[music] Welcome to Radio 5G, where we sort of fact from fiction, conspiracy from falsehood, reality from the unknown. And by doing so, we change the collective consciousness of humanity. Pay production of cosmicreality.com. [music] Welcome to Cosmic Suit for June 26th, 2024. This is a pre-recording, and it is the other voices segment where we're going to play two shows dealing with information manipulation. The first hour has Dr. Robert Epstein on this sergeant report discussing the many ways Google manipulates elections. But Dr. Epstein is also reporting what his group has done to expose the manipulation and found ways to monitor and influence the Google election interference. The second hour has author Graham Rendell and podcaster Kelly Chase relating the pitfalls in investigating UFO phenomena. So I guess the theme of this show is do your own research, but question everything, hoping you find this interesting, informative, and instructive. Many friends, Sean from SGT report, Harvard educated Dr. Robert Epstein, who's moving heaven and earth to keep Google, Facebook, and Big Tech accountable for their election meddling. All of which is very quantifiable, including the fact that Google alone may have influenced 10 million votes for Hillary Clinton in 2016, which is why Google leadership lost its mind after Trump won the 2016 election. They're literally vowed to never let that happen again, and they're still up to their old tricks friends. You gotta support TechWatchProject.org and Dr. Robert Epstein's work if we want to take our nation back. This is the follow-up call to my whistleblower report with Zach Voorhees, the Google whistleblower, who took his story to Project Veritas and blew it wide open. Dr. Robert Epstein has a PhD in psychology from Harvard University. He's the father of five, and he's also a senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology. Doc, welcome to the show. How are you, sir? It's my pleasure to be on and you should never ask me how I am. You don't want to know. Well, you've gone through hell for the American people, and I want to thank you for that very much. You really are in the front line straight to save our nation from a corporation which rigs search results and operates in the land of bias to influence elections. I'm talking about Google, but I'm also talking about the price you've paid for telling this truth. My deepest condolences for the loss of your beautiful wife, Misty, sir. You've paid a heavy price. Well, thank you very much. It's been almost five years. I can hardly believe it since she was killed in a very suspicious car accident. And I still have not really recovered. What's really strange, though, about that is that a couple of months before that accident, I had done a private briefing for a bunch of attorneys general since at Stanford University. And when I finished the briefing on basically my discoveries regarding Google and other tech companies, I was standing out in the hall and one of the AGs came out into the hall and said, "Dr. Epstein, I don't mean to scare you, but based on what you told us about your research," he said, "I predict that you're going to be killed in some sort of accident in the next few months." And obviously I wasn't killed, but missed he was. You know, I heard you tell that story on the Joe Rogan show and he was stunned. There was stunned silence for about 10 seconds as you told that story. Do you think that that attorney general from that specific state was coming to you from a place of true concern, or do you think he knew something? You know, I don't know. I know who it is. I know he's still an AG. I have tried to reach him once or twice since then. First of all, just to let him know what happened to Misty. But I don't know. There's a lot I'm never going to know. You know, we're talking about -- and there might be no connection, obviously, between her death and the research I do. But we are talking about companies that have unparalleled unprecedented power. We're talking about companies that are highly secretive, extremely secretive about what they do, that companies that do very bold and dramatic things to have an impact on thinking and behavior around the world. I mean, that we know beyond any shadow of a doubt, now because of leaked documents, most recently, a new pile of 2,500 documents from Google. And then because of whistleblowers, like SAC4Es, Tristan Harris, and others, leaked videos, leaked PowerPoint presentations, all kinds of content, leaked emails. We know that Google especially is really doing these big, crazy things to influence people around the world, to influence the outcome of elections, to indoctrinate children. All those things are real. So, you know, it wouldn't surprise me, given what's at stake, given how fanatical they are in their beliefs and their actions. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they wouldn't consider, at times, resorting to violence to continue their mission. I mean, they consider themselves in a way to be gods. In fact, a friend of mine wrote a whole book about some of these tech moguls or tech lords. And that's pretty much how he characterized most of them as megalomaniacs. And I think sometimes people like that, they have no boundaries. And I think that's what we're all up against. But I think the vast majority of us have no idea what's going on. And then unfortunately, I've run across a lot of people who kind of are starting to learn about these terrible things that these companies are doing. And then they say, "I don't care." Or they learn about the surveillance and they say, "I have nothing to hide." So, this is really rough. The whole research area for me and my team has been exciting, tremendously exciting with the discoveries and also very stressful. Because the more we have learned, the more distressed we have become. Because the more we've learned, we've been discovering basically that this problem is bigger and bigger and bigger than we thought it was. Last week, there's just no end. And these companies know this, by the way. They know about the power they have. And they exercise that power freely. Because generally speaking, no one's trying to stop them. Well, you certainly are. And this is a solutions-based interview today, guys. I want to just show you the money that has been raised by this man is being put to good work to safeguard the elections in the United States and around the world, frankly. Because Google keeps rigging the results of these elections through bias, through influence, through get out the vote, rigging and reminders. This is TechWatchProject.org. Guys, you definitely want to support this man, Dr. Robert Epstein, and the project. Because here's what they're doing. This is really groundbreaking, frankly. America's DigitalShield.com. Now, Zach showed us this at the end of our interview. And I was stunned. What a magnificent website. Childhood at Risk. These are videos that get offered up to children after the parents walk away, friends. We know what YouTube is doing. Remember, Elsagate? Well, that was just the tip of the iceberg. We'll talk about these excellent resources in just one second. But I guess if you don't mind, Doc, for the audience that didn't hear your interview with Joe Rogan, you went on to explain regarding the car crash your wife was involved in. Some very, very, let's say, malevolent things happened after that accident, including the fact that the pickup truck she was driving was sold in the investigation into what may have occurred with the hijacking of that pickup truck. My words, not yours, was never done. There was no forensic investigation done on that pickup truck. She was killed in a very serious accident, and the vehicle was sold to a man in Mexico. Do I have that right? Unfortunately, everything you just said is right. And we can add to that something that I don't think I said on Rogan show, but long after the accident, it might have even been months. I was still in touch with the investigating officer, and he said, "Oh, well, we found someone. We found another witness. We found someone who was driving a car right behind your wife's pickup truck." And so he gave me the contact information. I called her up, and I just asked her what she saw. And she really, this made an, obviously, quite an impression on her to being behind a car that's about to be broadsided by a semi-tractor trailer truck towing two loads of cement. So this was quite a dramatic thing that she witnessed. And she said it looks like Misty suddenly lost control over her brakes. Now, it's easy enough to tamper with brakes, and with a lot of vehicles, also you can tamper with them electronically, but it's easy enough to tamper with them. And yes, the vehicle I was told ended up in Mexico, it disappeared from the impound lot. There was never a forensic examination of it. So all those things are true. But I mean, again, this woman described to me what looked to her like a situation in which Misty just suddenly lost control because her brakes either failed or locked. And so, yeah, this is, well, and plus, this is one of four, maybe now five incidents that have occurred in which people have been hurt or nearly hurt who work with me or who are closely connected with me. So our managing director who was absolutely fabulous and been with us, I think, for about two years. She was in downtown San Diego with her extremely handsome husband, who I was always very jealous of. And Saturday afternoon, 2 p.m., bright sun, nice day, man comes out of the crowd, pulls a knife, and slits her husband's face, his husband's face all the way from his ear down to his mouth. And then he looks at her at Michelle, looks at Michelle, and laughs, and runs away. Now her husband will never be the same. He's had multiple surgeries since, and he will never ever be the same because the nerves were severed. And that's, as I say, that's, there have been four or maybe now five incidents like this of either violence, people closely associated with me or near or near violence. I mean, it was close calls, very close calls. And I think, I mean, to me it makes sense, to me it makes sense. You know, there's a famous line from some anonymous fighter pilot from World War II who said that if I'm taking flak, that means I'm over the target. That's right. That's right. Well, you've entered into the arena with some extremely powerful forces, just like the Boeing whistleblowers have done. And I think you've been following that story. The world has been following the story as Boeing whistleblowers who say they would never ever commit suicide, then commit suicide were told. And by the way, as it pertains to the takeover of an automobile, please look into if you haven't, you probably will recall the death of Rolling Stone journalist Michael Hastings. His Mercedes Benz was taken over, I believe, hacked. And he was flying through suburban streets at a high rate of speed. Engine blows out of the car. And a block later, he hits a tree and perishes. So this stuff really does happen. And I want to thank you for being a man in the arena, trying to defend all of us against the powers of the New World Order to sway elections. Here's what happened in 2016, guys. Obviously, we know they shifted more than 6 million votes to Joe Biden. He won by, I think, something like 7 million, something or other. Take Google out of the 2020 election. The popular vote would have been very close. Trump in 2021, 5 out of 13 states, swing states. If you factor Google out, which we know how to do now, Trump would have won 11 out of 13 swing states. All right, I'm coming back to you now. I've been following your work closely. And I know about S E M E search engine manipulation effect, search suggestion effect, targeted messaging effect. Google has so many tools in their arsenal to manipulate the minds of the people. Where should we start this story today based on the fact that we're moving really quickly towards November? And I think it is the most important election in world history because if they steal another one, Doc, I'm sorry, it's game over for our Republic. Where do we stand here and now today as we're having this conversation on June 20th, hurtling toward November? Well, we can start with a new scientific paper of ours that just got accepted for publication in one of the top peer reviewed journals. And this one is on S S E, which you just mentioned, search suggestion effect. And here we're studying the impact that manipulating search suggestions can have on people's behavior, especially if they're undecided about who to vote for. So this research started in 2016 because of a small news service released a seven minute video, which Google then blocked, by the way. But they released a seven minute video showing that in the summer of 2016, you could not get negative search suggestions on Google if you were typing in anything about Hillary Clinton. So Hillary Clinton is, right? Now, if you type Hillary Clinton is that summer on Bing or Yahoo, you got what people were actually searching for. Hillary Clinton is the devil. Hillary Clinton is sick and so on. But on Google, all you got was Hillary Clinton is winning and Hillary Clinton is awesome, which no one was searching for. So I got curious about that as I tend to do. And I said, well, why would they do that? And we ended up starting a research program on manipulation of search suggestions. Now, remember, those are very brief. This is this is what Google calls a femoral content. We'll get back to that. This is the key. This is their secret sauce. This is how they manipulate while also, you know, having complete impunity. So we started studying search suggestions to seeing whether we could manipulate the thinking of undecided voters just by fiddling with their search suggestions that they see. And we learned, and that's the paper that's about to be published soon, we learned that just by manipulating search suggestions, we could turn a 50/50 split among undecided voters into a 90/10 split with no one having the slightest idea that they've been manipulated. Now, these kinds of manipulations are not going to work on everyone. They're not going to work on people who have very strong convictions. But you know what? Those people don't matter very much when it comes to close elections. All that matters are the people in the middle. All that matters are the people who haven't yet decided. And Google knows everything about everyone. And they know exactly who those undecided people are, who's vulnerable to being manipulated. And they can pile on the manipulations on those people easily shifting between 20 and 80% of undecided voters without anyone having the slightest idea that they did so. Using SSC and other techniques that make use of ephemeral content. That's the key here ephemeral content. So, 2018, now we had been studying, by the way, the effects of ephemeral content online, especially on Google since 2013. But 2018, there was a leak of emails from the Wall Street Journal, to the Wall Street Journal, from Google. And in the emails Google employees are discussing, how can we use ephemeral experiences? That's the term they used. Ephemeral experiences to change people's views about Trump's travel ban. Well, my head just spun because I realized that these techniques that I've been discovering and quantifying for years, they talk about them openly inside the company. They know about these techniques. They know the power that they have, and they use these techniques. So, where do we stand today? Well, that's the newest paper that's about to be published. We have also just completed another research project on MPE, which you probably haven't heard of, because this is brand new stuff. But MPE stands for multiple platforms effect. In this research, we asked what happens if someone runs into some bias content on one platform, say Google Search, and then later they run into similarly biased content, maybe on Facebook. Maybe even on Alexa, because Alexa has a political bias. So we have just completed a month of research on MPE, what happens if there's exposure to similarly biased content on multiple platforms. And we have found, to our distress, that the effect is additive. So in other words, in this last experiment, in the first exposure, on one platform or another, the platforms are all presented to people at random and random sequences. With the first exposure, we get about a 40% shift in voting preferences and undecided voters. Next exposure is to similarly biased content on another platform. And the shift goes up from 40 to 50%. And then we do a third platform and the shift goes up from 50 to 60%. So the effects are additive. Why is that important? Because roughly 98% of donations from Silicon Valley tech companies all go to one party, the Democratic Party, which I happen to like. But that's beside the point. It's irrelevant to me that these companies are doing things that kind of maybe match my values. That's irrelevant. I love our country and I love our system of government. I love the fact that we are, we were founded to have a government of the people. And what Google and to lesser sense of other tech companies have done is they've taken away the of the people part. They've taken away our control over our elections. They now control the outcome of most of our elections. Any election at all with a point spread of 4% or under, that's decided by Google. So they've undermined our democracy. We weren't, we were not paying attention. And they have undermined our democracy. I think they pretty much took it over by 2012. And they've gotten better and better. And of course, after Trump won in 2016, there was a leak from Google of so-called all hands meeting, all of Google's leaders up on a stage talking to all of Google's 100,000 employees. And one after another, after another, those leaders of that company got up to the microphone and said, we are never going to let this happen again. We are going to use our full power and reach. That's what Ruth Porret said. She's the Chief Financial Officer of Google. We're going to use all of our power to make sure that Trump and people like Trump never win again. And they were much, much, much more aggressive in 2020. And 2020, we did, we did a very extensive monitoring. We preserved about 1.5 million ephemeral experiences that people were, you know, the content registered voters were seeing. And we preserved about 1.5 million of those experiences, mainly in swing states. We found extreme political bias favoring Joe Biden enough to have shifted more than 6 million votes to Joe Biden. And there's simply no question. If you factor Google out of the 2020 election, Trump won easily. Well, let me ask you, what was the difference then between 2016 and 2020? Because you note that Google influence shifted at least 2.6 million votes to Hillary Clinton in 2016, maybe as many as 10.4 million votes. But she didn't win. They didn't see this one coming. So what's the difference between 2020 and 2016? Why didn't they just rig it more for Hillary? Well, they were not being as aggressive as they could have been because they, like everyone else, they were influenced by the polls. All the polls said that Trump was going to lose. They did some manipulations, but we know because we were doing monitoring. We had a much smaller system then, but the monitoring still showed very clear results that were statistically significant. So yeah, they were manipulating votes, but they were not as aggressive as they could have been. And the bottom line is they weren't paying attention to margins in the swing states. And Trump won that election because he had a total margin, win margin of 77,000 votes in four swing states. It's literally that was the margin. It was that tiny and it was in just the right swing states. That's what gave him the win in the electoral college. So they just weren't paying attention. I'm sure they all kicked themselves afterwards because they could easily. I'll just give you one example. Mark Zuckerberg, if Mark Zuckerberg on election day alone had sent out go vote reminders just to Democrats or mainly to Democrats, that would have given Hillary at least an additional 450,000 votes that day. Now, we know this from Facebook's own published research, by the way, research that was done in collaboration with my colleagues here at the University of California, San Diego. And Google could have done the same thing. It was they could have on election day alone. They could have just sent out go vote reminders entirely to Democrats or mainly to Democrats to try to hide what they're doing. They would have broken no laws by doing so, but they didn't do that. They just didn't do it. They thought this was in the bag. So they did not use all the means that they had available to them. But in 2020, they went, they went all out. And, and since then they're going even farther because our monitoring system, which, which, by the way, is capturing a femoral content, which must be a nightmare for Google, a nightmare because the femoral content by definition leaves no paper trail. It's just temporary content that just disappears. And we're preserving it. So that's a nightmare for them because, you know, that's evidence. We're building an archive that can be used in courts and can be used in public influence campaigns and so on. So in there, they're basically, you know, they have this, this incredible power and, and, but we are right now monitoring that as we're collecting the instances of a femoral content 24 hours a day through the computers of a politically balanced group of more than 15,000 registered voters in all 50 states. 24 seven, we're, we're tracking them the way they track us and our kids. We're tracking them. We're turning the tables. And among other things that we're seeing right this minute is that Google is sending out registered to vote reminders to Democrats at about two and a half times the rate that they're sending them to Republicans. Now, without a monitoring system in place, no one would ever know that. And because we're recording all of our findings, we're creating evidence. We're creating an archive. Court admissible evidence. So, and evidence, by the way, that we're going to be submitting soon to the Federal Election Commission. They're doing all kinds of things right this minute. And that's the whole point is we're capturing all this content in real time. Now, if you, if you look at the, at the Google graph on America's digital shield.com, you'll see something very interesting. Beginning last November, beginning last November, which is when we went public with this national monitoring system, what we see is this very gradual reduction in liberal bias liberal bias. That's all those blue dots in the blue shaded area below the line. We're seeing a very gradual reduction day after day after day in liberal bias and Google search. We're seeing a very gradual reduction day after day after day in liberal bias and Google search. Wow. Now, are they doing that just to kind of test out our system to try to reassure us? I noticed they're not going to zero. Plus, they're still very substantial bias on YouTube, which is part of Google. These other ones, by the way that we have on the page, Bing and Yahoo, they don't really matter because the Yahoo, Yahoo gets about 1% of search traffic. Bing gets about between 2% and 3%. They don't have much impact, but Google gets about 93% of search traffic. Every country in the world outside of North Korea and mainland China. Google is the place you have to look for power and for influence and for election rigging. The point is, we're monitoring. We're capturing all this stuff, and they obviously are aware that we're monitoring, and we want them to be aware. In fact, we want this system to grow and grow and grow and become permanent so that it is protecting our elections, the integrity of our election system. It's protecting our kids, the minds of our children. It's protecting all of us from manipulation. We want this to be a very large-scale permanent system. We've already been approached by people from seven other countries asking to help them set up monitoring systems. Well, here's one of the few areas where I happen to agree with Donald Trump. No, I say America first. We need the system large-scale and permanent. Now, at the moment, even though we've set up the system successfully and it's working beautifully, well, there are challenges. Number one, we have court-admissible data so far in only 16 states out of the 50. We need to ramp this up. We need to scale the system up very, very rapidly. The larger the system, the greater the threat it poses to these companies, and the more likely it is that they will back off. That's going to take a lot of money, so that's one challenge we have. And here's a scoop for you. Two days ago, we got very badly hacked. Now, it's not the first time, but this is the biggest hack so far. So the numbers that you're seeing right now are not actually fully up to date. We're working on getting them back up to date, which we will within a few days. But we are vulnerable to hacking, and that also turns out to be a resource issue, a money issue, because we need to have better and better and better. We need to have the highest level of security to protect our staff and to protect our data that is possible. We need military-grade security, because think how important these data are. If there's no monitoring system in place, you don't know what these companies are doing. Think about that, and given that they have a power in any election to shift, any national election to shift millions of votes, if there's no monitoring system in place, you don't know that right this minute, they're sending out registered to vote reminders in a partisan fashion. You have no idea. You have to have a system in place to track them to find out. So we need resources to make sure that it's virtually impossible to hack us. And we need more and more protection, obviously, for the data, because the more data we have, the more of a threat we pose. And all this is doable. You know why? Because it's all tech. And tech moves fast, and that means the good tech, that's us. They should figure that out. The good tech can keep up with the bad tech. That's them. And this is how you fight, and you win, and you curtail these megalomaniacs. You have to do it with tech. You can't really do it, unfortunately, with laws and regulations. They've tried to take down Google and the EU with very, very strict laws and regulations they put into place. But the EU officials have admitted recently that Google has been flagrantly flagrantly has been non-compliant as the way they put it. Now, they don't even really know what Google's doing there because they have no monitoring systems in Europe. So that's why people from countries there have been contacting me. They have no monitoring systems. So think about that. Even if you did manage to pass some laws and regulations without a monitoring system in place, you can't measure compliance. You're relying on their word for what they're doing, but you can't actually measure compliance. So no matter how you cut this cake, monitoring systems must exist. Ultimately, around the world, we have to track them, not just Google, but the next Google and the one after that. We have to track what they're doing. We have to do it with tech. Yes, their tech moves fast, but so will our tech. In a tech versus tech race, it's more like a, it's not a cat and mouse game, really. It's more like, you know, two cats going after each other. And we know how to do it. It's taken us, taken us since really 2015. We built our first small system in 2016. So do the math. We've been working on this for eight years or so. And finally, in 2023, we built the first nationwide system. I was able to announce this with great pride to a congressional committee in December of this past year. And then we're seeing now that it does seem to be having an impact on Google. It seems to be doing what it's supposed to do. And if we can ramp it up, increase the size dramatically in the next couple of months, it will have a larger and larger impact on Google and other companies. All right, well, let's do the call to action right now instead of at the end of the show. So techwatchproject.org. Folks can donate now. And my understanding here is that you want to build a system with a one time cost, correct me if I'm wrong, of $50 million. But then it's there forever. It would be in place forever. Is that just our country or would that be globally? Oh, no, that's just our country. But that would create a system that is self-sustaining. And a piece of that, by the way, is a national campaign, which we've already begun on a small scale, asking patriotic Americans to support, to sponsor one of our field agents. The field agents are the people who allow us to use their computers to monitor big tech. We have to seek them out one by one by one. We have to vet them. They have to sign an NDA. We have to equip them. We have to train them. And we've done this now with more than 15,000 registered voters in all 50 states. So we're getting good at this. But you're probably thinking, why not just ask for volunteers? Ah, we tried that. Can't ask for volunteers because guess what happens? Google, Google sends us volunteers. Google has tens of thousands of outside people they call consultants that they use exactly for purposes like this one. And when Google sends us people, it's virtually impossible for us to make the connection. We can't, you know, they're not employees. They're consultants. So we can't ask for volunteers. Unfortunately, we have to seek out these people. We pay them a token, $25 a month. That's it, $25 a month. Just like the Nielsen company pays its families to get the Nielsen ratings. They get a token fee each month. So $25 a month. That's all they get. But think about it. That meant that when we hit 10,000 field agents, that's an expenditure of $250,000 a month. So one of the secrets to making this project self-sustaining is being able to attract, and we're doing it. We're doing it now, but we have to do it on a much larger scale, to attract other patriotic Americans to sponsor the field agents, to make that commitment of $25 a month. We actually have some sponsors who are sponsoring four field agents, but to make that commitment of a monthly payment, small payment to sponsor field agents. Because if most of our field agents or someday all of our field agents are sponsored by other Americans, the cost of this project come way, way, way down. The cost mainly then have to do with security and data analysis and tech stuff, overcoming tax. So the main cost is the field agents, the recruiting of them, and sustaining them, and we think that we can get other patriotic Americans around the country on an ongoing basis to make these donations. And they're all tax deductible, by the way, because we are a 501(c)(3). Great. Well, I'll leave the link below, and in the time we have left, if you don't mind, since we were talking about the fact that, you know, we tried to rein these companies in with laws. And either they circumvent the laws, or they're so sneaky with their algorithms that they can influence the elections and influence thought, regardless of the laws. But the testimony that you and Zach Voorhees gave at the Texas Senate Committee on State Affairs was just wonderful. I call it a master's class, and these senators hung on every word coming from you all, and I just think it was fantastic, and they're very keen on reining Google in with the law in Texas under Texas jurisdiction. So I just want to play this brief clip from Zach Voorhees, which I think is brilliant, because he sneaks in terminology like false flags. He talks about the massacre in Las Vegas. I know exactly what he's talking about, but this is a really interesting way for Zach to introduce terms like pizza gate, and do so very effectively without sounding like a conspiracy theorist. So let's watch this clip, and then we'll talk about Texas jurisdiction. All right, so yes, but only in the negative so in order to censor content. So for example, when the Las Vegas massacre happened in October of 2017, and also the pizza gate files when they came out for both of those there was a code red in which the whole company got together and said there is a flood of fake news coming out. And what we need to do is we need to get all of our divisions aligned, and to start censoring the information related to these events. And it was so for example, the pizza gate thing which WikiLeaks released that was when fake news became a common house household name that created the fake news team and allowed them to design their systems to censor all of the information in America was literally pizza gate. Okay, I'll pause it there I'll come back to you. I just love that because I am a survivor of that censorship. Okay, I was all over the WikiLeaks emails the Podesta emails the spirit cooking emails the Clinton Podesta emails where they appeared to use coded pedophilic acknowledge by the FBI is being so, and it was all covered up by the whore mainstream media, and it was all labeled fake news. So I'm a survivor of that, but those systems are still in place. Are they not doc. Well positively I mean that's that's the kind of that's the kind of content that we're collecting 24 hours a day on a massive scale. And those are those ephemeral experiences wanting to find that what does that mean in ephemeral experience. Well ephemeral just means short short lived fleeting. So most of the experiences we have online involve ephemeral content of some sort so for example let's say you go over to YouTube. And maybe you type in a search terms YouTube is actually the second largest search engine in the world after Google search and of course YouTube is part of Google. Anyways you type in a search term on YouTube and then YouTube might show you a list and it shows you a bunch of the videos. Well all of those are generated by their one of their recommender algorithms. And the one at the top of the list will play automatically. That's the up next video. Well all of those recommendations that are being made it's all ephemeral meaning it's there in front of you but once you click on something it all disappears and it's not stored anywhere. So if there's bias in those recommendations and my goodness I can tell you that there is if there's bias in those recommendations normally there's no record of it and authorities can't go back in time and look at what was being recommended. So that's what people at Google mean by ephemeral experiences. It's a way of them to have an impact without leaving a paper trail for authorities to trace. But when some crazy people like me set up monitoring systems and larger and faster and more capable monitoring systems we preserve all this stuff. We preserve the YouTube recommendations we preserve the search suggestions which are ephemeral the search results news feeds targeted messages on Google's homepage go vote reminders. All of that now is being preserved and that's a nightmare for these companies but it's how we save the free and fair election it's how we save democracy so that it's meaningful. We have not been taken over by by companies I'm just going to share with you a quote just a phrase that really caught my eye obviously ephemeral experiences that was a phrase that caught my eye when I saw that in the Wall Street Journal. But here's another one 1961 I think a lot of people are familiar with president Eisenhower's farewell speech as president and he warned about the rise of the military industrial complex. But you know go back and read that speech there's a lot more in there and he was a real insider I mean he was he was the head of allied forces in World War II he was a general. And he's here he's has all these warnings and one of the warnings in there is about the rise of what he called the technological elite which could someday control public policy without us knowing. And one of the pieces I wrote recently is entitled the technological elite are now in control and Eisenhower warned us in that speech that we had to be vigilant to make sure that this did not happen. All right bad news America we were not vigilant and the technological elite are now in control and have been for a long time. We have to stop them we must stop them that they are an existential threat and it's not like they're just getting control they're in control. The way to stop them in my opinion is with monitoring tracking them just like they track us. Yeah and they must fear discovery in a Texas court right so let's talk about the law let's talk about jurisdiction in Texas in that remarkable testimony you and Zach and other whistleblowers gave. They're very keen on reigning Google in in Texas at least that was my perception they hung on your guys's every word I thought it was a master's class. So what are you taking away from that because we're sitting here in mid June. The election is only getting closer by the day and all of these systems are still broken in my opinion we still have electronic voting machines dominion voting machines they're going to electronically count until they you know manufacturer win is what we all fear. So what's the significance of what's going on in Texas in your view. Okay first of all quickly about Texas the coolest thing about what happened in Texas is that same day before the end of the day that committee voted unanimously to issue subpoenas to Google and Facebook. So they are they are moving fast and by the way their attorney general Ken Paxton who I know and you know that that private briefing that I mentioned from 2019 where I had that warning that briefing was actually led by Ken Paxton who's the A.G. of Texas and he has the largest A.G. organization in the country has 800 attorneys working for him so if Paxton is going after you you know you're in trouble so that's all I have to say about Paxton Texas but I want to I actually want to challenge you on one point. Just to get just to get you thinking so I'm not I'm not I'm not calling you a right wing conservative neck case because as I do call a lot of my friends now by the way and they all laugh because they think I'm joking. But I'm not doing that I'm what I'm going to tell you is that a lot of these concerns that you're raising about the pizza gate and dominion voting and all that stuff. A lot of that stuff is not real it seems real and yes the word spreads fast about all of those kinds of things but what you don't understand is that the word is spreading fast because Google wants it to. Google makes those stories those stories about in some cases crazy stuff or or competitive activities you know because a lot of these dirty tricks are competitive both sides do them and always have and always will. But Google and Facebook and to a lesser extent some other companies Instagram which is part of Facebook they decide what content goes viral and what content doesn't. Any story that goes viral is only going viral because they allow it to go viral they can suppress any content that they want they did it with Hunter Biden's laptop for example. So if a story is going viral and everyone's talking about it you are being manipulated that's what I want to tell you you are being manipulated because they want you looking at all of those crazy stories and the crazy theories because. They don't want you looking at them they're doing what magicians do they're saying look over here and we all look just like we're at a magic show we all look over here and that's what they are doing it's brilliant. It's absolutely brilliant but I feel bad for my conservative friends who are who go on rants about all these things because they don't understand that the content is actually being promoted by the companies that they should be stopping the companies they should be focusing on. Instead they focus on these other issues. Sure no no no I take you at face value for that because you're the expert and you know so the way I look at it is that I don't rely on Google to trend anything like the information I typically get is from alternative news media sources I trust. You know who's trees a born fruit over the years so I don't even try to get the real news from Google or USA today or wapo because I know the entire system is rigged. So you know to your point if something was trending for instance let's talk about this briefly so Zuckerberg could have in 2016 sent out a go vote reminder to just Democrats on Facebook. Maybe that would have given Hillary 450,000 additional votes so he corrected that in 2020 he corrected his mistake by not only probably doing what you just described there but by also funding to the tune of 400 million dollars activities in the swing cities with work for them in 2016 so now he's actually rigging elections with his money and you know I don't think I got that information from Google you know basically that story broke in the alternative news media as so many stories do like the weapon masquerading as a vaccine that COVID-19 jab that thing is anything but safe and effective and I don't see that story trending on Google. You see what I'm saying. I do but you're underestimating their power. I might be I might be and they want people trapped in what they call echo chambers and filter bubbles they they want conservatives focused in those arenas they want that. And they are still making sure that certain stories pop up in those arenas and doing everything they can and they can do a lot to make those stories go viral so I'm just trying I'm just trying to point out that the extent of manipulation. It goes way way way way beyond anything people can imagine that's what I study and that's that's why I'm kind of anxious anxious all the time because we're with the things we know the things we've learned are just unbelievably disturbing. I mean Zach I know Zach very well Zach is Zach is anxious about what he learned you know and he's and he's he is a target he really is a target and he knows it. You know that the stuff that's happening is horrible and it's much more sinister than you think it is and just keep in mind what I said I saw I said was if a story is trending and it looks believable to you and whoever it came from. Be wary that's all I'm saying because you're probably being manipulated. Oh I don't disagree and look here's the thing as it pertains to pizza gate you just use the word sinister. I don't think there's anything more sinister than main lining pedophilic behaviors which is essentially what the United Nations is working hard to do believe it or not to make sex legal between adults and minors. That's a thing that's happening in the world and by the way when you talk about an incestuous system. How about the fact that Susan Wojcicki the former CEO of YouTube well her sister who was the head of 23 and me was once married to Sir J. Bryn one of the we're told of Google the whole system is so sick and incestuous that it is really beyond my ability to explain so this is why we try to do this every day bring people the real news. Why did that hold on don't don't even get me started about the DNA information Google collects it's just crazy. Well I'm sorry go ahead well no and they bought for Fitbit so they could get you know off all the physiological information 24 hours a day and they bought the Nest thermostat company this part thermostat company and they started putting microphones into some nest products so that now they're microphones in tens of millions of homes and people don't even know they're there. Yeah it's sick and so childhood at risk just real briefly I know we've only got four or five minutes left here but see pizza gate that whole thing else a gate that was going on at YouTube. It was really sexualizing our kids unbeknownst to parents and that was what else a gate was all about Zack has talked about that but this stuff is still going on at YouTube and I got to tell you what shocking to me is that they will allow videos depicting suicide I'm talking about music videos here. They will allow some of the most egregious content to be served up to anyone of any age on YouTube while those with political ideologies they hate like me we get terminated without cause without warning on October 15 2020 on the back of a media matters for America hit piece telling YouTube to get rid of content creators like me. So the system is sick and hopelessly rigged in the three minutes we have left four minutes we have left, give us the call to action on how we turn the ship around. First of all go to America's with an S America's digital shield.com and you will see what is not fully accurate right now because of because of the big hack that we've under underwent a few days ago. But it's almost fully accurate and it'll be fully fixed within a few days because we are fanatical about protecting our data. But there's some stuff on there that's just so disturbing. So go to America's digital shield.com and you'll see data we're collecting in real time from around the country and you'll see the bias and you'll see the elections that Google has flipped you'll see all kinds of stuff. Look at the graph, see the graph over on the right, the blue one, mainly blue one. That shows that Google Google right now is sending liberally biased content to voters of all sorts of every flavor. They're sending liberally biased content to voters in all 50 states, even all the voters in the red states. So, you know, this is, you know, as I say, we're very proud of this. And if you want to sponsor a field agent, well, we call them Watch Dogs. There's a link there you can go to. You just click on sponsor or Watch Dog and that'll help us too. Go to techwatchproject.org. That's got lots of information about what it is we've been doing now for a long time. And if you want to go even beyond that and really look at the research that we can do, go to mygoogleresearch.com. Mygoogleresearch.com and I'm going to, I'm going to throw in one more because someone or other out there always is asking, how do I protect myself? How do I protect my family? Good questions. So I'm going to answer that. Go to my article at myprivacytips.com. Myprivacytips.com, it actually begins with a sentence. I have not received a targeted ad on my mobile phone or computer since 2014. And that's me and that's true. So you can learn how to use new technology and how to use the internet, well, to use it more safely. Do you use it in ways that protect your privacy? It can be done. You don't have to be pawns to these companies. You can take some degree of control and you should. Yeah, absolutely. And I really do appreciate your time today. I appreciate your patriotism and the price you paid, you paid a heavy price. And again, I'm really sorry for the loss of your wife. It just seems like everybody in this country is under fire. We all know we're under fire and people are waking up in droves, but I don't know. It's patriots like you that are going to help us turn this thing around. At the moment, people, you know, I have to go as you know, but at the moment, just keep these two numbers in mind. Google has the power. We can stop them, but at the moment, Google has the power right the second to shift somewhere between 6.4 million and 25.5 million votes this year in the presidential election. They're doing it now. They're doing it already with partisan registered vote reminders. That turns into partisan mail in your ballot reminders and that turns into partisan go vote reminders. And without monitoring in place, they get away with all of it. There's no evidence and there's no pressure on them to stop. We have to get together. We have to find the resources we have to stop them. 100% absolutely. Dr. Robert Epstein. Thank you so much for your time today. We appreciate you, sir. Now we are going to listen to an unknown country.com podcast host, Kelly Chase, interviewing Graham Rendell, who is a UFO researcher and the author of several books focused on historical resources. He's based on historical UFO cases from the 1940s and 1950s, including UFOs before Roswell, European Foo Fighters, 1940 to 1945, and Chasing Shadows, aerial UFO encounters from 1955 to 1956. Interwoven with his historical stories, Rendell points out stories he had to conclude that were not accurate and why it is difficult to sort back from fiction when it comes to UFO research. This is Whitley Streeper and this is Dreamland. You've reached the edge of the world. Welcome back to Dreamland. I'm your monthly guest host, Kelly Chase. Today, I'm bringing you a conversation with the brilliant UFO researcher, historian, author, and beloved member of UAP Media UK, Graham Rendell. Graham is the author of several books focused on historical UFO cases from the 1940s and 1950s, including UFOs before Roswell, European Foo Fighters, 1940 to 1945, and Chasing Shadows, aerial UFO encounters 1955 to 1956. Graham has earned wide acclaim within the UFO community for his meticulous research and attention to detail in bringing forward historical cases from the dawn of the modern UFO era. I have all of his books on my shelf and they are invaluable reference guides that I return to again and again. I really can't recommend them enough. I really enjoyed this conversation with Graham and I'm thrilled to be able to share it with all of you. So without further ado, here is my conversation with Graham Rendell. Graham, it's so wonderful to see you. Welcome to the show. Hello, Kelly. It's about 18 months since we bumped into each other, so it's good to see you again. Yes, absolutely. It's all of our UK friends. We don't get to see each other as much as we'd like, but... Well, it's wonderful to see you. And I wanted to just start off kind of asking about how it is that you got interested in the UFO topic. Oh, it goes back a long way. As you can see, I'm an old man, so I'm nearly pushing 60. I'm a few years off 60-year-old. So I've been in this game quite a long time. Maybe not as necessary as an active researcher or an active commentator, et cetera. But somebody who's definitely been interested in the topic since a really early age. So you're going back to maybe when I was about eight or nine years old, so yeah, well over kind of ethics. Now, just getting off for 50 years, or just shorter than nearly. And really, it was being addressed as a science fiction novel, and I was reading those at a very early age, even earlier than they are nine. And they always had these lovely covers to entice the reader, to pick them off the shelves in the bookshop and buy them. And they were always nice pictures of spacecraft. And the mother, God bless her, thought she was doing me a favor by buying me. Another book was a present, and she gave me this book one day, and it turned out to be Mysterious Visitors by Prince of the Poetrench. It was a fairly famous UK UFO author back in the 1960s and early 1970s. But I got this book, and it was, you know, if one of those ones where it did actually blow my mind, not necessarily well used saying, but actually it's true. It was the kind of concepts, the ideas and the book. It was a factful science fiction, but fact, and you know, being a sponge back then, I just wanted to know everything about everything. And this really kind of galvanized my curiosity in so much as I wanted to learn a lot more about the subject. Because yes, okay, you can see these things flying around on the screen, you know, the small screen or the large screen in terms of fiction. But what is supposed to be happening in real life, or something much different. And it was just really, really fascinating. So yeah, I'll just went on from there. That's so fascinating. Something that I enjoy so much about your work is that you really do go right to the source and try to figure out like what was actually happening at the time. Kind of peeling back to the lore and really looking at the facts themselves. Could you talk a little bit about how you got into the research that you do and kind of what your approach is when you're writing your books? Yeah, I think like a lot of people, you look at stuff, and whether it's your research or anything else in life, and you have a few brain cells sort of thing. Like, I wonder if I could do that, maybe not better, but certainly differently. And I just remember reading the kind of books back in the 70s. And even at an early age, I was really curious to know where the information came from. And you never got that kind of detail in the book. So if you did, then there were magazines or books which I'd never heard of back then. A lot of the American publications back in the 50s and 60s like True Look magazine, they were just words on the page to me. I had no concept of what these kind of sources were. Let alone the other UFO books that were quoted quite a lot as sources or the researchers who were quoted as sources and some of the witnesses. These were just things I was learning about. But as I got a bit older and I started to get a bit more into how books are written and how books are actually, the information sources attributed to all the rest of it. Then I started realizing that actually a lot of the kind of UFO books I was reading back there had very little of this to go on. They were essentially looking at the reader and going, you have to trust me on this, you know, take what I'm saying of face value without backing up what they were saying. And if they're dealing with it was just a list of footnotes at the back, but it was very sparse. It was never a complete list, not like you might have in a scientific publication where you have to go to the end to the greater back of everything you were writing. So I thought, you know, when it kept my turn to be able to actually start planning something into writing something, I thought, you know, I'm going to throw the kitchen sink at this. Not only I'm going to actually go and put down every source that I'm using so people can effectively check my homework. But I want to go to the end degree in terms of my training over stones. So the back, you know, you just follow a story backwards. So if you have a source or you have a tail or a sighting, you just basically, you know, go back through that and try and find whether the origins of that story or the sighting of that, of that piece of information in the newspaper, where that comes from. And then see what that leads you to because obviously that's not necessarily the end of it, you know, the beginning of the story either. So it's just a case of, as you say, paling back these layers. And sometimes it actually tells a different story entirely because it can be down to the actual nature of the person who's telling the story in the first place, maybe the end of credible, or maybe they are credible, or maybe they're going to completely different angle to it. And it's not actually what's being said. So there's all these different things that you have to factor in when you're looking at evidence. And it's just really interesting in itself. You know, never mind actually putting the words down on the page for somebody to read at the end of the day. It's just that kind of journey where you're going through all information and finding out bits and then that takes you down some, well, you'll like this word, these words, rabbit hole. It can go in your background. And it does take you to have these. There are sometimes blind alleys, but other times they're really useful sources of information. So yeah, it's really interesting. And to me, it's just so enjoyable that even if nobody bought the book, so still do it. That's awesome. And I'm so glad. I think what you do is so valuable. When I was starting out with my own research, I was really shocked to find when I would do like what you're talking about, right? Someone would be speaking with such authority on something and I'd say, oh my gosh, could this possibly be true? And then it seems like a lot of the times when I would follow the kind of paper trail back, I would find that these things, you know, originated somewhere like some message board and on the Internet in the early 90s. There's like nothing predating that. And so it's really hard to sort that out. Like how often do you find that that's the case where like you trace something back and you're like, gosh, I really actually can't confirm this in any way that makes me comfortable. It's a lot of times, you know, you have to be able to be prepared to deal with frustration in this. If you're going to be a researcher, you're going to go down blind alleys more from the nuts. You're going to bang your head off a brick wall because you can't find that little bit of information that makes you, you know, sort of happy enough to actually accept the source of information as being, you know, true, very fireball, the rest of it has been kosher. A lot of the times, it's kind of good instinct, you know, so it's whether you trust what you're reading or what you're discovering as being, is it halfway factor or is it just somebody making something up. Because we all know about stuff that on social media nowadays that if you repeat it long and hard enough, and someone's loud enough, or if the right people say it, then, you know, many more people will accept as fact, even though it's nothing of the kind. But then it becomes fact or fact when the colors are entered becomes, you know, this kind of urban myth. But actually, sometimes it's really difficult to separate the myths from the, you know, from fact. But if you go farther back, and you do and cover all your stones, then you do usually get back to the actual, you know, that truth, that kind of kernel of truth where it all springs from. And from that, you can usually have a good idea in your own head, you know, about how kind of true it is and whether it is somebody just making something up. And actually the research I've done for a lot in my books, I've come across things where you get to that point and you think, that is not right. Now, some people might bury that because they know it doesn't fit in with the overall narrative in so much as, you know, there's something mysterious out there that we're not sure about. And you can tell the past that people have actually buried things because they're not comfortable, you know, highlighting things that deviate away from that road, that path, if you like. And they kind of shed, you know, a poor light on ufology, whereas to me, the truth, the truth, doesn't matter whether, you know, it advances ufology or whether it's something that we have to actually highlight because it's wrong. And then we can, you know, move on from it and concentrate on the other things which serve more attention. So I'm not afraid of highlighting things or drawing attention to things where, you know, I found something that actually casts, you know, sort of like a bit of doubt on a story because actually I think I'm doing people a favor and I'd like other people to do the same thing, you come across that kind of thing because there's no sense in perpetuating myths. It doesn't do anybody any good at all. Absolutely. I think I see it in the community so much. I think I wasn't around before 2017, but I get the impression even more so since 2017, because it seems like we've gotten this kind of shred of credibility that the community never really had before and that people are so protective of it, and there's this sense that, like, if certain stories don't hold up, that somehow the whole thing is going to fall apart. But I agree with you. We need to identify those things, and I think we only build credibility with people outside of the community by being willing to say, like, "Oh, yeah, we were wrong about that one, and here's why." So, you know, I give you a lot of credit for doing that. Can you give an example of, like, let's maybe use your Foo Fighters book as an example? What kind of sources do you look for that you can, that to help you kind of establish these cases and what gives you clues that, you know, a certain story is more credible or more reliable than another one? Well, I think if the term in whether it's reliable, you have to look at the squadron records of the official intelligence reports from the time, because even though they're not necessarily 100% accurate because of, obviously, as the war went on, some of the theories and some of the stuff that appeared in these reports turned out to be nothing of a kind. So, you know, they were sort of theorizing about certain types of German weapons early on, and it turned out the Germans weren't doing any such thing, or they were doing different things. So, you have to take, you just have a little bit of a kind of weather eye in things that you read, but actually, you know, when you do read enough of these reports, and they talk about all these strange lights, and weird shapes in the sky, et cetera, it forms a pattern. So, they are quite reliable sources of information for the period, they're effectively the equivalent of, you know, the kind of Project Bloomberg reports, because in terms of level of detail, because you don't get a huge amount, you know, beyond just what's in the mission report. But if you put it all together, then it does tell a story as my food fighters book does sort of like try to lay out. So, but that actually is quite a lot of that detail. It's just a question of finding it, Kelly, you know, it's not quite easy to, it's not as simple as just going to a search engine or an archive search engine, and just typing the word UFO in, because you won't find anything. Obviously, that phrase wasn't around in the wartime years. So, you have to actually delve a bit deeper. You also have to be a bit creative with the kind of searches that you do. And it usually involves physical searches. A lot of this stuff isn't actually digitized, so it involves maybe a trip to London for me to the National Archives. Now, I can actually request it in advance, and I have a fair idea where some of these reports may well be. So, it's narrowing down that kind of initial inquiry, getting them to, like, pick out 20 files, which is usually the daily limit that I can look through. And when I'm there, I can request another three, I think it is, using a computer system. And usually the search terms along the line of your sort of anti-aircraft kind of weapons reports, that kind of stuff. These have observers used to fly with the bombers, and actually do quite detailed reports on what the German anti-aircraft defenses were like. Now, sometimes strange things appear in those reports. So, that's kind of an example of the kind of search that you have to do. You have to, like, put in those kind of parameters, rather than saying, "I'm looking for flying sources, or I'm looking for UFOs," because you simply won't find it, as I say. So, yeah, you have to be a bit more discerning, or in a bit more devious, in the way that you actually do this. So, that's how I approach kind of trying to find stuff from the wartime reports. Similarly, with US Air Force's historic records agency at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama, I think it is. It's a similar thing there, sorry, that their search engine is not very easy to use, unfortunately. But once you get the hang of it, again, you have to be creative with the search terms. So, you have to go into the kind of flag reports, as I call them, or the operator, as I call them, the operational research section. And they're the ones that used to do all their various analysis of things during the war, during bombing raids, from navigation to radio to anything, really, and strange things later on in the sky. So, there's some reports in there as well. So, again, it's just trying to work out where these things might lie in terms of sort of strange sightings, and how the pilots and their crew would actually report them, where would these reports likely to, where would they likely end up? And once you find them, then it's a question of just going, "Okay, are there any more similar types of reports, maybe just in a slightly different heading, or for a different year, or a different squadron?" And that's how you dig out the others. Now, in terms of the Foo Fighters book I wrote, some people back in the 90s, in the decade, since had actually gone through some of the squadron reports, the American night fight squadrons, for instance, in the European theatre operations, and they had found the ones which are fairly well known. But in terms of a lot of the Royal Air Force squadron histories, nobody looked through them, they were still buried in the archives. Very few people have actually looked through them, even to verify the stories, the handful of stories which were already known from the British side of things. So, that was, again, that was something else which was fairly easy for me to do. Obviously, I've got my other hat on as a kind of aviation historian, so it makes it easier for me because I have an idea of where you find things, depending on what you're looking for, so if you're looking for aircrew names or, you know, details about a certain bombing raid, et cetera, I know exactly where to find those in the National Archives. So that makes it easier. And where those details lie, that's sometimes where you get, you know, information on strange lights that they say past America or torpedo shaped objects and things like that, which are reported. So, yeah, there always means to find it. It's not straightforward, but it's, yeah, it's definitely doable. I'm really struck when you're talking with just how Google has crippled us in some ways, because people do have this feeling that if it's, if it's, if it's that everything's Googleable, and it's so clear that with certain things, that's just simply not the case. How long does it take you to write one of these books with all the research and you have, like, extensive book notes? Like, how long does it take? Fun enough, the Foo Fighters book took seven months to write, and I was spending pretty much every waking hour writing it. So, and actually, for the first five months, I was still actually doing a full-time job. I was still working for our health service. So, and it took early retirement after, you know, two months before the book came out. So, I was writing on it pretty much every spare hour I heard, and even through the night sometimes when I was, when I got my teeth into a particular kind of set of unit records where I thought, this is too good to stop now. You know, it's 11 o'clock at night. I want to, I want to keep going. And, yeah, I got a shout-through from my wife, maybe at half two in the morning. You didn't come into bed yet. It was just like, you still have. So, yeah, I was, I've been like a dog with a Boeing kind of thing. I just won't let go. I just keep plugging away, plugging away. But I think Phillips, and I already had quite a lot of information anyway that I hadn't actually written down at all. Or, or had, but I hadn't put into a kind of coherent form. So, it was a bit easier to put that together, funnier, even though it's quite a long book, it's down to 150 pages. And then the last third of it is an analysis of stuff which I was already aware of. So, that was easy to write in terms of German secret weapons and the surface input forward as a possible causes for the two fighters in terms of stuff that came out to the neo-Nazi side of things or people who were trying to write books and make money from the subject. Which was easy to knock down in terms of, yeah, I know how I had these things, you know, these stories, etc. I know where the sources of this information comes from. So, that part of the book was quite easy and very quick to write for me. Whereas the pilot and air crew, once I started writing afterwards, so I took a couple of years for those three years at a time and write about all the aerial cases over those periods. They've taken a little bit longer because I've had to effectively start from scratch with those, if you like, and I've had to dive into various sources of information from those. So, whether it's, you know, the Bluebrook Grudge or sign reports or a multitude of other places where you get this information from, and then have the fact check as well. And then also dig into these individual cases to see whether there's anything else to them, which may not be sort of, you know, like, initially aware of. Yeah, it can take a long time. It can take a year, sometimes, sometimes even more, sometimes I have things on the back burner, and I'll get, not sick of them, but I'll get, I'll get the point where I'll think, right, I really want to write something else at the moment. It's not boring me writing this, but I just, I've got, you know, it's not right as block, you just get a bit kind of, like, I want to move on to something else and I want to do something else. And I can get that done quicker. So, yeah, there have been things. The one I'm thinking about off the top of my head here is the equivalent book from the Foo Fighters for the Pacific Wall. That's taken an absolute age to actually go through various information for, and I'm finding it hard, actually, to try and get information from the Pacific side of things during the war. It's possibly because I haven't got that much experience of actually researching or even knowing about a lot of the baffles or some of the stuff that happened in the Pacific Wall during the Second World War. It's never something I was entirely 100% interested in back, you know, when I was reading about World War II, when I was a kid and all this kind of thing, and afterwards, so I don't have such a comprehensive knowledge of that. So, I'm going to have to, you know, bone up on that before I can go back to writing that book. But in the meantime, I've got plenty to occupy myself. I can imagine. Well, we're going to take a quick commercial break and we'll be right back. Hi, everyone. This is Kelly Chase. I'm Dreamland's new monthly guest host. You can catch me here on the last Friday of every month. If you're interested in checking out my other work, you can find that on my podcast, The UFO Rabbit Hole. On that show, I share my own personal research with deep dives into everything from historical cases to philosophical frameworks, as well as in-depth interviews with top thinkers in the field, like Jeffrey Cripal, Diana Welsh Passolka, Bernardo Castro, James Madden, and of course, Dreamland's own Whitley Streber. You can find The UFO Rabbit Hole on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever else you listen to podcasts. Just search for The UFO Rabbit Hole. And if you like what you hear and you want to go even further down the rabbit hole with me, I'd like to invite you to join my Patreon community. Patrons get perks like early access to new content and ad-free episodes. I host twice monthly patron-only Zoom calls, where you can ask me questions, share your own thoughts, and connect with others. We also have a lively and active private Discord server where members host book clubs, happy hours, and just share their thoughts on all things anomalous without all the drama that's all too common on social media. It's a warm, open-minded, and vibrant community, and we'd love to have you join us. Membership start at just $5 a month. You can sign up at patreon.com/uforabbithole. That's patreon.com/uforabbithole. So I'm actually really impressed to hear that you wrote the Foo Fighters book in seven months. I would have thought it would have taken you at least twice that long. I wonder, I know for many people in the field, myself included, you kind of reached this point where you almost feel possessed by a certain piece of work. It just kind of consumes you and it feels like it almost comes through you. If that's something that you identify with, because you really must have been, if you're working full time into that in seven months, I feel like it really must have been something of an obsession for you. Is that something you identify with? I think it is, yes, and I think also it gets the point where you can almost quote your word for words, certain paragraphs that you've written. It gets that deep in terms of how comfortable, how familiar you are with what you're writing about. Not just the words that you're putting down, but the cases that you're writing about, the names involved, the types of airplanes, even just the different arguments that you're using throughout the book and all the rest of it, you can just really off the top of your head. Some people have commented on my kind of recall for some of this stuff in the past, and I guess that is the kind of product of living with, you're breathing it, you're writing it, you're kind of 24/7 almost. When I wasn't at home writing it, I was thinking when I was at work, so I thought I was about a second or two in my dinner break or whatever. I was like sitting in my head, "Oh, what have I got to look at now?" or maybe looking at stuff on my phone, thinking right, "Oh, yeah, that's where I've got to concentrate on next," or I was planning out the next part of the book on my phone, in notes and stuff. So even if I wasn't at home, I was still thinking about the book, so it was almost the case that you didn't switch off, and I wake up in the middle of the night and I would have an inspiration, or I'd be thinking, "Oh, I've missed something," or I'd have to go and expand and learn, et cetera, et cetera. And I'd have to get up and write a few notes or switch the computer on and go and type a few things in. So it got quite all-consuming, I think, that's a perfect description. And is it healthy? Well, I guess if you're doing it too often, it probably isn't, but some months, I think it survived at least. And I think I've learned a bit from that in so much as you have to dial it down a bit. It's not so healthy. You do have to have a release, you have to have other things you can do just to take your mind away from something, you know, just even for a short period of time. So you can reset, you know, you reset yourself, reset your batteries, you can recharge yourself, and you can then throw yourself back into it, whether a new vigor. So, yeah, it's not probably healthy to actually just be at this kind of all-consuming thing that you just, you know, takes up your entire life. You don't have a family, you don't have a life outside it, but you have something to show at the end of the day. I guess. Yeah. And I would necessarily recommend it to people looking back. But then again, it was my first major work. I had written before, but it was my first major work, and I'll see, you know, maybe just about the time and the opponent with it. I'll see it come down on the page, hopefully. It certainly had some decent reviews, so I can't complain. I guess the difference between that and the other books also, if I'm brutally honest, is that I don't have 100% recall on the others, because I haven't had that kind of full immersion, whereas I do know a lot of the stuff I've put in the book, so don't get me wrong. But I don't have that kind of a "quote" chapter of verse for everything where I feel I can from the first book, because I didn't live it, and you know, I lived it, I slept it, I ate it, you know, you name it. Whereas the other books I learned just to slow it down a bit, so I think maybe that kind of, you know, osmosis that you get when you're writing something and everything just transferring your brain, I don't have that anymore. And I'll see as I write more books, there's only so much room in my head for everything, so I think something else to give occasionally. So if somebody, if let's say for argument's sake, you asked me something today about flying source of fever, the book, then Lou Elizondo wrote the report for, and you asked me to comment on the particular stuff on page 300, let's say. I wouldn't be able to tell you off the top of the head. I would have to go without, especially if it was a little more obscure one, I would have to go and have a look and go, "Oh yeah, no way, I guess this, I've got this role." You know, etc. So, yeah, there's only so much room ahead. I really resonate though with the feeling of the obsession not always being healthy. There was a journalist who I was speaking with recently who's kind of newer to the field, and he basically kind of is reaching that stage of like ultimate ontological shock and just, you know, all of the things that happen, and he kind of put his head in his hands at one point and was just like, I need you to strong man for me, the argument that I shouldn't just walk away from UFOs forever and never think about this ever again, and I just laughed, and I was like, I can't make that argument for anyone. Like, if you can walk away, like, maybe you should, like, I don't feel like I can, but like, I can't necessarily recommend this level of obsession to anyone either. I feel like, don't you feel, Kelly, there's so much information down there, even just like what's on X or Twitter, I'm always going to call it Twitter still. But don't you feel that you read through everything on there in a day, or if you catch up with everything that's been put down? You're never going to have enough time to read through everything, like, line by line, or anything that's referred to, like, another website, or a magazine article, or a newspaper. You only ever scratch, you know, basically, you're just scratching the surface of what's out there. So you can't devote yourself full time as much as you might think you do, or you might like to. There's just too much out there nowadays with my social media, and with everything else that's going on, I find that I can't keep up with everything. Now, does that make me want to walk away? No, it doesn't. It just makes me more selective, I guess. So I'm quite selective in who I listen to, and the kind of podcasts that I listen to as well, and the people who I trust, et cetera. But that just means, say, I can't, you know, become aggressive, everything that's happening. I just, I can't get into the minutiae all the time, I have to, like, oh, sometimes just look at the surface stuff, and then if it's something's a bit more, you know, sort of interesting or appealing, then I'll go, okay, well, I'll spend 10 minutes having a look at that, or I'll be listening to that, or whatever. But I find that I can't devote myself 24/7 to it, because it's not healthy, but then it gets the realization, I just don't have the time. Not that I can get in the way of writing the books. I just, no, I'm physically enough, I always have the day to look at everything and quiz everything, and think about it all, and talk to other people about it, you know, just not possible. So you can only do what you can do, and if your friend, the journalist, has that kind of realization that, you know, you just have to make allowances for the fact that you're never going to keep on top of it, you can only sort of look at a certain amount of stuff, and still try and try and make sense of it, then that's the best you can do. And really, you know, once you come to that realization that, yeah, you can't see everything, you can't read it all, and actually that's quite healthy, you know, rather than trying to race around, trying to look at everything and trying to keep on top of everything. It's not possible. If anybody says that they do, I think they're telling tips. No, I agree completely. I was just down back in March down at the Archives of the Impossible, filming the Daki series I'm working on, and I had this really humbling moment where I was sitting there, and, you know, there's six boxes of the communion letters. And even that is just overwhelming, and they're handwritten, and they have drawings of like the people sketch what they saw, and just to get through those six books, through those six boxes and to absorb them and to understand them would take an incredible amount of time. And then you have sitting off to the side, these 75 boxes of, you know, the Mac files that it's going to take them years to even get through and make them available to people because of people, personal medical information and that sort of thing. But I was just sitting there thinking, I feel pretty comfortable saying that I know more about this. I'm easily in the top 1% of people in the world in terms of like my knowledge on this subject, and yet when I think about how long it would take for me to just understand those 75 boxes of the Mac files. I, you realize how, how insane it is, how much there is and how no one person can ever really get there and I wonder, like, I'm sure you have that sense of humility, too, and like how do you respond when you see people kind of act with such like certitude about certain things and like be so certain of certain things and like be willing to like really fight with other people like what is that, what is that like for you as someone who kind of has a sense of the scale of the information that's out there. I've seen it across, you know, not just your apology, I've seen it across aviation topics, aviation history, back in the days when you were talking about bulletin boards before or internet message forums. I remember the days they got a newsnet message, you know, bulletin boards back in the 90s and they were a hotbed of people arguing. It was the first time I'd really seen people going toe to toe, you know, kind of like having real kind of full scale fights over whether this was right or that was right, et cetera, et cetera. It was really strange. So, you know, the things that happen on social media nowadays, the kind of spats and arguments, they're nothing new to me. You know, I've seen all this kind of thing before. Sometimes it's just the intensity and the kind of the kind of the veracity that involved us quite, it can get quite strange or quite nasty. But, you know, I have seen this kind of thing. So it's nothing new for me and I've experienced it myself back in the day as well. So, you know, I was part of, I wasn't quite part of the fight, but I did get into kind of like, you know, so you're saying, well, that's not right. And, you know, you have to go and type something and say, you know, I think you might want to, like, look at your sources kind of stuff. And then you get the, you get flamed, at least they call it back then, they had a vocabulary back then as well. But you had trolls and all the rest of it. So, you know, it's a kind of circular thing and it comes around again. So, yeah, it's just weird. I look at some of these people that I just think, okay, yes, I'm not sure where you're coming from on this, because you're saying things which you can't back up. No, or nobody can back up, but you're then, you know, advocating it's real. And then there's other people who I really respect and who have done the kind of, you know, the due diligence and they have unearthed information to prove what they're saying is correct. So, again, you have to be just asserting. Now, obviously, it's a lot of the time it depends on what your internal narrative is, what you believe yourself, you know, what you think is the background to everything, or where you think truth lies. And you're always going to lean towards people who say similar things. It's just the way people works, how people's minds work. But you still, you know, I'd like to think people are still quite able to question, you know, even somebody comes along and says something you definitely want to hear, then you should be still able to go. Yeah, okay, I want to make sure that you're telling the truth, though, where you're getting your information from, you're questioning that, you're checking out whether where they're getting their information from, etc, etc. So, I don't blindly follow people. I try to, you know, do as much as I can to have a look and say, well, okay, I'll look at what they've said before, or maybe watch a few things that they've been in, or read a book or two that they might have written, or magazine articles, or just, you know, things that posted on the Internet. To get a sense of who they are, to get a sense of what they're saying, and also to see whether their information seems right or not. Now, in the end of the day, sometimes it comes down with good instinct because you can't do a lot of that kind of checking to work out whether somebody's telling the truth or not. And it just comes down and it just doesn't sound right, you know, sort of thing. And quite a lot of the time, I just end up going, I don't know. I'm not afraid to say those three, those three words, I've often said that. And in case of, okay, what you're saying, just sounds like a great story, but that's how it's going to end, you know, until you can go a bit along that and you can prove it and you can throw a bit more out there to actually back up what you're saying. It's just going to remain an interesting story. I'm not going to say you're lying because I can't do that because I can't disprove what you said. Equally, I can't necessarily take in this face value either. So it'll sit somewhere in between those two, those two, you know, sort of those two viewpoints. So yeah, and that's how it ends. And so's a lot of people out there who have made claims in the past who that's where they sit. They're just stories as far as I'm concerned. They might be interesting stories. They might be intriguing stories. They might be really kind of potentially shattering stories, but they're still stories. Whereas there's other people here, you know, the kind of people folks will know who I mean here that have come forward to have said things in the middle back of what they've said with stuff as well. So there's people here. Next time they say something, I'm more likely to lean towards saying, okay, I don't need to go back and check where that's come from. I trust them all. Absolutely. So something that really strikes me when I'm reading your work and also anyone who's really doing work where they're kind of just laying out cases as they happened with kind of the most. The purest data, we'll say, the kind of most close to the source data is how different these accounts end up being than kind of what people come to expect from the more popular narrative around UFOs. And I was wondering if you could speak to that a little bit like having gone through all of these cases. How do you maybe see the UFO phenomenon a little bit differently than is usually kind of in the popular conversation? I think people were so certain back in the 70s that there was, you know, they had definite ideas about what was happening. And they had their own narratives. Now they didn't all align these narratives, whether it was, you know, people came to me with space brothers, or it was down to, you know, all being abducted and being experimented on, or anything else that you make came to mention. It all seemed that people were writing a book and then they were putting forth this idea and then they were basically using the cases to kind of reinforce that narrative. So everybody had their own story to tell. And they didn't all necessarily, they didn't necessarily align. And I think sometimes the people that were trying to make them align were kind of like sort of dancing on the head of a pin to try and get that to happen. And then every so often, you know, a new bit of information would come along, which basically cast out what they were saying or what they were trying to push forward. And then you would see the kind of pivot that would do as well, which was somebody's interesting to watch, but it wasn't a gratifying experience, because, you know, a lot of people would believe what they were writing. So, I think it left me kind of very, very wary about sort of saying what I believe is happening, because I go back to I don't know. You know, you might have an idea and you might have something in your head and say, well, okay, that might be true and that might not be true. But actually, I just don't know, because there's so many different things that happen and when you read enough about what's happening in the past. So, if it let's say friends, look at the shapes of UFOs over history. If it was, if there were one uniform, roughly uniform shape, let's say for argument's sake, a diamond. If they are, you know, from get from the get go from historical records, I'm going back to the 17th 18th century if it was seen them back then were diamond shaped. If they were seeing them in the airship to scare them in the 1890s, they were diamond shaped. If they were saying they were World War II, and they were diamond shaped, if Ken Varnold had seen diamond shaped UFOs, then at least we could have an idea that this is what the kind of scale in the phenomenon represented. It's diamond shaped craft, and then you could go on from there, but they're not, they're all different shapes. You know, they're spheres, they're disc shaped, you know, they're cigar shaped, tick well, that's another word for tiktok, isn't it? You know, sometimes they are globe, sometimes they are diamonds. You know, there's no kind of hard and fast rule for what these things seem to be. And then you've got the other size of the phenomenon. So you have the, you know, the abductions, you have the experiences, you have, you have underground bases alleged. You have every, all these different angles. And, you know, I defy people to put it all together because there's just so many different strands. I don't think we can. You know, I haven't seen anybody, you know, satisfactory put it all together yet. And then the ones who try to, they have these enormous leaks of logic between one thing and another. And it just leaves me scratching my head. So I met, this might sound like a cop-out, but I'm more quite happy just to sit back and let others have a go at it. Because, you know, knock yourself out if you want to try and put all these bits together. Because, you know, I haven't got the time and I simply don't have whatever, you know, is up in upstairs in my brain and be able to go through it all and go, I can make sense of all this. And people have tried over the decades, but I don't see anybody who's actually come up with a coherent kind of narrative to fit across everything that seems to have happened and has been reported. And I think that's quite telling actually in a way because it just means that, you know, the phenomenon is not just more kind of like, you know, sort of possible to imagine, but it's more impossible than we can imagine maybe. It's just, every time you think you've got a kind of like a grasp of a small portion of it, something else comes along and it makes you just go, what? And then you have to reevaluate everything that you've read, everything that you've thought about it. Yeah, it just gets to the point where I don't know. And yeah, okay, if people want to think that, you know, so I haven't done my homework or I don't know what I'm talking about, or I just think I'm, you know, I'm copying out for the whole thing that's fair enough. But I don't pay at this point. I'm old enough and, you know, more experienced enough now to think that I spent getting up for 50 years reading and looking at this kind of, and trying to think in our lives. And I'm no further forward, really. So, yeah, that's the way I sit at the moment. I'm afraid. I completely agree. I find that I tend to trust more of the people who say, I don't know, because I feel like if you have a real answer, you just haven't dug deep enough yet. Thank you. The easiest thing in the world for me, it would be the easiest thing in the world for me to come out and give a theory about something. But really, heart and heart, I know it probably wrong. Yeah, or, and why should I try and push a narrative to somebody who's reading a book to say, this is what I think these things are, because actually, something might come, you know, another bit of information might come along tomorrow, or I might find something as well. And then I've got to go and re-value it, revisit all that, and I've got to write, I'm sorry, but I told you a lot of nonsense here. Oh, and you see people changing a story or changing a kind of narrative that they put forward, because more facts and urge or another story emerges, or somebody else has a bit more than the puzzle. And then you can see them having to, you know, sort of rapidly kind of change what they've said in the past, or, oh, I didn't mean to say that, or really this, yes, this fits in this way. And you see them dancing about trying to fit this next bit of information, and it's, yeah, I just can't go, I couldn't do that. One thing, I would fail miserably at it, and two, it's been more time doing all that than actually trying to research the UFOs in the first place. So it's just not worth it, I'm afraid. So Graham, since you are such sort of an encyclopedia of cases, would you mind sharing with us maybe, you know, one of your favorite cases, or, you know, one that's always kind of stuck with you that you find really fascinating? Yeah, okay, I mean, I'm going to go back to the Foo Fighters, because I've got instant recall and so much from that book. And it's actually the cover, the cover is, you know, people keep saying to me, it's like, is that real, or is that just something that was dreamt up for the cover of the book? And I keep going back to them saying, no, it's terms of reeling so much as it's a real case. So yeah, we got March 1942, we have an RAF bomber flying back from a raid on Germany, so a raid on Essen, which is in the industrial heart of the river. And this is a Wellington bomber, so it has two engines, it has gun turrets at either end, so the nose and the tail, it has a crew of five. And the tail gunner, where the fly over hold goes on in the comms saying, we've got something coming up behind us to the pilot, and the pilot says if I guess close enough, then open fire in it. Now this thing was an orange disc, it wasn't an airplane, it wasn't anything recognizable. When the gunner opened up, and you can see the tracer bullets, that's one in ten bullets, they're kind of fluorescent rounds, so you can see why you're firing out at night. The bullets went into this disc and nothing happened, absolutely nothing. So if that had been a German night fighter, it would have been, you know, set on fire, or it might have exploded, or at least it would have dived away damage. If that kind of weight of fire then it hit it. But as far as the gunner was aware, these bullets were just going into it, they're also being absorbed by this object, this disc. And after a little while of this fruitless firing eyes, the disc then moved around to the side of the airplane, as it was flying through the skies of about 280, 200 miles an hour. And it sat off its wingtip. By that point, both the tail gunner and the nose gunner, who was actually the navigator, the radio operator, he could actually fill both roles. He was also the nose gun. They both turned the turrets to fire at this thing off the wingtip, because that could be done. The turrets could actually move far enough around to be able to do that, and it was some distance off the wingtip, and they were both firing at it. And again, nothing happened. It then moved around to the nose of the airplane and sat off the nose of the bomber as it was flying through the skies. And it effectively maintained station at this certain distance, and the nose turned his turret again, and he was opening fire at this thing, because obviously they were trying to shoot it down wherever it was. They probably did think it was something German. Some kind of German secret weapon had never come across before, because it was there. It was bright orange. It was sitting there. It was observing the bullets, but nothing could seem to do that. And then after a while, it just shot off into the sky at 45 degrees and vanished from sight. Now, that would have been a kind of story that maybe nobody believed on the ground when they landed, and they were talking to the intelligence officer from the squadron at their home base, because they would always get debriefed after a raid. And it was usually along the lines of, you know, have you did your bombs on target on time? Did you see anything unusual? Were the German black depends on some kind of, you know, effective voice canister? And that's when they would have told the story. Now, normally the intelligence officers would actually laugh off stuff like that. They would come along on the line of something drinking, that kind of thing. But actually the pilot of the aircraft in the kind of, in the bullet stream behind this Polish crew had also said, "We saw that thing." You know, so they had a kind of similar kind of view of it, of this orange disc. So, you know, it's this crazy story. Now, the strange thing is, it doesn't actually appear in the squadron records for that particular month. And I know which raid it is. But the pilot, the Polish pilot, he emigrated to Canada after the war, and he came out in about 1962 and gave the story to a Canadian researcher, and it ended up in flying source reviewers, the UK magazine from back then. It's appeared in a few books, but it's a very, very little known case. And possibly before it appeared in the Foo Fighters book I wrote, very few people are, I guess, certainly on Twitter, in terms of my leadership. Would have ever come across it before? Because, yes, it's very hard to find. That's such a fascinating case. I know that there's, like, a certain contingent of people who believe that the Germans did, whether it was by reverse engineering, recovered technology, or some other means, that they did have this kind of, like, advanced technology that could potentially explain the Foo Fighters. What are your thoughts on that idea? Like, do you think this could have potentially been German technology, or is that just, like, out of the question? There's two strands to the kind of German technology question, so there's an indigenous question. So did they develop their own technology, which looks like kind of flying discs? And then there's also the bit that you mentioned there about, you know, reverse technology of things that might be acquired somehow, either by crushes, just before World War II, or possibly even during it. Or, if you believe some of the stories, contact with beings from Aldebaran. So you can see where this is going. Some of it's quite fanciful. And I guess, like, a lot of things. You just trace these kind of stories back to their origin. So you dig into the kind of lore around this, and just go as far back as you can to find out who initially made these claims. Now, in terms of, I'll go, I'll start with the indigenous stuff first. So homegrown, possible flag sources, German flag sources from the war. If you go far enough back, you can find where those stories come from. And it's a group of people, no more than two or three, who make these kind of claims in German newspapers and German magazines in about 1915, 1951, and 1952. And a few, a couple of years afterwards, those stories effectively formed the basis of some information that appeared in a book about German secret weapons in 1957. And then, effectively, it became fact after that, if you like. And it was built upon by neo-nazis in the '60s and also in the '70s. There are some fairly famous neo-nazis authors from those times, who not already kind of perpetuated the kind of myth, if you like, about that. But they also wrote novels about it, and the information of the novels ended up becoming fact in terms of sort of German bases in this kind of stuff. So there's a lot of, you can see where all this information comes from, but now, if you look hard enough, or you don't have to look at that hard, actually, on the internet, you'll see this stuff put forward as being truth. But actually, if you go far enough back, you'll find that it's nothing but kind. And that kind of truth, you have to back it up with facts, you have to back it up with documentation, you have to back it up with eyewitness reports. There's actually very little, if I need any of that, in fact, a documentation that's not. And what actually is put forward as being documentation is about the photocopied. It's fairly crude. It's stuff that you can knock together yourself, you know, you can fake. So it's very flimsy. And there's very little or no eyewitness accounts, the stuff that it is around is stuff that you can't back up anyway. So it's very different to actually try and sort of put it forward as a credible source of information. Equally, it's very tough to knock it down, because it's so entrenched now on the internet and elsewhere. And you find books on it all over the place as well, just so people go, "Yeah, it's true. They don't do much digging into it." In terms of, and the sort of kind of thing is true, I guess, on the other side of things. So whether the Germans reverse engineered stuff, they might have come across. There's stories out there, but when you trace them back, you don't really get very full. There's rumors of a crash, vehicles in some description in Poland or Silesia in '38 or '39, I forget exactly when. And that was the basis, allegedly, of some of the reports of them doing this. But then, according to now, we have the story of the thing that crashed in Italy in 1933. And then there's now a kind of story built up around that. And I don't know is the answer to that one. I've got some sort of thoughts that it might not be entirely true. But I'd like to see a bit more independent sort of examination of the documentation that purports to be the kind of origin, those telegrams, et cetera. It's been done already by somebody who I think was quite sympathetic to the story that's been pushed. Now, you really do want to have independent experts looking at this kind of stuff. And I hope that gets done at some stage. And I hope more information comes out. Unfortunately, the kind of source of this is anonymous as well, because the researchers who all this material has passed to, nobody knows who they are. So you get into kind of MJ12 territory where you have documents which may or may not be true. And there's a high kind of suspicion that they're not pushed in the door where you're under doors in the middle of the night kind of thing to people. And all this kind of stuff. And I think when it's done that way, it does kind of so see the doubt in people's mind, whereas it was kind of over front and somebody had just come and said, look, I found these and I can tell you where they're from. Here's my name, et cetera, et cetera. I'll be more inclined to believe them, rather than some anonymous source. And so yeah, I have my doubts. You know, I'm not going to go as fast as saying that it's all wrong and people are lying. I wouldn't do that. I just have doubts. And then some of the other information is around this, which I pointed out on the podcast in the past. The stories, some of the details where they're talking about Italian Air Force fighter airplanes traveling at certain speeds to try and catch the things that were cited around them at the same time. Over at the talk about speeds involved, well, and they can't catch them because they can't go any quicker. Well, actually, they're telling their fighter aircraft at that time and work capable of much faster speeds. So yeah, I have these kind of story and some of the details don't quite sort of, you know, sort of don't match up or don't sound true. So when you hear that, you just think, okay, well, what else isn't quite right here. So it just sort of puts questions in your mind and just puts down to there. Nice stories again, you know, like a lot of stuff, but very, very lacking detail. And until I get to that point, the sea stuff that makes me think, okay, yeah, you know, you've got some, you know, nice documentation there. And I can read through that. And that looks about right then, that of stories. Similar go, same things go to, you know, all the stuff about the bell, you know, the glocker and all the kind of, well, it comes from one source again. Anonymous people who pass information to a publisher. But again, you know, you have to question these kind of sources. And I guess, you know, you or other people who are known in this field would be intelligent enough and resourceful enough to be able to make up a story like that. With evidence light, but something that actually sounds quite plausible, you could make up anonymous sources, put a story together and make it fairly coherent. Make it effectively what a tight in terms of stuff that you can't prove, so you can't get anywhere with it. Equally, you can't dismiss it. And it would sound amazing. You know, and I'm sure, you know, you could do it individually, or we could put our heads together as a collective. Some of us, and we could come out with stuff like that, if we wanted to. But there's the difference, you know, I would never do that. But, you know, I just wonder sometimes, are people trying to sell us, you know, a bill of goods here. And, you know, sort of just don't sound right. Yeah, and I think that's so important. And it's such a good example of how complex this gets, because, you know, with the Italian case that you're referencing, you know, this is something that David Grash has referred to. And so then there seems to be this kind of rush to paper that up and to say, and to say that everything he's saying is correct, because the implication being that, like, if he was wrong about that case, that. You know, maybe he's lying about everything, or he's wrong about everything. And I think people really underestimate the extent to which the whole field has been kind of sullied with disinformation. And that even our high level intelligence officers aren't immune to, you know, this information, this bad information that's been kind of mixed in with the good information. I think where you go back to David Grash, I mean, yeah, and it's not a criticism of him either, because someone might come and say, "Oh, well, because you think that's wrong, maybe you're questioning him as a source, well, I'm not." Because intelligence officers were the best world in the world, they depend on their sources as well. And if somebody who's credible comes along with something, again, they're picking up from somewhere, and they're being told it's correct, then, you know, naturally, you're going to think something's, you know, sort of... It's got much more weight to it. I go back to actually to Nick Cook's Hunt for Zero Point book, and I don't know if you've read that, but I know a lot of people have. And in that book, he mentions the legend, and it's from what he doesn't actually use as a pseudonym for this person that he worked with a former colleague. And this colleague tells him about this legend, and it's supposed to be like a timeline of events in terms of UFOs, et cetera, and discoveries, et cetera. And part of it is possibly to do with stuff before the war, and also things that the Germans were working on as well. So you can see from that that if somebody's going to be really clever back in the day, maybe they have set up some kind of narrative that has enough to it to make people into it. To make people intrigued, enough documentation that makes parts of it credible, enough eyewitness testimony, and other bits and pieces associated with it. People can look at it on the surface and go, that actually is right, because, you know, he has X lines up with Y lines up with Z, all this kind of stuff, and then it's put forward as, yeah, this is the history. We're just trying to add to it with all these other bits that we find out, and then it's passed down from person to person. And then when you get somebody else, like it may be a new group like the UAT Task Force, get set up, let's say, for argument's sake. Somebody will come along as a source and go, here you go, you're the legend. You know, and then you've got all this baggage associated with it, which may or may not be true. And I just think that I go back to this hunt for zero point book, and this what the source of his was saying about the legend. And I just have to question myself sometimes, we just think how much it is true. You see it crop up in other places as well. You'll see in Donald Kiho's The Flying Sources are real, his book. He has an intelligence source there who feeds some information, and he questions himself as to whether some of it is affected by the plant. Not necessarily to him, but also to his source as well. He questions whether he believes it or whether it's just being pushed down to try and push him away from certain levels of inquiry. So yeah, who knows what's happening, where some of this original information, where it comes from, and whether it's just tacked on to more believable bits and maybe true information. And then it's all bundled up as well, this is all closure, and actually know some bits just a bit kind of, you know, bit dodgy environment. It's designed to send us off in the wrong direction. It's sometimes designed to discredit us because eventually this might come out as being completely hoaxed or completely false. And then, you know, not surprisingly, someone will come forward and question David Grush or question Lou Elizondo or question me question you. Oh, all this kind of stuff. But that's only because one tiny bit or one fraction of this overall story, this overall narrative, overall information is wrong. But that doesn't mean it's anything really else. It does tarnish it. It does tarnish the speaker. It tarnishes the source. So you have to be very careful. And just don't take things on face value. So that's a huge, excellent point. Well, and this feels like the perfect place for us to wrap up the free portion of the show for any paid members of Dreamland. I'm going to be continuing on about another half hour with Graham. As he's mentioned, Lou Elizondo wrote a forward for his book. Lou is someone that he's gotten to spend some time with. Oh, and disclosure and so forth and so on. So I hope you'll join us over there. And for everyone who's leaving us, it was wonderful spending time with you and we'll see you soon. You've been listening to Radio 5G, a production of CosmicReality.com. Thank you for listening. [Music]
