Somewhere in the Skies - The Pentagon and UFOs: Operators of Deception (w/ Micah Hanks)

Episode Date: June 29, 2025

With proclaimed "bombshell" articles recently released by the Wall Street Journal, it came to light, through an investigation by the Department of Defense's UFO office, AARO, that the United States Air Force, had up until 2023, allegedly faked UFO programs, photos, and videos as a "hazing ritual" for military personnel and to mask top secret programs concerning highly advanced man-made weapons and technology. However, these claims by past AARO directors are nothing new. And today's guest had reported on this almost ten months ago on his podcast. But why is this information being made public now? Does it account for all UFOs or even for the claims brought forward by "UFO Whistleblowers" in recent years? We discuss all of this in-depth with the founder and editor-in-chief of the Debrief, Micah Hanks. Follow all of Micah Hanks' work at: https://www.micahhanks.com/ Please take a moment to rate and review us on Spotify and Apple. Book Ryan on CAMEO at: https://bit.ly/3kwz3DO Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/somewhereskies ByMeACoffee: http://www.buymeacoffee.com/UFxzyzHOaQ PayPal: [e-mail] Discord: https://discord.gg/NTkmuwyB4F Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/ryansprague.bsky.social Twitter: https://twitter.com/SomewhereSkies Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/somewhereskiespod/ Tik Tok: https://www.tiktok.com/@ryansprague51 Order Ryan’s new book: https://a.co/d/4KNQnM4 Order Ryan’s older book: https://amzn.to/3PmydYC Store: http://tee.pub/lic/ULZAy7IY12U Read Ryan’s articles at: https://medium.com/@ryan-sprague51 Opening Theme Song by Septembryo Copyright © 2025 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

It's peak pollination season, and my business is scaling fast. To keep the nectar flowing, I need a phone plan with top priority data speed. That's why I chose GoogleFi Wireless. My connections stay strong even when the hive is buzzing. Plus, unlimited plans start at $35 a month. Now, that's a deal that doesn't stay. Explore GoogleFi Wireless plans today. Plus taxes and government fees.

GoogleFi Wireless is not subject to data traffic deprioritization during times of high network usage. No one goes to Hank's for his spreadsheets. They go for a darn good pizza. Lately, though, the shop's been quiet. So Hank decides to bring back the $1 slice. He asks Copilot in Microsoft Excel to look at his sales and costs. Help him see if he can afford it. Co-pilot shows Hank where the money's going

and which little extras make the dollar slice work. Now, Hank has a line out the door. Hank makes the pizza. Co-Pilot handles the spreadsheets. Learn more at M365 copilot.com slash work. You are now Somewhere in the Skies with your host, Ryan Spray. Welcome everyone to Somewhere in the Skies and a huge welcome to return guest. Fan favorite.

You know him as the creator of the debrief and so, so much more. Micah Hanks, welcome back to the show, my friend. Well, it's good to be here, Ryan. And hello to an alumni contributor to the debrief, of course. You know, when we first launched that endeavor, which has really consumed my life. over the last few years, but you were right there pounding away and writing science articles for us. And, you know, that was something that was very meaningful for us at the time. And I still appreciate that. And also just being able to get together with you and have these conversations. So good to be here, buddy.

Oh, thank you. And always love the debrief. In fact, I'll be covering several of your personal articles in our live stream this week as well. So I'm excited about that. But so I was telling you off air, Micah. I've been. in and out of the UFO sphere for the past few months. I've been traveling, working, and I haven't been able to keep up as much as I'd like to. This happens. Life gets in the way for many of us in this field. But if there's one show I can depend on to catch me up on everything, it is yours. And I have been consuming your past, I would say, month or so of the Micah Hank's program,

to get caught up with everything going on in the UFO field. A lot has been happening, as I have seen from the outside, now looking in. And the big thing, I think on everyone's mind right now, are these Wall Street Journal articles that just broke in the past few weeks. You've covered them. We did cover them sort of periphery on our live stream last week. But what I wanted to do today, now, you know me. I'm a planner. I usually have 50 questions all lines.

up for my guests and everything. But this was one of the first times I threw caution to the wind and I said, it's Micah Hank's. I don't have to prepare anything. And we're just going to see where this conversation goes. But I do sort of want that to be our baseline. These Wall Street Journal articles that came out that have made some very bold claims about the UFO topic, disinformation, misinformation, misinformation,

information and everything in between. And this for some has put a nail in the coffin of ephology. Eufology is dead. Once again, as you and I know, euphology seems to die every five years or so. But what is it that is making people on, I would say, the extreme skeptical side think that euphology may be dead right now? So that's a great question and also an excellent summary of the circumstances right now.

Yes, the Wall Street Journal, beginning a few Fridays ago, published the first and a two-part series of articles, which not only made some bold, you know, again, assertions, claims we might call them, although I do think these are fact-based, and I'll tell you why I think that's the case here in a moment. But it's really gotten everyone riled up because these assertions, again, are being interpreted as some as an effort to try and, again, dispel mythologies associated with UFOs. Now, although I think the articles do that, they actually do realize, they realize and they also reveal that there are certain things about what has been called euphology for the last several decades that, again, I think have been built around disinformation injected into the UFO dialogue by the Pentagon. And that itself would have seemed like a conspiracy theory maybe as little as just a couple of decades ago. But again, we have a paper of record, the Wall Street Journal, saying the government lied. it intentionally attempted to mislead people, including servicemen, who were in the, especially the United States Air Force, possibly other branches of the military. You know, people who served in the armed forces may have been misled by their superior officers as what has been termed as a kind of hazing. That and other things, too, which we'll get into all of.

But to your question, some on the skeptical side have been very vocal about this, and they have said, look, isn't it more likely that the government lying to you about UFOs and misleading people into thinking that there are no such thing as UFOs, but we are going to make you think that there are to cover up our programs. The skeptics who are proponents of this argument are saying, well, isn't that more likely than the idea of UFOs and alien visitors from another planet? Now, the problem I see with that skeptical argument, to be clear, is that some of those very same skeptics. I'm not going to name them right now. And again, there are some of, some of the skeptical commentators on the UAP subject that I actually communicate with pretty frequently.

I know you've had Mick West on your program a few times in the past. I've had great interactions with Mick, but again, I think that although Mick leans into the more skeptical side of things, and I am simply an agnostic proponent of the study of UAP, we still find a lot of common ground because, you know, again, I won't say that he doesn't necessarily have his own ideological view, and I think he would recognize that too. He leans toward the skeptical, and he would say essentially what he calls the low information zone that most UAP reports fall into can account for the seemingly extraordinary capabilities.

Mick would fundamentally argue, you know, if we've got good videos, we can usually 99% of the time determine what objects people mistake for being UFOs actually are. And they're usually mundane things like planes, balloons, etc. Satellites, Starlink, you know. And again, this may be shocking to some. It may be controversial and it may anger some people, but I agree with that essentially in the sense that I get sightings reports sent to me at the UAP sitings reporting system that will launch last year all the time. And one of the first things that I try to do is I try to do a case resolution if there's video or other data that's supplied that allows me to get a look at what the object appeared to the viewer at the time that they were seeing it, what it looked like.

and also importantly, data like geolocation data, you know, XIF imagery data, things along these lines that can be used to help determine the location, the person's direction. Again, a witness report can supply a lot of this information as well. But when you're looking at a little object that's bobbing along and it's moving fairly slowly, and I know the date, I know the time, I know the coordinates, and then I can check the wind speed, and I know the direction that they're facing, and I know that the sun's coming in from behind them and reflecting off of what appears to be a blue. loon that's drifting with the wind. Again, I can produce using imagery data, using tracking programming. There's actually a great program I use that physicists use to track the motion of objects, and it's called tracker. But you can use that. I'll do a stabilization with Adobe Premiere, and I will center the video on the object so that we can get a clear idea of its actual movement with relation to the background. Again, you do this kind of analysis, and you can create a

very high-confidence summary of the reasons why an object is probably a balloon or whatever else it may be in a given circumstance. So again, with respect to the skeptics who really do go about analytical assessment of UAP videos, I do agree that is something that can and should be done. But there are some skeptics out there who on social media, especially since this Wall Street Journal article dropped, who have said, no, no, no, the government was lying to you, therefore there are no UFOs. I think that that particular kind of skepticism is a leap in logic. And it's not illogical to say, hey, listen, there are some UAP cases that maybe we cannot easily resolve. The United States government, and again, in every

iteration of it, essentially, going back to the offset program that we first learned about under a different name, its unclassified nickname, ATIP, back in 2017 in reporting by the New York Times. But that DIA program hit successor, the UAP Task Force, and now the current iteration within the Pentagon, the All-Domain Anomily Resolution Office, they've all said there are a small number of cases that defy simple explanation. And that doesn't mean that we couldn't maybe resolve some of these cases with better data. But currently the data that we have, and some of them we've got quite a lot, censor data, we've got witness reports, we've got video, and it's pretty good video too. In these cases, according to the sources who've talked about this, no less among them, Dr. John

Kozlowski, the current director of Arrow. They say, look, some of these things we just cannot easily resolve. And so to me it's not illogical to say there are, by definition, unidentified anomalous phenomena that are sometimes seen in our skies. So the extreme skeptical argument that I've seen from some commentators trying to misconstrue this as the death of euphology, that's a logical leap. It's also, I think, factually inaccurate. And I think that really the agnostic approach, this reveals some realities about the extent of disinformation that the United States government has engaged in, but it does not necessarily mean there are no UFOs. That's a much more middle of the road and frankly logical interpretation of what the Wall Street Journal has revealed.

Now, I've got to really quickly, Ryan, come over to the other side of this argument too, because as much as I take issue with those ideological, you know, really, really extreme skeptics who say no such thing, therefore no need to analyze, no need to look any further than Wall Street Journal's reporting on this. then there are also those believers who are, and again, I say this with affection, I think, and, you know, a certain degree of, of, you know, recognition of the common ground I share with the people who believe that there are anomalies in our skies. Yet again, being as agnostic as I try to be, I wouldn't be in this if I didn't think that there was a possibility that there are some really, really weird things in our skies. I think that there are, you know, you've seen me give

lectures on the history of this topic, talking about all this. And I doubt, definitely think that there is a there, there, whatever it may be. But some on the extremely far end of the believer side are looking at the Wall Street Journal reporting, and they're saying that everything the Wall Street Journal has just said and everything that they allegedly heard from Arrow and its former director, it's all nonsense. If it's not disinformation itself, this is at least a distraction and we can't take any of it seriously. And we should completely just refute everything the Wall Street Journal has said. Now, again, on the, on what I would call that kind of, of more logical center, there are some people who have taken great pains to articulate the issues that they have with the Wall Street Journal's reporting without just trying to dismiss it on ideological grounds. A great example, my colleague Chris Mellon just this morning, put out a very lengthy letter where he scrutinized the Wall Street Journal's reporting and he has essentially said there are several factual inaccuracies and he's actually calling for either an update or a correction. And let's be clear when the Arrow historical report came out last year that also was

filled with factual inaccuracies, Chris Mellon also wrote a very lengthy op-ed about that, which we published at the debrief, in which he took point for point, all of the issues with the report. And unfortunately, again, based on something that Rear Admiral Timothy Gallaudet recently said during an interview, apparently when he went and he met with Arrow and he brought that issue that Chris Mellon raised up to Arrow officials. One of those senior leaders, who I believe is the former deputy director at this point, he reportedly said to Rear Admiral Gallaudet, you know, that guy is full of it and dismissed the criticisms of the Arrow report as if the historical data and the factual inaccuracies that were misconstrued, names were wrong, dates were wrong, you know, past assessments that were

incorrect, were not fact-checked. They were merely, again, repeated and I might say regurgitated in the Aero Historical Report. That was all just taken for granted, and people who've tried to scrutinize it are just full of it. Again, I know of three people who at length tried to scrutinize that historical report based on the obvious inaccuracies in it. Chris Mellon, myself and Robert Powell, my colleague from the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies. We're not all full of shit, okay, for pointing out factual inaccuracies in that report. So again, my view is always this. We have to, you know, articulate a good argument for why we disagree with something, is Chris's tried to do as Mick often does with videos. We don't just dismiss something completely out of hand.

And on the far extreme sides of belief in skepticism, and that's what people are doing. So my final position on this is, yes, there is some truth in these Wall Street Journal articles. No matter how angry that makes people, yeah, the government's been lying to you. But those who would say that means there are no UFOs, that's also wrong. There are such things as unidentified anomalous or aerial or flying objects. That doesn't necessarily mean extraterrestrial. And again, those skeptics who would say, you alien believers are crazy, well, here's a newsflash. Not everybody who studies UAP thinks they're extraterrestrial necessarily. We don't know.

That's what we call them unidentified. You said this place was steps from the water. We just haven't found the steps yet. How much did we save? Enough. Enough to get lost. Or you could book a stay with Hilton. Welcome to your ocean front room.

Just steps from the water. The Hilton sale is on now. book on hilton.com or the hilton app and save up to 20% to get the stay you expected when you want savings not surprises it matters where you stay hilton for the stay absolutely and it is a global phenomenon which i want to touch on a little bit later this being an american story per se and uh you mentioned articulate let's sort of uh articulate what these facts that you think might be accurate or true art. Now, in almost a prophetic nature, you actually talked about something like this months and months and months ago before these articles even came out on the Micah Hank's program about these possible hazing techniques going on, these lies, these photos being planted. And for anyone not following the story, they probably have no idea what I'm talking about right now. So, Micah, maybe we should break down a little bit of what some of those claims are.

that were brought forward in both the Wall Street Journal and in, I would say, subsequent interviews that took place with former deputy director of Arrow, Tim Phillips, one with the New York Post, one with McGrath, one with Andy McGillen of that UFO podcast. He started going on these shows and actually talking about what was said in these articles. So what do you mind in your own words? Maybe give us a little paint the picture for us. What did this part one of the Wall Street Journal article claim about these things that were going on? Yeah, Ryan, I'd like to first provide a bit of background as you're asking about what this article presented and why it was so controversial.

And then what I'd like to do is I'd like to tell a personal story that I'm going to use to demonstrate why some of what's in the Wall Street Journal's reporting is not lies or disinformation itself. It is reporting on disinformation that occurred a long time ago. and the reason why is because I knew about it and knew it was happening, unlike a lot of people. So first, what the Wall Street Journal reported that has got everyone so upset, essentially in the first installment of this article series, they said that there was hazing that had apparently been perpetrated against military officers. What this entailed was officers at various times, especially in the U.S. Air Force, but possibly in other branches of the armed services.

And by the way, this goes back decades. They had reportedly been briefed on a kind of anti-grandbrose. Gravity technology that allegedly was in the possession of the United States government. And there was occasionally imagery associated with this also, but one version of the story, and I suspect that there are others. I'll get into that here in a bit. One version of the story entailed that the imagery associated with the alleged anti-gravity technology that the United States government was working on seemed to depict a classic flying saucer-type aircraft. As former deputy director of Arrow Tim Phillips has said, especially during this recent interview he did with Nick West. It's a very lengthy interview.

There's a lot of information in it. I highly recommend people listen to that and that they listen carefully and scrutinize the information, try to really understand and think critically about what's being discussed in that interview. That all said Phillips referenced the name of this program, Yankee Blue, which was also reported in the Wall Street Journal. And again, what apparently was going on, according to the narrative the arrow found, was that there is no such secretive anti-gravity technology. This program that people were being briefed on was, you know, again, characterized as hazing, but apparently the initial intent behind this was it was maybe a kind of loyalty test.

In other words, people would be shown a photograph of something that resembled a UFO and briefed on an alleged program. And then they would be told, don't talk about this, right? This is of utmost importance to U.S. national security. This is top secret stuff. Never speak about this. Inevitably, if people went out there and they went and talked with other officers, man, you're not going to believe what I saw. I'm not supposed to talk about it, but, and then they spill the beans,

it would be traced back to them, and it would be known who was talking about what. Now, that, by the way, as I'll get to in a moment, was the way that the description of this program was given to me more than a decade ago. But more on that in a moment. The Wall Street Journal went a little further, and it also said that some of the classic cases, like for instance, the Moms from Air Force Base incident of 1967, rather than involving a UFO shutting down a missile launch facility there, it had actually been a test of an electromagnetic pulse weapon aimed at actually gauging how susceptible our missile strike defenses would be in the, God forbid, event of a first strike by the Soviet Union. In other words, if they actually struck first, the resulting electromagnetic pulse generated by nuclear weapon detonations near strategic sites would potentially impact the electrical grid and potentially also knockoff line the launch systems. And so they decided to use an electromagnetic pulse generator device, which they said was positioned on top of a tower at night. It actually accumulated enough energy before it discharged that it sometimes glowed orange.

And this device reportedly actually did cause EMP knockouts that at least temporarily took the missile defense systems offline during tests. And the claim presented by the Wall Street Journal is that this was actually what was witnessed by several military officers at an incident at Malmstrom Air Force Base in 1967. Now, first to touch on that really quickly, although that seems like a plausible explanation. There are some things that should be pointed out. A, the EMP test theory had already been known. In fact, some of the proponents, even some of the participants in that series of events from 1967, most notably Robert Salas, who had written about this and of course did a lot of work with the Freedom of Information Act process to try and obtain documents and records involving that incident. They had already been aware of the fact that there were EMP tests allegedly occurring.

Interestingly, something that was brought to my attention by my colleague Larry Hancock, also of the Scientific Coalition of UAP studies recently during a conversation we had, Larry said, if it had been an electromagnetic pulse and it was capable of taking out our missile defense systems, even for a limited period of time, that also should have potentially grounded electric, you know, I mean, all kinds of electric systems and radio communications all throughout the base. And so if it was strong enough to be able to take the missile systems offline, how come the officers were communicating via radios. Those radios should have also lost communication during this period,

and yet people were able to communicate via radio. So there are some problems with, well, it was just an EMP, and furthermore, again, that is an explanation offered for one incident, whereas there were multiple incidents occurring at several of the northern tier bases within actually a period of several years, beginning in the 1960s, carrying over throughout the 1970s, possibly even up until the, the 1980s. These incidents and documents that actually provide a lot of information about what may have been happening were attained by researchers many decades ago, and there were books in fact

written about this, the best one. In my opinion is called Clear Intent. That was republished as the UFO cover-up by Larry Fawcett and Barry Greenwood. And so, you know, again, although we can offer one explanation for some of the events at Malmshaw in 1967, that in no way accounts for all of the things that were happening at the various northern tier sites over the decades. So again, in my opinion, we should take into consideration the role the EMP testing might have played in UFO sightings around that time or what people perceived as being UFO sightings. But again, the Wall Street Journal didn't reveal anything that some had already had awareness

of, including Robert Salas, because he'd mentioned EMP tests during a conversation I had with him two years ago talking about the Malmström incident. Now, he also said he didn't buy the idea that EMP tests were in. in any way related to what he experienced. So we might leave open for the possibility that people were aware of it, and it may have had something to do with what was going on, but had been discounted by some researchers based on their own perception of what was going on. Again, I think that the question is very much open.

But I want to come back to Yankee Blue and how military officers, service women and servicemen, were briefed about an alleged program over the years and effectively lied to. I've got certain colleagues who have said that this is absurd. They say that this is nonsense. And some have gone so far as to insinuate that this is a story that might have been concocted by Arrow and or the Wall Street Journal, at very least, that Arrow presented this as a sort of nonsensical explanation for why some whistleblowers say that they believe there's a secret UFO program. And that the Wall Street Journal, if anything, just, you know, kind of reported without fact-checking or digging any deeper and just took Arrow at its word.

okay, sure they said so, therefore it's true. Like I said, I want to try and demonstrate how I know that this wasn't a silly story created by Aero and that it just came to light and was reported for the first time in the Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks ago. This takes us back to around the summer of 2009, back when I was a producer in Talk Radio, I was sitting there one evening, and a gentleman who had served in the 1001st Airborne had called in, and he said, I want to tell a story about a UFO. Now, this individual spoke anonymously on the radio, but this person's name is known to me. I do know their military history.

I'm still in communication with this individual. They are alive today. And I could, you know, again, vet everything that this individual has said. This wasn't just somebody randomly calling in. And I say that because they used a pseudonym when they were on the air because they didn't want their name going public with this. But I know this individual by a name. They called in. They told their story of being briefed about an alleged.

UFO-type program involving an anomalous aircraft and said that they were shown photographs. And they said that the photographs showed a very convincing UFO, which, again, if memory serves, they had described it at the time as looking like a crash of an object. But the briefing they received again unequivocally described this as like a UFO-type technology that the United States government had acquired. He told that story, and we said that's very interesting. Thanks for sharing that. And then he hung up.

So we're sitting there. The program continues, and being a producer, I'm running aboard and I'm taking phone calls. We got another phone call, and this gentleman comes on the line, and he's got a deep voice, and he says, you're not going to know my name. You're not to put me on the air. This is for your ears only as the producer, but I just want to comment off the air about what that gentleman who called in just had to say. And I said, well, I'm all ears. Go ahead. He said, I served in the military.

He said, and I know exactly what he's talking about. He says, what this man experienced was not an actual UFO photograph being shown to him. It was a kind of loyalty test. We used that with lower ranking officers to test their loyalty. He said that there were several different versions of that kind of photograph, and there would be a different code that we would put on the back of each image, and we would show different ones to different groups, and we would tell them that story.

And if word got back to us that one of those descriptions had gotten out, we would know which regimen that that story had initiated from, and we could trace it back usually and find out who was leaking secrets. And again, how better to gauge whether somebody is leaking secrets than to use a nonsensical, seemingly fantastical story that, again, had actually, because it was fabricated, no actual relevance to national security. So there wasn't any kind of actual danger, but in this way, this guy explained to me, young military officer's loyalty could be tested. And to the credit of the gentleman from the 1001st Airborne, again, for many, many decades, he sat on this and never told that story. and thereby was probably deemed to be a reliable handler of classified information, even though after many decades, he finally anonymously came forward as a whistleblower and said,

look, I'm just going to tell you, I saw a photograph, and I was briefed about this. So the man on the phone with me said, that's all you need to know, but I thought you might appreciate that background. And I said, sir, thank you very much and thank you for your service. And he hung up at that point. And so I couldn't do anything with that. I couldn't go on the air and talk about it. But I tucked that away in the middle of Rolodex, and I, you know, again, had always thought that was an interesting story.

That brings us to last year when at that time the former director still, former director, but he had just left Arrow, Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, was doing a live stream and began talking about the NDAs and fake UFO program aspect that is described in the Arrow Historical Report. and he said at that time, you know, look, we didn't find any evidence that there were real programs. There were fake UFO programs and fake NDAs. And he said, and we called out one of those programs in the report. Well, I remember thinking, that's weird. I don't remember reading that in the report. And I went back and I scoured the rather lengthy, arrow historical report, did a keyword search on the PDF. At no point in the report was there actually reference to a fake UFO program, a phony UFO program and phony NDA.

and hazing of military officers. And so I was a little perplexed by that, but it seemed to suggest, and this is what my interpretation was at the time, Dr. Kirkpatrick had apparently been referring to something that had not been in the version of the report that was made available for public consumption. He was referring to something that was in presumably

one of the classified versions of the report. And he publicly talked about having discussed this in the report, just not the version that the public was provided. So I made some inquiries with some contacts of mine and indeed through channels of communication, specifically colleagues of mine who have been in direct communication with Aero, its science advisor, and others. That individual was able to confirm to me that, yes, Arrow was aware of, and again, this is how it was termed during a conversation I had with one of my sources last September. they said, yeah, you know, Arrow's aware of a kind of hazing where military officers have been lied to about things. And they said that the Air Force was really embarrassed about it and that they requested essentially the Arrow not mentioned this in their public report.

Now, again, I didn't rush out to try and report this anywhere immediately, but what I did was on an episode of the podcast last October, the Micah Hank's program, I told all this. I told this story. And I said it seems evident to me that the same story I was told in 2009, first by a, you know, a servicemen who had been in the 1001st, and then a superior officer, not directly having overseen that individual, but someone with knowledge of the same program or alleged program, called in and said that wasn't a real program at all. That was a good match for what my sources were telling me that Arrow had found, and obviously Sean Kirkpatrick had already publicly admitted there was something about a fake UAP program in fake NDAs. He publicly admitted that, but it wasn't

in the report. It wasn't hard to figure out in my opinion. So I told this story last October on my podcast. Fast forward now to the recent reporting by the Wall Street Journal. And again, not everybody, but there are some people on those ideological extremes that I'm talking about who are trying to say, Wall Street Journal just blindly reported something that Arrow told them. How do we know that's even true? There's no evidence of this. Well, in my view, I would have to imagine that Arrow has only now found something that I had been aware of back in 2009, although I didn't have the full context for what that meant at the time. But I can certainly look back at that now in light of what Arrow has revealed,

in which presumably there will be formal comment on in the second installment of the historical report that's forthcoming. I can certainly compare what I learned so many years ago to what I now know and say, yeah, there's a very good likelihood in my opinion that it describes the same story. And therefore, logically, I can conclude, Ryan, that Arrow didn't make this up. and what they told the Wall Street Journal was not some kind of disinformation created by arrow, as some have tried to claim. Now, I know inevitably there are going to be people who will try and say, well, Micah Hanks is also a disinformation agent. And he's out here now trying to say that this is stuff that's all been known for more than a decade. And he has no proof of that.

So, you know, to each their own, but to my own satisfaction, I think that there's a very good argument to be made that the Wall Street Journal has primarily reported accurately, at least on that part, with regard to Yankee. Blue. Now, I won't speak on the part with regard to Malmstrom, because again, I would like to see more data that can account for all of those northern tier incidents that were occurring in the 1960s and 70s. But I can certainly say that Yankee Blue or whatever various iterations of it known under other kinds of code names as used by the U.S. Air Force and maybe other branches of the military over the decades. That kind of hazing, as they're calling it, certainly happened. That's nothing new, even though the Wall Street Journal said that they reported this for the first time. But again, I see this in the media all the time, people saying, for the first time, we reveal, usually it's

something the debrief covered two years ago or something that I talked about on a podcast last month. Exactly, exactly. You know, and in that reporting, you also mentioned that you were able to trace sort of this, this disinformation back to like the Cold War, which is crazy to think that that may have evolved and morphed into something like Yankee Blue. where to the point, Arrow said that they had to bring it up the chain and eventually these hazing techniques were shut down.

I believe they said in 2023. Yeah. Now, that's interesting. A lot of people are reading these articles and thinking, this is a very current thing. Like, this is everything having to do with Elizondo and Immaculate Constellation, Matthew Brown, David Grush.

Like, these are the people they're talking about who were fooled. Now, I'd love to touch on that with you. Now, you said that this stuff was going on back during the Cold War. However, we now have these new whistleblowers that have come forward, and part two of the Wall Street Journal articles did touch on that, the David Grush story, the Luis Elizondo claims that have been made for years now. Do you think that these techniques, this disinformation, these fake photos programs have anything to do with this current crop of quote unquote whistleblowers that have come forward since 2017.

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 Feast. 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, bonus episodes, and content, and priority to ask our guests, your listener questions. So to help support Summer 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.

Partially, again, one area where some of the critics of the Wall Street Journal's reporting may be correct, and again, with respect to Chris Mullen and others who are saying, you know, here are factual inaccuracies that need to be addressed. And I applaud anybody for pointing that out to reporters when they just present information because unfortunately what often happens, let's keep in mind, the Wall Street Journal's reporting, it did reveal some things that were not included in the most recent era historical report. but it largely was in reference to and built around that first Arrow historical report. So again, the Wall Street Journal, just like other media agencies when that Arrow report came out last year,

they didn't attempt to scrutinize or fact check any of the claims that appeared in Arrow's report. And no matter what, former Arrow leadership has to say about those of us who have scrutinize the factual accuracy of certain elements of that report, there's some stuff in there that's dead wrong. But again, you know, in my opinion, the whole aspect of this going back to the Cold War and whether it might have influenced some of the recent whistleblowers, I would have to say that some of the claims described in the Wall Street Journal report and the idea of fake programs inevitably influenced some of the whistleblowers. And one of the reasons I would think that is because, again, as former deputy director of Arrow, Tim Phillips recently said during the interview he did with Mick Webb, He said some of these people that came and they testified, they clearly were afraid for their lives. They were very concerned about what they were sharing with us. They were afraid that they were spilling, you know, the beans on national security secrets.

And it seemed evident based on what Tim Phillips said that some of them were describing this program, the alleged program, Yankee Blue. You know, they said, yeah, we were briefed about an anti-gravity thing and it looked like a flying saucer. So it seems, and again, the problem is I have to say seems because we've heard in an interview from Tim Phillips. There hasn't been a document that says this witness described seeing this, this is what they were told about the alleged program, here's what they reacted to,

here's why they were frightened by, you know, what they had been shown and how they reacted when they came to Arrow and gave their testimony. None of that kind of information has been provided. In fact, Ryan, if you go back and you look at the old Arrow historical report from last year, in the back of the report,

there is a, you know, a glossary, or rather I should say like an index, and sources section in the back. And the sources section really only kind of, like as far as the witness interviews, for fairly obvious reasons, these people's identities are not being revealed. But in the witness section,

it simply says, you know, arrow interview with witness and then it gives the date. It doesn't provide any kind of details. Now, although we have to understand, sure, in the interest of national security, yeah, we can't share a bunch of that information.

That doesn't really help researchers who are trying to gauge, you know, so who said what about which alleged program? If they, again, if we could have more information, we would absolutely be able to attribute which one seem to be describing Yankee Blue, but I know of others who certainly were not. For instance, I had a former Air Force officer call me up, and he said, you know, I have provided sworn testimony to Arrow. I was briefed on a really weird UAP case. I cannot share that information with you because it was a classified briefing at that time. But he said I was authorized to provide that information to Arrow. And he says,

and what I would like to try and know is if it's possible for me to like FOIA request my own testimony to Arrow so that if not the case I was briefed about it, maybe the testimony I provided to Arrow could be, you know, submitted for a review process and maybe cleared portions of it, at least, for release through Dobser, which is an interesting approach. But again, even just based on what little that individual told me at that time. What I determined was that that did not seem to sound like, at least what he was describing in the circumstances. It didn't sound like Yankee Blue. He wasn't shown a photograph of anything.

He was just briefed on an incident that he said was extremely strange. And again, being a patriot, he didn't want to talk about that. He said, there's no way I would actually discuss the details of this with you unless it were cleared for release. but again, he wanted that testimony to be able to come out. So I think that there's a pathway toward trying to get some information about exactly who said what and what they said to Arrow that might help journalists like myself determine more specifically whether all of this could be attributed to Yankee Blue or whether many of those people were describing circumstances that had nothing to do with an alleged program. But, again, in my opinion, Ryan, personally, I find it incredibly doubtful.

that an alleged UFO program like Yankee Blue, you know, fake briefings and fake NDAs, that that describes everything that served as the basis for first the testimony that David Grush took to members of Congress and again filed a what was deemed to be a credible and urgent complaint with the intelligence community inspector general. And based on some of the testimony that is known, again, there are also witnesses to UAP events

who went and who spoke with Arrow and provided testimony. They weren't talking about briefings. They were saying, I was there at that time and saw that. Clearly, some of those individuals, and some of them are known publicly. Again, there's maybe some additional vetting that would have to be done to determine the accuracy of the reports as described. But some of the people who have provided error testimony are known to the public. Some of them are very high profile, and many of them I find to be very credible. And they ain't talking about little secret briefings and photographs.

they saw UAP and they had no idea what it was they observed. So what I take away from that is two things. A, there were credible reports of UAP provided to Arrow. Arrow based on their judgment found no evidence of a secret program involving those. And yet, Tim Phillips, when asked recently during these interviews about the kinds of UAP reports that perplex him and Arrow, he says, well, you know, there are these mysterious plasma balls and then there are also the big black triangles. And he says, and those baffles. Now, Tim thinks that those are ours.

He says they belong to somebody here on Earth, maybe a foreign adversary. And he says the arrow hasn't figured out who they belong to. Those are one of two things. I think we could pretty much narrow it down to one of two. I mean, there are probably several, but I mean just the most likely two explanations are either a secret U.S. program or that belonging to a U.S. foreign adversary, or they are not. And they are quite evidently a technology. They aren't plasmas, these big black triangles. They aren't some sort of atmospheric phenomena.

Some skeptics have said that they're probably mostly visual distortions, misperceptions, you know, optical illusions, but I actually think that there are too many credible reports to dismiss. I've talked to too many witnesses, and I have seen so extremely good photographs that appear to depict these kind of aircraft. And so in my judgment, I think that there are big black triangles. I thought so for years, and people have been seeing them for decades. But also, let's keep in mind that Tim Phillips said, and we've got imagery and reports, very good reports of these things. So if they aren't ours, again, that leaves open some intriguing

possibilities. But again, I would say that one or two things can be determined based on the fact that ERO says they don't know who they belong to. Either they really are not ours, and they therefore belong to a U.S. foreign adversary, or, and again, some other operators, maybe off-planet, maybe interdimensional, maybe time travelers, hell, I don't know. But if they are ours, if they do belong to the United States, then Arrow, get this, Arrow wasn't briefed about that. They had access to all the UAP stuff.

Again, Tim Phillips says, you know, we have seen some incredible stuff that we've got. I mean, stuff like Klingon Death ships, and yet they don't know what the black triangles are. Many would have to conclude that that means that these things do not belong to the United States if Arrow hasn't figured out what they are. But again, it is not impossible that these things really are ours

and that that for whatever reason fell outside. the purview of what Arrow was able to be briefed about and be able to investigate. And if that's the case, this is important to point out, whatever those things are, if they come from somewhere within the United States government, and Arrow, a subordinate office within the DOD, wasn't able to get information about them. Guess what? That means there is a secret program with advanced propulsion technologies. And what that could mean, this is a possibility, not necessarily the only option, but this is a possibility.

It could be that some of the testimony being provided by the witnesses to Arrow, and maybe Dave Grush himself, they could have found information about such a program, and Arrow wasn't even able to access that. So I think it's very likely that there are secret programs in our government, and whatever the technologies are actually are, whether they are ours or there's something else, something that we acquired, whatever. One could make a good argument that there are secretive programs, that even Arrow hasn't been able to get to the bottom of.

Or, again, as the skeptics would say, the more likely possibility would have to be that these things are simply, you know, something cooked up by Russia or China, a U.S. adversary. Tim Phillips himself seems to suspect that. But again, we have to look at probability in terms of, well, sure, that's got to be from Earth, so it must be an enemy. That's a huge problem, first of all, if they belong to an enemy. but again, I find it extremely hard to believe that since the 1980s or 90s when these things first started appearing, that China or Russia had that kind of technology.

That's not how technology works. We don't see incredible, unprecedented, even anomalous leaps in technology emanating from rival nations that don't even appear to have the kinds of capabilities in terms of manufacturing, engineering, aerospace, propulsion technologies, conductivity, conductivity, superconductivity,

I mean, whatever else you want to apply to that. The United States is leading in many of these areas, and yeah, we've got close rivalry with China now, but could they have been cooking something up that advanced in the 1990s or even the early 2000s? I find that highly improbable. And so we've got to recognize one or two things. Either these things are genuinely anomalous,

and that's why Arrow has said we don't know what they are, or they belong to the United States government, most likely, and Arrow wasn't briefed. And hence, a secret program, exist. I like that. Exactly. Thank you for clarifying that because, you know, he even said in one of those interviews, it's not the photos or the videos. He mentioned all the above, meaning he possibly has come into contact, maybe just as an observer with this technology. Well, now briefly, I'll just say that was inferred from the way he described it during a certain interview with a video blogger for

the New York Post. And Tim Philips, has since clarified while speaking with Mick West during that interview that he did, that he felt that that was misconstrued in that video and that he thought that the initial interview he did was fairly good, but as he said, and I'm paraphrasing, he says, that part I felt was maybe misconstrued. Okay. And he also said that there had been, I think, a two-hour interview and that that had been really shortened down to a little 18-minute clip.

So I think there was a lot of important context that was probably removed in that interview. And I think that's all I'll say about that. But again, yeah, so Tim Phillips did clarify in the longer, lengthier interview he did with McWest. Yeah, I've never seen one of these things myself. That seems to have been misconstrued based on the first interview I did. Okay. Thank you.

That's good to know. Yes. Well, and that's the problem. The ambiguity of all of this. Now, the big question here is, Micah, well, let me bring this up first. I believe it was either today or yesterday. We had mentioned FOIA. John Greenwald at the Black Vault was able to retrieve some sort of correspondence where he was told that the United States Air Force,

presumably AFOSI, I believe it is, special investigations, said there had never been an investigation into any of these things, these fake UFO programs. The United States Air Force was not doing these hazing things. So right there, you have them saying, no, there was never an actual investigation into these things. Then who is doing the investigating? Was it just Arrow? And then there's just so much, it's so confusing. And Larry even brought this up in his interview with you or a conversation with you,

of in order to disinform, it is to confuse the public so that they can't tell up from down, left from right. And that's where I am on all of this. You know, when the Air Force is basically coming forward and saying, yeah, we lied to our own military personnel. We lied to the public about all these things. We planted things. Why should we believe them now when they're coming forward in admitting this? like what motivation did they have to come forward? Well, so I think I can offer some clarity on some of this.

First of all, in terms of why are people coming forward now? Why is this all coming to light right now? Congress directed an office be established, which became known as Arrow. An Arrow was tasked with doing two things, you know, exploring the history of this and also collecting data and trying to resolve UAP cases. Within the context of exploring the history of whether they were alleged secret programs, they had to explore all aspects of this. And during their investigation, what they say is they found evidence of fake programs and fake NDAs,

the likes of which I had first heard about, again, as I pointed out back in 2009. But again, if we want to look at others from within government who have said that they had knowledge of fake programs, fake documents, bogus things, you know, look at Professor Jim Likatsky, who, of course, led the Allsat-Sat program. Jim Lackatsky, during an interview with Jeremy Corbell, said, look, there are fake documents. And he said there are a lot of people who in the UAP community, people in, you know, government and people in the intelligence community who Lekatsky said, I respect highly, but they believe false things about UFOs. And he says, and I still respect their opinions, but he says, I hope that what they believe about UFOs, that, again, Lekatsky is saying, I know to be false. So I hope this isn't, you know, throughout government, this kind of false thinking, because if so, we have a real problem on our hands. To summarize, Jim Lackatsky was saying a lot of the beliefs regarding UFOs by people who worked within government are not accurate.

And Likatsky said that there are not only widespread false beliefs, but there are also fake documents that exist. And these are produced by counterintelligence officers and have been often with nothing having to do with UFOs. documents that refer to alleged UFO, UFO activity, or UFO programs have been produced, but often in an effort to protect secret classified programs over the years or to serve

other national security interests. So, I mean, there's Jim Lekatsky sitting there with Jeremy Corbell talking about this. And again, when asked, do you think that these fake documents or the fake UFO beliefs that proliferate, you know, do you think these were things that made their way back

to David Grush? Again, Lackatsky was trying to be, I think, respectful to his colleagues and essentially said, I don't know how many of these people might have spoken with David Grush, but it seemed very obvious by implication that a lot of them had. And even Jim Likatsky, who led Alsap, is saying none of this stuff is accurate. And there are other former members of intelligence community groups who have looked at UAP, notably the UAP Task Force, who I speak with frequently. You probably know who I'm talking about.

They share that assessment. They shared the assessment unequivocally that there is a lot of belief in a so-called UFO mythology that is prevalent among many of these former insiders, and not all that information is accurate. But again, they are not saying UFOs do not exist. They're saying there are some false beliefs, but there are clearly phenomena, and we have studied them. And these things are real. They're very rare, but they are real. They do happen.

Now, as far as the FOIA request that John Greenwald mentioned on Twitter this morning, I appreciate John. John's a friend, and I appreciate John always going after this via FOIA. My concern, and this isn't directly related to John, John often will get information and he'll throw it out there and just kind of put it out for open debate, because John believes in transparency, obviously, being a FOIA, I wouldn't just call him a person who files FOIA, as I call him a crusader. He's somebody who's done more of that than most. In fact, maybe more than anybody, literally. Yeah, but I think that John, when he put that out there, the concern actually has to do with how the community receives it.

My fear is that John's saying, you know, I found no evidence that there was ever any investigation or any kind of acknowledgement, no knowledge of supposed programs like Yankee Blue in my FOIA requests. I'm sure some people are going to look at that and they're going to interpret that as meaning, well, okay then, that means the Wall Street Journal lied. You know, John Faddle for your request, you know, AFOSI says they found nothing. So where's this alleged program that ERO says they found?

It's all disinformation. I'm sure some will interpret it like that. I was talking with a friend of mine this morning about this who has a military intelligence background. And that individual who I'll, you know, whose name I'll keep off the record for now, said, and I quote, I don't think people understand how military works. Yes, we're going to open a formal investigation of some minor hazing ritual most people in the military would just think is a silly joke and leave a paper trail. He went on to say it really depends on your unit, but especially in the past,

handling things informally is usually how things are done. He went on to say, I guarantee some officer found out this was a problem, let out something between a sigh and a groan, walked down the hall, and in person told someone, okay, the blue hazing thing's over, and then walked back to his office and never thought of it again. So what my colleague is describing is the very real informal nature of a lot of this from within government and the fact that people often assume that you're going to get access to everything because somewhere there's got to be some documentation about this program.

Yankee Blue wasn't a real program. And if it wasn't a real program and it didn't have any actual national security significance, it's highly unlikely there's going to be much documentation about it. And so I'm not surprised about the response that John received. And again, I appreciate John putting that information out there. But again, I would caution people who are now going to use that to drive a narrative that Arrow and the Wall Street Journal are lying. You know, don't read too much into that because, again, as my contact described, that seems to be pretty standard fare. But keep in mind also, I know some people will be very frustrated.

They're going to say, I can't believe Micah sat there for an hour with Ryan Sprague and defended the Wall Street Journal. I'm not. I'm not. I've got issues with their reporting, too. but I'm also trying to demonstrate that logically some of the information in a lot of it actually in those articles is accurate. It just doesn't mean UFOs don't exist. All it does is it reveals that there is a level of disinformation and frankly, unintentional encouragement of UFO beliefs through this alleged hazing that they are revealed in which I knew to exist for more than a decade. And many others did too.

So to me, does this put the death nail in you follow? to those skeptics who have been online saying, UFOs are dead, you guys can move on. We're far from it, and that's frankly an extremely silly position to take away from reading this article. In fact, I would further say that that shows the shallow nature of many skeptical debates that argue ideologically against UAP studies. Ambition comes in all shapes and sizes. At First Citizens Bank, we roll with your goals, because we're built for what you're building fit for your ambition for citizens back.

Yeah, absolutely. You know, and just in our time, we're still considered, I can't believe this, Micah, you and I are still considered some of the younger people in uphology. Doesn't feel like it a lot of the time I know. At the ripe old age of 42 years old and having more than two decades in this, if you think I'm a young gun,

and that's the problem. There are a lot of people who are like, well, you know, because when we, launched the debrief in 2020. Many would say, well, you know, your euphological investigations began in 2020. Don't tell me you've been at this for a long time. I'm like, look, you can go on my website, and you can go back and read articles that I had on my website from 2016, where I was arguing how we need to apply more science toward what I called in 2016, UAP studies. You can go back and look at books that I published where I referred to unidentified aerial phenomenon and how science should be applied to it as early, at least as 2013. But again, I'd been talking about that in blog posts and interviews going all the way back to maybe 2010, 2011.

So, no, this is nothing new. Much of what we're seeing is nothing new. Ryan and I have known each other since at least what, 2010 or 2011. We were both very deeply involved in UAP investigation at that time. This is nothing new, and neither are we. Absolutely. You're old and crusty. I know, I know, I know.

I'm already tired, and it's only 7 p.m. where I am right now. Yeah, this has been eye-opening. Thank you for clarifying a lot of this stuff for me, because it has been impossible to try to come to terms with what this means, what this means for the UFO field, and what this means for ufology moving forward. So I guess my last question for you, before you move on to your next endeavor for the day,

you're a busy man, what does this mean for euphology? You know, we might be getting another congressional hearing coming up. We've heard rumors of that. But what do these two articles specifically mean moving forward with this topic in 2025 and beyond? Yeah, certainly. These two articles essentially mean that there has been disinformation that has made its way into the minds and into the mythology involving euphology. That does not mean that there are not UFOs. And I really want to continue to emphasize that. I've said that many times throughout the course of this conversation. And yet, again, the ideological divide. We have to dismiss this nonsense that was published by the Wall Street Journal or on the other side. You guys just can't accept that aliens aren't real. You know, this is finally proven. And wouldn't you guys rather just accept and believe logically that the government has lied to you rather than, you know, phony beliefs involving extraterrestrials? These are both extreme arguments. In the middle, trust me, there's a much more logic.

take. Yes, the government lies sometimes. Yes, there are lies involving secret programs. The question remains whether there are indeed secret programs, although as I speculated regarding the black triangles, I think there's maybe a good case to be made why there could be some secret programs

and maybe some things that ArrowE even hasn't gotten access to, but if they did truly have access to everything, as they've said that they did, and they still weren't able to access information about these craft, I mean, that really leaves open one intriguing possibility, Maybe there are large at times, but at very least in many shapes and sizes, structured, anomalous aerospace vehicles operating in our atmosphere.

And again, that's why Arrow is involved right now investigating those very kinds of claims. So Uphology is not dead. I think we've learned some hard truths, but right now the most important thing we could be doing is moving forward with the study and the analysis of these cases. And we should be trying to collect more data. I think that there's this fixation, frankly, for me. many on the idea that the only way will ever prove that there are UFOs and what this all means is by leveraging pressure on lawmakers, you know, and scrutinizing government officials, and we've got to fight for disclosure, we've got to raise our signs, and we've got to get out there in the

streets. Look, yet again, you and I being involved in this as long as we have, more than a decade ago, Ryan, I was saying on my podcast, personally, those who say that we need to spend all our time fighting for government disclosure, in my opinion, may be wasting their time, because because if these secrets are so big that they've been kept secret for this long, no amount of legislating or anything, no amount of political action is going to get that truth out. But we can go and we can take photographs. We can go out into the field and we can study, right?

We can investigate these things ourselves. As Avi Loeb says, the skies are not classified. And again, that's an argument I have been trying to really push for more than a decade. I'll say it again now. If people are unsatisfied with a level of transparency by the United States government, then don't rest all your hope in the idea that you're going to get the truth from them. Get out there into the field and investigate. Get out there and study the history.

Get out there and talk to witnesses. Do what, again, people like you have done, you know, Ryan, in your books, you've interviewed people, and you've gotten those stories onto the record. I've got a UAP tracking site where I collect eyewitness reports, videos, imagery, and I scrutinize those, and I try to really get to the bottom of what this all means. But again, to me, that is a clearer path forward to establishing and understanding. the reality of the UAP phenomenon. And for those with respect to those, I think, who do want government disclosure,

I wish them all the best, but I'm not certain that they're ever going to really get what they're looking for. So I intend to put my energy behind other efforts. Have your own personal disclosures. That's what I tell people, Micah. Yeah. Very well said. Very well. Well, to wrap things up, my friend, moving forward, what does that mean for you over at the Micah Hank's program?

and the debrief. Tell us what you got coming up and where we can find everything you're up to. I always hear about podcasters saying, you know, I'm just running out of topics to talk about. I'm like, what are you talking about? I'm never going to run out of things to talk about. I mean, every week there is, and I do try to do this when there's, you know, UAP news, I try to provide commentary on what's happening. Every now and then like last week, I'll have some of my scientist friends from the scientific coalition for UAP studies.

I'll have them onto the show, and we will look at their studies, and analysis of the phenomenon and its history. And every now and then I might just break from the UAP topic and talk about archaeology or something else that's really cool. So, again, there's always something to talk about. But as far as UAP goes, I'll be, as always, watching the developments, providing critical commentary, and trying to make sense of all the madness.

And people, if they are interested, they can just find my podcasts at micahanks.com. You can do forward slash podcast, and that's the actual podcast page, all freely available. and of course you can also follow my reporting that of my team and I over at the debrief.org. Perfect, perfect. And I know you have some speaking engagements coming up as well.

I'm sure we can find all that information at your website and your social media too. So awesome, man. Thank you. Thank you for always bringing this to a digestible format for people like me who just sometimes don't have time to look into this stuff. It's good to be back in the UFO world. I've missed it. I can't believe I'm saying that, but I have missed it. And I look forward to whatever comes next with both this topic and your coverage of it over at the Mecca Hanks program and the debrief.

So as always, brother, thank you for keeping us grounded while we continue to look into the skies. And thank you for coming on the show today. Thank you, Ryan. It's always my pleasure. And again, I'll appeal to your listeners. If you've seen something and you don't know what it was and you got photographs or a good report, uap sightings.org is my website that I collect reports. UAPsidings.org, consider filing a report you might help us get to the bottom of a mystery.

So Ryan, again, thank you. It's been a pleasure, brother. As always.