009 - Robert Powell Explains SCU's Analysis of Over 60,000 UAP Cases - The Anomalous Review

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:24):
Hi, welcome to the Anomalous Review, the official podcast of
the Scientific Coalition for UAPStudies, or SCU.
We're an organization working topromote the serious scientific
study and discussion of anomalous phenomena.
My name is Michael Glossen, I'm a philosopher of science and
technology, the contributing member of SCU, and the host of
the show. We're glad to have you listening

(00:46):
along, and we'd love for you to check us out at explorescu.org.
If you follow the UAP field closely, you may get a sense
that we're witnessing a renaissance in UAP research, a
surge of serious interest that could lead to the emergence of
an entirely new academic discipline.
Building a new discipline from the ground up is a dawning task,

(01:06):
though, and if we're honest, no one really knows how to do it.
There's no generic blueprint to follow in each field, whether it
studies ancient Assyrian religion or migratory
butterflies or the formation of stars, comprises unique set of
methods, theoretical frameworks,bodies of knowledge, and
research questions. Each discipline and its

(01:27):
constituent elements evolves in response to the specific
phenomena that it studies and, if we're honest, in response to
a lot of other forces too. So when the need for an entirely
new discipline arises, how do you begin?
Well, you bring together thoughtful, interested people.
Then start with the questions about your subject that feel

(01:48):
most fundamental. You come up with ways of
investigating these questions that seem sensible and
promising. You do the investigations.
You analyze your findings carefully, share your results
with anyone who's interested, incorporate their feedback to
generate more refined questions,and then do it all over again ad
infinitum. Or at least ad nausea.

(02:11):
This process is exactly what theScientific Coalition for UAP
Studies is trying to help kick start in its own research.
So at the end of 2023, A-Team from SCU in the University of
Toronto, including scientists, historians, data analysts and
medical researchers, published agroundbreaking report.

(02:32):
While this title may be kind of academic, it's called the
reported shape, Size, Kinematics, Electromagnetic
Effects and Presence of Sound ofUAP.
Its purpose is pretty straightforward.
It lays out and begins to answersome of those really fundamental
feeling questions that will helpestablish this new field.
These included questions about UAP like what do they look like,

(02:56):
how do they move, what colors dothey display, do they reflect or
emit light, what sounds do they make?
And crucially, how do they interact with the environment
and the people who observe them?To answer these questions, the
team analyzed several databases containing 10s of thousands of
UAP reports. They focused exclusively on the

(03:17):
most well documented, thoroughlyinvestigated cases, and what
they discovered forms the heart of this report, drawn from the
highest quality data available to us today.
My guest today, Robert Powell, was one of the authors of that
report, and he's here to discusshow that study worked and what
its findings were. Robert brings an exceptional

(03:40):
background to this work. He's an executive board member
of the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies, which hosts this
show. He's the former Director of
Research at the Mutual UFO Network, and he spent 3 decades
in the chemical engineering and materials research fields
working in the semiconductor industry.
Since dedicating himself full time to UAP research, he's

(04:01):
authored several influential books, including UFOs, A
Scientist Explains What We Know and Don't Know, and even a book
designed to introduce these concepts to young readers.
I think you'll really enjoy thistalk.
Before we begin, though, 3 quicknotes.
First, you can find the completeSCU report at explorescu.org

(04:22):
under the Publications tab, and there's also a direct link to it
in our episode description. Second, in the interests of
total transparency, I should saythat I was one of the anonymous
peer reviewers for this report before it was published, which
means that the comments that I made probably had some small
influence on the content of the report.

(04:43):
I'm not sure how or if that should affect the way you listen
to this conversation, but it seemed worth mentioning. 3rd,
this conversation is slightly different than what we normally
do in episodes of this show. Instead of our usual casual
conversation that sort of flows wherever it wants to, Robert and
I work pretty systematically through the findings of this
report. And while it feels more

(05:05):
structured, that sort of conversation lets us focus in on
the details of the findings and make sure we don't miss
anything. So I want to thank Robert for
bringing so much warmth to this differently structured episode
than what we normally do. Now that the housekeeping is out
of the way, here is my conversation with Robert Powell.

(05:26):
Let's talk a little bit about whose idea it was, how a group
got together and decided to create this, and how you started
then, like deciding the scope ofthe cases that you would look
at, and then we'll kind of move from there into the actual
details. So where did this idea come from
and when? I kind of initiated the basic

(05:50):
idea, which was let's look at reports where the object is so
close to the witnesses that there's no way that they could
have misidentified what they sawor very unlikely to
misidentified it. So that you're left with a
situation of either it happened or they're lying, one of the

(06:12):
two. So that that was the impetus
behind the entire idea. So then what I did, I got other
individuals who are interested in doing this.
So that started off with Larry Hancock.
It got by the name of of Steve Purcell and and Sarah Little and

(06:34):
we also had a group of individuals from the University
of Toronto students who helped in actually some of the drawing
work that we did. So that was nice to bring them
into the project. So those illustrations are by
students at the University of Toronto.
Right, I've I've got some illustrations we'll show later

(06:56):
and those were made by students from the University of Toronto,
so. What department?
Like how did that, how did that come about?
This was actually driven by an individual who's over their
diversity programs, so he got individuals that were in their
various science departments to participate in in the program

(07:20):
with us, so that was good. That's really cool, yeah.
So you know what, what, once we identified what we were wanting
to do, then it was just a question of, OK, what criteria
do we want to set up front to say, OK, a case, you know, or a
report that's made must meet thefollowing criteria to be judged

(07:44):
as a case where the witnesses, it would be very difficult for
them to have misidentified what they saw.
And what were those criteria that you initially came up with?
So that's a good question. And we started off with 100,000
potential cases, right? And, and I'll say up front, I
mean, if someone else repeats our work, we came up with 301

(08:07):
cases, someone else might come up with 600 or 200, right?
But there's a certain amount of subjectivity on, on the
selection of those cases. The very first requirement was
that the case had been investigated, right?
So it doesn't matter if they, let's call it a flying saucer

(08:28):
lands in your backyard and no one came in investigated, no one
interviewed you, no one verifiedanything.
Well, we're not going to use that case.
So that eliminates a large number of cases right from the
beginning. So it has to have been
investigated. Then the second criteria was the

(08:54):
investigation had to procure a lot of information.
In other words, if there's an investigation and there's not
hardly any information or data, we can't use that.
The third criteria was that the case normally happens in the
daytime. We took nighttime cases if the

(09:17):
object will see their self illuminated or something
illuminated the object. So that was a criteria.
The 4th criteria was how close the object is to the witness and
we didn't measure that and feet,we measured it in angular size
in the sky because you don't really know how far away it is,

(09:40):
but you do know how much of the sky it takes up.
So we used 0.15° is the minimum size.
So to give the audience a feel for that, the moon, a full moon
is 0.5°. And on that full moon you can

(10:01):
see right, you can see the eyes of the full moon, you can see
the large craters, the planes. So we said, OK, if the object is
at least one third the size of the full moon, then we will
accept that report into our database.
So that was our fourth criteria.The 5th criteria was that we

(10:25):
needed multiple witnesses or if it was a single witness, it had
to be the type of witness who might would have to file a
report. So a police officer, a pilot,
someone who's in law enforcementor the military and would have

(10:45):
been required to file a report so that that reduces the
likelihood of a hoax or anythinglike that.
So once we did that and went through all these cases, we
were. And it took us, I would say,
Michael, it took us about two years.
And once we went, yeah, I know that was a lot of work.

(11:07):
A lot, a lot of work. Once we were finished, we had
301 cases that met our criteria.And, and the way we did it is we
had three individuals looking at, at the cases and we would
meet once every week or two weeks.
And we would each of us will give a case independently,

(11:29):
either a green, yellow or red. And if a if a case got, if it
had a single red, it was eliminated or if it had let's
say A3 yellows, it was eliminated.
So it had, it had to have like 3greens, 2 greens in yellow,

(11:49):
green in the yellow, something like that in order to make the
cut. So you're not saying then that
of the 100,000 that you started with that only 301 are genuine?
You're not saying that only 301 has decent data.
You're saying that you wanted totake the most reasonably
stringent criteria that you could and narrow it down to the

(12:11):
very best cases and get the the sort of best analysis out of
that possible. Yeah.
And what were those 100,000? Where did you said that they
were like four, I think 4 databases that you pulled them
from? What were those databases?
Right. So we we pulled them from a
Project Blue Book. We pulled them from a database

(12:32):
made by NICAP which covers the atime period from the 40s to
about the year 2000 or so. We pulled them from, let's see,
from MUFON, MUFON cases that were at MUFON and we didn't use
Newfork because Newfork and MUFON cases are pretty similar.

(12:54):
The plus with MUFON cases is that a good portion had been
investigated. Well, that's not the case with
Newfork cases and that's one of our eliminating criteria was
that the case has been, you know, investigated.
So if a person just called in and reported having seen
something and nobody physically went out.

(13:14):
Like by by investigating you mean a person physically went to
the the location, interviewed people or?
Either physically or via telephone, interviewed the
individual. So we had move on, new for move
on, not new fork and I can't blue book and what was the 4th
1:00? Project Blue Book and then the

(13:35):
4th one were cases that we were aware of, such as the Nimitz
case from 2004. You know those type of cases.
OK, so ones that weren't in a prior like establishments
database, but that had been right.
They're more modern, kind of more modern cases that had
happened. And what's the scope?

(13:56):
I think it went from the 40s to 2016 or so.
Is the range of. It went from 1947 to 2016.
And oh, I'm sorry, I forgot. We also used Kupo's cases.
That was the organization that JL and Heine founded.

(14:18):
So it's actually, yeah, 44 databases and then independent
cases that had been investigatedand we're running about 4757 and
so. So it's about 70 years of cases.
Than there were right 70 about 100,000 cases over 70 years of
time. That's incredible.
And so you narrow it down to 301and what did you do with with

(14:43):
those cases? Then you, you start, you have,
you have all this data and they're not already, I don't
know how those databases are setup, but I imagine some of them
break it up into a few more categories than others.
But you wanted to like distill your own categories out and what
were those, right. So.
We we created an Excel spreadsheet and we identified

(15:05):
the key criteria that we wanted in that database.
So that included everything fromthe shape of the object, color
of the object, any type of electromagnetic interference,
approximate speed of the object.We put those into buckets
because it's very difficult to estimate the speed of an object.

(15:28):
We looked at whether or not the object interacted with the
witness. We looked at acceleration of the
object, sudden moves, sudden increases in speed.
We looked at, I'm trying to think, what else?
Oh, latitude, longitude of the location, of course, the exact

(15:51):
date and time of the reported incident, the number of
witnesses, those were some of the basic, you know, items that
we looked at. And you, but you didn't focus
this report on all of those. You picked out a smaller subset

(16:13):
of those for this report. And then you're, it seems like
you're going to write a second report that focuses on the
others. We're going to write a second
report where we look at time. So across the 80 years, did the
percentage, for example, reportsof flying disk shaped objects,
did that change over 80 years? Right.

(16:35):
And geographic locations to these 301 objects.
We'll look at those. What we looked at and this
report was basically just the kinematics and the shape of the
object. So, you know, what percent are
triangles, what percent are spheres?

(16:56):
Are there any more commonalitiesin terms of speed?
You know, does one shape move faster than the other shape?
There's one shape 'cause more electromagnetic interference in
another shape. How do you know if
electromagnetic interference is even present in a case?
I mean, you're not you, you don't have sensors out there.

(17:18):
So is it testing, you know, to see if an engine shut down or
something? Right.
So yeah, we defined electromagnetic interference as
things such as an instant shuts down a radio interference, you
know, television or power goes off.
Those were or the jet loses communication and we had

(17:41):
multiple cases of that where an aircraft loses communication in
presence of a UAP. So that that's what we looked at
in terms of EM. So what did you, what were the
findings like, what sort of interesting patterns or or
whatever came out of the study once you got all the data sorted

(18:02):
out and knew what you wanted to look at?
Yeah. You know, one of the interesting
ones that we we were not anticipating was that triangles
did not 'cause electromagnetic interference for whatever
reason. So whenever there was EM
reports, it was usually either adisc or a cylindrical shaped

(18:27):
object, but but not a triangle. And that that was something that
came out that we weren't expecting, right?
We kind of would have expected it more just to be random.
Sometimes it's this shape, sometimes it's that shape.
But there was definitely a relationship between shape and
electromagnetic interference. What does that do for your

(18:49):
underlying theory? Like, I guess when we go in, we
say that maybe we want to assumethe simplest explanation,
whatever that means, but that would probably mean that like,
well, they're all kind of operating on the same
principles. But if they're just like cars,
you know, cars can have different shapes, but they all
have a combustion engine or now like an electric motor or

(19:11):
something. But that kind of changes that,
right? I mean, is that, is that the
assumption that you or the conclusion that you draw that
they're being compelled? Yeah, we right.
We didn't draw any conclusions around that in the paper.
But you know, we thought about it right.
And I mean, I thought about it personally and not just in this
paper, just that my study of this subject for the last 17

(19:34):
years, it tends to to me tends to indicate it's not proof, but
tends to indicate that for example, the triangle is a
different, has a different propulsion mechanism perhaps
than a disc shaped object. I mean, if you look at our own

(19:58):
type of craft, right, they're, they're basically all some type
of like you said, combustionableengine.
So they're all going to have hydrocarbon emissions.
Although now today is is we've moved more into the electrical
world. We have some vehicles that will

(20:21):
not have a hydrocarbon emission like a electrical drone, but.
So it's possible you can have, you know, distinct
characteristics with the same craft, but that's it's more of a
gut feel of mine that whatever the source is of these craft,

(20:44):
it's not all the same source as my.
Oh, whatever, That's their origin.
Like whatever it's. Creating the origin, yeah, I
would say the origins not the same if I had to guess, but it's
not something that I would put in a paper, right?
Because I can't prove that. There's no way I can prove it
one way or the other. But that is, you know, it's more

(21:07):
of a gut instinct. So it's sort of like if you saw
a helicopter versus you saw, well, maybe not a helicopter,
but if you saw a pontoon boat versus like a nuclear sub, you
would say those were built in different fact.
I mean very different kind of. Those are, yeah.
Have a came from different locations or not from the same

(21:30):
source? Yeah, that would be my instinct.
So when you look at let's focus on electromagnetic effects for a
second. So in some of these cases,
television shutdown, communications go out, lights
flicker, engines die. What, what sort of inferences
can you draw that aren't speculation, but just about like

(21:52):
what sort of what sort of objector where technology would do
that? What sort of level of power
would it have to be working at? Or something like can we make
those sorts of inferences? Well, I I think you can.
You cannot infer, of course, whether it's intentional or it's

(22:13):
is just a result of a propulsionsystem, right?
I what I would infer is that whatever is causing it is some
is a strong electromagnetic field that's interfering with
the operation of, you know, a radio or a television or a or

(22:36):
automobile is to you know, the amount of power required to do
that really depends on the distance of the object to the
witness. Each case is different, right?
It's how that electrical how theradio is put together.

(23:00):
For example, the case of a barbell situation where we we
have a gentleman who he had three pieces of electrical
equipment fail in three different manners.
He had a field, a Motorola fieldradio which the wiring burned

(23:21):
out. He had a Motorola phone which
basically just went into a boot up mode when in the presence.
And then he had a video camera which basically soon as you
turned it off on, it turned itself off, right?

(23:42):
So like in the latter case, there's probably some type of
circuitry in that Sony camera that protects the circuit.
And if it's in the presence of afield that's inducing current
into its circuit, it probably turns itself off to prevent
damage. So each, you know, you can't

(24:06):
always draw a conclusion based on what each of those given
pieces of equipment are doing until you analyze in detail that
particular, you know, equipment.So that it it still seems like
you would need an immensely powerful electromagnet or

(24:26):
something generating an electromagnetic field to have
those sorts of effects at any distance.
You know, greater than like yourarm or something 'cause I mean
like, like an MRI, it generates an enormous electromagnetic
magnetic field, but you have to be right in the middle of the
sort of Taurus that does it. And, you know, like magnetic

(24:49):
fields dissipated like a logarithmic logarithmically over
distance. So the further you get away, it
just gets, you know, exponentially weaker and weaker.
So it would have to be somethingextraordinarily powerful.
Right, right. And it's you know, some of the
reports you can't release or it would be difficult to explain,

(25:13):
right? For example, the 19 seven, I
believe it's 7476 case and Tehran, Iran, right where you
have a a jet fighter and he's moving towards issue AP and he
loses all of his communications and weapons control, but he

(25:35):
doesn't lose the ability jet otherwise, right.
So like for us, if we were to put an impulse on that jet.
It would just. Shuts everything down.
You can't just shut pieces of itdown.
So if what the pilot says is true, that's some technology,

(25:55):
you know, we don't have to be able to selectively shut down
particular pieces of equipment and it extreme distance.
Is that something you look? At in these cases where you see
some electromagnetic effect, butit's, it's more particular or,
or seems more targeted or selective than you would have

(26:17):
expected. Like if a person says, you know,
my television shut down. Do you I guess in this?
Report. You can't ask because you're not
actually doing the investigations, but it seems
like one could ask when they're when they're looking at these
reports. Well, what else shut down and,
and what would we have expected to and whether other electronics

(26:38):
were in the room? That might be an interesting
study, but I'm sure you can't doit just off of the the
databases, right, Right. We can't.
Really do that off the database.That's really where you need to
have a equipment there at the time the event occurs so that
you can take lots of measurements because it's

(26:59):
there's just not enough science in in the reports to be able to,
you know, draw any strong conclusions on that.
The the other thing that I couldtalk about, Michael, that you
brought up, you know, besides the EM would be the shape of
these objects. So I could maybe if I could

(27:20):
share my screen. So this shape is was what let me
back up a little bit. These shapes were we only did
this work to create a shape if there were enough reports in
those 301 to to make sense of doing that.

(27:43):
So for example, the the barbell type shape or the tic tac shape
or any of those, there just weren't enough reports to say,
OK, over time, this is the shapethat's normally reported.
This one was this is the Dome disk.

(28:04):
And across all disks about 301 shapes.
We had about 110 shapes that were some form of a disk, the
the Dome disk. This was usually the size 8 to
16 feet in height, 20 to 40 in diameter in the ratio I was 2

(28:26):
1/2 to one. And what's interesting about
that is that the Battelle report, which looked at the US
Air Forces cases back in 1955, they came out with this same
shape, except they had a ratio of three to one.

(28:48):
And their size, yeah, very close.
And their size range was 20 to 30 feet.
So it's. You know what it makes you?
Think about is, well, why over time do people continue to
report the same ratios and sizes, right?

(29:08):
You think it would just vary instead of being consistent like
that? Yeah, I mean, especially.
If these were misapprehensions of something, I mean, I guess
unless they were misapprehensions of the exact
same thing over time, yeah, but it's hard to see how you'd get
them. And this shape.
Which was one of the more commonshapes.

(29:31):
It's like a football. Sort of shape, right?
It's football shape. 3-1 ratio. This one does not have a Dome,
and it's usually a little bit larger, 30 to 60 feet and about
10 to 20 feet, but the ratio is very similar.
Now this next. One's really interesting this,

(29:53):
the ratio of the this when it's 7 to one approximately.
So you know, it could have been six to one, eight to one.
So the range is extremely. Elongated football, I guess,
stretched out football, very long, very elongated.
When that happens, it's a much larger object.
So it. It's like there's two distinct

(30:15):
types of disc. You have a the large one which
is 7 to one ratio and the small one which is a three one.
But you know what you would expect to see, right, if this is
all random, is you would expect the large one to be 3 to one and
the small one to be 3 to one. But that's not what we see.
So this is very interesting. And then of course, after the

(30:38):
discs, the most common shape is is the triangle.
And this of all shapes, the equilateral triangle is the
most. Repeated.
Description of the shapes and and when I say that it's it's

(31:02):
almost always 100 to 150 feet per side.
These, there's always these verylarge globes near the apex of
the triangle and they're usuallylarge, 6 feet in size, usually
white in color, and there's usually a red light in the very

(31:22):
center, so. It it's just.
Amazing. Yeah, very specific, right.
It's like, how do all these witnesses keep describing the
exact same thing? And and of course the the
triangle has been more prevalentsince the 1970s is when it

(31:45):
although it's been reported as far back since 1950s.
But that that's the other reasonthat it makes me think of a
different source, because not only does this triangle not have
EM cause EM interference, but itit was not as prevalent back in

(32:08):
the 1940s, fifties and 60s as the disc was.
And then? The last is a isosceles type
triangle, again a large object. And what's usually unique on
this is that witnesses describe a multitude of colors on it.

(32:29):
So, and some people even call it, well, it's it was like a
Christmas tree. And this one's enormous.
This is between 200 and 300 feetlong, so it would pick up a
football field, right? And so.
It's very large and it's so thatthe equilateral which we just

(32:49):
saw was about 150 feet inside. So if you look, if you see my
cursor here, it would be more oflike, you know, you just cut
this guy off a little bit. So yeah, these are are usually
reported quite a bit larger thanthe equilateral triangle.
Now all the triangles. Are showing you're showing them
oriented sort of vertically? Do you get a sense from the

(33:12):
report of I I assume they're flying horizontally that people
are seeing them from the underside?
Do you get a sense of thick theyare?
How tall? Yeah.
The these what I showed you are just the top views.
We drew side views of these alsoand the side, the thickness of

(33:34):
them is usually in the range of 15 feet.
So actually considering the size, it's not that thick.
So they do seem. Like, they could be craft.
I mean, there could they're reasonably large enough that
people could walk around in themof like a normal human size or
something. But they don't.

(33:57):
At least in the in the report, you talk about shape, but you it
doesn't seem like you go very far into talking about like
surface features, whether they had doors or windows on them.
That doesn't seem like the main focus.
But do you have a sense of how common that that is that that's?
Not very common. Usually the objects described as

(34:18):
just a perfect piece of metal. And there's rarely descriptions
of windows, rivets, you know, hinges of you know how we
normally create a craft, right? You've got all these parts that
go together. There's usually none of that.
It's usually just the shape thatyou see.

(34:42):
You know, one of the kinds of reports that I've, I've seen a
few of just reading like Annex book and a few others that
really intrigues me is when people describe an object, but
they can't describe the color ofit or the shape of it because
it's sort of is not apprehendible to them.

(35:03):
Or maybe it changes shape. Is that something you had to
exclude from this? If a person said they saw an
object that started out as like one sphere and turned it to
three or changed its its generalform or something, how do you
deal with that? We didn't really have any of
those type for whatever reason Iyou know, because I have seen

(35:29):
those type reports, right. So either it got eliminated
because it was too far away or there weren't sufficient number
of witnesses or wasn't a pilot that reported it or it wasn't
fully investigated. Yeah.
But I think if our 301 cases, none of them were a shape

(35:50):
changing type incident, I guess it would be it'd.
Also be hard to distinguish those from a case in which the
observational condition is just didn't seem good enough.
Like how do you know whether something actually changed shape
or for a person just said, oh, Icouldn't really see it well
enough to know what its shape orcolor or something was right
because when you said. At far distance, right, the

(36:13):
appearance of the changing shapecould just be due to the
observer and the object you knownot being clear and it at far
distance. So do you, do you feel?
Like you came out of this study with something more like a
taxonomy of the kinds of craft there are that we can use going
forward to say, oh, well, it's, it's this kind of that kind.

(36:35):
So we've got like disk types andtriangle types.
Are there subtypes of those or what's what's the taxonomy you
you're working with so far? Yeah.
I mean the main taxonomy taxonomy that we worked with
were the the disk with the Dome and then the two different non
Dome disk that had different ratios, 3 to one, 7:00 to 1:00

(36:57):
and then the two types of triangles.
Now there were smaller cases of spheres, right?
Which you know if you look at the error report today.
They make that as. Their majority case, but the way
our cases were developed, a tinysphere at far distance would not

(37:19):
make our our list right because it's too small too far away.
And that's spheres are actually very common because that's when
an objects far away, that's often what you see is just a
sphere. It just blurs into.
A dot blur right but the. Other shapes that we didn't have

(37:40):
enough to feel like we could addthem to the taxonomy, although I
think if we did further work, brought in more cases, we would
have enough to do it. One would be the Tic Tac,
because we had three Tic Tac cases and and they were very
consistent. And that they're pretty much

(38:02):
like what Commander Fraber had described as a Tic Tac, an
object, you know, 30 to 60 feet in length that looks like a
pill. And in some reports, they called
it a propane. There's a, you know, flying
propane tank. So that I think is a definite

(38:23):
shape that's out there. And then the the cylinder, the
one problem with the cylinder isthat if you see the disk, you
know, from a side view and don'tsee it from any other angle, it
may look like a cylinder. Yeah.
And that this could look. Like a sphere if you saw it from

(38:45):
right? Yep.
Yep, the disk, if you see it just straight up above.
As a matter of fact, one of the the cases that's in our database
is the Chicago O'Hare case and. And.
There was a a witness and I actually did this report.

(39:05):
It came in after the the bulk ofthe Chicago O'Hare witnesses.
This is the only witness that weknow of who was on an aircraft
landing at Chicago O'Hare and saw the object as he was
landing. And he actually described
exactly what you're talking about is he is the plane was

(39:27):
coming in for a landing and he saw the disk from above.
He said it looked like a sphere,right?
Because he's just looking at thetop.
But is, he said, is. This.
The plane dropped below the diskand he saw it sideways.
He could tell it was a disk at that point.
So then. So we've got these, these big

(39:50):
groups, the big clumpy groups that you that you can come out
with from these 301 cases. And you said about a third of
them are disks of some sort withdomes or without domes.
And then the other 2/3 are. Triangles.
How would you break up the percentages without the I think.
110, if I remember right from memory were disk shapes.

(40:13):
I think the triangle was probably 50 to 60 cases.
Somewhere in there I'd have to look up the exact number.
And the remainder were just miscellaneous different types of
shapes. Well, for example, one was what
we the witnesses called a ovoid right which.

(40:34):
Could be a disk. Right, except that they call it
an avoid and it they didn't givethe disk ratios, so we couldn't
necessarily qualify it as a disk.
And then you had the cylinder type shapes, you had some Tic
Tacs, there were some shapes unique that were boomerangs,

(40:59):
right. And we separated the boomerangs
away from the triangles. And then there was the delta
shape that was a or Chevron. Those were a number of those.
There were some plasmas. And we only accepted the plasma
because it was close enough to the witness that, you know, we

(41:22):
were confident that's what they were looking at.
And and those. But there weren't enough that we
could. Put that in the taxonomy, right.
But it, if you go back, I mean, if you just studied the topic
overall, that's kind of what theFoo Fighters were.

(41:44):
They were mostly. Yeah, luminous orbs that.
Move through the sky. But because of the way we
selected cases, we would tend toeliminate those type cases most
of the time because there's not as a real feature that's easy to
identify. So then what patterns start?

(42:06):
Emerging like, do you see, you said that you saw EMFX for the
triangles, Do you see differences in like how they
move that give you any idea of what's going on in these
objects? Yeah, one of the.
One of the patterns that's interesting was the lack of
sound, right? And so probably most people have
heard, OK, you know, witnesses that talked about I didn't hear

(42:30):
anything. But, but what's unique is it's
not just the witness says I didn't hear anything, it's that
the witness says it was close enough to me that I should have
heard something and I didn't. So, you know, that's really
different from just saying I didn't hear anything when you
say it was so close. There's no way I couldn't have

(42:51):
heard it, but I didn't and. There were.
A number of cases of that where there's just no, no sound at
all. I mean that that existed with
the triangles and existed with the disc shape objects as well.
And that's different from just saying.

(43:12):
It moved so. Fast that you would have
expected. To hear a propeller or a jet
burning or something, you're saying that they got close
enough to the object that they felt in their own little like
sphere of sound. They should have heard it doing
something and then it's not right.
Yeah, because. You know, the witness is
expecting to hear what they would hear from a helicopter or

(43:33):
an aircraft or, you know, something like that, and they're
not hearing anything. Were there ever sound effects?
Reported Yeah, now there were. Some, especially with the
cylinders and sometimes with theDome shaped disc.
And sometimes there were distinct sounds that were heard,
such as it sounded like a rattling washing machine, right,

(43:56):
which is kind of strange. And with the triangle, the sound
that sometimes hurt was like a hum.
And sometimes people would describe it as an electrical
type of a hum. And then, yeah.
And then sometimes you would hear someone that might describe
it as a sound that you could just feel in your chest, right?

(44:20):
So that indicates it's probably a a very low frequency
infrasound or something. Yeah.
But the the rattling, washing. Machine, it's like it reminds me
of this class of case. There's like you can you can
find enough reports that it's I think it's a thing of like
objects over the ocean that are spitting out molten metal and

(44:41):
then just like fly off really quickly.
I wonder if there's something wrong with the rattling washing
machine. Did you?
What do you So what, what is your sense coming away from, you
know the patterns that you see. So your sense is that the
triangles are made differently than maybe they operate on some
different principle propulsion. Do you get the sense of of what

(45:06):
sort of systems are involved in the in the different kinds or
like 1 is using EM in some way? I don't even know how EM
propulsion would work in this case.
Yeah, I. I don't have, I don't have a
from the study we did. I don't have a good feel for
their propulsion mechanism, right, other than the signature

(45:28):
of high acceleration. And so with high acceleration,
that's more than just saying we eliminated gravity, right?
Because I can, I can take our most powerful rockets and just
magically put them into space. So they don't have to overcome
Earth's gravity, ignite them, and you still don't have extreme

(45:50):
acceleration, right? That's that's something else
when you get that. And the way we would look for
extreme acceleration in the report would be, for example, a
witness that sees an object. So imagine you see an object,
would say the size of the full moon, and you're watching it.

(46:11):
It begins to move away. Within 2 seconds it's
disappeared. Well you can.
You can do some rough calculations on the type of
acceleration that's required to make an object.
Doesn't matter how far away or right because you're the farther

(46:33):
away it is, then the bigger it is.
Because we're talking about angular size.
The closer it is, the smaller itis.
But for it to disappear from from view within 2 seconds
requires an extreme amount of acceleration.
To give you an example, if you were looking at an F18 and he
was about the size of the full moon, and let's just say he was

(46:56):
cruising 250 miles an hour, he turns on his afterburners and
starts to accelerate. Well, it'll be 13 seconds before
he's disappeared from your side,as long as you've got a
clearview of the of the jet. So the disappearing 2 seconds
requires extreme acceleration, so if it.

(47:16):
Were the size of a If it were the size of an F18, which is
like 56 feet or something in length, what?
What sort of acceleration? Would that need to do to get out
of completely out of view in twoseconds?
I would have to to look, you know, at a specific case, but we

(47:38):
kind of looked at that when we looked at the 2004 Nimitz event.
And if I remember right, it would require something like 100
G forces of of speed increase todisappear within 2 seconds,
which. We don't.
We don't. Have anything that at least

(47:58):
nothing that carries humans thatgoes 100 right and and then.
Additionally, with the speed youwould reach within those two
seconds, there should be atmospheric interaction, right?
So there should have been a Sonic boom, the object should
have begun to glow from frictionwith the atmosphere, right?

(48:21):
And if you were anywhere near it, you should have felt a the
wind is the object began began to move.
But and all these reports, we don't we don't see that.
So they all tend to never see a Sonic.
Boom, ever I. Have.
I can't think of a single case I've heard where they said yeah,

(48:44):
but this object took off and I heard the Sonic boom and I
can't. Either that's that's interesting
and I can't think of one where they.
Where someone said, well, the UFO was it was here he started
accelerating and he turned red hot.
You know, he glowed red hot as it was disappearing, and, you
know, never hear that. Or you streak him across the sky

(49:07):
and there was, you know, the heat.
You can see the. Heat coming off of the UFO.
Now you do hear sometimes of a of a kind of a WAVY appearance
around them, right? Kind of like on a hot summer
day, right? Could be heat or it it could be,

(49:30):
you know the the refractive. Index of the.
Air around it. It's hard to say.
That effect can also be. Controlled electromagnetically,
can't it I'm? Not sure if that can.
I mean, it could be if if you had an electromagnetic field
strong enough to start to excitethe the air molecules around an

(49:56):
object, right? Maybe I'm thinking like a?
Class cameras, I think they're electromagnetic fields can that
can cause camera that have like a WAVY I think they're called
Dyson rings or not Dyson. Oh yeah, for Freeman Dyson maybe
yeah, a sort of waviness. Maybe it's only in cameras that
maybe it's not visible to optical.
So but in those cases you would think that the waviness is is

(50:20):
because it's putting off heat. Or do you do you have ever have
like since cases where you're seeing it through Fleer or
infrared and you do see a huge heat signature?
Do they ever have heat signatures that you expect?
I mean I can only this. Is not one of our 301 cases, but
I but I I only. I can only think offhand of one

(50:43):
case where there was an extreme heat signature by the the UFO or
the UAP. And that was a Coast Guard case
where they were looking down at an object that they thought was
in the water or on the surface of the water.

(51:05):
And they thought it was a ship on fire because their IR was
indicating of, you know, hundreds of degrees of heat.
So that that was their impression.
But then when the object made a 90° turn, they knew it wasn't a
ship anymore. And then it it took off and

(51:27):
moved up into the atmosphere. So then for sure it wasn't a
ship. But that's the only one I can
think of where there was extremeheat in the eye, you know, in
the infrared. It's just so bizarre that you
would have. These patterns, I mean, if, if
you try your hardest to assume that there are prosaic
explanations for all of these, you just would not expect

(51:51):
anything like these patterns of people saying that there's no
contrail left. One, there's no like sound of
turbulence. You know, I mean, like a, a
plane produces an enormous amount of sound just from the
wind moving against its surface.And they're pretty aerodynamic
and something's flying into yourhead really fast.
You should hear it. Even AB.

(52:13):
Two, the B2 bomber right, which is designed to be as quiet as
possible. I was in a military operating
area and AB2 went by and I don'tknow, he was probably a mile
away. I could hear him without a
problem. He wasn't as loud as like an F16

(52:33):
or something else, but you coulddefinitely hear the the plane as
it as it went by. So they should make some sound.
And that's not. Is that the engine making that
sound or is it mostly just the just the turbulence from the?
I think it's mostly the engine that.
Makes most of the sound OK. So you're not having engine
sounds, you're not having wind generated.

(52:56):
You don't see, you know, vortices, I guess you do see
them punched through clouds sometimes, though.
So that seems like a kind of interference with the
interaction with the atmosphere that is present.
Yeah, yeah. I mean, that is a good example
of interaction with the atmosphere when you see these
holes punched through the clouds.

(53:17):
And there's the Chicago O'Hare case is 1 where that happened.
And I think, I think there's oneor two others where that's been
reported to have happened. So then let's speculate what?
Sort of. Technology would punch a hole.
Through a cloud if it. Moved there, but wouldn't create
any wind noise or friction with the atmosphere.

(53:46):
I don't know, maybe if. You.
Somehow you. You know there was a field, some
type of field around the craft as it's moving, as you look at
it moving through the regular atmosphere, you wouldn't see
anything because you can't see the field.

(54:07):
But the field effects whatever. 'S around it, then if you go
through a foggy area or a thick cloud then then you would it
could probably move the the cloud parts.
Yeah, so that you can see that. And you can't see it when it's
just moving regular air particles away from it.

(54:27):
And it might do it without a lotof.
Resistance, but it would still move those particles, yeah.
What kind? Of propulsion, then are.
These like like is it anti gravity or is it?
OK, so anti. Gravity doesn't explain the
acceleration my my favorite, butwe don't have a there's no

(54:49):
scientific evidence of this yet and that and that's the concept
that like that the inertial massof my phone here could be
reduced so. That I could.
Drive the the inertial mass towards 0.

(55:10):
So if you could. Do that which we haven't proven
that you can. Then I could accelerate this
cell phone near the speed of light, right?
All I'd have to do is have a fewphotons impacted and if there
was no atmosphere here you take 0 energy.
Almost right it take basically. Zero energy.

(55:33):
So the photons would impart their speed to the this full
cell phone and it would move speed light but.
That so if. You if you had that capability
then you could have an instant acceleration.
And the question? Is how you know if if somehow

(55:57):
there's a a field around this that's that's causing that, then
you could have you're going to have and I'm just guessing here,
but if you assume that field drops off the inverse squared
just like a magnetic field or anything else.
Then that's low inertial. Mass may affect the atmosphere

(56:19):
around it too, right? So, so now as as I'm moving
through the the clouds, the clouds around this this craft
now suddenly lose. Some of their.
Inertial mass. So now they may, they may begin
to move because they don't weighthe same as they would normally

(56:41):
have weighed. So that's, you know, I've, I've
wondered about that, just like in the the instance of Fraber,
right when they're they see thattic tac and they see the
broiling water turning underneath.
It right, So is. Is the water?
Is there really something under the water, or is that possibly

(57:05):
just the effect of? Let's say if the Tic Tac is able
to lower the inertial mass of itself and and everything around
it, then is the surface, the water close enough to the Tic
Tac that it's lost enough inertial mass so that now the

(57:26):
surface of your water weighs less than, you know, the bulk of
the election? Yeah, Yeah.
And so now you start getting this churning.
Yeah, a churning effect just, you know, kind of like when you
pour a heavy liquid into a lightliquid or or a light liquid into
a heavy liquid. Is that your?
You know, if you had to place your money on it, is that where

(57:50):
you would bet how these things are are operating if if I had
to? Yeah, I had to place my money
then. I would bet that that's what I
would say is it they're capable of reducing their mass to 0,
right. And then if you can do that, you
don't have to worry about a nurse and nursing anymore,

(58:11):
right? And you don't have to worry
about that acceleration because.We don't know that there's.
A living being in these objects.But let's just assume there was.
If I'm in the object and my inertial mass has dropped, well,
that acceleration doesn't affectme.
Yeah, you don't have to worry about it.

(58:32):
Yeah. 50,000 GS or whatever it. Doesn't doesn't really matter,
no problem because I. Don't have any weight so on that
theory. What happens if I just drive it
into the side of a mountain? I mean, do solid objects resist
something that has no inertial mass?
I guess that. Becomes a question of if, if I

(58:54):
you know, if I reduce my mass towards 0, you know, how close
to 0 can I get? I mean, if I can get like a
neutrino, right? He's got an inertial mass that's
just about as close to 0 as you can get.
He can go right through the mountain, but if I can't quite
get there, I may have a problem when I hit the mountain.
OK, so even if you. Could go into the mountain.

(59:18):
I mean, if you've got a very, very low inertial mass, but it's
not zero, you might be able to pass through the mountain, but
it could ruin your DNA or like, yeah, or might.
Not get all the way. Through.
If it's stuck. Inside the mountain.
That's interesting. Would that explain how some of
these? Objects seem able to, I know

(59:40):
this is not in the studies. We're going outside the
mountains, right, Right. We're outside of the study.
But some of these objects. Can pass through water.
It seems pretty as if it it doesn't even matter.
Would that sort of propulsion explain that ability?
That transmedium ability, yeah, because I guess.
If you don't have any mass and you're impacting the water,

(01:00:01):
which you're just purely from chemistry terms, physics terms,
there's not a whole lot of of difference between the density
of air and the density of water as compared to the density of
that mountain. You know, that's a a a real big
jump. But so I could see how an object

(01:00:23):
that had very little inertial mass could just go straight into
the water with very little movement of the water, maybe
none, and it would be able to move through the water, you know
it, at a very high speed. The water is just moving out.

(01:00:43):
Of its way because it's a fluid.The air is a fluid, right?
It's all kind of churning constantly.
You've got something with almostno mass passing around.
It's not going to create any resistance or real friction or
anything. Yeah, it's, it's I guess.
You'd have to model somehow, youknow it's exactly what happens

(01:01:05):
is you're moving through the atmosphere, for example, or
through the water because. The object.
Itself, let's say is close to 0 inertial mass, but what happens
to the atmosphere immediately around it, right?
My guess would be it's inertial mass has been reduced also, and

(01:01:28):
it's probably a gradient that moves away from from the object.
So at some point it seems like you should have some resistance
somewhere. Yeah, but it might be there.
It might be that. There there is.
You're creating existence resistance, but you're sort of

(01:01:49):
offloading it to the particles around you in that gradient,
right? You're there's some friction,
but it's really between these particles out here.
It's not I don't have anything to do with that, right?
That friction is out there and it's fine, but you?
Could still move. Your your thing.
Whatever is at the center of this field could still move
pretty well. But I guess if you're if

(01:02:10):
whatever is generating that field is shut down while you're
moving, you'd be in real trouble, right.
If you're moving like 50,000 GS or whatever it is, yeah, then I
would think you should you. Should immediately be
interacting with the atmosphere and.
Just combust, right? Yeah, yeah.
Which is, which is what we. Should expect, should happen,

(01:02:30):
right? Just like a meteorite coming
into the atmosphere, there should be instant combustion.
There's there's there's no explanation for an object that
could move 30,000 miles an hour through the atmosphere without
combustion. Seems like a risky thing.
Of travel, like if my engine shuts down on the car, oh, shuts

(01:02:52):
down the road. I'm, I'm in.
It's a real inconvenience, but Idon't like instantly die.
You know, it seems like the, therisk of, of travelling using a,
a technology like that if you'retravelling through an
atmosphere, I guess. But if you're in space, it
wouldn't matter, I guess. Would this also, this would also
solve problems like if you're using these things to travel

(01:03:14):
interstellar distances. One of the problems of
interstellar travel or, or or atleast like very fast travel is
that there's not much out in space.
But if you hit a, you know, a piece of dust going really,
really fast, it could be catastrophic.
Does this solve that problem too?
I guess right and and not. Only that even even without the

(01:03:35):
debt, there's enough hydrogen atoms in space that if you're
traveling near light speeds thatyour spaceships going to be
heating up from from the becauseif you think about it, you're
just piling these hydrogen atomsthat are in space on the front
of your spaceship as you're traveling through at this

(01:03:58):
extreme speed. But it's if your mass, if the
mass of your spaceship is driventowards 0, then it's it's not an
issue as much anymore. Would there be any?
Limits to this, sort of to the acceleration that you could
could perform. I guess the instant acceleration
you couldn't go faster than the speed of light, but you could.

(01:04:20):
I guess conceivably if there's no.
Resistance. You could go any any speed you
want below that instantaneously I would think.
So pretty much I mean it, it's just driven by how close to 0
can you drive drive your inertial mass.
And and again, I should note to the audience, there's there's
been no evidence yet in science that we're capable of changing

(01:04:41):
the inertial mass of an object. As a matter of fact, there's.
You know you can argue whether there's a difference between
inertial mass and the objects real mass, because if you can't
drive it for if you can't changeinertial mass and.
You know, it's hard to define. What inertial mass is other than
just mass? But that's that it seems.

(01:05:04):
Like the problem with studies like this is that inevitably
they push you into territory of speculate.
And when we do studies, we don'twant to speculate.
We want to look at data and we want to draw whatever
conclusions we can. But when the conclusion is that
there are objects that can accelerate impossibly given our

(01:05:26):
light current understanding of how physics does physics works,
it seems like these studies inevitably pull you into
speculation of some sort. I mean, what else can you do
other than say, well, there are things that can't happen, but
they are happening? Well, yeah, because if.
If you are dealing with a technology that's hundreds of
years more advanced than ours, Imean, how do you explain it?

(01:05:50):
I mean, how, how would you know?Leonardo da Vinci explained how
the cell phone works. You know, I mean, part of the
way it works is because electrons tunnel through a thin
oxide with and somehow appear onthe other side.

(01:06:10):
We don't even really know exactly how that happens other
than we know it happens. We know how to make it happen.
But like Da Vinci. He's.
I have the concept of an electron.
Yeah. So how can he?
Explain how it works so then does.
That mean that doesn't mean that.

(01:06:31):
We've broken the laws of physics, right?
Sure, of course the. Vent, you might think.
We've broken the laws of physics, but we haven't really.
Same thing for the UAP. We may think that they've broken
a lot of physics, but I don't think, you know, I think the
laws of physics are or what theyare and.
So do you think so so. If we head back to the question

(01:06:53):
of where you put your money, andI gave you a different option.
You can put your money on this sort of they drive their
inertial mass down to 0 technology.
Or you can put your money on thethe explanation that there is
some form of technology or physics for which we don't even

(01:07:14):
have the concepts in the way that like Leonardo da Vinci does
not have the concepts of an electron or, or or whatever.
Which of those two would you say?
Well, if. Then if I'm going to put my
money, I'm going to put it on the ladder, right?
But then that it's some concept I would just have no
understanding. But then if I put my money on

(01:07:35):
the ladder, then we can't reallydiscuss it because we don't know
what would you know what we're talking about.
So I have to put. Initially, when you ask me that,
I put the money on something I can at least discuss.
Yeah. I mean of the theories that we
can. Come up with that's the one that
you want to like put your money on.
But yeah, probably there's or maybe there's just no, the

(01:07:56):
whatever theory is going to be right is going to require a
whole set of that we're not working with.
Yeah, I I think that's the most likely.
I do too and when I was reading.This study, one of the the sort
of speculative questions that I came up with was why do we why
are we first? Why are we looking at the
particular features that this study looks at?

(01:08:19):
And I think it was size, shape, kinematics, electromagnetic
effects and sound emanations. Those were the things and I
thought, well, why are we selecting those rather than
others? Not that I think that's there's
a problem with that, but it seems to me that the kind of
intuitive guiding principle was the idea that these are are
craft. They're they're like cars kind

(01:08:41):
of or planes or something. And those are the features that
we know can help us identify what sort of object, what sort
of craft we're looking at. But why?
So why then don't we look? At them don't we look at things
like whether a person experienced some deep emotional
response to it? Well, because planes don't do

(01:09:04):
that, you know, But if, if theseare totally different, if, if
these technologies work on some principles that we don't even
understand, they might not obey the distinctions between
technology and emotion and all those other things that we see
as distinct. Does that make any sense?
Yeah. Yeah, it does.
And that's actually a pretty good question, Michael, because
the reason we chose those is because what we're trying to do

(01:09:27):
is, is we're trying to help people who want to build
scientific instruments, right, to go look at these objects,
right? So if we have some basis of what
type of equipment they should belooking at based on what we've
seen from, you know, human eyes and to a certain extent maybe

(01:09:49):
occasional radar data, we can say, all right, here's the
shapes that your software shouldbe kind of looking towards.
You should have some type. Of acoustical sound equipment,
right to verify that there was no sound right when you when

(01:10:11):
you're visually grabbed a picture of this object and you
should have equipment that can measure electromagnetic fields,
right Also when you're, you know, trying to develop systems
to to measure this. So it's it's to try to help the
next step in science which is togo get the actual measurements

(01:10:34):
with sophisticated equipment. And and so that's kind of why we
looked at those. But but still your question of
well, yeah, but how does it affect the individual?
And see that's something it's a little harder to measure.
You know I'm not sure which whattype of equipment we're going to

(01:10:58):
put out there to to measure that.
But you know, I feel at the sametime we shouldn't ignore it,
right? If it truly affects the
observer. And the.
Observers running the equipment that's taking the measurements.
Well, it's good to know that, that it's affects the observer

(01:11:19):
in some manner. Yeah, but we don't, I mean.
We don't have even stand even inpsychology, we don't have really
well established like standard instruments for measuring things
even like questionnaires or havebeen.
In the last 30 years. Become standard only in the last
30 years or so. Become like standard instruments

(01:11:39):
for, you know, asking people questions about what sort of a
psychological effects on experience might have had like
even. If we wanted to collect the.
Data and might not be available to us, but I, I keep coming back
in my mind whenever I read aboutthese things to this idea that
if it's a if it's technology, wedon't understand physics, we

(01:12:00):
don't understand principles of how the universe works that we
don't understand, then our assumptions about how to study
are going to be wrong in some way or they're going to be
incomplete. Not not wrong in like the sense
that they're contrary. There's going to be some
incomplete part to this. And how do you study a
phenomenon that you know operates outside the bounds of

(01:12:22):
the way the way you believe the world works?
Like what do you look look for? And how would you know if the
effects were there when you don't know to look for them?
Right, right. So I, I think that's a, you
know, a key issue. So it's like, how do you,
especially how do you study something that has intelligent

(01:12:43):
control, right? If there's intelligence
involved, how do you study, I mean, in physics and chemistry,
right? It's real straightforward.
I I mix studying bicarbonate andacetic acid and I can repeatedly
forget the same reaction. I studied bacteria.

(01:13:04):
And it's, I can pretty much, youknow, this temperature, these
nutrients, this is how the bacteria will react.
Now I start to study a pack of dogs.
It's not so clear cut, right? I may not be able to repeat what
the last experimenter did. And now if you start dealing

(01:13:24):
with humans, right, psychology and sociology, it it's even
harder because that what you're studying has the ability to
affect your measurements and your testing, right?
And so imagine what if you're trying to study something that's

(01:13:45):
more intelligent than you are? I mean, talk about a soft.
Science, that's going to get really soft, yeah, I mean.
There's sort of loops of of kindof feedback problems that you
have, like if you're studying something that's more
intelligent than you and it knows that you're studying it.
Yeah. How?

(01:14:05):
Can you ever believe your? Results.
Because if you, especially if you don't know its intentions,
right, it might want you to drawcertain conclusions.
And if it has the power to make you draw those conclusions, how
could you ever believe anything other than this is the set of
conclusions it wanted me or allowed me to draw about it?
And I wonder about this too, butit seems like the study of UAP

(01:14:27):
almost has to operate on the assumption that these are like I
need. A key I.
Think you got I'm. Sorry, Michael.
We'll edit. Hey, yeah.
She's very gone I. Don't think she's on me.
But it's, it seems like the study of UAP has to operate on

(01:14:49):
this assumption that these are just basically like fancy cars
that can fly in some way we don't understand.
And because if you assume that they're anything else, then you
don't know what exactly to look for like it, it's at least
plausible. I think that 10,000 years from

(01:15:12):
now, our distinctions between like psychology and technology
will just completely breakdown. And we'll have, we'll have some
understanding of consciousness that makes, you know, machines
conscious and emotional or something.
And we'll have some form of propulsion that has to be
conscious in order for it to work.
Or sometimes those are possibilities, right?
We've science and technology have evolved in ways that have

(01:15:33):
broken down past conceptions andin very similar ways.
But if that's the case, if that's the sort of thing we're
looking at, for instance, we have no idea how to study it
correctly and we can't study it correctly because it just
doesn't, it won't ever fit our our.
Our preconceptions and it seems like we run.
Against that, sometimes with like the the Tic Tac case, like

(01:15:56):
we can describe its shape and its kinematics, but then it
exhibits other behaviors like itflew to a rendezvous point ahead
of people going there when that was a secret location that
hadn't been communicated. But then we have to draw, we
have to place that behavior sortof outside of its kinematics

(01:16:16):
because it implies knowledge or foresight or will or something
that we can't really account for.
There's not a question. Right, Right.
No. It's no, it's, it's a very valid
point and it's the same thing ifwe're dealing with.
Say aircraft. For example, that's from another

(01:16:40):
nation. I mean there's a pilot in there
and he, he very well may know that we're, for example, he has
equipment that can detect that we have just sent a radar signal
to his plane to detect his location.
And so he knows that we just didthat and where we're located

(01:17:00):
that sent the radar signal. And and that's just the
technology we have now, yeah. Yeah.
No, it's it's hard to. Fathom if you're dealing with an
intelligence greater than yourself, what its capabilities
are. So when you're looking at the.

(01:17:25):
Data that we do have going back to the report, do you, how do
you, how to phrase this? We want to know not just what
these things can do, like what sort of acceleration profiles
they can have. We want to know like
fundamentally. What they are?

(01:17:46):
And we have to make some. Assumptions.
We have to start with assumptions that that are, we're
familiar with, you know, that they're, they're like planes in
a certain way, but they're not like planes in other ways.
How far do you think it's reasonable to infer when it
comes to questions like what's on the inside of these things?

(01:18:06):
Do they have an interior that has like beings inside of it?
Can we use its shape or its? Dimensions or its acceleration
to answer those questions or what their intentions are.
What are they sensing things or are they observing in a sort of
visual way? Where do you go with questions
like that from data like this? Yeah, I.

(01:18:27):
Don't think we can conclude, youknow what's inside them.
I mean, they could be completelydrone based, right?
Or, or they could be a living Organism inside.
Or it could be a Ottoman type of, you know, robotic.
Organism. That's inside it.

(01:18:48):
There's. I don't think there's any way we
can draw. A conclusion.
You know one way or another. Well, can't you at least draw a
negative? Conclusions like none of them
seem to have appendages, so they're not trying to
physically, mechanically interact with the environment.
So that kind of like seems to narrow down what they might be

(01:19:08):
doing right? Like that if they must be
sensing or something, right? That it seems like that's kind
of a a go to assumption is that they're observing or they're
they have some intent where theyare, but that we can at least
like knockout certain possible intentions to that.
Do you have a sense of how like where we go in that direction?

(01:19:29):
What, you know, we do have some projects in SCU where we kind of
looked at intent, you know, in terms of nuclear facilities.
So there does seem to be, I mean, because it's like I was
asked once if I could do anything I wanted, had unlimited
funds to go look for one of these, what would I do?

(01:19:51):
And I said, well, I would I'd have a scientific research ship
that just followed US carrier strike forces around the ocean
because our nuclear powered carriers seem to attract UAP
reports. So and you don't think that's
just because they. Have observers on them.

(01:20:13):
You think it's because they disproportionately do encounter
these things? Yeah, I don't.
I don't. Think it's just because they
they have observers on it. I think it's because like take
for example the 2004 incident right the.
The Craft. Were not near the strike force.

(01:20:34):
They detected them on radar and the F eighteens that they sent,
they went out 50 miles to go find these objects because they
could detect them on radar 50 miles distance.
Oh, interesting. And so right.
So we send 2F eighteens, they goto where the Princeton radar

(01:20:57):
says this contact is. And yes, right there they see a
visual object. So I mean, what are the odds
that your radar system just happens to pick up an object at
50 miles and your jets go out there and sure enough, there's a
physical object? I mean, I, I don't know what

(01:21:20):
more proof someone needs to knowthat that was not.
And you know, pilots imagining what they saw.
I mean they saw something that our radar system told them
existed there. So the radar would have had to
been. Spoofed in some way, some glitch
or or you know, density or something would have had to,

(01:21:43):
they would have had to go there and then misapprehend something,
spoof the radar. And then you'd have to have some
type of hologram holograms to fake out the pilots who are so,
you know, sure that that's an actual object that they go and
gauge it, right. I mean, that's.

(01:22:03):
That's a heck of a lot of. Technology, yeah, on any account
it. So even if it was spoofed, it's
some sort of technology we don'tunderstand.
It's not just a Flock of Seagulls or or something.
Yeah. Did you have?
Favorite cases from this? Study that you have to talk
about. Yeah, I think of the.

(01:22:25):
My favorite cases you know that that were in this study is that
the tic tac case from 2004, right?
That's definitely one of my favorites.
October 1968, AB 52 at a Minot Air Force Base encounters UAP

(01:22:46):
and it's detected by the B52 radar system, right?
And it's seen by all the pilots.And my favorite part of that
whole story is that one of the, there's like six or seven guys
on AB 52. So one of the guys is they say,
hey, come up and take a look at this UFO and he's like, no, I

(01:23:11):
don't want to see it. What's wrong?
Going to take a look at it. He said.
I've got a a interview with Boeing next week for a pilot job
and I don't want to see any UFO.That's hilarious.
And did he not? Look at that one of the.
Guys and there's I know the guy who interviewed all the the men

(01:23:34):
on the B52 and that that all of them saw except that one guy.
And that's why he didn't want tolook at it because he didn't
want it to affect his his getting this job.
Boeing Did he get the job? You know, I don't know.
I don't know if he did or not, Isaid.
I guess he did. I assumed he was retiring, you

(01:23:55):
know, from the Air Force. And and so that that one's one
of my favorite cases, another one this happened in.
The. In the mid 70s over Ohio, it was
Army reservists who were taking a helicopter back and there were

(01:24:16):
three or four guys on the plane.I mean the helicopter, they're
headed back. They see a light heading towards
them. The Colonel who was like not
flying the helicopter takes overthe controls because they feel

(01:24:36):
like there's some aircraft that,and they're in danger of having
a head on collision because thislight's rapidly approaching him.
So he, he dives, he begins to, you know, drop down.
And then all of a sudden, instead of that light that was
moving towards him, there's thisgiant cylindrical object that's

(01:24:59):
just right in front of their helicopter.
And it's sitting there and it's bathing them in green light.
And I mean, and they're the magnetic compass on, on their
helicopter starts spinning and they're, and they're just
sitting looking at this object, you know, that's suddenly right

(01:25:23):
in front of them. Well, for one thing, to go from
being a light far away headed towards you to suddenly an
object right in front of you, that's enormous acceleration.
And it stopped, right? It moves suddenly stops in front
of them. And so it's, it's again, it's
one of these cases that wasn't Venus in front of them, that

(01:25:46):
wasn't a balloon in front of them.
These guys, either these guys decided to tell a whopper of a
lie or it really happened. It's one of the two.
I mean, it's not like you can say, oh, they, they mistook
Jupiter for a giant craft enormous green.

(01:26:07):
Blowing cylinder. Yeah.
What? And what are the incentives?
I mean, I think about people, especially people in the
military, the incentives not to ever talk about this are so high
that you have to assume. They they.
Psychologically, something is motivating them against their
own professional interests to talk about these things.

(01:26:28):
Even pilots in the, you know, inin the civil, what do you call
it in a commercial airlines FAA,yeah, they're the.
Same. Same incentives, you know, you
could take, lose your flights asif they think that you're, you
know, psychologically unfit or something.
So it has to be some real experience.
And the effects that it has on people seem often really

(01:26:51):
profound. It kind of changes them because
they don't know what they've. Yeah.
And there's actually, and, and again, I can't prove this
because, and I'm not a psychologist, but there seems to
be a certain amount of PTSD thateffects some people when this
happens because not only is yourworldview shaken up, right, but

(01:27:14):
you can't really go talk about it.
One of the nice things when for us as humans is when you have a,
an experience that's, you know, tragic or horrible or what have
you, you can talk to someone andthat's how you release.
Well, because of the stigma and the way people think, if you try

(01:27:35):
to talk about something like that, it, it almost forces
certain people just to keep it in and that that just makes the
problem worse for them. I was.
It makes me think. Of Matthew Roberts, who I know
was, he was the cryptologist on or one of the cryptologists on
the Princeton during the the Nimitz encounter.

(01:27:56):
And he said he spent after initially, you know, they saw
the video and the other the radar data and things that he
spent like every day, every freehour in the skiff just watching
these videos over and over and over.
Because it some, it just kind ofbroke some part of his brain
that, that he he was seeing something that had no, just did

(01:28:19):
not fit with this conception of reality.
And it became pretty profound for him, I think.
Yeah. And I've always wondered about
that, Michael, if it happened tome because I've never seen an
object up close that or evidencethat was incontrovertible,
right? How?
Would I react? I mean.

(01:28:40):
Even though I've been studying the subject for 17 years, could
I say, Oh yeah, just take notes here and or would it affect me
like that? I don't know because I've never
been in that situation. Yeah, I.
I know in some cases I find it frustrating that people are
like, you know, I didn't take out my camera or whatever when
they saw this thing. But I think that I might react

(01:29:03):
similarly because there's some, there has to be some stunning
effect when you see something that your brain just doesn't
know how to process. You can like I can imagine just
fixating on it and not understanding or knowing what to
do. How do you respond to something
that seems impossible or wildly new?
It would get away. Yeah.

(01:29:25):
Yep. And.
I've thought about that too, andI think that's because that's
your first reaction is can we come up with a rational
explanation when your brain starts working on that rational
explanation? Do you have a little bit of that
when you're? Looking at, I think you must.
When you're looking at data likethis, like there's isn't that

(01:29:46):
part of the allure is that you look at this new thing, What can
this possibly can't be, you know?
Yeah, it's kind of like. Yeah.
How can that be? But for now, this is good.
Thank you for taking your evening and devoting it to this.
I appreciate it. Yeah, thanks.
Thanks, Michael. The anomalous review.

(01:30:08):
Is a project of the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies.
It's hosted and produced by me, Michael Blossom and edited by
Kelly Michelle. Our theme song was written and
performed by Telma Chrisanti. Communication and PR work is by
Preston Dykes. Our advisory team includes
Jennifer Roach, Robert Powell, Richard Hoffman, Joshua Pearson
and Larry Hancock. To find out more about SCU,

(01:30:30):
check out Explorer scu.org.

All Episodes

009 - Robert Powell Explains SCU's Analysis of Over 60,000 UAP Cases

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

24/7 News: The Latest

Therapy Gecko

The Joe Rogan Experience

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}009 - Robert Powell Explains SCU's Analysis of Over 60,000 UAP Cases