UAP Disclosure: Eyewitness encounters with Ryan Graves

UAP Disclosure: Eyewitness encounters with Ryan Graves

Show Video

You know, we're tightening up their formation accelerating. Now they're above 10000 feet. You can accelerate above 253100 knots. Mhmm. And so they're accelerating probably 3.50 closing in the formation, and then the leads

see something go by his aircraft. And what he described was a dark gray or black cued inside of a instead of a clear sphere. At this point, we've been seeing and talking about them enough where he's just like, I don't see why those same thing. We all knew what he was talking about. There is no real mechanism to report this, both from a a military perspective as well as a commercial perspective. And it happened multiple ones. Right? There were multiple sightings of the similar type of variety from different pilots? Yep.

Okay. Today, we'll be talking about the most advanced and subjects imagine. From fighter jet technology to planetary orbits to the theory of relativity. The best way to learn about these fascinating subjects doesn't cost 1000 of dollars or take years years of schooling. It's actually free and easy. Brilliant is a great way to learn the fundamentals of engineering data science, analysis, probability statistics, and everyday technology. Plus, you can even take an in-depth course about quantum mechanics from our good friend Sabina Hossen elder. It's a fresh and new perspective on learning advanced

topics. Take a quick quiz when you first sign in and you'll be matched with content that fits your skill level and interest. Whether you're a complete noob or you're ready to write programs for a quantum computer. Brilliant's guidelines let you explore concepts at your own pace. If you get stuck, there are helpful hints and step by step solutions to get you back on track. Science and analysis skills are only getting more in demand, which is why I love their new data analysis fun mentals course. It gives you a step by step approach to learning everything you

need to know to get started in this exciting field. Within a few quick lessons, you'll get to analyze real data and draw conclusions from it. the kind of analysis that forms the backbone for a lot of my research and even my content to try everything brilliant has to offer for free for a full 30 days, visit Keating. That's briankeatiandg,

or just click on the link in the description. The first 200 of you will get 20% off of Brilliant's annual premium subscription. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. yours truly. Doctor Brian Keating alive on

YouTube at least with with my new friend. Ryan Graves. Lieutenant Ryan Graves. Former lieutenant, you're no longer serving in the active duty. You're here in San Diego, and I wanted to let you yourself to the to the into the impossible family. You're a fan favorite. We want to have you on for a long time, and thanks

to my buddy, Ariel. We were able to get you so welcome. Thanks for having me here. Way introduction. My name is Ryan Graves. I joined the navy out of college. I went to school in Central Massachusetts. I joined the navy. While in training, I actually met Ari here, and we can talk more about that in a little bit. I believe you invited me on here today because I've come somewhat of a public spokesperson on the the issue of UAP now because we were seeing these objects flying around. And so so, yeah, that's that's a start. You know? I've

engaged this topic a few organizations when you talk about that a bit later, so I'm still engaged in the topic. Yeah. Happy happy to be here and try to answer any questions I can. Yeah. I just to recapitulate my friend Ariel. Ariel, can you give your background and do your second appearance on the InterDigital Podcasts after meeting with Fazard Lead for his book, The Art of Clear Thinking of Ben Labor. Tell us about yourself. Grew up in New Jersey. Join the navy shortly

after college and went through flight training with Ryan and Meridian, then we kinda split paths. I went on West Coast. I think you went east, and then I ended up at the at a squadron on the East Coast, and we're on the same carrier. So and we did a lot of our workups and training together and then deployed Both of us made about half the deployment, and then we rotate it out. What got you into aviation? Why did you wanna do that? You went to Worcester Polytech, you're an engineer. Braniac nerd probably growing up as

a kid. What made you wanna fly high performance fighter jets except for the fact that it's every little boy's because it's a high performance fighter jet. So, you know, it wasn't something I I did dream about as a child. It wasn't something I was exposed to. I didn't have any, you know, pilots or crew in in my family. You know, I grew up in a very rural small town, so it wasn't something I was initially exposed to on a regular basis externally as well. But, you know, I've always been very

interested in technology and all the things that come with it, advancement, new understanding, scientific discovery, And for me, jet aircraft, at least that that is almost was a personification of that, you know, cutting edge technology. That's where so much effort was put into place, and that was a place where I could go. And I could take in all those experiences, all that technology, you know, all that operational capability, right, and just kinda test myself not only intellectually, but as part of a team as, you know, someone that has to interact with his hands as well as his mind, potentially. So we just need, like, a great challenge. I didn't know where it would end. I had, you know, perhaps some dreams of

being able to offshoot NASA or do the after not think didn't have that opportunity. But I just saw that that would hopefully give me enough experience to be able to go out and do something fascinating the world after that. Uh-huh. What about you? I don't think I ever really understood how you got tied up and left Princeton and went into went in to serve your country. But what what was it? What was it about the navy in particular? I mean, David Sperkel proved to me I was not gonna become a an astrophysicist Great teacher, but no. I I realized I wasn't great at the theoretical.

I kinda maxed out at quantum physics and decided afterwards to to go into the navy when I had always been fascinated with the Apollo program, and I had dreams of eventually becoming a NASA astronaut. also been kinda pan out that way. To include the the more I thought about space and not, you know, topic for another day, but it takes a huge toll on the human body. And I like being physical on earth and, like, eating good food and drinking good wine, and I wanna climb Paul Mountain. So You're doing the dinner, by the way, since tonight in my house. Well, it's a great girl to have

here. So, Ryan, what brings you to San Diego? You were you're one of the cofounders of a very important organization. So people know I'm on I'm a pilot, but not like these American heroes, real life American heroes. I fly a little, you know, sustenance around. But I'm very interested in aviation. We're gonna geek out. We're

gonna nerd out on astronomy. physics, and aviation. Fair warning. We're gonna throw in some AI and maybe some aliens. We'll see about that. What brings you to San Diego, Ryan? It's so great to have you. Yeah. So I I came into San Diego this week because the

American Institute of aeronautics and astronautics for the AIAA as I'll refer to it. I chair a committee there called the UAP or unidentified anomalous phenomenon integration and outreach committee. It's a it's a full committee within the AI double a. forwarded to that status within the Institute. And that is an integration committee. Essentially,

our charge is to be able to bring together experts within that committee that have a, you know, a wide variety of capabilities and be able to interface both in our in our technical activities there within the sub committee, but also to reach out across all the what they call technical committees that comprise majority of the AI double a and be able to integrate those technical expertise spin up teams with particular capabilities or expertise as needed. And so that organization is having their aviation 2023 conference, which is largest professional conference for everything in the air for space. And these are, you know, engineers from NASA from the startup community. from, you know, your large defense corporations. And there's a bunch of papers that are presented there. And as a committee, we participate in that, and we had a paper presented on the UAP topic during this conference, 4 of them were in person. I present one of those papers. It was

on potential reporting mechanisms for UAP. with the existing aviation safety frameworks, and then we had 4 more in the virtual session as well. So that's what brought me, and we just finished that up here. Today's Friday. So really happy I could finish it up with you. And I should also mention your

host of the Merge podcast, which I very much enjoy. It's got -- Much higher production values than we're sporting down here at the nor just a public university, Renata. You you private citizens out there. So I think one of the things that's most interesting to me Yes. As an aviation geek, as an aviation nerd, is if you were to say to an average individual or maybe commercial pilot a lot of commercial pilots listen to this, podcasts. I'm sure they listen to yours, and they were to see something. What what is your first step? I mean, what what do people do? And

and it could be I'm aiming on the ground witnessing some sort of phenomena. But in particular, in the air, just take it from that perspective. I'm flying along the coast of California, not far from warning area off the coast of Catalina. I see something. What do I do? Well, you do what you should always

do as a pilot, which is aviate, navigate, and communicate. You shouldn't necessarily let self be distracted by what you're seeing. At this point in the game, right, you don't know what this object is. It's probably more likely just a balloon or a u UAV or something of that nature. And so the idea here is if you see something that's unidentified that you should now, you know, go deviate from your course to go inspect or something like that. Right? So that's not what's being communicated here. You should be a professional pilot if

you do observe it, and you believe it could be a threat to other air traffic the proper procedure would be to reach out to your air traffic controller and see if that traffic is known. And if not, you'd like to give them a position where it is so they can weren't other traffic about it. One thing I've been hearing from talk with commercial pilots is that it's essentially what's been happening right now is that they'll see something either at their altitude or in the vicinity of their altitude. Other aircraft are seeing it as well, and they're calling up the ATC. And they're all kind of confirming it that it's there, but they don't know what it is, and they can visually see it. there's nothing else really

to do at that point. So that's part of the problem I've been trying to resolve is that there is no real mechanism to report this both from a a military perspective as well as a commercial perspective. On the military perspective, at this point to see, we don't really have the ability to report unknown objects in any way that would have got resolved It was simply we had the Navy Aviation Safety Keating mechanisms, and those are, you know, not an investigatory type of system.

ASAP report. Yeah. So, you know, it's data collection after the fact. So there really was nothing. And if those represented, you know, potentially after serial platforms, that was ultimately my fear at the time was that these could have potentially been some type of platform just spying on us, and that's something I've been communicating a bit on. I'm getting off track here. So I'll jump back. On the commercial side, what what should the pilots do? Right now, in the

far in the far, the federal aviation regulations -- Publicism. -- it instructs aircrew, they would like to report one of these. They don't require it in any way. They essentially suggest that the the aircrew or the witness could go report that to any number of UFL Keating centers that are out in the general public none of which are well funded or, you know, consistent with each other. And so more or less information just gets scattered out. And so that's one of the issues that I'm working to resolve from a procedural point with the AI double a to be able to make those recommendations. Also, with the other organization, I started American for, say, aerospace where we can provide general education and and education on Capitol Hill to be able to push for those procedures, be able to push for that, you know, potentially mandatory reporting so that pilots don't feel like they can't can't bring that information forward to HTC in the old. Yeah. Is it I mean, there's a stigma in aviation. You know, you do something. There's a pilot deviation, the air traffic controls. Here's a

phone number to call. You know, what you're supposed to write down right after you had some incident. You know, is there a sense that, like, pilots are not reporting because they're gonna get some list where, you know, Will Will Smith's gonna come up and do some clicking to them or or that the FAA is gonna pull their ticket. They can't fly anymore on the commercial side. There's some concerns about I don't

think it's anything, you know, men in black and nefarious, but guys just generally don't wanna be associated with it. They don't want it to answer for it. They'd rather keep their head down. And, you know, I say that from the context of the people that have been calling me for the past, you know, 8 months or more. Yeah. That's what they're reporting. And when they first reached out to me, know, some

of the stories we're guiding you even wanna call it out to HTC -- Right. -- because they didn't want their calls associated with that report, essentially. So that's where the state of affairs was. course, it's not evenly spread, but I hear that's better now. People are calling it out more, but it was disappointing to see that during the NASA independent study team public meeting, that FAA representative communicate they wasn't even aware of any procedures for pilots to report on. Yes. That's, like, the most sports games. Right? yeah, they seem

to be good at, you know, kinda punishing pilots and and if the FAA is out there, please do not, you know, pull my ticket. Ariel, we we talked over at lunch not too long ago about, you know, events, things you saw when you were in combat or in training, you're flying a per horn and also but were you both single seat pilots? Was it about single seat aircraft, or were do you guys double? I was single seat. Ryan flew Two seaters you told me once, and maybe you could tell the story, but you're encounter with a UAP at the time. I can't can you actually, actually? No. No. I I In both cases, it was it was observable for

me. So I I didn't have any anything too crazy. I one time in the whiskey area is off the coast of Virginia, we did pick up a lot of little, like, scatter and 1 I was able to to lock on to this, and it ended up I did a right to right with a balloon. there was another time in the Persian Gulf, and this was more worrisome because I've come in off the carrier. I I pick up a a contact going real slow. not getting called out from from air traffic at the boat, lock him up. I have a 9 x missile, which all has another sensor on it, and that actually gets tone, which tells me there's something there, end up doing a right to right with a Iranian drone. Yeah. The way to write me

is you're you're Keating off. So -- Basically, we're just kinda flew right by. Yeah. So it was an Iranian drone that was orbiting near the near the carrier. You know, dangerous from a standpoint of one we should be aware that it's there, which the boat may have been. It was just more warning the pilots. Hey. You know? And I, you know, I remember reading and Donald Rumsfeld's biography, you know, of of all places that, you know, he said once that if president Bush wanted to kill somebody, it took about 17 different phone calls and, you know, telegrams and encrypted, you know, data sources before that person would meet his untimely end. Oh, his or her. We should be inclusive.

lot of lot of, you know, worrisome women out there. Right? What what about that? If you saw this, you identify it as as some threat from a from a hostile nation? Do you have authorization? You have tone? You know? I mean, you said that that means, by the way, we should we should although you and I are aviation nerds or Ryan as well. What is lock on? What kind of sensor technology are we talking about? These are radar sensors and a flare? What what are they exactly? The radar usually is the first sensor you're gonna use. That's kind of your broadest that's gonna pick up the most. Everything else starts to to zero in. So in

that case, I was coming off the boat, and and we have to do checks on our our system, so that's why I I use the 9 x. And that's a sidewinder. -- a sidewinder missile. It's a heat's heat it it looks for heat sources. You know, even at that point, my my aircraft safe. There's no way for me to shoot this missile. Like, man, I have no intention to do that,

to broader on your question. we would have to have I mean, there are rules of engagement that are very clear that dictate how you can employ your weapon systems. And with it being a peacetime scenario, unless that drone fired upon me or was looking to be a threat to US forces. There's nothing I would really legally be able to do. Mhmm. Then we're we're hamstrung pretty tightly with the ROE. But it also allows you to keep keep yourself safe. But, you know, unfortunately, we're not in in in hostilities at that man or Fortunately, we're not in hostility. So -- I'm having no luck. Yeah. None of

the eastern seaboard. It's a little different. People don't quite understand, but we're not really in a operational mode when we're operating training. So we we I never almost carry live ordinance out there. That would be a a big exception. So that would take, like, you said, probably 17 phone calls, at least, something like that. that actually came an issue. Actually, 90911

was when they were looking to go get the other airplanes. We had a lot of fighter jets on the East Coast, but, you know, we never never even thought to to have them weaponized and armed. So, you know, you had fighter pilots that were told that they might have to go after aircraft, and they're trying to think through how they're gonna potentially take out a threat aircraft without any weapon systems on board. So there's people asking in the audience. By the way, you can ask questions in the live chat down below or on Twitter. We need people on their contract. Currently, a 186 on YouTube and want more kinda tuning in through Twitter, I believe.

So you mentioned this whiskey air. What is that? What is the whiskey areas at the, like, where we're gonna drink some on this Glenlivet that I got special made? What is a whiskey area? What does that mean? and when it would take effect. We we call it Whiskey on a map. You just see it as w w

stands for warning area. So warning area, 72, I'm sure there's a 73 and a 71 somewhere. But So that's generally, this is the -- You know, north to south, but, generally, the airspace is divvied up in the blocks. And their warning area is essentially And I could be slightly wrong here, so correct me if I'm wrong. But they're essentially warning inbound

international traffic is what that's for. So as military operators, we're out there playing because it's unused airspace. It's not unique to us. Other people can directly transit it, although they would get called out. That's that's essentially just where we train. Yeah. So it it's a Moa off the water. So -- Moa's -- -- operating area, which same thing. It it diverts IFR

instrument traffic, which is mostly commercial airliners, diverts you around those areas that we can play. But legally speaking, a guy in a Sesna flying VFR and go right through the middle of it. And it and it happens and, you know, that we get called, hey, there's a, you know, 172 Transit the Moa 10000 feet, and -- Right. -- we have to stop our stuff, which can be pretty expensive with $30,000 per hour or 20 to 30,000 per hour. Sometimes you would use the I mean, you're not gonna shoot on them, but you're gonna use them for training. Right? You're gonna might lock and assess them or something like that. I'll just say your radar's almost

always out there paying stuff. So, like, do lock up commercial air traffic, stuff like that. But there's no, like, effect that's occurring on the aircraft. And even if we didn't specifically lock someone, that interview Keating out there and paying them anyways, And so these are microwaves of centimeter wavelength radars, and then you've got FLIR and and so forth. Did the missiles themselves have an optical sensor? Are they pure heat seeking? They're pure infrared or Can you see the missile i in any way in the cockpit display, other heads up, or a regular display? Can you physically look out and see the sensor? What do you see from its perspective? Do you see, an infrared image -- No. -- now. But you can see where the center is looking. So, you know, information will be on,

like, my visor or whatever. So show essentially where it's looking. There's a mode where I could basically walk that to my cursor, if you will, so that I can, you know, select stuff. Because you have far away it is. And okay. Mhmm. So there's an area out here in your Calibbean island called restricted to Romeo 2519. You know, it was a site of the so called the tiktok encounter. We we don't have commander Favor on. I'd love to love to meet him someday and talk to him someday. but that also occurred in our restricted area, not our military, which is not necessarily purely military the way a warning area might be. but it is

used for, you know, purposes for training purposes. Obviously, they they had a carrier or something out there. Right? I would I would suggest it. I think it is actually just a warning area. Right? It's not a it's not a restricted space because that term means not very specific. Maybe The restricted is usually means you're operating some sort of, like, weapons test is generally where it's a highly sensitive area. So off the coast, that could be restricted if there's naval gunfire or something. But other than -- I mean, the point I'm

trying to make is, you know, this was another area It's a special use. Yeah. So, you know, I was talking recently with a with a colleague going to Nunez, but he was in the military intelligence field. You're talking about, you

know, the the preponderance of events of anomalies that seem to occur near military area 51 is a huge, you know, groom lake. Edward's Air Force Base, these two areas you guys are talking about, or we're talking about, is there anything, you know, to be said about that? Like, from the perspective of aviation safety at least, like, just avoid those areas, or could it be, as some suggest, you know, people are either the there's technology from an would like to go to those areas too and get a sneak peek at an F Eighteen. Right? We're in a 30th time. So what do you make about it? Is there anything, you know, to this theory that of course, things are gonna happen in strange ways. You know? Call me when it happens over Times Square kind of reaction that I often get. Well, my first

go to here is probably observation bias involved. So we're seeing them there because we have the sensors to actually be able to see. Now with that, I also don't think you know, this issue is going to be one particular thing at the stand for a while, and, you know, we're gonna find that material platform. We're gonna find their own and things that I need. We're gonna find trash. that's great, and that's helpful to our national security. And we have systems in place to mitigate that, but there's a category that, you know, we're ignoring essentially at that that dataset. And that's that's what I find we need to work down. So I think we're gonna have AppCRO platforms around those bases, so there's gonna probably be ticking, you know, unexplained or or unidentified objects around those bases maybe just because they're adversarial platform, but I think there's an observation bias as well. And to your point

earlier, you know, you're talking about kind of the aging probability of of, you know, a commercial pilot, military pilot, seeing these in what what that can affect. It's such a small bubble that a commercial pilot can see. So, you know, when you're talking about sightings from fighter jets, you know, you have the potential to get highly correlated data across multiple sensors, you know, different types as well as, you know, different geographical locations of the data or how if you will, other sourcing. Ground based sensors or eyewitness statements things of that nature, you don't have that luxury necessarily. And so we would expect to have much better data around those systems. And in the on the commercial side, there you know, the visibility

range where you could see a, you know, one to four meter object is pretty small depending on the conditions. It's certainly within ten nautical miles. We'll just use that number. And if you think about, you know, the volume inside that 10 mile bubble or 2, you know, what you get with an ACE radar. It's pretty easy to see why we get more sightings of that. There's more overlaid. There's more data. Right? Yeah. I mean,

our radars are way better than what is an assessment cycle for a 747. Yeah. Right. And for different purposes, right, they're eliminating other aerial threats, potentially. So we were talking earlier as well before we started the the podcast. about, you know, this kind of notion that a lot of times we'll engage with with people in the military or people that have claimed to be eyewitnesses. people talk about, like, oh, the data belongs to us. You know? I've had unhappy

Loeb who's coming back to talk about this book, which is excellent book sure to be a best seller, and Avi sent his best, I'm sure, from the Fiji Islands where he's apparently found some anomalous wires. He's found some mangon someone in a live chat correct me that he found something today who's announced on his medium page, which I get. He found some strange metallic composition. And we're gonna nerd out about, like, potentialities of of what could be found. So first of all, you've had some contact with Ivy about and as students on on your podcast and and him as well. Where does this kind of interest take you beyond the very, very important and critical, you know, deadly serious literally implications of of just anything in the airspace that's not monitored, not tracked, where there might be a discourage meant to reporting or visceral reactions to reporting bias and so forth. But where where else do your interest lie -- Mhmm. -- with regards to these phenomena. Like, do you enter

ever entertain the fact that they could be not of this earth, or is that interesting, but it's not, like, necessarily what drives your involvement, and I'll ask Leslie to be that question. Sure. So, I mean, for me personally, Yeah. I I I think, you know, I would be lying. I think most people would be lying to say, like, that obviously, that possibility is extremely you know, tantalizing. Right? Yeah. That's just human nature, I think. And, you know, like you were talking about earlier, that's something I've actually tried

to fight against to just be as objective and that focuses as I can. so that there's there's no bias that I'm pushing subconsciously, although, of course, we all are, but I'm doing my best. So I try to draw a firm line in my mind of what I have, you know, firsthand experience or or data. Right? And, you know, of course, second here, data from learning and things of that nature. And I like to, you know, step past that line and kind of explore where those extrapolations go a bit. I think it's fun to do, but I don't let that affect you know, things on the other side of that line, the things that I know because that's you know, extrapolation is fun. So I do I like it. It's fun stuff. Like, you know, I'm

a sci fi fan, so all this is very interesting to me. I'm interested in cutting edge technology in in where we can, you know, do that. I wanna be able to support that type of stuff. That's all very interesting to me. But I leave that on the other side of the line so that we can focus on what's pragmatic, which is data and being able to just bring it in and talk about it without stigma because that's where we're at. very basic still -- Mhmm. -- suddenly. Where where you are now? What's your what's your interest in this beyond, say, the very critical life saving potentiality. And I should say you're involved with

aviation and space to this day as well. So where where do your interest take you in this in this domain? Still flat. And so, clearly, you know, anything that's in the air is of interest in a threat, potential threat. Right? Wanna keep me and my passengers as safe as possible. But No. I think there's a, you know, there's the good science means looking into Keating, you know, people in the 19 fifties sixties were seeing sprites, lightning strikes that go up into outer towards outer space. And and, you know, I'm not very smart on the astroph the physics of of these. But so know, I'm sure I'm gonna say something wrong

here. But for a while, scientific community, the community at large kind of played that off. And in the end, there that is a real phenomenon, and eventually, I think it was in the eighties. I think the space shuttle astronauts could actually confirm that this was happening. And then you start looking, and now we're

you know, that's a that's an aspect of our of our world and our system that we don't understand and didn't know about, really, till till people started observing and starting to look into it. So you know, and just pushing the scientific envelope requires curiosity about anything that you don't you can't you don't know or don't understand. Yeah. I mean, I always say, you know, There's no one more than a physicist or an astronomer who would like to make contact with something beyond this realm because I think it would shortcut First of all, guarantee employment, you know, fall employment through astrophysicists forever. Right? If we ramped up our budget when there's just the Soviet Union, you know, 10% of the area of the landmass of Earth, that, you know, quintupled our budget for years to come. How much

more so would it be for discovering alien technology? But that's a risk. We have to guard against because I think there's a lot of propensity to want to leave stuff, and there's even the memes about you know, I want to believe I don't wanna believe in gravity. You know? I've got evidence of gravity. We can we can do experiments. We can replicate stuff. And I think, you know, sometimes we we do have to guard upon it. And I think there might be a little bit of a stigma Ryan that you could speak to that, you know, when people let's say you report something, there's almost a supposition on the on the part of the person who's hearing that report that, oh, well, he wants to believe that. Does that enter into it where there is

this confirmation bias? Or is it like, hell no. I was this could kill this could blow up my plane or this could be an enemy of the United States, and I'm a patriot. I signed up to defend my country. Now what level do you react negatively? So I said, oh, of course, he just wants to believe in this things in science fiction. Like, we all do. But he's using, you know, the fact that he's seen things or or witnessed things, you know, to bolster that. How

do you guard against because that it's a common claim that people make. Right? I mean, no. Frankly, I haven't heard people claim that. But if if they are, so be it. But you know, for me, I

tried to keep myself on the the line of what I've observed and what I've directly talked to my colleagues and what they've seen. The other day, I'm just doing my best to report on that and to improve the the aerospace safety around it. Right? And so that's where my all my effort is. So if you wanna look at my track record to justify my behavior, then they're gonna see nothing but me focusing on aviation safety on this topic because For me, that's the most pragmatic way that I can reach back and, you know, be able to help the people that I used to fly with. Mhmm. Truly, that's

really where all this started. Do you mind if I ask you a semi personal question that would be you don't you don't have to answer it. We could delete it later. But, I mean, it it seems like this is very altruistic. Right? So

how are you gonna you know, do you have a family now? Right? I mean, how is this gonna translate? I mean, everyone needs to provide for the material safety of the family and security. I'm just curious. Like, you don't have to answer if you don't want to, but, like, is there any way that that this can be remunerated, you know, in some fashion or another? It seems very altruistic in other words. And and Yeah. I don't think -- You've already done enough for your country that, you know, that's one wouldn't say, oh, now it's your time to give back. I mean, it's kinda you shouldn't be doing it for free is what I'm saying. Well, you know, I think that what's most important in this conversation is Keating up a self sustaining industry, if you will, around this.

Right? So I don't like the traditional pack that phone quote the UFO community has on this where if anyone makes a dollar, then they're Keating into that nature. I think we need to bring into this conversation so that we can run experimentalist. We can build sensors. We can influence on capital, though. We can do all the things that every other industry she does. So I don't like that general logic because it relegates this conversation to the hobby, and there is real work to be done. you know, I hope that generates

some income from the podcast, but I'm not, you know, not making any. What about in terms of, like go ahead. you wanna speak about other efforts that you're undergoing on that front? We could talk a little bit more about that in the future a little bit later on. So one of

the well, I let's just do it now, I suppose. So there's a number of things I'm doing. There's Americans for safe aerospace. That's a nonprofit. And, you know, ideally, that would generate small amount of income for me. But primarily, all the money there is more user pulling and research and things of that nature. Mhmm. For the AI double a, that's a complete volunteer organization. So I have nothing there. And I think you understand the podcast game and how lucrative that can be. Oh, yeah.

That's I paid for the aluminum replicate the James Web space only. But what I would like to do what I would like to do with marriage with the podcast is take that conversation and develop it with the help of the listener. be able to take the ideas we're getting, take the the expertise that we've brought to the table, and raise money around that and say, hey. Here are some ideas we've identified them, and can

we now support that ecosystem either by, you know, providing, potentially, grants for experiments or or money to fund new sensor technology, things of that nature. So I wanna be able to grow and expand this ecosystem. I think that's really the way to do it. Yeah. Yeah. That's that that was excellent. And it's kind of the model Avi Loeb is used. I mean, with with more kind of contacts by use of the he he employs h bomb, you know, drops Harvard on people. And all of a sudden, billionaire show up at his doorstep as he's told me in his pie. So

he's right now in a cruise in the south seas near Fiji, excavating where the first interstellar meteorite, the first one that they have documented. There's been probably millions of them over in cosmic history. So this leader of the spectrometer company, Bruckner Spectrum, dropped a couple mill and said, let's go out there. So but the citizen science model

you actually have way more people that are interested in aviation and fly and so forth. Everyone who's on a commercial plane can get be a witness. Right? So is that kind of the the effort as well. Citizens, science, or citizen. I don't know what you'd call it. But, yeah, is there a way to incorporate

the general public? I mean, you could speak to the audience, What can they do to a system? Especially or participate in it as as general public members. Yeah. So there's 2 ways. First way, whenever I engage topic, I'd do so 2 ways. I wanna try to engage with stakeholders within government within DOD, be able to provide answers to the most pressing questions they have. Right? Because, again, I'm trying to support national security here at Aviation Safety, and that's the best way to do it by directly interface to solving the problems that they have. But we're also engaging the conversation on the civil side as well. 1 of the activities that we're planning at the

AIaa is actually a small sensor that can be distributed to schools and the general public, and we're looking to tie that in with a data provider, a service provider, that would look to donate that compute time to be able to run algorithms that we're generating at the AA to provide that wider plethora of data. It's about trying to find patterns in that data. So the more that we have, the more we can kinda assess out some of those details. And that's a similar, I think, process that can be done with eyewitness reports and non sensor reports. I think the the bar is higher. We need more data so that we could pull out those trends, but I think there is valid information to be pulled out of there en masse, right, on average as we look at the data and How did you react this week and last week? There's been reports from this Air Force. I guess commander captain for colonel lieutenant colonel, maybe. I forget. But, anyway,

name, you know, that there's kind of expose that there have been, you know, claims of of not only alien craft, but but even alien bodies and so forth. I I personally find it hard to to accept, and I I don't want you to comment on him directly. But but this notion that not only do we have to accept that there are these phenomena, but these phenomena are actually aliens, and these are actually from distant technology, etcetera. It seems like an insurmountable barrier to get over. Right? Although, in the past few years, thanks in some small part to pass guest on the podcast Tom DeLong and others who have made this know, front page news in New York Times. It seems like there's an arms race between people that want to believe and people that want to disbelieve. I was just curious. How did you react? I mean, it's in

your literal space, no pun intended. How did that affect you just as a as as a citizen and and being someone very active in the space? Yeah. Great question. You know, it's shocking for me too to hear hear that information come out. But, you know, I I think of it that I have to remind people that This didn't naturally come out of nowhere. They didn't actually utilize the whistleblower protections that were afforded in the 2023 National Defense authorization act, but it was in response to the NDAA legislation, which essentially called for what's owed and provided protections.

And so in that language, it very specifically, you know, called out crafted people programs that use a lot of very impressive language we're not used to seeing in NDAs. And so, you know, he is someone that has a lot of experience and has had a lot of access, and he's making these claims. But like everyone else, this information that he's now taken before congress, they claim require big evidence. And, theoretically, they have that evidence in their possession, and now it's in congress's hand to validate that information. And then share what can be shared, I think, with the

general public. Right, you are. Kinda had a bit of a discussion the other day just done with the difficulty of kinda keeping your conspiracy like that. I'm a bit of a universal skeptics on I I agree big big claims would require some pretty big data. Mhmm. Obviously, there's credibility from someone within the intelligence community who had a lot of ties I reserve judgment till I have I have been able to see more. Yeah. People say there's a trope that, you know, eyewitness evidence isn't worth it. You know, they do this thing with a gorilla bouncing

a basketball, and there's a bunch of people. And, oh, they didn't notice the gorilla came through, and they're counting the number of people. So but but it is a form of evidence. But the the question and and we briefly touched upon this, but I think it's valuable to talk about. What constitutes data? Like, when we hear this word, like, The data belongs to Americans, and this is, you know, this is public information, and this should be released for the evidence. You ever miss

as lasted once I had on David Chalmers, who's a professor of, you know, studies of cognitive science and philosophy at New York University. And I had him on the podcast, and I said, David, you know, he's from Australia. I said, you know, me not asking you to define the hard problem of consciousness would be like me. having ACDC from your homeland of Australia not played back in black. I think, Ryan, you're back in black. I I would love for you to recount if you were

willing to, what you witnessed because we can talk about crush, and he can talk about, you know, what he was told by other eyewitnesses. But we have someone who has had a you know, Ariel had an encounter. He talked about what that was. It was said, can you would you mind, like, detailing these these encounters that you I've discussed elsewhere, but I think my audience is the best in the known universe. So they it I would be remiss if

I didn't ask you to recount back in 5 to 7 years ago, I guess. Gosh. It's been that long. Uh-huh. 9, actually, no. Yeah. I don't know what it is. This time this month, it's now been 8 years since I landed on a boat. Really? Wow. Yeah. We're gonna have to get into the possible aircraft carrier. Take you guys out office. Yeah. My experience was we came back from deployment. I got sent to the USS

Enterprise, and you finished a little bit after. I think you joined -- I joined right after right now. -- we came back. So I joined them on deployment. We came back. And when we came back, typical happens is you'll start upgrading systems

or repairing things, yadayada. We were upgrading we were a rare lot number, I think, it's called, where essentially, we were engineered or manufactured so that we could be upgraded later as a small amount of aircraft that were upgradable essentially. These are super Super Hornets. Yeah. And so we start upgrading our radars when we got back, which was awesome because my, like, level 3 check rides can be so much easier with this radar. That's than what the older ones -- Put out

-- -- have a land more precisely or -- -- precisely. I don't have to do as much like finger work, you know, and things of that nature. Ops automation and cockpit resource. But the other a mechanically scanned. It literally the radar is moving, and you have to if you don't have everything set properly, it you can actually complete It required a lot more pilot in the Ohio. Oh, nice. That's demanding

resource. Right? Mhmm. So they had upgraded the block that you Yeah. And it took a while. It took, I don't know, maybe, like, 3 or 4, 5 months, possibly, because, you know, it was one at a time, and they take it in and took, like, a good week to do one aircraft. But, anyways, long story short, we we're fine with our older radar. We weren't seeing anything really of note, and then we upgrade our radars and then detecting objects in our areas. There's two conversations here. Those and that's the one first

conversation I'm having is what my real time experience was. There's some things I've learned since then -- Mhmm. -- and I'm gonna hold those. But just to be clear that I'm just kind of talking about my interactions as a first person observer. Mhmm. And what that was, we we you know, other folks in the squadron were seeing stuff, and it was you weren't talking about that much unless it was an incident. We had to move areas or if we went to look for them. So it's just kinda chatter in the ready room. Eventually, we

started correlating that. We're essentially being on other sensors. So okay. We were thinking these were radar errors. know, because you get false track hits on our older radars. At least was my assumption that this was probably a false track of some type until we start getting returns at least it's on our camera or our flier system, Keating flier. At least for me at the time, we was like, okay. Well, if we're

seeing these flier now being correlated, we have to assume these physical objects. that we have to we have to -- Were there any people saying sorry to interrupt. Were there any people seeing it on radar as kind of like an experimental control? Like, was it only on the new radar sets? It's a it's a pretty big upgrade from 73 to 79. So -- Resolution power. What what exactly was the up nature of the upgrade to the rim? You can be as geeky as he wants. sneaky when you carry -- 1 is mechanically scanned. The other is an -- It's a -- -- constant scanned array.

Power is probably higher. I mean, it's just generally But the same size ditches or panels or, you know, roughly the same resolution, or would you get, like, you could see now the tail number? It's probably not limitations to how much we talk about. Yeah. Yeah. We can't sorry. Sorry out there. You also deployed Austin. We didn't -- Any conversation never. -- in air to air, which you probably can't like, air to air, you're just scanning, and it it just shows you track. It's not not developing a

picture off of the radar. But you said you did see it on FLIR. So now you've got 2 different wavelengths that are separated by 10 to the 7th order of magnitude, you know, roughly in wavelength. So yeah. So go ahead. Anecdotally, after the fact and this is, like, later knowledge, I had spoke with other pilots, interviewed one of my podcasts, I talked with others who got factored into traffic that was interesting, which placed stationary objects, and that that's majority of what we were seeing. But he had to -- Station was ground track? Or how do I go up for me? Okay. Round

track. Yep. Mhmm. And he was asked to go and go check out the object essentially. This was over by the there. the range down there. So he went off and and intercepted the ABG 73 radar. He essentially had the quote unquote kinda zoom it in. Mhmm. Zoom in the

radar, but more energy to a smaller piece of the sky in order to break it up, and they did he did break it up. And as he approached pretty close, apparently, it it it just started off. and that was that. So I thought that was interesting because it kinda showed that there was a connection perhaps between kind of the more resolution or the more radar energy also just on that spot with, you know, being able to see it better. Mhmm. What was interesting too we talked about that was there's this thing called the target aspect indicator, which is, like, you know, that comes off of it. One thing I've said is that I was identifying these objects by how it works. inconsistent,

the target aspect indicator, and detected these. He said the same thing, except instead of having it move in consistently, it didn't move at all. when the object went away from him, it actually went away backwards. So so -- --

use this web's telescope to kinda target aspects. So what would that indicate if you're tracking web telescope. Yeah. There's a web If we assume this at the front of it. Right? We're going towards the camera. Yeah. Yeah. There's a airplane here. Flying along. Yeah. I would expect to see on my on my radar if we were kinda looking down circle. Oh, yeah. There we go. So, yeah, if aircraft's going like this in the

wrong direction, then the target aspect basically pointing in the direction the vehicle is going. Right? And so when I the target aspect didn't moving it darted away, this was aircraft that had it, essentially, stationary object, and then it just started flying backwards and flew away that way. So not to say it actually flew backwards, but the target indicator never changed direction. I was just if it was kinda walking backwards out there for pump steps and -- Yeah. More or less. Yeah. Okay. So we expect that's due to limitations of the radar that represent the kinematics of the vehicle. Mhmm. So

you saw it on the there's a sensor on the on the missile or whatever. Or or this is unclear on the jet itself? Okay. So the jet has a miss and then then then the missiles would have it, but you said you weren't necessarily armed at that time or or were you? We have our sensors on our training missiles that we fly with so we can -- Okay. -- get tone on these objects as it's called, although we can't actually launch on it. know, we would

get tone on them. They would get picked up by the -- Yeah. -- tone looking at the metallic artist having some radar return. It's giving you some there's a heat signal. Enough of a heat signature for the missile to to get -- -- track. I'm talking. And the 9 x, if we were carrying the catam, which is the the fake 9 x, those are those sensors are pretty resolid. So that's that's like our new upgrade, the 9 x. Yeah. Right. Those are the ones they shot down the

Chinese balloon with, right, a couple of weeks ago. which we maybe will get to if we have time, but your thoughts about that. Again, so, yeah, flying with easy act. I keep going down that. Yeah. So so here we are now.

It's on the FLIR, and then, naturally, people are like, let's go see what they are. myself included. And, you know, what that looks like is we try to merge with objects. So here it is, and we typically wanna come below it. look up on it. We can't see below the aircraft and ideally wanna go

as slow as possible. I like you. No idea. Well, we didn't. Yeah. I mean, in first time, no. Like, we didn't know, haven't seen it. I don't know how big it is, really, or -- Yeah. -- it's gonna move or whatever if they're doing it there, but we would come up to it, and our radar would be locked on. My I think we and I will be able to change it, but he knows what my experience. But whatever be locked on, the flier would be on

it, and have a tone. something we trained to a lot, committed mergers. This is, like, one of the core things that we, you know, trained to. So it's kinda -- Let's look. And it might help, but it would show me where to look to see it. I couldn't see anything. So that was

kind of the status quo for a while, you know, at least as far as I knew at the time where people were trying to fly up to it and not seeing it. Now I don't know if that means that they didn't all represent physical objects or if there was other, you know, trickery going on to prevent a visual ID, but that was status quo for a while until we had a near midair with one of the objects. So how did that come down? because and that seems like they have a lot of incentive wanna avoid that? And, also, could you get in trouble for just going out there, or could you justify rationalize as part of the training? Like, You're gonna respect it? Yeah. Just don't plan. Yeah. We certainly have the agency to go do that at least initially. One of our most common missions, like, in the Persian Gulf was just seat search. You you go find any you know, anything you see out there that's you know, you could go and inspect. You can go and inspect type of thing. And visual con constant

to, like, the highest for because, like, a lot of these could occur at night. And, by the way, did any of them occur at night? Or -- Yeah. They were out there at night. Uh-huh. We weren't to my knowledge, and no one was flying by the men. Right? Uh-huh. a vehicle. So talk about the

near encounter or whatever. Yeah. So it was 2 aircraft with four people total. Mhmm. Only the first aircraft, the lead aircraft saw it. they were flying to go do a mission. I don't know what it was out in the areas. 2 of them flying side by side. They went the way it works is there's a single point. That's the entrance to the working areas -- Yep. -- at a very particular altitude, and there one leaves a thousand feet below

that or vice versa. But either way, they know, we're tightening up their formation accelerating. Now they're above 10000 feet. You can accelerate above 253100 knots. Mhmm. And so they're accelerating probably 3.50 closing in the formation. And then Alleges sees something go over by his aircraft. And what he described was a dark gray or black cube inside

of a instead of a clear sphere. that was stationary with respect to him, or -- So -- -- you couldn't tell? No. Yeah. I'm gonna go back a little bit -- Mhmm. -- because it what I described, it wasn't perfectly accurate. I said, I've passed them. Right. But that was just a relative Yeah. View. So it's our understanding that it was stationary at that location, and then that they flew through it. But, of course, it appeared that way to them. What's their separation? Like, tip

to wing tip. Very tight. I've been using about, you know, 100 to 150 feet as an average because they were probably tightening up to get in there and stuff. So you don't know the exact distance, but but from there. Okay. So we still go on. So then they -- Yeah. So the object, you know, it's hard to, you know, really objectively seek things that they're going by like that, especially when it's a surprise and all that. So confidence in the data is, you know, somewhat low here, I'll say. But, you know, he described it. He thought

it came closer to his aircraft, and so he he described it as, like, 5 to 15 feet diameter. that was what he could kinda glean from, you know, seeing a zip by his aircraft at such close distance if you're hard to tell the size of objects unless you know what it is. So, yeah, I mean, that was that was essentially it. He they turned around to cancel the flight after

that. They weren't confident at their you know, or hit or essentially to clear their nose. They were in the ready room with all their gear on when they came back. And at this point, we've been seeing and talking about them enough where he's just like, I don't hate what that was effing thing. We all knew what he was talking about. Then we were kind of obligated because it was so close that we had to file a safety report. And kind of the chitchat and the

squadron the commanding officer or whatnot was that, you know okay. It's Newborn, UFO, UAP. I mean, I didn't know that term UAP. I don't think it was. I mean, it was a term, but it wasn't somehow a lower But, you know, we thought perhaps these were some type of classified program that maybe, you know, had inadvertently operation where they shouldn't have or whatever, maybe we could kind of get a message to them that they were now you know, this was gonna lead to a mishap if they didn't take care of it and get or, you know, there's stuff in order. And it happened multiple times. Right? There

were multiple sightings of the similar type of variety from different pilots? Yep. Okay. When we initially filed that safety report. The part of the conversation was actually like, well, shit. You know, we've been talking about Steve. I'm sorry. Can I swear out? No. You're a dentist. You too. Sounds good. It's alright. Sorry. What? My flawless Keating, Moe. Oh, okay. No. No. People love cursing many times. Alright. Keating like a sailor is another thing. Oh, yeah. He's trying. What else? Yeah. So,

yeah, multiple people or multiple encounters, Sally, Keating. Is that -- Yeah. So so what's that called? Well, crap. We've been seeing these things so much. We can't just have this one taker for it. You know? like, we actually filed several of them at that same time to kinda show that this wasn't a problem, which is a you know, that's an error, I think. Right? We shouldn't have taken that long to report these. But -- Did I just go into the void? I mean,

is this even kinda like blinding? So I was I was trained by the Navy to be an aviation safety officer. Mhmm. And there are different reporting mechanisms for different emergencies of the the hazard that's been identified. you know, potential mid errors that are of an unknown cause that are you know, have potential to reoccur. Eventually, that made their way into the notam so that every time people were flying, there was They went in Montana's to it. It's a notice to airman. It's something that but -- Don't don't say it, Ari. -- to sail mission? change it. Yeah. He did change it.

Believe to be inclusive of judges on the case. Alright. He did change it. Yep. Have learned. So there's a no test. Right

2023-07-29 13:30

Show Video

Other news