UFO Skeptic Mick West Challenged To A Debate

videos that you've looked at where you think there's something substantial or worthy of investigation there. And Mick has done an amazing job. I think you're doing a service of uh, debunking a lot of UFO videos that just are clearly fake. And so I I'm honored to have you both here because I think you're both the most serious on the sort of, you know, this is a poor way of saying it, but pro and anti-side. And uh this couldn't be better timing, right? It's just insane how many quote unquote drones we're seeing over air force bases

all over the world right now. Um and so yeah, I'm very excited. uh you kind of came on my radar because you uh publish in The Hill and you're a former DoD employee and so you kind of know that world and you were publishing really substantive pieces around uh some of these videos and and you Mick have been doing this for how long? Like five plus years or since 2016? Since 2016. And I I I think you've always done a pretty good job and I've heard things from, you know, UFO junkie

friends of mine like, "Oh, Mick's like a a bad faith actor." But all of our conversations we've had, I find you to be pretty earnest and and cool. So, um why don't you guys kind of introduce yourselves and tell the audience how you got into uh this sort of vigilante job of debunking or or uh you know uh confirming UFO videos to begin with. I'll start with you, Mary. Well, Jesse, thanks for having us. And Mick, thanks for being here. Um, so I will I'll be very honest. I didn't think about this topic. Uh, I thought it was squarely in

I knew the the type, the bravado, the way they carried themselves. And as soon as you know I watched Five Minutes of Fraver, and this guy's the real deal, right? He's a skipper of a a storied squadron out on the West Coast. the VFA41 um black aces and uh he tells a pretty an incredible story. Uh and oh by the way, it wasn't just him, it was three other aviators that were out there and that that was my ticket kind of into the uh down the rabbit hole. Um and then believe it or not, Mick West uh has has a lot to do with with um my kind of uh

my interest in this topic. We exchanged a whole lot of emails. I think we did a few Zoom calls. Yeah. Um, this is years ago and and I'll just be transparent. I this the the deeper I dug into Mick's theories and first of all I'll just say like who's this MC West guy who thinks he knows more than the government like okay um and and you know went there's some pretty deep nuance and from my perspective I I found again from my opin in my opinion he was wrong about a lot of his theories and the deeper we dug

Mick, what about you? How did you get into this? Well, I am a retired video game programmer, which very different background to Merrick. And uh I um after I retired, I took up writing and I was just doing stuff like writing for Game Development magazine. And I eventually kind of moved into the skeptical arena like uh investigating conspiracy theories, things like that. One of the first things I did was uh I was on Wikipedia um just messing around with I used to edit Wikipedia about I guess about 18

years ago. Uh and I saw this article on the chemtrail conspiracy theory uh which is this fun theory where the government spraying things behind planes and we did some well I did some work on that on my blog and that blog kind of evolved into uh my current site Metabunk is just a forum where you have lots of people just chatting about various different conspiracy theories. It's kind of grown now to be more UFO focused, but we we have a lot of older stuff like 911 conspiracy theories, uh

really enjoyed the process of investigating UFO videos because it was so similar to the work I used to do with video games except kind of in reverse but use all the same mathematical techniques, all the analysis techniques, debugging and debunking are very similar things because they're both about finding the root cause of something. Uh, and so I got hooked and I've been doing it ever since. And I've done a whole bunch of different videos. Merrick and I have uh agreements on several of these and we have disagreements on a few of them and I think a lot of the time those

disagreements kind of fall in the videos that are somewhat more ambiguous and this is a problem in general with with UFO videos but I'm keeping going real quick before we get into the actual substance about kind of your priors. Do you believe in the possibility of notwithstanding the fact that you don't, you know, sort of agree that any of these videos are legit? No. Yeah, definitely. I mean, I would certainly agree. People ask me, do you believe aliens might exist? And yeah, I think obviously in the universe, almost

certainly there's some type of alien life, probably some type of alien civilization. Uh, I just don't see that there's good evidence of them visiting us here. I wouldn't rule it out, but I just don't think there is good evidence of that happening. Okay. What about you, Mayor? Um, I previously before I went down the rabbit hole, I was in MC West camp. I I thought the univer I mean the universe is exceptionally large. We just cannot conceive how large it is. And I I um firmly believe that there was life out there, not that it was here.

atmospheric physicist. Um I encourage anybody watching to read anything and everything that he has written. Um start with science and default. It's a remarkable um critique of of the Condan committee which we can get into but um and his his um bottom line assessment um was that the the extraterrestrial hypothesis is the least unsatisfactory hypothesis for what hundreds and thousands of people have observed at close range over the last 80 years in

many cases. Um, I am I'd say I'm partial to that because of just the the the long historical record and I've got a ton of cases that I'd like to get into because I think they are related to some of these videos and and we can talk about that. Fellow alchemist, Lucy Breakers are changing the game for nicotine users. If you're looking for 100% pure nicotine product that's tobaccof free, Lucy Breakers are where it's at. Each pouch has a cool twist. Inside is a capsule that can pop to release an extra burst of flavor and hydration. It's a

unique experience that makes your nicotine routine more enjoyable and convenient. As someone who delves into the most heretical thinkers and ideas of our time, I appreciate products that challenge the norm. Lucy Breakers do just that. My personal go-to flavor is mint. Whether I'm deep into a podcast discussion, exploring new frontiers, or brainstorming ideas, throwing in a Lucy is an easy way to keep the day moving. Plus, the flexibility and strengths let you choose what suits you best. Let's

level up your nicotine routine with Lucy. Go to lucy.co/jesse and use promo code jessie to get 20% off your first order. Lucy has a 30-day refund policy if you change your mind. Again, that's lucy.co co and use code Jesse to get 20% off. And here comes the fine print. Lucy products are only for adults of legal age. Every order is ageverified. Warning, this product contains nicotine. Nicotine is an addictive chemical. Thanks so much to Lucy for sponsoring today's episode.

office, right? 1,600 cases as of last count. Uh, Anna's director just came out and said, "In essence, we're I am baffled. I have an engineering and and and science degree. I'm baffled. I don't know what's going on, and I don't know anybody else who knows what's going on with some of these cases." And that's pretty extraordinary. He was a former NSA director. He's NSA scientist. Scientist. Yeah. Um, so, uh, it is pretty remarkable. We had just about every single We had former CIA directors, former, uh, national intelligence directors, just extraordinary things.

You know, Radcliffe has said you UAP UFOs exhibit technologies that we do not have and cannot defend against, right? Um, right. [laughter] I'm I'm just I'm just saying I'm just saying I just I'm just want to acknowledge where we've come. It is extraordinary. It is astounding. Right. I I don't think I I suspect if I had shown you a picture of Dave Grush testifying under oath with the former inspector general of the intelligence community sitting right behind him four years ago when you wrote that tweet, I you would you probably thought I was

crazier than I thought the nothing will happen was not that nothing would happen. It was more that nothing would happen in terms of giving us evidence that aliens are visiting which is the thing they really want. I'm actually really happy that we've got uh all this progress and we've got this these investigations and the Arrow is doing a lot of work. You they're spending millions of dollars uh on investigating it and hopefully they will release their information. Uh I don't think we've really got much further along the road in terms of actual evidence of uh genuinely anomalous phenomena that

cool stories. We have a lot of really amazing eyewitness accounts. A lot of the blue book stuff is is eyewitness accounts, and there's very little that's you can actually get that's tangible data. There's some data that's written down, but there isn't really very much we can we can actually analyze. And that's what we really need to move the conversation forward. Having people come forward and say, you know, I worked on a program in the 60s that did crash retrieval, I don't think it's really going to move the needle very much. Uh, unless they can actually produce some evidence of

something. It's just more cool stories, which, you know, maybe they're true, maybe they're not, but we can't actually do very much with them. And that's always been the problem. And then there's the intersection of the cool stories with the data with the videos which we'll get into later where people are you know talking about. I'll take give you two two points that maybe maybe give us a little bit of hope to really address your point and I think Kosowski has said and the quote here is and Kowoski is the director of the new Dr. Kosowski is the new director of ERO, which is the the government's um UFO

analysis office. And his direct quote is, "We're going to need the the help of academia and the public to address some of these cases." And he's pledged to release them. Now, I'm skeptical, right? I I know how the government works. They they don't release anything they don't have to. Um but he said this. So, just to just kind of kind of address your point, maybe we'll see some more. I don't know. Um I think that's notable. And then secondarily, Dr. Kosowski in his hearing said that at least two multiple

firsthand witnesses have gone to arrow witnesses of what though unreported UAP programs. That's the that was the question from Jill Brown. So anyway, we we can go down that rabbit hole but I'm just I'm just saying like you know the story of UFOs right is okay there's something coming but there is we'll see. Um but there there is some chatter about Mick. How do you to Merrick's point there has been a lot of momentum if you're just tracking social consensus hype around this stuff. I mean I run a YouTube channel that is you know really surrounds this topic particularly I've seen a lot of interesting

my my site is all UFOs now. Well there you go. So um how do you explain that? Do you think it's some sort of uh coordinated SCOP? Do you think it's just this contagion mass, you know, social psychosis thing? What's going on? I think it's something that was maybe bubbling beneath the surface and has just been kind of allowed to come out. Uh the New York Times story basically opened the floodgates. It was something that uh gave validity gave uh allowed people to talk about it, allowed other journalists to talk about it and once you get that going, it became

becomes this kind of feedback loop. uh people talk about it in the media, the general public talks about it and then you know Congress gets involved because it's you know what people are interested in and then you can kind of push these things perhaps without the stigma that you you had before and if there are things like uncknowledged SAP programs which you know I wouldn't rule out of course you know it's entirely possible that people were running crash retrieval programs uh for things that they thought were were UFOs you know back in the back in the day uh but perhaps some of those

were under the radar You know, the government has done dodgy things before in the past. So, you that's the type of thing that should come to light. You know, there's the the the church commission. Was it the church Yeah, church commission. Yeah. They uh something like that where we can actually get these things out and I've been really enthusiastic about people like David Grush testifying and I wish he would come out and actually say more uh because I I want this to come into the sunlight. I want to know what's actually going on. Well, if that's your goal, that's I think the goal of everybody here. And we we Yeah, we'd

love I I would love for this to either be falsified for forever or it's one of those things. It's impossible to falsify because there's always the idea that the that light over there might be an alien. But well, I what I would say you can prove it's true. I think there's not a lot of daylight probably between us where like I think whatever is going on is interesting. If it's mass social psychosis, a coordinated scop, I think those are extremely interesting because I think it's the best scop maybe of all

time if it's a scop or something. Guys, we can talk about this for for hours without even get I will I will say the the commentary direct commentary from Rubio Gallagher, Kirk McConnell, former Senate staffer, Saskissy, sorry, Senate Armed Services and the Senate Intelligence Committees, they have all stated Jill Brandt her first question in the hearing there are she said right there are reports that firsthand witnesses are reluctant to go to the UFO the the Pentagon's UFO office. Um, Rubio

has stated very clearly over and over, these are credible people with high clearances in high positions and they fear for their lives. He said that on camera. Um, that's fascinating. So, if it's mass psychosis and people in high positions in government are saying, "Yes, I was on a retrieval program," then we have a major major problem because they're just fantasists out there that are uh in in important in very sensitive areas. Correct. I mean the other thing I would say is say this is all unagnowledged deep black programs. I find that fascinating too.

Yeah, absolutely. Maybe maybe it's a bit of both. I mean we do know that there are people in government who are fantasists like not everybody who's in government or even in the military is going to be like on the Well, the thing that I found because I've met all these people deep inside the government um you know post doing this show uh they are often more conspiratorial than people who are civil side. And that could be one of two things. I could be like, "Oh, that like discredits them in some way." Or it could be like they are somehow privy to a lot crazier stuff and that makes them more conspiratorial.

Man, can I put you on the spot? Actually, just curious when Grush says under oath. I had the firstand people go to the inspector general to submit a complaint. Uh Luis Alzando goes under oath. Yes, we have crash retrieval programs. Rubio says not under oath, but he says publicly in a very long interview, firsthand witnesses, they fear for their lives. Kirk and Connell has been tracking this um and is convinced that there's something to this. I talked to a a congressional source told me um I asked point blank,

what's your confidence level in in the existence of such programs? The answer was hovering around 100%. What am I as an analyst supposed to do with that? What do you think? Uh, I wouldn't be surprised if there were such programs. I mean, this is something I've been saying for a while. And that it's NHI and it's non-human Not that there's actually NHI there, but there's programs that existed in the past, possibly even now where some people who work on those programs think that it's NHI. It's quite clear from people like David Grush that people do actually believe uh these things happen.

They believe that we have bodies. They believe that we have crashed alien craft and they believe that there is these programs to study them. Maybe the programs exist, but what were they actually studying? Why do you think the inspector general didn't just shut this down immediately? Um, I have no idea. I'm not really familiar with what the inspector general does, but uh, Grush's claims covered a range of things. You know, there was the whistleblower recriminations and it seems a little bit mixed up as to what the inspector general was actually investigating and what they're referring to. When they said Rubio is very clear, he's the vice

chairman of the Senate intelligence. Rubio said that the unreported that the misuse of funds that portion of it not he didn't he didn't didn't say anything about the um the reprisal part that the misallocation of funds was deemed credible and urgent. Yeah. Well, if there if there are uncknowledged special access programs, I'd be happy to see them like that way. But it's interesting because that's also unfalsifi that's like also in fineman's not even wrong sort of category. If they deny it, you can't you you can say they're lying. you if they admit it

and show it then that's one thing. It's like you know anything you you only need one you just need one ace to win the game. Uh but everything that's not an ace doesn't mean there's no aces though. So you think it's going to stay in this sort of liinal category for a very long time. I would hope it doesn't, but I think what all we can hope for really is to get more sunlight on it. And if there is something there, something will eventually pop out. And if there isn't something there, we will see that, you know, all the things from the dark corners become illuminated. And we see that there was nothing there. And perhaps there's something in one of the

His sappers did it. Some sapper did it. Somebody wrote it. He put his name next to it, right? Yes. But he does that for everything, doesn't he? But it's uh he doesn't write the legislation. Does Schumer put his name next to Bigfoot legislation? Right. Like Well, I think I think okay, this is great. I think we should get into because this is all dealing with sort of social proof which does carry a lot of people. We should get into first principles. So, that's where I think both of you add really tremendous unique value. And so, why don't we start with the famous Nimttz case of 2004? Uh this

and so but Mick's done a great sort of debunk on So, why don't we watch the and we'll get both of your assessments. But before we do that, uh why don't we do a little rock paper scissors to see who I'm happy to take it and just kick it off or you want to take psych me out. Okay, let's do [laughter] a little rock paper scissors. Rock, paper, scissors. That's right. All good. [laughter] Wait, wait. I didn't even see who won So, so just for the audience before we went uh live here, Mick said we we

agreed to rock, paper, scissors. Mick said he's going to go with paper and I went with scissors. So, here we are. Here we are. All right. Well, Merrick, you take the first one. Yeah. So, and but seriously, please jump in if if um you know, if I misstate anything, but so the background is in November of 2004, uh the Nimttz carrier strike group. So the Nimmits and other vessels, Navy ships are out for pre-eployment workups, pre-eployment training basically to to um make sure their equipment is working

anomalous objects at 28,000 ft heading south at 100 knots very strange tracks that's odd uh occasionally I if I understand right they you know they're tracking them coming from above 80,000 ft zipping down um and to the surface of the ocean or they'd hover around 28,000 ft. Um notably Kevin Day has been very specific about this and consistent 28,000 ft 100 knots south. and Kevin Day oversaw radar operations. Correct. So he's the uh Kevin Day story has actually changed a

few times and he's he's he's given different figures. 28,000 ft, 80,000 ft and 20,000 ft. He mixes things up and it's changed in other ways as well. I've I've only seen 28,000 ft. All the interviews I've seen, I think he wrote it down and he he kind of memorialized it in his little nolla. They find this interesting. They wrote this like they were clearly stuck with these a lot of these people, right? You talk anyway. we digress. Um and one day uh so so Kevin Day is

concerned that this is flight safety and it is, right? I mean, you have objects. I mean, you sanitize your airspace um and you you want to know what's out there. So when your when your air crew are out there that they're not going to have um you know potential collision risk. So one day uh he Vector, you know, sends out um two F-18 Hornets. Um Commander Fraver is flying one of them. Uh we have not heard from his backseater publicly yet. The other plane, Fraver's

out and see an object doing basically kind of like a weird pingponging zigzagging pattern apparently um right over the ocean and and there's this roing water underneath um very strange um and so you have these two jets if I understand correctly uh Fraver departs uh Dietrich stays up high and starts circling and they they both start circling and Fraver's going lower and lower and as he goes down the jet according to Fraver kind of um reacts to

him coming down and it kind of does a Fraver does a noise. I don't know if you guys have seen that but that is somebody did a a pretty good compilation of um [laughter] of his reenactment and uh and then it kind of shoots off uh at just unbelievable speeds according to the to the witnesses. Um anything else? Well, a couple couple other interesting things he said. So it goes, you know, it's 80,000 ft and then, you know, right above the surface of the water. And then he says goes back up 80,000 ft and he says and he goes 80,000 feet is space.

So that was like this interesting line. And then he also says when he sees the craft and this was I found very interesting. He was like it almost seemed like it it knew that he he saw Yeah. And it recognized him or something. There was some kind of Yeah, that's right. No, I'm sorry. Good point. Yeah, now that you mentioned it kind of so as as Fraver's going down the circle, the thing does one of these like kind of a counter circle, right? And it's a I think it's called a a two. Um but but um it shoots off and apparently

ends up at a pre-desated um rendevous point. Let's call it a cap point. And that is a an area known to air crew. Um so that is interesting. Um yeah, it is it is interesting. Uh, a lot of this information kind of comes secondhand by various people. They were talking about the 80,000 ft and you said Fra said that. Fra didn't see that uh himself and he didn't even get a blip on the radar. They didn't actually see it on their own planes radar. And when they

arrived at this uh location, uh they didn't first see anything. And you know, the jets are hauling along at 600 mph, which means that you're not just hovering over one spot waiting for something to appear. you end up a few miles down the road very very quickly. so Commander Dietri, Alex Dietrich disputes that very clearly. She disputed that to you as you know cuz and Fra has said that that log is third hand. It's just inaccurate. Said they they both said that they so they I'm just at 20,000 ft and there

was nothing at 20,000 ft. So they they both said that when they merge plot they looked out and they saw it. Like you're you're you're suggesting that there's no link between the radar. They dispute that. I'm just trying to be clear and she just that to you as you I I think Braver himself has actually said that when they arrived, they had to look around a little while before they saw it. I think they was pretty quick. Dietri Well, of course, like Dietri's account Oh, let's just leave it at there's a discrepancy. Well, no, there's there's there's a bigger discrepancy. If you if you're saying that Dietri account matches Fre's account, you have to say that also

Dietri says her experience only lasted five, sorry, 8 to 10 seconds. the entire thing from merge plot to the thing flying away, And Commander Fra says it lasted about five minutes. And he said that all four pilots had eyes on for 5 minutes. So using one person's account, you know, it we don't really know which one was the more accurate. I would think probably Fraver because it's a more experienced pilot. Uh but and he himself said that it did take a little while to to find

and Dietri has addressed this and we can go down this rabbit hole, but she said like as a number two like she's she's watching him. She's not watching the target. She's watching him. Yeah, but she said from Merge Blot. Okay. Well, Twitter, she asked very specifically that it was from Merge Blot to when the thing shot away. Fair enough. I'm I'm acknowledging that there's a dispute there and that's fine. That's all right. A big discrepancy, I think. Well, what one other thing I think to discuss is just this idea that this was caught by many sensors. So, all we have and all we

can go off of on a, you know, first principles analysis, semi- distrustful of of government in a lot of cases. Uh, is this Fleer video and we're going to play that in post-production. We can also watch it here if it's useful to both of you. Uh but they say that they caught it on phased array radar and then you also have you know eyewitnesses as well and so can we even use that as data or what's what do you guys think? Uh go ahead. Yeah I think it's a bit of an issue like some of the stuff like it dropping from 80,000 ft was something that uh Kevin Day said that someone else

told him the people that work in the kind of the missile defense program on shore told him that they saw it later. He didn't actually see that at the time. uh he says like you know it's 28,000 ft but they went in at 20,000 ft and it wasn't there there either. So there's a lot of in the actual verbal accounts there's a lot of variation. Uh I think we can get an overall sense that something happened and there was something that was showed up on the radar and they did see some object. Uh but there is there's quite a bit of Was it a seagull Mick? Because I've seen a video of you suggesting it might have

been a seagull. I don't think it was a seagull. Okay. I suggested that when Fra was looking down, there might have been a variety of things that he might have seen looking down like white caps and boats and things and seagulls. I think you said I think I said I I think you said uh I hate to say this, but there would have been seagulls out there. Yeah, there would have been. Yeah, 100 miles offshore. seagulls like I I actually looked this up. Seagulls really don't go I'm not an ornithologist. Let's be clear. They don't they don't venture very far from thing is is I find it entertaining. You got to go down. He got his kind of

interesting little little segue. We were talking about Heinik earlier. Yeah. Uh Heinik was the person who came up with the swamp gas thing. And then later kind of admitted that he was lying and covering things up. I think he was lying about that particular case. I think then he actually thought that might have been a reasonable explanation cuz there was a marsh in the middle of where they were looking across. Uh but it it was a pretty silly explanation and it was kind of rightly ridiculed by the press. Then it was seized upon by uh kind of UFO fans to label any explanation of of UFOs

made that that mistake. Let's talk about a guilt-free alternative to alcohol that's perfect for your dry January or anytime you want to unwind. Cornbread's organic CBD gummies. These gummies are an absolute lifesaver for my evening routine. They're a natural way to relax, celebrate, or wind down without the hangover. I've cut back a lot on my alcohol consumption over the last few years. For a lot of you, trying out Dry January or cutting back generally, it's not always easy. But swapping that glass of wine for cornbread CBD gummies is a

total gamecher. It's a simple upgrade to your evening routine that leaves you feeling great the next day without sacrificing the fun. Plus, with all natural ingredients, they're the perfect way to stay balanced. Cornbread hemp isn't just a product. It's a small way to bring balance into your life. Whether you're journaling, meditating, or simply enjoying some downtime, these gummies elevate the experience without any of the guilt. It's like having a moment of calm in your pocket, ready whenever you need it. Alcohol doesn't have to be the default anymore. Whether you're cutting

back for dry January or just looking for a healthier way to relax, you've got to try Cornbread CBD gummies. Right now, American Alchemy listeners can save 30% on their first order. Just head to and use code jesse at checkout. Again, that's cornbreadhemp.com/jesse. Code jesse. cornbread hemp. This is the good life. And then how many eyewitnesses do we have? Cuz you have It's a great Yeah, we have a few, right? Can I just quickly back up maybe? Uh,

and gosh, I mean, the setup is taking so long, we've not even look at the video. But, um, there's another there's a, I believe, a squadron commander from a a Marine Corps squadron that was actually flying by U. Kurt, I think, is his name. Curts, Kurt, Kurt, whatever. Um, and he they decided not to vector him out there, I think, because of fuel issues. I'm not sure, but he saw the roing white water. Didn't see the tic tac, but the roing white water. That's interesting, right? Um but to your point for that that first encounter we're talking about eight eyeballs on this thing.

Um one of them is squadron commander. The others are pretty well trained. Right. Right. And what do you what do you think about that? Yeah. I I wish that we' get more witnesses coming forward. I I think it's difficult now because it's literally 20 years since this happened. Y uh and memory faith and Alex Dietrich herself has said that she doesn't really remember the details that well now and probably other people won't either. But yeah, I think once the you've got past the initial year or so of of people remembering things, it it's very

difficult to get that much more good information and using accounts from the time if available is usually the best way, but we don't really have those. Alex does say she has some notes that she made and some diagrams. Um, how do we get those? Well, you you give her a call and that's right. Okay. Yeah, let's [laughter] try. Yeah, reach out. well, there are a couple other interesting things. I think there were two radar systems, the SPY1B radar and the APS 145 radar. And we've seen neither of those. We just have the Fleer. You know, this was recorded after. This is like an

correct? Sorry. Yeah. So, so um that original air crew, the the uh the four uh air crew and those two jets go back uh to the carrier. They get out. Um apparently Fraver tells Underwood, "Hey, we just saw something weird. try to go catch it and and Underwood's really gung-ho about it apparently and and yeah, I'm gonna go get it. Um and yeah, he's vetored out. I'm guessing like an hour or two after I I'm It's not clear. They don't say. Okay. So, they cycle through people about it and they said they don't want

to I think I asked Kevin about it and he didn't want to tell me. Yeah. But they cycle through they uh Underwood gets out. He gets these hits uh on the E. Was the E2 high on the on the E2 on the first encounter or was on the second one? I And I like I just don't remember. I'm not sure. I think there were some eyewitness accounts from the people they said they saw it out the window but I don't think they've actually really come the other swear on it possible interesting piece of information which I'll just speculate on um and that maybe we'll never get to the

yes yeah when it comes to ships like I I know I I can say with certainty that the I think the Nimtts is a nuclearpowered carrier. I don't know about the the weapons and that that's that's out of my expectations. It's both nuclear powered and then most of those hold tactical nukes is what my understanding but that's about my pay that is uh yeah I you got me there. My source there is Robert Hastings, but Okay. [laughter] Well, I'm a big Robert Hastings fan, so Well, yeah, you would say that's biased. You would say that's pretty good. I I think Hastings is very This is a

tangent. We can, you know, um get into this later, but I I think Hastings is pretty solid. Yeah, he uh is Yeah, go for it. A mixed bag, I would say. I think listening to to his book, uh he's does a pretty good job of doing a lot of research. He's very detailed, but it does seem very much re biased towards trying to prove that point uh and he'll he'll lay out a few things. Oh, it could be this, it could be that, but I think he's actually aliens. on the theory side, but on the kind of

what happened side, he's like pretty empirically rigorous, right? Yeah. Is repeating things. It's mostly ironous account. I got to give him credit. I mean, he's compiled and from from a I I I take an intelligence analysis approach to this topic much more than Mick takes a much more technical approach, but the the like the documentation that Robert Hastings has secured is unbelievable. It is inc. I mean, it'll it'll it's extraordinary. Um it's 170 eyewitnesses. It's incredible. And also the the the

government documents, right? Like that that is what that to me is also of interest. Anyway, we can go that's a whole other It's a whole other but I think it's important for establishing some sort of priors on this stuff because I you know just to kind of out myself here as I want to be as much of kind of a non-factor and just you know honest judge and let you guys have at it but my own kind of way I process this is I usually think these things are prosaic or explainable explainable way they're you know air trash or balloons or

um or exotic you know craft uh but uh I think in the case of nuclear that might be the exception just because I think you have this repeatable you know they say science needs to be repeatable and you do have this like really interesting repeatable thread where you have all these witnesses who have you know Q clearances it's hurt their careers to come out their incentives are not to come out and if 170 have come out in the form of this book and you have a researcher who's now in his 70s how many more that have come out

there that would be my question to your point we wouldn't know about these videos if they hadn't leaked to your point. Well, this is interesting too because let's talk about the provenence of Nimmits because uh Nim Nimmits gimbal and Go Fast were uh in this New York Times article in 2017. But Nimtts, I believe the video itself was kind of floating around on Reddit and it was even on a German German server and you can still access it via the archive.org the Waybank machine. So there's actually a live link to this from I think I'm not sure

exactly when in like 2010 or something. What German? This is this CGI. I I did a little digging into this and quickly just make a point here like this is when debunking goes wrong because when that came out and it was on above top secret all these message boards or whatever. Uh people had decided, oh that's a hoax, that's not real. And then Mick, I got I I love this. Uh so in December of 2017 uh I think uh t to the stars academy put

Well, so but on on a particular thread on the flare one thread. So So I'm just want to be caught like right debunking can can [laughter] it can really go wrong because this is this is the most perplexing arguably the most video was real from the start as I recall. I'm not accusing you of Yeah. So, I mean, the taking it seriously must have been like, you know, taking it seriously that this was something performing amazing maneuvers, which is something I wanted to bring up. With all these videos, there's really two questions that we better ask. The first one is, is this object on the screen doing anything amazing? Is it is it demonstrating unique physics that we

you have do you have any other sort of explanations or you just just like not anomalous? So knows I think it's some kind of distant aircraft uh that is not moving not moving laterally. Like the the when these videos first came out there were people talked about how amazing they were. Fleer one in particular uh was deemed to be amazing because the object appears to zip off screen and there's parts of the video where where it seems to like accelerate very rapidly and then uh it loses track at the end. And I that's one of the first videos that I analyzed and I kind of

radar returns had we had we had [clears throat] weeks of radar return and then they went out for intercept 14 and then apparently it stopped. That was it after that. That's what Kevin Day said after that encounter. They didn't nothing ever happened afterwards. Uh but yeah, it's the the video itself I don't think shows any like advanced physics or anything like that. We don't know exactly what it is. I think it's some type of distant aircraft that's flying away, but as as Merrick will explain later, there are

issues with uh determining what type of aircraft it is, you know, because of the angles of uh the the the image and things like that. Merrick, if you just had the video Yeah. and you didn't have the eyewitness accounts. Is there anything that would lead you to believe that this is That's interesting. Um I' I'd probably without the eyewitness accounts, I probably would have That's a really good question. Um old me would have just dismissed it. Uh the me who's engaged with Mick who is

study this topic would be much more interested with with absent absent the eyewitness accounts. absent the eyewitness accounts, but you know, maybe with the promise of other, you know, sensors that pick this up, but that are too sensitive to release or something. Yeah. Yeah. It is weird and I Yeah, it is it's odd. Obviously, just sorry, just in removing the context, it is odd on its on its face. On its face. Uh and and I'll just just to counter Mick and or just to maybe respond, I I'm very much on the opposite end of the spectrum. I'm glad we started with this case because ruling out a plane is probably the easiest thing we can do

today. Like it is pretty simple to to rule out. That's fine. We'll get to that. Um but um uh so look I mean it's it is fascinating uh I have based on the analysis that and it's not just me but um the analysis that some of my colleagues and one of them as you know is a scient California scientist brings superb expertise to the table um and and I I would say I'll speak for myself but I have fairly high confidence that that was a tick tap shake craft and we can go

through the data you know as we and then to kind flip it on you, Mick. If the video didn't exist and you couldn't easily straw man it with a debunk and you just had like these super credible pilots like eight plus all saying, you know, we've seen this anomalous thing, would that lend all of this more credence? I think uh the Dietrich and Fraver encounter stands by itself as being an really interesting event and it's it's Fraver's account of it that convinces

people. It's what convinced you with this Joe Rogan thing and a lot of people on the [snorts] hill have talked to Fraver and heard his accounts and they've been convinced by it. So this video isn't what's convincing people. It's the eyewitness accounts that do it. Having this video as well kind of lends some some credence to those eyewitness accounts. It says like we saw an object and here's a video of an object. Uh it doesn't really look like the same object, but you know it's it's it's extra evidence that something was there. And the more witnesses you have, the more likely something is to have

actually happened. So, so Mick, can I just quickly say that this video is not convincing to folks on its own, and I think my job here today is to make it convincing, and thank you for giving me the opportunity because I I think we have some compelling data to Absolutely. Yeah. Well, the final other thing that I'll say about this case, which I find interesting, is I think a new Rathon Fleer system had just been installed before detection. And uh Rathon I think came out with a statement because they were like what's what's going on with our fleer system. This is kind of crazy. And Rathon was like we're

not responsible for what you detect with our system. Which I found very interesting as well. Yeah. I think they just upgraded the system. Upgrade the software perhaps. Okay. Wasn't I mean this wasn't publicly, right? So this nobody knew about this until I mean 2007 people didn't know about it. I think it was 2015 when Fraver started talking with on on like fighter pilot pod uh like podcasts and stuff and it really didn't bubble up until 1516. The German server thing is fascinating. Yeah, it's super bizarre cuz it's like was it was like a graphic design shop or

something? I think CGI or something like that. CGI my mind when I hear that my mind goes to like they were trying to see if you could possibly recreate it with CGI. Yeah, I I think what happened there was that it was just basically a site where you could upload stuff like an open FTP server uh back in the day. You would use that for uploading stuff and they just dropped it there and that's where it was who dropped it there. The person who leaked it from so is it just a leak but on a German so it was like this a place you would leak

a video like that. The US military doesn't have the original. The one that they released is the same. It's the one that they got from the German FTP server and then they released it from the US Navy. Well, they they just re-record over the Can they now release the original? They don't have it. They don't have it. I strongly doubt there's a wrinkle there. There are allegations from some of the um the sailors aboard the Princeton I think that um people in suits landed in helicopters and took all the radar data.

is that all this stuff is siphoned off. I don't know what to make of that. That's another good example of how the stories vary quite a lot. You got all these enlisted men on the boat who have these this story about how the data bricks were stolen and then fra just It's um so it difficult to reconcile this. Correct. Yeah. But you know obviously maybe Fraver didn't know. Who knows? Who knows? Should we dive Should we dive into the uh Yeah. Should we watch the video? Think you guys be able to see this?

We're familiar. infrared mode. And let's explain. So, thermal imaging, what is like this white dot in the middle mean? Well, it's not actually a white dot. It's actually kind of a spiky shape at the start, which is interesting. is uh is a good valid point. Then it switches to TV mode and TV mode means um it's basically a video camera, black and white video camera. Uh and we see it's black here. Now I originally thought this was infrared and this what this looks almost exactly like

the Chilean case, but of course it's TV Uh so this is actually you what you would theoretically see like with your own eyes. It switches back to infrared. You can see the object kind of moved around a little bit. Little spin there. Now that's the uh camera doing a gimbal roll. It's going to the camera has to readjust itself There's another little roll there. Do we want to get into symbology, Mick, or or uh Yeah. Uh well, let's just It's going to do some interesting stuff in a second,

but yeah. Uh there's kind of one boring part, I guess. But okay, so that it looked there like it zoomed off screen and then this is the end thing where it appears to zoom off to the left hand side. Um so yeah the symbology we got like a whole bunch of stuff numbers on screen and this is how we kind of get to do the analysis like we have the angles we have the the top of the screen we have the the heading the azimuth and then we've got the elevation uh which is um was it like six

degrees here I can't remember you mean from right to left no the the elevation I think it's five it's six up and then five six then five yeah exactly uh so we we that gives us kind of a line of sight so we know that it's somewhere along this line of sight. And this line of sight moves from right to left uh fairly levelly. And so we can kind of correlate that with uh the other numbers on the screen which is the air speed of the jet uh which is expressed in calibrated air speed. You have to convert it to true air speed and then

the altitude. We know the altitude of the plane from there. So you can do you can use all that to kind of set up a model of what we're looking at and what's actually happening. Um, that's kind of like almost like the second part of the analysis. Like the first part is actually is it doing anything amazing? And we saw at the end of the video it kind of zooms off uh to the left of the screen and there's kind of two parts to that. There's one where it kind of well first of all it kind of drifts a little bit and then it seems to shoot off very rapidly. And people initially thought that that was it accelerating very rapidly but it's actually just changing

Can I just say I'll just we're getting so in the weeds and I think part of I just want to say just maybe for for the audience that part of the reason that I'm doing this is I want to engage more people. I want more people mathematically scientifically inclined folks to to grapple with this stuff. That's why I write these articles. I I'm trying to encourage interest, spur interest in I 100% agree. We should we should teach this in colleges because it's a fun it's a fun analysis exercise that people can get their teeth. Sorry for that PSA, but I I really just want to convey that. Um

that's part of the whole problem here between you and I is it's just you and me, right? Exactly. And there's a few other people and there's no reason why other people can't analyze these these videos. And uh but it it does take a long time though. It does. It does. It is quite a lot of work. I mean this is like years of work that we put in because all the hard work on on my side. So I I got to give him credit and Chris as well. So um yeah. And they would say that the loss of lock just wouldn't account for that sort of

That's it's ambiguous. Uh Chad Underwood who's the Wizo who filmed it, he said, "Nope, there's no way the system would have lost it. I've talked to an active duty Wizo serving now and he said it's a finick." You I sent you the emails, right? you remember this and I I made a point to the system can be finicky and can lose a lock. So, it's a wash. I don't know what to make of that. Is the fleer autotracking or is there somebody operating? It is auto track. Yeah, that is correct. Yeah, it's a pixel. Exactly. Yeah, it's using the basically the contrast between pixels and it's like image tracking in After Effects. You just lock onto something and it follows

Got it. It doesn't do a very good job. It's kind of interesting comparing the technology in 2004 with the the later things in gimbal and go fast, which the lock seems a lot more solid. What I like about this is I feel like both of you are being very reasonable. And if anything, I'm more confused in [laughter] in a healthy way. You know, I I really I mean to in my mind the assessment there might be like the net assessment quote unquote would be like, you know, really interesting eyewitness accounts and then kind of inconclusive on the video front. Just wait till we get to the the Okay. Yeah. Cool. Yeah. Yeah. Huge news

access to weekly premium videos, behindthescenes footage, and monthly group calls where we discuss the ideas we love most. Plus, you'll get early access to merchandise drops, and be the first to know about the upcoming conference we'll be holding later in 2025. Our WAP community will serve as a private space where curious individuals and tech enthusiasts can come together to challenge the status quo and explore ideas shaping our future. If you're passionate about exploring unconventional ideas and want to dive

even deeper into our content, I invite you to join our [ __ ] today. Head over to premium to become a premium member today. Thank you so much and enjoy the rest of today's episode. Um, all right. Should we move to uh go fast? Can we go to the slideshow real quick? Oh, yeah. I I really want to show you the kind of the what what road and and Mick uh you know you know this this is the the video that you still have up and I got a bone to pick with you, right? This video is still up and that it's clearly not an airline. I mean

you [laughter] let's describe what we're talking about Yeah. Do you want to So Mick has several videos up uh looking at the Fleer One video and um one of them he hypothesizes that it's a a distant airliner. I think you said on a a podcast that it's probably 50 to 100 miles away. Yeah. I think this video I made like what do you remember when it was like Yeah. I just think it's still up there and I I think that's that's misinformation from my perspective. The description of the video. You put one sentence on there. Nobody's going to read that one sentence. I think it's I think it's very misleading to have that video still up there. If and

if if you said it's a it's an airliner wasn't in the video like that at 66,000 Uh that's impossible. Originally, I had done this analysis, very much analysis. This was pretty early on in the discussion thread, and so I was saying like what what it might look like. Uh, and I picked a airliner cuz that's what I'm kind of used to from this Chilean case. I was still kind of maybe biased by by that Chilean case. And I kind of did a little sideby-side comparison. And

they look somewhat similar. You can kind of see they look somewhat similar, not the same. Will you remove that video because it's clearly there's no I think I think the basic analysis is right and I can maybe change the title of it. So the analysis isn't that this is what it is is that a blurry shape can look like another blurry shape. You I mean you you clearly say in the video like oh it looks kind of like an airliner going off to the right. It does kind of look like one. Yeah. But it Yeah, but it can't be. So Yeah, but the video is still valid that

kind of like a downward slope like this. Um, clearly the object is tilted up this way. And there's no plane. You can change the plane type. Um, there's no plane that'll fly like what do you what do you have this distance plane going like 250 knots, whatever. 300. No plane is going to fly at like a, you know, 13 15 20°ree angle of attack in 300 knots. It's just it's just not reasonable. There's no tail. There's you could ruling out a plane is the easiest thing we'll do all day today from my perspective. Yeah, I think you can though. I think the problem with this video is that it's a super low resolution video.

But the angle is really it's crystal It's not really like you you you will talk later about how the the angle of the sun is going to affect where you're looking at things. And we don't know exactly what we're looking at here. We're looking at a dark shape. Maybe some parts of that are being illuminated by the pale. I mean that's just maybe maybe that's similar color to the sky. Lots of planes have the different different this works by private jet contrast, right? Well, contrast in the optical spectrum has a white tail. It plane planes cannot have white tails. This is black against the sky.

Yeah, I don't think it is flying at that So your eyes are seeing like it's really not at that angle. No, I don't think I think what we're looking at isn't representative of the actual shape of the the object. Great. So, anybody who can Okay, it's pretty clear that it's it's tilted up. Why wouldn't it be represented? What do you mean it's pretty clear that tilted up? Because you can see with your own eyes, It's got a pointy bit at one end. Yeah. And we'll get to that. So, if it if it's tilted up, then it's Yeah. Then it's not If it's It's got a pointy bit at one end, that means it's not really a tic tac shape, is it?

Well, that is an artifact that your software and this is why you make you've been so helpful. Like you I've shown you this like you can recreate that effect in with your software. You could probably recreate it with a different plane as well. Something I haven't done. You're a big evidence guy. Try Why can't you find me something with it with no tail? I feel it's kind of a fool's errand because there is not enough in that video to determine you. Look at it. It's this blurry blob. Uh the the video is

you see what I'm you see the the attitude the tilt is that's just it and if you watch the whole video you can see that tilt. It's very it's crystal clear. You see it turning as well which is something that's kind of weird. It doesn't really work I think with the tic tac tic tac model simulation. Do you want to just go to the next image because this is super interesting and I I owe credit to I think somebody on on I think his name was Paul but he did very simple edits brilliance and contrast. Um, and no, there's no trickery here. It's very simple. If you

but we know it's completely out of focus, so you wouldn't be able to see those. Lonnie Zamore's famous graph that came down in ' 64 and in New allegedly had little legs but anyway allegedly had little legs. This image here I think is very misleading. I think is basically being that you've tweaked the amount of brightness to bring in the edges if you do that with you just sliding the middle slider in the levels adjustment. So we can find that shape if you just do basic edits is the bottom line. You can find the gimbal shape and flare. What basic edits are we doing? Brilliance and contrast for the

brilliance and contrast. What what exactly does So contrast I think is probably pretty obvious. You're increasing the contrast and then brilliance is I think he turned it up. I'm not I again I didn't do this. Anybody can go that's the beauty of this and this is why like anybody can do this would do that. I it says brilliance like light saturation or what? Uh I'm not sure actually I'm not an guy so I didn't do this. No it's a nonstandard term. It's not like a Photoshop term. So what what it gets really interesting is and we can really drill down to there's you see

that little kind of that that sunlit section on the top. Um that in fact um we can place this object and we can see we can actually find which direction Underwood was and we can see where the sun was at around 330 320ish give or take and you can recreate that in a three and this is the first time I'm really presenting this. We're very excited. We're going to put this in a paper very soon. Um, but you can actually recreate that effect and see where the sun is. Uh, and it and

it in 3D you can move the sun around and and it gives you that effect. Um, interestingly enough, and that lines up with his position, correct? In reality, correct? So, let's go to the next one you, Mick, you brought up. Oh, it's black. Well, this is this is TV mode. Those F18s are not black. They're light gray, right? This is that's how that system works. Exactly silhouette. Yeah. Yeah. So, that's why we have a a black shape. human. It's not some something you can't say that it's the same because it's the same color. It's No, no, I'm just saying it doesn't mean it's a different color either. We don't know what color it is.

But you moved off the plane thesis. You don't think that? I don't think we can rule it out. But you have to provide us one option like just prevent some kind of like propose one plane that would fly like Propose one type of UFO that could fly like this. Right there. It's a UFO is just unidentifiable. the model in vertex sport model obviously I'm just saying if that's impossible for him to answer a plane that fits uh that could you know flips that that profile silhouette with

the lighting you know we just don't know I have a couple more just do you want to do you mind yeah sorry uh run through this so this is you talked about that that peanut yeah so this is I used mix this is mix oh weird well just you know what's in it so you say it we'll put it in yeah so um when you when you actually edit the video to kind of recreate the graininess and the the out of focus, you can recreate the tic-tac shape. You can recreate it. I mean, it's not a

plane, guys. Like, it's it is just it's it's extraordinary to find a match like a remarkable match with what eight eyeballs saw two hours earlier. You can recreate that with mix software. With my software. Yeah. I wish I I did. No, thank you. And and I I did that for you, Mar. [laughter] But isn't that compelling that maybe this is just sensory data? There's a couple points that I'll say one thing. Thank you, Mick. I We owe the UFO world owes you a huge debt of gratitude for the amount of work that you put into I'm glad you're finally getting paid. I don't know who's

paying you, but um uh No, wait. What is truly no by who? Someone I can't name. Okay. What what Mick has done is is incredible and it allows us to test out everybody's theories. Not yours, not ours, not anybody's. Um and and so so thank you for that. I I mean sincerely just just real quick like uh the reason this software exists is actually because of I appreciate it. And we were rec the the original gimbal simulator which is the the granddaddy of this was because Merrick was getting so annoying with this consistent consistent

criticism that I had to like finally make a a good like video and I had to write all this software to do it and then I wrote this nice long video and but Mick you always say like oh god you know the these account eyewitness accounts are always so incredible but there's never any data to back them up. Here's a tic tac with little legs, which is exactly what what Fraver and the amount of blur that you had to add there to make them make them match would mean that they wouldn't be able to see those legs. I'm asking is give me a plane SR71.

I don't care. Put on the legs. Well, how can I make I I like blurry. Uh well, what what I guess uh Mick, what would you say to the fact that you can do some slight edits with a program that you built that allows this is just to recreate one frame? I think what would be interest Oh, okay. Fair enough. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Uh the actual object itself appears to do this kind of weird rotation and get a bit more pointy at one end. Uh which I kind of interpreted as being like a plane turning, but uh

the pointiness is recreated. It's it's an artifact of that front appendage. I sent you the video lighting, but we don't we don't have the rotation the in your highest percentage likelihood thing is plain still even though there's some issues. I don't know like uh you know Mar brings up some good points and and Yanick uh so you know I think what I would say is you can't 100% rule out a play. I feel comfortable doing it. There's no tale and it matches what and I think 100% ruling out things is a huge mistake that people have

historically made. I think of the Chilean case. They spent two years ruling things out and they were wrong because they ruled out a plane right at the start and then this this the tail. You can't see a tail. Of course you can. What about the remember the video that uh that that Jesse sent us a few days ago of the tic tac the shaped shaped thing? Yeah. The over and you said that you agree with me that it was a plane. Sorry. It has no wings.

And that's a very common thing that people see like in in the So what was that? It it would have been another plane. I'm sure there's another plane. Yeah. Go to the next flight just real quick. I think so. This is how we were able to place it. Um there's a consistent rightward banking and you can kind of see it here. [snorts] Um and that's how there's a strong and thank thank goodness Yannik is a climate scientist. Uh sorry buddy. I hope I didn't out you. Um but he has access to extremely nuanced weather data and we can find out we can if you go to the next slide there um we can look at the weather data from

that time at that altitude and there's an extremely strong northerly wind coming from uh from the north about 100 110 knots. And in the video you see this kind of this consistent rightward banking which is the autopilot compensating to maintain a straight heading as it uh as it goes. And that allows us to place that the heading of that of that plane and see okay well now we know where the sun is and then we can we can match the sun with the top of that um that that issue with that is that planes don't need to bank. to maintain a heading.

Is that true? Okay. And then we discussed this. So you said that you thought that they did but a bunch of chat GT things talking about crabbing right? Uh no. Well, I'm talking about the difference between like the the true heading, the ground heading, and the air Right? So, to maintain a particular ground heading, you just need to have an air heading that incorporates the wind So, uh the autopilot, you can see at the bottom it says HDG, that's heading. So, that means the nose is going to maintain a heading.

It's the same thing. Ground tracks are relevant. It only would need to bank if the wind was changing. No, it needs it needs to stay the nose is going to stay at, let's say, 270, Doesn't matter. Doesn't matter. So, how's it how is it maintaining? You point it in the direction you want to go and you go in that direction or else you point the you point the velocity of your plane in the direction you want to go, which might involve you turning a bit to the side, but you don't need to bank to do that. If you bank, you'll keep but it's consistent, right? It does No, it's just wobbling a little bit. That was greatly magnified. That was a

thing I sent you years ago that uh it and it's it goes in both to one side, right? It does go actually to the the other side a little bit. it doesn't [laughter] you're fundamentally wrong with the idea that you need for the audience to turn to the to the side. It's a 100 knot wind coming in. It doesn't matter. It's completely irrelevant. It could be a thousand knot So if if the wind is pushing the planes fly relative to the air. Yeah. uh that altitude the air is basically just uh a constant homog

homogeneous mass and there's no real turbulence there to speak of in terms of like differentials between the the wind directions. So if you if the wind is moving like this uh and you want to be flying in that direction you'll just have to like turn a little bit into the That's called crabbing. No that's called changing the heading of your plane. It's called crabbing is something where you actually kind of slide the plane a little bit. You're using rudder. Exactly. Yeah. But that's that's we're not talking about that. No, we're not talking about that. Yeah. Your your velocity relative to the

air is just, you know, straight through the air. Okay. Let's move on. But this to the audience on whether we can [laughter] cut that out or whatever. Yeah. No, leave it in. Leave it in. Yeah. But but boy, a plane need to bank in this There's a consistent right banking which which our hypothesis is because of theund 110 knot winds. So, real quick, last last point on this. Do you mind just going up one more? This is uh one more. Sorry, just one one higher. Y up. Sorry. The other way. Oh, up. Gotcha. Last but not least, um we can actually So, um Kevin Day said that these objects

were at 28,000 ft. Uh I'd be curious to see if he has said other, but everything that I've seen is he said that 28,000 ft heading south at 100 knots. We can find that in the data. We can find the Chad Underwood object moving south at 100 knots uh at 28,000 ft descending slowly but um we can find that as a very very anomalous flight path. So again we can find very very specific descriptions of what the witnesses recall in the data. That is critical and we see that with

with gimbal as well. Do you not find that compelling? You can find all kinds of things in the data depending on what your parameters you put in. This is at the distance roughly that that Underwood gave. That's important, right? You can find basically a straight line path as well of uh of the object moving away consistent with it being a plane or some similar type of aircraft. Uh and you know if you change things around, change with the way the wind direction is then you can find different things. If you move change the distance, you can find different things again. Uh I don't think like this is the only solution

No, but it's it is a potential one. It is remarkable to find that in the data. That just doesn't happen by accident. That of course suggests that what we're looking at is actually a balloon. That is absolutely so absolutely a possibility. Yes. And that and balloon would explain the the radar targets possibly because they're moving with the wind. You know, we have this wind as you described earlier moving from north to Far more uh reasonable explanation than I wouldn't rule it out. I would rule it out. I think you know, like I said before, my analysis of these videos is kind of two parts. Is it doing anything

And what is it? And I don't think it's doing anything amazing. I don't think drifting south at 100 knots is doing something amazing. Uh it is very weird at 20 what? 28,000 ft. What What do you know that does that is that size? A balloon. That's that size. A balloon be that far off the coast. Uh I don't know. It could be some kind of military balloon. A balloon used for surveillance. A weather balloon. This is 20 years ago now. Literally. What kind of propose some option. You can throw spaghetti right against the wall. This is a debunking playbook, but

Roosevelt. Uh so Merrick, you set up the last one, right? Why don't you set up this one, Mick? This is a fun one. Uh this this appears to be something that's moving very fast over the surface of the the water. uh is similar to the Fleer one video in that it's it's thermal uh footage. This is all thermal. There's no TV mode. So, I think they do switch between black hot and white hot. But what we're looking at here is the surface of the ocean and we see this object and the object appears to be um colder than the surface of the ocean, which is very

unusual for a a powered craft. Um we have a variety of numbers on the screen. Uh we have the angle down minus 23 at that point. Is it 2029? Need my glasses. Uh and and then we have the the heading which is off the top of the screen, but we actually do have that. And then we have a range value. Now, unlike in [snorts] the FL one video when they lock onto this object, uh they actually do get a range number. There's some dispute

as to actually where that number comes from, like how far away is this object. Uh we don't know if it came from a radar hit or if it was some other way of doing it. So we're not entirely sure how accurate it is, but if you assume that that number there is relatively accurate, you can do a reconstruction of uh of this object. And uh it turns out to be going a lot slower than initial estimates. Like initial estimates predict I think are somewhere around 600 u u mac max 6 point something or other.

it's not particularly big. It's about 3 to 6 feet in diameter. So something just like a weather balloon seems like a reasonable explanation for me, especially as it doesn't really do anything amazing. And this one's really interesting because Arrow just came to the all domain anomalous resolution office. We just, you know, we're talking about its director. Uh came out and they said that this is possibly parallax. And so they're saying that there are probably, you know, certain things in the sky that we can't classify, but they are kind of coming out against this video in particular. This video is also

the recent hearing if they had actually talked to the air crew. And I have a major bone to pick with Arrow. They didn't talk to the air crew about this. Why wouldn't they talk to the air crew? I don't know. And it it fits in with the blue book, the the debunking playbook of never talk to witnesses. Just Yeah. Just just throw something out there. Um, I don't know if if this is part of the old guard, the the previous director who I think has rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. Um, rubbed me. I had a long discussion with him. Um, rubbed me the wrong way. Um, so I think

that's a massive oversight. It's it is an analytic failure for them not to talk to the air group because clearly those guys were excited by something. There's a reason. You don't just lock up some little random object in the middle of, you know, the 300 miles off the coast of Jacksonville, Florida. Oh, by the way, this is 10 minutes before the gimbal video. Oh, by the way, this is amid daily um uh observations or or you know, sensor observations of spherical objects off the east coast that are as Ryan told you and has been very public about where

a a safety of flight concern and b were operating in very anomalous ways per their you know their their systems. They're locking them up on fleer on their their training their infrared training missiles on their radar. Right? you have multiple three four sensors their eyeballs are seeing them sometimes occasionally. Um so it is a massive analytic oversight. Um I I am I have major bone to pick with arrow about that. Um because Ryan just came out on your show uh and uh or on your in your discussion said that this was part of and I think you said it previously but

has said um you know all the Pentagon did is debunk the name which the Pentagon I think the Pentagon itself gave the the video. Um so uh I I you know look there's a I I want to just be very clear there's a reason you don't just this is like a tiny needle in a haste. You don't just find something just slur slewing your your targeting pod around the ocean there. They had a there's there was a radar hit that gave them some kind of an indication that there's something there and by the sounds of their voice. Um what they were seeing visually did not

match up with the radar that they were the data that they were getting. That's really a reach I think trying to fly. What's it doing? Right. What are whatever they said like they're they're very surprised by it. Yeah. They were surprised that they caught it on their uh on their their What's it look at it fly is the actual Yeah. Well, it looks like it's going very fast. Well, I don't think they're stumped by parallax. They might have been, but the bottom line is you'd be surprised. I mean, the pilots are stumped by parallax all the time. Bottom line is that Okay. Can we describe what parallax is to the

this display. The the the field of view here is about it's less than one degree. It's tiny, which is a really really powerful zoom lens, which is the biggest zoom lens you could get. Uh, it's equivalent, I think, of uh, over 2,000 mm SLR. And this is in uh, this is in an F18 Correct. Okay. Correct. Yeah. Two-seater. Yeah. I just mean eyewitnesses like they're they're like they're actively looking. It's not auto tracking like the N thing. That's what I mean. Not not eyewitnesses and that they're seeing the Correct. People did look at the video afterwards. Ryan Graves said he

described looking at the gimbal video. At least I'm sure he must have seen this one. Well, you know, it's really interesting though. we have all these witnesses coming forward now. It's it's a shame that they didn't come forward years ago. Uh because this is new Absolutely. And we might be hearing more from as as Ryan said on your show and and sorry Ryan if you're watching. I I'm I think he's annoyed at me because I you pay me. When's your buddy coming out? When are they going to come out and I I would love more information. Yeah, absolutely. Because this is the same guy who recorded the gimbal video which is the poster child, right, of of

this whole Well, the guy needs to come out. Yeah. [laughter] I'll do an interview with you guy wherever you are. Yeah. Um uh but again I I I cannot stress enough I' I'd love to hear him ex expound or kind of expand rather on um on the formation. Uh I mean your point here is that you you don't think he's doing anything amazing in this video, but you think there's something amazing about the situation formation. Absolutely. Absolutely. This video doesn't show that we've got this kind of secondhand 10 years later, 20 years later thingy. to your to your

point. Uh yes, it might actually be doing something. Uh Yannik, put this in all caps. Assuming the range is exact. The best visual match, this is a scientist, folks, not me. The best visual match in Mick simulation has the object around 100 knots, not 60 knots as Mick claims. End quote. Yeah, that's assuming the is accurate, which is as we discussed earlier is a very dubious thing. And was it not moving against the wind or or was that just gamble was moving against?

We don't know that because if the if the if the the w the the aviator who recorded it comes out and says, "Oh, yeah, we were freaked out because it was moving against the wind." Well, that would be great, but that hasn't happened yet. I I'm just saying that's why we we really need to hear from but we I I really want to hear about the formation and if if there's any way he remembers what direction. Maybe that's why they're so surprised that it wow that tiny thing is moving against the wind. We don't know. Bottom line is Arrow dropped the ball in my opinion. Yeah. Well, we need more We need these

guys to come out and we Yeah, they need to at least behind the scenes interview. And Arrow, I'm going to put on my my ex-government hat here. Arrow kind of um put themselves in a really tough spot because they came out and did this. Now you're going to have air crew come out and and um contradict you. That's a that's a terrible position for a government agency to be in potentially. Well, he already did, right? I mean, through through What are they contradicting? I mean, and all they said was that it appears to be going slow. I'll tell you exactly why. Because it says um the arrow conclusion, what is it? It u it does no anomalous maneuver.

All right. Okay. If it's part of formation, doesn't do any anomalous in this video. If it's holding formation, that is anomalous maneuver. Well, in strong wind, no. Uh four objects blowing in the wind will stay in the same formation for either 300 for 300 miles off the coast. Well, really they're in formation at that point. balloons are going to stay in a perfect or we don't know it's perfect, but you we Yeah, we don't know exactly what the formation was. Was it a perfect straight Uh, we got to hear more about We got to hear more from this this this

I agree. Track him down, Jesse. I'll do my best. Yeah, I'm going to have Brian right after this and say we should we should do something. And I again, the context is so critical. 10 minutes before Gimble, 10 minutes before the like the most right anomalous or or at least strange video that that a lot of people have have seen. Mhm. Was that was that verified the time that it was before? Yeah, you can see the time stamp on the screen that kind of wraps around. I think it doesn't show the uh doesn't show the I'm I did I I'm pretty I'm pretty confident it was right before.

So, it could be anywhere. Yeah, it doesn't matter that much, but wondering if there was some verbal confirmation from a witness. Should we watch it? Anything else on Go Fast before we go to Gimble? Uh no, I don't think there's there's much there. Uh that we discussed. Okay. Yeah, we can play it in post again. I'll just guys, Arrow, your job is to investigate UFO videos and data and this is one of three of the most recognizable video. How do you not talk to the air crew? Arrow should release their analysis, I

Do do you agree that it's kind of egregious that Arrow did not interview the air crew? I don't [clears throat] see why they wouldn't have done it. It's It seems like it's a data point. Uh I mean, they even got the the year wrong in the slide. It said January 16th. Like that's weird. Well, I mean, I have a major bone to pick with the analytic side of Arrow, as we all know that they have really done a poor job on a lot of their reports. So, um, we I don't need to belver that. I'm I'm optimistic that the new director will um change things around. I I think you know, you you and I both know that Arrow have done said some

things that are incorrect. You you've had conversations with basically just it was astounding and I don't need to get into it, but he's said various things in public as well, which didn't really tally with Yeah. Uh that's a very diplomatic way hearing he, you know, he said some speckles on the screen were stars when they were obviously not stars. I think he phoned it in. I think he was close to retirement. I don't know. I think I think he's more there as a standing up the organization rather than being an analyst himself. So he wasn't that familiar with everything. And to his credit, he did stand up the

the first time that he talked to me, but I was and solved a lot of cases. Do you guys ever wonder if any of these things are sort of roarshock tests or like initiation paths for, you know, your your uh analytical rigor abilities or whatever? And so like some of these videos are like halfway truths and it's like, you know, our job to somehow solve it and then you solve it, you get in the program or something cuz the taxpayers need to get their their money back. This is this is pretty this is pretty awesome. It's a waste of time in in a nuclear multipolar world that that's heating up. That's kind of a why are you playing

puzzle games with the American people? Right. Okay. Right. Well, because of that Yeah. Well, I do want to say it's interesting that I just on the Tic Tac So, my buddy Chris Ramsay, amazing magician, has a channel called Area 52, but he's he's actually kind of good when it comes to this stuff because he's the Area 52 is about around the UFO thing. He's actually believes in a lot of the UFO stuff. As a magician, he debunks other magicians. That's great. So, he's kind of like a good person to like throw at this whole topic. He was flying a commercial flight

over Nellis testing range and he saw that that tic tac that I showed you guys. You both said probably prosaically explained. Um I'll I'll play the video, but why why prosaically explained? Cuz it it is interesting in the context of of favoring a tic tac, too. It's a super common sighting and before they would describe them as being cigar- shaped. Uh and what it is is just planes. The fuselage of a plane is eliminated by the sun. Uh but the the wings are either a different color if you from above like the gray wings you see plane with the

gray wings or they're not being eliminated by the sun cuz the sun's above them and you're below them. So you will see basically just the fuselage of the plane the bright white thing and at that distance you just can't make out the wings. And when you take a video of it doesn't show up on the video and we've seen this numerous times. We've uh tracked I've seen it myself flying down to LA once and you can just like you know get the location and find which other planes were in the area and just drop it in to to sit by my software and you can see uh

what it actually was. Gotcha. Well, yeah. No, that's that's good to hear. I mean, the way in which that didn't comport at all with the Fraver eyewitness account is it wasn't, you know, going right next to the water, shooting off, you know, exhibiting all these anomalous flight characters. You never see these uh amazing maneuvers unamiguously on video. It's either it's supposedly dot in the distance. You certainly do in gimbal. You see very anomalous and fantastic, anticipatable. And then the the the like how put off rebuttal to what you just

said Mick is especially when it comes to kind of optical sensors like just cameras you get these kind of you know uh blue shift red shift effects where you're stretching light if you're kind of moving away you're kind of crunching it if you're moving close you get these kind of ultraviolet doesn't make any sense though is an excuse for why we can't get these things on video but people see these things and they have these accounts of them it's not like your your eyes are somehow physically different to a camera they're little photo receptors in the back and there's a lens in the front and it works basically exactly the same way. It's

just, you know, it's a chemical electrochemical reaction rather than a a sensor array. Well, do do you think I mean that's somewhat of a biochemical reductionist view of like the way we see things? Do you think that consciousness Well, the way we see things is extraordinarily consistent with the way cameras see things. If you take your camera and take a picture of this, you're going to see pretty much the same It's not like we're magically [clears throat] conjuring up things in this room in our brains. There's a physical reality that we can see and the the same physical reality is what cameras take pictures of. And so if UFOs exist in physical reality and we can see

them, then we can also take pictures of Yeah, I think that's fair. I think you'd have to get into kind of uh trippy philosophical discussions around, you know, widening the doors of perception or can you kind of glitch into like other realities and we don't need to go there, but [clears throat] basically magic at that point. Oh, magic or a different theory of mind which you could you know get into. I mean that a lot of you know uh uh pretty well respected philosophers and and and people like Aldis Huxley, William James and you know there's even modern neuroscientists would would you know

possibly agree with you have Donald Hoffman talking about the the the brain is sort of an interface but anyways we don't need to get so let's let's get into that. Can I say one one [laughter] more quick on go fast just because it it does appear spherical right like if it's a balloon it's very hard to say it's about six pixels but and I already mentioned this this is amid right daily uh encounters but the sphere is that that one uh uh mor you know morphology that shape that keeps propping up just over and over in the historical record starting with 80 years

Stevens, who later became senator uh in Alaska and co-sponsored UFO research with Harry Reid through OAP, uh saw a Foo Fighter. OAP is why we're having this whole discussion. There's a chain you can draw a direct link OSAP to ATIP to to Lu Alzano to New York Times. That's why we're having this conversation, right? So, it's fascinating. Just I'll quickly just wrap up. Kurt Patrick, former director of Aeros said uh quote, "We're seeing metallic orbs, direct quote, making very interesting apparent maneuvers all over the world." That's interesting. Nobody

in the NASA panel, by the way, raise their hand when he said that. Like, these are scientists. Why didn't every hand go up? Excuse me. Could you clarify a little bit? Right. Nobody asked a question. The the the the chair of the panel was texting on his phone as he was saying that. It's pretty astounding. Um, Top Gun pilot Jack Stewart came out a couple maybe a year ago. I think Ryan mentioned this on on on your discussion, but um he's flying along and and notices some something whizzed by his canopy. Kind of thought it was a balloon. Okay. his wingman saw it, right? He's flying,

I guess, somewhere somewhere in a in a in a position to see his tail and he said, "Yeah, dude. That thing turned around and followed you." Um, goes on, uh, Donald Trump has said, "I've had Air Force pilots, you know, very, very good guy, better than Tom Cruz, uh, and come out and say, you know, we've had spherical objects, circular objects out fly our F-22s. That's the most one of the most advanced aircraft in our arsenal." this this consistency in the Korean War you see this reporting uh in

there are good reasons for this consistency I think how do you how do I think there's two reasons why we see spheres a lot one is that there's balloons up there and the other one is that a lot of people are just seeing very small things that are far away and they interpret that as a point of light as a sphere because they they're asked what shape it is that's one of kind of almost like a mistake that people make in UFO reporting is that they ask what the shape is and they give them a list of things to do and they don't say you It's a tiny dot that we couldn't say. But the balloon thing is interesting. Like you mentioned the German things. Uh weather balloons get a bad rap. But

Germany at that time was actually using metallic silver balloons as sighting balloons which was an old fashioned way of determining the wind speed at altitude. You would release a balloon some known distance away and then you'd use a theolyte I guess to to measure measure the angle. But but fighters were not really Fighters. No, that's different. Different thing. So, so they would they would follow vapor trails that seem to lock on to flight or fight path. So, it's a really interesting government report that I think is well the earliest known

Did they all disappear when cameras were Uh Kirk P there's a Middle East orb is a metallic sphere like like a metallic sphere. Go fast arguably is in the public domain. Like America is a big country and there's like a billion cameras in America and we don't really have any good videos of these. I don't disagree. Oh, actually that's not true. There there's a ton. That's not true. LAX has had uh that's not that's actually not true. The Manchester one. Do you think in the Manchester one? No. No. LAX. Let's keep going. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. We can go on on Okay. So, let's go. Uh gimbal. Do you think there's anything? There's probably enough unique to say here that we should we should hit this cuz we are a little I think we can wrap up here. Absolutely. No, but I want to get into contemporary stuff too, but do do you think this is definitely worth touching on? Absolutely. I think this might be the most compelling. So, should I set it up real quick? Um Yeah. Yeah. Why? Yeah. So, very very quickly, um this is Ryan Grave Squadron. I think it's VFA1, the

Red Rippers. They had just done a fairly complex air-to-air training mission. They're just like uh the the tic-tac incident. They are I believe this is a pre-eployment workup cycle. So they're they're doing their training before they they ship out to the Middle East. And uh they had done a um a pretty complex air-to-air mission off of Florida. So the carriers out there, they're heading back to the ship. Um and one of Ryan's buddies, the the Wizo, the the backseater that we were talking about, Wizo is weapons.

Thank you. Yeah, the backseater. um they're circling the land so they don't all come down at once. They kind of they hang out. So, you know, they they clear the airspace and um uh they got a hit on their radar and and um to to this object and they went to go investigate um and the video kind of picks up as they're they're kind of trying to sneak in behind it on what they call it a stern conversion. Um, and yeah, the video captures some very interesting

I don't remember now. But uh I asked Susan Goant and she told me it wasn't a training video. Who said the last Susan Goff? Oh, Susan Gooff. But didn't Susan Goff like run SCOP for the DOT or something when it came to rallying support for the app Danny War? I'm just telling you what she told me. Yeah. [laughter] Okay. Don't take that. She wrote a a an academic paper on psychological operation. Okay. So that's why there is suspicion of her thesis I think. Yeah. Some then she seems to be kind of tight with

uh George Mason University. So, I was there. I just happened to be in DC for um for other business and uh I went and had a chat with Kirkpatre afterwards and Susan was right there and and that that continues if you saw the current director John Klosski just testified and Susan Goff's in the background in the background. Right in the fridge and so there's this like you could you probably find like millions of Reddit threads memes are just out of that she's like the handler. I mean there must be a reason why she's there. So, I mean, the simplest reason is that she's there so that he doesn't

say things that he's not supposed to not because there's something I don't like him to say things that he's not supposed [laughter] whispered to her and asked her whether he should say anything, but then she would leap in and stop him if he said I've been around a lot of senior government we talked about that like I that is unique. That is unique. It does seem a little strange that I would like to hear what the explanation is. But but she says she said that the gimbal video is not a training video. Yeah, like a couple of years ago. Did she say anything else? Did she say I

think this video? No, she she gives these boiler plate answers for a lot of stuff. Bit frustrating. Okay. Like say a lot without saying You like 10 questions and seven of them come back as like we don't discuss that. It's more words. Got it. It's a little frustrating. How are you able to get in touch with Just email though. Wow. All right. She doesn't answer my emails. Yeah, I was gonna say [laughter] I doubt she would answer mine as well. Um, okay. So, um, yeah. So, I guess it's probably, you know, you set this up, right? So, do

you have anything to say on the gimbal? On gimbal. Yeah. Yeah. Gimbal. Uh, I think again we've got the two aspects of it. Is it is it demonstrating something anomalous? And what is it? And with uh the the anomalous thing that people claim in this video is that it's a saucer-shaped craft like a flying saucer that kind of tilts up on its side, which is aerodynamically impossible. It would kind of fall out of the sky if it did that. Uh uh and that proves that it's some kind of, you know, advanced technology, possibly aliens. Uh the analysis that I've done suggests that it

might actually be a camera artifact rather than uh the the actual shape of the object. So, what we're seeing here is a source of shape. It could be just the glare. I know Merrick doesn't like the word glare. The experts don't like it. They don't know what I'm talking about when I say And the problem that the problem with that is that we don't actually have in in optics the the terminology for things like glare and lens flare often overlaps. Uh it's called blooming. It's a well sense of bloom is is is something that people sometimes call glare as well, but we

don't know what's actually going here. But basically there's an optical effect here and there's a number of indications in the video. You can see for example there are bands of of light and dark in the background that rotate with the object itself uh when it's rotating which kind of suggests that it's the camera that's doing the rotating rather than the object itself. Um there's things that look like little defraction spikes on the the top and bottom left and right and even a little bit hint of them at 45° on this object which make it look like it's some kind of optical effect. uh there's there's instances

where the the turn rate of the object kind of seems to deviate from the turn rate of the the horizon. And then perhaps the biggest thing is that the amount that it rotates and the speed and the time is all exactly the same amount that would be required to for the camera to have to rotate to traverse the forward-looking direction. Cuz these cameras talking a little bit. It's not mounted like the cameras you see under like helicopters or even like uh like um

a drone where the camera's like this and it can rotate around like this. It doesn't have the ability to rotate around. So it has to rotate using a kind of a roll plus a tilt which means the camera rotates uh and then that makes the picture rotate. So it has to drotate that afterwards inside the camera using either a device or using some kind of software to rotate the image and that rotates the image back the right way. So nothing appears to rotate but this optical effect within it because it's

tied to the camera. The optical effect rotates. So it's like a glare that rotates. Like if you look at say this light over here, you can kind of see like around the light there's there's kind of a shape little spikes and things. Um, if you turn your head, let's see, and it's a better thing if you look at that light, squint a bit like that. Squint with your eyes and then kind of rotate your head left and right, you'll see the kind of the the rays that come from it are kind of rotating And that's what's happening, I think, in this video. Uh, there's an optical effect sim what

you saw there. Got spots in my eyes now. Uh, and the rotation plus the drotation creates this this uh illusion. So, it's like a a camera turning plus lack of focus or something. Yeah, the lack of focus actually might be something that's actually going on there as well, which the the focus is something that actually changes the shape of these uh these these optical effects. And Mary doesn't like glare, so I'm going to call it an optical effect. I think there's I think there's enough evidence in there that that's actually

happening. Beyond that, we don't actually know for sure what we're looking at. And my hypothesis is that it's a distant jet. And the reason I think that is that if you do this analysis with the lines of sight, you can find a path in the distance that's more or less a straight line. It's kind of like a slight s turn about that. Uh and if you come closer, you get these kind of weird uh kind of like J hooks. They've been described by Ryan Graves, I

think. Uh, and there's some debate as to whether this this straight line of a possible jet engine powered aircraft or this J hook powered by some kind of weird anti-gravity thing is the more plausible of the two explanations. And a lot of people, you know, UFO fans, uh, would go with this one because it matches the verbal description and the distance that was given. I think it started out they originally said like 8 to 10 miles they changed to 6 to8 I think 6 to8 is the

current estimate of of the distance 6 to8 nautical miles and if you do the analysis there you do get this kind of J hook which does somewhat resemble the verbal description of uh of the pilots or Ryan Gray specifically when he describes what he saw on the the radar page the SR page so that's the kind of simple theory thanks guy it's What do you say, Merrick? Aam. I say aam. So I I uh I put the you've seen this before, but it's it's quite simple. Uh on one side, what the

aviator what the air crews say is is a remarkable match with the data and the On the other side, you have these cascading malfunctions in this this um anomaly, this um artifact that nobody's ever heard of. Like I and and I've looped you in with I think several of the top experts in the world on this. Not not heard of it when we've got videos of it happen. Not this video other videos. Who you there's no there's no there's zero evidence of what you're proposing. No, there's zero empirical evidence of what you're evidence of glare like day's videos for

That's all blooming. So point is uh I'm on I'm on team AAM here and I'm on uh all the data lines video Sorry. Yes. So aam [clears throat] razer named after William of AAM the most parsimonious simplest explanation is usually the the right one. It it is the the assumptions here the cascading of failures and malfunctions that and and unseen um uh artifacts uh that Mick proposes and requires for his theory is just I I we'd be here all

afternoon and probably through the Still a lot missing from the left side of that page though. Okay. You [clears throat] have to uh kind of you know my side of the page basically gives a complete explanation. and your side of the page just says, "Oh, it was some kind of thing that was Can I Can I bring my analytic kind of perspective to this?" Real quick, why is it AA's razor? Uh, well, because I don't have to account for an extraordinary amount of malfunctions and never before seen new technology. So, new physics. So, AAM says nothing about the nature of

an assumption. He's talking about purely about volume and the number of He's not talking really about assumptions. He's talking about uh entities. least least number of entities to explain it. Correct. You have to create a big new entity which is an entire proponent on the nature of the ent let me just bring him the analytic perspective. So, so with super interest, he can't just count entities and say like I have one. All right, let let a will be rolling in his grave if he if Well, I think AAM would be rolling in his grave if it was used in a

rationalist framework because he was a 13th century monk and so I think the fact that he probably wouldn't mind invoking What's that? He wouldn't mind invoking. Oh, he wouldn't he wouldn't mind invoking God because that's the the least number of entities to explain any miracle. But uh so let me let me just let's let is just operate off a hypothesis that this was in fact a a very bright very anomalous let's just say sauce or shape cropped. Let's just let's just go with that just for hypothesis. At the end of the video it's it's on its edge right slightly over. Okay fair enough. But it's on its edge.

Well it goes past vertical. Okay fine. No just no fairly fiddly with my No that's fair enough. Um and and according to the air crew, there's no evidence for this, but according to the air crew, it wobbles after the video cuts out, right? Yeah. Yeah. That's I think Brian Graves, did he say that? And yeah. Yeah. So maybe if the come out, he says that's interesting. So let me just put on my my analytic hat real quick and bear with me. I'll do this as quickly as

this is in uh the very famous Life magazine article of 1947. One of the Navy's top astronomers observes and takes very precise measurements of a of a of a disc that and he observes it Uh Msawa, Japan, 1952 training uh exercise. Uh guys flying doing intercepts and he sees a disc come up to his plane that engages in a slow fluttering motion rocks back and forth uh and and uh flipped on its edge. Direct quote direct quote flipped on its edge. Um Southern California Loheed

Martin um air crews uh is in the air. They see a metallic uh sorry elliptical object um flying over the Channel Islands kind of a hot spot if you're following this. Kelly Johnson, who is um the uh skunk works, the basically the the most famous, the most well-known aeronautical engineer in American history, sees the same object from his ranch. So, you have two different perspectives. Uh and um they both saw this object. Pretty credible. He actually goes on to say um I'm a

Uh, nine witnesses, two law enforcement officers see a metallic platelike object uh that hovers 20 feet according to three women over their heads. 20 feet. I see Mick rolling his eyes. I'm just I'm reporting what what people have have Uh, May not Air Force Base, home of nuclear weapons uh uh uh missiles. A border patrol officer sees a metallic disc, direct quote, wobbling on its edge, 30 feet wide, 100 feet away. Um,

six day five days later, uh, the, uh, the lot of UFOs wobble. The Air Force I'm these are these are all in government records, right? Are we are we noticing consistency? I'll I'll finish up. We'll be quick. Yeah. Pick the ones that wobble. Yeah, they're they're these are the close encounters and and the probably the best known encounters and you do see a consistency here, right? Uh well, I if they're close enough if these witnesses are close enough to observe wobbling, I think they can see the shape, right?

before seen, uh artifacts that just happen with all the things that are on that thing. And then they all have to happen. I think there's some What What are the failures? What are everything that I've ever hypothesized as if everything has to happen all at the same time, which isn't true. Of course, it has to happen, right? Cuz you have a radar malfunction or so. What's on the radar? I don't know what's on the radar. You don't know what's We have to account for it, right? In your theory, you have to account for it. Well, it could be a distant plane. Well, what's on the radar that's 6 miles away? That's We don't know. It could be It could be like a training exercise type thing. We should say it wasn't. Or it could be a malfunction or it could be some kind of

weather. It could be balloons. We don't know what it is. Uh it well they're going west so it's coming from the east so it's going against very strong but we can roll we can just cross that out like the the the air crew saw something on the radar. Yes, I agree with it. You have to account for what it is. You didn't account for what the object actually is. You just said the the air crew saw this object. You're not telling me what it is. So it's the same thing. I'm not following. But but the bottom line is uh and can we pull up the video because the match the match between um the the flight path that we can

They're all going against the wind. The wind's 120 knots to the west. Look at that thing, dude. this video is you have 120 mi not wind Correct. Well, it's not like planes can't fly against the wind. It's a balloon. So could we rule out balloons? No, I don't think this is a balloon. Balloon was the objects the objects the fleet is going against the wind. Right. So you just said that those could be balloons. Can they are they balloons?

No, I didn't say those could be balloons. That's a different fleet. This is a fleet of five objects able to rotate like that. I mean that doesn't the fleet described by Ryan Graves is nothing at all like the go. We should really dive into the empirical evidence. Let's get to the evidence, right? and and we have a lot if you mind just flipping over to the We have empirical evidence of what jets look like uh in with this camera system. So, if you just cruise down maybe we don't have time to get through all this. I mean, we have a ton of that. Let's just start there. That's Yeah. Yep.

Actually, so maybe we can I don't know if we can play it here, but um maybe we can add this in. Oh, yeah. Yeah. We can reconstruct and and Mick mentioned this kind of this this vertical U-turn, this J hook path that that matches precisely with what uh the air crew say that the uh that the object on that was tracked on radar does. And when you play that video, you'll see that there's there's a series of rotations and then um there's one really kind of pronounced one that is that is

slower than the others and that coincides with the apex of that turn. And if you play it, it it is a remarkable match. And I got a couple other videos there that maybe we can throw in when we edit this. But using Mick Sim, again, Mick, thank you for for uh you know, making this possible. It it is a remarkable when you watch that thing just ride up the um the reconstructed flight path. It is it is a remarkable match. You keep saying remarkable. I think you I think you use that word a little bit too much cuz this isn't remarkable. What we're seeing here is a curve that's basically a mathematical projection.

It's not the path of the jet onto a straight line in the distance. If you to take what the actual jet did with the camera did, which was just basically do a little turn like that, and then draw a line over here, which is another jet, and then draw the lines of sight between the two, you're going to get these J hooks. If you slice a plane through the the lines at that point, and if you move them closer, it gets a bit more curvy, then it kind of flattens out. But if you draw it there, it's just a mathematical projection. It looks the same. It looks like the same curve. And this rotation of the object that Marrick talks about, yes, it happens at about the same time

as that curve. It's exactly the same but that's the same time that the that we're traversing the uh the singularity in the the gimbal and it has to do these rotations. So, it's doing this these big rotations and it's not the same. It doesn't match the curve. It happens roughly in the same region. We can pull up your Sim right now. You want to pull up your Sim right now and do it. There's three other rotations that don't match. The one big one is kind of roughly at the end, but it doesn't really match. It's it's it's kind of like a bit of a reach. It's not remark. It's not a remarkable correlation. I will let the viewers when we when we maybe we can

edit you know put this in but I I I really want to show people what then this is directly from mixim um I think more importantly let's just bottom line this um well real quick though on the the just the audio associated with this do you think the operators of these systems are confused at what they're seeing because they seem to think it's remarkable so they're eyes on them they obviously don't know what they're seeing which means either it's just something that they don't recognize uh yeah but I If you're using the camera's rotation as a way to explain it away,

then presumably that would be very easy to be like that was just the camera's rotation. That's not there's no wow factor at all. The smoking gun for me was that it rotates in steps and that system there's zero empirical evidence to uh No, there's no evidence that you asked him if you he had seen that before and he said yes. Yeah, I don't he seen it. You don't believe him. He's he's the expert. It's absolutely possible. Um, no, no, nobody else has has seen that and is aware of that. That's fair enough. Um, but we did

talk to truly the top experts in the world on this. I won't go on the record, surprisingly. Uh, that that's and that is part of the stigma. I I had a Zoom call with one of those individuals. I sent you. Can we say who this is or I can't unfortunately I um and I had a Zoom call. And when you say experts, experts from a military perspective. So, let me just run through. So, we talked to a ra a senior Rathon engineer who was, let's say, intimately familiar with the system. I don't want to give away too much. Uh we talked to two of the I'd say the I think it's fair to say that the two top academic experts

on this type of technology. Not the fleer, not the So we have the at fleer sensor technology. Yeah. It's called indium antimide. Correct. Right. So um and and they were all truly perplexed by it. U they the one that I talked to and to your point about why won't they go on the record? Um he said I am I am intrigued by this. I sent you an email. This is very interesting. We had a long talk. I don't want to get involved in this, but highly credentialed. Um, but just the stigma is still there. And And what did they say? Did you give them

We had a lengthy So basically they debunked Mick's glare on the glass. Do you would you agree that they debunked your your glare on the glass? The glass and the glare on the glass is a pretty old version of the theory. But no, that's what you've been saying until we engage these expert. That was your Yeah. You did just say old version of the theory is if you're the theory is glare on the glass like was just one possible way that you could get this. But that's the one you that's the only thing you've said for seven years. You No, it could be something along the internal optical path of the the the

thing and I basically the aperture uh of the camera creates this there's no such thing as what when Mick talks I really want to show people what what this looks like. what he says glare is glare is called blooming and that's when and I'm not a scientist but I've read enough of and I this is part of why I want people to get engaged um glare blooming is when when there's so much energy being directed at at um a pixel that it it overcharges it and it spills over and there's no way that that

could result in that. We agree the blooming it's blooming could not and sorry I disagree you don't how could blooming uh blooming could create a shape I don't think it is blooming but I've got one of the experts right here said no blooming in the uh in India mantime would not explain this right after he said Mick might be right but for the wrong reason a different expert um and then we had here I'll just I'll just leave it at this the one of the top academic experts deferred to one of the top government experts on uh air-to-air fleer imagery. This guy, and

you saw this, right? He he and he he refuted your theory, and I will read it. I'll read it. The object in the video is definitely maneuvering causing the appearance of rotation. I think a D-roll axis of the payload would not make this phenomena of rotation. This is specifically to your theory, and this is this is arguably the top expert in the US government. I think airto-air fleer imagery. I I think really he uh he you're interpreting things that he told No, I No, no, no, no, no. I'm talking

about the government expert. Yeah. Are you reading verbatim? I'm directly quoting and I put this on public like he said to me, I would not want my response sent out as I am government and it might be seen as an expert official response rather than an opinion based upon limited real information. Okay. I just wanted to point some things out that others may have missed. Okay. Well, I'm I'm reading what he We all we all have limited info. I guess to specifically, you know, to Merrick's glare point, uh you mentioned Okay, that

that's probably like the earliest version of the argument. You've updated it. You're talking about the internal optical system. What does that mean? What? Yeah. What What is your argument now? Because now that glare has been ruled out, what what is it? Because these guys are saying glare in quotes. Yeah. But then they don't want to talk about glare. They No, they didn't. He says there isn't a point spread function. Then he talks about a point spread function. He's he puts glare in quotes and he says it's all an internal and Yannik did a did a great job. Yanik said how do you reconcile this quote glare on the glass all the self- congratulating discussions on metabunk about glare for glare being

uh that glow that grows with the t all the you know right how do you and and this is the best part so mix big explainer videos based on a um a a cheap what is it 200 bucks fleer camera that this expert said is not It's not me at all. That was just an example of how you can get a rotation glare. He literally calls you out. It's not a good comparison. There is no there's no empirical evidence. A flare one which cost $200 versus an app flare which cost a million dollars is not going to be a very good

So anyway, bottom line is we we have a lot we have a ton of of airtoair [snorts] footage. Um and there's zero empirical evidence. Experts who don't want to be quoted. Okay. You want to loop me in cuz I looped you in all the experts. Luffy in or what? That was it. That was the email. I asked him if I asked him if I could reuse his I'm sorry. I thought you were bringing somebody new to the table. So So every the other expert, the the Raian engineer. He said uh he told you not to to include him. Like he said like he

he says I gave you permission to publish to share any of our discussion. I now regret any discussion with him. I I'm putting out I believe that this is more important than the stigma. These guys are fighting a stigma. So you think and you're and you are talking me, but they just won't talk. They want to go No expert in the world agrees with you. I know you're eager for Arrow to debunk this because you thought they were doing um lab experiments that Kirk Patrick was talking about. It's been seven How long has it been since this video came out?

Almost a decade, actually. Gosh, we're on a decade now. Well, I was only working couple of years, I guess. Yeah, you think slow. Very slow. Well, they did Auadia. They're doing a whole Aren't you on a show where they interesting thing I see Aguadia like when you talk about No, let's stay on let's stay on gimbal. Well, this was very very quickly. I think Auadia has the uh the um SCU the the coalition for study of uh they did like a 200page document on it a bunch of different experts people with PhDs. They think it's uh they think it's some kind

Why do you think Arrow hasn't or anybody hasn't Why has nobody backed you on on your on this theory and why? Yeah, they backed me on a back on the triangle on Gimble. On gimbal cuz they haven't finished their analysis yet. Okay. I think that's that's a stretch. Um why is there no why is there no academic literature that supports your glare theory? It's all blooming. time. If it was if it was common, we wouldn't be having this discussion. This is an anomalous event. This is something that happened that was weird and the

pilots didn't recognize it because it isn't something that happens every day. This is an active duty whiz though based on them being a narrow field of zoom. Uh I sent this to you years ago. Narrow field of view zoom 2. He uses this system daily and the fidelity of the picture. They're probably less than 10 miles away. He uses the system every day. Life and death, right? They need to they rely on the system. Yeah. I never see how that can be determined from what we're seeing on

go in the same direction as that object. So it they're all moving together in concert basically is is the recollection from from the the top down view from from the radar. His uh his recreation isn't actually that good because it doesn't incorporate the rotation of the plane. That's fair. Um but what is your theory now that that the glare in the glass has basically been ruled out? What what is your theory? I think what we see here is some kind of optical effect that is rotating because of some d- rotation mechanism. And what what evidence do you have for Well, there's very start there's the bands of light and dark rotating in the

background. Does the fact that the rotation exactly matches the needed So, no, it doesn't right. You don't know what the pitch angle of that jet. You picked a random number. It was 3.6, which is exactly what the F8. So, they were in a max endurance profile. You were in a max range profile. You already have you're already wrong right there. Well, if you change that, it doesn't really change it very much. It just slightly offsets the curve. It changes it. Anyway, it does change it. Um, we can go down that rabbit hole, we good. We should not right now obviously [laughter]

um bottom line is I think uh we need to hear from hopefully from from the You can see by looking at it that it's an optical effect. Uh that if you actually look at this thing, you see the the light and dark rotation in the background. I know you said you you talked to anonymous experts who won't go on record. I don't I shared you I sent the email to Yeah, but like if it's not going on record, it's kind of useless. Well, you okay. Well, you know, I I do I loop you into So, you've brought none no experts to me. I brought all the experts to you. Well, that's that's great. But if bring some experts to the public,

it's not that useful just bringing Unfortunately, the stigma that you promote is is a big part of why they don't want I encourage them to come forward. Like, come forward and I won't laugh at you. But I mean there's lots of scientists who aren't like afraid of being uh being proper analysis. I'll uh kind of straw man both the arguments here. I think um on Americ the expert side and then the operators of these fleer systems uh and the pilots

themselves. And then on on your side, uh, Mick, I think you probably have to take primmaaccia, you know, uh, this this this operator of this fleer system, this this, uh, pilot who is, uh, saying, whoa, like this is this is crazy like that. I mean, they they have to I mean, the idea that it's an F-18 and that this is happening around uh, the Go Fast as well, and that it's in this bizarre formation. And if you turn the camera and you're the

person turning the camera, you're actually operating the system, there's no reason to freak out. There's no reason to like attach that audio. They're not turning. It turns Sure. But if you're like if you're like highly aware of like the the camera turning if you're like not though I mean David Fra like kind of discussed this hypothesis and he said the camera doesn't turn which later on because from his perspective the camera appears not to turn. A camera turn is when it tracks something going underneath a plane. It can do that. You're saying David Fraver isn't like uh familiar with like with the with the inner workings of the

camera. He's familiar with using it. So he knows he knows what buttons to press and you know what what appears on screen and what it actually means in terms of what's in the air. But he doesn't know what's actually going on in the optics, what the lenses do, the mirrors do, and how it rotates. So, so you think it's it's like and then that same guy who you know presumably I mean we have to figure out who he is but has like some history doing this stuff after he sees this he doesn't see anything like it

once in a 20 year thing when the pilot says they won the lottery of uh a little bit of jargon here and it just happened to occur right right amid all these en encounters when the pilot says that is the LNS I'll just explain the LNS is the launch and steering which is the selected radar target what does that mean to you that so let me just explain like the Wizo says hey is that is that our radar target on on our fleer on the camera and the pilot says yes that is our selected radar target which is 6 to 8 miles away

what do you think the pilot meant when he says that is and what do you think what do you think he meant when when u they brief Congress and says we knew it was not a false hit. Um we knew that we had a stable a stable radar lock a stable track file on it. Um when they mentioned closest point of intercept it make you know do you know what the jhemic system is right? it places. How does how does your theory square with all the technology? Let me just quickly it's a it's basically like an Apple vision kind of thing visor that puts data. Yeah. It

pumps all the data and you you'll get a little box like where if there's a target somewhere Ryan talked about is in your So, so how do you square like let's just start with the LNS, right? The um pilot says that is yes that's our radar target. It's actually a bit instinct as to what he actually says. But what we see on the That is the LNS. What we see on the screen here is an optical track. It's actually tracking it using the the um the contrast screen. So what you might be referring to is something that's on the SA page. Uh which would be like the nearer radar

No, the the Wizo asked, "Hey, is that is that thing that we're looking on the fleer thing looking?" He said, "Is that I'm trying to remember what is that LNS, dude? Is that that is the LNS? And the other guy said, "Yeah, that is But he doesn't know what he's referring to. It could be like radar target. That's what the LNS is. Well, yes, but like is that that or is that a difference target? Because they also saw this fleet of things. So, so there just happened to be a distant jet exactly where the close thing is. Is

that what you're saying? Behind you somewhere. Really? So it just happen like this is just the saying that they're referring to another you're very familiar with this theory of mine. I think this is Wait. So let me just playing to the crowd here a little. Hold on. Hold on. So you you they have this radar target, right? It's six miles away and directly behind it more or less. Yeah. is some other jet and doing like with showing a in a it's heat sort engine in in a way that's never been seen before in a malfunctioning pod in a

uh what else do we have a malfunctioning of all the electronic identification systems like it's just cascading failures I can't wrap my head I I hope I'm like getting through to people but it's just it is it is pretty wild to me yeah it seems unlikely rightly lined up you would just say what like law of large numbers and we've never the at flu does not rotate its steps. If it's malfunctioning maybe I don't I I I just find that hard to believe by the way the patent literally the patent which you looked up the patent ex there's a sentence in there that explicitly we can

pull it up explicitly disproves your Why does it why is the patent Well we can we can go I know we have to wrap up and No, we have till 4 now. So Oh wow. Jeez. Okay. I don't know if I can listen. You tell me where the patent is. uh if he it's towards the end of things at the very end it says for example that they will avoid using rule in the fast so so this is super jargony Mick knows what I mean this this on its face disproves your theory

basically saying that it avoids rotation what were the three words before that uh in some embodiment that is any patent experts will know that is in every single patent that language yeah afterwards for example example these patents are very broad like in some way we have we have to describe to the audience I know the patent so so this explicitly so Mick says this is so I I I it hurts me to like it's so complex like so he he says that like so normally the pod

will just do a nice slow rotation like this to to fly we'll put the video up I we modeled it out and it's just like this super chill it doesn't do this for rotation right because you remember the in the gimbal video says 1 2 3 4. Normally the patent says it would just do a very simple, very gradual, nothing aggressive. It doesn't say that. Absolutely. So it says it says it says in some embodiment it only uses the two axis which would do that smooth But it doesn't say that the app fluid that was used that day is that

particular embodiment. So and also this was uh a patent from I believe 2006. Uh, and we're talking about the gimbal video which was filmed several years later. And as you know from talking to Mr. Snow, uh, these systems change quite a lot over time, but wouldn't they get smoother? Not less correct, not more. Mechanically, it makes no sense to do that is what you learn to be smooth. And if you notice in the gimbal video, it actually kind of like loses lock weirdly quite a lot throughout the thing. Even

though it's not moving around very much, there's little gimbal rotations and it moves off to the side. You don't see that. But the rotation, the rotation wouldn't be more jagged, right? It wouldn't be more like there's two things they have to balance. There's the actual mechanics of the pod itself and then what the pilot sees. And they want to make the tracking as accurate as possible for introducing steps is the worst part because it's you're like starting stopping starting stopping. Well, not if you have a very agile mirror system in there that can counter purely spec that's speculation. That's

what we actually have and that explicitly disproves your They also have the description of the mirror systems in there with plus or minus 3° of of nothing to do with gim which is about the same deviation from the one we get with the steps. I sorry I don't I don't fall but the point is we know that we know that the we don't have to point directly at something. We can use the mirrors to steer the extra No, it just doesn't [laughter] work that way. There's no evidence of that. You need evidence. There's no evidence of glare. There's no evidence of a rotating

glare. There's no evidence of any of Well, we just gone over all the evidence of it. You can see it on the screen that we have a optical effect. You can't use the gimbal video to prove the gimbal your theory for the gimbal video. That's impossible. I'm just using it to show that there's actually some kind of optical effect. We can maybe if you want to just quickly look at some some imagery of what the camera how it actually records uh jet engine exhaust. Sorry. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. While you're doing that, I would

like to encourage anybody out there who understands this to weigh in because we need more people looking into this. I think that's the me. No, we need we need more analysis, more credible eyes, people with rigorous experts to actually speak on the record. Agreed. But and also people who know because a lot of this stuff is just the systems and how they work. Like we're we're debating these, you know, obscure like RAN patents. I know. I know. These Can we go the wrong place? I'm just something that's 30 miles away.

And by the way, to the extent you're not compromising American national security, if if you are not, I think it's your patriotic duty to come out. And if if you are, then maybe stay where you are. I agree. So, um, varying distances, the engine exhaust gets bigger and bigger. No, it doesn't. [laughter] In fact, it gets smaller. And I have a video I can show it. So, this is this is from the same video. And this is a lot further away at the end of it and it gets smaller. So, uh, Rathon, I believe it

looks like they have some anti-blooming effects on there. So, it that is the opposite of what you are suggesting. [snorts] And if you sc if you go down one more, so this is the glare to wing size. Glare I sorry don't exhaust glare. Don't use glare. Glare doesn't exist. [clears throat] It really doesn't ex I'm telling you like there's a lot of papers about blooming. If you go down to that one where your mouse is right there, compare that to mix theory. That's mix theory right there. Yes. A point light source can will create anything that's a specific size

on the sensor. So it doesn't really matter how big if that light was very very small. What is the light source though? It's not light. It's uh it's it's the heat of the engines. This is thermal camera. So we're looking at these jet. Essentially it's a very very bright brilliant light source. and the camera for some reason has created this kind of glare, this optical effect, this perhaps sense of blooming. Probably not though. I I'm I'm Look, I'm I'm just a bystander and I'm open to both of you guys being right. I think

it's kind of um scary from an American national security perspective if you're right because that's such just so bad. If it's like this heat source, it's fuzzy and it's just like every day though. It doesn't happen every day. It's not like it's this is going on all the time. That's an F if if that's an F-18 at a base that's frequently flying F-18s. Like that's I mean I don't know. It's like it's like pretty bad detection. Arrow arrow thinks it's a glare. That's not true. Patrick. Well, I don't know. Kirk Patrick thought gimbal was filmed

during the daytime. Yeah, but what they're actually working on is the assumption that this is some kind of some kind of Well, not an optical effect. I I don't think there's any evidence of Well, I guess we'll we'll we'll see. Well, you said that you said that right before this hearing. You're like, "Oh, well, you you very excited." Oh, we can't wait to see what Arrow has to say about this. The the hearing came fast and Aguidia, which was which was good. But, uh, well, now now they're spot with Go Fast, as we said, because air crew is going to um uh contradict

Yeah. Well, then they'll they'll take that new information into their So, there's there's that is just absurd to me based on the empirical evidence, right? That shape if you go that matches the uh the Chilean case. Yeah. almost exactly in terms of size. So first of all that's blooming, right? Chilean the Chilean case what blooming Yeah. So it's it's again when like a sensory gets hit with a pixel gets hit with too much energy. Yeah. That it'll spill over to other pixels. Right. And and that's what we see in the Chilean case. That is an apples to

orange. That's explain what glare is. It's relevant to this conversation. Oh, but you said like it doesn't exist. But and sorry in in infrared all the why not I'm going off of the people who who are experts on this. Why do they talk about a point spread function if glare doesn't exist in He was talk I'm pretty sure he was talking about your flare one example. What point spread function? Point spread function is uh when how it's a mathematical model of how light spreads from a point. So any point on

say [snorts] this is a photo of the what context are they bringing up the point spread function uh in the context of of glare essentially um Nick it was a little confusing his paragraph and it was something I wanted to talk to him more but he never responded to my emails uh the second expert um if you usually the point spread function is kind of like a a curve that goes like this a very very sharp curve like that and that's how light spreads from a any any pixel on the on the uh

entire scene spreads according to this this function. So for things that are pretty dim like most of stuff in this room, you get a very very sharp pixel because the stuff that's to the side is very very low level. But for around a bright light like this, everything is kind of boosted up. So you actually start to get the effects of the the edges of this this point spread function. And you can use this to basically model optical effects. And they use it to model glare uh in in various optical systems. And you would

have a point spread function for an infrared thing. There's simply no way of not having it cuz you going to get some scatter from imperfections in the mirrors uh possibly in the lenses. Uh and you can also incorporate that into uh the the sensor blooming as well. This called I think a uh I think optical transfer function is the entire thing. It's point spread plus the the sensor spread as well. So, and these are details that we I think like experts should be able to weigh in. Absolutely. So, I'm I'm a little skeptical, Mick, because you you spent

years you went on CNN with your little glass, right? That's the glare on the glass that was disproven what, two months ago, 3 months ago. Yeah. You you literally we've got you you're saying, "Oh, well, if it's not I got you here briefly." If the glare effect is indeed all in the sensor, then you then you shift here to another. showing that if if part of the camera rotates or if the camera itself rotates then it rotates. That was the easiest way of demonstrating. So since then I've been doing it by rotating a camera like you can actually you know so basically what you've been saying for seven years is wrong. No no it's it's improved.

No no no it's the glare on the glass has been disproven which you've been on. Well according to you it's been disproven but I don't think it has been How do you how do you reconcile this with the glare on the glass? Well, according to Yanick, your co-author on this paper the expert, the quote glare that Mick mentions is likely from boost filters, highpass filtering, edge shut, that's all internal. That's not on the glass. Yeah, but he's assuming that the glass is clean. Oh, so we're back to the So,

at one point, Mick thought that uh he he some source told him or somebody apparently told him that crew chiefs in the in the military just wiped the the the glass. I've got video of that happening. The guy just manhandling one of those systems with his hands. And I'm sure after because there's there's pretty darn good maintenance on these on these systems. As soon as they get up in the air, they're going for a spray. So, your your theory at one point was like uh that that some crew chief like wiped a greasy sleeve on it and

that's what gave us this. Yeah, I've heard people say that. I mean, I don't think that's what happened cuz the the glare on the glass thing would probably give a less uh even shape. I think it's probably more to do with the internal optics. I' I've got a camera that gives a very similar uh shaped glare to that. So, my little helmet maybe you can recap. So you have a a mechanical malfunction. It has to be. It has to be. No, no, we don't know that for sure because we don't know if there's an embodiment that doesn't have smooth There's zero evidence for that. You have

to you have to provide evidence. You don't have evidence either way. Absolutely. There's tons of footage of of You know this like Well, you once like used the Top Gun Maverick as evidence. I was joking. Oh my god. You You realize I was joking, right? No, cuz you don't you seem very very serious at the time. It was on a tweet for crying out loud. We have there's tons of stuff that is on There's tons of actual video evidence of how these systems rotate and it's a nice gradual simple not really you see it from the outside

on the edges of I have a minute long video of very nice smooth. Let's move on. But both of you guys can follow up. You can follow up with the with the smooth rotation if you want to follow up with any videos that show the jagged lock. How like you you're saying there's a distant jet right literally exactly in the line of sight Uhhuh. Okay. And then uh you have a rot a malfunctioning uh pod and then you have uh a an artifact that nobody's ever

seen before and no expert know about and no aviator who's ever used. And you're saying that it's like this new advanced technology possibly aliens. I'm only saying it is a there's a spectacular match between the eyewitness accounts right of that anomalous trajectory that that direction reversal with no radius of turn the rotation we see in the video and the flight path we can reconstruct interesting you say you know um new advanced technology or possibly aliens uh Dr. Steven Greer is obviously outspoken person when it comes to the

UFO issue. Uh very polarizing figure on the topic. He will come out and say things like, "Oh, the Nimtts stuff, you know, that's all, you know, Loheed Martin special access programs and will say that, you know, they're red teaming our detection systems or spoofing us or which people say doesn't happen." So, do do you guys have opinions on that? Do you think that that's at all possible that some of these Well, I think these guys are training for war. They're not going to do that to guys that are training for war in in a training airspace. It's all right.

That was when I spoke to Ryan Green leaves aliens. Sorry leaves aliens. My my basic point here is that if we're going to entertain extraordinary options like aliens or even advanced technology being used by by the Chinese or the Russians, then we should also entertain things like maybe there's a series of coincidences that happen. Yeah. You really should entertain all entertain all options, but at some point it just borders on the line on the ridiculous. I'm sorry, but aliens borders on the Have you The historical record is pretty

remarkable of uh identical performance characteristics. Wobbly or identical eyewitness reports and people are very similar. They got similar brains and they report things in the same way. You picked all the ones that wobble. I picked where are all the videos of wobbling discs? I I picked the ones that are suspended by strings known and they just happen to wobble. When it comes to uh you know secret American craft uh again I'm yeah I'm normally don't find myself kind of steel manning this position but

it's probably more conspiratorial to say that we don't have craft that is classified that exhibits exotic characteristics than the inverse. So like 80% plus of locky I think of skunk works projects currently are classified and so um yeah are there things red teaming our systems and to to steel man your point that you just made is I just spoke to Ryan Graves we had a great conversation and he was like yeah you know maybe that's happening in spots but like in his case he was stationed at uh Naval Airspace Oceanana in Virginia and

But in this case, it was a pilot almost hitting the object. Yeah, that's a different thing. But in the gimbal thing, for example, radar spoofing or [clears throat] something radar. Yeah, some kind of radar interference. Perhaps there was a distant jet and the the radar got messed up and it made it appear as you someone actually told me that as a possibility. How does it account like how did if it's if something like that, how do you get five what five or six objects moving in concert like that? Well, it's the same. It's just one object. You're getting five like echoes of it or something. I don't understand the the details, but someone did actually mention that to me as a

possibility. someone who is familiar with radar obviously doesn't want to speak on the record because of the stigmas I'm perpetating but yeah it's um I don't know how can we how can we move forward with this I think we actually do need more let's get the wizo out there get [laughter] the wizo let's get people who actually understand the system to speak on it and that would be really good [laughter] come out talk to us I mean I've tried to contact Rathon and they said oh you should talk to Navy and of course the

before Congress, uh, might have some more interesting info about this case. Uh, I think it's Mick's turn off. Yeah. I'm not actually that familiar with, but I'll give you my take on it. Is that, you know, the video we're going to look at is the sphere descend the sphere descending into the sea. Yeah. So, this is like it's taken off a screen in the command center of a ship. Uh, we're looking at thermal video again. So, we're seeing like a heat source, possibly glare or blooming. Uh, and it's uh it kind of looks like it was

moving around at first, but that's actually just the the camera moving. Uh, the camera that's actually recording the thing, not the the other camera. Uh, there's a cut in the video where it it kind of jumps down to a lower level. It's actually descending really really slowly. It's cut to where it's just above the horizon. Uh, it's not really moving at all. It's just kind of slowly slowly descending to the ocean. And when it gets to approximately the horizon, it shrinks down to a point. Then it kind of like

pops up again expands and it shrinks again and disappears. Uh, and I think that at the end of it, they say splash down mark splash splash mark bearing and range. So they think that it's actually gone into the water. Mhm. But if you zoom in on the video, I think it actually looks more like it's actually going it's actually a heat source that is expanded. It's like the blooming or glaring and then it goes behind the horizon. And there's some dispute as to exactly where the horizon is. If you can move the horizon up or down one pixel, it's in front of it. If

you move it a pixel all the way, it's behind it. There was a guy, I think, Dr. Phil Meta Mets, he did some analysis of that. M I published it on Twitter uh and said it was very ambiguous as to where the actual horizon was. But it's very similar to like um you a light going behind a solid object will actually shrink if it's a point source as it goes behind it rather than uh just disappearing. Uh so we don't know what it is. It appears to be moving if it I

think it appears to be moving northerly and the wind is coming from that direction. So it pretty strong winds too. It's apparent wind. Apparent motion is against the wind. But I think I don't know what it is, but I think my best guess is that it's a strong heat source that's actually moving away and it goes behind the uh the horizon, but there's various interpretations and there's Can I analysis? Yeah. Well, maybe just paint a broader picture. This is part of um six five or six monthsl long incursions over these naval vessels off the Channel Islands and off the uh coast of Southern

California. multiple ships. Um, and they were reporting, in fact, Jeremy and George released a video of um, basically two red lights from the Omaha that night. Uh, and we know that the the ship was being sorry, and they were just hovering there. And I think another one kind of cruises, maybe we can splice this in, but another one kind of cruises by it. So, clearly there were objects around the ship. There's no question, right? We have there's radar footage from that same night. uh and the the ship is getting swarmed. I think at one

point I counted 10 12 up to 14 objects were observed simultaneously. The objects were described as self-elilluminated spheres approximately 6 feet in diameter. So kind of comports with your kind of orb you know generation back to the orb thing that that has been consistent. Um so uh you know where to begin? Gez. Um number one it you can see in the indicator that they did have a radar contact at one point. It's slave to the radar. You saw that R. We know the symbology. So again, this is this is like the gimbal. Like the system says

it's tracking a radar target. The system's saying that, but it it clearly isn't in this one. It's been done by joysticks and was manually moving the camera around and they probably just like with gimbal, they same thing. They probably had the radar drop it off in those. So you're saying the same thing happened again like they missed the actual radar target and then they focus. Maybe that was the actual radar target. And we have the radar. It's all within like six miles. Five, six miles. All all those radar contacts. Well, yeah, but that doesn't mean that's the only contact like you can.

So, you don't So, they so you think so, so so so you think so they're they're surrounded by like 14 OB whatever it is. I counted what there's a lot right on that radar footage and you think they decided to focus on the object that's 60 mi away slowly going over the horizon. Imagine what the video looks like. It looks like it's just Come on. You got to apply a little common sense here. Well, it looks like a plane flying away to me. It's very very similar to the and do you have any empirical evidence for blooming which is your theory that is that perfectly spherical any any and

perfectly spherical? Let's go take a Like compare it to like a one of the engines of the uh the Chilean, right? It's all It's all No, those circular, right? It's Yeah, we're kind of getting No, no, no. There's there's zero evidence for for your claim. I' I've looked at a lot of Dave Fouch's fleid and thanks Dave for all your work. There's no engine that looks like a perfectly round. They're generally perfectly round when they Okay. Well, if you can show me one, we can go back. I mean, I we we looked at it's all jagged. It's flickering like

you know what I'm talking about. You know that there's frequently ones do flicker a little bit more but I think this is a much more distant object. It zoomed in a lot more You have no evidence that it's that it's It it seems very similar to other thing. Well the evidence it's blooming is that it shrinks right when it goes behind the go slideshow real quick because we can we can test that very so this is just the this is the shot. You can if you look closely you can see the horizon and the right the horizon line and and the key here is the horizon is above

the center point of that sphere. So if we go down it's about the same as the we go down to that one. That's a line that I drew. We'll leave it up. You know a UAP is in the eye of the beholder. This is this is horizon. I see quite a bit of sky underneath that horizon. Do you? I don't. But if you go see how it's a lot lighter than the rest. If you go to the next one, we can see the line that you drew and I see a lot of ocean above your line. [laughter] So, right, I see an enormous amount of ocean above and if you go down to the next one, I zoomed in on one section.

There's I mean there's clearly ocean above your line. There's pixel there's dark pixel. Yeah. So, I I this is this is the problem with this thing is you can't and this is what Dr. Phil uh was saying that you can't actually determine exactly where it is. We know what it looks like. It's almost exactly at the horizon. Maybe pixel above, pixel below. And it shrinks in exactly the same way the glare would It's pro. Well, if you if you watch like SpaceX capsules go down, it does the same thing. Remember remember we pulled those up and they look exactly the same. So again, you have no evidence like no empirical evidence that that a uh an

engine actually has that very very clear circular um So you think this is an actual circle of It goes in the water. That's that is one of the things you see. Let's talk to the air crew. Sorry, the air crew. Like let's the the um let's listen to what they say, right? They say first first thing that the guy says it took off. It's booking it. What does that imply? play the video. Do you want to play it? Like the first thing he says it took And this one it's booking it. My house

took off. It's booking it. radar. There's multiple radar targets right there. Yeah, you said but it's not moving. He said, okay, what does it implies that it it left the vicinity and it's moving very fast, but it's not doing that. It took off its It's booking. It means it means it's going very fast. So, correct. So, the implication as Tim mentioned recently and I think some of the folks that have that were on the the bridge of the Omaha at this point on

during this incident said these things were hovering. We have video of these things hovering. Jeremy Corbel, those two red lights hovering and another one kind of cruising by it. It took off. It's booking. It implies to me it was sitting there and then it started moving. It's not moving though. Yes, it is. It's clearly moving. It doesn't suddenly start moving in that video. It doesn't change. So So the the assumption is it was stationary. It's he's it starts moving and he records it. It took off. It's

Does that is that a fair interpretation? It took off. This is very speculative. I think really just you you're interpreting what you want to be happening based on a few words that somebody said. We have evidence of these objects hovering o on the over the deck of the The drones, whatever they are, it's something with red lights, right? Yeah. But that that video is terrible video. The the the Corbell video. It doesn't really show anything. It could be drones. It could be planes. Right. There were two red lights with the other one. Yeah. people think is a silly video and and a lot of the eyewitness stuff that

what were those were they just drones flying around. I don't know what they were. So here's where it gets really interesting. Uh 24 hours later the US was Paul Hamilton it's Foy. You can you can find it and we'll put it up reports the same thing. One of the objects splashes. You can see it in the deck log or in the the the briefing of the event. Uh if you look at I don't know if this is diagnostic but if you look at the video footage from the Omaha two of those contacts are cruising around. and they just disappear off the radar. Went in the water. It could be in the water. I'm not saying

that is. That's not We're working under the assumption, I think, that there were drones in the area cuz they reported drones. And who knows? The only evidence we have shows a spherical there's no evidence like there's no empirical evidence that that a um you're taking out splash just to be the same as that splash when it was probably Well, they were getting ready to get they they asked three ships around them to get a helicopter out. Yeah. Because they thought that there were drones in the area. They thought it was close. Yeah, there there's a lot of issues with the whole drones thing. Like the the army, the military, the navy has

misinterpreted a lot of things as drones. I just I tweeted earlier today about how they once uh put out a photo of a jet and said it was a drone. We know that the the Snoopy team, the trained observers on a Navy vehicle, uh have misidentified stars as drones. Uh, and what does that have to do with the spherical looking object? Well, we were talking about these eyewitness accounts of things that happened to go along with these videos. Maybe they mistook something else. Maybe

they thought that Venus was a spherical object because it looks like a bright uh light in the sky like hundreds of yards away. C can you provide a single piece of evidence that that blooming looks like that like that very rounds? I'll give it a go. I looked at a lot of infrared imagery now and I've seen nothing. It's a natural shape for blooming there. I think we should move on. Admiral Galedet says that he has a firsthand witness who might be coming out soon. So, let's both I think you mentioned there's some

Well, that would be that would be great. Um I love it. I will say uh just quickly so there was another ship that reported an object splashing on the water. Yep. Um, this is where it gets kind of very from an analytic perspective interesting. Um, that ship, the Paul Hamilton, so this is the day after the Omaha video. It's a swarm by a group of of drones, UAP. They depart, you can actually track this. They depart on a heading that goes right towards Guadalupe Island.

And I bring that up because um there's a series on I think it's National Geographic unidentified uh Lou Alzando and I think Sean Cahill went down to Guadalupe Island because there have been reports of spheres going into the water. Yeah. And you can see and I I spliced the the the interviews together. They had five or six fishermen out there, including one of the world's most renowned shark experts, a scientist said they've seen these objects. The fishermen all say, "Yeah, I've seen these lighted luminous orbs spheres going into the water." That's interesting, right? So, you have you

have one group of UAP, one splashes or recorded is recorded as going in the water and then this other group goes right towards the location where oh, by the way, witnesses have been recording reporting spheres going in the water. There's a military testing area there, isn't it? Isn't there a drone base down there where they test military drones? That's that's Mexican. No, but north of there there's an So, we're talking about No, we're talking about Well, south of those islands. And Danny Gene just came out as well. He's a famous uh American lawyer who represents a lot of you know UFO whistleblowers and he said that he has

coordinates for a UFO underwater base. I have nothing to add. I I said we should all do a boat trip out there and we we got some Twitter momentum. So um I think that's interesting, right? Sure. But it's just a lot of eyewitness But it just happens to align with two splash events. A splash just means something fell in the water. Do you think these guys are genuinely mistaken? Do you think they have some

sort of incentive? Okay. So, so they Well, maybe. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. So you don't think they're like uh soping the American public or no want money or fame out of it. Jay Stratton took this slide of three stars and presented it to people in Congress. He thought that it was triangular drones. You know this this kind of types of mistake goes all the way up the chain. Do you think that's still happening today at Arrow and I'm sure they're making mistakes They couldn't get the date right and

then go fast slide. All right, let's move on to Nellis Tonipa. Y So, this is a restricted airspace uh you know, testing range. Nellis is famous. There's a lot of UFO lore. You have this object moving towards the Black Mountains. Uh why don't we play this video? It's a little lesser known. Mhm. There's two videos actually

within this clips. You mean you mean there's two clips here within this Uh I don't actually there's a different video following this table here. I think that's just a balloon or a bunch of balloons floating in the wind.

there's no actual movement of the object itself. We do have a range indicator which tells you how far away it is. And if you use that, we see that the range indicator isn't very accurate. It kind of like zips back and forward. operating these machines at a a Nellis testing range, you have to be pretty familiar with probably exotic stuff. Yeah. Look at it. What can you say It does uh it does basically a 90° turn. It doesn't. Sure does. [laughter]

A guy made a metabunk in 1996 or so. Sorry, a sit wreck and he did a good job. Remember I sent you the video. I put this in sit and you can see that the the range data is like, you know, [ __ ] basically. Uh and if you just just use the lines of sight, there's a perfectly reasonable path wind driven path for a balloon. So, I'd love to see that because the layers look like a triangle shape.

set rack, so I did. And then you took my results and you said that it proved what what you originally thought. Yeah. So, but I don't think it does. I think the results show that the range data is very inaccurate. Jumps around morphing in shape like a bunch of balloons kind of It does a little bit like an Apollo, you know, like weirdest video. It is bizarre. So So Doesn't that look like a bunch of balloons to you? And it's right. It kind of pivots.

Yeah, but it looks like the balloons are like malleable and it has a weird And it looks like it rotates. It rotates like steps which is very if it were balloons and you're operating these systems at you know rest restricted airspace like you you have to have some protocol for balloons like you have to know whether yeah but you wouldn't be freaking out like you you'd know that's those are just balloons what's interesting is coming from arrow should analyze it it's coming from Area 51 that is very

yeah well that that's Nell's testing but it's actually like if you if you you could trace where like it's moving west at first and then it takes a basically a right turn and goes north. So, shouldn't that shouldn't your AAM's razor be, you know, well, it depends on what you think what's going on at Area 51, but shouldn't AAM's razor be it is an interesting aircraft? Yeah. But why didn't they scramble jets and go after it? It was a threat. You were all in shock. They you could hear them like, "What is too surprised to scramble jets and do anything?" No, they they didn't do anything. Nothing

I I have no idea. That's all we know. All we saw. Maybe they maybe they scramble jets as soon as that maybe they realized it was some balloons and didn't scramble jet. So it's it's zipping along, right? And it's going due west and then it basically does a 90° turn if you take the range data. No, you can see it visually like you can actually see it visually. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, do you want to play it again or We'll have to revisit this then. Yeah. No, I mean it's quite clear, right? It's it's cuz it's like Okay. So, let me do this. Let me do this for the for the folks at home. It's going this

flies in a circle which is kind of unusual for such a small object to be doing. Uh and then later it appears to uh go underwater. It looks like it goes underwater and it appears to spit into two spit into two uh parts. Uh but you a lot of people have analyzed this and pretty much everyone who's analyzed it has realized that if you take the lines of sight which you can get from from the camera here uh all the numbers on the screen uh the lines of sight all intersect over

the airport. Not just at the intersection a line over the airport. And that line represents a vector that's moving more or less at wind speed about 18 miles per hour. and it kind of decreases a little bit as the balloon or the object sinks to a lower altitude. Uh, and a theory that was proposed by the head of Brazil's UFO investigation department, Ruben Leamza, uh, is that it's actually two Chinese lanterns, wedding lanterns, kind of tied together. And that's why you see early on in the

video, you see kind of like two shapes kind of like moving around each other. Partway through the video, you see the heat source and then you see kind of the paper canopy of the of the lanterns uh be behind it. And then when it gets to this this section here, this is where we see it kind of disappear. Now, this is this is thermal footage. So, we're seeing the black is the hot of the flame and there's some blooming or glare and then when it moves, so that's hidden by the paper the paper canopy. uh it becomes you it's almost the same

color as the ocean and the video compression just can't keep up with it. So it disappears. You can more or less see it though a lot of the time and then it reappears and it kind of like splits into two which ties in with the earlier observations that there appears to be two heat sources uh that there's actually two two wedding lanterns and more research was that there are actually hotels up the beach upwind from this location which release these types of uh of wedding lanterns and then this was all confirmed basically by Arrow analyzing this and

coming to the same conclusion. What do you think Merrick? I I that'll probably cost me some Twitter followers. Great. I agree. I don't have any Okay. So, this is what that's good to hear. So, you guys agree on something? No, absolutely. [laughter] There are certainly there are people who won't No, I see you for example. Let me just be clear. I I agree with the vast majority of mixed um work, right? Cuz because and we as we know throughout history, right? 80 90% of these things are prosaically explained, misidentified. We've seen this in New Jersey, right? People are literally videotaping or or recording aircraft. So

speaking of which, the world is going crazy. There are drones in sensitive airspaces, quote unquote drones. And I'm just saying quote unquote because nobody has any good even you have to admit, Mick, nobody's coming out and saying anything clear about these things on either side. One thing that's very very clear is that there's a lot of misidentification. A lot of videos. I'm sure I'm sure. There really aren't any good videos that are unambiguously of drones or you know some kind of beyond drones type things. Sure. But would you admit that there's a

spike globally of these weird sightings and sensitive airspaces? Is this because that there actually are more of them or is it because people are reporting more of them because of this story has kind of blossomed up from these these original stories of drones over air base. I don't I don't have the data, but my my strong bias would be that there are more all these false sightings though. All these small sightings are just people looking at planes. So there's a huge spike in those. So why wouldn't it be like all just this from this huge spike back slightly, Mick? Ju just a little bit. Um I you're right. People

misidentify things. Um but I think we're I think you might be um pushing this narrative a little too far because it really the the very obvious plane videos. There's only like three or four of them. They're obvious like that are There's not that many. Oh, well, there's a lot more that are uh well, let's resolvable as planes if we know the actual location. I got sent one the other day and tracked down the actual planes and it just looked like these little points. Let's get into the weirdest one. You know, this one it's gone completely

viral on Twitter. It says Manchester airport June 2024 sighting and you have you know an employee an anonymous pilot and co-pilot you know uh see this thing and uh I think the quote is like I you know I' I've worked you know in in uh you know aviation for a very long time and you know I know what a weather balloon looks like and the report is that this orb comes down hits the tarmac and then shoots up. Yeah. But he also said it was uh the size of the small car and that's 24 inches tops.

We did very detailed analysis 3D recreation of this thing from this exact viewpoints and using the the data there at the most 24 in. Okay. And Merrick, what do you think? I got nothing guys. I I really like it's it's I don't know. So you you basically agree with me or I think it's a balloon and some like artifacts in the image there. I got nothing. Yeah. Sorry. Then we have this interesting case of quote unquote UAP activity near Duke Energy's nuclear facility in North Carolina. I personally find this interesting because my AAMS

razor belief generally is that it's you know prosaically explainable way. The the thing I hold out you know interest in is when the sighting occurs around a nuclear facility. I find it very fascinating that there is a town uh next to the Fukushima Prefecture in Japan called Eno which is dedicated to UFOs and it's where they had their famous 2011 spill you know nuclear um and then you know there have been sightings in Barilloce Argentina which has its own civilian nuclear grid and then if you

look at Ed Edward J Rupelt the book you cited uh the vast majority of the sightings that he takes seriously occur around sensitive nuclear facilities in the US and so and then you have Robert Hastings work and so if I had to you know again steelman the UFO position it would be around this nuclear connection so this I find interesting because you have UAP activity around this nuclear power plant should we just watch the and I'll just quickly say Jesse to your point that the nuclear connection is

though. I think there's a lot of reporting bias. uh you get reports on highly sensitive sites just because people are much more vigilant. Uh people who work on these sites are trained to report things and people who work at Walmart are not trained to report things. You got to read the cable and this is again to John Reed uh Greenwall's credit like you got to read the cable like 1975 are youware do you know anything about those incursions where where you can see in a in a literally a um a cable to the Pentagon is that nuclear specific

Brazil where you know James Fox went down investigated for moment of contact where you have all these you know hless local citizens who don't seem like Is there a nuclear power station there? Yeah, they that was the the start of their nuclear program is what I've heard. And so I I don't know there it just keeps popping up with the nuclear thing and it does it does cut through Lake and Heath just recently allegedly according to open source reporting that um supposed to host US nuclear weapons. Lake and Heath was one of the the the site of one of the most

have a bunch of, you know, John Burroughs, Jim Penniston, Colonel Halt, who did the investigation, the audio and then Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I was listening to the book on the way here, UFO News. There's a lot. Yeah. What do you think about that? Cuz that's I told you to read that. certainly see how it would seem compelling because there's account after account after account of the something and if you meet like I actually get the sense from you I I I don't think you're a liar at all. Like I think you're very No, I mean it. I I I really I get this uh like clear attention to detail like um good earnest vibe. And that's the

same vibe I get from Robert Hastings. In fact, like the way I connected with Robert Hastings I think he's lying in the book. No, I know you're not accusing him [clears throat] of that. but his he's dedicated his life to this and the amount of granular detail. I mean, you should meet him if you're interested. He reached out to me. This is how I got in touch with him. I made my piece with David Grush and uh I screwed it up and I overstated the case. I was like, you know, um, UFOs and nukes, you have, uh, uh, you know, over a hundred, and I go, missiles, ICBM security personnel, like

a few other people, and it was it's 170 total witnesses, but it wasn't 100, you know, radar operators or whatever. And I just misspoke in the moment, you know, but I love it. He he he emailed me. He said, Jesse, it was only like 12 to 15, I don't remember the exact number, but but radar operators. the rest were ICBM security uh personnel, you know, missile technicians, you know, whatever. And it was and then that's been literally like all of my communications with him have been around

that. And he'll he'll correct you immediately if you're wrong and if you're overstating again statistics here, like actual statistical analysis of, you know, citing near nukes versus otherwise that are actually Well, yeah, it would be Edward J. Pelt's original study where he came in that was done from 1947 1952 and then he wrote a book about it in 1956. I mean, the Colorado sightings, right, the 2019, 2020, those were uh over those

been abducted and he but this guy maintained a queue clearance for 20 years after this. And all these guys are it's the most sensitive clearances. They're on what's called the PRP program. They have to report if they're taking ibuprofen. So I do find that compelling. speaks to the whole like issue with uh you know Marco Rubio we talked in the start like you know either there's some crazy people in power or you know what they're saying is true and he leans towards true right just to be clear Rubio is very clearly leaning towards I trust them but there is evidence that there are crazy people but people with very

strange ideas but who Latsky for example like he is like a rocket scientist yeah but I think the more the more you go into like you know highly competent you know impressive circles rules of people, the more you realize a lot of these people are weird. But who? Tim Taylor. Yeah, Tim Taylor's super weird, but he's also, you know, working with Elon Musk around, you know, various launches. Weird. That's interesting. But that just speaks to like how much weirdness you can actually get. But at what point do you say at what point do you say weird or

at what point do you say reality is weird and that uh a proxy for somebody's uh credibility is actually how high functioning they are? Well, there's just a big tolerance for weird within the Pentagon. How weird do you have? Like, you have to be pretty darn weird to go to the ICIG, Inspector General, and say I was part of a I was part of a reverse engineering program. That's that's right. 40 people have done allegedly, right? Test fin.

Does that make sense? Right. Okay. There's there could be weird people, but there's a different level of I was on this program and I those are the weird people. I worked on this NHI craft that that's that's border that's delusion. Like there's weird and then there's delusion. If if they're not we don't know what they said, but enough enough for right the Senate intel might go. We should move forward. But you should meet Hastings at one point. Let's let's watch this Duke video. Oh my god.

Oh my [ __ ] god. [laughter] Oh, Irish. No, that ain't no plane. Yo, it's always a pleasure. We stop playing. It's blasting a plane. a plane. It just made a perfect triangle. IT MADE A [ __ ] TRIANGLE. [laughter] It's three lights in the sky. Oh my god. Oh my god.

Yeah, you can't get much from that. triangle and then one one seems to kind comes out. Yeah, coming towards us now zoomed in the light.

Okay. What do you guys make of this, Mick? Well, the white light at the top you can see there has got two lights which kind of suggests to me that it's the landing lights of a distant plane very far away. We see this quite a lot in uh in these videos. People will see a plane that's coming directly towards them. It could be like, you know, 40, 50, 100 miles away. Not that far. Uh and it looks like this. It just sits there and it kind of eventually like raises up and it will eventually go over them. The other lights I don't know. They were kind of orange looking. I'm not sure what they they were. Could be helicopters. Could be drones. If they're landing lights, Mick, can we

test this? Right. Cuz [clears throat] if I What? Yeah. Yeah, we could. I'm just saying like cuz we know where this Do we know what facility this was? Yeah. Duke's Energy. Do we have the time and location? Well, no, no, but but landing lights implies that there's an airport and a and a final approach path somewhere close by. We can test your hypo if you have the if you have the location. Yeah. So, so Southport, North Carolina. So, we should we should look into that. That's not really accurate enough. You need a Okay, fair enough. Down to the street pretty much. Uh, and then we have some other people commenting. I have seven videos of them from last night. Around 30 minutes of

good video. I'm in Asheville, North Carolina. The two mean ones were in red were a red and blue one. The blue one was amazing to watch. Pulsate, grow 5x larger, then shrink back to size. I don't know. People post videos of things that are obviously planes. uh and think that they're UFOs. So, it's not surprising people will post videos of lights in the sky and think that they're UFOs. So, I'm get some what I find more compelling maybe than this is uh and I'll just be very quick um the Langley incursions. If you

there's a there's witness video where the guy zooms out and you can see I don't know 10 15 flashing light and you can tell they're very very far out. Now, that is interesting in itself, but you see that over uh the the Goldwater Training Range is a video. same thing. [clears throat] Just just unbelievable amounts of flashing lights in the sky. Drones. And oh, by the way, uh Air Force pilots have been reporting drones up to 36 drones up to 36,000 ft. There's there's like 30 or 40 reports over the last couple years that they metallic

objects, eight or nine. It's all documented. You know, it's it it's all out there. Can Can we all agree that we need to figure out what the hell is going on? More information would be great. More videos would be great. More analysis from Arrow would be great and more experts should weigh in. I think that's the takeaway. Please, if you're watching at home, we have to wrap up in a minute, but do you guys have any opinion on this New Jersey thing? Should we should we play I look I I from the quickly we have the FBI, we have um FAA,

UFOs and nukes that there was a mother ship outside the atmosphere and the green meteorites were UFOs and nukes mentions this as well. Here's a K9 trooper from I'll be very quick. K9 trooper from Kansas. Uh he had these flo fly right over his head. He said one of the drones had a really bright light on it like a spotlight. That drone stayed relatively stationary at that location. He then said there were anywhere from 10 to 15 drones that flew all kinds of patterns around that stationary drone. At one point, one of those Drew flew directly over his house. He had night vision with him, so he

tried to look at it. Made no sound even though the wind was calm. All right. Eyewitness accounts. Great video for what we need. Merrick, Mick, this was awesome. I appreciate you guys both. Thanks for doing this, Mick. Thank you. This was great. I mean, you guys were I felt like, you know, mostly pretty civil and cool with each other. [laughter] And I think I think both of all of us want just more experts to look at this, more uh and and and more witnesses again to the extent you're not compromising American national security come out and talk about this stuff.

I enjoy this very much. I enjoy solving cases and investigating them and if it turns out that I'm wrong about things, that would be really interesting. You'll buy me a beer. Agreed. And if Gimbals debunked, I'll buy you a beer. And I I have a bet. I have a bet that I guess we never resolved. We were talking about this before the show. I bet you $10,000 which is insane because I gave you one to one odds and it should be million to one odds that uh 80% we'd get 80% consensus in like academia, military and civilian sector that uh non-human

intelligence or future humans are occupying these sort of anomalous crafts and that people would this would become the consensus in 10 years which is as you pointed out kind of hard to verify ultimately this 80% consensus But you moved that number from 10,000 to 1,000. I just like more reasonable bets cuz it avoids legality. I think it's an unreasonable bet for me on it's like a joke for me. I'm giving you free money, but uh let's let's just bet a beer then. Okay, let's do it. Awesome.

Thanks, man. Appreciate it. Thank you guys. This is great. All right, cool. and uh we felt compelled to extend our debate somewhat because so much bombshell footage has been released uh since our our long debate. Specifically, we're talking about this egg video that has kind of broken the internet over the last couple of days associated with uh

big egg kind of swaying around and it hits the and you see it kind of roll over and you see the kind of like the wrapping around it loosen. And then you see these these wires and this is from the the TV show. They kind of went in and slowed it down a little bit. Um, and you can see like, you know, there's lighting coming from over here. There's there's a shadow in this direction. Uh there's, you know, a little bit of a roll when it hits the ground, which shows it has a little bit of inertia. Um, and it's it's

egg in a little sling. So I've got like the whole the kaboodleoodle which you know kind of led me to think it's probably not a scale model. I don't think it's actually an egg shaped thing. I think it's probably something larger. I think it might actually be from a helicopter and it might be something being moved. Uh but yeah it like all these videos though quality really isn't there. It's just uh very low resolution and it's very short. Why do they chop it off? So, not a lot to go by. Interesting

though. Oh, and the backstory of course is very interesting. I I I saw Marrick were talking to to Ross Kart uh and uh uh Tim Galardet about this and they were talking all about all kinds of strange things like the like psychic powers and stuff like that which was kind of an interesting um mixture of things. I think, you know, we got this this, you know, a lot of this UFO stuff is just nuts and bolts. This would be nuts and bolts if it was just like an object being retrieved, but then we've got the whole psychic psyionic aspect of it,

which is a bit bit weird. Merrick, what's your take? Damn it, it looks like an egg. That's all [laughter] we got really. Yeah. Uh what I do find interesting is and again I try to bring a bit of an analytic perspective but there's a gentleman named Eric Taber who went to Arrow. Uh I don't know if Jesse if you're familiar with this but you who did speak to Arrow and he spoke of um an egg-shaped craft being retrieved and I I believe this was at Area 51. Um I don't

believe he was a firsthand witness so take it as you will but again um that that shape does come up. I I agree with Mick. It's not your standard saucer. It's not your orb. It's not your sphere. The stuff that you you hear a lot. It's not a it's not a triangle. Um but um you know there there is it seems like there is some precedent for a another story um uh of you know of this nature and and involving an anomalous craft that is It's just a shame we don't have better video of it because it just remains somewhat ambiguous.

Yeah, it it definitely felt like, you know, this like high resolution footage promise, you know, maybe maybe, you know, was it's slightly underwhelming. And then at the same time, in the instance in which this was a real thing, this is actually like very good footage comparable to like what we've had in the past. So, kind of depends on like the objective truth, which is, you know, it's this weird epistemic impass that we're facing where if it is true, it's actually like a really good video. And then if it's not, you know, [laughter]

obviously not. Yeah, I guess that's all like all these videos. It's big if big if true. Like all these claims are big if true but but better better than fleer and gimbal and go fast and you know these are these are different sensor modalities different Jesse but well not better from like an analytic perspective the way you're looking at it Merrick but better for like a just like uh again like if we were to get corroborative sensor data it would like be better for the the eye but yeah this isn't this isn't doing

anything there this is just uh inertly hanging on the end of a rope. Uh, and you know, we've got UF UAP is supposed to have all these observables like sudden acceleration, the defying gravity being uh, you know, uh, hard to see. I think what was it? Low observability and uh, transmedium travel. It's doing none of these none of these things. Uh, so it's hard to kind of classify this even as a UAP. I guess it's it's the context of the story that's around it that makes it interesting. And then we got this

What What do you guys make of you know I feel like UFO World took a bit of a hard left turn away from Cartisian space you know aliens from a distant galaxy and into kind of uh sigh parasychology almost more in line with like occult practices or something. What how do you guys feel about that? It seems like there's a lot of that just suddenly cropped up. It was weird cuz like you know before it was all nuts and bolts and then we suddenly had this drone

stuff which is even more nuts and bolts. Everybody's getting into drones and then it's kind of like a hard swing now to psionic powers and like Steven Grier type stuff like Dr. Steven Greer who does this C5 stuff and then Ross Kart uh who who brought this out says that he went out with these people and they had these psionic assets who could take control of craft uh which sounds you know bizarre and you frankly ridiculous claim that you could actually cyclically take over an alien craft. Do you think the aliens would be able to stop that

type of thing? But, uh, it does seem like a a weird shift. And someone mentioned that they thought like, you know, things were kind of dying down a bit in the UFO space and so perhaps people are reaching for more interesting things. I don't know, but it was weird. What do you think, Merrick? I I agree. It's it's a shift. Um, again, I you know, I I have focused on the nuts and bolts aspect. I will say just my own personal progression. I I was and I've been very open about this. I was deeply

skeptical of UFOs. Uh even I missed the 2017 story. I think I I mentioned this in in the longer version, but I' I've gone through a few of my own many oncological shocks throughout this journey, right? And um and and you know, again, I'm skeptical of of everything I see just just kind of right off the bat. I I would need to see evidence. I have seen evidence. Now the gimbal video knows that we've talked to some experts and none of them agree with his theory and and one of the most important ones explicitly disagrees with this series. So that that those those are those are

science. I don't know. Keeping an open right off the bat, but I am [clears throat] keeping an open mind. And I'll just say last, um, I'll add that Jake and I think the other special operator, Fred Baker, who's who's truly a legend in the community, I found in over the last 24 hours, um, they've said openly, um, don't trust us, we'll show you. So, okay. they got they got a timeline on that. They know we're doing it, when it's, um, but I, you know, I think that's

great. That's the right app to have. Yeah, definitely. Definitely. I would definitely appreciate seeing more data and uh you know just you the the stories aren't cutting it. We need to see actual I agree. I think everybody agrees on that, right? Yeah. And Merrick, you had uh something you wanted to bring up as well. Real real quick. So I'll I'll just tee this up. Um and Jeremy Corbel um there's a video Mick, I think you figured out when this is posted first, but this is the the quote unquote Iraq gimbal video. Um but I'll just tee it up first. Jeremy

got an interview with the the Marine who actually recorded this. This was a in 2008. Uh and he's in a what's called a LAV Lav 25. I think it's a lightly armored vehicle. Um he's got a thermal site and he's they're they're out there in the middle of the desert truly in the middle of nowhere close like 100 miles from the Syrian border doing uh overwatch and reconnaissance. So he's looking around to see what's around to make sure nobody the bad guys aren't sneaking up on on them at night. So, he's got this thermal site and he sees

an object rising, in his words, rising up off of the desert floor. And he says it goes up about 25 m. Then it moves to his about 30 to 50 m to his left, comes back to that center point, moves about 30 m to his right, and then goes back to that center point and then slowly starts um climbing. And then he's then at that point he's like, "This is bizarre. I'm going to record this." See, and he starts recording the screen and then we have this video. I won't bore people with with the full video, but I

do want to maybe quickly just point out if I can share my screen. Um, there are some intriguing similarities. Is that coming through for you guys? I see it. Um, there are some intriguing similarities to to gimbal. I think we can agree on that. Um, and if gimbal is this never before seen anomaly, um, no expert has ever seen this before. I mean, Mick, we were on on the call with the AT Flare expert. He says, "This is quote bizarre. I've never seen anything like this." No seen anything like this.

Um, so when you see these matches, that's that's interesting to me. Oh, and by the way, these uh anomalies just happen to look like the classic saucer. What are the odds, right? That's what makes it fun, isn't it? Makes it more Classic saucer. And I'll just quickly add one more thing. Um, there's an interesting video and Mick, I know you did a uh you did a a semide debunk of this, but I do have a a few bones to pick per usual. Is that coming through for you guys? Yeah, I see it. Y kind of stepping. Well, you don't play

it yet. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. So, it does this. All right. This stepping thing, right? And then it's slow down at half speed. Um, so he moves it he moves the camera up and you see it jolt down, right? So that's moving the moving the camera, right? So this this system is a thermal it's a thermal system. You can move it left, right, up, down, and it's a thermal sight. So the barrel, the gun barrel, there's video of this online. The gun barrel is actually pointed to where he This is how they shoot the weapon without getting out of the vehicle, right? Yeah. It's a gun sight.

Exactly. It's literally a gun site. So So you can see him moving, but but that that up and down that kind of that that jittery that jumpy ascent is very interesting to me. Yeah. Yeah. It's just it's an interesting little thing. I think again we have the issue of it being very poor quality. We see here like you see all the compression blocks and everything and the pixels. And I think there's a couple of points I'd like to make. Uh the first is like you you did that comparison earlier where you you did two frames that look very similar with the gimbal and this Iraqi gimbal. Uh one one of them is in the gimbal

frame that you show was in black hot mode and this is in you know white hot. Uh and the contrast curves are very different uh for those two modes. It's not really one isn't the inverse of the other. So you're comparing a black hot to a white hot isn't a very good comparison. And if you were to take the white hot images which are at the start of the gimbal video, they're actually quite different different shape to the rest. You see a kind of more irregular shape. It's kind of like uh you're familiar with it. It's kind of like like narrower at one end and then wider at

the other. It doesn't really look like actually to take that. I saw your comment and and um as you know, Mick, over the course of the gimbal video, object grows. It gets bigger. It does actually become that shape. So, I I think you're you're missing the point. Anyway, we could we could talk. Well, it's why why is it changing shape though? Is it magically morphing from one shape into another? It doesn't really make any sense. As the jet gets closer, it becomes more defined, right? Yeah. Well, I think you know I obviously as you know I think that the gimbal shape is actually uh you know a camera

artifact. I know you don't like the word glare. You don't like the word a lot of people agree with me but not the people found experts agree with. Yeah. But then the experts that you found you we went over this before the experts you found they also thought that it looked like an SR71 which it looks absolutely nothing like an SR71. So you know really are there experts really very good at analyzing this particular video. They took a quick take and the guy told you that it was just a quick take and it wasn't meant to be an Let's get to that rule. What do you What do you think this video What do you think we're looking at right here?

I don't know what we're looking at, but like I think it again it's something that doesn't show the observables. It doesn't It's far away so we can't really see it. What do you make of this this motion? Yeah, the motion. Yeah, the motion. I think you know there's there's obviously we didn't we don't see the really dramatic mo movements that he talked about. you know, he's rising up from the desert, moving left and right. Uh, we see it moving slowly up. Now, we see it kind of looking like it's kind of moving a little bit like this, up and down, like kind of relative to to the

background. I think what we're seeing there is actually the turret uh of the vehicle or perhaps the vehicle itself with the engine just moving a tiny little bit up and down, which would make the camera move. You know, he talked about how he was raising the uh I have to be careful not to do a Nazi salute here like Elon Musk just did. uh raising up the um the the camera thing so it was always pointing in the sky and he got like embarrassed that he thought other people might be looking at him and he so he lowered it down. But I think doing that is going to make it kind of a wobble a little bit because we're kind

of zoomed in quite a lot here. So I think we're just seeing camera movement. It it doesn't register exactly with the clouds because the clouds are very low low frequency in technical terms. They're the they're the very smooth curves so they don't move very much because of the video compression. Now, this video, I think it it was part of a dump that somebody did. Uh there's a a a UFO site on Twitter. I think it's called Ray Fios or something like Arif US UFOs. And they uploaded a whole bunch

of stuff to mega.co. Z New Zealand NZ. Uh and so there might actually be a better version of this out there which might actually help resolve some of these things. So if someone knows of that better version, then that would be This is thermal. This is thermal. You you incorrectly thought this was a night vision and thought this was what do you think it is? Uh well, yeah, I still think the most likely thing is is essentially the the landing lights of an aircraft which which do show up in thermal because if the the halogen lights

How would they be bouncing up and down like that if they were LED light? I mean Oh, they're not. They're not. That's the camera bouncing up and down. So it's like if very little like jiggles of the camera like like here uh would actually make things move around much. And why would the why would the lights be irregularly shaped? Why wouldn't they be like sort of uniformly distributed? Because it's it's bright. It's looking directly into the the camera. Uh you know it's like the usual kind of glare type thing. So I think it would be like you know bright lights in the middle on the landing gear and maybe two lights on

the side. I don't know though. I mean it could be like the visible light landing lights. Why would there be landing lights a 100 miles from the Syrian border um in the middle of the desert in in Anbar province or wherever this was? Well, maybe because it was landing somewhere is a plane, you know, it's a military plane. It's not like every single fires black. You can't see lights in thermal like you just cannot see. Well, you can see heat in thermal though and some lights are very hot. So, like you know that is you're telling me that I don't know. I don't know. Like, but I

don't think I I'm not ready to rule this out. It's the engine exhaust. If this is a plane, the engine exhaust, well, it would be it would be behind the If it's coming at you, you'd be No, it's behind something. When something comes at you, you don't see the things that are behind it. I mean, you can't see the back of my head, can If it's coming at you like this, right? You can see the plumes going this way. No, you really can't. You really can't because if it's far away like uh I've taken lots of video of planes that are say like 50 to 100 miles away and where

they're coming towards you. The angle between like the plane and you know and you really isn't that much. They're essentially one we're looking at like I just so bizarre to me. Like that's it is pretty bizarre, isn't it? Yeah. But I don't know what it is. I mean it could be like a weird drone or something. Uh but I don't really think it just shows any kind of stumped. I'm done here. [laughter] Well, it's very It just happens to look like Gimh. I mean, look at look at this video. It's like you you can barely read the the time code at the top of it. It's a

crappy video. Uh, you know, if we had the original video, maybe we'll be able to see a little bit more. Maybe we'll be able to prove that it was, you know, one thing or the other. But I really don't think we can rule things out from this particular video. I see like the plane thing isn't like, you know, super compelling. Uh, but it's not compelling at all. It's joke. What I what I think is it don't it doesn't actually demonstrate any of the observables. It doesn't demonstrate like extraordinarily mo extraordinary motion. It's just something it just happens to look like the gimbal

in this particular frame. And as I said, you're taking white hot against blackot. And if you take all the the the black the white hot frames from gimbal, they don't actually match. Um because the the [laughter] because it's not morphed into a different shape Gets closer to it. It gets 15% larger as it gets closer, which is the exact size at the correct distance. So why is it changing shape? Getting getting larger doesn't change shape. You know, sure you pick some frames here that look the same. Flying in a jet, Mick, you're a pilot, so you know this, right? If you're

flying at something, it gets larger as you get closer to it. Right. Familiar with perspective. Yeah. Exactly. So that's what happens in gimbal. And it this just happens. I know grow at the exact same size, but it doesn't change shape. I mean, this egg isn't changing shape from here to here. It's just a bigger egg. It's not going to get one end isn't going to get thicker, which is what happens in gimbal. You realize perspective, right? And and the way they come up from behind, right? Or they're they're moving. They're

maneuvering to come in behind it, right? So, it's not like they're coming directly at it, Mick. You know that. So, you're saying you're saying the angle of the object changes the Yes, absolutely. As I look forward to you doing a 3D model of the the gimbal object that will demonstrate this uh this change in It's already in your sak. Anyway, we can go on for days. We could we could go on for days. I I just I just need and I go into this um in in the in the longer interview, but

again, the bottom line is no experts agree with Mick and the the literally the the one of the top infrared air-to-air infrared experts explicitly disagreed with theory. Yeah. I came up with another cockamini theory which was completely wrong as well. So what you going to do? Uh I think we've got some crappy videos here which are unfortunately the best videos that we have and I think that in itself is a huge clue about ufology. The only videos that we get are crappy videos. And the reason that we only get crappy videos is if the videos were better quality we'd be able to tell what the

thing was and then you know we'd be we'd know it was a UFO or not. Since none of the good videos show UFOs, all we're left with is these crappy videos. It's the low information zone. That's how UFOs work. I don't think so, Mick. And and I I I hope we learn more, but but the Pentagon has said that they have quote true anomalies that they're so stump. And this is Kosla, the new director of the Pentagon's UFO office has said, "We have true anomalies that I, as an engineer and a physicist, I'm paraphrasing, do not understand. And I

do not know anybody else who understands. So let's see what those videos are. That's because they haven't got the the information. But I Yeah, I'm looking forward to seeing those true stump that they need the public. So that's me. That's you, man. [laughter] That's everybody. That's that's everybody that's watching. They can uh they can use my my software open source. It's sit wreck. Anyone can use it. And uh hopefully they will and maybe it'll help them solve. I'd be happy to help, you know. Well, whatever whatever whatever we're seeing is definitely at the margins of reality. And so I think we wouldn't be having this debate if it was like super

the margins of perception which isn't really the margins of reality. Well, there you go. Now you're talking like like us. I mean I think I think yeah the margins of our you because we there are doors of perception to quote William Blake or Aldis Huxley and you know in the optical range that involves 400 to 700 nanometers and uh if you have these things traveling uh you know close to the speed of light they're probably doing two one of two things. they're probably uh you know if they're moving

away from you they're stretching light and so that's like the low the you know the bottom end of the visible band but but probably lower than what we can actually see and then if they're coming towards you they're they're crunching light and so that's you know your microwaves and so it's either you know it's going to be infrared or microwave and you need these sensor modalities normal civilians don't have those sensor modalities and so it kind of makes sense you would either get blue shifted or redshifted optical or you would get like other sensors and it you'd have to debate it endlessly because it really

look to the normal eye. UFO [clears throat] physicists about that. I mean Halutoff says things like that. Yes. But I think you should need to ask some I hesitate to say real physicists but someone who isn't perhaps so in inshed in this whole uh UAP thing. What would they what would they say? Yeah, go for it. So just just very quickly and Jesse to to build on that there is a documented history of the most important kind of one of the most important historical documents in in this whole topic is what's called the

witnesses police officers pilots engineers have seen these objects 100 feet away and they're all they all just happen to be look like the gimbal and the Iraq gimbal. They're evasive, but not when there's no camera available. You know, they're evasive, but they they appear 100 ft away, where you would be able to get wonderful 4K video if you had your camera with you. They're not really evasive. They're just evading cameras, which this is the flaw in your analytic approach. And yeah, and this is but you you I I wish you take took some time to

read through the actual and I'm happy to send you the most most compelling ones. And you have to read through the compelling the most compelling reports that are out there. Multi-witness within several hundred feet. Um, shake your head. Go ahead. [clears throat] That's fine. I'm just telling you that's my analytic basis. That's what I go off of. Yeah. Your analytic basis is stories from 70, 80 years ago. It's it's not really very useful. And video. Yeah. Video. That's it. I would also say if we're talking about things that

travel the speed of light or do any of the things that seem to break our conventional physics, uh, you know, and then you accept any of these stories around consciousness, they probably know how to evade perception on more of a root level than we're, you know, able to even understand. So, and then we're getting away from the nuts and bolts here. This is this is kind of like highly speculative. I wouldn't say it's a getting away from nuts and bolts. just you know goes towards the Arthur C. Clark quote that any sufficiently advanced technology appears to be magic. And so

can you demonstrate that is happening Demonstrate what is happening. Any of what you just said that they're detecting cameras and avoiding them. Well, that's it's the all good science is the interplay between uh experimentation and theory. And I would bucket in anomalies with experimentation where you see these observable things. You can't just snap them to grid on present theory of, you know, this can't exist because of present physical models. That would have, you know, stagnated science in all sorts of cases

in the past, whether it's black body radiation or the orbit of Mercury, which were both very anomalous. And so, in this case, you're seeing this anomalous thing. It's actually somewhat repeatable with two things, uh, nuclear and consciousness. And it's kind of on us to theorize and we could again snap it back to the grid of like general relativity and say it's impossible but usually that loses the snapping back to the grid and maybe you know the the person you know uh uh making theories around this thing is is a heretic of the present but they're often vindicated in the future

as kind of the the hero of the future scientifically speaking. So, I'd say if you're looking at it from like a meta-accientific, you know, um, Thomas Cooney model of like the structure of scientific revolutions, you'd probably bet on the anomaly. You wouldn't bet on the present physics model. The present physics model always goes away. You can't just bet on every single anomaly out there and expect them all to be true. It's not like, you know, they laugh at you and you're right. It's it's that most things that are weird aren't actually real. There are very few of them that actually turn out to be interesting things. And those are things

that where we do have repeatable and measurable data like the you know the orbit of Mercury and things like that. We don't have that you know we've got an accumulation of anecdotes an accumulation of stories and we got lots and lots of them. It seems compelling. It seems compelling because you just you just gather together all the ones that seem similar. Look here are all the ones from nuclear power stations. Here are all the ones that show like shiny discs. So yes, of course they're they're remarkably consistent because you you gather them together. do some actual statistical analysis on this and see

what comes out. Well, that my Yeah, go for it. Yeah. Go ahead. Go ahead. No, you go. You go. But Battel put out a a very very deep uh of of the 1947 and 1952 sightings. And guess what? Fascinating. Uh 33% of the most credible sightings were unknown. And those are ones that had enough data to uh to be Sure. But we have no idea what they considered to be enough data and we

we have 167 guys with few clearances who have no reason. They've they haven't made a dime from this. They're you know they're sort of they've been castigated and and and shamed and often demoted. They have to report it. Right. And Exactly. They have to report it if if they have Yeah. they're on the personal reliability program and so and that has to be an extremely depressed number that 167 has to actually be uh 10,000 to 700 or something. You have to you really have to like multiply that by

a ton due to this, right? But how how many people have Q clearance and how many of them are are in positions where they they have to report things regardless. And so they end up reporting a whole bunch more stuff than your regular, you know, guy at Walmart would would report. That is a that is a very high subset of people with keclarings. And it's not just people, you know, um seeing these things in distant places in the sky because of hypervigilance around nuclear assets. It's them shutting down the power around these nuclear sites, disarming the nukes themselves. And in certain cases, these

guys claim to board crafts and have things implanted inside them. So, well, it's that sounds a bit implausible to me. the nuclear button if they're all insane cuz either way they're not all insane. They're just they're normal people. They're regular people. They normal human failings. But come on. I mean, you you if if if a guy was was guarding these nuclear assets and claimed these things and it wasn't repeatable. Like I just interviewed a guy named Mario Woods, 1977 Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota, you know, boarded a craft or

whatever and and you know, woke up nine miles in and Lake Newell. uh uh uh away from the base and has marks on his body and you know this is just a really crazy experience and he had his queue clearance and retained it and worked at Sandia and all sorts of other DOE labs I think Oakidge for another 20 years. If you're like a higherup, you know, person in, you know, uh, the DOE and you see that and you you have this one guy claiming this crazy [ __ ] why would you

continue to hire him for the next 20 years, unless that was actually just this repeatable thing happening to a lot of people and you were hyper aware of the phenomena overall and you and you didn't blame the guy and you realized he was totally lucid and mentally sound. I wouldn't let that guy near my nuclear if he was the one guy. If if he was just the one guy, it's not like he had his finger on the bottom, he could launch things. He was someone who worked there who had a queue clearance and people like you David Gush had like, you know, psychotic episode and was voluntarily hospitalized and he

kept his clearance because, you know, people just because they have episodes doesn't mean you automatically lose your He didn't have a psychotic episode at all and he had too much to drink one night and his buddy next to him was blown up in war because PTSD. very personal arguable but I'm just saying that you don't lose your clear your clearance just because you have you know one thing happened to you if you get cleared by a doctor later you go to therapy whatever you can carry on working obviously like we we don't know the details of that you know hipper

and everything you know I don't know if he like you know volunteered exactly what happened just go back to work the next day say I saw aliens in the lake okay go back to work no there was a there was a very clear protocol he underwent due to obviously ly the Air Force having seen this before. They checked him for certain things. They checked it to you. I I'll just say in the post in the the post global war on terror era, their their PTS uh has been a significant issue and yes, Jesse's correct that

military services have had to deal with this a lot and there are protocols indeed Jesse's correct about that um that had to be followed for Grush to retain his clearance. Um, but I don't want to get into personal stuff. Mick, can I just quickly I I will shut up after this. Mick, can I pin you down? The experts have spoken. They say glare is not a thing. They say what we're seeing in those engines is what's called blooming, which is a well-known artifact in infrared technology. And they said, and you know exactly what I'm talking

about. The credentials are impeccable. Uh, blooming would not have resulted in that rotation. Yeah. Unless they theory for the gimbal video. Yeah, the gimbal I think. Well, there's two possibilities. Well, there's three possibilities. One is a real craft that's rotating. One is that you know what I suggested is correct and there's some kind of optical artifact that happens before the sensor. And the other one is yeah like like blur. Uh and the other one I know I know like you said you shut up like uh the then the third one is that the d- rotation happens after the

sensor like it's a digital drotation which is something that's you know uh in in the patent. So I don't know which one of those it is. I do know that it looks like it's an optical artifact that's that's rotating because of de- rotation because of all the various observables that I list in in my video and and one of the experts says that he thought I was right but for the wrong reason. Another one said that he looked like an SR71. Well, they both said that actually. So, you know, I think perhaps we need to talk to these experts in a bit more detail, drill down into this.

Uh and and for the record, the one who said you were right, he actually did not say that. Let's be clear. and I'll put out those emails happily after this and we can we can have that discussion. That is, you know, that's not true. Well, he said, "I I think Mick is right, but for the wrong reason." Uh, I don't think that's correct. And I I put that out there. We'll we'll Sure. Well, I'll check. Yeah. I I could be wrong, too, but that's how I recall Please do because everything he described was an internal thing. It's not on the glass. Anyway, um, bottom line is the experts have basically

theory. Arrow is not arrow. Yeah, the patent doesn't say anything. you know, those experts did not give a definite answer. They gave an opinion based on limited data. The one I read the email to you explicitly ruled it out or he explicitly said this was an initial impression based on limited data. And that it was not intended to be something. It wasn't even something he wanted to share. He didn't want his emails to be shared. Uh, and you know, he didn't come to actual

conclusion anonymously because I think it's important to hear those voices He didn't shared it anyway. Like you did you get permission from him to share those emails? I did not. I put it out anonymously. I anonymized it because I think it's important for people to see what the world's leading experts say about this I asked him for permission because I wanted to share it myself and he said no. So, and the other one didn't reply. Sorry to hear that. Um, does it bother you that that Arrow does not endorse your theory? No. I don't think they got round to it yet. Um, it's the most rec footage of all time.

disappointing that we we're not getting more information from Arrow but we haven't got the official word yet from them. Maybe we can leave it at let's hope Kuzowski is true to his word and he can whatever bureaucratic class issues he has to to overcome to get the really anomalous stuff that he said he is stumped by that the true the quote true anomalies. Maybe we can leave the leave it here. Let's hope that would be great. Yeah, let's get that stuff out there in the figure out. Why doesn't someone leak something that's really good? Why are we getting

these crappy egg videos and these bouncy objects? Leak the 4K stuff, please. Well, I think we can all let's end on that note of uh you know, collegiality between us. We would all like to see better better footage. Um no matter what our takes are on the existing record uh uh and what we currently have. So, Mick, Merrick, appreciate you guys. Uh we're going to put this out pretty pretty soon and uh just just tag it on to our our finished video. So, um Sounds good.

Thanks again, guys. Appreciate it. All Thank you. All right. Later