Agile Assault Over the Sea of Japan - Classified Cold War UAP Confrontation

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
The report of unidentified flying out, the unidentified verial phenomena hoday, thefoot.

Speaker 2 (00:10):
Weapons being tested by our own or foreign governments.

Speaker 1 (00:13):
The American people are becoming most interested and in many
instances very alarmed by the UFO stories.

Speaker 3 (00:19):
So why do you suppost that all of this has
been kept from the world.

Speaker 1 (00:23):
Exploring our past, our future, and the mysteries of our universe?

Speaker 3 (00:27):
Where do they come from?

Speaker 1 (00:28):
Why can't you explain that.

Speaker 3 (00:29):
Everybody in uthology is screaming for disclosure. The future is now.
This is Micah.

Speaker 1 (00:35):
Hanks from the high mountains of Appalachia in a bunker
below ground. Welcome, one and all. It is the Micah
Hanks Program. Glad as always to be getting into gear
and going in pursuit of the anomalous in our existence,
as we do every week listen on demand via podcasting
apps everywhere. This week getting back to our roots and

(00:56):
going into the history of this phenomenon. A little known
military encounter that has potentially very grave implications, one that
really expands our understanding of what was happening in the
early years of UFO studies, and also which underscores that
the military encounters involving unidentified anomalous phenomena as we call

(01:17):
it today is by no means a new phenomenon, So
we'll get into that a bit later. First and foremost,
as we are kicking off this week, I received an
urgent distress signal over the weekend from a colleague and
a friend of this program. In fact, I will just
read the dispatch as it was communicated to me. Dear Micah,
I need your help. My propulsion class needs more students.

(01:40):
This message, by the way, from doctor Matthew Shadagas, who
joined us recently to discuss not one, not just two,
but in fact three papers that have recently been published
by he and his colleagues and mutual colleagues of both
of us. In fact, but the class he is discussing
is going to be an online event put on by
the Society for UAP Studies, and there are special deals

(02:03):
already available for members of that. But right now, as
I understand its signing up for doctor Shaudugas's class on
advanced propulsion and the physics behind not just UAP studies,
but advanced warp speed travel, all these kinds of things
that in the eventual sense humans will probably do and
any significantly advanced civilization already operating out there in an

(02:24):
interstellar capacity. Most certainly would already have these things in
their proverbial toolkit. But yes, doctor shoud Augas is looking
for students. I will have a link in the show
notes where you can find out more about this, or
you could head over to Society for UAP Studies dot
org and then there's a page titled the Physics of
Exotic Propulsion. That's where you can find out how to

(02:45):
sign up for the class. Doctor shoud Augus is providing
comes highly recommended, of course, because again he is a
guy who spends his day job studying dark matter and
all of these advanced physics projects. But in his spare
time what literly has he also contributes to peer reviewed
studies involving UAP, and in my opinion, that is something
that this topic needs right now, Serious credible scientists who

(03:07):
are publishing papers about UAP, not people just fighting on
social media, not just wild claims that are always being
aired on primetime television. No, we need real scientists looking
at the real issues and speaking of issues that of
course brings us to the news. And once again, if
you're anything like me, you might actually be trying not

(03:27):
to look at the news. There has been so much
going on that I think a lot of people have
intentionally stepped away from the news. Of course, it doesn't
help it Google, with its ongoing core updates, they seem
to be intent on eviscerating the structure upon which websites
like mine the Debrief are able to reach new readers.

(03:47):
Google seems to have this very elaborate process that they
apply toward things, and this involves algorithms that they tweak
every now and then to ensure that quality content is
being delivered to online audiences. Now, if you are a
content creator like me, you may also have noticed that
some of your website traffic has been lower than usual.

(04:11):
One likely reason for that has to do with Google's
ongoing adjustments of its algorithms. And let me be clear,
I don't think Google is doing a good job. I
do not think that Google has a clear idea of
what the problems are that it faces and how it
can work around those. Let me give you a couple
of examples. Why so. Tim McMillan, my Debrief co founder,

(04:33):
and I we were on a call over the weekend
and we were just laughing at some of the stuff
that Google's silly algorithms propagate in their newsfeed. Because despite
Google's never ending compulsive tinkering with its algorithms to ensure
the dissemination of quality and credible news, Tim and I

(04:53):
found several examples obvious ones of content farms, basically simple
websites with common word press themes and other kinds of
blog formats that feature AI written content, AI generated imagery
article titles which actually do not reflect the content of
the article. Article titles, for instance, that feature quotes that

(05:16):
never appear in the article, allusions to things like discoveries
or science papers or other kinds of information, government officials,
and statements they allegedly make, which when you read the article,
there is no such statement, no actual officials going on
the record, no studies being cited. Not Despite these I
grabbing titles, which in likelihood are probably also the product

(05:38):
of a prompt being given to an AI chatbot, the
articles are very obviously generalized cookie cutter essays that AI
has produced based on a simple question somebody is asked
that has nothing to do with what those titles actually say.
And hence why Tim and I were laughing about all this,
Because there are sites with actual authors, actual teams of

(06:00):
humans who are doing the work, that use real imagery
and not AI imagery, and which meticulously facts check their work. Oh,
I don't know, like maybe the debrief dot org. My
team and I work extremely hard at all this, and
yet we are seeing quite literal AI junk propagating in
Google's news feeds immediately after they institute core updates to

(06:22):
help ensure the quality content, content that meets very rigorous
standards of quality in this AI age where Google places
an emphasis on the need for having credible sources, people
who are authoritative, and more importantly, real people actually writing
these articles, and yet simple deceptions by people going through

(06:44):
the motions and training AI to write articles that look
authoritative based on the kinds of criteria right down to
compelling article titles. I mean, they simulate the kinds of
stuff that readers want to see, and simply by simulating it,
they apparently are also beating out the competition in terms
of the algorithmic game that is currently governing what you're

(07:07):
finding in your news feeds. Furthermore, as Tim and I
were looking at some of these sites, you can look
at the who is data, and most of them of
course protect the information about the ownership of these websites,
but nonetheless we'll say enough things about the region from
which the websites are operated and other geolocational information about
their ownership, et cetera that at very least strongly suggests

(07:29):
that these sites are owned by the same individuals, or
that there are people in certain parts of the world
who are all doing the same thing. And even more intriguing,
many of them are foreign publications which are featuring English
language news. So these were among the criteria that Tim
and I were looking at. These very questionable looking websites,
often with very odd names, and you can spot them

(07:52):
easily based on the fact that there are usually extraordinary
claims made in headlines that do not actually pan out
as far as what the text of their art contains.
And these appear to be propagating just fine amid other
more credible news sources on Google's news feeds. What does
this remind us of? Think back to last week when
I was talking about the widespread academic fraud, the study

(08:15):
by Northwestern University that found that there are content farms
literally doing the same thing with academic papers, which actually,
in my opinion, is far more troubling considering that you
can go online and find junk news any day of
the week. To see the same thing now happening in
the academic world, where people are buying junk science papers,

(08:37):
buying pure review for those papers, and buying placement in
phony journals to make it look like they are doing
real research. I mean, that is a potentially devastating blow
to the credibility of science in my opinion. So, yeah,
that's obviously more concerning. But the thing that really gets
under my skin about this situation with the phony news
sites propagating on Google is that as a reporter and

(09:01):
also as an editor who spends many hours a day
editing in fact checking science articles to ensure that what
we convey to our readership is true and accurate, and
also provides a fair and reliable source for news on
the topics our readers enjoy. Google claims that these are
the kind of criteria that its algorithms are upholding and

(09:21):
that they are trying to help bring to people in
this age of online misinformation. And yet, based on what
Tim and I were seeing, it really looks more likely
that what we are seeing is the good old popularity
contest doesn't matter how credible your side is or not.
If you are able to generate clicks, then you will
begin to propagate in Google's search algorithms. And hence, fake

(09:44):
news stories generated by AI with illustrations produced by AI
still manages to proliferate and get out there in front.
And understandably, there are plenty of people out there who
probably just glancing through things they find in the headlines
that they're scanning. Many people can't be blamed for not
knowing that all these websites aren't real. I mean, they

(10:05):
are made to look convincing, and obviously they are convincing
enough to fool Google's ever trusty algorithms. So to the
find folks at Google anybody who might be listening out there.
I really hope this problem gets fixed, because, frankly, in
their ongoing effort to ensure that quality content makes its
way to online users, I think if anything, they are

(10:25):
actually making the problem worse. At least that's been my experience.
But if anybody else out there is a blogger or
a content creator, or you have a website, if you've
experienced some weirdness recently involving site traffic and other things
after Google's latest Core update. I'd love to hear from you.
As always, I can be reached at info at micahnks

(10:46):
dot com. But now I don't want to sound like
I'm too down on the AI, because really, AI is
just a tool at this point, and there are people,
naturally who are finding ways to misuse AI, and they're
gaming the system, and they are profiting from that, and
they're being helped by Google's lack of attention to these

(11:07):
kinds of issues in my opinion. But another AI news
this week, of course, we also saw the big rollout
of open AI's GPT five, the latest and arguably most
impressive model of the company's famous chat GPT chatbot. But
with the Guardian reporting here, there are also some questions
about the resources powering the latest model GPT five, because again,

(11:31):
for most people, they get on their phone or they
get on a computer and open a browser and they
start typing questions and chat GPT will provide answers, but
most people never think about the size of the servers
they're at OpenAI headquarters that are powering the untold number
of queries that this AI receives any given second of

(11:52):
every day, And so there are some legitimate questions about
how much power is being consumed to power the latest
model produced by open Ayes. The Guardian reports if a
user back in twenty twenty three asked chat GPT for
a recipe for artichoke pasta or instructions on how to
make a ritual offering to the ancient Canaanite deity Molloch.

(12:13):
This is actually in the Guardian article. By the way,
I'm not making this up, but they say its response,
I've taken very roughly two watt hours, or about as
much electricity as an incandescent bulb consumes in two minutes.
They say that now with the latest rollout of GPT five,
ask that version of the AI for an artichoke recipe
and the same amount of posta related text could take

(12:33):
several times even twenty times that amount of energy, according
to experts. Now why is that important? Well, simply put,
it's because thinking at the level that GPT five currently
can do takes a lot of energy. In fact, you
or I, when we are sitting and we are thinking
about things, you don't think of that as being a
process that consumes energy. What it actually does. You hear

(12:54):
the health experts talking about brain food right, the healthy
food that you should eat en sure peak cognition that
will help you navigate the difficult choices that we have
to make in life on a daily basis. Yeah, this
requires energy, and computers are no different, and with the
current version GPT five capable, according again to the Guardian,

(13:16):
of doing everything from creating website to answering PhD level
science questions and other examples of reasoning through difficult problems. Yeah,
it apparently consumes more power. And while responses from the
current version of chat GPT may actually require more energy
consumption than previous versions, apparently open Ai has not had

(13:37):
very much to say about the power usage of its models.
In fact, they aren't very different from other AI companies
that are currently battling to try and have the most
efficient chatbots. Very few of these companies are consistently transparent
about the energy consumption and thereby things like the carbon
footprint that is produced by these increasingly popular AI chis.

(14:01):
So I guess that's the other side of the marvel
of this technology. You know, there are people today in
the world all around us who use AI for a
range of different things. It can certainly help do more
than just plan a meal and pick the best artichoke
salad recipes. No, AI chatbots are getting the point where
they are so good at what they do, simulating conversations,

(14:23):
but also in an informative way, where if you ask
a question, just like any kind of a search engine query,
it will provide you an answer. And as normal as
that's beginning to seem in the world of right now,
just a few years ago that would have seemed impossible.
And yet it's crazy to think how quickly we adapt
to these changes. People are so used to chat GPT
that they take it for granted. Oh, just ask the computer,

(14:46):
you know, it'll tell you whatever you need to know.
And of course people also become increasingly reliant on having that.
So when there's an outage right for some reason, chat
GPT goes offline for a while, people start freaking out
because they've become so reliant on the ways that it
is able to assist them. But the hidden dimension behind
all this that nobody else seems to really talk about,

(15:08):
or one of them at least, involves the energy consumption.
You know, how does that impact the environment. How will
the increasing energy usage that will be required to facilitate
ever increasingly intelligent machines impact the world around us, and
will companies like open ai and others ever begin to
really demonstrate transparency about these issues with their users. I

(15:33):
don't think we've really seen that quite yet, and there
are some real world questions and maybe some challenges that
could wait if these kinds of questions aren't asked right now.
With that all said, we're going to shift our at
Tension back in time to another challenge in our skies.
When we return right here on the Micah Hanks program.

Speaker 4 (15:55):
Let's map out this week's amazing destinations and travel tips
on it will.

Speaker 5 (16:00):
I didn't plan any trips, but I did switch to
T Mobile with their new family Freedom offer.

Speaker 4 (16:07):
That's not the itinerary we're following.

Speaker 5 (16:10):
Well, I'm departing from AT and T and embarking on
a new journey with T Mobile. They paid off my
family's four phones up to thirty two hundred dollars and
gave us four new phones on the house.

Speaker 2 (16:23):
Bun Voyage introducing family Freedom. Our lowest costs was switch
our biggest family savings all on America's largest five G
NETWOROK Visit your local T Mobile in Newburg or learn
more at tmobile dot com slash Family Freedom up to
eight hundred dollars per line via virtual prepaid card. It
typically takes fifteen days. Free phones via twenty four monthly
bill credits with finance agreement eg. Apple iPhone sixteen one

(16:44):
hundred and twenty eight gigabyte eight twenty nine ninety nine
eligible trade in eg iPhone eleven pro for well qualified
credits end and balance do if you pay off earlier,
cancel contact t Mobile.

Speaker 6 (16:51):
We are back with an all new season of Snipy's
Cruising Confessions.

Speaker 3 (16:54):
And this time we're going much much deeper.

Speaker 6 (16:56):
Join me, Chris Pattison Rosso and my co host Gabe
Gonzalez as we explore queer sex, relationships and culture and
season two of.

Speaker 3 (17:02):
Our hot and hilarious iHeart Podcasts.

Speaker 6 (17:04):
We'll be talking to piggy professors, kinky couples, dirty daddies,
and so much more.

Speaker 3 (17:09):
Ready to listen, just push play.

Speaker 7 (17:11):
It starts off as a very standard cruising story.

Speaker 6 (17:13):
Yeah, wells through someone follows you in God, you look familiar,
and then.

Speaker 7 (17:17):
I'm gonna call up one of my girls and be like,
is this your dad?

Speaker 8 (17:19):
You?

Speaker 3 (17:19):
Please confirm? Is this your dad? Please confirm?

Speaker 8 (17:22):
I have never ever ever run into a friend's parent
on any dating app at any party.

Speaker 7 (17:29):
A good thing. You and your friends don't go cruising together, right,
they might have had a.

Speaker 3 (17:31):
Very different experience.

Speaker 7 (17:32):
Yeah, wishing you and from under the map you just
see the mouth fun You're like dad.

Speaker 3 (17:40):
You.

Speaker 6 (17:41):
You can listen to Snippy's Cruising Confession sponsored by a
Healthy Sexual from Gilliad Sciences now on the iHeartRadio app
or wherever.

Speaker 3 (17:47):
You get your podcasts. New episodes every Thursday.

Speaker 1 (18:10):
It was a moonless night over the Sea of Japan.
The air was clear, visibility unlimited, the kind of darkness
that could swallow one hole. At nine twenty three pm,
a US Navy P two V Neptune patrol plane cut
silently through the air at nine thousand feet, its crew

(18:31):
deep in the rhythms of a classified electronic intelligence mission.
The war in Korea still raged, and these ferret flights,
designed to sniff out radar and signal activity, were dangerous
lonely work. Then, without warning, two brilliant lights appeared off
the nose of the aircraft. They weren't just drifting, they

(18:54):
were flashing, and they were speaking in cold, deliberate pulses.
The lights spelled out the Morse code letter D, the
first recorded instance of a UAP attempting to send a
visual signal to a US military aircraft. The Neptune's radar

(19:17):
lit up with returns. The lights were twelve miles out,
pacing the plane. Moments later, three more joined, gliding into
perfect formation. Five unknown craft now shadowed the Neptune in
international airspace, more than three hundred miles from the nearest
Soviet base. The crew adjusted course towards Japan, away from

(19:37):
the Korean coast, but the situation only escalated. By ten o'clock,
the number of pursuers had swelled to at least ten.
The Neptune dove hard, dropping to just four hundred feet
above the ocean, a desperate move to shake the intruders.

Speaker 2 (19:54):
It was an.

Speaker 1 (19:54):
Attempt that didn't work. What followed was an hour of
precision harassment on the like anything in the Navy's records.
Over seventy aggressive high speed passes, some coming within mere
hundreds of feet, began to unfold, many directly beneath the
Neptune's fuselage. Four of the apparent objects moved in type formation,

(20:14):
making run after run from astern. Their approach angles surgical
their discipline unnerving, and all throughout the assault, electronic sensors
on board the aircraft screened with data. Five distinct direction
finding cuts confirmed the unthinkable. These UFOs were emitting airborne
radar beams, a capability far beyond any known adversary in

(20:36):
nineteen fifty three. The pulse width frequency repetition, all cataloged
in real time. Intelligence analysts would later note the signals
resembled advanced US Navy shipborne radar, something that the Soviets
at the time didn't possess. At eleven fifty PM, as
suddenly as they had arrived, these mysterious unknowns broke off.

(21:00):
The Neptune limped on toward Nigata, its crew, no doubt
replaying the encounter in their minds. In the aftermath of
the incident, official investigations by the US Air Force, the Navy,
and the Air Technical Intelligence Center all agreed on one point.
These were not Soviet jets. No aircraft in the world
in fact, could have performed those maneuvers at that range

(21:22):
and with that endurance, and yet no other explanation was
ever found. On that night over the cold black waters
of the Sea of Japan, something unknown had stalked a
US military aircraft and through the Morse code signaling that
it engaged, apparently it had spoken first welcome back. Nineteen

(21:44):
fifty three was already a landmark year in UAP studies
that despite the fact that the account that you just
heard wouldn't come to widespread public knowledge for several more years.
In fact, many modern UFO enthusiasts had probably never even
heard of the case, as it remains fairly obscure in
the popular history of this subject. But that year nineteen

(22:07):
fifty three had already been significant even without a case
the likes of the one we're discussing now being able
to reach the public and underscore the significance of US
military encounters with unknown aerial objects. Consider, for instance, the
well known cases that occurred that year, which included an
F eighty nine C Scorpion that was scrambled to intercept

(22:27):
a radar identified UAP over Lake. Superior ground controllers watched
the aircraft's radar return merge with the UAPs and then
suddenly vanish along with the jet and its crew, Lieutenant
Felix Moncla Junior and radar operator Robert Wilson. Despite an
exhaustive search, no wreckage was ever found. There was also

(22:48):
the incident that occurred in the Bismarck Rapid City region
where a large luminous object was tracked on radar and
witnessed by military personnel and civilians, exhibiting erratic motion and
intense luminosity, and later would be deemed to be one
of the most compelling radar visual cases of its era.
Today it's known as the Ellsworth Air Force Base Radar
Visual UAP encounter. There were also sightings by some of

(23:10):
the top engineers in development of sophisticated aircraft at that time,
no less among them renowned aerospace engineer Clarence Kelly Johnson
and others at Lockheed, who observed a sharply defined unidentified
object flying over Point Mugu, California. Johnson's own detailed sketch
and written report about this incident were submitted to Project
Blue Book and have become somewhat legendary in aerospace circles.

(23:35):
But there were others, often overlooked, lesser known military and
civilian sightings documented throughout nineteen fifty three, many featuring rapid maneuvers,
colored lights, radar correlations, and other mysteries. In the skies.
Many of these were recorded in Project Bluebook data, which
today can be found online, and of course, over the
years has been published in countless books, including a popular

(23:57):
tome published by the National Investigations Committee on Air Phenomena
or NICAP, titled The UFO Evidence. But as far as
what was happening over the Sea of Japan in April
of that year, what we know comes to us courtesy
of researcher Brad Sparks, who uncovered data about this case,
like others, from the Project Bluebook files, although perhaps some

(24:19):
of the information about this particular case had not originally
been intended to make its way into those files. More
on that a bit later, but first to provide a
more complete overview of what happened on that night of
April fourteenth, nineteen fifty three, and the sequence of events
as they unfolded in those terrifying hours over the Sea

(24:40):
of Japan. The aircraft in question was a US Navy
Pacific Fleet P two V Neptune, most likely a P
two V DASH three W Electronic intelligence ferret spyplane. Its
mission at the time was classified electronic intelligence operations carried
out during the Korean War, which of course explains its
position in the Sea of Japan, which placed it approximately

(25:02):
two hundred miles east of Vladovostok in the USSR at
the outset of its mission. The initial contact occurred at
a cruising altitude of about nine thousand feet when the
crew spotted two bright lights flashing the Morse code letter D.
Now again, this has already been emphasized in the introduction
we gave, but as emphasized by researcher Brad Sparks in

(25:22):
the article he wrote which chronicles this case, and that
of course appeared in Jerome Clark's UFO Encyclopedia. This is
the first documented case of a UAP signaling a military aircraft.
It's by no means the only one. In fact, throughout
that period there were numerous other instances where there were
very strange things that would happen involving UAP that were detected.

(25:44):
Sometimes this began with a visual sighting that was later
corroborated on radar, which would prompt a query using identification
friend or foe or IFF to try and determine if
these aircraft were indeed one of ours or if they
were in enemy aircraft background. IFF was a rather ingenious
method of getting around the problems of friendly fire during

(26:06):
early military conflicts because again based on visual conditions or
other conditions that pilots may meet, the intensity and the
heat of conflict and the rapid pace of decision making
can lead to errors, and one of the most concerning
for fighter pilots is mistaking a friendly aircraft for being
an enemy when you are faced with limitations in terms

(26:27):
of the information you have at your disposal. So IFF
was developed to get around that by enabling aircraft that
are operating on the same team. Let's say again, we've
got several US aircraft out there on a mission and
you see an aircraft that you don't get a good
enough look at, and you don't have radar communication with them,
so you query them using the IFF system, which essentially

(26:47):
dispatches a signal that is received by the other aircraft
and then it dispatches a response. And this is an
encrypted response where if the enemy aircraft receives that signal,
it won't know what to do. It won't be able
to decipher the code used for the dispatch of the signal,
whereas two systems using the same IFF coding will be
able to receive and send those signals and interpret the code,

(27:10):
and so the result is if an aircraft or an
unknown we'll say, is queried and it is in fact
a friendly aircraft and it has the corresponding IFF equipment,
then it will receive that signal, decode it, and then
it will dispatch a response that indicates to the querying
aircraft that it is friendly. But as far as UFO
sidings in the nineteen fifties go, this is where things

(27:31):
start getting really interesting, because there were several instances where
genuine unknown aircraft were observed by pilots and crew or
sometimes also monitored by radar operators from ground bases, and
when these objects were queried, they would send back a
signal in the affirmative indicating that they are friends. Now,
this means one of two things. Either there were actually

(27:54):
experimental aircraft that looked very strange back in the day,
but that nonetheless were equipped with the kind of information
needed to respond to coded messages in use by the
US military with the IFF systems that they had at
the time. Or a more extraordinary alternative, but nonetheless one
which should be considered is that there may have actually

(28:14):
been advanced capabilities in use by someone or something, and
they were not only able to decode those encryptive messages
in use by the US military, but they could also
respond and at times convincingly spoof US into thinking that
they were responding and saying they were friendly. So that
would actually become a ongoing phenomenon in the early years

(28:36):
of UFO research, which to me, in my own opinion,
if I had to weigh on the side of skepticism,
it would more likely point to the idea that there
were some extremely unusual experimental aircraft and other technologies being
used at that time, and they were equipped with the
kinds of IFF capabilities, and that still has not yet
fully been disclosed, for instance, what those aircraft were, what

(28:59):
kinds of missions they were were operating, why they were
being used, and who or what agency was operating them.
But of course the alternative view is that there may
have been an unknown power who is capable of emulating
those IFF capabilities because they had advanced technologies that far
exceeded those early IFF capabilities, and hence the significance of
the events that occurred on April fourteenth, nineteen fifty three,

(29:21):
over the Sea of Japan. Because this didn't involve IFF,
this involved what was interpreted by the pilots, who, of
course at that time all too well were efficient in
the use of Morse code. They immediately recognized the flashing
being produced by one of these objects as being the
Morse code letter D, which appears to be, if interpreted correctly,

(29:43):
the first documented case of a UAP using a known
signal involving military aircraft. This predates all of the stuff
involving iff that would really lead to some head scratchers
in the history of euthology in the ensuing years well.
As the plane continues to fly toward the Korean peninsula,
then three more unidentified aircraft join the one that initially

(30:06):
begins signaling, So these aircraft are essentially accompanying the US
Navy Pacific Fleet P two V Neptune spyplane. But these
wouldn't be the only additional objects that would appear, because
later five more would reportedly join, bringing the total up
to ten UAPs in total. And once the flight crew
begins to turn southeast because they're trying to avoid North

(30:28):
Korea and they begin descending to four hundred feet above
the ocean, this is when, pardon the expression, but really
all hell starts breaking loose. Because the Neptune then endures
more than seventy high speed non firing attack passes, as
they interpreted it, over the course of more than an
hour sixty seven minutes, to be exact, more than once

(30:48):
per minute. These glowing objects appear to make very aggressive
passes at this aircraft, often coming at them from a
stern but in some instances going directly beneath the Neptune
and it very close. But further complicating the matter is
the fact that there were also ten passes that they
reported that were made by four of these UAP that
would break away information from the main group and they

(31:10):
would make these tight close formation passes where they would
fly by the Neptune at close range. Meanwhile, as all
this is unfolding, the Neptune's sensors also obtained five direction
finding cuts of radar beams that appear to have been
omitted by these UAPs. At least three of those direction
finding cuts appeared to match radar contacts that were confirmed

(31:32):
visually and by the Neptunes on board radar. In other words,
when they are spotting these radar signals using their electronic
intelligence capabilities on board this spyplane, they are either detecting
on radar and or they are seeing an object that
coincides with these radar cuts. But as we'll see when
we come back after the break, there was even more

(31:53):
remarkably specific information obtained during this incident by this spyplane,
which offers some very intriguing clues about what we might
have been dealing with in this unprecedented incident from nineteen
fifty three. More on that in a moment when we
return right here on the Micah Hanks Program.

Speaker 9 (32:17):
This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do
you ever think about switching insurance companies to see if
you could save some cash? Progressive makes it easy to
see if you could save when you bundle your home
and auto policies. Try it at Progressive dot com, Progressive
Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary, not
available in all states.

Speaker 4 (32:37):
Let's map out this week's amazing destinations and travel tips.

Speaker 5 (32:41):
Honestly, Will, I didn't plan any trips, but I did
switch to T Mobile with their new Family Freedom offer.

Speaker 4 (32:49):
That's not the itinerary we're following.

Speaker 5 (32:52):
Well, I'm departing from AT and T and embarking on
a new journey with T Mobile.

Speaker 7 (32:57):
They paid off my family's.

Speaker 5 (32:59):
Fore phone phones up to thirty two hundred dollars and
gave us four new phones on the house.

Speaker 2 (33:05):
Bon Voyage introducing Family Freedom, our lowest costs to switch,
our biggest family savings, all on America's largest five G network.
Visit your local T Mobile in Newburgh or learn more
at tmobile dot com. Slash Family Freedom up to eight
hundred dollars per line via virtual prepaid card. It typically
takes fifteen days. Free phones via twenty four monthly bill
credits with finance agreement e g. Apple iPhone siteen one

(33:26):
hundred twenty eight gigabyte eight twenty nine ninety nine eligible trade
in eg iPhone eleven pro for well qualified credits D
and balanced do if you pay off earlier, cancel contact
T Mobile.

Speaker 1 (34:13):
A concerning encounter with UAP by a Navy spyplane over
the Sea of Japan. Welcome back. It is the Micah
Hanks Program, and this week we are looking at a
case that, in my opinion, deserves far more attention than
it is received. We'll dive back into the narrative here
in a moment, but first I do want to remind you.

(34:33):
If you aren't already an EX subscriber, you're missing out
on several kerks that X subscribers receive. In addition to
this podcast and the AD free version of it, you
also get weekly additional updates in the form of the
X Podcast, and also monthly specials. Also your own unique

(34:54):
RSS feed that delivers all that content in its AD
free form directly to your favorite listening device, and all
that for just seven dollars a month or seventy seven
dollars a year, which you'll get you one month free.
So consider becoming an EX subscriber. It's an excellent way
open intended to support my work and of course also
to get a little something to show for it. But

(35:14):
now getting right back into things. As I mentioned before
the break, this case is remarkable not only because of
the aggressive posture that the UAP appeared to have taken,
and although one might debate whether this was truly intended
to be aggressive. You have to put yourself in the
shoes or more specifically, in the cockpit of the Navy
spyplane in question, when you have been flying four hundred

(35:36):
feet above the ocean and watching objects of unknown origin.
In fact, you don't even know what these things are,
let alone where they're from, and for more than an
hour they have taken more than seventy high speed attack passes,
or seemingly so, where they are careening towards you, and
then they barely ascend in time to avoid striking your aircraft.

(35:57):
Sometimes they are coming from behind you, sometimes flying up
underneath you, and some of these objects are flying in formation.
Something tells me if I had been one of the
crew on board that Navy spyplane, I too would have
interpreted these as being aggressive postures being taken by these
UAP And one interpretation that comes to mind here and
in truth will never really know what was going on. Probably,

(36:20):
but again, one interpretation is that if these objects were
indeed intelligently controlled, they weren't just trying to say hello.
They seems to have been very intent on antagonizing the
crew on board this aircraft, as though perhaps to try
and either distract them or perhaps also to drive them
out of a certain area. Who knows what the intent

(36:40):
would have been. Now, does that necessarily mean that these
were extraterrestrial alien spacecraft launching an aggressive attack against a
Navy spyplane. Honestly, there's not enough data to be certain,
we cannot rule out the possibility that this was indeed
some kind of a countermeasure that could have been in
use by another foreign power. But we'll look at some

(37:01):
reasons a little later on based on what history says
that do seem to point at that being an unlikely
explanation for whatever might have occurred. And so, while I
don't think we will ever really know exactly what happened
that night in April of nineteen fifty three, there are
some compelling clues that emerge from the data. And more specifically,

(37:21):
as we were discussing before the break, there had been
these direction finding cuts of what appeared to be radar
beams being emitted by some of the UAP that were
recorded by the onboard radar on the Neptune. More specifically,
the frequency that was recorded at that time was twenty
seven ninety megahertz, with a pulse repetition frequency of between

(37:42):
five hundred and five hundred fifty hertz and a pulse
width of one to one point five microseconds. Now, to
be clear, I don't have a background in signals intelligence myself,
and so I don't know exactly what that information might convey.
What a signal's intelligence are operator might infer from that.
But what is intriguing about this to me is the

(38:05):
fact that again there are these discernible frequencies that are
being emitted in the form of radar, and this seems
consistent with modern accounts that have been provided to the
All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office. In fact, during twenty twenty
three Senate briefing, when the inaugural Director, Sean Kirkpatrick spoke
with US Senators Kirsten Gillibrand and others, doctor Kirkpatrick provided

(38:28):
information about what he characterized at that time as being
the target package of UAP, at least in terms of
the kinds that arrow was for the most part looking for,
and that target package, of course, described mostly spherical objects
capable of moving at very high speed, these things being
anywhere from maybe a meter to three meters in diameter,

(38:48):
often described as being quite silver or translucent, although one
might infer that at night, some of these objects also
probably appear luminous, and they also emit frequencies that include radar,
our frequencies, radio frequencies, and other detectable signatures, while not
displaying any kind of evidence of propulsion, and based on
Errow's target package, which it uses currently in its investigation

(39:12):
and evaluation of UAP incidents that the military has reported
in recent years, it does sound like whatever was unfolding
in April of nineteen fifty three over the Sea of
Japan very well likely did involve objects, whatever they were,
that seems to display some of these very same capabilities.
And in my opinion, again, when you've got objects that

(39:33):
appear to be under intelligent control, that are flying in formation,
that are displaying capabilities that include what are obviously based
on sophisticated detection equipment on board and aircraft direction finding
cuts by radar beams at specific frequencies that are thereafter
recorded and preserved, and which come down to us over

(39:54):
the years, which we now can read and we can
discern all of this decades after it happened, more than
half a century in fact, I now look at all
this information in hindsight and I say, to me, that
does not sound like it's some kind of natural phenomenon.
This does not sound to me like it was a
meteor shower, and that these bright bulllides passing through the
sky above this Navy spyplane were reflecting off of the

(40:18):
water below the Neptune, and they were interpreting this the
crew on board as being attax by some kind of
an unknown aircraft. In my opinion, that's probably not very
likely that a meteor shower is going to produce direction
finding cuts of radar beams that are detectable on board
a spyplane. So in some total, all the characteristics that

(40:38):
are really most notable that were displayed based on the
witness description had been extreme maneuverability with these high speed
runs at low altitude, and again keep in mind, undertaken
in complete darkness. They were also what were interpreted as
coordinated group attacks. For instance, one of the UAP positioned
itself seven miles off the Neptune's quarter, while others attack

(41:00):
in turns from behind or a beam. The radar abilities
displayed by the UAP, which we've been discussing, did seem
to resemble those from advanced US Navy ship born systems
that existed at that time, but again keep in mind,
they were far beyond Soviet tech capabilities for nineteen fifty three.
The incident also occurred three hundred to four hundred miles

(41:20):
from the nearest Soviet base, and that's particularly important because
it seems to make the idea of a Soviet aircraft
explanation implausible, primarily due to fuel limitations and also performance constraints.
But again, nothing that is described in this incident seems
to be a good match for known Soviet aircraft of
that time. And finally, as we discussed, this is really
the only known military UAP encounter involving both visual Morse

(41:44):
code signaling and also confirmed airborne radar emissions. But there
would be other cases involving iff and other technologies later
on that were curious indications of what some interpret to
be signaling or even communication. In the aftermath of this incident,
Air Force intelligence looked at all this and they too

(42:05):
doubted that the Soviets had the ability to intercept under
these kind of conditions. The Air Technical Intelligence Center declared
that these lights probably had not been aircraft. But also
something that really should be emphasized here is that since
this was occurring during the Korean War and in international waters,
it was a direct extended encounter with an unknown craft

(42:25):
that was occurring in a very sensitive operational theater. Now,
this report very well likely may not have been intended
to be included in the Project bluebook files. According to
Brad Sparks, who discovered this, he noted that this was
appended to a less sensitive March nineteen fifty three incident
report and believed that probably based on what was being

(42:46):
described involving the April incident, this should have been classified
top secret and never released. But as a matter of
fortune or fate, who knows exactly what circumstances unfolded here,
But this report ended up being appended to the March
nineteen fifty three incident and thereby ended up making its
way into the Project Blue Book files. And this is

(43:08):
also probably one reason why this case essentially, despite remaining
in public archives for more than forty years, it went
unnoticed until twenty sixteen when Brad Sparks, reviewing these documents,
managed to find this report, read this and said, wait
a minute, hold on what exactly are we talking about here,
and he recognized the extreme significance of what was being

(43:32):
described in this report, which he believes probably should have
been top secret and was never even intended to be
made available in the Project blue Book files. Well, fast
forward to July nineteen fifty three, when then Project Blue
Book chief Lieutenant Robert Olsen forwarded what he considered the
year's five best unsolved UFO cases to Caltech physicist H. P. Robertson, who,

(43:55):
of course history tells us led the CIA's earlier Robertson panel,
the famous nineteen fifty two panel where scientists reviewed some
of the best UAP cases. And they looked at this
and they said, really were more concerned about encouraging public
interest in this because it might be used by our enemies,
the Soviets, for the purpose of flooding communication channels with

(44:16):
fake UFO siding reports, and while the military is responding
to those to try and discern if there's a real
problem that could be used as a distraction or a
cover while an actual attack is being undertaken. So the
Robertson Panel looked at these kinds of concerns and they
advised implementing an education campaign to try and educate the

(44:37):
public on the UFO issue, primarily as a way to
try and reduce interest in it and thereby leave fewer
opportunities for that to be exploited by the enemies of
the United States. Anyhow, it had been HP. Robertson, after
whom the panel was named, that Lieutenant Robert Olsen forwarded
these five best unsolved UFO cases to in July of

(44:59):
nineteen five three, and the Sea of Japan incident was
among those top five cases. So again, Project Bluebook's director
in nineteen fifty three clearly saw this as being one
of the most significant cases that had come across his
desk at that point. Now, that could be significant for
a couple of reasons, although it really is open to
interpretation because we aren't sure exactly why Olsen would have

(45:20):
included this one and sent all these to Robertson, although
it very well may have been Robert's expertise and you
guessed it radar and also identification friend or foe systems. Unfortunately,
although we know that it was sent to Robertson, there's
no surviving record of his assessment, and so we'll never
really know what Robertson himself might have had to say
about this case. But at the time, he was also

(45:41):
heading a newly formed National Security Agency committee. It was
tasked with improving the use of intercepting communications and radar
data to detect possible Soviet attacks. One can't help but
wonder if Olsen might have been aware of that, and
he had sent this case to him saying, hey, look,
here's a good example of a case we might want
to look at, especially with your expertise and this new

(46:02):
project that you're overseeing, assuming of course, that Lieutenant Olsen
would have had access to information about that and therefore
would have known to send this to Robertson for that purpose.
In any case, this possible connection had been one that
Brad Sparks had explored. And although it's important to point
out that UFOs were not explicitly mentioned in heavily redacted
versions of the NSA report that was completed in October

(46:25):
of nineteen fifty three and later released, the fact that
it did focus on rapid electronic intelligence analysis and inter
service cooperation seems to mirror a lot of those capabilities
demonstrated by the UAP in the nineteen fifty three Sea
of Japan incident. The report also notes Air Force reluctance
to share electronic intelligence findings with the Navy and the Army,

(46:46):
which is a little curious because it also begs the
question how much might have been known and also may
be withheld about those encounters over the Sea of Japan. Again,
in hindsight, we know that the Soviets didn't seem to
have any capabilities that would match what those pilots encountered.
Some of the signal detections, by contrast, did seem to

(47:07):
be a match for certain technologies that the US possessed
at that time. And so if these objects were anything
other than, well, something truly extraordinary, it seems, by process
of elimination that we can conclude it didn't belong to
the Soviets, certainly didn't belong to any other known superpowers
who would have been capable of operating in nineteen fifty
three over the Sea of Japan. That seems to rule

(47:29):
out everybody except for one potential player, the US. But again,
what that would seem to imply therefore, is that this
could have been some kind of experimental technology, and that
very much liked the theories about the so called tic
TAC in the two thousand and four USS Nimics incident
being a test involving Navy personnel with US technology, and

(47:50):
those individuals who encountered it were not briefed on what
they actually saw. One interpretation of what was happening in
the skies over the Sea of Japan could be that
it was a US experimental technology and hence why the
Air Force would have had so little to say in
terms of their electronic intelligence findings that they shared with
the Navy and the Army. So we can't rule out

(48:10):
that maybe there was some knowledge that the Air Force
had at the time, and yet there are still so
many questions that remained that it makes it difficult to
assume that that's the case. So we're going to round
things out here with some final conclusions. When we return
here on the Micah Hanks.

Speaker 4 (48:25):
Program, let's map out this week's amazing destinations and travel tips.

Speaker 5 (48:37):
Honestly, will I didn't plan any trips, but I did
switch to T Mobile with their new Family Freedom offer.

Speaker 4 (48:44):
That's not the itinerary worre following Well.

Speaker 5 (48:48):
I'm departing from AT and T and embarking on a
new journey with T Mobile. They paid off my family's
fore phones up to thirty two hundred dollars and gave
us four new phones on the.

Speaker 2 (48:59):
House bun Voyage, introducing Family Freedom, our lowest cost will switch,
our biggest family savings, all on America's largest five G NETWOROK.
Visit your local T Mobile in Newburg or learn more
at tmobile dot com. Slash Family Freedom up to eight
hundred dollars per line via virtual prepaid card. It typically
takes fifteen days. Free phones via twenty four monthly bill

(49:20):
credits with finance agreement eg Apple iPhone sixteen one hundred
twenty eight gigabyte eight twenty nine ninety nine eligible trade
in eg iPhone eleven pro for well qualified credits end
and balance do if you pay off earlier, cancel contact
T Mobile.

Speaker 6 (49:28):
We are back with an all new season of Snipy's
Cruising Confessions, and this time.

Speaker 3 (49:32):
We're going much much deeper.

Speaker 6 (49:33):
Join me, Chris Pattison Rosso and my co host Gabe
Gonzalez as we explore queer sex, relationships and culture and
season two of.

Speaker 3 (49:40):
Our hot and hilarious iHeart Podcasts.

Speaker 6 (49:42):
We'll be talking to piggy professors, kinky couples, dirty daddies,
and so much more.

Speaker 3 (49:46):
Ready to listen, just push play.

Speaker 8 (49:48):
It starts off as a very standard cruising story. Ye
through someone follows you in God, you look familiar, and
then I'm going to call up one of my girls
and be like, is this your dad?

Speaker 3 (49:56):
Have you please confirm? Is this your dad? Please confirm?

Speaker 8 (50:00):
I have never ever ever run into a friend's parent
on any dating app at any party.

Speaker 3 (50:06):
A good thing.

Speaker 7 (50:06):
You and your friends don't go cruising together, right, they
might have had.

Speaker 3 (50:09):
A very different experience. Yeah, wishing you and.

Speaker 8 (50:14):
From under the map, you just see the mouth and
you're like dad.

Speaker 3 (50:17):
You.

Speaker 6 (50:18):
You can listen to Snippy's Cruising Confession sponsored by a
Healthy Sexual from Guilliad Sciences now on the iHeartRadio app
or wherever.

Speaker 3 (50:25):
You get your podcasts. New episodes every Thursday.

Speaker 1 (50:53):
A perplexing UAP incident from the Cold War era, one
that remains it's a cold case. I still don't really
know exactly what this incident involved, apart from the fact
that it is probably one of history's best military UAP
encounters and yet also one paradoxically that few outside of

(51:16):
serious UFO research actually know about. Welcome Back. So this
case again has stood out in my memory personally, because,
first of all, it's one of those that really challenges
a lot of our conceptions of what a good UFO
siding is. It's often said, of course, that there's no

(51:36):
direct evidence that these things seem to exhibit hostility. But again,
if we are to infer that this was not some
sort of a test and frankly, in my opinion, although
we explored that possibility briefly in the last segment. The
potential dangers of not informing a Navy spyplane crew about
a technology test that would have the appearance of causing

(51:57):
them to think that they were under attack. The dangers
this would have represented to the aircraft involved unbeknownst to
its crew in such a test would seemingly make that
so dangerous that this would never have been something that
actually would have been undertaken. Surely, they wouldn't endanger an
entire aircraft and its crew just to test some new

(52:19):
experimental technology that creates a colored light show and produces
radar beings right, and put this entire crew at risk.
That makes no sense. But we also have to add
to that the fact that this was not a case
all unto itself, if you remember the very fact that
it appeared in the Project Bluebook files. It all had
to do with it being appended to an earlier incident

(52:41):
from March of that year, and this report in likelihood
was something that should have been made top secret, but
they included it seemingly for context to accompany this other
Project blue Book report. There were in fact quite a
few reports from around that time. In fact, subsequent research
by investigator Jim Klotz uncovered RAND Corporation studies cataloging over
one hundred and forty Far East aircraft incidents that occurred

(53:05):
in the early nineteen fifties. But now, to add even
further to the intrigue is the fact that the April
fourteenth and also the March fourteenth UFO cases, these were
absent from RAND reports at the time, and yet a
suspiciously timed apparent disinformation narrative actually did appear just days
after the event in March. So in March nineteen fifty three,

(53:27):
there was this sensational headline that claimed that an armada
of one hundred Soviet meg fighters had confronted a US
Navy task force over guess where that's right, the Sea
of Japan. Brad Sparks found this while he was investigating
this case, and he believes that the tail first surfaced
from anonymous sources cited in a Paris newspaper on March fifteenth,

(53:51):
nineteen fifty three. This is just a day essentially after
the March Navy encounter in question. The United Press reported
that quote the largest single miss big force ever spotted
by American Forcesote had threatened US Carrier Task Force seventy
seven in the Sea of Japan. Now, right up front,
let me just say there's no historical evidence that corroborates

(54:11):
this claim. In fact, if it were true, it would
have marked the first direct Soviet combat action in the
Korean War. There would have also been a move with
the potential to escalate into global conflict. And yet the
alleged attack was said to have occurred four months earlier,
in November of nineteen fifty two, according to this source,
cited in a French newspaper. Now there are some very

(54:34):
uncanny parallels, needless to say, that emerge between what appears
in this French newspaper and the actual UAP incident from
March of nineteen fifty three. For example, both incidents, the
one that appeared in the paper and the one from
the blue Book file, featured one hundred aircraft. Both took
place over the Sea of Japan. Both were supposedly the

(54:55):
largest of their kind ever witnessed. The UFO encounter on
March fourteenth involved somilar numbers of objects, aggressive aerial maneuvering,
and a Navy patrol plane as the target. The fabricated
Meg story, by contrast, could serve as a ready made
cover narrative explaining away and he leaked UFO details as
mistaken reports of an own Soviet operation. In short, it

(55:16):
sounds an awful lot like there was recognition of the
extraordinariness of the UFO encounter, and therefore somebody leaked to
a foreign news service a similar story. But they had
replaced the UFOs with Meg fighters, and that way the
story would get out there into circulation that this had
simply been an encounter with a foreign adversary, and one

(55:37):
more specifically that had been identified. The various reasons for
this disinformation we could speculate about. But again, this is
what Brad Sparks essentially thinks was probably happening here. I
want to quote him now from the entry in Jerome
Clark's UFO Encyclopedia, where he wrote, whoever fabricated this story probably?
He says the Air Force Office of Special Investigations did

(55:59):
not here that this tale violated US policy not to
implicate the Soviets as being directly involved in fighting in
the Korean War, even though this was a highly classified,
established fact. He goes on to write Interestingly, these news
stories from March nineteen fifty three lengthy alleged one hundred
MiGs event on November eighteenth, nineteen fifty two, with President

(56:21):
Eisenhower's visit to Korea shortly thereafter. But it wasn't shortly thereafter,
he says. Eisenhower's visit to Korea was on December third
through fifth, nineteen fifty two, yet again weeks after November eighteenth,
So literally, he says, during the last hour of Ike's
visit on December fifth, an attempted assassination squad of eleven
Chinese or North Korean aircraft was called the largest enemy

(56:44):
night air attack of the Korean War. But this attack,
he said, showed no capability of even coming close to
the mass UFO capabilities of the apparent assaults in the
March and April nineteen fifty three Sea of Japan incidents.
Interesting though, that he says he thinks it could have
been the Air Force Office of Special Investigations, given the
fact that they have a long history of involvement of

(57:05):
disinformation when it comes to UAP, that of course, probably
being the very reason why Sparks attributes the likely origin
of this nineteen fifty three disinformation to that agency. Within
the Air Force, counter intelligence and steering narratives, especially using
disinformation when it comes to UAP cases is essentially part
of their job, and they've been well known to have

(57:27):
engaged in doing that. But now that we've looked at
all the ends and the outs of this case and
looked at the disinformation component and also comparisons to other
high profile incidents around that time, as well as the
key facts revealed in later assessments. Once this case finally
came to light through the diligence of Brad Sparks, again
one of the best researchers, in my opinion, who's ever

(57:48):
really looked at this topic, we're left finally with a
few potential avenues for explanations. What can we look at
in terms of possible explanations for what the crew on
board that Navy spyplane actually encountered. So first we have
to look at the possibility of misidentification of known aircraft.
In principle, groups of jet aircraft can make multiple high

(58:12):
speed passes. Radar returns can sometimes be misinterpreted under certain conditions.
The tense nighttime operations being carried out by the crew
on board this spyplane could at least in theory, have
led to some distortions, including an overestimation maybe of the
numbers or even the speed of the objects that were
being seen. And keep in mind again this was a

(58:33):
very sensitive period right there, during the Korean War. Could
the heightened stakes of a nighttime operation under those conditions
and the stress of that entire environment, could that have
all contributed to misinterpretations by the crew. Well, that doesn't
really seem to fit all that well for a few reasons.
One again, if it were enemy operators involved and they

(58:54):
were misidentifying enemy aircraft as being something extraordinary, we have
to remember that again, the distances from the nearest Soviet
bases made it very unlikely that Soviet aircraft could have
even made it into the vicinity of where this sighting
took place. Again, the electronic intelligence that was captured was
consistent with Shipboarne systems, but only those associated with US

(59:16):
capabilities at the time, things that the Soviets didn't have.
So I think Soviet aircraft can be pretty easily ruled out.
But then add to that that they're flying at one
point just four hundred feet over the ocean surface, and
these objects are passing beneath them. So again, maneuvers between
zero and four hundred feet in type formation, spanning more

(59:38):
than an hour, carried out by ten aircraft and in
essentially complete darkness, would have been well beyond the safety
operations capable of most jets of that period. I mean,
that's just not going to make a whole lot of sense.
But again that's not just speculation, because the Air Force
and the Air Technical Intelligence Center both seemed to have
ruled out the idea that there were so MiGs operating

(01:00:01):
in the area at that time, based both on the
performance and also the range calculations we talked about. We
also looked at the possibility of a black project or
a friendly unacknowledged test, but again, this occurred during a
live Cold War theater, where real Soviet intercepts could have
been possible at least, and when we talk about things
like friendly fire and the technologies like IFF that were

(01:00:23):
used to limit that potential. Here again it seems highly
unlikely that any kind of an experimental test would have
been undertaken during wartime and under extremely challenging conditions like
those encountered by the crew on board this Navy aircraft.
Keep in mind, they were on a sensitive classified mission
at the time, so surprising them with some kind of aggressive,

(01:00:44):
prolonged mock attack would have jeopardized both the aircrew and
of course the aircraft. But even beyond all that, it
seems incredibly unlikely to me that there would have been
a secret US platform back in nineteen fifty three doing
what those objects were just described as having done, and
that that information wouldn't have come out by now, that

(01:01:05):
something with that combination of performance, endurance and radar characteristics,
that that would have been kept secret until today, and
that we still after all these years wouldn't be talking
about that. Then there is the atmospheric phenomena. What if
these are something like plasmas? Well, again, the crew did
have visual contact with the objects, Maybe we can't rule

(01:01:27):
out the idea that something like plasma could account for this.
But does plasma produce radar signals? Do plasmas fly in
type formations? What kind of phenomena would account for why
plasmas would seemingly aggressively move toward a Navy aircraft for
more than an hour. You think about traditional observations of

(01:01:50):
ball lightning and other kinds of unusual luminous phenomena that
are believed to be a natural variety of phenomena. They're
still a little understood. We don't know how all lightning forms,
and when it does, it only lasts, usually for a
few seconds. It doesn't repeatedly appear over the course of
an hour and produce detectable signatures while also flying in

(01:02:11):
formation and engaging in unsafe maneuvers near and specifically below
an aircraft on a classified mission. I mean, I guess
nothing is impossible, but in my opinion, it seems extremely
unlikely that a siding of this duration could be explained
by natural plasmas. Again, as I emphasized earlier, we will

(01:02:31):
probably never really know exactly what this case involves, but
what it does represent is a case with hallmarks that
are found in other high credibility military UAP incidents, multisensor confirmations,
radar emissions from unknown aircraft or objects we don't know
what they are. Aircraft might not even be the right
term either. They displayed extreme maneuverability, they sustain tactical engagement

(01:02:56):
for more than an hour. We have to also concede
that the behavior to described by the crew suggests that
these objects both had situational awareness, but also they seemed
to have intent, including unprecedented Morse code signaling. But if
one of these objects at the outset of the encounter
was signaling in Morse code, what was the significance of

(01:03:16):
the letter D being repeated? What did that mean? Is
it possible that this was some kind of a code,
but that we misinterpreted that as being Morse code? Certainly possible,
But at the end, there's no physical evidence that was recovered.
There were no images that are known to have been obtained.
There were the readings from the electronic intelligence capabilities the
sensor systems on board the aircraft, and that does convey

(01:03:39):
certain signatures that are at times consistent with modern UAP cases.
So while it's consistent with some modern UAP patterns, we
have to stop short of attributing a case like this
to non human origin. That certainly is a hypothesis, but
it is by no means a confirmed conclusion. Of all

(01:04:00):
the conventional explanations, I guess Soviet aircraft might be the
most obvious starting point, but all these other characteristics make
that almost certainly untenable. So we're left with the question
of whether there are indeed objects out there. We're encountering
them today and they've been encountered for many, many decades,

(01:04:23):
and at times they appear to also behave in a
very unfriendly manner. There'll be more for X subscribers in
the day's ahead. For right now, that wraps things up
as always, Thanks for being here, and you guys take
care and stay strange out there. We'll talk to you
next time.