Robert Powell and Mick West on The Nimitz UFO Encounter
9:13PM Apr 24, 2021
To some, the Nimitz UFO encounter defies all scientific explanation. It has everything you would want for a UFO case to be credible. From powerful eyewitness testimony from those who were there,
I believe, as do the other folks that were on the flight that we won't be visually saw that it was something not from this world
to a video recorded by the US Navy of an object that simply cannot be explained. The abundance of that evidence proves to some who look at it that this may be an encounter with an object from another world.
But others say not so fast. They believe that the mysterious object chased by multiple F-18 fighter jet pilots is simply a misidentification of a known object.
And the video that has circulated around the globe fascinating many who have seen it. Well, skeptics believe that is easily explainable once you dissect what the video is actually showing. So which side is right? Are we finally looking at undeniable evidence that we are not alone? Or does that evidence that seemingly proves such an explosive revelation fall apart when subjected to scientific scrutiny? The two gentlemen joining me today, both think they have the answers to those questions. And after a vigorous scientific analysis, testing, and scrutiny by both sides, they are convinced they solve the majority of this puzzle. However, their conclusions are miles apart.
On one side, you have Mick West, a noted and self-described debunker of extraordinary claims, who has spent countless hours producing video presentations that offer scientific breakdowns and analyses on this very case.
Within these YouTube videos, he explains why he feels this case, and many like it are simple misidentifications and easily explainable, and none of them stand the test of science. And on the other side, you have Robert Powell, the executive board member of the scientific Coalition for UAP studies. His organization produced a 270 page scientific paper on the Nimitz UFO encounter. And within that report, the authors, all with various scientific backgrounds, analyze the video, the witness testimony, and the available radar notes and subjected the evidence to their own scientific scrutiny.
They concluded that the unknown object was traveling at extraordinary speeds, which were quote, "beyond the capability of any known aircraft in the public domain."
Now, both sides are about to come together, these two gentlemen have agreed to step into the vault to discuss with each other for the very first time, all of their findings. And along the way, they'll probably express why they feel that the other is wrong. Stay tuned, you're about to journey inside the black vault.
That's right, everybody. As always, thank you so much for tuning in and making this your podcast or your live stream of choice. And I'm excited about today's episode. It's the first for me to bring on a couple of guests at the same time. So from a technical end, I'll probably be more focused on not screwing this up, versus trying to start yapping above both of my guests. Now I know many of you have wanted to see these two gentlemen speak, both of which have been on my show in the past, but independently, I have Robert Powell to your right, and Mick West to the left. Now, Mick and Robert, thank you both for taking the time to not only join me, but be open to a conversation between both of yourselves.
Glad to be here
I just want to kind of jump right into it. The audience just saw the introduction. I've kind of done a little bit on your background and the case that we're talking about, obviously, the Nimitz case. And planning for this show I was always worried about Okay, who am I going to start first? Because will I upset the other one? And I never really figured out what the right answer on that was. But I did want to ask you both just a very quick yes or no question, which kind of will define the way that I asked these questions. Now, so the audience knows, we never planned any questions. I have my own list here of what I want to deal with. But both Robert nor Mick did not have any requirements for this. They did not say, don't talk about this, or you better talk about this or I'll hang up on you. They were just open to have a conversation. And that is a credit to both of them, that they just want to have a great conversation. One other housekeeping note for the audience itself. This isn't a formal debate, meaning we're not going to do stop watches and introductions and opening speeches, we're just going to have a conversation. So here's my first quick question, just yes or no which will structure structure where we go next. Both of you have done your independent scientific analyses on the Nimitz encounter, the footage and the witness testimony. Robert Mick has obviously produced quite a few different videos on the the encounter in the video analyzing it. Have you watched them?
I've seen some of them
seen some of them.
Okay. And MC. Obviously, Robert is involved in an organization where they produced a 270 page scientific report a lot of information in there. And that is the brunt I think of Robert angle. Have you read that?
I've read a lot of it. But I wouldn't say I've read every word of it.
So fair enough. Okay. So let's just go ahead and kind of jump right into it. And I, I thought the video analysis was a good place to start, we'll deal with a lot of different topics. But video first. Robert, I want to talk to, direct this to you to kind of set this up. And obviously, a lot of the controversy behind this video, and we've seen a trickle into television shows, how people perceive the video, that this thing is showing an object that this video showing an object that shoots off at great speeds towards the end, is that your stance from an analysis standpoint, that this thing thing is accelerating at the end of that video at a great rate of speed?
Yeah, let me just preface this, John, by saying in our report, and there's really three basic things we look at the video is the lesser of the three, we analyze three instances where there is extreme acceleration. One is the reports from the radar operators themselves. Two is the statements from the multiple pilots on how fast the object disappeared from view. And three is the video. So to your specific question, yes, we calculated based on the assumption that that object immediately accelerated to the left of the screen.
Now, Mick, I believe that you go against that, is that correct?
That is correct. Yeah. And I think I would go against kind of most of what was just said, I think that if you make the same assumptions that Robert and his team made, then Sure, yes, what we're seeing is something quite extraordinary. But these assumptions are kind of based on very flimsy evidence, the first few things he mentioned, which he said were the strongest things are actually just essentially, eyewitness testimony and recollections and some, in some cases, third hand recollections. But to the video point, I think there's a very strong case to be made, that the camera does, in fact, simply lose lock at the end. And the object is not actually zooming off to the side. It is, in fact, just essentially drifting off to the side, because it's just continuing along its path and the camera is no longer tracking it. So that's what I feel about the video and I, you probably see my video on YouTube, "No Sudden Moves." And it goes in great detail and almost a frame by frame basis as to where the camera loses lock at multiple points throughout that video and why the the object seems to move the way it does at the end.
Robert, he said that there were some assumptions made and your calculations and reporting. I assume myself that you may not agree with that. But were there holes that you guys had from a scientific standpoint, holes that you had to fill in and maybe assume, or do you just disagree with that altogether?
Now, let me The first thing I just want to mention real quick. Mick indicated that those were third hand recollections. Those were not third hand recollections of those were first hand recollections, firsthand recollections by both individuals who were operating the radar systems, firsthand recollections by the pilots, one of whom James Slaight, I interviewed personally. So there's no third hand recollections here.
In terms of the object drifting in the camera. What I would like to know is Mick's reasons the specific reasons of what he thinks is happening there. In other words, if he believes this as an aircraft, how far away is the aircraft? What direction is the aircraft flying? What type of aircraft is it? And then we can discuss whether or not this is is not actually an object moving across the screen? There's no reason not to believe that that's what's happening.
Right? Well, what? I can answer that, I think because what I believe is happening is that it's an FA-18 team. I don't remember the exact distance that it was determined to be, but we know the the slant the upward angle, we know that we're looking up, I think it's like between four and five degrees, it varies. And you can get a rough estimate of that. And it's moving kind of away from the plane and to the left. All of which is kind of consistent with the various changes in the angle, we see the angle at the top of the screen move from. I don't remember the exact numbers, but I think it's like three, three rights or five rights to eight left something like that. So it's moving about 10 degrees or so. Which means the plane is kind of moving away and to the left. And the speed is roughly consistent with the speed of an FA-18, like a few hundred knots.
And I think that what we are seeing in terms of the movements of the object are all explained by camera movement. Because the camera system that is being used the ATFLIR system is a system that has multiple cameras. It has an optical camera, and it has a infrared camera. It also has multiple light pathways, the way the light moves internally, through the camera internally, to create these different zoom levels, which is done more with mirrors than with with lenses in the infrared system at least. And we see Underwood, switching between these various things, we see a switch between wide and narrow fields of view, we see him switch between the TV mode and within the IR mode. And we also see camera movements that he didn't initiate at one point there is a gimbal roll where the entire field of view rotates, it's not actually the field of view rotating is actually the the camera moving and we see the object makes a little circle, and we see the whole light field in the sky rotate. And each time one of these things happen when he changes between the camera type or between the light path magnification, we see a loss of lock. We don't just see it immediately require, we see in some cases it have to widen the bar so it's actually we know that it has last lock, and we know that it's searching for that lock. And it does in all cases, except for the last one, which is pretty obviously we have to be the last one.
It reacquires that a lot. But in some places, it's pretty close, it's getting very close to the outside edge, and then it requires new centers and then it continues to track. But in every single one of those cases, not only is it losing lock, but when it loses like the direction that it moves in, is to to the to the to the left, which is consistent with the change in the angle of the camera, which means the direction, the camera is tracking the object. So that's all consistent with a camera losing lock, no longer tracking the object, the object continues a little bit to the left, it requires lock and then it continues tracking it. And then finally, in the last instance when it doesn't require it, which just ended because it's moved a bit too far because Chad Underwood has been to rapidly cycling through these various different zoom levels and camera types. It simply continues off to the side. There's also a change from 1X to 2X zoom, which which visually exaggerates it but that's really nothing to do with the loss of lock. The loss of light comes from the actual physical change within the camera itself between wide and narrow. So that's what I think is happening.
So in terms of losing block, the this camera is not losing lock constantly. It's not even losing lock multiple times. It only loses lock one time. And that's at the end of the video. What you're saying when the, when the bracket comes in and out. That is not losing lock during those timeframes. So that not correct.
Well, Robert, can you explain that to me? No, no, no, I want you to finish. But can you explain when it does, because because Mick was
It's doing it, it's it, the system is constantly keeping the target in the center. So it's, it's smoothing out, because there's a slight movement. So it's recentering. So it's just constantly adjusting. It's not losing lock, it has lock. Okay. I mean, if this thing was losing, why, what do you think happens in a war, when you've got another aircraft in that, you can't lose lock constantly?
The problem here is that you see it losing lock. You see the bars widen. And the bars widening means that it has lost luck. And it is trying to reacquire it by widening the search areas.
That does not mean it has lost lock
what does it mean?
Let me quote to you from a document. And so we've resolved this.
Okay, this is,
Is this from the SCU report, just so I I'm gonna link it in
No, this is not this is not from the SCU report.
This is a, I'll give you the quotation from the document on it. This is from a tutorial on electro optical infrared systems, from the Institute for Defense analysis. And, and so I'll just quote "after the target is acquired the tracking system walks on to it and maintains line of sight autonomously a feedback control loop, the track loop, continuously adjust the gimbal to keep the target in the center of the sensors field of view"
So it's not losing lock is it goes to say, "the sensor generates a new video stream, the process repeats", it keeps refining what it's looking at, it's not that it's loss lock.
Right. But that doesn't really comport with what we see though, what we see is the the object not remaining in the center of the screen, in fact, the object moves away from the center of the screen. And then we see the the bars widen, which is essentially the search area because it's looking for it, if it knew where it was, it would have kept it exactly in the center of the screen. But it does not
Mick, it's like any other piece of equipment, you constantly refine because you've got a moving target. So your equipment, you're not going to wait intil you lose lock you're constantly measuring, you've got it in the center of your screen, it drifts a little bit, you widen a little bit, bring it back into the center of the screen. That is not. And I just, Mick, I just gave you a quote from a document that I think answers the question. If you have a different document that you'd like to quote from?
No, that, the document is fine, but I agree with what the document says but the document, if you take what's in the document, then what we would expect to see would be the object staying exactly rock solid in the middle of the screen because it doesn't lose lock.
Let me ask you on this debate, and and and, Robert, I know we divert, we kind of diverted from your answer before. And I do want you to have the opportunity to finish that. But one last question I would have for both of you. And Robert, if you could quickly just answer this the fighter pilots that you both have interviewed. What are they saying about the lock on this video? Did you specifically say is that a losing lock scenario? Is that wrong to say it's losing lock? I mean, have you either one of you specifically asked the fighter jet pilots either involved in this incident or
I haven't actually managed to interview any of the pilots. So I will have to defer to Robert on that.
I interviewed James Slaight. We did not talk about that video because he was not the pilot that took it was taken by Underwood. And at the time I had no reason to ask James slate about
I got you. I mean I just be curious to hear you know somebody who's flying in the Jets. And that's not to take away from either of you either just just to say Hey, is this losing lock? Or is this a adjustment?
No, I think that's a... It's always good to get an opinion from the guys who actually do it.
Yeah. So so let me let let's have you finish the thought because I don't think we're going to find common ground on the losing lock here. We can go back to it after but Robert, I want you to be able to finish the rest of your thought before
so, so for, so now going back to Mick's belief that this is a jet. If you believe it's a jet then you need to do the calculations to establish it. This makes sense. Mick indicated he believes it's an F-18 right. An F-18 is 60 feet in size, we know the approximate distance to the object. You should be able to calculate the magnitude that makes sense. Okay, so for starters, if you watch the video you see a constant type of object, whether it's in TV mode, or an IR mode.
That's not true.
Well, let me finish what I'm saying. Please make sure I didn't interrupt you.
No, no. But if you start off with something that's wrong, and everything that follows
Well, we won't get anywhere. Because I could have interrupted you multiple times.
Okay, go ahead.
Right. Okay. So you've got a visual object that doesn't look that different, whether it's in the IR or in TV mode, in terms of size in differentiation, of what you see of the object. Okay, so Mick indicated this is an F-18.
For you to only see the lights they F-18's got to be moving away from you. But it's moving, but making the case so is that they tend to moving at an angle. Once you begin to move at an angle, and you're not looking dead and dead on on the engine, you're not going to obscure the entire plane, you'll begin to see the wings of the plane.
Now, Mick indicated this was an F-18 team, if you look at the angular size of that object, then an F-18 team would be 20 nautical miles away. This camera is capable of identifying aircraft up to 40, not up to beyond 40 nautical miles. So that puts it at half of the distance of this cameras capabilities. So that argues against this being an F 18. Furthermore, this is an a military operating area, they were about to have an exercise where you are going to have jets all over the place.
There is no way a Carrier Strike Group, which controls the airspace for hundreds of miles is going to allow another jet into their area that they don't know about. Now, this is one of their own F-18s things, then you have to assume that the pilot doesn't know what he's doing, because they immediately, his sensors immediately tells him that he's looking at an F-18. He doesn't have to guess about it. So to argue that this is an FA pain to me, is thatthe worst of all possible arguments, maybe they try to argue a jet I would have said it was a Chinese or Russian. But F-18, that the pilot would know. Because he would get a sense reading from his IFF system? No, no way.
So Mick let me let me bring you back in. Oh, are you is your standpoint? Are you? Have you concluded that this is an F 18? Or is that
Oh, no, no.
But that's your best guess.
Yeah, the problem with this video is that it's very, very fuzzy. And we talk about like the amazing capabilities of the FLIR system and how it should be able to resolve things, but it's clearly not resolving whatever is actually here. So it kind of doesn't really matter what it is, we still have the issue of it being a very out of focus image and a very blurry image, which, which kind of indicates that either we're looking at a a fuzzy object, which seems very unlikely or this, the camera is not properly in focus.
Now, the, I forgot what I was going to say with Robert's points, but the the shape of the object is not really consistent between the two things between the TV mode and the IR mode, you know, it looks like kind of like an oblong shape, you know, you could you could roughly say you could you could fit a Tic-Tac shape to it, like this, this iPhone case I'm holding up here, or you can fit any number of things to it because it's it's kind of odd shaped. At some points, it kind of looks a little bit like more like a peanut shape than than other things if you if you if you skim through the video, you kind of see it, it kind of seemed to rotate a little bit, which I think is because it's moving across the screen and to the left. And if you look at the difference between the the visible lights mode and the the IR mode, it's it's kind of got a bulge, one end in the TV mode, but the bulge is at the other end in the eye on bird which I think is consistent with where the engines would be on the right hand side. Because it's moving to the left, we see a glow from the engines. Now at the very start of the video which is very interesting. We see something very strange, something that looks nothing at all like the rest of the video and people don't talk about this very often, which is which I find odd. We see a star shape. We say something which is just a glare and infrared glare, which would indicate to me that at that point in the video we have a situation and what Robert was talking about where the plane is flying directly away. And you're kind of looking at this tailpipe, and you're just seeing this infrared glare. Now a bit later is moving further away, because we're switching between the two motors, we don't actually see this transition. And we just see that glare at the right hand side. And the glare is actually there, it's kind of difficult to see because this terrible resolution video, but I have no real reason to doubt that an F-18 would fit
Now that Robert raised the issue of: surely we would know it's an F 18. And yes, we would. But I talked to Kevin Day about this. And he said that not only were they they weren't getting ready for an exercise at that moment, they were actually in the middle of canceling the exercise. And they had a large number of planes in the air at that time. And the situation was rather chaotic. And these are his exact words. This is what he said, it was chaotic. They had planes in the air, he was canceling the exercise bringing everybody back in. So it kind of makes sense that for a few seconds, somebody might not know exactly where a particular plane was and where it was later because they were all turning around and going into different places from where they were originally going to. So I think what happens here is that Chad Underwood pointed his camera in a particular direction, happened to lock on to one of the other FA-18s that was in the air at that time, during this chaotic time, during the cancelling of the exercise. it locked on for it for a while he didn't recognize it immediately. Because he's perhaps because he's looking out for UFOs. Because Fravor has had this encounter before, which we'll talk about. And he cycled through all these camera things. And he essentially just lost lock of it, lock on it because he was cycling through the cameras too quickly. And then he lost sight of it didn't get sight of it again. And he probably would have seen it later because it was one of the other F-18 teams, but now he recognized it as an FAA team. And I think that's what's happened.
So Mick, so you're saying that? Because there was an exercise, an F-18 was kind of lost.
Let me finish. And so when Underwood mistakes this F-18, for starters, this was at 3pm. So this was after the exercise have already been canceled, many hours after the exercise being canceled. So there's there's not going to be F-18s of unknown origin just flying around within that area. But more importantly, it doesn't matter that it was chaotic. wars are chaotic. And don't you believe that our Navy jets are capable of identifying a friendly F-18 during a war? That's much more chaotic than yet?
No, not all the time, in fact sometimes
Let me finish it. Did I interrupt you?
I'm sorry, I thought you asked me a question.
Okay. So, so he's got an IFF system that identifies all friendly aircraft, right. So it doesn't matter how chaotic it is. He knows what he's looking at looking at. Right. So that's, that your argument to me, doesn't, isn't even close to
well, you say that during war time. You know, we can identify everything perfectly, which obviously isn't the case because friendly fire is a thing people will get people get killed. airliners have been shut down by by accident. Planes have shot each other, planes have dropped their bombs on friendly troops. Mistakes made, and mistakes are made. And surprisingly often and much more serious consequences come out and mistakes being made. So I find the idea that Underwood not being able to identify a plane for a few seconds not to be unreasonable. And your first point about the exercise being canceled hours before it's been directly contradicted. by Kevin Day when I interviewed him, he said they were right in the middle of the exercise. So are you saying that Kevin Day is misremembering?
Yes. Mick, or you are you did not understand what Kevin Day told you. The exercise was occurring in the late morning when Kevin requested to the captain of the ship, that F-18s teams be scramble because they were getting ready to do an exercise. They were in the process of beginning it. So he scrambled two F-18s, already in the air, to the point they got to that point when they then, and we won't go through all that happened, but then they fly back to the Nimitz, right. And then another pair of F-18s leaves the Nimitz, it's already been canceled, and it flies to the south. So there there was no exercise going on at that period of time.
Well unfortunately that directly contradicted by what Kevin Day says.
No, I was the first person to ever interview Kevin Fay. So I think if anyone knows what Kevin Day said, I would be me.
Well, yes, perhaps so but I know what he told me. So and this is, you know, this is something that we have a record of that he actually said this, that there was an exercise going on at that moment. So I think this is perhaps a broader issue
An exercise was about to go on.
He said, he was actually in the process of canceling the exercise at the time that Underwood was taking his video. That is what he's told me.
It was, it was canceled prior to that.
Okay, I'm perhaps it was, but now we have conflicting accounts. We have Kevin Day one and Kevin Day two. And so which one are we to believe?
And I think that this is actually a segue of where I wanted to go. So you both did this beautifully of witness testimony. Now, we don't have to get away from the video fully. But obviously, we have a conflict here, make heard one thing and and and, you know, we can after the show, you guys can pull it up, and I will be more than happy to post both of your either transcripts, or articles or references, or whatever you need. That's not a problem. So you guys, just email me those. And I will put them in the show notes for this episode. But what I wanted to get into was witness testimony. Mick you are talking about dissecting the video and the shape and we don't know this or that. But you didn't make reference to the witness testimony that goes along with it. So this question goes to both of you. Can we talk to the audience about the value of witness testimony that even though the video may not give you 100% definitive answer, when you couple in a witness, and they are adding in, hey, we couldn't identify this thing? Or, you know, with my experience, it wasn't their radar operators couldn't couldn't peg an ID on it? What value is there in that? Because in your explanations, it seems like those are being dismissed? We'll start with Mick and then Robert, I want you to answer.
Sure. Well, I think what we have here is a number of stories, that that vary in the telling, and have evolved over time and vary by individual. And I think you have to really look at the big picture here, you get a look at the entire thing. Look at all these different people giving various accounts of things. And if people give accounts, which are consistent and are independently consistent, then that is a, that can be a very valuable thing when you're doing an investigation. But when people give the individual accounts, especially if their recollections over a long time ago, and especially if those accounts don't actually line up with with one another, then that becomes less and less valuable as actual evidence. And we look at some of the things that we rely on for eyewitness accounts. The big one, obviously, is commander Fravor encounter, there was Commander Fravor. There's Jim Slaight, there's the female pilots who I will call "Source" because that was the name given to her in one of the reports. And there was another, another WSO.
Their accounts don't exactly match. In fact, there's quite significant differences between the two. If you look at things like what When did they originally see these, this this object that they saw over the water, you saw it in the little recreation that that was shown that there was a little Tic Tac over the water? Now, Commander Fravor says that he saw it hovering over this disturbance in the water. And it was making movements up down left and right, in an unusual way. But Source who is viewing it from a different different angle tells us that he can move very rapidly in a straight line across the disturbance in the water at 300, 200 to 300 knots. And so we've got two accounts, which are radically different. Now you might say they're kind of the same, in essence, but are they really though they're actually very different. And perhaps they're different because they're being viewed from different viewpoints. Or perhaps they're different because they are different recollections of the same thing.
And I think this idea of eyewitnesses matching up doesn't really hold out in this case, because there a large number of differences. Not only do the eyewitnesses not agree with each other, they don't agree with the written reports that were produced a long time at. The official Event Summary or the report describes the object as simply being lost in the haze, that kind of really means that they can visually track it all the way until they disappeared, you know, far off in the distance in the haze, which is radically different from the instantaneous disappearing, that Fravor has later come to describe. So I think these accounts have varied over time, they've actually changed over time. And they vary a lot between individual and they, they don't really match what we see. And we don't really have eyewitness accounts that actually match the video, because all we have the video is the guy who took the video was watching the video screen as he took it. So we don't have any corroborating eyewitness accounts for the movements of the object.
So a lot of contradiction. So obviously, in a scientific standpoint, that's going to be challenging. Robert, let me ask you, the first part of that, which was talked to me about the value of witnesses and your study. But then did you see contradictions between the witnesses? And how did you deal with that?
Yeah, that's an important part because you do lose information from witnesses over time, right. And once witnesses are exposed to the media, and exposed to other witnesses, their story start to, they pick up bits and pieces of other stories, right. So what you have to look for is the key information, not, not the minutia, and the details of it, you look at for this key information. So I'll give you a couple of good examples. First example. And in both of these, John, I think are important because in our report, we've been talking about the video and we have not talked about the specific accelerations based on the witness testimony. So the very first one is where Kevin Day, and I interviewed Kevin Day on January 2018. Now this is why it's important. For example, Mick probably interviewed him either this year or sometime in the middle of 2020, almost two and a half years after I interviewed Kevin day. Why is that important? Because I interviewed him before he was ever exposed to social media. I interviewed him before he and Gary Voorhis began talking with each other. Right? So when I interviewed Kevin Day, I asked him, How long did it take the object to move? He said, point seven, eight seconds. So a lot of you know, your audience has probably heard that.
That's over a huge distance that it moved in point seven, eight seconds, which is where we got our, our extreme acceleration numbers. And we'll use error bars. In other words, we said what if Kevin day was wrong? What if it was two seconds? What was five? So what are those six seconds? And he thought it was point seven, eight, right? The acceleration numbers are still extreme. So then I interviewed Gary Voorhis two, no, three months later, in April of 2018.
Before I ever asked him, How long did it take this object to move when you picked it up? I asked him Do you know, Kevin day? His response was it he did not know Kevin Day? And he said, but let me look in my album from the USS Prince. So I flipped through the USS Princeton looks for the name Kevin Day. And he says, Oh, yes, I do know Kevin Day. I remember him now. He was a very sharp, sharp, Senior Chief. Why did I do that? I was trying to establish that these two guys had not been talking about how long it took for this object to move in radar. So then I asked Gary, Boris, how long did it take this object to drop from 28,000 feet down to sea level? His response to me was, "how long did it take you to think of that question?" So in other words, he's indicating within a split second. Right. So I've got two independent corroborating witnesses. Now, do I? Am I going to throw that out? Because I think these two guys are idiots or something? No. I go to Kevin Day and I asked for his his report from his captain of the ship. He was rated is an "outstanding, excellent" on his report. And the captain of the ship said "he is my number one Senior Chief Officer, a recognized expert in air defense, his impact within the Nimitz Strike Group has been phenomenal." So you're talking about a Senior Chief here, who was responsible not just for the USS Princeton, but for the defense of the entire Strike Group.
All right, so there's one point with witnesses. Now let's move to the other critical point, when the pilots realized how quickly that object disappeared, right? And we calculated accelerations very simply, you know, at what point an object will disappear from my side based on whether you had 20-20, 20-40, 20-80, what have you the size of the object, and the distance it has to travel to disappear from sight. Okay. So now I've got two witnesses. I've got Fravor, who's engaging the object as it's coming up, he's going down. I've got Slaight, and the woman pilot who Mick mentioned who's up higher, and they're looking down at what's going on. So they're looking from two different angles.
In the case of Fravor, he indicates the object disappears from his site in one to maybe two seconds. Furthermore, he's very explicit in saying, if you go to an air show, and you see an aircraft go by at Mach two, how long it takes you to disappear. And he indicates seven to eight seconds, which is about right. So in his mind, it's clear to him how quickly this object disappeared. So when I interviewed Slaight, I asked him the same question, how long did it take that object to disappear from your sight? He said, I was watching the object and it was just like someone shot it out of a gun. It was gone. So I have got two different guys. And who are these guns? The commander, David Favor, of that entire Squadron. He's a US Naval Academy graduate, 3500 hours flight time, 16 years experience, a Navy Top Gun graduate, a Bachelors of Science in oceanography. The other guy, James Slaight is number two, he's the lieutenant commander of that Squadron. He's also a United States Naval Academy graduate, a BS in political science and a master's in military studies. 2700 hours of flight time, there is absolutely no reason for me not to believe that this object disappeared within a matter of just one to two seconds. But when we did the report, we even said, What if it disappeared? What if these guys weren't as good as we thought? What if their eyesight was 2040? What if the object was 60? feet? What if it was only 15 feet? And what if, when it disappeared? It took five seconds. Still, the G forces calculated are well beyond anything that we're able to currently manufacture today. So you can't just throw away witness testimony because I it's a witness. It's anecdotal, but that doesn't wash.
So So Mick, when I understand your argument, when witnesses just don't cooperate, but when they do, what do you do with that?
Well, I think you need to look at the what was actually said here, and how it corroborates with various other accounts that we have the event summary, which was written at the time, which says that, from both pilots perspective, the object was simply lost in the mist. And then if we take the the statements that Robert just gave the one pilot, or one, Slaight, I believe was was, was the the WSO in Fravor's plane, was that correct? Yeah.
He thought that it vanished instantly. Whereas reverse, it went away in one to two seconds. So we have somewhat of a different recollection there. But I think beyond that, we have to look to other possible explanations for this apparent high speed. And one that I've put out there is that it may have been a misjudging a distance, which caused them to think that it was moving a lot faster than it was because they thought it was twice as big as it was, and hence twice as far away. And so when they flew towards it, it flew past them. But from their perspective, well, it didn't actually fly past them, they flew past it. But from their perspective, it looked like it accelerated towards them. But before we get into that, I just want to kind of touch on something else Robert mentioned, which was this figure of 0.78 seconds and how amazing it was that everybody gave this exact same figure. And this was the time it took to descend from 28,000 feet to zero feet and corroborated by Kevin Day and, and Gary Voorhis. But I just want to read you something from the SRU report, which says this is page 16.
It says "the Senior Chief in charge of radar took notes whilst observing the radar in the CIC area and noted that his equipment indicated that the object moved from 80,000 feet to 20,000 feet in 0.78 seconds". And a second man, petty officer station, basically said the same thing that he went as as fast as thought. And then you go on on the report to do calculations based on this movement of 60,000 vertical feet in 0.78 seconds. But that's all entirely wrong, because the there was no measurement of the object moving from 80,000 feet to 20,000 feet in 0.78 seconds. What Gary Voorhis and Kevin de talked about, was moving from 28,000 feet to sea level and 0.78 seconds, that I really don't dispute that there was some radar return that seemed to indicate that. But here we have the SCU report referring to that same number for a completely different thing. And beyond that, the 0.78 seconds wasn't just something that came out in this interview with the SCU. From from Kevin Day, it's a number that Kevin Day wrote in his little short story, which he wrote years earlier, I can't remember exactly when but it was certainly earlier than the SCU interview, he wrote a short story, a fictional fantasy story retelling of the incident in which he plays a kind of a hero character who has psychic powers. And the whole incident is played out. And he mentions this 0.78 seconds as being the speed at which they dropped in, in this in this short story and is also been repeated in the Above Top Secret thread discussion, which again, predates all of this. So it's not as if it wasn't something that was discovered and then verified. It's just a number that's been out there for a long time. And here we see it being confused within the SCU report itself for a completely different movement.
Let's stick with that. Robert, that that part that MC is pointing out? Would you like to comment specifically on where that came from?
Yes, yes, absolutely. So let's go through several of these points that Mick brought up. The first one, he said and this is regarding the pilots make said the objects were lost in the mist. Is that right? Mick is that what you just said the objects were lost in the mist?
Yeah I can just yeah, I'll just verify that really quick. Because it's a very short thing, the event summary. Yes, it says lost contact in the haze, so it says "the first pilot" which would have been Fravor "lost visual ID of the capsule in haze, and the last visual contact of the capsule at 14k feet heading due east, and the pilot estimated the capsule achieved 600 to 700 knots". And the other pilots were just reported as "lost contact in Haze" as well. No real details, but
I'd like to see that document.
Oh you haven't seen it?
What document was that Mick,again?
You want me to put it on screen.
Sure. Well, I was just going to get sure. But for the audio version, what do you what are you looking at?
I'm looking at the the exec, no, the event summary the 2004 Navy event document?
Oh, this is the one that leaked? That Yes, I'm sorry, that leaked out, according to the story and was published by George Knapp is out the one you're referring to?
Yeah, I think so. It's the one is obvious. in all caps. It looks like semi-official. And I don't think it's been, I don't know, has it been verified or disputed?
It has not been verified. If it's the one that I'm thinking of it has not yet
why don't I share my screen real quick. So you can see
I'd like to see
what we were talking about? Look, you you disabled screen sharing. So I can't do that.
Sorry. I didn't know I did that.
It's probably a default. But yeah, it's a it's one of the multiple sources. There's the Executive Report. There's the Event Summary, there is the interviews with flavor. There's the interviews with source, there is the Fighter Sweep story. So you've got all these different, different sources. And they all seem to kind of vary. Let's see.
And we'll we'll link it and I'm sorry, Nick, I don't want to interrupt you much further with the software but I will link it in the show notes. For those of you listening on the podcast version and you want to see it, just go to the black vault, comm slash show notes, find this episode and you will get a link to those documents. And all of our visuals that we're talking about
right now, just to be specific is the is the CVW-11 Event Summary.
Okay. Okay, so, here's the problem I have with that, with that statement in terms of objects lost in the mist, Fravor has clearly said as did Lieutenant, Colonel, Marine Colonel who was out there at the same time, that the water was crystal clear that day, it was a beautiful California day, no mention of any type of mist. Furthermore, Slaight's plane is at 20,000 feet. And he's saying everything perfectly clear below him as he's watching the encounter between Fravor and this unknown. So I do not believe there was mist in the air. There may be, I don't know what this document is that Mick dug up somewhere, but all the other data indicates this was a clear cut day so that the objects were lost in the mist that I don't buy it
Haze, I said haze.
Haze even. I want to see I'd like to see that document. Then Mick indicates, okay, there's a different recollection flavor said it disappeared in one to two seconds. And Slaight indicates it was instantaneous. But there's hardly any difference in those, whether it disappears in one seconds or disappears like it's shot out of a gun. But that's not what's important is not whether was it really one second or was it really a fraction of a second? What's important is what are the calculations that an object would have to travel at? In order to disappear that fast? That's what's important. So let's not get confused about oh, well, this guy remembers one second, this guy remembers a 10th of a second. That's not the point. The point was it was an extreme speed. And both of those guys agree on that.
Then Mick indicates there's a misjudging a distance that had nothing to do with the calculations we did. Because we didn't, we didn't need to know the distance, what we looked at was how long did it take to disappear from your eyesight. So once we know an approximate distance, we know that they did, Slaight's planes 20,000 feet above the object, right? We know that Fravor has gone to meet it. So we know the distance is less than 20,000 feet in both cases. And Fravor's case, he indicated he came within half a mile. So it's very simple, a very simple calculation to determine how far does the object have to travel to disappear from my site? Okay, so then the Kevin Day story about point seven, eight seconds that Mick brought up.
When I first interviewed Kevin Day, he indicated that the objects were at 80,000 feet, and they dropped to 28,000 feet, and point seven, eight seconds. Now in later interviews, he has indicated it was a 28,000 feet and drop to near sea level and point seven, eight seconds. So there's clearly a discrepancy in what he's saying the distance that was when it dropped, right. But but this is the part about human memory that Mick referred to right, you start to forget who it was it didn't go from 80,000 to 28. Or was it 28 to zero? I think 80,000 to 28,000 is the most likely. And here and here's why. And this is what Kevin Day told me the first time, all right, when these objects are 80,000 feet, they're not a threat to the F-18s in the area, because F-18s can't fly to 80,000 feet, right. So they're not a threat. And they were just moving south at slow speed. Once they dropped to 28,000 feet, they're in an area, which is where this exercise is about to began. So now there's the threat. And this is why the F-18s were scrambled.
So whether Kevin was right in it was 80,000 to 28,000, or whether he was right and it was 28,000 to zero, it doesn't matter. Because when we did a report and when you looked at the calculations, we looked at variances and distance. The acceleration numbers are extreme Mick, it doesn't whether you if you drop from 28,000 to zero and point seven, eight seconds, or you drop 80,000 to 28,000 in .78 seconds. It's still an extremely acceleration. All you're doing saying oh instead of 12,000 G's it's only 4000 days so what? I mean if you believe that he dropped point seven, eight seconds that's the key. Not that distance. The key is did it drop in point seven, eight seconds. Now you argue Kevin day. Oh, he made the story. Well, he made the story based on his notes from the service that said this object dropping point seven eight. But Kevin day is not the only person saying this. Gary Voorhis, remember, and you drop that point. He indicated that this object drop as fast as I could think of the question to
Ask him. So I've got two different servicemen that indicate that this object drop it extreme rate of speed. So we can't say we know the exact acceleration, but we can bracket it, we can say maybe these guys are off, and it was two seconds, maybe the distance was an 80,000. It was 28,000. And we can bracket and still do our calculations. That's what we call error bars. And that's what we did in our report.
Show but you're basing this just on these accounts of these two people Gary Voorhis and Kevin Day, Kevin Day was the guy who was in charge. He was the guy who was actually running the radar room, he would be the guy who would know these things. Gary Voorhis was just, well not just, he was ah, he was the head network technician on the plane, he's not a radar specialist, even though he's familiar with the technology. And I think he's simply got the number from from Kevin from Kevin day. But let me ask you something. Where is this 80,000 feet number coming from? He?
I'll tell you in a minute. He did not get the number from Kevin day because remember, I told you when I interviewed him, I asked him if he knew Kevin day, he indicated No, because he went to his logbook to look the guy's name. So he did not get the number from Kevin Day. I talked to him in April 2018. Okay, so the answer he gave me was basically an answer that indicated a split second, we've got two different guys saying the same thing.
I think, okay, there, we can resolve that. We're going to ask Gary voorhis about that. And perhaps even before this thing,
I've got it. I've got it on redording
No, I mean ask him now
Well, like Like you said, and he'll probably still say the same thing. But is he indicated May, people's memories change. That's why it was critical that I interviewed him before he ever knew Kevin day before he got on social media before he started talking to others. So you had the
So his memory was fine at that point?
question, So you want to know where did the 80,feet come from
that's interesting, right? Yeah.
So the 80,000 feet came from that was the upper limit that the radar was set to that day, it could have been higher than 80,000. All they know is it was at a minimum of 80,000 when it dropped down.
So you're saying that Kevin Day saw them at 80,000 feet?
Yes, he definitely saw, remember the objects that are flying South at 100 miles per hour. they'd seen them for four to five days. Right? So let me back up, you've got a Carrier Strike Group that seeing objects 80,000 plus feet, this is going on for several days, sometimes they see three or four objects, sometimes one, sometimes four or five. They're moving south very slowly. They don't know what they are. They recalibrate all the radar equipment. And they are apparently there, right. But they don't do anything because they're not a threat anyway to the Strike Group. Then the strike group gets ready to have an air exercise on November 14. In the late morning.
At that time, the objects drop out of high altitude and drop it down to an altitude where they are now a safety hazard to these F-18s that are going to perform an exercise. At that moment in time, Kevin Day contacts the Captain of the ship, the USS Princeton. And remember, they're responsible for the entire Strike Group because they control radar systems. And he asked them "what should we do because I consider this a safety hazard". And he said, we've got some FAA teams in the air to have them.
Should we, you know, go check this thing out. The captain gave him authorization. He redirected Fravor's and Slaight's aircraft, to the radar, to the nearest radar contact because he had multiple radar contacts. And they went and interrogated that latitude, longitude, location, and that's when they found the Tic Tac.
Yeah, the problem with that, though, is that that's not what Kevin Day says now, he gives a very specific account, which has really nothing to do with him seeing objects at 80,000 feet. And he says that for precisely 10 days, he had seen objects at 28,000 feet moving south, he never was aware of this 80,000 feet figure during this event, it never up.
No, I think you've got that wrong. You
No, I've got I spoke to him, you know, just few months ago, and we discussed it in great depth. I actually pressed him on this point three or four times because I was kind of surprised. Not surprised, but I needed to clarify.
Yes. Yeah, I don't that's not that's not correct. Just think about it logically make you don't have objects at 28,000 feet flying over an air Carrier Strike Group and they're not doing anything about it.
But this is what Kevin Day says what happened.
What he told you a few days ago whether that's true or not whether you are remembering it incorrectly or whether he has
I have the transcript in front of me right here
Well, but he's at multiple other times said 80,000 feet. So perhaps he was confused on that day. That's not what's important here, because
Oh, I think it is what's important actually, because we're talking about the veracity of the eyewitness testimony
I interviewed him, January 2018. He specifically and I've got it the recording 80,000 plus feet. Not only that, Gary Voorhis said they were originally at 80,000 plus feet. Fravor has said that they were at 80,000 plus feet. When I interviewed James Slaight, he said that we're at 80,000 plus feet initially. So there are multiple people who've said it's an 80,000 plus feet. What happened to your interview with Kevin Day, three years after we first began investigating this, I don't know. I mean, I don't
So you think that over the course of three years, he could have forgotten it and completely changed his story.
I don't I don't know and I don't care. That, there's no doubt that
You don't care?
the objects were at 80,000 feet.
But the problem here is that the events happened in 2004. And you interviewed him in what, like, like four years ago, which was 10 years after the event. So if you think his his memory can completely change in three years, then surely it can completely even more change in 10 years,
you get your you're making an assumption, his memory changed. I don't
you're telling me, you're telling me he has different accounts
Mick, he maybe he misunderstood what you were asking him, I don't know,
Oh no, he understood exactly what I was asking
I'm just telling you
I can read you the transcript if you want. And
I'll be that, we will, we'll post about seven different times with different individuals where the objects are at 80,000 feet flying south.
And so let me and make I want to give you an opportunity. I'm running out of time because we allocated an hour, I'm happy to hang out for a little bit longer. And so guys, what's that?
Oh, I'm trying to go as long as you like,
Okay, so then make you we're gonna jump in because I do want to do one last thing before I lose you guys. So but if you're okay, with a couple more minutes, Mick, go ahead and finish that thought,
No, I can go a couple more hours if you want.
Kevin day very specifically told me that he learned about the 80,000 feet from the Ballistic Missile Defense space tracking. And he said that this was you know, essentially above his pay garade, pr, pay grade. It was classified information. He was not aware of it at the time. He learned about it two days after the incident from talking to other guys on the ship. So it's completely different to what you just said. Robert,
and what what I'm saying make is how many other quenelle spit he ever say that? Tell me one time any other interview, or Kevin day ever said that? Give me one interview?
Well, what do you think we should talk to Kevin Day now? Or do you think now he's being completely corrupted? His brain is mush and we won't get anything useful out of him?
No. I'm , yeah. Without going in and listening to the questions asked, there's all sorts of possibilities he misunderstood what you asked..
Let me give you some context he says and he says "again at this time at this point, I wasn't aware that the Ballistic Missile Defense guys had tracked these things from outer space I had no idea about that. It was above my clearance basically above my security clearance."
So what did that mean? They didn't, that meant nothing what you just told me
He said, let's see, "the reason I say they were weird is because our Ballistic Missile Defense guys were tracking these things coming down from outer space, I found out later. That wasn't the view I had on my radar. I was more concerned with 30,000 feet and below"
so he's he's not actually talking about these these things. He says like, I asked him later, because it came up several times. I asked him, "you said the Ballistic Missile Defense guys were tracking them coming from space. Was it something that you were aware of at the time?" And he says "I was not I was not there was not my focus and wasn't where my head was at that time". And then I asked him, "How did you find about this Ballistic Missile Defense?" And he says, "Well, the next couple of days talking to guys on the ships," and then he says like, he's gonna try to hook me up with those guys. So you can answer the questions because he doesn't have all the answers.
So he's he's, and he was very consistent the entire time. The 80,000 feet figure never came up. He always said it was 28,000 feet. Very, very consistent. I think this is a
Number that Gary voorhis gave as well, for the radar targets, you know what we're talking about, like for most of the incidents, the radar problem was that we were there, we're seeing these these groups of targets moving down the screen from, from, you know, around Catalina down to Guadalupe.
So and let me just jump in. In fairness, you were talking about the 80,000 feet number, you didn't specifically ask him about the, the the ceiling, right, he was talking about what he was more concerned at. And I can kind of see why he wouldn't go there. If he's just focusing on what he's concerned with Robert, correct me if I'm wrong with what I'm hearing here. But, Mick, you're saying he didn't bring it up or go? He's changing his story. But in fairness, with what you just read in the context of he's only concerned about the 28,000 foot ceiling and below, because that's the threat area is what I'm getting from Robert.
Am I kind of following that? Right? Like you didn't ask him about 80,000?
Yeah, that's, yeah, he's, I think that's great. That's fine. I'm just saying it all depends on the context in the way the conversation with make went between him and Kevin Day, because there are multiple conversations with Kevin Day, where he indicates the objects were originally at 80,000 plus feet prior to this day. Yeah, on November 10th, multiple days prior to November 14. The key thing that changes on November 14, is the objects drop down into the operating area of the FAA teams. And that's why I mean, this all makes logical sense. That's why they scramble the Jets. They're not going to scramble, there's, they're going to scramble jets, anytime something's in their operating area, and they're getting ready to do an exercise
where I wanted to be careful with the Kevin Day thing as he's obviously around, and I don't want to spend too much time trashing his memory and stuff like that. What I will do in the show notes Mick, I definitely please send me that interview. I will link it so my audience can see the interview in full. And then Robert, you as well, if you have anything you'd like to add to that, but I'll reach out to Kevin Day, because again, I want to be a little bit Cognizant here that we're speaking about somebody's memory and what he said or what he meant or what he did or what he didn't, transcripts are good. But I want to make sure that we at least reach out to him. Maybe we can get some clarification. So in the last couple of minutes, and thank you guys both for going over with me here. I wanted you both to have an opportunity to ask each other a question. I tried to stay out of this as much as I could, as you both hopefully can see, I didn't mean to step on either one of you. And I believe I stepped on you both at one time or another. So I apologize for that. But in order to to again, be as fair as possible with time and the topics. But I wanted to give you an opportunity here in the end to ask one question that maybe we haven't dealt with, or if you want to bring something up that you feel is is not dealt with to the other? Hopefully, you guys are okay with that little exercise.
I don't know who wants to start? If anybody cares to start, if not
I'll ask I'll ask Mick one. So I would like to know, why have I never heard of a case that you can't solve?
There's plenty of cases I can't solve. I mean, I haven't solved this case.
I'd like to know
The encounter of commander David Fravor with a tic tac shaped object, I don't have a solution for that I have a number of proposed hypotheses. And, but I certainly would not claim to have solved this case. And of course, there are multiple multiple cases where there's simply not enough information to to solve them. If you look at the the MUFON database, which has, I think about 120,000 cases in it, there's probably at least 30,000 cases in there that I am completely unable to solve because they are just a little white dots in the distance. So I'm always not able to solve cases.
Let me just ask you a quick follow up Mick on that. Are you open to this not being a conventional aircraft and the witnesses and everything show there's discrepancies?
I, my, my method, whenever I investigate things is to make a list of what I think are the various hypotheses and kind of rank them by what I think is the most likely thing. So I will put something like you know, it's a plane at the top, and I'll put something like it's an alien spaceship at the bottom. And then in the middle, I might put it is advanced technology development developed by the US or by the Russians. And perhaps somewhere around there there's like an optical illusion and then perhaps in there like the guy was lying, perhaps the in others the guy was mistaken. So you get all these different possibilities. And I never like to take anything at all off the table. So even though I will have my number one hypothesis. For example, link in Go-Fast my number one hypothesis is that it's a balloon. But my number two hypothesis is that it's a bird. And my number three hypothesis is it's a drone. My number four hypothesis is, I don't know what my number four would be. But it's like another plane. And number five is that it's CGI, and increasingly less likely as you go down, but I never like to take things off the table. So I'm certainly open to the possibility that these things exist. But I do like to try to rank my my ideas.
So you think it's aliens? Perfect. That's all I heard. All right, moving. And that's the show. Now Mick let me let me have you now. If If you want to ask Robert, a specific question, something maybe he has said or
Yeah, sure. Like with the the Fravor encounter, I'd like to ask Robert, have you considered the possibility of a parallax illusion being caused by Fravor thinking that the (that was my computer talking to me), thinking that the object was twice as big as it actually was, he thought it was 40 feet, but say it was actually 20 feet, and the object was perhaps not moving very fast at all, is that something you've actually considered in your analysis?
Well, we definitely considered the possibility that smaller, right, because if you don't know what an object is, you can't truly identify its exact size, right. But the closer an object is to a human, the more the parallax ability within our eyes, allows us to begin to estimate the size of an object, right? Something 10 feet away from you, you can look at it and you can know the size of it, put it two miles away, that's a totally different story. And so we did look at the possibility that the object was the smallest 15 feet, and the smaller the object, then the less the acceleration, because the less the speed.
So we did look at that. In terms of, could he have been flying around an object, though? It's just sitting there and he's flying around? We don't believe that's a very, a possibility at all, because you have slaight who's up here, right. And he's, he's watching the whole encounter. And what Fravor indicated was the object was coming up towards him as he was going down towards it. So you've got two different perspectives to examine it, so we didn't consider that a possibility at all.
That reminds me of something else I wanted to ask you. Slay. you interviewed him? Is that correct?
That is correct.
But, there's is there are recording or transcripts of that?
There is a recording of it?, yes. But Slaight is never given us permission to release the recording. So we, like, Kevin Day and Gary Voorhis, their recordings are released, because they've given us permission. Slaight is not
So but you, I mean you you've quoted from it. So occasionally, I mean, how does that work?
Well I can quote from it. That doesn't mean I can't quote from it.
Can you quote all of it?
Were they cleared quotes. Like, I think I get what he's asking. If you if you can't release the full interview, how can you release partial, so
he didn't have a problem with me talking about, you know, that it shot off at the speed at, coming out of gun?
That reminds me also he like he you said that he said that there was a heat haze around us kind of glowing haze.
Yes, he did.
But that wasn't reported by flavor. He was a lot closer.
Yeah, no breaker did not report that. I mean, there's always gonna be some difference in people's memory, right?
Hmm yeah, but Slaight is three miles away, and Fravor was one mile away. So it would seem like if there's such a distinctive thing, they would both see it.
I don't know, maybe it was the angle. That allowed him to see that heat haze better than forever. I have no idea.
Yeah, it's a shame that that interview cannot be released, but you refer to it, but there could be a bunch of stuff in there that doesn't exactly match with Fravor, like that. So from my perspective, I, it's unfortunate that we can't see it because it leaves you open to accusations of cherry picking because you just get to get the release the best bit of the of the interview.
Perhaps we could revisit it with Slaight and ask him if he can just release a text transcript
I've done that. I've done that. And Slaight's view is, he was so disenchanted.
Yeah. he had that one experience
and he no longer wants to talk to the media. Yeah,
I mean, just to back that up. I reached out to him a couple years ago trying to do an interview. Just out of curiosity. I wanted to talk to one of the pilots and he was not having it. So he's been that way, it's seems like for a while, to be
honest, the only reason we were successful in getting an interview with slight was because one of the SCU members is retired naval captain. And you know, military guys will talk to military guys. So he talked to Slaight first, after he kind of greases the skids and, you know, Slaight was wanting to talk to me. But after the Fox interview, he said he had too much grief for his family, to do any more interviews. So he said he's done with it. And I don't, I understand, I don't blame the guy.
Well, one thing is clear with this interview in that we are all, but but obviously directing this to both of you, very passionate about what we do what we believe and the conclusions that we draw. But one thing that I want to say to both of you is thank you not only for taking the time to do this, but also being open to listen to one another. You know, we all, again, get passionate with what we want to say and how we want to say it. But I have a lot of respect for both of you, I have no idea where I sit on this case, which is why I was very, very thrilled that you both agreed to do this. So with that, I just wanted to say thank you to you both. And I don't want to just cut it off here, but I was going to end it if there's anything else that you guys want to say I'm happy to give you an opportunity to do a closing remark or two or if you want to say thanks. I'll bring you guys back whenever you'd like.
Yeah, I mean, I'll say I apologize for maybe getting a little passionate sometimes during our discussion. So Mick there was nothing personal meant
no, no worries.
in any of my replies. I do think quite you do Mick provides a good service. A lot of, I mean, I'm in agreement with many of the cases you look at, you do a good job there. But what I would just urge is that you, you try to look as dispassionately, as you can at cases and try and get all the evidence that you can before analyzing cases, I could be wrong, but I get the impression that you kind of already decided where you're headed before you go there?
Well, I don't think I have, I think I probably have biases, like everybody else does. But I think something that's come out of this conversation, perhaps is that, you know, we all have these disagreements on various issues, and sometimes they're disagreements that cannot be resolved. But in a large number of cases, they are disagreements that are purely factual and that we should be able to resolve them by for example, why did Kevin Day Remember and when did he remember it? What did Gary Voorhis, when did you learn certain certain figures? And what do these various reports say and things like that? So we can we can do at least some reconciliation of the disagreements and I think perhaps we can go back afterwards and ask the points of Gary Voorhis. Like when did he learned this 0.78 seconds. And, you know, perhaps we could learn a bit more detail about the lock mechanism on the FLIR camera and see if, you know, the optical tracking was in fact losing lock. At that point, you know, we really need to get a genuine FLIR, ATFLIR, expert to to explain that. But these are things that actually are resolvable. And I think we need to focus, a little bit of effort on the things that we can actually figure out and knock those off. So we can refine the boundaries of uncertainty.
Well, again, I appreciate you, both of you and your time and doing this and your thoughts and your research. Both of you keep it up. You guys again, have my respect in different ways for different reasons. So thank you very much for that. And of course, thank you all for listening and watching. This is John Greenwald, Jr, signing off. We'll see you next time.