Somewhere in the Skies - AARO Releases UAP Report, Fallout from the UFO Hearing, and is Immaculate Constellation a Hoax? (w/ Micah Hanks)

Episode Date: November 18, 2024

On episode 383, we are joined by Micah Hanks, Editor-in-Chief of The Debrief, to discuss the fallout from the recent Congressional UFO Hearing, to break down the AARO annual report, and to dig deep into the highly controversial Immaculate Constellation papers. Is it possible that they could be nothing more than disinformation... or even worse, a hoax? This and so much more! Immaculate Constellation Summary (by Suzanne): https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gjtWlLoTTNXRdTfxKL_O3bbNVQRpaZxs/view?usp=drive_link Follow the Debrief at: http://www.thedebrief.org Follow Micah Hanks at: https://x.com/MicahHanks Patreon: www.patreon.com/somewhereskies ByMeACoffee: buymeacoffee.com/UFxzyzHOaQ PayPal: [e-mail] Website: www.somewhereintheskies.com Store: http://tee.pub/lic/ULZAy7IY12U YouTube Channel: CLICK HERE Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/somewhereskies/videos Order Ryan’s new book: https://a.co/d/4KNQnM4 Order Ryan’s older book: https://amzn.to/3PmydYC Twitter: @SomewhereSkies Read Ryan’s Articles by CLICKING HERE Opening Theme Song, "Ephemeral Reign" by Per Kiilstofte Produced by LIONSGATE Copyright © 2024. Ryan Sprague. All rights reserved. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/somewhere-in-the-skies. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is somewhere in the skies with Ryan's bread. What a week. What a week it was for UFOs. Not only did we have a congressional UFO hearing, we also had the release of the annual Pentagon UAP report from Arrow. So we're going to break that down with you guys tonight as well with our guest. So let's not waste any more time. Let's bring them in.

Let's get to all of it. And we're also going to be talking about Immaculate Constellation. because we have some thoughts and we'll get to those. But let's bring them in and let's talk all the latest UFO news. It is the one and only Micah Hanks. Welcome back, brother. How you doing, Ryan? Good to be here, bud.

Thank you. Thank you. It's been, we've been texting back and forth the past few days. We've been busy. We've been busy little ephologists, haven't we? Yeah, you know, there are those bumper stickers that you see, you know, throughout the southeast here where I live and other places. to actually going back many decades. We still pray.

And people have all these different, you know, versions of that. But I think you and I have a bumper sticker that says, we're still eophologists. I don't even know where to begin. I mean, you were on News Nation, like, what was it within 24 hours of the UFO hearing, talking about that as well? I'd love to hear all about that. We had the hearing. Suzanne and I, we live streamed the entire event.

we did a pre-discussion, post-discussion. It was a lot. And then within the span of 24 hours, Arrow drops their report. It's just like you can't make these things up. It's just like it, I love how this happens. It's like nothing happens for a while and then boom. Just everything happens all at once. So let's start there.

Where were you on the day of the congressional UFO hearing? And yeah, yeah, how was it on your end over there while all this was going on? Well, you know, as far as the hearing goes, I was right here at my command center, which I have to first off, you know, just say right here at the outset, a couple of things. Being an Asheville, North Carolina native, I've lived through the flood, and we had a tremendous torrential. Some actually, I was just talking about we still pray. I mean, some local officials were literally saying it was a flood of biblical proportions. I think that that's a pretty fair assessment of what was going on.

Fortunately, my house, I've just moved into a new house, and it was not damaged. It held up very well throughout that storm, and it has proved its reliability in terms of being a command center when we have things like UAP hearings followed by, you know, a very busy news cycle. And then, of course, that cycle becoming even busier with the surprise release of an annual report on UAP by the official authority within the the DOD that studies these phenomena, unidentified aerial phenomena as they're known by the DOD, but yes, this was Arrow and that report. So, yeah, long story short,

I was here when this was all going down and trying to both monitor the hearing but also to, you know, compare, contrast, contextualize. And like you anticipated there, Ryan, it was extremely busy there for a couple of days because as I was doing my post-hearing coverage there for the debrief, then we got word that the UAP report was going to be dropped. And our wonderful Chrissy Newton was posting there in the chat to me saying, hey, that report's

coming down the pike any minute. And so those who subscribed to my newsletter, the intelligence brief that we put out from the debrief.org may have already seen that we gave a quick condensed summary of what's in the UAP report that Arrow just dropped, as well as some high points from the hearing. And of course, just in a few days, around, we've also got this Senate hearing where the new director of Arrow, Dr. John Kozlowski, is going to be sitting down with a U.S. Senator from New York, Kirsten Gillibrand. And they're going to be talking. He's going to be providing an update on UAP investigations by ERO. So, yeah, as the old saying goes, again, sticking with that flood motif for a moment, when it rains, it pours, and it's sure been raining lately. Yes, it has, brother. And I'm so glad to hear that you're safe and everyone's starting to rebuild there and get things back on track.

so I'm sending my best to everyone in the region who suffered from all of that. Before we get to everything else, too, on a Saturn note, I did want to bring this in because I was not able to cover this week or last. But we did lose two people in the field recently, and I'd love to get your thoughts. We lost maybe about three weeks ago now, Jazz Shaw, who I know has written. in for the debrief in the past. I've had him on my show many times. Love Jazz. Such a good supporter over here.

It's someone in the skies always was. We didn't agree on a lot of things, but there's one thing we agreed on, and it was UFOs, and I love the guy. I really did. And Howard Hughes, I will admit, I was not too familiar with his work, but I do know the big impact that he has had

on the world of radio, podcasting, and the unexplained. his very popular show. So I want to send my condolences to their families, friends, colleagues, and they will both be sorely missed. So yeah, I know you have a connection to both of these gentlemen, if I'm not mistaken. That is true. And thank you for mentioning that, because in fact, I was just about to say after your segue there, yeah, I was literally going to bring this up and had hoped to mention these two gentlemen. Jazz, of course, someone who was a friend of the entire community.

Since the launch of the debrief, he was a tremendous help to us. I, you know, had a lot of wonderful, very candid phone calls with Jazz, as well as interviews with him on his show and he appearing on mine. And I know that, of course, you and he had similar interactions like that. Jazz was a very passionate UFO researcher. I have to really credit him in terms of, like yourself, by the way, and a few others, you, Christina Gomez, Jazz, and several others, were instrumental in helping the fledgling publication that was the debrief at the time of our launch, helping us get off the ground, you know, often

volunteering your time and helping us with that effort. And in many ways, still doing that. But Jazz was right there on the front lines, you know, contributing at least a couple of articles a week as we were getting the proverbial ball rolling. Howard Hughes, as far as his contributions primarily on radio in the United Kingdom, but also, of course, you know, prolific podcaster, Howard was probably one of the earliest international interviews that I participated in. He invited me on the show. I always really appreciated and admired his interview style. Howard would often ask difficult questions, you know. He came from the tradition of journalism where I like you just fine, but as long as we're on the microphone

together and it's a formal interview, I'm going to be an interviewer and I'm going to try to get you off balance and there's going to be a little, you know, a little boxing from time to time. I always liked that about him. His approach, his style, his golden voice, I mean, just had the incredible pipes of a true radio professional. So both of these guys were both very helpful to me over the years. course, also were people Howard and jazz both that I came to, you know, consider friends. And often we would, you know, talk off the mic and, you know, compare notes and keep in touch about these things.

And so it's very sad to have lost both of them. Two gentlemen who I think, again, will be sorely missed, but certainly won't be forgotten for their many contributions and my own personal sincere appreciation to them both. Amen to that. I could not have put it better myself. Rest in peace to both of them. Let's move, my friend, to the congressional UFO hearing. Now, we had four witnesses that testified before Congress this past, what was it Wednesday, I believe. We had Tim Galadette, Luis Alizondo, Michael Schellenberger, and Mike Gold. Now, I know a lot of people know who Luis Alizondo is. they might be familiar with Tim Galadette, but the other two are kind of new to the UFO community, Michael Schellenberger, coming out of the gate with a pretty controversial article recently at his publication called The Public, which we will get to later in this conversation. And then Mike Gold, who worked with NASA, worked with Bigelow at one point, which is pretty interesting. But these were

are four witnesses. So before we kind of get to your main takeaways from the event, like how you think they did on both sides of the proverbial table, the witnesses and the congressional members with this thing. What did you make when we got these four witnesses? I mean, were you excited? Were you let down? Did you have any feelings?

Or like many, did you go into the saying? Let's just wait and see. I suspected from the outset that we were probably going to be hearing a lot of things we'd already heard because I think each of these individuals, with maybe the exception of Mike Gold, until fairly recently, most of them have been making appearances publicly. And although I've never communicated directly with Mr. Schellenberger, he was at the Soul Foundation inaugural symposium that was held in Palo Alto, California last year, which I attended. And I saw Michael there, but, I mean, it was kind of a who's who. everybody was at that event and in fact, you know, my friend Marik von Renenkopf, of course, he writes for the Hill

and who, you know, prolifically covers the UAP issue. Mark, who I believe was at the hearing on Wednesday sitting right behind Mike Gold there. Mark and I didn't realize that we were both at that event in California last year and with everything going on hadn't had a chance to talk. I would love to have had a coffee with him and so many other people

who were there. But that said, Schellenberger was there as well and he was one of the many I didn't get a chance to talk to. He has been, you know, contributing dialogue on the UAP issue for quite a while now. But I think what happened with this immaculate constellation story is this story has really brought him to the forefront in many ways of the UAP debate. And there's, you know, a fair amount of controversy surrounding this story. And we're going to get into that a little later too with our analysis. But in terms of the others here, like you mentioned, Louise Elizondo, of course, you know, former counterintelligence

agent who worked within the OUSDI also was associated with the ATIP, an issue. And and as he has most recently stated, coinciding with the launch of his new book, he played a significant role in that initiative, which again I would, and I think this is a fair characterization. Atip at the time that Lou began working with, it was essentially an informal initiative that was an outgrowth of a former official Defense Intelligence Agency program, the Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Application Program, or ALSAP. as was pointed out in a book by the former program director of that, co-authored with the deputy director and journalist George Knapp, Cullum Callagher, the deputy director, and then the director, James Lackatsky, they clarified that Alsap had an unclassified nickname, which was A-Tip. And so that unclassified nickname seems to have carried over for this informal initiative

that was really overseen by Jay Stratton. Jay Stratton thereafter recruited Lou, as again is described in Lou's new book, eminent, as Lou has said in promotion of the book, you know, we were all essentially equals and people who were working on this portfolio at that time, at least until a formal program was launched in 2020, also led by Jay Stratton, that under the cognizance of the Department of the Navy, and that was, of course, the UAP task force. So Lou Elizondo has been, I think, a bit controversial at times and also has, you know, remained someone who really, yet again, like Schellenberger is right now, has been at the forefront

of the UAP debate. But just because we have heard from Lou in the past and heard from him quite a bit, you know, on his television programs and on, you know, multiple podcast interviews, you know, sitting down on in front of the cameras for 60 minutes and other television programs. It doesn't mean, of course, that during a hearing on Capitol Hill, you're going to hear all the same things. And I do think that there were some notable and intriguing statements that were made, all of which, of course, occurred under oath. That, of course, also the same applies to Rear Admiral Timothy Gallagher. Adet. Again, I've spoken with Lou before Tim and I have actually met very briefly. That was at the Soul Foundation event last year. But I first came to know Tim because he reached out to me actually on LinkedIn. And he was actually complimenting an article that I had written there at the debrief. And of course, right around the time News Nation launched, we were pretty quickly seeing Tim on there frequently. And he also spoke about U.S.Os and other issues related to the maritime environment at the Soul Foundation Symposium. So that all said, all of these individuals, at the hearing were pretty well known to me, with maybe the exception of Mike Gold. And I think that really what you said is about what everyone else knew. You know, he had previously worked with Bigelow Aerospace. Some people read a lot into that. I don't know that there's necessarily a whole lot that should be read into that, but I think we can pretty safely say that some of the key players,

including some sitting right there at the table with him there in the hearing on Wednesday, he had known those individuals for years. Mike Gold, of course, also was on the NASA UAP independent study team. And I would say that based on what I do know about Mr. Gold, obviously during the hearing, he was very much a proponent of, hey, we need to apply science toward this, and we need to reduce the stigmas.

But Mike, obviously, is somebody who has a lot of time for the UAP debate, as well as people who interface with it, and the people who are well known for discussing this topic. And I would just say, and I think perhaps you could even speak to this, Ryan, because you actually, unlike most people, in the podcasting environment. You've interviewed a couple of the UAP study team members. And I think they all obviously had to have had some degree of interest in UAP

to have been a part of that study team, but I don't get the impression that all of them were necessarily as interested in or as hopeful for or as, you know, in truth, maybe advocates for the study of UAP quite to the degree that Mike Gold is. So, again, that's just a really quick rundown of who we're talking about here and why they're significant. But again, I think that this hearing, yet again, occurring, in a hearing room, you know, on Capitol Hill where they are all speaking under oath.

You see them in the picture there with their hands raised. You have to take that into consideration given some of the very extraordinary statements that were being made particularly by Mr. Elizondo. This episode is brought to you by Netflix. Most valuable promotions in Netflix are hosting a blockbuster triple headliner Saturday, May 16th. Rhonda Rousey returns to face fellow woman's MMA pioneer Gina Carrano in the main event. Plus Comane's Nate Diaz versus Mike Perry And the best have you wait in the world,

Francis Ngano versus Felipe Lenz. Watch Rhonda Rousey versus Gina Carano, live only on Netflix. Saturday, May 16th at 9 p.m. Eastern Center time, 6 p.m. Pacific time. Exactly. And you know, an image can really speak a thousand words. When you see an image like this,

you know, it happened with the grush hearing as well. Like I got goosebumps seeing these guys like putting their hands. up and going under oath to talk about UAP. This is just something you don't see every day. But we're seeing it a lot more as of late, which is exciting, alarming, if it's true. Some of the things that they're bringing forward are in fact true. And, you know, say what you will. We're having congressional UFO hearings, and there are some controversial things being said,

one of which, you mentioned Elizondo. did seem like a lot of the congressional members really wanted to hear from Lou. And I get it. Like his book just came out. His credentials are, you know, pretty extraordinary. When you look at his past and what he's done, you know, professionally. And what I found interesting, one of the first points I want to get your thoughts on was this crash retrieval thing. Now, this is kind of a continuation of everything that these congressional members pursued after the first year with David Grush, you know, who brought forward these accusations that there are secret UAP retrieval programs that we have reverse engineered technology from said UAP, all of this.

Congressional members tried to get him in a skiff and find out more. And from what I have deduced, they were unsuccessful. So they wanted to poke and prod at that at this hearing as well. And it seems like they really did that with Lou Elizondo. And this was the first thing that really stood out to me. When Lou said that he signed a document saying that he could not speak at all about UAP crash retrievals. He said, quote, to, I believe it was Jared Moskowitz. he said there are certain documents that we have in the U.S. government that allow people to have access to certain programs.

And then when he was asked how many individuals are required to sign similar documents, Elizondo told them it depends on how many people are going to get access to the information. So this was news to me. I don't know about you, but I was never aware that Lou had to sign something saying he could not talk about crash retrieval programs. What did you make of that? Yeah, that was certainly a surprise. And there are a lot of nuances to this. And I think it's difficult for me to speak about that without sort of doing so personally in the sense that, like a lot of people who follow this subject, you know, I've spent the last several years getting to know a lot of the key players who are involved in all of this and many former government officials.

I have spoken at length on one occasion with Mr. Elizondo in a video chat. And again, I at that time felt like Lou always answered all of my questions. And I, you know, had some very pointed questions for him at that time. This was maybe an early 2020. And, you know, he answered every question that I had for him. I've also come to know other people in this community. And, you know, people who worked with Lou Elizondo, many of whom speak extremely highly of him. And it's also known now that, you know, there are some, you know, some back and forth exchanges and some things, you know,

on certain differences that, you know, some of the people who were involved in these government efforts may have with one another and some of that having to do with everything from interpretations about the phenomenon and claims to the actual positions that they held with regard to these programs. Without getting too into the, you know, into the weeds about all that, I bring it up because, you know, I personally also have some different opinions than Mr. Elizondo when it comes to the discussion about crash records retrievals. And again, as your listeners well know as do mine because we did an episode about this. We discussed Operation Paperclip Unit 731, which again effectively some have called this the Operation Paperclip of the East.

We discussed that in an episode of Your Fine Show a while back and also the, what I think is, a very good possibility. And there's one that there is historical documentation that supports this, that the Roswell incident of 1947 was related to some of these efforts that were occurring right. there after the war. In recent appearances he's done, Mr. Elizondro, of course, has offered a different position on this, which I think we could call the more conventional UAP proponent view on Roswell, which is that it was not just one craft. Mr. Elizondo says there were a couple and that they crashed and that indeed there were biologics that were recovered. And he has discussed this in relation to the Roswell incident in a few instances on recent interviews. So naturally, I have to say, I different with Mr. Elizondo on what actually happened at Roswell. And as I understand it, again, having read

his book, and he did a fine job not only with the book, but also with the narration of the audio book version, if folks haven't listened to that, Lou did a really good job with that. But as he explains in the book right around, I think maybe page 42, 43, he effectively heard that the Roswell incident had actually happened, and this was confirmed for him, I believe, by Hal Putoff when they were talking, of course, fairly shortly after Lou really kind of came on board with the A-TIP initiative. And so that seems to maybe be his source.

All of that said, what I found intriguing about what was said in the hearing about crash records retrievals is that specifically Mr. Elizondo at one point said, we're talking about incidents that occurred way back in the 1950s, and this would have been before my time before I was even born

some of these retrievals. So I had to infer from what Lou was saying at that time, the 1950s again, being a few years after Roswell, that he was not referring to Roswell in this case. That's one point that I think should be made. Number two is that he also said, maybe for the first time that I'm aware of, and again under oath, which certainly lends some weight to this, that of the crash retrievals that he knows of, he was told that he cannot talk about those. and the reason being he signed a document. When asked about the document and who else might have had to sign this, he says it depends on how many people are going to, you know, get access to that program.

So he implies that there are others who would have had to sign similar documents and that in order to be able to have information related to the program that Mr. Elizondo was referring to there, one would have had to have signed this document. And again, it's interesting because I think Moscovitz said at one point, you know, the first rule about fight club, right, is you don't talk about fight club. the implication there being, of course, we can't talk about those crash record retrievals that we're talking about. So again, the final point I will also make is that

intriguingly, although Lou seems to be referring to incidents that occurred in the 1950s, and he may have only had secondhand knowledge of these, when pressed about that and what specifically he knew, one of the things that Lou had said was that there was a lot of anecdotal discussion about this during his time in DOD. So we are left with only a few things to be able to determine from this because it's all fairly vague. But again, my read on this is he's not talking about Roswell in this case.

He does appear to be referring to a kind of an agreement, which again, one might call that a non-disclosure agreement, right? An NDA. And this is the very kind of thing that the All-Dame Anomily Resolution Office under the leadership of Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick with the production of its erosurricular report. They said they found no evidence of those kinds of NDAs, although it might warrant mention a little later we can get into this too, Ryan, but it might weren't mention that Arrow did talk about fake MDAs, fake programs, and other things that they say had been used for training purposes. This isn't explicitly mentioned in the public version of the document, but Dr. Kirkpatrick certainly has referenced it publicly in interviews. And again, I have some interesting suspicions about that. I think, in fact, that probably is something that wasn't supposed to have been mentioned publicly. And so one has to wonder about the nature of this document. Is this one of the NDAs that Aero says doesn't exist? Mr. Elizondo certainly seemed to believe that this was a legitimate document, and the way he described it seemed to characterize it as such.

I find it hard to believe that that would have been a fake NDA used for some kind of training purpose, as Dr. Kirkpatrick has alluded to. And then the last thing I'll also mention to, during the hearing, and even though I think particularly from Representative Anna Polina Luna, there was a little pushback. She had made a statement about, you know, she'd like to hear more facts and details and less promotion of people's books during the hearing. She'd said this in one of the interviews after the hearing. But I think in some instances, obviously, Lou had to reference his book, and I don't feel like he was doing it in an overtly promotional way. He was having to reference certain things in the book because he was drawing parallels to things that he said he had been cleared.

by the defense office of pre-publication for security review, Dobser, he had been cleared to discuss certain matters. And he says, what I was cleared to discuss in that book after that security review process, it took about a year, is what I can discuss. So intriguingly, he may make kind of allusions to crash record retrievals and things along those lines. The only thing he specifically mentions in that book is Roswell.

But he also mentions in several instances and footnotes at the bottom of the page that information from this portion of the text was redacted, and it was not cleared for review by that Dobser review. So what all that means to me is that on Wednesday during the hearing, Lou seems to be alluding to a deeper knowledge of other acquisitions of exotic craft or, you know, unknowns, retrievals that seemingly would have happened beginning in the 1950s, that there was a lot of discussion about these during his time at the DoD, and that he seemed to have signed one of those non-existent NDAs,

which prevented him from being able to talk about that. If my interpretation of the document, as he described it, is correct, that's all pretty interesting. And certainly it's grounds for future inquiry and research, because a lot of us want to know now, okay, well, first of all, what was the program? Is this program the same as, or is there any continuity with the claims now being put forward by the journalist Michael Schellenberger with regard to this alleged immaculate constellation program?

I'm not sure that they are necessarily one and the same. We can talk about that as well. But altogether, it's a very intriguing set of statements. And again, I think that as you point out, what Lou said about these crash records retrievals had me scratching my head. And I think a lot of us came away thinking that was maybe one of the most significant points from the entire hearing. Right. Yeah. And, you know, that would then lead us to Rear Admiral Golodette, who I know you talked about at length on your most recent episode of your podcast.

In terms of this really caught my attention to during the hearing, talking about how Arrow was possibly doing some sort of influence sort of tactic with him after he started sort of looking into the topic of UAP and even would go so far as to, I believe, have an interview or apply for a position with Arrow. I might be mistaken on that, but could you maybe tell us a little about this section of the hearing where he kind of called out Arrow and said, look, I went in there and they were trying to tell me, don't talk about this, or you shouldn't do that. Yeah, maybe tell us a little about that if you don't mind. Certainly, and I'll try to be as concise as possible here because obviously there's so much to cover. But, you know, I'm also trying to add a little bit of interpretation and analysis of all this. So with regard to Rear Admiral Gallaudet, he had said that he met with Arrow earlier this year. The first thing I think that we should try to infer from that is that if the meeting took place earlier this year, probably, that, well, first of all, had to have occurred after Sean Kirkpatrick had left. It seemingly would have probably occurred during the period in which deputy director, Tim Phillips, who's still the deputy director of Arrow, but after Kirk Patrick left late last year, Tim Phillips became acting director.

until the point when Dr. John Kozlowski, the new, and he's fairly recently appointed. I think that John Kozlowski only came on board, I guess it was, what was it in August? I think it was August. So all of that said, Gallaudet seems to imply that, again, he would have been meeting with Tim Phillips and probably the Science Advisor of Arrow and others during this meeting. And yes, again, his characterization in the hearing the other day was interesting. He said it felt more like an influence operation rather than a meeting. I expected to go in there and have about an hour-long meeting, and he says it lasts for several hours,

and that essentially the arrow officials he spoke with seemed to try and encourage Dr. Gallaudet to question things like the nature of the Tick-Tac incident from 2004, the famous USS Nimitz incident. And even went so far as to suggest, and I found this to be very intriguing, by the way, that that might have been U.S. technology. Now, it's really intriguing to me. I mean, I don't know why Arrow might have been saying that we could speculate, Ryan. We could say, okay, maybe they were just trying to downplay the exotic nature of things, and they could have put it to him sort of like this. You know, well, we're admiral, we don't know that that's anything exotic.

There's no evidence that this is exotic. For all we know, it might have been one of our technologies, right? Something experimental. Now, the strange thing about them just putting that out there as just a, you know, high, hypothetical. Like, let's just say for argument. We're trying to demonstrate that it may not be, you know, anything exotic, extraterrestrial. And again, Gallaudet seems to be very inclined toward that interpretation of UAP. In fact, asked that question by one of the representatives, he and Alizando both, so that they seem to feel that that's probably what a lot of these UAP are, whereas Schellenberger and Mr. Gold simply said they don't know what these things are. It could have been to try and just say, yeah, we don't know what these things are. So how do you know it's not U.S. technology, but Again, for Arrow to say that is significant given the fact that in their historical report, they explicitly state that while they found no evidence of crash record retrieval programs, they found no evidence of any kind of advanced technologies or acquisitions or anything like that. What they do say, albeit in somewhat veiled terms, is that there are a lot of programs that they learned of in their investigations and that Arrow, again, was granted the full authority, all the, you know, the titles, I think it's Title 50 authority. that they required, and again, I think explicitly with relation to the UAP issue, they were granted

that authority so that they could have access to all the information they needed with regard to UAP. And further, of course, it was also legislated, if you recall, that there was whistleblower protections that went into the National Defense Authorization Act from the preceding year so that anyone who had knowledge of these programs could lawfully, even if they had signed NDAs, they could lawfully go and speak with Arrow about this. So Arrow said we had access to everything, and we sure did find some programs that, you know, again, as Tim Phillips had said, at one point speaking with the media, coinciding with the release of that historical report, he said, if I had seen these things,

and I didn't know what they were, I thought that they might have been otherworldly too. So another interpretation, therefore, is for Arrow to be saying to Mr. Gallaudet, well, you know, this could have been some of our technology. Could that be Arrow hinting at something that they know and further that they actually found? in their investigations into these incidents. I find that to be a little unlikely personally, and the reason being that we already know that there were past investigations

into the 2004 Nimitz incident, some of which were led by Jay Stratton. Of course, that was discussed by Lou Elizondo in his recent book, but it's also alluded to another literature, and it's been discussed by some of the other people, of course, who knew Jay back during his time working with this. I know that James Lakatsky and others have also talked about the investigations

into the Nimitz incident. And from all of those past writings and other statements that people have made, and again, I guess most significantly, the recent statements by Lou Elizondo, who features a chapter on that incident in his book, none of those individuals come out and say, you know, and maybe one could say that naturally they wouldn't, but again, that also might imply something conspiratorial. So I'm going to put that aside for a moment.

But again, as far as we know, taking all their testimony in good faith, none of the aforementioned individuals have implied that anything about the Nimitz incident was suggestive of a secret U.S. technology. They also have only said that really their conclusion was that we don't know what it is. We have, of course, the famous testimony by Dave Fravor, by Alex Dietrich, the footage that was obtained of it using the Raytheon-Atfleur targeting pod by Chad Underwood, which to me is still fascinating footage. There are some that kind of try to play this down. I know you've had Mick West here on the program with you. I've talked with Mick a little about that. I don't necessarily agree with all of Mick's interpretations and analysis,

but again, he and I can respectfully disagree on that point. I mentioned his analysis because, again, he's offered a lot of different prosaic interpretations of what that object might be. To me, into my eyes, when I'm watching that footage, I see what clearly appears to be a, you know, tick-tack or pill-shaped object. You can clearly see light reflecting off of its surfaces. you can clearly see what appear to be some little protuberances toward the bottom of the craft,

which are consistent with these little rail-like objects that some descriptions have provided of the so-called craft, the Tic-Tac. To me, I find that to be a really interesting video and still probably one of the best official UAP videos ever obtained. And what I see in that footage is consistent with the pilot descriptions of the object. Rear Admiral Gallaudet was particularly concerned with the fact that Arrow was suggesting this might be a U.S. technology, because he felt that that insinuation undermined the testimony provided by the pilots.

Now, that was his interpretation. I could see it as, you know, potentially being, if it were U.S. technology, that Fravor and Dietrich actually gave very good descriptions of that, whatever that technology is. And it wouldn't have to necessarily be both our technology, or rather I should say it's not a mutually exclusive condition there. it could be both a U.S. technology and their descriptions of it and their testimony is still meaningful and, you know, essentially accurate. So while I would differ with the rear admiral on that point that, you know, to say it's U.S. technology, somehow takes away from, you know, the pilot descriptions, you know, I still find it very strange that it would be implied to Gallaudet that this might have been ours. Does that imply that arrow knows something more than they're letting on? And by saying that to Gallaudet, is that something that Gallaudet, here again, maybe shouldn't have been talking about during this hearing, but actually did anyway and let that slip because let's just face it, Ryan, has been speculation about in some circles whether the TikTok was a experiment of hours for years now.

People have been making that claim for years. Now, as far as where I stand on that, it's not impossible. But I just haven't seen evidence of that. And again, past investigations into that incident don't seem to have yielded any kind of data that points in that direction. But there are still proponents of that theory. The main three theories really being that, A, it's an unknown and possibly NHI or UAP of exotic origin. Two, it might have been a prosaic object that was misinterpreted and it was just this perfect storm of things where pilots see something, Underwood goes out and films something completely different.

And it all just happens to somehow build this narrative. Again, I find that highly unlikely, but that is essentially the skeptical argument. Or three, it's a real object. It was certainly seen. There was an actual encounter, but that was part of some sort of a training exercise, and those pilots weren't told what they were being shown. And this experiment might have been something to gauge the capabilities of said technology. You might put out other theories, too, but I'd say that those are the leading three.

So the fact that Arrow would say that to, oops, as I kicked my camera there, sorry about that. The fact that Arrow would say something like that to Rear Admiral Galadette's bizarre to me. And again, I'm not sure exactly what that means yet. Yeah. Only time we'll tell. Yeah, maybe he's going to get into a little bit of trouble for that. The other thing that kind of caught my attention that I was like, ooh, I don't know if he was supposed to say that or should have said that,

but he got pressed about satellite imagery that was told to him from Christopher Mellon, who we originally thought was going to be at this hearing, was not able to attend it for personal reasons. But there was a point where Tim actually brought up one of these images that was captured on satellite imagery of what he termed a button shape or a saucer shaped craft. What did you think about that? I think you're on mute there, buddy.

Oops, sorry about that. There you go. Here again, that sounds to me, like it may have been one of those instances where something was being said under oath in front of a live audience around the world, people tuning in and listening. But again, with those representatives there in the room, something that might have been said that the intelligence community would have preferred had not been said. And one reason I can tell you that is because, again, in the past, we have had other instances where the discussion about satellite imagery has come up. most notably, I believe it was in 2021 probably, early 2021, when at that time the outgoing Director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe, went on Fox News. He was asked by Maria Bartaromo about UAP and what this all means.

And he was speaking in advance of the release of the 2021 ODNI report. And he had said, you know, before he left as the Director of National Intelligence, he had actually hoped, to be able to declassify all of the UAP data, but he said that they weren't able to get to that point yet on the kind of time frame that he had hoped to be able to do that. But he said that, you know, he thinks that more data should be released and he says that there's a lot of data that is collected, which in itself, by the way, is significant given what we've just learned about John Ratcliffe, you know, again, having been selected as the nominee for the incoming CIA director. And again, that's a whole separate issue. We won't get into that or the politics about that right now. but I mention it because, again, here's a person who in the past at very least does have something of a record that is sympathetic to UAP transparency. And when he was talking with Bardo in that interview in 2021, Ratcliffe also said, you know, there are satellite images that show UAP. And I later heard, and I think it may have even been alluded to in some reporting around that time, that some in the intelligence community would have preferred if Ratcliffe had not mentioned that on live television.

But then again, I mean, he was asked by a Fox News host. What's he supposed to do? And the fact that he mentioned it, of course, put it in a lot of people's minds. Obviously, Chris Mellons, but mine and the debrief team, we all had wondered about that. You know, okay, well, what kind of satellite imagery are we talking about? Where was this obtained? What does this entail? Sure enough, Christopher Mellon had been talking with Rear Admiral Gallaudet. And as Galadet said in his opening remarks, as recently as this week, Mellon had informed him that apparently Congress has still not been. provided that satellite imagery. And so for the first time, when pressed on this issue, initially, Gallaudet just kind of said the object in the satellite imagery was a UAP, not much of a description. But when pressed on that, and I believe it was Representative Mace who had done so, he said it was referred to as the button. It was a disc-shaped object.

He couldn't talk about where it was collected, where the imagery originated from, or, you know, what environment that it was obtained from. But he described the object, And that's quite interesting to me now. Again, my suspicion here is that that's probably something that he was able to talk about, but I would imagine that the intelligence community might prefer that he not, especially if members of Congress have not been provided similar imagery, right? This does seem to suggest to me a necessary lack of transparency at very least.

There could be more to this too. But again, when we start to skirt the conspiratorial, I try to rein in on that. It's so tempting to try and inject conspiracy into this, Ryan. And again, I think that really the strongest arguments never have to rely on conspiratorial claims in order to land home. But nonetheless, I mean, we have to at least acknowledge that there's a fundamental lack of transparency if there are intelligence officials now, multiple intelligence officials who have knowledge of these images and who have discussed these images publicly. and yet Congress in briefings in skiffs haven't been provided said imagery. And again, Chris Mellon took issue with this.

He raised that point to rear Admiral Gallaudet. It's also worth noting people probably know this by now because Mellon has discussed this publicly, but he was originally supposed to have been one of those providing testimony at the hearing. And so one of the things I think that we can infer from this is that probably he was one of the original four. I don't think there were going to be five people testifying. and I presume that once the schedule changed and Mr. Mellon ended up having this conflict, they probably replaced Mellon with one of the other individuals that we see there.

We don't know who that would have been and why they would have been added, you know, or what circumstances, you know, might have happened right there. But again, I think that that's part of the reason why Chris Mellon was in communicating with Galladet prior to this hearing. He initially had planned to be there and raise some of these issues himself. So in any case, what we hear and what we learn from this is a pretty explicit, description of a classic flying saucer allegedly obtained in satellite imagery. None of us have seen that yet. It's still anecdotal secondhand information we're getting. But I found that to be a very interesting description. Absolutely. It definitely caught my attention, as I'm sure it did in many people.

I want to get to Schellenberger, but we're going to spend a little time on that. So we'll save him for last. I want to move to Mike Gold for a minute. Now, a lot of people were sort of disappointed in his involvement with this. Not that he said anything wrong or bad or inaccurate, but it was sort of, a lot of people are saying more of like a sales pitch for the Artemis Project or even NASA, which I thought he was great. I thought he was passionate. I thought he gave it as all, but he did seem like kind of out of place at this thing. However, there was something he brought up. I think this was towards the end, and I'd love to get your thoughts on this. Now, There's been a lot of talk of NHI.

Elizondo uses that term. It's been used officially now. Grush used it a lot during his hearing. And they were asked, like, I think it was Nancy Mace asked, are some of these UFOs piloted by some sort of non-human intelligence? And if so, what is that non-human intelligence? And I have the quote here. Gold said, we must be modest in our assumptions that we're looking for

intelligence that could be biological. It might not artificial intelligence, ML, machines. We assume that all intelligence would be like us. And every time we look out into the universe, we're humbled relative to what we don't know in terms of the forms of intelligence, of what it may take. I can assure you, I probably can't answer your question, but I think the ultimate answer is going to surprise us all. I'd love your thoughts on that, man. I mean, everyone, all the headlines go with, aliens, aliens. These are alien craft. We have the alien bodies. But we've heard a lot of talk, too, that a lot of this could be referring to something artificial, artificial intelligence, whether that's from a rival nation or another civilization amongst the stars. So what do you make of those things

that Gold said? And this kind of almost malleable term of non-human intelligence. So I interact with non-human intelligence, I think you might argue, almost every day, right? Yeah, when I am, when I am, you know, reading things on my phone or I'm using a PDF reader or I am, you know, using chat GPT to help me come up with, you know, recipe ideas for what I'm going to fix for my family when they come over on the weekend and I'm going to cook for everybody. One might stop short of saying that our current level of progress with artificial intelligence has produced genuine intelligence, right? Right now it's really clever computer programs designed by very clever programmers that have become increasingly adept at simulating human behaviors and using natural language to process information and often parse it and extrapolate information. from large amounts of data very quickly. It can essentially do what humans can do, but it can do that really quick, so much more quickly than we can.

And it's really fascinating watching that. You know, my brother and I actually were having a great conversation about this last night. You know my brother, Caleb, you and Caleb. Yeah. So we were having quite a conversation about all of that last night over the dinner that I prepared. Thank you, Chat, GPT, for those excellent recipe ideas. But, again, my point is that we could say that we were already interacting with. a form of non-human intelligence.

But the obvious implication when Grush and others have talked about this is, well, yeah, they're talking about non-earthly intelligence and probably biological. But again, there have always been suspicions, and this is nothing new. I mean, going back to the 1970s, you can look at some UFO literature that describes robot-like UFO occupants. And it's a bit of a conundrum rhyme where trying to really find a grueling. good, reliable report of a landed craft with a reliable observation of UAP occupants. A lot of people would say, oh, you know, the literature is full of them.

We could look at all these classic, you know, cases where people say that they saw aliens or what they interpreted to be aliens. But again, if you really are scrutinizing the information in doing so with the proper amount of skepticism, it's hard to really look at UFO traditional literature, UFO history and find really good clear-cut descriptions of, I mean, you find occupant descriptions, but, I mean, one of the problems is that from one case to the next, there may be some similarities. Often, you know, these, the distinctive differences are taken by some to mean that either there are more than one variety of NHI that are interacting with us, or perhaps it's not something

quite like N.H. Again, my colleague and a great friend to Dr. Michael P. Masters, with his extraterrestrial hypothesis, as he terms it, you know, which is a time travel theory of UAP. Coming at this from the perspective of an anthropologist, which of course is what his background is, he's saying, look, you know, the fact that these things are humanoid and, you know, a general sense, do look an awful lot like us, seems to strongly suggest to me that these things might actually be us. So maybe they aren't non-human intelligence. Maybe they are human intelligence, but it's humans of, you know, some future generation, hundreds, maybe even thousands of years in the future.

And this could explain if time travel is ever created and comes to fruition and is actually something that is, you know, physically able to be used for travel, if you even call it that. Again, modern physicists say time travel does exist. It's a generic component of relativity. But practically speaking, it could never happen because, you know, to be able to build a time machine, would be almost impossible. The physical requirements would be something that humans couldn't meet. I would simply say maybe the humans of right now, I don't know if the humans of a century from now are going to be so encumbered by technological and physical limitations, let alone the humans of a thousand years from now. But we can look back into the past and we can look at the paleoanthropological record and we can clearly see that as recently is the last geological epoch, the plasticine, humans were coexisting with several other varieties of archaic humans or hominens.

For instance, we had the Nandertal, which are the most well-known, but again, the more recently discovered Denisovans. And then we can go even further back and you see evidence of other different kinds of ancient humans. And if you go far enough back modern homo sapiens sapiens, you know, modern humans, which essentially were the first, you know, appearance of anatomically modern humans as we exist and appear today, you can go far enough back to a time where there were humanoids, but not modern humans, right, our ancestors. And so looking back at ancient human evolution, we already know that things that look sort of like us that weren't us existed. And sometimes multiple different varieties of them existed. So are we dealing with time travelers from the future and is the difference from one occupant case to the next actually representative of humans from different points and different futures intersecting with our timeline and we're not seeing different alien species, but we're seeing different versions of future humans? I think, you know, my Michael Masters would say so. But again, another question that has to be asked is, coming back to AI, we're working with AI. We're developing, you know, machine intelligence right now. It's becoming smarter and smarter. And right now, it seems that our ability to work with intelligent machines is beginning to outpace our human ability as far as crude space missions, not crude in the CRU-D-E, but I mean the actual group of people, a crew. crude space missions. You know, we haven't gone any further than the moon. We're planning, mentioning Artemis and all of this, you know, to go back to the moon and then eventually we want to, you know, go to Mars.

But we're getting really good at sending robots to those planets, right? And meanwhile, here on planet Earth, our AI is really outpacing our space exploration capabilities. It's not to say that we aren't advancing in space exploration, but we're certainly seeing AI taking off very quickly. Now, you know, technologists for years have talked about this, and they call it. all this concept, singularity, this idea that we're going to get to a point where technological growth isn't just cumulative and it's not just growing exponentially, but it's growing greater than exponentially. And so as opposed to going like this, you're seeing a curve that's beginning to steadily incline. Ray Kurzweil talks about the so-called knee of the curve.

And he had predicted more than a decade ago in a book called The Singularity is Near that there would be a point on the timeline of the rate of human technological progress where the knee of the curve occurs. At this point, the rate of growth of technology, it begins to grow so disproportionately in terms of our ability to be able to even understand what's happening, that we suddenly lose some grasp on the actual technological growth. Now, that may sound nebulous, but really essentially what he's describing is we develop intelligent machines to a point where the intelligent machines start taking off and just kind of working independent of us. And at that point, as Werner Venge and others,

theorists, he was actually the person who coined that term singularity for all this. As they have speculated, they're like, okay, at some point the machines become so intelligent that they just break away and they just work independently of us. And we're no longer even going to be, you know, I mean, we may be along for the ride for a while,

but we're not the ones in control. We're not the ones behind the reins. The horses just running and doing its own thing. So naturally, I actually started thinking about this in relation to UAP about a decade ago or more. and I wrote a book about this called the UFO Singularity where it was more of a thought experiment that just kind of looked at various aspects of this.

But the premise is that if here on Earth we're more likely to create artificial intelligence, then we are, at least more quickly, sooner than we are able to go off planet ourselves and we as biological organisms travel first to Mars and then maybe on to Jupiter and then maybe beyond our solar system and we start traversing interstellar space.

if the AI is likely to proceed the crude missions to really distant locations, one would have to imagine that in other places throughout the cosmos, if other intelligences are also intrigued by the same questions that we have about space and they're compelled to want to explore space, but they also are developing synthetic forms of intelligence, you know, if they're doing that just like we're doing, and they're significantly more advanced than we are out there, and let's say that there are a few hundred years ahead of us,

on Earth, it's probably going to be a good likelihood that whatever we encounter, especially if there are any kind of technologies that are able to traverse great distances, interstellar distances, and they're able to get here. And again, modern physicists, just like with time travel, they say, ain't happening. Biological organisms traveling interstellar distances, impossible. I'd say not so sure. I would say, again, if a significantly advanced civilization is doing that, we may think it's impossible based on our current limitation. but another civilization in another part of the universe, hundreds or thousands of years ahead of us,

and having created intelligent machines that propel themselves, maybe the biology itself isn't even the ones doing it at this point, and maybe they're left behind, and the singularity has occurred there already. Some artificial intelligence has taken off into the universe or maybe several versions of it. Variants have dispersed throughout the universe, i.e., something along the lines of von Neumann probes.

It's more likely, and now Aveylob and others, of course, in recent years have started talking about this, and it's something that should be discussed. It seems more likely that we're going to encounter an alien form of artificial intelligence than it is that we're going to encounter the aliens themselves. But here again, those two ideas don't have to be mutually exclusive, Ryan. You know, you could meet both the AI and you could meet the organisms

if, again, they have the ability to traverse space and they have overcome those challenges of interstellar space travel, which is a really crazy thing if you get into relativistic terms, because if you watch the film Interstellar, and you see how relativity applies to all this time travel is inherently a part of that too but that's a conversation for another time bottom line is yeah the likelihood the n h i is actually going to be not just nonhuman intelligence but also a synthetic or artificial intelligence of some kind from someplace else if we were ever to find intelligence from other worlds it seems like a very distinctive likelihood to me yeah absolutely man oh i could talk about this stuff forever but i guess we'll uh We'll go back to the congressional floor. We did have a question. I'd love to get your thoughts on here in the chat here.

And I do want to take just a moment to thank Coyote Munsoon for the $5. Super Chat, and out of the loop with the latest European news. Things are sounding like they are revving up. Yeah, it's been a crazy week. Stephen wants to know, why didn't they ask Gold about Bigelow Aerospace as he was there during the attempt to transfer of craft from Lockheed? there was no talk of his work with Bigelow Aerospace at this thing. It was not mentioned.

This is something that people did some digging on and found out. This is where he worked and what he did. But yeah, what are your thoughts on, do you think Mike Gold knows anything? I mean, he did say when each of these men were asked, is the United States government covering up information about UAP? I believe all of them said yes. Michael Gold was the last and he also said, yes, and that surprised me.

That actually surprised me that he was very quick to say, yes, they are. I get the impression he's a whole lot more sympathetic to those kinds of ideas. Again, kind of springboarding off of what we were just discussing about the AI component when it comes to NHI. It was Mike Gold who in his closing remarks was saying, I don't think whatever this stuff ends up being is going to be necessarily what we expect it to be. And all these ideas about machine intelligence and everything should really be on the table because they are distinctive likelihoods. Something tells me Mike Gold is a whole lot more clued in on a lot of this stuff than probably most of us realize. Yeah.

We'll see. I'm sure this will not be the last time we hear from Mike Gold. He's one of us now. We've got him. It might have been one of us for longer than you think. Oh, interesting. Seems like you might have an educated opinion on that. All right.

Speculation. Okay. Okay. That's fair. I want to move to the last individual because this is going to take up a little bit of the core of our next chapter in this live stream. And that is Michael Schellenberger. Now, he was here. He is a independent journalist who came out with a story recently about this program called Immaculate Constellation.

I'm going to go ahead and read a little bit here about his opening statement, Micah. Schellenberger discussed UAP whistleblower claims he learned of from sources who spoke with him on background, some of whom have asserted the U.S. executive branch has managed UAP programs and related issues for decades without congressional oversight. The claims primarily involve an alleged secret Department of Defense program called Immaculate Constellation, said to be a strategic intelligence initiative consolidation data from classified military sensors to capture high-quality imagery and atmospheric effects associated with the UAPs. Schellenberger argued that U.S. intelligence officials are stonewalling the release of such information, even some that may not be damaging the U.S. national security.

Excuse me. Yeah, may not be. The intelligence community is treating us like children, he said. It's time for us to know the truth about this. I think we can handle it. And then this is interesting. The 11 pages of Immaculate Constellation were submitted for the record at the Congressional UFO hearing right before, I believe, the hearing began. So whatever this report is that Schellenberger has and eventually publish is now in the congressional record officially.

And it has some pretty bold claims. So, man, where do we even start with this? What do you make when you, what did you think when you first heard about Immaculate Constellation and then the follow-up here at the congressional hearing? So when I first heard about this, and I think maybe how I first heard about it, this, interestingly enough, actually had been that a producer at News Nation wrote to me in an email and said, there's going to be a big interview coming out tonight and talking about a new program. And they mentioned Schellenberger's work. I was, again, familiar with Schellenberger. Again, this really having thrust him into the limelight as far as the UAP discussion goes, but he's been covering this and

talking about it for quite a while. He had been going on the record back, I mean, you know, I think around the time that the Grush article came out last year and had been saying that much like what Grush is telling us, right, and how, you know, again, initially had been reported through the debrief on June 5th of last year, Schellenberger was, I think, within just a few days saying I'm talking to people who are telling remarkably similar things to what Grush has now come out and said that he's learned from, you know, dozens of intelligence officials he's spoken to. Right here at the outset, I'll just say this. I would have to think that if there was so much smoke, there would have to be at least a little bit of fire. But again, I also, in fairness, remain among those frustrated journalists and analysts and historians and researchers and, you know, the whole group of us, you know, UFO enthusiasts who would really like to see some tangible proof, some sort of, you know, physical evidence, or at very least, some kind of official document that can be authenticated and, you know, that we can see for ourselves rather than hearing that, well, you know, there are hundreds of pages of documents and these have been provided to the, you know,

the authorities, you know, to Congress and they've been briefed about this. And we can't show it to you, but take our word for it. You know, there was a whistleblower complaint at all, you know, the authorities who should have this information and are cleared to be able to review it. They've got it. It exists. Take our word for it. Again, that frustrates people.

I can sympathize with that. With regard to Mr. Schellenberger and where we are with this, you know, when I got the email from the folks at News Nation, they were, you know, again, kind of seeding the fact that there was going to be an interview that Ross Cooltard. was doing with Schellenberger. The article at his website was a portion of it was able to be read. And then when he gets down to the part about the story, of course, it's primarily behind a paywall, which, you know, I've talked in the past. I don't personally take issue with somebody doing that. You know, when the debrief published the Grush article, actually, we made it ad-free and freely

available at all times. I'm just saying, you know, to each their own and people do it differently, but that was an editorial decision by us that we were going to make that free in that way. that decision in large part also made with the authors of that article that we published. I was a little frustrated that I couldn't get direct access to the information. But again, because News Nation was doing an interview and they were letting everybody know, you know, this is going to be coming out. And then, of course, that long-form interview with Rawls-Colteard is published. We were able to get the details pretty quickly.

And then subsequent reporting on it by News Nation revealed the name of the program. So that's how I first learned about that. And I was intrigued. but again a notable difference between this story and the David Grush story when it came out was with David Grush. We had the person, the whistleblower in name, with their background and their entire history and everything being vetted already. This person goes on the record. Now, granted, he is still sharing secondhand information. There's some continuity right there, but we had an individual, an intelligence official, going on record and saying, here's what we know.

In the case of Immaculate Constellation, we were told that there was a report provided by, an individual, but the individual has not gone on the record. There are allegedly, and I have to say allegedly, because as a journalist myself scrutinizing this, I have not seen nor do I know who Mr. Schellenberger's sources are. So as far as those of us out here beyond Schellenberger and his private dialogues with his sources on background, which he has reported to us, apart from all that, I can only refer to his alleged several sources, he says, have confirmed independently from one another, the name of the that program, Immaculate Constellation. But we don't have a firsthand whistleblower, nor do we have former officials, you know, vouching for the credibility of that individual and having, you know, allegedly the same knowledge. Again, I'm referring here to Carl Nell, you know, who came on the record and actually spoke about Grush at the time that Gresh came forward.

This is a very different situation where it's even more secondhand than the secondhand information that we got last year. And again, I've said this many times. I've told you, Ryan, and in very different. interviews, the debrief team and I, what we thought was intriguing about Grush, had been specifically, although the claims were incredible, if true, here we had this individual going on the record, having filed a whistleblower complaint that had been at that time deemed credible and urgent. Again, some make more of that than others, but I thought, you know, that's the story. This is an unprecedented situation. It's not some person who claimed that they were working at a, you know, secret facility and working on things, you know, this is a person who actually worked with the UAP task force. This is where they work. This is what they did. We can talk to people who worked with them. And he provides us all of this information that he says that close to 40 individuals, maybe more, provided to him. Remarkable story. So I would like to have seen similar details with the Immaculate

Constellation situation. We didn't get that at the outset. Again, I'll credit Mr. Schellenberger, though, in the portion of the article that was freely available there at his website for pointing out a lot issues that my colleagues and I have raised. In fact, he even linked back to some of the articles that I had written about the Aero Historical Report at the debrief.org. Obviously, Mr. Schellenberger is building this story around some of the same issues that many of us have. That historical report was full of errors. Arrow is telling us with high confidence that there are no NDAs, no UAP programs, and if there's anything that exists, we would have had the authority to find that. Christopher Mellon in one of his

probably the most lengthy breakdown of the Aero Historical Report in an article he wrote for the debrief had argued, look, how likely is it that a subordinate office within the DOD wouldn't necessarily have access to information about a program if one existed that was so great and

of such great importance and significance that, you know, it involves something along the lines of UAP detections, possible crash record retrievals, and again, confirmation of the existence of NHI. Those are pretty incredible claims. And if that is actually what's happening and there is such a program, could the subordinate office of Arrow, even though we've been assured that they have access to all

the data and everything, how likely can we be that they actually would have access to that information? So, you know, Schellenberger's breaking all this down in the article, but we still didn't see anything until the hearing the other day. And this is the first time we actually see documentation, because as you mentioned, Ryan, the document that had been a report, an 11-page report. The version that Congress got was originally 12 pages. We'll get to that in a moment. Because that's, this is actually an intriguing element to all this, maybe one that offers us some clues, that we can break this down a little. But the 11 pages of the report, and I'm actually looking at my copy right here. It was uploaded to Nancy Mace's website after the hearing. After a copy was provided and it was entered into the record, then Mace made it available on her website. An 11 page version of what initially she referred to as a 12-page document during the hearing. I've reviewed this entire document, read every bit of it, and actually directly in advance of our conversation today,

so it would be fresh on my mind. What I'm seeing here is extraordinary in the sense that it's claiming that there are a lot of UAP sidings that occur. And furthermore, it's saying that some of these things are UFOs in the sense that they are, you know, something exotic and we don't know where they're from. And in some instances, it's very intriguingly saying that some of these objects are essentially recovery vehicles.

or reproduction vehicles, I think, is the term that they actually used in parenthetical case to describe these RVs. But again, in the past, we've seen alien reproduction vehicle or alien, you know, ARV, different terms used. So it refers to that, too. And essentially what it's saying is somebody, foreign governments or some unknown party, seemingly have acquired UAP technology and they reverse engineered this. And so there's vehicles that have been reverse engineered and that other groups here on Earth are using. And then there are the genuine unknowns, and we're tracking both. The most prolific varieties are spheres,

but there are other kinds. The least common variety of the ones that are the most commonly reported by people, personnel who have observed these are these triangles, and some of these triangular craft are as big as football fields. When you go through this document, you read all this stuff. Essentially, everything in the document sounds like things we have already heard. All of this seems to essentially conform to both knowledge that is accumulated gradually over decades of UFO research, but it obviously seems to reference a lot of the more recent things, including right there toward the end,

claims that documentation that describe Lou Alizondo in his career and some of the things that he did as an intelligence officer could be directly corroborated. So it's interesting that there's this kind of plug for Lou. everything that he's said is 100% true and accurate and it can be verified in documentation that's not publicly available that the reports author who we don't know. They claim that they had access to. So I found it interesting that we have what you might even describe is sort of a summary of the last several decades of UAP studies written from the perspective of a presumed intelligence officer, some sort of an official, and one that really kind of

drops all of these hints and references to things, you know, again, right down to Lou Elizondo, who's sitting right there. Now, a telling thing to me during the hearing actually had been that when they asked Mr. Elizondo about Immaculate Constellation, he had said, well, I didn't actually read that article before I came in here. And so he didn't really comment on it. But again, it's baffling to me that Elizondo doesn't seem to have any kind of direct knowledge of this program. It didn't seem to ever be explicitly implied that the crash retrieval program, that he says that he was aware of and had to sign documentation about, it never seemed to be explicitly implied that Lou was referring to Immaculate Constellation there. Other intelligence

officials and people who I've spoken to on background have no knowledge of this program. In fact, some have essentially told me that they have a very strong inclined or they are strongly inclined to think that it's some sort of either counterintelligence or it is essentially just a hoax, kind of like MJ12. And we can talk about some of the, I guess what you might call the precedent for why that may be the case. But again, looking at all this and reading over this document, I have to come away saying that there's nothing in the document that to me honestly sounds like it couldn't actually be true. The United States government doesn't talk about this stuff. The United States government says they find no evidence of it. Intrigingly, in advance of this

next hearing that we're going to have on Tuesday with the new director of Arrow, Matt Laslow, that intrepid reporter out there, Ask a poll. You know, Matt was out there. talking with Jilla Brand the other day and trying to get some details about this hearing, which initially they said was going to be an entire closed session, and then they were going to open it up at the end and just have a little open portion. And she says,

I'm going to try and make the entire thing open if I can. We'll have to see if that happens. But I referenced that now because it was apparently put to Arrow that they wanted to talk about these drone incursions over Langley at this hearing on Tuesday, and they wanted to talk about drone incidents in general.

And Arrow said something very intriguing in response to it. They said, well, you know, drones aren't what we're looking at. That's not really our jurisdiction, right? We're looking at the unknowns. So if Arrow isn't dealing with drones, if Arrow is instead only dealing with genuine unknowns, one would have to imagine that, you know, those who say, look, Arrow, you know, they keep saying UAP and talking about UAP, but really they're just trying to study Chinese and, you know, Russian foreign craft, things like this, that doesn't seem to be what Arrow says that they're looking at. And furthermore, we haven't even gotten to their new report, which just dropped the other day. but I'll reference that in that report it explicitly says. We have found no evidence that these genuine unknowns that we're still studying. I mean, we've got hundreds of cases. Hundreds of those cases can't be resolved.

There's just not enough data to be able to discern anything about them. But there are about 20 cases that we're still working with because these 20 cases appear to really provide enough data. We can't figure out what these things are, but they're good cases and we're still trying to resolve them. We're going to have to apply different approaches, share this information with our science and technology. partners and our intelligence community partners and see if we can't get, you know, tease out more details. One thing I'll point out about those 20 cases, a lot of people would probably think, okay, yeah, but I mean, if they can't solve them, that probably means that they're low information cases. Well, to the contrary, I think that the low information cases, the 400 or so cases that

they say they can't resolve. I would have to imagine that these 20 cases, the fact that Arrow highlights those in the new report, seems to indicate that these are good cases and that they probably are visual. There's probably video associated with them, but there's also probably multi-sensor data. Okay, you know, data packages, in fact, that probably cover a range of different sensors and other kinds of information about these incidents,

and they still can't resolve these things. So again, I think we can put to bed that Arrow was talking about just drones that China or Russia might be flying around. It's not impossible that some of these UAP may yet be proven to be those kinds of things, very advanced drones. But Arrow says currently no data points to that. with the really good cases, that residual

of good cases that they referenced in the new report. No data points to that yet. So then what are we dealing with? Okay, this is an interesting question, and now coming back to Immaculate Constellation, this report does seem to be describing exotic technologies, not drones, not stuff, but I mean, these things are known to us.

Why do we know them? Because they are rife throughout decades of UFO history, and that's why I say, nothing in this document sounds like things that couldn't exist. And frankly, if we were to read between the lines with what little arrow gives us, it seems to be implied that these kinds of technologies are being observed by arrow, but they always word it very conservatively in their reports. But despite the fact that I look at this immaculate constellation document and I can read this and say, you know, this actually sounds like this all could be happening. I still have some reservations about it.

I still have some concerns, you know. Some online sleuths have been putting together some really interesting things, Ryan, like for instance, and I'll pull up a. document here. Let's talk about the 12 pages here for just a moment if we can. The reason that the 12 pages is significant is because Nancy Mace, during the hearing the other day, had said that Mr. Schellenberger had provided this document and had said that this document was 12 pages, and she says she was going to put it into the record and everything. But then when the document gets uploaded online, there's only 11 pages, right? Pretty quickly, documentary filmmaker, Jeremy Kenyon Locklear Corbell, you and I've met Corbell in the past.

I like Corbel, okay, he's a nice guy. We've had a beer and we'll talk sometimes. Corbell was taking issue with Nancy Mace, and the story gradually began to come out between what he was saying and what people who were sitting right there near him were saying that as she walked by at the end of the hearing, he kind of called her out and said, I gave you that document, not Mr. Schellenberger.

Andy McGill, our friend with VET UFO podcast also had sat down Representative Birchett and asked him about that. Where did that document come from? And Burchett said that Corbell had brought him that document like more than a month ago. Now, what's intriguing here is we can infer one of a couple of things here from this, right? First of all, we know that the 12-page version, and the 12-pages, by the way, that 12-page is, a cover letter written by a Corbell that was on the cover of the document. So the version that the folks there, the representatives in that hearing obtained came from Jeremy Corbell. That much we can clearly discern, okay? But furthermore, Brexit says that that copy had been provided to him

more than a month ago, which would have probably meant that this document was acquired by Corbel around the same time or close to the same time that Schellenberger was putting out the original story about Immaculate Constellation. Now, one could ask, well, had Corbell then been Schellemberger's source? I don't think that's the case. It seems more likely to me that the same source provided copies of this information, this report, to both Schellenberger and also to Corbell, but again, we can't rule out that possibility that Corbell provided it to Schellemberger. I would still have to ask, though, knowing Jeremy and how he operates, why in the instance that he had this document, you know, why he would have given it to another journalist and let

them have the story, if he was providing this document to members of Congress expecting it was going to be used during a hearing, right? If the cover letter was provided to Burchett at the time that that document was given to him more than a month ago, Corbell in that cover letter seems to be, in a round about way, asking Congress to invite him to testify. He didn't get that invitation, but nonetheless, he seems to have wanted to be invited. And I think, in fairness, we could say that Corbell was a little upset

that when he gave him that document, they didn't credit him for that. And furthermore, after the fact, Schellenberger didn't try to correct that issue. Now, you know, I'll just be honest. I mean, I like Jeremy, but there have been. instances where he's kind of done the same thing, where he has taken things from people and he is, you know, he'll be quick to kind of, you know, try to steer the narrative so that it puts him at the center of the narrative too. And it's unfortunate now that that appears to be happening

to him in this instance, because quite obviously he did provide that document to them beforehand. And that raises some interesting questions. Some are asking now, well, you know, it doesn't appear that online anywhere that Schellenberger has clarified what happened when he was asked by somebody about this right after the hearing. Apparently all he said was that it was confusing. Well, yeah, where the document came from, it was kind of confusing. Again, some commentators are saying it's not confusing at all. It seems very evident based on what Burchett and others have said that, you know, Jeremy Corbell provided that document to them. But so if that's the case, you know, why then is that not being clarified by the representatives and by the reporter who broke the story? Is there

for some reason? I mean, again, what I could interpret here is that it, coming down just a good old-fashioned humans kind of want to be the ones who have the story and they want to be the first ones, you know, to the finish line, so to speak. We saw a lot of that, again, with the Grush story, right? And with a lot of the same players we're discussing here. But I think it could also be that there are other reasons why maybe that has not been clarified yet. And so as far as where I stand on it and why I'm trying to understand this, I want to know was there a source that provided this information independently to several people at the same time?

and people who are notable UFO proponents, you know, UAP advocates. And if that is the case and if that's what happened, does that necessarily maybe point to the idea that this could be interpreted as, for instance, a disinformation operation? It's not impossible. It sounds like a, I'm just going to say it, man. It sounds just like MJ12. All these packages got mailed to UFO researchers.

they started calling each other and being like, yo, did you get this? Yeah, I got that. Did you get it? Yeah, what do we do? And boom, we, you know, it took years of investigation and whatnot. But the, I believe it was the FBI would eventually deem the MJ12 documents as what they called bogus.

And many have come to the same conclusion that it was a hoax. So I'm going to ask, yeah, like, is that what we're possibly seeing here? Hey everyone, Ryan Sprague here, host of Somewhere in the Skies. If you've ever thought about supporting us, we have great two easy options for you right now. If you listen to the show on Apple Podcasts, you can click the subscribe button at the top of your Apple feed. Or you can join our Patreon at patreon.com slash somewhere skies. Both of these options give you the same benefits. Early access to the main show.

episodes and content and priority to ask our guests your listener questions. So to help support Somewhere in the Skies, click that subscribe button on Apple or visit patreon.com slash somewhere skies. Thank you so much for your support and keep looking up. I don't know, but again, the development coming to light that again, Schellenberger hadn't been the only person who received, apparently this report that a copy of it had been provided to, you know, at least to Burchett, but again, you know, possibly to others, by Corbell, you know, more than a month ago as Corbell, or whether as Burchett had clarified to McGillan on his podcast recently. Again, that clearly shows that more than one person seems to have gotten access to this information. And does that not sound a lot like past instances, the one you named, for instance, MJ12? You know, at the time the MJ12 documents appeared online.

And they had been provided, I think, to copies at least had been obtained by Timothy Good and later appeared in a publication that he, you know, published around that time. We know that Stanton Friedman, Jamie Shandera, and then Bill Moore all were sent documents. They were actually sent to Jamie Shandera, but he shared them with Moore and with Friedman. And we had others who said that they had been shown documents that, you know, essentially, you know, hit all the check marks for MJ12, notably Linda Moulton Howell. And who was it that showed her those documents? Again, this was Special Agent Rick Doty at that time with the Air Force Office of Special Investigations. You know, this is the kind of thing that really makes you wonder

because there is precedent for things like this happening. And furthermore, and this is really intriguing, Ryan. In recent months, we have had people, I already referenced this earlier, and I said we'd come back around to it, so now's a good time, as good as any. We had during a interview that after he had left his position, and as director of Arrow.

Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, sitting and doing an interview, had said he was asked about NDAs that threatened people if they talked about these programs. Essentially what Mr. Elizondo is describing under oath during this hearing on Wednesday

that he had to do. He had to sign a document that limited how much he could talk about his knowledge of crash retrievals. And Sean Kirkpatrick Patrick says we didn't find any evidence of actual NDAs. He says we did find one fake NDA

that was part of a training program. He said that there was like a fake UFO program that was used for training purposes, and there was an NDA associated with that. And we call that out in the report. So I and a lot of other people went back and looked at the historical report and we're reading through, and I'm like, okay, I don't see that in there. That's not in there. I don't think he was necessarily supposed to mention that. Probably what happened was in the classified version of the report, there was some more information about something that got discussed openly and publicly, and it's right out there on YouTube. And that is what it is. I don't know that that's,

a huge groundbreaking point, but again, it is a significant component in trying to understand what Immaculate Constellation might be. Now, add to that, and I'll reference an interview that Jeremy Corbell did, where he had the former Alsap director, James Lakatsky, and the former deputy director, Colin Callagher, on the weaponized podcast, and Jeremy was talking with him, and Lakatsky points out something remarkably interesting. He says, look, oh, look, right here, I think you just put it up there. So there's the quote that Jimmy's putting in there that a lot of misinformation and disinformation documents, things.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. So Jimmy's, you know, one step ahead of us there. Lakatsky literally said, listen, there are a lot of people in this community, and they believe a lot of things about UFOs that are not true. Lakatsky said, I know that Grush talked to some of these people. So that was one thing you said. But then he also said another issue, another level of all this is there are four. documents that describe fake programs. And he was, of course, referring to MJ12,

but one would have to imagine that that could be applied to other things, too. Why would have, why, now here's the question. At the end of the day, people say, well, but why would the government do this? Why would they put out information claiming that there are real UFO retrieval programs, right? You'd think that what they do is they put out information about, you know, stuff that, you know, make us think that there aren't really UFO programs. If they're trying to confuse us, why do they put out information that like in this report that we're talking about, Brian, sounds very legit and incorporates stuff that we've heard for decades from euphology. And it puts

it through the lens of an intelligence officer who's, you know, very articulately breaking all this down. And keep in mind, according to Schellenberger, the person who put this report together reportedly also had been his source and had spoken with him. So it seems that whoever wrote this report is providing this information, okay, secondhand, and this individual presumably is also known to Schellenberger, maybe to Corbel, I would imagine if he had a copy of the document too. But at the end of the day, why, if it were disinformation or something along those lines, whether the person who wrote the report was given disinformation and they believe it or whether they produced disinformation, right? Why would we do that? Well, very simply, if we do have technologies

that we want to keep secret, and we don't want people to find out. And if, as a result of arrows investigations and all these congressional hearings and all of this public scrutiny of the UFO subject, all of a sudden people are starting to get really close, even though they're saying, hey, UFOs, NHI, you know, alien craft retrievals and stuff,

they're still getting really dangerously close to maybe figuring out some really extraordinary stuff that Lockheed or somebody's working with, right? Well, how do we throw people off the trail? If they're getting too close to Lockheed or, they're getting too close to Raytheon or some company that's developing some really high-tech stuff. Let's throw some stuff out there and let's make sure that we keep people on the UFO trail. Yep, you know what?

Some of these things are non-human intelligence. Some of these things are the byproducts of or the recovery effort, the product of these recovery efforts where we acquired them or a foreign nation acquired them and they rebuilt these things and they're flying UFOs of their own. But make no mistake, these things are, you know, some of these things are legitimate alien, Yeah, you throw that out there, and that's essentially what I think MJ12 was trying to do, and that serves a couple of purposes. One, any snooping journalists, you know, it's going to get them off the trail, and they're going to be saying, well, this is interesting. We've got some UFO stuff here. It's going to confuse our enemies, right? It's going to be something that also can be used to find out who's talking to who.

And this is, again, the tradition in counterintelligence, and that's what, when you go back to MJ12, and you look at what the FBI was tasked with doing, the FBI goes, they look at the FBI goes, they look at. at these documents, and they're like, what is going on with this? And they contact the Air Force Office of Special Investigation, and they say, do you guys know anything about these documents? And AFOSI kind of says, the documents are known to us. Don't worry about them. You know, and then the FBI's looking through, and they find all the issues that they do. And of course, famously, like you mentioned, they write bogus on the documents. So the versions of the MJ12 documents in the FBI's reading room, you can see that have bogus written across the front. That's one of the reasons why they thought that they were bogus in addition to their own discernment about the issues in those

documents. And a lot of those issues raised by uphologists who looked at them skeptically and should have and needed to. But also the FBI was essentially told by AFOSI, don't worry about those documents. Now, why would they tell them, don't worry about those documents, right? If the documents originated from within the Air Force Office of Special Investigations, maybe as a result of, you know, the work of one special agent, Rick Doty, that might be one reason that those documents been known to AFOSI and why they would tell the FBI, don't worry about it. Because what's the FBI looking at it for? They're saying we were concerned maybe some legitimate document had actually leaked. And we're investigating as the FBI, we're investigating a potential

crime, right? If the unauthorized release of documents has occurred, we've got to figure out what happened and why, right? Air Force is like, forget about them. So I look at, through the lens of history, and this is the issue. And again, with all respect to all parties, everybody who's, you know, obtained this document, reported on it and everything. I don't know if this is disinformation. What I'm saying is there is historical precedent, very, very good historical precedent for disinformation and documents used to steer certain narratives regarding UAP. And furthermore, recent past directors of modern government UAP programs have from both sides of the kind of skeptical, you know, aisle and the belief side too, have essentially said, look, there are forged documents, fake programs, fake NDAs. Be careful

because there's some bad information out there. Interesting. Tell them what they want to hear. If we learned anything from the Paul Benowitz affair, like you said, man, it could all, yeah, yeah. Again, like it's the on-background issue that leaves so much open to this ambiguity. you know, whether it's the 40 whistleblowers that Grush spoke to, or if it's this source or sources that Schellenberger is referring to. We don't know where the document came from. We may never know where the document came from. But I know people are theorizing in the chat. They think maybe it was Grush. You and I have conversed about this privately, and neither of us believe it was Grush.

But we don't know who it is. And that's, yeah, that's true. You're right. People, a lot of people online are just straight up saying, you know, Kong, can we just admit this is grush? But I'm with you, Ryan, I don't think this is grush. I could be wrong about that, but Schellenberger said it was not grush. I don't recall if Jeremy Corbelle has said if it was grush or not. And he may have.

But if so, I have not seen that yet. If he said anything, I'm sorry, I should clarify. If Corbell said anything, he would have said it was not grush, because that's what essentially everybody is saying that this was not gruss. This is somebody else. That's what Schellenberger has said since the report dropped. I am inclined to think it's not grush. Many are saying, well, this is just the same old stuff and it's coming from the same old people. And even though they've said that this was not somebody associated with grush and all those people, it's obviously referring to some of the same stuff. And so it must be from the same group. It's the same old, you know, self-licking ice cream cone as Sean Kirkpatrick famously characterized it. you know, I don't think it's Grush at all. It very well may be someone who knew Grush. It very well may be somebody who knew some of the same people and spoke to some of the same people as Grush. Again, reading this document, two things that strike me are that, you know, this sounds like it was written by a person who seems to have really been looking at a bunch of things that they actually were finding in government servers. And, you know, as referenced throughout the report, I think, you know, when it's talking about, talking about some of the videos and things as we get down in there. The U.S. government maintains a database of intelligence collected by military personnel. The U.S. government or rather on U.S. government networks there exists and that it'll describe one of these videos. It sure sounds like somebody has gone in there. They had the requisite clearances. They found stuff and they're reporting it. You know, that or it's, you know, made to sound like somebody went and found those things and are reporting them. And, you know, again, it's seductive because I'm reading the report and I'm saying, gosh, this stuff sounds really good.

And when they get to the part where it seems like they are describing the now famous jellyfish footage, and they're describing further that this has been used in reference to broader discussions about this sort of typology of UAP, I mean, that is in itself intriguing. Obviously, there are references to things that are known and are already out there in the public. And what does that do? That gives this document a certain degree of legitimacy. again, coming back over to the suspicions I have, good counterintelligence is going to rely on, or I should rather say, good disinformation, right, is going to rely on some bad information and some good

information. It's not going to be successful disinformation. If it's all just bad extraordinary claims, there's got to be some stuff that anchors it in reality for people. So it's like, well, gosh, that we know about that video. We could go down through this thing point for point and note all these things that we know about and what it seems to be referencing that are already publicly known. So therefore, I mean, we have some points. And if those things are real, then sure, it must all be real. That's exactly how MJ12 works, too. So again, we can't be sure that this is disinformation.

But what I am saying is that if it is disinformation, I mean, it's employing those known tactics so as to anchor it enough in reality so that the UFO hopefuls are like, I believe it, I buy it. And that's why I say it's seductive. I read this document and I'm reading some of these reports of the massive triangles and some of the UAP incidents and things. And I'm going, that sounds like something that would choke. Ryan, you've interviewed people who have seen these big triangles. I have.

You and I know you're reading this thinking the same thing. It's like these sound like stories we have heard countless times. But that's, again, if it's disinformation, exactly what it's supposed to do. Absolutely, man. There's two things I want to wrap up this with. Suzanne, our incredible moderator, put together a stunning spreadsheet on Immaculate Constellation, which I have linked in the show notes, guys. We'll put it in the chat as well.

She goes like, you know, so you don't have to read the 11 or 12 pages, whatever, 11 pages of the document. She really did the bullet points of what to focus on what's most important to extract from this and then make up your own mind, if you guys think. But again, like, be careful because a lot of what's in this 12-page thing is what we want to hear. And that's when I start to get a little iffy on it. But this could all be true. And like you mentioned, Schellenberger did say this did not come from circular reporting, I think, is the term he used. Because that is one of the biggest arguments is all these guys are talking to one another.

Grush, put off, Elizondo. They're all like using each other as their quote unquote source. And that's where all this information was birthed from. But Schellenberger says no, no, I got this independently of all of these people. Again, we don't know that for sure. So be careful. And then the last thing that I wanted to mention about it was where is it? I think that's it actually.

Yeah, just go ahead and check out. that amazing thing that Suzanne put together, guys. I cannot recommend it enough. It is in the show notes for you right now. Micah, we've been talking about the congressional hearing for a while now. Let's move to the other big story that dropped less than 24 hours after the congressional UFO hearing. And that was the Arrow Report. The annual Arrow Report was released to the public.

Pentagon stated in the report that it could not. explain more than 20 reports of UAP sightings in the past year alone. But there's a lot more to break down with this. So let me get our wonderful slides up here one more time. And get your thoughts. This thing dropped. You reported on it over at the debrief, as many others have now. What did you make of the second annual report that we got, mind you, by a brand new director of Arrow?

Yeah, so the report is definitely interesting. It's a little longer. It's worded a little differently, and it provides a little more information than the first report officially released by the All-Domain Anomily Resolution Office, which at that time would have been under the early directorship of Sean Kirkpatrick. Yes, this new report comes out almost a year, maybe right at a year after Kirkpatrick left the office. but I believe that it covers maybe a portion of the period during which Sean Kirkpatrick had still been, or at very least, work that had been conducted by Arrow under his leadership would have taken place. Nonetheless, the tone of the report is still fairly, I think, conservative, I think would be a fair way to describe it. But there are some notable things in this. I mean, again, naturally, I was expecting everybody to, you know, say, oh, this is a nothing burger.

It's another typical Arrow report that don't tell us anything. look at some of the nothings that they tell us about. They describe UAP that have been shadowing aircraft in some instances. They describe specific varieties, morphologies, if you will, that include a green fireball, a small silver rocket-shaped object, and a jelly fish, two words, not one. Now, that's really interesting. That a day after we have a congressional hearing where a document is put into the record and then made available online. and after everybody in the world is scrutinizing it. And this document seems to be referring to a very unusual video that some likened to being a jellyfish-shaped UAP. And there's a whole lot of discussion in this Immaculate Constellation document about jellyfish UAP or UAP that might be a spherical or some sort of a brain-like kind of a main portion that has tentacle-like,

whatever's attached to it. In other words, the implication seems to be that there's an unusual variety of UAP that sometimes is observed that, again, for lack of any better description, it has, its appearance is similar to a jellyfish. Well, that ends up being referenced right there in Arrow's report too. So if the one report, Immaculate Constellation, if we have questions about that and we have to scrutinize that and say, could this be disinformation, it's a little harder to do that with the new Arrow report,

which also mentions a jellyfish. That was a bit surprising, too. It's talking about the hundreds of reports that it's collected. Again, I already kind of pointed out, but I'll emphasize further here, they're saying there's a good 21 cases or so that really they are still digging into. And based on what I already outlined there,

and I previously discussed this a little with our friend Christina Gomez the other night when I was on her program, I read from the emphasis that Arrow places on those 20 or so reports that they must be describing good cases, good UFO cases, or good UAP cases, where we probably have multi-sensory detections corroborated with video. There's probably radar data, eyewitness testimony that's being provided by those who collected this information. These are good cases, and they still can't resolve them.

And then again, also add to that what they had told Gillibrand's people in advance of the Senate hearing on Tuesday. We're not looking at drones. Don't be, you know, planning on asking us about drones. That's not what Arrow is really looking into. We may find drones as a part of our investigation into UAP, but we're not the drone people. Our job is to look at the unknowns. So again, those who would say, well, they're just looking at some novel, you know, detection capabilities, some new drones that China or Russia might be using. That might ultimately be what these really good cases yield, but what Arrow has said in their own report is there's no data that we have, no evidence yet that points to that conclusion.

We don't have anything that links these to foreign surveillance or foreign capabilities. So, again, people are predictably unhappy with they're not just being huge. massive revelations and paradigm shifting things that are, you know, published in this report. But I'm looking at it and going, if you read between the lines, ERO was actually telling us, they've got some really extraordinary stuff, some really good cases now that they've whittled down to about 20 from hundreds that they've collected now. They don't know what these things are, but they don't think it's Russia or China. Still no evidence of extraterrestrials, but we got something we can't identify. Folks, they are saying UAP are real.

They are saying that UAP appear to possess capabilities and they appear to demonstrate what they in, interpret, I would imagine having probably to be technologies of some kind. And although they are careful not to say, you know, these seem to be breakaway technologies, these seem to be a technology that we can recognize as technology, but we don't know how it works. In the past Arrow has said, or I'm sorry, actually, I guess it was first said by the UAP task force, that there wasn't any clear indication, but they were exploring the possibility that breakaway technologies might be in use. I think Arrow has kind of played that down more than its predecessor organization did.

But nonetheless, they do seem to be strongly implying without necessarily saying it, that, yeah, if we can't identify these things and we got some really good cases, there must be some kind of technology being used that, you know, it's something beyond what we know. And I think that that would be at least approaching a good definition for breakaway technologies. So, I mean, I look at this report, and I'm saying yet again, we're hearing more of what we've been hearing now for years, the U.S. government does know about some extraordinary things in our skies, and yet again, this is where the seductive aspect of Immaculate Constellation comes in. Arrow isn't telling us and giving us examples of the things

that they're observing and that they're tracking and exploring and the videos that they're, you know, observing and analyzing. But I mean, the stuff in the Immaculate Constellation document sounds like, you know, what you would expect of the kinds of reports, the better reports, that Arrow is looking at. The weird part, though, and this is where it really gets confusing. Again, we have a suspicious document that says some really intriguing stuff, and a lot of people kind of want to believe, but we've got to exercise some caution with that one on the one hand. And then we have the official government document that just dropped that was issued by Arrow. One is confirmed legitimate and is absolutely authentic. The other is not. But there, well, or other, again, when I say not, we haven't confirmed its authenticity. that remains in question, that's all.

But there's continuity between these two things, references to jellyfish, references to the prevalence of spherical UAP. You know, you look at that pie chart that they feature in the Arrow Report, which has all the different morphologies, common shapes and things associated with UAP, and what are they talking about? They're talking about, again, the preponderance of lights, but then we also have or spheres at 22%. We have cylinders at 4%, discs at just 1%, triangle at just 3%. it's not 100% spot on. The Immaculate Constellation document says that the second largest grouping of UAP that Immaculate Constellation allegedly has looked at are spheres,

or I'm sorry, disks and saucer type next to the first largest being orbs or spheres. If you look at the arrow data here, they're saying orbs and spheres are actually, I think, the second largest, they're next to just lights. And then the third largest categories are actually, Tide right there, I think other and then cylinder. Triangle comes in with 3%, which actually places it above disk, and disc is down to just 1%. So again, that doesn't seem to be a good match for Immaculate Constellation. But I point this out because, again, based on what the alleged whistleblower has told us about

immaculate constellation, that is supposed to be an entirely separate effort, an entirely separate thing from Arrow. And furthermore, Arrow is supposedly unaware of its existence, and this has been furthermore kept from lawmakers. Immaculate constellation is completely a separate, you know, operation. So it's interesting that that's the claim, and yet there is some continuity, also some notable differences between these two, but comparing and contrasting them, a lot of the same sorts of things we're seeing in the alleged immaculate constellation materials are reflected somewhat in the arrow data, too. So it isn't unfair to ask, are there actually two separate independent official government government organizations right now if we are to step away from the disinformation angle on

emaculate constellation and let's say okay maybe it's true maybe that really does exist and it has been kept out of oversight and it's not been reported to lawmakers and arrow wasn't even told about this if there are two separate programs in government and they're both looking at this problem and one is being given access to more information than the other evidently but they're still coming to similar conclusions that's a bizarre situation what would be going on right there. And again, some would say that that's such a bizarre scenario that that really again speaks to the unlikelyhood that Immaculate Constellation is a real program. But even if that's the case, and that's the ultimate truth we have to accept, we're still seeing some shades of similarity in the

official authorized, recognized Arrow report. So again, to me, I find this report really interesting because even if we have doubts about Immaculate Constellation still, and that may remain the case for some time, Arrow is still telling us, hey, but we are seeing orbs, cylinders, discs, triangles, weird lights, jellyfish, green fireballs, silver rocket-looking things. People are being followed, shadowed, is the term they use in the report, by UAP. I mean, that's all pretty extraordinary to me, especially if they say, and none of our data suggests it's China or Russia.

If not them, then who? Then who? There's a few things I want to point out. like we said, Immaculate Constellation is saying what we want to hear if you are a believer in a lot of these things being quote unquote NHI or these programs being real. But like you said, even Arrow is saying some of these things. So it's like we have an official report that is also saying what we want to hear. We have a new director who seems to be a bit more open. I do want to get to a quote of his in a little bit here. But another thing I think we need to stress is Schellenberger brought this up at the congressional hearing, if not in the reporting itself.

When ATIP ended, when the government-funded program ended that Luis Elizondo was a part of, that is apparently when Immaculate Constellation was then activated. This was a program that would then take over and be much, much more compartmentalized stovepiped. and in the shadows. So you do have to think about that too. You mentioned some of the stuff in the report. I do want to mention some of it here. A total of 18 incidents were reported near U.S. nuclear infrastructure, weapons, and launch sites,

which is something we have heard in UFO lore for a long time now. Now, you know, logic can deduce if these are some sort of spy drone or spy technology, yeah, they're going to probably go over active war zones or nuclear installations. I mean, you brought up earlier the drone swarms that happened over Langley and whatnot. That's probably going to be a big part of the Senate UFO hearing in the coming days here. But that was interesting. Another thing that really caught my attention in the report here was of the report, 708 occurred in the air domain, 49 occurred in the space domain, and none, zero occurred in the

maritime or transmitting domain, transmedium referring to objects that cross domains such as flying from the atmosphere into outer space. So none, not a single UFO reported to, or UAP reported to Arrow, was a USO, if I'm reading this right. Like, nothing was recorded having come from or gone into the water. Am I getting that right? That would be my interpretation, or at least, again, Aero seems to be conveying. They don't have any credible data that explicitly links evidence of a UAP being observed going into or coming out of the water. But, I mean, the thing is, there's a whole lot of data from, you know, it's mostly anecdotal, we should point out.

But, I mean, there's a whole lot of data that links UAP sightings to the maritime environment. In fact, actually, Project Blue Book is full of reports involving those kinds of maritime encounters. So it's interesting that, yes, as you say, ERO seems to maintain that they don't have good data that points to those being the so-called transmitting capabilities. Although they did this time say that they had some space detections and that apparently that seems to be information. I think how they word it in the report they're talking about those the sensor capabilities. actually we should pull that up really quickly and I'll have to try and find that. I don't want to paraphrase something if I'm not actually stating it correctly,

but I'll have to pull up a copy of the report here and see if I can find that for us here in just a second. So, yeah, how they describe it is fairly, fairly, yes. Actually, I think I may have a cheat sheet that I created here. Let me just see. Larry Crow. Yeah, I tried to create a condensed summary of Aero's findings here. Let's see if I can find the space-based description here.

Also, they note, by the way, and this is interesting that, again, ERO is increasingly receiving cases that it is able to resolve to the Starlink satellite constellation. I can say that that certainly seems to be the case for me as well. You know, with the UAP sightings reporting system that I launched in January, I get a lot of reports from people who are, you know, people who are really good observers and give really good descriptions of the UAP that they, are reporting, but I'm reading these reports, and I mean, I can almost immediately tell when they're describing a Starlink satellite constellation. And so yet again, Arrow is now saying exactly the same thing. And I can't find the exact wording here. So I'll have to look for that again, Ryan, but again, basically what they did say, I guess I'm going to wait into dangerous territory here in time, prime paraphrase, but they said, you know, that they were getting some space

reports, but that most of this was from space-based sensors that Arrow, I guess, isn't using, but of course that other agencies are employing and they're getting the data about these. But nonetheless, if that seems to point to UAP operating outside of the atmosphere, that's intriguing because even that one might argue, especially if you're an arrow investigator, does not explicitly mean that it's evidence of extraterrestrials.

What at least would seem to be, though, is evidence of technologies that are capable of entering space and or coming into our atmosphere from space. So while we're not seeing evidence of something out there in the water, Arrow seems to be now starting to say, yeah, we are beginning to get some data that's suggestive of things operating in orbit. And that's interesting. Yeah, for sure.

This was interesting, too, I thought. They introduced something that Arrow has been working on for a while now with several other institutions, and this is Gremlin. It's a network of 2D and 3D radar, long range electro-optical and infrared telescopes developed by the Georgia Tech Research Institute, 2D radar measure range. And, oh, God, this is just so much techno babble. I love it, but it's not for me, man. The report says that Gremlin successfully collected data during a test in March and will now be deployed at a national security site for a 90-day pattern of life collection. So, I mean, if anyone was to say that Arrow wasn't being proactive at this point, I would have to argue.

It seems like they're really stepping up their game. They finally have their website up and running. They've only tweeted about four or five times at this point. But you can't argue that at least they're trying now, in my personal opinion. So we have Gremlin. What do you think? What do you think of this? Well, I think it's intriguing.

Let me back up for just a moment because I, I found the quote I was looking for from the report. So, ERO, and I quote now, ERO notes that none of the space domain reports originated from space-based sensors or assets. So actually what they were saying was that they don't have space-based sensors that are providing these space domain reports. They say, rather, all of these reports originated from military or commercial pilots or ground observers who reported UAP located at altitudes estimated at 100 kilometers or higher,

consistent with U.S. space commands astrographic aeros. of responsibility. Okay. Of the 3757 reports, 392 were found, or rather were from the FAA, which consisted of all the FAA's UAP report since 2021.

Remember, prior to about 2021, the FAA officially did not collect UAP reports. I think I was the first journalist that finally got the FAA on the record about that, but only after in the ODI and I report from that year,

FAA was listed as one of the collection agencies that was providing the UAPTF UFO reports. So how do you provide data to the UAP task force if you're not actually collecting UFO reports. But anyway, now coming back to your question, we were jumping back over to Gremlin. Gremlin, yet again, like you said, I think that it would really be hard to say that Arrow isn't trying to get better data about UAP.

And with Gremlin, my understanding of this sensor suite is that essentially this is a, you know, fairly small, rapidly deployable, multi-sensor, I wouldn't call it a device. Again, I think Sweet is the term that they use right there, and that's the best way to describe this. And this is something that's used for the purpose of being able to take it out into the field, maybe use it on an aircraft, and to be able to collect a whole lot of information about these unknowns. And as we can see right here, they aren't giving us specifics, but they are certainly telling us, in general terms, all of the kinds of sensors they're used. using. We've got long range

electro-optical and infrared. We've got satellite communications hubs. We've got 2D search radar. That SACCOM unit right there looks suspiciously like a starlink to me, by the way, but it may not be what it is. A cellular link, copper

fiber link, you know, a 2D search radar and also over here a 3D radar, which is I would understand, I think, and again, I'm no expert on this. There are some technicians out there listening who I'm sure will provide additional details. And actually, I always welcome that. So anybody out there listening. If you are a technician or if you're somebody who has

engineering or technical knowledge about this and you'd like to provide some feedback to me, you can reach me at mica at the debrief.org. That's my email address and I always invite people to share their insights. But my understanding would be that a 2D search radar would probably be a directional kind of a radar system, whereas a 3D radar probably is more akin to the popular phased array systems that first were implemented back around 2004. And this is what facilitated detections of unknowns in the environment near the USS Nimitz carrier strike group. So RF radio frequency spectrum monitor, so they're monitoring a whole range of different radio frequencies. One of the reasons, obviously, for this with the Gremlin system is because in Arizona,

in fact, in this report, I think that there's probably some data about this, but certainly in past reports, they give us morphologies, known areas where, you know, UAP are encountered by pilots, It's also things like radio frequencies and other kinds of sensory artifacts that appear to, you know, I shouldn't say artifacts. I should just say that there are radio frequency emissions and other kinds of emissions that are detected from UAP and that various sensors have detected. And interestingly, within specific frequency ranges, which are detailed in the Arrow report. And that's a very intriguing thing to me, too. I'm very interested in wanting to know what the frequency ranges that are most commonly reported from the emissions detected from UAP, what that indicates about the possible range or the frequencies being detected. I mean, is this being used for communication?

Is this a radio frequency that is effectively an artifact of some other process, you know, something else that the UAP are producing, part of their propulsion capability? We don't know. But in any case, obviously, Arrow was trying to monitor all aspects of the radio frequency spectrum to try and determine things about that. Now, here's a hypothetical. What if using that, they did find evidence that UAP were communicating using radio frequencies. You know, and what if we could narrow down how they, maybe it's an encrypted form of communication, but what if we were able to narrow down a frequency range that they are using? I mean, that's an intriguing possibility.

Also, it seems to me like if that were happening, though, those kinds of things. kinds of communications would be readily detectable, and we would probably have already detected things like that already in the past. So for my own part, I would have to imagine that if there's communication occurring, it's something else that they're doing. Although, and this is also speculative, but about the famous Nimitz case, when the Tick-Tac famously went back to the cap point, some have interpreted that as having been a awareness of the cap point designated for that training operation, which seemed to indicate that whoever was operating the Tic Tac also had knowledge of those encrypted communications that would have been

required for the communication about what that location was. All that said, and again, coming back around as we're nearing, I guess, probably 9 o'clock, long range electro-optical and infrared GPS, 2D search radar and ADSB. So, again, someone had written to me recently, actually, and had said that probably it's that Gremlin network stack that you see right there in the middle where all this information is going to. that's going to be the central hub and it's going to be collecting data

from all these sensors. It's going to be putting that data into data packages that can later be referenced. So when a UAP is seen, and let's say they've deployed Gremlin on an aircraft and they encounter a UAP and they're able to track it for a little while

and they use it and they're able to use this multi-sensor suite to glean a whole lot of information about this UAP while they're filming it, right? And presumably also in both electro-optical and then infrared, kind of like how, you know, the modern predator drones and even the FAA18 Super Hornets with the Atfleer,

their infrared systems are already doing in some of the notable UAP videos we've already seen. Let's say that they're collecting all that data. Well, that ends up being put into this data package, presumably that's going to be collected by and stored and then also be able to be retrieved from that Gremlin network stack. And hypothetically, this little system is going to give us a whole lot of information about UAP. And I would note, and I have noted previously, that the Gremlin,

system is remarkably similar. I told this to Christina on Friday. The gremlin system is really similar, really, to what we're seeing Avi Loeb and the Galileo Project using at Harvard. The only difference being that they've got a large system kind of in a area, right? It's not mobile. And they call this the Galileo Project Observatory. You know, they've got all these cool devices. Their central hub is kind of what they call Dalek, obviously named after the beloved villains from Doctor Who. And in fact, I just happened to have right here, Ryan, a visual that my dear friend, I love it.

Beth Arzie in the UK, Beth, if you're out there listening, Miss you. Oh, shout out to Beth. Beth gave me this, but, you know, so here we've got this classic image of a couple of Daleks invading a T-Bus there in the United Kingdom. But that's why they named it that, this little control hub that the Galileo project uses, sort of resembles Adelic.

They're essentially doing the same sort of thing. Now, Gremlin, as I understand it, yet again, though, that whole rapid deployability thing means it's mobile. And they can take this thing and they can get it to a place very quickly if they need to so that if they expect there's going to be a UAP siding or people are reporting a lot of UAP, Arrow can send Gremlin. And they can hope maybe that they can actually go and they can take this rapidly deployable sensor suite and they can collect data about UAP.

How much of that data if they succeed in detecting UAP and collecting that information? How much of that data is going to be in a future Arrow report? I don't know. But I mean, they certainly seem like they're increasingly more well equipped to collect that data in the event that they do spot some UAP. Yeah, absolutely. I'm excited to see what they uncover. To kind of wrap up this section, Micah, we're going on the two-hour mark. I don't want to take up too much more of your time. But there was a briefing that took place at the Pentagon with the new head of Arrow, John Kozlowski, recently. And there were some interesting quotes. from this briefing that I wanted to read here. If you're watching this on YouTube, you can see them up on the screen.

The first being, you know, there's a lot of talk about how Arrow is non-transparent. And, you know, this has brought up a lot of the congressional hearings of like, well, you know, like this information's out there, but, you know, they're not sharing it. And it's classified this, this, that, this that. And John kind of pushed back with this and said,

not push back, but said, Congress has an understandable concern about secrecy surrounding UAP. The process for lowering classification is complicated because it involves numerous agencies, including from the intelligence community. Nevertheless, Arrow has taken significant steps to try to speed declassification of what it can release without jeopardizing sensitive information, for example, that could reveal IC sources and methods. So I think this is a proactive thing that Arrow is doing under the new leadership

of John Kuzlowski that I don't think was there as much with the previous director. This quote, this personal quote, is what everyone's talking about, where John said there are interesting cases that I, with my physics and engineering background and time in the intelligence community, I do not understand and I don't know anybody else who understands. So yeah, that was interesting. I think for those out there who really have hope for this guy moving forward with Arrow, he kind of said it right there.

Look, we had things we couldn't explain. Maybe we don't have enough information yet to explain them. We could in the future. But right now, some of the things that we're looking at defy all explanation according to my knowledge and the knowledge of the intelligence community and other physicists, other scientists. So, yeah, what do you make of these two quotes?

Well, again, I think something that we really have to acknowledge here, Ryan, is, you know, first of all, one day before Kozlowski was appointed, it was brought to my attention that there was going to be a new director, and I did know his name, and I didn't know a whole lot about him, but, I mean, from what I've been told, Kuzlowski, you know, seems to be pretty objective in his approach toward this. And that is hopeful to me. And that's certainly one reason why I have said I am cautiously optimistic because I think a lot of us saw Arrow kind of going a direction where it seemed like there was a fair amount of bias being shown by, again, its leadership.

under Kozlowski, if I'm to infer anything from what he says in that quote, you just share you right there, I think the best way to do it is to compare what he says to what past directors, and I'm going to include the former acting director, but current deputy director, Tim Phillips, in this too. Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, right around the time he left or shortly afterward, he wasted no time in going straight to Scientific American and not only writing a couple of opeds, but also appearing on a podcast produced by Scientific American and doing a number of other interviews. And, you know, Dr. Hurtt Patrick never said,

you know, look, I'm a physicist. I'm a smart guy. There are some things we have no idea what they are. You know, Sean seemed pretty confident that, or at least tried to convey to people that he was confident that, you know, we're going to pretty much be able to explain all this stuff, you know. He came across sounding to me like a person,

was quite jaded, right? I think he had been very turned off by attitudes by people in the UFO community. He had alluded to this personal experience where there had been somebody lurking around his house. Some of these same grievances that he was discussing had been described by some of NASA's UAP independent study team. They said that they've been harassed or even threatened. And I think a lot of these people essentially after having those kinds of unfortunate experiences where they are met with the wrath of some of the more ideological components.

within the UAP community. And frankly, also irresponsible behavior by some of those people, aggressive and frankly just inexcusable actions. You should never be threatening officials. You should never be taunting them, right? And I take issue with people who do those kinds of things, whether it's to government officials or if it's, you know, people who call themselves journalists and do that to other journalists or members of the UAP community. We don't have to taunt. We don't have to intimidate. We don't have to, you know, degrade and impugn and make fun of things and also sometimes publish things that aren't facts just because it makes us look good and gets us more followers.

You need to act responsibly, okay? And that's the message that should go to the entire UFO community. I unfortunately can sympathize with Dr. Kirkpatrick for allowing those experiences with those bad actors to kind of, you know, color his attitude toward the entire subject. I can, to an extent, sympathize with him. But it's unfortunate that that happened because clearly there ended up, to me, being a bias that began to lurk in. And as that bias became more apparent, we never would have seen him saying anything like, yeah, there's some things I can't identify. And I'm a really good scientist. Let's move on now to Tim Phillips.

You know, Tim Phillips, when he gave a briefing at the time of the release of the Arrow Historical Report to a select group of about seven mainstream journalists, It's not unlike what actually happened here with the recent report being issued. The debrief, I'll again point out, has not been invited to any of these briefings. It's usually mainstream reporters that they bring in there and invite to these things. But Tim Phillips had said, look, you know, there are some things that we found that Arrow has become aware of. If I didn't know what they were, I would have thought they were UAP, but it's stuff our government's doing. Okay. So we had Tim Phillips, who again seemed to be a little bit more communicative, you know, with people.

And he seemed to be willing to try and, you know, to speak with people. He didn't seem like he'd completely shut out the topic and was just done with it after just, you know, spending a couple of years with it. But he was not saying, yeah, we got some really good cases. He was saying, there are some things I could understand why people would mistake them for UFOs. Okay. Now we've got Dr. Kozlowski. So we have the new director. and during his first, you know, meeting with the press and the issuance of the first report under his tenure, what does he say?

Not, yeah, our government's got some real good stuff, not, look, there's nothing to this, and it's commercial lighting balloons, right? He's saying, I am a physicist. And as a physicist, again, just quote him, there are interesting cases that I, with my physics and engineering background and time in the intelligence community, I do not understand, and I don't know anybody else who understands. That is an incredible statement to be coming from, again, a highly credentialed scientist who now leads the DoD's investigations into UAP. Sure. Thanks, yours too. What does Ravs stand for anyway?

To me, it's the remarkably advanced vehicle. Really? To me, it's the runway-approved vehicle for its amazing style. What about remarkably adaptable vehicle because of its versatile cargo space? Or really admired vehicle? Oh, or really awesome vehicle. It really is the recreational activity vehicle. The stylish 2026 Toyota Rapp for.

Limited. What's your Rav for? Yeah, I love it. I have hope. There's one last thing that he's sort of initiated that I want to bring up before we wrap things up with the upcoming Senate UAP hearing this, what, Tuesday, I believe. Yeah, let me see here. Oh, yeah. The report further says that Arrow is developing a new science and technology plan to outline and address the challenges facing UAP detection and identification, such as lack of high-quality sensor data and series of gaps in the scientific knowledge base. You did bring this up earlier in terms of sensors. For example, Kozlowski said his office intends to increase its engagement with foreign

partners to obtain a broader array of sensors, data, and information on UAP. This reminds me a lot of, I think it was earlier this year, when the Sky Guy Canada project over there in Canada was supposed to be meeting with, I believe, members of the Five Eyes Alliance, if I'm not mistaken, I might be getting that mixed up. And this whole Five Eyes Alliance thing where they're sharing data and that Arrow was going to be a part of that. Am I completely botching that or, yeah, does that sound right? No, I believe that there was even some discussion of memory serves of Sean Kirkpatrick addressing that.

Again, the Arrow had hoped to try and coordinate with, you know, other nations, you know, the so-called Five Eyes nations, so that there could be some intelligence sharing. That being, of course, a significant thing because if the U.S. military is just doing this, even with, you know, our outpost all around the world, I mean, again, one of the most obvious issues that arises from U.S. information being collected from U.S. facilities, even if there are facilities all around the world, is exactly what Kirk Patrick previously and others have said as well, you look at that heat map in the Arrow report, and this is where they say UAP sightings occur most frequently. But every time they have issued a version of that report with presumably updated data, they reiterate. And it's reiterated in the new report. You know, this is potentially a reporting bias based on not so much where UFOs happen to show up a lot.

It really is where we have sensor capabilities or other. technologies that happen to detect UAP. And again, with regard to the DOD's collection of military data on UAP sightings, and mostly by military personnel, where do those sightings occur? Usually around military facilities, bases, you know, or other places where military operations are taking place, like, for instance, controlled airspace and also, you know, training areas off of the east and west coast of the United States. You know, those traditional places where sightings like, you know, the USS Roosevelt sightings

between 2014-2015 occurred, USS Nimitz in 2004, etc. So, again, one of the benefits of working with your allies around the world is it broadens our understanding of where UAP sightings occur. And you still may also encounter, since you're working with those militaries and those intelligence agencies of those respective nations, you're still going to encounter a reporting bias, but it's going to be one that you get at least from several different nations and several different geographic locations as opposed to just, here's U.S. data that's, you know, heavily skewed toward military sightings and, you know, occurrences near military installations.

So it's a step in the right direction. And it's also going to be helpful in the terms of beyond just geography, you know, getting additional data from other nations. Because in addition to there being reporting biases about, you know, locations, one might say that there could also be interpretive biases that, you know, for instance, the United States intelligence community would apply toward UAP. I mean, the most obvious one, Ryan, that comes to mind would be we're worried that Russia or China, one of our immediate adversaries, is watching us. And, again, a lot of the sightings do occur in places where, you know, one would expect maybe

surveillance to occur. So when we collect additional data from other nations, not to say that they don't also potentially incur surveillance from adversary nations, the same adversaries that, you know, the U.S. has. But, I mean, it very least broadens the depth or the amount of information, also the depth. It broadens

the amount of information that we're collecting geographically and also it allows us to collect information from the intelligence communities of our, you know, partners, our allies. That helps us see a bigger picture perspective on all this, you know? So, I mean, that to me is a very good thing. And I'm glad that in addition to

their science and technology, plan that they're trying to broaden in terms of what we do with UAP, how we study them, what we're trying to collect and what we're trying to learn and how we're going to network with the academic community, you know, what have you, that they're also working with other militaries around the world to help broaden that. Because again, we've seen people say this. UFOs are an American problem. How come, you know, other countries around the world don't have as much issue with UFOs. This is what we call a cultural bias, you know, or this is, you know, whatever. I don't think. I think UAP just are seen in the United States or wherever U.S. military operations are taking place. I think the U.S. military has become the most recent military around the world to start taking this problem seriously. But quite obviously, the UAP issue is a global phenomenon. So, yeah, we need to start working with our allies around the world so that we can see the full extent of that phenomenon. Yeah, absolutely. I could not agree more. Well, I guess to kind of wrap it up, man, this all culminates this whole Arrow thing into what will be a closed hearing and an open session coming up this week in the Senate in the U.S., speaking of an American problem.

We will have a Senate UFO hearing that will be headed once again by Kirsten Gillibrand, who hopes to be speaking to the new director, John, over at Arrow. and talking about various other UAP incidents and whatnot. But we don't know yet what this open session will sort of be like. At least I am not aware of what will be discussed. However, you mentioned earlier that Matt Laslo over at Askepole has been doing some wonderful work, banging on doors, following people to their cars, you name it. He's doing it over there in Washington and getting, pretty much the words of every single Congress member on UAP.

And he was able to find out that there will be a UFO hearing this upcoming week in the Senate with Gillebrand. And this is an interesting quote that I want to sort of end things with. This was a message from Kirsten Gillibrand to basically the UFO community and anyone curious or interested in the UAP topic and how it's being treated in government. And she said, I want the community to know this is a body of stuff. Nobody knows what it is. And so that they feel and know that you're respected. You're being listened to. We want your data and information.

We want your data in information. We want to co-locate it. And we want to cross-reference it. And then this is going to be the scientists behind the assessment of what tech is it. How is it? How is it? What's the propulsion? Because even if we don't know, who it is, we need to know how it's doing what it's doing.

I found that pretty interesting. So what do you think? What do you think we're going to learn at this upcoming hearing? Are we going to learn anything? Or will this be sort of a retread of what we learned in the Arrow report? Well, again, based on the statement that Dr. Kozlowski already provided. And again, I think this statement reflected only. on him I'm not applying this to past

or current members of arrow and differences in the attitudes that we kind of were breaking down and comparing but I do think it takes a lot of courage on part of a scientist and especially a scientist who is a government official

but it takes a lot of courage to admit there are things that I don't understand there are things we can't identify things that as a physicist I don't know what they are and nobody that I know knows what they are right i mean that that's not the kind of thing that anybody wants to have to admit um and i do suspect

that there have been many military officials and scientists uh and and and you know intelligence officers and others over the years who have grappled with the enduring mystery of uap and they have not been willing to admit that there are things in our midst in our skies you know that we don't understand and i think that their default position becomes one of when i'm met with the impossible. I ignore it. And we talk about the things that we can quantify. We talk about the things that we can address. Kozlowski's already shown he's willing to say what every scientist should be willing to say. I don't know. But we're going to keep studying it and we're going to try and figure it out. And based on that, I'm hopeful that Tuesday's hearing if portions of it are made

public and presumably they will be, but I find it hard to believe that the whole thing will be made open as a gillibranded expressed to Mr. Laslow that she hopes to do. Sounded an awful lot to me like there's going to have to be a, you know, a closed, classified portion followed by an open portion. And we're going to get to see a little of that, I think, shortly after 3 p.m. Eastern time on Tuesday. You can rest assured I'll be watching. And I do hope that there'll be some new information that comes out that, again, in line with Dr. Kozlowski's previous statements, you know, again, are going to help us understand this phenomenon,

maybe a little better, and also help us to understand how Arrow under his leadership is studying it. Apart from that, I don't know, but I do know it's nice to see a little excitement in this community because, you know, for the last few months, people have been kind of complaining. You know, there's not a whole lot going on right now, right? It's been good to have some hearings, you know, a couple of them back to back, and also a new report come out and actually even the controversy involving Immaculate Constellation. Again, we're a little, you know, less certain about all that and where that's going. I do hope in the days ahead that we get some more information about who had been given those documents

and who maybe had been the first ones that received them. If we can get that information, even if we don't know who the source is, it's going to help fill out the picture a little on that. But again, while that remains in the realm of, you know, rumor, speculation and those kinds of unknowns, you know, the actual report on the unknowns that we just saw still pretty intriguing. And I hope we get a good report on that report from Dr. Kozlowski on Tuesday. A report on the report on the report. And you know we will be reporting on the report of the report of the report. And I know that's what you're doing over at the debrief, buddy.

So give it to us. What do you got going on over at the Micah Hanks program and over at the debrief? And of course, where can we find everything you're up to? Yeah, I mean, I did a recovery, or I'm sorry, a crash wreckage retrieval recovery of the hearing the other day on my podcast. And then this week, we're going to be addressing everything from the Arrow report that came out to, depending on the timing of when the episode goes out, if the episode goes up before the Senate hearing, we're just going to be probably talking about the error report and some of the things, you know, that are happening right now, some of these stories I'm tracking. But rest assured, after the Senate hearing, I'm going to be doing some coverage of that. We're, as we did today, and thank you for having me on, I think it's important to try and break down, you know, point for point. what are the issues, you know, how do we analyze this?

What can we infer from the data we have? And let's kind of go about this like detectives and see if we can understand what all this means. I feel like you and I made some progress with that tonight. I'm going to continue to do that on the show. And of course, always you can follow our reporting over there at the debrief.org. Because if there's UAP breaking news, we're going to report that also. And a whole lot of other things, too. A lot of incredible stuff happening in the world of science and technology.

We cover all that at the debrief. I love it, man. Yep, I visit the site every day. You guys are pumping things out left and right. Kudos to everyone over there for just bringing us all the latest on everything. So thank you for that. You'll love this. Speaking of Science, this upcoming week I will be interviewing the one and only Robert Powell

of the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies. And I'm looking for your listener questions, guys. So if you have any questions for Robert, Robert, please. You can email them. I have an email in the show notes. You can reach out to me over social media. He's excited.

He's excited to answer your listener questions. So be sure to get those over to me before Wednesday. And I'll be sure to try to include those in our conversation with Robert. I know, Micah, you work with the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies as well. So, yeah, yeah, I'm excited for that. But like I said, guys, you could find all of Micah's links in the show notes below and be sure to subscribe to the Micah Hank's program. And I'll leave it with this, man. There's nobody else I would rather have on to break down all the latest stuff.

You make it so digestible to those of us out there who don't quite understand the science. Don't quite understand the politics and the bureaucratic nature to a lot of this stuff going on. And it makes a lot of people out there feel like they have a role in all this. They have a voice that it's not just, you know, congressional members talking back and forth and all that. We're all a part of this. We're all just trying to figure it out together. So thank you. Thank you for taking the time tonight to try to figure out all of this with us.

And as always, buddy, thank you so much. of course joining me on somewhere in the, I was going to say somewhere in the live stream, but this will be somewhere in the skies as well. So any parting words. Well, you know, I'll always just say this. Always ask questions and it's okay. And in fact, it's even warranted to scrutinize public officials and, you know, to look at these things and ask hard questions, but as a community of serious advocates for the study, the scientific study of UAP and also to learn the full extent to what our government knows about it. We must do so respectfully.

We must always ask ourselves the same hard questions that we ask others. Fact check, fact check, fact check. Make sure that you report good quality information. Don't contribute to the misinformation that's always happening out there and just be kind and respectful to each other because I'll tell you this. Kindness goes a long way. If we're good to each other, you'll be surprised how much we can learn. And especially that does a lot to foster goodwill, cooperation, and

again, as a team, no man is an island. If we're all working together, we're far more likely to figure this out. So again, Ryan, that's something I appreciate about you. And you're excellent reporting here on somewhere in the skies. So it's always my pleasure to be your guest, man. Thank you, buddy. The pleasure was all mine. And I want to thank all of you guys.

Wow, 800 of you watching across social media and YouTube tonight. I have to thank every single one of you for being here, our super chatters, all our regulars, all the new people. and of course to our wonderful podcast network, Lionsgate over there, and to our incredible, incredible moderator, Suzanne. Again, check out her awesome breakdown of Immaculate Constellation in the show notes below. And that's going to do it, guys, for this week. This will be the podcast for this week as well. So you can listen to us over on the main feed coming out in just under two and a half hours here in the UK.

So I'll be getting that out shortly. Be on the lookout for our interview with Robert Powell. Wow. Robert Powell as well. And that'll do it. Thank you guys for joining us again. And I'll leave you with our mantra as always. And that is keep your feet on the ground,

but never stop searching somewhere in the skies. The Somewhere in the Skies podcast is part of the Lionsgate Sound Network. Please take a moment to rate and review the show on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever possible. Thank you for listening.