Into the Impossible With Brian Keating - UAP Disclosure: Eyewitness encounters with Ryan Graves (#334)

Starting point is 00:00:02 You know, we're tightening up their formation, accelerating. Now they're above 10,000 feet. You can accelerate above 25300 knots. And so they're accelerated, probably 350, closing in the formation. And then the lead just sees something go hard by his aircraft. And what he described was a dark gray or black cube inside of a clear sphere. At this point, we've been seeing and talking about them enough where he's just like, I don't see what that was effing thing.

Starting point is 00:00:24 We all knew what he was talking about. There is no real mechanism to report this, both from a military perspective as well as a commercial perspective. And it happened multiple times, right? There were multiple sightings of the similar type of variety from different pilots. Yep. Welcome, dear listeners, to this aviation episode of Into the Impossible, featuring two former U.S. Navy jet fighter aviators, Ariel Kleinerman and Ryan Graves, in a dialogue with your pilot and host, Brian Keating.

Starting point is 00:00:57 Tic Tacs, flying cubes and spheres, UFOs, the world of unidentified aerial phenomenon. It's headline news. Frequent UAP encounters are happening in military air spaces around the world. Is there a multi-decade government cover-up? Is it a SIEOP? Alien spacecraft? What's going on up there? NASA, Harvard scientists, and Congress are now getting into the business of investigating UAPs.

Starting point is 00:01:24 Whistleblowers are coming forward. Are UAPs real? Are they a threat to aviation safety? What should be done about it? Why is there still a stigma around reporting these things? Fresh from testifying in front of a congressional subcommittee hearing, you're going to hear firsthand from former Navy fighter pilot Ryan Graves. What he saw from the cockpit and what he thinks about it? An open dialogue so you can form your own opinion.

Starting point is 00:01:49 If you want to know if we are alone in the universe and have an open, curious mind, please keep into the impossible in your feeds by subscribing and following. Please pay it forward with a share to like-minded friends. To see the video version of this interview, jump over to our YouTube channel. to our YouTube channel at Dr. Brian Heating, that's DR. Brian Heating, and subscribe there too. There, you can find much more exploring the subjects of UAPs, astrobiology exoplanets, and the prospect of finding non-human intelligence and alien technology, including episodes with Avi Loeb, Al Pudoff, Tom DeLong, and many others.

Starting point is 00:02:25 Please let us know what you think of the show, and the UAP controversy, with a five-star rating and a review. Brian reads them all. And now, strap in for this UAP episode of Into the Impossible with Ryan Graves. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Open the bud bay doors, please, hell. Dr. Brian Keating alive on YouTube at least with my new friend, Ryan Graves, Lieutenant Ryan Graves. Former Lieutenant, you're no longer serving in the active duty.

Starting point is 00:02:58 You're here in San Diego, and I wanted to let you introduce yourself to the Into the Impossible family. you're a fan favorite. We want to have you on for a long time. And thanks to my buddy, Ariel. We were able to get you. So welcome. Thanks for having me here. A way of quick introduction.

Starting point is 00:03:11 My name is Ryan Graves. I joined the Navy out of college. I went to school in central Massachusetts. Join the Navy while I was in training. I actually met Ari here. We can talk more about that in a little bit. I believe you invited me on here today because I've come somewhat of a public spokesperson on the issue of UAP now because we were seeing these objects flying around.

Starting point is 00:03:31 And so, so yeah, that's a start. I've engaged this topic with a few organizations. We can talk about that a bit later, so I'm still engaged in the topic. Yeah, happy to be here and try to answer any questions again. Yeah, and just to recapitulate, my friend Ariel, Ariel, can you give your background and your second appearance on the Intonational Postal podcast after meeting with Fazard Lee for his book, The Art of Clear Thinking, a bad favorite.

Starting point is 00:03:54 Tell us about yourself. Grew up in New Jersey, joined the Navy shortly after college, and went through flight training with Ryan and Meridian. Then we kind of split paths. I went west coast, I think you went east, and then I ended up at the squadron on the east coast, and we were on the same carrier. So we did a lot of our workups and training together, and then deployed. Both of us made about half the deployment.

Starting point is 00:04:16 Then we both figured out. What got you into aviation? Why did you want to do that? You went to Worcester Polytech, you're an engineer, Raniac nerd, probably growing up as a kid. What made you want to fly high-performance fighter jet, except for the fact that it's every little boy's dream? I guess it's a high-performance fighter jet. So, you know, it wasn't something I did dream about as a child. It wasn't something I was exposed to. I didn't have any, you know, pilots or a crew in my family. You know, I grew up in a very rural small town, so it wasn't something I was necessarily exposed to on a regular basis externally as well.

Starting point is 00:04:49 But, you know, I've always been very interested in technology and all the things that come with it, advancement, new understanding, scientific discovery. And for me, jet aircraft, at least that is almost was a personification of that, you know, cutting edge technology. That's where so much effort was put in the place. And that was a place where I could go. And I could take in all those experiences, all that technology, you know, all that operational capability, right? And just kind of test myself not only intellectually, but as a part of a team, as, you know, someone that has to interact with his hands as well as his mind, potentially. So it just seemed like a great challenge. I didn't know where it would end.

Starting point is 00:05:22 I had, you know, perhaps some dreams of being able to offshoot NASA or do the astronaut thing. Didn't have that opportunity. But I just saw that that would hopefully give me enough experience to be able to go out and do something fascinating in the world after that. What about you? I don't think I ever really understood how you got tied up and left Princeton and went into serve your country. But what was it? What was it about the Navy in particular? I mean, David Spurkle proved to me I was not going to become an astrophysicist.

Starting point is 00:05:52 Great teacher. But no, I realized I wasn't great at the theoretical. I kind of maxed out at quantum physics and decided. afterwards to go into the Navy when I had always been fascinated with the Apollo program, and I had dreams of eventually becoming NASA astronaut. It's also been kind of panning out that way to include the more I thought about space and not, you know, topic for another day. But it takes a huge toll on the human body, and I like being physical on Earth and

Starting point is 00:06:19 like eating good food and drinking good wine, and I want to climb tall mountains. We're going to be doing the letter, by the way, since tonight at my house. Well, it's a great girl to have here. So, Ryan, what brings you to San Diego? You're one of the co-founders of a very important organization. So people know I'm a pilot, but not like these American heroes, real-life American heroes. I fly a little, you know, Sussans around. But I'm very interested in aviation.

Starting point is 00:06:40 We're going to geek out. We're going to nerd out on astronomy, physics, and aviation. Fair warning. We're going to throw in some AI and maybe some A-L-I-E-N-S. We'll see about that. What brings you to San Diego, Ryan? It's so great to have you. Yeah.

Starting point is 00:06:52 So I came into San Diego this week because the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics or the AIAA, as I'll refer to it. I chair a committee there called the UAP, or Unidentified Anomalous Phenomenon, Integration and Outreach Committee. It's a full committee within the AIAA. We voted to that status within the Institute. And that is an integration committee. Essentially, our charge is to be able to bring together experts

Starting point is 00:07:14 within that committee that have a wide variety of capabilities and be able to interface both in our technical activities there within the subcommittee, but also to reach out across all the, what they call technical committees that comprise the majority of the AIAA and be able to integrate those technical expertise, spin-up teams with particular capabilities or expertise as needed. And so that organization is having their Aviation 2023 conference, which is the largest professional conference for everything in the air for space. And these are engineers from NASA, from the startup community, from, you know, your large defense corporations. And there's a bunch of papers

Starting point is 00:07:52 that are presented there. And as a committee, we participate in that. We had eight papers presented on the UAP topic during this conference. Four of them were in person. I presented while those papers, it was on potential reporting mechanisms for UAP within existing aviation safety frameworks. And then we had four more in the virtual session as well. So that's what brought me, and we just finished that up here today's Friday. So I'm really happy I could finish it up with you.

Starting point is 00:08:12 I should also mention your host of the Merge podcast, which I very much enjoy. It's got much higher production values than we're sporting down here at the nor were just a public university, you private citizens out there. So I think one of the things that's most interesting to me is as an aviation geek, as an aviation nerd, is if you were to say to an average individual or maybe a commercial pilot, a lot of commercial pilots listen to this podcast, as I'm sure they listen to yours, and they were to see something. What is your first step? I mean, what do people do? And it could be even on the ground witnessing some sort of phenomenon. But in particular, in the air, just take it from that perspective. I'm flying along the coast of California, not far from warning area off the coast of Catalina. I see something. What do we do? Well, you do what you should always do as a pilot, which is avi, navigate and communicate. You shouldn't necessarily let yourself be distracted by what you're seeing. At this point in the game, right, you don't know what this object is.

Starting point is 00:09:03 It's probably more likely just a balloon or UAV or something of that nature. And so the idea here is if you see something that's unidentified that you should now, you know, go deviate from your course to go inspect or something like that, right? So that's not what's being communicated here. You should be a professional pilot if you do observe it and you believe it could be a threat to other air traffic. the proper procedure would be to reach out to your air traffic controller and see if that traffic is known. And if not, you'd like to give them a position where it is so they can warn other traffic about it. One thing I've been hearing from talk with commercial pilots is that

Starting point is 00:09:35 essentially what's been happening right now is that they'll see something either at their altitude or in the vicinity of their altitude, other aircraft are seeing it as well, and they're calling up the ATC, and they're all kind of confirming it as there and that they don't know what it is and they can visually see it, but there's nothing else really to do at that point. So that's part of the problem, and trying to resolve is that there is no real mechanism to report this, both from a military perspective as well as a commercial perspective. On the military perspective, at this point to see, we didn't really have the ability to report unknown objects in any way that would have got resolved. It was simply, we had the Navy Aviation Safety Reporting Mechanisms, and those are, you know,

Starting point is 00:10:13 not an investigatory type of system. ASAP reports. Yeah, so, you know, it's data collection after the fact. So there really was nothing. And if those represented, you know, potentially adversarial platforms, that was ultimately my fear at the time was that these could have potentially been some type of platform who's spying on us. And that's something I've been communicating a bit on. I'm getting off track here, so I'll jump back. On the commercial side, what should the pilots do? Right now, in the far, in the far, the federal aviation or regulations of it instructs aircrew. They would like to report one of these. They don't require it in any way. They essentially suggest that the, the aircrew or the witness could go report that to any number of, quote,

Starting point is 00:10:52 UFO reporting centers that are out in the general public, none of which are well funded or, you know, consistent with each other. And so more or less information just gets scattered out. And so that's one of the issues that I'm working to resolve from a procedural point with the AIAA to be able to make those recommendations, but also with the other organization I started Americans for Safe Aerospace where we can provide general education and education on Capitol Hill to be able to push for those procedures, be able to push for that, you know, potentially mandatory reporting so that pilots don't feel like they can't bring that information forward to ATC in the middle of the airsum.

Starting point is 00:11:24 Is it, I mean, there's a stigma on aviation. You know, you do something. There's a pilot deviation. The air traffic controllers. Here's a phone number to call, you know, which you're supposed to write down right after you had some incident. You know, is there a sense that like pilots are not reporting because they're going to get on some list with, you know, Will Smith's going to come up and do some clicking to them

Starting point is 00:11:39 or or that the FAA is going to pull their ticket. They can't fly anymore on the commercial side. Yeah. I don't think it's anything, you know, men in black and affairs. but guys just generally don't want to be associated with. They don't want to answer for it. They'd rather keep their head down. And, you know, I say that from the context

Starting point is 00:11:55 of the people that have been calling me for the past, you know, eight months or more. That's what they're reporting. And when they first reached out to me, you know, some of the stories where guys didn't even want to call it out to ATC because they didn't want their calls on associated with that report, essentially.

Starting point is 00:12:07 So that's where the state of affairs was. Of course, it's not evenly spread, but I hear that's better now. People are calling it out more. But it was disappointing to see that during the NASA Independent Study Team public meeting that the FA representative communicated, he wasn't even aware of any procedures for pilots to report on this.

Starting point is 00:12:22 That's like one of the sports games, right. Yeah, they seem to be good at, you know, kind of punishing pilots. And if the FAA is out there, please do know, you know, pull my ticket. Ariel, we talked over lunch not too long ago about, you know, events, things you saw when you were in combat or in training, you're flying a super horn and also, by the, were you both single-seat pilots? Was it both single-seat aircraft, or would you guys double? I was single-seat. Ryan flew two-seaters.

Starting point is 00:12:45 You told me once, and maybe you could tell me. the story, but your encounter with a UAP at the time. Can you actually? No, no. In both cases, it was observable for me. So I didn't have anything too crazy. One time in the whiskey areas off the coast of Virginia, we did pick up a lot of little scatter, and I was able to lock onto this, and I did a right-to-right with a balloon.

Starting point is 00:13:10 There was another time in the Persian Gulf, and this was more worrisome because I've come off the carrier, I pick up a contact going real slow. not getting called out from air traffic at the boat, lock him up. I have a 9X missile, which has another sensor on it, and that actually gets the tone, which tells me there's something there, end up doing a right-to-right with an Iranian drone. Me, right-to-right means you're squaring off. Basically, we just kind of flew right by. So it was an Iranian drone that was orbiting near the carrier, you know,

Starting point is 00:13:41 dangerous from a standpoint of one we should be aware that it's there, which the boat may have been. it was just more warning the pilots, hey, you know. And, you know, I remember reading in Donald Rumsdahl's biography, you know, of all places that, you know, he said once that if President Bush wanted to kill somebody, it took about 17 different phone calls and, you know, telegrams and encrypted, you know, data sources before that person would meet his untimely, his or her, we should be inclusive. A lot of, you know, worrisome women out there, right? What about that? If you saw this, you identify it as from threat from a hostile nation. Do you have authorization? You have tone.

Starting point is 00:14:21 You know, I mean, you said that means, by the way, we should, although you and I are aviation or Iran as well, what is lock on? What kind of sensor technology are we talking about? These are radar sensors and a flare. What are they exactly? The radar usually is the first sensor you're going to use. That's kind of your broadest that's going to pick up the most. Everything else starts to zero in.

Starting point is 00:14:40 So in that case, I was coming off. the boat and we have to do checks on our systems. So that's why I use the 9x. And that's a sidewinder. That's a sidewinder missile. It's a heat, it looks for heat sources. You know, even at that point, my aircraft's safe. There's no way for me to shoot this missile. Like, Ben, I have no intention to do that. To broader on your question, we would have to have, I mean, there are rules of engagement that are very clear that dictate how you can employ your weapon systems. And with it being a peacetime scenario, unless that drone fired upon me or was looking to be a threat, to U.S. forces, there's nothing I would really legally be able to do.

Starting point is 00:15:16 And we're hamstrung pretty tightly with the ROE. But it also allows you to keep yourself safe. But, you know, unfortunately we're not in hostilities at that. Or unfortunately, we're not in hostility. So. No. Well, yeah. And on the Eastern Seaport, it's a little different.

Starting point is 00:15:31 People don't quite understand, but we're not really in an operational mode when we're operating with training. So we never almost carry live ordinance out there. That would be a big exception. So that would take, like you said, probably 17 phone calls at least, that made that happen. That became an issue. Actually, 9-11 was when they were looking to go get the other airplanes. We had a lot of fighter jets on the East Coast, but, you know, we never even thought to have them weaponized and armed.

Starting point is 00:15:57 So, you know, you had fighter pilots that were told that they might have to go after aircraft, and they're trying to think through how they're going to potentially take out a threat aircraft without any weapon systems on board. So there's people asking in the audience. By the way, you can ask questions in the live chat down below or, on Twitter. Currently 186 on YouTube and more kind of tuning in through Twitter, I believe. So you mentioned this whiskey air. What is that? What is a whiskey area? Is that like where we're going to drink someone, this Glenn Livet, that I got special made? What is a whiskey area? What does that mean? What it would take a picture? Sure. We call it whiskey on a map. You just see it as W. W stands for

Starting point is 00:16:31 warning area. So warning area 72. I'm sure there's a 73 to 71 somewhere. But so that's generally, North to South, but generally the airspace is divvied up in the blocks. And their warning areas essentially, and I could be slightly wrong here, so correct me if I'm wrong, but they're essentially warning inbound international traffic is what that's for. So as military operators, we're out there playing because it's unused airspace. It's not unique to us. Other people can directly transit it, although they would get called out. Yeah, that's essentially just where we train.

Starting point is 00:17:03 It's a MOA off the water. So military operating area, which same thing. It diverts IFR instrument traffic, which is commercial, mostly commercial airliners, diverts you around those areas so that we can play. But legally speaking, a guy in a Cessna flying VFR can go right through the middle of it. And it happens. And, you know, that we get called, hey, there's a, you know, 172 transiting the MOA at 10,000 feet. And we have to stop our stuff, which can be pretty expensive with $30,000 per hour or $20,000 to $30,000 per hour. And sometimes you would use the, I mean, you're not going to shoot on them, but you're going to use them for training.

Starting point is 00:17:36 where you've got a mite lock on a Cessna or something like that. I'll just say your radar is almost always out there paying stuff. So like you do lock up commercial air traffic, stuff like that. But there's no like effect that's occurring on the aircraft. And even if we didn't specifically lock someone, that energy was getting out there and pinging them anyways. And so these are microres of centimeter wavelength radars and then you've got Fleer and so forth. Do the missiles themselves have an optical sensor? Are they pure heat seeking, a pure infrared?

Starting point is 00:18:00 Can you see the missile eye in any way in the cockpit display, other heads up or a regular display? You can physically look out and see the center. But can you see from its perspective. You see like an infrared image. No. But you can see where the center is looking. So information will be on like my visor or wherever. So show essentially where it's looking.

Starting point is 00:18:17 There's a mode where I could basically walk that to my cursor, if you will, so that I can, you know, select stuff. You can see how far away it is. Okay. So there's an area out here near Calhene Island called Restricted Romeo 2519. And it was a site of the so-called Tic Tac encounter. We don't have Commander Faveron. I'd love to meet him someday and talk to him someday.

Starting point is 00:18:38 But that also occurred in our restricted area or in a military, which is not necessarily purely military the way a warning area might be. But it is used for, you know, purposes, for training purposes. Obviously, they had a carrier or something out there, right? I would suggest it. I think it is actually just a warning area, right? It's not a restricted space. Is it? Because that term means not very specific.

Starting point is 00:19:00 Restricted is usually means you're operating some sort of like weapons test is, generally or it's a highly sensitive area. So off the coast, there could be restricted if there's naval gunfire or something. But other than that, I mean, the point I'm trying to make is, you know, this was another area. It's a special use airspace. Yeah. So, you know, I was talking recently with a colleague. I won't mention who he has, but he was in the military intelligence field.

Starting point is 00:19:23 We was talking about, you know, the preponderance of events of anomalies that seem to occur near military area 51 is a huge, you know, Kroom Lake, Edwards Air Force Base, these two areas you guys are talking about. we're talking about that. Is there anything, you know, to be said about that? Like, from the perspective of aviation safety, at least, like just avoid those areas or could it be, as some suggest, you know, people are either there's technology from an adversary would like to go to those areas too and get a sneak peek at an F-18, right? Or in it's 35. So what do you make about that? Is there anything, you know, to this theory that, of course, things are going to happen in strange ways, you know, call me when it happens over time square kind of reaction that I often get. Well, my first go-to here is that it's probably observation bias involved.

Starting point is 00:20:05 So we're seeing them there because we have the sensors to actually be able to see. Now, with that, I also don't think, you know, this issue is going to be one particular thing. But Sam for a while and, you know, we're going to find adversarial platforms. We're going to find drone things that nature. We're going to find trash. That's great and that's helpful to our national security. And we have systems in place to mitigate that. But there's a category that, you know, we're ignoring essentially that that data set.

Starting point is 00:20:31 And that's what I find we need to work down. So, you know, I think we're going to have adversarial platforms. around those bases. So there's going to probably be upticking, you know, unexplained or identified objects around those bases, maybe just because they're adversarial platform, but I think there's an observation bias as well. And to your point earlier, you know,

Starting point is 00:20:49 you're talking about kind of the Bayesian probability of, you know, a commercial pilot or military pilot seeing these and how that that can affect? It's such a small bubble that a commercial pilot can see. So, you know, when you're talking about sightings from fighter jets, you know, you have the potential to get highly correlated data across multiple sensors, you know, different types as well as, you know, different geographical locations of the data reception, if you will, or their sourcing.

Starting point is 00:21:11 Ground-based sensors or eyewitness statements, things of that nature, you don't have that luxury necessarily. And so we would expect to have much better data around those systems. And on the commercial side, there, you know, the visibility range where you could see, you know, one to four meter object is pretty small depending on the conditions. It's certainly within 10 optical miles. I will just use that number. And if you think about, you know, the volume inside that 10 mile bubble or two, you know, what you get with an AISA radar, it's pretty easy to see why we get more sightings of that. There's more overlay. There's more data, right?

Starting point is 00:21:44 And our radars are way better than what is in the Cessna Citation or a 747. Yeah. Right. And for different purposes, right, they're eliminating other aerial threats, potentially. So you said this place was steps from the water. We just haven't found the steps yet. How much did we save? Enough.

Starting point is 00:22:04 Enough to get lost. Or you could book a stay with Hilton. Welcome to your oceanfront room. Just steps from the water. The Hilton sale is on now. Book on Hilton.com or the Hilton app and save up to 20% to get the stay you expected. When you want savings, not surprises.

Starting point is 00:22:22 It matters where you stay. Hilton for the stay. We were talking earlier as well before we started the podcast about, you know, this kind of notion that a lot of times we'll engage with people in the military or people that have claimed to be eyewitnesses. People talk about like, oh, the data belongs to us. I've had on Avi Lowe, who's coming back to talk about this book, which is excellent book, sure, to be a bestseller.

Starting point is 00:22:44 And Avi sets his best, I'm sure, from the Fiji Islands where he's apparently found some anomalous wires. He's found some mangan. Someone in a live chat, correct me, that he found something today who's announced on his medium page, which I get. some strange metallic composition. And we're going to nerd out about like potentialities of what could be found. So first of all, you've had some contact with Avi, both students on your podcast and him as well.

Starting point is 00:23:10 Where does this kind of interest take you beyond the very, very important and critical, you know, deadly serious, literally implications of just anything in the airspace that's not monitored, not track, where there might be discouragement to reporting or visceral reactions to reporting, bias and so forth. where else do your interest lie with regards to these phenomena? Do you ever entertain the fact that they could be not of this earth, or is that interesting, but it's not necessarily what drives your involvement in it. I suppose to be that question. Sure.

Starting point is 00:23:44 So, I mean, for me personally, yeah, I think, you know, I would be lying. I think most people would be lying to say, like, obviously, that possibility is extremely, you know, tantalizing, right? Yeah. That's just human nature, I think. And, you know, like you, we were talking about earlier, that's something I I've actively tried to fight against to just be as objective and data focuses as I can for that there's no bias that I'm pushing subconsciously, although, of course, we all are,

Starting point is 00:24:07 but I'm doing my best. So I try to draw a firm line to my mind of what I have firsthand experience or data, right? And, you know, of course, second here, data from learning and things of that nature. And I like to, you know, step past that line and kind of explore where those extrapolations go a bit. I think it's fun to do, but I don't let that affect, you know, things on the other side of that line, the things that I know because that's, you know, extrapolation is fun. So I do. I like it. It's fun stuff. I, you know, I'm a sci-fi fan. So all this is very interesting to me. I'm interested in cutting edge technology and where we can,

Starting point is 00:24:39 you know, do that. I want to be able to support that type of stuff. That's all very interesting to me. But I leave that on the other side of the line so that we can focus on what's pragmatic, which is data and being able to just bring it in and talk about it without stigma. Because that's where we're at. It's very basic still, sadly. What about you, are you? What's your interest in this? and save the very critical life saving potentiality. And I should say you're involved with aviation and space to this day as well. So where do your interest take you in this domain?

Starting point is 00:25:08 Still flying. So clearly, you know, anything that's in the air is of interest and a threat, potential threat, right? Want to keep me and my passengers as safe as possible. But no, I think there's a, you know, there's the good science means looking into anything, you know, people in the 1950s and 60s were seeing sprites, lightning strikes that go up into the outer tors towards outer space. And, you know, I'm not very smart on the astrophic, the physics of these.

Starting point is 00:25:33 But so, you know, I'm sure I'm going to say something wrong here. But for a while, scientific community, the community at large kind of played that off. And in the end, that is a real phenomenon. And eventually, I think it was in the 80s. I think the space shuttle astronauts could actually confirm that this was happening. And then you start looking and now we're, you know, that's a, that's an aspect of our, of our world and our system that we don't understand and didn't know about really till till people started observing and starting to look into it. So, you know, just pushing the scientific envelope requires curiosity about anything that you don't, you can't know or don't understand. Yeah, I mean, I always say, you know, there's no one more than a physicist or an astronomer who would like to make contact with something beyond this realm because I think it would shortcut.

Starting point is 00:26:14 First of all, guarantee employment, you know, fall in point of our astrophysicist forever, right? If we ramped up our budget when there was just a Soviet Union, you know, 10% of the area of the landmass of Earth that, you know, quintupled our budget for years to come, how much more so would it be for. for discovering alien technology. But that's a risk. We have to guard against because I think there's a lot of propensity to want to believe stuff. And there's even the memes about, you know, I want to believe. I don't want to believe in gravity. You know, I've got evidence of gravity.

Starting point is 00:26:41 We can do experiments. We can replicate stuff. And I think, you know, sometimes we do have to guard upon it. And I think there might be a little bit of a stigma rhyme that you could speak to that, you know, when people, let's say you report something, there's almost a supposition on the part of the person who's hearing that report that, oh, well, He wants to believe that. Does that enter into it where there is this confirmation bias? Or is it like, hell, no.

Starting point is 00:27:02 I was like, this could blow up my plane or this could be an enemy of the United States and I'm a patriot. I signed up to defend my country. At what level do you react negatively? So I said, oh, of course, he just wants to believe in these things in science fiction. We all do. But he's using, you know, the fact that he's seen things or witness things, you know, to bolster the. How do you guard against them? Because it's a common claim that people make, right?

Starting point is 00:27:23 I mean, no, frankly, I haven't heard that people claim that. but if they are, so be it. But for me, I try to keep myself on the line of what I've observed and what I've directly talked to my colleagues and what they've seen. At the end of the day, I'm just doing my best to report on that and to improve the aerospace safety around it, right? And so that's where all my effort is. So if people want to look at my track record to justify my behavior,

Starting point is 00:27:46 then they're going to see nothing but me focusing aviation safety on this topic. Because for me, that's the most pragmatic way that I can reach back and, you know, be able to help the people that are. I used to fly with. Truly, that's really where all this started. Do you mind if I ask you a semi-personal question? That would be, you don't have to answer it. We could delete it later.

Starting point is 00:28:03 But, I mean, it seems like this is very altruistic, right? So how are you going to, you know, you have a family now, right? I mean, how is this going to translate? I mean, everyone needs to provide for the material safety of the family and security. I'm just curious. Like, you don't have to answer if you don't want to. But, like, is there any way that this can be remunerated, you know, in some fashion or another? It seems very altruistic, in other words.

Starting point is 00:28:23 And, yeah, I don't think it's already done enough for your country. One wouldn't say, oh, now it's your time to get back. You shouldn't be doing it for free. Well, you know, I think that what's the most important in this conversation is building up a self-sustaking industry, if you will, around this, right? So I don't like the traditional tech that, quote, the UFO community has on this where if anyone makes a dollar, then they're being into that nature. I think we need to bring people into this conversation so that we can run experiments, we can build sensors, we can influence on capital. we can do all the things that every other industry in this country does. So I don't like that general logic because it relegates this conversation to the hobby.

Starting point is 00:29:00 And there is real work to be done. You know, I hope that generates me come from the podcast, but I'm not, you know, I'm making any. What I'm not in terms of like, go ahead. You want to speak about other efforts that you're undergoing on that front? We could talk about a little bit more about that in the future a little bit later on. So one of the, let's just do it now, I suppose. So there's a number of things I'm doing. There's Americans for Safe aerospace.

Starting point is 00:29:22 That's a nonprofit. And ideally that would generate a small amount of income for me, but primarily all the money there is for user polling and research and things of that nature. For the AIAA, that's a complete volunteer organization. So nothing there. And I think you understand the podcast game and how lucrative that can be. Oh, yeah. That's paid for this. Aluminum foil replica of the James Webb space.

Starting point is 00:29:44 But what I would like to do, what I would like to do with merge with the podcast is take that conversation and develop it with the help with the listeners, be able to, take the ideas we're getting, take the expertise that we've brought to the table, and raise money around that and say, hey, here are some ideas. We've identified them. And can we now support that ecosystem either by, you know, providing potentially grants for experiments or money to fund new sensor technology, things of that nature? So I want to be able to grow and expand this ecosystem. I think that's really the way to do it. Yeah.

Starting point is 00:30:16 Yeah, that's excellent. And it's kind of the model Avi Lope is used. I mean, with more kind of contacts by use of the implementation. employees the H-bomb, you know, drops Harvard on people. And all of a sudden, billionaires show up at his doorstep, as he's told me on his pie. So he's right now on a cruise in the South Seas near Fiji, excavating where the first interstellar meteorite, it's the first one that they have documented. There's been probably millions of them over in cosmic history.

Starting point is 00:30:39 So this leader of this spectrometer company, Brookner Spectrum, dropped a couple mill and said, let's go out there. So, but the citizen science model, you actually have way more people that are interested in aviation and fly and so forth. everyone who's on a commercial plane can be a witness, right? So is that kind of the effort as well? Citizens Science or Citizen, I don't know what you'd call it. But yeah, is there a way to incorporate the general public? I mean, you can speak to the audience, but what can they do to assist in this mission as, as general public members? Yeah. So there's two ways. First way, whenever I engage in this topic, I do so two ways.

Starting point is 00:31:11 One, I try to engage with stakeholders within government within DOD, be able to provide the answers to the most pressing questions they have, right? because again, I'm trying to support national security here in aviation safety, and that's the best way to do it by directly interface to solving the problem that they have. But we're also engaging the conversation on the civil side as well. One of the activities that we're planning at the AIAA is actually a small sensor package that can be distributed to schools and the general public, and we're looking to tie that in with a data provider and service provider that would look to donate that compute time to be able to run algorithms that we're generating at the AIAA.

Starting point is 00:31:47 to provide that wider plethora of data. It's about trying to find patterns in that data, so the more that we have, the more we can kind of suss out some of those details. And that's a similar, I think, process that can be done with eyewitness reports and non-sensor reports. I think the bar is higher. We need more data so that we could pull out those trends.

Starting point is 00:32:06 But I think there is valid information to be pulled out of there en masse, right, on average, as we look at the data. How did you react this week? In the last week, there's been reports from the Air Force, I guess, commander, captain, Colonel, Lieutenant Colonel might be, I forget. But anyway, Grush's name, you know, that there's kind of expose that there have been, you know, claims of not only alien craft, but even alien bodies and so forth. I personally find it hard to accept.

Starting point is 00:32:33 And I don't want you to comment on him directly, but this notion that not only do we have to accept that there are these phenomena, but these phenomena are actually aliens and these are actually from distant technology, et cetera, it seems like an insurmountable barrier to get over, right? Although in the past few years, thanks in some small part to past guest on the podcast, Tom DeLong and others who have made this front page news in The York Times, it seems like there's an armist race between people that want to believe and people that want to disbelieve. I'm just curious, how did you react? I mean, it's in your literal space, no pun intended. How did that affect you just as a citizen and being someone very active in the space? Yeah, great question. You know, it's shocking for me, too, to hear that information come out. But, you know, I think of it that I have to remind people that this didn't necessarily come out of nowhere.

Starting point is 00:33:19 They initially utilized the whistleblower protections that were afforded in the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act. But it was in response to that NDAA legislation, which essentially called for whistleblowers and provided protections. And so in that language, it very specifically, you know, called out craft for people programs and used a lot of very aggressive language or not used to seeing in DAAs. And so, you know, he is someone that has a lot of experience and has had a lot of access. and he's making these claims. But like everyone else, this information that he's now taken before Congress, big claims require big evidence. And theoretically, they have that evidence in their possession.

Starting point is 00:33:54 And now it's in Congress's hand to validate that information and then share what can be shared, I think, with the general public. Right, you are. Kind of had a bit of a discussion the other day just with the difficulty of kind of keeping a conspiracy like that. I'm a bit of a universal skeptics. I agree big claims would require some pretty. big data. Obviously, there's credibility from someone within the intelligence community who had a lot of ties.

Starting point is 00:34:20 I reserve judgment to, like, have a bit more ever to see more. People say there's a trope that, you know, eyewitness evidence isn't worth it. You know, they do this thing with a gorilla bouncing a basketball and there's a bunch of people and, oh, they didn't notice the gorilla came through and they're counting the number of people. So, but it is a form of evidence. But the question, and we briefly touched upon this, but I think it's valuable to talk about what constitutes data. Like, when we hear this word, like, the data belongs. to Americans and this is, you know, this is public information and this should be released for the evidence.

Starting point is 00:34:49 I'd be remiss, as I said once I had on David Chalmers, who's a professor of, you know, studies cognitive science and philosophy at New York University. And I had him on the podcast and I said, David, you know, he's from Australia. I said, you know, me not asking you to define the hard problem of consciousness would be like me having ACDC from your homeland of Australia not play back in black. I think, Brian, you're back in black. I would love for you to recount if you were willing to what you witness, because we can talk about Grush and he can talk about, you know, what he was told by other eyewitnesses, but we have someone who has had, you know, Ariel had an encounter. He talked about what that was. It was said, can you, would you mind, like, detailing these encounters that you have discussed elsewhere, but I think in my audience is the best in the known universe. So it would be remiss if I didn't ask you to recount back in five to seven years ago, I guess. Gosh, from that long, huh?

Starting point is 00:35:40 This time this month, it's now been eight years since I landed on a boat. Really? Wow. We're going to have the into the possible aircraft carrier to take you guys out. My experience was, we came back from deployment. I got sent to the USS Enterprise, and you finished a little bit after. I think you joined right after. Yeah, right after we came back.

Starting point is 00:36:00 So I joined them on deployment. We came back. And when we came back, what happens is you'll start upgrading systems or repairing things, yada, yada. We were upgrading. We were a rare... lot number, I think it's called, where essentially we were engineered or manufactured so that we could be upgraded later. It was a small amount of aircraft that were upgradable, essentially. These are super hornets.

Starting point is 00:36:17 Super horn, yeah. And so we started upgrading our radars when we got back, which was awesome because my, like, level three check rides need to be so much easier with this radar than with the older ones. But we have a land more precisely. Precisely I don't have to do as much like finger work, you know, and things of that nature. Helps automation and cockpit resource. The other one is mechanically scanned. It literally, the radar is moving. And you have to, if you don't have everything set properly, you can actually completely,

Starting point is 00:36:42 it required a lot more pilot, you know, how much. And that's demanding resource, right? So they had upgraded the block that you were assigned to you. And it took a while. It took maybe like three or five months, because, you know, it was one at a time. And they take it in and it took like a good week to do one aircraft. But anyways, long story short, we were flying with our older radar. We weren't seeing anything really to know.

Starting point is 00:37:02 And then we upgraded radars and then started detecting objects in our areas. There's two conversations here. And that's the first conversation I'm having is what my real-time experience was. There's some things I've learned since then, and I'm going to hold those. But so just to be clear that I'm just kind of talking about my interactions as a first-person observer. And what that was, we, you know, other folks in the squadron were seeing stuff. And it was, we weren't talking about that much unless it was an incident. We had to move areas or if we went to look for them.

Starting point is 00:37:30 So it was just kind of chatter in the ready room. Eventually, we started correlating that. We're essentially seeing on other sense. So, okay, we were thinking these were radar errors, you know, because you get false track hits on our older radars. At least was my assumption that this was probably a false track of some type until we started getting returns, at least it's on our camera or a Fleer system, AT Fleer. At least for me at the time, it was like, okay, well, if we're seeing these out of the Fleer now, being correlated, we have to assume these physical objects that we have to, we have to. Were there any people seeing, sorry in the drama, are there any people seeing it as kind of like an experimental control? Like, it was only on the new radar sets?

Starting point is 00:38:05 It's a pretty big upgrade from 73 to 79. So like resolution, power, what exactly was the nature of the upgrade to the way? I mean, you can be as geeky as you want. One is mechanically scanned. The other is an electronic scanned array. Power is probably higher. I mean, just generally everything. But the same size stitches or panels or roughly the same resolution, or would you get like you could see now the tail number?

Starting point is 00:38:29 It's probably not limitations to how much we talk about. Yeah, yeah. We can. Sorry. Sorry, out there. You also. avoid Austin. We didn't. This conversation never. In air to air, which you probably can't, like air to air, you're just scanning, and it just shows you

Starting point is 00:38:41 tracks. It's not developing a picture off of the radar. But you said you did see it on Flears. And now you've got two different wavelengths that are separated by 10 to the seventh order of magnet, you know, roughly in wavelength. So, yeah, so go ahead. Anecdotally, after the fact, and this is like later knowledge, I had spoke with other pilots, interviewed one of my podcast, and I talked with others who got filtered into traffic. That was interesting, which please station. And that's the majority of what we were seeing.

Starting point is 00:39:07 But he had a stationery with the direct ground track or I thought probably okay. Um, ground track. Yep. And, uh, he was asked to go and go check out the object essentially. This was over by the there, the range down here. So he went off and intercepted he had APG 73 radar. He essentially had to quote, kind of zoom it in, zoom in the radar, put more energy onto a smaller piece of the sky in order to break it out.

Starting point is 00:39:28 But they did, he did break it out. And as he approached pretty close, apparently it just started off. And that was that. So I thought that was interesting because it kind of showed that there was a connection perhaps between kind of the more resolution or the more radar energy. I'll say just on that spot with, you know, being able to see it better. What was interesting too when we talked about that was there's this thing called the target aspect indicator, which is like that comes off of it. One thing I've said is that I was identifying these objects by how it was inconsistent the target aspect indicator and detected these. He said the same thing, except instead of having it moved inconsistently, it didn't move at all.

Starting point is 00:40:02 So when the object went away from him, it actually went away backwards. So if you use this web telescope, the kind of target aspect. So what would that indicate if you're tracking the web telescope? Yeah, there's a web telescope. If we assume this is the front of it, right? You can point towards a camera. A little airplane here. Flying along.

Starting point is 00:40:19 I would expect to see on my radar if we were kind of looking down. Circle. Oh, yeah, there we go. So, yeah, if aircraft's going like this and it's on this direction, then the target aspect indicator is basically pointing in the direction the vehicle is going. All right. And so when the target aspect didn't move and it darted away, this was the aircraft that had essentially a stationary object, and then it just started flying backwards and flew away that way.

Starting point is 00:40:42 So not to say it actually flew backwards, but the target aspect indicator never changed direction. It was as if it was kind of walking backwards after. Yeah, more or less, yeah. Okay, so we'd expect us due to limitations of the radar. It doesn't represent the kinematics of the vehicle. So you saw it on that there's a sensor on the, on the missile or whatever.

Starting point is 00:41:03 Or this is on Fleer on the jet. Yeah. So the jet has a missile. And then the missiles would have it, but you said you weren't necessarily armed at that time, or were you? We have our sensors on our training missiles that we fly with. So we can get tone on these objects, as it's called. Although we can't actually launch on it. You know, we would get tone on them.

Starting point is 00:41:20 They would get picked up by it. Yeah. And it would mean that the metallic out who's having some radar return. It's giving you some. There's a heat signature. Enough of a heat signature for the missile to get track. And the 9x, if we're carrying it. the catam, which is the fake 9x.

Starting point is 00:41:34 Those sensors are pretty solid. That's like our new upgrade, the 9x. Yeah, right. Those are the ones they shot down the Chinese balloon with, right? I come all weeks ago, which we maybe will get to if we have time. What are your thoughts about that? Again, so you're flying with these. I keep going down that.

Starting point is 00:41:50 Yeah. So here we are now. It's on the Fleer. And then naturally people are like, well, let's go see what they are, myself included. And, you know, what that looks like is we try to merge with the objects. So here it is. And you typically want to come below it. look up on it.

Starting point is 00:42:02 You can't see below the aircraft and ideally want to go as close as possible. Like, you have no idea. Well, we didn't, you know, I mean, first time, no. We didn't, you know, haven't seen it. I don't know how big it is really or it's going to move or whatever if they're doing anything there. But we would come up to it and our radar would be locked on. I said we and I a little bit of change really, you know, this is my experience. But we'd be locked on.

Starting point is 00:42:24 The Fleer would be on it, have a tone. This is something we trained to a lot coming into mergers. This is like one of the core things we'd train to. It's disgusting. I look and in my helmet, it would show me where to look to see it. I couldn't see anything. So that was kind of the status quo for a while, at least as far as I do at the time, where people were trying to fly up to it and not seeing it.

Starting point is 00:42:42 Now, I don't know if that means that they didn't all represent physical objects or if there was other trickery going on to prevent a visual ID. But that was a status quo for a while until we had a near midair with one of the objects. So how did that come down? Because that seems like they'd have a lot of incentive to want to avoid that. And also, could you get in trouble for just going out there? Or could you justify, rationalize as part of the training? Like, you're going to inspect it?

Starting point is 00:43:06 Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, we can certainly have the agency to go do that, at least initially. One of our most common missions, like in the Persian Gulf is just seat search. You go find anything, you know, anything you see out there. It's, you know, you could go and inspect. You can go and inspect type of thing. And as visual can constitute like the highest form because like a lot of these could occur at night.

Starting point is 00:43:25 And by the way, did any of them occur at night? Yeah, they were out there at night. We weren't, to my knowledge, and no one was flying by them in, right? That'd be available. So talk about the near counter or whatever. Yeah, so it was two aircraft with four people total. Only the first aircraft, the lead aircraft, saw it.

Starting point is 00:43:41 They were flying to go to a mission, I don't know what it was, out in the areas. Two of them flying side by side. The way it works is there's a single point. That's the entrance to the working areas. At a very particular altitude, and there one leaves 1,000 feet below that or vice versa, so I forget. But either way, they, you know, were tightening up their formation, accelerating now they're above 10,000 feet you can accelerate above 250 or nots and so they're accelerating probably 350 closing in the formation and then the lead just sees something go by his

Starting point is 00:44:07 aircraft and what he described was a dark gray or black cube inside of a instead of a clear sphere that was stationary with respect to him or so couldn't tell now yeah i'm gonna go back a little bit because it way i described it wasn't perfectly accurate i said it flew past them right but that was just a relative view so there's our understanding that it was stationary at that location and that they flew through it, but of course, it appeared that way to them. What's their separation, wingtip to wingtip? Pretty tight. I've been using about 100 to 150 feet as an average because they were probably tightening it out to get in there and stuff.

Starting point is 00:44:37 So you don't know the exact distance, but about in there. Okay. So go on. So then they... Yeah, so the object, you know, it's hard to, you know, really objectively see things that they're going by like that, especially when it's a surprise and all that. So confidence in the data is, you know, somewhat low here, I'll say. But, you know, he described it.

Starting point is 00:44:53 He thought it came closer with his aircraft. And so he described as a little. like five to 15 feet in diameter. That was what he could kind of glean from, you know, seeing it zip by his aircraft at such close distance. It's very hard to tell a size of objects unless you know what it is. So, yeah, I mean, that was essentially it. He, they turned around.

Starting point is 00:45:07 They canceled the flight after that. They weren't confident at their, you know, or hit her essentially to clear their nose. They were in the ready room with all their gear on when they came back. And at this point, we've been seeing and talking about them enough where he's just like, I don't say, well, that was effing thing. And we all knew what he was talking about.

Starting point is 00:45:22 Then we were kind of obligated because it was so close that we had to file a safety report. And kind of the chit-chat and a squadron with the commanding officer or whatnot was that, you know, okay, it's, you know, UFO, UAP. I mean, I didn't even know that term UAP. I didn't think it was. I mean, it was a term, but it wasn't something that was lower. But, you know, we thought perhaps these were some type of classified program that maybe, you know, had inadvertently operated where they shouldn't have or whatever. Maybe we could kind of get a message them that they were now, you know, this was going to lead to a mishap if they didn't take care of it and get their, you know, their stuff in order. And it happened multiple times, right?

Starting point is 00:45:57 There were multiple sightings of the similar type of variety from different pilots. Yep. Okay. When we initially filed a safety report, part of the conversation was actually like, well, shit, you know, we've been talking about Steve. I'm sorry, can I swear it? You're a dead. You do. That's right.

Starting point is 00:46:13 Sorry, my flawless rating. No, no, people have cursed many times. All right. Cursing like a sailor is none of a thing? Oh, yeah. It's trying. What else are you? Yeah.

Starting point is 00:46:22 So, yeah, multiple people or multiple encounters, shall we study? Yeah, so it's like, oh, crap, we've been seeing these things so much. We can't just have this one tape report for it. So, like, we actually filed several of them at that same time to kind of show that this wasn't a problem, which is, you know, that's an error, I think, right? We shouldn't have taken that long to report these, but. Did they just go into the void? I mean, is this, you know, kind of like blocking it. So I was trained by the Navy to be an aviation safety officer, and there are different reporting mechanisms for different emergencies of the hazard that's been identified.

Starting point is 00:46:55 you know, potential mid-airs that are of an unknown cause that are, you know, had the potential to reoccur. Eventually, that made their way into the no-tam. So that every time people were flying, there was a no-tam. It's a notice to airman. It's something that, what? Don't say it, Ari. You say all mission?

Starting point is 00:47:12 Yeah, he did change it. He's only to be inclusive, prepuda judges on the case. All right. He did change it. Yep. So there's a no-tank, right? Notice-to-air missions, yeah. Yeah.

Starting point is 00:47:20 So for submitting a hadrip like that, ultimately, it's kind of going to get, mass blasted out and like it's someone's going to read the email and then file it away. But that's basically it. Remember what happened to the Arch of the Covenant. But isn't that disappointing? I mean, maybe it's a blessing in disguise because this might have encouraged you to start your new mission on the civilian side, right? If it was like the government was taking this very serious, it is disappointing.

Starting point is 00:47:44 I have to say as a taxpayer, I don't have the courage that you guys have to, you know, I would have liked to, but I couldn't fit into the flight suits. You guys are pretty diesel. And I do want to talk. I always like to talk with extreme high performance. performers from my audience. I got a lot of young men out there. They want to be like you guys. So we'll talk about that at the end. I wasn't in the jet. You know, you guys were flying on my behalf and so forth. But like, this is a lot of freaking, you know, money and money and money, you know, money and money and money and money and money and money and money and a high performance aircraft. Right. Somewhere to 10 to $15 million to get us to level three probably. Yeah. So a million. Yeah. So a million. And that's trivial compared to the cost of losing a single person, right?

Starting point is 00:48:28 It's quite frankly a shame that, you know, and this is multiple government, the presidential administration, you can't blame it on the current one, right? I'm disappointed as a taxpayer, right? I'm supposed to me. I didn't realize it was still a problem until 2017, the New York Times article came out. And I recognized the video or the image that was on that because that was taken by a squadron made of mine. And I said, that's the so-called gimbal.

Starting point is 00:48:50 Yeah. I was like, holy smokes. This is not being resolved whatsoever. there's still an issue. And so I reached back to somebody's and just asked, you know, what was going on and it was still an issue. And that's kind of, that's, that's, that was my decision. At this point, I hadn't even really thought of it, frankly, I hadn't thought of it after I left until I saw that. And then I was like, holy smokes, this is, this is not going to get resolved within the normal systems. And that's kind of what led me that path them all today.

Starting point is 00:49:14 I mean, it would be disappointing. And I mean, you can comment on this too, right, but, you know, that's the only way to get attention to things that could be extremely dangerous, but prosaic. In other words, it could be drone or whatever. It could be less prozac, like alien technology or somewhere in between, like a military advocacy. But the only way to get attention is to whistleblow. It seems like a broken system. It's either that or someone crashes into it and then they investigate and then it will become an issue.

Starting point is 00:49:38 That's why we have the safety data. So we can retroactively look at what the problem with. So that's how we do. We write our procedures in blood. We still think that they're out there now or whatever these objects were. They're still being claimed to be cited. And what about the commercial traffic? Okay.

Starting point is 00:49:51 So it's a warning area, so it's not likely that Southwest is going to be operating and then necessarily. It could. I mean, the warning areas can be inactive and then IFR traffic can get ridded through it. So we have questions on the audience and please leave a couple of questions. We're going to go for a little bit longer. Then we're going to go have a nice Shabbat. We're going to introduce Ryan to Shabbat if he hasn't had it already. Did you tell them about the brisk meal of the circumstance?

Starting point is 00:50:13 No, you didn't tell me. We'll tell him about that later. Okay. Don't worry about that. Can Ryan go into Malik's the Gimble analysis? I don't know what the Gimble. if you're comfortable with it. And what is it gimbal?

Starting point is 00:50:23 What does it have to do with this event? And what are some explanations both, you know, on both kind of sides of the fence? So the term gimbal was given to a video that was released by a Navy. The name of the video has no consequence to anything objective. It's just someone in the Navy apparently gave with that name. I would really actually kind of curious who. Probably a good question.

Starting point is 00:50:42 So, you know, let's not overindex on that particular name. But, you know, a gimbal is an object typically has been in a self, you know, self-corrects and stabilizes itself based off of the centrifugal or I know there's one that's always the wrong one, right? Richard Feynman said, if you know the difference, you're a high school physics teacher. I'm not, so I want to expect.

Starting point is 00:51:01 That's right. Only high school physics stations. So it's, yeah, it's a platform that's gyro-stabilized, gyroscopically. So for pointing platforms. They're all over the place and technology is usually hidden, but this object that appeared in the video

Starting point is 00:51:13 appeared to almost act like a gimbal because it seemed to be, you know, wider in the middle, I guess. And I don't know the justification, frankly, right? So I'm not even going to try to, like, you know, I didn't name it, but you can't get the sense, oh, this kind of looks like a gimbal because it's moving around in strange ways. And the story behind that is we were out off the coast of Jacksonville, Florida.

Starting point is 00:51:34 We were doing our, I believe it was Tista workup event, which is. Yeah, geez, really. It's the, so hard questions on the intubble. You go through two workups before getting deployed, certified to go deploy. The first is Tista. So that's just you as an air wing operating with the carrier. Then you go through Com 2X, which is you as a battle group operating together. So it's just...

Starting point is 00:51:56 We're a Com2X, actually. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Uh-huh. So that's a little more tactical. So, yeah, great, great question. I cannot remember what the acronym stands for that.

Starting point is 00:52:05 I think we knew. All right. So anyway, we were out there and that's what we do. We're operating up the aircraft carrier. We're doing training. And honestly, it's more dangerous and more intense than combat operations, at least our modern operations. So it's pretty intense.

Starting point is 00:52:16 They do push us and stretch our... you know, capabilities. And it's graded as well. But anyways, one day we were going to do an air-to-air flight. We go out together, do the mission, and then as you come back one by one, as you run out of fuel, you don't just go back to the boat and land. You slow down to a non-tactical airspeed,

Starting point is 00:52:33 a max endurance airspeed, and you basically get out of the way and just go hang out. And you just, we call it hang out in the blades, waiting for the landing to open up at the boat. But we don't have enough fuel to just bring it up and go fly tactical. So we have no choice but to just hang out wait. And you're ordering for your landing spot. like at a gate, give the gate to open up to a civilian southwest.

Starting point is 00:52:53 So it was during this time that this aircraft came back. They detected a number of objects on their radar or noticed it on their situational awareness page. They noticed it to the east of the carrier. Initially they thought that it was perhaps some type of penetration test because during this, they actually sent out red air aircraft or simulated fighters from the shore to test a carrier's reaction essentially. And so if we're doing some mission, you know, you might be tasked with knocking it off, you went to go, a training mission, knock it off to go go see these guys essentially

Starting point is 00:53:21 I'll intercept them so that's essentially what they did they saw these objects they thought perhaps that's what it was it was strange because they were the east of the boat were already a few hundred miles out coast so you know these confiers and whatnot that flies uh how they would have got out there or thought of seeing them so that's the red squad or red what'd you call it red red air right there's adversaries that are paid commercial or you know civilian aircraft even sometimes right yeah yeah and so they went to essentially inspect these objects they call more or less stern converted it which essentially they approached it and tried to get behind it and started flying up to it.

Starting point is 00:53:52 Initially, you know, my memory served. It was somewhere in the six to eight nautical miles that they had got within this object. I actually later had the pilot and came up to my house to hang out. I'm still friends. You know, I asked him. I was like, correct my memory. How close were you guys? You know, and he's like, it was four to six miles, you know.

Starting point is 00:54:06 So even close than I originally thought. They got about four or six miles from it. It was dark. And, you know, my understanding is they peeled off at that point and headed back to the boat. And so that was the gimbal object you see there. There were other objects as well. I learned about this when I watched the debrief in the civic space when they played their tapes. And there was four to six objects, I call them smaller objects, four or six smaller objects that were kind of past the gimbal object that were flying in a formation.

Starting point is 00:54:33 And their target aspect indicator resembled the scattering that the ones on the East Coast were displaying. So for me, that led me to assume that they were perhaps the same objects that we had seen, but they don't necessarily have evidence of that. The gimbal object, we'd never seen anything like that before. That was unique. So a question from the audience here from somebody named Forgetit 25, which I was going to name my third child, Forgett. What kind of reduction in speed or need for thrust would going against the wind characteristics look like a la the gimbal video?

Starting point is 00:55:05 In other words, what kind of, let's say it was just a whatever, drone or what have you, sexicopter, as I like to say. What would it be, you know, what would it require? it's like hurricane force, you know, stability or, you know, how could you stabilize it? What kind of velocities, relative velocities, and so forth? I'm not 100% sure. I understand the question. I think you're saying if we were to assume it was a standard drone.

Starting point is 00:55:29 Well, presumably there's some altitude wind and how, how, you're 15,000, I think is what they were. So, yeah, so you need substantial thrusting. So they're asking, you have to stabilize it in the wind. So it's stable with respect to a ground track. It would need to have exactly the negative of that velocity. You'd have to know how big the aircraft is. Like there are a lot of different factors. It wasn't stationary, though.

Starting point is 00:55:47 Yeah. But the ones earlier, oh, so the giple was not stationary. Correct. Against the bedroom. Yeah. That's why I understand. Yeah. So it actually wasn't stationary.

Starting point is 00:55:55 Uh-huh. It's turning air moving. If you're going against the wind, which was going about 120 knots. And so back to the original question, which is what I think about that thing. Essentially, what was done, I think there was like some open source work that was done by Nick West and others that created a model for the kinematics of the gimbal and the net that were derived from what can be seen in the Fleer display itself. And that model, the only variable, essentially, that's an unknown, is the distance from the jet to the unknown object. If you use witness data to fix that object at four to six miles away from the aircraft, then the kinematics and trajectory of the aircraft essentially look like a J-hook.

Starting point is 00:56:35 So this is vertical right here. Someone coming and is climbing and essentially doing a tight hook. If you take that model and you extend that out to 30 miles or so, it's a straight and level trajectory, flight profile. And so the most logical assumption that people make if they don't include the pilot testimony is that that's really the most logical path for it to be the straight and level path at a large distance. If you include the pilot testimony, what you arrive at is that J-Hook maneuver, which is interesting because that is essentially what was seen on the situational awareness page, where the object was proceeding one direction, and this is a God's eye view that we see on this. So the object appeared to just stop and go back in the other direction. It could have just done a very tight turn that that model represents. So the model's interesting because, again, it was kind of an open

Starting point is 00:57:23 source effort. It wasn't one particular person. It's just whether you want to include that testimony. That's my understanding of it. I haven't delved into the model that much. You know, getting back to this notion of military organizations, and by the way, it's not just Navy, all the services, maybe even the Space Force now, dealing with these phenomena in some way or another NASA is as well. We mentioned David Spargel and colleague on Simon's Observatory, the President of Simon's Foundation. He's leading this NASA panel.

Starting point is 00:57:48 My colleague, Shelley Wright, and Professor Shelley Wright here is involved in optical setting, looking for extraterrestrial intelligence, using laser signals, receiving laser signals from potential extraterrestrial civilization that you guys are both out of the service. But it just seems kind of callous. It seems like they are not taking this seriously. And I guess the question is, would you advise a young, Ryan, go back in time, like go back into the military, Ari.

Starting point is 00:58:14 Let's start with you, Ari. Would you say like, you know, an organization that's treating its employees in this sense, just from a business recruiting perspective, HR perspective, on LinkedIn, here's this entity. We routinely have events that could cause your untimely demise, and we invite you to submit an email on this form on SurveyMonkey, and that's about it. Would you advise a younger Ari to go into the Navy or any military service?

Starting point is 00:58:38 Let's say the Air Force, those guys, you know, they're not I have a lot of gripes with certain things within the military that being said though I mean I got one of the most unique experiences

Starting point is 00:58:49 I think it developed me in you know I was a nerdy kid growing up in Princeton from academic family ivory tower you know I traveled a lot but it gave me a different

Starting point is 00:59:00 a very different worldview and perspective and confident and the military paid me to fly 80 million dollar jets so you know you have to taper

Starting point is 00:59:09 Like military lifestyle is tough. A lot of time away. Deployments. I do think they frequently, you know, I think we are burning our force. And that's something that it, that's a larger question. But, you know, I think we're burning our people. And there are a lot of people are leaving the military. Lifestyle is extremely hard.

Starting point is 00:59:27 We're operating at wartime conditions for 20, 20 plus years. And it doesn't seem to let off. And that is taxing our force. And I feel, you know, especially the maintainers and the sailors, like they're, It's extremely hard. We're requiring a lot of people. Conversely, like, it is an extremely unique and amazing experience. So I would caution I would tell anyone, you know, if my kid, my son wanted to become a fighter pilot, I'd tell him, hey, like, you know, are you willing to do XYZ? Are you willing to get, you know, have to deal with these things? I wouldn't tell them not to do it.

Starting point is 01:00:02 But I just thought I'd give them the pros and cons. And I think there's, I think they're both. So. I think when you do that job, you accept a lot of risk. I'm not going to give you the whole point check payment, but what we do at A-Ber's is we mitigate risk and therefore we accept it. And that's fine. And that's, you know, what we sign up to do. And occasionally, however, you run in this scenario that can be rare where you are introduced to risk that has no mitigation.

Starting point is 01:00:30 And that, I think, is a disservice. And that's what we started with in this conversation. I've seen it other times in the military, and it hasn't ended well, but we have to be able to mitigate those risks appropriately. And I think we're starting to do that with the reporting processes that are going in place. So to the wider question, you know, I would again probably communicate with my child very clearly on the risk that they would be accepting by doing that. And I just hope to God they make a good decision. Because I don't want to tell them what to do, but I want to, you know, do my best to give them a wide view of all the options. Okay, Chris French 83 on Twitter's.

Starting point is 01:01:05 asking a question for Ryan. Please, Ryan. So far, do you have any pilots who reported to you seeing the same metallic spheres in the skies around the world? Commercial pilots, military, et cetera. Are we being, is it the uniquely American phenomena? Yeah. I'll answer this differently, which is, I'm not saying this, but Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, and even in the last NASA Infest 18 public meeting, stated that these were being seen at all operational areas around the world.

Starting point is 01:01:29 Okay. Pete Venkman asking the sphere and cube matches the description of radar reflectors. makes these objects spotted by graves and company anomalous and not simply a radar reflection or a similar object. Yeah, so, you know, I've had this conversation many times, but here's the problem. I describe various situations of these objects, and they're stationary or they're doing X or they're doing Y. Where things get more anomalous is when you kind of zoom out, you zoom out and you look at the object temporarily over time and you say, okay, it was staying stationary and then it was, you know, it was proceeding at very high speeds in a holding. pattern for a very long period of time. And that becomes hard to explain. And it's the accumulation of all those data points over time that kind of leads us into that, well, we don't actually know what it is. It doesn't lead us into a conclusion, but it's crossing certain things out

Starting point is 01:02:18 and just leaving us with that question mark over our head still. Scott Debunk, Scottish Debunk 1. Sorry to bother. Can you ask Uncertain Vector? By the way, follow Ryan on Twitter, Uncertain Vector, and follow the Merge Podcast as well as we'll get into that in just a What is the relationship other than being 10 minutes apart between GoFast and Gimble video? Talk about Gimble. Talk about GoFast. Yeah. What is the relationship?

Starting point is 01:02:43 I like that. I'll once again suggest that we were not responsible the naming of that video. But, you know, this is one I actually don't have a lot of data on. When I went into the room to watch those tapes after they landed, that's not a video that I watched or saw. I've spoken with the pilots since then, and they have some questions about that. that video as well. Bro dog, which is not my brother-in-law, Brudog out there in my Marine

Starting point is 01:03:10 Cor recon, Hurrah. Jim, if you're listening out there, I love you, brother. Has Ryan contacted the Senate Subcommittee for Aviation Safety, Operations, and innovation to raise awareness of the UAP issue from an aviator's perspective? If not, I kindly suggest for him in Safe Aerospace to engage with the Senate Subcommittee

Starting point is 01:03:26 chaired by Senator Duckworth. It's a great idea. We're engaged through Americans for Safe Aerospace Congressional Oversight Committee. as well as the National Security Subcommittee, but the one that was just mentioned is not one we're engaged. We're also looking at this FAA reauthorization that's occurring this year. Is there room in there for any type of UAP budget at the FAA, considering how they were just dating how they're having such a hard problem? They didn't have the resources of the tools

Starting point is 01:03:52 to actually be able to track or potentially investigate these occurrences. Yamava Resort and Casino at San Manuel is California's number one entertainment destination for today's superstars. Catch the Jonas brothers return to the Yamava Theater stage on April 30th, the powerful vocals of Demi Lovato on May 17th, and the signature Southern Country Rock of Eric Church on July 19th. Tickets on sale now at Yamavah Theater.com, only at Yamava Resort and Casino, celebrating its 40th anniversary. You in? Must be 21 to enter. Question from Gaston Pier.

Starting point is 01:04:29 Speaking out must have drastically influenced his daily life. His worldview, his friendships, and I assume they're talking about you, not me, my favorite subject. His worldview, his family, his family life, relationships as military brothers. Can he tell a bit about the time frame in which the most intense changes took place for you? I don't know if you're comfortable asking it about answering it. That's a big one. I think it's a good one. It's kind of Meta-Lex-Friedman-style meaning of life and love, et cetera.

Starting point is 01:04:53 You feel comfortable with that? How did it affect you as a human? As a man, as a father, as a husband, if at all. Yeah, you know, it's one of those things where it's a conversation that was a slow boil, for me, at least, personally. I can't speak for everyone. And so I feel like I'm very much inside of the conversation still. In a way, like, there's no conclusion here that I've reached. You know, we have a lot of work to do.

Starting point is 01:05:16 And so in a way, I'm not even in a position to kind of retroactively look back and, you know, assess that. Because I still feel like I'm in that slow boil. But there has been a lot of changes. I mean, you know, I wasn't expecting to engage in the subject, of course. I wasn't expecting to speak on, you know, news. That was all stuff that was outside the stuff. scope of my experience. I don't know if I'm doing a good job with this question, but I don't know. I think they want you to go a little personal. I mean, you are the steely-eyed kind of guy and you

Starting point is 01:05:45 get this, you know, whatever. You guys, both you guys. You guys have this persona. And I respect you tremendously and I have great fondness for you. And if my sons or daughters want them to do what you guys do, I'd be, I'd point them to you for sage advice. But I know I've seen things or whatever and and had experiences, none of which are potentially at the level of this. But I mean, you know, if you're religious, it could be a miracle. I mean, when you encounter something like that, it has to affect you as a man. I guess, you know, I guess that's the nature of the question.

Starting point is 01:06:14 I'm curious, too. I'm glad Gaston asked it so I can phrase my, you know, comment in the form of his question. But, you know, to what extent does, I mean, the implications of what you're involved with are both from saving lives, protecting individuals and securing our country, but even beyond that, you have to realize that these are huge implications. How can that not change a human,

Starting point is 01:06:36 being on a personal level. I think that's what the... I've tried not to let it change me to the point. We talked about us a little bit earlier, right? Where we have a line of objective data and conclusions and extrapolation on the other side of it. You know, I've tried to not let things to the point affect me because I truly, you know, I, at my core, I need more data to be able to make a conclusion about this. I'm not driven with a conclusion in mind. So for me personally, I've tried not to let it. I'm sure absolutely has, right? Right. I'm not trying to be suspicious.

Starting point is 01:07:07 You should ask your wife. It's not like I had, yeah, exactly. We get her on the podcast. But, you know, I never feel like I had this big company to use this moment where my worldview changed. I feel like I'm, I'm hesitant to engage in that type of self-reflection because there's so much other work to do before we can get there. Not the answer.

Starting point is 01:07:24 I know people want to hear, but that's how I've tried to, you know. There are a lot of, I think, I mean, as a part of, you have a lot of instances in your career that, you know, are going to change you to, you know, from scaring yourself to death multiple different times throughout your course where you were, you know, a second away from going into the ground or land, just, you know, landing on a pitching deck at night and having to go around four times because the conditions are terrible. And, yeah, there are a lot of things that, you know, shape you. So, uh, next comment comes from a listener's name. I'll tell you in a second. He's asking, um, why am I so hot? Uh, it's very strange. Uh,

Starting point is 01:08:03 generic gay guy is the name. Ryan, why are you so hot? What made you shave your head? My mama made me, I guess. Good at. I assume they're asking you about. Oh, yeah. He is available.

Starting point is 01:08:15 He is available ladies out there to submit. I'm his agent. I want to address the shaving head question before we move on. I just my head probably every few years for a while. I used to do in the Navy a little bit. But the difference, I think, this time, is that I'm continuing to shave it. So, you know, I'll let that speak for itself. one of my friends past guest, Brett Weinstein, others have said, you should assume it's a PSYOP.

Starting point is 01:08:39 Let's dig into that, just for fun speculation. What is the purpose of a SAI? We hear that all the time. What does it mean? First of all, I think it means, and you guys correct me if I'm wrong, you know, that it's something done by some force to undermine and separate and atomize the coherence, integrity, and so forth of another entity of an adversary. I like to think, you know, there's almost no better way you could engineer the atomization, the polarization of an already fragmented country, you know, start introducing things that just completely bizarre. We can't explain them. We don't understand them. They could be military. They could be adversaries. To what level, you know, should you agree with the statement made by Brett, you know, assume it's a sci-up unless proven otherwise? And what scenarios could you envision a sci-up playing out? Like, what would be the motivation? Who would be behind it? Let me start with you on that. And then it's on that. as a PSYOP itself. I mean, people have been experiencing phenomenon in aviation.

Starting point is 01:09:36 I haven't, but, you know, like, even you hear about early astronauts seeing things in outer space that they couldn't, you know, so the fact that there are things that need to be looking into, I don't think would be that aspect. I know the SIOP I've heard a little bit, I think I read some articles a couple of years ago, that I think goes more onto them trying to create a external threat that would impose The one world government is sort of the generally the situation that I've heard that as Faustan. Yes.

Starting point is 01:10:04 Soap could also be something within, say, the Navy, right? It could be, we want to test the loyalty of Ryan, or this whistleblower. Someone in the Air Force is concerned. I'm just making this up, by the way, if questions out there. But, you know, they want to test. They have some suspicions. Maybe he, these leaked information about whatever, whatever. Again, preface it.

Starting point is 01:10:20 I'm not accusing him. I'm just saying there could be, it could be within, it doesn't have to be China, right? It could be something they're trying to smoke out something, suss out something. That could be a motivation that's not. even a foreign entity or it could be stress testing. We do these SWAT analyses on telescopes and how resilient are we to a virus that takes down, you know, our supply chains of Chile. Why not a SIOP? So I think I think the first thing you said is the fact that it would be entirely legal for that to happen. For us to target SIOPs on, you know, U.S. citizens would be highly, highly legal and I think would

Starting point is 01:10:53 likely irreparably damage of trust between the federal government and its citizens, as you should, frankly, if that was the case. So, you know, it sounds like perhaps this question is more directed towards the recent statements made by Gras and his activities. So, yeah, I mean, to the point, yeah, sure,

Starting point is 01:11:12 assume it's a SIEOP. And even if he's not involved, right? He could be receiving data from 10 people and all 10 people are, you know, part of the SIOP and are fighting him with bad information And so to that point, let's wait and see what type of evidence is presented to Congress and, you know, a lot of them to vet that information because ultimately that's the only thing that's going to sway anyone's mind. So we're just going to continue the process, right?

Starting point is 01:11:34 Because the process has been established. So, like, I think there is a way to do this now. So whether you think it's a side up or not, let's just let us play out. Now you're the Secretary of Defense. I made you. I just promoted you. I'll ask you to say. I assume I mean you're the president.

Starting point is 01:11:48 That's just saying president's cheating coming up. So, yes. Now, you have all these resources at your disposal. You could commission astronomers around the world to all train their telescopes. All the, what's on your dream list to increase the data content, quantity, quality, precision, calibration? What sorts of things could my colleagues in astronomy do? I don't criticize Avi when he came on the podcast. He has a vested interest in some of the stuff he's doing.

Starting point is 01:12:17 But, you know, it is true. There were no civilian efforts to look at the same. But now let's take it, let's just say by Fiat, you're Lloyd Austin or whatever, what would you do? What kind of supplementary information data, et cetera, quality, quantity, calibration would you be most beneficial to you and your mission? So I'm not going to answer the way you want, but we can go into some of that more stuff after. But to start, I would say, sadly, it's not a technological problem. It's a stigma problem. And so if I was in that position, I would be pushing in the middle management ranks in order to standardize reporting on

Starting point is 01:12:51 this across all the services. I think there's buying at the top. There's buying from operators, but there's, you know, essentially middle rank officers that are, you know, at that operational level that you're going to make or break that system. And if they don't have buying one, there's also ways that you can implement that into training, into the actual aviation training pipeline, things of that nature. So stigma reduction of that will increase pilot reporting to enable new data that will allow this conversation to be a normal scientific endeavor, you know, in our capitalistic market, we can have an industry around this, we can advance sensors, we can potentially get government funding for these different companies to be able to expand

Starting point is 01:13:30 and provide solutions to the government. So reducing stigma, I think, just allows this whole conversation to open up. But then when you start looking, you know, now to more directly answer your question, I think there are some, you know, there's some signatures that have been spoken about by Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick that are potential targets of opportunity in the one to three gigahertz range. I forget the higher range. But there's some other things that we're doing looking at, such as what are some perhaps passive detection capabilities that we could utilize? And so I think there's some very interesting ways we can leverage existing transmit technologies, I'll say, very loosely, to be able to passively identify disturbances in electromagnetic radiation, things of that nature.

Starting point is 01:14:09 And so being able to look at passive systems, I think, are huge. And there's a number of options all the way. I don't want to get into the detail. But there's a number of passive systems that could be used. And then, of course, on the active side, I think anywhere from wide-band hyperspectral-based centers from space are an ideal, you know, kind of low-hanging fruit that could be attacked. And then, you know, more fun conversation is one of the coolest things you could potentially do with gravity detection, things of that nature. Are we able to specifically adjust our radar systems so that we can more predictably see these things? Can we then take that data and combine it all and apply machine learning to it so we can perhaps get proactive detection,

Starting point is 01:14:48 these objects to be able to QR sensors, one of the main problems, I believe, is going to be latency due to the low of high velocities that we're seeing in the low amount of time that these occur just happen over, that if we do want to have follow-up investigation, we're going to have to have probably some predictive analysis or predictive capability in order to QR sensors. And so advanced algorithms, more data, anything that's going to be able to increase amount of data through sensors is going to ultimately add to the conversation. Yeah, we're down to the benefit and safety of, uh, of aviation space in America and beyond.

Starting point is 01:15:20 And we can get data from that, too. If we're able to proactively interrogate and skew and that, right, then we can start being, you know, more intelligent. We can start being more defined with what we're actually looking for instead of being reactionary. And predict rather than just so, you know, it's like I always call the ring doorbell fallacy. You know, you buy these ring doorbell monitors. They allow you to see who stole your package.

Starting point is 01:15:41 You know, and like what time exactly time stand to the mic or say, all right, what about you as we wrap up today's conversation? What kind of, if you were, you know, God, more of a god, a handsome pilot. He ranks you. Okay. I don't want to play the rank card. So what would you do? I mean, as a scientist, as a physicist, trained physicist, strong astrophism, what would you want to do to increase?

Starting point is 01:16:03 Not all. And Ryan covered the benefits to, you know, to aviation safety. And so what would you do just as a speculative, maybe wild speculation? What would you most want to do if you figure out how to get myself a ride into space? I think, you know, just, yeah, funneling money to people like Ryan and others and, you know, I haven't given it much thought, so I can't go too far into that. Gentlemen, as we finish up, well, first of all, I want to ask you to talk a little bit about the Merge podcast. How has it affected you, you know, in the bright lights and big microphones of being a podcaster?

Starting point is 01:16:40 What are you getting out of it? What does it do for you? What do you like about it? I am learning how much I say, filler. words. I'm realizing how Pop-on didn't tell you that. How my breathing is, yeah, even more so. And how much I don't like listening to my own voice.

Starting point is 01:16:55 Very common. What I am experiencing that's positive is that we're able to widen this conversation in a way that is bringing more people into it in a way that I couldn't be done any other way, frankly. Who's their dream guest besides the two of us? Who's your dream guest on the podcast? He's active duty right now, so I can't say his name. Okay.

Starting point is 01:17:13 If you could talk to President Biden or Vice President Harris because she seems to be in charge of like artificial intelligence, which we didn't get into. Hopefully when you come back or I come out to New Hampshire, maybe we'll do it part two. That'd be great. If you could talk to the highest levels of world's government, what would you tell them? I would just make it clear how pragmatic this issue is and how commonplace it is, that this isn't necessarily a historical conversation that happened a long time ago. And we're looking to add to that context now. It's something that is pragmatic and has potentially real consequences from, not only national security, but aviation safety. If we looked at Eastern Europe, we need to know who's who in the zoo there,

Starting point is 01:17:49 and we don't want to have unknown third-party objects that are potentially causing misfires or things of that nature. So just let them know there's a very serious national security issues that is a pertinent and urgent problem. Okay. So Ariel knows this because he was on the last time with a major. He was a major at hazard league. I could find an episode up here, down there, wherever you want.

Starting point is 01:18:08 I was actually asked one or two existential questions. I saw how deep you like to go on the interpersonal things. That's fine. But I do want to ask you, the name of this podcast is called Into the Impossible. And it comes from Sir Arthur C. Clark's, one of his many dictums. He has many of these aphorisms. One is any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. But another one is the only way of determining the limits of the possible is to go beyond them and venture into the impossible.

Starting point is 01:18:33 So I want to ask you, and the form of advice to your former self, 20-year-old Ryan, not necessarily anything to do with what you're doing now. What advice would you give him, do as you've done, to give him the curse? to go into the impossible. Yeah, I just tell them to be bold and fearless. Ultimately, what held me back, I think, and held a lot of feedback is just fear of acceptance. And if you're always driving yourself towards a mean, that's where you're going to end up. Fantastic.

Starting point is 01:18:58 Ari, any questions for your buddy? Thank you for coming back on the show. I hope to have you on any time. You're a fan favorite. People follow Ryan on Twitter on Certain Vector. We love vector calculus around here, don't we? And it's Merge Podcasts. find that on YouTube and on all audio channels.

Starting point is 01:19:14 Got some great interviews and some ones coming up. You told me about in the can, and you'll have to subscribe to find out about that. And I really want to thank you, and I want to thank both of you guys. You guys are heroes of mine. You're the best of what America has to offer. And I really do salute your courage and learn everything. You and I get together a lot, and that's great. And I learned a lot from you today, and I hope we'll be able to do a part two sometime.

Starting point is 01:19:35 Thank you for your service as well. And for the blast. Thanks, guys. Any sufficiently advanced technology? is indistinguishable from magic. Thanks for listening. Keep in touch, inspired and informed

Starting point is 01:19:50 by signing up for Professor Keating's Monday Magic email at Briankeeting.com slash list. And if you have a dot edu domain, we'll send you an artifact older than the earth, forged in the fire of an exploding star, in the form of an authentic meteorite fragment. Thanks to all our viewers and listeners

Starting point is 01:20:08 for helping us reach 150,000 subscribers on YouTube, and putting us into the top 1% of science podcasts. Please keep it growing by subscribing and sharing with friends. We love reading your reviews and suggestions. Follow Professor Keating on Twitter at DR Brian Keating. That's Dr. Brian Keating. And remember to always be curious.

Starting point is 01:20:41 Ambition comes in all shapes and sizes. At First Citizens Bank, we roll with your goals because we're built for what you're building. Fit for your ambition for Citizens Bank.

Into the Impossible With Brian Keating - UAP Disclosure: Eyewitness encounters with Ryan Graves (#334)

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.