Latest / Safe Aerospace Podcast / Scientist: What 112 UAP Videos Can't Tell Us | Ravi Kopparapu

Transcript

Scientist: What 112 UAP Videos Can't Tell Us | Ravi Kopparapu · Safe Aerospace Podcast

• 0:00
  Suddenly you
• 0:00
  see when the grid is rotating.
• 0:03
  A fast moving object crossing across.
• 0:05
  There you go.
• 0:06
  What did you do. On this video?
• 0:08
  So now we are looking at video of 113
• 0:11
  in the pursuit data release.
• 0:13
  We try to obtain the range
• 0:14
  and the speed
• 0:15
  basically to know what kind of an object
• 0:17
  could potentially do that.
• 0:18
  We actually use some sort of a
• 0:21
  AI analysis.
• 0:22
  And also
• 0:23
  we did our own equations
• 0:24
  to make sure that we did.
• 0:26
  Whatever we did is consistent
• 0:27
  with what we are seeing.
• 0:28
  However,
• 0:29
  as you can see from the on the screen,
• 0:31
  much of the information is redacted.
• 0:33
  One of the work that I'm
• 0:35
  I'm doing is techno signatures work,
• 0:36
  which is to look for
• 0:37
  technology outside Earth.
• 0:39
  What do you think's going on here?
• 0:40
  What do you believe is happening here?
• 0:42
  Do you think we're all spinning our tails
• 0:44
  on bird videos?
• 0:46
  That's what is motivating me.
• 0:48
  I really want to know if there is
• 0:50
  someone out there.
• 1:04
  Hello, everyone.
• 1:04
  Welcome back
• 1:05
  to another episode of Americans for
• 1:07
  or excuse me, the Safe Aerospace podcast.
• 1:10
  My name is Ryan Graves.
• 1:12
  Honored to have Ravi here
• 1:13
  sitting across the table from me.
• 1:16
  I think we've known each other
• 1:17
  for about five years now or so, and,
• 1:21
  we'll let him introduce himself
• 1:22
  here in a moment.
• 1:23
  But first off,
• 1:24
  I just want to thank all of you.
• 1:26
  It's been absolutely wild
• 1:28
  to see the response to this show.
• 1:32
  There's been a ton of views.
• 1:33
  We have a lot of great subscribers,
• 1:35
  and I've been reading
• 1:36
  as many of the comments I can,
• 1:38
  but there's been tens
• 1:39
  of thousands of them,
• 1:41
  and it's been hard to keep up, but,
• 1:43
  keep them coming.
• 1:44
  We are constantly trying to improve.
• 1:47
  You guys have been providing
• 1:48
  some great feedback for us.
• 1:50
  So continue to do that.
• 1:51
  If you haven't yet,
• 1:52
  please, please subscribe to the channel.
• 1:54
  It really does help us out.
• 1:55
  It really helps the algorithm.
• 1:57
  And all of that allows us to go
• 1:59
  make more of these interviews.
• 2:02
  We have hundreds
• 2:04
  and hundreds of these that we can have
• 2:07
  if we have your support in making them.
• 2:08
  And we're excited to bring these to.
• 2:11
  I'm hoping four times a month,
• 2:14
  assuming the schedules align.
• 2:15
  But there's
• 2:15
  a lot of incredible information
• 2:17
  out there
• 2:17
  that we're super excited to share
• 2:19
  you with.
• 2:20
  Share with you.
• 2:22
  In this conversation,
• 2:23
  I'll be introducing you to
• 2:24
  Robbie here briefly.
• 2:26
  As I said,
• 2:27
  we've worked together for a while.
• 2:28
  Ravi is a member of the UAP
• 2:30
  Scientific Council
• 2:31
  and a scientist and his own.
• 2:32
  Right.
• 2:34
  But he's going to give us
• 2:35
  a little background today
• 2:36
  on what has been released
• 2:37
  through the pursuit program.
• 2:39
  Why it may
• 2:39
  or may not be as useful as we might hope.
• 2:42
  And what other information
• 2:44
  might be surrounding that data
• 2:45
  that would be more useful
• 2:47
  that hopefully we can get our hands on.
• 2:48
  So with that, Ravi.
• 2:50
  Nice to have you here. Oh. Thanks, Ryan.
• 2:51
  Thanks for having me.
• 2:52
  It's really great to see you.
• 2:54
  Yeah. So let's. Let's go.
• 2:56
  You know, way back, I guess.
• 2:58
  I think it was 20, 20.
• 3:01
  If memory serves,
• 3:02
  when we started working together to form
• 3:05
  what became the UAP Integration
• 3:07
  and Outreach Committee
• 3:08
  within the American Institute
• 3:10
  of Aeronautics and Astronautics
• 3:12
  or the UAP, IOC.
• 3:15
  You were my
• 3:15
  co-chair for a period of time with that.
• 3:18
  Maybe we can start there
• 3:20
  just describing how we came together,
• 3:21
  how we intersected.
• 3:23
  Oh, yeah. Absolutely.
• 3:24
  I think it's 2021, August 6th.
• 3:26
  I have kind of I remember that because,
• 3:29
  at that time
• 3:30
  we've published a few articles, wrote
• 3:32
  few articles
• 3:33
  supporting the
• 3:33
  scientific analysis of UAP.
• 3:36
  And thanks to you and your
• 3:40
  work on
• 3:41
  New York Times,
• 3:42
  I think three years before that,
• 3:44
  before pre-pandemic,
• 3:45
  there was this article about,
• 3:46
  you know, fighter pilots
• 3:48
  encountering these ups.
• 3:50
  And at that time,
• 3:51
  we were not too much interested in that.
• 3:53
  But then when I read that
• 3:55
  and I thought, okay,
• 3:57
  these fighter
• 3:57
  pilots are actually the scientists
• 3:59
  or the astronomers of the field.
• 4:01
  So if they are saying
• 4:03
  that they have seen something,
• 4:04
  there must be something to it.
• 4:05
  And then so we started,
• 4:07
  you know,
• 4:07
  reading a little bit of background
• 4:09
  and digging a little bit and seeing.
• 4:11
  And then we thought that
• 4:12
  there were a lot of,
• 4:14
  misinformation and
• 4:16
  dismissals at the same time.
• 4:18
  And we wanted to write
• 4:19
  a few articles about,
• 4:21
  hey, you know, it's
• 4:22
  okay to actually do some sort of,
• 4:24
  some sort of a scientific analysis
• 4:26
  on the, on this topic.
• 4:28
  If you want to dismiss it
• 4:29
  or if you want to believe it,
• 4:30
  you actually need
• 4:31
  to do something about it.
• 4:32
  And that was
• 4:33
  when we wrote those articles.
• 4:34
  One of them was in Washington
• 4:36
  Post in 2021.
• 4:37
  And because of that article,
• 4:40
  at Stanton from air
• 4:43
  asked us to ask me to come over
• 4:45
  and then give a talk at one of the AI,
• 4:48
  meetings.
• 4:49
  And that's when I met you.
• 4:50
  And you are also
• 4:52
  the speaker,
• 4:52
  I think, one of the plenary speakers
• 4:54
  for that. Right? Yeah.
• 4:55
  And then that was when we met. Yeah.
• 4:57
  And that's that's how we kicked that,
• 4:58
  that process off.
• 5:01
  I've been
• 5:01
  I've been chairing that committee,
• 5:04
  since it was formalized.
• 5:06
  And I've just recently stepped down
• 5:09
  along with my co-chair.
• 5:10
  I see a look of disappointment
• 5:11
  on your face,
• 5:12
  but ultimately the time has come.
• 5:14
  It was supposed to be generally
• 5:15
  a two year appointment.
• 5:16
  It was about five years or so.
• 5:17
  But I'm proud to report
• 5:19
  that the new leadership.
• 5:21
  Is off and running
• 5:23
  with a lot of steam right now.
• 5:24
  And ultimately,
• 5:25
  you know, as a leader,
• 5:26
  when you create an organization,
• 5:28
  I think, you know,
• 5:28
  one of the biggest measures of success
• 5:30
  you can have
• 5:31
  is having that organization
• 5:33
  in a place
• 5:33
  where you can turn it over to
• 5:34
  someone else,
• 5:35
  and it continues to expand
• 5:36
  and grow with the initial vision.
• 5:38
  And I think that's exactly
• 5:40
  what's going on.
• 5:40
  So my mind me stepping down was,
• 5:42
  you know,
• 5:43
  the last act of success that we can have
• 5:46
  with that group.
• 5:46
  And I'm excited to see where
• 5:48
  it goes here in the future.
• 5:50
  What any
• 5:51
  just, you know, maybe just briefly.
• 5:53
  Anything else
• 5:53
  you want to talk about
• 5:54
  from the air side
• 5:56
  before we kind of move on
• 5:57
  to your background?
• 5:58
  I think I found,
• 6:01
  extremely skilled and extremely kind
• 6:04
  people at AI
• 6:05
  and very interested people
• 6:07
  in this particular topic, at least.
• 6:08
  I'm really glad that
• 6:09
  AI as a as an organization
• 6:11
  is interested in this topic,
• 6:13
  because we need some scientific,
• 6:17
  input from experts.
• 6:18
  We come from basic sciences, whereas AI
• 6:21
  as technical expertise on this
• 6:23
  and also scientific expertise together.
• 6:25
  And so having that kind of a blend
• 6:27
  is really important.
• 6:28
  I'm really glad AI is doing this. Yeah.
• 6:30
  You know,
• 6:31
  I give I give their leadership
• 6:32
  a lot of credit
• 6:34
  for having the foresight
• 6:35
  to engage on this topic
• 6:36
  as early as they did.
• 6:38
  You know,
• 6:38
  I worked pretty closely
• 6:39
  with their leadership and,
• 6:41
  you know, really their motivation
• 6:42
  was, hey, you know, we're
• 6:45
  we've been kind of
• 6:46
  just doing our thing for,
• 6:47
  you know, a number of years,
• 6:48
  a number of decades now.
• 6:49
  And ultimately,
• 6:50
  just like any other organization,
• 6:51
  if you don't keep up with the times,
• 6:53
  then you're going to fall behind.
• 6:54
  You're going to decay
• 6:55
  and weather
• 6:56
  and not be what you used to be.
• 6:58
  They they thought the UAP conversation
• 7:01
  and engaging.
• 7:02
  It was a way for them to maintain,
• 7:04
  you know, currency.
• 7:05
  If you will
• 7:06
  remain current
• 7:07
  in the eyes of the public
• 7:09
  on, you know,
• 7:10
  interesting, unique challenges
• 7:11
  that face the aerospace industry.
• 7:14
  And I don't think that's changed.
• 7:15
  I mean, that was,
• 7:16
  you know, you said 2021,
• 7:19
  that I think is as true now
• 7:22
  as it was then.
• 7:23
  You know,
• 7:23
  the conversation hasn't gone away.
• 7:24
  The number of problems and challenges
• 7:26
  that face
• 7:28
  our understanding of this
• 7:29
  and the ways that we can help
• 7:30
  not just the public understand,
• 7:32
  but I think in a lot of ways
• 7:33
  help the government understand
• 7:34
  what's going on.
• 7:36
  Those challenges
• 7:37
  are just as numerous today
• 7:38
  as they have been in the past.
• 7:40
  So we've even seen
• 7:41
  new leadership at the air come and go.
• 7:43
  And I think there's thesis remains
• 7:46
  continues remain correct.
• 7:48
  So a lot of props to them
• 7:49
  for that foresight.
• 7:51
  You don't typically see
• 7:52
  large organizations
• 7:54
  that are as conservative,
• 7:55
  I guess, as an engineering group
• 7:57
  make those types of leaps
• 7:58
  that early in a conversation.
• 8:00
  Yes, I totally agree with everything
• 8:02
  useless said.
• 8:04
  Your five years
• 8:05
  tenure was one of the best
• 8:07
  I've had, and I'm
• 8:08
  sure next five years or next many years,
• 8:11
  I'm really looking forward
• 8:12
  to be involved in the A activities
• 8:15
  you will be activities.
• 8:16
  Well, you know,
• 8:17
  for those listening out here,
• 8:18
  I get a lot of emails and questions
• 8:20
  about how
• 8:21
  different folks
• 8:22
  with different backgrounds
• 8:23
  can get involved.
• 8:25
  If you're an engineer,
• 8:26
  if you're a scientist
• 8:27
  and you're
• 8:28
  looking for ways to
• 8:30
  improve your understanding
• 8:31
  on this,
• 8:32
  working on actually writing
• 8:33
  papers, building detection kits,
• 8:37
  check out
• 8:37
  the air UAP, IOC,
• 8:40
  the website last check was UAP ioc.org.
• 8:46
  And you can send an email
• 8:47
  and you can join the monthly meetings
• 8:49
  and get involved
• 8:50
  with those efforts directly.
• 8:53
  I'll still be attending those meetings
• 8:55
  and joining the group
• 8:56
  just as a member
• 8:57
  instead of one of the leadership.
• 8:59
  Well, let's let's talk
• 9:00
  a little bit about, you know,
• 9:01
  what's your professional background?
• 9:03
  What's your scientific background?
• 9:04
  Why why are we listening to you?
• 9:06
  You know, talk about this
• 9:07
  from a scientific perspective.
• 9:08
  Okay, great.
• 9:09
  So, I have so I'm a scientist,
• 9:12
  planetary scientist
• 9:13
  at NASA Goddard currently.
• 9:16
  Before that,
• 9:17
  I was a research scientist at Penn State
• 9:20
  State University.
• 9:21
  And then I did work on various topics,
• 9:25
  and I did my PhD from LSU Go Tigers.
• 9:30
  And on
• 9:32
  Legault Gravitational-Wave
• 9:33
  Observatory, it's
• 9:34
  the Laser
• 9:34
  Interferometer
• 9:35
  Gravitational-Wave Observatory,
• 9:37
  essentially, to find these gravitational
• 9:39
  wave ripples of space time.
• 9:40
  And I used to
• 9:41
  work at the observatory
• 9:42
  and at the university.
• 9:45
  And then.
• 9:46
  Leo itself, they had their own.
• 9:48
  Right.
• 9:49
  So there's a Department of astronomy
• 9:51
  and physics and astronomy at LSU.
• 9:53
  And I did my best over there,
• 9:54
  and I used to work at the department,
• 9:57
  and also I used to visit the observatory.
• 9:58
  We used to have
• 9:59
  these things called observation runs.
• 10:01
  So they need
• 10:02
  they needed people to take shifts
• 10:06
  every eight hour
• 10:06
  shifts to monitor the observatory
• 10:09
  to see how it is going on.
• 10:10
  And it was a really great experience
• 10:12
  for me as a student at the time to
• 10:13
  be part of that group.
• 10:16
  And then once I was done with it
• 10:18
  and I went to a move
• 10:19
  to Penn State for my postdoctoral, work,
• 10:23
  at that time, I got interested in,
• 10:26
  exoplanets,
• 10:27
  and I started working with a few folks
• 10:30
  at Penn State
• 10:32
  in addition to my own work
• 10:33
  on gravitational waves.
• 10:34
  And eventually
• 10:35
  I moved away from there
• 10:37
  to exoplanet work.
• 10:39
  What yours is.
• 10:40
  So in 2010.
• 10:42
  Remind me,
• 10:43
  when was the first exo planet discovery?
• 10:45
  Oh, okay.
• 10:46
  So if you want to know
• 10:48
  when was the first exoplanet
• 10:50
  discovered around a sun like star?
• 10:51
  That was back in 1995.
• 10:53
  Okay,
• 10:54
  but if you
• 10:54
  the first exoplanet
• 10:56
  confirmed exoplanet
• 10:57
  discovered around any kind of star,
• 10:59
  and that was around
• 11:00
  a pulsar or a dead star was back in 1992
• 11:03
  from Penn State astronomer.
• 11:04
  So. Well, okay.
• 11:06
  Actually,
• 11:07
  that's actually earlier than I thought.
• 11:08
  But there was like
• 11:09
  this big up
• 11:10
  tick right
• 11:11
  when we started detecting them,
• 11:12
  like pretty pretty often. Yes.
• 11:15
  Was that around the time
• 11:16
  that you were transitioning this field
• 11:17
  you were seeing this
• 11:18
  was maybe a more active field
• 11:19
  at this time. Right.
• 11:20
  So that that's a really good question.
• 11:22
  And it all
• 11:23
  it's a very coincidental thing.
• 11:25
  Around 2008,
• 11:27
  2010 was when I started
• 11:29
  getting interested in exoplanets
• 11:30
  because they were
• 11:31
  there's a very drip,
• 11:32
  drip,
• 11:33
  observational discoveries
• 11:34
  of these exoplanets.
• 11:36
  But then in 2009, NASA launched
• 11:38
  Capital Space
• 11:39
  Telescope,
• 11:40
  which was
• 11:41
  trying to find a bunch of exoplanets.
• 11:43
  And one of the main goals of Kepler's
• 11:46
  telescope was to find planets
• 11:47
  in the habitable zone
• 11:48
  around other stars, the place
• 11:50
  where liquid water could sustain and,
• 11:52
  you know, have life.
• 11:54
  Life like ours anyway. Life?
• 11:55
  Yeah, carbon based life.
• 11:56
  Carbon based life essential.
• 11:58
  So they it was launched in 2009,
• 12:01
  and that was
• 12:01
  when the floodgates were open
• 12:03
  for exoplanet discoveries.
• 12:04
  And Kepler did an amazing job.
• 12:07
  And four years later,
• 12:08
  one of its reaction wheels went bad.
• 12:10
  And then they somehow NASA engineers,
• 12:14
  I give kudos to them.
• 12:15
  They figured out how to even
• 12:17
  make it work even after the
• 12:19
  this problem.
• 12:20
  And then we had an extended mission.
• 12:22
  And so they were at that time
• 12:24
  and thousands of planets were discovered.
• 12:25
  And I was like,
• 12:26
  oh, this is the exact time
• 12:28
  I should get involved.
• 12:29
  And that's when I got involved in
• 12:31
  exoplanet work.
• 12:32
  Let me pull us off
• 12:33
  track for a minute here.
• 12:34
  So just a fun thought.
• 12:36
  Yeah.
• 12:37
  You know, I've often,
• 12:42
  Sorry,
• 12:43
  I've often been a little disappointed
• 12:45
  in the primary search
• 12:47
  activities of SETI utilizing, you know,
• 12:50
  looking for radio waves around stars,
• 12:54
  because that was a primary communication
• 12:56
  methodology for, you know,
• 12:58
  let's call it 40 years, 50 or 60 years,
• 13:01
  you know, as human beings.
• 13:04
  Radio waves, of course,
• 13:05
  drop off at one over R squared,
• 13:08
  or is it cuz, you know, it's squared.
• 13:09
  Yeah, yeah.
• 13:11
  Square non-linearly
• 13:14
  relatively limited range.
• 13:17
  I can't help but wondering now
• 13:19
  that we're almost in a new world here
• 13:22
  with artificial intelligence.
• 13:24
  You know, in 150 years,
• 13:26
  you know,
• 13:27
  there's going to be vastly
• 13:28
  more intelligence.
• 13:29
  I think that would be artificial
• 13:32
  than perhaps human. Right.
• 13:34
  And so perhaps, like the mistake
• 13:36
  of only looking for radio waves,
• 13:38
  it might be a mistake
• 13:39
  to only look for biological life
• 13:41
  like ours in a very narrow
• 13:43
  window around a star.
• 13:44
  Or perhaps the universe is made up of
• 13:47
  much more intelligent life
• 13:49
  that's artificial or electrical
• 13:51
  in nature, etc., etc..
• 13:53
  Where would the search zones be for that?
• 13:55
  Right?
• 13:55
  So I just can't but wonder if,
• 13:57
  you know, we're making the same mistake
• 13:59
  again, always anthropomorphizing
• 14:01
  what aliens are going
• 14:02
  to look like or what,
• 14:04
  where we're going to find things,
• 14:05
  when every time we have
• 14:06
  a new scientific discovery
• 14:07
  that breaks
• 14:08
  those old molds,
• 14:09
  we still continue
• 14:10
  to look for what we expected in the past.
• 14:12
  Okay.
• 14:12
  So I am so glad you asked this question
• 14:15
  because and I'm
• 14:15
  so glad we went a little bit of track,
• 14:17
  but this is one of
• 14:18
  the most important things.
• 14:19
  And I have I'll address several
• 14:23
  aspects of the question that you asked.
• 14:24
  One of the first ones is,
• 14:26
  you know, city has done
• 14:28
  is been there for decades, and we haven't
• 14:31
  yet found any confirmed signal.
• 14:34
  It's a timescale issue also. Right.
• 14:36
  So we have when were the first radio
• 14:39
  observations are radio
• 14:41
  communications have taken place
• 14:42
  maybe 70 years, 80 years? Okay.
• 14:44
  That was when back in the 40s, 30s,
• 14:47
  maybe 50s. Right.
• 14:49
  It's a movie contact is correct.
• 14:50
  It was
• 14:51
  it wasn't
• 14:51
  the airing of one of the Nazi Germany
• 14:54
  or the games. 1997.
• 14:57
  Yeah, yeah.
• 14:57
  So so even if you take that one
• 14:59
  and probably maybe 100 years almost now.
• 15:01
  Right. So we are about 90 years or so.
• 15:03
  Okay.
• 15:04
  So the Industrial Revolution
• 15:05
  started 200 years ago approximately.
• 15:08
  And so we actually started doing things,
• 15:10
  inventing technology
• 15:11
  that we could potentially,
• 15:13
  you know,
• 15:13
  use it to build radio communications.
• 15:16
  200 years ago,
• 15:17
  the whole human civilization,
• 15:20
  if you consider
• 15:21
  civilization as the
• 15:22
  first agricultural revolution
• 15:24
  that started probably around
• 15:26
  9000 years ago or 8000 years ago,
• 15:29
  before that, we are
• 15:30
  we were no different than animals,
• 15:32
  any other animal on the planet.
• 15:34
  And considering that we have done,
• 15:38
  even if you take the 10,000 years
• 15:39
  of human
• 15:40
  civilization
• 15:41
  and 10,000 years versus 50 years, that's
• 15:45
  that's like me saying, okay,
• 15:47
  I want to take a bus in Austin.
• 15:49
  And if I stay there
• 15:50
  and I waited for two seconds.
• 15:52
  Ryan, I haven't seen a bus in this town.
• 15:54
  Also,
• 15:54
  there are no busses in the Austin,
• 15:56
  so this is the time scale problem.
• 15:58
  So that's one aspect of it
• 16:00
  we should probably look
• 16:01
  and look for in different ways
• 16:02
  of doing it.
• 16:03
  And people you
• 16:05
  what you mentioned
• 16:05
  about anthropomorphic forces
• 16:07
  in the entire thing
• 16:08
  about what could a technology look like
• 16:11
  if you ask someone, find it.
• 16:12
  Years ago in the medieval ages,
• 16:14
  what would be an advanced technology?
• 16:15
  So your biggest chariot they can
• 16:17
  think about
• 16:19
  perhaps?
• 16:19
  Yes.
• 16:20
  And that one to so few
• 16:23
  a hundred years ago,
• 16:24
  people were building,
• 16:26
  they were
• 16:27
  thinking that the biggest structures on
• 16:28
  the planet were pyramids.
• 16:30
  And so they were saying, oh,
• 16:31
  we should look for pyramids
• 16:32
  on other planets.
• 16:35
  And Panama Canal
• 16:36
  was one of the biggest things
• 16:37
  at that time.
• 16:37
  Or we should look for canals.
• 16:39
  And this is what happened
• 16:40
  when people were looking at Mars.
• 16:41
  They saw this
• 16:43
  things on the planet and they thought,
• 16:45
  oh yeah, they should be.
• 16:46
  They probably are,
• 16:48
  you know, alien
• 16:49
  beings, their war of the worlds,
• 16:50
  things like that.
• 16:51
  And that's why we should look
• 16:53
  for these kind of canal features.
• 16:54
  So every generation has their own
• 16:58
  impression
• 17:00
  of what could an alien
• 17:01
  technology will look like.
• 17:03
  So right now
• 17:04
  AI is the most popular thing.
• 17:05
  So we think that
• 17:06
  a civilization might be get.
• 17:08
  And maybe 50 years ago
• 17:10
  radio communications
• 17:11
  were the popular things.
• 17:12
  And that's when we started
• 17:13
  looking for radio communications.
• 17:15
  It is really hard to predict what could
• 17:18
  a civilization
• 17:19
  be using based on our current technology?
• 17:21
  We are
• 17:22
  minds are not used to
• 17:23
  that kind of advance.
• 17:24
  I'll say there's probably one thing
• 17:25
  they actually are using, which is energy.
• 17:27
  Yeah, exactly.
• 17:29
  We should focus on the energy
• 17:31
  because every civilization,
• 17:32
  if it's one, wants to expand,
• 17:35
  they have to use energy.
• 17:36
  What kind of energy?
• 17:38
  Well, a more efficient energy.
• 17:39
  And they have to follow thermodynamics.
• 17:42
  Basically waste heat.
• 17:44
  The waste heat will be there.
• 17:45
  And so if we can couple these
• 17:47
  two things
• 17:47
  energy and wasted,
• 17:48
  we have to find some sort of an evidence
• 17:50
  of what kind of a signature
• 17:52
  we should be able to think about
• 17:53
  what kind of signatures
• 17:54
  they would be emitting.
• 17:56
  Well, even,
• 17:57
  you know, just just for fun here.
• 17:58
  I mean,
• 17:59
  when I hear the word waste,
• 18:00
  I think of unused or unprocessed, right?
• 18:02
  We might
• 18:03
  imagine a more advanced civilization
• 18:05
  that has the ability to recoup all that
• 18:07
  heat and reuse it. Right.
• 18:09
  Is that challenge?
• 18:10
  Does that challenge
• 18:11
  the laws of thermodynamics?
• 18:12
  I don't know, right.
• 18:14
  So I'm fortunately from the current laws
• 18:17
  of thermodynamics, we know there must be
• 18:20
  some sort of a waste
• 18:21
  coming out from somewhere. Okay.
• 18:24
  And that's what we need to look at
• 18:26
  with the current laws of physics
• 18:27
  we know of.
• 18:28
  And of course,
• 18:29
  there's a Carter Chef scale which judges
• 18:31
  how much energy
• 18:32
  a civilization uses
• 18:34
  based off of whether it can capture
• 18:35
  near 100% of its Earth's
• 18:37
  energy output
• 18:38
  or its planet's energy
• 18:39
  output, its solar system
• 18:41
  vis a vis its sun energy type three.
• 18:44
  Would it be galactic energy?
• 18:46
  I have, of course, can't help
• 18:47
  but wonder if there's more clever ways
• 18:49
  to generate or capture energy that
• 18:52
  might be on a
• 18:54
  scale, on
• 18:54
  a quantum
• 18:55
  scale, perhaps, versus us
• 18:56
  just looking at the great big
• 18:57
  glowing
• 18:58
  object in the sky and assuming
• 19:00
  that's what everyone uses as well.
• 19:01
  Yes, I'm glad you mentioned
• 19:03
  your scale there.
• 19:03
  Is this a scale one, two and three?
• 19:06
  Currently,
• 19:07
  Earth seems to be around
• 19:08
  close to one type one.
• 19:10
  Yeah,
• 19:11
  I think that's our next goal, right?
• 19:13
  We're probably like a 0.4
• 19:14
  I would imagine.
• 19:15
  Or I think that might even be generous.
• 19:17
  Yeah.
• 19:17
  You know, I think Carl Sagan
• 19:19
  I could be wrong.
• 19:19
  Someone can correct
• 19:20
  me said we are probably somewhere
• 19:22
  close to 0.7 or so of on the scale, so.
• 19:27
  Yeah, probably.
• 19:29
  But I wouldn't put too much into that
• 19:32
  scale civilizations because again,
• 19:34
  when they use that much energy,
• 19:35
  they should be releasing
• 19:36
  some sort of waste heat.
• 19:37
  And there were searches
• 19:39
  done to look for these.
• 19:40
  You know,
• 19:40
  there's also this Dyson sphere
• 19:42
  where you can collect
• 19:42
  all the stellar light
• 19:44
  in sphere around it. Right.
• 19:45
  There's a Star Trek episode also Trekkie.
• 19:49
  And so we
• 19:50
  there were some
• 19:51
  searches to see this waste heat
• 19:52
  coming out of this usage of energy,
• 19:54
  and we haven't found any galactic scale
• 19:56
  or stellar level scale,
• 19:59
  wasted energy resources yet.
• 20:01
  We found it.
• 20:02
  But then there is even
• 20:03
  a fundamental issue
• 20:04
  with that kind of thinking as well.
• 20:06
  Why would we want to?
• 20:08
  If you use start,
• 20:09
  you start using this
• 20:10
  kind of energy expansion.
• 20:12
  You would eventually warm your own planet
• 20:15
  to a,
• 20:16
  you know, to a place
• 20:17
  where it would be really
• 20:18
  could be really hard.
• 20:20
  And there's a couple of papers
• 20:21
  that we published
• 20:22
  with my colleagues,
• 20:22
  and my colleagues
• 20:23
  also did the same
• 20:24
  similar work on this one.
• 20:26
  And so is it a sustainable
• 20:28
  usage of energy to warm your planet
• 20:31
  just because you want to use?
• 20:32
  Hopefully civilizations might be,
• 20:35
  you know, thinking about this
• 20:37
  and maybe they'll be clever
• 20:38
  enough not to go to this expansive usage,
• 20:41
  exponential usage of energy.
• 20:42
  Maybe they'll figure out
• 20:44
  fusion energy
• 20:44
  might be a better option,
• 20:46
  a portable fusion energy.
• 20:48
  I haven't really thought
• 20:49
  about the uses of energy,
• 20:51
  like directly
• 20:53
  being linked
• 20:54
  to the warming of the planet.
• 20:56
  I assume that there's energy,
• 21:00
  that is
• 21:01
  released in the space
• 21:02
  around a planet, right?
• 21:04
  Or is that it's not at all.
• 21:06
  It's because there's just not enough mass
• 21:08
  to transfer the.
• 21:09
  Yeah.
• 21:10
  So the energy of what?
• 21:11
  Of heat itself. Right.
• 21:13
  So if it would be true if we
• 21:15
  if you had no atmosphere,
• 21:16
  I mean, we could just radiate to space
• 21:18
  and then be done with it. Great.
• 21:19
  But then fortunately or
• 21:21
  unfortunately we have an atmosphere.
• 21:23
  And so when you release
• 21:25
  that heat, that heat
• 21:26
  gets trapped into these greenhouse gases,
• 21:29
  carbon dioxide or methane, or.
• 21:30
  So the capture of, of, of our atmosphere
• 21:34
  exceed any releases that you know
• 21:36
  you have. Okay.
• 21:37
  That makes sense.
• 21:38
  Everything that will
• 21:39
  that's keeping us alive
• 21:40
  might be the one that might kill
• 21:41
  us if we do that. Yeah. Good.
• 21:44
  Okay.
• 21:44
  Well, thanks. Thanks for that.
• 21:45
  Anything else you want to say
• 21:46
  on that front for me?
• 21:47
  We get back to your educational
• 21:49
  pathway here. Oh, yeah. So we.
• 21:50
  One of the work that I'm doing,
• 21:52
  I'm doing is techno
• 21:53
  signatures work,
• 21:54
  which is to look for
• 21:56
  technology outside Earth.
• 21:57
  And we have several ideas about how
• 21:59
  what could we potential technology
• 22:01
  could look like.
• 22:02
  How can we observe them.
• 22:04
  It's more
• 22:04
  we want to try to
• 22:05
  to be an observational science
• 22:08
  when, you know,
• 22:09
  can we look for theoretical
• 22:10
  a theoretical one? Right.
• 22:11
  So we're not just imagining
• 22:13
  scale civilizations
• 22:14
  but actually looking for those
• 22:16
  kind of things, pollution kind of things.
• 22:18
  Radio communication.
• 22:19
  So there's
• 22:20
  the search is going on all fronts
• 22:22
  and hopefully I don't know when, but
• 22:24
  hopefully we'll soon discover
• 22:27
  at some point.
• 22:27
  Well, let's, let's,
• 22:28
  let's define what a techno signature is.
• 22:31
  Yeah. Good.
• 22:32
  It's a sign of an advanced technology
• 22:35
  that, we could potentially detect.
• 22:38
  It's a manifestation.
• 22:39
  So I would say that
• 22:41
  there is a lot of city work going that
• 22:43
  search for extraterrestrial intelligence.
• 22:45
  Intelligence is hard to detect remotely
• 22:47
  or even on our planet.
• 22:48
  If you don't see if you actually go do
• 22:52
  experiments in there. Right.
• 22:53
  So I would
• 22:54
  I think there are
• 22:55
  there is this notion
• 22:57
  in our city community
• 22:58
  that we should also consider Ceti,
• 23:01
  which is search
• 23:01
  for extraterrestrial technology.
• 23:03
  Technology is easy
• 23:04
  to detect that intelligence.
• 23:06
  So that's why we focus more on techno
• 23:07
  signatures
• 23:08
  rather than intelligence right now.
• 23:10
  Can you imagine a
• 23:12
  intelligent species
• 23:13
  that does not create technology?
• 23:16
  Yeah, we have many
• 23:17
  that intelligent species on our Earth.
• 23:19
  Well, I guess that's fair to say,
• 23:21
  but is a measure of how intelligence
• 23:23
  something is,
• 23:24
  how much technology it makes.
• 23:26
  So there are some,
• 23:28
  intelligent animals on our planet
• 23:30
  that make a few tools
• 23:32
  out of the things available around them.
• 23:34
  Crows, ravens.
• 23:36
  They can make tools,
• 23:38
  use tools to get what they need.
• 23:40
  Chimpanzees, apes.
• 23:41
  They can do it. Some of the
• 23:45
  dolphins, they make
• 23:46
  tools out of water as well.
• 23:48
  And so they use their surroundings
• 23:50
  to make tools for their own needs.
• 23:51
  So yeah. Okay, okay.
• 23:53
  Fair enough.
• 23:54
  I'm just trying to
• 23:54
  imagine a hyper intelligent species
• 23:56
  that perhaps is not progressing
• 23:57
  along the technological right
• 24:00
  improvement path. Like we are. Right?
• 24:02
  We seem to be,
• 24:03
  as a species,
• 24:04
  inexcusably linked
• 24:05
  to technological developments,
• 24:07
  for better or worse,
• 24:08
  perhaps towards our own suicide of fact.
• 24:10
  Right?
• 24:12
  I guess, you know,
• 24:12
  it's more it's hypothetical, I guess.
• 24:15
  But if you thought about it.
• 24:16
  Yeah, it is.
• 24:17
  So I think you're getting the question
• 24:19
  of what is different
• 24:20
  between an intelligent species
• 24:22
  like humans and other intelligent
• 24:23
  species on Earth,
• 24:25
  because, you know,
• 24:26
  we have intelligence
• 24:27
  if you on a broad scale,
• 24:30
  the difference is that we
• 24:31
  are actually changing the planet
• 24:33
  when we with our technology.
• 24:35
  And so those are the technological
• 24:37
  kind of species or intelligent
• 24:39
  techno signatures
• 24:40
  that we might be looking for.
• 24:42
  So when we look for techno signatures
• 24:44
  and when we look for advanced intelligent
• 24:47
  civilizations, a planet wide impact
• 24:50
  that a technology could create
• 24:52
  is what we should be observing.
• 24:53
  Otherwise, we would be no different
• 24:55
  than any other animal that has some
• 24:57
  some sort of
• 24:57
  an intelligence on the planet.
• 24:59
  Okay.
• 24:59
  Let me ask you some some quick
• 25:00
  questions here in a row. So
• 25:03
  Robbie is looking
• 25:05
  through his tools and he detects a,
• 25:10
  absolutely conclusive proof
• 25:11
  that there are radio
• 25:13
  waves of a decodable
• 25:15
  intelligent communication format around
• 25:18
  Alpha
• 25:20
  Centauri.
• 25:22
  Or the observation
• 25:24
  through an optical sensor of.
• 25:25
  No kidding, a craft
• 25:26
  flying around a planet,
• 25:27
  you know, somewhere else away from us.
• 25:30
  Techno signature.
• 25:32
  I wouldn't announce it as a technique.
• 25:34
  So this is where my scientific,
• 25:37
  training comes kicks in
• 25:39
  because I
• 25:41
  publish a paper based on that analysis.
• 25:43
  If I'm really sure that I have seen
• 25:45
  something really cool,
• 25:47
  then I'll write a scientific paper
• 25:48
  and then I'll publish it,
• 25:49
  and I'll be very, very careful
• 25:51
  saying that what I found,
• 25:53
  what my data shows,
• 25:55
  and I wouldn't speculate on what.
• 25:57
  I agree with you.
• 25:58
  Well, tragically speaking, right.
• 26:00
  It is like a definitional,
• 26:02
  example
• 26:03
  that would be an example of potentially
• 26:05
  a techno signature, right? Yes.
• 26:06
  What about if we observe a craft
• 26:09
  or handful of craft coming
• 26:11
  towards our solar system, that we're
• 26:13
  half of that year away from us?
• 26:15
  And as you pointed at our star,
• 26:16
  would that be considered
• 26:17
  a techno signature. If,
• 26:20
  we get confirmation from multiple
• 26:23
  lines of evidence and multiple teams,
• 26:25
  I would say
• 26:25
  that's would be an interesting
• 26:27
  and consistent with what you said.
• 26:29
  What if.
• 26:30
  We looked at Pluto
• 26:32
  one day
• 26:33
  and saw that
• 26:33
  there was a completely bizarre,
• 26:35
  unknown foreign
• 26:36
  satellites or group of satellites
• 26:38
  operating around Pluto?
• 26:39
  Would that be a techno signature?
• 26:42
  Yes.
• 26:42
  If those objects are
• 26:44
  not following the natural laws of,
• 26:47
  I would say I.
• 26:48
  Mean technological satellite,
• 26:49
  not just a body orbiting.
• 26:51
  Oh, okay. Yeah.
• 26:53
  So if somehow we figured out
• 26:55
  that if it is technological
• 26:56
  and then we again
• 26:59
  have a good confirmation on it,
• 27:00
  I would be excited.
• 27:03
  What if we discovered
• 27:04
  that there were some
• 27:06
  incredibly ancient ruins on the moon?
• 27:08
  Would that be a techno signature?
• 27:12
  Yeah, I mean, I would
• 27:13
  if we
• 27:14
  get a good confirmation
• 27:15
  as solid evidence,
• 27:16
  I would say, yeah,
• 27:17
  if we can date them to,
• 27:19
  you know, before our civilization,
• 27:21
  then yeah, I would say.
• 27:23
  That would be coming all the way in.
• 27:25
  Right.
• 27:26
  We see a bunch of strange objects
• 27:27
  flying around fighter jets
• 27:29
  off the eastern seaboard
• 27:31
  be considered a techno signature.
• 27:34
  We, we have to know
• 27:36
  that it is
• 27:37
  a techno signature
• 27:38
  for using different lines of evidence.
• 27:40
  I would I'm trying to be really careful
• 27:43
  here.
• 27:44
  Yeah.
• 27:44
  If it is something
• 27:45
  anomalous, I would say
• 27:46
  it would be a good techno
• 27:48
  signature that we know of.
• 27:49
  So I you're making my point to your face.
• 27:52
  As I get closer and closer to Earth,
• 27:54
  it seems like the conversation
• 27:55
  of techno signatures
• 27:56
  get more uncomfortable
• 27:57
  the closer and closer to earth
• 27:59
  that you get, right?
• 28:01
  How does NASA view
• 28:02
  the study of techno signatures?
• 28:04
  So NASA has supported
• 28:06
  a lot of work on techno signatures.
• 28:08
  It's considered as one of the subsets
• 28:10
  of biosignatures.
• 28:11
  Techno technology
• 28:12
  has to arise from biology.
• 28:15
  Even if we say, oh yeah, well,
• 28:16
  how about artificial intelligence
• 28:18
  creating technology?
• 28:19
  But AI has to be created by something,
• 28:21
  and someone is a biology
• 28:23
  before it creates even more technology.
• 28:26
  And so biological evolution
• 28:28
  probably is needed and so considers
• 28:31
  techno signatures
• 28:32
  to be a part of a bio signature
• 28:34
  work as well. There's not a fun research.
• 28:36
  What's what's the history of NASA
• 28:37
  funding techno
• 28:38
  techno signature research
• 28:40
  within our solar system?
• 28:42
  So we have we have a broad portfolio,
• 28:46
  as I can't speak for anything
• 28:49
  officially from NASA side,
• 28:51
  but I would say that
• 28:52
  I've we got some projects funded on
• 28:56
  looking for techno signatures,
• 28:57
  work related to techno signatures
• 28:59
  and within.
• 29:00
  Related work, some some work related.
• 29:03
  Okay.
• 29:04
  On theoretical, you know,
• 29:07
  expectations of what a techno
• 29:08
  signature might look like.
• 29:10
  There's also some observational aspects.
• 29:13
  They are funded to look for data
• 29:14
  in the telescope,
• 29:15
  like Kepler space telescope
• 29:17
  for within the.
• 29:18
  Looking outside the solar system.
• 29:21
  Within the solar system.
• 29:22
  I mean, we can use,
• 29:25
  we can use archival data from
• 29:27
  the missions
• 29:28
  and look for any kind of anomalies
• 29:30
  that we might be looking.
• 29:31
  But there is actually,
• 29:32
  I don't say particularly for NASA,
• 29:34
  but there is
• 29:35
  there are several people
• 29:36
  in the community,
• 29:37
  techno signature community,
• 29:38
  looking for any kind of anomalous,
• 29:41
  features on moon using the LRO,
• 29:43
  the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter data
• 29:46
  using machine learning techniques.
• 29:48
  And same thing can be done
• 29:49
  with Martian archival data as well. Yeah.
• 29:52
  And so
• 29:53
  those kind of things are happening
• 29:55
  outside the planet. Yeah.
• 29:57
  And then
• 29:58
  of course, within our atmosphere,
• 30:00
  NASA has been pretty stodgy
• 30:02
  in their involvement
• 30:03
  in the UAP conversation.
• 30:06
  Different term
• 30:08
  representing and talking
• 30:09
  about the same thing.
• 30:10
  Of course, there's
• 30:11
  no scientific consensus
• 30:13
  that that is the case.
• 30:15
  What's your experience been
• 30:16
  with the UAP topic
• 30:18
  as you worked around NASA?
• 30:20
  So I have had a good support from my,
• 30:24
  management and everyone.
• 30:25
  And so they completely separate,
• 30:27
  as is evidence
• 30:28
  with the part of the things
• 30:29
  that I've been doing
• 30:30
  with the UAP work
• 30:31
  and publishing papers related to that.
• 30:33
  So the management has been at least my
• 30:36
  supervisors and the line management
• 30:38
  has been really supportive of that.
• 30:40
  Do you think NASA in general
• 30:41
  is supportive of this conversation,
• 30:43
  or do you think it's
• 30:44
  generally they're willing to let you
• 30:46
  go out on a bit of a lease
• 30:48
  to explore something?
• 30:49
  Or do you think there is broad
• 30:50
  acceptance or not?
• 30:52
  Acceptance is the right word,
• 30:53
  but openness to this topic.
• 30:54
  So as a science topic,
• 30:56
  I would say there is a good encouragement
• 30:58
  on this particular one.
• 30:59
  And also NASA has commissioned a up,
• 31:04
  task force
• 31:04
  few years ago
• 31:06
  collecting different
• 31:06
  kind of people around it.
• 31:08
  So they have done some work on that.
• 31:10
  And as,
• 31:11
  as, as the techno signature
• 31:13
  work is considered,
• 31:14
  this is we
• 31:15
  one of the hypothesis
• 31:16
  that we want to explore
• 31:18
  for the Up
• 31:19
  is this techno signature topic.
• 31:21
  So in that way,
• 31:22
  I would say that
• 31:23
  there is some kind of a support for us.
• 31:26
  Okay.
• 31:27
  The hook.
• 31:28
  Yeah.
• 31:31
  All right.
• 31:31
  Let's let's move on a little bit.
• 31:33
  You're now
• 31:35
  on the UAP Scientific Advisory Council.
• 31:38
  Yeah.
• 31:39
  How are you finding that?
• 31:41
  It's there are really good
• 31:44
  people in there,
• 31:44
  and it's exciting
• 31:46
  to be part of the People Science Council,
• 31:49
  where similar thinking
• 31:51
  people are there
• 31:51
  with different expertise.
• 31:53
  And I'm really glad we have a
• 31:56
  good leadership.
• 31:58
  In terms of IV lobe, we should be able to
• 32:01
  hopefully we'll get some sort of data
• 32:03
  that we could analyze.
• 32:05
  Yeah.
• 32:05
  So that's you know, that's
• 32:07
  part of the rationale that I had
• 32:09
  for recently joining this committee.
• 32:12
  As of a couple of weeks ago.
• 32:15
  Oh, I was really, by the way,
• 32:16
  I was really excited you were there.
• 32:18
  I was super excited that you
• 32:20
  you joined the council and.
• 32:21
  Thank you.
• 32:22
  I, you know, I,
• 32:24
  I think I'm the only member
• 32:25
  lacking a PhD.
• 32:28
  In traditional fields,
• 32:29
  I say my experience in the cockpit
• 32:31
  might qualify me for something similar.
• 32:33
  But, at the end of the day,
• 32:35
  you guys are being tasked
• 32:36
  with analyzing primarily
• 32:39
  what seems to be military imagery.
• 32:42
  Camera data, etcetera, etcetera.
• 32:45
  And there's a lot
• 32:46
  that, you know, can be determined
• 32:49
  or ruled out or understood
• 32:51
  without having to go
• 32:52
  through a laborers process of reverse,
• 32:55
  you know,
• 32:55
  doing the reverse physics
• 32:56
  to try to understand it
• 32:57
  from first principles. Right.
• 32:59
  How these systems work, how they guide,
• 33:01
  how they fuze, how they queued,
• 33:03
  how are these systems targeted,
• 33:04
  what systems are used?
• 33:07
  And I hope to be able
• 33:08
  to provide some perspective to the wider
• 33:11
  data network
• 33:12
  that supports
• 33:13
  any one of these tiny slivers of videos
• 33:15
  that have been coming out.
• 33:16
  And we'll talk about that
• 33:17
  more in a minute.
• 33:18
  And on the other hand,
• 33:20
  at Americans Are Safe
• 33:21
  Aerospace, we've been continuing
• 33:23
  to receive a lot of reports.
• 33:25
  And actually, I'm
• 33:26
  going to take a moment here
• 33:27
  to talk to all of
• 33:28
  you guys out there listening.
• 33:31
  I am seeing some incredible
• 33:33
  reports in the comment sections.
• 33:36
  Thank you for putting that in.
• 33:38
  I highly encourage you
• 33:39
  to go to Safe aerospace.org
• 33:41
  and submit the reports there directly.
• 33:45
  Sometimes there's a piece of information
• 33:47
  that will follow up
• 33:48
  and ask for that
• 33:49
  you hadn't thought to include.
• 33:50
  That's very important
• 33:51
  for helping us understand these cases.
• 33:54
  We've been seeing a massive
• 33:55
  uptick in report
• 33:55
  since we've started this podcast.
• 33:57
  We've got 48 reports
• 33:58
  just in the past 12 days or so.
• 34:01
  So please keep that up. Go to
• 34:04
  submit those reports.
• 34:07
  Submit them on the comments too
• 34:08
  if you want.
• 34:08
  But we're going to
• 34:09
  probably follow up with you
• 34:10
  and try to
• 34:11
  get you to push it over to our website
• 34:13
  so that we can get that in the database
• 34:15
  in front of our analyst eyes,
• 34:16
  so that we can fully understand
• 34:19
  the details and nuances of the case.
• 34:22
  But with that, that quick caveat.
• 34:25
  You know, there are
• 34:26
  there's still, you know,
• 34:27
  veterans and military folks
• 34:28
  that come to us say, hey,
• 34:29
  I've been capturing a lot of this stuff.
• 34:31
  Some of it,
• 34:32
  if what they're reporting is accurate
• 34:34
  or very highly detailed.
• 34:36
  And the exact, you know,
• 34:37
  file names
• 34:38
  and locations of these are available
• 34:42
  for follow up.
• 34:43
  And so my hope is that
• 34:45
  once the ODI or whomever is,
• 34:49
  guiding the conversation
• 34:50
  within the Scientific Council
• 34:53
  allows the proper clearances
• 34:54
  and access
• 34:55
  to this information,
• 34:56
  then you guys will have some more
• 34:57
  interesting data to look at.
• 35:01
  And I say more data,
• 35:02
  more interesting data
• 35:03
  because as a as was concluded,
• 35:07
  maybe concludes a strong word,
• 35:09
  but as you've identified
• 35:10
  in a recent paper
• 35:11
  that you've created with your colleague,
• 35:14
  you've shown that a lot of these, files
• 35:18
  that are being released
• 35:19
  to the pursuit program
• 35:20
  just simply don't have enough
• 35:22
  detail and context.
• 35:23
  There are two unbounded to truly draw
• 35:26
  any type of,
• 35:28
  distinctions from. Is that fair to say?
• 35:30
  Would you like to comment on that?
• 35:31
  Yeah. So dairy.
• 35:33
  There are a few videos
• 35:34
  that we analyzed
• 35:35
  the from the past year data release.
• 35:39
  Some of them,
• 35:41
  the at least the few videos
• 35:43
  that we looked at
• 35:45
  seem to be consistent with
• 35:46
  some of the known objects
• 35:47
  that we have around here, like birds and,
• 35:50
  you know,
• 35:51
  and but some of them
• 35:52
  we couldn't figure out
• 35:53
  based on the available data
• 35:55
  because most in fact,
• 35:57
  most of the data was redacted
• 35:59
  from these videos.
• 36:00
  So we could only put ranges of
• 36:02
  what could it be,
• 36:03
  ranges on the speed ranges
• 36:04
  on how far they could be.
• 36:06
  And that kind of confuses
• 36:07
  what kind of an object
• 36:08
  we can make it out.
• 36:10
  Yeah.
• 36:12
  Well, we're going to take a look
• 36:13
  at a couple of those videos
• 36:14
  here in a moment.
• 36:15
  But first I want to just kind of
• 36:18
  provide a little landscape of
• 36:21
  how this whole thing works
• 36:22
  when people get something on a sensor.
• 36:25
  And it's not for every circumstance.
• 36:26
  And some of the videos
• 36:28
  we're going to see here
• 36:28
  might have been more coincidental
• 36:30
  than, you know, a fully,
• 36:32
  prosecuted target.
• 36:33
  But when you're trying to
• 36:37
  employ on a target,
• 36:38
  right, it's not simply
• 36:40
  it pops up on your screen
• 36:41
  and you pull the trigger.
• 36:42
  There's a process.
• 36:43
  This is
• 36:43
  somewhat of an engineering process.
• 36:45
  And each one of the steps
• 36:46
  has massive amounts
• 36:47
  of tools and considerations
• 36:49
  and resources spent on it.
• 36:51
  And the general process
• 36:53
  is that you're going
• 36:53
  to find something right.
• 36:55
  And you might get a blip of something.
• 36:58
  A submarine might hear a ping, right.
• 37:00
  And you don't know the range of that ping
• 37:02
  necessarily off of one of it.
• 37:03
  You don't know how it's
• 37:04
  moving necessarily.
• 37:06
  An aircraft might receive jamming
• 37:09
  from a general location,
• 37:10
  but you can't tell how far away
• 37:13
  that jamming is on that bearing.
• 37:15
  Right?
• 37:16
  So you find something in the next
• 37:18
  step is to fix it.
• 37:19
  Like where is that
• 37:20
  in three dimensional space. Right.
• 37:22
  And then once you're able to do that,
• 37:26
  you're going to
• 37:26
  then track
• 37:27
  that object,
• 37:28
  you're going to fix it over time, right,
• 37:30
  so that you can monitor it.
• 37:33
  What you're done.
• 37:35
  Fixing it over time, tracking it.
• 37:38
  You're going to target it.
• 37:39
  And target doesn't mean
• 37:40
  that you pull the trigger.
• 37:41
  Target doesn't mean you just miraculously
• 37:43
  claim that it's an enemy.
• 37:44
  It's a process
• 37:45
  that you go through in order
• 37:46
  to make an assessment
• 37:47
  as the trigger puller,
• 37:49
  whether that is truly
• 37:50
  something that fits your,
• 37:53
  rules of engagement.
• 37:54
  Right? Is this,
• 37:57
  does this thing have the flight
• 37:59
  characteristics of a 737
• 38:02
  and did it take off
• 38:03
  from a civilian airport?
• 38:05
  Right.
• 38:06
  And it's flying at civilian air
• 38:07
  speeds and altitudes
• 38:08
  and on an expected track.
• 38:10
  Probably not
• 38:11
  something you want to target.
• 38:12
  Is this a fighter sized
• 38:14
  object maneuvering at 1.8
• 38:16
  mark with his nose at me,
• 38:18
  taking off from a known hostile base?
• 38:20
  Right.
• 38:21
  And there's many other tools
• 38:22
  that we use and considerations.
• 38:24
  And it gets in the classified territory
• 38:26
  pretty quick,
• 38:27
  so I don't want to get into it too much.
• 38:29
  But generally speaking,
• 38:30
  there is a process to say, okay,
• 38:31
  this is
• 38:32
  something that we've
• 38:34
  identified as a hostile
• 38:35
  and we were going to target it.
• 38:37
  And then the next step of that,
• 38:38
  that process is to actually engage
• 38:40
  that target, right.
• 38:41
  That's positioning yourself,
• 38:43
  your weapons systems, your,
• 38:46
  your wingman and other people
• 38:48
  to actually pull that trigger
• 38:49
  and support
• 38:50
  that engagement until it's concluded.
• 38:54
  That's the engaged portion.
• 38:55
  Then at the very end.
• 38:56
  How do you know what you did
• 38:57
  was successful, right?
• 39:00
  I have a fighter size object on my radar.
• 39:04
  Maybe it's close enough
• 39:05
  to look through through
• 39:06
  my infrared system.
• 39:07
  It's probably not.
• 39:09
  I'm going to pull the trigger.
• 39:10
  I'm going to engage it.
• 39:11
  I'm going to guide that missile in,
• 39:13
  and then I'm going to check.
• 39:14
  Is that radar contact gone?
• 39:16
  Right.
• 39:18
  Is it
• 39:19
  going off of mine
• 39:20
  and my my colleagues radar. Right.
• 39:22
  And that's one way to assess it.
• 39:24
  If we're attacking something
• 39:25
  on the ground.
• 39:27
  We do a BDA battle damage assessment.
• 39:32
  I think they actually changed
• 39:33
  term to be a J.
• 39:34
  But I forget what that one means.
• 39:36
  They're always changing terms.
• 39:38
  All right.
• 39:38
  So, hey, did we did
• 39:39
  we strike that ship with enough force
• 39:41
  to get a mission kill or a target kill?
• 39:44
  Right.
• 39:45
  If we
• 39:45
  drop a bomb on the deck of an
• 39:47
  aircraft carrier, no one could take off.
• 39:48
  That's a mission kill.
• 39:50
  If we sink the aircraft carrier. That's.
• 39:51
  You know,
• 39:52
  that's a full target kill, right?
• 39:53
  So you want to make that assessment
• 39:55
  and be able to use that information
• 39:56
  for planning, follow up
• 39:58
  attacks or things of that nature.
• 40:00
  And as is often the case with warfare,
• 40:04
  distance is comfort. Right.
• 40:05
  And so these
• 40:07
  the finding and the fixing
• 40:08
  and the tracking
• 40:09
  and the targeting
• 40:10
  all happens from very far away,
• 40:12
  and at least in my personal experience,
• 40:14
  is happening with,
• 40:15
  you know, our very
• 40:16
  sophisticated radar systems.
• 40:19
  In fact, the engage is happening.
• 40:20
  Of course,
• 40:21
  you know,
• 40:21
  primarily with our radar systems as well.
• 40:24
  And so all that information,
• 40:26
  which has to do with a location
• 40:31
  fixing, tracking, and really
• 40:34
  the object
• 40:35
  to something
• 40:35
  happening at range
• 40:36
  with sophisticated sensor systems.
• 40:39
  What has been disappointing to me
• 40:40
  with the information
• 40:41
  released from the pursuit
• 40:42
  program is that information
• 40:45
  that's being released
• 40:46
  is the stuff at the end of the chain,
• 40:48
  which is,
• 40:51
  the assessment.
• 40:52
  Right? Or
• 40:55
  if it's an error server
• 40:56
  is maybe the engagement. Right.
• 40:58
  We use our Fleer pods to laser targets,
• 41:00
  and we drop a bomb and guide
• 41:01
  a guide a bomb onto the laser. Right.
• 41:04
  So these are not things
• 41:05
  that are designed to be,
• 41:06
  like super sharp, crisp optical systems.
• 41:09
  They're designed to guide a bomb
• 41:10
  onto a building in F-18.
• 41:12
  We rarely use the,
• 41:16
  the flier for any type of, like,
• 41:18
  high fidelity imaging type work.
• 41:19
  It's just not we do.
• 41:20
  There's better systems now,
• 41:21
  and I'm sure they're better, but,
• 41:24
  they're not the primary tools
• 41:25
  for this type of work.
• 41:27
  Furthermore,
• 41:28
  I really just described one asset to you
• 41:31
  utilizing their tools
• 41:32
  to go through that process.
• 41:34
  But there's often, often a half dozen
• 41:36
  airborne objects.
• 41:37
  Right. Other aircraft.
• 41:39
  There's ships.
• 41:41
  And I'll just generally say,
• 41:43
  without giving ourselves in trouble,
• 41:44
  they're all connected.
• 41:45
  Right.
• 41:46
  And everyone's sharing information.
• 41:48
  And when one person has a radar lock,
• 41:50
  everyone else is getting
• 41:51
  that information as well.
• 41:53
  And so for any one release on pursue,
• 41:56
  there might be six other radar systems
• 41:58
  that have been observing that object
• 42:00
  for potentially 30 or 40 minutes.
• 42:03
  Right.
• 42:04
  But what's coming out is a clip
• 42:06
  that's 4 to 5 or six seconds long.
• 42:08
  And as we're going
• 42:09
  to discuss here in a minute,
• 42:10
  so unbounded that
• 42:11
  you can't really tell anything
• 42:12
  useful from that information.
• 42:14
  So my general question is one,
• 42:16
  I understand that this type of radar data
• 42:22
  should be classified.
• 42:24
  It should not be just fully released.
• 42:26
  The question is
• 42:27
  why don't advisory boards.
• 42:29
  And this is rhetorical.
• 42:30
  So I feel like you need to answer this.
• 42:31
  But why?
• 42:33
  Why does the advisory board
• 42:34
  only get this tiny amount of information
• 42:36
  that is scientifically unusual
• 42:39
  and yet factually, I know,
• 42:42
  and I think every operator
• 42:43
  that's been in
• 42:44
  where I have sat knows
• 42:46
  that there's much more sophisticated
• 42:47
  data out there.
• 42:48
  Why not provide the security clearances
• 42:51
  to a group
• 42:51
  with the scientific credentials
• 42:53
  that is within the UAP
• 42:54
  Scientific Council,
• 42:56
  so that they can see that data
• 42:58
  and have an operator like myself.
• 43:00
  Whichever you join,
• 43:01
  walk them through this,
• 43:03
  what's called the F2, t2, e a kill chain
• 43:06
  to show them how these targets
• 43:07
  are getting found,
• 43:09
  how they're getting fixed,
• 43:09
  how they're getting tracked,
• 43:10
  and how they're getting targeted
• 43:12
  as friendly or enemy aircraft,
• 43:13
  because those decisions are being made
• 43:14
  based upon all those data.
• 43:16
  What's being released isn't the data
• 43:18
  that is useful for that type of analysis.
• 43:20
  And yet
• 43:20
  that's what you're stuck doing
• 43:22
  an analysis on.
• 43:23
  You're right.
• 43:24
  So it's not what we get.
• 43:27
  It's what's available
• 43:28
  for us to and analyze.
• 43:30
  These are this is all publicly available.
• 43:32
  Pursue data. Right.
• 43:34
  And so one of the main motivations I'm
• 43:38
  I'm I hope
• 43:39
  I am actually conveying this accurately
• 43:43
  based on what I work with our
• 43:46
  colleagues in the Science
• 43:47
  Advisory Council.
• 43:48
  One of the things we want to do
• 43:50
  with this
• 43:50
  publicly available data
• 43:51
  is to develop tools,
• 43:52
  analytical tools,
• 43:54
  even if it is a redacted
• 43:55
  data, to see, okay,
• 43:57
  what is it
• 43:57
  that we can do
• 43:58
  with the minimal information
• 44:00
  we have right now?
• 44:01
  And we will know what we won't know
• 44:04
  what we don't know.
• 44:05
  And so that will give us an idea about,
• 44:08
  okay, what are the
• 44:09
  this is our first time doing
• 44:10
  this is not our day job actually. Right.
• 44:12
  So this is something
• 44:13
  that we are entering into new territory.
• 44:15
  When you are entering into this kind of
• 44:16
  a new territory where you are the expert,
• 44:19
  we have to go
• 44:20
  very, very slowly
• 44:21
  and try to develop
• 44:22
  the tools that we want to develop
• 44:23
  with the available data.
• 44:25
  If there is more data available,
• 44:26
  which is what we definitely need,
• 44:30
  we would be more than thrilled
• 44:31
  to have that kind of a built in access.
• 44:34
  But again,
• 44:35
  we would be publishing a paper on that.
• 44:37
  And so this kind of
• 44:39
  analysis would be out.
• 44:40
  And if someone else want to reproduce
• 44:42
  and they say, hey, you know,
• 44:42
  how do you know you need this, right?
• 44:44
  Then we can say, okay,
• 44:45
  here are our analysis tool.
• 44:47
  Here is the data we can give you.
• 44:48
  You go and go and analyze this
• 44:50
  and then see
• 44:51
  if you can reach the same conclusion.
• 44:53
  If you agree with us, great.
• 44:55
  If you don't we'll figure out
• 44:56
  what's happening.
• 44:57
  So that's where I think we we have to be.
• 45:00
  Well first too, is that
• 45:02
  it's actually not that
• 45:03
  complex of a problem
• 45:04
  at the end of the day to do this in real
• 45:06
  time even. Right.
• 45:09
  Like I said, every aircraft
• 45:10
  talks to each other.
• 45:11
  The ships talk to each other.
• 45:13
  It would be relatively trivial
• 45:14
  for a defense contractor to build a box,
• 45:17
  more or less a modem
• 45:19
  that plugs into that network,
• 45:20
  that monitors
• 45:21
  everything that all those aircraft
• 45:23
  and ships are seeing real time,
• 45:24
  and basically create an algorithm
• 45:26
  to scan it for abnormal radar contacts.
• 45:30
  I've pitched this
• 45:31
  to several government agencies.
• 45:33
  If you're listening.
• 45:35
  I know that it's
• 45:37
  you don't even really
• 45:38
  have to have to build it.
• 45:39
  You could just level
• 45:40
  leverage a ground based station to,
• 45:42
  to plug into and monitor
• 45:43
  this type of information.
• 45:44
  But it's it's
• 45:45
  not some magical process
• 45:47
  that requires us to retrofit
• 45:48
  an aircraft and,
• 45:49
  you know, burn gas all day.
• 45:50
  It's simply as simple
• 45:52
  as basically plugging into the
• 45:54
  to the grid
• 45:54
  and just monitoring it
• 45:56
  for the information that you want.
• 45:57
  I think if the Trump White House,
• 46:00
  if Stephen Miller is interested
• 46:01
  in actually
• 46:02
  doing this right, that's probably
• 46:03
  your best bet of getting real time data
• 46:05
  on this basically anywhere.
• 46:06
  At least the Navy operates
• 46:08
  and their force
• 46:09
  and others use
• 46:10
  pretty much the exact same system.
• 46:12
  And it's not it's not only aircraft.
• 46:14
  So, just something
• 46:16
  I want to put out there.
• 46:19
  Well, let's let's get into
• 46:21
  maybe we can pull up the first video
• 46:23
  first, maybe
• 46:24
  just a quick rundown on the paper
• 46:25
  that you guys
• 46:27
  put out while we pull up the first video.
• 46:30
  So, yeah.
• 46:31
  So there are a few videos
• 46:33
  that we've analyzed
• 46:34
  from the pursuit
• 46:35
  data release
• 46:36
  we downloaded
• 46:36
  that few of us investigated it.
• 46:38
  So now we are looking at video of 113
• 46:43
  in the pursuit data release,
• 46:45
  where you can see
• 46:46
  this targeting grid on top of it.
• 46:49
  And then suddenly you'd see
• 46:51
  when the grid is rotating,
• 46:53
  a fast moving object crossing across.
• 46:55
  There you go.
• 46:56
  There's one there.
• 46:59
  And then the video.
• 47:01
  Let's just stop here for a minute.
• 47:02
  Sure. Let's go back to the beginning.
• 47:04
  I'll explain what we're looking at here.
• 47:06
  Yeah. Right there.
• 47:06
  Just pause it right there.
• 47:08
  So this is a pretty standard
• 47:11
  30 degrees.
• 47:12
  Well it's about
• 47:15
  a it's not the best dive.
• 47:17
  I'll say he's
• 47:18
  at about 17 degrees nose down.
• 47:20
  But generally he's coming in
• 47:22
  to straight for target.
• 47:23
  Right now
• 47:23
  he's got his picture down at 30 degrees.
• 47:25
  At the center of that circle down
• 47:26
  there is essentially
• 47:29
  where the bullets are going to go. Okay.
• 47:31
  There's a tape on that
• 47:33
  which we can't really see
• 47:33
  right now
• 47:34
  that essentially unwinds
• 47:35
  to show the range. Right.
• 47:36
  And there'll be a point where,
• 47:38
  all right, once it crosses this,
• 47:39
  this part of the ticker,
• 47:40
  now you can fire in the bullet.
• 47:42
  You're going to have the kinetic energy,
• 47:43
  the need to go
• 47:43
  where I say they're going to go.
• 47:45
  And then there's a point where it says,
• 47:46
  hey, you're too low,
• 47:47
  you need to pull out.
• 47:49
  What this looks like
• 47:49
  is he's coming in a target.
• 47:51
  He's like I said,
• 47:51
  this is pretty shallow at the moment.
• 47:53
  I think he was deeper earlier
• 47:54
  at some point.
• 47:55
  But he's drawing that pepper down,
• 47:57
  and then he shoots
• 47:58
  and he's going to pull off,
• 48:00
  and then he's going to do
• 48:01
  about 120 degrees over bank
• 48:03
  and pull back down
• 48:04
  to his desired altitude
• 48:06
  in like a practice environment.
• 48:08
  And then he's going to kind of come back
• 48:09
  and do another pass and go down
• 48:11
  and he's gonna pull up
• 48:11
  and he's going to
• 48:12
  loop down to the proper altitude
• 48:14
  and kind of keep going down.
• 48:15
  That's generally
• 48:16
  what we're looking at here, although
• 48:18
  it's a little tough
• 48:19
  to tell the details on the paper.
• 48:21
  I'm not 100% sure the platform here.
• 48:25
  It's either
• 48:26
  but so it doesn't really matter anyways.
• 48:28
  But so that's what we're seeing here.
• 48:30
  How are they doing this?
• 48:32
  They probably dropped a waypoint
• 48:34
  on the target.
• 48:35
  So a GPS location
• 48:37
  that's showing up somewhere in their HUD,
• 48:38
  or they have a visual idea
• 48:41
  of what they want to shoot.
• 48:43
  Right.
• 48:44
  This is a this is a HUD footage.
• 48:45
  This is an infrared.
• 48:47
  This is basically a black
• 48:48
  and white recording of the hut itself.
• 48:51
  And so the targeting pod is
• 48:53
  kind of a non-issue here.
• 48:54
  So what I just talked about
• 48:56
  about having radar and doing a target,
• 48:58
  you know, X miles away
• 49:00
  and all this type of stuff doesn't apply
• 49:01
  for this one necessarily.
• 49:02
  This was kind of like a a happenstance
• 49:06
  type circumstance.
• 49:07
  I just kind of
• 49:07
  want to put that caveat there.
• 49:08
  So let's let's play it again
• 49:09
  and see what we see here.
• 49:20
  There you go.
• 49:22
  And then we see
• 49:24
  some little object
• 49:25
  zipped right in front of the HUD.
• 49:27
  Which one would be terrifying as a pilot.
• 49:29
  Right.
• 49:29
  So
• 49:31
  when you do this, presuming everything
• 49:34
  you know, I'm giving my best guess here.
• 49:35
  I don't know where this is.
• 49:36
  I don't know precisely what platform.
• 49:40
  Frankly, the ticker tape on the strafing
• 49:42
  gun looks a little strange to me,
• 49:43
  and I might be slightly off that.
• 49:45
  That is a strafe.
• 49:46
  And not just a release,
• 49:47
  especially because it's below,
• 49:50
  the velocity vector.
• 49:51
  Because typically,
• 49:52
  at least in 18,
• 49:53
  the bullets come out
• 49:54
  the top of the nose, right?
• 49:56
  So your nose is always
• 49:57
  deeper than where the bullets are. Right?
• 49:59
  If you have a pod enough 35, for example,
• 50:02
  then the ticker would be below
• 50:04
  the velocity vector,
• 50:05
  which is that
• 50:05
  little circle in the middle there.
• 50:07
  So there's some things
• 50:07
  I'm not sure about here, but
• 50:09
  wherever this was,
• 50:10
  if this was in training,
• 50:11
  I'll say then they're operating
• 50:13
  what's called a restricted space.
• 50:14
  And, you know, when we operate on
• 50:17
  that term
• 50:17
  gets used a little loosely
• 50:18
  sometimes in the up topic,
• 50:21
  a restricted space or,
• 50:22
  excuse me,
• 50:23
  the area off the coast of Virginia Beach
• 50:25
  where our
• 50:26
  operating where
• 50:26
  we're having these instances people off
• 50:28
  often like the Ferdows restricted space.
• 50:31
  It's really
• 50:31
  not it's a military operating area
• 50:33
  where civilians can fly through it.
• 50:35
  It's just very dangerous
• 50:36
  for them to do it,
• 50:37
  and they'll
• 50:37
  basically get routed around it by ATC
• 50:39
  unless they basically ignore ATC request,
• 50:42
  because that's really what it is.
• 50:43
  But they're putting themselves in danger.
• 50:45
  But when we do bombing and strafing
• 50:47
  and all that good stuff at a range,
• 50:49
  it is actually a restricted space,
• 50:51
  like you will get intercepted.
• 50:52
  Potentially you'll get arrested
• 50:54
  when you land that type of thing. Right?
• 50:55
  So nothing should be out there
• 50:58
  that you're not expecting.
• 51:00
  No. Cessna is bumbling through.
• 51:02
  And to see something
• 51:04
  pop up when you're in a
• 51:06
  what looks like a 30 degree
• 51:08
  dive, just starting that over bank,
• 51:11
  would be would be pretty terrifying.
• 51:13
  I mean, that's pretty much a near miss.
• 51:15
  It's hard to say, obviously,
• 51:16
  how far these objects are.
• 51:19
  And we'll talk about,
• 51:20
  you know, your assessment of that.
• 51:21
  But for me, my pilot,
• 51:23
  I seeing this happen
• 51:24
  and the speed
• 51:25
  at which they're going
• 51:26
  across the hood,
• 51:27
  I would say that
• 51:29
  these are probably within 1000ft
• 51:33
  of the aircraft that that's just my like,
• 51:36
  my eyesight, you know, telling me that.
• 51:39
  You mean the rate,
• 51:40
  the distance of the object,
• 51:42
  the this object from the airborne
• 51:45
  instrument is zero, zero feet is one.
• 51:48
  Yeah.
• 51:48
  Those whatever those two objects are,
• 51:50
  if there are two.
• 51:51
  They are actually
• 51:52
  I think it's a video interlacing.
• 51:53
  Okay. Yeah.
• 51:55
  Yeah.
• 51:56
  I mean,
• 51:56
  when I see
• 51:56
  something move that fast across my HUD,
• 51:58
  it's not 20 miles away moving at Mach,
• 52:01
  you know, 50,
• 52:02
  it's probably moving at somewhere
• 52:04
  between 100
• 52:05
  and maybe 200 knots and 1000ft.
• 52:08
  And then my relative motion
• 52:09
  adding to that. Right.
• 52:10
  Which is pretty aggressive
• 52:11
  here, as you can see.
• 52:14
  I'll watch it in full time here.
• 52:16
  There you go. Yeah.
• 52:17
  So I would say
• 52:18
  like for me as a pilot,
• 52:19
  like, wow, I just had in your mouth like,
• 52:20
  that's what,
• 52:20
  that's what comes to my mind.
• 52:22
  So I'll stop talking now.
• 52:23
  What did you
• 52:24
  what did you do on this video?
• 52:26
  Oh, well, so we tried to obtain the range
• 52:28
  and the speed,
• 52:29
  basically to know what kind of an object
• 52:31
  could potentially do that.
• 52:32
  And taking into account the, the air,
• 52:35
  air, instrument as well.
• 52:39
  However, as you can see from
• 52:41
  the, on the screen,
• 52:43
  much of the information is redacted here.
• 52:45
  And so what we try to do
• 52:47
  is analyze this frame by frame.
• 52:51
  To see we need to know the field of view
• 52:54
  in actual units of,
• 52:56
  you know, units of kilometers
• 52:58
  or meters or whatever it is.
• 52:59
  However, we don't have any of
• 53:00
  that information.
• 53:01
  So we can do the objects range as well,
• 53:05
  the ground speed.
• 53:06
  Also, we cannot say anything about it.
• 53:08
  And so we try to do this
• 53:10
  whole screen analysis by using the pixel.
• 53:13
  How many pixels are
• 53:14
  there across the screen
• 53:15
  and how many pixels
• 53:17
  per second
• 53:17
  object was crossing across the screen.
• 53:20
  And so this is the
• 53:20
  that's probably the best thing
• 53:22
  that we can potentially do,
• 53:24
  given the lack of any other actual
• 53:27
  relative value
• 53:29
  in terms of the actual units
• 53:30
  for the distance
• 53:31
  and the speed of the object.
• 53:32
  The trick here.
• 53:33
  So again, maybe it'd be useful.
• 53:35
  That's why I have military Aviator
• 53:37
  on your console.
• 53:38
  Yeah, many jets have a setting in them
• 53:41
  that allow you to set me
• 53:42
  with of that velocity vector
• 53:44
  that's in the middle,
• 53:45
  so that when you are looking at a object
• 53:48
  at a certain range, if it's the same size
• 53:51
  as the width of your velocity vector,
• 53:54
  then you know
• 53:55
  the object is at a certain distance
• 53:57
  for a normal fighter sized object.
• 53:59
  Okay. All right.
• 54:00
  And so again
• 54:01
  I don't know what this platform is.
• 54:03
  It's typically set
• 54:04
  kind of set it and forget it.
• 54:05
  It's not something
• 54:06
  you update every flight.
• 54:07
  But if you're going to manual
• 54:08
  you would be able to
• 54:10
  compare that object
• 54:11
  to the width of that velocity vector
• 54:13
  in the middle of the circle
• 54:14
  with the lines
• 54:14
  coming off of it, and say, okay,
• 54:17
  if this object was at,
• 54:18
  say, 5000ft in front of me,
• 54:21
  then it would be this size.
• 54:23
  So we do have this kind of analysis
• 54:26
  as a plot in our paper
• 54:28
  to bound the ranges of the speed
• 54:30
  and the sizes of the object.
• 54:32
  And unfortunately,
• 54:34
  because we were able to only do this
• 54:37
  on the pixel level
• 54:38
  and the frame level analysis,
• 54:39
  it's it's
• 54:40
  the bounds are quite large
• 54:42
  anywhere from a bird flying to anything,
• 54:44
  because it could be very close
• 54:45
  to the platform
• 54:46
  that you're talking about.
• 54:48
  And we don't even know
• 54:48
  what the platform is in the first place.
• 54:50
  It could
• 54:51
  I mean, you could say it's a fighter jet,
• 54:53
  it could be a drone,
• 54:55
  you know, scouting the landscape.
• 54:58
  We don't know.
• 54:58
  I don't think drones do dive attacks,
• 55:00
  but I could be wrong.
• 55:01
  Well, so that's
• 55:02
  why your expertise is needed in here?
• 55:04
  Because we don't.
• 55:05
  The information is very
• 55:07
  sparse in this case.
• 55:08
  And so
• 55:09
  we could potentially do what we could
• 55:10
  potentially do is bound the ranges
• 55:13
  of the range of the object
• 55:14
  and the speed of the object in terms
• 55:15
  of what it could potentially be,
• 55:17
  and it can be anywhere from
• 55:19
  like you just mentioned about Mach
• 55:20
  then thing going at very far away.
• 55:23
  Or it could be a bird flying very close.
• 55:25
  And that's the
• 55:26
  those are the best bones we can do.
• 55:27
  Did you,
• 55:28
  did you come to any like hard boundaries.
• 55:31
  So those are the boundaries.
• 55:34
  Because that's.
• 55:35
  That's essentially
• 55:36
  what we could say anything about it.
• 55:39
  Lack of any other information.
• 55:41
  This was because there is no background
• 55:43
  image that we can base it upon different
• 55:46
  depending on the scale
• 55:47
  to make a scale of the object.
• 55:50
  If there is some structure
• 55:51
  in the background,
• 55:52
  we can estimate the structure size
• 55:54
  and then potentially
• 55:55
  have some sort of a relation between
• 55:57
  how could how large
• 55:59
  the structure could be.
• 56:00
  And then, you know.
• 56:02
  If you know how big the object is,
• 56:05
  well,
• 56:05
  if you know how far away it is,
• 56:07
  then you can say how fast it's moving.
• 56:08
  Yes.
• 56:09
  What what are the potential
• 56:10
  sizes of objects that we know of
• 56:12
  that could travel that far, that,
• 56:14
  you know, that high speed
• 56:15
  and those altitudes?
• 56:17
  We could also get
• 56:18
  how far the platform, the distance
• 56:20
  between the platform
• 56:21
  and the object, or the ground
• 56:22
  speed of the object itself.
• 56:24
  If we know the range,
• 56:25
  if we know the field of view,
• 56:26
  if you know,
• 56:27
  you know how fast the object is going,
• 56:28
  all of that information.
• 56:30
  As a modern fighter,
• 56:31
  which I believe it is,
• 56:33
  I have every confidence that is.
• 56:36
  Well,
• 56:36
  I'll say this, I'd say
• 56:37
  it's probably like a
• 56:38
  at least a 75% chance that
• 56:41
  whatever this object was,
• 56:42
  was captured on their radar.
• 56:45
  They weren't looking at their
• 56:46
  radar during this regime of flight.
• 56:48
  They wouldn't have seen it,
• 56:49
  but it's very likely
• 56:50
  that one they might have seen it
• 56:52
  before they even started that dive.
• 56:54
  Right.
• 56:55
  And while they're pulling out, adjusting,
• 56:57
  going across their nose, it's
• 56:59
  very likely
• 57:00
  that this did appear on their radar.
• 57:03
  Yeah.
• 57:03
  So you might also notice that when it's
• 57:08
  crossing the left redacted box,
• 57:12
  we don't see it coming out of that.
• 57:17
  Step through that.
• 57:18
  So if you go to the.
• 57:19
  Box timestamp 52
• 57:21
  seconds, 54 seconds or so
• 57:23
  or we
• 57:24
  could potentially probably be missing.
• 57:26
  So by the way this is not an eye
• 57:28
  analysis that we did.
• 57:29
  We actually used some sort of a
• 57:32
  AI analysis.
• 57:33
  And also we did our own equations
• 57:35
  to make sure that we did
• 57:37
  whatever we did is consistent
• 57:38
  with what we are seeing.
• 57:39
  So for example here,
• 57:41
  you can see that object
• 57:42
  going into this redacted box on the left,
• 57:45
  but I don't see it in in this case,
• 57:49
  anything else.
• 57:50
  Seems to be skipping a bit.
• 57:51
  Do you think it could just simply be that
• 57:52
  the relative motion was so high
• 57:54
  they just skipped off the screen
• 57:55
  type thing. That is consistent with what
• 57:59
  seems.
• 58:00
  At least that
• 58:00
  seems to be consistent with
• 58:01
  what do you think?
• 58:02
  And I don't know what
• 58:03
  that object could potentially be.
• 58:08
  Because we don't exactly know
• 58:09
  the size of that object.
• 58:11
  It's for me
• 58:12
  when I see this, I think, okay,
• 58:14
  I don't have any explanation for what
• 58:15
  this is.
• 58:16
  Do what I categorize this
• 58:18
  as potential techno signature. No. Right.
• 58:20
  It's just,
• 58:21
  you know, I fear that if the, the
• 58:25
  the government wants to be unhelpful
• 58:27
  in this endeavor,
• 58:28
  there's a ton of ambiguity.
• 58:31
  They can just pump into the conversation
• 58:33
  by just having
• 58:34
  any silly thing that is not immediately
• 58:38
  and pumping it out and saying,
• 58:39
  well, this is a UAP
• 58:40
  now, and just flooding the zone
• 58:42
  with a ton of low quality and big U.S.
• 58:46
  BS, for lack of a better word, birds and,
• 58:49
  you know, debris or,
• 58:50
  you know, whatever this is.
• 58:53
  So I don't know
• 58:54
  where I'm going with that.
• 58:55
  Just that's my fear
• 58:56
  in this conversation, right?
• 58:57
  I mean. I think I mean, you you you do.
• 59:00
  I think at one time we have
• 59:01
  a, you know, gentleman, David Gray,
• 59:03
  who's literally talking about there
• 59:04
  being craft and hangars.
• 59:06
  At the other end of the spectrum,
• 59:07
  the government is giving us,
• 59:09
  you know, a single blob going past,
• 59:11
  you know, HUD footage.
• 59:12
  I would really like to know
• 59:13
  what kind of objects these are.
• 59:15
  And I would like to know
• 59:16
  a really good data to make an actual,
• 59:19
  you know,
• 59:20
  analysis and probably conclusions
• 59:22
  on what these potentially could be.
• 59:24
  But this, this,
• 59:26
  this video
• 59:26
  at least gave us some sort of analysis
• 59:28
  tools that we could put up
• 59:30
  in case we ever receive
• 59:31
  a good amount of data from,
• 59:33
  from somewhere.
• 59:35
  I mean, we've.
• 59:36
  I've interviewed people on this podcast
• 59:38
  and there's,
• 59:38
  you know, a dozen more
• 59:40
  who have claimed that they have,
• 59:41
  you know,
• 59:43
  minutes long footage of spheres
• 59:46
  that will take up this whole screen
• 59:48
  in high fidelity
• 59:50
  Fleer footage, optical footage,
• 59:52
  infrared footage
• 59:53
  that pretty much as clear
• 59:54
  as you might want it to be.
• 59:56
  I know where those files are.
• 59:58
  I provided the locations of those files,
• 1:00:01
  so let's release some of those.
• 1:00:02
  Ryan,
• 1:00:03
  that kind of data is my dream to have.
• 1:00:06
  All right.
• 1:00:07
  Anything else
• 1:00:07
  you want to say about this video?
• 1:00:09
  This is the first kind of,
• 1:00:11
  analysis we did.
• 1:00:12
  This is one of the papers,
• 1:00:13
  the first paper
• 1:00:13
  we published on this particular data
• 1:00:16
  to show how we could potentially do
• 1:00:17
  the analysis.
• 1:00:18
  There is also another,
• 1:00:21
  video.
• 1:00:22
  I forgot the the data number here.
• 1:00:25
  There's also
• 1:00:26
  there's a ship in the background
• 1:00:27
  if you can pull that up.
• 1:00:29
  Let's start from the beginning.
• 1:00:31
  Yeah.
• 1:00:31
  This is another video of pier 149 with
• 1:00:35
  a ship in the background,
• 1:00:36
  and you can see a object
• 1:00:38
  crossing across the screen.
• 1:00:39
  So there you go.
• 1:00:40
  You see this object right away
• 1:00:41
  crossing across the screen.
• 1:00:43
  And then
• 1:00:44
  it's bright and had the bright dot.
• 1:00:49
  We could see what?
• 1:00:51
  We don't know what it is.
• 1:00:52
  We don't have any other kind of data.
• 1:00:54
  However, we now have something.
• 1:00:57
  One more thing in this particular video.
• 1:01:00
  This is again a video,
• 1:01:01
  a ship in the background.
• 1:01:03
  And so we know how big ships could
• 1:01:05
  potentially be,
• 1:01:06
  what kind of ships they are.
• 1:01:08
  Because it's pretty clear in this case.
• 1:01:10
  And so we can estimate
• 1:01:11
  the size of the ship.
• 1:01:13
  And based on that we can actually
• 1:01:15
  see how far or how much.
• 1:01:18
  The, the
• 1:01:19
  potential ranges range
• 1:01:20
  for this particular object could be.
• 1:01:22
  And based on the size of the chip
• 1:01:24
  and how fast the object is moving
• 1:01:26
  across that distance
• 1:01:28
  of the length of the ship.
• 1:01:30
  And we did some analysis on that one.
• 1:01:32
  And again, lack of anything else,
• 1:01:35
  we might be a little bit
• 1:01:37
  tighter bounce on this
• 1:01:39
  on the kind of object uses.
• 1:01:41
  But beyond that we don't
• 1:01:42
  we can't say anything else.
• 1:01:44
  You don't necessarily know
• 1:01:45
  the range of the object from the ship,
• 1:01:47
  although. No we don't.
• 1:01:49
  You might be a little
• 1:01:50
  make some, some good guesses.
• 1:01:53
  Presumably this is white hot.
• 1:01:55
  They have a lot of details of the footage
• 1:01:57
  blocked out,
• 1:01:58
  but based off of the steam
• 1:01:59
  coming out of the top of the ship
• 1:02:01
  being white,
• 1:02:01
  I would assume that this is a white
• 1:02:03
  hot type image.
• 1:02:04
  So this object would be hot
• 1:02:06
  compared to its surroundings, right?
• 1:02:08
  Right. It could be.
• 1:02:09
  I mean,
• 1:02:10
  there are several objects
• 1:02:11
  that would be in the sky
• 1:02:12
  that could be potentially hot.
• 1:02:14
  I mean, it could be a bird, for example,
• 1:02:16
  crossing across the sky.
• 1:02:19
  Do you?
• 1:02:20
  I know you've recently done some work on,
• 1:02:24
  finding flickering or repeating patterns
• 1:02:27
  in some of these small objects
• 1:02:28
  and comparing them to potential.
• 1:02:32
  The flapping speeds of of birds, right.
• 1:02:35
  You can see the change in the IRS
• 1:02:37
  as it's flapping around.
• 1:02:39
  I know you guys haven't done
• 1:02:39
  a formal study on this one yet,
• 1:02:41
  or at least that's my understanding.
• 1:02:42
  But do you
• 1:02:43
  see any of those indications,
• 1:02:45
  any kind of repeating pattern in this?
• 1:02:47
  So now that we discuss
• 1:02:49
  and we are seeing this
• 1:02:50
  on the big screen, eye to my eye
• 1:02:52
  right now,
• 1:02:53
  there seems to be some sort of
• 1:02:55
  a flickering here.
• 1:02:56
  But I have to talk with my colleague
• 1:02:58
  Jacob Mishra and see,
• 1:03:00
  you know,
• 1:03:00
  if he can do a similar analysis
• 1:03:01
  that we did for the new
• 1:03:03
  paper that we published. From
• 1:03:05
  the ship, if we can.
• 1:03:06
  That is a
• 1:03:08
  looks like an extended object
• 1:03:10
  on the on this pixel site because it's,
• 1:03:13
  it's crossing across the frames
• 1:03:14
  pretty fast. Yeah.
• 1:03:15
  So
• 1:03:17
  did you bound the velocity
• 1:03:19
  in this one at all?
• 1:03:21
  Again, there is a there's a
• 1:03:23
  we made a bounded plot on the on this
• 1:03:26
  for this particular object.
• 1:03:27
  Again, it's it could be a bird.
• 1:03:29
  It's useful. Yeah.
• 1:03:31
  It's either a bird
• 1:03:31
  or some sort of
• 1:03:32
  a drone or something like.
• 1:03:34
  Do you guys
• 1:03:35
  have any idea what type of ship
• 1:03:37
  or the nationality of that ship?
• 1:03:39
  So we did.
• 1:03:40
  I have to look at the actual name,
• 1:03:44
  the class classification of the ship.
• 1:03:45
  But yes, we do.
• 1:03:47
  We do mention that in the in the paper.
• 1:03:49
  And probably we,
• 1:03:50
  we estimate the length
• 1:03:51
  to be about 150 to 200ft across the land.
• 1:03:55
  So and based on the. Target right there,
• 1:03:59
  I'm.
• 1:04:00
  See, you are seeing it as a target.
• 1:04:02
  I'm seeing it as a data
• 1:04:05
  I we don't it looks like it's in
• 1:04:08
  of course in the water.
• 1:04:09
  And we don't know where
• 1:04:10
  this potential location could be.
• 1:04:14
  But there was another
• 1:04:15
  in the more recent paper.
• 1:04:18
  Not from this.
• 1:04:20
  There is a flickering,
• 1:04:21
  the flickering of the birds.
• 1:04:23
  I think we kind of
• 1:04:24
  identified where the location
• 1:04:25
  is somewhere near Kuwait.
• 1:04:28
  For that, for those objects.
• 1:04:29
  And we even some of the council
• 1:04:31
  members are very avid bird watchers,
• 1:04:34
  I think, as a hobby.
• 1:04:35
  So they will try to find out
• 1:04:37
  what kind of birds they are.
• 1:04:38
  Why would they would be there
• 1:04:39
  at that location,
• 1:04:40
  what is their migration history
• 1:04:42
  and so on. So that was kind of a fun.
• 1:04:45
  And now that we want
• 1:04:46
  we were looking for birds in this
• 1:04:48
  kind of videos.
• 1:04:49
  But they come out to be like that. Okay.
• 1:04:53
  Anything else you want to say
• 1:04:54
  on this video?
• 1:04:55
  This is
• 1:04:56
  I think
• 1:04:57
  if you if you had only this particular,
• 1:05:01
  access to only this particular
• 1:05:02
  part of the video, not the ship,
• 1:05:04
  there is no way
• 1:05:05
  we would have said anything about it
• 1:05:06
  unless we did the flickering.
• 1:05:09
  Yeah.
• 1:05:10
  Analysis
• 1:05:11
  that I have to ask
• 1:05:12
  our colleagues in the council
• 1:05:13
  and see if we can do
• 1:05:14
  a flickering analysis
• 1:05:15
  to see if we can even more,
• 1:05:16
  better identify this as a bird or not.
• 1:05:20
  This, or I guess, is
• 1:05:23
  a unmanned system.
• 1:05:27
  Obviously.
• 1:05:28
  Perhaps not, obviously, but tracking the,
• 1:05:30
  the boat
• 1:05:31
  and then seeing something interesting
• 1:05:33
  and just kind of scanning here
• 1:05:34
  whether this was on the radar or not.
• 1:05:37
  I don't know.
• 1:05:38
  And, you know,
• 1:05:39
  this kind of gets into
• 1:05:40
  why they don't want to release.
• 1:05:41
  I mean, there's so many reasons why
• 1:05:42
  they don't want to release,
• 1:05:45
  radar data, but
• 1:05:47
  one is
• 1:05:48
  you don't want your enemy
• 1:05:49
  to know how small of an object
• 1:05:50
  you can track, right?
• 1:05:51
  Maybe that is a drone from an adversary.
• 1:05:54
  And they're watching our unmanned drone
• 1:05:58
  at 20 or 30 zero zero zero feet.
• 1:06:00
  Call it.
• 1:06:01
  I'm just making this up ten miles away,
• 1:06:04
  and they'll be like, oh,
• 1:06:05
  he detected and tracked our drone
• 1:06:07
  that we know was such and such distance
• 1:06:10
  and has this radar cross-section.
• 1:06:11
  Therefore, you know,
• 1:06:13
  we'll add that to our data
• 1:06:14
  set that
• 1:06:15
  we know they can track us
• 1:06:16
  at this range, employ on us.
• 1:06:18
  So how would they know that this platform
• 1:06:21
  is tracking their drone.
• 1:06:24
  Because we're releasing them
• 1:06:25
  through pursue.
• 1:06:28
  Okay. Yeah.
• 1:06:29
  All right. Yeah.
• 1:06:31
  Or if we, you know, reacted to it, such
• 1:06:34
  as we turn to go chase it,
• 1:06:35
  to keep it in in observation
• 1:06:37
  perhaps, but.
• 1:06:38
  Yeah, but but primarily because
• 1:06:40
  because of what we're seeing right now
• 1:06:42
  in front of us.
• 1:06:43
  All right.
• 1:06:44
  This is a quite interesting,
• 1:06:47
  video as well.
• 1:06:47
  This is PR 135
• 1:06:49
  where you can see some sort of a tower,
• 1:06:51
  and then you see these objects,
• 1:06:55
  floating across the screen.
• 1:06:56
  And then there's a tracking.
• 1:06:59
  We found that
• 1:07:00
  there is brightness flickering.
• 1:07:03
  And then also
• 1:07:04
  we try
• 1:07:05
  to see
• 1:07:05
  what is the freak
• 1:07:06
  beat frequency or the frequency
• 1:07:08
  at which this flickering is happening.
• 1:07:10
  And we kind of,
• 1:07:13
  figured out that it's
• 1:07:13
  consistent with the birds.
• 1:07:16
  Okay, well, we see
• 1:07:18
  we're seeing a lot of crazy motion
• 1:07:19
  right now.
• 1:07:20
  I would suspect that what this is, is
• 1:07:23
  movement from the camera system
• 1:07:26
  that's tracking it versus
• 1:07:27
  the objects themselves moving.
• 1:07:29
  There's probably
• 1:07:29
  not a way to determine that.
• 1:07:32
  But I would presume that birds
• 1:07:34
  aren't necessarily flying like that.
• 1:07:36
  I don't know what. Your thoughts.
• 1:07:37
  I think. They are.
• 1:07:39
  So there are like we
• 1:07:42
  if you look at our paper we have actual
• 1:07:45
  data on how,
• 1:07:46
  what is the beat frequency of these,
• 1:07:49
  you know, objects
• 1:07:50
  and they
• 1:07:51
  fall somewhere
• 1:07:52
  between 3.5Hz to ten hertz, consistent
• 1:07:55
  with what birds would do at that height.
• 1:07:58
  And somehow one of our
• 1:08:01
  some of our colleagues in the council
• 1:08:03
  figured out
• 1:08:04
  this is at a particular location
• 1:08:06
  in Kuwait.
• 1:08:07
  And this is also consistent
• 1:08:09
  with what kind of birds they could be.
• 1:08:12
  The that location.
• 1:08:14
  There's
• 1:08:14
  probably a mathematical model
• 1:08:16
  that you can come up with that
• 1:08:18
  gives you a confidence level
• 1:08:20
  that, based off of the way
• 1:08:21
  the objects are maneuvering
• 1:08:23
  in relation to each other, it's
• 1:08:24
  consistent with how other bird flocks
• 1:08:26
  fly as well.
• 1:08:27
  We I think we do
• 1:08:28
  mention this in the paper
• 1:08:29
  that the formation sequence
• 1:08:31
  seems to be consistent.
• 1:08:32
  We didn't actually do
• 1:08:33
  a mathematical model,
• 1:08:34
  I think,
• 1:08:35
  but this seems to be consistent with how
• 1:08:36
  they are
• 1:08:37
  clustering together
• 1:08:38
  in their formation flying.
• 1:08:40
  For these kind of birds.
• 1:08:43
  I mean.
• 1:08:44
  I think the most
• 1:08:46
  definite giveaway at this
• 1:08:47
  point is the flickering rate
• 1:08:49
  seems to be falling in the range
• 1:08:52
  of how birds would be.
• 1:08:54
  Birds wings would be flapping.
• 1:08:57
  And this one, I'm
• 1:08:58
  not sure whether this was acquired.
• 1:09:02
  With a radar,
• 1:09:03
  or they were looking at the tower
• 1:09:05
  and happened to see these fly by.
• 1:09:06
  But you know, as a pilot,
• 1:09:09
  radars are getting pretty darn
• 1:09:11
  good, right?
• 1:09:11
  I mean, you have stealth technology
• 1:09:14
  that reduces the radar
• 1:09:15
  cross-section of these craft
• 1:09:17
  to very small size
• 1:09:18
  objects, small enough
• 1:09:19
  where, you know,
• 1:09:21
  your radar would be expected to pick up
• 1:09:23
  birds and other things like that.
• 1:09:24
  I would want to see instead of just,
• 1:09:27
  you know,
• 1:09:28
  we basically have these icons,
• 1:09:30
  you know, call them squares on our screen
• 1:09:33
  with different velocities and altitudes
• 1:09:36
  and a velocity vector
• 1:09:37
  moving around in a group
• 1:09:38
  and very hard to make sense of. Right.
• 1:09:39
  And they're two dimensional.
• 1:09:40
  And then have to look at my other screen
• 1:09:42
  to see the vertical view, right.
• 1:09:44
  And see how these things
• 1:09:45
  are moving vertically.
• 1:09:46
  It would make sense to me
• 1:09:47
  that you would want to bake
• 1:09:48
  these algorithms in and say,
• 1:09:50
  be able to say, hey,
• 1:09:50
  with a high degree of confidence,
• 1:09:52
  these are birds, right?
• 1:09:54
  This is, you know, a seven, three, seven.
• 1:09:56
  This is a MiG or whatever.
• 1:09:59
  Because that's where this is going.
• 1:10:01
  The amount of information
• 1:10:02
  that a pilot receives
• 1:10:03
  has to get condensed down
• 1:10:05
  and formatted
• 1:10:06
  so they can make
• 1:10:07
  timely decisions with it.
• 1:10:08
  And it's not just birds
• 1:10:10
  and anything else out there.
• 1:10:11
  Enemies are employing
• 1:10:12
  sophisticated jamming technologies.
• 1:10:15
  They are
• 1:10:15
  expected to launch drones and decoys,
• 1:10:19
  not just little quadcopters, but,
• 1:10:22
  you know, pretty massive drones that,
• 1:10:27
  call it half the size of a fighter
• 1:10:29
  that are expendable. Right?
• 1:10:30
  And they'll want to send those out,
• 1:10:31
  and some will probably have missiles
• 1:10:32
  and some of them might not.
• 1:10:35
  But it's going to be such a complex
• 1:10:36
  information space.
• 1:10:37
  I think the work that you
• 1:10:38
  guys are doing to develop some of these,
• 1:10:42
  I guess inferences of what
• 1:10:43
  these could be,
• 1:10:44
  could actually be a useful technology to
• 1:10:47
  incorporate
• 1:10:48
  into some of these
• 1:10:49
  either current or future
• 1:10:51
  radar systems and,
• 1:10:53
  and not just the radar system,
• 1:10:54
  but the data that fuzes it together
• 1:10:56
  and helps a pilot actually
• 1:10:57
  make good decisions out there.
• 1:10:58
  I would say that would be awesome
• 1:11:01
  if we could potentially
• 1:11:02
  have that kind of,
• 1:11:03
  usability
• 1:11:04
  for the tools that we are developing
• 1:11:05
  from the council.
• 1:11:07
  I would also,
• 1:11:08
  I think
• 1:11:08
  it would be important
• 1:11:09
  to point out that these
• 1:11:12
  videos, these are all mostly in the air,
• 1:11:15
  many of them infrared.
• 1:11:18
  I'm probably sure that there are other,
• 1:11:23
  electromagnetic sensor observations
• 1:11:25
  as well, not just infrared,
• 1:11:27
  maybe in optical.
• 1:11:28
  And one of the most important things
• 1:11:30
  as a science
• 1:11:31
  analysis is to have multi sensor data
• 1:11:34
  so that you know for sure what at least
• 1:11:37
  you can even more tightly bound
• 1:11:40
  what kind of things we are looking at.
• 1:11:42
  I wish we have that kind of data.
• 1:11:44
  And I'm hoping we would get multi
• 1:11:46
  sensor data at some point.
• 1:11:49
  It's it's a weird regime.
• 1:11:51
  You know,
• 1:11:52
  as much as I talk about radars
• 1:11:53
  and other things,
• 1:11:55
  the bottom line
• 1:11:56
  is that
• 1:11:56
  the mission security around a craft
• 1:11:58
  is an extremely important consideration.
• 1:12:01
  And the way that we fight wars
• 1:12:03
  might actually involve us.
• 1:12:04
  At least aerial wars
• 1:12:05
  might involve us
• 1:12:06
  getting closer than we might do now.
• 1:12:11
  I, I don't really want to get into it
• 1:12:12
  too much.
• 1:12:13
  I don't want to cross any thresholds.
• 1:12:14
  I shouldn't, but,
• 1:12:16
  long story short, is being able to
• 1:12:19
  suss out
• 1:12:20
  what is worth going
• 1:12:21
  after was not whether it's from the radar
• 1:12:23
  or whether it's from a sensor
• 1:12:25
  like we just saw
• 1:12:26
  is continuing
• 1:12:28
  to be extremely important, right?
• 1:12:29
  These aren't
• 1:12:30
  necessarily tools
• 1:12:31
  that are going away in favor
• 1:12:33
  of more sophisticated radars.
• 1:12:34
  There's I'll just say a lot of space
• 1:12:36
  to play across all of these
• 1:12:38
  and obviously can be
• 1:12:40
  a very confusing environment up there
• 1:12:42
  in an actual war, right?
• 1:12:43
  When people are trying to
• 1:12:44
  actually deceive you,
• 1:12:46
  you can only imagine
• 1:12:47
  how difficult that would be,
• 1:12:48
  especially when you're an aircraft
• 1:12:49
  with six missiles on you.
• 1:12:51
  You know,
• 1:12:52
  maybe even if you're lucky, right?
• 1:12:53
  You only got so many shots
• 1:12:55
  you can take there.
• 1:12:56
  And enemy doesn't
• 1:12:57
  have to fool you
• 1:12:57
  that many times,
• 1:12:58
  you know,
• 1:12:59
  before you're basically
• 1:13:00
  just a paperweight up there. Yeah.
• 1:13:02
  So are there any hot spots that
• 1:13:05
  I was just thinking
• 1:13:06
  that we could potentially
• 1:13:08
  think about within the.
• 1:13:09
  I know these are all very mission
• 1:13:11
  relevant and not available publicly,
• 1:13:15
  but if there are some hot spots
• 1:13:17
  within the United States
• 1:13:18
  or around the United States that we,
• 1:13:20
  you know,
• 1:13:20
  civilians can deploy
• 1:13:21
  their own instruments,
• 1:13:23
  then that would be an independent data,
• 1:13:25
  because that's the data
• 1:13:26
  that we can actually share
• 1:13:27
  with everyone,
• 1:13:28
  including the instrument calibration.
• 1:13:31
  What kind of instruments?
• 1:13:32
  They come and go.
• 1:13:32
  It seems some of the hot spots, you know,
• 1:13:34
  I mean,
• 1:13:35
  there was a period of time
• 1:13:36
  where pilots were detecting
• 1:13:38
  objects, spheres
• 1:13:40
  between about 2000
• 1:13:41
  8000ft near LaGuardia for a couple
• 1:13:43
  of months.
• 1:13:45
  Then that stopped.
• 1:13:46
  It was
• 1:13:46
  nearly one of the approach
• 1:13:47
  ends of one of the runways.
• 1:13:50
  You know,
• 1:13:51
  there's kind of your more traditional
• 1:13:52
  hot spots out west that seemed there
• 1:13:54
  always seems to be something going
• 1:13:55
  on, you know, especially around
• 1:13:56
  nuclear facilities or bases.
• 1:14:00
  The short answer is,
• 1:14:00
  I think that's exactly
• 1:14:01
  where the conversation needs to go.
• 1:14:03
  Instead of this retrospective
• 1:14:04
  about what happened
• 1:14:05
  12 months
• 1:14:06
  or eight months ago,
• 1:14:07
  getting out in the field
• 1:14:09
  at some of these spots,
• 1:14:10
  collecting real data
• 1:14:11
  and start that inner cycle right of,
• 1:14:14
  hey, what can we learn?
• 1:14:15
  What new tools do we need?
• 1:14:17
  And start fielding those technologies
• 1:14:19
  and capabilities sooner and sooner.
• 1:14:22
  For me, it's not just, you know,
• 1:14:23
  your scientists
• 1:14:24
  are the greatest respect for you
• 1:14:26
  and what you do.
• 1:14:28
  I'm an operator.
• 1:14:29
  My job isn't to admire the problem
• 1:14:30
  over a long period of time.
• 1:14:31
  My, you know,
• 1:14:32
  my priorities and is to deal
• 1:14:35
  with the situation
• 1:14:37
  x and x and manner as possible.
• 1:14:39
  Right?
• 1:14:41
  And often with incomplete information.
• 1:14:44
  And, you know,
• 1:14:45
  especially when we're
• 1:14:46
  having sightings around
• 1:14:48
  military training ranges
• 1:14:49
  or critical infrastructure
• 1:14:51
  or just commercial air traffic, it's
• 1:14:55
  one thing to understand
• 1:14:56
  that that's happening
• 1:14:57
  and admire it for 12 months.
• 1:14:59
  It's another thing
• 1:14:59
  to get that information
• 1:15:00
  back to the operator, who has to deal
• 1:15:02
  and work in that environment
• 1:15:04
  so that they can mitigate that threat
• 1:15:06
  or that risk, that
• 1:15:07
  whatever that is poses. Right.
• 1:15:08
  And it might simply be
• 1:15:10
  like in some of these cases, birds.
• 1:15:13
  Right. It it might be.
• 1:15:14
  And then you can get that information
• 1:15:16
  back to them
• 1:15:16
  and then train those aviators
• 1:15:19
  and say, here's what not to look for.
• 1:15:21
  Don't you know,
• 1:15:22
  now you don't have to worry
• 1:15:23
  about employing this now.
• 1:15:24
  You're not off mission
• 1:15:25
  because you're looking at something
• 1:15:26
  that you think is interesting.
• 1:15:27
  When it's something prosaic.
• 1:15:29
  And either of these cases,
• 1:15:30
  it's super important for me
• 1:15:32
  personally to close out loop
• 1:15:34
  as fast as possible.
• 1:15:35
  And I think you have to do that
• 1:15:36
  by getting out there
• 1:15:37
  and getting real data faster
• 1:15:39
  and and bring it to the right. Folks.
• 1:15:41
  I completely agree with you.
• 1:15:42
  I'm with you on that one.
• 1:15:43
  More data,
• 1:15:44
  more obvious data that we can have
• 1:15:46
  and multi sensor data as well
• 1:15:48
  because we want to know
• 1:15:49
  and and someone like you
• 1:15:51
  who's an expert in this kind of a
• 1:15:53
  sensor data analysis.
• 1:15:54
  We come from a science background
• 1:15:57
  scientist background to see
• 1:15:58
  how can we apply
• 1:15:59
  basic scientific principles
• 1:16:01
  and analysis tools to do it.
• 1:16:03
  But then there is this kind of
• 1:16:04
  a, you know, perspective
• 1:16:06
  that you can provide.
• 1:16:07
  Hey, you know,
• 1:16:08
  that looks like, you know, a F-18
• 1:16:11
  full of you.
• 1:16:12
  I was like, okay, that's great.
• 1:16:13
  Now, that information is really,
• 1:16:15
  really is what we needed.
• 1:16:16
  So I'm really glad that you are.
• 1:16:19
  You're in the science console right now.
• 1:16:21
  Well, hopefully
• 1:16:22
  it can be a productive council,
• 1:16:23
  but unfortunately I think
• 1:16:24
  it can only be productive
• 1:16:25
  with the amount of with mountain,
• 1:16:27
  the type of information that it receives.
• 1:16:29
  I frankly haven't been overly impressed
• 1:16:31
  with the amount of information
• 1:16:33
  it has received,
• 1:16:35
  especially considering
• 1:16:36
  how much information I suspect
• 1:16:38
  is is there.
• 1:16:38
  But perhaps
• 1:16:40
  we'll wait and see if that changes here.
• 1:16:42
  I would. Be thrilled to have more data.
• 1:16:44
  Well.
• 1:16:45
  Let's let me switch
• 1:16:46
  the gear here a little bit. Yeah.
• 1:16:48
  This is the part that
• 1:16:49
  scientists always hate.
• 1:16:52
  I'm going to ask you about some beliefs.
• 1:16:55
  I know it's a dirty
• 1:16:56
  word for a scientist,
• 1:16:57
  but no scientist
• 1:16:59
  is expected to be an atheist, right?
• 1:17:01
  Every scientist can still have beliefs.
• 1:17:03
  Yeah.
• 1:17:04
  It's separate
• 1:17:05
  from what you can scientifically prove.
• 1:17:07
  What do you think's going on here?
• 1:17:09
  What do you believe is happening here?
• 1:17:11
  Do you think
• 1:17:11
  we're all spinning
• 1:17:12
  our tails on bird videos?
• 1:17:15
  So what.
• 1:17:17
  I'm hearing from people like you,
• 1:17:19
  who I really respect.
• 1:17:20
  And because you are in the field
• 1:17:22
  actually doing things,
• 1:17:22
  and you are not expecting
• 1:17:24
  to see these kind of things at all,
• 1:17:25
  and then suddenly something shows up
• 1:17:27
  and then you can't explain it.
• 1:17:29
  And if I do the same thing,
• 1:17:32
  I mean, consider the roles are reversed.
• 1:17:34
  If I see something out in the night sky
• 1:17:37
  using my telescope
• 1:17:37
  and suddenly report it,
• 1:17:38
  and someone says, oh, you know,
• 1:17:40
  it must be some kind of
• 1:17:41
  a, you know, thing that you did.
• 1:17:44
  How would I feel?
• 1:17:46
  So I want to start from that point.
• 1:17:48
  I want to see, okay, why
• 1:17:51
  you have seen something
• 1:17:52
  and you may have some information
• 1:17:54
  regarding that.
• 1:17:55
  I want to start with that belief.
• 1:17:57
  So I go directly to the sources
• 1:17:59
  rather than going to some sort of
• 1:18:01
  a, you know,
• 1:18:02
  YouTube video of something happening.
• 1:18:04
  I'll say Ryan has seen something.
• 1:18:06
  He's a respectable guy.
• 1:18:07
  So I want to go and talk to him
• 1:18:09
  and then I'll see what
• 1:18:10
  what kind of information
• 1:18:11
  or data that he can provide.
• 1:18:13
  That's the first.
• 1:18:14
  When you talk about belief,
• 1:18:15
  that is a belief. I believe in you.
• 1:18:17
  I believe that you have seen something.
• 1:18:19
  Let's try to figure out together.
• 1:18:21
  And that's
• 1:18:22
  when I bring my science background.
• 1:18:24
  You bring your expertise
• 1:18:25
  back information.
• 1:18:26
  And that's when we work together.
• 1:18:28
  That's the first step. Belief.
• 1:18:31
  I would say I would start with.
• 1:18:32
  Well let me. Okay.
• 1:18:34
  Well let's go on and step two then. Yeah.
• 1:18:37
  Let's be fair here.
• 1:18:38
  Your entire career,
• 1:18:40
  you know, entire career,
• 1:18:41
  but a large majority of your career
• 1:18:42
  has been about finding other planets,
• 1:18:45
  techno signatures.
• 1:18:46
  Now you have an interest in U.P, UAP.
• 1:18:49
  Where does it come from?
• 1:18:51
  I mean,
• 1:18:51
  do you think we're alone
• 1:18:52
  in this universe?
• 1:18:53
  Statistically?
• 1:18:55
  No, I mean,
• 1:18:56
  statistically, of course,
• 1:18:56
  we all understand the big universe, but,
• 1:18:58
  I mean,
• 1:18:59
  you've really shaped your life
• 1:19:01
  around the conversation
• 1:19:02
  of there
• 1:19:02
  being other intelligence out
• 1:19:04
  there is this, you know,
• 1:19:06
  is this an underlying motivation?
• 1:19:07
  Do you want to find the others
• 1:19:09
  that we've always met and to help answer?
• 1:19:11
  The biggest question
• 1:19:12
  I think that humanity has.
• 1:19:14
  Is that what your motivation is?
• 1:19:15
  Of course,
• 1:19:16
  of course I
• 1:19:17
  my motivation is to find life everywhere.
• 1:19:19
  And I want to see how we can,
• 1:19:22
  as a humanity, can find life elsewhere.
• 1:19:25
  We we think
• 1:19:27
  we are with people around here.
• 1:19:29
  I have you as a friend here,
• 1:19:30
  so I know I'm not alone here.
• 1:19:33
  But when you
• 1:19:33
  consider the entire humanity,
• 1:19:36
  we are alone.
• 1:19:37
  And so isn't it
• 1:19:39
  weird that we are in a neighborhood
• 1:19:40
  where there's.
• 1:19:41
  There are no neighbors at all?
• 1:19:42
  And then we are the only people or,
• 1:19:45
  you know, species here?
• 1:19:46
  That's what is motivating me.
• 1:19:48
  I really want to know
• 1:19:49
  if there is someone out there. And.
• 1:19:51
  But that doesn't cloud the judgment.
• 1:19:53
  You have to.
• 1:19:54
  You have to go through the
• 1:19:56
  I mean, I don't want to myself.
• 1:19:57
  Oh yeah, sure.
• 1:19:58
  I want you know,
• 1:19:59
  because I believe I want to go find it.
• 1:20:01
  No, I want to find it. Then I'll believe.
• 1:20:03
  So I'm coming from
• 1:20:05
  my scientific
• 1:20:05
  training comes from that side
• 1:20:06
  and that gives me in check.
• 1:20:08
  Of course,
• 1:20:09
  I know it's it's
• 1:20:10
  it's one of the,
• 1:20:11
  you know,
• 1:20:12
  bias is such a dirty word in science,
• 1:20:14
  and you want
• 1:20:15
  to protect yourself from that.
• 1:20:16
  But then the day we are all humans
• 1:20:18
  and it is such a fundamental,
• 1:20:20
  important question.
• 1:20:21
  It's, in my opinion,
• 1:20:22
  probably one of the reasons that,
• 1:20:24
  you know, they're religions and what,
• 1:20:26
  you know, other belief structures that,
• 1:20:28
  you know,
• 1:20:28
  where we're not the only things there.
• 1:20:32
  Do you think
• 1:20:32
  we'll get an answer in your lifetime
• 1:20:35
  one way or the other?
• 1:20:37
  Whether it's techno
• 1:20:38
  signatures around another star system
• 1:20:40
  or whether an answer to what UAP are.
• 1:20:42
  Personally, if you
• 1:20:44
  if you ask me, not as a, you know,
• 1:20:47
  a scientist everywhere, you know, at a
• 1:20:50
  an organization personally I think.
• 1:20:51
  Yes.
• 1:20:53
  I think
• 1:20:54
  within our lifetime
• 1:20:55
  there might be some clues.
• 1:20:57
  We just talked
• 1:20:58
  about how
• 1:20:59
  poorly we can bounce some problems.
• 1:21:01
  Can you try to bound that any tighter?
• 1:21:03
  Do you think this is something
• 1:21:05
  that we could
• 1:21:05
  with our technology advancement
• 1:21:07
  that we're on now.
• 1:21:07
  So that could happen in ten years
• 1:21:09
  and 50 years?
• 1:21:10
  Maybe that's pushing the boundaries
• 1:21:12
  of your lifetime, 50 years.
• 1:21:13
  But I mean,
• 1:21:14
  that's a very small sliver of time
• 1:21:16
  in the grand scheme of things.
• 1:21:17
  Yes, I think in the next few
• 1:21:20
  I would put a large pound
• 1:21:22
  in terms of my own lifetime.
• 1:21:23
  In the next few decades,
• 1:21:24
  I think there might be a good
• 1:21:27
  because of the kind of things
• 1:21:28
  we are doing.
• 1:21:29
  And then imagine this
• 1:21:31
  many of the discoveries
• 1:21:33
  that we have had, at least
• 1:21:34
  in this
• 1:21:34
  astronomical discourse,
• 1:21:35
  because that's my field of study.
• 1:21:38
  Many of them have been discovered
• 1:21:40
  because,
• 1:21:42
  because of,
• 1:21:43
  not because we are looking for them.
• 1:21:45
  They just happen.
• 1:21:46
  Nature just showed it to us.
• 1:21:48
  And so these are
• 1:21:49
  the surprising discoveries
• 1:21:51
  that we might be able to get.
• 1:21:52
  And I'm very confident that,
• 1:21:55
  you know,
• 1:21:55
  we might be
• 1:21:56
  we might have a good,
• 1:21:57
  surprising discovery pretty soon.
• 1:21:59
  Yeah. Cool.
• 1:22:00
  Well, let's leave it there. Abby.
• 1:22:01
  Thanks for coming out to Austin
• 1:22:02
  and joining me here.
• 1:22:03
  And it's great to run into you again,
• 1:22:05
  my friend.
• 1:22:05
  It was real pleasure,
• 1:22:06
  Ryan, seeing you again.
• 1:22:07
  Thank you for inviting me.
• 1:22:08
  Thank you. Yeah.
• 1:22:10
  All right. Wonderful.
• 1:22:12
  If you joined this episode,
• 1:22:13
  please subscribe.
• 1:22:14
  Please hit that like, button.
• 1:22:16
  We're going to have more awesome
• 1:22:18
  episodes coming to you soon.
• 1:22:20
  Talk to you next time.