Camp Gagnon - UFO Insider Reveals Most INSANE UFO Photo Ever Captured

Episode Date: March 28, 2024

Nick Pope is BACK! He's 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 Bob Lazar and David Grusch, interdimensional aliens, and the most credible photo of a UFO ever captured, The calvine photo. WELCOME TO CAMP!Edited and produced by @99OvrAll Join our Discord community:🚀 / discord Sing up for exclusive updates: 📩 https://camp.beehiiv....

The UFO community had never heard of this. August 2nd, 1990, two individuals saw a large diamond-shaped craft hovering a couple of 100 feet. They took six photographs. They then contacted a newspaper and said, you're not going to believe this. The newspaper contacted the Ministry of Defense and said, hey, these two guys, you've seen a UFO, they've got photos. We'd like a line as to what you think this is. Happy to give you a line. But in order to do that, we're going to need the photos and the negatives. Big mistake.

The newspaper parted with all of that and never got them back. Wow. What exactly happened is a little bit murky. I'm choosing my words very carefully. There is some suggestion of threats. What I will tell you is that one time I went to an intelligence briefing, the briefer pulled out the real photo. He said, take this picture, for example.

It's not the United States. It's not Russia. And that only leaves. Nick Pope, what's up, man? I'm really excited to talk. You have a very interesting career. You spent 21 years working within the British Ministry of Defense, many of those years working specifically on the unit for UFO and unidentified aircrafts. And I have a lot of stuff I want to talk to you about. I want to talk to you about what you think about Bob Lazar and the whistleblower David Grush. I want to look at these leaked photographs that you have, or alleged classified photographs that you may or may not be in possession of. And I would like for you to explain the whole story, show us the pictures. But before we get to all that, I would like to know what you think about this. lot of people have sort of postulated that aliens, or what we know as aliens, might be interdimensional beings. So I'm curious, what are your thoughts on that and do you have any experience with that topic?

Well, in string theory, so posited by people like Michiokaku, and there are different, I think there are three different versions of string theory. There's super string theory, M theory, whatever it is. again, I think you've had astrophysicists on your show, so they know this, not me. But in order for string theory equations to actually work, you actually need the existence of other dimensions. I think some versions of string theory require there to be 10,

dimensions, some, you know, in addition to the four that we know about. And of course, so that some versions require 10, I think some maybe 11, some 22 or something like that, whatever it is. But they are required if this is to hang together. And they are actively looking for them, of course, at places like the Large Hadron Collider, the big particle accelerator in Europe. they are looking for, you know, scientifically looking for repeatable evidence of these hidden dimensions. I don't think they've found it yet. Also, we have a number of recent stories that caught my eye.

I mean, people talk about closing in on a possible fifth fundamental force of nature. we have obviously electromagnetic, gravitational, strong nuclear and weak nuclear. People are now talking about a fifth fundamental force, just I think called the fifth force because they haven't named it yet. Whoever finds experimental proof might yet to name it, I don't know.

Then you have the fact that a lot of people will say that visible matter is only 9, pardon me, 5% basically of all the material in the universe that 95% of the stuff in the universe is either dark matter or dark energy, neither of which we have yet found. So how this ties in with ideas of other dimensions,

with ideas of parallel universes, I think they're not necessarily the same thing or multiverse. There are connections between some of these things. Sometimes maybe it's just labels. Other times they are different concepts. Again, it would take someone far smarter than me to explain it adequately.

And of course, the point is we haven't explained it. And I just saw, I mean, literally, I think yesterday news broke that they want to build the successor to the large Hadron Collider. Oh, really? Where? In Switzerland.

So basically around the existing one, and this would be called future particle accelerator, and would cost something like $70 billion, say $15 billion. And this is where you contemplate your own mortality because it's like, well, this would be done in two stages. the first, some of it might be operational as soon as 2040. And then it says, and come fully online perhaps in the 2070s. And then you think, I might not see that. That's wild. Kind of disappointing.

Yeah. Unless I come back, that's one of the young physicists working on it. Maybe. Yeah, you might be able to come back eyes of our eyes. You know what I mean? You might be able to be on that craft and go check it out. Hey, what's up, guys? Sorry to interrupt this amazing process.

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. That's very interesting. It's very interesting. All these different potential theories. Do you think it's possible that multiple things are happening at once? I've heard. heard the theory that, quote unquote, aliens, everyone tries to lump all of these phenomena into one thing. They try to say, oh, if you see something in the sky that you don't know what it is, it is aliens. Whereas religious people will say, it is demons. Whereas, you know, simulation theorists will say it is a glitch in the simulation. Whereas I've heard some people say it could be many things, that there could be aliens that exist, and there could also be demons that exist. And both of them or interacting within our reality. And there could be dimension hopping, you know, travelers that are coming in.

And all of these things could be happening simultaneously. What do you think of that idea? Absolutely agree. Yeah. I mean, if you have aliens, it doesn't then rule out the possibility that you have time travelers from the future. And those time travelers from the future could be future humans. Or if another civilization has discovered the secret of viable interstellar travel, maybe they've figured out time travel too.

So you could have time traveling extraterrestrials. And again, in a universe nearly 14 billion years old, even taking account of the fact that you likely couldn't have anything for the first few billion years because you need that first cycle of star creation and then destruction to create heavy elements that you would need for life. life and to build things. Notwithstanding that, there could be civilizations out there with a billion years head start on us.

And you think in relation to our own technology, you think what does a 200 year gap in technology look like? And you think, well, it looks like going from sail ship and horse and buggy to stealth fighter and space probe. That's what a 200-year technology gap looks like. What does a billion-year technology gap look like? Inconceivable. Yeah, that's very interesting.

And what about your thoughts on, like, consciousness? That these aliens or these things that people are describing as aliens are actually features of our consciousness, that they're not actually existing in a physical realm, but they're existing within our mind collectively, perhaps. Have you heard this idea? It's a little new age, but I'm curious where your thoughts are. I don't know enough about consciousness.

I don't, and I'm not, maybe this isn't too bad a thing. I'm not even sure what consciousness is, but I'm at the same time, I'm not sure that neuroscientists necessarily agree on what consciousness is. At what point does, and this gets us into a whole other discussion about it. I mean, what is consciousness? Is it being self-aware? and what is that? Does consciousness arise from the structure of the brain?

And is there something different about human consciousness to animal consciousness? Does it exist as a spectrum or binary? Yeah. I mean, humans and certain animals can pass the mirror test, I guess. Elizabeth and I live, well, we live now in Manhattan, but we have a home in the desert in Tucson on the edge of the National Park

and we see a lot of wildlife. The more you see wildlife, the less special you think humans are. And if you see a rabbit being chased by a coyote, you can kind of maybe intellectually understand what might be, even though you know you can never understand. And there's even a very famous philosophical paper about this.

I think it's about bats, but on the other hand, you can kind of think it's not impossible to envisage the fear that that rabbit might be experiencing, the threat that it perceives, the putting everything into that desperate attempt to escape. And so is any of that, I mean, I know we're going off topic here, but I don't, I don't, I don't. don't know what consciousness is. I don't know what sentience is. Obviously, there's a lot of talk now about AI and... Right. General artificial intelligence. Yeah. And is, I'm, and is a sufficiently good copy that's indistinguishable from the original? Is it really a copy? Does it matter? So, in other words, if a machine simulates sentience to the extent that you can't tell the difference, and I think we're way beyond the Turing test by now, but is it, to all intents and purposes, alive, aware?

And does it even matter? I mean, if you can't ever tell, I mean, if we, if in a few decades time, we have perfectly humaniform robots with AI AI so good that we really can't tell the difference even if you cut them up. Yeah, I've just heard people, I've had a few people on this show that have talked about their experiences sort of interacting with UFOs or UAPs.

And one of the things that they, two of them kind of specified is that they felt that there was like an overlay on their consciousness for what they saw. That they saw these things. but they understood that they weren't in a physical reality, but that they were sort of apparating on top of their consciousness, I guess in the way that like, almost like if you saw like a, if you stared at a light and then looked away

and you could kind of still see the light visible in your field of vision, even though you're not looking at it. You're familiar with that phenomenon, right? That they would describe it as that, but they're able to see people or messages in that way. And these things have kind of coincided with their experience with UFOs, And then they go outside and they said that they could see actual flying craft that they claim were physical. But the way that my friend James described is he says that they were happening almost simultaneously,

that there was a physical component, but then there was also a component imprinted on his consciousness. I found it very interesting. It was just a singular case of just one person. And I'm curious with your experience sort of interviewing people that have claimed to have seen things, has that ever come up? Yes, it has. And I mean, there is a whole intersection between the UFO community and the new, age community. And again, I think people have known this since the 60s.

There's an intriguing, there are some linkages between advanced theoretical physics, fringe science ideas, and sort of mind, body, spirit, stuff, the tower of physics or all that kind of intersection between yin and yang and consciousness, whatever that might be. And then you get into the really spooky stuff, like the observer affecting the result of the experiment. Right, on a quantum level. Quantum level, spooky action at a distance. But then it comes back to the fact that if it's now a mainstream belief that 95% of the universe is dark matter and dark energy, i.e. stuff that not only can we not see, but that we have simply not found.

Where is it? Not only is it unobservable, it's undetectable. It's undetectable. We don't even know what it is, if I'm getting that right. It's not like they are particles, but you can deduce them because of their effect on other particles which you can observe. This is stuff that we've not found. And if 95% of the universe is dark matter and dark energy that we've not yet found, we don't even know what it is, are these ideas about consciousness

and how that might interact with UAP and some of these other phenomena that we call paranormal, is that too far-fetched? No, I don't think so. I think just as people are one of the great skeptical objections, oh, this is contrary to the laws of physics, to which the response should be, well, it's contrary to the laws of physics as we currently understand those laws, but our understanding

is constantly evolving and changing as we observe new things, as we design, come out with new theories, design experiments to test them and apply the scientific method. Are you familiar with CE5? Have you heard of this?

What, the close encounters of the fifth kind where you try to initiate contact. Exactly. Yes. What is your thought on that? There's an old saying in the intelligence analysis community, interesting if true. That's my assessment. Again, should people try it?

Absolutely. Have a go, you never know. Why wouldn't you want to try? But you would, and this is the more grounded, skeptical side of me, you would then need to bring back the verifiable, the verifiability of it. So it's like, like I said, you know, Napoleon, if you were Napoleon in a past life, point to which one of your books has your last shopping list that you didn't share with Josephine. Right.

And even that might just be a, might be a long shot, but it might just be a guess. Right. Or whatever. But is there something really truly verifiable and repeatable that not with the shopping list, but with some of this other stuff, the CE5s? Could you, I mean, Michiukaku says in relation to abduction and alien contact, well, next time you're on the ship, steal something off of it and come back with the start handle or something that says made in Alpha Centurite. Yeah, yeah.

And I mean, it's a kind of lighthearted glib comment, but it's, it actually does get to the heart of what we need, whether it's literally something like that or something else. And it comes, it's the other thing about the channeled information. Why is it that all the channeled information and all the telepathic warnings from the abductees? It's all the general stuff. It's all we worried about humanity and your nuclear. weapons and what you're doing to the environment and you need to and then you get these phrases that I don't know what they mean is like you need to raise the level of your raise your vibrational level and all of that it's never here's the solution to P versus NP that

that well-known computer science problem. And you can go to Wikipedia and look at all these 100 unsolved problems in mathematics. If somebody really had a message for humanity that they wanted us to act on, like don't pollute your environment. Don't blow yourself up with nukes. Instead of saying this is the voice of the Galactic Federation, greetings, earth, people, you'd say, this is the voice of the Galactic Federation, greetings earth people.

Here is the solution to P versus N.P. Right. Now, about those nukes and about your environment. Right. Here's how you make perpetual energy. Here's how you do this. Yeah. Because that would be your, wait a minute, this isn't just some new age stuff.

This is real. This is verifiable. And people say, well, it violates the primary. directive, well, if they want us to act on it and they're passing us a message of that violates the prime directive, does it not? What is the prime director? Well, from Star Trek, you know, the idea that you shouldn't interfere in the development of another civilization.

The prime directive that Captain Kirk broke every single episode and Picard and Janeway and pretty much all of them because otherwise you would have no no episode. The show is breaking the prime director. Yeah, otherwise it would be like just. watch, don't interfere. Stupid. Interesting. So, yeah, I guess any type of communication would be breaking it. So why wouldn't they just break it for whatever their explicit purposes?

Yeah. If you have a warning that you want humanity to act on, whether it's nuclear, environmental, species extinction, whatever it might be, or even brotherly and sisterly love, preface that message with, here is the solution to one of... the big math problems that's currently unsolved. Here are the equations. And you look at it, you would be able to say, well, this is real.

And then if the message was, we implore the people of planet Earth to take care of the biodiversity of your planet. And we see all these species going, extinct every year, this is a bad thing we're watching. People would pay far more attention. Right. And they would act on it.

And even political leaders, because it would be like, wow, this is not just some new age person. Somebody is communicating from somewhere else, whether it's another part of the universe, whether it's another time, whether it's another dimension, whatever it is. Right. And if they're so intelligent, they should be able to communicate to us in a way that we would understand and be aware of how we understand things. And so they could make the message palatable in a way that would be comprehensible to us in our current form. You would think. Yes, you would think. And again, it's if we are dealing with an advanced civilization or multiple advanced civilizations, why should there just be one? It is one of the few good assumptions that they would have to do the heavy lifting in any interactive relationship. Right, of course.

I'm talking to a child. I'm going to change the way I'm speaking so that they understand what I'm saying. Yes. Right. Because I'm more intelligent than a child sometimes. Yeah, there's no point relaying a message that somebody could never understand. You might as well not bother. And you would be at the intellectual level where you would know there is.

no way that the less advanced party could understand that message. This is interesting. So given your perspective, I think the way that you've kind of approached this is like really leveled. I actually am, I think this is like very, I've, I sense a lot of personal common ground with kind of your perspective. So how do you, moving away from what you know and sort of into what your opinion is in terms of understanding a framework of how these things operate? You see all these files. You work in this department. You get all of these stories. You interview people that have seen these things, some of them credible, some of them, you know, uncredible. What is your personal framework for how to, you know, digest these things? Or do you just

say, oops, I don't know, we'll, you know, we'll find out one day. Like, what is your personal philosophy about what this could be? I think you, part of it is that fatalistic. This is probably beyond me, us, humanity. This is an events-led scenario where if we are the junior partner, we are likely not going to have a say in this. If we are being interacted with by a civilization that might be a billion years ahead of us, we are probably not going to be able to serve them up on a plate and deliver that proof to Congress and the American people unless they want that proof to be delivered and unless they are

leaving us gifts you know seeding us technology whatever it is so part of me is a little nonchalant about this and well it will just pan out

it either will or won't and little we can do is going to affect that But I might be wrong. And again, low probability, high impact. What if we are interacting with a civilization that is not a billion years ahead of us, even if there are civilizations like that out there. But what if there are multiple civilizations and ones just a few thousand years ahead or something?

Why not have a go, try and unlock. the secret, try and unpick this, expose this, whatever. And even if we can't, if we think this is real at some level, let's not ignore it. Let's not debunk it. Let's at least say, look, this is a thing. And that's kind of where we are right now, I think, with the US government and particularly with Congress saying, look, UAP is a thing. This is not just misidentification. and censor error, there does seem to be something that goes into the other category. Let's make an effort to find out what that is. And the other point, why this is important, what I believe and where my focus is at the moment,

let's think about the societal implications of that. I mentioned earlier, we talked about religion. This, if it's revealed later this year that we're not alone, and there's evidence of other civilizations out there. What does that mean? What does that mean for who we are? Right. What are our places in the cosmos?

And for religion. There's a question I asked to Richard Dolan. I said, you know, did Christ die for aliens? Right? Like, if we believe that Christ died for all of humanity on Earth, do these things, are they human? They might be more intelligent than us. What if they're not human, but more intelligent?

Or did Christ only die for us? Or is it for all things above an intelligence threshold? What are the implications religiously? And I don't know if any major religion has really a, I guess, a thoughtful, holistic answer on that question. The Catholic Church have done and are in the process of doing a deeper dive into it than most of the other religions that I'm aware of. Theologians like Ted Peters have looked at it. People like Danny Sheehan, who's a Jesuit, have looked at it. the Catholic Church have issued theological pronouncements on it.

In 2007, 2008, the then-director of the Vatican Observatory said there is no doctrinal existence, pardon me, there is no doctrinal objection to the existence of alien life because man may place no creative limits upon God. on the other hand the objection that you articulated this idea of well did christ die on a billion worlds or just for us and and if christ died on a billion worlds but only once on this world why for humans and not for the the birds or the you know the rats or and you get into i mean you in one of the fascinating books that I often dip into is the Peter Aykroyd's biography of Sir Thomas More. And what people forget about those times was how deeply religious people were and how religion affected almost every aspect of people's lives

and how they had these detailed, esoteric, but perfectly deadly, if you got it wrong, serious debates about things like if Christ had been so minded could he have incarnated in the form of a donkey which almost sounds heretical now but I mean people scholars and theologians were

seriously discussing those sorts of things and there was a very fine line between I guess theological legitimate theological debate and heresy that would get you burned so you had to tread carefully but the theological implications of this would be immense.

Although Catholics who've thought about this say, building on that quote, from Gabriel Fuenez, I think, say, oh, we'd have no problem with it because to us it would just show that the glory of God's creation was even more expansive than we previously realized. There's a whole universe of life out there.

Some skeptics say, come on that point about the unique position that the resurrection and that the resurrection specifically for the sins of humanity and not even for other animals, you know, that would be a doctrinal sticking point. Yeah. Are you familiar with Alistair Crowley? Yes. Have you ever seen his sketches of... I have lamb. Yeah, lamb. So this is something I came across fairly recently that I I thought was quite interesting that Alastair Crowley obviously dubbed as the most wicked man ever. And he's a famed occultist and maybe a Satanist. I don't want to put that on him.

But he was someone that was basically using his ritual and quote unquote mystical power to try to interact and convene with a force beyond what we're aware of. And he claims to have downloaded or possessed intimate knowledge about the world three. through an entity that he claims was, I guess, demonic, that he called Lamb, L-A-M. Yes. And drew a picture of what he claimed lamb looked like. And for all intents and purposes, and we can show it on the screen now, looks like an alien, right, in the way that we would just commonly describe these gray beings, quote unquote. And I just thought it was interesting. I mean, for nothing else.

I grew up quite Catholic and religious, so this idea of demons wasn't too foreign to me, you know, as a... as a child and even into my adolescence. I'm like, maybe, who knows? So I guess my question is, you know, when you see that, do you think there's, is that interesting to you? Does that, what does that spark in you? Yeah, it's very interesting. And as you say, the large bulbous head, the commanding eyes,

it's not a million miles away from sketches that abductees have come up with of gray aliens. It's not that dissimilar to the front of Whitley Streber's book, communion that did a lot to put this in the pop culture and yet it it predates it by decades and Alistair Crowley is an interesting and controversial character of course does did have some linkages with British intelligence had some very strong linkages with is it Jack Parsons who who was of course one of co-founders I believe of JPL one of the one of the great rocket pioneers in the United States was arguably a disciple of Crowley. Again, you can join the dots between a lot of these personalities.

And again, does this suggest a link between the phenomenon of UAP, whatever that might be, and something demonic? Or are all of these just labels and words that we put on things reflecting our own language, We can only use the words that we know. Our cultural background and context. Our belief systems, whether they're religious, secular, whatever they are. I mean, arguably these are,

I often use this analogy. You wake up in the middle of the night. There's a shadowy figure at the foot of your bed. If you're a euphologist, it's like, help, I'm being abducted. If you're religious, you're like, is it an angel? a demon and a manifestation of the Blessed Virgin Mary. If you're a paranormal researcher, is it a ghost? Is it all of those things?

Or none of those things? Or, you know, again, it's words and labels. But going back to this idea of the technology gap and maybe the understanding gap, is it something forever beyond our conceptualization at our current level? I mean, the ape human split of five million years ago or whatever, you cannot now explain quantum physics to a chimpanzee.

Can we understand the phenomenon now as modern humans, or is it something that like chimpanzees and quantum physics, it's just impossible that we would ever get it as we currently are. Right. If this civilization is a billion years in the future, they might be farther from us than we are to chimpanzees.

Yeah, which is like, and people, I mean, this is totally off topic, but I think it was in, maybe it was one in Tim Urban's kind of, or Stephen Pinker or someone. Someone very interesting pointed out that

there is more time that separates Cleopatra from us than then separates Cleopatra from the construction of the pyramids. Yeah. And so time, I mean, that's just sort of verifiable scientific. We are closer to Cleopatra than she is to the pyramid. Yes.

Right. I was not articulating it as well as you just did. But things like that play with your head. Right. And it feeds back into ideas of our puny linear concept of time. and our inability to maybe conceptualize what a billion year technology gap would look like. Right, absolutely.

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 result in another's settlement. And that's why I got to talk to you about Morgan and Morgan. Morgan and 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've ever

drove down I-90 from Florida to New York, I'm telling you, you've seen the billboards. 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 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 zero dollars?

That's how much it costs to submit a claim with Morgan and Morgan. Extremely easy. No fee required. 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-O-R-the-people.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 the question I'm curious about is, do you think we are ready for disclosure? And what does that look like? What are the implications of that? I know you've spent a lot of time thinking about that specific question. Three or four years ago, my answer would have been absolutely, we're ready, bring it on. And I would have been in a very much let the chips fall where they may.

We can handle it. And I believed in a sort of societal resilience, robusticity, whatever you call it. And now, I'm sure you can tell where I'm going with this. I think, do we have a. any other recent examples of something that came suddenly and unexpectedly and fundamentally impacted every aspect of our lives and sent things down a completely different route. And we do. And it was, of course, the COVID pandemic. And I look back at our, not at the COVID pandemic, at our response to the COVID pandemic.

pandemic, our response at every level, at government level, federal, at a sort of one-down level, I guess, health authorities, city, authorities, organizations, and individual. So really, at all levels of society. And I say, I wonder if we are ready for discussion. Because, firstly, we don't know what disclosure will look like because we don't know what it will bring. So, in other words, it's kind of, I've rethought things. It's like there is a big box and you're in a room with it. And the lid is going to be lifted off. And you might think, yeah, I'm ready.

for that. But are we? What's in the box? People say, well, disclosure, it's just aliens, but is it? This is a story with an 80-year bank story. This is a story where you could say that government's secrecy about UAP, even if you think it's extraterrestrial, might be because you don't want an adversary to get the technology. But you could ring fence it. And you could say there's an extraterrestrial presence. But we're not going to publish any details of the craft because we don't want an adversary getting our hands on that, and reverse engineering it,

and anything that's high tech, high energy, interstellar travel, can probably be weaponized. And we just want to be careful. But you could reinfence it. So is there something about, the phenomenon, whether it's extraterrestrial or whatever it is, in and of itself, that is a little bit dark side, is a little bit, well, we can't disclose it because if you disclose X, you have to then reveal or you just automatically reveal why because the two are inextricably linked. And is it some

dark side secret like they're demons or they made us or you know what or it is just a simulation and they're about to pull the plug whatever it is so back to the the you're in a room with a box do you lift the lid well you think yeah maybe but what if there's a lion in there or i mean i'm just freestyling this but but i'm not sure and and covid tells me that look a pandemic was not exactly unanticipated. We had contingency plans for what to do

and we have had global pandemics before and yet I have this sense. I don't know whether you agree or not and I see lots of different opinions out there. I mean it was a very real

and deadly disease and did kill a lot of people but the world went collectively mad in a way that I think went beyond that. And we still don't know all the pieces of the puzzle, all the data and some of the data points are disputed. But we haven't ever really unraveled, died of versus died with. There isn't perhaps sad, though,

every death is for the person involved in their family. a perception of quite what the median age of COVID deaths was in Western societies, or how things like obesity and pre-existing conditions played into this. And yet everyone went collectively mad, screaming at each other. If a mask slipped below the nose outside, when outside transmission on a casual basis, was never really a thing. And my point is, if we went collectively mad for something that's hardly unanticipated or without precedent, what might happen with an unknown where there really might be a dark side that does or might represent an existential threat

or might represent a secret too terrible to be told. So now, unlike if we were having this interview four years ago, my answer to the question, are people ready for it is I'm not so sure they are, particularly as we don't know what it is. Are we ready for the government saying, my fellow Americans, people of the world, we're not alone? Sure. But are we ready for the second part of that speech? if that takes us somewhere deeply dark.

Right. I don't know that we are. What are some hypothetical dark secrets that secondary disclosure could have? Are we alone? No. What are some potential playouts that you think would be particularly insidious?

Well, I think with the theological and religious implications of this and to what it might do, I mean, we see how people melt down over religion and do unspeakable things in its name anyway, if that whole thing unravels, but not in a good way that everyone accepts and says, okay, you know, we were wrong, we'll get on, because people wouldn't do that. I think that's one thing that we could agree on.

It could spark a holy war. It could spark a holy war. It could, you know, one answer to your question of what could that be. It could be the extraterrestrials are real. They're visiting. Oh, and by the way, they may. made us. Planet Earth is just a science experiment. It's one of a billion worlds that they've seeded and we're nothing special. We're just, you know, yeah. There's nothing divine about the

way that we were created. We're an ecosystem on a shelf. Yeah, exactly. So that's one example. A variation on that theme is simulation theory, but where it's some extraterrestrial or interdimensional intelligence that has just created this simulation that we call the universe. And so that would be one thing which might fall into that category of what might be a truth too terrible to be told or something that would lead to a sort of societal meltdown which would make the response to COVID

look like a walk in the park and so that it could be that it could be going back to yeah it could be they are demonic right which obviously is kind of carry with a lot of baggage or there might be using human beings or

tracking us or abducting us and we don't really have anything to we don't have any recourse against it? That might exactly be it. And we haven't really talked much about abduction, but it's arguably a, I don't know whether you would say it's a subset of this. But it's part of the conversation when we talk about UAP. It's not necessarily the conversation that you want to have with Congress if you're trying

to get them to take it seriously because I think it's one thing to frame this in terms of safety and flight and national security where you could say, well, It might be China, it might be Russia, it might be something else. And you can kind of leave that hanging and get them in through that door. But if you say, and by the way, about these abductions, it's a bridge too far at the moment. But in response to the question, what might the dark side be? It might be. This is just a farm.

And we're being harvested for something. Right. Yeah. And if people are going to politicize a viral infection. or respiratory illness, they're going to politicize, obviously, some type of disclosure, whatever the implication is. Maybe they're perfectly friendly, but immediately it's going to become some type of tool for derision amongst the population, especially within America. Yes, at the moment, the subject of UAP is refreshingly bipartisan. I think you could say that for every Marco Rubio, there's a Kirsten Gillibrand.

But there are cracks starting to appear in that, I sense. When the Schumer-Rounds amendment to the 2024 National Defence Authorisation Act was being debated, and this was multiple UAP-related provisions that had been drafted to go into the defence bill, the narrative now is that a group of Republicans sabotaged that. And I just get the sense that the bipartisan nature of this is beginning to wobble and that as we're now in an election year with all sorts of other things playing out in relation to that, which will likely ensure that this election is the most fractious and contentious of all time to have this whole year. UAP narrative and the sense that maybe the bipartisan nature of that conversation is breaking down and it's going to be politicized is another worry. That's interesting. Yeah.

I'm curious what your thoughts are about the abductions. I've obviously spoken to some people who have claimed to have been abducted. A friend of mine, Jay King, came on the show. He's actually a resident of New York and he runs a group for experiencers, people that have experienced. things that he would consider high strangeness, alien abductions, things like that. And he came on the show and gave me a very long and detailed explanation of getting pulled out of his bed, being taken onto a ship, being completely paralyzed, being probed, feeling uncomfortable, going back, he claims that his wife saw it.

It's a remarkable story and extremely compelling. And he claims that it happened, you know, over a period of years and that they were tracking him and that he was able to recount things that only other people that have experienced that would be able to know that he's never publicly put out there. And I listen to it, and I don't know what to make of it.

I'm obviously highly skeptical, but it's the story and his conviction is compelling regardless. He gets emotional at points, and to me it just is, it's interesting sitting across from someone that is so certain of their experience and telling it to you with full confidence. I believe he believes,

whatever happened to him. But I'm curious, what do you make of that? And did you ever have experiences come across your desk and your time with the Ministry of Defense that would, I guess, other make you believe or disbelieve that idea? I certainly had people report those sorts of experiences, both when I was doing that, pardon me, both when I was doing that job at the Ministry of Defense

and subsequently in a private capacity, once my name got known in relation to this subject, And absolutely, like you mentioned with Jay, these people are, for the most part. I mean, as with most things in life, there will be some fantasists. There will be some charlatans. But most of the people telling these stories seem to be entirely sincere. Absolutely, I would say, believe what they believe. Now, the question then becomes, did it have?

happen in what, I hasten, I'm trying not to use the word real because I think that opens another can of worms. Did it happen in the physically observable universe is a way, maybe a better way of putting that. Or, and we've discussed things like consciousness, we've discussed things like other dimensions. Did it happen in a way that's real, but not maybe in a physically observable way but may nonetheless involve genuine interaction between the individuals concerned and a phenomenon of some kind, whether that's an intelligence or whether it's something else. I can't call that. Again, with my sceptical hat on stealing Mishio Kaku's joke, I would say, well, next time steal something off of the ship, but maybe that's unreal.

If this is a civilization, a billion years ahead of us, I'm sure they're wise to that. And if they don't want to leave evidence behind, they won't. So you can argue this around in circles, but I'm aware of the cases. I've met many individuals and most of them are completely sincere. As are the UFO witnesses, as people like Jim Penniston, who we've discussed a lot, absolutely sincere and again not the heroes in their own stories. Right yeah it's a

vulnerable and kind of almost a masculine experience. Yes these people are the victims in their stories now you could say psychologists might say some people have those sorts of fantasies whether they're you know I mean

without wanting to get into to really dark side stuff but rape fantasies or fantasies of being you know, tied up or whatever. Some people do have those fantasies, I guess, as a fetish or something. Does any of that play itself out here?

I'm not convinced. I can't rule it out. But I think the more pertinent point is these people don't write themselves as the heroes in their own stories. You know, I was on the ship, but I escaped. I outwitted them.

I beat up the animal. millions. Yeah. Often they come away with a sort of almost a middle ground of a puzzlement. It's like something happened. I don't quite know this, this and that. It has a smack of reality to it because in some sense they're certainly not the heroes of the stories. Sometimes they're not complete victims either.

It's not there are some graphic details and people joke about anal probes and things. but it doesn't tend to be like a sexual fantasy it is. It may have elements of that. Sexual psychologists would maybe have something to say about that. But it doesn't go full on down that route. So does that mean it has the smack of something real about it, possibly? What is that? I don't know.

I've heard that there's, again, this is an idea that was floated to me. I can't necessarily, you know, put this on anyone that's had this experience, but I just heard it as a hypothesis that some people are basically using it as like a memory reassembly of a trauma that they experienced. Have you heard that idea? Yes, I have. And it's interesting because it brings up the question of John Mack, who was a professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School.

And he, I mean, actually. Actually, he was a Pulitzer Prize winner. He wrote a Pulitzer Prize winning biography of Lawrence of Arabia called A Prince of Our Disorder. And I have not read it, I confess. But I knew John. I met him maybe half a dozen times over the years. He's dead now. He was, tragically, he was knocked over and killed by a car in the U.S.

UK after giving a talk at the T.E. Lawrence Society. Wow. But he was a world-renowned professor of psychiatry at Harvard who was challenged by Bud Hopkins, who was a New York-based artist, modern artist, who had an interest in the abduction phenomenon, and did a lot of pioneering work on it. And he said, come and take a look at these cases. And John said, well, they're probably just disguised memories of childhood sexual abuse.

And he took a look at all of this, started to meet with some of the people, interviewed them. And he very controversially came. to the opinion that these people were interacting with an extraterrestrial intelligence. And instead of the skeptical argument, which is, well, this is just jumbled memories of child sex abuse that's playing itself out in the context of modern talk of UFOs and aliens, he said, I wonder if some so-called memories of childhood sexual abuse could actually

actually be alien abduction reports. He published this. He published this. On the record, he got into a disagreement with the authorities at Harvard over his methodology. Danny Sheehan, who if you haven't interviewed him, you should interview. He's a very interesting character. He's a lawyer. He was interviewed, going way back, he interviewed,

involved in the Pentagon Papers case. Jesuit, who's subsequently done work on the theological implications of UAP and disclosure. He's also legally represented people, whistleblowers like Lou Alizondo, and he represented John Mack. when the dean, I think it was at Harvard, tried to censure him for his work on the alien abduction story. But yeah, absolutely. There is a debate about this.

I don't know whether John was right or wrong on that. And of course there are, then there's the whole satanic panic that we had in, what was it, the 80s? Yeah, 80s. Yeah. that is at least something which I think people discussing abductions and UAP should be aware of, particularly in relation to regression hypnosis and its problems in terms of false memory syndrome. Wow.

So there's a lot, there's a lot in all of this. But yeah, John Mack was, as I say, world-renowned. professor of psychiatry at Harvard who came to the conclusion that alien abduction was a real thing. Wow. I've never heard that before. That's really interesting. It's just there are, this is, I am really pleased that UAP has gone from fringe to mainstream. But there's a whole bunch of people, good people, who are new to this subject as either witnesses, say pilots who've seen things or government people who've run programs or like just people in the field now, researchers, investigators, commentators, who just don't know the backstory.

I mean, I mentioned this is something with an 80-year backstory. The fact that until you asked, I hadn't even thought to mention John Magg. And then we can't wait. There's a professor of psychiatry at Harvard. who looked into abduction and said it's real. There are whole parts of the backstory like that that the people currently looking at this either don't know about at all

or are only vaguely aware, which is why this subject is so multifaceted and rich and nuanced and that's a good thing, but it's also a bad thing because it's almost impossible to get a, get a good overview of all of it. Right. Because there's always this,

wait, what about this and what about that? Yeah, and some of it, I'm sure, it's in some capacity, conflicts with one another and leads to debate and everyone trying to be right rather than pursue the, I guess, the truth

or what is actually happening. 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 nicotine from 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 Zippics. 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 reading this 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 zippix 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 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 can. currently vape or use cigarettes, and they can probably help you too. Make your lungs happy and try Zippics nicotine toothpicks. Ditch the cigarettes, ditch the vape, get a nicotine-fused 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-N-E-N-E-N-E-N-E-N-E-L-Longed. 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-Nicine toothpicks. And let's get back to the show.

So I'm curious about other characters that you had mentioned that now are in the mainstream fold that have kind of brought the UAP discussion into, you know, pop culture. I'm curious, what are your thoughts about Bob Lazar? Bob, of all the people who've had a profound influence on this, he's the one I know least about. I think not even sure I've met him. and if I did it was only once and very briefly when we were both at a conference and I'm not sure that we got to interact much if at all this is now my false memory syndrome

and so did Bob Lazar work at Area 51? Yes I think Los Alamos as well well most people say that he did work at Area 51 but I think that some aspects of his claims, the rest of, I mean all of the aspects of his claims about extraterrestrials are just unverified. And there are some suspicions that he either lied about

or somehow confabulated some parts of his own background. But I mean, you know, simple things like who was your professor at MIT that you would expect to know. seem not to pan out. And that's obviously deeply problematic. Right. Interesting. So do we have verification of, I mean, people now are saying, well, David Grush's claims validate Bob Lazar's claims.

Well, A, I'm not sure that they do. And B, David Grush's claims have not been validated. They are, I think, in many respects, much stronger than Bob Lazars claims, but maybe I'm getting ahead of myself in like talking about various individuals. I'm sure we're going to talk about David Grush. Yeah, yeah. That's a great segue. I'm curious. What are your thoughts about David Grosch and his testimony? Is the real deal for sure. I mean, I don't think there's any doubt about his intelligence community background and about his intelligence community background on this specific issue. He was the, you. He was the,

the National Reconnaissance Office and National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, representative on the UAP Task Force at the time Jay Stratton was director. I don't think anyone disputes that. And I don't think anyone disputes that he was given this mission. Go find and talk to the people. who say these programs, these legacy programs, crash retrieval, reverse engineering are real. Go find them, go interview them.

And he apparently talked to around 40 people. And I've spoken to three, the week that David Grush's story came out. Now, I've not met David Grush. I've not spoken to him. I've not corresponded with him. I was not aware of him prior to him coming forward and speaking out. But on the week when his testimony and he came into the public domain,

I spoke to three different former members of the intelligence community with direct knowledge and experience of these sorts of handling UAP in government. And they said, yeah, yeah, I know Dave. Yeah, he did this. So he is who he says he is. And in relation to the UAP task force did what he said he did, and whether those claims, whether what he's being told is true or not, I don't know.

And people have speculated, could he be a deliberate part of a deception operation of some sort? intelligence, counterintelligence to push this narrative for some purpose or purposes unknown? Or could he be an inadvertent dupe for such an intelligence operation to push this narrative? Yes, that's possible. As I say, I don't know him, have not spoken to him, so I don't know. but although it's messy, it does seem that elements within Congress are working to try and validate his claims. We've had not just with David Grush, but with others, we've had both the Senate and the House having public hearings and classified briefings on UAP. and both in the Senate and the House,

in the armed forces committees, in the intelligence committees, in the oversight committees, we've had this interest. We've had the DOD Inspector General look at some of this. We've had the intelligence community, Inspector General, I think, still looking. at some aspects of this because I think Dave Grush has made a complaint.

Now, that complaint and the ICIG investigation may focus more on whether there was retribution against David Grush for speaking out, as opposed to looking into the substance of his complaints on non-human intelligences and by, logics to use his language. But that's still playing out. And I don't know which individuals on what congressional committees and in what parts of DOD IG. Sorry, I see. DoDIC and I see.

You can tell it's been a long, it's been a long interview. I'm starting to break down on my acronyms. But I don't know who's doing what is the short version of that. But people are trying to take it forward. And people like Bichette and Luna and some others are still frustrated, still trying to arrange further hearings, trying to get Dave Grush into a skiff, complicated by the fact that he apparently no longer holds a security clearance.

Right. Can he be temporarily given one back, even if he does. There's a lot of bureaucratic issues that's going into it. Yeah, it's interesting. I guess my biggest issue with Grush is that he doesn't claim

to have seen anything himself. That all of his claims come from, I was told by people that worked on this project that they had, you know, extraterrestrial or non-human spacecraft that they have possession of non-human biologics,

that they have this archaeological crash site of one of these aircrafts. someone told me. I heard from. I was in contact with someone who worked on and it's not firsthand at all

which to me is like the biggest red flag like ah this guy is speaking and going through all the quote unquote proper channels but with no firsthand experience and I guess that to me just like

kind of cuts a little bit of the of the legs out from underneath the argument. It does on the other hand there are maybe two or three pieces of very specific information that you would think if he's done all this and has uncovered these programs, that he would have these maybe two or three specific pieces

of information, which if he then was given back a security clearance and allowed to brief people who themselves had the requisite security clearance and need to know, would put all this to bed in an instant. And those very specific pieces of information, I mean, we in the course of this conversation have talked about programs. And I mentioned Project Blue Book, for example. And I mentioned Project Condine,

which was the declassified intelligence assessment. It's inconceivable to me that if this was real, that Dave Grashe wouldn't have found number one, the name of some of these projects, specific name. It's no good saying, oh yeah, there are legacy crash retrieval programs. Most programs, almost all programs, are called something, Blue Book, Condine, whatever it might be. So if David Grush says, if he's allowed to say, look, this is either binary. This is very binary.

This is either real or not. And if he says, look, I am now authorized to tell you. Name of the project you want is project manifest destiny. The second piece of information, very specific information, is where is that program run out of, whether it's in government or whether it's a corporation? And the third piece of information related to that is who's the director. And it's inconceivable to me that all this is if this is real,

that those pieces of information wouldn't be knowable and anyone who had genuinely uncovered them would know them. Oh yeah. It's Project Manifest Destiny. The funny thing is, DIA put it out to Lockheed. Lockheed have it. And the person you want to speak to is called Mary Smith. and she's the director

and she sits somewhere in something called special projects but that's really the crash retrieval reverse engineering program go speak to Mary Smith those three pieces and if there's a geographical location

of all the facilities oh yeah the crashed UAP that we have that's so big that they couldn't you know transport it and they have to they had to build a structure around it that's that building right there

here it is on Google earth. That's where it is. So actually, that's four pieces of information. And if this is real, Grush would know those pieces of information would either already have passed them to suitably cleared people in Congress, maybe the gang of eight, or if that's yet to be set up, would be capable of doing so. And that's the point at which this would go beyond hearsay. Now, I don't know whether this has or could happen or not, because I don't know if this is real. I hope it's real. But that's why I'm saying, if it's real, that's how it would be uncovered. Those specific pieces of information would be your lead in. Project name, agency or company lead, director,

and specific geographical location of any items that we have. recovered or just where the project is run out of. Now, in your experience working within government, if those piece of information were handed over, would we ever know? That's more difficult and I'm not sure I know the US political system well enough to answer that question because almost always there's an exception to a rule. You could say, well, if these programs are real, Congress would know about them. But then you could say, well, hang on, we know historically that some programs are run with only, say, the so-called gang of eight knowing about them.

But even with the gang of eight, we know that there are some things. You don't even have to tell the gang of eight that the president can issue, obviously, on advice, from whoever the subject matter expert is, can issue a presidential exemption. And further, we know that historically, some programs have been completely, basically illegal programs. So not even gang of eight,

not even presidential exemption, but just illegal off the books programs. Look at, for example, I think it was called collectively the Enterprise, but all the people like Theodore Shackley, Klinez von Mabod, that ran all the kind of coming out of Vietnam, going forward into Iran-Contra, some of that. They were called the Enterprise.

Again, for people who talk about who would run, Who would be the gatekeepers of the conspiracy? Would it be the UFO community talk about Majestic 12, some sort of interagency committee? I don't know if it's called Majestic 12, but there would have to be something like Majestic 12. The Enterprise, and people can look it up, von Mabod, Klein's, Shackley, a couple of others.

The Enterprise is a good model of what a real, life MJ12 might look like. It's real individuals in real positions of power, operating a program which arguably went way further than gang of eight or presidential exemption and crossed the line into illegal off the book stuff. Interesting. Wow.

And just basically stayed completely covert the whole time. Created enough distance in their work that they weren't able to be called on or investigated or anything like that. Yeah. You couldn't say as a congressional oversight committee, I want to go and speak to the members of the enterprise. What enterprise? Yeah, exactly. Wow. So it's possible that even within our government, things are happening that are completely off the books, not even covertive, but just completely non-existent.

Yes. And that there are legal ways of doing this and there are illegal ways of doing this. I mean, let me give one example of something that I've done personally, which was close to the line. And it's this whole business of putting contracts out into the private sector. Well, it happens all the time. Obviously, the Pentagon doesn't make aircraft in DC or whatever. DC. They have a contract and Lockheed do it.

Or Northrop or whoever. And it's the same with intelligence. programs. I mentioned, we talked about the remote viewing program that the UK Ministry of Defense did. We didn't actually do it. We put it out and somebody else did it. Private contractor. Private contractor. It has the advantage of, it doesn't completely take it outside the scope of freedom of information because you have to have contractual solicitation documents. But even that, you can kind of get around. So, for example, for, I can't speak with total authority on the, the remote viewing project because that was after my time, but project condy in which I was involved in

setting up, what we did there was we took an existing defense contract. I'm making this up, this part of it. Just say it's for procurement of, you know, aviator gloves or something, totally innocuous. And then we slapped an amendment onto that as a complete non-sequitur and said, and by the way, do this intelligence assessment of UAP. So there was no contractual solicitation document. It was never put out for competitive tender. Right.

This is about gloves. This is about gloves. And I don't know what, well, I do know what the paperwork said, but it was a complete. Now, was that legal? Sure. Just about. I mean, I take it that, it's like the old phrase, you know, I think, may I make the assumption if you ask something like, may I make the assumption that this is legal? And the reply comes back, you may make that assumption.

Right. And it doesn't quite give you the watertight, airtight, top cover that you might want, but it's good enough. Right. This is all in the grey area. I see. And arguably, questions like, is it legal or not, it's often in a grey area. It's not necessarily binary. You know that if you go and shoot someone out in the street, you know that that's not legal. but actually in some circumstances, you know, reasonable force, direct perception of, yeah, in some, so even something as seemingly simple as that, sometimes isn't.

So when you get into, well, these programs, these legacy programs that are sponsored by the intelligence community, but they're put into the private sector, But then what's the difference? Where's the difference between something like that and something like the enterprise and Iran-Contra? Right. That's even more fringe. It's even more covert. And I'm assuming the more high stakes

and the more sensitive, the material, the more layers of separation and obfuscation will be put into the program. Yes. And the more you get that old joke about the person who finds this program, and it's the joke about the young and enthusiastic, mid-level bureaucrat says,

oh my God, I've discovered this. You know, sex deaf needs to know about this. And the slightly older, wiser colleague goes, oh, my God, no, sex deaf does not need to know about this. Give you plausible deniability. That's interesting. Now, of the cases that came across your desk, Did anything pertain to beings or gray aliens or anything like that?

We've talked a lot about craft, but in terms of actual pilots of the craft, did anything come up like that? Nothing of substance. Okay. Nothing. I mean, we heard the rumors, of course, the UFO literature is full of stuff, but nothing credible in the UK or that we were aware of in the US. But bear in mind that despite what we liked called,

the special relationship between the UK and the US, when I, in the mid-90s, asked through the British Embassy in Washington, well, put me in touch with my opposite number, let's talk UAP, I was told there's no program. Well, historically, we now know that, of course, it was not credible,

that there was nothing between project, Blue Book and the current day. And yeah, we can, we know that there was, now we have Arrow, the anomaly resolution office, airborne anomaly, anomalous, yeah, resolution office within the Pentagon. Before that, we had the UAPTF, the Unidentified Phnomina Task Force. Before that, we had ATIP and Orsap. What do we have before that?

Something. Clearly, it's not credible that nobody was doing this. I mentioned the fact that with Rendlesham Forest in 1980, C&C Usafe flew in and took possession of some items. Well, this was after Blue Book, but before A-Tip. Right. Where did that stuff go? Someone was doing it.

Now, I mentioned John Alexander, Colonel John Alexander, who was doing some. He had something called the, and again, you hide these things in plain sight by giving them apparently innocuous names. He ran something. Again, it was an informal group across different branches of the military and the intelligence community called the advanced theoretical physics working group, which was really looking at what do we know about UAP? So we know there's something going on, but nothing. I didn't see anything credible on entities. Yet, as I say, the U.S. was not talking to the UK and sharing information, even on the most basic level. They didn't tell us.

There even was a program. There even was a program, let alone what it was doing, what had found out, what actually. actual physical evidence, if any, that they had. 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 someone with 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 Chew. 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. 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. 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, 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 ship, and that's a cup of coffee. Black to be delivering that BBC. You know what I'm saying? That's bluechew.com. B-L-U.com. 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 bluechew.com for more details and important safety information. And thank you so much, Bluchu.

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% and you're about to be in the 0.01% with Bluatu. Let's get back to the show. Now, you had mentioned to me before that there was one specific instance

or one specific case where there was actually a photograph that was taken. Yes. Can you explain that story in all the detail just from the beginning to, I guess, what the eventual conclusion was? August 2nd, I think it was, 1990. So my predecessor handled this case. Two individuals were out in the Scottish countryside when they saw a large diamond-shaped craft hovering. hovering a couple of hundred feet above the ground. This was dusk, light enough to see fairly well.

It's not yet nighttime. Not bright full day, but bright enough. And they saw military aircraft kind of circling. and it wasn't clear whether this was escorting the craft or trying to intercept it or whatever the story was. They took six photographs and they then contacted a newspaper in Scotland and said, you're not going to believe this, but the newspaper contacted the ministry. of defense and said, hey, we've got these two guys. They've seen a UFO. They've got photos.

We'd like a line from you, the Ministry of Defense, as to what you think this is. Could this be one of yours? Is it something else? What is it? And my predecessors basically said, I'm happy to give you a line. But in order to do that, we're going to need the photos and the negatives. Big mistake. The newspaper parted with all of that and never got them back. What exactly happened is a little bit murky. There are, I'm choosing my words very carefully.

There is some suggestion of threats, promises. There are possibilities as to how you could kill a story like that. There is a system whereby the Ministry of Defense has a process where it can speak to editors and say, please don't run this story because it's not in the national interest. Technically, they don't have to take that advice. In most occasions they do. the complicating factor here, which maybe gave the government a little bit more power

in that relationship than it would normally have, was the fact that this was, what did I say, August 2nd, I think this was either the day or the day after Saddam Hussein went over the border and invaded Kuwait. So government making requests or threats or appealing to people's patriotism. Better be quiet about that. Better hand over the photos.

Don't say anything about that. Don't you know there's a war on, all that. Maybe had more weight than it would have. But for whatever reason, the newspaper parted with all the photos, all the negatives, never got them back. The two witnesses never spoke out in public. Their names are not known to the, UFO community.

They are in the Ministry of Defense file, but only a redacted version of that file with the names blacked out has been released. I think the actual file with the names will be released in the year 2072, if I have that right. Wow. The photos were looked at by military intelligence. we had part of the Defence Intelligence staff looked at that. We also had a unit called Jarick, which I think it's now part of something else, but at the time it was something like Joint Air Recognissance Intelligence Center. It was basically the imagery analysts,

and they said, yeah, this thing is about 75 feet in diameter. It's real. It's not a hoaxed photo. That's a solid object. It has no visible means of propulsion, No obvious wings, tail, engines, rudder flaps, ailerons, anything like that. Just seems to be a plain, solid, diamond-shaped craft. And that was about all we could tell about it.

For years, I had a poster-sized copy of the best. of those images on my office wall. Right at the end of my posting, my head of division convinced himself that it could only be a secret prototype, US, spy plane, and said, well, even though it's not obviously on public display, you know, people do come in and out of the office.

And even internally, we don't know who has what security clearance and we ought not to have this on. display and he locked it in his safe. And then when he retired, when that particular file came up for declassify, to be declassified and released as part of this program I mentioned earlier about releasing a lot of the files, I said to people, because I'd spoken about this photo, I said, yeah, we had a great photo. I even worked on a recreation of the photo, just from my memory. And I said, well, you'll see for yourselves when the file comes out.

And the file came out and the photos weren't there. There was one very low quality. It was a photocopy of a line drawing, which is a technique that people use. But it looked almost cartoonish. But it was there. It showed that this was a real incident. And I, when I wrote about this,

obviously I don't want to I'm still even now as we talk I'm still bound by the official secrets act which is the UK legislation I can only divulge information which is either unclassified or which has been formally declassified so when I first wrote about this incident in my first book I submitted as I submit all my manuscripts even my I've written sci-fi novels, even have to give the manuscript of those to the Ministry of Defense. And my book on Rendlesham had to go not only to the UK Ministry Defense, but also to dopser at the Pentagon, because this is a predominantly U.S. story, so the Defense Office of pre-publication and Security Review.

I went on this incident, which is called for people who want to look it up, the Calvin incident C-A-L-V-I-N-E I of course pre-submitted this and I thought well if this is still classified they'll just take it out

and that's fine I've never not cooperated with requests to take things out of my book because I'm a patriot I don't believe that it's for me in my sort of arrogance now to say oh this can be

declassified, that can be disclassified, declassified. Only the current subject matter expert who does the damage assessment on what the consequences would be of something being declassified because it's not just tell the American people, it's tell China and Russia.

Only that person or those people can make those assessments. So I've never not cooperated. But I put this manuscript in for clearance, talked about Calvin, yeah, no problem. It went in. The UFO community had ever heard of this case.

Suddenly they're like, what? This diamond-shaped thing. I didn't finish the story, but the witnesses saw the thing go straight up at high speed vertically. We can't do that even now, as far as I'm aware. This was 1990. I mean, if you look at something like a Harrier or an Osprey that can do a vertical takeoff and landing, but it's nothing like this.

What they ever counted? Sort of thing. Do you have the photograph still? Let me There are different versions of it I have the I mean the recreation that I did Right

is well look the three versions of the photo Are on my website Which is nickpope.net There is a section on Calvin And I've put three images On that section The first is a CGI recreation That I did from memory

With a graphic artist For a TV show I had that poster, of course, on my wall for years, so I'm very confident it's a good recreation. The third image that I have on that page is that poor quality black and white photocopy of a line drawing. So that of the three images, that's the only one that you can go to the declassified file

on the Ministry Defense or the next. National Archives website and you can double check that this is indeed from that government file. You will find that exact same image. It's in the National Archives file, which is official. It's on the mirror copies, because I think there's a fee for some of these things, it's on the mirror copies that civilian researcher John Greenwald Jr. has on his Black Vault website, which is an excellent resource for lots of genuine government documents declassified and obtained under Freedom of Information Act. But it's verifiably the real deal. And the third image emerged last year from a retired Royal Air Force Public Affairs officer,

spokesperson, in the UK. And he said, oh, when I retired from the Air Force, I took some things from my desk and I inadvertently had a copy of one of these photos.

Here it is. And this guy's name is Craig Lindsay. And neither the Ministry of Defense nor myself have confirmed or denied whether that is or isn't one of the original pictures. But in that section on my website for comparative analysis, I have those three images. The black and white line drawing from the actual Ministry of Defense file,

the Craig Lindsay photo that he says is one of the original, images and the CGI recreation that I did some years ago for a TV show. And people can read the story, look at the three images. I link there to all of the surviving government documents on this. So I do link to the original sources where people can say, look, this isn't just Nick telling this story. Right. This is public. Here's the original file. Because I think in all of this, it's so essential.

There are so many people telling stories in this space that it's essential when telling these sorts of stories to say. And here is the declassified government file where you can double-check this. Cross-reference to your own research. Yes. Take a look. So whether it's Calvin and that image,

whether it's Rendlesham and those radioactivity levels, it's critical that I am able to say to you, people should go to the original files. Don't just take my word for it. We're shooting the breeze on this podcast. But if anyone, if I was writing this up, and I've written an op-ed on UAP for the New York Times, and it's like, yeah, you have to fact-check this.

And when I wrote my op-ed for the Times, they said, well, you say this. where is, and I had to provide them with hyperlinks too, this is where this document is on the British government, on the Ministry of Defense website. This is where this declassified file is on the National Archives website. This is where this statement about my role in relation to UAP is on the UK Parliament website. Of course, they wanted all of that before they would publish, and rightly so. Right, yeah, that makes sense. Now, the Craig Lindsay photograph that's out, is that the exact photograph?

Or maybe you can't just come up. No, that's what I'm not able to comment on. I understand. Okay. That makes sense. And it may be that at some stage, the Ministry of Defense comments on that. But from time to time, I mentioned that the Official Secrets Act is binding for life. So the fact that I'm long since retired from the organization doesn't matter one bit. I generally know where the line is and don't need to check back. But from time to time, I pick up the phone and say, hey, people, this has come up.

Can I talk about this? Is it okay? Comment, what's the line on this? And we're in that kind of territory. That makes sense. but I'll link the photographs and maybe even put them into the episode while we're talking here so people can draw their own conclusions. Sure, but what I will tell you is that one time I went to an intelligence briefing on UAP more generally

and the briefer pulled out the real photo and one of the actual, or I say the real, we all have multiple copies made. But pulled out one of the authentic images and he said he got to a point in the briefing and he said, take this picture, for example. And he started waving his arms around as he was telling the story. He says, well, take this, for example. He said, it's not the United States. He said, and it's not Russia.

And he said, and that only leaves. And we looked at his finger and we looked up to the room. This was me and my boss. We looked at each other. And we were fine. Like, okay. and that was it. And it was like, okay.

And it's like even in government, even in at the highest levels of classification, sometimes you don't quite pull the trigger on it. And even though it was implicit that the briefer believed this was extraterrestrial. Now, he may have been right or wrong. I don't know. But even though the briefer clearly believed it was,

he wasn't going to say the word extraterrestrial, and very few people do. I mean, it's interesting. You listen to David Grush, who we've talked about. Non-human biologics. Non-human intelligence, biologics. No one comes out and says alien or extraterrestrial. Only the media and the UFO community do that, do that.

In the Ministry of Defence, that's about as far as it went. And that only leaves and point up at the ceiling. And afterwards, my boss going, he didn't mean China, did he? And it's like, no, boss, he didn't mean China. And occasionally one time I heard the phrase, these people. And that was it. It doesn't sound very, people, again, sci-fi writers and people, people, Imagine all these phrases like the visitors, the travelers, the kids I've heard because of the parents.

I've not heard that. The only phrase I've heard is these people, which has, again, the smack of realism because that's exactly how people in the intelligence community speak. They don't want to label it. It goes back to our thing about whether we talk about are these angels, demons, gods, devils. These are just labels. and differentiate between what you know and what you think. Nobody in intelligence maybe knows that these are extraterrestrial, so it stands to reason that people would use these vague euphemisms.

So people point at the ceiling and people say things like these people, but they never actually come out, not in my experience, and say extraterrestrial. So going away from what you know, that picture that you had hanging in your office, what do you think that is? Yeah, it might be. It's one of these 50-50 calls. Diplomatic answer. Quite interesting.

Well, Nick, this has been really, really fun. We covered a lot of ground, and I think that you have a very measured take when it comes to these topics that I really appreciate. I didn't feel like any part of this was over-exaggerated or, you know, embellished for entertainment's sake.

I feel like it was very grounded conversation. So I appreciate you taking the time and going through everything so deliberately. Even details that might be old hat for you but might be new for some other people in the audience that are just tuning in for the first time to this type of discussion. I think it was really interesting and really, really good job breaking down difficult things and to easy to understand digestible little components. It was really, really fun. Well, no, thank you.

I enjoyed the conversation. I think it really took us to some interesting place. that I, and I do a lot of interviews, but places where I don't usually go. And I think that's the hallmark of a really interesting, fascinating discussion. And I hope people watching and listening to this will follow up some of these leads and will think about some of these issues. And people, there's a great thing about this. They don't have to agree.

In fact, sometimes I think the fun part of this comes from when people disagree and and when we you know drill down into it and say but could it be this could it be that and we maybe come up with some new directions and new insights and I think it needs a lot of this does need fresh eyes and that's why I think one of the good things about doing this podcast is it's getting it I mean I do a lot of UFO podcasts but to do something with an audience a sort of intellectual deep thinking audience that goes into other subjects, whether it's aspects of government and whatever, whether it's anthropology, science, astrophysics,

because we need new eyes on it. People often, I mean, it's one of the things. People say scientists should look at UFOs more. But the rejoinder to that is, well, which scientists do you mean? Yeah. And which broadening it out, which academics or thinkers do we want, do we want astrophysicists on this or do we want theologians?

Right, philosophers. Philosophers, neuroscientists. My cheat answer, but it's the correct answer, is we want all of those because all of those people and maybe some others, we haven't named check, a lot of others, evolutionary biologists, can bring a lot to the table. Absolutely. Well, I think your website is a great place for people to go to get more resources. Nick Pope.net, and then

checking out your books as well. I haven't had the pleasure of reading them, but I'm certainly interested now. So, yeah, I'll link all that in the description so people can check it out. Thank you again. I really appreciate this, Nick. Let's talk soon, okay? Sure thing. Thank you. Thank you.