The Big Picture: UAP Strategy, Hostile Encounters & What Comes Next

Taxes was feeling so stuck. Sitting in traffic, squeezing into a parking spot, all to squeeze in getting tax help during your lunch break. Now Taxes is a TurboTax expert who does your taxes for you while you go about your day getting real-time notifications about their progress and the most money back guaranteed. Now this is Taxes. Intuit TurboTax. See guarantee details at TurboTax.com slash guarantees. Only available with TurboTax experts. Real-time updates only in iOS mobile app. Hi everyone and welcome back to That UFO Podcast. My name is Andy and my interview today is with a returning guest and this is one of those guests that is back by popular demand. I had a great time speaking with him. He is Reid Summers, the host of Emergent, a podcast exploring humanity's engagement with non-human intelligence. He directs strategy at the Human Institute, a non-partisan think tank focused on the scientific and policy changes of UAP and he is also currently developing UFOEvidence.com and a whole lot more. This was a great interview. It goes over two hours, folks, with some exclusive bonus content at the end for folks who are on the paid platforms for the podcast. Wonderful conversation again with Reid. This could have gone six hours easily, but just over two hours. Thank you so much for checking this one out. I'll hand you over now to the interview. And welcome back to the podcast, Reid Summers. Reid, welcome. Andy, good to be back. Thank you for having me. By popular demand, Reid, I know I said at the time I was hopeful to have you back on. There was so much we hadn't gotten into, but so many folks, if you go to the YouTube comments and the Patreon comments on X, were like, Reid was great to listen to, get them back on, so much more to dive into. So great conversation the first time round. People enjoyed it. That's the main thing. And for me, whether it's information, whether it's entertainment, whether it's something in between, if people are thinking, if it gets them thinking, if it brings up new ideas, if it can change opinion, you know, I always think opinion should be fluid, malleable, then that's a job well done. So great to have you back on and lots to discuss as we kind of battle towards the end of the year. I hope you are warmer where you are than I am. I am in the shed. It is cold. I have a heated blanket on, but I can't feel my feet. But something that has kind of been keeping things warm over the last week is the Age of Disclosure documentary. I think we have to start there, Reid, because so many people are talking about it. There's so much opinion. I've shared mine quite often. I'd love to know, first off, have you watched the documentary? And if so, what are your thoughts? I definitely have watched it. I haven't done the fine-tooth comb, but I am prepping a React video and just to kind of share a number of insights that came out for me. High-level comments. I think it had some convincing new voices. The statements by the former FAA head coming out saying, he's absolutely certain regarding this phenomenon being a reality. That was impactful. Rep Gallagher's kind of summary, four-option, kind of multiple choice regarding it's either foreign adversary, it's a robust counterintel program used to cover up the legacy program, it's interdimensional or extraterrestrial or combo of those three. Hint, hint, I believe combo of those three is the more likely. I thought that was impactful. Steve Mnuchin, Department of the Treasury, excuse me, that he called for this briefing many years ago, a briefing on UAP due to the economic impacts of the president coming to the mic, end quote. Just some impactful original commentary by voices we haven't heard much from. I thought there was also some impactful presentation of the now six observables in their more clear dimensions and implications. We can get into that. Again, I've talked about it before, but just another step, another ratcheting in this shift from the discussion of UAP to NHI, from craft to controller. I did find notable in this documentary that there was no real need to kind of present the prosaic options at this point. They went right to the intelligence behind UAP being of non-human origin. So that was a forward step. I had definitely some frustration with the presentation of the narrative arc of the story, how the film was put together. It did have moments where it felt a bit like lobbying, like strategic disclosure, not public disclosure. You know, a factional set of statements than one more all-encompassing for the public. I also think the story told of the post-2017 era was not truly the whole story and may not have wholly been the true story. And so some concerns about kind of the shaping of that narrative. but my focus is more on the species level set of considerations arising from NHI specifically. And so I understand there's a fight to protect oneself against, you know, legal implications, career, access to power, et cetera. I get that that's a component. It's not really my angle or my focus. But, you know, I did see some notable coverage of this in the mainstream that was very favorable. It definitely appears to have shifted. This appears to have shifted once again into more of a mainstream kind of Overton window where we can talk about not just UAP as craft, not some bolts, but the intelligence behind the craft. And David Grush's interview on Fox News, I felt was an even further forward and leading edge. David Grush used the statement the biological sentience that pilots these craft that does not necessarily look like you or I. And after and when asked if he had seen the photos, he says, or if there are photos, he says, yes, there are. So some definite leading edge statements about bodies, biologics, deceased entities, and in general, the intelligence and the intent behind the phenomenon. Yeah, I mentioned in the introduction before we started this interview that our previous conversation, if people hadn't caught it, largely focused on that non-human intent. That was the angle of conversation we were coming at. And we went all over with that and we'll go back into that and this. But just to start off then on Age of Disclosure, you're the first person I've spoken to. I was on the Seco Activo podcast with Pavel. I know you've been on there recently. Really good to talk to him just after I'd watched the documentary. But you're the first guest I've had on to speak to about it and I'm still kind of forming my opinion. You make some great points. For me, I'm still stuck at, and I'd be really happy, again, like folks, like I say, to speak to Reid here and my opinion change and form as the conversation goes along. I'm still unsure who exactly the documentary is for. I think consensus seems to be from what I've read online, from the comments on my own socials and elsewhere, there's nothing in it that's new largely. It's what we know in terms of the story. It's the 2017 to 2024 story, given when it was recorded. I think it stops short of being a public education piece. Other than a few moments, you mentioned the six of the observables piece I did say with Pavel on my own reaction video. I enjoyed that. I wish there was more of that during it. Almost that elementary school stop. Okay, so we've brought this topic up. Let's just take 30 seconds or a minute to tell you a little bit more about this, why this is important. They do that with the observables. They give some really nice context and examples and comparisons between we have a jet that can go 4,000 miles per hour. That's our fastest craft. We have clocked UEP going 40,000 miles per hour plus. So things like that help paint that picture. I don't think that happens enough. There's not enough discussion of here's the go fast, the gimbal footage. Just briefly, here's what you're seeing and here's why it's important as opposed to it just being a blurry UFO video. So I don't know how you feel around that and you've maybe touched on it with the narrative or the arc of the story, but who do you feel this documentary is actually for? Yeah, great question. I mean, I knew right off the bat that this would not satisfy the UAP community. It certainly would not feel like a win, let alone a hit out of the park. I mean, let's be honest, there are individuals formerly on the legacy program who are coming forward, running for cover, legal cover, who are trying to state clearly and on the record that they are disclosure, that they are disclosing and that they are part of disclosure. And I think there is some of that at play. I think the audience might have been in part the executive branch, Congress, putting pressure on elected leaders to say more, given that former acting department heads and now with Rubio, acting secretary of state, coming on a documentary like this and saying these things would put pressure on elected leaders to take action. I think, so executive branch, the elected government, the legislative branch of government, I think the program itself was audience for this. This was an airing out of basically a non-stop interview with key voices on a very carefully lit stage with a lot of strategic kind of unveiling of personal perspective. But after that, kind of this is what I saw, this is what it is, balls in your court, right? So kind of like a dumping off felt to me. There wasn't much of an effort to tell a story. I did see, you know, just in the kind of the creative aspects of the documentary, you know, music was at a minimum. It was super quiet. The voices were super toned up. It was mostly Lou Elizondo and Jay Stratton. All the narration was either Lou or Jay. There was no kind of third narrator, no, no, no kind of like angle of critique. And then, you know, the interviewee kind of voices, their argumentation and response. It was just kind of like a nonstop expose of personal eyewitness belief statement and argumentation as to what should be done about it. So it did have that strategic disclosure, strategic kind of communication in mind. I think, you know, if anything, the fourth audience might be the mainstream media, basically just giving them material with which to write articles like the eight reasons you should believe aliens exist out of Variety magazine. Yeah, you know, or the Bill Mayer interview, right? A reality check. So I think, you know, part of it was grist for that mill. I don't know if it was really an effort to really educate and onboard the public. So let me play devil's advocate then. And this is what I'm still trying to work through myself. I love documentaries. I love UFO documentaries, good, bad, and indifferent. I just feel if this if this is indeed a documentary aimed at the executive branch, the program, the folks who are making decisions, policy makers, as a documentary, the best way to do that, that takes you the best part of three years, I don't see what's accomplished in this format that can't or wouldn't already have been done. And I suppose that worries me slightly. If this documentary is so important in that sense, have these conversations not been happening behind closed doors. We keep hearing whistleblowers are going in and out of offices in Congress and the Senate. We know Grush is behind the scenes now, which I think is a lot of folks see that as incredibly hopeful and positive. I am just a little unsure why the conversations, we see surface level commentary, even though Jay Stratton makes the kind of claim, and it was in the trailer often discussed, you know, I've seen non-human bodies, I have seen non-human craft. That's very surface level because he can't go into detail, but he could go into detail in skiffs and with people with the right clearances. I would have thought that would have been happening and already done in the background, so I'm a little wary that this documentary has had to be pieced together and shown publicly for that to happen. And I suppose, just let me just end the rant with this comparison, is it then perhaps similar to Skywatcher, where a lot of rumour is that Skywatcher do one thing publicly, but their message, the whole organisation is set up as a message to the folks in the background to say, we can do this, we are going to do this, you know what we are going to do, so bring us in and work together. That's what I'm still unsure on, the purpose of the documentary. Yeah. Yeah, there was a lot going on in this documentary, I mean, watch the eyes, you know, there was so much more that these individuals know and are at work doing than they can speak to. I mean, this was a heavily over-teleprompted documentary as well. I mean, Jay Stratton, it appeared to me, was essentially reading from a teleprompter the whole time, and I do understand that these individuals are walking careful lines, there's a lot they can't say, although Eric Davis seems to be willing to cross those lines frequently and kind of spill the beans, which there was some real eye-opener. I have a list of eye openers from this documentary we can get into. Yeah, I think, you know, a media product like this is a signaling effort, right? It might be an attempt to place oneself in a certain position within the disclosure narrative. I mean, to release a documentary saying the age of disclosure, when there are individuals in it who were literally part of the age of cover-up to precede it, we have to question, you know, who's getting kind of brought in, you know, brought on board, you know, on this new vessel, you know, sailing from the old world to the new world. Well, some people want to get on board. They want to get off the old ship, knowing that it's either going down or that crimes have been committed and you might be liable for those if you don't kind of come out and win the public or at least signal which side of the fence you're on. So I think there's signaling, there's one's place in the disclosure narrative, there is creating political cover possibly for these backdoor conversations to come front curtain. So some sort of kind of media stage that allows a former acting head to go from a skiff to making statements in front of the public about the intelligence and the intent of the phenomenon. So how does it shift, right? How do you get out of the skiff? It's a question. Once you're inside a skiff, you know, things don't leave that space. And so is the documentary kind of a limited hangout, right, with the public, which is we're going to air a little bit of this out. We're going to test some talking points. We're going to see what the appetite is to entertain certain possibilities. We're not necessarily trying to make the case for or to present original data or footage, which was totally lacking in the documentary. So it was positional and strategic and I might add potentially factional in its kind of narrative approach. And on that narrative approach, do you think that, and this is just a logical thing for me, I'm not saying this is anything conspiratorial or malicious or whatever, but the fact that Dan Farrah, Lou Elizondo and Jay Stratton are tied up with various book deals and media rights deals and whatnot already. Dan Farrah was part of the Lou Elizondo autobiography deal, you know, but that was mentioned back at the time, I think, when Lou's book was mentioned. And do you feel Elizondo and Stratton had a large say in what this documentary was going to be, why it was going to be? And that's why it is the way it is. And when I spoke to Pavel, he mentioned he felt there was a lot missing from the documentary, a lot of talking heads. He mentioned Jacques Vallée, Tom DeLonge. I can get at least one of those. I thought, oh, Jacques Vallée, actually, that is probably notable now by his absence. Tom DeLonge, I can understand why not. But he is a big part of where this has gone. But then I could understand why you maybe wouldn't have Tom DeLonge in that cast of characters. I think he stands out in a different way. He's then the punk rock guy as opposed to, yeah, but look what he's done. It's a story for a different time. So perhaps that's a reason for the narrative. Right, right. Yeah, I mean, yeah, the onstage talent looked quite carefully selected. I wouldn't say totally so. I think there was a variety of voices from slightly differing angles and perspectives. So I don't have any window in on Dan Farrow's process, the creative license he had or didn't have, who was really driving the script. I mean, I think, you know, the proof is in the pudding, right? There's a lot of clues in terms of how the film was composed that would suggest, you know, who is the leading voice per this film? Who is the champion? Who's the patriot, the hero? You know, what are the kind of associations being made with historical figures? Winston Churchill, for example, with individuals in the present. Is that a fair association to make? So, I mean, you know, any film is a highly intentional, crafted communication. It's going to omit. It's going to include. And so I think that was very much at play. And I, you know, is this our disclosure or their disclosure? Is it public disclosure or strategic disclosure? I mean, this, to me, this is why we're here on this podcast. This is behind the work I do is empowering citizens to have real agency in the shaping of this conversation, as well as to get it outside the context of the U.S. military, you know, national security, industrial space. So, I mean, it can't just be former U.S., DoD, IC, and federal elected leadership. voicing this. Where's the international dimension, right? And if we frame this as us and our foreign adversaries, right, we're already framing this in a competitive kind of way that predisposes us to the exact thing that's being disclosed, which is this multi-decade secret arms race over technologies of non-human origin. So, I think this is, it's another step. I don't know how much we can expect, to be honest, from the various individuals who have had their fingers deep in this pie for a very long time. They can take the baton so far. You know, we expect almost the U.S. government and the defense industry and its ancillaries to do disclosure on behalf of humanity, right? And I think that is a false authority syndrome. You know, the U.S. military-industrial complex is exactly that. It is militarized, it is industrial, and it is inherently defensive. And that cannot be the entity that effectively brings this into the right framing, the right discourse. So, it's like, in some ways, I'm happy to take the baton from where this left it and then gather the citizen, the willing, the able, and to take disclosure further. So, I think, you know, citizen disclosure and the international angle really is where we have to kick off from this. I don't think we spoke last time when we did discuss non-human intent around how a non-human intelligence, how much it's involved in our world right now, how much it would know, how deep that goes. There are theories and hypotheses that any kind of aliens looking at non-human species, perhaps, if we found out too much would unveil themselves and the reason for some of the secrecy and keeping a distance is because we don't know large, the public at large don't know the truth hasn't been revealed to them. I wonder how much a documentary like this when you have all these military folks, these politicians, these government officials, these contractors coming out and saying what they're saying is the lack of any reaction from an NHS a sign that they don't care, they don't have that level of awareness because we're not too far off of a president level announcement when you get to a point of having a documentary like this. So, what's your take on that? And I'm wording that question so badly but I think you get the gist of it. Okay, got it, yeah. Well, yes, you know, we've heard time and time again and we heard on this very documentary, you know, this is Eric Davis, why the cover-up? Because they don't want to tell anyone about the threat because they can't do anything about it. We've had that, we've heard that before. So, you know, is the very contents of the disclosure itself what makes disclosure so extraordinarily challenging? And we have to honestly ask ourselves what are the contents? What is this disclosure? That changes everything. So, as for NHI or let me back up intelligent UAP, UAP operating with intelligent kind of behavior and activity responding to disclosure events, I took due note after the last hearings of 2024 and in the space between that and the inauguration we saw this, you know, this anomalous drone activity went worldwide, right? And from what I've heard on the sidelines, some percentage of that activity was very clearly non-prosaic. I think there was also prosaic craft involved and that's where I go back to Rep Gallagher's kind of four options and hint, hint, it's the number fourth, it's the combo of all of the above. Yeah. Yeah. I think that is probably a likely explanation, but it is possible that some kind of a psychological operation was being conducted in the skies after those hearings prior to this administration forming with its stated intent to disclose information to the public on UAP. in a way that had never been done before, right? A lot happening there. And we did see intelligent, non-prosaic, you know, craft operating in the skies, doing, doing, you know, anomalous and dangerous things. And that continues up to this day. The Dutch, the Dutch government shot down or attempted to shoot down multiple drone-like craft as of a week or two ago, right? Flying over restricted airspace. So there is a, there is a fight in the skies. It is kinetic. And from what I know and have understood to be the case, the U.S. government and possibly some of its Western allies are in a, not just a secret arms race with foreign adversaries, but in a secret state of, you could call it a cold war with the, with the phenomenon itself. And that is behind what we see in these UAP shoot downs, but also what's behind some of the UAP altercations with, with craft in the air and some of the more dangerous elements of how the human population is being engaged. Yeah. I wonder one of those big explosions of, of UAP, and I'll give a nod to my friend, Graham Rendell here, wonderful author, wonderful historian on the Foo Fighters phenomenon, um, was when during World War I, World War II, they were seeing these orbs, these craft would appear and it seemed like they were everywhere all across the world. Um, as we were filling the skies with all kind of planes and jets and, weaponry, would it make sense then perhaps? And I've been a little bit outspoken on the whole drone situation. I think a lot of that was a mass hysteria or people just posting stuff online for clicks and views and engagement. I do think there were some interesting incidents, but a very, very low percentage of what was covered would have actually been. However, if the US, if China, if Russia are now filling the skies with all these weird and wonderful toys, no longer your, your standard aircraft, you've got all these different size of drones, different power sources in these drones or some of these drones, perhaps nuclear powered, they're using maybe some kind of energy that allows them to travel longer, further unnoticed. is that attracting the phenomenon and is that perhaps why we're seeing these flaps and it's almost like going back to those days of World War I, World War II. Yeah, I mean, as you say that, I ask, you know, where did that tech come from? Are we actually seeing the latter stages of not only the reverse engineering efforts, but the deployment of those technologies and the weaponization of them at scale and in a way that is causing a potential catastrophic miscalculation between superpowers? So I think, you know, are we seeing the late stage results of what you could call technological seeding or even Trojan technologies? And, you know, in the documentary, Hal put off, you know, finally, somebody posed the question, maybe crash retrievals are not retrievals of crashes, but the retrievals of intentionally deposited technologies. He called it a gift. Maybe it's a giant IQ test for the species. Look, here's a toy. Let's see who reversed it. Let's see who can... I like the IQ test idea. I really like that. Yeah. Yeah. And who can take it the farthest? Now, there's a little bit of a red herring there. Gift. People say, oh, it's a gift. Great. It's a gift. We're done. It's a benevolent contribution to human development. It's like, is it a giant IQ test to see who the best partner would be, right? Who could pair with the technological, you know, superstructure that whatever this intelligence is bringing here would want us to pair with? Who can get to AGI first? Who's the best human partner? I think there is selective engagement and engagement in very unique and specific ways with different national and defense entities historically, which does suggest an interest in kind of centers of human power. And, you know, as it's been said, I think Harold Malmgren, this is from him, that there's an intense interest in our quote, tip of the spear technologies in both amplifying and accelerating and maybe shifting the direction of how those are developed, but also creating something of a glass ceiling to limit how far we go. Some have posited that maybe we pose a threat to them. In fact, that was one of the top lines in the promo to this documentary is maybe we are threatening them. I scoff at that, right? We are in no position to threaten other life in an interstellar fashion, right? It would take how long to get a nuclear warhead out of our own solar system, right? Where's Voyager right now? Okay. Not even a hair's breath close to the next star system. Can we threaten the planet that might be of interest to them? Now, that's a much more plausible scenario. So are we threatening an ecology that is of interest to other forms of sentient and biological life that value ecologies? Now, that is, I think, a very fruitful line of thinking. Yeah, when I heard the IQ test idea from Hal Putov, it made me think of Men in Black and that interview process Will Smith goes through, where you've got all these top quality graduates from various academies across the United States, and they're all sitting trying to fill in the form, and clearly all very qualified, but he just thinks a little bit differently, and that's the guy that gets picked. And I wonder, is it a case of you've got this technology, it's not as simple as you've got the engineering capabilities, you can reverse engineer it, you have to think outside the box, you have to think differently, there may be elements of luck in discovering whatever it is we have to discover, but I did like that idea. You mentioned you had a list of eye-openers, do you want to go through some of those? Because I think that would be quite good to discuss. Well, just to finish up that last comment, I think we might be seeing the deployment of an interstellar form of flypaper operation, which is you put the tech here, you see who it attracts, you see who's smart enough to crack the code, direct quote out of the documentary, whoever cracks the code first is in a position of tremendous supremacy. And so what is the NHI's interest in having one actor crack the code over another? Obviously, they deposit this tech, whether it's in a Trojan or a gifted form or a transacted form, we have to ask the question, has there been a transaction, a deal been made to gain technology in exchange for something? ultimately, that's going to play out in all too predictable ways, right? We humans will fight over it. So what is an NHI kind of a strategic use of the depositing of technology for that end? Would they want to see it weaponized, militarized? Because it will be. Do they want to see one national player rise over others? Because one will. So it's a question of what kind of intelligence would be doing this knowing the outcomes will be what they are. So I think getting into the intelligence and beginning to look at some of its patterned activity is a really important thing. But yes, let's talk about IO here there, eye openers. Well, man, Eric Davis, somebody put a microphone in front of him and give him three lattes and just don't stop recording because 1964 Holloman Air Force Base, three UAP, non-human entity de-boarded the craft, interacted with an Air Force and CIA personnel. I'm quoting the documentary. 1989, a Soviet tic-tac recovery, four non-human bodies, humanoid aliens, Soviet scientists took apart craft and if I had glasses on, I would take them off and discovered an advanced directed energy weapon. How interesting. And what does that even mean? They discovered an intact weapon. They discovered technologies that could be weaponized into a directed energy weapon. The weapon was used in some fashion against U.S. military, I'm sorry, Soviet personnel, but I've also heard tell of UAP using directed energy weapons against U.S. military personnel, not only craft, but on individual service members on the ground. So what is the DEW-UAP connection? That's interesting. I think there was a big hint at some point in the documentary that some of what we're seeing is the result of a Chinese reverse engineering program. Not a huge surprise to those of us who've been thinking along those lines, but to say so on a national platform. Interesting that Kennedy's comments were spliced right in between these. This quote from him, there are new technologies to be won, and technology has no conscience of its own. So was the fight for these technologies already well underway, and was the arms race even at play during the Cold War? Was the Cold War, as we understand it, between the Soviets and the Americans, was it in part fueled by technologies that were transacted for following the 1947 Roswell crash, following whatever engagements might have taken place in the early 50s between governments, plural, U.S. and China, and non-human humanoid extraterrestrial entities, right? This is the territory we're now in. And then finally, sorry, but there's just so many from Eric, oh my God, he did state the following, quote, to intervene and prevent a conflict between us and them, and I believe them meaning not human on human, but us and them. And I have heard statements made come across information to suggest that there may be some sort of dominant NHI faction and an outlaw or rogue NHI faction and that one is operating under some degree of permission by the other and restriction by the other, but that it might be doing things in rogue fashion that are a direct threat. So I've come across information to that regard and so some of these statements comport pretty well. Yeah, is there an element, I touched on this on my reaction video to the documentary and it gets a little bit conspirit, I don't even have to preface this statement because this whole thing can be seen as conspiratorial, I get that, but have we gone to war or invaded, I say we, humans, invaded country to country, big nation, small nation, thinking Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Taiwan, Ukraine, because potentially there have been times where big country, US, China, Russia, know that smaller country, it's not oil, they have not weapons of mass destruction, but they have a gifted or a crashed craft somewhere and they can't just go in and get it. So how do we go in and get that bit of technology? And quite often you'll see China backing up country A, but other country wants to go in and get that. And is that part of it where these superpowers are trying to almost collect the infinity stones? And it's that kind of fight for technology. Right. Yeah, going out and hunting down the lost seeing stones of Numenor and aggregating them under one's own control. Well, you know, John Robert, I believe that that was his name, in the documentary, made a statement that they would prefer if the UAP crashed in international waters. Right. But I gathered from that and I've heard elsewhere, it's no problem if it doesn't. Right. There is an SLA, a service level agreement in the defense industry regarding the recovery of crashed vehicles anywhere on earth. And it can be done in under 100 hours. So anywhere on earth vehicle crashes, it can be recovered no matter where. Just think about that for a minute, what kind of infrastructure it would take airports, you know, military personnel, diplomatic cover to go into the suburbs of Moscow and pluck out of a farm field, you know, a crashed vehicle. So, but yes, it's an important question, which is in what we've seen in the 20th century, to what extent was the non-human presence, just presence, not even intent or activity, a factor in generating or fueling hostilities human-on-human and this technological arms race, how far back does it go? Where is its inception? And, you know, we've heard alarming statements over the last several years. I'm thinking, again, of Harold Malmgren that, you know, I believe it was the 1962 test of a nuclear high-altitude blast in the Johnston Atoll was stated as a test of a nuclear warhead, but its actual purpose, which might have been one of many dual purposes, was to test the triggering of a directed energy blast that could take down a UAP. And a UAP did fall out of the nuclear plume and was recovered, including the bodies, which he then was given first-hand knowledge to. So, you know, to what extent have our activities in terms of genetic testing and profiling, mapping the human genome, has that at all been impacted by or dual purposed toward detecting genetic anomalies in the human population as a result of non-consensual physical engagements or medical experimentation by NHI, right? These, you know, far-flung Cold War conflict zones, right? Was there a crashed vehicle or technology being developed by a second or third-rate country and we had to have it and they wouldn't give it? I don't know of anything specific to that regard myself, but I think it's a plausible scenario. You mentioned just before, and I want to pull you back because it's the kind of thing, back in the day I would have been screaming at a podcast host or radio host to ask for more information on. You touched on, and forgive me paraphrasing, that potentially humans fighting with NHI and knowing something around that. What sort of hearsay have you heard? What's your thoughts on the idea that we are engaged in almost a secret conflict with an NHI or a faction of an NHI? Yep. Well, you know, I would say there's more than five, less than ten different multiracial groups operating on earth. That's what I've heard, and I've heard it credibly stated, and with some convincing data to back it up. I wouldn't be surprised if different groups are seeking different partners in a, at times, competitive, at times collaborative fashion between each other, which means to say we're not looking at an overt war, exopolitical proxy war. We're looking at a competitive engagement, right? And so, different groups engaging, different world actors, but also collaborating with one another for shared ends. Yep, I'm aware of some instances of UAP hostily engaging aircraft in the sky. I think of the COIN helicopter incident as well as the 2004 Sicily helicopter incident, very similar, a directed energy weapon targeting a helicopter and forcing it to either land, emergency landing, or to actually relocate it physically in the air. And then, you know, aircraft disappearances, the Frederick Valentich disappearance, the Kinross disappearance. There are some instances, actually a couple of those are right out of your book, Andy, which is behind you. And, if I may, I have it right here as well. Oh, look at that. I know, look at that, earned media. Was that a list of UFOs you've just held up? Because some folks will be listening to this, and of course, that's available, read on Amazon, Waterstones, Barnes & Noble, and other retailers, but yeah, thanks for showing that. You're welcome, yeah, I like coffee table books, because believe it or not, I actually have a coffee table still. Nice. And so, this is on the coffee table, so when folks come over, they're like, oh, the Atlas of, oh, wow, and thus begins the UFO conversation, which, cheers, mate. Yeah, good stuff. So, but yeah, there have been, in the historical record, you know, instances of hostile engagement in the air, UAP in some kind of apparent dogfight, or, you know, chasing one another, even Skywatcher has anecdotally reported that different classes of UAP seem to be kind of engaging each other and, you know, possibly chasing each other off. And then, of course, we have the whole historical record of people being engaged in these alleged abductions, conversations, and I think that's highly alarming, and, you know, taken across the sweep of history with all the signals and indicators, I would say there is definitely a there there. And, you know, I'll just say, I think the big shift right now is going from is there a there there, UAP, to is there a they there? Is there an intelligence, a sentience, a mind, and is it engaging us? And if it is, we have to go beyond the nuts and bolts of the phenomenon to look at the dimensions of relational engagement, communication, communion of body and mind, direct physical encounters, that's literally where we are. Those are the front lines of the conversation. And so, is there a they there? There are multiple theys there. Are they not just in existence, but are they physically present? I think the age of disclosure, if nothing else, it advanced us beyond existence to presence. But now the next question is activity and intent. we have to get into those dimensions. And to do that, we have to look at the full record, including the citizen testimonial record. There are tens of thousands of citizens globally across decades in all different kind of creative cultural and political and religious environments stating that they have had similar encounters with similar class beings. And so to look at those patterns and trends is really important right now. And among those, there are anecdotal reports of US military personnel being attacked on the ground. I've heard more than one instance of that taking place during a crash recovery. So during a crash recovery, service members are down on the ground recovering elements of the vehicle and another craft approaches the space and fires a weapon and causes loss of life. So I mean, that, okay, you know, I can't prove that. I don't have evidence or hard proof of that, but, you know, comported to other things like the Colaris incidents in Brazil, which continue to this day. There are, you know, individuals in rural areas of South America are reporting laser like injuries by UAP in remote areas where we have the least detecting capabilities. That's alarming if that's, if that's taking place. So I think we have to advance beyond, you know, novel curiosity about, you know, luminous objects and interstellar possibilities and confront the fact that we're being physically engaged by another biology with massively greater technological capabilities than our own. You mentioned right at the beginning of that answer that you had been exposed to data, which backed up some of that. What sort of data and how do you get exposed to that? Just in conversations. I mean, people reach out to me all the time and I do my due diligence to make sure people are who they say they are. Yeah, but yeah, I mean, what they've, what they've been able to share suggests that, you know, this this is not all love and light that there, that there is some sort of hostile altercation taking place, at least between some governments and some NHI factions. And so, no, I've not been exposed to classified information, photos, videos, et cetera. You know, but, you know, other information and a lot of it is in the public domain as well, hard to find, do a good deep chat GPT search and you might find some of it, you know, definitely suggest that there's a kinetic engagement taking place. And, you know, Ross Coltart speaks to it often on his show. And if anyone wants to know the dimensions of it, go talk to Ross because I think he's being, he's, he's hearing it in spades, which is, you know, we are using high wave microwave pulse weaponry to down UAP. prosaic, prosaic, you know, rockets and missiles are being attempted to shoot down UAP and they're not working. And it's been a long and complex dance over many decades to gain some technological parity with the phenomenon, to confront its activities, to redress its potential violations and its transgressions of whatever agreements might have been made. And, you know, that's, it's, it's, it's not a pretty picture. And so when Lou Elizondo and others say, you know, there's, there's a hard truth behind all this, right? It's, it's ugly that, that it has festered. It has gone too far. It cannot stay secret any longer. The shelf, it has exceeded its shelf life as a secrecy. I, I understand what he's talking about. When I spoke to Pavel on Seco Activo, like I mentioned last, last couple of days ago, actually, he, he mentioned, he was asking me about my book and I'm not going to plug it again, folks, but he did ask anything I'd learned about it, anything I thought was interesting as I kind of researched the book. And I mentioned the fact that, you know, Pavel being, you know, the whole South American connection, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, there are often more, it seems to me, cases that turn violent or have a link to death. We know, Calares, they were shooting beams through the roof and blood was seen traveling through the air, the iron was being removed from blood, people were badly injured, rumours of fatalities, you mentioned crash retrieval fatalities and does that point or give some more evidence to the idea of factions being involved? Could it be that the reason you get more direct contact with humans in South America is it's because there are particular faction or NHI has more prevalence in that area? Maybe there are perhaps different NHI prevalent in North America, you then have Europe and whatnot, and they maybe have domain in certain areas. Would that make sense? I think it would be, yeah, it would be plausible at this point. You know, I mean, you know, the altercations might have began, you know, the year after 1947, the Mantell incident, you know, the first death of a U.S. Air Force service member in a plane crash as a result of a UAP potential chase and encounter. So, I mean, that sets the tone, right? I don't think this was, you know, kind of like this benevolent meeting of two different intelligences and this kind of proverbial White House lawn landing where we greet them, they greet us. You know, it hasn't been that from the beginning. And so, I think the phenomenon, it's plausible to imagine the phenomenon has adapted to our, a number of things, the shifting nature of global power and global alliances post-World War II, our increased ability to detect and to track UAP as a technological ability, which, you know, still remains from what I understand limited, but is growing. Our ability to, I suppose, reverse engineer some of these craft and to produce a viable ARV, right? That can either be, can be used in a variety of operations. I don't know the extent of what those would be. And so, has, has, has whatever this presence been, has it shifted in terms of where it is physically engaged and with what populations it is engaged? That it would appear and, and, and begin to concentrate in places of poor detect, detectability, I would not be surprised. That it would go from daylight encounters to nighttime, I would not be surprised that it would go, it would operate out of the ocean as never before, you know, because we're sandwiched between two enigmatic domains, we terrestrial mammals, space and sea, right? We have almost no observing capabilities in either. You know, Tim Gallaudet in the documentary, we have, we have mapped to greater spatial resolution, the moon and Mars than we have the ocean seafloor, right? So just about anything could be operated from down there. So I think we do need to be looking for changing patterns in UAP activity, which could be a responsiveness to, to human technological developments. And again, the shifting balance of power. If the Western liberal alliance has been more adversarial toward these NHI factions, if China, North Korea, others have been more receptive, that's a problem. Could that then fuel hostilities on the ground, tech, data, AI arms races, right? Even trade wars, right? What's really underneath the skin of human affairs? I think the non-human presence is a factor. And I think kind of responsibly examining and speculating, because that would be required. We do not have enough hard data to know what the phenomenon is doing in North Korea or China or Russia, let alone even more allied countries, Italy, Australia, right? And so it is the world's best kept secret. So we shouldn't underestimate the level of the secret keeping and how global it truly is. But I believe, I think we as citizens need to begin asking the question, what is the NHI connectivity to certain events in the world? Are they influencing those events? Are they holding certain things back? Are they propelling certain things forward? I'm thinking mainly about technology. Yeah. Apologies. I had to look down there, folks. My heated blanket had turned itself off and it's incredibly cold in the shed. So sorry about that, Reid. No worries. I have asked you one question from my actual notes for this interview so far, and we are almost 50 minutes in. So I do want to get to some of those listener questions again. But just before we do, one of the things that have come, and I'll just state again for the record, folks, if I sound a tall, overwhelmingly negative about the Age of Disclosure documentary, I genuinely am not. I just think the documentary itself is perhaps lesser than the sum of the parts or what are going to come from it. I think it's going to be the impact afterwards, hopefully, that gains momentum. Dan Farah has been on Joe Rogan, where I think there will be more people, as a very obvious statement, more people will see Dan Farah clips from Joe Rogan than they will watch the Age of Disclosure documentary, because of the size of the audience Rogan gets and that mainstream reach and the clips and the way social and viral feeds work. But they mentioned around something potentially by the end of the year, Donald Trump making a statement. David Grush, we mentioned the interview, David Grush done on Fox with Bret Baier. He mentions or alludes to the fact I'll let the administration make that statement as and when they want to. I have just interviewed, as we record this, about two hours ago, Representative Eric Burleson, and I asked him what his thoughts were on the likelihood that Donald Trump would be the president to make that statement. I don't think he seemed overly positive that he would and that there is more on the desk and more on the plate of the mind of Donald Trump right now when it comes to various wars in different countries, the affordability crisis in the United States and whatnot. And I can understand that as big as the UAP question is, as the question for humanity, it will affect us forever. It changes everything once it's answered. However, what's your take on on Trump being likely to make that statement or not? And does it matter at this point? I think it would matter. I mean, we do need increased federal authorities from some government, some acting authority to state, at least to affirm existence and presence. I think, you know, I wouldn't bank, take it to the bank. I wouldn't build upon that likelihood. I think it's very likely it does not happen. And that's where I'm already thinking out ahead of it and irregardless of it. Because if the citizen conversation does not happen, there's really no grounds upon which there's no political value or strong footing to make statements like that if the public is totally ill-prepared for the ramifications. So getting the public ready for the ramifications, if that's anyone's calling, get on board because it has to happen. You know, I'm hopeful. I know everyone has talked about Donald Trump and his administration being, quote, the disclosure president. From what I understand, there were many efforts made early on to advance that issue, you know, up the laundry list of issues politically that this administration has stated they want to address. It seems to be there's been a turn away from doing that early on in the administration. Would the president throw that out there in his last kind of lame duck months as president when there's less to lose? And of course, there's a lot of political value to be gained from not only disclosing the phenomenon, but mostly disclosing the cover-up and naming the other political party as the prime, you know, source or cause or gatekeepers of that cover-up. So there's risk there as well. How will this disclosure be framed? Who's the bad actor? Where's the center of controversy? So if one party is going to, you know, nail the other and say that they're the ones who have gate kept this more or less or mostly, then that's a very toxic political move to make with an issue that really pertains to the whole species, to all of humanity. But, you know, at a gut level in terms of how am I sensing the changing weather and the wind, you know, I'm thinking of something occurring in the mid to late 2027, 2028 timeframe. I think that's something to be thinking of. I would be highly surprised if anything happens this year. Um, yeah, I would be very surprised. Why do you say 2027, 2028? Why those, why that date range? Um, good question. I, I, there's been so much conversation about the, uh, the long, you know, the, the often mentioned 2027, you know, with regards to, uh, some sort of geopolitical event, a natural event, planetary event, um, something with the solar cycle of our son, I, there's so much speculation out there. Um, I personally think that a conflict between the U S and China is essentially looming and may happen a whole lot sooner than we all think. And, um, I would not be at all surprised if disclosure is a reason that that, that that conflict happens sooner. Okay. So Xi Jinping has told the People's Liberation Army of China to be ready to invade Taiwan. This is a statement of readiness, not a statement of intent to invade. I believe it's either 2026 or 2027 might be 27. Um, from some of the signals that I'm reading, I, I think the move might be made sooner than that. Um, and I honestly think if the U S government moves to disclose this phenomenon, I'm not sure other foreign adversaries sit still and follow and play ball, you know, it's too powerful an issue to aggregate to one's own, um, national narrative. So, um, you know, likewise does, does the, do the Chinese undertake some form of increased transparency? Hard to imagine. Um, they don't seem to be the most transparent in terms of governance models. Um, but yeah, I mean, I, I, I don't know. I don't have any signals as to when the, when, or if the administration will actually do this. Um, but you know, at a gut level, I would say, you know, be open to a 20, 27, 20, 28 reveal of some kind also be open to the phenomenon doing something, right? It's not a neutral actor. It's not all about, it's not all us on us. It's really us and them. And so how do, what do they want to do? How do they respond to events on the ground? Um, by all accounts that the phenomenon itself is not wanting to disclose, at least not on an, an urgent timescale, um, but it could, you know, anything could, I mean, anything could be used to engineer a mass kind of, and well-shaped public perception of, of NHI, whether it's an inbound craft, uh, a signal or communication technologically received from elsewhere in the solar system or a mass sighting on the ground. So, um, you know, the phenomenon is at play. Yeah. What 97, uh, it was the Phoenix lights. So what 30 years on from the Phoenix lights event, perhaps to come back and go, we'll have another anniversary, 30 year anniversary. Yeah, that's it. Yeah. I've always got an issue with the whole calendar thing because an NHI to be like, yeah, so may 20, 26, that's when we're going to come along. If you can just mark that down. I don't see how that conversation would have even occur. Um, one other thing, Eric Burleson, Congressman said to me before was that the, the secrets task force is going to have to move on at some point from the UAP conversation. Um, he said, and again, you wouldn't have heard this, you wouldn't have heard this yet because I've literally just recorded, but he did say that they have other things to get to, including, I think he said that Martin Luther King assassination and RFK assassination and the, the UAP remit can't stay there forever. And there will be a point they naturally have to say, I think has exact words where we'll have to shelf it and leave it for other folks to pick up the ball or come along with fresh eyes. And I think that'll be something that disappoints a lot of folk that they're at some point they're going to have to say the UFO thing, drawing under it. We have done as much as, and I'm, I am presuming this is a Burleson, Burchett, Luna. They're going to have to draw a line under it and go cool. That's as far as we got. We ultimately didn't get where we needed to go and we have to move on. Right. Well, you could take the legacy program for that. You know, I mean, you heard it in, in Burleson and Burchett's and Luna's testimony during the last hearings that certain staffers on elected individuals in congressional offices are barring, you know, congressmen and women from having rightful briefings from organizations like Arrow and others. And so there's the gatekeeping is deep, right? And, you know, I'm not surprised. I'm not really banking on the declass effort, declassing this, the, the nature of reality. I just don't think governments do that. Yeah. So can they, can they create a little bit of a crack that we can leverage and, and expand into the next, you know, two to five year timeline timeline? Yeah. I think that's plausible, but you know, it's inevitable. This is going to have to get outside of the U S government and, and go into other arenas. You know, retired Colonel Carl now has talked about the quote end of the cycle since 2017 and how other hands have to pick this up. You know, a new conversation has to begin. That's not just a couple former, you know, DOD IC guys coming out with some videos and engineering the government confirmation of those videos and getting a few congressmen to speak on the record and having skiffs. And, you know, um, if, if that is that, if that legislative primary line of attack is not working, what are the other lines of attack? We have to be asking. Yeah. He was saying to me that the, when they apply, I was asking around grush and clearances and trying to get congressmen and senators into, into skiffs and whatnot. And he says they can apply for clearances and permission, but they, they are refused and the refusals can be anonymous and they don't know who's actually refusing. And he said that also leads like, where do you chase up? We then don't know exactly where to go to say, okay, we want approval. And so I get, there's a lot of frustrations there. Um, but you're right. It's, I think ultimately we'll come back to, we can't wait on the government to disclose this. It's going to have to be the phenomenon itself or some kind of citizen effort, scientific effort. I don't know how that would go. Yeah, I have some ideas about it and I'm actually, the, the bulk of my efforts are on those lines, those lines of effort. Uh, we can get into those. I think there are, there are some interesting, you know, possibilities at hand to generate disclosures that no one would have seen coming. Yeah. And I think of, for example, imagine, you know, the D class office, um, submits a request to the Brazilian government for a retired general present and, and in, or under duty during the Calares incidents to come forward in front of Congress and to, and to state on the record what the Brazilian government knows would, would a foreign government, um, submit itself to something of an interrogative or a, a man, uh, um, a request for information from an acting U S agency so that it's not the U S government disclosing it's a second or third tier country disclosing. Would that be another viable way instead of to basically step outside the sphere of influence of the legacy program and all of its assets. And, uh, cause I do not doubt that there are other governments sitting on information. I mean, even I was said in the documentary age of disclosure that the Vatican knows the Vatican has information. So there are many different actors out there who could provide revolutionary disclosure of information. Um, so, but you know, and then there's the citizen, the citizen side and the societal side of the effort. And I've been a part of standing up this, um, this effort to develop new capabilities of detecting and tracking UAP at a technological level and to converge those capabilities in one space, create a collaborative framework to get out into the field and to generate really important, credible insight and tactical insight into the activity of UAP. So we can get into that as well. Yeah. So let's do that before we get to listener questions. Uh, cause I can separate this into two parts for folks. So if it goes long, um, so 2026 UAP detection and tracking summit, um, very handily starts in 74 days from now, as we record this read, I can see that on the website. Um, do you want to tell us a little bit about what this is who's involved because there are some big names just looking at the website. Yeah. So this, this, um, two day virtual conference and the whole collaborative framework behind it. And that will continue after it was devised in the depths of the 2024 drone crisis. When the public needed credible insight into what the hell was flying over cities, coastline, sensitive infrastructure and federal and, um, private sector authorities were unable to deliver that credible picture to the public. And so, um, the insight was that society at this point has enough scientific and technical, uh, capabilities to functionally detect anomalies in the air and potentially under the oceans, uh, in a beginning fashion. And that if we converge those capabilities, if we bring together the 12 or so disparate groups, academic teams, research, research organizations into one space, converge their capabilities that we can create a, a, a, basically a societal UAP detection and tracking effort in the public interest and, um, and generate our own aerial intelligence, our own insight into what is up, up in the sky above us. And, and really to anchor into this, this truth that data drives disclosure. People are unhappy with age of disclosure because it's all testimony. There's no data. There's no evidence. Let's go get the data. Let's go get the evidence. It actually is collectible. The phenomenon is either not able or not interested in concealing all of its appearances and all of its detectable signatures. Right? So, um, I, and the team at the human Institute where I'm working, reached out to the, the dozen or so, um, research and, um, and academic groups that are, that are looking at detection and tracking. We're bringing them all together at this two day summit. We have Eric Burleson opening up the summit. Uh, we have a number of, um, key voices, James Fowler, formerly of Skywatch, um, Skywatcher. Um, and, uh, we also have the Skywatcher team, uh, led by Gary Nolan, speaking at the summit. So we have, um, you know, hopefully bringing forward some key tactical insight into, uh, the data gathered thus far, uh, and basically look at how do we systematize and standardize the technologies and the data collection around UAP detection to provide a data set that would ultimately be accessible to the public, to researchers and yes, to other, others in the federal space and in the private sector space. Um, but really with a nonprofit framework and governing or, uh, architecture. How do you see this then sitting alongside? Because I think something that's on a lot of folks' minds is how many duplications of efforts there seems to be at times. I think one of the recent examples, uh, would be the, the whistleblower funds where you have different folks, whistleblowers themselves, multiple setting up their own, either go fund me's or selling coffee or merchandise to try and raise funds for whistleblower protections. And people have their different ideas on how that looks and whatnot. That's, that's all up in the air for debate, but you've got Sol, you've got the Galileo project, you have, um, the Tedesco brothers who I know are speaking at the event, doing their work with Nightcrawler, their own, and I've got the Tedesco's back on in a couple of days time. Um, they were meant to be on last week, folks, there was an illness. So, uh, we delayed to let them recover. Um, but yeah, so there's, there's potentially a duplication of work. How do you get folks to work together and make sure that you're doing work that again, isn't treading on other folks toes, but you're also benefiting from the work that's already been done by other folks. Yeah. It's a, it's a, it's a challenging effort to, to, you know, encourage folks out of their silos to acknowledge the need for funding in a very, in a very resource starved environment. Um, also to kind of soothe the egos and get people off of this, you know, this platform of wanting to be the one to make the discovery, to get, to be the one on CNN and so forth. There's gotta be kind of, um, an inspired effort, uh, from a deeper level. And that's, that's focused on really, um, the human interest that this is humanity first, not national security first, not private company and it's stockholders first, right. To really move in a humanity first footing. Um, I think there's a lot of will to do that. We have to work out the, uh, the collaborative framework to do it. Um, I think it's best for society to do that and not other, um, national security entities and agencies. You know, I don't think arrow should be the organization bringing together all of society's nascent UAP detection and tracking capabilities and pointing all of those ships in the direction of doing the DOD's work, right. We need to be doing the citizens society's work and even bigger working on behalf of an international consensus based, uh, response to this, to these intelligently controlled craft that are operating in ways we don't understand. So, um, it's being worked on as we speak, you know, there is a nascent coalition forming where there could be increased standardization of the technologies being used to detect UAP, increased agreement on what the detectable signatures are, and then go find the tech that can detect them. Hopefully there's a new appetite to fund these initiatives. And I am encouraged because at least, uh, two of the groups speaking at our summit have secured large scale funding for their efforts recently in to the tune of millions of dollars, which is excellent. This is what we need. Actually three groups should correct that. So, um, you know, the privates, the private equity is there to support this effort. I think, you know, if anything else, if people are frustrated that the federal government will not facilitate this on behalf of the public interest, then good, you know, like convert that frustration into conviction to find the ways, the resources, the solutions to move the needle. And, um, great that, that, you know, a variety of, uh, organizational leads, congressional reps are willing to step onto that stage and talk about detection and tracking at that level. Um, but it'll be a, it'll be a challenging process to get everyone to work together nicely. Um, and, and it'll probably have to, like I said, be a nonprofit kind of solution to, to really deal with this. If there's money involved and money to be made, it's going to be fraught and, and always will be. I'll put the link for the summit and the description for the podcast. If people want to click on that, check it out. Like I said, it starts around 74 days time, folks, uh, February 7th, Saturday, February 7th in the UK, that's 3 PM, uh, to Monday, the 9th of February at 1 AM. But again, you can adjust that folks locally for your own times. That's what Christ 10 AM Eastern 7 AM Pacific, you know? Yeah. Two pack days, uh, 12 sessions over 23 speakers. Um, there's going to be some, some, uh, brilliant technology demoed and displayed some early findings from a variety of field research programs and some hard hitting statements on, on the need for increased collaboration and oversight by, by responsible acting authorities, uh, to, to help society move the needle on this. And, uh, it's $50 to attend. We set the price, um, nice and low to try to get as much of the public into this event as possible. Um, so yeah, please get on board, uh, seat, uh, space is limited. So I do recommend to people, uh, to get a seat soon because we will cap, uh, participation. And we'd, I have to ask because more and more folks expect this now, I think, and it's only fair when you talk about nonprofit and you're asking for $50 for an event like this. Can you just justify why you're looking for the cash from folks to come in and sit on the event? Um, 100%, it costs money, um, to host events of all kinds, uh, and to promote them and to get them out to the public. I think, you know, $50 is, is basically will, will help us make ends meet. Um, and it is being 100% put on by a 501 C three nonprofit organization. And so, um, those funds also go into our other research efforts, um, that, that go across the board. We have, uh, a series investigating the scientific and research foundations of non-human intelligence. Uh, we're building a, uh, for the public interest, uh, platform to score and present UFO evidence to the public. UFO evidence.com is the website. So everything the human Institute does is for the public. It is a nonprofit driven enterprise, but there are costs to doing a lot of this. So yeah, tickets are necessary. Awesome. Um, thank you for the explanation. Um, let's dive in then to listen to our questions. Cause I got so many in for you. Um, and I try not to, to duplicate what we discussed last time. So read, uh, from Nick, Nick says, I'm curious to get Reed's thoughts on the summoning aspect of the phenomenon, especially as it relates to the history of esoteric or occult magic rituals. There are notable similarities between what the folks at Skywatcher describe and the writings and practices of John Dee and Alistair Crowley. That is all for part one. Part two will be out in the next couple of days. You can listen to this episode already in full, ad free and with no sponsors for less than the price of a coffee. If you head on over to Patreon or Apple, you can subscribe to the podcast for less than the price of a coffee or take up the two weeks free trial that are available on those platforms. You can head on over to Spotify and search That UFO Podcast Premium and get access to this episode in full. No adverts, no sponsorships, and also with some extra bonus content as well. Thanks for listening, folks.