Somewhere in the Skies - The UAP Debrief with Micah Hanks

Episode Date: April 20, 2026

In this wide-ranging and unfiltered episode, Ryan is joined by researcher, journalist, and host of The Debrief, Micah Hanks, to break down some of the most talked-about UAP stories of the past few months. Nothing is off the table. From the deeply divisive James Lacatski interview on Weaponized, to the increasing pressure from members of Congress pushing for the release of long-withheld UAP videos and data, Ryan and Hanks offer their brutally honest takes on what’s signal, what’s noise, and what might be getting lost in between. They also dig into the controversial release of the long-rumored Chuck Clark UFO video, ongoing reports of mysterious scientist disappearances, and the enduring mystery surrounding Bob Lazar and his claims of reverse-engineered alien technology. Is real progress being made toward transparency, or are we witnessing more layers of confusion and contradiction? Hanks brings his measured skepticism and deep knowledge to the conversation. And for those who want even more, the discussion continues in a special 30+ minute bonus episode available exclusively on Patreon and Apple Premium, where Hanks answers listener questions and dives even deeper into the stories shaping today’s UAP landscape. Follow all of Micah Hanks' work: https://www.micahhanks.com/ Report a UAP sighting at: https://uapsightings.org/ Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/somewhereskies ByMeACoffee: http://www.buymeacoffee.com/UFxzyzHOaQ PayPal: [e-mail] Substack: https://ryansprague.substack.com/ All Socials and Books: https://linktr.ee/somewhereskiespod Email: [e-mail] SpectreVision Radio: https://www.spectrevision.com/podcasts Opening Theme Song by Septembryo Closing Song by Per Kiilstofte Copyright © 2026 Ryan Sprague. All rights reserved. #UFOs #UFOlogy #UAP #Debrief #BobLazar #LoganPaul #UAPvideos #Congress #MissingScientists #JamesLacatski #JeremyCorbell #NickPope #Science #Paranormal #Unexplained Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hello everyone, what is up. I'm Rob. I'm Aiman. And you are listening to a trailer for our podcast, Monster Fuzz, which is brought to you by Spector Vision Radio. Do you like your high strangeness with an element of high silliness? Are thoughts of subterranean lizard men keeping you awake at night? Maybe Bigfoot's robbing clothes from your clothesline? Should you enter into a romantic relationship with a poltergeist that's haunting your house?

If thoughts like these spin around your head like a UFO or a UAP to use the parlance of our time, then you're in good company. Tune into Monster Fuzz podcast every Monday and Thursday. anywhere you get your podcasts. Study and play. Come together on a Windows 11 PC. And for a limited time, college students get

the best of both worlds. Get the Unreal College deal, everything you need to study and play with select Windows 11 PCs. Eligible students get a year of Microsoft 365 premium and a year of Xbox GamePass Ultimate with a custom color Xbox wireless controller. Learn more at Windows.com

slash student offer. While supplies last, ends June 30th, terms at AKA.m.m.m.m.m. Ambition comes in all shapes and sizes. At First Citizens Bank, we roll with your goals because we're built for what you're building. Fit for your ambition for Citizens Bank.

While our government's official position is not to speculate on this subject, we can choose to let our minds explore other possibilities to use our imaginations. For if we consider that astros scientists agree on one, point that the possibility of life elsewhere is not only quite probable, some field is there without a doubt. Let us

suppose them that these objects are real space vehicles, extraterrestrial origin, and not an illusion of the mind. This is somewhere in the skies with Ryan Sprague. 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. Well, we're just going to jump in. This man needs no introduction. Guys, he's been on the show so many times. I literally just got his voice out of

my mind after having listened to his most recent episode of the Micah Hanks program. So you know what that means. We are going to do a UAP debrief today with the one, the only Micah Hanks. Welcome back, buddy. Good to be here, sir. Always good to see you, Ryan. I know, you know, with our crazy schedules and our transatlantic relationship these days, you know, you being over there across the pond, we've had to do a bit of juggling just to be able to make this happen. So I'm very glad to be here. we've got so much to talk about. And as I'm sure people can already tell, we always have so much to get caught up on, right?

So much, man. I was just, I was on the Unidentified Alien podcast with our podcasting colleague, Stephen Deeter, just the other day. And he and I were commenting on how it's so hard to just keep up with the UAP topic nowadays. It seems like every day there's something new that is, you know, just broken in the news or that we have to like try to understand or dissect.

And it can be dizzying sometimes. And I don't know about you, but it's both exciting, but also a little exhausting at times. And that's kind of why I wanted to talk to you today. I'm coining this now the UAPD brief, a new series on Summer in the Skies, of which you will be the involuntary co-host. So there we go. This is the first UAP debrief. And what I wanted to do is kind of break down the bigger stories that are going on out there. The things that I'm just trying to still process. And I know a lot of people out there are as well.

And that really starts with an interview that took place recently with James Lackatsky over on the weaponized podcast. So people want to get 100% percent. answer, no one has that to give you. Don't dismiss deception. Well, is the word deception from, let us say, suspected aliens. Let's let's use that. Don't dismiss deception on broad terms their part.

The DIA itself is very aware now because of your work that there are close contact to non-humans. Is that correct? Well, from this study we are. From this study we are. You know, not everything's in here, but everything's in here. It's just that how you read this is very important and it was done that way so we could release it. How do you read it? There's some big stories in here that no one is pursuing. They're in the four books. Well, how do you read it? I would hope that no one is lying to Congress, however, I know differently in these hearings. You do know that people have lied during the hearings. I know that people have lied and they've raised now.

Hold on. Who's lied and what did they lie about? Oh, I could never say that. Why? Why are you not allowed to say that? Now, this thing dropped and I have never seen the internet. so divisive and reactionary to an interview from the Weaponized podcast. And I reached out to you and I'm like, have you heard this thing yet?

And you're like, not yet. I'm going to get to it. I'm going to get to it. And I just kind of prefaced it to you with, it is so frustrating. This man talks in riddles. I don't know, understand any of what's going on. He's written five books now. And I still have no idea what, what, what,

the purpose of all of this is. So you released an episode just today as we're recording this on April 14th about James Lackatsky. So I thought maybe let's start there. You know, I told you, I don't even know if that interview is worth listening to. And you being the level-headed UFO researcher you are kind of put a motion aside and said, let's look at what he said and let's look at what we could extrapolate from that and was of meaning. So I guess for, some of our listeners who may not even know who we're talking about. James Lekatsky, can you kind of catch us up to who this guy is, maybe kind of what these books are about that he's written,

and then we'll kind of dive into this most recent interview he did with George Knapp and Jeremy Corby. Certainly. And also, you know, as you mentioned this series, right, and you and you and I doing this, and I'm happy to do this, you know, semi-regularly with you because we always have so much to discuss. But briefly, I'll also just say that reflecting a little bit before we jumped on the mic earlier today, I believe it was somewhere in mid-2012, if memory serves, that you first

reached out to me. You at that time were writing a article for Open Minds magazine, and you had reached out and you wanted me to, you know, provide some commentary perspectives for this piece, and you reached out to several researchers in the field at that time. I believe our colleague Peter Robbins had been one. And then the next February in Tempe, Arizona, at the International UFO Congress. I was out there speaking that year. I brought my brother along and you were there volunteering and we were of course having a wonderful time with our friends Jason and Maureen and the late Lee Spiegel was emceeing that year. Antonio Huneus so many people, the late Stanton Friedman, Dr. John Lear, so many people were there that year and that was when you and I met. So it's funny

to reflect on all this thinking that, okay, going all the way back to 2012, Ryan and I were talking about this stuff. And at that point, I had already been involved. I mean, I really seriously got involved in the broadcast side of UAP beginning in around 2007. So we're coming up on, I mean, we're looking at decades of this. But around, I know, crazy, it's insane to even think about this. But I know, around the time that you and I first met, and in fact, actually a few years before that, going back to around 2008, this man, James Lakatsky, made his first visit to the infamous location out there in the Uinta Basin in Utah, known as Skim Walker Ranch. So right around that time, there was obviously a lot that was percolating both in terms

of how you and I got to know each other, but behind the scenes, the very events that would set the stage for really much of the modern UAP dialogue. So with that brief introduction out of the way, your question, who was James Lakatsky? This is the man who was, again, the former both DOD and also at a time, as he mentions in the recent interview he did with George Knapp and Jeremy Corbell for their weaponized podcast. He had also worked even under the Department of Energy. But this program in question, the Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Application Program, which also had an unclassified nickname, which came to light first.

That was ATIP. And that was initially the name that was given of the program in the 2017 reporting that appeared in the New York Times. But this DIA, Defense Intelligence Agency program that Lakatsky, headed essentially began with that trip to Skimwalker Ranch. He goes out there to the ranch. Robert Bigelow, who at the time still owned the ranch, takes him around, shows him the property. And Lekatsky even claimed that he had had a kind of odd experience there in one of the homestead buildings while visiting. Now, you know, full disclosure, I have been to Skimwalker Ranch.

I traveled there with Jay Stratton and his family. Travis Taylor came out there and met us when we got to the property and he gave us a quick tour. It was a very important. It was a very important. It was a very brief tour. I didn't see anything or experience anything strange, but again, I was only there for an hour. But the deeper history of this location, having been there and, you know, having been familiar with some of that history and what attracted Lakatsky to that property had, of course, been the work that began in the 1990s under what was known as the National Institute for Discovery Science, which was Robert Bigelow's civilian self-funded. He essentially, as a real estate mogul out there in Nevada, he was funding out of pocket this investigative effort, which, you know, kind of looked at consciousness studies too. but UFOs pretty quickly became a major focus of what they did. And one of the things that really kind of propelled that was right as we were quite literally in the first few days of the new millennium. This event transpired up there in southern Illinois where several law enforcement officers from multiple agencies observed this large triangular craft in the early morning hours passing over St. Clair County.

Nids were among the first investigators. there were two of them actually, one of former cop and one of former FBI agent, and they go out there and they investigate this case. They go and they speak to officials at Scott Air Force Base. They interview each of the police officers who saw this object, and one who even photographed it, but the photograph being a Polaroid, again, this was the year 2000, right on the cusp of this new millennium. It didn't turn out very well, but nonetheless, it's somewhat documented this occurrence

and this experience that all these officers had and, of course, corroborated, along with police dispatch recordings what they said they saw. So Bigelow and Nids were deeply involved in that investigation and that propelled a whole report they did on these large triangles. And yet, sadly, the same year in 2004 that they would put out that report, which was really, if anything, one of the more comprehensive analyses done by a investigative group on this flying triangle enigma, within just a few weeks of publishing that report,

they also announced their reclosing shop. And ironically, that would only proceed by a few weeks, one of history's best known cases, the famous USS Nimitz incident off the coast of California, which also occurred in November of that year, 2004. So all these events had been percolating for many years involving the Utah property. And so James Lacatsky, of course, had learned about this through a book written by George Knapp, co-authored with Cullum Kelleher, who had been the director of the NIDS program out there. And the effort has essentially been to try and get this government program that would kind of revive that research effort, but do so in a more official capacity, look at the ranch, but more broadly also look at the UAP phenomenon that had become very central to the NID's investigations there in the final years. And that is what became the Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems Application Program. So, Lakatsky, again, you know, being a, you know, a scientist and a person with his background, having developed advanced weapons systems for the DOE and the DOD, to be leading a DIA effort that's seriously looking at the UAP issue, but also, as they said, and this is quite controversial, but they were also looking at the continuity between these aerial phenomena and alleged paranormal phenomena, some pretty admittedly wild stuff in the claims about what was going on out there at Skimwalker Ranch. to see that that was an official program that ran for two years,

and that was all happening a couple of years before you and I formally met, Ryan. It's crazy to think that that happened. But the books that you mentioned, Lakatsky correctly, has written four of those now. And because all of the information from the AOSAP, we'll just refer to it going forward here, the all set program documents, with the exception of a few of those dirds that have been released and a few synopsies and things that have come to light, it almost entirely remains classified.

This database that is probably one of the real central focuses of a lot of people who are interested in what ASALEP was doing. This database known as Capella, having been built by Jacques Valet, that too is inaccessible. And so even despite the fact that we know the people who were involved in the history that kind of led up to the formation of the program and what it did and more and more is coming out, none of the official materials are accessible. And so Lackatsky decided to respond to this issue by authoring a series of books that would essentially detail the history of the AllSat program and what it was doing over that short two-year time span and that $22 million of government funding that was secured by Harry Reid and others. And that has come out in these books. And again, in lieu of being able to get direct access to government documentation and release that to the public,

Lackatsky is writing what, you know, you might effectively call memoirs that are describing his own experiences and a lot of the research efforts, but significantly, and this is maybe the most significant thing. He, of course, has gone through the Defense Office of Pre-Publication for Security Review or Doppser to ensure that the United States government and the Pentagon have, you know, agreed that what goes into print in these books is cleared for public release. it is and effectively therefore Lakatsky refers to what appears in these books as a form of disclosure. We can't give you the documents, but I can write a account of what we did, get that cleared for official release to the public, and then we can publish those books. And then you can judge for yourself, the merit of the program, what we did, what we learned, and what it means. And that brings us to the present day because Lakatsky was recently on the weaponized podcast with George Knapp, who has co-authored at least a couple of those books.

the first one, Skimwalkers at the Pentagon, was co-authored by Lackatsky, Knapp, and also Kulham Kelleher, Napp's original co-author of the Hunt for the Skimwalker's book. The others, Lakatsky is essentially written on his own, but they do detail some very interesting material. Now, final point on this opening kind of discussion about who we're talking about and what it all means, this is part of what has led to a lot of the confusion. And you're correct, Ryan. following that recent interview, there was a lot of mixed kind of reviews coming from the public about, you know, what they are hearing Lekatsky saying or the lack thereof, maybe. Many people are saying, and I think you characterized it as speaking in riddles. I think that's fair.

Because often Lekatsky has asked questions about classified, you know, materials and occurrences that have not been cleared for public discussion. And he has to be able to try and talk about these things. in the context of what he has written books about now, four volumes, but with relation to classified material in. So often the nature of the discussion ends up being kind of like, well, I can't tell you that, or he will sometimes answer a question by throwing a question back to the interviewer. And it's frustrating for people, and I get that. And even for me at times, it's a bit frustrating. But it's not missed on me. And I take very seriously the importance of, frankly, what the man is trying to convey in what capacity he can. So that's, again, one reason I think where we're having this discussion,

why I'm going to try and sort through some of it if we can. Absolutely. And again, this is why I wanted to talk to you because I am one of those people who I get a little, I let a motion get to me. And I'm listening to that interview. I'm on a treadmill, mind you. And I'm doing a little, little brisk run, I would say. And then the more Lakatsky started talking in circles, the faster I started going, man. So I do have Lakatsky to thank for probably losing an extra couple pounds, maybe, which I'm very thankful for. I could stand to lose about 30 more, that's for sure.

But I'll just have to keep listening to the episode, I guess. But yes, let's break down what you consider to be maybe some of the things you extrapolated from these quote-unquote riddles. because again, I think it is very important to have the context of who this guy is, who we worked for, what he did, why this stuff is classified, and why he can't share it. Because that's even myself. I found myself being guilty of saying, just tell us, just say what you need to say. But he can't. He literally will go to jail if he were to do something like that. So, yeah, I guess let's kind of take it point by point of what you considered things we should be paying attention to because that is what he said in the interview. You know, he would say, I need you guys to read between the lines and you're missing things. No one's brought up what I've said in this book or that book.

These are the threads you should be pulling, not the other stuff. Again, very in a very cryptic way. But what were you personally able to kind of deduce from this most current interview, I guess? Certainly. Just to be clear, again, I don't have access to any kind of special information or any inside sources or anything. The people who have come out and who are well known about these programs and who had been involved, they're patriots. And they aren't releasing classified information. And frankly, in my personal opinion, a lot of the information that ends up being leaked,

about alleged programs and things and some of the claims of certain whistleblowers, it's highly suspect in my opinion. And that's a conversation we could have another time. But in terms of what Lakatsky is trying to do, you know, I'm right there with you. At times it's difficult to really pick up on things and specifically something to what you're describing there that he mentioned that I think illustrates all this is he made a rather vague reference during the recent interview to there are many people out there who are picking apart these books and they're, you know, trying to figure out what these books are talking about, and they're going in the wrong direction. And I recently on my own podcast, the Micah Hank's program had actually responded to that statement

by saying, you know, I guess it would help to know which direction we're headed before, you know, if we want to know whether we're going in the wrong direction or not. And so Lekatsky will often tell folks you're kind of going in the wrong direction, but that's all we're told. And so it's difficult sometimes to discern, you know, which direction, which interpretation of the information provided would be the better one. But, you know, looking at this, you know, kind of from a bird's eye perspective, and I think we also have to say that, you know, this was the third, I believe, appearance that Lakatsky is made on the weaponized podcast. And I've watched both the others before this.

And so in the context of what we're discussing about this recent, when we have to make references to the past ones, too, overarching themes have essentially been that there are people who are speaking authoritatively, and again, this is what Likatsky says, there are people who speak authoritatively about the UAP subject as though they have information and they are even providing information to Congress. And a lot of these people are not the experts that they are perceived as being or perhaps that, you know, they perceive themselves as being. Likatsky has charged that there have been people who have lied seemingly while providing testimony to members of Congress.

So this would have to reference these congressional hearings. He also says, though, that on a slightly more innocuous level, some people are not lying, but they are mistaken. They probably believe the things that they are saying, but they're mistaken about some of the points that they are raising and the issues they're driving when they're speaking to Congress. And so he says, you know, I classify the different types of people as being those who know what they're talking about and speak truthfully, those who speak truthfully, as far as they know, but they aren't as informed as they think they are.

And then those who are actually engaged in deception. And the question of what that deception is, the intent behind it, or who actually is directing or driving that deception, that's another question all into itself, Ryan, because one could just be lying or, you know, we would use the term larping, live action roleplaying. You know, there are people who lie,

and I see this on social media all the time, people who get into a character and they play a certain character because they're trying to appeal to a certain, audience. And they know that doing that will help them to drive engagement and it helps them to, you know, maintain relevance. And sometimes they monetize that. Sometimes they're just doing it because they enjoy receiving the attention. I see this all the time. I see skeptics doing it. I see alleged UFO whistleblowers doing it. I see reporters doing it. I see people who are independent

researchers doing it. People in all different walks of life in different categories of the subset of what we might call UAP studies, which is one reason, by the way, that, you know, apart from a few postings on Instagram of hikes and things they go on or gigs I play with my band. I don't engage on X, hardly at all anymore. I'll throw a link to a charity or something every now. And then I don't go on social media to make revelations, you know, if there were revelations to be made. And I would caution people from, you know, waiting with bated breath on the next post from your favorite talking head or influencer or whomever, as if getting that information on social media is

where the truth is going to come from. Okay. So I personally opt out for those reasons. I recognize the mechanism there. The issue, though, is a little more dark and concerning when we have those people, you know, sitting in front of Congress and talking to people. And so the question has to come down to, well, are they simply doing this for self-gratification and for attention? Or are they engaged in willful deception for more elaborate reasons? There is such a thing as disinformation. And we now know, of course, it's long been known in the UFO community that disinformation, efforts have been a vital component to U.S. counterintelligence efforts with relation to UAP. Not always in an effort to hide the information about UFOs actually seems to work in reverse. Disinformation about UFOs is put out to hide secret programs that are unrelated to UFOs, but which, again, are secrets that the government likes to try and keep. And this has been a controversy, especially since last June when there was an article that was published in the Wall Street Journal that was talking about the level of disinformation that sometimes

incorporates UFOs and also appeals to, I think, the mythic kind of core of American uphology and the belief systems that involve that. So when Lakatsky is saying, we need to really take a step back and recognize the different categories of people, that's something that I'm afraid far too few people pay attention to,

and it's maybe one of the most important things he says. So that's one of the overarching themes, and we saw aspects of that referenced, especially toward the end of the new interview where he and Jeremy were kind of, you know, sparring a little bit about this. that. We'll get around to that and specifically where they were sparring about. Another continuity point we should also establish, Kona Blue, although there's a lot said about AllSAP, and that's

what these new books are about. Lakatsky has made some very enigmatic statements, and in my opinion, Ryan, some of the most enigmatic are about the Kona Blue program, which we didn't even know about that, even by the time that Skim Walkers at the Pentagon was published. It wasn't until the publication of the All-Domain Anomily Resolution Office's first volume of its historical report, where they essentially say, you know, we found this program, and it was a short-lived program. They tried to establish this in the Department of State, and it was put up and it was brought down because there wasn't believed to have been a need for it. And then some documents were released.

And that was, of course, under the tenure, the rather controversial tenure of inaugural Aero Director, Sean Kirkpatrick. But Lekatsky seems to suggest that there was more. to Kona Blue than just an attempt to kind of try and move the OSEP effort into another branch of government and just reestablish it, you know, in a different kind of guise. Lekatsky even so much is said on the second most recent interview he did, Kona Blue can never die. And you remember that.

When he said that, I'm thinking, what does that mean? Yeah. I mean, if the program is no longer running, but he also clarified, he says there was the program, but then there's the compartment, too. So is there more to Kona Blue than what first has been acknowledged by Arrow, but second, than what has been made publicly available? Third, very intriguing component about that, Lekatsky has repeatedly said, everything that was released about Kona Blue was accurate, but it was incomplete.

Okay, well, what does that mean? So in addition to the questions about the motives of whistleblowers, the Kona Blue Enigma is still at center stage. And then finally, some of the other questions, I think, that really are consistent themes that emerge with Lekatsky is this idea that, you know, when pushed on, what did Ossap find? What is the government hiding? If you really listen carefully to Lekatsky, and we'll give some examples here in a moment, but he essentially says, young researchers, you know, in the next few years, that's going to be left up to you to figure out. And maybe you guys will come to some conclusions. But in my personal reading, I've listened back through. to the most recent interview twice now and taking a lot of notes. I don't come away with the feeling that Lakatsky has a high degree of confidence that the United States federal government holds information about the UAP phenomenon of such significance that it would explain the phenomenon. He seems to say there are a lot more questions than answers and anyone within government or otherwise who claims to know the truth. He said I would be highly skeptical of them. And yet,

he has not denied this claim of there being a actual UAP craft of some kind, the whole of which has been breached. So this raises some pretty significant questions. Does it mean that there have been some acquisitions of hardware, but that the phenomenon is so mysterious because we can't really decipher what these technologies are and how they work, or is he alluding to something else? So those are some of the running themes that I think we've seen continuously throughout these interviews. And indeed in this most recent round with George and Jeremy speaking with him, you know, we're left with more questions than answers. But I think that built upon that kind of established, you know, thematic sequence, we can kind of begin to tease out some details. So now maybe we can do that talking about this most recent interview if you want. Absolutely.

And yeah, thank you for setting that up for us. Because again, this is making me realize what I missed in the interview. And again, this is what we, this is clearly a very intelligent man. He would not have had the position that he had if he wasn't. It's not just about like, I know something. You don't know. It's literally, I can't tell you what I know, but I'm trying. And there were so many times, Micah, in that interview,

and I almost felt bad for him, where he was saying, I'm not going to be alive. You know, I have less time than I have more time on this earth. and I think a lot of us can relate to that the older we get. And you're right. He said it will be up to the younger people to keep these threads going and to try to understand it. And I really appreciated him saying that. That was a very heavy statement to make.

And it made me really believe that this guy, he wants the truth out. So, yeah, yeah, that did really hit me. There's one thing you mentioned, and that was the... breaching the hull of the craft. Yes. Now, the one thing that really caught my attention in this interview specifically is, you can tell Jeremy is getting more pointed with his questioning on this man, which I really respect and appreciated.

And he said, did you personally breach the hole of a craft? Yes or no. And he said yes. So we can assume that Lakatsky was the one who, allegedly breached the hole of some sort of non-human craft. Am I reading that wrong or did you hear that as well? Okay, great question. And that's a really good place to start. I think there's still some ambiguity on specifically what this craft was and who specifically might have, if an individual breached the hole if it wasn't some sort of a, you know,

combined operation or it was done mechanically or what have you. The important point and the most important point is that Lakatsky references having knowledge of this, of course, in his written works, when asked specifically about that point by filmmaker Jeremy Corbell, who by the way, I'll just point out that same event in 2013 where you and I met for the first time. We met Jeremy there for that event for the first time. He wasn't the, you know, well-known international celebrity that he is these days. He was hanging out backstage. And I remember they brought him over to introduce himself to me and he told me he was working on a film about John Lear at that time. And it's funny, you know, again, how all these little threads come together.

Now, Jeremy has been very, very persistent with that line of questions. Was it you who reached the hole? Did you see this craft? It's still a little ambiguous, Jim Lekatsky's responses, but he has not denied it. And that to me is far more significant than what he has said in the affirmative. because having written about this and his seeming caution in just denying outright anything about it when pressed on the matter by Jeremy seems strongly suggestive of yet again a series of events that has a very extraordinary set of implications, but which nonetheless he seems to have received authorization through the officer to write about and which he though very carefully he nonetheless still will talk about in these interviews. Now, like you said, the obvious implication seems to be that there is an exotic craft of some kind that was acquired and that there were studies of it. The whole, as they have said, repeatedly now was breached, and it seems to be strongly implied that Lakatsky himself may have even gone inside.

I don't know how else to interpret that other than what it sounds like that there is an exotic craft and that the United States must have that in their possession. Now, you may know this about me. I mean, over the years I've wavered back and forth on the literal interpretation of the UFO mythos and the United States government's involvement as is being, you know, involving the actual capture of alleged exotic vehicles. I've wondered if that was really something that was, you know, more rooted in conspiracy theory and disinformation. And I'm not the only one. I would, you know, ask your listeners that they've never read it to go back and read Jock Valet's landmark book Revelations. It may not be his opinion in the here and now, but at that time, in the 1990s when that book was authored, Jacques Valet was very much a man who was skeptical of a lot of the crash retrieval claims, and he challenged a lot of those, even though he speaks at length about them in that book.

And that actually remains one of my favorite books of his. But if indeed what we are hearing from Lakatsky is an affirmation of that longstanding question, and if he has firsthand knowledge of it, that's a very extraordinary claim. And yet one coming from the man who of anyone presumably should have had access to and knowledge about these kinds of things during the period in which he ran this DIA program back in between 2008 and 2010. So, you know, that's pretty much all we know. But, I mean, that's a remarkable, you know, there are profound implications to that. And I think that's one of the reasons why Jeremy has been so persistent in his line of

questioning about that. Yeah. I don't blame him. Yeah. And sometimes that's just what you got to do. Yes or no. Yeah. But in that space volumes.

Yeah, my interpretation, though, is essentially yours. Just to answer your question, yes. Okay. Now, you mentioned transporting of alleged craft. Now, this is another thing that, you know, gets the UFO community going. Like, what was this facility built to house the craft? Who was transporting it? Why was the transportation stopped?

Like, these are all things we think about. But something he mentioned in this interview, and I know you kind of dissected this as well, was he said it wasn't even like the transport of the craft that I found most interesting. I was actually surprised by something else that was going on when it came to the transfer of the craft. I don't know if this is unclear what I'm telling you right now in terms of the interview. But he had mentioned something else that had surprised him about what was going on and what he had to say. what he had discovered. Am I correct in that? You are. I actually have quotes in a transcript that I did, and I didn't have AI do this, by the way. I mean, I will use AI for things like that sometimes,

but if I'm trying to really commit to memory something that I want to really digest and understand, I will hand type it. This is a trick I learned back when I was in college and I was studying history. I could literally sleep through a class for several weeks, but then the night before the test, if the teacher gave a study guide for that class, I found that I could go with my textbook. work through the entire study guide and sit for hours taking notes and if I wrote it down, I could show up and make an A plus on the test the next morning. And psychological studies, yeah, they show that, again, you are, like, I think by some measures close to 80% more likely to recall material that you write down.

So just for the listeners out there who may be wondering, when I listened to this most recent interview, when you and I began talking about it last week, I hadn't even listened at that point. Since that time, I've listened to it twice, once I listened all the way through, the second time I went through and I took notes transcribing virtually 75% of the entire, you know, the spoken portion by Lakatsky. So the specific quotes that he's talking about here were where he was discussing, and I'll back up just a little bit here, they were talking about, as you mentioned, the material transfer. Corbell basically was asking whether Lakatsky could

acknowledge there had been UAP material transfer requested. At the time of this, letter from Senator Harry Reid, which is the first really to refer to this program as A-Tip. Now, a brief point of clarity on that. We're talking about A-TIP. A-Tip was referenced because at that time, it was decided that there needed to be an unclassified codename for A-Sep because they didn't want to reveal the name of the classified program. So in this famous memorandum by Senator Harry Reid, and what they were doing was they were

essentially trying to help secure the continuance of this program. but they used an unclassified nickname for the program at that time, which was advanced aviation threat identification program or ATIP. And that's where that moniker came from. It was later borrowed for the informal initiative that preceded the UAP Task Force and the rest is history. But that all said, he was asking about this. And Lakatsky essentially says, Corbel asks him, rather, you know, they were trying to move a UFO from Lockheed Martin to the Allsat program. and that's what Corbell asserts that he already knows, to which Lakatsky responds,

we were looking for a list. And then he cautions, he says, you shouldn't put too much into that letter, the read memorandum, other than it was a broad request for us. He says, we were able to look for the list.

Let's jump off that for a moment. But guess what? It had disappeared. Corbel asks for clarification, a list of what? Then Lakatsky says, recovered materials. He says it was a list,

and we were given the exact location, was gone from there, and it couldn't be gone by normal means, so someone removed it. Now, this was the weird part, because at this point, and I found this extremely odd, Lakatsky, I'm going to kind of read this verbatim as he said it. Plan out how you're going to research and verify, and don't dismiss deception. Well, is the word deception from, let us say, suspected aliens? Let's just use that. Don't dismiss deception on broad terms, their part. Now, that's essentially verbatim the statement, and you can kind of see why people are kind of going, what? What?

I'm really confused by the terminology, though. He says, let's not dismiss deception from suspected aliens. So in this kind of a context, discussing flying saucers and, you know, all this stuff, it's hard not to infer or interpret from that that we're talking about non-human intelligence. But I had to step back and ask, I mean, is that? what he's actually referring to there or when he said aliens could he have meant you know foreign adversaries of the united states i mean it's possible i don't know uh it's left unclear but i mean that's a very odd phrasing for him to have used uh the idea that we shouldn't rule out deception from suspected aliens and this in relation to a discussion about a list they were given uh involving the

exact location of of the transfer of materials i mean this is just so bizarre. There was something else that it was a little strange, too, which I might just skip ahead to, and this was from a different part of the interview, but since you mentioned the really strange statements, he also mentions later on toward the very end of the interview, something about Kona Blue, where he absolutely will not talk about what it is he was asked, but he said on a secure line with an individual, you know, he was asked to do something, and he said, I was very surprised when I found out what they were actually after. presuming, again, that whomever he was working for or under with the establishment of Kona Blue,

they conveyed to Lakatsky at some point, this is what we're actually looking for, this is what we want you to do. And he said, I'll try, I'll try, I'll try. But Corbell, I think, asks, you know, would you give us a hint? He says, no, I'm not going to give you a hint. But he alludes very mysteriously to something that Kona Blue was involved with or that Lakatsky was supposed to be doing that he says deeply surprised him, but that he just could only tell him, okay, I'll try. One has to wonder what this is all about, but you add to that the intrigue of that

earlier statement from earlier in the interview. Don't rule out deception from suspected aliens. Many, many mysteries from this man that emerged in this conversation. Right, right. And, you know, I've got a framed photo here of Valet and in Heineck behind me here. And valet is known for writing a book called The Messengers of Deception. So again, are we talking alien? Are we talking foreign? I mean, Lakatsky even said there was, he believes there was a mole, I guess he would call it, in the OSAP program or Mufan, because they were working with Mufan at the time with their databases and that whole controversy.

We won't get too far into that. But like, yeah, yeah, it seemed like, yeah, I don't. No, Lakatsky seemed very on edge when he started talking about bad stuff. And what, what? I'm just going to ask you, Michael, like, what would you infer from those cryptic statements about what he's talking about in terms of he was surprised at what they asked me to, what they were asking me to do? Like, what could that mean?

You're already talking about stepping in the hole of a freaking UFO and doing stuff like that, like the stuff at Skinwalker Ranch. what could surprise this man so much about what he had been hired to do and what Kona Blue is doing? It's hard to even speculate. But again, if we put together the pieces, I mean, if we accept that he has not denied the idea that there is some sort of an exotic vehicle. And again, there are questions about what exotic might mean and what the possible origins of a exotic craft might be. But presuming we're talking about something that is not deemed to have belonged to some foreign, you know, adversary nation that was acquired. by the US and that we're not just talking about, yeah, there was a really extremely experimental

Russian aircraft. And when we talk about breaching the hole and we talk about, you know, suspected aliens, we're just talking about, you know, our foreign adversaries. If we can presume that's not what they mean, it's hard to interpret this under any other interpretation than that Lakatsky seems to be inferring that there are non-human intelligences when directly asked about that by George Knapp. and George will often ask it in these terms. He says, what are the answers to the big questions?

You know, Lackatsky will kind of say, well, what do you think? But in the statements that he does make in separate instances, he very strongly seems to be implying that the answers to those big questions are exactly what many of us would presume them to be. Now, again, that would just be my interpretation. I still have my own questions about that. But here's a couple of things, and then I want to actually move over briefly to what you were talking about with that possible leak, because there were a couple of different components

to the leak. and that espionage component of all this, I actually find to be extremely interesting and even the fact that that seemed to involve what some would colloquially call men in black. I'll also just say briefly, you know, that when I'm listening to all these things and I'm hearing, you know,

Lekatsky seem to make these references, I still have some questions too. And some have asked me, they're like, well, but you can't trust these people who work, you know, and the DOD and the Defense Intelligence Agency. I mean, we already know that disinformation is a huge part of all this. And so how do we know that Lakatsky isn't disinforming us and that this isn't just disinformation and he's just leaking, you know, bad information to help, you know, to help, you know, muddy the waters.

Yeah. If we take him at his word and one should always exhibit some caution in doing this, but in past interviews that he has done, Lakatsky has said, you know, the disinformation is a tool that is used by the, those who are in the counterintelligence component. And he even was joined during that particular interview, I think also with Knapp in Corvill, by Colum Kelleher, who had been, as we heard earlier, the director of the National Institute for Discovery Science, but he was the deputy director of Alsap. He came back and rejoined that effort and was working directly under Lakatsky. I've interviewed Dr. Kelleher, and we've spoken at length. I have not spoken directly with

Dr. Lakatsky yet, but that possibly possible. is I understand on the table, and I've got to follow up with a friend about making that happen. But the interview where Lekatsky appeared alongside Colin Kelleher, he literally tells Napp and Corbell, look, you know, people ask, why should we trust you guys? Well, we're not counterintelligence. He says, our job, we were the scientists. We weren't part of the counterintelligence component in that organization, that effort. What he's saying is the disinformation is the tool that is used by the counterintelligence agents. And he says any kind of a special program, you know, if you have a special access program, they're going to have their counterintel officer. And that

person's job is essentially to run interference. You know, if they think somebody's getting too close to getting information about the program, there will be a counterintelligence effort that will be used to try and prevent the access of information to said party, right? And it may not just be, for instance, you know, an eager member of the public, a UFO researcher who just happens to get a little too close to the truth and they find the truth, but it's not the truth they expected. No, more often than not, those who are the parties who would be seeking the information about the program are in a foreign adversary, you know, some sort of a foreign intelligence operation. They're trying to figure out what's happening and what the DOD is investigating or what their materials are or what their

capabilities are in terms of defense or their, you know, their signals intelligence or what have you. So, and this is in fact actually a very important thing when it comes down to UFO documents. People are always saying, what are they hiding about the UFOs? More often than not, the documents that are withheld by intelligence community agencies related to UFOs are withheld of the portions that are redacted in the versions of those documents that are released, they have to do with the specific capabilities of intelligence collection methods that those agencies do not want our adversaries to, or for that matter, the public, to know about. because that would compromise their ability to gather that intelligence. And so that information is withheld. I remember back in the day when Stanton Friedman would talk about, they'd release me the file, there'd be a whole page that's blacked out.

That's kind of what he's talking about. A lot of the time that had to do with signals intelligence collections, you know, means, ways and means, you know, and the various intelligence collection methodologies. So you have to understand the counterintelligence component of all this. And Lekatsky clarified that Colum and he were not part of that. They were scientists. And he says, my job is not to sit here and lie to you.

Now, that does not guarantee that some of these people who work with these programs and perhaps even Lekatsky isn't going to lie and obfuscate. But I'm saying taking him at his word and knowing what his job was and knowing that he even has made the distinction between what his role was and that of the counterintelligence agents, he claims that this is not a part of what he's doing. Therefore, I mean, if he is not lying and it's not disinformation, we would have to presume, if he's telling the truth, and that's what he claims he's doing, he's talking about exotic craft, he's discussing aliens and all these things. Now, springboarding off of that for just a moment, though, back to that question of espionage that was happening in the recent interview, and this again kind of dovetails with the whole counterintelligence thing, because what I was

talking about with foreign assets that would be trying to get information, that seems to have been happening with the Allsap effort, and I was very intrigued when this information. first started coming out, and it was first referenced a while back, but he talks a good bit about it during the recent interview. Apparently what had happened was, and there are actually three components of this, there was an alleged leak at Mufon, there was a leak within Allsap, and then there was somebody who was apparently spying on Allsap. We'll start right there. at one point they said that they brought in some officials i don't know if this would have been private investigators or if it was the fbi but at one point it seems to be implied i think that fbi came in and and conducted some of this search to find out if there was some someone observing what they were doing and they said that they found these phones that had been placed around their Las Vegas location

not out at skimwalker ranch they said that they did conduct a survey out there and that they found some indications of that, but that the signals were intermittent, and to their satisfaction, they didn't think they were being spied on at Skim Walker Ranch. But at their Las Vegas locations, somebody was spying or seemingly had been attempting to collect intelligence on them by the placement of phones, which were being used, I presume, as transmitters, you know, transmission points for, you know, whatever kind of surveillance. When asked by Corbell in this interview, who was it? You know, the usual players, China, Russia, Israel, of course, Lakatsky gives us the following response, all of the above or none of the above. In other words,

you know, I know. So we have no idea. But somebody was spying. And last time I checked, you know, little gray men from Zeta reticula, I didn't use smartphones to do that. So, you know, good point. So it seems like somebody on earth and probably, again, some foreign intelligence group or somebody, they were trying to collect information about what Alsap was doing, which isn't necessarily surprising if you do look all the way back to the iron curtain and you know some of the disinformation actually of the Cold War which seems to have been aiming at trying to mislead Russia about what we knew about UFOs by injecting you know UFO claims NJ12 things along these lines UFO lore has long been a major component of disinformation efforts related to counterintelligence

programs which are targeting efforts, you know, by other nations to try and get intelligence on U.S. special programs. So that was one thing I found very intriguing. In other words, somebody took interest in all set in what they were doing. Point number two, Lackatsky said that they suspected that there was a leak from within Mufon. Now, back around the time when you and I first met, way back in, you know, 2012, we met in 2013, but we were communicating by at least 2012, if not 2011.

And I was very interested in trying to understand why, prior to that, Bob Bigelow had had this relationship with Mufon. Right. And I remember I had some conversations with some high-ranking, you know, Mufon members. And I wanted to know, what's the deal with Roger Marsh? I'm sorry, not Roger Marsh, but with what's the deal with Bob Bigelow? Roger Mars, by the way, who had been their communications director, had been one of the gentlemen I'd been on the telephone with. Roger was wonderful. We'd been on the phone one night.

At that time, he was trying to get me to join Mufon. And I said, Roger, I'll think about it. One thing I want to know, what's the deal with Bob Bigelow? And he wasn't the only one I'd spoken to. I'd talked with a lot of people about what was going on. Chase Kletzky, who at the time had been one of the star team investigators. And I went to Chase's house. We were hanging out in the kitchen.

And I was like, so what's going on with this whole Bigelow thing, if I may ask? We had no idea. But, you know, many years later it came out that one of the things that had been going on was that there was that AllSAP program, and they, of course, were trying to collect information from Mufon so that they could get investigators out very quickly to investigate sightings reports as they were coming in. But intriguingly...

But what Lackatsky says is that it seemed that there was somebody who was getting out and that some people were able to get out there to these sites before ASEPS people did. And so they had thought, was there someone within Mufon that was leaking information about those good cases. Again, those good cases keep in mind are supposed to only essentially be reported directly to Ossap was my understanding. Not that some in Mufon leadership obviously wouldn't have had knowledge of them,

but that's going to be a small number of people. So somebody, you know, according to Lekatsky, seemingly was getting that information out before it was getting to Ossep and before they could get their investigators deployed. That was interesting. But then the third point on espionage, Likatsky said that there was some, someone within their own organization, within OSAP itself, and that the database that they

were building of UAP data, and this presumably has to be the Capella database that Dr. Valle was assembling, for which, you know, again, it was reported in 2017 that there were these data warehouses and as Jacques told me during an interview that I did with him, he said that that was one of the largest components and most expensive too, was building that, you know, those data systems for this database. There was someone that Lakasky said seems to a have been trying to leak all that information to parties unknown and that there was an indication that those leaks had continued even after ASAP, I guess, personnel had been notified that they were concerned that there appeared to have been a leak. So there were a lot of questions about

what information was coming in and going out during the OSCEP program. And that really is, it leaves a lot of questions. I mean, some of it could just be human nature. You know, people are curious. People want to, you know, they want to share information with people when they're not necessarily always authorized. But when we're talking about a program and there are, you know, secret clearances and classification and things, I mean, that really kind of raises the stakes. And I found it very intriguing that Dr. Lekaski was saying that there were these elements that seemed to suggest that there were leaks in espionage encircling the ALSAP effort. Right. And then you've got to think, like, is that still going on? He said Kona Blue never dies and all that. Like who's leaking stuff now?

I mean, you know, my mind's going to like the grushes and all these people. And I don't know. It's just so dizzying all of it, all of it. But I'm so happy you brought up this fact that people like Kohn-Kelleher and Lekatsky are scientists. They are not the ones that we should be worried about disinforming or lies. It doesn't mean they haven't done it, but they're not the ones we should be cautious of, per se. It's these people who are literally hired as counterintelligence. You know, they've been doing it their whole lives sort of thing.

So when he starts saying things like that, it does make me wonder who he believes may have lied to Congress. Again, we're not here to name names or point fingers. we will infer on our own, and I'm sure you guys can too. So, oh, God. See, again, this is my— If I made really quickly— If I may really quickly, I'll just assert, you know, I think that's another part of, you know,

the reasoning behind Lakatsky. I don't want to just seem like I am, you know, a Lakatsky apologist and someone who's going to try and, you know, excuse everything. Look, everybody wants transparency, and they want accountability from government officials. And I think in all the ways that he feels that he responsibly can, this is my read on the situation, I feel in all the ways that he thinks he responsibly can, Lakatsky is trying to put out as much information as he can.

He's chosen to do this through these books. In my personal, humble opinion, as a person who writes for a living, is a science reporter, if a person has written a book and they want to be paid, you know, a small sum, you know, for someone to buy that book and read it, more power to them. And I kind of take exception at times to a lot of what we see online these days. Everybody is saying, you know, this person's a grifter, that person's a grifter. It's all a huge grift. You know, in my opinion, really, let's dissect that for a moment because I think it's warranted.

A lot of the time what we have is people who, for whatever reason, they got burned or they became impatient, or maybe they are genuinely skeptical and they are genuinely raising, you know, some legitimate concerns. but in any case, whatever it is that motivates them and their skepticism, the pure disillusionment of the riding the disclosure wave and just constantly only receiving the proverbial dangling carrot, whatever it is, a lot of these people resort to just calling all of it a grift. All these people are just trying to make money. All of them are just trying to, you know, get wealth, notoriety. I've even had people, you know, accuse me of that. And I would simply say, you know, if my strategy of not posting on social media and not even promoting my podcast, I very rarely ever even post. post, look online, you know, I think a few weeks ago because my buddy was on, Jason Pentrail,

he's an excellent avocational archaeologist. I did post about that episode and his awesome book about this, which is about the Adina culture. I may post about that on Instagram, but that's very rare. I almost never even promote my own show. And, you know, if I'm not going to promote my show, if I'm going to give my podcast away for free, if all the articles at the debrief are going to be freely accessible to people to read for free. My grifting model is very, very, very bad, and I'm going to have to really work on my grift a little bit. The point I'm trying to make is, again,

it's very easy for people out of frustration, and sometimes just pure vitriol, to call everybody a grifter, and everybody in the UFO community is grifting one another and calling each other that. I think we just need to step back and say, okay, giving people the benefit of the doubt, whether you agree with what Allsap was studying,

whether or not you agree with the findings, whether you think that there is genuine weird phenomena going on at Skim Walker Ranch or if you think this is all a bunch of paranormal nonsense. And frankly, I'm kind of somewhere in the middle. I try to keep an open mind. But I've been to Skim Walker Ranch and I didn't see or experience anything out there. And yet I've talked to a lot of people who are seemingly very credible people and people who I've gotten to know very well and become friends with who have told me.

And again, their stories aren't crazy or outlandish the way that they've told those stories To me, it's actually very plausible, but it comes down to a question of, okay, well, that doesn't seem outlandish, but what was it exactly that was experienced and what could be the mechanism behind it? You see the straw man version of it that many skeptics put out there and everything in references to space, poltergeists and werewolves and all this kind of craziness. Speaking with these people, it's very seldom, if ever, characterized in that way. And so I've tried to learn to step back from those criticisms and just say, look, you know, whether or not I believe all of the, of it. What are these people? What are their intentions? What are they trying to do? I think that in the case of Jim Likatsky, to the best that he is able, he is simply trying to convey what he can about a program, the majority of the data and its findings and other information related to it still remains

classified. And he knows that. So he's like, I'm going to go through an official review process to put what I can out for those who might benefit from knowing this. And I'm going to try and do that. But I also think that sometimes when he won't name names and he's talking about there are certain individuals. I think it's frankly just him trying to be a gentleman. I don't think he wants to call people out. And so like you were saying, you and I aren't going to do that right here either. I have my suspicions about who he's referring to when he's talking about people who are being untruthful and also people who are mistaken. I have maybe a few more insights into some of that than the average bear, we might say, in fact.

And I have some very strong suspicions based on some dialogue that's taken place behind the scenes. But again, I don't rush out there to try and demonize these people or to engage and ad hominem attacks. And the number one reason, maybe it's because Lakatsky is trying to be a gentleman. I like to be a gentleman too. But more fundamentally than that, Ryan, it has nothing to do with UFOs and the study of UFOs. You know, what have you and I've been trying to do? Good point. Since, you know, I mean, for more than a decade now and going on two decades.

I mean, I don't care about the latest dirt on this person. I don't care about, you know, what this person does in their spare time. I don't care what this person's, you know, religious beliefs or philosophical beliefs or their political beliefs are. Those things have nothing to do with the study of are there technologies operating in our skies of unknown provenance? How do they operate? Who are the operators? And what does that mean for humankind? That's the big, those are the big questions, I should say, because there are many of them. You know, when George Knapp is asking Likatsky, what are the answers to the big questions?

Those are the questions that true, serious, sincere researchers are trying to get to the bottom of. And all the rest of it's just gossip. You know, that's all just the usual mud slinging. Mud racking, I guess, you know, being a beat reporter and trying to get the answers. That's one thing. I'm not interested in mud slinging. And I don't think that Lakatsky is either. So he's very careful about naming names.

And I can respect that. But I also sympathize with him to an extent because I see him and he even expressed this. At one point he and Corbill got pretty heated in one of the. exchanges and he said, you know, it does come across kind of like, you know, I am a bad guy or like I'm being deceit for or I'm being insincere. And I think that for someone, put yourself in their shoes, you know, put yourself in Lakatsky's shoes specifically. If you had just authored four books and you were trying to convey everything that you could about a program that you led, which again, for all we know, the official documentation, it may not ever be released. So he's done what he

can to get this out and people push back and calling a liar and they say well he he didn't make any sense he just rambles and he just you know what and again i do know that you took some issue with him online i'm not talking about you ryan but i mean i am saying no you can point me out man i mean for sure i did say that well you know but we all have felt a little a little frustrated with lecatsky's way and manner of speaking but i try to put myself in his shoes and say well gee how would i feel if i just put my what might be my life's work or what he continues you know perceives as being his into four volumes and people are just like, show us the bodies, where's the saucer? You know, he's like, to the ability that I can without betraying my, you know, my allegiance to my

government, I'm trying my damnedest to tell you, but in his own unique way, right? Exactly. And you know what? I get it. I get it. And again, this is why I wanted to talk to you about this, because it does. It paints a whole different picture of what to take from these interviews and the books. And what's to come? He's not done. He said he's working on possibly another book. He even mentioned at one point,

and this kind of touched my heart. He's like, we even thought about writing a children's book to help the next generation. I'm like, yes, dude. Yes, that's what we need. That's what we need. I'm glad you see it like that.

I'm glad, right, I'm glad you see it like that because I know there are people out through who are going, great, we're going to indoctrinate the children now. And I'm like, you know, I don't really think that's what this is all about. And I'll tell you something that frustrates me.

You know, I'll go and I'll meet with friends and they'll, you know, see a picture of Jay Stratton and I or something, you know, together, you know, with our guitars or something. And people will kind of look at that and they'll say, I don't trust that guy or they'll look at somebody else in the community. I don't trust that guy. And I ask them, well, why? Do you know them? Have you ever spoken to them? Do you know that person from Adam? What knowledge do you have about them upon which you have?

form your opinion. Well, you know, I mean, I saw a film, you know, I read an article or I watched a YouTube video. And I'm like, yeah, but have you met them? Do you know them? Have you spoken to them? Have you spent hours talking to them? Have you gone out to dinner and have you, have you talked about to their ability to express what they know, you know, virtually everything that, you know, as a journalist, I could think to ask about these issues and try to understand it all. It kind of irks me that people often form opinions about people based on stuff they've read or stuff they've seen or stuff they heard secondhand from somebody else or even third or fourth hand. And, you know, I don't know what led to our society.

And I do think that whatever it is, that fundamental human behavior, it's unfortunately amplified by social media. And people desperately trying to get attention. But I don't know why or how we got to this point where, you know, everything has to be viewed through a lens of criticism. and ridicule and attack and hatred. And as you know, Ryan, in recent days, this goes all the way up to Washington and the current administration. We won't get into politics right now, but I mean,

the very same issues I'm talking about that seem endemic to the UFO community, it is endemic to humanity. And at some point, I mean, I just wish we could step back, you know, and this is one reason I try to talk about, like, guys, there's a difference between the counterintelligence component and then scientists who are involved, intelligence agents, you know, and then people who were involved in the military personnel side. You know, and I'll sit with people and have a conversation about this and, you know, as I watched

the proverbial plane fly right over the head, but they're all worked with the government so we know they're lying to us. Not necessarily. And the final thing, though, you know, again, if we take all that into consideration, I'm listening to Lakatsky, and he keeps saying, you know, the young researchers, maybe you guys will have the answers. I would be really skeptical. of anyone who says they have them now. If I'm reading him correctly, it sounds an awful lot like, really, essentially, we have learned a lot from these people who have been involved in the government efforts, and they've learned some stuff.

And maybe the most important thing that they've conveyed to us is we all, in our official capacity, took this phenomenon seriously enough to study it. That alone should convey a reality. But we have not solved the mystery. So what they have imbued, you know, to us, the wisdom that they've imposed. imparted to us, I should say, seems to be that, you know, we took it seriously and we have determined that there's a there there. But we don't know what that there is. We don't know what it is where it comes from, why it's here, what it means. So I think the overarching message that Lakatsky is trying to

convey is, you know, if we took it seriously, I'm trying to tell you what we did to try and understand it. But the research begins here. People keep looking for disclosure and keep wanting the truth. Oh, we're going to know everything as soon as they release all those files. I don't think we're, I don't think that's going to, that's only going to be the beginning of the research efforts. Exactly. The mission of guys like you and I have been doing this for more than a decade, you know, it's kind of like we're back at square one in a lot of ways. It's just now we're not going, well, if there's an anything to it and we think UFOs are cool. No, it seems to be there are objects.

And right now that, you know, think what you will have arrow in the All-Domain Anomelie Resolution Office's efforts to evaluate these things, but they too seem to think there's a there there. but the gauntlet has been cast at our feet, right? And we got to get away from this, you know, the he said, she said mudslinging, get back to looking at the phenomenon. Get back to saying, okay, how do we understand what this means? That's what we really need to be focusing on,

in my humble opinion. No, I could not agree more, man. I mean, I always go back to this example. I was in the theater program at my college, and I would eventually befriend a guy named Brian and you know many years later he would admit to me he said

I hated you so much when I first saw you and I just I knew there was just this pure vitro for you for some reason he's like and then we started hanging out and like you became one of my best friends and we

would eventually move to New York City together travel around the country acting together and became the best of friends and you know I think it's so important that we remember these are human beings. Lekatsky is a human being. He has a family. He has faults.

He has strengths. He has beliefs. He has convictions. And like that gets lost. You're right. When we, when we're doing the he said, she said stuff.

So again, it all comes back to the human. And I, I love that. I love that. Again, this has completely changed my mind. on not just that interview, but now the ones that I want to go back and listen to that he did

before and maybe even read all the books. I admittedly have not purchased one. I have never opened a book by James Lackatsky. I think I had the Skinwalkers at the Pentagon one. But other than that, yeah, that was so refreshing. Thank you. Thank you for kind of bringing that all to light for us. There are a couple other hot button issues in the UAP discourse right now. I'd love to tackle with you if you're up for it. Oh yeah, you know me, man. I'm here and along for the ride. So yeah.

Hey, guys. Ryan Sprague here from somewhere in the skies. And I want to tell you about something that feels like it was specifically made for us. Those of us who have followed every UFO headline, every whistleblower, every UFO sighting and close encounter that literally defined the past year in UFOs. And that is anomalous cards. Anomalous cards are a one-of-a-kind collectible series, capturing the top 100 UAPN UFO stories of 2025, preserved, documented, and brought to life in a format you can actually

hold in your hands. We're talking about 100 uniquely designed trading cards. Each one representing a pivotal moment in the unfolding UAP conversation. Every single card is individually serial number, making each piece of art a limited historical archive. Not just a collectible, but a timestamp of disclosure in motion. And here's where it gets even more exciting. You can collect the full story your way. Grab a complete factory set and own the entire timeline of 2025.

or dive into the thrill of discovery with cello packs and boxes. Each contain in the chance to uncover exclusive heroes of truth insert cards, spotlighting the individuals pushing this mystery into the light. This isn't just memorabilia, it's a curated record of one of the most important years in UAP history. Head over to let's get anomalous.com right now to grab your set or packs. And for Somewhere in the Sky's listeners, you get an exclusive promo code right now for 15% off your order. That promo code is Somewhere 15. Again, go to let's get anomalous.com and use the promo code, Somewhere 15, for 15% off your order.

Because the UFO story is still unfolding. And now you can collect it all with anomalous cards. Hey guys, Ryan Sprague here from Somewhere in the Skies. The podcast has always been and always will be completely free for you to listen to. But creating it every week takes a lot of time, research and resources. And to be honest, it's just never been free for me to create. That's why we've built a few simple ways for you to help support the show and keep it going strong. You can join us over on Patreon or through Apple Premium.

Both offer the same awesome perks. Add free episodes, early access to new content. content, exclusive bonus shows, and even priority to ask our guests your listener questions. It's a quick and easy way to support what we do for just a few bucks a month. And right now, you can even try Patreon for free for a week to see if it's right for you. To learn more and to join, head over to patreon.com slash somewhere skies. That's patreon.com slash somewhere skies. Or hit that subscribe button right at the top of

be your Apple podcast feed. Thank you so much for listening, for supporting, and as always, keep looking up. Wishing you could be there live for the big game, soaking up the atmosphere of the crowd, but too often, life gets busy, or the price holds you back.

Price Line is here to help you make it happen. With millions of deals on flights, hotels, and rental cars, you can go see the game live. Don't just dream about the trip. Book it with Price Live. Price Line. Download the Priceline app or visitpriceline.com. Actual prices may vary. Limited time offer.

This episode is brought to you by Netflix. Most valuable promotions in Netflix are hosting a blockbuster triple headliner Saturday, May 16th. Rhonda Rousey returns to face fellow woman's MMA pioneer Gina Carrano in the main event. Plus co-main's Nate Diaz versus Mike Perry and the best heavy weight in the world, Francesingano versus Felipe Lins. Watch Rhonda Rousey versus Gina Carano, live only on Netflix. Saturday, May 16th and 9 p.m. Eastern Center time, 6 p.m. Pacific time. The next one I want to talk to you about is literally playing out as we're recording this. It's April 14th. Allegedly, there was supposed to be 46 UAP videos that were going to, or at least were demanded to be released by representatives in the U.S. Congress and Apalina Luna being kind of the main one.

The defense secretary facing a deadline from a lawmaker tonight who was asking for the release of 46 videos of what the government calls unidentified aerial phenomenon or UFOs by tomorrow. So you have your standard understanding of what would be able to function in this time and space continuum. And then you have these things that are just kind of operating outside of that. And what they tend to call these things are interdimensional. They are specific videos with titles like several UAP in vicinity of Columbus, Ohio Airport. UFO's information over Persian Gulf and Syrian UAP instant acceleration. All referenced in a letter from Republican Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna to Defense Secretary Pete Hegsef, Luna explaining her urgency writing the potential national security threat they pose is troubling.

There are many people in government that we come across that will come up to us, some in various high-level positions that have said, look, we've seen these things, or we definitely think they're real, we just don't want to be labeled as crazy. The UFO phenomenon moving from the fringe. just the beginning to the mainstream. The technology that we faced was far superior than anything that we had, and there's nothing we can do about it. And then you've also got Tim Burchett proposing bills to dissolve arrow. You've got Eric Berlinson going out and knocking on the doors of these alleged locations where these craft might be held that people like David Grush brought forward. And Lakatsky is

alluding to as well. So Congress has their hands, all over this topic right now. It's pretty crazy when you think of where you and I were some 10 years ago and where we are now. This is my long-winded way of asking you. What do you think of this 46 UAP video thing and Anna Paulina first? Do you have any thoughts on that? Yes, and also don't worry about being long-winded. Nobody's more long-winded than I am.

But there's a lot to try and digest, and I think it is important. not to, everybody wants little sound bites. And sometimes you can't afford a complex subject, a simple answer. Now, a physicist might tell you otherwise, right? They'll say, you know, simple formula is going to describe everything in the universe. But euphology, we haven't found that formula yet. So we've got to talk about it. Now, that said, my thoughts about these videos, I did hear Knapp recently on one of his recent

mystery wire broadcasts talking about this. And again, you know, to his credit, I like George, you know, he's a buddy and we've gotten I know each other better over the years. And I appreciate his efforts, the transparency efforts with what he's tried to do. And one of those things has been that when videos have, you know, been leaked to them. And again, we have to be careful about that because if a video is leaked, there are, you know, there are questions that have to be raised about whether it was an authorized leak or an unauthorized leak. But usually what has happened in the past is when videos are leaked, if they are unclassified for special.

use only, laws weren't broken generally when they were released. And that was the case, for instance, with those three historic Navy videos, the Tick-Tac, the GoFast, and the Gimble video. They were unclassified for special use only. But there was an Air Force Office of Special Investigations, investigation into the leak of those videos and whether that was an unauthorized leak, and whether essentially I would presume that was to determine if there was a necessity for disciplinary action. It was determined that there wasn't, you know, any kind of sensitive information that was being conveyed in those videos and nothing that, you know, thereby required any further action. And so in response to that and also in response to the widespread public interest, as we recall, the DOD formally released the videos that were already here in our possession. And the Tick-Tac video, in fact, had actually been circulating for years before that.

But they were officially authorized for released and you might call it a re-release. but those, it's long been said that there were other videos. And some of those have been released, but, you know, again, frustratingly, the ones that we've seen from the All-Domain Anomily Resolution Office, they're typically videos that have undergone a case analysis and have already been determined not to actually be UAP. And so they'll do a case resolution, and then they'll reveal videos that have been determined not to be UAP. In a few rare instances, they'll also put a very indistinct little object, you know, like a little ball moving across the screen, a little silver balloon-like object, you know, observed over the Middle East or something like that. A photo here, a video there that are, again, what they would classify as unidentified phenomena. And usually those are released only because due to the limited amount of data that the video provides, there is no additional case resolution, authentication, or investigation that can be presented.

performed. And so once they have essentially cleared the possibility that they can learn anything more from those videos and ruled out the possibility that any sensitive information is being conveyed by its release, then they release those. And so what seems to be implied is that we've heard for some time that there are better videos. Presumably these do contain information that might potentially compromise sensitive intelligence gathering capabilities, or they may simply convey objects which we could speculate maybe these objects are unusual looking enough that. there are questions still about whose government or what party they might belong to. And so they maybe haven't been released out of a concern or an abundance of caution in terms of the possibility that these might not be alien spacecraft so much as they are, you know, a sensitive kind of surveillance platform or something along those lines, an advanced drone. And the agencies are just trying to keep that under wraps so as not to alarm people, so as to conduct further analysis, investigations, or whatever. We could speculate a lot of reasons why they haven't released these.

Now, what George has recently said is that, again, it had already been stated to him and he had heard and others had heard. Lawmakers, in fact, have also been apprised to the fact that there are some, you know, 40-something videos, we'll say. A few of these videos, examples of these UAP have been leaked. And George and Jeremy and others have, you know, they've put those out there and they've discussed those. and some of those have gone through case resolutions by Arrow too. That famous jellyfish video, Arrow, in their conclusion, they resolved that they think it is most likely some kind of a cluster of balloons that was drifting along.

I kind of have some doubts about that myself, but again, that was their case resolution for that. I'll tachatom, I think, object is what they call that. But many lawmakers have said that there are other videos, and there are some officials who have said that they've seen these videos, and this is how they know that they exist, but they can't get them authorized for release. And so that current effort you're talking about

is apparently to try and determine, look, what are the reasons why these videos aren't being released? Is there anything that lawfully should prevent their release? Because if not, the people have a right to know. And let's stop maintaining secrecy for secrecy's sake. So in conclusion, I think it's important to understand that while we can recognize, and we've already gone over them,

some of the potential reasons why those videos might not be released. What we learned from the past releases of those three historic Navy videos was that they didn't actually contain any super sensitive information. But would those videos have been released anyway? Right? It seems that they wouldn't have been if they hadn't been leaked. So it seems weird, and this is something that people, Chris Mellon and others have been saying for years,

he and I've talked about this a lot. There's apparently a secrecy for secrecy's sake alone. Why the Pentagon seems to be hesitant to release videos that do not convey any sensitive information, simply to keep that information from the public, just for secrecy's sake? Do we have an over-classification problem? The former Director of National Intelligence, Averill Haynes, said we did. And she says that, in fact, the over-classification of government materials in this fashion can at times actually be more harmful than the good it intends to do. interesting you know it's so funny i was just listening to a really old episode of the paracast actually i think 2006 maybe uh where the late jim jim moseley was on and i i got to pull this up because i i loved this quote so much that i texted it to myself let me see there's my grocery list i got my grocery list there i got that oh here it is okay the secret keeps itself.

It's that simple. James Mosley, the secret keeps itself. And I think that's perfect for this, whether it's the phenomena itself keeping the secret, or like you said, there's secret for secrets sake. I don't know.

That just kind of reminded me of having just listened to that like yesterday. So any way to bring back Jim Mosley, I'm going to do it. Like that's what I'm trying to tell you here. He was an interesting guy. I sadly never got to know him. A trickster for sure. Okay, cool.

Well, okay, the next one, this might be, this is going to be a tough one. Now, I can't believe this sentence or sentences is going to come out of my mouth. But recently, Logan Paul, a YouTuber slash W.W.E. wrestler brought forward a video a quote unquote mythical video that a gentleman named chuck

clark had shown james fox almost 30 years ago um logan paul went to chuck clark's home to witness this alleged incredible ua if ufo uap video and uh secretly recorded it on a button camera that he had, I guess presumably stole the video, had offered Chuck Clark $100,000 for the video after seeing it. And Chuck Clark said, no, he didn't take the money. He said, no, no, I'm not giving it to you. I'm sorry, you can see it, but that's about it. Logan Paul would hold on to this button camera video for almost three years at that point. And the UFO community was like, come on, man, we want to see this. We've been waiting to see this video since James Fox has been

talking about it. Blah, blah, blah. The video's been released. The video has been released. Logan Paul shared it with Bob Lazar on the Jesse Michaels American Alchemy podcast.

Bob, check this out. I have in my possession UFO footage that has a story behind it that is compelling. but not convincing. And I've been waiting to do something with his footage or receive confirmation of sorts. And I see this particular orange disc sometimes in UFO videos and documentaries.

It pops up every now and then. But when I was watching the trailer for S4 that you guys released, about 80% of the way through the trailer, you guys show a disc that is at night, but then kind of coats itself in this orange. Right. I think that's right. Yeah.

Dude, I paused it there and I said, oh my God, that looks exactly like the footage that I have. So this footage, supposedly authentic, was taken by two college kids who wanted to go to Area 51 in the 90s, I believe it was 1995, and filmed their experience of trying to see if they could stumble upon a UFO or just alien activity of sorts. Let's break this down. A couple of college-age guys drove out to the black mailbox, an infamous landmark entrance point to area 51. It's along the road that leads to Groom Lake, extremely close to where Bob said he worked. It's nighttime. They're parked right in front of the fence surrounding the secret facility. The lights are off on their car, and they have a camera resting on the armrest pointed through the front windshield.

And then it cuts to under the dashboard, and you see something very clearly illuminating the top of the dashboard, and they're like hunkered underneath the car, and they're whispering to each other. Like, I think it's out there. Like, I don't know what it is. Maybe we should go out there. And they're like, kind of scared. Then something appears just beyond the glass.

The craft is hovering extremely close to the car. It's orange and slightly wobbling or undulating in place as if it's on a wave. you can hear the two guys whispering. Yeah, that to me is exactly how it was described by Bob. It's exactly like you're handed. You're handed. It's moving the right way. It's the right color and it's the right shape.

So it makes it very compelling. The intensity of the light, there's something very, very bright that is affecting that. The dash is being lit. It's the dash of the vehicle and the craft is above it. Right. And look at the intent. Here's the dash. the intensity of the light that's going to happen here.

Right. Whoa. There. Those are really... Yeah, and it's fading. You can't fake that. You can see that it wobbles. But it wobbles.

It wobbles. That's the important thing. Yeah, so it does comport with your video. It wobbles. It glows like that in that color, in that shape. That's wild, dude. Yeah, I mean, it's wild. So now the world has seen the Chuck Clark UFO video.

So that was way more than two sentences, but my question for you is, have you been following any of this story, convoluted story? What did you make of the release of the Chuck Clark UFO video? And is this even worth having a conversation about on the UAPD brief? You asked about it earlier today, and I told you at that time I had not watched this video and had not been following that. And so, because you wanted to talk about it, I went and I looked at it. and I immediately became appraised of the reason why I hadn't been following this. You know, we have been so conditioned, especially in the UAP community, to await the next big revelation. And it's to the point that it has become itself a sort of a meme.

The next big thing, it's on the way. Right around the corner, folks. And, you know, very seldom when people have sat there and told us that there's a big secret on the way, have there been actual goods delivered? And in the instances where they have been, once there was a final revelation and something comes out, it was usually, not always, but usually pretty underwhelming. This was one of those times. And I think that the lesson that has been learned here is, you know, there's always going to be the group of people who think that, you know, they're going to get something and I've got to put this out. But before I can put it out, I've got to

hint at it maybe for weeks or even several months for whatever reason. And then once we finally put it out there, you know, the buildup, hopefully is going to propel this into the stratosphere. That usually doesn't end up happening. And I realized that in this case, it wasn't quite so much that. It was really more of a somebody said that they had seen it. They tried to obtain the video. They couldn't because the initial, you know, the person who had the video wouldn't release it.

But again, James Fox, you know, our friend and the filmmaker, he had seen this. And then when the video came out, he said, yeah, that appears to be the video that I'd seen too. But the rest of us are kind of watching the video and saying, well, I mean, what is that really? That could be almost anything. It's certainly not the best UFO film we've ever seen. I have seen some fairly good videos of UFOs and some pretty good photographs of UFOs, and many of them are available online. And people are so desperate to try and get the government to release the videos they have.

but we've seen a bunch of them already, haven't we? And when we've seen those videos, I mean, usually those videos too are kind of underwhelming, and they leave a lot more to the imagination than the potential questions that they might answer. I mean, I would say one of the best videos, in my opinion, still, to this day, is the Tick-Tac. And yet even that one is very much, you know,

the kind of, you know, Roershack test, because the skeptics will still look at that object in the video, and they'll say, well, that could be a couple of jets, That could just be a distant 747. The believers tend to say it is a vessel piloted by alien beings. Then there are some in the middle who try to say, well, what if it was an experimental drone? What if it was a kind of a balloon? My personal opinion is it appears to be an object in that video.

It does not appear to be a distant aircraft like a jet or a 747. There appears to be clearly light reflecting off of the upper surface of the object and then shadowed portion beneath, which implies three dimensions and of course its general shape. It's not even like fuzzy. I mean, the video is fuzzy, but I mean, you can distinctively see a pill or a tick-tack shape

with those kinds of spatial qualities that give it a three-dimensional appearance, light reflection, etc. There's an object right there. And again, it's very important to know the history. The history of euphology has described craft of that essential kind of shape and description for decades.

Now, does that mean that the Tick-Tac object is an alien spaceship? It does not. It absolutely does not. We don't know what that is, but I still think that's a pretty good video. It's a really good video by UFO standards. And yet, much like the infamous Patterson Gimlin film from Bluff Creek, California back in the 1960s that purportedly showed a female Sasquatch in which now many are coming around to believing it was probably a hoax. And that's another discussion for another time. These videos will never settle to the debate. Even the best video will never settle the debate. That is the big takeaway. So, you know, it's unfortunate that yet again, the carrot's been dangled. This video's dropped. It's not what many people hoped it would be. I wouldn't have definitely would have tried to offer somebody $100,000 for this video. But like every video essentially that comes out, it's not going to be enough to move the needle. It just isn't. What will move the needle? I don't think that's going to be coming from the government anytime soon either. I think that's the whole message, James Katzky was trying to convey.

Researchers get out there and do research. Get out there and study the phenomenon. That's how we will move the needle. But this video sure is hell didn't. Amen. Amen, man. Yep, no video will ever do it. You know, we did cover the Patterson Gimlin thing on one of our live streams about the possible debunking of that and everything.

And yeah, that documentary is going to make some waves when it eventually comes out to the public. But you're right. there will be the people, no matter how much evidence is put in front of them, will still believe that video to be authentic, and there will be those who don't. And that goes for all these UFO videos as well. So I cannot agree with you more. Yeah, just keep doing the research. Keep going out there and looking in the skies.

Don't depend on a 30-plus-year-old fuzzy video that's going to bring forth this truth because we have no prominence of the video. We have no source. We have no raw data. It doesn't matter. It's just what it's just a video. Well, you know, but Ryan, let me add one thing to that though, too, because there's a fascinating thing about human nature when it comes to. I mean, the old saying goes, the eyes see and the mind believes, right?

And magicians use this to great effect, you know, by watch this hand, but there's something that's being, you know, palmed in this hand. and then boom, you know, I'm a terrible magician here. I'm trying to, but anyway, you know, slide of hand. I liked it. That's used by magicians to, you know, to create illusions where you can misdirect a person to create the illusion of something happening that's not really happening. And that all comes down to perception and the way that our minds, you know,

look at imagery or follow, you know, events and the way that the mind tries to discern patterns in terms of events that are unfolding and things that we're seeing. How many times have you gotten a photo sent to you from somebody saying, Mr. Sprague, I know you're a recognized international authority and a brilliant one who studies UFOs, and I want you to look at this photo of this UFO I've got.

And if you look really closely, you can see the little porthole windows, and I think there's a little tiny little baby man standing at the window peering out at me, and I can see his eyes, you know, and a little bit of his nose. when you look at the picture and you know you see maybe a bird that was flying by right i mean how often has that happened same deal you know i'll be at a conference and somebody will say i know them

saskwatches exist and how i know it is because then them them buggers have been coming out on my property and i can show you the pictures i'm like let's see it i've been waiting for this show me the goods and then of course they pull out the picture and here's a picture of the woods behind their house and all right here you see right there if you're looking between those two trees you see you can see his eyes peering out and he's like, he's peeking out at me. And I'm like, and I don't usually respond. I don't want to hurt people's feelings when I'm looking at a shadow or I'm looking at a log or I'm looking at some leaves, you know, and that effect known as paradolia comes together where we put together patterns and our mind interprets and then we see things that we want to see.

And often people do that with UFO imagery and other kinds of alleged phenomena, ghost photographs, all kinds of things. Intriguingly, I do see at least some skeptics also look at UFO photographs that are ambiguous enough that we don't really know what they are, but which are open to interpretation. The Tic Tac's a good example. I mean, to me that looks like a pill-shaped object that is three-dimensional. You can see curvature, the reflection of light off of the object. And it was something, a physical object that was out there, whatever it was, a few miles away.

And the weapon systems officer on board that F.A. 18 Super Hornet at that time, Chad Underwood thought that it was important enough to try and film that with the Appfleur targeting pod. I don't look at that and say 747, you know, distant afterburners of a jet. Now, there are some mechanisms by which the distortion of those things as viewed through a technology like the Atfleur might give the impression of a physical tangible object. That's conceivable, but it doesn't seem that that's what's happening in that case. My point being, the human tendency to want to see, right, and then believe what you're, seeing, the way that we deceive ourselves, that's not just something that the wild-eyed believers do. I mean, I think all humans, to an extent, tend to do that. And it can be really, really

tricky at times to be able to look at a photo or a video and to really see what is being conveyed. So to the credit of those who had talked this recent video up, I mean, it could be that in their mind's eye and them looking at that video and seeing it for the first time, it really was the most incredible, impressive UFO video they'd ever seen. Great. And the rest of us, we were like, you know, because we got that high expectation, we got our hopes up. It was an inevitable letdown. But again, I think that comes down in large part to the way that everybody tends to see what they want to see. And I'll just tell you, that phenomenon is not relegated exclusively to the visual faculty, okay? People seeing what they want

to see, that applies to our general mentality and outlook on these things, too. Absolutely. You know, and again, it's like me going into that Lakatsky interview. I was already going in being like disinfo agent, disinfo agent, you know, defense intelligence agency. And that's what I would hear in the interview. Yeah. It would take you bringing this up and dissecting it and me going back to re-listen to it to really, you know, get to the core of what he was talking about. I think he's the same with these videos.

James Fox saw it. 30 years ago and acted on emotion. It was probably exciting. It was probably really interesting. Same with Logan Paul. I won't take that away from him. He probably was like, oh, my God. But then upon review, and as time goes on,

and the more you look at these things, you know, you would hope that you would become a bit more critical of it. And I think you're right. I think that needs to be at the forefront. Not so much emotion and like, I'll want to see something. But like look at it and be humble enough to be like, I think I was wrong on that.

Well, but yet again, when this video leaked and I'm seeing people posting about it on Reddit, inevitably, I'm seeing people say, the grift is real. Here we go with the grift. And I'm like, you know, that's become your default position. And half the people who use that term have never actually looked it up to try and actually, like it generally essentially equates to small time swindling. Like grifting, in fact, actually, I want to make sure I don't misspeak here. So you know what? Let's open up our...

Where is my damn dictionary around here? I've got it here somewhere. But anyway, let's see if I can open it like this. Okay, well, never mind. I won't do it right now. The point is, I'm going to go off memory. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong later. But my understanding is that Gryft essentially applies to like the idea of like, you know,

small time petty theft or somebody working a, you know, a shady deal, right? And trying to apply that broadly to everybody who is studying UFOs first of all is in most cases a misuse of or misinterpretation of the meaning of that word. But it's also just become this like kneejerk kind of a thing. Everybody who studies UFOs, you know, we call them a grifter. And people have overused that term to the point of just, I'm just over it. At this point I even care what the meaning of the word is so much as the fact that it's just become people's default position. No, we don't have to call them grifters.

The video was a letdown, but most of them are these days. My takeaway from this, I'm not going to go online. do a whole show about it and complain about it. You know, I'm going to go say, listen, let's go and let's do a better job as researchers. Let's collect better data. Let's, once we have it, present better evidence. But let's just also remember that human, that all too human tendency to want to see things and then believe what we've seen and then go fight about it on social media afterward. Yeah.

Exactly. Exactly. Well, hey, I would love in just a moment to move over to Patreon. and do some like quick fire questions that are Patreon subscribers had questions for you, Micah, if you don't mind. Yeah, for sure. Okay, cool, cool. But there is one more topic I want to kind of cover with you on the main feed here in terms

of like what's going on in the UFO world right now. And you did a fantastic episode. And I want to get the title here. People should definitely go back and listen. It was called Disinfo Wars Fiction and Confusion in the U.S. UFO disclosure era. Now, we recently had a new documentary come out by director Luigi Ventatelli. I had him on the show to talk about it as for the Bob Lazar story.

Bob Lazar is back in the news, baby. It's 2026. Every five years or so, Bob Lazar rises from the ashes and becomes the big thing in euphology again. So without getting too deep into it and stuff, I'd love to know what you think about this resurgence of Bob Lazar, what you think now about Bob Lazar and his whole story and how it might connect to this episode that you recently did about the disinfo wars and if there is any connection even. So yeah, I don't know. I don't know how to navigate that one, but I'll let you

try. Yeah, yeah, that's an interesting question because on that episode that you're mentioning, I didn't mention Bob Lazar. I actually did not bring him up at all. It's intriguing. Yeah, it's intriguing to think about, I know why you're asking that question in this regard to it. I mean, I think it's a very good and a very appropriate question. But for the benefit of your listeners,

I'm clarifying that that had not been a topic that was addressed. What I focused on that episode, of course, was the idea that there are a lot of ideas percolating in modern euphology. really the ones that are essentially leading much of the debate and that everybody's out there getting fired up about and they're fighting about on social media. And you're going to learn really quickly from a conversation with me like this that I don't have very much time for the silly debates

that are always going on on social media. Everybody's little got-you documentaries and got-you questions and got-you-posts and whatever the little flavor of the month's controversy is. That's not where real research takes place. This is why I've retreated and I have a database I've been building there for a couple of years of UAP reports. And I spent a lot of time, you know, processing data and studying UAP data and also resolving those cases because a lot of them are basic mundane things that can be resolved. But, I mean, I study the phenomenon, not people's bickering. Now, there's a lot of bickering about Bob Lazar, you know, and that's inevitable because he is a controversial figure and he has been for a long time.

And he always will be unless at some point the proverbial flying saucer crashes and the whole truth comes out and it can no longer be denied. And they're going to be like, is that what you saw? And he's going to be like, that's exactly what I saw. It's what I worked on, you know, or that same model, right? That was the sport model. Lazar is tricky because I will acknowledge that the guy's story maybe hasn't at every, you know, point along the long road of his, you know, his great mythos. I don't think it's always been 100% rock solid and consistent. Many think it is.

But it has been consistent enough. Generally speaking, it seems very credible. And yet I have a lot of reservations about believing the story. And I say that with respect to, you know, those who have chronicled the story and those who believe, you know, everything he says. I have to treat Bob's story like I treat anything when it comes to, you know, claims that circulate in the UAP community. And unfortunately, I have learned that just because a person sounds credible and they seem sincere when they're talking, that that does not necessarily mean what they're saying is true. Thinking again about James Lackatsky and again, knowing that he too has been a target of those very criticisms. Well, how do we know he's telling the truth?

Again, we don't. We can only take him at his word. But I suspect, you know, that when he's talking about there are people out there who speak very authoritatively and they, you know, they're saying things. But those things aren't true. I don't know if he's talking about Lazar, but I mean, he's certainly talking about that very same phenomenon that people can seem very convincing and very sincere,

and they can lie to your face. I've had them do it to me. And I've had people tell me stories over the years that I've not been able to verify, but they will tell me something in proximity to another truth that can be verified. And it will seem, therefore, that the first more extraordinary claim is true

based on the second thing they say. And that's a trap that people often fall into. And I'm actually specifically talking about certain claims that have been made to me over the years that seem to almost verify some of what Lazar has said. And the same applies to Lazar in the sense that, you know, I think one of the justifications for the truth of his narrative is that, you know, he says things about flying saucers, but then he'll say something about Los Alamos and, you know, who worked down there at the, you know, the main desk when you were entering the place

or who was scanning the radiation badges or whatever. And there will be some true elements that can be confirmed. And therefore people will say, well, if we can confirm all these things, then his story must be true. If I've got the PDF open here, let me see if I do. Jacques Valet back in his book, Revelations. Yeah, there was something in the chapter that he wrote about Area 51 that talks about this. And in that chapter, I think it's chapter three of Revelations on Area 51,

there's this section at the end called Seven Pitfalls. I might do a show about this at some point in the next few days because this is a really important thing to talk about. Pitfall number one, he calls the transvisity of strangeness. And he says, we're all prone to this fallacy, which works as follows. Someone makes an extremely strange statement we will call A. And for instance, A could be the assertion. I am in contact with an extraterrestrial civilization. When challenged to prove this assertion, the subject will make a second very strange statement we will call B.

For instance, he or she might say, they have given me the power to bend your spoon just. by thinking about it. So naturally, he says you'll challenge this second assertion by saying something like, oh, yeah, we'll prove it, wise guy. And then in the next few minutes, they proceed to turn your spoon from a treasured heirloom into a pitiful, useless, unrecognizable shred of twisted metal. Point being, when you see him prove the second claim, you're like, my gosh, well, he was telling the truth.

And then you believe point A, which remains either unproven, if not entirely unprovable. So again, as Valet pointed out of that at that time, a truly independent thinker on the contrary would have realized the fallacy. The subject has only demonstrated assertion B, namely the fact that he could bend your spoon. Anyway, we can talk about this all day, but these points that, you know, falling into that trap of thinking that, oh, you know, if somebody can, if we can prove one little aspect of their story, they're vindicated. It's not always that simple. And so that's the thing with Bob Lazar for me. I want to believe the guy.

but I don't know that I have seen enough data that can verify his core claims. Now, certainly there are some things that he has said that have been verified, but I can't use that as a justification for believing the rest of the story, right? I can't fall into that transvisity of strangeness fallacy that Valet warned us about, but often, all too often people do. That is a very, very good point, you know, just because B is true, doesn't make a true. You know, I would argue, however, in respectfully, and I talked to Luigi Ventatelli about this, and maybe he's a little biased. He literally spent the last three, four years

with Bob Lazar made the movie. But we brought up the point, Micah, that a lot of the, and there's a lot of things that you can prove false with the Bob Lazar story. But a lot of the things people tend to go to is, oh, the guy can't find any proof of his education here or there. He was arrested three times. He had a brothel at one point. Like, this, that, this that. He lied about this. And we made, you know, kind of the controversial, I guess, opinion that

that doesn't mean that he didn't work at S4 and did it. work on an exotic craft just because the guy had some shady stuff in his past does not make the fact that maybe he did work at this facility

on something truly non-human. So, you know, again, we could go back and forth on that all day long. I change my mind about Luzar every single day. It depends on how much coffee I've had when I wake up in the morning or which way

the wind's blowing. But Yeah, it's interesting. Lazzar is an interesting guy. And if we could just get him before Congress, that's what I, that's what I would truly. Well, yeah, I'll just say this, you know, I can't tell you if what he's said is true or not. I can tell you this, though, just because he's sitting there speaking before members of Congress doesn't necessarily mean that what he's saying is true, right? But again, but let me be clear. I want to believe him. I do. I really want to believe Bob Lazar. I really want to believe Bob. I just have tried to learn over the years not to give in to my desire to believe. And unfortunately, I've had to learn. I have to keep people like that at arm's length. I hope maybe at some point I'll have an opportunity to meet Bob and talk with him myself. But I don't even think that a conversation or spending a few years talking with Bob would be enough to verify his claims. We need more than that.

And we have to understand and respect that that process of verification is often more complex than just, I don't know, he tells a really good story. And I want to believe it. That's kind of where I have to, you know, stay with Bob. I'm like you. I've gone back and forth. But I think I try to maintain that kind of middle of the road attitude about things. Yep. A lot of people can tell a lot of good stories. That's for damn sure in this topic. Well, hey, I'm going to ask you a few more, I guess, personal questions from our patrons over on Patreon and just a little bit more. But before we leave the main feed here, I got to ask, is there anything we didn't tackle? that you think people should be focusing on moving forward with UAP? Or did we cover everything you kind of want to do a get out to our audience here?

You know, I'll just, I'll throw one more in really quickly, if I may. Please. Before we jump over to the Patreon, there's been so much discussion recently about missing scientists, right? Yes. Like a screen of mysterious deaths and disappearances involve some of the nation's top scientific minds. The most recent case involves William Neal. McCaslin, a retired Air Force General, left his New Mexico home and has not been seen since. He is the ninth high-level researcher to vanish or die.

While some cases involve clear-fowl play, others are a mystery, fueling speculation about whether the specialists were targeted due to their proximity to sensitive government data. Now, I don't know if there is indeed continuity between the, you know, disappearances and if all of these people, some aspects. perspective, their work was connected and they're being, you know, they're vanishing or some are dying under mysterious circumstances. I don't know. I do know that that debate began after the very controversial disappearance of Major General William Neal McCaslin. And I recently had to say on my show, and you know, I've talked a bit off the microphone about

this, that, you know, there is a tendency to want to spot patterns and see connections between events that seem like they are related. We have to also remind ourselves that correlation does not necessarily mean causation or causality. There doesn't necessarily mean that there's a causal relationship between events just because there appears to be a correlation. When Neil McAslin disappeared, it was weird. And yes, he had been an advisor to Tom DeLong. And they'd gone to meet John Podesta back in, I think, 2016 during that very contentious

election year. And when he went missing, it was weird. and Tim McMillan and I, I remember he was texting me. He was like, you know, between you and I, I mean, this is really weird. And I said, well, between you and I, buddy, it is weird. It's extremely weird. And then within a few days, other scientists who had vanished or who had died, you know, people started talking about them. And at first it was just one.

I think the number is up to like nine or ten now, maybe eight or nine at least by different figures. Some I've seen some figures actually as many as 12. Based on national crime statistics, you know, again, I, in this, This is all just me just doing spot on the spot math, but I did a quick proportion. I don't feel like there's a lot of statistical significance that can be assigned to the current number of deaths. And furthermore, these deaths and disappearances, noting that there are differences between people who have actually gone missing and then those who were actually either killed or who died, you know, totally different on the case-for-case basis, circumstances involving what led to the, we'll just call the removal of these individuals from the circumstances. and over at least a two-year period, but depending on how many new names have been added to that list,

that temporarily may have been extended even beyond two years. I would caution people deeply about, you know, assuming, well, besides a straw going missing, and therefore there must be some connection, and they all must be connected. Tragically, we finally got the 911 audio from Major General McCaslin's wife to the 911 dispatch the other day. and there was some additional information conveyed in that.

You've heard this by now, I'm sure. Yeah, it was heartbreaking to listen to. This is April. How may I help you? Hi, April. My name is Susan Wilkerson. My husband is missing. Okay.

And it's been about three hours, and I have some indication that he must have planned not to be found. He's left his phone. He changed his clothes into, I don't know what. I think he's on foot. All of our cars and bicycles are in the garage. I left for a doctor's appointment at about 1110, and he was here at that time at the house. And I got back from that at noon, and he was gone. He turned it off and left it behind, which seems kind of deliberate because he's always got his phone.

He has a smart watch. I don't know if that's with him or not. Has he ever done this before? Never, nothing even remotely like it. He's a retired Air Force Major General. He's very responsible, but he's also facing some medical issues. Do you have any video at your home? No.

Has he been diagnosed with any mental disorders or anything like that? Well, we've been seeing a doc for both physical and mental in terms of anxiety, short-term memory loss, lack of sleep. The same dock I went to see today. Does he carry any weapons on him? Well, not generally. He does have a gun safe, and I went to look in the gun safe to see if anything was missing, but I couldn't tell if anything was.

He has quite a number of pistols and rifles. Other than saying if his brain and body keeps deteriorating, he didn't want to live like that. that. But it seemed to me that was just a, man, I hate how this is going kind of thing, because I told him, yes, you do. Yes, you do. Okay. We're going to send some deputies up to talk to you, see if we can search a little bit and see what's going on, okay? Sure. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Based on what we know and what she conveys and having, again, told the dispatcher that, you know, we'd had some conversations and he'd been saying, you know, if things keep going this way, seemingly talking about, you know, I think his memory and some. problems he had begun to experience.

You know, he had seemed to make some statements that she conveyed to the dispatcher that were strongly suggestive of why he may have left the residence without his personal belongings and opted to take a gun with him. That's heartbreaking. And, you know, meeting our fate and the challenge of being a human and getting to a point in your life, as many do, you know, ultimately we all pass from this earth. but, you know, when we're faced with our mortality and questions about it, everybody reacts differently. In my opinion, that is a circumstance that that family has to be able to cope with on their own terms,

and it's tragic, but it's deeply personal. And it's kind of unfortunate, in my opinion, that people are out there trying to speculate and conspiracy theorize about it, and here's the group that kidnapped him, and here's why they wanted him, and here's what its relationship was to the UFO community, or to the war in Iran or whatever else. And now all these other scientists are going missing too. For all we know, maybe they are. But personally, I haven't seen enough convincing evidence

that distinctively links or gives me clear evidence of a connection between those missing scientists. And I know that there are going to be people who will dispute that. I'm going to be the UFO bad man for saying this. But again, we sometimes need to remind ourselves, my humble opinion, you know, to step back, respect families and the tragedies that they've had to go through and endure.

It ain't easy. I'm sure what Neal's family is going through right now. And I would caution people against trying to perceive patterns right now in an apparent data set where there may not be any patterns. That's all I'll say. No. And I completely respect that. You know, I was guilty of kind of following those threads and trying to go down those patterns.

And, you know, I was the, the, the, the, the, the, the, Charlie from. It's always sunny. I had the cork board with the making the connections, and we did an episode on it. And, you know, the more I... Yeah. We all do that. Yeah.

And upon reflection, I was even asked, I'll be completely upfront. The interview that I did with Stephen Deener, the Unidentified Alien podcast, came out today. And we talked all about past cases and stuff like that. You know, your Terrans, your Rendlesham's, all that. But we originally, he wanted me on the show to talk all about the McCaslin, right Patterson connections, all the murders and missing people. Because I had come out with an episode about it. And I thought about it, Micah.

And I was like, no, I can't. I can't do it. To the point where I'm at the point where I'm thinking of taking the episode down. You know, and people will say like, oh, you already got all the downloads. It doesn't matter at this point. But the more I think about it, you're, it's hard because we want, we want this all to be true. And like you said earlier, going back to that want to believe, we want to believe Wright Patterson has been holding all the secrets. And McCaslin was in charge of all of it.

And this is what's going on right now. But he has a wife. He has kids. These other missing people have families. Like we have to keep that in mind when it comes to these conspiracies we can call. in our minds in the folk field. We do. And, you know, to your credit, I wouldn't take the episode down, you know, do exactly what

you're doing right now. Issue a statement. Tell people, look, you know, okay, I changed my opinion. And here's why. I mean, I had to challenge myself to look at this differently. Make of it a educational moment, right? Yeah. Which you can use to convey to other people.

And, you know, Ryan, you're brave to do that. I've got to say, being the person who pours cold water on those conspiracy theories, It will never make you popular. Trust me, I get, you know, I mean, actually there are a lot of people who are very kind with their feedback to me, but I get a lot of pushback from people, you know, and you're part of the conspiracy. And that's going to happen, unfortunately. On the other side of that, too, as you know, I was attacked by Wikipedia editors a while back, the same ones that have gone after Chris Mellon and others and have engaged at times in some fairly shady behavior. And their judgment against me, of course, had been exactly the opposite of the conspiracy theorists. When I get that pushback and they say, I'm part of the cover up.

I mean, if you believed what these conspiracy theorists said, it's hilarious to see the Wikipedia people in their argument because, and again, there's a lot of absolutely silly information. There's straw man arguments. There's some non-factual information, misspelled information, you know, contradictory arguments used against me in my publication, the debrief because they wanted to, to try and build the case for our removal. And one of the hilarious ones was they literally cited an article and said, they have a whole section on the website about UFOs. And they said, look at this trash. And the person, one of the other editors goes, of all articles,

why would you use that as an argument against what they're doing with UFOs? That article was debunking the case in question. And the other editors just said, well, I mean, our point is that they write about UFOs. And it's like, so it doesn't matter if we debunk occasional nonsense. Because we write about UFOs, we're part of the problem. My point in bringing that up, I get it from both sides. And what I have noticed is that whether it's conspiracy theorists who want to just see patterns, or sometimes it's quote unquote big ass skeptics, people who don't really think for themselves,

but who tow a certain line and get their information from certain sources, and therefore they become as ideological or more so than the conspiracy theorists, and they form judgments and opinions of people based on that rather than the facts. I have to give all these people a little bit of grace because I know it's our human nature to do that. But rather than doubling down and never changing and engaging in self-delusion, and at times sometimes even potentially dangerous behavior, right, when human ideology drives what we believe instead of truth, the best thing you can do is just acknowledge it and say, hey, here's what I learned from this. Here's why I changed my mind.

And I might not convince everybody out there, but my hope is that everyone will listen to why I change my mind and maybe you'll consider re-evaluating your position too. It's far more those who are brave enough to do that than what the Wikipedia editors or the conspiracy theorists will do, right? So we here in the middle, we'll take our stand. But again, I think it's very brave of you to do that, Ryan, and I appreciate you doing that. Not at all, man. It's just, I, you're right. And I wasn't expecting this episode to be life lessons with Micah, but it truly is, man. And I love it. I love it. And I think that's important to have these conversations because it does make you reflect on a lot of things. And we've done a lot of that tonight. So I'm so happy with this kind of inaugural series that I have thrust upon you without your consent or knowledge, the UAP debrief. And I thought it was a fantastic and successful way to start this series, kind of just catching people up on what's going on in the UFO world with a very rational individual. who does stay in the middle.

And I think that is what is most important. And what I've respected for over a decade of the work that you do. So, of course, I got to ask you, what comes next? What are you working on over at the debrief with your personal podcasts and all of that? And yeah, yeah, hit us with all of that before we head over to Patreon, if you don't mind. Sure, of course. We're still reporting on, you know, science, technology, space, and disruptive breakthroughs in science over at the debrief. when and where there is credible UAP reporting, we will engage in that too.

A lot of people ask, where are all the UFO articles? First of all, that was never the only thing that we reported on. Unfortunately, there's also a lot of stuff out there that I don't think warrants reporting on. There are some issues that do. And when and where it's warranted, we will jump on those stories. There are some stories that we have not covered recently only because I think they're still developing. and it's very easy to jump out there and just be an advocate and say, oh, look at what this study found or this researcher claims.

We like to try and take the between the tortoise and the hair. We would definitely be the tortoise. And I know that really annoys people, but we try to watch a story develop and then report quality and a balanced perspective. And sometimes that takes time. But we'll always try to do that there at the debrief. Now, as far as explicit UAP interest in my own UAP research,

I've got a couple of projects that I'm working on right now, probably too many, but I do have a couple. I'm not going to make any kind of big announcements about that just yet, but maybe there'll be something to announce since you've voluntolded me about this series, which I'm happy to do, but maybe I'll have some updates about some of those new projects. One I will mention that's ongoing and that's already known, the UAPSidings reporting system, which is available at uAPsidings.org, I'm not the first guy to come along and start collecting UAP sightings reports.

And in fact, a quick hat tip to a couple of people who've done that for years. Of course, Peter Davenport, following the work of Robert Gribble that began way back in the 1970s, but Peter Davenport's been running the National UFO Reporting Center for decades. And in addition to collecting UAP reports, crucially of importance, he also does evaluations. He doesn't just throw them in a database and put them up there, then run statistical analysis and say, look at all the UAP data we have. Like, unfortunately, some groups do this. Won't name names, but Davenport will tell you there was a rocket launch that occurred on that day, right?

I've been doing as much of that as I can with the data we've been collecting at the UAP sitings reporting system. And I invite people if they've seen something to consider, you know, logging a report. And sometimes there's enough data that we can solve UAP cases. but that is an important part of UAP investigation. Not everything that everyone sees that they think is a UFO is indeed a UFO, but some might be. And so what we've got to do is we've got to collect that data, and we've got to honestly, scientifically evaluate

and separate the proverbial wheat from the chaff. So I've been doing that since early 2024. Later this year, there will be an announcement about a official partnership I'll be doing involving some researchers at an American university with some of that data. And so again, it's in the effort to try and promote interest in and scientific study of UAP, just to be clear. There are no ads on that website. I don't, you know, make money off of the UAP sitings reporting system. I actually pace, you know, quite a lot every month just to keep that site running because there are several components and online services that I pay for out of pocket just to keep it running.

I do that as a service to the public. Call me a grifter if you want for paying out of pocket to have a database so that I can supply information. and then we can pay a grad student to actually do quality statistical analysis. I know somebody will, but my point is, you know, that's very much a labor of love. And it is my personal conviction, Ryan, that that kind of work is where we're going to advance our knowledge of this phenomenon. And so that's where I put a lot of my time, effort, and energy. So people who have seen something in the skies and they'd like to contribute to that citizen

science project, you can head over to uAPSightings.org, fill out a report, or send me a direct email. There's an email there on the website. If you've got video and imagery, that will help too. Send along as much data as you can. And for those who would prefer not to have their names mentioned, we can guarantee, in fact, that is a standard practice. We don't include the names of individuals, although some people are like, you know, it's okay. I don't mind if you tell my name, but unless otherwise stated, we guarantee anonymity for people because I understand that, unfortunately the stigma is alive and well and many people do not report things they have seen because they are concerned about what others will think of them if they come forward and so they saw it. So we can guarantee you anonymity, but the data that you have, excuse me, the data that you have, the things that you've seen your experiences may be of use to science and that could help with this ongoing project. So, you know, check that out at uap sightings.org. And then finally, everything else you can find of mine at micahanks.com, the podcast. everything else. So let's see, debrief.org, UAPsightings.org, micahanks.com.

Perfect. We'll link to everything. And yes, you know, a lot of people don't think that witness testimony and reports are data, but they clearly are. We would be nowhere without witnesses. So I commend this huge undertaking that you have. And it will, it will be extremely beneficial to scientists and other organizations. as well. So yeah, yeah, that's amazing. I love that. I love that. I can't wait for everything. Again, link in the show notes for everything Micah's up to you guys. So check that out. We're going to head over to Patreon for some quickfire questions that our patrons really wanted to know the answers to from you, Micah. Cool. So as always, man, thank you for entertaining me tonight with this new series. And I cannot wait to do it with you again, brother. So thanks for joining me. in the skies. My pleasure as always, man, keep those eyes on the skies, right? I love it. I believe that synchronities are messages. I think it's a message from the other,

from the universe. However you want to put it, to pay attention. I tend to not see coincidence. I look for the symbol in all things. But especially when one is having a synchronicity storm, I think it's the other telling us to try to pay attention. And if we do, I think we'll find other strange things start to happen around us.

The more you pay attention, the more the other pays attention to you. At least that's been my experience.