Decoding UFOs: ATOMIC INTENTIONS? (Ft. Larry Hancock) Total Disclosure Podcast

0:15 Speaker 1: We'll be right back. All right, everybody, welcome back to Total Disclosure, the podcast. I'm your host, Ty Roberts. And quickly, before we get this show started, I just want to take a moment to make sure that everyone knows Austin Quest has gone through a bit of a change. So I think they're calling it SideQuest. And that is the conference that is happening this weekend in Austin. It is still going on. I will make a post after this episode about more of the details. But I do want people to know that you can still get your tickets.

2:12 Speaker 1: Still come hang out with us in Austin. Uh, it's going to be a great time, but some changes and won't be at the Moody center anymore. Um, but that's not to say that it's not going to be at a great venue. It's going to be more intimate. It's going to be really, really cool. Um, as far as the show goes, make sure to like share and subscribe. And if you're listening on a great podcast platform, uh, rate and review the show, it goes such a long way. It takes two seconds. It's free. And you have your phone in your hand anyway.

2:40 Speaker 1: Don't pretend you don't. Um, And if you want to go a step further, become a member, gain clearance, and join the agency from $ 299 to $ 999. Pick your clearance from classified all the way up to above top secret. Gain access to early podcasts, videos, and pretty much everything we do here at Total Disclosure. With that being said, we have a great show tonight, and I am really excited about it. So, you know, I want to jump right into it. So, you know, for decades, I would say that the public conversation surrounding unidentified flying objects has been bogged down by, you know, endless debates over the mere existence, single incident speculation, anecdotal noise.

3:34 Speaker 1: But what happens when you do strip away the speculation and apply rigorous strategic intelligence, you know, analytics to decades of a vetted data set. My guest tonight is researcher, author, and military veteran Larry Hancock. With a background spanning history, anthropology, and electronic communications in the U.S. Air Force, alongside over 30 books and publications on national security, Cold War history, Larry serves as a board member for the Scientific Coalition for UFO and UAP Studies, SCU, and leads their intention studies team.

4:17 Speaker 1: And in this monumental new work, UFO Intentions, Decoding the Patterns, Larry and his co-authors undertake a multi-year strategic intelligence study that veteran national security analyst Christopher Mellon notes surpasses the depth of analysis done by the government itself. So, Let's get into it. I want to welcome tonight's guest, Mr. Larry Hancock.

4:46 Speaker 2: Great to be here.

4:48 Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Larry. Super, super excited to have a conversation with you. You're one of those guys that, you know, I think you're much more of an analytical mind. And it's really nice. Obviously, everyone loves a story, right? Everyone loves a story. But the UFO community and the landscape, the technology, the science behind it, that can't just be storytelling. There needs to be rigorous scientific, you know, rigorous scientific endeavors, you know, attached to it. So I really enjoy what you bring to the table.

5:32 Speaker 2: Yes, as you say, I first became involved in this in 1964.

5:37 Speaker 1: Wow.

5:38 Speaker 2: Decades ago, the bookcase behind me has dozens and dozens of books, which essentially are storybooks, like you're saying. They're very entertaining, individual story, one case after another case, one more sensational than another. And when you get through the end of all of them, it's a lot of cases. And the team that I'm on, the intention study team and I are referred to it as like the forest and tree problem. You keep looking at the trees. What about the forest? What about the overall behavior?

6:11 Speaker 2: I won't even call it the phenomena. Our assessment is just in 1947, the Air Force assessed the UFOs as real objects, real enough so that they could write a profile up to distribute to the field officers. Here's what you look for. Here are the characteristics. And it was more a matter of they were worried about where they were from and their intentions. It wasn't a question of reality. Yet decades later, we're back to there being phenomena. It's like, wait a minute, they were real in 47, now they're phenomena?

6:46 Speaker 2: Have we stepped backwards?

6:49 Speaker 1: Right, right, right. And a lot of people, I would say, right now especially, are kind of fed up with unsubstantiated stories whether it's coming from, you know, a high level government official like David Grush on a huge platform like Joe Rogan or even Jay Stratton, you know, who who led one of the UFO programs in the government science. I mean, stories without proof. They can only take the ball so far. Right. And I think people have had their fill of storytelling and and really want the next phase of whatever disclosure means.

7:40 Speaker 2: In general, my impression is after a certain point in time, as you're saying, all those stories can actually make it more mysterious. They leave you literally with more and more FUD, fear, uncertainty, doubt. They didn't give you anything. One of the questions I'm pondering now, I'm working on an op-ed, is, well, wait a minute, DIA. Jay was with the DIA senior position. The role of the defense intelligence agency is to do indication studies. They do threat and warning studies. They have professionals, you know, that that's their job or where they never tasked with doing that.

8:21 Speaker 2: Did, did somebody deny the reality so long that they just ignore it and they never tasked and, and Jay just had to walk away, you know, cause you guys never considered it seriously, but you know, my team, we have, four guys. We have intelligence professionals, career professionals, and data analysis and intelligence, but we've been working on it for seven years, you know, and that's four of us for seven years. That's a long time and a lot of data. But, you know, the country, the nation has assets who are professionals whose job is to do this.

8:55 Speaker 2: You know, did nobody ever task them with a job? One of the questions that's occurring to me when I look at the statements that Grush and Stratton are giving is, you know, we should be asking these questions, not with a congressional oversight committee. These are questions that we need to hold the secretary of defense responsible for the director of national intelligence. You know, we're, we're totally working at the wrong level. If the situation is the way that they describe, we're really working at the wrong level and somebody, somebody dropped the ball.

9:30 Speaker 2: I mean, it didn't, you know, it didn't get elevated. We, we know it got dropped back in 1952, but come on now, given the tech tax and what we have in 2014 and onward, did nobody ever pick up the ball again? Come on guys.

9:46 Speaker 1: Yeah. Right. Right. And I find that even more hard to believe, you know, considering, considering just what the phenomena might mean and, how much it might benefit, you know, nation states technologically and, you know, in our, you know, our mundane, which it sounds so, you know, it sounds so primitive, but in the race of humanity, It seems whoever does crack the code on this technology would essentially, you know, it's checkmate at that point, right? That this technology is so, at least that's what we're led to believe, right?

10:33 Speaker 1: That this technology is so far advanced that whoever, you know, it breaks or cracks the code will essentially, you know, run the planet. Forever, for foreseeable future. And I don't know whether that's a scary notion, because I don't know if any one entity in the current landscape, I don't think I trust anyone with this kind of technology.

11:05 Speaker 2: You see, I don't think it is so much scary as more or less depressing, because what we see in our study in the very beginning, when these UFOs showed up in the late 40s through the 50s. They were very visible. I mean, you had formations flying over major cities. We constantly tracked them with radar. We sent interceptors after them. They showed that they were kind of oblivious to the interceptors. They would engage with them. I've got dozens of pilots on record saying, this thing totally outmaneuvered me, established a firing solution, and then kind of went away.

11:44 Speaker 2: Like they're just... It's a type of messaging. We're here. We have capabilities that are outstanding. You can't bother us. Now, it's actually the first step in any known contact protocol. But did we respond to that? It's almost like they made themselves very visible. They made their intelligence very visible, and we didn't respond. So I find that is our problem, not their problem.

12:14 Speaker 1: Right. That's actually very, very, um, I hadn't kind of, I hadn't thought about it. Well, in that, that way specifically, but yeah, I mean, they're demonstrating from a very, you know, from, from early on, from the get-go that, Hey, listen, um, that might be your best, like that, you know, you're coming after me with your best, but like, just know that at any, any moment, you know, we could, you know, destroy you. But that's, you know, that's not what we're here to do. But don't think that you can, you know, don't think that you're a match.

12:56 Speaker 1: And I think, you know, it's been very apparent at our nuclear sites that, you know, they've demonstrated, you know, far more restraint than humanity has. But they've also showed us that, you know, guys that you might think these are the most, you know, you know, advanced weapons you could possibly have, but at any moment they could be, you know, rendered useless. So good.

13:35 Speaker 2: Restraint. And I think patience is, it's kind of amazing to me. Some of the, Actually, we're not getting much usable data from the presidential releases. They're coming out. The pursue release is coming out. But one of the things that amazes me, there's an incident from, I think, about two years ago. And the report just says Western United States, which to me is an indications analyst is meaningless. Like you need to give me a little more detail about. OK, but it looks like it's probably white sands over seven hours in response to a test that we were doing.

14:13 Speaker 2: the test radar started tracking UFO. They dispatched a helicopter, and over that period of seven hours, they had multiple radar contacts. It started off in the evening, went until after midnight. Then later on, they dispatched jets. So over seven hours, we're tracking the object. It's just kind of hanging out over the area. By late night, it's looking like an orb, but it's reflecting radar, so it's a physical object. And by the end of all of this, this orb sends out six or seven different little orbs, and they form a row.

14:52 Speaker 2: Now, a lot of people are kind of interested in what's the propulsion of these things, obviously, what's their capability. But what it really did at that point in time, what they did at that point in time, is this row of orbs starts turning off their lights one at a time in sequence. And when it reaches the end of the row, they start turning on their lights again in sequence. And my immediate reaction is, okay, we, the non-human intelligence to watch close encounters of the third kind, we probably forgot that.

15:26 Speaker 2: So we didn't respond at all. So it's over decades, they have shown their capabilities, they've shown their technologies. And they show a great deal of patience in the fact that we never respond to them in any different manner. You know, we still, if they show up, we track them for radar or we send a nuclear sub out and they respond to it. But it's always, we essentially are the offensive ones. They respond, they're there. And in no known cases, certainly there are a number of known cases where individual humans and actually aircraft fired on them, whether they had orders to or not.

16:12 Speaker 2: So you really have to raise the question that tells me that they're still, they're hanging around, they're being patient, they're signaling us. Over the years, they have done a number of different things that would suggest messaging and signaling, and we've been totally unresponsive. And one of the things that we found in our studies is actually the pattern of their behavior changed over time. For the first couple of decades, it clearly was focused on the atomic warfare complex.

16:46 Speaker 1: And so do you think, can I ask you, I just kind of want to stop you there because now, because I do want to, I want to gauge you on something. Do you think that it began with the atomic, like when the atom was split, when mankind rang that bell for the first time at Trinity, right? Was that, do you think what brought them here or had they been here before? And this is what just, there was just a massive uptick because we had reached a certain level that demonstrated that we needed more of a, maybe a more hands-on approach.

17:32 Speaker 2: Yeah. That's a really interesting question. One of our team members is actually into astronomy and does exoplanet research and that sort of thing. And we know now that you can, we're almost to the point of having the capability to detect atmospheric signatures within a couple of hundred light years. So we can say without certainly, if another planet has biosignatures that show life, If it has technology signatures that show that it's reached the industrial age because the contaminants are going to show up in the atmosphere, we can see when they get electricity deployed on a large scale.

18:15 Speaker 2: You can apprise what's going on at a considerable distance in terms of light years. So our best guess is that these UFOs, not to say nobody's been here before, but these showed up right in the middle of World War II. while combat was going on, while we were still developing atomics before we had dropped a bomb, they actually show up at the material centers before we ever even tested an atomic weapon. So what it appears is they showed up, they had a good clue on the fact that we, you know, we had reached a certain level of, you know, technological progress.

18:54 Speaker 2: They showed up, they found us in the middle of a world war and just,

19:00 Speaker 2: About the same time we got here, we set off an atomic explosion. So you can imagine that you'd be really curious, like, okay, what is this civilization going to do with atomics? Clearly, they understand quantum theory. They can do atomics. What are they going to do with it? Are they going to take it in a peaceful direction? Are they going to build more bombs? Are they going to use more bombs? And, of course, over the next couple of decades, they found us building 40,000 atomic weapons. You know, which obviously would raise some questions.

19:32 Speaker 1: Yeah, it's like it's so much it's so overkill that it's not even funny. Right. Like it's not it's I watched one of those charts. It was like, you know, like it's like a YouTube video where, you know, it will show you a linear timeline and how many nukes were killed. it's scary. At one point during the Cold War, I mean, there's enough nuclear weaponry to destroy the earth like 20 times over.

20:04 Speaker 2: Each side had 20,000 nuclear weapons. What am I, strategic nuclear weapons now? And I remember back being kind of a military historian when Eisenhower first asked the people on the Manhattan Project, you know, it's like, well, how many bombs can we build? And he asked the Joint Chiefs, how many can we need to destroy Russia? Because he did ask that. It's like, well, how many of these will we really need to, you know, destroy Russia? And the response was, well, we probably should have a dozen. OK, and that's, you know, that's in 19.

20:38 Speaker 2: 50, 51, and then eight years later, we've got 8,000. They're like, how.

20:48 Speaker 1: About a quintillion dozen of them? Of course, just making a number up for fun, but it's like, yeah, and that's military. That's the military for you. It never ceases to amaze me just how.

21:09 Speaker 1: I don't know. Knowing that we had the power, and we still do, at any moment, we could end civilization as we know it here on Earth, which we don't even know what the ramifications would be throughout the universe and throughout the multiverse and through space-time. what happens if you, you know, nuke yourself as a civilization? You know, we don't, we just kind of like gauge it as, oh, well, we destroy ourselves, but who knows if we're doing damage, you know, in a parallel universe more so than we are here when we test one of these weapons, let alone set it off.

22:03 Speaker 2: Well, the other fact is, over the last 10 years or so, we have come to know a lot about near-Earth space, out to 100 light years, maybe 200 light years. And one of the things that's emerged is we've got a really choice piece of real estate here. There aren't that many biospheres that are habitable within that space. There are some, but there are just all sorts of issues that we didn't even realize before. The amount of radiation from your star, how stable your star is. And we're actually in kind of a stable area within a particular rift of our galaxy you you would there there's less going on there's less uh supernovas there there's just less activity so we actually did a second book which will be coming out in february which is ufo origins which takes our extensions and intention study and says all right what we know of their behavior with what we know of their behavior what could we at least evaluate as far as their particular origins?

23:07 Speaker 2: Across scenarios, you know, is it just space? Is it interplanetary, interstellar, intergalactic, space-time warps, dimensional, you know, all of those options. But your question is really good because the biosphere that we take so much for granted, maybe you can understand why somebody would want to, well, no, we just can't let them destroy it.

23:31 Speaker 1: Yeah. Like, you know, I think a lot of people are like, you know, they they jump to the conclusion that, you know, there's this prime directive for the NHI. And, you know, they they're so concerned with humanity. And it's like, well, you know, as much as I think that that, you know, they definitely have an interest. I think they're more. They're more protective of the actual earth itself because it is clearly, it's very, very clear from anyone who does any astronomy that what we are living on is not common.

24:18 Speaker 1: In fact, you could argue that we live on paradise, that paradise has been bestowed to us, but yet we're so busy and we're so focused on fighting each other over skin color and, you know, insert thing here that we're not realizing that, you know, we're lucky. We're very, very lucky to live on a planet that is so diverse in its landscapes and its peaks and valleys and, you know, all of it. And I think people really need to remember why we fight, you know, why, why we, why we want disclosure, right?

25:02 Speaker 1: It's because when you stand at the top of the mountain and you look up, right? Disclosure is like what it means to you to not be alone in the cosmos. It's not about, you know, how, of course, you get there eventually. How did they get here? Who are they? But knowing we're not alone, you know, that is something that that you have to tackle in here. And, you know, when you're alone at the top of the mountain staring up, you know, that's a profound feeling to know that someone actually is watching back.

25:41 Speaker 1: And it changes the dynamic.

25:43 Speaker 2: All of the astronauts describe that.

25:46 Speaker 1: Yeah.

25:46 Speaker 2: All of the astronauts describe that. And we've kind of anticipated that. I have a science fiction book on the shelf up here that talks about before the first Russian went into orbit, but the first cosmonaut going into orbit, looking back on earth and realizing getting back on earth. And immediately they start talking to him about space weaponry and the high ground and everything. And in his mind, he's going, no, I think I realize who the real enemy is. You know, it's the commissar. It's not, but the oceans, the oceans are another big factor.

26:21 Speaker 2: It's, we may have something almost unique in the quantity of oceans that we've got, the extent to which they moderate the weather system. Right. We just now understand that, appreciating the full context of the Gulf Stream or El Nino. We've just been taking a lot for granted.

26:42 Speaker 1: I agree. I couldn't agree more, actually. Before we get into some of the heavy stuff, you know, just to kind of like, you know, continue the breaking the ice, uh, you know, uh, certain Congress members of, you know, even friends of mine, uh, you know, I, I, I'm friendly with some of the members like Tim Burchett, uh, Tim Burchett, um, uh, Eric Burleson and the likes of those guys. Um, you know, they've made reference to, uh, uh, some of these crafts potentially originating in our oceans. Um, Have you guys looked at that possibility?

27:23 Speaker 1: Yeah.

27:24 Speaker 2: Actually, one of the things we did, we did two things I think are really important. We studied intentions. We looked at six different scenarios of intentions, starting out from surveys, going through assistance, going through exploitation. We came up with like 37 different indicators that you could apply to these. Anyway, we looked at scenarios, but the other thing we did was look at something we call presence. In other words, we have enough data to show we can estimate how many reports occurred at a given time, given place.

27:59 Speaker 2: We can actually come back and look at their operational cadence and make an estimate of presence. And our assessment is their presence is limited. They're not here in great numbers. They have limited resources. They appear to be somewhat risk adverse, even with their technology. And because of that, we posit in the book that they would have local basing. Their presence and everything we can see about their command and control structure, their response times to mission changes, is that they would have bases and that they would most likely be underwater.

28:39 Speaker 2: So yes, I would I would not be at all surprised by an underwater base, much more so than something on land or in the Antarctic or something like that. I think it's underwater. And probably only two or three. Again, not a huge presence.

28:53 Speaker 1: Right. And I think that is, you know, I'm kind of, I'm on the same lines as you on that, you know, in hindsight. I think that there would have to be some sort of, uh, you know, even if you, you know, even if the right word, you know, we're using base because that's, you know, that's in our lexicon, who knows what, you know, it is to them, but a place where, where, where, you know, they, they can habitate while visiting the planet, and do whatever they're doing. So I really want to know, because obviously, you know, you're a veteran.

29:43 Speaker 1: Thank you for your service. You know, really, really appreciate anyone and everyone that does time in the military. What got you, you know, what got you into the topic of Was it was it a sighting? Was it, you know, just the amount of stories? What what what pulled that lever for you?

30:07 Speaker 2: What really did it for me is going back all the way to 1964. There was a lot of activity in 1964 in the midnights. You couldn't. It was in newspaper headlines. It was in Life magazine. It was in the standard media much more so than it is today or certainly over the last few decades. So you couldn't avoid it. And here in Oklahoma, we did have a wave of sightings that summer. And, you know, I can recall listening. I'm a teenager, right? I'm listening to AM radio. So suddenly all the news announcers break in and they're giving live coverage of, you know, a formation of four UFOs sighted over this town and highway patrol are rushing to this town and somebody else reports this.

30:51 Speaker 2: So I go outside and I'm going, all right. And overhead, I see this big, orange, bright orange cigar-shaped thing go over at high speed. And I'm going, whoa, I just saw a UFO. Well, I realized in a couple of seconds it was not a UFO. It's a jet fighter with its afterburner on. And what I'm seeing and hearing is a jet going in the direction of the UFO reports. Now, the next day, the Air Force says, no, it was actually, no, the aircraft were We're scrambled. We really didn't track anything. And I'm going, yes, you did.

31:29 Speaker 2: I saw them. But then their explanation was that people were fooled by seeing Orion and the constellation Orion. And that's what they thought was a formation of UFOs. And even at that time, I was enough into amateur astronomy to go, that's a winter constellation. It's not overhead in August. You guys really, you're really messed up. And that explanation didn't last long. But at that point in time, I really began to question what was going on. I did join a couple of the early organizations, the Aerial Phenomena Research Organization, National Investigations Committee, did a couple of field investigations of my own.

32:12 Speaker 2: But then, you know, life got in the way. And for the next several decades, it was, you know, it's life, it's a career. When I retired and came back into it, I began doing a lot of work in national security areas and actually researched and wrote a book called Surprise Attack. And the whole core of the book is evaluating threat and warning, the intelligence practices for threat and warning, who does it, how do they do it, how effective is. And one of the things I looked, I started out with Pearl Harbor, and went all the way to Benghazi through all the other national security incidents on the way.

32:53 Speaker 2: And I found out the practices were quite structured and quite effective. We had had warning of virtually everything that had happened to us for decades. And the warning community was very good at it. But when they reported it into the political system, it got screwed up. And in most cases, where we got surprised, it wasn't that we were really surprised or that everyone was surprised. It was just that the folks at the top of the pyramid had chosen not to act for various reasons. And so that surprise attack book is what really got me into thinking, you know, maybe we should be applying these practices to the question of UFOs.

33:35 Speaker 2: And that was my entree into combining my UFO interest with threat and warning analysis.

33:43 Speaker 1: Okay. Well, what a journey. Right. Well, that kind of, you answered kind of the first question I had here, but when people tune into the news today, they're kind of hit with constant streams of viral clips, whistleblower hearings, isolated, you know, like I said, isolated single-story cases, but your work takes a completely different path by looking at a

34:18 Speaker 1: curated 30-year vault of vetted reports through strategic intelligence. If we step back from the daily chaos, what does the big picture actually look like?

34:31 Speaker 2: The big picture, and here's the thing that always puzzles me, Although I would love more disclosure, I would love more reports. We have thousands of reports. Actually, we have hundreds of thousands of reports. We have more data than we need. The big challenge is curating it down to a solid core of reports that we can use because more data, if it's not good data, doesn't help you any. So what we really saw is we saw two main things come out of our study. And this is a behavioral study. We're not worried really about propulsion or technology.

35:06 Speaker 2: This is an activity behavior pattern study. What we saw is when the UFOs showed up during World War II, and for the next probably decade or more, they were highly focused on our atomic warfare complex. And the interesting thing about that is that they weren't focused in all of it, and it shifted over time. First, there were clusters around where we were developing the radioactive materials. Then those clusters moved to where we were assembling the bombs. Then when we deployed the bombs regionally, the clusters moved out to those sites.

35:43 Speaker 2: They're called Q sites. And then eventually when we put them at all the SAC bases and at the missile bases, they moved. And this all occurs over like a 15 year period of time. And once they move, they never recur. So the sightings that were at those first types of facilities don't reoccur. Well, that just screams out to you, intelligence, mission, agenda, focus. This is a behavior pattern. There's an intelligent actor going on here with a mission. However, in the mid-60s, we saw a takeoff of that pattern.

36:21 Speaker 2: What had been very high visibility, high profile stuff, daylight sightings, formation flights, aircraft encounters and engagements. began to shift much more to the nighttime. Yeah, there was still a core of military activity, but there were a lot more incidents and engagements with down at a low level, ground level, with individuals, with small groups, with cars. It moves from the typical UFO incident being a formation flight over Albuquerque, New Mexico, to a 12 o'clock encounter with a carload of people on a remote road in Indiana.

37:03 Speaker 1: Right.

37:04 Speaker 2: So there's a real change going on here over time. Why it's going on, there's a lot of speculation. We have some, but clearly, again, this appears to be an intelligent actor because they have a mission, the mission changes. And we describe that and characterize it as more of perhaps a behavioral study. It's a guess, but They may have simply been puzzled by the fact that we were failing to respond to them in what had been clearly intelligent behavior and had demonstrated their capability. Like if I can demonstrate that I'm really advanced and I'm really not hostile, why would you not want to talk with me?

37:48 Speaker 2: I have things to offer. Why are you not engaging with me? Which we never did. Even after they tried electronic signaling of various sorts, you know, I, I'm, I'm now beginning to think that they're just puzzled. They may be questioning we're intelligent or like, are we just a colony of ants that understand quantum theory and nothing else?

38:11 Speaker 1: Yeah. And like you said, you know, that's something I've pondered for, for a long time as well is the shift, like you said, from these, you know, kind of dramatic, um, you know, military sightings to a very, very personal, you know, individual case-by-case basis. Do you think that, I mean, this is obviously speculative, but do you think that they grew tired of waiting for the military to try to do the right thing and that they were like, okay, so maybe the next best way to do this is to show enough people that there's something else out there to, you know, because it's not something that's going to take hold right away.

39:06 Speaker 1: But through the process of, you know, children having children, you know, having families and yada yada. You know, I came from a family where my mom told me that UFOs existed, right? That we didn't have all the answers. You know, I saw a UFO. She didn't tell me I saw God. She didn't tell me I was mistaken. She said, you saw a UFO. um and she didn't put it in a box and you know it's it almost seems like that was you know the the backup plan like show show the people rather than um try to engage with who the queen be if you will.

39:47 Speaker 2: I i think of it as desensitization I mean, they they they may very well. It's like we have to show ourselves enough. We have to demonstrate we're not hostile, even when we could be. OK, you know, we'll demonstrate to you that we can take down a wing of your missiles. But, you know, we won't take them down forever. We'll let them go back. But so to desensitize the general public. But but I have to say, after all this time, if you were monitoring our channels and who knows if they're electromagnetics are even that important to them as far as communication.

40:25 Speaker 2: We don't know that. That if they watch the movie Close Encounters, as I mentioned before, they might be asking themselves, well, clearly this species knows how to communicate. Why aren't they actually doing it? They're only doing it in their movies. What's going on here? So I am puzzled by that. They've given us ample time. And I think to a large extent, we are desensitized. I don't think there is going to be any huge panic. If the Pentagon announced that there is a non-human intelligence involved here, I think it would largely be ho-hum.

41:05 Speaker 1: Now, if we... Yeah. Well, I think most people nowadays would go, finally, you admitted it. Right?

41:15 Speaker 2: Yeah.

41:16 Speaker 1: Like we've been waiting for you to catch up. And yeah, it's, it's kind of frustrating in that sense where it's like, it's, we're all just waiting for like some confirmation from the same machine that told us there was nothing there in the first place. And it blows my mind that, that that's the conundrum we seem to be stuck in. And you know, you know, whoever the others are, you know, it didn't occur to me that maybe it frustrates them as well.

41:55 Speaker 2: And I think it may well be. One of the reasons is we haven't changed our behavior at all. You know, so that's got to puzzle them, even though they can, they can watch our media, you know, and even if they don't, I'm not sure that they've had the capability, even with a survey group to, to break down our language. Communications is a tough thing. Bilateral communications is really a tough thing, even on our own biome with dolphins and elephants and other species that we now know to be intelligent at a certain level.

42:29 Speaker 2: It's tough.

42:31 Speaker 1: Right.

42:33 Speaker 2: But they themselves, their behavior, I think, has become more... it's almost irrespective of us. They're waiting for us to respond. They're, they're persistent. They're here. But if you go to the Tic Tac incident, the Tic Tac incident, they did not approach that carrier group. They did not engage that carrier group, not engage the aircraft. They're just kind of going about their routine business, which appears to involve something under the ocean. And we challenged them over air safety, right? Uh, So again, it's the same old story, except they're no longer interested in the carrier group.

43:15 Speaker 2: They're just doing whatever we're doing. We respond to them. We attempt to engage them with interceptors, and we go through this same old song and dance. They just demonstrate to us once again that we have no capability to actually engage with them and do them any damage. But it I'm seeing more and more, and even the fragmentary videos that are released and that sort of thing, as if they appear to be doing something independent of us. Where in the beginning, for the first decades, it really was focused on us.

43:48 Speaker 2: And I'm not sure it is anymore.

43:51 Speaker 1: Yeah, that's an interesting point.

43:58 Speaker 2: But you don't see that sort of thing unless you have the pattern. Again, that's why I'm frustrated. by the statements that are coming out with people that should know that you have to do this kind of analysis to see the real picture. You can't keep getting stuck on who said what about which, who saw an alien. That does you no good. I can show you the fact that the Air Force, back in 1950 to 1952, 1947 to 1952, examined multiple bits and pieces of what were purported to be ufo crash materials they're just bits and pieces okay they had them they examined them it didn't really tell them anything you know uh but but the fact that that's an old story the old story of bits and pieces has been around for a long time so the fact that somebody saw something oh that was a part of a flame The thing that also troubles me is I've done enough studies in national security to know that this whole thing of who tells you something, who shows you something, you've always got to question who it was and what the purpose of doing that was.

45:13 Speaker 2: Because very sincere people get really trapped by really good disinformation programs.

45:21 Speaker 1: Well, that's almost what I'm most concerned about right now. if I'm being honest with you, Larry, is the fact that we know and, you know, we know for a fact, you know, vis-a-vis guys like Richard Doty, right? You know, OSI, the CIA, you know, the NSA, even NASA to a degree. We know that they know lie to us, right? And we know that there's disinformation being inserted into the mainstream to confuse, to muddy the waters, and to discredit certain individuals, certain stories, or the whole topic itself.

46:25 Speaker 1: But all of a sudden, you got this rollout and the timing is, it's not a coincidence, I don't think. Ever since the New York Times article came out, it seems that whoever is in charge of, you know, the dam and how much gets through, they saw the tides turning with the internet, the connection people were having, you know, the, the, the, the, ability for information to transfer instantaneously around the globe. I think they saw the tides turning, and they decided that, listen, we need to get ahead of this.

47:08 Speaker 1: So I'm not so sure, and I'm sorry, I'm not so sure, guys, and I'm not saying David Grush is a plant. I'm not saying Elizondo is a plant. Actually, maybe Elizondo is a plant. I don't think David Grush is a plant specifically, but all these DOD-approved whistleblowers. It boggles my mind that people can't look at that and go, something's not right. For years, they said there's nothing. And now they're telling us the same stuff that Dr. Greer was ostracized for many years about. And I'm not saying Greer was right, but Grush just went on Rogan and said that greys are fighting reptilians and, you know, It's just, it's like.

47:57 Speaker 2: And the problem is we know where that came from. We know that the reptilians came out of Dulce base.

48:06 Speaker 1: Dulce and Paul Benowitz.

48:08 Speaker 2: And it was all a duty inspired and a DNI. It's kind of like the DNI people created the reptilians and they created the underbound races. It's kind of like, this is DI, DNI and DNI are now the ones that should have been doing the intention studies. But the only thing we know that they actually did was disinformation. So, you know, there's a real problem. If your day job is to do counterintelligence and disinformation and try to use the UFO topic to find out who knows about things that they shouldn't or who will spread rumors that they shouldn't or who is a security risk, unfortunately, my position is, That compromises the whole whistleblower thing unless you pursue it.

48:58 Speaker 2: Now, here's my example. I was involved with people who were involved with the FBI and investigating the MJ-12 stuff. And it was determined the FBI essentially concluded that they couldn't charge with anybody because the point is lying about something, you can create whatever you want. They weren't real classified documents. So no real crime had been committed. Right. And there's a real story to be learned about that. If what we were talking about on those shows was actually real, you know, people had compromised real national security documents, real serious technology programs.

49:44 Speaker 2: I have to tell you, even though I might not like it, people should be locked up. I mean, the way this works is the FBI should not, not some house oversight committee, but the FBI, the justice department, it should not be an IG issue. It should be an FBI and a, uh, ONI or Air Force. There are real serious consequences of this that seem to be escaping everybody. You just don't go on TV and say, I saw an alien body without being called in and seriously investigated by who showed it to you when. And we're not brooking any of this, even though I love whistleblower protections and what we've got isn't good enough.

50:32 Speaker 2: You know, that's not the way the system would normally handle it. So when the system doesn't handle it, it makes me curious that there's something wrong here. If the system doesn't work with the draconian procedures that it's got built in, wait a minute, I'd prefer to let these guys go talk about it. Uh-oh, maybe that's a problem.

50:54 Speaker 1: Exactly. And, you know, again, it really does, it starts to make me wonder if I've been chasing a lie, a disinformation, or disinformation, you know, this whole time. And it really starts to mess with your head when, you know, you look over to what's supposed to be the biggest podcast, right? Joe Rogan, you And then, you know, David Grush is arguably, you know, his credentials are impeccable. But, you know, he can tell these stories, but anytime the proof is asked for, it's, well, I can't talk about that.

51:53 Speaker 1: Well, I can't talk about that. Well, it's like, well, then, well, why can you talk about this, but not that? who's making the judgment call here, right? Because if it's anyone but DOD, then... Right.

52:11 Speaker 2: And if that were true, clearly multiple people violated their security oaths. Having been a minor liver in the military, that's serious stuff. You don't... I had top secret. You don't do that. And if you then go on TV and say, oh, by the way, You know, I'm talking freely about what was classified and still hasn't been released. They jerked me into an office. And it's let's talk because you just you signed some paperwork here. Let's let's talk about that. That that's not happening, which is which is why, again, our our team feels much safer with looking at data.

52:52 Speaker 1: Yes.

52:52 Speaker 2: And getting away from the people, getting to get away from the antidotes. Because we think the data. actually speaks for itself and has for decades. We're now trying to, our initial study goes from 45 to 75. We're working on extending it to current times. That's really tough because the military is holding all its information back. Once the Air Force stopped collecting it, I will tell you one of the most egregious things going on now is that neither AARO or the PURSUE releases are covering the period in the continental United States from 1976 to 2014, or actually 2020.

53:37 Speaker 2: It's just a total hole about what might have been reported at military installations. AARO was chartered with going back and looking at that history. In the book, we even say where you have to look. You have to look at op rep reports, sit rep reports, national military command center. They've done none of that. If they've done it, they haven't made it public. If there was something in there that might worry me, okay, fine. But they haven't even done that. So I don't have that data. It's making life hard.

54:06 Speaker 2: So that's a protest on my part. But the data speaks for itself for the decades that we have available. And the good news is we've curated it to the point where most of the incidents we're dealing with are from professionals, pilots, military, law enforcement, Most of it's corroborated with radar tracking or instrumentation. It's the sort of thing there is no argument about. When I look at Malmstrom Air Force Base, and I have several security teams, and I have a B-52 tracing this thing, and I have the radar screen photos of that, there is no debate.

54:49 Speaker 2: And the other thing that irritates me is the data that we've got from the Air Force for that 30-year period, is far better than the data that we're getting from ARO and Pursue Now. They're holding back all the technical data we would really want to see, the metadata, the instrumentation data.

55:09 Speaker 1: Because that proves something.

55:11 Speaker 2: Yeah.

55:12 Speaker 1: Right?

55:14 Speaker 2: We still have the original, I mean, so they're not helping me on contemporary affairs, but the story from the first 30 years is very clear.

55:24 Speaker 1: I want to talk to you about Malmstrom now that you brought it up. Um, I worked very, very closely with Robert Salas. Um, I was able to bring him into multiple, uh, members of Congress's office, um, and allow him to brief sitting members of Congress. Um, and he had been waiting 50 years to do so. Um, I did it with a couple of phone calls, um, and it blew my mind that it hadn't been done already. And, uh, even guys like Dave Schindley, who was at Minot in 66, six months before the 67 Malmstrom incident.

56:07 Speaker 1: And then I worked with a guy named Mario Woods, who was at Ellsworth Air Force Base in, I believe, 79, I believe it was. And the consistent thing that I see through all of these nuclear sites, and obviously Robert Hastings has a great book, UFOs and Nukes, where it's a very dry book of data in cases, but a lot of the same things are being seen at these bases, reddish, orange, orbs of light that are breaching the perimeter, they range in size, but they're able to move at tremendous speeds. They're able to interfere with our nuclear weapons, whether it's shutting them off, turning them on in some cases, like in the Soviet Union or the former Soviet Union, modern day Ukraine, which is a case that came out through George Knapp.

57:12 Speaker 1: When he brought records back from the Soviet Union after it fell, But there is clearly something unequivocally happening at our military sites. And these are the people that we entrust with our nation's most complex, most catastrophic, world-ending weaponry. And when they say, hey, something's going on, I tend to want to listen or at least owe it to them to listen. So what do you know about Malmstrom?

57:56 Speaker 2: Well, for all of those cases, I think what disappoints me about all of them is it's kind of like the pilot cases. The security teams at the missile bases are handpicked. They either work for SAC or they work for STRATCOM. You know, these are highly trained, highly qualified people. They're there in case, you know, the Soviets preempted us and dropped Spaznets troops in. If you can't trust them, there's something wrong. The same goes for the interceptor pilots. If you can't take their word for it, they're defending the continental United States, you know, back in the 50s and 60s from Soviet bombers.

58:37 Speaker 2: If you can't trust them, the whole system comes apart. It just boggles my mind when it's sort of like I listen to. A security team, multiple witnesses who say they saw a UFO hover, not just above the silos, but above a atomic weapons bomb storage hut at the airbase. You know, I watched this thing there. We tried to respond to it. We kind of maneuvered around. It kept moving. And in the end, it just took off. You know, but they won't, that even, I guess to wrap up what you really ask is, I think the surprising thing is that all of that got reported to the National Military Command Center, to the NMCC at the Pentagon.

59:23 Speaker 2: It got reported to NORAD. It wasn't that this stuff was not reported. But when you look at the paper trail from the guys that did the fantastic FOIA work, there's never any result on the other end. Was that ever assigned? Did that ever get kicked up to the Intelligence Committee? Did they just, it's like, it stopped, so we'll just drop it? That's what troubles me is there's no sign in the records that any of the, even the most sensational cases got elevated to, They should have gone to the National Security Council or their advisory committee.

1:00:01 Speaker 2: But there's just no sign that they ever get elevated up to being a national level problem, which clearly when you have UFOs operating over the entire northern tier ICBM bases, it is a national intelligence problem.

1:00:16 Speaker 1: Yeah. Inherently, even at the baseline, like whether you want to say it's another, you know, nation state or whatever, bad actor that has some sort of technology that's able to fly with impunity through our most secure sites, that baseline, that there's something there, that's enough to warrant further investigation.

1:00:45 Speaker 2: Well, and you remember what their answer was. Ultimately, they attributed it to helicopters, mystery helicopters. And I'm going, oh my God, if mystery helicopters can penetrate the ICM base and hover over the bomb dumps, the Russians really don't have to do much. Come in, hire half a dozen helicopters, and we're done. It's insane that you would even write the reports off by saying, well, they're mystery helicopters, but we couldn't find out where they came from. Who would read that report and not laugh at it?

1:01:22 Speaker 2: It almost makes me want to go, Who was the top guy in the chain of command for this? And why did he not call somebody on the carpet? You know, your whole security system obviously sucks. Yeah. It's just not working.

1:01:38 Speaker 1: Clearly not working.

1:01:40 Speaker 2: Yeah.

1:01:41 Speaker 1: And, you know, I've talked to many of these guys, many of these nuclear witnesses. And the one thing that they tell me is that, if they could describe these bases in one word, it is safe, safety, like safety priority, um, regimented, right. Um, like they, they train, they train, they train, they train, and they train.

1:02:16 Speaker 2: Um, And their profile, their site profile screened under SAC, and I'm sure it's under Stratcom too. Yeah. You know, if you make the wrong statement or say the wrong thing in a bar or whatever. You're out. You're out. You're out. And which makes me think again, okay, my security teams all reported this. They all said they saw UFOs, but they're still there. So in essence, somebody accepted the fact that they actually saw what they said they saw. And we can leave them in place. We're not going to rotate all of them.

1:02:52 Speaker 2: We're just not going to deal with it. But you're right. The watchword for SAC and for STRATCOM is it's awesome how demanding they were.

1:03:04 Speaker 1: But then in the same breath, they put that report out and it's like, wait, what?

1:03:12 Speaker 2: This doesn't... I know it wasn't a helicopter. I was right under it. It was not a helicopter. Why won't you believe me? When you leave the report, you almost get to that point. It's like, why will you not believe me that it wasn't a helicopter?

1:03:26 Speaker 1: And well, part of me, part of me says that they do believe.

1:03:31 Speaker 2: Yeah.

1:03:32 Speaker 1: That they know. But right. You know, of course, that's where we get into territory where it's a little bit dicey. What I, you know, I got to ask and, I know we have limited time tonight, but I don't know how we're already an hour in, but I could talk to you for days. This has already been amazing. What

1:04:01 Speaker 1: do you make about abductions? What do you make about... I know you center your stuff on.

1:04:08 Speaker 2: That's an interesting second question. I'd like to talk about it. I've actually... It's not that I'm not interested in them, but I think there's a taxonomy of the UFO experience.

1:04:22 Speaker 1: Yeah.

1:04:22 Speaker 2: And there's a taxonomy on one end that relates to physical objects that reflect radar waves. In the middle, these are same physical objects and people are, they see them and then they describe being abducted and the experience they have like Pascagoula or- Betty and Barney Hill, we can talk about. But then there's the others where there's no UFO involved. Aliens are reported. Greys are reported. There's no UFO involved. It's in a bedroom. You know, we love to talk about that. It's just such a broad subject.

1:04:59 Speaker 2: I have to. It's like, OK, I have to be up front about which part I'm talking about in what space.

1:05:07 Speaker 1: Right. You almost have to give a disclaimer like this is all speculation at this point. Right.

1:05:12 Speaker 2: Although it could be tackled. The interesting thing is you could use the same techniques. And I'm talking to a couple of trauma psychologists and the issue of trying to find markers that are associated with abductions. Missing time may be a very strong marker. Another very strong marker is that it appears the people that may have truly been abducted are troubled by this experience and they want to recover it. And most people who are truly traumatized, don't want to recover it. That's the last thing that they want to do is give it.

1:05:47 Speaker 2: These people, unfortunately, I am going to have to drop off to go to another show. But yeah, I would love to talk about either that or there are a lot of things about intentions and origins that we have dealt with in the books that we could talk about separately.

1:06:05 Speaker 1: Can I ask you one last thing? Sure. So to wrap things up, you know, I'm glad, I'm glad we were able to do this segment. You have an open door, my friend, um, you know, to this, cause I have plenty more that we didn't even get to touch on. How, how has staring into this data for years changed that your own view of our future? Um, you know, has it changed your own view of our future as humanity?

1:06:36 Speaker 2: Actually, I, I hate to say this, but it's probably made me a little bit more negative because it's kind of exposed to me that we can't really fully engage with reality. Things that are staring us in the face. In the book, we talk about something called institutional denial. And institutional denial is very dangerous. If you look at some of the things that are happening right now in terms of of the climate and the biosphere. If you look at our own technology, you know, it's kind of weird that in 1952, we were flying aircraft at a certain speed to intercept UFOs.

1:07:22 Speaker 2: Guess what? In 2014, our aircraft are largely the same. We have no new technologies. We have no new propulsion system. And what's the most dangerous weapon that we're stepping back to? Drones powered by rotors or maybe a jet, you know, like V1, V2. We've been there. I don't know if it's institutional denial at the academic level, the government level, but something seems to be holding us back. So I hate to say that, but and especially my age, it's kind of like, OK, until we can really be open about some of the things that we're facing, I'm afraid we're building walls around ourselves.

1:08:01 Speaker 2: And that's a bad thing.

1:08:03 Speaker 1: I agree. Where can people find the book, Larry? And where can people?

1:08:08 Speaker 2: The book is now available at shipping. It's on Amazon, but basically anywhere you would buy a book, eBay or, you know, so it's widely available now. Actually, what I can do is I can drop you a link to our team page where we discuss a lot of things about our intentions work. And that's probably the best place to see what we're doing because we're carrying this forward as best we can.

1:08:33 Speaker 1: Well, I'll put that in the link below for people on the replay. Larry, I know you got to get going. I got to get ready for Texas. So please, let's talk. Let's get back on the horn. And I really, I'd like to do, you know, maybe we could set a couple hours for like a really in-depth conversation.

1:08:57 Speaker 2: Would love to do that and say hello to Boston for me. I spent several years working on South Street.

1:09:04 Speaker 1: Ah, good old South Street. All right.

1:09:07 Speaker 2: We'll talk to you next time.

1:09:10 Speaker 1: Talk to you next time. Thank you, Larry.

1:09:12 Speaker 2: You bet. All right.

1:09:21 Speaker 1: So we're going to play. We're going to wrap up here in just a moment. But we are brought to you today by. This episode of Total Disclosure is brought to you by Good Feels Cannabis Seltzers. And I'll be honest, this is one of my favorite partners that we've ever had on the show. As I've given up alcohol, I'm very open about this on the show. And I think a lot more people choosing that same So, if you're looking for something that can truly replace alcohol in any setting, whether you're unwinding after a long day of research, hosting friends, or just want to stay clear-headed and in control, Good Feels delivers a completely different kind of experience.

1:10:05 Speaker 1: It starts with their 12-ounce stubby bottles of cannabis-infused seltzers. They're crisp, clean, zero sugar, and zero calories. And they're designed to give you a smooth, fast-acting, elevated feeling without the crack. without the hangover, and without the downsides of alcohol. And if you're more than an at-home mixologist, Goodfeels also has fast-acting beverage enhancers. You can add them to literally anything. Sparkling water, mocktails, whatever you like, and create your own customized experience.

1:10:36 Speaker 1: This isn't about checking out. It's about tuning in, staying present, and upgrading the way that you kick back and relax. And right now, listeners of Total Disclosure... Get 20% off their order. That's getgoodfeels.com for 20% off exclusive to this audience. Good Feels Cannabis Seltzers. Replace the alcohol. Keep the experience. Stay in control. Now back to the show. All right, guys. It was such a wonderful evening with Larry Hancock. You know, he's such a great guy who I was just introduced to.

1:11:12 Speaker 1: We're going to be the show. I mean, we are going to be headed out to Austin, Texas. Tomorrow, I'll be leaving for Austin and we're going to be covering what was known as Austin Quest and now being known as SideQuest. A very, very funny, ironic thing. But yeah, it's going to be super fun. So I will be probably live multiple times throughout the weekend. Um, and with various people, I know, uh, Kurt Metzger, uh, Duncan Trussell, like the mystery boys, um, you know, guys like Billy Carson who let's face it, you know, um, but others, uh, some amazing people like David Childress, uh, and, and so many more, you and all those people that we've been networking with in the past year.

1:12:19 Speaker 1: So it's going to be really fun to kind of, you know, not just be focusing on UFOs per se, but bridging the gap into, you know, a broader topic set. So can't wait to do that. I'll be one of the videographers for the conference and I will be capturing as much as I can and bringing it to you in some sort of story format once I get back. So it's going to be really fun. And yeah, and then I got a couple other surprises while I'm down in Austin. So thank you guys. Make sure to like, share, subscribe. As always, it is the easiest and the best way you can help the show stay, you know, finding new audience and staying relevant.

1:13:05 Speaker 1: So with that, if you're watching in the future on a podcast platform, same thing, rate and review the show. It's free. It takes 20 seconds. You have your hand on your phone as it is anyway. So help a brother out. You can go a step further, become a member. It is pay what you can. Everyone gets the same thing. Early access, ad-free, and bonus segments with in-studio guests. The next two in-studio guests, the first one is Bryce Abel, and that's in... coming up in November, and then a slew of people after that.

1:13:46 Speaker 1: So stay tuned. Lots coming. And stay humble. Stay kind. Most importantly, stay vigilant.