You.
Chilly effect is sponsored by Wallstreet, Window dot Com and listeners liking Yeah, I know, most aggravated noise media.
Believe it or not, it is a Wednesday. It is March eighteen, twenty twenty six, allegedly according to that thing we call a calendar. Funny thing is we're past the IDEs of March. And did anybody notice? Also, I think Saint Patrick's Day might have happened a couple of days ago. But again, you know, with the disconnected world, how do I know it's it's a legend. I don't know. I did see something about leprechauns. I think they recycled a clip online and went viral again, or maybe maybe it's
a new one. It's weird and it's funny, and I'm waiting for somebody to just start pulling out lucky charms boxes and get it over with for Saint Patrick's Day in America. Any who. That's not what we're here to talk about today, not at all, and not the eye March. And I wish I was talking about the assassination of Caesar, because I do find it fascinating, But that's not what
we're discussing. We're going to go way out there with Larry Hancock, who is the author of a great many things, a great many informative pieces on the behavior of the national security state of the United States as well as other foreign nations, and in a diverse library of stuff you can get. I recommend all of Larry's works, but today's focus, you might want to have the book called Unidentified.
I believe that's the main title. It's got a longer title, but Unidentified is a kind of a departure for Larry where indeed he's talking about UFOs.
But.
They don't call him that anymore. They're UAPs, etc. And Larry's active with people that are actually getting some oversight, getting some hearings, occasionally getting some headlines, but not his people. His people are involved in the more historical, scientific, statistical, that kind of stuff. And other people are out there telling you we have stolen alien technology that we reversed engineered, and I know so, and they'll probably kill me for it.
Congress headlines that all happens at the same time, But Larry's group does not do that. They look at the historical record as it stands, what is open to be known and what has become known, and in fact, they've tracked a great interesting pattern search throughout the behavior of what they call UAPs and other unexplained or semi explained phenomena that have occurred in real time in relatively recent history.
But then again, the declassifications and the disclosures continue anyhow, Larry, I don't even know where to begin, because we haven't talked about this in a while, but it is relevant and it's something again unidentified as that book you want to check out. It's kind of got a funky, sort of bluish green tinto it. If you notice that, that'll stand out among Larry's books when you go on Amazon or anything else, or you go to Larry's blog, which there will be a link to in the show notes.
At all times, where do we begin talking about, you know, not all the past. I don't want you to rehash it because if they don't know, they don't know. But what's going on currently or recently when it comes to the study of UAPs and the behaviors of our national security state, our military, et cetera. Regarding this, Where should we begin about you know, maybe new stuff that you're discovering or unpacking or bringing to light or working with other people to identify among the unidentified.
Well, I think there are a couple of threads that are going on. One is a constant news thread, I mean as constant as anything can be these days. It's like, okay, no, no news headline continues for more than two or three days unless it's a war, okay, and then that subsumes everything else. But in the last what in the last eight months, we have had congressional hearings on the JFK assassination, the more MLK assassination, on UFOs or as you said, UAPs, which is a new term term for it, which I
can comment on separately. Uh, we've it's even the thread of constant interruption of theme is even going down in Congress. You know, you have one congress person, Representative Luna, who is holding oversight committees on like five different mysteries. So what's up this week? You know what, what's today's topic of We don't know about it? Will you give us the documents that? That's kind of the world we're in.
So there's an ongoing drum beat. It's unusual if you go for more than two or three weeks without seeing a story on UAPs. I mean we're in a particularly it's not quite true at the moment, because when you go to war, you know, that tends to shove it off the page. But even within the last couple of weeks, I've seen news articles about unidentified anomalous phenomena, which is the new term for entified flying object UAP, and that that term comes out of a government office that was
actually mandated by a congressional inquiry. Uh, and it chose to use introduce this new term and go back to actually the term phenomena, which you know is a lot more general, a lot less structured, a lot less tangible than flying a object. Right, Yeah, So immediately by changing course and calling it a phenomena, you've diffused some concern about it. Yeah, it's a phenomena. It's not an object. So how much do I worry about phenomena?
Well that's the other qualifier, Yeah, Yeah, that's the other qualifier here, because recently, right, there was this leak which is from a few years back, where apparently some fighter jets were scrambled to intercept something that they couldn't describe as an object, but they fired missiles at it, and this thing took the missiles and I saw this piece of tape and don't know what to make of it except a spherical thing which might not be an object,
might be something else, a field of sorts. It seemed like seemed to grab hellfire missiles and just like, okay, I'll absorb that and take it with me, and then it zipped off of the observing camera. Did you see that footage? Because I was like, well, I got to say that I'm gonna stop arguing with the word phenomena because I don't even know if that was an object given what I'm looking at and given the reports of
the pilots allegedly. Right, So, I mean, you got a lot of things going on here, and indeed, yeah, it's difficult to compete with a war, the Epstein files, whatever the latest controversy is from Air Force one. Uh, you know, the news media shakeups, et cetera. I mean, it's it's almost a strange land we're in where UAPs or UFOs even are battling for some sort of pop in the headlines. But that is the current reality of twenty twenty six, right.
Yeah, yeah, there's there's there's nothing that's going to have any continuity to it. It pops up, it goes under the under the radar, as it were, comes back up, and and so it's it's difficult to really say where you are on those various instances. And and the other thing we're facing is the fact that we're face in our investigations. As you mentioned that film footage, we have no background on that film footage. It just appears on the internet. Okay, we don't know have an exact location,
We don't actually have reports from the pilots. We have descriptions. It's being investigated, it's not It looks really concrete when it shows up on Facebook or YouTube or something like that, but no more or less than something that shows up every week like that. And it's getting harder and harder to track the real from the artificial. We don't I
can't show you. Maybe we will see it. The group that's supposedly investigating those reports is likely going to be issuing a report for twenty twenty five sometime in the next six months, and we might actually be able to
say something about what you saw on the video. What's happening now is I think because of frustration, because of other motivations, this stuff is just being leaked out, you know, kind of like in the olden days, a story would show up in Life magazine or post or you know, newspaper headline, and you would see it before it was even really investigated. The same thing is still happening to us today. It's just showing up on YouTube or Facebook or Reddit or something like that, and we're in the
same place we were back then. It's kind of like, huh, you know, is that real? Is it not real? What do I have to go on to make that judgment? I don't have anything other than what I'm seeing. Right then I get to make the call and from the group that I work with, which is the Scientific Coalition to look into these subjects. That's almost meaningless to us because we don't have data. Do we take report? Sure? Would we analyze the film, you bet? We analyze the
video yet, but we've got to have the originals. We've got to have the metadata for that, because ninety percent of what we see showing up from everywhere is bogus.
Right.
You know, it was bad enough when people were just creating it with tools. Now they're using AIS and ais with tools, right, and we're it's just becoming a nightmare as far as reports are concerned.
Well, so that was the reason why I brought it up, because it's spectacular in its appearance, but at the same time, when it comes to actually studying the event, you don't have any of the data. Like you said, we don't know where the original is, We don't know, you know, what the pilots reported with their line of sight. We don't know any of that stuff except what we have a couple of descriptions, but those are not necessarily verified either until they are and it's going to take a
release right now. Like you said, it could be frustration that causes these leaks, and it could be that there are dozens of these events or hundreds of them, or maybe it's just the one. That's another thing we don't know, right, Is this a common occurrence at this point? And if it is, you know, are we worried? Because obviously, from the look of the video, our technology is not able
to compete with whatever is happening there. So let's just say it was another nation state that has developed a new weapon and they're just pinpricking us to see what we'll do. That's another story. If it's off world, yet another story, and we have no leads to give us any indication as to where it came from, what it actually is, or anything else.
And a simpler and even probably more likely explanation is it's a balloon, okay, and the hellfire missile is not going to do anything to it except pass by it very quickly. You know, we don't know why the pilots fired a really expensive missile when we were talking about millions of dollars. We don't know what system was used to track it, engage it. We don't know what happened to the missile. We just really don't know except from oh, the missile approached this thing, it didn't do anything to it.
Helf Our missiles are not decided designed to cope with balloons. But then again, I don't know what system was used in the missile to track it. Was it infrared, was it radar, home any what? I just I don't know.
But to get back to your basic point, something most people don't realize and probably needs to be restated for the general audience at this point in time, is that is that the the group, the organization responsible for collecting reports these days, and the only official organization responsible for collecting reports is a group called the All Domain Anomaly
Resolutions Office AAR. An AR was established by the Defense Department in response to an Act of Congress and response to congressional hearings, and AAR is a new, a relatively new, just a few years old group that was set up to take reports and do thorough investigations of them. However, at this point in time, that group is only taking reports from the military, only taking reports over military operations areas, and only taking reports that, you know, it's not at
all close to what Bluebook was doing historically. It's not all close to what civilian groups are doing. So we have no insight into total numbers, you know, and the total numbers at this point in time. There are civilian groups that take reports over the internet, you know, and do collect reports and publish numbers, and their numbers are orders of magnitudes higher than what we see coming from AAR. But of course the majority of their reports are just that,
they're just reports, they're not investigated, they're not confirmed. So we really don't have any idea at all of the numbers going, you know, even across the United States. So your point is well taken. We don't have an idea of the overall true, any vetted level of activity, any
vetted level of presence. What we're just coping with is the good news is that the Congress had passed the legislation, did create the office, and the office is going, you know, in a rigorous process of collecting what you might consider would be the best reports that are coming from you know, military pilots or military installations, a lot of them with tracking data, instrumental data. This is this is the good stuff.
This is better than you know, me walking out across my front yard and seeing an ORB and getting on the internet and logging it in. So you know that they're they're probably getting the highest quality reports available, and they are. They are reporting on them like Bluebook did. Uh. Unfortunately, they're reporting on them in somewhat of a summary fashion. We're not seeing we're seeing a few sample reports in
some detail, but we're not seeing all of them. And then when we see them, we don't see all the data that was used in their analysis. And so there are a few instances where our group, our SEU group has looked at their analysis and said, you know, we looked at this, We had scientists look at it, and we came to a different conclusion. Let's talk. You know, did you guys consider this, did you guys consider that?
And so that process is a good thing, but it gets back to your overall question, which the question being how are UAPs or UFOs really being treated? And the answer is they're treated in a better fashion than they were between nineteen seventy and you know, twenty twenty, but not in a comparable fashion in term of scope of collection, you know, scope of investigation. You're dealing with dozens of reports, not thousands of reports.
Right, so look, in a limited way, data is being collected properly, but you know, a lot more could be done. You know, how seriously is this being taken? I mean, is it just the public kind of outcry? Because in a way, some of the sensational, less reliable stuff has a purpose in that I think it provokes some actions
right by the Congress, et cetera. Because if people weren't asking about this, I don't think they'd even you know, bother with the hearings, because as you said, they've been busy with a lot of historical issues, let's call them, you know, and of course with the recent idea that maybe we're going to have a problem with Cuba again.
I mean, that could be another thing that's got to go before the Oversight Committee, like, hey, let's revisit what's already happened in Cuba before we go, you know, before we going Iran on it, because I mean, that's another mess and you and I are going to have to talk about that in the near future again, I think.
But sadly, I mean, you got to say that some of the more outlandish or extraordinary let's be generous, extraordinary you know, leaks and things may have served a purpose in that it moved the needle so that you know, Congress had to react, so therefore something serious had to be done. So therefore at least an organization to collect this data, which previously for many years did not exist
at all, was at least in stated was created. Would you argue that that, I mean, I know you're not thrilled with a lot of the stuff that's come out because it's not very useful historically, etc. But in a way, strategically, one could say, if you wanted to provoke action from the US government to put some resources into collecting these things, if you wanted to provoke a Larry Hancock and his group of people that are studying this from an academic
point of view. I mean, this kind of thing does help I think in that way, would you would you say that's true or.
No, it's certainly helpful. But I think I have to backtrack in one aspect it really was is this is quite different than the first UFO investigations back in the fifties and sixties were triggered because the Defense Department, the Air Force seriously thought what they were seeing might be is a threat, you know, Soviet threat in particular right now, the congressional hearings, I would say the only reason that this came forward out of the Congressional hearings was they
took testimony from a number of pilots, primarily Navy pilots, who responded to this and were putting it forth as a matter of air safety that these objects were actually a potential threat to Navy air operations, training operations. They could be an equal threat to commercial air you know,
whatever they are. They're not equipped with transponders, they don't file flight paths, and we have such intense amounts of air activity going on that you know, their view actually one of the first and of these current contemporary encounters actually from a decade ago now came out because the Navy group involved was deployed in a staging area to prepare the task force for deployment overseas, and they're going about their normal business and they got to see these
highly capable objects descending from extreme altitude at extreme deccelerations into their practice area where they would be coming through aircraft that were going out in practicing combat and various exercises. And the order to engage them was given not because there were a military type threat, but because they were a threat to air safety, and that is carried on that. Uh, the Navy pilots were in both the Pacific and the Atlantic became very concerned that these objects were appearing in
staging deployment. Uh, you know, sanctioned test areas where you're not you know, the commercial and private aircraft are not supposed to be there at all, and these things were there routinely, and you know, they're seeing them and it's not like somebody's going to run into one of these things.
We're going to lose people, and and that's really Congress responded more to the air safety issue because drones obviously come into that too, where you know, we've had lots and lots of incidents of near collisions uh drones being involved, and so the answer question the point is we're approaching it, and I think they're approaching it as much as an
air safety issue. One of the people test giving presentation or upcoming conference has been with the government, been with the Defense Department, and very much engaged with it from an air safety issue. So the government's not really approaching it as a threat. If I look at the tasking for the National Intelligence Community, it's not on there. It's not being treated at those levels as a as something to be investigated and analyzed as a potential threat from
an adversary. As a military it's just it's not task I mean. And you can understand right now if you look at the laundry list of what the military is supposed to be worried about, you know, including how quickly they're going to run out of munitions period, you probably wouldn't put that very high on the list. They've got a lot of concerns. So this is does not make
the short list for military consideration. It has made a list for air safety concerns, which kind of takes us into what I just said, And that's why AARO is really primarily concerned about what's going on with these unidentified objects over insecure military flight zones, over restricted training areas, over basis, you know, where there's not supposed to be anything without a file flight plan or identifying itself.
Well, right now, that leads to the bigger question that there seemed to be a pattern that was assumed by a lot of people where look, they whatever this is, you know, whatever the phenomena is, there seemed to be a focus or a special interest, say in the weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons, nuclear facilities, things like that, Like they wanted to get a look at the most
destructive weapons. It seemed like if you were trying to ascribe a mindset to these phenomena, and that again, you know that now there's a military issue, So it must not be that there's a particular focus there if the intelligence committee a community is not activated about it, if the military is not you know, trying to seek a
defensive posture. I mean, really, it could just come down to an air traffic issue where indeed we have a complex system where you know, planes are meant not to run into each other and helicopters and stuff, and it's done through a varying set of means and a fairly sophisticated group of systems, with the military and the civilian involved.
And you have to consider if you have something you can't communicate with, you can't direct at all, all that becomes a problem if it's up in the sky, regardless of who put it up there, and that could be drones or you know, these mini vehicles, or civilian air traffic because you know somebody's taking up the hobby of
trying to fly assessment for some reason. All these things come into play, and you don't want them banging into stuff that we can't communicate with, no matter how well it moves or whatever, or what it is or where it came from. I mean, that's what it comes down to. So all right, let's get into progress though, because you did mention that there's an upcoming conference.
Cut I get. I need to get a cavy out on that check. You bring up a good point. All I'm seeing are those things having to do with their safety. I have no idea what's being reported from our missile bases, our strategic bomber bases, are nuclear sub bases, that's not even in the equation that doesn't go into this system. All of that would be considered security. You know, I don't know that there's anything going on there. I don't
know that there's not anything going on there. It's it's not going into the system in a fashion that I can see it. We know historically that even back in the seventies, there were things that were being reported in regard to the missile basis that nobody was seen. They stay strictly compartmentalized under National Security Seal with no red the North Defense Command. So just to comment on your point is, I don't know that there's not a strategic element going on. All I know is that it's not
been tasked to anybody. That's been announced. You know, it's not on the national intelligence community testing. Is the Air Force looking into it? Is Space Command looking into it? We absolutely know Space Command sees and tracks things that
it can't explain. But all of that is done, and people understand it's not that that isn't done when it happens, and it is reported within this system within operational reports or situational reports or threat reports, and if nothing happens, you know, if nothing gets blown away, nothing gets the story whatever, and it goes away. Then it just is flushed out of the system after a certain period of time. There does not be seen to be a connection between
that and what AAR is doing. We don't know that they are collecting those We've not seen any reports from those sorts of sources analyzed, you know, So I just it's important to realize what the limitations of the data is. What we know is AR is looking at exactly what you do just described. Are they looking at the other part, the strategic threat part? We don't know. And since I don't have and they're not publishing a total list of their incident reports or where they're coming from, I just
can't tell. We've asked them for that. But obviously the response is they operate under They don't report to a civilian agency. They do public reports to Congress, but they work for the Department of Defense, so what they actually do is controlled by the DoD and obviously all of the security restrictions are in play. So just just just a caveat to what we know and what we don't know.
No, I got you. So what you're warning me is that, as per usual, every government agency has a public face and then a you know, a behind the wall sort of a situation that could or could not be occurring concurrently with the public facing part of it, and we won't know about that until many years later when things
are declassified. I mean, that's just the way everything works, whether it's the FBI or it's the Department of Homeland Security or anything else, you know, like in other words, the whole idea of you know what, you haven't seen any terrorist threats, so maybe everything's okay, But then again, maybe it's just been kept quiet, that it's been neutralized and you don't know, And that's something that needs to be kept in mind with all things, not just UAPs,
but I mean, everything, right, there's always.
And we know that. We know that historically. We can look back and say, there were periods of time, you know, during the forties, fifty sixty seventies where the Air Force, or the FBI or the CIA were absolutely concerned that there was a national security threat, okay, right, but that never showed up in a press release, that never showed
up in a statement. We can find it now, you know, in their internal communications, and maybe fifty years from now, somebody will find it in today's contemporary But historically that is absolutely correct. What is said from the public facing side is never the full story of how concerned about anybody is about anything. Give another example that maybe people
will relate to. We know that prior to nine to eleven that the CIA was concerned enough about a terrorist attack on US soil to send agents to the President and personally brief him on that threat, which he rejected, you know, and nobody said anything about that until it was revealed by the investigation after. You know, if you don't have congressional investigations after the back, you'll never know
because it's not going to happen. But that's a recent occurrence where there absolutely was extremely high level about a strategic threat which was totally concealed.
Right and even then with all of the eyes on it. I mean, it took like almost a decade to even hear about the fact that drills were being run, you know, or being confirmed. Anyway, we had heard rumors of it, and then we have confirmation on different drills. And you don't run drills without the idea that it might be something that will happen. I mean, that's why they do it.
So you know that that intelligence had already made its way through the community through the different channels, and whether the President rejected it or not, the military and the intelligence communities might be drilling on it in real time and not telling people obviously that they're doing that. You know, Oh, this is just part of normal maneuvers and so on
and so forth. And then yeah, like you said, years later, without a congressional investigation where they pry things loose, why bother it doesn't come out because you didn't know it, then you don't need to know it now. I mean, that's just pretty much.
But it's embarrassing. Yeah, you really, you know what political party is kind of want to bring that is? Who's going to volunteer that information?
Huh?
I don't think you buddy, right.
Right, Like nobody was thrilled when the President's Daily brief I literally said, bin Laden, you know, planning to strike within America. And the next thing you know is, hey, because it makes you look stupid, why didn't you pay attention to the warning? Well, you know, and then the argument becomes, listen, if I pay attention to every single warning, we would do nothing. But you know, panic and prepare and drill, and you know, so I get it, But at the same time, yeah, nobody wants to look like
they drop the balls. What it comes down to, even historically later, even when people are all dead, they don't want to, you know, And that's part of the struggle we're still looking at with the JFK assassination. But let's not go there right now because that's not the topic. Although some people do bring up stuff regarding JFK and
you know, UAPs UFOs, et cetera. And I always laugh because it's like, you know, I start picturing the strings on the wall to tie things together, you know, typical conspiracy theorist meme on it, and it just drives me a little nuts where it's like, look, Kennedy in three short years was trying to deal with a bunch of things, and you know, maybe he didn't do so good with some of them, but he did very well with others. And what are you gonna do? He had three years
to work with less whatever. Anyway, So back to this, though, what do we know about what's going on? And also maybe you could tell us a little about the conference before I let you go, because I don't want to keep you more than an hour on this. But I would like to give people a briefing sort of what's happening, what they could observe in the near future, what has already been done, what you're working on all that. So, you know, if you could give us an idea, I'd be really appreciative.
Yeah. I think the real answer is we discussed the fact that ar AAR was established and it's doing a job and it's preparing reportion. I think I send you some links. One of the links was to its twenty twenty four report. If you publish that, everybody can get a good feel for the work that they're doing. Okay, but because of the limitations that they themselves have from
a security standpoint, can't share a lot of data. You know, we we're at the point where literally if you start sharing censored data, then you tell the other guy exactly what you can detect and what you can't detect, and then they can hide from you. So we're not going to see that. So the scientific groups, the you know, you've always got sets of people that want to look for it for the more sensational, the more dramatic, and that's going on, and that's why you will find something
on UFOs on YouTube every day. But the more structured groups are doing their own work. They're doing studies of you know, particular incidents, new incidents where we have collected data, you know, independently going back to some old One of the things that's going on these days, I would say a big thing within the scientific community is looking at what you would call signature analysis, uh, looking at technical signatures.
You know what, when we have an image that we can source that is credible that we can get the metadata on, what does that tell us about emissions from that object at a whole range of different spectral frequencies, and and how anomalous is that? You know, certainly you can quickly write off lots of incidents and say no
that you know, that's that wasn't aircraft, that was a drone. Okay, because when we know what those signatures look like, everybody's everybody's probably seen a movie like you know, Red October where the sonar technician is there sitting looking at the sono display of a Soviet submarine engine and going, okay, that's the I know what frequencies. I know what that is. In fact, I've got a little map here that tells me it's a particular type of submarine you can do
that work. And so that's one area of work that is going on. It's called techno signatures analysis, and you get some physicists in and it becomes interesting. It's like, what sort of system would exhibit gamma rays? You know, do we fly anything that emits gamba rays?
No?
Okay, that's interesting. So there's a work that's going on on the techno signature side. There's also work that's going on which my team is involved in, is the behavioral signature side. Are there patterns of activity, are their patterns of presence over time? Are there things going on that let you, you know, evaluate different types of missions that you might map to that different types of So there is a lot being done with technical signatures and behavioral signatures.
You know, the physicist on one side of the aisle and the behavioral scientist on the other side of the aisle. So that is real professional grade academic work that is going on within the civilian community, and we published reports on that. We've my groups published four papers on that and coming out with a fifth paper on UFO presence over the period of our study sample over three decades plus.
So that work is going on, and you can find those papers at the SEU side, and you can find papers being presented in conferences, and more and more of those papers are actually making it into more mainstream scientific journals, which it makes sense because if these even are phenomena, you get to study them like phenomena in a scientific fashion. So that work is going on, and I think that that kind of balances the story of what AAR is
doing versus what we're doing. And then occasionally we'll get together and we'll look at one of their cases, they'll look at our study of the same case, and then you start to kind of peer review each other. If did you guys forget something? Did you forget something that's very that's very important from a you know, a really
scientific standpoint. But I think from the terms, what you'll see at our conference which is upcoming in two or three months, and I posted gave you a link for that, is you'll see a lot of people talking about those types of studies. You'll see some of our leading spe speakers talking about what's what's going on with AA. Some of them have been involved with it and they're out of it now so they can talk to us, so they'll give you a good, much better government level insight
than I would be able to give. That's one of the things. That's why we have an annual conference. But the other thing that's going on that hardly discussed here at all is this is something that is global. There are UFO UAP reports from around the world. So one of the things is to reach out and say, you know, what are other nations. Are there groups and other nations
studying this or their scientific groups. Turns out that there are very active groups in Europe, very professional, very scientific groups in France, Italy, Spain, other areas over there that are looking at what's going on in their own environments. They are also talking about how would it be possible to study this on a global base, because that hardly ever makes the headlines. You know, drones over New Jersey make the headlines, Drones over Colorado and Montana make the headlines. Nothing.
We don't have global news coverage in the US has devolved into pretty much where we're performing a military operation and if you give the time, you don't see the global news the way you used to, other than what we're doing in to somebody not at all or not doing So that's another important part of the dialogue and the conversation because whether you call them UFOs or UAPs, it really is a global question. Is is something going on particular to the US? Is something going on particular
to Europe. One fascinating thing that occurred during the seventies and eighties is that you had a new type of
UFO come into play. These are very large black train or shaped objects that were reported in the US, and then you had within a year or so, you had this exactly the same sort of objects being reported not just by people like someone who had read and used coverage from the US, but by police in Belgium, by F sixteen interceptor crews in Belgium tracking these things with instrumented you know, video and cameras, that sort of thing. You know, what does that say for what's going on
with the UFOs globally? Certainly it tells you if you know something new was introduced, it wasn't just introduced into the US. So there's this global part of the overall equation that we that my group tries to get involved with and network to take a look at. But that's another part of our conference because we have several global speakers and this year. We will actually be holding our conference in Canada, and Canada has an extremely active governmental
UFO investigation and inquiry going on and has had. They were early into the game back in the fifties. And I will say another thing that's going on that's new is a couple of the states are actually beginning to take this because of so much activity over certain types of military installations, let's say New Jersey, Arizona, it begins to become a safety and security issue even at a local level, and the states are getting involved in doing
their own investigations. I mean, when you have incidents in Arizona of police helicopters going after drones and not being able to catch them when the drones fly away at them several hundred miles faster than they are, you know, is this is this a bad actor operating the drones? What could what else could they do with that drone?
You know? So it's it's also going from from the global level down to the inn you know, the local level, state and local government taking an interest in them, perhaps as much as the national government.
Yeah, well, there you have it. I mean, it's just amazing what you know could be covered if there was global cooperation over all this and what could be discovered if we were able to, you know, again work together. But it's always a problem, right because the politics because of who pays for what? Uh, you know. So, I mean there's all these issues that come up when you try to create sort of an international coalition with a
particular focus. But it would help us a lot if we knew for certain that certain things were occurring over you know, completely disconnected places. Is there a pattern that can be discerned from it, and so on and so forth. Which, by the way, there's going to be a link to the conference that Larry talked about in the show notes. Let's see really quickly explore SCU dot org is the is the one link that definitely I want you to
pay attention to. But also, as Larry said, the aa r O Report and the aa r O dot mill website as well are all in play, and we'll all be listed in the show notes for tonight, so you can follow up for yourself and see what it is has been reported, captured and shared, you know, by the governmental agencies, and also catch up on what Larry's group is doing, because I'm sure they're already talking about the conference. It's coming up pretty soon, isn't it.
It is, Yes, it is. Registration is open as we speak in it's an in person and virtual conference. So actually I think virtual registration's only seventy five dollars, which is probably one of the least of conferences you can go to on visually anything, right, I would something I neglected to say that that we'll be discussed in the conference,
and it's being discussed across the community. I talked about techno signatures and people might be interested in the fact that to really do a good technical signature, you've got to have a lot of instrumentation. You've got to have, you know, a lot of spectral cameras, magneto detectors, all
parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, and it's fascinating. Obviously, the government has the ability to do that, and AAR always announced that they're even developing, you know, specially sensor packages that they could put it a military base or somewhere else. Of course, they're not really sharing the specs for that with us as far as I know, so in our field people have to do that by themselves, and I saw some collected by a pair of guys that built
their own like van bigger than a van. The investment and equipment that they put into that technical Collection Collections vehicle is over quarter million dollars wow of hardware. Just to kind of give you. If the government's not going to do it, and you want to step and play in this in a real professional fashion, you need to have a foundation, a grant, or a very rich uncle.
Right if you're not a you know, if you're not a self made man. Kind of kind of looks interesting. I mean, have there been appeals to people like and this is just a weird, wide open question. I don't even know if you'd know the answer, But I mean, have there been appeals to like the Elon Musks out there to say, listen, you know, we could use a grant and our information could be highly useful to you
and some of your projects, et cetera. And perhaps you could make an investment in the data that you'll need later. I or if that is you know, on the table here, I throw out Musk because he's got that you know, SpaceX rocket thing and uh, you know, in his whole grandiose idea to maybe one day bring people to Mars and all this, you know, does it make sense that, you know, so I can.
Confirm that there have been outreach to what in the the business are known as angels, right, you know, this is just somebody that shows up and they have money and they're so interested in this. And we've seen that in the JFK assassination work. Mary Mary Farrell Foundation was created by an angel who had made a lot of money and decided he was really interested in the subject and he was that's where he put his money. So
that absolutely has gone on in the UFO field. Nobody's going to talk about it because obviously everybody wants those people, right, We're not going to share information on who's who has money and who is in interested. But absolutely that is something that goes on because you're either going to have to find that where you're going to find have to find a university that is in a position to go a let you go after grants, and you have to
be an academic. But yeah, all of those avenues are being explored because especially if you want to play on that the techno signature side, you're you're going to need big money. And that's when I talk about that van. The reason they put in the van obviously is be so they can move it around. You know, you can't if you invested quarter million dollars in one observation station, you know, what are my odds? You know, how often is something going to come by?
Uh?
That's that's the other trick is that I can invest the money in the in the equipment and if I don't have a good idea for where to put it, and as you can imagine, there has to be a lot of testing. You know, first you go out and say, you know, can this detect and identify an aircraft? Can this detect? And yeah, like okay, Once I get past
that stage, then we'll worry about the UFOs. But it's it's a fascinating business for any anyone listening that has kind of a has technical interest, because how you would do that is is is very challenging. Me. I'm happy to be over on the you know, behavioral signature standpoint because that's it's less expensive.
Right, Okay, Well, look, I just thought it was a fair question to throw in there. Is there anything else that we need to know about this currently? Outside of the fact that the conference is upcoming. Work is still ongoing, It has not ceased, and who knows, maybe you'll even get another hearing in front of the committee before you know, the election. I don't know, but before the election, or at least before people change offices, and then who knows if it'll be this you know, yeah, I got.
We might.
But one of the things actually, and here's where it breaks down. The legislation that Congress passed is very good in one aspect. It allowed the creation of you know, tasking the Defense Department and creating ar but it also included a legislation that protects the so called whistleblowers if you think you've seen something that represents alien technology or alien bodies. This legislation absolutely guarantees you you can go
to talk with a ar O and you're protected. You know, there's there even if you're a government employee, if you're
within the system. So that was established. What wasn't established And the big thing that's still on the plate that there are Congress people pushing for is there they're advocating for a congressional level investigation, you know, not just collecting data, not just collecting data and evaluating reports, but going to take a look at it as we would as we did with the House Select Committee on assassinations right to really look at the whole subject from an investigative, you know,
with subpoena power, with legal powers. That's still in front of Congress, and well, someone will bring it in front of Congress every session. And so that's something that is still on the plate. I think it does. It's not that it doesn't have enough support, but everybody is so diverted into other areas. I mean, if you can't pass a spending resolution and you know there's so little compromise going on that that's the last you know, down at the bottom of the list. But that's something that's still
on the table that could really open this up. But that's probably the biggest next step that could be done when you ask, you know what more could happen? More hearings. Quite frankly, we all already we've already heard from the people. We've heard from, you know, we've heard from the whistleblowers, and now they have to go do their thing, you know, and when they do their thing, quite frankly, they're going
to do it in a skiff. You know, it's going to be compartment as they and AARO is going to investigate it behind the scenes, and you know, maybe they will if they reach a conclusion, they'll put it in a report, but that's got to happen on its own. But those those bases are covered to extent. But what we don't have and it's kind of like people people misunderstand the House Oversight Committee, Luna's committee. I mean it has the authority to go look for documents and chuck
when we talk about JFK MLKA. We can tell congress Person Luna about specific documents and things to go get and that's that's working relatively well, except you know, she's going to see I A and they're saying, oh, yeah, we had that document, but it's gone okay, fine with with UFOs, that's a good deal. Harder that is, you know, that's what happens, is anything that's sitting there that could be released as at the National Archives, but you know
somebody would have to go on an expedition. Well because for the UFO stuff.
I was just going to say, that's only because we have the advantage in the JFK community. We know what's missing in a lot of cases from files. Over time, we've discovered what is missing, what should be there that isn't And you know.
We had three investigations. We had the Warrant Commission, we had the Church Committee, we had you know, we had another Congressional committee, We had the HSCA, we had the ARB. So we have a wealth of leads on a where to look. We have nothing like that in regard to UFOs since nineteen seventy.
Well, right, because the documents themselves have not been revealed as much to even give us an idea of what's being you know, like in other words, if you don't know that you have a document with redactions on it, you can't figure out what the redactions might even be because you've never seen it. I mean, this kind of thing,
this is where we're at. It's way behind a lot of these other controversial things in history, right, you know, in England it's a control oversy, but here it's a controversy and we don't have the leads because just simply those documents have not been given to us, even in a half shredded form like they used to be with JFK, where we get a whole blacked out in blank pages and we go, okay, now what would go in there?
We haven't had that opportunity here, so you know, it's it's the reverse engineering you can't do without you know, some of the original engineering, right.
Well, and that's that's why we went to the trouble. And I will say, you know, I and my team do have a book coming out in October. It's called UFO Intentions be published by Skyhorse Nice and we went to the trouble of putting a chapter in that book to tell a ar O and anybody else who's capable of doing for you where to go to look for this stuff, because we know where you'd have to go look.
We know what military command, we know what kind of reports, but somebody would have to fall back to the kind of grunt work we were doing, uh you know forty years ago that Mary Ferrell was doing on the JFK assass Nation request.
I like to tell you, oh god, yeah.
I can tell you to go to the you know, to No Red and ask for uh National Command authority reports generated during this period of time by this by this command right by sack. Okay good and people have done good work with that, so it's possible to do it. But it's like a new era of grunt work on UFOs starting like in about nineteen fifty five seventy five to current. So anybody wants to do that, you get it's it's possible. But that's that's where we are with UFOs.
We're nowhere comparable in terms of historical data recovery to where we are in the assassination.
So for the grand research projects, you have fifty years of grunt work to cover, possibly and likely.
So we need a thirty year old that will call me up and I'll tell you where to go. We need somebody, We need another generation.
Right, and then by the time that thirty year old is my age, guess what, they'll actually have some documents, you know, in full, and be able to put them in order and say this is what happened. I know it sounds like I'm being facetious and making jokes, but i am because this is literally what has to happen,
step by step. This is the thing. I think a lot of people that have gotten accustomed to the you know, the the immediate gratification, the instant gratification of the Internet has spoiled a lot of people and they think they're doing research by googling something. No, the reason why that data exists is because people sat there and went through
tons of useless, pointless, counterproductive, blank pages, duplicate things. My favorite always to bring up is newspaper articles that were in somebody's stupid workfolder that were classified and you finally get them, and you got three copies of the same badly cut out news clipping, you know, in this workfolder, and it's just the amazing mountains of paper that we used to have to go through. I mean, we definitely
destroyed some pars getting it done. And that data is now in your ais, it's now in your Google searches, it's now been scanned, it's now you know. The whole thing with that Angel Investor was hilarious because Mary Farrell's
still alive. She needed help with her medical bills, and that Angel Investor covered that and also covered the initial costs of I'm willing to pay somebody to literally scan this like small house, and I'm pretty sure Mary had the small house full of papers, and it was like, yeah, good and scan those so people can see him on
the internet. And that has become the Mary Faraoll Foundations, you know, or at least the foundation of the Mary Paraoll Foundations, you know, document Archive, which is currently as far as I know, more extensive than what the US government has online in the same vein. I'm not sure if that's exactly correct still, but it has been for many years, right.
Yeah, I think we pretty much have everything they have, plus some other things. And of course, one like with the recent releases Rex Rex has gotten the release the releases that are coming out of the you know, Luna Committee to come out of the They this year's releases, last year's. He has them online usually within three weeks, which is amazing.
Right, And Rex has been doing this for what decades now, you know, just trying to keep and he's not done. I mean, it's just continuous. But nonetheless, people are spoiled by the fact that that's there, is all I'm saying. They're spoiled by that, because otherwise to have that, you would have had to have it in your house and at least a full room of your house dedicated to you know, your your fileboxes to even have a chance
to find this stuff. And you know, you see Larry's laughing because I know he's got a garage somewhere or he had a garage.
Absolutely, it sounds all too familiar to what's in the right garage.
Yes, there you go. See I told you, and I have never been to Larry's house for the record, I just know that it's either a garage, an attic or a basement depending on where you live, that is full of this stuff. If you were there doing this, because you just do, you hang on to it. And probably that's not even the that that he didn't keep everything. Larry didn't keep everything, and still he's got a garage. Fust Am, I am I telling a lie? Larry helped me.
No, that's exactly right. You just and one of these days I am going to start taking it, you know, taking it to recycling. But it's just after you've put you know, you put thirty years into collecting it, and even though you suspect some of it's on Mary Ferrell, it's hard to part with it. I'm like, Okay, this is my life's work and I'm going to take it to recycling. Uh darn, let's wait another month.
Well, look, I'm not looking forward to this day, but I know a university should come by and pick up your archive is what should happen. Uh, But I don't know if one will. Uh, but I'd like to see it, and you know, you'd be one of the few archives I'm aware of different archives of different researchers, different authors in different universities, and tell you the truth, I have
not physically visited any of them. But if I'm still around and there's a Larry Hancock archive, I'm gonna go because I want to go through all this stuff and you know, and see a lot of what it is that you thought was worthy to hang on to, even because that'll tell me a great deal. Anyway. I know Larry has told you guys a great deal during this hour, and I think we might have gone slightly over an hour. As per usual, I always keep people longer than I
plan to, but it's not my attention, Larry. You know that I'm trying to get you through in an hour. But is there anything else that we need to know before we go? Or do you feel like we covered this pretty well?
I think that pretty well covers what's going on now, and you know it will pop up again. Like I say, for those that are really interested, be looking for the AAR report there. I think they're supposed to be coming out with a twenty twenty five report within probably within six months, and that'll be very interesting. So that's something to look forward to. And so I say, we turned the manuscript on the book over to the publisher to day, and it should be it should be out in October. We'll see well.
And as with all Larry's books, I'm always happy to announce them promote them when they are available to you. Which does bring me to just a quick, totally off topic question, what about the Oswald Puzzle? Update? Is that out?
Now?
What's going on.
The OSW the Oswald Puzzle. Two things will happen to it. The update, which is basically two more chapters, yes, will be added to the paperback version, which will come out I think April eleventh or something like that. It's it's on Amazon now for pre order. And after that Chips within oh I think within a month. Skyhorse plan is to move those new chapters and add them to the
kindle version as well. Okay, so to go on to the e book So that way the paperback version and the e book version would both have those new chapters. So that by me into April, that's that's done. Deal, they've had that, So that's we're through that part.
Excellent. So my birthday's April seven, so right after my birthday, you should see the updated Oswald Puzzle begin to come out, either in paperback form or whatever other form, and then a little later it'll be added to the kindle. So by the time say May comes around, you definitely have to have your copy of the updated version in order to get the two new chapters, no matter what format it is.
Yeah, go ahead and you'll and you'll see our opinion, David, in my opinion on how Lee Oswell was of operational use to both the CIA and the conspiracy and where that overlapped.
And the funny thing is, you know, it's weird because some people are not thrilled with some of the things that you and your co author have written there because it contradicts a lot of their longstanding you know, challenge
me works out there. But the truth is, it confirms the suspicions I've always had about a bunch of things and even just what I know, the little bit I know about from you know, the further developments in New Orleans and actually taking a whole lot of stuff from the past that has been speculated about, and then Larry explores it along with his co author there you know whose name I always pronounced wrong, helped me out.
With that, David Boilin.
Yeah. See, now I always I'm Boiland. You know, I'd like I put the wrong accent on his name all the time, Boilin, David Boylin. Okay, there we go, and I'll forget that five seconds later, so you know, because I'm a guppy right now. But but the thing is, it's it is so well done. I tell you, I'm
totally thrilled. This is the best book that you've written on the assassination, in my opinion, and it is a perfect companion with it, especially with David, which you know, no offense to any of the previous works you've done with others or on your own. But the point is, I think that this is a really excellent piece. It's a it's a deep examination of what we know now about Oswald, you know, not what we assumed in the seventies and eighties that people are still parroting and watching
on YouTube. And by the way, I found it funny that people were like, oh my god, YouTube channels have misinformation about JFK stuff. I went, come on, have I not been telling you this? Yeah?
You know, I think we knew.
That, you know me, the illiterate just with a hat. You know, I'm not illiterate, but I mean I have a high school graduation. I graduate. I have a high school graduation. Nice, I have a high school diploma. That's it. Okay, So I'm not an academic at all. And I've been telling you this, you know, for over a decade. No, the YouTube channels, there's all kinds of mess on there that's meant to mislead you, and it sounds interesting, but it's garbage. And now there's AI channels on there, literally
Larry where it's an AI voice. Somebody fed a script into it, and you can tell the scriptwriter is very very casually informed on the assassination and it's meant to sound very serious, like a Bill Curtis documentary, which, by the way, I think they AI hijacked Bill Curtis's voice. I don't know if you know that.
Oh they're doing that. We ran into that. Actually, one of our papers got cited in an academic AI production on YouTube and we saw it and we read it and we get well, that wasn't us, and somebody had just let has created Iiyes, they just let them loose on a subject, right, and they'll go out and write it and produce it and and it's just it's horrible. It's oh, well, anyway, I guess it's not as bad as because it could be, because it's not actual fraud. But yeah, it's and it sounds like a very real
literate person talking to you. And you go, right, gosh, who put that together? And you start researching the origin and you go, oh, there was no person and they're really behind this. It's an AI thing.
There's no attribution, right, I mean, you know, it was bad in the days when you know, the person who was articulating words on a screen had no idea what they were saying. That was one thing. And they just read the script and they were good at reading a script, so that's why they had that job. That was one thing.
But now when you're letting a you know, a computer program that's not super well informed or doesn't have a lot of good guardrails against making mistakes, you let that thing loose, do the voice and the writing, and you put it out there and go, well, I'll just collect my you know, ad revenue from it. You're not doing anybody any favors. I mean, you're really not. But you know, people are being fooled by it, like, oh, there's this guy on YouTube and I go to look at it
and it's not a guy. It's an AI voice. And as a matter of fact, it's one of the most overused AI voices possible. And the thing is mixing things up, you know, literally doing like that Lauren Bobert move of you know, accusing Oliver Stone of basically be and Rogerstone. You see that stuff in these AI videos. It's like, you know, they'll convolute things because last name is Stone.
That works. No, it's not the same guy, you know anyway, And and really it gets money when they start going into these uh you know, the the uh what should we say Latino names and they start mixing those up in the discussion, it becomes really comical because they've got people mixed up with all kinds of things, you know, like they don't even have the right Castro running the country at the time when JFK was assassinated, I mean
stuff like that. It's hilarious. You know, Raoul Castro, he wasn't running the country then, you know, like.
Of course it's only it's only funny when you know it's not true for everybody that doesn't know it's not you know, it's like, okay, that was hilarious. Now how many people watched it and have no clue that it was not right?
And they're going to repeat it. That's the bad part. They're going to come out and go, well, I know Raoul Castrow had something to do with because he was running Cube at the time, and it's like, ah, slow down, I know which AI you were watching. Anyway, Larry, we are not AI. So I'm glad that we get to do this and I really thank you for taking the time. So again, there'll be links to the you know, to the conference. There'll be links to the stuff that Larry
mentioned here. Let's see, let's be specific about it. You know, the aa r O top Mill website is there. The explore sc you dot org website will be there in the show notes and a few other things, along with some links to Larry's work and his blog, et cetera, his WordPress dot com Larryhancock dot WordPress dot com. Check that out. And I always like to include the aa r C library dot org Larryhancock archive as well. So I'll give you all those links in the show notes
if you go to check them out. And click on them. And that's all there is for this Wednesday. Larry, Unlissa, you got something else?
Now, I'm good.
There you go. So we thank Larryhncock for coming by and keeping us soberly looking at methodologies as well as the history because his storiography history.
Are in Denial Secret Wars with air strikes and Tanks by Larry Hancock. Secret wars became a staple of US covert operations and are still happening today. Larry Hancock's book In Denial rips the cover off many of them, using new files.
It exposes things about the Bay of Pigs that no one has ever written about before. It shows why it really failed, why the United States did not earn from it. It also shows why other countries today are doing secret operations with more success. This is the book that puts what some want to deny into the light. In Denial, Secret Wars with air strikes and tanks Larryhancock. For more information, go to Larry hyphen Handcock dot com. Pick up your
copy of In Denial at Amazon dot com. In digital or physical force?
Do you like history? Real history that you were never taught in schools? Why the Vietnam War Nuclear Bombs in Nation Building in Southeast Asia by author Mike Swanson, with new documentation never seen before that'll open your eyes to events that led up to this Why the Vietnam War Nuclear Bombs in Nation Building in Southeast Asia nineteen forty five through nineteen sixty one. Get your copy today at Amazon dot com. Why War by author Mike Swanson, Wall.
Do, Wall Street, Windows, don com Tho, don khm Michael Swanson, the brilliant author of The War State, gives you the benefit of his knowledge.
Wall Street, Do.
Go there, now go there, now, go there now.
The War State by Michael Swanson explains the great national transformation that took place and put the Kennedy presidency in the context of the times, and reveals never before published information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would not have been assassinated if he had been president two hundred years ago. His assassination took place in the context of the Cold War and the rise of the national security state.
Before World War II, the United States was a continental republic. In the decade that followed, it became an imperial superpower. Generals such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba, but knew that there were short range missiles on the Eye Island armed with nuclear warheads that they could not destroy because they were on mobile launchers. Their invasion could have led to a Third World War, and they wanted
to go to war anyway. The War State by Michael Swanson reveals why and will show you what President Kennedy was up against. For more information, The Warstate dot.
Com revelation through conversation.
Irish and seciliation, you the first double nigga I ever.
Met in my life.
Oh Chili dot Com.
In Denial The Secret Wars with air strikes and Tanks by Larry Hancock. Secret wars became a staple of US covert operations and are still happening today. Larry Hancock's book In Denial rips the cover off many of them, using new files. It exposes things about the Bay of Pigs that no one has ever written about before. It shows why it really failed and why the United States did not.
Learn from it. It also shows why other countries today are doing secret operations with more success. This is the book that puts what some want to deny into the light. In Denial secret wars with air strikes and tanks Larry Hancock. For more information, go to Larry hyphen Handcock dot com. Pick up your copy of In Denial at Amazon dot com in digital or physical fool.
I'll never deny amatic statum at atter Rgewater. We have one reason.
Beneath the ANSI dots and.
Anything they would seem worthy of orty completely divide it adam without the liberty that being freely of justice. The only the elite that can afford the man.
But not.
I'm justice for the seas, unact brow space as.
The rest of us all.
Delight country, which is my wicked. So the funnest me.
There, the lady of life, will make some horror.
Jesus gets a.
Third story because that is gods raged or take go crazy from this guy Dans Margo and Jesus leftsness setting ourselves from communism.
And fascism with me, but we go Fascism and ytopathy is in the New Strung Bible bad Stree, where the anti Christ is a transgender whore.
Babylonists franchise isn't merely encluded from Hour