Nightcrawler’s USO Shift: Drone Swarms, Spectral Orbs & the Black Triangle

Running a business is hard enough. Don't make it harder with a dozen apps that don't talk to each other. One for sales, another for inventory, a separate one for accounting? That's software overload. Odoo is the all-in-one platform that replaces them all. CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce, HR. Fully integrated, easy to use, and built to grow with your business. Thousands have already made the switch. Why not you? Try Odoo for free at odoo.com. That's odoo.com. Hi, everyone, and welcome back to That UFO Podcast. My name is Andy, and joining me on today's show is returning guests John and Jerry Tedesco. The brothers, also known as the Nightcrawler Research Team, have been on the show a couple of times now, and they are here with me to discuss their incredible work with Nightcrawler, the new funding that they have achieved, which is going to really change the game for them, some of the incredible work they've been doing over the last 12 months. They were last on the podcast back in January, around about the time of the drone flap. They discuss updates on that, some orb sightings that they've had, the data they collect around these sightings, including a black triangle, and also what their plans are going forward with the new iteration of Nightcrawler. They're on to their third system now, which looks and sounds incredible. All of that being discussed, and can I just also say, folks, very quickly, before I hand over to myself, my book is available on offer in the UK on Amazon from Monday the 8th to Wednesday the 10th of December. You can get it less than half price. It's £9.50. Really great offer. It's only on for three days, folks. I don't know if that's happening in the US or anywhere else, but right now it's just in the UK for three days. Great time to pick up a copy of the book if you haven't already. But anyway, listen, enough from me. Let's hand over to the Tedescos. Welcome back to the podcast, Gerry and John Tedesco. Welcome back, gents. Oh, it's nice to be back. Thank you. Really good to have you both on. And folks, if you want to hear about John and Gerry's background, I've interviewed them both a couple of times now, and you may be familiar with them. They've been on Ross Coulthart's News Nation a few times. They're very well-known gents in the UFO community at this point. If you want that big detail, go back and listen to those older interviews and you'll get that. But, gentlemen, for those who may be listening to you for the first time, perhaps newer to the topic, do you want to give us the kind of cliff-nose version of who are the Tedesco brothers and what's kind of brought you to the UFO conversation? Sure. So we've been a research, a small research organization here on Long Island in New York, and we've been conducting the research on UAPs, now getting into more of the USO-type research. And, you know, the two of us have, you know, we have a mobile laboratory that we use in order to conduct this kind of research. Both engineers, I'm a retired engineer at this point, electrical, and my brother is an aerospace engineer and mechanical as well. Yeah, I've worked in several different industries. I'm an engineer slash technologist, but I've been in aerospace. I've been in surveillance systems, private contract work for the military, the Defense Department. I held a security clearance for 15 years. And despite all that, unfortunately for both of you and your incredibly interesting backgrounds, the most interesting thing I think most people find is the equipment you have in the Nightcrawler vehicle, which is, for folks who have not seen it, it's like the Ecto-1 for the Ghostbusters for the UFO community. It is incredibly cool, and I think it's a toy that if it was available to buy, that most folks involved in the UFO community would want. Just give us a quick catch-up on what exactly it is, Nightcrawler. Well, sure. Actually, we're on our third Nightcrawler that we had recently just purchased. It's been retrofitted with the equipment for a Phase III study, but we had two Nightcrawlers before that. One was a bottom-up design by us. We used it for three months of our study. The only problem was it was kind of slow, and it was very big. It was a little difficult getting under some of their bridges with all the equipment on it. Then we had a second version of the Nightcrawler, which is a retrofitted Class C RV. Of course, it was modified, and that was a top-down design. Right. And now we're in, of course, the third version of that, which is a mobile – I guess most people know them as a Class A mobile home. And it has, you know, a lot more room. We've – again, we've upgraded the equipment again for the third time. And this research, we hope to expand off of Long Island to other regions of the country and then take it out on the water as well. You know, it's – we've been – I think we've been appropriately funded for the Phase III research that we're, you know, we're going to be undertaking for 2026. And I believe with the kind of instrumentation and the experts that we're going to be interfacing with, we have a lot of SME, subject matter experts out there that will be joining us. And, you know, we hope to have maybe a few answers to, you know, to the UAP saga. Yeah, just before we talk about that funding, because that's really exciting and really welcome news for both of you. I know how much money of your own money went into the original vehicles, folks. Again, go back and check out those interviews. But this is not two cash-rich guys who have won the lottery win and decided to spend, you know, a few million dollars spare. Will they have a life of luxury around about that? No, this was very much retirement savings. This was your own money going into a project. It was a real passion project. It's come up now with funding. But I wanted to just ask, do you want to recap what has the last 12 months been like for you? I think it was back in January, the last time you were on with myself, towards the tail end of the drone flap. Has it even finished? I don't know. We've been very busy, actually. We have been going out, not as often, because that requires more funding. And that's what we were doing, shopping around for funding. And luckily, we were approached by funder. But we've been featured in, recently, MIT's Technology Review. And they had done a full story on us. And they had actually sent their writer and a photojournalist out with us to document what we were doing. And people can look up that article in MIT's technology review magazine. I think it's the August-September edition on national security. It's focused on national security technology. We were on the television program, The Proof is Out There, twice. The most recent one was October 10th, 2025. We have been invited to attend in February and present a Human Institute's seminar or summit. It's a summit on UAP detection and tracking technology. And we've been asked to present a methodology and a technology that can be used to observe and document UAPs and objects, several UAS systems that are unknown, that kind of thing. Right. And this is a summit that's hosted by Reid Summers. I've just had Reid on the podcast in the last week. And I know he's been, obviously, very complimentary about both of you and the work you do. It's been a big year. It's been an exciting year. And I want to just take you back then to the drone flap situation because this is one I've been pretty skeptical of because, for me, what I've seen of it, a lot of it was videos online. And with videos online comes a lot of people telling you what they have seen, but the videos don't necessarily show that. So that's a little bit different for you guys who are actually using a whole range of sensors to record various different types of data across different spectrums. You can cross-analyze these things. You can look at, you know, what is BS and what is something worth looking at. So when it comes to the drone situation across the United States, and obviously now it's gone into Europe quite recently as well, Belgium and other countries are closing airports again. What is your take on what's actually going on in the skies, especially across these coasts of the U.S.? Well, there seems to be a periodic flap of these drones or drone-like objects. They're definitely for real. You know, we've detected and tracked them off the coast of Long Island. We've interacted with other investigative groups that have been observing them and documenting them. I mean, there are cases of mistaken identity, and some of the news programs present stock footage of aircraft sometimes, and it's not really a good reflection of what people are seeing. I mean, people have posted their original videos on YouTube. They've had shared some of them with us. And there are definitely objects that resemble the kind of objects we've seen in the Northeast. These were occurring throughout the Northeast, but they seem to occur all over the United States in different pockets and different, you know, flaps. And we've also been talking to other investigators and researchers in Europe, and they've been repeating the same kinds of things. That's better observed over the United States. And this is the kind of stuff, too. There's been a hodgepodge of observations out there. You know, I think, you know, there is a lot of prosaic stuff that folks have been seeing just misidentified in some cases. But there is also, there seems to be, at least in our cases, two distinct observations. One is, which appears more to be drone-like, I would say, that has, you know, a lot of visual lighting to it. And then there's the, you know, the observations that we've been seeing on a continuous, more of a continuous basis, especially off the coast of Long Island, is orbs. You know, you know, these objects that basically are the size of small cars. And they come in, you know, very, they've seen various different colors, orange, blue, green, white. And they change, they seem to change their, you know, visual acuity, their spectral range. And there seems to be also a timeline with these things, with the, at least with the drone flap. But, you know, we've seen an uprise, an uptick in it back in October, November last year, and also prior to 24 as well. And there's, these objects seem to come out, they're observed maybe, you know, 6, 7, 7 p.m. at night. And then, and all the activity seems to end shortly after midnight. So there's definitely, there's definitely some kind of a pattern to it. But, and like I said, in our case, you know, more or less two distinct observations that we were making. Yeah, there's definitely two, we're noticing it's two different sets of objects. The ones that have this pattern that's showing up at certain time frames. And these other objects seem to appear random throughout the night, all hours. And then, like you said, there may be single, there may be clusters, there may be pairs. So let's separate those in, because I think that's an obvious way to approach this. If we go first with the drone-like objects, we're looking at something that very much seems like a physical phenomenon. For you guys, and you're looking at data, you're looking at videos that are being sent to you, you're hearing testimony, you're looking at sensor equipment, you'll be looking at data other folks are collecting. Is it likely we're looking at something, in terms of those drones that are human in origin, adversarial technology, Russia, China, private contractors testing stuff and misidentifications? Is there anything amongst that data for that set of phenomena that would indicate anything anomalous? Yes, I mean, the drones we're seeing, they often have some kind of lighting, other lighting, similar to navigation lights. They're not always on, they seem to shut them down when they're observed, which is very interesting. Another thing is, it's very difficult to get a thermal signature on them, which shows some kind of signature management. So they're objects, for whatever reason, they don't want to be seen. So they're not typical commercial drones. These look more like some kind of industrial drone or maybe military level. It could be a foreign adversary that's testing, observing, spying on us over here on the coast. But there's definitely a pattern here of, you know, that they resemble drones. We had at a recent sighting that we had a few that looked like, very similar to quadcopters. Although they made no sound, it was very difficult to see any rotors, but they appeared to have structures that, that at least a frame-like structure similar to a quadcopter or a multi, you know, maybe, you know, something beyond a quadcopter, you know, tetra-quads. I mean, yeah, there's physical attributes to the observations, which are, which, you know, we have, again, we have observed back in October, November, and some of it in December as well. I don't think it's ever gone away. I mean, it's, you know, we're still observing this stuff, but these seem to be peak time periods, you know, for these other objects. At times, they look, you know, they seem to present themselves more in a prosaic way. Other times, they, you know, they show characteristics of something that's more anomalous. It's, you know, it's, like Gerald said, you know, we, you know, there are times when we don't get a thermal signature to it. The other thing is they can hover for long periods of time. Beyond the time frame, you would have a very commercial UAS or commercial drone. These things cover, we've, we've watched one hover for about, for an hour, and some of them a little longer. And it, they'd be in stationary position and suddenly move. Yeah, I'm pretty comfortable. I'm pretty comfortable saying at least that these things are advanced, but for me, I've not seen a lot in terms of the physical side of things. It would indicate something, when I see anomalous, alien. But certainly, it's a very advanced drone technology, at the very least, which is still very interesting. However, there is that secondary aspect to this phenomenon, the orb situation. Again, sounding like a complete skeptic on my own UFO podcast here, I've, I've often had to raise a lot of eyebrows when I see a lot of drone, sorry, drone orb videos. But those tend to be because someone sent a ring doorbell camera of a bug flying past, or a piece of dust flying past. But there are some genuinely interesting orb videos. But you guys really are honing in on this. And I wonder, one of you made a comment before about, you know, moving from UAP more to USO. And I wonder, why do you feel the need to differentiate? That's really interesting that you're going for USO. Is that purely because of the origin of these objects? Yes, I mean, there's, of course, all the documentary reports of seeing these things over water, or in the water, based on Navy, you know, naval reports. A lot of the observations we had made, these objects were, seemed to be affiliated with the water, at least in this kind of affinity with the water. They would hover over the water, and some of them would look like they would touch down on the water. But most of the time, it was over the water that we would see these objects. And we have a couple of cases where they actually hovered just above the water several feet or sat on top of the water on their edge. These spherical, luminous spherical objects, and they would rotate on top of the water. Change their rotation rate, change their illumination intensity, and they would be there for long periods of time. We've seen this at least two to three times. So I'm a complete layman. So tell me, in the simplest way, what sort of data are you guys seeing and collecting that separates, one, these from the physical drone-type objects, but what's really piquing your interest when you capture these? Sure. We're using, I mean, we're using instrument that means we're using multispectral systems. Like these three cases I'm talking about that we have, we've had them on four different multispectral cameras, and actually these hyperspectral systems. We've had them in intermittent radar context where they turn up on radar at the same time. We've detected them in other systems, the spectrum analyzers. We've had signals that would begin when these things would show up, disappear when these things would disappear. The signals we're still going through, and that's something that we've shared with federal agencies. Of course, they have to review that, so that's not something we can actually get into as far as the signals. Right, right. And the objects that, you know, if we're talking about orbs, I mean, there's no, there's no, I would say that, you know, we're not looking at, you know, obvious navigation lights, that sort of thing that you can see on prosaic or commercial traffic. It's, you know, these things are very difficult to see, their presentation, sometimes they're visible, other times they can only be seen with night vision equipment because they're extremely low light, you know, their radiant energy, and it's, at times there is no light at all. There's no visible portion of that light. It's either in the infrared or at times in the ultraviolet. And the only way to detect them is with, you know, these multispectral or a true hyperspectral system, which is what we've, you know, we've had to obtain. You know, it's, you know, we're looking at, you know, at times light levels, you know, below 200 nanometers. And as high up as 1,300 to 1,400 nanometers, which is up in the shortwave infrared, which is, even with night vision equipment, you don't see that, you know. So we have very targeted systems that, you know, that look at the stuff and we can, you know, define based upon those wavelengths of some of these cameras and these detectors that we're using. You know, we know that it's actually, you know, just changing its signature. And that's the interesting feature of these things. You know, we have now documentation and correlations that they actually can change their spectral signatures. And it always seems to change about well as they're being observed from visible to various ranges in the infrared spectrum. The next thing we want to look at is the ultraviolet spectrum, which is what we're going to do in phase three. But the other thing is that these things can appear and disappear and will. And at times when they seem to disappear on the visible cameras, what they are doing is drifting into an infrared range. And sometimes they'll go beyond that, which we think is what they're doing. And we won't even see them in that range where they just completely disappear. And for you guys, we have a really interesting background you've both got. Does that seem to you like these orbs are trying to hide themselves or escape being observed? Or is it almost a show of we can do this, we can change because they know you've got these different sensors? What's your take? Yes. I mean, our belief is that it's deliberate. It's an attempt to hide themselves as a form of the military considered as signature management. Right, right. And this is something we've observed just the other day. A week and a half ago, we had an observation that we have a fairly expensive FLIR camera system on the mobile lab. And one early morning, we had a presentation of an orb of light that was present on both the thermal cameras, on the FLIR thermal and as well as the night vision, a deep night vision camera. When I was changing, you know, spectral ranges and going from white hot to black hot, I noticed the thermal part of the signature disappeared. The object was still there. It's still there in the visible or the infrared at that point. But completely disappeared, you know, from the thermal side of the signature. And this is something that's, you know, we're looking at, you know, wavelengths of, you know, between 7 and 14, you know, micromutors. You know, so this is a very, very short wavelength. The interesting thing, when we see it in the long range, that's an object. That's a given of heat. And if you would think of something with a propulsion system or a rotary-driven system, it's going to produce heat. So that's not a surprise that would show up in the long range. The fact that it disappeared from the long range after running and, you know, running and hovering in the air for some time doesn't make a lot of sense. It's like there's still heat signature. And you mentioned three particular cases that you have reported on. Are these the ones that were from July and September? Yes, we gave you a copy of the report from July 5th. Yeah. On the water. This was tracked on four different multispectral cameras, including a FLIR system. The object we had talked about on Ross Coldhawk, but the object had suddenly appeared in front of us. We watched the stationery sitting on the surface of the water, not disturbing the water, and not being disturbed by the wave action of the ocean. And then this object suddenly moved. It was extremely luminous in the OIR. We couldn't see it visible. It moved to the east along the surface of the water. It didn't disturb anything. It was in a fixed position as it was moving. It wasn't bouncing up and down like you would expect moving to the water. It moved to the east some distance and made a sharp turn and came up over the beach. And it flew over the beach at an elevation about five feet. Went midway over the beach and suddenly disappeared. And we couldn't acquire it again. Yeah, very much independent of what was going on on the surface of the ocean. I mean, there was nothing. There was no ocean currents that was carrying in any specific direction. It didn't bob on top of wave crests. I mean, this seemed to be, you know, it has its own source of propulsion. Yeah. But it didn't disturb the water, which is interesting. And we say self-propelled because even with the wind direction, wind speeds, this moved in its own direction regardless of the wind direction. Like I said, it changed course. It came up above the beach northward and just suddenly disappeared. This was – we've had people – after the Rose Coulthard interview, we had people saying it was a buoy. It was a flotation device. It was a low aircraft. It was none of those things. It was – that's something we routinely look into. We have a checklist of prosaics we look at. And like I said, this is what instrumented means. It's not just why – it's not for our eyes. And multiple observations, multiple observers. Yeah, we had three observers out there. And that's why I like talking to you guys. And folks might hear me sometimes when I hear about really interesting events or sightings. That's great, and I really enjoy taking those in. But there's a limitation in terms of data, sensors, even knowledge around certain things outside of that. And that goes for myself. I'm no former pilot or physicist or anything like that. But you guys already in your heads go, okay, I've seen something. We've got something here. What can it not be? Bang, bang, bang. And you're already starting to process that and run it through to figure out, you know, is this worth your time? Because time is money, and that equipment is expensive to run. So you're not going to waste your time filming the Sky 24-7 and every little object that floats past. And for you, are you thinking the phenomena you're capturing with these orbs is all one thing? Is there any patterns or signatures you notice that are very different from each other that would indicate maybe a range of phenomena? As far as the orb-like objects, they don't fit any specific pattern. They seem to be very random. They seem to loiter along the shoreline, whether sitting on the water or touching down the boat. We have one incident where we had one hovering over the beach and actually casting a light on the beach. It was maybe 10, what would you say, 10 feet above the beach? Yeah, between 10 and 15 feet. And it would hover there, extremely bright. It's extremely luminous. It was a rotating star-like object that would flicker. It looked almost like a fireball. And it was casting an extremely intense light on the grass and beach area. Right. And you could see this light. You could see the rotation of the object. These objects are in rotation. But, you know, you can visualize it. You can see it reflecting off the beach sand, off the grass that may be there. And very, very defined patterns. And then these objects would suddenly, you know, disappear out of the visible spectrum. And we'd catch them in the infrared, the near-infrared or the short-wave infrared. And there's an interesting feature. When we use high-mag multispectral cameras to zoom in on them, as we would zoom in on them, they would suddenly disappear. Like they know you're looking at them in more detail. Yes, they had an awareness that they were being observed. Some kind of awareness. And, you know, this is something, again, we've seen this pattern over and over and over again. The other thing is that these objects, even being relatively close, like this observation that Gerald just discussed, is the object was roughly 525 meters from our observation point. And with the zoom capability of these cameras, you know, this should have been, the object should have been in, you know, should have been in decent focus. We should have been able to see the detail. We weren't able to do that. You know, almost as though is that, you know, we were, you know, having, there was some kind of an envelope or a distortion of that field around it. Distorting light, you know, possibly something, a gravitational lens of some sort that was producing this kind of distortion. And we've made, you know, these reference, you know, comparisons before from aircraft. You know, we'd observe these balls of light and you'd have an aircraft that was at a further altitude, at a greater distance. They would be in exceptional detail. We could actually, you know, read the writing on the airliner and so forth. Yeah, we could make out all the navigation lights. Right. So this object would be, the edges would be difficult to make out. They weren't fine. And it would shimmer. The light would shimmer. All you could see was this bright orb of light without any detail, without any structural detail. Right. Very much diffused. Yeah. You can both help me out here and I'm sure many, many listeners who have to speak about this topic with friends and family and members of the public, right? Because that's something that I found when people talk about there's no good pictures of UFOs. And I think a more commonly understood idea is this gravitational lensing. Are many of these objects surrounded by some kind of bubble? They're caught within a bubble that allows them to move. Perhaps they're not even flying through the air. They're independent of our atmosphere. And whatever they're contained within makes it difficult for any camera to capture any decent level of detail. But when you say that to a friend or family, I'm sure you guys might get this as well, depending on your friends. They just go, that's bullshit. That's such an obvious excuse why you can't get a good picture. Is there a way you guys can think of getting around that or something we can do to have that conversation? Or what are you guys trying to do to get past that, if anything? Well, like I said, there's several of these objects we actually use high mag cameras. We use 60 times, 120 times zoom, and we still couldn't get the detail. We'd see this bright orb of light. In some cases, we would see a perfect sphere. And our thought is that there may be some kind of enclosure, a bubble, a transparent bullet that's trapping this light. So it makes it look like the ones that look perfectly spherical, is that it's trapping the light. And there's the others, of course, the edges, you know, it looks like more of a fireball with shimmering edges that never are in focus. They're always slightly out of focus. And some of these objects are defined as being, in other words, they change shape. They're morphing in some way. And, you know, that's a possibility. I guess they may be, but, you know, we wonder whether or not, you know, that morphing, that distortion is actually the gravitational lensing of some kind of an effect around it. And it's giving the illusion that the object is changing shape. Right. If you're distorting the atmosphere around it, I mean, the object's going to look like it's changing shape. Yeah. But we can't put a lot of faith in the fact that they look like they're morphing. Right. There could be some kind of field around it that's causing that distortion. Yeah. We simply don't have enough information. And that's something that, of course, you know, phase three, one more closer to that. Absolutely. And you guys, you caught a black triangle back in September. Is that right? September 7th, Holbrook? Actually, it was August 29th. Oh, I was so close. I was so close. That might have been the report date. I don't know. But I was in the ballpark. But, yeah, can you talk through what happened there? Because obviously shifting on from orbs to a black triangle. Sure. This was on a Friday that I, John, we were planning to go out that weekend and we were doing test runs on the equipment, which we do with Cali equipment, run some controls. And we were testing out. We were running test controls on the spectrum analyzers and the radar at that time. It was about 4, I have them on my date this year, but so probably about 4, we'll have to 4, 4.15, 4.18, something like that, PM. I had stopped at the RV, which is at John's house when he was running a test. We noticed that we were picking up very bizarre signals on the spectrum analyzers. We had two spectrum analyzers. They were going off scale with these signals. We couldn't determine where they were coming from at that time. We noticed there was a target on radar that was emerging from a cloud. And the interesting thing is we left the RV to look to see the direction it was coming from on the radar. And the cloud was, it looked like a storm cloud, a cubinal nimbus, like a thunderhead, a thunderstorm cloud. And the interesting thing, it wasn't showing up on the radar, though, which we had adjusted what's called a clutter setting, the clutter sensitivity, where we could see the precipitation and moisture in it. Now, a storm cloud should have a lot of moisture. We didn't see this on radar. So the interesting thing is we got some cameras. We went to look at the cloud itself where the object seemed to be hidden within. It emerged. We watched it on a Vortex binocular, which has really good optics. John noticed it first and handed it to me. I took a cell phone camera video. It was emerging. This was a very black, solid-structured object. It appeared to be triangular or bell-shaped when it was emerging from the cloud. We also went back to the mobile lab, which we watched it, followed on radar. It was moving in the direction that we were seeing it in. We video taped it, video recorded it for some time. There was a second object, second or third object, that we couldn't track because they were moving too fast. They looked like they were moving at a hypersonic speed, and we couldn't track them with the cameras. There was only this one slower-moving one that kept at a slower pace moving across the sky. The radar showed one distinct target, then showed three targets split up. We think the objects were probably flying close to each other, so they had what's called a merge plot. The radar couldn't distinguish the difference between the three targets. They were too close. But when they separated, we were able to see that on radar. We were also able to see it on the cameras. There was at least two to three separate objects. Right. Two hypersonically moving, and the other one at a slow pace. Yeah, and this was also causing a disturbance in the RF spectrum. We were monitoring the radio spectrum at that point, and we noticed that there were key indicators or key transitory spikes in the RF part of the spectrum, and also causing magnetic anomalies that we were measuring within the close proximity of the RV, of the mobile lab. Some of the stuff seemed to be ground-based. Very, very odd undulations of the signal itself at times would seem to be what they call over-modulation of the signal. But all these disturbances seemed to occur at the time of the observation and slowly after just dissipated to some extent. You know, equidistant signals, and this is something we can't get into, the frequency range or where they peaked, because this is something we shared with the FBI, and they're conducting more investigation. So, yeah, as far as the signals go, that's… Right, and something else I'll mention also is that, you know, again, we talked earlier about this possibility of a gravitational lens. We had a reference of another object, you know, an airliner that was at a much higher altitude than the object that we were observing, this black triangle. The airliner was very, very clear in the optics. We could see it. We could identify the airliner. And this is with a, you know, a 20-time zoom at the time, optical zoom. The black triangle is very distorted, lack detail. The other thing is the edges would shimmer as it was moving. Right, as though there was some kind of a field around it. No navigation lights, solid black. Everything was solid black. And probably moving, the slower one was moving about between 120 to 160 miles per hour. No, 200, 200 miles per hour. And we estimated the speed of, as we calculated that. And for the people calling out saying it was a balloon or something, the wind speed at the elevation that we tracked it on radar was 14 miles per hour. That's the wind speed. That is, if there's a balloon, there's no way a balloon is going to move faster than the wind speed. That's impossible. This object, as I said, is moving about 200, over 200 miles per hour. At the end, at that altitude, we're actually looking at that altitude. The wind speed, the wind currents at that time. You know, so it's, you know, again, Gerald said, you know, an object that's moving within the wind currents of 14 miles per hour, we would expect 14 miles per hour. We wouldn't expect 200 miles per hour. I wonder what your guys' thoughts are on this. Say you're benefactor, and we're going to come on to the funding in just a moment. Say they gave you a ridiculous sum of money that you could purchase 500 nightcrawlers kitted out to the standard you would want. If you place those all around the United States, along all areas of the coast, okay, do you think they would all pick up in all areas the sort of phenomena you're reading? I think they would have a really good chance of, like, so we're picking up data with the one-nightcrawler. And like I said, we're using specific equipment. We're using the right equipment. And that's why, you know, the success we're getting. And I believe that we'd get a lot more success if we expanded this operation. Yeah. And you're talking about, you know, it's, you know, I know, you know, there's folks out there to talk about multispectral. But, I mean, true multispectral, hyperspectral cameras, detectors, and that sort of thing. I mean, we're looking at a wide range of the electromagnetic spectrum. You know, it's not just near-infrared. It's not just a visible light. I mean, we are looking at the extremes. And that's why I believe we're able to identify or actually observe more that's more out there that doesn't align prosaically. Yeah. I mean, we're using a huge bandwidth and a high resolution of these equipment. They're top-of-line equipment. With the amount of work you're doing, both in the exposure, do either of you suffer any medical effects? I know that's a personal question that you feel may be related to the phenomena. We did in August of 22, which we had talked about of a triangular formation of objects that appeared off the coast. Of course, we teased it with an IR emitter and a high-end torch to see if they would reflect light and to see if they were close up to reflect light. Yeah. They would respond to the light as we flashed it over them. They did respond. One of these aurora-like objects rapidly came to the shoreline, overloaded our cameras with some kind of electromagnetic interference. We lost muscle tone in our legs, and we collapsed on the beach. It lasted maybe 45 seconds, and, of course, the cameras started to come back after that period. Our legs responded after that time period. Our belief was it was some kind of threat assessment by whatever this was out there. It was definitely a physical manifestation. Yeah, we were stopped by what we were doing, and whatever this was, it surveyed us. It seems to have – I mean, we watched the videos after the camera did record intermittently, and it was something that entered the optics. The macros were changed on the camera, on the equipment. There were mechanical manipulations of some of the switches and other things on the hyperspecial cameras. Yeah, which you could clearly hear. I mean, it's some of the electrical disturbances. You know, in my career, where I worked as a camera service technician, and a lot of these similar faults that we have with the camera systems where macros were changed, the data was corrupted. I mean, these are memory locations within the camera that store or house some of these routine functions of the camera, you know, which might be user-defined or part of the operating design of the camera. Some of them were altered and not damaged. The camera wasn't damaged other than the fact that I had to reestablish these memory locations again, reestablish the data. And that's something that I generally saw after an electrical storm, you know, where you'd have appliances that would, you know, misbehave, and, you know, some things would change. You'd have to reinitialize, re-power up the product, sometimes unplug it, plug it back in, and do like a master reset in order to reestablish those locations. Within the cameras themselves, I actually had to go in there and change those data values that were electrically altered by what seemingly could have been an EMP of some sort. And I want to say something. We were in disbelief. It was shocking, and we were in total disbelief for the first two weeks after that. We did a full failure analysis on our equipment to see if there was some kind of artifact, or maybe we were, you know, maybe we were imagining the rest because it was surreal. The experience was surreal. So we did a failure analysis. We found, like I said, these changes that John talked about. It was three different cameras that were affected. The other thing is when we talk about physical effects, we had some flaccid paralysis, a form of flaccid paralysis of answers at 25 seconds. We had fatigue that lasted probably 24 hours. We both had tender lymph nodes, adjoined under his armpits, I think, and mine was in my neck area. It lasted about 24 hours, 12 to 24 hours. But that's good. Nothing since then, and you don't have any kind of hitchhiker effect or anything like that following you. We haven't noticed any long-term physical medical effects. We have had hitchhiker effects, and that's everybody in our team. Right. It appeared that some of these objects had followed us or appeared at our homes. John actually has a – we have a recording of the – the night crawl is parked outside John's place at night, and he keeps the equipment running at night. And we have actually recordings of some kind of encounter and shutting down of the traffic lights, three traffic lights around the night crawl that were shut down by something that appeared to be above the night crawl. I mean, we say that because there's photo sensors on top of those lights, those street lights, and in order to shut them down or turn them up, the light has to be shining above it. Yeah. And with Gerald Stogan, it's actually the street lights, not the traffic signals or something like that. Right, the street lights themselves. Just the street lights. You know, they – these street lights work by – they have a photo sensor on top of the housing of the lamp, you know, which is a – which is either a mercury vapor or some kind of an argon lamp system, a discharge system, and these lights come on at night once the sun goes down. With a sensor – it's not – there's no light impinging on the sensor, you know, causing the light to shut off during the day. So first thing in the morning, of course, when the sun rises, it impinges enough light to shut those sensors off. This object was bright enough that shut down four street lights in close proximity to where the mobile laboratory was. And it was interesting to see these four street lights all go out sequentially within a fraction of a second. And what you would see on the cameras, if it was a nightcrawler, the cameras were recording a light that was – mostly it was all in the UV, in the infrared. It was infrared light. You would see it descending down on a roll bar on the back of the RV. You would see a light on top of it, something that would be reflecting light downward, expanding. It was something that was like descending down on the vehicle after the traffic – I mean, after the street lamps were shut down. Right. Is that video available? Yes, we have the video we had. I believe we showed it, maybe it was on a Chris Lado program. Right, I think it was on several different podcasts. I've seen a lot of your guys' interviews, so I may have seen it, but yeah, I'll need to try and track that. Yeah, we could send you that video. If you've got it, that would be awesome. And listen, let's go on to this funding announcement, because this is really exciting, because I'm glad of all the folks getting this kind of stuff. I think you two guys definitely deserve it for what you're attempting to do, what you are doing. The work and the links you're going to to investigate this is something that's sorely missing. Nightcrawler is a 501c3 non-profit. You've got a multi-year funding that's come about. Can you talk about, as much as you can, what's happened, how this has come about, and what the plans are? Sure. This funder had reached out to us. It was somebody associated with the MIT Technology Review in an advisory capacity. We can't say much more about the funder. He doesn't really want us to talk about it. We were funded for a three-year project to get Phase 3 going off the ground and to purchase the kind of equipment we needed. So our objective is to expand our land operation. The first thing we do is purchase, of course, a new Nightcrawler, four-wheel drive. This is a unique system. It's only 14 made in the United States. It's very unique, very specific for what we needed it for. Right. We want to expand the land operation outside of Long Island, depending on hot spots, and, of course, that will be determined. The other thing is we want to get into a maritime version of the Nightcrawler, maritime operation, using a retrofitted boat or a chartered vessel going out to sea, and we want to equip it, bring, of course, mini-ROVs, an omnidirectional sonar system so we can map the seafloor. We can map a 360-degree circle around where the boat is. We'll be using different kinds of side-scan sonar. We'll be using our radar, scan the surface of the water, and above that, there will be – plus all these hyperspectral equipment that will be brought out. So it will be a greatly expanded operation and really looking into USO's. Right. And we're specifically interested in the deepwater caverns down there, the cliffs out by off the coast of Long Island. Yeah, there's a deepwater trench that's in the Atlantic. We want to take a look at that. We could set up a primary hiding spot if there was something that existed under the ocean or that was the point of operation. This would be a nice hiding spot, so we definitely want to look into the trench. Yeah, so these would be the areas that we'd be focused on during that study. And does this funding come with any limitations or obligations around transparency? Having a backer or a funder, some folks might worry, are they looking for exclusivity on data? Do you have to report to them first? How does that affect how you guys work? No. We're pretty flexible. We do have to report to the funder. This person has also been involved in research at some point. Also been involved in government at one point. So we do, we'll share with them, but we would not, you know, we could be totally transparent with them. Yeah, yeah, and that's, that's, that's, I mean, this is what, this is what's expected. This is what, what, you know, of course, what he wants, these, these folks. And, and of course, what we want as well, it's, it's, you know, this is for, you know, the public domain. It's, it's, it's, it's a, it's a point of, of, of interest, you know, significant interest out there. And, you know, we want to focus on the right equipment. It's been appropriately funded for that, you know, to, to do that and allow us to do that. And that's something that I think, you know, under those specific guidelines and, and, and the specifications of the equipment that we're using, that we're, we're hoping to get significant data from that. It's exciting. This will be a fourth generation system for us. Exactly. Both proprietary and, and, and, and, and military laboratory grade equipment. And can you give me in just a couple of lines? So again, someone like myself can understand, completely, I mean, what are you going to now capture with this funding that you couldn't capture before? What's it going to allow you to do? Well, it's, it's, it's going to, it's going to increase our bandwidth. It's going to increase the resolution of what we're getting. And, John can probably. Right. And then this, this, this issue with signature management, you know, you know, being able to capture that in real time. You know, if these things are going, undergoing the signature management where in one moment it's visible and it could be, you know, moving into the ultraviolet, changing its, its radar signatures, changing, changing some of its, its acoustic signatures and that sort of thing. We want to be able to capture all of that and the only way we can do that is, is, you know, is having multiple sources of equipment, multiple detection equipment that can cover a full range of the electromagnetic spectrum at any one time. And this is going to be improved radar, uh, to improve radar systems, uh, improved, improved hyperspectral system, um, slew the cue to the radar at this, this lot. Yeah, so there'd be multiple captures at the same time. I mean, this is something that, you know, we want, you know, uh, correlating data, uh, with, with multiple systems, um, even redundant systems. Yeah, it's really exciting stuff. And there is another exciting project that's coming up next year. Do you guys want to mention, uh, what's coming up before I play the trailer or should I play the trailer first? Um, uh, uh, we could briefly mention we're, uh, uh, we're scheduled to have two documentaries. Two documentaries, uh, released, uh, in 2026, uh, one from an American film crew, one from a Canadian film crew. Um, uh, they had, they had come out and, uh, and followed us out there and documented what we were doing. Uh, and you, and you could play the, uh, the trailer. And it's a documentation, you know, the document, the documentary is, is, is, is basically geared to, to, uh, you know, show this, this, this, this four year, this four year research study. But, you know, uh, how we got started and, you know, the, the, the, the data itself and, and, uh, and of course our future endeavors as well is, is, is trying to capture, you know, um, whatever we learned from the earlier data, we want to move on and capture something that might be a little bit more significant. You know, more advanced, uh, you know, uh, uh, things that are happening when people are saying that these things are, are, are difficult to see or, or they, they, they, they, they seem to, you know, change from one, um, uh, signature to another. You know, we, we, again, we want to be able to, you know, put this in some kind of context that, you know, that we understand what's happening. The good thing is we collected, we have, we've collected good data. We know the ranges that they seem to be operating at. And, uh, we're certainly going to, now know we're going to pursue that. Awesome. Well, I'll play that trailer now. So if you're watching or listening, you will either see and or hear the trailer folks. This is it. This is paradise. They said this, uh, watch for landmines. We're at, uh, Camp Hero. This is the tip of the, uh, tale of Long Island. You hear these crazy stories about different kinds of experimentations that were done out here with biological and as well as technological. July 26th. There is a ship out there. These objects seem to delay that radar return coming back. Whether it's a field around them or something, it, it, it, it seems to be a, a, a, a, something creating a delay. All right. There he is. Starting to pick him up now. And he's two miles, roughly two miles out. Look, Joe. You're right. These attacks. Hopefully that's not the most exciting thing for tonight. We got this up close and personal view of the Nightcrawler. This is a retrofitted RV rolling mobile lab. John and Jerry Tedesco turn over their findings. The FBI said to be looking at what they have recently spotted. I'm calling them the UFO busters, man. They're like the ghost busters except with the UFOs. We started doing this study in July of 2022. I mean, we spent many, many nights out there, 12-hour days, overnights. You know, we have so much equipment, so many different cameras, so many detectors, hyperspectral, multispectral. Recording ADS-B, radar, and the video. You see it? Yeah, it's running this camera. It's stationary. Let's get a camera on it. We've got this issue of anomalous phenomena. People see something they don't understand and it scares them. They call the police. A equipment like this can better detect, identify, track, UAP. Our air bases, our military bases, our nuclear sites are getting visited by these, whatever they are. People that see stuff flying over their house the size of a car. I just want to know how to defend against it. That's my job. Dad, I literally see it right here. It's a plan. He's our resident skeptic here. So he doesn't believe any of this stuff. We invite skeptics of all kinds. We've run up against some of the best of them. Yeah, but it could just be a cloud. Yeah, well, I got to look at the videos over and over and over again. I'm not really sure what I saw, you know, it's like, but I know what I experienced. So it kind of reaffirms that there was a light there. There was this. Just be more as, like, precise and accurate as possible. Be skeptical, but have an open mind. We come from the generation of explorers. Dreamers were big. I think we were dreamers. Lucky to be able to at least do this, get out there and enjoy the great outdoors while accomplishing something that's significant, you know. They achieved the almost impossible task of getting a field research study on UFOs peer-reviewed and published in the Open Journal of Applied Sciences. Their research has captured the attention of some very influential scientists. I don't believe reality's laid out the way we think it is. Think a piece of paper, that's reality, and you crumpled it up. We know from science that everything is bound together by nuclear forces. Even solid objects that are around us are not really solid. You know, could it be some kind of simulation? Possibly a playground created from consciousness itself? One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten. Okay, now it's there, and watch, it disappears. Yeah. That's what I'm talking about, son. To this day, I think it probably catalogs well over a million objects. There is a lot going on out there. Let's figure out what this is. Here it is. It's all right, I'm going to light it up, I'm going to light it up. And then there was, I want to thank Randy Jackson, the lead singer of The Zebra. He actually came out with us two times. He was a human audio generator. He had a big help calibrating our system. Oh, yeah. Huge, huge help. Thank you, Randy. Great music, though. Yeah, absolutely. Love this music. And the trailer's played, so really excited to see that, gents. Looking forward to seeing what comes from it. You guys have a nice chemistry on camera as well, which is always good to watch. Documentaries are kind of on everyone's tongue, and just before, as we start to kind of wrap up towards the end of the interview, Age of Disclosure, the documentary's out. Have you guys had the chance to watch that yet? Yes. And if you have, what's your kind of quick take on what it shows? Okay, so John and I had watched it after it came out. I want to commend all the people who came forward in the government and the whistleblowers. I mean, that's great. Whether it's going to change any opinions, I don't think that's too likely. I mean, the fact is there was a lot of expression of what people saw and their opinions. I think the people who already believe it and have followed it, that will keep them, you know, quite a bit much more interested. Maybe it'll bring some more people in as a large effect. I don't know. I don't think so, because we have seen a similar type of disclosure movement done in 2001 with the disclosure project. We had, you know, radar operators and people come forward. They actually brought data and radar tapes and talked about this. And that didn't seem to change as many minds as we thought it would. So my feeling is it's probably going to be the same thing here. Right, right. I mean, for folks that haven't followed it, it's, you know, for the general populace, something that's, you know, maybe it brought a few more people in on board and, you know, to look at this phenomena that, you know, but as far as, you know, information that's already been out there, I don't think it's shed any more light on it, to be honest. Yeah, I've shared my views plenty on here. People won't know what those are. I was just curious on what you guys thought. What I'd love to do in just the last few minutes is fly through some listener questions. If you guys want to just smash out some answers for us, that would be great. I've cut out a few questions, folks. If you don't hear your question, it was probably because it's been answered already by the guys in the interview. If not, I'll get to some stuff next time. But let's get through these to finish off. Parcival over on the Discord said, could the larger drones in New Jersey have been the Anduril flying car prototypes? I mean, some of those things are possible. The only thing is there were so many seen across the United States and there were very high numbers in a short period of time. I would think if there was these rare test flights of experimental, you know, whether the cars or flying cars or drones, it wouldn't account for all these sightings. The other thing is I think it's insulting to say that the people, most people were mistaken about what they were seeing. In New Jersey, there's a lot of air traffic over New Jersey and over the Northeast. These people are used to seeing air traffic. Obviously, they're seeing something very different, which is making them pay more attention to the skies. That's my thought, anyway. Yeah. Christian from Kill the Stigma podcast. Now, this might be a question you say I can't answer because you've told me this twice already, and that's why I did not follow up on it. Did you pick up any frequencies from the mystery drone type UAPs? 1.6 gigahertz, 3 gigahertz, 8 to 12 gigahertz, X-band 7 to 11.2. This is something that Chris Mellon wrote about recently that was mentioned by arrow witnesses in the Senate hearings. We have picked up signals. I don't think we want to get into specifics on that yet. Yeah. I mean, the 1.6 is kind of interesting. Yeah. I mean, there are other frequencies involved. 3 gigahertz is interesting. There are other frequencies involved, other signals. Can you tell me why frequencies are interesting then? Just generally speak around that whole frequency thing. Why is it interesting? What could it mean? Well, when these objects are present, you know, these signals seem to be more abundant. You know, the amplitudes seem to be exceptionally high in some cases. You know, this could be remote operations from some other point, even through, you know, even the possibility of remote control through satellite, through satellite transmission. So, you know, it doesn't have to be a local, you know, some kind of a local group that's actually doing the navigation and that sort of thing. I mean, you know, and this is what, you know, where some of the concerns come in, of course, you know, could it be a foreign adversary, that sort of thing, or, you know, a foreign government that's doing it. But some of the signals are very transitory, too, and have some interesting, you know, harmonic effects that, you know. Yeah, there's very specifics about them. They make them very interesting. They stand out. Yeah. You know, it's not the typical signals with sight bands you'd see with normal remote operations of drones or broadcast frequencies. And we, of course, we have a database of, you know, the normal background frequencies that are being transmitted from different sources. Right, right. So we compare that to that. Yeah, and a lot of... These are quite different. They're quite unique. Right. And, you know, there's confounding variables with that, too. You have so much in the way of, you know, cellular transmissions and, you know, 4G and 5G. And, you know, so, you know, you've got to kind of separate some of those components, which can be very difficult. And a lot of these frequencies, especially with some of the systems we have and are putting online, which is, you know, spectrum equipment that's specifically designed for 3D analysis is to pull out some of these hidden frequencies and look at them. So, again, I can think I can understand why governments would want to know that because you've been able to pick up some really sensitive stuff. And is it a bit like, and this is just for my understanding, that you've found some really cool remote control cars that are being controlled locally that they might want to know about, but also there are some that are being controlled from other countries or places out in the ocean, from container ships that we hear rumors of, or there's something that's really, really, really far away. And that could give off an interesting signal that something's controlling it from different planet, area, dimension, that kind of stuff, yeah. And we're considering all those things. They're all on the table. Cool. Good answer. Rod says, Who do you think is behind the worldwide drone flap? And do you have any plans to come to Texas? Well, that's a possibility. We'll look at the invitations. Yeah, so as soon as somebody sends us an invitation, there seems to be a high frequency of sightings and activity in that area. Yeah, and there's a lot of areas that we'd love to go to. I mean, you know, out in California, you know, off the coast there, especially where, you know, they've had, you know, sightings from some of the, you know, the Navy crews out there, some of the battle command centers that they had. Also on the East Coast as well, up and down, it doesn't matter. You know, it's wherever the activity is, is where we'd like to be. Awesome. Ricky asks, Did your East Coast drone fieldwork provide lessons learned for future assignments? Absolutely. Absolutely. Yes. Yeah. And it took time to get there. Yeah, it was a lot of data review, a lot of analysis. Right. Still going on. Yeah, the importance of boots on the ground. Yeah. You know, it's, you have to be there, you have to be monitoring this stuff. Yeah, you have to make mistakes. Yeah. You know, and that's the only way, you know, that you can move forward. And I imagine some of that is what we're going to see in the documentary. Sure. Yes. Sure. Yep. Kevin asks, have your recent findings been shared with mainstream news outlets beside NewsNation? And has there been any response? Uh, we, I think we tried on a couple of days, never responded. Yeah. Yeah. There was no response. Exactly. Yeah. And that, there's not, there doesn't seem to be a whole, a lot of interest in this with some, some news agencies, you know. Yeah. And it seems to be very cyclical and a bit of a rollercoaster depend. Like, in the UK, our news, BBC, Sky News, GB News, the kind of big, big outlets, they don't report on the drone stuff. It's not, it's not a big story. Airports being shut down across Europe. It's rarely touched on. And even the US hearing stuff recently, the Charlie Kirk situation happened within 24 hours. The hearings never touched the side on the news, the news. So a lot of stuff can happen to, to take over. It's a shame. It's, uh, you would think that would be big news and, and, and, uh, it's a failure. It's a real failure of journalism. Yeah. Hmm. Unfortunately. Uh, last two questions. Um, Tracy asks, have you ever been warned or threatened to back off of your research? Uh, no, but we've had, had of, uh, uh, uninvited visitors, uh, that, uh, seem to have copied us out there in unmarked vehicles and dark. Unmarked tinted windows. Certainly interested in what we were doing, which shouldn't be out there because we have a permit to be out there, um, all night long. And, and in order to be out there, you either have to have a research permit like we have, or a, or a, uh, a sky gazing permit, uh, uh, or, well, you have to be a fisherman, which they're out there maybe until 12, one in there, they're gone at that. Usually 12, but these people, we had visitors that were out there one o'clock in the morning, two o'clock in the morning for, for maybe an hour or so. They said they would drive off. So definitely some interest in what we were doing. So somebody interested in what we were doing. Okay. Uh, and finally, any update on working with the FBI? What have you shared and what's the current status? Uh, the status is, is good. It's been very productive. Uh, uh, we all have formed a, uh, uh, you know, partnership with them and, uh, we're going to continue that. Right. And, and, and then to be, we're trying to, you know, of course you want to be as transparent as possible. We're going to try to be as transparent as possible because we have to respect the boundaries of, uh, whatever we, you know, we're involved in with them. And I want to say that we're not read into those programs. So it's not, you know, it's not like, you know, we're, you know, we're given any, you know, uh, any additional information for, for what we, what we share. Yeah, we didn't get any special, uh, clearance. No. Yeah. You just don't want to piss off the FBI, uh, which I imagine it's not a good idea. A lot of sensitive things there. Yeah. Right. But when you're genuinely interested in, in, in, in what's going on and definitely trying to find an answer. Yeah. They definitely weren't. They definitely take it seriously. Absolutely. They take them seriously. And, and I do have to steal one more question from you, from myself as a listener. Okay. And a, and a fan of both of yours and your work, um, Skywatcher as an organization came to prominence just after we last spoke. What's your take on what they are claiming to do and trying to do and record and collect data? Okay. So, uh, I want to be perfectly fair. Yeah. You know, I, you know, I give them credit for what they're doing and, uh, and, and what they're trying to do. So, uh, from what I've seen so far, I mean, uh, the data they've showed so far, they were kind of low resolution, uh, some IR, not the greatest. Uh, I haven't seen the, the level of equipment that they've talked to, at least not, not produced on anything that they've showed so far. Um, I, the videos, I mean, the videos I've seen out in the field, I haven't seen, you know, I just haven't seen the kind of equipment that, you know, they're talking about. Maybe they are, if, yeah, I mean, if it is something, you know, you, you know, we, we, we, you know, we hear a lot of things, you know, about the type of equipment they have and the, the sophistication of the equipment. We'd like to see it. We'd like to see some of that data, you know, uh, be, you know, publicly provided and, and, and that folks can look at it and, and, and, you know, examine it for themselves. I mean, the, you know, Jerry was saying that the, the quality of a lot of it is not, you know, I mean, it's very difficult to, to make any kind of an, you know, uh, informed decision on, on, on what, what it is that you're looking at. Yeah. Yeah. There's always, if like, they talk about nine to 11 morphologies of objects, I don't know, maybe some of them possibly, you know, but there's others that, that seem out of focus and, you know, like something like a blob, you know, they're called blob, you know, a lot of it looks at, some of those look out of focus. So you really can't quantify that as a, as a specific morphology, at least not to us. Yeah. If they have to, if they have the high resolution stuff, they need to produce that. Um, I know in the beginning, uh, Russ Coldhart had mentioned them and, and, uh, he mentioned that Jake Barber, uh, wanted to reach out to us. We did respond and we were willing to talk to him. We haven't heard anything back. So, uh, and then of course, you know, we had Gary Nolan that got involved and he's been, you know, uh, supporting and propping up, uh, Skywide. And even inviting them to the Soul Foundation, uh, uh, conference, um, uh, you know, uh, I don't know what that, you know, that, that's a specific agenda that Gary has, uh, I won't comment on it. Uh, I, I know, I know that we weren't invited to the Soul Foundation. Sorry to say I was, I was there. Um, and I, I, I, I did ask Jake Barber and the audience and it's all recorded, um, about that statement around having stuff out by the end of the year that they could show and produce and share. And he said that may bleed over into, into 2026. It might be January. It might be February. It might be a rolling 12, 12 months, not necessarily a calendar year. Um, but yeah, they, they are going through 10 terabytes of data and peer review and whatnot. So hopefully perhaps that data comes out, like you say, and people get to pour through it and, and go through it. Cause yeah, I don't think anything you've said that is completely unfair. So, um, yeah. No, when you talk about 10, you know, 10 terabytes, we, we've got to a lot of data. Like, so we don't have a team go through, we have to go through, we still go through. It takes a lot of time, especially five years, five years worth, uh, you know, so, you know, like I says, uh, you know, uh, I have nothing personal against them and, uh, wish them luck. It just, uh, as soon as they produce the data, it'd be interesting to see, see what they got. Perhaps one day Skywatcher versus Nightcrawler will be a cool movie to, to show on Netflix, uh, dramatized. Um, but listen guys, I'm going to give you the final word. What do you want to let the audience know, the viewers know, um, what's coming up in the coming months. And perhaps even any idea on when those documentary, maybe documentaries may be available. Hopefully, uh, or, you know, early, early next year. Yeah, we're going to be talking to one of the film crews, uh, uh, it's like four o'clock today. Uh, the other one we had spoken to, he's still, uh, they're still working on some finishing, uh, uh, be real footage. They're putting that editing. Um, uh, hopefully we'll get dates soon about when they'll be out. Yeah, and one thing that keeps coming up that we, that we, you know, we want to reinforce is, is, is this, this, uh, thing with working in silos. I mean, there's so many groups out there that, that's still, you know, they still don't want to share, you know, uh, share resources and, and, and, and, and, and share, you know, um, uh, experiences one way or another with other groups. And, you know, this is, this is an area that, you know, I think we really need to work together. Um, and where, you know, we're open to anybody that that's willing to work with us, uh, share resources, uh, even, not even necessarily what's sharing. So it's just about collaboration, collaboration. Collaboration. That's huge. That's huge. So, I mean, when people have, you know, tightly close up what they have and, you know, they seem to have a specific agenda, whether it's jockeying for funding or something else or its own institutional or, you know, politics, it's not really good for this effort going forward. If you know something, you know, share it, you know, I mean, you know, you know, I mean, if it's something that's classified and that sort of thing, I mean, obviously, there's, you know, there are very specific reasons not to, but, you know, there is a lot of information that can be learned from other groups. And by, like, again, by putting resources together, I think we can learn a lot more very quickly. As far as that end of the class, I mean, we've had better success with federal agencies and working with them. It's, it's these, it's the UAP, UAP community, it seems to be more of an issue. Yeah, that space. Even the, especially the academic end, it's like, you know, with their own politics or whatever. Yeah, it's tough. That's all for this episode of That UFO Podcast. Thank you so much for listening and watching. If you enjoyed the show, please follow, subscribe, and leave a rating or review wherever you get your podcasts. It really helps others find the show. If you're watching on YouTube, hit like, subscribe, and turn on notifications so you don't miss future episodes. You can also support the show directly and get early access, add free episodes, and bonus content on Patreon, or by subscribing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or YouTube memberships. All the links are over at thatufopodcast.com or in the show description below, along with merchandise and more. Don't forget, you can also pick up a copy of my book, Atlas of Unidentified Flying Objects, available now in all good bookstores and through online retailers, including Amazon. Big thank you again to all of you for listening and tuning in. Until next time, keep looking up, you never know what you might see.