UFO Believer vs. UFO Skeptic: Are Aliens Visiting Earth? (Ft. Mick West and Marik von Rennenkampff)

UFO skeptic Mick West and national security analyst Marik von Rennenkampff debate some of the most famous “UFO” videos, including newly surfaced footage from Iraq. Mick insists they're camera illusions; Merrick highlights experts who refute simple glitches. Will definitive proof soon emerge in the open, or is the real evidence forever sealed behind classified doors? SPONSORS (Check them out to support our endeavors): LUCY: Let’s level up your nicotine routine with Lucy. Go to https://lucy.co/jesse and use promo code JESSE to get 20% off your first order. Lucy has a 30-day refund policy if you change your mind. CORNBREAD HEMP (CBD): Go to https://www.cornbreadhemp.com/jesse and use code JESSE at checkout to save 30% on your first order of Cornbread Hemp CBD. Cornbread Hemp: This is the good life. Join our Whop! Exclusive Videos & Community Calls ➤ https://whop.com/americanalchemypremium CLIPS CHANNEL ➤ https://www.youtube.com/@UC8ZKTXN9trt5dhixz6b6l6w SUPPORT THE GUEST BELOW: Mick West: https://www.metabunk.org/home Marik von Rennenkampff: https://x.com/MvonRen Chapters 00:00 Introduction 01:07 Introducing the Guests 08:53 Belief in Extraterrestrials 09:58 Historical Figures in Ufology 12:52 The Shift in Government Attitudes 14:33 The Emergence of AARO 16:40 The Challenge of Hard Evidence 17:42 Social Media and UFO Hype 18:07 Theories of Mass Hysteria 23:14 Whistleblowers and Credibility 25:12 Discussion of the Nimitz Case 35:37 The Swamp Gas Analogy 49:22 Analyzing the FLIR Video 1:00:51 Transition to GoFast 1:10:59 The Importance of Eyewitness Accounts 1:12:36 Acknowledging the Complexity of Evidence 1:17:27 Balloon Theories 1:19:01 Go Fast Video Introduction 1:22:10 Arrow's Oversight 1:29:50 Gimbal Video Insights 1:40:58 Gimbal Analysis 1:51:34 Occam's Razor Debate 1:59:58 Fleet Formation Discussion 2:10:57 Operational Perspectives 2:35:05 Exploring the USS Omaha Incident 2:35:30 Unraveling the Aguadilla Video 2:49:38 The Nimitz Debate 3:00:20 The Nuclear Connection 3:14:45 The Egg Video Mystery 3:45:34 The Debate on Anomalies 3:52:35 Closing Thoughts and Future Insights Become a Member of American Alchemy ➤ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuG2KzrIMe3qoNcuDVpwnXw/join CLIPS CHANNEL ➤ https://www.youtube.com/@UC8ZKTXN9trt5dhixz6b6l6w INSTAGRAM ➤ https://www.instagram.com/jessemichelsofficial TWITTER ➤ https://twitter.com/AlchemyAmerican EMAIL/BOOKINGS ➤ [email protected] #uap #debate #aliens #disclosure #ufo #extraterrestrial Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.

• 0:00Speaker 00

  No expert in the world agrees with you. I know you're eager for Arrow to debunk this. There's zero evidence of what you're proposing. None.

• 0:06Speaker 01

  This isn't remarkable. What we're seeing here is a curve that's basically a mathematical projection.

• 0:11Speaker 00

  It's not. Like, propose one plane that would fly like this.

• 0:14Speaker 01

  Well, why don't you propose one type of UFO? The broader problem with ufology is that it's always been the battle between hard evidence and cool stories.

• 0:23Speaker 00

  There just happened to be a distant jet exactly where the close thing is? Is that what you're saying?

• 0:28Speaker 01

  Behind it somewhere.

• 0:29Speaker 00

  Really?

• 0:30Speaker 01

  You're very familiar with this theory of mine, right? I think this is playing for the crowd here a little.

• 0:34Speaker 00

  I've brought all the experts to you. Bring some experts to the public. Unfortunately, the stigma that you promote is a big part of why they don't want to come out. These guys are fighting a stigma.

• 0:42Speaker 01

  I encourage them to come forward. Like, come forward, and I won't laugh at you.

• 0:50Speaker 02

  Different parts of the brain have different activities. But you know that, don't you?

• 0:58Speaker 02

  Maybe you should interview me.

• 1:08Jesse Michels?

  I am here with Mick West and Merrick Von Rennenkamp. And this couldn't be better timing for this debate. We planned this maybe a couple of weeks ago. Both of you are very well-known. Merrick, kind of on the pro side in certain cases where I wouldn't call you dogmatically, you know, pro UFO, but there are a few 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 debunking a lot of UFO videos that just are clearly fake. And so 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...

• 1:54Jesse Michels?

  But 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. And so, yeah, I'm very excited. You kind of came on my radar because you 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 some of these videos. And you, Mick, have been doing this for how long? Like, five-plus years?

• 2:22Speaker 01

  2016.

• 2:24Jesse Michels?

  Since 2016. And 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 bad faith actor. But all of our conversations we've had, I find you to be pretty earnest and cool. So why don't you guys kind of introduce yourselves and tell the audience how you got into this sort of vigilante job of debunking or, you know, confirming UFO videos to begin with? I'll start with you, Merrick.

• 2:53Speaker 00

  Well, Jesse, thanks for having us. And Mick, thanks for being here. So I will, I'll be very honest, I didn't think about this topic. I thought it was squarely in tinfoil hat territory. This is not anything on my radar. I missed the big 2017 story with Leslie Kane and Ralph Blumenthal. It just, as a testament to how little I was tracking this. But I did stumble upon, I think it was late 2019, the interview that Commander Fravor did on Joe Rogan. And I previously worked at the Pentagon. I worked with some Navy aviators, naval aviators, more rotary wing guys, but I knew the type,

• 3:37Speaker 00

  the bravado, the way they carried themselves. And as soon as, you know, I watched five minutes of Fravor, and this guy's the real deal, right? He's a skipper of a storied squadron out on the West Coast, the VFA 41, Black Aces. And he tells a pretty, an incredible story. 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, down the rabbit hole. And then, believe it or not, Mick West has, has a lot to do with, with my, kind of, my interests in this topic. We exchanged a whole lot of emails, I think we did a few Zoom calls. Yeah. This is years ago and, and I'll just be transparent.

• 4:18Speaker 00

  I, the, the deeper I dug into Mick's theories, and first of all, I'll just say like, who's this Mick West guy who thinks he knows more than the government? Like, okay. And, and, you know, when, there's some pretty deep nuance. And from my perspective, I, I found, again, from my, in my opinion, he was wrong about a lot of his theories. And the deeper we dug, I'm like, my goodness, there, there's something to this. And that was, that was really kind of the, the, kind of the twin tickets down the rabbit hole, dug into the history and started writing articles about it.

• 4:51Jesse Michels?

  Awesome. And before we get to you, Mick, for context for the audience, we're going to be going over kind of the classic historic landmark cases. So Nimitz, Fleer videos, or video, rather, the Gimbal and Go Fast videos, which were taken at the USS Roosevelt, 300 miles off the coast of Jacksonville.

• 5:11Jesse Michels?

  Mick, what about you? How did you get into this?

• 5:13Speaker 01

  Well, I am a retired video game programmer, which is a very different background to Merrick. And I, after I retired, I took up writing. And I was just doing stuff like writing for Game Development Magazine. So eventually kind of moved into the skeptical arena, like investigating conspiracy theories, things like that. One of the first things I did was, I was on Wikipedia, just messing around with, I used to edit Wikipedia about, I guess about 18 years ago. And I saw this article on the chemtrail conspiracy theory, which is this fun theory where the government is spraying things behind planes. And we did some, well, I did some work on that on my blog.

• 5:55Speaker 01

  And that blog kind of evolved into my current site, meta bunk.org. And 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 9/11 conspiracy theories. False flags and even the flat earth stuff. But with the Kent Trail stuff, I got really into doing things like tracking planes and trying to figure out what people were seeing in their videos. And so after that, it became kind of a natural thing for me to start looking at UFO videos. And I occasioned a few over the years, but it really kind of took off in, I think it was

• 6:33Speaker 01

  2016 or perhaps the start of 2017 with this case from Chile, Chilean Navy video. And this is a video, looks really spectacular. It was released by Alessia King, who you mentioned, in the Huffington Post in 2016 and 2017. And she was very effusive about how amazing it was. And me and a few other people looked into it and we very quickly determined that she was wrong about that. It wasn't that amazing. And it was actually just a distant plane and we were able to prove that pretty conclusively. Not everybody agreed straight away, but I think like America would agree that case is pretty much solved. And that really kind of got me hooked on UFOs.

• 7:17Speaker 01

  And that kind of almost coincided with the 2017, December 2017, release of a New York Times article, which came with these other videos, Gimbal and the FLIR1 video and Go Fast, which was released a little later. And when I first looked at them, when I looked at the FLIR1 video, it seemed very similar to this Chilean video. And so I thought perhaps it's the same type of thing. So I started delving into it. Turned out it wasn't exactly the same type of thing, but there were related aspects. And I 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 of very

• 8:01Speaker 01

  similar things because they're both about finding the root cause of something. And so I got hooked and I've been doing it ever since and I've done a whole bunch of different videos. America and I have 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 UFO videos, but I'm keeping going.

• 8:28Jesse Michels?

  I want to ask, real quick, before we get into the actual substance, about kind of your priors. Do you believe in the possibility of UFOs? Notwithstanding the fact that you don't, you know, sort of agree that any of these videos are legit.

• 8:42Speaker 01

  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. 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.

• 9:02Jesse Michels?

  Okay. What about you, Merrick?

• 9:04Speaker 00

  Previously, before I went down the rabbit hole, I was in McWest's camp. I thought the universe is exceptionally large. We just cannot conceive how large it is. And I firmly believe that there was life out there, not that it was here. Fast forward over the last, I'd say, three, four years, I have done a, I'd say, a deep dive into the history of this topic. And I've read the raw case files, the raw blue book case file. No analysis, just, right, just the straight reports. And I've come to a very different conclusion. I'm a big fan of James McDonald.

• 9:44Speaker 00

  I don't know if you guys are familiar with him, but very, very prominent figure in the history of this topic. He's an atmospheric physicist. I encourage anybody watching to read anything and everything that he has written. Start with Science in Default. It's a remarkable critique of the Condon Committee, which we can get into. But in his bottom-line assessment was that 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.

• 10:24Speaker 00

  I'm, I'd say I'm partial to that because of just the, the long historical record and I've got a ton The cases that I'd like to get into because I think they are related to some of these videos and we can talk about that.

• 10:35Jesse Michels?

  Fellow alchemists, Lucy Breakers are changing the game for nicotine users. If you're looking for 100% pure nicotine product that's tobacco-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.

• 11:19Jesse Michels?

  Plus, the flexibility and strength lets 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 and use code JESSIE to get 20% off. And here comes the fine print. Lucy products are only for adults of legal age. Every order is age verified. Warning: This product contains nicotine. Nicotine is an addictive chemical. Thanks so much to Lucy for sponsoring today's episode. So I think we should just dive into the footage and, you know.

• 11:58Speaker 00

  Can I, not to just interrupt, I just want to quickly just acknowledge, and again, I bring a historical kind of government perspective to this. Can we just acknowledge what has happened over the last five years? We've gone 80 years and we are literally at the 80-year anniversary of the first reports of Foo Fighters. Like that happened November of 1944. 80 years of denial, ridicule, obfuscation to, and I love this quote from Mick. June 20th, 2020, this is when Rubio snuck a provision into, you know what I'm talking about, right? Snuck a provision into Senate Intelligence Committee language. And Mick's quote is, "Years will pass. It will recede in memory. Little will come of it."

• 12:42Speaker 00

  I assure you, in June of 2020, I probably would have agreed with you. Now we have Arrow. I think it's about three, four dozen. We just heard yes with this week that they're at full operational capability. Three, four dozen people working at a UFO office, right? 1,600 cases as of last count. And its director just came out and said, in essence, I am baffled. I have an engineering 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. That's pretty extraordinary.

• 13:14Jesse Michels?

  He was a former NSA director.

• 13:16Speaker 00

  He was NSA scientist.

• 13:17Jesse Michels?

  Scientist?

• 13:18Speaker 00

  Yeah. So it is pretty remarkable. We had just about every single, we had former CIA directors, former national intelligence directors, just extraordinary things. You know, Ratcliffe has said, "UAP UFOs exhibit technologies that we do not have and cannot defend against." Right?

• 13:37Speaker 01

  They appear to.

• 13:39Speaker 00

  Right. I'm just saying, I'm just saying, I'm trying to acknowledge where we've come. It is extraordinary. It is astounding, right? I don't think, 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, you would probably thought I was crazier than I.

• 14:00Speaker 01

  Well, what I meant by the "nothing will happen" was not that nothing would happen. It was more that nothing would happen in terms of giving evidence that aliens are visiting, which is the thing they really want. I'm actually really happy that we've got all this progress and we've got these investigations and that Arrow is doing a lot of work, even they're spending millions of dollars on investigating it and hopefully they will release their information. I don't think we've really got much further along the road in terms of actual evidence of genuinely anomalous phenomena that didn't exist five years ago. The stuff that Arrow's released, obviously, like people are disappointed with that and their overall assessment is, you know, there's no evidence of alien life.

• 14:40Speaker 00

  Right.

• 14:41Speaker 01

  We have lots of talk about things going on behind curtains and in skiffs and in secret and things that people can't talk about. And that's, you know, that's interesting. But I think it kind of speaks to the broader problem with ufology is that it's always been a bit of a battle between hard evidence, hard data, and...

• 15:04Speaker 01

  Cool stories. We have a lot of really amazing eyewitness accounts. A lot of the Blue Book stuff is eyewitness accounts and there's very little that's, you can actually get this 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 sixties that did crash retrieval, I don't think it's really going to move the needle very much, 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

• 15:47Speaker 01

  get into later, where people are, you know, talking about.

• 15:50Speaker 00

  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 Kozlowski has said, and the quote here is,

• 15:59Jesse Michels?

  and Kozlowski is the director of, the new director.

• 16:02Speaker 00

  Thank you. Dr. Kozlowski is the new director of Arrow, which is the government's UFO Analysis Office. And his direct quote is, we're going to need 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 know how the government works. They, they don't release anything they don't have to. 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. I think that's notable. And then secondarily, Dr. Kozlowski in his hearing said that at least two, multiple firsthand witnesses have gone to Arrow.

• 16:39Speaker 01

  Witnesses of what though?

• 16:41Speaker 00

  Unreported UAP programs. That's, that was the question from Jill O'Brien. So anyway, 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. But there, there is some chatter about.

• 16:55Jesse Michels?

  Mick, 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-

• 17:07Speaker 01

  My site is all UFOs now.

• 17:09Jesse Michels?

  Well, there you go. So, how do you explain that? Do you think it's some sort of coordinated psy-op? Do you think it's just this contagion mass, you know, social psychosis thing? What's going on?

• 17:21Speaker 01

  I think it's something that was maybe bubbling beneath the surface and it's just been kind of allowed to come out. The New York Times story basically opened the flood gates. It was something that gave validity, allowed people to talk about it, allowed other journalists to talk about it. And once you get that going, it becomes this kind of feedback loop. People talk about it in the media, the general public talks about it, and then, you know, Congress gets involved because it's what people are interested in. And then, you can kind of push these things, perhaps without the stigma that you had before. And if there are things like unacknowledged SAP programs, which, you know, I wouldn't rule out, of course, you know, it's entirely possible that people were running crash retrieval

• 18:03Speaker 01

  programs for things that they thought were UFOs, you know, back in the day. But perhaps some of those were under the radar. We know the government has done dodgy things before in the past. So, you know, that's the type of thing that should come to light. You know, there's the Church Commission, was it the Church Commission?

• 18:20Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, Church Commission.

• 18:21Speaker 01

  Yeah, they, 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. Because I want this to come into the sunlight. I want to know what's actually going on.

• 18:37Jesse Michels?

  Well, if that's your goal, that's, I think, the goal of everybody here.

• 18:41Speaker 01

  Absolutely.

• 18:42Jesse Michels?

  And we, yeah, we'd love, I would love for this to either be falsified forever or corroborated.

• 18:48Speaker 01

  No, that's not gonna happen. It's one of those things that's impossible to falsify, because there's always the idea that that light over there might be an alien, but-

• 18:55Jesse Michels?

  Well, what I would say-

• 18:57Speaker 01

  You can prove it's true.

• 18:59Jesse Michels?

  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 psy-op. I think those are extremely interesting because I think it's the best psy-op maybe of all time, if it's a psy-op or something.

• 19:15Speaker 00

  Guys, we can talk about this for hours without even getting. I will say that the commentary, direct commentary from Rubio, Gallagher, Kirk McConnell, former Senate staffer, SASC, SISI, sorry, Senate Armed Services and the Senate Intelligence Committees, they have all stated. Gillibrand, 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 Pentagon's UFO office. Rubio has stated very clearly, over and over, these are credible people with high clearances and high positions and they fear for their lives. He said that on camera. That's fascinating. So if it's mass psychosis and people in high positions in government are saying, yes,

• 19:57Speaker 00

  I was on a retrieval program, then we have a major, major problem because there are just fantasists out there that are in important positions.

• 20:06Jesse Michels?

  And very sensitive areas.

• 20:07Speaker 00

  Correct.

• 20:08Jesse Michels?

  I mean, the other thing I would say is, say this is all unacknowledged, deep black programs, I find that fascinating too.

• 20:14Speaker 01

  Absolutely. Maybe it's a bit of both. I mean, we do know that there are people in governments who are fantasists. Not everybody who's in government or in the military is going to be like on the level.

• 20:23Jesse Michels?

  Well, the thing that I've found, because I've met all these people deep inside the government, you know, post doing this show, they are often more conspiratorial than people who are civil side. And that could be one of two things. That could be like, oh, that like discredits them in some way, or it can be like they are somehow privy to a lot crazier stuff.

• 20:42Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 20:42Jesse Michels?

  And that makes them more conspiratorial.

• 20:44Speaker 00

  Mick, can I put you on the spot, actually?

• 20:46Jesse Michels?

  Sure.

• 20:46Speaker 00

  Just curious, when Grush says, "under oath", I had the firsthand people go to the inspector general to submit a complaint. Luis Elizondo 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 McConnell has been tracking this and is convinced that there's something to this.

• 21:12Speaker 00

  I talked to a congressional source, told me, I asked, point blank, what's your confidence level 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?

• 21:27Speaker 01

  I wouldn't be surprised if there were such programs. I mean, this is something I've been saying for a while.

• 21:31Speaker 00

  And that it's NHI, and it's non-human intelligence.

• 21:33Speaker 01

  No, there's actually NHI there, but those programs that existed in the past, possibly even now, where some people who work on those programs think that is NHI. Because it's quite clear from people like David Grush that people do actually believe these things happen, that they believe that we have bodies, they believe that we have crashed alien craft, and they believe that there are these programs to study them. Maybe the programs exist, but what were they actually studying?

• 21:57Speaker 00

  Why do you think the inspector general didn't just shut this down immediately?

• 22:00Speaker 01

  I've no idea. I'm not really familiar with what the inspector general does, but Grush's claims covered a range of things. You know, there's 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...

• 22:17Speaker 00

  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, they didn't say anything about the reprisal part, but the misallocation of funds was deemed credible and urgent.

• 22:32Speaker 01

  Yeah, well, if there are, I mean, all these special access programs, I'd be happy to see them, like, because it works that way.

• 22:38Jesse Michels?

  It's interesting, because that's also unfalsified, that's like, also, and Feynman's not even wrong, sort of category.

• 22:45Speaker 01

  If they deny it, you can't, you can say they're lying. If they admitted and show it, then that's one thing. It's like, you know, anything, you only need one, you just need one ace to win the game. But everything that's not an ace doesn't mean there's no aces.

• 22:58Jesse Michels?

  So you think it's going to stay in this sort of liminal category for a very long time?

• 23:03Speaker 01

  I would hope it doesn't, but...

• 23:04Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

• 23:05Speaker 01

  I think, well, 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, the dark corners become illuminated, and we see that there was nothing there. And perhaps there's something in one of the dark corners that's really interesting. That would be great.

• 23:22Speaker 00

  How did non-human intelligence get into a bill sponsored by Chuck Schumer and signed onto by Rubio, Gillibrand, former presidential candidates?

• 23:32Speaker 00

  Twenty-two times, and then, uh, biological evidence of non-human intelligence.

• 23:37Speaker 01

  Oh, you have to ask Schumer about that. Schumer said he was doing it to kind of honor the legacy of his friend, Harry Reid.

• 23:43Speaker 00

  So he just randomly puts in aliens into sixty-four pages? Just because he's buddy? I mean, maybe, I don't know.

• 23:49Speaker 01

  He didn't do it. His staffers did it. Some staffer did it. Somebody wrote it for him.

• 23:53Speaker 00

  He put his name next to it, right?

• 23:54Speaker 01

  Yes, but he does that for everything, doesn't he? But it's, uh, he doesn't write the legislation.

• 23:58Speaker 00

  Does Schumer put his name next to Bigfoot legislation, right?

• 24:01Speaker 01

  Well, there isn't any Bigfoot legislation.

• 24:03Jesse Michels?

  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 for a lot of people. We should get into first principle.

• 24:12Speaker 00

  We should.

• 24:12Jesse Michels?

  That's where I think both of you add really tremendous, unique value. And so, why don't we start with the famous Nimitz case of 2004? Uh, this amazing FLIR video, thermal video, caught in November of 2004. Uh, you have eyewitnesses, uh, David Fravor, who you mentioned, who is really, I think, a source of, uh, belief for a lot of people, kind of proxy belief, because he's a very serious sounding guy. I mean, you heard him on Rogan and like, I think he was tasked with defending LA, actually, uh, around 9/11. I don't know if you're familiar with that.

• 24:46Speaker 00

  I didn't know that. Didn't know that.

• 24:47Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, because it was like unclear how many planes were hit, how big the threat was.

• 24:50Speaker 00

  Yeah, yeah, right.

• 24:51Jesse Michels?

  Um, and you can, you can hear him speak, and he seems very sort of matter of fact. And so, but Mick's done a great sort of debunk on this, so why don't we watch the video?

• 24:58Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 24:59Jesse Michels?

  And we'll get both of your assessments, but before we do that,

• 25:01Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 25:02Jesse Michels?

  Uh, why don't we do a little rock, paper, scissors to see who will go first?

• 25:05Speaker 00

  I'm also happy to take it and just kick it off.

• 25:06Jesse Michels?

  You want Mick to take it?

• 25:08Speaker 00

  Oh, no, no, no, he's trying to psych me out. Okay, let's do a little rock, paper, scissors. That's right.

• 25:12Jesse Michels?

  All right.

• 25:15Speaker 00

  I knew it.

• 25:16Speaker 01

  I'm too honest for my own good.

• 25:18Jesse Michels?

  Wait, wait, I don't even see who won that.

• 25:21Speaker 00

  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 gonna go with paper, and I went with scissors. So, here we are.

• 25:30Jesse Michels?

  Then here we are. All right. Well, Eric, you take the first one.

• 25:33Speaker 00

  Yeah, so, and, and Mick, but seriously, please, jump in if, if, um, you know, if I misstate anything, but, so, uh, the background is in November of... 2004, the Nimitz Carrier Strike Group, so it's the Nimitz and other vessels, Navy ships, are out for pre-deployment workups, pre-deployment training, basically, to make sure their equipment is working before they deploy and go to combat. And I think they're setting out for Iraq. So this is right, this is early stages of the Iraq War, very high operational tempo during their training missions. The USS Princeton is a guided missile cruiser, and it is part of this Nimitz Strike Group, and it is, over the course of, I think, a

• 26:18Speaker 00

  week, according to one of the witnesses, the key witness, Kevin Day.

• 26:23Speaker 01

  Maybe 10 days, I think.

• 26:24Speaker 00

  10 days, sure, okay. They begin tracking anomalous objects at 28,000 feet, heading south at 100 knots. Very strange tracks, that's odd. Occasionally, if I understand right, they, you know, they're tracking them coming from above 80,000 feet, zipping down to the surface of the ocean, or they'd hover around 28,000 feet. Notably, Kevin Day has been very specific about this and consistent, 28,000 feet, 100 knots south.

• 26:53Jesse Michels?

  And Kevin Day oversaw radar operations.

• 26:57Speaker 00

  Correct, so he's the...

• 26:58Speaker 01

  Kevin Day's story has actually changed a few times, and he's given different figures, 28,000 feet, 80,000 feet, and 20,000 feet, and he mixes things up. And it's changed in other ways as well, but...

• 27:09Speaker 00

  I've only seen 28,000 feet, all the interviews I've seen, I think he wrote it down, and he kind of memorialized it.

• 27:14Speaker 01

  He wrote a little novella.

• 27:16Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 27:17Jesse Michels?

  Sailor's anthology. I did find this interesting. They wrote this, like...

• 27:20Speaker 00

  They were clearly stuck with these, a lot of these people, right? Anyway, so, we digress. And one day, 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, and you want to know what's out there. So when your air crew are out there, that they're not going to have, you know, potential collision risk. So one day, he, Vector, you know, sends out two F-18 Hornets.

• 27:52Speaker 00

  Commander Fravor is flying one of them. We have not heard from his backseater publicly yet. The other plane, Fravor's wingman, wingwoman, was Commander Alex. She's pretty new to the squadron at this point, so probably lieutenant.

• 28:08Jesse Michels?

  Alex Dietrich.

• 28:11Speaker 00

  Alex Dietrich, correct. And her backseater is Jim Slate. Wizzo, sorry, Wizzo is a weapons systems officer that's the backseater that does kind of all the, a lot of the tactical systems. And they get out to this, they call a merge so that they're basically in the same airspace as where one of these tracks is. Look out and see an object doing basically kind of like this weird ping ponging zigzagging pattern, apparently right over the ocean. And there's this roiling water underneath, very strange. And so they have these two jets, if I understand correctly.

• 28:52Speaker 00

  Fravor departs, Dietrich stays up high and starts circling and they both start circling and Fravor's going lower and lower. And as he goes down, the jet, according to Fravor, kind of reacts to him coming down and it kind of does a, Fravor does a noise. I don't know if you guys have seen that, but that is, somebody did a pretty good compilation of his reenactment. And then it kind of shoots off at just unbelievable speeds, according to the witnesses. Anything else?

• 29:26Jesse Michels?

  Couple, couple other interesting things. He said, so it goes, you know, it's 80,000 feet and then, you know, right above the surface of the water. And then he says, goes back up 80,000 feet and then he says, and he goes 80,000 feet is space. So that was like this interesting line. He also says, when he sees the craft, and this is, I found very interesting, he was like, it almost seemed like it knew that he saw it.

• 29:50Speaker 00

  Yeah, and it recognized him or something. There's some kind of awareness. Yeah, that's right. No, I'm sorry. Good point. Yeah, now that you mention it, kind of, so as Fravor's going down in a circle, the thing does one of these, like, kind of a counter circle, right? And it's, I think it's called a tooth, but it shoots off and apparently ends up at a pre-designated rendezvous point, let's call it a cap point. And that is an area known to aircrew. So that is interesting.

• 30:21Speaker 01

  Yeah, it is interesting. A lot of this information kind of comes second hand via various people. They were talking about the 80,000 feet. And you said Fravor said that. Fravor didn't see that himself. And he didn't even get a blip on the radar. They didn't actually see it on their own plane's radar. And when they arrived at this location, they didn't at first see anything. And the jets are hauling along at 600 miles per hour, 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.

• 30:54Speaker 00

  So Commander Dietrich, Alex Dietrich disputes that very clearly. She disputed that to you, as you know. Because Fravor has said that that log is third hand. It's just inaccurate.

• 31:05Speaker 01

  Well, they both said that they...

• 31:07Speaker 00

  So they...

• 31:08Speaker 01

  They arrived at 20,000 feet and there was nothing at 20,000 feet.

• 31:12Speaker 00

  So they both said that when they heard merge plot, they looked at and they saw it. Like you're suggesting that there's no link between the radar. They dispute that. I'm just trying to be clear. And she disputed that to you, as you know.

• 31:21Speaker 01

  Right.

• 31:24Speaker 01

  I think Fravor himself has actually said that when they arrived, they had to look around a little while before they saw it.

• 31:30Speaker 00

  I think it was pretty quick.

• 31:31Speaker 01

  Dietrich, well, of course, Dietrich's account...

• 31:33Speaker 00

  Let's just leave it at there's a discrepancy.

• 31:35Speaker 01

  Well, no, there's a bigger discrepancy. If you're saying that Dietrich's account matches Fravor's account, you have to say that also Dietrich says her experience only lasted five... No, sorry, eight, 10 seconds. The entire thing from merge plot to the thing flying away.

• 31:51Speaker 00

  Right.

• 31:51Speaker 01

  And Commander Fravor says it lasted about five minutes. And he said that all four pilots had eyes on for five minutes. So using one person's account, we don't really know which one was the more accurate. I would think probably Fravor because it's a more experienced pilot. But and he himself said that it did take a little while to define the...

• 32:12Speaker 00

  And Dietrich has addressed this, and we can go down this rabbit hole. But she's just said like as a number two, like she's watching him. She's not watching the target. She's watching him.

• 32:20Speaker 01

  Yeah, but she said from merge plot.

• 32:23Speaker 00

  Okay.

• 32:23Speaker 01

  On Twitter. We should ask very specifically as he was from merge plot to when the thing shot away.

• 32:29Speaker 00

  Fair enough. I'm acknowledging that there's a dispute there and that's fine. That's all right.

• 32:33Speaker 01

  A big discrepancy.

• 32:35Jesse Michels?

  Well, one other thing I think to discuss is just this idea that this was caught by many censors. So all we have and all we can go off of on a, you know, first principles analysis, semi distrustful of government in a lot of cases is this FLIR 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. But they say that they caught it on phased array radar. And then you also have, you know, eyewitnesses as well. And so.

• 33:02Speaker 00

  Right.

• 33:03Jesse Michels?

  Can we even use that as data or what's, what do you guys think?

• 33:06Speaker 00

  Go ahead.

• 33:07Speaker 01

  Yeah, I think it's a bit of an issue. Like some of the stuff like it dropping from 80,000 feet was something that 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. He says like, you know, it's 28,000 feet, but they went in at 20,000 feet and it wasn't there there either. So there's a lot of, in the actual verbal accounts, there's a lot of variation. 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. But there is, there is quite a bit of variation.

• 33:42Speaker 00

  Was it a seagull, Mick? Cause I've seen a video of you suggesting it might've been a seagull.

• 33:45Speaker 01

  I don't think it was a seagull.

• 33:46Speaker 00

  Okay.

• 33:47Speaker 01

  I suggested that when Frager was looking down, there might've been a variety of things that he might've seen looking down, like white caps and boats and things and seagulls.

• 33:54Speaker 00

  I think you said, I think the quote was.

• 33:55Speaker 01

  Things I said.

• 33:56Speaker 00

  I think you said, I hate to say this, but there would have been seagulls out there.

• 34:00Speaker 01

  Yeah, there would have been.

• 34:01Speaker 00

  Yeah, but a hundred miles offshore? Yeah. Seagulls, like 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 shore. So anyway, the seagull thing is quite, I find it entertaining. So you gotta go down, you gotta, you gotta go down that road.

• 34:16Speaker 01

  It's kind of interesting, a little, little segue. We're talking about Heineck earlier.

• 34:19Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 34:19Speaker 01

  Heineck was the person who came up with the swamp gas thing.

• 34:22Speaker 00

  Correct.

• 34:23Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 34:23Jesse Michels?

  And then later kind of admitted that he was lying and covering things up.

• 34:27Speaker 01

  I think he was lying about that particular case. I think then he actually thought that. It might have been a reasonable explanation because there was a marsh in the middle of where they were looking across. But it was a pretty silly explanation and it was kind of rightly ridiculed by the press. Then it was seized upon by kind of UFO fans to label any explanation of UFOs as being like, you know, it's just, they just say it's swamp gas or they just say it's a weather balloon. And I think to a degree, the seagull explanation has become like the modern swamp gas. So I get seagull comments almost every day.

• 35:02Jesse Michels?

  Okay, got it.

• 35:03Speaker 01

  Almost every day on Twitter.

• 35:04Jesse Michels?

  So you're saying you would admit that seagull is not your base case?

• 35:08Speaker 01

  Absolutely not. I mean,

• 35:11Speaker 01

  like what Fravis saw was some kind of tic tac shaped object.

• 35:14Jesse Michels?

  Yeah.

• 35:15Speaker 01

  And it was, it was, it appeared to be moving around and you know, if it was a seagull, I don't think he would have made that mistake.

• 35:22Jesse Michels?

  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 game changer. 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.

• 36:04Jesse Michels?

  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 cornbreadhemp.com/jesse 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 because you have

• 36:48Speaker 00

  It's a great yeah

• 36:48Jesse Michels?

  We have a few right

• 36:50Speaker 00

  Can I just quickly back up maybe uh and gosh I mean the setup has taken so long we might have been looking at the video but um there's another there's a I believe a squadron commander from a Marine Corps squadron that was actually flying by uh Kurt I think is his name Kurt's 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 roiling whitewater didn't see the tic tac but the roiling whitewater that's interesting right um but to your point for that that first encounter we're talking about eight eyeballs on this thing

• 37:23Jesse Michels?

  Yeah

• 37:25Speaker 00

  One of them is squadron commander the others are you know pretty well trained

• 37:29Jesse Michels?

  Right right and what do you what do you think about that

• 37:32Speaker 01

  Yeah I wish that we'd get more witnesses coming forward I think it's difficult now because it's literally 20 years since this happened

• 37:38Jesse Michels?

  Yep

• 37:39Speaker 01

  Uh and memory fades and Alex Dietrich herself has said that she doesn't really remember the details that well now and probably the people won't either but yeah I think once the you've got past the initial year or so of people remembering things 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

• 38:06Jesse Michels?

  How do we get those

• 38:07Speaker 01

  Well you you give her a call and

• 38:09Speaker 00

  That's right

• 38:10Jesse Michels?

  Okay yeah yeah reach out um well there are a couple other interesting things I think there were two radar systems the SPY 1B radar and the APS 145 radar and we've seen neither of those we just have the FLIR you know

• 38:24Speaker 00

  And this is recorded after this is like an hour or two after the video um which I think that's when you had the E2 Hawkeye and then the Princeton uh so just to back up the E2 is like a flying radar basically right um and it had a weak apparently had a weak hit on this this target the what's in the video um and the Princeton did as well which is how and Underwood had it on his radar too he said That's right.

• 38:50Speaker 01

  Yeah, he said he got a hit on his radar.

• 38:51Speaker 00

  He had three radar systems on whatever that is.

• 38:54Speaker 01

  Indeed.

• 38:55Jesse Michels?

  And this is Chad Underwood.

• 38:56Speaker 00

  Correct, sorry. Yeah, so that original aircrew, the four aircrew and those two jets go back to the carrier, they get out. Apparently Fravor tells Underwood, "Hey, we just saw something weird. Try to go catch it." And Underwood's really gung ho about it apparently, and "Yeah, I'm gonna go get it." And yeah, he's vectored out. I'm guessing like an hour or two after?

• 39:23Speaker 01

  It's not clear, they don't say.

• 39:24Speaker 00

  Okay, so they cycle through.

• 39:26Speaker 01

  I asked 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.

• 39:30Speaker 00

  Yeah, but they cycle through, Underwood gets out and he gets these hits on the E. Was the E2 on the first encounter or was it on the second one? And I like, I just don't remember.

• 39:41Speaker 01

  I'm not sure. I think there were some eyewitness accounts from the E2. They said they saw it out the window, but I don't think they've actually really come forward to swear on it.

• 39:52Jesse Michels?

  The other possible interesting piece of information, which I'll just speculate on, and that maybe we'll never get to the bottom, we probably will never get to the bottom of, is you have this interesting nuclear connection with past UFO sightings. This seems to be some possibly repeatable thread. You have a great book called UFOs and Nukes by a guy named Robert Hastings, which I always tell you I think you should read.

• 40:11Speaker 01

  I was reading it on the way here.

• 40:12Jesse Michels?

  I appreciate that.

• 40:14Speaker 00

  Excellent book, yeah.

• 40:15Jesse Michels?

  And so what's interesting about, you know, the Nimitz carrier strike group is there were likely tactical nukes on board. Yeah, just when it comes to, I think, yes, yeah, when it comes to ships like that.

• 40:32Speaker 00

  I know, I can say with certainty that the, I think the Nimitz is a nuclear power carrier. I don't know about the weapons and that, that's out of my expertise.

• 40:40Jesse Michels?

  It's both nuclear powered and then most of those hold tactical nukes, is what my understanding, but yeah.

• 40:46Speaker 01

  That's both my favorite.

• 40:47Speaker 00

  That is, yeah, you got me there.

• 40:50Jesse Michels?

  My source there is Robert Hastings.

• 40:51Speaker 00

  Okay, well, I'm a big Robert Hastings fan, so.

• 40:56Jesse Michels?

  Well, yeah, you would say that's biased, you would say that's pretty good. I think Hastings is very, is a tangent, we can, you know, get into this later, but I think Hastings is pretty solid.

• 41:06Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 41:07Jesse Michels?

  He is, yeah, go for it.

• 41:09Speaker 01

  A mixed bag, I would say, I think, like, listening to his books. He does a pretty good job of doing a lot of research.

• 41:16Jesse Michels?

  He's very detailed.

• 41:16Speaker 01

  But it does seem very... Much we have bias towards trying to prove that point. And he'll lay out a few things, well, it could be this, it could be that, but I think he's actually aliens.

• 41:30Jesse Michels?

  On the theory side, but on the kind of what happened side, he's like pretty empirically rigorous.

• 41:35Speaker 01

  Yeah, he's repeating things. It's mostly ironies accounts.

• 41:38Speaker 00

  I gotta give him credit. I mean, he's compiled and from a, I take an intelligence analysis approach to this topic. Much more than Mick takes a much more technical approach. But the, like, the documentation that Robert Hastings has secured is unbelievable. It is, I mean, it'll, it'll, it's extraordinary.

• 41:58Jesse Michels?

  It's 170 eyewitnesses.

• 42:00Speaker 00

  It's incredible. And also the government documents, right?

• 42:03Jesse Michels?

  Yes.

• 42:04Speaker 00

  That is what that to me is also of interest. Anyway, we can go, that's a whole other.

• 42:08Jesse Michels?

  It's a whole other level, but I think it's important for establishing some sort of priors on this stuff. Because, 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. You can explain them away, they're, you know, air trash or balloons or whatever, or exotic, you know, craft. But 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.

• 42:52Jesse Michels?

  It's hurt their careers to come out there. 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?

• 43:03Speaker 00

  That have not come out.

• 43:04Jesse Michels?

  That would be my question.

• 43:05Speaker 00

  To your point, we wouldn't know about these videos if they hadn't been leaked.

• 43:08Jesse Michels?

  Right.

• 43:08Speaker 00

  To your point.

• 43:09Jesse Michels?

  Right. Well, this is interesting too, because let's talk about the provenance of Nimitz. Because Nimitz Gimbal and Go Fest were popularized in this New York Times article in 2017. But Nimitz, I believe, the video itself was kind of floating around on Reddit. And it was even on a German server or something.

• 43:27Speaker 01

  On a German server and you can still access it. Via the archive.org, the Wave Bank Machine. So there's actually a live link to this prom, I think. I'm not sure exactly when, like 2010.

• 43:35Jesse Michels?

  So what German, this is, this is like a CGI.

• 43:38Speaker 00

  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.

• 43:50Speaker 00

  People had decided, oh, that's a hoax. That's not real. And then Mick, I got, I love this. So in December of 2017.

• 44:02Speaker 00

  I think to the Stars Academy put out a an interview with, I think it's Commander Alex Dietrich. And your quote here on Metabunk on December 30th is, and she kind of described the whole encounter. And described everything that, you know, that we just discussed. And your quote here is frankly, it's laughable that anyone is taking this seriously. Right?

• 44:26Speaker 01

  I'd have to see a little context of that.

• 44:28Speaker 00

  No, it's Metabunk Coast 84, December 30th, 2017.

• 44:33Speaker 01

  84. I'm trying to remember.

• 44:35Speaker 00

  Well, so, but on a particular thread, on the FLIR 1 thread. So, so I just want to be caught like, right? Debunking can, can, it can really go wrong because this is, this is the most perplexing, arguably the most perplexing case.

• 44:46Speaker 01

  This video was real from the start, as I recall.

• 44:48Speaker 00

  I'm not accusing you of.

• 44:49Speaker 01

  So I mean, taking it seriously must have been like, you know, taking it seriously that this was something performing amazing maneuvers. It's just something I wanted to bring up. With all these videos, there's really two questions that we've got to ask. The first one is, is this object on the screen doing anything amazing? Is it demonstrating unique physics that we don't understand or advanced technology? And then after you've answered that question or, you know, addressed that question, the other question is what actually is it? What might it be?

• 45:17Jesse Michels?

  Do you have a base case assumption? Because it, it doesn't seem to be flying normally.

• 45:23Speaker 01

  Well, my base assumption for, well, my base determination for these, these three videos is that they don't demonstrate anything amazingly anomalous.

• 45:34Jesse Michels?

  And so with FLIR specifically, so like Siegel is not the base case. Do you have any other sort of explanations? Or you're just like not anomalous?

• 45:41Speaker 01

  As Merrick knows, I think it's some kind of distant aircraft that is not moving, not moving laterally. When these videos first came out, there were, people talked about how amazing they were. FLIR 1 in particular was deemed to be amazing because the object appears to zip off screen. And there's parts of the video where it seems to accelerate very rapidly and then it loses track at the end. And that's one of the first videos that I analyzed and I went through it frame by frame. And I think I showed fairly conclusively that all those things are just camera movement.

• 46:17Jesse Michels?

  So, and you really think David Fravor saw just a normal aircraft?

• 46:21Speaker 01

  No, I don't think so.

• 46:22Jesse Michels?

  Okay.

• 46:23Speaker 01

  No, these are two separate things. You know, Fravor and Derek had an encounter with a little Tic Tac of some sort. And then this video was taken hours later, maybe the same thing, but I think it's probably a different thing.

• 46:34Jesse Michels?

  Despite the fact that the sightings had gone on in this little week-long stretch in November, you think they're just different?

• 46:41Speaker 01

  The sightings, they hadn't. The radar returns had.

• 46:43Jesse Michels?

  The radar returns, yes.

• 46:44Speaker 01

  We had weeks of radar returns.

• 46:45Jesse Michels?

  And then they went out for intercept on November 14.

• 46:47Speaker 01

  Yeah. 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. But yeah, it's, the video itself, I don't think shows any like a bounce 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 Merrick will explain later, there are issues with determining what type of aircraft it is, you know, because of the angles of the image and things like that.

• 47:21Jesse Michels?

  Merrick, if you just had the video

• 47:23Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 47:24Jesse Michels?

  and you didn't have the eyewitness accounts, is there anything that would lead you to believe that this is anomalous?

• 47:29Speaker 01

  That's interesting. I'd probably, without the eyewitness accounts, I probably would have...

• 47:35Speaker 00

  That's a really good question. Um, old me would have just dismissed it.

• 47:39Jesse Michels?

  Yeah.

• 47:41Speaker 00

  The me who's engaged with Mick, who has studied this topic would be much more interested. With, absent, absent the eyewitness accounts.

• 47:49Jesse Michels?

  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.

• 47:56Speaker 00

  Yeah, yeah. It is weird. And I, yeah, it is, it's odd, obviously. Just, sorry, just in removing the context, it is on its, on its face, on its face. Uh, and I, 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. And 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 rule out a, that's fine, we'll get to that. Um, but, um, 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 Science University of California scientist,

• 48:36Speaker 00

  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 tic-tac-a-shake craft and we can go through the data, you know, as we.

• 48:47Jesse Michels?

  And then to kind of 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?

• 49:06Speaker 01

  I think, uh, the Dietrich and Fravor encounter stands by itself as being a really interesting event. And it's, it's Fravor's account of it that convinces people. It's what convinced you with this Joe Robyn thing, and a lot of people on the Hill have talked to Fravor and heard his account, 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's just 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.

• 49:49Speaker 00

  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 think we have some compelling data to show.

• 50:00Jesse Michels?

  Absolutely, yeah. Well, the final other thing that I'll say about this case, which I find interesting, is I think a new Raytheon FLIR system had just been installed before detection, and Raytheon, I think, came out with a statement, because they were like, "What's going on with our FLIR system? This is kind of crazy," and Raytheon was like, "We're not responsible for what you detect with our system," which I found very interesting as well.

• 50:24Speaker 01

  Yeah, I think they just upgraded the system, upgraded the software perhaps.

• 50:28Jesse Michels?

  Okay, okay.

• 50:28Speaker 00

  Like, it wasn't actually... Yeah, I mean, this wasn't known publicly, right? So, nobody knew about this until, I mean, 2007, people didn't know about it. I think it was 2015 when Fravor started talking with, on like, fighter pilot pod, like, podcasts and stuff, and it really didn't bubble up until 1516.

• 50:45Jesse Michels?

  The German server thing is fascinating.

• 50:48Speaker 00

  Bizarre.

• 50:48Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, it's super bizarre, because it's like, was it, it was like a graphic design shop or something?

• 50:52Speaker 00

  I think it was CGI or something like that.

• 50:53Jesse Michels?

  CGI, like, when I hear that, my mind goes to like, they were trying to see if you could possibly recreate it with CGI.

• 51:02Speaker 01

  Yeah, I think what happened there was that it was just basically a site where you could upload stuff, like an open FTP server, back in the day, you would use that for uploading stuff, and they just dropped it there, and that's where it was.

• 51:15Jesse Michels?

  Who dropped it there?

• 51:16Speaker 01

  The person who leaked it.

• 51:17Jesse Michels?

  So, it was just a leak, but on a German, so it was like this, a place you would leak a video like that?

• 51:23Speaker 01

  The US military doesn't have the original.

• 51:25Jesse Michels?

  Right.

• 51:25Speaker 01

  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.

• 51:31Jesse Michels?

  That's fascinating.

• 51:32Speaker 00

  Well, they just re-record over the tapes.

• 51:35Jesse Michels?

  Can they now release the original?

• 51:36Speaker 01

  They probably don't have it.

• 51:38Speaker 00

  They don't have it.

• 51:38Jesse Michels?

  They don't have it, so it's just a leak, yeah.

• 51:40Speaker 00

  There's a recall there. There are allegations from some of the sailors aboard the Princeton, I think, that...

• 51:49Speaker 00

  People in suits landed in helicopters and took all the radar data. I don't know what to make of that.

• 51:55Jesse Michels?

  Who says that?

• 51:57Speaker 00

  Is it Voorhees?

• 51:58Speaker 01

  Gary Voorhees.

• 51:59Speaker 00

  Gary Voorhees, I think he's mentioned that and there are a couple others that have said it.

• 52:03Jesse Michels?

  Okay. Sean Cahill.

• 52:05Speaker 00

  I don't, I apologize, I just, I just don't know. I know Fravor has been.

• 52:09Speaker 01

  PJ Hughes, I think.

• 52:10Speaker 00

  PJ Hughes, yeah.

• 52:11Speaker 01

  I interviewed both of them.

• 52:12Speaker 00

  Fravor's been skeptical of that publicly, but I don't know what to make of that. So just to the point of data retention, like it is, it adds a spooky, it adds a spooky immaculate constellation level.

• 52:22Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, yeah, yeah.

• 52:22Speaker 00

  Cause that's what the allegation of immaculate constellation is, that all this stuff is siphoned off.

• 52:27Jesse Michels?

  Yeah.

• 52:27Speaker 00

  I don't know what to make of that.

• 52:28Speaker 01

  That's another good example of how the stories vary quite a lot. You've got all these enlisted men on the boat who have this, this story about how the data bricks were stolen and then Fravor just.

• 52:37Speaker 00

  Exactly.

• 52:38Speaker 01

  It's happened.

• 52:39Speaker 00

  Exactly.

• 52:40Speaker 01

  So it's difficult to reconcile.

• 52:41Speaker 00

  Correct, yeah.

• 52:42Speaker 01

  But yeah, obviously maybe Fravor didn't know.

• 52:45Speaker 00

  Who knows?

• 52:46Speaker 01

  Who knows?

• 52:48Speaker 00

  Should we dive into the?

• 52:50Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, should we, we can watch the video, yeah.

• 52:52Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 52:54Jesse Michels?

  You guys both see this?

• 52:55Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 52:57Speaker 01

  We're familiar.

• 53:01Speaker 01

  This is the start here, so it's in infrared mode.

• 53:04Jesse Michels?

  And let's explain, so thermal imaging, what is like this white dot in the middle mean?

• 53:10Speaker 01

  Well, it's not actually a white dot, it's actually kind of a spiky shape at the start, which is interesting. It's a bit valid point, then it switches to TV mode and a TV mode means it's basically a video camera, black and white video camera. And we see it's black here. Now, I originally thought this was infrared and this what makes it, this looks almost exactly like the Chilean case, but of course it's this TV mode. So this is actually, you know, what you would theoretically see like with your own eyes. Then it switches back to infrared. You can see the object kind of moved around a little bit. Little spin there, now that's the camera doing a gimbal roll. It's kind of, the camera has to readjust itself occasionally. There's another little roll there.

• 53:52Speaker 00

  Do we want to get into symbology all mic or?

• 53:55Speaker 01

  Yeah, well, it's just, it's going to do some interesting stuff in a second, but yeah. Uh, that's just kind of the one boring part, I guess, but.

• 54:05Speaker 01

  Okay, so 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. So yeah, the symbology, we've got like a whole bunch of stuff, numbers on the screen. And this is how we kind of get to do the analysis. Like we have the angles, we have the top of the screen, we have the heading, the azimuth. And then we've got the elevation, which is, what is it, like six degrees here? I can't remember.

• 54:31Speaker 00

  You mean from right to left?

• 54:32Speaker 01

  No, the elevation.

• 54:33Speaker 00

  I think it's five, it's six up and then five.

• 54:35Speaker 01

  Six and five.

• 54:36Speaker 00

  Yeah, exactly.

• 54:37Speaker 01

  So 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, fairly levelly. And so we can kind of correlate that with the other numbers on the screen, which is the airspeed of the jet, which is expressed in calibrated airspeed. You have to convert it to true airspeed. And then the altitude, we know the altitude of the plane from there. So you can use all that to kind of set up a model of what we're looking at and what's actually happening. 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 to the left of the screen. And there's kind of two parts to that.

• 55:20Speaker 01

  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 zoom levels kind of halfway through the movement. If you kind of undo that zoom back from two times to one time, it just basically smoothly goes off. And the analysis I did on that, using all the angles and everything, was that the drift that it moved off from left to right was exactly the same as the drift that the camera was moving at. So I think what we're actually looking at here is the camera was tracking something like this. And then the camera lost lock and the object just kept going at exactly the same speed. So it gives the same effect of the object zooming off to the side, but it isn't actually moving.

• 56:05Speaker 00

  Mick, are you familiar with Yannick's analysis that it actually drifts off? Drifts off, it moves off four times faster at the very end than it does during the other losses of lock? Are you familiar with that?

• 56:17Speaker 01

  No, I wouldn't be surprised because it's only a partial loss of lock. And the other ones, it's still basically kind of tracking it. I don't think.

• 56:28Speaker 01

  When you see it's losing lock, it's not really lost the lock at those points?

• 56:32Speaker 00

  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 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 grapple with this stuff. That's why I write these articles. I'm trying to encourage interest, spur interest.

• 56:53Speaker 01

  I 100% agree. We should teach this in colleges because it's a fun analysis exercise that people can get their teeth into.

• 57:00Speaker 00

  Sorry for that PSA, but I really just want to convey that.

• 57:03Speaker 01

  And that's probably the whole problem here between you and I is it's just you and me.

• 57:08Speaker 00

  Right, exactly.

• 57:09Speaker 01

  And you make a lot of people.

• 57:13Speaker 01

  There's no reason why other people can't analyze these videos.

• 57:16Speaker 00

  Exactly.

• 57:17Speaker 01

  But it does take a long time though.

• 57:19Speaker 00

  It does.

• 57:19Speaker 01

  It is quite a lot of work. I mean, this is like years of work that we've both put into these videos.

• 57:25Speaker 00

  On my side, so I gotta give him credit and Chris Fitzer as well, so.

• 57:31Jesse Michels?

  And they would say that the loss of lock just wouldn't account for that sort of zingy.

• 57:35Speaker 00

  That's, it's ambiguous. Chad Underwood, who's the whizzo who filmed it, he said, nope, there's no way the system would have lost it. I've talked to an active duty whizzo serving now and he said it's a finicky, I sent you the emails, right? You remember this and I made a point to it. The system can be finicky and can lose a lock, so it's a wash. I don't know what to make of that.

• 57:53Jesse Michels?

  Is the FLIR auto-tracking or is there somebody operating that?

• 57:56Speaker 00

  That is auto-track. So yeah, that is correct. Yeah, it's a pixel, exactly.

• 58:00Speaker 01

  Yeah, it's using the, basically the contrast between pixels and it's just like image tracking in After Effects. You just lock onto something and it follows it.

• 58:08Jesse Michels?

  Got it.

• 58:08Speaker 01

  It doesn't do a very good job. It's kind of interesting comparing the technology in 2004 with the later things in Gymbal and GoFundMe, which the lock seems a lot more solid.

• 58:17Jesse Michels?

  What I like about this is I feel like both of you are being very reasonable and if anything, I'm more confused in a healthy way. You know, I really, I mean, 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.

• 58:35Speaker 00

  We'll just wait till we get to the analysis. Okay, cool. Yeah, yeah.

• 58:39Jesse Michels?

  Huge news, everyone. We've been sitting on a ton of unreleased footage that we will now be releasing weekly in our new WAP. Our first episode is a completely uncut, heated discussion between Hal Putoff and Eric Weinstein on remote viewing. Yeah, you heard that right. I still can't believe I experienced that firsthand, and now I'm happy to share it with you all as our first exclusive video on WAP. Head over to wap.com slash American Alchemy Premium to become a premium member today. By becoming a member, you'll gain access to weekly premium videos, behind the scenes 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

• 59:24Jesse Michels?

  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 WAP today. Head over to wap.com slash American Alchemy Premium to become a premium member today. Thank you so much and enjoy the rest of today's episode. All right, should we move to GoFundMe?

• 59:56Speaker 00

  Can we go to the slideshow real quick?

• 59:58Jesse Michels?

  Oh, yeah, yeah, sure, sure.

• 59:59Speaker 00

  I really want to show you the, kind of, what, what rode and Mick, 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's still up and that it's clearly not an airliner. I mean.

• 1:00:13Speaker 01

  All right, let's describe what we're talking about.

• 1:00:15Speaker 00

  Yeah. So Mick has several videos up, looking at the FLIR1 video, and one of them, he hypothesizes that it's a distant airliner. I think you said on a podcast that it's probably 50 to 100 miles away.

• 1:00:28Speaker 01

  Yeah, I think this video I made is like, what, do you remember what it was? Like 2019 or something like that?

• 1:00:34Speaker 00

  And I think that's, that's misinformation from my perspective.

• 1:00:37Speaker 01

  I have added the description of the video.

• 1:00:38Speaker 00

  You put one sentence on there, nobody's gonna 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 100 miles away.

• 1:00:47Speaker 01

  What's in the video?

• 1:00:49Speaker 00

  That thing's at sixty-six thousand feet. It's impossible.

• 1:00:53Speaker 01

  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 it might look like.

• 1:01:02Speaker 00

  Right.

• 1:01:03Speaker 01

  And I picked a airliner, because that's what I'm kind of used to from this Chilean case. I was still kind of maybe biased by that Chilean case. And I did kind of did a little side-by-side comparison, and they look somewhat similar. You can kind of see they look somewhat similar, not the same.

• 1:01:19Speaker 00

  Will you remove that video? Because it's clearly...

• 1:01:21Speaker 01

  No, I think the basic analysis is right, and I can maybe change the title of it. The analysis isn't that this is what it is, is that a blurry shape can look like another blurry shape.

• 1:01:33Speaker 00

  You clearly say in the video, like, oh, it looks kind of like an airliner going off to the right.

• 1:01:37Speaker 01

  It does kind of look like one.

• 1:01:38Speaker 00

  Yep, but it can't be. Yeah, but it can't be. So why wouldn't you...

• 1:01:42Speaker 01

  Yeah, but the analysis of the video is still about it, that it kind of looks like that. You know it's not.

• 1:01:47Speaker 00

  You understand my point, right? I think it's misleading to keep it up.

• 1:01:50Speaker 01

  I'm adding that to the description of the video.

• 1:01:52Speaker 00

  Nobody's gonna read it. Okay, let's move on.

• 1:01:55Speaker 00

  So this is why it's so easy to rule out a plane. Number one, there's no tail. Boom, simple. Number two, if you're looking five degrees up, right? The perspective is, if... Mix theory is that it's another plane. He uses another F-18 in his example. It'll... I'm trying to do this for the camera. If you're looking five degrees up, it'll have... The jet will have kind of like a downward slope like this. Clearly, the object is tilted up this way. And there's no plane. You can change the plane type. There's no plane that'll fly like... What do you have, this distant plane going like two-hundred-and-fifty knots? Whatever. No plane is gonna fly at like a, you know, thirteen, fifteen, twenty-degree angle of attack at three-hundred knots. It's just not reasonable. There's no tail. There's...

• 1:02:39Speaker 00

  Ruling out a plane is the easiest thing we'll do all day today, from my perspective.

• 1:02:42Speaker 01

  Yeah, I think you can there. I think the problem with this video is that it's a super-low-resolution video.

• 1:02:46Speaker 00

  But the angle is very... It's crystal clear.

• 1:02:48Speaker 01

  It's not really. Like, you will talk later about how 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 sun.

• 1:02:59Speaker 00

  Or the tail. I mean, it's just simple.

• 1:03:01Speaker 01

  Maybe that's similar color to the sky. Lots of planes have different...

• 1:03:05Speaker 00

  No, no, no. This works by contrast. Contrast, right?

• 1:03:08Speaker 01

  Well, in contrast, in the optical spectrum, yes.

• 1:03:11Speaker 00

  So it has a white tail?

• 1:03:12Speaker 01

  Planes cannot have white tails.

• 1:03:16Speaker 01

  This is black against the sky. You're saying that it's a white Tic Tac shape, an actual Tic Tac shape.

• 1:03:22Speaker 00

  Yeah, absolutely, it is.

• 1:03:23Speaker 01

  And you're saying that it's got, it's this funny weird shape.

• 1:03:26Speaker 00

  Yeah, we addressed that.

• 1:03:27Speaker 01

  Because of the lighting.

• 1:03:28Speaker 00

  So it's not a plane, from my perspective.

• 1:03:30Speaker 01

  If it could be a Tic Tac shape that somehow morphed into this bizarre peanut shape because of the sunlight and these little legs that are supposedly sticking out, then why couldn't it be a different type of plane? Perhaps not this FA18. There's a whole bunch of different types of planes.

• 1:03:47Speaker 00

  What plane flies like at this angle?

• 1:03:49Speaker 01

  I don't think it is flying at that angle.

• 1:03:50Speaker 00

  So your eyes are deceiving you like it's really not at that angle?

• 1:03:53Speaker 01

  No, I don't think, I think what we're looking at isn't representative of the actual shape of the object.

• 1:03:59Speaker 00

  Great, so anybody who can, it's pretty clear that it's tilted up.

• 1:04:03Jesse Michels?

  Why wouldn't it be representative?

• 1:04:04Speaker 01

  What do you mean it's pretty clear that it's tilted up?

• 1:04:07Speaker 00

  You can see with your own eyes.

• 1:04:08Speaker 01

  It's got a pointy bit at one end.

• 1:04:10Speaker 00

  And we'll get to that.

• 1:04:11Speaker 01

  So 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, isn't it?

• 1:04:19Speaker 00

  Well, that is an artifact that your software, and this is why you make you've been so helpful, like I've shown you this, like you can recreate that effect with your software.

• 1:04:29Speaker 01

  You could probably recreate it with a different plane as well, it's something I haven't done.

• 1:04:32Speaker 00

  You're a big evidence guy.

• 1:04:35Speaker 00

  Try, why can't you, find me something with it, with no tail.

• 1:04:39Speaker 01

  I feel it's kind of a fool's errand because there is not enough data in that video to determine, you look at it, it's this blurry blob.

• 1:04:49Speaker 01

  The video is probably out of focus.

• 1:04:51Speaker 00

  You see the attitude, the tilt, is that just, and if you watch the whole video, you can see that tilt, it's crystal clear.

• 1:04:59Speaker 01

  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 model.

• 1:05:05Speaker 00

  Do you want to just go to the next image? Because this is super interesting and I owe credit to, I think somebody on, I think his name was Paul, but he did very simple edits, brilliance in contrast. And there's no trickery here, it's very simple, if you go to the next one, please. We did a 3D model. And this is kind of a Rorschach test, right? The UAP is in the eye of the beholder, but... And I just, I need to quickly add that both Commander Fravor and Lieutenant Commander Dietrich have stated that when they reviewed Underwood's tapes afterwards, they saw these little appendages, these protrusions.

• 1:05:45Speaker 01

  Which is impossible.

• 1:05:47Speaker 00

  I mean, is it Lonnie Zamora? Like, that reminds me of a Lonnie Zamora craft, what he described, but...

• 1:05:52Speaker 01

  But we know it's completely out of focus, so you wouldn't be able to see this.

• 1:05:54Jesse Michels?

  Lonnie Zamora's a famous...

• 1:05:56Speaker 00

  Thank you.

• 1:05:57Jesse Michels?

  ...graph that came down in 64 and in New Mexico.

• 1:06:01Speaker 00

  Allegedly had little legs, but anyway.

• 1:06:02Jesse Michels?

  Allegedly had little legs.

• 1:06:03Speaker 01

  This image here, I think, is very misleading. I think it's basically been that you've tweaked the amount of brightness to bring in the edges. If you do that with, you know, just sliding the middle slider in the levels adjustment.

• 1:06:13Speaker 00

  So we can find a tic-tac shape if you just do basic edits. This is the bottom line.

• 1:06:17Speaker 01

  You can find the gimbal shape in the floor one video.

• 1:06:19Jesse Michels?

  What basic edits are we doing?

• 1:06:20Speaker 00

  Brilliance and contrast. Brilliance and contrast.

• 1:06:23Jesse Michels?

  And what exactly does... So contrast, I think, is probably pretty obvious. Increasing the contrast.

• 1:06:28Speaker 00

  Right.

• 1:06:28Jesse Michels?

  And then brilliance is...

• 1:06:30Speaker 00

  I think he turned it up. I'm not, again, I didn't do this. Anybody can go, that's the beauty of this, and this is why, like, anybody can do this.

• 1:06:36Speaker 01

  The level slider would do that, I think.

• 1:06:37Jesse Michels?

  Is brilliance like light saturation, or what?

• 1:06:39Speaker 01

  I'm not sure, actually.

• 1:06:41Speaker 00

  I'm not an optics, I'm not a visual effects guy, so I didn't do this.

• 1:06:45Speaker 01

  No, it's an unstandard term, it's not like a Photoshop term.

• 1:06:48Speaker 00

  So what gets really interesting is, and we can really drill down to, there's, you see that little, kind of that sunlit section on the top?

• 1:06:55Jesse Michels?

  Yes.

• 1:06:56Speaker 00

  That, in fact, we can place this object and we can see, we can actually find which direction Underwood was flying, and we can see where the sun was at around 3:30, 3:20-ish, give or take, and you can recreate that in a 3D. This is the first time I'm really presenting this, we're very excited, we're gonna put this in a paper very soon, but you can actually recreate that effect and see where the sun is. And in 3D, you can move the sun around and it gives you that effect. Interestingly enough...

• 1:07:28Jesse Michels?

  And that lines up with his position in reality.

• 1:07:31Speaker 00

  Correct, correct. So let's go to the next one. Mick, you brought up, "Oh, it's black." Well, this is TV mode. Those F-18s are not black. They're light gray, right? That's how that system works.

• 1:07:41Speaker 01

  It's back to the silhouette.

• 1:07:43Speaker 00

  Yeah, so that's why we have a black shape.

• 1:07:45Speaker 01

  It's something you can't say that is the same because it's the same color.

• 1:07:49Speaker 00

  No, no, I'm just saying.

• 1:07:50Speaker 01

  It doesn't mean it's a different color either. We don't know what color it is.

• 1:07:53Jesse Michels?

  But you've moved off the plane thesis. You don't think that.

• 1:07:56Speaker 01

  I don't think we can rule it out.

• 1:07:58Jesse Michels?

  Okay.

• 1:07:58Speaker 00

  But you have to provide, just give us one option. Like, just prevent some kind of... Like, propose one plane that would fly like this.

• 1:08:05Speaker 01

  Well, why don't you propose one type of UFO that could fly like this?

• 1:08:08Speaker 00

  Right there. It's a Tic Tac.

• 1:08:10Jesse Michels?

  UFO is just unidentified by nature.

• 1:08:13Speaker 01

  What model of Tic Tac UFO?

• 1:08:14Speaker 00

  It's a sport model, obviously.

• 1:08:15Speaker 01

  I'm just saying, if there's a plane...

• 1:08:17Jesse Michels?

  That's impossible for him to answer.

• 1:08:18Speaker 01

  A plane that fits, that could, you know, flips that profile silhouette with the lising. You know, we just don't know.

• 1:08:25Speaker 00

  I have a couple more. Just, you wanna, do you mind going? Yeah, sorry, run through this. So this is, you talked about that peanut, yes. So this is, I used Mix, this is Mix... Oh, weird.

• 1:08:36Jesse Michels?

  Well, just, you know what's in it.

• 1:08:37Speaker 00

  Yeah, so...

• 1:08:38Jesse Michels?

  Just say it, I'll put it in post-production.

• 1:08:40Speaker 00

  Yeah, so, um, when you, when you actually edit the video to kind of recreate the graininess and 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 is just, 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.

• 1:09:04Speaker 01

  With my software, yeah, which I did.

• 1:09:06Speaker 00

  No, thank you, and I...

• 1:09:07Speaker 01

  I did that for you, Merrick.

• 1:09:09Speaker 00

  And I... No, no, no, let me...

• 1:09:10Jesse Michels?

  But isn't that compelling? That maybe this is just sensory data that is...

• 1:09:14Speaker 01

  There's a couple of points in the bottle for that.

• 1:09:16Speaker 00

  Thank you, Mick. We owe, the UFO world owes you a huge debt of gratitude for the amount of work that you put into it. I'm glad you're finally getting paid. I don't know who's paying you, but, um, no.

• 1:09:26Jesse Michels?

  Wait, what is, are you getting paid?

• 1:09:27Speaker 00

  Truly, no.

• 1:09:28Jesse Michels?

  By who?

• 1:09:29Speaker 01

  Someone I can't name.

• 1:09:30Jesse Michels?

  Okay.

• 1:09:30Speaker 00

  What Mick has done is incredible, and it allows us to test out everybody's theories. Not yours, not ours, not anybody's, and so, so thank you for that. I mean that sincerely.

• 1:09:40Speaker 01

  Just real quick, like, the reason this software exists is actually because of you.

• 1:09:45Speaker 00

  I appreciate it. And we are...

• 1:09:46Speaker 01

  Not just this, the original Gimbal simulator.

• 1:09:50Speaker 00

  Yeah, no.

• 1:09:50Speaker 01

  Which is the granddaddy of this. Was because Marek was getting so annoying with his consistent criticism that I had to like finally make a good like video and I had to write all this software to do it. And then I wrote this nice long video and...

• 1:10:02Speaker 00

  But Mick, you always say like, "Oh, God, you know, these 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 Fravor and Dietrich were called."

• 1:10:14Speaker 01

  The amount of blur that you had to add there to make them match would mean that they wouldn't be able to see those legs.

• 1:10:21Speaker 00

  All I'm asking is, give me any plane. SR71 or any plane. A YouTube. I don't care. How big are the legs? Well, how can I make... I'm mad. Like, it's a map.

• 1:10:30Speaker 01

  You made it blurry.

• 1:10:33Jesse Michels?

  Well, I guess, Mick, what would you say to the fact that you can use some slight edits with a program that you built?

• 1:10:40Speaker 01

  This is just to recreate one frame, I think, what would be interesting.

• 1:10:43Speaker 00

  No, it's a video. Oh, okay.

• 1:10:44Speaker 01

  For enough, yeah, yeah, yeah. The actual object itself appears to do this kind of weird rotation and get a bit more pointy at one end.

• 1:10:52Jesse Michels?

  Yep.

• 1:10:53Speaker 01

  Which I kind of interpreted as being like a plane turning, but...

• 1:10:57Speaker 00

  The pointiness is recreated. It's an artifact of that front appendage.

• 1:11:02Speaker 01

  I sent you the video. But we don't have the rotation that matches.

• 1:11:06Jesse Michels?

  And your highest percentage likelihood thing is plain still, even though there's some issues.

• 1:11:12Speaker 01

  I don't know. Like, you know, Marek brings up some good points and Yannick. So, you know, I think what I would say is you can't 100% rule out a plane.

• 1:11:21Speaker 00

  I feel comfortable doing it. There's no tail. And it matches what...

• 1:11:24Speaker 01

  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, the...

• 1:11:38Speaker 00

  There's no tail.

• 1:11:40Speaker 01

  You can't see a tail.

• 1:11:41Speaker 00

  Of course you can.

• 1:11:43Speaker 01

  What about the, remember the video that Jesse Sanders a few days ago of the Tic Tac?

• 1:11:50Jesse Michels?

  Then over Nellis testing.

• 1:11:52Speaker 01

  And you said that you agree with me that it was a plane.

• 1:11:54Speaker 00

  Oh, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry.

• 1:11:56Speaker 01

  It has no wings. And that's a very common thing that people see, like in videos.

• 1:12:00Speaker 00

  So what was that?

• 1:12:01Speaker 01

  It would have been another plane.

• 1:12:02Speaker 00

  I'm sure it's another plane, yeah. You can go to the next slide real quick, because I think, so this is how we were able to place it. There's a consistent rightward banking. You can kind of see it here. And that's how, there's a strong, and thank goodness, Yannick is a climate scientist. Sorry, buddy, I hope it didn't out you. But he has access to extremely nuanced weather data and we can find out, if you go to the next slide there. We can look at the weather data from that time at that altitude and there's an extremely strong northerly wind coming 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 goes.

• 1:12:46Speaker 00

  And that allows us to place that, the heading of that plane and see, okay, well, now we know where the sun is and then we can match the sun with the top of that illuminated.

• 1:12:56Speaker 01

  Issue with that is that planes don't need to bank to maintain a heading.

• 1:13:00Speaker 00

  Is that true?

• 1:13:01Speaker 01

  Yes.

• 1:13:02Speaker 00

  Okay.

• 1:13:02Speaker 01

  And then we discussed this. So you said that you thought that they did, but.

• 1:13:07Speaker 00

  So yeah, so.

• 1:13:08Speaker 01

  You sent me a bunch of chat GPT things.

• 1:13:09Speaker 00

  You're talking about crabbing, right?

• 1:13:11Speaker 01

  No. Well, I'm talking about the difference between like the true heading, the ground heading and the air heading. Right, so to maintain a particular ground heading, you just need to have an air heading that incorporates the wind vector.

• 1:13:23Speaker 00

  So the autopilot, you can see at the bottom, it says HDG, that's heading. So it means the nose is going to maintain a heading.

• 1:13:31Speaker 01

  Yes, it's the same thing.

• 1:13:33Speaker 00

  Ground track is irrelevant.

• 1:13:33Speaker 01

  It's the same thing.

• 1:13:34Speaker 00

  Ground track's irrelevant.

• 1:13:35Speaker 01

  It only would need to bank if the wind was changing.

• 1:13:36Speaker 00

  No, it needs to stay. The nose is going to stay at, let's say, 270, right?

• 1:13:41Speaker 01

  Doesn't matter. Doesn't matter.

• 1:13:42Speaker 00

  So how's it maintaining?

• 1:13:44Speaker 01

  You point it in the direction you want to go, and you go in that direction. Or else 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 turning.

• 1:13:58Speaker 00

  But it's consistent, right? It does this.

• 1:14:00Speaker 01

  No, it's just wobbling a little bit. That was greatly magnified. That was the thing I sent you years ago. And it goes in both directions.

• 1:14:08Speaker 00

  Nope, it's only right.

• 1:14:09Speaker 01

  It goes a little bit more to one side. It does go actually to the other side a little bit. Anyway.

• 1:14:13Speaker 00

  It doesn't.

• 1:14:13Speaker 01

  You're fundamentally wrong with the idea that you need to bank to turn to the side.

• 1:14:19Speaker 00

  So it's 100 knot winds coming in.

• 1:14:20Speaker 01

  It doesn't matter. It's completely irrelevant. It could be 1,000 knot winds.

• 1:14:24Speaker 00

  So if the wind is pushing the aircraft...

• 1:14:27Speaker 01

  Planes fly relative to the air. That altitude of the air is basically just a constant homogeneous mass. And there's no real turbulence to speak of in terms of like differentials between the wind directions. So if the wind is moving like this, and you want to fly in that direction, you'll just have to like turn a little bit into the wind.

• 1:14:51Speaker 00

  That's called crabbing.

• 1:14:52Speaker 01

  No, it's just called changing the heading of your plane. Crabbing is something where you actually kind of slide the plane a little bit.

• 1:14:59Speaker 00

  You're using radar, exactly.

• 1:15:01Speaker 01

  Yeah, but that's...

• 1:15:02Speaker 00

  We're not talking about that.

• 1:15:03Speaker 01

  No, we're not talking about that.

• 1:15:04Speaker 00

  Okay.

• 1:15:05Speaker 01

  Your velocity relative to the air is just, you know, straight through the air.

• 1:15:09Jesse Michels?

  Okay, let's move on, but on to the audience on whether a plane would need to...

• 1:15:14Speaker 00

  We can cut that out or whatever, yeah.

• 1:15:15Jesse Michels?

  Pilots, let us know.

• 1:15:16Speaker 00

  No, no, leave it in.

• 1:15:18Jesse Michels?

  But would a plane need to bank in this scenario?

• 1:15:20Speaker 00

  There's a consistent right wing banking, which our hypothesis is because of the 110 knot winds. So real quick, last point on this. You mind just going up one more?

• 1:15:29Jesse Michels?

  Sure.

• 1:15:29Speaker 00

  This is one, sorry, just one higher.

• 1:15:32Jesse Michels?

  Yep.

• 1:15:32Speaker 00

  I'm sorry, the other way.

• 1:15:33Jesse Michels?

  Oh, up, up, gotcha.

• 1:15:34Speaker 00

  Last but not least, we can actually, so Kevin Day said that these objects were at 28,000 feet. I'd be curious to see if he has said other, but everything that I've seen is he said that 28,000 feet heading south at 100 knots, we can find that in the data. We can find the Chad Underwood object moving south at 100 knots at 28,000 feet, descending slowly, but 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 Gimbal as well.

• 1:16:11Jesse Michels?

  Do you not find that compelling?

• 1:16:13Speaker 01

  You can find all kinds of things in the data depending on what parameters you put into it.

• 1:16:16Speaker 00

  And this is at the distance roughly that Underwood gave. That's important, right?

• 1:16:20Speaker 01

  You can find basically a straight line path as well of the object moving away, consistent with it being a plane or some similar type of aircraft. And if you change things around, change with the way the wind's direction is, then you can find different things. If you move, change the distance, you can find different things again. I don't think like this is the only solution here.

• 1:16:43Speaker 00

  No, but it is remarkable to find that in the data. This doesn't happen by accident.

• 1:16:49Speaker 01

  That of course suggests that what we're looking at is actually a balloon.

• 1:16:51Speaker 00

  That is absolutely, so absolutely a possibility, yes.

• 1:16:54Speaker 01

  And a balloon would explain the radar targets possibly because they're moving with the wind. You know, we had this wind, as you described earlier, moving from north to south.

• 1:17:02Speaker 00

  I think balloon is a far more reasonable explanation than plane.

• 1:17:06Speaker 01

  I wouldn't rule it out. I wouldn't rule it out. I think, you know, like I said before, my analysis of these videos is kind of two parts. Like, is it doing anything amazing? 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.

• 1:17:21Speaker 00

  It is very weird at 20, what, 28,000 feet? What do you know that does that, that is that size?

• 1:17:26Speaker 01

  A balloon.

• 1:17:27Speaker 00

  That's that size?

• 1:17:28Jesse Michels?

  Why would a balloon be that far off the coast?

• 1:17:31Speaker 01

  I don't know. It could be some kind of military balloon.

• 1:17:34Jesse Michels?

  Uh huh.

• 1:17:35Speaker 01

  A balloon used for surveillance or it could be a weather balloon.

• 1:17:38Speaker 00

  This is 20 years ago now, literally. What kind of propose some op? You can throw spaghetti right against the wall. This is a debunking playbook, but provide some options. What could it be?

• 1:17:47Speaker 01

  I don't know.

• 1:17:48Jesse Michels?

  I think we should move on.

• 1:17:50Speaker 00

  Let's do it.

• 1:17:50Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, this is a great, I love it. This is awesome. And I think there are a lot of open questions we just presented that the audience should go out and investigate.

• 1:17:58Speaker 00

  Please, by all means.

• 1:17:59Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 1:17:59Jesse Michels?

  And so.

• 1:18:00Speaker 01

  I don't rule out, I don't rule out these options, but I don't think you should also rule out a plane.

• 1:18:05Jesse Michels?

  Okay, let's get into the Go Fast video, which was recorded in January of 2015, 300 miles off the coast of Jacksonville, the USS Roosevelt. So, Merrick, you set up the last one. Right. Why don't you set up this one, Mick?

• 1:18:23Speaker 01

  This is a fun one. This appears to be something that's moving very fast over the surface of the water. It's similar to the FLIR1 video in that it's thermal 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 colder than the surface of the ocean, which is very unusual for a powered craft. We have a variety of numbers on the screen. We have the angle down, minus 23 at that point, is it? 229, again, need my glasses. And then we have the heading, which is off the top of the screen. We actually do have that.

• 1:19:07Speaker 01

  And then we have a range value. Now, unlike in the FLIR1 video, when they lock on to this object, they actually do get a range number. There's some disputers are actually where that number comes from, like, how far away is this object? 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 this object. And it turns out to be going a lot slower than initial estimates. Like, initial estimates predict, I think, somewhere in a 600 knots, Mach 6. something or other. And it turns out to be going much, much slower.

• 1:19:51Speaker 01

  So definitely under 100 knots. Some disputers are exactly how fast this is going. I've done some reconstructions where it's about 60 knots. Yannick just pointed out one where he's done where it's more like 90 knots, and he said that's also consistent with the wind speed. So my hypothesis about this one is that it's probably just a wind-blown object, like a balloon. If we do some analysis as to the size of the object, we can determine 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.

• 1:20:30Jesse Michels?

  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, 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 interesting because you have audio associated with the video and the guy goes, "Whoa, got it!" And I just interviewed Navy Fighter Pilot Ryan Graves, who testified before Congress, also under oath, and he kind of admitted it was a buddy of his who he thinks is kind of beyond reproach.

• 1:21:07Speaker 00

  They're very close friends. I mean, they're super close.

• 1:21:09Jesse Michels?

  Close friends. So, yeah, what's your response to Mick here?

• 1:21:12Speaker 00

  I think we would, I'm very confident that we would not had Arrow come out with this assessment at 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.

• 1:21:29Jesse Michels?

  Why wouldn't they talk to the air crew?

• 1:21:31Speaker 00

  I don't know. And it fits in with the Blue Book, the debunking playbook of never talk to witnesses, just, yeah, just throw something out there. I don't know if this is part of the old guard, the previous director who I think has rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. Rubbed me, I had a long discussion with him. Rubbed me the wrong way. So, I think that's a massive oversight. It is an analytic failure for them not to talk to the air crew 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, 300 miles off the coast of Jacksonville, Florida. Oh, by the way, this is 10 minutes before the gimbal video.

• 1:22:11Speaker 00

  Oh, by the way, this is amid daily observations or, you know, sensor observations of spherical objects off the east coast that are, as Ryan told you, and has been very public about, were A, a safety of flight concern, and B, were operating in very anomalous ways per their, you know, their systems. They're locking them up on FLIR on their training, their infrared training missiles on their radar, right? You have multiple, three, four sensors, their eyeballs are seeing them sometimes, occasionally. So, it is a massive analytic

• 1:22:40Speaker 00

  Oversight, I am, I made your bone to pick with Arrow about that because Ryan just came out on your show and are on your, in your discussion said that this was part of, and I think you said it previously, but shocker, this was part of, this was one of four objects that were in a line of breast formation, right? So they're kind of like cruising along all next to each other. That's not weather balloons down to that, obviously. So I don't think we, we would be having a very different discussion if Arrow had actually done their job.

• 1:23:10Jesse Michels?

  Hmm. And this is, it's right above the surface of the water, right?

• 1:23:13Speaker 00

  No, no.

• 1:23:14Jesse Michels?

  It is or it's not?

• 1:23:16Speaker 00

  No, it's not.

• 1:23:17Jesse Michels?

  No, no.

• 1:23:17Speaker 00

  So the air crew did not name this, Go Fast. I don't know who named it. So I, you know, I think Ryan has said, Lieutenant Graves has said, you know, all the Pentagon did is they bumped the name, which the Pentagon, I think the Pentagon itself gave the video. So I, you know, look, there's a, I want to just be very clear. There's a reason you don't just, this is like a tiny needle in a haystack. You don't just find something and just slurring, sluing your targeting pod around in the ocean. They had a, 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, what they were seeing visually did not match up with the radar that they were, the data that they were getting.

• 1:23:58Speaker 01

  That's really a reach, I think.

• 1:24:00Speaker 00

  Look at it fly. What's it doing, right? Whatever they said, like, they're, they're very surprised by it.

• 1:24:05Speaker 01

  You know, it was surprising that they caught it on their, on their flare, their, their at flare.

• 1:24:10Speaker 00

  What's it, look at it fly is the actual word.

• 1:24:12Speaker 01

  Yeah, well, it looks like it's going very fast.

• 1:24:14Speaker 00

  Well, I don't think they're stumped by parallax. They might have been, but the bottom line is.

• 1:24:18Speaker 01

  You'd be surprised. I mean, the pilots are stumped by parallax all the time.

• 1:24:22Speaker 00

  Bottom line is, okay.

• 1:24:23Jesse Michels?

  Can we describe what parallax is to the audience?

• 1:24:26Speaker 01

  Yeah, parallax is just when your viewpoint changes, things that are closer to you appear to move faster. So if you're, you know, looking at the wall over there and you're looking at my thumb and you move your head, my thumb appears to move that way.

• 1:24:39Jesse Michels?

  And you think that. Multiple eyewitnesses saw Parallax even though the gimbal video was recorded like minutes after this.

• 1:24:47Speaker 01

  The Go Fast thing isn't multiple eyewitnesses seeing things. It's these people, these two guys in a plane, seeing this thing probably just on the screens. And so all they're seeing is this display. The field of view here is about, it's less than one degree.

• 1:25:01Speaker 00

  It's tiny.

• 1:25:02Speaker 01

  Which is a really, really powerful zoom lens. Which is the biggest zoom lens you could get. It's equivalent, I think, of over 2,000 millimeters SLR.

• 1:25:11Jesse Michels?

  And this is in, this is in an F-18 Super Bowl?

• 1:25:15Speaker 00

  Correct. Correct. Yeah, two-seater.

• 1:25:17Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, I just mean eyewitnesses, like, they're actively looking. It's not out of tracking like the NIVS thing. That's what I mean, not eyewitnesses and that they're seeing the object.

• 1:25:25Speaker 01

  Yeah, people did look at the video afterwards. Ryan Graves said he distracted looking at the gimbal video, at least I'm sure he must have seen this one as well. It's really interesting that we have all these witnesses coming forward now. It's a shame that they didn't come forward years ago. Because this is new information.

• 1:25:41Speaker 00

  Absolutely, and we might be hearing more from, as Ryan said on your show. And sorry, Ryan, if you're watching, I think he's annoyed at me because I keep, "Hey, man, when's your buddy coming out? When are they gonna come out and talk?"

• 1:25:52Speaker 01

  Yeah, I would love that. More information is great for everyone.

• 1:25:55Speaker 00

  Absolutely, because this is the same guy who recorded the gimbal video, which is the poster child, right? Of this whole...

• 1:26:01Jesse Michels?

  Well, that guy needs to come out.

• 1:26:02Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 1:26:04Jesse Michels?

  I'll do an interview with you.

• 1:26:05Speaker 00

  Guy wherever you are, yeah. But again, I cannot stress enough, I'd love to hear him expound, or kind of expand rather, on the formation.

• 1:26:16Speaker 01

  I mean, your point here is that you don't think he's doing anything amazing in this video, but you think there's something amazing about the situation.

• 1:26:23Speaker 00

  If it's flying in formation, absolutely, absolutely, of course.

• 1:26:25Speaker 01

  When the video doesn't show that, well, we've got this kind of second-hand, 10 years later, 3 years later thing.

• 1:26:31Speaker 00

  Can I just say one thing, Yannick, to your point? Yes, it might actually be doing something. Yannick, 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's simulation has the object around 100 knots. Not 60 knots, as Mick claims, end quote.

• 1:26:52Speaker 01

  Yes, that's assuming that it's accurate, which is, as we discussed earlier, is a very dubious thing.

• 1:26:58Jesse Michels?

  And was it not moving against the wind, or was that just Gimble?

• 1:27:02Speaker 00

  Well, we don't know that, because if the aviator who recorded it comes out and says, "Oh yeah, we were freaked out because it was moving against the wind."

• 1:27:12Speaker 01

  Well, that would be great, but that hasn't happened yet.

• 1:27:14Speaker 00

  I'm just saying, that's why we really need to hear from him, but I really want to hear about the formation, and 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.

• 1:27:31Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, well, we need more, we need these guys to come out, and they need to at least be behind the scenes interviewing.

• 1:27:37Speaker 00

  And Arrow, I'm gonna put on my ex-government hat here, Arrow kind of put themselves in a really tough spot, because they came out and did this, now you're gonna have an air crew come out and contradict you. That's a terrible position for a government agency to be in, potentially. Well, he already did, right, I mean, through Ryan.

• 1:27:55Speaker 01

  What are they contradicting him on? I mean, and all they said was that it appears to be going slow.

• 1:27:59Speaker 00

  I'll tell you exactly why, because it says, the Arrow conclusion, what is it? It does no anomalous maneuver.

• 1:28:04Speaker 01

  Alright.

• 1:28:05Speaker 00

  Okay, if it's part of formation...

• 1:28:06Speaker 01

  It doesn't do any anomalous maneuvers in this video.

• 1:28:08Speaker 00

  If it's holding formation, that is anomalous maneuver.

• 1:28:11Speaker 01

  Well...

• 1:28:11Speaker 00

  In strong winds.

• 1:28:13Speaker 01

  Four objects blowing in the wind will stay in the same formation.

• 1:28:17Speaker 00

  For 300 miles off the coast?

• 1:28:21Speaker 01

  Well, then they're in formation at that point.

• 1:28:24Speaker 00

  Balloons are gonna stay in a perfect, or we don't know if it's perfect, but...

• 1:28:28Speaker 01

  We don't know exactly what the formation was, or was it a perfect straight line?

• 1:28:32Speaker 00

  We gotta hear more, bottom line.

• 1:28:33Speaker 01

  We're gonna hear more from this person.

• 1:28:35Speaker 00

  Yes.

• 1:28:36Speaker 01

  Track him down, Justin.

• 1:28:37Jesse Michels?

  I'll do my best, yeah, I'm gonna have Brian right after this and say, "We should do something."

• 1:28:41Speaker 00

  And again, the context is so critical, 10 minutes before Gimble, 10 minutes before the, like, the most ripe anomalous, or at least strange, video that a lot of people have seen.

• 1:28:53Speaker 01

  Was that Verikai, the time that it was before?

• 1:28:56Speaker 00

  Yeah, you can see the timestamp on the bottom.

• 1:28:58Speaker 01

  Yeah, but the screen, that kind of wraps around, I think, it doesn't show the, doesn't show the...

• 1:29:01Speaker 00

  I'm pretty confident it was right before.

• 1:29:05Speaker 01

  So it could be an hour. Yeah, it doesn't matter that much, but I just wonder if there was some verbal confirmation from a witness.

• 1:29:11Jesse Michels?

  Should we watch it? Anything else on GoFundMe before we go to Gimbal?

• 1:29:15Speaker 01

  Uh, no, I don't think there's there's much there.

• 1:29:19Jesse Michels?

  Okay.

• 1:29:20Speaker 01

  That we discussed.

• 1:29:21Jesse Michels?

  Okay. Yeah, we can play it in post.

• 1:29:23Speaker 00

  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 videos. How do you not talk to the air crew?

• 1:29:33Speaker 01

  Arrow should release their analysis.

• 1:29:37Speaker 00

  Do you agree that it's kind of egregious that Arrow did not interview the air crew?

• 1:29:40Speaker 01

  I don't see why they wouldn't have done, you know, it's it seems like it's a data point.

• 1:29:45Speaker 00

  I mean, they even got the year wrong in the slide. It said January 16th, like.

• 1:29:49Jesse Michels?

  That's weird.

• 1:29:50Speaker 00

  I mean, I have a major bone to pick with the analytics side of Arrow. As we all know, that they have really done a poor job on a lot of their reports, so we don't need to belabor that. I'm optimistic that the new director will change things around.

• 1:30:04Speaker 01

  I think, you know, you and I both know that Arrow have done, said some things that are incorrect. You've had conversations with.

• 1:30:11Speaker 00

  Basically, just, it was astounding, and I don't need to get into it, but.

• 1:30:15Speaker 01

  He's said various things in public as well, which didn't really tally with reality.

• 1:30:18Speaker 00

  Yeah. That's a very diplomatic way to put it.

• 1:30:21Speaker 01

  At the NASA hearing, he, you know, he sent some speckles on the screen with stars, when they were obviously not stars.

• 1:30:26Jesse Michels?

  Weird.

• 1:30:27Speaker 00

  I think he phoned it in. I think he was close to retirement. I don't know.

• 1:30:30Speaker 01

  I think he's more there as a person who's standing up the organization rather than being an analyst himself, so he wasn't that familiar with everything.

• 1:30:38Speaker 00

  And to his credit, he did stand up the, so.

• 1:30:39Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 1:30:40Speaker 00

  I'm grateful, first time that he talked to me, but I was.

• 1:30:42Speaker 01

  And they solved a lot of cases.

• 1:30:44Jesse Michels?

  Do you guys ever wonder if any of these things are sort of Rorschach tests, or like initiation paths for, you know, your analytical rigor abilities or whatever? And so like some of these videos are like halfway truths, and it's like, you know, our job is somehow solve it, and then you solve it, you get in the program or something.

• 1:31:01Speaker 00

  Because the taxpayers need to get their money back. This is pretty, this is pretty awful.

• 1:31:06Jesse Michels?

  It's a waste of time in a nuclear multipolar world that's heating up, that's kind of a, why are you playing puzzle games with American people?

• 1:31:13Speaker 00

  Right.

• 1:31:14Jesse Michels?

  Okay.

• 1:31:16Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, well, I do want to say it's interesting that just on the Tic Tac video. So my buddy Chris Ramsey, 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.

• 1:31:36Speaker 00

  That's great.

• 1:31:36Jesse Michels?

  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. I'll play the video, but why why prosaically explain? Because it is interesting in the context of of fravoring a Tic Tac, too.

• 1:31:58Speaker 01

  It's a super common sighting and before they would describe them as being cigar shaped. And what it is, it's just planes, the fuselage of a plane is illuminated by the sun. But the the wings are either a different color, if you're moving it from above, like the gray wings, you see a plane with gray wings. Or they're not being illuminated by the sun because the sun's above them and you're below them. So you will see basically just the fuselage of the plane, a bright white thing. And at that distance, you just can't make out the wings. And when you take a video, I bet it doesn't show up on the video. And we've seen this numerous times. We've tracked, I've seen it myself, flying down to LA once. And you can just like, you know, get the location and find which of the planes were

• 1:32:40Speaker 01

  in the area and just drop it into to Citrec by my software and you can see what it actually was.

• 1:32:46Jesse Michels?

  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 Fravor eyewitness account is it wasn't, you know, going right next to the water, shooting off, you know, exhibiting all these anomalous flight characteristics.

• 1:32:58Speaker 01

  We never see these, never see these amazing maneuvers unambiguously on video. It's either it's a fuzzy dot in the distance.

• 1:33:07Speaker 00

  Certainly do in Gimbal, you see it very anomalous and fantastic.

• 1:33:11Jesse Michels?

  And then 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 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.

• 1:33:29Speaker 01

  Doesn't make any sense though, is that an excuse for why we can't get these things on video, but people see these things and they have these eyewitness accounts of them. It's not like 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 sensor.

• 1:33:48Jesse Michels?

  Well, 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 is important?

• 1:33:57Speaker 01

  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 gonna see pretty much the same thing. It's not like we're magically conjuring up things in this room in our brains, there's a physical reality that we can see and it's the same physical reality as 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 them.

• 1:34:18Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, I think that's fair. I think you'd have to get into kind of 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.

• 1:34:31Speaker 01

  Basically magic at that point.

• 1:34:32Jesse Michels?

  Oh, magic or a different theory of mind, which you could you know get into, I mean that a lot of you know pretty well respected philosophers and people like Aldous 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 brain is sort of an interface. But anyways, we don't need to get into that, so let's let's get into the.

• 1:34:56Speaker 00

  Can I say one more quick thing on GoFash? Because it does appear spherical, right? Like if it's a balloon, it's.

• 1:35:03Speaker 01

  Very hard to say, it's about six pixels across.

• 1:35:05Speaker 00

  And I already mentioned this, this is amid right daily encounters, but the sphere is that that one morph you know morphology, that shape that keeps propping up just over and over in the historical record, starting with 80 years ago with the Foo Fighters, then you have. Metallic, I'm gonna quote, right, there's a whole bunch of stories in 1944. Newsweek ran the silver sphere puzzle on Christmas Day in 1944. Associated Press, Balls of Silver Seen Over the German Reich Intrigued Science, right? So there is consistency, if you read Captain Ed Rupel, he's the first director of Blue Book. His book, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects in 1956 is a remarkable read.

• 1:35:50Speaker 00

  And that is staggering. And that was, that really got me down the rabbit hole. He mentions just over and over these sightings of these metallic spheres, silver spheres, metallic spheres, flying in formation, V-shaped formations. We'll see that in Gimbel. You know, we'll talk about that.

• 1:36:04Speaker 01

  Shame we don't have more photos of metallic spheres.

• 1:36:05Jesse Michels?

  It is extremely interesting. Eisenhower was aware of the foo fighters issue from 42 to 45. You had around or possibly over 200 fighter pilot witnesses when it came to, you know, allied fighter pilots seeing these things. You had some that were kind of prominent. Ted Stevens, who later became Senator in Alaska and co-sponsored UFO research with Harry Reid through OSAP, saw a foo fighter.

• 1:36:32Speaker 00

  OSAP is why we're having this whole discussion. There's a chain, you can draw a direct link, OSAP to ATIP to Lou Elizondo to New York Times. That's why we're having this conversation, right? So it's fascinating. And just, I'll quickly, this is wrap up. Kirkpatrick, former director of Arrow, said, 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, raised 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?

• 1:36:59Jesse Michels?

  Right.

• 1:36:59Speaker 00

  Nobody asked a question. The chair of the panel was texting on his phone as he was saying that. It's pretty astounding.

• 1:37:07Speaker 00

  Top Gun pilot Jack Stewart came out a couple, maybe a year ago. I think Ryan mentioned this on your discussion, but he's flying along and notices something whizzed by his canopy, kind of thought it was a balloon, okay. His wingman saw it, right? He's flying, I guess, somewhere in a position to see his tail. And he said, "Yeah, dude, that thing turned around and followed you." Goes on. Donald Trump has said, I've had Air Force pilots, you know, very, very good guy, better than Tom Cruise, uh, come out and say, you know, we've had spherical objects, circular objects outfly our F-22s. That's the most, one of the most advanced aircraft in our arsenal.

• 1:37:49Speaker 00

  This, this consistency in the Korean War, you see this reporting in these old documents.

• 1:37:54Speaker 01

  There are good reasons for this consistency. I think, yeah.

• 1:37:56Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, how do you, how do you explain that?

• 1:37:57Speaker 01

  I think there's two reasons why we see spheres a lot. One is that there's balloons out 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're asked what shape it is. That's one of the 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 know, it's a tiny dot that we couldn't say. But the balloon thing is interesting, like you mentioned the German things. 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 distant, known distance away and then you'd use a theodolite, I guess, to measure the angle.

• 1:38:42Jesse Michels?

  But the Foo Fighters were not really described.

• 1:38:44Speaker 01

  Foo Fighters, no, that's different range, different thing.

• 1:38:47Jesse Michels?

  They would, they would follow vapor trails that seemed to lock on to flight or fight path.

• 1:38:51Speaker 00

  So the really interesting government report that, I think it was, the earliest known assessment, uh, I think it was a 48 and credit to John Greenwell for putting it on his site. Um, and I think his project signed one of their first reports, I think it was late 48, but it said that the most commonly reported shapes or morphologies are silver discs and spheres and balls of fire. And then they go on to hypothesize that the balls of fire are viewed at night and the metallic spheres, which again, there's that through line all the way through, are viewed during the daytime.

• 1:39:25Speaker 01

  Hmm. Did they all disappear when cameras were invented?

• 1:39:30Speaker 00

  Kirk, there's the Middle East orb is a metallic sphere like like

• 1:39:33Jesse Michels?

  No, really.

• 1:39:34Speaker 00

  The Navy's flyby video is a metallic sphere. Go fast, arguably is a sphere.

• 1:39:38Speaker 01

  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 metallic spheres.

• 1:39:46Speaker 00

  Oh, actually, that's not true. There's a ton. That's not true. The LAX has had, uh, that's not, that's absolutely not true.

• 1:39:51Speaker 01

  The Manchester one?

• 1:39:52Speaker 00

  Sorry?

• 1:39:53Speaker 01

  You think of the Manchester one?

• 1:39:54Speaker 00

  No, no, LAX.

• 1:39:55Jesse Michels?

  Let's, let's keep going.

• 1:39:56Speaker 00

  Go right to the fourth one. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. We can go, go on and on.

• 1:39:59Jesse Michels?

  Okay, so let's go, uh, Gimbal.

• 1:40:02Speaker 00

  Gimbal.

• 1:40:03Jesse Michels?

  Do you think there's anything, you know, there's probably enough unique to say here that we should, we should hit this because we are a little pressed for time.

• 1:40:10Speaker 00

  We can wrap up here, absolutely. Yeah.

• 1:40:11Jesse Michels?

  No, but I want to get into contemporary stuff too, but do you think this is definitely worth touching on?

• 1:40:16Speaker 00

  100%, absolutely. I think this might be the most compelling. So should I set it up real quick?

• 1:40:21Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, yeah, why not? Yeah.

• 1:40:22Speaker 00

  So very, very quickly, um, this is Ryan Graves Squadron, I think it's VFA 11, the Red Ripper. They had just done a fairly complex air-to-air training mission. They're just like, uh, the Tic Tac Incident. They are, I believe this is a pre-deployment workup cycle, so they're, they're doing their training before they, they ship out to the Middle East. And, uh, they'd done a, um, a pretty complex air-to-air mission off of Florida. So the carrier's out there. They're heading back to the ship, um, and one of Ryan's buddies, the Wizzo, the backseater that we were talking about, they're

• 1:40:57Jesse Michels?

  Wizzo is weapon systems officer.

• 1:41:00Speaker 00

  Thank you, that backseater. Um, they're circling the land, so they all come down at once. They kind of, they hang out, so you know, they clear the airspace. And, um, uh, they got 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 maneuvers.

• 1:41:31Jesse Michels?

  And this is, yeah, so that's why it's called the gimbal, right? You see it sort of rotating in this interesting way.

• 1:41:37Speaker 01

  Well, that's.

• 1:41:39Speaker 00

  Look, go fast. Look, look, go. Who named go fast? Clearly, the name wasn't correct, right? The air crew didn't name it. Somebody at the Pentagon named it, so.

• 1:41:46Speaker 01

  So is the name Gimbal correct or not? Because it could be correct because they're calling it that because it's tilting? Or it could be correct because it's the gimbal motion of the camera, which is causing the rotation?

• 1:41:54Speaker 00

  I love one of your first thoughts was that it was a training video that, that.

• 1:41:58Speaker 01

  People have told me it was a training video.

• 1:41:59Speaker 00

  I. Who told you? Who told you that?

• 1:42:02Speaker 01

  I can't remember now, but.

• 1:42:03Jesse Michels?

  Come on.

• 1:42:04Speaker 01

  I asked Susan Goff, and she told me it wasn't a training video.

• 1:42:07Jesse Michels?

  Who said the last?

• 1:42:08Speaker 01

  Susan Goff.

• 1:42:09Jesse Michels?

  Oh, Susan Goff.

• 1:42:10Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 1:42:10Jesse Michels?

  But didn't Susan Goff, like, run PSYOP for the DOT or something when it came to rallying support for the Afghani war?

• 1:42:17Speaker 01

  I'm just telling you what she told me.

• 1:42:18Jesse Michels?

  Yeah.

• 1:42:19Speaker 01

  Not to compare to whether it is.

• 1:42:21Jesse Michels?

  Maybe don't take that prima facie.

• 1:42:23Speaker 00

  She wrote a, an academic paper on psychological operation.

• 1:42:28Jesse Michels?

  Okay.

• 1:42:28Speaker 00

  So that's why there is suspicion of her.

• 1:42:30Speaker 01

  It's like a thesis, I think.

• 1:42:31Jesse Michels?

  Yeah. But then she seems to be kind of tight with Kirkpatrick, or at least in the context of one conference, they were kind of very.

• 1:42:37Speaker 00

  I met Kirkpatrick in person, and I was there at that incident. And she was attached at his hip, would not leave.

• 1:42:43Jesse Michels?

  So that's interesting. So you have, this is the former director of Arrow, this office we keep bringing up, the kind of authoritative, all-domain anomalous research office. And you have its former director, Kirkpatrick, speaking at some event. And then Susan Goff is just kind of like trailing him constantly.

• 1:43:01Speaker 00

  So this is like November 2023, I think at George Mason University. So I was there, I just happened to be in DC for, for other business. And I went and had a chat with Kirkpatrick afterwards, and Susan was right there. And, and that continues. If you saw the current director, John Kozlosky, just testified.

• 1:43:20Jesse Michels?

  And Susan Goff's in the background, right in the background.

• 1:43:23Speaker 01

  Yeah, right in the front.

• 1:43:24Jesse Michels?

  And so there's this, like, you could, you'd probably find, like, millions of Reddit threads.

• 1:43:28Speaker 00

  The memes are just out of control.

• 1:43:29Jesse Michels?

  That she's like the handler.

• 1:43:31Speaker 01

  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 say.

• 1:43:37Jesse Michels?

  Uh huh.

• 1:43:37Speaker 01

  Not because of something he.

• 1:43:38Speaker 00

  I would like him to say things that he's not supposed to say.

• 1:43:40Speaker 01

  Well, yeah, everybody would. It's just like the lawyers you see behind people. They never whisper to her and ask her whether she should say anything, but then she would leap in and stop him if he says something bad.

• 1:43:50Speaker 00

  I've been around a lot of senior government, we talked about that, like, that is unique. That is unique.

• 1:43:55Speaker 01

  It does seem a little strange, also, that I would like to hear what the explanation is.

• 1:43:59Jesse Michels?

  But she says, she said that the gimbal video is not a training video.

• 1:44:02Speaker 01

  Yeah, a couple of years ago.

• 1:44:04Jesse Michels?

  Did she say anything else? Did she say, I think this video is real?

• 1:44:07Speaker 01

  No, she, she gives these boilerplate answers for a lot of stuff. It's a bit frustrating.

• 1:44:12Jesse Michels?

  Okay, so say a lot without saying anything.

• 1:44:14Speaker 01

  That's like 10 questions and seven of them come back as like, we don't discuss that, in more words. It's a little frustrating.

• 1:44:22Jesse Michels?

  How were you able to get in touch with her?

• 1:44:24Speaker 01

  Just emailed her.

• 1:44:24Jesse Michels?

  Wow. All right.

• 1:44:26Speaker 00

  He doesn't answer my emails.

• 1:44:27Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, I was gonna say, I doubt she would answer mine as well. 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?

• 1:44:38Speaker 01

  On gimbal?

• 1:44:39Jesse Michels?

  Yeah.

• 1:44:39Speaker 01

  Yeah, gimbal. I think, again, we've got the two aspects of it. Is it, is it demonstrating something anomalous and what is it? And with, 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. And that proves that it's some kind of, you know, advanced technology, possibly aliens. The analysis done suggests that it might actually be a camera artifact, rather than the, the actual shape of the object. So what we're seeing here is a saucer shape. It could be just the glare. I know, uh, uh, Mary doesn't like the word glare.

• 1:45:23Speaker 00

  The experts don't like it. They don't know what I'm talking about when I say it.

• 1:45:26Speaker 01

  And the problem with that is that we don't actually have, in optics, the, the terminology for things like glare and lens flare often overlaps.

• 1:45:34Speaker 00

  It's called blooming, it's a well-known artifact.

• 1:45:36Speaker 01

  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 light and dark in the background that rotate. With the object itself when it's rotating, which can suggest that it's the camera that's doing the rotating rather than the object itself. Those things are a little like little diffraction spikes on the top and bottom, left and right, and even a little bit hinted at forty-five degrees on this object, which make it look like it's some kind of optical effect. There's instances where the turn rate of the object kind of seems to deviate from the turn rate of the horizon.

• 1:46:18Speaker 01

  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 for the camera to have to rotate to traverse the forward-looking direction. Because these cameras, it's going to talk a little bit, it's not meant as like the cameras you see under helicopters or even like 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 and then that makes the picture rotate, so it has to de-rotate that afterwards inside the camera using other, a device or using

• 1:47:03Speaker 01

  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 this kind of a shade, little spikes and things. If you turn your head, let's see, 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 rays that come from it are kind of rotating around. Sure, yeah, yeah. And that's what's happening, I think, in this video, that there's an optical effect, similar to what you saw there. I've got spots in my eyes now. And the rotation plus the de-rotation.

• 1:47:50Speaker 01

  Creates this illusion.

• 1:47:53Speaker 00

  So it's like a camera turning plus lack of focus or something?

• 1:47:56Speaker 01

  Yeah, the lack of focus actually might be something that's actually going on there as well, which the focus is something that actually changes the shape of these optical effects. And Mary doesn't like glass, I'm going to call it an optical effect. 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 left S turn about that.

• 1:48:35Speaker 01

  And if you come closer, you get these kind of weird, kind of like J-hooks. They've been described by Ryan Graves, I think. And there's some debate as to whether 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, who are UFO fans, 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, then changed to 6 to 8. I think 6 to 8 is the current testament of the distance, 6 to 8 nautical miles.

• 1:49:20Speaker 01

  And if you do the analysis there, you do get this kind of J-hook, which does somewhat resemble the verbal description of the pilots, or Ryan Graves specifically, when he describes what he saw on the radar page, the SR page. So that's kind of the debate.

• 1:49:38Speaker 00

  Super simple theory, Mike Scott.

• 1:49:39Jesse Michels?

  What do you say, Eric?

• 1:49:40Speaker 00

  Occam, I say Occam. So I put, you've seen this before, but it's quite simple. On one side... What the aviator, what the air crew say is a remarkable match with the data and the video. On the other side, you have these cascading malfunctions in this anomaly, this artifact that nobody's ever heard of. And I've looped you in with, I think, several of the top experts in the world.

• 1:50:07Speaker 01

  Not heard of it when we've got videos of it happening, not this video, other videos.

• 1:50:11Speaker 00

  There's no, there's zero evidence of what you're proposing. None. There's zero empirical evidence of what you're proposing.

• 1:50:17Speaker 01

  Evidence of glare, like in Dave Fauch's videos, for example.

• 1:50:21Speaker 00

  That's all blooming. So, point is, I'm on Team Occam here, and I'm on all the data lines.

• 1:50:27Jesse Michels?

  You say Occam, you're referring to Occam's razor?

• 1:50:30Speaker 00

  Sorry, yes.

• 1:50:31Jesse Michels?

  So Occam's razor, named after William of Occam.

• 1:50:33Speaker 00

  Yes.

• 1:50:34Jesse Michels?

  The most parsimonious, simplest explanation is usually the right one.

• 1:50:37Speaker 00

  It is the assumptions here, the cascading of failures and malfunctions and unseen artifacts that Mick proposes and requires for his theory is just, we'd be here all afternoon and probably through the weekend.

• 1:50:52Speaker 01

  There's kind of a lot missing from the left side of that page.

• 1:50:54Speaker 00

  Oh, okay.

• 1:50:55Speaker 01

  You have to, kind of, you know, my side of the page, basically, gives a complete explanation. Your side of the page just says, "Oh, it was some kind of thing that was moving."

• 1:51:03Speaker 00

  Can I bring my analytic kind of perspective to this real quick?

• 1:51:06Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, yeah, well, yeah. Why is it Occam's razor?

• 1:51:09Speaker 00

  Uh, well, because I don't have to account for an extraordinary amount of malfunctions and never-before-seen...

• 1:51:16Speaker 01

  New technology, so even new physics.

• 1:51:19Speaker 00

  So Occam says nothing about the nature of an assumption. He's talking about purely about volume and the number of assumptions.

• 1:51:24Speaker 01

  He's not talking really about assumptions, he's talking about entities.

• 1:51:28Jesse Michels?

  Least number of entities to explain it.

• 1:51:30Speaker 00

  Correct.

• 1:51:31Jesse Michels?

  Is the right answer.

• 1:51:32Speaker 01

  Quite a big new entity, which is an entirely new form of proposal.

• 1:51:36Speaker 00

  On the nature of the entity. Let me just bring the analytic perspective. So what's super interesting...

• 1:51:40Speaker 01

  You can't just count entities and say, like, "I have one."

• 1:51:43Speaker 00

  Yeah, it's...

• 1:51:43Jesse Michels?

  All right, let me respond.

• 1:51:45Speaker 00

  I mean, it's not volume, it's person, right?

• 1:51:46Speaker 01

  I think Occam will be rolling in his grave if he...

• 1:51:49Jesse Michels?

  Well, I think Occam 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...

• 1:51:56Speaker 01

  He probably wouldn't mind invoking angels.

• 1:51:58Jesse Michels?

  What's that?

• 1:51:59Speaker 01

  He wouldn't mind invoking angels.

• 1:52:00Jesse Michels?

  Oh, he wouldn't. He wouldn't mind invoking God, because that's the least number of entities to explain any miracle, but...

• 1:52:06Speaker 00

  So let me just, let's, let us, just operate off a hypothesis that this was, in fact, a very bright... Very anomalous. Let's just say saucer shape craft. Let's just go with that, just for hypothesis. At the end of the video, it's on its edge, right?

• 1:52:20Speaker 01

  Slightly over.

• 1:52:21Speaker 00

  Okay, fair enough. But it's on its edge.

• 1:52:24Speaker 01

  It goes past vertical.

• 1:52:25Speaker 00

  Okay, fine.

• 1:52:26Speaker 01

  No, just.

• 1:52:27Speaker 00

  No, no.

• 1:52:28Speaker 01

  Fairly fiddly with my details.

• 1:52:30Speaker 00

  No, that's fair enough. 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.

• 1:52:39Speaker 01

  Yeah, yeah, that's, I think Brian Graves, did he say that?

• 1:52:43Speaker 00

  Correct.

• 1:52:44Speaker 01

  And, yeah.

• 1:52:45Speaker 00

  So maybe we'll hear if the aviator comes down and he says it wobbles, that's interesting. So let me just put on my analytic hat real quick and bear with me, I'll do this as quickly as I can. You mentioned the theodolite, the tracking, so in the 1940s, I'm going to list several cases here, and they get very interesting. April 1947, this is months before Kenneth Arnold's sighting, which kicked off the flying saucer craze, if you want to call it that. Four months prior to that, two Weather Bureau employees observed four metallic discs, flat on the bottom, domed on the top. And the US government assessed because of, because they occurred previous to Arnold's sighting,

• 1:53:28Speaker 00

  they were not influenced by hysteria, mass media, anything like that. They reported internally, they never actually said this publicly. So that is quite interesting. Now, let's move on. Portland, 1947, July.

• 1:53:41Speaker 00

  Five law, five police officers see a total of nine discs going in different directions. So five cops, three cops and one cop see different discs going in different directions, wobbling or oscillating. You can see this in the Project Sign raw reporting. New Mexico, this is in the very famous Life magazine article of 1947. One of the Navy's top astronomers observes and takes various precise measurements of a disc that, and he observes it wobbling. Misala, Japan, 1952, training exercise. A guy's flying, doing intercepts, and he sees a disk come up to his plane that engages

• 1:54:21Speaker 00

  in a slow fluttering motion, rocks back and forth, and flipped on its edge. Direct quote, "flipped on its edge." Southern California, Lockheed Martin aircrew is in the air, they see a metallic, sorry, elliptical object flying over the Channel Islands, kind of a hotspot if you're following this. Kelly Johnson, who is the skunkworks, basically 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, and they both saw this object. Pretty credible. He actually goes on to say, "I'm a believer in flying saucers."

• 1:55:05Speaker 00

  The most kind of credentialed aeronautical engineer that we know of, in American history. Exeter, New Hampshire, 1964. Four people, two cops, see a large disk from 100 feet away in 100 feet altitude engaging in a wobbling motion. Westall, 1966, Australia, 200 or 300, depending on the accounts. Students and a teacher see a silver disk sort of banked on its side, then took off at 1,000 miles per hour. Beverly, Massachusetts, 1966. Nine witnesses, two law enforcement officers, see a metallic, plate-like object that hovers 20 feet, according to three women, over their heads. 20 feet! I see Mick rolling his eyes.

• 1:55:48Speaker 00

  I'm just, I'm reporting what people have said. Minot Air Force Base, home of nuclear weapons missiles. A border patrol officer sees a metallic disk. Direct quote, "wobbling on its edge, 30 feet wide, 100 feet away." Six days, five days later, the...

• 1:56:12Speaker 01

  Are you quite sure a lot of UFOs wobble?

• 1:56:15Speaker 00

  The Air Force, these are all in government records, right? Are we noticing a consistency? I'll finish up, I'll be quick.

• 1:56:21Speaker 01

  Well, yeah, because you picked the ones that wobble.

• 1:56:24Speaker 00

  Yeah, they're, these are the close encounters and probably the best-known encounters and you do see a consistency here, right?

• 1:56:31Speaker 01

  Well, I'd have to see what the stats are.

• 1:56:33Speaker 00

  If these witnesses are close enough to observe wobbling, I think they can see the shape, right?

• 1:56:37Speaker 01

  They should be taking photos as well.

• 1:56:38Speaker 00

  Quickly, finish up, Porters County. Law enforcement officers chase a large metallic disk-like object for 90 minutes, going 86 miles. Michigan, swamp gas. You also see large disk-like objects. Redlands, California, this is one of the most extraordinary cases that really hasn't got a lot of press. 200 people, see silver disk, 40 to 50 feet in diameter, 200 feet altitude.

• 1:57:07Speaker 00

  1968, Redlands, California. James McDonald did it. Fair enough. Broadhaven, UK. 10 students, see silver disk. They draw pictures, they're identical. Ariel, we all know the Ariel case, a lot of people know the Ariel case. 62 students see a silver disk. Pictures, identical, this disk is surrounded by...

• 1:57:26Speaker 01

  The pictures are not identical. There's a huge variety of pictures.

• 1:57:29Speaker 00

  It's all the same, it's all the same kind of shape.

• 1:57:31Speaker 01

  They look vaguely like a variety of children's drawings of flying saucers.

• 1:57:35Speaker 00

  So what I'm saying is, you have this extraordinary amount of failures, never before seen artifacts that just happened to...

• 1:57:44Speaker 01

  I'd agree with all the things that are on that thing, and then they all have to happen, I think.

• 1:57:47Jesse Michels?

  What are the failures?

• 1:57:48Speaker 01

  You're missing everything that I've ever hypothesized, is that everything has to happen all at the same time, which isn't true.

• 1:57:54Speaker 00

  Of course it has to happen, right? Because, so you have a radar malfunction, or, so what's on the radar?

• 1:57:58Speaker 01

  I don't know what's on the radar.

• 1:58:00Speaker 00

  You don't know what's, we have to account for it, right? In your theory, you have to account for it.

• 1:58:03Speaker 01

  Well, it could be a distant plane.

• 1:58:04Speaker 00

  Well, what's on the radar that's 6 miles away?

• 1:58:06Speaker 01

  I don't know, it could be like a training exercise type thing, which they said it wasn't, or it could be a malfunction, or it could be some kind of weather abnormal, or it could be balloons. We don't know what it is.

• 1:58:16Speaker 00

  Well, they're going west, so it's coming from the east, so it's going against very strongly. So we can rule balloons on...

• 1:58:20Speaker 01

  We could just cross that out, like, the air crew saw something on the radar, yes, I agree with it. You don't have to account for what it is, you didn't account for what the object actually is. You just said, "The air crew saw this object." You're not telling me what it is, so it's the same thing.

• 1:58:34Speaker 00

  I'm not following, but the bottom line is, can we pull up the video? Because the match, the match between the flight path that we can reconstruct.

• 1:58:46Speaker 00

  Don't mind the F-bombs.

• 1:59:02Jesse Michels?

  And that's the anomalous thing about this video is you have 120 mile not wind.

• 1:59:08Speaker 01

  They're going against it.

• 1:59:09Jesse Michels?

  Correct.

• 1:59:10Speaker 01

  Well, it's not like planes can't fly against the wind.

• 1:59:12Speaker 00

  Well, you said the balloons, so could we rule out balloons?

• 1:59:14Speaker 01

  No, I don't think this is a balloon.

• 1:59:15Speaker 00

  Well, no, 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?

• 1:59:25Speaker 01

  No, I didn't say those could be balloons. That's a different fleet. This is a fleet of five objects.

• 1:59:29Jesse Michels?

  Would a plane be able to rotate like that? I mean, that doesn't.

• 1:59:32Speaker 01

  The fleet is crewed by Ryan Graves. There's nothing at all like the go fast fleet.

• 1:59:35Speaker 00

  We should really dive into the empirical evidence. Let's get to the evidence, right? And we have a lot, if you mind just flipping over to the.

• 1:59:41Speaker 01

  The video is the evidence.

• 1:59:42Speaker 00

  We have empirical evidence of what jets look like 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, but let's just start there. That's, yeah, yep, actually, no. So maybe we can, I don't know if we can play it here, but maybe we can add this in.

• 2:00:02Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, I'd, yeah.

• 2:00:03Speaker 00

  But there's a, we can reconstruct, and Mick mentioned this, kind of this, this vertical U-turn, this J-hook path that matches precisely with what the air crew say that the, 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 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 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's sim, and again, Mick, thank you for. For, you know, making this possible, it is remarkable when you watch that thing just ride up the

• 2:00:48Speaker 00

  the reconstructed flight path. It is, it is a remarkable match.

• 2:00:51Speaker 01

  You keep saying remarkable. I think you, I think you use that word a little bit too much. Because this isn't remarkable. What we're seeing here is a curve that's basically a mathematical projection of the path of the jet onto a straight line in the distance. If you were 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 lines at that point. And if you move them closer, it gets a bit more curvy and 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 Merrick talks about, yes, it happens at about the same time as that curve.

• 2:01:31Speaker 00

  It's exactly the same time.

• 2:01:32Speaker 01

  But that's the same time that we're traversing the singularity in the gimbal, and it has to do these rotations. So it's doing these bigger rotations, and it's not the same. It doesn't match the curve. It happens roughly in the same region.

• 2:01:45Speaker 00

  We can pull up your sim right now. You want to pull up your sim right now and do it?

• 2:01:48Speaker 01

  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 remarkable. It's not a remarkable correlation.

• 2:02:00Speaker 00

  I will let the viewers when we, when we, maybe we can edit, you know, put this in, but I really want to show people what, and this is directly from McSim. I think more importantly, let's just bottom line this.

• 2:02:11Jesse Michels?

  Well, real quick, 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 sort of eyes are playing tricks on them or something?

• 2:02:24Speaker 01

  We obviously don't know what they're seeing, which means either it's just something that they don't recognize.

• 2:02:28Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, but I mean, 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.

• 2:02:39Speaker 00

  The smoking gun for me was that it rotates in steps, and that system, there's zero empirical evidence. None.

• 2:02:46Speaker 01

  We talked to Mrs. Snow.

• 2:02:48Speaker 00

  There's no evidence of that system.

• 2:02:50Speaker 01

  You asked him if he had seen that before, and he said yes.

• 2:02:53Speaker 00

  Yeah, I don't.

• 2:02:54Speaker 01

  He has seen it. You don't believe him, he's the expert.

• 2:02:56Speaker 00

  It's absolutely possible. Nobody else has seen that and is aware of that. That's fair enough. But we did talk to truly the top experts in the world on this.

• 2:03:07Speaker 01

  It won't go on the record, surprisingly.

• 2:03:09Speaker 00

  And that is part of the stigma. I had a Zoom call with one of those individuals. I sent you.

• 2:03:15Jesse Michels?

  Can we say who this is?

• 2:03:16Speaker 00

  I can't, unfortunately. And I had a Zoom call.

• 2:03:18Jesse Michels?

  And when you say experts, experts from a military perspective.

• 2:03:21Speaker 00

  So let me just run through. So we talked to a senior Raytheon engineer who is, let's say, intimately familiar with the system. I don't want to give away too much. We talked to two of the, I'd say, I think it's fair to say that the two top academic experts on this type of technology, not the FLIR, not the, so we have the AT FLIR.

• 2:03:40Speaker 01

  Set of technology.

• 2:03:40Speaker 00

  Yeah, it's called indium antimonide.

• 2:03:43Speaker 01

  Right.

• 2:03:43Speaker 00

  Right, so, and they were all truly perplexed by it. They, the one that I talked to, and to your point about why won't they go on the record, he said, "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, but just the stigma is still there.

• 2:04:02Jesse Michels?

  And what did they say? Did you give them mix up?

• 2:04:04Speaker 00

  Yeah, so we had a lengthy, so basically they debunked Mick's glare on the glass. Would you agree that they debunked your glare on the glass?

• 2:04:11Speaker 01

  The glare on the glass, well, the glare on the glass is a pretty old notion of the theory.

• 2:04:15Speaker 00

  But, yeah. No, that's what you've been saying until we engage his expert. That was your theory.

• 2:04:20Jesse Michels?

  You did just say old version of the theory as if your, the theory is.

• 2:04:24Speaker 01

  Oh, no, glare on the glass was just one possible way that you could get this.

• 2:04:28Speaker 00

  But that's the one you, that's the only thing you've said for seven years about this thing. You never said.

• 2:04:33Speaker 01

  No, it could be something along the internal optical path of the thing. And you, basically, the aperture of the camera creates this diamond shape.

• 2:04:44Speaker 00

  What Mick talks, I really want to show people 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 the, and I, this is part of why I want people to get engaged.

• 2:04:59Speaker 00

  Glare, blooming is when, when there's so much energy being directed at, at 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 is, blooming could not, and... Sorry?

• 2:05:15Speaker 01

  I disagree.

• 2:05:15Speaker 00

  You know, how could blooming?

• 2:05:18Speaker 01

  Blooming could create a shape. I don't think it is blooming, but...

• 2:05:21Speaker 00

  I've got one of the experts right here said, "No blooming in the, in Indiamant." Him and I would not explain this rotation.

• 2:05:26Speaker 01

  That was right after he said Mick might be right, but for the wrong reasons.

• 2:05:29Speaker 00

  No, this is a different expert. And then we had here, I'll just, I'll just leave it at this. One of the top academic experts deferred to one of the top government experts on air-to-air FLIR imagery. This guy, and you saw this, right? He, he specifically 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." "A D-roll axis of the payload would not make this phenomenon of rotation." This is specifically to your theory. And this is, this is arguably the top expert in the US government.

• 2:06:03Speaker 01

  I think...

• 2:06:04Speaker 00

  In air-to-air FLIR imagery.

• 2:06:05Speaker 01

  I think really he, he, you're interpreting things that he told you.

• 2:06:10Speaker 00

  No, I, no, no, no, no, I'm talking about the government expert.

• 2:06:13Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, are you reading verbatim?

• 2:06:14Speaker 00

  Verbatim, I'm directly quoting, and I put this out publicly.

• 2:06:17Speaker 01

  Let me quote him. 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."

• 2:06:30Speaker 00

  Okay, well, I'm, I'm reading what he said.

• 2:06:32Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, well, we all have limited info. I guess specifically, you know, to Merrick's glare point, you, 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?

• 2:06:48Speaker 00

  What, yeah, what is your argument now? Because now that glare's been ruled out, what, what is it? Because these guys are saying glare in quotes.

• 2:06:54Speaker 01

  Yeah, but then they can go on to talk about glare.

• 2:06:56Speaker 00

  No, they didn't.

• 2:06:57Speaker 01

  He says, he says there isn't a point spread function, then he talks about a point for its spread function.

• 2:07:01Speaker 00

  He's, he puts glare in quotes, and he says it's all an internal, and Yannick did it, did a great job. Yannick said, "How do you reconcile this quote glare on the glass, all the self-congratulating discussions on MetaBunk about glare spread for glaring simple artifacts?"

• 2:07:14Speaker 01

  That's our expert, so is it?

• 2:07:15Speaker 00

  Uh, that glow, that grows with the, all the, you know, right? How, how do you? And, and this is the best part. So Mick's Big Explainer video is based on a...

• 2:07:25Speaker 00

  A cheap, what is it, 200 bucks FLIR camera? That this expert said is not a good comparison.

• 2:07:31Speaker 01

  That was just an example of how you can get a rotation glare.

• 2:07:34Speaker 00

  He literally calls you out. It's not a good comparison. There is no empirical evidence.

• 2:07:40Speaker 01

  A FLIR one, which could cost $200 versus an at FLIR which costs a million dollars is not going to be a very good comparison.

• 2:07:46Speaker 00

  So anyway, bottom line is, we have a lot, we have a ton of air-to-air footage. And there's zero empirical evidence.

• 2:07:53Speaker 01

  Experts who don't want to be quoted.

• 2:07:56Speaker 00

  Okay. You want to loop me in? Because I looped you in all the experts.

• 2:07:59Speaker 01

  Loop you in on what?

• 2:08:00Speaker 00

  Emails.

• 2:08:00Speaker 01

  That was it. That was the email. I asked him if I could reuse his material.

• 2:08:05Speaker 00

  I thought you were bringing somebody new to the table.

• 2:08:06Speaker 01

  The other expert, the rating and engineer. He said, he told you not 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."

• 2:08:22Speaker 00

  I'm putting out, I believe that this is more important than the stigma. These guys are fighting a stigma.

• 2:08:29Speaker 01

  So you think they're debunking me, but they just won't talk? They won't go on the record?

• 2:08:34Speaker 00

  No expert in the world agrees with you. I know you're eager for Arrow to debunk this because you thought they were doing lab experiments that Kirkpatrick 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.

• 2:08:50Speaker 01

  Well, Arrow's only been working on it a couple of years, I guess. They're very slow, very slow.

• 2:08:55Speaker 00

  Well, they did Agua Día. They're doing a whole, don't you want a show where they debunk?

• 2:08:59Speaker 01

  Interesting thing, I see Agua Día, like when you talk about experts.

• 2:09:01Speaker 00

  Let's stay on Gimbal.

• 2:09:02Speaker 01

  Well, just very, very quickly, I think Agua Día has the SCU. The Coalition for Study of... And they did like a 200-page document on it, a bunch of different experts, people with PhDs. They think it's some kind of...

• 2:09:19Speaker 00

  Why do you think Arrow hasn't, or anybody hasn't, why has nobody backed you on your study? And why?

• 2:09:24Speaker 01

  Well, they backed me on Agua Día, and they backed me on the triangles.

• 2:09:27Speaker 00

  On Gimbal.

• 2:09:28Speaker 01

  Because they haven't finished their analysis yet.

• 2:09:30Speaker 00

  Okay, I think that's a stretch. Why is there no academic literature that supports your glare theory? It's all blooming.

• 2:09:38Speaker 01

  Because it's not a very common thing. It's not something that happens all the time. 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.

• 2:09:53Speaker 00

  There's an active-duty whiz, though. Based on them being in narrow field of zoom, 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.

• 2:10:11Speaker 00

  He uses the system every day, life and death, right? They rely on this system.

• 2:10:15Speaker 01

  Yeah, but I never see how that can be determined from what we're seeing on screen.

• 2:10:19Jesse Michels?

  Yeah.

• 2:10:21Speaker 01

  If you point the camera at the sun, it doesn't look like it's 10 miles away, but you'll guess something.

• 2:10:24Jesse Michels?

  One other fact I just want to introduce is that possibly this was also involved the formation of other...

• 2:10:31Speaker 00

  Correct, that's the fleet. And Ryan has done it, to his credit, and we can maybe throw this up, I put it in the slides, but he's recreated this, and it's kind of a V-shaped formation. When the object does this very bizarre kind of reversal of direction with no radius of turn, they kind of do a jumbled turn, and then they proceed and go in the same direction as that object. So they're all moving together in concert, basically, is the recollection from the top-down view from the radar.

• 2:11:01Speaker 01

  His recreation isn't actually that good because it doesn't incorporate the rotation of the plane.

• 2:11:05Speaker 00

  That's fair. But what is your theory now? Now that the glare in the glass has basically been ruled out, what is your theory?

• 2:11:12Speaker 01

  I think what we see here is some kind of optical effect that is rotating because of the rotation mechanism.

• 2:11:17Speaker 00

  And what evidence do you have for that?

• 2:11:19Speaker 01

  Well, for a start, there's the bands of light in the dark that are rotating in the background. Does the fact that the rotation exactly matches the needed rotation?

• 2:11:25Speaker 00

  So no, it doesn't, right? You don't know the pitch angle of that jetty. You picked a random number.

• 2:11:29Speaker 01

  No, it changes... It was not a random number, it was 3.6, which is exactly what the F-16's...

• 2:11:35Speaker 00

  F-18.

• 2:11:35Speaker 01

  ...team...

• 2:11:36Speaker 00

  So they were in a max range profile. You were in a max range profile. You already have, you're already wrong right there.

• 2:11:41Speaker 01

  Well, if you change that, it doesn't really change it very much. It's just slightly offsets the curve.

• 2:11:45Speaker 00

  It changes, anyway, it does change it. We can go down that rabbit hole.

• 2:11:48Speaker 01

  But we should. Not right now, obviously, but...

• 2:11:54Speaker 00

  Bottom line is, I think... We need to hear from, hopefully from the back.

• 2:11:58Speaker 01

  You can see by looking at it that it's an optical effect. If you actually look at this thing, you see the light and dark rotation in the background. I know you said you've found some anonymous experts that won't go on record.

• 2:12:10Speaker 00

  I shared you, I sent the email to you.

• 2:12:12Speaker 01

  Yeah, but like if it's not getting the record, it's kind of useless.

• 2:12:14Speaker 00

  Well, okay. What you know, I do, I loop you in it. So you've brought none, no experts to me? I brought all the experts to you.

• 2:12:21Speaker 01

  That's, that's great, but it brings some experts to the public. It's not that useful just bringing them to you.

• 2:12:26Speaker 00

  Unfortunately, the stigma that you promote is, is a big part of why they don't want to come out.

• 2:12:30Speaker 01

  I encourage them to come forward. Like, come forward and I won't laugh at you. I mean, there's lots of scientists who aren't afraid of being, being, like, doing proper analysis.

• 2:12:39Jesse Michels?

  I'll kind of straw man both the arguments here.

• 2:12:43Speaker 00

  Please do.

• 2:12:43Jesse Michels?

  I think on Merrick, your side, I think we need more of these people to come out to, to, to gain confidence on this. Both on the expert's side and then the operators of these FLIR systems and the pilots themselves. And then on your side, Mick, I think you probably have to take prima facie, you know, this, this, this operator of this FLIR system, this, this pilot who is saying, whoa, like this is, this is crazy. Like that, I mean, they have to, I mean, the idea that it's an F-18 and that this is happening around the GoFAST as well. And that it's in this bizarre formation.

• 2:13:24Jesse Michels?

  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.

• 2:13:33Speaker 01

  They're not turning, it turns automatically.

• 2:13:35Jesse Michels?

  Sure, but if you're like, if you're like highly aware of like the camera turning.

• 2:13:39Speaker 01

  Yeah, not though. David Fravor like kind of discussed this hypothesis and he said the camera doesn't turn, which I just probably wrong. Because from his perspective, the camera appears not to turn. The camera turns when it tracks something going underneath the plane. It means through that.

• 2:13:51Jesse Michels?

  You're saying David Fravor isn't like familiar with like basic, like locking and tracking?

• 2:13:58Speaker 01

  He's familiar with using it. So he knows, he knows what buttons to press and 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.

• 2:14:11Jesse Michels?

  So you think 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.

• 2:14:23Speaker 01

  Right.

• 2:14:23Jesse Michels?

  After he sees this, he doesn't see anything like it?

• 2:14:27Speaker 00

  Nobody's seen anything like this.

• 2:14:29Speaker 01

  That's why we've got this video. It's this once in a 20-year thing that's happened.

• 2:14:34Speaker 00

  When the pilot says...

• 2:14:35Speaker 01

  They've won the lottery of...

• 2:14:37Speaker 00

  Use a little bit of jargon here. And it just happened to occur right amid all these encounters. When the pilot says, "That is the LNS," and I'll just explain, the LNS is the launch and steering, which is the selected radar target. What does that mean to you? So let me just explain, like, the whizzo says, "Hey, is that our radar target on our FLIR, 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 he meant when they briefed Congress and says, "We knew it was not a false hit. We knew that we had a stable radar lock, a stable track file on it."

• 2:15:19Speaker 00

  When they mentioned closest point of intercept. Mick, you know what the JEMEC system is, right? It places... How does your theory square with all the technology? Let me just quickly... It's basically like an Apple Vision kind of thing, a visor that puts...

• 2:15:36Speaker 01

  Opens to reality.

• 2:15:37Speaker 00

  Yeah, it pumps all the data and you'll get a little box like where if there's a target somewhere.

• 2:15:41Speaker 01

  Ryan talked about it in your...

• 2:15:42Speaker 00

  So how do you square, like, let's just start with the LNS, right? The pilot says, "That is, yes, that's our radar target."

• 2:15:49Speaker 01

  It's actually a bit instinctive to what he actually says, but what we see on the...

• 2:15:52Speaker 00

  That is the LNS.

• 2:15:53Speaker 01

  What we see on the screen here is an optical track. It's actually tracking it using the contrast on the screen. So what you might be referring to is something that's on the SA page. Which would be like the nearer radar target.

• 2:16:09Speaker 00

  No, the the wizard asked, hey, is that is that thing that we're looking on the FLIR?

• 2:16:12Speaker 01

  He didn't say that thing I was looking in the FLIR.

• 2:16:14Speaker 00

  He said, is that, I'm trying to remember what he said.

• 2:16:17Speaker 01

  Is that LNS dude?

• 2:16:18Speaker 00

  Is that, that is the LNS.

• 2:16:20Speaker 01

  The other guy said, yeah, that is LNS. He didn't know what he's referring to. It could be like.

• 2:16:24Speaker 00

  The selected radar target. That's what the LNS is.

• 2:16:28Speaker 01

  Well, yes, but like, is that that? Or is that a different target? Because they also saw this fleet of things.

• 2:16:34Speaker 00

  So so there just happened to be a distant jet exactly where the close thing is? Is that what you're saying?

• 2:16:40Speaker 01

  Behind us somewhere.

• 2:16:41Speaker 00

  Really? So it just happened? Like, this is the odds of this?

• 2:16:44Jesse Michels?

  So you're saying that they're referring to another?

• 2:16:46Speaker 01

  You're very familiar with this theory of mine, Mike. I think this is a.

• 2:16:49Speaker 00

  Wait, so let me just.

• 2:16:50Speaker 01

  Playing to the cryo here a little.

• 2:16:52Speaker 00

  Hold on, hold on. So you you they have this radar target, right? It's six miles away and directly behind it.

• 2:16:57Speaker 01

  More or less, yeah.

• 2:16:58Speaker 00

  Is some some other jet and doing like showing in a it's heat source or engine in in a way that's never been seen before in a malfunctioning pod in a what else we have? Malfunctioning of all the electronic identification systems like it's just cascading failures. I can't wrap my head. I hope I'm like getting through to people, but it's just it is. It is pretty wild to me that.

• 2:17:23Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, it seems unlikely, right?

• 2:17:25Speaker 00

  They're perfectly lined up.

• 2:17:27Jesse Michels?

  You would just say what like law of large numbers or something?

• 2:17:30Speaker 00

  And we've never the AT FLIR does not rotate its steps. If it's malfunctioning, maybe I don't I I just find that hard to believe. By the way, the patent, literally the patent, which you looked up, the patent, there's a sentence in there. They explicitly, we can pull it up explicitly, just proves your theory.

• 2:17:46Jesse Michels?

  Why does it? Why is the why is the patent explicitly?

• 2:17:48Speaker 00

  Well, we can. We can go. I know we have to wrap up and.

• 2:17:50Jesse Michels?

  No, no, we're good. We have till four now, so.

• 2:17:51Speaker 00

  Oh, wow. Geez. Okay.

• 2:17:53Jesse Michels?

  Yeah.

• 2:17:53Speaker 00

  I don't know if I can. I listen.

• 2:17:54Jesse Michels?

  You tell me where the patent is.

• 2:17:57Speaker 00

  It's towards.

• 2:17:58Speaker 01

  There's a lot of things at the very end. Right. They says, for example, that they.

• 2:18:02Speaker 00

  Yeah, that's right.

• 2:18:02Speaker 01

  It will avoid using roll in the.

• 2:18:04Speaker 00

  So so this is super jargony. Mick knows what I mean. This this on its face just proves your theory.

• 2:18:13Jesse Michels?

  Spacely saying that it avoids rotation of the air.

• 2:18:15Speaker 01

  What are the three words before that paragraph?

• 2:18:17Speaker 00

  Uh, in some embodiments, that is, any patent experts will know that is in every single patent, that language.

• 2:18:24Speaker 01

  Yeah. And then afterwards, for example, these patents are very broad.

• 2:18:30Jesse Michels?

  Wait, wait, we have to describe to the audience what the patent is.

• 2:18:34Speaker 00

  Yeah, so this explicitly, so Mick says, this is so, it hurts, 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 find out. We'll put the video up, we modeled it out, and it's just like this super chill, it doesn't do this for rotation.

• 2:18:54Jesse Michels?

  Right.

• 2:18:54Speaker 00

  Because you remember, in the Gimbal video, it does 1, 2, 3, 4, right? Normally, the patent says it would just do a very simple, very gradual, nothing aggressive.

• 2:19:03Speaker 01

  It doesn't say that.

• 2:19:05Speaker 00

  Absolutely, so it says, it says...

• 2:19:07Speaker 01

  It says in some embodiments, it only uses the two axes, which would do that smooth rotation.

• 2:19:11Speaker 00

  Correct.

• 2:19:12Speaker 01

  But it doesn't say that the app layer that was used that day is that particular embodiment.

• 2:19:17Speaker 00

  So, and also, this was a patent from, I believe, 2006.

• 2:19:23Speaker 01

  Uh-huh. And we're talking about the Gimbal video, which was filmed several years later, and you know from talking to Mr. Snow, these systems change quite a lot over time.

• 2:19:32Jesse Michels?

  But wouldn't they get smoother, not less?

• 2:19:34Speaker 00

  Correct.

• 2:19:34Jesse Michels?

  Not more?

• 2:19:35Speaker 00

  Mechanically, it makes no sense to do this crazy stop and go.

• 2:19:38Speaker 01

  The image is what you want to be smooth. And if you notice in the Gimbal video, it actually kind of like loses a lot, 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.

• 2:19:50Jesse Michels?

  But the rotation, the rotation wouldn't be more jagged, right? It wouldn't be more like blocked.

• 2:19:56Speaker 01

  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 first.

• 2:20:04Speaker 00

  Is there a trade-off there? Introducing steps is the worst part, because it's, you're like, starting, stopping, starting, stopping.

• 2:20:08Speaker 01

  Well, not if you have a very agile mirror system in there that can counter those.

• 2:20:12Speaker 00

  So we're purely in speculation, that speculation, that's what we actually have, and that explicitly disproves your theory.

• 2:20:19Speaker 01

  Well, they also have the description of the mirror systems in there, with like plus or minus 3 degrees of sloth.

• 2:20:24Speaker 00

  And that has nothing to do with Gimbal.

• 2:20:25Speaker 01

  Which is about the same deviation from the line we get with the steps.

• 2:20:30Speaker 00

  Sorry, I don't fall. The point is the pad.

• 2:20:33Speaker 01

  We know that we don't have to point directly or something. We can use the mirrors to steer, the extra mirrors.

• 2:20:39Speaker 00

  No. It just doesn't work that way. There's no evidence of that. You need evidence. There's no evidence of glare. There's no evidence of rotating glare. There's no evidence of any of this.

• 2:20:48Speaker 01

  Well, we've just gone over all the evidence on it. You can see it on the screen that we have a optical effect.

• 2:20:54Speaker 00

  You can't use the gimbal video to prove your theory for the gimbal video. That's impossible.

• 2:21:00Speaker 01

  I'm just using it to show that there's actually some kind of optical effects going on.

• 2:21:04Speaker 00

  I hope we can maybe, if you want, is to quickly look at some imagery of what the camera, how it actually records jet engine exhaust.

• 2:21:12Jesse Michels?

  So where are we going?

• 2:21:13Speaker 00

  Yeah, exactly.

• 2:21:14Speaker 01

  Yeah, while you're doing that, I would like to encourage anybody out there who understands this to weigh in.

• 2:21:20Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 2:21:21Speaker 01

  Because we need more people looking into this.

• 2:21:23Speaker 00

  I think that's the...

• 2:21:24Speaker 01

  Is it just me and Mario going back and forth?

• 2:21:26Jesse Michels?

  No, we need more analysis, more credible eyes, people with rigorous backgrounds.

• 2:21:30Speaker 01

  We need experts to actually speak on the reference.

• 2:21:32Jesse Michels?

  Agreed. But also people who know, because a lot of this stuff is just the systems and how they work. Like, we're debating these, you know, obscure, like, Raytheon patents.

• 2:21:41Speaker 00

  This is absurd. I know, I know.

• 2:21:45Speaker 01

  I'm just giving... We need something that's 30 miles away.

• 2:21:47Jesse Michels?

  And by the way, to the extent you're not compromising American national security.

• 2:21:50Speaker 00

  Yes, please, don't.

• 2:21:51Jesse Michels?

  If you are not, I think it's your patriotic duty to come out.

• 2:21:55Speaker 00

  I agree.

• 2:21:56Jesse Michels?

  And if you are, then maybe stay where you are.

• 2:21:58Speaker 00

  I agree. So, varying distances, the engine exhaust...

• 2:22:04Speaker 01

  It gets bigger and bigger.

• 2:22:05Speaker 00

  No, it doesn't. In fact, it gets smaller, and I have a video. I can show it. So this is from the same video, and this is a lot further away at the end of it, and it gets smaller. So, Raytheon, I believe it looks like they have some anti-blooming effects on there, so that is the opposite of what you are suggesting. And if you scroll, if you go down one more.

• 2:22:30Jesse Michels?

  So this is the glare to wing size ratio.

• 2:22:32Speaker 00

  I'm sorry.

• 2:22:33Jesse Michels?

  Yeah.

• 2:22:33Speaker 00

  That's exhausting. Glare, don't use glare. Glare doesn't exist. It really doesn't exist. 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 the mixed theory. That's mixed theory right there.

• 2:22:46Speaker 01

  Yes, a point light source can, will create a thing, a specific size on the sensor. So it doesn't really matter how big it is. If that light was a very, very small.

• 2:22:54Jesse Michels?

  What is the light source, though? Internal optical?

• 2:22:57Speaker 01

  It's not light. It's, uh, it's, it's the heat of the engines. With, this is a thermal camera, so we're looking at this, uh, camera of this 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 sensor blooming, probably not, though.

• 2:23:15Jesse Michels?

  I, I'm, I'm, look, I'm, I'm just a bystander here, 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 just so bad. If it's like this heat source, it's fuzzy, and it's just like...

• 2:23:31Speaker 01

  It doesn't happen every day, though.

• 2:23:31Jesse Michels?

  What's that?

• 2:23:32Speaker 01

  It doesn't happen every day. It's not like it's, uh, this is going on all the time.

• 2:23:35Jesse Michels?

  But if 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.

• 2:23:44Speaker 01

  Arrow, Arrow thinks it's a glare.

• 2:23:46Jesse Michels?

  Arrow thinks it's a glare?

• 2:23:47Speaker 00

  That's not true.

• 2:23:48Jesse Michels?

  Did you do that?

• 2:23:49Speaker 00

  No.

• 2:23:49Jesse Michels?

  What? I don't know.

• 2:23:50Speaker 00

  Kirkpatrick thought Gimbal was filmed during the daytime.

• 2:23:52Speaker 01

  Yeah, but they thought what they're actually working on is the assumption that this is some kind of glare, some kind of, well, an optical effect.

• 2:24:00Speaker 00

  I, I don't think there's any evidence of that.

• 2:24:02Speaker 01

  All right, well, this will, we'll, we'll see eventually.

• 2:24:03Speaker 00

  Well, you said that, you said that right before this hearing. You're like, oh, well, like, you, you, you're very excited. Oh, we can't wait to see what Arrow has to say about this. The hearing came and went.

• 2:24:11Speaker 01

  They gave us Go fast and aguadi, which was, which was good, but, uh...

• 2:24:14Speaker 00

  Well, now, now they're, now they're in a tough spot with Go fast, as we said, because the air crew's gonna, um, uh, contradict them.

• 2:24:22Speaker 01

  Yeah, well, then they'll, they'll take that new information into their analysis.

• 2:24:25Speaker 00

  So there's, there's, that is just absurd to me based on the empirical evidence, right? That shape, if you go up...

• 2:24:31Speaker 01

  That matches the, uh, the Chilean case. Yeah, almost exactly.

• 2:24:34Speaker 00

  And then it's a size. So first of all, that's blooming, right? Chilean, the Chilean case is blooming.

• 2:24:39Jesse Michels?

  Can you explain what blooming is?

• 2:24:39Speaker 00

  Yeah. So it's, it's, again, when like, a sensor gets hit with, a pixel gets hit with too much energy.

• 2:24:46Jesse Michels?

  Yeah.

• 2:24:46Speaker 00

  That, it'll spill over to other pixels.

• 2:24:48Jesse Michels?

  Yeah.

• 2:24:49Speaker 00

  Right? And, and that's what we see in the Chilean case. That is an apples to oranges. That's it.

• 2:24:53Speaker 01

  Can you explain what glare is?

• 2:24:55Speaker 00

  It's relevant to this conversation.

• 2:24:57Speaker 01

  Oh, but you said like it doesn't exist.

• 2:25:00Speaker 00

  And sorry, in infrared.

• 2:25:01Speaker 01

  Why not?

• 2:25:03Speaker 00

  I'm going off of the people who are experts on this.

• 2:25:06Speaker 01

  So why do they talk about a point spread function if glare doesn't exist in infrared?

• 2:25:11Speaker 00

  He was talking, I'm pretty sure he was talking about your FLIR 1 example.

• 2:25:15Speaker 01

  No.

• 2:25:16Jesse Michels?

  What point spread function?

• 2:25:17Speaker 01

  Point spread function is when how it's a mathematical model of how light spreads from a point. So any point on the famous photo of the scene.

• 2:25:26Jesse Michels?

  What context are they bringing up the point spread function?

• 2:25:29Speaker 01

  In the context of glare, essentially. Nick, it was a little confusing, this paragraph, and it was something I wanted to talk to you more, but you never responded to my emails.

• 2:25:38Speaker 00

  I emailed with him this morning, actually.

• 2:25:39Speaker 01

  The second expert.

• 2:25:42Speaker 01

  If you, usually the point spread function is kind of like a curve that goes like this, a very, very sharp curve like that. And that's how light spreads from a, any pixel on the, on the entire scene, spreads according to this, this function. So for things that are pretty dim, like most of the 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 edges of this, this point spread function. And you can use this to mystic and model optical effects.

• 2:26:23Speaker 01

  And they use it to model glare 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 because you're going to get some scatter from imperfections in the mirrors, possibly in the lenses. And you can also incorporate that into the sensor blooming as well. This is called, I think. Optical transfer function is the entire thing. It's point spread plus the sensor spread as well. So these are details that we, I think, like, experts should be able to weigh in.

• 2:26:56Speaker 00

  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, three months ago?

• 2:27:07Speaker 01

  Not it?

• 2:27:08Speaker 00

  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.

• 2:27:16Speaker 01

  I was saying that if, if part of the camera rotates, or if the camera itself rotates, then it rotates. That was the easiest way of demonstrating. Since then, I've been doing it by rotating a camera, like you can actually, you know.

• 2:27:25Speaker 00

  So basically, what you've been saying for seven years is wrong.

• 2:27:29Speaker 01

  No, no, it's, it's improved.

• 2:27:31Speaker 00

  No, no, no, it's, the glare on the glass has been disproven, which you've been, you went on CNN.

• 2:27:36Speaker 01

  Well, according to you, it's been disproven, but I don't think it has been disproven.

• 2:27:39Speaker 00

  How do you, from Yannick, how do you reconcile this with the glare on the glass?

• 2:27:43Speaker 01

  Well, according to Yannick, your co-author on the paper.

• 2:27:46Speaker 00

  He quoted, he quotes the effort.

• 2:27:50Speaker 00

  The quote glare that Mick mentions is likely from boost filters, high-pass filtering, edge shut. That's all internal, that's not on the glass.

• 2:27:57Speaker 01

  Yeah, but he's assuming that the glass is clean.

• 2:28:00Speaker 00

  Oh, so we're back to the, so. At one point, 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.

• 2:28:14Speaker 01

  I've got video of that happening, the guy just manhandling one of those systems with his hands.

• 2:28:18Speaker 00

  And I'm sure it was cleaned after, because there's, there's pretty darn good maintenance on these, on these systems.

• 2:28:23Speaker 01

  Soon as they get up in the air, they're going for a clean.

• 2:28:27Speaker 00

  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.

• 2:28:34Speaker 01

  I've heard people say that.

• 2:28:35Speaker 00

  I mean.

• 2:28:36Speaker 01

  I don't think that's what happened, because 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've, I've got a camera that gives a very similar, uh, shape to that, so my little.

• 2:28:51Speaker 00

  Maybe you can recap. So you have a malfunctioning. Mechanical malfunction. It has to be.

• 2:28:58Speaker 01

  No, we don't know that for sure because we don't know if there's an embodiment that doesn't have smooth steps.

• 2:29:02Speaker 00

  There's zero evidence for that. You have to, you have to provide evidence.

• 2:29:05Speaker 01

  You don't have evidence either way, really.

• 2:29:07Speaker 00

  Absolutely. There's tons of footage of, you know this.

• 2:29:11Speaker 01

  Well, you once like used a Top Gun Maverick as evidence.

• 2:29:14Speaker 00

  I was joking. Oh my God. You realize I was joking, right?

• 2:29:17Speaker 01

  No, because you didn't, you seemed very, very serious at the time.

• 2:29:21Speaker 00

  It was on a tweet for crying out loud. We have, there's tons of.

• 2:29:23Speaker 01

  What else is on tweets?

• 2:29:24Speaker 00

  There's tons of actual video evidence of how these systems rotate and it's a nice gradual, simple.

• 2:29:31Speaker 01

  Not really.

• 2:29:31Speaker 00

  Absolutely.

• 2:29:32Speaker 01

  We see it from the outside rotating.

• 2:29:35Speaker 00

  You can see it on the edges. Tracking of. I have a two minute long video, a very nice, smooth.

• 2:29:40Jesse Michels?

  Let's move on before 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 kind of locking rotation.

• 2:29:49Speaker 00

  How like you, you're saying there's a distant jet right, literally exactly in the line of sight.

• 2:29:56Speaker 01

  Roughly.

• 2:29:57Speaker 00

  Uh huh. Okay. And then, uh, we have a route of 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.

• 2:30:09Speaker 01

  And you're saying that it's like this, uh, new advanced technology, possibly aliens.

• 2:30:13Speaker 00

  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.

• 2:30:28Jesse Michels?

  Well, you bring up an interesting point. You say, you know, um, new advanced technology or possibly aliens. Uh, Dr. Stephen 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 Nimitz stuff, you know, that's all, you know, Lockheed Martin special access programs. And we'll say that, you know, they're red teaming our detection systems or spoofing us or something.

• 2:30:56Speaker 01

  Which people say doesn't happen.

• 2:30:59Jesse Michels?

  So do you, do you guys have opinions on that? Do you think that that's at all possible that some of these?

• 2:31:03Speaker 00

  Well, I think these guys are training. For war, they're not going to do that to guys that are training for war in a training airspace. It's alright.

• 2:31:09Jesse Michels?

  That was when I spoke to Ryan Graves.

• 2:31:11Speaker 01

  That kind of leaves aliens then. Sorry, that kind of leaves aliens. My basic point here is that if we're going to entertain extraordinary options like aliens, or even advanced technology being used by the Chinese or the Russians, then we should also entertain things like maybe there's a series of coincidences that happen.

• 2:31:28Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, I think we should entertain all options.

• 2:31:31Speaker 00

  Entertain all options, but at some point it just borders on the ridiculous.

• 2:31:35Speaker 01

  I'm sorry, but aliens borders on the ridiculous.

• 2:31:37Speaker 00

  The historical record is pretty remarkable of identical performance characteristics. Wobbling.

• 2:31:44Speaker 01

  Or identical eyewitness reports and people are very similar. They've got similar brains and they report things in the same way. You picked all the ones that wobble?

• 2:31:52Speaker 00

  I picked the ones that are...

• 2:31:53Speaker 01

  Where are all the videos of wobbling discs?

• 2:31:55Speaker 00

  I picked the ones that are the best known and they just happen to wobble.

• 2:32:00Jesse Michels?

  When it comes to, you know, secret American craft, again, I 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 Lockheed, I think of Skunk Works projects currently are classified. And so, yeah, are there things, red teaming our systems? And 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 Naval Aerospace Oceana in Virginia.

• 2:32:42Jesse Michels?

  And he basically, one of his people in his squadron, fighter pilots, the object almost hit the pilot and it was this spear inside a cube. And he was like, they're not going to put us in danger if they're kind of red teaming our systems. So I don't know.

• 2:33:00Speaker 00

  And you don't, yeah, you don't do that over international. We have ranges for that. We have designated airspace for this kind of stuff.

• 2:33:07Speaker 01

  I think it's possible that the radar hits were some kind of red teaming thing because it doesn't really put anybody in danger because there's no actual targets.

• 2:33:15Jesse Michels?

  But in this case, it was a pilot almost hitting the object.

• 2:33:17Speaker 01

  In that case, yeah, that's the same thing. But in the Gimbal thing, for example.

• 2:33:20Jesse Michels?

  You think it's radar spoofing or something?

• 2:33:22Speaker 01

  Yeah, some kind of radar interference. Perhaps there was a distant jet and the radar got messed up and it made it appear. So one actually told me that as a possibility.

• 2:33:30Speaker 00

  How does it account, like, how did, if it's something like that, how do you get five, what, five or six objects moving in concert like that?

• 2:33:38Speaker 01

  Well, it's the same. It's just one object. You're getting five echoes of it or something. I don't understand the details, but someone did actually mention that to me as a possibility. Someone who was familiar with radar, obviously doesn't want to speak on the record because of the stigma that I'm perpetuating. But yeah, it's, I don't know. How can we, how can we move forward with this? I think we actually do need more input.

• 2:34:01Speaker 00

  Let's get the whizzo out there.

• 2:34:03Speaker 01

  Get the whizzo. Let's get people who actually understand the system to speak on it. And that would be really good.

• 2:34:10Speaker 00

  Please, come out and talk to us.

• 2:34:12Speaker 01

  I've tried to contact Raytheon and they said, oh, you should talk to the Navy. And of course, the Navy doesn't want to talk to you.

• 2:34:18Jesse Michels?

  They clam up. As soon as it's UAP, they clam up. It's, I see it over and over and over again.

• 2:34:23Speaker 01

  Arrow will eventually release something, but yeah, I'm skeptical whether it's going to be a comprehensive explanation of what's going on.

• 2:34:30Speaker 00

  You were, okay.

• 2:34:31Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, we should, we should move on. Yeah, okay. So USS Omaha. This is a very controversial, interesting case. July of 2019, off the coast of San Diego. It was released by, I believe, George Knapp and Jeremy Corbell.

• 2:34:46Speaker 00

  Correct.

• 2:34:46Jesse Michels?

  Admiral Gallaudet, who just testified before Congress, might have some more interesting info about this case. I think it's mixed. Turn to T S O.

• 2:34:57Speaker 01

  Yeah, I'm not actually that familiar with it, but I'll give you my take on it. The video we're going to look at is the sphere descending into the sea. Yeah, so this is like, it's taken off the screen in the command center of the ship. We're looking at thermal video again, so we're seeing like a heat source, possibly glare or blooming. And it's, it kind of looks like it was moving around at first, but that's actually just the camera moving, the camera that's actually recording the thing, not the other camera. There's a cut in the video where it kind of jumps down to a lower level. It's actually descending really, really slowly without those cuts where it's just above the horizon. It's not really moving at all.

• 2:35:40Speaker 01

  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, it expands and then it shrinks again and disappears. And I think that at the end of it, they say splash down, splash, splash, bearing a range. So they think that it's actually gone into the water. 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 either blooming or glaring, and then it goes behind the horizon. And there's some dispute as to exactly where the horizon is. If you move the horizon up or down one pixel, it's in front of it. If you move it a pixel the other way, it's behind it.

• 2:36:25Speaker 01

  There was a guy, I think Dr. Phil Metzger, Metzger? He did some analysis of that. I published it on Twitter and said it was very ambiguous as to where the actual horizon was. But it's very similar to like, yeah, a light going behind a solid object will actually shrink if it's a point source as it goes behind it rather than just disappearing. So we don't know why it is. It appears to be moving, I think it appears to be moving northerly and the wind is coming from that direction.

• 2:36:55Speaker 00

  Pretty strong winds too.

• 2:36:56Speaker 01

  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 horizon. But there's various interpretations and there's more analysis.

• 2:37:13Speaker 00

  Yeah, well, maybe just paint a broader picture. This is part of six, five or six months long incursions over these naval vessels off the Channel Islands and off the coast of Southern California, multiple ships. And they were reporting, in fact, Jeremy and George released a video of basically two red lights from the Omaha that night. And we know that 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, and the ship is getting swarmed. I think at one point I counted 10, 12?

• 2:37:56Jesse Michels?

  It said up to 14 objects were observed simultaneously. The objects were described as self-illuminated spheres, approximately six feet in diameter. So it kind of comports with your kind of orb, you know, general description.

• 2:38:09Speaker 00

  Back to the orb thing that has been consistent. So, you know, where to begin? Jeez. Number one, you can see in the indicator that they did have a radar contact at one point, a slade of the radar, you saw that R, we know the symbology. So again, this is like the Gimbal, like, the system says it's tracking a radar target. The system's saying that.

• 2:38:29Speaker 01

  But it clearly isn't in this one. It's been done by Joysticks, someone's manually moving the camera around.

• 2:38:34Speaker 00

  And they probably, just like with Gimbal, they, same thing, they probably had the radar drop it off in those things. So you're saying the same thing happened again? Like, they missed the actual radar target?

• 2:38:43Speaker 01

  I don't know what happened there. Maybe that was the actual radar target.

• 2:38:46Speaker 00

  Okay.

• 2:38:47Speaker 01

  Maybe.

• 2:38:48Speaker 00

  And we have the radar, and it's all within like six miles, five, six miles, all those radar contacts.

• 2:38:53Speaker 01

  Well, yeah, but that doesn't mean that's the only contact. Like, you can...

• 2:38:57Speaker 00

  So you don't, so you think, so you think, so they're surrounded by like 14 ob, whatever it is, I counted, there's a lot, right, on that radar footage, and you think they decided to focus on the object that's 60 miles away, slowly going over the horizon?

• 2:39:12Speaker 01

  It was telling me what the video looks like. It looks like...

• 2:39:14Speaker 00

  I mean, it's just, come on, you gotta apply a little common sense here.

• 2:39:17Speaker 01

  Well, it looks like a plane flying away to me. It's very, very similar to the...

• 2:39:20Speaker 00

  Do you have any empirical evidence of blooming, which is your theory, that is that perfectly spherical?

• 2:39:28Speaker 01

  And perfectly spherical.

• 2:39:30Speaker 00

  Let's go take a look.

• 2:39:31Speaker 01

  Like compare it to like one of the engines of the Chilean.

• 2:39:35Speaker 00

  Right, it's all, it's all.

• 2:39:37Speaker 01

  No, it's distorted, it's not circular, right?

• 2:39:40Speaker 00

  Yeah, we're kind of getting it. No, no, no, there's just zero evidence for your client. I've looked at a lot of Dave Fauch's FLIR vid and thanks Dave for all your work. There's no engine that looks like a perfectly round sphere.

• 2:39:53Speaker 01

  They're generally perfectly round.

• 2:39:54Speaker 00

  Really?

• 2:39:55Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 2:39:55Speaker 00

  Okay, well, if you could show me one, we can go back. I mean, we looked at, it's all jagged, it's flickering, like, you know what I'm talking about. You know that there's frequently.

• 2:40:03Speaker 01

  Right, no, the Fauch ones do flicker a bit more. But I think this is a much more distant object and it's zoomed in a lot more, so it's in very different settings.

• 2:40:10Speaker 00

  You have no evidence that it's blooming.

• 2:40:12Speaker 01

  It seems very similar to other things. Well, the evidence of this blooming is that it shrinks.

• 2:40:16Speaker 00

  Right.

• 2:40:16Speaker 01

  When it goes behind the horizon.

• 2:40:17Speaker 00

  Do you mind if we go to the slideshow real quick? Because we can, we can test that very, so this is just, this is the shot. You can, if you look closely, you can see the horizon, right, the horizon line. And, and the key here is

• 2:40:30Speaker 00

  the horizon is above the center point of that sphere. So if you go down.

• 2:40:37Speaker 01

  It's about the same as the.

• 2:40:38Speaker 00

  We go down to that one, that's a line that I drew.

• 2:40:43Speaker 00

  We'll leave it up, you know, a UAP is in the eye of the beholder. This is, this is green.

• 2:40:47Speaker 01

  Yeah, the horizon, I see quite a bit of sky underneath that horizon.

• 2:40:49Speaker 00

  Do you? I don't, but if you go to the next one.

• 2:40:52Speaker 01

  It's a lot lighter than the rest.

• 2:40:53Speaker 00

  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. So, right, I see, 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.

• 2:41:06Speaker 01

  There's pixel, there's dark pixel.

• 2:41:07Speaker 00

  Yeah, so I.

• 2:41:08Speaker 01

  This is, this is the problem with this thing is you can't, and this is what Dr. Phil was saying, that you can't actually determine exactly where it is. We know where it looks like, it's almost exactly at the horizon, maybe it's pixel above, pixel below.

• 2:41:18Speaker 00

  So it's probably about.

• 2:41:19Speaker 01

  And it shrinks in exactly the same way that Blair was shrinking.

• 2:41:22Speaker 00

  It's prob, 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.

• 2:41:29Speaker 01

  Yes, we should dispute that.

• 2:41:31Speaker 00

  So, so again, you have no evidence, like no empirical evidence that, that a, an engine actually has that very, very clear circular.

• 2:41:40Speaker 01

  Do you think this is an actual circle that's shrinking?

• 2:41:43Speaker 00

  It goes in the water. That's that is one.

• 2:41:44Speaker 01

  It shrinks.

• 2:41:45Speaker 00

  You see it gets smaller. Let's talk to the air crew. Oh, sorry, the air crew. Like, let's the the 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?

• 2:41:58Speaker 01

  Which?

• 2:41:59Speaker 00

  Play the video. Do you want to play it? Like, the first thing he says, it took off.

• 2:42:03Speaker 01

  In this one?

• 2:42:03Speaker 00

  It's booking it.

• 2:42:04Speaker 01

  The Emma House view?

• 2:42:05Speaker 00

  Took off, it's booking it.

• 2:42:09Speaker 01

  It's now when they're looking at the radar? There's multiple radar targets?

• 2:42:13Speaker 00

  Right there. Yeah, you said.

• 2:42:15Speaker 01

  But it's not moving.

• 2:42:16Speaker 00

  He said, okay, what is it?

• 2:42:18Speaker 01

  It implies that it left the vicinity and it's moving very fast. But it's not doing that. It took off, it's booking?

• 2:42:24Speaker 00

  It's booking it means.

• 2:42:26Speaker 01

  It means it's going very fast.

• 2:42:28Speaker 00

  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 during this incident said, these things were hovering. We have video of these things hovering. Jeremy Corbell, 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.

• 2:42:53Speaker 01

  It's not moving, though.

• 2:42:54Speaker 00

  Yes, it is. It's clearly moving left or right.

• 2:42:56Speaker 01

  It doesn't suddenly start moving in that video. It doesn't change.

• 2:42:59Speaker 00

  So, so the the assumption is, it was stationary, it's he's, it starts moving and he records it. It took off, is that a fair interpretation? It took off and booking it?

• 2:43:10Speaker 01

  It's very speculative, I think.

• 2:43:11Speaker 00

  Really?

• 2:43:12Speaker 01

  You're just you're interpreting what you want to be happening, based on a few words that somebody said in this video.

• 2:43:17Speaker 00

  We have evidence of these objects hovering on the over the deck of the Omaha.

• 2:43:21Speaker 01

  The drones?

• 2:43:22Speaker 00

  Whatever they are, it's something with red lights.

• 2:43:24Speaker 01

  Right, yeah. But that that video is a terrible video, the the Corbell video. It doesn't really show anything. It could be drones, it could be planes.

• 2:43:31Speaker 00

  You know what I'm talking about, right? The two red lights with the other one.

• 2:43:33Speaker 01

  Yeah, most people think it's a silly video. And a lot of the eyewitness stuff that

• 2:43:37Speaker 00

  So what were those objects? Were they just drones flying around?

• 2:43:40Speaker 01

  I don't know what they were.

• 2:43:40Speaker 00

  So here's where it gets really interesting. Twenty-four hours later, the US's Paul Hamilton. It's FOIA, you can you can find it, we'll put it up, reports the same thing. One of the objects splashes. You can see it in the declog or in the the briefing of the event. 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, they just disappear off the radar.

• 2:44:05Speaker 01

  Went in the water.

• 2:44:07Speaker 00

  Could be in the water. I'm not saying that is. That's not.

• 2:44:09Speaker 01

  We're working under the assumption, I think, that there were drones in the area because they reported drones and.

• 2:44:15Speaker 00

  Who knows? The only evidence we have shows a spherical object. There's no evidence, like, there's no empirical evidence that, that a.

• 2:44:22Speaker 01

  You're taking up splash just to be the same as that splash when it was probably.

• 2:44:25Speaker 00

  Well, they're getting ready to get a, they, they asked three ships around them to get a helicopter out.

• 2:44:29Speaker 01

  Yeah, because they thought that there were drones in the area.

• 2:44:32Speaker 00

  They thought it was close.

• 2:44:34Speaker 01

  Yeah, there's, there's a lot of issues with the whole drones thing. Like, the, the army, the military of the Navy has misinterpreted a lot of things as drones. And I just tweeted earlier today about how they once put out a photo of a jet and said it was a drone. We know that the Snoopy team, the trained observers on a Navy vehicle, have misidentified stars as drones.

• 2:45:00Speaker 00

  And what does that have to do with the spherical looking object?

• 2:45:03Speaker 01

  Well, we were talking about these eyewitness accounts of things that happened that 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 light in the sky, like hundreds of yards away.

• 2:45:19Speaker 00

  Can you provide a single piece of evidence that, that blooming looks like that, like that very rounds?

• 2:45:24Speaker 01

  I'll give it a go.

• 2:45:26Speaker 00

  I looked at a lot of infrared imagery now and I haven't seen.

• 2:45:29Speaker 01

  That's the natural shape for blooming though.

• 2:45:32Jesse Michels?

  I think we should move on.

• 2:45:33Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 2:45:34Jesse Michels?

  Admiral Gallaudet says that he has a firsthand witness who might be coming out soon. So let's both.

• 2:45:40Speaker 00

  With some video potentially. I think you mentioned there's some video.

• 2:45:42Speaker 01

  Well, that would be incredible. That would be great. Yeah. Love it.

• 2:45:45Speaker 00

  I will say, just quickly, so there was another ship that reported an object splashing in the water.

• 2:45:50Jesse Michels?

  Yep.

• 2:45:52Speaker 00

  This is where it gets kind of very, from an analytic perspective, interesting.

• 2:45:57Speaker 00

  That ship, the Paul Hamilton, so this is the day after the Omaha video, swarmed 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.

• 2:46:13Speaker 00

  And I bring that up because there's a series on, I think it's National Geographic, unidentified, Lou Elizondo and I think Sean Cahill went down to Guadalupa Island because there have been reports of spheres going into the water. Yeah. And you can see, and I spliced 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 splash is 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.

• 2:46:54Speaker 01

  There's a military testing area there, isn't there? Isn't there a drone base down there where they test military drones?

• 2:46:59Speaker 00

  That's, that's in the island. It's Mexican.

• 2:47:01Speaker 01

  No, but north of that, there's an island.

• 2:47:03Speaker 00

  So we're talking about, no, we're talking about well south of those islands.

• 2:47:06Jesse Michels?

  And Danny Sheen just came out as well, he's a famous American lawyer who represents a lot of, you know, UFO whistleblowers, and he said that he has coordinates for a UFO underwater base.

• 2:47:18Speaker 01

  Let's go. Go check it out.

• 2:47:20Jesse Michels?

  I said we should all do a boat trip out there, and we got some Twitter momentum, so.

• 2:47:27Speaker 00

  I think that's interesting, right?

• 2:47:30Speaker 01

  Sure, but it's just a lot of iWinners accounts.

• 2:47:33Speaker 00

  It is, but it just happens to align with two splash events.

• 2:47:39Speaker 01

  A splash just means something fell in the water.

• 2:47:41Speaker 00

  Correct.

• 2:47:41Jesse Michels?

  Do you think these guys are genuinely mistaken? Do you think they have some sort of incentive?

• 2:47:47Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 2:47:48Jesse Michels?

  Okay, so they...

• 2:47:49Speaker 01

  Well, the people in the Navy.

• 2:47:50Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, that's what I'm saying. So you don't think they're like psyopping the American public or wanting money or fame out of it or something?

• 2:47:58Speaker 01

  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.

• 2:48:10Speaker 00

  Do you think that's still happening today at Arrow?

• 2:48:12Speaker 01

  And I'm sure they're making mistakes still.

• 2:48:15Speaker 00

  They couldn't get the date right on the GoFundus slide.

• 2:48:18Jesse Michels?

  All right, let's move on to Nellis Tonopah.

• 2:48:22Speaker 00

  Yep.

• 2:48:22Jesse Michels?

  So this is a restricted airspace, you know, testing range. Nellis is famous, there's a lot of UFO lore. You have this object moving towards the Black Mountains. Why don't we play this video? It's a little lesser known.

• 2:48:42Jesse Michels?

  1994.

• 2:48:43Speaker 00

  Mm-hmm. There's two videos, actually.

• 2:48:47Speaker 01

  Within this clip, you mean? You mean there's two clips here, within this video?

• 2:48:51Speaker 00

  Uh, I don't actually...

• 2:48:53Speaker 01

  There's a different video following this, I think.

• 2:48:57Speaker 00

  Stabilized.

• 2:49:02Speaker 01

  I'll just throw my thesis on the table here. I think that's just a balloon, or a bunch of balloons, floating in the wind.

• 2:49:14Speaker 01

  It's... The camera was around a lot. Ah. 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.

• 2:49:31Jesse Michels?

  I just think if you're operating these machines at a Nellis testing range, you have to be pretty familiar with probably exotic bullshit.

• 2:49:42Speaker 01

  Yeah, but look at it. What can you see there?

• 2:49:43Speaker 00

  It does, uh, it does basically a 90-degree turn.

• 2:49:47Speaker 01

  It doesn't.

• 2:49:47Speaker 00

  Sure does. A guy made a meta bunk in 1996, or, I'm sorry, a sit rack, and he did a good job. Remember? I sent you the video.

• 2:49:56Speaker 01

  But I put this in sit rack, and you can see that the range data is like, you know, bullshit, basically. Uh, and if you just use the lines of sight, there's a perfectly reasonable path, wind-driven path for a balloon.

• 2:50:08Speaker 00

  So, I'd love to see that, because...

• 2:50:10Speaker 01

  Look at that, it's sort of like a triangle shape.

• 2:50:16Speaker 01

  Doesn't, uh... This isn't infrared, I think.

• 2:50:20Jesse Michels?

  No.

• 2:50:24Speaker 01

  Yeah, I mean, you asked me to do it in sit rack, so I did. And then you took my results, and you said that it proved what you originally thought.

• 2:50:33Speaker 00

  Yeah, so...

• 2:50:34Speaker 01

  But I don't think it does. I think the results show that the range data is very inaccurate.

• 2:50:38Jesse Michels?

  Looks like it's morphing in shape.

• 2:50:40Speaker 01

  Like a bunch of balloons, kind of rotating in the sky.

• 2:50:43Speaker 00

  It does a little bit of like an Apollo, you know, like... Very bizarre.

• 2:50:47Jesse Michels?

  This is maybe the weirdest video I've seen.

• 2:50:49Speaker 00

  It is bizarre. So, so...

• 2:50:51Speaker 01

  Doesn't that look like a bunch of balloons to you?

• 2:50:54Speaker 00

  And it, right, it kind of pivots.

• 2:50:55Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, but it looks like the balloons are like malleable and morphing.

• 2:50:59Speaker 00

  Well, it does a weird, and then it stops.

• 2:51:01Speaker 01

  It looks like it rotates.

• 2:51:02Speaker 00

  It rotates like in the wind.

• 2:51:03Speaker 01

  Which is very bizarre.

• 2:51:04Jesse Michels?

  I just think if it were balloons and you're operating these systems at, you know, restricted airspace, like you have to have some protocol for balloons. Like, you have to know what.

• 2:51:14Speaker 00

  Probably work track it.

• 2:51:15Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, but you wouldn't be freaking out. Like, you'd know, "Ah, it's balloons."

• 2:51:19Speaker 00

  What's interesting is it's coming from.

• 2:51:22Speaker 01

  Arrow should analyze it.

• 2:51:23Speaker 00

  It's coming from Area 51. That is very interesting.

• 2:51:27Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, well, that's Nell's testing range.

• 2:51:29Speaker 00

  No, no, but it's actually, like, 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.

• 2:51:37Jesse Michels?

  So shouldn't that, shouldn't your Occam's razor be, you know, well, it depends on what you think, what's going on at Area 51, but shouldn't Occam's razor be?

• 2:51:44Speaker 00

  It is an interesting twist.

• 2:51:45Speaker 01

  It's a military device.

• 2:51:46Jesse Michels?

  Aircraft, yeah.

• 2:51:47Speaker 01

  No, why didn't they scramble jets and go after it? Didn't think it was a threat.

• 2:51:51Speaker 00

  They were all in shock. They, you could hear them, like, "What is that?"

• 2:51:54Speaker 01

  Well, they were too surprised to scramble jets and do anything. No, they didn't do anything. Nothing happened.

• 2:51:59Speaker 00

  Uh, you know, I have no idea. That's all we know. All we saw. Maybe they, maybe they scrambled jets as soon as that.

• 2:52:06Speaker 01

  Maybe they realized it was some balloons and didn't scramble jets.

• 2:52:08Speaker 00

  So it's, it's zipping along, right? And it's going due west, and then it basically does a 90-degree turn.

• 2:52:14Speaker 01

  If you take the range data.

• 2:52:16Speaker 00

  No, you can see it visually. Like, you can actually see it visually. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, I mean, do you want to play it again, or?

• 2:52:24Speaker 01

  We'll have to revisit this, then.

• 2:52:25Speaker 00

  Yeah, no, I mean, it's quite clear, right? It's, it's, because it's, like, okay, so.

• 2:52:28Speaker 01

  The camera moves.

• 2:52:29Speaker 00

  Let me do this, let me do this for the, for the folks at home. It's going this way, right? Going kind of away from you, and then it does one of these and flies over the camera.

• 2:52:37Speaker 01

  Yeah, if the range data is correct.

• 2:52:41Speaker 00

  No, no, but you can see it visually. You don't even need the range data.

• 2:52:43Speaker 01

  Well, it's, it's moving towards the camera.

• 2:52:44Speaker 00

  No, so at first it's doing this, it's moving perpend, perpendicular, and then it does this.

• 2:52:49Speaker 01

  We shall revisit.

• 2:52:51Speaker 00

  Okay.

• 2:52:52Jesse Michels?

  Okay, next one. I like it, we're moving. Okay, Agua Dila. Agua Dila. So this is off the coast of Chile?

• 2:53:01Speaker 00

  Puerto Rico.

• 2:53:02Jesse Michels?

  Puerto Rico, okay.

• 2:53:05Jesse Michels?

  This is 2013.

• 2:53:06Speaker 01

  It's on the coast of Puerto Rico.

• 2:53:07Jesse Michels?

  2013, on the coast of Puerto Rico, where there are a lot of sightings.

• 2:53:14Speaker 01

  This is over the airport, Agua Día, a big tourist destination. There's a bunch of hotels up the beach. And it shows an object that appears to be flying in a circle around the airport. And this is something that's been analyzed by a lot of people. And the interesting thing about it is that it flies in a circle, which is kind of unusual for such a small object to be doing. And then later it appears to go underwater. It looks like it goes underwater. And then it appears to split into two, split into two parts. But a lot of people have analyzed this. And pretty much everyone who has analyzed it has realized that if you take the lines

• 2:53:58Speaker 01

  of sight, which you can get from the camera here, or the numbers on the screen,

• 2:54:05Speaker 01

  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, the object sinks to a lower altitude. And a theory that was proposed by the head of Brazil's UFO Investigation Department, Ruben Lianza, 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

• 2:54:48Speaker 01

  canopy of the lanterns behind it. And then when it gets to this section here, this is where we see it kind of disappear. Now, 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, it becomes, it's almost the same color as the ocean, and the media compression just can't keep up with it, so it disappears. You can more or less see it a lot of the time. And then it reappears and it kind of like splits into two, which ties in with the earlier observations of there appears to be two heat sources, that there's actually two wedding lanterns.

• 2:55:29Speaker 01

  And more research was that there are actually hotels up the beach, upwind from this location, which release these types of wedding lanterns. And then this was all confirmed basically by Arrow analyzing this and coming to the same conclusion.

• 2:55:43Jesse Michels?

  What do you think, Merrick?

• 2:55:44Speaker 00

  I, that'll probably cost me some Twitter followers. Great, I agree. I don't have any objections.

• 2:55:50Jesse Michels?

  Okay. So this is, that's good to hear. So you guys agree on something?

• 2:55:54Speaker 00

  Yeah, absolutely.

• 2:55:55Speaker 01

  There are certainly, there are people who won't agree. No. The SEU, for example.

• 2:55:58Speaker 00

  I mean, to be clear, I agree with the vast radio mix work.

• 2:56:01Jesse Michels?

  Sure.

• 2:56:02Speaker 00

  Right? Because 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 recording aircrafts, so.

• 2:56:14Jesse Michels?

  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.

• 2:56:30Speaker 01

  Well, one thing that's very, very clear is that there's a lot of misidentifications.

• 2:56:34Jesse Michels?

  I believe that. I'm sure.

• 2:56:36Speaker 01

  And there really aren't any good videos that are unambiguously of drones or some kind of beyond drone type things.

• 2:56:43Jesse Michels?

  Sure, but would you admit that there's a spike globally of these weird sightings in sensitive airspaces?

• 2:56:49Speaker 01

  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 airbases?

• 2:56:59Jesse Michels?

  I don't have the data, but my, my strong bias would be that there are more sightings going on.

• 2:57:04Speaker 01

  All these, all these false sightings, all these false sightings are just people looking at planes. So there's a huge spike in those. So why wouldn't it be like, oh, just this from this huge spike on the meat?

• 2:57:12Speaker 00

  I'll push back slightly, Mick, just a little bit. You're right, people misidentify things.

• 2:57:19Speaker 00

  But I think we're, I think you might be pushing this narrative a little too far because it really, the very obvious plane videos, there's only like three or four of them. They're obvious, like that are planes. There's not that many.

• 2:57:33Speaker 01

  Oh, there's a lot more that are 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 planes.

• 2:57:43Jesse Michels?

  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 copilot, you know, see this thing. And I think the quote is like, you know, I've, I've worked, you know, in, in, 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.

• 2:58:12Speaker 01

  Yeah, but he also said it was the size of a small car and that's 24 inches tops.

• 2:58:19Speaker 01

  We did very detailed analysis, 3D recreation of this thing from this exact viewpoint and using the data there, the most 24 inches.

• 2:58:27Jesse Michels?

  Okay. And Merrick, what do you think?

• 2:58:28Speaker 00

  I got nothing, guys. I really, like, it's, it's, I don't know.

• 2:58:33Jesse Michels?

  So you basically agree with that?

• 2:58:35Speaker 01

  I think it's a balloon and some like artifacts in the image there.

• 2:58:39Speaker 00

  I got nothing. Yeah, sorry.

• 2:58:40Jesse Michels?

  Now 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 Occam's razor belief generally is that it's, you know, prosaically explainable away. 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 next to the Fukushima Prefecture in Japan called Ino, which is dedicated to UFOs. And it's where they had their famous 2011 spill, you know, nuclear. Um, and then, you know, there've been sightings in Bariloche, Argentina, which has its own civilian nuclear grid.

• 2:59:22Jesse Michels?

  And then if you look at Edward J. Ruppelt, 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, Steel Man, 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 video?

• 2:59:49Speaker 00

  And I'll just quickly say, Jesse, your point that the nuclear connection is extraordinary. It is remarkable and I've written about it. Sorry, go ahead.

• 2:59:58Jesse Michels?

  No, I mean, it's amazing. And more and more Roswell itself, the site of the 509th Atomic Bomber Squadron, the first bomber squadron in the US. You have, you know, the Trinity test site, possibly there was a crash there. Unclear, you have D D Johnson on one side, you have Jacques Palais on the other side. They're kind of arguing.

• 3:00:15Speaker 00

  Well, Lonnie Zamora happened a couple of miles from the.

• 3:00:18Jesse Michels?

  A couple of miles from there. It would be the reason that New Mexico is such a hotspot.

• 3:00:23Speaker 00

  It's fascinating.

• 3:00:24Speaker 01

  With arrows. I think there's a lot of reporting bias. You get reports on highly sensitive sites just because people are much more vigilant. People who work on these sites are trained to report things and people who work at Walmart are not trained to report things.

• 3:00:40Speaker 00

  You gotta read the cable and this is again to John Reed Greenwald's credit, like you gotta read the cable, like 1975. Are you aware? Do you know anything about those incursions where you can see in a, in a, literally a cable to the Pentagon?

• 3:00:54Speaker 01

  Is that nuclear?

• 3:00:56Speaker 00

  Absolutely. A hundred percent. And it says, the language is a clear intent. So there's objects hovering 10 feet above. They're nuclear weapon storage facilities, right?

• 3:01:06Jesse Michels?

  And there are videos of the plume of various detonations where you see the UFOs, like there's one Blue Gill Triple Prime.

• 3:01:14Speaker 01

  Yeah, I think they were either spotted planes or something else, but I can't remember what they were exactly, but that was resolved as I recall.

• 3:01:20Jesse Michels?

  Was it?

• 3:01:21Speaker 01

  Yeah.

• 3:01:21Speaker 00

  We'll look it up.

• 3:01:22Jesse Michels?

  We should look it up. I'd love to resolve. And then another, I mean, even Virginia in Brazil where, you know, James Fox went down and investigated for a moment of contact where you have all these, you know, hapless local citizens who don't seem like liars.

• 3:01:35Speaker 01

  Is there a nuclear power station there?

• 3:01:36Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, they, that was the, the start of their nuclear program is what I've heard. And so, I, I, I don't know, they're all, it just keeps popping up with the nuclear thing. And it does, it does cut through this-

• 3:01:47Speaker 00

  Lakin Heath, just recently.

• 3:01:49Jesse Michels?

  Lincoln Heath, there you go.

• 3:01:50Speaker 00

  Allegedly, there's, according to open source reporting, that, uh, it's supposed to host US nuclear weapons. Lakin Heath was one of the, the site of one of the most extraordinary historical accounts. 1956, James McDonald wrote, um, quite a bit about this and folks at home, like, just look up Lakin Heath 1956, McDonald, you'll find CIA documents, uh, you'll find, um, a really lengthy write-up on, on the Princeton.edu website that is just absolutely astounding.

• 3:02:17Jesse Michels?

  Um, also, uh, Royal Air Force Bentwaters-

• 3:02:20Speaker 00

  Correct, 1980, yeah.

• 3:02:22Jesse Michels?

  1980, you have a bunch of witnesses, because it was joint, you know, managed by the US and the Royal Air Force. You have a bunch of, you know, John Burrows, Jim Penniston, Colonel Halt, who did the investigation-

• 3:02:33Speaker 00

  And the audio and the, yeah, yeah, yeah.

• 3:02:35Speaker 01

  Yeah, I was listening to the book on the way here, UFO and nukes.

• 3:02:37Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, what do you think about that? Because that's, I told you to read that.

• 3:02:40Speaker 01

  I can certainly see how it would seem compelling, because there's account after account after account of something seen by-

• 3:02:45Jesse Michels?

  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 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-

• 3:03:05Speaker 01

  I don't think he was lying in the book.

• 3:03:07Jesse Michels?

  No, I'm not, I know you're not accusing him of that, but he's, 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, missileers, ICBM security personnel, like, a few, and it was, it's 170 total witnesses, but it wasn't a hundred, you know, radar operators or whatever, and I just dispersed the crew.

• 3:03:40Speaker 00

  Yeah, yeah, I see, yeah.

• 3:03:41Jesse Michels?

  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 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 correct you immediately if you're wrong and if you're overstating.

• 3:04:06Speaker 00

  Hastings is outstanding.

• 3:04:07Speaker 01

  Statistics here, like actual statistical analysis of, you know, sightings near nukes versus other ways that are actually valid.

• 3:04:17Jesse Michels?

  Well, yeah, it would be Edward J. Ruppelt's original study where he came in. That was done from 1947, 1952, and then he wrote a book about it in 1956.

• 3:04:27Speaker 00

  I mean, the Colorado sightings, right, the 2019, 2020, those were over those nuclear missile silos, partially, partially, and they mirrored 1965, the same exact, like their witnesses talking about up and down movement, bright flashing lights, where we seen that before, right? And it's undocumented, right? 140 some witnesses.

• 3:04:46Jesse Michels?

  And I've met some, I met Robert Salas at Malmstrom in 1967, you know, that was his sighting, where, you know, 10 of these sites were were disarmed, according to him. And I've also met Mario Woods, who was stationed at, you know, South Dakota Ellsworth Air Force Base in 1978. He claimed to have boarded a craft and 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 where they have to report if they're taking Ibuprofen. So I do find that compelling.

• 3:05:17Speaker 01

  Speaks to the whole like issue with, you know, Marco Rubio. We're talking at the start, like, you know, either there's some crazy people in power or, you know, what they're saying is true.

• 3:05:26Speaker 00

  And he leans towards true, right? Just to be clear, Rubio is very clearly leaning towards, I trust them.

• 3:05:31Speaker 01

  But there is evidence that there are crazy people, but people with very strange ideas.

• 3:05:36Speaker 00

  But but who?

• 3:05:36Speaker 01

  Lakatsky, for example, like he is like a rocket scientist.

• 3:05:39Jesse Michels?

  Right. Yeah, but I think the more, the more you go into like, you know, highly competent, you know, impressive circles of people, the more you realize that a lot of these people are weird.

• 3:05:50Speaker 00

  But who?

• 3:05:51Speaker 01

  Tim Taylor.

• 3:05:52Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, Tim Taylor's super weird, but he's also, you know, working with Elon Musk around, you know, various launches. How weird? That's interesting.

• 3:05:59Speaker 01

  That just speaks to like how much weirdness you can actually get.

• 3:06:02Jesse Michels?

  But at what point do you say, at what point do you say-

• 3:06:04Speaker 01

  Are they weird or?

• 3:06:05Jesse Michels?

  At what point do you say reality is weird and that a proxy for somebody's credibility is actually how high functioning they are in society?

• 3:06:14Speaker 01

  Or perhaps it's just a big tolerance for weird within the Pentagon.

• 3:06:16Speaker 00

  And that's how weird do you have, like, you have to be pretty darn weird to go to the ICIG Spectre General and say, "I was part of a, I was part of a reverse engineering program." That's, that's right.

• 3:06:31Jesse Michels?

  Forty people have done.

• 3:06:33Speaker 00

  Allegedly, right? That's what Gresh has to find a growth.

• 3:06:35Speaker 01

  Bring it, let's see them.

• 3:06:37Speaker 00

  Right, 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-"

• 3:06:42Speaker 01

  Those are the weird people.

• 3:06:43Speaker 00

  "I worked on this NHI craft." Then that's, that's border, that's delusion. Like, there's weird and then there's delusion if they're not.

• 3:06:51Speaker 01

  We don't know what they said, but, yeah, look forward.

• 3:06:53Speaker 00

  Enough for, right, the Senate intel, okay, my God.

• 3:06:56Jesse Michels?

  We should move forward, but you should meet Hastings at one point. Let's, let's watch this Duke video.

• 3:07:23Speaker 01

  Well, top one looks like a landing line to the plane.

• 3:07:30Speaker 01

  It's three lights in the sky.

• 3:07:33Speaker 04

  You about. Oh my God.

• 3:07:38Speaker 01

  Yeah, you can't get much from that.

• 3:07:44Jesse Michels?

  Wait, so, so one of them, so it's a triangle and then one, one seems to kind of veer off.

• 3:07:48Speaker 01

  One dunks out, yeah.

• 3:07:54Speaker 04

  The bomb, the bomb window is just sitting on that.

• 3:08:00Jesse Michels?

  Okay, what do you guys make of this?

• 3:08:12Speaker 00

  Mick?

• 3:08:13Speaker 01

  Well, the white light at the top, you can see there, it's 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 these videos. People will see a plane that's coming directly towards them. It could be like, you know, 40, 50, 100 miles away. We don't know how far. And it looks like this. It just sits there and it kind of eventually 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 were. Could be helicopters, could be drones.

• 3:08:39Speaker 00

  If they're landing lights, Mick, can we test this? Right? Because if I... What?

• 3:08:43Speaker 01

  Yeah, we could.

• 3:08:44Speaker 00

  I'm just saying like, because we know where this... Do we know what facility this was? Yeah, Duke's Energy.

• 3:08:50Speaker 01

  But do we have the time and location?

• 3:08:51Speaker 00

  Well, no, no, but landing lights implies that there's an airport and a final approach path somewhere close by. We can test your hypos.

• 3:08:57Speaker 01

  If you have the location.

• 3:08:58Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, so it's Southport, North Carolina, so we should look into that.

• 3:09:02Speaker 01

  It's not really accurate enough. You need a...

• 3:09:04Jesse Michels?

  Okay, fair enough.

• 3:09:05Speaker 01

  Down to the street, pretty much.

• 3:09:06Jesse Michels?

  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.

• 3:09:25Speaker 01

  People post videos of things that are obviously planes 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.

• 3:09:33Jesse Michels?

  I'm buddies with Tyler, so I'll get some more.

• 3:09:36Speaker 00

  What I find more compelling maybe than this is, and I'll just be very quick. The Langley incursions, if you... There's a 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.

• 3:09:51Jesse Michels?

  Yeah.

• 3:09:53Speaker 00

  is interesting in itself, but you see that over the Goldwater Training Rangers, a video, same thing, just unbelievable amounts of flashing lights in the sky, drones, and oh, by the way, Air Force pilots have been reporting drones, up to 36 drones, up to 36,000 feet, there's like 30 or 40 reports over the last couple of years, that they metallic objects, eight or nine, it's all documented, you know, it's all out there.

• 3:10:18Jesse Michels?

  Can we all agree that we need to figure out what?

• 3:10:21Speaker 00

  What the hell is going on?

• 3:10:22Speaker 01

  More information would be great, more videos would be great, more analysis from Arrow would be great, and more experts should weigh in.

• 3:10:28Speaker 00

  I think that's the takeaway, please, if you're watching at home.

• 3:10:32Jesse Michels?

  We have to wrap up in a minute, but do you guys have any opinion on this New Jersey thing, should we play this?

• 3:10:37Speaker 00

  Look, I wish the world from the

• 3:10:40Jesse Michels?

  New Jersey

• 3:10:41Speaker 00

  I'll just say quickly, we have the FBI, we have FAA, there's drone restrictions in place, there's the governors involved, all the elected officials.

• 3:10:53Speaker 01

  It's a flap.

• 3:10:54Speaker 00

  You think it's a flap?

• 3:10:55Speaker 01

  Yeah, I think it's a flap, I don't think there's very much there.

• 3:10:58Speaker 00

  Do you think Colorado 2019, 2020 was a flap?

• 3:11:01Speaker 01

  Oh, very much so.

• 3:11:02Speaker 00

  Can I read a couple of emails, or do we have to go?

• 3:11:03Speaker 01

  Some emails.

• 3:11:04Speaker 00

  Quick, okay, so thanks to Doug Johnson, I'll make this very quick, drone activity, here we go, reports from Colorado indicate that drones were not flying as a group or pack, but as a single unit, Chase County, Nebraska Sheriff Deputy reported observing 30 to 50

• 3:11:18Speaker 01

  It's a sheriff, I mean

• 3:11:19Speaker 00

  Hold on, 30 to 50 flying independently of each other with a larger quote mothership hovering for hours.

• 3:11:27Speaker 01

  He's seen planes flying overhead.

• 3:11:28Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, this idea of a mothership and then other crafts coming out of the mothership, Chris Mellon, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence under both Clinton and Bush, said that there was this mothership dynamic going on with the Hampton Air Force Base incursion as well, where you have these little saucers flying out of a mothership, I don't know.

• 3:11:48Speaker 01

  There's a hypothesis for the green meteorites and UFOs and nukes, that there was a mothership outside the atmosphere and the green meteorites were

• 3:11:55Jesse Michels?

  UFOs and nukes mentions this as well, yes.

• 3:11:57Speaker 00

  Here's a K-9 trooper from, I'll be very quick, K-9 trooper from Kansas. He had these 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 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.

• 3:12:25Jesse Michels?

  Alright. Eyewitness accounts, great. Video, all we need. Merrick, Mick, this was awesome. I appreciate you guys both.

• 3:12:31Speaker 00

  Thanks for doing this, Mick, thank you.

• 3:12:32Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, this was great. I mean, you guys were, I felt like, you know, mostly pretty civil and cool with each other. And I think both of, all of us want just more experts to look at this, more data, and more witnesses, again, to the extent you're not compromising American national security, come out and talk about this stuff.

• 3:12:51Speaker 01

  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.

• 3:12:58Speaker 00

  You'll buy me a beer. And if Kimball's debunked, I'll buy you a beer.

• 3:13:02Jesse Michels?

  And 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 80%, we'd get 80% consensus in like academia, military, and civilian sector, that 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.

• 3:13:40Speaker 01

  I just like more reasonable bets, because it avoids legalizing.

• 3:13:43Jesse Michels?

  I think it's an unreasonable bet for me. It's like a joke for me, I'm giving you free money, but.

• 3:13:49Speaker 01

  Let's just bet a beer then.

• 3:13:51Jesse Michels?

  Okay, let's do it. Awesome.

• 3:13:54Speaker 00

  Thanks, man. We appreciate it.

• 3:13:55Jesse Michels?

  Thank you, guys, this is great. Alright, cool.

• 3:14:04Jesse Michels?

  So we're back with Mick and Merrick and we felt compelled to extend our debate somewhat because so much bombshell footage has been released since 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 Ross Coulthart's News Nation story involving psionic assets, specifically a guy named Jake Barber, who's part of a crash retrieval team, involving these psionic assets, people psychically calling in exotic material, of which this egg is claimed to be kind of a part of that. And it's being hooked on to, well, I guess you want to play it, Nick?

• 3:14:48Jesse Michels?

  And we can kind of analyze it from there?

• 3:14:50Speaker 01

  Yeah, so it looks like it's on the end of a long rope. It looks like a big egg, kind of swaying around, and it hits the ground. And you see it kind of roll over and you see the kind of wrapping around it loose. And then you see these wires, and this is from the TV show, they kind of went in and slowed it down a little bit. And you can see, like, you know, there's lighting coming from over here, there's a shadow in this direction, there's a little bit of a roll when it hits the ground, which shows it has a little bit of inertia. And it's not a super high-quality video, but you can see that it is kind of like an egg-shaped object on the end of a rope of some sort.

• 3:15:33Speaker 01

  We don't know whether it's, is this a real video? Is it something that someone's faked? It was, I think it was sent anomalously, to Ross. It wasn't actually taken by the Jake Barber guy, was it?

• 3:15:48Jesse Michels?

  It was sent anomalously. Now, I'm just...

• 3:15:51Speaker 01

  It's like an anomaly.

• 3:15:53Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, no, it was sent by a third party, to News Nation, not by Jake.

• 3:15:59Speaker 01

  And it doesn't show the actual... All the events that he was talking about, which is odd, because that means that there's there's multiple versions of these these eggs being picked up by different people, which apparently, yeah, there's all these different eggs that people are picking up. Maybe it's a very common shape, but it's kind of a new shape to me. Like, yeah, I guess it's one of the ones that crops up, but it's not like a Tic Tac. It's not like a flying saucer. It's it's an egg. I did spend a little bit of time trying to replicate this, and I made a little egg in a little sling. So I've got like the whole kaboodle, 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,

• 3:16:44Speaker 01

  and it might be something being moved. But, yeah, it's like all these videos, though, quality really isn't there. It's just very low resolution and very short. Why did they chop it off? So not a lot to go by. Interesting, though. Oh, and the backstory, of course, is very interesting. I saw Merrick, you were talking to to Ross Colthart and Tim Gallaudet 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 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

• 3:17:28Speaker 01

  the whole psychic psionic asset aspect of it, which is a bit bit weird.

• 3:17:33Speaker 00

  Yep.

• 3:17:34Jesse Michels?

  Merrick, what's your take?

• 3:17:37Speaker 00

  Damn it, looks like an egg. That's all I got, really. What I do find interesting is, and again, again, I try to bring a bit of an analytic perspective, but there's a gentleman named Eric Tabor, who went to Arrow, I don't know, Jesse, if you're familiar with this, but you who did speak to Arrow, and he spoke of an egg shaped craft being retrieved. And I believe this is at Area 51. I don't believe he was a firsthand witness, so take it as you will. But again, that that shape does come up. I agree with Mick. It's not your standard saucer. It's not your orb. It's not your sphere, the stuff that you hear a lot. It's not it's not a triangle. But, you know, there is, it seems like there is some

• 3:18:20Speaker 00

  precedent for a another story of, you know, of this nature and involving an anomalous craft that is egg shaped.

• 3:18:28Speaker 01

  It's just a shame we don't have better video of it, because it just remains somewhat ambiguous.

• 3:18:34Jesse Michels?

  Yeah, it definitely felt like, you know, this like high resolution footage promise, you know, maybe, maybe, you know, 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 it kind of depends on like the objective truth, which is, you know, it's this weird epistemic impasse that we're facing where if it is true, it's actually a really good video. And then if it's not, you know, obviously not.

• 3:19:05Speaker 01

  Yeah, I guess that's all like all these videos is big if big if true. Like all these claims are big if true, but.

• 3:19:11Jesse Michels?

  But better, better than FLIR and Gimbal and Go Fast. And, you know, these are, these are different sensor modalities.

• 3:19:18Speaker 00

  I beg to differ, Jesse, but.

• 3:19:21Jesse Michels?

  Well, not better from like an analytic perspective, the way you're looking at it, Merrick, but better for like, just like, again, like if we were to get corroborative sensor data, it would like be better for the eye, but.

• 3:19:33Speaker 01

  Yeah, this isn't, this isn't doing anything there. This is just inertly hanging on the end of a rope. And, you know, we've got UAP is supposed to have all these observables like sudden acceleration, defying gravity, being, you know, hard to see, I think, what was it? Low observability and transmedium travel. It's doing none of these, none of these things. So it's hard to kind of classify this even as a UAP. I guess it's the context of the story that's around it that makes it interesting. And then we got this Jake Barber, who, you know, is, I believe he was a mechanic on the helicopter and not the pilot. I'm not sure.

• 3:20:12Speaker 00

  Yeah, I would be, I think we might be learning more about that, Mick.

• 3:20:17Speaker 01

  Okay, that's, that's cool. Yeah. But, you know, it's, he did some kind of crash retrieval, apparently. And there's an interesting story and also all kinds of other aspects of that story. But, you know, it's not doing anything.

• 3:20:32Jesse Michels?

  Right.

• 3:20:33Speaker 01

  Is what we need. We need, we need videos of things doing things.

• 3:20:38Jesse Michels?

  What, what do you guys make a, you know, I feel like UFO world took a bit of a hard left turn away from Cartesian space, you know, aliens from a distant galaxy and into kind of psi, parapsychology, almost more in line with like occult practices or something. Well, how do you guys feel about that?

• 3:21:01Speaker 01

  It seems like there's a lot of that just suddenly cropped up. It was weird because 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 Stephen Greer type stuff, like Dr. Stephen Greer, who does this CE5 stuff and then Ross Colthart, uh, who brought this out says that he went out with the people and they had these psionic assets who could take control of craft, uh, which sounds, you know, bizarre and frankly ridiculous claim that you could actually cyclically start, take over an alien craft. You think the aliens would be able to stop that type of thing, but it does seem like a weird shift.

• 3:21:46Speaker 01

  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, definitely.

• 3:21:57Jesse Michels?

  What do you think, Merrick?

• 3:22:00Speaker 00

  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, I've been very open about this. I was deeply skeptical of UFOs. Uh, I missed the 2017 story. I think I, I mentioned this in, in the longer version, but I've, I've gone through a few of my own mini oncological shocks throughout this journey, right? And, um, and, and, you know, I, 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, Mick 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 theory.

• 3:22:41Speaker 00

  So that, that, those, those are, those are steps on my journey from, from this is all tinfoil. Hat wachaberry to wow, there's something to this. Then then the next step was I had people telling me, guy, hey, man, there have been crash retrievals. And I was deeply skeptical of that, having been in the government. I was like, there's no possible way that secret could have been kept for X amount of years. And now we have people on the road. We had Chuck Schumer alleging that in um in congressional legislation, right? So it's remarkable. Uh, I've gone through the several ontological shocks and I might go through another one with a science. I don't know. I'm keeping an open mind.

• 3:23:17Speaker 01

  That'll be interesting.

• 3:23:18Speaker 00

  Cool. Right off the bat, but I am 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 is truly a legend in the community I've found in over the last 24 hours. They've said openly, um, don't trust us. We'll show you. So, okay.

• 3:23:38Speaker 01

  All right. That's good.

• 3:23:40Speaker 00

  Yeah.

• 3:23:40Speaker 01

  They got a timeline on that? They know when you're doing it when it's coming out?

• 3:23:44Speaker 00

  But um, but I, you know, I think that's great. That's the right answer.

• 3:23:48Speaker 01

  Yeah, definitely. Definitely. I would definitely appreciate seeing more data and, uh, you know, just, you know, the, the stories aren't cutting it. We need to see actual evidence.

• 3:23:56Speaker 00

  I agree. I think everybody agrees on that, right?

• 3:23:58Speaker 01

  Yeah, yeah.

• 3:24:00Jesse Michels?

  Yeah. And Merrick, you had, uh, something you wanted to bring up as well.

• 3:24:04Speaker 00

  Yeah. Real, real quick. So I'll, I'll just tee this up. Um, and Jeremy Corbell, 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 also teed up first, Jeremy got an interview with the, the Marine who actually recorded this. This is 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 to 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 them, on them at night. So he's got this thermal site.

• 3:24:48Speaker 00

  And he sees an object rising, in his words, rising up off of the desert floor. And he says it goes up about 25 meters. Then it moves to his about 30 to 50 meters to his left. Comes back to that center point, moves about 30 meters to his right. And then goes back to that center point and then slowly starts climbing. And then he's then at that point, he's like, this is bizarre. I'm going to record this. 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? Yeah. Yeah. Um, there are some intriguing similarities to to Gimbal.

• 3:25:33Speaker 00

  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 the call with the AT Flair expert. He says, this is quote bizarre. I've never seen anything like this. No one has seen anything like this. Um, so when you see these matches, that's that's interesting to me. Oh, and by the way, these anomalies just happen to look like the classic saucer. What are the odds? Yeah. That's what makes it fun, isn't it? It makes it more interesting. Saucer. Yeah. I'll just quickly add one more thing. Um, there's an interesting video and Mick, I know you did it. Uh, you did a semi debunk of this, but I do have a few bones to pick per usual. Is that coming through for you guys?

• 3:26:18Speaker 00

  Yeah, I see. Yeah. It's kind of stepping or you don't play it yet. 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 cameras, 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 sight. 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.

• 3:27:04Speaker 01

  Yeah, yeah, it's an interesting little thing. I think, again, we have the issue of being very poor quality. We see here, like you see all the compression blocks and everything in the pixels. I think there's a couple of points I'd like to make. The first is like 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 showed 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.

• 3:27:41Speaker 01

  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 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 that. So if you were to actually to take that.

• 3:28:00Speaker 00

  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.

• 3:28:10Speaker 01

  Well, why, why is it changing shape, though? Is it magically morphing from one shape into another? It doesn't really make any sense.

• 3:28:17Speaker 00

  As the jet gets closer, it becomes more defined, right?

• 3:28:20Speaker 01

  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 glare. A lot of, a lot of people agree with me, but not the people you found. Yeah, but then the experts that you found, you know, we, 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 our best 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 assessment.

• 3:28:52Speaker 00

  Let's get to that, Rube. What do you, what do you think this video, what do you think we're looking at right here?

• 3:28:56Speaker 01

  I don't know what we're looking at, but like, I think. Again, it's something that doesn't show the observables. It doesn't, it's far away, so we can't really see it.

• 3:29:06Speaker 00

  What do you make of this?

• 3:29:07Speaker 01

  The motion, yeah, the motion, I think, you know, there's, there's, obviously, we didn't, we don't see the really dramatic movements that he talked about. You know, he's rising up from the desert, moving left and right. 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 the background. I think what we're seeing there is actually the turret 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, I have to be careful not to do a Nazi salute here, like Elon Musk just did.

• 3:29:45Speaker 01

  Raising up 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 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 doesn't register exactly with the clouds because the clouds are very low, low frequency in technical terms, so they're the very smooth curve, so they don't move very much because of the video compression. Now, this video, I think it was part of a dump that somebody did. There's a UFO site on Twitter, I think it's called Ray Fios or something like, A R E A F O U S, UFOs.

• 3:30:25Speaker 01

  And they uploaded a whole bunch of stuff to mega.co new Z, New Zealand, NZ. 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 good to have.

• 3:30:40Speaker 00

  This is thermal, this is thermal. You incorrectly thought this was a night vision and thought this was...

• 3:30:45Speaker 01

  Oh, yeah.

• 3:30:45Speaker 00

  What do you think it is?

• 3:30:47Speaker 01

  Well, I still think the most likely thing is essentially the landing lights of an aircraft, which do show up in thermal, because it's the halogen lights.

• 3:30:55Speaker 00

  What?

• 3:30:56Speaker 01

  The hot lights. But LED lights wouldn't show up.

• 3:31:00Jesse Michels?

  How would they be bouncing up and down like that if they're LED?

• 3:31:04Speaker 01

  Oh, they're not. They're not. That's the camera bouncing up and down. So it's like very little like jiggles of the camera like here. Uh, would actually make things move around.

• 3:31:14Jesse Michels?

  And why would that? Why would the lights be irregularly shaped? Why wouldn't they be like sort of uniformly distributed?

• 3:31:20Speaker 01

  Because it's it's brightest 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.

• 3:31:34Speaker 00

  Visible light, landing lights. Why would there be landing lights 100 miles from the Syrian border? Um, in the middle of the desert in in Anbar province or where were this one?

• 3:31:44Speaker 01

  Well, maybe because it was landing somewhere is a plane, you know, it's a military plane. It's not like every single airplane fires black.

• 3:31:51Speaker 00

  You can't see lights in thermal, like you just cannot see.

• 3:31:54Speaker 01

  Oh, you can see heat in thermal, though, and some lights are very hot. So like, you know, the halogen lights.

• 3:31:59Speaker 00

  You're telling me that?

• 3:32:00Speaker 01

  I don't know. I don't know. Like, but I don't think I I'm not ready to rule this out.

• 3:32:04Speaker 00

  The engine exhaust. If this is a plane.

• 3:32:06Speaker 01

  The engine exhaust. Well, it would be it would be behind the where you're looking at.

• 3:32:10Speaker 00

  If it's coming at you, you'd be.

• 3:32:12Speaker 01

  Yeah. 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 you?

• 3:32:19Speaker 00

  It's coming at you like this, right? You can see the plumes going.

• 3:32:23Speaker 01

  No, you 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 when they're coming towards you, the angle between like the plane and, you know, and you really isn't that much. They're essentially kind of.

• 3:32:38Speaker 00

  That's one big light we're looking at. Like, I it's just so bizarre to me, like.

• 3:32:42Speaker 01

  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.

• 3:32:50Speaker 00

  Stumped. I'm done here.

• 3:32:54Speaker 01

  Well, it's very.

• 3:32:55Speaker 00

  It just happens to look like.

• 3:32:57Speaker 01

  I mean, look at look at this video. It's like you can barely read the the time code at the top of it. It's a crappy video. Uh, in, 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. You know, I see like the plane thing isn't like, you know, you know, super compelling.

• 3:33:18Speaker 00

  Uh, but not compelling at all.

• 3:33:20Speaker 01

  I don't. What I what I think is it don't. It doesn't actually demonstrate any of the observables. It doesn't demonstrate like extraordinary emotion, extraordinary motion. It's just something. It just happens to look like the gimbal in this particular frame. As I said, you're taking white heart against black heart. And if you take all the the the black, the white heart frames in gimbal, they don't actually match.

• 3:33:43Speaker 00

  Um, because the the.

• 3:33:46Speaker 01

  Because it's not morphed into a different shape yet.

• 3:33:48Speaker 00

  Gets closer to it. It gets 15% larger as it gets closer, which is the exact size at the correct distance. So.

• 3:33:55Speaker 01

  Why is it changing shape? Getting getting larger doesn't change shape, you know. Sure, you pick some frames here that look the same.

• 3:34:01Speaker 00

  Mick, you're a pilot, so you know that, right? If you're flying at something, it gets larger as you get closer to it.

• 3:34:06Speaker 01

  I'm familiar with perspective.

• 3:34:08Speaker 00

  Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly. So that's what happens in a gimbal. And it just happens.

• 3:34:11Speaker 01

  Yes, I know.

• 3:34:12Speaker 00

  Grow at the exact same size.

• 3:34:15Speaker 01

  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 I'm seeing in gimbal.

• 3:34:28Speaker 00

  You realize perspective, right? 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.

• 3:34:40Speaker 01

  So you're saying, you say the angle of the object changes.

• 3:34:45Speaker 00

  The, yes, absolutely. As.

• 3:34:48Speaker 01

  I look forward to you doing a 3D model of the the gimbal object that will demonstrate this this change in shape.

• 3:34:54Speaker 00

  It's already in your CEREC. Anyway, we can go on for days.

• 3:34:57Speaker 01

  We could, we could go on for days.

• 3:34:59Speaker 00

  I I just, I just need to, 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 disagree with this theory.

• 3:35:14Speaker 01

  Yeah, I came up with another cockamamie theory, which was completely wrong as well. So what are you gonna 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. And 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.

• 3:35:47Speaker 00

  I don't think so, Mick, and I hope we learn more, but the Pentagon has said that they have, quote, "true anomalies" that they're so stumped by. And this is Kozla, 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.

• 3:36:10Speaker 01

  That's because they haven't got the information. But yeah, I'm looking forward to seeing those true anomalies.

• 3:36:14Speaker 00

  They said they're so stumped that they need the public. So that's me. That's you, Mick.

• 3:36:18Speaker 01

  That's me.

• 3:36:19Speaker 00

  That's everybody. That's everybody that's watching.

• 3:36:21Speaker 01

  They can use my software, open source, Citrec, anyone can use it, and hopefully they will, and maybe it'll help them solve it. But I'd be happy to help.

• 3:36:28Jesse Michels?

  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 clear.

• 3:36:39Speaker 01

  The margins of perception, which isn't really the margins of reality.

• 3:36:43Jesse Michels?

  Well, there you go. Now you're talking like us. I mean, I think, I think, yeah, the margins of our, because we, there are doors of perception, to quote William Blake or Aldous Huxley, and, you know, in the optical range that involves 400 to 700 nanometers. And if you have these things traveling, you know, close to the speed of light, they're probably doing two, one of two things. They're probably, 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 probably lower than what we can actually see. And then if they're coming towards you, 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.

• 3:37:28Jesse Michels?

  Normal civilians don't have those sensor modalities. And so it kind of makes sense that you would either get blue-shifted or red-shifted optical, or you would get like other sensors, and you'd have to debate it endlessly, because it wouldn't really look good to the normal eye.

• 3:37:44Speaker 01

  Ask some UFO physicists about that. I mean, Hal Puthoff 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 enmeshed in this whole UAP thing.

• 3:37:57Jesse Michels?

  What would they, what would they say? Yeah, go for it.

• 3:38:00Speaker 00

  Just, just very quickly and Jesse to build on that, there's a documented history of the most important, kind of one of the most important historical documents in this whole topic is what's called the Twining memo from, from 1947. General Nathan Twining, who I believe went on to become the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He wrote a memo that, that said, he listed all the, the kind of the characteristics of UFOs. And I think the one word that was underlined was that they are invasive as soon as they are contacted by.

• 3:38:29Speaker 01

  That's how they work.

• 3:38:30Speaker 00

  By, but, but you've had, you'd had aviators that have seen metallic discs within a few hundred feet. And I laid this out, right? There's, there's I think at least 30 cases where multiple credible witnesses, police officers, pilots, engineers have seen these objects 100 feet away. And they're all, they all just happened to be, look like the gimbal and the Iraq.

• 3:38:51Speaker 01

  Yes, they're, they're evasive, but not when there's no camera available. Yeah, they're evasive, but they, they appear 100 feet 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.

• 3:39:06Speaker 00

  This is the flaw in your analytic approach and, and this is, but 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. Shake your head. Go ahead. That's fine. I'm just telling you, that's my analytic basis. That's what I go off.

• 3:39:30Speaker 01

  Yeah. Your analytic basis is stories from 70, 80 years ago. It's, it's not really very useful.

• 3:39:35Speaker 00

  And video, the gimbal video.

• 3:39:37Jesse Michels?

  Well, yeah, I would also.

• 3:39:39Speaker 01

  That's it.

• 3:39:40Jesse Michels?

  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. You know, and then you accept any of these stories around consciousness. They probably know how to evade perception on more of a level than we're, you know, able to even understand. So.

• 3:40:02Speaker 01

  We're getting away from the nuts and bolts. This is this is kind of like

• 3:40:05Jesse Michels?

  Well.

• 3:40:05Speaker 01

  Speculative.

• 3:40:07Jesse Michels?

  I wouldn't say it's a getting away from nuts and bolts. It's just, you know, goes towards the Arthur C. Clarke quote that any sufficiently advanced technology appears to be magic. And so

• 3:40:15Speaker 01

  Can you demonstrate that is happening, though?

• 3:40:18Jesse Michels?

  Demonstrate what is happening.

• 3:40:20Speaker 01

  And any of what you just said, that they're detecting cameras and avoiding them.

• 3:40:24Jesse Michels?

  He well, that's it. The all good science is the interplay between 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 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. 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.

• 3:41:09Jesse Michels?

  And maybe, you know, the the person, you know, 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 scientific, you know, Thomas Kuhnian 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.

• 3:41:35Speaker 01

  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 the most things that are weird and 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.

• 3:41:55Speaker 01

  We don't have that. You know, we've got an accumulation of anecdotes, an accumulation of stories, and we've 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 remarkably consistent because you gather them together. Do some actual statistical analysis on this and see what comes out.

• 3:42:20Jesse Michels?

  Well, that my my my, yeah, go for it. Yeah.

• 3:42:23Speaker 01

  Mary, who did?

• 3:42:25Jesse Michels?

  No, you go, you go.

• 3:42:27Speaker 00

  But tell, but tell put out a very, very deep analysis of the 1947, 1952 sightings. And guess what? Fascinating. 33% of the most credible sightings were unknown. And those are ones that had enough data to, to be analyzed.

• 3:42:47Speaker 01

  Sure, but we have no idea what they're considered to be enough data. And we don't know any of those cases. And it was like 80 years ago.

• 3:42:55Speaker 00

  It's useless.

• 3:42:56Jesse Michels?

  And then Edward J. Ruppell, Edward J. Ruppell also, you know, did, did a, you know, study for pre-blue book signing bridge. And it's the same thing. It was like 70% of these cases show up around nuclear. That's the reason Patel was involved in the first place because they're managing all this, you know, nuclear stuff to begin with. And then you have, again, we, you know, my editor is going to kill me because I wanted to keep this kind of targeted. But we have 167 guys with Q clearances who have no reason, they haven't made a dime from this. They're, you know, they're sort of, they've been castigated and shamed and all.

• 3:43:34Speaker 00

  Then you have to report it, right?

• 3:43:36Jesse Michels?

  And exactly, they have to report it if they're on the personal reliability program. And so, and that has to be an extremely depressed number. That 167 has to actually be 10,700 or something. You have to, you really have to like multiply that by a ton.

• 3:43:53Speaker 01

  Right. How many people have Q clearance? And how many of them are in positions where they have to report things regardless? And so they're reporting a whole bunch more stuff than your regular, you know, guy at Walmart would.

• 3:44:04Jesse Michels?

  That is, that is, that is a very high subset of people with Q clearance. And it's not just people, you know, seeing these things in distant places in the sky because of hyper vigilance 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.

• 3:44:27Speaker 01

  Yeah, well, it just seems a bit implausible to me.

• 3:44:31Speaker 00

  Those guys controlling the nuclear button, if they're all insane, because, because either.

• 3:44:34Speaker 01

  Right. They're not all insane. They're just normal people. They're regular people. They have normal human failings.

• 3:44:40Jesse Michels?

  But come on, I mean, if a guy 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 woke up nine miles and Lake Newell away from the base and has marks on his body. And, you know, it's just a really crazy experience. And he had his Q clearance and retained it and worked at Sandia and all sorts of other DOE labs, I think Oak Ridge, for another 20 years. If you're like a higher up, you know, person in, you know, the DOE, and you see that, and you have this one guy claiming this crazy shit,

• 3:45:26Jesse Michels?

  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 didn't blame the guy and you realized he was totally lucid and mentally sound? I wouldn't let that guy near my nuclear asset. If he was the one guy, if he was just the one guy.

• 3:45:46Speaker 01

  It's not like he had his finger on the button, he could launch things. He was someone who worked there. He had a Q clearance. And people like, you know, David Gresh 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 that.

• 3:46:04Jesse Michels?

  He didn't have a psychotic episode at all. He had too much to drink one night and his buddy next to him was blown up in war because of that.

• 3:46:12Speaker 01

  PTSD, so it's arguable. But I'm just saying that you don't lose 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 don't know the details of that, you know, HIPAA and everything. I don't know if he, like, you know, volunteered exactly what happened. Maybe he just go back to work the next day and say, I saw aliens. And they're like, okay, go back to work.

• 3:46:36Jesse Michels?

  No, there was a very clear protocol he underwent. Due to, obviously, the Air Force having seen this before. They checked him for certain things. They checked it.

• 3:46:47Speaker 01

  Do you?

• 3:46:49Speaker 00

  I'll just say, in the post, in the, the post-global war on terror era, their, their PTS 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. That had to be followed for Grush to retain his clearance. 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 and infrared technology. And they've said, and you know exactly what I'm talking about. The credentials are impeccable.

• 3:47:32Speaker 00

  Blooming would not have resulted in that rotation.

• 3:47:36Speaker 01

  Yeah, unless the.

• 3:47:37Speaker 00

  What's your theory for the gimbal video?

• 3:47:38Speaker 01

  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. Then there's some kind of optical artifact that happens before the sensor. And the other one is, yeah, like, like glare. And the other one, I know, I know. You said you shut up, Merrick. Like, the, then the third one is that the de-rotation happens after the sensor. Like, it's a digital de-rotation, which is something that's, you know, in, in the patents. 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.

• 3:48:21Speaker 01

  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.

• 3:48:29Speaker 00

  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 could have that discussion. That is, you know, that's not true.

• 3:48:40Speaker 01

  He said, I, I think Mick is right, but for the wrong reason.

• 3:48:43Speaker 00

  Uh, I don't think that's correct, and I, I put that out there.

• 3:48:46Speaker 01

  Well, I'll check him out. I might, I could be wrong. But that's how I recall it.

• 3:48:51Speaker 00

  Please do, because everything he described was an internal thing. It's not on the glass. Anyway. Bottom line is, the experts have

• 3:49:01Speaker 00

  Arrow is not Arrow.

• 3:49:04Speaker 00

  Yeah, the patent does the same thing.

• 3:49:06Speaker 01

  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.

• 3:49:16Speaker 00

  Explicitly ruled it out.

• 3:49:18Speaker 01

  He explicitly said this was an initial impression based on limited data.

• 3:49:23Speaker 00

  Yep.

• 3:49:23Speaker 01

  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. And, you know, he didn't come to an actual conclusion.

• 3:49:32Speaker 00

  Because I think it's important to hear those voices.

• 3:49:34Speaker 01

  Anyway, he didn't share it anyway. Like, did you get permission from him to share those emails?

• 3:49:39Speaker 00

  I did not. I put it out anonymously, anonymized it, because I think it's important for people to see what the world's leading experts say about this footage.

• 3:49:46Speaker 01

  I asked him for permission because I wanted to share it myself and he said no. So, and the other one didn't reply.

• 3:49:52Speaker 00

  Sorry to hear that.

• 3:49:54Speaker 00

  Does it bother you that Arrow does not endorse your theory?

• 3:49:57Speaker 01

  No, I don't think they got around to it yet.

• 3:50:00Speaker 00

  It's the most

• 3:50:01Speaker 01

  Rather slow.

• 3:50:02Speaker 00

  Footage of all time.

• 3:50:04Speaker 01

  No, they did. They did Agua Día, which is, uh, which is one that's existed before that, so.

• 3:50:08Speaker 00

  I, I think the fraction of people who

• 3:50:11Speaker 01

  I know, you see Agua Día, it come up all the time. It's a very famous UFO video and they, they, and you agree with them on that one.

• 3:50:19Speaker 00

  I do, I do.

• 3:50:21Speaker 01

  Yeah, like, I, I know you've had, like, you've talked to Kirkpatrick and he told you some ridiculous interpretation off the top of his head and then other people have said things.

• 3:50:30Speaker 00

  Twice, the same.

• 3:50:31Speaker 01

  Yeah, yeah. So, you know, and, you know, it's disappointing that we, we're not getting more information from Arrow, but we haven't got the official word yet from them.

• 3:50:42Speaker 00

  Maybe we can leave it at, let's hope Kozlowski is Trudeau's word and he can, whatever bureaucratic classification 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 that, leave it here. Let's hope.

• 3:50:59Speaker 01

  That'd be great, yeah.

• 3:51:00Speaker 00

  Yeah, get that stuff out there.

• 3:51:01Speaker 01

  In the meantime.

• 3:51:02Speaker 00

  Figure this out.

• 3:51:03Speaker 01

  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.

• 3:51:11Jesse Michels?

  Well, I think we can all, let's end on that note of, you know, collegiality between us. We would all like to see better, better footage. Indeed. No matter what our takes are on existing record and what we currently have. So Mick, Merrick, appreciate you guys. We're going to put this out pretty, pretty soon and just, just tag it on to our, our finished video. So. Sounds good. Yeah. Cool. Thanks again, guys. Appreciate it. All right. Thank you. All right. Later. Good night. Bye.