Latest / The Joe Rogan Recap / Ryan Graves (2022) - Naval UAP Encounters and Technological Future

Transcript

Ryan Graves (2022) - Naval UAP Encounters and Technological Future · The Joe Rogan Recap

0:00
Welcome to the Joe Rogan recap. Today, we're diving deep into a
0:03
fascinating conversation from The Joe Rogan Experience,
0:06
specifically episode Hashtag 1883 with Ryan Graves.
0:10
For those unfamiliar, Graves isn't just some casual observer
0:13
he's He's a former F18 pilot with a decade of serious
0:16
experience under his belt, including operational tours and
0:19
even instructing others in the Navy.
0:21
Exactly. And what makes this discussion
0:22
so compelling is that we're going to unpack Graves first
0:26
hand accounts of encountering unidentified aerial phenomena,
0:28
or UAP, during his, you know, everyday flight operations and
0:32
training missions. We're aiming to extract the core
0:34
of his experiences and really understand the most significant
0:37
and, well, intriguing aspects, he shared.
0:39
Absolutely. And let's not forget, Graves
0:41
background provides A crucial lens through which to view these
0:44
encounters. He's a trained aviator and an
0:46
engineer, someone grounded in the realities of flight and
0:49
technology, which adds significant weight to his
0:52
descriptions of these truly unusual events.
0:55
OK, so let's get into it. Graves mentioned a notable
0:58
increase in these UAP encounters starting around late 2013 or
1:01
early 2014. What sparked this uptick?
1:04
Was there like a change of what was happening in the skies or
1:07
something else? That's a key question, and
1:10
what's particularly revealing is that this time frame aligns
1:13
directly with a major upgrade to their F18 radar systems.
1:16
They transition from the APG 73 to the APG 79.
1:21
Graves himself drew a powerful analogy, comparing it to the
1:24
difference between an old analog TV and a modern OLED screen.
1:28
Just a massive leap in detection capabilities.
1:30
OK, so this suggests that perhaps these phenomena weren't
1:33
necessarily new, but our ability to see them was dramatically
1:36
enhanced. It really makes me wonder about
1:38
what we might have been missing with older technology.
1:40
That's a great point. So it wasn't necessarily an
1:42
invasion fleet suddenly appearing, but more like we got
1:46
better eyes to see what might have been there all along.
1:49
Where were these initial radar contacts typically occurring?
1:53
Was it a specific area? The pattern was quite
1:55
consistent. These radar contacts were almost
1:57
exclusively over the water in their designated training zones
2:00
off the East Coast of the US. This area generally stretched
2:03
from about 10 miles offshore out to around 250 miles.
2:08
Interestingly, Graves specifically noted that these
2:10
sightings were over the ocean or bays, never over land.
2:15
Never over land. Why do you think that might be?
2:17
That raises the question, doesn't it?
2:18
Could the environment play a role in these observations?
2:21
Or maybe where they operate? It's hard to say for sure.
2:24
Right now this airspace, well, military, wasn't a complete no
2:27
fly zone for everyone, right? Could these have been civilian
2:30
aircraft that just happened to stray into the area and get
2:33
picked up on the new fancy radar?
2:36
That's a logical possibility to explore.
2:38
And while the military operating area, or MOA, wasn't strictly
2:43
forbidden to civilian aircraft, Graves made a crucial
2:46
distinction. He emphasized that these UAP
2:48
exhibited behaviors unlike typical civilian traffic.
2:52
For instance, incursions by civilian aircraft usually
2:55
trigger communication with air traffic control or, you know,
2:58
interception by military aircraft.
3:00
These UAP didn't elicit that kind of interaction, suggesting
3:03
they weren't operating within the normal parameters of known
3:05
air traffic. OK, that makes sense.
3:07
So with this new advanced radar painting these objects on their
3:11
screens, what kind of information were they actually
3:13
getting? Were they seeing detailed shapes
3:15
or just blips? The upgraded radar primarily
3:18
provided what we call kinematic data.
3:21
Think of it as the essential tracking information, the
3:23
object's position, its speed, and its direction of travel.
3:27
It could tell them something was there and how it was moving, but
3:29
it didn't offer much in the way of physical description.
3:31
No detailed silhouettes or discernible features directly
3:34
from the radar itself. It was more about the what and
3:37
where of the movement, not the what of the object itself.
3:40
Right. So just movement data.
3:42
With this sudden increase in these unusual radar contacts,
3:46
the initial reaction must have been disbelief.
3:49
Did the pilots initially suspect their new radar was
3:52
malfunctioning? Absolutely.
3:53
I mean wouldn't you? Given the unexpected frequency
3:56
of these detections in airspace that should have been relatively
3:59
clear during their training missions, The pilots 1st and
4:02
most natural assumption was a technical issue with the new
4:05
radar system. It was the most readily
4:07
available explanation for seeing so many unexpected things.
4:10
It highlights how much we rely on our instruments, you know?
4:12
OK, so the radar is picking up these enigmatic objects.
4:16
What was the turning point? When did they start to realize
4:18
these weren't just sensor glitches, but potentially
4:21
physical objects? Yeah, here's where things get
4:24
really intriguing. The shift from potential radar
4:27
errors to the recognition of physical objects occurred when
4:30
they began to corroborate the radar data with visual
4:32
confirmations. Their F eighteens are equipped
4:35
with a forward-looking infrared or FLIR camera system.
4:39
This FLIR is often slave to the radar, meaning when the radar
4:43
detected something, the FLIR would automatically point in
4:46
that direction to try and get a visual lock.
4:48
And what did they see through the FLIR?
4:50
Were they getting clear thermal images?
4:52
Little green men, huh? Not quite often, the visual
4:55
signature on the FLIR appeared as a source of infrared energy,
4:59
almost like a bright flashlight in the thermal spectrum.
5:02
This indicated the presence of something at the precise
5:04
location where the radar was tracking an object, suggesting
5:07
it wasn't just a ghost signal. Interestingly, Graves noted A
5:11
dichotomy. Many times these objects
5:13
appeared cold, meaning they weren't emitting significant
5:16
heat detectable by the IR, while other times they presented a
5:19
clear heat signature. Cold, but sometimes hot.
5:22
It's weird. Right, this variability adds
5:25
another layer of complexity to understanding what they were
5:27
observing. So these things weren't
5:29
consistently hot like exhaust plumes.
5:32
What about their speed? Were they exhibiting the kind of
5:34
extreme velocities we often hear about in UAP lore like ZAP Gone?
5:39
Speeds varied considerably. Some of these UAP were observed
5:42
to be completely stationary, just hovering with no apparent
5:46
means of propulsion, even in windy conditions, Which you
5:49
know, is a feat that defies conventional aerodynamics.
5:52
Stationary in the wind. Yeah, others moved at speeds
5:54
that Graves estimated to be around .6 to .8 Mach.
5:58
To put that in perspective, that's roughly 240 to 330 knots
6:01
at altitude, which is actually within the realm of conventional
6:05
aircraft speeds. So it wasn't always about
6:07
hypersonic velocities. So some were just cruising,
6:11
others were just sitting there. That stationary thing is
6:14
certainly not typical of anything we know about in our
6:16
skies. Did they notice any particular
6:18
patterns and how these objects were moving?
6:21
Yes, the observed flight patterns were also quite
6:23
anomalous. Beyond the stationary hovering,
6:26
they witnessed meandering movements that didn't seem to
6:29
follow any logical flight path, just sort of wandering around.
6:33
But perhaps one of the most notable patterns was the
6:36
frequent observation of racetrack patterns.
6:39
These are efficient holding patterns used by aircraft
6:42
involving straight paths and 180° turns at either end.
6:46
Race track patterns. That implies a certain level of
6:49
controlled movement, almost like they're intentionally holding a
6:52
position or observing something. Exactly, And Graves mentioned
6:56
that this specific pattern has also been reported by others off
6:58
the West Coast more recently, suggesting a potential common
7:01
behavior across different UAP encounters.
7:04
Interesting. And how long would these objects
7:06
typically remain in their vicinity?
7:07
Were they fleeting glimpses or or persistent encounters?
7:11
According to Graves account, these objects were often a
7:14
persistent presence. They weren't just quick flybys.
7:17
Pilots would frequently observe them upon takeoff, and they
7:20
would still be present in the operating area when they
7:22
returned to land. Every day.
7:24
Pretty much it paints a picture of a continuous unexplained
7:28
activity in their training environment.
7:30
This sustained presence likely contributed to the growing
7:33
concern among the pilots. Seeing these unusual objects day
7:37
after day must have shifted the atmosphere from curious to
7:41
potentially threatening, especially considering the near
7:44
miss that occurred. Can you walk us through that
7:47
significant event? This was a truly pivotal
7:50
incident that really under score the potential danger. 2F
7:54
Eighteens were flying in formation as they approached the
7:57
entry point of their designated operating area, a specific GPS
8:01
coordinate and altitude that served as a common point for
8:03
both incoming and outgoing aircraft.
8:06
Think of it as a pre arranged meeting point in the sky.
8:09
OK, so a well defined and predictable location for air
8:12
traffic, what happened as they arrived at this point?
8:14
An unidentified aerial phenomenon passed directly
8:17
between the two aircraft, which were flying in close formation
8:20
approximately 100 feet apart. 100 feet, that's incredibly
8:23
close, especially at the speeds these jets fly.
8:26
Incredibly close and the lead pilot was able to visually
8:29
observe the object as it went by.
8:31
The pilot in the trailing aircraft, focused on maintaining
8:34
tight formation, did not get a visual.
8:37
OK, so the lead pilot saw it. What did he describe?
8:40
Was it like the other things they'd seen on FLIR?
8:43
The description he gave is quite remarkable and interestingly
8:46
aligns with descriptions that have surfaced in other UAP
8:49
encounters. He described it as a dark Gray
8:52
or black cube that was situated inside a clear translucent
8:56
sphere. He further noted that the
8:58
corners of the cube appeared to be in contact with the inner
9:01
surface of the sphere. A cube.
9:04
Inside a sphere. Yeah, a cube within a sphere.
9:06
It's a very specific and unusual geometric configuration.
9:09
That's a far cry from your typical aircraft or weather
9:11
blend. Yeah.
9:12
What was the immediate reaction after this near collision?
9:15
They try to chase it. No, the pilot who had the visual
9:18
immediately aborted his mission and returned to base.
9:21
Understandably, he was quite shaken by the experience,
9:24
reportedly stating that he almost hit one of those damn
9:27
things. This incident served as a stark
9:30
reminder of the potential for a catastrophic midair collision
9:33
with an object they couldn't identify or predict.
9:36
Even a small dense object striking a high speed aircraft
9:39
could have devastating consequences.
9:41
A near midair with an unknown object like that, that has to
9:45
trigger some kind of official alarm bells, right?
9:48
What was the response from the chain of command after this
9:50
incident was reported? Well, initially within the
9:53
squadron, the prevailing assumption, or maybe hope was
9:56
that what they were encountering were classified US programs
9:59
operating in areas where they weren't supposed to be secret
10:01
tech. Basically, it was the most
10:03
readily available, albeit still concerning, explanation that
10:06
they could come up with within their existing framework of
10:08
understanding. But even if it were a classified
10:11
program, a near midair suggests a significant lapse in safety
10:15
protocols and communication. Were any formal investigations
10:18
launched? Did they file paperwork?
10:20
Oh yeah, a formal safety report as a Hazer Up hazard report was
10:24
submitted precisely because of this.
10:26
Near midair, these reports are used to flag potential hazards
10:30
that could lead to loss of life or equipment.
10:32
Graves indicated that multiple Hazer reps were filed over time
10:36
concerning these UAP encounters. Multiple reports.
10:39
OK. So a formal record was made of
10:41
these incidents highlighting the safety risks.
10:44
Did this result in any changes to their operating procedures or
10:47
any specific directives regarding UAP?
10:49
Eventually, yes, a no Tam or notice to Airmen was issued for
10:53
their local operating area. This is a publicly distributed
10:56
advisory to pilots detailing potential hazards to flight.
11:00
There are no Tam specifically cautioned about unknown objects
11:04
working in our operating areas. Unknown objects working in our
11:06
operating areas is. Pretty direct it is.
11:09
It signifies a formal acknowledgement of the issue by
11:11
some level of authority, informing pilots of the
11:13
potential presence of these unknowns, but it didn't offer
11:16
any explanation of what they were or how to specifically
11:19
avoid them. More like a headset.
11:21
A. No Tam acknowledging unknown
11:23
objects. That's a pretty unusual
11:26
admission in itself, but it sounds like that was the extent
11:28
of the formal response at that time.
11:30
Why wasn't there a more in depth investigation or dedicated
11:33
effort to understand what these objects were?
11:36
Seems like a big deal. Graves pointed to a couple of
11:39
significant factors. Firstly, the sheer cost of
11:42
operating these high performance aircraft is astronomical, around
11:45
$30,000 per flight hour. Diverting flight time and
11:49
resources away from their primary mission of training for
11:51
deployment to specifically study these UAP would have been a
11:54
major budgetary and operational decision.
11:57
Training comes first. Secondly, the F18 sensor suite
12:01
is primarily designed for combat scenarios for identifying and
12:04
track adversarial targets, not for conducting scientific
12:07
analysis of unknown phenomena. The data is processed and
12:10
filtered for target prosecution, not collected in a raw
12:13
comprehensive format that would be ideal for in depth study.
12:16
So the gear wasn't really set up for science, more for fighting.
12:19
Exactly. So while they were observing
12:21
these things, it was largely during transit or waiting
12:23
periods, not as part of a dedicated scientific inquiry.
12:26
You mentioned earlier a particularly intriguing UAP
12:29
event involving something referred to as the Gimbal.
12:32
What made that encounter so noteworthy?
12:34
Right, the gimbal incident. This occurred during a work up
12:37
cycle off the coast of Jacksonville, FL.
12:40
This involved air to air training exercises conducted in
12:42
proximity to the USS Theodore Roosevelt aircraft carrier.
12:47
This particular event stood out because it involved a formation
12:50
of multiple objects and the unique behavior exhibited by the
12:54
object they nicknamed Gimbal. And how is this gimbal object
12:57
initially detected and observed? Was it radar again?
13:00
It was first observed on what's known as the situational
13:03
awareness page in the cockpit. Think of this as a comprehensive
13:07
real time overview of sensor data from their own aircraft and
13:10
potentially other nearby friendly aircraft.
13:13
Kind of a God's eye view of the battle space using fused sensor.
13:17
OK, so it appeared as one of the many data points on their
13:20
integrated display. What made its subsequent
13:22
observation so compelling? Why the nickname Gimbal?
13:25
Well, the truly remarkable aspect unfolded when they focus
13:28
the FLIR system on this particular radar contact.
13:32
The FLIR footage captured an object exhibiting A distinct and
13:36
unusual rotational motion. That's where the name came from,
13:40
though. It might not be literally like a
13:41
mechanical gimbal, but what elevates this event even further
13:45
is that the radar data, which was simultaneously being
13:48
recorded on the same tape as the FLIR imagery, showed this object
13:52
coming to a complete stop midair and then reversing its
13:55
direction. It stopped and turned around.
13:57
Yeah, and apparently in direct response to a formation of other
14:00
objects moving away. Stopped and reversed midair in
14:03
response to other objects. That sounds incredibly
14:05
deliberate and far beyond the capabilities of any known
14:08
aircraft. How precise and rapid was this
14:11
maneuver? Raves described this reversal as
14:13
a very tight, almost unbelievable vertical U-turn,
14:16
estimated to have occurred within a radius of approximately
14:19
500 feet. 500 feet. Yeah, to give you a sense of
14:22
scale, he pointed out that an F18 executing a similar maneuver
14:25
would require a turning radius of around 4000 to 6000 feet.
14:29
OK. So orders of magnitude tighter.
14:31
Exactly this dramatic difference in performance strongly suggests
14:35
the technology far exceeding their own.
14:37
The FLIR footage of this gimbal object has famously been leaked
14:41
and is now publicly accessible, but Graves mentioned that the
14:45
corresponding radar data from the situational awareness page
14:48
hasn't been released. Why is that significant?
14:50
Well, as Graves clarified, because the FLIR video and the
14:54
situational awareness page data, which includes the crucial radar
14:58
tracking information showing that stop and reversal are
15:00
recorded on the same continuous tape, the radar data for the
15:03
gimbal event undeniably exists. The fact that only the FLIR
15:07
footage was leaked while the associated radar data remains
15:10
classified strongly implies a deliberate decision to protect
15:13
sensitive radar capabilities. These systems are vital for
15:17
National Defense, and revealing their operational
15:19
characteristics would be a significant security risk.
15:22
You don't want adversaries knowing exactly how your best
15:24
radar works. Makes sense.
15:26
So the term gimbal refers to the rotation they saw on FLIR, not
15:30
necessarily its shape. Right.
15:32
It became the informal designation that Graves and his
15:34
colleagues used for this specific type of UAT, one that
15:38
exhibited this unusual rotational characteristic.
15:41
It's important to understand that the apparent shape or
15:43
rotation seen in the infrared video might not represent the
15:46
actual physical form of the object itself.
15:49
Infrared signatures depict energy emissions, and what they
15:53
were observing could have been influenced by plasma fields or
15:56
other energy phenomena surrounding a potentially
15:58
different underlying structure. What you see in IR isn't always
16:02
the physical shape. So they have this compelling
16:04
video and corresponding radar data of an object performing
16:08
seemingly impossible maneuvers. What was the reaction within
16:12
their squadron? Was there intense scrutiny and
16:14
discussion? Like what the heck was that?
16:17
Interestingly, Grays described the initial period of curiosity
16:20
and discussion following the gimbal sighting as being quickly
16:22
curtailed. He recounted a sentiment of that
16:25
was enough. Essentially, stop talking about.
16:27
It really just shut down. Pretty much.
16:29
This wasn't necessarily a formal gag order or a non disclosure
16:33
agreement, but rather a strong, perhaps unspoken discouragement
16:38
to dwell on the topic further. What do you think prompted this
16:41
swift suppression of discussion? Was it fear of ridicule,
16:45
concerns about security, or just focus on the mission?
16:49
Grieves suggested that the primary driver was the
16:51
relentless operational tempo and the overwhelming focus on
16:55
preparing for their upcoming deployment.
16:57
With demanding 18 hour workdays and the imminent prospect of
17:00
combat. This unusual phenomenon, while
17:03
undeniably perplexing, was often relegated to a secondary
17:06
concern. Compared to the immediate
17:07
demands of their mission readiness, they had bigger fish
17:10
to fry, supposedly. I guess that makes sense in a
17:12
high stress environment, but surely when they presented this
17:15
extraordinary footage during intelligence briefings there
17:18
must have been a more significant level of official
17:20
interest or concern expressed. Well, when the gimbal footage
17:24
was shown during an intelligence debriefing, Graves described the
17:27
reaction among the intelligence personnel and the other aviators
17:31
present as one of genuine surprise and a complete lack of
17:34
explanation. A palpable holy shit moment, as
17:38
he put it. OK, so the rank and file were
17:40
definitely surprised. Yeah, but he noted that the
17:42
Admiral who briefly reviewed the footage appeared remarkably
17:45
unfazed and departed quickly. Unfazed.
17:48
Yeah, a reaction that Graves interpreted as a possible
17:51
indication of prior knowledge or awareness of such phenomena.
17:55
Like maybe it wasn't used to him.
17:56
Interesting. So while those on the front
17:59
lines were clearly taken aback, it sounds like some individuals
18:02
in higher positions might have been less surprised.
18:05
Did Graves ever take his observations beyond his
18:07
immediate military chain of command?
18:09
Talk to anyone else. Yes, Graves did have private
18:12
meetings with members of the Senate Armed Services Committee
18:14
and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to share his
18:17
first hand experiences with. Congress.
18:19
Wow. Yeah, he indicated that the
18:21
senators he spoke with seemed genuinely interested and
18:24
concerned by the information he presented.
18:26
Beyond the Cuban sphere and the gimbal, were there other
18:29
frequently observed types of UAP?
18:31
The Graves and his fellow pilots encountered other shapes or
18:34
behaviors. Absolutely.
18:36
Graves specifically mention the Tic Tac object, which gained
18:39
significant attention through the accounts of Commander David
18:42
Fraver from the USS Nimitz encounters back in 2004.
18:46
This object was estimated to be around maybe 25 feet in length
18:49
and exhibited truly astounding performance characteristics,
18:52
like reportedly descending from over 50,000 feet to just 50 feet
18:58
in under a second. 50,000 to 50 feet in less than a second.
19:02
Yeah, with no visible means of propulsion or any Sonic boom,
19:05
just incredible acceleration. That kind of maneuverability
19:08
seems to defy our current understanding of physics.
19:11
Were these different types of UAP observed in specific
19:14
geographic locations, or were they more widely distributed?
19:17
Was the cube just an East Coast thing?
19:19
Graves noted that sightings of objects matching the cube and
19:22
sphere description were reportedly made by other
19:25
squadrons along the East Coast, including in the vicinity of
19:28
Patuxent River, which is a major Center for naval aviation
19:31
testing and development. So not just his squadron.
19:34
He also mentioned that as awareness of these phenomenon
19:36
grew within the pilot community, reports of similar cube like
19:39
objects began to emerge from the West Coast and even from inland
19:43
military installations. So.
19:44
Cubes popping up elsewhere too. Yeah, suggest these aren't
19:47
isolated incidents confined to a single location or type.
19:51
The 2017 New York Times article really blew the lid off this
19:54
whole thing for the general public, didn't it?
19:56
How did that article impact the conversation and Ryan Gray's his
20:00
own decision to speak out more? Oh, that New York Times article
20:03
was a watershed moment. Absolutely.
20:05
It injected a significant dose of mainstream credibility into
20:08
the UAP discussion, shifting it from the fringes of, you know,
20:13
tinfoil hat territory towards a more serious topic of public
20:16
interest and governmental consideration.
20:19
Graves himself stated that the article played a role in his
20:21
decision and the decisions of others like Fraver and Dietrich
20:25
to engage more openly with the subject.
20:26
It kind of gave them cover, maybe.
20:28
Made it safer to talk about. And when Graves does speak
20:31
publicly, what is his primary message or concern regarding
20:34
these UAP encounters? What's his main point?
20:37
Graves consistently emphasizes aviation safety as his paramount
20:40
concern. He stresses the numerous near
20:43
miss incidents that he and his colleagues experienced and the
20:46
significant lack of established protocols or guidance for pilot
20:49
when they encounter these unidentified objects.
20:52
His background as an aviation safety officer clearly shapes
20:55
his perspective and his advocacy.
20:56
It's about preventing accidents first and foremost for him.
21:00
Right, the safety angle. It sounds like the official
21:03
approach to UAP reporting within the military has evolved
21:06
somewhat since Graves's initial encounters back in 2014, 2015.
21:10
What is the current process for pilots who witnessed these
21:13
phenomena? Is it better now?
21:15
Graves highlighted the fact that the Department of Defense has
21:17
now established a more formalized mechanism for air
21:20
crews to report UAP sightings. That's a positive step.
21:24
Encouragingly, this new reporting system includes a
21:26
specific section for pilots to detail the shape and
21:29
characteristics of the observed object, which Graves hopes will
21:32
lead to the collection of more standardized and useful data,
21:35
ultimately contributing to a better understanding.
21:38
They actually ask about the sheep now?
21:39
Yep. But Graves also expressed A
21:41
valid concern. If pilots don't receive feedback
21:44
or see any tangible action resulting from their reports,
21:47
they may become discouraged and just stop reporting these events
21:51
all together, which would be a significant loss of potentially
21:54
valuable information. That's a crucial point.
21:57
Pilots need to feel that their observations are being taken
22:00
seriously and are contributing to something, not just going
22:03
into a black hole. Were there any indications and
22:06
declassified reports about the general sentiment among pilots
22:10
regarding these encounters? What do they think?
22:11
Yes, declassified pilot reports that have come to light through
22:14
the UAP Task Force reveal a significant degree of curiosity
22:18
and a genuine desire For more information among pilots.
22:22
They are encountering objects exhibiting flight
22:24
characteristics and behaviors that they cannot reconcile with
22:27
known aircraft or natural phenomena, objects hovering in
22:31
strong winds, making abrupt maneuvers, operating in ways
22:34
that defy conventional aerodynamics.
22:36
And they are actively seeking explanations and a better
22:38
understanding of what they are witnessing in their operational
22:41
environments. They want answers, basically.
22:43
A significant number of UAP sightings seem to occur over the
22:46
ocean. We talked about the East Coast
22:48
sightings. Is there any prevailing theory
22:50
or speculation as to why this might be the case?
22:53
Graves offered the speculation that the higher frequency of
22:56
oceanic sightings might be related to the inherent
22:58
challenges of detection in the underwater domain.
23:01
Our surveillance technologies and sensory capabilities are far
23:04
less developed and comprehensive beneath the surface of the ocean
23:07
compared to in the air. So maybe they spend time
23:10
underwater where we can't easily see them.
23:12
Could be this could mean that UAP activity near or in the
23:16
water is simply harder for us to monitor.
23:18
Out of sight, out of mind, perhaps?
23:20
And then there are the reports of transmedium objects, those
23:24
that seem to move effortlessly between air and water.
23:27
What are Graves thoughts on those kinds of accounts?
23:30
He acknowledged the existence of videos and reports depicting
23:33
such transmedium capabilities, emphasizing that the ability to
23:37
transition seamlessly and operate effectively in both air
23:40
and water implies a very advanced level of technology.
23:44
High speed underwater movement, in particular, presents enormous
23:47
engineering challenges due to the density and resistance of
23:50
water. Trying to go fast underwater is
23:53
incredibly difficult. Right, like hitting a wall
23:55
compared to air. There's been some fringe
23:58
speculation about exotic power sources for these objects,
24:01
perhaps drawing energy from the ocean like hydrogen.
24:04
Did Graves touch on any of those possibilities?
24:06
He did mention the speculative idea of hydrogen, given its
24:09
abundance in seawater, as a potential low unconfirmed energy
24:13
source. However, he was quick to
24:15
emphasize that this was purely conjecture.
24:17
Just throwing ideas out there. Ultimately, regardless of the
24:21
potential origin or power source, his primary concern
24:24
remains the implications of technological surprise, the
24:27
possibility that these objects represent capabilities that
24:30
could pose A strategic disadvantage, whether they
24:32
originate from terrestrial adversaries or from somewhere
24:35
entirely unknown. So friend or foe, understanding
24:39
the tech is key. Exactly.
24:40
Understanding their technological prowess is the
24:43
critical issue for defense. The conversation on Rogan also
24:46
drifted into the it's a intriguing realm of Bob Lazar
24:50
and his claims surrounding Element 115.
24:53
For listeners who might not be Smire, can you give us a quick
24:55
refresher on his story? Sure.
24:57
In the late 1980s, Bob Lazar came forward claiming to have
25:00
been employed at a secret facility known as Area S4 near
25:04
Area 51, where he allegedly worked on the propulsion systems
25:08
of extraterrestrial spacecraft, reverse engineering alien tech.
25:12
Basically, he described these craft as being powered by a
25:15
stable isotope of element 115, a super heavy element that was, at
25:19
the time of his claims, only theoretically proposed.
25:22
Lazar asserted that this element could generate a gravity field
25:25
which served as the basis for the spacecraft's propulsion,
25:28
allowing for the seemingly impossible flight
25:30
characteristics often associated with UAP.
25:32
Element 115? And what's current scientific
25:34
understanding of element 115? Has it been discovered or
25:37
confirmed since Lazar's claims back in the 80s?
25:40
Element 115, which is now officially named Mustovium, was
25:44
indeed synthesized and confirmed by researchers through particle
25:47
accelerator experiments around 2009 and later, so the element
25:51
itself exists. However, the key part of Lazar's
25:54
claim, the existence of a stable isotope of this element, has not
25:57
been publicly verified or replicated.
26:00
The isotopes of Moscovium that have been created so far are
26:02
highly unstable and decay very, very rapidly fractions of a
26:05
second. So the stability part is still
26:08
unproven. What's particularly interesting
26:09
is the overlap between Lazar's descriptions of spacecraft
26:12
movement from way back then and the observed behaviors of some
26:15
UAP reported much later, like the gimbals rapid maneuvers.
26:18
Can you elaborate on that connection?
26:19
Yeah, what's what? Certainly thought provoking is
26:21
that some of the flight characteristics that Lazar
26:24
attributed to these Element 115 powered craft in the late 1980s,
26:28
including instantaneous right angle turns, rapid acceleration
26:32
and deceleration, and unusual rotations, do bear resemblance
26:36
to the behaviors reported in more recent UAP encounters, such
26:39
as the tight vertical U-turn exhibited by the gimbal object.
26:44
This temporal alignment and similarity in descriptions,
26:46
despite Lazar's claims predating many of these modern
26:49
observations by decades, is something that continues to fuel
26:52
debate and keep his story relevant for some people.
26:55
Right, the descriptions match up in some ways.
26:57
Graves himself seems to approach Lazar's claims with a degree of
27:00
caution, though. What was his general perspective
27:02
on this aspect of the conversation?
27:04
Did he buy it? Graves maintained A skeptical
27:07
yet open minded stance regarding Lazar's assertions.
27:10
He acknowledged the enduring interest in Lazar story and the
27:13
intriguing parallels with some UAP observations.
27:16
However, he emphasized the critical need for verifiable
27:19
scientific evidence and rigorous peer reviewed research to
27:23
substantiate such extraordinary claims.
27:26
He underscored the importance of separating anecdotal accounts,
27:29
however compelling, from scientifically validated data.
27:32
Needs proof basically. Looking ahead, are there any
27:35
emerging technologies or analytical approaches that might
27:38
offer new pathways to understanding the UAP
27:41
phenomenon? Any new tools?
27:43
Graves pointed to the rapid advancements in artificial
27:45
intelligence and machine learning as potentially
27:48
transformative tools in this area.
27:50
He suggested that AI algorithms could be employed to analyze the
27:53
vast amounts of UAP data collected from various sensors,
27:55
radar, infrared, optical, etcetera.
27:58
The idea is that AI might identify complex patterns and
28:01
correlations in the data that might be missed by human
28:03
analysts. It can help us move beyond
28:05
individual anecdotes towards a more data-driven understanding
28:08
of behaviors. Using AI to find patterns we
28:11
can't see makes sense. Graves also had some interesting
28:14
interactions with government officials regarding his
28:16
experiences. Can you share some of the key
28:19
takeaways from those discussions with Congress?
28:21
Yeah, he recounted having private meetings with members of
28:24
both the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Select
28:27
Committee on Intelligence to discuss his first hand UAP
28:31
encounters, getting their attention directly.
28:34
He noted that after these initial private briefings, he
28:37
was subsequently asked to attend a follow up meeting in his full
28:40
military uniform. In uniform.
28:43
Why? He interpreted that as a sign of
28:45
the increasing seriousness with which some members of Congress
28:48
reviewing the issue, perhaps also reflecting a concern for
28:51
the gravity and potential implications of his testimony.
28:54
It adds a certain weight, you know.
28:56
Yeah, definitely sends a message.
28:57
It sounds like there's a growing level of official engagement
29:00
with this topic within the government.
29:02
What's the current structural framework within the Department
29:04
of Defense for addressing UAP? Who's in charge now?
29:07
Current efforts within the DoD, most notably the establishment
29:10
of the All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office, or ARO, and
29:15
the specific language included in recent Intelligence
29:17
Authorization Acts, clearly acknowledge a significant
29:20
category of UAP that cannot be readily explained as known
29:22
aircraft, balloons, or other conventional phenomena.
29:26
The primary focus of ARO is supposed to be investigating
29:29
these unexplained events in a more systematic and scientific
29:32
manner, aiming to identify their nature, origin and potential
29:36
threats trying to get organized about it.
29:38
OK, AARO, One of the more perplexing aspects of some UAP
29:42
encounters is the apparent ability of these objects to
29:45
anticipate the movements or intentions of our military
29:48
aircraft. Did Graves offer any insights
29:50
into this phenomenon? It's almost like they know where
29:52
our guys are going, yes. He highlighted the frequently
29:55
cited example of the Tic Tac object seemingly maneuvering to
29:58
the Combat Air Patrol, or CAP Point, the designated meeting
30:02
area for the military aircraft, before the pilots arrived there.
30:04
It beat them to the rendezvous point.
30:06
Seemingly, yes. This suggests a level of
30:09
awareness, or perhaps a capability to predict the
30:11
movements of our forces that is deeply mysterious and raises
30:15
significant questions about their intent and technology.
30:18
How do they know? Yeah, that's spooky.
30:20
And Graves also shared another unsettling encounter reported by
30:23
a fellow experienced aviator. What details did he provide
30:26
about that incident? He recounted an instance where
30:29
another seasoned Navy pilot had a close encounter with a cube
30:32
like object near his cockpit while flying at high altitude
30:35
and speed. Another cube close up.
30:38
Yeah, this object reportedly maintained its position
30:40
alongside the aircraft for several seconds before rapidly
30:43
accelerating away at an incredible velocity, all without
30:47
being detected by civilian air traffic control or even the
30:49
military's own test monitoring systems just vanished for
30:53
sensors. This event was also formally
30:56
reported to the UAP task force. Graves emphasized that many
30:59
veteran Navy aviators have their own UAP stories, indicating that
31:03
these kinds of encounters are likely more common than publicly
31:06
known. It's not just him and Fravor.
31:08
Despite the sophisticated radar and infrared tracking of these,
31:12
UAP, achieving clear visual confirmation of something like
31:14
the Cuban sphere object seemed to be consistently challenging
31:18
for Graves and his squadron. Why was it so hard to actually
31:21
see them clearly even when they were close?
31:24
Right. Even during close quarters
31:25
approaches within the established 500 foot safety
31:28
perimeter, positive visual identification often remained
31:32
elusive. Several factors could explain
31:34
this. It's possible that the UAP were
31:36
executing subtle yet rapid evasive maneuvers that were
31:40
beyond the pilot's ability to visually track at high speeds.
31:43
The human eye has limitations, especially when dealing with
31:46
fast moving or unexpectedly behaving objects against a
31:48
bright sky or dark water. So they might just be too quick
31:51
for the eye, or perhaps there's a more advanced explanation,
31:54
like some form of sophisticated visual concealment, or even a
31:57
cloaking technology at play. Graves did speculate on the
32:00
possibility of more advanced mechanisms contributing to this
32:04
visual elusiveness. This could range from relatively
32:07
simple camouflage like effects that make the object difficult
32:11
to distinguish against the background, to more speculative
32:14
concepts involving advanced physics that might allow for
32:17
some form of visual distortion or even cloaking.
32:20
Like a predator cloak. Maybe something like that, or
32:22
maybe something completely different based on physics we
32:24
don't understand. But he stressed that without
32:26
more concrete data, these remain in the realm of speculation.
32:29
We just don't know. Right.
32:31
And it's not just military pilots who are reporting these
32:34
unusual aerial phenomena. Commercial pilots have also had
32:37
encounters, haven't they? That's correct.
32:39
Graves referenced the widely reported incident of a cube
32:42
shaped UAP filmed by a commercial airline pilot over
32:46
Colombia as a prime example. However, he also highlighted the
32:50
significant issue that they're currently lacks a clear and
32:53
standardized reporting structure or official acknowledgement of
32:56
UAP within the commercial aviation sector.
32:59
So commercial pilots don't really have a place to report
33:01
this stuff formally. Not really.
33:03
Not in the same way the military now does.
33:05
This could potentially leave commercial pilots unprepared for
33:08
such encounters and may lead to under reporting of these events.
33:11
Hearing these first hand accounts from highly trained
33:14
military aviators certainly opens up some profound big
33:17
picture questions. How have these experiences
33:20
personally impacted Graves own understanding of our place in
33:23
the universe? Did it change him?
33:26
Grace has reflected that these encounters have undeniably
33:28
broadened his personal perspective and have challenged
33:31
many of the fundamental assumptions he previously held
33:33
about our understanding of reality and our position within
33:36
the vastness of the cosmos. It's an experience that forces a
33:40
re evaluation of what we believe is possible and what might exist
33:44
beyond our current scientific comprehension.
33:46
Hard not to be changed by seeing things like that, I imagine.
33:49
Yeah, I bet the conversation also touched on the famous Fermi
33:53
paradox, the apparent contradiction between the high
33:56
likelihood of extraterrestrial civilizations out there
33:59
somewhere and the lack of obvious observable evidence for
34:02
them. Why haven't they landed on the
34:04
White House lawn? What potential explanations did
34:07
you clean from Graves perspective?
34:09
One intriguing explanation that was discussed is the possibility
34:12
that advanced civilizations might choose not to be overtly
34:15
intrusive or greedy in their interactions with other less
34:18
advanced civilizations. Maybe they practice a kind of
34:21
prime directive. You know, they might develop a
34:24
philosophy of non interference or find ways to manage their
34:27
resource consumption and expansion in a way that doesn't
34:29
necessitate large scale, easily detectable activity.
34:33
Maybe they're just subtle. The zoo hypothesis or something
34:36
similar, and the incredibly rapid pace of our own
34:39
technological evolution was also considered in the context of
34:42
what UAP might represent. Wasn't it like looking at
34:45
ourselves? Yes, the exponential rate of
34:48
human technological advancement, particularly in areas like
34:51
artificial intelligence and the potential for human technology
34:54
integration, was considered in relation to what UAP won't
34:57
signify. Perhaps these phenomena
34:59
represent a far more advanced stage of technological and even
35:03
biological evolution, suggesting possibilities for our own future
35:07
that we can currently only speculate about.
35:10
The idea that we might be unknowingly on a trajectory
35:12
towards a fundamentally different form of intelligence
35:15
was raised as a thought provoking possibility.
35:18
Are we heading towards becoming something like them?
35:21
Wow, that's a heavy thought. There's also the unsettling
35:24
possibility that UAP might be actively monitoring our
35:27
development, particularly concerning our more destructive
35:30
capabilities like nuclear weapons.
35:32
That connection comes up a lot. That's another sobering
35:34
perspective that was touched upon, and it's a recurring theme
35:37
in UAP reports, especially around nuclear sites.
35:40
The potential for a civilization to develop technologies capable
35:43
of self annihilation could be a trigger for external
35:46
observation, a form of cosmic monitoring to ensure we don't
35:49
pose a threat to ourselves or potentially others.
35:52
The US classification system appears to be a significant
35:55
impediment to greater public understanding of the UAP
35:58
phenomenon. Seems like secrecy is a big part
36:01
of the problem. What are some of the inherent
36:03
challenges posed by the system? Graves emphasized that the very
36:06
nature of the US classification system, with its default
36:10
inclination towards classifying information as a measure of
36:13
national security, creates A substantial obstacle to
36:16
transparency and public awareness regarding UAP.
36:18
Even seemingly innocuous data can become shrouded in seekery,
36:23
hindering open scientific inquiry and informed public
36:26
discourse. Things get classified just
36:28
because they can be. Right over classification is a
36:30
known issue. Despite these these
36:32
classification hurdles, is there any indication that truly
36:35
compelling UAP data exists within classified government
36:37
channels? Stuff that would blow our minds.
36:40
Yes, Graves stated that through his interactions and briefings,
36:43
he has become aware of incontrovertibly interesting UAP
36:47
data and imagery that resides within classified networks,
36:50
stuff he can't talk about publicly.
36:52
He believes that this data, if declassified and made available
36:56
for broader scientific analysis, could significantly advance our
36:59
understanding of these phenomena and potentially validate the
37:02
experiences he and other pilots have reported.
37:06
He remains hopeful that a greater degree of transparency
37:08
will eventually prevail. Fingers crossed.
37:11
There have been some rather curious incidents that seem to
37:13
hint at the internal complexities and sometimes
37:16
contradictory attitudes surrounding this topic within
37:19
official circles. Haven't there?
37:21
Like that patch? Oh yeah, the recent almost
37:23
comical incident involving AUS Aviation Intelligence Service
37:27
releasing and then swiftly retracting a patch featuring a
37:30
UFO serves as a perfect illustration of the often
37:33
conflicting and nuanced perspectives on UAP, even within
37:36
government and military organizations.
37:38
Like someone thought it was cool and then someone else freaked
37:40
out. Something like that.
37:42
It highlights the tension between official secrecy and the
37:45
underlying, perhaps even humorous, acknowledgement of the
37:48
topic floating around internally.
37:50
It's crucial to remember that UAP sightings aren't solely A
37:53
phenomenon observed by the United States.
37:56
What's the global perspective on this issue?
37:58
Are other nations experiencing similar things and taking it
38:02
seriously? Graves pointed out that Russia
38:04
and China, among other nations, also have long standing
38:07
histories of reported UAP sightings.
38:10
This isn't just an American thing.
38:12
Furthermore, he indicated that these countries are reportedly
38:14
taking the issue seriously at a governmental level, including
38:17
exploring advanced analytical techniques like artificial
38:20
intelligence and machine learning to study the data they
38:23
collect. There's even some suggestion of
38:25
potential informal collaboration and data sharing on UAP research
38:29
occurring between different countries, highlighting the
38:31
global nature of this enigma. Everyone's seeing weird stuff.
38:35
Ultimately, for Ryan Graves, the most pressing concern related to
38:38
UAP remains aviation safety. Can you reiterate his key
38:42
concerns in this critical area back to the pilot perspective?
38:46
His primary and unwavering concern is the immediate
38:49
intangible risk to aviation safety posed by these
38:53
unidentified objects operating in shared airspace.
38:56
He emphasizes the urgent need for pilots, both military and
38:59
civilian, to be provided with the knowledge, training, and
39:02
clear protocols to react safely and effectively during UAP
39:05
encounters to prevent potentially catastrophic
39:08
accidents. The current lack of established
39:10
procedures and understanding in this area is a significant and
39:13
potentially increasing hazard. Pilots just don't know what to
39:16
do. And this concern extends beyond
39:18
military aviation to the much broader commercial aviation
39:21
sector as well. Doesn't it affects everybody
39:23
flying? Absolutely.
39:25
Graves highlighted that the commercial aviation industry has
39:28
largely avoided directly addressing the UAP topic, maybe
39:31
hoping it'll go away or fearing passenger panic.
39:34
This lack of preparedness and formal procedures could leave
39:37
commercial pilots and the traveling public vulnerable in
39:40
the event of a UAP encounter. While there have been no
39:43
confirmed midair collisions between commercial aircraft and
39:46
UAP, the potential for accidents resulting from evasive
39:49
maneuvers, pilot distraction, or misidentification remains a very
39:53
real possibility that needs to be addressed.
39:55
Grow actively. Based on his extensive first
39:58
hand experiences and the data he has encountered, what is Ryan
40:02
Graves his personal conclusion or belief regarding the nature
40:05
of these UAP? Where does he land on all this?
40:08
Drawing from his direct observations and the broader
40:10
patterns he has witnessed, Graves has stated his belief
40:13
that there is another actor involved in these events.
40:15
Something non human, whether that originates from elsewhere
40:18
in the cosmos or from a realm beyond our current scientific
40:21
understanding. So not us, not Russia or China,
40:24
something else? That's his conclusion.
40:26
He finds a significant portion of the data to be simply
40:29
unexplainable by conventional terrestrial explanations, and
40:32
acknowledges A fundamental shift in his own thinking, moving from
40:36
initial skepticism towards considering possibilities that
40:39
lie outside our established scientific paradigms.
40:42
The evidence pushed him there. In today's deep dive into Ryan
40:46
Graves, compelling first hand accounts of UAP encounters
40:49
provides a powerful challenge to our conventional understanding
40:53
of what's happening in our skies.
40:54
Yeah, the consistency in descriptions across different
40:56
encounters like that recurring cube and sphere object, the
40:59
demonstration of flight characteristics that seem to
41:01
define known physics, and the increasing, albeit still
41:04
limited, official acknowledgement of these
41:06
phenomena through channels like no Tams and dedicated reporting
41:09
mechanisms, it all underscores that this is a subject deserving
41:13
of serious and sustained investigation.
41:15
We encourage you to consider the profound implications of these
41:18
accounts, ranging from the very real and immediate concerns
41:22
about aviation safety to the much larger and more
41:24
philosophical questions about our place in the universe and
41:28
the potential nature of intelligences beyond our own.
41:31
What aspects of this deep dive resonated most with you?
41:34
What new questions have these insights sparked in your mind?
41:37
And reflect on the almost unimaginable pace of
41:40
technological advancement in recent history, and how our
41:43
current comprehension of what is technologically feasible might
41:46
be far more constrained than we often realize.
41:49
Could these UAP represent a level of scientific
41:52
understanding and engineering capability that currently exists
41:54
far beyond our established paradigms?
41:57
And finally, contemplate the inherent limitations of our
41:59
human centric perspective and the seemingly limitless
42:02
possibilities that the unknown might hold.
42:05
What if the term unidentified truly encompasses a reality far
42:09
more intricate, surprising, and perhaps even transformative than
42:12
we are currently equipped to imagine?