Classic Episode: January 11, 2009 — Angelia Joiner & Frank Warren on UFOs

Newspaper reporter Angelia Joiner and UFO investigator Frank Warren discuss the classic Stephenville, Texas sighting and other important events in the field in 2008. They also talk about the prospects for disclosure the following year, and what role the newly-arrived President Obama might play in such an announcement. As history demonstrates, however, dreams of disclosure were never fulfilled.


Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-paracast-the-gold-standard-of-paranormal-radio--6203433/support.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:13):
You've had heard about. Powercast with your hosts, Jane Steinberg
and David n.

Speaker 2 (00:22):
This episode of the Powercast is brought to you by
Audible dot Com. Download a free audiobook of your choice
today at Audible Podcasts dot com slash Powercast. That's Audible
podcast dot com. Slash Powercast. Now on with the show,
Angela Joiner, before we focus on the Stephenville case, kind

(00:43):
of maybe frame the kind of talent it is, whether
it's had a history of UFO.

Speaker 1 (00:48):
And or poaranormal events.

Speaker 2 (00:50):
I know the one thing I had read, maybe David
recalls it too, is that it wasn't a terribly long
distance from the bush compounds. Everybody talked to you in
that connection. So what kind of place is this? What's
the background?

Speaker 3 (01:05):
Stephenville is a town of about sixteen thousand people, but
it is home to Tarlton State University and grows considerably
when those students are here. But the main industry in
our area here is dairy farming, so lots of hosting

(01:26):
cows on, you know, scattered throughout the pastures and things
around here. And it's fairly flat ground. We're not in
a mountainous area. We are about seventy miles from Crawford, Texas,
where the Bush Compound is, and we're also near Glen

(01:49):
Rose where there's a nuclear plant. So it's a laid
back community and I wouldn't say that there's not there's
a history of UFOs in this area.

Speaker 2 (02:03):
So this would be the first major instance of something
happening there.

Speaker 3 (02:09):
Yes, I think so. January the eighth was a mess sightings.
Dozens of people saw something in the sky, something huge. Lights,
three officers, three area law enforcement people. Not only saw lights,
but they actually saw a craft.

Speaker 2 (02:31):
And this was the large craft that we've read about,
this large triangular craft pangelin.

Speaker 3 (02:37):
Well, not necessarily triangular. When Steve Allen, the pilot first
called me at the Empire Tribune, what he described was
a set of lights that were horizontal standing about a
mile and those lights reconfigured into two vertical sets of lives,

(03:05):
and the object actually came over he and his friends
in Seldyn, which is just a little community outside of Stephenville,
and the second time it came over them, Steve said
that they were either F fifteen's or S sixteens in pursuit.

(03:27):
He said the only way to identify those jets were
through the tail section, and he thought they were S sixteen.

Speaker 2 (03:36):
Did they see these jets using afterburners and that's how
they knew that they were military jets.

Speaker 3 (03:43):
Well, because Steve's been a pilot for thirty years, he's
fairly familiar with most aircraft and especially you know, crafts
that would be in our area or commonly in our.

Speaker 4 (04:00):
He did indicate that the after burners did go on.
When when I interviewed in Frank.

Speaker 2 (04:05):
Warren here, by the way, we were about to give
you a great introduction with a musical intro and everything.

Speaker 4 (04:11):
Frank, well, you can just insert that later.

Speaker 2 (04:13):
Gee, No, it's too late. You know, you get one introduction.

Speaker 1 (04:17):
That's it.

Speaker 2 (04:17):
Sorry about that, man, Oh, Dard, go ahead, I think
he left.

Speaker 4 (04:22):
Well, no, I was just interjecting the David asked. I
believe it was David that asked if there were after
burners and used, in fact, and there were. In the
interview that I did with Steve early on that he
had indicated that the object actually kept a relative distance.
He said, he said that the jets would kick their

(04:43):
after burners on, and he said the well, in fact,
I quote him, it was as if the object played
with the jets and kept the same distance. The jets
speed it up, the object would speed up. And this
was on the return trip in a relative course back
towards in the direction of a crowper branch, in the
direction that it originally came from.

Speaker 2 (05:03):
So this is like a game of catch, almost.

Speaker 4 (05:07):
A little cat and mouse thing.

Speaker 2 (05:08):
Yeah, here's a question for you.

Speaker 3 (05:10):
Now.

Speaker 2 (05:10):
I've actually seen at fairly close proximity a military jets flying,
and it's one of those things where when you see
one of these jets, these things move so fast that
very often by the time you hear it, jets out
of sight, especially if they're taking on serious speeds. So
when Steve Allen describes seeing these things chasing this object,

(05:34):
we're assuming here that there was a good amount of
visibility and he was seeing things happening over a fairly
significant range of distance right.

Speaker 4 (05:44):
Well, yes, and of course, well in this being Texas,
so you've got a big sky horizon in that specific
vicinity right opposed to where I am, with a mountainous
terrain off in the horizon.

Speaker 2 (05:59):
So there's a big sky country right absolutely. Now, when
these jets were following this thing, and either of you
can answer this, I suppose was it at that time
also reconfiguring its lights or did its light stay in
a similar orientation and configuration.

Speaker 4 (06:16):
Well, i'll take that in something that I'd like to
add that Steve said to me that I thought that
was fascinating he had met. Well, first off, the lights
stayed the same with the exception that and he attributed
this to the propulsion. He said that the white lights
the lights quite frankly, and I don't want to digress,
but they did a number of odd things prior to

(06:39):
it coming back with the jets chasing it. But he
had mentioned that the lights, the white lights at this point,
as it's retreating and it's being chased by the sixteen
or F fifteen, turned red, and he attributed that to
the propulsion system in his mind, as this thing got speed,
I did a little bit of research on that, and

(07:00):
interestingly enough, I found that one of the early reports
by Richard Monster of Mufon in regards to the Phoenix
Lights case, some eyewitnesses actually had recounted almost the same
thing where and they attributed to the speed of the
large object that as this thing speeded up, they noticed

(07:21):
white lights turning red. And I just thought that correlation
was fascinating, you know, eleven years earlier, and again we
have another very large object. So that struck a chord
with me, and I went back and I looked at
the original record and also too aw correct me if
my mom didn't Steve say that the lights were half

(07:43):
a mile apart and a mile long by his perspective.

Speaker 3 (07:47):
Well, I remember him saying, you know, the entire set
were about a mile wide.

Speaker 4 (07:55):
Okay, Well I've got it wrong then, because it was
either a mile wide and a half a mile long
or vice versa. In any event, very very large.

Speaker 3 (08:04):
Yes, it was quite large.

Speaker 4 (08:07):
Well, this was something that I think is significant, and
it's really got the hair on my arm standing up.
When he explained this to me as he was recounting
the event, and again this was early on after this happened,
he explained how the other lights appeared as this thing

(08:28):
passed over, and I was trying to recreate that in
my mind's eye. And I paused him for a moment,
and because he kept indicating, he kept saying craft opposed
to lights, and I says, you know, he basically said
to me, look, I couldn't see a craft, he says,
but I swear to you one was there, and he says,
as this object passed over, he and his two buddies there.

(08:51):
He says, then the other lights appeared, and I said,
let me stop you right there. I said, this is
what I'm getting. This is the sense that I'm getting.

Speaker 1 (08:59):
I said.

Speaker 4 (09:00):
I said, I'm going to call this just an invisible
flying car, for lack of a better term. And I said,
as this thing's coming into you, you're seeing the headlights
and you're seeing the tailmarkers. For lack of a better term,
I said, has this thing as the object approaches you
and it becomes perpendicular to you. It's not that the

(09:21):
lights come on. They've always been there, but the object
excelf that you can't see was blocking the rear lights.
And then as it passes you, now you can see
those rear lights. I said, is that a good analogy?
And he said, bingo, that's exactly it. He says. These
lights did not deviate at all, not one iota. He says,

(09:41):
if it is one object that I just couldn't see,
and he says, then when it passed me, then I
could see the rear of it where these lights were.
He says, it wasn't as if they came on as
if they were already they were already on, and then
I could see them as it passed me. And then
of course then it went over towards Stephenville, and as
Angela mentioned, they went vertical, they did some odd things,

(10:04):
and then disappeared.

Speaker 3 (10:05):
The thing that I remember him talking about, guys, is
that the lots moved as if they were attached to something.
They weren't a floating free.

Speaker 2 (10:18):
Form exactly right right, as if they were attached to
solid structure. A quick question about this when we hear
about the Phoenix episode earlier in the evening, and we
always have to remind people that the Phoenix Lights episode
really consists of two discrete events, one which happened earlier
in the evening with a large crap that was blocking

(10:39):
out stars.

Speaker 4 (10:41):
That's incorrect, It was a multiple of that.

Speaker 2 (10:43):
But the point I'm making is that what we normally
think of an associated with the Phoenix Lights that one
video of that semi circular ring of lights. There are
a lot of issues and problems with that later event
that for which there exists video fotags that we've seen,
but there was the separate set of events, and I
don't want to say it. I'm sorry, Frick. I didn't
mean to imply was just one event, but there was

(11:05):
something that happened earlier in the evening, a set of
events of this large craft of some lights where people
were describing it passing overhead and blocking out stars. So,
in the discussion of the Stevensville sighting, was it an
overcast night, was it a clear night? And were there
any reports of it blocking out things like maybe ambient

(11:27):
light reflecting on clouds or even stars.

Speaker 4 (11:30):
Look, it was a clear knight, Yeah, it wasn't it
just about dusk when Steve had his sighting, Angela, I mean,
weren't any stars?

Speaker 3 (11:39):
Yeah, the time was just thinking. There were three area
law enforcement officers that actually saw a craft that night,
and then we have the Stephenville radar report that confirmed
an unknown object was in the air that night. So
I don't think any question that whatever was here was

(12:05):
a solid object.

Speaker 4 (12:08):
Okay, Well that's really significant too, guys. Important to point
out that this started out as an anecdotal evidence sighting.
In other words, it was a visual sighting reported by
many competent witnesses, including the police officers, et cetera. And
it's now a radar visual.

Speaker 2 (12:28):
Right case, very very important, right. Were there any indications
that and I'm not for I don't think we're familiar
with the issues of air traffic control over these areas.
Certainly we would assume that over Crawford there are some
real strict guidelines about air traffic. Were there any reports
that were acquired that made any conclusions about there, for example,

(12:52):
being air traffic routed around this area by area airports.
I'll tell you what before we get that answered.

Speaker 1 (13:09):
This is a surge of the Neander.

Speaker 4 (13:11):
You have a mystery enginer disney to the paracast.

Speaker 2 (13:17):
This is the Cliffhanger hour. And we're talking to Angela Joyner,
a newspaper reporter who's covered extensively the Stevenville, Texas case,
and it's also been covered by our friend Frank Warren.

Speaker 4 (13:29):
Well.

Speaker 2 (13:29):
I know that when we heard about the O'Hare a
UFO case in November of two thousand and six, there
seemed to be some indications that came out after the
fact that air traffic, normal air traffic had been routed
around the area where the UFO was seen. So what
I'm wondering is, were there any indications that either commercial

(13:50):
airline traffic or maybe even military air traffic was rerouted
around where this thing was. If we have reports of
fight jets being seen chasing this thing, that would certainly
indicate that if there was commercial air traffic over the area,
that the military would have potentially intervened and had let's say,

(14:11):
commercial airliners stay away. When you have jets deployed at
a relatively low altitude, seems to me that you would
want to keep commercial airline activity away from the area.
So was there any was you see what I'm what
I'm asking? Was there an attempt to find out whether
that's happened.

Speaker 3 (14:27):
Okay, I don't know if any commercial airliners that were diverted,
But at first the military said they had no S
sixteens in the air that night, and then two weeks
later they issued a press release that said, oh, we
made a mistake. We actually had ten S sixteens in

(14:49):
the area that night, supposedly they were performing standard training operations.
And in this press really it said that the Brownwood
Military Operating area was over Erath County and it wasn't wrong.

(15:11):
Before I had a slew of pilots around my desk
with aeronautical maps showing me exactly where that operating area is,
and it does not include all of Erath County. It
includes a tiny portion of Erath County in the Dublin area.

(15:32):
Not even all of Dublin is in it. And Dublin
is a very small town. So that got the story
stirred up again, you know, just when things were dying down,
and then they come out and say, oh, they made
a mistake. They did have ten s sixteens in the air.
And then we had the radar report that confirmed that

(15:54):
this unknown object at eight o'clock was about ten miles
the Crawford Ranch, the Bush White House, and nobody seemed
to notice. And this thing was flying without a beacon
or without a transponder, and these jets are paying no
attention to it at all. It seems to fly unimpeded

(16:17):
into a no flies on.

Speaker 4 (16:19):
The training exercises, cannot go outside the m A. So
just I mean, if a pilot did that, they would
be fried. If that was just a training incident and
somebody went outside the MA, you know, they'd be in
big trouble. They happened to Pocomo just a couple months later,

(16:41):
the repeat incident almost identical in something that didn't get
as much press as the Stevenville incident had. The almost
the identical same thing happened in Cocomo, Indiana. Uh, you know,
months later. But yeah, you can't go outside the MOA.
So the story, it's.

Speaker 3 (16:58):
My understanding that if they do go outside the MLA,
that they are supposed to notify city officials of where
they're going to be. And I did talk with the
city administrator in Stephenville, and he received no notification. So
about three months ago, one of the city council members

(17:21):
here did file a complaint with the Naval Air base
and with the FAA. I think it was the FAA,
but I know for sure the military people. He filed
a complaint that the city wasn't notified if they were,
indeed you performing training exercises over the city.

Speaker 2 (17:44):
Now here's a question about this press release from the
military and them stating that they had ten fighter jets
out that night. Were they trying to imply that the
UFO that was reported was in fact these jets? Was
that the implication?

Speaker 3 (17:59):
Well, I guess I should go back in the story
a little bit. I at first called, you know, several
airbases and was directed to the Naval Air Base in
Fort Worth, which is formerly known as Carsal Air Force Base.
I talked with a major, Carl Lewis, and he was

(18:19):
a very friendly guy, very talkative guy, and he said,
you know, he didn't know, but he would find out
for me if they had any craft in that in
our area. But he speculated to me that he taught
people were probably seeing sunlight glinting off two commercial airliners.

(18:43):
He said he's seen that as a pilot himself. It
can be real tricky, hard to identify. And so I
wrote a story, you know, saying what he thought it was.
And then two weeks later is when that press release
comes out. The actor press release does not say anything

(19:03):
about a UFO or this is what we think people
call is just saying, you know, we had said we
had nothing here. We have since found out that was
a mistake. We're correcting the mistake. We did have ten
S sixteen.

Speaker 2 (19:18):
Meanwhile, of course, the sound that ten F sixteen's makes
would be probably considered gigantic. While like we hear about
many UFO sightings, this this UFO reportedly was absolutely silent.

Speaker 3 (19:33):
Exactly, and because because we're on this path, you know,
from Fororth to the Brownwood Military Operating Area. The people
here are familiar with the way S sixteen sound. I mean,
they know what a jet sounds like because they do
go back and forth over us for these training missions.

(19:57):
And anybody that reports that you talked to and said, no,
this was not this was not the jets that we're
used to. We know what they look like, we know
what they sound like. This thing was huge and it
had no sound whatsoever.

Speaker 2 (20:14):
Now, Angela, you had people calling you at the paper
that you were working at, giving you accounts of what
they saw that night. We're wondering how many people actually
got in touch with you right after this happened.

Speaker 3 (20:27):
Well, the first story printed on January the tenth, and
that was the story is Steve Allen's account. So in
that story we ran his phone number because he was
looking for photos and video. He just thought somebody must

(20:49):
have gotten something. So he began receiving calls that morning,
and so did I. And I'd say by the end
of the day easily probably had sixty phone calls and
I had just that many.

Speaker 2 (21:04):
Also, here's a tough question perhaps to answer. We always
assume with this topic that we have signal and we
have noise, And in the case of citing, you've got
calls from someone like this fellow Steve Allen, who's a pilot,
and one would assume that pilots make better observers of

(21:24):
these type of aerial phenomena than other types of people,
even though Seth Shostak would disagree with that, which is
of course laughable. But in terms of all of these calls, Angela,
what percentage of them would you give a high level
of credibility to versus let's say a lower level of credibility.

Speaker 3 (21:47):
I would say, of course, I couldn't really thoroughly check
out every every person that called me.

Speaker 5 (21:56):
You know.

Speaker 3 (21:56):
What I did was I a few to talk with
more in depth and write about for the for the
next day. One being a constable here, and because I'm

(22:16):
from this area, I know a lot of people, and
of course that kind of gives me an edge on
credibility because I know a lot of the business people
in town and that sort of thing. But I would
say probably ninety seven percent of people that called were incredible.

(22:40):
I mean, I can only think of one or two
that called, and we're kind of, you know, maybe more
about leading somebody astray, kind of a ridicule type thing.
And I think they were younger, they were kids.

Speaker 2 (22:58):
Really, right, That's that's an enormously high percentage, which gives
more credibility, of course, to the whole story of there
being something that genuinely was a UFO that was seen.
How about the descriptions of what was seen? Was there
generally a good level of consistency of the descriptions of.

Speaker 4 (23:16):
The If I might let me interject something too, This
this is all before what I call the Frenzy effect.
You know, this thing right, got legs and got out
in the media, and of course Angela deserves the credit
for breaking it in regards to the mainstream media. But
as time went on, I mean, this thing just got
nuts and then then you get the frenzy effect, and

(23:38):
then then anybody seeing anything in the sky's blown out
of proportion in my view. So these those first call
the first couple of days. This is prior to the
frenzy effect. And bear in mind, if you go back
to Steve Allen Siding, this is where the object actually
went from his perspective, and Mike Odam and Lance Jones
as they watch this thing, it goes right over Evenville.

(24:01):
So you know, no surprise, there's going to be.

Speaker 2 (24:03):
A lot of witnesses to that effect.

Speaker 4 (24:05):
But I think those first calls, the calls that she
received in this cause, that Steve Allen received early on,
were very important and prior to the frenzy effect that
happened later on, right, which also involved media contamination at
that point, right, you bet you awesome.

Speaker 3 (24:22):
Well, you know another thing I had people that were calling,
not to say I saw it too, that they were
calling and saying, is this one We have all of
these military helicopters and things in the are have you
found out what it was? What's going on? Why do
we have this traffic? And since I was indoors, I

(24:44):
really didn't realize that was going on. But then when
I went to lunch that day, I saw two transport
helicopters just you know, like they were really really low
and lower than usual, and I thought, oh, this is
what everybody's talking about. So we had lots of phone

(25:06):
calls about an increased military presence.

Speaker 1 (25:11):
Very curious.

Speaker 4 (25:12):
Steve Allis told me that the very next day. He says,
the military traffic was so heavy you could have flown again.
This is a quote, by the way, he says the military.
Traffic was so heavy the next day that if you
would have phone a kite, you had to hit one
of them. And he mentioned a myriad of different aircraft.
In his perspective or his view, he felt that it

(25:35):
was as if they were searching for someone.

Speaker 2 (25:37):
Well, that sounds very telling.

Speaker 3 (25:52):
You entered in another dimension. You entered.

Speaker 2 (26:21):
We're talking to Angela Joyner and Frank Warren, and we're
focusing right now on the Stephenville, Texas case, which occurred
in January in two thousand and eight. And we wonder
here kind of with the proximity, of course to the
Bush compound, were there people on the ground or was

(26:41):
this strictly in the air, people coming there, air Force security, whatever.

Speaker 3 (26:47):
I think it was mostly in the air. Of course,
I wasn't out and about because I couldn't get away
from my cell phones or my email. So I really
didn't year of any reports of an increase in traffic
on the ground. It was mainly increase in the year.

Speaker 4 (27:07):
Interestingly enough, that was overlooked early on. If you recall
when everyone started to look into the Stephenville incident, nobody
thought about the close proximity of the Bush Ranch. At
the time, that was an afterthought. In fact, I think
Don Ledger was the first one to bring that up.
And of course you have the no fly zone. I believe,

(27:28):
in Angela, you probably know more about this than I do.
But if memory serves, if Bush is there, it's a
fifteen mile no fly zone, I think, and then if
he's not, it's a five Does that sound about right.

Speaker 3 (27:41):
I'm not sure what the exact mileedge would be on
that I was thinking, Chen, So it's been a while now.
I did read up on it, but I'm a little
foggy on that now, but i do know if he
is there, you know, the area gets larger. Actually, I
had quite a few phone calls early on wanting to

(28:04):
know if this could have something to do with Bush's ranch,
And so I did make some do some research and
make a couple of calls. And Bush was not at
that ranch that night.

Speaker 2 (28:20):
Now, Angela, how many stories did you run about this
in UH in the Empire Tribune? How many stories total
you end up running about this UH, this event?

Speaker 3 (28:29):
You know, I'm not really sure I've ever counted, but
I would it was a number of the Yeah, there
were there were several stories, maybe ten or twelve I
guess what.

Speaker 2 (28:40):
Was the reaction of the management at the paper as
these stories coming out? How did you know what happened
behind closed doors? I guess it's the question.

Speaker 3 (28:49):
No, Well, the publisher was really intending to the UFO story.
She liked the idea, and the editor had left early
the the day that Steve called me, and when she
saw the headline when the paper came to her home
that morning, she told me she cried that it etcet

(29:11):
or so that she felt that, you know, it looked
like a tabloid, that we were going to be ridiculed,
and you know, different things. So the editor really never
had a good feeling about a UFO story, but as
time went on, you know, it's a very small paper.

(29:32):
I was the only full time reporter. We had a
halftime reporter and a sportswriter and the news clerk and
the editor, and that was the news room, so to speak.
So I was usually responsible for getting two front fade
stories done in the day and then two weekend pages
for Sunday paper up put together. So during this time

(29:55):
I really couldn't fulfill my duties. I was lucky to
get one story done for the front page to day
and it was quite a strain on that staff, and
I was asked to draw the whole UFO thing, and
I was still getting all these calls in my email.
Was just incredible, and I said, Okay, you know, what

(30:17):
do I do with these all these people and the
emails and all of that, And she could just ignore them,
just get off of this and let's get back to
regular business.

Speaker 2 (30:28):
Yeah, it makes you wonder how often that usually goes
on in the real world. My personal question, Angela, before
this song happened, what was your own personal level of
interest in this topic and what did you think about
this before you got involved in the situation.

Speaker 3 (30:43):
I really had no interest in UFOs. If I saw
something on television, you know, I'm not watching and think hmm,
that's interesting and go on and never think another thing
about it. So I really did not know the history
three of UFOs. I didn't know anybody that did, so

(31:07):
it was all sort of dropped in my lap. And
in the last year I've really learned a lot, and
thanks to people like Frank and others that have helped
sort of catch me up, I'm a little bit better
than I was. But now I have a great interest
in UFOs. I read about everything I can. I talked

(31:31):
to a lot of people since I have gone to
a couple of conferences because I was asked to speak.
I met a lot of people, really knowledgeable people. And
that's one of the things I've been so impressed with
are the people in this field are very intelligent people.
They're not you know, a lot of people prompt self

(31:55):
included before I got involved, you know, think well, this
is just a bunch, because that's not okay. You know,
they're very smart. A lot of them have VHD science background,
you know, studied this phenomenon for years. And it's not
people wearing full hats at these conferences like locks of

(32:17):
Probably a lot of the general public would brings.

Speaker 2 (32:20):
Well, of course, you know the problem with this topic
is that ultimately, in many circles it is tainted. I
know that I had seen you at the EX conference
last year in Gaithersburg, Maryland, and we've had Stephen Bassett
on the show a number of times, and I've had
some interesting personal discussions with him. But my own take on,

(32:41):
for example, the EX conferences is that you have it's
about it. I would say a seventy thirty split. You
have seventy percent of people who are ready to hug
the space brothers and offer them pie and coffee, and then
you have about thirty percent of people who I think
really understand that this is a very deep enigma and
don't expect to have very easy answers. And that sort

(33:04):
of leads me to my next question to you. When
you went to the ex conference, Angela, you got to
meet a lot of people who believed that the government
should release all the information that they have, and at
the same time, as a movement to the exo political
movement that sort of posits that we should have some
sort of formal political interactions with these beings. What's your

(33:27):
take on that, because again, you're an interesting control subject
and that you came into this very fresh, had this
very intense set of interactions with people who were seeing things,
and then got exposed to the harder core group of people,
many of whom see this as almost a surrogate belief system.

(33:49):
So I'm wondering what your take was on the whole
exolitical sort of theme that was presented at ex conference.
And if you think there's something.

Speaker 3 (33:56):
To that, you know, it's one of the things that
was difficult for me was the number of conspiracy theories
out there. So you know, I would get on the
internet and try to read about something, and then I
would think, gosh, you know, maybe this is true, and

(34:19):
then through people like Frank that would he help me
know No, no, this one's already been proven that it's
not true, or you know, there's just a ton of
information out there. You know. I do think that the
government should be more transparent that some of those files
that are sixty years old, what the heck release them?

(34:40):
Why does it matter at this point? It can't be
a matter of national security? And I think that was
sort of the overall theme of the ex con was, Okay,
these really old files, you know, what is the point
of not releasing them?

Speaker 2 (35:00):
Do you think you'd go to another ex conference?

Speaker 3 (35:03):
I don't know. Uh, sure, I would be open to
the idea. That was an extremely busy conference for me.
I could hardly go in and listen to any speakers
because I had so many interview requests myself. As you know,
it was entirely different from the Ozartic conference in Eureka

(35:25):
Springs that I had had just come from. So the
ozark conference was a lot more laid back, but I
was really really busy there, so you know, but I
met people like Grant Cameron, Timothy Good, Robert m Enager,
Linda Howe, you know, all have been very supportive and

(35:48):
uh have provided me with a wealth of information.

Speaker 4 (35:52):
I think it's important to point out too, David, that
the in terms of the public's mindset, I don't think
I don't think through that lens. They don't see the
distinction between people embracing the Space brothers in ethology in general.
I think they just lump it all together.

Speaker 2 (36:09):
No, you're absolutely right, absolutely right.

Speaker 4 (36:11):
Yeah, and Angela is a prime example of that. I mean,
she was ignorant to most of this prior to this
personal experience and correct me if I'm wrong.

Speaker 1 (36:18):
Although you're not a.

Speaker 4 (36:19):
Direct witness, this is a life changing event for you obviously,
I mean, I mean for you.

Speaker 3 (36:25):
Yeah, it has been life changing for me because at
the time of this setting, after the first couple of
stories came out, my world just became so much larger.
People were contacting me from Finland, from Japan, from the UK.

(36:45):
I remember one of the first emails that I received
was from Timothy Good, and it was to me it
was just somebody telling me about a book, and he
was trying to tell me what his credentials were, and
I was like, well, so, what, who's this And then
later on I realized, you know, oh, that was that

(37:07):
this is the man that emailed me. And it was
because I wasn't familiar with the books that were out
there and the authors and people that had done research.
I really had never heard.

Speaker 2 (37:23):
Of them, right right, Yeah, No, it's a whole subculture.
It's a whole Yeah. It's actually a fantastic I believe violinists.
There's a whole subculture to this thing that for the
public is mostly invisible. They don't really see it, and
it's probably better for them because they, in many cases,
I think, would not be too impressed by what they'd seen. Angela.

(37:44):
So you run these stories at the paper. Now you're
no longer with the paper.

Speaker 3 (37:48):
What happened well after I was told to ignore those witnesses,
particularly the witnesses like Steve Allen, Constable Date, and Ricky Sorels.
They didn't want me to talk to them anymore, and
this was something that thrust them in the limelight and

(38:09):
they had no idea how to deal with it. And
I didn't feel that I could abandon those people that way,
So it really put me in an uncomfortable position. So
what I tried. I tried to honor the newspaper's wishes,
and I started forwarding those emails to my home computers

(38:29):
so I could address them at home, and any phone
calls I tried to handle during my lunch hour or
after hours. I really remember one time Robert Powell with
UH he's the co author of the Radar Report. He
wasn't at that time, but wanted to meet me for dinner,

(38:51):
and the editor you know, called me in and said, look,
I told you to drop this now here that you're
going to dinner with that new god. So well it's
on my own time. So I thought that would be okay,
and she kind of rolled her eyes that sort of thing.
So it was so uncomfortable for me that I just
ended up giving my notice. And then a week into

(39:15):
my notice, I came to work in my computer and
my rolodex were gone, and I was asked to pack
my things.

Speaker 2 (39:25):
And got absolutely I've gone through that in radio broadcasting,
the same exact problem problem where they hand you the
check or something and say goodbye. I can't say goodbye
to my listeners. No, I can't do that. We're talking

(40:03):
to Angela Joiner and Frank Warren focusing on the Stephen Field,
Texas case and the aftermath. So where did you end
up You're currently working at a different paper.

Speaker 3 (40:15):
Well, actually, I'm a correspondent for the Hadeline Reporter News
and really that's just that means that I freelance and
I work from home and they send me stories, you know,
just regular anything from Christmas tree reclacling to some sort
of medical flu type story or something like that. It's

(40:39):
a wide range of topics that I do for that paper,
and I just work from home here.

Speaker 2 (40:48):
Just to have curiosity. When they took your rolodex, your
computer have been confiscated, they give you any kind of
rationale behind that, I mean, assuming you had like a
personal relationship these people you're in live me a small
town where things get around. Did you confront the publisher
and the editor with this to say, why are you
doing this?

Speaker 3 (41:09):
Well, the computer was in the publisher's office and they
called me and was sitting on a table and they
called me into that office. You know, when I first arrived,
and it was it was not a pleasant experience, and

(41:31):
they felt that I was looking for another job, which
the only thing I had done on my computer was
because I am I have a teaching degree. I did
email the administrative office in Stephenville to see what I
needed to do to get up to speed so I

(41:54):
could substitute teach because obviously I'm wondering, okay, I have
quit my job without another job, and that seemed like
a quick source of income if I could just as
do tique. I can honestly say that's the only job
type thing that I did on my email on that computer. Now,

(42:16):
I had an interview that day with the Dallas Morning
News and I did it on my lunch I was
going to do it on my lunch hour, and it
was for a follow up story they were going to do.
But I think that they probably heard that that was
a job interview for me, because they said, you know,

(42:36):
what's up with the Dallas Morning News? Are you going
to go work for them? And I said, look, no,
I have this interview, but it's for the story they
want to do. And I couldn't move to Dallas if
I wanted to. You know, I have a high school
age child and I wouldn't uprooted that way. And it

(42:58):
was just a really ugly confrontation.

Speaker 4 (43:01):
And sounds like sour grapes on their part in my view.
I mean, you know, it's just it's just ridiculous. It
all example and things that go on on a larger scale.

Speaker 1 (43:13):
Uh.

Speaker 4 (43:13):
And I mean, how do you ignore the news of
something of that proportion. Uh, that's just despicable.

Speaker 3 (43:19):
I think another, you know, well, something that would say
what their attitude was, I suppose was that first time
we were on Larry King Live. The editor and the
publisher left the day before for a conference, and so
we were already, you know, stretched to the limits, and

(43:43):
they said, oh yeah, you can, you can handle all this. Well,
we're leaving, We're going to the conference. And it was
a madhouse in that little office, and you know, maybe
they didn't even realize, you know, the scope of the
story at that time. I'm not sure.

Speaker 2 (44:00):
Now, you went on the Larry King Show Angela with
some of the other witnesses and you were talking about
this and I can't remember whether it was Shostak or Magaha.
I think it was actually mcgaha who they had as
their debunker. And you can correct me if I'm wrong
about that, but I believe that's who it was, because
I remember him saying something to a couple of the

(44:21):
witnesses that was just despicable, you know, just taking an
absolutely confrontational stance. What was your feeling about that whole experience.
Did you feel that the Larry King people were treating
the subject with any sense of respect or realism or
did you get the sense that to them this was

(44:41):
sort of something goofy to get some ratings numbers.

Speaker 3 (44:44):
Well, we've been on that show twice, weren't saying after
the signing in January and warrant in July. I got
the idea from the producers that worked the show on
this end, okay, right, that they were serious and they
were truly interested in, uh, you know, what had happened

(45:08):
and what was going on. I think, you know, everybody
expects Larry King to have a debunker on the show.
I mean, that's his format, and that's you know, a journalism,
that's what you do, present both sides. So I remember
James Fox was on the first one and he asked

(45:32):
a question that I thought was really out of wine,
and I can't remember. It was something about are you
sure it wasn't a comment or something like that, and
I thought, kai Well, later on, after I got to
know James, I go, why did you ask that question?
You know it was not a good question, and he said,

(45:53):
because I knew the debunker was going to ask it,
and I wanted to get it out of the way.

Speaker 4 (46:00):
Absolutely, And by the way, in watching that episode, I
thought that was well done. I didn't and I don't
think the viewing audience took that in the wrong way either.
I thought that was pretty sharp on James's part to
do that, particularly dealing with the bunkers that the Larry
feels that he has to have on the show, which
quite frankly, I think it was ridiculous.

Speaker 2 (46:22):
Yeah, Angela, I wanted to focus on something here which
just struck me as we were talking before. Did your
employers and maybe we're getting into the paranoid realm here,
but the question, I guess has to be out there.
Did your employers act this way, this narrow minded approach
that they took prior to you getting involved in this

(46:45):
UFO case? Did you ever see this before? How long
had you been working with him?

Speaker 3 (46:49):
I had been there eighteen months and we had a
very good working relationship. I thought, like you said, it
was a small paper. So you get to know people
very well. You know, they're not only your co workers,
but you know something about their personal life. You know,

(47:11):
if somebody's going on vacation, Oh can you would you
mind feeding my dog? And here's the key to my house.
And we were pretty pretty tight knit group.

Speaker 2 (47:23):
This paper. Is it owned by a national corporation or
is it locally owned?

Speaker 3 (47:26):
No, it was owned by corporation that it had changed hands,
and you know, like what's happened lately. You know, lots
of newspapers are struggling and changing hands. But I think
when I left it was owned by company in Australia.
But no, I had never felt that before. I never

(47:49):
felt that I had to walk on eggshells like I
was after the some of the UFO stories. It was
just the way things turned out. It is something I
would have never predicted. I thought I would work there
a long long time. I really loved my newspaper job.

Speaker 2 (48:07):
It could never be proved, of course, But did you
ever think maybe corporate came down on the local management
and said, you know what, we can't let her become
this UFO personality. Shut her down.

Speaker 3 (48:19):
The only thing corporate worries about is money, and that
was a record sales month for that paper. So I
don't think that they cared one way or the other.
You know, they're happy with when the numbers are good,
you know, when sales are good, when the AD revenue's up.
I don't think that had one thing to do with it.

Speaker 4 (48:42):
I would think it would have the opposite effect that
they would embrace the story for those very reasons.

Speaker 2 (48:47):
Well, conspiracy theorists would also suggest, you know what, maybe
the government, maybe somebody from the Bush White House came
there and said, you know what, shut this lady down,
because you'll be in a heap of trouble.

Speaker 3 (48:59):
If that were the well, you know, I think they
would have shared that with me somehow. You know, if
they had been told not to tell me, they would
have figured out a way to let me know. They
would not have been as vicious as they as they were.
So I don't think that that happened. Anything possible. But

(49:22):
my personal feeling is now they decided, you know, that
they got some flag from from city council members or
you know upper Echeln type people of Stephenville that said, God,
we do not want this publicity where the cowboy capital
of the world. We want to stay that way, you know,

(49:43):
So they didn't want to become the next Roswell's what
I kept hearing around them.

Speaker 2 (49:49):
Were They also said lots of outsiders coming in there
to maybe fill the hotel rooms with people looking for
UFOs in the night.

Speaker 3 (49:58):
Yeah, wouldn't that be awful? You know, if some hotel
rooms were filled and people restaurants were filled in, revenue
for the town was up. I mean, yes, that was happening.
There was a there's a small retailer here for T
shirts and things, and they did the owners for me.

(50:18):
They did ninety thousand dollars worth of business with the
UFO T shirt in ten days. The high school science
club did a T shirt and had to cut off
their sales after two weeks, but they made four thousand dollars.
It was the biggest fundraiser they'd ever had. So isn't

(50:39):
that terrible that people were making money off of this
sighting in the city wanted it to disappear, So, you know,
I never really understood that. I understand that our heritage
is in the professional cowboys that live here and have
some of them have lived here for years, and that's fine,

(51:01):
but I think there's room for both. That's the way
I feel about it today.

Speaker 2 (51:05):
Now, after you left the paper, was there any impact
or consequences in terms of the people you were in
touch with, people saying why isn't she there anymore? Anybody
complained or what?

Speaker 3 (51:18):
Well? As a matter of fact, there were a lot
of complaints because the only time that I have spoken
with any with the publisher she called me about four
days afterward. It said, Angela, what is going on? Being
inundated with phone calls, with emails, with faxes accusing us

(51:41):
of firing you? And you know that's not the case.
You gave your resignation and can you do something to
help us? And I said, well, I think because the
way that things went down you didn't let me complete
my notice, my two week notice, that some people see
that as being fired. So you know what I did

(52:04):
was I did contact some people and said, you know,
if you're calling the newspaper or writing them letters, let's
don't do that. Let's leave them alone. And let her
know in an email that I had done that, and
she said, thank you. She said, I think the city
will thank you too. So evidently the city was getting

(52:25):
some flack over it. I know they did get a
lot of flack over it.

Speaker 2 (52:29):
Let's look at Stephenville again. Now let's look at the aftermath.
Now we have the radar issue here. Now, if you
go back to the history of UFOs, which you've begun
to learn, part of that, of course, is when you
have radar and visual sightings, there's always some kind of excuse.
You know, it was temperature inversions, it was this, that

(52:49):
and the other thing. What kind of weather? What kind
of climate are we dealing with in this part of
Texas in January?

Speaker 3 (52:56):
Well, it was a clear, cloud less night and it
was told.

Speaker 2 (53:04):
But not.

Speaker 3 (53:06):
We didn't have any eyes or anything like that. I remember.

Speaker 2 (53:10):
So we're talking about what thirties forties at night?

Speaker 3 (53:13):
Yeah, something like that, Okay, okay, and.

Speaker 2 (53:16):
Then during the day we were talking about maybe fifty sixties. Right,
So it's not a temperature inversion, which would often happen
when you're in a summer kind of condition. Has any
excuse been given by the authorities with regard to this
particular case.

Speaker 3 (53:35):
No, I would say nobody's really said anything. That was
one huge disappointment that I had because when that radar
report was finished and it confirmed that eight witnesses in
time and direction that this unknown confirmed their statements, and

(54:01):
you know it's actually on radar. I was very disappointed
that the national media did not pick up that story.
I worked really hard to get that release on Larry King.
They were already coming here, but they had a different
idea for the show, so I had to convince them,
you know, that this was really big news. And I

(54:24):
sent out media packets to all those that had already
been here, like Good Morning America and some of the others,
and it was totally ignored by mainstream media. And I
just felt like they were missing a huge part of
the story.

Speaker 4 (54:41):
But I supported the sizzle, and they liked to report
to sizzle, and then you give them the steak and
that goes on page ten.

Speaker 2 (54:49):
Yeah, Radar's got to be a lot more than just
sizzle and steak, because it seems like such a significant factor.
This is significant. We're going to have Angela and Frank
continue on or two of the Power Cast. This is

(55:16):
Jacques Realie.

Speaker 4 (55:17):
You're listening to the Paracast, the gold Standard of Chronobile Radio.

Speaker 2 (55:32):
Back Part two with Frank Warren and Angela Joiner. Notice
how I give everybody equal billing, and since we were
emphasizing Angela as a new friend of the show on
our number one, I felt Frank should not feel neglected.
You don't feel neglected now, Frank right, not at all.

Speaker 4 (55:48):
And we want to acknowledge Angela and her contributions as
much as we can. As I said earlier, my hat
is certainly off to her and all of her efforts
and continuing effort in regards to ethology.

Speaker 2 (56:01):
Angela, we have talked a lot about the background of
the stephens location. Of course, about your personal history. We
have the radar situation. Are there any other key important
facts that people just aren't hearing about Stephenville that we
should know about this case?

Speaker 3 (56:18):
I think people should know that sidings have continued. October
twenty third there was a siding. As a matter of fact,
probably the whole Junior High stadium at the football game
saw something unexplainable. And then November eighteenth was another siding,

(56:45):
and I interviewed two people then that actually saw a craft,
not just likes. So you know, it is an ongoing
phenomena here. I think people would like to finally, you know,
have some some branch of government or military or somebody

(57:07):
you know, step up and say we're investigating this, or
you know, we know what it is and it's nothing
for you to be concerned about. It's a matter of
national security. But that doesn't happen, So I'm not sure
that would ever happen. I know a lot of people
here are much more observant, including me, than we used

(57:29):
to be. And like, for instance, I had never seen
flares drop here, and then all of a sudden in
October when the siding started again, we had tremendous amounts
of flares being dropped.

Speaker 4 (57:43):
And that's not so familiar.

Speaker 3 (57:47):
You know, why are they doing this? What is going on?
We never see this. As the officer X that I
continue to communicate with, he's one of the three officers
saw the craft on January the eight. He called me,
it's from Angela. I was born in the Stephenville hospital.

(58:08):
He's in his forties. He said, I've never seen Flair's
drop like this. I've never seen any footters dropped at all.
And he started getting pictures of him and he wanted
to know if I knew what was going on. I said,
the only thing that I can think of is they
know that something's back here and they're doing this so
that they can say, oh, yes, we were there, we

(58:32):
were dropping players and that's what people saw.

Speaker 2 (58:34):
Maybe they're learning from the Phoenix lights, you see, that's
what Frank was implaying for. Yeah, Angela about this stadium incident,
could you give us some details on that. I hadn't
heard about this, Gina. Had you heard about this one?

Speaker 1 (58:46):
No? No, I haven't.

Speaker 2 (58:48):
Angela.

Speaker 1 (58:48):
What happened?

Speaker 2 (58:49):
Because you're implying that a lot of people saw something,
and when you've got a mass sighting that those are
always much more interesting, I think in terms of credibility.

Speaker 4 (58:58):
So what happened October.

Speaker 3 (59:00):
Twenty third, Actually the first thing that happened for me
he was my husband called me outside and said, come.

Speaker 6 (59:08):
And look at this.

Speaker 3 (59:09):
And I went out and it was flares. And I'm
standing out in the yard looking at these flares being dropped. Well,
my own brother called me and said, are you looking
at the UFO? I said, no, I'm looking at flairs.
He's talking to his wife and he said, Angela says
it's flares, and he says, I've got to go. I'll

(59:30):
call you back. And he actually ended up getting a
picture of a punchal picture. He was it was with
a heel phone, so you know, it wasn't that great.
But he was driving by the stadium for the junior
high football game, and he said, at the same time

(59:53):
they pulled over, other people pulled over and started getting
out of their cars. It was light about it was
they were not because they were horizontal, and then they
would move into a vertical position and go out and
then come back on horizontal, move up into the vertical position,

(01:00:18):
go out, And this happened five or six times. Flares
don't go up, they come down. So that and plus
they remained equiditionant from each other.

Speaker 4 (01:00:31):
And so isn't that configuration somewhat similar to what Steve
Allen recabsolutely when the object was over Stephenville properly exactly
a strange light.

Speaker 2 (01:00:43):
Yeah, well, I just think it's important that we qualify
one thing. It's true that if you drop flares they
move downwards. So there might be people thinking, well, what
if you attach flares to balloons with the flares not
move upwards, And the answer to that is yes, but
it would be very hard hard to have a series
of flares attached to balloons move in any kind of

(01:01:04):
a predictable formation with respect to one another. That would
be much tougher to do.

Speaker 3 (01:01:10):
I think it just remain equal distance.

Speaker 2 (01:01:13):
Absolutely, that's correct. That's great.

Speaker 3 (01:01:15):
So the newspaper that I used to work for, they
also started getting phone calls, and you know, they did
a story and it said they're back with the headline.
So they began getting just tons of phone calls. And
there's a town on two eighty one south of here

(01:01:39):
called Haiko. They also did a story and it was
a football game, and they interviewed the official, one of
the football officials, and a player that saw it, and
so you know, it was been a little numerous sightings.
But I'm not in a place where people can contact

(01:02:04):
me readily like I was before. So probably the newspaper
got a whole bunch more calls than I did.

Speaker 4 (01:02:12):
Angela didn't in regards to the football game, didn't they
reports that Jets were scrambled? Is that correct or not?

Speaker 3 (01:02:21):
Yes? I believe so. Yes. It does seem that every
time we have a siding there are Jets involved.

Speaker 4 (01:02:29):
Also, So the assumption again would be that whatever it
was was previous to radar.

Speaker 3 (01:02:35):
Again, well, this time, the thing about it is, if
it's below about twenty eight hundred feet. It's below the radar, right,
So for October twenty third, we thought that at times
it might have been higher than that, So we have
sent foyas.

Speaker 6 (01:02:56):
For that.

Speaker 3 (01:02:58):
FAA data for the November the eighteenth siding, and there
were fewer people, but one was a former military person
and it was so low that we knew it was
below the radar, so we didn't enmploys for that one.

Speaker 4 (01:03:20):
Looking at the report for Haiko, one witness claims, quote, first,
I saw six or seven jets flying in formation, but
this thing with two sets of lights was so much
larger than any of those aircraft. Then all of a
sudden it just vanished. Fellow by the name of Wheeler,
and again that's very similar to what Steve Allen had

(01:03:43):
seen nine months earlier.

Speaker 3 (01:03:45):
Exactly.

Speaker 2 (01:03:46):
Now, Angela, you mentioned that there were photos taken of
this thing in October.

Speaker 3 (01:03:52):
Right, My brother took a photo of what he saw
that he didn't capture the entire span of life. He
you know, he got a partial photo of it. If
there are other photos, I'm not sure. I know there

(01:04:13):
was a fanalty here in Dublin that took a video
that was aired on w s A A channel eight here.
So that's the thing is most of the time people
don't have Karens with them, so they end used in

(01:04:34):
their cell phone camera and it's it's not a quality photo.

Speaker 2 (01:04:39):
But now, in the case of the Stevensville of citing,
I soon remember there being somebody who had a camcorder
who had studied it on a fence or on some
kind of a surface and had shot the lights. So
I'm just wondering whether.

Speaker 3 (01:04:53):
David that was David Koren, but that he was on
his front board and embraced the camera up against the
post at his front porch. But since that time, I
think it's been fairly well proven that because his camera

(01:05:14):
was in a not alive mode, there was really no
way to determine what if he was seeing an an object,
a star, a planet, or what, because this night alive
mode causes.

Speaker 4 (01:05:31):
This streaky Yeah, we called it the Neon snake, right.

Speaker 2 (01:05:38):
Okay, So basically you had a good amount of shake involved,
and what was happening was that it was leaving essentially
an after image that even if you stabilize the video,
what you'd be seeing would be mostly after image. Essentially
the visual equivalent of contrails and not distinct points discreete
points of light Exaight, Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:06:00):
Okay, so that was inconclusive. As you know that you
use that JBT camera with a nut a road and
shoot a street light, you can get the same effect
for a star or a planet.

Speaker 4 (01:06:14):
So and sad you much like the Phoenix Lights flare
video that got a lot of airtime because of the
visual effect via the stream media. There was a lot
of attention paid to that. You know, this is another
example of the chaff being focused on a post of
the week, right, same exact thing with the Phoenix Lights.

(01:06:36):
Anytime the Phoenix Lights has mentioned, you always see that.

Speaker 2 (01:06:39):
You always see that video. Yeah, you always see the
same thing. It's like, oh my god, Well, just like
so many so much of the time when you see
the topic of UFOs discussed, you see highly ridiculous Swiss
images being thrown up as UFOs. And yeah, it's very frustrating.
It's a big part of the reason there's a curtain
of laughter around this top. Still it's extremely frustrating. So

(01:07:02):
angela question for you as far as any further interest
in documenting this stuff as a journalist, have you been
writing for anybody about these topics or is this just
sort of something that you're dealing with the aftermath, but
you've not become really involved in any way and continue
to cover this from a journalistic point of view.

Speaker 3 (01:07:22):
Well, the Aveline Reporter News did run a story I
did on the November the eighteenth, starting that's the last
published piece I have.

Speaker 2 (01:07:36):
Okay, okay, And you haven't been in touch with your
counterpart or replacement over at the paper you left with
regard to their coverage.

Speaker 3 (01:07:46):
Well, she did an opinion piece in the paper after
the stories that she wrote. I think she wrote too,
saying that she was forced to write those UFO stories
and she did not want to.

Speaker 1 (01:08:00):
To do it.

Speaker 3 (01:08:01):
She felt it would ruin her career and she was
just starting out, She's rather young, and the editor forced
her to do it. So, you know, she made sure
that she got it out into the community that she
didn't do those stories by joy and I've never spoken
with her personal No.

Speaker 2 (01:08:36):
Another dimension. We're talking to Frank Warren and Angela Joiner

(01:09:07):
focusing on the Stephenville UFO case, not just the original
but the one later in the year now having probe
into Stephenville, have people come forward to say they've had
other things happen to them, not just UFOs, but other
strange events.

Speaker 3 (01:09:25):
Okay, I haven't had anybody contact me saying, you know,
they were abducted or or anything like that. I haven't
had anybody report, you see, time or some of those
things that you know go along with a siding like this.

Speaker 4 (01:09:43):
So we'd have to say, what about We'll wait a minute,
Maybe not on that side of it, but what about
Ricky Sorels all the things the military aspect of that,
the phone calls and the threats and the so forth
and so on.

Speaker 3 (01:09:55):
Well, yes, now, Ricky Sorels, he is the the only
person that I know of that had a daytime sighting,
and it was back in mid December, before the January
eighth siding. So he went to work and told the coworkers,
you're not going to leave what I've seen, and they

(01:10:17):
were like, yeah, you know, what were you drinking or whatever.
They didn't believe him. And then when this first story
comes out, he has people bringing him the newspaper, just
absolutely crowding around his desk, going, look, look, it's just
what you were talking about. Well, I didn't talk to
Ricky Storls in the very beginning, but the associated pressed it,

(01:10:40):
so he ended up being splashed. That video splash all
over the world, and because he had daytime sighting, he
had a lot more to tell. He said, he walked
underneath this thing while he was gear hunting. It was
a burn veil. Gray had comb shaped inventions. He lives

(01:11:03):
in a heavily wooded area, so as he looked up,
he was looking up through the canopy of the treaties there,
and he couldn't see whether he couldn't edges of it.
He knew it was big, though, and he couldn't determine
exactly how large because of the tree line there. I

(01:11:25):
knew of Rikia's a story, certainly because of the ap
And he didn't talk to me in the beginning, but
a few days afterwards, you know, he did call me
and said he wanted to come and talk to me.
And I've been fine. So he comes in and he
starts telling me what's happening. He's having helicopters fly very

(01:11:50):
very low over his property. And he has a full
time job, but he has paddle and some other farm animals,
so these helicopters were disturbing the cow, and he was
not happy about that, and then he gets a phone
call from someone that identified themselves as military and said

(01:12:14):
they wanted to come out and talk with him. So
he refused that, and he said, you know, he's done
about all the interviews he wanted to do, and it
got into a heated conversation, and he said that he
had the feeling so much so that he got up
and looked at the gate to be sure nobody was

(01:12:35):
coming through, that this guy was going to come on anyway,
and knew where he lived. And he actually said, you know,
why are you flying your helicopters over my airspace? And
the military guy retorted his naturer airspace, it's mine. And
to Michael, long story short, you know, he said, you know,

(01:12:57):
if you quit talking about what you've said, I'll stop
the helicopters. And so Ricky stopped talking and I did
a story about that, and then you're gonna have to
help me. Friend.

Speaker 2 (01:13:12):
Well, I'm just curious what do you guys feel and Angela,
you specifically because you dealt with Ricky Searles, what do
you think about his character and credibility? This is always
a year, right, I mean.

Speaker 3 (01:13:25):
That's one thing that I was concerned about. So I
did you know. I interviewed some of his co workers
and see, I knew the soul's name to be, you know,
for me your name. They've been here, you know, a
long time, but I didn't know Ricky and an. I

(01:13:46):
did do some investigation and everyone said he was a
straight arrow. The constable with Roy Gaden knew him and
knowing for a number of years, so he seemed very credible.
If you ever get a chance to pomp with Ricky,

(01:14:06):
he's very down to earth. He's very he's a hard
working man, trying to take care of his family. Very blunt,
you know, and you'll tell you like it is.

Speaker 4 (01:14:19):
Well supposedly didn't he eventually do? I think he did
one show, either a documentary or maybe possibly one Larry King,
albeit reluctantly.

Speaker 3 (01:14:28):
He did the July of the eleventh Larry King and
that was the first time that he had been interviewed really,
so you know, there was a little concern. Okay, well
now he's coming out in the public again, so you
know what's going to happen. But we kind of talked about,

(01:14:52):
wonder if those helicopters are going to start coming back over,
but they didn't.

Speaker 2 (01:14:57):
I'm senior and one of the stories that you wrote
Angela that he claims to have shot some cell phone footage.
Did you ever get to see that.

Speaker 3 (01:15:06):
Yes, I did see the cell phone footage, but it
was so pixelated. It was really something you'd want to
put it out there because people are just going to
you know, I say, well nothing. You know, it was
very pick slighted, and you know, you have his account

(01:15:26):
to go along with it, which is good. But I
told him, I just I didn't think we should put
that fit you're out there because it's just going to
cost him more problems. And you know, nobody's going to
believe that because it wasn't It just wasn't good footage.

Speaker 2 (01:15:44):
So he describes this thing as I'm reading your article here,
he describes this thing as a metallic craft the size
of the length of three or four football fields. So
one of the things that always comes up in these
discussions are estimates of size and altitude. There are a
lot of people that feel that it's really hard to
gauge the size of something if it's above a certain altitude.

Speaker 4 (01:16:06):
Well, this is important, I feel, and actually Ricky Sorels
kind of shows up Steve Allen's story something very important
to remember about Steve Allen. Number one, he's a pilot
for thirty years. Number two, he was raised in that area,
just like Angela was. You can't get a better witness
in regards to distances and elevations and so forth and

(01:16:27):
so on. He knows that vicinity. So while he was
when he witnessed the event, you know, he could look
and say, well, wait a minute, that's over by so
and so, it's property, it's coming in at such and
such a speed. You can't get a better witness that
in my view, you know, in regards to a pilot
that has flown in that specific vicinity for thirty years

(01:16:48):
so and then later on or in the same timeframe,
then you had actually prior to that. With the Sorels event,
he describes another very large craft. So to me, that
shores up what Steve Allen had witnessed, and of course
him being the top of the list in regards to
being a solid witness based on his experience as a

(01:17:09):
pilot and knowing that general vicinity. So well, all right,
so what the debunkers might say.

Speaker 2 (01:17:17):
About the witnesses and whatnot. Yeah, well, it's clear that
the debunkers are basically just out to shoot down the
cases completely. They're not interested in any kind of facts.
To them, all anecdotal evidence is not. It's irrelevant.

Speaker 3 (01:17:31):
Interesting though, that we haven't had the debunkers upop that
Radar report and nobody challenged it. I know when it
first came out, there were a lot of uthologists looking
at it and you know, dotting the eyes, clossing the
teas and the date. No one has found any error

(01:17:58):
in that report. So I think that's interesting that. Usually,
you know, you would have I think you would have,
and Frank would know that better than me. You would
have devoters trying to say, well, there right, our data
wasn't the data or this thing here in this part

(01:18:21):
of the report doesn't match U to this other part
of the report, and that hasn't happened as far time right,
That's correct.

Speaker 4 (01:18:30):
You wonder where Bill Nye is on that one, or
any of them. How are you going to debunk that one?

Speaker 1 (01:18:38):
Bill?

Speaker 2 (01:18:38):
You know, well, they can't. They're just selective there, listen.
They're they're guilty of the same things that extreme believers
are guilty of. Just complete selectivity. And like Stan Freeman says,
don't bother me with the facts. My mind's already made
up right.

Speaker 4 (01:18:53):
Well, the other thing too, and I and I always
to me that's comical. But show stacks on record. In fact,
ironically mcgahey, who in my view makes a fool out
of himself the majority of the time. He probably knows
more than anybody. At least he's done a little bit
of research. But show Stack Sherman, they've all come out
and say, well, you know, we really haven't looked into this.

(01:19:16):
I'm not a ufologist. I mean, how do you condemn
the book if you haven't read it?

Speaker 2 (01:19:20):
So they should be disqualified, you know, yeah, don't even
come to the table.

Speaker 4 (01:19:25):
What are you talking about. Go read the book then
get back to me.

Speaker 2 (01:19:28):
You know, if I don't read a book, or read
the book as much of the book as I should,
David will come after me. He should, of course. You know,
we don't have a producing staff where they could study this.
We don't have anybody who could give us talking points.
We have to do it ourselves, and we do the
best we can. But when somebody is being presented as
a skeptic, present the other point of view, and it's

(01:19:49):
fair to have another point of view. We want responsible skepticism.
But these people go on these shows and they don't
read anything, they don't do anything. They just wing it.
They make it up as they go along.

Speaker 4 (01:20:03):
And more importantly, Gene they're coming their argument is from
a scientific perspective. Presumably, Yeah, it's just absolutely ridiculous. You know,
do the research, you know, come to the table with something,
and then then make your points. Otherwise it's just all
hot air. It's absolutely ridiculous.

Speaker 2 (01:20:24):
Well, of course, what they'll do usually is just say
you can't conform any of these situations to any kind
of scientific methods, so science won't recognize. Well, no, I agree.
I'm not arguing the point. I agree, but that's what
they'll say. I think the other side of this that
is unfortunate, that's very frustrating, is that for the mass market,

(01:20:47):
for the mainstream of people who consume media, I think
for a lot of them, the quote unquote scientific skeptic,
which is really a debunker more close mirrors their own
attitude towards the whole thing. Because for a lot of people,
especially for people who have never seen something, for people

(01:21:09):
who have never had an experience, they either view this
as entertainment or nonsense. That to them, there's nothing else
besides those two options, and it's unfortunate. I'm not saying
this as good as someone who's an experiencer. I find
is deeply frustrating because of the fact that there's not
a lot of intellectual honesty going on. You know, one

(01:21:30):
thing that scientists don't like to say is we don't know.
They only they would rather talk about the things they
do know versus the things they don't know. If you
get them behind closed doors, they'll say, well, we don't
know a whole lot, and if you'll give me a grant,
I'll study things that we don't know. But you know,
that's how it comes down, because ultimately, these scientists are
people who are protecting careers and protecting reputations. And it's

(01:21:54):
pretty clear. And Angela, I think this is part of
the experience you went through that getting involved with this
topic in any kind of a serious way can be
very poisonous, could be great damaging to a career.

Speaker 4 (01:22:06):
The phenomenon undo itself, it's it's there. There exists a
cognitive bias in society across the board with with the
best and the brightest, and we see examples of this
all the time, including with the recent physicists out of
Florida that attacks Dan Friedman. You know, this cognitive bias exists.
We see it with Angela Joiner's former employers and with

(01:22:29):
her replacement.

Speaker 3 (01:22:31):
Uh.

Speaker 4 (01:22:32):
This cognitive bias comes. It starts with us at an
early age. We're programmed by society. These things are silly,
that's how That's what we're taught. You know, our brains
are wrapped in a box early on. And you've got
to get you know, you've got to get just down
to ground zero in my view, to begin the trek
to see things clearly.

Speaker 7 (01:22:59):
Hi, this is Ecker, and you are tuned into the
para cast with Gene Steinberg and David Bietne. Hey, let
me tell you what you're going to hear Steph here
that you probably won't.

Speaker 1 (01:23:11):
Hear anywhere else.

Speaker 4 (01:23:13):
Hear that George snoring.

Speaker 2 (01:23:15):
Ground zero means we're talking to Frank Warren and Angela Joyner,
and we focused first on the Stephenville, Texas case, not
just the first one, but a subsequent sighting in other events.
And we're talking now about belief systems, and Frank, you
have a lot of interesting thoughts there. But let me
throw the other issue out, and maybe David will go

(01:23:38):
along with this because we only have about a half
hour left, and that is disclosure. Two thousand and eight,
we didn't have anything. Two thousand and nine, we have
a new administration, we have the co head of the
Obama transition team being someone who has been on record
publicly as favoring disclosure about UFOs. So where do we

(01:24:00):
go from there?

Speaker 4 (01:24:01):
Well, interestingly enough, and Gene, of course you will recall this,
but I harkened back to the Herbert Shermer case in
nineteen sixty seven. And you know whether you buy that
or not. But in short, supposedly he was channeling an
alien under hypnosis, and the question was asked, well, you know,

(01:24:25):
why don't you expose yourselves? Why don't you drop down
on the White House lawn or something to that effect,
And the answer was, again supposedly, from this alien being
channeled through Officer Shermer, was the fact that society at
present wouldn't be able to take it. In essence, they
were going to prime the pump I'm ad libbing to basically,

(01:24:49):
to get the populace ready for the so called exposure.
And interestingly enough, if you look back, and I used
to say, it was common for me to say, well,
you go ten years back and ask you know, a
dozen people if they believe in extraterrestrial life for example.
Of course, now I have to say forty years back.

(01:25:09):
You know, the average person, way back when the larger
percentage would say, well, of course, not that silly or
the little green men or the little gray men or whatever. Well,
if you ask those send ten people today, they would say, well,
of course, I mean science, you know, mainstream science tells
us that obviously there's going to be life out there somewhere.
There might be microbial life right here in our own
solar system. So the public's mindset has actually changed. And

(01:25:34):
I go back to Shermer's incident in sixty seven, so
I often wonder is there any credence to the Shermer event?
And in fact, is that what's happening is the pump
being fined for the eventuality that there will be exposure
either by the government, one of the governments, or by

(01:25:55):
an event. You know, our personal technology is advanced to
such that, as Angela mentioned, everybody's taking pictures of these
things with their self on campus, and everybody's walking around
with a camera on their hip so when a large
event does take place, it's hard to combat the excuses
that the powers of being may come up with. You
can't say it's swamp gas when you've got ten thousand

(01:26:17):
people snapping a picture of it with their with their
self on campus.

Speaker 2 (01:26:21):
So we our.

Speaker 3 (01:26:23):
Reboard, you know, hard evidence, and that's what everybody says
they want. Okay, Well, there's no hard evidence to confirm
that people are aliens are visiting. I think there's hard
evidence and the seasons, okay, And I.

Speaker 4 (01:26:42):
Think it's overlooked well, like the science that everybody asks
for and then and then when it's put on the table,
it gets ignored.

Speaker 3 (01:26:52):
I mean better than a picture.

Speaker 2 (01:26:56):
Absolutely. One of the things that that I personally come
to believe about this whole situation is that if there's
to be the next level of understanding or interaction, it
will not be controlled from our side. We are at
a very severe disadvantage here. And I think if we
look at any relationship as having aspects of dominance and submission,

(01:27:19):
it's pretty clear to me at least, and I don't
know how anybody else feels about this, but we're dealing
with something that is certainly technologically beyond us, and we
are at just a very obvious disadvantage. We do not
determine agenda here. And I think that extends to members
of our government, because when we talk about the government
talking about this or revealing information, we're really talking about

(01:27:41):
some covert faction within the government that has stuff that
they're keeping from the rest of the government. So to
assume that President Obama can waive his wand and make
disclosure happen, I think that speaks to a certain level
of ignorance about how the world really works. It also happened,
just to follow what you said, David, that when Obama

(01:28:02):
takes the oath of office, someone will walk in there
in a black suit or a dark suit and say,
mister President, we need to let you know something. This
is the way things are. Or would they just take
the plausible deniability approach, which is, don't tell the president
do what they did in the movie Independence Date, don't
tell them about Area fifty one and the aliens on ice.

(01:28:24):
Just keep him out of the loop because the less
he knows, the better. Well, in terms of reality check,
Barack Obama has much bigger issues on his plate, I
suspect than the issue of disclosure. In as far as
those of us interested in this topic feel that it
has priority in our lives to some extent, certainly, I

(01:28:46):
think it's still true to say that for a brand
new president walking into a very bad situation the way
the Barack Obama is, it would be almost suicidal to
try to open up this this can of worms. And
that's why I think Stephen Bassett is completely wrong about
this idea that the Obama administration is going to somehow

(01:29:09):
below the doors open on this in the spring because
they have to. I think that's optimistic at best and
delusional or worst. The other thing that would make them
want to do that, David, probably would be some external event.
They don't control the agenda. And I agree with you
that there are so many heavy things on this plate, Angela,
what do you think about all this?

Speaker 3 (01:29:29):
Well, I ow me in the UFO community were hopeful
that since John Podesta was a leader in the Oklahoma
transition team, that he would somehow push things forward, because
he had already going on record during the Court administration,

(01:29:54):
you know, saying, you know, I don't know what the
exact quote was, that it was kind of more those
sixty year old records to be released to the public.
So that did get people excited that you know, maybe
he might be the one to push that to Olama

(01:30:16):
and get something done. But I think you're exactly the sight.
Obama has so much on his plate right now in
terms of the economy, and you know, America's is not
in very good place. If he were decide to do
something like that, it would be political suicide. I don't

(01:30:38):
see the Obama administration. I just don't see him at
the disclosure president.

Speaker 2 (01:30:44):
I also think they're very politically savvy, probably more so
than many administrations, and they recognize how dangerous it is
to get involved in this crazy subject, this little strange
world that we're involved in. But again, if there was
an external event, but I don't think that's going to happen.
And the reason I think is because UFOs seem to

(01:31:06):
play this cat and mouse game. They come in here
willy nilly, they do their stuff, and they leave, but
we can never get close enough, or if we do,
it's under disputable circumstances. An abduction, contact, something like that
doesn't seem to happen.

Speaker 1 (01:31:25):
Well.

Speaker 4 (01:31:25):
The other issue, or the question is what is shared
with the temporary occupant of the White House. Right, It
harkens back to the to the gold Water situation when
he demanded to know what was it, right pack and
he was promptly told that he wasn't authorized to know that.
And this is the United States senator, you know, So

(01:31:46):
what do we share with four year occupants of the
White House opposed to lifers that are in government or
the people that are hand on in government and that
have been have run it for decades upon decade, or
if you will, for conspiratorial friends the government within the government.

Speaker 5 (01:32:02):
Well that also comes into play the fact that the
people who we think are in power can only do
so much. After that, it's up to the secret government,
the powers it be, whoever whatever they are. But and
we're really getting conspiratorial there, you know, an.

Speaker 4 (01:32:23):
There's presidents for that. I mean remember Project Shamrock, which
basically was a wire tapping scheme which was done by
major corporations of the United States who recorded all of
the outgoing communicates in this country. That is supposedly just
the ones that went outside the country. But there not
only no of course, much like what Bush has done

(01:32:47):
today inside the country. But that was unknown to all
the sitting presidents to from the birth of this project
Shamrock up until I think Nixon. So there's precedents for
these things going on of that magnitude that were unknown
to the sitting presidents of the time.

Speaker 2 (01:33:06):
No, Nixon, of course, just wanted to do it for himself.

Speaker 3 (01:33:12):
That I would like to sit down with. And Botu
is the first president Bush because he was over the CIA.
So I think it's in body the president in recent
no thing it would.

Speaker 2 (01:33:29):
Be m You know, there's a document in the history
of apology that for me represents one of the absolute
smoking guns. It was a memo and Frank you probably
know this document. It was a memo that had been
written by Jaguar Hoover and it mentioned specifically in his
handwriting those guys have got the discs and we can't
get access to them. When I think about Hoover, you

(01:33:52):
think about who had raised amount of power concentrated power
in the United States government during the twentieth century, And
for me personally, Hoover is is the key to this.

Speaker 4 (01:34:04):
I agree with that, except that specific document David that
was concerning was actually concerning a hoax that was done
in Louis Deiana. Really, and yes, I researched that thoroughly,
and it wasn't the discs per se as we came
to know them. This this happened early on, and there

(01:34:25):
were some minor hoaxes that went on in the summer
of forty seven and thereafter, and there were some small
things that were picked up. And in fact, Hoover's major
problem with that whole scenario he just didn't want to
be the whipping boy for the air force. He felt that,
you know, you know, we're just the errand boy here,

(01:34:46):
and we want to be involved in this thing. Not
that the intent for him was not equal to, you know,
to that specific document, but the actual incident was a
hoax of some small discs that ended up being a hoax.
They were just, you know, a couple of feet in
diameter and somebody, a kid had made a listen or

(01:35:06):
something like that. And then yeah, specific I have to
show that up.

Speaker 2 (01:35:10):
All right, I stand corrected. I'm mad enough to say, okay,
I was wrong. Never mind you question about send it

(01:35:33):
to news dot com.

Speaker 4 (01:35:40):
Don't forget to visit where you can talk to fellow listeners.

Speaker 2 (01:35:45):
Just go to dot com and clicking on the foreman.
That's the form which never mind this. We're talking to
Frank Warren and Angela Joiner talking about the state of
UFO research, having covered a lot of area with regard

(01:36:06):
to Stephenville, Texas and the possibilities of their being disclosure
and certainly if there is another agency within the government.
Are just the long timers, the people have been there
for a while, who have their own government going on,
whether official or unofficial, who keep things running. And they
look at the President and they look at Congressman as

(01:36:28):
the temporary people. Well they'll be gone. Another party will
take over, and then they'll do their thing and they'll
wreck the country, and then somebody else will come back.
They actually run the thing. Everything is run by the
career people. So you know whether this is going to
happen or not. I tend to be skeptical. I believe

(01:36:48):
it would be nice if it were to happen. I
think David agrees with me on this. We don't always
agree one hundred percent on everything, but you do agree
with me. This is not going to happen for that
and many other reasons, right me. Oh yeah, no, I'm
still with you. I'm still with you. No, I well,
I'm still I'm still pondering over what you just said, Frank,

(01:37:10):
I'm thinking, oh my god, that smoking gun has gone
up and smoke.

Speaker 4 (01:37:13):
Okay, Well with the sentiment, Listen, the important part of
that was his sentiment, and that in fact is accurate.
This that specific incident was was a minor thing, but
the Hoober sentiment was real. So in that regard, what
you're saying is absolute.

Speaker 2 (01:37:29):
Well, I certainly think that maybe the event was bocus
if anybody could have ever had access to real information, though,
given that Hoover had dirt on everybody. I mean, this
guy did whatever he wanted to do, literally, whatever he
wanted to do, and we'll never know the reality about
what really went down under his control of the FBI.
We'll never really know because I'm sure he got rid

(01:37:52):
of most of the evidence that would have existed of
any shady dealings he had. You know, this is a
guy who had a level of control and a level
of influence that I don't know if there's anybody in
the government today that could mirror that. I mean, there
might be, but I wonder about that. You start to
realize when you look at the federal government and you
look at the size of the government in the military,

(01:38:14):
that it is easy to lose things, it is easy
to make things basically just go away. And there's this
idea that and I know we've talked to with Stan
Friedman about this topic. There's this idea that the government
is such a big lumbering beast you could never have
real secrecy. And I just don't agree with that. I
think the size of the government is what makes it
easy to make things sort of vanish under rocks, right,

(01:38:38):
I agree wholeheartedly.

Speaker 3 (01:38:40):
In a large organization, I think that clock common is
so left hand doesn't know what the rod hand's doing,
because when you get down to.

Speaker 6 (01:38:50):
The communication is very difficult. I mean our personal level
or a business one. You know, thinks get interpreted in
different way and it's hard to always piece up in
a large organization with everything that's going on. You know,
everybody get finalision and their painting tins into their particular tunnel.

Speaker 4 (01:39:11):
Right well, And as Span would remind us, you can
go back to the Manhattan Project. You know, when when
Truman came into office, he was completely he was not
in the know about the Manhattan Project. And that was
the vice president of the United States. And we're talking
about ten thousand people that were involved with the Manhattan Project.
So can we keep a secret?

Speaker 2 (01:39:34):
I think we can, and I think we do. And sadly,
I suspect that in fifty or sixty or seventy or
one hundred years, there's going to be an avalanche of
information that's going to come out that will give historians
at that time the ability to look back on this
time and say, you know, the populace had no idea

(01:39:55):
what was going on. They really didn't know. And certainly
and not to Veera up into the political direction. People
don't like it when we do that on the para cast.
But I predict I'll be the psychic here and make
a prediction that in let's say twenty years, twenty five years,
when the real dirt comes out on what has happened

(01:40:15):
with this quote unquote bailout situation and Paulson and Bernank,
when the reality of this comes out, it's going to
make the Bernie Madoff thing look like a walk in
the park. It's going to make that look absolutely like
a little a fart in the wind when we find
out what has happened here and what is still happening.

Speaker 4 (01:40:35):
With the fifty to sixty years. I think you're an optimist.

Speaker 2 (01:40:39):
You might be right, you know what, most people would
not say that about me, but maybe about this, I
am being optimistic. I think what's happened here is absolutely
heinous and really is it is? I believe, I don't know,
but I believe it's the fall of the American empire.
This is it. We're witnessing it, except we don't know it.
We're in the middle of it, and we don't see it.

(01:41:00):
And our sense of patriotic pride nationalism, as tarnished as
it's become over certainly the last eight years, doesn't allow
us to look at this objectively. But I think people
in other countries who look back into what is going
on with us and our influence around the world and
the wean of that influence, I think it's a what
influence exactly? Yeah, well, now what influence? It's a very

(01:41:24):
sad situation. And again this is what makes me think
that people who feel that there's going to be disclosure,
that people at this point would even pay attention to it.
You know, people who are losing their retirement accounts, people
who are losing their homes, their jobs, that they most
people even care about this at this point outside of
the realm of entertainment.

Speaker 4 (01:41:45):
I think that's exactly right. Issues in particular, unless they
affect one's personal bubble. The gas prices, for example, Nobody
could care about what's going on with oil until you're
paying five hollars for gas. Then all of a sudden
it interrupts your own personal bubbles and it's important.

Speaker 2 (01:42:04):
So well, then it goes back.

Speaker 4 (01:42:05):
Good Americans. We ignore these things until we're slapped in
the face with it.

Speaker 2 (01:42:09):
Well, and then, of course what's happened in the past
number of months is that the price of gas has
come back down again and nobody's focusing on it anymore.
What's happening here is maybe all of that was hype.
Speculators got in there and they drove the price up
regardless of the actual demand. That didn't matter. I mean,
we were in a recession for a year and nobody

(01:42:30):
told us it was all scam. It's a scam. Yeah, well,
welcome to plane.

Speaker 3 (01:42:37):
I'm coming in here about as long as I can, right,
I really.

Speaker 2 (01:42:40):
Have to go right sure, before you leave, Angela, just
ask you there place that our listeners can contact you
or learn more about the things you do. No that's good. Okay,
end to show goodbye.

Speaker 4 (01:42:53):
Well, let me wait a minute, let me interject it.
We've added Angela into our Alien Scribe section at the
UFO Cronicles and she can always be reached through there.
Any comments could be made to any of her articles,
which most of are posted there at the UFO Chronicles,
So she does have a portfold there for anybody that's interested.

Speaker 2 (01:43:11):
Okay, Okay, there you go, Angela, Thanks for joining us.

Speaker 3 (01:43:15):
Thanks for having me on.

Speaker 4 (01:43:17):
You know, Gene, one thing I didn't want to mention
that in terms of explosure, and this is the fact
that we often forget about. You've got to remember all
the other governments of the world that are are unlike
the United States government, the French in regards to Cameta
and the mod recently or adding their reports, making their

(01:43:39):
reports public, something might in fact happen in another country
which may put our government in a position to say, well,
maybe we should explain ourselves.

Speaker 2 (01:43:48):
Well, you know that also is the fact that we
are all looking for and this is probably a mistake
these days. We are all looking for the American government
to be the originator. If there's going to be disclosure,
it's got to be the Americans. Well, no, it doesn't
have to be the Americans. It could be the French,
it could be the British, someone else exactly. I think

(01:44:10):
it's more likely to happen to South America myself.

Speaker 4 (01:44:13):
But what the Brazilians have done lately in terms of
how open they are or with the Campana oil well fiasco.
To me, the good thing that happened with that was
the efforts that the Mexican government and military did in
regards to their cooperation with civilian ufologists. That was all

(01:44:33):
a good thing. The incident may not have been such.

Speaker 1 (01:44:37):
A big deal.

Speaker 4 (01:44:38):
Well, in fact, to me, it was good research. We
found out exactly what that was. But you know, the
cooperation that was given by the authorities, the Mexican authorities,
I thought was just it was fantastic, unlike our government
in these particular instances. So, yeah, something could happen in
the south of the border or another country, is the French.
It may push our government into the position that they

(01:45:00):
have to say or announce something crossed.

Speaker 2 (01:45:06):
Well, you know, it's funny you bring up that situation
with oil because you're talking about those lights that were
seeing on ir at the back of that Mexican Air
Force video.

Speaker 4 (01:45:14):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:45:15):
You know it's really frustrating about that is that that
is still cited quite often as a legitimate visual piece
of visual.

Speaker 4 (01:45:24):
Evidence time on Larry King, and they.

Speaker 2 (01:45:28):
Always bring it up and it's.

Speaker 4 (01:45:29):
Like, look, it's the Phoenix Flaire video.

Speaker 2 (01:45:32):
Got it? And so I think as long as that's
going on, you know that that they have to have
some kind of filler to put on, and as long
as they keep doing that, it's going to be very
difficult to move this ahead. And you know, there was
an anecdote about this type of a problem when we
had last year Paula Harris on this show. We confronted
her about this because I had been at an event

(01:45:53):
she that she spoke at in Atlantic City where she
was talking about things like the O'Hare case, and she
had up on the screen behind her images that Jeff
Ritzman and I had debunked, and she had them up
on the screen saying, oh, look, you know there was
this incident, and as she's talking, she's flashing his images
behind her. And we confronted her with this and I said,

(01:46:15):
you know, what are you doing? These are known hoax
fabricated images. Why did you put them up on the screen,
and her incredibly lame response was, oh, because they're visual
examples of what UFOs might look like. It's like, yeah,
but you didn't say that when you were doing this.
You gave these images credibility by throwing them up on

(01:46:37):
a screen. And I think this is a huge problem
that I don't even know if there is a way
that we can counteract or resolve this where there are
people in the mainstream media, there are people involved in
euthology quote unquote that continue to propagate these hoaxes, these fabrications,
and there's no sense of any kind of editorial diligence,

(01:47:01):
and that I find that very frustrating and frank as
anybody listens to the show, know, you've been great with
us about delving into these topics, and you've helped us
uncover some of these people and expose them for what
they are. But I keep coming back to this idea
that for most people, certainly anybody who is not an experiencers,

(01:47:22):
someone who's not seen, for example, UFO, they will look
at these topics and they will treat them as nothing
more than entertainment. When there are some of us who
know that there is something highly unusual going on and
this might teach us something about the nature of who
and what we are. But it's almost as if people
they don't want to know who what we are because

(01:47:43):
it doesn't affect their bank accounts and it doesn't affect
the quality of the food they put on their table.
And maybe that's the problem with all of this, and
that when it comes right down to it, if it
doesn't directly affect people's lifestyle today, they don't really care.
And I find in that very said, well, I agree with.

Speaker 4 (01:48:02):
You, and that goes back to what I call the
cognitive bias. We are molded by society. We're molded by
society in general and our parents specifically in our upbringing,
and of course our parents upbringing that's going to be
echoed by their own mindsets. I mean, if you come
from a religious family, chances are you're going to be religious.

(01:48:25):
You're going to have a religious background and religious mindsets, etc.
It's a phenomenon onto itself with the standard of thinking
that we retain as we grow up and as we
become adults. So when something goes outside that safety zone
in regards to how we've been raised and with particularly
with the UFOs, and I think we all or most

(01:48:46):
of us come from that position. I know I did.
I was fortunate enough early on. You know, I was
raised by my mother and she instilled this sense of
curiosity in me, so it made me ask questions. However,
I still you know, when I first started experiencing or
reading about uthology and flying saucery. Of course, back in
those days, I thought it was silly because I was

(01:49:08):
taught to think it was silly. This just wasn't acceptable, absolutely,
But as I dug into this thing, it made me
ask more questions, you know, and I thought, well, wait
a minute, why would the government investigate something for twenty
years if there wasn't anything to it. It just doesn't
make sense. So you've got to get past this cognitive
bias that everybody has. And there is truth to the fact.

(01:49:29):
If it doesn't upset the family's bubble, why bother. There's
there's too many more important things going on, like you know,
where's the next meal coming from?

Speaker 2 (01:49:39):
Well, who's on American ilid And well, you know, no,
please I'll mention that because we have that starting up again.
Oh God, there you go, perfect context. I have never
ever seen an episode of American IDOL ever, and ladies
and gentlemen. I will never see one. And I bet
David I can agree with me.

Speaker 1 (01:50:01):
Right.

Speaker 2 (01:50:02):
I've actually watched it with my girlfriend's kids for while.
Oh wow, I say, I've.

Speaker 4 (01:50:06):
Never watched an episode all the way through, although I
have caught pieces of it. But you know, Angela is
a prime example of an individual that has walked through
that doorway. Whereas you know, there's somebody that was afflicted
just recently with this cognitive bias that I speak of.
Now this has affected her life, and she's walked through

(01:50:27):
this doorway and gone to the other side and said, Wow,
look what's going on. I'm going on here that I
wasn't aware of. And she left her employers behind and
that small town status quo, you know, let's don't interrupt
this small town status quo. Let that story go. And
then when she recounted the gal that replaced her, same thing,

(01:50:47):
Oh my god. I don't want my reputation to be ruined.
I'm just starting my career as a journalist. I don't
want this attached to me. So again and again, it's
mind boggling.

Speaker 2 (01:51:00):
I'll tell you what. What's mind boggling is that we've
run out of time, Frank, can you tell our listeners
where to find more of the things that you do?

Speaker 3 (01:51:07):
Well?

Speaker 4 (01:51:07):
Of course, as as always, you can just google either
Frank Warren and the UFO Chronicles and that'll get you there.
I believe I mentioned before that we're now enjoying readers
in over one hundred and forty countries. Anything that happens
UFO wise has posted automatically to UFO Chronicles, And currently
we have been doing an expose on Robert Hastings and

(01:51:30):
the son of one of the commanders of Echo Flights
back in sixty seven. The sun is taking Roberts the task.
There's been a little tape to day going in.

Speaker 2 (01:51:42):
He's been on Shield, Yes he has, we have right now,
that's the one. That's the correct one, Thank you.

Speaker 4 (01:51:50):
Exactly. A lot of great research he's done, and we're
going to post his most recent rebuttal to the son
of one of the commanders.

Speaker 2 (01:52:00):
Tell you what that's got to be it, that's got
to be it. I'll tell you what that's going to
be on this week. And if you click on Frank
Warren's name anywhere on the powercast dot com you go
right to that site direct lickety split, no interruptions, no redirects.
Frank Warren, thank you for joining us this week on
the Power Cast. Thank you guys as jujuh, Thank you sir.
Always a pleasure having you with us.

Speaker 1 (01:52:23):
The Power Cast with Jeens Steinberg and David Pietney is
a production of Making the Impossible Incorporated. Join us next
week for a new adventure in the Power Cast.