September 2, 2025 • 71 mins
The aerospace doctor who witnessed reverse-engineered craft technology at NASA returns to answer your most challenging questions. Dr. Gregory Rogers, former Chief of Aerospace Medicine at NASA, sits down for an in-depth Q&A session following his viral LehtoFiles interview about witnessing an advanced craft in a Cape Canaveral hangar in 1992. This follow-up addresses the physics, the implications, and the deeper questions surrounding his extraordinary testimony. Timestamps: 00:00:00 Introduction & US Air Force Markings Reveal 00:02:36 The 20-Foot Craft: Size, Shape & Electromagnetic Effects 00:07:33 Umbilicals & Defense Contractor Theory 00:16:53 Why He Was Shown the Footage & Security Analysis 00:25:05 NASA's UAP Silence Policy & Decision to Stay Quiet 00:34:46 Bob Lazar Sports Model Comparison 00:39:47 Space Medicine: Genetic Changes & UAP Health Effects 00:47:22 1992 Digital Technology & Moon Landing Defense 00:57:28 Congressional Testimony: "I Saw It with My Own Eyes" 00:59:00 Corporate Secrecy vs National Security 01:06:00 Carrier Landing Dreams & Final Thoughts KEY REVELATIONS EXPLORED:
- The electromagnetic discharge patterns and what they reveal about propulsion systems
- Why umbilical connections suggest this was reverse-engineered technology
- Similarities to Bob Lazar's "sports model" description and US Air Force markings
- The absence of security protocols that would normally surround classified UAP technology
- Digital recording capabilities in military systems that the public didn't know existed
- Genetic changes observed in astronauts after long-duration spaceflight
- Health effects of proximity to advanced propulsion fields
- Space motion sickness patterns from Mercury through Shuttle programs
- Real-world examples of radiation exposure during EVAs
- Why corporate advantage and national security both drive UAP secrecy
- How contractor proprietary information blocks Freedom of Information Act requests
- What Dr. Rogers would tell Congress if called to testify about reverse engineering programs
- The technological implications if this knowledge became public
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
I thought, you know, this is the ultimate, and then
all of a sudden it rotated and there was US
air force on it. So no, this is the ultimate.
There may be some physics that I just simply do
not understand, but the electromagnetic discharges did not seem to
(00:22):
relate to the motion that I witnessed from the craft itself.
I strongly believe that it was a reproduction vehicle, probably
owned by a defense contractor such as Rockwell or Lockey.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
Martin Marrietta, I want to thank doctor Rogers once again
for taking this time to share his insights and experiences.
I know it's not easy to be a whistleblower, so
I'm very happy to share this. Chris Later, Welcome to
Later Files. Today, doctor Rogers is back for a special
(01:16):
Q and A session answering your questions directly giving deeper
info into his first hand account, and sharing insights on
space medicine, secrecy and the bigger picture of disclosure. Thank
you for being here again, Doc Rogers. How are you
(01:37):
doing today, sir?
Speaker 1 (01:40):
Doing fine?
Speaker 2 (01:42):
First question from Guy Lauren, did you ever treat any
NASA patients who sustained injuries possibly due to U A
P effects or strange exposure.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
I would say, no, Okay, I've treated patients that were
exposed to chemicals and ionizing radiation, but not due to
exposure for UAPs or non human.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
Intelligence or anomalous effects.
Speaker 1 (02:22):
I guess.
Speaker 2 (02:22):
So you didn't treat anything where they didn't know the
source of the injury.
Speaker 1 (02:29):
No, we pretty much knew the source of all of
the injuries that I dealt with.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
Excellent. Next question, how large was the craft you saw
in nineteen ninety two and can you describe its exact shape, surface,
and markings.
Speaker 1 (02:46):
Sure? In fact, do you have the reconstruction that you
showed on the previous video.
Speaker 2 (02:57):
Yes, so I'll show it right now so the audience can.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
Oh, okay, yeah. I think that's the best attempt anyone
has done to recreate what I saw. The vehicle was
about twenty foot wide. I would estimate the reason I
did that was because there were a couple of gentlemen
off to the lower left on the video, and there
(03:21):
were three guys over to the middle section on the
far right, and so comparing their bodies to the craft,
I would say it was probably twenty foot wide eight
to ten feet tall, not including the mast. There was
a mast at the top of the dome and then
(03:43):
umbilicals that went from the mast offscreen in an upward fashion.
But it's an amazing craft to see. And then, you know,
like I testified before, I thought this is the ultimate,
and then all of a sudden it rotated and there
(04:03):
was US Air Force on it, So no, no, this
is the ultimate. So it was pretty crazy.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
And you said it was in a regular air forced hangar.
Was it in like an F sixteen size hangar?
Speaker 1 (04:22):
Yeah, and F sixteen would fit there. In F thirty
five HH three helicopter, which is what I was flying
in most often there any of the helicopters. It looked
like just a typical military hangar. Any aircraft could have
(04:44):
been inside and I wouldn't have been surprised.
Speaker 2 (04:48):
Next question, were the electromagnetic effects you observed? Were they
similar to any known propulsion or energy systems you've encountered
in aerospace, medicine oreering.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
Okay, they were absolutely not. When I saw the electromagnetic
initiation of activity, it was completely different from anything I
had seen within the Air Force or NASA, and there
(05:22):
were a lot of puzzling aspects of it. One of
the things that I've tried to figure out, Okay, what's
the meaning of it? There were not the electromagnetic discharges
at all areas of the spacecraft at any given time.
(05:46):
There were only a few of them, but they could
be anywhere on the surface of the vehicle. And even
if as it was rising, even as it was rotating
three hundred and sixty degrees clockwise, three sixty counterclockwise, and
then moving left and right, forward and back, and then
(06:09):
into a forty five degree angle of attack, the location
and number of electromagnetic discharges never seemed sufficient to be
the source of the motion of the craft. You know,
if I was going to expect something, for instance, as
(06:32):
it was levitating, I would expect more electromagnetic discharges being
on the under surface in order to lift the craft.
But that was not at all what I saw. There
were very few discharges under the craft, and most of
(06:53):
them were actually on the upper surface. So there may
be some physics that I just simply do not understand,
but the electromagnetic discharges did not seem to relate to
the motion that I witnessed from the craft itself.
Speaker 2 (07:17):
Okay, And if anyone in the audience wanted to go back,
you can watch the original interview link in the description,
and Doc Rogers goes into much more detail on how
we saw this video in the first place, So check
that out. So next question, why do you think it
had external umbilicals and what might they have been providing.
Speaker 1 (07:36):
Well, there's not that many choices of why there were umbilicals.
The umbilicals were present because something inside the craft was
insufficient for flight operations. If all energy sources were in,
(08:01):
you would not need to supply energy from the outside.
So I would expect that one of the umbilicals was
an energy source, whether there's electricity or something else. If
you had all of the craft mechanical controls internal, you
(08:26):
would not need to feed any through the external umbilicals.
I can't say what was in the umbilicals, but the
first thing that occurred to me was, first of all, electricity.
If this craft needed a lot of energy to perform
as I saw it happening, I would expect that one
(08:51):
of those umbilicals, at least maybe two of them were
busy supplying the energy for the craft to move, especially
as I saw a number of electromagnetic discharges. You know,
if you were powering the craft and you had a
(09:12):
nuclear source on board, you would not need power supplied
as long as the nuclear source was sufficient to provide
the amount of energy required. If the source was either
not available or non functional to the level required for operations,
(09:34):
then I would feel certain that at least one of
the mbilicals was electricity. So I can only guess as
to what all it was, But it brings up the
question of whether or not this was an actual UAP
that we had not been able to operate effectively, and
(09:56):
that's why we required umbilicals. But I I strongly believe
that it was a reproduction vehicle, probably owned by a
defense contractor such as Rockwell or Lockeed Martin Marriott. It
(10:19):
wasn't Lockeed Martin at that time because Lockeed and Martin
Marriott it did not combine until nineteen ninety five, so
it could have been one or more of the defense
contractors that owned the craft. And I don't believe it
had been turned over to the Air Force ship. I
(10:47):
saw none of the personnel that I would have expected
for security if that was a UAP and it was
an actual UAP that we were activating, I would have
expected security personnel all over because I had been around
(11:07):
other spacecraft that we were preparing to launch, and especially
if it was NSACIA DoD missions. The security was extremely
tight and there were security personnel all over, and I
saw no security personnel there at all, So that's another
(11:28):
factor in why I think it was a contractor owned vehicle.
Speaker 2 (11:34):
Yeah, you said there's not that many options for the cabling.
Seems like you have three options that I can think of.
One would be power, second would be control systems, and
then telemetry. But you're probably getting telemetry right there just
videoing the craft. But if that electronic electrostatic anti gravity
(11:56):
system that they're using is interfering with signals in and
out of the craft, maybe that's why you need like
a telemetry and control system cable.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
One of the ways to monitor the craft was simple
put up a closed circuit TV camera so you could
watch it. Well, guess what, that's what I was looking at.
So it I just have to believe that those three
umbilicals were present because they had developed the craft to
(12:26):
a certain point, but not a point to where it
was autonomous. So you know, it's the difference between a
toy that is attached to a battery pack and a
toy that is radio controlled.
Speaker 2 (12:46):
It's also interesting you brought up the contractor as well,
because I worked in the Air Force. I actually worked
with contracts. I oversaw a Lockheed Arrow contract and I
had asked, we had asked, the government asked to get
software from Lockheed Main Aerospace, but the smaller subsidiary, Lockheed
(13:09):
Aero could not get the software from the main Lockheed
because they're different companies. It's actually a subsidiary of the
larger Lockheed company, and they did not have access to
the data which was originally government owned. They would not
share it across these two companies. If you look, there's
many subsidiaries of Lockheed. My favorite is Helicopter Support Operations.
(13:30):
Seems like that's just a perfect place to hide one
of these programs.
Speaker 1 (13:36):
Well, the contractors that I dealt with, especially at the KATE,
were many and varied, and if it was information owned
by the US Air Force, we would share with all
of the contractors generally speaking. However, if one of the
(13:57):
contractors owned a piece of information, then it was considered proprietary,
so they did not have to share it because they
owned it. And then also something that a lot of
people don't realize was that if it's proprietary information. You
do not have access through the Freedom of Information Act.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
Okay, that is very interesting. It's also frustrating at the
time because it was of sixteen software actually owned by
the government. But when we got it back from one
of these companies, inside the code they wrote in I
believe it was Boeing Boeing proprietary software, and the government
(14:42):
paid them to make the changes to the software that
the government provided, but it came back with proprietary information.
I'm sure they all did this. And then the security guards.
I hadn't thought of that as well. But there was
a lack of security inside and all of your previous experience,
(15:02):
do you expect there to be security inside the hangar?
Speaker 1 (15:07):
Uh when when we were dealing with like n ro
O h uh d I A C I A type missions,
they had security everywhere. You could not go anywhere. You know,
they were watching for anyone trying to take any parts
(15:29):
out that they were looking for anyone who might sneak
a camera in because cameras were strictly forbidden even on
all of Cape Canaveral. As soon as you enter the gate,
it said pro photography is prohibited except for authorized personnel.
(15:50):
You couldn't even take a picture on the cape of
the seashore with without authorization. So, uh, the secure purity
was extremely tight. And if there were people standing around
a vehicle that was ultra classified, to my experience, there's
(16:13):
gonna be security people there. They're going to be checking
you as you go in, checking you as you go out,
make sure you don't try to sneak out any of
the material or parts or anything of this sort, and
the monitoring would be intense. And I didn't see any
(16:33):
evidence of anything like that, and I just have to
feel that that was the reverse engineering craft.
Speaker 2 (16:49):
Next audience question, did you see any signs of a
crew compartment or do you think it was likely unmanned
during the test?
Speaker 1 (16:58):
Well, there was absolutely no evidence of a door or
window into the craft. The surface of it was completely
smooth on its lower surfaces, upper surface, and through the dome.
Now that doesn't mean it wasn't there. There. There could
have been something that I simply was unable to see,
(17:18):
but I saw nothing that that made me think that.
And then also if you have three umbilicals going in,
that tells me that that craft isn't really ready for
full operations. So if I was worried about the electrical
systems or anything like that, I'm not putting a human
being in there. So the you know, one of the
(17:42):
umbilicals could have been all of the control mechanisms, so
that someone from the outside could control all of the
functions of the vehicle without having to be inside it.
Speaker 2 (17:57):
Great points. This is from awakening to reality. Do you
know the name of the person who showed you the footage?
Have you spoken to the person since and would you
be willing to.
Speaker 1 (18:10):
I did not recognize him at the time. I have
not seen him since I do not know his name.
If I knew his name, I would not put it
out anyway, because I have seen times when someone inadvertently
mentioned somebody and the next thing you know, something's going on.
(18:36):
I have a sort of self example of that. We
went out on one mission and it was on a Saturday,
and I was at home, so I grabbed my video
camera and I took it along with me on the
search and rescue mission. We found the victims pretty far
(18:56):
out to see, like ninety miles out to see, and
so I videotaped the rescue of them. When we dropped
them off at the airport at the helipad for the hospital.
We went back to our parking area outside the forty
(19:16):
first year rescue squadron, and there were a number of
people who were reporters, and it had involved Cubans trying
to get to America from Cuba, so you know, it
was a much more interesting rescue than before. Well, I
(19:41):
gave my a few little answers and then I had
for my car. Well, the pilot in command did not
like speaking to the media, and so they were sort
of all over him, and he said, well, I don't
know why you're talking to me. Doc Rogers over there
has video of the whole thing, and they said video boom.
(20:05):
And so I was already getting in my car and
they were circling me, and I tried to say, look,
you know, I don't know anything, leave me alone. So
as I backed out, they ran out there. And so
the televisions people that they had bands with these things
(20:27):
on top so they could transmit it was CBS, NBC,
ABC and CNN. Well, as as I leave the parking lot,
all four of these bands are following me. Okay, So
I stopped at the hospital and dropped off my flight
(20:48):
surgeon and rescue kit, and I told the people, hey,
you got to see this. I've got all of the
news people following me. And they said, oh yeah, sure.
I said no, no, I'll tell what come come to
the door here, and when I drive, I will drive
past this area real slow, and you can see these
people are following me. So I drove past the hospital
(21:11):
door and there they are all four of these television vans. Well,
I called my wife and said, you know, I'm coming home.
If there's anything outside, you might want to clean it
up because ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN are going to
(21:31):
be at our house. And she said, oh, come on, no,
I'm telling you this is going to happen. So I
drove drove around slow and on the way home, I
took extra turns just to mess with them. And uh,
finally I pulled up at my house and pulled into
the parking lot and here they are. These four television
(21:58):
vans are at my front door part there, and they
have people out knocking on the door saying we want
your video. Well, the General lived right across the street
from us, and so you know, in about ten minutes,
I got a phone call and General Morrell said, what's
(22:21):
going on over there. Why are these fans over there? Said, well,
we went out to do this rescue and someone told
them that I had a video, and he said, well,
if it's on an air force craft, aircraft, you can't
release that video. I said, well, sir, I'm not trying to,
(22:43):
but they're here, and he said, well, I'll tell you what.
I'll send a public affairs officer over and you will
turn the VHS tape to him. You know, this is
back when VHS was big. So next thing I knew,
the colonel that was head of public affairs showed up
(23:04):
at my door. I handed it to him. He went off,
so like an hour hour and a half later he
came back and he gave me my video, but he
gave copies of the tapes to each of those networks
and so next thing, you know, this entire video is
(23:30):
on the news and it said official US Air Force video.
And I was in there, well it's say US official
US video when I took it. But it ended up
getting widespread. And we had guys that were preparing for
the next Shuttle launch and they were over at the Bengerer,
(23:51):
Morocco site, and so they had just come back and
as they're walking through the hotel, Atlas has had this
big screen TV right next to the opening to the elevators.
So as they're walking along, all of a sudden, one
of the guys looked over and said, Hey, that's Sergeant Inch.
That's our helicopter. Why is it on CNN International? And
(24:14):
so they all stopped and watched, And then when they
got back, they said, man, you guys were seeing all
over the place, but we watched your the report with
your video over in Marrakesh, Morocco. Well, all of this
(24:35):
started because the pilot said, uh, you know, he wanted
to get rid of him, so he said, hey, doc
Rogers over there has video. And as soon as they
heard video, they went crazy. So I'm you know, it's
real easy to dump on somebody without realizing it. I
don't think that pilot meant to dump on me the
(24:56):
way he did, but as soon as he mentioned video,
my goose was cooked.
Speaker 2 (25:05):
Another question was why do you think that major decided
to show it to you in the first place.
Speaker 1 (25:12):
Oh, I've thought about that a lot. First of all,
I think he wanted to impress me. Being the chief
of Aerospace Medicine, I was able to go to most
of the locations on Cape Canaveral, whereas the average person
(25:34):
was only cleared to go into their own work area,
so compartmentalized security. One of the other things was that
there were lots of stuff because we supported the Space Shuttle,
you know, I would sometimes go out locally with some
(25:54):
of the astronauts and do all kinds of things, and
so those storylies got around and so that you know,
people I didn't know it asked me, what was it
like to have dinner with an astronaut? Well, we all
ate the same food, so okay, you know this this
(26:14):
one time, this is a funny story. But I'd gone out,
we'd been having a meeting, and so at lunch we
decided to go out to Taco bell I won't say
the name of the astronaut so he doesn't get dumped on.
But it was busy and the lines were sort of
winding back around before you could get up to where
(26:37):
you order. Well, just ahead of us, there was a
middle aged guy, a little bit heavy, he had very
little hair left, but he was with this young lady
that was probably twenty three, and you know, was attractive,
(26:58):
and so he was really trying to impress her, and
he was talking loud enough that we had to hear him,
whether he wanted to or not. And he was saying,
I had breakfast with the mayor of Sadllite Beach this morning.
I told the mayor, you know, and he's going on
and on about this. So after four or five minutes,
(27:18):
you know, we're winding around, and I'd had enough of him.
So I looked over at the astronaut and said, hey,
where did you have dinner when when you got back
from space? And he said, oh, President Reagan had to
set the White House, so we got to eat at
(27:40):
the White House. And so he went on for just
a minute or two. Well, as soon as he shut up,
so did this other guy. We did not hear anything
about the fact that he had to eat and breakfast
with the mayor of Satellite Beach. And then, to make
it worse, as they were getting their food, the girls
(28:02):
stopped went over to my friend and said, can I
have your autograph? So he signed the autograph, and the
middle aged guy that had been trying to impress the
girl was completely quiet. He went over and sit down
and minded his own business. Well to a certain extent,
(28:26):
humans like to share information when I was aboard the
USS mont Hillier, I was in my NASA flight suit,
but I wasn't really supposed to be there. I'd only
been brought on board because of an injury. But because
I worked with a space shuttle, they said, well, you know,
(28:47):
we really shouldn't be showing you the sonar room because
it's classified, but we want to show you what we
can do. So they took me in there, and that
was technically a secure violation, but in the military that
kind of stuff happens all the time. And so this
guy had something that he said, you've never seen this before,
(29:11):
and when he took me in, they're sure enough, I
hadn't seen it before. But you know, if you were
out on the beach and you walked along and you
found a ring in the sand, you go back to
the people you're with and say, hey, look, here's the
ring that I found. Why would you do that? Well,
(29:33):
you want to share with them. So I think part
of it was to try to impress me specifically, but
part of it was also, wow, look at the ring
I found in the beach. This is this is really something. Well,
it's not a ring on the beach, it's a flying saucer.
So if you know, he had to think, well, doc's
(29:58):
got at least as good as the clearances I do,
so I'll go ahead and show him this thing.
Speaker 2 (30:06):
That is an interesting point that a flight doc would
have much better clearance across all these compartmentalized areas, more
than your normal pilot. Not that you necessarily need to
know from a technical aspect, but you do need to
know in order to treat the people that work in
those areas.
Speaker 1 (30:24):
You know, at Luke Air Force Base, when I was
receiving training for the F sixteen, the flight surgeons from
that flight surgeon clinic flew the F sixteen and the
F fifteen that was also there. Well, I was only
there to fly F sixteen, so I asked one of
(30:47):
the guys, Hey, jenn, I just go sit in the
F fifteen and have somebody show me what everything is.
And they said, sorry, you have the clearance, but you
don't have the need to know. Can't take you over there.
So even on the same base, I could not get in,
and yet the flight surgeon for the squadrons flew both aircraft.
Speaker 2 (31:12):
Okay, I see, so there's still strange rules in the military.
I remember with compartmentalization. So in nineteen ninety two, was
there any NASA or DoD policy about discussing anomalist craft
sightings or did you hear anything at all about UAPs.
Speaker 1 (31:34):
I did not hear any formal briefing, but I knew
very well that on the rare occasion that someone brought
it up, it was the discussion was quickly stopped, and
that was not something that was encouraged. In fact, it
was a conversation that would be immediately stifled. So I
(31:59):
did not need a formal briefing to realize you don't
mention UFOs.
Speaker 2 (32:05):
And that was that NASA or you noticed that throughout
the military.
Speaker 1 (32:10):
NASA and the Air Force. You know, for NASA they
did not want the astronauts talking about anything even remotely
related to UAPs, and the Air Force was the same way.
You look, even today, the Navy authorized the release of
the FA eighteen Super Hornet videos, and they allowed three
(32:35):
of them to be released. How many have the Air
Force released? No? Nothing, So even today they don't want
to discuss UAPs, even before Congress, so the Air Force
has not released any videos, They have released no evidence.
(32:55):
If that is true. In twenty twenty five, you would
have to imagine what was it like in nineteen ninety two.
So yeah, I was seriously considering that if I had
spoken about the flying saucer that I saw, that could
(33:19):
possibly be a career ending event. Okay.
Speaker 2 (33:25):
This leads into the next question. Looking back, would you
have handled the decision to stay silent any differently?
Speaker 1 (33:34):
No? Yeah, like you explained that, there is no way
that in nineteen ninety two I was going to tell
anybody what I saw wasn't going to happen if it
wasn't for the twenty seventeen New York Times article that
(33:56):
they released and the subsequent discussions by the Navy. These
things are real, and the congressional hearings being held in Congress,
where very valid people that I have great respect for
have gone forward and said, look, this is what is
(34:18):
going on. If it weren't for all of that, I
probably wouldn't be speaking about it right now.
Speaker 2 (34:26):
This is from kat Zaj. Did you ever encounter or
witness other craft of unknown origin besides the craft and
the hangar?
Speaker 1 (34:36):
I did not.
Speaker 2 (34:39):
Okay, I really liked this question. How similar was the
craft you saw to Bob Lazar's sports model description?
Speaker 1 (34:48):
Okay, well, boy, that is an interesting question. If you
took the sports model and you sort of rounded all
of the surf, because there were no lines of distinction
anywhere on the craft, but if you sort of added
(35:09):
styrofoam to the outside and made everything smooth, it would
be extremely similar to the sports model that Bubblazar described.
Speaker 2 (35:23):
An audience member also reminded me that Bob Azar said
the sports model had US Air Force markings.
Speaker 1 (35:31):
Well, all all flight models that are authorized for contractors
to build are always going to have US Air Force
and US Air Force markings. You know, when the YF
twenty two and YF twenty three were having their flyoffs,
(35:53):
those were not owned by the US Air Force. They
were owned by the contractor consortiums. Yet they still had
US Air Force and they still had US Air Force markings.
And so neither the YF twenty two nor the YF
twenty three was actually owned by the Air Force. They
were owned by the contractors. When the Air Force decided
(36:16):
we will accept the YF twenty two, the consortium owning
that had to go back and then make all of
the changes needed to turn it from an experimental craft
to the product that would actually be flown by US
(36:37):
Air Force pilots, and so it took a couple of
years and they had to make a number of modifications,
and then when it was finally built to an acceptable level,
the US Air Force purchase the F twenty twos and
have flown the F twenty twos, but the US Air
(36:58):
Force never owned the YF twins or the YF twenty three.
Speaker 2 (37:04):
I included that those pictures of the yfs in the
original interview, do you believe the tic TAC encounters recorded
by Navy pilots are from the same origin or technology line?
Speaker 1 (37:20):
That is conceivable? Now, then imagine that you have a circle. Now,
then as long as it's a perfect circle, it's round
on both ends. Now that if you take that and
you just insert a longitudinal section of the same heighth
as the circle, it extends it out. And so imagine
(37:45):
that all of this is material made of the same
type as the more rounded sections in between, you would
have a straight segment with the rounded ends. And so
(38:05):
all you have to do is extend the space, which
gives more room for a possible pilot, flight guidance, propulsion,
electrical systems, and all of that. So this vehicle may
not have been big enough to put all of that in.
You stretch it out and have a connection here. That
(38:30):
gives a lot more space within the vehicle. All of
a sudden, all of the stuff that was being fed
by umbilicals might be internal, So that would be a possibility.
The only thing is that, aside from its appearance, it
demonstrated anomaloist activity because of what it was capable of
(38:54):
doing in flight. So the vehicle I saw was inside
a hangar. You could not see it fly four hundred
miles an hour because it would have run into a wall.
I really can't say whether I think that might be
(39:18):
the same technology that I saw expanded by you know,
twenty years or whether or not it was an actual
UAP and was beyond our capabilities. My gut instinct was
(39:39):
that that was a real UAP and it was beyond
their capabilities.
Speaker 2 (39:44):
Okay, these next few questions are actually about human factors
and space medicine. The audience really liked several of your stories.
From the first interview.
Speaker 1 (39:55):
We found out a lot about spaceflight. Once humans were
up there for extended peereriods of time, you know, in
the Mercury days, for instance, we did not have any
instances of significant space motion sickness in the Gemini, we
really didn't either. When we got to Apollo and there
(40:17):
was space inside that they could move around, that that
was when we started to really see, honest to goodness,
space motion sickness. And then with the Space Shuttle. With this,
with the increased amount of internal space and capacity, it
became very common. About two thirds of all astronauts that
(40:41):
went to space in the Space Shuttle got space motion sickness.
But we didn't see it at all in Mercury.
Speaker 2 (40:47):
And how bad is space motion sickness? Does it go
on for days or is it just a few hours.
Speaker 1 (40:54):
Well, it's sort of like saying, you know a person
got COVID. Well, there are some people that had a
few sniffles for twenty four hours. There are some people
who had respiratory involvement and it took them two weeks
to get better. There were some people who died from COVID,
(41:15):
which is a permanent type change. The severity of the
space motion sickness is impossible to predict. Most of it
resolves within twenty four to forty eight hours, but there
are still some people that can have it for multiple days.
Speaker 2 (41:35):
Okay, this question is interesting. What genetic or physiological changes
have you observed in astronauts after long duration spaceflights?
Speaker 1 (41:45):
Okay, well, I did not observe it myself, but I
think the case of the two twins was a perfect
example of this. I believe it. This Mark that stayed
up for more than a year while his brother only
(42:05):
stayed up for a few weeks. At the end of
both of their trips, they did genetic studies, and from
the report that I heard, the genetics of the brother
that had stayed in space for more than a year
(42:26):
had been altered by cosmic.
Speaker 3 (42:28):
Rays and ionizing radiation and other kinds of things, to
the point that while the DNA would say, yes, these
are close brothers, it no.
Speaker 1 (42:43):
Longer said these are genetic twins. So there were enough
changes in the DNA that according to the DNA study,
you know, they didn't really look like genetic twins as
(43:04):
much anymore.
Speaker 2 (43:06):
In the same vein from this question in your medical opinion,
could proximity to such UAP craft propulsion fields mfs could
that cause injury or health effects in humans?
Speaker 1 (43:21):
Absolutely, we know that from all of the studies that
we did. In trying to say what's going to happen
to our astronauts in space. You know, there were commonly
known effects such as gloss of bone density, muscle atrophy,
and so forth, but there were also other kinds of
(43:45):
things that occurred. Every time we sent up a radioisotope,
thermal electric generator, nuclear reactor for a deep space probe,
we would try to launch those as soon as they
got into orbit, because the are t G, even with
its shielding, was giving a slight radiation exposure to the
(44:06):
astronauts in the crew compartment until they got that thing launched. Uh.
We had a case where we had I believe, two
astronauts that spent eight minutes in an EVA at spacewalk,
and they traversed the South Atlantic anomaly, and they received
(44:29):
more radiation during those eight minutes than the rest of
the crew experienced in the entire space flight. So there's
there's lots of things that we see from this. We
we know how chemical factors can cause genetic changes. We
know how ionizing radiation can do it. We even see
(44:55):
effects with microwaves. You know. A quick story sort of
about that was that when I was in Germany, I
would have to give medical talks to the military personnel.
And one of the things I had to do for
the guards was to seriously try to explain to them, yes,
(45:19):
you're warmer when you stand in front of the radar.
It's minus five degrees outside. If you stand in front
of the radar, it's warmer, but you're getting microwaved. You're
causing changes in your body. It's not a good idea.
But when you're standing outside freezing and one of the
(45:41):
guy says, well, I'm going to go stand where it's warm,
they go stand in front of the radar systems and
they're getting microwaved, but it's warm and they're freezing their
toes off. There's just all kinds of things that happened
that most folks never even consider.
Speaker 2 (46:05):
I lived in Turkey for three years, and I thought
it was interesting there. They believe that microwaves are bad
for food, for you to ingest irradiated food, so they
actually don't use microwaves if at all.
Speaker 1 (46:21):
Well, the truth of the matter is that microwave heating
is not the same as heating on a stove. But
the people who would really be able to determine that
were the people who were doing studies on whether or
(46:42):
not they found any deletarious effects when you used microwaves.
And guess what, most of the research was done by
the companies that were making microwaves, so they sort of
had a predetermined outlook before they started this Daddy.
Speaker 2 (47:02):
And there was one question right away when we posted
the first interview. One audience member argued, there was no
digital system that could actually digitally record the video you
said happened. What do you think of that statement?
Speaker 1 (47:22):
I would say he did not work for the Advanced
Systems of the United States Air Force back in ninety.
Speaker 2 (47:28):
Two, so there was definitely digital systems.
Speaker 1 (47:33):
We had technology that wouldn't be released to the plub
for ten or fifteen or twenty years. Yeah, it's funny
to me. It's like the younger generation now that goes
back and says we never went to the Moon. Well,
they don't even think about the concept of what happened.
(47:55):
In nineteen sixty nine. When Apollo eleven launched, astronomers could
watch their spacecraft as it traversed the distance between Earth
and the Moon. If these astronomers from all over the
world were watching the spacecraft go to the moon, guess what,
(48:16):
we really went to the moon. This was during the
height of the Cold War. If the Soviets had been
able to track the vehicle and it did not go
to the Moon, they would have been all over the
place sat Americans are lying. But when you can actually
watch the vehicle as it's traversing the distance to the moon, yes,
(48:39):
we really went there. But people today who really don't
know what we were doing back then on Apollo ten
we went to the moon. We didn't land on the moon,
but we went to the moon. And guess what they
saw the spacecraft go all the way to the moon.
(49:00):
They saw the radar signatures. And if the Soviets had
seen that we had not really sent Apollo ten to
the moon, they would have blasted it everywhere. Apollo nine
went to the moon. Well, guess what we saw the
spacecraft go all the way to the moon. The Soviets
would love to have said that Americans are lying, But
(49:25):
astronomers could use their big telescopes to watch the spacecraft
travel to the moon. And so when people today are
saying things like that, they have no idea what was
going on back in nineteen sixty nine. So you know,
you know, you talk to them and you say, did
(49:47):
you still ride horses to work. Well, no, you know,
we went to the moon. We had cars, you know,
we had helicopters, we had four phantoms. You know, we
had lots of technology that you may not believe that
we had back then, but we had the technology. But
(50:12):
when you know, several people have said you couldn't have
seen it. The computers were not capable of showing that.
Are you kidding me? I was sitting there watching the computer.
I know I saw it. I know the computer capability
was there because I watched it. But I watched it
for a lot of other things. You know, we had
(50:36):
the same kind of systems for all of our launch vehicles,
including the Titan, the Atlas, the Delta, along with the
Space Shuttle. So we had capabilities of all kinds of stuff.
And so somebody today may say, well, you know, they
(50:56):
still had to ride bikes to get to work because
you know, the horse and carriage got stuck in the
mud or something. But that is not what was going
on in nineteen sixty nine, and it certainly isn't what
was going on in nineteen ninety two. I was there,
so I know. So yeah, I'm not even going to
(51:21):
discuss it further because it's not worth.
Speaker 2 (51:23):
It, And we even brought a cart of the moon
and drove it around. From my own experience, I took
astronautics as well as aeronautical engineering at the Air Force
Academy and then my own investigations, I think the most
difficult part is actually leaving the atmosphere of the Earth.
The Earth is such a dense body. Gravity on the
(51:46):
Earth is very high because the Earth is made mostly
out of lead, a very heavy element, and just from
dealing with lasers and weapon systems and electronic attack, atmosphere
attenuates everything. It's just a huge pain dealing with a
dense atmosphere such as the Earth. So if you combine
(52:09):
the heavy gravity of Earth and combine it was with
a thick atmosphere, then I think the most difficult part
is actually leaving the Earth. So once you get away
from the Earth, out of the atmosphere, out of the
heavy gravity, well your problems decrease dramatically. I think the
biggest problems you have out in space is really dealing
with thermal control and sun radiation. But once you deal
(52:32):
with the heat and the actual radiation and keeping the
air inside the spacecraft, I think once you deal with that,
the math is actually quite simple, and then from there
it deals with simple geometry and basic astrophysics. So I
think a lot of people just don't understand the most
difficult part is just getting away from the Earth. But
(52:54):
once you get away from the Earth, everything is more
simple by order of magnitude. And then once you land
on the Moon, what's the most difficult part of landing
on the Moon? Seems like the most difficult part is
the dust, the fine particulate the regolith, So I think
that's the most difficult part of the Moon.
Speaker 1 (53:14):
Especially since the regolith is so spiky. It's sharp and
gritty and causes lots of problems. Gravity exists everywhere. When
a spacecraft like the Space Shuttle is on orbit and
the astronauts appear weightless, it's not because there's no gravity there.
(53:40):
The reason they appear weightless is that you are falling
at the Earth at the same speed as the spacecraft
around you. The gravitation of Earth keeps the Moon from
flying away, the gravitation of the Sun keeps the Earth
from moving away. The only way you can work in
(54:05):
microgravity for the Space Shuttle is that if you launch
and obtain an orbit at a certain height and a
certain speed, for instance, two hundred and ten miles at
seventeen five hundred miles an hour. As soon as the
main engines cut off, you begin to fall. But the
(54:28):
curvature of the fall and the curvature of the earth
are exactly the same, and that's why it has to
be so specific that at this altitude you have to
be on this speed, and so you fall toward the Earth.
I've heard astronauts say that when you get main cut off,
(54:48):
it's like you're standing on an elevator and the floor
falls out and you start to fall. But if it's
a seventeen day mission, you fall for seventeen days, and
so gravity is there. But we're having to exactly match
the fall of the spacecraft and the fall of the
(55:12):
astronauts aboard with the curvature of the earth. If it's
too steep, you're going to re enter the atmosphere and crash.
If it's too fast at that altitude, you will begin
to gain altitude, and over seventeen days, instead instead of
(55:35):
being a two hundred and ten miles, you're now out
at three hundred and forty miles because you have lengthened
the orbit each time you circulated because you were going
too fast. So it's a very delicate balance to be.
You know, that's why astronauts say on orbit instead of
in orbit. If you're in orbit, you can be in
(55:58):
any kind of orbit you want. But each mission for
the Space Shuttle had to be on a specific orbit
this altitude, this speed. If you match it exactly, you'll
have a stable circular orbit. So gravity is still working now.
(56:20):
One of the other things that I think most people
don't understand is that when they had the translunar insertion burn,
they had an escape velocity from Earth of twenty seven
thousand miles. But through the entire time they were traveling
to the Moon, they were going uphill because they were
(56:41):
fighting gravity, so they kept slowing and slowing and slowing
and slowing, and at the interface between the lunar gravity
and the Earth's gravity, they had slowed down to like
eight thousand miles an hour. So you know, two days
ago they were twenty seven thousand miles an hour. Now
they're down to eight thousand miles an hour. But once
(57:04):
you pause past that interface, you begin to speed up
because now the mass of the Moon has a gravitational
force that will increase the speed because you're starting to
fall again, and so by the time the astronauts would
get into lunar orbit, their speed increase significantly.
Speaker 2 (57:28):
Okay, final few questions, Doc Rogers. If called to testify
before Congress, what would be your core message?
Speaker 1 (57:41):
It's real. We have a bunch of people who have
said it's real. Particularly, I would relate to David Grush
because he said I did not personally see UAPs, but
I spoke to lots and lots of people who have,
and I've read reports, and so he tells all of
(58:02):
those reports that he had because he was working for
the NRO, he was working for the intelligence community, so
he had access to lots and lots of information far
beyond what I would know. The one advantage I have
is that he said there are people who have seen
reverse engineered craft. Well, when he said that, I thought, well,
(58:28):
that's me. I actually saw a reverse engineered aircraft. So
while he has to talk about it from the second
persons standpoint, if I actually spoke to Congress, I would say, look,
I saw this. No one told me about it. I
saw it with my own mark one eyeballs.
Speaker 2 (58:53):
I hope you do speak in front of Congress stock
Do you think the secrecy around ups is more about
national security or protecting corporate advantage.
Speaker 1 (59:07):
I think it's both of those plus a lot of
other things. When we were going to invade Normandy, we
made a big effort to make it look like we
were really attacking Calais. So for our adversaries, we sometimes
(59:29):
provide them with a lot of information, but that information
could be entirely false, and so we're wanting to mislead them.
So there are going to be times when we provide
information but that information is false and it's fault on purpose.
If a company has a capability that they have gained,
(59:55):
or let's put it this way, if government scientists found
a discovery from the study of UAPs, what are you
going to do with it? If you say, well, we
want this company to be able to produce this effect
(01:00:16):
from it, and we give the technology to that company,
but there are twelve other companies that we don't share
that information with. As soon as it comes out that
this company is making all this money because the United
States government preferentially selected this company, every one of the
other companies are going to be suing the government for everything.
(01:00:38):
We've got. Well, does that mean that we have to
give every piece of evidence to every company? Well, you know,
that's a really difficult decision, and so most people who
have not worked with contractors and realize the competition between them.
(01:00:58):
If you give a leg up to one company, you've
got to deal with it. Once we decided to send
up Coca Cola to Space because Coca Cola came and said,
we want to be the first off drink in Space.
Will you let us do that? And they said, well,
(01:01:18):
you know you're going to have to come up with
a dispensing mechanism. You just popped the top of a
can and the internal pressure is going to cause it
to spray everywhere, so you'll have to come with a
dispensing mechanism. Once you come up with a dispensing mechanism,
that'll be great. We'll just charge you for the weight.
And they said, well, you know, if we had like
(01:01:40):
a six pack seventy two ounces of how much would
that cost us? And sixty nine thousand dollars they said,
we spend more than that for a commercial at the
Super Bowl. We'll send two of them. Everything was fine
until about six months before the mission, and then all
of a sudden, Pepsi Cola found out that Coca Cola
(01:02:01):
had been authorized by NASA to be the first soft
drink in space. So they filed a lawsuit against NASA.
And then the next thing you know, rc Cola, doctor Pepper,
everybody's filing lawsuits. Companies from overseas that make their own
cola are filing lawsuits against NASA because they did not
(01:02:24):
give a competitive bid for the action we were taking.
And so something as simple as well, we'll send up
some Coca Cola, No, we ended up with a whole
bunch of lawsuits.
Speaker 2 (01:02:40):
So you can imagine what the UAB topic would bring
if that was just coke go into space.
Speaker 1 (01:02:47):
Well, if there was a capability that one company earned
twelve billion dollars and the other companies earned nothing from
the technology, what do you think their board of directors
are going They're going to sue NASA and the government
for everything we've got.
Speaker 2 (01:03:06):
So how do you think public knowledge of this technology
would change the world.
Speaker 1 (01:03:18):
Every time we improved technology in some fashion, there's always
a repercussion. During the Manhattan Project, one of the scientists
accidentally discovered polytetraflora ethylene and it was such a stable
component that they could coat particles and elements within the
(01:03:49):
nuclear weapon with polytetraflor ethylene and they would remain stable
and non corrosive, because a lot of the nuclear materials
very corrosive. So at the time, polytetrafloor ethylene was one
of the most guarded secrets on this entire planet. You know,
(01:04:12):
I think it was like five or six years later
they found some other things that were better for it,
so they said, well, we'll go ahead and release the
polytetraflor ethylene. And so the company that owned the rights
to it said, well, what can we do with it?
And they said, what if we put it on a
pan so that you can fry eggs without it sticking.
(01:04:35):
So they said, okay, well we'll call it teflon, and
so what had previously been one of the most classified
products on Earth became the teflon skillets that we were
frying our eggs with. Every technology is going to have benefits,
there are side effects. Well. Polytetrafloor ethylene as well as
(01:04:58):
all of those things, are also the products that are
making the pfoas that are permanent chemicals that are found
all over our planet. You can go to Antarctica draw
blood from a penguin and they've got pfoas in their bloodstream.
It's everywhere. How are we ever going to get rid
(01:05:21):
of it? Well, truthfully, we're not. But at the time
that we released teflon to be used on skillets, we
had no idea the effect that we would have sixty
seventy years later with these persisting chemicals pfoas that we
(01:05:44):
can't get rid of. But we also don't know exactly
how dangerous they are. There are no easy answers.
Speaker 2 (01:05:55):
That's a great analogy. Thank you so much, douc Rogers
for all your experience and your knowledge and for the
courage to speak out on this topic. Thanks your time
coming on the show.
Speaker 1 (01:06:08):
Well sure, now, then if you still know somebody that
can get me an F sixteen flight, I would sure
getting back in the cockpit, because retiring from flying is
a difficult thing to give up.
Speaker 2 (01:06:26):
Check my rolodex, see what I can come up with.
Speaker 1 (01:06:31):
Yeah. Well, the one thing on my bucket list that
I never did was I wanted to land and take
off from a carrier on a smooth seed during the
middle of the day. Now then I don't want to
do it at night. I don't want to do it.
You're in a storm. You know. The Apollo or the
(01:06:52):
Space Shuttle astronauts routinely said that landing on a carrier
at night is far more differenticult than anything they did
with the Space Shuttle.
Speaker 2 (01:07:05):
Seems like it wouldn't be that hard, to be honest,
Like they always complain about landing on the carrier. It
was dark, it was raining. But in the Air Force
we talked about fighting. That's what I liked. And the
Navy guy has always talked about landing.
Speaker 1 (01:07:20):
The difference is, you know, first of all, they're naval aviators.
They will claim that aviators are better than pilots, but
every time you take off, you don't know if you're
going into combat. You may think I'm likely to get
into a dogfight with a MiG over Baghdad in nineteen
(01:07:44):
ninety one. Well, for the naval aviators, every time they
take off, they know they've got to land on that
carrier and the space is so small that they've got
to hit. There have been monitors put on naval aviators,
(01:08:07):
and you know, it doesn't matter how experienced you are
for a night landing in weather. Their heartbeats go crazy.
You know, they're sitting there at one hundred and fifty
beats per minute as they're coming down there because of
the stress they're under. You know, when the Navy astronauts said,
(01:08:34):
look flat out, it's harder to land on a carrier
at night in weather than anything we do as a
space shut on, I believe them. You know. I was
in the Air Force, and I hate to give credit
to the Navy, but that that is a more difficult task.
Speaker 2 (01:08:56):
Yeah, I can't do it. I can't be that hard,
all right, Doc, have a great thank you, sir, No,
you have one too, Okay, couldn't help myself slightly tongue
in cheek. I did have a friend, a famous Canadian pilot.
He was in exchange to Alaska sugar licine, and he
(01:09:17):
had five thousand fighter hours, et cetera. And he did
actually get to land on a carrier like Doc Rogers
his dream. And it was interesting because he practiced on
the land. They have a little carrier drawn out on
a runway carrier strip and he practiced with a pilot
in the back, instructor pilot. That's normal when you go
to learn some new skill normally and then he went
(01:09:39):
out to the carrier to actually do the first practice
landings for real on the carrier, and he said it
was interesting because in the ready room he was counting
around and there just weren't enough pilots there. He was thinking,
you know, where are the instructor pilots, But there weren't
any instructor pilots. They flew the student pilots alone. So
your first flight landing on a carrier, at least for
(01:10:01):
Sugar Lacine, was solo. So you're doing it alone, no
instructors in the back. So I think that does highlight
how dangerous it is. So it probably is dangerous. But
again that's what the Navy pilot's talk about is landing,
and in the Air Force we only talked about, for
the most part, was fighting. But that wraps up the
(01:10:21):
special follow up Q and A with doctor Gregory Rogers.
I want to thank doctor Rogers once again for taking
the time to share his insights and experiences and having
the courage to speak out. Like you said, he knew
people their careers. Ended his previous book, we highlighted the
first interview was actually taken down. The publisher removed it
(01:10:42):
as soon as he came out with his story. So
I also want to thank all of you the Later
Files audience for sending in such thoughtful and challenging questions.
It really added a lot of depth and I thought
it was really great for the interview. So our first
interview with doctor Rogers became the most watched video on
this channel or the year, and it's clear from your
engagement and curiosity that this is a conversation that matters,
(01:11:06):
and I think it does. If you found this interview valuable,
please make sure to like, share, and subscribe so you
don't miss out on future discussions and as always, keep
asking questions, keep seeking the truth, and stay tuned for
more Lato files. If you want to support my channel
further my work, then please go to patreon dot com,
(01:11:26):
forward slash Chris Lato and sign up. It's five dollars
a month really helps, or you can become a YouTube
member like all these fine people. Thank skin, have a
great rest of your day, peace,
I thought, you know, this is the ultimate, and then
all of a sudden it rotated and there was US
air force on it. So no, this is the ultimate.
There may be some physics that I just simply do
not understand, but the electromagnetic discharges did not seem to
(00:22):
relate to the motion that I witnessed from the craft itself.
I strongly believe that it was a reproduction vehicle, probably
owned by a defense contractor such as Rockwell or Lockey.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
Martin Marrietta, I want to thank doctor Rogers once again
for taking this time to share his insights and experiences.
I know it's not easy to be a whistleblower, so
I'm very happy to share this. Chris Later, Welcome to
Later Files. Today, doctor Rogers is back for a special
(01:16):
Q and A session answering your questions directly giving deeper
info into his first hand account, and sharing insights on
space medicine, secrecy and the bigger picture of disclosure. Thank
you for being here again, Doc Rogers. How are you
(01:37):
doing today, sir?
Speaker 1 (01:40):
Doing fine?
Speaker 2 (01:42):
First question from Guy Lauren, did you ever treat any
NASA patients who sustained injuries possibly due to U A
P effects or strange exposure.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
I would say, no, Okay, I've treated patients that were
exposed to chemicals and ionizing radiation, but not due to
exposure for UAPs or non human.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
Intelligence or anomalous effects.
Speaker 1 (02:22):
I guess.
Speaker 2 (02:22):
So you didn't treat anything where they didn't know the
source of the injury.
Speaker 1 (02:29):
No, we pretty much knew the source of all of
the injuries that I dealt with.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
Excellent. Next question, how large was the craft you saw
in nineteen ninety two and can you describe its exact shape, surface,
and markings.
Speaker 1 (02:46):
Sure? In fact, do you have the reconstruction that you
showed on the previous video.
Speaker 2 (02:57):
Yes, so I'll show it right now so the audience can.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
Oh, okay, yeah. I think that's the best attempt anyone
has done to recreate what I saw. The vehicle was
about twenty foot wide. I would estimate the reason I
did that was because there were a couple of gentlemen
off to the lower left on the video, and there
(03:21):
were three guys over to the middle section on the
far right, and so comparing their bodies to the craft,
I would say it was probably twenty foot wide eight
to ten feet tall, not including the mast. There was
a mast at the top of the dome and then
(03:43):
umbilicals that went from the mast offscreen in an upward fashion.
But it's an amazing craft to see. And then, you know,
like I testified before, I thought this is the ultimate,
and then all of a sudden it rotated and there
(04:03):
was US Air Force on it, So no, no, this
is the ultimate. So it was pretty crazy.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
And you said it was in a regular air forced hangar.
Was it in like an F sixteen size hangar?
Speaker 1 (04:22):
Yeah, and F sixteen would fit there. In F thirty
five HH three helicopter, which is what I was flying
in most often there any of the helicopters. It looked
like just a typical military hangar. Any aircraft could have
(04:44):
been inside and I wouldn't have been surprised.
Speaker 2 (04:48):
Next question, were the electromagnetic effects you observed? Were they
similar to any known propulsion or energy systems you've encountered
in aerospace, medicine oreering.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
Okay, they were absolutely not. When I saw the electromagnetic
initiation of activity, it was completely different from anything I
had seen within the Air Force or NASA, and there
(05:22):
were a lot of puzzling aspects of it. One of
the things that I've tried to figure out, Okay, what's
the meaning of it? There were not the electromagnetic discharges
at all areas of the spacecraft at any given time.
(05:46):
There were only a few of them, but they could
be anywhere on the surface of the vehicle. And even
if as it was rising, even as it was rotating
three hundred and sixty degrees clockwise, three sixty counterclockwise, and
then moving left and right, forward and back, and then
(06:09):
into a forty five degree angle of attack, the location
and number of electromagnetic discharges never seemed sufficient to be
the source of the motion of the craft. You know,
if I was going to expect something, for instance, as
(06:32):
it was levitating, I would expect more electromagnetic discharges being
on the under surface in order to lift the craft.
But that was not at all what I saw. There
were very few discharges under the craft, and most of
(06:53):
them were actually on the upper surface. So there may
be some physics that I just simply do not understand,
but the electromagnetic discharges did not seem to relate to
the motion that I witnessed from the craft itself.
Speaker 2 (07:17):
Okay, And if anyone in the audience wanted to go back,
you can watch the original interview link in the description,
and Doc Rogers goes into much more detail on how
we saw this video in the first place, So check
that out. So next question, why do you think it
had external umbilicals and what might they have been providing.
Speaker 1 (07:36):
Well, there's not that many choices of why there were umbilicals.
The umbilicals were present because something inside the craft was
insufficient for flight operations. If all energy sources were in,
(08:01):
you would not need to supply energy from the outside.
So I would expect that one of the umbilicals was
an energy source, whether there's electricity or something else. If
you had all of the craft mechanical controls internal, you
(08:26):
would not need to feed any through the external umbilicals.
I can't say what was in the umbilicals, but the
first thing that occurred to me was, first of all, electricity.
If this craft needed a lot of energy to perform
as I saw it happening, I would expect that one
(08:51):
of those umbilicals, at least maybe two of them were
busy supplying the energy for the craft to move, especially
as I saw a number of electromagnetic discharges. You know,
if you were powering the craft and you had a
(09:12):
nuclear source on board, you would not need power supplied
as long as the nuclear source was sufficient to provide
the amount of energy required. If the source was either
not available or non functional to the level required for operations,
(09:34):
then I would feel certain that at least one of
the mbilicals was electricity. So I can only guess as
to what all it was, But it brings up the
question of whether or not this was an actual UAP
that we had not been able to operate effectively, and
(09:56):
that's why we required umbilicals. But I I strongly believe
that it was a reproduction vehicle, probably owned by a
defense contractor such as Rockwell or Lockeed Martin Marriott. It
(10:19):
wasn't Lockeed Martin at that time because Lockeed and Martin
Marriott it did not combine until nineteen ninety five, so
it could have been one or more of the defense
contractors that owned the craft. And I don't believe it
had been turned over to the Air Force ship. I
(10:47):
saw none of the personnel that I would have expected
for security if that was a UAP and it was
an actual UAP that we were activating, I would have
expected security personnel all over because I had been around
(11:07):
other spacecraft that we were preparing to launch, and especially
if it was NSACIA DoD missions. The security was extremely
tight and there were security personnel all over, and I
saw no security personnel there at all, So that's another
(11:28):
factor in why I think it was a contractor owned vehicle.
Speaker 2 (11:34):
Yeah, you said there's not that many options for the cabling.
Seems like you have three options that I can think of.
One would be power, second would be control systems, and
then telemetry. But you're probably getting telemetry right there just
videoing the craft. But if that electronic electrostatic anti gravity
(11:56):
system that they're using is interfering with signals in and
out of the craft, maybe that's why you need like
a telemetry and control system cable.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
One of the ways to monitor the craft was simple
put up a closed circuit TV camera so you could
watch it. Well, guess what, that's what I was looking at.
So it I just have to believe that those three
umbilicals were present because they had developed the craft to
(12:26):
a certain point, but not a point to where it
was autonomous. So you know, it's the difference between a
toy that is attached to a battery pack and a
toy that is radio controlled.
Speaker 2 (12:46):
It's also interesting you brought up the contractor as well,
because I worked in the Air Force. I actually worked
with contracts. I oversaw a Lockheed Arrow contract and I
had asked, we had asked, the government asked to get
software from Lockheed Main Aerospace, but the smaller subsidiary, Lockheed
(13:09):
Aero could not get the software from the main Lockheed
because they're different companies. It's actually a subsidiary of the
larger Lockheed company, and they did not have access to
the data which was originally government owned. They would not
share it across these two companies. If you look, there's
many subsidiaries of Lockheed. My favorite is Helicopter Support Operations.
(13:30):
Seems like that's just a perfect place to hide one
of these programs.
Speaker 1 (13:36):
Well, the contractors that I dealt with, especially at the KATE,
were many and varied, and if it was information owned
by the US Air Force, we would share with all
of the contractors generally speaking. However, if one of the
(13:57):
contractors owned a piece of information, then it was considered proprietary,
so they did not have to share it because they
owned it. And then also something that a lot of
people don't realize was that if it's proprietary information. You
do not have access through the Freedom of Information Act.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
Okay, that is very interesting. It's also frustrating at the
time because it was of sixteen software actually owned by
the government. But when we got it back from one
of these companies, inside the code they wrote in I
believe it was Boeing Boeing proprietary software, and the government
(14:42):
paid them to make the changes to the software that
the government provided, but it came back with proprietary information.
I'm sure they all did this. And then the security guards.
I hadn't thought of that as well. But there was
a lack of security inside and all of your previous experience,
(15:02):
do you expect there to be security inside the hangar?
Speaker 1 (15:07):
Uh when when we were dealing with like n ro
O h uh d I A C I A type missions,
they had security everywhere. You could not go anywhere. You know,
they were watching for anyone trying to take any parts
(15:29):
out that they were looking for anyone who might sneak
a camera in because cameras were strictly forbidden even on
all of Cape Canaveral. As soon as you enter the gate,
it said pro photography is prohibited except for authorized personnel.
(15:50):
You couldn't even take a picture on the cape of
the seashore with without authorization. So, uh, the secure purity
was extremely tight. And if there were people standing around
a vehicle that was ultra classified, to my experience, there's
(16:13):
gonna be security people there. They're going to be checking
you as you go in, checking you as you go out,
make sure you don't try to sneak out any of
the material or parts or anything of this sort, and
the monitoring would be intense. And I didn't see any
(16:33):
evidence of anything like that, and I just have to
feel that that was the reverse engineering craft.
Speaker 2 (16:49):
Next audience question, did you see any signs of a
crew compartment or do you think it was likely unmanned
during the test?
Speaker 1 (16:58):
Well, there was absolutely no evidence of a door or
window into the craft. The surface of it was completely
smooth on its lower surfaces, upper surface, and through the dome.
Now that doesn't mean it wasn't there. There. There could
have been something that I simply was unable to see,
(17:18):
but I saw nothing that that made me think that.
And then also if you have three umbilicals going in,
that tells me that that craft isn't really ready for
full operations. So if I was worried about the electrical
systems or anything like that, I'm not putting a human
being in there. So the you know, one of the
(17:42):
umbilicals could have been all of the control mechanisms, so
that someone from the outside could control all of the
functions of the vehicle without having to be inside it.
Speaker 2 (17:57):
Great points. This is from awakening to reality. Do you
know the name of the person who showed you the footage?
Have you spoken to the person since and would you
be willing to.
Speaker 1 (18:10):
I did not recognize him at the time. I have
not seen him since I do not know his name.
If I knew his name, I would not put it
out anyway, because I have seen times when someone inadvertently
mentioned somebody and the next thing you know, something's going on.
(18:36):
I have a sort of self example of that. We
went out on one mission and it was on a Saturday,
and I was at home, so I grabbed my video
camera and I took it along with me on the
search and rescue mission. We found the victims pretty far
(18:56):
out to see, like ninety miles out to see, and
so I videotaped the rescue of them. When we dropped
them off at the airport at the helipad for the hospital.
We went back to our parking area outside the forty
(19:16):
first year rescue squadron, and there were a number of
people who were reporters, and it had involved Cubans trying
to get to America from Cuba, so you know, it
was a much more interesting rescue than before. Well, I
(19:41):
gave my a few little answers and then I had
for my car. Well, the pilot in command did not
like speaking to the media, and so they were sort
of all over him, and he said, well, I don't
know why you're talking to me. Doc Rogers over there
has video of the whole thing, and they said video boom.
(20:05):
And so I was already getting in my car and
they were circling me, and I tried to say, look,
you know, I don't know anything, leave me alone. So
as I backed out, they ran out there. And so
the televisions people that they had bands with these things
(20:27):
on top so they could transmit it was CBS, NBC,
ABC and CNN. Well, as as I leave the parking lot,
all four of these bands are following me. Okay, So
I stopped at the hospital and dropped off my flight
(20:48):
surgeon and rescue kit, and I told the people, hey,
you got to see this. I've got all of the
news people following me. And they said, oh yeah, sure.
I said no, no, I'll tell what come come to
the door here, and when I drive, I will drive
past this area real slow, and you can see these
people are following me. So I drove past the hospital
(21:11):
door and there they are all four of these television vans. Well,
I called my wife and said, you know, I'm coming home.
If there's anything outside, you might want to clean it
up because ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN are going to
(21:31):
be at our house. And she said, oh, come on, no,
I'm telling you this is going to happen. So I
drove drove around slow and on the way home, I
took extra turns just to mess with them. And uh,
finally I pulled up at my house and pulled into
the parking lot and here they are. These four television
(21:58):
vans are at my front door part there, and they
have people out knocking on the door saying we want
your video. Well, the General lived right across the street
from us, and so you know, in about ten minutes,
I got a phone call and General Morrell said, what's
(22:21):
going on over there. Why are these fans over there? Said, well,
we went out to do this rescue and someone told
them that I had a video, and he said, well,
if it's on an air force craft, aircraft, you can't
release that video. I said, well, sir, I'm not trying to,
(22:43):
but they're here, and he said, well, I'll tell you what.
I'll send a public affairs officer over and you will
turn the VHS tape to him. You know, this is
back when VHS was big. So next thing I knew,
the colonel that was head of public affairs showed up
(23:04):
at my door. I handed it to him. He went off,
so like an hour hour and a half later he
came back and he gave me my video, but he
gave copies of the tapes to each of those networks
and so next thing, you know, this entire video is
(23:30):
on the news and it said official US Air Force video.
And I was in there, well it's say US official
US video when I took it. But it ended up
getting widespread. And we had guys that were preparing for
the next Shuttle launch and they were over at the Bengerer,
(23:51):
Morocco site, and so they had just come back and
as they're walking through the hotel, Atlas has had this
big screen TV right next to the opening to the elevators.
So as they're walking along, all of a sudden, one
of the guys looked over and said, Hey, that's Sergeant Inch.
That's our helicopter. Why is it on CNN International? And
(24:14):
so they all stopped and watched, And then when they
got back, they said, man, you guys were seeing all
over the place, but we watched your the report with
your video over in Marrakesh, Morocco. Well, all of this
(24:35):
started because the pilot said, uh, you know, he wanted
to get rid of him, so he said, hey, doc
Rogers over there has video. And as soon as they
heard video, they went crazy. So I'm you know, it's
real easy to dump on somebody without realizing it. I
don't think that pilot meant to dump on me the
(24:56):
way he did, but as soon as he mentioned video,
my goose was cooked.
Speaker 2 (25:05):
Another question was why do you think that major decided
to show it to you in the first place.
Speaker 1 (25:12):
Oh, I've thought about that a lot. First of all,
I think he wanted to impress me. Being the chief
of Aerospace Medicine, I was able to go to most
of the locations on Cape Canaveral, whereas the average person
(25:34):
was only cleared to go into their own work area,
so compartmentalized security. One of the other things was that
there were lots of stuff because we supported the Space Shuttle,
you know, I would sometimes go out locally with some
(25:54):
of the astronauts and do all kinds of things, and
so those storylies got around and so that you know,
people I didn't know it asked me, what was it
like to have dinner with an astronaut? Well, we all
ate the same food, so okay, you know this this
(26:14):
one time, this is a funny story. But I'd gone out,
we'd been having a meeting, and so at lunch we
decided to go out to Taco bell I won't say
the name of the astronaut so he doesn't get dumped on.
But it was busy and the lines were sort of
winding back around before you could get up to where
(26:37):
you order. Well, just ahead of us, there was a
middle aged guy, a little bit heavy, he had very
little hair left, but he was with this young lady
that was probably twenty three, and you know, was attractive,
(26:58):
and so he was really trying to impress her, and
he was talking loud enough that we had to hear him,
whether he wanted to or not. And he was saying,
I had breakfast with the mayor of Sadllite Beach this morning.
I told the mayor, you know, and he's going on
and on about this. So after four or five minutes,
(27:18):
you know, we're winding around, and I'd had enough of him.
So I looked over at the astronaut and said, hey,
where did you have dinner when when you got back
from space? And he said, oh, President Reagan had to
set the White House, so we got to eat at
(27:40):
the White House. And so he went on for just
a minute or two. Well, as soon as he shut up,
so did this other guy. We did not hear anything
about the fact that he had to eat and breakfast
with the mayor of Satellite Beach. And then, to make
it worse, as they were getting their food, the girls
(28:02):
stopped went over to my friend and said, can I
have your autograph? So he signed the autograph, and the
middle aged guy that had been trying to impress the
girl was completely quiet. He went over and sit down
and minded his own business. Well to a certain extent,
(28:26):
humans like to share information when I was aboard the
USS mont Hillier, I was in my NASA flight suit,
but I wasn't really supposed to be there. I'd only
been brought on board because of an injury. But because
I worked with a space shuttle, they said, well, you know,
(28:47):
we really shouldn't be showing you the sonar room because
it's classified, but we want to show you what we
can do. So they took me in there, and that
was technically a secure violation, but in the military that
kind of stuff happens all the time. And so this
guy had something that he said, you've never seen this before,
(29:11):
and when he took me in, they're sure enough, I
hadn't seen it before. But you know, if you were
out on the beach and you walked along and you
found a ring in the sand, you go back to
the people you're with and say, hey, look, here's the
ring that I found. Why would you do that? Well,
(29:33):
you want to share with them. So I think part
of it was to try to impress me specifically, but
part of it was also, wow, look at the ring
I found in the beach. This is this is really something. Well,
it's not a ring on the beach, it's a flying saucer.
So if you know, he had to think, well, doc's
(29:58):
got at least as good as the clearances I do,
so I'll go ahead and show him this thing.
Speaker 2 (30:06):
That is an interesting point that a flight doc would
have much better clearance across all these compartmentalized areas, more
than your normal pilot. Not that you necessarily need to
know from a technical aspect, but you do need to
know in order to treat the people that work in
those areas.
Speaker 1 (30:24):
You know, at Luke Air Force Base, when I was
receiving training for the F sixteen, the flight surgeons from
that flight surgeon clinic flew the F sixteen and the
F fifteen that was also there. Well, I was only
there to fly F sixteen, so I asked one of
(30:47):
the guys, Hey, jenn, I just go sit in the
F fifteen and have somebody show me what everything is.
And they said, sorry, you have the clearance, but you
don't have the need to know. Can't take you over there.
So even on the same base, I could not get in,
and yet the flight surgeon for the squadrons flew both aircraft.
Speaker 2 (31:12):
Okay, I see, so there's still strange rules in the military.
I remember with compartmentalization. So in nineteen ninety two, was
there any NASA or DoD policy about discussing anomalist craft
sightings or did you hear anything at all about UAPs.
Speaker 1 (31:34):
I did not hear any formal briefing, but I knew
very well that on the rare occasion that someone brought
it up, it was the discussion was quickly stopped, and
that was not something that was encouraged. In fact, it
was a conversation that would be immediately stifled. So I
(31:59):
did not need a formal briefing to realize you don't
mention UFOs.
Speaker 2 (32:05):
And that was that NASA or you noticed that throughout
the military.
Speaker 1 (32:10):
NASA and the Air Force. You know, for NASA they
did not want the astronauts talking about anything even remotely
related to UAPs, and the Air Force was the same way.
You look, even today, the Navy authorized the release of
the FA eighteen Super Hornet videos, and they allowed three
(32:35):
of them to be released. How many have the Air
Force released? No? Nothing, So even today they don't want
to discuss UAPs, even before Congress, so the Air Force
has not released any videos, They have released no evidence.
(32:55):
If that is true. In twenty twenty five, you would
have to imagine what was it like in nineteen ninety two.
So yeah, I was seriously considering that if I had
spoken about the flying saucer that I saw, that could
(33:19):
possibly be a career ending event. Okay.
Speaker 2 (33:25):
This leads into the next question. Looking back, would you
have handled the decision to stay silent any differently?
Speaker 1 (33:34):
No? Yeah, like you explained that, there is no way
that in nineteen ninety two I was going to tell
anybody what I saw wasn't going to happen if it
wasn't for the twenty seventeen New York Times article that
(33:56):
they released and the subsequent discussions by the Navy. These
things are real, and the congressional hearings being held in Congress,
where very valid people that I have great respect for
have gone forward and said, look, this is what is
(34:18):
going on. If it weren't for all of that, I
probably wouldn't be speaking about it right now.
Speaker 2 (34:26):
This is from kat Zaj. Did you ever encounter or
witness other craft of unknown origin besides the craft and
the hangar?
Speaker 1 (34:36):
I did not.
Speaker 2 (34:39):
Okay, I really liked this question. How similar was the
craft you saw to Bob Lazar's sports model description?
Speaker 1 (34:48):
Okay, well, boy, that is an interesting question. If you
took the sports model and you sort of rounded all
of the surf, because there were no lines of distinction
anywhere on the craft, but if you sort of added
(35:09):
styrofoam to the outside and made everything smooth, it would
be extremely similar to the sports model that Bubblazar described.
Speaker 2 (35:23):
An audience member also reminded me that Bob Azar said
the sports model had US Air Force markings.
Speaker 1 (35:31):
Well, all all flight models that are authorized for contractors
to build are always going to have US Air Force
and US Air Force markings. You know, when the YF
twenty two and YF twenty three were having their flyoffs,
(35:53):
those were not owned by the US Air Force. They
were owned by the contractor consortiums. Yet they still had
US Air Force and they still had US Air Force markings.
And so neither the YF twenty two nor the YF
twenty three was actually owned by the Air Force. They
were owned by the contractors. When the Air Force decided
(36:16):
we will accept the YF twenty two, the consortium owning
that had to go back and then make all of
the changes needed to turn it from an experimental craft
to the product that would actually be flown by US
(36:37):
Air Force pilots, and so it took a couple of
years and they had to make a number of modifications,
and then when it was finally built to an acceptable level,
the US Air Force purchase the F twenty twos and
have flown the F twenty twos, but the US Air
(36:58):
Force never owned the YF twins or the YF twenty three.
Speaker 2 (37:04):
I included that those pictures of the yfs in the
original interview, do you believe the tic TAC encounters recorded
by Navy pilots are from the same origin or technology line?
Speaker 1 (37:20):
That is conceivable? Now, then imagine that you have a circle. Now,
then as long as it's a perfect circle, it's round
on both ends. Now that if you take that and
you just insert a longitudinal section of the same heighth
as the circle, it extends it out. And so imagine
(37:45):
that all of this is material made of the same
type as the more rounded sections in between, you would
have a straight segment with the rounded ends. And so
(38:05):
all you have to do is extend the space, which
gives more room for a possible pilot, flight guidance, propulsion,
electrical systems, and all of that. So this vehicle may
not have been big enough to put all of that in.
You stretch it out and have a connection here. That
(38:30):
gives a lot more space within the vehicle. All of
a sudden, all of the stuff that was being fed
by umbilicals might be internal, So that would be a possibility.
The only thing is that, aside from its appearance, it
demonstrated anomaloist activity because of what it was capable of
(38:54):
doing in flight. So the vehicle I saw was inside
a hangar. You could not see it fly four hundred
miles an hour because it would have run into a wall.
I really can't say whether I think that might be
(39:18):
the same technology that I saw expanded by you know,
twenty years or whether or not it was an actual
UAP and was beyond our capabilities. My gut instinct was
(39:39):
that that was a real UAP and it was beyond
their capabilities.
Speaker 2 (39:44):
Okay, these next few questions are actually about human factors
and space medicine. The audience really liked several of your stories.
From the first interview.
Speaker 1 (39:55):
We found out a lot about spaceflight. Once humans were
up there for extended peereriods of time, you know, in
the Mercury days, for instance, we did not have any
instances of significant space motion sickness in the Gemini, we
really didn't either. When we got to Apollo and there
(40:17):
was space inside that they could move around, that that
was when we started to really see, honest to goodness,
space motion sickness. And then with the Space Shuttle. With this,
with the increased amount of internal space and capacity, it
became very common. About two thirds of all astronauts that
(40:41):
went to space in the Space Shuttle got space motion sickness.
But we didn't see it at all in Mercury.
Speaker 2 (40:47):
And how bad is space motion sickness? Does it go
on for days or is it just a few hours.
Speaker 1 (40:54):
Well, it's sort of like saying, you know a person
got COVID. Well, there are some people that had a
few sniffles for twenty four hours. There are some people
who had respiratory involvement and it took them two weeks
to get better. There were some people who died from COVID,
(41:15):
which is a permanent type change. The severity of the
space motion sickness is impossible to predict. Most of it
resolves within twenty four to forty eight hours, but there
are still some people that can have it for multiple days.
Speaker 2 (41:35):
Okay, this question is interesting. What genetic or physiological changes
have you observed in astronauts after long duration spaceflights?
Speaker 1 (41:45):
Okay, well, I did not observe it myself, but I
think the case of the two twins was a perfect
example of this. I believe it. This Mark that stayed
up for more than a year while his brother only
(42:05):
stayed up for a few weeks. At the end of
both of their trips, they did genetic studies, and from
the report that I heard, the genetics of the brother
that had stayed in space for more than a year
(42:26):
had been altered by cosmic.
Speaker 3 (42:28):
Rays and ionizing radiation and other kinds of things, to
the point that while the DNA would say, yes, these
are close brothers, it no.
Speaker 1 (42:43):
Longer said these are genetic twins. So there were enough
changes in the DNA that according to the DNA study,
you know, they didn't really look like genetic twins as
(43:04):
much anymore.
Speaker 2 (43:06):
In the same vein from this question in your medical opinion,
could proximity to such UAP craft propulsion fields mfs could
that cause injury or health effects in humans?
Speaker 1 (43:21):
Absolutely, we know that from all of the studies that
we did. In trying to say what's going to happen
to our astronauts in space. You know, there were commonly
known effects such as gloss of bone density, muscle atrophy,
and so forth, but there were also other kinds of
(43:45):
things that occurred. Every time we sent up a radioisotope,
thermal electric generator, nuclear reactor for a deep space probe,
we would try to launch those as soon as they
got into orbit, because the are t G, even with
its shielding, was giving a slight radiation exposure to the
(44:06):
astronauts in the crew compartment until they got that thing launched. Uh.
We had a case where we had I believe, two
astronauts that spent eight minutes in an EVA at spacewalk,
and they traversed the South Atlantic anomaly, and they received
(44:29):
more radiation during those eight minutes than the rest of
the crew experienced in the entire space flight. So there's
there's lots of things that we see from this. We
we know how chemical factors can cause genetic changes. We
know how ionizing radiation can do it. We even see
(44:55):
effects with microwaves. You know. A quick story sort of
about that was that when I was in Germany, I
would have to give medical talks to the military personnel.
And one of the things I had to do for
the guards was to seriously try to explain to them, yes,
(45:19):
you're warmer when you stand in front of the radar.
It's minus five degrees outside. If you stand in front
of the radar, it's warmer, but you're getting microwaved. You're
causing changes in your body. It's not a good idea.
But when you're standing outside freezing and one of the
(45:41):
guy says, well, I'm going to go stand where it's warm,
they go stand in front of the radar systems and
they're getting microwaved, but it's warm and they're freezing their
toes off. There's just all kinds of things that happened
that most folks never even consider.
Speaker 2 (46:05):
I lived in Turkey for three years, and I thought
it was interesting there. They believe that microwaves are bad
for food, for you to ingest irradiated food, so they
actually don't use microwaves if at all.
Speaker 1 (46:21):
Well, the truth of the matter is that microwave heating
is not the same as heating on a stove. But
the people who would really be able to determine that
were the people who were doing studies on whether or
(46:42):
not they found any deletarious effects when you used microwaves.
And guess what, most of the research was done by
the companies that were making microwaves, so they sort of
had a predetermined outlook before they started this Daddy.
Speaker 2 (47:02):
And there was one question right away when we posted
the first interview. One audience member argued, there was no
digital system that could actually digitally record the video you
said happened. What do you think of that statement?
Speaker 1 (47:22):
I would say he did not work for the Advanced
Systems of the United States Air Force back in ninety.
Speaker 2 (47:28):
Two, so there was definitely digital systems.
Speaker 1 (47:33):
We had technology that wouldn't be released to the plub
for ten or fifteen or twenty years. Yeah, it's funny
to me. It's like the younger generation now that goes
back and says we never went to the Moon. Well,
they don't even think about the concept of what happened.
(47:55):
In nineteen sixty nine. When Apollo eleven launched, astronomers could
watch their spacecraft as it traversed the distance between Earth
and the Moon. If these astronomers from all over the
world were watching the spacecraft go to the moon, guess what,
(48:16):
we really went to the moon. This was during the
height of the Cold War. If the Soviets had been
able to track the vehicle and it did not go
to the Moon, they would have been all over the
place sat Americans are lying. But when you can actually
watch the vehicle as it's traversing the distance to the moon, yes,
(48:39):
we really went there. But people today who really don't
know what we were doing back then on Apollo ten
we went to the moon. We didn't land on the moon,
but we went to the moon. And guess what they
saw the spacecraft go all the way to the moon.
(49:00):
They saw the radar signatures. And if the Soviets had
seen that we had not really sent Apollo ten to
the moon, they would have blasted it everywhere. Apollo nine
went to the moon. Well, guess what we saw the
spacecraft go all the way to the moon. The Soviets
would love to have said that Americans are lying, But
(49:25):
astronomers could use their big telescopes to watch the spacecraft
travel to the moon. And so when people today are
saying things like that, they have no idea what was
going on back in nineteen sixty nine. So you know,
you know, you talk to them and you say, did
(49:47):
you still ride horses to work. Well, no, you know,
we went to the moon. We had cars, you know,
we had helicopters, we had four phantoms. You know, we
had lots of technology that you may not believe that
we had back then, but we had the technology. But
(50:12):
when you know, several people have said you couldn't have
seen it. The computers were not capable of showing that.
Are you kidding me? I was sitting there watching the computer.
I know I saw it. I know the computer capability
was there because I watched it. But I watched it
for a lot of other things. You know, we had
(50:36):
the same kind of systems for all of our launch vehicles,
including the Titan, the Atlas, the Delta, along with the
Space Shuttle. So we had capabilities of all kinds of stuff.
And so somebody today may say, well, you know, they
(50:56):
still had to ride bikes to get to work because
you know, the horse and carriage got stuck in the
mud or something. But that is not what was going
on in nineteen sixty nine, and it certainly isn't what
was going on in nineteen ninety two. I was there,
so I know. So yeah, I'm not even going to
(51:21):
discuss it further because it's not worth.
Speaker 2 (51:23):
It, And we even brought a cart of the moon
and drove it around. From my own experience, I took
astronautics as well as aeronautical engineering at the Air Force
Academy and then my own investigations, I think the most
difficult part is actually leaving the atmosphere of the Earth.
The Earth is such a dense body. Gravity on the
(51:46):
Earth is very high because the Earth is made mostly
out of lead, a very heavy element, and just from
dealing with lasers and weapon systems and electronic attack, atmosphere
attenuates everything. It's just a huge pain dealing with a
dense atmosphere such as the Earth. So if you combine
(52:09):
the heavy gravity of Earth and combine it was with
a thick atmosphere, then I think the most difficult part
is actually leaving the Earth. So once you get away
from the Earth, out of the atmosphere, out of the
heavy gravity, well your problems decrease dramatically. I think the
biggest problems you have out in space is really dealing
with thermal control and sun radiation. But once you deal
(52:32):
with the heat and the actual radiation and keeping the
air inside the spacecraft, I think once you deal with that,
the math is actually quite simple, and then from there
it deals with simple geometry and basic astrophysics. So I
think a lot of people just don't understand the most
difficult part is just getting away from the Earth. But
(52:54):
once you get away from the Earth, everything is more
simple by order of magnitude. And then once you land
on the Moon, what's the most difficult part of landing
on the Moon? Seems like the most difficult part is
the dust, the fine particulate the regolith, So I think
that's the most difficult part of the Moon.
Speaker 1 (53:14):
Especially since the regolith is so spiky. It's sharp and
gritty and causes lots of problems. Gravity exists everywhere. When
a spacecraft like the Space Shuttle is on orbit and
the astronauts appear weightless, it's not because there's no gravity there.
(53:40):
The reason they appear weightless is that you are falling
at the Earth at the same speed as the spacecraft
around you. The gravitation of Earth keeps the Moon from
flying away, the gravitation of the Sun keeps the Earth
from moving away. The only way you can work in
(54:05):
microgravity for the Space Shuttle is that if you launch
and obtain an orbit at a certain height and a
certain speed, for instance, two hundred and ten miles at
seventeen five hundred miles an hour. As soon as the
main engines cut off, you begin to fall. But the
(54:28):
curvature of the fall and the curvature of the earth
are exactly the same, and that's why it has to
be so specific that at this altitude you have to
be on this speed, and so you fall toward the Earth.
I've heard astronauts say that when you get main cut off,
(54:48):
it's like you're standing on an elevator and the floor
falls out and you start to fall. But if it's
a seventeen day mission, you fall for seventeen days, and
so gravity is there. But we're having to exactly match
the fall of the spacecraft and the fall of the
(55:12):
astronauts aboard with the curvature of the earth. If it's
too steep, you're going to re enter the atmosphere and crash.
If it's too fast at that altitude, you will begin
to gain altitude, and over seventeen days, instead instead of
(55:35):
being a two hundred and ten miles, you're now out
at three hundred and forty miles because you have lengthened
the orbit each time you circulated because you were going
too fast. So it's a very delicate balance to be.
You know, that's why astronauts say on orbit instead of
in orbit. If you're in orbit, you can be in
(55:58):
any kind of orbit you want. But each mission for
the Space Shuttle had to be on a specific orbit
this altitude, this speed. If you match it exactly, you'll
have a stable circular orbit. So gravity is still working now.
(56:20):
One of the other things that I think most people
don't understand is that when they had the translunar insertion burn,
they had an escape velocity from Earth of twenty seven
thousand miles. But through the entire time they were traveling
to the Moon, they were going uphill because they were
(56:41):
fighting gravity, so they kept slowing and slowing and slowing
and slowing, and at the interface between the lunar gravity
and the Earth's gravity, they had slowed down to like
eight thousand miles an hour. So you know, two days
ago they were twenty seven thousand miles an hour. Now
they're down to eight thousand miles an hour. But once
(57:04):
you pause past that interface, you begin to speed up
because now the mass of the Moon has a gravitational
force that will increase the speed because you're starting to
fall again, and so by the time the astronauts would
get into lunar orbit, their speed increase significantly.
Speaker 2 (57:28):
Okay, final few questions, Doc Rogers. If called to testify
before Congress, what would be your core message?
Speaker 1 (57:41):
It's real. We have a bunch of people who have
said it's real. Particularly, I would relate to David Grush
because he said I did not personally see UAPs, but
I spoke to lots and lots of people who have,
and I've read reports, and so he tells all of
(58:02):
those reports that he had because he was working for
the NRO, he was working for the intelligence community, so
he had access to lots and lots of information far
beyond what I would know. The one advantage I have
is that he said there are people who have seen
reverse engineered craft. Well, when he said that, I thought, well,
(58:28):
that's me. I actually saw a reverse engineered aircraft. So
while he has to talk about it from the second
persons standpoint, if I actually spoke to Congress, I would say, look,
I saw this. No one told me about it. I
saw it with my own mark one eyeballs.
Speaker 2 (58:53):
I hope you do speak in front of Congress stock
Do you think the secrecy around ups is more about
national security or protecting corporate advantage.
Speaker 1 (59:07):
I think it's both of those plus a lot of
other things. When we were going to invade Normandy, we
made a big effort to make it look like we
were really attacking Calais. So for our adversaries, we sometimes
(59:29):
provide them with a lot of information, but that information
could be entirely false, and so we're wanting to mislead them.
So there are going to be times when we provide
information but that information is false and it's fault on purpose.
If a company has a capability that they have gained,
(59:55):
or let's put it this way, if government scientists found
a discovery from the study of UAPs, what are you
going to do with it? If you say, well, we
want this company to be able to produce this effect
(01:00:16):
from it, and we give the technology to that company,
but there are twelve other companies that we don't share
that information with. As soon as it comes out that
this company is making all this money because the United
States government preferentially selected this company, every one of the
other companies are going to be suing the government for everything.
(01:00:38):
We've got. Well, does that mean that we have to
give every piece of evidence to every company? Well, you know,
that's a really difficult decision, and so most people who
have not worked with contractors and realize the competition between them.
(01:00:58):
If you give a leg up to one company, you've
got to deal with it. Once we decided to send
up Coca Cola to Space because Coca Cola came and said,
we want to be the first off drink in Space.
Will you let us do that? And they said, well,
(01:01:18):
you know you're going to have to come up with
a dispensing mechanism. You just popped the top of a
can and the internal pressure is going to cause it
to spray everywhere, so you'll have to come with a
dispensing mechanism. Once you come up with a dispensing mechanism,
that'll be great. We'll just charge you for the weight.
And they said, well, you know, if we had like
(01:01:40):
a six pack seventy two ounces of how much would
that cost us? And sixty nine thousand dollars they said,
we spend more than that for a commercial at the
Super Bowl. We'll send two of them. Everything was fine
until about six months before the mission, and then all
of a sudden, Pepsi Cola found out that Coca Cola
(01:02:01):
had been authorized by NASA to be the first soft
drink in space. So they filed a lawsuit against NASA.
And then the next thing you know, rc Cola, doctor Pepper,
everybody's filing lawsuits. Companies from overseas that make their own
cola are filing lawsuits against NASA because they did not
(01:02:24):
give a competitive bid for the action we were taking.
And so something as simple as well, we'll send up
some Coca Cola, No, we ended up with a whole
bunch of lawsuits.
Speaker 2 (01:02:40):
So you can imagine what the UAB topic would bring
if that was just coke go into space.
Speaker 1 (01:02:47):
Well, if there was a capability that one company earned
twelve billion dollars and the other companies earned nothing from
the technology, what do you think their board of directors
are going They're going to sue NASA and the government
for everything we've got.
Speaker 2 (01:03:06):
So how do you think public knowledge of this technology
would change the world.
Speaker 1 (01:03:18):
Every time we improved technology in some fashion, there's always
a repercussion. During the Manhattan Project, one of the scientists
accidentally discovered polytetraflora ethylene and it was such a stable
component that they could coat particles and elements within the
(01:03:49):
nuclear weapon with polytetraflor ethylene and they would remain stable
and non corrosive, because a lot of the nuclear materials
very corrosive. So at the time, polytetrafloor ethylene was one
of the most guarded secrets on this entire planet. You know,
(01:04:12):
I think it was like five or six years later
they found some other things that were better for it,
so they said, well, we'll go ahead and release the
polytetraflor ethylene. And so the company that owned the rights
to it said, well, what can we do with it?
And they said, what if we put it on a
pan so that you can fry eggs without it sticking.
(01:04:35):
So they said, okay, well we'll call it teflon, and
so what had previously been one of the most classified
products on Earth became the teflon skillets that we were
frying our eggs with. Every technology is going to have benefits,
there are side effects. Well. Polytetrafloor ethylene as well as
(01:04:58):
all of those things, are also the products that are
making the pfoas that are permanent chemicals that are found
all over our planet. You can go to Antarctica draw
blood from a penguin and they've got pfoas in their bloodstream.
It's everywhere. How are we ever going to get rid
(01:05:21):
of it? Well, truthfully, we're not. But at the time
that we released teflon to be used on skillets, we
had no idea the effect that we would have sixty
seventy years later with these persisting chemicals pfoas that we
(01:05:44):
can't get rid of. But we also don't know exactly
how dangerous they are. There are no easy answers.
Speaker 2 (01:05:55):
That's a great analogy. Thank you so much, douc Rogers
for all your experience and your knowledge and for the
courage to speak out on this topic. Thanks your time
coming on the show.
Speaker 1 (01:06:08):
Well sure, now, then if you still know somebody that
can get me an F sixteen flight, I would sure
getting back in the cockpit, because retiring from flying is
a difficult thing to give up.
Speaker 2 (01:06:26):
Check my rolodex, see what I can come up with.
Speaker 1 (01:06:31):
Yeah. Well, the one thing on my bucket list that
I never did was I wanted to land and take
off from a carrier on a smooth seed during the
middle of the day. Now then I don't want to
do it at night. I don't want to do it.
You're in a storm. You know. The Apollo or the
(01:06:52):
Space Shuttle astronauts routinely said that landing on a carrier
at night is far more differenticult than anything they did
with the Space Shuttle.
Speaker 2 (01:07:05):
Seems like it wouldn't be that hard, to be honest,
Like they always complain about landing on the carrier. It
was dark, it was raining. But in the Air Force
we talked about fighting. That's what I liked. And the
Navy guy has always talked about landing.
Speaker 1 (01:07:20):
The difference is, you know, first of all, they're naval aviators.
They will claim that aviators are better than pilots, but
every time you take off, you don't know if you're
going into combat. You may think I'm likely to get
into a dogfight with a MiG over Baghdad in nineteen
(01:07:44):
ninety one. Well, for the naval aviators, every time they
take off, they know they've got to land on that
carrier and the space is so small that they've got
to hit. There have been monitors put on naval aviators,
(01:08:07):
and you know, it doesn't matter how experienced you are
for a night landing in weather. Their heartbeats go crazy.
You know, they're sitting there at one hundred and fifty
beats per minute as they're coming down there because of
the stress they're under. You know, when the Navy astronauts said,
(01:08:34):
look flat out, it's harder to land on a carrier
at night in weather than anything we do as a
space shut on, I believe them. You know. I was
in the Air Force, and I hate to give credit
to the Navy, but that that is a more difficult task.
Speaker 2 (01:08:56):
Yeah, I can't do it. I can't be that hard,
all right, Doc, have a great thank you, sir, No,
you have one too, Okay, couldn't help myself slightly tongue
in cheek. I did have a friend, a famous Canadian pilot.
He was in exchange to Alaska sugar licine, and he
(01:09:17):
had five thousand fighter hours, et cetera. And he did
actually get to land on a carrier like Doc Rogers
his dream. And it was interesting because he practiced on
the land. They have a little carrier drawn out on
a runway carrier strip and he practiced with a pilot
in the back, instructor pilot. That's normal when you go
to learn some new skill normally and then he went
(01:09:39):
out to the carrier to actually do the first practice
landings for real on the carrier, and he said it
was interesting because in the ready room he was counting
around and there just weren't enough pilots there. He was thinking,
you know, where are the instructor pilots, But there weren't
any instructor pilots. They flew the student pilots alone. So
your first flight landing on a carrier, at least for
(01:10:01):
Sugar Lacine, was solo. So you're doing it alone, no
instructors in the back. So I think that does highlight
how dangerous it is. So it probably is dangerous. But
again that's what the Navy pilot's talk about is landing,
and in the Air Force we only talked about, for
the most part, was fighting. But that wraps up the
(01:10:21):
special follow up Q and A with doctor Gregory Rogers.
I want to thank doctor Rogers once again for taking
the time to share his insights and experiences and having
the courage to speak out. Like you said, he knew
people their careers. Ended his previous book, we highlighted the
first interview was actually taken down. The publisher removed it
(01:10:42):
as soon as he came out with his story. So
I also want to thank all of you the Later
Files audience for sending in such thoughtful and challenging questions.
It really added a lot of depth and I thought
it was really great for the interview. So our first
interview with doctor Rogers became the most watched video on
this channel or the year, and it's clear from your
engagement and curiosity that this is a conversation that matters,
(01:11:06):
and I think it does. If you found this interview valuable,
please make sure to like, share, and subscribe so you
don't miss out on future discussions and as always, keep
asking questions, keep seeking the truth, and stay tuned for
more Lato files. If you want to support my channel
further my work, then please go to patreon dot com,
(01:11:26):
forward slash Chris Lato and sign up. It's five dollars
a month really helps, or you can become a YouTube
member like all these fine people. Thank skin, have a
great rest of your day, peace,
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.