Somewhere in the Skies - UAP Above the Law (w/ Dr. Keith Taylor)

Episode Date: August 6, 2023

On episode 329 of SOMEWHERE IN THE SKIES. Ryan is joined by former NYPD police officer, Dr. Keith Taylor. Taylor's professional experience includes twenty-five years in public service, starting with the NYPD and retiring as an assistant commissioner for the New York City Correction Department. He is currently a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. But he also has an interest in UFOs and recently attended the House Oversight UFO Hearing in Washington, D.C. We get an inside look at what went down at the hearing, Taylor's thoughts and theories on what was brought forward, and what happens next. He then explains how law enforcement can become a centralized and integral part of UFO reporting, data collection, and even investigation. As we navigate what a "post disclosure world" may look like, how will policy and law play into all of this? Follow Dr. Keith Taylor on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/DrKeithLTaylor Learn more about UAPmed at: https://uapmed.org/ Learn more about UAP-PD at: https://www.uap-pd.com/ Join us at ANOMACON 2023: www.anomacon.com Order Ryan’s new book: https://a.co/d/4KNQnM4 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 Buy Somewhere in the Skies coffee: https://bit.ly/3rmXuap Order Ryan’s older book: https://amzn.to/3PmydYC Email Ryan directly at: [e-mail] 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

Hey guys, Ryan here. If you listen to the podcast on Apple, there's a very simple way for you to help out the show. Just click the Apple Premium subscriber button at the top of the feed. And you'll instantly become a premium member where you get all the same rewards as our Patreon members do. Early access to all main episodes and bonus episodes and content. Join our Apple Premium subscription today and thank you for your support. Somewhere in the skies with Brian Sprague. Today, we're joined by first-time guest, Dr. Keith Taylor. Taylor's professional experience includes 25 years in public service, starting as an NYPD police officer and retiring as an assistant commissioner for the New York City Correction Department. He's an adjunct assistant professor at John Jay College. He recently attended the House Oversight UFO hearing.

in Washington, D.C. Today we get an inside look at what went down at the hearing. Taylor's thoughts and theories on what was brought forward. What happens next and how law enforcement can become a centralized and integral

part of UFO reporting, data collection, and even investigation. As we navigate what a post disclosure world may look like, how will policy and law play into all this. Here's our conversation with Dr. Keith Taylor. Keith, thank you so much for joining me for the

very first time on Somewhere in the Skies today. It is my distinct pleasure to spend this time with you. Mine to you, my friend. Now, if anyone is watching the video version, they're first going to notice the hats that we're wearing diametrically opposed, but also on the same side. I'm wearing a Mets hat. wearing a Yankees hat. That is because we both are New York residents. Are you a native? Are you a native of New York City? Born in Queens. Oh my gosh, man. That's awesome. Queens was my place for 13 years. Amazing. I'm a Harlem-bound person. As a matter of fact, I still have a website called Taylor Made for Harlem when I ran for public office. So if people want to find out about my background, go there. If you want to contact me,

do so still up. Still active. I love it. Well, you mentioned background. That is a perfect place to start this conversation because I think for a lot of our viewers and in listeners, you probably are a new face in this weird UFO world that we've kind of cultivated throughout the years in this research community. And I first saw you on a brief interview with Martin Willis,

sober at podcast UFO. And as soon as I heard you talk and I saw that you were at this recent UFO congressional hearing, I said, I have to talk to this guy. So here you are. We're going to talk all about your experience in law enforcement. But before we even get to that and get to UFOs or the hearing, can you tell us a little about yourself, Keith? Sure.

Again, we know you're from New York. What is your sort of background with law enforcement, which is a lot of what we're going to be talking about tonight in relation to UFOs? Sure. Well, I'm a graduate of the NYPD. I spent 23 years there, and I was lucky enough to work with some incredible people in different areas of law enforcement. So I started on patrol in the Bronx. It's a Bronx cop. And then I then was a narcotics undercover narcotics detective in the Bronx. I then went to, I got promoted to sergeant, and I was again sent to the Bronx 4-7 precinct as a supervisor, and went through a process of trying to get into the computer crimes unit, which was really, you know, just getting started in the 90s, and I was really into computers.

And so I went before the supervisory board, and they said, you know, these supervisors that choose, you have narcotics bosses there, the chiefs have internal affairs, you have other bosses, and they get to choose. Internal affairs gets to choose who they want, and they decide to choose me. So I spent two years in internal affairs in a unit that tested police officers for corruption. So they go out and do tests. Sometimes the test would be based on complaints from the public. sometimes the tests would be random tests. And so it was a way for the department to sort of gauge how it was doing in terms of organized corruption as well as random corruption as well. That was interesting work.

I then transferred out to the Detective Bureau, which is where the computer crimes unit was. And I was sort of in the, I was temporary placed in the missing person squad. which is interesting work on its own. But I was in route to going to the computer crimes squad, which was literally next door, just waiting for that supervisor there to retire, which they were going to do. Six months there, 9-11 hits.

And so missing persons has a big role with large mass casualty incidents. So I spent the next, from September 11th to May 30th, working, my work was related around the recovery, the rescue recovery efforts. And work some incredible people from all over the country, an amazing time of seeing the country come together. And it was such a horrible, horrible thing to happen. But it, at least temporarily brought the country together. And we were unified in terms of our purpose. goals and resolve. And so with the creation, the re-aligning of the intelligence agencies and the creation of Department of Homeland Security, I wanted to do something to help with that effort.

After I was in the missing person squad, I spent a few years in the policy management unit of the police department, which is great. gave me a 30,000-foot level of how police agencies work with other city agencies, as well as dealing with things outside of the city. But after three years, two years of that, I applied to and was lucky enough to get into the emergency service unit, which is the unit that police officers call when they need help. So people call 911 when they need help from the police and the emergency service unit is called when police need help. And they do that because emergency service unit is specially trained in many different areas of low incidents that are, that rarely occur but have high consequences.

So if there's a problem with something like there's a vehicle accident, and you need to join the life, you need to get people out safely, these are the officers that respond and help. Or if it's someone who's climbed on a bridge and they're going to jump off the bridge, these are officers that will climb up the bridge and talk to them to get them down or make a grab if necessary to keep harming themselves. So the training that they get, it's about eight months of training, and it's training where, I mean, it's very hard to get in. I think it's like 1% of the department, you know,

they're able to get into the unit. But once you get into the unit, you go to the training, they're actively trying to weed you out. So it's almost like a special type of unit. So the type of training you get, you get, of course, special weapons and tactics. And you get medic training. to your EMT when you finish.

You have to water rescue diving, so you're a patty, open water rescue diver when you finish. We also training rope rescue, rope rescue, roco training, high-angle rope rescue. And, of course, hazmat, which was my area of specialty. You have to get training in hazmat. You're an EPA hazmat technician as well as a weapon. You get a special training weapons of mass destruction.

response. And so by the time you're finished, you have to pass every single component, every evolution of the training in order to actually be able to work in the streets. So everyone in the unit has that same base training, which you have especially use within that handle things like warrants. So a team handles warrants. There's a weapons and master structure response team that's a primary unit, but the officers are interchangeable. So they can come from any of the normal trucks that handle normal routine responses, as well as specialized. So everybody wearing that patch can do the job of anybody else.

That's the bottom line. But they're all specialized. They're very, very specialized in their training. They've been around for about 80 years and 85 years, excuse me, They were formed in 1930. So it's one of the highlights of my police career and spent the years I spent there. While I was in the emergency service unit,

I applied for and was lucky enough to get a full scholarship to the Naval Postgraduate School, which offers master's degrees in Homeland Security. It's actually called National Security Studies. And so I was, you know, me and my 30, classmates out of the 3,000 it applied. We were for all different disciplines. So we had some natural guard there. You had some public health, public safety, fire department. I was a police representative, all of them working towards a goal of understanding homeland security and how to

better prove our country's posture as to dealing with internal and external data. dangers. And so after I left the police department, I spent two years as a Intelligence Bureau commanding officer of the corrections department intelligence bureau. Its main focus was to address gang violence within Rikers and to try to prevent it in preventive measures as well as making certain that those who committed crimes within Rikers facilities were brought to justice. And so I was lucky enough in that role to, as assistant commissioner, to be able to introduce different components, like a property room and evidence collection team, social media monitoring team, just getting best practices within the correction discipline as represented by what my investigators were doing.

And so after doing that for a few years, I started teaching. And so I'm very happy to be teaching young people about both police science, criminal justice, as well as Africanist studies, because it's another passionate of mine. I live in Harlem. And if you look at my website, you'll see why I'm so excited about being in one of the greatest places in the world. And so that's my, that's my law enforcement. That's my career in a nutshell. In a nutshell, wow, man. You make me feel extremely insecure about my own service to the community, I should, I would say.

That's an incredible resume. I can't even imagine what you've been through the, the navigating that entire. entire system. The fact that you came out so successful is just, it's a shining example of an individual who went for something and did it. And just congratulations on all of that. Well, I guess that kind of brings us up to why you're on a UFO podcast of all things. Like I had mentioned earlier, the first time I actually saw you was in an interview with Martin Willis. And that was because you and Martin were both at this recent congressional UFO hearing that took place July 26th, I believe it was. And when I had heard that you went from New York to Washington on a 3 a.m. train, as it were, to get there.

I said, this guy really, really wanted to be there for this historic moment. So before we get to, you know, how police can become better equipped to deal with the UAP, because I find that an absolutely fascinating discussion, give us your impressions, man. As someone who was actually at this thing, hundreds of thousands of people all over the world watched this online, myself included. I actually live streamed the entire hearing. But you were there. You made it into that room.

You were there with all of these people hearing and seeing this historic moment. So give us kind of a play-by-play, I guess, from the moment you got, went from New York to Washington. And yeah, can you kind of give us your personal take on all of that, if you don't mind? Well, let me first tell you that my little personality quirks. I don't watch much TV. I don't watch any of it. So I do get a lot of information through social media. And so, and I never used Twitter up until a few years ago.

So I have discovered Twitter, and now I'm actively on Twitter. But as far as social media, let me just go back a few years and explain my introduction to this issue. Yeah, please. I, you know, WMD, I've dealt with a lot of, you know, issues. I was in a specific incident at the UN where the head of the FBI had a given a little commendation for dealing with the situation regarding a possible agent. I think it was Fosgene that we responded to. My team, my FBI counterparts, as well as the Department of DEP. And we were able to safely mitigate that.

And it ended up not being anything dangerous, but at the time, we didn't know that. And it had reached the White House. It affected the stock market, this incident. So I have been fortunate enough to understand that reality can be a little more than we think of it in terms of what we know and what can happen. Now, in, I think it was 2000, I happened to hear about, well, 2017, vaguely familiar with a New York Times article

talked about stuff that was in the air that the Navy pilots were dealing with. And I thought it was sort of interesting and not really that much because regular life had so much that I was dealing with. But there was a particular fellow, Lou Elizondo, who, you know, I started to sort of look a little bit into what he was doing. He had a show about individuals who had experienced things, I think mainly folks in the military.

I started watching a few of those shows. And then there was a documentary by, film named James Fox called The Phenomena. And that really made me extremely aware of the compelling nature of the things that people had been experiencing. And the credibility of these individuals was pretty substantial. And so that made me realize that, okay, this is a situation that is a situation. that is a serious one and requires that it, you know,

that you use objective rational skepticism in listening to it. Now, as a rational person, think firmly based on what they call them nuts and bolts, that's my world, I'm familiar that within the community, there have been plenty of folks who we would put in the category of con artists. There have been folks who have been mentally ill. There have been agents provocateur from the government involved,

and there have been professional debunkers who are not interested in dealing with rational conversation or thought around this subject. But all of those elements within that community have helped to sort of muddy the words and make it difficult for clear discussion about this issue to occur. But as you learn more about it, you understand better the role of government and some of the elements within government to promote disruption and instability around groups or people that want to discuss this. And so as I learned more, I became more intrigued to start watching more movies. one of the movies I saw was documentaries rather

Randall Nickerson the aerial phenomenon which came out shortly after the phenomenon a year or two afterwards really helpful in understanding the reality of the situation how compelling the arguments are when you have a hundred school children

saying that something landed and some entities that are non-human got out and interacted with them and gave them messages somehow nonverbal messages nonverbal messages, so that they understood this message of destruction of the earth and concern about saving the environment and being wary of technology, a theme that would continue with other interactions that people have had that reported publicly about it.

And then the third documentary was again by James Fox Moment of Contact, which came out, I think, in March of this year. I strongly recommend that if anyone wants to learn about this and not be overwhelmed, take a look at these documentaries because they are a way to sort of familiarize yourself with what's happening now and what has happened previously, but not get an overwhelming amount of information. because it can really sort of make people uncomfortable if their worldviews are challenged in such an extreme way. But moment of contact was basically about a place in South America called Virginia, Brazil, where an anomalous craft crashed, and apparently live anomalous beings were walking around town and seen by the town folks. It was investigated. It happened in 96, as opposed to something like Roswell that happened in 47, where it's hard to get live witnesses. In 96, it was recent enough that there were people like Dr. Roger Lear, who was a podiatrist, but he focused on implants, legend implants that people would try to have removed.

of whatever, these are things that are kind of hard to describe because we're talking about implants of things that we don't know. But apparently what the individuals are saying is that they had experience with a novelist phenomenon and they ended up with an implant. And so the purpose or design or construction is all, we don't know what it is. but that does not stop the fact that people have them in them and they have to get them removed. So that means it's a thing that's real and that we have to address it that way. So moment of contact, a very compelling story about interaction between non-human intelligence and the townspeople there. but when you look beyond the veil you realize that all over the world there have been accounts given incredible accounts of interaction between human and non-human beings and incredible individuals

and so there are so many numerous compelling accounts that it would really if you were just to look at the record that exists of this phenomenon, then you'd have to say, well, you know, it's not maybe, it's definite that there's been something that people all over the world in different time periods have experience from the sightings to abductions or experiences. So it was through getting exposure to social media, specifically YouTube,

everything from, you know, the channels, like your channel, was very helpful. Channels with people like Steve Bassett, who's a lobbyist for you. Well, this has been so since 96. Ryan Graves is yourself. Ross Coulthart and Bryce Sable and their Need to Know podcast. Actually, they had one this morning that was listening to,

which is keeping me up to date on what's going on. what the challenges are for this effort to get the government to disclose this information and what we can do as citizen activists. Gary Nolan, Dr. Nolan at Stanford, very credible individual who is really pushing the envelope in terms of giving credibility to the issue based on what he's done with his work, an examination of humans and the negative effects of exposure to anomalous phenomena, how their brains have been a negatively affected, as well as some aspects, I can't even say the name of it, Cadi, Ptayam, you know, you'll have to correct me, but the part of the brain, which apparently allows people to intuit things better,

to perhaps see things, differently than everyone else. You know, his work with that. And I don't know how much of his work is classified, how much is unclassified. I think he's done both. Even people like Red Panda Chihuahua, who has given some great videos

talking about the larger historical issue of how the government efforts to dissuade people of thinking of the U.S. WAP issue in a serious way. As a matter of fact, doing the opposite, working hard to discredit people who had actual experiences. Credible people who would lose their credibility, you know, be publicly humiliated, lose their careers. And according to the whistleblower, David Crush, you know, apparently there were more serious harm that came to some of the individuals who may have been a problem, whistleblowers before there was a formal whistleblower process exists. And just the list goes on.

Jay Christopher King, Jeremy Corbell, and George Knapp, Leslie King and Christopher Mellon, and Ralph Blumenthal, and just Jeffrey Krip. All of these individuals in their different disciplines are area of expertise, working either together or separately to push forward this issue of getting to the heart, the root of this major, major governmental cover-up. And so the whistleblower, my understanding, I saw something on Twitter from a guy who says he's a former JAG and a military attorney who's basically saying that the whistleblower aspect that David Brush is really, that he's, in fact, credible urging on, is the mismanation. is the mismanagement of the funds. So if you take away the idea of a UAP

craft retrieval program and place another more saliable item, like Iran-Contra, it's guns for whatever, or some other thing that you're more familiar with, then this idea of massive corruption for an illegal program, program sounds pretty much just like everyday type of rogue operations that can occur. But for the fact that it's about a topic that we've all been sort of brought up to believe can't exist.

That's what, so David Crush is an absolute whistleblower about rogue programs. of the thing that people have problems getting their head around is it's about non-human intelligence craft and bodies. So if it bothers you, if you're having ontological shock, if you're having cognitive dissonance without getting the idea of the existence, the reality of those, then don't think about it. Just think of him as a whistleblower about rogue programs that were unconstitutionally spending our money without congressional over. oversight or control. And then, you know, you can deal with the UAP aspect of it as more credible whistleblowers come forth and they talk, you know, firsthand, you know, second hand. Let's face it, we're in a post-disclosure world.

It's just that some people put certain parameters on what post-sclosure means. I want the president to say that they exist. Well, you can want that, but it's not necessary. You already had everybody past presidents allude to it. You've had CIA directors state that they exist. You've had congressional individuals recently who are actively looking at this corruption, say that they are a reality. So my mind, the way I look at things, and I have, is that we're already in a post-disclosure world. So what are we doing to adapt to it?

And my area expertise is not in UAP in the least. My area expertise is an emergency management and in law enforcement, public safety. So that's where I think I can make the contribution. That's where I started to sort of ask around, like, what's being done? If there is some sort of process here, when what are we doing in the law enforcement community in order to, get our officers the training, the equipment, and the policies that they need. So I did, last month, I did an informal survey.

I reached out to all the state police and the top five police, largest police departments in every state. It's about 300. And I've gotten the response, maybe 25% of the response. But my requests of them is, do you have any policies or procedures whatsoever? dealing with UAP observations, sightings, contacts, or abductions, experiences. And what do you think the response has been to my requests? I'm guessing, Keith, either they hang up on you, which I hope is not true, or the

percentage is probably very, very, very low. for having any kind of policies. It's all email, so I'm not I don't have any dignities of people laughing at me on the phone or anything like that. Okay, that's good at least. No, no one's gotten any plans or processes.

None. Law enforcement leadership is waiting for a director or guidance from Homeland Security or you know, federal entities to tell them what the plan is going to be. How are they going to respond?

And this is all. all to be expected, except if you take a look at the work of AIAA of Ryan Graves and Ben spoke to him last night. Oh, gosh. He's got a couple of programs. He's former FBI agent. And Ben Hanson? Ben Hanson. Yeah. Ben Henson. If you look at the work that they're doing, AIAA, that's what I'd like to do for law enforcement. They're trying to get accountability into the reporting process, just get past the stigma,

allow pilots be able to report on what they're experiencing instead of being forced to ignore it, even that their potentially safety hazards. So if you look at AIAA, you look at what the FAA policies are. regarding what pilots should do if they experience some sort of life-dict safety issue or property damage due to interaction with UAP. They're supposed to contact their local law enforcement agency once they land. Well, I told you what results I've gotten from local law enforcement agencies when I ask if they have any policies or procedures that officers will be.

supposed to follow when engaging in these types of calls. Let's go to calls. We like to report on what UAP activity exists, but what is that based on? What people have called? Well, is there a central location for these calls to go? How do they get called? Okay, well, we look at voluntary agencies and what they report. Well, that's fine, but would you expect a voluntary agency,

to deal with other aspects that involve law enforcement, or would you have law enforcement take down reports and create data, which could be used by scientists and can be used by military and anybody else that wants actual data, that is homogenous in nature, national and scope? So we don't have an idea, really, of what actually is reported. We haven't, you know, it's all voluntary. Now, let's say that you do go as far as getting a voluntary process in place. I mean, not a voluntary, but you get a formal process in place where, you know, there's a governmental entity that you reach out to them, you upload your video if you have a siding or you, you know, you call and speak to an operator who takes down the information of what you've seen. That's good.

but what about this stigma about reporting? Because when you're talking about stigma, that means maybe, let's see, Ryan Graves at the hearing, he said 95% don't report what they see, or some large number. What do you think it's going to be like for civilians who see stuff and have been basically stigmatized, understand, that if you do get involved with reporting things, your life will become a living hell.

And look at Las Vegas, look at that family. They called 911 because they needed help because they thought something anomalous was happening. And it took about a month, but eventually it became a media frenzy. They, you know, depending on what reports you believe, they may have gotten business from, people in vehicles with government plates telling them not to talk about it.

You know, I don't really know for certain, so I don't want to disparage anybody, but your life can be very negatively affected if you get involved with reporting something. So I would expect that even once the process is settled upon, it may take quite a bit to get folks to feel comfortable enough to report activity that occurs. And that's from sightings all the way up to landings or interactions. Because again, this is something that is anomalous. We don't know the capabilities. We don't even know what it is.

It's they. It's probably many different entities with as much biodiversity as we have on this earth. So when we talk about specific types of they're this type, a Nordic this or a gray that, there could be as much diversity as what has been reported by folks in the past. So having all kinds of different sizes and shapes and apparatus and protective gear and different shapes of craft and doing all kinds of different things. where does it come from? Our minds are analytical and we want to categorize things. Well, it's hard to categorize interdimensional craft or time traveling or, you know, breakaway civilizations.

Or in my mind, all of it can be true and none of it can be true. But regardless of whether we understand it or not, it exists. So we have to acknowledge it. And we have to make certain that we act responsibly from at least public safety perspective in not ignoring incidents that occur and people that want to report it. Right. You're going to look at the historical information that is available. It is not just compelling.

It's kind of damning because when you look at what the FOIA requirements, requests have revealed over the years. It's quite clear there's been government efforts to determine how best to deal with the public with the issue from the Robertson panel, Rand Report, other historical efforts. And then the Blue Book is a public relations effort to sort of dissuade people from really getting answers. And so all that is part of the historical narrative. And as we go forward with this disclosure process, we have to acknowledge that, as Mr. Rush said, an unethical and immoral government disinformation campaign exists. And I imagine exists at this very moment and is at work in various ways, which makes people suspicious and paranoid when they hear government officials

say things that you go against what they know is fact. As a matter of fact, I think that's the case with Mr. Brush. If he's reporting credible witnesses, he's sending him, referring them, he's a part of the discovery process. And then you have the face of this arrow effort saying that nothing credible has been given, then the concern is that this is part of cover-up as opposed to actually getting at the truth of whatever it is that lies beyond the corruption. Right, right. You know, you even had, and again, you were there, you had one of these Congress members saying, Mr. Grush, Dr. Sean Kirkpatrick, the gentleman, the head of the Department of Defense, is kind of rebuking everything you're saying.

And, you know, there's an issue there. And it's not even so much the issue of if you're telling the truth or not. It's a matter of the people don't trust the government. And there is a major over classification issue. There's also a non-transparency issue. And that is why we have these two diametrically opposed narratives happening with an official Department of Defense program and a whistleblower who's highly, highly credible coming forward in saying that these programs exist and there's no

oversight and there's misappropriated funds. There's criminal activity happening with these programs. And I found that really interesting that it wasn't so much, who's telling the truth? Sean Kirkpatrick or David Grush. It's, we're at this debate because of the non-transparency issue within the United States government. So I found that fascinating. Well, I think, and this is what I reflect a lot when I get these kind of arguments on, or ideas on people on UFO Twitter, is what I tell them is we're beyond discussing the credibility of the whistleblower. we are now, all your frustration or questions need to go to the intelligence community and the Defense Department Inspector Generals

because they have, or at least the intelligence community inspector general has said, credible and urgent. That should be the end of any discussion about the worthiness or the credibility of the whistleblower. It should be beyond David Grush. And yet I see people fixator and try to disprove him or find everything from any issues he may have that they try to determine by watching how he speaks to trying to find holes in his resume to, you know, just not finding his allegations too fantastical for them to consider realistically. And that's unfortunate because we're not at that stage of the game. We're beyond it.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Rudge has been in this process for a couple of years. And so has the Inspector General's office. So the public announcement, which is what Wednesday's congressional hearing, was performing to allow the public to get a taste of what Congress is dealing with. How do I know this? Look at the 60-something page, amendment that the Senate

that Senator Schumer has introduced. It's not ambiguous language. It's quite clear. They're talking about eminent domain to repossess otherworldly craft that's in private hands. You would not have any language like that whatsoever

if we were talking about the possibility of the existence of intelligent life other than humans. So, I mean, let's face it, we already have disclosure. It's just a matter of how you choose to accept it. Yeah. Reality has always existed, regardless of what your beliefs are. Yeah.

Reality is. And there's a whole lot we don't know. It's unfortunate that the government has kept this basic fact. from us for decades in order for, and not just government, because I've worked for government. It's a small group of rogue players that have military defense. Maybe this was the warning from Eisenhower with the military industrial complex speech. Not the whole community. Most government workers, regardless of their classified environment or unclassified, are doing their jobs.

They're doing with it, and they, you know, some people lose their lives on behalf of the country, and the vast majority are doing excellent work. But there are a few bad apples, and there are few that take advantage and have done so for a very long time. And maybe some of them believe that they're doing it for the benefit of the country, but certainly they have to understand that hiding things from Congress is criminal and against our Constitution. right that's what I look at that's the bottom line is

where's money go and then when I see things like elective officials who get lots of funding from the the corporations that are probably going to be the likely

targets of any investigation there's a connection between what they're saying these officials and the financial support they're receiving from these corporations. And then you look at the placement of those elected officials in the oversight process, and it's not too hard to make the connection.

And I think of Matt Ford at The Good Trouble Show. He's been sort of making it plain in terms of people sort of becoming aware of the connections and the probable conflict of interest. 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.

slash somewhere skies. So basically what you're saying is some of these people who are kind of being tasked with investigating these claims and these allegations and these possible criminal activity could be funded by the very people that they're being sent out to investigate. Like you said, a conflict of interest. So when you're seeing kind of the pushback on the credibility of these whistleblower, or, you know, these, this harassment and threats that David Grush has faced because of coming forward, you truly do have to wonder, are there going to be members within Congress or within, you know, these subcommittees that are trying to form to subpoena these individuals? Are they somehow connected to the actual people in possession of these said craft or are they a part of?

of these rogue, you know, groups that are making money off of this stuff, to be completely honest. It's crazy, man. It's like a game of chess with all of this stuff. You don't know who's the bishop and who's the king and who's the pawn in all of it. Is it illegal for defense contractors to donate money to campaigns? Of course not. It's American way.

But what is expected in a return? And if the continuation of business as usual is, and you have people in leadership positions making public statements about whistleblowers who are actively receiving retaliation from parts unknown, that's called a clue. That I think Congress is going to be really careful in terms of transparency and making sure that. every single member of Congress has held accountable for their statements and actions with regard to the cover-up of the corruptions taking place over multi-decade. And it's because of the activism of this particular community, UFO community, that this stuff is not simply allowed to, you know, be unaddressed. because they constantly are looking for connections. Are there possible ways that efforts are being made to dis or misinform the public? For instance, lack of reporting on the whistleblower when he made those initial statements a month ago.

We never heard of David Grush until those explosive statements on news nation with Russ Coulter. How come it took so long for more established media sources to respond and report and really look at the significance of what has happened at that point, up to this point? And so then when you look at the historical record and you realize that,

Well, gosh, in the 50s and 60s, we understand that certain federal agencies, intelligence agencies, had relationships, informal relationships, influential relationships with media, with journalists, with editors, with publishers. And they'd use that to push forth a message. And that has probably not changed. And so if we see the media not doing what we were expected, to do it, would just simply report on a significant event in human history that makes one wonder if there's been some sort of effort to diminish their normal processes. I want to touch on that with you, Keith, because I did kind of a comparison the other day.

I tried to collect every article online that had come out about the congressional hearing and the claims of David Grush. And I kind of did this side-by-side thing where I looked at like the News Nation coverage. Like we just said, let's just say it. Like News Nation is really the only ones. I guess you could use the word brave enough to kind of tackle this and continue to dig into it. And then on the flip side of that, you've got the BBC. You've got whatever, CBS, NBC, with a few exceptions.

There are certain reporters. some of these mainstream outlets who are trying to work within that big corporate system to cover this. But dude, I looked at like just the image, the featured image that these mainstream articles had. And it was always David Grush with his eyes wide open or maybe he's mid-sentence. And he looked crazy. But then you look at the coverage of the alternative media and it's very good, stoic, serious images.

And let's be honest, images say a lot and they will evoke a certain response by a reader of an article or even a prejudgment of what they're about to read. And I looked at this and I'm just like, you've got to be kidding me. All these major news sites, first of all, the way they covered it, some were serious. but again, like, it continued that decades long kind of, like you said, a ridicule factor. Yes, Steve Bass would call it the truth embargo, right? Yes. They're doing their part to tell the line of the status quo and just sort of,

if they're not going to ridicule the subject, then they're just not going to address it. They're going to pretend it doesn't exist, which can have sort of a same effect of keeping people both ignorant of what's going on and also, if they are aware, then thinking that, oh, there's not the legitimacy that would be required for major news outlets to report on it. And so, again, in this community, there have been, I think, a number of different elements that have helped to muddy the waters. Again, folks that have bad intent and they're con artists, they want to make money. You know, the old adage of give me your watch and ring comes, you know, goes through my head when I hear about, you know, going on trips where you're guaranteed, whatever experience of they're guaranteed. those who have mental health issues and, you know, believe that they have some sort of interaction or connection with anomalous phenomena that does not exist. And then, of course, the agent's provocateur, which are the formal organized efforts to discredit or intimidate individuals that experience something.

that is anomalous and they try to report it or they may be a sort of a whistlebar that's trying to report some sort of illegal activity going on around the subject matter, but they have met with various kinds of difficulties, as put it that way. And then you have professional debunkers. Those are individuals that are simply interested in not acknowledging any aspect of the reality of the of the UAP issue.

And so they help to muddy the wars too, especially if they use their credibility or their degrees, their professional attainment as a way of legitimizing their posture or stance. And even if you, again, if you look at the narrative,

I remember watching something where one of the famous UFOologists, he died in 2018, Stanley, I'm trying to remember his last name. He said Friedman. Friedman, yes. He had done some work looking into the background of a Donald Mansell, who was a famous debunker for many years, and realizing that he had a relationship with a three-letter agent. And so this would sort of fit a narrative of agents provocateurs in various levels of academia or other disciplines, really trying to dissuade people from acknowledging what they've experienced or looking into the phenomena in total. if you were in possession of craft or bodies or technology you're trying to re-verse engineer, that probably would not be something you'd want to have as public knowledge.

Going back to even Phil Corsos of 1997 book, The Day After Roswell, where he outlines how, you know, they got this crash retrieval stuff from Roswell and how he ended up being a part of the effort to push it out to private industry, or at least the labs, Battel and some of the others. And then at this hearing, you find out how they were able to leverage it, how they were able to monetize it.

Irats, something that 99.9% of the American population has no idea. Yeah. But when you understand that that was the way in which money was able to fund these programs without the accountability of Congress, it's a pretty big deal. So I think for most people who are not yet at the point of accepting the reality of UAP, forget about UAP and just focus on the corruption. And that will keep you busy all day because it's longstanding. like Wardigate or Iran-Contra on steroids.

Right. And for those to say, well, Congress couldn't do it and there's no way, well, I got a bridge in Brooklyn. That's what you think. From my meager experience with the government. Yeah. Yeah.

Oh, man. So many angles we could go. When he brought up IRA at that thing, I think my ears perked up. I'm perked up. I'm like, wait, what was that? What did he say? I like scribbled it down. I'm like, who knows what that is? Please. Let's start looking into that immediately. And you're right. Separating the fact that this whistleblower came forward to speak about a UFO crash retrieval program. There's major corruption going on in these rogue programs. Our taxpayer dollars are going to,

fund these things so that some people can make money off of it. That's just wrong. Like you said, this breaks every, every law. This is a, this is literally like pissing on the constitution. And it's just, it shows how corrupt government can actually be. But I do also want to stress much, if not the majority of the government are just hardworking people trying to do their jobs. We need to make that very clear. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You know, dealing with a large government organization, look at the trends of corruption. It's usually small elements that, you know,

it takes a lot for them to trust other people with their corruption. But, you know, it happens. And eventually it spreads. And then you have, in the case of my agency, you have whole precincts, not whole precincts, but, you know, a large number of individuals that can get involved, scooped up, even though they know that it's wrong.

And so I think there's actually two things I wanted to mention. Part of the issue I think with government acknowledging, of course, the biggest problem with government acknowledging, you know, the phenomenon that they have crapped in and, bodies, is that it then lends to this issue, which I've heard nobody talk about in a formal way, of other things that have occurred. The abductions, experimentation by non-human intelligence, maybe in combination with military or some sort of non-military, but military-like entity.

This whole issue of treaties, it was mentioned by Grush. I trust that that is going to be found to be true. It would probably be a core secret. It's been hinted at by the UFO community with Eisenhower at a certain Air Force base in the 50s making an agreement of some kind. That right now is,

where a lot of what Grudge talked about was up until a month ago, which was just, hey, that's kind of interesting, but it doesn't have any kind of base in reality until someone can prove it. Well, Grush went through a checklist, and he included treaties as a part of that. Checklists of UFO lore, based on what's been whispered about,

spoken about, and people on their deathbed, getting affidavits, and books written about that. that couldn't be released until the person's death and just on and on. So when you get all this kind of compelling information, and then it gets backed up by a credible individual and is being currently investigated by, you know, Inspector General's, it's a pretty big deal.

Yeah. Pretty big deal. And we don't know where it's going to lead to in terms of the things that people have been reporting about regarding contact with non-human intelligence for many, many years. Those experiencers who have probably doubted their own sanity, if they reported to other people, they've probably been ridiculed and stigmatized. and just a horrible kind of situation for that. What happens when the government gets to the point where it says, yeah, these not only exist, but they have interacted with us, maybe through a treaty or maybe.

This episode is brought to you by Netflix. Most valuable promotions in Netflix are hosting a blockbuster triple headliner Saturday, May 16th. Rhonda Rousey returns to face fellow woman's MMA pioneer Gina Carrano in the main event. Plus Comaine's Nate Diaz versus Mike Perry And the best have you wait in the world, Francis Ngano versus Felipe Lins. Watch Rhonda Rousey versus Gina Carrano, live only on Netflix.

Saturday, May 16th at 9 p.m. Eastern Center time, 6 p.m. Pacific time. Be, you know, without a treating, because we're not even controlling. So it's the start of a road which is necessary to travel because the people that experience it deserve justice, they deserve care, they deserve vindication. Absolutely. I love that.

I love that. That kind of brings me, Keith, back to, I want to circle back for the kind of latter half of this conversation to your experience with the law enforcement and the policy that could come out of something like this. We're seeing these big, big grand things happening at a congressional level. We're seeing legislation amendments that will hopefully pass in the coming year. That's great.

Those are big things that will make a big difference. But as someone who's dealt with this stuff on a micro level in terms of your service to the community in New York City specifically, that micro level of law enforcement and the UAP topic. Now, I have a list here. I mean, Leveland, Texas, 1957, Sicoro, New Mexico, 1964, Kentucky, 93, Illinois, 2000, Stephenville, Texas, 2008. The list goes on and on and on. I was able to come up with, I think, something like 40 cases that involve law enforcement

and UFOs. There's a huge history with UFOs and law enforcement. And the number one thing, the biggest issue is they are not prepared or equipped to deal with these sorts of things, yet that's where a lot of UFO cases get reported. So that's what I want to kind of talk about in this part of the conversation is. Sure. What do you think needs to be done in terms of, how law enforcement can proactively investigate a UFO case when it's reported to them.

Because many of them, and I've heard the most incredible dramatic kind of radio dispatches and conversations between police officers in real time experiencing these UFOs and not knowing what to do, except, you know, let's go out and look at it and take down a report. but like you mentioned earlier, then what? Where does that go from there? You know what? I'm going to talk quite a bit about that, but before I do, I just want to mention these two things because I'll forget otherwise. Yeah, please. There have been a group of medical professionals that have gotten together,

UAP-MED, UAP Med Coalition, and they are focused on informing the medical and mental health professional community about UAP information, and they focus on encouraging research and patient care. If you go on their webpage, you can see what has been discerned as some of the symptoms, signs and symptoms of people that have experienced, have had injuries from anomalous phenomenon, experience of whether some sort of radiation exposure or some other types of, maybe a kind of mental interaction. UAP med is something that I think

is going to be really important in terms of getting the message out and also organizing the medical community, mental health community, on dealing with this additional aspect of their work in keeping the public healthy and dealing with whatever negative. physical or mental health issues occur from these experiences.

Also, UAPPD. So it's UAP-P-D. It's kind of like a law enforcement equivalent. They're working on providing an outlet for law enforcement officers who experience they have these interactions, and they probably don't feel safe, frankly, discussing it with anyone that they work with or even home life. So UAPPD just establish itself as a way for law enforcement officers to have a confidential outlet to share their experiences.

So those are two things that, two good, important developments that I think people should be aware of. And for those that are in the medical and mental health community, they're trying to figure out how they can help, I preach out to UAP med, and for those in the police law enforcement world, who are dealing with these issues, you know, certainly I would consider reaching out to UAPPD. Now, talking about the historical record, before we spoke, before this podcast, you and I had spoke, and I had said, hey, listen, let's go through some of these cases. There are lots of famous cases. We can go through 64. His name escapes me, where he drives up to the craft. Yeah.

That was Lonnie Zamora. Yeah. That's a perfect instance where you can see the stigma that forced him off the job eventually. Now, in 64, that was actually the investigator. process, I think, was pretty good because you had the Air Force there, you had the FBI there, you had Jay Allen Kynick, wasn't he there too? Yeah. But so you actually had an investigative process that looked at, and there may have been some efforts to not share all the information with the public about that particular incident.

But ultimately, what happened to Lani's Amor as a result of reporting this incident? It consumed his life. He was unable to function effectively as police officer, eventually left, and refused to give interviews. And, you know, that is sort of a case in point, but it's probably reflective of what many cases historically have shown. There was Ryan a witness citizen. He had a recent podcast where he talked about a particular. particular officer who had an interaction and then spoke publicly about it. And not only was he thrown off the force, he changed his name and moved to another state and took up a different

occupation. So the stigma is real. And in law enforcement, which is a close new community to begin with, into a community, you can basically kiss your career goodbye if you admit that you've had some sort of experience with an anomalous phenomenon. And yet you're supposed to be the agency that goes out and helps people that are dealing with this issue. And so let's look at basically what law enforcement provides for officers to deal with anomalous phenomena. Are they given any special equipment? Say, for instance, to look at any kind of electromagnetic disparities or radio frequency. that are unusual. Are they given any kind of infrared or thermal imaging in case something

is present but is not visible to the naked eye? Or night vision cameras for that matter. Frankly, I don't know what would be an appropriate equipment component for officers that have to deal with anomalous phenomena. But just because I don't know doesn't mean that that information doesn't exist. Perhaps one of the things that can be revealed as this disclosure process occurs is what the best practices actually are for humans that encounter anomalous phenomena. Because if the government is withholding the fact that it has craft, the fact that it has bodies, they are probably withholding technology that can be used to quickly. ascertain if there's

anomalous phenomenon occurring at the ground level, not in the air. What's the, because that's equipment, what about training? Is there any training around the best practices of anomous phenomena?

In 1991, there was a firefighter's guide that's well-sighted. That was a attempt by individuals who's writing on manual about response to mass casualty incidents from firefighters perspective. And they approach the subject of UAP or UFOs. And that is probably the only time I've seen such information included in any kind of emergency response guidelines.

I think that the authors probably perceive some stigma as a result of including it. And so we don't have any other guidance. And even the guidance in the guide is more along the lines of, you know, just there may be fires, it may be radiation. You have to be mindful of that. But not anything specific because the authors did not have any specific guidance. If you look at the 1968 or 69 Air Force Academy chapter about UFOs, it goes into the history of encounters, from the possibilities of encounters as well as historical accounts, as well as what were present accounts back in that time period. and it talks about the probability of the existence,

and that's actually probably a good thing for people that are going to be pilots, and even though no one's keeping track, probably are going to have or may have some sort of experience as a result. That's sort of the mind-bobbling thing is we don't know how much encounters actually occur. Because of the stigma, because of the lack of a reliable accounting process, and because of, you know, purposeful efforts to dissuade such processes for taking place from perhaps a rogue aspect of government using the classified necessity of national security as a means of

making certain that you know, real efforts don't take place. So between the lack of training, because I forgot to mention that that chapter was removed once the there was a Colorado, what's the name of the university?

The Condon committee was it? Thank you. Dr. McCondon, who famously said we don't have any positive findings, but I have to wait a year before the report is. Right. Like, okay. And there may have been some sort of relationship

between him getting his top secret clearance back as a result of, you know, pushing through this negative report. There's lots of conjecture and speculation and probably a little bit of fire behind that smoke.

clearly there was an effort to coordinate the Condor report, which was paid for by the Air Force, which then allowed for the justification for the ending of the Blue Book process, and allowed the Air Force and military take the stance that they're not officially examining UFO incidents anymore, and that they are exist, they're not harmful to the United States or citizens. But the reality is quite compelling that the opposite is true. What is most compelling in terms of evidence, facts, data, is withheld from the general public from people who would be considered whistleblowers today have said historically. And what is prosaic or not unusual is allowed to be consumed by public.

Kind of like the swamp gas exclamation or any exclamation other than what you saw is not normal and probably anomalous. and so they went from the government entities went from trying to dissuade people that they were, what they were seeing was normal, you know, weather behavior or some other rational explanation other than non-human intelligence to simply

not saying anything and classify or over-classifying even videos because of the reality that those videos would show. Right. So there's tons of evidence that is held with help in the public to maintain this posture that UAP don't exist. And if they do exist, we're just learning about them. And we need to investigate them and find out more about them.

as opposed to a reality, the narrative that Grush is stating is that, hey, we know full well, we're withholding a ton of information and we have treaties. So how are you going to say, you want to spend a lot of money to start the process of understanding? And that's, I think, the frustration is that a lot of folks in the UFO community have, is that they've had a lot of suspicions based on trying to figure out based on the FOIA information and what people have said they experience witnesses and so on.

But there's always been the outside looking in. So when you have an insider that confirms the things that people have really thought were the truth, when you have an insider saying, yeah, that stuff is true, it's really kind of, it's vindication. in one sense. But then there's also this issue, okay, if it does, if it is true, then we have that guys involved. What's going to happen to them? And they're currently on the loose. So they're able to continue to do bad stuff.

Right. So how do we make sure that those craft don't disappear since they're already, who knows where? Right. Rush is let the Inspector General's office know where they are. But are they still there, Keith? That's my question. The minute he gives those names and locations, you do have to wonder. Well, he gave them probably a while back.

That's true. And let's think about it. Was Crush talking about, well, I believe that this stuff exists, or was he simply the person asking the questions, noticing the financial disparities and saying, why does this exist? And let me see your base paperwork and the people fessing up and saying,

actually, it's for these programs with no name. Yeah. And so, okay, let me see them. No, you can't. You can't be read it. Wait a second. I've got more clearances than God. How come I can't be let in?

You don't have need to know. No, it's my job to know. All right. Well, then I've got a whistleblown because they're not letting me see, not letting me do my job. I think the general public is perhaps purposely they're being led in this direction of,

well, UFOs don't exist, so this guy is full of baloney. That's not what Congress is considering. Congress is considering that in a rogue program or programs have taken, government money without any government oversight for decades. So take the UAP out of it and just look at it as a simple corruption investigation.

With a lot of bad actors doing bad things, that's the other thing you alluded to about murders. So intimidation, yeah, it's real. It's not just stuff you've seen the movies. I'd break into homes. You know, if I were going to intimidate, I'd break into somebody's home and then I'd leave something in the bathroom for. Just to let them know, I would say, a calling card. Because what that's showing is you're not safe, and we can reach out and touch you whenever we want. So that kind of intimidation to make people think twice before doing the right thing.

It's real. And as far as leaning up to murders, maybe we'll find out. I hope we do. What really needs to take place is as an accountant. We're going to have to look back at some of these past cases. Let's look at James McDonald. Famous scientists and obvious disinformation campaign against him, publicly humiliated by Congresspeople.

He's trying to present to them his not beliefs, but his findings on what he was working on. And then he commits suicide. We've got to look at that and look at some of the other folks who involved in this effort, either as a potential whistleblower or maybe, you know, they have information that could be, could really make these rogue operations vulnerable. We have to really sort of take a second look.

at how we have to look at what information is currently kept from the public regarding these particular incidents, these rogue operations. We're going to have to really re-examine past incidents and see, you know, the general public absolutely deserves for this to occur. They just have to get over the fact that it's about a topic that they've been talked to believe is non-existent. Exactly. It's a convergence of the topic, the topic meeting the issue. And the issue is non-transparency, corruption. It just so happens to be about UFOs. I think you put that beautifully in terms of people accepting it. And then, like you said, the next steps after that. Well, Keith, we've been going for almost an hour and 40 minutes. I want to, before we kind of start, to wrap things up. I want to kind of put you on the spot if that's okay. Yeah, absolutely. Okay. So in all of your time in law enforcement, I have to ask this question because I know

our audience is going to die, is dying to know the answer, no matter what that answer is. Have any of your local officers or detectives or anyone you worked with or you yourself, have you ever come across UFO reports? No. Never. No. No. But I will tell you something, and someone reminded me of this recently, the NYPD is large enough that it can devote resources to pretty much all kinds of different things that it may come up with. And I seem to remember at least one detective assigned for unusual incidents. And the detective, this was when I was 25 years ago, Detective, I think, may have been assigned to things around religious types of things.

Like if there were some chickens or, you know, other animal carcasses left in wooded areas, that might be something that he would sort of look at. But I would imagine it's highly plausible that if there were a novel's phenomenon, incidents occurring, that it would either there'd be someone that would be assigned to deal with those specific, because they're kind of rare,

at least as far as I know, but if there's something substantive, also the working with other agencies, that would also come into play as well. So whatever secretive entity that would be

looking at this information and processing it, then it would be said that way. But I think that NYPD is pretty much outlier in that respect. I think most departments probably don't have.

Maybe they know call the military if it's something in the air, call the Air Force, there's a base nearby, or maybe call Homeland Security. And that's something that I really love to know more about. What Homeland is,

security stance is because they do investigations of national types. They do all kinds of investigations. They're kind of low-key. I'd love to see what they're doing around UAP and not the UAP in the air. UAP that's on the ground or that interacts with people like Las Vegas, allegedly. Other thing, too, is, and I know this may be hard for people to resists. assist is trying to make investigative determinations from your armchair is not really a reliable way of investigating European incidents. So let's look again at Las Vegas. If you're saying that, you know, I believe it's not true or I don't think this guy is telling true, that really doesn't make a difference in terms of what actually happened. So whenever I hear about a case occurring,

I just leave a wide open mind and a large, a healthy amount of skepticism, rational skepticism to guide me in terms of, you know, whatever the facts may lead to. So, if you're going to be skeptical,

if you look at the totality of circumstances, we're living in a post-disclosure world. Yeah, absolutely. And now it's a matter of the next steps after that. Keith, that's kind of where I want to leave this. What does come next? What do you think needs to happen? We had a congressional hearing on UFOs.

There's going to be major implication with that legally, ontologically, like you mentioned earlier. But what can the public do? And what can we do as responsible researchers in this space to further the conversation? and help Congress attack this from all angles. What do you see as the next steps in that post-disclosure process? Well, I am limited in terms of, you know, my area of expertise, and I can talk about law enforcement. But let's look at how the public was engaged when we were focused after 9-11 on terrorism.

You remember the C-something, Say-something campaign? Absolutely, yeah. Was that engaging the general public in? in just reporting stuff. Well, you know, imagine if there was stigma around see something, say something. Like, I don't want to report that there's terrorism possibly occurring in my neighbor of it because this is a really nice neighborhood. And I don't want people that it's going to affect my housing price values or whatever.

We need to have sort of a see something say something where we're getting rid of the stigma. And we're actively engaged. once the proper mechanisms that are governmental mechanisms, not volunteer mechanisms, for reporting take place, then people can actually start reporting. And that will be a boon for scientists because then they'll have actual data

that allow them to understand what's actually occurring. It'll allow general public to understand. It's kind of like people reporting crimes. Okay. One of the most underreported crimes are sexual assaults, especially with intimate partners. It's one of the most underreported because of stigma that's involved in it. Date rapes, for instance. So colleges used to not really advertise the frequency of those types of events occurring.

I think it was a Cleary Act in 86. It was a young woman who was killed. of this type of interaction, which forced colleges to honestly report the frequency of these types of incidents occurring on campuses so that people who were there on campus or people were considering in school would have an honest assessment of the safety as relates to that particular type of crime. So once we have something set up by the government to allow people to report, whether it's, if they're flying a jet, or if they're on a boat,

may see something anomalous in the ocean, or if they, if they're just, you know, out wherever in their house or woods, where they can report and share their data. I know in NICMA Labs is one of the private ventures that's trying to sort of corral this issue, and there's probably some technical issues still with the quality of the cameras and phones. And, So there are issues that start to be worked out, but at least the reporting process can start where they just add an extra category to dispatch for law enforcement, an extra, you know, radio category for anomalous phenomenon. And also with that training I was talking about to allow public safety to be at the forefront of whatever law enforcement does in terms of recognizing symptoms that someone who has been through some sort of experience can register specifically about something like lost time. If you're responding, you don't know that's one of the

aspects of this kind of abduction or experience, you're not going to even know to ask the question. Someone says, oh, gee, when I left it was like an hour ago. I don't understand. You're not going to even think about, you know, maybe you're going to think something for something. like maybe they're drugs or drunk or some sort of mental health issue. So, you know, we have to first acknowledge their existence because some folks are not there yet. Then we have to acknowledge that they not only fly, but they also land and they also interact with humans and animals, i.e. cattle mutilations or whatever or crop. server whatever is going out there that we don't understand and we try to wish it away ignore it it doesn't exist we're beyond that as a society as a citizen of the world we have to

acknowledge it and work together and hopefully it will allow humans to get beyond their petty differences and work together for the betterment of it. My little aspect is law enforcement so I don't know much about UAP, but I know a whole lot about law enforcement. I want them to be confident given the training and the skills and the understanding of how to treat civilians who have been through something that previously they would have been ridiculed and stigmatized by. You're great at protecting your data, but lots of places could still expose you to identity theft. I thought it was safe.

If that happens, LifeLock gives you a year. U.S.-based restoration agent who will stick by your side from start to finish. Phone calls, filing documentation, preparing insurance claims, your agent handles it all. In fact, we're so confident restoration is guaranteed. Pour your money back. Isn't it nice to have someone like that on your side? Save up to 40% your first year at lifelock.com slash Spotify. Terms apply.

Yeah, absolutely. I love that, man. And like you said, this topic brings everyone together. You've got a Mets fan, you've got a Yankees fan here. You had bipartisan congressional hearings on UFOs. This is a topic that brings people together when we have to face the reality of humanity. Not, you know, not your... Yeah, exactly.

All those identities kind of get lost when you're not the only intelligent entities in town. And probably not the smartest. And smartly, you know, more technical doesn't mean morally superior. It just means more technical, better understanding, better physics, better, you know, tools. And so I think once we're able to get beyond ourselves, we can really appreciate the universe as it is. I love that, man. I can't think of a better way to end this conversation, Keith. Last question for you before we let you go.

Is there anywhere that the public can reach out to you if they want to help, you know, sort of get this stuff going when it comes to law enforcement or to continue the conversation? That's a great question. I appreciate it because right now it's just me, just being a civilian activist concerned and wanting to, you know, start the conversation. I would love to be a part of any. efforts, formal efforts, by law enforcement agencies or by DHS or by Congress to address the issue. And, you know, I have a lot of experience in terms of emergency management and law enforcement

in order to provide a clear perspective of where the deficiencies lie and how we can address it. And I have the lived experience of having gone through 9-11 and then spent years on counterterrorism, specifically W&D response to as a result of that effort. So that would be a real help if there are entities that are looking at this and trying to get good help. And hey, I'm available. As far as officers or individuals that want to reach me, again, my webpage is Taylormadeforharlem.com because I don't have a 5LC3 for this effort or any web page to see for that. I'm also on Twitter, and I think it's Dr. Keith L. Taylor.

Senior might be just Dr. Keith Taylor, but I'm definitely there and I'm active. So now, in terms of officers looking for help regarding anomalous phenomena experiences, and it's just me and it's just me as an activist, there is a UAPPP. that UAP-P-P-D that is established to help provide a confidential environment for them to talk about these issues. Because let's face it, just because they're not talking about it, does that mean it doesn't exist? I think AIAA is now running, I saw the first one, they're running these videos where retired aviators, pilots talk about their experiences. I saw that. The one that was a colonel, I think, is he has a picture in front of his plane, his face is blurred out.

I think that's fantastic and brilliant and really helps others say, you know, I'm going to step forward with my experience too. If I can do it in a safe way, it's not going to mess up the world that I live in, my family, my job, because, you know, we've got to really attack the stigma in really smart ways. So as far as people, officers that have gone through things, they can't explain UAPPD, and also the medical community and mental health community, I'd love to see some interaction with the UAP med, just in terms of them really helping to get the ball rolling in terms of adapting their procedures and processes to reflect the reality that exists. as per government officials talking about it every day. Yeah, exactly. We will, right, right. I will make sure to put links to all of that in the show notes to this episode for people to reach out.

But I have to thank you, man. This has been a refreshing conversation, unlike any we've probably had on the show thus far. So thank you. Thank you for giving us so much of your time, insights your service to the community as well. I have to thank you as a fellow New Yorker. And the future looks bright. And I think we've really only scratched the surface of this conversation. And I know it will not be the last between you and I. So again, Keith,

thank you so, so much for joining me on Somewhere in the Skies. Ryan, it was my distinct pleasure. And I look forward to the next conversation we have. Hopefully, well, I'll have some news to give you and maybe I'll have some news to give me. But I watch a show like every religious. I already know. Somewhere in the Skies is produced by Third Kind Productions in association with the Entertainment One Podcast Network.