Sol Symposium 2025: Event Highlights, Key Speakers, and Exclusive Interviews

Instagram teen accounts have automatic protections for what teens see and who can contact them, plus time management tools. And Instagram will continue adding built-in safety features to help create age-appropriate experiences. Learn more about teen accounts and Instagram's ongoing work to protect teens online at instagram.com slash teenaccounts. Running a business is hard enough. Don't make it harder with a dozen apps that don't talk to each other. One for sales, another for inventory, a separate one for accounting? That's software overload. Odoo is the all-in-one platform that replaces them all. CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce, HR. Fully integrated, easy to use, and built to grow with your business. Thousands have already made the switch. Why not you? Try Odoo for free at odoo.com. That's odoo.com. Hi everyone and welcome back to That UFO Podcast. My name is Andy and this is a special episode as I'm back from my time at the Sol Symposium 2025. And I'm going to talk about what happened at the event, some of the highlights for me. And then at the end, stick around because I've got a couple of interviews I recorded at the venue with some of the speakers who attended. And I've stuck those on at the end. If you get a chance, maybe try and catch the videos of those interviews. You'll see those on YouTube. Or if you're on Patreon and such, I'm going to upload them for this particular show. Because you'll see this stunning backdrop to the event that was held at Lake Maggiore in the Grand Hotel Dino, just outside of Milan, around one hour away. Now, this was my first ever proper organized UFO conference, folks. I've been to a couple of smaller local ones in the UK a few years ago. But in terms of the big names, this was my first. And honestly, I think since Sol's inception now, what, three years ago, this was our third symposium. This has been the event that I have most wanted to attend just due to the quality of the speakers and the atmosphere. And I suppose how I like to approach the topic right now, this for me, is something that I found really important. And I'll be honest, I was a little wary beforehand of how will I feel after the event? Having attended, having spoken to some of these people, having spoken to the attendees and speakers alike, you know, how do you feel coming out of it? Do you feel flat, deflated, refreshed? You know, I wasn't sure. And I'm going to say it was really, really, really positive. Now, I'm going to run through some of the speakers and the talks that were given. I'm not going to talk about everything because I didn't attend everything. I didn't have time. I'll go over some of that. And also, the live stream is still up until the 2nd of November to pay for to get a chance to watch the talks. And then the talks are going up available for free on Sol's YouTube platform. So keep an eye out for details on that. But worth noting, folks, during the Q&A sections, I did get to ask questions to both Carl Nell and then Jake Barber. And I've got the transcripts of what I said on those questions and the answers from both. So, yeah, I arrived there flying from Edinburgh to Milan. And then we traveled with a couple of listeners. I went in a car to the venue, which was stunning, like I say. On the Friday night, there was a fundraiser dinner for the speakers and some of the clientele that perhaps have a little more walking around money than someone like myself can afford. But I really enjoyed my Friday evening getting to meet people and speak to people around the hotel and the bar. And as I go through this, I really hope folks realize that, for me, an event like this serves several purposes. The audience is incredibly varied with people from really, really interesting backgrounds. There was a section of folks sitting in the auditorium in the big, big room where the talks were held, where you couldn't take pictures or film because they were from various backgrounds. They didn't want to be on camera. But, yeah, they had some really interesting and lofty positions, very senior backgrounds from big organizations. I spoke to some who actually approached me, who listened to the show. They work for either three-letter agencies or space agencies, and were there in their capacity. They didn't want to be on camera or be named or be photographed in background. So, yeah, thank you if you're listening. It was really nice to meet you. I won't name you. And I've been told from previous conferences that people go to that the networking and the meetings that happen between speakers and attendees alike are the key to these events more than the actual talks. And from being then in person, I can see why that is. It was really heartening and refreshing to see the shoots of new initiatives, new partnerships, new collaborations happening, from suggestions being made on the stage regarding policy or things that could happen, and off the stage as well. Now, I attended most of the talks on day one, and with a few meetings, catch-ups, and recordings, I had a bit more of a mix on day two. Due to the schedule of the event, only coming out after I had booked the flights, I wasn't the only one who ended up missing a brilliant morning on day three that I'll go into as well. But, yeah, I'll get a hold of what happened on those days and kind of update accordingly. And I need to give a massive shout-out to the Master of Ceremonies, Marek von Renningkampf. He is a journalist and researcher. People will know him from his work with The Hill. And, yeah, really nice guy. You've seen him on the podcast before. It was wonderful meeting Marek. Top guy. Great to meet him. And I'll go into the first talk then, folks, and it was with one of the stars of the UFO topic right now, especially from a mainstream aspect, I suppose, Dr. Beatrice Villarreal, very much hitting the headlines after the publication of two papers in scientific and nature journals. So she had her talk. And Dr. Beatrice Villarreal, what I'll do, folks, is very quickly fill in who these people are, if you're unfamiliar, and then give you a very quick taster of what was talked about within those talks. Now, she leads the Vasco Project, which is the vanishing and appearing sources during a century of observations. Her team compares near-century-old starfield photographs with modern surveys hunting for light sources that have literally disappeared. As I explained to my wife, she will look at pictures of stars and compare the same picture maybe a few months later. And you can see that some of those quote-unquote stars are no longer there, and that's not how that should work. So she described objects that were once there but are now gone, not all of them explainable by catalogue errors or dying stars, of which, of course, that is always a chance that could be happening. Looking at, you know, what could be signs of technosignatures or hints of distant engineering. She urged scientists not to dismiss anomalies too quickly, especially now that AI and machine learning can scour data like never before. You know, if a star, and again, quote-unquote, can vanish from records, could humanity already have captured the best evidence of advanced technology without even knowing it? That's fascinating to think about, that you've got, potentially sitting there, hundreds of thousands of pictures of the sky at night, and space, sorry, and objects have been photographed that just aren't there anymore. It may appear on surface level for some quite a dry piece of evidence, but that's pretty good in terms of getting close to smoking gun evidence, if we can actually go away and look at that, and something we could maybe perhaps look at now. Some really interesting correlations Beatrice Villariel has talked about in terms of, and I got to see Beatrice talk about this back in April at Durham University, so this isn't something that's just brand new to this particular conference. She talked about how these transients, these objects, were more likely to have appeared and disappeared by 68% around the time of nuclear testing, and if there were UFO sightings reported, for example, the famous Washington flap, around the time, things increased by 8%. So really interesting. Yeah, I really enjoyed that one. Big name, Colonel Carl Nell, which is as impossible for me to see in person, I found out, as it is on the podcast, done a really interesting talk. He is a retired U.S. Army officer and aerospace engineer, and he talked about the Roman gods, using them as metaphors for the forces of governing secrecy. He likened today's institution to the old pantheon, you know, guarding divine knowledge, deciding what mortals may or may not know. A lot of his points around, you know, how power, modern power, still wear the robes of mythology. Government agencies acting like Jupiter, controlling like thunder, defense programs like Mars, protecting realms of war. Or if we want real progress, he said, you know, we have to dethrone these gods and replace reverence with transparency, and that's how modern governments are going through. Mr. Nell, like many folks, ended up running out of time during his talk and had to skip through some of the slides, and I look forward to those talks going online and some of those slides being put up. And I think it was a really interesting point, you know, thinking about if we're being ruled by ancient instinct, in a way, a fear of hierarchy, you know, worship of secrecy, and, you know, what happens when the ordinary folks like us, the public, demand more from a ruling body. And there was a whole conversation around that. Let me read through then. And I got to ask Carl Nell in the Q&A section of the event a question. And I said, and I've got the transcript here, so I said, hi both to Carl and Beatrice. Thank you for the talks. And I want to direct a question to Carl Nell. Last week, you spoke at the New Paradigm Institute Global Disclosure Day, and you made some comments to Richard Dolan. You feel this cycle of disclosure has ended, and I just wondered if you could elaborate on the end of this disclosure cycle and when you think the next one may come along. So bear in mind, folks, this is me listening back to an audio recording someone else had made at the event. He said, thanks for that question. I sort of offer that as a thought experiment to say, has the approach that we have been using really resulted in the result we wanted? Maybe we should sort of pull a lot of the same stock and take a different tactic on how we're going to do this. So I was focused, yeah, on the new, the UAP disclosure amendment. The idea of public policy in the United States and the fact we have many articles, three hearings, each of which have had revelations or whistleblowers and hasn't necessarily advanced the conversation beyond that first hearing and those comments. In some sense, that diminishing return, at least in my opinion, and the other folks that were in the hearings, you know, done some great work, very impactful work, but very important work. However, in my view, each increment is basically less than previous. In other words, we're getting a crescendo on the next instance of progress, but we're getting an issue because of the asymptomatic repression, a symptom of effectiveness. Sorry if some of this is a little bit wrong. I had to listen back and try and work out some of the wording, folks. It was over microphone. The disclosure amendment even passed in the Senate in 2023. It didn't in 2024, and it was often an underhanded impact. It didn't make it to the Senate, and, you know, a lot of the very most public folks have found what we're starting to say has become repetitive. We've kind of heard what these folks had to say. So in some sense, the whistleblowers, the congressional briefing, the documents, the hearings, they haven't resulted in what we wanted to see, which is a change in the status quo. And so my assertion is, as I've tried to lay out in the talk, that this exposure cycle has been cyclical, and it's kind of gone. You know, the Emenegger film is one thing. He talked about, you know, and I'm just going to paraphrase here, that, you know, that was meant to be in the Walt Disney documentary way back in the 50s when they were looking at doing, you know, a public disclosure then. We're going to have to get the UN involved, you know, talk about UFOs and the community behind it. But, you know, I offered on this a meeting point to say, maybe we need to change tactic and open up a dialogue of how we might do that. And maybe this conference is the starting point of that dialogue. So that was Carl Nell's expansion on his comments made on Global Disclosure Day. I got to ask him that question. And, yeah, I'd love to know your thoughts on what you think about Carl Nell talking about the end of this cycle. I personally think, I mentioned this on the update before I went away, that, you know, we've ridden the elevator to a certain point, and I think we've had to get off that elevator, but it doesn't mean we're at the top floor. It doesn't mean that that's it finished. It means we just have to walk along the corridor for a while and find another way to the top. Maybe we have to take the stairs. Maybe it's another elevator. Who knows? But, you know, I think that's the case. We then had some talks from Luc Dini, who is the head of Sigma-2 within France's 3AF. He represents one of the few official science-driven programs examining UAP. He outlined decades of French radar studies, pilot reports, and infrared data, treating this not as taboo, but as aerospace engineering puzzles. He talked about France's open, methodical posture, with the United States having more of a climate of ridicule around the topic. His view was collaboration between nations could normalise inquiry and move the subject from speculation to physics and data. Then after that, we had General Pierre Bisconde, who is formerly of the French Air Force and a technical advisor to GIPAN, who is the French UAP organisation. He approached the UAP conversation through systems and command logic, speaking of structured observation, that, you know, pilots, radar operators, scientists working in sequence is the only path to true credibility for many in this topic, emphasising that phenomena challenge not just radar, but organisational reflexes. Militaries are designed for defence and not discovery. I thought his tone was really pragmatic and a little bit philosophical and a call for discipline, a disciplined curiosity instead of bureaucratic inertia. You know, I wrote a note here, you know, something to think about. Are our institutions even built to handle true unknowns or do they default denial because discovery isn't in the job description? And that's an interesting way to think about it. There was some breaks for networking and lunches and stuff like that, folks. Moving on in the later in the day, Peter Scafish, co-founder of the Sol Foundation, is an anthropologist. He is an anthropologist who has spoken to me on the podcast before. He explored how culture interprets contact comparing UAP discourse to earlier human encounters with the sacred moments when civilisations redefined reality. He was arguing, before we prove or disprove aliens, we should examine how we even think about the alien. Myths, religion, our scientific narratives, all filter the data long before we even see it. Really interesting talk. One for the thinkers out there. Peter Scafish was wonderful to speak to and really gives you food for thought in that kind of talk. For me, again, I made a note here that, you know, if contact ever came, would we necessarily even recognise it? Or would we have to reinterpret it through old stories? How do you prepare a culture for something beyond its imagination, potentially? Yeah, wouldn't hurt my head a little bit, but in a good way, you know, there was a lot more intelligent folks there than me. And if you were there, wonderful to hear you talk about talks like that from Peter Scafish. Next up, Diana Walsh-Pasulka, one of my favourite speakers on the whole topic. Diana wrote the foreword to my book, which is available at Atlas of UFOs, folks. Cheap plug for me. Really interesting. Dr. Pasulka, unfortunately, was dialing in remotely. She was over stateside still. I would have loved to have the chance to meet Dr. Pasulka in person, but not on this occasion. But her talk was nonetheless wonderful. She was live. She mentioned that the religious, so she is a religious studies scholar, folks, for people who don't know, famously authoring American Cosmic. And she was talking about how technology becomes sacred. And she talked about parallels between ancient miracles and modern encounters. She, between pilots, scientists, experiencers, each forming a new kind of faith around the phenomena that can't be explained. Speaking about, you know, the invisible college of insiders quietly sharing data and experiences outside of traditional academia, and how this mirrors mystical traditions where truth survives through hidden networks. You know, in a way, she compared our UFOs today's miracles, perhaps. And that was, for me, as someone who isn't religious, but can appreciate the lens people look at through religion, I don't think that that would be necessarily be an unfair way to view this, UFOs being a modern day miracle. And, you know, when science meets mystery, does one absorb the other or do they fuse into something new, whether that be a religion or a cult-like following? We see a lot of that modern day. So, yeah, fantastic talk from Diana Pasilka. Later in the day, some huge names carried on. It was a huge day of names, to be honest, on day one. Dr. Jacques Vallée, who is a legendary computer scientist, ufologist, philanthropist, entrepreneur. He was speaking like a historian of consciousness. He was urging people to move beyond nuts and bolts explanations, looking to map patterns of interaction, and how the UFO phenomenon has engaged with humanity over time. If you've read any of Jacques Vallée's books and content, you'll know this is how he thinks, and how he has done so for decades. He was using metaphors of data cartography, mythic recursion, showing that UEP behavior seems tailored to perception itself. Some lofty ideas, but he really focused in on a case from Haynesville in 1966, where the big piece of evidence for him wasn't the testimony, wasn't the people, and it's a case I would urge folks to look into, but the fact he had bark from local trees, surrounding trees, that had been affected by the intense heat, and radiation in the area the craft was purportedly seen, and came down in a forested area. And there was a joke between himself and Dr. Gary Nolan, that he doesn't want the bark being cut into, because it would destroy the evidence, but it also may be the only way. He's got this bark from the 60s still, but it's been tested, but to really test it properly, you would kind of have to destroy it. And he doesn't quite want that yet, and he's holding on to it to be studied and examined in the best way possible. Gary Nolan jokingly asked him as part of a Q&A, you know, could I have this and study it? And Jacques said, without destroying it, no. And, you know, that was a nice moment in there, but a really interesting talk from a lesser known case from Jacques Vallée. Moving on to the closing talk of the day, one that had a lot of keen eyes, and it was with Jake Barber, who was there in person. He spent over 30 years working across the U.S. Air Force and intelligence community. And of course, Jake Barber, Jake Barber, best known for coming into our field of consciousness earlier this year on that explosive News Nation interview with Ross Coulter, a man who for many has seen the inside of the system and decided it wasn't enough to watch from the shadows and came forward. You know, having seen the UAP conversation in 2017, talking about how other colleagues had went public, he and a small band of colleagues left what they were doing. Jake Barber has professed to have been part of the crash retrieval program, where, you know, he flew helicopter missions to pick up objects of unknown origin and take them to locations and drop them off. That was his work. And of course, he's had his own unique religious experience, he would call it as well. We'd heard from the journey of Skywatcher being created, you know, what they were trying to do. He'd have talked about neuro meditation experiments in the California desert, trying to interact with the phenomena through focused intent, alongside radar and optical sensors recording this data. They captured reportedly the data of a flying egg moving at thousands of mils per hour without sonic booms. They talked about encountering jellyfish-like objects that appear to interfere with the helicopter controls and instrumentation. This is stuff that's catalogued on the Skywatcher YouTube channel with the content they have put out so far. Jake's philosophy mixes patriotism and mysticism. He joked that it was, you know, camouflage and tie-dye, as he put it, how that seems to now mix, you know, the secrecy and trying to do this in the open. And I like that little analogy. Barber believes science and spirituality might not be opposites here, but parts of the same toolkit for exploring non-human intelligence. Skywatcher's aim is to build a discovery framework moving from anecdote to structured multi-sensor data collection and peer review. Though he did admit some frustration that scientific institutions and peer review, as Beatrice Villariel has found out, can be as obstructive as government secrecy. On that, folks, I got to ask Jake Barber a question. Thank you so much again to Marek who came over with the microphone. I said to Jake, thank you so much for the talk. A lot of folks have clung to the fact that at the end of the year, or at the beginning of the year, you were talking about objectives for the end of 2025. I said to Jake, I didn't want to misquote him, but he started smiling at this point, folks, so I think he had any idea what I was going to ask. I said that, he said they would have clarity around the techniques they were using and essentially whether they could truly do what they hoped they could do. And I asked him to expand on the objectives of having real progress by the end of 2025. And are those expectations now carrying on into next year? Jake said, absolutely good question. He admitted we definitely set that mark. And by the end of 2025, we should be able to do this. He said, maybe we don't make it by the exact day. And he said, he thought maybe sometime in January would be the kind of 12 month period, but he thinks being goal orientated is important and it gives a sense of urgency. He says there's still no good reason that it's not possible, but there's always unforeseen challenges with that. And they are in level three of their framework of discussion, which is preparing the data saying there's over 10 terabytes of, of radar data and whatnot to go through and they're preparing it. So it's worthy of the peer review process. And that's where they are. So for me, it was hopeful that they still hope to have something to present by the, the end of that kind of 12 month period. However, maybe temper expectations, folks, whether you like to hear this or not, but at least he was honest that it may end up going further for me. I can accept that disappointing as it may sound to many, that there may be a delay, but aren't we used to that in this topic? But I think if they come out and give a reasoned level of transparency as to why, you know, what they're trying to do, what they've managed to do, maybe perhaps even own up or admit to some mistakes made along the way, maybe mistakes. We don't even know that have happened publicly, but you know, some of the videos aren't the most interesting things. I believe one of them pretty much looks like birds, to be honest, but that doesn't mean they also don't have some really interesting data to talk about or that they have captured. And for me, some videos of objects that aren't particularly blurry would be fantastic, as difficult as I assume that may be. And listen, that wrapped up day one on the Saturday, fascinating day of conversation. It was really tiring as well, folks, because you're in talks, you're out chatting to folks, you're networking, you're going back in. For me, it was humbling to be pulled from pillar to post by listeners and folks coming up to me who have listened to the podcast. Again, if I didn't get the chance to say hello to you, I must have spoke to over 200 people, I think, at best estimate. I'm really sorry. And please drop me a message. And if I did speak to you, please still drop me a message because I'll just mention here, what I would like to do is get some folks on for the listener show to talk about their experiences of the event and their highlights and what they have taken away from it. So please, please get in touch using the email or the contact form on thatufopodcast.com if you enjoy that. And just let me tell you here, folks, before I mentioned day two, if you are watching this on YouTube, don't forget to like, subscribe and leave a comment. Do that now because it makes a huge, huge difference to the YouTube algorithm and helps get these shows out to more folks as well. And if you're listening on the podcast and you've never left a review, now would be a great time to do it as well. And on to day two folks and a really interesting day. Now day two, I did not catch everything. I missed probably half the talks on day two, recording interviews, speaking to folks outside. And what I hope to have done is hopefully set up some really interesting interviews down the line for the podcast as well with some interesting folks who maybe spoke or maybe are well-known figures who attended but did not speak. So on day two, some highlights for me, folks, we heard from Fabio De Masi. He is a German politician, a member of the European Parliament. He approached UAP from a policy and economics angle new to the subject, but he questioned why Europe leaves disclosure to Washington, arguing for democratic oversight of aerospace secrecy and research funding, pointing out that, you know, if this phenomenon is real, whatever its origin, then it has political, scientific and ethical implications that demand representation. Citizens, not just intelligence agencies, deserve a seat at the table. And I think a lot of folks will applaud and commend that. Fabio got quite a few rounds of applause from people in the audience. And this for me folks is an important point to pause and highlight. Guys like this can help move a needle behind the scenes and in ways that we don't see immediately and may not happen or have immediate obvious consequences. Remember a lot of these whistleblowers, for example, are behind the scenes talking for years and then we get a Dylan Borland come, come to the forefront, but he's been working away in the background for some time. And one of the big refreshing things for me, if you look at a Seoul conference or any event and think, oh, well, there's no huge bombshells coming from the event. Honestly, the work that gets done when these people get involved and get to meet in person, I think is incredibly important. And I think Seoul is doing a lot of great work in that respect. So really fair play to Jonathan Berta, Gary Nolan and Peter Scaffish for what they've managed to do with everyone else. Next up was Rear Admiral Tim Galladet, former US Navy oceanographer. Admiral Galladet brought scientific discipline to the discussion and a wonderful sense of humor and tone along with what he said. He was a really charismatic individual. And I love that. I didn't get the chance to meet or speak to Tim during the event, folks. That's how kind of busy things were. And let me just tell you, as I mute my PC next to me here, folks, sorry for that. If you heard a noise in the background, he highlighted patterns of UEP detection over oceans, linking them to gaps in maritime awareness and undersea data, urging collaboration between the Navy's ocean science community and civilian researchers, suggesting the phenomena may cross domains, air, sea and space. Excuse me, that require a unified monitoring. You know, his message, curiosity is not weakness. It's national security done right. And I made a note, I know as many notes I made along there, if the unknown moves seamlessly, if this unknown is moving seamlessly between sea and sky, are we even equipped to observe it properly? Who should lead that effort? Is that the military? Is it science? Does it have to be both? Really interesting idea because we seem so, you know, we hear about compartmentalization within the military industrial complex. Is science not then compartmentalized across the board? Because you've got, let's just say, Avi Loeb looking in one direction. You've got Beatrice Villarreal looking in another. You've got oceanographers like Tim Gallaudet looking at the ocean. You've then got folks looking at the air domain, but really do we need them all doing this at once? And that, that can be really difficult in an area, an arena. You have to fight for funding and interest. And yeah, really interesting talk from Tim Gallaudet. I'm sorry. I never got to catch up and meet him folks. But I believe it or not, I was working, I hope hard for all of you who listen and watch this to try and, you know, improve things for the podcast going forward and get some really interesting conversations on the go around that too. And a really good talk up next was Dr. Jacob Hack Mizra. He is an astrobiologist and climate scientist exploring the uneasy divide between SETI, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence and UAP research. He explored how early SETI scientists deliberately distanced themselves from UFOs to gain legitimacy and creating, as he put it, a cultural taboo. He used examples from his own work on bio signatures and techno signatures, arguing that UAP should be reframed as part of the scientific question. Are we alone? He even referenced the Bracewell probe idea that civilizations might send autonomous explorers, suggesting our own solar system hasn't even properly searched for such artifacts. He closed with a witty metaphor, folks, likening Punxsutawney Phil, the famous groundhog from the movie Groundhog Day, science may hide from its shadow, but in spring discovery it comes anyway. So yeah, really interesting talk from Dr. Jacob Hack Mizra, perhaps one I'm going to reach out to and try and get some conversation. During the day, one of the listeners, James, I'll just say hello to James. He's been on the podcast before, came to say hello, and I'm sorry I never got to speak to James for longer. And he told me he had just been to see a really interesting impromptu talk in a different room with some Ukrainian guys and scientists who have filmed and recorded some incredible things in the skies above Ukraine. And obviously they've all served in the military. They understand how difficult a time this is just now for their country. But they were presenting some really interesting video and photographs and data that they've captured that they, I believe, showed. And according to folks who are there doesn't clearly doesn't show missiles being fired around because they know what those look like. They compared and contrasted. So things like that were happening and going on as well. And yeah, I spoke to one of the gents from that group. They're not looking to do podcasts and whatnot at the minute. I appreciate that. You know, being in Ukraine is not the most easiest situation to sit down on a microphone and chat, but they are working with their government, with their military, trying to really push the UAP side of things and very, very difficult circumstances. So a tip of my hat to them. Yeah. So I met a lot of incredible people there. Guests, speakers. Thank you to everyone who came and spoke to me. A lot of folks recognizing my voice, having never seen this face. Lucky them, including Jake Barber, which was funny, but nice to know he listened to the podcast at some point. He noticed my voice. And yeah, so I hope from this and the chats I had with people that it's going to open the doors, like I say, to guests coming on the podcast who maybe haven't been on yet. I'll say that much. And I'd love to hear from you. Like I say, folks, if you attended the symposium to join me on the podcast for a show, to get your highlights, if you can drop me over a message, that would be great. Either via email, direct message, or use the website, thatufopodcast.com forward slash contact. And I'll get back to you to finish up folks. I'm going to play a couple of short interviews. I recorded with guests on location. First off with Dr. E. L. Whiteley, who was on the podcast recently. Then Jeff Nusitelli, one of the stars of the recent UAP hearing. And he shared some thoughts on the event, the hearing itself and where the whistleblower conversation may be going. Do not miss that. Some really interesting comments. And I'm going to play that at the end of this episode, which is coming in just a few moments. So I'd recommend folks, if you've got the money and you've got the time, go and check out the replays of the event via Sol. They are now available to stream in full till the 2nd of November. I've no details yet of when they're going to be available free, but I do have Dr. Gary Nolan, co-founder of Sol on the podcast with me in the first week of November. So I'll try and find out then. So if you've got any questions for Dr. Gary Nolan or Richard, Richard Dolan, who is joining me in the same week for the podcast, please send over your questions just now via email or use the contact form on the website. Normal service for the podcast with interviews, news updates and all are going to resume this week, folks. Thank you for tuning in. Thank you for all the questions. If you've got any questions, please send them over for the next news update to the usual places. It's been a hell of a week. I'm just recovering now from an incredibly busy few days. But once again, thank you so much for all of you putting me in a place. I can go to an event like that and meet those people and yeah, be recognized, which is the weirdest thing ever, to be honest. So yeah, that's not the end of this episode. I'm now going to hand over to Dr. Ia Whiteley and Jeff Nusatelli. And these were recorded with my new portable mic setup, folks. The audio quality should be good. So yeah, if you're watching this, apologies, my thumb kind of comes into screen in the top corner because I literally was standing or sitting with my iPhone filming. You'll see the quality is fantastic. And the audio quality should be pretty good as well because there were decent microphones that I took with me. So yes, enjoy those. Enjoy checking out the Sol speakers if you've got a chance to check out those streams. And I will speak to you all very, very soon. So I'm joined now by Dr. Ia Whiteley. Some of you may remember Ia from the podcast a few weeks ago. If you haven't though heard from Ia, I'd love to introduce you. And Ia, could you just mention who you are and a little bit about yourself? Ia Whiteley. I'm a cognitive engineer and a space psychologist. My background is in designing aircraft cockpits and understanding how to improve information presentation. I've worked with designing training for astronauts. And now my focus is how to help our upcoming generation to have cognitive abilities and wider perceptual input of information and rewire in a way adults' brain to what we originally meant to be having. So all of us are born with a potential which if we don't use it, we lose it. Yeah. So that's where I am. And is that your talk? Is that the focus of the talk for Sol this year? The focus of the talk today or tomorrow on Monday, is to look onto how our story, if it's told too early about our experience, changes and we lose crucial details that are vital for us as humanity because who I share, what I have experienced, affects how I talk about the story. So we're recording this on the second day of the Sol Symposium. For you from day one, were there any particular highlights that stood out? Every single talk is extraordinary. There is an insight and I'm listening on how people evolve their perception because I have been fortunate to be at all three events. I feel there is a transformation taking place in the audience that's here. There's a transformation in how people perceive and what they're able to share. At the first Sol event, when I arrived, I was in a frame of mind that stigma is all around. And how would I share, I was still working at University College London and I was in a framework of what can I say, how it will be taken. But by about mid-afternoon on day one, I felt like, what stigma? Everybody is talking about it. And we're at Stanford. So I think it's wonderful to see that lead taking place by Dr. Gary Nolan and Dr. Peter Scafisch and the wider team, now Jonathan Beretti bringing his own expertise. And the whole team that is supporting the event has been extraordinary in allowing for people to show their transformation. And what they couldn't say before, now they're much easier, clearer to say. And still keeping the framework of what we can study and investigate of all scientific methods, looking at the data in a different way. Maybe there's new scientific methods. Maybe we can investigate differently. And that comes in every talk. You can hear this. So we started with Beatrice and she shared, you know, the extension of the work and how Beatrice is also managing the critique that's coming. And I love that it is now all documented. So it can be, the attention can be redirected to the paper. And today, it was, it was today, so we were speaking with Christian Peters. And he was saying that if you don't understand some complicated scientific writing, which is now all publicly available, you don't have to be a scientist, right, to have access via university. You don't have to pay for publication. They're open access. If you don't understand, just put it through artificial intelligence that you use. And until, you know, we're able to distill what is meaningful to us, ask questions. So we can now all inquire. We're not relying on the paper or another person to kind of tell us what they've picked up. You can now kind of go deeper into any publication, any large publication, and keep inquiring, read it yourself, and then it will come in new light. So I think that's beautiful. So Peter, Dr. Christian Peters encourages, that's how he encourages his students. And I thought that was beautiful. Yeah, there's been a real mix, I think. It's a very unique conference, and it's serious, it's scientific, it's academic. But I think you represent probably a nice mix of, you know, psychological, the scientific. You don't mind going a little bit more, not too out there, but I think you're starting to see that drip into the conversations. And Jake Barber's conversation was very straight-laced, but we know Jake Barber's background with his own experiences. And do you feel that's the way the conversation, even from a real scientific aspect, is getting more comfortable going? I believe we are all contributing our thread of thinking, thread of transformation, to the tapestry. So we cannot learn it from one perspective. You know, to see the elephant in the room, we are all investigating with the tools that we have and with perspective that we see. So Jake Barber's perspective, Gary Nolan's perspective, them collaborating together, Sol Foundation bringing scientists and people whom we interact in the breaks. The breaks are so large, you know, in their time. There's a space for conversation. There is a welcome for interaction. And people are approached, you know, on equal footing. Nobody's escaping. So you can just come up to anyone and talk to anyone, which is what I like, because these unexpected connections touch us and we share and we learn from each other. And I think that is a beautiful facilitation at the event. And finally, what's the importance of this Sol event? Because I think UFO conferences, UAP conferences can have a stigma. They have our people have a preconceived notion. And I've not attended many. I think for many, this is held to a certain level, a certain standard. It's got a high bar. Why is this event important? And what can it bring to the conversation as a whole? For me, it was valuable that it began at Stanford and the second part was also run in Stanford. And it felt more across the pond, if you wish, more United States, Canada as well, representation. But having come here to Europe, you hear accents everywhere. And it's so beautiful because now we have scientists, politicians, theologists. I've met yesterday someone from the North Europe that wasn't, you know, they probably weren't unable to travel to the United States. And so this allows the conversation to cross-filter. And I feel that Sol is engaging. The reason it has maybe, you could say, a high bar in terms of keeping the conversation more grounded in methods and research or how we can collect data, improve data, is because they're keeping the bar so that parliaments, governments can engage. And that's the reason why there is more things that people can grasp, because they want to engage the international conversation. And that's what today, Dr. Peter Scarfish and Fabio De Masi, that were speaking about, how to engage internationally. That there is a willingness that the United States taking a lead, or scientists as well, are fostering a way forward. Or like Jake Barber was saying, we're taking it on our own lead. And so, and Gary Nolan, you know, supporting this endeavor. So this is allowing the conversation to be accepted by people who haven't traveled the journey, haven't dived into a UFO rabbit hole. And they are curating information that people can transform on the journey through the talks, through listening to the conversation, hearing the thinking. And I think it's their contribution. And of course, there are other venues, but I feel this is why it's important in the dialogue to keep it at that level. But in the corridors, you know, the conversations are very different. You can go from any, on the scale of how unusual the experiences are, and where can you capture that, is all available. So that's the beauty of this event. So joining me now, I've got Jeff Nussatelli, a former guest of the podcast, and obviously one of the stars of the recent UAP hearings. Jeff, welcome to Seoul. Hi, Andy. How you doing, man? I'm very good. Yeah, nice to meet in person. And what a backdrop to do this, and much nicer than the shed I normally do this kind of stuff from. So, yeah, listen, for anyone unfamiliar with yourself, Jeff, can you tell us a little bit about who you are and what kind of brings you to the dance? Yeah, so my background, I was Air Force, active duty, military police officer, and I was involved in the Vandenberg incursions that began in 2003. The first case came up in the first hearing with David Grush, Ryan Graves, and Dave Fravor. Ryan Graves talked about my case, and I recently testified in Congress in September, and I spoke about five UFO accounts that happened in Vandenberg between 2003 and 2005, including my own personal event. How did you find the hearings? That was one of the most intense and emotional experiences of my life. It was a wild ride. Did you get out of it what you hoped to get out of it, and the kind of impact afterwards? How's that been? You know, the impact afterward, so yes, we definitely moved the needle, especially behind the scenes in Congress. Good things are happening. We have allies now in the intelligence community, in Congress, in the Senate. So the hearing definitely had an impact. But after the hearing, I mean, we had the assassination with Charlie Kirk, and the whole news cycle kind of was subsumed by that. But as far as the hearing goes, you know, I think we did what we set out to do. For me personally, and I said to you I was going to ask you something that I've not told you what it was, so a hearing of two parts. I thought the testimony from yourself, Mr Knapp, Chief Alexander Wiggins, and Dylan Borland. Am I missing anyone? That was the... No, that was it. Yeah, that was it. Cool, I've done well there. And we had Matthew Brown with us, you know, but unfortunately they would not let him speak. Yeah, which would have been interesting as well. But I thought the testimony from everyone was fantastic. Really, I thought it was a level up from what we'd had even the year before, with Schellenberger, Elizondo, Gould. However, the other half of that hearing, which I think got a lot of the attention, and I feel really unfairly away from the testimony, was the video. Now, most folks on the podcast will know my personal opinion on the video. I think it shows a missile going through something prosaic, whether it's a drone or a testing balloon or something. I don't think it shows what initially... What was that like at the hearing? Because did you see it for the first time at the hearing? Because I've been told people saw it the day before. I saw it the day before. So I was there with a number of people when Representative Burleson received that document. I got to see it, and I was in on the discussion about whether or not it should be included. And it's tricky, right? But I supported the decision they made. I'm like, you know, we'll see what happens. And I think the decision to play the video during the hearing was made because the video was known behind the scenes and allegedly had been validated. But there's also a concern that, you know, maybe that video was passage material. It was put into that folder of legitimate UAP events, you know, as hoping, you know, that will leak the one video that will cause trouble. It could be a scenario like that. But the good that came out of it, it generated a huge amount of interest. You know, that video was sort of the star in the media. And hopefully, you know, that attracted people that didn't even know there was a hearing to go and at least look into it. So the way I look at it, it's a wash. Yeah. No, that's fair enough. And back to Sol, obviously, we're recording this on day two. Day one was full of huge names. You're speaking on day three of the Sol Symposium. Unfortunately, I'm missing that because I booked my flights before the agenda came out. And I think a few folks thought it finished on Sunday evening. But can you talk about your role at Sol and what you're going to be discussing? Yeah, so I'm going to be participating in a fireside chat with Peter Scafish and probably some other people. And what they'd like me to talk about is some of the retaliation that we experienced on this journey. So I'm going to be talking about some pretty dark things. Unfortunately, Dylan is not going to be able to attend. So I'll be speaking for him on his behalf. And I suppose without going into spoiler territory on retaliation, what kind of stuff can you touch on that happens when, you know, someone like yourself comes out and speaks out of turn? So in general, we're all under intense surveillance. We've all been sent messages in person. Some of our families have been threatened. Our wives have been threatened. Our, you know, safety has been threatened. So it'll be along those lines. And for you, this is still worth it, speaking out, because would that not go away if you just stopped talking? It might go away. But at this point, I'm all in. You know, if they want to try to destroy my life, then, you know, there's not much I can do about that. Yeah. And I'm sure many folks listening and myself included appreciate that and how difficult it is. No matter what level of folks, whether they've said they've seen something really mundane, potentially, or you go to the highest levels of, you know, I'm bringing bodies out the freezer to show folks. It's a very difficult conversation to have. And I think that retaliation is certainly in the public now that people know. I think, obviously, David Grush, that kind of started in a big way, which there's a huge backlash from the public against when a journalist, I'll put that in quotation marks, was given information that they definitely did not get via FOIA within 12 hours of medical records. And, you know, is that not something that, why did that not put you off? Because, you know, it comes down to, it's hard to answer, man. We've all put ourselves out there knowing what the consequences are going to be, especially Dylan. And we just have to either make the decision to keep fighting or quit. And all of us are going to keep fighting. Because they've already put us through hell. And it's like, you've been attacking us for years. And now we've got a voice. And we're going to keep using it. And does an event like this kind of re-energize, like, how you feel about it? And why is that? It's because all the people you meet here. And, you know, when you come to events like this, you meet people from all walks of life and all different cultures. And, you know, I've never detected a lie at any of the, you know, you're talking to authentic people. And there's something here. And that gives me energy to keep fighting, you know, because all these people are here for a reason. And they want to know the truth. They want to know what they've experienced. They want to know why reality is classified. Why, if, you know, you go out for a cigarette and look up and you see an object that is not supposed to exist. And then you go tell your coworkers about it. Why does your life fall off a cliff after that? And that's happened to a lot of people here. And they're not even in the military or an intelligence community. They're just regular people that saw something, talked about it, and then their life became very difficult. And, you know, that's kind of what motivates me. Like, why are people being punished for just telling what they've seen? Right. And any personal highlights from you from day one? Ah, not at the moment. Not yet. No, the jet lag is still kicking. I don't believe me. But, Jeff, thank you very much for joining us. Thanks, Andy. It's been great meeting you in person, man. Hi, folks. My book, Atlas of Unidentified Flying Objects, which you can see over my shoulder, is available to buy. And thank you to everyone who has done so so far. 4.9 out of 5 stars on Amazon. Please leave a review if you've bought it already. If you haven't, it is available on Amazon and all good bookstores. It's got some wonderful reviews. Check those out. And I really appreciate the support. Thank you so much.