Somewhere in the Skies - The UAP Report and the 300th Episode

Episode Date: January 16, 2023

On episode 300 of SOMEWHERE IN THE SKIES, we are celebrating... the 300th episode! We've hit another milestone at the podcast. Here to celebrate are Micah Hanks and Christopher Plain of The Debrief. They'll be breaking down the release of the 2022 ODNI UAP/UFO Report, their favorite UAP and space-related stories of 2022 and what they are looking forward to most in 2023 when it comes to UAP, science, space, and technology. 2023 is shaping up to be a big year, and we continue to look boldly and rebelliously to an uncertain future filled with more mysteries. But hopefully, a few answers along the way! Read the ODNI UAP Report at: https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Unclassified-2022-Annual-Report-UAP.pdf  Follow Micah Hanks on Twitter: https://twitter.com/MicahHanks  Follow Christopher Plain on Twitter: https://twitter.com/plain_fiction Dustin Williams Art Shop: https://vahalla-studios.myshopify.com/collections/all/dustinwilliams  Patreon: www.patreon.com/somewhereskies Website: www.somewhereintheskies.com YouTube Channel: CLICK HERE Book your Cameo video with Ryan at: https://bit.ly/3kwz3DO Official Store: CLICK HERE Order Ryan’s book in paperback, ebook, or audiobook: https://amzn.to/3PmydYC Tik Tok: https://www.tiktok.com/@ryansprague51 Twitter: @SomewhereSkies Instagram: @SomewhereSkiesPod Read Ryan’s Articles by CLICKING HERE Opening Theme Song, "Ephemeral Reign" by Per Kiilstofte Copyright © 2023 Ryan Sprague. All rights reserved. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/somewhere-in-the-skies. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Summer in the Sky's podcast is free to listen to every week. But if you would like to help support the show, we have a very active Patreon page, where you give what you think the show is worth. In return, you'll get early access to the main show, bonus episodes, and priority to ask our guests your listener questions. Your support truly makes the show continue and grow. So, to learn more and to join, visit patreon.com. somewhere scouts.

Read that report for any type of detailed information. Broadly speaking, when it comes to the types of processes and procedures that have been established, the Arrow office, as you highlighted, has closely worked with each of the service branches to come up with a streamlined reporting system to be able to collect that information. and so by establishing those reporting procedures, what it does, and I think you'll see this in the report, is it allows the collection of data, and more data allows us to be a little bit more rigorous in terms of how we go after investigating these incidents. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response, were you even close to anything

that could be considered a rational thought? Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul. This is Somewhere in the Skies with Ryan Sprague. What's up, guys? Ryan Sprague here from Somewhere in the Skies. And welcome to the 300th episode of the podcast. I can't believe we've made it this far.

You know, when I first started the show, I reached out to a few of our guests that are going to be on the show tonight. And a lot of other podcasters and said, Am I crazy? Is anyone going to listen? Does anyone care what I think about UFOs? And it's clear that for some strange reason, you guys continue to care what the hell I have to say about UFOs. But I think it has a lot more to do with the amazing guests we've had on the show from episode one up until 299 and tonight. So, yeah, what better way to celebrate the 300th episode than with the drop of the UAP report, the long-await? UAP report is finally here.

Did it live up to the hype? We'll talk about that with our guests. So without further ado, let's just bring them in. I will say hello to everyone in the chat in a little bit, but let's bring in our guests for tonight. First, we have the one and only Micah Hanks. What's up, buddy? How you doing, Ryan?

Great to be here with you. And a happy 300th. And of course, you and I've done a lot of programs together over the years where we kept it a duet, but I think for episode 300, we better make this a trace ombres type of affair, right? Absolutely, man. And I couldn't think of a better person than your colleague over at the debrief. And that is the one and only Christopher Plain.

Welcome to somewhere in the skies again, my friend. Gentlemen, gentlemen, nice to see. Thanks for having me out, Ryan. Excited to talk about some nonsense today. Yes, indeed. We're going to get a lot into the nonsense. I mean, you saw at the top of the show there, that little clip I put together from the Pentagon briefing that happened right after the report dropped after.

What's the end part of that clip from? I recognize that. I don't want to say because then I'm going to get a copyright strike. Oh, okay. No, no, I'm just kidding. It was from Billy Madison. Oh, okay. Yeah. One of Sandler's early movies. Anytime I hear rambling happening in the UFO field, I always like to go back to that clip and I thought it was perfect. We'll talk about it. We'll talk about that briefing. We'll talk about the report in depth.

Hey, it's finally here. So obviously, this is what everyone's been waiting for. Two months late, but it's here. But before we do that, I do want to give a shout out to two very special people. We've got James Craig with a $20 super chat. Congratulations, 300 episodes. Ryan, many more. Thank you, James. He's always a huge supporter of the show. And Cheryl, happy 300. You've come a long way. Bibet. Thank you, Cheryl. Very, very kind of you. Guys, we will be taking your super chats tonight to help celebrate the show and to put money back into the show so that we continue to grow. But let's just, let's dive into it, guys. So January 12th, the report dropped the 2002 annual report on UAP was published by the Pentagon's office of the director of national intelligence.

And after a two-month delay, like I mentioned earlier, the report was manned. dated by the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act and was created by the ODNI's National Intelligence Manager for aviation and the newly established All Domain Anomily Resolution Office, as we now know, Arrow. So initial thoughts, Michael, let's start with you, buddy. It finally dropped. It came out of nowhere. You know, we always think it's going to happen on a holiday or maybe a Friday.

They dropped it on a Thursday, which was pretty interesting. but what were your initial reactions when it first came out? Well, you know, of course, I've been watching around the clock and with the past history of DOD announcements in recent years related to this subject. I mean, as members of Congress are leaving for the Thanksgiving holiday back in 2021, there had been the announcement of the predecessor, which actually was the same thing as Arrow, the All-Dame Anomily Resolution Office, but they had previously called it Amsog. and we won't even try to remember the name of that one, right? I think somebody agreed several somebody's that they needed to change that name. But that announcement had initially been made as lawmakers were leaving for the Thanksgiving holiday. It was announced very quietly close to 4 p.m.

The original 2021 ODNI report actually dropped on a Friday, I believe, at like, you know, right after 4 p.m. So we're kind of used to these things happening right before a holiday. We had gotten at least an inkling of an idea late last. year from Arrow leadership. Notably, Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, the director of Arrow, appeared with Ronald Moultrie and gave a brief, they held what they called a media roundtable, but it was a very brief statement about Arrow's activities in advance of this report. And, you know, all indications seem to be that by the end of 2022, we were going to see it. And so the Friday before New years, I was sitting there waiting thinking, I know what you guys are planning to do, right?

We're going to see this report at the last minute before, you know, according to this timeline for 2022. Without it being a holiday or a weekend, we would possibly likely see that report. And it still didn't arrive. So, you know, a lot of people were going on Twitter and saying, well, I guess the 2022 annual report is not going to become a 2020 report. Apparently, its late delivery didn't change the title. It's still referred to as a 2022 report. We got it much later, not just weeks, but in fact, months after. after it was due. But it's better to see it. And of course, as the old saying goes, late than never. That's, that's, you know, okay by me as long as the information's there. But in, you know, summary, the UAP community has essentially kind of responded to this report with very lackluster, you know, attitudes. They are not very pleased with what it says or actually, you know, what it doesn't say. Because if anything, there seems to be even less information of substance conveyed in this report than the last ODNI report. I'm sure we're

We'll delve into all the reasons for that, but I'll just say this. What little this new report does convey is actually a significance and bleak, though people's interpretation of it, have been, you know, didn't meet expectations. It doesn't give us all the details about crash records retrievals, health effects on witnesses, bodies and things like this being stored on ice at Wright, Patterson Air Force Base. No, none of that's in the report, but there is some significant data. We'll go over that. Oh, I can't wait to hear what you have to say. Awesome. Chris, how about you, man? What was your initial reaction? when this finally dropped. Well, first of all, I just found it really suspect how quickly Micah Hanks got his article out on that. I mean, you know, I think that's the second or third time that something that the DOD put out and almost immediately the debrief has an article out. So I don't think you want to connect the dots there, but that seems a little suspicious to

me. But all joking aside, you know, it's more in line with what I suspected and what I was telling people before it came out was, here's where I would think is look at his. So in 1947, when a lot of this was first starting to go on, the military had General Nathan Twining, kind of get a team together and kind of before there was even an official Air Force and look into it and say, you know, what do you think is going on? And so he came back with the now infamous Twining memo. But at the time, that was a private document within the military. It wasn't something that was circulated. And that was basically the big quote out of that memo was,

that UFOs are not fictitious or visionary, but they are a real thing that pilots are military pilots are really encountering. I find that interesting because that's kind of to me what the UAPTF report was. It was kind of a triage, if you will, of the whole situation. The UAPTF report raised enough flags and saw enough interesting cases and enough unknowns that I'm talking about the June 2021 report that they said, all right, let's go ahead and put an organization together, let's get them some funding, and let's really look into this. In 1947, that resulted in Project Sign, and here we ended up with the, as Michael pointed out,

the AOMSIG or AIMSog, and then we ended up with this more formal group. So I think it's almost like in that way, the old report was kind of a pre-report, and this was the first official, the group is together. This is our report. I will say for me, the most, I think we've reached a point that's become the most frustrating thing for me, and I think for people viewing is even way back then, when Project Sign came out with their first report,

which is the analog I'm making here, they supposedly wrote up something called an estimate of the situation. And that's become a very controversial document, whether it did or didn't exist, the first director of the blue book, Edward Rupelt, wrote in his book that it definitely existed. And in that first estimate of the situation, after spending a decent amount of time looking at it, the scientists, military personnel, aviators that were on that team. And again, it was considered a blue ribbon panel, that team they put together for Project Sign,

came back and said, the extraterrestrial hypothesis is still at this point the best hypothesis. So I think that's probably, if I were to say, what's the most frustrating thing here for us? Is you like to think that in military and intelligence circles,

they regularly do an estimate of the situation. And so when I argue with people about UFOs or our own MJ Benayas and I like to go at it from time to time, privately. My thing is always, where's a military estimate on, say, for instance, the Tick-Tac incident? Because your options there are very limited. Either the pilots are making it up, they hallucinated, or they saw exactly what they described they saw. And we can get into that later. Mike has told me he's heard there might even be some better incidents than that incident from some

inside people. I don't know if he's allowed to talk about that. But I think that's the frustration we're at is we're at the point where we want to hear the military, put their money where their mouth is, and give us an estimate of the situation. Say, this is what we've looked at. These are the unknowns. This is what we think is the best answer for the unknowns. And we're still just kind of getting it, oh, you know, in the first report, it was, I don't know, 100 something or whatever, and they had 21 that had anomalous flight characteristics or whatever.

And in this one, it's like 47% of the cases were completely unidentified. And the ones they did identify were characterized as balloon or balloon-like objects, meaning not identified. But just that we think that's the best bet. So I think that's the frustration. The one other point I would add to that is we want to know shapes they're seeing trajectories. Are we seeing video? Are we getting pictures? How are you characterizing a balloon?

Are these all anecdotal stories from pilots and you're just reading the text and going, oh, heck, that sounds like a blunt? I don't think so. I think we're looking at sensor data, photo data, video data. So I think that's the frustration is the public is ready to whatever redactions, whatever security measures you have to take. If you got some cool pictures, some cool video or some cool sensor data, I think it's about time to start sharing that stuff.

And I think if that doesn't show up in the next. next report, I think that's where you're going to start really seeing some backlash and blowback, maybe hopefully even from members of Congress who are saying, we need to see that stuff. This episode is brought to you by Redfin. You're listening to a podcast, which means you're probably multitasking, maybe even scrolling home listings on Redfin, saving homes without expecting to get them. But Redfin isn't just built for endless browsing. It's built to help you find and own a home. With agents who close twice as many deals, when you find the one, you've got a real shot

at getting it. Get started at redfin.com. Own the dream. Absolutely, man. I'm looking at it as a baseball, you know, the pitcher and the batter. We're on strike two right now, in my opinion. Honestly, like, not a single case was brought up in this report. Again, you bring up so many good points.

Like the fact that we don't know what sensors they're using. That's for a reason. Most of them are still classified. We don't want to know the capabilities of them where exactly they're located. Like, we understand that. I think a lot of people are frustrated that there wasn't a single specific case pointed out in this. And like you said, this was kind of, and Micah, you too, this was almost less than the other report. But we have to keep in mind that we have new people within this.

group that is now taking the reins and looking at this thing. So this is kind of their sales pitch of what they're doing, what they're going to be doing. And I do want to bring up a little later with you guys this talk that Sean Kirk Patrick gave recently about how they did collect some of this data and how they are determining, you know, what some of these things might be, balloons or, as they said, balloon-like entities, which I have no idea what that means. I would love to get you guys thoughts on that. But let's circle back.

Now, what was positive about this thing? Michael, let's start with you, buddy. What stood out to you first and foremost when you went through this thing and you got past, you know, the table of contents and the appendix, which was bigger than the actual report? But yeah, give it to us, man. What did you find positive about this thing? Well, despite the 12-page...

in total length. The blank space at the bottom of several of the sections, and of course the extended appendix is at the back, you know, helps to account for how quickly we're able to get our article out there at the debrief.org. And to Chris's point, yes, every time we get an article out very quickly, there are people who say, oh, this is suspicious? Is somebody feeding you the information? Is there an embargo? Now, look, let me be very clear about this. When the report was imminent. We expected it on its due date. Of course, a lot of organizations.

In fact, you'll note, the New York Times, the Daily Mail, and several others, they didn't wait for the report to come out. They went ahead and they published what they had. The debrief made an editorial decision not to publish speculation before the report actually had been delivered. But what we did was what all these other organizations did. We went and we got information. We spoke to people.

I reached out to the Pentagon. I reached out to the ODNI. We collected as much information as we possibly could. in advance. And then the moment that report dropped, we had everything else that we needed, which sadly, and for those who've read the report now, you know, you'll now know, there's very little else told in that report that we hadn't already learned from the media roundtable that had been held beforehand, press statements released by the Pentagon and independent queries that we had made to these agencies ourselves. So I mean, by the time the report dropped,

we were pretty much prepared to be able to get this article out. I'm very proud to be able to say the debrief did so approximately eight minutes before any other mainstream media did. So I'm glad to have been, as usual, the first on that effort and proud, of course, to be reporting it here to you, Ryan, on your 300th. Now, that's, as far as what I see that's positive about this report, yes, it doesn't have all the information that everybody hoped to see. What it does contain, though, is some very important data. Let's go ahead and just get right into some of the jargon that appears in the report. Since its establishment in July 22, Arrow, and I'm quoting from the report here, is formulated and started to leverage a robust analytic process against identified UAP reporting.

Once completed, ARO's final analytic findings will be available in their quarterly reports to policymakers. Now, keep in mind, as per what was legislated in the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act, these quarterly reports that go to policymakers are not the same thing as the annual reports that we see, which are actually a unclassified summary based on a classified briefing, that is sent to Congress. One of the earliest indications that this report was going to be late had been the fact that we were already asking about the report before its delivery. And most of the sources at the DOD were telling us not that, well, we can't comment on that,

but they were saying explicitly, we can't comment on that before it's been delivered to Congress. And so we were like, okay, you mean to tell us that Congress hasn't even seen this yet? And then once the actual report went up, you may have noticed many of you guys out there who follow this like we do, may have noticed that the statement from Pat Ryder, I believe mentioned that this report had only been recently delivered to Congress and now this unclassified summary to the public. So, I mean, I presume that what Congress has seen, although maybe a little more, it contains the classified information, but that was probably only fairly recently released. Although weeks ago, we had been told that it had been in the hands of higher leadership, so it's still a little unclear at this point. But getting down to the details, they note that Arrow's initial analysis and characterization of the 300 66 newly identified reports informed by a multi-agency process judged more than half as exhibiting unremarkable characteristics. We'll get into that in the moment, but note that figure right there, 366 newly identified reports. Okay, as they clarify in the previous paragraph, these 366 additional reports, when combined with the 144 reports identified in the preliminary assessment, that of course is the June 2021 report, the initial ODNI document. they say bring the total UAP reports cataloged to date to 510.

Now keep that number in mind because most of the media, as usual, has been fixated on that. And of course, Dr. Kirkpatrick had told us during the media briefing a few weeks back that it wasn't a significant number greater than the number that had been cited by Scott Bray during the congressional hearings that we saw earlier in 2020, 2022, that is. But indeed, they had, they said around 400 at that point now we're up to 510. These, of course, spanning about a 17-year period. So some of these are historical reports from recent history, some having been collected since 2019, when the Navy and the Air Force began to update its official reporting procedures. But in any case, we have 510 reports, okay, 26 of which, they say.

And now we're only talking about the 366 newly identified reports. Okay, 26 of those were characterized as unmanned aerial systems, UAS, or UAS-like entities. More on that in a moment, because that terminology is very similar to the 163 characterized as balloon or balloon-like entities, and then six attributed to clutter. Now, of course, we have to say that, I mean, even if we've got that many right there, okay, this initial characterization, they note, better enables Arrow and ODNI to efficiently and effectively leveraged resources against the remaining 171 uncharacterized and unattributed UAP reports. Now, let's break this down. UAS-like entities, balloon-like entities. It sounds to me like if they had just said UAS-like entities or balloon-like entities, they'd be talking about, you know, unmanned aircraft systems or balloons.

But the fact that they say unmanned aircraft systems or UAS-like entities, and balloons or balloon-like entities suggests to me that there were some objects that were observed that may have had characteristics similar, for instance, to balloons, but which they could not conclusively say were actually balloons. Think, for instance, of the USS Omaha footage of this object that appears to be descending, and then it appears to actually go beneath the surface of the water and continue its descent, unlike a balloon which would, of course, come to rest on the water's surface, we would assume. So I'm wondering if, again, some of the observed behaviors were best categorized as, in those instances,

balloon-like, whether or not they could say they were, in fact, balloons. that much seems evident in the wording the report where they note that initial characterization does not mean positively resolved or unidentified. No, they say instead this initial characterization only better enables Arrow and ODNI to efficiently and effectively leverage resources against the remaining. And again, I'll emphasize this number. 171 uncharacterized and unattributed UAP reports. Now, here's the kicker. And this is the most significant part. Everybody listen up.

Some of these uncharacterized UAP appear to have demonstrated unusual flight, characteristics or performance capabilities and require further analysis. Now, look, that is much more conservatively worded than what we saw in the 2021 report that's talking about the potential for science advancements needed before we can actually determine what some of these things are. But it's essentially saying in far fewer words, the same thing. We don't know what some of these things are. Some of these UAP may have demonstrated unusual flight characteristics of performance capabilities

he doesn't require further analysis. Take that for what it is. But when we go back and we look at the pre-reporting by the New York Times, Julian Barnes did a very controversial article where he had said in advance of this report coming out, based on inside sources that he wasn't able to name. They all spoke on background. But he's essentially telling the public, you know, most of this stuff is aerial trash, weather balloons, and other things like this.

Based on the numbers I'm seeing in this report, I think it might be a bit of a stretch, just a bit, to say that most of these objects are trash or weather balloons. And those terms themselves pejoratives that have been obviously used because of the kind of, I think, ire that they are going to arouse among the UAP community,

having known those to have been put forward as proposed explanations and often infamously throughout the history of this subject and the study of it. So my take on this report is, although it says far less, and it's worded very differently,

and this is obviously reflective of the new leadership of ERO, as opposed to those who were heading the UAP task, Force who produced the last report. Nonetheless, they're saying the same thing. We may have whittled down some of the cases, and now we're fairly confident that some of these things at least fall into categories where we can characterize them as being

like known objects, but that doesn't mean that they're identified. But there are still a good number, 171, that remain uncharacterized and which may have unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities and require further analysis. Ladies and gentlemen, back in the day, we used to call those UFOs. okay unidentified flying objects. Now, a few things that they're saying that they don't find. It's not explicitly stated here in the report, but Ronald Moultrie had said during the Media Roundtable recently,

we haven't had a whole lot of data that strongly suggests the alleged transmedium capabilities of a lot of these objects. Perhaps we are still awaiting further data on that point, but they do say in this new report that they don't have any data that seems to point to health problems associated with UAP encounters. So a lot of people are upset about that,

But again, keep in mind, I don't think that the authors of this report were looking at the Cash Landrum incident, right? I don't think that the authors of this report were looking at famous UFO cases from literature that's already available to civilian sources. They're looking at government data. And most of these do involve, like you said, Ryan, at the outset, and as Chris was pointing out, information that's been collected with our advanced sensor systems and technologies currently in use by the U.S. military, which we can discuss some of those sensor systems a bit more in depth later. but for the time being, I'm going to put a cap on it right there and just say, conservatively worded though they are, the results of this report are no less significant and they should be taken as such. Fair enough. I love that.

Well, you did bring up, you know, the health risk thing. I found it interesting, you know, this Pentagon briefing. And, Chris, I want to get your thoughts after I play this brief video. This is from the press briefing when the journalist, I want to get her name right because I'm so happy. Brandy Vincent. There we go. Brandy Vincent. She questioned Brigadier General Pat Ryder, who's the press secretary right now at the Pentagon, on this very part of the report.

You know, thank God. She actually read it and said, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, what is this? So let's go ahead and play this video really quick and get your guys' thoughts on the other side. The report says that regarding health concerns, so far, no encounters of UAP have been aligned with serious anomalous health incidents. Congress pushed you guys and mandated OD&I and the Pentagon to look into that, which means there were reports from military aviators about anomalous health incidents. Is there anything you guys can share about what those health incidents ended up being if they were not UAP? Yeah, I don't have any information to provide. I'd encourage you to take a look at the report.

I would say broadly speaking, I think one of the key points in this report, you know, given the potential, hazard that UAPs do present. Notably, there's been no reported collisions of military aircraft, or U.S. aircraft, rather, and UAPs. But in terms of those specifics, I'd refer you back to the report. Yeah, so I was one of those people, Micah, who actually was like, are you kidding me? What about, like, Randall Shum? Like, that was a military UFO case where a person was directly, physically affected by the event. But I think what he kind of points out here is we're talking about, you know, our pilots having close calls up there or having direct physical things happen when in contact with these things. So not so much these cases from the past, you know, the one you mentioned and things like Rendezum.

So I kind of had to temper my disdain for their response to that because there have been health effects by some of these UFO events. Well, if I could just add something on that point, if I could add something on that point briefly, I really I'd rather you get Chris in here next, but I will just add that my understanding is that the current batch of reports that were analyzed go back no further than 1994. And so, again, Randallsham, literally having occurred within like a 48-hour period of the cash lander incident, you know, two of the best known incidents allegedly involving health effects that witnesses suffered. those were well beyond the scope, the area in which the cases currently are being investigated. But again, with the actual signing into law of the fiscal year 2023, National Defense Authorization Act, that historical review period has now been extended all the way back to 1949, as was outlined recently in the New York Times in an article that referenced Jacques Valet in his work.

And again, so we may yet see that. But within the current purview of its research, this current review, the arrow has conducted, its own preliminary assessment following the preliminary assessment by the last team that was assigned to look at this stuff. They probably didn't have historical documents and data related to incidents like Randallstrom because they were just from an earlier period. Exactly. And, you know, Congress pushed Moultrie at this congressional hearing about Malthstrom as well, the Mousstrom UFO incident. And they said we don't have anything on that. And now look at what's happening. We have Robert Salas going to testify to Arrow about the event. So they are being proactive, which I do

appreciate. We are seeing a proactive approach to this and a retroactive approach, which I think is really interesting as well. But Chris, we've left you hanging too long, buddy. Tell us, what positives did you take out of this report? Did anything stand out to you of like, oh, wow, okay, like, we're getting something here. I think my reaction was probably closer to everyone else's where there wasn't really any headway made compared to the last report. Maybe the two things that I'm at least happy to not see are some of the lamer explanations that accompanied UFO investigations by the military in the 20th century. So, for instance, we didn't hear anything about swamp gas. We didn't hear anything about astronomical misidentifications.

and there's a lot of cases where you... Uh-oh. Looks like we lost him. That's a very charming screen gram. Isn't that charming? I'm just going to keep it up there. Guys, look at that mug. Yeah, just leave it up there for the rest of the program.

Oh, my gosh. Poor Chris. Chris, sign out, buddy, if you could still hear us and sign back in. Up there he is. I don't know what's going on with my internet today because I am home alone, so I don't know what is going on. That's the second time I've been dropped out. You're home alone.

That means the wet, Bandits are taking your Wi-Fi out, man. Yes, exactly. Yeah. So, yeah, I think the thing that I found most, you know, if I had to find a positive, which I don't know that there were a ton of them, was that we're at least acknowledging these are real things. We're not blaming it on misidentification of planet Venus or the misidentification of a star

or a constellation. We're not getting swamp gas. So even if we're getting balloons or balloons. moon-like entities. At least there's still things, you know. So, and I think those of us that are the old-school UFO guys and prefer UFO over UAP because we feel that a lot of pilots and a lot of people see physical objects, physical things, even if they're not nuts and bolts craft. So I would, I guess I would give a thumbs up to that. I would also say I like the seriousness of the tone of the report. So even though it's very dry, I'd rather have a,

dry report than kind of a dismissive tone in language. So I guess those are benefits. You know, as far as the health concerns thing, let me ask you this question. If you're Ryan Graves or you're one of these pilots and you're having near misses up in the sky and you fly the most powerful, most modern, most advanced aircraft in the world and things are performing maneuvers around you, What sort of psychological impact does that have? Ryan Grace talks about the pilots on the East Coast going at the entry point to their area of operations, and every time they go there, there are these things sitting there watching them. So I got to think there's a psychological impact that we're not hearing about that's not being taken into effect as well.

So rather than maybe a direct health consequence, like some sort of radiation or something from the UFOs that are affecting, people is the idea that, again, you're the baddest guy on the block in the most advanced military aircraft and things are flying circles around you and they're almost crashing into you. I would think that would definitely affect the pilot's confidence and could definitely, I mean, if I were going to have PTSD as a pilot, I think almost crashing into stuff would definitely be one of the things that would cause it. So I think to dismiss that element of the health consequences completely is a little for us. great. Yeah, I agree. Although I will add, of course, that they do still emphasize the flight safety concerns. But again, that's a little different from what Chris is talking about. I mean, if you were an aviator, if you were any kind of active duty personnel, what is the psychological impact that encountering an unknown technology might represent for you? You know, other big news in recent days. It's actually been brought to my attention in recent days. Contacts of mine have been sending me info, I think, on Friday or Saturday. I guess it would have been probably, yeah, Friday, late Friday.

And then there was some buzz about it among the debrief team in recent days that, indeed, there are some documents that have appeared online that have been released by the Navy related to these so-called range fowler incidents. And although frustratingly, most of the data in terms of the actual incidents and descriptions of the objects, their shape, their color, their flight capabilities and other dynamics reported by military personnel, this has all been redacted because much like the classified version of the 20th, 2021 preliminary assessment, which eventually was obtained through the process known as mandatory declassification review by researcher John Greenwald. And of course, I believe Ryan, you spoke with John about that. I had him on my program, and John and I spoke at length about that. That report gave us quite a good bit more information, but still no idea of what the objects look like, what their shape is, what even their color is, with one exception. There doesn't seem to be very much in terms of redaction about the Nimitz incident. And I think that the very obvious reason why is because now when new information comes out about that case, what little we see.

I think that the folks up there at the Navy and more broadly at the DoD, they recognize, well, you know, there's been so much said about this. All these pilots have come forward. Everybody kind of knows it was kind of tick-tag-shaped. It was whiteish on the exterior. So really no point in removing that information from further data that's released. And so the most recent batch of Navy documents actually do contain the unredacted description of what's obviously the Nimitz incident from 2004. And all the other incidents, everything's redacted, just like in that classified version of last year's preliminary, or the 2021, sorry, New Year, the 2021 preliminary assessment. But my point is, is again, that I think it's frustrating how little information they'll release.

If there's anything we can glean, though, it is that, I mean, aviators especially and more broadly, personnel with our military do encounter these things. They're very perplexed by it. They thought it was concerning enough that they filed a report. In many instances, the reports are actually filed much longer after the fact. In other words, they may have occurred years earlier. But these pilots, now that the stigma has begun to be lifted somewhat, and it's not exclusively pilots, I should really just say military personnel, more and more of them have actually gone back and they've filed reports about earlier incidents describing things that were seen. And you do see references to that in some of the recent FOIA documents that had been released, references to, for instance, there was very little

said about the actual description of the object in the original email, and it's saying things like this that are indicating that people are discussing past encounters or references to past correspondences that detailed these incidents. I'm glad more people are coming forward and talking about it, though, and again, to Chris's point, maybe they need to. Maybe there's a degree of catharsis with that in the sense that, you know, they need to be able to say, hey, look, we've seen things, we can't explain it, we don't know what they are, and we want our government to do something about it. Yep.

Absolutely. And I think, you know, this new language that was in the legislation of whistleblowers coming forward. This is only going to increase the amount of reports that are going to come in as well. So again, thank God we have Congress pushing these things. You know, while I didn't so much glean a lot from this report, it's exciting for me of what's to come. And, you know, what we're going to get with this new. bill that was passed that had this new language and you know like you mentioned micah going back to 1945 even uh it's going to be it's exciting times uh i think this report has shown us okay new groups

here arrows here to stay um they're clearly taking a dry yet very careful approach to this and we couldn't ask for more to be completely honest um i think it's interesting um i do want to um and we want to hear from you guys but i have a couple people thoughts on this report that I did want to run through very quickly because I thought they brought up some really good points. So bear with me guys here for just a few moments. The first comes from Christopher Mellon and it got a little cut off here in the PowerPoint that I have, so I do apologize, but I'll go ahead and read these really quick. Chris Mellon said of the report, congressional initiatives related to UAP are already paying dividends by improving our ability

to distinguish legitimate threats from innocuous balloons and other airborne clutter. Initial progress includes the identification of 173 out of 510. If true, that is a major achievement with broad implications for security. Micah brought up that point earlier. This one was pretty interesting. The government again demonstrated its unique and uncanny ability to transform an inherently fascinating topic into vexing bureaucratic jargon. If the intent was to make the report as,

an anodyne, unremarkable, and boring as possible, the authors did exceptionally well. God, I love this man's snort. It appears their efforts were made to minimize the impact of the data. For example, there is an incredibly stark contrast between the studying testimony of UAP capabilities reported by Navy pilots and the flaccid UAP report language. I love this. Here's the last interesting point I want to bring up. UAP issue is gaining traction and acceptance within the government.

Some incidents have already been resolved and our nation may already be safer because of it. For example, if it is true that some of the incidents off the coast of California were identified as Chinese drones, that is a huge breakthrough for U.S. intelligence that would not have occurred absent the new focus on collecting and investigating UAP reports. That is so true. let's also not lose sight of the fact that science may benefit as well. Having participated in debriefs of numerous military aviators and radar operators, I believe this is a genuine possibility. Indeed, I've spoken with several credible people who claim the U.S.

has evidence of alien technology in its possession. What? What are your responses to that last part there? He brings up some positives, some negatives, and then hits us at the end with, yeah, I've talked to people. Totally. Alien evidence, for sure. Who wants to take that?

Yeah, what were you saying? I think the several individuals thing, because there's always been a fear that we're talking about, you know, Eric Davis told him, hey, I heard that, you know, we got crashed ships, and that's what he's completely going on. And I think that's always been some of the fear with Mellon is, because it's respectable a guy he is and has established a guy he is, is he been fooled? Has he been, you know, this is something. you hear about the whole

latest chain of operations that are happening here is that there's a handful of zealots that have fooled Congress and fooled committee members into buying and into looking into something that just has no validity to it. So to hear him say several individuals,

I thought was very exciting. I don't know if we'll ever get a list. I will also point out that something I think is critical and something that I've been saying for decades, as a guy who's been following this subject for decades, is we are in a representative government in the United States. And the feeling was always if the military has evidence of something incredible,

even if it's just Chinese drones, but they're drones that do incredible maneuvers and do, seem to fly against the wind at 1,200 miles an hour while rotating or any of these sort of things, that at a minimum, our representatives should be in the loop, that are governmental representatives. So I think that's just a significant shift to not miss here, is that at least on some level, the people are in the room, even if we're not in the room.

Our representatives are in the room in hearing this stuff. You know, I agree with all of Chris Smelons' points in terms of the way that he characterized the language in the report. That level of bureaucraties obviously left a lot to be desired. Nonetheless, I hope that the point I made earlier about what the data actually conveys, as well as the apparent attempt at wording that in such a manner so unsensational, and if anything, to the point of being bland and blazze, so as almost too distract away from the significance of the number of reports that remain unresolved,

don't let that fool you. And I'm not saying that there is an effort to try and misdirect. I definitely think, however, that the wording is clearly indicative of an attempt to sanitize, to sanitize the data. So read it for what it is. Look at what the actual numbers convey. No unidentified does not necessarily mean alien, but that's far better than what we were told in the pre-reporting by outlets like the New York Times.

And again, one more reason why I felt it was incumbent upon us as journalists with the debrief to wait until the report came out, to do our own investigation. And I'll just tell you, because I didn't get ahead of the game and speculate and then have to try and justify my guesswork after the fact. I wasn't actually left dangling and certainly was not as disappointed, I think, by this report, as many were. It said just about what I thought it would be. But, you know, I had low expectations from the outset, Ryan, in advance of the 2021 ODNI assessment. I mean, I was on record on my podcast, and Tim McMillan and I had talked about this on several shows. I think you and I'd talked about it on your show.

I was pretty convinced that what we were probably going to see with that report was, most of these things are drones and foreign surveillance platforms and things like. this, atmospheric phenomenon, a few instances. I was actually shocked as hell that they said as much as they did about the potential for their being unidentified advanced aerospace technologies and things that may require science advances before they could be fully understood and reconciled potentially. I mean, that was very interesting to me. And as Chris alluded to earlier, having since the issuance of that report, spoken to some of

the individuals who were involved in collection of data about it, to the extent to which that they could actually discuss it. And I respect these people both for speaking with journalists like myself, but also more importantly for being very careful about what they do discuss and not conveying data that they shouldn't or can't, right, that is protected, because I do think sometimes secrecy is needed. Why? In these instances, it's pretty obvious.

And this new report also shows that, and Chris Mellon points that out in his commentary. If indeed they're resolving some of these reports, and those do point to the idea that there are Chinese technologies primarily, and that more likely or a greater likelihood than Russia at this point. If indeed there are some surveillance platforms that are monitoring U.S. activities, the U.S. has to be careful about how much it says about that. And here I think in terms of what the report is saying, balloons or balloon-like things, read between the lines.

What they are implying is, yeah, there's probably some stuff that we're collecting, and we have a pretty good idea of whose it is. We can't say too much about how it was collected. We don't want to say too much about what was observed, in fact, because we don't want to clue our enemies in on the fact that we are observing them. To an extent, the spy game works best when you know you're being watched, but the ones who are spying on you don't know that you're aware that you're watching them. And so the U.S. has to manage that very carefully.

And that's one of the important reasons for a certain degree of secrecy. So I respect that and the individuals who have, you know, strived to protect that, both with this report and also those who come forward and talk to journalists, whether it's the New York Times or it's the debrief or whomever else that they speak to. So there are a lot of dynamics that have to be understood and managed, I think, with relation to the UAP issue. And if nothing else, yes, it's beneficial that the study of UAP leads to a greater degree of awareness of potential adversarial threats and surveillance that's occurring and how that might negatively impact the United States and national security. I suspect, though, that some of that surveillance was something that we were monitoring and that we were aware of before UAP came into the equation. but what this does is it helps the United States public also have a broader degree of awareness about that.

And also on the issue of what we would call the real UAP, the truly unidentified anomalous phenomena, there's also going to be a greater degree of interest in the study of that, both with government, but also as we have seen as a result of the government's involvement. Scientists have been galvanized. More and more of them have become involved. Avi Loeb, of course, has launched the Galileo Project. NASA is conducting its own review of not classified information, mind you. but information available to the public.

And we also have all these different UAP investigative groups, scientific organizations that are now springing up, conferences that are geared toward the scientific study of this phenomenon. This is a good thing for UAP. This is a good thing for UFOs, if you still call them that. And I think that more broadly, culturally, we are looking at a wide array of different things, but the sum total is pretty good.

I think these are good, these are positive, these are necessary developments. And so again, I get it. People are kind of disappointed. everybody wants everything yesterday, right? You know, today is not soon enough. We've got to be patient. But, I mean, there's a slow drip occurring right now

that I think in time will pay off and we're seeing some promising developments. At first, I didn't think it was real. I woke up to this blinding light and I was transported to another place. Pluto TV. Then I heard a voice. Come with me if you want to live.

There were thousands of movies and shows and they were all free. The truth is ours. It's just so beautiful. On Pluto TV, free streaming of Terminator 2, Fringe Arrow, the 100 NX files may cause excitement, loss of sleep, and sudden belief in extraterrestrials. No credit cards or alien encounters necessary.

Pluto TV, stream now, pay never. We are, we are. And some of those promising developments came from the person you mentioned. Avi Loeb. This came from an article that just released over at the debrief.org, guys. So go on over. If you want to give it a read, I know it got cut off there again. Let me go ahead and read these very quickly, get your guys' thoughts.

Obby says since classified sensors collect government data, the most interesting information is likely to remain hidden from public view. But the good news is that the sky is not classified. And the study of ET objects could be addressed through the scientific method by sharing open data and new knowledge with all humans, irrespective of their national identity. This report alerts the scientific community to the presence of anomalous objects, but it does not provide sufficient evidence about the nature of UAP, which may be moving, accelerating, or looking differently from our technological devices. The robustness of any conclusions about these objects depends on the quality of the data collected.

Moreover, if the sensors are not well calibrated, they would show false positives or artifacts that do not reflect real objects. The fact that ODINI is unable to decipher the nature of a third of the reported UAP, underlines the need for a scientific research program that is based on open data. Even if one object out of 510 reported UAP is of extraterrestrial origin, and this object poses no threat to national security, its identification will be the most important discovery that humanity has ever made. So there we go.

I mean, you know, Avi's doing his thing, Arrow's doing its thing, UAPX is doing its thing. hopefully all this data will be compiled together NASA is doing their own thing um so look the fire keeps burning uh the inspiration's there everyone said you know the 2017 fervor of euthology is is is fizzling and you know we're going to enter another dark age of euphology i don't see that um i certainly don't see that because you got people like avilo being like no we're not accepting that you have congress member saying nope nope nope we're We're not letting you guys go that easily. So scientifically, anything about what Avi said really stick out to you here?

A personal reflection I have about this is, you know, I had never guessed that within a couple of years of launching the debrief, I would be in addition to writing about this topic myself, as I've endeavored to do for the better part of the last two decades. But if indeed you had told me, I'd be also accepting publications from and editing the work of Avi Lube, Jacques Valet, Ryan Graves, Ralph Blumenthal, Chris Mellon, Leslie Kane, as editor-in-chief of this publication. I'd have called you a liar. But again, I'm very proud that these people come to us and see, although we are not an explicitly UAP publication, we are a science publication, and we are not pro-UAP so much as we

are pro-science applied to that as any other topic we would cover. I'm thrilled that these people see our publication as being of enough value to this dialogue, that they want that message brought to us and they see us as a platform that can bring that. I think we've got Chris back now, so go ahead. Am I here? Am I alive? Can you hear me?

I think so. Go ahead, but get it in now. What's going on, man? The only other time I really have this problem was when the wife was in the other room using the online. So I do not know what's going on. You guys have been having crazy weather. Well, sometimes weather, but also on Sundays,

I'll notice that every now and then when everybody's at home on the weekends and they're binge watching Netflix and stuff. Sometimes the bandwit strain can affect it. Plus, you know, we have a... They're football on YouTube today because maybe all my neighbors are watching football. So go ahead, though. Your comments on Avi and his

scientific approach is outlined in that recent offer. I would like to... Yeah, I think that's key. I think Avi makes a good point. I think a broader point I want to take from all of this is that the idea of disclosure has always been a simple one. The government sharing with the people, the

information that it has, right? That's more or less the idea of disclosure. And we're now in a situation where disclosure can, the answer from the government, the military can no longer be, we have nothing, right? For a long time, the answer can be, we don't have anything. Well, now they have a report that says they have a bunch of stuff. And what that stuff is, how classified sensors, photos, video, whatever that is, we now know there's a pile of stuff that the military has, including a number of incidents that they can't explain. So disclosure can no longer be a, sorry, heck, we just don't have anything. And it is now they got a pile of stuff and they're going have to decide how much they can and can't share with the public ultimately. And again,

there's our representatives are in the mix. So congressmen and senators and congresswomen can now look at that and say, you know what, I don't care if it's this one little sensor that's maybe a little classified. Here's the part of the. I can talk to my constituents about. So I think the idea of disclosure moves forward with the acknowledgement that they have stuff. Moving forward. Thomas, thank you so much. Again, guys, for the super chats.

Really appreciate it. Well, guys, let's, I guess, kind of move on, you know, from the report. There's a couple other UFO stories that are equally as exciting, I think, going on right now. a few of which were dropped over at the debrief and whatnot. But any last words on the report before we move on to our buddy Ryan Graves, someone I want to talk about. Any last words on this report and what to look forward to in 2023 when it comes to Arrow, I guess, and the investigations going on.

Micah, go ahead. I'm afraid not. No more words because, you know, at this point, we're already about three times as many words as there were in the actual report itself. So we'll just leave it at that. wasn't hard to do. Yeah. That's fair, brother. Chris, Eddie, where's the report before we move on, man? You know, I reached out to Dee Dean Johnson, who's looked at a lot of the legislation involved and everything, and I tried to figure out, does this reset the dates at all? You know, since we were expecting a report at the end of October,

and that thing was 70 plus days late, does this reset when we might get the next report or when this next annual report might come? and he says it's not completely clear, and I'll do a little more discussion of this on a show later this week that we're doing at the debrief. But it doesn't appear that it's going to change the reporting timeline moving forward, that we will probably still look for another annual report probably sometime in June. Yeah, I'll just add to that, by the way, Chris, again, what's actually mandated by Congress in the National Defense Authorization Act? those dates still apply whether or not these agencies comply with that and as we've seen they don't and often in fact outside of uap that happens you know this is this is a fairly common occurrence so yes the the official reporting dates as mandated by congress remain in effect whether or not they choose to adhere to those and and actually deliver on time yeah and i'm telling you guys over there at arrows if i don't get at least one case in the next report i'm done He's quitting your apology. Telling you, I'm done. Someone can buy somewhere in the skies for me.

I'm done. Telling you. All right. Let's move on. Another story that broke at the debrief was a opinion piece by Ryan Graves, one of the pilots from the East Coast incidents. You know, we've seen him on television. We've seen him in interviews.

He's going to be coming out with a podcast, which we have the trailer for. I'm going to show a little bit later here. But, Micah, tell us a little about how this all came about and what this piece was over there. I feel like we're living in the year of, you know, aviation safety and UFOs. So get it to us. I'll be happy to speak on that point, but you might ask Chris first because actually we have Chris to thank for. Oh, fantastic.

To contribute that to us, yeah. Yeah, please. It was just a timing thing. You know, I spoke to Ryan last year when he spoke at the AIAA conference. about safety and aviation safety. And so I just kind of kept tabs on what he's talking about on the internet. And when he came out and complained that the Wall Street Journal had run these really biased articles and that he had offered a response as a guy who's actually in the trenches,

who somebody's actually been out there with other aviators experiencing these situations. And he just jumped on Twitter and said, I can't believe they're turning down my article. And so I just jumped on and told him, hey, at the debrief, we'll definitely run it and reach out to our editor-in-chief Micah Hanks. Somehow those two gentlemen got together within, I don't know, 36 hours that article was up. You know, we generally don't reach out to people and say, hey, we'll definitely run your article having never read it or seen your writing. And regardless of points you make. But in truth, seeing Chris express to him, he said, in his story, he's true.

tweet, you know, our editor-in-chief would be interested in talking with you about that. And so I did reach out to Ryan. And I said to him, I said, if you would be interested in submitting your essay, we'll consider it for publication. That's, of course, the process, the editorial kind of standard that we always hold. And I want to express gratitude, not only to Ryan to agreeing to do that, but also to Haley Morris, who is assisting with the AIAA's UAP community that Ryan is currently the chair of. Haley is really a great individual in terms of her work behind the scenes, helping to edit a lot of different contributions by bigger names. And again, we need people who are helping those who are delivering the message to make their

message as concise and as accurate as possible. So once Ryan had submitted his op-ed, I'll give a bit of background on that in a moment, but, you know, Haley and I admittedly went to work on the editorial process. And as we would treat any op-ed, length considerations, you know, grammar, everything like that, you know, it underwent the exact same edit. process that any submission or anything that, you know, Chris or I or one of our team would submit to the debrief for publication underwent. And that said, the finished product to me was something that I felt as an editor was extremely powerful. Chris really hit the nail on the head when he said, you know, this guy had been out there in the trenches. And I think, you know,

Holman Jenkins Jr., who is an editor there at the Wall Street Journal, who had written several op-eds about UAP and taking a fairly dismissive attitude, again, preemptively, prior to the report being released, arguing that most of these things appear to be balloons and drones and things like this. Look, Mr. Jenkins is entitled to his opinions like anybody else is, and I don't fault him for having those opinions. The issue I did have was that after several of these, here we have a former F.A. 18 Super Hornet fighter pilot who served in the U.S. Navy. I happen to know very well Ryan Graves' background. I happen to be very familiar with

some of the operations that he assisted in in the Middle East and what have you. And when it comes to our military servicemen and women, I have a profound respect for their efforts in the furtherance of the American way of life and you're really truly internationally speaking, you know, the sustainment of order, right, peace and all the things that we hold dear, we should, at least, as a 21st century society, a global citizenry, you might say.

So all that said, I mean, this is a message that's important to everybody, not just Americans, but I was a little dismayed that the Wall Street Journal didn't seem to think it was important enough to take the words of a U.S. pilot, you know, a military member who has had these experiences himself, and see that as being as important for publication as the opinion of an editor who has an obvious bias against this subject. And so if Mr. Jenkins has his right as he does to have his opinions and to publish them, I think it's only fair that Brian Graves, people like that who have had these experiences themselves and who have experienced them while in the line of duty, he should be able to have his say as well. That's fundamentally important. And so for those, and no one really did, but I would just say that for those, because I'm sure they're probably

some who would say, well, the debrief tends to be very much more biased, you know, toward pro-UAP. Although we often do feature what I would say is commentary that advances the narrative on UAP, especially as it relates to science, when the Ukrainian UAP study came out, which we were the first to report on, by the way, when that came out, and then the Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences came out and said we've actually essentially dismissed this entire study, nobody reported on that side of the story. after being the first to report on that, then we were the only media outlet that I know of

that talked about the fact that the study was essentially rejected and finally got a quote from the actual principal author of that study. With a lot of these pilot sidings, and again, taking the pilot safety issue very seriously, the so-called racetrack UAP thing when that broke several weeks ago, there's another side of that story too because it became abundant in the clear in the days and the weeks following those initial reports that a lot of these pilots

were seeing Starlink satellites. And so, Ryan, like you've done in the past, having McWest on your program and being open to dialogue from both sides, which is fundamentally important to me, I think we have to be able to hear both sides of the story. Yeah, we also featured commentary from Mick West, commentary from aviation professionals. Ryan Graves offered a quote for that, and we told the other side of that story. Yeah, some of these UFO sightings actually have a more prosaic explanation, but there's still an underlying theme. that unites all this, and that is that there are aviation safety challenges that result from pilots seeing things they can't identify and being potentially distracted by these objects. So we take pride in trying to tell the other side of the story in various different cases, which may not always fall in step with people's biases toward this subject. When Holman Jenkins and the Wall Street Journal repeatedly offered a one-sided view on the topic, if their publication wouldn't balance that equation, the debrief chose to.

And so we were proud to publish Ryan Graves' op-ed, where he did outline all these aviation challenges, not only the military personnel, but also the commercial pilots face. And I'm so happy you did that, you know, to give him that opportunity to do so. Because, again, I can't stress how many, you know, every time I go on a plane, I'm so like, I'm inspired to, you know, on the way out, ask the pilot, you know, have you ever seen anything or even the flight attendants? I mean, we've heard in some of the articles in the past from the debrief of events where, you know, one, you know, civil aviation plane pilot had to take a nosedive to avoid an object and two of the flight attendants were injured during a UAP event. So this is the kind of stuff that's going on up there. Talk about collisions with these things. Maybe it hasn't happened yet with military pilots, but it sure as hell happening in the civilian world. Well, you know, again, look at Pat Ryder's statement in the audio that you featured from earlier, again, where he's saying that initially no military pilots, and then he goes on to say no U.S. pilots have had any kind of collisions.

That may be true, at least as far as known collisions, but, I mean, there are some other suspected instances. And outside the United States, the incident that you're referring to specifically was a Porter Airlines aircraft that was coming in for landing in Toronto in the early morning back in 2016. the pilots observed an object that they likened to being a large, upright, flying donut that was on a potential collision course with their aircraft. And so they had to override the autopilot and take evasive maneuvers. They did a nosedive, as you described, which caused the two flight attendants on board the aircraft to be thrown up against the wall. One hit the ceiling. They only had minor injuries, and they were taken to a hospital immediately thereafter, so they were okay. But, I mean, this is a case in recent memory that I think clearly outlines.

the fundamental importance of understanding the safety challenges that UAP can potentially represent. And so again, here's some other issue I've got to talk about, all those fine folks out there on UFO Twitter who are saying, drop the BS threat narrative. UAP aren't a threat. They don't mean us any harm. First of all, how do you know that? Did they tell you? Do you have any evidence whatsoever of that? second of all, what people who are constantly harping on the drop-the-threat narrative element, you know, what they miss is in almost every instance where a potential threat is mentioned, it is mentioned just as such, a potential threat.

Sometimes it's also referred to as an indirect threat. They're not saying UAP are armed with lasers and they're showing overt hostility toward U.S. pilots. That's not what's being said. What is being said is that there are pilots who say that they see UAP, and when there's anything in our airspace that does not obey the rules, Okay, that other pilots have to play through or play by. You know, if you're a U.S. pilot and you're operating in U.S. airspace, then you have to operate in accordance with FAA Federal Aviation Administration guidelines. Okay, if you don't, it's against the law.

That's a federal offense, as I understand it. So the thing is, is that if there are objects in our airspace that don't conform to those same standards, that don't obey by those rules, then we have to acknowledge the potential threat. That's what we mean when there's a threat. It's not to try and issue concerns or to try and drive suspicions or to try and instill chaos and fear in the public by saying that the UAP may be hostile, that there's an invasion coming. People fundamentally misunderstand what the potential threat means. That's what that means. That's what the challenge means.

We have to recognize that. And I'm so glad yet again that there are aviation professionals like Ryan Graves, now chair of the UAP subcommittee or community there within the AIAA. I'm so glad that Ryan is trying to raise public awareness about that. And when still in people's minds that, no, there's not a direct danger or threat. There's never been any data that I know of that strongly suggests broadly that UAP represent a kind of a threat or that they exhibit some sort of consistent overt hostility. There's very little data. But that indirect threat as a result of objects that are sometimes in our airspace that potentially may be behaving in ways that could cause. challenges or even safety concerns for pilots that we have to take seriously.

And, you know, Ryan is taking it very seriously so much so that he is starting a podcast. So before we go any further, I'm going to play the trailer for his upcoming podcast. I'm super excited for this. I do want to say, guys, Chris's Wi-Fi has just been super wonky tonight. So he did have to pull out of this episode, but he is in the chat here if you guys have any questions for him. and I'm sure you can reach out to him on Twitter and over at the debrief as well. I do want to mention before we show this little clip here, two articles that Chris worked on over there at the debrief.

One is called Physics Think Tank Proposes Method for Detecting E.T. spacecraft using gravitational waves. Really interesting. That came out right at the tail end of 2022. And in 2023, he just came out with an article called Rocky Exoplanet, nearly the same size as Earth found in Stars' capital zone. So again, Christopher Plain, head of science over there at the debrief,

is just bringing the ET question to the forefront. Please go check out those articles. And a huge thank you to Chris for attempting to join us tonight. We did get some really good thoughts from him on the UAP report. So thank you, Chris. Thank you. Let's go ahead and play the clip for Ryan Graves' podcast, Micah. And then we'll come back on the other side,

with another piece that just dropped at the debrief from a very prominent UFO researcher. But yeah, let's go ahead and play this. Hi. My name is Ryan Graves, and I used to fly one of the world's most advanced fighter jets, the F-18 Super Hornet. In 2014, our sensors regularly detected unidentified aerospace phenomenon or UAP in our working areas off the coast of Virginia Beach. There were so many out there that we even had to cancel our training missions. And by 2021, there were 11 documented near misses with UAP. Since our sightings, I've kept asking about our experiences.

To continue the conversation, I've created Merged, a podcast exploring the phenomenon through the lens of pilots, scientists, and innovators to enable rational, science-first, yet radically open-minded exploration of the phenomenon and the efforts underway to understand it. This is an engineering problem, not sci-fi. More than just a podcast, Merge is for people ready to make a difference on the UAP. topic. We're creating a platform for pilots past and present to share their experiences. Together, we'll move this forward.

Buckle up. Buckle up, baby. Another UFO podcast, guys, just when I thought we were safe, Micah. Now we've got Mr. Graves coming into our territory, but I can't wait. The more, the merrier. The more... I was going to say... And, dude, like, you know, you and I have been doing this forever.

the thing I love about the podcasting world, maybe not UFO Twitter so much, although I've made some amazing friends there, but the podcasting world is, it's so supportive. And we just build each other up. You know, when Andy over at that UFO podcast came out,

everyone was like, look out, Sprague, look out, Hanks, you've got some competition. We don't see it that way. Andy and I are like the closest to friends. He was in the chat here earlier. We only help each other. So, yeah, what do you think?

He's coming out with Merge. Well, first of all, I'm, first of all, I'm thrilled, and all your points are spot on. Again, the more the merrier. In my view, we need more dialogue in this area. And again, you know, the Wall Street Journal and other publications have a right to publish what they deem fit for publication. They are not required to have to feature perspectives of those, you know, like Ryan Graves or anybody else. And as much as the debrief tries to, where applicable and where it can be done responsibly, we try to offer a perspective. you know, from those as well as skeptics, you know, who want to weigh in on this subject.

The podcast environment is great because it has the ability to provide long-form discussion about these issues. And Ryan's is a voice that, you know, is all, I think, pretty evident at this point. It's a voice I think that we need more of out there. I'm glad to see him going on shows like Lex Friedman and Joe Rogan's podcasts. But him having merged is going to be just another step toward removing this stigma. That's the resounding message in pretty much all of Ryan. work right now as he's saying, you know, let's take this issue seriously and how it relates to aviators, but let's remove these stigmas so that they're willing to come forward and talk

about this. And so, you know, he very much one of those pilots, the first really, outside of Dave Fravor and a few of the other notable early, you know, focuses of those New York Times, that first article from 2017, but the very next one, the follow-up in 2019, right there front and center, there's Ryan Graves in the New York Times. He was the first to come forward about the 2014-2015, U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt incidents and to say, hey, you know, our military still having these encounters, they're still seeing things they can't explain. I'm very glad to say, I've got a call with Ryan tomorrow, in fact, and he and I're not going to be catching up, and I hope to continue to support the AIAA's efforts and, of course, Ryan's personal efforts in that space going forward

through 2023 and on into the future. Future is one thing. The past is another, and we have a gentleman who has done so much for this field. I don't even know where to begin. I know both of us had the immense pleasure of having him on our shows with the second edition release, release, release of his book, Trinity. And that was the one and only Jacques Valet. And boom, out of nowhere, the debrief drops an article by Jacques Valet. Was it yesterday or the day before? It was yesterday.

Okay. tell us how this came about and give us a little background on what Mr. Valet is writing over there at the debris. Well, you know, we have Chrissy Newton to thank for this. By the way, I also want to mention in late 2022, Chrissy shared her first two bylines on a couple of articles that we did, the first which was talking about the racetrack UAPs. And then the second, the follow-up that was illustrating the more skeptical side of that argument, the possible Starlink connection, which I mean, is unseniable in many of those cases. but illustrating how that's still a pilot safety issue, which again is very fundamentally a part of Ryan Graves' message too. That said, coming over to the Jacques Valet op-ed,

this was something that, again, Chrissy played a hand in helping to arrange. I always want qualified scientists who can speak to this subject, and there are two kinds of scientists these days who are engaged with this topic. there are those who are new to the phenomenon and who have, again, an admirable interest and maybe level of knowledge and some incredible ideas about how we might be able to resolve the UAP question or at least come to a broader, better understanding of it. And then there are those who are the scientists who were involved back before it was cool to be involved and who had put their reputations at risk after having written extensively about this and appeared at conferences. and appeared on television programs and documentaries advocating the need for science applied to this subject well before 2017. There's probably no individual who has been more involved in that regard than Jacques Valet. Again, at the time back in the 1960s when he was actually working under J. Allen Heineck at Northwestern University,

he was completing his Ph.D. or had just completed it. And was a young budding computer scientist who was assisting the science advisors, the U.S. Air Force and what, of course, at that time was already, and today still remains, the longest systematic study of UAP conducted by a military agency. Now, let's just be clear, Project Blue Book was not perfect. Valle has said plenty about that over the years, but in his 80s, still going, still going strong, still actively involved in investigations and still trying to obtain alleged material associated with UAP events and working with. people like Dr. Gary Nolan to analyze these and to try and come to an understanding of whether or not

we can discern things about the material structure of UAP through these analyses. You know, this is important work, and Jacques has been doing this for the better part of his life. Actually, I mean, the majority of it. And I've always admired Jacques. I don't have to always agree with someone like Jacques Valet or Ryan Graves and all their perspectives to have profound appreciation for their views. I've had my questions honestly about the Trinity case. I think a lot of UAP researchers are.

But if Congress is going to say that they're going to mandate a historical review to go all the way back to 1945 and to look and see if there's information that applies to that incident and see if we can resolve once and for all, if indeed there have been record retrievals, the likes of which Mellon and others say that they've heard from reliable sources actually have occurred, I would much rather that actually happen than we sit around and speculate about it, you know, for all eternity, we've already spent decades doing. We've done enough speculation, I think. And so Valet being the trailblazer that he is in this article, it's an op-ed. He's talking about how, you know, he had gotten kind of an advanced look at some of the stuff that came out and that was revealed in 2017. And this, in a classified setting, of course, during his work with the Bigelow Advanced Era or Bigelow Aerospace

Advanced Space Studies who had been the contractor for the AllSAP program back in the what was it, between like 2008 and 2010, somewhere in that neighborhood. And he's talking about that aspect and significantly about having built the Capella database, which, of course, he's discussed when he came on your program and Chrissy Newton's rebelliously curious program and my own show. He and I had a lengthy discussion about Capella. This is not new information, but what he's trying to emphasize and saying that he built this database, and this was a part of what ASEP did, was that, look, you know, part of what we've done here, here is we've assembled a database. He says, I think less than 10% of all the accounts that were

in that database were military. And everybody put so much stock on the military stuff, but I mean, you've got to figure that, I mean, 90% of the best data that he felt that we had that we could put into a database had nothing to do with these military encounters. And he says, I think we may be missing some of the most important data right now. I thought it was very significant to feature that op-ed from Dr. Valet one day after the New York Times featured an article that referenced, Valet's work as well. And so what we often pride ourselves in doing, again, not a explicitly UAP publication, but the debrief being one that does try to responsibly look at the science and how it can be

applied toward that, when the New York Times reported on these developments and Valet's relationship to that study and how that's even been influential in the wording of the language that appeared in the final version of the NDAA for 2023 that was passed into law, you read the story about Valet. But when you come to the debrief, now you get to hear his opinion. about these developments, their significance, and helping to put those into the proper historical context. So again, I remain a supporter of Dr. Valet in his works.

I couldn't be happier that there are people like him who long before it was popular to do so was brave enough to lead the charge and to carry on in that effort. And, I mean, at his age, is still going strong, doing healthy, doing incredible work. And I hope that he'll continue. We really think highly of Dr. Valet. Absolutely. Someone had to step on those landmines for you and I to run forward, man.

Yeah, that's true. That is true. You got hand to him, man. Yep, absolutely. That's really exciting. I was really happy to see his name pop up. Well, let's talk about the feature of the debrief in UAP. We don't have him with us, but he's in the chat. And he's the one who brought this up. So I'm putting you on the spot, Micah. Okay, fair enough. So you could talk about great, if not totally understand. but Chicago O'Hare, a case near and dear to my heart to many out there. Every time I go through that airport, I always go to that gate and just look out the window just in case, just in case. And I ask, you know, the person at Cinebin or the people at the counter or the desks there, like, hey, did you see anything back then?

But is there some developments possibly happening with the Chicago O'Hare case? Is this something you can talk about? I can't talk about that. That's fair. That's fair. I'm just kidding, actually. You know, there's just an article. I was going to be awkward.

Yeah, I was going to, we could do that. We can go that way. But no, you know, Chris has got a contact who we've spoken with, and this has nothing to do with new revelations about the case. I'll just be honest. What it is is it's a potential analysis of what the flight dynamics of the object that was observed during this famous incident might actually have involved. This is an area of, and of course I'm loathe to try and talk about a story before it's been published. I don't generally do that, but since Chris did bring it up, I'll just mention it. Not that there's anything to hide, but, you know, of course, I want people to go read it.

But then again, if we talk about it, maybe more people will. So, but yeah, the idea here is that we're looking at the potential propulsion behind the object based on certain dynamics of the witness statements about this object. And so I think that's a, you know, a continuing theme in reporting, especially in Chris's work there, for us at the debrief. But really, I mean, I am wholeheartedly in support of more scientists doing this. And that is applying science toward trying to understand the technologies behind you AP. So if we can do that, and this is something that in addition to in Chris's excellent reporting on warp drives and all kinds of other propulsion mechanisms, occasionally M.J. Benayas and I will also jump in there and comment on that, but Chris has really led the charge in that area of our reporting. But this is also an effort that's continued by the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies, which is a scientific organization. I'm actually a member of that organization too. And it is important for us, I think, to look at the dynamics, the capabilities, patterns that emerge in the abilities that UAP appear to display. and try to discern what technologies could facilitate that.

Because as we move toward a better understanding of the flight dynamics and thereby the science behind UAP, not only is it possible that we may unravel the UAP mystery, but we may also be able to benefit from replicating that technology, with or without the acquisition of crash record retrievals. In other words, if we can figure out through observation what UAP are doing, we might be able to develop our own systems that can do that. And those could lead to incredible scientific advancements that one day may reshape the way that, you know, not only our military operates, but more fundamentally, really, I mean free energy or near free energy sources,

cleaner energy sources and resources that can be used to help protect our environment and our planet, communication systems, all kinds of different potential technologies that, again, may be very beneficial to the future of humankind. And I've often wondered if we were completely wrong about UFOs and these all really were just swamp gas and weather balloons, and yet somehow the idea in our mind that there was some sort of advanced technology capable of these imagined things, if that were all there were to UFOs, wouldn't it be fascinating? Because it's still driving science. It's still something that's inspiring people to enter scientific fields to become experts in physics and astronomy and astrophysics. I mean, it's a fascinating subject, but that's one byproduct of the study of it is that I hope that it will not only galvanize efforts to resolve what UAPR, but it's also going to lead to new innovations that are going to help us right here on Earth.

Absolutely. You know, I always look at this topic as what we aspire to be. Everything these UFOs and possible advanced intelligences represent, they're always a step ahead. And it's something we can truly, truly, hopefully benefit from someday here back on Earth. Well, let's talk about innovation as we close things out here, Mr. Hanks. what do you have coming at the debrief in the coming weeks, days, months, year? What do you got going on over there?

And let us know where we can find everything if you don't mind. Well, of course, I do want to mention podcasts over there at the debrief. We've got some very exciting announcements. We have, in addition to our existing flagship program, rebelliously curious, hosted by Chrissy Newton. I'm happy to say that Chris, who's not here right now, but who's at home listening. So we've got to call him out. Chris is going to be hosting a series of roundtable discussions with the debrief team, and who knows, maybe some other people will join us and chime in from time to time.

It's going to be a really good time with Chris, because Chris, as everybody knows, you know, with a background in comedy and writing and all different kinds of writing from writing comedy and doing science reporting for us, but also being a novelist. Chris is very diverse in his interests and his abilities. And when he told me, he wanted to start doing a kind of roundtable format podcast where pick a topic and have the team just kind of have fun with it. I thought this is great. I got immediately excited and was extremely happy to hear this,

especially considering that our very own MJ Benayas is also going to be launching a new news podcast for the debrief. So in addition to our editorial production and, of course, the video side of things that Chrissy Newton has really led the charge with. We've got our team members also stepping up to the plate. Chris's thing I think is going to be video, but I think the audio-only podcast MJ will be producing is going to be another content addition that you can look forward to in the various ways that we offer our reporting through the debrief. And of course, you know, for my own part, I've been doing now for more than a decade my own podcast, the name of which is the Micahanks program. It had another name before that many years ago. If people had been following it for a long time, but I mean, it's been going on for half a decade now under the current name.

And I continue to report basically on all the major developments from the debrief. brief there on the Micah Hanks program each and every week, and you can learn all about that at my website, Micahanks.com. Just go to the podcast link there on my URL, and you can find my show as well. So there are a lot of podcasts coming out from Team Debrief, but we've also got some interesting reporting coming up in the months ahead. When I'm laying awake in the still hours of the morning unable to sleep, I'm often kind of orchestrating in my mind of things I want to publish. And there's a piece. I won't say too much about it just yet.

I'll just say that this has to do with clandestine aerospace developments that could perhaps explain some UAP. And this is a piece that I've been progressively working on since even before we launched the debrief. And this, I hope, is going to come to fruition in early 2023, but there are going to be some big developments, I think, with that in the weeks ahead. because there's a whole chapter to the UAP mystery

that is a little closer to home, and that makes it no less strange. And so I hope to kind of dive into some of the reporting on that in the days ahead. And of course, we've always got, I think, some of the very best in space, aerospace, defense reporting from the entire team, Tim McMillan, Chris Plain,

who was here with us, M.J. Benyis, Chrissy Newton, and of course yours truly. So it's always a fun time, and we look forward to what the next 12 months We'll bring, who knows, maybe we'll even get another contribution or two from Ryan Sprague, a past contributor to the debrief and a guy who's written a lot of articles for us over time. So, you know, to everybody who's helped get us to where we are, we appreciate that so much. It's only getting every customer's order right. It's only a point of sale system connected by Spectrum Fiber Powered Business Internet, helping you track hundreds of secure transactions.

And it's all backed by 24-7 U.S.-based customer support and local technicians. It's only everything. Get business internet advantage free forever when you get four mobile lines from Spectrum. Visit Spectrum.com slash free for life to find out how. Restrictions apply. Service is not available in all areas. Absolutely, man. It's always a pleasure working with you guys over there in any capacity.

The future looks bright. And thank God we have you guys reporting on it over there at the debrief. Well, thank God we have you, Ryan, reporting on this here on somewhere. in the skies because again, this is your 300th episode and rough ballpark. How many years has the show been going now? Cheers, buddy. We are going back to, I believe it was early 2016. I haven't missed a single Monday release date. My first guest was Mr. Richard Dolan who gave me the time of day. Thank God as my first guest. And here at number 300, I'm talking to one of my favorite people. And that is you. Mr. Micah Hanks.

You have been so incredibly supportive of me since I naively got into this field of ephology. And, man, you've been just such an amazing colleague, but more importantly, a friend. So I couldn't think of a better way to kind of celebrate 300 with you here. So again, cheers to you, my man. Cheers to you and just allow me to say I'm honored

to be able to be here with you for number 300. Let's go for 300 more. 300 more. Micah Hanks at Micah Hanks. Check them out, guys, on Twitter. Everything else is over at the debrief.org. I'm going to debrief with the audience here for just a little bit. So I am going to let you go, man. But thank you so much for your time tonight in your insights there of high value. And we will talk soon. Indeed. Thank you, Ryan. And keep at it, man. You're doing excellent work. Thank you. Wow, guys, that was awesome. Again, my special thanks to Micah Hanks and Christopher Plain.

Chris, thanks for hanging out in the chat here, buddy. You didn't have to do that. That was incredibly kind of you. Hopefully your Wi-Fi is up and working now, and we will have you back on to talk all about your awesome stories coming out over there with space and technology and science at the debrief. So a special thanks to Christopher Plain as well. A special thanks again to our super chat contributors,

to James, to Cheryl, and to Thomas. Really appreciate it, guys. again, all superchats go back into making the show continue to grow. And I can't thank you enough. And I can't thank you enough for 300 episodes. This is where I'm going to start getting emotional. This show has changed my life in many ways and really gave me a purpose. You know, I'd written about UFOs.

I had an interest in it. But again, like I said, at the top of the show, I never thought anyone wanted to hear my voice. but clearly you do. So thank you. Thank you for giving me your time every week. I still can't believe people, you know, listen and watch this on their commutes to work. Or, you know, I have people reach out all the time

and say the show got them through a rough time in their life. Or I have people say that they put it on to go to sleep to, which I take that as a compliment, you know. I really do. So thank you. Thank you for 300 incredible episodes of the show. Like Mr. Micah Hanks said, hopefully we will have 300 more coming for you guys as well. The chat is going crazy.

Thank you guys. You're so sweet. So, so sweet. I do have some updates that I want to share with you before I wrap up here. We are now an Apple subscriber premium. So for my Apple podcast listeners, if you're interested in supporting the show, this is a great way to do it. You really don't have to do anything. You just go to the top of your.

Apple podcast feed of Summer in the Skies, click that subscriber button. And what you will get is all of our backlog of bonus episodes that we've ever done over at our Patreon campaign. You're going to get all of those. I'm rolling them out slowly and gradually right now. And you're also going to get early access to the episode every week. So, yeah, if you are on Apple or if you're thinking of joining Apple and listening to the show there, you can now become a premium subscriber and get bonus episode. episodes and early access to the show as well. It's super easy. It's like two clicks. Boom,

done. You can subscribe yearly. You can subscribe monthly and you will get those rewards in return. Or you can always join our Patreon where you get the same rewards as well. And that's just patreon.com slash somewhere skies. We have next week Operation Saucer and the UFO Island. This will be our episode next Monday on somewhere in the skies, not tomorrow, but next Monday, where we're traveling to Brazil to hear about all of the amazing UFO events that have happened over there. And I am super excited to bring this episode to you guys. I've been researching it for a while with my co-researcher, Marcus Loth, over at UFOinsight.com. So be sure to check out all of his work over there.

And we're going to be bringing you a very special episode about UFOs over Brazil, titled Operation Sasser and the UFO Island. So be on the lookout for that. And also this upcoming Friday, be on the lookout for a special movie review episode where my really good friends back in New York City, Nicholas Westemeyer, who is an actor and a producer, we produced a feature film of mine called Reverie Lane,

which you can find right here on the YouTube channel. Just go back in the archives, type in Reverie Lane. It should be there. Nick is the main actor in the movie as well. So he's going to be coming on and my other really good friend and colleague, Andrew Sanford, who is a television writer. He's worked with ABC. He's coming out with a short film in the coming months, I hope, if not the second half of 2023.

He is a filmmaker, writer, comedian, everything in between. These two guys are going to be coming on to discuss John Comfort, John Carpenter's 1982, The Thing. And I can't believe I'm saying this, guys, but I've actually never seen the movie. I know, I know. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I've never seen the thing. But I watched it this afternoon.

I'm going to watch it again before Friday. And we're going to give you our thoughts and opinions on the thing. I have no doubt these guys are going to have a lot to say. It's going to be a really fun and I'm sure funny time talking all about this movie. I made the mistake of. eating chili while watching the thing. So for those of you who know the thing, eating probably wasn't the best idea while watching this particular movie. So I'll talk about that, little adventure as well. So yeah, be on the lookout for that. What else do I have for you guys?

Sundays, Sundays are going to be our official day of live streaming. I'm going to be live streaming every Sunday now at 4 p.m. Eastern Standard. 9 p.m. U.K. time. And these episodes will either be, like they are today, the following Monday's episode. So what you're seeing tonight will be this Monday's, somewhere in the sky's podcast. So sometimes it will be the podcast for the following week, or it might just be some fun impromptu guests that come on and chat with me. I might throw the link in so that you, the audience, could come in and join me. And we just talk UFOs. It's going to be super fun. I want to set a set time, which is 4 p.m. EST, 9 p.m. UK to do this every week. So there's some consistency. And the structure will change. It'll be organic. It'll gradually grow into something. And I'm excited. I'm excited for the future of Summer in the skies, both here on YouTube and in podcast form. So be on the lookout for that. Let me go back in the chat here because I'm missing a ton. We've got Grant here. Let's see. Lord.

of the fleet says many thanks Ryan currently reading your book somewhere in the skies thank you so much lord of the fleet really enjoying it when i finished it i may well write you about an experience of my own please please do that is the sole purpose of the book it is to empower more people to come forward with their UFO experiences so please reach out to me and thank you so much for reading the book um grant says sacrilege i'm sure he's talking about me never seen the thing i know metal hendrix says blasphemy you'll get my brutally honest thoughts on the thing, guys, for sure. Let's see here.

Christopher Plain. I believe Ryan is working on the next edition of the book. So definitely send along your experience. Christopher is correct. For any of you who are not aware, I have a new book coming out this spring, probably maybe May, maybe June, somewhere around there. I have to check with the publishers. But I am working on the final touches of it as we speak.

So be on the lookout for the new Somewhere in the Sky's book coming to you this spring. And I actually just secured the artist to do our book design, our book cover design. And I am like mind blown. I can't believe I'm working with them. I can't wait to see what they come up with. Super honored to be working with this artist. If you follow my Instagram, you know them will. I post about them all the time.

So yeah, be on the lookout for a new. book of somewhere in the skies coming to you this spring. It is going to pack a bunch. And I can't wait for you to read it. Just a few more things I want to share with you. You probably notice this little guy in the background here. There it is. There it is. Does that look familiar? This is a print by Dustin Williams of the communion alien. And I was so honored that he reached out to me. and gave me this print. So I am displaying it proudly here on somewhere in the skies. And it's awesome. I absolutely love it. For those of you who don't know, I have a actual bust of the communion alien that I had made from me from a gentleman in Hollywood.

But it did not make it to Scotland. It is being securely taken care of back in New York with my family for now. I hope they hit it somewhere. Could you imagine running into a communion alien bust in the middle of the night? I can't imagine. Sorry, Dad. Sorry if that has happened. But Dustin was so kind to give me this print.

So it is now a part of somewhere in the sky's HQ. Along with this little guy. I don't know if you guys haven't seen this, but I have an action figure, which is crazy to me. I don't know if you can really see it that well. This is from an action figure designer named Charlie D. Perez. Again, so honored that he made me look way better than I actually do, way more muscular and thin. But it is an action figure.

So it is what it is. And I am so freaking honored to have this here in the somewhere in the Sky's studio. What else do I have for you guys? Oh, Dustin Williams, if you want a print of the communion alien, you can order these in his shop. So you can follow him at Dustin Williams on Instagram, and you can find his shop from there. I believe it's in the show notes below as well. So check him out, and a big thank you to Dustin.

What else? Oh, a new season of Ancient Aliens just premiered on the history channel. So you might be seeing my face show up in a few episodes this coming season and a few other familiar faces that have been here on the show. had the amazing opportunity to film out here in the UK for it. So, yeah, be on the lookout for new episodes of ancient aliens every Friday on the history channel or I believe it's on Sky TV in the UK. And look for me and some other people talking all about aliens, not so much ancient aliens, but just aliens of today. Yeah, so there is that. And I believe that's it.

Let me double check. Yeah, that's all I got for you guys. 300 episodes. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for supporting me in every way, whether it's listening to the show, watching these, buying the book. It is greatly, greatly appreciated. Beyond belief, like I said, someone in the skies has fundamentally changed my life and my outlook on this incredible topic that we all have in common, a topic that brings us together instead of tears us apart. And when those answers, finally come, if they ever come, I think it'll be to the benefit of humanity. At least I hope so.

So I hope you enjoyed tonight. I hope you enjoyed our breakdown of the UAP report and all the other stuff we talked about. Again, my special thanks to Micah Hanks and Christopher Plain for joining us. And my special thanks to all of you as always. And with that, I will leave you with our slogan that we say here every week at summer in the skies. Keep your feet on the ground. But Never Stop searching Somewhere in the Skies. Somewhere in the Skies is produced by Third Kind Productions in association with the Entertainment One Podcast Network.