Reed Summers: Deep Dive into Non-Human Intelligence and Intent

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. Don't you wish everything was more rewarding? With Rakuten, almost everything is. You can earn cash back on those new shoes you've been wanting. You can save on the next trip you book. You can cash in on groceries. Rakuten is a smart way to save money and feel rewarded when you shop. Rakuten partners with all of your favorite brands across so many categories. Fashion, beauty, travel, concert tickets, electronics, restaurants, and more. Just join, shop your favorite brands, and save. Target, Instacart, Expedia, Macy's, Sephora, CVS. The list is long. Save online, in-store, and at over 22,000 restaurants. And when it's time to redeem those rewards, get your money exactly how you want it. Choose PayPal, check, built points, or cash out with gift cards. So go ahead, take a trip, fill a cart, order dessert. Rakuten is a world of rewards. Join today for free. Go to Rakuten.com or get the app. That's R-A-K-U-T-E-N. Hi, everyone, and welcome back to That UFO Podcast. My name is Andy, and joining me today, my guest is the host of Emergent, a podcast exploring humanity's engagement with non-human intelligence. Through deep conversations and sharp analysis, Reed Summers examines the presence, motives, and intent behind the UFO phenomenon. He also directs strategy at the Human Institute, a non-partisan think tank, focused on the scientific and policy changes of UAP and NHI. He also has a free eight-week course, Decoding NHI Intent, that we'll get to, that has been taken by hundreds of folks worldwide, and currently is developing UFOevidence.com, a groundbreaking evidence-scoring platform and media hub for UAP research. So welcome to the podcast, Reed Summers. Hey, Andy, good to be with you. Thank you. Good to have you on, Reed. Lovely to finally meet face-to-face, in a way, you know, in this kind of virtual capacity. But that's quite a lot of stuff there. We're going to cover a lot of that in the body of the podcast as well. And I mentioned to you before I hit record, Reed, a wonderful amount of questions from listeners across the board on this one too. So thank you to everyone who contributed. I've managed to get as many of them into the body of the podcast as possible. Reed, before we get into the kind of nitty-gritty, let's chat about yourself and your platform. For anyone unfamiliar, who is Reed Summers? Who is Reed Summers? Great question. One I'm still exploring. I've been involved on this topic most of my life. My father was a highly gifted telepathic communicator and was basically contacted by non-human intelligence back in the mid-90s and received what he feels are a series of communiques advising humanity exopolitically on the nature of what and who is involved down on the ground with us. So I was exposed to this from a very early age. I grew up in the UFO conference circuit, you could say, running around the halls of MUFON annual symposia as a 10-year-old, 12-year-old, and beyond. I met many of the big names, you could say, of ufology even back then. And so I've been kind of walking around this and thinking about it and cultivating my own kind of intellectual sense that, yes, we're not alone. Yes, we could be visited and engaged. And then with it, an instinctual sense of the fact that the environment of the earth is not one of human-on-human only. That's just an instinctual sense I've had. And then you could say an intuitive sense, that there is kind of an intuitive kind of knowing that we are in some form of longitudinal engagement with non-human intelligences that do not necessarily share our collective human values, our collective human intent, as we might describe it. And we have to negotiate those intents. There is an evolutionary moment at hand, a natural or exosystemic engagement between species potentially at play. And then with that, of course, the experiential sense. I've had my own encounters and experiences of the phenomenon. So all of that kind of gestated across many years of my life. And then I kind of responded to a personal sense of calling to get professionally involved on this topic following the hearings in 2023 with David Grush, Ryan Graves, and David Frazier. And a sense actually at the first Seoul Symposium that a whole new conversation is beginning, one that is credible, empirical, data-driven, and will involve ultimately the best minds and the leading institutions of humanity. And I need to play a part and help educate and inform the process to the best of my ability, but also help the public approach this. Because I see every month or every maybe quarter of the year, tens of thousands of new people from the public piling into this space based on the UAP hearings in Congress, other news releases, 3i Atlas, things like that that are coming out. And so people are stumbling into this confusing, enigmatic environment where there are a lot of competing narratives. There is disinformation at play. There's poor mental discipline historically on this topic at play. And so as someone impassioned by logic, caution, reason, and following the data where it leads, I feel like what's being called for are public educators and advocates to help the public think through a very enigmatic phenomenon. So I launched Emergent, my podcast, last fall. And on Emergent, I basically examined the emergent new qualities of human civilization, society, technology, culture, religion, that are arising from this potential interaction with NHI. You know, how is the interface affecting us? What qualities are we beginning to demonstrate, whether it's intellectually or even psionically, for example? And what is the activity and behavior of the phenomenon demonstrating that we should use as key indicators as to the intent and the motive of what these entities intend to do in our human space and how they might seek ultimately to influence human outcomes? So Emergent is basically walking around that tremendous historic global event of the human NHI interface and really kind of residing out on the front lines of the phenomenon, out where there is insufficient data, out where there are indicators but not necessarily evidence, and responsibly speculating on those front lines, asking the right questions that could ultimately lead to more targeted research and field investigation into the phenomenon. And so I have a platform called Forerunner, which I've launched for people like myself, who are forerunners, who are out on the front lines, willing to go outside the comfort zone of the typical UFO conversation, ask the hard questions, put the controversy on the NHI, not just the HI, the humans, and really examine this as a whole species interaction, which is what I think it is. And with that, I've launched a course, an eight-week course that's free online and hundreds of people have taken it. It's called Decoding Alien Intent. And it's basically a whole structured framework and a logical process to approach all of this from my many years of work on it. So happy to put that out. And I'm also more recently directing strategy for a policy think tank, as you mentioned in the bio, called the Human Institute. And in the Human Institute, we are tackling the institutional and policy ramifications of an NHI presence and what it looks like to frame out the international preparedness and response plan for if and when NHI is affirmed to exist at a federal level or at the level of a governing body, or if not that, how to begin to articulate our human kind of response and rules of engagement that need to exist even at the civilian level to safeguard the public awareness of the topic and also individuals who are deeply affected by it personally. So that's a bit about me. Really good stuff there. Lots to unpack. And before I get on to some of your background, you've touched on there, you mentioned obviously your father having that background, that deep-rooted connection to this phenomenon. Can you touch on any detail there as to kind of how that affected him, how that came about? Was there something before even him that ran within the family that then obviously kind of touched on yourself? Great questions. Well, it did run throughout the family. I don't know of it running in the generation before his, but my uncle was highly involved on the topic and others as well, my mother. And yeah, it's quite a story. It's actually a really amazing story. I encourage you to have him on, Marshall Summers. And basically where it begins is in the late 70s, Marshall was kind of cultivating an intuitive sense of how to communicate beyond words, how to connect, you could say, relationally. And that ultimately culminated in him being a special educator for individuals with multiple disabilities. So, you know, individuals who were highly autistic, who had speech impairment, auditory visual impairments. And so it kind of, it gave him a chance to explore this arena of extrasensory perception and communication. And he had spontaneous communication experiences with those he was working with beyond words, without language. And with that, another kind of intelligence began to speak through him and to him and guide him in his work with them. And this was very organic. He didn't really pursue it. It just kind of suddenly started to happen. As he opened his aperture, other communications began to flow through him from what he would describe as a non-human intelligence of a non-physical form. And so this non-physical NHI began to kind of guide him in his work. And then ultimately, as his capabilities set grew and grew, began to basically transmit communications through him as to many of them regarding the nature of contact, the nature of the physical engagement taking place in the skies, in the ocean, on land with this phenomenon, which was a shock to him because he was not a student of ufology or any of this. He was open but not inclined. And my mother was kind of different. She was inclined. And she was extremely intuitively connected to that as a reality. And when they two came together, which is kind of a story of serendipity and possibly a divine orchestration, who knows, she brought really what would later be called in his work the greater community into his awareness. And then in the late 90s, this grew into, I mean, again, as his capabilities as a telepathic communicator grew. Another form of life communicated to him, he would say, and that is a physical NHI, a physical set of observing entities who were, in their words, he was highly alarmed at the nature of contact taking place and how ill-prepared humanity was for it and basically providing an exo-political set of disclosures, briefings as to the nature of who and what is actually physically in the world engaging with us. And so, and that was a shock. And it actually took him several years to grapple with, can I trust this source? Is this information, you know, accurate? How do I know it's accurate? How do I vet this? And it was a combination of basically the proof is in the pudding. Like, does the message check out regarding what we can logically and observationally see about the phenomenon in the historical record? And does it intuitively check out? And also, does it honor key principles of free will and consent and personal sovereignty, which have become very important concepts for me in my more recent work working with experiencers? And my concern is that in some NHI-initiated encounters, those very basic kind of rules of life, what every sentient life form should be accorded, free will, sovereignty, are being directly violated and disregarded. And so I think there are some alarming signals there. But yeah, Marshall has had a long, long, difficult, challenging journey with this. There has been retaliation toward him, which is unfortunate. My family has been retaliated against, which is unfortunate and has been difficult. But, you know, our commitment is for the human, is for the human project, the project of getting humanity ready. Regardless of who is here, what their intent is, we have a project at hand to prepare ourselves as a species to negotiate intents, to manage a non-human presence in the human interest, and ultimately to set up our own framework for some kind of exo-political diplomatic engagement, whether now or in the future that may need to be built. And can I ask on that retaliation, is that from a human perspective or something else? Well, after Marshall received those communiques, he would report extensive disruptive psychic attacks, basically, and entity encounters, and kind of hostile entity encounters, incursions, really, non-respective engagement. And so, you know, I grew up seeing that in my family and sensing, feeling it myself as well, not that I was the target, but I was definitely, I could feel that the psychic space around my family and our home had been altered. It was different. And so, you know, that opened up my aperture to sense into a psychic layer, a dimensional stack, you could call it, where other things are happening that I can't perceive with my eyes, right? There are other entities present. There are forceful communications being impelled upon the mind. And if one does not protect themselves, engage in some kind of psychic or mental shielding activity, which my father and I have developed to a very significant degree, you might find that those thoughts that are not your own enter your own mind, and you begin voicing them. And you become kind of a mouthpiece for a perspective that you don't know where the origin of that is. And, you know, as I look out on the social space, there are so many narratives about NHI. Like, you know, origin, Pleiadians, Arcturians, tall whites, this is, and narratives about control, prison planet, NHI authoring humanity, its religions, being ever present, co-indigenous. And I'm thinking to myself, man, these are, where do these narratives come from, right? Are people just thinking them up or are they being engineered and pressed out into society, either by human actors or non-human actors? So, you know, creating a kind of a sense of psychic sovereignty, frankly, I'll call it that, has been an important part of my journey. To answer your question directly, my family, to my knowledge, has been targeted in several instances with what we would subjectively report as a directed energy weapon. And that is in recent years, very recent, and with real health effects, real confirmed health effects. And it hasn't happened often, but it's happened enough to tell us that somebody is targeting U.S. citizens with non-contact weaponry, probably given or facilitated by the defense industry, to suppress conversations about the disclosure of the phenomenon and the government's historic involvement in it and collaboration with it. And so, you know, those are topics I talk about, right? So I'm not talking about nuts and bolts, craft in the sky. I'm talking about the controller. I'm talking about who's behind the wheel, what motivates them, what is the framework by which the public can decode their presence and intent without relying on the government to handhold and spoon feed and to disinform, right? So that's a dangerous act when you go out into the public and start talking logically to people with credibility and get them geared up with their own toolkit to assess what the hell's going on when there are a lot of human actors that don't want that to happen, let alone for conversations to take place regarding their historic collaboration and competition with NHI and all of the sequela, right? And I view crash retrievals, that's sequela, that's not the phenomenon, that's not the it or the true problem. The true problem is that there is a covert set of activities by non-human entities taking place, the government knows, they classified it early under the highest levels of the secrecy apparatus right out of, you know, the Department of Energy and, you know, the nuclear secrets infrastructure. And they sought to engage with it, study it, try to gain parity with it, recover its technologies, weaponize those technologies for prosaic, but also for non-prosaic intentions. And it's an absolute mess. It's a rubber band ball of players and projects and liabilities and crimes committed. And so when you start to poke at that and you do so with precision intelligence, I think that scares some people. And so I'm not actually surprised that my family has been targeted. I know I'm not the only one. I'm in touch with others who have as well. I've been shown, you know, ring camera footage of federal marshals showing up at the homes of documentary filmmakers on this phenomenon in fatigues, basically intimidating them verbally on the spot, but without any badge, without any marking as to what agency they come from, right? So there is real kinetic force being applied to those who are front running this effort. And there's also non-kinetic or more, you know, non-contact forms that that can be applied. And I don't rule out the use of psionic assets, remote viewers as well. And I have strong indications that those are being deployed against what we would call our collective disclosure movement. Good place to dive in then. We're going to talk about non-human intent, and there's a lot of great questions came in around that. And I think the best place to start would be that label of non-human intelligence you mentioned just previously. A lot of activity going on non-physically and physically aimed at you, your family. And for me, some of that would almost sound poltergeisty. It could be seen as such. And how do you differentiate? And I suppose, what are your thoughts on NHI or non-human intelligence as an identifier? When we see that on this podcast, on your podcast and others, most folks, I imagine, go to alien. We're using a term for alien, as the general public would think. Is that how you think, or do you encompass this phenomenon along with others? Well, I chafe at the NHI acronym at times because it is too much of a catch-all. It's an inflated category that can include almost anything. So I think within NHI, which I understand a new term, a new acronym was needed to circumvent all of the obfuscation of the phenomenon generated around little green men, aliens, et cetera, all of the pop culture stuff that I think was purposefully put out to ontologically prepare people to normalize a paranormal phenomenon, but also to kind of misdirect. So within NHI, I think there are a number of phenomena at play, and I consider them as part of our extended ecosystem. I take a very nature-based approach to understanding, well, one aspect of the NHI engagement, which is the ETI aspect, the extraterrestrial intelligence, which I think is a more useful acronym. I think there are strong indications we're dealing with a form of structured technology that is operating in this dimension that is moving at speeds and with capabilities to accelerate that suggest provisionally an interstellar explanation of origin, that they're not from here. They may be residing here. They may have been residing here for a while, but the way these craft move, to me, 44,000 miles per hour, 5,000 G-forces, I just don't see an ultra-terrestrial, crypto-terrestrial explanation for that aspect of the hard physical phenomenon. Now, some of these craft, as alleged, have contained biologics, biological entities confirmed to be non-human. And these entities, well, the biological component is corroborated by the firsthand experiencer accounts of those who have had physical NHI-initiated encounters in the form of abductions, right? So we see entities described with arms, legs, digits, eyes, organs, you know, but of a very different kind than our own. And they're not necessarily all bipedal, humanoid-looking, right? There are other kinds of entities reported. So to me, that suggests that we, and it makes total sense at the level of first principles, the universe gave rise to Earth, Earth gave rise to us. The universe can give rise to other planetary bodies, which can give rise to other life. And that life would be under the same evolutionary pressures as our own. It would evolve, compete, win out, die out, based upon the adaptive traits that it develops in that competitive, resource-scarce environment. So I would take the ETI on one side of the NHI question and say, yes, I think there are strong indications we're dealing with a biological form of life, operating structured technology with capabilities, demonstrated capabilities, and offensive capabilities as well. There is a record of UAP potentially downing human craft, affecting ground observers in a targeted sense, not just in a kind of as a result of their propulsion, for example. And so on the ETI side, that's a project. We have to figure out, are we being engaged by an extraterrestrial intelligence? If so, that's the biggest story ever. That's the biggest crisis ever. It's not to say that they're hostile or benevolent. We don't even have to get into intent. Just their presence is a crisis for the international community. I think a lot of disclosure, sorry, a lot of the cover-up is about keeping that from being disclosed. And we saw that in the last UAP hearings, Dylan Borland talking about the use of the word extraterrestrial in a targeted way by Arrow to obfuscate inquiry into this. Because to confirm an extraterrestrial, you'd have to travel to their planetary body and get a control of their technology there, compare it to ours here, and then determine it's extraterrestrial. Perfect, right? This is the new semantic battlefield we're on. But I don't think it's random that they would pick that word and that line to defend. I think that is a defensible line for them. Because when the global community figures out we're being visited literally by aliens, by physical evolved alien entities, that is a unifier. That does break down the national security states and their longstanding hostile positions against each other. You have to unite around that. What else do you do? You don't let North Korea work with the greys or the reptilians. And then the US and the rest of the world has kept it. You just can't allow that. So unity and a unified response is the only policy, which is actually a large part of my work on the Human Institute. And there are a lot of sub-policies to that. So back to the question, ETI. Now, I think there are other physical phenomena at play that we might mischaracterize as ETI. So there are atmospheric effects, right? There are misidentification of birds, et cetera. There are atmospheric events that are physical but are not necessarily intelligent. So I think there's a lot of mischaracterization, misidentification at play as well, just to put that in the middle donut hole of our understanding. And then I think there are absolutely non-physical NHI, right? Now, these have been historically described as angels or malevolent entities and so on and so forth into culture. But that non-physical component could be at play at the same time as the ETI. The ETI being, by all accounts, highly telepathic might be engaging with the non-physical NHI and might be deploying them as an asset, right? So some of this poltergeist activity that follows a physical UFO sighting or UAP encounter, right, makes sense to me because I think the ETI are operating in that other dimensional stack as well as our own. I don't think we need to think that they originate from that dimensional space, which is completely theoretical on the first point. But I think they have technologies of mind. They have broken through the barrier that is imposed, self-imposed barrier that we imagine prevents the physical from the non-physical, the non-material from interacting, right? And so they have broken through that barrier, let's say, and they're interacting with entities that are non-physical NHI. And so I think there is a swirl of activity. Part of that, I think, is being kicked up like dust to keep us from clearly identifying key components, right? There is a smoke and mirrors campaign, and when you look at experiencer accounts and some of the narratives that they are allegedly told and the physical, psychological effects upon them in these encounters, you start to wonder, is someone trying to socially engineer human society to perceive NHI a certain way and also to perceive ourselves a certain way and to rewrite in a revisionist sense human history to weave NHI into that history, to make them a part of our journey, because that gives them all sorts of rights and entitlements, either whether it's a right to the planet, because they've been here all along, whether that's authorship of religions, saints, prophets, et cetera, which then turns devotional orientation away from church and clergy to a potential non-human superintelligence. Whatever it might be, I think those things, there are indications that they're at play. I suppose I'm thinking why, in your opinion, then, why the secrecy, why, if indeed these NHI are hiding, if they're choosing to hide, if indeed we are just perceiving that they're hiding and that's not the case. This idea that they're out there, and I'm going to throw a few ideas out here, but I often think about the idea, do NHI know about each other? Do they know, I've always thought the idea, so say tomorrow Trump rolls out a saucer from front of the White House, which he is currently demolishing part of, I've just seen online, he rolls out a saucer and says, here's some greys that we've known about now for several decades, we're working alongside them, and then a triangle flies past, and the greys say, we don't know who they are. The idea that I think we would assume all aliens or NHI know about each other. Do you believe that would be the case? Are we sort of secluded away from, and I hate the phrases like galactic family and galactic federation, let's say there is a kind of Star Trek type scenario going on out there in the universe, in the galaxy, in the solar system, are we being kept out of the loop by everything, or is this just a consequence of the way things are? I think it's probably both. Obviously, our observing capabilities, limited. Our global cooperative frameworks, limited and under duress. We are a fractured and divided and distracted species, and we are consumed in basically the escapades born out of history, whether it's the post-colonial world, the breakdown of developing countries and their social structures because of whatever it was, exploitation by colonial powers, et cetera, just to name one of hundreds of vectors already at play. So I never record everything we see to the NHI. That's poor mental discipline out of the gate. I think we need to do way better than that, and we don't need to make a bulk association. Like, oh, AI, that's them. No, I don't think we should do that. I think we should basically look at parallel tracks. What is their activity? What is our activity? And where are the clear openings by which exploitable vulnerabilities? They could crack open AI. They could undermine our ability to do safe controls, to do an intelligent rollout. So now it's running faster than we can control it, which means somebody else can control it and interface with it. That, to me, is a more intelligent way to look at the potential impact that they're having on us. So to get to your question, are we being kept out? Do they know about each other? Great questions. There are definitely some anecdotal data points that come immediately to mind. For example, I think of how Skywatcher, the group that is out in the field using neuromeditative techniques and technological signaling to vector these craft in, have reported what looks like something of an in-air altercation between different craft morphologies, one UAP chasing off another. And it's like, interesting, Jesse Michaels posited, are we in the middle of an NHI proxy conflict? So I think, and there are other signs of that potentially existing. I think of the Tedesco brothers out there in the field detecting some of these drone-like craft during the drone craze last year and seeing different craft chasing each other off, different craft appearing to cloak themselves or disappear from visible sight at key moments. That's well-documented, by the way, for those out in the field detecting UAP, that right on the moment of detection, the moment of camera capture or getting your eyes on, something happens. The technology goes out, or in some cases, as reported, you are paralyzed, actually. You're physically paralyzed. So yeah, so some anomalous stuff there. So I think, I asked the question, obviously, at this point, there is some kind of observation underway of our species. I think that's plausible, right? I think the historical trigger makes the most sense to me. During the 20th century, we flashed the universe with nuclear detonations, global conflict, environmental destruction. It's a clear techno-bio signature that's easily detectable, let's imagine. And all of a sudden, a hockey stick of UFO activity goes up, right? And there have been clear shifts in its programmatic activity in the world. So it's such as to say that there's an arc of engagement, a beginning, a middle, and an end. It's a program. It's strategic. And so after that historical trigger, an observation began. And then maybe a surveillance. Maybe that's what we see in the nuclear incursions. And then close approaches to ground observers. And then in the 70s, 80s, the abduction phenomenon comes out. And people begin reporting encounters. And in the early days of that, I think of Beatrice Villaroyal's work looking for pre-Sputnik flashes in the sky before any satellite vehicles were up in space. We should be looking at the earliest years of NHI abduction reports, before the media was involved, before the X-Files became a show, and look across the world, especially in remote areas where there was no media, to see what are the earliest reported characteristics. Of that event and the entities for the cleanest look, potentially, again, before mass culture and pop media took over. But I think the modern experiencer accounts must be looked at as well. So observation, surveillance, close approach, and then an incursion into our world. And after that incursion, which is into our seas, into territorial, nationally governed air, land, and sea space, over nuclear and sensitive military sites, we begin to see other activities take place of a more alarming nature. You know, I have a massive case history that I keep in front of me every day. It's hundreds and hundreds of pages long of encounters in UFO history where people were physically affected with some evidence collected, in which craft were engaged, and in some cases downed or relocated with obvious risk to flight safety, at the minimum. And then other potentially more shocking engagements, such as the 1970 B-52 incident, where a Green Beret recovery team was sent out into the Laotian jungle during Vietnam to recover a B-52 that had been downed. After a UAP UFO was sighted flying in its vicinity, they found the craft. It had landed. It had been placed on the forest floor. Trees had not been cut down. It had not crashed. It had been placed on the forest floor. There was no damage to the craft. How is that possible? In the middle of the jungle. And on board, the whole crew is still strapped into their seats, everyone where they were, but the entire crew had been strategically with precision, laser precision, mutilated. Ears had been excised. Reproductive organs had been removed. There was very little blood. And again, laser precision, obviously requiring highly advanced technology to do this. Nothing that the Viet Cong would ever be capable of doing. And so, you know, these are some of the accounts that have come forward. Is the government hiding more accounts like this? I've heard others told to me in private by individuals with high-level security clearance, with knowledge of what the legacy program might have been doing regarding NHI hostile activity on the ground against U.S. military personnel. So this is from observation to visitation, to surveillance, to close approach, and incursion. And then what then? What is the next? And this is the gray zone we have to unpack. And I think there are hostile indicators. There are transactional indicators. There are neutral indicators. There is a dearth of beneficial indicators. And that to me is alarming. Most would say, well, yeah, but many people report having a good experience of an abduction. Well, having a good experience is not good enough to assess the nature of what just happened, right? Just because someone felt good doesn't mean it was good. There are many ways to manipulate consciousness and the biochemistry that gives rise to emotion. We can do it. Why couldn't they do it? So we have to do a much better job than just taking it at face value that people say it was good. And I don't want to take that away from people either. But at a research investigatory level, we have a project in front of us as a species. And my hope is to help activate the right authorities and the right capacities within society to get out there and figure out what is going on, to validate these claims or invalidate them. So I think that's a key project at hand. Yeah. But you mentioned the idea that some abduction experiences are reported as being pleasant, nice, you know, or whatever it may be. We do the same as a species. People get kidnapped, people are taken hostage. And there's so many situations around the world right now on the news and not on the news, where you will hear about hostages being taken and killed, mutilated, kept for a long time, starved, you know, we only have to go back to the 40s to see some horrific examples of what happened to people during wartime. These things happen even now. But then you hear other hostages being released, who will come out and say, I was looked after, I was well looked after, you know, I was in captivity for six months, but the same organizations haven't done the same for other folks. You can say the same for abductions. Does it make it right? Does it make it wrong? Those are all different things that can be argued in terms of an NHI experience. But let me just interject there that, you know, regardless of how it went or what it felt like, or the ultimate effect on the individual, it is a crime in the national criminal framework that governs our country, like humans can't abduct humans. So are we going to apply those same legal frameworks to non-humans? That's a key question for all the legal scholars out there. To what extent do those apply? Human trafficking is a crime, right? Undisclosed medical experimentation, reproductive interventions, like we cannot do this to each other, but we are okay with letting others do it to us in an undisclosed fashion. Well, we should really think hard about that. Yeah. If I, if I take read, you know, from your chair right now, stick you in a basement for five years, but I give you a PlayStation five high-speed internet access to takeaways, but you're not allowed to say calories. Exactly. You know, you could come out and say, I had a great time, you know, actually was really well looked after, but I didn't want that to happen. Then, like you say, I've still committed a crime. I've still done something wrong. And I want to pull back on that bigger picture. You've really succinctly put together that sort of timeline of, you know, we, we sent off these signals into the galaxy, the solar system into space through different technologies we've had, polluting the planet, nuclear weapons going off, atomic bombs. And we have, we have not been quiet as a species. So we are alerting other folks that, you know, we are out there. We are the neighbors flicking our lights on and off on a dark street during a power cup, but we've got the lights on. And we're letting folks know we're here. Do you believe from the data you have looked at, from your own experiences, from speaking to others, it's one species that's doing this? Because that, it's hard for me to think how, given what you put there, and I'll bastardize this, I'm sure, but you know that alerting them to our presence, there's an observational period, a surveilling period, there's the abduction phenomenon comes into it. There's then perhaps action off the back of that. Is that just one species doing that? Or I know you mentioned other things coming in to ward off. We heard that from Skywatcher. It's a theme in the Tom DeLonge Secret Machines books. There's a battle goes on between various different objects. I won't spoil too much. It's not an uncommon suggestion. So how does that play that there would be more than one? And why doesn't one just come in and supersede another? Great questions. Well, the best we can do at the level of civilians, citizens, citizen advocates, and activists is develop our own intelligence picture. And so without the government and those with direct knowledge and involvement coming forward, we can look at the historic nature of UFO sightings. There's an 80-year evidential record. It's got hundreds of thousands of data points. We should look at that. We should use that to develop an intelligence picture. To me, what that does is it takes the field of possibilities and bounds them into a tighter zone of probabilities, things that are more probable based on the observed behavior. And so with that, we land on some high probable explanations. One is transaction. I've gone beyond observation or scientific inquiry. The nature of the direct interaction taking place, why would you take individuals off the earth over decades, engage with different defense and military organizations in very divisive ways, allow crashed vehicles to be recovered, and potentially egg on the effort to gain tech out of them for the purpose of vulnerability, fostering vulnerabilities potentially. I just don't see that as a scientific venture. And so I've gone beyond the leave no trace explanation. And I see it more as a leave no evidence. It's more of an obfuscation, a covering of tracks. So your question again, Andy, I'm sorry, I went off track there. No, yeah, it was a bit of a scattergun question. But the idea that it makes sense if it was one species visiting us from somewhere else, that design, that plan you've drawn out. But then for other species to be involved, it seems like that would get quite messy, unless there was an element of cooperation or understanding between outside species. Let's dig into that. Yeah. So building the intelligence picture further, one important data point is that many who have had direct encounters report seeing multiple entities present at the same time. So a tall gray and a mantid, or a short gray and a tall gray. So I think there's indications that we may not be dealing with a single species of a single planetary origin, but you can imagine more of a multi-species organization, a space-based organization. They've escaped velocity, right? They've gotten off the surface of their planet. They live in space. They utilize many planets. I think that's a more plausible kind of scenario. When you consider how much time has gone by for these potential species to develop their technologies, they would get off planet like we would want to do, right? And so we might be dealing with multi-species organizations. We might be dealing with several. I've heard tell of competitive action between different craft, but also possibly different entities. And of course, that's alleged. I don't have evidence of that. But some pretty shocking accounts have come my way from highly credible people, people I think most of us would deem highly credible. So that's interesting. Can you give an example? You might not be able to name people, but talk around it. Well, sure. Yeah. In one case. And again, I wouldn't share this if this was just sent to me from an X account, a burner account from someone. Or I would only share this if I had a strong sense that this was coming from a solid source. But in one case during a crash recovery, U.S. military personnel were recovering the vehicle. And another craft approached them and actually launched some kind of offensive action kinetically and killed multiple U.S. military personnel in the process. It just gives you a sense. And more, right? So again, I can't validate the true authenticity of these. They do come from credible sources, which I find highly notable. But they're corroborated by the intelligence picture that we can create for ourselves. There are multiple types of entities. There are multiple confirmed morphologies of craft. The craft are dogfighting in the sky. I think of the Gorman dogfight, right? So there are instances of these craft fighting each other. There are, we present a fascinating geopolitical picture for NHI to engage. We have China. We have Russia, USSR during the Cold War. The two are semi-collaborating, semi-competing still. We have the U.S. and the Western Liberal Alliance. So we have this hemispheric reality to the earth. And so that presents multiple different NHI, an opportunity to partner. And so I would not be surprised if one NHI is embedded with the Chinese and others have been historically embedded with the U.S. But also I think there are some indications the U.S. has resisted that, is actually in a full kinetic fight at the moment. We've heard tell from Ross Coltart via the people he's in touch with of the use of directed energy weapons and high pulse microwave beam weaponry to down craft. Now we might mischaracterize that as we're just hurting the good guys, downing their craft so we can weaponize their technology, get rich, become powerful. I think that's way too simplistic and childish a characterization. There are other indications of a longstanding frictional relationship between the West and whatever this presence is. And I wouldn't be surprised if Kennedy and his administration was trying to make overtures to the USSR and its leadership. And I wouldn't be surprised if deep elements within this government pulled the trigger for that reason and for a variety of, you know, thuggish prosaic motives, but also some geopolitical motives. So there's a factional fight underway for not just disclosure, not just access to NHI tech, but also to the potential lines of connection that run to whatever this intelligence is. So my assessment would be multiple entities, multiple multi-species groups, um, that are highly telepathic that are able to engage in projecting psionic force and projecting communications into society, you know, art of war. What's the first thing you do in, in, in, when you, when you're trying to gain advantage while you influence the information space long before the physical space, you pump society, the opposing society full of narratives. Now we've seen society in the West pumped to the, to the highest degree with NHI narratives. I see it all the day, all day, every day. And so I think there is a complex, uh, exo-political dynamic at play. I think it is collaborative and competitive. Um, I wouldn't be surprised if these multiple multi-species groups are in competition for position and access. I wouldn't be surprised if they are all commonly interested in the earth and its biology and its unique attributes as a planet. I would say planets of value, um, are notable in the universe and destruction of that value, as we have done destroying the earth could lead to a sudden influx of other interests. And, um, so we might find ourselves, you know, here we are the island nation, right? It's just us on our island. And we look out over the oceans and imagine the heavens and the spirit realms. Yeah. Well, our island is being brought right up to the continent. And now we're encountering continental realities of entities that have interacted and competed for who knows how long and have developed powerful technologies and telepathic abilities to influence one another. And those could be levied against our own kind at any time, even if the NHI, whatever they are, think that they're doing so for our, for our best interests. Uh, read for the purposes of time, I'm going to segue into the listener questions because there's some fantastic ways to weave in and out this conversation here. I've got a lot of different ways I could have went with you. So I think there should probably be a part two of this down the line. Um, sooner than later, I'd love to do. Um, but yeah, so many good questions sent over and I've kind of grouped them together in certain ways. So some of the bigger picture stuff, let's go with that first, uh, Rob. Hi, Reed. Do you feel that the NHI are at all concerned about disclosure or do you think they somehow have a tight control over the data? Good question. Um, well, you know, I just participated in a, uh, in new paradigm Institute's dis global disclosure day. And I, I took note when, um, I can't remember who it was. I think it was Ross. Actually, Ross Coltart mentioned in his conversations with David Grush, David Grush reported, um, that, that agreements had taken place. And, uh, Ross himself was, I believe, asking whether NHI might be, um, preventing the government from disclosing. I had never heard that from him before. And from, from many others in the field that NHI would actually be, uh, leveraging whatever control mechanisms they have over the government through agreements, uh, whether it's a technological superiority that they have, uh, asymmetric capability set to prevent a disclosure from taking place. Um, my sense based on everyone I've talked to and all the signals that I'm looking at is that, um, my assessment today would be, yes, I don't think NHI would want disclosure. I think they want to continue this more subtle, super long game, uh, engagement with humanity, um, affect us in, in the ways that they can on their timeline and not activate like, like a, like a hornet's nest, our human response. And that's why I think sudden and full disclosure is absolutely key. Regardless of the intent of NHI, it, it prefers the human interest, continued secrecy and covert operation of UAP prefers some select human interests who may actually be working with, for or against NHI, but also prefers a non-human interest in a blanket sense. So we absolutely need disclosure. I took note after the UAP hearings last fall, uh, which took place, I believe right before, uh, several months before Trump was sworn in inauguration day that we had this massive event, this, this anomalous drone activity all throughout the Northeast, the U S into Europe, Southeast Asia. Um, and I, I took it, I think signals, if I were to be an intelligence officer, advising the joint chiefs, what I would say is that, um, the Trump administration has made clear they want to do disclosure. Trump wants to be the disclosure president. Those UAP hearings brought forward some powerful assertions on a multi-decade secretive arms race over NHI tech. It also brought forward further indications of bodies and biologics and an extraterrestrial origin thesis, uh, behind NHI. And so all of that combines and what we see in our sky are all of these anomalous craft along with a lot of prosaic craft and the prosaic craft, the quadcopter type are chasing off the anomalous kind, as I've heard. And the defense companies came in with all their kit, you know, and they tried to down these craft and they couldn't, they couldn't disrupt them. So what does that tell you? I mean, to me, and of course it's, it's NHI by, by, uh, by exclusion. Like it's not us, it's not our adversaries. And so what then it's not the, it's not drone, it's not drone operators. And the whole FAA thing was absolute cover story, right? It was, it was unfortunately, was it lever, was it, was it forcing the Trump administration to deceive the American public because they would not be able to disclose as they, when they thought they could. So if I was the NHI and I want to impress upon the Trump administration, don't disclose, I would throw up some catastrophic disclosure threats up in the air over American cities and dangle that little carrot and stick over the administration and say, we can blow this open at any time and you can't handle it. And we will control the narrative by the way, not you. Uh, and we have other partners in the world, by the way, your adversaries possibly. And, you know, I think a scenario like that is a plausible one. And so of course the administration, what have they done? They've backed down, they backed away from this line. And so, you know, are there intimidation tactics being used? Uh, possibly I think let's not forget, you know, the United States and Hey, you're in great Britain. So you're already, you're already with me in this point. We are not, we are not the only thing happening on earth, right? So what is China doing with this phenomenon? We should be thinking about that. We should be thinking about the three body problem scenario that was so powerfully depicted, right? And I think highly strategically depicted, there was a message in there. There's a reason that that narrative is required reading in the defense community. Um, and it's not the Collins elite, right? So, um, it's not demons. It's, it's that events took place post-World War II contact occurred. And, um, in, in several cases, the, the entities were hostile and, and there is an attempt being undertaken to, um, to engineer, uh, the geopolitical playing field to rebalance power in the world. That's something that I have heard. So very quickly, not to get too off topic on that, if that's the case, and we're going to go with the assumption, the U S China, Russia, all are aware of this reality. This phenomenon may or may not be dealing with entities directly or indirectly, but they're aware of each other's circumstance. Why is Russia, for example, wasting so much time going after a nation like Ukraine, wasting personnel, munitions, time, money, efforts, when in the background, if you're Putin and I may be oversimplifying this, but if I know in the back of my mind, there are these alien species we're being interacted with, there's potential for hostility. Yeah, but I'm going to go after Ukraine and try and get that small piece of land or a bit of it and waste billions of dollars of equipment trying to do that. When you've got this bigger threat looming over you, that, that doesn't make sense to me. Well, it doesn't make sense for our interests. It might make sense for non-human interests and the non-human factor in the equation. I mean, if it's all, if we just equate this as human actor on human actor, I don't, it's going to start to not make sense. It's going to start to be very anomalous looking. Well, I think, you know, no wonder there's something anomalous in our world. Yeah. I think one thing I look forward to is, is some kind of empirical validation of, of the use of a psychic or psionic force against another individual, whether it's technologically generated or it's generated by a mind. If that can be validated, we then have indications that that force could be amplified to unknown, to unknown levels and targeted with tremendous, like, you know, shaped precision upon one individual, a world leader, for example, or his national security council or the, or just the advisors who shape the agenda of that security council. So in this way, you know, are, are individuals in positions of power doing things for which there is no human calculus to do? They are, they are truly non-human moves. And I think we should be, we should be asking the question. We should be figuring out how to, how to demonstrate or validate it. But yes, why is Russia wasting so much life, manpower, money, global position, shredding the global alliances over Ukraine, over the Donbass, right? It's a resource rich territory, you know, Hitler went out of the way for it. And that's partly, partly why he wasn't able to take Moscow by winter is because he went out of the way for Ukraine. So it's interesting how, you know, again, we have these long standing kind of sinkholes of human effort, you know, take Gaza as another, that, that again, you know, a non-human actor, all they would need to do is encourage us to do what we do in certain specific ways, do more of that, keep going, do a little bit less of that. And, you know, I see, I see some intentional efforts to obfuscate the UAP science and research community to offer them money. I think, you know, I've, I've heard tell that the DOD is offering money to UAP organizations all of a sudden this year. I'm thinking to myself, okay, is this to buy satellite time, right? Is this to steer the research agenda? Is this to point the telescope away from the thing once again? And so, you know, it's, it's, it's at this point in the game, 80 years in, it's probably not them and us as separate distinct intents. I think unfortunately the human and the non-human have come together and there could be a collaborative intent and there could be multiple of them in competition. So welcome to the complex playing field of life. It sucks. I, I'm sorry. I wish it was as simple as like it's A or B right now. I do think there is a simple representation that could be made of a complex reality, right? Like, you know, when, when, when, when, um, when Neville Chamberlain came back off, off the plane from Munich, waving the paper in the hand, right? There was a simple explanation as to what happened in the end in historical 2020 hindsight, right? So complex events do have a simple representative truth to them. And I think that is a play here. And I don't, I think, unfortunately, our clarity has been, has been blurred and obscured way more than it needs to be. We don't need to be inventing 50 different origins of NHI intent. We don't need to imagine 50 races engaging. We don't, it's, there is something more direct occurring and with clarity, we can begin to respond to it. And that's, that's the purpose of my book, uh, my course for runner, um, and my work on emergent is to, is to offer that clarity as a starting point, not to say it's mutually exhaustive. I'm sorry, collectively exhaustive, right? That it's, that that's all that's happening. But where do you begin with this? where do you start? If humanity doesn't have a starting point that can then be a platform for united response, um, we're lost and, and we're, we're easy pickings by any number of actors. I think a good question to follow on with a purple burglar, uh, almost my favorite name to say, um, if the non-human intelligences have an agenda that depends on humanity's unawareness of it, what kind of knowledge or realization do you think would actually disarm that agenda? Great question. Now, and now you're thinking, uh, thinking human. Um, and I love that. Well, I think again, you know, taking a first principles logic driven approach to interpreting physical structured craft, intelligent control, non-human biologics ETI, right? So when you start to frame it that way and you, you, you take out of anyone's toolkit, the ability to say, oh no, they're from other dimensions or, oh no, they're from the Bible. They're demons. Don't even don't, don't think about them. Don't look at them. Don't study them. Collins elite, right? Don't go there. Like these tools that trigger our belief structures, our fears are, are, could be used against us at any time. And so anchoring yourself into logic, caution, responsible thinking, and, and starting with a nature and science first approach, not to say again, not collectively exhaustive, but a good starting point I think equips us. Um, I think taking the controversy off of solely the government and putting it on the, the non-human factor is also important because something or someone is really encouraging us to think that the USG and its defense partners have the whole thing. They're housing it all. And it's like, that's sequela folks. The event is, is the engagement at the species-wide level. If you frame this within the national security complex, well, a, you empower the national security complex. Now they feel, ah, yes, we have, we do have all the keys. Thank you very much for giving us all the keys, everyone. And you'll get none of them. Oh, you want to enter a fight with us. You want to, you want to do battle? We'll do battle. We've done it for a hundred years. Right. And so we're in this altercation with our own government and, and the non-governmental, the defense community, et cetera. And I get that we need key insights, but society internationally can disclose this begin to on its own. There is a conversation that can be had with experiencers globally. And an intelligence picture arises right out of that. It's, it's not that exotic. Now the defense communities can corroborate the findings of society. And so this misplaced center of controversy, I think is another one that we could intentionally recenter to good effect. And it's a great question. Love to explore it more. Uh, and I'm going to have to leave out some other great questions, just getting through so many of these. So, uh, if you've not had your question answered, and then we will get to it next time I have read on, um, KR says, why is it, why is it intent singular and not intense plural? We as humans have multiple intents with lower intelligences. An octopus could encounter a hunter and a conservationist in one day. In either of those cases, intents can be mixed as the hunter may be looking to feed a hungry family and the conservationist may be ego driven. We are the non octopus intelligence with multiple intents across our species alone and each intent itself, a complex layered construct. Great comment. I think it is intense plural. Um, but I don't think it's quite the rainbow that we, we, we might imagine it to be. It's not everything all at once operating together in our atmosphere today. Uh, and the reason is when you look at the amount of infrastructure it would require to operate this program, I'm talking about the human side too. I'm talking about the human crash recovery, reverse engineering, the human collaborative infrastructure, the bases, the, the underwater facilities, whatever it takes to facilitate the human, uh, abduction phenomenon. That is, that is a considerable operation. Would that entity allow a benevolent set of, you know, altruistic entities to come and what they would have to stop those other entities that that's called a war. And so would a beneficial entity or form of life really be equipped or intentful to get into our world, to do combat with another form of life that wanted to, to undermine humanity's interests kinetically. Um, I, I think that's hard to imagine. I think one would chase off the other. I think, uh, the rainbow of intense would bound, would, would become, um, zoned like, like there would be, uh, constricted bands of intent. So there, there could be a, a, a, a hostile exploitative resource acquiring kind. There might be one that's more transactional, more long-term relationship. Right. And that might split out into possibly one that wants to kind of grab and go like, yep, let's make some deals, take some humans. We're out, we're gone. And then another that actually wants to integrate and actually bring us into their paradigm or place themselves into the, into our paradigm over a long period. Again, maybe two to three intense, not 10, not 50. And it's, it's too contestable a space. There's too much vested hardware and infrastructure and long-term presence to suggest that it's literally, you know, a nature park and, and scientists from all sorts of universities can be there along with the poachers. I just, I, you know, these differing intents will not tolerate each other because, you know, and I want to make a point here. This is important because people often say, Oh, read your, your, your anthropomorphizing this is, this sounds all too human, right? These, these are super entities. Their consciousness is just way beyond ours. We can never understand their intent. Now I disagree. We can never understand their consciousness, right? Their cognition. Yes. Agreed. Their intent for my purposes is assessing their activity and behavior in its impact on humanity and the human outcome. Now, whatever the NHI are, they're operating here with us. We are the material that they are working with. And so wouldn't they want to use typical, um, strategies and tactics that work human on human in their purposes to affect humans? It's a human project, right? Whatever they're doing here is about doing something with us. And so it will come in, in human terms. And I wouldn't be surprised if that hundred year observation that took place prior to engagement was to scoop up our data set, which we began to transmit into space quite, uh, erroneously, probably in the, in the forties and fifties and to run a massive large language model upon it, essentially, and to figure out how to interact, how to influence and ultimately how to steer. Uh, and, um, you know, I, I don't think it's just anyone and everyone in that game. I think there are multiple intents that, that are collaborative, competitive, and some that might be neutral, more observational still. Um, but, um, those neutral observational forces, they may not be able or permitted to operate on the ground or at will in the world. There might be too much at stake for a variety of other actors. And I suppose it would be fair to assume that if, if indeed with the amount of data, you make the point we are, we're streaming out there into the universe and have been for a long time. If another species had, uh, a slightly more advanced large language model, they could take the data, run the numbers and predict how we as a species are going to go, how we are going to develop, how we're going to evolve. And I suppose off of that workout, are we worth the time short, medium and long-term? And perhaps that would maybe explain some of the ideas that they've observed or surveyed. They've, they've run the studies on us as a species. I know when I spoke to Gary Nolan some time ago, and one of my first interviews with him, he mentioned the idea that the, the cattle mutilations could be a study of our food chain. And that's why another species would be abducting cow. And it sounds crazy to the general public. Why would, why would a UFO abduct a cow? Well, we're checking what we eat, you know, and there's so much more you can check. And even genetically are there small or large ways you can, you can change or influence our genetics through our food chain in that respect. If you're analyzing another species to figure out what, how, how to, how to work with them, you would have to undertake thousands of individual studies of every aspect of how they reproduce, how they cognate, how they enter into relationships, religion, culture, everything, and, and their food chain for sure. I'll also mention that, you know, a bovine animal is quite the, quite the walking blood bag. I mean, it's got how many liters more blood than, than a human does. And so if, if plasma or skin tissue or, you know, kind of a protein, certain proteins within the body are, are a cherished resource for whatever end. And again, exo politically, we don't know, we don't understand the lines that run from whatever NHI is in our world out into the exosystem beyond. We have no notion of that, which is why I wouldn't, I wouldn't, uh, bar, bar the possibility of exo political disclosures coming our way to, to warn us as to what those lines of connection are. Where do the abductees go off planet? Where do these resources get transited to? Without that fuller intelligence picture, it's very difficult for our species stuck on the ground, uh, to access, assess the continental reality that our little island people is now thrust within. Um, so yeah. We've mentioned abductions and I think that's a good, uh, good time to bring in some of these questions. Um, distractions in the wind says, are abductions clinically similar to how we capture animals to study and to manage species? Uh, and as part of that, why hybrids are they going to replace us? Um, is it a similar, or I'm not, I'm not a, uh, a species ethologist, uh, someone who studies species interaction, et cetera. Um, but no, I, I don't think it's entirely similar. I mean, they're not just shooting a dart at us, checking our vitals, and then putting us back in the wild. There's a lot more that's, that's taking place. There's a deep emotional connection being established. Um, there seems to be a rearranging of one's sense of self and identity for those who've had direct experiences. Many who, who today say that their experience has been profoundly good. If you look at the early parts of their testimony, when they first came out, they were absolutely terrified. They're absolutely, their, their life was in shambles. And so, okay. That you put your life back into order, but what order who's order or ordered around what? And, and this is my concern is that in some of these interactions, there's a takedown of the person. There's kind of a stripping down of them and, and they are, they're stark and naked on craft or psych psychologically. And then, and then something happens to impress a warm and fuzzy feeling, you know, a presence upon them, a brotherhood, a galactic federation, a narrative of what have you. And so that's why we need to get in, into the ring and really understand the experiencer account and really bring in the psychologists, those who study and focus on, um, on hostage scenarios to understand what happens in the psychology of a hostage. What, what, what are we really looking at here? Um, and so does it, does it match that perfectly? No, I think it's much deeper. It's, it is more relational. Um, it's again, presupposes an intention for a long-term involvement. It's not just grab study and then put them back. Um, there, there is an attempt to really weave together in some fashion for some end, which, you know, is, is amazing, fascinating, but also could be highly alarming. And we have to, again, on our own human terms, in the end, you can believe whatever you want about who's here, why they're here, love light, you know, elimination, takedown, you know, the grays are bad, the tall whites are good, whatever. In the end, what does the international community think? What comes before the floor of the UN? Yeah, the human family must make a policy that makes sense to a collective, hopefully a consensus, a majority and one that is consensus driven and just saying, okay, good. The white, the tall whites are good. Let's do, let's go with them. And the grays, they're out. That's not a policy, right? And it's not a policy built on anything other than conjecture and hope. So we need new data sets to be generated. We need to target, we need to do targeted research upon that and generate findings for decision-makers, put that into the international community, devise the framework for the international management of this non-human presence, ensure public safety, figure out the lines of potential influence taking place, whether it's to leadership, whether it's to our technologies, whether it's putting Trojan tech into the markets that could make some very, very rich and some very, very poor. And the ones that get rich are the partners and the ones that are poor are the ones that didn't sign on the line, right? We have to rule those out, make sure that's not happening. And in the end, a common policy in the human interest, and I know it doesn't sound good, and it's not to say it's the only forever policy. But it is one that absolutely makes sense, is that humanity is not united enough, does not have the capabilities to discern friend from foe. We cannot corroborate claims made by NHI. We cannot corroborate claims that they made us, that they've stewarded us, that they were the ones in the Bible, the ones on the cave art. Well, maybe they're different ones today. How would we know? We can't know. That's the truth. We are incapable of discerning the veracity of NHI claims. And so the policy would be a full remove and reset. All NHI entities must remove themselves from the earth system completely and provide some respectful distance and time for humanity to acknowledge their existence, which is important and profound, and devise our human-centered response. Human-centered meaning, centered in values and the human intent, which has yet to even be articulated in this context. And then we re-engage diplomatically. And I would say if any entity would not give us that space and the allotment of time to devise contact on our terms, I would say they're here with intentions that are not in our best interest. So here's a test right there. Would they remove themselves? Sure. Really interesting idea. Here's one that goes a bit deep. Bad Aliens Info, who sent a few questions in, asks, if abductions follow family lines and prior to incarnation, the soul chooses its parents, in effect, is the soul choosing abduction? Well, let's step back again and take the nature-based perspective. So we hybridize all the time. We hybridize plants, animals, food products. We genetically modify them. We do direct genetic interventions into them to prefer certain traits over others or to swap traits, right? So who's to say a non-human, a highly technological set of forces couldn't do the same to us? Pluck a few humans, prefer certain traits, follow the family lineage, breed that out, genetically do some genetic swapping, and so forth. Maybe there's a certain ethnicity in the world that has a certain kind of neurological profile that matches their neurological profile or that makes it easier to work with. Again, there's not necessarily malevolence in any of this. This is engineering another species. We do it all the time. Maybe someone's doing it to us and they think they're doing it because we're warlike and chaotic and we wouldn't be best kept in our natural state, right? Which is the end of the leave no trace argument. It's the end of the ecologist, the NHI ecologist argument, which is now they're stepping in to edit us, okay? Without certainly our knowledge or our consent. So if your soul chose you and you was part of a longitudinal abduction program, did your soul choose abductions? I think that's too many logical leaps and bounds to make. If this, then that's. So one has to assess, okay, does the soul choose the body? That's a question of faith for many. But if so, and that individual is affected tangentially by the abduction phenomenon, I don't think that the soul necessarily chose that as a fait accompli. It was a done deal. Because again, I don't necessarily know that there's one abduction program going on. I don't know if there's one type of genetic intervention going on. There's many ways. There could be multiple competing programs, right? They could be doing different things. We have the Dan Sherman account of being an intuitive communicator of having been taken out of the womb at birth, genetically altered slightly to have a capability opened up so that he could communicate with NHI on behalf of their program and the coordination of the abduction program. That's his story to my knowledge. I've read the book, by the way. It is worth reading. Does that make him a hybrid? I don't know. There's a lot of genetic variation as it stands already. And so I wouldn't say it's a fait accompli, that it's a done deal. And so, but I do think we should be thinking in terms of NHI observing us, observing a variety of traits, some that they think are beneficial and some not, and choosing to amplify the beneficial with unknown ramifications for our interests. I think that's a very intelligent way to begin to look at what people allege is a hybridization program. Just to mash a few of those last couple of questions up a little bit, something that's often asked in this community is why does it seem that abductions and the abduction phenomenon has slowed down so much, almost to the point it looks like it's stopped compared to where it was 20, 30, 40 years ago. But to think about the idea that we capture and study different animals and from a complete layman's perspective here, as always, as with me, the idea that we will follow species and we will capture them, but we'll tag a species. Let's just pick dolphins, for example, and we can tag a pod of dolphins and we can follow them for days, weeks, months, generations of those dolphins through reproduction, through the death of different dolphins, and then basically find their migration patterns. We can see how their food chains change. That's not too dissimilar to what some of these abductions through lineages sound like in various ways, shapes and forms. Is that something perhaps then that may be going on that while if you look at it from a point of view of the West, abductions may have slowed down. We don't know that, for example, a society like China, abductions may be more rife and rampant, however discussed far less. And from that perspective, we don't get as much information out of China on most topics, let alone, oh, are UFO abductions happening quite often over there? Same for India, Pakistan, same for Africa, maybe tribes in small African regions. How could the abduction phenomenon move to different aspects of our society? And in the West, the US, the UK, Europe, we often think about, oh, well, the abduction phenomenon stopped or slowed down. No, it's just progressed or moved on. Right. It's entered a different phase potentially. And I think to think in terms of phases is important. Also, I mean, it's evident to me that whatever is doing this doesn't want us to know it's doing it. And so it's going to change its behavior when it feels like it's at risk of being detected. I mean, when you look at accounts by experiencers, there seems to be measures taken to prevent loved ones from waking up, from sensors, cameras, et cetera, turning on, et cetera. This is a leave no evidence scenario. I talked to a researcher in Brazil who is reporting how there's a very different engagement pattern being reported in Brazil versus Peru versus Argentina. There's many cattle mutilations in Argentina that's rarely reported in Brazil. In Peru, people report having these amazing eye-opening consciousness expanding encounters. In Brazil, I wouldn't say it's not happening there per se, but individuals are being what seems to be targeted with laser-like instruments on the ground. And as it's being reported, they're young girls in a pubescent age range, right? So it's like, okay, is NHI doing different things in different places to kind of make it harder to figure out the whole? Is NHI choosing different peoples, different ethnicities, different age groups, religions, et cetera, because they're seen as more beneficial, long range. I don't think we know that abductions are slowing down. To your point, Andy, I mean, gosh, abductions may be slowing down in the US, but China could be a farm, a human farm for taking people. How do we know? Sub-Saharan Africa, if you were the NHI and if you had deemed the US government non-compliant, non-hospitable to the program that you entered into, wouldn't you go to the Congo or, you know, Equatorial Guinea or Pakistan and find a more hospitable partner and do whatever you want to do, right? And I'm sure that partner would offer zero disclosure and maximum secrecy if desired. And so we offer, again, a panoply of exploitable vulnerabilities should they ever be chosen to be exploited. And that's, again, that's not necessarily the only thing happening, but we offer them. And so, you know, one of the things I need, I think that needs to happen is whoever is researching abductions, experiencer accounts, there's not that many that I'm aware of, of researchers and organizations, they need to come together in a coalition and really unite resources and minds and generate new findings. Post-1994, John Mack, Harvard conference. We need a new iteration, a John Mack 2.0 conference on the state of abduction research. And we need to bring in new revolutionary capabilities, AI and machine learning, right? Run that upon the subjective testimonial record and look for, again, you know, Gary Nolan, garbage in possibly, right? But not garbage out with AI, right? There might be gold out because AI can look for patterns that basically disable corrupted signatures or corrupted narratives from kind of, you know, spoiling the whole batch. So I think we have a whole new set of capabilities. There has to be broad openness to listen to people who have had direct encounters, right? Many of these people are remembering this consciously, not under hypnosis. This is equivalent to someone saying, a guy opened my door last night and, you know, sexually assaulted my child and then ran away. If they find that guy, he's going to court, he's going to prison for life, you know? And so why would someone saying an entity of unknown type entered my home and performed these experiments on me, took me outside my home, returned me back. I have puncture wounds on my body. I have bruises. I have a foreign object in my body. My whole neurological profile is different. My blood tests are anomalous. Why would we throw that out? That's critical that we respond to. And I think some kind of longitudinal study of a small cohort of people who claim to be active abductees would be very important here to help compare that to what a mass kind of machine learning analysis can do of the experience or data set. I'm going to ask one more listener question, then I want to finish off getting your thoughts on Colonel Carl Nell, for the love of Christ. It's so many difficult names to say with a Scottish accent. And Colonel Carl Nell has recent statements made. But Melanie asks, and again, apologies to everyone, I've not got through your questions. There are so many I'm leaving out here, but I will get read back on soon. Melanie asks, and this is a personal one going back to what you said at the start with your own experiences. How do you know who you're communicating with? There's a long history of NHI emotionally manipulating and worse. That isn't a being I would trust. So how do you know? Well, great question. For many, they may have to honestly decide they can't, and therefore they shouldn't engage because they can't. And it's not that they're not open or that they're fearful or fear-based. It's simply they're being honest and they're being sober. I think sobriety is very important here. Would I go out into a field and vector in a craft and let it play with me, download information to my mind, presumably bi-directional, take information out? I wouldn't at this point. Why would I do that? What am I playing with? And so knowing your intentions is pretty important here. Why are you even focused on this topic? What interests you? How are you being called into it? I was called into it. That's why I'm doing all of this. I'm not making money off of this. I guarantee you that. I'm sacrificing my money-making daylight hours to work on this. But that's because my commitment is to humanity. It's to the project of helping get the world ready for this. I'm connected to that. So in light of that, I'm not going to go out into a field and offer myself up as a psionic and then help land the egg. That's not where I'm at. It's a great question though because some are receiving communications no matter what. It's coming through. I think there is a vetting process. There are trust indicators that you need to pay attention to. There are red flags. And in my course, Decoding NHI Intent, I basically go through that in the last part of the course. What are the trust indicators? What are the red flags? I call that the intent framework. My hope is that that's a framework that the average citizen can use at any time to support themselves because they're not going to be supported yet. Society is not going to help you with this at this point. You have to help yourself. So people need those tools. I would vet it over time. I would be cautious of an all or nothing kind of narrative like, we are your everything. If you turn away from us, these terrible things will happen to you. Beware gaslighting in terms of your response. Doubt, uncertainty is totally natural. Fear, totally natural emotional. It's kept us alive for millions of years. That's why we're here. Fear is an adaptive emotion preferred by evolution. So for an entity to say, do not be fearful, any fear is a sign of X, Y, or Z, and we're going to pull out or that you're not going to be one of the chosen ones. That is highly manipulative behavior. So I think psychics have a lot to offer here, the psychic community who has been interacting in this space for a long time. I've talked to a number of psychics. They would counsel you to be extremely cautious opening yourself up, right? Because there's all sorts of stuff floating out there. Do you know how to do psychic hygiene? Do you know how to clean yourself if you're going to go jump into the muddy lake? It's a question. And there are techniques to psychically cleanse your environment. I also think psychology has a lot to offer here because there are a lot of subtle, manipulative, even narcissistic tactics that can be used against us that are almost invisible. We do it to each other. And again, I'm not saying, I'm not projecting that on NHI to say that they're like that. I'm saying that is a toolkit that's well-tried and tested on earth that they may have understood that we do to each other and they may use because it works, right? It's all utility. And so psychology needs to weigh in on how we can look for signs of narrative control of Stockholm syndrome, like syndromatic responses where you become attached to the one that is contravening your sovereignty, et cetera. But I take a base kind of premise of free will, bodily safety, psychic space or sovereignty, and the ability to choose one's own way with agency. So if the phenomenon is just entering your mind without asking to enter your mind, if it's racing you down the road to a tight emotional bond without any acknowledgement that there's a process to, it's like, take the relationship model. Do you just jump in with someone you met off the street? Do you, do you open their bank, your bank account to them? Do you, do you let them live in your basement when you don't even know their first name? No, it's a process of getting to know. So how do you get to know, how do you verify for yourself? Guard against gaslighting. It happens all the time with experiencers. Don't be fear-based, be loving. That's a 100% gaslighting strategy. Um, and I think there's more we can get into it. It's good stuff. Uh, final thoughts then, because I know we're going to run out of time. And like I say, folks in multiple times, I'll get read back on soon to go through more questions. And some of them are left out read because I think we'd go down such a thread of conversation with even less time. Um, but I think a nice place to kind of wrap up is as part of global disclosure day with the new paradigm Institute, which you were a part of. And just to say, you got some wonderful comments from folks about your own performance amongst some of the huge names in ufology. So well done with those. I'll pass on the congratulations from folks. Um, Colonel Carnell, he made, uh, a statement, which has got folks talking on social media that he feels this cycle of disclosure has come to an end. He feels that the, what started in 2017, I don't think that's an unfair timeframe to take things. 2017 New York times, Louis Elizondo to the stars, all that stuff kicking off has got us to this point. I think the hearings are a direct correlation of what happened back then and where we've got to, he feels we perhaps have, I've had that point of the way I see it. We're banging our heads now on the glass ceiling and there perhaps needs to be a different path. What was your take on, uh, Carnell's comments and where we go from there? Yeah. I appreciated his candid, uh, take on the situation as he sees it. I can imagine some significant professional frustration. Uh, I know a lot of individuals really wanted a line to the, to the new administration that, that, that line may have closed or been not offered. Um, I don't know what happened with age of disclosure, the documentary, um, and, and many of the background efforts to kind of shape the legislative response and, um, et cetera, and the administration's response. So I think, I think there's frustration. Who knows? Is it personal? Is it factional? Cause there are multiple factions at play. Um, I don't necessarily see the cycle ending. I think this has been cracked open for the public. The public is actually eager to, to walk in. I call it the UFO conversation. I have it at checkout lanes at the hospital with the doctor, the nurse, I have it all the time. And, and people, if you approach it with kind of that empirical, logical kind of first principles, first approach, and you speak kind of like I'm talking right now, and don't just throw, start throwing out wild speculations. People take you seriously. They're willing to, and I've, I have convinced many people out there to take this seriously. I've done that at cafes, restaurants, train stations, airports, sat next to people on airplanes, had the deep two hour dive. And then after that, they'll never forget. So the public is open. I think 2017 in this quote cycle has moved the Overton window. Um, it has shifted this off its former footings where it was fixed for so long, we are on new footings. And that actually is a dip. That's a call for citizen advocates. Now it's not enough for five or six big name individuals to be out there around Congress and the, and the Senate trying to orchestrate it all. I'm not convinced the UAP. I'm not surprised the UAPDA was not included into the language of, of the, um, of the NDAA. Um, this is one more obstacle in a long process, a long fight, expand your frame, expand out of this moment of disclosure, look at the whole species interaction, think internationally and get creative. And you know, this is what I do. I do solutions design. I, I know some things about the phenomenon. I don't know everything. I'm very open to learning more and I'm actually a part of gathering those key data sets and getting the investigatory effort off and away because it's not sufficiently up and running yet. Um, I'm co-chairing a series called investigating non-human intelligence. It starts November 7th, encourage people to watch and also encourage other thought leaders, researchers, investigators to speak at the series because we're trying to create a united front of, of society led investigation. That's not contingent on the Pentagon being a good actor or Congress being the vehicle by which I just, I've never believed that Congress or the, or the DOD, the DOW would be that for us. It's always been citizen first, citizen disclosure. I also think the citizens carry the bulk of the historic record of the phenomenon. I don't believe Northrop Grumman necessarily knows. I don't believe the CIA directorate of, of operations necessarily has the correct picture. They may be extremely misguided, self-obfuscated or manipulated through their variety of interactions around this. So do not look for the full picture from within human authority, uh, structures, look for it in society. And because also there, this is where the, the phenomenon has made its deepest point of penetration and intimate touch with the human species. It's the individual. We are those individuals. And this is where my message, my work is all about putting agency back in the hands of, of the citizen because agency is yanked away and we, we let it go ourselves. This whole framing of disclosures about us on government, we've lost agency. They have all the power, all the evidence, all the data. We just, we're banging our heads on the, on the iron gates of the Pentagon. So you have way more agency than you think if a thousand citizens got highly involved, if 30 PhDs got highly involved, um, if citizen research groups formed and got into the field and figured out what's going on, wow, we could move the needle considerably. And so there's a misplaced agency here and, and center of controversy. And I think we need to guard our own mental discipline on this and really like kind of query ourselves inside, on the inside. Like, why am I, why am I doing this? What am I, what am I, what am I doing this for? Like, what is all this for? Why watch these podcasts? Why listen to this conversation? Like, do you need to be involved? Uh, and there are, there are definitely ways to do that. Get in touch with me. If you're, if you're wondering how I'm happy to route you, uh, to any number of good organizations and efforts, um, that are, that are underway, but back to Carl's comments. Um, I don't see it that way. Um, because my framing is different. I see this as international whole world, a part of a long game process of us coming to terms with this presence and responding to it. Um, fight the good fight, right? I don't think the good fight is in, is in only in Congress. And I think if we narrow ourselves too much, we will be defeated on those limited battle lines. And so that's why getting more more of society engaged. Well, a, that'll help Congress because what can Congress do if the American public think are highly allergic to this or resistant to it? It's difficult for them. Um, but so if society activates, um, I think we can get this down the road in new ways. Yeah. The way I've looked at this read after seeing Carl Nail's comments is, um, I visited New York in 2004, 2005 for different events, uh, as a youngster. Um, and I remember going to the Empire State Building and getting a lift from the ground floor. I believe it goes up about 80 floors. People may know better than me. And it's a high speed elevator, but it doesn't take you to the top. It takes you far enough. You then have to get off. You have to walk around the floor and get another elevator, a shorter distance, but that takes you to where you want to go because you want to be at the top. However, on the way up, you can get off at different floors. People can get on at different floors. You don't all have to go on at the bottom. And that's the way I see the last seven or eight years, perhaps that we've got the high speed elevator. And for a lot of folks, they've got on, maybe they got on the ground floor. Maybe they've been on this a while. Maybe they got on halfway up. We've all had to get off though, perhaps now around that 80th floor. It doesn't mean the journey's finished and we're not going to get to the top. We just have to go find a different elevator. Some folks will take the stairs. Some folks might wait around, but I think we're going to get there. We just have to look at there's another way to get to the top. And do you know what? Perhaps we're not that far away from it now. If I could tag onto that great analogy, you know, we might get to the top of that spiral staircase to the very, very tippy top of the door is locked. We're not allowed. And so be satisfied with a view at the 80th floor. It's a good view up there. And I think already with what we have, we can get to the 40th floor. I take the football analogy. It's like, we need to score a touchdown on this, right? We're getting scored on all up and down the field. Well, let's get off the one yard line and you don't get off the one yard line by theorizing about the infinite possibilities of the cosmos. You build your argumentation, your understanding and argumentation on the data we have. You could get more data. You think logically. Now you're at the 30 yard line, right? And now what do you need to do? Get across half, you know, midfield. American football, sorry, not your football. What can I say? Here I am. I see plenty of it. I see plenty of it on Sky Sports News. Yeah. But, um, you know, we, we are way, we are more the running backs and the wide receivers than we think we are. And, um, the quarterbacks are throwing the ball and we're not catching. So society is not catching the ball. That's even thrown to them. Maybe that's part of Carl's frustration is, you know, there are, there are, there are opportunities to quote, take to, to dig in and to, and to go somewhere with it and it doesn't take, why is it not taking? There are obviously elements that don't want it to take, right? You know, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base is, is, is well informed on all the movements that I'm sure are being made in Congress on this. So they're there. They're, they're not, they're not going away. Um, but you know, that's why citizens engaged in, um, calling for disclosure, citizens engaged in efforts to track and detect UAP, citizens engaged in decoding the intent of the phenomenon. To me, those are key lines of effort and everyone is invited. Well, Reed, finish off last word for yourself. How can folks find you? How can they find a podcast and also anything else you want to plug? Yep. Tune me, uh, tune into me on emergent. I'm, uh, live or prerecorded with guests and, uh, intelligent commentary, uh, every other week or so, uh, find me on Forerunner, my new platform for those who are, want to basically go further in decoding intent. There's a course there. There's evidence and key indicators there and a, and a good community of people inspired to kind of take this conversation forward. UFOevidence.com, exciting groundbreaking platform that is going to be presenting a strength of evidence scoring system to the public and onboarding the public to the phenomenon in a highly intelligent media rich way. Get on the email list, be part of the early adopter community. Uh, I know UFOE is looking for, um, a crowd to help run and improve and strengthen the site. So get up on the mailing list there and then, um, join me, uh, and, um, others at the investigating NHI series. I'll be co-chairing that with Ted Rowe of UAP med, and we're going to have Mike Saffone of the society for UAP studies, give the first talk. Gary Nolan of Stanford is giving the second talk. We've got a, an amazing lineup of speakers coming and we're going to, with targeted emphasis and focus, try to penetrate the heart of this reality, um, from with the most credible and empirical methods. So hope you can be there for that. And thank you, Andy, for your show. I I'm a fan. I've appreciated all your work. I mean, this is the conversation we need to be having. So all the more that we can have it, the better. 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.