Analyzing the Unidentified - AARO’s Hunt for UAP and Tyson vs the Triangles

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
Reports of unidentified flying out there, unidentified verial phenomena.

Speaker 2 (00:09):
Today there weapons.

Speaker 3 (00:11):
Being tested by our own or foreign governments.

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

Speaker 4 (00:19):
So why do you suppose that all of this has
been kept from the world exploring our past, our future,
and the mysteries of our universe? Where do they come, Brock,
Why can't you explain it? Everybody in youthology is screaming
for disclosure. The future is now.

Speaker 3 (00:34):
This is Micah Hanks.

Speaker 1 (00:36):
From the high mountains of Appalachia and a bunker below ground. Welcome,
one and all. It is the Micah Hanks Program. Glad
as always to be getting behind the microphone and going
in pursuit of the anomalous in our existence, as we
do every week, and of course made possible by you,
my dear listeners. Always wonderful to have you here and
to continue our discussion, a very civil discourse on the

(01:00):
UAP issue and everything else that we address here on
the program, very unlike what you will see on social
media any given day of the week, which, in fact,
being a subject that has been on my mind and
in fact these days almost remains ever present. We're going
to be spending a bit of time looking at the
state of UAP affairs, a State of the Union address

(01:21):
on UAP this week, looking at current issues that the
field faces, the history of the subject, and how that
applies to what we're seeing right now. This is a
very important aspect of all this to me, because there
is a trend that historians who study this subject will
know all too well, and I believe we are seeing
that right now. But then, in addition to the current

(01:42):
trend and some of the problems that that seems to indicate,
there are nonetheless some signs of hope, and maybe from
some very unlikely places. Many who are engaged with the
UAP debate these days put very little faith in traditional
scientific institutions and in government organizations involved in UAP study.

(02:04):
I'm not saying that UAP researchers are anti science or
that they are conspiracy theorists who don't trust their government.
You Know, what I'm simply saying is that really a
predominant issue in UAP studies is that people often feel
that scientists traditionally have ridiculed the topic, or that they
for various reasons, funding lack of interest or whatever else

(02:26):
credibility concerns scientists will not get involved in UAP research. Meanwhile,
many of those who are pushing for UAP disclosure on
the political side of things fundamentally distrust the idea that
our government has really told us everything that they know.
And while it very well may be true that there
is more to this subject and more that is known

(02:48):
by officialdom than has been revealed publicly, again, I think
that to lead with the presumption that we are not
being told the truth and therefore because of that that
any government officials in involved in UAP studies i e.
Those within the All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office are therefore
inherently untrustworthy and have no credibility. I mean, this is

(03:12):
actually an idea that I hear espoused often by UAP proponents,
But to lead with those presumptions to me is a
bit problematic. But as I mentioned, on the brighter side
of the issues that UAP studies faces. This week, a
very prominent scientist and science personality and a very prominent
government official involved in the serious study of UAP had

(03:35):
to sit down conversation about what we know and what
we don't and there were some serious takeaways. Broadly, I
think it was a great conversation, but I also have
a few concerns, and so we're going to dive into
that shortly. I'll provide a complete analysis and report with
all of my key takeaways and why that's important, what
it all means, and where we go from here, but

(03:57):
we'll get to that shortly. For the time being, I
think it's time we dive into a bit of news.
I don't know if you saw this incredible story from
down there in South Carolina recently, but there was a
radioactive WASP nest discovered at a Cold War era nuclear site. Specifically,
this was the Savannah River Sites f Area tank farm.

(04:18):
This revealed by a US Department of Energy report on
a rather unusual incident, let's say that occurred last month.
So what we know is that the nest was discovered
on July third by radiological control operations there on site
personnel went in there and they determined this WASP nest
to contain contamination levels greater than ten times the recognized

(04:41):
federal safety thresholds. Fortunately, I will say, official said there
was no sign of any recent radiation leaks in the area,
nor was there any evidence that there were actually any
wasps in the nest. Had there been live wasps in
the wasp nest, they said that they would have had
far less radiation than the nest itself. Nonetheless, a quote
from this DOE report, they say, Radiological Control Operation discovered

(05:04):
a wasp nest on a stanchion near two forty one
one twenty seven F adjacent to Tank seventeen in a
controlled area. According to the report, the wasp nest is
considered on site legacy radioactive contamination, not related to a
loss of contamination control. They noted that there was a
delay in reporting to allow time for reviewing previous wildlife
contamination for consistency in reporting criteria. Now they say that

(05:28):
the nest was found. If you're wondering just how much
radioactivity it was giving off, it was found to emit
one hundred thousand disintegrations per minute per one hundred square
centimeters of beta gamma radiation. Again, that pretty significantly exceeds
contamination limits, I would say so. I'll also add that
in my adventures in mowing lawns in the Southeast in

(05:50):
my youth and even in more recent years, I've had
a lot of encounters with wasps I don't think that
any of them were radioactive. I guess I would know
by now, although I will concede that those wasp stings
are no fun and in fact, at times when you
are being attacked by angry wasps, I couldn't fault one
for mistaking that for being a very small, localized nuclear attack.

(06:13):
That's about how bad those wasp stings can hurt at times.
But sticking with the subject of contaminated wildlife, we also
have this one right now from California Department of Fish
and Wildlife. They issued a bulletin recently. I'm just going
to quote here. They say, wild pigs in the Moterey
County area we're exposed to pesticide bait containing the anticoagulant

(06:35):
rodenticide defastenone. According to findings by the California Department of
Fish and WILDLIFEES Wildlife Health Lab and the California Animal
Health and Food Safety Laboratory in Davis. How did they
discover this? Well, get this, they said. In March, a
wildlife trapper reported multiple observations of blue muscle or fat
found in wild pigs. The blue tissue can be a

(06:56):
sign of rodenticide bait. Ingestion. The Wildlife Health Lab investigated
finding the anticoagulant rodenticide in the stomach and liver contents
of one of the wild pigs that was recovered with
blue tissues. They add that wildlife can be inadvertently exposed
to rodenticides, either by eating rodenticide bait or by eating

(07:17):
other animals that have ingested those rodenticides. They also apparently
love using that word in this bulletin, rodenticide, but they
say the baits often contain dye to identify them as
a poison, so blue colored muscle or fat may be
a sign that the game meat has been contaminated by
these rodenticides, although this blue discoloration may not always be present. Fundamentally,

(07:38):
the bulletin says hunters should be aware that the meat
of game animals such as wild pig, deer, bear, and
geese might be contaminated if that game animal has been
exposed to these pesticides. They say rodenticide exposure can be
a concern for non target wildlife in areas where applications
occur in close proximity to wildlife habitats, so be on

(07:58):
the lookout if you happen to come across any wild
ham that has a peculiar blue color to it, probably
not the kind you should be consuming in other news,
and this would have been a good fit for last
week's round up, as we were discussing anomalous weather events
and other strange things in our atmosphere. Scientists have now
observed what they say is the largest megaflash lightning strike

(08:20):
ever documented. How large, you might ask where? This one stretch?
From Texas to Kansas City across five hundred and fifteen
miles of the Great Plains. All this according to a
recent study according to Randy Serviny and Aristona State University professor,
we call it megaflash lightning, and we're just now figuring
out the mechanics of how and why it occurs. But

(08:41):
Professor Servini adds it is likely that even greater extremes
still exist and that we will be able to observe
them as additional high quality lightning measurements accumulate over time.
So apparently we didn't even know that megaflash lightning existed
until fairly recently, and in fact, I think the first
detections were made before we knew that it existed. They
went back and they looked at existing data, and they

(09:04):
found in twenty seventeen that there had been a lightning
strike that apparently outdid previous records by thirty eight miles,
that making this the largest what are now known as
megaflashes ever to have been recurred. Most lightning strikes travel
under just ten miles, well below the sixty miled threshold
that they say should be considered a megaflash. For these

(09:25):
sorts of extreme weather events to occur, it usually requires
long term storm activity that lasts at least fourteen hours,
and the lightning strikes that result must be enormous, roughly
equivalent to the entire length of the US state of
New Jersey, producing five to seven electrical branches in a
single strike. So if you're one of those night time
storm watchers out there and you ever happen to see

(09:47):
a really, really large lightning strike, first of all, of course,
always maintain a sheltered position if you're watching those kinds
of storms, but you might want to look around and
see if there are any reports of lightning megaflashes in
your area. In the aftermath of those extreme weather events,
something that's also extreme, and in a very different way.

(10:09):
There was a recent report by researchers at Northwestern University,
and they are now warning about academic fraud which is
on the rise and to a very alarming degree. Listen
to this. They say, from fabricated research to paid authorships
and citations, organized scientific fraud is on the rise. This
Northwestern University study combined large scale data analysis of scientific

(10:33):
literature with case studies, and they say that the researchers
led a deep investigation into scientific fraud. Although concerns around
scientific misconducts typically focus on loan individuals, they say the
Northwestern study instead uncovered sophisticated global networks of individuals and
entities which systematically work together to undermine the integrity of

(10:53):
academic publishing. Think about this. They are basically describing what
is tantamount to organized crime in the realm of academic publishing.
According to the Northwestern press release, here, they say the
problem is so widespread that the publication of fraudulent science
is outpacing the growth rate of legitimate scientific publications. Can

(11:14):
you believe this? The authors of the new study argue
these findings should serve as a wake up call to
the scientific community, which they say needs to act before
the public loses confidence in the scientific process. So what
exactly is going on here? While the researchers behind the
study analyzed extensive data sets, they said of retracted publications,

(11:34):
they also looked at editorial records and instances of image duplication.
This most of the data came from major aggregators of
scientific literature. They also collected lists of d indexed journals,
which are scholarly journals that have been removed from databases
for failing to meet certain quality or ethical standards. They
also included data on retracted articles from Retraction Watch. You
may have come across this website yourself. There were articles

(11:57):
and comments from pub peer and metadata so as editor names,
submission dates, and acceptance states from articles published in specific journals.
They combine all this. They analyze this data, and they
uncovered what they say appear to be coordinated efforts involving
what are popularly known these days as paper mills, as
well as brokers and infiltrated journals, functioning much like factories.

(12:18):
Paper mills, they say, churn out large numbers of manuscripts,
which they then sell to academics who want to quickly
publish new work. These manuscripts are mostly low quality featuring
fabricated data, manipulated or even stolen images, plagiarized content, and
sometimes nonsensical or physically impossible claims. One of the Northwestern

(12:38):
researchers involved in the study commented on this, saying, more
and more scientists are being caught up in paper mills.
Not only can they buy papers, but they can buy citations.
Then they can appear like well reputed scientists when they
barely have conducted any of their own research at all.
Now you'd imagine, of course, that this kind of thing
only happens in university. Somebody has been really bug and

(13:00):
they've got a paper due, and so, out of desperation
or maybe just laziness or a bit of both, they
pay somebody to write their research paper for them so
that they can pass their class and get an A.
These days, of course, all the kids are just using
AI to do this stuff for them, And inevitably, because
there's somebody that they hired who wasn't really familiar with
the work, something odd ends up in the research paper,

(13:20):
or if they were using AI, maybe a hallucination or
two works its way in. In any case, the end
result ends up being a bit lackluster. And yet Nonetheless,
somebody still manages to pass the class well, very similar
to this analogy I'm giving you. Despite the fairly obvious
issues with these papers, they still end up being published
in journals. As the release from Northwestern University also adds,

(13:42):
people can even pay to get papers that they have
written automatically accepted in a journal through a sham peer
review process. Now again, I think about all the issues
that UAP studies faces, and how even science papers that
undergo peer review will still be picked apart by the
more ideological skeptics, even if the data seems to be
sound and if it has undergone what appears to be

(14:04):
an authoritative peer review process that qualified it for publication
in a science publication. Meanwhile, there's absolute junk science on
unrelated subjects that is passing peer review, or at very least,
people are able to buy and sell their way into
publications to give the appearance of authority in the sciences

(14:24):
when in fact they have absolutely none. The research is
involved in this study, and perhaps rightly so, liken this
to widespread organized criminal activity that is taking hold in
the scientific community. As Northwestern Universities luis a and amoral
the study senior author says science must police itself better
in order to preserve its integrity. OI, ain't that the truth.

(14:48):
We'll be shifting gears here in a moment in getting
a bird's eye view on the current state of UAP
studies in some of the issues it faces as well
when we return right here on the Micah Hanks.

Speaker 2 (14:58):
Program, time to explore this week's cosmic theories and space discoveries.

Speaker 5 (15:08):
Honestly, Nova, I didn't scan the data, but I did
switch to T Mobile with their new Family Freedom offer.

Speaker 6 (15:15):
That's not the mission parameters.

Speaker 5 (15:17):
Well, I'm teleporting away from AT and T and launching
into a new dimension 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 6 (15:31):
Wow warp speed.

Speaker 3 (15:33):
Introducing Family Freedom, our lowest cost will switch our biggest
family savings, all on America's largest five G network. Visit
your local T Mobile in Newburg or learn more at
tmobile dot com. Slash Family Freedom up to eight hundred
dollars per lining via virtual prepaid card. It typically takes
fifteen days free phones via twenty four monthly bill credits
with finance Agreement EG Apple iPhone siteen one hundred twenty
eight gigabyte eight twenty nine ninety nine eligible trade in

(15:55):
EG iPhone eleven pro for well qualified credits end and
balance do if you pay off earlier, cancel contact T
Mobile the Merchlle.

Speaker 7 (16:00):
These Benz Dream Days are back with offers on vehicles
like the twenty twenty five E Class C L E
Coop C Class and e q E Sedan Hurry in
now through July thirty first visit your local authorized dealer
or learn more at MBUSA dot com.

Speaker 4 (16:14):
Slash Dream a state of.

Speaker 1 (16:54):
The Union address involving UAP Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena. That is,
it remains a controversy on many people's minds and of
course a topic that we revisit on this program. Always
happy to dive into this wad, into the controversy and
try and make sense of the madness, at least as

(17:15):
best we can. So welcome back. So Over the weekend,
of course, I was discussing UAP with some friends of
mine who were in town. We had quite a lot
to say about this, of course, and I thought that
a lot of the discussions were extremely productive. I think
it's always important to be growing and learning, expanding your horizons,

(17:38):
and always also maintaining a fair degree of skepticism. One
of the reasons I think that's so important, of course,
is because when you take a moment to look at x,
the famous social media site formerly known as Twitter, If
you spend just a few moments looking at what leads
the conversation involving UAP on those kinds of social media sites,

(18:02):
you might feel one of several ways. You might feel
a bit dismayed, you might suddenly find yourself depressed. You
might end up running screaming. I know I want to
do that sometimes. I'm not sure how you might react
to the kinds of things that you see online. But
I will simply say this, the kinds of dialogue that
I am seeing leading the UAP discussion right now is

(18:24):
extremely lackluster, very little more than a whole bunch of
nonsensical chatter. And I have to say fairly, I'm seeing
that on both sides of the ideological fence, so to speak.
In fact, a lot of the chatter I'm talking about
is actually ongoing wars of words between the skeptics and

(18:44):
the believers. The skeptics, of course, doubting everything and calling
into question the veracity of people's claims, the believers, of
course doubling down on extraordinary claims and fighting with the
skeptics about all this. But now, in addition to the
fights between humans, thanks to the recent implementation of AI
chatbots virtually everywhere, and of course on X, they've got

(19:06):
their very own they call Grock. Now people are dragging
GROC into the discussions, which can be helpful at times,
but I'm not sure yet again that I'm really seeing
much progress, if any, being made. So now, in addition
to these ideological wars being waged on social media websites,
that AI is being pulled in constantly, And rather than

(19:28):
asking what is the likelihood of this, can you help
us calculate the mathematics behind the likelihood or the probability
of a citing occurring here here and here? Now, Instead,
what people are generally using AI to do is, for example,
assess the veracity or the sincerity or the credibility of
something that their ideological opponent has said. Now, if AI

(19:52):
were truly fair and balanced, you'd think that you might
be able to use AI to come to some set
of agreement on issues. In other words, the AI might
be helpful in determining whether a claim involving a UAP
case might actually have some merit or vice versa those
which people have held onto as being smoking gun type cases.

(20:17):
Maybe the AI could help them resolve in their minds
that maybe the data isn't necessarily as strong as they think,
maybe the evidence in support of the extraordinary claims isn't
so great after all. In fact, I've tried doing this
myself with data that we receive there at the UAP
Sidings Reporting system, because I know all too well that
I have my own biases about this topic, and so

(20:38):
to try and remove some of those biases if I can,
what I've tried to do is train AI to assign
a credibility score to UAP sidings reports that come in.
And so, after I have parsed the data and created
a report, then I will feed that to the AI, which,
by the way, I have tried to train to be
pretty critically minded, and I'll have the algorithm look at

(20:59):
these reports and assign a credibility score with five being
the highest, one being the lowest. To my surprise, every
now and then I will put a really good report
in there, one that I would probably assign a pretty
good score, but when the AI looks at it, it
inevitably says, listen, being really honest, here we can go
no higher than three. This one gets a moderate credibility score.

(21:23):
Here is the reason why. Here's what it lacks and
what it would need to have in order to receive
a higher ranking. And I've got to tell you that's
been a real eye opener for me, because, in my opinion,
using AI in that way right to remove some of
our inherent human bias from the situation and to get
a clearer perspective on something with the help of AI,

(21:45):
it has certainly caused me to have to challenge some
of my own ideas and expectations, and also to challenge
my definitions of what a good UAP case are quite
the opposite of that kind of application, though, seeing people
online getting into fights and instead of trying to use
AI to help them get a clearer picture of a

(22:06):
situation and maybe a more objective look at something their
opponent is saying, they're simply asking the AI to show
all the ways that their opponents have been deceptive or
disingenuous or whatever else. In other words, something that social
media seems to have been doing already, and quite well
for quite some time, amplifying our very base tendencies and

(22:26):
fueling division between people, people who are getting on there
just for the soul's sake of fighting all day, every
day with anyone that they can. Social media already does
a great job amplifying those based tendencies, and now seemingly
artificial intelligence in the form of chatbots like Grock are
only helping to further sow those seeds of disunity. And

(22:48):
so again, talking with my friends over the weekend about
issues that modern UAP studies face, every now and then
our conversation would come back around to something that it
appeared recently on social media, whether it's the ongoing fighting
between skeptics, or how AI is getting dragged into the
ring during these ideological wars, the latest unverified claims made

(23:10):
by New York Post journalists, or the latest nonsensical postings
by ideologues who are quote unquote just asking questions, and
often questions they already know the answers to, but presenting
it in a way to their viewers so that they
can drive engagement. And oh yeah, I try to encourage
people to fight even more. I think the broader point
I'm making here is that my colleagues and I, sitting

(23:33):
back and watching some of this over the weekend, came
to a conclusion that you may already be very well
aware of. In fact, I'm sure most of you seen
individuals out there probably are very little progress, if any,
occurs on social media, and I have to remind myself
sometimes that everybody out there having to vomit opinions constantly

(23:54):
about their views or what they believe, or what they
think or know in their minds and hearts. To be true, yes,
social media has given so many people this wonderful voice
to go out there and express themselves, but unfortunately it
also sometimes contributes to a false perception of what's really happening.
And unfortunately the loudest voices are to often become the

(24:15):
most visible. But if those people are wrong, or they
are extremely biased to the point of being non objective
and thereby potentially presenting misinformation, if that's the message that
gets amplified, and therefore you spend too much time on
social media looking at what people are fighting about, or
what extraordinary claims are being made by a whistleblower this week,

(24:35):
or whatever else might be said you are potentially being misled.
And yet, of course even I, in order to make
this point, have to spend a fair amount of time
looking at social media in order to assess this situation,
which of course brings us back to the broader assessment
the so called state of the union on UAP studies,

(24:57):
because there are a range of issues right now that
I feel are actually at the heart of the UAP debate.
Some of these issues, in fact, many of the points
I'll address here, do come up frequently on social media.
The problem, of course, is that in that context, or
in that very divisive environment, very little progress can be

(25:18):
made in addressing these So let's look at some of
the problems for starters. Anyone who has looked at the
history of this topic will recognize that there is one
tried and true trend that emerges when it comes to UAP,
and that might not be something you'd expect, because, no,
it doesn't have to do with their appearance or the

(25:38):
shapes that are most common. It doesn't have to do
with the altitude at which they fly. It doesn't have
to do with the claims of whistleblowers and consistencies in
the narratives that emerge no. The most consistent thing about
UAP that I have observed historically speaking, is that the
interest in this phenomenon comes in waves. Every few years,

(26:00):
usually about once a decade, there is a sudden surge
and interest in what have traditionally been called UFOs. The
public goes gaga for reports of mysteries in the skies.
Suddenly it becomes a media sensation for a while, but
eventually a couple of things tend to happen. The argument

(26:21):
usually circles back around to a fairly skeptical narrative, which
then begins to be expressed by some in the media,
and proportionally public interest begins to wane. Examples of this
occurred in the mid nineteen sixties, where after a lot
of UAP sidings in the late nineteen forties and fifties,
the public somewhat we might say, began to calm down

(26:42):
really beginning in the late nineteen fifties, and this was
in large part due to efforts by the United States
Air Force to engage with the public in these public
information campaigns. Often these information campaigns were televised, like the
famous Armstrong Circle Theater presentation where Donald Keyhoe participated. It
was pretty common, in other words, to have UFO proponents

(27:04):
and popular authors appearing alongside, for instance, Air Force officials
who seemingly provided a very authoritative rationale for why most
UFOs were in fact nothing at all, and that the
Air Force was not concerned about this issue. Now, in truth,
the majority of UFO sidings traditionally can be attributed to

(27:26):
prosaic objects or known phenomena. The real ones, so to speak,
the genuine UFOs, in other words, are a distinctive minority
in the broader collection of public sidings. The thing I
think that the Air Force left out of the discussion
and intentionally so involved that very point. There are a
few cases we can't resolve, and some of those sightings

(27:48):
are pretty interesting. But of course the Air Force in
decades past didn't want to try and contribute to growing
public interest in this phenomenon. They didn't want to be
swamped with sidings reports. Limited as Project Blue Book was
at various times, sometimes having a staff of just a
few individuals, all working out of a little office at
right Patterson Air Force Base, that was still far more

(28:11):
attention that the Air Force was being required to put
toward this issue than it wanted, and so the last
thing that they would ever try to do is contribute
to public interest by saying, oh, yes, there are genuinely
things we can't identify. And as a means of mitigating
the problem that the Air Force faced with being tasked
with having to study UFOs, this led to the University

(28:32):
of Colorado UFO project back in the nineteen sixties, again
after a sudden wave of sightings that contributed to a
massive surge in public interest. There were sidings over Michigan
in the Midwest. There was of course, a famous landing
that was observed their Sikoro, New Mexico by a police officer.
Even had representative at the time, Gerald Ford, coming out

(28:54):
in defense of Michigonians and saying, I won't have Project
Blue Book downplaying the issue, acting like my constituents don't
know what they're looking at when many of them are
seeing things in the skies. And ironically, that surge in
public interest during that era helped to push the Air
Force to get scientists more involved, and the result of

(29:14):
that was a report which was largely dismissive of UFOs,
even though there were many cases in the official report
that the University of Colorado UFO project had not been
able to resolve. That didn't matter to the media, who again,
of course, report on the preliminary findings described early on
in that report. Look, you know, most of these things

(29:36):
can be explained. We don't think the Air Force should
be investigating, and frankly, it's a big waste of time
for most scientists to do so right now, although maybe
in the future with new technologies it will be something
we should come back around to rather than waiting through
hundreds and hundreds of pages of data in the report. Yeah,
the media took the abbreviated version and got right to
the point UFOs nothing to see here, scientists say. As

(30:00):
a result, Project Blue Book closed down. Scientists resumes taking
a dismissive attitude toward the subject, and again the media
did the same for a few years. But then nineteen
seventy three rolls around and suddenly there's a surgeon sightings,
which yet again causes the next wave of interest that
lasts for a couple of years that tapers off. But
then in the early nineteen eighties, claims of alleged alien

(30:21):
abduction presented in popular books by the likes of Bud
Hopkins and Whitley Streeber and others, yet again led to
a resurgence in interest that starts to taper off toward
the end of the decade, but by the nineteen nineties,
suddenly the roswell UFO mystery was hot on people's minds,
even though the initial books about that topic came out
in nineteen eighty, but by the early nineteen nineties, thanks

(30:44):
to the help of programs like Unsolved Mysteries, which accompanied
the general interest in that case, and of course drawing
from books that had been written about it, with these
compelling recreations in imagery that told these stories and brought
it to an all new audience, most certainly the raw
as well, UFO mystery was probably the dominant topic in
ufology throughout the nineteen nineties. By the early to mid

(31:07):
two thousands, that was somewhat replaced by the efforts of
groups like the Disclosure Project, who were holding meetings at
the National Press Club and televising the idea that there
were whistleblowers within government who had personal knowledge of issues
related to this topic and what the government had suppressed,
and that of course, at any time now disclosure is
going to happen, It'll happen at almost any minute now,

(31:28):
and yet spoiler alert, it didn't, at least nothing close
to it happened, that is until around twenty seventeen, when
for the first time in many years, after something of
a dry spell where many were even asking what happened
to ufology. This was a subject that was a big
deal for many decades off and on, but for the
last few years we haven't seen really anything that seems

(31:50):
to strongly suggest that there is a there there. Some
commentators had argued that euphology was in fact dead, and
then after twenty seventeen, of course, we saw the most
recent resurgence in interest, which, as I've now outlined in
past instances, began to taper off, and now we've been
seeing essentially the same thing happening. And one of the

(32:11):
things I think that has contributed to the great tapering
that we have seen here in the early twenty twenties
has primarily not been that we have continued to see
increasingly credible data coming from those in government who have
knowledge of the UAP issue. Now it seems that after
an initial surge of what appeared to potentially be credible

(32:32):
claims being made by former government officials and those claims
galvanized the interest of members of Congress who passed legislation,
And of course there is still an effort right now
to pass legislation. In fact, I hear that the UAP
Disclosure Act, which was severely watered down and ultimately thwarted. Yes,
Senators Mike Rounds and Chuck Schumer apparently are trying to

(32:54):
get that passed yet again. So efforts by lawmakers certainly continue,
but there certainly has been something of a decline in
recent years. Largely in my view. What has been driving
that decline has been an increasing number of extraordinary claims, claims,
in my humble opinion, that border on the absurd, stories

(33:15):
not just about crash wreckage retrievals and alien bodies and
things along these lines, but most recently the acquisition of
such craft by government bodies and more importantly military contractors,
and the use of individuals with things like psionic capabilities
to control reproduction craft based on these alien acquisitions using

(33:36):
human minds. Of course, as you can imagine, dear listener,
I'm more than willing to go out there on a
limb from time to time to look at claims involving
the idea that there may be some technologies in our
mids that we can't account for, but when we continue
to pile on extraordinariness on top of that, and unnecessarily so,
it doesn't really do very much to bolster their crediblit.

(34:00):
And unfortunately, I think that the core UAP narrative, while
I strongly feel that there is indeed a there there,
it has been unfortunately tarnished by the extraordinariness of the
silly claims that continue to proliferate. But maybe there is
still hope, and in fact, I've seen some indications of
that in recent days. And so as we continue our

(34:21):
discussion about the state of UAP studies, one of the
heavyheaders weighed in recently and it was quite a discussion.
We'll touch on that and much more when we return
here on the Micah Hanks Program.

Speaker 8 (34:36):
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 2 (34:56):
Time to explore this week's cosmic theories and based discoveries.

Speaker 5 (35:01):
Honestly, Nova, I didn't scan the data, but I did
switch to T Mobile with their new Family Freedom offer.

Speaker 6 (35:07):
That's not the mission parameters.

Speaker 5 (35:10):
Well, I'm teleporting away from AT and T and launching
into a new dimension 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 6 (35:24):
Wow warp speed.

Speaker 3 (35:26):
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 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 Egapple iPhone sixteen one hundred twenty eight
gigabyte eight twenty nine ninety nine eligible trade in eg.

(35:48):
iPhone eleven pro for well qualified credits, end and balance
do if you pay off earlier, cancel contact T Mobile.

Speaker 1 (36:32):
An arrow official engages in a bit of star talk.
Welcome back. It is the Micah Hanks program has uphology
or UAP studies, depending on what you prefer to call it,
been in such serious decline that irreparable damage has been done. Well,
I don't think we should be throwing in the towel

(36:53):
just yet. I'll tell you why. At first, I do
want to remind you if you aren't already an ex subscriber,
you're only getting part of the story because every week,
in addition to this podcast, we also have the X
podcast for subscribers with additional insights, extended interviews, and of course,
as always, additional commentary from yours truly. That, of course

(37:14):
can be found at Micah hanks dot com forward slash X.
There's a link for you right there in the show notes.
It's a great way to get the ad free experience
and also to support the work of your friendly neighborhood podcaster.
Diving back into the discussion here though, although the forecast
was somewhat bleak in the last segment, as we looked
at the history of the waves of UFO interest, what

(37:35):
has driven the most recent one, of course, since around
twenty seventeen, and also the factors I think that have
contributed to the decline and interest right now. Unfortunately, there
are not just extraordinary claims, they are frankly what I
would deem to be silly ones. And when people who
are often very visible proponents of UAP studies promote very

(37:56):
credulous ideas and extraordinary silliness, that only offers ammunition to
skeptics who are all too eager to try and take
down the entire UAP narrative. And hence why for months
I have warned about people unintentionally doing more harm than
good by not vetting their sources, interviewing the most credible witnesses,

(38:17):
and producing the most quality reporting on these issues that
they possibly can, you could potentially be doing more harm
than good. And all of that is why rare though
it is these days to see a quality discussion about
this issue UAP studies and where we currently stand with
all this, I was very glad to see that on
a recent episode of Neil de grasse Tyson's podcast, Star

(38:41):
Talk Radio, he was joined by John Kazlowski, the director
of the All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office. It was a
rare public appearance for John Kozlowski, a man who we
have previously only seen in public primarily when he was
addressing Senators Kirsten Gillibrand and other US senators during a
hearing last year. The hearing was very short and to

(39:03):
the point, But during that hearing, I also think that
doctor Kazlowski raised some very important points about the state
of aro's investigations involving UAP. Now that all said, the
John Kazlowski that we saw during that hearing was a
little different than the one that joined Neil deGrasse Tyson
on this episode of his podcast, because I've got to say,

(39:23):
on this new episode of Star Talk, I think John
really sounded a lot more comfortable and it's not really
hard to see why. During the Senate hearing last year,
of course, this is a pretty stiff environment. In fact,
although she was off camera for most of the time,
Susan Goff, who is a Pentagon spokesperson who manages much
of the information and communications involving the UAP topic, she

(39:44):
actually appeared there seated a few seats away from John Kazlowski,
and so she was there present during the hearing to
monitor everything that was being said, all the questions that
were asked, and of course the statements he provided. For
all I know, she might have been there in the
room with him while he was doing this interview with
Neil Tyson, But in any case, the stiff and very
sober kind of atmosphere that we saw during the hearing

(40:07):
last year is not what you'll hear on this latest
episode of Star Talk. Note Neil Tyson, who I've actually
seen give presentations before, and he himself is quite the
comedian when he's talking before a large audience, but he's
joined by a comedian friend of his name, Paul Mercurio,
and so there's a whole lot of laughter during this interview,
which is both a good thing but as you'll soon
hear at times, also a bit worrisome. But let's just

(40:30):
say it was a lively conversation that they had, and
Kazlowski discussed a range of things that I think are
so very important to have on a podcast with that
kind of visibility. He's talking about detection technologies, the eventual,
long awaited institution of a public UAP reporting mechanism. He's
talking about potential threats that might be posed by some
of these phenomena, but also the fact that while most

(40:51):
sightings don't pass scientific muster, there are still some very
intriguing ones that Ero is dealing with. So in terms
of what one might expect if they listen to this podcast,
you're going to hear an awful lot about human eyewitnesses
being the most common source of reports, which can of
course be a bit troublesome. Neil Tyson is often talking
about how people armed with cameras in their pockets should

(41:14):
be trying to obtain better visuals when they see things
that they can't explain. But of course Kazlowski also points
out rightley that the tiny camera on your iPhone, as
sophisticated as that camera is, still possesses a very small aperture.
There are distinctive limitations in terms of what that camera
can produce based on physics. And again doctor Kozlowski should know,

(41:35):
having a background in electrical engineering and optical engineering himself
and previously having worked with the NSA. In fact, he
clarifies during the interview that he's still part of the
NSA and that he's basically just on loan for his
duties currently with Arrow. But on the subject of pictures,
he also says that right now, in addition to photographs,
Arrow supplements the data that it has with radar electromagnetic sensors,

(41:58):
and Arrow is hoping to expand its sensor based observations
because simply put, low resolution smartphone camera data and sensor
placement issues can and potentially as already skewing data quality
and giving us a very unclear picture no pun intended,
of the UAP my mystery. In fact, a quote Kazlowski
from the episode, he even says at one point, we

(42:19):
have enough fuzzy pictures of Bigfoot. We need more standardized
sensors now. He also notes, and there's quite a bit
of discussion about this on the show, that Aero does
plan to deploy standardized kits to federal law enforcement and
potentially also release some public tools to help encourage data collection.
But amid the effort to try and collect more data

(42:39):
and better data, this probably sounds extremely familiar because we
literally hear this every time a new UAP assessment comes out. Well,
we've got this many reports, we've got quite a lot
of data, but we still need better data and much
more of it. We've heard this all before because it's true.
But in lot of that, Kazlowski emphasizes something very important
about the fact that the majority of the data that

(43:02):
they collect of course, comes from people who are relating
experiences they've had. Kazloski said at one point, look, we
want to know what they experienced, not what they think
they saw. In other words, despite the weight that often
gets placed on sidings, including military or pilot sidings, Kazloski
was telling Neil Tyson that the important thing to do
for ERO is to evaluate the context, not necessarily just

(43:25):
the credentials, not to try and just listen to people
say what they think they saw, but look at the
context find out what they actually experienced. This, as you
can imagine, often does lead to case resolutions where somebody
explains seeing something extraordinary but it turns out to be
a fairly mundane observation of a known technology. And again
I will emphasize, the same thing happens with reports I

(43:47):
receive at the UAP sidings reporting system. As we've recently heard,
people will sometimes send in extremely detailed reports, and they
will have serious convictions in terms of how they feel
about what they saw, and they are very certain in
their minds means that what they saw was something completely
out of the normal living experience most of us have
daily or nightly. Since so many of these sightings occur

(44:08):
at night, and they're very confident that they saw something anomalous.
But sometimes those reports are so good that as opposed
to hearing what those people think that they saw, I
am provided enough data that I can often determine what
it actually was. And in fairness, and I have a
lot of sympathy for people on this next point, I
completely understand that many people don't want to hear after

(44:29):
the fact, well this is how you described it, and
based on that description, this is what I think you
actually saw. Some people are like, oh, well, great, problem solved.
Many more people are like, yeah, don't tell me what
I saw. I know what I saw. And so again,
this is I think an important thing that Kaulosky is
pointing out here. We want to know what that experience involved,

(44:50):
not what people think they saw. Now why is that
so important?

Speaker 4 (44:54):
Again?

Speaker 1 (44:54):
Many skeptics would tell you UFO sidings without any kind
of visuals or sensor data are just stories. I had
colleagues tell me before I launched the UAPSRS that if
you're just collecting stories, you're wasting your time. You're going
to hear some really neat stories, but you're not going
to be able to contribute anything through the study of stories. Well,
needless to say, I'm glad I didn't listen to those

(45:15):
people and get discouraged early on, because there's a lot
of data that comes out of those stories and it
can help to lead to case resolutions. Obviously, doctor Kozlowski
a far more capable physicist and analyst than yours, truly,
but he seems to have come to that same conclusion.
But as doctor Kazlowski is talking with Neil Tyson during
the interview, he again goes over some of the preliminaries.

(45:36):
Right now, based on Aerro's current data set, there are
around eighteen hundred cases total. Interestingly, they said that about
forty percent of those have been closed with non explanations,
whereas fifty seven percent remain unresolved. Now, the reason I
will point out that there's such a large percentage that
remains unresolved appears to have to do with insufficient data.

(45:58):
In other words, a definitive cannot be made based on
the data available, and Kazlowski says, if we don't resolve
a case, it remains open indefinitely. Perhaps the most intriguing
of all, there is a very small minority of cases
two percent or so that remain unexplained. He says, even
after careful analysis, but even in the instances where there

(46:19):
are unresolved cases, The importance here is that those unresolved
cases help to guide not only hypotheses about what the
UAP are, but also the development and tuning of sensor systems.
In other words, they can look at a case that
they can't resolve and say, boy, if only we had
this and it had been placed here, we would have

(46:40):
been able to tell what that object was potentially. And
so the unresolved cases are also helpful in terms of
helping us to develop better strategies for future detections that
will lead to case resolutions. Here again the anecdotal data
and even some cases where there is visual or censor
data that corroborates this even when they can't resolve the cases,

(47:02):
note how important it is to be able to examine
those and study that. And yet again, I think that's
the difference between a common skeptic, maybe on social media,
and an analyst with the United States government. The skeptic's
going to say, we'll never know what that is, so
why waste our time? John Kazlowski and Arrow will say
we'll never know what that is, and that's probably because
we didn't have this, this, this, and this. So how

(47:24):
do we get those things and how can we apply
that toward future data collection? And of course there's so
much more that's discussed on the episode. I highly recommend
that people go and listen to it, because again it's
a very fun and spirited conversation. Neil and Paul and
doctor Kozlowski cover a whole lot of ground and again
there's a lot of laughing throughout this episode too. I
think that it was a good environment to have such

(47:44):
a serious conversation. And although he has at times been
very dismissive toward this topic in the past during television
appearances and interviews, Nil de grass Tyson seems to be
very interested in what Kazlowski has to say about UAP,
and although bradly I think that we are seeing something
of a trend toward disinterest thanks to so much of

(48:05):
the silliness that is reported about this topic and the
claims that are being made, the hope that I see
in this is that a we have a very serious
scientist who is currently heading the UAP efforts at the
All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office, b. Although doctor Kazlowski seems
to be somewhat agnostic about what he thinks the origins
of some of these UAP might be, make no mistake,

(48:27):
he takes the issue seriously. And see he is appearing
on a popular science podcast with one of the most
visible astrophysicists in the science community who seems to be
taking him and thereby the UAP issue very seriously. Paradoxically,
there are even those many hopeful UAP proponents out there
on social media and they will dismiss this interview for

(48:50):
two reasons. Well, a, doctor Kazlowski works with Arrow, and
we already know Arrow can't be trusted because they're with
the government. And b he appeared on Neil deGrasse Tyson
podcast and Neil is an enemy of UAP disclosure. Yet again,
very good examples of why I think both the belief
based and the skeptically inclined arguments occurring on social media

(49:11):
are counterproductive. By contrast, I think that the discussion between
Neil Tyson and doctor Keselowski was extremely productive and does
a lot to advance serious attention put toward this topic.
Although there were some issues and in the final segment,
I want to address one of the concerns I have
as well as we wrap things up here on the
Micah Hanks.

Speaker 5 (49:31):
Program, time to examine this week's breakthrough research findings.

Speaker 9 (49:42):
Honestly, I didn't review the studies, but I did switch
to T Mobile with their new Family Freedom offer.

Speaker 6 (49:47):
That's not the scientific method.

Speaker 9 (49:49):
Well, I'm conducting an experiment by leaving AT and T
and testing a new hypothesis. With T Mobile. They paid
off my family's fore phones up to thirty two hundred
dollars A and gave us four new phones on the house.

Speaker 3 (50:02):
Eureka moment, 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 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 Eagapple iPhone sixteen one hundred twenty

(50:23):
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 tem mobile.

Speaker 10 (50:29):
Ready to take the next step toward a successful future,
Sonny Orange provides multiple pathways to reach your unique goal,
from technology to healthcare, business to liberal arts. Our degree
programs will give you the skills to thrive. Whether you
intend to transfer to a four year college or embark
on a career in an in demand field, Sooney Orange
can help you get there. We offer convenient classes, affordable tuition,

(50:51):
and financial aid to support you every step of the way.
Apply now at sunnyornge dot edu. Your path begins here.

Speaker 1 (51:25):
Revenge of the giggle factor. As seriously as some are
taking UAP, they still can't help but laugh. Why why
is that welcome back? It is the Micah Hanks program.
UAP In my opinion, no laughing matter. And despite the
fact that I was very glad to hear the discussion

(51:45):
between doctor John Kozlowski and Neil Tyson Onneil's podcast Star
Talk Radio, there was one segment of the interview that
was a little baffling to me, and that involved the
area where doctor Kozlowski begins to actually describe some of
the UAP that Ero is investigating. As you can imagine,

(52:06):
of course, the very first two that he describes are
the Black Triangle incidents and also descriptions of glowing orbs.
Later in the interview, they also get into discussions about
an object that was seen flying into a volcanic plume.
You may have heard about this and we've discussed this
among the case resolutions that ARO has posted on its website,
but this involved an object film near Mount Etna in Italy.

(52:30):
They think that most likely based on what the video shows,
that it is a balloon moving with the wind that
was misidentified due to thermal crossover and parallax. Another resolve
case that they discuss involves an object known as the
Puerto Rico Object by Arrow, but this video is known
by other names, namely the Aguadilla case, and the Scientific

(52:50):
Coalition for UAP Studies did their own investigation into that.
They came to very different conclusions from AERO, who says
that they think that it's probably a thermal illusion, likely
call by balloons or sky lanterns that had been floating
above an airport and blended with the water's infrared signature.
They also talk about the famous Go Fast incident that's
involving one of the three Navy videos that first came

(53:12):
to public attention back in twenty seventeen. This video, according
to Aero was probably an object at about thirteen thousand feet.
In other words, the object wasn't actually close to the
water as it appeared to be. Its apparent speed that
it was moving was actually due to motion parallax. It
was probably a balloon or a bird that was being
filmed from the plane, and under these conditions it caused

(53:32):
it to be an object that appeared to be moving
very fast. Now those are all known case resolutions. Not
surprising that doctor Keazlowski would talk about all that with
Neil Tyson. What really stood out to me, however, is
when the discussion about black triangles comes up, Tyson and Mercurio,
you know, maybe somewhat understandably, are really laughing a lot

(53:54):
during this segment. There are a lot of interruptions into
this portion of the dialog. I mean, if you had
me sitting in a studio with the director of the
dods UAP investigation and he starts talking about sightings of
black triangular craft and mysterious orbs, I wouldn't be interrupting
the man and laughing. Oh I'm pretty sure I'd want

(54:15):
to hear what he had to say, but instead what
we hear during this portion of the interview is Tyson
breaking out into laughter. And then as Kazlowski makes a
passing reference to glowing orbs that were also seen in
that area, and he says, and I'll get to that.
I mean, Tyson just breaks down at this point. And
then he comes back onto the microphone, catching his breath
and clarifies that he's worried enough about the triangles he

(54:38):
doesn't want to have to add orbs into the mix already.
And again I realize, yeah, they're just trying to be funny,
but to me, this should be the really serious part
of the interview, not the part where you should be
laughing the very most. And again, in some total I
thought it was a great interview. Neil sounded really engaged
and interested in what Kazlowski had to say. But the
minute he actually starts giving vivid descriptions of law enforcement

(54:58):
sidings involving Neilagras, Tayson is falling out of his chair laughing.
So again this does kind of underscore the issue people
I think have with doctor Tyson. It's one thing to
be dismissive of UFO claims it's one thing just to
make fun of the topic. But right now he's sitting
there falling out of his chair, laughing while the director
of the government's UAP investigations is trying to describe some

(55:22):
of the phenomena they are investigating to him and to
give you an idea of specifically the case that Kazlowski
was referring to here, because he wasn't able to really
provide a very detailed description of the incident during the podcast.
As Neil is sitting there laughing, I want to play
some audio again from that Senate hearing last year where
the same case presumably was described for Senator Kristen Gillibrand

(55:44):
by John Kazlowski during his first public appearance. What you're
about to hear is the case that he had been describing.

Speaker 11 (55:50):
The first one was brought to us by a law
enforcement officer out west where he observed a large orange
orb floating several hundred feet above the ground a couple
miles away. He went to an investigate what was going
on with that orb, and as he was pulling up
to the location where he thought would be below the orb,
about forty to sixty meters away, from some object that

(56:12):
was the area was well lit. He saw a blacker
than black object. He said it was about the size
of a Prius, four to six feet wide, and as
he got forty to sixty meters away from the object,
it tilted up about forty five degrees and then it
shot up vertically. He says, ten to one hundred times
faster than any drone he's ever seen before. And it
did that without making a sound as far as he

(56:33):
could tell from inside of his vehicle, and just as
it left his field of view through his windshield, then
it emitted very bright red and blue lights that he
limited he illuminated the inside of his vehicle as brightly
as if someone had set off fireworks just outside his
vehicle or street flares. So that's anomalous because of the

(56:54):
size of the vehicle with the great acceleration. And when
he came back to investigate that area, he found no
disturbance of the ground beneath it.

Speaker 1 (57:01):
So that is aero diirector John Kazlowski describing this law
enforcement siding, and notably during the interview with Neil Tyson,
Kazloski also refers to these triangular UAP sidings in the plural.
In other words, there seemed to be more than one
of these. If there had been others, maybe that he
had been willing to discuss. They never got to that
during the interview with Neil deGrasse Tyson because they were

(57:21):
too busy making fun of the fact that people were
seeing triangles and glowing orbs. Kazloski goes on to clarify
when Tyson sort of ridiculed that officer for not obtaining
video during the incident. He says, what a shame you
know that the guy didn't get video, And again Kazloski says, look,
this officer who we spoke with was terrified for his life.

(57:42):
He saw this object. He said, he was reversing his
car and trying to get away from the area. He
was going one hundred miles an hour in reverse, and
he was on the phone with his commander back at
headquarters while this is all happening, and he was trying
to convey to that person in real time what he
was seeing. And he was terrified of the object that
had left the vicinity, producing these bright lights as it
shot off into the sky. So no, he didn't grab

(58:04):
his phone first thing and start trying to film the object,
which I agree with Neil Tyson to an extent that
is unfortunate, but it's also understandable why he wouldn't have
done that, and as further evidence of, in my opinion,
why doctor Kozlowski is a very calm and measured and
rational individual. He then emphasizes in the interview amidst the laughter, look,
I don't think that that's what your training tells you

(58:26):
when asked further about why the photos were unobtained. In
other words, he's saying, this law enforcement officer probably followed protocol,
all while experiencing something that completely fell outside of any
kind of frame of reference that he ever would have
had for any training or anything else for that matter.
But following the brief discussion about this incident, then the
conversation shifts pretty quickly over to questions, fairly mundane questions

(58:50):
in my opinion, about how Errow works with law enforcement.
And I guess that there are a few ways that
we might interpret this. I mean, it might have been
that Neil didn't want to turn and his science podcast
into UFO Spotters Central. He didn't want to turn it
into a bunch of stories. It might also be that
Neil was uncomfortable hearing stories about a strange object in

(59:12):
the sky that a police officer couldn't identify and which
I'd have to gather If an astronomer had seen that
that they probably would not have been able to identify either,
which brings us to another point that we should discuss
in the time that we have. Neil does emphasize the
fact that astronomers are better equipped than many to determine
what appears in our skies and what those objects are.

(59:34):
As he tells doctor Kozlowski, we astronomers look up more
than navy pilots do, and we don't get an increased
number of sightings of things that we don't understand because
we know what the hell we're looking at now. In fairness,
I think some distinctions should be made here. Navy pilots
generally are not looking at the stars and observing astrophysical phenomena. Okay,

(59:55):
Navy pilots are generally seeing objects in our airspace when
they claim to having ca Often these sightings in recent
years have been corroborated with sensor data, and in many
instances the objects that are detectable using radar systems visual systems.
Sometimes they appear on infrared camera systems. Sometimes there are
emissions being produced in radio frequencies. Often there's very little

(01:00:17):
evidence of any kind of propulsion system, but there are
nonetheless signatures that are detectable, and those are the kinds
of things that most of our military claim that they
are seeing. So when Neil is saying astronomers look up
more than navy pilots do and we don't get an
increased number of sightings, maybe we should add to this.
In addition to the fact that astronomers are not looking

(01:00:37):
at objects in the atmosphere that are producing signatures that
seem to indicate a technological source, astronomers are also looking
through telescopes. Astronomers are looking at the sky, and they
are specifically looking further beyond our atmosphere at astrophysical phenomena.
I've often been told over the years, you know, I've
got friends who are astronomers, and I've asked them, you know,

(01:00:58):
with all the hours you spend looking at the night sky,
have you ever seen a UFO? And almost inevitably the
astronomers say, no, we don't see UFOs. Again. A reason
for that, in likelihood has to do with the conditions
under which they are observing the sky, the very narrow
field of view that they are observing. They aren't watching
wide stretches of the sky or chasing objects that produce

(01:01:21):
visible technological signatures and which can be tracked as they
move through our atmosphere. Again, these are very different circumstances,
very different sets of criteria and technical applications that are
applied to widely different kinds of phenomena. So I would
caution against saying, well, astronomers look up more than navy
pilots doing. We don't get increased number of sightings because

(01:01:42):
we know what we're looking at. We are approaching a
bit of a false equivalency there, And although Neil's point
can be taken, we should draw some very clear distinctions
between the kinds of phenomena that are being discussed. And
again I say that still maintaining that in some total
the broader body of this discussion I think was helpful
because we have a very inherently credible government official who

(01:02:04):
is speaking with a well known astrophysicist and they are
talking about UFOs. They're doing so amiaably. There's a lot
of agreement, and despite the laughter and some of the
presumptions that doctor Tyson presents, He nonetheless seems to be
very receptive to what John Kozlowski is saying. Oh, while
there do appear to be some things in our skies,

(01:02:25):
we don't know what they are. We can't identify all
these things, and somebody should be studying them. And for
my own part, given all those issues that UAP studies
currently faces that I outlined earlier, the ongoing allegations of
cover up, the absurd claims, the compounding of extraordinariness, the

(01:02:47):
infighting among believers, and of course the never ending arguments
between the skeptics and the believers, and how AI is
being dragged into it on the social media battlefield. This
is unproductive in my opinion. So seeing a very prominent
scientist and a government official seriously discussing UAP is a

(01:03:07):
step in the right direction. That's all for now, everybody,
until next time. As always, stay strange out there. We'll
catch you again soon