You. Chilly Effect is sponsored by Wallstreet, Window dot Com and listeners liking you now and now atd Noise and in All Media. April three, twenty twenty four. Allegedly, according to that thing we call it Calender, I could have said Calendor. It kind of might have sounded like an old store that went out of business, Caldor. But anyway, let's not digress too much. Tonight. It is Wednesday, Wednesday, middle of the week, hump day. Some people call it a lot of things going on in the
world, an upcoming eclipse. Apparently people that work for celebrity chefs might be legitimate accidental targets in a war zone. The presidential thing is still going on. Lots of stuff happening. Plus, I have a question from the chat room, because I did forewarn you, if you will, that Larryhancock would
be on of me. Of course, Larry is accessible on the interwebs at Larrydashhancock dot com and you can find out about the many books that Larry has authored taking up a lot of space on my bookshelf, but not just taking up space. It's there because it's relevant, necessary, and a treasure to be displayed. So what do I have over there, lots of stuff.
Someone would have talked shadow warfare, surprise attack, okay, creating chaos, educational, informational, historical relevancy, research of all sorts going into this. Plus he's a solid writer. How about that anyway, interesting guy, regular appearances here as a co host of sort, creator of series, and indeed, tonight we're gonna call this subset. We're going to christen a new subset,
if you don't mind, And what are we gonna call it? Well, as per Larry's direction, I believe he's come up with the right way to describe the subset that we're going to have to continue because it is continuous? Which inquiry am I talking about? Is there a little bit of an O MO there to something else? Maybe? But let's see, how about this? Oh my goodness, I just had a note in front of me
and my computer did something a little strange. So sorry about that, unidentified, just like one of the books by Larry Hancock's Unidentified, the continuous Inquiry. There you go. So this will be the beginning of a subset that really has a whole bunch of preamble to it. And many other shows where we've gone over unidentified. By the way, I didn't mention all the books that Larry wrote, or even all the topics Martin Luther King Junior's assassination.
He's co authored stuff with Stu Wexler. I automatically think of that when I think of The Awful Grace of God and what is the name of the updated version of the Killing King book? Actually, Killing King was the most recent version of The Awful Grace of God. So Killing King is the more recent version of the MLK work. That's what I meant to say. Sorry about that, see that we were just talking about misstatements just before the show.
By the way, off air. Yeah, so that is the more updated version of yours and Stew's work on the topic of the Martin Luther King junior assassination. Then is that correct? That's right? And I'm amazed that I remember that Chuck No Problem books, and by the way, I have both of those on my shelf. So just saying, oh, and Tipping Point, which again is a continuation but not an update of Someone would Have Talked,
although Someone would Have Talked has been updated a few times. Why because Larry never seems to stop with his continuous research and all those things, those political intrigues and murder and all that not the topic of tonight's discussion, more along the lines of again the book Unidentified, and there's a subtitle to that one too, isn't there, Larry Unidentified? The national security problem of UFOs right there you go. Now it's not within arms reach, which is why
I didn't grab it. And oh, by the way, of course, I have that one, you know, I have that one on my shelf. We've discussed it on the show various times. But you're doing more work that is not necessarily published with just your name on it. Indeed, there's a group of people involved there, and we've talked about the conferences and all
that. So many many pre shows to this subset of shows do exist already, but we're gonna start going on a continuous inquiry, so Larry, before we go there, though, again, another piece of business I want to take care of is moments before when I was still setting things up, and it took me a little while to set the show up. We're a little late going to live, arey. You podcast listeners don't care because you're listening to it whenever you feel like it. But anyway, fact of the matter,
there was a question in the chat room. So let's see if I can read this verbatim if you don't mind, And of course we're having the BLO line guy read, so it might take a second for it to make sense, at least in my head before I try to relate it to you. Uh not you, Larry, I mean you know the you, the the generic you that's out there, the the people that are listening to the show at their particular times a day if they're not hearing it live. Right, So anyway, Uh, here we go. Okay, So the whole
question, why is the NSA talking about winning Johnson to their side? In quotes after gushing over Kennedy in this document, the writer says Johnson is a capitalist. Odd thing to say, and says they must win him over. Uh what the what the ns to? What the NSA question mark? The documents question mark, the c I A question mark? What is their side
question mark? Uh so that is a question for Larry Hancock and of course citizen GX in the chat room, who we all know actually as caller Jimmy James on the show, regular caller, regular listener, appreciated contributor to the show, and supporter. Anyways, he provided us with a link to a Mary Farrell document which discusses this and all that. So I handed that over to Larry a couple of minutes before the show. Larry, what do you
make of this? Sure after a quick scan of the document, and it's interesting because we don't see a whole lot of these, but I've seen some of them before. This is actually an NSA intercept. It's classified as top secret DINAR. The DINAR is a code for the source, So this is something that NSA is providing to other people the sources classified. It could be a radio intercept. It could be a cable intercept, it could be a
cable see cable transmission, et cetera. Given the time frame, the Given the time frame and the length of the message, I would more likely think that it's probably a cable intercept. Again, we had the facilities to intercept cables uh under international transmission, and people did not realize it, certainly at
the time that we were. We not only intercepted and collected information on our adversaries like Russia, but we also did it on even allies, French, British, whatever, just standard practice because we want to know what they're thinking
about us. So to me, this reads and looks like a cable from an embassy in Washington, d C. And they're talking about the political state and affairs after the assassination and to to paint how it's going to change, and is pretty common stuff after any significant event, Usually an embassy in a country does a political analysis and wrap up and cables it back to their nation, right, frankly, this is yeah, frankly, really quickly too,
just as a refresher to anybody who might be unaware fact of the matter. The NSA in and of itself, I mean, this is its function is to intercept these types of transmissions. That is like their literal core job to grab basically everything that's broadcast one way or another. Everything that is disseminated is supposed to be grabbed ally, enemy, neutral, oddity, it doesn't matter. That's pretty much their job the way that I understand it. I mean,
would that be a fair statement. It's kind of interesting. During this period of time, during the early sixties, there were actually a number of infections, three or four defections of US personnel that were working for NSA doing intercepts. And I guess when they took the job. They didn't realize that they were actually going to be intercepting Allied traffic, and that really rubbed them
the wrong way. And actually some of them defected and issued statements. So the US is horrible because it even spies on its allies, you know, and some of them ended up in Russia. But there were a couple of exposs Up until that time, you know, nobody really understood that we were doing this. But by this point in time, in the sixties, it's probably pretty common knowledge that just regular cleared traffic is intercepted by the NSA.
And the best guess I can make from this and a quick reading, my I guess would be that it's either coming from the Israeli or the French embassy in Washington. Just a rough guess, fair enough. But as I said, you know, when it comes to loyalties and trying to describe, you know, because he asks there which side do they mean? What side are
they referring to? Well, I think that's actually a fair question when it comes to the NSA, And because that's part of the summary, right, I mean, that's that's part of like, Okay, what we have to do with this is this good. The side is going to the side is in references. You know how closely is how closely is precedent Johnson going to come in on the side of the Israeli foreign policy, the French policy. US is this other government. You know, they're they're trying to predict how
is he going to change? You know, we we've we've had a position, the US has had a position towards US towards you know, is this going to change? So the the S does it refer to the NSA taking
a position. It really refers to the anticipated position of the Johnson administration vise of the France Israel whoever this is, which by the way, this is the thing that I find most you know, disconcerting or concerning, however it is you want to put it, when it comes to this idea where indeed, even if the president and his administration is not in you know, absolute control of everything, despite some people's readings of how the executive branch is in
charge of all, they are very influential and being able to gauge that and understand how those interactions are going to go on. This affects things far outside of uh, just politics. You know that this really does have a real world effect. So it's a fair thing to at least, you know, intercept what you can collect, what you can even open source what people would
call open source intelligence also commonly constantly collected by the NSA. There's actually a logic to this, you know, where some people just kind of go, okay, i'fbit agency bad, you know, but there's a functional reality to this that isn't always nefarious, oh not at all. And so in this case, another option might be Iran. And at this point in time, especially Israel and Iran very dependent on US arm sales. Yes, and the
US then as now, always plays political games with this arm sales. So it's going to be very important to whatever government this is to anticipate whether or not the new administration may change their tax on Oh well, wait a minute. Kennedy was authorizing or not authorizing US certain types of weapons. What about Johnson is emore open And as it turns out, in reality, Johnson turned out to be much more open to certain types of foreign or arm sales than
JFK had been. And although the document doesn't contain this, you know, my last word on it is pretty simple. This speaks to the operational end of the continuity of government. Now, I know that's a frightening phrase to a lot of people with good reason, but the continuity of government, this is what needs to be gauged, even you know, some people would say needs to be controlled and all of that, but this is what needs to
be gauged. And what we get here is a little glimpse at that process that needs to be understood in a greater context, which we are not going to explore tonight because we have something that is outside of this scope and yet falls under the NSA's workload, or at least should in my mind, when it comes to what the concept UAPs you know, previously known as UFOs, right, I almost feel like it's that change in name like Prince did where
he changed it to symbol, where it's like a lot of people are confounded by this being the label attached to it, but it's still the same thing. You know, UFO artist is formally known as ye. Yeah, the artist formerly known as UFO is now UAP. But still the study is worthy and obviously the collection of intelligence is worthy, and indeed that is part of what you and the group that you are working with are focused on. So
let's talk about that. There there was a paper recently released for peer review, and what are we about a week behind on that? Now? I guess I intended to bring you on last week to discuss this, but I had a technical issue. So the thing is, uh, yeah, what
about that? Tell us about the release of that paper, and I will provide links in with the show notes, And they're also in the live chatroom atochelli dot com, where even if you're not hearing the show live, you can always roll back and look at the various references that have been placed there by myself, listeners, guests sometimes, although I don't think Larry's ever placed anything in the chat room there, but he gives me stuff and sometimes I
place things there for Larry. Anyways, tell us about this and what's happening and what might be upcoming regarding the UAP study if you don't mind. Yeah, Well, we actually and basically the group that I belonged to, the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies, had initiated a project something over four years ago and we formed a team to do an intelligent study of UAPs and basically a
strategic intelligence study. And we knew that it was going to be a major long term commitment because these types of studies, you know, you just they're not hit and run. You've got to collect a lot of data, do a lot of work, build a database, do a lot of analysis. So the team's actually been in existence going on four years and up to this point in time. Last week we published our third study, So as you can see, we're averaging a published study once a year, which kind of
suggests how much work goes into the process. And the goal of the study is to basically look at UAP sidings during the height of the Cold War nineteen forty five nineteen seventy five. The reason for that particular length of time is that's the time most of that time up to nineteen seventy the Air Force was actually collecting and building a they didn't call it a database, but at least a big file of UFO sidings and investigating them. So you could count on
cases that were reported being officially investigat if they were from the military. Military sources were held, you know, responsible. You don't get a lot of hoaxes within the military because they were reporting something according to official, sanctioned guidelines. And so we built a database primarily of military and law enforcement reports and kind of stepped back and said, all right, now, let's look at the patterns of activity for these UFOs UAPs. Do we see any Is this
stuff just randomness? Everybody see them all over the place all the time, you know. And we started out looking at what was being reported from various types of military facilities, in particular atomic energy, the atomic energy complex, radiation production facilities, design weapons, design labs files. Did you have an intent initially to have a specific focus on atomic assets for lack of a better word, seemingly regarding these incidents? I mean, the concentration around those types
of facilities has been discussed in public for a while. Which, by the way, I'm also going to provide you guys with another link to to a media story from about six months ago, if you don't mind, Larry, where there was a discussion and the group that you're part of, the you know, ever after we'll call it the SCU, all right, because that's the shortened version of it, right, yes, okay? So and anyway,
what did they do? Well? The headline was calls on Congress, the SCU calls on Congress to pass these Schumer rounds Anyway, there was a bit of a call to action to the Congress from your group saying, look, we can do this, sure, but greater access, greater studies. I mean, what was the goal about six months ago? Just to put this in context, and I'll give you, guys a let's see, I
guess from k R O N four. Yeah, k R O N four dot com, which is the website news organization that has one of the most prominently searched headlines regarding this, you might want to read it over you the listener, not you Larry to to get a feel for some of what's being offered here as solutions or answers to existing questions at least or maybe problems, depending on what the questions lead us to. So is that fair and no,
Flarry you think? Or what should we look at regarding the sus for that Thress release, A Senator Schumer had had put legislation and the Defense Appropriations Bill to actually create a commission to collect UFO UAP cases for a study. And the important thing to us is we have data from nineteen forty five to nineteen seventy five. We don't have any more contemporary data, and there's no place to get it, and there's no place to get it out of military
files or whatever. Well, Schumer's legislation would have created a commission to go out and get that data so one could see, if you know, if whatever we see going on during our period is still going on. Unfortunately, his legislation was defeated in Congress and stripped out, and basically the kind of commission that we had hoped for to retrieve these records just didn't happen. But that was our goal at the time, and now we are left with really
no access to that data. Well and interesting too, because there was an
uptick in interest in this per se pretty much inspired you know. The two major catalysts in my mind were the releases of these videos by the you know, the government right, which had been previously released, but they sort of you know, authenticated what had been previously released on the Internet regarding some of these images, which are exciting of objects which are behaving in a rather odd way, qualify as UAPs or UFOs if you're speaking from the older tongue,
if you will. But but that in combination with some pretty sensational hearings that occurred where gentlemen who seemed to have, you know, bona fide connection to various organizations. And I'm not saying that he doesn't have those connections. I'm just saying what the appearance was at this point gave some pretty pretty interesting statements that have never been made before, stating that you know, there were active
programs and alien seized and all this stuff. The stuff that you know, ordinarily is commonplace when it comes to capturing the attention of the public, at least during the entirety of my whole life. You know, I grew up at the time where what was it, Close Encounters of the Third Kind was a sort of national phenomena as a movie, right, got people thinking about it. Et the extraterrestrial would follow, whether it was family entertainment or sci
fi or things meant to frighten people one way or another. This idea, this concept all becomes you know, quite relevant. I mean, the evolution of the imaginary, futuristic star trek universe. All of these things play a part in capturing the public's imagination, but don't necessarily do us a lot of
favors when it comes to learning about the real world situation. Indeed, what you're looking at are real world studies of things that have happened, things that were accounted for by recognized bodies within our government, other governments, even made Maybe at some point, you know, all of this could be put into context and maybe create a database like you were talking about before, that might allow people to have a greater understanding of what's happening, at least regarding things
that remain unidentified and unknown as far as their intent, et cetera, et cetera. Is any of that incorrect that I'm stating here, Larry? Is this this all makes sense to you? Well? No, and that's again that's no natural study. Period. The The problem was that the the phenomenon of the reports whatever were always taken one at a time. The Air Force took them one at a time, investigated them and came up with an explanation
or didn't literally, and then they published their numbers. It's like, okay, for this year, we had this many reports, we investigated this many and eighty or ninety percent of them were identified or that were classified as misidentifications of whatever phenomena atmospheric, you know, aircraft whatever, and there were you know, ten percent left. And the good news is none of those ten percent did anything harmful, So we're good. Now we'll go on to the
next set. So that's the way it was treated. There was never a strategic analysis done the way our team is doing it. What would have been good is that if we still have no sign, even now after those congressional hearings, are concerned Chuck, after everything that's happened over the last two years, there's no sign that the legislation that Congress passed, which created a group within the Department of Defense to look at the subject, there's still no sign
that they're doing what I just described. What they're doing is they're taking reports that they're given. They have no authority to force them out of anyone. They're taking reports that they're given, and they're studying them one by one and then reporting back to Congress and saying, you know, we got two hundred reports, and again eighty or ninety percent of them are misidentifications and ten percent we're still investigating. And by the way, we're never really going to be
able to do anything with them because there's not enough data. If we had more data, maybe we could tell you what they really were. Right now, they're just in a bucket called unidentified and that's that's the exact same language that you find in that was given to Congress a month ago by this group in twenty twenty four, that was generated by the Air Force back in nineteen sixty nine, exactly the same wording, exactly the same approach. So the
government approach has not changed at all. We're trying to take a more strategic study approach, which is why we're seeing patterns and patterns and activity, and why we're really seeing things that they don't see because they don't look at them in that perspective. And you ask a question, did we start this study looking at the atomic warfare complex? And the answer is yeah, we did.
We specifically wanted to look at what was going on in the general military, what was looking on in the conventional military at regular military basis, you know, of all types, as compared to the atomic warfare complex, to see if there was something anomalous going on in the atomic warfare complex, because that's the first question you've got to ask. I mean, first, is it kind of random? Everything everywhere? It does? Nothing fall out?
Are all military basis seen the same quantity the same time? And as it turned out, no, there were some very definite patterns that fell out of that, and the patterns were time delimited. The UAP activity was focused on one particular type of facilities for three four years and then that stopped, and they moved to another type of facility for three or four years, and then
that stopped. And the interesting thing about that point in time is at that point in time they moved strictly to a focus on deployed strategic atomic weapons. We're talking about h bombs, you know, city killers, whatever you want to call them, and they never went back and looked at those other places anymore. You don't see that pattern. And the interesting thing about that is
that pattern continued through the end of our study to nineteen seventy five. What would really be fascinating would be a study that said did it continue beyond that point in time? And that's something that this AAR, which is this new
government agency, could do. But in the report that they issued just last week or two weeks ago, now I guess there's actually a section in they're supposed to be doing history, right, so there's a section on what was happening at UAPs, at you know, atomic sites, and basically the commentary and the reports about a page long and says we couldn't find anything significant, and we're going, what, you know, all those people that testified to
you, You guys are just failing to do this entirely. You're not even looking at this, which would probably be the most significant thing part of the history you'd look at. And I don't know. They're supposed to be extending that historical study into a second paper, and we're fascinated to see what they're going to come up with. But again it's already been pointed out that if if they were doing what had been inspected of them, they would be doing
what we did right now. I ask you the check it, you know, but they're not right now. I exhaustively went over with you. The only contradiction I offered to all of what you just said is that you said the government basically did nothing. I would say, well, they kind of did something, because you and I went over what it is they've done. They had no place for anybody to hand over reports, to hand over observations about this, no specialized place for anybody theoretically, and we went over that
last time, so we don't need to go over it again. But I urge people to listen back to the pre show to this series a bit, because I think it is significant, sorry to borrow that word, you know, to understand that, yeah, this is the move they made, but then take a look at the quality of that action and what it actually results in. I'll leave it there, you know, But that's the point to be heard, is that that was the only change is now there's a place
to send your reports and your observations to think it. It's important for those that didn't catch it last time. The fascinating thing is that's a voluntary thing. You can send it to this group, which is a government organization which has a place to put it. But the US intelligence community is not connected to them. So a report that's generated anywhere into the dozen sixteen different agencies associated with US national security that can be circulated all through that network and never
get to them because they're not part of the intelligence community. They're part of the Department of Defense, but not part of the intelligence community. If you're an engineer and you can, you know, relate to a system problem, this is a system's problem. Yeah, certainly, because oh it's great that that information is being collected, but now what gets done with it? If there is let's just say there is a potential threat connected to one of these
reports. There's no place I mean, the military gets it, but there's no mechanism by which this is handed over to the CIA, the you know, some some group that could take action here, somebody the Department of Homeland Security, let's say, might might have some relevant action that could be taken defensively if something was found to be hostile or malicious directly, right potentially theoretically, but there's no place for it to go, right, I mean,
that's and beyond that we even know. I mean, the intelligence community is classified and it's secure, but it's how it's organized is open. I mean, the point is to do this kind of strategic study, long term study that we're doing, look for patterns, it would have to be bumped up to an intelligence committee working under the National Security Council. It would actually have to be tasked to them. Congress can't even do that this, This Congressional
Committee can't even they could ask ask the National Security Council to that. But we literally know that there is no intelligence tasking for that level of group to do the kind of study we're doing. It would have to show up. You say, they publish, actually publish, you know, you know, what are they what are they tasked to study terrorism? Certain types of terrorism,
certain types of threats. Since this isn't a threat by definition, it's just like, okay, it's again another the systems from they deal with threats. Nobody wants to classify this as even a potential threat. So it's going to stay way down at this level of Oh, let's look at one at it one a time, one at a time, and see if we can't explain it, and if not, we'll just throw it in the bucket. Right, So there's never a point of collection that could absolutely long term.
Yeah, absolutely, yeah, you can't. You can't see patterns of activity if you're looking at it one at a time. Well, right, it's like kicking pieces of a jigsaw puzzle and looking at each piece separately, and then when you don't find an immediate piece that fits the next to put it together, well just put that aside. Now let's look at the next singular piece. You're never gonna be able to put the jigsaw puzzle together, is what I'm saying. If you're only examining one piece at a time and then
not keeping it on the table along with the other pieces. Right, I mean, well, and you don't know what is anomalous and what isn't. Let let's let's take it. This is a radical example, but just to give an example before nine to eleven, Okay, if and the FBI was
the FBI actually was in touch with flight schools. If someone had been doing a long term study and asked themselves a question, how many private citizens have walked in to pay for lessons on flying a heavy aircraft, a heavy commercial aircraft, and that individual had no affiliation with a you know, commercial company, a nation States military. If they had been looking at as a pattern, it would have immediately popped out to them that there was a problem because
this and they should have investigated it. And so you've got to have a long term set of data so you can see the anomalies. That's another important part of what we're doing because one of the things at that point you'd say, well, wait a minute, it was like this for ten years and suddenly this year it's like that, what changed? What's going on? Something's happening, what is it? Without without that long term study, you'll never
see those kind of anomalies. Right, So continuing on, though, what specifically did this did this paper that you recently published, what did we do? Yeah, what did you do? What we did this third paper? So the first two papers looked strictly at reports from military facilities, military installations, whether they were atomic related or conventional or weapons testing facilities like White Sands.
First two papers were focused on the military. We decided that we were comfortable that we had a technique in a database that sea patterns if they were there. So now we're engaged in a two part study looking at what happened with the public, not the military, during the same study, during the same period of time. So we switched to reports that are coming in from
what we referred to as the public domain. You know, what was the public reporting and even if it was you know, it can be a military person in a public venue, you know, they're just not on a military So what was the public scene? What were what was happening? Did the
types of activities change, did the locations change? And basically the study that we just published is a pattern study over this same period of time in terms of what was happening with public reports, and we did find some major patterns
pop out of that. Patterns that were quite different from the military. So one of the things we did is we look for those patterns and then we compared the patterns in the public domain reports with the military domain, so we could kind of beat them against each other and say, well, was there really something different going on with the public and if so, you know, what's it going on consistently all the time. As it turns out, a major thing that the study revealed was no, there was a shift. It's
in the graphs. It's as clear as you could possibly imagine that the UAP activity shifted from the military domain, a focus on the military domain, to a focus on the public and to activities like close and close approaches loitering. Basically a shift to UAP interest in individuals and small groups of observer of public observers, and actually shifted in geographically from all the areas of the military base is too fascinating. It shifted from west to east to the upper Midwest and
upstate New York. M Okay. So yeah, you have a location shift, you have definite change. So you don't have a I mean, because the public could observe things that are around a military base, right, do you have like you just have a complete geographical shift. Is the nature of
these things. You're good, sorry, right for against Sure the public, the public could have reported something over Albuquerque, New Mexico and San Dia Base, or over uh you know the Panax plant outside of Amarello where we assemble atomic weapons. Now, sure the public could could have reported that. Uh they didn't, I mean not only did not the person. Well, now
that the locations didn't report it, the public didn't report it. The public the public reports are It's not a matter of neither the public or the military saw things over military facilities. With one great exception, and this is the one exception that continued throughout the course of the study. Wherever the most modern and the most capable and the most dangerous atomic weapons are located, that's where
UAP activity continued. So, for example, you didn't see UAP activity at the early Atlas missile silos where you saw them or the Titan missile side of those facilities went away, missiles shut down. But just in terms of geography, the bases across the North and the Dakotas, the northern tier bases, that activity continued. So it pretty clearly shows that UAP activity followed the missiles,
which is a pretty interesting thought. So okay, at least you've come up with some patterns here, and obviously there's a lot more in the study. And they can read this again by going to one of the websites that have described and also will provide the links for explore SCU dot org. By the way, is the main hub for your organization? Is that correct? Right? Okay? And it looks like coming up in May, all right,
in Huntsville, Alabama, May thirty first to June second. There is going to be a bit of a conference too, So our annual conference will have a lot of speakers on the topic. I mean, we will be presenting our studies as well, but we have a lot of speakers on the topic in general and what's going on even from internationally. And I think again for your listeners, there is a it is a virtual it's in person and virtual as well, so it's possible to log in and follow the whole conference
virtually. There is a there is a fee, of course, but it's a both both in person and virtual, and we an interesting We have a couple of speakers and in addition to ours our presentation on this study, our national security advisor will be going presenting a speech on doing a presentation again related to national security and UAPs and what's going on in that arena and how it
should be dealt with, maybe not how it is being dealt with. So this aspect of national security will come into the conference in a couple of places, But it's not all about that. A lot of it is just literally about the phenomena, how to deal with the phenomena, who should be studying it, academia, who should be studying and you know, the overall phenomena. So I don't want to give the wrong impression. It's not just about what we're talking about here. It's much broader than that, right right.
I mean, obviously there's going to be a lot more in the conference. I mean, are there any particular names that you already know that are that are booked, that are confirmed, that that you want to point out as highlights here? Well, the names probably would. I mean, these are I think all of our speakers are keynote speaker are whole doctorates. They are professionals. They are scientific professionals. They come from the hard sciences, from
physics, they come from the softer sciences, psychology. You know that, so you might not recognize the names because in all honesty, we're not focusing on some of the subjects that are commonly covered in m UAP podcasting for that matter. I mean, there are dozens of speakers that focus on that subject and are really wrapped up and sent maybe the more sensational aspects of the phenomena. And that's just what we that's what we don't do. But Perfect or
the organization all obvious is the names. If you look at the names, it'd probably be better if it's interested to look at the names and look at what they're you know, what their expertise is, rather than me throughout the
name, because you're probably not going to recognize it. No fair enough, but look and it's also to my mind, perfect because a problem that was experienced with the release of your book Unidentified was that it fit into a genre but was atypical from what is generally perceived as you know, the latest new thing that's like a hot item, really really strange. Unidentified is not like you know, about alien abductions and little green men. It is about the
national security response. Two, it's very similar to what this whole organization does. Is that book that. I'm pretty sure you weren't part of that organization till after you published this book. Yeah, that's right. As a matter of fact, that this whole intention study grew out of something that I brought up in the book, kind of like would it be possible to do this?
And the book actually one of the things that the book does is to use this same technique to say, oh, during the nineteen forties and fifties, could it have been the Russians? Because everybody thought maybe it was the Russians. And the fun thing in the book was to go use the same techniques and say was it And the conclusion is, no, it wasn't and it couldn't have been. We just kind of carried that on. So it
it was somewhat of the genesis of this project. Right. And the other interesting thing here is that, look, it's atypical in that, like the way to get public interest in this might have been, Look, this is possibly the Russians, And how did the Russians get it? Well, you know what, the Russians might have acquired assets post World War two? Right, whatever the Russian word is for paper clip? Here we go, right, you know, we got Werner von Braun, they got other people.
This is the results of it. Even if you presented that as a possibility right for your book and followed that tract that might have been you know the key here, right, that would be typical of that genre, let's say, right, But that's not where you went. You went into this is what we know, by the way, being a Storian as per usual regarding the reactions of the national skill. I mean, look, don't take this the wrong way, Larry, but this is rather typical of Larry Hancock.
What is the national security reaction? What is going on here while these other events are taking place? Does this sound familiar? Yet? It does because you know in the military actions, in covert and overt actions regarding the intelligence communities, in assassinations, you have focused on this. This It makes perfect
sense. This is exactly what I would expect. If I never heard of any of this and somebody told me Larry Hancock is going to explore this, I would say, Oh, he's going to go after what is the National security apparatus doing? Behaving like, what is it doing that's resulting in other actions taking place? What is the effect that the National security apparatus has on the government has on the public. This would be Larry Hancock's wheelhouse, you
know he is. And I guess maybe the loosest way of think of it is kind of like, so what are they doing as compared to what they're saying they're doing? You know, what's the public story? And then what do the documents tell us that there is the real story? Right? So yeah, that's that's pretty repetitive. I've got to say there's a theme there. There's kind of this theme to your writing, Larry. I'm not saying that you lack imagination, because you don't. What I'm saying is that you
are very focused on exactly this, which is super important. So I'm going to ask you it's totally uh out of the box question here, and we're going to bring this to a close because I've kept Larry long enough for tonight. But I think the point has been made and I look forward to continuing this inquiry as we go forward, because I think it's uh, I think
it's really very it's really quite valuable to explore this. Yes, it's fun to look at is the whistleblower telling you the truth about the alien bodies and all that? But let's let's bring it. Pardon the punt back down to earth? Okay, what is it that we got a deal with here regarding the actions? And by the way, there's other contexts to be offered here. If this is the way this is being handled, what other unconventional threats
don't have a point of proper collection? You know? Is there potential for other things like this going on? What do you think about that? As just a loose thought here, Larry, I mean, does this mean that maybe just maybe certain questions need to be asked maybe some people that could inspire you know, the use of creation of a sub agency or something like that. I mean not saying that we need the X files, but for God's sakes, we need something. Well, even from a more yeah, from
a more practical standpoint. One of the things that popped out of these studies is, let's say a Navy group off San Diego has a up encounter. Okay, Let's say it's four or five Navy ships. They're in a training exercise and suddenly they're approached by several dozen drones and I don't know where they came from. Now, the real question, the question nobody has answered, is is there a national security response to that or does it just set within
the Navy. You know, let's say the same thing happened off the East coast. Is there really a national security mechanism to reach out, grab that, profile it and go, oh, we need a national defense against these, You know, we need an air defense system that's optimized for these. Right now, we have a system that's operator set up for missile defense, honestly, and we have missile interceptors in Alaska and California. We don't have
a national defense network for low altitude, low speed drones. Is anybody really tackling that at the level of national command authority? Among all the services? We know they're each developing their own anti drone systems, but who's putting together the drone defense network? And Lord only knows. We see in both Russia and Ukraine that you need it. So I think it's a very relevant question for national security. Do these reports just do the Navy reports stay within the
Navy and the No RED reports stay within No Red? To the homeland reports of drones over atomic power plants? Where did they go? And the question is what, not only where, but how far up do they go? And where's the response? I don't think I've seen any article on a national anti drone defense network, lots of articles about what the services are doing to protect troops and ships and maybe some installation ones, but you know, there's nothing. How who How does it get up? How does it get elevated
as a national priority? I don't know? Right? Fair enough? And look again to the much broader and you know, let's just say less refined, look at this, one could easily ask the question. And I think it's a responsible thing to ask and a necessary thing to ask when a newer, exotic or less than conventional something appears, right, I mean, there needs to be a way to deal with it. I mean I can't put
this in any simpler terms. You have to have a mechanism. You have to have something to answer for when something unexpected shows up, the potential for again an exotic technology, something that was not thought of before, you know, I mean at a certain point, if you go back in time to use the radio might have not been thought as a military you know mechanism, right, Radio in and of itself might have been not kept track of very
well. As a matter of fact, you can see an evolution of how radio was used about broadcasts later on, you know, they figured out ways to piggyback things onto broadcast television, broadcasts that contained other ways of information. The only reason why these things don't become extremely lethal, weaponized, you know tools, when it comes to the defense of a nation, it is because
they prepare for it. They foresee this, They collect information when something emerges, and it gets evaluated, it gets handled, it gets developed into what we got to be able to deal with. You know, at a certain point, the military didn't utilize air you know, we didn't have planes, right, We still had a military, but we didn't have planes. So when things started to fly, you had to adjust to that. You had to know about it. Now that doesn't seem very exotic nowadays because it's extremely
commonplace, but at one point it wasn't. Right, So there is a need to continuously evolve as threats evolved. Or am I oversimplifying this, Larry,
Yeah, there's and maybe maybe it's being done. But the point is, at this point in time, it's going to be a matter of how quickly can you learn because four years ago, nobody, I'm sure in either Russia or Ukraine would have realized that their entire infrastructure was at risk to small devices that fly at different altitudes and only a few hundred miles an hour at best. Now, you look around our country and the problem is, to a large extent, these devices are deniable. By the way, you don't
know who sent them. Who you know you can immediately put your you can there now, okay, But what if one afternoon every major hydro electric dam in our country received you know, five drone strikes with high explosives on it and took out the backbone of our hydro power generation. You know, that's not to be a scare monger, but the point is that should be a threat that someone is looking at. Now. You aps may not be a threat, okay, but that doesn't mean there aren't aerial devices that are threats.
So now I think I think the real answer to your your point there, Chuck, is that is to look at the process and question if the process is flexible enough to deal with with emergent technologies, if you were emergent threats, if you were and I don't know, the standard thing is always, well, you're planning, you're planning to defend against the threats from the last war, right, I mean, that's that's a standard mantra and you're fighting the last war now and you're behind the curve. I would just I
would just not want to be in that position again. But I'm not reading those articles in the defense journals or you know, how how do we deal with this as a national issue, because that really is why Congress. Congress really created this group, not to look for aliens. They looked for foreign, new and novel foreign threats and get a hold on them because they weren't
certain that anybody was doing it right. The Intelligence Committee there, I got to tell you, behind the scenes, I honestly don't think and the skiffs and in the classified briefing sessions, they're not talking about et No, they're talking about a totally different type of threat. No. And as you said, look, the military could be prepared like it was. I mean, look, drone technology. This is a very important thing because it's not the
fact that drones are new. They're very old. Indeed, there's been drones in different unmanned aerial aircrafts and things like this for decades, many decades in use. But the fact is that stuff that might have been previously thought of as almost toys at best of public nuisance, right, people were going around with drones with cameras on them in the private sector, stuff like this,
hobbyists right, involved in drone stuff. And yeah, of course there's big planes that could be unmanned, but no, the fact that these very small, very tiny, almost undetectable in some cases weapons could be deployed. I mean this has become a significant factor in Ukraine slash Russia and that conflict recently.
A few years ago. If you would have said this to somebody publicly that people were going to be using, Like if we went back, say twenty years and said, look, you know these little toys you see, you know, they'd be great weapons, they might think you were crazy because you don't see that in public. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean the military is not protecting, you know, preparing for it and protecting against it. But we don't see it, and we certainly don't see the collection of information
being handled on the particular issue that you're studying being handled properly. Now, is there a possibility that there is, you know, very super secretive something going on, Well, I guess so. I mean there's always hidden elements of the operational end of the intelligence community, right, So I mean it's possible, but right now we don't see anything publicly that shows that they're taking the potential for exotic threats. Forget about the off world you know issues here,
but other unidentified aerial phenomena could be a serious problem. I mean, that is the overall point. And you know you're doing it on the civilian side, but it would be nice to see that demonstrated on the military side
and you know, institutions of the intelligence community, et cetera. Right, I mean, that's the thing that just struck me is it's actually not encouraging to have someone from ar GO come on board and say the good news is we've identified these things and you know they're not alien spacecraft their enemy drones. Like wait a minute, was that the good news? That's the good news?
Yeah, that's that's a little rough. And anyway, like you said, the names might not be recognizable at this upcoming conference, but you can sign up for it online and I will give you the link to go learn more and sign up for it again. It's a explore scu dot org.
Now, if you type in slash about dash one, you'll go to the twenty twenty four conference page and you'll see Yeah, a lot of names that you might not recognize at all, but the different contributing members, speakers, et cetera, have all sorts of interesting yes, doctorates and all that. But also you know you're looking at physicists, astronomers, astrophysicists, you're looking
at let's see, there's a journalist and author. You know, there's a science, communications, sciences, various people involved in various sciences and different disciplines all coming together in this twenty twenty four AAPC conference, which by the way stands for Anomalists Aerospace Phenomena. Okay, that's the AAP part of it,
and the c IS conference. So the twenty twenty four AAPC conference again through the SCU okay, which one more time is this scientific Coalition for UAP study and all of that through Larry Hancock, and you can follow Larry at larrydish Hancock dot com. Of course, you can also click and go see his blog. Links to all of these things that I have just mentioned will be in with the show notes and at the live chatroom at o'chelly dot com.
And again I recommend all of Larry's books, all of the ones I see published. I own all of them and urge you to do the same, whether it's in digital or physical form. I prefer the physical books, which is why I keep saying he takes up a lot of space on my bookshelf. But he's not just taking up space. He's definitely done a lot of great work. And I thank you again for being on the Ocelli effect.
Larry. We'll see again in two weeks and we might continue this inquiry, right which you know, the new thematic title will now be you know, unidentified, just like Larry's book, except this will be the continuous inquiry. So and I think we should get credit check because like it's a word, there's no acronym, right, I mean, we've reduced this whole subject down to one word, So we should get points exactly unidentified with Larry Hancock.
Maybe that's that's the best way to go unidentified the series. So this is part one. There's been plenty of a preamble, and you could have heard it all, or you can hear it all revelation through conversation. Wallstream Window dot Gold Silver, the stock market, wall Stream Window dott. Perhaps you're invested deeply, perhaps you're not in deep enough. Maybe you're thinking about getting
started Wall Street Windows, don con doo, don km. Michael Swanson, the brilliant author of the War State, understood these trends professionally for many years, and now he gives you the benefit of his knowledge. Wallstreetot go there, now go there, now go there. Now? 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 the Vietnam War by author Mike Swanson. Oh Chili dot com, Go
ahead, car the truth about the Day assassination. Right, Well, what do you want to know? Judy Baker's wild claim Oswald girlfriends he knew Ruby and Barry handcy weapons. Really, I imagine I could claim I have four wheels. It doesn't make me a wagon. But okay, Oswald was on the building and trying to vent the murder of John Kennedy. Come on, now as a real effort on the DFA assassination book into her claims. Go
to Amazon dot com enter Judith Baker in her own words. You'll get the results for a digital copy of a book where Walt Brown utilizes her own words and the known evidence in the case to get at well a different perspective. Let's say you can get Judith Ary Baker in her own words from the author himself, signed if you request it by contacting doctor Brown at k I as
jfk at aol dot com. It's a fun book and it actually dissects the many, many fantastic claims Judith very Baker in her own words, Thank you for all the great information Shelley dot com Radio Network. 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. 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 island arn't 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 to Viuse expressed, like Cohler stools, there anyone else who happens to get on the air of Jelly dot com if not necessarily reflect the views of Jelly dot com or job o'chilly, and we are not responsible for any stupidity which might ensue. Thank you. In Denial The Secret Wars with Air Strikes and Tanks by Larry Hancock. Secret Wars became a staple of US Covert Operations Center,
still happening today. Larryhancock'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 Larryhncock. 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 nuclear holocausts, you know what uranium is right? Think called nuclear weapons and other things like lots of you know what uranium is right? Bad things things are done with uranium in living, some bad things nuclear holocaust. You know what uranium is right? I have been brief Nuclear holocaust,
Nuclear holocaust. Uranium is right, I think on nuclear weapons and other things like lots of you know uranium is right? Bad things things are done with uranium, including some bad things nuclear holocaut Yeah you still. You're sponsored by Walls the Window dot Com and listeners like you now and now the most underrated noise and in our media, Shock Shelley. 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 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 Larryhncock. 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