling you, man, check out this product. Even if you're one of these people that's like,

I don't know, I don't really need it. What are you talking about? It could be better. It can always be better. Let's say you're in the 1% you're about to be in the 0-01% with Blu-1% with Blu. Let's get back to the show.

So back to the football fields. This is such a remarkable story. You're interviewing all these people. They all are of sound mind. And like you mentioned before, I'm sure you've spoken to people that have claimed to have seen things that you were able to basically assess that they were not well. Or maybe they had confirmation bias because they were a fanatic. And you're able to delineate the difference pretty clearly.

Right? That's a reasonable assessment. Yes. Although I would say that in percentage terms, the biggest percentage were people who were absolutely of sound mind and sincere, but had just seen something that maybe they weren't close enough to it. That you were able to verify based off your back-in records. Yeah, a good example is when someone saw a brightly illuminated,

slow-moving, cylindrical object from miles away. But because we had the data, we could say, oh, look, actually there was an airship and there was a big sporting event and the witness might have been 20 miles away wouldn't have known that didn't see it close enough but if anyone had been close enough they would have seen it said good year on the side.

Yeah, it's a giant blimp or something. Yeah, in percentage terms most people fell into that category. Now, was there any airspace traffic that you and your department didn't have access to? Like, is it possible that you were checking all your records and you said, look, there's no military testing, there's no flights, there's no blimps, but beyond your purview, there was actually evidence like,

oh, there was a super top secret military thing being tested that that's actually what this is. You can never say never. I mean, I can't rule out that possibility. But bear in mind that investigation like this makes a lot of waves. So the more likely scenario is that if it had been one of ours but a program that I wasn't read into, somebody would have just had a quiet word said, you know, no need to dig on that. And I would have said, yeah, okay. And we would not be discussing this one now.

Has that ever happened before where you had a case and someone higher up than you said, eh, no need to bother with this. I think a couple of times. I mean, we obviously, we do test fly our own things. Normally we don't test fly them over the heads of the public. we've got restricted areas and a lot of this is done out over the C. But geography being what it is, I mean, sometimes you have to go from point A to point B and that will involve going over people.

And I think, I can't remember the details, but I think it did happen a couple of times. It didn't happen here. Obviously, we did investigate the possibility that this was a secret prototype. aircraft and that was almost our top conventional though slightly unusual but conventional yeah I guess flying 200 feet over civilians would be pretty odd for a military test that would be odd now you can always play devil's advocate and say well what if that was part of the test fly it over and see if you can get away with it yeah I guess reasonable but it It doesn't gel with what I know about this more generally in terms of the ways in which,

I don't know, you could point to any aircraft that was secret for a while and eventually unveiled, going back in history, the U2, the SR-71 Blackbird, the F-117 stealth fighter, B2 stealth bomber. We didn't do that kind of thing. Now, were you able to make some type of map based off of the reports that you got? So you get, you know, 30 reports of people that you speak with directly and they're all giving you the time that they saw things and the place that they saw it. Were you able to make some type of like movement chart of the craft and say, yeah, it makes sense. If it happened here at 6 o'clock, then it could move here by 7 and move here by 8 or were the movement's completely impossible?

That is one of the first things that I did. I got an outline map of the UK and I plotted every single sighting and then I overlay. the times and we tried to to construct something and those those maps again are on in the declassified file and they're a little bit messy and a little bit confusing and there wasn't a clear progression in terms of oh yes it came in at this point and it was more because it was a period of six hours it was more sort of zipping around up and down and back and forward and then there was another complicating factor, which is interesting in and of itself. At around 110 in the morning, our ballistic missile, how would you describe it, early warning

system, the B-Mews, I think it was called at the time, yeah, Royal Air Force Filingdale's with the big space tracking radar, did detect the re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere of a Russian rocket. So this was very interesting because you had, obviously, some of these sightings did have a conventional explanation, but bracketed around them were these other sightings. It was, and I'm a little reluctant to say this, but this is where I'm segueing into what I, from what I know to what I think. It is almost as if someone or something is using that as a cover because it's like, well, when could we do this and get away with it?

And to take something like that where if you were being skeptical, you would say, oh, come on, there was a Russian rocket that re-entered the Earth's atmosphere that light. And you're talking about UFOs. That's the explanation. Well, it's the explanation for a narrow but concentrated band of those sightings, but those weren't the ones that interested us. Right.

And so that was interesting, but it was worse than that or better than that, depending on your perspective. Using this theory that something used this as a cover to operate and get away with a little bit more than they might otherwise have done. There was another factor about this. That was the data itself, because this was late on the 30th of March and in the early hours of the 31st. So in terms of the media,

you could say, well, by the time this story broke, it would be too late to run a story. And we're before, this is not the era of 24-7 media. news cycle. This is like just newspapers published on either the 30th, the 31st, the first. It's too late by the time all this dies down to get it in on the 31st. If anyone writes up this story, it will run on 1st of April, April Fool's Day. And who's going to pay much attention to a UFO

story on April Fool's Day? So that's interesting. And again, it's like, is there an intelligence behind this, whether it's terrestrial or extraterrestrial or interdimensional or whatever, we can get into all the theories, using this as a cover, using the Russian rocket, reentry as a cover, using April Fool's as a cover. And then you think, well, that's kind of crazy. And then a little light bulb went off in my head and I said, wait a minute, there's something else about this. What is it?

I couldn't quite figure it. Then it hit me. The same thing had happened in Belgium. Belgium in 1990, that on the 30th and 31st of March was that very famous case where the Belgian radar air defense network picked up uncorrelated targets. They scrambled two F-16s. The F-16s closed on a large UAP. They acquired it on their airborne. radar systems and when all the dust had settled on my investigation I realized of course that all this had happened three years to the very night after the Belgian wave.

That's very interesting. Yeah, I mean, I get that it sounds a little wild to say like, oh, aliens are using April 1st as a cover, but when you have so many intersections that are happening, it just follows to reason. Is it possible that something, maybe it's Russian, maybe it's Chinese, maybe it's extraterrestrial, Maybe it's interdimensional, like we said, we can get into that. Is it possible they're trying to use these intersections, you know, April 1st or rocket ranchries or something else to obfuscate what they're doing? Yeah.

That's interesting. It's arguably the one night of the year that you could fly and if stories hit the press, it will make less of an impact because a lot of people will say, come on, it's April Fool's Day. And you can't say, oh, well, the people that made these reports, they were just trying to play a practical joke because, they were all independent of each other and they were varied. They were all independent of each other and a lot of them were late on the night of the 30th. And I don't think it would have, I don't think the news media cycle would have been on their minds. In fact, I think if anyone was inclined to do that and make a prank call, they would make it on April 1st. Not that many people or any people really made prank calls to the Ministry of Defense because they would probably,

thinking we would send the men in black round or give them a stern warning which we may well have done I mean just changing the subject but the office down the down the corridor from me did one of the things that they did was complaints about the noise from low flying aircraft and on one occasion very famous occasion that somebody got really irate and was on the call

for a long time expletives and this and that and you know said I tell you what if this goes on one day I'm going to get a shotgun and I'm going to come out and I'm going to start shooting

at these aircraft and then there was a sort of I beg you pardon so could you repeat that and the call went on and then the guy said and the expletives went on and the call went on and he said,

oh, I'm sorry, there's somebody at the door. And it was the cops. It was the military cops. Wow. It was like, sir, have you made a threat to take hostile action against a military aircraft? And yeah. That's wild.

Oh, that's sketchy, dude. That's scary. As we say, anyway, it's not noise. That's the sound of freedom. Yeah. Wow. what you want, but we might check on you. Yeah, we might see what they do.

When you cross the line from just venting and making a direct threat. Yeah, I mean, we've seen this in the States. You know, people will make, you know, comments about wanting to harm a government official, the president, something like that. And then, you know, they get a knock on the door. Yeah. Or, you know, someone will check on them. Yeah.

And now I'm a separate issue. I tend to be a free speech absolutist. But when you do cross the line and make a direct threat, of violence. With a government official on the phone. Yeah. It's like that does cross a line. Right.

Yeah, that's really wild. Okay, so then back to the craft itself. You said this is a flying football field. Except it's triangular. I mean, I'm using that phrase more in relation to size than shape. Go back to the witness who talked about the stars blacking out one by one. Now, some reports in the late 80s, so before my time, on that program were of football

field sized rectangular craft but the term kind of got copied and pasted the craft that most people saw on the night that I'm talking about was triangular shape flat triangle like a slice of pizza wow I mean okay so

we can rule that the the reports you got were credible in the sense that these people were of sound mind you feel pretty confident that it wasn't you know, British or, you know, UK technology in any capacity. And based off of the records you have in the chain of command, everyone kind of was like, yeah, we don't have any, you know, confirmation of this is some military aircraft. And then as far as a foreign military doing special operations, Chinese military, Russian military, anything to that effect, how do you,

why do you feel so certain that it wasn't another government? Because one of the, you, one of the, The parts, one of the other parts of the organization that we routinely talked to was the defense intelligence staff. This is effectively military intelligence. And they, of course, had a very good idea of the level of adversary technology. And when I say level, I'm talking about speeds, maximum heights that they can fly. all those sorts of pieces of data. And even if, obviously, sometimes things can be hidden, for a program, I mean, it's one thing to construct a prototype

and hide it in a hangar, but eventually you have to bring it out. It gets seen by satellites. You have other sources of gathering intelligence, and you're always looking, I mean, looking at programs, for the next Soviet fighter, bomber, reconnaissance aircraft, missile. This is right at the top or very near the top of the wish list of military intelligence. So it gets a lot of resources put into it.

So you have got a pretty good idea, particularly you hide a prototype. But when something goes operational, there are such a lot of ways that you can find out about this, you know, hum in to e-lint. So all the different parts, human intelligence, electronic intelligence or interception, it's very hard to hide an operational program. What's up, guys? We're going to take a break really quick because it's 2024. And it's time to talk about something important. When you are seriously hurt, your injury could be worth millions. Yes, that's right. The world is a crazy place. And one person's negligence can resolve. in another's settlement.

And that's why I got to talk to you about Morgan and Morgan. Morgan is America's largest injury law firm. They have over 100 offices nationwide and over a thousand lawyers. Yes, these are the big boys. You know them, you see them, you see their billboards all over the world. If you ever drove down I-90

from Florida to New York, I'm telling you, you've seen the billboards, all right? Have you ever watched a UFC fight? You've seen them right on the banner. I'm telling you, these are the biggest guys in the game, all right? With over 20 billion dollars recovered for over 500,000 clients, Morgan and Morgan has a proven track record of fighting to get you full and fair compensation. The annoying thing with most attorneys is that in order to submit a claim, you got to

call them up, you got to talk to their people, you got to go back and forth on emails, you got to hope that they see it. They might charge you just even look at their claim. Here's the cool thing with Morgan and Morgan. With eight clicks or less, you can submit a claim, and one of their licensed attorneys will take a look at it and get back to you. It's that easy. It's like ordering something off Amazon. It's just a couple clicks. You can submit your claim very easily and cheap. Yeah, how about $0.00? That's how much it costs to submit a claim with Morgan and Morgan. Extremely easy. No fee required. So, if you are ever injured, you can go check out Morgan and Morgan. Their fee is free unless they win. That's right. Unless they win for you. Unless they fight and get you compensation, you're not paying a single dollar. That's a pretty good deal.

So, for more information, go to for the people.com slash gagnon. That's correct. F-O-R-the-people.com slash gagnon. Or dial pound. law that's pound 529 from your cell phone that's for the people f-or the people dot com slash gagnon or dial pound law pound 529 from your cell phone this is a paid advertisement now let's get back to the show after the short disclaimer so you think that intelligences within you know the major you know superpowers are aware of all the covert technology that is happening amongst other countries it's it's to a certain level it depends on the degree of granularity. I think generally speaking, the superpowers or the top powers through intelligence,

and particularly as the technology is now so good, have a very good idea as to what the other side has. Do they know everything in terms of, I don't know all the parameters, probably not, particularly if you've made a really concerted effort through deception and counterintelligence to paint a false picture of how good your thing is. I mean, it's one of the other ironies of this. Sometimes you talk up a capability that you don't have

and you play down a capability that you do have. So in the shadowy world of intelligence, sometimes things, not always, almost always they're not quite what they seem. But as I say, generally speaking, you've got a pretty good idea. Oh, yeah. Drone technology is at this level. Missile technology is at that level.

When Putin gave his speech about super weapons, I guarantee that there is somebody in US military intelligence who knows which parts of those claims are bluff and which parts are true. And then you test that against what you observe in places like Ukraine. And so I guess that's your quantum leap example, you would say that these flying football fields, quote unquote, these triangular football fields,

what you would say are quantum leaps that are beyond what any other military would have had at the time. That's exactly it. Yes. You aren't surprised if your intelligence assesses that the other side, has something that goes 5,000 miles an hour and you see something to six, you might just revise your assessment. But if you see something that does 50, you're like, wait, that's the quantum leap that you're looking for in UAP research.

And that would be the answer to why, oh, how do we know this isn't an ally or American, you know, espionage or, you know, spying on Britain? Yes. And you can never, I go back to this point, you can never be certain because it's always possibly you've missed something or that through a gap in your own capability or through counterintelligence operation on the part of an adversary.

Our adversaries are smart. And they can and do put a lot of resources into deceiving us as to what they've got. Wow. So you get to the end of your investigation with this specific case and you're just kind of left scratching your head. you say this is quite bizarre yes interesting and now can you take me through other cases

ones either you worked on or ones that you're familiar with within the program that uh give you sort of a similar feeling of of awe or a confoundment sure another one perhaps the one that's people always asked me about is rendelsham forest incident this was december 1980 and this involved U.S. Air Force bases in the UK. And it's sometimes called Britain's Roswell, which is misleading because this wasn't a crash. But it was an alleged landing. And this was a series of three nights. People saw lights in the forest.

When I say people, I mean, US serving U.S. Air Force security police and law enforcement people doing guarding and security, saw strange lights in Randlesham Forest, which lies between the two bases of Bent Waters and Woodbridge, these two US Air Force bases. They thought maybe a light aircraft had come down and started a fire or something. They went out there. Two of the witnesses saw a landed craft, small. I mean, I'm going to say, again, triangular, but not flat triangle, more like pyramid triangle, but no more than nine feet across, nine feet tall, something like that,

in a small clearing of the forest that had apparently smashed some branches off as it came down. They walked around it, one of them touched it, there's a whole other weird, side to this story about the guy feeling that he got some sort of download, almost telepathic download. Later, he wrote out some 16 pages of ones and zeros in his notebook. And why did he do that?

Because he felt he was under some sort of compulsion. He didn't do it at the time. I mean, this was days later. But I'm getting ahead of myself with this story. He saw this and the other witness. And there were other witnesses too, but only two of them got really close to it. And how do they describe the craft? There are some sketches of it in the declassified Ministry Defense file.

It's, and again, this is something some of the skeptics have touched on and said, well, it's not a million miles away from some sort of futuristic-looking lunar landing module, something like that. Now, in terms of what it purportedly did, it seems to go beyond that, because after they observed it on the ground for a while, it apparently took off vertically, cleared the treetops, and then shot away at high speed, again with no sonic boom. So that doesn't sound much like a lunar landing module or even a prototype UAV, drone type thing.

Given that this was 1980 and drone tank, was in its infancy. I mean, you can look at the history of drone technology. And I think actually these Israeli military pioneered quite a bit and maybe the US too. But you can look at the level of that tech in 1980 was pretty basic. Anyway, it shot away. There was activity sightings on a second night, on a third night. Again, it came back.

There was an award ceremony where a lot of the senior officers were. And one of the more junior officers came up and looking very flustered and went up to the senior brass and said, you know, sir, it's bag. And everyone was like, what do you mean? And it's like the UFO's bag. So the deputy base commander went out into the forest with a group of about half a dozen people, as he put it, to debunk all this UFO nonsense.

And he ended up seeing the thing himself, not on the ground on that third night, but in the sky flying some pretty bizarre patterns around. And at one point, it fired a narrow beam of light down at the ground. Again, remember I said about the beam of light with the 1993 sightings. This is again a, I look, in all this, I look for commonalities. I try not to be conclusion-led about them,

but there are always some things that you file away, and when you hear the same detail in another case, you think, uh-huh, I've come across that before, and you can begin to join some dots. So Colonel Holt, Colonel Charles Holt, the deputy base commander, he describes this narrow beam of light firing down actually much closer than the 1993 sightings, almost like a laser pointer or something, which is very close to him. And I've met him several times over the years. And he's given some interviews on this as well. It's quite a well-known case in the UFO community.

It doesn't have the public recognition of, say, something like Roswell or the Tick-Tac incident, but it's out there. And he said with this beam of light, he said, was this a weapon? Was this a warning? Was this communication? He doesn't know. But what he has said is that it was under intelligent control. And this is a colonel who's the deputy base commander. So he puts all this down in a memo to the Ministry of Defense because these are

U.S. bases but they're on British soil. And then a couple of years later, somebody, you know, people talked, people knew that there had been this incident. And his friend phoned him up and he said, you know, hey, Chuck, we've had a Freedom of Information Act request for your memo. And he was like, for God's sake, burn it. He said, this is going to kill my career. You know, the colonel who sees a UFO, burn it.

And he was like, you know, I can't do that. That's, you know, it's the law. And he said, well, thanks. You've ended my career. He didn't. He actually went on to get a promotion to full colonel. And his final posting was in the, I think, the DOD Inspector General's department in the Pentagon. But, you know, it's an extraordinary story.

And again, I did a cold case review. And one of the things that most intrigued me, I said, well, look, is there any physical evidence? And it turned out there was, and it was twofold. There were two strands to it. There were some anomalous radar readings that night. On the first night, two independent radar systems, I think, one civil, one military, detected an uncorrelated target directly over the base. It was there for a couple of sweeps of the radar system and then it disappeared.

And again, was that the thing actually landing? Is that what caused it to disappear when it just got too low to track? And over the years, a couple of the other, now obviously long since retired, military radar operators have come forward and put some testimony into the public domain that yes, they too tracked it on their system.

And a couple of them were actually on the air traffic control tower and did simultaneously because they were saying what the heck's this on the radar. They went out to see if they could see something. And they saw lights over the forest. They couldn't discern much about the shape of this craft. But again, we have, I think now maybe four or five different radar operators on the record and their written statements in various US and UK files on this on the record. But the thing that was really interesting, because this was a landing,

and not just lights in the sky, they did do an analysis of the landing site. And they found indentations and they found some burn marks, scorch marks on the sides of the trees. And one of the things that they did is they had the disaster preparedness officer was in this team that went out. And they went the first thing they did before Colonel Holt and the rest of them saw the UFO. They went to the landing site where this thing had come down on the first night. They took the Geiger counter out there. And their analysis was that the radioactivity levels were significantly higher than the average background. Or rather, that was the British scientific and technical intelligence assessment of that radar,

pardon me of that radiation data. And taking radiation of what specifically? Taking radioactivity levels from the three indentations in the ground where this thing had apparently landed. This was December in the UK and the ground was kind of semi-frozen. But this object had made fairly fresh indentations, Colonel Halt estimated that the object must have weighed several tons to have done that. And so what they did is they took radioactivity readings from the three indentations,

which is where they got the peak levels, from the sides of the trees, with burn and scorch marks, but also control readings from outside of that. So they could establish the baseline and sort of calculate. how much of a spike this was. And it was about six times higher than the average background. So it was statistically significant, I think you would say,

particularly given that it peaked exactly in those indentations. It wasn't just a random spike here or there. Right. And just to be clear, this detecting device is trying to pick up radioactive activity. Is that correct? Yes.

It was a piece of kit that they had had there at the base in relation. If a bomb were to go off, you could use a Geiger counter to basically track the radioactive, I guess, frequency in that specific place. Is that true? I'm not a scientist. So I'm probably going to mangle this, but let me put it this way. If there were nuclear weapons and there was a leak of facile material. or something, you would be able to detect a spike and you would say, hey, get the heck out of there and we need to lock this down. Now, they also had, I can't remember if they took them out with them, but you know, the dosimeters, the little things that turn red if you get into a danger.

I mean, that's kind of similar thing. And the way they felt about it was that it was high enough to be statistically significant. But it was not so high that Monroe Nevels, who was the guy operating the thing, said, hey, sir, everyone, get the hell out of here. Wow. So it was at that level. Now, there's a whole other layer to this. Years on, some of those people over all the nights of activity do believe that they have health issues,

attributable to this. And there have been multiple claims made to the VA for people who said, look, I was involved in the Rendlesham incident and we don't know what the heck it was, but we got close to something. And now I've got these conditions. I can't talk about this too much because of HIPAA, but some of it is in the public domain. And one of, let me see, one of the witnesses went to Senator John McCain and then later to Senator John Kyle and one of their key staffers that does veterans is, he's. worked with the DOD to try and get paperwork on this. And she was like, this is bizarre.

They say that you weren't in the Air Force. And it's like, wait a minute. And so he gives all his papers or his discharge papers. Okay, now they say that you were in the Air Force, but we're not paying out on a UFO incident. And, you know, this is crazy. There's no evidence. And then I remembered something.

And they had a lawyer. Some of the witnesses had a lawyer doing hundreds of hours of pro bono work on this called Pat Frasconia. And I said to Pat, I think, hey, if the VA is denying this and they say there's no record of this. this incident, I've got something that might help. And I remembered that in 2005 or 2006, the UK Ministry of Defence had declassified an intelligence assessment of UAP, not any specific incident, but we did an intelligence assessment, which I helped set up. I'd left by the time it was done.

and it was codenamed project Condine and I said look there's a line in there on Randlesham and I pointed to the line and it said the well-documented Rendlesham Forest incident is a case where it might be posited that witnesses were exposed to

UAP radiation for longer time periods than his usual. I said, try that for size. And he went back to the VA and said, hey, you know this incident that everyone's denying? There's your file. There's...

And this was a... I don't know why they declassified it, actually. I was surprised. It was secret UKIs only, so very highly classified. And for some reason, that line had escaped the censor's black pan.

But thank goodness it did. because these people got, or at least one of them, got a settlement out of that. Rightly so, whatever this was. And I remember talking to Senator McCain's aid, Cheryl, I keep having a mental blank on her second name, but she was one of the heroes of this story. And she said she'd never seen anything like it, like with the entire medical file. I mean, this is, like, every senator will have one person that does the immigration, one person that does the, you know, pensions, one person that does the VA staff. She was the VA person.

She was, and she's like, wait, I got the medical file and she's used to things being, you know, maybe HIPAA protected. But if you're working with the person and you give you consent, she said the entire file she was told was classified. She said she had never seen this. before. And she handles hundreds of these cases. So simultaneously the government is saying, oh, this case is nothing, the Reynolds from Forest thing, is just a bunch of hoopla, but also the

medical records related to the people involved in it are completely classified and you can't see them. Yeah. Wow. And just to recap, so this craft is landing in the forest, multiple, over three nights, multiple U.S. military are seeing it, one person even touches it. High brass

sees it. They have documented evidence of radar detecting it. They have documented evidence of the actual landing gear, actually touching the ground, and then they have radioactive readings up to a level that is unusual, that is statistically significant of all the areas where it landed the scorch marks on the trees, and the British Ministry of Defense disclosed that the people involved of that incident endured radiation to an unusual degree. Correct, although that latter statement was presented as a a theory. I think the wording was something like it might be suggested that, but I think the key

point was the phrase exposed to UAP radiation. Yeah, it's not just radiation. No. And it's, it's, it's the implication, the casualness of the implication that UAP radiation is a thing. Right. Not only is it a thing, But it's injuring people to a degree that the U.S. government is willing to settle with them and give them money for what they endured. Yes. And there's an interesting linkage with ATIP because when the New York Times broke the story of the existence of the ATIP program. Which again is the aerial task force in the United States. Yes. Now, this wasn't a public facing program.

This was a classified program. It went under two related names, OASAP. and ATIP. OASAP is Advanced Weapons System Application Program. ATIP is more of a nickname, but Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program. Harry Reid, former Senate Majority Leader, was instrumental in setting it up.

It was a DIA program, so Defense Intelligence Agency subsequently transferred to the DOD, which is where Lou Elizondo, picked up that portfolio, though he was involved from the outset in Ossap. And we don't have much paperwork about these programs, but one of the things we do have is the DOD confirmed that under this program contract, 38 kind of scientific technical papers were written. And they have to do, it reads like scientific.

They looked into things like anti-gravity, invisibility, warp drive, wormholes, stargates. I mean, this is pretty bizarre. One of the papers was entitled something like human effects, and that ties back into this idea of UAP radiation. And it's one of the slightly dark side aspects of this phenomena. Hmm. Now, you've referenced, I think, before something interesting about the actual Geiger counter radiation reader and the level of radiation that was detected and that it was a significant number. Is that true? Oh, my goodness. Yes. Okay. You got me. I wasn't sure whether to go here because it takes us down a real rabbit hole. But when I, when you look at the report, and this is anyone, can do this with a pocket calculator.

When you, I'm showing my age now, a pocket calculator. What is that? You do it on the internet. So you can take the memo that Colonel Holt sent to the Ministry of Defense, and then you can take the Defence Intelligence Staff internal UK assessment of those readings. Both those documents are in the public domain. You can say here's the level of radioactivity that Colonel Holt, or rather his disaster preparedness guy, reported. And here is the anticipated or the actual, however it was characterized, the average level of background.

And you can just divide one by the other to see how, you know, how, you know, how much of a spike it was. And the number when you put it into your pocket calculator is 6.6666 recurring to infinity. But obviously when it reads 666 like that, there are a lot of people who say, wait a minute, 666, and there is of course a whole theory that some aspects of UAP are demonic. There have been factions in both the U.S. and the U.K. government that think that. And it's interesting because they think one of the things that they say is we shouldn't be studying UAP. And when you say why, what?

Because you think it's all rubbish, it's all nonsense. waste of taxpayers money. Oh, no, no, no. It's perfectly real, but it's something we shouldn't mess with. And you're like, wait a minute, what are you talking about? And they'll say demons. And you think it sounds crazy, but, you know, to somebody who's religious, as I don't know what the percentage is,

but maybe it's more than, a lot more than 50%. I mean, a lot of people in the United States are deeply religious. And if you believe in the Bible and God, you also, by default, because it's in the Bible, believe in the devil and demons, even if they're called something else like unclean spirits or whatever they call. But these people believe that demons are real and some people believe that in government, I'm saying, believe that, that, that, that, Part of the phenomenon, UAP, is demonic. And one reason for that is in the book of Ephesians is the quote where it describes Satan as being the prince of the power of the air.

And Lou Elizondo from the AIT program, who I mentioned one time he was talking to someone senior level in the Pentagon and trying to say, we should be putting more time and resources into this. and it was like, son, go read your Bible. And the implication was, don't engage with this. Because if you engage with it, you feed it by giving it energy

of some sort of emotional energy, intellectual energy, whatever it is. I don't believe in demons. But I know a lot of people obviously do. And in one sense, I say to you here, oh, it's something. But there are probably a lot of people who say, no, no, demons sounds much more real than extraterrestrials. Yeah, especially if you're religious. Yeah.

It's like, well, I already believe in demons. So why can't this thing fall under that umbrella? Sure. Yeah, it's less of a leap, I guess, so to speak. What's up, guys? We're going to take a break really quick because I need to tell you about one of my favorite new products in 2024. It's called Zipix.

Yes, Zipix is a nicotine-infused toothpick. Now, if you know me, you know I like to indulge in a little bit of nicotine from time. time to time, okay? That's true. I don't like to smoke it. I don't like to vape it. Obviously, those things are very bad for your lungs. They're bad for your health. They make you feel bad when you work out. Not good. But nicotine on its own has been proven in scientific trials to actually improve neural communication, improve cognitive function, improve sharpness, improve mental clarity. Look it up. It's very, very interesting research. Anyway, back to Zippix. This is a nicotine-infused toothpick, okay? This is probably my new favorite way to get my little

kick of nicotine. It's absolutely amazing, and it's great because you can use it anywhere at any time. It's very, very discreet. You just pop it in, and immediately you're getting whatever flavor you've purchased. This one right here, peppermint watermelon. Tastes amazing. They have six different flavors. They're all fabulous, and they all

do the trick. Zipix is great for a couple of reasons. If you're like me, and you don't like to smoke or vape, Zipix is probably my favorite way to deliver that nicotine fix right to your body. It feels absolutely amazing. It looks cool. And also on top of that, I sometimes get food caught right in little tooth right here. I always carry flossers with me. I always carry toothpicks with me.

But now I have two and one. Boom. After dinner, I'm getting a little fix and I'm getting food out of my teeth. I mean, that's a win-win right there. Two, it looks cool. It's discreet. While you're driving, you pop a zippics in. You're feeling good. You're cleaning out your teeth. What do you want more than that? Secondly, if you're someone that maybe does smoke, maybe you do use vapes, maybe you do use cigarettes, you're going on a long flight. You're going to be stuck somewhere. You're going to be at a funeral. You're going to be at a wedding. You're going to be, who we have a baby shower for your baby? And you can't be ripping Sigs or your own baby's baby shower.

I mean, that looks insane. So what are you going to do? Pop a Zipix in. Now you're getting your nicotine fix and you're feeling good. Now, what if you're someone that doesn't even like nicotine? Zipix has something for you as well. They have B12 and caffeine-infused toothpicks if you're not a nicotine user. You're trying to get away from your nicotine habit.

That's totally fun. Zipix has helped tens of thousands of customers in leading away to a healthier lifestyle that, you know, maybe they currently vape or use cigarettes. and they can probably help you too. Make your lungs happy and try Zipix Nicotine Toothpix. Ditch the cigarettes, ditch the vape, get a nicotine-infused toothpicks. Okay, here's what I want you to do. I want you to go to Zippix-toothpics.com today.

Get 10% off your first order by using the code Gagnon, G-G-N-O-N-O-N at checkout. Your lungs will be glad that you did. You must be 21 years old to order, and I just want to say this is a warning. Nicotine is an addictive chemical. Zipmore, smoke less with Zipix Nicotine Toothpics. Now let's get back to the show. I saw Tucker Carlson's comments recently. I don't know if you saw this.

I think he said it on his show. But he was kind of talking about what apparently he has heard amongst high-level officials relating to UAPs and non-human intelligence. And he was sort of vague about it but claimed that he was disturbed by what he heard and that he believes it to be spiritual in nature. Did you see this? I did. What did you think of that?

Yeah. And Taka has, I mean, when Taka had his show on Fox, I was one of the regular contributors. So Taka probably interviewed me about 14 or 15 times over the years. And one time I got to interview him for an episode of aged aliens, which was a fun turning of the table. But yeah, I know some of the people that he's talking to. and I think talking about. And I've mentioned a couple of times, Lou Alizondo,

who's obviously a now retired career intelligence officer who's been deeply involved in this. And I know that he gave an interview where somebody asked him, it was a very smart question. And the question was something like, if you could describe knowing what you know about this phenomenon,

if you could sum up in one word, how people would feel about it, knowing what you know, what would that word be? And he thought, I've actually for quite a while, and he said, somber. And I think that ties in,

to some extent, with Tucker's view on this. Bear in mind, Tucker, when I interviewed Tucker for ancient aliens, it was only, couple of weeks after he'd come back from North Korea, where he'd traveled on Air Force One with President Trump. He'd interviewed President Trump about North Korea, but also at the end of that interview about UAP. And so again, Tucker is very well connected. I mean, obviously he's talked to

the president about this. He's talked also. also to a lot of the other people, Lou Alessondo, Christopher Mellon, who's another very senior career individual who's served as the, what is it, the deputy director of intelligence. I mean, so a lot of people and others too who have been involved in these programs. and, you know, I only know a bit here and a bit there, but when Tucker, who has obviously talked to a lot of these people and maybe at more senior level than I have, comes away with that, I go, hmm.

Yeah, it's interesting. I mean, you've obviously said that you don't believe in demons, quote unquote. I'm assuming you're a non-religious, agnostic person. I'm actually an atheist. Fair. So, you know, but I think the religious aspects of this are some of the most interesting and arguably important aspects. Because if you broaden the conversation out into, well, whether it comes through UAP or whether it comes through a scientific discovery, you know, whether it's Professor Avi Lowe, but Harvard Galileo Project, whether it's James Webb Space Telescope, There are rumors, I'm sure you've heard them going around now in the astronomy and astrophysics community

that either a biosignature or a techno signature has been found that a paper has been drafted and is being peer reviewed and will be published soon. I've heard those hints from at least three different, you know, fairly well-known. astrophysicists and astronomers in the last few weeks. So it doesn't matter where it, who gets to the finish line first, whether it comes through the UFO community, the scientific community. But if we have first, well, there are different phrases because there are different ways it might pan out, but disclosure, first contact, first discovery, the religious and theological

implications will be profound. And me being an atheist doesn't change any of that. I mean, that's, you know, the ripples will be immense. And therefore, that's one of the reasons why NASA, for some years now, has been funding conferences that look at the intersection between theology and UAP and astrobiology. Just to backtrack a second, what do you mean by technosignatures? What does that look like? A biosignature, I guess, would be finding things like water vapor and the various, various more sort of chemistry, but chemistry that looks indicative of life. It's like carbon, oxygen, things like that.

Yeah. And again, I don't know enough about this. to speak with authority and I might be mangling some of the science here. But there are some things that would be indicative of life, although with a biosignature, there is always a debate about, well, could it be geological? So when you talk about a couple of years ago, there was a paper about possible methane,

well, methane in the upper atmosphere of venous. that might be indicative of microbial life in the atmosphere, something like that. But then a whole bunch of other scientists said, well, it could be geological. And it's difficult to nail that down. So you've got levels of it. You've got compounds and things that could be indicative of life. Then you've got compounds, and this is the next layer up, which could be indicative of a civilization. So the sorts of, what is it, CFCs, things.

that you would struggle to think could be naturally occurring because they tend to be very complex things. But again, there's the devil's advocate that says, well, you know, we don't know the chemistry on every single planetary system, could we? But a techno signature, I think, is defined as something which would be the fingerprints of a technology. So it could be, for example, picking up something that would be indicative of a Dyson sphere, an alien megastructure. Any civilization sufficiently advanced will have huge energy needs and might meet some of those needs by constructing a large device close to its star and then getting that energy to their homeworld or a series of independently operating devices.

Wow. So there are, you know, there are different variations on what that technosignature might be or what it might look like. Is it, I don't know, is it the light of a sun disappearing for a while, which is the way that people detect certain exoplanets, but would something be indicative not of a planet but of a megastructure and could you tell the difference? I don't know enough about all this to speak with authority but but NASA has a whole you know the phrase astrobiology has recently not that recently now entered the lexicon there are people who look for these sorts of things there is this rumor that there's a something's been found that a paper is going to come out. I don't know whether it's

it's going to be a slam dunk or whether they'll still be a, well, yeah, but it could be this or it could be that. Wow. But this is kind of the exciting, scientifically exciting time that we're at now, that perhaps we're just at the very edge of where if these things exist, we would be able to prove it definitively with science. Wow. So you've heard rumors in the next couple months there will be a paper that will disclose one of these techno signatures, whatever it might be. Yes. And as I say, it's not necessarily going to be, hey, we found an alien megastructure. It may be, hey, we found chemical compounds that might be indicative of either A, life or B, a civilization.

So intelligent life. Wow. I don't know, but I've heard Tim Peake, the British astronaut, was one of the at least three people who's talked about this. there was another scientist. She was at some sort of award ceremony and the host said something like predictions for 2024 and she said alien life.

And it was like, wait a minute, why? Wow. And there are some others too. That's significant. Wow. Okay, that's really interesting. Sorry, back to Tucker's spiritual. Tucker's spiritual.

The demon comment is interesting. So I guess for you and your perspective, Do you just kind of take Tucker saying that it is spiritual, quote unquote, and disturbing, just as him sort of applying, I guess, like his religious worldview to this topic and to the information he's receiving? Or do you think he's receiving different information than what you know that is, I don't know, potentially like more disturbing than what you're aware of, if you had to speculate? Yeah, I don't know because this is now three steps removed from me. Somebody told Tucker, in fact, you know, probably more than one person has told Tucker something. Tucker has then processed this in the light of his belief system about the world and the universe. And so I have not spoken to Tucker since then.

So I'm kind of three steps out from it. But it is interesting. I mean, Tucker is a smart guy. And people have clearly told him this. I suspect that when it comes to religion, his beliefs are not my beliefs. But, you know, something was relayed to him. And clearly that's something.

Yeah, I want to discuss with you potential explanations that might be sort of like tertiary or tangential to like extraterrestrials, you know, demons, things like that, but I first just want to button up the, uh, some of the other interesting phrase in the, the forest incident that you were retelling. Um,

so obviously you have this Geiger counter that's reading, you know, 6.66 of the radiation, you know, if you measure the, the difference between the background levels and the, it's basically the multiplier of significance. Um,

I think you also had mentioned that there were imprints taken of the landing gear, that there were actual molds of those landing gears that were, that were, uh, cast. That's correct. There are at least two that I'm aware of. I mean, they literally, it sounds low tech, but in a way, I don't think it was, and certainly

it wasn't in 1980. They literally poured plaster of Paris into it, so they took a mold. And have you ever seen those molds? Have you read anything about those molds? I have. I think I've seen one. Actually, I know that I think Chuck still has. one. I don't know. People sneak these things out. I think, I think, I don't know why it didn't,

some of the evidence got taken away by the commander-in-chief United States Air Force in Europe. He flew in, again, the Ministry of Defense file shows that C&C Usafe flew in a few days after this incident took various items, presumably things like the soil samples, the bark and sand. samples. Took their own readings, I'm sure. Took their own readings, took them back to the headquarters in Ramstein. They've now disappeared somewhere into the system. Still classified under their records. They're probably next to the arc of the Calvin in that beat.

Oh no, that's a movie. If there is something like that, which maybe there is, it's probably in there. But it's lost at the moment. but the plaster of Paris casts have not been lost and I've even seen them on a couple of TV shows Was there anything interesting about them or I assume in my mind they're just sort of like these squareish kind of like landing gears

Yeah they're not that they're not that interesting I mean you I think it was the best tech they had at the time I mean it all it really tells you is that something kind of impacted that frozen ground and drove. But it's not clear enough that you can see any real shape that you would go. That's a technology.

It's just something, I don't know, something a little bit pointy or heavy or both just went into the ground. Right. And I think you had mentioned with Julian that there was hieroglyphs on the outside of this, of this crap, according to reports. This was from Jim Panisci. who was the sergeant who got closest to this thing. He said strange hieroglyphs. He sketched them. He took some photos, which he was later told, didn't come out.

That may or may not be true. If you believe in a cover-up, then it's not true. But if you think, well, wait a minute, there was radioactivity at the landing site. We know that. Maybe it is true. I don't know. So after he'd shot off a role of film, of obviously the landed UFO itself

and close up of the hieroglyphs. I'd love to see that if it does exist still. Again, Ark of the Covenant. He then sketched them as a kind of backup and gets good thinking. And he did a very rough sort of shaky hand. contemporaneous sketch. And then later, he kind of did keeping his hand more still, trying to process it,

a more sort of, okay, in the cold light of day, how do I translate that into what it really looked like without me, you know, having nothing to lean on, all of that? Wow. So again, those sketches of the craft and of the symbols are. out there, but also, this is where it gets really far out, I mentioned that when he touched, or I think I mentioned, when he touched the side of the craft, he received a sort of jolt, and a few days later, while he was at home, he reached for a notebook and just as if he said he was under some sort of compulsion, wrote down 16 pages of ones and zeros,

and promptly forgot about it, or maybe a bit of both deliberately put it aside for 30 years, because he stayed in the military. And he, look, it's one thing to say, as he said, look, I saw the UFO. That's fine because his colonel saw the UFO. A lot of people saw it. Yeah. He was the only one that touched it.

Yeah. So he kind of thinks, and they all have the PRP at his level, the personnel reliability program that you have to get the really high security clearances. So the only thing worse than not getting your PRP, which opens up a lot of kind of sexy jobs, is to get it and then lose it. Because that's like the kiss of death. It's like, okay, you were reliable, but now you're not.

And that condemns you to the rest of your career. You can never get back. In the stores. You'll be issuing the ration packs to people. Right. Yeah. So he's like, I can talk about the UFO even while I'm still in the service because my deputy base commander, the colonel saw it. And it's on the record and it's out there through the Freedom of Information Act requests that I mentioned.

So the story had gotten out there. But he's like, there's no. I'm going to talk about getting some sort of compulsion and ones and zeros. And it was years later. It was 2010. So literally 30 years afterwards. And I can't remember what year he left the service. But it was long after he left.

It was only then that he said, oh, and by the way, it's this weird stuff with the ones and zeros. which of course a lot of people said well that must be binary code right and then he was working at the time with a TV production company they said well let's get a computer engineer and you know somebody who knows binary and he's well I'll stick it through the translator because you can you can convert obviously language to binary and and the other way I mean Now, I think you can do it on Google Translate or Bing Translate or any of those. You can say the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog and you can translate that into binary. Right.

You can take binary and translate it back. Right. So they translated it back. Binary is just a coding language that you can basically have letters in English represented through numbers, ones and zeros. And so this guy sits down, he writes 16 pages just in a compulsion. And compulsion of zeros and ones, which is very bizarre in general, right? I've never had a compulsion to do that. No.

He writes it all down and then they get it translated. And what does the translation say? Let me get this right. Continuous exploration for planetary advance. Eyes of your eyes, origin year, 8,100. and then a series of geographical latitude and longitude coordinates that just happened to coincide with a number of sacred sites all around the world, the great pyramids, the NASCAR lines, Machu Picchu, etc.

I don't know what that means. it's a little bit too, for me, it's a little bit too obvious. It's a little bit too much like if you're a sort of new age spiritual person and you have your bucket list, this is everything on your bucket list. If this is genuine, it's, I don't know, it's just an attention getter. Maybe there's another message deeper in. Or maybe it's his subconscious. mind just, I don't know. I don't know what it is.

And some people say, of course, it's just completely made up. Right. I don't know. I know Jim quite well. The fact that he sort of shied away from it for 30 years. And even now doesn't really want to talk about it. He's talked about it a couple of times on a TV show maybe for which he says. probably got expenses and a, you know, these are not people seeking fame and fortune.

He doesn't come out of this story as a hero. This goes back to something that you were saying about, about what do you look for in the witnesses? Do you look for someone who has an existing belief? Or do you look for a person who's more apologetic? He doesn't come across as the hero in this, quite the opposite. You could say he comes out as the guy who sat on important information for 30 years, the guy who didn't know what binary code was, if you're going to make up a story, you tend to put yourself in the hero role. Or at least not in that role.

And so that to me, and I know it could be a double bluff, but in terms of, well, if you were making it up, why? What would you be looking for? Fame, fortune. He didn't get any. He doesn't really seem to be looking for anything. He's not putting himself out there with this. He's written or collaborated a book on it, but it's a very niche thing

with either self-published or a niche publisher, you know, sort of esoteric stuff. So you know him personally. Oh, I know him, yeah. And I know Charles Holt, the colonel. Have you seen the notebook that he wrote in? Yes, I have.

And to your knowledge, do you believe that the notebook was written, you know, 30 years ago? I don't know that for sure. But again, I believe, I believe so. I mean, it's an old notebook. It's an old notebook, yeah. And he did, I don't know whether anyone has taken up this answer. offer, but when somebody expressed doubt, he's like, well, I'm happy to have it forensicated. If anyone can, like, you know, do that.

And, you know, I don't know that that would necessarily prove, even if you could prove it as an old notebook. There'll be skeptics who say, well, you could have an old notebook and maybe the ones and zeros were written later. I don't know. Is it possible he knew binary? Like, I don't know what the nature of coding was or like those early coding languages in the 80s. But him as like a military officer, would he have had an experience in that to your knowledge?

To my knowledge, no, and he says no. He tells me what he was an expert in. And that was aircraft recognition amongst other things. So that's why he was quite adamant that this was something extraordinary. again the sudden acceleration. He was one of these people that was trained that you could show him flashcards of the silhouette and he would be able to tell the difference

between an SU 27 and an SU and a Mick 29 or whatever, I'm probably mangling the numbers. Not Mick 29, I know that's a thing. So no craft that he had ever seen. He touches it, feels this jolt, downloads this information and is sort of like he just writes down.

these ones and zeros 30 years ago and just kind of sits on it. And then once he gets it decoded, it has this bizarre and sort of remarkable, unbelievable message. Yeah. How do you interpret the message? Assuming, let's just say, it is what he says that it is, that he felt his compulsion, wrote it, sort of, you know, almost inspired by some type of, you know, external force. And he writes this message, what do you interpret each piece of it to mean? Well, continuous exploration.

for planetary advance sounds like this is a probe of some sort maybe. Eyes of your eyes, I have no idea. Kind of sounds fun and profound, but really I don't know what it means. Origin year 8,100 obviously raises the intriguing possibility of time travel. And that if this is an experience, an experience. exploratory probe, it's a probe not just in space, but in time. And of course, when you look at UAP and when you look at what people believe, some people believe it's extraterrestrial, we've discussed, some people believe it's demonic,

there are other theories out there. Some people believe it's interdimensional. Some people believe it's something from within the earth, a kind of ultra-dimensional Crypto-terrestrial, you know, do we share this Earth with other entities, you know, all that. But the idea of time travellers from the future is a theory that's out there. If you look into the whole abduction kind of subgenre of euphology, the entities that people report seeing, the so-called greys, they are essentially humanoid. Now, is that just our anthropocentric imagination?

Or if this is real, is that what we evolve into? Again, I don't know, but in cases like this enable one to take the conversation in an interesting direction that covers these possibilities. And the other thing is all these possibilities are not mutually exclusive. So I mentioned the ODNI report. One of the first things it said was there is likely no single one solution to this. And even within, okay, some of it's conventional, some of its sensor anomaly, but even if you say there's an other category that encompasses these esoteric explanations, it's not impossible that because X you can't have Y.

So, in other words, you can have extraterrestrial visitation and you can have time travelers from the future and you can have something coming from other hidden dimensions. Wow. Yeah, I mean, eyes of our eyes does sound like, you know, maybe they're saying, hey, we're human like you are. We're not some type of foreign thing. We're the same.

and we look different, but I wonder if it's effectively saying, like, you know, we are the same. Is that a possible interpretation? It is a possible interpretation. On the other hand, assuming that anyone in the year 8,100 has a good historical record and hasn't lost, you know, something, why wouldn't they just say, knowing contemporary 20th century language, this is a probe from your future, we are you, Well, I guess there are all sorts of possibilities there. It is possible that and time travel is way beyond my.

I know that there are a handful of theoretical physicists looking at it. Ronald Mallet is one of them. But there are theories some people say what I don't even, can't even remember which way around it is. Some people say it's possibly going to the past but not the few. or the future but not the past. Right. From the time that you actually invent the time machine,

again, not my area of expertise. Interesting. It's interesting that they point out all of these landmarks that people are sort of fascinated with, myself included, you know, Pyramids of Giza, Machu Picchu. And I guess the implication with that is like, oh, whatever you saw here, we had similar involvement with those things.

I guess that's how people interpret that. Yeah, and that ties in with, ancient astronaut theory. And again, of course, although I tend to be on the show to talk about the more modern UAP sightings, the military ones, I am on ancient aliens as one of the contributors.

And at the heart of that lies ancient astrinal theory, which says that we've been visited in the past by extraterrestrials who are ancestors misperceived as gods who they worshipped and who were taught some things and in honour and remembrance of these visiting gods, you know, constructed these immense, amazing, wonderful monuments. I mean, I'm not sure that I would characterize myself as an ancient astronaut theorist, but obviously I know all the people at the heart of that community

like Eric von Daniken, Georgioszoucalas, and they are fascinating people who've done a real deep dive into all this. Right. Now, as someone that approaches these things with skepticism, right? Like you talk to people, you listen to reports, and you're generally skeptical, and you're kind of like, all right,

let's see if we can explain this through some other means. Your experience talking with this gentleman that recorded the binary, you don't believe that the TV production company that was involved with it in any way altered his record or, you know, paid him or manipulated him to sort of like bend the truth in this specific case? No, he had not even planned to talk about that aspect. It was only when another contributor was reading over his shoulder and they weren't filming at the time. but he had his notebook. And the only reason they wanted the notebook was they wanted,

that's where he did the sketch of the symbols on the side of the craft. And it was while he was thumbing through the book that one of the other contributors was kind of looking over his shoulder and said, hey, Jim, what's that? And I wasn't there at the time, but I heard this story. from both Giam and the other contributor. And it was like he was almost embarrassed, caught out defensive. And he was like, oh, that's the kind of thing, you know, the thing with the ones and the zeros.

So I did not get the sense that he was, I think it was almost by accident that it got out at all. I don't think he'd planned it. So he was kind of outed. There's another complicating factor in all of this, which is that immediately after the incident, he was debriefed himself by Air Force Office of Special Investigations, as were some of the other military witnesses. And what does that mean debriefed? Firstly interviewed and told, OK, do an in debt. interview with an investigator and then write up a formal witness statement. So they did that.

But Colonel Holt has said, and bear in mind, he's the deputy base commander. So, and he retired as a full colonel, he has said that some of the young men under my command at the time were subjected to what he describes as aggressive debriefings, which included the use of regression, hypnosis, and drugs. And this was quite unusual at the time. This was after the church committee. So we had this kind of dark past of MK Ultra and LSD. experiments. And then the church committee looked, I think, at that and put in some guidance about what we should and shouldn't be doing to our own people in terms of experimentation. Now, for the investigators, the Air Force Office of Special Investigations, who a lot of what they do is

criminal investigations within the military, but they do some other things as well, intelligence work. they are allowed I've seen some of the declassified security manuals even post church and they say if you want to use drugs or regressive hypnosis

regression hypnosis you have to seek authority from the chain of command so it does not say that they are completely outlawed it says you need to get that approved from the high-offs And obviously, Colonel Hull has said, this happened to some of my people, and he's pretty angry about it because he wasn't able to protect them. And regression hypnosis is effectively the use of drugs and hypnosis to then relive a memory and experience to try to retell all the specific details, maybe details you forgot or didn't notice the first time around.

Is that fair? Yes. And depending on your view of why it was used, and... And again, they're not mutually exclusive. It's possible that investigators used it with some of the witnesses. Firstly, to uncover repressed or suppressed memories to actually get data on what happened. But it's also possible that these same techniques were used to somehow jumble their memories so that they wouldn't be able to accurately remember some of their subsequent.

in telling the story to other people, which raises the possibility that if you're looking for skeptical explanations to the binary code, that this could be nothing to do with the UFO. It could be some sort of post-hypnotic suggestion introduced by the investigators, almost to discredit. the incident. I mean, this is, you can argue yourself round in circles with this. Does James, the guy that wrote all the binary, does he claim that he went through regression hypnosis? Oh, he, absolutely.

And it's doubly problematic because not only did he go through that Air Force Office of Special Investigations debrief, he and others, other witnesses, which did seem to involve regression, hypnosis, and drugs. And when I say drugs, I mean things like sodium pentothal. What is that? Truth serum, so-called, you know. Those things that suppress your inhibitions, if you're trying to hide something, make you talk more freely.

I don't know exactly how it intersects, whether you would use it simultaneously with regression hypnosis. But the idea is to bring out the story whether you are trying to suppress it or whether you just don't remember some of the details. But sodium pentothal is like some people you say, well, you put on the thumb screws and you could torture someone or you can do it chemically.

And some people say it's far more reliable to do it. it. Now, these regressive hypnosis tactics, is this sort of like fringe speculative conspiracy or is just like documented this was done within the U.S. military at a certain time? Oh, it was done. Yes. And again, Colonel Holt has said, as the deputy base commander, yeah, it was done. Subsequently, though, Jim Peniston and some of the other witnesses, John Burroughs, who was the other witness who got very close. close to this, they were regressed hypnotically by people in the UFO community, by researchers, I mean, afterwards, years afterwards, UFO, civilian UFO researchers and investigators were like,

well, I'm interested in Rendlesham. Would you consent to being regressed again this time, not by the chain of command, but by a hypnotherapy? and we'll see if you can remember. So all of this is both helpful but also unhelpful, if you see what I mean, because it's another level of does this further jumble memories? And add to the fact that we're now over 40 years on. Right, yeah, it can kind of muddy the waters,

especially if you have, you know, I've heard of people doing like, you know, hypnotic like regressions or, you know, past life regressions and things like that. And they truly have kind of. claim that they're able to, through this hypnotic setting, experience things, see things, live a past life, connect with an ancestor. And just like how you and I are talking now, they will explain their experiences being completely real. They were cogent. They were, you know, not unconscious, but they were in this therapist office. When they closed their eyes, they saw a movie and a life that

they, you know, had never lived before. So it's not crazy to me that you can go through some type of hypnotherapy and see things that would be outside of the usual. So I guess the question is what things when you're doing a regression are true recollections of the memory and what things are new memories that are being implanted by the hypnotherapist or just by your mind creating a thought? That's exactly it. And of course, some people will tell you that you get what's called false memory syndrome where memories can actually be jumbled or even,

created, particularly if the person doing the session asks leading questions. Right. And also, depending on your personality type, are you, I mean, when some people are more hypnotically suggestible than others, but others are, and again, this is outside my field of expertise. Sure. Some people are more imaginative. I think you would say part of it is verifiable and part isn't.

So, for example, if you, coming out of this studio, you, coming out of this studio, you, you are, witness a road traffic accident. You see someone, the victim of a hit and run, and you see the car pulling away, it doesn't stop. And the cops interview you. And you say, well, it was a white Prius. And I know there was a three in the registration number, the license plate.

Then you could go to a regression hypnotherapist, whatever, and they would say, you know, come on, Let's try and draw out this memory. And that might be verifiable. And you might be aware. Yeah, there was an L. And again, I don't know if that's, well, it's not magic, but it's, I don't know if it's just the mind.

That information was in there. And these techniques, maybe chemical, maybe hypnotic, maybe combination, can bring them out. And you could say, verify that. if you then say, oh, and by the way, I was Napoleon in a past life. You can't verify that. Yeah, there's no verifiability. Only if, and I don't think this has happened, only if you say, oh, I don't know, I was Napoleon in a past life.

And by the way, I don't think anyone's ever found it. But in my old library, I kept a shopping list and it's in the middle of my book on natural history. and somebody opens up that book, and it's like, wow, there's a thing from Napoleon. But, I mean, that would be, I suppose, a verifiable past life thing. There's actually an interesting Netflix documentary. I haven't had the chance to watch, but a close friend of mine had recommended it to me that kind of goes through that exact ideal. I forget what it's called.

It's on Netflix, and I think it's like near death or something. I can't remember. Or after death, I think is what it's called. And basically it just retails a story of this young kid who's like five, six years old and sees an old like commercial or an old like movie from like I don't know it was like the 60s or 50s and he looks at a guy in the movie and goes oh that's my friend and then he looks sees the Hollywood sign and goes oh that's where I live and he's like this little kid and everyone's like what do you mean that's where you live and he goes that's where I live that's where I was growing

that's where I grew up and everyone's like what and then they go through a book where they're able to find the guy that he claimed was his friend and he goes yep that's my friend that's James and this is my my other friend and her name's Sarah, and that's me. And he points to this guy in the book, who apparently was like an old actor in like the 40s or 50s. And he now, and so he goes through the book and he's able to then describe specific details

from the man's life that some of which are public, but then some of which were not public. And they were able to get in touch with the family of the actor and say, can you confirm that he drove this car? And they go, yes, he did. And can you confirm that, a name that they were considering for their child was this, but it actually got changed to this.

And they go, that is true, none of which was public. And then the most interesting detail is they asked him a question regarding his age. I think they said, how old were you when you had died? And the little kid was able to say, like, oh, I was 79. And the family was like, he was actually 78. And then they went back and checked the records of his death certificate and his birth certificate, and the family was actually wrong. and he actually had died when he was 79.

Wow. So little details like that that were verifiable that were very interesting, and there was like some more research that was put into it, and then as a child grew older into like, you know, post, I guess the age of reason, 7, 8, 9 kind of forgot a lot of the details and these things kind of evaporated their memory. But it's a really interesting documentary that kind of goes into this exact thing that kind of just leaves you kind of vexed, just like, what is all that?

It's very bizarre. But having some type of external validator for a past life or something would be very interesting. But again, harder to scientifically control. Yeah, but no, fascinating. And it is. You can't be interested in one aspect of this and not be interested in another. And sometimes there are these linkages that tie together. And I mean, one example was that we didn't – obviously our turn.

of reference were looking at UAP, but you can't do that, not find yourself the focal point for, if there's anything weird, someone's going to send it to you. So people send you ghost stories about sightings on military bases. Of course. People call up and say, hey, I'm a psychic. I want to put my services to use for British intelligence or something. We did have a remote viewing program actually, or a study, I should say. I did not take part in it. I had some people contact me claiming to be psychics.

And I always used to do this thing. I said, okay, tonight I'm going to go home and I'm going to place an item on the top of my television set. I want you to call at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning and tell me what that object is. And people would always, nobody got it right because I would deliberately choose something very abstract. So people would say, oh, it's a little ornamental part or is it a little figurine of a ceramic thing or whatever. And I would tend to do something really bizarre, like put a bag of sugar on the top. Something that wouldn't traditionally be on top of. or a big pillow, something which is counterintuitive.

Your poor wife coming home. Why is the dog on the TV? I wasn't married at that time, so I could get away with this sort of weird behavior. Yeah, Elizabeth would tell me off of this now, like, what the hell are you doing? But at the time, it was okay. So, I did this, but after I let, and I spoke to people in intelligence, and it's like, well, we knew historically that US government and military did have programs, Sunstreak, Grill Flame, Stargate,

I think those are the names of three remote viewing programs that the US Army and the DIA had, I think, CIA too. I know, and I'm quite friendly with Colonel John Alexander, who is the guy who I think in that, The movie with George Clooney, the men who stare at goats. Oh, yeah, yeah. That's kind of based on Colonel John Alexander, who did a lot of the weird stuff in the US Army.

His former Special Forces, did some UAP work, did remote viewing work. A fascinating guy. I know him, and he was involved in some of these programs. So we knew that the US government had had these programs, And the Ministry of Defence did a study which, like I say, I was aware of it, but I did not take part in it. And it was messed up in terms of the methodology. They got all sorts of things completely wrong about what remote viewing is and how it works. But even then, when there's one declassified study, again, it was secret UK.

UKIs only, which is just one down from top secret. Large parts of it are still redacted, but it is, or the redacted version is out there in the public domain, I think, at the National Archives and or on the Ministry of Defense website. And it does on occasion say the subject may have accessed some aspects of the target. So we do these things. Interesting. And for anyone that doesn't know, remote viewing is effectively, you know, U.S. has had programs, you know, that are declassified that are confirmed on the record that we've attempted to use these things. Is that true?

Yes. What they've kept classified is how effective they are. Right. And whether there are currently any operational remote viewing programs. And remote viewing, I guess, for anyone that doesn't know would be similar to, I guess, what you see in stranger things, the, you know, Netflix TV show in a way where they would basically give a subject. maybe coordinates or some type of place to view, and then the subject would be able to then close their eyes and some would meditate. I guess someone would use sensory deprivation. I guess there's been suggestion that they would use psychedelic drugs or something to that effect to basically unlock the ability to view the shape or the color or the space entirely or in a complete picture of whatever the target they were intended to look at completely remote.

So they could sit in a room in America and look inside a room. in North Korea, purely with their mind, I guess. And these programs have been declassified within the U.S. government that they've tried to use these things. Is that a fair assessment of what it is? Absolutely, yes. Psychic spying, they sometimes call it. And I think there are different methodologies.

Some people say that the best way to do it is not to give your remote viewer the actual target. So you don't say, here's a Russian air base. look inside this hanger, you just say, here are some coordinates. We want you to look at what's at that point. And what do you make of it? Because otherwise you lead them.

Right, right. Yeah, and you can kind of invalidate your own study. So what do you make of this? I mean, within your time of the Ministry of Defense, knowing that these studies have gone on. And I'm sure there's things you can't necessarily say because you might have more access to some of the studies that aren't declassified.

But what do you make of these remote viewing projects? Do you think there's any credence to them? They are classic low probability high impact projects. In other words, even if you're skeptical, the consequences if you get a hit, if any of this works, are such that it is worth you while doing it. So it doesn't necessarily imply universal corporate belief in psychic ability. But it's like, hey, let's give it a try. I mean, it's a dead cheap thing to do. And it's not like you do it in isolation.

You have your satellites. You have your electronic interception. You have your human intelligence sources, your agents. It's like, well, let's try a remote viewer. You know, what have you got to lose? Not much. It's dead cheap compared to launching satellites. So give it a go.

And if it does work, if any of it works, well, great. And that, of course, is the bit that's still classified. In your personal opinion, do you think any of that? has ever remote viewed something successfully? I think so. But, and that's, I'm connected with some of the people involved in, in some of these programs. And even though I think the details are classified, reading between the lines, I do believe they got some hits.

And therefore I do believe that there's still our operational RV programs somewhere in the system, though I suspect that to take them outside the scope. of the Freedom of Information Act, I suspect they're all in the private sector with a kind of dotted line back to the intelligence community. There are ways of hiding those kind of programs. And, you know, I don't even know if there's congressional oversight. Right.

Have you ever heard them testing on children? Yes. Yes. I mean, obviously in the West that... I think the feeling was... The feeling was that the Russians... Russians, or the Soviets, as it was then, were far more advanced at this than we were in the 60s and the 70s. And just as there was talk of a missile gap, there was talk of a psychic gap,

which was, we were aware that the Soviets were, had parapsychology projects, looking at not just remote viewing, but telekinesis. And of course, you could say that the flip side of remote viewing is remote influencing, the idea that you could use the power of your mind to, I don't know, to do physical things. I mean, I guess real dark side stuff, stuff, you see it in the movie Scanners. I mean, you could make people's heads explode. But what if you could, what if you could induce cancer or what if you could induce a heart attack?

Or what if you could change someone's mind or, I don't know. But again, low probability, high impact. It's relatively cheap to do these programs. If you compare them to the huge big projects of introducing a new type of aircraft or launching a ballistic missile submarine or designing and launching a satellite, having a little bit of research into parapsychology, remote viewing telekinesis, is dirt cheap. That's interesting. That is an interesting take on that that I have not heard, that I think a lot of people assume, oh, the government is working on a program or the government conducted a study.

And the government would only do that if they knew that there was something there. So therefore, the fact that they did this study is verifiable proof that these programs are happening, that they're continuing to happen, that they were successful, that the government knows something that we don't know and they're trying to keep it from us. when, in fact, it could just be, as your explanation said, low probability, high impact, hey, let's just invest like $100,000 into this thing and see if anything comes up. And so they might just be turning over all the stones. And just because they did the study,

it doesn't necessarily mean that it is being used, you know, on the U.S. population or that there's some type of larger scale conspiracy at hand. Exactly. The British remote viewing study that I mentioned cost, I think, 44,000 pounds. Yeah. I mean, what's that now?

$50,000, something like that. Okay, it was a little bit more back in the day. But it's peanuts. Yeah, compared to the U.S. military budget. I mean, it's negligible. What is it, $600 billion or something like that? Yeah, it's literally less than a penny probably, proportionally. Yeah.

Yeah, you look at F-35, the unit cost of that. Then you look at the unit cost of one helmet. it that an F-35 pilot wears. And then you say, well, can we do a classified study into remote viewing? Sure, it's chump change. That's interesting. So that gives me a little bit more perspective on why these studies happened. And just because they happen doesn't necessarily mean that they're, you know, that they know something.

It's have a go, you never know. Hmm, interesting. So I guess your personal opinion on it is like, eh, I guess you're not completely sold. I'm not completely sold, but I completely sold on the idea that we should be doing these things. Hmm, interesting. Now, were there any other details of the Rendlesham Forest incident that we didn't discuss the you think are of particular interest? I don't think so.