Somewhere in the Skies - Strategic Doubt

Episode Date: November 30, 2020

On episode 189 of SOMEWHERE IN THE SKIES, we are joined by Dr. Adam Kehoe. Kehoe is a software developer with a PhD in Library and Information Science. He writes about UFOs and related defense issues on his website, Strategic Doubt. In this conversation, he explains how he began writing about defense issues and UFOs/UAPs, the importance of skepticism, and his insight and observations on the ever-changing landscape of UAP discourse on both policy in government and culturally in the civilian world. Where may the UAP issue be heading with the recently announced Pentagon UAP Task Force and how closely have both the United States' allies and adversaries around the world looked at the UAP issue in an official capacity?  Follow Dr. Adam Kehoe's work at: https://blog.adamkehoe.com  Patreon: www.patreon.com/somewhereskies Website: www.somewhereintheskies.com YouTube Channel: CLICK HERE Official Store: CLICK HERE Order Ryan's Book by CLICKING HERE Twitter: @SomewhereSkies Instagram: @SomewhereSkiesPod Learn more about The Women's Refugee Commission at: www.womensrefugeecommission.org  Watch Mysteries Decoded for free at www.CWseed.com Episode edited by Jane Palomera Moore Opening Theme Song, "Ephemeral Reign" by Per Kiilstofte SOMEWHERE IN THE SKIES is part of the eOne podcast network. To learn more, CLICK HERE 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

As the crispy chicken sandwich from 7-Eleven, people always call me loud. And I'm like, yeah, I know. I'm crispy. Did you expect me to whisper? If you want quiet, go eat some soup and reflect. Like, I know I'm a handful. I'm bold, I'm juicy. Throw some pickles and barbecue sauce on me, and baby, I'm a whole meal.

And with seven rewards, I'm just $4. Quiet. No. Krispy, saucy, and $4? Very. Only at 711. Valley 3-62326, participating stores only well supplies lastly out for full terms. Today, on Somewhere in the Skies, Dr. Adam Kehoe.

So from what I can see, as I look outside of the U.S. context and just the Anglophone world and take kind of a wider perspective, the U.S.O and the ocean and kind of naval context is actually crucial. It's incredibly important. I do think that a fair amount of research attention is going to go in that direction. This is Somewhere in the Skies with Ryan Sprague. What's up, guys? before we get to this week's interview with Dr. Adam Kehoe, I have to take a moment to send my thanks out to our new Patreon subscribers for their support.

So to Matthew T, Cliff B, Lewis N. O, Michael P.G., Barry N., Jason M., Robert H. Herman A., Ryan S., Dahlia M., Chris J., Michael S, Tom, Bradley W.P., Jonathan M., Sean, Eric A, John M., John M., Jen F.K., M. C. M., C. M., C. R. M., A. C., J., J., J., J., J., Brian K., Caspian, Joe W., and Alan F. Thank you so much to all of you, past and present, for helping to support the show on Patreon. I truly couldn't continue doing the show right now without your help, so please know that you are literally keeping the show alive. If you would like to become a Patreon subscriber, we have tons of rewards for you in return. So to join or to learn more, visit patreon.com slash somewhere skies. And now, here's our conversation with Dr. Adam Kehoe.

Adam, thank you so much for joining me today on Somewhere in the Skies. Yeah, absolutely. My pleasure. Yeah, so, I mean, I've come across your work in the past few months through some of my colleagues, Alejandro Rojas, and Zach over at at the Project Human podcast, which, man, I listened to that entire conversation on a road trip. And I was like turning down corners. I didn't need to go down just to make the drive longer because I couldn't stop listening, dude. And that's what I knew I had to have you on my show.

Oh, fantastic. We did our job then. Yes, absolutely. Absolutely. It was a really good way to start off his new podcast over there for Project Human. So, Zach, thank you for bringing Adam my way. but we're going to really dive in to this tonight, man, because I've been just reading and going through your blog like crazy,

and that is strategic doubt. And before we kind of get to some of the specific things you have over there, origin story, I'm sure you're used to this question by now, but we all get it. But yeah, before we get into UFOs, a topic that you cover from the periphery within the context of your blog, tell us a little about yourself, if you don't mind for my listeners and people who may not be too familiar with you.

A brief rundown, maybe, who you are, what your doctorates in, and yeah, what made you want to start the blog's strategic doubt. Yeah, absolutely. So my educational background was initially actually in history, and initially I planned to go to law school. And then the Great Recession changed all that. It was not a great time to go into the legal profession. But it turns out, you know, I had this side interest in technology. And so after I graduated, I was looking around and I needed a job in a tough market. And I ended up getting a tech job in the defense world for a little while.

And that was fascinating. And I'd already been interested in a lot of these kinds of issues of intelligence and the military and strategy just from my study of history. But then, you know, getting to see a little bit of that up close was really an entirely different experience. So after doing that for a little while, I decided I wanted to try to find a way where I could fuse my different interests. So I ended up going into a field called information science, which is a multidisciplinary field. It's kind of a combination of computer science, statistics, sociology, library science, all of these different things kind of together. So that's ultimately what I got my PhD in. And my little corner of information science was in what's called biomedical information retrieval.

So essentially we built like the kind of Google-like tools for biologists and bench scientists. So I did that for some time. And through that process, I found that I really loved engineering. I really loved building systems. So what I ended up doing was starting a business, a consulting business, which I'm still doing today. And then, you know, now I've gotten more involved in writing about the UFO topic. Right. And that, you know, that's, of course, why what struck me and brought me to your work.

So I got to ask, how did it sort of take that pivot? Did you have an interest in the UFO topic before this? Have you had a UFO sighting? Yeah, what got you into this topic? Yeah, I've never had a UFO sighting or experience myself personally. And, you know, I joke that, like, it's hard to escape a childhood in the 80s without being at least a little interested in UFOs, just with the media environment that I grew up in. But then, you know, in 2017, when Lou Elizondo came out.

and when To the Stars Academy was kind of coming into the four, and we had the New York Times reporting, the topic became more interesting to me then because it went from being fascinating stories and this kind of rich legacy of lore into a real-life kind of government and policy question in a way that I hadn't seen treated before. And so that's really what got my interest.

But at the time, I was still finishing up research and starting my business and had a whole bunch of other things going on in life. So I paid attention to it, but it was really this year when I had a time to go back and really kind of absorb everything. And then at that point, I kind of came to the recognition that no matter how I thought about the problem, there was an issue kind of at the end of the decision tree. So my thinking was, well, okay, if all of these sightings turn out to be really nothing at all, if they're just a confused pilot or a glitching radar, well, then we've got a defense

preparedness problem because, you know, when you hear some of this pilot testimony, it's not just like, oh, they saw something interesting, but it's this awe-inspiring experience they had. So if that's a result of a mistake, then that's something to be concerned about. And that's kind of like the most prosaic, boring explanation you can give to the phenomenon. You know, and if you go to the other end of there's something, you know, either genuinely strange where we really don't understand what it is. So that's a profound question scientifically and also in terms of national defense. And hey, if it's a, you know, a Russian or a Chinese program of some kind, then that's also, you know, deeply concerning because it would suggest that they've achieved some sort of qualitative advantage. So, you know, no matter what

avenue you go down, you see something that really needs to be investigated. So that's what really got me passionate about it to the point where I started writing about it. Yeah, and I couldn't agree more with you, man. I mean, I think this topic, UFOs, UAPs, whatever you want to call them, it really goes beyond everything. You can look at it through everything. lens, whether, you know, psychological, folkloric, historic, religion, and like you said, even up to national security and policy. I mean, it's incredible how you can sort of connect this topic or this issue to anything. And I think that's what really drew me to your work, because you're looking at this from a strategic defense angle and also, you know, a historical standpoint. But before we kind of

dive into some of those more defense-oriented questions for you. I'd love to get kind of the human side of you. You mentioned, you know, other things in life. And I found this really powerful piece you wrote on your blog called Magnitar, which really gave us kind of an inside look at you, Adam, you know, aside from you as the writer. So would you mind maybe giving us a little rundown about what Magnetar was about? Yeah, absolutely. So in the closing of period of my PhD sort of towards the end. Long story short, I started to get sick, really, really sick. And I had had some health issues before that, but all of a sudden it accelerated to this point where, you know, I was having difficulty walking, staying awake. Something was clearly, like,

drastically wrong. And so I went to see, you know, a physician on campus at the time. I was still a PhD student. And, you know, he told me, based on my symptoms, you know, I've seen patients younger than you with cancer. Like you need to urgently go to the hospital and have a bunch of diagnostic tests done, which, you know, obviously it's a shock to hear that. But then the next part of it in our, you know, our American health care system was they actually sent me to the financial counselor. And they said, you know, the insurance isn't really going to cover, you know, what needs to happen next.

So, you know, you kind of need to prepare yourself. And that's exactly what happened. So I went to the hospital and, you know, as part of that, you know, the first question was, you know, how much can you pay today, right? So I went through an ordeal there where, you know, I had a lot of expenses rack up as part of that process. And then worst of all, I went through a bunch of testing and then it was inconclusive. They found that I didn't have cancer. You know, I wasn't dying, although at the time it sure felt that way.

But what it turned out to be I learned later when I started to get sick again, I ended up paying for my own genetic testing. And then using that, you know, biomedical informatics background, I did my own research. I learned that I learned that I have a somewhat uncommon autoimmune disease with another genetic risk factor that kind of made it a little bit more dramatic than it usually is. And so I went back to the hospital and had kind of my folder of research with me. And then we very quickly figured out what it was. And, you know, I eventually kind of got back on course in terms of therapy and treatment for the condition. But yeah, it was a period of time that was a, it was a true. true test. So the title of the piece, Magnetar, was about this recurring, I'm not even sure what to call it. It's sort of a dream, a daydream. I likened it in the piece to Young's concept of active imagination. So it was a daydream that I was kind of piloting, if you will. And in this daydream, I was in a lot of pain at the time. I couldn't really sleep. So it was a slightly, you know, altered state of consciousness. And I kept finding myself returning to this image of a magnetar pulsar, which is a type of star, essentially.

Yeah, and it was something about this image that was soothing in a way that that let me get through that experience. And so it stayed with me, you know, that whenever I go through hard times, you know, I think about this, this image that I had over and over again that I describe in the piece. And I think, you know, I can get through this, right? Like the Magnetar is kind of always there, you know, when times are tough. So, yeah, that's what the piece is about. I really enjoyed it, man. I mean, coming from someone who had a sick parent their whole life. I mean, my mother is a double transplant recipient.

So, I mean, the whole autoimmune thing is I'm too familiar with it, to be honest. The same with the healthcare system and the business side of all of it. So I think it's amazing that how proactive you were in determining things yourself with the background you had. That's incredible. I mean, just to be able to have that option is awesome. So, yeah, this is a really powerful piece. And like I said, it's not so much about, you know, the UFO stuff that a lot of us probably want from you, but it gave us a sense of the human side of all this and how you got into it and how you, you know, you kind of learned from it. And, you know, I've learned the same from family members and people who have been sick in my life as, you know, it kind of puts you in your shoes.

It makes you say, you know, if I'm going to do something with my life, do it now. Yes, yeah, exactly. And that, I mean, and that is where, that's the only way and then it connects to UFOs really is that it did give. me a sense of, you know what, you know, there's urgency, right, to do the things that you want to do in life and to answer the questions that you want to answer. So, you know, you make it through one tough thing. You can make it through another. So, you know, why not go out there and do what you want to do? Exactly. No, I respect that, man. And if there's anything UFOs have taught us, it's, uh, it puts us in the moment, especially for those people who've experienced it or

seen something or experienced something. Like, talk about immediacy. Like, you, you know, you're not thinking of putting your camera up and taking a photo or video or, you know, Instagram living that thing. Like, it's there for you in that moment. And I think, yeah, if UFOs have taught us anything, it's being the moment. And we're going to kind of do that moving forward. I really want to dive into some of the most current things in the UFO world. You know, I mean, only weeks ago, not even, I think. We learned that President Trump may be, videoing the bill that a lot of us have been looking forward to, man, this, you know, this request by the Senate Select Committee. And we're also learning that possibly this, this UAP task force we've

heard about from the Pentagon, that we might not be getting anything from this if it all remains classified. So I'd love to get your stance on all of this, because you, you have done some really deep dives into a lot of this stuff. And I'm going to be honest, as a UFO researcher, once you start getting into their nitty-gritty policy of all this stuff, I just, my eyes glaze over. So I'd love to know, where do you stand on all of this man? The pessimist in me thinks we're not going to get anything from this bill or this task force. But what do you think? Is this something the disclosure movement or the, you know, the true believers, something they really should look forward to or should they temper their expectations with all of this?

this? We should always temper your expectations, I would say. And it's understandable because there's an enormous amount of complexity. So what we're talking about here is the National Defense Authorization Act. So the first thing to know about this thing is that it has about 59 years of precedent of being passed on time. So it's been passed since the Kennedy administration on time. And it essentially governs the funding of the military and a bunch of policy areas. So I know there's been a lot of reporting lately that Trump may veto the bill or he may do what's called a pocket veto. meaning that he just simply won't sign the bill in time, and so therefore kind of take it, prevent it from being enacted in that way. The most important thing people need to understand is that Trump vetoing the bill does not stop what the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is trying to do.

And the reason why is that Congress has the ability to exercise oversight. It's one of its essential functions. And that's really what this is. So there's nothing in that bill, the NDAA, that gives Congress the power to do this. All that's really in there is a report from this Intelligence Committee asking for this information from the Department of Defense and from a few others. So that's just a normal kind of request for oversight that happened to come along with the legislative process. But a veto cannot stop that.

So if you're worried about the veto or a pocket veto of the NDAA, I don't think you need to be particularly concerned about that. It may have some potential to slow things down. It certainly has the potential to distract the senators and people in the Department of Defense because, frankly, they will have bigger fish to fry, so to speak, with this. But it's not going to obstruct that particular report from coming out. The second thing, in terms of what to expect from the report when it is produced. So remarkably, in the Intelligence Committee's language, they are very clear and that they ask for a primarily public report. So the question is, well, what is that exactly going to involve? How fulsome is that report going to be?

And that's where actually what we all do next matters a great deal. So if the media and journalists and researchers and bloggers, if we all do our job right and we cover this responsibly in a compelling way that more and more people get involved, that's going to make it easier for senators to take a stand on this and to kind of push the issue. And it's really going to come down to how much the Senate pushes the issue in terms of how much we're actually going to get. It's certainly possible that we could get something like a paragraph that says, you know, there's really nothing of national defense significance here. And that's it. But, you know, the question will be how will the Senate then receive that? Because that will be, in essence, you know, defying what they ask for. So it's very much a live question, a contingent question.

But I don't think anyone either needs to be panicking or old. overly concerned about what's going to happen with the process, but I also don't think that people should be, you know, preparing the confetti and voooselle as either in terms of expecting that, you know, something completely earth-shattering is going to happen either. It's only getting every customer's order right. It's only a point-of-sale system connected by Spectrum Fibber-powered business internet, helping you track hundreds of secure transactions. And it's all backed by 24-7 U.S.-based customer support and local technicians.

It's only everything. Get business internet advantage free forever when you get four mobile lines from Spectrum. Visit Spectrum.com slash free for life to find out how. Restrictions apply. Service is not available in all areas. Yeah, yeah. I think I'm kind of with you on that. Just roll with it is kind of, you know, my stance on all of this.

But no, I mean, there's, and you're right, I think that pressure that people like to the Stars Academy or even citizen journalists have been putting on the Pentagon. or the Navy recently has really, you know, showed that it's possible to get stuff. I mean, when we first learned of this Secret Pentagon program back in 2017, they were completely blindsided by the New York Times, you know, putting this out there and had to kind of walk back their statements on it all. So I think you're right, man. I think a lot of this is putting them in the corner and being like, just like, give us something. Like, even if it is just that paragraph, that will leave UFO people enough to like dissect for the next 10 years. We've done it

before. We'll do it again. So yeah, man, I'm glad you could clarify a lot of that for us because I was pretty bummed when I heard that, oh yeah, this might not pass. But hey, you know, it is what it is. And I guess kind of piggybacking off of that, I'd love to get your opinion on this. You know, we might be seeing a new administration coming in. I shouldn't say might. We are going to see a new administration come in in January. Do you think, you know, is this a bipartisan issue at all, Adam? Or do you think this will change anything when it has to do with UFOs moving forward? I mean, do you think Biden will be any more of an advocate to get this stuff out to the public,

as Trump didn't really seem to be in his four years in office? Yeah, does that play into this at all, I guess, is my question. I think that this is a bipartisan issue because it is first and foremost, a national, security issue, at least in the way that it's been framed in the Senate. I think properly, you know, in the United States, we do have a tradition of national defense being bipartisan. And certainly all the figures involved are either bipartisan or or apolitical. As far as whether, you know, we should expect a better environment from a Biden administration, I think that's very difficult to say. I think if nothing else, I would expect that the general policy environment

is going to be much calmer and much less interrupted by things like high profile firing. you know, a lot of the stuff that we've all been kind of living with in the last couple years of just a lot of chaos. So I think, you know, certainly I would say this, that the UAP issue, while it's important, is not front of mind for really anyone in government. And so whenever there's a chaotic period, it's that much easier to neglect it or to not take care of it. So if we have a little bit more of a steady hand, then hopefully that should enhance the ability of government to take it seriously. but I'm not aware of anything that would make me think that, you know, Biden is secretly a UFO nut or something like that where we should, you know, think that there's going to be some special treatment. Yeah, yeah. I think a lot of us are dreaming of that sort of six degrees of separation with John Podesta, who was an X-Files freak at the time, you know, hoping maybe he still has some connection to the Biden administration in some shape or form.

But we can only dream. One thing I guess I can add to that is that Nevada was. an important state in the last cycle. And I think Harry Reid was singled out for, I mean, Harry Reid, so the former majority leader from that state, you know, certainly when you have a close election like that and you have a state come through for you, Democratic leaders from that state tend to have a little bit extra poll. So, you know, maybe there's Podesta, but I would also consider Harry Reid. He's been an advocate for looking at this seriously. So I mean, he's the only reason we know of A-TIP now, in some ways. But speaking of A-Tip, let's move to Mr. Elizondo.

if you don't mind Adam. I know you've spoken to him personally on several occasions. And this kind of got somewhat glossed over, I think, in the UFO discourse that we see on Twitter, which again, I understand is a very niche thing. A lot of people even listening to this probably don't partake in it. But this obscure science fiction novel that former head of the Secret Pentagon program, Luis Alizando, brought up. Yeah, he recommended this to people to look into. And, And of course, I immediately ordered the book after he said that. So I would love to get your opinion. Like, what is this really obscure novel that he told everyone to look into?

And why do you think it's important in terms of connecting it to what we might be dealing with now with the UAP issue, I guess? So the back story on that is Doug Johnson of the SCU is a fan of this novella and had shared it with Elizando. and Elizondo appreciated it so much that he recommended it, I think initially in a Reddit thread or something like that. And so, yeah, I wrote a piece that kind of analyzed it. And the interesting thing is it's a very complicated story. So there's multiple parties in the story. There's humanity. There's a sort of alien spaceship that lands.

There's also a set of kind of other beings that have existed on the earth but are neither alien nor human. And this story is about kind of all three of them coming together. And really the key thing, the plot is a little too complicated probably for us to summarize here. But the key thing is that in the end, humans are really tertiary in this story. Oh, I should add, too, that artificial intelligence is actually sort of a fourth player. So an AI created by humans ends up negotiating with these things in the course of the story. So why is it relevant, right? So why is it interesting?

I think it's interesting because it paints a picture where human agency is less important. One, two, it encourages us to think a little bit more broadly about what some of these kind of phenomenon might be. And then thirdly, there are specific things in the story that do kind of resonate with little bits and pieces that we have from cases and historical records. So there's two things in particular. One is time dilation effects, which have been widely reported by people. And then secondly, something that we might call object polymorphism, so meaning that you have something that does not have one solid form, but rather can actually change its shape or structure sometimes quite dramatically.

So those two things of time effects and polymorphism actually are fairly prominent in the case literature. So I think that, you know, you'd have to ask, Lou, you know, what of all of these potential things, you know, human agency and then the particular description compels him the most? I'd love to hear his answer. But I think that in short, you kind of have your pick of interesting ideas in that story. Right, right. And, you know, you could even connect it to some of the aspects that ATIP looked into of these supposed craft of these five observables, as they've called him. But, yeah, chains of the sea is the name of the novella for anyone interested.

I'm not finding the author. Do you happen to know that off the top of your head, Adam? I do, but I'm going to butcher the pronunciation of his name, which is a shame because he's a fantastic writer. He was mostly known as an editor in his life. But this piece was really, it's fascinating just as science fiction alone. I mean, the way that he wrote about artificial intelligence was way ahead of his time. So I recommend people check it out.

Yeah, yeah. As most science fiction authors are, God, they are so ahead of their time. It's incredible. You really do have to wonder. you know, if there is some sort of techno-divine inspiration going on there. But I guess we'll leave that up to the reader. But moving sort of away from that, another piece that really called my attention is this one you wrote kind of starting with the idea of these drone swarms that we were seeing in the past

couple years. This was called Blurred Vision. UAP are not all one thing. God, if I could not hammer that into people's heads more than that. I already have that we're not dealing with one issue here. You did a great job in this blog. So I was wondering, would you mind kind of running us through what you intended to get across to the reader in this one? Sure. So the idea is that, you know, when we talk about UAP or UFOs, everyone's mind jumps to the exciting thing of thinking that it's an alien spaceship or, you know, whatever

exotic thing that it might be. But, you know, in reality, most of the time when people see a UFO, it's actually, you know, a satellite deorbiting or a piece of rocket or a weather phenomenon or Venus, you know, all of those kinds of, you know, boring things, right? That's just factually the majority of what all sightings are. And then also within there, there may be aircraft, there may be experimental aircraft, either ours or potentially of another countries, depending on where you live in the world. So, you know, just in terms of analyzing what these sightings are, you know, most of them are these kinds of other things. And then there's a small set that are, left over that are the really intriguing ones that we don't have an easy answer for. So I was walking through how the stigma that we have developed about that small subset of

really strange cases kind of casts a shadow on these other things, and that's actually poses a defense problem in of itself. So in that piece in particular, I talk about issues pertaining to drones. So a good friend of mine, again, Doug Johnson of SCU, has done fantastic FOIA work on drone sightings over sensitive nuclear facilities. And there's been a large number, I think, on the order of about 50 in recent years that have not been identified. So the point that I make in the piece is that, you know, this is a bad time to have a UFO stigma when we find our skies increasingly full of drones, because if that prevents someone from reporting it or authorities from discussing it, then we may be

overlooking something that's got nothing to do, you know, with UFOs in that exciting sense, but everything to do with a foreign intelligence service or even criminal. efforts, you know, trying to do things that they shouldn't and secure facilities. So I, and the overall, you know, the overarching thing was that, that the blurred vision aspect comes from a sense of speed and that this technology isn't going away, if anything, it's accelerating. So we need to be able to develop a kind of collective maturity and nuance and start looking at this without all the giggling and, you know, the usual things that people do when they're uncomfortable talking about, you know, strange things in the sky. It really put things into perspective when you said, like,

these things are happening all over the world. It's not just here in the United States. And we have to really look at that of, you know, these could be potential threats as ATIP has shown us, as, you know, the Navy is talking about. I mean, I'm speaking to a gentleman right now, a former Navy servicemen who had five UFO sightings at a military installation, but never reported it. And, you know, of course, the citizen reporter in me is like, are you kidding me? Like, why wouldn't you report? that. But, you know, I wasn't in his shoes. And I don't, I didn't feel the immense pressure or stigma behind reporting this within the military at the time. So I completely understand how that stigma could be a potential threat. If they're not reporting these things, then what if it is

a national security issue? Right. If that's, if that thing that he saw was really just a Chinese drone or, you know, some other piece of technology, then you've got a security problem. Because if someone feels intimidated or like it'll harm their career, they're not going to mention that thing. And of course, we should expect that there's only going to be more of this technology. I mean, it's already here with us now. It's not really a theoretical concern. We've also had, you know, non-state actors actually modify, you know, commercial drone technology and increasingly potentially even accessing military drone technology to do some of these things. So, you know, again, we've kind of got to, I think, collectively grow up a little bit and be able to tackle it head on.

Absolutely. And I think, again, that that stigma is shedding a little bit each day. And, you know, hopefully we'll find a conversion someday with this topic. Kind of moving to this beast of a thing you're working on, Adam. Yeah. So in another piece titled, Who Else Knows, you discuss something called Thread 3. Very interesting part of UFO lore that a lot of people aren't too familiar with. And I know this is kind of an overarching theme of. a bigger thing you're working on. But could you tell us a little about this piece, why you decided to write about it? And yeah, maybe a little about what may be to come concerning UAP investigations in other countries, something we don't really talk about that often here in the West. Sure. So a little while ago I wrote this piece titled, Who Else Knows? And the line comes from Lou Alizando's resignation letter. So when Lou resigned, he left a letter to the then-Secretary to of Defense, Mattis, essentially outlining why he resigned, and in there he poses some hard questions, he calls them. And the first one was, who else knows, followed by some other things

you would expect of, you know, what are the capabilities of these things and so on. But that line really stuck with me of, well, what did he mean exactly when he said, who else knows? Who's the who in that statement? And initially, I thought, well, maybe that has to do with foreign powers. And I found that there was actually a little bit of evidence of that. So the New York Times in covering this issue, they put together kind of this piece that was looking at the thinking of atyp. And as part of that, they had a slide from Dr. Putoff, who was involved in consulting for the program. And it laid out the threat model. And the threat model was very simple, twofold.

One, there's a basic threat from having something in the sky you can't identify, especially when it shows technological characteristics you can't explain. that's just inherently a problem if you can't identify it. But then, too, what interests me even more was a threat that some other country, some other foreign intelligence service could learn something by observing that thing that would give that country a technological advantage. So in other words, it wouldn't be necessarily that the thing you're seeing in the sky is, you know, Russian or Chinese or whatever, but rather that simply they could learn something from it that would advance their military interests.

And so I found that to be a really compelling question of how this problem is treated as an intelligence matter. And so that got me on the trail of, okay, well, if this is the threat model, what's the evidence for it? Can I actually find any documents or testimony that would lead me to think that, yeah, people in Russia or the former Soviet Union actually were taking this issue seriously? Well, it turns out that Dr. Putoff himself answered this question in part. The very next slide in that presentation was about a set of documents called Thread 3.

So Thread 3 is a cache of documents that was retrieved from. the Soviet Union by George Knapp and his colleague Gresh around 1994. And essentially, these documents are purportedly to be describing exactly what that Soviet program was and the size of it and everything else. The problem is that since they've obtained these documents, they never released them. No one in the public has seen anything other than the cover page of what's supposedly in these documents. They published a little bit of a description of some of the highlights of what's in it, but it's really pretty basic and bare.

And there's another article where they kind of talk about the experience of going to the then Soviet Union and getting these documents. And since Dr. Putoff points to them as being very important, I was just curious of, hey, what's in these things? You know, what can I learn from them? So that set me on the path that I'm on now, where I'm working on a piece that's tentatively titled answering who else knows, where I give an extensive answer to all of that. And so hopefully that should be out, probably by the time listeners are hearing this, it may already be available on my blog. But in short, it ended up kicking off a whole kind of adventure looking into the national files of multiple countries outside of the United States and Russia, but also to include the United Kingdom, Spain, and France, and even a few others. Yeah, I mean, depending on when that article comes out, Adam, I got an advanced kind of peek at it. And man, if you don't turn some heads with this one, man, I don't know what will, because you uncovered some stuff and got some quotes that really opened my eyes to how big this issue really is, how far it stretches.

And just how many people are looking into it much, much more than the United States. So, kudos to you on that one. I can't wait to see what comes from that. But here's kind of, you know, moving away from your specific blog posts, these overarching questions that seem to be. all the rage right now, at least in the UFO world, which again, you know, seems big to us who are into this topic, but is such a small fraction of the public at large. But let's talk about this. It's not so much UAPs in space, but what could possibly be in the depths of our oceans? This seems to be a big thing right now, people talking about U.S.Os when, yeah, we haven't really

been talking about those for a long time. So what do you think? Is there something to this? Do you get the feeling that we're moving more towards what could be underwater than in our skies? Or is this sort of one of those ebb and flow things where we'll talk about it for a little bit and then it'll fade into obscurity again? No, in short, yes. I think that the U.S.O and the ocean and kind of naval context is actually crucial. It's incredibly important. I do think that a fair amount of research attention is going to go in that direction. So as a preview of that piece that's coming out, one thing that I found in the last couple of weeks and early months of working on this is that in the Soviet context, one of the more serious and sustained efforts was through a scientist named

I'm probably going to butcher the name, but I'll try anyway, a Zaja is his last name. And he was a scientist and Submariner who ended up getting involved in studying these actually U.S.O incidents, particularly aboard submarines, and did an enormous amount of work on this topic. And so something that I just recently found is that, you know, he's continued to write about the subject over the years and has a fairly lengthy book in Russian, particularly about this kind of naval context. So from what I can see, as I look outside of the U.S. context and just the Anglophone world and take kind of a wider perspective, there is a recurring theme of the importance of the ocean. and of the U.S.O. context, to be sure. Interesting. I'm really looking forward to wear that all heads. Hopefully we can get that book translated, right?

Working on it, working on it as of today. Good, good. I knew we could count on you to do that, man. Well, okay, so the ocean is one thing. These triangles are another thing. I personally witnessed one of these things when I was a kid, which was kind of what got me into all this. and a lot of other people have reported these triangular UFOs throughout the decades. So I'd love to just get your take on these things, man. They seem to be in their own world when it comes to UFOs.

You know, we got the saucers and the tic tacks, the cigars, whatever. But then we've got these triangles, and they seem pretty prominent. So do you have any personal observations about triangular UFOs and what role they might play in all of this big phenomenal issue, I guess? Yeah, so I don't have any special knowledge about that. I've been, you know, David Marler is a researcher who's really focused on triangle UFOs in particular. And one of the things I know that he does is he takes some pains because a lot of us that look at the defense world broadly, there are a lot of advanced aircraft in the inventory that have a triangular shape. So the F-117 is probably the most prominent example of that. So a lot of people in the defense world, when they hear triangular UFO, they often think, well, you know, getting back to the blurred vision, think that, well, maybe that someone's seeing an experimental aircraft or something, and that's not necessarily something that's truly exotic. And I think David Marler's done some work on this to show that some of these citing reports are really so strange that they're not really properly explained by that context. But aside from that very general framing, I just have not personally had reason

to really dig into those reports in any great length as of yet. Yeah, yeah. And I mean, like you mentioned, Marler is probably the preeminent researcher when it comes to these things. And one of the most fascinating things about his research, too, is how many of these triangular cases predate, you know, stealth technology, which is often attributed to these. I mean, I, for my own personal UFO setting, I've always been under the impression that what I saw was manmade. It just, I couldn't explain it. And neither could my father who also saw it. So, I mean, what it was, I'll probably never know, but I do find it interesting that we can find instances of these pre-stealth technology. So you do have to wonder. But the next thing I kind of want to cover with you is

skeptics. And one of the number one enemies in the UFO research community is Mick West. And frankly, I think, like most people should, skepticism is essential in this topic. I'm very thankful for people like Mick West. I know I'm going to get some hate. for saying that. But I'd love to get your opinion, man, on probably one of the most hated skeptics in this thing. We've got to speak the truth, right? We do. Mick West is, I think, helpful in a lot of respects. What Mick West does is he really carefully looks at cases and tries to find new questions, to ask about them. And yes, he presses those questions really hard. But that's actually really valuable. I personally have learned a great deal by talking with Mick West. I often tell people that

Tim McMillan was the first person I talked to in this field, but Mick West was the second. And I was incredibly appreciative of the conversation that we've had. Now, at times, I don't necessarily agree with Mick West on everything. And he hasn't persuaded me yet, but I think that he's actually a productive person to engage with. With the one exception being that there's a number of military witnesses for cases, and they often end up in a difficult situation where because we don't have documents available from the Department of Defense, you know, we just kind of have their testimony. And so they often feel like they're in a position of trying to explain this thing that happened

to them that was probably one of the weirdest and maybe most stressful things that's ever happened to them, you know, and they're answering questions from someone who's, you know, very pointedly trying to find problems in the narrative and so on. So for them, you know, that kind of engagement, I think can get frustrating. And I completely understand that. And I would say that, you know what, you guys have done, you guys have gone above and beyond anyway in giving us your testimony. It's really up to the journalists and researchers to get the documents now. But, you know, but aside from from that whole dynamic, I think that the hate for for McWest is not deserved and is counterproductive, actually. I could not agree with you more. While I don't agree with

him on a lot of things myself. I think, like we said, it's essential to this topic. And what I would have given for Tim McMillan and McWest to be the first two people that got me into this topic, because let me tell you, dude, when I first got involved, I was 13 when I got into all this stuff. And that was back during the, like, early AOL days of conspiracy forums. And my God, if my brain was not getting, you know, destroyed from thereafter, I don't know what else would do it. But, no, you bring up so many good points. And what I always hope for is that moment when witness testimony and the documentation

can come together, you know, that we can have the full picture. Because you look at something like the Tic Tac video, we have the testimony of Commander Fravor, but he was not the one who took the video. So all we have is his word on what he saw and

the other witnesses who claimed to have seen things from the ship and in the air. That's one thing. But again, it's just witness testimony and a lot of people don't put a lot of stock into that, which I completely understand. I for one do, but then when you can have the documentation to back it up, I mean, that's when you've got a good case to argue. That's exactly what you need to build a real, you know, real case that's going to hold up.

And I think, you know, the main point that Mick makes that I agree with is that we've got to have data to interrogate. So I think that's why he focuses so much on just on the videos. Now, for me personally, I'm interested in more than, just the videos. I'm interested in the policy context, you know, to include, well, okay, if we have all gotten kind of, we've misinterpreted this data, then what are the consequences of that? And I think Mick is a little bit more concerned just with looking at the record as such. But, you know, that's the key thing at the end of the day. Is there data to back this stuff up? You know, that's what determines if the case is productive to examine or just another story. And, you know,

again, going back to stressing policy, I mean, these hypotheticals we think about if there was some grand disclosure someday, you know, that UFOs were piloted by a extraterrestrial intelligence. And let's say presumably or supposedly they were abducting people throughout the decades, you know, like what implication comes with that? Like, do we, do we try these aliens in a Supreme Court for kidnapping human beings? Or like, what ethical questions come from stuff like that? So, yeah, man, You do have to really, again, that's why I love this topic. You could really take it any way you want to. And I think it's really interesting the way you're looking at this is policy being made from the UAP issue.

And not just being made, but even just like entertaining the possibility of being made is huge. So, no, I think that's great. You mentioned previously on another show that you were really digging into international UAP incidents. Are there any that you really find compelling that you're looking at right now that you'd be willing to share with us? There's a whole bunch. So one that I'm looking at are a series of incidents from the Canary Islands in the late 1970s. So Las Canarias in the Atlantic Ocean. So there's an interesting case there that I don't think has had enough appreciation.

It's another one of those where it's too complicated in the time that we have now to kind of go through the blows of it. It will be included a little bit in the piece that I have coming out. But that's an interesting one because there's photographs of it. There was a mass sighting. So many, many people saw it. It was relatively well documented by the Spanish Ministry of Defense. Another one that I've been looking at more recently in the Russian context is an incident in Vorenesh in late 89, I think. So that's another one that was a mass citing.

There's some issues there in that the Western media didn't – there was some – problems with translation and also just an incomplete kind of report of what happened. But that's another fascinating case that I'm taking a look at. And there's a few other ones where, you know, I'm still, I'm needing to do research to really to dig into them and see if there's any substance. But another one comes from late 50s in Poland of an object crashing into a bay there. So, you know, these cases tend to intrigue me just because we're less familiar with them. And in my mind, you know, if we're talking about a planetary issue, a global issue, but then we've got to construct a planetary or global history as well. It's really not good enough to just, you know, look at

English-speaking countries or look at the United States. We've really got to take the broadest possible view we can and really go and find those stories. And again, you know, look for the testimony, but importantly, look for the documents and the data. Exactly. You know, there's such a cultural aspect to all this as well in how certain countries may deal with it in their own, you know, mainstream media outlets too. So I think you're right. The documents and the data is, it always leads us in the direction we should be going when all else fails. So I think that's great, man. I look forward to hearing more about those cases you're looking at. Tehran is probably the big one for me, the 76 one in terms of documentation and how another country deals with these things. So yeah, it's very fascinating to hear cases internationally because we do. We get so bogged down in the raw. Oswell and, you know, all the things happening here in the United States. So, yeah, I would love to ask some listener questions if you're up for it, man. Oh, absolutely. Cool. I definitely had some really excited people to see that you were on. So these are really going to run the gamut. Let's start with James from Engaging the Phenomenon on Twitter. He asks, are there any researchers in this topic that you really appreciate most?

There's a whole bunch. I'll name three. So, uh, Tim McMillan, I think, is probably a controversial first pick. I think Tim has done fantastic work. He's one of the better investigators, I think, I've met. I think someone who's really criminally overlooked is Mark Sakati. He has done really fantastic work on his blog, and it just has an attention to detail and a mental catalog that is extremely impressive. And then another would be Doug Johnson, again, of SCU.

So he's someone who has done fantastic FOIA work, but then also really understands the intricacies of the legislative process and of government. So usually the first person I talk to and I'm trying to make sense of something that's happening on the hill or happening in government will be dug. And there's so many more that I could list. But those are the top three that come to mind as you ask me the question. Gotcha. Hey, those are some good names, man. And anyone connected to the SCU for our listeners, the Scientific Coalition of UAP Studies, definitely look into the work because again, you know, while we can wait for these, you know, the Senate Intelligence Committee or the UAP Task Force, we have amazing citizen scientists doing incredible work.

I mean, the Aguida-Po Rico case is coming to mind with the FCU, who they covered this case extensively that we have supposedly video of from the Homeland Security, a very underrated case, in my opinion. So anyone listening, go check out the work being done there. But all right, moving to abductions, Adam. Again, I know this is a very fringe topic within all of this. But the undead gaucho on Twitter asks, what are your thoughts on the abduction phenomenon? Do you buy into any of this? I haven't evaluated enough to really have a strong view on it.

To be honest with you, it's not something that I've looked at. So one thing I've tried to explain is that when I really dig into something, So Bob Woodward is like my hero in research and journalism. I really will try to exhaustively look at something. So if I haven't done that level of homework on something, I really try not to say much about it. And so the abduction phenomenon, definitely one of those things that I just don't have. I haven't earned an opinion. So I'm not going to give you one.

Completely fair, man. Hey, none of us are experts in any of this anyway. So I can't pretend to know anything about abductions either, even though I've heard thousands of cases at this point. I'm no closer. to an answer or opinion on it. So let's see. Andy from Twitter asks, he'd love to hear you discuss some of the unknowns that may be players in the background when it comes to the tech of UFOs. He's thinking along the lines of what Tim McMillan has brought up, this discussion about the Department of Energy, something a lot of people don't really talk about and seem to be present at some of these UAP cases that have been investigated.

So what do you think, man? Department of Energy, should we be looking more at these guys when it comes to all this other than like the Air Force or the NSA or, yeah, anything overlooked in your opinion, I guess? Sure. I mean, that's one of those where there's a lot of lore and there's even things that kind of virgin conspiracy theory, so I'd be careful with it. But I do think that it's predicated in the sense that the Department of Energy is a very unique entity.

It has a unique culture among many of the agencies, but also, by law, there's some unusual things about how it's constructed. So, you know, there are people who are familiar with, say, special access programs and the like will say things like, you know, if you wanted to hide something or have something deeply classified, you know, that's technological in nature. The Department of Energy would be, you know, a good place to do that. So I think it's by by that kind of logical inference that some people look at the DOE. So I personally have not seen anything of as yet that makes me think, wow, this is really, you know, know, there's a thread here that we've got to pull on, but I understand why people talk about it and want to look at it.

Yeah, it is interesting. And maybe we'll get some updates on that in the future from people like Tim McMillan. Only time can tell. But Wilson Siegel on Twitter asks, this is an interesting one. This gets a little deep into A-TIP. So it really depends on how far you want to go with this one, Adam. But he's curious to know your views on A-Tip as a program. To him, it seems like something of an anomaly, you know, this unclash-a. classified non-special access program, which apparently was deeply hidden for most people. They didn't even know about it. But yeah, what do you think is the nature of ATIP? Is this just a small tentacle of something bigger? Actually, it's funny.

You're doing all this work looking at national programs all over the world. ATIP actually seems to me to be kind of in keeping with how most of these programs are run. So they tend to be relatively small programs. oftentimes countries will organize a lot of kind of unusual or strange topics together. So it's what some people will call the weird desk concept where you're going to study things like remote viewing and psychic things and UFOs and the like all under kind of one program. And so certainly the predecessor to ATIP, AASAP, definitely fits that criteria. And then ATIP seems to be a bit more focused from that to look at more of the UAP issue. individually. But yeah, I mean, as far as as understanding as a program, to me, it does actually

seem in the tradition of relatively small, you know, state-run programs to monitor reports, to try to make sense of it. They tend not to be all that large. And they tend to run into problems with either resources or authorities or both. And then that was the case with atip. I mean, ultimately, you know, Lou Elizondo resigned to try to kind of bring this issue out into the public like. So yeah, that's my view of ATIP. I mean, yeah, well, kind of playing off of that, you know, Elizondo resigned, but in your opinion, do you think this ATIP program could still be going on? We were kind of told that it's gone at this point. But yeah, do you think that this or any other programs dealing with this threat,

you know, of aerospace threat identification is still going on besides the UAP task force? Yeah, I mean, we're in not entirely unique but kind of unique position where we do know that there's a program going on in the UAP task force. You know, that's currently up and running and we had the unusual thing of actually getting confirmation of that, you know, directly from the Department of Defense announcing that this program is running. And to my best understanding, and I don't have any great, you know, insider knowledge here, but my best understanding is it really is a continuation of atyp under a different name, maybe with some different people involved. but it's doing the same job except with probably some more resources and a little bit more attention and structure than I had previously. Interesting. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think all of us could sort of assume it was still going on somehow, some way. So that's exciting to hear. I mean, to be honest, hopefully we'll get something from all of it. But hey, if not, it's in the matter of national security. And I for one understand that. So moving a bit more out of some final personal listener questions, Shadows Magazine. on Twitter asks, do you ever regret going down this rabbit hole with UAPs and getting kind of entrenched into the UFO community?

Has that ever happened to you, man? Because I know it has with me. Yes, regularly. I'll be honest. I'll be honest. Yes, of course. Everybody I know that works on this, they've talked to me about, you know, gee, I'm going to hang up the hat. I'm done.

I've had enough. You know, I'm going to move on. And there's different reasons for that. I mean, sometimes it's, you know, we're trying to define documents. documentation and solid answers about something that has been, you know, elusive and stigmatized and so on for for decades. And then on top of it, you know, there's a community of, I think, really, I understand there's a passion about this topic. I mean, I share that passion in a lot of respects, but that passion can go a little funny sometimes. And it can lead people to developing certainties they can't necessarily fully support.

And so it can be tough when you research this stuff and you kind of get people who have a really strong, you know, pre-established point of view or they get mad at you because maybe the research you're doing doesn't support that or whatever the case may be. So all of those things do contribute to this being a somewhat difficult thing to work on. But at the end of the day, it's like you were saying before. It's a fascinating topic. It touches on virtually everything. It's just so interesting that despite all of that, you kind of find yourself, you know, continuing on nonetheless. Yep, absolutely, man.

I have hung that ad up so many times, but something always draws me back in. And, you know, I'm rewatching the X-Files right now. I always go back to that poster. I want to believe. And I think that want often clouts people's judgment when it comes to this topic. It always has. It probably always will. But like I said, there's room for everyone at the table.

And I think that's what's awesome and so inclusive about this. To me, to me, if somehow, you know, a magic wand got waived and I found out that all of this was just misperception, 70 years of misperception. It would still be an incredibly fascinating story about how governments have reacted to it. and how, you know, how society has responded to it. I mean, no matter what the answer is here, I genuinely think it's a fascinating story nonetheless. That is the one certainty that I do have in this field. I love that.

I love that, man. That's a good way to look at it. Then you'll never be let down because at least there's something. And I've always said, too, like when we finally get those answers, a lot of us probably won't like those answers. But hey, we got to. Well, but that's, you know, it's the third time we're saying it. You've got to tell the truth, right?

The truth is really what matters. and we want to find answers, not just, you know, enjoy a mystery, right? Totally, absolutely. Well, our last listener question here, Adam, John on Twitter asks, who is the number one person you'd want to interview and number one person you'd want to be interviewed by when it comes to everything I do? Not just UAP work, but your work with technology and, you know, strategic defense. Yeah. Any really big pipe dreams or dream people you'd want to talk to?

Oh, wow, I had an easy answer for UFOs, and now I've got a harder one for the world at large. So I'll give you the UFO. The UFO one's really easy. It's definitely Jacques Ville. I mean, I happen to be doing some work right now where he's kind of an important player, and I would just be fascinated to have his insights and to talk to him. And he's doing, you know, he's doing more contemporary stuff, too, with materials and so on, that would be really interesting to hear about.

In a bigger picture lens, boy, I would love to talk. talk to the probable nominee for Secretary of Defense, Michelle Furnoy. I think she would be a really interesting person to talk to. She's had a fascinating career. Boy, there's too many. I'll stop myself there. Hey, those are good, man. Those are some good people. Hey, I'm still hoping someday Jacques will give me the time of day, but we'll see. We'll see. Well, I guess kind of wrapping things up. You know, you started this blog. You're really exploring different avenues when it comes to policy and different programs that have looked at UAP for a while. What do you want in all of this, man?

I always like to know why people do this. What are they really searching for other than the question of, are we alone? I mean, that's one avenue to all of this. But at the end of the day, what do you want to get through all of this? So at a real granular tactical level, I would love it for the community of people who research this and really put some time and effort into it. to kind of row in the same direction a little bit in terms of covering the real kind of government side of this. And making this something that is going to be something we can address publicly where we don't have too many preconceived notions about what the answers are.

But rather we go into this just trying to follow the facts as we find them and to get some answers to some of these things. So that's what I would most like to see is that we actually resolve any of these ambiguities that we have that we can resolve. There's so many that we can't, right? So we can't turn back the clock and have, you know, a high definition camera in just the right place to capture a sighting. But there are a lot of things. And the thread three is an example of one of them where we can get those documents someday if the right people decide that they want to do that. So that's what I hope for is that we answer the questions we can answer. And then we, you know, we make sense of the world on the other side of that, whatever the answers are. Absolutely. Yeah. That's a very logical way to look at it. And I do, I do think we

will. I honestly do. And I think the work you're doing and Tim McMillan, M.J. Benayas, these citizen journalists out there doing really good work in a field that is begged for legitimate journalism for years and years. I think we're closer than ever to getting some of those answers. And hey, man, I think you're a big part of that. I commend you on the work you're doing. And my last question for you, is there anything else you can share of what you're working on? We kind of teased something. you're doing, but yeah, what are you working on? Where can we find everything you're up to? You can find my site at strategicdoubt.com.

You can find me on Twitter under Dr. Adam Kehoe or blog.adamkeho.com is another way to get there. Yeah, so I'll have this piece out fairly shortly that is looking at kind of the big picture of many of these things. And then what I like to do in a lot of my pieces you may have noticed is I'll set up a bunch of questions and then in the next piece I'll go and I'll answer them. Yes. So I'm going to do that again where there's so many facts. fascinating things that I need to dig into a little bit more on some of these Russian cases or

Spanish cases. I think France is a fascinating, fascinating example of there's both some fascinating cases, but also the way that they've organized their effort. I think we can learn a lot from. And so I want to do a big piece on that and get a chance to maybe talk to some more folks there. Yeah, lots and lots of things in that direction. I've still got some more work to do in the American context as well in terms of trying to get a clearer picture of the timeline. There's a whole lot. And you'll, readers will see the list of questions I'll be working on. Keeping that saucer in the air and keeping us on our toes, that's all we can ask for. But, brother, I got to thank you. This has been very refreshing to get your perspective on all of this.

And I can't wait to see what comes next. And I got to thank you for coming on somewhere in the skies. Oh, my absolute pleasure. It's been a blast. That's it for this week's episode. Again, my special thanks to Dr. Adam Kehoe for taking the time to speak to us today. Just to note that for the entire month of December, a portion of all merchandise sales, book sales, ACAS supporter contributions, ad revenue on both the podcast and YouTube channel, will all be donated to a special cause I support every year. And that is the Women's Refugee Commission. WRC's mission is to improve the lives and protect the rights of women, children, and youth displaced by conflict and crisis. visit the merch store at tepublic.com and you can buy the book in print, ebook, and very, very soon audiobook as well. Just search for someone in the skies on Amazon and for one-time contributions

to the show, click the ACAF supporter link in the show notes. To learn more about the Women's Refugee Commission, visit women's refugee commission.org. I also want to just take a moment to thank all essential workers for everything you're doing to make the world keep spinning right now. No matter what field of work you're in, please know we commend you for all you've done and will continue to do for our fellow human beings throughout the world. Thank you. You can follow the podcast on Twitter at SummerSkies and on Instagram at SummerSkies Pod. And be sure to subscribe to the Ryan Spread YouTube channel for exclusive video content. If you'd like to share your UFO story in an upcoming witness accounts episode, or to reach me

personally, use the contact tab on the website, somewhere in the skies.com. Thank you, as always, to the E1 Podcast Network, and especially to you for listening. I'll see you here next week, and remember, keep your feet on the ground, but never stop searching, Somewhere in the Skies. Somewhere in the Skies is produced by Third Kind Productions, in association with the Entertainment One Podcast Network.