July 31, 2026 • 41 mins
UFO Historian Richard Dolan joins Captain Ron as they dive back into the major disclosure efforts that have recently hit the UFO community, and discuss what they really mean underneith the surface.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
You're listening to the iHeartRadio and Coast to Coast DAM
Paranormal podcast network, where we offer you podcasts of the paranormal, supernatural,
and the unexplained. Get ready now for Beyond Contact with
Captain Rong.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Welcome to our podcast. Please be aware the thoughts and
opinions expressed by the host are their thoughts and opinions only,
and do not reflect those of iHeartMedia, iHeartRadio, Coast to
Coast AM, employees of Premier Networks, or their sponsors and associates.
We would like to encourage you to do your own
(00:42):
research and discover the subject matter for yourself.
Speaker 3 (00:58):
Hey everyone, it's Captain Ron and each week on Beyond Contact,
we'll explore the latest news in ufology, discuss some of
the classic cases, and bring you the latest information from
the newest cases as we talk with the top experts.
Speaker 4 (01:14):
Welcome to Beyond Contact. I am Captain Ron, and today
we're going to be speaking with Richard Dolan. He's, of course,
one of the world's leading historians, authors, and researchers of
the UFO and USO phenomenon. He has a brand new
book called A History of USO's Unidentified Submerged Objects volume
two from nineteen seventy to nineteen eighty nine. So today
(01:36):
we're going to be focusing on his research into these USOS.
Hi Richard, it's been a very very long time, seven
whole days since we've had you on BRON.
Speaker 5 (01:47):
It's always a pleasure to be here. I really enjoy
this and I'm looking forward to talking about this with you.
Speaker 4 (01:52):
So before we dive into your second book here in
the three volume series on USOS, I wanted to ask
you about something we touched on during the last show
when we spoke about those two events in June on
the ninth and the twenty fifth. One of the mean
drives of this event was getting whistleblow or protection in place.
And I know you're a big advocate for that and
(02:13):
I agree, But I was thinking about it, isn't this
one area where they really do have some legitimate pushback.
It seems like there's legitimate national security reasons not to
have this, that it could open up a can of worms,
and it'd be foreign intelligence benefits and damaging relationships with
our allies, and it could break down the whole security
(02:35):
clearance system. So I want to find out what you
thought about. Isn't it more complex than people think when
they just say, oh, just protect the whistleblowers.
Speaker 5 (02:43):
Yeah, that's you're absolutely right, You're one hundred percent right. Look,
every story, every fact of our world has complexity to it,
and that includes this one. And anytime that any one
of us gets into this black and white aspect that like,
these people are good, those people are evil. This cause
is just and right, and anyone who poses it is
(03:03):
on the wrong side. I mean, that's just turning reality
into like a cartoon, and it's not accurate. It doesn't
do us any favors. I do support whistleblower protection. I
do believe that we're better served at this point in
our history with more openness on the genuine truth of UFOs,
what governments know, and all of that. But look, the
(03:24):
reality is this subject has always been tied in deeply
to national security. People can find that a legitimate cause
for secrecy, or they can just say no, the US
has no right to genuine national security secrets, because there
are people who do believe that. I don't think there's
any reason to doubt that there has been a genuine,
like below the surface Cold war going on. Relating to you,
(03:46):
a UFO tech technology. I, for one, strongly, very strongly,
I would say believe that there has been recovered hardware
that did not originate from our civilization. You can talk
about Roswell and a number of other instance. It's quite
a few actually potentially, So I think we've got that
and that's valuable. And there's evidence that the Russians have
(04:07):
acquired their share of this, and in fact, I think
it's not impossible and probably likely that the Chinese acquired
something as well. Maybe other nations as well, although other
nations that are in the western orbit are probably dominated
by the United States, and I think there's a lot
of reason to think the US has been able to
get a lot of the material added, like out of
Brazil for example, in Virginia nineteen ninety six. I think
(04:31):
there's a strong James Fox, the filmmaker, made a very
good case that the US probably absconded with the goodies
that were there. But overall, like there are genuine weapons
implications for this, and beyond weapons implications, there are structural
implications for our world system, our global system relating to energy,
relating to propulsion. Like most of us, we're not in
(04:53):
the circles of power, so we just want everything now.
We want free energy. Now, we want to you know,
give the finger to our uti tility companies, and we
want to be able to heat our home for free
for the rest of our lives and all of that.
But there are powerful implications when you think of a global,
deeply deeply integrated global system. I mean, look what happened
(05:13):
when we had an interruption and are having an interruption
of oil and energy out of the strait of hormones.
And we can see how sensitive and perhaps we might
even say brittle our global infrastructure actually is. In other words,
messing with that actually could have implications. And even for
something as potentially positive and transformative as UFO tech and science,
(05:35):
none of us really know all the implications of what's
going on there. You know what if some of the
technology involves space time engineering, you know, we talked about
this in the last program a week ago. I mean,
I for want assume that they the visitors, let's just
call them, I found a way to master that and
that's probably what allows them to be here. So if
there is an answer in that technology that we can
(05:56):
figure out, would it actually be an unmitigated positive for
human and being? So have access to spacetime metric engineering.
I'm not so sure. Or what if you can make
a really really powerful weapon out of some of this tech?
Could you trust every Could you trust all of your
neighbors have that access to it? Everyone in your city,
everyone in the country, everyone in the world. Someone is
likely to blow up the Pacific Ocean, like you can
(06:17):
just imagine someone's going to do that for sure.
Speaker 4 (06:19):
Look what they do now. Yeah, without these technologies. You know.
Another thing I wanted to point out is something we
kind of touched on during the last show as well,
is these files that the government's been releasing. They actually
hit on various USOS, including objects reportedly transitioning between air
and water, you know, the trans medium travel as they
call it. Did you notice that in the files when
(06:40):
they came.
Speaker 5 (06:40):
Out, Yeah, there's one in the last release, the third release,
I should say, it's stated it's basically has USO water implications.
And I looked at that video very carefully. It's quite interesting.
I have to admit, to my eye, I had a
hard time seeing the a clear water connection. But the
document or the information around that video did kind of
(07:02):
state that it was a water based case and the
object seem to enter the water. So I'm just going
to take that is yes. So that's interesting. You know,
we've had a couple of instances over the years of
videos being kind of authenticated dealing with the USNavy, where
you know, there's one I think Jeremy Corbel was the
first one to release this off the West coast, just
within the last five years or so, of an object
(07:23):
clearly doing a controlled entry into the water. So we
do have these those are I think confirmed as much
as they're confirmed, I mean they're confirmed in the sense
that military video shows this. What you don't have and
what we're probably not likely to get soon is a
statement from let's say the President who says, yes, that's real,
(07:44):
and we confirm that it's a USO and so that
we know that's a fact. Like they haven't done that.
So they kind of put the video out there where
it just sits there and where people who are inclined
to believe it's legit will say yes, legit, and where
people who are inclined to not believe in this subject
will just ignore.
Speaker 4 (08:00):
That's the way everything goes. Right now, everybody's picked their team,
you know, looking at this as long as you have.
Do you feel that these are probably related phenomenon, Like,
do you think UFOs and usos are probably coming from
the same source, the same intelligence, or is it your
sense that they could be completely unrelated.
Speaker 5 (08:19):
I think they're coming from the same intelligence, and I
think this for a number of reasons, because a when
you look at the morphology or the structure of the
craft themselves, they basically mirror the all the shapes that
people report above their heads. So there are disc like
saucer shaped objects that are reported below the water. We're
emerging from the water. There are cigar shaped or tubular
(08:40):
shaped objects. You get those with aerial UAP, you get
those with the usos. There are spherical objects, both of
the glowing plasma type as well as the non glowing
that look metallic types. Both of those are reported as
usos as well as being reported as aerial UFOs, And
even triangles. You get a couple of triangular shapes as
(09:01):
well that are reported in the water, and you get
those of course in the air. So on that basis,
I think they sure look the same in terms of
the types of behaviors that they engage in. The behaviors
seem very similar as well, so, for example, you know,
with most of these USO cases, particularly when they're encountering
a military like the US or the Russians, and what
(09:23):
they will do is the same kind of behavior that
they do for aerial cases, like they will come in,
they will loiter around for a very short period of time,
usually or frequently, I should say, disable our own electronic
equipment so that we are unable to respond, either with
weapons or even in terms of tracking them. So you
get that with the oceanic USO cases, and you get
(09:46):
it with aerial cases over land. So the behaviors strike
me as similar enough that the look of the craft
strike me as similar enough that I tend to think
they're probably the same. The aerial ones very likely have
the capability of going into the water. We just we're
not watching that.
Speaker 4 (10:02):
Sure. Do you see us getting anything of real significance
approaching undeniability of the phenomenon through any of these channels,
like these releases that we're getting these files not yet.
Speaker 5 (10:14):
I mean, we have a couple of pretty good videos
that have been out there that have not been denied
and that have been authenticated as real. What I think
is really needed for this to move forward is an
officially established body US government or a major media. But
as we know, like major media.
Speaker 4 (10:30):
They won't touch that. No way.
Speaker 5 (10:31):
Well, they're not independent, you know. They they're intimately connected
to the deep state in the intelligence community.
Speaker 4 (10:36):
Yeah, don't stand by for that. When we come back,
we're going to ask Richard about any patterns that he's
noticed in the data collection on USO cases. You're listening
to Beyond Contact and the iHeartRadio and Coast to Coast
AM Paranormal podcast network. We are back on Beyond Contact.
(11:04):
We're speaking again with Richard Dolan. You know, Richard, I
am so appreciative, as will many people be, for all
the work you've done in this series. And I think
it's the sort of painstaking data collection that is really
imperative for us to get to answers as to what
these things may be. It's important to call all this
data together so that we can look at it for
(11:25):
patterns and trends. It's very reminiscent of the great compilation
that Cheryl Costa did putting together all the UFO data
for the last twenty twenty five years, and she was
able to notice things like, you know, certain areas where
hotspots and we're far more likely than others, as well
as things like sightings over nuclear sites and whatnot. Were
you able to find certain things in the USO data
(11:47):
that jumped out at you?
Speaker 5 (11:49):
Yes, And I'll say a few things about this. A
was very much to my surprise. But be I didn't
even when I started this project of collecting USO cases
a little over four years ago, I didn't plan to
do a data a data analysis. I noticed that there
are some very good water based cases that just seemed
(12:09):
to be scattered all over the place that there was
no They didn't seem to be a very good single
repository for them. Turns out there was one. It was
a website by a deceased researcher by the name of
Carl Fint, who did very good work on this. His
website is now gone, Thank goodness. I was able to
data mine it completely and fully before it went off.
But there really wasn't a very easy place for people
(12:31):
to get data on these USO cases. So my goal
was simply I wanted to kind of bring them to life.
There were just too many of them, so I searched
through places like Carl's website and mof on and many
other sources, a lot of old magazines and every other
place that I could find, and I put them together,
and I collected about seven hundred such cases. I actually
(12:54):
found many times more than that, but a lot of
them just had not enough meat on the bones for
me to do much with, so I left them all
but seven hundred good cases i'd broken into three volumes.
Each of those volumes is about four hundred pages, and
as you just mentioned, the second one came out. What
I ended up doing this is actually a suggestion of
my wife, So I have to give Tracy credit here.
(13:14):
After I'd finished putting all the cases together, she said,
you know, what would be great idea if you just
created some categories and put at the beginning of each
case a summation of it, So like, what color was theft,
what shape was the craft, what was it doing? Did
it enter the water? Was it under the water? Did
it emerge in the water? Were there any type of
effects that people and this type of thing. So I
(13:37):
ended up coming up with fifteen and sometimes sixteen categories,
and I put them in and it was an additional
amount of work I didn't want to do, but I'm
glad I did so then after I did that, then
I decided I wasn't really a spreadsheet kind of a guy.
I've really done very little work with spreadsheets, that's the truth.
But I created a massive spreadsheet that was like thirty
seven sheets. Wow. It was like, oh my god, this
(14:01):
is my first spreadsheet. It's like the one that was
going to kill me. But I put it together. But
thank goodness I did that because that's what allowed me
to see patterns. This is what Cheryl Costa did in
her work as well. Sah absolutely basically the spreadsheet type thing,
and so when you do that, you can see things.
So one thing I noticed this was a shocker to me.
One of the data points that I noted was a
(14:21):
very simple one. It was that this occur during daylight
or at night. Forget like the time of day. That
because a lot of these cases like they don't tell
you the exact time, but in most instances I was
able to figure out if this is a day or
at night time, usually that information can come out. So
one thing I noted is that in all of the
cases that I found, right up until the end of
the nineteen sixties, it was almost exactly fifty to fifty
(14:45):
day versus night. Wow, And then almost like flipping a switch,
after nineteen sixty eight it went to like three quarters
seventy five percent started to take place at night, and
which has been to this day. Then if you factor
in military cases, they take place at almost a ninety
percent regularity at night. So now that to me tells
(15:05):
me that this is not a random effect, that this
is behavior. That's the first thing that jumps out of me.
In other words, that there is an intelligence.
Speaker 4 (15:12):
There intentionally clandestine.
Speaker 5 (15:15):
Yes, yes, absolutely, that's something we can surmise, and I
think that would be accurate, frankly. And then you know,
that got me asking myself, like what happened by the
late sixties that might have prompted this, And I didn't
have a full answer. But actually I was chatting a
number of months ago with Ross Coulthart, the journalist, and
Ross said to me that he had his contact who
(15:36):
learned about this in my research, and chuckled because he
told Ross that, yeah, that's when the I think it was.
The Keyhole satellite radically upped its game to be able
to take like ultra high resolution images from Earth orbit
down to the surface, but during the daytime, so whereas
at night it wasn't as effective, but in daytime it's
it's resolution was became amazing, it was already good. So
(15:59):
I under maybe was at it was that, you know,
were these operators thinking we don't really want to be
as visible, so let's let's take it out at night,
And maybe they couldn't go completely one hundred percent at night,
so some of these maybe had to happen during the daytime.
Just again I'm guessing, but the fact that I saw
this pattern in my spreadsheet really really caused me to think, Okay,
(16:22):
a I'm probably I think I'm getting good information because
this is a consistent pattern that I'm seeing that I
wasn't really expecting to look for another pattern I noticed,
and this I think might be related. It might not
be related. Particularly during the nineteen seventies, was a radical
increase in cases of electromagnetic interference by these objects against
(16:44):
the witnesses, whether military or non military em interference essentially,
so that would mean like the radio would go out,
or your car engine would go out if it was
an aerial case, or if it's a ship, your radar
or sonar system would go offline, or your communication system
would go offline, or your weapons systems would go offline,
or in some cases, your ship's engine would stop and
(17:07):
you'd be dead in the water for a little while.
Like that's what I'm talking about. And those types of
cases became much much more common during the nineteen seventies,
and so that was a definite pattern I noticed. And
then that declined back to more standard levels after really
the beginning of the early eighties, and it went back
to what looks like it always was. So something happened
during that period of time, and I don't have the
(17:29):
answer to this. What I can tell you is that
the nineteen seventies also were by far the busiest decade
for USO cases. That all the cases that I'm able
to find, the nineteen seventies takes the lead, and by
a large margin. And what's interesting is that that's all
pre internet, you know, that decade. A lot of the
cases that I have from the seventies were reported years
(17:50):
after the fact.
Speaker 4 (17:51):
On the Internet, but date to the seventies.
Speaker 5 (17:53):
Yeah, they go back to the nineteen seventies, and there's
just an enormous number of these cases. Something I think
was going on. The seventies were busy decades for aerial
UFO sidings as well. Very busy people may not always
remember this, but it's the truth. So something important was
going on.
Speaker 4 (18:08):
I think, well, it just seems like this whole time,
from your earliest cases up till now. I would anticipate
there being more sightings as we get closer, as our
technology grows and we have different craft under the water,
and our detection capabilities to see these objects has probably
improved in the last fifty years.
Speaker 5 (18:29):
This is probably true, And in fact, the twenty tens,
at least in my research, is the second busiest decade
after the nineteen seventies, so that is true. One of
the things against getting the contemporary reports is simply time.
Like a lot of these cases, if they're a military case,
like usually you're getting it from someone many years after
(18:49):
the fact, often toward the later part of their life,
when you can see like their attitude is the hell
with it. I'm just putting this out there. I want
the world to know. It's very likely that some of
the more recent cases too recent and we don't know
about them yet, but we may know about them twenty
thirty years from now. That's rarely possible. Yeah, so I
would I would think that's an important aspect of it.
I think you know your instinct on this is probably
(19:12):
correct that were We're getting better and better tools for
noticing them, but there are still dips that I noticed.
One dip was the nineteen nineties, and I wonder, like,
is that because the Cold War ended and some of
the Shenanigans that I noticed were actually US versus Soviet
operations that passed as USOS. I mean, I wonder this
(19:32):
when I look at the cases from the nineteen seventies
and eighties, I have a hard time thinking that these
are generally human tech. But I can't really say for
sure definitely, though the nineteen nineties showed a dip in
the sightings.
Speaker 4 (19:44):
It feels conintuitive.
Speaker 5 (19:45):
That could be that simply there's more cases from the
nineties that have not come out yet because it's still
the people, at least in the military who experienced them.
They're not yet ready to Yeah.
Speaker 4 (19:56):
Zell retire. Then they'll put that on the internet, and
then you'll have to redo the work again. Richard, we
got to take a break here. We come back. We're
going to ask you about the growing difficulty in knowing
what is real in the UFO space. You're listening to
Beyond Contact and the iHeartRadio and Coast to Coast AM
Paranormal Podcast Network. We are back on Beyond Contact. We're
(20:31):
speaking with Richard Dolan. Richard, do you have a favorite,
perhaps really strong case that stood out to you in
the USO research?
Speaker 5 (20:40):
Several? Yes, quite a few, almost too many to mention one.
I like a lot of the Russian Soviet cases, just
because some of them are so crazy, like I really
have to wonder like is this one true? Is this
one not true? One that I think is that, but
I'm quite confident is absolutely true. Is during the nineteen seventies, particular,
(21:00):
Soviet submarines frequently encountered a very very strange and unnerving
acoustic phenomenon while they were under the water, which they
called and I'm sure I'm going to butcher the pronunciation,
the kavakeri, which is the Russian word for croakers or
like the croaking of a frog. And they called it
(21:21):
that because it sounded like a croaking sound apparently. So
you know, imagine like you're down, you're blow the surface,
it's totally dark, you're looking for the Americans. The Americans
are looking for you. The game is going on a time,
it's to dance, a dance in the dark, you know,
and then they would pick up this strange sound and
the sound would surround them that they could detect it
(21:43):
circling them. Apparently, according to what we have on this,
they never figured it out. They wondered, is this American tech?
What the heck is this? To my knowledge, they never
really determined a solution, but they didn't. They determined it
wasn't the Americans and that it was probably some kind
of intelligence. One Russian researcher and a lot of these
(22:05):
researchers out of Russia, like X Navy themselves, like they're
serious guys. I think he speculated, Yeah, they probably look
at us the way we look at the fish in
the ocean, you know. So that's the Kabakri. There are
a couple of very good cases. One of my favorite
American cases is in my latest volume, Volume two, concerns
(22:28):
the USS John F. Kennedy aircraft carrier. This is nineteen
seventy one, July second, nineteen seventy one. We have an
exact date that's given, which we don't have exact dates
for some of these cases, especially if they're being reported
years later by a military person, but we have one
on this. We even have the name of the person
who put this one out there. He mentioned this a
number of several blog sites. He's a known person. So
(22:52):
the story is that this individual was a communication specialist
aboard the USSJFK. They were just north of Puerto Rico
in nineteen seventy one, and it's about eight eight thirty
in the evening, so it's getting dark, but not totally
dark because it's summertime, and he's at the comms and
he the first thing he notices is that all the
communications coming into the ship are gibberish, like they had.
(23:15):
He described they had four incoming and four outgoing, and
the incoming would I guess they would print out probably
like I'm imagining, like a dot matrix type printer, you know,
they would print out me. And so all of that
was gibberish. And he's looking at thinking that's that's wrong,
what's wrong here? And then he hears someone on the
ship's intercom in a state of utter panic, screaming it's God,
(23:37):
It's the end of the world.
Speaker 4 (23:38):
Wow.
Speaker 5 (23:38):
So that definitely got his attention. So he eventually quickly
he goes top side to see like what's happening, and
he described a glowing orange ball that was hovering directly
or right over the ship. He said it was about
the size of a beach ball at arm's length, so
pretty kind of big. That sounds very big, frankly. And
(23:59):
it had I had a kind of swirling colors of
like orange and dark yellow and reddish, and he said
it gave off about half the amount of light of sunlight,
so it was kind of bright. So he's watching this
for not even a full minute when the ship went
to battle stations general quarters and he had to return
to his communications station, so he didn't directly see the
(24:21):
object do anything else. The ship was in battle stations
for the next half hour, and he learned that fighter
aircraft were unable to launch, so the ship was not
able to engage. So apparently the order was given for
the fighter jets on the ship to engage his object,
but they were unable to do so. So this went
(24:42):
on for I think twenty five minutes. And that's his story.
I mean, it's kind of amazing. That's a great case,
he said after the fact. A few days later, when
they were about to leave the ship for surely that
the captain made an announcement. He didn't refer directly to
the event, but he just said, well, all of you
who serve aboard are us n able to will know
that there are certain things that must never leave this vessel.
(25:04):
And so according to the person who mentioned this, he said,
that was my cue that captain's talking about this event.
Speaker 4 (25:09):
Yeah, that's enough. Interesting, Hey, do you think there's some
of the newer technology that could really help identify what
some of these objects are? Things like underwater drones and
underwater scanning abilities are being developed right now, and I'm
thinking specifically about some of these huge leaves that have
been made. There's this thing called synthetic aperture sonar systems,
(25:32):
which are AI enhanced multi beam systems that are carried
by autonomous underwater vehicles and they allow for huge areas
to be scanned and mapped. You know, they're doing that
twenty thirty project to map all of the oceans. What
do you think of those?
Speaker 5 (25:49):
Very interesting? And I look at the history of the
USO phenomenon as a dance between us and them, as
I say, and what I mean by that is you
go back to one hundred and twenty six years ago
to the year nineteen hundred was the year that we
first developed an operational submarine. So from that point and
then you think of all of our developments sonar, radar, battleships,
(26:13):
aircraft carriers, nuclear submarine. By the nineteen fifties, I could
stay under water almost forever, and all these other advances.
We started developing undersea sonar systems in the nineteen fifties
that were becoming pretty good. So if you're them, if
you're these other beings, you're realizing that these human beings
are not static. They are constantly innovating, and so you
(26:34):
have to calibrate your self against this. And one of
the things that I think that they've been doing all
these years is when they come up to a vessel
and do what I call data denial, where they will
shut us down, They will shut down our ability to
observe them at their closest approach. Frequently they do this,
and I sometimes think they do this because they're testing
(26:57):
can we do this. It's like them that something new here.
We have to make sure that we can deal with this,
so let's go and test it. So with the newest
technologies that we are developing. I actually would expect that
it might have initial success. But I might also expect
that whatever the intelligences are that operate below the water
(27:19):
are probably aware of this and may be taking their
own countermeasures. You know, arms races may not simply occur
between US and the Russians and US and the Chinese.
They may actually be taking place, in a sense, between
US and these other beings that are here.
Speaker 4 (27:34):
You know, there's another aspect of the USO and UFO thing,
and that's this trust factor. We have such a divided
society and world for that matter, that I honestly believe
if certain people came out with official pictures or videos
or whatever like we touched on earlier, there will still
be a good percentage of people who won't believe it.
You know, you can couple that with the rise of
(27:54):
AI and some of these technologies we're talking about, and
we're living in a world where we don't ever know
what's real.
Speaker 5 (28:02):
It's a serious problem. Yeah, twenty plus years ago. I
used to think a lot about AI at that time,
and I'd read some books by Ray Kurzweil, and I
was like, I'm into this subject. And back then, tuck
in two thousand and three, two thousand and four, I
really convinced myself. It feels so naive now thinking, but
I thought, well, when we get to a place of
stronger AI, that will solve the UFO mystery, because you'll
(28:26):
just be able to ask your artificially intelligent computer, hey,
I'm looking for some UFO evidence, and they'll say, oh, yes, absolutely,
the data shows that there's six different groups of intelligences,
and this and that and the other. And that's not
to say the least, that is not what has happened.
So lllm's are quite a different ballpark. They're only as
good as the data that goes into them, exactly, and
(28:48):
they have their guardrails, as we know, and they can
be weaponized for all kinds of purposes, so that whole
idea of mine goes right out the window. But even
beyond that, AI is a problem because now we're in
an error where evident we all know evidence can be
fabricated easily. I mean, in the recent movie Disclosure Day
by Steven Spielberg, one of the ironies I always felt
was at the end, I'm sorry about a spoiler, but
(29:08):
at the end they're they're releasing video like powerful video
of Roswell and of all these other historical events. And
in the movie, the people are looking at this thinking, wow,
this is real. But the proof actually is that Steven
Spielberg proved in this movie that he's able to create
very realistic looking video. He's got some resources and he
can do it.
Speaker 4 (29:28):
But sure anyone, but in the year or two it's
going to be as good for a kid on his eye.
Speaker 5 (29:33):
And I'll tell you that, so anyone can create at
least video. So video is not enough anymore, and we
have to really ask what does constitute proof? And then
you know, to your point about society being fractured, I
completely agree with this. But the one difference I would
say here is that you know, I think it was
last week we talked about Donald Trump do disclosure. Okay,
(29:54):
so you can either love Trump or you can hate Trump.
But obviously it's unavoidable that half the world, half the
country anyway, hates this man. Right, he lived rent free
in their head, and so if he were to say something,
it would probably not be believed by at least some people
just because it's him, right, But if he did that,
and if the evidence was out there, I tend to think.
Over time, more and more people would probably slowly come
(30:16):
around and accept it.
Speaker 4 (30:18):
Yeah, it has to.
Speaker 5 (30:19):
I don't know how long it would take.
Speaker 4 (30:20):
But it's different than it would have been twenty years ago.
Twenty years ago, any president makes that statement and ninety
five percent of the people go for it, where it's
not the case today.
Speaker 5 (30:29):
Totally agree on that.
Speaker 4 (30:30):
Brother, We got to take a break here. We'll pick
this up on the other side here when we come back.
We're going to ask Richard about his thoughts on what would,
could and should happen next regarding the disclosure moment and
the study of UFOs and USOS. Plus, you can wager
on whether or not he'll make a fifth Dance metaphor.
My money's on yes. We'll see what happens when we
come back. You're listening to Beyond Contact on the iHeartRadio
(30:52):
and Coast to Coast AM Paranormal podcast network. We are
(31:13):
back on Beyond Contact. It's Captain Ron speaking with Richard Dolan. Hey, Richard,
after decades of looking at both UFOs and USOS, what
questions stand out to you is the most that you
think we need answers to in order to get a
better handle on what the phenomenon.
Speaker 5 (31:29):
Is also very good question.
Speaker 4 (31:32):
They're all, Richard, come on.
Speaker 5 (31:35):
They are really a good time here. I tend to
think that in our community, let's just call it, there's
a lot of focus on disclosure. They understand that they
want the government to reveal the truth, they want their
government to be responsive to them. I mean, there's a
lot of good reasons to ask for that. But this
subject is much much bigger than disclosure. It's a phenomenon.
(31:55):
And not only is it a phenomenon, I like to
remind people, it is a phenomenon that strongly appears to
be intelligent, strongly appears to be highly sophisticated, very precise,
very confident, I would add, and seems to have no
problem operating anywhere it wants to in any part of
this world. So that's that's the big thing that I
(32:17):
think we sometimes easily lose sight of that there is
someone here that we don't have a good explanation for them,
and they seem to operate well well beyond our capability.
You know, I could just only talk about my own
interest and where I have moved, but I have definitely moved.
You know, we talked about behavioral aspects of this phenomenon,
and that is probably the main thing that drives me
(32:40):
these days, is trying to understand their behavior and to
understand our relationship to them. What if there is a relationship,
and not simply like do they make us or do
they guide our evolution? Which I don't believe, actually, but
how long have they been observing us? What changes historic
have occurred in the patterns of that observation. So by
(33:03):
that I simply mean I'm not on board with a
lot of the ancient aliens beliefs set where they'll say, oh,
they've been here forever and they've been doing this and
that forever. I actually don't believe that. I do think
that we've been observed for a long time. And I
also think that a lot of the so called evidence
for ancient UFOs ancient aliens is way overblown and probably
not trip.
Speaker 4 (33:21):
There wasn't much to see. We weren't doing anything, no technology.
Speaker 5 (33:25):
Exactly exact that. I think that's probably the main reason.
What could they do with us? What could we do
with them?
Speaker 4 (33:31):
Really?
Speaker 5 (33:32):
We couldn't. We would have no ability really to relate
to them. What I see is a pattern of vastly
increased observation starting in the nineteenth century, early nineteenth century,
and then really going to the next level during and
immediately after World War Two. You know, why weren't there
big numbers of UFO sidings in the nineteen twenties. We
were advanced, we had radio, we had ability to notice
(33:54):
the things, and yet the phenomenon wasn't there. But after
the forties it was, so something was definitely happening after that.
But I'm interested in their behavior. I'm interested in seeing
both parallels and differences between us and them that I'm
able to figure out, and I think looking at them
as a kind of anthropologist is one maybe productive way
(34:16):
to do it, studying their behavior. What I tend to
think is that based on what I've studied, is, hey,
they're not interested in open contact with us, probably because
it would almost be impossible for them to do it.
It would be like us trying to have open contact
with If you went back one million years into the
past and try to meet one of the human ancestors
(34:37):
that existed, then yes, they walked up right, Yes they
were intelligent. No, you would not be able to have
a real conversation with them without destroying their community. It
would just not be possible, and I suspect it might
be the same here. So to answer your question, I
think what is needed more focus on actually understanding this
phenomenon rather than focusing on is the government going to
(34:59):
give us discs closure. I think that's important. I don't
want to minimize it, but I think we're really starting
to lose sight of it over the last ten years
since this subject has been in the kind of more
in the mainstream. I really think that a lot of
the research community also has potentially lost sight of some
of the more traditional things that are going on. Are
there still abductions? Yes, I think there are still abductions.
(35:20):
I don't really hear much many people researching there things
like that.
Speaker 4 (35:24):
The scientific resource to this cause, to me is I
say it all the time, we need more scientific resource
to dedicate it to this. If you had the opportunity
to ask just one question directly to those who do
know the full truth, you know, as best as humans
can know, inside our government, private industry, wherever it is
that really is at the top, what question would it be?
Speaker 5 (35:47):
I would probably my instinct would be to ask what's
the worst, like, what's the most dangerous aspect of This
is because I've often heard rumors but not confirmed, but
certainly in behavior support this that at least one of
the groups, if we can say that that's here, is
very very very terrifying, very scary. So if that's true,
(36:09):
that's certainly one reason you might not want to have
a disclosure. You know, if there is a group that's
here that you have no control over, that is terrifying
in one way or another. So that's probably what I
want to know. If I were to ask the secret keepers,
how bad is it?
Speaker 4 (36:25):
Well, let me ask you this related question about the
secret keepers. How many people do you think, take a
wild guess, because I know this is complete speculative, do
you think would have the full picture within our government?
Speaker 5 (36:36):
Well, too, you said within our government. I had a
different answer. So I think, first, I think some of
the secret goes beyond government. I think probably a lot
of it goes beyond government at this point, I think
a lot of this has been shopped out to private
and semi public organizations and things like that. But of that,
people who actually have really the full the full dirt,
(37:00):
really know. But I wouldn't be surprised if it's between
fifty and one hundred maybe somebody else.
Speaker 4 (37:04):
That's extremely low, whatever that number is. I mean it's
under a thousand for sure, and that's that's pretty terrifying
to think about.
Speaker 5 (37:12):
I think probably, yeah, I think less than one thousand,
almost for sure. I mean, when you think about everything
relating to this, it has it's a mystery, it's a
sign of external intelligence. It has powerful national security implications,
it has powerful existential implications. It is powerful implications for
our global system, both economic, financial, in every way imaginable.
(37:35):
It's a powerful subject and that is why it was
subjected to so much ridicule for so long, because that
was an effective way of keeping it sidelined. So the
ridicule doesn't really work anymore, and that's a real loss
for the Secret Secrecy Group, if we can own that.
But I think this is a profoundly consequential subject and
it's much it goes way beyond like you know, cocktail
(37:57):
party conversation. Yeah, I'm very interested. Well, yeah, that's great.
I'm glad you like the subject.
Speaker 4 (38:04):
But it's the fate of humanity is in your hands, right,
last question here, brothers, you're nearly seventy percent through this.
You know, you've got two out of the three books done.
It's an amazing task of documenting all these historical cases.
After the whole series is done. Is there a lesson
or takeaway that you hope that that we would draw
(38:25):
from that data that you've compiled.
Speaker 5 (38:28):
Well, I think even from the first two books, one
can take the main messages away, which is that USOS
in particular, this is a serious aspect of the overall
UAP subject. For one, it continues to this day. That's
another thing. And it is global. There is no part
of this planet where they do not appear, So that
(38:49):
would be a quick thing to say. The thing I
would just add, and I've said this in I've said
this a great length in my first volume of this
is that as important as is, this is still a
fairly small subset of the overall UFO or UAP mystery.
And I say this because some people occasionally will say, oh, well, yeah,
water accounts for half of the UFO cases that are
(39:11):
out there, and I just don't see evidence for that.
When I look for these cases, I can tell you
I feel like I'm hunting for a needle in a haystack.
I go through large numbers of cases in various databases,
the National UFO Reporting Center and the mof ON database.
I've gone through both and it's it's not easy to
find a good USO case in them. They are there,
but you have to be diligent put on ten that
(39:35):
are usos. Oh even much less intent less than ten. Okay,
maybe maybe one percent? Oh wow, Okay, that might be.
Like if I go through one hundred cases on the
National UFO Reporting Center database, I would feel lucky if
I found one out of one hundred.
Speaker 4 (39:49):
Well not everyone's on the water, to be fair, exactly.
Speaker 5 (39:52):
Like, it's not that there's no action in the center
of the Atlantic Ocean, but who goes out there. Navy
goes out there startings, and they're not inclined to talk,
so we're we're at a disadvantage. Most of the USO
cases that I have noted were seen by people at
the shore, so they're not in the deep water. Some
are in the deep water because there are people who
are out there, but one. I didn't mention this as
a hotspot, but Puerto Rico really needs to be mentioned
(40:14):
as a major hotspot of this. And all of the
cases that I have are essentially people on the shore
seeing something incredible thing go on off the island right
very close to the shore. I think that's the case
with a lot of these Catalina Island off in the
Channel Islands off La Is another of these places in
our hotspots. But I suspect, you know, we're not out
in the deep water, so we're probably missing a lot.
Speaker 4 (40:34):
That's right. Well, thanks Richard, I really appreciate it. Everyone
check out that book and you can find more about
Richard at Richard dolanmembers dot com. You can find me
on Twitter and Instagram at ci TD Underscore Captain Ron.
Stay connected by checking out Contact Inthdesert dot com. Stay
open minded and rational as we explore the unknown right
here on the iHeartRadio and Coast to Coast am Paranormal
(40:54):
Podcast Network.
Speaker 1 (41:20):
Thanks for listening to the iHeartRadio and Coast to Ghost
Day and Paranormal Podcast Network. Make sure and check out
all our shows on the iHeartRadio app or by going
to iHeartRadio dot com.
You're listening to the iHeartRadio and Coast to Coast DAM
Paranormal podcast network, where we offer you podcasts of the paranormal, supernatural,
and the unexplained. Get ready now for Beyond Contact with
Captain Rong.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Welcome to our podcast. Please be aware the thoughts and
opinions expressed by the host are their thoughts and opinions only,
and do not reflect those of iHeartMedia, iHeartRadio, Coast to
Coast AM, employees of Premier Networks, or their sponsors and associates.
We would like to encourage you to do your own
(00:42):
research and discover the subject matter for yourself.
Speaker 3 (00:58):
Hey everyone, it's Captain Ron and each week on Beyond Contact,
we'll explore the latest news in ufology, discuss some of
the classic cases, and bring you the latest information from
the newest cases as we talk with the top experts.
Speaker 4 (01:14):
Welcome to Beyond Contact. I am Captain Ron, and today
we're going to be speaking with Richard Dolan. He's, of course,
one of the world's leading historians, authors, and researchers of
the UFO and USO phenomenon. He has a brand new
book called A History of USO's Unidentified Submerged Objects volume
two from nineteen seventy to nineteen eighty nine. So today
(01:36):
we're going to be focusing on his research into these USOS.
Hi Richard, it's been a very very long time, seven
whole days since we've had you on BRON.
Speaker 5 (01:47):
It's always a pleasure to be here. I really enjoy
this and I'm looking forward to talking about this with you.
Speaker 4 (01:52):
So before we dive into your second book here in
the three volume series on USOS, I wanted to ask
you about something we touched on during the last show
when we spoke about those two events in June on
the ninth and the twenty fifth. One of the mean
drives of this event was getting whistleblow or protection in place.
And I know you're a big advocate for that and
(02:13):
I agree, But I was thinking about it, isn't this
one area where they really do have some legitimate pushback.
It seems like there's legitimate national security reasons not to
have this, that it could open up a can of worms,
and it'd be foreign intelligence benefits and damaging relationships with
our allies, and it could break down the whole security
(02:35):
clearance system. So I want to find out what you
thought about. Isn't it more complex than people think when
they just say, oh, just protect the whistleblowers.
Speaker 5 (02:43):
Yeah, that's you're absolutely right, You're one hundred percent right. Look,
every story, every fact of our world has complexity to it,
and that includes this one. And anytime that any one
of us gets into this black and white aspect that like,
these people are good, those people are evil. This cause
is just and right, and anyone who poses it is
(03:03):
on the wrong side. I mean, that's just turning reality
into like a cartoon, and it's not accurate. It doesn't
do us any favors. I do support whistleblower protection. I
do believe that we're better served at this point in
our history with more openness on the genuine truth of UFOs,
what governments know, and all of that. But look, the
(03:24):
reality is this subject has always been tied in deeply
to national security. People can find that a legitimate cause
for secrecy, or they can just say no, the US
has no right to genuine national security secrets, because there
are people who do believe that. I don't think there's
any reason to doubt that there has been a genuine,
like below the surface Cold war going on. Relating to you,
(03:46):
a UFO tech technology. I, for one, strongly, very strongly,
I would say believe that there has been recovered hardware
that did not originate from our civilization. You can talk
about Roswell and a number of other instance. It's quite
a few actually potentially, So I think we've got that
and that's valuable. And there's evidence that the Russians have
(04:07):
acquired their share of this, and in fact, I think
it's not impossible and probably likely that the Chinese acquired
something as well. Maybe other nations as well, although other
nations that are in the western orbit are probably dominated
by the United States, and I think there's a lot
of reason to think the US has been able to
get a lot of the material added, like out of
Brazil for example, in Virginia nineteen ninety six. I think
(04:31):
there's a strong James Fox, the filmmaker, made a very
good case that the US probably absconded with the goodies
that were there. But overall, like there are genuine weapons
implications for this, and beyond weapons implications, there are structural
implications for our world system, our global system relating to energy,
relating to propulsion. Like most of us, we're not in
(04:53):
the circles of power, so we just want everything now.
We want free energy. Now, we want to you know,
give the finger to our uti tility companies, and we
want to be able to heat our home for free
for the rest of our lives and all of that.
But there are powerful implications when you think of a global,
deeply deeply integrated global system. I mean, look what happened
(05:13):
when we had an interruption and are having an interruption
of oil and energy out of the strait of hormones.
And we can see how sensitive and perhaps we might
even say brittle our global infrastructure actually is. In other words,
messing with that actually could have implications. And even for
something as potentially positive and transformative as UFO tech and science,
(05:35):
none of us really know all the implications of what's
going on there. You know what if some of the
technology involves space time engineering, you know, we talked about
this in the last program a week ago. I mean,
I for want assume that they the visitors, let's just
call them, I found a way to master that and
that's probably what allows them to be here. So if
there is an answer in that technology that we can
(05:56):
figure out, would it actually be an unmitigated positive for
human and being? So have access to spacetime metric engineering.
I'm not so sure. Or what if you can make
a really really powerful weapon out of some of this tech?
Could you trust every Could you trust all of your
neighbors have that access to it? Everyone in your city,
everyone in the country, everyone in the world. Someone is
likely to blow up the Pacific Ocean, like you can
(06:17):
just imagine someone's going to do that for sure.
Speaker 4 (06:19):
Look what they do now. Yeah, without these technologies. You know.
Another thing I wanted to point out is something we
kind of touched on during the last show as well,
is these files that the government's been releasing. They actually
hit on various USOS, including objects reportedly transitioning between air
and water, you know, the trans medium travel as they
call it. Did you notice that in the files when
(06:40):
they came.
Speaker 5 (06:40):
Out, Yeah, there's one in the last release, the third release,
I should say, it's stated it's basically has USO water implications.
And I looked at that video very carefully. It's quite interesting.
I have to admit, to my eye, I had a
hard time seeing the a clear water connection. But the
document or the information around that video did kind of
(07:02):
state that it was a water based case and the
object seem to enter the water. So I'm just going
to take that is yes. So that's interesting. You know,
we've had a couple of instances over the years of
videos being kind of authenticated dealing with the USNavy, where
you know, there's one I think Jeremy Corbel was the
first one to release this off the West coast, just
within the last five years or so, of an object
(07:23):
clearly doing a controlled entry into the water. So we
do have these those are I think confirmed as much
as they're confirmed, I mean they're confirmed in the sense
that military video shows this. What you don't have and
what we're probably not likely to get soon is a
statement from let's say the President who says, yes, that's real,
(07:44):
and we confirm that it's a USO and so that
we know that's a fact. Like they haven't done that.
So they kind of put the video out there where
it just sits there and where people who are inclined
to believe it's legit will say yes, legit, and where
people who are inclined to not believe in this subject
will just ignore.
Speaker 4 (08:00):
That's the way everything goes. Right now, everybody's picked their team,
you know, looking at this as long as you have.
Do you feel that these are probably related phenomenon, Like,
do you think UFOs and usos are probably coming from
the same source, the same intelligence, or is it your
sense that they could be completely unrelated.
Speaker 5 (08:19):
I think they're coming from the same intelligence, and I
think this for a number of reasons, because a when
you look at the morphology or the structure of the
craft themselves, they basically mirror the all the shapes that
people report above their heads. So there are disc like
saucer shaped objects that are reported below the water. We're
emerging from the water. There are cigar shaped or tubular
(08:40):
shaped objects. You get those with aerial UAP, you get
those with the usos. There are spherical objects, both of
the glowing plasma type as well as the non glowing
that look metallic types. Both of those are reported as
usos as well as being reported as aerial UFOs, And
even triangles. You get a couple of triangular shapes as
(09:01):
well that are reported in the water, and you get
those of course in the air. So on that basis,
I think they sure look the same in terms of
the types of behaviors that they engage in. The behaviors
seem very similar as well, so, for example, you know,
with most of these USO cases, particularly when they're encountering
a military like the US or the Russians, and what
(09:23):
they will do is the same kind of behavior that
they do for aerial cases, like they will come in,
they will loiter around for a very short period of time,
usually or frequently, I should say, disable our own electronic
equipment so that we are unable to respond, either with
weapons or even in terms of tracking them. So you
get that with the oceanic USO cases, and you get
(09:46):
it with aerial cases over land. So the behaviors strike
me as similar enough that the look of the craft
strike me as similar enough that I tend to think
they're probably the same. The aerial ones very likely have
the capability of going into the water. We just we're
not watching that.
Speaker 4 (10:02):
Sure. Do you see us getting anything of real significance
approaching undeniability of the phenomenon through any of these channels,
like these releases that we're getting these files not yet.
Speaker 5 (10:14):
I mean, we have a couple of pretty good videos
that have been out there that have not been denied
and that have been authenticated as real. What I think
is really needed for this to move forward is an
officially established body US government or a major media. But
as we know, like major media.
Speaker 4 (10:30):
They won't touch that. No way.
Speaker 5 (10:31):
Well, they're not independent, you know. They they're intimately connected
to the deep state in the intelligence community.
Speaker 4 (10:36):
Yeah, don't stand by for that. When we come back,
we're going to ask Richard about any patterns that he's
noticed in the data collection on USO cases. You're listening
to Beyond Contact and the iHeartRadio and Coast to Coast
AM Paranormal podcast network. We are back on Beyond Contact.
(11:04):
We're speaking again with Richard Dolan. You know, Richard, I
am so appreciative, as will many people be, for all
the work you've done in this series. And I think
it's the sort of painstaking data collection that is really
imperative for us to get to answers as to what
these things may be. It's important to call all this
data together so that we can look at it for
(11:25):
patterns and trends. It's very reminiscent of the great compilation
that Cheryl Costa did putting together all the UFO data
for the last twenty twenty five years, and she was
able to notice things like, you know, certain areas where
hotspots and we're far more likely than others, as well
as things like sightings over nuclear sites and whatnot. Were
you able to find certain things in the USO data
(11:47):
that jumped out at you?
Speaker 5 (11:49):
Yes, And I'll say a few things about this. A
was very much to my surprise. But be I didn't
even when I started this project of collecting USO cases
a little over four years ago, I didn't plan to
do a data a data analysis. I noticed that there
are some very good water based cases that just seemed
(12:09):
to be scattered all over the place that there was
no They didn't seem to be a very good single
repository for them. Turns out there was one. It was
a website by a deceased researcher by the name of
Carl Fint, who did very good work on this. His
website is now gone, Thank goodness. I was able to
data mine it completely and fully before it went off.
But there really wasn't a very easy place for people
(12:31):
to get data on these USO cases. So my goal
was simply I wanted to kind of bring them to life.
There were just too many of them, so I searched
through places like Carl's website and mof on and many
other sources, a lot of old magazines and every other
place that I could find, and I put them together,
and I collected about seven hundred such cases. I actually
(12:54):
found many times more than that, but a lot of
them just had not enough meat on the bones for
me to do much with, so I left them all
but seven hundred good cases i'd broken into three volumes.
Each of those volumes is about four hundred pages, and
as you just mentioned, the second one came out. What
I ended up doing this is actually a suggestion of
my wife, So I have to give Tracy credit here.
(13:14):
After I'd finished putting all the cases together, she said,
you know, what would be great idea if you just
created some categories and put at the beginning of each
case a summation of it, So like, what color was theft,
what shape was the craft, what was it doing? Did
it enter the water? Was it under the water? Did
it emerge in the water? Were there any type of
effects that people and this type of thing. So I
(13:37):
ended up coming up with fifteen and sometimes sixteen categories,
and I put them in and it was an additional
amount of work I didn't want to do, but I'm
glad I did so then after I did that, then
I decided I wasn't really a spreadsheet kind of a guy.
I've really done very little work with spreadsheets, that's the truth.
But I created a massive spreadsheet that was like thirty
seven sheets. Wow. It was like, oh my god, this
(14:01):
is my first spreadsheet. It's like the one that was
going to kill me. But I put it together. But
thank goodness I did that because that's what allowed me
to see patterns. This is what Cheryl Costa did in
her work as well. Sah absolutely basically the spreadsheet type thing,
and so when you do that, you can see things.
So one thing I noticed this was a shocker to me.
One of the data points that I noted was a
(14:21):
very simple one. It was that this occur during daylight
or at night. Forget like the time of day. That
because a lot of these cases like they don't tell
you the exact time, but in most instances I was
able to figure out if this is a day or
at night time, usually that information can come out. So
one thing I noted is that in all of the
cases that I found, right up until the end of
the nineteen sixties, it was almost exactly fifty to fifty
(14:45):
day versus night. Wow, And then almost like flipping a switch,
after nineteen sixty eight it went to like three quarters
seventy five percent started to take place at night, and
which has been to this day. Then if you factor
in military cases, they take place at almost a ninety
percent regularity at night. So now that to me tells
(15:05):
me that this is not a random effect, that this
is behavior. That's the first thing that jumps out of me.
In other words, that there is an intelligence.
Speaker 4 (15:12):
There intentionally clandestine.
Speaker 5 (15:15):
Yes, yes, absolutely, that's something we can surmise, and I
think that would be accurate, frankly. And then you know,
that got me asking myself, like what happened by the
late sixties that might have prompted this, And I didn't
have a full answer. But actually I was chatting a
number of months ago with Ross Coulthart, the journalist, and
Ross said to me that he had his contact who
(15:36):
learned about this in my research, and chuckled because he
told Ross that, yeah, that's when the I think it was.
The Keyhole satellite radically upped its game to be able
to take like ultra high resolution images from Earth orbit
down to the surface, but during the daytime, so whereas
at night it wasn't as effective, but in daytime it's
it's resolution was became amazing, it was already good. So
(15:59):
I under maybe was at it was that, you know,
were these operators thinking we don't really want to be
as visible, so let's let's take it out at night,
And maybe they couldn't go completely one hundred percent at night,
so some of these maybe had to happen during the daytime.
Just again I'm guessing, but the fact that I saw
this pattern in my spreadsheet really really caused me to think, Okay,
(16:22):
a I'm probably I think I'm getting good information because
this is a consistent pattern that I'm seeing that I
wasn't really expecting to look for another pattern I noticed,
and this I think might be related. It might not
be related. Particularly during the nineteen seventies, was a radical
increase in cases of electromagnetic interference by these objects against
(16:44):
the witnesses, whether military or non military em interference essentially,
so that would mean like the radio would go out,
or your car engine would go out if it was
an aerial case, or if it's a ship, your radar
or sonar system would go offline, or your communication system
would go offline, or your weapons systems would go offline,
or in some cases, your ship's engine would stop and
(17:07):
you'd be dead in the water for a little while.
Like that's what I'm talking about. And those types of
cases became much much more common during the nineteen seventies,
and so that was a definite pattern I noticed. And
then that declined back to more standard levels after really
the beginning of the early eighties, and it went back
to what looks like it always was. So something happened
during that period of time, and I don't have the
(17:29):
answer to this. What I can tell you is that
the nineteen seventies also were by far the busiest decade
for USO cases. That all the cases that I'm able
to find, the nineteen seventies takes the lead, and by
a large margin. And what's interesting is that that's all
pre internet, you know, that decade. A lot of the
cases that I have from the seventies were reported years
(17:50):
after the fact.
Speaker 4 (17:51):
On the Internet, but date to the seventies.
Speaker 5 (17:53):
Yeah, they go back to the nineteen seventies, and there's
just an enormous number of these cases. Something I think
was going on. The seventies were busy decades for aerial
UFO sidings as well. Very busy people may not always
remember this, but it's the truth. So something important was
going on.
Speaker 4 (18:08):
I think, well, it just seems like this whole time,
from your earliest cases up till now. I would anticipate
there being more sightings as we get closer, as our
technology grows and we have different craft under the water,
and our detection capabilities to see these objects has probably
improved in the last fifty years.
Speaker 5 (18:29):
This is probably true, And in fact, the twenty tens,
at least in my research, is the second busiest decade
after the nineteen seventies, so that is true. One of
the things against getting the contemporary reports is simply time.
Like a lot of these cases, if they're a military case,
like usually you're getting it from someone many years after
(18:49):
the fact, often toward the later part of their life,
when you can see like their attitude is the hell
with it. I'm just putting this out there. I want
the world to know. It's very likely that some of
the more recent cases too recent and we don't know
about them yet, but we may know about them twenty
thirty years from now. That's rarely possible. Yeah, so I
would I would think that's an important aspect of it.
I think you know your instinct on this is probably
(19:12):
correct that were We're getting better and better tools for
noticing them, but there are still dips that I noticed.
One dip was the nineteen nineties, and I wonder, like,
is that because the Cold War ended and some of
the Shenanigans that I noticed were actually US versus Soviet
operations that passed as USOS. I mean, I wonder this
(19:32):
when I look at the cases from the nineteen seventies
and eighties, I have a hard time thinking that these
are generally human tech. But I can't really say for
sure definitely, though the nineteen nineties showed a dip in
the sightings.
Speaker 4 (19:44):
It feels conintuitive.
Speaker 5 (19:45):
That could be that simply there's more cases from the
nineties that have not come out yet because it's still
the people, at least in the military who experienced them.
They're not yet ready to Yeah.
Speaker 4 (19:56):
Zell retire. Then they'll put that on the internet, and
then you'll have to redo the work again. Richard, we
got to take a break here. We come back. We're
going to ask you about the growing difficulty in knowing
what is real in the UFO space. You're listening to
Beyond Contact and the iHeartRadio and Coast to Coast AM
Paranormal Podcast Network. We are back on Beyond Contact. We're
(20:31):
speaking with Richard Dolan. Richard, do you have a favorite,
perhaps really strong case that stood out to you in
the USO research?
Speaker 5 (20:40):
Several? Yes, quite a few, almost too many to mention one.
I like a lot of the Russian Soviet cases, just
because some of them are so crazy, like I really
have to wonder like is this one true? Is this
one not true? One that I think is that, but
I'm quite confident is absolutely true. Is during the nineteen seventies, particular,
(21:00):
Soviet submarines frequently encountered a very very strange and unnerving
acoustic phenomenon while they were under the water, which they
called and I'm sure I'm going to butcher the pronunciation,
the kavakeri, which is the Russian word for croakers or
like the croaking of a frog. And they called it
(21:21):
that because it sounded like a croaking sound apparently. So
you know, imagine like you're down, you're blow the surface,
it's totally dark, you're looking for the Americans. The Americans
are looking for you. The game is going on a time,
it's to dance, a dance in the dark, you know,
and then they would pick up this strange sound and
the sound would surround them that they could detect it
(21:43):
circling them. Apparently, according to what we have on this,
they never figured it out. They wondered, is this American tech?
What the heck is this? To my knowledge, they never
really determined a solution, but they didn't. They determined it
wasn't the Americans and that it was probably some kind
of intelligence. One Russian researcher and a lot of these
(22:05):
researchers out of Russia, like X Navy themselves, like they're
serious guys. I think he speculated, Yeah, they probably look
at us the way we look at the fish in
the ocean, you know. So that's the Kabakri. There are
a couple of very good cases. One of my favorite
American cases is in my latest volume, Volume two, concerns
(22:28):
the USS John F. Kennedy aircraft carrier. This is nineteen
seventy one, July second, nineteen seventy one. We have an
exact date that's given, which we don't have exact dates
for some of these cases, especially if they're being reported
years later by a military person, but we have one
on this. We even have the name of the person
who put this one out there. He mentioned this a
number of several blog sites. He's a known person. So
(22:52):
the story is that this individual was a communication specialist
aboard the USSJFK. They were just north of Puerto Rico
in nineteen seventy one, and it's about eight eight thirty
in the evening, so it's getting dark, but not totally
dark because it's summertime, and he's at the comms and
he the first thing he notices is that all the
communications coming into the ship are gibberish, like they had.
(23:15):
He described they had four incoming and four outgoing, and
the incoming would I guess they would print out probably
like I'm imagining, like a dot matrix type printer, you know,
they would print out me. And so all of that
was gibberish. And he's looking at thinking that's that's wrong,
what's wrong here? And then he hears someone on the
ship's intercom in a state of utter panic, screaming it's God,
(23:37):
It's the end of the world.
Speaker 4 (23:38):
Wow.
Speaker 5 (23:38):
So that definitely got his attention. So he eventually quickly
he goes top side to see like what's happening, and
he described a glowing orange ball that was hovering directly
or right over the ship. He said it was about
the size of a beach ball at arm's length, so
pretty kind of big. That sounds very big, frankly. And
(23:59):
it had I had a kind of swirling colors of
like orange and dark yellow and reddish, and he said
it gave off about half the amount of light of sunlight,
so it was kind of bright. So he's watching this
for not even a full minute when the ship went
to battle stations general quarters and he had to return
to his communications station, so he didn't directly see the
(24:21):
object do anything else. The ship was in battle stations
for the next half hour, and he learned that fighter
aircraft were unable to launch, so the ship was not
able to engage. So apparently the order was given for
the fighter jets on the ship to engage his object,
but they were unable to do so. So this went
(24:42):
on for I think twenty five minutes. And that's his story.
I mean, it's kind of amazing. That's a great case,
he said after the fact. A few days later, when
they were about to leave the ship for surely that
the captain made an announcement. He didn't refer directly to
the event, but he just said, well, all of you
who serve aboard are us n able to will know
that there are certain things that must never leave this vessel.
(25:04):
And so according to the person who mentioned this, he said,
that was my cue that captain's talking about this event.
Speaker 4 (25:09):
Yeah, that's enough. Interesting, Hey, do you think there's some
of the newer technology that could really help identify what
some of these objects are? Things like underwater drones and
underwater scanning abilities are being developed right now, and I'm
thinking specifically about some of these huge leaves that have
been made. There's this thing called synthetic aperture sonar systems,
(25:32):
which are AI enhanced multi beam systems that are carried
by autonomous underwater vehicles and they allow for huge areas
to be scanned and mapped. You know, they're doing that
twenty thirty project to map all of the oceans. What
do you think of those?
Speaker 5 (25:49):
Very interesting? And I look at the history of the
USO phenomenon as a dance between us and them, as
I say, and what I mean by that is you
go back to one hundred and twenty six years ago
to the year nineteen hundred was the year that we
first developed an operational submarine. So from that point and
then you think of all of our developments sonar, radar, battleships,
(26:13):
aircraft carriers, nuclear submarine. By the nineteen fifties, I could
stay under water almost forever, and all these other advances.
We started developing undersea sonar systems in the nineteen fifties
that were becoming pretty good. So if you're them, if
you're these other beings, you're realizing that these human beings
are not static. They are constantly innovating, and so you
(26:34):
have to calibrate your self against this. And one of
the things that I think that they've been doing all
these years is when they come up to a vessel
and do what I call data denial, where they will
shut us down, They will shut down our ability to
observe them at their closest approach. Frequently they do this,
and I sometimes think they do this because they're testing
(26:57):
can we do this. It's like them that something new here.
We have to make sure that we can deal with this,
so let's go and test it. So with the newest
technologies that we are developing. I actually would expect that
it might have initial success. But I might also expect
that whatever the intelligences are that operate below the water
(27:19):
are probably aware of this and may be taking their
own countermeasures. You know, arms races may not simply occur
between US and the Russians and US and the Chinese.
They may actually be taking place, in a sense, between
US and these other beings that are here.
Speaker 4 (27:34):
You know, there's another aspect of the USO and UFO thing,
and that's this trust factor. We have such a divided
society and world for that matter, that I honestly believe
if certain people came out with official pictures or videos
or whatever like we touched on earlier, there will still
be a good percentage of people who won't believe it.
You know, you can couple that with the rise of
(27:54):
AI and some of these technologies we're talking about, and
we're living in a world where we don't ever know
what's real.
Speaker 5 (28:02):
It's a serious problem. Yeah, twenty plus years ago. I
used to think a lot about AI at that time,
and I'd read some books by Ray Kurzweil, and I
was like, I'm into this subject. And back then, tuck
in two thousand and three, two thousand and four, I
really convinced myself. It feels so naive now thinking, but
I thought, well, when we get to a place of
stronger AI, that will solve the UFO mystery, because you'll
(28:26):
just be able to ask your artificially intelligent computer, hey,
I'm looking for some UFO evidence, and they'll say, oh, yes, absolutely,
the data shows that there's six different groups of intelligences,
and this and that and the other. And that's not
to say the least, that is not what has happened.
So lllm's are quite a different ballpark. They're only as
good as the data that goes into them, exactly, and
(28:48):
they have their guardrails, as we know, and they can
be weaponized for all kinds of purposes, so that whole
idea of mine goes right out the window. But even
beyond that, AI is a problem because now we're in
an error where evident we all know evidence can be
fabricated easily. I mean, in the recent movie Disclosure Day
by Steven Spielberg, one of the ironies I always felt
was at the end, I'm sorry about a spoiler, but
(29:08):
at the end they're they're releasing video like powerful video
of Roswell and of all these other historical events. And
in the movie, the people are looking at this thinking, wow,
this is real. But the proof actually is that Steven
Spielberg proved in this movie that he's able to create
very realistic looking video. He's got some resources and he
can do it.
Speaker 4 (29:28):
But sure anyone, but in the year or two it's
going to be as good for a kid on his eye.
Speaker 5 (29:33):
And I'll tell you that, so anyone can create at
least video. So video is not enough anymore, and we
have to really ask what does constitute proof? And then
you know, to your point about society being fractured, I
completely agree with this. But the one difference I would
say here is that you know, I think it was
last week we talked about Donald Trump do disclosure. Okay,
(29:54):
so you can either love Trump or you can hate Trump.
But obviously it's unavoidable that half the world, half the
country anyway, hates this man. Right, he lived rent free
in their head, and so if he were to say something,
it would probably not be believed by at least some people
just because it's him, right, But if he did that,
and if the evidence was out there, I tend to think.
Over time, more and more people would probably slowly come
(30:16):
around and accept it.
Speaker 4 (30:18):
Yeah, it has to.
Speaker 5 (30:19):
I don't know how long it would take.
Speaker 4 (30:20):
But it's different than it would have been twenty years ago.
Twenty years ago, any president makes that statement and ninety
five percent of the people go for it, where it's
not the case today.
Speaker 5 (30:29):
Totally agree on that.
Speaker 4 (30:30):
Brother, We got to take a break here. We'll pick
this up on the other side here when we come back.
We're going to ask Richard about his thoughts on what would,
could and should happen next regarding the disclosure moment and
the study of UFOs and USOS. Plus, you can wager
on whether or not he'll make a fifth Dance metaphor.
My money's on yes. We'll see what happens when we
come back. You're listening to Beyond Contact on the iHeartRadio
(30:52):
and Coast to Coast AM Paranormal podcast network. We are
(31:13):
back on Beyond Contact. It's Captain Ron speaking with Richard Dolan. Hey, Richard,
after decades of looking at both UFOs and USOS, what
questions stand out to you is the most that you
think we need answers to in order to get a
better handle on what the phenomenon.
Speaker 5 (31:29):
Is also very good question.
Speaker 4 (31:32):
They're all, Richard, come on.
Speaker 5 (31:35):
They are really a good time here. I tend to
think that in our community, let's just call it, there's
a lot of focus on disclosure. They understand that they
want the government to reveal the truth, they want their
government to be responsive to them. I mean, there's a
lot of good reasons to ask for that. But this
subject is much much bigger than disclosure. It's a phenomenon.
(31:55):
And not only is it a phenomenon, I like to
remind people, it is a phenomenon that strongly appears to
be intelligent, strongly appears to be highly sophisticated, very precise,
very confident, I would add, and seems to have no
problem operating anywhere it wants to in any part of
this world. So that's that's the big thing that I
(32:17):
think we sometimes easily lose sight of that there is
someone here that we don't have a good explanation for them,
and they seem to operate well well beyond our capability.
You know, I could just only talk about my own
interest and where I have moved, but I have definitely moved.
You know, we talked about behavioral aspects of this phenomenon,
and that is probably the main thing that drives me
(32:40):
these days, is trying to understand their behavior and to
understand our relationship to them. What if there is a relationship,
and not simply like do they make us or do
they guide our evolution? Which I don't believe, actually, but
how long have they been observing us? What changes historic
have occurred in the patterns of that observation. So by
(33:03):
that I simply mean I'm not on board with a
lot of the ancient aliens beliefs set where they'll say, oh,
they've been here forever and they've been doing this and
that forever. I actually don't believe that. I do think
that we've been observed for a long time. And I
also think that a lot of the so called evidence
for ancient UFOs ancient aliens is way overblown and probably
not trip.
Speaker 4 (33:21):
There wasn't much to see. We weren't doing anything, no technology.
Speaker 5 (33:25):
Exactly exact that. I think that's probably the main reason.
What could they do with us? What could we do
with them?
Speaker 4 (33:31):
Really?
Speaker 5 (33:32):
We couldn't. We would have no ability really to relate
to them. What I see is a pattern of vastly
increased observation starting in the nineteenth century, early nineteenth century,
and then really going to the next level during and
immediately after World War Two. You know, why weren't there
big numbers of UFO sidings in the nineteen twenties. We
were advanced, we had radio, we had ability to notice
(33:54):
the things, and yet the phenomenon wasn't there. But after
the forties it was, so something was definitely happening after that.
But I'm interested in their behavior. I'm interested in seeing
both parallels and differences between us and them that I'm
able to figure out, and I think looking at them
as a kind of anthropologist is one maybe productive way
(34:16):
to do it, studying their behavior. What I tend to
think is that based on what I've studied, is, hey,
they're not interested in open contact with us, probably because
it would almost be impossible for them to do it.
It would be like us trying to have open contact
with If you went back one million years into the
past and try to meet one of the human ancestors
(34:37):
that existed, then yes, they walked up right, Yes they
were intelligent. No, you would not be able to have
a real conversation with them without destroying their community. It
would just not be possible, and I suspect it might
be the same here. So to answer your question, I
think what is needed more focus on actually understanding this
phenomenon rather than focusing on is the government going to
(34:59):
give us discs closure. I think that's important. I don't
want to minimize it, but I think we're really starting
to lose sight of it over the last ten years
since this subject has been in the kind of more
in the mainstream. I really think that a lot of
the research community also has potentially lost sight of some
of the more traditional things that are going on. Are
there still abductions? Yes, I think there are still abductions.
(35:20):
I don't really hear much many people researching there things
like that.
Speaker 4 (35:24):
The scientific resource to this cause, to me is I
say it all the time, we need more scientific resource
to dedicate it to this. If you had the opportunity
to ask just one question directly to those who do
know the full truth, you know, as best as humans
can know, inside our government, private industry, wherever it is
that really is at the top, what question would it be?
Speaker 5 (35:47):
I would probably my instinct would be to ask what's
the worst, like, what's the most dangerous aspect of This
is because I've often heard rumors but not confirmed, but
certainly in behavior support this that at least one of
the groups, if we can say that that's here, is
very very very terrifying, very scary. So if that's true,
(36:09):
that's certainly one reason you might not want to have
a disclosure. You know, if there is a group that's
here that you have no control over, that is terrifying
in one way or another. So that's probably what I
want to know. If I were to ask the secret keepers,
how bad is it?
Speaker 4 (36:25):
Well, let me ask you this related question about the
secret keepers. How many people do you think, take a
wild guess, because I know this is complete speculative, do
you think would have the full picture within our government?
Speaker 5 (36:36):
Well, too, you said within our government. I had a
different answer. So I think, first, I think some of
the secret goes beyond government. I think probably a lot
of it goes beyond government at this point, I think
a lot of this has been shopped out to private
and semi public organizations and things like that. But of that,
people who actually have really the full the full dirt,
(37:00):
really know. But I wouldn't be surprised if it's between
fifty and one hundred maybe somebody else.
Speaker 4 (37:04):
That's extremely low, whatever that number is. I mean it's
under a thousand for sure, and that's that's pretty terrifying
to think about.
Speaker 5 (37:12):
I think probably, yeah, I think less than one thousand,
almost for sure. I mean, when you think about everything
relating to this, it has it's a mystery, it's a
sign of external intelligence. It has powerful national security implications,
it has powerful existential implications. It is powerful implications for
our global system, both economic, financial, in every way imaginable.
(37:35):
It's a powerful subject and that is why it was
subjected to so much ridicule for so long, because that
was an effective way of keeping it sidelined. So the
ridicule doesn't really work anymore, and that's a real loss
for the Secret Secrecy Group, if we can own that.
But I think this is a profoundly consequential subject and
it's much it goes way beyond like you know, cocktail
(37:57):
party conversation. Yeah, I'm very interested. Well, yeah, that's great.
I'm glad you like the subject.
Speaker 4 (38:04):
But it's the fate of humanity is in your hands, right,
last question here, brothers, you're nearly seventy percent through this.
You know, you've got two out of the three books done.
It's an amazing task of documenting all these historical cases.
After the whole series is done. Is there a lesson
or takeaway that you hope that that we would draw
(38:25):
from that data that you've compiled.
Speaker 5 (38:28):
Well, I think even from the first two books, one
can take the main messages away, which is that USOS
in particular, this is a serious aspect of the overall
UAP subject. For one, it continues to this day. That's
another thing. And it is global. There is no part
of this planet where they do not appear, So that
(38:49):
would be a quick thing to say. The thing I
would just add, and I've said this in I've said
this a great length in my first volume of this
is that as important as is, this is still a
fairly small subset of the overall UFO or UAP mystery.
And I say this because some people occasionally will say, oh, well, yeah,
water accounts for half of the UFO cases that are
(39:11):
out there, and I just don't see evidence for that.
When I look for these cases, I can tell you
I feel like I'm hunting for a needle in a haystack.
I go through large numbers of cases in various databases,
the National UFO Reporting Center and the mof ON database.
I've gone through both and it's it's not easy to
find a good USO case in them. They are there,
but you have to be diligent put on ten that
(39:35):
are usos. Oh even much less intent less than ten. Okay,
maybe maybe one percent? Oh wow, Okay, that might be.
Like if I go through one hundred cases on the
National UFO Reporting Center database, I would feel lucky if
I found one out of one hundred.
Speaker 4 (39:49):
Well not everyone's on the water, to be fair, exactly.
Speaker 5 (39:52):
Like, it's not that there's no action in the center
of the Atlantic Ocean, but who goes out there. Navy
goes out there startings, and they're not inclined to talk,
so we're we're at a disadvantage. Most of the USO
cases that I have noted were seen by people at
the shore, so they're not in the deep water. Some
are in the deep water because there are people who
are out there, but one. I didn't mention this as
a hotspot, but Puerto Rico really needs to be mentioned
(40:14):
as a major hotspot of this. And all of the
cases that I have are essentially people on the shore
seeing something incredible thing go on off the island right
very close to the shore. I think that's the case
with a lot of these Catalina Island off in the
Channel Islands off La Is another of these places in
our hotspots. But I suspect, you know, we're not out
in the deep water, so we're probably missing a lot.
Speaker 4 (40:34):
That's right. Well, thanks Richard, I really appreciate it. Everyone
check out that book and you can find more about
Richard at Richard dolanmembers dot com. You can find me
on Twitter and Instagram at ci TD Underscore Captain Ron.
Stay connected by checking out Contact Inthdesert dot com. Stay
open minded and rational as we explore the unknown right
here on the iHeartRadio and Coast to Coast am Paranormal
(40:54):
Podcast Network.
Speaker 1 (41:20):
Thanks for listening to the iHeartRadio and Coast to Ghost
Day and Paranormal Podcast Network. Make sure and check out
all our shows on the iHeartRadio app or by going
to iHeartRadio dot com.
The Best of Coast to Coast AM News
Host
George Noory
Popular Podcasts
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.