The Ochelli Effect 6-4-2025 Larry Hancock

is what it is. Check out his blog. Obviously I recommend all of his books. Today's relevant book would be unidentified. But that's god. I mean, I don't even know how far away you've gotten from that original writing. Now, considering all the word that you've been doing with the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies the SCU, and there's going to be a link in the show notes to the latest release, which is entitled let's see Study identifies the Evolving Patterns

of Activity by Unidentified Anomalous Phenomenon. Now, I usually would just turn this right over to Larry and say, give me an update. What's going on. But we live in a strange world. And I tried to use AI to build an AI generating video thing, and it builds it. It looks good and doesn't work, and seems to be the perfect metaphor for AI because it won't conduct research properly either, at least none of the open source ones. I've tried to get them to do research these different things.

Whether it's Rock or SAM or whoever, it doesn't matter. You actually got to do the work yourself. Number one. Number two, I'm noticing in them, and this is where

I'm gonna hand it over to you, Larry. I'm noticing in the media almost like the table is being set now for maybe a chance to capitalize on once again the interest in the UAP, you know, the unidentified aerial phenomena, or there's some other aerial there's some other thing that I saw, Like the government has a definition and Mirriam Webster has a definition, and they're slightly different now for UAP, and some people, you know, sit and complain about that.

My complaint is more about how we've gone from firing the sky and alien abductions and reversed engineering to let's talk about real world things that we can prove and the stuff that was hidden and what is the government actually not willing to talk about or at least wasn't up until a couple of years ago. And where does that all stand? So disclosure, as they would say, you know, dramatically on coast to coast AM, disclosure coming up on coast to coast AM. What is the deal here, Larry?

I mean, what are we talking about when it comes to that kind of stuff? And you know that's going to feed into the interest here for this And realistically, I'm more interested in the angle you guys are going after. The military had to react to things, they had to deal with things that were occurring, and still nobody can pin it on a foreign adversary. Nobody can pin it on somebody else. You have that category of the unexplained pretty much in the UAP files now and in the

submission process. And this is all stuff that's happened only in the past couple of years or am I mistaken Larry.

to demonstrate that they're absolutely not ours? You know, they're so unconventional it can't be earthly technology. And that that was the question for several decades, really the.

perhaps it's our own technology that's being hidden. And that weirdness came up with you remember the drones over Jersey and nobody knew what the hell they were, and now they very quietly sort of you know, put out a little release which said, and I knew it was coming, by the way, I'm one of the few people that read this right when I saw that the joint air bases, there's a place in South Jersey. Just I'm sure Larry

you know this. There's a place in South Jersey where the Air Force, the naval air base, and a army base, a training facility that usually is known for you know, they do exercises where they like blow off what do they call those things, a big ammunition like artillery shells get blown off and shake the whole county in Jersey anyway, that's at the army base. But McGuire and Lakers Naval Air Base and Fort Dix are literally thought of as one facility by some of the military, even though they

are somewhat separated. McGuire and Dicks are kind of connected, but Lakers is actually separated by a bunch of civilian population. And that's literally the area I talk about. When on nine to eleven I saw tanks roll in the streets, that was because they were rolling between these facilities. There

was an instant lockdown in those facilities. And when those guys who are involved in observing what's going on in the air are involved in all sorts of military issues when it comes to air travel, turned around and said, yeah, we know that civilians are spotting all these drones over Jersey. We didn't see anything. That was my immediate red flag to say, that's probably our thing that they're denying knowing

anything about at all because that standard operating procedure. And it turns out there was this like mild admission that, yeah, we were testing something. You remember the drones over Jersey and then they found them over California and a couple other places or groupings of drones, and there was the big debate is it civilian? Is it foreign? Is it this? Ye? And I bring this up because again technically speaking, this

could be an unidentified aerial phenomena. Even though nobody's thinking UFO here, they are thinking drones and who the hell's are they? For lack of a better term, what are your thoughts on that? And what did you think of that when you saw it? Because I, like I said, my immediate red flag came up and I said, well, I guarantee it's a government test. And that's why the joint you know, aerial assets there from the military are all playing dumb because they're going to go now, we

didn't see anything, because that would be it. They would deny even knowing about it, because that way there's no further questions. We don't know anything. What can we tell you?

alien disc craft. So I think I think we may have to go back to UFO to describe those drones really are money in the situation, and quite frankly, they are going to take over the entire conversation on the military side, given Troit just happened to Russia and the fact that we have been studiously ignoring this threat. Although I mean I know people who who are working on anti drone projects. It's not that we're ignoring it to that extent. We have no answers. We have no good answers.

When the Navy Task Group of San Diego was swamped by a set of what most likely we're Chinese drones, they pulled out their anti drone electronics weapons and they had no effect whatsoever. I think what you saw in New Jersey was a denial, not because we were testing something. But because we are, our classic response and we're confronting something that we can't deal with is denial like, oh, I don't know, I didn't see it. You know that story goes all the way back to UFOs over nuclear

weapons bases. You know, No, we didn't. I don't know what you people are talking about in the press. Nobody saw anything. You just you shut it down. So I would love to think it was us testing something. I don't think that's what it was. I honestly think that we have been tested for the better part of three years now in the same manner.

What I'm saying is I knew what their response was going to be and how they were going to handle it publicly. Now internally is yet another issue, and that's something we need to keep in mind always here is even if there's a denial upfront and even feigning ignorance, we saw nothing, which was amazing because people are posting online their own phone videos of these drones going, hey, there's dozens of these things overhead, and our military bases

are going well, we didn't see anything. That's a sign. Okay, and I hate.

Well there you go, uh in any event. But but those those are not what we're talking about when we talk about u A p UAP by definition, have to demonstrate some capability acceleration, uh, gravity, neutral uh, something that makes them you know, outside anything we know about deployed you know technology. We're not talking stealth. We know stealth, but they truly have to be anomalous in terms of their capabilities and so that we need to differentiate those UAPs.

Those are the classic UFOs you know that are hovering, that shoot away and they go away so fast they disappear to be disappear. But the dialogue that has emerged, especially in the congressional earrings, has become verymodeled, and you know, everything is smeared together. There's there's no taxonomy to drive the discussion. It's kind of like, what what are you

talking about? Where are you talking about? Uh, we just led it all for the last few years to move from what I would call the investigation of a phenomena to be more much more conspiracy oriented view that, oh, the US government knows what it is, the deep state knows what it is. They only know what it is. There's no doubt they have samples, they are providing them to aircraft companies, so on and so forth. It's another

deep state conspiracy. And it's once you move it into deep state conspiracy, you lost total control of it.

that's what you can get your hands on. And I can't help but feel like deja vu here regarding the JFK thing, where we end up with a public hearing that devolves into weird political grandstanding and witnesses not really speaking about what they witnessed, but talking about their theories, their other stuff that they want to get to suddenly declaring themselves whistleblowers of sorts. Some of it more dramatic in the UAP field than the JFK field, but very similar.

And I don't think it's the fault of Representative Luna that this is happening. Meanwhile, the public interprets this stuff based on what the flashy headline that somehow gets culled together by the media, but doesn't understand the process, the meaning, what's actually been released, what's being analyzed, and what's not being analyzed. So where do you begin If somebody says, Larry, I'm interested in this, but why does this even matter?

Is this not going to be another weird circus? And are we going to get another guy who says we're going to reverse engineer stuff, which, by the way, reverse engineering is a reality, but he says we're reverse engineering alien stuff that's not necessarily proven, but he claims it is. But he's one whistle blowers. So here we go again with part of the truth out front, but then it gets lost in the muddled melee of people's belief systems

and political grand standing in between. Oh, by the way, the Democrats are more on the side of the aliens aren't they, uh, you know, et cetera. Right. I mean, we haven't seen that statement yet, but I'm waiting on it, and you had.

there's a file. And one of the things that has happened is legislation has actually been passed by Converse that would protect There's no way anybody that is an official it has blow the whistle on UAPs and filed something like that can be prosecuted. Now, the interesting thing is that virtually all those people that came into Luna's hearings and represented themselves as whistleblowers are now protected. And the interesting thing is what we're being told back is not

a single one of them has. They've all been invited to go to AARO, which is the official Department of Defense investigating group, and to reassert their claim, provide their evidence on and so forth, and assure that they're legally protected, and nothing at all has emerged from that. And in the number of cases the people are saying, well, I can't do that because I'm afraid for my life. I'm afraid from it. It's like, wait a minute, there is

no solution for this. If you don't behave like a you know, if we give you all the credit, we give you the protection of a whistleblower, and then for whatever reason you don't exercise it, you're not one. I'm sorry, You're just somebody talking about what you've heard whatever. So we have to be very cautious with that term. And I just obsess about that. So that's why I was rambling on. But for the part of your question, how

can we cope with that? The way we cope with it, the way the team that I'm working with copes with it, is to pull back from that and say, look that the data is so smeared at the moment, the data from you know, do we have a few incidents of very few incidents that we could hang our hack on that they you know, that's been revealed to the public. Yeah, four or five incidents, probably not even the best incidents. But you can't do much with that because we don't

have any technical data. We don't have the metadata from video. So it's like we're at sea. The way things are being handled currently with classification and especially classification on sources technology sources, we're kind of at sea. So we stepped back in time and we went back to the period that you talked about earlier, nineteen forty five, nineteen seventy five.

At that point in time, the phenomena was being explored officially by the Air Force, investigated case files were being made, and fortuitously we can get our hands on all that data. And that not just includes the data, that includes in several cases radar screen photos measurements, technology measurements that you can actually hang your hat on. You know, I can look at photos from a radar screen and say, okay,

over this sack base. This UFO accelerated at one hundred and sixty G. That is an anomalist, you know, that's not a conventional aircraft, that's not anything within our technology. There are a host of implications for that. So we decided to step back in time and build a data set that we could vet and then we could go start doing some work on pattern analysis. So basically, as much as we would like to deal with current events, we just can't extract the data to allow us to

do anything meaningful. That's why our intention study, our pattern analysis study, covers some three decades and several hundred cases that we were able to vet very solidly that were officially reported, officially investigated. They're not just stuff out of the newspaper, you know. And that was the body that we chose to deal with from an analytical standpoint. So that's why we went back in time.

It's a methodology that was developed during the Cold War, primarily post World War two, to try to deal with data sets that are incomplete, that are non reproducible, and it addresses them with some techniques like in patterns analysis and certain types of analytics to wait sightings against each other. That's the methodology we chose to use. I did test that methodology and unidentified and that was kind of the

starting point for all this. But when we started out, we had no idea where we were going to get We just asked a couple of very basic questions, and in an indications analysis, what you do is you posit some scenarios, you know, with what we're seeing a limited amount of data. Could it be this, could it be that? Could it be another thing? And we go through the methodology and rank them. And you can't ever say absolutely certain that if you did, that would be reproducible and

it would be science. This is for strategic studies, warning studies, you know. So what we do is with each one of these studies, and we've now done four of them, we come up with five or six scenarios, rank through the methodology, and rank the scenario.

I don't know. The UK's Air Force is studying us, and they happen to get certain technologies from somewhere else and they're testing their stuff on us. That's you know, who knows I'm inventing a scenario out of thin air. But what I'm saying is, eventually you want to come to some sort of conclusion here where you can say, look, this is what likely is going on here based on the patterns that emerge. Right.

it was the Russians. Every intelligence report that was generated out of right Patterson Air Technical Intelligence, air intelligence said this is the Russians, and the Russians are doing reconnaissance, and the Russians are very likely during reconnaissance for a strike, a preempty strike, right, And this wouldn't be unreasonable at that time, based on the fact that we've figured our adversary is doing the most sophisticated things it can to confront us.

up with a way to deal with it. This was the you know, the mindset like for half a century pretty much, right? Or am I incorrect about that?

team started work, we've done four studies. The first the first study in the first question we really asked ourselves, is you know, is that again that there's a reason to think that In the first few years of the UFO reports even again, uh, the Air Force was very concerned, the CIA was very concerned that whoever this was, could be focused on our atomic weapons complex, you know. And so the first set of scenarios that we looked at

in the first study really addressed that question. There's several scenarios you set up and you and you say, you know, is that really true? Is it? Was there a focus on the atomic weapons complex? Was there focus on weapons deployment? Was there? You know, is there any indication that there

was an attempt to preempt the development? So a series of scenarios that we looked at in the first study really related entirely to the military and specifically to whether or not there was a UAP focus on the atomic weapons development process, especially since we had started looking in nineteen forty five. You know, so is their intent I guess that's the best way to describe it. Is there can you make in a case that there's an intent of the UFOs the UAPs to focus there more than

you know? Is that a primary focus? And by the way, if you're going to do that, then the next question that you get asked is does that change over time? Did it continue? Is there? Because that's a very interesting question. If that focus changes, that tells you a lot about intention, and it tells you that this phenomenon is not random,

that it's intelligent, that it's focused. And what we found in the second study was yes, indeed, over time, the UAPs were no longer concerned about the weapons development sites. They were no longer they changed their focus. They changed their activity pattern from where weapons were developed and stockpiled to where they were deployed for use. It's very because, very obvious that they're kind of transition in activity patterns is telling us something about focus, and it's telling us

that the UAPs, quite frankly, are not random. They're not random there, it's not natural, it's not you know, it's not atmospherics. You know, there is a change in pattern of activity. So that was the second study.

which I found strange. And also I'm finding entry saying that your book Nexus, which is another again highly recommended book by Larry Ancock, is now in the collectible realm for some reason. I don't know if it's because there aren't that many of them being printed anymore or what. But also I still highly recommend the Skyhorse book, the most recent oswaldt puzzle, the Oswald Uzzle Excuse Me, which

is call authored by David Boylan. But I just wanted to point out that this book is available in various forms, and you know, I know this doesn't put money in your pocket right away, Larry, but even in the used books, it's gone up in price.

there's a change in focus. Okay, I get that part, but can you really derive what that focus is based on the change in the pattern Because you said, all of a sudden it goes from development to deployment. That's an import ifortant thing. I don't want to skip right over that. So could you just explain that a little better?

the bombs are being assembled. That all changes over time, so you've got to have a firm grasp on that.

different locations, they're different sites. So we went through a lot of work comparing the two because frankly, the air defense sites had more radars, they had more interceptors. I mean, they're focused on UFOs, right, that's their day job. Spot them, intercept them, identify them if necessary, to shoot them down. The scientists at Oakridge and Los Alamos and Sanda Base are putting together bombs. Now, that's not their day job.

by you know, New York, New Jersey area. Uh. You mentioned Los Alamos and some of these, you know, key nuclear facilities, but people do forget we have some of those on the East coast, you know. For instance, there's a like a nuclear what do you called submarine base in Connecticut of all places, you know, and I think that was a secret for a long time, but now it's kind of an open secret.

I can get to intervent it. But when we shifted our attention from the military to the public domain, because one of the things that became very clear even up to the time nineteen seventy five, was that a transition was occurring from military sites to public sites. And there's a change in focus from the military to the public. And I would say from the people that are talking about that River valley, uh, that that's just an extension of what we saw starting to begin in the in

the seventies. And we think it moved geographically interestingly enough, even though the precursors were in the Midwest, but they were in rural areas. They were in uh, not in metropolitan areas, and they followed the same pattern as the Hudson River Valley. They just it looks like that's where they started. And then it shifted from say, like you know, the upper Midwest to the Hudson River, you know, the outside of New York metro area, which is fascinating if you think about it.

it was so weird. And yeah, so that's why they're asking the question, because they're like, you know, hey, you brought that up on Friday. Maybe Larry studied that. I'm like, well, here's the thing.

a private researcher. There are two or three good books on the Black Triangles and this subject that we're done by private researchers, but the weird they pretty much be forced to rely strictly on their data, which we may choose to do, but we just haven't gotten there yet.

dumbbell and it spun weird and didn't make noise. It was very strange, and I hate even saying anything about it, but it was one of those weird incidents. That's the only time I actually saw an object like that, and that that could be attributed to my bad eyesight, because I plenty of friends has said they saw stuff over that area, and we always attributed it to the fact that we had those again, those joint military bases right nearby.

If you look at Tom's River and you look at Lakers Naval Airbase, which is where the Hindenburg went down to, by the way, you know that's what Hindenburg crashed is Lakers, New Jersey. If you look at that area, you kind of just got used to the idea that strange things were overhead sometimes, which.

military deployments. We don't keep any special weapons here they might knows, you know, they they use in fact, the same range where they train army guys. They let like prison guards come in and do their you know, they have requirements for being able to use their firearms, so they send them in there to use their tactical you know, training ground and things like that. But they also blow

off these huge pieces of artillery. Like I said, the whole county shakes like literally you could feel it Ocean County, even though it's like over in oh Burlington County, it's literally like a whole county away in New Jersey, and the ground rattles under your feet when they start doing this stuff and they're testing these things. So just saying it's just one of those things that you know, you kind of got used to living in certain parts of

Jersey anyway. I just wanted to point that out that there may be various clusters like this that you'd be able to study afterwards, but it's not part of the initial study that we're talking about now, because you only went up to nineteen seventy five A and B. You were dealing with the military's accounts, their records, their you know, experiences as preserved right.

to law enforcement and they're investigated. And so one of the things that we see beginning in I would say sixty four to sixty five time frame, well, the Blue Book is still underway. In there, we see a shift and it begins to be the public that are reporting UAPs, but in a totally different context. Back in the early fifties late forties, you're looking at UAP behavior that is

very demonstrative. You have lots of daylight reports, you have formations reported multiple objects flying and maneuvering together very you know, this is it's happening at daylight, it's happening over test ranges, it's happening over military facilities. It's just very visible. And

then that starts to change. By nineteen sixty five, the reports start to be after dark, at night, in the am, you know, midnight, two, three am, and we're talking about security guards and you know, police patrols and that sort of thing, and these are in public areas, no longer in military. So in our third study, we looked at a serious scenarios basically and evaluated you know, patterns in

the public domain. And the fascinating thing is these sorts of reports didn't happen earlier, and then suddenly they started having. The pattern is very definitive. It's as if the focus of the UAPs has changed. They're not they they gave up on the atomic weapons development sites after three or

four years. They care continued on with the deployment sites for longer, but then the attention team seems to turn to public encounters and public reports with you know, not over daylight over Albuquerque, New Mexico or Denver, but we're talking about, you know, eleven o'clock at night on a back road in Indiana.

change in a pattern here. Why is this going to the public sightings? I wonder if this might be a symptom or a result of, I should say, the change in culture at about that time, because look, we went from a time period where in America, except in certain major cities, you know, New York was the city that doesn't sleep well. Now almost no city sleeps, you know.

There became this phenomena of the graveyard shift, so to speak, where there were more police deployed at night, there were more businesses open, there were just more people awake, employed just around and moving around at later times at night. In a cultural sense in certain areas of the country.

That wasn't happening in the early seventies, that wasn't happening in the sixties, but started to happen in the later seventies in the eighties, and I'm wondering if this might not be at least partially due to a change in the observers that were available, because all of a sudden like I said, the graveyard shift becomes a phenomena. You know, they start having people work in even retail stores at night in order to you know, to replace the merchandise

or whatever. Whereas there was no third shift before. You know, you might have had floor cleaners that came in, a couple of guys that came into a big store or whatever before that. But there was a shift in culture in the workforce and even in the deployment of people that were available, awake and everything else at a certain time of day where they weren't previously. Is that a possibility as far as they shift in the time of day and even the availability of observers, is it possibly

partially due to that? And then the follow up is what do we have looking forward that's coming up from the study? Is there any more reaction from the government agency, so on and so forth? And then we'll kind of close it out.

are doing security patrols. But they've always done nighttime security patrols. So you almost have to dig down into I mean, that's a that's a very interesting question. So that's why you have to dig down to the reports themselves. But in all honesty, I would say, you know, the teenagers that are scared to death because they were out parking at eleven o'clock at night and you know, incountered the UFO and ran home and panic to their parents who

called the police. Were doing that in the fifty eighth as they were in sixty four. Okay, I know these people, no ex skidding.

the patterns emerge. Right, because that could be something that would cause the patterns to emerge if all of a sudden, you know, like say, well, gee, we didn't have sightings in this city before. Well it wasn't a city before, it was a small town. It grew into a city, you know, so you had you know, five times ten times the observers available even to notice this. Stuff like that could occur in you know, isolated spots, right. I mean, I'm just.

that's not what we're seeing. So but for the fourth study, which I gave you the link for, yes, what we went on is we looked at a set of scenarios that said, well, okay, given everything we've seen about the military, about the public let's look at a set of scenarios. Is that represent UAP behavior over time? And do we really see any change in behavior over time? And again what does that tell us? And the conclusions are in the study which is just published, and the conclusions overall

are yes, UAPs are intelligent actors. They display focus. They just say, display patterns of activity with focus. They display patterns of activities that transition over time. They're not randomized. They transition in focus and in location. The mere fact that that and they transition from populations. So we do present a case that in our assessment, what we're looking

at is intelligent activity. It is clearly based on the reports that we look at unconventional and the omalis it's not a native actor, it's an alien actor of some sort. There is not unconventional technology representing these. We did find a short period of time in which they may have tried electronic communications and we've failed to respond. And our assessment is what's really happened over time is they've conducted a survey of our atomic weapons capability, a strategic weapons capability,

and that they have shifted their focus. It's not that they're not maintaining some studies of that, but they have shifted their focus to behavioral studies because it appears they really don't understand what's going on. And so that's that's pretty interesting part of the fourth paper. There, those are pretty assertive assessments. I would say, uh, we think that we've act them up in the paper, but there there are there are a lot of people looking at it.

We know there are people in the national intelligence community that are looking at it. Certainly they're not going to talk about it. Looking at where the page downloads for the study of gone and how many of there have been, you know, we know it's going to get discussed. We have no idea what they're going to think about it because as far as we know, the national intelligence community has never conducted this type of pattern analysis and this

type of strategic indications study. So if it in a better place and time, I think it really might get routed to a strategic part of the community. Unfortunately, at this part, it would be difficult to identify a strategic part of the American intelligence community. You know, everybody is busy trying to see it there. Whether they're going to be at their desk next week, I'm not sure this would capture their attention.

That's one of the titles there. But you can get it from the article, which again I have posted from the Let's see it's the explore Explore SCU dot org. That's the website if you want to go take a look. And they also do conferences all that stuff. Is there any conference this is coming up?

our team members will be reviewing these four studies. But yeah, we a s SeeU does a fair amount of research and projects that we're engaged in and and actually one of the major reasons for our existence is trying to bring people together to talk about how you might tackle this subject from a scientific methodological, you know, structured standpoint, which is which is obviously quite difficult with any phenomena that is not you know, repetitive under control conditions. Science

less to be able to do experiments. UAPs are not a good place to be able to do control experimentation. They show up when they want to show.

to be so structured. But fortunately one of our team members is by profession the data analyst and is an excellent guy for making illustrations and doing charts and graphs, and so I can say that it is heavily illustrated, and the illustrations not allow you to survive the text. There you go, and someday we might actually write a book that is more readable, but what we're doing now are academic papers, right.

but there you have it. So Larry, thanks for doing this with me. I appreciate the update. Uh, we'll probably talk to you again in a couple of weeks, and who knows, hopefully we don't have any more JFK hearings of oddness to go over. Uh, maybe we can discuss

other things happening in the world. And who knows which one of your books will have to reference then, because it seems to me like, you know, you write a book and then a couple of years later, we have to pull it off the shelf and go, well, this is relevant. But you were ahead of the curve. Larry keeps happening, doesn't it, Creating Chaos.

k I A s 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.