Latest / Strange Stuff Podcast / Episode 248: UFO or UAP - It's All The Same To Me Pt 2
Transcript
- Andy: Hello everyone, I'm Andy and we're a day early. I know if we're gonna tell you why. Mark: I'm Mark. Well not for you but for me we're a day early. ⁓ Andy: seems to have a dildo in the background. Mark: In fact I think it was one that you recommended to me. It's a Microsoft something joystick. ⁓ Andy: the Microsoft ass tickler. was... ⁓ Mark: In fact, you know I only use that for about three days. convinced me to bloody sign up to that Microsoft Flight Simulator. ⁓ Andy: No, you wanted to. You wanted to. And I said, there's no point unless you have a joystick. Mark: Yeah, so I buy that joystick, I use it for three days, get bored of gaming, and it's sat on that shelf ever since. Andy: Not my fault. Mark: Clearly it's your fault. Andy: Anyway, as soon as you got me here 24 hours early, what we gonna do? Mark: don't know. I'm looking at the upload thing or I don't have to worry about that. ⁓ Andy: No, don't worry about it. Mark: no, well there's not well, I say there's not much going on. There's a whole b sh heap of shit going on. You got Belfast going on, you got ⁓ Andy: Yeah, I was going to say we've got plenty going on. We've got beheadings in Belfast, thanks to our diversity. The guy tried to cut the fella's head off. Mark: What? What do you mean beheadings? well I mean, you know, I that there were videos circul why would anybody want to look at something like that? It's just horrific. ⁓ Andy: Well, it's not a case of why they want to look at it, it's why they fucking do it in the first place. savages. Mark: Wha what do you mean? W not get off to the wrong what do you mean fucking savages? Wha who are you referring to? ⁓ Andy: ⁓ The guy who tried to cut the other one's head off. Mark: Well, I assume he has mental health issues. And why did you use the word plural? Andy: Of course he has, because you're left-wing. The fact that he comes from Sudan and he's just recently arrived has got nothing to do with it. Mark: But why did you say savage is? Andy: Because they all do it don't they? They all run around machete wielding. Mark: This is going to be a ridiculously short podcast. I mean really, Andy, in this world you've got to be so careful. Andy: Now, the other thing... Well, no one's going to try and chop my head off because no one knows where I live. Mark: Well, I might be releasing the r address and postcode by the end of this video so they can put you straight. Andy: The Ande files. The other thing that's going on, course, is Trump got roundly booed at an American game and to cover up his embarrassment, they played a cheering applause track for 10 seconds longer than the booing went on. it didn't help. He still fell asleep halfway through the game, live on TV as usual. What is the point of him? I mean, Mark: That's right. Yeah. He really Andy: Surely even the people who were controlling him, the people who put him there to do this fucking whatever it is he's supposed to be doing, must see by now that his batteries have run out. He's got nothing left. Mark: No, but the thing is that think that they're th all of these people, ⁓ so far down the rabbit hole that is no escape for them. They have just keep going. They can't throw hands up in the air and say, Alright, he's a lunatic. ⁓ They just have keep going. Yeah, well they well they are keeping on going. ⁓ Andy: No they don't. That's the whole point. They don't actually have to keep going. They would get a lot more respect if they turn around and said, fuck this. Mark: No. I honestly I believe you're wrong. ⁓ think that are still vast swathes of Republican voters ⁓ who they're all doing a fantastic job. Andy: sleeping alive on TV on a regular basis. mean, this is more embarrassing than Biden shaking hands with a potted plant. Mark: What was that? Andy: You remember, he shook hands with a yucca in fucking Ireland on stage or somewhere. nice to meet you! Mark: But the the tactics tactics they're employing and you know, in about insider trading and all of that which has come up in the news recently. So now I've read is that they are actually wanting to t Todd Blanche is wanting to prosecute ⁓ Pelosi. ⁓ And I'm arguing that she doesn't need checking out ⁓ because she Andy: Fantastic job you're doing. Mark: the most successful equity portfolio in the history of equity portfolios. you know, she outperformed Warren Buffett by a factor of five or something. So there's all going on. But obviously Trump and family have it down to a fine art, but def to deflect from their ⁓ outright corruption, they are digging up Poloskiv I think she's even retired, hasn't she? Is she still in government? so there's all that going on. one thing that struck me they the managed to down an Apache helicopter. ⁓ Andy: I don't know. Yes, with their sticks and stones. that of course, after Trump telling Netanyahu he was on his own, basically meant that Trump had to go back to bombing. ⁓ Mark: Now Well, I'll tell you what, it's a bit of a challenge to shoot down an Apache helicopter. That is not easy. I mean they are armoured up to the teeth. It has to be a pretty sophisticated weapon to down an Apache helicopter. Andy: Hopefully an American surface to air missile. Mark: Well, is exactly what I was coming to. ⁓ ⁓ was friendly fire that downed it or was ⁓ potentially error, but that is very unlikely in something like an Apache. ⁓ Andy: I mean the Iranians are probably using American hardware. Mark: I see. You think they've stolen American hardware? ⁓ Andy: No, they bought it, legitimately. Do think the Americans wouldn't sell to their enemies? Mark: Well So the Iranian football team has arrived in the US, but the coaches and the management staff have been rejected from entry. Andy: Yeah, this is typical fucking Trumpism. These stopping certain players from getting visas. This is not the way to host a world competition. In fact, it should be snatched away from them, even if it means canceling the whole competition. This is gamesmanship now. He's trying to make everybody so fucking downcast and so dejected that his team will win the World Cup. and he can claim it was all fair and square. Mark: Sweden have odds of seven hundred ⁓ no, it's a hundred and one to one. Andy: Well, I mean, if you want to. Mark: I haven't seen Iran. What are the odds for Iran winning the World Cup? Andy: Pretty fucking slim I would imagine. although having said that, if it goes by how many people are betting on them, they're probably quite sure odds because I reckon there's a lot of sympathy bets going on. Mark: did they even qualify? ⁓ Yes, you're right actually. That might be the tri the case. Andy: Thank Mark: Let's have a look. dear. Odds ⁓ to the World Cup. ⁓ Andy: You really go the long way around. You should just say Iran odds and it will come up. Mark: Why? No, no, no. Andy: They will. Mark: Odds on Iran to win the war World Cup. Here we go. Andy: Alexa, what are the odds on Iran winning the World Cup? Sorry, I don't have an answer for that. Alexa doesn't know. Mark: ⁓ you see, Yahoo Sports is about to give me. ⁓ for God's sake. Andy: Honestly it can't be that hard. Mark: It is for me. it's just too boring. There's many advertisements and sh here we go, finally! Advertisements Croatia, Austria, Ivory Coast, Senegal. hundred to one ⁓ Andy: mean, put crowns on it, why not? Mark: Sweden a hundred to one. I don't know what this means. What's an odd where it's plus four fifty? What does that mean? Andy: Over 450 or one, I guess. Mark: No, no, no, no, it's not. because ⁓ goes from ⁓ Andy: I've got England at 15 to 2. Mark: England are at fifteen to two, that's seven and a half to one. Germany are fourteen to one. Andy: Yeah. Go for guitar at 2000 to 1. I've got Iran at 500 to one, yeah. Mark: ⁓ the other thing that's going on, you know this UFC fighting thing, Malaki, at the White House? Apparently a lot of the fighters are refusing to fight. Andy: Yeah. ⁓ good. Good on him. Because he couldn't even get anyone to sing. Mark: Because firstly No, he hasn't got anybody to sing. But what they're worried about is can be hot. ⁓ Can you imagine if they all get hot and sweaty? Andy: Well they're gonna get hot and sweaty aren't they? Because acting is hard. Mark: I th no no no no no. Well I say no no no no. UFC that's quite on. ⁓ actually people hitting each other. It's not dancing. ⁓ Andy: There's a little bit of acting going on. It's like the World Wrestling Federation. Mark: No, I don't think it is, actually. Hogan Hulk. Hulk Hogan. ⁓ Andy: You're telling me he's a fighter, not an axer. Mark: No, I'm saying he is an actor, but he was this world re th and ⁓ don't you remember it's used to head up the World Wrestling Federation, she's now the Secretary of Education for the United States of America. ⁓ Andy: There was a piece I read in the paper yesterday or the day before about the... Mark: What? Andy: ⁓ he was the, he was not the education, but he was the something secretary, energy secretary. And he was talking about solar power and why America wasn't using it. And he didn't have a clue what it was. He said something about all the sun just, just doesn't come out enough. It's like, we don't get enough sun. Mark: Yeah. He's obviously and he's must have been to Texas. Andy: And he's got, I mean, let's face it, Trump did when he mentioned that they should send a man to the sun and someone pointed out that the rocket would burn up before it got anywhere near it. Trump's answer to that was we'd obviously send it at night. ⁓ Mark: He didn't didn't say that. ⁓ Andy: He fucking did and if he didn't he should have. Mark: You're making that up. That's fake news. You're resorting to fake news. Andy: It's all fake news. It's phony stuff. didn't happen. It happen. Mark: So yes, there is a lot going on. We got wars in Iran ⁓ sorry, non wars, or it's halted or whatever it is. We got World Cup going on. got unrest in various places, parts of the world. ⁓ think that Nigel Farage is still disappeared. Andy: No he's put his head back above the parapet since the Belfast thing. Mark: ⁓ I see, just to stir a bit of trouble. Andy: And Tommy Robinson also has a of protests regarding Belfast. Mark: Yeah. Andy: You can see that point. No wonder the people of Belfast are upset because not the first time this has happened. And ⁓ comes of it. It's like, you know, they're being butchered in the streets ⁓ they're not happy. Mark: Yeah, you see this is where y your language becomes so questionable. are being butchered in the street. ⁓ one incident. ⁓ Andy: That's how they see it. That's how they see it. It's one incident now, but it's been incidents before that are also one incident. Mark: Yes, don't you remember the troubles in Belfast where white people were killing each other? Don't you remember that? Andy: Mark, it's not the first time that one of the recently arrived guests has caused mayhem. Mark: No, and I'm n I'm not not disputing that's reality, but I don't think it justifies marches and things, which is just basically ⁓ an opportunity for more violence. No, they should don't be ridiculous, they should go through follow the p legal processes that are available regardless of your skin colour, to seek justice. Andy: Well, what do you think? They should just be accepting of it. Is that fine? The guy's sitting in the middle of the street with his knife in the air licking his lips that are covered in blood and grinning. This is not someone that you say, right Chummy, you're under arrest. Mark: Well what do you think? You should just shoot them in the head. Yeah, we see this is this is whale. ⁓ it to death. ⁓ Andy: stone it to death. An eye for an eye comes into play here, you know. There are some things that are unacceptable and this is one of them. Mark: Why? What else do you find unacceptable, Andy, in your world? Andy: Being told a day early that I'm late for a recording. Absolutely unacceptable. Mark: Yeah. Andy: Anyway, is there any good news I hear you asking? Mark: I don't know, actually, is there any good news? Andy: Err, in the current band that I can see. Mark: I tried to go on to the sun in the ten minutes that you kept me waiting for this podcast thing. ⁓ ⁓ you have to pay ⁓ ⁓ Andy: Yeah. Yeah, you know, you can read the free online version, but they do keep popping up, support us, support us. Every time you click, you'll get that pop up and you have to just say, nope, nope, nope. Mick Jagger actually did an impromptu gig in a pub an Irish band. He joined them on stage for an Irish folk song. But honestly, it was pretty poor. Mark: So I gave up. Yeah, but he's we'd found I was gonna say if he's seventy what what did we discover he was seventy eight? Andy: 82. Mark: I mean what do you expect? mean so what does he expect of his voice at eighty two? Andy: Well, mean, thing is, he sounds exactly the same. He just wasn't that tuneful. I don't think he was either, he didn't know the song that well or he just doesn't really sing in tune. Mark: What what do you mean? You actually saw the recording of this, did you? Andy: Yeah. Mark: Really? You thought, ⁓ I'll click on that and listen to eighty two year old Mick Jagger singing in an Irish pub? Andy: Yeah. Yes, yes, because funnily enough, I thought it might be something to talk about on my podcast. Mark: On your podcast, your language the small is pretty incendiary, Andy. Andy: ⁓ here we go. Here we go. Anyway, your old school friend, Rolf Harris. Mark: Ruffice is dead. Andy: Apparently, yeah, apparently he recited poems as he assaulted 14 year old girls. Mark: What sort of poetry, dare I ask? Andy: I did not click on that particular story, so I couldn't tell you. But he is dead. Katy Perry, after 10 years with Orlando Bloom, is now webbed up and in love with Premier of Canada. Mark: Is he dead? I d ⁓ he's not any more though, is he? I saw that. Andy: No, he's a former Canadian Prime Minister. Mark: Yeah, exactly. Trudeau, is it? ⁓ it Pierre Trudeau? ⁓ yeah, I saw that. I know what the I don't what the sensational element of I don't know Katy Perry do I know her? Andy: I don't know. She's a singer, you would have heard one or two of her songs. She was famously together with Russell Brand for a while. I think they're married even. Mark: ⁓ ⁓ that's right, yes, that's right. now I'm going to fall into your category now after this next comment. still can't quite believe that Hamilton is together Kim Kardashian. ⁓ Andy: Do know what? I can. I don't think it will be long before Hamilton is blanked by every other racing driver. Apparently ⁓ treats the Formula One grid as if it's her own home turf, ignores everybody, does not socialise with the other wives and girlfriends and just walks around ⁓ a 50 strong entourage shoving out everybody out of the way. It's not going to go down well. That's a very tight-knit community. Mark: Yeah, I have to say I'm I'm disappointed because she is sort of contrary to of the what associate Lewis know, I think he was ⁓ I always him as ⁓ a reasonably level individual. ⁓ I mean I Andy: Yeah, he was woke and everything. You should have loved him. Mark: No, I mean, you know, he he he do good things and Kim Kardashian is just a media ⁓ you call it ⁓ Andy: call them media whore. Mark: So why he would be together with her, I don't understand. And unfortunately you you are exactly right in that of the evidence that's presented when she's around him in Formula One ⁓ exactly as you describe. Andy: Yep, it's not going to go well. Mark: But what's the attraction? Andy: And of course, I mean, of course he'll be the victim in it. ⁓ why is everyone so mean to me? I don't understand it. Well, look at what you're doing, buddy. Anyway, let's forget present day because it's boring and depressing. Let's go back in time to much happier times. Mark: What do you mean? ⁓ I see. God. The thing is that you never come up with happy stories that happened in the past. Something was invented on this day. Andy: I have a great happy story. In 1692, this year, this day, in the first ⁓ of Salem ⁓ witch victims was put to death. Mark: We haven't done a witch trial in a long time, said Andy: She was Bridget Bishop. She was the first victim of the Salem witch trials and she was hanged, accused of being a witch by a group of girls in town. These little fuckers. Bishop protested her innocence, but was found guilty at trial. And ultimately a further 19 witches, accused witches, faced a similar fate before the Salem witch trials finally ended in 1690. I only went on for a year. Mark: No. Our story was much longer than a year, surely. Andy: Yeah. It felt like it. Mark: When were the Moor witch trials? Andy: ⁓ they were earlier, if I remember correctly. Mark: Yeah, we started it apparently. Andy: ⁓ Benjamin Franklin in 1752 Mark: Not the American president Benjamin Franklin, but Andy: The one and only, I think he's the one on the hundred dollar bill, isn't he? Mark: I was just gonna say, ⁓ isn't he on a money thing at the moment? Andy: flew a kite in a thunderstorm to explore the connection between lightning and electricity. Smart lad. Mark: And what happened to him? Andy: Well, obviously he didn't die. Otherwise, that would have been a story. found there was indeed a connection when he was able to draw an electrical charge into a laden jar. Mark: What is a laden jar? Andy: It's a jar for capturing electrical charges. You Now do you know the name Amelia Dyer? Mark: Amelia Dyer. was a predecessor to Amelia Dye Hart. ⁓ Andy: She's it. or Danny Dyer's great grandmother. she was ⁓ ⁓ looking woman. And in the year of ⁓ she was executed at Newgate Prison in Londonium, England, at the age of 59 or 60. Nobody's really sure. And she was a serial killer who operated over a 30 year period who was placing ads in newspapers offering to adopt ⁓ Mark: What had she done? Andy: unwanted children in exchange for money. And once she had them, she killed them. I think I actually did an episode that included her about the adoption scandals. On murdery bits. Mark: Right, so that's not a happy story, yeah. Andy: In 1944, civilians were massacred at Oredour-sur-Gelin. Mark: Massacred, Andy: were killed by Nazis in France during World War II, allegedly seeking retribution for a kidnapped comrade. A group of SS troops separated the village's men and women into a barn and a church respectively, and then burned and shot them to death. 642 Mark: Also not a good news story. Andy: But then you won't like my last one. In 1912, well, ⁓ people are found ⁓ to death in Vesilska, victims, six members of the Moore family and two of their guests have been killed with an axe. although police considered several suspects, the so-called Mark: God. What is it? Just the b body count just keeps going up. twelve. ⁓ Andy: Villisca axe murders remain unsolved to this very day. 112 years later. Mark: Well, I imagine the perpetrator is no longer around. Andy: unless he did it while he was really, really young. Mark: Sorry, what date? Nineteen twelve, I thought you said. Andy: was 116 years ago or 114 years ago. Anyway, that's what happened. Mark: Yeah, exactly. I wonder how many people go to their graves such secrets? ⁓ Andy: Well, why not? It's not like... What's the point of not keeping it secret? Then you've then you'll just rubbish at keeping secrets. Mark: No, but do you see what I mean? I mean anybody who believes in sort of an afterlife Andy: Well, clearly you don't if you're a serial killer because you've already condemned yourself to hell. If you do believe, then you don't go serial killing. Mark: I suppose so. Well maybe no necessarily Plenty of serial killers. ⁓ Andy: Unless of course God is on your side. Unless it's God telling you to do it. Yeah, love your neighbour, except him over there. Kill him. Mark: Yeah, ex Exactly. Yeah. Andy: Okay, God, I'm on it. Mark: So that's it, is it? That's the good new just had a body count before we've even started this bloody podcast. Andy: Wow. you know, ⁓ ⁓ stuff is usually not good news. Mark: Yeah, well that's what I was gonna say, that you know, news always is so I mean, of course, good news doesn't sell, it's as simple as that. No one's interested. I don't quite understand what is the psychology of that? Why is it people respond so much interested in bad news stories? Is it because it makes their life look better? Andy: think it's because we all love bit of gossip. ⁓ we seem to have a little technical hitch. Mark: Why? Andy: My script has reset itself to the beginning. Mark: The beginning. Andy: This is part two of UFOs or UAPs, it's all the same to me. Mark: And what does that mean? You we're do g gonna have to listen to the whole thing again? Andy: No, means I have to find where we left off and to be honest, that could be challenging. Mark: I don't think anybody would notice the number of times you repeat the same elements of a different story from a different source. I don't think anybody's gonna notice. done the ⁓ US Nimit. We'd mentioned Nimits. ⁓ there three stories that you had related as I recall. ⁓ Andy: Ugh. Please. Yes, I know. We did gimbal. Mark: Gimbal, yeah, I remember Gimbal. Yep. Done. Andy: And we did, Fleur. ⁓ Mark: Fleur, remember that almost. Yeah, I don't know what the story was. Yeah, exactly. So we're back up to speed, are we? ⁓ Andy: What about go fast? Nearly. Mark: Why do you think asked it before? Why aliens pick the most country in the world to appear in? ⁓ Andy: Well they appear all over the world. I think America just offers more opportunity for better publicity because Mark: But do you reckon that obviously in the RAF for sensible people, the Royal Force, do we get stories from England? ⁓ Andy: Yeah, mean, RAF pilots also report any anomalies they see, but we don't make it public. It's not like we sensationalise it here. Mark: I mean, do you really believe I mean seriously, do you believe that we have spaceships visiting us? Let's get to the crux of the matter. Andy: I really hope so. Mark: Yeah, well that's different, isn't it? I hope I get a red Ferrari one day, but Andy: Is it? I mean, I want to believe it. I sort of have to believe it. Because you would. I mean, if you had the technology and you came across a bunch of primitives on another planet, you would have an interest. You'd be curious. You would watch at least. sometimes you'd be tempted to sort of get your magnifying glass out and see if they burn under the sun and shit. You would, you would play with them. Mark: Yeah, but the thing is that if you had the technology for because they'd have to come from a bloody long way away, that's for sure. not like round the corner, they're sort of the other side of some distant galaxy. Otherwise we'd know something about them. ⁓ Andy: Yeah Yeah, yeah, but you know, they're probably looking for some kind of resource. They're not here just on the off chance. Well, because they're short of whatever resource is on their own planet. A bit like us, of oil. Mark: Why? You think we're going to the moon to find oil? Andy: We're not going to the moon, get out of your head. Ridiculous. Mark: What do you mean NASA have just announced the new crew? They're on their way in a couple of weeks. Andy: Are they going to actually land on the moon this time? Mark: No, I think that's twenty twenty eight landing on the moon. Or is it twenty twenty seven? Andy: It's just nonsense because apparently by 2032 we've got a city-sized moon base up there. So why don't they just start taking up bags of cement now? Get those foundations laid. Mark: Do you think you can do you think apply you can apply for a job as a construction worker on the moon? ⁓ Andy: Do you think I would get into one of their fucking explosives sit there waiting for them to put me on the 10 o'clock news? ⁓ Mark: But you don't have to worry, Andy, because you're not going anywhere, you're going to a Hollywood movie studio. It'd be a perfect job for you. Andy: No, I would be the one that they blow up on the launch pad for realism. nobody man. Just fucking blow them up. Here, let me press it. Mark: But they're gonna need carpenters and plumbers and things, aren't they? Andy: But I'm neither of those things. Mark: What are you? need ⁓ Andy: I'm almost retired. They wouldn't send me up anyway. I'm over 60 for God's sake. Only Trump is qualified to go into space according to him. He'd be the best astronaut ever. Mark: I think he'd do very well in space. He wouldn't have to worry about his pooing himself 'cause they wear nappies in space, don't they? That's what I mean. wouldn't have to feel embarrassed. ⁓ Andy: He wears nappies here. Anyway, we need to get a move on. So I'm going to start here and hope that we're sort of where we left off. it was a week ago, so everyone's forgotten anyway. investigators, I think we ended up saying, occupy a difficult middle ground between the skeptics and the believers. And their task isn't to prove or disprove alien visitation, it's to determine what happened. And sometimes... Mark: I'll correct you if I pick Andy: The honest answer is that the available evidence remains insufficient. Mark: Well what do you mean? That's not often. It's forever. It's never they've never offered any real, tangible proof. Andy: That's not their job. I just told you. Mark: That's what I'm saying. ⁓ I I ⁓ yeah. Andy: But while the public debate focused on videos, something equally important was occurring behind the scenes. The Pentagon itself had begun taking the subject more seriously. So for many years people assumed that official UFO investigations had ended with Project Blue Book. But this assumption turned out to be incomplete. ⁓ we did do this bit. Often referred to by its acronym, RTIP. program attracted immediate attention. So people were wondering why would the Pentagon devote resources to investigated unidentified aerial phenomenon. And officials emphasized that national security was the major role. Any unidentified object operating near military assets deserves attention. Whether the explanation involves foreign technology, surveillance systems, sensor anomalies or something else, investigators needed answers. So from a defence perspective, uncertainty itself can be a concern. So the emergence of RTIP reignited public interest. The conversation expanded rapidly. Soon additional investigative efforts became public and government agencies reorganized responsibilities. New offices were emerging, reporting systems improved and data collection increased. And gradually a more structured approach to UAP investigations began taking shape. For decades, this topic often carried professional stigma. Pilots worrying that unusual encounters might damage careers if they reported them, witnesses hesitating to come forward, and officials fearing ridicule. The new investigative framework sought to reduce these barriers. personnel observed something unusual, they were encouraged to report it. Not because every report represented something extraordinary, but Because unexplained observations might reveal important information. The object might be a drone, a surveillance platform, an atmospheric phenomenon, or even a sensor issue, or something possibly not yet understood. But the key principle was simple. Collect the data first and draw conclusions after. And this approach would eventually lead to the creation of an office dedicated specifically to investigating UAPs, organisation that would become central to the next phase of our story. For ⁓ Mark: Well there's another phase to this story. Andy: We've only just started the episode, so strap in, get that dildo off your shelf, make yourself comfortable. years, ⁓ about UFOs largely existed on the fringes of public discourse. And changed almost overnight. News organisations around the world began covering the military videos. Television networks aired lengthy segments. And podcasts, it dedicated entire series to the topic. Mark: So hang on, when are we when are where are we? When are we? time what year are we in? Andy: Well, I don't know, but recent, if podcasts are on board, was within the last 20 years. Mark: Why would the government be interested in this shit? Seriously? Andy: Because national security. Why are they interested in people at Donald Trump? at football matches. You know the England fans have been warned that they will be removed from the stadiums if they sing insulting chants. football ⁓ don't know any non-insulting chants, so that will be an interesting... Mark: If what Have do you think they've made some up for specifically for Trump? Andy: I can promise you that some of the most ingenious, insulting rhymes of all time are ready to be unleashed in America. Mark: Unfortunately the name Trump doesn't rhyme with Wanker because that would be really good if they could get a good chant going Wenker Andy: It doesn't seem good like a bloody well should. These wanker. Mark: Ha ha ha. Andy: So anyway, former military personnel gave interviews, documentaries appeared and public interest went up again. the reason was not just the videos themselves. The footage was important, but what truly captured the attention was the combination of factors surrounding it. The military witnesses, the official confirmation and the government investigations. Because all this led to congressional interest and suddenly the subject seemed different, bit more serious. ⁓ bit more credible perhaps. So the conversation shifted from whether unusual reports existed to what those reports actually represented. And polls suggested growing public curiosity. Were the objects advanced foreign technologies? Secret American programs? Unknown natural phenomena? Something entirely unexpected? Of course, no consensus emerged. one fact became increasingly difficult to ignore. Military personnel were reporting encounters with unidentified objects more frequently than many people realised, and government agencies were now acknowledging that reality publicly. And as more information emerged, attention turned towards the individuals who had actually witnessed these events, the pilots, the radar operators and the intelligence personnel. People whose first-hand experiences form the foundation of the modern UAP debate, and their stories would become the next chapter in an unfolding mystery. And some of those accounts would prove every bit as intriguing as the videos themselves. When discussing unidentified aerial phenomena, attention often gravitates towards videos, radar traces and official documents, but behind every data point is a person. individuals who were present when something unusual occurred, and their experiences form the human of the entire UAP debate. Among the most frequently cited witnesses are Navy pilots, highly professionals who operate in some of the most demanding environments in aviation. Their job requires precision, ⁓ split-second ⁓ Mark: Yeah, yeah. Yeah, this all bollocks. told you before, ⁓ pilots are in the air for what? A hours? ⁓ Commercial are in the air for a hours. So why is Navy pilots get singled out as the bloody experts in UAP sightings? Andy: Sorry? Well, because if they do have a UAV UAP sighting, they are in a position to track it and follow it. Whereas a commercial air pilot says, what? No, an airline pilot looks at me and says, what the fuck is that? I don't know, but we're coming into land in two hours. Yeah. And radio control says, what? Take your 400 passengers and follow that fucking car. Mark: What an airline pilot isn't. Exactly. He gets onto radio control. gets onto the contr ⁓ Well they don't follow them. The Jets don't follow they Andy: Of course they do. What do think they do? Mark: Well, it's like a bloody car chase, is it, these things? Andy: If they can keep up, they can, they will. Mark: Navy pilot special ⁓ Andy: Well, you're in a foul mood this morning. Well, such individuals report something unexpected, it tends to carry weight with some people, obviously not with you. Not because they're infallible, but because their training equips them to recognise known aircraft behaviour with a high degree of confidence, unlike commercial pilots. Mark: It was you that started it, said But why navy pilots? Why not Air Force pilots? Surely they're even better trained. Andy: Because Navy pilots out at sea where a lot of this stuff happens. A lot of these sightings are not overland. Mark: What you think these UFOs they dive underwater? Andy: There is a very strong theory that there are UFO bases underwater and indeed in the centre of our hollow Earth. Now, Commander David Fravor, who, you remember encounter during the 2004 Nimitz incident, widely known, has repeatedly described seeing an object that didn't match any conventional aircraft that he recognized. Other involved in similar operations have described objects performing maneuvers that appeared unusual at the time. And some reports describe rapid acceleration. Others describe stationary hovering in strong winds. while some describe objects appearing suddenly on radar with no prior detection. But it's important to understand how these reports function in an investigative context. A witness statement, even from a highly trained observer, is not definitive proof of what occurred. Human perception, as we did discuss, is influenced by numerous factors. Distance, lighting conditions, stress, expectations, instrument interpretation and memory reconstruction. Even experienced observers can misinterpret unfamiliar phenomena. This is not a criticism. Mark: But I thought these people were experts. These are Navy pilots, for Christ's sake. They'd know how to interpret the signals. Andy: This is not a criticism of their credibility. It is a reflection of the inherent complexity of real-world observation. Radar operators provide another important perspective. Unlike pilots who observe visually while operating aircraft, radar personnel interpret electronic signals, and their view of events is mediated through instruments. They may see contacts appear, disappear or move in ways that seem unusual. During the Nimitz incident, instance, operators aboard the Princeton reportedly tracked multiple objects exhibiting unusual behaviour. And these observations ⁓ probably Mark: Is was that recorded, by the way? Can we actually see we must be able to see a trace of the Nimitz trace? Andy: I'm fairly sure that there's footage out there. You could probably just type in USS Nimitz video. These observations contributed to the decision to investigate visually. In modern aviation environments, radar systems are fairly highly sophisticated, but they're not immune to error and you can get false returns. interference can distort readings. ⁓ Mark: ⁓ no. It's just a mistake then. It was all just a mistake. Andy: Software anomalies can produce... You're such hard work sometimes. between genuine targets and system errors is a central challenge ⁓ radar interpretation. But despite these limitations, the combination of radar and visual confirmation in certain cases makes the reports more compelling than either source alone. When multiple independent systems appear to detect something unusual, investigators then begin to take notice. But still, ⁓ Even correlation doesn't guarantee accuracy. Multiple systems can be affected by shared environmental conditions or correlated errors. And this is one of the central difficulties in UAP analysis. the external phenomena from systemic artifacts requires extensive data, which is often unavailable. Mark: Well are you the language you're using is just who wrote this shit? Systemic artifacts. What the fuck is a s systemic artifact? Andy: It's to do with the double overhead underhands of the Hokey Kokey 2000. Mark: You're just talking. It's just word salad. It's just complete bollocks. Andy: I'm sorry if this is going shooom shooom. for decades ⁓ project Blue Book ended, official government involvement in UFO investigations remained limited and largely fragmented. But that changed in the 21st century. The establishment of RTIP marked a turning point. Although low profile, The program signalled renewed interest in collecting and analysing reports. involved in these efforts ⁓ a key principle. The goal was not to prove extraordinary claims, the goal was to identify potential threats. So a national security standpoint, an unidentified operating near military installations represents a potential concern regardless of its origin. Mark: They're not still being funded, are they? Andy: Yes, I would say so. Mark: What you mean with all the doge cuts and all of these people being sacked left right and right and centre in the government, ⁓ people are still in a job? ⁓ Andy: Yeah, but there's no money in it for Trump if he stops UFO investigations. This is a diversion from his Epstein, for fuck's sake. Mark: Never th ⁓ well you're right, yeah, you're right. Of course how silly of me. Andy: Following increased public awareness of RTIP, additional efforts were established to formalise reporting structures. Pilots were encouraged to document without fear of stigma, and standardised reporting systems were introduced. led to the creation of dedicated offices tasked with analyzing reports across military branches and one such organization is the ⁓ Domain Anomaly Resolution Office. ⁓ Mark: Right. Andy: And its mandate includes collecting, investigating and attempting to resolve reports of UAPs across air, sea, space and other domains. Mark: Can we just skip forward? What's the conclusion? How many of these bloody reports evidence that a UFO has visited England from an a f is visited Earth from another planet? Andy: We've done whole episodes on UFOs legitimately visiting Earth from other planets. Mark: No, but I we're talking about this government sponsored stuff now. We're not talking about that kid in the back of the car who fell asleep. Andy: Well, hopefully, if you remember the whole point of this episode was to lay some groundwork for the files that are being released currently by the Pentagon. And hopefully, in that quagmire of nonsense, there will be a couple of diamonds. Mark: Exactly. Yeah, but it's your job to sort it out. I don't want to wade through bloody oceans of nonsense to for the two diamonds that you describe. Andy: Yeah, for god's sake, you do enough! Arrow a more systemic approach than earlier programs. Instead of isolating investigations, it focuses on centralized analysis and cross-referencing data from multiple sources. No, this is the new office of Arrow. Mark: We've already covered this. Radar people and Navy pilots. Andy: small subset of these cases continue to resist explanation even after review and officials have consistently stated that to date, no publicly confirmed evidence has been found that UAPs represent extraterrestrial technology. However, how Mark: Finally, forty-nine minutes into part two, and finally you reveal that it's all nonsense. Andy: However, they also acknowledge that not all cases can be fully explained. So there's a dual reality there. The absence of confirmed extraordinary evidence combined with persistence of unresolved cases sits at the very heart of what we're talking about. as public interest in UAPs grew, so did attempts to explain them through conventional means. Many that initially appeared mysterious were later attributed to identifiable sources as we know, like weather balloons, commercial aircraft military drones. ⁓ Mark: So what you're saying is this new organization, Arrow, is off to investigate multiple sources censors, Navy pilots, in their field, and ⁓ the conclusion often it was an airliner ⁓ it was a weather ⁓ Andy: Yeah, but this is just lazy. This is lazy committee work, isn't it? It's just that this is like it's like it's like the Covid inquiry, which costs I don't know. heard yesterday it was the most expensive inquiry ever held and nobody's going to hear the results. the woman who chaired that inquiry has made a million pounds out of it. Mark: It's lazy something. What are we talking about now? Andy: I'm just saying that these committees, organizations are set up and basically they throw money at them. They don't expect results. It's just, it's mostly for show. They certainly don't know how to investigate. Mark: When you So when you contacted Arrow for content in this program, how did they respond? Andy: Yeah, yeah. Hello, Arrow, highly secret American government agency, can I help you? How do you think they fucking responded? Mark: I mean it's just ridiculous saying that they set up this special organization and they conclude even occasionally it was a weather balloon. Andy: That's what you're going to expect from every fucking government because they're not going to tell you anything that they don't have to. Mark: Yeah. Andy: So these explanations are not speculative, allegedly. In many cases, they successfully account for reported observations, but not every case has been conclusively resolved. Some lack sufficient data and others still involve conflicting accounts. there are others that depend on classified information that isn't publicly available. And this creates the gap between what is known ⁓ what is publicly verifiable. And within that gap, uncertainty exists. Sceptical analysts often emphasise the importance of data quality, because without precise measurement of distance, speed and size, it becomes really difficult to draw reliable conclusions about observed objects. Mark: Yeah, but you see you see, this is what I find completely absurd. Are you telling me that with all the modern technology, you've got bloody weapons targeting systems that can shoot missiles a thousand miles away into the bedroom window of God knows who? what you're saying is you can't determine speed, direction and distance ⁓ of objects. ⁓ Andy: Well, you told me, you told me that it was really surprising that the Iranians bought down an Apache helicopter because of all the systems that it has to defend itself. So ⁓ are you surprised then that they can't track a UFO accurately as they'd like to be able to? Mark: Yes. Yes, There's there's no comparison whatsoever. I'm arguing that America Andy: If you can't track an Apache helicopter, what chance have you got with a UFO that travels at half the speed of light? Mark: What do you mean they did track it because they shot it down? Andy: Yes, yes, but that was an unusual occurrence. they wouldn't be able to, you say. Mark: No, I'm saying they can. That's exactly the point. You can track these things accurately. You can't just ignore my comments when they're completely contradicting the total lack of logic in what you're saying. Andy: Ahem. Anyway, a camera system. Mark: I might as well not be here. Ha. Andy: Well, the thing is, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. Mark: No I'm not. I'm trying to bring a bit of entertainment into this podcast. Andy: It's not entertaining! It's annoying! Mark: Carry on, Andy. Andy: Now, military witnesses sometimes emphasise the operational context, and these aren't casual observations. ⁓ occur during training exercises or active missions, and they involve advanced detection equipment, the like of which you ⁓ like to know about. They are recorded by trained personnel operating under structured procedures, and the tension between these perspectives defines much of the modern debate. Despite extensive investigation, a small number of UAP reports remain officially unresolved. And these cases are often characterized by incomplete data or conflicting sense of information. They don't necessarily imply extraordinary conclusions, they just lack sufficient evidence for classification. Some involve radar contacts without any visual confirmation. and others involve visual sightings without any reliable sensor data. A few involve both, but with inconsistencies between systems. One of the key challenges in evaluating these cases is reconstructing the events after the fact. military systems generate enormous volumes of data, but not all of it is retained indefinitely. Storage limitations exist, classification protocols and operational priorities can result in gaps. So when investigators attempt to analyse older incidents, information can be missing and it can hinder conclusions. And this is particularly important in cases where multiple interpretations remain plausible, because without the complete data, you can't achieve certainty. As a result, These cases remain open, not necessarily because they are aliens, but simply because they are incomplete. So after decades of investigation, thousands of reports and multiple government programs, Arrow, RTIP, Ice, Ice Baby, question, ⁓ question ⁓ to define the discussion. What the hell are UAPs? ⁓ Mark: Arrow. Conclusion is Andy: And the honest answer is that there is no single explanation that fills all cases because that's the whole point of being unidentified. They are clearly unidentified flying objects. Some could be misinterpretations, ⁓ uncertain due to lack of data, but uncertainty is not evidence of one thing or the other. It requires Mark: ⁓ huh. Andy: Scientific investigation requires careful separation of observation from interpretation. It requires resisting the temptation to fill the gaps with assumptions, and it requires acknowledging the limits of available information. The Pentagon's UAP investigations reflect this reality. They document what has been observed, they attempt to categorise it, they resolve what can be resolved, and they leave open what can't. So looking upwards, the sky has always inspired questions. For ancient civilizations, it was a realm of gods and omens. early aviators, it was a frontier of exploration. For modern military forces, it's a domain of surveillance, defense, and increasing technological complexity. But today, it's also a subject of scientific and governmental scrutiny. in ways that are still evolving. The Pentagon UFO files do not provide yet any final answers. They provide fragments, of a larger puzzle that is still incomplete. And some will see in these fragments evidence of extraordinary possibilities, like me. Others will see the predictable limitations of perception and technology, like you. Both perspectives engage with the same underlying reality. Something is being seen and observed, sometimes clearly, sometimes ambiguously, and sometimes not at all. And while many cases may eventually be explained, others will remain open simply because the evidence is not yet sufficient. So in the end, the story of UAPs is not just about what is in the sky, it's about how we observe and interpret it. and how we decide what counts as known or unknown. The Pentagon files remind us all of something fundamental. in an age of advanced sensors, global surveillance and powerful computing systems, the world is still capable of producing moments that resist immediate explanation. And when that happens, we're left with the same simple question that has followed humanity for generations. ⁓ Not what we want to see, but what is actually there. Behind the public discussion of UAPs is a process that is far more procedural than most people assume. Military and intelligence investigations follow structured steps. collect reports, verify sources and cross-reference sensor data. This approach is important because most reported UAP cases do not remain unexplained for long. Once sufficient data is available, analysts can often identify the cause. In many cases, once these factors are accounted for, the anomaly disappears. However, there is a smaller category of cases where resolution is not immediate. And these are typically not more dramatic, they're just simply incomplete. And this lack of completeness is often the primary reason a case remains open, not because it's extraordinary, but because it cannot be fully reconstructed. The 2004 Nimitz incident remains one of the most discussed UAP events because it includes multiple forms of observation. Visual sightings from the pilots, radar tracking from the Princeton and infrared video recorded by onboard aircraft systems. each of these data sources provides partial information, but none provides a complete picture on its own. Commander Fravor's visual encounter described an object with no visible wings, exhaust or control services. Radar operators tracked unusual movement patterns before and after and during the incident. However, when analysing such cases, investigators must consider alternative explanations. Infrared systems depend heavily on contrast. Visual perception distance can distort size or motion. And because of these limitations, the Nimitz case remains formally unresolved in public documentation. Not because it demonstrates unknown technology, but because not all variables can be independently verified with available data. It's an example of how multiple imperfect data streams can create a coherent but still uncertain narrative. Now, if you read between the lines of that, You've got a whole set of witnesses from the Princeton, the Nimitz and up in the air who are all telling you what they're seeing. But the committee is saying, ⁓ it's not enough evidence. We're not happy. So they're basically covering up what whatever conclusions can be drawn from that by claiming that they need more data. Mark: Well what do you think the conclusion is? Andy: They're out there. The FLIR, Gimbal and GoFast videos are often discussed together, but they represent different types of sensor recordings under different conditions. FLIR shows a distant object tracked by infrared. Gimbal shows an object with apparent rotation. The GoFast video shows a low altitude object over water, but speed estimates depend heavily on assumptions about altitude and distance, which are not definitively established. ⁓ In all three cases, the core limitation is the same, the absence of full contextual data. So this doesn't render the videos meaningless. confirm that military sensors recorded objects that operators could not identify, but they do not by themselves establish extraordinary performance capabilities. And this distinction is central to how modern analysts interpret the footage. So basically, it seems like the committees and the organizations they set up to investigate are basically set up to obstacles in the path ⁓ establishing that they did see a UFO. That's how it seems to me. Mark: Well what do you mean set up obstacles? They just want scientific evidence. Andy: No, but they've got eyewitness reports, they've got radar reports, and they've got infrared reports, that's not enough. We need their parents, grandparents, and three other aliens to verify which planet they come to before we're willing to give them a visa. Mark: think they need to ⁓ improve the screening of these navy pilots. I mean if Tom Cruise can be a navy pilot, anybody can be a bloody navy pilot. Andy: Well, I'm not sure he can be a Navy pilot. Mark: So it's inconclusive, is what you're saying. Andy: Well, a key question in the UAP discussion is why certain cases remain open after years of analysis. And the answer is always rather than mysterious. The limiting factors include ⁓ lack raw sensor data, classified information not available, incomplete witness documentation, short duration of observed events and conflicting sensor recordings. Modern military systems generate vast amounts of data, but not all of it is preserved indefinitely or made public. Unadditionally classified restrictions can limit cross-agency analysis in public investigations. As a result, some incidents can't be fully reconstructed after the fact. So these gaps create the appearance of mystery, even if nothing unusual is present. So when all publicly available information is considered together, the current assessment from official sources is relatively consistent. Most UAP reports have conventional explanations, but a smaller subset remain unresolved. And no publicly verified evidence confirms extraterrestrial origin or non-human technology. At the same time, Ongoing reporting mechanisms ensure that new cases continue to be collected and analysed. And this creates a dynamic situation rather than a closed file, because the data set is still growing and the analysis is still ongoing. So conclusions remain subject to revision as new information becomes available. So the study of UAP today is less about proving extraordinary claims and more about improving the data quality and analysis. We need better sensors, better reporting systems and better cross agency coordination. And these improvements aim to reduce ambiguity over time. And whether future investigators will resolve all current unknowns remains uncertain, but I'm pretty certain. But the direction of the official policy is clear. Treat the report seriously, investigate systematically and stonewall like hell. Mark: What is this what is the one that's current arrow, did you say? Andy: Yes. Mark: I wonder how many people work at Arrow. Andy: By this point in the record, the major publicly known cases have been examined repeatedly. Nimitz, Fleur, Gimbal, Gofast. The broader collection of military UAP reports gathered under structured investigative programs. Taken individually, each case has its own limitations. Taken however, They form something harder to dismiss outright. Not proof of any single explanation, but a persistent pattern of unresolved observations within structured military environments. And that's where the modern UAP discussion becomes complex. Because patterns can be meaningful. The challenge is between how data is collected, filtered and interpreted. and that challenge remains unresolved. So what does the government actually say about this? public speculation, ⁓ Mark: What? That's what we've been talking about for the last two hours. Andy: You've been talking about what the government bodies are doing the scenes, but what does the government actually say? The government, what does Trump say? So despite public speculation, officials don't look at your watch. ⁓ Mark: No, it's telling me time to stand, it tells me. Andy: Official statements from US defence and intelligence bodies have remained relatively consistent. UAPs are real in the sense that reported a smaller subset can't be resolved due to insufficient data and crucially there's no publicly verified evidence confirming any UAP represents extraterrestrials or extraterrestrial technology or non-human intelligence. So this position isn't speculative, it reflects the current state of available data. At the same time, officials that UAP reporting is a legitimate national security concern. So again, that's not saying very much at all. I think we've taken this as far as we can because they're really not coming out with anything. Mark: I mean the thing is people have been collecting Yeah, people have been collecting data post Second World War. When was the first thing we were talking about? The w just after the Second World War, wasn't it? ⁓ Andy: Yeah, well, it was a couple of days. Mark: Seventy years we've been collecting data. the sty side of things has become ever more sophisticated and we're still not able to conclude anything. ⁓ Andy: Yes, but I don't believe that's because of a lack of evidence or a lack of data. I think the people responsible for collating that data are taking their conclusions to the White House and the White House is saying, we will allow this or we will not allow that. Mark: But the thing is that why why on earth do you think that President Obama would take the same position as President Trump on anything? Surely over the last seventy years we would have found a president if there was actually evidence they'll say, ⁓ well, you know, let let the people know that there are aliens out there. Andy: I've told you that you... We are being drip fed information about ETs the years with even with Hollywood movies. Even Steven Spielberg himself has admitted that he believes ⁓ aliens walk among us. And, know, ⁓ we are drip fed information through the media with films with the odd story just to prepare us for the big reveal, because ⁓ I that is going to happen. Mark: The big reveal, what the coming of Jesus back to earth, you mean? Andy: No, the coming of ET. And guess what? He ain't phoning home because he's moved in here. Mark: I mean how can we have a two part episode on something that there is literally no conclusion about? Andy: Anyway, that brings us... Well, how can you have a conclusion until I can say, and ladies and gentlemen, here is Zob from the planet Zog. It's just not a thing, is it? Mark: It was your emphasis on the expertise of navy pilots. mean Navy pilots. ⁓ Andy: Well... You know, I mean, this is not my words. clearly, Navy pilots ain't all that, otherwise they wouldn't get shot down by Iran. ⁓ Anyway, does bring us to the end of part two. ⁓ the Lord. Mark: Actually I think Apa Apache pilots are actually army. They're not navy. Andy: I wouldn't even know the difference. I would have thought an Apache pilot would be a Native American in a stolen helicopter. Mark: What? Andy: You know, an Apache is a Native American tribe. Mark: I do. I wonder where they got the name from, Apache. Andy: They named them all after Native American tribes. Mark: Named what? A Lynx helicopter. Andy: Or their helicopter. Their attack helicopters. Mark: Well the Apache is pretty much the first attack helicopter. Andy: Get a list up of all the attack helicopter names and see how many relate to Native American tribes. Mark: Ugh, I'll do it when I can finally break away from this recording. Andy: Do you know there's a Comanche out there? Mark: I don't think there's a helicopter called a Comanche, is there? Andy: or Tang. Mark: Yeah, there's a tank called a Andy: They've definitely plagiarised the names of Native American tribes. Anyway, thanks for listening everyone. This, I think, was episode 248, so only two to go. Mark: Yeah. I would Andy: to the big 250. Now, are you to surprise us all on episode 250 with your highly entertaining ⁓ at the financial collapse ⁓ 2009? Mark: No, I don't think no, I don't think that's entertaining enough for the two hundred and fiftieth episode. Actually. We've got two episodes to go before that happens. ⁓ sorry, one to go before it happens. Yep, yep, yep, yep. All right. Very good. Andy: All right, well then I'll find something. No, we've got one to go before that happens. Yeah. Okay, well, thanks for listening. Join us again same time, same place next week for a... No. No. put me off my stride now, my vinegar stroke. Yeah, don't do anything ⁓ stupid. know, fact, do something stupid. Mark: It's not part three, is it? It's not part three of this. Andy: but just don't go pretending that you didn't see a UFO when you know damn well that you bloody well did. And if you work at the Pentagon, release the real stuff. Stop drip feeding this nonsense. release the Epstein files. Either one. We'll be happy. We'll get an episode out of it. In the meantime, have yourself a strange week and you next Sunday. ⁓ Or you're a Patreon. We'll see you on Wednesday and if you're not a Patreon, why not? Come on, buy us a coffee, buy us a beer. But if you do become a Patreon, do not do it through your Apple phone because those thieving fuckers take 30 % of everything you pledge to our show. They fucking do. Cheeky fucks. What have they ever done for our show? Wankers. Anyway, bye for now. Mark: Do they? All right. Don't know. Sure.