UAP Detection, Tracking & the Data Problem | Reed Summers & Rich Hoffman

This is a message from sponsor Intuit TurboTax. You've sent so many emails to your tax pro and nothing. It feels like you're chasing updates, but now your taxes are done for you by a TurboTax expert. So you actually know what's happening. You can match with an expert and just hand off all your tax stuff to them right in the app. So instead of guessing, you can feel confident your TurboTax experts on it. Now this is taxes. Intuit TurboTax. Visit TurboTax.com to learn more. Only available with TurboTax experts. Real-time updates only in iOS mobile app. Hi everyone and welcome back to That UFO Podcast. Really excited for this show. As always, my name is Andy. I'm that excited I forgot my own name. And I'm going to be previewing this weekend's upcoming Unpacked UEP Detection and Tracking Summit. Joining me on the show, I have two guests. First off, Reid Summers, host of the Emergent Podcast, Director of Strategy at the Human Institute, and he's the organizer of the event we're going to be speaking about and a speaker on multiple panels throughout said weekend. Reid, welcome back to the podcast. Hey Andy, good to see you. Thanks for having me back. Good to have you back on. That's now three appearances in about three months. And also another returning guest. It's been a few years since he was on with me, but I have Rich Hoffman, Strategic Advisor to the Summit Planning Committee, a veteran UEP researcher with nearly six decades of experience from MUFON leadership to co-founding the Scientific Coalition for UEP Studies. A senior systems engineer, but analyst by trade, now retired. He's all about cutting through the noise and applying scientific rigor to UEP detection and study. Welcome back to the podcast, Rich. It's good to be back on with you, Andy. Very good to have you. I always feel very underdressed when you're on the podcast, Rich. So here we are. We were talking beforehand about me and my heated blanket, which we're coming out those colder months now. So I'm making do, folks. But as we record this, that is February right now, February 4th as we speak. And the event we're talking about here, the UEP Tracking and Detection Summit takes place this weekend, February 7th to February 8th. And Reid, I want to get started with yourself. Can you just give us a little update on how things are going ahead of the event? And I understand we also have a new speaker to the lineup too. Yeah, it's going great. We're having great interest in response, both from within the UAP community, but also the federal and UAS UAV communities and some individuals from the intergovernmental side. So we'll be hearing during the summit about some recent action or proposed upcoming action within the European Space Agency and other intergovernmental agencies that are dealing with the space domain. So summit's going amazingly. We have 30 expert speakers. We just added Mike Gold, formerly of NASA, as a speaker. He'll be talking about the NASA UAP study group, as well as forthcoming ways that NASA can be a part of transparency efforts on the UAP issue. So yeah, we've got 12 sessions, three panels. Eric Burleson will be kicking it off with a talk on the current state of UAP. And then Richard Dolan will be talking retrospectively on the state of USO, the USO phenomenon on unidentified submerged objects. And then we have two really exciting panels, one on first responders and homeland security. So we have three speakers looking at law enforcement, first responder, medical first responder, aspects of citizen reporting and testimonial data collection. And then we have Ryan Graves and Michael Lembeck speaking from the flight safety aerospace management side with updates on reports from pilots and individuals in the aerospace industry. So a lot of great context setting in the first four sessions. And then, yeah, we can get into it session by session, but we've got some great talks lined up by James Fowler, John and Jerry Tedesco, an international panel as well, looking at international detection efforts. And the whole concept here is that UAP are being observed. Testimony is coming out. The public is looking up. Federal governments are beginning to move on this issue. And certain agencies are beginning to take action themselves. But what we need is data. We need data to drive forward the disclosure conversation. It's a basic civilizational capacity, looking at the whole human picture. If we can't detect anomalies in our air, we can't situate ourselves in the potential engagement that might take place and might be taking place. And there are some other very critical and emerging issues on the international side that really compel UAP detection as an urgent capability. Rich, let's talk about the name of the event. It's very down to earth, very data driven, you know, UAP detection and tracking summit. Many of these virtual events happen and there are some grandiose titles and that's not to downplay them and they have their audiences. But they also promise some really big things, i.e. disclosure, capital D, huge revelations. That's not what you're going for here. Talk to me about the name of the event, which I've seen a lot of praise for online and from listeners of this podcast. Well, I think the onus on the kudos goes to Reid for coming up with that. I think he did an excellent job of like targeting exactly where we need to go. You know, like you mentioned, I've been at this for six decades and I've watched as over the period of time of doing, you know, UFO investigations that I did like in the 60s and stuff like that, 1960 and on. And, you know, we didn't have technology to be able to go and tackle the phenomena. Really, we were just going out and collecting anecdotal stories from a lot of witnesses, you know, and you'd fill out a form and you'd have some crude drawings. And occasionally you might have had a brownie, you know, or a Polaroid camera, you know, that took a picture of something and that's about all you'd have, right? You know? And so for me as a technologist over the years, even with the army material command that I was with for 30 years, I've watched as technology has really advanced to the point where, and the costs are there for people to be able to have their own tools. And I've also watched as there's been a plethora of these individuals who have come up and developed technologies on their own. They managed to get some funding or they funded it themselves. And so, you know, the bottom line here is that I'm also in a part of a scientific organization that is always, always asking for good, solid technical data. You know, do we have any data, you know, and they go looking out there for it and they can't find any data. Well, I mean, the only way you're going to solve this phenomenon and not spend another 70 some odd years just twiddling your thumbs and trying to come up with an idea of what it is based on anecdotal stories is to actually have the tools that are out there that are able to detect them and to track the objects and then getting the data to the scientists so that they can then analyze and do their studies on the data and then publish that wonderful data to all of us so that we can now go and look at it and we can all learn together about what the subject, what the objects are. I'm embarrassed to say that like people, you know, will often ask when I do a presentation or something of that nature, like, well, what have we learned in 70 years? And you're twiddling your thumbs to say, well, you know, we really don't know a lot, you know, and that's a sad answer. And the other problem we've got right now is that, you know, as Reed points out, you have governments that are engaging in this study now. And so and then but the transparency is not there. And so you consequently have them using these million dollar tools that are that are on an F-18 aircraft or something of that nature that they can apply to it. But we don't get even the data shared there to be able to see it and study it. They're not willing to share that data. So if we're going to really get some answers to this phenomena and really get an understanding, it's going to have to be on the public's part, the citizen networks and every other people to come up with the means by which we can go get the data, the means by which we can then all study it, and then to try to help get answers and then publish papers that we can be used by, but guess what, by politicians up on the hill to get their better understanding of the subject because they struggle with that themselves. It's new. It's a new phenomenon. It's not something that they dabbled in all the time. And so the more we can make them head smart, then you might be able to get some better, better thing. We've also been trying to engage Arrow and working as an organization and with SEU and to be able to work with them and say, give us some of your data and we'll help you analyze it. You can clean it. You can scrub it. We don't need to know secret stuff. We can just give us the data and we'll take a look at it, right? And we've got scientists that can do that. So we're starting to make some sort of like, you know, door openings that are going, but I don't think we're going to get there anytime soon. And so this is targeted for UAB detection and tracking. And it's because people have got tools out there that they've developed that we can now start to use and let's get our act together. And that's really what it's about. I was going through some YouTube comments earlier, and I think it was in watching the weaponized video. And we'll come back to that. And someone made this great little point that clearly had annoyed them, but they said, we need to stop focusing on reading the outside of the cheesecake box and concentrate around what's inside and eat the cheesecake. And actually there's that, that idea of, are we focusing more on who's inside these things? Are we focusing more on the craft? This event seems to focus more on the objects themselves, the craft. Is that fair to say? And we'll go to read for that one first. And, and what's the thinking behind that? Well, ultimately it's absolutely about who's behind the wheel, not necessarily about the hub caps and the bolts and the screws of, of, of the craft itself. But you know, we've got a dual track reality. We've got unacknowledged, unattributable prosaic phenomena to deal with. We've got misidentifications. We've got all of these challenges with more eyes, more cell phones pointed at the sky, more use of AI to fake UAP photo and video. So we have to weed all that out and, and come down to what are the true signatures of the actual anomalies. Now looking at the movements of those objects or potential craft is going to say a lot about the potential intelligence behind them. You know, their patterns of interactivity with observers in the sky and on the ground, possible acts of interference or electromechanical, you know, manipulation of devices on the ground. So I think there's a lot of insight and a lot of intelligence we can gain about the nature of what is behind these craft by getting out into the field and observing them in a very structured systematic way. And there are groups at the summit who are literally doing that. There are 10 known groups, groups that I've identified as part of my journey into this, who are actively in the field now or soon to be, and are working on detecting UAP from the ground as observers, collecting data and publishing that publicly. And so all of that data is, is a rich resource for doing pattern recognition analysis, cluster analysis, and, and other forms of analytical kind of work to better understand what are the intelligent patterns behind this? What kind of possible intention scenarios could we extrapolate from those? Ultimately, you know, the, uh, the promised land as I see it is getting enough data into the public of active real-time UAP detections, engaging the public, every eye, every camera as a potential sensor and corroborating what that finds with what higher quality, higher fidelity sensors are able to detect. And then map that on top of the wealth of testimonial data that law enforcement and first responders are collecting that citizen reporting groups like MUFON, um, and new fork are collecting as well as the hundreds of thousands of historic cases that have been logged by organizations like CUFOS, the center for UFO studies and others. There are hundreds of thousands of, of data points regarding the phenomenon. Can we begin to stack and layer all of this data and use real-time detection to corroborate, uh, observations by witnesses, claims by government, allegations by whistleblowers, possible statements of disclosure by foreign, foreign governments, right? So at any time, anyone can say anything about the phenomenon. How do we corroborate, um, the, the validity of those claims? Society needs its own capabilities to look up at the sky, generate an intelligence picture about what's up there. And, uh, we cannot wait upon the department of war or the intelligence community of one national security state to do it for us, let alone for the, the whole international community. In my view, it really has to be an international civilian led coalition taking matters into our own hands. And like Rich, you've said, you know, the technologies are here, they're accessible now and they're already being used. So this is a kind of a moment of singularity on the issue where the federal government is moving on this issue. To some extent, the public is interested and is looking up the technologies are here. The international landscape is devolving. So collaborative bodies and frameworks are collapsing in front of our eyes. Those are the very, you know, environments that would best tackle this issue. And, and here we have also at the same time, UAP activity allegedly increasing, if not hockey sticking in the last three to four years. So all of this is converging at this moment and creating an opportunity for us to really, uh, get into the field and, and, uh, trigger disclosure via credible data. And to expand on that, Rich, I'll come to you. Do you feel the need to, to discern who's in the craft as to what the craft might be? Or if I'm picking up Reed's point there, you can, you can do both at the same time and you may find the answer to one by investigating the other. Really? It's, I I'll, I'll say this much. It's, it's much easier for scientists to be able to tackle the outside the craft or what the craft is than an inside of the craft. You know, when we, we've did, we've done studies where we looked and tried to, is there an intent behind these things? So for example, like you had, we did a study in SU, uh, actually we've done several studies and we published our papers up on our website, but we've, uh, we've looked at the, is there an intent behind their visitations to nuclear sites, nuclear storage facilities, nuclear, uh, you know, uh, weapons developments or detonations and various other things. And we found out that there seemed to be from a, for a period of time, definitely that intent. Now that's looking at the, who is on the inside of the craft, but who also would have an interest in nuclear sites and nuclear development. And now you're talking about, well, our enemy might, you know, so now you've got to say, well, how do I deduce? Is that our enemy that's out there doing that? Or is it an alien presence? Now, certainly where you throw in the, the, it can't be too easily thrown at the, uh, the Russians or the, and the other adversary is the fact that the craft is able to go Mach 50 and not break apart into pieces and, and, and defies laws of inertia and various other scientific laws that we, that we know about. And so consequently, what you're dealing with is you're trying to take both to be able to figure out what it is. You know, there seems to be a preoccupation with them looking and monitoring our ranges. For example, if you look at the Nimitz case, that was a range, that was an exercise. If you look at the Roosevelt case in 2014 and 15 with Ryan Graves, that was an exercise area where we're doing military kinds of exercise. So there seems to be also some sort of interest in that. So the more we can get better data, we can find out and see what there's an intent behind this. And then when you match that up with the fact that the performance of these things is way beyond anything that we've got. Now, what are you doing? You're, you're putting the two of them together and you're starting to see that there is a connection and maybe it is clearly you can rule out the fact that it's anybody from here, right? And the more we can disprove a hypothesis that's out there, the better we are, right? There's multiple hypotheses that are going on and that's what science does. It tests those things. And so can I rule out some of these things? And one thing we haven't done over the years is we haven't ruled out a whole bunch of these, or we haven't proven a lot of these hypotheses we've got. So again, if science can help us to tackle that, then we can get a, again, a better understanding. And wouldn't it be great if we had the, the, the clear understanding that this is an object that doesn't comply with anything in our time or our, or whatever we got here, that that's going to be extremely validating to a lot of people who have been telling you over this, you know, centuries that they've seen something, right? So I, and I think that it's going to now help to, to focus a lot of the governments even toward activity and being involved in it. I do think that we ought to work for understanding again, if there is somebody in the craft and I'm just going to put it that way because many of these things are, I mean, there's objects the size of a grapefruit for God's sakes that are performing like this. I don't believe that there's a being on the inside of it, but I think it's more like, you know, a drone. Okay. Again, how do I understand where the interpretation of who's operating at and why they're doing what they're doing? So it's, it's a balancing act between both, but our focus right now, at least on this summit is what can we apply in the way of these current tools to help us to understand how the crafts maneuver, what they do. I always point out the fact that, you know, they're most witnesses will tell you that they don't hear a sound when the object shoots off or goes away. Right. Is that because it's the, this, it is making sound and it's below our, our human hearing level or above our human hearing level. And maybe if we had tools to detect that we would be able to better answer and say that, yes, they're making sounds and this is where they're at. Right. So again, getting that technical understanding that we need to be able to understand, is there a field around the crowd? Can we detect a field around the crowd? What kind of like, you know, ionization is going on in the atmosphere as a result of that. Those are all going to make us much smarter and being able to really provide the public with answers that we've not been able to do for a long time. And Rich, if I may just add, just because I think the stakes are high on this. You know, Ryan Graves has come forward from Americans for Safe Aerospace talking about how UAP have buzzed commercial airliners. Like in one case, a 737 flying out of Johannesburg. UAP was observed a hundred yards, uh, from the craft that's well within the 500 foot safety bubble, uh, in civil aviation. I mean, others, James Fowler has talked about tetra shaped craft flying in formation feet from wing tip or tail tip of commercial airliners filled with people intercepting craft actively. Um, so, I mean, we have to look at the volume of UAP in the sky, patterns of activity, flight corridors, clustering around major cities, coastlines, urban centers to, to better understand, you know, what are we really contending with here? And if it is prosaic, we have an equal, if not greater crisis on our hands. We have, um, craft that can like to Rich's point, travel at speeds that are estimated up to, I've seen estimates of, of up to a hundred thousand miles per hour. We're dropping from 60,000 foot altitude to near sea level, going in and out of the water at will, breaking into multiple vehicles, recombining into vehicles. We're talking about objects that are several meters in size. Um, and you know, some have even gone as far as beyond classifying the different shapes of craft to even begin, begin to describe their different potential utilizations. Some doing logistics, some doing surveillance. Uh, and so to, to, to begin to build out that picture on behalf of our public need to know, and to be aware of what's above us, literally above our heads, I think is just so critical. And the official explanations have been lacking or conflicting. And the public is, is seriously asking what is flying above our heads. And we saw that all throughout 2024 and 25. And you know, there was very little credible official kind of, um, disclosures as to what was up there. And, uh, and I think in some cases, the public was intentionally misled, uh, because the anomalies are so considerable and our ability to detect and track them are so, uh, incomplete, even at the federal level, that there is a true crisis of, of, of, of, of the skies. You know, the skies are not secure. People know it. Um, you know, the head of NORTHCOM, NORAD came out saying that they have difficulty tracking low flying, small sized drone, like objects, even drone, like objects, especially when in swarms. So we're seeing crowded skies and very strange behaviors, uh, taking place. And we have to be able to generate a picture, um, for ourselves that then maybe the department of war would like to corroborate versus be forced to disclose. Yeah. And I think there's an important distinction that maybe has to start happening. You're talking about citizen science, civilian data, people like the Tedesco's and the work they are doing, they're going out, they're doing the work. They've got a wonderful mobile lab, which I think they're on a third generation of it now. Uh, John and Jerry are putting that together. I've spoken to them numerous times. We have this reliance on leaked or governmental videos coming out just in the last week or so. We've got some examples. Even if I go back to the last hearing, I've said, said myself, and I've had loads of people agree with me. Loads of people disagree. It's all, all fair opinion. The Hellfire missile video that came out at the hearing, I thought was a missile hitting some kind of targeting balloon going through it. I don't see it's bouncing off a UAP. I think that's deliberately put in front of a congressman like Eric Burleson to disinform or confuse matters. That's just my opinion. Other folks shared the same. Other folks think it's something non-human. Cool. We don't know. I do think, however, the latest video on weaponized looks pretty interesting. And for folks who haven't seen it, I'll try and put it up on the screen as we speak. You guys won't see it, but the listeners and viewers hopefully would. And it seems to show instantaneous acceleration on this video. It's something we often hear. We see a video leak and we're told, oh, before this happened, here's what happened, but we don't see it. When the video stops afterwards, it spins off a 90 degree angle and shoots and we never see it. However, on this occasion, we appear to see instantaneous acceleration. The only example I've seen which even looks like I understand where it's coming from. And I like to say I'm very reasonable with this. A few folks saying it's a balloon being popped and zigzagging away. I don't see that in this particular video. Rich, I'll come to you first. You've seen the video. So first off, quick thoughts on it. But also, is this why it's important to move away from relying on leaked videos from official sources to get our data from? Your point to that is right on target, okay? So let's go back to the Aguadilla video that we received. That was from the Customs and Border Protection people, right? And we got that. We didn't immediately go put it on weaponized or put it on a show and get it out into the public. What we did is we spent two years actually studying it to making sure that before we go up and we say that this is an unknown and not embarrass ourselves, right? That we've actually done our homework. And, you know, we two years of studying it, breaking it apart, doing the physics on it, doing everything we could to try to get information of a technical nature out of the government in terms of the camera type or what the specifications were. We couldn't get cooperation from them. We tried to get the control tower. We couldn't get any cooperation from them. You know, again, you're supposed to investigate when you get something like evidence, right? And that's not being done when you immediately go put this thing up on the air and you haven't published a paper, you haven't done this study and the due diligence to break it into all kinds of things, but you're going to now put it out there allowing the public to then try to also make up their mind. And I, to your point, you know, I, that, that hellfire missile that was aiming at that object. To me, that is nothing more than, like you said, it's a balloon. And it probably struck some sort of a payload that was on the bottom of it, which are the pieces that are falling off. And it was a little bit deflected, but the a missile themselves, you know, a lot of people have speculated and thought that the a missile was going to cause it to explode or something of that nature. No, a missiles also have the capability of having these little prongs that pop out and it can shred something. And it's used to be able to shred into tanks many times anyway. So the fact that you've got a hell of the, uh, the MQ-9 Reaper, that's actually filming this thing. And there's a, another MQ-9 that's out there. That's actually shooting, uh, the, the hellfire missile at an object, uh, is nothing, you know, I mean, that would look weird because we're not used to seeing it, but it's nothing that proves that it's alien at all. Uh, or in my view, same thing with this one, for example, now is just released again by weaponized. Here's this like wonderful video. Show me where all the data is, because when I, if you have a video or a photograph, I'm going to ask you for your camera data, the time, the date, the location, and all those details for me to spend time analyzing it and ruling out that there might be other possible explanations that are, uh, for the object. We aren't getting that, you know? And so consequently, now you see this video, you see an object. It's apparently, you know, they have the camera set on, it's got the same kind of metadata you said with the IR of the, uh, the infrared kind of things, you know? And so, so bottom line is it's in infrared, it's thermal and it's, they have the settings down as being black hot and it appears like it's cooler than wherever the background is because it's lighter in color. Uh, we don't know, do you know the camera type, what the maker of it was? Was it a FLIR camera? Was it a West cam? You know, we don't have those details. We don't know the time of day. Are we, are a lot of those things that we could probably look at the metadata and come up with some sort of a conclusion. We'd have to know the, if there was a GPS location, the time of day and they're targeting, what was the lighting like during the day? What was, what was all the details about where this thing was? Right. Uh, and we don't have any of that in looking at a video, but now it's out there and you're going to have people like, again, I'm going to use like politicians. We'll take that and air it a hearing and it's now out in the public world and they're wanting to promote it as being something unexplainable when they should have had their homework done on it first and then made that decision so that they're not embarrassed. And that's happened repeatedly. Okay. So I, I, I struggle with this, you know, it's to me, it's like, I have yet to investigate that. I'm looking for the information on that video so that I can do my due diligence and homework and actually study it and come up with a scientific conclusion about it. Does that help, Andy? Yeah, absolutely. Did you want to come out on that read us all? Yeah. Um, you know, it's a tricky position that we're in. I mean, you can't ask the DOD to give you, to give us camera specs, right? They're just not going to prefer that information. Um, so we're left looking at the pixels on the video and pixel peeping and figuring out what's what from that it's. And it's also very inhibitory toward engaging the scientific community. The scientific community needs reproducibility, falsify ability. They need all of what rich just said. Now, no national security state is going to offer up that information to the civilian international scientific community. So that's why I feel as the summit, uh, is going to argue that, that that international coalition of civilian scientists, researchers, investigators, and the engaged global public have to be able to get out there, get our own detections with all of that data available and pub and publicly available as well. And, and so that it can be inspected by scientists and move into the scientific domain because the scientists are the knowledge makers, right? They establish what is known. And then based upon what is known, everything else can proceed, but it, you know, but by just dead dropping, you know, a DOD video, it's very difficult to, to support, uh, that those engines, that virtuous cycle, right? It's in, in some ways it could be inhibitory. The public could become, um, numbed to seeing this kind of footage. No one can say if it's real or not, you know, you shrug your shoulders, you flick your feed. And the next thing you see is a cell phone footage of a UAP that's completely manufactured, you know, and we are, we are, we are seconds away from midnight on AI, basically making moot any video graphic or photographic evidence of UAP. If we cannot validate and characterize the technologies, their calibration standards, all of the environmental data, you know, that would have to come with it. So to create again, scientifically valid data. So to get this whole process moving outside of the national security apparatus and the longstanding control that it has probably attempted to employ upon the population to restrict and corral the conversation and keep it from making groundbreaking discoveries that can really break out into society. We have to get all of that moving outside the bounds of that space. In my view, let me also inject, uh, another point here. Uh, and this is something I experienced when I was a state director for, uh, and you move on as far as UFO investigations, uh, that happened in, in Mississippi and where I live here in Alabama. And many times what you have is a situation where, you know, the, the witness will see something and you come up with a conclusion that, that basically debunks that. And you, you've identified that it's, it's something prosaic, right? Uh, many of those witnesses refused to accept the fact that it was prosaic and it just, it'll always be a UFO. And one of the things we've also seen is when we do get any of these things put up on the internet, you have a lot of gullible people who will necessarily just buy into anything that's on the internet and accept that it's, it's, that's a real UFO. In fact, they use it in their, uh, any way that they can as being an example of a UFO when there was a prosaic explanation for it that nobody's hearing about. And so the general public, you know, is, and we've lost a lot of critical thinking skills, by the way, in our population, and we just accept pretty much anything anymore. And, and, and so now you've got a problem. You have a problem in the sense that that will always be a UFO. And if you, and they're not hearing your counter argument and they're not even accepting it. And so what have we done to our culture in terms of the buy-in of this fake notion of reality that we see? And that's a danger. And that's why we keep coming back and saying, no, you need to do your homework on this thing first and really, truly investigate it and then come up to your conclusion and help to help to also put out the fact that this is a legitimate UFO because the public just doesn't know where to go. Many scientists and politicians have no idea. What book do I read? Where do I go? Where do I get the real answer? Where do I get the facts? And there are so many things that are out there that are just conspiracy theory or you name it are all over the board. And, and so they get incorrect facts. And I even watch as like, you know, legitimately good cases from the past that are now being retold have got facts that were not ever in the initial case that are now being shared. And it's becoming a part of a mythology that's being created, you know, and you watch the mythology evolve and it's like, now what? I mean, we've, the object didn't even do that, you know, and yet it did, according to everybody out there. So there's there, we need to get our act together. And hopefully this kind of a summit that we're doing in terms of getting legitimate data, getting it published, getting it studied the proper way can definitely help to give a trust and an understanding of the phenomena from a trustful source. Right. Yeah. That, that AI conversation sort of is a big one, probably for another day and different shows around it, because even I'm seeing on, on Facebook and X and other platforms, nothing to do with UAP really basic videos and folks immediately. Oh, that's AI. Yeah. And you're like, well, it's not, it could be the most, it could be someone's cat they've just gotten. Oh, that's AI. No, it's really not. It's like, oh yeah, but it looks AI. So people are now seeing a video and instantly that looks AI. And it's this blanket statement that means nothing because what does AI look like? I think even last year, and you can still spot a lot of AI now with like people having six fingers when they should have five and, you know, someone's eye color changing as someone moves through and there was easy spots, but it's gotten so good so quickly that the blanket response. Now we've gone from, I think in UFOs that the misidentifications for, for a couple of years, it's a drone is now immediately, oh, that's AI. So we're even past it's a drone now to, to this AI argument. And again, that's why I think it's so important. Um, Reed, did you want to come back in there before I ask the next question? I think what rich was saying and what you just shared, Andy reveals a big part of the solution and, and the big risk factor, uh, in all of this. Yeah. I mean, it's getting to the point where you won't be able to tell if it's AI, it won't look AI. Right. And so we're in this full scale reality collapse, uh, due to all of this deep faking, uh, of, of, of what might be actually taking place. And again, you know, the opportunity to misinform and mislead the public is just phenomenal at this moment. So, um, you know, to that point and to prevent the restigmatizing of the, of the topic and the refringing of the topic by allowing the public to aggregate around low provenance media and essentially believe in it carte blanche, and then, you know, finger pointing, look at that crowd, look at the, look at those believers over there. Right. And, and again, it's, it's just a perfect tool to refrange the phenomenon in society. I think the solution and rich that you were speaking right to it. Um, and this is really what the summit is driving at is to begin to characterize the detectable signatures of UAP on a scientific and technical basis. What do we actually know about the signature of a UAP and what would the, what would be technically required to detect it? Can we, can we standardize that, that, that kind of like threshold of technology. And then all of these groups, some of which are already out there in the field, some of which are getting funded right now can begin to kind of comport their efforts to those technical standards so that what they find becomes, if they find something, a verified UAP. Could there be a trust signature put out into the public so that if you don't see that stamp, then, then this could be from anywhere, from anyone. If you do see that stamp, it means it was detected by a group that has, that is, you know, comporting its efforts to, to a coalition based set of standards on, on technology and detectable signatures. They are publishing their data in a transparent way. Uh, they are allowing others to peer review their findings, et cetera. And so now the public has some sort of trust standard because I think that the collapse and trust is a huge issue right now on my podcast. I often give out this disclosure equation that came to mind for me two years ago. When I, when I started stepping into X and really looking at the dialogue around disclosure, disclosure equals evidence times source times trust. Well, trust is collapsing, right? The source is all too often the department of defense or the IC, and they're not giving us any of the attending detail as to what this stuff is, or these claims are. And the evidence is a video. That's not good enough. That's not disclosure, right? So the power of this moment is that in order to write that, that, that, that equation in our, in our best interest for the public interest, we can make trust, trust in ourselves, trust in the international civilian coalition and it's clear and transparent standards, um, that do not, they're not trying to make money for a corporation. They're not trying to gain adversarial advantage for any one national security state, right? There's trust, trust in ourselves. Evidence is not just a video it's data. It's data. And we know to riches point, what the cameras were, what the sensors were, who, who deployed them in what direction, the GPS location, all of the attending detail. And that's now the evidence. And again, the source is a known source. It's a source that is credible and verified in the public to be acting in the public good, which I think is a really important thing here. There's, there's a, there's a basic prerogative that we need to adopt, which is we have to act in our public, or you could even say human interest and ward off other interests that might try to aggregate this effort, the national security interest, the corporate interest, because, uh, they are set up for competition and conflict. Uh, they're set up for power, profit and prestige. And that is, those are not the prerogatives that will advance this issue. And I think in my view, this needs to become really a humanitarian issue of concern and emerging issue for international relations. That's really where this needs to go. And so we need the national security States to participate, to collaborate, to contribute, but they cannot be allowed to re-aggregate this issue and sweep it under the rug and a project blue book 3.0 4.0, which I think, you know, they would be predisposed to do. Do you know, I think, um, not to segue too much into it, but you can't really not talk about it at the moment that the Epstein files situation for me has shown that I've always argued when it comes to FOIA requests and what the government do and do really do and don't release in terms of what you can request. And I've got this document that says this to me, that no longer means anything when you can see some of these emails that are coming out and they are choosing to redact people's names that are linked with some incredibly serious crimes, like the worst crimes imaginable in humanity. And they've just chosen not to do it. And I've argued for a long time with people that just because you FOIA request something and you're given a document or you're told this or no, we don't have access to that. You will be given what they want you to have. And if they don't want to give you it, you won't get it. And if that includes the provenance of a video, the correct data, you're just going to be lied to. And I think that's what we're seeing with the Epstein stuff that will trickle down to the UFO conversation as well. The powers that be, I don't think anymore, I don't think most people trusted them anyway. And I know that's a huge blanket statement, the powers that be. I hate saying the government, the government is a massive organization of tens of thousands of people and whatnot, if we're just talking about the US government. But the whole Epstein thing shown, you can't go off of that. And again, to bring it back to citizen science, the Tedesco's, you know, Project Hestalin, I've interviewed Fred and that from Project Hestalin as well. These small organizations are perhaps what we need to bring that public really slowly back on side. Because you're right, Reid, this whole rebuilding of trust, I don't even know if you can rebuild the public's trust. You perhaps have to reframe what trust is. And maybe you have to go above and beyond delivering new standards of data and evidence, especially on a subject that's been so difficult to present to a public at large anyway. You're going to have to do something pretty spectacular, i.e. capture the next Phoenix Lights event on new sensors, new equipment, 4K cameras, 8K cameras, night vision. You have the Tedesco's underneath a craft, literally summoning it down with someone else's dog whistle technology at the side. You know, it's going to take that kind of Ghostbusters all putting the proton packs together to accomplish a common goal with this. And I don't envy one trying to do it, but I respect everyone who is. And I wonder on that, just with this whole summit, we're talking about the science and the data. But when you look at an Eric Burleson, a sitting congressman who's part of this event, he's someone who in the last couple of years has probably embodied, and I know I've just spoke about the government, but if I take things at face value, someone coming into this topic pretty fresh, they've no background, they weren't an experienced officer when they were 16, as far as we know. He never had a long-standing vested interest in companies who may or may not have been reverse engineering technology, nothing like that. He's come into it and went, I'll get into this UFO thing, I'll start investigating. He's been to see the Nazca mummies, he's hired David Grush on his staff, he's worked with Luna, with Burchett, with Ogles, with all these other representatives, and he seems to be across the topic. He's got his fingers on many pies, but he's not quite sure which one to go with yet. Because just on a podcast a couple of days ago, he commented about the, famously a few years back, Ross Coulthart mentioned a huge craft that had landed or been buried, that he knew the location of, that had to be built over, because it was so big it couldn't be moved. Speculation ran riot online as to the location of that craft. Eric Burleson's come out a few days ago and said he knows the location of that craft. How does that sit, and maybe we'll start with Rich on this one, when you're so fervent around science and data, and then you hear something as incredible as that sort of statement. Do you know what, actually we have a craft somewhere that's been built over outside of the United States, it sounds like. People say South Korea, some folks say Australia, I'm not entirely sure. How do you sit with that kind of statement? And looking at a Burleson, does the summit like this allow for that speculation and rumor still to come in to an extent? So we struggle with it all the time. If you're science minded, you're going to ask for like data, you're going to ask for the evidence to back up a claim, right? I mean, you got to understand, in my six decades, I've had people making all kinds of claims walking up to me, all right? I mean, claims after claim after claim. And I keep coming back to the fact that if I can't have any evidence that backs it up, it's just a claim. I just, you know, go with it. Okay, fine. That's what you believe and everything else. And I've had to struggle with that all the time. It's like, you know, a good example might be the fact that there's a lot of people that were believing that UFOs were abducting ships and everything else in the Bermuda Triangle. Do I have any evidence to that? No, I've got a lot of accidents that have happened and various other things. But do I have any proof that UFOs are taking like the flight 19 or whatever like that? No. Do I have proof that UFOs have any connection to the Bermuda Triangle or whatever like that? Again, it's claim and you have to have some sort of a method of study to prove that that's actually the case. And we find wrecked ships all the all the time and that we're allegedly being abducted, if you would, by whatever it was. And so here's, I mean, here's a politician making, David Grush making a claim, lots of claims. Do I have anything that backs up what he's saying about the reverse engineering? First off, I trust him. Okay. But again, I'm looking for evidence or something that substantiates that and I don't see that. And so we can all speculate and I've seen so many people speculate about like, you know, all different kinds of things and it's all over the board. And I just, I just try to like, stay in my lane, show me some data, show me some evidence, show me something. And, and that's where I'm at. Anyway, until, until I see something phenomenal that, that actually shows that that's the case, that there was a large craft and I got a location and maybe somebody videoed it or photographed it or whatever like that, then that's where I'm going to be. And let me come back for a second. You know, when we did the Nimitz case, right? The Nimitz case had eyeballs on the crafts. It had the spy one radar on the craft. It was multimodal kinds of sensors and eyeballs and everything else that saw that object. When we take a look at that one in Syria that just came out, do we know what, first off, what was the filming thing? Was it an MQ-9 Reaper? Yeah. What, what, okay. If it was an MQ-9 Reaper, great. You know, but again, do we have any other sensor data? I mean, was it being tracked on radar? Was it being picked up by anybody? Did anybody see it? And, and, and until you have that other multimodal kinds of things, it's just a one-off and you're dealing with that. And we've already talked about the fact that videos just don't work. You know, photos don't work. It's not getting us. We have, you know, if you look at the MUFON database, there's like, you know, like probably several hundred thousand by now, uh, cases and, and a lot of them had videos and photos in them. Uh, did they, have they made any difference? Have they been studied and, and do we know really that there's any proof there? The answer is no. And so my point to you is we gotta, we can't continue to do this. We have to actually study it and actually get some more data and it's going to be from multimodal. I want to know that there's radar data. You mentioned about, uh, the fact that these things come close to aircraft. I talked with a pilot that was flying at a Cessna outside of like, you know, New Orleans area that was up near Stennis, uh, in Mississippi. And the, a four foot in diameter disc shaped object with no anything else was underneath his wing, underneath his wing flying along with him. And it, you know, it suddenly started to pull back away from him and he saw it pull back and he went up and kind of, you know, did an eventual turnaround and came back and then he didn't see it anymore. Well, guess what? Here's where we were able to use a FOIA request. And we've FOIA'd six different FAA facilities to get the actual data at that time and at that location. And we were able to then find out that on one of the, the FAA sites, they actually tracked his aircraft and a, another FAA location picked up the object. So again, you FOIA's have been helpful for us many times. And at the same time, and the government has come forward with, with data that helped us to be able to do this, but there's many of those things that get shut off by the administrations. And suddenly you can't get the FAA data because the FAA doesn't want to cooperate. And there you go. But you need to have more than one sensor, and that's going to help you to make your case and build the trust. Okay? Yeah. Reid, can we fly through some listener questions for both of you first, before we wrap up and let folks know how they can get in touch? I appreciate your time for both of you. So first off, we'll go to Kimberly, and she goes a little bit more speculative, which I like to start off with. Do any of the panel believe any of Tesla's designs that were stolen and incorporated into the physics of today were used to call or destroy UAP? Well, let me just, let me like kind of kick off that and touch on the last question, which was, you know, okay, a giant buried UFO. Is there, is there room for that at this summit and so forth? I think testimony is really important. This is, you could call it pre-data, you could call it evidence and indications, et cetera. I mean, the basic premise of the summit, if I may just kind of reflect on that briefly, is the summit is going to be an annual convening with a different annual theme. And the theme is basically chosen as the key issue that can be advanced singly and specifically to move the discourse forward. Detection and tracking was identified because that is literally what we need to do and can do to advance this beyond speculation into more firm territory. And so as we move into this issue, there will be other topics that can be discussed and advanced such as policy and international coordination. That's another big issue on the UAP front. So there'll be room for other topics. There is room for testimony, of course. Testimony underlays the whole process in my view. Detection remains, in my view, ground zero for data generation because if you can detect, you can potentially track. If you can track, you can do pattern recognition and identify clustering. If you can do that and you can identify literal geographic hotspots and you can get the detection capabilities into that location right there, multiple groups, multiple modes of detection. And then you can do real field research and analysis and ultimately prove ID, identification of what you're observing. Now from that, if it's scientifically provable, that explodes the potential set for how you can move and respond to it. Ultimately, advancing understanding, but also human response is I feel what's needed because my assessment is we are dealing with another intelligence. And that's why we need to be intelligent and adaptive and responsive and not try to treat this as a mechanistic phenomenon of nature that's just going to be doing what it does for a million years and we have all the time to figure it out. I think the phenomenon is acting upon us as a species and a society. And if we can't respond to it in a timely fashion, there will probably be outcomes, be they good or neutral or bad. So back to the question though, no, I cannot say if the speakers acknowledge that dimension of history or potential speculation. So I really have no answer to that question. It's really not the focus of the summit. But again, I mean, the summit is not ruling out other important fields of inquiry. It's not being exclusive in its right to the scientific process. No, it's trying to get the football down the field one yard at a time with the specific play that's going to really get us past third down into a new first down. Question for Rich from Dave. He asks, Rich, I watched a couple of long interviews with you a while ago about your excellent and painstaking analysis of the Anguilla UFO of Costa Rica. And I found this demonstrated pretty conclusively. It was a normalist craft. So what did Rich make of Arrow's analysis of the footage, which I found deeply unconvincing, amateurish and focusing on trying to discredit the footage? Well, I kind of agree with Dave on that. We've been trying to reach out to Arrow. We actually confronted Arrow and said, can you provide us your data and your methods to be able to do your analysis? We are still waiting on that. Once we get something that we can actually deal with, we'll try to rebut their case. But I mean, quite frankly, we don't agree that this is two Skylanterns that they came up with. And we don't have, going back to the trust you mentioned, we don't trust. If you can't have a conversation with how people came up with that and what data that they looked at, then I don't trust it. And we're in the same position as an organization with SCU. We, I mean, okay, so we spent two years looking at individual frames and going down to pixel level. Did they do the same? Or did they just go out and look and find, you know, well, what are the possibilities by doing a search out there and saying, well, there's actually been speculation that it's Skylanterns and let's do that. The wind speeds that they mentioned, I think we disagreed with at the altitude. We did some sounding data and we had that. And we also don't agree with a number of other aspects of it. For example, the fact that they were trying to say that, that if you have a background that the object could potentially disappear with the background, you know, and, and, and so they mentioned a type of like phenomena that, that the thermal cameras can have where they can do that. I think it's called crossover effect or something like that, but you don't see the crossover effect being impacted by the water in the background or any other things when you see that going on. So why would that be the case? It's also, we, we saw where it appeared to go behind a telephone pole and they don't even deal with that. They want to put this at a very similar thing that Mick West did, where it's like, they go to the end of the line of sight. And that's where the object was. The object could have been anywhere along that trajectory from the aircraft to wherever it was. And that will make a distinct difference in the path that it moves. And so they want to make it into being two lanterns. They, there are a lot of like effects that you have with cameras that can make it look like it's two objects or something of that nature. We looked at whether that was a reflection or whether it was individually different. It had a different signature. I'm just, I'm just telling you that we're still having a conversation with them about it. And they did some modeling to be able to try to come up with their conclusion that it was just moving along with the wind at a normal speed. And we're saying, no, it doesn't match even with the testimony that we asked them about. Did you happen to look and check on the radar data that we actually was able to get and see that there were like 50 hits of that object just prior when it moved into towards the island? And they didn't even have that. They didn't even know about it. So did you talk to pilots? No, they didn't talk to any pilots. We did. So, I mean, you got to take it at that value. And so I agree with Dave, I'm a little bit, you know, mistrusting some of the way that they do it. And we're looking them to become more open about and transparent with what they did. And then I would feel better about it. But could it be lanterns? Sure, it could. But we even in our paper at the end, we said, we don't know what they are. It doesn't match balloons. It doesn't match this. We just don't know how to explain it. And ultimately, that's where we still remain, that it's an unknown. You know, I don't want to be flippant, but I don't think you're too far off sometimes with some of those arrow explanations. When you say they searched online to see what some of the explanations were on X and basically went, oh, lanterns. Yeah, let's stick that in there. I genuinely think that was some of the science that was being done by those folks. But yeah, not to say they were all doing that. It sounds like it was a mixed bag. But yeah, hey-ho. Reed, Though Dubs says, I'd like to know, number one, from their perspective, what is currently the best scientific evidence in support of the phenomenon? And two, if funding were no issue, what scientific pursuit would they choose to explore it? Oh, I'd love to get Rich in on that. I mean, I think, you know, anomalous kinematics would probably be the most significant effect of UAP to substantiate that it is not prosaic in origin. Just explain what anomalous kinematics are. Reed, Kinematics. I mean, it's basically how it moves. Instantaneous acceleration, right angle turns at high speeds, loitering for impossible durations of time, basically kinematic movement in the air, but also in the ocean. I mean, moving at 300 knots plus underwater with a craft size, the potential size of an aircraft carrier larger. I mean, that's the resistance being in encountered in a water-based environment is just phenomenal. The energy required to transit a craft of that size in water, phenomenal. So I think demonstrating that. Reed, can I just mention on that, and you can both correct me if I'm wrong here, but I've had guests before on the podcast when they've talked about the speed these objects allegedly move underwater. Yeah. I mean, without a doubt. Sensors also have limits, and you can have settings for limits where you can filter out. Take a look at the Chinese balloons. We were filtering out slow-moving balloons that were coming in from China, right? The spy balloon, right? And so, you know, NORAD had actually filtered out that, because what are they looking for? They're looking for those missiles that are high speed, right? So ultimately, it's a situation where you have limitations, and your understanding of sensors can be way off. In other words, I talked with Randy Bostic, who was part of Arrow, and we met in Dayton, Ohio, and we talked, and I was like, we were talking about, you know, sensors, and because he's working at a sensor directorate, right, with them right now. And the, he was saying that they had something where they were detecting these like strange movements going on, and it turned out to be when they looked it up, they were, they were 300 miles away, and they were aircraft, and they were able to match them up, the move, the motions, and everything else with that. So sensors are fallible, or they're limited, and that's why you have to have multiple sensors and multiple ways of doing things. And, you know, so again, going back to the fact that we need to understand the equipment that we're putting out, it's got to be completely documented, and you have to understand what its limitations and capabilities are, and how it's constrained. At the same time, you now have to have multimodal kinds of things, because it could be making, again, sound, or it could be making various other things that you're not picking up on. And even when I, when I was working with the Army Material Command, we were putting in, we were installing in all of our DoD locations, drone detection systems, because that's been a problem. And the drone detection systems that we had were some, they were using everything from spectral data, to acoustics, to also radar. And so those are multimodal, right? And so you could now see that there was a drone coming into your perimeter of your military base, that you could then apply some means to be able to knock it out of the sky. Or, you know, in addition to that, even know where the operator is, you could trace it back to the operator, and where the operator that drone is. So those are the kinds of equipment that we're putting in for drone detection that we need to do with UAP. And guess what, if a UAP now came on the base, and all that stuff was collected, and by the way, you couldn't knock it out of the sky. It might not have been a drone. So you're now that's a means for you to detect something else. But again, you have to be able to discern that. And we need to be able to have the tools to discern between birds and everything else, and drones and everything else, so we can get to the true UFO that we want to study. We all want to know about, right? Yeah. Chris asks, do we need agreed international data standards for UAP reporting before the science can really move forward? The answer is clearly yes on that. Go ahead, Reid. No, please, Rich. I mean, let me put it to you this way. I think that the overall standards are very, very important, and the way you do collect it, and the type of how you do it. And again, it's about transparency. It's about us sharing and coming up with what's the proper way of doing things. The military works with a set of standards. In other words, they look at, you know, the spectrum is important that I don't interfere with aircraft and everything else. And so I don't have interference happen. We need to have that same kind of thing on from the military on the on the civilian side as well if we're going to really tackle this. And so, yes, it's very critical. We need to be able to have cooperation. It is a global phenomena, so we need to have global cooperation in that, which is what we're trying to do with the summit, making it a global discussion, right? And let's all get our act together so we can come up with some sort of an understanding of what it is we're all dealing with. Four years ago, Ryan Graves and I went over and actually attended a space expert workshop that was put on by NATO. And we represented the United States at that NATO meeting. And we talked about the fact that, you know, hey, look, you different countries out there in NATO, you need to be helping to share data with us. And we need to be cooperating on the subject because it has to do with the fact that this is a multi domain phenomena. It's in space, it's in water, and it's on, you know, it's in the air, right? So ultimately, if you're now going into space, and you want to be able to, you need to help us out with that as well. So we were pushing for that, Ryan Graves and I. And what we got a sense was that it's too early for a lot of those countries to be able to engage us on that. We're going like, and they were all in a wait and see what's happening in the United States with this. No, no, no, no, you need to go after it too. All right. I mean, it is a global phenomenon. You don't have to wait for the United States, you could be out there pushing the technology and getting that as well. But that was what we experienced when we went over there to NATO. Reid, did you want to comment on that? I think it's super important, the data collection, and not just sensor data, but testimonial data to corroborate in both directions. Could that be stood up in some kind of international not-for-profit organization or not a national reporting center, but an international reporting center? I think that could be potentially characterized. I think the summit, Rich and I are a part of a lot of conversations parallel to the summit with other collaborators discussing how not just have a conference in which we all talk for two days and then we go back to status quo. How do we literally advance this issue on the key dimensions of detectable signatures, technology standardization, and data convergence, basically converging all of this inbound data into some kind of centralized repository that is publicly and research accessible and is not owned by any one national security apparatus. So those are the discussions we need to have. There are conversations as well about you know, everything from event recording cameras on space-based low earth orbit satellites that can basically be eyes in the sky from, you know, space looking down all the way to some kind of unit that could be put on commercial sea craft, commercial, you know, running out of the words here, but you know, a container ship going from China to LA and you could put something on the bottom of the hull that could be pointed downward and could be doing detection into the ocean several miles from the craft down at all times, crisscrossing, you know, the globe as well as with civil aviation. So I think there are, there are, there are key steps to take, um, to put technology on board our own craft as a species so that we can do our own mesh surveillance network of the skies, the oceans and beyond, and not just have that be conducted upon us from, from above. And so I think those technologies are there. Funding is going to be a huge issue, right? How to fund this. And so I know that that'll have to advance. Um, but this is the opportunity that we're at. I think it's fair to say wrapping up gents, there's a lot of virtual conferences that happen in this space. Um, not all to my taste. This is my show. I can say that I'm not going to ask you guys on your opinions. There's some that I look at and I roll my eyes. There's others. I think that looks like it's got its place and you know, there's everything in between. If someone's listening to this or watching this and they're on the fence about signing up to spend people's hard-earned money, things are tight just now. I don't think the tickets for this are ridiculously priced at all. And that's before the discount. What would you be saying to them to, to kind of persuade them either way that this is worth their time? I think that the public has been kept out of the conversation, um, for too long. And so having the informed public present, even if it's science and tech and policy heavy to have you there listening and a participant and, and not separated from that dialogue, you know, is really important. This can't be a closed door conversation. And, you know, I know a lot of the speakers I've, I've actually met with almost every single one of them as, as one of the organizers of this event. And I've advocated to make the science and technology accessible to the public and to really communicate the proposition to the, to the public listener as to what this can do for them and for society. So it's not a science and technology summit. It's really a public summit on UAP with key sessions on science and technology. But you'll also be hearing about the historic USO phenomenon. You'll be hearing about international efforts. You'll be hearing from individuals in NASA and the ESA regarding what those organizations are going to be doing about UAP. So I think it's fascinating stuff. It's, it's a chance to get into, into the hot zone and really see, you know, how is this issue advancing? Um, not just by, you know, dead drop of, of UFO videos on X and, and the Reddit threads that never end, but, but really like, you know, taking the key variable of our, of our public interest effort to detect UAP and making it twice what it is now a year from now, that's possible. And so I think getting the public in is going to be key though, because that's what, um, you know, each one bring one, right. And one informed citizen who goes to the conference and then goes off to dinner and has the UFO conversation with the people sitting next to them. You know, you've just done disclosure. You have just credibly disclosed the nature of what is being found out about this to someone who did not know. And so I think, um, elevating our own public literacy around this and making us all into communicators of, of the UAP reality is also a really important dimension. So it's not just about the elites, the scientists, the researchers, the politicians having their conversations and, and moving this for us. I mean, we are the human beings that are potentially being engaged here, right? I mean, we are the prime actors, but we don't claim that agency. And in, in large part, it's been kind of kept out of the public per view. So I think that's the shift now it's to bring it into the hand of the individual and who knows, maybe you hear something at this event that sparks your own sense of personal calling to get involved in some fashion. And I know that citizen science is going to be a big part of how this advances. Um, you know, rich, we've been talking about this and with others about how, you know, how do you get this to move initially? Maybe it's a mobile app, right? Maybe it's a mobile app that corroborates visual findings with cell phone foot footage, along with passive radar and, and other kinds of sensing technologies that can be deployed in situ in the moment, in the place. Uh, and maybe that's what creates the incontrovertible finding that, that really moves the needle. So the people need to be involved. And Rich, do you want to come in with a final word on that? No, I, I, he pretty much summarized exactly where I'm at. I think that, you know, too long, we've been sitting on the sidelines looking at just, you know, again, uh, collecting witness data that they put up into some sort of reporting tool that by the way, it, then the data gets looked at or assigned to somebody. And then eventually they get around to talking about a past event. We need to be in the real time space with an, with something and not, not in a passive nature, having people talk about, well, I saw something a month ago or whatever like that, you know, no, if you're really going to truly study this, you need to have something that's actually out detecting it, tracking it, collecting data. Uh, and you know, it, data is one thing, but it becomes information when you attach context to the data, right? So that's where that human part comes in because they can add that context to many times the data that you have, right? So they, they are very much a valid part of the whole thing as well. It's just, you know, you need to have that, uh, that whole thing put in and then even seek ways of getting additional data that supports that whatever it is you find here, that's really unusual. Again, I point out the fact that when I did a case investigation, I would also be reaching out to the air traffic control tower. I'd be reaching out to the police department. I'd be reaching out to neighbors in a neighborhood. I would be reaching and looking for other witnesses or other data that I can add to understand whatever that event was. And so much like that, the Syrian video, I want all that data so that I can see if there's other actors and other people that might've collected that, or it's, and then I put that whole picture together to be able to come with, with a better conclusion. And that's what we deserve with all these things. Not just let me put it out there and make it a sound buzz and something on the internet. We need more than that. And so that's where we're trying to go. And I, I extremely appreciate what Reed has put together and I'm standing behind it because that's what been my whole life. I go back to the time of Dr. Jalen Hynek in Dayton, Ohio, which is where I was right next to where project blue book and sign and all those things work. And I engage with Hynek and he was looking at how do we get scientific data out there to do it? Well, after all that time, we're now finally getting to the point where we're having a conversation about doing that very thing on a global basis. And it's well past due. And that event happens this weekend, February 7th to February 8th. If you head to UEP summit.org, you can sign up, you just enter your email and you can still get a discount on tickets folks. If you use UEP detect 30, that's three zero, or you can use that UFO podcast 30. I know that wasn't working previously, but it should be now. And either of those codes folks don't worry about, I've asked for nothing back on this. I just want to help get you listeners and viewers, a little bit of a discount on there, get signed up, wonderful list of speakers, wonderful programming over two days. And I'll be looking forward to checking that out myself. And again, Reed and Rich, best of luck for the weekend. Thank you. Thank you, Andy. Yep. Very excited. It's gonna be a lot of fun. Yep. Without a doubt. That's all for this episode of that UFO podcast. Thank you so much for listening and watching. If you enjoyed the show, please follow, subscribe, and leave a rating or review wherever you get your podcasts. It really helps others find the show. If you're watching on YouTube, hit like, subscribe, and turn on notifications so you don't miss future episodes. You can also support the show directly and get early access, add free episodes and bonus content on Patreon, or by subscribing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or YouTube memberships. All the links are over at thatufopodcast.com or in the show description below, along with merchandise and more. Don't forget, you can also pick up a copy of my book, Atlas of Unidentified Flying Objects, available now in all good bookstores and through online retailers, including Amazon. Big thank you again to all of you for listening and tuning in. Until next time, keep looking up. You never know what you might see.