Fringe Flashback! The Ghost Rockets with Micah Hanks - The Bruce Collins Show - Fringe Radio Network

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
Hi, everybody, it's me Cinderella Acts. You are listening to
the Fringe Radio Network. I know I was gonna tell them, Hey,
do you have the app?

Speaker 2 (00:15):
It's the best way.

Speaker 1 (00:16):
To listen to the Fringe Radio Network. It's safe and
you don't have to log in to use it, and
it doesn't track you or trace you, and it sounds beautiful.
I know I was gonna tell him, how do you
get the app?

Speaker 3 (00:31):
Just go to.

Speaker 1 (00:31):
Fringeradionetwork dot com right at the top of the page.
I know, slippers, we gotta keep cleaning these chimneys.

Speaker 4 (00:53):
She closed my office door behind it, started walking slowly
toward me. Her lips look warm, her eyes look cool.
Matter of fact, everything about it looked offy good to me,
except for one thing. A big black gun she was
pointing at my belt buckle.

Speaker 3 (01:26):
The clown brindsle Doune, Bruce Collins, Bruce.

Speaker 5 (01:34):
Collins and Chad Myles.

Speaker 6 (01:48):
Spire spies Man spine again, spins away, Sweeze riese just.

Speaker 7 (02:03):
B gimp strown, He's got radio.

Speaker 8 (02:25):
Jim from the Bread.

Speaker 6 (02:29):
No spy.

Speaker 2 (02:33):
Cows and welcome back to the Bruce Collins Show. This week,
our guest is Micah Hanks. He's the author of the
Ghost Rockets fascinating book. I think you're going to enjoy
the interview. But now, without further Ado is a man

(02:55):
that shows up in his radio plain clothes, but because
they're at the cleaners this week, he has shown up
in radio pajamas. He's a He's a man that if
he eats too much chili, he has to remark, this
is what it sounds like when doves cry. Here he

(03:16):
is Chad Miles. Hey, Chad, welcome back to the program.

Speaker 5 (03:19):
Hey do you make this up? Or do you? Is
there like a website that you go to to find
your material?

Speaker 9 (03:27):
No?

Speaker 2 (03:28):
I actually make them up. It's my strange mind.

Speaker 5 (03:33):
Maybe you should write a book. I should or a website.

Speaker 9 (03:36):
Yeah, I might.

Speaker 5 (03:37):
Maybe your Daily Bruce and you could send a daily
email with some kind of a saying like that to people.
You could probably make millions.

Speaker 2 (03:45):
I think a daily Bruce is once a day too many,
probably for most people. But hey, Chad, of course you've
heard about Art Bell, right.

Speaker 5 (03:55):
Yeah, speaking of weird things. Yes, I did hear about
Art Bell.

Speaker 9 (04:00):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (04:00):
He was on the radio for six weeks on Sirious.
Then he decided that he was losing too much of
his audience, supposedly to because of the drop offs in
the Serious Signal, although I never well, not the Serious
Signal but the online app. I never had any problems
with it, but I guess some people did, and supposedly

(04:21):
they stopped paying their bill and left Serious and Art
wasn't getting enough phone callers. And I have to admit
the Halloween episode, which I only listened to twenty minutes
of because it was way too much on the occult
and I didn't want to spend too much time on that,
so I turned it off. But I have to agree

(04:42):
that there were some pretty weak callers as opposed to
Coast to Coast, But Coast to Coast is on nationwide
radio and Serious is not nationwide radio. Art Bell was
never a threat to Coast, but for some reason he
had it in his head of his he does own
one of those that he would try to stream online

(05:05):
on his website. Well, Serious as a business, they're not
going to let him do that. But anyway, it's a
strange set of circumstances.

Speaker 5 (05:14):
I think it was a combination of a few things.
I think number one, Art had different expectations than what
about what it was going to be like to come
back to radio, and you hit the nail on the
head when he said that he came back to radio
when he was on satellite radio, and this is a

(05:36):
different thing that he's used to with over the air
radio or terrestrial radio. So I think he probably started
to do in it what he thought it was going
to be. And I don't know if he was horrified
or what happened, but it seems like he put the
brakes on it pretty quick.

Speaker 2 (05:55):
Yeah, you know, And it's funny because he was talking
about one of his criticisms was it's a caller driven
show and there weren't enough callers. Well that got me
thinking because I remembered a few years ago Rush Limbaugh's
show and Sean Hannity were accused of using callers phony callers.

(06:17):
Y f Yeah, and this happens on a lot of
radio AM radio. Ed Schultz, a liberal talk show host,
was caught doing the same thing. But this isn't even
really hidden anymore because Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Coast
to Coast are owned by Premiere Network. Well, if you
go on their website, there's a part of their website

(06:39):
called Premiere on call. You can actually sign up as
a caller to one of these radio shows. I think
they'll call you and they'll kind of audition you, and
you'll probably make a certain amount of very small amount
of money calling radio shows. But really, yeah, so Coast
uses fake callers because Premiere offers Premiere on call. Just

(07:02):
google Premiere on Call and you'll find.

Speaker 5 (07:04):
Well, Coast to Coast needs to get some of their
money back. Yeah, because those some of those callers are
not worth the money.

Speaker 2 (07:13):
But it tells you that some of these calls where
the people say, you know, I was I was carrying
my dead mother's urn and I put it through the
X ray thing at the airport and the man on
the other side said, who is this woman in the
X ray? And I looked and in the shape of
the urn was my mother's face. These are phony.

Speaker 9 (07:34):
Calls, you know.

Speaker 2 (07:36):
I mean, that's what's sad about it is people.

Speaker 5 (07:39):
Well, let me tell the listeners a little secret. Except
for our show, if you hear something on the radio
or see something on television, it's likely that it's fake.
Even so called reality television in the news, most of

(08:00):
that is fake. I mean, this is just so much
deception going on. It's ridiculous, right.

Speaker 2 (08:07):
And you know what's interesting too, is I think Art
kind of telegraphed that he was leaving, because the last
week of that program he was saying, this is Art
Bell and you're listening to quick Matter, And I just
think that that was a good advertisement that he was
out of there.

Speaker 9 (08:25):
You know, he didn't really say that.

Speaker 2 (08:26):
No, even the narrator, that guy would. I can't even
believe you, Bruce exactly. Even the narrator. And I forget
the narrator, narrator or orator or whatever you call him.
The announcer there you go announce the announcer. I forget
his name. I think it's Rod Roddy. Oh no, that's
price is right now the guy that does Ross Mitchell.

(08:49):
There you go, Ross Mitchell, who does the announcing for.

Speaker 5 (08:53):
Darkness deep voice.

Speaker 2 (08:56):
Yeah, from the he used to say, from the Kingdom
of Ny.

Speaker 5 (08:58):
From the Kingdom of Now.

Speaker 2 (09:00):
Of course Art sold k n y E nine, the
radio station in Nevada about three or four years ago,
so he's not from the Kingdom of Nie anymore. But
that was what that reference was about. But anyways, Ross
Mitchell that last week was even saying, want to take
a short ride. So you know, you knew, you knew

(09:23):
it was almost over right.

Speaker 5 (09:26):
Quick. You had me on the quick matter that was
that was pretty good.

Speaker 2 (09:30):
Here's the quickening. We're almost out of here.

Speaker 5 (09:33):
That's why. That's why I thought it was so funny.

Speaker 2 (09:37):
You know what's interesting too, is h and this is
this is a criticism I have, And I don't want
to talk about names or anything like that in general.
I'm just saying in general, this is a criticism I
have about the fringe movement in the economics world. They
have the people that have lined up, like there's a
guy named v who claims to be a guerrilla economist.

(10:00):
He claims he's an insider of some banks, and he
was on Hagman and Hagman with Steve Quayle. And there's
another guy, John Galt, And all the fringe guys who
claim to be economists are always wrong. And so I've
always used people on this show that weren't fringe economists,
like John Rabino, people who actually really do study economics

(10:22):
and have been on Wall Street and things like that,
because the fringe movement they're wrong in a lot of things,
but economics they're really wrong. And people who've listened to
this show will know four or five months ago I
was saying that this year the stock market was going
to do well based on what these people were saying.
I have no knowledge. I'm not an expert, although I

(10:44):
have studied it somewhat, but they were saying that the
stock market was going to do well, and I think
in the summer people will remember this. I said, I
think the stock market is going to do well this year,
even though most of these fringe guys are saying the
dollars are imminent collapse coming.

Speaker 5 (11:01):
And the Dow and the S and P were at
all time highs.

Speaker 2 (11:04):
Yeah, and I even talked about oil shale and how
the United States was going to start taking a lot
of oil out of the ground through this oilshll and
benefit from it. So there are some good things going on,
and the overall dead is a concern. But we're, as
one economist said, we're the best dirty shirt in the

(11:27):
laundry basket. I mean, the rest of the economies are
that much worse. So that's that's something that we should
point out, and it's something that people should look at
in terms of what they're listening to because a lot
of the stuff that is out there is just so ridiculous.
And speaking of ridiculous, Chad, I don't know if you

(11:48):
saw this, but this was actually on Good Morning America.
There's a Pittsburgh man who thinks he's a dog and
he goes by the name Boomer. Have you heard this?

Speaker 5 (11:58):
No, I haven't.

Speaker 2 (11:59):
This is a true story. I mean, it almost seems
like I'm joking. In fact, let me send you the
link while I'm reading some of it, because you'll want
to see his picture in her Believe me, you will
want to see his picture because he is a dog
in the picture. So and you'll see what anyway, So
let me tell you a little bit about it. He says,
Boomer the dog has a bone to pick with the world.

(12:22):
He wants to be accepted for his doggy lifestyle. Born
Gary Matthews, the retired technology worker and a self confessed nerd,
thinks he is a dog. The forty eight year old
wears a dog collar, eats dog food from a bowl.
His favorite is pedigree, and he loves milk bones.

Speaker 5 (12:42):
This is a dog this.

Speaker 2 (12:45):
It is it from Good Morning America, and he says,
I don't eat dog food every day. Matthews told ABC News.
Oh man, I'm sorry. It's a special thing for me
to do once in a while.

Speaker 5 (12:59):
To listen. There's a link. There's a link that says,
listen to Boomer's Bark.

Speaker 2 (13:06):
He has a podcast. I gotta hear it someday. He says,
I eat the cankind. It's not bad. It tastes okay.
I eat regular human food too, like pizza. But he
has the most fun wearing his dog suit. No doubt
you've seen it. Chad code named pape Paypy because he
made it from shredding paper. Oh. He wanders around the

(13:33):
streets of his hometown Pittsburgh, parking cars and digging holes
and digging holes in the backyard. Oh, this is sad when.

Speaker 5 (13:46):
I get okay, a couple I have a couple observations
from his costume. Number one, it must have taken him
a long time to make this, and number two, it
is eerily similar to mister Sniffleopochus on Sesame Street.

Speaker 2 (13:59):
Yes, yes, well, anyways, later on in the article, maybe
I'll provide a link somewhere, like on Facebook or something.

Speaker 5 (14:07):
I'm on his website right now.

Speaker 2 (14:09):
You've got to see this, folks. But actually, this woman
says This is no act, by the way, because a
woman says that he was friends with her son and
when they were kids, he asked to be called Boomer,
and she said, I always just thought it was a nickname,
but he actually thought he was a dog. Now, this
actually is kind of sad because I think there's a problem.

Speaker 9 (14:31):
Here, you think, but you know, you can make a.

Speaker 2 (14:37):
Lot of jokes because one of my first thoughts was,
how does he bathe right like a dog? Or anyway?

Speaker 9 (14:44):
We don't.

Speaker 5 (14:45):
Yeah, and if it's a paper costume, yeah, you know,
what would happen to it?

Speaker 2 (14:49):
Yeah, but it is sad. But here's the thing. This
person obviously had this problem since youth. So in society
today we would take this person and say, let's be tolerant,
let's accept this lifestyle, because he's even calling it a

(15:11):
do the doggie lifestyle? Where do we stop telling the truth?
How do we get past issues that people have? If
we're supposed to be tolerant of everything? That's problem? Now
this is different in that in some ways he's only
hurting himself, but he's still hurting himself. Somebody like that

(15:32):
in the middle of the night by themselves cannot possibly
be happy. I don't care what anybody says. There's something
wrong there, wouldn't you agree with Chad?

Speaker 4 (15:42):
Yeah?

Speaker 5 (15:42):
I would. I mean I'm not a psychology expert, but
I would. I would think this would be some kind
of a desperate plea for attention or acceptance or something
like that.

Speaker 7 (15:56):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (15:56):
And at the root of it, there's a spiritual problem
there of some type. And you know, it's sad because
society now wants to take people like this and say, well,
you know, they were born that way or or that's
the way they've acted since they were young. Who are
we to judge them? You know, who are we to

(16:17):
tell them how to live? And it seems like when
you start letting things, the morals of the country change
into this is acceptable, that's acceptable, this is the obvious outcome.
Now this person, how does this person ever have a job,
ever lead a productive life, you know, and ever truly

(16:39):
be happy? If you think, first of all, they're gonna
get hit by I'm sorry, that was just no, I
have a headache from laughing so hard. Oh no, let's
get back to it. Let's be serious, Chad. It's a problem,

(17:02):
and so it's something that needs to be addressed. But
we live in such a politically correct society that we
don't want to we want to celebrate these types of things.
I don't know which group it is, but you know
what's interesting is once I saw this article, I actually
googled man who thinks he's a dog, and there was

(17:23):
another case of a man who thinks he's a dog.
And this is disgusting. So if you have kids, you
might not want to listen. But he was actually having
sex with another animal in his house. So the point
is we don't really know how deep this problem is.
It may be as harmless as what he's doing right now,

(17:44):
but it's still not normal. He wasn't created to be
a dog, just like a man is not a woman,
you know. Or men shouldn't be with men, women shouldn't
be with women. It's not that we don't recognize that
that's where they think they're at and that's the kind

(18:06):
of issue they're having. It's that we can't then turn
around and say it's right. If it's not. We still
love this person. We love this guy. I mean, we
don't have anything against him. And I'm sadden when I
hear about Christians who do something twisted or mean to
people who have these types of problems because we should

(18:28):
reach out to that person in compassion. But this is
a sad case, and I don't think that it's the
type of thing where we accept these types of lifestyles
because they are destructive in the long run away.

Speaker 5 (18:46):
Yeah, And there's been I mean, there's been a long,
long drumbeat of tolerance and acceptance that's been going on
for decades in culture, and it's you know, it's gotten
to the point where we would see something like I mean,

(19:08):
if this guy were walking around, like back in the
fifties or the forties doing this, people would say, shut up,
you idiot, and they kick him or you know whatever.
And I'm not saying that he should be kicked, but
I'm just saying people wouldn't put up with it because
it's just stupid. Yeah, But nowadays you're supposed to say, oh,

(19:29):
you know, that's his thing and that's what he likes
to do. And you know, we've gotten so soft, I guess,
is one way to put it. But we've just gotten
up to a point in society where it's like everything
should be tolerated. We shouldn't hurt anybody's feelings. Every kid

(19:49):
should get a trophy for playing baseball. There shouldn't be
any first place or second place. You know, it's just
gotten so so ridiculous. And I would submit to you
and the listeners brutes, that this is something that has
been carefully planned for years and now we're just it's

(20:13):
getting you know, it's just it's bearing fruit, so to speak.
And now we're just seeing this rampant political correctness and
just all these other things. And like I've mentioned on
other shows about how you have warfare that has changed
over the last fifty years. Where it's gone from this

(20:36):
is kind of a stretch from what we were just
talking about, but warfare has changed and gone from countries
armies or militaries fighting other militaries to you know, a
large military looking for groups or cells or individual people.
You have police departments that have gone from the cop
on the street, you know, walking the beat or in

(20:59):
a patrol car. Now you have militarized police force. You
have this in just insane surveillance apparatus that just is everywhere.
Now it's just all converging all these you know, those
things just didn't happen overnight. They were carefully planned out
to be that way. And this, And don't think that

(21:20):
these things in culture or any exception, they're they're they're
all part of the same system. So they're all part
of the same system. This you know, this this cultural system, this,
this political system, this military system, it's all coming together.
And I'm going to say right now, the end results
not going to be good.

Speaker 2 (21:40):
I don't know if you heard this, but Nick Redford's
he's actually our guests the next time we come back.
But he's going to stop. First of all, he doesn't
have a book out again. His next book is not
out until midyear next year, June what. And not not
only that, but he's not going to write about conspiracy anymore.

(22:01):
He's only going to write about cryptozoological beings and things
like that. But he says not that he doesn't believe
in conspiracies or anything like that, it's just that he
feels like he's written enough about conspiracies that he can't
really write anymore. So I thought that was kind of interesting.
And then I was contacted a couple weeks back by

(22:24):
a guy who was here several months ago. He owns
a company called Vittorio j which is a tie company,
and I'm always looking for interesting guests that maybe don't
match the boundaries of the show. If there are any,
there really aren't. But I like interesting guests that are

(22:44):
out of left field. And this gentleman had designed a
tie that he had sent to the Prince, the newly
born Prince. I don't even remember his name, but William
and Kate Middleton's.

Speaker 5 (22:58):
Oh his named George.

Speaker 2 (23:00):
Yeah, there you go, George. And so I had him on.
He had shipped Prince George's first tie. And he's a
designer in New York and I joked around with him
on the show. He's actually a pretty good guest. So
a couple of weeks ago he sent me a press
release to try to get back on the show. And
he has just designed the Carlos Danger tie. I'm not

(23:23):
going to have you on because you designed an Anthony
Wiener tie. Come on, looks nice, but it's like, why
would you dedicate a tie to Carlos Dainger? You know,
that's that's crazy. I mean if I had that, then
I might as well sign up the Titanic Fan Club
for this show, because they're experts on disasters. I mean

(23:49):
I might as well. You know, I hear the bubbling water, right.

Speaker 5 (23:54):
Now the Titanic fan club.

Speaker 2 (23:57):
That's oh you know another thing. I think Hillary's gonna
I think you pegged this a long time ago, but
you saw Hillary as being a viable political candidate for
the Democrats, that that was always in the back of
her mind. And oh yeah, that looks to be playing
out for twenty sixteen. What's interested in Chuck Schumer? You
saw a few weeks ago, maybe a week or two ago,

(24:21):
talking about how he would support her as a president
as a presidential candidate. And what's interesting is if you
look at Hillary Clinton in the last couple of months,
she's made one million dollars on two speeches she made
for Goldman Sacks. Who's she working for? You know, Golden.

Speaker 5 (24:42):
Yeah, and just follow the money. And you know, I
know a lot of people on the conservative side are
really behind Ted Cruz. Look just look at Ted Cruz's
background and who he's married to. I mean, come on, people,
He's an Ivy League guy.

Speaker 2 (24:57):
Wasn't his wife part of Goldman Sacks?

Speaker 9 (24:59):
Yes?

Speaker 5 (25:00):
Yes, absolutely, yeah. So I don't know who people are.
They're only fooling themselves when they look at these These
people are put in front of you for a reason.
I mean, you know, if somebody's in the Senate, they're
there for a reason. They're not there on accident. Even
Rand Paul. I know a lot of people like Ron Paul,
but Ran Paul is he's there for a reason too.

Speaker 2 (25:22):
He is, And so is the the Pillsbury dough boy.
He's got an ulterior motive.

Speaker 5 (25:29):
He always does.

Speaker 2 (25:30):
Hey, you know, next time we get together, I found
some interesting information on urban legends that are actually true.
I'll send you the information and we can go over them.
They're very interesting. One of them is finding a dead
body under the bed, like going to a hotel and
finding a dead body under the bed. That's happened on

(25:52):
several occasions. Really, it's really disturbing to think about that
is you know, Oh, by the way, did you know
you were sleeping last night over the other night's guess? Oh,
now that I think about it, that's given me.

Speaker 5 (26:04):
The Yeah, he just gave me the Williams and I
don't mean the Prince.

Speaker 2 (26:09):
Yeah. And that's about all I have on my plate.
What about you?

Speaker 5 (26:15):
No, you know, I could have talked about the Obamacare
website and all that stuff, but it's such a disaster
that will leave that up to the Titanic Fan Club.

Speaker 2 (26:24):
What is going to happen if and it probably already
has been hacked, But what is going to happen if
it does get hacked and the few people that signed
up are compromised.

Speaker 5 (26:37):
I think that's probably already happened. I'd almost guarantee.

Speaker 2 (26:39):
It serious lawsuits here.

Speaker 5 (26:42):
This look. I've been involved with web development for years,
for a years, since the mid nineties. This is such
an disaster. I mean, the incompetence is just unfathomable. That too,
if I could pronounce that properly. What I think happened

(27:03):
was you had a bunch of people who got this
contract who had probably done political websites. A political website,
no matter, I mean, even if it's a big political
website is totally different than a major league e commerce site,
which is basically what this is. So these people were
in way way over their heads and they just kept

(27:28):
on truck and I guess, and then put out a
product that was way way substandard.

Speaker 2 (27:34):
And the latest tonight is of course, and you knew
this was true, but the latest tonight on the national
news is, well Obama did know that it wasn't working.

Speaker 5 (27:45):
Yeah, And also they had hearings today and they actually
admitted that I think sixty to seventy percent of the
website's not even done. It just gets worse and worse
every day. This is just some people need to lose
their jobs. You know, the Health and Human Services secretary,
she needs to be fired. And I mean, these people

(28:08):
just need to get hold in front of Congress and
this is just totally unacceptable.

Speaker 9 (28:14):
Total.

Speaker 2 (28:14):
If they ask Obama, you know, they're going they're you know,
they're going to confront him eventually and say, hey, what
did you know before this this started? And of course
what he's going to say is, well, you know, George
Bush started this website.

Speaker 5 (28:29):
Could you imagine? Could you imagine if this was Bush
Bush and this was happening Bushcare man, they would have
they would have impeached him already for it.

Speaker 2 (28:40):
Sign up for my Bushcare.

Speaker 5 (28:42):
It would be it would be all over the news.
CNN would have this running ticker on the bottom, you know,
bush Care disaster or broken Bushcare or some kind of garbage.
I mean, it's the the media double standard is so
outrageous that it doesn't even surprise me anymore.

Speaker 2 (29:02):
And they say, President Bush, how could you have let
this happen, and he said, well, you know, there was
a lot of strategy that went into this.

Speaker 5 (29:13):
And I'm not sitting here. I'm not defending Bush. That's
not my point. My point is that the news media
is so carrying this guy's water that it's bad for
the country. It is so bad for the country to
have the media, you know, be completely in the tank

(29:35):
for this guy, the way they are. It's just so bad.
And it's you know what, in the long run, it's
bad for Obama because now they've been covering him for
him for so long and they can't cover for him
on this because it's so bad. So it's all going
to be an avalanche that's coming down on him at once.

Speaker 2 (29:53):
Isn't that What usually happens is when things get really
late in the game, everybody runs to the corners and
you're kind of there by yourself.

Speaker 5 (30:02):
Well, especially politicians. I mean, you know, you've got a
third of the Senate that's up for reelection. I don't
know how many of those are Democrats, but I mean,
you got these are people who want to stay in office,
and they're peeling off left and right away from Obama
because this is so bad and it's only going to
get worse, right, so you know, and it's like I said,

(30:25):
I mean this was it's bad for Obama in the
long run that he got such good treatment from the
media because now he's not going to have it as good.
He's still going to have it good, but not as
good as he had before. But you know, this Obamacare
thing is just going to be too much and it's
going to get way worse. And the more we find out,
the worse it gets.

Speaker 2 (30:44):
So it's so bad right now that some of the
Democrats are losing in the polls to Boomer the Dog.
That's how bad it is.

Speaker 5 (30:53):
Yes, that's bad, right. I bet Boomer's approval rating is
higher than Obama's.

Speaker 2 (30:58):
Well, they say, you know that in terms of debates,
his bark is worse than his bite. Yes, he but
his campaign is sponsored by Pedigree. That would be a
trip or alpo.

Speaker 5 (31:15):
You know what would be funny is if on that
you can do a dog show or whatever that you
know you see once in a while on cable. If
he could come out and like do a couple laps
between showings.

Speaker 2 (31:28):
As long as we knew that he really knows he's
a human. I mean, if this is an act. It's okay,
then he's just having fun. But I don't know what
it is that's the problem.

Speaker 5 (31:40):
It could be an act. He could really think he's
a dog. I don't know. Yeah, either way, it's weird.

Speaker 2 (31:44):
I mean, it's kind of that's kind of even a
good segue for the fringe movement. There's people that I
talked to Micah Hanks before we did the interview, and
he's a skeptic on a lot of things, but he
does this because it's fun and the research for him
is fun. I do this show because it's fun, you know.
I mean, I think there is an underlying message there,

(32:05):
but we also have fun. I enjoy it. But there
are people who and then there are some people that
they know they're flat out manipulating people trying to make
money off of them, right. But then there are others
that I think, maybe you know, some of the shortwave
guys that are probably eating out of cans of alpo themselves,
that probably really believe some of the stuff they're they're

(32:29):
I know there are I know there are people on
Facebook that I'm friends with that do blog talk radio podcasts,
and they believe they're true believers. They believe everything.

Speaker 7 (32:41):
So.

Speaker 2 (32:43):
Maybe there's a lot more of us that need our
heads examined.

Speaker 5 (32:47):
The problem is there's so many goofy things that are
out there, so many goofy ideas, and you start to
kind of discount certain things, and then you get this
NSA stuff that pops up or something that pops up
and it like totally confirms something that was just you
thought it was off the wall maybe two years ago,

(33:08):
and something comes up and it like totally vindicates it.
Then you're like, well, man, I wonder what else is true?
You know what I mean? It leaves the door open. Yeah,
that's why I think a lot of people believe a
lot of these things, because especially now it's plausible. I mean,
this could really be true, and it just makes it worse.
It just opens the door for a lot of goofy stuff.

Speaker 2 (33:29):
It reminds me of some of the things I've learned
from coast to coast for instance. You know, I'll hear
a guest and they'll say, well, one thing that's for sure,
George is in twenty sixteen, we're going to have a
new president because Barack Obama's two terms will be over.
And George Nori, like the intelligent man he is will

(33:50):
say yeah, you never know, Well, kydline, you're on the air.
That's his favorite line, Yeah you never know. Or I'll
say that somebody will say something like, well, George, you
know I've been I've been researching UFOs for years, and
he'll go they're everywhere. He always says they're everywhere. And

(34:14):
the other question he has, he runs. He has like
a series of questions that he must write on his
hand because another favorite question of his is somebody will say, well, Georgia,
I had these plans and somebody broke into the back
of my house. They took them out of the safe,
and before I could get to the back room, they
were speeding off in their car. And George Noriy'll say,

(34:37):
do you think they were time travelers? That's always the question. So, yes,
I was visited by some men in black one day
when I was writing my book. Do you think they
were time travelers? You know, you get this really educated
question by Arpel, but then with George no Ori it's
always do you think they were time travelers?

Speaker 5 (34:58):
Well, speaking of that, Coast to coast swooped in and
snatched up art bells serious time slot, didn't they.

Speaker 2 (35:07):
They sure did. At first it was reruns, and because
they were I listened the first or second night to
see what they were actually airing, because there was a
rumor out there on Facebook, on one of the Art
Belt fan Facebook pages that it was reruns. So I
listened to it, and that's what it was. It might

(35:27):
have only been a couple days old, but they were
going right through the news break, the five minute news
break that you get when you're on syndicated AM radio.
So they were going through that five minute news break
with George Nori asking another question, and on and on,
and so I thought, well, this is there's no commercials
or anything. This is just like one giant probably two
or three hour show that they put it all together.

(35:50):
But then by Sunday, two days ago from the taping
of the show, I'll probably have this release tomorrow. But
by Sunday of this week they were doing live. It
was John B. Wells with Roger Stone, who had an
l LBJ Killed JFK book which actually was sent to
me by the agent also, but I decided not to

(36:11):
invite Roger Stone on. Quite frankly, after listening to the
interview on Sunday, I didn't we didn't really miss anything.
Jerome Corsi was enough, I mean, and Jerome Corsey's okay,
nothing against him, he's a great guy. But you know,
and people like those JFK stuff. But to me, that's
the most recycled conspiracy that will we will never know anything.

Speaker 5 (36:32):
Well, and everybody's jumping on that bandway right now.

Speaker 2 (36:36):
But there there is so much little side roads you
can go down with that conspiracy that we will never
ever know what actually happened.

Speaker 5 (36:46):
I don't think probably, yeah, I agree, probably not.

Speaker 2 (36:49):
So anyway, and we got to the end. I think
is this the end?

Speaker 9 (36:57):
Sure?

Speaker 2 (36:57):
This is the end, my only friend, the end. I
better quit before somebody sues me for singing.

Speaker 5 (37:06):
Yeah, Jim Morrison's a state. We'll send you an email.

Speaker 2 (37:09):
That's right. Hey, Chad, thank you for joining my weird
behavior this week.

Speaker 5 (37:16):
It was my pleasure.

Speaker 2 (37:17):
Were the dog article? I think that got me derailed
this week for some reason. Really, really, all I've had
is caffeine tonight.

Speaker 5 (37:27):
Just lots and lots of caffeine, that's right. Pumpkin spice
lattes are great. Yeah that is by the gallon.

Speaker 9 (37:36):
No, just kidding, not really.

Speaker 2 (37:39):
But maybe we'll talk about urban Legends, and there's another
there's something else I'll send you to that we can
talk about. I thought this was kind of interesting. A
guy wrote up this article about different aspects of movies,
and one of the movies was a movie that you
and I liked over the last couple of years. And
it's an obvious problem with the movie that I didn't

(37:59):
even think about. I'll tell you which movie it is,
and maybe people can think of what I'm going I
should probably just even talk about it. Huh. But anyway,
Tron Legacy. You like that movie. I like that movie. Yeah,
there's an obvious problem with that movie that I didn't
even think about until I read this article. But it's
talking about five different movies where there's obvious.

Speaker 5 (38:21):
Well, with Tron Legacy, that's probably a good thing.

Speaker 2 (38:24):
Do you want me to go ahead and explain as.

Speaker 5 (38:25):
I went back and watched Tron after I saw Tron Legacy, Do.

Speaker 2 (38:31):
You want me to go ahead and explain the gaping
plot hole and Tron?

Speaker 9 (38:34):
Yeah?

Speaker 5 (38:34):
Sure, and then we'll talk about the other ones in
the next show.

Speaker 2 (38:36):
Okay, Well, they weren't as good as Tron Legacy, so
I'm almost giving away the best one.

Speaker 5 (38:41):
That's okay, okay.

Speaker 2 (38:42):
The entire Tron series is centered on characters completely ignoring
the fact that they have a laser that could potentially
solve all of the world's problems, and instead use it
to play frolf in a discotheque. As seen in the
first film, our hero Flynn discovers that a laser being
tested and used to digitize inanimate objects can also do

(39:04):
the same to people. Then he himself is lasered into
the computer world to fight with sentient programs, conveniently living
out an allegory for religion. But in the sequel, Flynn
is introduced seven years after he gets out of the computer.
In the first film, he runs the company and now
has a son whom he regales every night with stories

(39:26):
of his adventures on the grid. After that, Flynn vanishes
as he as in he gets trapped in his own
creation using the laser from the original film, and no
one knows where he went, because apparently, sometime between the
first and second films, Flynn was able to take a
laser that used to fill two floors of his company

(39:47):
and was observed by dozens, if not scores, of employees
and tucked it away in an arcade basement, Because once
you learned that computer programs feel feelings and believe in
God's the best course of action is to not tell
anyone about it. Even Flynn's partner, Alan has no clue
what happened to his bow or any semblance of what

(40:09):
he was up to all these years, despite knowing where
Flynn was the night he had his revelation and that
the company he works for houses a giant digitizing laser.
When Flynn came back from Neverland that first time around,
did Alan not even bother to ask what happened? Or
did Flynn just randomly lie to his best friend about

(40:30):
the biggest discovery of mankind? How did he even get
that laser into the cramp basement without help? Did he
build a new one completely from scratch, along with an
ultra modern console. There's literally no option that doesn't involve
murdering all of the worker's Batman style. It's a good point.

Speaker 5 (40:50):
Actually, yeah, that's a good point. I really didn't put
that much thought into Tron, but you know I did
for him.

Speaker 2 (40:58):
But yeah, I better. I bet a trek he found
out what was wrong with that film.

Speaker 5 (41:05):
I have my calculations at my observance tells me that
there's a problem with this plot in this movie. That
was an impersonation of Trecky.

Speaker 2 (41:15):
Hey Ched, thanks for joining us this week.

Speaker 5 (41:18):
Hey Bruce, thanks for having me as always.

Speaker 2 (41:21):
And up next is Michaeh Haiks.

Speaker 3 (41:22):
He's the author of the Ghost Rockets.

Speaker 2 (41:52):
Show and joining us once again this week. It's my
great honor to welcome back Micah Hanks. Micah Hanks is
a writer and researcher whose work addresses a variety of
unexplained phenomena. Over the last decade, his research has taken

(42:14):
him into studies of military history, spirituality, sociology and cultural phenomena,
humanities origins, and the prospects of our technological future as
a species as influenced by science. He's the author of
a number of great books, including The UFO Singularity, Magic Mysticism,
and The Molecule and We've had Micah here. You can

(42:36):
go into the archives for both interviews on both of
those great books, and he's also written Reynolds's Mansion and
Invitation to the Past. Hanks also writes for several magazines
and other publications, such as Fate, UFO Magazine, The Journal
of Anomalous Sciences, Intrepid Magazine and New Dawn. He's also
appeared on a number of TV and radio programs, including

(42:58):
National Geographics, Para Natural, The History Channels, Guts and Bolts,
CNN Radio, the Jeff Frens Program, and Coast to Coast
AM with George Norri. And here's my short impersonation of
George Norri.

Speaker 9 (43:11):
You never Know.

Speaker 2 (43:13):
Hanks lives in the heart of Appalachia near Asheville, North Carolina,
and his new book is The Ghost Rockets, Mystery Missiles
and Phantom Projectiles in Our Skies And of course that's
available on Amazon dot com and you can get it
as an ebook too. Hey, hey, Micah, welcome back to
the Bruce Collins Show.

Speaker 9 (43:33):
That's always my pleasure to be here. Man. You know,
I think back years ago, I don't remember how many
when Magic Mysticism in the Molecule came out. I think
that your program had been maybe one of the first shows,
along with The Mysterious Universe that I went on. And
it's always a great pleasure to be able to come
on your program. When different books or well other things
come out, they may have been an article along the

(43:54):
way I was promoting in one of those anthologies too,
lots of stuff to cover, and it's always good to
be on your show doing that.

Speaker 2 (44:00):
Well, it's great to have you on as always. And
you know, before we get into your book, I wanted
to ask you a serious question, David Ike. He's always
promoting reptilians and I even talked to Scottie Roberts last
time he was on about this. If David Ike is
wrong about reptilians, how do we explain Stephen King and

(44:23):
Art Bell?

Speaker 9 (44:26):
Oh what a poignant question for right now, man, I
have to let the cat out of the bag a
little here. You know, as we tend to do, we
host and because I do a podcast or to myself,
and so when you and I get together to do
these interviews, we usually catch up for a few minutes beforehand.
I do that with a lot of my friends kind
of in the industry. And one of the things ladies
and gentlemen at home that we were talking about very

(44:48):
briefly was the debacle with regard to Art Bell. Art Bell,
I think, for those of us in this field, one
of our favorite mutual broadcasters, he'll still always hold us
off spot in my heart and in my ear drums
going to sleep many a night to the voice of
Art Bell and frankly, you know, it's really unfortunate that

(45:10):
things went down the way that they did with his
agreement was serious because I think we were all really
anticipating Art coming back to the airwaves. The show was
a little different from Coast to Coast, and I know
a lot of people complained about that, but hey, he
said that from the get go it wasn't going to
be Coast to Coast again. It was going to be
something new. You know, I'm sad it didn't work out,
and I wish him the very best in the future,

(45:30):
really do.

Speaker 2 (45:31):
Yeah, it's kind of hard to explain Quickening two point zero,
but anyway.

Speaker 9 (45:35):
It is well. You know, and many of my listeners
when we heard that the show was canceled for various reasons.
You know, many of my listeners were sad and they
contacted me and they said, we're so devastated because now, Mica,
we will never get to hear you on Dark Matter.

Speaker 2 (45:52):
Yeah. I actually submitted your name and Nick Redford, but if.

Speaker 9 (45:56):
You did, that's right, thank you.

Speaker 2 (45:58):
Yes, I absolutely did. You know, though, I want to
stay on this topic for a split second because Stephen
King and art bell. There seems to be something about
and serial killers. Not not to I don't want to
get sued, but you know, why is it that weird
people look weird? And is that good fortune?

Speaker 9 (46:21):
Hm? That's interesting. Well, good fortune is one thing, Karma
may be another. If you if you keep discussing this
sort of thing, I mean, look at me, well you can,
but you can hear me, I guess. But you know,
if you get online and you look at photograph of me,
I don't know. I'm not really peculiar looking. As a
matter of fact, I think, you know, I look pretty average,

(46:41):
you know, But then again, I spend a lot of
time underground in a bunker where I do my broadcasts,
and so I guess maybe that the direct gravitational force
exerted on me at that I don't know if you
call it altitude since it's underground, but you know, regardless,
maybe the physics there are a little different. Whereas most
people who broadcast from the hundred and fifty fifth megaplex,

(47:01):
you know, in one of these you know, buildings in
midtown Manhattan or someplace like that. You know, the strains
of the industry may may be greater on them, or
for all we know, it could also just be as
simple as genetics, so who knows. But I think in
Stephen King's case, you know, one of the most striking
features about him is the glasses, the thick rim glasses

(47:22):
that he wears. And obviously that may be partially a
hereditary thing. But I know that Stephen, having read and
not recommend to everyone whoever wants to be a writer.
A lot of people see our written books and they say,
you know, what, how did you get started? And I
tell them two things. Well, first of all, I met
Phyllis Galdy at Fate, and she was kind enough to
accept an article that I wrote back in the early

(47:42):
two thousands on the Sasquatch and the linguistics of of
and the developed the developed development of not only human language,
but how if a hypothytothetical sasquatch species existed, how they
might develop language, and how we can learn about sasquatch
by looking at the development of human language and the
study of linguistics. It was a weird idea for an article,
but they picked it up and that launched my career.

(48:04):
But before that, I read a book called on Writing
a Memoir of the Craft by Stephen King, and I
have to say in the book, he tells you right
there he is. I mean, just he carries books with
him everywhere. He reads all the time, and he's written
a lot of books, and so he spent a lot
of time squinting and staring and you know, working over
the typewriter and then later on the computer keyboard. I

(48:24):
know from spending a lot of time writing myself, it
can be hell on the eyes sometimes, and so what
I use is I have these little computer glasses that
magnify only slightly what you're looking at and bring things
into focus so that it's a little bit less stray
on your eyes. They have a UV protection, so they're
kind of like like slightly yell attended, or sometimes you'll
see them slightly green and they'll do what I call

(48:45):
matrix green because of the matrix films all seem to
have that kind of tent to him. They tinted ever
so slightly with a UV filter so that it doesn't
hurt your eyes so badly. Maybe Stephen King could have
benefited from some of those early on, but it hasn't
seemed to affect his productivity books. After numerous announcements of
his retiring. He's still going at it after all these years,
isn't he?

Speaker 2 (49:05):
Yes, he is, most certainly. And you know you mentioned sasquatch,
and I love this show Finding Bigfoot, and I seem
to find myself saying every time I hear a noise,
that's got to be a squatch.

Speaker 9 (49:17):
Oh yeah, Well you know that that film, if you
not film, but a television program. Rather, if if anything,
it has done less for maybe the serious study of
sasquatch and more for its institution. That is, the idea
of a sasquatch is a cultural meme. It is rooted
the sasquatch ever more popularly in modern urban folklore, and

(49:41):
squatch hunters united around the globe now in continuous rejoicing
and praising this meme of the wild man, which has
been with us for a long time. Look, I couldn't
tell you if there's a sasquatch or not. There was
a time in my youth where I was really optimistic
about that prospect, and now I'm still optimistic. But but
I also try to look at things with a little

(50:03):
more of a skeptical tinge, not to be closed minded
by any means, but so that I can filter some
of the craziness that tends to erupt from this field,
and unfortunately, there's a lot of it. And I think,
like a lot of young people, I started off with questions,
and as I dug into this, I would read reports
of strange and unusual phenomenon occurring around the world, whether

(50:26):
it be cryptozoological you know, creatures and claims of their existence,
or UFOs and things like what we'll be discussing in
a few minutes, the ghost rockets, as I've come to
call them, you know. I would look at all these things,
I would read everything, and then I would take it
all seriously, and after a while, you get to a
point where you say, okay, now that I've taken all
this into my lexicon, into my worldview, now let's start

(50:47):
chipping away at the stone. Let's start revealing the statue beneath,
to use another of Stephen King's analogies, and let's start
shipping away and let's see what really is needed in
order to construct what is a valid, stable and legitimate worldview.
And unfortunately, what I've found personally is that when it

(51:08):
comes to paranormal phenomena, the majority of it tends to
fall away. All the really bizarre stuff, all the really
fun stuff. It's still really fun and worth discussing, especially
in a sociological in a folkloric sense. But that isn't
to say, by the way, though, that in that stripping
down process, that we can be so skeptical that we
eliminate all possibility of valid anomalies. Just the other day,

(51:31):
I had a correspondence with a friend of mine who
is an engineer, and he works with an agency. I
shouldn't say much more than that, because there are many
of them. You know that I correspond with people who
have or still do work with various agencies and things
like that. They don't give me secret information. And these
people I don't think that I know anyone who's really
privied anything secret anyway. But nonetheless, by virtue of where

(51:54):
they work and what they do, they have a certain
level of credibility to maintain. And so the reason for secrecy,
at least in terms of who they are, is for
their own professional importance and maintaining the important integrity of
the positions that they hold, whether it be working with
the space agencies or working with you know, the National Archives,

(52:15):
whether it be working with you know, a college or university,
as many of my contacts do. These people they don't
actively and openly promote their interest in the unexplained in
order to protect their positions in academia and in officialdom.
But they'll all tell me the same thing, the ones
who I'm in contact with, because this is the very
thing that brought us into contact with one another. It

(52:36):
usually starts with an email I get from one of
these people. They read one of my books, they hear
one of my programs. They contact me and they tell
me what their position is and what information they may
have been made privy to or what they've personally studied.
And then they say, I can't talk about this publicly
because of my tenure or because of this or this
or this, but these anomalies do happen. And the funny thing,
Bill or that, well, I shouldn't say actually that, But

(52:58):
there's one gentleman that I used to talk with quite
a bit. We'll call him Bill. That's actually not his name,
but he had told me many years ago. You know
the skeptic types, the ones who leave everything out. They're
really a sad bunch. And Bruce, I'll tell you this
that it's funny that they don't you know, those individuals

(53:20):
who shared this kind of worldview, they don't go to
the skeptics with that information. And it's interesting to me
that I find people inofficial and people who are trained,
people who have had academic study and training and science
and the like, and they'll come and they'll share information
with a guy like you. They might call Bruce Collins,
if they'll call Michael Hanks or Nick Redfern, and they'll say, look,

(53:40):
there are real anomalies. They don't waste their time on
the hardcore skeptics who claim to have all the answers
to everything. And I find that very interesting because at
the end of the day, I don't think that you
can rule out all claims of the unexplained. There are
valid anomalies around us. It's just we have to kind
of pick the more valid ones from the ever expanding
mythos of weirdness out there.

Speaker 2 (54:01):
You know, that's an interesting segue because I had thought
earlier about asking you somewhat questions somewhat centering around what
you just said. And frankly, when you first said that
this person had worked for an agency, I was thinking,
am we But now I'm on the right page. But

(54:22):
Micah one thing that I notice about you that is
very commendable is that you're objective, and I wanted you
to talk about the programs you're hosting. But also on
this program, we've talked about Alex Jones and how he's
had fifteen twenty years of declaring martial law every day,

(54:43):
or other people like Steve Quail, and we've gotten hate
mail from that. We've received hate mail people who said
they would never listen to the show again. And I've
tapered that back a little bit. How do you strike
a balance when talking about all of this, not to
be so exclusive that you ruin the very base that

(55:07):
you might want to deliver the.

Speaker 9 (55:10):
Information to, You know, I guess maybe among the hosts
of podcasts and radio programs, and of course for those
listening at home who may not be aware. I do
one radio program. It's an Internet radio program, and we
could talk all night about the difference between radio and podcast.
I was having that discussion with my good friend, the
program director at the KGRA radio network, Race Hobbs, earlier today.

(55:32):
But I'm doing a radio program on Sunday nights, and
I would say a radio program is a live program
that people tune in live to listen to, we take calls,
we have live guests, but I also do two weekly podcasts. Now,
for most people, a podcast is entirely pre recorded, so
you don't have that ability to take live calls and
interact live and have affiliate stations. Whereas my two programs,

(55:54):
the greyley In Report, which is the podcast I've been
doing for three years now going on for and the
brand new podcast off started Middle Theory, which is really
it's not a paranormally themed program at all. We'll certainly
talk about political and historical conspiracies and things on that,
but we talk about a lot of current events and
things too. I wanted to do one show that just
had no not that we necessarily are intentionally trying to

(56:16):
leave it out, but I'm not already doing two programs
the radio show, the Michael Hanks Program on Sunday nights,
and then greatly in Report. Those two shows, certainly because
people have come to know that this is where my
interest lies. They'll deal with more fringe subjects, whether it
be fringe science, who are literally going to the fringes
of human expectation for the existence of such things as

(56:36):
maybe alien life, and we'll look at, you know, the
actual possibilities and potentials therein as to whether or not,
if not Earth has been visited at very least, what
potentials might exist further out there? Have aliens, if not
visiting Earth, have they come to fruition? Have they come
to exist any place in the universe other than here
on Earth? And how can we prove that? How can
we study that? You know, these are the kind of

(56:58):
things that people expect me to discuss, and so I'll
do that, but Middle Theory and we've got the site
up for that right now, which is middle theory dot com.
The program is on iTunes. It's a podcast that doesn't
talk about paranormal stuff. It's it gives me kind of
an outlet to deal with those subjects I don't get
to talk about so much. But now that said, and
since we do discuss conspiracies at least some on that program,
because they're relevant to society right now. Look at what's

(57:19):
going on the frenzy media leading up to the anniversary
of the jfk assassinations. All anyone talks about and what
we continually see is that, of course, there are the
sixty one percent of Americans who apparently still believe that
there was a conspiracy, are out there saying exactly what
the polls are saying, Yes, we still believe that there's
a conspiracy. And how dare you those of you who

(57:40):
say that there wasn't insult our intelligence by saying that
the one, you know, the one bullet, the magic bullet,
the lone gunman story about Lee Harvey Oswald is really
the truth and the full truth. Whereas I think that
part of the truth is that there was an aspect
of this involving Lee Harvey Oswald. The other half of
it probably has to do with c HI files that
have been released. It could entail a number of things.

(58:03):
I've spent a lot of time recently, not researching so
much the idea of there being a mafia connection or
a Cuban connection or something like that. I've been investigating
not only Lee Harvey Oswald himself, reading his collected writings,
which were published in a book called Lee Harvey Oswald,
My Life in Words, but also studying the testimony given
by Jack Ruby, which is very interesting. And then finally

(58:24):
the story of a alleged former Russian lieutenant k Colonel
and the KGB who defected in around nineteen sixty two
or sixty three, I think, first went to Geneva and
then came to the United States, fully defecting the United States.
His name was Yuri Nosenko. He had been interrogated, was
suspected and in my opinion, likely was a double agent,
and had said that the Soviets had not been involved

(58:46):
in working with Lee Harvey Oswald. There was a lot
of suspicion, which led to about three years of daily
interrogation of Nosenko, which seemed to indicate that the intelligence
agencies CIA especially that were interrogating him, felt that he
had not only been lying, but that there indeed could
have been a connection between Lee Harvey Oswald and Russia.

(59:06):
That's considered a conspiracy theory. But the truth of the
matter is is that the CIA thought seriously enough of
this potential, obviously to administer light attacker tests and to
interrogate him, often in a brutal fashion, for about three years.
And so what we have to keep in mind when
we look at stories like that of Nussenko is that, well,
when you pair that information now publicly available along with
what is not publicly available, the CIA files that have

(59:29):
been kept, it very well could be if there's a
conspiracy that there was knowledge of there being a Russian component,
the Russians had acted they didn't want that information to
get out, and therefore even Mussenko had been a double agent,
acting with the intent of trying to dissuade Americans from
thinking that the Russians had been behind the plotter had
involved any kind of connection with Lee Harvey Oswald and

(59:51):
by the same talking to the CIA, may have even
withheld that information so as to prevent a Cold War
from becoming a full on nuclear war. Realization that the
Russians may have had involvement with the killing of a
US president, I mean, that's entirely a hypothetical, but we
don't know because of the fact that some of this
information is still not available. And interestingly, Nosenko's interrogations were

(01:00:13):
also left out of the Warrant Commission report, just like
the initial report on the nine to eleven terrorist attacks
left out the entire portion about World Trade Center seven collapsing.
We don't have to assert a conspiracy to ask how
do these commissions appointed to study these incredible catastrophic occurrences
in American history? How do they leave out gaping holes?

(01:00:35):
With important information. And so when it comes around to
Alex Jones to get back to that primary question, because
they do want to answer that it's obvious that there
are real conspiracies, and yet the mainstream is going to
tell you no matter what, no conspiracy, nothing to see here.
And all we have seen leading up to this anniversary
of the JFK assassination has been that we have seen
people saying, you know what, nothing to see here. And

(01:00:56):
it's amazing that more than half of all Americans still
think there's a conspiras when in fact, there is some
really interesting information probably worthy of consideration in regard to
the JFK situation. But when I go on my program
and talk about it, I try and deal with it
like that. I don't tell you that everything is a
false flag. I don't tell you that everything is a conspiracy. Now,
the aforementioned radio host in the Texas area certainly does that.

(01:01:20):
Look you've said, He's done it for fifteen years, and
he says it every day, and I have managed to
upset a few people by pointing that out. But I
also think maybe at times have been a little too
harsh on Alex Jones personally, because well, Alex is the
kind of guy who obviously sensationalizes heavily what he does,
he also does put his heart into it and does
put out you know, I would say a lot of

(01:01:42):
good information. It's just the way he presents that to people.
And if there's anything that Alex Jones can be criticized for,
it is just being overtly sensational and sometimes so sensational
that it's difficult to determine what is good information from
what is bad information that he may be presenting. But
I think that there's a difference between bad information and
certain certainly over oversensationalized information for purposes of trying to

(01:02:05):
sell survival seeds and certain kinds of supplements.

Speaker 2 (01:02:08):
Yeah. Absolutely, I totally agree. And it's it's partially like
you're saying in the presentation, not always is it the information.
Some of that is highly researched. And I have to say,
Alex Jones, I don't know if he's using teleprompters or

(01:02:29):
massive amounts of notes, but I can tell when people
call that man knows the facts of what he's talking about,
that it's not something that he's reading he's regurgitating mentally,
you know, things that he has looked, looked at and
researched for years, so he has a tremendous mind. It's

(01:02:50):
just the presentation, uh, leaves a lot to be desired
in my opinion, But again, a lot of people are
interested in Alex Jones. Anyway, let's get to your book.
The title of your latest book is The Ghost Rockets.
Is this title suggesting paranormal missiles flying overhead?

Speaker 9 (01:03:08):
Well, the title of the book, it certainly does involve
what you might call paranormal. You know, I think only
by justification of saying that we don't have a full
understanding of what these things are. I gave my first
public lecture about this at this past year's Paradigm Symposium,
which was just under a month ago, and there were

(01:03:30):
a number of skeptics in the audience, and I had
an opportunity to talk with a couple of those skeptics,
one of them writer for Skeptical Inquirer magazine, and I
asked them what they thought about the presentation, and it
was one of the most sincere compliments I've gotten, because
the gentleman told me this book, and I don't think
there'd be a problem with naming it. Bob Blasquitz is

(01:03:50):
his name. He's actually a friend of mine. But you know, again,
maybe there's a lot of dichotomy in this field between
the skeptics and believers. Bob I asked him, what did
you think about the presentation, and he said, I thought
it was really good. It was a very conservative presentation.
So while in the sense of there being an unexplained
origin behind these missiles, you could say that maybe it's

(01:04:11):
sort of paranormal. To me to utilize that expression paranormal
is complementing with the assertion that this is something that
is apparently capable of acting beyond our known natural world.
Are the science and understanding of science in the natural
world and physics around us. Whereas the ghost rockets, again

(01:04:32):
I think more appropriately defined just miss would be missiles
of unknown origin. This book deals with a variety of
different approaches to their study. The reason I use the
term ghost rockets, of course, Bruce, is because ghost rocket
was the first term used for UFOs of missile like
appearance that began to appear over specifically Scandinavia around nineteen

(01:04:56):
forty six. There had been some reports actually during the
war years, but especially that summer of nineteen forty six,
these missile like craft, again called ghost rockets, were seen
sometimes by the hundreds every day over parts of Scandinavia,
especially in that summer. Many of them crash landed in
the lakes and things like that. The ghost rocket craze

(01:05:18):
began there, and it ended there in Scandasy and actually
in the country of Sweden specifically, but they were seen
in all over parts of Europe, and especially throughout the
Scandinavian countries. Nonetheless, what I find is that and the
reason why I chose to use that term for the
title of this book, because when the book first was
announce laughing, Coleman tweeted at me uphology before it was upology, kudos,

(01:05:39):
and that was a reference to before the official term
UFO was ever employed by the federal government, or rather
the Air Force here in the United States, before the
term flying saucer was ever employed in regard to sightings
like that of Kenneth Arnold. This term ghost rocket had
been employed in reference to, of course, what the Swedish

(01:06:03):
government was investigating there in nineteen forty six, what the
US government had actually gone into investigating just as well,
and had taken great interest in as a result of
what the Swedes were trying to determine. No scientific determination
of any kind of finality was ever made. It could
not be proven that these objects that were being seen
were actual missiles. But nonetheless I find that even right

(01:06:26):
up to the present day, there are still credible, well
documented reports that involve missiles of unknown origin that have
caused everything from catastrophic accidents to just near misses and
really frightening aviation experiences for people in flight, often trained
pilots and their crews. So the book looks at a
number of these. It does start with the traditional term

(01:06:46):
ghost rockets in relation to the Swedish reports and the
ones that were being investigated by the Swedish government, the
ones seen all over Scandinavia, the connection to the V
two technologies that the Germans had begun to develop during
the war, and then finally it moves forward and begins
to look at similar reports that kind of traverse all
the decades leading up to literally twenty thirteen, because I

(01:07:09):
think that some of the more recent instances that are
covered in the book are actually dealing with incidents that
may have taken place within the last year or so.
And I should finally note also as we kind of
get into this and talk about this. For those who
are interested in this book, you're right, it's available on
Amazon dot Com. And I want to point out that
in the back of the book is a really exhaustive

(01:07:33):
appendix that I've featured. It starts on August seventeenth, nineteen
forty two, with a rocket like object that was seen
over Onnestbrook, Germany, and it brings you out up to
the present day. And so this book really I've tried
to be as thorough as possible in looking at actual
collected reports of missile like or ghost like rocket like

(01:07:54):
objects seen in our skies. They are certainly unidentified flying
objects by definition, but I don't propose that there's an actual,
what we would call paranormal reason for them, although some
of the stories do get pretty wacky. Now when you.

Speaker 2 (01:08:06):
Say catastrophic accidents, there's no actual point of impact when
we're talking about these missiles.

Speaker 9 (01:08:12):
Right, well, not not generally, but because of the Again,
while I would consider, especially in the classic sense, the
ghost rockets are considered at part of the study of UFOs,
this is probably confusing for a lot of people, and
we should kind of get into semantics here. For a moment,
because when I say UFO, a lot of people are like, well,

(01:08:33):
what are these things? These things like sound like military
tests or something. These are rockets or missiles, right, You're
not talking about alien spaceships. Well, we got to keep
in mind that UFO and this sounds so obvious, especially
to people who are well versed in this subject, but
for many again, it has just become so common today
that when we say UFO, it were taken to mean flight,

(01:08:54):
that we're discussing fly. You know, yeah, you're flying saucers
or alien spaceships. Importantly. I mean, there was a publisher
of a very well known publishing company in this genre
who I was corresponding with a while back, and I'd
said something about, you know, this is interesting, and yes,
even though these things aren't alien spaceships, I mean, we
should still acknowledge that this is a UFO sighting. And

(01:09:14):
his response to me was something along the lines of, yeah,
but it doesn't prove that they're spaceships, so I waste
our time on it. I see that people, even in
the field of upology and Fortiana, tend to want to
gravitate toward only the sensational stories that involve what apparently
are alien spaceships, whereas the ghost rockets. I don't make
the case in this book that these are of extraterrestrial origin.

(01:09:35):
What they indicate are at times a highly advanced technology
that was maybe a few steps ahead of known technologies
in their day that have appeared throughout the ages here
on planet Earth. And although a missile or a projectile
isn't necessarily something that is considered extremely advanced by today's standards,
you know, they've been around for you know, more than
half a century and have been employed since the Second

(01:09:57):
World War to a fairly advanced degree. Despite that, there
are certainly instances in modern times that have led to
catastrophic accidents and death. The one that specifically comes to
mind is the crash of Flight twa flight eight hundred
doll A lot of people would try and say, in
a wait a minute, a missile didn't take that craft down,

(01:10:17):
which is not an assertion I make in the book.
I do not say in the book that a missile
took that craft down, although there was. As a matter
of fact, I mentioned this because while I was writing
the book, it became public knowledge that there was a
new documentary that was going to be coming out about
that incident. And for those who are unaware of this,
but I think most people are. Flight TWA Flight eight

(01:10:38):
hundred was leaving JFK International Airport bound for France in
the summer of nineteen ninety six and apparently went down
over Long Island Sound. The official explanation was, and I
think an electrical spark that emanated from the center wing
fuel tank, and this is acknowledged in the book as
the official explanation I chose in the book rather than

(01:10:59):
trying to make the case for a missile strike, which
the film I just mentioned actually does. And I have
to say that it was far more compelling the presentation
in that documentary. It was far more compelling than anything
I would have expected. And if people have not seen it,
I know it's on Netflix right now, or at least
it was as of a week ago, because I recommended
it to a friend. But it's called TWA Flight eight hundred.

(01:11:21):
If you want some compelling evidence, I'm not going to
say that it's proof, but I'm going to say, if
you want some really compelling evidence that information about accidents
like that is withheld from the public by intelligence agencies.
Watched that film. Now, in this book quite the contrary
to answer your question, Rather than asserting that there was
a missile that took down TWA Flight eight hundred, which

(01:11:43):
some people have said, I look at a number of
instances in the months before and after the crash where
there were similar reports of rocket or missile like objects
seen either coasting through the sky or shooting straight up
out of Long Island Sound. They were observed by pilots
of commercial aircraft leaving JFK and other airports. In some instances,

(01:12:04):
the people who had seen these objects, which they described
as flares, missiles or rockets, some of the pilots and
their crews were so concerned that they wanted to abort
and fly back to their to their airport of origin.
They didn't want to even fly over Long Island Sound.
Those were generally in the instances that followed the crash
of TWA Flight eight hundred. So what I ask in

(01:12:25):
the book is if we are so easily to rule
out the missile theory with full knowledge of in respect
to the official cause, that is that is espoused and
of course revealed in reports, including those by the NTSB
and other organizations who investigated that incident, with full respect
to the apparent official cause you cannot you cannot overlook

(01:12:49):
the fact that there are a number of other missile
or flare incidents that seem to originate from that area
in the months before and after, and that to me
is extremely curious. And so that's what the chapter in
the book, Fear and Flares of Our Long Island deals with,
and that possibility that some of these things have actually
led to crashes. But there are other crashes that we
talk about in the book too that seem to involve
aircraft taken down by what may have been projectiles for

(01:13:11):
which there is no known origin.

Speaker 2 (01:13:14):
In ufology, and I'm speaking more of the flying saucer type,
there's a term called UFO flap. Are there ghost rocket flaps?

Speaker 9 (01:13:24):
You know? There certainly are, And that's a really good question, birs.
Because one of the people who actually points that out
is the skeptical research of Robert Schaeffer. I met him
for the first time at the UFO Congress in February
of this year, and I quote him from his blog
close to the back of the book because he rightly
points out that as there had been a Swedish ghost
rocket flap, over Scandinavia in nineteen forty six. About every

(01:13:47):
ten to fifteen or twenty years, there tends to be
a kind of missile fever that happens. You might even
look at all the reports of the missiles that were
seen over Long Island as being a quote unquote miss fever,
and wrote the skeptics would say that these were obviously
just jet aircraft and things like that that people were
looking at from a funny angle or mistaken for something else. Again,

(01:14:10):
the incidents that are recounted in the book, I think
in every case are described by commercial pilots who have
seen these from their aircraft, and they described these objects
very vividly. In fact, there's a bit of a transcript
actually that was retrieved by Peter Davenport of the National
UFO Reporting Center, who actually was able to obtain this

(01:14:32):
transcript of a conversation between two aircraft leaving JFK and
Boston Air Traffic Control as they described what looked like
a green rocket flying by them over Long Island. Sound
keeping in mind, this is the general vicinity where TWA
flight eight hundred did go down. Later, some might look
at that as being something of a ghost rocket flap
and of course there was a number of rather interesting

(01:14:54):
incidents that kind of occurred around the turn of the
last decade when we saw I think there was, of
course the missile incident. There was an incident that took
place over in Newfoundland where there were actually really good
photographs of that missile taken Canadian officials. I think the
Royal Mounted Police had actually said it first that it
was a launch from France, but then they denied that later.

(01:15:16):
It was very strange. But yeah, wherever these things come from. Again,
you can say that they're technically and even certain press
organizations have referred to them as unidentified flying objects, but
they're not aliens from space. These are missiles. People have
seen them, photograph them, and they appear to be flying,
you know, especially in areas where they generally would not

(01:15:36):
be expected to be seen, and yet there's no official
explanation for them. And yes, so these things do tend
to kind of kind of crop up on almost like
a decade for decade basis where a bunch of quote
unquote missile reports will kind of eminate from a certain period.

Speaker 2 (01:15:52):
Is any of that on the increase during wartime?

Speaker 9 (01:15:56):
You know? I think so, I mean, especially what's interesting
about the Scandinavian report that kind of kicked off and
of course brought into the modern lexicon the term ghost
rocket with these reports of these objects that were being
seen over Scandinavia immediately after the Second World War, And
so people might ask, well, if that was after the war,
why were people seeing rockets? And I think that the
important question here has to do with the fact that

(01:16:18):
there's probably a twofold element to this. One probably involved
an actual technology that was being tested and administered. But
the other aspect of all this probably had more to
do with war nerves and people who after the conflict
the Second World War literally were expecting at any moment

(01:16:39):
that something was going to go awry. Did the Russians
have this technology? We know that the Allies had this technology,
and who was going to use against who? First? Immediately
after the Second World War, at first there was quite
a bit of concern about, well, whether war might break
out again, what do we have to do to prevent
there being another armed conflict? And if these missiles or
rockets are being tested, who's using them? And so I

(01:17:02):
think it was a complex combination of an actual technology
and people's expectation and fears that stemmed from the expectations
of that technology being used, knowing that the German rocket science,
of course was going well. Many people didn't know at
the time, but of course this technology was taken both
by the Allies and the Soviets. So, you know, I
think that there is that component to it where we

(01:17:23):
have to look at perhaps there was the expectation, But
that's interesting because that takes place right after the Second
World War. You know, it would be more interesting to
see if there were missile reports that took place during
the Vietnam years, and strangely throughout that period in history,
there don't appear to be a whole lot of references.
And when I did my research for this book, I
combed through gosh, the original nicap UFO files, of course,

(01:17:48):
the National UFO Reporting Center, just as well aviation history logs,
Fate magazine. You know, I've looked through a lot of
different kinds of sources, both pertaining to the paranormal and
then explained in many that don't. And what I've ended
up finding is that for some reason, you know, this
ghost rocket phenomenon takes place in Scandinavia. There are a

(01:18:10):
lot of reports of these rocket or cigar shaped UFO
type objects seen, especially in the late forties and into
the fifties in the United States. And then there are
a lot of reports of what are described as flying
saucers in the fifties, which in truth they're described as
by the media as being flying saucers, but the actual
literal physical descriptions often described aircraft flying at extremely high

(01:18:31):
altitude producing contrails or jets sound more like, you know, rockets,
or if not rockets, some sort of jet aircraft that
was being utilized at the time. Everything you see during
the nineteen fifties there for a time, because of that
popular usage of the term, everything sort of became a
quote unquote flying saucer there for a time, and you
begin to find that media would use the hot term

(01:18:52):
in any instance that they could in those kinds of cases,
and so a lot of these things that were more
rocket or jet like were referred to was flying saucers.
But then after that nineteen fifties, mid nineteen fifties and
into the sixties, it kind of drops off for a
few years. Despite a few notable accidents, one that took
place off the coast of Ireland that I talk about
in the book that involve aircraft going down, It kind

(01:19:14):
of tapers off, and then we pick up again after
a pretty sparse period in the seventies and eighties. It
picks up again throughout the eighties nineties, and then on
into the present day, and especially towards the end of
the eighties with the founding of what was called the
Aviation Safety Reporting System, which for the last few decades
has been a database moderated by NASA which collects information

(01:19:35):
about safety concerns anonymously from pilots. And this is where
a book of the more modern information regarding to missile
sightings has actually been drawn from. Of course, it's interesting
because here we both find a database that contains information
about threats that pilots and aviation officials with the FAA

(01:19:55):
and different organizations are reporting. Not often, there are minority
of reports that there are a number that I have
drawn from the ARSS or the Aviation Safety Reporting System
databases that deal with missile like objects. But what's also
interesting too is that this is an organization that is

(01:20:16):
overseen by NASA and in their actual documentation, and this
is a different conversation we could have. But you know,
I had to learn to understand a lot of kind
of tech talk and acronyms and things like that that
are included in these files and reports. And one of
the acronyms that they still employed to this day is
UFO for unidentified flying objects, for which there are a
few entries in the aviation safety reporting systems. So again, interestingly,

(01:20:40):
you could say that there are a few instances, like
the Second World War, where these things tend to crop
up around wartime. But what generally I find is that
again there's a little bit more of kind of like
a generational kind of a thing where they kind of
appear and then they disappear for several years, maybe a decade.
They'll appear again, then they'll disappear for a long period
of time. But as technolology has begun to make more

(01:21:02):
available to people the ability to report and to document
potential hazards and the like, it's really in the modern era,
in the last few decades that we've begun to see
a real rise in the reports of these kind of things,
second only to the Second World War, where there were
literally reports one hundreds of these things seen ever Scandinavia.
I don't know if we could draw direct correlation similarly
to actual conflicts in wartime.

Speaker 2 (01:21:24):
When I talked to ufologists, we'll call that general discussion
and write authors that write about these things as eupologists.
They'll talk about flying saucers that are in the in
underground bunkers and they're being tested by the government. Is

(01:21:44):
there any stories or any any type of information out
there that would suggest that maybe governments have a tangible
ghost rocket that they've retrieved and recovered and are now
look at.

Speaker 9 (01:22:01):
That's an interesting question, you know, to my knowledge, there
have never been successful recoveries, especially in some of the
Swedish incidents following the Second World War. There were reports
of these things crashing into lakes and rivers, and there
had been dive teams and search teams who would attempt
to try and recover the record so that they could

(01:22:22):
try and determine the origin of these objects. There's a
fantastic book that was called Phenomenon I think it was
Ufology the First fifty Years, that was compiled and edited
by Hillary Evans and another individual, and you can get it,
I mean probably on Amazon for a penny in paperback.
This has some fantastic entries in it by writers like

(01:22:46):
Chris Rutkowski, and a number of others. But there's also
some great documentation, some great information about the ghost rocket reports,
which although I did a survey of this rocket missile
phenomenon covering the last well since the end of the
Second World War. Although I did this survey in this book,
and I of course also have this appendix at the

(01:23:08):
BacT that documents a little more thoroughly the chronology of
ghost rocket sightings and reports. I tried not to just
make this entire thing, the entire focus all about what
was going on in Scandinavia after the war, but there
are some instances where and again it's documented well in
other literatures, hence my reason for not delving into it

(01:23:28):
basically rewriting everybody else's research, like so many writers these
days do. I tried to make this book a little
more original, hence the focus on the modern reports too.
But there is some literature that does deal with these
recovery attempts where they were unable to find evidence of
the objects that allegedly crashed into lakes despite seaweed and
things like that, or I guess what would you call

(01:23:49):
it just lake weed or whatever you know, marine plants
or aquatic plants that were found on the shore at
one of the lake's sites in the summer of nineteen
forty six seemed to indicate that indeed there had been
an explosion or something that crashed or exploded into the water,
and yet there was no debris or shrap or anything
of any variety that was ever able to be recovered.

(01:24:09):
When it comes to government recovering these objects, that question
is a lot like the idea of essentially recovered and
back engineered UFOs. More compelling to me than that is
the idea, And I was talking with a friend about
this recently. There's a cover of a famous issue of
Fate magazine. I'll refer to the cover rather than the addition,

(01:24:32):
because the cover is so legendary that everyone probably knows this.
It was the cover that featured the Communion front cover,
the alien from the front cover of the most popular
edition of Whitley Stever's book Communion, And in that there
is an article that deals with secret government aircraft in
relation to UFOs, and the oracle is very interesting. I

(01:24:53):
could get a lot more in the depth into this,
but the subject, but I mean, the crux of it
for me was this part where they're talking about the
SR seventy one Blackbird being decommissioned, but that for years
after the craft was decommissioned, there was a certain kind
of fuel that only had a two week shelf life
that was still being produced and the carriers for this
were still in service, which seemed to mean that despite

(01:25:15):
the fact that the SR seventy one Blackbird had been
decommissioned from service, that there was fuel that would probably
have been used in a very similar craft that was
still being produced, and if it only had a two
week's shelf life, while were they producing this obviously for
use in some sort of an aircraft that wasn't being acknowledged.
So pretty clearly to me, while we may not have
recovered a ghost rocket, for instance, it does seem likely

(01:25:38):
to me that there are experimental aircraft that the public
doesn't know about, and there have been names from any
of these mentioned over the years Project Aurora, these alleged
TR three's, or these giant triangles. I had a friend
less than a year ago who called me one night
I happened to be in Greenville, South Carolina, where she lives.
She and her husband saw one of these things fly
over their house. Now I think that the more popular
term for these are there than being some sort of

(01:26:00):
a presumed alien spacecraft, or that they are some sort
of a stealth blimp that utilizes some kind of seemingly
exotic but nonetheless extremely advanced technology. Surely, I think these
things exist because credible people and even friends of mine
have discussed seeing these. I have many friends who have
discussed seeing large black triangles flying. I have no doubt

(01:26:21):
that somebody here on planet Earth is behind the construction
of these craft, and very well, in all likelihood, are
probably also behind the construction of these presumed ghost rockets
as well. So whether or not we've captured or tested one,
I think is less the question. More the question should
be who's been building them, Who has a bunker underground
or a hangar where they're constructing these things.

Speaker 2 (01:26:42):
And of course we're speaking about the excellent book The
Ghost Rockets, Military Missiles, and Phantom Projectiles in Our Skies
by Micah Hanks, and it's a great book. Now, Micah,
so you would fall more towards this being terrestrial than
it's suggesting any type of extraterrestrial nature.

Speaker 9 (01:27:04):
Correct, I certainly would you know, And I think that
that's annoying for a lot of people, because when somebody
picks up a book and they want to study UFOs,
they come into this as I did years and years ago,
with the expectation that we're going to be looking for
alien life. And this is where some of my skeptical
attitudes begin to come out in my or so. So
I'm obviously open minded enough to say, hey, you know what,

(01:27:27):
some of these UFOs obviously are more than people just lying,
like a lot of the skeptics will tell you. Now,
I don't know that I would go so far as
to say that we have any proof or even really
really really credible evidence that we can purely rely on
that indicates that these things could be of alien origin.
But in some instances that could be a possibility. We
can't rule that out because again we don't have enough

(01:27:48):
data before us to determine that. But rather than being
a quote unquote skeptic and saying without the data it
doesn't exist, I think what more appropriately should be said.
And I stand by this because I know that there
are a lot of skeptics today who would disagree with this.
I maintain that in the absence of that data, that
does not prove that alien life is not visiting Earth.

(01:28:10):
It merely shows that we cannot prove that alien life
is visiting Earth. What's funny about that is that seems
to be kind of a kind of a nebulous area well,
being unable to prove and proving. What are you talking about.
I mean, if you can't prove it, doesn't that mean
that aliens aren't visiting. Well, here's the thing again, we
have proove and we have evidence. There are two different things.

(01:28:32):
I think that there's a lot of evidence for something
in euphology, whether it be aircraft that are being produced
here on planet Earth that appear to be very exotic
with their potentials and the technologies they employ. There's the
possibility that they could some of these aircraft come from elsewhere,
in that there may be something more going on than
merely aircraft being designed and created here on planet Earth

(01:28:55):
that somehow have been kept off the books, but that
are far more advanced than what we know to even
with our most advanced government projects. In the light, we
have evidence clearly of something. And this is what ufology
is about, the study of unidentified flying objects that somebody
has to be behind, somebody has to be cooking these
things up and building them, whether that be here or elsewhere,

(01:29:18):
and people here on planet Earth incredible instances and in
well documented reports and cases describe these craft and interactions
and observations with these craft, and sometimes even individuals have
reported having close encounters with these craft that have had
physical effects on the environment, including individuals such things as
radiation burns and the light. Doctor Jacques Vallet wants to

(01:29:39):
find a UFO as being an what would you call it,
I guess, just an object that contains an incredible amount
of energy in a very small space. That is a
fantastic scientific definition for what a UFO is, and that
could leave open a lot of possibilities for things without
presuming we're dealing exclusively with alien craft, which is again

(01:30:02):
what most people who enter this area of study tend
to kind of want and what they come into it
hoping to learn about. So I think that people maybe
get a little irritated when they hear me talking about UFOs,
and I tend to steer the conversation away from alien life.
And yet the skeptics, probably a lot of them, would
acknowledge y as certain UFO things occur, you know, UFO
incidents but there's no way in hell that any of

(01:30:24):
these things represent alien aircraft. And frankly, Michah Hanks, you're
crazy to say that because we can't prove that these
things aren't alien, that there is the possibility. I mean,
I think that we have to acknowledge the possibility when
we are not armed with a full set of data.
The problem is, though, that so many modern skeptics, in
the absence of that data do try to use the

(01:30:46):
absence of data is absolute proof that no aliens have
visited Earth, and thereby that people who claim who they've
seen or who claim to have seen UFOs are liars.
I think that Philip Class was a good example of
an individual who said people are lying. Robert Schaefer, who
I mentioned earlier, despite his observations on ghost rockets and
you know these kind of flaps that occur, he's also

(01:31:07):
another who just says these things aren't government craft, people
are lying. So when a skeptics steps over the edge,
so to speak, and goes beyond saying, well, in a
lack of a complete data set, we need to withhold
judgment and remain skeptical of what people are seeing, but
acknowledge the possibility that the evidence, while not proof, that

(01:31:28):
the evidence does support the existence of some kind of
observable phenomena. When they step over the edge and say,
well that lack of proof proves that there is nothing
and people are therefore liars, you know that's going too far,
And it's really a sad state of affairs to me
that we have skeptics who take that attitude and say

(01:31:49):
that that is a justifiable scientific standpoint to maintain in
the modern era. Because I have the strong feeling, Bruce,
I think like a lot of people that on down
the road, as we are able to harness more to technology,
we will begin to understand aspects of the world occurring
around us that maybe we don't fully understand today. Maybe
the ghost rockets and the flying saucers and whatever else

(01:32:10):
will come into clearer focus, and we will begin to
understand that there is indeed a technology or a phenomena present,
or a variety of technologiers or or phenomena present here
on Earth that we are capable of observing, but without
the proper technology to be able to make determinations and
take what at present remains only evidence and convert that

(01:32:32):
into incontrovertible proof. Physical proof we can turn in our
hands and we can study and we can understand. Fully,
until we get to that point, we're going to continue
to have questions and to merely hold it at arms
distance and say that without that proof, we can just
toss the evidence out like the proverbial baby with the bathwater.
Without that proof that the evidence is ten amount to

(01:32:53):
being nothing, that's just a really that is the epitome
of naivety to me and close mindedness, frankly, and that's
not going to do anything for the furtherance of scientific studies.
So when I say I need to be skeptical, and
my skeptical leanings steer away from the alien visitors hypothesis,
what I directly hope to get across to people is

(01:33:15):
that in doing so, I'm not trying to challenge their beliefs.
I'm trying to look at this from a rational, grounded
perspective that takes into full account what the evidence points to.
I can't rule out aliens, but I think that there's
a lot more evidence for something that emanates from right here.

Speaker 2 (01:33:30):
Yeah, and don't just lazily blame al Qaeda.

Speaker 9 (01:33:35):
Don't just lazily say people lie, Yeah, people take stuff
up that is. That is to me, it's funny because
I see so many again skeptical types say that the
UFO researchers are generally intellectually dishonest. Well, many of the
skeptics are intellectually lazy. They think that, well, all we
have to do, and I've seen so many of them
do this. All we have to do is say, Okay,

(01:33:56):
you're making the absurd claim, prove it. And if some
one like me says, well, but you know, don't you
have anything more to say? And the typical response is
being the person who airs on the side of conventional wisdom.
There is already a scientific backing and a lot of
it for my position, and so I don't have to
defend my statement, but because of the extraordinary claims you're making,

(01:34:18):
you do. Now that's true to an extent. But by
the same token, I also find that a lot of
skeptics don't do the research themselves. They don't read the literature,
they don't dig into it, they don't study. They probably
don't even know, for instance, what the aviation Safety reporting
system is, and they certainly wouldn't go into that looking
for reports of UFOs and rocket like objects. I have

(01:34:38):
you know. And the thing is that you can very
easily step back and say I don't have to do
the research because I'm not the one making crazy claims,
and therefore everyone else is lying that is intellectually lazy.

Speaker 2 (01:34:48):
Yes, one of the things that you mentioned earlier that
is a cool concept is the flying cigar. Are we
talking about a vessel that floats kind of like a blimp?
Does it accelerate? What is a flying cigar?

Speaker 9 (01:35:06):
You know? The flying cigar is something that's really troubling
for me. There are some instances where and actually in
my book, I have to point out something. There's a
portion in the book where I actually get into discussion
of cigar shaped craft. At one point, I think that
I gave the misleading an impression that one of the aircraft,
a helicopter, had been plummeting towards the ground at a

(01:35:28):
speed of nearly two thousand miles an hour, which is
highly unlikely. What had been happening is that they were
plummeting I think two thousand feet per second, which was
at a speed of probably something more like probably like
twenty three miles per hour something like that. And so
the information was a bit misleading. Now that aside, I
hope to have that corrected in the future installment of

(01:35:50):
this book, because I do want technical information and the
data in this book in relation to the discussion of
ghost trucks to be as clear and accurate as possible.
At risk of being slightly boring at times, you know,
you can get so down to, you know, an exact
science with your details. You have to be careful about that.
These people just want to hear about aliens. But the
cigar shaped craft are both some of the more compelling

(01:36:13):
exotic craft in the UFO reports and the collections of
case studies and the like, and they're also entirely relevant
to the discussion of the ghost rockets, you know. In fact,
the first chapter of the book ends begins with a
well known incident that involved the Twin Engines C forty
seven back in again nineteen forty six. This would have

(01:36:36):
been right around the same time that the alleged ghost
rockets flap was taking place over Sweden and Scandinavia. But
what's funny is this one actually took place over the
Southern United States. Captain Jack Puckett was the Assistant Chief
of Flying Safety tax Air Command, and I believe he had.

(01:36:57):
I think he don't recall where he was station, but
I was headed the McDill Air Force Base, and as
he was flying along, he and his crew described seeing
a long cylindrical object that it had some illuminations on it.
It was producing what appeared to be a smoke trail
out the back. It didn't appear to have any wings.
It looked like a long fuselage of a bomber type

(01:37:19):
aircraft without wings and producing a spark trail and a
smoke trail off the back. This thing nearly collides with
their aircraft, the C forty seven, and it zooms on
past them and takes off to the horizon at a
speed estimated at being close to one thousand miles an hour,
I believe. And so it's a really really strange story
because around the early nineteen forties like that, people typically

(01:37:41):
weren't reporting those kinds of things. This of course took
place during the Ghost Rocket Flat and this was also
hardly the last time that this craft or crafts like
this would appear to pilots who would describe seeing these things.
And so what's interesting is that this was maybe one
of the first although I included in this book talking

(01:38:04):
about ghost rockets, because this sounds like a very large,
presumably manned aircraft. Captain Puckett and his crew described there
being portholes along the side in two rows, as though
there had been an upper and a lower deck in
this thing. The same aircraft appears in numerous other instances
in the eufhological databases such as the NCAP files and

(01:38:26):
things like that, that go all the way back to
the nineteen forties and fifties, and they've continue to be
seen over the years since. So it's very interesting to
me that there are rocket like but possibly manned rocket
like technologies that could have been in existence since the
nineteen forties. Again, it's interesting that a skeptic would look
at that and they would say, okay, well, Captain Jack
Puckett and his crew were probably lying. Why would a

(01:38:49):
assistant Chief of Tactical Air Command and his crew, just
after the greatest modern conflict in history, why would they
file a phony report about what could have been a
potentially dangerous enemy technology just for kicks? I mean, did
they do it just for fun? And furthermore, why would

(01:39:10):
this craft be reported in other parts of the world,
in France and in other localities around the globe the
exact same sort of craft. It's a very compelling story
to me. And so these cigars, they're a little different
from the typical ghost rocket, because a ghost rocket, again
is more like I think the conventional idea that comes
to my mind at least is a missile, something that's
a smaller, unmanned craft, either drone like or something that's

(01:39:31):
a projectile ballistic device used for an attack, you know,
actually a weapon, Whereas some of the instances like this
Captain Jack Puckett's case and a few others, do describe large,
potentially manned rocket like aircraft that in nineteen forty six
were using rocket propulsion to blash through the air, and

(01:39:52):
that they didn't even have wings. Who the hell was
using that kind of technology? What was that? It sounds
so far out, But again I think that there are
a number of credible cases, and not just by pilots
but by military pilots, that confirm that this kind of
an aircraft was being seen in various parts of the world.
So who would have been using that? I mean, it
almost sounds counterintuitive. It doesn't sound like a very practical

(01:40:15):
aircraft by any means. It makes no sense to me,
and who would have been using something like this for
purposes of travel in the late nineteen forties. It's just
beyond bizarre. But that is an essence of probably my
favorite recollection of the flying cigar craft.

Speaker 2 (01:40:30):
Interesting. You know, when I first started reading this book,
the Ghost Rockets Micah, I remembered a few years back
the I guess you could call it a ghost rocket
streaking across the sky down in southern California, just south
of me. And I remember conspiracy folks in forums and
various other places were saying that it was perhaps the

(01:40:53):
Chinese who fired a warning shot, and that may have
been communicated beyond the realm of conspirac see. I don't
really remember if mainstream picked up on that, but it
was a well known sighting. Has anything come out of
that you mentioned it in your book? And also is
that a sign or does that show us that these

(01:41:14):
sightings are still common today?

Speaker 9 (01:41:17):
Well that what that seems to indicate to me is
that people in what I do think is largely a
conspiracy ridden society today. In other words, while real conspiracies
do happen. To quote Fred Kaplan, a gentleman who authored
a very good skeptical article on the jfk assassination for

(01:41:39):
Slate magazine recently. Surely, surely there are real conspiracies, but
there's also a greater, perhaps than ever, propensity among Americans
to gravitate toward belief in conspiracy theories. And therefore, if
a new agency comes out and films what appears as

(01:42:03):
a result of a jet aircraft taking off and the
contrail illuminated by the setting sun gives the impression of
a missile flying up out of the ocean, what ends
up happening is that people start to theorize what was
going on, what was happening, who may have launched the weapon,
why it would have been launched. This, of course coincided

(01:42:25):
with a overseas visits to the I think it was
actually to China by President Barack Obama. And so this
incident that you're discussing where an alleged missile was seen
over California, I believe it was conclusively determined to reasonable
satisfaction to be a jet aircraft, and that it had

(01:42:45):
merely been the way that it looked without question. There
are going to be other instances, and some of them
that I even to tell in the book while I
point out that these objects, especially in the nineteen fifties,
while being referred to as flying saucers, resembled more closely
ghost rockets, in truth, what they probably were were experimental
jet aircraft being tested over the southwestern United States. But

(01:43:07):
I think that again, the point is not if with
my book to try and dissuade people from thinking that
an airplane is a missile or that a flying saucer
is a ghost rocket. What I want to try and
drive home is that there are a couple of things
that are happening in addition to I think valid missile reports,
and that is that there's always going to be people

(01:43:27):
who will see something that they will try and make
it up to be more than what it actually was.
And then there will also be the way that the press,
that the mainstream media, will take a subject and they
will tend to sensationalize it. And I think that no
one probably would have looked at that and said, wow,
missile shot up off the California coast had it not
been misperceived first by media agencies as being such and
reported as a potential missile launch of unknown origin. I

(01:43:51):
do talk about that in the introduction to the ghost rockets,
and I treated as such to make very clear to
people that there are a lot of instances where people
perceive that the something more going on than what actually
is going on. And this is kind of tantamount just
to the study of UFOs in general. To fully understand
the study of UFOs and to fully understand the potentials

(01:44:12):
for what we may be dealing with, one must also
learn that, well, in a lot of cases, people may
not be lying, but they may mistake one more conventional
or mundane, a prosaic variety of phenomenon for something far
more exotic looking, and certain circumstances certainly can cause that
to happen. And therefore we have some very colorful UFO

(01:44:33):
cases that, over the years, once a greater degree of
scientific scrutiny is applied, we come to find out that
it was probably less exotic than it may have seemed
at the time of the initial sighting. A lot of
people don't like to hear that, because I think a
lot of people want to be able to believe that
they're dealing with something that's truly extraordinary. But in my opinion,
I'll be clear on this, we don't have to exaggerate

(01:44:56):
in order to acknowledge that there are true anomalies. I've
got friends who've alluded to have seen things and studied things,
and of course, as I've mentioned before, even with the
assembly of the data and the source information that's included
in this book, the ghost rockets, you know, obviously drawn
from resources and have had people who have helped me

(01:45:18):
find information and resources that I might not have known
to look for. As a civilian researcher myself, it's always
helpful to have people who with a background in aviation
or with history or with engineering are a little bit
more in the know than I am, and getting that
help along the way allows you to kind of get
a better perspective of the real potentials. We don't have
to sensationalize presumed missile reports to acknowledge that there are

(01:45:40):
some damn good ones that maintain an air of mystique
and if anything, and almost frightening elements to them in
the sense that they have remained unexplained, and yet they
appear to present, For instance, like those flares and things
that may have been seen over Long Island Sound around
the time of the TWA Flight eight hundred crash, they

(01:46:01):
appear to represent a potential threat. So you know, but
this book is not an attempt to fear monger, and
it's not you know, you'll you'll not hear me in
the book say you know, watch out people, you know,
be careful. And TBA Flight eight hundred is a conspiracy,
you know, that's That's not where I'm going. I try
to be very nonsensational, and I try and just present
the information. And I'm clearly saying and and and and

(01:46:23):
pretty objectively, I think too, as a writer, I'm telling
you that there are these objects that appear to be
ballistic missiles or projectiles of some sort. They appear from
time to time. I don't think that the thing over
the coast of California necessarily was one, but there are
some better cases that substantiate what I'm driving home with
this idea of ghost rockets in this book.

Speaker 2 (01:46:44):
Yeah, and it hits home when you say, we don't
have to make up anything sensational. All we have to
do is show people Stephen King and Arc Bell. But no,
but all in all seriousness, you know, the talking about
conspiracy theories, chemtrails and ghost rockets. Is there ever any
kind of an intersection there?

Speaker 9 (01:47:05):
I'm sure there would be. I mean, you know, I
don't get into kim trails in the book. Again, a
lot of people have come to me over the years
and they've said, you know, Michael, you research UFOs, why
don't you write a book on abductions, or why don't
you talk more about abductions in your UFO books? And
I've said to people, well, because I'm not an abduction researcher.
I'm a UFO researcher, and my interest is in UFOs

(01:47:29):
unidentified flying objects. Another well respected researcher in this field,
and a dear friend of mine, also during a phone conversation,
recently admitted to me that, in his opinion, the abduction
phenomenon is the most important element of UFO phenomenon. And
I disagree, because, again, if we're studying unidentified flying objects,
I think that we should study unidentified flying objects. But

(01:47:51):
that doesn't mean that we should discount claims of quote
unquote abduction. And we could even say alien abduction, because
in some of those cases people describe entities or beings
that do not appear to be conventional humans. But I
would prefer to call an abduction researcher an abduction researcher
like you know John Mac I would call a UFO

(01:48:12):
researcher like you know Jacques Vallet, a UFO researcher. At times,
the careful objective study of these fields do overlap. You
could say that there's a Kim trail component with ghost rockets,
but to me, studying kim trails is the study of
kim and trails and the study of ghost rockets is

(01:48:32):
the study of ghost rockets.

Speaker 2 (01:48:34):
Does the UFO and say ghost rocket phenomenon and the
if you heard a little beep that was my kindle.
I had it open, so I was reading the title
and now it looks like it has fifteen energy left.

Speaker 9 (01:48:49):
We could talk about kindles for an hour or two.
By the way, I love mine, aren't they great?

Speaker 2 (01:48:53):
Mine too? When we talk about, though, the phenomenon of
UFOs and ghost rockets and other things too, not just
those finding Bigfoot for instance, Does all of this collapse
at some point unless new information presents itself Because I

(01:49:15):
can't see generation after generation recycling information or recycling things
that are strange and unusual. It's almost like there's been
a golden age of that. And if it's not real,
I would see it imploding eventually, I would think, or

(01:49:37):
are we going to do you think new information is
going to be revealed? And we move past that point
of in an all fairness, you write great books, Nick
Redfern writes great books. But as you know, there are
one hundred different authors for some of these subjects. So
do these things keep manifesting themselves a year after year

(01:50:02):
or do you think and therefore at some point it
kind of goes away. I almost thought that would happen
after the Mind Calendar ran out, but it didn't. There's
still an interest in this, So does this implode or
do you think new information will be brought into it
and therefore a renewed interest or who knows? You know

(01:50:26):
what the UFO community has been waiting for for so long?
Full disclosure? What do you think happens in the future.

Speaker 9 (01:50:32):
Oh that's a good question. I like that question. Well. First,
to address the way that these subjects have been written
about for a number of views. You know, with the
ghost rockets. I do not mean to mislead people into
thinking that because I use a term familiar to the
study of apparently ballistic missiles or projectiles of some unknown

(01:50:55):
origin in relation to historical UFO studies. I don't zoom
to assert that there is a direct connection or continuum
of sorts between those sightings that began in Scandinavia in
the forties leading right up to the present day, and
that they are all one unified phenomenon stemming from a
single source. That's not the case. I used a term

(01:51:18):
familiar to UFO researchers in addressing this subject for two reasons.
A because I thought that it was appropriate because again,
these are missiles that apparently are of unknown origin. They
could in all likelihood be launched by you know, shoulder
mounted missile or missile launchers and things like that. They
could be launched by aircraft that could be launched from
ships at sea, They could be launched from a variety

(01:51:40):
of different organizations in areas, and things like that. That
could be of human origin. But that doesn't explain why
they were used. That doesn't explain a lot of the
incidents covered in the book. And so again the ghost
rockets seemed like an appropriate title also as a UFO researcher,
and I do consider these in these cases to be
unidentified flying objects, and the majority of them actually, especially

(01:52:03):
in the chronological appendix, section at the back. A lot
of these are drawn from UFO databases that have been
maintained over the years, because these things, again are unidentified
flying objects. As a UFO researcher, this is a term
that is also familiar to my readership, and so again
I thought that ghost rocket was the most appropriate term

(01:52:23):
to use for this. But again the book, rather than
just rehashing the history of something that's already been well
delved into and well documented with the Swedish ghost rockets
of forty six, I look and I spend a lot
more time looking at other cases. In fact, the only
chapter that deals with Sweden is the very first chapter,
which kind of frames the discussion and starts with the

(01:52:46):
popular ghost rocket reports and then brings it to the future.
Now that said, again, part of my reason my hesitance
for getting really in depth into the Swedish cases, aside
from giving what I think was a fair and I
also a very good historical overview of what was going
on in Scandinavia in the summer of forty six, is

(01:53:06):
because there are people who like Jerome Clark, who have
done a much better job already writing about this. Klaus
s Van and oh Andrews what was his name. The
two Swedish researchers have done a fantastic job, some of
their work cited in the book just as well, documenting
this phenomena. And what we find is that, you know,

(01:53:28):
especially throughout the fifties and sixties, you know, Frank Scully
writes this book Behind the Flying Saucers. Edward Ruppolt wrote
the book Under the Fied Flying Objects who of course
he actually coined the term, but his seminal work on
UFOs probably remains one of my favorite books on UFO phenomenon,

(01:53:50):
the true story essentially of the Air Force's involvement in
the early years of the UFO phenomenon. There were books
that were written that told the story, that were written
from the perspective of individ rules who are having these experiences.
Jacques Valley comes along in the nineteen sixties and starts
writing books where he gets more speculative about what's going on,
begins to reject the extraterrestrial hypothesis, and continues, you know,

(01:54:11):
supplying us with really really brain stretching information that, while speculative,
forces us to reexamine what this UFO thing is. By
the time we got into the seventies, you know Travis
Walton's experience, and of course the experiences of Charles Hickson
and Calvin Parker occur. We've become familiar with the abduction
phenomenon incident at Exeter. We have all these books that

(01:54:34):
start appearing, and then by the eighties and nineties, a
beautiful thing starts happening. The abduction phenomenon is full blown.
We've got intruders, We've got these encounters at Copley Woods
that Bud Hopkins was writing about. And then we've got
the communion with something that we cannot fully understand. That
Whitley Strieber began an entire he spun an entire mythos
surrounding his personal experiences with what something that is still

(01:54:57):
mystifying to him to this day. But what happened after that,
especially in the late eighties and the nineties, we start
seeing these compendiums emerge, and we still have a good
few of them today, These big thick books that basically
document in encyclopedic form, everything about everything strange. These fourteen encyclopedias,
the Great I own just about every one of them.

(01:55:17):
My good friend Brad Steiger still produces quality source books
on this kind of phenomenon like this on almost a
yearly basis, But for new writers getting around specifically to
where you were going with that question, for new writers
like me or for Nick Redfern, you know, how much
can still be written? How many more times can the

(01:55:38):
Rendelstrom story be told? How many more times can we
look at you know, what Edward's Air Force base? Or
right Patterson is hiding or you know. And that's the
whole thing is that does this phenomenon? Do people lose interest?
Does it die if there isn't new information presented? Well,
maybe yes and maybe no, because again I think that

(01:56:00):
this is a dangerous analogy to use, but I'll use
it because it's timely. I don't think that an assassination
of an American politician has to occur today to lend
validity to the JFK assassination, as evidenced by the pure
fascination that remains with that incident, which I called the
death of American innocence, and in true form, if there's

(01:56:22):
a valid mystery behind the UFO reports, which undeniably appeared
to be more prevalent throughout the fifties, sixties, seventies, and eighties,
maybe up into the nineties, but I mean today people
still claim they see UFOs, but man, it doesn't seem
to be anything quite of the magnitude like what was
reported decades ago. It's very interesting to me that we

(01:56:44):
can see that this phenomen changes, that the literature has
sought to address this from a pretty subjective standpoint. I mean,
there's been a lot of a lot of just taking
for granted that UFOs are extraterrestrial. That's been going on
for decades. And most of the researchers of the Old Guard,
people who I respect, when I talk with them, they're

(01:57:06):
very accepting of my discussion because it's almost like when
I talk with them, they don't seem to even hear
that I say. But I don't know that we could
be so certain that we're dealing with aliens here. You know,
a few of them might agree. You know, a few
of them are really you know, outside the box thinkers,
numbers of them. I'm not just saying just the old God.
I'm also saying people who have grown up reading the
existing literature and people my age or younger will just

(01:57:28):
accept it face value. What this literature seems to presume
about this phenomenon, But I think that for it to
continue rather than the squander. Sure, we have to look
at new ways to present that information, but we also
have to find new approaches to studying it. Because if
it were what we have so long supposed like for instance,
UFOs are i e. Extraterrestrial technology, if it were what

(01:57:52):
we have so long supposed it to be in the
popular literature, shouldn't we by now have come closer to
being able to pre that. It does not seem to
me that we have. In quite the contrary, it seems
that we're still left with a phenomenon that could be
a variety of things, and we have no real hard
evidence that links it to extraterrestrial phenomenon. We've got to

(01:58:15):
think in different ways, and we've got to approach this
in different ways. And yes, we've got to provide new
material that will keep it live. But I think if
there's a genuine mystery behind any of it, whether it
be stuff written fifty years ago by the great writers
in this field, some of them still with us. I
mentioned Brad Steiger earlier. He's thankfully still producing good stuff,
whether it be that or whether it be something that
comes out tomorrow if there's a true mystery, I think
that it will remain until we have answers.

Speaker 2 (01:58:38):
And again we've been speaking with Micah Hanks. He's the
author of the new book The Ghost Rockets. I highly
recommend this book. I know that the listeners out there
will enjoy this book. Again it's the Ghost Rockets, Mystery
Missiles and phantom projectiles in our skies. Again. He is
the mouth of the South and the man of many
podcasts and radio shows. Micah, where's the ones stop people

(01:59:00):
can go to find out all about you? Is it
Micah Hanks dot com.

Speaker 9 (01:59:04):
Yeah, most of my information is on Michah Hanks dot com.
I mean really. There are three key u r ls
though that you'll want to check out. Michah Hanks dot com,
which is my name in my c A. H. Hanks
like the actor Tom Grayleyanreport dot com, which most folks
are familiar with, and then Middle Theory dot com just
the two words Middle Theory dot com. The podcasts for
Greily and Important Middle Theory are both available through iTunes.

Speaker 2 (01:59:26):
Excellent. Hey, Micah, thank you once again for joining us.

Speaker 9 (01:59:30):
Oh it's been my pleasure. Bruce as always, so we'll
be in touch when the next books. The next book
comes on as well.

Speaker 8 (01:59:36):
Excellent Filia.

Speaker 5 (02:01:26):
India and La.

Speaker 1 (02:02:47):
Hi everybody, It's me Cinderella Acts. You are listening to
the Fringe Radio Network. I know I was gonna tell him, Hey,
do you have the app?

Speaker 2 (02:02:59):
It's the best way.

Speaker 1 (02:03:00):
To listen to the Fringe Radio Network. It's safe and
you don't have to log in to use it, and
it doesn't track you or trace you, and it sounds beautiful.
I know I was gonna tell him, how do you
get the app? Just go to fringe radionetwork dot com
right at the top of the page. I know, slippers,

(02:03:22):
we gotta keep cleaning these chimneys.

All Episodes

Fringe Flashback! The Ghost Rockets with Micah Hanks - The Bruce Collins Show

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Crime Junkie

The Brothers Ortiz

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Fringe Flashback! The Ghost Rockets with Micah Hanks - The Bruce Collins Show