Warp Drives, Observables, and UAP Physics | Chad Wanless & Dave Palachik

Instagram teen accounts come with automatic protections for who can contact teens and the content they can see. Learn more about teen accounts at Instagram.com slash teen accounts. Running a business is hard enough. Don't make it harder with a dozen apps that don't talk to each other. One for sales, another for inventory, a separate one for accounting. That's software overload. Udo is the all-in-one platform that replaces them all. CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce, HR. Fully integrated, easy to use, and built to grow with your business. Thousands have already made the switch. Why not you? Try Udo for free at O-D-O-O dot com. That's Udo dot com. Running a business is hard enough. So why make it harder with a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other? One for sales, another for inventory, a separate one for accounting. Before you know it, you are drowning in software instead of growing your business. This is where Udo comes in. Udo is the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all-in-one, fully integrated platform that handles everything. CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce, HR, and more. No more app overload. No more juggling logins. Just one seamless system that makes work easier. And the best part? Udo replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. It's built to grow with your business. Whether you are just starting out or already scaling up. Plus, it's easy to use, customizable, and designed to streamline every process. So you can focus on what really matters, running your business. Thousands of businesses have made the switch. So why not you? Try Udo for free at Udo dot com. That's U-D-O-O dot com. Greenlight Family Shield is there for that first paycheck. When teens are excited and risks aren't obvious yet. As teens start earning, they're learning fast. But they're still new to spotting fraud. Greenlight helps them save, spend, and invest responsibly. While monitoring for identity theft and suspicious activity. With alerts, credit monitoring, and up to $1 million in identity theft coverage. Parents get real peace of mind as their teens gain independence. Don't wait. Try Greenlight risk-free today at greenlight.com slash scam. This is David Marler, UFO researcher, and you're listening to That UFO Podcast. Hi everyone, and welcome back to That UFO Podcast. As always, my name is Andy. And joining me today, I've got two guests on the show. First off, Chad Wanless is an engineering technologist with over 30 years of experience in mechanical design. Specializing in optics and lighting technologies. His technical background enabled him to identify subtle gravitational lensing and spatial distortion effects in UEP imagery. Forming a key foundation of Hidden in Plain Sight, Evidence of Exotic UFO Propulsion. His book, and we'll get to that. And also, Professor Dave Palachuk. Am I pronouncing that correct, Dave? You are. Awesome. Dave is a Senior Electrical and Electronic Engineering Technologist and National Director Emeritus of MUFON Canada. He's an expert in infrared systems and electronic security technologies. His analytical work and leadership in UEP research have contributed to rigorous peer-reviewed investigations into advanced propulsion signatures observed in real-world UEP events. So, welcome, Chad, and welcome, Dave. Thank you. Great. Great pleasure to be on your podcast. Thank you. Great to have you both on. And I'm going to try and not say Chad and Dave too quick because you may have heard of the artist Chaz and Dave, who were a British band back in the 70s and 80s. So, when I said I had Chad and Dave on, my wife was like, the singers. And I was like, no, no, no, no. So, Chad and Dave, really fascinating background, really interesting depth of conversation we're going to have here. There is a lot to discuss, including some backgrounds. It's really interesting, very different backgrounds, both of you. We've got MUFON to chat about, we've got some books to talk about, we've got an experiencer story, which is fascinating to talk about, and then we have a really interesting nuts and bolts technological conversation to have. So, this is one that is going to cover a lot of areas. So, can we start off with Chad? Because let's get your background first. I've given you a little bit of an introduction. But if you want to talk about, as an experiencer, what's that been like? What's happened in your life that you've had the UAP or UFO phenomenon affect it? Okay. Well, the best way to describe this is, growing up, I had a large number of weird events happen in my life. I didn't know what they meant. Most of them involved some kind of period of missing time. And some of them, there was a giant scar or a wound on my leg. It was a number of odd events. I just didn't know what they meant. But to start off with, at age six, I went downstairs, went to bed, looked out the window. And where I lived was in the Pacific Northwest on a mountainside. And we could see across the ocean inlet. It was a fjord. And I saw this glowing object in the sky. It looked like Saturn. I'm like, as a six-year-old, I'm looking at this going, wow, that's the planet Saturn. That's really neat. So, I head back to bed and pop up under my bed to look out. And this time, it's floating in front of the ocean. I'm thinking, hmm, I must be seeing the reflection of Saturn off the ocean. Then I laid down. I thought, you know, I want one more look. So, I sat up and I looked out. And this time, it was floating in front of the mountain on the other side of the inlet. And I'm thinking, how am I seeing it Saturn through the mountain? And that was the end of the memory. That was the end of the event. I just always assumed I'd laid down and gone to sleep. That was age six. At age eight, my best friend was staying over. And we woke up. I woke up in the middle of the night. Sorry, bright morning. Really, really bright morning. And I thought, it's Saturday morning. Oh, Saturday morning's cartoons must be going. We've probably missed them. So, I wake my friend up. We run upstairs. We turn the TV on. It is an off-air signal. And it says it's 2.30 in the morning. I'm like, how is it 2.30 in the morning? But it's bright as day. Like, you can see in the mirror there, like, that level of brightness to the whole house. And him, being the son of a dentist, says, you know what? How about we go brush our teeth? I'm like, okay. So, we get into the bathroom. And that window is pitch black. And I'm like, why is this window black? And every other window was bright as day. We come out. Everything's black. Well, TV's still on. I thought, well, I better turn the TV off before we go back to bed. I go up to the TV to turn it off. Off-air signal color has changed. Now it says it's 5.30 in the morning. Somehow, three hours disappeared between walking from the living room to the bathroom. And I didn't know what it meant. Age 12, walking home from a school event, following two boys who had candy, hoping they might share it with me. Well, that didn't work out. And they just kind of wandered off and disappeared. And then my ankle was wet. I'm like, why is my ankle wet? And I pulled down the sock. It was discolored. And there's this gaping wound in the front of my ankle. It's a half inch long, half inch deep, perfect scalpel cut, all the way down to the, and I could see the cartilage in my ankle. And I'm like, this is really weird. So, I get home and my parents are like, where have you been? You should have been home hours ago. I don't know. But I cut myself and the time was forgotten. And off we went to the hospital for stitches. And that was age 12, age 16. I was working at a restaurant, fast food restaurant. It was a 20, 25-minute drive home without traffic. So, finish up at 11 o'clock. I know it was 11 because at that company, if you worked past 11 and you didn't get your cleanup done, you stayed without pay. So, you made sure you were out at 11. And so, I drove home, sat down on my bed, looked at the clock, and it says it's 2.30 in the morning. It's a 25-minute drive. And I was upset at my brother thinking, oh, he's played a prank on me. So, I go upstairs to check the time on the upstairs clock to see what the real time was. It agreed. It was also 2.30 in the morning. How is this possible? I don't know. I was dumbfounded. At age 18, walking home, actually, my mom asked me to take my sister's newspaper route and go and deliver them because she was sick. I'm like, all right. So, head off at 4 o'clock. Deliver all the newspapers. I'm heading back. It's now 5.30. I delivered the last paper. It's just starting to get a little dark out. The sun's starting to get dusky. And I look at my watch. Oh, 5.30. And then something caught my eye. I saw something up in the sky, hanging down at a 45-degree angle. And as soon as I looked up, it zipped up into the sky. And I'm like, that is weird. Was that a UFO? Was that a jet just going up into the cloud? I wasn't sure. But didn't think much of it. Walk home. Get to the house. I was literally three blocks from home. And open up the door. It's really dark outside. And as soon as I get to the door, mom's, where have you been? You should have been home hours ago. I'm like, what are you talking about? I was delivering my sister's newspaper. And she goes, no, you should have been home hours ago. It was 8.30 at night. So, I lost three hours between a house three blocks away and our place. So, again, another three hours disappeared. And at this point, I'm thinking, there must be some kind of weird, unique phenomenon of nature that causes time to skip or jump. And I didn't know why. I mean, I even discussed with my best friends, said what I saw in the sky. We didn't know. I mean, missing, this is in the late 1980s. Missing Time by Bud Hopkins was not a book mandatory reading list in school. We had no clue what was going on. And I was 19 years old. I was sitting at home. I'm watching a comedy. And this green alien shows up in the window. And it's got the big, huge head with big black eyes. Looks like typical gray, but they made it green for comedy. And I had a horrific terror attack at this thing. I had to turn the TV off, and I didn't know why. Why was I terrified of this image? Turned the TV back on, and, again, I was terrified of it. I'd seen, you know, at that time, the grays were just starting to come out in pop culture. So, I'd seen the image. But for some reason, a realistic animated look of it was terrifying to me versus just, you know, a cartoon piece of art. And I thought, well, you know, it was nagging at me. So, I went down to the local bookstore at the local mall and bought a book. It was Bud Hopkins' Missing Time. I thought, you know what, after looking at all these, this seems the most reasonable. I started reading through it. And Chapter 3, this guy named Stephen, is talking about driving home and its brightest day in the middle. And then I suddenly remembered the age 8 event where the house was full of light, 2, 3 in the morning. And I'm like, oh, my God, this must be happening. This must have been what happened. But I was in denial. I'm like, it has to be my friend. It can't be me. It has to have been my friend. It can't be me. And that's the way I was thinking for two solid weeks. So, finally get home after two weeks, pick up the book again, read the next chapter. Well, the next chapter, there's a young lady, or a lady who was young at the time. She described being outside in Canada at her father's farm, grandfather's farm, goes in to get eggs. And then she finds herself standing out in the middle of the yard. And she's got a gaping wound, just like mine. And I'm like, oh, my God, it was me, not my friend. And I was in absolute, utter shock. I was, it took a long time to come to grips with that. It was ontological shock. I didn't even know what the word meant. And it was devastating. It was absolutely devastating. And the more I read, the more memories came forth, and the more memories made sense. And I was, these memories were always there. I just didn't know what they meant. And now I knew what they meant. Thank you for sharing that. And did the experiences stop after your teenage years? Oh, no, absolutely not. I remember talking with a fellow named Tony with MUFON, UFOBC, which was a group with MUFON. And he said to me, and I'd just seen the Fire in the Sky movie, and I talked to him about it. And he says, you know, unlike him, you're going to have these experiences continually. What do you mean? I was shocked. Like, what do you mean? And he's like, abductees, this is a lifelong thing. It keeps going on. Well, sure enough, a year later, I'm driving along. I see this UFO in the sky, big disk, reflective light. And then I looked around for the traffic, make sure I didn't rear in anyone. And then I looked up again, and it was gone. Three nights later, it was Friday the 13th, and I was quite anxious. And I laid down in bed. I didn't even, I wasn't even laying down for more than a minute. And I hear my cat out in the hallway, crying in terror. And I could see her. My door was open by about six inches. And I could see her head. She was on the left side of the door. And she was trying to get into my room. But there was something on the right-hand side scaring the hell out of her. She kept moving back and forth and back and forth. And so I called to her. And I'm like, come here, come here, come here. So she runs through the door. And she's digging her claws into the carpet as she's running through. Runs around the back behind my waterbed and hides. And then I look out in the hallway and I think, oh, dear God. I took a glance at the time. It was 1030. I look at the hallway. And this gray face comes out, looks at me through the door. And I have a shudder of terror. And I roll over in the corner. And I'm like, this isn't happening to me. This isn't happening to me. This isn't happening to me. And then I find myself laying flat on my back, top of the covers, looking up. Instead of curled up, I was straight as a board. And I realized something had happened. I looked over the clock again. Now it said it was 1230 in the morning. So two hours had gone, just like that. And I'd seen one of them. And it was staring at me from the hallway. And that was not comfortable. That was the shock. That was the realization that this is an ongoing event. And I'm going to have to put up with it for a very long time. There's some stuff I'll come back to as we go on in the interview regarding that. And is it safe to say a lot of these experiences have spurned you on and been a fuel for you to investigate the phenomenon the way you have? Oh, yeah. It's like nitrous oxide on my motivation. Yeah. I don't blame you. Or some other unknown fuel. Yeah, exactly. So when I have discussions with people who are like, well, I don't know about this. I'm like, it doesn't matter what you believe. It's what us experience have gone through. Something has happened to us. We're trying to figure out what it is. And when someone tries to poo-poo me or tell me this or, oh, maybe not that or, you know, whatever, you know, we had a lot of difficulty trying to get our paper published because of the stigma. I didn't let it set me back. I'm like, well, you're wrong. I know I'm right. And it's just a matter of finding the right way to publish. And what's really interesting, I'm going to come to Dave just a second, though, and this might segue in. I think, I don't want to speak for the experiencers. I am not an experiencer. I've interviewed many and I've heard from many and I've read many stories. I think there's an issue that so many folks have, even within the community, with the experiencer story is because it's not happened to them, it's difficult to really put yourself in the shoes of someone who's going through something that different paradigm shifting, whatever you want to call it, the ontological shock. However, a lot of experiencers try and use a very personal event as proof. And it's not because you can't then show it. My sighting as benign or fascinating for folks that may have been isn't proof. It's only relevant to me. But I think what it can be, especially for yourself as an experiencer, and it sounds like to me, is you've used that as a starting point. Rather than argue, I'm an experiencer, you have to believe me, this happened, this is real. You've used that to fuel a passion and a project, which, while it runs alongside that phenomenon of experiencers, abductions, missing time, you're using it to say, actually, let's look at data, let's look at something else. And it connects somewhere down the road. Is that fair to say? Yeah, that's fair to say. Running a business is hard enough, so why make it harder with a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other? One for sales, another for inventory, a separate one for accounting. Before you know it, you're drowning in software instead of growing your business. This is where Odoo comes in. Odoo is the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all-in-one, fully integrated platform that handles everything. CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce, HR, and more. No more app overload. No more juggling logins. Just one seamless system that makes work easier. And the best part? Odoo replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. It's built to grow with your business, whether you are just starting out or already scaling up. Plus, it's easy to use, customizable, and designed to streamline every process, so you can focus on what really matters, running your business. Thousands of businesses have made the switch, so why not you? Try Odoo for free at odoo.com. That's O-D-O-O dot com. 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. Yeah. And we'll come back to it, Chad. It's a really interesting aspect of the conversation. And like I say, folks, there's so much to go all over. Dave, yourself, what's been your, obviously, getting involved with Muthfon, I say National Director Emeritus still for Muthfon Canada. What's the story there and your involvement in the topic that got you to this place? Well, first I'll start to tell you how I met Chad. Um, so, um, I was the National Chief Investigator and in charge of training for a number of years before I became the National Director. And in that role, I met Chad. And, um, I have seen many, many UAPs around the world. Uh, I have not had, how do I put it, the pleasure or, or the terror of having an experience or meeting a non-human intelligence like Chad has. I have interviewed dozens and dozens of experiencers and I understand the commonalities and what they go through and talk to Chad many, many times on the subject. Um, you know, I, I, I, Chad has been able to call me at any times if he's having problems and we, we, we work on problems together. But, um, I, again, I, I don't know how to explain it, not being an experience or what people go through. I understand it, as you said, Andy. Um, so, um, my story has officially been part of MUFON for 15 years. Um, so my professional encounters with UAPs and, and investigation and stuff is 15 years. But I obviously started many, many years ago. And I knew as a young, young boy that we weren't alone and I couldn't explain what I'd be seeing in the skies and things, you know, uh, I don't have any like stories to tell about jumping up on a roof and watching with binoculars, UAPs and stuff. Like that's my friend, Rob, but, uh, you know, I've been involved in it for years. And then just a few years ago, when I stepped down as the national director, uh, they appointed me, of course, national director emeritus, so I can still be involved as an advisor and stuff like that. But I did go on, uh, with my friend, Rob, and we wanted to redo the group that was flying around the world. And we are now, now calling it a CESA and I'm the president and CEO of CESA. I'll explain that in a minute. And Chad is a member, uh, Rob Freeman and Mark McNabb are the other two board members. And the group, uh, not including Chad, he's just joined the group, uh, has been flying around the world, uh, making contact, talking to people who have had experiences, talking to people who have made contact and, and then doing a lot of observations. And that's where we've seen multiple, multiple UAP sightings. And CESA stands for the Center for the Scientific Study of Atmospheric Anomalies. So, you know, so titled. And, uh, our goal is to do, uh, professional, um, data gathering, uh, to try and solve the mystery of where they are, what, who they, who they are, where they came from. That part, who they are, we'll probably never figure out. But anyways, uh, so that's what CESA's goal is. And we'll be putting up a website soon. It's not there yet. It'll be C-S-S-A-A dot org. And we've got thousands and thousands of photographs and videos of UAPs and things. So probably sometime next year, we'll launch that site and restart the group that has been going around the world. Now, it's all done by our own funding. We don't have any, any funding whatsoever. We'd like to, because we have already spent over, I think the group has spent over, uh, two or three million in expenses going around the world. But we've got about $500,000 worth of equipment that we carry with us. Everything from night vision, uh, you know, military grade night vision, thermal cameras, ultraviolet cameras, infrared cameras, uh, full spectrum cameras. And, uh, that's why we've got thousands of hours of videos. So my background basically is I started my career as an IBM computer engineer for IBM Canada. So I know electronics and computers well, uh, being electronic engineering technologist and electric, senior electrical engineering technologist. So part of my, my job with CESA and this group now is to build devices that will help us gather the data. So, uh, you've heard of the, this, the dog whistle, everybody's calling, you know, um, we're calling ours, the sky beacon, as you and I talked about earlier. And we successfully tested it down at Mount Shasta in Northern California this year in July and called in a UAP. So I knew I had to do a little more enhancement to it. So version two, uh, I have a video coming out of us testing it and it's pretty weird because it's just all parts on the table, but now it's in a, being put into a case. So we can go around with it. Uh, but we're going back to Mount Shasta. Uh, if Chad can join us, we'll find out, but it was going back to Mount Shasta in August of next year. And, uh, there it is. All set to go. So we're calling it encounters, chasing the unknown. This is through CESA. Um, and we're inviting people, uh, you pay your expenses and we'll be doing another sighting down at Mount Shasta. Cause we know Mount Shasta is an incredible hotspot, but everything that we've done, Chad and I together have led up to us writing a book called hidden in plain sight, you know, and you can talk about that more. And, uh, and then as Chad mentioned, we had a lot of trouble getting a paper published, a scientific paper, because we're not EHT scientists, we're engineers. Um, we did find a group and, uh, the 40 page, I think we started at 40 pages, ended up with 90 some odd because they kept demanding more and more and more. And the peer review just kept more and more. And then finally it was peer reviewed and it was published. So we do have a, a published scientific journal on UAPs, which we'll talk about, but we got a great presentation for you. We'd like to go through to explain more about what's in our book and what's in this paper and the conclusions we've come to. And, uh, you know, we came through, to these conclusions a long time ago, but we finally wrote the book because of an, as I call it an aha moment. And we're going to explain that too. So Andy, if it's okay with you, ask any more questions if you want, but I think we should throw up the PowerPoint. So we can explain more about what we're all about, what we've done. Well, you tell me first, Dave, um, because the, the sky beacon slash dog whistle technology, which is skywatcher has made infamous is probably the word because they've been so secretive about it. It was, and again, that the story seems pretty simple. It was James Fowler's technology. He had that technology for years before skywatcher founded skywatcher was not an organization for five years. James Fowler was doing work with that technology. He has since moved on from skywatcher. They are in good terms. He is now working for a call and under a contract for the government of the military. And, um, skywatcher no longer have that piece of technology. They do have data from it. They've been very careful to not say too much. The equipment itself is very much unknown. No one knows what it looks like, what it does, how it works. Do you want to chat about how that works or as much as you can now, or would it make more sense to do that in the presentation? No, no, we'll talk about now because we're not covering the sky beacon in the presentation. So very quickly, um, I do know that, uh, Fowler use certain frequencies and I'll explain them all. And he, he used those to, um, basically vibrate the universe to attract the UAPs. Now, where's the UAP coming from? Well, you know, four, four possibilities, you know, from outer space, from long, long, you know, many, many late years away, uh, coming through from another dimension. And, oh, I forgot to send Chad the picture. Maybe I can find it and put it up of a portal opening. Uh, I just saying, Chad, I forgot to send you the picture of the, uh, Cusco craft and, uh, or, um, another, a parallel universe and, or time travel. Uh, I don't really believe in the time travel. I believe you might be able to go forward, but I'm a scientist too. So going backwards, it's a little bit more difficult. I don't want to get into that. So knowing the certain frequencies of the harmonics of the earth and the universe, um, I did find out that that's what he was doing, what James Fowler was doing. So I took that theory and that information and I enhanced it and I use pulse wave modulators, uh, in order to produce the frequencies that we play. And we know I've got it right because it worked. We, we have a photograph, a movie of a UAP suddenly coming right at us, uh, twinkling, you know, and then stopping not a star. And we're all there, the whole groups, you know, if you're not a star, can you move upwards and thing moved upwards, you know, can you move left? The thing moved left. This was an amazing experience that we went through and all because I know the sky beacon attracted them in. So I, I enhanced it a bit more. And like I said, I'm making it portable, but it's based on the known frequencies of the, of the universe. So the, the most popular element in the universe is basically hydrogen and helium, uh, like helium vibrates at a certain frequency. So why not play that frequency audio leak? Cause it's an audio frequency. You know, you've heard a NASA saying they're listening to the universe and everybody goes, it's, it's, there's nothing out there. It's a vacuum, but they have microphones now and they hear the frequency of the atoms because it's an audio signal. And, and, and they have recorded all that. So I'm using that because if, if people are out there, NHIs are out there, they're probably using that for navigation purposes. We don't know. Um, I've used the, uh, meditation, uh, frequencies. I've used, um, uh, the earth frequencies, the frequency that the earth vibrates at, the earth itself vibrates at three Hertz to seven Hertz. Uh, so I used, uh, I chose seven Hertz and I, I pulsed everything at a seven Hertz frequency. And, um, I also know that, uh, the, the one, the 2.5 megahertz, kilohertz, sorry, 2.5 kilohertz. I'm also working in radio. 2.5 kilohertz, um, is, uh, a unique sound. So I, I chirp it out just a little chirp like a bird every once in a while. So we know it works and I can get into this another time. I actually am going to write up a little paper about it. But I'm also building them. It's not hard to build, but it's also, you got to have an engineering degree basically to figure this thing out and wire and build it. Uh, and actually later this year, Cease is going to have them up for sales. Anybody wants to buy one, pay the cost. And, but it's not cheap. It's about $3,500 U.S. all assembled in a case with everything, which is not bad. Cause I think Fowler put hundreds of thousands of dollars out to get his to work. Uh, just let me ask one more thing on that, right. Before we get to the presentation, cause it's, it's something people are going to be like, what, as a scientist, you've said yourself, repeatability is important. So you've said you've done this once. How often have you done it? Have you repeat this to say it can come in, it can come in? Yeah, no, we are going back to Shasta to do the, the second, the repeatability. So we went to London, Ontario and, uh, I'd love to go into London, but we went to London, Ontario where my friend Rob lives and we use the, uh, the, the next version of it and we saw results, but we couldn't call them in close enough. So we know, you know, we know we're close. So now I've got it tuned down and now we're going back to Mount Shasta and we're going to do a repeat. So we're going to be there six nights. So in those six nights, everything I'm like, I was just going to say, it's cold here in Canada now. So we kind of have to wait for it to warm up again, or we have to travel somewhere. Yeah. That's you need it to be warmer, not the NHI. Yes. No, I don't want to stand out at minus 20, minus 30 below. Where's your commitment to science? Come on. No, but that's understandable. I have many times. I used to be searching rescue tech and call out three o'clock in the morning at minus 40 to go rescue somebody. Dave, you're talking to a Scotsman who is currently sitting with a heated blanket around his legs. So I can't, I can't say anything at all against that. Listen, I'm surprised I put on a long sleeve shirt. I usually have a short sleeve shirt. Yeah. It's pretty cold in the UK. But listen, Chad, let's get this presentation up because that's fascinating stuff and we will definitely revisit that. I think there's a lot of good stuff there. Yeah. We can do another segment on CESA and our scientific method, mythology, which we're publishing. And I can show the dog whistle, the sky beacon. I don't like it. And I'm sure people, people can get in touch and send in questions on that as well because they'll be interested. But yeah, Chad, if you want to get the presentation on, I will share it. And folks, I'll just introduce this because if you're listening on audio, don't worry. The guys are going to talk through a lot of stuff here. The presentation is very much a prop and an aid for them to discuss certain things. You'll get the benefit if you're on the YouTube channel of obviously watching this or if you're on the Spotify premium or on the Patreon, you can see the videos. But otherwise, folks, you're not going to lose out by listening on audio. So yeah, I'll hand over to you, gents, to take this away. Okay. I'm sharing my screen. Tell me when you see it. Is it all good? For decades, the study of UAP has been plagued by a single problem. Uncalibrated data, anecdotal sightings and blurry photos have led to dead ends and easy dismissals. But what happens when you treat that outlier data not as a dismissal, but as a forensic clue? What happens when you apply decades of engineering experience to the problem? Engineers volunteering with CSSAA analyzed several historic photos in recent videos. One stood out, the RIDOI video. Through forensically sound frame-by-frame reconstruction and post-capture calibration using fixed reference points, the video was turned into hard scientific data. A surprising discovery was made, which changes everything. The object visibly demonstrated a previously unknown tell-tale atmospheric disturbance. For the first time in human history, an Alcubierre warp bubble in action has been visibly revealed by a leading-edge vapor cone, one of the five new observables. This finding is not predicted by any known human propulsion system, but instead is an exact one-to-one observational match to the mathematically predicted spatial compression required by theoretical physics. The conclusion is both uncomfortable and unavoidable. The RIDOI video captured an Alcubierre warp drive vehicle showing three of the original observables and all five of the new observables. Running a business is hard enough, so why make it harder with a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other? One for sales, another for inventory, a separate one for accounting. Before you know it, you are drowning in software instead of growing your business. This is where Odoo comes in. Odoo is the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all-in-one, fully integrated platform that handles everything. CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce, HR, and more. No more app overload. No more juggling logins. Just one seamless system that makes work easier. And the best part, Odoo replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. It's built to grow with your business, whether you are just starting out or already scaling up. Plus, it's easy to use, customizable, and designed to streamline every process, so you can focus on what really matters, running your business. Thousands of businesses have made the switch, so why not you? Try Odoo for free at odoo.com. That's O-D-O-O dot com. Okay. So that was my little preview to demonstrate what was basically going on. This is us. This is our logo. This is the camera setup that Dave and Rob have been using to capture UAP in Skywatch events. Yeah, this is the small one. We called it the WMD, the Weapons of Mass Detection. And this is what I call Mini-Me. This only has three cameras on it, but we have a bigger one that's twice that size with everything you can imagine on it, from ultraviolet to infrared, night vision, thermal, everything. So, Chad, keep going, but I just wanted everybody to know this is only part of what we take. Yep. All right. So a little housekeeping. The information presented here is solely the opinion of the presenters. It does not represent any opinion in past or current employers. This is something my employer requires me to state. Note, fair use notice. Some photos, artwork, and video clips are used for educational purposes only. No information presented in this presentation was derived from classified materials, and links are provided at the bottom of the slides. So on the right is the book Hidden in Plain Sight. On the left is a new book I'm hoping to publish in the new year called Missing Time 2, An Ordinary Man's Extraordinary Journey. It's an illustrated book. You'll be able to see what I saw, how I saw it, and I've recreated everything using CGI. So, to start out with, we all know about the five original observables as published by Luis Elizondo. This is what the U.S. scientists have discovered through their work while employed by the U.S. government. And we are building upon what they discovered and extending it further. So, through our work, we discovered five additional observables. These are visual signatures. If you don't know what you're looking for, you wouldn't understand them. But they're visual signatures, nonetheless, of these warpable zinnius. So, gravitational lensing. So, just before you carry on, Andy, what I want to point out is the Age of Disclosure just came out talking about what we've been talking about for two or three years. And now, suddenly, they're talking about the same thing. Yeah. So, does that give us, you know, are they saying, Dave and Chad, you're right? They might not even know about it, but we published it. And now we have a science paper on it. So, the most important thing coming out of that paper and stuff is what we're classifying is five new observables. So, Chad, I didn't mean to interrupt you, but we're not denying the five that Luis Elizondo came up with. These are in addition to that. Complementary. Okay. So, five new additional observables. Gravitational lensing. Leading edge vapor cones. Fast and slow oscillation. Pronounced disk tilt. When disks are flying at low speeds, they fly in a visually tilted manner. And then, softer, like skipping motion, just like Kenneth Arnold had described. This is a trace of an actual live webcam from a news agency in Oklahoma. And we're going to go into leading edge vapor cones. But first, I need to explain the Al-Kabir warp bubble. So, as everyone knows, in 1995, he published a paper. There wasn't really a good description in there of exactly how the warp bubble looks. He produced this math that tells you, if you take a point in space, and it's either contracting or expanding, it'll tell you how close it moves, that point in space will move to the center of the warp bubble, or how far away it will move. So, what I did here is, I put this into a math program, and I was able to spit up this math plot. This is not an artistic render. This is an actual math output using his formula. And this is what the warp bubble looks like. Now, there was a paper published about two weeks ago where they were saying Al-Kabir's math has this shortcut. And it actually should be a, I can't remember the exact term they used, but there should be a gradual connection between the two instead of this shortcut. Now, others have taken Al-Kabir's paper, and they've tried to expand on it, tried to prove it, but they didn't really concentrate on what the warp bubble itself would actually look like. You can see one attempt on the left, on the right. This is actually from Howe Puthoff's paper from 2003, I think. And that's an artistic representation. It says right there, artistic representation of the Neato warp bubble. So, you can see, again, it expands in behind and contracts in front. But for everyone to understand exactly how gravity works, I have this simple example. Take a block of wood, drill two holes through it. Now, thread some string through it, tie the string to a doorknob, and then on the other side, place the block of wood between you and the doorknob and pull the two strings apart. That block of wood is going to move away from you and towards the doorknob. This simple example is the doorknob is the earth, the string is the spatial fabric, and the pull apart is how, because large, massive objects bend space, that bend in space acts like a lever effect and pushes you towards the object. That's how gravity works. This is really important to know, because here, what I've done is I've taken the Al-Kaber shape function, and I placed what's called a derivative function on top of it. And I went through several different elastic formulas until I found one that worked. And so what you see is a warp bubble that's shaped like a wine decanter. So you get this large bulb underneath and this neck that narrows up and then expands back out. And a vehicle operating inside that warp bubble is going to live in a very narrow, round section right at the base of the neck, and that's the habitable zone within the warp bubble. If an object is too tall, let's say it's got a spire sticking out the top, that spire might get crushed back into the top because it's now into the downward gravitational acceleration. And if it's something sticking out the bottom, it'll get pulled off. So really, the only shape, if you're going to maximize the interior volume, is a round disk. You can also use a triangle if you want, if you're not concerned about storage space. But if you want lots of passenger and storage space, your only choice is around disk. It's no accident that the vast majority of UFOs and UAPs spotted that are medium-sized are disks. And they're disks because they have to be. Now, this last math plot output, it's the same one as before, but I've applied a spatial compression color algorithm to it so that you can see there's a magenta spot just above the center of the warp bubble that shows the tightest compression. And then it's red below showing the expansion. This is really important. And this little magenta blob plays a very important role. So here, next, I'm showing three clips, the last three still frames from the Ridoid video, where the vehicle had been traveling relatively slowly towards the camera and then darted off at an incredible speed away from the camera. And there's this white patch that is spotted just above the UFO as it's departing. And this film was captured about a year before I actually created that math plot. And when I saw it, I'm like, oh, my God, I'm seeing the Alcabere warp bubble spatial compression. And I realized what was going on. I've also worked in HVAC engineering. There's something called adiabatic cooling. That is when air is placed or rapidly expands and any moisture in that air will flash, condense into a vapor cloud. And so to explain that, I've got this TARDIS example. So TARDIS from Doctor Who is a police box. It's about not 200 square feet in size, but, you know, in the TV show, it's actually more like 10,000 square feet inside. So you have this huge amount of space inside a small box. Now, that's what was going on for the spatial compression. It's taking a large space and making it small to the outside observer. It looks small, but it's actually a large space. It's a relativistic thing. And so when air is entering that space as the space is traveling across the sky, pockets of air will suddenly find themselves in large, open, voluminous area of space and will rapidly decompress. And any moisture will flash, condense into a cloud. That is what we were seeing in that video. And so this little image shows basically up in the spatial compression above as the UAP is traveling through, that air is going to flash, condense. And then on the right, I have an image of, it's a similar condensation. Actually, it's the same thing, but in a different location. When jet aircraft travel at about the speed of Mach between 0.8 and 1.2, there's this cone that forms behind the back half of the aircraft. And it's the same decompression, but in the UAP, the cone forms in front of the craft instead of behind it. So here, I have the still image of the second to last. And then in the middle, I have the spatial color map. And I've angled and adjusted the color map so it matches the angle of the craft in the film. And on the right-hand side, as the two switch back and forth, fade in and out, you can see that that cloud in front of the UAP is an exact one-to-one match from the video still frame to the color-coded spatial compression. This is not an artistic render or recreation. This is math showing exactly how it works in, quote-unquote, nature. So this brings up the last point on this, which was basically, and Gary Nolan, Dr. Gary Nolan, has said this several times in his different podcasts and talks. He says, in science, you truly can't prove anything unless you can prove it with math. And he said that as a forewarning to people, saying, you know, in case somebody actually does find some math that can prove it, you've got to understand that math can prove things. And that's what we feel we've done here. This animated GIF, which switched between the math plot output and the still image being one-to-one, that's a math correlation that can't be explained away. It's not a lens flare because it's not attached to the vehicle. It doesn't match any CGI lens flares. And there's not many. There's algorithms that produce them, but they don't match at all. So what this is, it's like the 1919 Eddington Experiment. Einstein put out his paper, and he said, gravity formed by large objects will bend space, which then bends light, creating this gravitational lensing effect. So Eddington went out in 1919 to South America, and he took this photo during an eclipse. And there's a bunch of blue arrows in here. And they all show that these stars are in locations that they shouldn't have been. They're farther away than they should have been. And before this photograph and before Einstein's paper, nobody knew that gravity was supposed to bend light. But here is a photo that shows light being bent. Now, there have been many, many photos since that also show it. But this one photo, and it was only one photo, convinced people that, okay, Einstein was right. There is something to what he has said. And in the same way, no one knew that UAP should be showing this leading-edge vapor cone. And had this video been faked, how would he have, the faker have known? And it falls under the same weight of evidence tree examples. And so there's the last couple of questions I know people can ask. And so was it a landscape feature? Well, I've got the three images here side by side. And it's clear it's not a landscape feature. And it's definitely not a lens flare. So really what it comes down to was, if it was a faker, how did he know to create the vapor cones? And this is a specific detail, far too specific to be accidental. If it was faked, the faker had to have come back in time, has previously read my paper before I published it, and then after I published it, but produced a fake before I published it. And that's, the workaround is more fantastical than the claim. So, in science, you want more than one observation to be able to prove something. Well, we found more observations. In the 1950s, Rex Heflin took a series of photos. The fourth photo was this ring. As the vehicle rapidly departed, it left behind this ring. Nobody knew what it meant. Well, the object created that vapor cloud in front of it, and then darted through it as it rapidly left. And that's what you're seeing here, is this ring created by the vehicle traveling through its own vapor cloud. And then the Al-Quber video, the UAP there, when you look at it, a lot of people didn't really understand what was going on. And you see this black object, but sometimes there's white around it. Well, that white is a vapor cone being formed as the objects traveling through the atmosphere. Now, this set of images, still frames I've taken, I've actually color-coded it to show red being hot and blue being cold. And it's very clear there's this cloud being formed around it, either above left, above right, or above center. And then the Skywatcher team, in their part two video, also produced some three still frames, two shown here. And they said there appears to be some kind of cloud or vapor around it. But in another interview, he says, the fellow says, this cloud is forming above it as if worn by like a hat. In the exact same spot we predicted, this cloud should be forming. And then there's a Perth, Australia video from 2025. And there's this orb that was flashing on and off between blue and green, and it was leaving this trail of smoke. And nobody could understand what it meant. But as a UAP is traveling through the air, if the conditions are right and the vapor cloud sticks around enough, it'll leave a short vapor cloud. And then our friends, John and Gerald Tedesco, they also captured one last month. And here it is here. It was an orange video, an orange orb, and it was also leaving behind a trail of smoke that lasted very similar to the Perth, Australia video. And they weren't sure what it was. And so I've downloaded it and placed it here for everyone to see. But you can see as it's moving around, it's leaving behind this cloud that it's forming as part of its observable as it's traveling. Now, the next part we want to get into, which was really important for our paper, was gravitational lensing. Just so the listeners know, Chad, it's not smoke. We've determined it to be vapor because it looks like smoke. So it's flying through its own vapor cone it produced, just like the picture that Chad showed of the jet flying through its vapor cone. Because once it created it, it's going so fast it goes through it. So it's important to know that it's not smoke. It's vapor. It's going through its own vapor cone. It's creating its own cloud in front of itself. Yeah. That's what it's doing. And then it flies through because the speed is going. And I've been saying that for years with the little joke that every time somebody takes a picture, the NHI inside says, somebody's watching us, turn on the fuzzy picture device. Right? You've seen that. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. You're looking through a gravitational warp bubble. Of course, it's not going to be clear. So we're going to explain that. All right, Chad, let's keep going. Okay. So I have this simple astronomical thing. In astronomy, a galaxy will bend space. An object on the other side of the galaxy, in this case a quasar, the light gets bent back towards the Earth like a giant lens, hence gravitational lensing, and you can see it in this case in four different spots as a ring. Now, I've created a simple little home video here, and so I'm going to play this. What I've done is I've taken a round glass. I've placed two coins on top of the glass to represent a UAP. Now, the glass is a representation of a warp bubble. As I move the camera around, you can see the background gingerbread houses are changing in shape. They're being deformed. Now, what I've done is I've placed the coins inside the bubble because it's not on top of the warp bubble. It's actually inside it. So as the camera moves around, you can see that the coins themselves become distorted. So when you're looking at something through a warp bubble, it's going to look distorted. And that's what's going on when we see it, a photo or a video, and it looks blurred or out of shape. It's because the gravitational lensing effect caused by the warp bubble is changing the way it looks. Now, here's an example of a dark cube. You can see the dots overlaid from the warp bubble plot, and you can see how the light is being bent around it. And so to the observer, it's going to look like a dark cube inside a round, clear sphere. Now, on the right-hand side is a gravitational lensing CGI plot. What some scientists did of what a black hole will do when objects pass to find it, as an example. It's an extreme example. Yeah, that's based on Einstein's theory, and they call it the ring that forms around the Einstein ring. But it's a gravitational lensing effect. Yeah. All right. So the aha moment for us was actually a video. It was captured above Columbia from a passenger in a passenger airplane. Now, I've isolated two spots here where the UAP is passing in front of a cloud, and you can see here very clearly the background cloud is moving. And I spotted this when I was watching the angry astronaut, and that's when I first realized, hey, I'm seeing a gravitational lensing. I phoned Dave up and he says, you've got to take a look at this video. Tell me if this is some gravitational lensing. What did you say, Dave? And that was our aha moment, because that's what I said. Aha! Nobody's seen that before. Nobody knew what it was. So that's when we continued on and started writing the book. All right. So something that is in our paper that's not in the book, we've done a lot of forensic engineering reconstructions. So before I get into that, there's something from the Galileo project I wanted to read that gets misquoted. Because there's a however statement in here. The science investigation of unidentified anomalous phenomena is severely hindered by inadequate data collection and lack of robust data. Current data often collected by instruments not calibrated for scientific purposes are fragmented, unsystematic, and lack sufficient metadata. However, and that's my editorial insert. Waters continues on, says, civilian reports often contain statistical outliers that resist conventional explanation, potential scientific anomalies worthy of retrospective analysis and the design of new forensic tools. By new forensic tools, he means we want to correct him by saying old forensic tools. Here, this is important, and I want to remind people, in the scientific method, in science, when data doesn't match your theory, the theory is wrong. And I want everyone to remember that, because people started misquoting him. They're saying things like, current data collection efforts about new pieces are unsystematic and fragmented. And then he goes on, making civilian footage unusable, or trash data, so why bother? Or straight up unusable for analysis, or rendering it scientifically unusable. People are saying this, and they're misquoting him, and they're not realizing that what he was saying was, essentially, 5% still shows something anomalous. Those are the interesting things we've got to do a forensic analysis of. So, going back to my Science 101, the non-scientific method. And we all do this. Whenever any one of us becomes skeptical, we switch from the scientific thinking process, and we switch to an offensive mode, where we say, when the data doesn't match our theory, something must be wrong with the data. That is not the correct way of thinking. But we all do it. We all accidentally, unintentionally, inadvertently do it. It's just human nature. And I don't hold or begrudge anyone for it, but I want to say this, because I want to remind people, when you switch into this thinking, stop yourself and go, the data, if it doesn't match, there's something wrong with my theory, not the data. So, we're going back to that civilian arguments. This is a photo of a comet, Hale-Bopp, I believe, taken by an amateur astronomer with an uncalibrated camera attached to an uncalibrated telescope. Does that mean that the comet doesn't exist? No. No, it doesn't. What it means is you can't really measure off of it. That's all it means. And in engineering, that's important. So, in NTSB, and I'm going to bring up NTSB as our golden rule for engineering forensics, because they do it for any time they capture a video. Dr. Richard Waters, former chief accident reconstruction, said this. Forensic engineering does not throw outlier videos. We treat them as the most valuable evidence we have, because we can post-calibrate them and turn blurry civilian footage into hard data. Now, this here is a November 2025 fatal UPS crash. And you can see the moment when the jet engine is being torn off of the wing of the aircraft before it ignites. This is what we're looking for. We are looking for these little deformations caught on video that don't look right. Something is off. Something is incorrect. If a UFO video shows something of a perfectly round disc with no deformations, I go, that's probably not real. But if it shows deformations, I'm like, okay, now I'm interested. Now it's showing some evidence. It's an outlier video. This is what we're looking for. Does this make sense, Fanny? Yeah. Are you real? Yes, because for me, it's the one of my favorite quotes from a movie is a Bicentennial man, Robin Williams. And in the movie, there's a quote where the secret to perfection is imperfection. And if something looks too good and there's not a blemish, then it's not worth looking at. Whereas the stuff with the imperfections is where you get. And that's a really good example, because obviously I saw a lot of footage of that crash as a nervous flyer. It wasn't the best to be watching. But when you look at the comments, you know, your everyday civilian, including people who claim to be expert pilots and videographers, were all coming up with different theories, what they were seeing, what they weren't seeing. But then it actually took a few days before you saw this camera angle and this piece of footage, which, like you say, showed the issue with the engine. Because before that, everyone else was talking about it was the cargo got loose, it moved, it unbalanced the plane. There was a fuel leak. There was something else. It was pilot error. But actually, no, you just couldn't see what the issue was. So all those folks who were experts with all these different and it's the old you need a 4K camera. Everyone's got a 4K camera. Why haven't they got a great photo? Well, there was a lot of footage of this particular incident, but it took the right angle, the right timing, the right moment, and the right person looking at it to work out there's the issue. So, yeah, that makes sense. So we're saying that, you know, like a lot of people who debunk and say, well, photos can't be considered. Here's Dr. Richard Waters saying, yeah, they are. They're the best evidence you can get. So let's go on. We want to talk about how we do forensic investigations after the fact, you know, and that's what I've been doing for most of my life. So, you know, we're going to talk about right now post calibration in engineering. We are engineers, not scientists. So we've proven everything with math, with doing post calibration engineering, you know, investigations, basically. And that's what we're really trying to tell the public is we know what's going on now because we've proven it, and mainly with math. And that picture you saw of the Ridoid video and those nice, beautiful colored dots, that's the scatterplot diagram that comes out of Alcabera's warp drive formula. We didn't make it. We didn't make it up. So we know that he has the right idea. And many, many other scientists have now said that he has it right, and yes, we can do it. In fact, it's two days ago, an ex-NASA engineering saying that is correct, and yes, we can produce warp drive. I don't know where they're getting the energy from. They're not telling us, but anyways, it needs a lot of energy to do that. So let's talk about post calibration in engineering because that's what Chad and I both do on a daily basis in our full-time jobs. Running a business is hard enough, so why make it harder with a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other? One for sales, another for inventory, a separate one for accounting. Before you know it, you are drowning in software instead of growing your business. This is where Odoo comes in. Odoo is the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all-in-one, fully integrated platform that handles everything. CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce, HR, and more. No more app overload. No more juggling logins. Just one seamless system that makes work easier. And the best part, Odoo replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. It's built to grow with your business, whether you are just starting out or already scaling up. Plus, it's easy to use, customizable, and designed to streamline every process. So you can focus on what really matters, running your business. Thousands of businesses have made the switch, so why not you? Try Odoo for free at odoo.com. That's O-D-O-O dot com. Yeah, so for decades, you know, we engineers, we go to site, we take pictures. We take a hell of a lot of pictures because we're looking for, you know, we're in not greenfield environments, but what we call brownfield environments where the existing building, we need to make changes. We take photos of everything so we can figure out what's what. You know, it started out with just cameras, and then they went into, now we've got drones that take site pictures. And then there's these backpacks. You can put 360 cameras on. People will literally walk through the environment and capture every angle of everything just by walking through it. And now we have these massive databases of photos that we can rely on from our clients that we can then use post-calibration techniques to figure out, oh, I need to find out where such and such a thing is. And, Dave, tell them about how on Tuesday someone sent you a whole bunch of pictures, and it saved you two and a half hours of driving, and you were able to post-calibrate to do your work. My full-time job right now is in electronic security, helping design and look after, you know, access control, camera systems, intercoms, you name it. And that's where I use my engineering skills. So I had a customer that we needed to do some work for, and, you know, of course, my boss says, well, you better go to the site and measure all the building and all that because we need to know the sizes and what we're dealing with. And I said, no, I just got a bunch of pictures taken by one of the construction crew. And on the building, on every side was a known sign that we know because we provide these signs sometimes, and I know the exact dimensions of the sign. Well, if I know the dimensions of the sign, I know the dimensions of the building now. And I just saved myself hours and hours of work. I just used the sign to make a scale. Bang, here's the size of the building. Here's how many cubic feet we've got to cover. You know, it was fantastic. And I do that every day in my job. And I know Chad does it all the time, too. A picture is worth a hell of a lot more than 1,000 words. To me, it saves time because I don't have to drive out there. Yeah, exactly. And then two weeks ago, one of my electrical engineer co-workers came up and he says, I've got to do an electrification of a remote parking lot in a remote work site at a camp. All I have is this rectangle that says it's generally roughly this size. And I'm like, well, pull up all the UAV photographs and place them into CAD and scale off them. And that's a jargon term we use for post-calibration scaling. And that's what he did. He was able to take photos, aerial photos, of a site where they placed all these jersey barriers to represent parking spots. And he was able to create his drawings to show where all the electrical plugs would go and where all the light fixtures would go. So he never received a drawing other than a general layout of a general, it's, you know, so many meters wide, so many meters tall. And that was it. And from that, he was able to post-calibrate and measure off of the photos and recreate drawings for a full parking lot. Like me using the sign, he used the jersey barriers. That concrete bunker, that concrete barrier is a known size. When you buy a jersey barrier, you only get one size in Canada. And it's a known commodity. And bang, well, he knows the size of that. Now he did his job, same as I used the sign because I knew the size of the sign. Yeah. The point is, this is something we do all the time. So when a scientist says or someone says, well, you can't calibrate a camera after the fact, that's not true. So here is an example of one of the many softwares available to us engineers that we can use for post-calibration. This one's called, it's a tool called PhotoMatch built within a CAD program. You basically take known points, in this case, some telephone poles you've measured, and you can then line up your camera in the video so that you can overlay, in this case, what he's done. In the example is he's overlaid a new highway using those telephone poles as the known objects. And he was able to line it up and calibrate it and get everything looking correctly. This is a really good example because the Rex Heflin photos were analyzed in 2000 by some scientists, and they did the exact same thing. They took the telephone poles in the photo. They knew what the size of those were, and they were able to calibrate the camera, and they were able to figure out how big this object was and how far away it was. So it takes civilian data and turns into hard scientific data. Yeah, I do that all the time every day because I deal with security cameras, right? So I can take a photo that somebody took with their camera and figure out what lens I need to cover it and what the lens in millimeters of the zoom factor and all that's going to be. And am I going to pick off people at the end of that picture? I need to know the pixels per foot or per millimeter in the photo. And it's after the fact. I don't go to sight. I don't need to. Yeah. Tell them about the stadium you had to do a thing to figure out, how tall someone was. Oh, yeah. We used the same situation to figure out how tall a person was, a person of interest, in order to put out a proper description, knowing the size of the chairs, knowing the size of the railings around them, know the signs around them. Five foot, eight and a half inches. Bingo. There you go. The person was five foot, eight and a half inches when they caught him because I won't get into that. I also have to do some things in court sometimes. It's called, you know, prove that the picture wasn't doctored or it's not CGI and the data was reliable. So, yeah, you don't need to be there with a measuring tape, you know. I don't know why scientists don't believe that this is accurate. But there's nothing there. You're going. Yeah, good place, I think, for me to ask this. So, you guys have done a lot of explaining why this stuff is the way it is, how you've come to these conclusions, which has saved me asking you a whole lot of questions around it. So, thanks for that. I've been able just to watch and enjoy. Is there a margin for error? Is there a percentage where you look at this and go, well, we've got these explanations, the gravitational lensing, the vapor cones. Is there anything where you go, but it's 90% accurate, it's 95% accurate? Or are you saying, do you know what, based on everything we have done, your expertise, what you know, your day jobs like you're explaining now, is it 100% bang? These explanations are exactly what the explanations are going to be for the reason these things are happening. Yeah, take this photo, for example. They said they calculated, I believe, about roughly 30 feet in diameter. Does it really matter if it's 31 1⁄2 feet or 29 1⁄2 feet? When you're examining a UAP, you know, plus or minus a half foot is good enough. Yeah, nobody can be 100%. I never even claimed to be 100% in my job, although I've never been proven wrong when we do the final work. But, yeah, there's always a margin of error. But, Chad, you said it right. Who cares if it's out by half a foot? We know the general size of the UAP. Now we know what we're dealing with. Even without that, so, again, bear in mind, I'm a complete layman. I don't have to tell you that. I'm not doing what you guys do for a day job, okay, and I don't pretend to understand it. But with the photographs and the videos, quite often I'll look at this stuff and go, for example, the video where it goes, the Columbia video from the passenger aircraft, as the UAP goes past the cloud, I would look at that and in a real basic layman's way go, it's just pixelating because of the quality of the camera, the artifacts. Is that stuff you guys can look at and go, no, and here's why? Well, that's the lensing effect, right, Chad? It's not pixelating. You're looking through a gravitational cloud. So everything's going to be off. It's not going to be sharp. You're not looking through a glass, like a clear glass window. It's curved. So what I would say to that would be, I've zoomed in. I've cropped these two images and you can see the clouds moving. Take a look down here. There's a slight variation down here and that's what you're seeing. But when you look up here, the variations are much larger. And they're only large around the UAP, but they're really small elsewhere throughout the whole video, through the whole view of the video. So, yes, there are some slight variations as the camera pans and the window is not perfectly flat. So there's some slight variations. But they're very small compared to the variations behind the UAP. Chad, I had to step up for a second. Did you show how light is being bent? Like the lines of, you know, the tarmac. Do we have that where you can show how the lines are being bent? And that's why you're never clear. Yeah, I was about to get into that. Give me one sec here. And that proves everything. And I know this is the visual effect. It's hard to explain to somebody just listening, but we'll do our best. But we have a picture that shows how the light is being bent because it's coming through the gravitational effect. The bubble. Yeah, exactly. Pictures of the coin in the glass bubble. It's the same effect. Yeah, exactly. So what I got here is the first statistical outlier. It's the Rex Heflin, three photos, upper left. You can see that there's this pinching effect to the upper right of the disc. But on the right-hand side, photo number two, you actually see the UAP twice in there. And what's going on here is an oscillation has occurred. The warp bubble has turned off momentarily. I can get into that for other reasons later. But basically, I've traced it lower center in section D. Green is where it's not being affected by a gravitational warp bubble. And the red is where it actually is being affected. And on the right-hand side in image E and F, you can see the difference. It's symmetrical. And then all of a sudden, it's smeared and visible to the right. And so this is how something gets affected by the warp bubble. And then another of other outliers, the oldest one that I've been able to find is from Hopi, China. Depending on the source, it's either 1911, 1914, or 1941. And you can see the disc is warped and the dome is bent. And then there's two others that are similar, Trent and Rouen, France, where there's a protrusion that seemed bent. George Stark took some photos in one image, a side view image. You can see the dome is bent, but then when the dome is tilted up and is traveling away from the camera, the dome is no longer bent. So it's not like the dome is physically morphing. It's being lensed. And then Tridade, this one's interesting. This goes back to the Saturn craft. This is the craft that I saw when I was a kid, but it was at night and it was glowing orange. And the disc was this glowing red. It was really interesting. So here is a, what I did, sorry, what I did here, this was, I took the warp bubble, I tilted it at a slight angle compared to the disc itself, because it has to counteract earth's gravity. So to travel slowly through the sky to the left, it needs to have 95% of the acceleration pointing up and then 5% pointing the left. So it gets a slow tilt and it allows it to keep hovering and moving forward slightly. So on the right-hand side is a, it's a forensic recreation of what light would do in that warp bubble. And so I looked at the tip of the dome and I found that the light that should have come to the camera normally in blue wound up bending away from the camera. And then the light in red wound up bending towards it. And what it did is it makes the dome appear to be tilted. So I did a forensic study is what I did. And that study matches what's seen in the George Stock photo and in the Hubei China photo, upper left here. Then I did another study where I did some more section cuts. And these are engineering drawings here. These aren't hand-drawn on paper. This is actual engineering work. And, you know, I used to work in lighting engineering. I designed more light fixture, laid out more light fixtures than most people have in the engineering profession. And just in the five years I worked there, I also was a photometry lab technician. So I was testing light fixtures on a regular basis for their efficiency, looking at them, trying to figure out how to make them more efficient, making suggestions. They make changes to the prototypes. I test them again and look for the improvements, which there always were. So I have the experience and knowledge of how light works. And so here in this study, what I found was that I was looking at a cross-section of the disk itself. And you can see in the lower right here that this tilted warp bubble will create an image, making the disk appear to be wobbled, just like it did for the hopay. And then I put a protrusion out the top and showed it also would bend over. Now, this protrusion was stronger in my study, 20 degrees, whereas Trent measured 7 degrees. But there's still a bend there. And that top piece actually is part of the warp propulsion system, that little protrusion. We took the Alcubair warp bubble concept and we placed basically two smaller warp bubble generators inside a larger one. And we were able to create a larger warp bubble that you could then create at angle. So you can then create flight controls. Does it look familiar to you? Yeah, the three engines, Andy. Do you see that there's one in the middle and there's three sticking out the bottom? Have you seen that picture before somewhere? I mean, I can't help but look at it looks like a bowling ball from this angle. No, we are recurrent. This is plan view. We're talking about the sports model. Yeah. Bob Lazar came up with. Yeah. So what we found, mathematically speaking, what Bob Lazar reported is mathematically sound with the Alcubair warp bubbles. He called them gravity emitters. Amplifiers. Amplifiers. They're not. They are warp drive. Let's just say it. They're warp drive. And our book explains this a lot better. You know, the book is 365 pages long with lots of graphs and pictures and, again, lots of math. It explains this a lot better. Today, we're just trying to get, you know, wet everybody's whistle because we were so shocked when the Age of Disclosure came out and everything we've been talking about and everything we published was being talked by people in the know. And they're basically proving what we've already said. In science, when two or more research groups independently discovered the same phenomena, it's considered confirmed. In UAP, it's a little bit more tricky. The collaboration, yeah, because of the stigmatism behind the UAP. But you now have multiple parties who've confirmed the same thing that we published. Now, we're not saying we were the first. There was a paper on warp drive long before we put it out, but we put it all together with the math and proved that by engineering, not by a scientific method. You don't have the laser bend that I did, eh? I don't have it available, but we did. Let me explain. Let me explain. So, Andy, we were talking about how the light is bent going through the gravitational bubble, the warp bubble. I'm just calling it the warp bubble for fun. Yep. Down in South America, we always teach the people who come to participate when we're doing skywatching events and, you know, and gathering data. Yes, if you see something, take your laser and shine it around, but never hit the object because guess what? What if it's an airplane? You do not want to shine a laser into an airplane. Well, one person, we were shooting 4K videos and stuff. One person actually hit the UAP. I took that film that we had, and you can clearly see the laser bending around the UAP. The light bent around, and the laser is a pinpoint piece of light. Well, that was a cheap one, but still, you can't bend the light, but the bubble did. And the bottom picture is the beam is just kind of above it. You see the bright green, and all of a sudden it bends around. And then we actually hit it dead center as they were sweeping, and it stops. It didn't go through it. So you got a cutoff beam, and you got a beam warping around. So we have now really super high-powered lasers, and the next time we go out, we'll be triangulating these really high-powered lasers and shooting from different angles. So, again, the scientific method now is coming into play. So these are very, very, very high-powered lasers, and I'm not going to talk more about them. Yeah. It might be a little bit in the UK. Yeah, here's another example. Yeah, that's it. This was another Skywatch event by another party, but the red light shows the path the light took, and the green dashes show the path the light should have taken. And you can clearly see that the light is being bent. But, again, the picture proves it. It's uncalibrated everything. So, yeah, thanks for putting that up. Any questions on that? Does that prove it to you? I mean, I'll take your word for it, but that's only because I'm looking at it and going, okay, I would love listeners to come back if there's any folks who have expertise in that that could say otherwise. But, again, for me, I'm going to say, yeah, cool, that makes sense. We're just trying to open their eyes and open their minds. We are not saying this is the only possibility, but it's the most logical possibility. Yeah. And that sounds logical to me, and, again, you've broken it down easy enough. Oh, perfect. Yeah, we're both. Dave's taught at one of the local universities. He's got a lot of experience teaching. I've actually taught at a private college in Alberta, and I teach coworkers how to do CAD. So we're both experienced with making things simple for layman. Which is why I have my title, because I am a professor and teach. So here, what I have is an animated GIF of the radio image, and I've slowed it down to 25% speed. So you see it as it was first captured, and then what I want you to look at closely, Andy, is there's a dome on top of this disk. And as it tilts and moves around, this dome actually moves across the surface or appears to move across the surface. Here, it's right of center, and then it will tilt back. The dome becomes blurred here, and then when it's clear again, it's going to tilt back down slightly. Running a business is hard enough, so why make it harder with a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other? One for sales, another for inventory, a separate one for accounting. Before you know it, you are drowning in software instead of growing your business. This is where Odoo comes in. Odoo is the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all-in-one, fully integrated platform that handles everything. CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce, HR, and more. No more app overload. No more juggling logins. Just one seamless system that makes work easier. And the best part? Odoo replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. It's built to grow with your business, whether you are just starting out or already scaling up. Plus, it's easy to use, customizable, and designed to streamline every process. So you can focus on what really matters, running your business. Thousands of businesses have made the switch, so why not you? Try Odoo for free at odoo.com. That's O-D-O-O dot com. And you're going to see the dome, and the dome now is centered on the disk, where before it was to the right. And it's narrower than it was. So it not only did it appear to move, but it decreased its size as it moved back to center. It's like the yolk of an egg when you're moving it in a frying pan. The yolk moves about. That's exactly it. But it's not actually moving. It's due to the effects of the gravitational bubble that you're looking through. But I want to point out something. The first time I saw this, myself, like 99% of the people said, oh, it's CGI. It's fake. Because it was too clear. But there's a reason for that. The warp bubble that you're looking through on the top is a lot thinner than what's on the bottom. So most of the pictures of UOPs are taken from the ground up, and you're looking through the bigger portion, as we showed in the wine decanter scatterplot, it's thicker at the bottom. So you get more distortion. And the first time I saw this, just quickly, I went, oh, is this another CGI? And then we looked at it closer and said, nope, this one's real. It's an amazing picture. And then just about here, the right-hand side gets warped even more just before it disappears. And it shoots off at a high rate of angle. And there's the bubble. There's the effect. Vapor comes. I wanted to point out something. A lot of people are very skeptical and dismissive, and they say, well, it can't be a flying saucer. It can't have somebody in it flying. It's too small. Well, size is a relative. We don't know how high aliens are just because we see greys being experienced, but there's a reason why they're maybe as tall as they are. But if you had a super advanced colony of ants who could build UFOs, how big would the UFO be? So size is irrelevant. A 30-foot diameter, which one did we prove that the scientists proved was 30 feet in diameter? That was the Heflin one. The Heflin. Okay. That could have 1,000 non-human intelligent people in it because size is irrelevant. And I want to remind that to everybody because some of the investigations I've done, I investigated a video of a UAP flying by a drone. So, again, it was cool because it was shot from above, and you get a better picture, and it passed at Mach 12. Scientifically proven and tested, and the theory was sound because even a NASA engineer said it's doing Mach 12. But it was only two feet across. So is it a non-manned, I hate to use that word, but pilot drone craft? Yeah, looking at NHI drone, yep. Right. Or is it a full-size one, and there's actually aliens inside it? We don't know because we don't know who's flying them. We don't know what these things really are. So just keep in mind, size is irrelevant. This size, this might have had thousands of NHI inside of it. We don't know. Yeah. And there's no way to tell how big this Ridoy one was because it's a perspective thing. The closer it is to the camera, the smaller it will be versus the farther away it will be larger. This could be 60 feet or 60 meters. We don't know. So we had nothing to reference against how we do the, you know, after post-editing, like, to figure out sizes. There was nothing to reference against this. If it caught a better, if we could figure out how close it was to the wing and the engine was showing, then we could have figured out. But this was from an airplane, and we didn't have the engine, right? Well, no, the engine was there. That's how I did the post-calibration. Yeah, but you didn't have the size. It wasn't the full engine. It was part of the cowling, wasn't it? It was, I saw the full intake, but I did not try to measure the size of the craft. That was not relevant to me. What I did is I modeled a simple version of the intake so that I could calibrate the camera. And what I found was the camera was using 24-millimeter focal length. Not a virtual, but a literal 24-millimeter focal length. So I was able to use it. Typical lens on an iPhone. Yeah, exactly. Typical lens on an iPhone. So what I did, I set a virtual camera up, and then I modeled some ovals, some ellipticals in CGI to try and replicate the shape that was seen by the camera. Here, I have three still images selected, four seconds, seven, and 11-second marks. And I did this because I wanted to show how the gravitational lensing was affecting the look of the craft. Now, if you assume that the craft is round and not deformed, then this is what it was on the right. Sorry, here we go. In the center here is the original of what it should have been. This is what the camera saw. You can see here that the dome was shifted to the right and towards the back. That's why it's showing up here. If the dome was centered on the lower disc, it would have appeared here. And then I did this with a seven-second marker as well. Again, similar. It was towards the back, but a little more centered. And then there's a little bit more offside. And then here's the 11-second where it's actually centered on the disc, but it's still set backwards. And so both discs, both parts of the disc are changing in shape throughout the time because the warp bubble is shifting to deal with its flight, how it's going left and right and up and down. And that has that effect of what's going on and how the camera sees it. And so here is a compilation of the three of how they looked to the camera using a top view. So this is a recreation, a forensic recreation comparing the three still images. And then I went a step further, and I did an elevation view showing how the light worked. Now, this is not, like I said, lines on paper. I actually traced the lines of the light from the camera back to the UAP to see how the light had changed over this distance. And so this here is the image you saw previously, and this is the round disc. And this switchback here, just so everyone knows, in engineering we call this a break. If I were to put this at true scale, everything would be so small you wouldn't be able to see anything. So we put this squiggly line in here to indicate that it's to reduce the distance between the two objects. And it's a visual indicator that we've done that. And so the far edge here winds up bending through the spatial compression, and it makes this far end look much smaller than the near end. And the near end looks larger than the far end, and then the dome itself also appears, causes it to appear a little farther back. And then I did the same for the seven-second one. This is the side view. It's actually tilted slightly away from the craft at this angle. And again, the far end is quite severely bent as the light is coming through the warp bubble. And then I did one more view. This is what we call our front view in engineering. And this shows how the warp bubble changed the appearance. So the dome itself wound up getting stretched out to the right, slightly to the left, and then the outer edges also changed as they came up. This is how the light traveled from the round disk to the camera, causing it to appear asymmetrically. Does that make sense, Andy? Yeah, yeah. And if folks are listening to this and looking for the information, I think you should try and check some of the, at least the clips on YouTube, because the graphics are definitely helpful to show you exactly what's happening with the light, with the object, why it looks the way it looks. And you can really easily move this over to multiple different videos of UAP and work out why things look the way they look. I was going to say, if anyone has questions about, like, you know, my email address is chad at cssaa.org. But I know people are going to question, you know, did you get the lines right? You know, how did you know to do this? This is standard lighting, lensing methodologies I used. It's the same as I did in the lighting profession. As a matter of fact, I actually got to test the very first holographic lens ever made, the prototype of the company I was working for in BC. And that company now uses those lens to create what looks like an artificial sky in a room. So it's really neat, fascinating stuff. But I'm definitely, like, this is right up my alley. I have the experience to do this. This is no different than what I did in my lighting profession. So, yeah, well, if you leave the comments, I'll definitely chase those up next time I've got you on. So if they want to question anything or get in touch with you, that's absolutely fine. Awesome. But yeah, that'd be interesting to know. Okay. So there's one last thing we wanted to talk about, and that is balloons. Everyone keeps saying. Errol's famous, it was a balloon. Elgaber, it was a balloon. So I got it in there. I mean, it's a balloon. It's a weather balloon, a mylar balloon, or swamp gas still. And, you know, 50, 75 years later, we're still getting the same damn excuses. And there it just went by. And don't forget skylighters. I'm already wary you're showing this video because I've shared my opinion on this multiple times. Oh, let's hear you what the Hellfire missile did. That is not a UAP. That Hellfire missile has not got a warhead, and it's gone through a soft-ish target, and either it was barbed or designed to not explode on impact. Do you know how a Hellfire missile explodes? It doesn't explode on impact. If you go back and listen to the guy I had on just after it, he's from British military, who knew exactly what it was when he saw it. But that object, even the provenance of the object and how they came to show that in that hearing, I'm not massively over the moon with how they've done that. Let me ask you a question first. I didn't see that interview. The Hellfire missile, you're saying, is not a sensor or proximity-triggered system. It is an impact. I don't want to misquote the guy, but you can go back and listen, and he goes over multiple variations of it. But I'll happily send you the... I wouldn't want to misquote him. I'm very interested because... I've actually watched that one. Yeah. I've watched almost all of your episodes, so... Oh, thanks. Yeah, you're welcome. So what we want to do here, we wanted to dispel the myth about balloons. And so there's a large number of control videos available on YouTube where people have taken IR cameras and filmed different types of balloons. And the reason why is, is to an IR camera, balloons do not look like they do to the human eye. So in the center here, what you see here is a latex balloon. In a color infrared camera, and here in black and white, it looks like a soap bubble. It doesn't have any heat. It'll darken slightly. But if this object or the Aguadil object was a latex balloon, you would see a soap bubble that would be transparent. It wouldn't be the solid white, which is hot. So white hot, if it's hot, it cannot be a latex balloon because a latex balloon does not show up with heat. It's just not possible. The balloons are only going to have the same temperature as the ambient air around it. Yeah. There's no force of ignition inside it. Exactly. Next type of balloon, mylar balloons. It's an aluminum balloon. Mick West did a video. He was trying to debunk the rubber duck video because it was a white hot, it was a, sorry, a white cold IR video of two objects close to each other orbiting around. Now, what he did is he took a happy birthday mylar balloon, he filmed it from his porch, which is the same angle that these videos are taken from, from above. And you can clearly see here what's going on is the mylar balloon is reflecting the cold sky from above for the vast majority of it. And you'll see a little bit of reflection underneath it, but it's reflecting the cut, the same temperature as the ground. So it'll appear slightly smaller and it'll appear cold. So in a white hot scenario here, it's going to appear black. Here, the UAP captured in this video, and it's the same with the Aguadilla, they're hot. And a mylar balloon will only appear as cold. So this Hellfire UAP was not a mylar balloon. It's not a question. It is guaranteed it is not mylar because it's not showing cold. So this video, I've taken an animated GIF out of this YouTube video. Another scientist, or actually a specialist in IR cameras, David Felch, he videoed a latex balloon from a helicopter using the same exact camera from the Aguadilla event. And you can see this tiny little dark object moving across the sky, and you can barely catch it, and that's zoomed in. And so, again, this is white hot, but it's showing darker. This is a latex balloon captured in motion by a helicopter. It does not match the Hellfire UAP. You can't see it, so the arrow points at where it stops, and what do you see? You don't see it. Yeah, nothing. Yeah. Yeah. So the last object is what's called a skylander. It's a paper hot air balloon, about the size of a beach ball, maybe slightly bigger. David Felch also videoed one of these. He bought one. He put the candle in. He videoed it against his car. You can see here it's black hot or white hot. Now, it's going to show up as a large white hot object. Now, in the case of the Hellfire Missile object, had it been one of these paper balloons and it got struck by a Hellfire Missile, it would have been torn to shreds. It's paper. It is the softest type of paper you can buy. It's like the tissue paper you put inside a gift inside a bag. It's that light. And so had one of these been struck by a Hellfire, it would have disintegrated instantly. It would not have bounced off. And the Hellfire would not even have changed its direction of flight. So whatever this was, it was not a paper sky lantern. It was something different. So the whole point of this was, everybody, these aren't balloons. Because we know what balloons look like to an eye or camera, and this is not what they look like. And the last one I wanted to point out was going back to the Aguadilla. And again, you can see these white clouds around it, cold clouds around a hot object. Some people have argued that it could be a halo effect. Now, in an IR camera, when you zoom out, and here's an example I found, you can see in the upper right here, there's a halo effect around it. It's both black and white. But the closer you zoom in on the object, the halo effect goes away. Now, people have said in the Aguadilla video, oh, well, that white coloring you're describing must be a halo effect. Well, in the Aguadilla, it started out zoomed out. And you can clearly see the halo effect around not just the UAP here and here, but also around other hot objects on the ground. These are, I understand these are cattle. And they're showing the same halo effect. But when the operator zoomed in, and you can see the magnification set to 675, there's no halo effect. And you can see the trailing cloud here, but it's not a halo effect. So when Arrow decided to write, oh, and this is really interesting. Our first publication on this was in summer of 2024. And all we did was we published just on the Aguadilla UAP. And then the next month, I remember watching you and you said, oh, there's this rumor that Arrow is doing a study on the Aguadilla UAP. And then in November, they come out and they say, oh, it was a balloon or a sky lantern. Well, they didn't bother looking at what balloons look like to an IR camera. And because they didn't do that, the statement of it's either a balloon or a sky lantern indicates they were suffering at the very best from confirmation bias. And I put this definition up. Basically, people are especially likely to process information to support their own beliefs when an issue is highly important or self-relevant. And this goes back to in the scientific method, if the data doesn't match your theory, the theory is wrong, not the data, something is wrong with the data. And so, yeah, it's I truly feel that our little paper that came out in the MUFON journal in the summer of 2024 triggered Arrow to make their publication. And we caught them in confirmation bias at the very best. You're being generous, I think, when you say at the very best confirmation bias, I think there's a lot more dishonesty and deliberate obfuscation going on when it comes to Arrow. But yeah, you're being polite. Weather balloons, yeah. Basically, yeah, they're not far off the old swamp gas reflecting off of Venus, are they? Yeah, no, no, they're not. So I'm going to have to wrap up soon, guys, and there's a whole lot more to get into, and I'd love to get you back on in the coming weeks to go over more detail with the book, the CSAS stuff. I think there's a lot of really good talk there. I want to ask you something, though, around the warp bubble idea. Running a business is hard enough, so why make it harder with a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other? One for sales, another for inventory, a separate one for accounting. Before you know it, you are drowning in software instead of growing your business. This is where Odoo comes in. Odoo is the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all-in-one, fully integrated platform that handles everything, CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce, HR, and more. No more app overload. No more juggling logins. Just one seamless system that makes work easier. And the best part? Odoo replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. It's built to grow with your business, whether you are just starting out or already scaling up. Plus, it's easy to use, customizable, and designed to streamline every process. So you can focus on what really matters, running your business. Thousands of businesses have made the switch, so why not you? Try Odoo for free at odoo.com. That's O-D-O-O dot com. I had conversations with people some time ago and since that the shape of the objects will determine how many warp bubbles there are. The idea that there's an understanding or belief that triangles, for example, there are three, and they overlap in the middle. Yeah. Larger objects may have four, five, six. Yes. But the saucers require one. Does that make sense to you? Would that change anything? How does that work? I would like to answer that, Chad. First of all, we don't know how many warp engines they have. I'm going to use the Star Trek scenario where that's where we've got warp drive and going faster than the speed of light. You know, we're all stuck in the sci-fi world with Star Trek and Star Wars. If they have three engines in a perfect circular diameter like the UFO saucer, you're going to get one warp bubble. If it's a triangle, in our book, we have five engines, okay? And that's why you can use a triangle because it's got different nacelles. There's the Star Trek word. By the way, that's in the dictionary. It is a nacelle. So you're right. Each engine can produce its own warp bubble. But if you do it right, it becomes one giant warp bubble. Yeah. You won't see it. Yeah. That's what's really interesting about the triangles. I have family members, and I have myself seen triangles, and they are massively large. I saw one over Mexico City on the way to the airport. And it was – I was looking out the sea of lights from the – and there was a black – what I thought was just a park until I realized it was moving, and it was massive. So what we found was that when you create a triangular set of warp bubbles and you point them all in the same direction, so along the plane of access, they all amplify each other. And so what was – what is usable for hovering and moving slightly, you turn them 90 degrees in direction of the arrow, and all of a sudden it comes one giant warp bubble that combines and goes off at an incredible rate of speed. It's no accident that these massive objects are triangles, because that is the best shape for the fastest warp bubble acceleration. I truly think those massive objects, those are the interstellar craft. Yeah. And we're trying to – a couple more things is – I hate to refer back to Star Trek, but I like Star Trek. No, no. Go for it. But everybody says, well, there can't be warp drives. They're hovering. They're going too slow. Well, who said a warp drive only gets you faster than the speed of light? It's a propulsion system, and we're trying to convince people that, yeah, it can sit there and hover, but it's still using a warp drive because it's controlling the bubble. It's controlling its movements. Okay? It's all there is to it. When it wants to go fast, boom, it changes. So I would argue when you drive, do you only drive with your foot all the way down, or do you feather the accelerator? Yeah, exactly what I was thinking. Even going through gears, for example, I'm not saying these craft have gears, but, you know, driving a car in first gear, it's a lot easier to do six gear at 70 or 80 miles an hour than it is to do first gear and pull away and find the bite. But you can use the pedal on the different warp nacelles. You want to go right, you turn off the left and the south. You go right. You know, like, you have to control the end. I'll call them engines, warp drives. You have to control them. That's how you control the flight. Yes, you can hover. Yes, you can go as fast as the speed of light. Excuse me. I'm all choked up. That's why I left for a couple minutes. Sorry. I'm getting a cold, and I apologize. But the one last thing is, like, Chad and I both believe that the UIPs have always been here. They've been here longer than man, humankind has been on this earth. So my theory is that they're showing themselves maybe because they were in another dimension. We only live in a four-dimension world that we know of, you know, X, Y, Z in time. But there's actually 11 proven dimensions. So are they coming from another dimension, right? It's hard to say, but I want to show you one quick picture. Where's the share button? There we go. That was taken in Cusco. That was a portal opening up. And unfortunately, we didn't catch the craft going in or out which way it went, but there was a craft. And it was a portion of one frame. Boom. And we've shown this to a number of people, and they said, oh, you caught a portal opening. So they've been here. And, you know, that portal could have been used to get from somewhere in outer space. Or it could have been a portable, a portal to open another dimension. Or from somewhere in time. Yeah. Yeah. There's a lot of really interesting food for thought on that. And I am really hoping folks on the YouTube channel, leave in the comments any questions you've got, any thoughts you've got. Because what I want to do is get Dave and Chad both back on the podcast soon. Obviously, once Dave gets over the cold he's about to have that I have had for about a month. And I am just getting over it. The UK is rife at the minute. And I have thought that's coming on for two days now. And it picks up all days today. Yeah. That's my fault for rescheduling a few days ago. But listen, no, there's so much to get into. More of the books. More detail on the technical specifications. The equipment. The Mount Shasta stuff. I think there's a lot to cover there, folks. But do you want a final word? Do folks want to go and find out more detail? If they're leaving here, and I think for anyone, and I'm guessing you guys as scientists, as engineers, even Chad with your incredible background and the experience side of things, if people walk away skeptical but curious, I think that would be a win with this stuff. Because it gets people thinking, hmm, maybe this is explanations as to why the craft looks the way they do. Maybe this explains why you can't get good photographs. And they want to go look into this more, whether it's the book or any other information. How do they go and find that? I would suggest they do buy the book. And you can just download the Kindle reader version of it. It's very inexpensive. You can buy it from Amazon anywhere in the world. I think here in Canada, it's $8 or $9. It's very inexpensive. And it's got beautiful graphs and pictures and stuff. And that will help their curiosity to either be solved, satisfied, or grow. So they looked at asking more questions and getting more involved. And that's the only reason we put the book out for it. It's not to make money. Amazon makes all the money. And then, of course, the science paper we put out was for the science world. But how do you get hold of us? Well, for CESA, the website won't be up until next year. But the book is the number one source of information that we have produced. Chad has another website he's working on. We're going to leave that one out for now, Chad, because that's where you're going to announce your new book, Missing Time 2. I've read it, by the way. I am so looking forward to actually getting a copy in my hand just so I can put it on the shelf. But I helped proof it and stuff. It's going to be a very exciting read of, as you said, one man's personal experience. And I have interviewed so many experiencers, I can't wait for this book to come out. So the only way right now I'd suggest is just go buy the book. Nine bucks. It's actually included for free with the Kindle membership. So if you've got a Kindle membership, you can even get it for nothing, folks, on there as well. Yep. But listen, gents, thank you so much for your time. It's been wonderful speaking with you. You've went almost two hours here. Thank you for the slides. Really easy to understand, folks. And if you're an audio person, go and check out the video side of things as well. It explains so much, and it's so easy to follow. We'll get the guys back on. Send in your questions for Dave. Send in your questions for Chad. And I'll get them on in the coming weeks as we head into 2026. But, guys, wonderful speaking with you. Thank you very much, Andy. Our pleasure. 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. Running a business is hard enough, so why make it harder with a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other? One for sales, another for inventory, a separate one for accounting. Before you know it, you are drowning in software instead of growing your business. This is where Odoo comes in. Odoo is the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all-in-one, fully integrated platform that handles everything. CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce, HR, and more. No more app overload. No more juggling logins. Just one seamless system that makes work easier. And the best part? Odoo replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. It's built to grow with your business, whether you are just starting out or already scaling up. Plus, it's easy to use, customizable, and designed to streamline every process. So you can focus on what really matters, running your business. Thousands of businesses have made the switch, so why not you? Try Odoo for free at odoo.com. That's O-D-O-O dot com.