Talking Weird #176 Weird New Year with Jason McLean

Join us for Talking Weird's annual overview of the weird year that was 2025, and a look forward to what weirdness might be coming in 2026!

Your host Dr. Dean Bertram, is joined by a very special co-host: Jason McLean, Dean's partner on the old Mysterious Library show!

Author, illustrator, and Biblical paranormal researcher, Jason McLean lives in Waxahachie, Texas with his three children and beautiful, long-suffering wife. Beyond his lifelong love of art and comics, Jason’s life has been consumed with the study of archaeology, cryptozoology, ufology, and astronomy in order to better understand the Bible, its teachings, and the One behind its creation.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
The paranormal UFOs, Monsters, Mysteries that you're listening to Talking
Weird and know from a Kevin deep in the northwards
your host, Doctor Dean Bertram.

Speaker 2 (00:42):
Oh, greetings, or my fellow widows and widows, welcome to
Talking Weird on the un Told Radio Network. Happy New Year.
I'm grateful that you're all here again tonight. I hope
you had a wonderful New Year and Christmas period. I'm
delighted because I've got my old co host of Mysterious
Library with me and one of my best friends in
this wonderful country, Manley Jason McLean.

Speaker 3 (01:02):
Greetings and salutations, Weirdians. Uh yeah, we're not gonna do
introduction for me today. We all we're all family here,
you know me, I know you. You know, we're we're all
friends here. So we're just gonna kick this shindn't dig off.

Speaker 2 (01:16):
Sounds good, sounds good.

Speaker 3 (01:18):
With my over abundance of beard, I'm I'm growing it
out for a little bit, so I have I can
you know, I was just telling Dean, so I can
trim it up here in a little bit. I got
a project that I'll be on that we can when
there's spoken of yeah, well there's more to be spoken of.
I'll speak of it. So my my Santa Claus look
will not be lasting too too long.

Speaker 1 (01:40):
I thought it.

Speaker 2 (01:41):
I thought you've just grown it out for your side
Giga sand or the local more holidays.

Speaker 3 (01:46):
I'm honestly too busy at your normal job to do that. Man.
So okay, funny story, I funny story, and this is
one true. My wife knows a man who is a
professional year around Santa Claus, and she did work with
his family and his website and the home. Dude has

(02:11):
a Santa's workshop that he that he keeps on his property.
He gets moved, you know, when it's time to go
out and do the Santa Claus thing. Dude looks like
Santa Claus. His car is done up with Santa on it.
Dude is a The dude looks like Santa Claus like
he came out of a Coca Cola ad from the thirties.
It's nuts wow m hm.

Speaker 2 (02:34):
So before we get into the weed and he and
he tells about Christmas on New Year that McLean residents.
She would like to share with us any Jason misadventures
over the.

Speaker 3 (02:43):
Holidays, Actually, no misadventures. This year is quite quite calm,
quite chill, you know, very RESTful. That's good, you know,
I mean there was there was a family in Caso.
It doesn't get better than that. That's yeah, that's perfect.
We've got a lot of snow here in the north Woods.

(03:05):
So we've had a very white Christmas in New Year's period.

Speaker 2 (03:09):
Literally at the moment, there are icicles hanging around all
my warnings outside, it looks like something out of a
out of a holiday Christmas.

Speaker 3 (03:18):
We've been much warmer than usual, Like we've gotten believed
that at night a couple of times, like I've got
the things on my on my outside water hose attachments.
But it's like I feel like I could have kept
I could have kept everything, all my hoses connected so
I could keep watering my plants because like it was
in the we've been in the seventies and eighties. Last

(03:39):
couple of days. Now, yeah, it doesn't usually Again, a
white Christmas is almost Yeah, it happens from time to time.
It's not unheard of, but it is infrequent. Usually our
really cold stuff happens in January. But yeah, it's been
really warm this year. So yeah, that's probably the weirdest thing.

Speaker 2 (03:56):
My brother's in Houston. He said they had a heat
wave down there.

Speaker 3 (03:59):
Well, it's Houston, and we don't know. As Texans, we
are specificly as a Dallas site, I am genetically required
to dislike Ustonians.

Speaker 2 (04:07):
Huh, that's interesting. I know about the rivalry there. I
did see last night. Their fireworks in Dallas are pretty impressive.
I don't always watch fireworks around the world, but after
the countdown and everything, I think we because I had
a very quiet New Year's Eve this year. I just
had my mother's visiting from the holidays for the holidays
that anybody who was watching talking weird last week, we'll

(04:30):
see where she guested with me, so it was just
my mother and my and my daughter. My girlfriend was
with her own children last night and the weather was
too terrible to drive to drive here anyway. She's like,
she's a good hour or more away, and in this
Northwoods at some area it's crave. The roads get like diabolical.
You don't want to go. But no, it was a
lovely holidays. I don't think anything super weird happened here

(04:52):
over the holidays. I've heard a lot of ours, which
always creep my daughter out. These days which I've talked about.
It's a very hourly season for so I've never heard
so many hours in the whatever. This year, they have
been out of control. And they do say the owls
are not what they say, so maybe that indicate something
weird going on. Who knows.

Speaker 3 (05:08):
Yeah, well, I mean that's owls are I'll say it
this way. I have no problem with owls, but I've
had enough reports enough people where owls are doing weird things.
I always give him an extra little, you know, little
extra observation from time, because yeah, there's a lot of

(05:30):
weird stuff that happens with them, particularly at night. And
you know, one report I have, I will keep some
things vague, and I've had several other reports like this.
Of this one particular account, again, I gotta keep a
little vague. Dude was asleep, right, so we'll keep it

(05:52):
at that. He was asleep, but he had this weird
dream where he was being watched by this he called
it a hag and this tree that was just outside
of his of his home, and like so he has
the stream where he's in the chair that he fell
asleep in, but he's in his room and the window,
you know, the like so it's everything is as it

(06:14):
had been set up when he fell asleep, and he's
in his room and he sees this old hag on
this tree branch staring at him, just staring at him,
and he's like, what is going on because he's in
his in his head, he's like, this is weird. Like
it like he could see the hag, but it like
the feeling he got was he wasn't supposed to see her.

(06:36):
And then he hears this voice from behind him, in
what he believes to be an angel, said am and
it's he wasn't even talking to the eyewitness. He was
talking to the hag. He goes, you realize he can
see you, right, And then he wakes up. And as
soon as he wakes up, he looks he looks out

(06:56):
the window and there's an owl that is staring right
at him and flies off.

Speaker 2 (07:05):
So that's super weird. I was trying to look for
an illustration I think as an illustration of a like
a strg Oya or the Undead, which is oursc or
hag Esk as well. But certainly I mean like there's
a book The Messagers by Mike Clelland which deals with
these kind of things. If I recall that's the title
of the book. Certainly, throughout the history of the occult,
the owls known as some type of you know, wiser thing,

(07:26):
and the history of abduction law, owls are often, you
know involved, there's people perceive things they think are ours
and are meant to actually be something else. So yeah,
an our is you know, it's certainly certainly a symbol
of something. I remember speaking of ols and pop culture
and weirdness. I remember one of my favorite shows of
all time, Millennium. In the second season of that show,

(07:48):
which starred Lance Henrickson, was originated by Chris Carter. I
love it's one of my favorite television shows of all time.
The second season of that show might be the greatest
season of network television ever. It's so good Fox or
whatever it was on any television ever. But there are
two groups. The Millennium group meant they're meant to try
to be stopping, you know, or fighting the horrors of

(08:09):
the millennium because this was made before nineteen ninety nine,
where everybody was still in the world man then, so
it was very well timed. But one of the groups
was called the Owls, and the owls thought that we
actually had longer that it was the middle of the night. Well,
the roosters, the other group were like, you know, alarmists,
They thought the millennium was about to take place. So
even in pop culture, the owl becomes a signifier of

(08:30):
a secret society or other things, something mysterious about that bird.

Speaker 3 (08:34):
Well you got the cord of owls and batman lore,
and Lilith is literally a screech out like it's Lilith
is an owl. The that's not just that's not just
a biblical concept. That is a Mesopotamian concept right in
Nana is believed to have had at least some influence

(08:56):
on on on Lilith, but she's often depicted as having
owl like specifically owl like features, with owls being familiar
to hers. So yeah, there's a very very long long
tradition of owls and similar and again similar night creatures
because when you get into like the Philippines, right, Indonesia

(09:17):
where they don't have a lot of owls, but they
have very large bats.

Speaker 2 (09:21):
Like in Australia we do as well. Oh yeah, what's
from Minnostia. Yeah, absolutely, things which are denizens of the night,
you know, the creatures of the nightwak music, you know
they make anything which is nocturnal is perhaps it goes
back to when we're around the campfires of you know,
hiding in our little mud huts or whatever. The thing's
moving and you know, lurking outside things that can see

(09:42):
in the dark and we can't see them, that there
is something innately, regardless of the supernatural paranormal realities of
the connections of these creatures with those things, just the
fact that there's things out there which are prowling around
when we can't see them, it's scary.

Speaker 3 (10:00):
One hundred percent. And again, there's definitely a and we've
talked about this a lot, right, that a lot of
this does see a lot of supernatural manifestation seems to
use the medium of cultural concepts and contexts to to
communicate with us and to interact with us. And yet

(10:23):
while that is one hundred percent true, there are themes
that seem to transcend culture to a degree, right, it
seemed to be some degree of cultural universal you know
the wild man mythos where you have a humanoid figure

(10:45):
that is also part uh usually it's a goat, but
I mean that's probably the most traditional version. But you know,
bowl legs again digitrade hoofed legs is the best way
to look at it. And horns or antlers, that's pretty universal.
As are going back to the idea that the idea

(11:06):
of owls very specifically being connected to these and it's
and it's really weird because it's almost always goddess or
witch connections rather than because some of these things, some
of the you know, some symbols sort of jump around
as to who has them and what they're doing. But
owls are almost very very universal, except for again, except

(11:28):
for those areas where there aren't owls and bats take
that place, so it's all and again even then it's
witches that they're connected to and goddesses even in Indonesia,
so in the Philippines. So it's yeah, it's just one
of those weird things that it's It does seem culturally
derived and yet maybe larger than culture itself, so who knows.

Speaker 2 (11:52):
Certainly, Minerva, you know, of the Greek Roman tradition, was
associated with an owl and owl with her symbol, and
of course we and the antler thing. It's interesting because
that almost that always becomes masculine, the antlered thing, like
it's the the horned man, for example, is the equivalent
of the goddess in those supposedly in those older you know,

(12:13):
pre Christian traditions, you know of the Europe. But we
could talk about this stuff as you and I could
go down the road holes focal.

Speaker 3 (12:21):
Yeah, this is all. Yeah, this is the entire night.
We need to do that Van. This is just the vamp.
We haven't even kicked off the.

Speaker 2 (12:27):
No, we haven't even kicked whip. It's certainly the the
certainly the weird though. But to jump more to perhaps
the more recent past twenty twenty five, which is what
I promised our audience, who would talk about tonight. We've
got all kinds of wonderful people who take my girlfriends there. Hey,
Sam Horace is here and mentioned that if if the

(12:50):
year opens with Danan Chason, it's already a year of weirdness.
It has to be true, Ken Morock, all kinds of
wonderful regulars. What were your what do you think the
highlights not necessarily your personal highlights, but what were the
highlights of the weed do you think what were the
things which were significant in twenty twenty five in the

(13:11):
broader forty and weed space.

Speaker 3 (13:14):
Honestly, I really I was thinking about this, you know,
for you know, the last week while we were talking
about this. Really I think that there's two major highlights,
right and sort of the same thing with the passing
is like there's a lot of people who've passed, there's
a lot of you know, news that both sections seem
to have like two highlights or two issues of real

(13:34):
broader prominence. And I think the first one because the
second one is definitely gonna take up the rest of
the episode. The first one is Katie Elizabeth. Uh has
had a really really big year with again material from
twenty twenty four, but it came to prominence in twenty
twenty five. If you don't know who Katy Elizabeth is,
she's a zoologist who focuses on lake monsters, specifically Lake Champlain,

(13:57):
but she's recently been out to lock Nest. It's some
really great work out there. She's one of the researchers
who has gathered multiple accounts or not just accounts, but
actually made the recordings. And there's been other evidence, but
specifically of echolocation in lank Champlain, which is a freshwater lake.
Nothing in that lake is supposed to echo locate, and

(14:18):
yet we have multiple confirmed recordings that have been tested
by numerous labs, and it's not supposed and it's clearly
not supposed to be there. It's echolocation. To this point,
the only creatures we know that echo locate are essentially

(14:38):
I mean, there are some fish that will do it,
but again nothing in water and freshwater specifically. But you're
usually talking about things like porpoises or whales, and they're
not supposed to be there, right, So whatever's doing the
echo locating in lank Champlain ain't supposed to be there.

Speaker 2 (15:02):
Yes, it's certainly weird. I'm again if I've told you
in the audience many times, cryptozoology is in my wheelhouse.
But I've always been fascinated as a child, and lake
monsters are one of the things I've been most fascinated with.
Lake monsters and sea serpents. There's something very i don't know, primal,
or there's something very mysterious again, like we were talking

(15:23):
about night before. But the water is something which is
a place which we're not really designed to spend time
in as opposed to the creatures that might live in there.
So there's an extra scare or an extra perhaps psychological
predisposition to think something in the water might be alien
or foreign or threatening to us. And certainly, certainly, I

(15:46):
often think of all the cryptozoological stories out there, of
all the things, if there are physical creatures that are
well and truly, you know, not just an undiscovered fish
or something, but something like you know, a sea burnt
or you know a really plessia saw, or an undiscovered,
very strange, larger creature. I think the waters are probably

(16:07):
where they would be, maybe more likely the sea than
interior lakes. But some of these lakes have supposedly entry
ways to you know, to like Lockness I think is
meant to be accessible what used to be. I think
there are dams and things there now, but it used
to be accessible I think to the North Sea or
wherever somewhere there right via river.

Speaker 3 (16:30):
So yeah, the river nests actually does go out to
the ocean, uh and the and they've actually been so
funny story about that. And we'll come back to Keeler's
but although she's she was literally just in Scotland doing
what I saw. Yeah, yeah, so it absolutely connects. So really,
the modern sightings of NeSSI don't occur until that, until

(16:53):
that causeway is actually built allowing larger boats access to
lockness from the sea. So, yes, the river nest has
always existed and it's technically always had access to the
ocean and how the salmon get in. But there's several
areas of the river nest where it's very shallow, very
very shallow. But once that this sort of you know,

(17:16):
causeway was built so ships can come in and out,
much larger ships. It's after that that we get the
sort of modern lockedness sightings. So it's a kid. Garrett
has speculated that it may be while there's accounts of
weirdness in the lock going back, the fact that it

(17:37):
doesn't that we don't really have a lot of modern
settings until that causeway is built is very very telling
that this may be something that's actually coming and going
out of the lock. So and yeah, again, Lake Champlain
freshwater lake odds are it's probably not connected to the
ocean somewhere that we are aware of, but it is
very deep, it's very very large. The simple fact of

(17:58):
the matter is, I'm with you that again. My favorite stuff,
even though you know what I saw was air was airborne.
I'm a big fan of water monsters, I really am.
My favorite CRYPTI is is Champ not Champ Caddy. Sorry,
I was just I had Champ on the mind because
it's like Champlain Caddy the cad Borsaurus, right, That's my
favorite thing, And what I find really interesting about what Again,

(18:22):
Katy Elizabeth has probably one of the best years of
any cryptis who all just this year, and one of
the things I find very very intriguing about her work
in research is that if it is echolocation that we're hearing, right, Jen,
and that's what it's you know again, it sounds like
echo location. But until we have the creature, we kind of,

(18:43):
you know, we can actually observe it. We don't know
that's what it's doing precisely, though it's a solid theory.
It actually suggests that what we're looking for is mammalian
and that matches very neatly with the cad or a
source which is been reported by some to have essentially

(19:04):
a main on the back of its head, and people
talking about having that sort of a horse like head.
I think as Zulidan fits or something. Xulodan is a
classic name for a Basillosaurus. I prefer ulidan. I just
I think it sounds cooler than the best than a basillo. Source.

(19:25):
But those are ancient whales, they don't, you know. They
depending on how they're rendered, they would look like a
very very aggressive maybe beluga whale, right, both the more
narrow face, but something of that nature, not necessarily of
that exact genus, but something more in say the porpoise family,

(19:49):
you know, or that we would that's how we would
see them, just maybe something a little bit older, something
a little less adapted to the modern world, which is
why the population is so low. I think that's very concept.

Speaker 2 (20:01):
I think Ry mackell suggested way back in the day
in his luck Miss book that it was could be
some type of unknown or large as seal variant, like
it might be something like that. Yes, I think it
was something for so that would go with the mammal
position you were talking about before as well.

Speaker 3 (20:17):
Yes, yes, seal sort of these massive seals have been
theorized for since like the eighteen hundreds. Actually I just
forgot the name. There's one, oh man, I cannot remember
the name of it. But he had actually, yeah, there
were claims to have seen something that he claimed that
he thought was a giant seal. So that's very much

(20:38):
on the table as well. Since we don't know, we
don't know of seals echo locating though, that's why I'm
I'm not opposed to it in any stretch of the imagination.
But since we have this, it's like, you know that
it fits, since we since we see such a variety
in porpoise physiology, I wouldn't be surprised or something like

(21:00):
Azulugan still being around our Basilla's horse, but something of
that family. It's some sort of an ancient whale that
we know echo locates and can take on different body shapes,
and we have fossil evidence of them having sharp teeth
and longer faces. It seems like a can fit. But again,
until we got a body right, we don't know. Horse

(21:21):
had a great question.

Speaker 2 (21:22):
Yeah, I was kind to throw it up for you.
There you go.

Speaker 3 (21:24):
Yeah, So I actually in my in my book talked
to you know, I actually got a chance to talk
to the interview the gentleman who headed up the e
DNA search at Luckness. H e DNA is a really
fascinating thing. And what's interesting is theoretically you can get

(21:45):
a really really good look at the biodiversity of any
you know, really anywhere, but specifically water right any you know,
lakes and things like that, you can get a really
good chance. I'm not convinced that if the population is
all enough that can still go undetected, Like you kind
of still have to get lucky right to get that DNA.
So if the population is small enough or transitory, like

(22:08):
we were talking about with lockness, if it's coming in
and out and it's not there all the time again,
then you're you're probably not going to get those that DNA. Additionally,
the real sort of asterisk that needs to be mentioned
with the DNA, the DNA kind of has to already
be on record, Like we It's like drugs, right, if

(22:31):
you test somebody, you can only test them for the
drugs you know exist, and so if you don't, if
you have if they've taken a drug that you don't
know exists, you can't test for it. It's kind of
in the same thing. We kind of have this idea
that if we that you'll run all the DNA's like, hey,
here's DNA we don't recognize. That's not really the case.
You kind of have to have something to bounce it

(22:52):
off of. And if the DNA is close enough to
something that you would recognize, like my question would was
the idea of giant eels.

Speaker 2 (23:00):
That was what the New Zealand academic team is several
years ago, and it made the news. It was a
very front page story because supposedly they found a lot
of eel DNA in the walk. So the theory was
perhaps the Lockness monster is a large eel because supposedly
eels that live for a very long time, you're almost
like reptilian in the sense that they can keep growing,

(23:22):
like if the crocodile. If the crocodile lives for one
hundred years, it's going to be a ridiculously massive size.
And supposedly eels are like that as well. They can
just keep growing and growing and growing.

Speaker 3 (23:31):
Yeah, the European eel can get very very large. And
if there's a species of eel that we're unfamiliar with
and we haven't cataloged, it would just it would just
tag as eel DNA. So it wouldn't that we wouldn't say.
In fact, that's my questions, like if there were some
unknown species of eel or you know, had a very
low population or some sort of weird mutation, would we

(23:52):
see that. He's like, no, we wouldn't. It would just
come back as eel DNA, so it wouldn't necessarily come
back as something saying, hey, it's unknown. So I'm a
huge fan of this technology. The problem is we just
need to understand limitations, and it's only going to get
better as we go, right, Like, that's the other thing
we need to remember. This stuff is going to keep

(24:12):
getting better over the next ten to twenty years. And
so I think we're on this. We really are, and
we'll talk about this when we talk about what we
expect for twenty twenty six. I doen'tinely think we're on
the edge of this precipice where we're going to start
getting more information than we've ever had before from stuff
that we haven't because we just haven't had the technology
to even see it. So yeah, I'm very optimistic about that.

Speaker 2 (24:35):
Your faith and optimism, Jason, never surprises me. We have
some other questions for you, and or I be off
triveing to you first. That's Kite You Ninja asked too,
And I'll ask them both in quick succession because the
first one should be relatively quick to answer. Kid You
Ninja or eighty five asked, are you aware of any
recent lockness? Monster sietings and these. Other question was, does

(24:55):
it surprise you that bodies of lake monsters and sea
serpents showing up on shores? Yes, I know they're a
recent luck ness sighting. Is any saw an article the
other day. I think it's actually a registry online where
people can log them and you can go and read them.

Speaker 3 (25:10):
Yeah, I believe. Yeah, I've been a little out of
look because I've been busy with what I've been working on.
But yeah, I've heard of a couple of sightings. But
like you said, there is a registry for it, so
you can actually just go and look it up. As
far as the question of bodies not showing up, so
here's the thing. There are there have been accounts of
of anomalous bodies washing I'm sure briefly on ocean beaches,

(25:37):
but obviously they're deteriorated a lot. There's there have been
accounts of these things. However, what we have to remember
is that when you're in the ocean, you're in the food.
You're in the food chain, right. I mean, do whale
carcasses show up on shore, yes, but usually they've beached
themselves while they were live. Right, It's very very rare.

(25:58):
Than a dead way washes up. Usually it's been beached
and dies. And think about like, I've got a pond
next to my house, right, I have seen one or
two things that died naturally and sort of wound up
in the shallows. When things die in the water, they
are consumed and usually like whales, their bodies just sink

(26:21):
to the bottom and they keep the crabs very happy
for a very long time because it's so cold down
there that actually preserves the bodies they're eating like forever.
So a lot again, a lot of this is like
you know, why don't we find bodies of Bigfoot. Well,
if you don't come across them in like the first
couple of days, that body's gone in a week, right,

(26:42):
nature will consume it. So it's not really that shocking
that we don't have sea monster bodies washing up all
the time. But they have. Again, there have been accounts
of this happening. So yeah, you take it, you take
it with the you take it with what you got.

Speaker 2 (26:58):
I remember I seem to recall a very famous tale.
All of these are that, like you know, they're like
fairy faith. Though somebody has the evidence and then has
to discard it or it turns to dust. I remember,
I think it was. It was even in one of
my monster books when I was a kid. Monster books,
I mean like cryptod books, although they weren't called cryptids
and they were just called monsters. I think there was
a story of a Japanese fishing crew or something essentially

(27:19):
dragging out a plesiosaw and then it was smelt so
bad or something the captain made it that they threw
it overboard. But there's always those tales of the evidence
was almost in our hands, and every single thing in
Fortyana has that almost had the proof, you know, whether
it's the mythical crash of roswell material, or whether it's

(27:41):
you know, a bigfoot body you know that's a hunter
shot and then buried, or whether it's a plesiosaul you
nobody pulled out of pulled out of the sea and
then throwing over aboard again because it smelt so much.
It's always we've almost got that evidence that it's like
in a fairy tale when they come home and that
you know, the they call fairy land has turned to

(28:01):
dust in their pockets, so it's all turned into leaves
in their pockets. It's just I think it's part of
the part of the pattern of the phenomenon.

Speaker 1 (28:10):
We had.

Speaker 2 (28:11):
Oh, my wonderful girlfriend Samantha just just mentioned that that
I don't know if you recall, but when we met
you at the for Flesh for the first time, I've
obviously only for years, but when we went to Crossing
Realms conference in Missouri, my girlfriend and I were you
guys kindly invited me into show the Shaver mystery and speak.
You did a wonderful drawing because you're a very talented artist.

(28:33):
For those who don't know, if I think of Sam's
son pitching in baseball, it was like, you know, a
cartoon kind of thing, and she just wanted to say
how much, how much he appreciated and how he loves
that picture that you did for him, So thank you.

Speaker 3 (28:47):
Well, I'm glad he I'm really glad he likes it.
And that's you know, that's that's my favorite thing about
doing live drawings and sketches is you know, giving people
something that they want you will you aren't going to
get anywhere else, and it's my favorite thing.

Speaker 2 (29:00):
Now, he just quickly before we jump back into our chat,
we have the wonderful squatch Mama says regarding you know,
I asked people to chip in and say it, or
chime in and say what they thought was, you know,
the most interesting things in twenty twenty five Squatch Mama
says most exciting twenty twenty five Cascade Range incidents. Within
forty eight hours, researchers documented forty plus footprints, thermal footage

(29:21):
from two separate teams, strange vocalizations, and consistent eyewitness reports.
Now you might know something about that, Jason's again the
neadfoot world. It's a little more outside of my wheelhouse.

Speaker 1 (29:31):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (29:32):
No, I've heard a lot about it, and again unfortunately
been very very busy, so I haven't had a chance
to be as familiar with it as I would like.
There's a lot there, and I think we are finally
at a point in this realm where we can start
doing really good metadata analysis and so that that is

(29:52):
I think going to be a huge that again, because
we have two separate teams working, the data that's been
collected is going to allow us to kind of take
that bigger step back and actually start cruss referencing material
on again a metadata level, which I think is actually
going to reveal a lot more than we've been able again.
This is part of my optimism. I think we are

(30:14):
finally to a point where we can start seeing a
lot more of what's really going on, rather than where
we've been over the last sixty years, where it is
kind of disjointed. Here's this thing over here, here's this
thing over here, and everyone's sort of doing their own thing.
As we've been growing as a science, right that essentially
we've come to that point where people are in there

(30:36):
doing better, more sophisticated, more systematized scientific efforts, and I
think it's allowing us finally to start taking a metadata
analysis level, which is really going to allow us to
start seeing patterns and behaviors and evidence in ways that
we haven't been able to see it before. I think
it's going to move everything forward. So yes, that's actually

(30:58):
one of the I would say, just the highlight of
twenty twenty.

Speaker 2 (31:02):
You and Horrace and your science and evidence never alone,
I should just say quickly because it was in the
show notes, but we didn't say it on the show.
If anybody does have a highlight of the weird, the
forty and the cryptozoological, the euthological, the specter hunting world,
please feel free to share it in the chat and

(31:23):
we will put it on screen. Or if you have
any which we're going to get into in a little bit,
if you have any predictions for where you think twenty
twenty six is going, or have you seen any trends
or anything you expect to see in the broader world
of forty on, please let us know, and Jason and
I will at least share it. We might even chat
about it.

Speaker 3 (31:40):
Yeah. I think really though, this year for twenty twenty five,
I think we kind of have to say the star
was the congressional hearings.

Speaker 2 (31:49):
On UAP's second year of them.

Speaker 3 (31:52):
Yeah, yep, it was the second year, and I would
suggest this year was bigger than the first because I
think there were things that were said in twenty twenty
five that built on what happened in twenty four but
were I think more explosive but much more quiet in
a way. Right, And we talked about when it happened, right,
there is this consistent use of interdimensionality, right that it

(32:19):
was like this, these it's kind of hard to say
fringe in the in the UFO community, but concepts of
high strangeness of interdimensionality. These were fringe topics amongst ufologists.
Even a few years ago, Moufon basically had a you know,

(32:39):
it was nuts and bolts all the way over the
last couple of years that I mean, really what just
before we had to shut down Mysterious Library, that's where
that's the first time I had seen in the documentary
that Moufon had sort of changed its position a little
bit on elements of ice strangers, and we both thought

(33:01):
that was weird. And now here we have again twenty five,
Autopoli and Luna come up and start talking about interdimensionality
with these crafts and the phenomena itself. Multiple times during
twenty twenty five in these hearings that took a very
prominent role in I was shocked by how much they're

(33:23):
they're leaning into this idea of they're not from They're
not just not from here, they're not from our realm
of existence, and the phenomena is different.

Speaker 2 (33:34):
It's become it's become the main talking point of the
people who are at the forefront of the disclosure movement.
It hasn't become, I don't think a main pointing talk
in the broader press yet, but if you're paying attention
the mainstream media journalists, talking head pundits who've been at
the front of this, whether it's a Tucker Carlson or

(33:54):
a Leslie Kane, or whether it's Chaneau whistleblowers, or whether
it's Chaneau Foundation founders like you know, Tom DeLong, after
the Stars Academy. The list goes on and on and on,
help poots off. All of these people are pushing that ultraterrestrial,
antidimensional spiritual They they all use slightly different language, but

(34:15):
what they're all essentially saying is whatever this modern human
intelligence is, it's not extraterrestrial. It's something fast, stranger.

Speaker 3 (34:25):
Yeah, and that again, I think that's one of the
that's one of things that really took me aback with
all of this, because again I've ran eschatology and things
like that for years, and I do think this plays
a you know, ufology plays a big role. I but
if you'd asked me even three or four years ago,
I would have said they're gonna it's gonna be about

(34:46):
physical craft and physical people walking around that kind of thing.
Now I'm not. I think it's I think they're gonna
lean very heavily into interdimensionality. I I'm shocked by how
quickly they've spun on their heels and went from nuts
and bolts to this other stranger, you know, existence sort

(35:08):
of thing happening. So yeah, I'm that I have. That
was one of the things that really shocked me about
about the hearings is how profoundly they're leaning into it.
But again it's still quiet. Like you said, it's not
amongst the normies, right, they're not really talking, but it's
I've had people who have no interest in any of
this asked me what the heck is an is this

(35:29):
interdimensional thing that they're talking abo like while it is,
you know, again the normies isren't really talking about it.
It's there and people are hearing it. But for people
in the know, right, people who are here, the fact
that I'm hearing this on c SPAN freaks me out
to no ends. I'm like, this is this is weird.

(35:50):
Like it went from nuts and bolts to things walking
through walls overnight and that, and again the I kind
of have a feeling this is the way it was
going to go. When they changed the UAP, right, instead
of Unidentified flying object to Unidentified aerial phenomena, I thought
that was sort of a giveaway too. It's like, hey,

(36:11):
that they're telling you this is something else.

Speaker 2 (36:14):
Yeah, you could see you could see it slowly being
interjected into the conversation where the normies might get turned
onto it is. I have no idea yet what Spielberg's
Disclosure Day is actually going to contain, but I have
certainly heard people analyze that trailer, including people I respect
in the forte in world, suggest that it might he

(36:37):
might be pointing at something other than extraterrestrial. Now, of course,
the great disappointment of closing Counters of the Third Kind,
which is probably still the greatest movie ever made about
about extraterrestrial visitation and contact or alien or UFO visitation
and contact, is that the ending had to be so
literalized and disney afired, while the rest of the movie

(37:00):
coined or those elements of high strangeness and weirdness where
you weren't sure what it was yet, which is kind
of this space where we're trapped in this kind of
liminal space where we don't know the answers. Spielberg, whether
just for narrative reasons or for his own belief system,
felt the incredible urge to literalize it at the end

(37:21):
and have these you know, nuts and bolt spacecraft come
down with these you know, childlike extraterrestrials inside, which of
course upset Jacques Valet immensely at the time because Vlat
and Heineck were both were both I suppose feeding or
they were both consultants for close Encounters, and the lay obviously,
particularly then, even more so maybe than now was even

(37:44):
was much more hostile or much less or much more
suspicious of a nuts and Bolts interpretation, and he didn't
like that Spielberg ended the movie that way. And to
be honest, it is now as much fun as it
is when the Disney type of you know, when you
Wish upon a Star tune is playing and the music
John william Score, you know, raises and we all get excited,

(38:05):
and you know, it's just a powerful, you know, motion
picture moment. The reality is that movie is so much
stronger up until that final final act reveal of what's
going on. If they could have I would love the movie.
I do love it, but I'd love it much more
evid it stayed weirder, perhaps perhaps disclosure Day's Spielberg's film

(38:27):
coming out? I think is it later this year at
the end of this year. I think, is it set
for December of this year or something?

Speaker 3 (38:34):
I think, yeah, I can't remember. Maybe it's this summer.

Speaker 2 (38:38):
It's a ways off anywhere, at least I'm guessing six
months from it. But perhaps that will do that normally convergence.
Maybe if all of a sudden the Spielberg movie suggests
that this is something beyond the extraterrestrial, then the same
way Close Encounters of the Third Kind injected all these
ideas of the whole I mean the whole, the language
which Heine could had for Close Encounters of the First

(39:01):
Guy and the second kind of the third Kind that
was injected into the public consciousness overnight by Spielberg's movie.
So perhaps Disclosure Day will do the same thing if
the revelation is, well, this is something more mysterious.

Speaker 1 (39:15):
Now.

Speaker 2 (39:15):
I don't know if that's what's going to happen, but
that would certainly be your the normies on board now
and understand the dialogue or you know, the conversation we've
been having for the last seventy years in eupology.

Speaker 3 (39:26):
I think your suspicions may be very well born out
because the thing I think you're forgetting is he had
another crack at the Close Encounters of the Third Kind
when he did Indiana Jones four. Right, the crystal skull,
that's how it ends, right, it's very clearly a gray
alien skull that's a crystal that wasn't cart and he

(39:47):
put it on the on the body. You know, spoilers
for anyone who hasn't seen it. It's it's not my
favorite Indiana Johnes movie. But they put it on the
on the head, or they put their head on the body,
and they start moving around and they become they go
back to life as these aliens. And the guy who's
been a raving lunatic the entire movie because the crystal

(40:09):
skull had power over he explains what it is. Now
the trance has sort of taken off of him and
he's back to his right mind. That the UFO that
they're in they run out real quick. He's like, it
doesn't it comes from someplace else. It's not just that
it's from another planet. It's from place between worlds, is
what he is literally what he says. So I think

(40:29):
given that he was that he went that way the
sort of the more ultraterrestrial interdimensional craft in Indiana Jones movie.
I think you're probably gonna be I think it's going
to be born out that the disclosure is probably going
to go more towards the again, something that is different
from the traditional you know, alien UFO movies of the

(40:50):
you know, forty years ago.

Speaker 2 (40:52):
I think while we're on this, it's probably worth mentioning
the incredibly successful documentary which came out a month or
two ago here after playing at south By Southwest earlier
in the year, and that's that's Age of Disclosure documentary
by Dan farwre and executive produced by Luella Zondo of
all people and a movie which really the level of

(41:17):
the people in it, from Marco Rubio on you know,
down through all the usual you know, government, usual suspects
through in the UFO phenomenon euthologist to Luella Zondo himself.
That movie was directed by Dan Farrer, who'd earlier produced
another significant UFO documentary a number of years ago. But
he also was a producer of Spielberg's Ready Player one,

(41:39):
so he's obviously buddies with Spielberg. So it's introduced. It's
interesting that it's almost like a one two punch that
this year we get Age of disclosure from Spielberg's producer,
and next year we get disclosure Day, like a year
later from from Spielberg. I mean, this might be a
level of paranoia or just me trying to overthink it,

(42:01):
but it seems it seems to me that those guys
must have had a conversation, given that they're both clearly
really interested in the UFO phenomenon presenting it, you know,
in one way or another on the silver screen, they
must have talked about this. Was it just like, oh,
funnily enough, I've got a movie coming up call, you know,
disclosure Day. Well, that's weird, Steve, and I just make
I'm just making age of disclosure. I just find that

(42:22):
something bigger, potentially is going on behind the scenes. That
doesn't mean it's notorious, that doesn't mean it's so. It
could very well be, but there's some coordination here. It
seems like to me.

Speaker 3 (42:34):
I would suggest there is. I mean, again, it's Stephen Spielberg, right,
Like the dude is in he's in the know on
a lot of stuff. And I don't mean that again,
like you said, I don't mean that nefariously, like the
like the government's taking them out and it's like here's
the bodies in the in the fridge, right, like they
didn't bring out an ice schooler, and like here it
is making make et. What I mean is he's he

(42:56):
is very much in the UFO community, and he's very
well connected. He's he is a big fan of all
of it. So I wouldn't be surprised that there is
you know, back again, not not nefariously, but back room communication,
and that they're talking about this and there is this coordination.

(43:18):
I wouldn't be shocked at all to find that out.
In fact, I would I would suggest it's almost one
hundred percent. That's there is that they are coordinating to
some to some degree, well, the late.

Speaker 2 (43:29):
Great and unfortunately we lost him a year or to ago.
Robbie Graham, who wrote the book, I think it's silver
screen sources or something. And other people as well have
talked about the connection between various intelligence agencies and Hollywood.
And we know that for a fact, regarding non UFO materials,
like clearly in World War Two and you know, into

(43:50):
the Cold War there were deals between studios and you know,
and rightfully they probably should be. I mean, to a degree,
you want to present America and its best during the
Cold War and during World War Two. Obviously you want
a degree of propaganda going on to ry, you know,
get the people excited at home to fight the good fight.
But there probably has been some degree of intelligence manipulation

(44:14):
of the way that UFOs are presented on the screen.
And there's all kinds of stories, I mean, there's all
kinds of anecdotal stories about you know, documentarians being promised
footage of you know, Eisenhower meeting you know Aliens a
Holman Air Force Base and then it being pulled at
the last minute, or that's a very common trope, the
idea that we're about to give this production this footage

(44:35):
and then it's pulled. These stories already a journalist or
whatever go on again and again and again. The fact
that Heinech was you know, consultant for close encounters of course,
he was you know, the Air Force's major scientific officer,
and the investigation of this over multiple projects, culminating in
Project Bluebook, and that he also, I mean, there's a
dark side potentially to Heinek. There's certainly been accusations and

(44:56):
he was involved in psyops as well. Whether true or not,
who knows, but he'd certainly been a great front man
if you wanted to push this stuff or suggest Spielberg,
how maybe we approach this. So these connections, they're undoubtedly there.
Again Dan Fower's film Age of Disclosure, which is a
fascinating documentary, but it's clearly pushing a certain line. Loue Elizondo,

(45:17):
who's essentially the main interview subject of that movie, is
also the executive producer of that movie, and Lo's clearly
an insider who might or might not be intentionally leaking
information or disinformation or depending on what your position is.
So clearly there's we can see they're two very clear,
genuine contacts from defense UFO insiders directly into Hollywood productions

(45:46):
being made. I'm sure Day of Disclosure or Disclosure Day
has people who are you know, pushing it in a
certain direction, because you don't make a movie like that
and you don't say, hey, you say who are we
going to talk to? Who we're going to consult with,
and then you'll get the people who will convey the message.
I'm anyway, again a little paranoid, but maybe not. And
so that's my suspicion is I don't think we're going

(46:08):
to get disclosure in twenty twenty six, I'll say that now,
but I think we're going to keep We're keeping, We're
going to continue on the track that we've been on
since twenty seventeen, which seems to be, if not accelerating
the disclosure because I'm not somebody who thinks we're about
to get disclosure, but still continuing in the direction that
it's going. And with the new Spielberg movie, clearly even

(46:29):
using the term disclosure, we're clearly getting a cultural push,
a cultural excitement, you know, a cultural encouragement to look
in that direction.

Speaker 3 (46:38):
Yeah. Now, I'm Nick Rudifer and I have had this
disagreement for a long time. He was again, I don't know,
I'm talking about it in a couple of years. I
don't know if he's changed his opinion, but he one
of the things we would disagree on is he would
think that there's never going to be a disclosure. And again,
disclosure meaning I think this is the problems everyone has sarved. Well,

(47:00):
here's the file, and this is the truth about UFO's
kind of thing. And I'm like, well, you're assuming they
even know what the truth is about this stuff, right,
But I figured I've always said that it would be dripped.
It was going to be this slow disclosure, but disclosure
not necessarily meaning the truth, disclosure meaning the story they

(47:21):
want us to think. And it may be the story
that they themselves believe. That's always on the that's always
on the table. But it would be a slow walk.
Has always been my opinion, right that this was always
going to be they're slow walking us into a viewpoint
that they want us to have. Now again, it may

(47:42):
be the viewpoint that they themselves have or the other
those within the government have maybe don't know, you know,
there's no way for us to know. But it was
going to be this very slow process of getting people
used to certain concepts. I think the fact that again
I still think that the fact they said UAP was
the most telling thing ever as far as saying this

(48:04):
is where we're going. They wanted us to start thinking
about something else. And again, it maybe that there's multiple
phenomena going on. That's kind of what they're talking about.
Is there may be something even weirder out there than
necessarily you know, we're thinking UFOs and little green men.
It's like there could be in organics, the skyfish thing

(48:25):
that we've talked about right, that there's other forms of
life out there that may be part of all of this,
and like, hey, we kind of need to tell you something, right,
but we don't know. But I do think this is
part of a very slow walk. I don't think anything
as dramatic as a mile long spacecraft hanging out over
New York is going to happen this year. But you know,
you never know A bought a lottery ticket, and maybe

(48:45):
you know you never know about these things.

Speaker 2 (48:47):
I think we will get crazy. I shouldn't say crazy
because that means I'm dismissing it, but I'm meaning more
extreme claims. I think what will happen is the same
way we had Grush coming far and talking about you know,
well that's over a year ago. Now that's twenty twenty four.
But coming forward this supposedly you know, high end, you know,

(49:08):
in the know whistle blower saying that where we have
alien biologics, do you know what I mean? We definitely
have crash sources. We've been retrieving them since the thirties.
I mean, these were the type of this was a
type of dialogue that you couldn't imagine happening in a
congressional investigation even ten years ago, so I think we're
going to keep having these kind of claims. I was

(49:29):
watching only because I saw on my Facebook feed that
had something about UFOs. I watched an episode of It
was a free because I think it's normally behind the paywall,
but there was a There was an episode of the
Glen Beck Program where they were predicting what was coming
in in twenty twenty six, and one of the things
was UFO, so I thought I'll listened to it. They
didn't talk about it even for that long, but one
of one of the four or five people on the

(49:51):
panel said their prediction for twenty twenty six was that
an elected official somewhere is going to make the claim
that they've actually had genuine community cation with a non
human intelligence. Now I don't know if I'll go that far,
but what I do agree with, I think we are
seeing an acceleration of the type of claims being made
by government officials or in front of the Congress, which

(50:14):
were the type of claims that were only being made
in fringe magazines and UFO books. We know ten, twenty, thirty,
forty fifty, going back years ago, this isn't something that
was talked about in government circles or something that was
seriously talked about by writers for the New York Times
or by people with the type of profile of Tucker Carlson.
This was something which was very much on the fringes,

(50:36):
maybe not saying well, are there flying sources, but actually saying, well,
you know, there are entities who are evil, or there
are alien you know, dead bodies or that stuff was
always fringe stuff. Now it's like mainstream, yeah, conversation.

Speaker 3 (50:50):
Now yeah, and again you have again anapoline Luna on
Joe Rogan talking about this in talking about interdimensionality. Right, yeah,
this is again twenty seventeen. This was this pivot point,
and it's become acceptable to talk about it again, even
I mean really like you said ten years ago, even

(51:15):
I mean very public like the Stephenville event, right, that
happened here in Texas, that was taken kind of seriously,
but at the same time not like even like there
was a degree of serious tones taken, but at the
same time you could see the news media it was like, yeah,
but maybe it was just military stuff. And here's the

(51:35):
military saying it's fine, and they were just running exercises
and they left it alone, and all the rest of
us were like, what are you talking about. You don't
there is no military exercise where you break the sound
barrier over a populated area. And how as it went
from well it was like two planes to well we
were doing war games and we just forgot to tell
somebody like that doesn't work. So again it's been this

(52:00):
was a very recent heel turn on how all this
is addressed. And I think the second thing, you know,
because I don't want to go too long, we got
questions I'd like to look at. So they were great questions.
I think the second thing that's really again very very quiet,
but I think the most profound in those hearings was
essentially all of these people almost unanimously saying the money

(52:21):
that you as Congress are putting out are not is
not going where you think it's going. I mean, the
people you're trying to pay off aren't getting their cash
because it's being stolen by essentially what is a secret government.
In a way, they've been told, and we've been told
very publicly by people who again are supposedly in the know,
you don't have a government. That's what we've heard, Like

(52:42):
Congress isn't really isn't capable of doing its job because
these people that are again the aspect of ufologe of
the you know government and UFO you know UAP stuff,
they're taking your money and it's being allocated to something
else entirely.

Speaker 2 (53:02):
Yeah, something, It's something we've been warned about. I mean,
Eisenhower warned about the realities that we are facing today.
We're clearly non elected officials who are members of whether
you want to call it the deep state, or whether
you want to call it the military industrial complex or
whatever you want to call it, there are people who
are in positions of incredible power who, let's you say,

(53:26):
there really is a UFO mystery that the US government understand.
I myself, I'm not sure I actually believe that, but
let's just say there really is, and somehow elements of
the deep state be that, again, unelected bureaucrats be that,
as is being suggested, more and more potentially corporations in
the military industrial space that we offloaded or somehow acquired

(53:47):
the Roswell material years ago, so they've been able to
keep that outside of the public purview because it's locked
in you know, private industries. Safebox somewhere. But regardless, I
find it, I find it difficult to believe that, I mean,
something like that isn't going on. But that doesn't Again,

(54:09):
that doesn't mean necessarily that it's extraterrestrial, but it does
as I think the point you're making is it definitely
points Perhaps that's the value of all of this, forget
the metaphysical value. Perhaps the value of all this investigation
is that it points to the fact that there are
people outside of what we consider a constitutional republic, getting

(54:31):
incredible amounts of money and making incredible, you know, decisions
regarding advanced technology, whether it's ours or somebody else's, or
of planets or interdimensional and there's no way we can
even get it. The fact, I mean, if it is
true just for a moment, the fact that the Congress
can't just open the door and see where it is,
you know, I mean, that's not exactly what the founders

(54:52):
had in mind when they were they put together this
wonderful experiment new government. You know, they didn't ever imagine
a time where the through via their elected officials, couldn't
find that exactly what their text dollars were being spent on.

Speaker 3 (55:07):
Yeah. Well, and we've actually talked about this back in
the Mysterious Library in days oh I forgot his name.
You know how bad I am with names. The gentleman
who claimed that he was in an underground base he
lost some fingers and a fight. Bill Schneider, thank you,
And there was something. There was several others who died

(55:28):
around the same time, under again similarly weird circumstances. One
was shot out. We had a weird shootout with police,
and everyone's like, this feels weird. Bill Cooper, Bill Cooper,
thank you. I would not be surprised if And again,
the argument for why goes all the way back to

(55:48):
the gentleman who designed the YouTube spy plane, the s
R seventy one. It feels like people who are in
the know, who are really looking at the ufology you
know UFO stuff right, and are actually on the government side.
It feels like a lot of the times they show
up to talk about all of this stuff, and it

(56:11):
almost feels like the UFO and alien material aspect of
it is like a front because they always focus on
your government is not is not your government anymore. They're
they're all stressing this, Hey, the money isn't going where
you think it's going you're being fleeced. The people who
you think are in charge are not actually in charge.

(56:34):
And there's this weird, thin veneer of of of high strangeness,
almost like it's like they're trying to protect themselves saying
I'm going to tell you the truth, but I got
to put it to you in this way that allows
me to say it again. The guy who I cannot
remember his name off the top of my head, who
who developed the s R. Seventy one Blackbird, who was

(56:54):
the head of Skunk Works for.

Speaker 2 (56:56):
A long time, is it Ben Rich? Is that who
it is?

Speaker 3 (56:59):
No, No, no, it's not him. Anyway, I'll think about
it later. He claimed that he got his idea for
the blended wing design from looking at UFOs right, and
we've talked about forever that the Kenneth Arnold siding was
actually probably experimental Nazi aircraft right captured during World War Two,
and we got a lot of the material from there.
And it was almost like he was using the UFO,

(57:21):
this UFO sighting as a way of saying because he
was by all accounts he was a really good guy. Yes,
or seventy one is my favorite jet of all time.
So I really love his work, and I've read a
lot about him. Everyone says he was a great guy.
I could see him saying, I can't say what this was,
I can't release, you know, operation paper clip information. So

(57:42):
I'm going to use the whole UFO thing as a
way of saying, of admitting that I didn't come up
with this technology right, as a just his way of
clearing his conscious So I would not be surprised if, again,
regardless of whatever the facts are truth about the up
stuff is going on, there is this undercurrent It's been
there for a very very long time of saying, guys,

(58:03):
your government is not in control anymore. And all of
these people that are like, there's it's all this stuff
on the fringe. The money isn't going where you think
it's going. They don't have control. And that is a
very prominent but very quiet theme of all of these
congressional hearings. So that's just more interesting.

Speaker 2 (58:23):
That's a good point. It's interesting somehow who that type
of dialogue benefits. Does it maybe benefit us the you know,
the US tax paying public maybe, or does it maybe
cause more contention at home like this is a ridiculous idea,
But it's not an impossible idea. Could these ideas be
encouraged by foreign operators who would like the US public

(58:46):
to doubt the veracity of their own government? Is there
a benefit there or the other side, Is there a
benefit of plays within the US governments to have to
have foreign countries concerned that the US has far more
than we can conceivably no hidden in there? You know,
in these these back room deals, we better not you know,

(59:07):
mess with them, because they got flying source of technology
they're going to zappas with. I mean that the discussion
might have more to do with whether things are alien
or ultra terrestrial or anything else, which is obviously our
focus because that's where that's where we know we reside
in right the weird before there might be bigger things
going on. So what was that I missed that?

Speaker 3 (59:27):
Look at the symbol, man, We're we're talking weird here.
We're gonna here's the thing that's all of the above,
like like you know, like maybe it's all of the
above on this That's where things get very convoluted. But
we can go on on this for an hour because
we've done whole shows on it. Let's get to the
questions before we before we bail on the beautiful.

Speaker 2 (59:46):
People sounds good. Did you have one you wanted to
bring up? Your hit them?

Speaker 3 (59:51):
Well, I figured you'd hit them.

Speaker 2 (59:52):
I mean, okay, well we have We have a question
from Oh No, that was that was flat Rockland, I
think talking about Llewellen's though, saying that he talks for
hours but doesn't really say anything. We had a question
from a Horrors which was directed at me, which was
very nice, saying we're twenty twenty six seed the release
of Dean's Palmer Shaver documentary. I think we'll see the

(01:00:12):
completion of Dean's Shaver Palmer documentary Horror the Man who
Invented Flying Sources, and hopefully it beginning to be submitted
to festivals, but I don't think it will be in
wide release this year. No, maybe you'll be able to
catch it a festival in twenty twenty seven after it's submitted.

Speaker 3 (01:00:28):
Yeah, that'd be fun. I'm waiting for it. I still
have to record my scenies.

Speaker 2 (01:00:31):
Yes, we still have to do stuff with you, Jason
will which some of it we were meaning to do
when we were in Missouri, but it was kind.

Speaker 3 (01:00:37):
Of hectic conference.

Speaker 2 (01:00:38):
So now were there other questions you wanted to hit
that I missed.

Speaker 3 (01:00:41):
I'm just I still have access.

Speaker 2 (01:00:45):
Yeah, you must be the only guest on this program
who still has the untold radio network in a backdoor
key to get into all the into a little secret
niches of the network. That's how much. That's much You're
revered and trusted.

Speaker 3 (01:01:00):
Again. Flat Rockland says, maybe we'll get Legend Meet Science too.
I very much hope to see that this year as well.
That is as much as twenty twenty five has, I
think really been the year of the UFO, just like
twenty twenty four was. If the Legend Meet Science two
comes out this year, and again, I don't have any
more behind the scenes stuff than anybody else, right, I'm

(01:01:23):
gonna ask. I've wanted to stay sort of out of
the loop on it a little bit because I don't
want I don't want it spoiled. I want to be
surprised too. But I genuinely think from what has been
publicly available that if it comes out this year, I
think it will change the conversation in a lot of ways.
I would like to think that my new project may

(01:01:44):
change some conversations about that as well.

Speaker 2 (01:01:46):
How can you tell us a little bit about your
new project, or is that totally hush hush.

Speaker 3 (01:01:51):
I can only say that I'm working on the project
and it'll I don't know if I'll get it out
this year. I would like for it to be out
this year, but I can't promise it. But science, too,
I think, is going to help move this conversation forward,
and so I'm hoping that twenty twenty six is the
year of changing not just bigfoot, but specifically changing conversations.

(01:02:11):
I'll say it that way.

Speaker 2 (01:02:14):
Before we do go. I know you made a point
of saying it, and I totally agree with you. We
should talk about some of the people we lost in
twenty twenty with including somebody who was a big part
of legendmate science one.

Speaker 3 (01:02:23):
If I recall, right, yes, doctor Meldrum did pass this year.
It's a huge blow. If you haven't read his paper,
and this is for everyone, not just the you, the you,
the beautiful people in the chat and watching on pre
record later, if you have not read his paper on

(01:02:45):
defining and sort of proving how the foot, how footways
and trackways should be regarded as its own phenomenon, because
that's until you have the body that goes into the footprints.
It's only the footprints. He also has a great paper
breaking down the Patterson Genland footage. I highly recommend it.

(01:03:05):
It is very much worth your time, even if you're
not necessarily a Bigfoot fan, although odds are if you're
watching this channel you know, but even if you're not,
it's worth reading the papers that he put out on
Bigfoot because it's really good to see how I want
people to start thinking about how to do the science
aspect of this and how to think about things. This

(01:03:26):
is I know we have this conflict here on science
versus this, but I think beyond science, learning how to
collect data, learning how to think about things and how
to ask certain questions is valuable even in life. Right
Oftentimes we do a lot of jumping to conclusions, We

(01:03:48):
build parameters and paradigms within our own thinking, and we
don't realize it. Again, one of the most I've said
this a thousand times, and I probably will do an
episode of I'm not doing a lot of serial paper stuff,
but I do this one episode with this one e'misde
I think it's something everyone should see. It's I think
one of the most valuable exercises I ever did was
an archaeology was called the Bottle Paper, and it was

(01:04:11):
an entire freaking semester of how to describe a bottle.
And I know that sounds insane. What we all know
a bottle is stop to think about everything you call
a bottle and then historically what's been called a bottle?
And you tell me how you would describe that to
people as different from any other container or a glass,

(01:04:36):
or a cup or a jug, Like, what's what's the
difference between a bottle and a jug? Reading his papers
will help your research tremendously. So, Yeah, a giant was
lost this year in the field and his his his
passing is a hole in the in our little niche

(01:04:59):
of the world. And I don't think that's a hole
that will ever really be filled.

Speaker 2 (01:05:05):
No, I was. I mean again, I'm not a big
foot guy, but I was always anybody who has even
a vague interest was super aware that he was one
of the maybe the heaviest hitter in the space, in
the at least the scientific aspect of the space. Of
course you mentioned before. I'm glad you did that. We
also lost Dennis Stacy this year.

Speaker 3 (01:05:22):
Yeah, yeah, I had to write I had to write down.
So I didn't forget because he was a euthologist and author, right,
I know you probably knew who he was. He was
from Texas. That's why. First, Yeah, I'm not gonna lie.
It's one of the big things that helped him stand
out for me. But not only was the Texas journalist.
He wrote about the marpl Lights, which is one of
the things I really got to go see. But in

(01:05:42):
nineteen ninety five he won the Donald Keyhole Journalism Award
and he was the co founder of The Anomalist. Well,
I mean he was a big I mean, yeah, Dennis
Stacey was a big name.

Speaker 1 (01:05:52):
He was.

Speaker 2 (01:05:53):
He was like a Mufon di He was some high
high hitter in Mufon for a while. I remember, I
I don't know if I think it was in my
library in Australia which I which I lost. But he
wrote a fairly well regarded UFO book as well, which
was kind of a history from nineteen forty seven and
nineteen ninety seven, which he co wrote I think with

(01:06:14):
Hillary Evans, which was fifty years of Flying. So I
think UFO was ninety forty seven and ninety ninety seven,
fifty years of Flying sources. So when I was doing
my you know, my academic work, that was one of
the books which was which was everywhere at the time,
So yeah, he was. He was a significant contributor to
the UFO space. So yeah, it's we lost another another

(01:06:39):
important forty in there, that's for sure.

Speaker 3 (01:06:41):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:06:41):
Now on.

Speaker 3 (01:06:43):
The one question I wanted to this will just take
a second and then we can wrap it up however
you'd like. Since it is your show, though, you.

Speaker 2 (01:06:51):
Tell me what you want to address and we will
address it. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:06:54):
By the way, people, just so you know how bad
and how much control I have, I can do this.
Oh you fool, you fools, you poor, poor fools. But yeah,
no w u NMW Northwest Native tracker asked, how would
you match behavior to crypto type? So sort of going

(01:07:15):
the idea of the meta analysis that we're doing, you know,
the materials and the money that's finally out there is
allowing us to do stuff that we could do on
a more uh And I did mention behavior on a
meta on a meta analysis level, it's not so much
necessarily that we can we could say one hundred percent
this is bigfoot or this is whatever. But what we

(01:07:35):
can do is we can start seeing patterns, ecologies, We
can start associating better details, and that may actually allow
us to see behavior. When are we seeing them during
the day, Are we seeing them at night? Are we
seeing them in the mornings and evenings? Where where are
we seeing the activity? That kind of thing that will

(01:07:59):
allow us to extra act data about behavior, and we
can start seeing things that may be weird over here
and say, well, maybe this behavior over here because we're
not seeing it here here and here, this is an
anomalous behavior. It may indicate that we're looking at something else.
Not necessarily. Again, we've talked to forever. I think that

(01:08:22):
the problem, one of the things that's held us back
in particularly sasquatch research, is that we are throwing a
lot of different material in the box. So if there
is a you know, a physical, biological what I call
it naturally occurring biological entity or nob running around, that's great.
But if we're also calling a lot of stuff that

(01:08:42):
isn't right there is maybe more fortean to use Deans parlance,
then it's high. Then Essentially, what we've done is we've
muddied the waters so much that we can't see it.
But if we have the data, and we're just looking
at data, not necessarily names that we can start seeing
stuff that maybe doesn't fit other patterns, including behavior like

(01:09:03):
when is it, when are we seeing it, where is
it happening the environment that I think we could say, Okay,
this is different from all of this, and so that
will allow us to start asking I think better, more
piercing questions that actually allows us to come to conclusions
faster and get us down the road. I think we've
been unfortunately, we've sort of been tripping over ourselves because

(01:09:25):
we haven't really been doing things the right way, cataloging
things correctly. We've been caught up in our own paradigms
and being able to break that down and be more systematized.
And I know people says, see, you're bagging on research. No,
every science takes time to warm up and figure out
what it's doing. Right. Archaeology, were there people doing archaeology

(01:09:46):
before one hundred years ago? Absolutely, look at Heinrich Schleiman.
But people who are archaeologists hate Heinrich Schleman because of
the damage he did. But I'm like he was one
of the first people doing you know, while there were
archaeologists in the eighteen hundreds. It's really not until the
twenties and thirties that archaeology is really systematized in a

(01:10:09):
way that we can get much better, more productive data.
That's where we are, where we've done We've done this
research long enough that it's like, hey, we figure out
how to do it better, and it's coming into its own.
It's you know, we've had this teething process. Now we
can we can get what I would say this is
more productive data.

Speaker 2 (01:10:29):
So no, I see your point. I obviously completely disagree
because I think all this is unknowable inherently. That's my
my negative fourteen had going on. I will say that
we were talking about Spielberg before we were talking about
the ending of Close Encounters of the third kind, which
has to literalize the phenomenon, like Hollywood almost always has

(01:10:51):
to literalize the phenomenon because it's very difficult to tell
a story cinematically or at least it's discouraged where you
stay in the space of the fantastic. In other words,
before we know whether it's genuinely marvelous like angels or aliens,
or before we just find out it's a weird psychological condition.
I it's the uncanny, so very few films stay in

(01:11:14):
that fantastic space before we know what it is. I
did again watch two of my favorite movies in the holidays,
which I would encourage everybody to watch if they haven't
watched them or watched them again. And that, of course
is The Wonderful Mothman Prophecies, which I've heard some people
in the fourte in world complain because it's not an
exact adaptation of Kill's book. I do know John Keel

(01:11:35):
liked it because I met Keil and spent a little
bit of time with him. I know that he really
did enjoy the film and captures the spirit of the book,
if not the details, and it certainly captures Kiel's position
that this stuff is you're not going to ever get
to the bottom of it, and it's going to just
mess with you. And the other movie I watched only
for the second time the other night with my daughter
again and she really loved it. She loved it the
first time, and he watched over a year ago and

(01:11:55):
she loved it again. And that's Nandor Fodor and the
Talking Mongoose, which is about Jeff the Talking mongoos starring
Simon Pegg is the famous, the famous, the famous I
guess Psychic Investigator and and Or Photoor And it's an
incredible movie. It's so, it's a wonderful it's I think
I think it's free on Prime at the moment. Again, anyway,

(01:12:17):
it's Nandor Fodoor on the talking mongoause it's amazing because
again it's like, is it a hoax? Is there something
else happening? Like you're stuck in this space of You're
stuck in the space of the main protagonist, Nandor Fodor,
who's incredibly frustrated and trying to work this out. And
I think that's where every fourteen Investigator really is. Although
many think they're going to get the secret, I think

(01:12:39):
they're ultimately going to be like, you know, Nandor fod
Or at the end of that movie. Still I won't
don't want to spoil it, but you know, battling this uncertainty.

Speaker 3 (01:12:48):
So no, I will watch it this week and I hadn't.
I don't think I've heard of it.

Speaker 2 (01:12:52):
Oh, you're going to love it. It's so good.

Speaker 3 (01:12:55):
One of those weird again pull you off topic, but
on the topic of weird things you find on Amazon
everyonce a while I just read the name of it.
But it's about this artist. It's played by Benedict Kumberbach.
It's about it's this weird, weird, sort of biopic about

(01:13:15):
the dude who paints who painted cats in the eighteen hundreds.
It is just look at Benning kambra Buck and it's
an artist. The guy had schizophrenia that that got worse
as time went on. But the paintings are and it's
the story of him painting these paintings and his life
and it's beautifully tragic and it's one of those things

(01:13:38):
where it's weird, but it's a lot of fun is
the wrong word. I really appreciate it from an artistic
perspective as well, and sort of it's it's worth watching,
that's all I'll say.

Speaker 2 (01:13:51):
What was the title? Can you remember the title?

Speaker 3 (01:13:53):
Hold on, let me see if I can find it,
because it's he's painting like he's painting these these wild
painting of cats the entire time moment and.

Speaker 2 (01:14:05):
Flat Rockland offered it Touist, Thank you, Flat The Electrical
Life of Louis Wayne. Yes, that's it, thank you for Yeah, Lewis,
how do you pronounce that?

Speaker 3 (01:14:15):
I think it's Louis, Yeah, Louis, Uh, maybe it's Lewis
Wayne anyway, Yeah, the electrically, Yeah, put it up on there.
Go watch this, Go watch the Mongoose movie first. But yeah,
this one is a lot of like, it's a really
interesting film. The production quality is this. It feels almost
like a really weird nineties made for television movie, right.

(01:14:37):
All the actors in it are amazing, So you're like,
what is happening here? It's it's it's something that should
be observed and should be watched and appreciated for what
it is, and it's it's really cool.

Speaker 2 (01:14:46):
So it's amazing, it's amazing. Well, I'm sure wish you
the very best, and you're always in my prayers, Jason.
I hope you have an incredible twenty twenty six, and
I hope we get to see each other in person
and they're not too distant future. Of course, I'm not
going to let you be a stranger. You're talking, Wed.
Thank you so much for coming on. It's always so
much fun to chat to you.

Speaker 3 (01:15:06):
Always a pleasure, really appreciate it.

Speaker 2 (01:15:09):
Well, until I talk to you Jason again, hopefully very soon,
until I talk to everybody else out there, firstly, Happy
New Year, and secondly, please check me out again, same
weird time, same weird network, The Untold Radio Network next
Thursday night at nine pm Central. Keep it weird.