251. UFOs in Legislation, Nukes, & Meteors

Today, we explore the latest findings on unidentified aerial phenomena, the implications of recent legislative actions, and the scientific mysteries that continue to baffle experts. From historical analyses to modern-day sightings, this episode uncovers the layers of intrigue surrounding the unknown. Welcome back to Infinite Rabbit Hole! #UFOs #GovernmentSecrets #InfiniteRabbitHole

InfiniteRabbitHole.com

Episode Transcript

(00:38):
Welcome back to the Infinite Rabbit Hole.
I'm your host, Jeremy, and todaywe're going to start a new era
of the podcast. Yay, claps, everybody claps.
Thank you, Jacob. I am.
I am. I am with my buddy Jake today
and just Jake. Just Jake.
How's it going? I'm just jaking around.

(01:01):
It's cold out bro. It's I haven't done anything all
weekend. It is so freaking cold.
It was -10 this morning and thenit got up to a high of like
what, 8? I don't think it got that high
and. Then Tuesday is supposed to be
40°. Yeah, Yeah, it was, man.

(01:23):
Like there was deer all over theplace yesterday and it was,
we're in antlerless season for rifle.
And I was like, Nah, Nope, not going to do it.
I'm not going to be out there inthe zeros cleaning a deer, no.
Well, we're going to be Jefflessfor a little while.
Jeff recently moved and he's gotto get some some internets so he

(01:48):
can come talk to us. So we'll know Jeffrey for a
little while. That's it.
He told me to tell everybody that, but the truth is that he
just doesn't care anymore and hegave up quit and he quit on not
just us, but you too. Yep.
So let's let's sound off with Boo.

(02:08):
Jeff's in the chat. Boo, Boo Jeff, Boo.
Boo this man. Boo.
This man so got some explaining to do so we didn't record last
week and we didn't put out a newepisode last week.
Instead I took the 250th episodeand I released an old Patreon
exclusive fact. The first Patreon exclusive, the

(02:30):
John Teeter Special, is about almost two hours worth of hard
facts on everyone's favorite time traveler, John Teeter.
My favorite way of doing it through documentary series.
Not much else to say about that,but we could talk a little bit
about why we weren't here. And that has to deal with more

(02:54):
or less changes in life. So 250 episodes in and things
get stale. Let's just be honest from this
point of view. I've been doing this for five
years straight and sometimes it sucks.
I love doing it, but sometimes it sucks and I need to change it

(03:15):
up or else I'm going to go freaking crazy.
So that's what I did, and I found a way to format this show
where I can do what I originallywanted to do.
The love that I had for the documenting the the strange and
the unknown, but also stick withthe really cool interviews that

(03:38):
we've been been good enough to get lately.
So we're going to try out this new format tonight.
It's going to be kind of a test run, see how it goes.
But the gist is I am researchingfor a lot of stuff.
A lot of stuff. One of which one of those stuffs
is my book that I'm writing on Elmwood.

(03:58):
So I've been diving into a lot of UFO stuff and every week my
research changes. I've been writing this book for
over a year and a half now and my attention span doesn't stay
on one subject very long. So that's what I'm going to do
with Infinite Rabbit. I am for the episodes where we

(04:18):
don't have an interview going. We're going to dive into
whatever it was that I got caught up researching that week.
Simple as that. That's the new format, but it
comes with a nice beautiful script of that.
I take 15 minutes out of my day every Sunday to put together,
type up real quick and present it to you guys.

(04:41):
Jake doesn't have to do anythingexcept for talk crap about the
topics and he's happy. Jeff doesn't have to do anything
because he literally doesn't research.
He just, you know this, Jeff, but you get to kind of enjoy
some of the stuff that I've beengoing down and where my thought
processes are and the rabbit holes that I've been getting

(05:02):
stuck in, which is basically whythe infinite rabbit hole is the
infinite rabbit hole because I had a horrible issue with
sticking on one topic and it does not only affect the show.
If you guys have been listening to us at all in the last five

(05:24):
years, you'll know that I'm not very good at sticking to one
topic and just expand that to toinclude the entirety of a week,
a month and a year. There's a lot of stuff that I
lose track of what I'm supposed to be doing and get caught
researching. So we're going to dive into a

(05:46):
little bit more of my worked andwhat I'm thinking about as of
right now. Jake ready to talk about UFOs,
bud? Yes.
So enthusiastic. I love it.
All right, yes. So I have three things that I've
been researching this week that I want to bring to your guys's

(06:08):
attention and I get to try out my new scripting.
So bear with me. Here we go.
Section 1, The political realityof UFOs, The biggest 40 inch
story of the month is not an incident, but a piece of
legislation that solidifies the UAP phenomenon as an ongoing

(06:28):
national security concern. We are talking about the fiscal
year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act or NDAA.
The final conference text of this massive defensive bill was
released on December 7th, 2025, and it passed the House on
December 10th. Within the legislation are

(06:51):
powerful provisions forcing transparency from the military.
Regarding UA PS specifically, Congress is now directing the
Pentagon's All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office, or ARROW, to
provide detailed expanded briefings.
This is not a general request. The Mandate targets UAP

(07:12):
intercepts conducted by US Northern Command and NORAD, the
2 commands responsible for defending North American
airspace. ARROW must report the number,
precise location, and nature of these intercepts.
The most critical detail for 14 researchers is the retrospect

(07:33):
retrospective clause. This required report must
include all unreported intercepts dating back to
January 1st, 2004. This means the military is
officially acknowledging that they have been tracking and
accumulating data on unknown aerial incursions for two

(07:54):
decades. The narrative has officially
shifted from if Uaps exist to what our defense forces are
intercepting and why Congress isnow forcing the issue.
What do you think, Jake? I think it's all BS.
Well, yeah, I knew you thought that, but tell me what you
really think. Well.

(08:15):
What? I really think.
Oh, well, then obviously aliens are real.
I mean, come. On, well, not.
Obviously. Not necessarily just aliens,
right? I mean, we talked about all
kinds of stuff on this, this show about UFOs.
And one thing that I was debating on, on diving into,
because it was probably the newest thing that I've been
researching and it was within the last 48 hours, is this new

(08:36):
report that's been coming out. It's been kind of sneaking
around. And it really just verifies John
Keel's research from the book Operation Trojan Horse, where he
talked about this strange detailwhere not only are we seeing

(09:00):
UFOs in the skies over, you know, populated areas, but
they're, they also tend to pay attention to political
boundaries and days of the week.So for those of you that aren't
familiar with John Keel's work in the book Operation Trojan

(09:21):
Horse, he discussed a finding and I, I forget the number of
sightings that he used for the pool, but basically he found
that Wednesdays were the most popular days for UFOs to be
spotted. And they also tended to to come
out mostly in spring and summer.They also would have this

(09:44):
strange coincidence where they would either start acting
differently, they'd move quickeronce they moved across, or they
just would stop and suddenly go the other way once they hit a
border of a country or state. So this was back in shoot.
I think Operation Trojan Horse was actually rewritten.

(10:06):
The original book was called WhyUF OS and then it was rewritten
into Operation Trojan Horse. And I think why UF OS is
probably in the 60s or 70s. So now that we're getting
research coming out saying something very similar to what
John Keel was putting out way back then, I think it's very

(10:28):
interesting. But the question is, are they
using that for some sort of narrative building?
And I know Jeff would probably usually have a comment on that,
but I think it's a good questionto ask because now we're seeing
a similar strange concept that we see a lot of times in movies,

(10:52):
right? Where we're kind of being told
the narrative beforehand and then something happens, IE the
the train explosion in Pennsylvania few years ago.
There's literally a movie on Netflix about it in the exact
same town. So what do you think, Jake?

(11:13):
I think that it's all narrative building.
To what end, I don't know, but my opinion isn't going to
change. Despite the amount of times we
talked about this sort of topic,my opinions aren't going to
change quite dramatically. Is saying suddenly, OK, well,
UFOs are real and so are aliens and all this sort of stuff?
I think the whole thing is just it's narrative building.

(11:35):
Yeah. That to what end remains to be
seen, But I'm not surprised thatCongress is like appealing to
find out the truth about the aliens because, you know, who
would give those people information?
You know, it's like, you know, it's like it's on a need to know

(11:56):
basis. And I would imagine that most of
those people, probably 99% of those people are not in a need
to know sort of, you know, capacity.
They don't need to know all of the tech that the military has.
They don't need to know all of the different, you know,
capabilities that the black budget projects have.
They don't need to know, you know what, what Lockheed has

(12:22):
Northrop Grumman has and what you know all these companies
have. So it would make sense that they
don't know you know anything. So if you're watching right now,
I'm just kind of showing you guys one website that is posting
information about this specific UAP addition to the NDAA, which

(12:44):
was posted on December 12th. So just two days ago on Friday,
at least from this source, it was posted publicly.
I believe the actual decision was pushed through on December
10th, which would have been madeit Wednesday.
So just wanted to share that with you guys.
With that, I bring 4 questions to the table.

(13:06):
I'm just going to read them all off and then Jake, if you have
anything you want to talk about from them, we'll just discuss it
real quick. First one is If this phenomenon
wasn't a threat, why does Congress need to see two decades
worth of military intercept dataright now?
2 Are we forcing the military toadmit they have no defense for

(13:27):
objects operating outside known physics?
3 Is this congressional pressurea sign that the political will
for disclosure is finally outrunning the military's desire
for secrecy? And four, does this indicate an
escalating pattern of intrusion has finally become too frequent
to ignore? Answer to #1 because people are

(13:50):
calling their Congress men and women and annoying the heck out
of them. And unless they get answers,
they're going to keep calling them, keep emailing them, keep
sending them letters. I mean, shoot, you could find
out where your congressional representative lives and show up
at their house. And, you know, granted that you
probably have to deal with the security team, but you could,
you know, drop a letter right ontheir front porch that says,

(14:12):
tell me about the aliens, you know, and do it every single
day, multiple times a day for months and months and months.
And eventually you're going to get a response, whether that's a
piss off or a fine. I'll, I'll ask about it now
broadcast that out to, you know,all the people that want to know

(14:32):
across every single state, just dumping letters and mailboxes
and stuff. I mean, you're going to get a
response. You know, you can only back up
the congressional representatives secretary's
phone so much with, you know, voicemail saying I want to know
about the aliens before they finally say, OK, fine.

(14:52):
You know, I have to clear my, I have to clear my, the memory on
my device every single day because of the amount of
messages I get. I mean, you know, it's just like
if a bill was going to be passedand you didn't want it to be
passed or whatever. Like all these people around
here that are like no data center and stuff.
You think those people aren't blowing up their you know who's

(15:14):
the the guy over here? He's bald anyway.
The mayor. Yeah, but you think that here
they're not blowing up his phonesaying no data center and stuff
like that, whether he can or cannot do anything about it,
right? It's just like, you know, stuff
gets done, right? They're a voice of the people.
So that's number one as far as I'm concerned.

(15:35):
What was #2? #2 Are we forced in the military
to admit they have no defense for objects operating outside
known physics? I mean, obviously, I mean any of
our current West open systems, Imean like a Hellfire missile is
amazing, but could it blow up something that's going

(15:55):
supersonic speeds? Probably not.
It only has so much capability, right?
So let's clear the air here. Let me let me ask you a
question, but let me get your official standing.
I know, I know. You think a lot of this is BS,
right? Simple questions.
Do you think there's unknown objects in the sky?
Yes. OK.

(16:16):
Do you believe that they're physical?
Some. So with that answer then then
there's multiple types of thingsin the sky.
Yeah, there's multiple types of different aircraft in the sky
too. Yeah, different uses usages.
Specifically about UAP, right? Unidentified Aerial phenomena.

(16:39):
You still believe that there's multiple types of these aerial
mysteries. Sure, yeah.
OK. Do you believe that they all
have the same source? Different sources, I'm guessing,
You know, being that you're a veteran, you would think that

(17:00):
some of it is top secret technology, human technology.
What do you think? Give me a give me a a short list
of what you could think the possibilities of some of this
other stuff being. Misidentification, black budget
programs, spiritual beings wrapped around like a deception.

(17:25):
I would say 0% chance in my brain that anything comes from
off planet. Not any.
I mean, I guess you could say like, oh, a different spiritual
plane. It's technically off planet.
Yeah, OK, sure. But like aliens as we understand
aliens to be like from a different Galaxy or something
like that. No.

(17:45):
Yeah, extraterrestrials. I would say no to that because I
mean, you got to look at human history in any now, I'm not
saying that they would be exactly like us and their
reasoning and thought process and things like that.
But in any single situation, very rarely, except for like
maybe now people are like, oh, we can take aerial pictures of

(18:09):
the tribes in Papua New Guinea, right, type stuff, but we don't
want to bother them. We'll just take pictures of
them. Someone's landed there on a
boat, right? And they killed him.
You know, type stuff like it happens every once in a while,
but for the most part, it's always been like you aren't in
the same ballpark as us militarily say like, I don't
know, people like to throw this around.

(18:30):
We just had Thanksgiving, the colonial, you know, sailors
coming across to North America and finding tribes of Indians
that hadn't even invented a wheel or written language in the
thousands of years they occupiedthis area.
You know, didn't take long for that to, you know, see its

(18:52):
course out. And that's been the that's been
the routine for any civilizationon this planet.
I mean, shoot, why do we keep dogs and cats?
Because they're a lower life form and we think it's cute.
I mean, sure, they perform a duty to us, but wouldn't that
also be the same thing If like ahigher life form was able to

(19:14):
master interstellar travel, get through the radiation belt?
I doubt they would just be like flying around be like, let's
turn off the buttons on these, you know, nuclear launch
facilities. You know, let's turn, turn off
the the power button or let's just, you know, visit some
people in a cornfield. I think they would be a lot more
aggressive than that. Or even the stories or people
are like, oh gosh, they they told me that we were so close to

(19:38):
like humanity's demise and they wanted to interfere to keep us
from from destroying it each other, right?
I haven't seen evidence of that happening because we're still in
conflict constantly. There's still civil war going on
constantly in some parts of the world, somewhere in the world.
There's never peace, right? So I just don't see the evidence

(20:01):
of that. So I just, I don't put any
weight into the idea that it's extraterrestrials.
But yeah, spiritual beings, because you know, my background,
what I believe. Especially considering that, you
know, the other side is so, you know, involved in deceiving

(20:21):
people. You know, definitely
misidentification because that seems to be a pretty common
occurrence. I mean, I can't say for 100%
fact that all of the UA PS I've seen, which is probably 3 or 4,
that they weren't able to be described as something, you
know, normal, right? Like a plane with, you know,

(20:47):
instead of having a, a graphic design on the side or like white
paint or something like that arepainted that would be like
aluminum and it would be reflecting the light.
And all I'd see was a ball of light.
And two years ago I would have said, yeah, that's pretty
unlikely. But we have a plane that lands
on our airfield at least once a month that is a World War 2

(21:10):
bomber, and the entire thing is chromed out.
So if it gets out there in the sky and it's reflecting the the
sunlight, all you see is a ball of light.
There's no discernible shape besides that.
I mean, it sounds super cool when it comes in because it's
just like this big old, like Mustang engine, right?
Sounds like a big old motorcyclewhen it rolls in.
But I mean, but yeah, I mean, I,I would prior to seeing that, I

(21:32):
would have been like, it's very uncommon for aircraft to be
chromed out and reflect light like that.
Well, turns out they exist, right?
Might not be common, but, you know, who knows?
Was there an air show in the area?
You know, there's a lot of explanations.
So was I seeing actually UA PS government drones or you know,
something that was actually common for the time frame I was

(21:55):
seeing it? I don't know remains to be seen.
So misidentification and then certainly, I mean, just I, I
just, I continually go back to it because it gets continues to
be brought up. The, you know, the Blackhawk
helicopters that were used to take out Osama bin Laden.
Just like these super stealth helicopters that even Obama when

(22:16):
he was the president had no ideathey existed until he was
briefed about the OP to go and take out bin Laden.
You know, hey, also we're going to be flying these helicopters.
The pilots were Blackhawk helicopter pilots had never
flown these things. And somehow they were so quiet
that they were able to crash oneof these things in the courtyard
of this compound. And the people didn't even know

(22:39):
that it was there until they breached the doors.
Right. It keeps getting brought up.
If you listen to the Sean Ryan show and he has all these, you
know, prior Seals on and stuff like that.
He keeps getting brought up. What can you tell me about the
Blackhawks that they flew on? Not much, you know, type stuff.
You know, it's, it's definitely not a casual helicopter.

(22:59):
Does Congress? Did Congress know about those
things before? You know, if the president
didn't know about them before the OP happened, very unlikely.
I doubt any of them knew. Just because you have a top
secret clearance doesn't mean anything because you are given
top secret information in the realm of what you need to know.
Not oh, you got this clearance, here's everything right.

(23:21):
Yeah, well, they, they have those congressional parties,
those little groups that they that they make up for certain
topics that they've given, giventhe need to know for on on
certain things. So I'm up to date with this, the
story on the the mysterious Blackhawks.
But I would argue that there probably was a small committee

(23:42):
of congressional people who had the need to know to know that
they existed, because everythingmilitary is supposed to have
congressional oversight. And that's like one of the big
push backs for the entire UFO community and trying to get
disclosure is because everythingbeing done by the United States
military or government is in response to UFOSUAP is lacking

(24:08):
congressional oversight. But I know, but we we talked
about this ad nauseam. Is the congressional oversight,
does that come into effect if it's a private company that owns
the vehicles? No.
And that is there is a huge flawthere Yes, you're right.
We've talked about this a lot when you talk about contractors,

(24:31):
right? I mean, name 1 and they probably
have some sort of technology that we will never see, ever
see. And why do they have it?
Because honestly, if the Second Cold War or World War 3 broke

(24:52):
out, I still don't think we'd see it.
Right. I would say, because why not?
It's like who we need a hydrant or what?
What's the word a hydrant Collider?
Yeah, a large hydrant Collider, of course do.
Do you know must we have that? You know the when it was first
turned on? It's like the thought that maybe

(25:14):
something cool happens or maybe a black hole happens that
consumes the entire Earth. I don't know, let's figure it
out. You know, I think that's kind of
the OR AI, right, that's gettingpretty creepy and advanced and
things like that. I mean, it's like, is that
necessary to sustain life? No, but why not?

(25:35):
It's like the fault of man. It's like, well, because we can.
So if it can be done, then it will be done and then you can
throw a patent on it saying no one else can make this.
So the Large Hadron Collider, from a scientific standpoint and
from my own personal point of view, I believe is critical,

(25:57):
although what can be done with it can be very reckless.
We have created singularities. So for those that are unfamiliar
with the term, singularities areblack holes.
That's basically what a black hole is just minute.
These Large Hadron colliders have created them.
And if you do this incorrectly, right, and this isn't just this

(26:21):
isn't just whoops, sorry, this is whoops.
Well, I I just destroyed all of reality here on Earth.
Oops. Because if you create one that's
stable enough, then you have some real fucking problems.
But the Large Hasron Collider isvery important.

(26:43):
Very, very important. We're learning things on the
atomic level right now that are absolutely blowing our minds.
And look no further than quantumcomputing, anything dealing with
the quantum realm, right? It's, it's very strange and
foreign to all of us, including the top minds and, and any
branch of science. But we're learning a lot about

(27:06):
it. You know, I was trying to
explain this to my daughter the other day because we had a
conversation about quantum physics.
And I, I can't remember how it started, but I know the question
that she eventually asked me as we were sitting outside of her
job was what is quantum physics?And I was like, well, it's, it's

(27:28):
how physics works at the, the very, very smallest level known
to us. And I said, you know, here in
the macro realm, if we throw a baseball into the sky, it'll
come down and land. Now it could move depending on

(27:51):
what influences it has wind, atmospheric pressure, just to
name a few. I said.
But if we went into a vacuum andwe created some sort of
mechanism for a, a baseball or any ball that was built exactly

(28:12):
the same down to the the atoms exactly the same.
And this mechanism threw that ball at a wall in the exact same
same location, at the exact samespeed, at the exact same
strength, over and over and overagain.
At the macro level, we would expect to see the exact same

(28:34):
result from that ball over and over again.
It would bounce off the wall in the same way, land in the same
spot, and we would just see it repeated over and over and over
again. That's the basics of science.
Test your test your hypothesis and get repeatable answers.
That doesn't happen at the quantum level.
I said we could take that same ball in the same room at the

(28:57):
quantum level, and we could throw that ball and one time it
may hit the wall, bounce back. It may hit the wall and then
show up behind you. It may go straight through the
wall. It may hit the wall and explode
into thousands of perfectly replicated versions of itself.
We don't understand how physics works at this realm.

(29:18):
It just doesn't work like it doesn't work the same way.
That's what the the Large HydronCollider is teaching us is that
we can give the exact same environmental details with the
exact same environmental baseball, shoot them around this
Large Hadron Collider millions of times until they eventually
collide with themselves. And we're going to get different

(29:41):
outcomes every single time. Not just, well, the first time
is the same as the 250th time. No, it's every single time.
We're getting different outcomesevery.
And it's not minute. It's not like, Oh well, it's
going off at a slightly different angle.
No, they're colliding, 1 is exploding, and the other one's

(30:03):
just moving on perfectly fine asif it literally didn't make
contact. That's how we found quantum
entanglement. That's how we found quantum
superposition. I mean, while superposition was
the double slit experiment, but we're finding things out at the
quantum level that there's even power applied to at least a

(30:27):
quantum level just by your own observation.
You looking at something and observing it, recording it in
some kind of way is affecting the outcome of things on the
quantum level. And we have a lot of science
that shows us so. Well.

(30:48):
I just, yeah, this is this is this is what I was talking about
at the beginning of the episode.This is where my brain goes.
OK, bad example. Let's say use a different
example. OK, what was the Russian
hydrogen bomb that was created? That's like 500 times the OR
like 5000 times the strength of the ones that we dropped on

(31:09):
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was.
Hold on. I can bring it up actually.
Yeah. Because I just mentioned it in a
script I was writing. I just got to find the script.
So anyway, so point of reference, right?
I don't know what the exact death toll was or blast radius

(31:30):
of the two nukes we dropped in Japan and World War 2, but did
we? Did humanity we as in humanity,
did we? Was it absolutely necessary to
invent a bomb that was 5000 times that I'm going to throw
out there and say probably not, unless we're going to start

(31:51):
fighting like, you know, Titans and stuff.
I'm going to say probably not. But why was it made?
Because why not? Military superiority, Sure.
I guess. The scare factor.
Yeah, sure. I guess just because it could.
I mean, so it's like, again, going back to my original

(32:14):
statement, if I take that theoryor that reasoning I just kind of
threw out there, to what gain orwhat end are these vehicles
being made? No idea.
Do I believe they're being made?Yes.
I don't think that there's like a solid cap on what we can or
cannot do, with the exception ofcreating something out of

(32:38):
nothing like like life. That's not what I wanted.
Trying to share this other screen.
There we go. You know what I'm saying, Ka?
Right. Is it the the SAR Bamba?
That sounds right, yeah. That's it.

(32:58):
The SAR Bamba way stronger anyways, let's I got I got I got
two more questions just specifically for you from this.
What were the other other two ofthe four?
And there. Were three, there were 4.
Yeah, but I saw two whole sections to go over, so all

(33:18):
right, all right. 3/3 is Is thiscongressional pressure a sign
that the political that the political will for disclosure is
finally outrunning the military's desire for secrecy?
I guess. 4 Does this indicate anescalating pattern of intrusion
that has finally become too frequent to ignore?

(33:40):
I'm going to say no to that one because it does definitely seems
like it used to be a lot more prevalent than it is now.
Now it's just the public knows about it by and large.
I actually agree with you. Because it used to be like, you
know, especially around the World War Two time frame is very
prevalent now. It's like you wouldn't.
Most people wouldn't have an experience unless they saw it on
the Internet. Yes or no, I'm not going to go

(34:02):
down that rabbit hole right now,but just just for the sake of
time, but two questions for you.Well, one, and then depending on
what your answer is, do you justcoming out of sheer ignorance
right now and the question off the fly, were there things in
the sky mentioned in the Bible? I don't know.
You can't think of anything. No.

(34:24):
Just again, sheer ignorance here.
Ezekiel's Wheel. Still don't know.
I haven't. I've heard people say that but
it hasn't caused me to be like I'm going to find out about
this. Anyways, my follow up question
was if you had said yes. My follow up question is, do you
think that we're seeing some of the same things that were

(34:46):
discussed in the Bible? Well, OK, so let's say that I
did say yes. And then my response to that
would be, throughout all of human history, there have been,
according to my beliefs, there have been interactions with both
angelic and demonic beings, people describing angelic beings

(35:10):
to be horrifying. The Bible describes them to be
horrifying, right? 6 wings, four faces, wings
covered in eyes, you know, all kinds of crazy stuff.
And then the angels are coming down saying, you know, be not
afraid. Well, I, I doubt they were
saying that because they look like people, right?
I think it was probably terrifying.
And then they're like, hey, calmdown, don't be afraid.

(35:33):
You know, I have a message from God and they're like, OK, you
know, so there's that. And then on the other side of
that, there's demonic beings who, if I am to take the, you
know, what the Bible says of 1/3of heaven's angels were cast
down from heaven from the rebellion, you know, perpetuated
by Lucifer. All of those same looking angels

(35:57):
are now in the demon category. So where you have one side that
look horrifying and they're saying be not afraid.
You have the other side that look horrifying and they're
like, oh, you should be afraid, right.
And so if, yeah, if there was that prevalence in the Bible
times, let's say between 2000 and, I don't know, 6008 thousand

(36:27):
years ago, well, spiritual beings don't die.
They don't have to eat, They don't take a dump, you know,
they don't breathe. You know, they're infinite as
far as we're concerned, you know.
So would the same exact beings be around then and still around
today? Yeah.
You know, most assuredly so. Yeah.

(36:49):
I mean, if Ezekiel's wheel is pointing to, you know, what some
people would say a UAP and what he would say is a Angel like or
demonic being, depending on whatthe the context was that I'm
not, I'm not going to paraphrasebecause I don't know, but would
that same being still be in existence here today?

(37:10):
Yeah. Right now.
Right. And would that same being be
able to present itself to people?
Yeah. Now if you ever come across that
stuff, I'd love to bring dive more into that.
Now, I don't think that angels act upon their own free will and
just do stuff Willy nilly. They are known as the messengers

(37:30):
of God. So I'm pretty sure that there's
a hierarchy, right? God assigns an Angel, Hey, I
need a message delivered to thisperson, a very important message
because it's coming from God. And then you would see that with
prophetic messages in the Bible.It wouldn't just be an Angel
being like I'm going to stroll down, you know, Broadway, go get
a corn dog. You know, it just doesn't

(37:51):
happen. They're performing tasks and
roles and things like that. I think that where you find that
that would be like a, you know, whatever I feel like doing at
this moment because I'm living in rebellion would be in a
demonic sort of a sense would bea you can't control me.
I'm going to do what I want sortof a thing.
If I feel like possessing someone today that I'm going to
do that, you know, So I think that.

(38:14):
So I believe that most of what you're seeing in the sky is
physical crafts. And then the other side of that
is maybe 10 to 25% of it would probably be a demonic influenced
being trying to deceive people from what gain besides just

(38:35):
obvious deception? I don't know.
All right, sorry, man, got to. I'm going to cut you off.
Small answer your question. Yeah, yeah, absolutely, man.
And I, I had it written down because I want to revisit that
in another episode. I think that we.
Don't look at the really killed wheel right now.
Well, hold on, hold on. No.
No, Do that. Do that.
Do do that later so that we can talk about it on another

(38:57):
episode. It's too late.
Welcome, Spectrum. Welcome to the show, buddy.
All right, next. Next, we shift from modern
politics to a fascinating piece of historical analysis, giving
statistical weight to a classic 14 theory, the link between UA,
PS and nuclear weapons. Yeah, we segwayed pretty good

(39:20):
into this. A new study titled Transients in
the Palomar Observatory Sky Survey may be associated with
Nuclear testing and reports of unidentified anomalous phenomena
was published in the journal Scientific Reports on October
20th, 2025. The researchers analyzed over

(39:41):
100,000 photographic plates taken by the Palomar Observatory
between 1949 and 1957, a period that predates the space age.
They focused on transient flashes of light on these plates
and cross referenced their dateswith two other data sets.

(40:05):
Data sets the dates of. US and Soviet nuclear weapons
tests and the historical UFO catdatabase of public UAP
sightings. The findings are compelling.
They found that transients were 45% more likely to appear on
dates within one day of a nuclear test.

(40:26):
That link became even stronger, showing that these mysterious
flashes were observed 68% more frequently on the day after a
nuclear detonation. Furthermore, the data showed a
direct statistical correlation with the public.
For every additional UAP reported in the public records,

(40:46):
there was an 8.5% increase in the number of transients
identified on the photographic plates.
This correlation is considered statistically robust.
It suggests that whatever was causing these anomalies in the
1950s was demonstratively linkedto the rise of the atomic age.

(41:07):
Now, I even included a neat linkin here so you guys can kind of
see what these plates are. Here we go.
OK, so this is from Scientific Reports from nature.com.
The article was published on October 20th, and it's titled

(41:28):
Transients in the Palomar Observatory.
Sky Survey may be associated with nuclear testing and reports
of unidentified, unidentified anomalous phenomenon.
And for those of you who don't know how we used to take
pictures of the sky is on these plates.
So these were from the same day,19 July 195219 July 1952.

(41:55):
You see where there are picturesor where there are lights in
these pictures. This one matches this one, this
one matches this one, But then you have this one that seemed to
have moved from here slightly higher.
If not, that's the same one. But this cluster right here is

(42:19):
completely gone. And you see a bit of a
difference here too. And this is just, this is less
than an hour difference. So you just said it's Skylink
from 1952. I love it.
And then you see the same star cluster two months later in
September. Here's those, those four that we

(42:42):
were just pointing at right here, 1234123412341234.
And yet these match this fairly well, except for some, some are
a little bit brighter, right? So ignore the ones that are just
slightly brighter depending on how how clear it was that night,

(43:05):
but all three of these match up pretty well.
This one, however, covers what Iwas talking about as transients.
This is what we're we're discovering that these
transients were showing up over site sites of nuclear testing

(43:26):
during Cold War era, total transients per data log in total
independent UAP reports per date.
So I highly recommend if anybodywants to, I could put this into
the chat if there's any request for it.
But this is a really fascinating, absolutely
fascinating article that dives really deep into a lot of these

(43:50):
plates, the correlation with UAPand nuclear testing dates.
But this, this organization, this Palomar Observatory, put a
lot of time and effort, years oftime and effort into comparing
plates from before. This is, this is key, a period

(44:17):
of time that predates the space age.
So there's no satellites, there's no space station, none
of it. This is before we got the Space
4957. What are your initial thoughts
before I get into the questions on this one, Jake?
My initial thoughts are long. Yeah.

(44:40):
Yeah, you. Want to hear the questions?
All right. So you'll notice on the the last
question, there was a reason whywhy I got excited when you
talked about the Large Hadron Collider, because we talked
about the observer effect, whichanyways you'll see that in
question 4. But question 1, is a statistical

(45:01):
correlation enough to prove intelligent involvement or are
we just detecting an unknown physical side effect of atomic
explosions? Now before you answer that
question, which we'll just do this one at a time right now
because of how the last one wentin, in my script here and from
this article, pay attention. They found that transients,

(45:25):
meaning that lights or objects that showed up in one plate
compared to the others were 45% more likely to appear on dates
within one day of a nuclear test.
They don't say before or after at this point, OK, that length
became even stronger, showing that these mysterious flashes
were absorbed 68% more frequently.

(45:47):
So from that 45%, 65% more frequently on the day after a
detonation, that means 32% of them showed up the day prior.
So out of their abundance, their100,000 examples of these
photographic plates, 45% of that45,000 of those plates appear on

(46:16):
where they find an anomaly, appear on a date within one day
of a nuclear test, 40th of 100,000.
Then out of those, 45,068% of itis after, but the other 32% is
before the nuclear detonation. I don't know.

(46:38):
I think that shit's fascinating.Hood he said it was more likely
was there observed what's the word to use transients on days
when there was no nuclear testing Yes happened.
Yep, there there was. So 65% of it happened on dates
that there were that that were not within 24 hours of a nuclear

(47:02):
test. So then the ones before the
detonation could be just coincidence.
They could. They could.
Is 32% a reasonable answer for that?
So basically your your pathway here is that the the 68% or at

(47:24):
least a good chunk of that was definitely in response to
witnessing a bunch of boom boomsgoing off, but the ones that
happened prior were just coincident.
Or it could be checking up to see what's going on.
What's the status, you know? Is the project going to happen
today? Is the lunch going to happen
today or is it going to happen tomorrow?
What's? Going on this is, this is cool.

(47:45):
I, I like where you're going with this because this was kind
of where I was going to with it too, and why I, I referenced
John Keel's research about the correlation between political
borders and the day of the week and the frequency of UAP
sightings from his book Trojan Horse.
I think that this is really important because this shows
that there's intelligence, like the the knowledge that there is

(48:10):
something occurring, OK, Whetherthat knowledge is military
intelligence, right? Where, hey, we have information
saying that the Soviets are going to shoot off this bomb.
We should probably go watch this.
Or is it an unknown entity that knows that this is occurring

(48:31):
somehow prior to it happening? Because depending on which one
of those is true, they're both very interesting answers.
I mean, I guess it could be either or.
I, I, this is, This is why I brought this up today's, because
I, I think that this one out of the three subjects that we
talked about tonight is, is the golden subject.

(48:51):
This is absolutely astounding tome.
I I mean, I've, I've read thingsabout like the, about these
plates and the comparisons like Jacques Velez famously talked
about plates and how there was these non parallel anomalies on
them. Now we're seeing a modern

(49:16):
research effort put towards thisconcept and it's, it's, it's
crazy, man is and it, it, it's alot of it.
It's a lot of the same shit thatwe see from the history of
Ufology. And that is that when you look
back and you read stuff from people that were quote UN quote

(49:39):
kooks or crazies like a lot of people call John Keel, you see a
lot of this stuff coming back around right now and being
proven to be real or claim to bereal by the scientific
community. I don't know, man.
I think it's interesting when here Question 2, what process

(50:01):
takes 24 hours to manifest aftera nuclear explosion that would
create an object visible in the sky.
So this question is basically, are the nuclear explosions or
atomic explosions causing the difference in the plates?
I don't know what I don't know. How do you how to phrases the

(50:22):
smoke or off gassing of atoms from a nuclear test.
Think of like if you have a big bonfire and you watch the smoke
go into the sky, and then eventually it appears to
disappear. Well, those carbon atoms are
going somewhere, right? They're not just disappearing,
they're going somewhere. Well, in the same way, if you

(50:43):
have a nuclear test, where does all of that go and how does that
affect the atmosphere? Does it get trapped in the
atmosphere right? This is, these are all good
questions because the next next kind of natural path question to
come from this exact thing that you're talking about is how are

(51:04):
they taking these pictures on the plates?
Is it sensitive to things that we can't see?
Is there ultraviolets in there, infrareds in there that we can't
see that is showing up on these plates so?
Spectral Assassin says some weird byproduct like Aurora
borealis in the atmosphere. And that could be it could be

(51:27):
that the literal radiation caused by the atomic bomb
testing could be causing an anomaly.
But that only answers the question post explosion.
It doesn't answer the question before excuse just got to go.
See you Skeeter. Have a good one Skeeter.
Hope. Hope you enjoy the new format

(51:48):
man. Well then prior to I would. 32%,
excuse me. 32% isn't if it was higher.
If it was like 80% likely to occur the day before, right?
That would be pretty high. That'd be hard to argue
coincidence. 32% is kind of. It's on the line.

(52:11):
It's it's large enough to be like, it is kind of strange,
right? But at the same time, it's not
enough to be concrete. And I agree with that.
But also where all of the, because I saw those, those two
graphics that you showed, right?Or there's 4 graphics that you
showed right. It appeared that the anomalies

(52:35):
were in the same place. And I'm curious as if they're in
the same place every single time.
No. So these anomalies were taken on
plates from all around the worldin different areas of the sky
like. If you took a chunk of sky and
you're like, OK, well, here's the anomalies right here.
Here's this group right here. You can see within an hour and

(52:59):
then a year later or a month later or whatever it was.
Every time we did a testing samesection of sky, did the
anomalies show up in the same spot of the same section of sky?
No, they were they, they traveled very well.
Either they traveled very well or they were completely
different anomalies and they, the the formations of them were,

(53:19):
were very different. A lot of times it was just one
that was a clear anomaly, not just a brighter star.
And sometimes it was groups of 234.
I think that they, they said oneplate showed an anomaly count of
almost 130 and they were not transients.
Yeah. That's the word that's being
used. Transient.

(53:41):
And they use. They use the word transient
because they move right. It's the.
In the same way you would the old way, you'd talk about a
person that moves from town to town as a right.
Exactly, exactly. All right, Question 3.
Yeah. If these were orbiting objects
or metal reflectors if you will,where did they come from?

(54:03):
Did the phenomenon only become visible or active once humanity
develops nuclear weapons? So basically this this question
is a A2 layer question right? The first one is, are these just
objects in the sky? Are these natural satellites,
Right? News came out a little while ago

(54:23):
that we surprised we have a second moon for like 50 years
and then it's supposed to go away.
Yeah. So could it just be just a
random object orbiting our planet?
Not necessarily a man made satellite, but a natural
satellite, a rock piece, piece of space debris that's up there,
right. That is it is a good question.

(54:44):
It is I believe a good question.But in the case that it is not
we're because we don't really have plates from before this
time frame. And then after this time frame
technology advanced so far that we started taking pictures,
right. So it wasn't, this is kind of a
strange part in history where wehad the technology to take these

(55:08):
primitive photos of space to seethese these transients, but.
Are they just a naturally occurring thing that we don't
have evidence for before we start doing that?
Correct, right. Or did they appear because of
the nuclear testing, which againpushes the questioning back into

(55:29):
the UAPUFO realm? We'll say that they were
physical objects like rocks or whatever, and they only became
visible because of what the nuclear tests were doing to the
atmosphere. See.
But we won't. We won't.
We don't have all. That's like the Strom Strom
Dinger's cat or whatever the guy's name is.

(55:51):
It's. Schrodinger.
Schrodinger Cat. Think of it like this.
Did the other galaxies in the universe show up because we were
able to invent telescopes that could see that far out?
Or how did they always exist before the telescopes were
invented? This this is a quantum question

(56:14):
too. If you asked primitive man, they
would be like, I didn't know that that was a thing, right.
Those those just appeared. I've never seen that before.
Yeah, yeah. Let's let's move into question
for us. I think this is a good, good
segue. Does this show the observer
effect in actions in action, or simply that the phenomenon

(56:35):
becomes globally visible at these key historical moments?
Now I put a little sidebar here to help explain what the
observer effect is. The observer effect is the
principle that the mere act of measuring or observing A
phenomenon necessarily changes. The phenomenon itself is most

(56:55):
famous in quantum mechanics, where the act of measurement
forces a particle like an electron to collapse from a
blurry state of possibilities, awave function, into a single
definite reality or particle. The observation dictates the
outcome. We borrow this concept to ask a
deep philosophical question about UA.

(57:16):
PS Does the UAP phenomenon reactto being observed?
I would say yes. I mean, it's known now because
of quantum physics and all this study that, as you just said,
electrons can change depending on whether they're being

(57:38):
observed or not observed, which is really weird.
You know, it's like super weird stuff.
Does that mean they're sentient?I don't, you know, but if well,
I mean, there has to be a point to their visibility, you know,
let's say it's as it's as vanilla as letting us know that

(58:02):
there's something else out thereand it's as horrible as at any
point, the thought that could drive you insane.
They could just come down here and start wiping us off the face
of the Earth like like War of the Worlds in the tripods,
right? So it's like from one side to
the other side, but they're allowing themselves to be

(58:24):
observed for some reason, let's say.
If it's not, I'm framing this asa way as if it's not like a
military vehicle, right? But even then, why would the
mail a black budget program or why would Northrop Grumman allow
their top secret vehicle to be witnessed by people and
documented and stuff? Really doesn't make a whole heck

(58:46):
of a lot of sense unless there is some reasoning behind that
observation in whichever way yougo with it.
And what's the reason? I don't know.
The questions, the questions, the questions.
It's a good question. It is a good question.
But the answer to that is much more complex because it requires

(59:07):
the knowledge of why. And as far as I know, I'm sure
there's very few people on the face of the earth that could
tell you the why to that question.
I feel like, I feel like the conversation that we're having
now makes the first section, thefirst topic that we talked about
more important. I feel like I do, I do, I do

(59:31):
because because I I definitely do believe that there is stuff
known, there's information, critical information known about
this phenomenon. Because I agree with you, I
don't think that everything we're seeing is from the same
source. I don't think we're seeing the
same thing over and over and over again.
I believe that there are multiple and not just two or

(59:55):
three sources for this. And I also believe that a lot of
them aren't even intertangled with each other.
I believe that, you know, they, they may be aware of the others,
you know, existence, but I, I think there's so much shit going
on. That we don't understand in our

(01:00:18):
skies. But I do believe that the
government or the US military does have more of a grasp on
this than than we do as civilians.
Sure, of course. And I think that it is important
for congressional oversight to be applied to these anomalous

(01:00:40):
programs from the DoD. I want to see this, I want this.
But you and I both know very well-being military or ex
military, that they are very good at finding loopholes and
adjusting how they attack certain situations.
So making it so that it's legally required to brief

(01:01:05):
Congress on everything UAP doesn't necessarily mean it's
going to happen so. Think of it this way.
I want to give someone an example.
And I can say this because I'm not an active duty anymore.
OK, so everyone knows that when when oil or gas or some sort of
hazmat is spilled into the ocean, it's a huge problem,

(01:01:28):
right? the US Navy, we can't throw say
like plastic bottles over the side of the ship.
They have to get taken to shore and they get or on the boat and
they get compacted into these big flat discs and they get
stacked up. And when we go to shore, they
they take them and they throw them, you know, in your

(01:01:50):
recycling center, right? Aluminum cans can get thrown
overboard because the salinity of the water will break them
down relatively quickly. Food waste can get thrown over
no oil or hydraulic fluid or petroleum products of any kind.
It can be can be dumped in the ocean.

(01:02:11):
However, if a plane takes off atMax capacity and pass the land
back on the carrier, they are allowed to dump as much fuel as
they can or as they need to intothe water.
And that might mean a fully loaded Hawkeye with say like

(01:02:35):
20,000 lbs of fuel on it taking off, doing a circle and a
pattern around the ship once, dumping 75% of its fuel into the
water, and then landing back on the boat, getting refueled and
doing it again and again and again every single day, day in,
day out for nine months straightwhile that boat's.

(01:02:56):
Out. That's a loophole.
The legal loophole? No, we're not needlessly dumping
petroleum into the ocean. However, we don't want our plane
to crash into the deck and kill everybody on board, so we're
going to do it anyway. And for those of for those of
you that I think that this may be a joke, the literal system is

(01:03:17):
called fuel dump. Google it.
So I'm just saying like if like I'll put this in a like, this is
me putting that thought in a much simpler perspective.
But it happens every single day.I guarantee you it happens every
single day. Now, the legal loophole might

(01:03:38):
be, oh, it's international waters.
Yep. Or it's not contractual.
Yeah, or it's, well, we're not, you know, it's not like the BP
oil spill or whatever it is, butthere still is some, there has
to be some impact on the environment and yet they're
going to continue to do it. Yeah, they'll have one civilian

(01:04:00):
on the boat that that throws garbage overboard.
And it's like, well, we didn't do it as the US Navy.
It was the cook. But I mean, I'm just saying like
so it. Was if.
They were to be legally held on on trial.
Whoever say like who's our current SEC def.

(01:04:22):
What hag, Seth? There you go.
If he was held on trial about the US Navy's, like, I don't
know, Environmental Protection in disposing of hazardous
materials, technically speaking,yes, we have used oil drums.

(01:04:44):
We have all these sorts of things that get changed out
every single time we go into port.
Then you get changed out, right,and the oil gets disposed of the
way it's supposed to be and broken down and recycled and
blah, blah, all the sort of stuff.
We're not throwing plastic overboard.
We're only throwing things overboard that can either be
completely broken down by natural processes relatively
quickly, like metal, or food waste that gets eaten up by all

(01:05:07):
the fish and stuff. I mean, they dump it and then
you watch all the fish and sea life come up and start eating
it. And that happens with our sewage
too. So keep that in mind next time
you're offshore fishing. Yum.
Oh, it's like feeding fish in a fish tank.
They just come swarming cloud. It's disgusting.
And I'm sure that they would never bring that up.

(01:05:28):
They would never bring up that, you know, my own wife saying,
yeah, I literally watch them Maxout a plane.
It took off. And they were like, oh, never
mind. We don't need that plane to be
up right now. And it dumped nearly all but 10%
of its fuel just so it could land and take off and land again
if it needed to. So it missed the wire.
Fun fact, the E2 needs a certainamount of weight in order to

(01:05:52):
take off, but it dumps a ton of weight as soon as it's over the
ocean so that it has Max efficiency.
So the the heavier it is due to all the fuel, the more fuel it
uses because it's got to push harder.
So they they dump a ton of the fuel and actually keeping less
fuel in the tank makes it last longer.

(01:06:13):
It's, it's strange, but it, it, that's, that's what they do.
They, they fill it up so that they can be at the weight they
need in order for the flats at 20 to be able to get that thing
off the ground right. Bernoulli's principle that it's
at, And then when they're in theair in order to fly most
efficiently, they dump a ton of it.

(01:06:33):
And I know it sounds stupid, butit it it's actually it works.
So take that principle and then bring it into something way more
heavy of a topic like defense against anything that could come
from off planet to attack the United States or the world,

(01:06:53):
right? And then try to find, you know,
try to find all the loopholes that the US military, U.S.
government, the feds would be able to jump through to keep
from revealing its secrets to the general populace.
Who there's no way that that would not become.

(01:07:14):
There's no way, there's no conceivable way that a release
of that information could possibly be remain a secret.
It's not like it's not like everyone on in the United
States, they can be like, OK, we're not going to tell our
enemies. It's just like it's never going
to happen. The Full disclosure they might

(01:07:34):
give us, I mean, I could see them giving us everything with
the exception of like the propulsion system or the weapon
systems. I can't see them giving a lot
of. Things they could be like oh
it's made out of nano carbon titanium bond thing you.

(01:07:55):
Know we're we're going to get something even like we're going
to get some stupid. Out of metal, they're.
Going to be like, you know, the skin on an acorn.
That's it. That's it.
And hey, I mean, for most of thepeople asking, they'll be like,
well, thanks for letting us know.
Appreciate it. It's like.

(01:08:15):
That all the podcasts are going to be like, did you hear?
UFOs are made out of acorns? Did you hear?
Yeah, it turns out Turns out that John Carver didn't say that
peanuts could only be made into particle board.
They could also be turned into spaceship.
Halls. Multi domain vehicles.

(01:08:36):
Yes. All right, Section 3, you ready?
This one's a little bit lighter.Finally, let's take a look at
what is happening in the sky right now.
Today, Sunday, December 14th, weare in the midst of the
spectacular Geminid meteor shower, which peaked overnight,
delivering up to 150 meters per hour.

(01:08:58):
Thousands of people have been actively scanning the sky.
This naturally leads us to a surge in sightings.
However, recent reports across the Fordian community are
describing classic glowing orbs that defy the predictable
physics of a meteor which streaks and vanishes.
Witnesses describe objects that one sustain a fixed position in

(01:09:22):
the sky for minutes, often near constellations like Orion 2
exhibit non linear movements, erratic jolts, stops, or changes
in brightness that rule out aircraft or lanterns.
The orb is the simplest yet moststubbornly unexplained Fortian
phenomena. Are these reports simply

(01:09:43):
misidentified meteors or are truly anomalous objects taking
advantage of the high number of sky watchers during this
celestial event? The continued flow of this
simple high strangeness reports of these simple high strangest
reports provides A crucial counterpoint to the high tech

(01:10:06):
classified UAP data coming from Washington.
The contrast between the predictable physics of the
Geminids and the erratic non celestial orb reports provides
the perfect amount for us to ask, are these misidentified
space debris or is this the purestubborn, high strangest
phenomenon that official government reports struggle to

(01:10:29):
categorize? So just like I did with the
other ones I have AI have a little bit of show and tell to
show you guys. This is this is actually really
interesting. This is if you don't, if you've
never looked at the new fork website, NUFORC new fork and you

(01:10:53):
are interested in UFO sightings,you should be looking at this
kind of stuff. So this Jacob is new fork.
Say hello new fork. I thought that was a new
pronunciation for Norfolk. Well, so I have it currently on

(01:11:16):
the latest investigations page. Here is where I found all the
evidence for these ORB reports. Now the screen that we're
currently on isn't necessarily for the ORB reports.
There's ways to filter this down.

(01:11:39):
So like if you go into the databank here, databank tab at
the top of the screen, you come down here and you go to tier one
reports. The the last page that we were
on had like 48 reports. This one here has 1576 entries.
Now the cool thing about this, right?
And we're going a little off topic from the orbs right now

(01:12:02):
just because I'm, I'm excited to, to show you guys this is
that over here, you can click onwhere it says open.
So this one happened on December1st, Jamestown, NY and 2 pilots
observed 3 aircraft. You can click on this and it'll
give you as much information, right?

(01:12:25):
So we had two military pilots airborne over Southern Ontario
and it'll give you a descriptionof of their sighting.
Now there are a lot of these in here which come with pictures or
hand drawn, you know, descriptions of, of what they

(01:12:45):
saw. And here's look at that.
You need to check out the Enigmaapp.
I have. OK.
Yeah, this is, you know, this isone of those triangles.
In fact, when you if you go backand listen to the episode that
we talked about lights on UFOs, this is a perfect example of

(01:13:12):
exactly what I was talking aboutperfectly well spaced out
lights. This is difficult to determine
whether or not that's AII know that's a lot of the things are
the the assumption that people are jumping to right now is that
a lot of this is AI. But you have things like this or
reports like this where people tell you of a of a whole list of

(01:13:38):
things that they saw. And then you have hand drawn
pictures. Jake, I want to show you that
you can filter this down by state.
You go reverse and go to Wisconsin.
Guess where there was a sightingthis walking home 11:30 to 12:00

(01:13:59):
sat on bench halfway home and noticed triangle of lights in
the sky. Could see the outline of the
object and. You can't see that because it's
kind of blurry, but I'm going toassume it, says Menominee.
It does. It does.
Yep. Menominee, Wisconsin.
Yep, this was in occurred April 24, little over a year and a

(01:14:20):
half ago. So this is one source that I use
for confirming that there were reports coming out of orbs
during this meteor shower. What's the site name?
Sorry. This is new fork nuforc.org.

(01:14:42):
Thank you. Yeah, and at the top, if you
click Databank will be your yourbest will give you pretty much
exactly where we were here. Actually, I'll, I'll share the
screen one more time because there is a cool feature in this.
When you click on the map tab, it gives you a picture of the
world and you can see where all of the sightings are.

(01:15:08):
These little red dots, Samuel. Goodness.
So green means recent. Green dots are on the recent
list. So this database is huge and
right here where this nice big glow up is, that's Menomonee,

(01:15:31):
Wisconsin. No, it's Minneapolis, but still,
it's pretty Dang close, right? So where we're at is like right
here. I don't know, there's a clear,
there's Menomonee. Look, there's a couple of them
right there. Fact that Red dot might might

(01:15:55):
actually be Elmwood. No, Ellsworth is down here.
Where's Plum City? Now?
We're just playing Oh, Elmwoodriger.
So if you guys have not ever messed around with this website,
I highly recommend it. I pulled a ton of ton of things
off of this for my book. It's a phenomenal site, so by

(01:16:20):
all means, please check that out.
I'm going to dig into Norfolk, VA.
Man, it's it's probably crazy, but so I do have a few.
I'm just going to run through the four questions on this
really quick, Jake, so that we can get this knocked out and
then I will let you play with Norfolk the rest of the night.

(01:16:43):
So why are so many this is #1 why are so many highly motivated
viewers reporting objects that are stationary, pulsing or
moving erratically? 2 How do you differentiate an
intelligent non human orb from acommercially available
high-powered drone using only a cell phone video?

(01:17:04):
Three, are witnesses naturally looking at the most prominent
constellations, or is the phenomenon positioning itself
against a clear celestial backdrop to be observed?
4 Does the truth of the phenomenon lie in the official
declassified reports, or in the fresh, spontaneous reports
submitted tonight to date to databases such as New Fork?

(01:17:30):
So basically a rundown on those questions is pretty much the
same thing we've been following all night.
Is it that these orbs one, are they even orbs are are people
reporting the right thing? Now?
I have seen some videos and somepictures on new fork that do

(01:17:54):
seem like the they're not, they're not meteors.
OK, They are some there's some really good footage on there.
There's videos and everything onon that, that website, but a lot
of them are probably most likelyjust misidentification.
A really good portion of them are misidentification, but the

(01:18:16):
ones that people are seeing, they're reporting to be next to
consolations. Now, if you've ever gone out and
looked at a meteor shower, it's not the most exciting thing,
right? There could be 180 to 300
meteors that go off in the night, but it's not going to be

(01:18:37):
directly over your head all the time.
And if they're not at the right angle, a lot of times you'll
never see it. If they're not low enough in the
atmosphere to 'cause that burn up to create the famous tale,
you're not going to see it. So a lot of times you're stuck

(01:18:58):
doing consolation watches, whichmeans that you're sitting out
there and you're looking at Orion's belt and or some minor
or some major blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, right?
You're trying to make fun of thetime that you're spending out
there. So I think it's more or less
that people are seeing objects because they're looking at

(01:19:21):
constellations and they just happen to be next to the
constellation because that's where they're looking.
This was more or less my own argument for this point because
I am seeing a lot of videos pop up on X TikTok, Instagram,
Facebook, everywhere of people reporting UFOs during this

(01:19:44):
meteor shower. But to the untrained eye, it
could very well look like an orb.
But realistically, there's only been a handful of them that I've
seen that really do look like something.

(01:20:04):
A lot of people you, you when, when these meteor showers go by,
you can tell how many people have never seen a satellite move
in the sky. I mean they're, they're up there
man, and they move and it's weird when you first see one
you're you're going to look at and be like, what the fuck is
that first time? Just.
Starlink. It blew my mind.

(01:20:25):
I had no idea what I was lookingat and.
We we still get reports of Starlink every day.
Yeah, I get, I get emailed pictures of Starlink and people
are saying, dude, you got to seethis.
Look at this. Look what just showed up in the,
in the and, and the horizon I in, you know, Kansas.
And it's like, yeah, man, I I stopped responding to him

(01:20:49):
because I just feel bad for people.
But you know, people are like, yeah, my kids saw it.
I saw it, my wife saw it. My, my, my father saw it.
He said he's never seen anythingin his life like that before.
Well, yeah, yeah, probably not because Starlink didn't exist,
you know, it's. Pretty new, yeah.

(01:21:11):
So, you know, it's a, it's an exciting time, right?
A lot of people when you see the, the meteor shower show up
in, in media, you know, news channels and people get excited.
They want to go out and see it. The reason why you're looking up
there and you're seeing things that you don't recognize is
because you're going outside andlooking up, and a lot of people

(01:21:34):
don't do that. So there are some strange things
in the sky, but not everything that moves is a UFO is basically
what I'm trying to say. Yeah, that's fair.
Yeah. Jake, did you want to go over
this, this screen share that youhave or did you just forget it
was there? This isn't mine, this is yours.
Is it mine? Yeah, silly boy.

(01:21:59):
Oops, dumbass. What an.
Idiot. All right, well that has been
another episode. Wait, Jake, do you have anything
cool? All right, well that's been
another episode of the Infinite Rabbit Hole podcast.
I hope you guys enjoyed the new format.
This is just a way for me to share what my interest is for

(01:22:20):
the week on weeks that we don't have a guest.
That way you're just not hearingus come into the conversation
being like, I don't know what totalk about.
And then we just eventually start talking about something 45
minutes into the episode, which is a common complaint.
And I get it. I understand you're coming here
to listen to things. And then for, you know, for the

(01:22:40):
1st 45 minutes, we're just like,I don't know what to talk about.
And then eventually somebody talks about something and then
that sparks the conversation. So this is a way for me to fix
that. I hope you enjoyed it.
I hope we'll see you next week. Until next time, travelers will
see you right here in the next fork in the path of the infinite
rabbit hole. Bye everybody.

(01:23:06):
Hey everybody, thanks for checking out the Infinite Rabbit
Hole podcast. If you're looking for more of
our stuff, head on over to infiniterabbithole.com where you
can find links to all the podcast players that we are
available on and even our video platforms such as TikTok and
YouTube. While you're there, make sure to
check out all the links for our socials and hit that follow so
you know when all the new stuff from our podcast comes out.

(01:23:28):
And until next time, travelers, we'll see you right here and the
next fork in the path of the infinite rabbit hole.
Bye.