Micah Hanks

None

Episode Transcript

(00:04):
Ladies and gentlemen, Welcome to MeanwhileHere on Earth. This program features in
depth conversations with the leading names inthe subjects of UFOs abductees, the paranormal
panel discussions, and the very bestand brightest of the next generation of writers

(00:24):
and researchers. Meanwhile Here on Earththe show breaking new ground in alternative talk
with your in trepid host, veteraninvestigative writer and researcher, Peter Robbins.

(00:51):
Hello, this is indeed Peter Robbins, and the program is Meanwhile Here on
Earth. Last week's show was prerecordedwith Bridget Barclay from England, the reason
being that I was in New Mexico, yes, finishing up five days there
in scenic Roswell, where we weremarking the seventy sixth anniversary of certain events

(01:17):
that happened there in nineteen forty seven. I was a speaker at a conference
organized by the Roswell UFO Museum andResearch Center, and down Main Street a
mile or so we had another conferencegoing on organized by the newspaper, the
Roswell Daily Record, where many ofour colleagues were speaking as well. Both

(01:38):
conferences were really well attended, Iknow on Saturday alone, we had more
than twenty eight hundred people in andout of the building, any of whom
attended the lectures, and hats offto the great team at the Roswell UFO
Museum. They did a brilliant jobof producing it, and I was very

(02:00):
impressed that they made quite a numberof the talks available at no cost to
anybody that wanted to hear them.A week ago today, my friend Pat
Culligan and I and one of theother speakers, Keith cealand Buffalo, New
York, took a long drive intothe mountains and ended up at Apache Reservation

(02:22):
with a beautiful resort where I hadvisited some years ago, and a nice
hundred and fifty mile round trip drive, a twenty degree temperature drop, and
back to Roswell we went for dinnermy favorite restaurant there, Peppers on Main
Street. Went in Roswell dine atPeppers tonight, this afternoon, this morning,

(02:45):
or as a podcast years in thefuture, at whatever time exists.
Our guest today is my friend MicaHanks. Mica is a writer, podcaster,
researcher, and speaker whose interests covera variety of subjects, including history,
archaeology, science, and the futureof humankind. A long time researcher

(03:06):
and proponent of the scientific study ofunidentified aerial phenomena or UFOs, Mica has
authored a number of books that hascontributed many essays, articles, and blogs
to various publications over the years.He is host of the highly regarded Micah
Hanks Program and a number of otherpodcasts, and is co founder and creative

(03:27):
force behind The Debrief, a newssite that explores the latest in science and
disruptive technology. Micah Hanks, Welcometo meanwhile here on Earth. Hi,
Peter, how are you doing,my friend? Good, all things considered,
not jetlagged anymore, but just youknow, wishing I had two extra

(03:51):
arms and two extra hours a day. I'm sure you have been there yourself.
Oh, it would be wonderful tobe among the octopoid races, but
you know, doing as best aswe anthropoids can managed to suffice with just
our two hands and the five digitson each. So anyhow, I wish
you were close enough to be ableto grab your hand and shake it last
time I saw you, at leastat the beginning of that journey, we

(04:12):
were able to, and in factwe're fortunate enough to be able to spend
some time together with Nick Pope ina pub and there were some Guinnesses I
believe on the table as well.So this will have to do from across
a great distance, my friend,indeed, And a little more about that.
In April, Micah I and Nickand podcaster Jim Harold were speakers at

(04:33):
what otherwise would have been a fairlymodest forty plus person conference sponsored by Mike
and Wendy Millgore, a wonderful teamactually travel agents who put together conferences aboard
moving conveyances on the water. Andwhat made this release special for us was

(04:56):
that we spoke on the Norwegian CruiseLines largest newest monster science fiction mothership accommodating
eight hundred thousand people coming and goingto Bermuda, which was allegorically and actually
a trip. And on the Saturdaynight, we had a number of options

(05:20):
that we could act on, andwe all decided to take advantage of a
glass bottom boat tour out into anarea that is fairly legendary. We began
at dusk and by the time wearrived in the Bermuda triangle it was fully

(05:40):
dark and I think I know Ireturned in corporeal form. I'm not so
sure about you and Nick and Jim. You may look the same, but
I've seen too much science fiction toknow that. You know, there could
be the whole body snatcher thing goingon and you just are passing for Micah
Hanks. Anyway we can check thatout. I can't imagine any ways we

(06:03):
could check it other than to haveto embark on that same journey again and
just see what happens. You know, it's not every day, though,
that you have the opportunity to sailin a glass bottomed boat into the Bermuda
Triangle and we saw shipwrecks. Wehave major bragging rights, It's true.
Yeah, And for me, thereal star of this conference was this ship.

(06:28):
I like you had never been onanything like it. It is made
to carry over three thousand passengers andI think at least fifteen hundred in crew.
It was first class from top tobottom. We didn't get to explore
too much of the ship, butwhat we did was pretty breathtaking. Also,
that feeling of, you know,being seated in a fancy restaurant,

(06:51):
ordering a nice meal and looking toyour right at an endless row of windows
looking out on the ocean, orwhen we first started on the USS Intrepid
in New York Harbor, or wakingup in the morning looking at Bermuda.
Yeah, you know, that's thewhole thing about travel. And you know
one of my takeaways from this,and you know, I have to mention

(07:13):
this. It was the only nonUFO lecture that we featured on the entire
series of talks that you and Nickand I gave where you were talking about
some of your own experiences traveling.And I gotta tell folks at home,
I travel a lot. And inthis modern era being able to have a
smartphone that I can connect to WiFi, no matter whether I know the

(07:34):
country's language or not, or itscustoms very well. If I can connect
to the Wi Fi and I canpull up a language software that allows me
to translate, I can usually getaround. Peter Robbins quite the world traveler
here and in that era before wehad smartphones or even the Internet, and
the best you could do in thosedays was drop a note at the local

(07:54):
embassy and say, if my parentscome asking, tell them they can send
mail here. I'm dead. I'llbe here for a month or so before
I head on to wherever. Imust have been exhilarating but also incredibly frightening
doing the kind of travel you didin the era that you did. And
that was just one of the besttalks I've seen probably in years, not
only on that cruise ship. Well, thank you. That means a lot

(08:16):
to me, and it's a talkI never gave before covering I don't know,
daring myself at a time when onecould to visit parts of the world
where you can't go anymore, evenwith an entire regiment of United States Special
Forces. But it was a pleasureto share it. And again, what

(08:41):
a wonderful background we had. Thenovelty for me was overwhelming, and I
had never really, you know,you think about people who go cruising.
I had thought it was mostly youknow, comfortably retired people, a country
club set, and it was everybodyand their mother and brother. And it

(09:03):
was wonderful as the trip advanced,seeing people in evening wear right there with
folks with the turned around baseball capsand big louse T shirts and Tiva sandals,
going to different functions, either autoracing or the theater. It was.
It was great and I must sayI think I gained two or three

(09:24):
pounds from the meals we were eating. Yeah, that's why when I go
on those cruise ships, Pete,this is a secret I have. You
know, there are those elevators andthen there are the steps that take you
all the way from the bottom levelup to the sixteenth floor. When I'm
traveling by myself, I mean,if I'm in polite company, I'll get
on the elevator, but when I'mgoing to and throw on my own,
it's all the stairs, all theway. Baby. That's that's the secret.

(09:46):
You know. It's the only wayI can burn any calories while I'm
on those cruise ships. You know, when you and I were leaving the
ship and basically saying Argilby's and welooked at the ship, we saw this
extraordinary kind of coil it went.It must have been ten stories high,
attached to the side of the ship, and we were theorizing on what it

(10:09):
might be. And I found anarticle shortly after that it was just an
entertainment, a slide to go downand go down like a corkscrew until you
hit the bottom and I guess goback up again. So they had everything.
Let's actually address you as our guestand begin with where were you born,

(10:33):
Mica. You know, I wasborn not far from where I'm currently
seated. I live in Asheville,North Carol, Well Greater Asheville. I'm
not in the heart of downtown.Anyone who's ever visited the little town where
I'm currently residing. It's not thesmallest small town in America, but it's
small enough so that I don't beginto feel claustrophobic. But it's big enough

(10:56):
to where you've got a little bitof a city in some nightlife. And
I think that's one of the thingsI always have loved about. I asked
for the history, the culture.There's a really great dining experience, you
know, that one can have here, but in any direction from central downtown,
ten minutes and you can be farenough out that you feel like you're
in the wilderness. Another twenty ortwenty five minutes and you're on a good

(11:16):
hiking trail, you know, theMountains to See trail, or one along
the Blue Ridge Parkway. Another hourout and you could be I mean,
you know, hours into a hikeon one of the most scenic national parks
really anywhere in the region. Andfor me, although I was born here
and in that sense, It's alwaysbeen home. It's always felt like home.
So I haven't left, but Ido travel a lot. I'm all

(11:37):
the time, out on the road, almost every weekend, and of course,
you know, frequently doing events likeyou do out of the country,
even out of the country, andbeing you know, world travelers. I
always have loved to be able tocome back to a place, you know,
that feels like home. A lotof folks throughout my life said,
why do you still live in Asheville. Don't you think it'd be advantageous for

(11:58):
you to move to, you know, one of the big ones on the
east or west coast New York,LA. I go there often enough.
I think the thing is is thatfor people who who travel as much as
we do, having a place thatfeels like homes important. So I'm from
Asheville. I am still in Asheville. I'll probably always have at least a
base of operations here wherever else Imay wander off to. But this is

(12:18):
where I was born. And youknow, it's an interesting tie in here
because back in the earliest days ofc ST. Stephen Greer of course,
had at one time been a traumasurgeon at the very hospital, probably at
the same time I was delivered there, So that aspect of the modern UAP
slash contact effort really kind of hasits roots here in this town as well.

(12:39):
And I'm sure there are probably otherswe could get into, but for
the time being, I'll leave itat that. Before the show, I
went online to look at a mapof North Carolina because I will be there
the third week in September. Mynephew and his fiance are getting married and
they live in Carrie, which isabout a three and a half hour drive

(13:03):
from where you are. Otherwise Iwould invite you over, but it's a
bit of a schlep. But myfew visits there, it is a beautiful
state with a lot of history andsuch a complex and interesting kind of political
landscape, I can easily understand whyyou're still there. Do you have siblings?

(13:26):
Oh? Yeah, and in factyou've never met Caleb, but my
younger brother Caleb, who also hejust he's an excellent artist, someone who
has his own interests in the unexplained, particularly with regard to the UAP thing
in recent years, because I thinkeverybody's kind of whether they were into it
before, like we have been fordecades everybody's kind of gotten into it recently,
but my brother's been with it fora while and he lives here in

(13:50):
town, as do my mom anddad. Both also still very interested.
They kind of keep up with eventsthat are happening. And as far as
my own interest in all this,I'll tell you this. It was my
parents who actually gave me some ofthose earliest books when I was about five
years old. That was my nextquestion, how did you become interested in
the non standard? Yeah, see, that's the family thing. That's the

(14:13):
family tie in right there, becausemy brother and I, both from an
early age, were always kind ofexposed to stories. My mother I remember,
you know, sitting out in thebackyard building bonfires on Friday nights,
blasting the eagles, you know,hell freezes over. She loved to just
do that and also sometimes turn offthe music and tell stories. I remember

(14:33):
one of the stories that she toldme early in life, and this is
the kind of thing that I thinksome children would would be maybe frightened by,
But my mother always was very nuancedand could expose my brother and I
to these kinds of concepts in away that enlive and our imagination, that
inspired us didn't necessarily frighten us.But one of those stories was Travis Walton's

(14:54):
encounter, you know, from backin the mid seventies, nineteen seventy five
Snowflake, Arizona. He and severalother workers, you know, they're on
that tract of land working for theUS Forest Service, clearing trees, coming
back home one cool evening sea,a light through the trees, and of
course the rest is history. Butand I remember the first time I met
Travis, he being a good friendto both you and I, you especially

(15:16):
Peter. But I told him,I said, you know, my mother
when I was a kid, usedto tell me your story, and how
surreal it was to meet him manyyears later. But beyond the campfire stories,
you know, as I was learningto read, by about the time
I knew anything beyond Mike, Maryand Jeff Right, I had my nose
in a book, and I beganto ask for books about those subjects.

(15:39):
And so two of the first booksthat I received copies of that always cherished
were a book by Ivan Sanderson,the Scottish zoologist, and he wrote a
lot about uap or UFOs as theywere known back in those days, or
even flying sauciers in some circles.But the book that was given to me
was not one of those books.It was a book called Abominable Snowman Legend

(16:00):
Come to Life, which I stillhave that same tattered copy that Mom and
Dad gave me. It hasn't gotthe cover any longer. It's just got
the first very worn page with thefoxed ears and a few shreds. But
it gives it all the more characterin my view. The other book,
though, was a book by agent from up your way at least regionally
speaking, named Raymond Fowler, andthe title of that book was UFOs Interplanetary

(16:25):
Visitors. And I think that mycopy of that book is either on that
shelf or one in the next room. I still have it to this day
as well. Raymond is now inhis eighties and working on a new book.
And I got to spend a goodpart of last Friday, Saturday and
Sunday with Travis Walton. Ivan Sandersonbegan his career back in the late thirties

(16:48):
as a biologist and became interested inThe Abominable Snowman and wrote for me one
of the most exciting, interesting andunforgettable books I've ever read regarding any aspect
of UFOs. Invisible Residence, whichdeals with underwater UFOs a particularly rational,

(17:15):
grounded, and exhilarating read. Thatfirst page was enough to hook you.
If you don't have that book inyour library, you can probably pick it
up a used copy online quickly enoughonline. His book Uninvited Visitors, I
think it was published in nineteen sixtyseven, and another great book about the

(17:38):
UFO phenomena, and a first andpublishing in that it is the very first
book to use a hologram on thecover, and the jacket was die cut
to have a hole to wrap around, so the hologram jumps out at you
at a time when those things werepretty amazing. How unusual to have parents

(18:04):
that have such a natural, rationalattitude towards the subject, you know,
of course, it's usually just theother way around. Parents are anxious about
it, and if you get toointerested, many of them, oh,
honey, you just you know,this is just silly stuff here. But
I wonder did there come a timewhen you had a UFO siding as a

(18:27):
young person yourself. I've always said, Peter that I have never seen a
UFO, but when I was ayoung person that there was one instance where
I thought I had seen something whichthinking I had seen it in hindsight and
by today's standards, looking back,I'm almost certain what I saw was nothing

(18:48):
anomalous. But the fact that Isaw it when I did, I've often
revisited in my mind and thought howinteresting that was. There's still a lot
of takeaways from that. I wasfive years old. We'd just come home
from my grandparents house. I lookedup in the sky. I saw a
light moving, and I told myparents and said, look, I think
that's one of those things. It'spretty obvious that. I mean, having
had exposure to this subject early on, my young imagination was seeing an aircraft

(19:12):
or something along those lines, andI was certain it was one of these
UFOs. But I went to schoolthe next day and I told a classmate.
Her name was Brandy, and shehad an entirely different perspective. She
said, Oh, that's not whatyou think it was. That was Pizza
Hut, and that's their pizza Hutsign, and they flashed that into the
sky to let people know, hey, it's time to get a pizza.

(19:33):
Okay. The two imaginings of youngminds here still mirror mirroring in many ways
the modern debate. Someone says Ithink I saw something extraordinary, another person
from their perspective and worldview and upbringingsays, no, that was something incredibly
mundane. That belief versus skepticism dichotomycontinued on once I was in third grade

(19:55):
and I had a teacher who wasa very science minded teacher, and I
really respect her and what she triedto do because she never interfered with my
interests. And I, by thattime, was not only reading, but
I was writing. And I wasa few grade levels ahead of my classmates
with reading and writing because and I'msure it had to do with the fact
that my parents gave me exposure towritings that were not four children per se

(20:21):
but we're not things that were thingschildren should not be reading. And so
my vocabulary progressed more quickly, Ithink because of the kind of books my
parents gave me, and I'll alwaysthank them for that. They didn't say,
oh, we're not going to givehim that trash. They said,
if he wants to read it,hey, he's reading, and that's the
greater benefit. And that's similar towhat they told the third grade teacher who

(20:41):
beyond a certain point did began toexpress some concerns. She tried never to
interfere. When the first book reporton the Ray Fowler book came out,
you know, when my insistence onchecking out books on Sasquatch and the Lockness
Monster every week from the library continued, there was a parent teacher conference,
I kid you not, And infact, there's some documentation that proves this,
because I've kept one of the diariesfrom that summer where I was journaling

(21:06):
for school, and there were alittle back and forth before This wasn't the
summer vacation, just the summer monthsleading up to it, but we were
documenting things like the phase of themoon at that time of year, and
the teacher would write in the marginslittle notes and things. I was insistent
on writing entries about UFOs, andthe teacher would write things like, well,
that's okay if you want to readthose things, but remember when we

(21:27):
come into the classroom, we wantto talk about science, not science fiction.
Things like that. So after theparent teacher conference, you know,
she'd express these concerns to my parents, and again they just said, listen,
our son's reading and we're very happywith that. So they struck a
bargain. Teacher said, hey,listen, okay, I won't tell him
he can't read the UFO and theSasquatch books, but he's got to get

(21:48):
some literature every other week, thebargain. And I appreciate where she was
coming from because she did actually plantthe seeds of a degree of healthy skepticism.
In my mind, you have thattoo, and in our conversations again,
I think it's it's something I've learnedover the years. It's so important
to have that that healthy skepticism thatwill temper the interests that you have in

(22:12):
the anomalous. So anyway, Ihad those experiences early on, and I'm
overall very grateful for the for thevariety of world views I was exposed to.
I do think it's wonderful that byfate happens since you were not just
fortunate enough to have open minded,supportive parents, but teachers who also were

(22:36):
not too dogmatic or judgmental or reactive. And also, you know, some
of the best people in the historyof this field, including Timothy Good and
Stanton Friedman, never had UFO experiences. They just were very intellectually curious and

(22:56):
open minded and entered the field fromthat to action and skepticism. I think
sometimes it gets confused with debunking orbeing a debunker. We people like you
and I especially, have to maintaina very healthy skepticism, especially if we've
gotten to the point in terms ofevidence that we have fully vetted and experiences

(23:26):
that we have documented of people whoaccounts we take seriously. Some of us
on a certain level no longer havethe luxury of what I'll call disbelief,
and all the more reason we haveto remember that each new case has to

(23:47):
be examined from the baseline first.No fair and often reckless to simply believe
an account because you know as wellas you can know that such things happen.
Debunkers, on the other hand,have the intellectual arrogance to know that
we are wrong. Bud Hopkins usedto joke about them, just what extraordinary

(24:11):
people they were to know the unknownwhen we were just doing our best to
kind of feel all way along andfigure out what was going on for me.
The debunker's mantra is, it can'tbe, therefore it isn't, therefore
it's something else. So let mepat you on the head and give you
a pseudo pseudo scientific explanation, andyou know, you quirky little people that

(24:33):
believe all this nonsense, I thinkas a function of often their own anxiety
not expressed, because if these thingsare so, then everything they thought they
knew is now open to question,and that is not acceptable. Yeah.
I can sympathize with it to anextent too. I do think that whether

(24:53):
it we knowledged or not, attimes there may be a degree of fear
and ang anxiety the subject rouses thatdrives some people. Maybe not all people,
but some people who go the skepticaldebunker route perhaps are driven in that
direction on account of an inability toreconcile in their minds. How could this

(25:15):
be? I couldn't agree with youmore and over the decades, I've found
that my attitude has shifted markedly frompower to the people. Release everything.
Now. If you don't take thisseriously, you are wrong, as opposed
to feeling an appropriate amount of understandingand compassion for the situation they find themselves

(25:41):
in, and certainly the situation Ifound myself in at fourteen years old,
with the profound sighting that my sisterand I had, I couldn't deal with
it. It was too much,It asked too much of me, and
the way I dealt with it wassimply suppressing that memory for many years until
I guess I could deal with it. I know that music is also a

(26:03):
big part of your life, asit is from mine, as it is
actually for many people who enter thisfield. And growing up in North Carolina,
which has a certain very deep musicalhistory of its own, coming from
pre colonial Scottish Irish African roots,you live in a very rich musical history

(26:27):
culture. Besides the Eagles. Whatwas some of the music that you were
exposed to as a kid, andhow has it impacted on your life,
of course outside of the areas ofstudy that we share. Well, you
know, it's funny my father,actually being a musician, also was performing
with and even at times teaching someof the best musicians in this region.

(26:51):
And one of the musicians that hehad been performing alongside was a Grammy Award
winner David Holt. David, ofcourse, being not only a clawhammer band
player and a great singer, butalso really kind of a musicologist in a
sense, David was working to domore than just two record songs that he
liked. He was collecting folk songsprimarily from the Appalachian region, but really

(27:15):
from several different genres, everything fromblues to you know, traditional mountain music.
He would record, but he wouldalso preserve those and he'd one of
the best albums in my view,which was a two part disc back in
those days, you know, andthey had compact discs before everything was just
streaming services available online via subscriptions andotherwise. This album was called Legacy,

(27:37):
and it was one part I thinkwas mostly songs. The other part was
mostly Doc Watson, who was theperformer primarily on the album, and David
sitting in a studio together and Davidasking Doc questions. But then Doc would
sort of tell stories and intersperse performancesof songs with just him and a guitar

(28:00):
are in between the stories he told, and you know David. When I
became a little older, I wasmaybe in my late teens or early twenties.
I guess maybe early twenties because Iwas in college at the time at
the local community college. My fathertold me that he and David were going
to be doing a series of showswith some other musicians around the region and

(28:22):
David's son, zeb who couldn't performa few of those because he also,
I think was attending college or headother obligations. They asked, you know,
would you want to learn how toplay the bass for these songs and
do a few shows with us.And although I'd grown up listening to a
lot of this kind of folk traditionalmusic, folk music, bluegrass, these
kinds of things, I never reallyperformed it. I'd always watched my father

(28:44):
perform it when we would go upto Gallipolis, Ohio at the Bob Evans
Farm and he and his band wouldperform, And I remember just taking those
trips. It was murderous, travelingall day to get there, but once
I got there, just being ableto see the bands and hear that music,
it was just incredible. And sobeing on stage with my dad at
that ripe old age of maybe nineteenor twenty, and David Holt and Laura
Boosinger, Rvil Freeman and all theseexcellent musicians from my region, I mean,

(29:08):
it was it was really cool.And then I got a phone call
maybe a year or so later fromDavid, and David said, listen,
I'm gonna be doing some solo showsand might just need a bass player.
You want to just come to himwith me, and so every now and
then I'd drive and meet him ata school someplace, or you know,
some other venue and we'd perform.Then one night he just said, listen,
I'm going up to Boone, NorthCarolina. I don't even need you

(29:32):
to bring a bass. I justreally need somebody who can drive me up
there, because it's kind of tiringyou drive all that way and back.
I just wanted to see if youwanted to ride along and talk music and
you know, kind of drive mycar for me. I said, yes,
David Holt Grammy Award winner, I'dbe happy to. And so I
met him at at a location.We got in his car, I drove
him. We talked about music,and he mentioned somewhere. Halfway through the

(29:53):
conversation, Pete, he says,Doc Watson might be there tonight. I
don't know he's gonna make it ornot. Well, sure enough, we
get up there, Doc Watson comeswalking out. Now. For those who
don't know, Doc Watson, ofcourse, legendary guitarist blind since almost his
birth. I think he was blindsince infancy, but one of the best

(30:15):
acoustic flatpicking guitarists really that the nationhas ever seen. And his nephew brings
him into the room, and Davidimmediately looks over at me and motions and
so brings me over. And whenyou're meeting someone of that stature in a
genre of music, you never reallyknow what to say. And so I
just go up and say, Doc, how are you? And the first
thing he said, and I'll neverforget this, he said, you know,

(30:36):
I'm doing great, And I was, you know, with my wife
Rosalie earlier. He immediately shifted theconversation over to his wife, who wasn't
there at the moment. But Ijust thought that was so charming. And
one of my favorite songs that hewould always do is called Shady Grove.
And he told that the story aboutwhy he'd loved that song so much is
because when he met Rosalie Gaither,who he ended up marrying and she became

(30:57):
Rosalie Watson. But he said thathe had known her as a child.
But one summer he had wandered downthe hill. He's blind again, folks.
So he makes his way down thehill and he got down the d
of the house and he was callingto see if anybody was there, and
he said he heard her voice afterhaving not heard it for maybe an entire
year. I think he'd been offat one of the school for the blind

(31:18):
functions for some time, and hesaid he heard her say hello, Doc,
and he said he knew at thatmoment I'm going to marry her,
And so he would go and hewould play that song Shady Grove for Rosalie,
and they did end up marrying.And the first time I met him,
that was the very first thing youtold me about was his wife.
So I always thought that was justreally sweet. But indeed, you know
that that was some of the othermusic I was exposed to. And thanks
to folks like David Holt, myfather, and other incredible musicians in this

(31:41):
region, I got to meet Docand spend a little time and actually sit
like about as close to him asI am as the computer screen right here
watching lay one night in a dressingroom. Man, that was cool.
It was really cool. By thetime you were coming to the end of
high school and heading into college,had you decided what you wanted to study?

(32:04):
Usually the first year is liberal artsto a degree, But had you
already sort of aim toward a careeror where were you at that point?
You're thinking that's a really interesting question. When I began my time in college,
I was forcing myself to do mathematicsbecause I wasn't really good at math.

(32:27):
But I'd heard that there was alittle former patent clerk who ended up
writing a incredible treatise on what becameknown as relativity, and he also maybe
hadn't been the best student at math. So I thought, if I persevere,
maybe I can do this too.And it worked for Albert Einstein.
Why not you? Yeah? Butwell, I didn't end up measuring in
physics, but I decided I wouldgo down the psychology route. And the

(32:49):
reason why was because having been interestedin the work of jb Ryan and some
of the others at the Ryan ResearchInstitute, I thought, you know,
if I can apply science toward somearea of the unknown, I'll do parapsychology.
And so I began to study psychology. I remained enrolled in college for
about two years, and then Ihad an opportunity to just drop out of

(33:10):
the air to go begin working inradio, and I thought, well,
this could be a different path towarda career. But when I might want
to pursue, which is you cankind of see with my studio and the
microphones and things. If you hadthe vantage I have right now, you'd
see one two different control consoles,an actual landline phone, three different screens.
I've still got a studio in myroom. Radio became a huge part
of who I am after having hadthat again, that just incredible opportunity.

(33:36):
So I left college and instead ofpursuing paras psychology, started doing broadcasts,
but of course studying the unexplained.And at that point it began to kind
of go from paras psychology to consciousnessstudies. There for a time and when
it first was mentioned that there wasgoing to be a Saturday night program called
Speaking of Strains that dealt with theunexplained, I've volunteered to be the geek

(33:59):
who would go in there and bethe board off the producer who would man
the phones and you know, runthe music and everything I volunteered happened to
help that. My friend Joshua PughWarren was the host of that program and
for many years, every Saturday nightfrom about nine to eleven and sometimes later,
we would man the lines and wewould take calls we had. This
was as a producer of that programhow I got to speak on the phone

(34:22):
the one and only time I spoketo doctor edgar Mitchell. That's right,
I believe the fifth man to walkon the moon six six. Thank you,
Yes. And a tremendous advocate,by the way, for the UAP
subject, Stanton Friedman. That wasthe first introduction I had to Stanton Friedman
as a producer on that program.And it was also filling in for Josh
because the more that Josh began togo out and travel, he would be

(34:44):
out of town all the time onweekends and would just say, Micah,
you want to fill in. Andthe thing that they loved about me there
at the radio station, Art Bellat that point had become a real inspiration
for me. And what I lovedabout Art, apart from his edge,
you know, the pepper, wasthe fact that he was his own board
up he In fact, this verymicrophone i'm talking into right now, Pete

(35:05):
is the highle PR forty And Ibought this because Art Bell used this microphone
and when he would run his ownboard and take his own phone calls and
all that stuff, I said,I could do that, and sure enough,
my program director loved the fact thatthey didn't have to have a you
know a board up for me.They're like that kid, he wants to
go work on Saturday night, andwe can send him up and we don't
have to have anybody in the room. He can host an entire show all

(35:28):
by himself. So I cut myteeth, you might say, and got
into that industry during those formative years, and all the while getting up early
and writing articles and submitting them tofolks who would become friends like Phyllis Galdy
Fate Magazine and I'm sure incredible galwho now she moved down here because she
just couldn't get enough of me,and she now lives just over the mountain

(35:50):
here. Oh wow, please saidmy love and best bushes. When you're
in contact with her again, Iwill you know. I'm not a tech
person, but I know that thatis one of the finest mics available.
I use a good old steady Yettiblue. I love the name and the
microphone, but yeah, that stateof the art. While you're talking,

(36:15):
so many thoughts are coming to me. The Ryan Institute, of course,
is one of the most distinguished stillto this day parapsychology area institutions in the
world. And is that part ofthe University of North Carolina. I'm trying
to remember. I know that itis well the most distinguished institution of its

(36:37):
kind in America. Also, whenyou mentioned edgar Mitchell, I was honored
not just to have him as afriend, but to know that he knew
that I was a friend of his. I had the pleasure of having dinner

(37:00):
with him at his home some yearsback, a very modest kind of ranch
house just outside of Miami, andmyself and my colleague and friend, Jennifer
Snein, and two associates. Wewere speaking in south of Florida, is
about a four and a half hourdrive each way. But when he invited

(37:21):
us for dinner early that afternoon,we got in the car and we took
off. We get there, it'sa Sunday, and he comes out of
the house very casually dressed and gracious, welcome, and then he says,
I have to apologize to all ofyou why he said I wanted to take
you all out to dinner. ButI've realized very quickly it's Mother's Day and

(37:44):
there's not a reservation to be had. I hope you don't mind, but
I've ordered in. It's from ourbest Italian restaurant, but we're eating in
my kitchen. Of course, Iimmediately said, no, that's not good
enough for me. Let's go backto Clearwater, Florida. Well it was
me, will say, one ofthe most memorable dinners you can imagine,
and a great dinner. I wishI remember the name of the restaurant.

(38:05):
But his graciousness extended to giving usa tour of his home, and you
can imagine some of the memorabilia inthe house. At one point, we're
standing in front of a framed portraitof the aircraft carrier that packed picked him
his colleagues up when they splashed down, Apollo fourteen. And you know his

(38:29):
name is there in Germanic script,all very official. Since it's really nice,
he said, read it again,Edgar. They spelled your name wrong,
he said, can you believe it? We go into his study and
mounted on a beautiful block of hardwood, very polished with a brass plaque.

(38:49):
Is this aerogetic piece of plastic whichwas essentially the steering module for the Apollo
fourteen lunar lander. And I'm staringat it. I look at me,
goes go ahead. It had agreat sense of humor, very dry on
his couch like many of our couches, or a number of throat pillows,

(39:09):
and one completely undid me is beautiful, classic petty point that he said was
a gift from a woman friend thatsaid, quote unquote, if they can
send a man to the moon,why not all of them? Obviously a
humorous astronaut as well, Yes,very much. So at what point did

(39:35):
something happen or was it just sortof a natural progression that you realize the
world that you are now very mucha part of and a distinguished part of
in terms of UFO studies, theparanormal and broadcasting. Did you realize this
was really going to be the centerof your professional life. That probably would
have been when I left radio,just because that was the clear distinction between

(40:01):
where, Okay, I do UFOresearch on Saturday nights, whether I'm behind
the micro I'm you know, pushingbuttons on the board and calling these people.
You know, when you leave thatprofession and you decide to strike out
on your own, as I did, and I didn't mind you. I

(40:21):
didn't go immediately enter another profession.What I ended up doing. I had
a little bit of money i'd saved, so I bought my first mixing board
and microphone. And and you knowit's funny, I think I've actually got
that microphone still seeing on the otherside of the desk, although it doesn't
work that well. But it's thisvery large reproduction of a large diaphragm microphone,

(40:44):
which wasn't very expensive. It reallyjust had the feel of one of
those old broadcast microphones which you mighthave seen Long John Nebele using up there
in New York, way back inthe day in the old photos. As
you can tell, I'm a classicradio nut, and almost any evening of
the week you're likely to find metrying to go to sleep, maybe unsuccessfully,

(41:05):
and therefore laying there for hours,sometimes listening to those old art bill
shows where Art would speak with EdgarMitchell, or he would talk with Richard
Hobland or Lynda. How you know. I enjoy all those shows, even
the subjects that aren't particularly interesting tome. I still just love the dynamics
of old radio. But I'll goall the way back and listen to Long
John two and all the old things. You can see. War of the
Worlds, I think right back herebehind me talking about old fashioned radio plays,

(41:29):
that's a whole other thing. AndI encourage any of our viewers and
listeners who just feel that's the past, you can find them online. And
the theater of the mind is aconcept that is really starting. It's really
kind of passed because we're presented withso many extraordinary visual opportunities with the most

(41:53):
top level production values, and thatthing of sitting or lying in the dark
and simply listening to a radio play. They can be sixty seventy eighty years
old. They can be funny orscary or poignant. Some of them went
on to or or based on filmsof the time or theater. Some of

(42:15):
the actors went on to become AcademyAward winners. It's a whole another world,
and if you've never explored it,you really should. Oh sincerely,
and you know, I have agood friend named Roger who gifted me with
an old Zenith radio, probably fromthe late thirties or early forties. It
still works. It actually still works. It's an old tube radio. It's

(42:37):
got to warm up before it'll dialin. And if I were to hook
it up to a you know,a really good antenna with maybe a few
modifications, it would probably pick upa lot more radio stations, but it
still picks up, believe it ornot. My Alma mate five seventy WWNC,
the old am radio station that Iworked at, it still picks it

(42:58):
up. And every now and thenwhen they rebroat casting Art Bill on Saturday
nights, if I happen to behome, I'll just go in there and
crank up the old tubes and listen. But to answer your question, my
fondness for radio is no secret.But it was the choice in leaving that
profession and striking out for a time, you know, utilizing those resources I
had made in terms of the musicalenvironment in this region, getting gigs and

(43:22):
gradually getting to a point where Icould, you know, maybe not make
a whole lot of money, butI could sustain myself for long enough as
a musician, and I did formany years, also include a bit of
credit card debt, But that allworked out because in the long run it
allowed me to pave a path towardalmost full time study of as you eloquently

(43:44):
term it, the well, notthe craft. You call it the work,
the work, And of course Ialways think of the great work.
But when we when Peter and Isay the work we're talking about the study
of UAP underdentified aerial phenomena that reallyhas become, I think, for both
of us, our life's work.But you eloquently call it the work,
and again leaving radio behind to goin that direction and pursue this almost full

(44:07):
time, even though it's questionable whetherI'm still doing it full time now,
managing to debrief and everything, butbut I'm still able to do it more
than most and enough to put myappetite because there is so much work to
be done in this field, evennow, even with all the things going
on is that currently are Yeah,never more than now. I want to

(44:28):
talk a bit about the origins ofwhat became the debrief because when it started,
you know, the competition was ferocious. There are so many outstanding podcasts
and podcasters and online paranormal UFO relatedinformation sources. There's also, you know,

(44:52):
for every quality show, there's anawful lot of crap out there.
And as we know, the Internetis a double edged sword. The higher
world of information beyond conception opens upto us, but some of us is
just completely unvetted, fantasy driven nonsense, and one needs to be selective in

(45:16):
your information sources. The debrief begankind of for me a cut above so
much that was out there. Youand you're founding colleagues already had essentially done
your apprenticeships, and you came togetherto produce this, this phenomena and phenomena

(45:45):
in broadcasting. I love your wordinghere too, in that you refer to
it as a news site that exploresthe latest in science and this wonderful phrase
disruptive technology. I salute you onthat phrase alone. It says at all.

(46:05):
But can you talk about how thosewords kind of came together and what
they represent to you and your colleagues. Well, certainly I'll give credit to
Tim McMillan for the use of disruptivetechnology. That again, just describing anything
a technological breakthrough or development, thatresort of reinvigorates the direction that technological progression

(46:30):
in any industry or other kind ofarea may be going. As far as
how that applies to the formation ofthe company, I guess we really have
to go back to twenty seventeen inthe New York Times and Ralph and Leslie
publishing that article. I'll never forgetthat day looking at the news and seeing

(46:51):
this, what is this glowing aurasand black that looks weird, And I
click the link. I think ithad been linked on Drudge Report or one
of the news sites, and Igo and I read the story. And
as a subscriber to The New YorkTimes, because like yourself, you know
this intimately having spent time down therein the dungeon, you know, going
through their actual records and the microfish files and some of the originals.

(47:15):
But again, like you, I'ma student of history, and I subscribed
more than to read the daily news, to have access to their Times machine
and the history that they provide throughtheir reporting on the UFO subject over the
years, and many other things too, obscure reports of wild men and things
that go all the way back tothe late eighteen hundreds that appear to the
New York Times, stuff like that. I'm fascinated with all this. So

(47:37):
anyway, and also, you know, even history not related to the unexplained,
just actual history, Watergate things likethis. You know, I love
diving into that. So all thatsaid, I saw the article, I
think we all kind of realized,well, this is a big deal.
Potentially, maybe I didn't know atthat moment how big a deal it would
be, and naturally a lot ofthe podcasting and everything that everyone was doing,

(48:00):
especially in my case, shifted overto Okay, what is this,
Let's try and find out what wecan and there became a lot of dialogue
between us, you know what,became a fairly tight knit little group,
a little codre, you might say, of ever searchers. In early twenty
nineteen, I believe I first receivedmaybe it was late twenty nineteen or early

(48:20):
twenty twenty. I believe it waslate twenty nineteen that I first received a
communication from a former police officer fromSavannah, Georgia, Tim McMillan. He
said, I'll listen to your showevery week. I'm a fan of your
work. I would love to talkwith you sometime. And it was a
few months before I could get backwith him, but once we finally did
line up a time to talk,we became very fast friends, and of
course we still are. Then therewas a small group, a chat group

(48:44):
that Tim put together that had himself, our colleague M. J. Banias,
our colleague John Greenwald, a fewother people too, and we jokingly
referred to it as the Invisible College, just because that was a reference to
Jacques Vallet and of the long timescientists who have before this became in vogue
as it is now, who attimes put their names behind it and their

(49:07):
reputations at stake, and some hadto remain in the shadows, but nonetheless
contributed as you know. And wecontinued to look at this and take it
very seriously. But at some point, especially in the case of MJ and
Tim, well, while I continuedto kind of do things as I've always
done them through podcasts, interviews,lectures at events and things. Keep in

(49:28):
mind this was before the plague timesotherwise known as COVID nineteen, and we
could still travel. At that time. You and I had done some events
I believe together, and some thingson ind occasions at various events. Tim
and MJ began to take a differentapproach and started reaching out and writing for
publications like Vice and Popular Mechanics andThe War Zone. The war Zone in
particularly. It stood out to mebecause Tiragaway he has reported on UFOs,

(49:54):
and when he did, I reallysaw him again as another innovator, somebody
who was approaching this entirely differently frommaybe people in our community. Peter and
Tim actually wrote a couple of articlesfor the War Zone. Not all of
them were about UFOs, but Iremember thinking for a moment I was maybe
inclined to want to try and writefor them too, And so I reached

(50:15):
out to Rogaway and he called meon the telephone and we spoke for about
an hour one day, had agreat chat. I got to know him
very well. Another great friend ofmine and a colleague who now works at
space dot Com also began to writefor them, but I ended up instead
of going ahead and submitting an article, I kept watching the dialogue in the
debate. And I think this comesback to the history. You have often

(50:37):
talked about the history of the ridiculefactor, and one component of that is
the periodicity of waves of UFO interest. And I began to think, you
know, I don't think that themainstream interest we're seeing in this subject is

(50:57):
indefinite, and we should never takefor granted that it will be that suddenly
some glass ceiling has been broken thatall, and that all of a sudden,
the New York Times every week isgoing to publish stories on this subject.
And I remember calling Tim and saying, if this subject is going to
continue to get the attention from seriousresearchers that it deserves. Mark my words,
that won't be able to continue inlegacy publications and even some of the

(51:21):
best up and coming publications that arecovering this. I say it's going to
require a new publication that takes atotally different approach. I came up with
a name, the Debrief, Ibought the domain, and I remember calling
Tim up and saying, I'm soexcited. I think I've found the website
we're gonna launch. And then onceCOVID nineteen the lockdowns really happened. That's
when m J came on board andwe really began to kind of formalize things.

(51:44):
We worked for about a year beforewe finally launched in December of twenty
twenty, and once we did,I think things really took off. And
again I'll give credit to my goodpal Tim. I may have had that
original idea, but two things thatTim really did right from the outset were
he said, for the UFO subjectto be taken seriously, we can't just
report on UFOs. We've got toreport on disruptive technology. We've got to

(52:07):
report on all of these developments indefense and science. So that UFOs are
treated no differently. And that's beenthe problem in the long run, you
know, is that we all havelooked at us per se, but many
have looked at UFOs as being,well, that's water cooler, that's just
fun stuff. Our modus operandi sinceday one has been to treat that no
differently from any defense or science topicthat we would cover, and we've endeavored

(52:30):
to continue to do that. Now, had you told me that a couple
of years after we launched this humblelittle idea of mine, once Tim and
MJ and I get this thing offthe ground, that the very authors of
that twenty seventeen article that reframe thedebate, that they'd be knocking on our
door, and that they've become dearcolleagues and work with us, and I
truly cherish having that experience. Ifyou'd told me all that, I'd have

(52:52):
called you a liar. But herewe are today, right, you know,
for the folks who are not thatfamiliar with what we're talking about here.
On December sixteenth of two thousand andseventeen, The New York Times published
two articles relating to UFOs UAPs.The first one began in a small box

(53:16):
on the front page, but itwas the Sunday edition, and it was
a front page article. This hadnot happened probably in some decades, certainly
since nineteen eighty nine and the VotersRussian incident. And it caught my attention
immediately because I'm a long time Timesreader, but also because the first article

(53:42):
discussed a project going back to thetwo thousand and two or two thousand and
four, when the then Speaker ofthe House had requested funding of twenty twenty
two million dollars for a UFO studycommittee, something that was known in the
field but was new to mister andMissus America. And there it was,

(54:04):
and unusually, the Times treated itwith respect, not their normal pattern up
until that point. The second articlewas about the Navy pilots who observed what
became known as the tic tac UFOs, and we were often running, like
you said, there have been somany false starts over the decades where those

(54:25):
of us who kept an eye onthe subject thought, maybe this will be
the big breakthrough, and it neverhas been. So I took it with
a grain of salt, and ittook me about a year really to realize
that the other shoe was not goingto drop that something had changed. The
articles in question were written by LeslieKane, certainly one of the most distinguished

(54:52):
journalists in history to associate herself ona long time basis with this subject.
With Ralph Blumenthal, a Pulitzer Prizewinning reporter for The Times for more than
fifty years, who I had startedto correspond with about ten years ago now,
but our acquaintanceship didn't become a realfriendship until the last few years.

(55:15):
And Helene Cooper, a wonderful reporterwho often isn't given credit for her participation
in this, and things indeed didstart to change. You're formalizing your own
goals and aims with the debrief inthat period of time was particularly important.

(55:39):
And we're going to jump back intothis as soon as we returned from break,
because we are through our first hour. This is Peter Robbins with my
special guest Mica Hanks. The programis meanwhile here on Earth and we will
be back in four minutes, soyou should be too, ya hey.

(56:14):
Members. The new kgrra GB appis now available on iOS and Android devices.
Gain on demand access to any kgrradB programming. Download any show directly
to your mobile device. To listenor watch on the go, go to
the app store and search KGRRA DP. Are we alone in the universe?

(56:53):
The most important question facing humanity ison the verge of being settled once for
all. The Mutual UFO Network hasbeen at the forefront of this journey for
nearly fifty years. Our members worldwideare dedicated to the research, documentation,
and awareness that will shape the futureof humanity. Won't you join us?

(57:27):
It's not just a donation. It'sa warm blanket, it's a bottle of
clean water. It's a roof anda bed. It's knowing someone cares.
It's feeling safe. He said.Today that's better than yesterday. Every dollar
you can spare helps so much morethan you can imagine. Please donate now

(57:52):
to help people affected by Hurricane Ian. Your support is urgently needed. Discover
the Observation Deck, a one ofa kind virtual event platform that takes video
conferencing to the next level by usingavatars to navigate a campus. There's so
many areas and activities to choose from. There's a thousand seed auditorium, an

(58:12):
expo hall, a nightclub, andeven a beach. So come atwn a
conference, take a class or heara lecture on the incredible observation at campus.
Go to the Observation DK dot com. You're listening to the KGr A
Digital broadcasting Network. We provide unparalleledcoverage of trending news in the world of

(58:39):
ufology, cryptozoology, and paranormal phenomenon. Whether you're watching our video live stream
or listening to one of our audioprograms, you are getting the best from
world renowned researchers and hosts guiding youthrough topics of mainstream won't touch miss one

(59:02):
of your favorite programs, no problem. Head over to the members area at
KGRA a dB dot com for accessto our massive library of award winning content.
Make contact stay connected only at kgr a dB dot com and we

(59:43):
are back, and I mean justback before the break ended. I am
working on a yogurt. You're workingon something to drink and picking up where
we left off. Helene Cooper,the Times journalists, I I don't know
if she stayed involved in this subject. Leslie Kane first got involved in this

(01:00:06):
subject. I think it was atleast twenty years ago. At the time,
I was running a UFO related websiteand one of those rare birds where
I had corporate sponsorship. It wasa full time job, five days a
week, working in midtown Manhattan.Is called ufocity dot com, and I'm

(01:00:30):
still very proud of it. Westarted business the end of nineteen ninety eight
and ran into the summer of twothousand and four. We had an extraordinary
cadre of reporters, including a teenageJohn Greenwald, Nick Pope Georgina Brunei in

(01:00:57):
London, and quite a pantheon ofcontributors, all who received in salary beautiful
business cards with raised ink saying specialcorrespondent ufocity dot com. It doesn't get
much better than that in non payingjobs. And I would receive anything UFO

(01:01:19):
related in print in English waiting inmy inbox from around the world in the
morning. And one morning I checkedand there was an article from the Boston
Globe, a distinguished mainstream newspaper aboutthe Comitas, the French government's report coming
out of their air force on theUFO phenomena, written by one Leslie Kane.

(01:01:45):
I read it. It was excellent, and I sent an emailed m
as Cane that afternoon saying how muchI had enjoyed the article, What a
breath of fresh air. It wasto see such a well research, serious
piece in a mainstream American newspaper,and did if this was a subject that

(01:02:06):
she felt she was going to stayinvolved in that I would be happy to
cut some introductions for her, andshe was interested, and I introduced her
to Bud Hopkins and Dave Jacobs,and boy, she went on to make
one of the biggest marks in thehistory of this subject. Leslie has always
been one of the smartest, mostchavvy, most observant journalists ever to touch

(01:02:34):
this subject, and has now beengoing strong for twenty years. Ralph Blumenthal
again started as a Times reporter rightout of Columbia Journalism school, and as
he told me, he just decidedto from school, go right to the

(01:02:55):
New York Times and ask for jobas a reporter. And this doesn't usually
happen, but he was hired andsent right to Vietnam. And I remember
at the height of the anti warmovement, which I was certainly a part
of as a student, reading hisdispatches from Vietnam on the ground, and

(01:03:17):
what a career he has had.Again, before we discuss how they got
in touch with you. Rather thanwaiting around for the New York Times or
The Washington Post to fully vet theirrather explosive. Most recent contribution to the

(01:03:42):
work, Ralph wrote what will probablystand as the definitive biography on the late
grade doctor John Mack, and ifit's a subject that interests you, the
Believer, which subtitled Alien Encounters,Hard Science and the Passion of John Mack,

(01:04:06):
is must reading. I know,for me, someone who was lucky
enough to know John, consider hima friend, and know he considered me
same, to mourn him when hewas killed by a drunken driver in England,
and almost twenty years ago. Atthis point I had never read a

(01:04:29):
full, grown up biography of somebodywho I knew, or more accurately thought
I knew, Because how much dowe know about the people that we know,
especially when the subject of a majorbiography. Also in April, Ralph
and his wife Deborah, a verydistinguished writer for The Times and other publications

(01:04:54):
as well also a novelist, anutritionist, and as acted children's book author,
published a book that caught me ina lot of people completely off guard.
And if you're not aware of it, you should be, because it's
in its own way, it's revolutionary, it's very quietly explosive, and I

(01:05:17):
think a game changer as we seehow it's going to impact on things over
time. It is nothing less thana children's book on UFOs. And when
they told me they were writing orthey had written a book for the young
reader market, I assumed it wasfor adolescence and teenagers. No, it

(01:05:38):
is not. UFOs is aimed atsix to nine year olds, and it
is remarkable in how unflinching it isin addressing the subject of truly anomalous hard
metal structured craft. It's brilliant infact, and it's published by the University

(01:06:03):
of New Mexico Press. Very fewUFO books have ever been published by universities,
and no children's book on the subjecthas ever been published by a university
press. Again, it went onsale in April. It is doing well.
I think it's going to be aperennial. The approach and their brilliant

(01:06:26):
illustrator, Adam Dustifton. First,we have black end papers, unusual for
children's books, lettering that for meis somewhat reminiscent of classic children's literature,
whether it's Charlotte's Web or Doctor Seussor Goodnight Moon. It has that feeling

(01:06:50):
subtitle Mysteries in the Sky, andit opens very simply with two people playing
tennis younger people. I'm looking upand seeing a genuinely anomalous UFO. It
also goes on to discuss I meanagain, they are unflinching about the craft,

(01:07:13):
and they very wisely steer away fromany references to the occupants. David
Jacobs, who has a very drysense of humor, once described the very
beginnings of the study of other intelligencesas opposed to their craft, as we

(01:07:34):
were preoccupied with the cars and notthe drivers, and court talking about the
drivers, you are crazy person talkingabout the vehicles. Well, maybe there's
something to it with that setting thescene. Ralph and Leslie work together on

(01:07:56):
an article that I felt was absolutelyexplosive in terms of the individual involved and
framing this whistleblower with others and somehistory on the subject. It was certainly
a piece of journalism that both theNew York Times and the Washington Post were

(01:08:19):
considering publishing. However, they wouldunderstandably have had to do with these two
journalists did, which was fully thatthe individual and the backstories, which would
have taken several weeks in the meantime, an individual in the UFO field was
poised to kind of grab that headlineand not as responsibly as they did,

(01:08:44):
and they made the decision to goto a little known website podcasts called the
Debrief, relatively little known in theworld of journalism, that is, and
you guys it up with one ofthe most important news stories I think in
retrospect when we look back on itof this era, talk about how this

(01:09:11):
came to be, Well, youknow, you've already given a very good
basis for all that, as youcorrectly note, this is a story that
potentially and there's a lot still thatis in the works even right now.
But is the first shot, right, you know, across the bowel,
or that shot heard around the world. I mean, this is the first
step toward potentially huge revelations, manyof which were very much in keeping with

(01:09:35):
things that people who have studied thissubject now for decades are acutely already aware
of and wouldn't necessarily be entirely surprisedby if it did finally come out that
hey, you know what, itwas all true now. That said,
to me, the important points tobe made about this story are the fact

(01:09:56):
that, as you said, Ralphand Leslie were on this as one of
several follow ups to the twenty seventeenreporting that they had published in The New
York Times, and they had donea follow up. I'm going to cut
you off at one moment just tosay that what was radical about this for
me and completely unexpected, was theywere talking supportively about exotic aspects of this

(01:10:21):
subject that no journalists at their levelshad touched crash retrievals, and that ilk
that level of the game, thishad not happened again with journalists at their
level of the game. And thestory itself for me, it wasn't secondary

(01:10:43):
to the journalists who were presenting it, but I was completely caught off guard
that Ralph and Leslie would lend theirnames and their reputations to taking it that
much further along than I would haveanticipated. Didn't. I did mean to
cut you off. Please continue,that's most welcome again. You know your

(01:11:05):
eloquence is almost unmatched Peter Robbins there, if you I would allow to do
that, No, I'm kidding,actually, But when it comes to this
story, how it really came togetheressentially had been on a Wednesday night,
I got an urgent message from LeslieKing, and she was saying, listen,
you know, I'd like to talkto you about a potential story we
might want to publish with you.At that time, I did have an

(01:11:28):
idea what the story would be about, but only an idea, because it
was already being whispered that there wasa big story coming with a Washington Post,
and I'd expected that that would probablycome to fruition. So I was
very surprised to have heard from Leslie, who of course i'd spoken to in
the past and knew very well,especially knew her work. But we had
communicated, and she and Ralph andI, of course all knew each other.

(01:11:51):
She had written an article for TheDebrief previously, so had Ralph published
with us previously, so they wereboth returned authors, having worked with us
since we've founded the Debrief in latetwenty twenty twenty. But when she said
I have a story you may wantto publish, although I had a general
idea, it wasn't a clear ideaof you know, who the key players

(01:12:13):
were, what the primary claims wouldbe. So I remember she and I
had an introductory conversation and she hadtold me on the telephone that night she
said, you know, we arestill trying to work with some bigger publications,
and I hope you'll understand, towhich I simply responded, go with
the biggest publication if you feel thatthat's what you should do, because that's
going to get you the most exposure. And I actually supported that. I

(01:12:34):
supported that because under those circumstances,and I know it may be hard for
some people to see it this way, but there is Micah Hanks to that,
who's the editor in chief of ascience and technology publication called The Debrief
that sometimes reports on UFOs when andwhere there's news. But then entirely apart

(01:12:54):
from that, there is Mica Hanks, the long time advocate for scientific studies
of UFOs, you know, andwhen those two can work together, great,
But some most days of the week, when i'm editor in chief or
science writer and defense reporter for thefor the Debrief, I have to study
all that stuff. And then inmy spirit time I'm studying the work.

(01:13:15):
Now that said, My advice aseditor in chief but also as someone who
prospects the work was go with thebiggest publication that you can. And as
it turned out, because of someof those dynamics, the name of the
primary source had leaked, there wasanother interview that was about to drop.
There were other shifting dynamics. Ralphand Leslie had been working for a long

(01:13:38):
time on this story with a bigpublication we already named him, the Washington
Post, but they were at thispoint concerned that they would lose the story
or that what they were going tobreak would not be as impactful. Now,
I'll just clarify that I think itwas erroneously stated by some media outlets.
Not all. I mean, actuallyit was a minority, but a

(01:13:59):
few had said, well, there'sa reason why these bigger publications passed on
this story and chose not to publishit. That's not accurate. They didn't
to publish it. Let's be veryclear. Many of them said that they
wanted more time. And actually Ralphand Leslie and our conversations prior to publication
were clear because I needed to knowfrom them, what are the reasons this
hasn't gone to print yet someplace else? This seems like an explosive story,

(01:14:21):
and so the challenge for us atthe debrief had been not only here are
the reasons why the story has notbeen published by other publications? The information
they we're looking for. Can weget that? Do we have enough resources
in our network of contacts, Canwe, for instance, independently vet all
these individuals, but also get anindependent confirmation of information that for whatever reason,

(01:14:42):
these other publications said that they hadn't. In hindsight, I've looked back
at this and thought a lot aboutit, Pete, because we were within
the first six hours able to vetall of those sources with no problem that
granted, keep in mind, wehave a lot of contacts who of course
our individuals who had prior to publication, those people had known Grush from his
previous work in various capacities, andwe were able to get information and that

(01:15:05):
would help to corroborate who he saidhe was. And we actually published a
series of supplemental interviews with Tim McMillanconducted by our lead science writer, Chris
Plaine, where they outline all ofthis, all that process, that investigative
process, and for the large part, again credit to Tim McMillan, because
he was managing a lot of thatwhile I was traveling that weekend, but
also constantly on the phone with Ralphand Leslie coordinating doing the editing, formatting,

(01:15:29):
and the actual editorial work leading upto this. There was a tremendous
amount of work that happened that betweenWednesday night and Sunday evening, and up
until Sunday night at almost midnight,Leslie and I were still on the telephone
doing the final live the lion editson that before publication on Monday. But
I became aware of something that tome is kind of funny. We were,

(01:15:50):
to our satisfaction, able to getindependent not just Ralph and Leslie told
us. Now we got the sources, and we were able to independently vet
those individuals firm all aspects of thestory. And I remember at one point
saying to Leslie, there is somuch information here, and so much of
this data seems to be so corroborativeor or capable of being corroborated. Not

(01:16:15):
to say that it was unlike thetwenty seventeen article, but in a way
though that I felt that this storyhad an even firmer basis in many ways
than the twenty seventeen story had.Maybe there are reasons for that, because
again in twenty seventeen, I mean, the new reporting is building off of
everything that's come out since then,right, and so more people have come
forward, more government officials have beenworking on this and have come out and

(01:16:38):
spoken on the record. Twenty seventeen, it was kind of the wild West
when this thing broke and everybody waslooking at this, going what's this all
about? Right, So maybe that'spart of the reason why. But I
said to Leslie, I said,given what is being reported here, the
fact that these sources are going onthe record and talking about it, the
fact that this is all substantiated furtherby an intelligence community Inspector General complaint from

(01:17:04):
which the investigation if Grush were foundto have made any false statements knowingly or
to be lying, I mean,he cannot possibly benefit from that. Yes,
that's right, and that a formerInspector General attorney is actually representing him.
At that time it had been apart of a certain law firm as
well. But I said to Leslie, I said, this story to me,
not only I mean builds off ofand is even more impressive than the

(01:17:27):
twenty seventeen reporting, but I meanit's a bigger story. And Leslie said,
I agree. I think this ispotentially she actually said to me at
one point, and she may havebeen the first to make that statement that
I think this is maybe bigger thanthe twenty seventeen story. So in hindsight,
Peter, I've looked at this andthought about it a lot. And
I'll tell you something. I waslistening to one of those old broadcasts of
Bell the other night and Hoagland wason there, and he and Bell were

(01:17:48):
going back and forth like they did, and at one point Hogeland at that
time. But a quick background forfolks, if you'll indulge me. In
the mid nineteen nineties, Hoagland hadbeen doing at the National Press Club and
he was really laying out all thebest evidence he felt for the reality that
there was some weird stuff going upon the moon. Right. I don't
know if I buy all of that, but he really had. He had

(01:18:10):
a lot of fire and a lotof ways and Mars and it was really
fascinating to hear all of that.But the reason I bring that up here
is because at one point Art Bellasked, Hogland, look, if this
is really the big story of thecentury, like you say it is,
how come nobody else has reported thisbefore now? And Richard kind of said,
I'm going to tell you something aboutthis. Having worked under Walter Croncott,
the most trusted man in America ashis science advisor. Having worked in

(01:18:32):
the media, he said, Iwas appalled by the way that those other
reporters treated the space program. Thiswas less than news to them. It
wasn't a story. They didn't believeor care if we went to the Moon.
And Hogland's point was what I learnedfrom that experience back in those days
was that there are a lot ofmedia agencies that they have their interests,
and then they're the things they don'tcare about. And if there's a big

(01:18:55):
story that's so far outside of thethings that they care about, they're more
than happy to wait and see who'sgoing to publish it first, and see
if the story sells them, thenthey'll jump on and they'll talk about it
too. And I can't help butfeel that it wasn't so much that some
of these publications, you know,hadn't vetted it a wing. I don't
think that the incredible reporters, andI mean that sincerely at the Washington Post,

(01:19:17):
these other publications, they're they're incrediblycapable, They've got tremendous resources,
So I mean them no slight whenI say I don't think that they were
unable to corroborate or vet these sourcesor anything. I think what it came
down to for them was that theywere concerned, and this having a lot
more to do with those old stigmasabout publishing a story like this. But

(01:19:39):
once the story was published by ourlittle publication, it wasn't very long before
the Guardian right New York New Yorkermagazine News than the New York Times themselves
in two instances, once on apodcast, once they're also taught column and
many many other publications also reported onthis, and the a boogund to build
on it, and of course noless among them News Nation and Raw Schooltart's

(01:20:00):
interview with Grush. So the pointis, sometimes I think it does take
a little pugnacity but also a willto recognize the story and to get it
out there and to see that thisis bigger than all of us. And
that the last thing I'll say manymany times on those phone calls over those
several days, Ralph and Leslie andI I admire the two of them so
much because they're not people who aredoing this for money. They're not people

(01:20:24):
who are doing this for attention.And there were many instances over those several
days where we reiterated that point thatthis story is so much bigger than all
of us. That's another reason whyfor the first several weeks we also ran
it ad free on the website sothat we weren't directly profiting from that.
During the biggest tidal wave of trafficmy website's ever gotten, some of my
team members were a little upset aboutthat, but in the end we all

(01:20:45):
agreed, and they were very verygracious in their understanding of that decision that
the authors and I and Tim hadmade because again, and I keep coming
back to the point that Ralph andLeslie and I made in those calls,
this story's a lot potentially than allof us. The last thing too,
Marco Rubio in recent days makes someexcellent points talking about this, saying there

(01:21:06):
are other whistleblowers who have said similarthings, and maybe we can on this
a little pete, but he said, and I think this is really important
to point out here. Rubio saidduring an interview, this also a news
nation. One of two things isgoing on here. All these people we're
hearing from like Grush, who havetold us for years that there are these
kind of programs and that this kindof again non human technology have been acquired.

(01:21:30):
They're either telling us the truth orthere's somebody further up the chain in
government who's lying and making us alllook bad. And Marco said, whatever
that, whichever scenario it is,it needs to be investigated. I agree
wholeheartedly. The story to me isthe Intelligence Community inspector General Complaint GRUSH does
not stand to benefit from lying inany way with that having filed that complaint,

(01:21:55):
and whatever the outcome of that investigationis, whether which direction it goes
is Marco said, spot on,we do need to know. Whatever the
outcome. One of the most importantaspects of what is going on among our
elected officials right now, now thata certain amount of the cat is out

(01:22:16):
of the bag. My very bestsense is the hardcore secret keepers they're going
to twist and turn and resist anyefforts to acknowledge or release or put forth
the more exotic materials, crash retrievals, hybrids, abduction, and they will

(01:22:47):
struggle against it for as long asthey possibly can. However, disclosure is
an organic process. It's not likelywe're going to see the President of the
United States going on on TV andjust announcing we're not alone in the universe.
It's happening all by itself every day, and considering how more and more,

(01:23:10):
and I'm not being facetious here thewords the United States of America is
becoming more and more endangered, moreand more an oxymoron. We are not
united hardly. We are a timeseeming like we are on the edge of
really tearing each other apart, whichbreaks my heart, infuriates me, and

(01:23:32):
at the same time is something weunderstand. This issue, the reality of
truly anomalous UFOs and its implications forhumanity, has the potential to bring us
together. And for every Marco Rubioright now, we have a cursed in

(01:23:53):
Jill Brand. Rubio is of course, almost an archetype for a conservative Republican
elected official. Jill Brand, oneof my congressional representatives, smart as a
whip, progressive liberal Democrat, isas fixed on this situation as possible,

(01:24:15):
and she must have had some reallyknowledgeable advisors. Most recently, and I'm
going to bring up a piece righthere now that appeared in ask A poll
just last week. Senator Kristi JillBrand is working on scheduling hearings for up
whistleblower David Gersh, along with thecurrent or former government officials who seemed to

(01:24:38):
corroborate some of his claims. JillBrand said they'll be open to the public
if Gersh agrees to allow cameras.In last week, the Senator announced she
secured full funding for all Domain AnomalyResolution Office AERO in the Senate Armed Services
Committee marked the FY twenty four NationalDefense Authors Act. Jill Brand is also

(01:25:01):
pushing a measure in this year's mustpass National Defense Authorization Act in response Agers's
claim the federal government is hiding specialaccess programs from Congress. Our proposal would
bar funding for any Congressional program thatisn't directly funded by Congress. Quote,
so if there are SAPs out therethat are somehow outside of the normal chain

(01:25:25):
of command and outside the normal appropriationsprocess, they have to divulge that to
Congress. The fact that these thingsare happening right now from both sides of
the aisle, I think it's asign of hope for not just the future
of this country, but for thoseof us to come in the future,

(01:25:48):
that we're not at a tipping pointyet, and I think sometimes people like
us are colleagues, those who followthe work that we do kind of get
caught up in the illusion that everybodyof the majority of people is ready for
this. They're not. That criticalmass is still far to be met,

(01:26:13):
and I think we have to havecompassion and remember that most folks are not
thinking about this the way we are. Their focus is on paying their bills,
paying their mortgages, their rent,raising healthy children, hoping that there's
something called social security by the timethat they need it. That you know,
our country continues to remain intact,that the world doesn't blow itself to

(01:26:35):
hell, and the whole UFO thing. It's just a side furnished topic.
Maybe it's true, maybe it's not, but it's not where my focus in
life is. And so we're allkind of coming up together on this,
but we need to be aware ofboth sides. Let's talk a little bit
about David Gersh, who on somelevels is yet one more whistleblower, saying

(01:27:01):
X, Y, and Z provedme wrong. I think part of the
reason I paid such close attention tohis claims had to do with Ralph Blumenthal
and leslie King to journalists with suchspectacularly unencumbered records with any number of distinctions

(01:27:27):
as career journalists. Again, Ralphis winnever Pulleitzer Prize for leading the investigation
team of New York Times reporters onthe first World Trade Center bombing. They're
both remarkably intelligent, perceptive people whosereputations mean a great deal more to them.

(01:27:53):
And I don't think I'm extrapolating herethan you know, some huge paycheck
for you know, some cool article. And if the byline had been other
journalists that I did not feel thatway about, I might not have taken
this as seriously as I did,as quickly as I did. But let's

(01:28:16):
talk a bit about gersh here.What well you take it from there forbid?
Okay, sure I will. I'llbriefly just add to it again.
You know, you've you've pointed outsome important things about the authors here.
Leslie Kane, you know, longtimejournalist who's covered this topic, and she'd
been doing that long before The NewYork Times, like you mentioned. I

(01:28:38):
mean, she's contributed to journals,you know, you know, some of
the premier publications within the field.But it also she hasn't been covering it
longer than the Times, and Timeshas been covering it since forty seven,
although poorly. She's been covering itaccurately and ethically for twenty years now.
Before the twenty seventeen location of herarticle, she had been writing for the

(01:29:01):
Huffington Post and for numerous other publications, and of course it authored that excellent
book UFOs General's Pilots and Government Assiallygo on the record Rolfablenthall, in addition
to all the work that he didfrom Vietnam to two thousand and one and
nine to eleven and everything else,you know, he also was again an
editor and had that forty years ofexperience there at that publication, all of

(01:29:24):
that build up and again add inyou know Helene Cooper Hugh mentioned thank you
for mentioning her as well. Shehas stayed in this And when all the
unidentified aerial objects were being shot downearlier this year in February and all these
unusual things were happening, there wasin the middle of the Super Bowl there
was a last minute press conference heldwith General vander Work and of course of

(01:29:45):
NORAD and the press Corps that wason that call. I think it was
audio only, but Helene chimed inand said, I know you probably loathe
hearing this, but I have toask people are saying this is aliens And
again that was just a little reminderalong with the reporting she was doing at
that time with other reporters, youknow, for the New York Times,
she's very much still following this andgood as the Pentagon correspondent there at the

(01:30:06):
Times, and that being the makingher the third author on that piece.
I thought it was incredible in twentyseventeen having a reporter of her caliber.
So again yea to all these reporterswho have done this, and especially to
ralphin Leslie. Getting to work withhim on this piece particularly was great.
And back to Grush, as yousay, it was when I read the
article for the first time. That'swhen I mentioned that I wasn't sure exactly

(01:30:29):
what this was about. You know, there were whispers that there was something
that would be in the works inthe days ahead. But when they brought
the article to the debrief and I'mreading that as the editor in chief sitting
down to zero in and focus onthis, I'd never heard of David Grush.
I'd never seen his picture. Littledid I know I'd been in the
same room with him already. Butthis all would come to light a little

(01:30:53):
later. So I'm reading all ofthis and I'm thinking, again, this
is and I don't want to underplaythe magnitude of what he's claiming, but
I do want to say that what'sstuck out to me. Maybe it's just
my simple mind, but the intelligencecommunity inspector general complaint this is very important

(01:31:15):
because when those kinds of complaints arefiled, I mean, this is something
that, as the article states,was deemed to be a serious and pressing
concern for the intelligence community and ofcourse for the Department of Defense. The
investigation that ensues can't benefit him ifhe has found to have provided knowingly false
confirmation or I'm sorry, false statements. And this is one of the reasons

(01:31:39):
why skeptics, you know, MickWest, who's someone I've quoted and used
as a source in the past forarticles we've done, just as well as
other people who follow this topic.Even Micwest has said, I think Grush
believes what he's talking about. Thatto me is incredibly significant. So we
have here a gentleman who's a careerintelligence officer, having formerly worked with the
National Reconnaissance Office, the National GospaseIntelligence Agency, and within that capacity he

(01:32:02):
was the NGA's liaison to the UAPTask Force that was first officially authorized into
the cognizance to the Department of theNavy in twenty twenty. That is a
gentleman who's highly capable, based onwhat all of his former colleagues have said
about him. And there's been somemore that's come out, of course in
recent days. And I also failedto understand some of the controversy, especially

(01:32:27):
following the News Nation interview specifically wherehe was asked about bodies and things like
this. Everybody made such a bigdeal about bodies. And again it comes
back to what you mentioned earlier,Pete, that there is this problem with
mentioning the idea that there are occupantsof these craft. We focus on the
cars, not the drivers. AndI thought to myself, well, let's

(01:32:48):
see if there's really a controversy here. I went and listened to the way
that Ross posed the question to David, to listen to how he answered it,
and even was careful in the selectionof his own terminology by saying pilots
leslie in an interview that she gavewhere she explicitly said that that's not anything
that we spoke with our source aboutand that again, if he said that

(01:33:08):
in another interview, in another context, we can't really speak to that point.
That, by the way, letme just say for the record,
was completely consistent with all the conversationsthat Ralph and Leslie and I had that
topic never came up. But goingback and hearing mister Grush say it to
mister Coultart, I thought, well, first of all, Ross posed the
question. It wasn't you know,it wasn't a wrong question to ask,

(01:33:28):
especially for him as a journalist.I thought that Grush simply answered the question.
You know, hey, where there'ssmoke, there's fire. If there's
a crash that occurs, it seemsto involve a non human intelligence. In
some instances there may have been pilotsoperators of those craft. Pete, you
and I spent the last several decades, you even more decades than me looking
at these reports. And I mentionedTravis Walton at the beginning of this conversation,

(01:33:50):
and there are plenty of others whosay that they have observed what they
perceived as having been the occupants ofunder aerial craft that back in the old
the National Investigations Committee on Aerial phenomenon. NIECAP for a long time operated with
aversion to any reports of occupants.They only wanted to talk about the sports
cars. And then an interracial couplefrom up there in New Hampshire come along,

(01:34:15):
Betty and Barney Hill. And thenyet again, two individuals who don't
stand to gain anything in terms ofpublic credibility by coming out and saying,
guess what you know those flying saucerswe rode around on one of those,
just the opposite. They don't standto gain anything, but they come forward
with the story anyway. And longbefore those regressions were conducted by doctor Benjamin
Simon, there had been an interviewthat Walter Webb, a very very capable

(01:34:40):
young NIECAP investigator, had done withBetty and Barney Hill, where Barney explicitly
described having observed the occupants through hisbinoculars while observing the craft it relatively close
range. I think after cases likethat, it would become hard for any
investigative organization, civilian, military,or otherwise to avoid aid the elephant in

(01:35:00):
the room. And so to me, I think that a lot of the
controversy surrounding this current story is alittle unnecessary. For those who know the
history of this topic, and atsome point I think that the reality is
simply this, And this is justmy opinion, but I think we're going
to have to have a real hardreckoning with the reality of this topic and
also what the operators of said technologyare and what that means for us as

(01:35:24):
humankind. Yes, I'm not goingto make or presume to know anything beyond
that. I'm simply going to saythat if indeed these craft are what mister
Grush has characterized them as, beingthe capable, reliable intelligence official that he
is known to be, but he'sbackground I happen to know acutely well.
For him to have made these statements, it is impactful and has been I

(01:35:45):
think for a reason. But someof the controversy that's followed, to me
is almost baffling. Given the factthat this is a dialogue in a debate
that we've already been having for decades, can we not just move past the
shock and the all and frankly justat the pomp and circumstance surrounding that whole
discussion of occupants or pilots. Thatis really kind of a no brainer.
If we're talking about potentially non humancraft that have been acquired by the US

(01:36:10):
intelligence community in the military. Okay, so again we'll see where the investigation
by the IC Inspector General goes.And at that point that's really all we
can say because that's where we stillare. But it's going to be really
interesting to see how this goes.Final point, again, I keep coming
back to what Rubio and others havesaid. There are senators. There are
those who are in a position toknow, members of the Gang of Eight

(01:36:31):
on the Armed Services committees within theCongress, House and Senate who are saying
mister Grush's claims are not unlike thosewe have heard from others. There are
other whistle blowers. Okay, that'sone point that should be made. And
the other thing too, again isthat going forward with all of this,
we've got to see where these investigationsgo. But I mean, if all

(01:36:53):
of it comes out and it endsup being confirmed, again, I wonder
if it really will not to yourearlier point, and with respect, maybe
a lot of people aren't ready forit, but I know that for folks
like you and I, if Ifound out this was all true and it
ends up being confirmed, I'm notgoing to be incredibly shocked by that,
I mean it will be a revelation, make no mistake. But I think

(01:37:13):
rather than than going, my god, what are we going to do now,
my response will be that makes sense. I couldn't agree with you more.
And I think we're dealing with aparticular human dynamic here where when it
comes to naysayers first, Once againgoing back to our early comments about skepticism,

(01:37:35):
there have been ever so many peopleover the decades who have come forward
and made certain claims, the basicone being I was working at X y
Z agency or in this service branchand was privy to this information or exposed
to this technology, or brought intothis situation or a need to know basis,

(01:37:56):
and I'm here to tell you thatit's true. I may even be
opening myself up to foul play bydoing it, but I'm a courageous person
and I'm doing it. Far toomany of these accounts going back decades have
really been more informed by people wantingto feel special and prove me wrong.

(01:38:23):
And I now, am you know, a little bit famous in a certain
area of studies if you're interested init and kind of have even a little
bit of cult following. I knowthat better than most you can get away
with it to a degree in thiswork. At the same time, there
is I don't know if it's anately American. I would call it the

(01:38:45):
Oswald syndrome. If you want tobecome famous, fast attack somebody really famous
right now, allegorically or actually,and all of a sudden, you're a
name, you're a player. I'veseen already a number of individuals, some
whose names I'm familiar with, someI'm not, more in the armchair research

(01:39:09):
group than not, who say I'vealready had my doubts about this person,
or I didn't trust them to startwith, or you know, it's probably
gonna be another flash in the pan. And I guess, historically, more
than often as not people with attitudethat attitude approved right. But in this

(01:39:30):
case it's been more like a kneejer's reflex of I'm a skeptic and I'm
not going to be caught up inthis nonsense. Everybody seems to be jumping
on this one, so I'm goingto stand back and be the rational skeptical
observer here. In this case,I think you know they have made a
wrong judgment. Call again, timewill tell, of course. It's interesting

(01:39:58):
also how an event like this nowthat the ridicule factor continues to dissipate,
and whether you are distinguished professor ora important politician or an individual in the
profession, so to say, andyou publicly make it clear that you take

(01:40:23):
this seriously, you are no longernecessarily threatening your career or your reputation by
doing so, which is a veryhealthy thing, of course. But how
information goes off like popcorn at slightlydifferent rates. And just the other day,
let's see when it's dated here onthe son Originally it's published here now,

(01:40:48):
but it's a British publication and thiswas on June thirty, and it
deals with doctor Michio Kaku, whois certainly a distinguished man of science who
has sort of played both sides ofthis story. I take it seriously.
I don't take it seriously, butas a bit caught off guard by the

(01:41:10):
way he approached this renowned the theoreticalphysicist, doctor Mishokaku appeared on NBC News
where you discussed the latest videos Navyencounters of UAPs. Moving on, doctor
Cocu said that though analyzing the videos, physicists learned that these extraterrestrial flying saucers

(01:41:30):
could travel up to twenty times thespeed of sound. They can drop eighty
thousand feet within a matter of seconds. Not only that, but they can
fly under water. I don't knowthe math here, but I'm willing to
take his word for it and thatthis technology is beyond anything humans can feel

(01:41:53):
on Earth. He makes a strangeplea to people who have had physical contact
with aliens quote, and this iswhere I felt is he being sarcastic or
a bit playful, or actually sayingsomething that he takes seriously. For those
of you out there who want toemail us scientists about the sightings, we

(01:42:14):
have a word of advice. Thenext time you are kidnapped by a flying
saucer, for God's sake, stealsomething a pen, a pencil, a
chip, an alien technology, stealanything, because there's no law against stealing
from an extraterrestial civilization. Doctor Cockujoked, and my first thought was,
I'm not sure that they have pencilsor pens, or they leave loose objects

(01:42:38):
lying around. I don't remember anyreferences to, you know, leaving your
ray gun unloaded, or it justseemed very flipped. Of course, if
you know that alien carburetor or thatthumb of a gray or something. Yes,

(01:43:01):
although immediately the naysayers would get onits case as being fabricated and fake,
so it would be a double edgedsword there. But it kind of
caught me off guard in its playfulnessand at the same time, well,
I'm sure why not if you cando it, but I would guess they're
observing you when you're on board andprobably aware if you're removing anything, or

(01:43:28):
it's going to show up in thescanner before your return or what have you?
Any thoughts on that. It's justcut me off guard, somebody of
his reputation, both coming down veryseriously with a calculation on the speed,
and at the same time, youknow, a bit of good natured ribbing

(01:43:48):
your thoughts. Yeah, my thoughtsare this, First of all, doctor
Kaku, unlike a lot of peoplein mainstream science and especially as far as
science educated, like himself, hehas seemed to be seemed to have shown
a lot of favor. He's alwaysyeah, he's been far more so than
a lot of his colleagues. I'llsay that doctor Cock who has spoken publicly

(01:44:12):
and given lectures about UAP, andif you go back in fact read very
closely in books like Dimensions by JacquesValet in their late eighties and early nineties.
Cuck whose name was already appearing beingreferenced in books like that, So
I mean he was not someone whowas unknown to UFO researchers. One could
speculate that maybe he's always had thisinterest, but in more recent years,

(01:44:35):
with all the revelations, he seemsto be obviously be taking it seriously,
and he cites specifically, as younote there, the government data from sources
within the military describing radar observations.What he's referring to there. Of course,
that rapid descent and of course froman extremely high altitude is probably the

(01:44:56):
description Kevin Day provided of the Princetonradar data. It was collected around the
time of the two thousand and fourand in its incident they said that they
were for many days, weeks infact, leading up to the intercept attempt
or the them being vectored out there, Dave Fraver and Alex Dietrich that they've
been seeing these anomalous radar tracks.That seems to be what who is referring

(01:45:17):
to, and he seems to citethat as evidence of there being something legitimate
of course he would as a physicist. He's saying, Okay, we've got
reliable radar data that says here's somethingstrange going on. But then we have
the claims of someone also from government, and that's significant. But again,
these claims are rather extraordinary by nature, and he's saying, we actually have

(01:45:38):
these non physical craft. Did heattack Grush in that instance. No,
he said, those who say they'vebeen on board these things please grab an
alien pen or some other device.Now, I'll point out for those who
believe Betty Hill's story, I meanBetty said that she tried to bring back
something that, again to her,resembled a book. She described it very
much like a book actually, Butshe tried to bring back a memento and

(01:45:59):
initially told you can have that,But then later somebody else stepped in and
said, you know, you're notgoing to get that, and so she
wasn't, at least according to herstory, she wasn't able to bring back
this item that proved her experience.Again, maybe we can't make much more
of that than merely that that's whatBetty said happened. I can sympathize to
an extent with what Cock who issaying but it is notable to me that

(01:46:19):
he doesn't go after grush. Hesays, those who would claim that they've
had these experiences. Sure, ofcourse a physicist wants to see physical proof,
but he still seems to be kindkind of appealing to the popular mythology
surrounding this topic. If aliens comehere, how come a scientist hasn't found
evidence of it? Baffles me.On the one hand, he probably is

(01:46:40):
serious that as a scientist he'd liketo see it, But on the other
hand, he seems to be somewhatstill wrestling with Well, here are the
claims we've heard for years, andthen here's this data that we can't easily
reconcile that really seems to point tosomething. I bet that at the end,
at the end of the day,even though he's probably making a lighthearted
jab or a joke, he reallywouldn't turn down that evidence of somebody handed
it to him, and yeah,he'd love to see it. Amen.

(01:47:04):
Neither one of us are known forI have a history of making predictions in
this work. More often than not, when I have I have not been
accurate. At the same time,there is a force now that is self

(01:47:28):
perpetuating in this work. Call itgravitas information. Where you can't put the
toothpaste back in the tube. Thisis moving forward hiccuping a bit. And
again I think at the highest levelsthose who have inherited or however one becomes

(01:47:51):
one of those individuals high up ingovernment intelligence, military, who was involved
in moving the chess pieces, inlaying out the rules of the game.
Things have gotten a little out ofcontrol in the last decade where the ridicule

(01:48:14):
factor all by itself was so wildlysuccessful in keeping information still or when things
did get out, it's like,well, sure, America and the Western
world was conditioned to know that thisis all basically explainable in conventional, if

(01:48:38):
exotic, explainable terms, but thereis something now in process. Do you
have any thoughts on what we maybe seeing coming down the line in the
next six months or a year regardingeverything we've been talking about for the last

(01:48:59):
hour and fifteen minutes. Yeah,I do. And rather than just to
offer idle speculation, here's what I'dlike to see, here's what I hope
to see. We'll try and supportthis somewhat with things we've already seen and
the likelihood that hints that have alreadybeen aired, may eventually come to fruition.

(01:49:23):
Again. I come back to thingsthat we have heard recent Senator Marco
Rubio, but other senators also sayingabout this. We have seen US Senator
Kristen jill Brand of New York havingannounced and there was an official press release
on our website it said that fullfunding has now been achieved for ARROW.

(01:49:43):
Why I didn't have that to beginwith, that's a little baffling. Let's
hope that the next step will beto get them Title fifty authorities so they
can see all the goods that theNSA and the CIA have. But that's
one aspect that's interesting to me.And then, of course, with the
Grush revelations again, I come backto Marco Rubio saying he's not the only
person we've heard from who has saidthings like that. You've been many other

(01:50:05):
officials, some of them who's stillwork in government, Some rather intriguingly,
he has said, are publicly known. That probably gives us at least a
good idea of who some of theseindividuals are. But he says, these
people have been saying these kinds ofthings about legacy programs for years, and
so right now we are listening.We are of course hoping that the results

(01:50:26):
of this investigation will prove one wayor another what this all means. But
again, based on those kinds ofdevelopments, especially coming from Capitol Hill,
Peter, my prediction is that we'reprobably going to hear from other whistleblowers like
David Grush. That's fundamentally the thingthat I think that's going to happen,
and hence why I offer those statementsby senators and some of the other actions

(01:50:47):
that's been taken in Washington in recentdays. It seems clear that lawmakers are
taking this subject very seriously, andit seems equally clear to me at this
point based on statements specifically made byMarco Rue, but they've been supporting statements
by others that while we here onthe public level are now learning about a
lot of these whistleblower claims, andalthough we've known about similar claims for many

(01:51:11):
decades, mister Grush is the firstperson from with him government to come out,
having worked as a liaison on behalfof the National Geospecial Intelligence Agency to
the UAP Task Force and then nowfiled this Intelligence Community Inspector General complaint regarding
this classified information that he said cameto him from individuals he had known,
who he trusted, who had workedwith for a long time, and who

(01:51:31):
provided him classified information that he saidpoints to the existence of a program that
has obtained these non human craft andthat has been illegally kept from Congress's knowledge.
All of that now coming to Fruitionis a very different dynamic than what
we've seen previously. But it seemsabundantly clear to me at this point that
members of Congress and the Senate haveheard similar claims and probably know a lot

(01:51:54):
more than we know about this.We hear on the public level for the
first time our hearing these made officiallyby a former government employee who is now
coming forward and is blowing the proverbialwhistle. It's abundantly clear to me now
that senators and others have already heardthis kind of stuff. They know of
others who have told similar stories.I don't doubt now in the days ahead,
we'll hear from more people like misterGrush who will say that they have

(01:52:15):
heard similar things and that they knowof similar illegalities in government that have again
illegally withheld this kind of information aboutthese legacy programs involving non human craft if
they exist from members of Congress,and so I hope that whatever the outcome
of these investigations are, that wedo have more people come out. And
that is in that great tradition ofsunshine being the best disinfectant, that more

(01:52:38):
transparency will incur, that sunshine willprevail, that people will come forward,
the truth will be known, andindeed, if this involves the UAP issue,
that we the people having that rightto know, will also learn the
truth. Amen, and again weare out of time. Micah, A

(01:52:59):
pleasure having you on. You area scholar and a gentleman. I am
proud to have you as a friendand colleague, and I look forward to
your return to the show in thenot too distant future. Also, I
just wanted to let folks know ifyou would like an opportunity to actually meet
Ralph Blumenthal, you will have achance to do that over the Labor Day

(01:53:21):
weekend because he and his wife Deborahwill be speakers at the Exeter, New
Hampshire UFO Conference and Festival in againLabor Day weekend. You can find it
online. I encourage you to bethere. It's a great conference. Mica
All the best to you, myfriend. If it is humanly possible to

(01:53:43):
get to see you when I'm inNorth Carolina in September, I will.
Otherwise, I know our paths willcross soon after. This is Peter Robbins
and Micah Hanks saying good night frommeanwhile here on Earth, and see you
next week. Memore, he,Honor,