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