fowler-reed-summers-emergent-dogwhistle-part1-2026-01-27

James Fowler on Emergent (Reed Summers) — Skywatcher, the “Dog Whistle,” Aerial Intercept & 11 Classes of UAP (Part 1, 27 Jan 2026)

Source: Emergent, hosted by Reed Summers. Title: “Tracking UAP—James Fowler on Skywatcher, ‘The Dogwhistle,’ Aerial Intercept and 11 Classes of UAP.” Guest: James Fowler (retired US SOCOM Sergeant Major; founder of Skywatcher Technologies; president of Compass Tech Group; COO of TerraPixel). URL: https://www.youtube.com/live/g5XNiPOSrGA (Reed Summers - EMERGENT; streamed 2026-01-27; ~1:43:44). This is Part 1; Part 2 (“Emergent After Hours”) is member-gated. Captured: 2026-07-01. OpenAI Whisper (whisper-1) via scripts/speech_to_text_remote.py (auto-chunked/merged); a trailing “Transcribed by otter.ai” ASR artifact was removed. Two speakers — Reed Summers (host, asks) and James Fowler (subject, answers); not diarized, so the long answers are Fowler and the framing/questions are Summers. Merged into timestamped paragraphs; phrasing verbatim. Provenance only. Analysis: fowler-skywatcher-technologist and barber-noc-retrieval-claims (Skywatcher is Jake Barber’s venture; weight Fowler’s operational claims within that contested-credibility context). What this is: the fullest single account of the Skywatcher technical program from its co-founder — and the primary that Psicoactivo #813 (psicoactivo-813-fowler-dogwhistle-commentary-2026-01-27) and Fowler’s Sol Foundation talk (fowler-vonrennenkampff-sol-foundation-dogwhistle-2025) both draw on. Notable content:

• Fowler’s background: retired US military (SOCOM) in 2020; 25+ years in special ops, electronic warfare, drone/counter-drone; founded five companies since 2017. He entered the topic not as a believer but via sensor observations while running a US-government counter-drone war game.
• The 2021 origin: at a war game he directly controlled (red and blue teams), a “flight of seven” small craft (~3 ft, flying in tight pyramid formation) overflew the site — undetected by eye or ear, caught only on radar/enhanced imaging at ~1,500 ft. Reviewing prior days’ footage, his team found more, including UAP flying off the wingtips of commercial aircraft in the air corridor. He assumed it was sensitive US technology, told interns to delete their footage, and reported it up while keeping it quiet until 2023.
• The classification system came from the UAP Task Force, not Fowler. This is the load-bearing revelation: the class nomenclature — Class 1 “Tetra,” Class 3 “Tic Tac,” Class 7 “jellyfish” — “wasn’t native to me and to my team… that came from the UAP task force, frankly.” He reached them only indirectly, through associates who knew them; the associates said “don’t tell us what you saw, we will tell you what we think you saw,” and described classes his team had not yet observed. Skywatcher’s site lists nine classes; Fowler now counts 11.
• The “dog whistle”: an electromechanical signaling configuration deployed in the field that, his team claims, provokes UAP appearances. Evidence he offers: events run without it produce no observations for weeks; with it, observations follow — and the response time has shrunk from over a week (2021-22) to sometimes within hours. They tested it by leaving the government-sensitive site, driving miles away, deploying the signal, and (he says) the UAP followed. In 2022 he claims 200+ sorties over a few days; extrapolating observed-per-day rates he estimates over 15,000 sorties a year.
• Craft behaviors/classes: UAP seen “falling” from ~60,000 ft, tumbling then arresting the tumble; hovering; changing color and shape/length between hover and forward flight. Named classes include the Tetra, Tic Tac, jellyfish, the “blob,” the egg (not yet firmly classified), and the “Tesseract” (said to change form in flight). Cited speed estimates: 44,000 mph (an SCU study) and 80,000 mph.
• Psionics and aerial intercept: he says “the most ridiculous observations we made were with Skywatcher… when we had psionic teams amassed at the event.” With “Jake’s team” (Jake Barber) doing protective overwatch, they observed a Tic Tac hiding behind a ridgeline from their radar, and conducted helicopter intercepts.
• Skywatcher status: Fowler states he “has since moved on from Skywatcher,” declines to speak for the team “still looking at data,” and Summers notes the organization’s findings “have yet to fully come out.” Summers is also promoting his 2026 UAP Summit (Feb 7-8), at which Fowler is a lead presenter. Weight: single-source operational claims from a commercial UAP venture (Skywatcher/Compass Tech), largely unverified and with the underlying data not released; the one externally-interesting, checkable-in-principle claim is the UAP-Task-Force provenance of the classification taxonomy. See the Barber page for the venture’s contested-credibility context.

---

[0:00] We saw a flight of seven flying in formation. I was on the roof with a couple of interns. We were looking for drones at the time, and these things flew right over us. We had no idea they were there. We didn’t observe them. We didn’t hear them. It was only through radar and other technologies that we were able to observe them. So we actually found some images of our videos of civil aviation moving through the area. And off their wingtips, we actually found UAPs apparently flying in direct proximity to the airplanes. So these were the Tetra craft, and so there’s no wings.

[0:37] They’re flying in close proximity, one unit of measure, so they’re about three feet across. And they’re flying, you know, three feet wingtip to wingtip, if you will, or object to object between them-ish, stacked, kind of in a pyramid, if you will. In 2022, we saw over 200 sorties of UAP. It was really quite spectacular. The most ridiculous observations we made were with Skywatcher and were when we had psionic teams amassed at the event.

[1:06] The UAPs did things we hadn’t seen them do before. We’ve seen them falling like they’re coming from space by our measurements, probably about 60,000 feet, where they’ll fall and tumble in the sky, and then they’ll arrest their tumble. We’ve seen them hover. We’ve made observations of them actually changing color when they go from hover to flight and change shape. So actually, the class system came from the UAP task force.

[1:31] When we spoke with those associates, they said, well, don’t tell us what you saw. We will tell you what we think you saw. Welcome to Emergent. I’m your host, Reed Summers, back with you again with this series of important conversations about the nature of unidentified anomalous phenomena and the potential intelligent controller of that phenomenon. Today, we’re examining the growing intelligence picture regarding what is up there in our skies, flying over our homes, our cities, critical infrastructure. What can we begin to understand by collecting data, by detecting and tracking anomalous objects or craft regarding the bigger picture in terms of what humanity is facing, what we are encountering, not only in our air and sea, but also in space as well, in all the domains of Earth’s atmosphere. UAP are being observed by militaries, governments, civilians, and a growing community of science and technology specialists who are out there in the field, actively attempting to detect and track UAP. Over the last 16 months, we’ve seen alleged observations of anomalous craft, a.k.a. mystery drones, reported around the world, but predominantly in Western Europe, in the continental United States, and in some places in Eastern Asia. Over airports, military bases, nuclear facilities, civilians and air traffic controllers, pilots, governments are reporting these incursions by anomalous craft, performing at times in anomalous ways. And whereas some of these may actually have a prosaic explanation, it is becoming increasingly clear that there is a persistent remainder that do not. They are demonstrating flight characteristics, performance capabilities, interactive dynamics, and are giving rise to an emerging pattern of anomalous craft or objects doing things in ways that no known human craft can do.

[3:31] And it’s becoming increasingly urgent that we begin to understand the nature of these craft. What are they doing up there? How are they acting and behaving over population centers, over sensitive infrastructure and military locations around the world? And whereas we have growing testimony from within government and by former government whistleblowers, we need more than testimony. We need data. It’s really data that drives disclosure. And we are at the cusp of having a new capability to capture that data and to generate a credible intelligence picture regarding what is up in our skies real time and to do so on behalf of society, not just on behalf of governments or military agencies.

[4:13] With me today is James Fowler, who has been on the front lines of UAP detection and tracking for many years now. James was part of launching Skywatcher, a revolutionary initiative using mechanical signaling as well as neuromeditative techniques to attempt to gain close observations of UAP craft characteristics, flight patterns and interactive dynamics. I know Skywatcher’s approaches and early findings are provocative and controversial, and the data has yet to fully come out regarding what it is that they discovered. James has since moved on from Skywatcher.

[4:50] And I know many questions from you, the viewers out there, are regarding his time at Skywatcher. What did the organization discover? Where does it stand in the process of analyzing its findings? I look forward to helping bring forward other representatives of the organization currently, and I know those conversations will probably give the best picture on Skywatcher as an organization now. But we will, with James today, explore some of his findings and observations while with the organization, as well as many observations conducted before that time and since that time.

[5:24] If you’re excited about this conversation, if you want more of this, be sure to like and subscribe to Emergent. Share the show with others. Get others into this conversation. This is a conversation we need to bring the public into. This needs to be a mainstream dialogue regarding anomalies being observed actively in real time in the atmosphere, in the ocean, and on land, and the implications for not just one nation or its national security, but really for the whole world, for human security. Because if there are these anomalous incursions taking place, these radical forms of technology, this potential risk of a set of asymmetric capabilities or strategic surprise, it doesn’t just imply one nation and its interests. It really implies the whole human species, the whole human interest. So please like and subscribe and share the show with others.

[6:14] And let’s get more of the public into this important conversation. James, I look forward to this conversation with him today, and we’ll also be previewing his presentation at the 2026 UAP Summit, which takes place February 7th and 8th. I’ve played a lead role in helping organize and convene this summit, working with the Human Institute and many other world-class speakers and experts and leads from other organizations. The summit is a premier two-day online conference, February 7th and 8th.

[6:49] It’s open to the public. Spots are limited. I highly encourage you to get your spot now. We have over 25 speakers from across the UAP science, research, and investigation community. We’ll be learning about all of the current efforts underway in the field among many small groups, startups, academic teams to actually detect and track UAP today. We’ll also be exploring how government, the private sector, and academia can increasingly collaborate on that issue and also how we can make this truly an international effort, not just an effort within one Western liberal kind of environment among certain research organizations or government agencies.

[7:32] It has to be a whole human effort. We’re at that point now where there are enough experts across the world engaged on this issue that we can actually coalesce their approaches and create the beginning of a coalition on behalf of the public interest to detect and track UAP. James will be speaking, giving a 45-minute presentation at the summit. I will actually be moderating that lecture, so I look forward to what James has to present there and to bringing you deeper in to where this conversation will go. In today’s episode, in part one, I’ll be asking James about his background, his career work in detecting and tracking aerial objects and craft, and more recently on identified anomalous craft and phenomena. We’ll be talking about craft classification, the different types and morphologies of craft that James has observed and that Skywatcher as an organization has classified. We’ll talk about the observed capabilities of these alleged craft, their interactive patterns, their interaction with each other, their potential signaling or communication with observers on the ground. We’ll talk about how to take this work further. Where do we go from here?

[8:45] How do we generate credible data and findings to advance society’s understanding of this phenomenon? Then in part two of the conversation, which I call Emergent After Hours, we’ll talk about what does the growing pattern of activity suggest about the potential intent of whatever the intelligence is behind these craft. How can we extrapolate a picture about the number of craft, the number of sorties, the potential programmatic activity being conducted, the potential existence of an operation at play, and then as well talk about the geopolitical context in which this is taking place.

[9:20] There are emergent events unfolding geopolitically today in the world, and how is UAP connected? Is it connected? This reality of recovered technologies of potential non-human origin, reverse engineering efforts, the secret arms race for such technologies, how is this playing out on the global field, and how is it influencing possibly the decisions that various nation states and adversaries are taking right now? If these topics interest you and excite you, I encourage you to become a member of the show on YouTube or to become a supporter of Emergent on Patreon. You’ll be getting early access to all episodes, exclusive access to the After Hours Part 2, as well as the ability to ask questions to guests and interact with me and get updates from me and so forth. I really appreciate people being in the fight, advancing these front lines, examining the phenomenon using logic and reason and evidence, and making credible and sound assessments of what it is we’re facing in this phenomenon. So please join me on YouTube or on Patreon.

[10:25] If you just want access and don’t want to become a supporter, no worries at all. Go over and join my free community platform, Forerunner, where you will get everything I just said at no cost to you. I’m making this available publicly, widely, to as many people as can engage with it. And then last, I do encourage you to grab your spot at the UAP Summit. Again, spots are limited. It’s coming up in three weeks’ time, and I’m really hoping that in addition to the science and research and maybe federal communities that will be present, that the citizens are there, the informed citizens, scientists, activists, and advocates for this phenomenon. So we need the public in the room always. So please get your spot and join us.

[11:09] So with that, I’d like to welcome James Fowler onto Emergent. James Fowler is a serial entrepreneur, retired U.S. Special Operations Command Sergeant Major, and a recognized expert in frontier technology and national security. With more than 25 years in special operations, electronic warfare, secure communications, drone and counter-drone systems, vision-based navigation, and air intelligence, he has founded and leads multiple specialized technology and consulting firms, forging strategic partnerships across government, industry, and international entities to deliver mission-critical solutions to defense, aviation, and government clients worldwide. Since 2017, he has founded and served as CEO of five companies. He’s currently Chief Operating Officer of TerraPixel Corporation, scaling proprietary counter, GPS jamming, and vision-based navigation technologies for defense and commercial aviation. As a founder of SkyWatcher Technologies and president of Compass Tech Group, he delivers air intelligence as a service, advanced drone and counter-drone capabilities, secure communications, and custom sensor solutions. Through Compass Consulting, he advises CEOs, ministries, and heads of state on strategic technology integration, M&A due diligence, and national-level security programs. A member of the Atlantic Council’s Counterterrorism Project, he holds a BA in international relations, international and transnational security from American Military University, and an AAS in intelligence operations from Cochise College, if I pronounced that correctly.

[12:52] James is married with one son and one daughter, and he and his family reside in Virginia. James, welcome to Emergent. Great to have you. Thanks for having me. Happy to be here. Yes, looking forward to this conversation. You and I have had a chance to sit down and talk several times over the last year. We met in person, and the SkyWatcher team introduced me to you and advocated strongly for your lead presentation at the UAP Summit, which I’m very excited about. And I wanted to get this conversation scheduled and out there so we can begin talking about some of the key issues that I know matter most to you and to me. I think we have a lot of agreement and synergy on ways we see what’s unfolding and the need to tackle it credibly with data collection and the right approaches. So very excited about the conversation.

[13:41] How are you? How’s life? And what’s up in your world before we dive in? I’m well. I’m running my companies, working hard, developing technology, and very focused on air intelligence right now and developing technologies to enable more knowledge and understanding of what’s in our skies and how to navigate our skies safely. Well, thank you. That’s, I think, on behalf of all of us, a very important domain to begin to bridge, to fill in the gaps and better understand, because we don’t. We don’t understand what’s up there right now. So good stuff. So let’s just dive in. Share with the audience your background.

[14:20] What kind of work have you done in your career? And how did you get into the UAP issue? Yeah, sure. So I was in the U.S. military for a long time, retired out in 2020, and then started several companies. It was in 2021 when I was running a war game exercise for the U.S. government. When I had my first observation at UAP before then, I watched X-Files and read some books, but I’d never really dabbled at all in UAP anything.

[14:54] And it was only through observations on a technological level that I kind of got into this area of study. The fact of the matter is when we first made observations in 2021, we didn’t think there were UFOs or off planet or anything. We thought these were probably U.S. government technologies that we were observing. So we kept it very quiet and kept it with the government until 2023. If you’re able to share, what was the nature of the observed anomaly without oversharing on location or any other sensitive items?

[15:28] Yeah, sure. So in 2021, the first observation we had was what we call a class one UAP. We saw a flight of seven flying in formation. I was on the roof with a couple of interns, bright eyed bushy tail, good eyes, good ears. We’re actually scanning the sky. We’re running flying drones in a counter drone environment. And we were looking for drones at the time. We were supposed to have a sortie inbound. Ironically, the sortie that was unbound, I directly controlled.

[15:56] So I was controlling the red team and the blue team. So I knew exactly what was in the sky and what wasn’t in the sky. And then halfway through that sortie, I got a call from my guys in the truck. And they said, hey, you’ve got to come down and see this. There’s something weird going on. So, you know, I came down and saw it and they showed me some craft that had just overflown our position. I realized we had, I think, two or three interns on the roof with myself.

[16:19] We had binoculars and we’re scanning the sky looking for drones. And these things flew right over us. We had no idea they were there. We didn’t observe them. We didn’t hear them. It was only through radar and other technologies we were able to observe them. So that was our first observation of something anomalous. And ironically, that was the last day of operations for that event. So we were packing up in a few hours. We didn’t make any more fresh observations.

[16:47] But then we went back and reviewed a bunch of footage that we had for the last, I believe it was 10 days of operations. And we actually found more UAPs in the background that we had not noticed previously. Now that we knew what to look for, we started scanning and figuring, OK, there’s, you know, here’s here. It’s funny, not funny, that one of the first observations we made in our footage from previous days during that event was, typically when we’re running these war games, we will image aircraft, prosaic items, birds, balloons, airplanes, anything that flies through the sky to kind of build a library of observations so we can understand how to detect drones better and to counter them.

[17:29] So we actually found some images of our videos of civil aviation moving through the through the area and off their wingtips. We actually found UAPs apparently flying in direct proximity to the airplanes. So we found that odd that not only are we seeing craft that I as the exercise director did not expect, did not fit any paradigm we knew, we did not observe them directly with the human senses. And then in post, we found them in direct air corridors in proximity to commercial aviation. So those things were all highly anomalous and worrisome to us because, you know, you can’t just fly drones up by airplanes in the United States without going like you go to jail for that. That’s the straight up a felony.

[18:16] So so that was extremely worrisome for civil aviation air safety, as well as for this was a sensitive event we were running. So to to to observe these things in proximity was was worrisome to us. But like I said, we we assumed that this belonged to the U.S. government at the time. And we we reported it as such and kept it sensitive, but unclassified and share that information with the government at the time. How was that for you seeing what might have been your first UAP or at least detecting it technically for the first time?

[18:49] It was definitely interesting. Again, we thought was probably something prosaic, manmade in America and probably sensitive in nature. So we assumed we had observed something we shouldn’t have. And, you know, told our interns it was a classified drone project and to delete anything they had on it and forget they saw it. And then and then reported up the channels, if you will, with with that data. So it was it was very interesting to observe physics that we couldn’t account for and technology you couldn’t account for because that’s what it represented.

[19:19] So we realized, hey, these these things were maneuvering in a flight in a sortie seven craft. You can’t hear them. You can’t see them with your eyes and ears, although they were low level. Only a couple, I think, 1500 feet above us. And we had radars on. We had cameras on. We had tens of millions of dollars worth of defense, defensive equipment on site. And none of those systems picked it up except for a team happened to scan and with their camera and happened to roll past it and saw it with some enhanced imaging capabilities.

[19:55] So it was it was it was interesting that, you know, if you’re flying a group to group three drone inbound to, you know, into a sensitive area in a war game, you can you can hear that thing for miles. You can see it. It’s blatantly obvious that it’s inbound. If you’re flying an ISR drone at high altitude, you can’t hear it is usually very findable in the blue skies. So it’s interesting to see these craft. They represented generational leaps and bounds and technology propulsion.

[20:24] You know, there’s no wings. These were the Tetra craft. And so there’s no wings there. They’re flying in close proximity, one unit of measure. So they’re about three feet across and they’re flying in, you know, three feet wingtip to wingtip, if you will, or object to object between them ish stacked kind of in a pyramid, if you will. And so whatever technology they had would enable them to fly in extreme close proximity to not be detected on our second systems that we could observe.

[20:53] And they were unable to be seen with the naked eye and they were not emitting any noise. So those all represent leaps and bounds and technology ahead of anything I’m aware of today still. And at the time was quite shocking to see, OK, there’s no there’s no propellers, no jet engine. There’s no buoyant technology in play that we can see. And they’re maneuvering any tight ship formation and changing their azimuth and their orientation to ingress on us and overfly us directly.

[21:25] So that was very interesting to see. It’s not like they’re just off in the distance moving through the environment and not changing direction, drinking complicated is the opposite. So that was actually quite shocking to see that in play. And at the time or, you know, hopeful and expected that it belonged to us. So it was kind of frightful. Hey, somebody’s got some cool toys that does some things that we can’t explain. And that’s really great to see. That was honestly, I thought.

[21:51] So take us take us down the road from there. How did you get further into detection and tracking Skywatcher? I know folks will be very curious to know, you know, about key insights or findings from your time as Skywatcher to the extent that you can share those. So, yeah, take us to the rest of your journey. Yeah, sure. So immediately following that, that event in twenty twenty one, we we left that event, came back to Virginia and start talking to people, people in in government positions, people in certain locations.

[22:23] I believe one group I may have spoken with adjacent to indirectly was UAP task force just to share and find out, hey, you know, costly. It was costly going through my mind. What if what if what if this isn’t ours? What if this is read as an adversarial? What if this is not U.S. technology? Because when I took to the government, there wasn’t there was no answers back. It was, hey, us presenting up to them data and facts and a narrative of what was observed and times and dates and all the data that accompanied a presentation.

[22:58] But there was nothing coming back to us. So we we really didn’t know anything other than our observation. So we kept it in very close circles and reached up and we didn’t get any answers back. So actually, the class system came from the UAP task force as this is indirectly. We couldn’t get a hold of them at the time, but we had some associates that that knew them. And and it’s kind of funny when when we spoke with those associates, they said, well, don’t tell us what you saw.

[23:29] We will tell you what we think you saw. And so they relate to us a description of the Tetra UAP class. I believe they might have called that the class one, which is what I call it, the class one. And then they relate to me the jellyfish, which is our class seven. But we had not observed that yet. And they were laid the tic tac. I think it’s a class three. So that that that nomenclature, that vernacular wasn’t native to me and to my team that came from the UAP task force, frankly. But between 21 and 22 and different events, we started planning and figuring out, hey, if if these things aren’t made in America, if they’re not ours, that this isn’t somebody’s special toy and it was reacting and reactive to us.

[24:11] How can we provoke it? How can we get more of a reaction? How can we poke the bear and see what the bear does? So when we came back in 22, we’d done a ton of OSINT. We’d spoken with people adjacent to the task force and we come up with some hypotheses. We have an entire parallel to our actual program. We have an entire effort designed around cause and effect to see if one, if we’ll make another observation. And if we do, what can we do to cause more of a reaction?

[24:40] So in 22, we rolled out what was the preliminary dog whistle, but included some radar load sets through custom. It included some more technology at the event and included deploying resources in a in a manner with which unknown to them. They were looking for UAPs, but to us, they were doing enhanced US counter counter drone discovery technology and tactics development. So we really kind of enmeshed the two, if you will. And while we didn’t detract from what we were doing with our war game at the same time, one or two of us were were basically keeping score and trying to see if we could poke the bear and get more of a reaction. And we did. In 2022, we saw over 200 sorties of UAP.

[25:34] It was really quite spectacular in one in one in one day, in one instance or across a time period. It was over a few days. We actually at the site we were running the 2022 event. When we saw the UAPs, they weren’t. There is a schedule and a timing to when they at that time were coming to the events. So it wasn’t day one. It was later in the event. So it was, again, kind of towards the tail end. And then we had once once in a millennia or whatever, a hundred year flooding that corresponded.

[26:05] So so we made observations for a couple of days and then we had horrible flooding and we’re weathered out, frankly, for a couple of days. And that was actually very interesting because when we were weathered out and couldn’t see the sky, we still ran, ran the preliminary dog whistle and we’re still getting results. We would still see UAP between the clouds reacting over flying us our position. So we learned a lot in 22 and then kind of, you know, incepted. That’s that’s when I came up with the name Sky Watcher.

[26:34] That’s Sky Watcher is continues to be a parallel technology development to observe craft that are employing signature management. So and your your work at that time, 2022, during that period was was inside the D.O.D. on a D.O.D. project of some kind doing war game kind of exercises. Yeah, I was brought in to run the war games and develop tactics and techniques. OK, I see. And then I turned into a private technology development effort. So take us through to the extent that you’re able. The dog was I’m sorry.

[27:08] Yes, the dog whistle, the mechanical signaling approach. I know some of that may still be proprietary or not shareable. But but in essence, what is it that the team has done or is doing to, I guess, vector in these craft? If that’s if that’s the right word. And then what is the generally speaking, the kind of the technology being used to detect to generate data and observations? Yeah, sure. So please note that up till 2022, we had never knowingly seen you AP on radar.

[27:41] It wasn’t until we refined and create some more enhanced custom load sets that we were actually able to observe them. And then we realized that we’d had captures and didn’t know we had captures on the user and the systems that present the information to the to the operator of the equipment. So we were to go back and find some radar signatures that previously we didn’t know we had until that point. We thought that we were observing signature management and perhaps stealth or cloaking technology for visual and audio as well as as radar.

[28:10] So in twenty three, we refined and actually now now we get you AP nearly every sortie. Every incursion they make, we get them on radar now because we know to look for. We also get there. A lot of times we get their radio frequency emanations as well. The RF. And then we also capture middle wave shortwave infrared as well as electro optical. So we have multiple sensors collecting on them now when the when we do have ingress ingresses by incursions by UAPs.

[28:39] In terms of dog whistle, there’s a certain electromechanical configuration we deploy to the field. We have tested for weeks and weeks on end. So when we run these war games, we run them sometimes 24 seven. And there’s only a certain window when we’ll make observations, a certain window in terms of days since we start using the dog whistle and certain times during those those those days. So it’s not like we turn on the bat signal and you AP show up and there they are.

[29:08] All that has happened. We know the bat signal, as in the dog whistle, does work because we’ve run events without the dog whistle and not have them come for weeks and weeks on end. So we’ve had plenty of times where there was no dog whistle, no effort to call in UAP. And there are no observations made having the same radar load sets, radar load sets and the other technologies available to us. Conversely, when we do use the electromechanical signaling that we have, the bat signal, the dog whistle, we do get observations and those observations have changed over time.

[29:42] They start out being late in the exercises, late to arrive on the tail end of things. And now when we employ the signaling, sometimes they appear within hours. So it’s gone from over a week to now a few hours from from calling that they arrive. So it’s still only specific times of day or specific windows of time relative to the larger exercise or operation. Yes. Yes. And we’ve also run tests to say, hey, we’re going to take these hundreds of people that are part of this war game.

[30:17] We’re going to depart the area completely away from them, go away from all the government sensitive things. We’re going to go miles and miles away and then deploy the dog whistle and see what happens. And, yeah, they come to us, not to the crowds, not to the sense of government stuff. So so many. Yeah. Interesting. So many questions abounding. And I’m sure for those watching you, there’s every you want to know everything. Right.

[30:38] And I’m going to get into this later in the conversation about, you know, why might they appear? What is what are the hypotheses regarding their strategic intent to engage? And I think that’s a great conversation for part two. So we’ll park that for then. I just want to touch briefly on the neuromeditative aspect of what at least Skywatcher was doing using psionic operators to. And I don’t want to fill in the gaps. I’d like you to describe, you know, where did the neuromeditative fit in? How did that get brought into the project?

[31:07] And how did that couple with the electromagnetic signaling to generate these these encounters? So, you know, I need to note that when I was running the war games from twenty one to twenty four, we never used psionics at all. That wasn’t even a part of anything we were doing. We were running a war game for the US government or contractors or other groups developing tactics, techniques, technology for drone, counter drone and other things that we were working on.

[31:38] So everybody there, you know, a lot of things happen during those events with UAPs, close encounters, if you will, being in proximity, being hit with energy weapons from UAPs, some very interesting things that happen. And none of that was ever done with anything psionics or neuromeditative at all. Now, what. But that was occurring in that earlier period. There were those instances of electromagnetic interference or energy energy weapon.

[32:06] Yes. Yeah. Very quantified events. But and when we started Skywatcher project with Alex Clocus and Gary and Jake and the rest of the team, we did bring in. We tried different things to see if we can enhance the dog whistle to try things standalone, to try things together. So, you know, kind of the kitchen sink was thrown at the problem set to see, OK, what shows up when you do X, Y and Z. And you can run at, you know, ad nauseum variations of that construct for cause and effect to see what happens. You know, I know and we know that the dog whistle works and works very well.

[32:45] Well, well, just like I was poking the bear in twenty two and twenty twenty two to see what happened. I think Skywatcher is another iteration of that to say, OK, now that now that we’re poking the bear and you appear coming within hours, what else can we throw at it and see what happens? And I will say the most ridiculous observations we made were with Skywatcher and were when we had psionic teams amassed at the event. Now, is that cause and effect? I can’t say, but it is it is a fact.

[33:14] Right. So the observations we made from twenty one to twenty four were a lot of data. Very interesting. Very compelling. The observations we made with Skywatcher were a lot closer. We had a lot more close encounters. And obviously it’s because we’re in a helicopter chasing them. But also the UAPs did things we hadn’t seen them do before. And it is noteworthy that in my opinion, those noteworthy activities occurred. Events occurred when we had psionic activity on site.

[33:50] And when we did not have psionic activity, it was less. But there’s way too many variables. It’s not like it’s not like we went to one, you know, the mile high location, Texas, that’s public. It’s not like we went a mile high and we ran a scientific test event day after day and we didn’t move. We kept everything exactly the same. So we had exactly the same slate for day in, day out. So we can measure that was not we were running an operation and the goal was to to to see what we could discover.

[34:17] It wasn’t necessarily to capture the scientific level data and to capture the scientific essence of what we’re observing. It’s hard to capture scientific data on a new phenomena and do experimentation at the same time. That’s that’s an onerous effort. It’s much easier on an operation, kind of like we did from 20 and 22. See what happens. And then once you know what’s happening, then kind of set the bear trap, if you will, and get more concise and start making more high level down to acute observations.

[34:48] So we only got so far with Skywatcher, but, you know, and I don’t want to speak for the team who’s still looking at data. And I don’t want to speak for for the for the rest of Skywatcher group. I just want to say that it was very noteworthy to see. And you can see it in the footage that we produced. And I will say that footage is very important for us to make so we can kind of capture the story behind. And we’re going to send that footage up on screen as well.

[35:13] We’ll walk we’ll walk through that as we get into the classification guide for the classification of UAP. Interesting. Well, great. Great to know. And and very fascinating. So many interesting aspects and dimensions to this. If you could, because I know people are probably asking, you know, you mentioned, you know, the most ridiculous observations happened during Skywatcher. What stands out to you as as, you know, very, very interesting or enigmatic or interactive regarding what was observed?

[35:42] There was a day and it’s one of the episodes, episode two or whatever, from Skywatcher. There was a day, I believe it was in February or March, where for the first time we saw UAPs with the naked eye in proximity. Proximity being within a kilometer, 800 meters away. We had never seen them from twenty twenty one to twenty twenty four. We’d never made observations with the naked eye ever. And we’d scanned with telescopes, binoculars, cameras, digital DSLRs.

[36:09] We had not been able to make an observation with anything other than a million dollar piece of equipment, million dollar plus. So Skywatcher was the first time we were actually able to get a team trained who could make observations with binoculars and telescopes and DSLRs. But also for the first time, we didn’t need any instrumentation. We’re able to just look up in the sky and see them. So so that that was new and I would say spectacular in that the UAP understand the UAP haven’t changed size or shape.

[36:42] They’ve just gotten closer. So so we’re using the dog whistle instead of looking at something three or four kilometers away. And now we’re looking at something closer than one kilometer. Right. And so for a three meter object at five kilometers, it’s really hard to see and get any detail. Three, a three meter object at 800 meters. That’s a lot easier to see. Now you can see a man sized object at 800 meters. You know, think how a sniper looks at at a target downrange or think about how a security camera looks at somebody on the perimeter and kind of put that perspective. OK, a man size called a meter sized object ish.

[37:17] It’s very doable. Take that five kilometers and you’re brushing up on the edge of what’s viable physics without having extremely expensive and extremely high end technology on site. So you’re out in the desert in these various locations, mile high in Texas, and you’ve got the equipment on the ground. You’ve got binoculars. You’re putting eyes on the cyclic operators are there. They’re a part of the picture. And these objects or craft are getting closer within a kilometer.

[37:48] Are there any other patterns of interaction or engagement that you observed at that point beyond just proximity that you hadn’t observed prior? Yeah. So typically when you use a dog whistle, the UAPs fly sorties and ingress either directly into our location directly. We’re flying us or they fly proximal to us in vicinity. You know, we might see two at a time, one to the north, one the south with us in the center. We might see orbits going around us conducting sorties in an orbit, kind of keeping us in the middle.

[38:24] What was different was when the psionics were on site and we had the abnormal observations with the UAPs. There were a couple of times and wasn’t enough to be able to say with any reliance. But there are a couple of times when they flew over the dog whistle, but then they also flew over the psionics locations. We were separated by about three or four kilometers distance. So we kept the technology in one area and we kept the psionics in a different area to kind of measure and see. And there was a whole bunch of experimentation, which isn’t mine to share.

[38:57] I’ll leave that to Gary and the science team to share if they’d like to extrapolate on that. But there was at least once, I believe, three times where it could be more. I’d have to go look at our notes where the psionics location was also overflown, which is new to us. Typically, UAPs ingress and then egress. They might do an orbit and leave, but they’re not flying all over the place, just checking things out. Typically, prior to Skywatcher, they would just move in and move out, ingress and egress. Now you see me, now you don’t.

[39:29] And we’ll see that throughout a certain period of the day, certain numbers of days per week. So it was unusual to see them loiter and or overflight other areas. Again, it’s a vast area we’re in. Why would they overfly? OK, we know they’re going to fly the dog whistle. They do that regularly. But like I told you, like when we have large government bodies out in the site, other sites running events, they don’t overfly them. Typically, we haven’t seen that before.

[39:58] So it was very interesting to see them kind of maneuver around the psionics location. Again, cause and effect. I don’t know. I don’t know that we have enough data to say to draw scientific conclusions. Maybe we do. I think right now Skywatcher has a very hard data problem. They don’t have data. There are a plethora of anomalies Skywatcher has in their data to look at. But like I told you, we are running operations. So if if we’re if during an operation we’re observing a jellyfish UAP with our camera and multiple spectrum EOIR camera system and we have multiple witnesses, multiple DSLRs running and they’re all recording the same thing. We get azimuth altitude.

[40:46] We have ground speed, everything for this object. But then we also have a radar track. How do you prove that the object you’re looking at with your systems is the radar track that correlates? How do you prove a correlation? It’s hard to do. And how do you do that post? You know, there’s a lot of things happening in these windows. How do you go back on the data and say, OK, on this date at this time, this object was in the sky.

[41:10] We have some footage. It’s very compelling and interesting. We don’t think it’s a balloon. We don’t think it’s a bird. It definitely looks like called a class seven, class eight, whatever UAP class we’re observing. But how do you prove in a scientific level that that is the object that your other data correlates to and corresponds to? So that, frankly, I think, is the challenge the Skywatcher has. And it is a very rigorous scientific problem or data problem. How do you own that? Like I said, we were running test events. We didn’t have doctors and lab coach with stopwatches and clipboards. You know, these events were very expensive. We had just enough people to get done what I had to get done. Right. And we barely met threshold for budget with that.

[41:55] So to double or triple the bodies on site to run a test event would be very expensive. So if you’re running a test event, it’s a lot easier because then you have all the data. You know, you can live write everything down and capture everything. It sounds simple from an armchair quarterback perspective to say, oh, you have the data. How come you didn’t do all that? In reality, it’s a very complex, hard process to run, run the event, run the operation, do the experimentation and capture the data.

[42:23] Think about, like I just told you, sometimes we’d have two or three or three or four UAPs at a time in the sky. Right. Now you’re trying to chase him with a helicopter. All right. Now you’re trying to coordinate between the Seahawks and and the dog whistle team. It’s a highly complex operation we’re running. And I want to say we probably in the March, April time frame had 30 plus people out at the site. So, you know, what I’m telling you is we would need another 15 or 20. So call it 50 people.

[42:52] That’s a huge amount of money to lodge, feed and bring that amount of people out to a site commercially. So all that to say. The observations were kind of ridiculous. But proving those observations that you can put them on a white paper and put a scientist’s name on them and get them published is a whole different bar. And it’s a very high bar to reach. Right. And that’s that’s a challenge that we’ll be looking at in the UAP summit where we have this observational data.

[43:22] Maybe it’s pre data. Right. Maybe it doesn’t meet technical scientific standards of falsifiability, repeatability, et cetera. But they are critical indications to go chase further down and to bring greater capabilities of detection and data analysis to meet. So it’s not that we need to bridge the gulf between observational, anecdotal instances of observation and whatever the science community needs to establish scientific existence.

[43:51] And so that’s that’s that’s a challenging gulf to bridge. But we’re going to be looking at that in the summit. I also look forward to Gary Nolan’s presentation at the summit on the Skywatcher Discovery Framework and possibly some early an early look at some at some findings. So I’m excited about that. I’m very interested. And I know the audience is, too, to dive into more about the classification of UAP, the interactive patterns.

[44:16] And I thought I could put up on screen here just to get us going. This is right off the Skywatcher website. These are the nine classes of UAP on the website. I know you have further classified that to be 11 classes. And we’re going to get up on screen some of your photo and video and go through that. But I assume, you know, there are different interactive patterns with each of these. And I’d love to walk through these if we could start with the class one, which it sounds like was the first that you might have observed in the 2022 time frame. So walk us through these different classes. What are they observed to do? How do they observe to interact with each other or with ground observers?

[44:58] Yes. So the class one, the Tetra, we’ve observed that as singletons and as and sorties as large as 22, 23 craft at a time. They tend to maneuver through. They’ll typically overfly the dog whistle site and continue through. We have seen them have interplay. So it’s not. In fact, whenever we do see them in a sortie and in a grouping, we don’t see we don’t see them flying static. You know, we see them maneuvering around each other. For example, in 2021, the first observation while they were locked in proximity, kind of almost like they were like stuck together, three feet apart, ish shoulder to shoulder that, you know, they move and maneuvered as a group. So they weren’t flat and level just flying.

[45:55] They were going up and down a little bit and then maneuvering around the airspace to ingress on our position. So but typically we see them ingress and ingress and not do much more other than maneuver around each other while they do so. We’ve never had any close proximity to Tetra UAP. We’ve only observed them at distance of probably two kilometers plus. So and the Tetra tends to come and go. So in and out. We will see them repeatedly. We have had one instance in 2022 where the Tetras ingressed vertically over us instead of horizontally. They came in directly. We call it nadir. They came in right over top of us.

[46:38] Ingressed from high altitude down to low altitude and then egressed out horizontally and kind of in a spoke style ingress egress route. I think we saw 200 plus sorties, not individual Tetras, but actual sorties of multiples, two and three at a time. So we’ll call it 6800 that over a couple of days in 2022 was quite spectacular. We were doing things that we are not able to do normally at that event. And I cannot go into specifics on that.

[47:11] But we believe that the the provocative nature of what we were doing with the dog was at the time enabled us to have a spectacular showing. It should be noteworthy that we are making these observations because we have refined our capabilities and we have teams of people that have done this for years and they know what they’ve been briefed. They know what they’re looking for. Oftentimes, our government counterparts who have have no clue this is happening.

[47:38] So they have similar equipment. They’re looking in the same sky we’re looking at and they’re not making observations. So that should be noteworthy. They’re even using the mechanical the dog whistle technology or signaling and they’re still not seeing you appear. They just they are appearing, but they don’t know to look to look for them. Yes, we’ve gone out to events where the government was already there with the same equipment that we would deploy for the dog whistle.

[48:04] Just it wasn’t deployed in the right fashion and the right format with the right software loads to do what we do. And there are you AP already at these events and the government was not aware that they were there. OK. And then we show up day one and we’re making observations. They won’t even train the dog whistle on just to revisit it. So these are not being observed with the naked eye. In those instances, they are being technically seen. And what with what mode or what platform are they being detected?

[48:33] So with with the camera ball and multiple multispectral imagery and with radars, as well as with their signals. OK. So that’s that’s a tetra. All right. We have the well-known Tic-Tac, not well-known, but often cited. Yeah. So we’ve we’ve observed probably 10. We’ve had probably 10 observations of the Tic-Tac. I have to go back, look at my notes and get an exact count. We have seen them in multiple sorties or multiple ships that flying through.

[49:07] We’ve seen them falling like they come in from space by our measurements, probably about 60,000 feet where they’ll fall and tumble in the sky. And then they’ll arrest their tumble. Actually, it was a sortie of, I think, three at the time, three plus. And then they arrest their tumble and then fly around each other and they continue to tumble, you know, descent. We’ve also observed them to fly close proximity. We have them within 800 meters in 2025 of us where where the team can see with the naked eye, which you’ve never done before.

[49:42] We’ve seen them hover. We’ve made observations of them actually changing color when they go from a hover to flight and change shape and their length. When they go from a hover to to forward flight. We’ve been in close proximity with the helicopter with them and been inside of whatever field they used to to maneuver with and felt the effects on the helicopter. So we’ve also observed the Tic-Tacs moving at what we assess to be Mach 30. So very, very interesting class of UAP.

[50:21] It breaks all the rules of physics and does affect other objects in its vicinity in the sky. So that’s that’s the Tic-Tac. And the instance of being immobilized, the aircraft. From what I recall in Jake Barber’s recounting of that, that was the helicopter that was being used to track or to chase the object. Yeah. So you have to kind of quantify what that means to not be spectacular. So we were watching a Tic-Tac from the ground, seeing it with our eyeballs.

[50:58] And then we ran and jumped the helicopter and tried to go do an air to air intercept and get in proximity, get some good footage and kind of see it and make observations. So we flew up to where it was and we couldn’t see it. The ground crew gave us its last vicinity. We flew to where its last vicinity was to try to intercept it. And that’s when we had the effect. And the effect was that the pilots, who are not at all believers, we were, you know, we described to them what we were looking for and they’re kind of like, yeah, sure, whatever.

[51:28] Right. They don’t believe anything is going on, frankly. And and the senior pilot had thousands, thousands of hours on Little Bird. I think what we were flying was a little bird. The airframe we’re on doesn’t use electronics for its flight control. It uses hydraulics. So what was observed was we could not continue in forward flight and we could not continue to intercept. We can only continue in a left turn or a right turn. And there’s a video that we’ve shown, and it might be in one of the episodes, where we’re actually from that flight, and you see us in a right bank.

[52:05] And that’s when we started recording. I believe the copilot started recording because something anomalous was happening, something they’d never seen. And the effect on the pilot’s level was that the collective and their controls weren’t frozen, but they wouldn’t allow them to increase. They couldn’t increase probably on the pilot pitch, and so they couldn’t increase altitude. They could only decrease or maintain. And same thing with their forward movement.

[52:30] So they broke into a right-hand pattern to get out of whatever that effect was. At the time, they weren’t sure if it was a mechanical malfunction, and we almost RTVed or returned to base. But we just entered into an orbit and realized that the effect was gone when we got away from the area, and then we continued the search. So that was the time the helicopter was affected. What would be your best assessment of whatever force or energy system would have prevented the helicopter from either moving in a specific direction or, like you said, its controls malfunctioning? So I spoke with a couple physicists and a couple other folks that do experimental avionics, if you will, and I wanted to describe to them the problem set and the observations. They described back to me, well, that sounds to me like inertial dampening or some kind of inertial control. Basically, think about it in a layman’s term because I’m a layman here, not a scientist, that pretend that the air suddenly got stiffer or had more pressure, and the blades of the helicopter were not able to increase pitch, just decrease because of the pressure. So when the pilots pulled up on the collective, the hydraulic pressure was not sufficient to overcome whatever the pressure was. And while it could continue to move in the same pattern, it could not increase the pitch to climb or to move forward.

[53:49] So that’s my belief of what technology we may have been in field of. There are some other observations that are minor, but it’s only one observation, one experience, one time. It’s really hard to draw concrete conclusions other than this is interesting, it’s different, but to try to eke out, you know, hey, this is how it was operating or what it was doing, no idea. But we do know these things are not making sonic booms when they’re at Mach 30.

[54:19] They can fly right over us, and we don’t hear them and see them at Mach 30. And they can hover, and they can hover 800 meters away, and you can see it all day long, and then it just flies away and disappears. So we have a lot of knowledge of the tic-tacs, but not a whole lot of data. Yeah, as I heard that story told, I felt I was praying for you all because there have been instances where UAP have allegedly engaged with military helicopters and caused either the helicopter to have a catastrophic malfunction or to be forcibly, allegedly forcibly lifted. In the Coyne helicopter incident in 1973, a Huey helicopter was forcibly lifted by what was perceived as a green beam, some kind of an energy source, all coming off a UAP. And then I believe it was in 2004 in Coronia, Sicily, an Italian military helicopter had a catastrophic rotor failure and had to emergency land after a UAP encounter.

[55:20] So, you know, it’s not a neutral thing to go up and make contact with one of these craft in a helicopter. But, of course, so much more data collection and observation would be needed to know exactly what’s taking place there. Yeah, absolutely. So let’s move on to the blob and the beam. Yeah, so the blob looks like, as it is stated, it’s like a pepto-bismol-colored pink cloud. It vibrates and pulses in color. The color is consistent.

[55:54] It just gets dimmer and brighter, and it vibrates while it moves through the sky. We didn’t see the blob until, I think, 2023, and then we see it regularly when we run the dog whistle. It doesn’t loiter, kind of like the tetra, it just comes in and out. You know, we’ve never observed it stay in the area. And there is a pattern. It’s not like we turn on the dog whistle and it’s almost like a military parade, you know, like a duck walk almost, like an air show of, like, first the B-1s are going to come, then the F-16s. It’s kind of like what we see with the UAPs. The classes come at certain times throughout the week of the day.

[56:34] They come in certain groupings and in certain orders. So it’s not like it’s just random. It’s not like there’s a dragonfly, there’s a butterfly, there’s a hummingbird. No, there’s the dragonfly, and then we’re waiting for the hummingbird because you know that’s next. Okay, I was going to ask about that. Like is there some sense of an escalatory sequence to this and also a responsiveness to your team, or is this thing running a pattern of its own making kind of not so responsive to what you all were doing?

[57:03] So it’s clear to me and my team that each UAP class has a mission, a primary mission it functions under. For example, the TIC-TAC is probably a fast reconnaissance airframe of some kind. I don’t know. We don’t know what the BLOB does. Perhaps it’s a sensor. Hard to say. So there is a rhyme and reason to how they’re functioning and what they’re doing in the environment, which is how we derive or try to derive what their mission may be. Okay.

[57:36] So tell us about these two classes. Okay. So the BEAM is your typical as-reported sphere. We have limited observations of the BEAM. We’ve only seen it, I believe, in 22 and 23. We have not seen it since. And we’ve seen them operate in groups and come into our environment and stay in our environment while other UAPs pass through, kind of almost like traffic controllers, if you will. Because of the limited data, it’s hard to make any substantial claims on when you can and cannot see them.

[58:11] We have not observed them in electro-optical, but it could be atmospheric hazing because they’re at distance. We believe they’re at distance because we couldn’t see them on radar at the time. But we have limited knowledge on the BEAM UAP. The manta ray, we’ve seen it in the sky. We had a close encounter with a manta ray on the ground 800 meters away. It’s actually the same time we saw the tic-tac. The manta ray was there as well in the same part of the sky when we went to chase.

[58:41] Before we went to chase the tic-tac, the manta ray actually was there and then just disappeared. It was there. We could see it. And then the whole team was watching it, and then it just vanished in the sky and we couldn’t find it anymore. So that was about 800 meters away. And we know that because of where it was in the sky. We could see it on radar briefly. On the Bright Star, those are the ones that they vibrate. They look like a diamond that’s vibrating in the sky and changing color while it vibrates.

[59:13] That’s the one that hit us with the EW. It should be noted that the Bright Star used EW against us. EW, energy weapon? Electronic warfare, yeah. Okay, okay. Sufficient enough to turn off all of our equipment. And I wanted to ask about that because you made that claim. I believe it was on Jesse Michaels that your team was actually hit by what you might call a directed energy weapon of some kind. Talk us through those instances of that direct interference or manipulation and how you were able to either detect them coming from the UAP or happening at the exact moment of an observation. Yeah, so we were watching a sortie. There were actually two Bright Stars in the sky at the same time. We were watching them maneuver on us, around us. They were loitering in the area, and we were tracking them both visually.

[60:06] There were some interference happening with our systems that I can’t go into here, but we were tracking them visually very well. We had another system that required manual steering of an antenna that we were going to point at one of them to make some more observations. And when we pointed that antenna in their vicinity, they hit our system with an EW weapon of some kind. We had multiple laptops, computers, radar, camera systems, and all of them were turned to the off position with whatever this was. So we did. So all systems just went dark at the same moment. Yeah, before they went dark, several of them did log the attack.

[60:55] So we actually know the waveform that was reported to our systems. It was being used. We actually know we have actually some data around that waveform and around the energy levels of what was used, and it was enough energy to overpower the internal circuitry of our systems to make them panic, shut down, is what it was. Okay. Yeah. And interesting stuff. Okay, good. And let’s get through the final classifications here.

[61:19] We also have a couple videos to share that you sent in, so call for those at any moment. I think that might have been about a prior class. Yeah. So the jellyfish is very curious. We didn’t see that, I don’t think, until 2023. It was our first observation of a jellyfish. Again, I kind of mentioned at the very beginning that the task force told us about the jellyfish, but we’d never seen it. We actually caught it, I think, the class three back in 2022, but we struck it because we’d never seen it amongst our team until 2023.

[61:49] That’s one of the more common observations that we make and we still make today. We’re being sent imagery from around the world of people observing jellyfish. It’s a very commonly observed now in 2025 and 2026 class of UAP. More than anything, it’s the one we get sent. It’s very verifiable and very viewable. Like the other UAPs, people are making observations now with their cell phones, which is very telling. It means those things are closer and lower than they typically have been. The jellyfish class is interesting in that it can outmaneuver a helicopter.

[62:25] We’ve chased probably 10 or 15 of them. We’ve never caught one or been able to approximate. They out-elevate us, typically. They can climb faster than we can climb. Despite being able to do 120, 150 knots, whatever the little bird will do, it’s not my forte, but whatever ground speed we’re moving at, we can’t catch them. That’s despite seeing one 20 kilometers maybe to our west, moving east, flying right over us. We launch the helicopter right as it gets right over us, and then we get into a pursuit of it.

[62:55] We still can’t catch it. Does it appear to actively evade? Yes. Or is it just doing its own thing? No, no. They evade us. They evade us by flying faster and flying up. Okay. The helicopter has a ceiling. We’re in the high desert, typically, so we can only go so high. Call it 12,000 AGL highest. These things are flying higher and higher to escape us, which is interesting because we see them inbound, ingressing at a flattened level. Call it 8,000 feet AGL. Then we launch the helicopter and we approximate. They just keep going up.

[63:29] If we don’t chase them, they don’t go up, so they’re clearly evading us, which is its own thing. How do these UAP know that we’re chasing them? If you’re flying a Cessna through my airspace and I launch my helicopter to fly after you and I don’t have ADS-B on, which you don’t have to have it on necessarily, how would you know? Someone has to tell you. Someone has to ring you up on your radio or phone or Starlink or whatever and say, there’s a helicopter launching to come get you.

[63:57] Someone with a radar, somebody with communications with you to alert you to take evasive action. There’s a helicopter inbound. So how do these UAP know that we’re chasing them? How are they making that observation? Is it on platform? Is there something else in the environment alerting them to our status? How are they tracking us? We’re not seeing any other radars. We’re not seeing any other technology in an environment that’s not natively there. Is it a space-based platform? Is there a satellite with real-time telemetry watching our site and alerting?

[64:27] Hey, take evasive action. The Americans are chasing you. That’s its own question, but even the jellyfish, which looks biologic almost, of all the craft, looks the most biologic if there were to be one, is able to evade the helicopter and knows to evade the helicopter. You mentioned primary mission for some of these UAP. Any insight into the primary mission for the jellyfish type class? Yeah, it’s probably transport. So we’ve made observations of the jellyfish carrying other UAPs as a payload, and we make a lot of observations with the jellyfish with nothing as tentacles, if you will, carrying any payload.

[65:11] So in our mind, when there’s nothing in the tentacles, it’s deployed as payload. So that’s our current theory. I wanted to just backtrack a little bit and see if these well-known videos, footage of the TIC-TAC, 2004 Nimitz carrier incident, does that comport to your observations of the TIC-TAC? Same with the jellyfish UAP, I think via Jeremy Corbell and weaponized. I think that was detected in a conflict zone in Iraq, possibly. Does that comport to your observation?

[65:44] The Iraq variant looks different than the ones we’ve seen here in the United States and in other parts of the Middle East. So it does look different. The tentacles look different. The flight configuration looks different. Their cameras, I believe they have a better view. They are closer than we are or their cameras higher end than the ones we are using. So I believe their imagery is probably superior to our imagery. But at distance, it doesn’t look the same. So maybe a different model, a different species, a different technology.

[66:22] Don’t know. But similar but different. Right. Right. Might be seeing Cadillacs and Mercedes out on the highways of the skies, you know, if there’s different force forces present with different technological vehicles, but similar looking or similar models. All right. Let’s round it out with these two. You know, what if we’re seeing the American C-17 and they’re seeing the Chinese C-17 or whatever they call that, you know. I’m also curious real quick, have you had any observations of what might be seen as mimicry or spoofing of a UAP attempting to not look the same once detected or observed or changing its morphology?

[67:08] The class six changes and the class 10 changes. So those two tend to change a lot. I think those are the only two classes we have observed really change. The class 11 does change where you can see it. There is signature management happening on the class 11, the barbell. So but in terms of and like I told you, we’ve seen the class five just disappear. Right. So in terms of mimicry, like looking like a Cessna or an F-16, we haven’t seen that that we know of.

[67:42] But we have seen UAPs that employ some kind of signature management or change their signature in the sky. The Hornet, that’s a class that looks like, you know, the first time we observed it looked like it was almost like a hornet, like a like a mushroom with a tail on it. And it looked like it was kind of alive the way it was moving through the sky. These tend to directly overfly the team’s position where the dog was at. They tend to fly low level and slow.

[68:15] A lot of these UAP actually fly at airspeed plus just a little bit and then increase the airspeed if we pursue them. There isn’t there is a photo you could show that has us in a helicopter chasing a UAP. And it’s actually us chasing the Hornet class. What’s interesting is we have radar EOIR footage and and the ADS-B data from that flight. And that’s the closest we ever got to UAP. It’s just about 150 meters away from us from the ground.

[68:47] The ground team could see the helicopter and the UAP on radar and on imagery from the air. We they’re telling me to look out the left door of the little bird and we couldn’t see anything. They’re like, it’s right outside your window. Look left. We see nothing. Meanwhile, they’re vectoring us and telling us, no, it’s right there like you don’t see it. We can see you. We can see it. You’re on the same radar flight level like you’re right there. So so the Hornet was able to mask itself from us, we believe.

[69:17] And then also able to outmaneuver us because it out flew us once once we did that aggressive maneuver. And interestingly, when we flew that close to the Hornet, the UAPs disappeared for the rest of that week. They didn’t respond to us anymore after that for that event. So does that represent coordination between the classes that they’ve decided to knock it off and not come to our event anymore? After we were very aggressive, which is unfortunate for us because it’s like day two of an event, a very expensive event. And then they just didn’t come back. OK, and then the the much discussed egg.

[69:54] So I’ve never observed an egg myself. We got this class from Jake Barber during the during the August of 24, our very first time working together as a team. I don’t know if we’d even formed Skywatcher yet as a as an entity. We were just went out together and did a thing. That’s when we we we observed something. It could be an egg. I suspect it was. And I say suspect because I don’t like to call things out that I have data on.

[70:26] And the data we have is very, very low level data because we were just brand new, weren’t informed yet. So we didn’t have our million dollar systems in play when we made the observation. Now, it’s very interesting is the UAPs that I have enumerated to classes are based on observations me and my team have made. Typically, those are flying. Our observations are first made at slow speed, at a hover, slow speed, ingress, egress, call it 300 knots and below.

[70:55] We are increasingly aware of sorties of UAPs that move through at Mach 30 to include the tic tac. There are observations being made now with lower level sensors where you appear moving through frame at terrific speeds. And they’re only found in post and you cannot see them with the human eye. So has the egg been in proximity to us many times? For all I know, yes. But in post, we’re able to see something moving through our screens at hypersonic speeds and we’re not able to quantify that yet. So we know one of the craft we’re seeing at hypersonics is the tic tac.

[71:34] We have yet to observe the egg with more data to definitively call that one out. I’ve seen estimates of UAP moving at speeds of 44,000 miles per hour. That was an SCU study and then another estimate at 80,000 miles per hour. I think the human eye can perceive an object moving roughly 40,000 miles per hour. Mach 30 is something like 23,000 miles per hour, so extremely fast. So these could be traversing the sky, people are looking up, nobody’s seeing anything, and they could be there in tremendous numbers conducting any sort of operation.

[72:12] And without the ability to detect and to capture, I guess, would it be electro-optical data that you can then go in after the fact and identify these craft? We would have otherwise no way to know that they’re up there. No, there is some anecdotal evidence, some newly understood data that is indicative that there are actually large fleets of fast-moving craft maneuvering together in the atmosphere regularly. It’s very anecdotal and very new data, so I don’t make any wild claims, but we don’t know what we don’t know.

[72:53] We have seen the TIC-TAC, we have it on multiple systems moving at hypersonic speeds, and we assess it to be the TIC-TAC based on the metadata associated with those observations. So if one can do it, how many are out there and how many are actually doing that in airspace that we’re not aware of? And we think that number is probably significant. Right. During the whole mystery drone craze, and I don’t want to associate that with UAP, I want to be very careful to not over-associate, but there were these alleged reports of seeing a, quote, mothership with objects come out of it or go back into it. Did you make any observations of craft kind of coming out of another craft?

[73:38] Other than transport and cargo style relationships, we have not observed any, you know, any one dot become two dots, right, if you will. We have not observed that. We’ve just observed, you know, the Tetras maneuvering together. We call it like a roller coaster where they start, like, follow the leader while the leader goes up and down, left and right, or whatever, in the sky. We’ve observed that, but we have not made observations of – there’s one, now there’s two, now there’s ten.

[74:05] Outside of the Hellfire missile video from last year that was released at the congressional hearings, that’s the only thing I’ve ever seen on film that matched anything we have of one object becoming more than one object. And that was the alleged impact of a Hellfire missile upon a UAP. And, right, which I think the provenance of that video came under stiff questioning, so I’m not exactly sure, you know, how trustworthy it is.

[74:35] I wanted to ask as well about UAP appearing to interact together to, you know, either compete in the air, chase each other off. I think there were some anecdotes of that possibly taking place. Yeah, we’ve had multiple classes in the sky at a time. We tend to like to chase the jellyfish because it’s very observable at very long distances and seems to be the most vulnerable to forcing a close encounter. So one day we had increasingly apparently provocative maneuvers by the jellyfish throughout the week. And what does a provocative maneuver look like?

[75:20] First, we would see them on the edge of our sensor systems, our active systems, maneuvering. You know, you might see one fly right over us at very high altitude, call it, you know, flight level 180, 200. Then you’d see two maneuver, one to the north of you, one to the south of you, two and a half kilometers offset. Then you might see just deliberate probes, if you will, of our technology that’s deployed, putting themselves in beam of our sensors. And then… Deliberate probe in terms of putting themselves in the way of your ability to sense them, deliberately coming in, quote, view of the technology.

[76:00] Yeah, so starting high and out and then coming closer and lower and closer and lower in a deliberate fashion day after day. So it’s obvious that they’re measuring and they’re looking at us to see what we’re doing. It’s clear that that’s what part of their mission is. But in this one instance, the last thing it did is it came and it was the first time we ever saw a UAP with a naked eye as a team. A jellyfish came and hovered over us for like 20 minutes. It was only a couple, I’d say less than 800 meters up. It wasn’t very high and it just stayed static right over us. And so we were like, well, what can be more provocative? Like what’s next? Is it going to come down and land? Is it going to zap us?

[76:41] Is it going to come out a whole fleet of them next time? Like what’s going to happen? This is the last event of the day. What’s going to happen tomorrow when we wake up and we go make the dog whistle work and we have more observations? What will happen? So the next day came and that’s when we had the spectacular event with the tic-tac and the manta ray. And it sounds ridiculous saying these things, but we could see the jellyfish, I would say, 20 kilometers out ingressing.

[77:07] And then Jake’s team actually was conducting overwatch, protective overwatch on us. And they were on the ridge and they said, I think it was them, they said, we see a tic-tac right there in the sky just sitting there. And because there were two sites, we could fix it and that’s how we knew how far away it was. And so the tic-tac and the manta ray were behind. We could see to their horizon to the south, to the east, to the south, to the west, but to the north there was a ridge only a couple of kilometers away that obscured our view. We couldn’t see to the north.

[77:45] The jellyfish was to the north and we could see it because it was high altitude. But it was ingressing. So we were preparing to go launch on it and the team’s like, no, actually there’s a tic-tac and a manta ray right there hiding behind the ridge. So only a couple hundred meters up and a hundred meters out. So where our equipment, as high as we could get it in the environment, couldn’t see. There was no line of sight from our camera system or to the radar to those objects.

[78:08] But the team on the ridge could see them because it’s too steep, it’s too rugged to do anything other than walk. So then we positioned myself and several others and we went high enough on the ridge to get there’s a tic-tac and a manta ray between us and the jellyfish. And so the jellyfish continued to ingress and then stopped ingressing. All right. So obviously that’s a one-time event. Our observation was, well, is the tic-tac and the manta ray, are they placing themselves between us and the jellyfish on purpose? Is there a defensive, offensive event happening? Remember, this was the day after everything culminated.

[78:46] We were kind of like, well, what can the jellyfish do more provocative than hover over us in clear view, in clear sight of all of our systems? What else more provocative can it do? Is it going to drop something? Is it going to land? Is it going to do something crazy? So that was really spectacular for us to see that. And it’s the only time we ever saw that. And three kilometers down the hill where the Seattle Next guy is doing their thing, which I was cut off from purposefully, so we didn’t really talk about who’s doing what or who’s seeing what. So it was a really spectacular event, if you will, series of events. Unfortunately, it was very early in our Skywatcher as a team foray.

[79:24] That was week one of event one, really, as a team. I think it was February of 25. So we made some catastrophic errors. We’d never seen a UAPU with the naked eye, so we had no reason to think that our secondary and tertiary systems would become primaries, that we won’t be able to see it with the radar and the million-dollar systems, that we’d have to resort to handheld. And we’d never seen them with the naked eye, much less with the handheld.

[79:48] So we didn’t have everything ready to go. We were kind of, as you would say, on our ass. We were like, holy cow, get up and run. Try and go see these things. And we screwed that up pretty good. And we never had that opportunity again. Interesting. I know John and Jerry Tedesco, who will be the next guests on Emergent in a couple weeks from now, they’ll also be speaking at the summit. They have some observations of different craft types seeming to chase off one another, to try to intervene in the observation and prevent a craft from either being seen or getting closer.

[80:26] And so I’m curious if there are any other instances of kind of in-flight behavior between UAP that might appear, you know, of course, this is hard to verify or validate, but appear competitive in nature. We haven’t seen that. Typically, the ingress and egress, it’s interesting how they do it. We make notes. We record the data. We haven’t seen interplay, which is why we were very provocative with the helicopter and chased probably about 25 UAPs and different sorties trying to evoke a reaction and to gather data on what they would or wouldn’t do if you chased them. So learned a lot through those observations and close encounters.

[81:08] But we don’t have data on, say, a tic-tac doing something to a jellyfish, like other than there’s a static object in the sky and there’s another UAP beyond it in the sky as well. So any conclusions we can draw are very anecdotal and preliminary to say the least. Right, exactly. Any observations of truly prosaic craft kind of appearing during your observations? I mean, we see drones, birds, balloons, airliners all the time.

[81:39] Right, but seeming to converge upon you and your teams out there or, you know, responsive in some way. We’ve seen our government run activities on our periphery. We’re at government events a lot of times for these things. So being able to call out, like, men in black showing up, we have none of that, right? We have, hey, look, there’s a predator drone moving through the environment. Hey, we’re down by the southern border. Like, that’s what they do, right? Right.

[82:06] So, you know, we don’t have any observations of man-made technology playing in our events that we know of that we’ve ever observed. I think of the Skin Watcher Ranch, you know, examples of military craft seeming to appear and seeming to overfly, you know, the observation site at key moments. So just wanted to check on that. We have a few viewer questions I’d like to pose to you, James. And then after that, we can talk about the path forward.

[82:36] How does this work, this, you know, observation in the field advance into the years ahead? This is a question from one of the viewers on, users of Forerunner. There are claims that not – I’m sorry. There are claims that human military forces have been successful in bringing UAP down. And there are reports of biologicals or biological matter in various labs. Do you believe humanity as a whole may face consequences for the actions of military forces? I presume against UAP or potential NHI. I don’t know. It’s a good question.

[83:11] I mean, we’re chasing with a helicopter trying to evoke a response to see what happens. What are the consequences of that? You know, what are the consequences of a 747 flying for Delta having a midair with one, right? What are the consequences of the military using a Hellfire missile to shoot one down, if that’s what happened or could happen or has happened? That’s a really good question. I can just say that to date we don’t have any evidence to support that.

[83:38] But we also don’t have any evidence to show that it’s not going to be the case. So if these are – if this technology that is flying with impunity in our airspace, that is not made in America, and I think we can say decisively this is not American made, because if it is, they’re committing felons, felonies, and they are putting commercial and civil aviation at risk and not to mention military aviation at risk by flying in close proximity in closed air corridors, breaking every law that there is on the books for our sovereignty, that typically would evoke a Hellfire being fired at you for what they’re doing. So whoever is doing this is not friendly to the United States, probably to the West, and they are absolutely probing military capabilities and capacities and measuring our ability to detect them or to do other military activities. So is this the first stage of a conflict?

[84:40] Is the reconnaissance and intelligence they’re gathering now knowledge to be used later? I mean, who knows? But I don’t think you can discount the actions that we’re observing. It’s not like we’re observing these over the Super Bowl watching the game with us. We’re reviewing these things in closed airspace, in close proximity to manned aviation and weapons of war conducting signature managed activities in areas that normally we would blast them out of the sky.

[85:10] So that’s not what a friendly entity does. Right, right. Yeah, it’s at the minimum high risk, potential high hazard activity in the airspace and at worst the beginning phases of some kind of larger operation. Curious, James, to your knowledge, what is the flight safety risk at this point? What are UAP being observed to do around civilian aircraft? And what are those high risk activities? We’ve observed them to fly inside of and immediately adjacent to commercial air corridors. If you’re in the El Paso region and you look, there’s an east-west running air corridor that goes right by El Paso, just north of it, to basically fly from, say, San Diego or L.A. to D.C.

[85:57] Most air traffic kind of comes very close to the Mexican border right there, but stays in the United States. That same air corridor is shared by UAP. The difference is that UAP don’t have ADS-B. They don’t have navigation lights, but they’re maneuvering with impunity right through the air corridor regularly. We observe commercial aviation at the same flight level as we observe UAP while UAP move through the air corridor. And they move through it. They move along it.

[86:22] They move just south of it, just north of it, east and west and whatever configuration you think of. So that’s just the commercial air corridors. We also observe them in closed airspace, military closed airspace, in proximity to manned aviation, like I told you in 2021. There’s an airport not too far away, and when we looked at our footage where we were looking at the tail number of an airplane, we found a UAP within frame.

[86:45] So we zoomed in close enough to see the tail number in the video, and there’s a UAP off its wing. And that’s not in a commercial air corridor, but that’s, you know, call it like flight level 120. You know, it’s not that high in the sky. So how many air – Are these UAP intercepting aircraft? Are they tracking aircraft? Are they appearing to conduct a maneuver around the aircraft for some purpose? We’ve – I’d rather not go too much into that, but I will just say that commercial aviation and military aviation is at risk by the activities of whoever’s maneuvering these craft.

[87:21] Well, certainly, if what you’re saying, you know, is that as many prosaic craft are observed in a flight corridor, are UAP being observed? I mean, that’s a high volume of traffic, considering how many flights per day, you know, go between the West Coast and the eastern seaboard. So definitely – And you must consider, like I told you, we chased the Hornet class. We’ve chased many UAP with a helicopter where we’re being vectored in by very sophisticated, expensive equipment and a ground controller vectoring us to the UAP. We have never seen a UAP from the sky, never. Is their signature management preventing us from seeing them in the sky? When you’re in the sky, can you even see a UAP? Now, I know when I’m speaking of seeing them, I mean with the naked eye.

[88:08] We have plenty of ISR footage, including the Hellfire missile that is a UAP and the tethered balloon in Iraq with their Iraqi jellyfish, if you will. So we know they can’t be seen with the right optics, but can they be seen with the naked eye from the sky? I don’t know that they can be, right? But yet they can from the ground with the naked eye. Yes. So what does that mean? Does that mean that pilots looking out their cockpit, if they happen to be looking out, or passengers looking out their window, will they even be able to see it if it’s even there? Right? That’s a big problem. Right.

[88:47] We talk about signature management and being able to potentially become unobservable. Low observability is one of the five observables of UAP. There are some growing indications of some manipulation of consciousness or perception that these possible craft are able to exert. So you wonder if they are able to command or control the nature of perception by those in the air, by pilots, for example, and maybe you were the one that got through.

[89:18] You were the team on the ground that either they didn’t account for or they wanted you to see them. And they were testing and experimenting on you as much as you were on them. So interesting dimensions to the consciousness-based aspect of the phenomenon. Yes, it’s a good question, a really good question. It would be interesting to find out. Yeah, right. Even when Skywatcher first came out and they were using these methods to vector in – well, we don’t know vector, but to basically put off a signal that caused UAP to appear or to become observable.

[89:56] I always wondered, are you the observer and you’re the subject, they’re the object, or is it really the inverse? And here’s a novel ground crew that we can then observe. They’re putting off a signal. Fine with us. Let’s go see what kind of signal they put off. How do they conduct observational science? Let’s go learn on them. And there’s always this subject-object kind of question, which is who’s observing who? Who’s collecting on who? And is the data coming in or going out? Absolutely.

[90:28] Whoever controls this technology and is deploying this technology against the United States in our sovereign airspace, that’s a very valid question to ask. If they have this bespoke technology, why are they casting their pearls before the swine? Why are they letting us observe this technology? So is the UAP a distraction while there’s a jellyfish moving through the sky and the tic-tac is what’s really happening or an egg or some other technology being deployed that we can’t even observe and they’re making other observations?

[91:00] Do those observations include the human genetics or human conscious or consciousness or some other aspect that we don’t understand? While we think that we’re in control and we’re the ones observing, you’re right. Maybe we’re the ones that we’re just being provoked to do an action so that our reaction can be checked. So that’s very much in our minds of who’s in charge here. If you have this kind of technology, are you really as dumb as a bug coming to a bug light? It’s got to be more sophisticated than that. So surely there’s a reason why they’re coming to the dog whistle.

[91:37] We have ideas about what that is, but who knows what level of chess they’re playing here. Is that 3D chess or 4D chess? This could be just the tip of a larger operation that could extend in many different directions, many different domains of the Earth system. It could be making forms of psychic or physical contact at the same time and in ways that we don’t understand in countries that we don’t have good observability into.

[92:05] What is the UAP phenomenon doing in sub-Saharan Africa or the Amazonian region of Brazil? Do we know? So what we detect in Texas may not be what it’s doing east of Moscow. So the international dimension to this, the low observability internationally is, in my mind, the beginnings of a crisis in that we are unable to form an intelligence picture, not just an aerial one, but a whole human and Earth system one. Well, I also need to point out the Tesseract.

[92:38] We call it the Tesseract because it looks like – and you could play the video or show the images. I think the Tesseract does have images for you. But what’s very interesting about the Tesseract is it does change form while it’s flying. So what’s interesting about the Tesseract is we call it the Tesseract because it looks like if somebody tells you what a 4D object in 3D will look like, it looks like what the Tesseract is. It looks like what we can see.

[93:05] And it’s the most – of all the classes of UAP, it’s the most telling that somebody has a technology that is exquisite and unexplainable. And the Tesseract is the most interesting. Now, the Tesseract is probably a sensor, right? It’s deployed by other transport UAPs from our observations and our belief. But it does change form. It’s not like you’re watching the cube-shaped-looking object maneuver through the sky as a cube the whole time.

[93:38] For half the flight or sortie or as it ingresses, it might look like a black dot, a black dot in the sky. Then it might look like a black circle. Then after a few seconds or perhaps when it comes into range or wherever it’s at, it might look like a cube. And then it looks like a Tesseract. And all this is happening over the span of, say, five or seven minutes, ten minutes. And it’s not consistent. So it does change electro-optical and IR characteristics consistently while it flies. And when it’s in the Tesseract form factor, it’s got different colors coming out of it, purple and pink and red and blue and all kinds of different kaleidoscope of colors. So when you talk about intent and you talk about what the missions are of each class and how the Tesseract is probably a sensor of some kind, what is it measuring? Why is it brought to the dog whistle? Why is it brought to the theater? What is it looking for when it measures us? And then if we see it being deployed from a transport UAP, how does it recover? Does it fly off into the atmosphere? Does it crash in the ground? We believe we’ve seen five UAP potentially crash over the years.

[94:56] I say potentially because the first four were in 2022. We didn’t have them on radar. Your team observed literal impact on the ground or in the ocean? No, we observed. Remember I told you there were over 200 sorties of UAPs in 2022 that came in directly over us and egressed out. There were four over the course of two days that came down at an angle and never kind of arced out and went horizontal to the ground and departed.

[95:23] They just continued straight vertical or at an angle until they were low enough to disappear behind the hills. But the problem is we’re in the desert. We did have the biblical flooding, if you will, like the day after, and I’m running a war game. I can’t just gallivant off and stop a war game I’m running. I have to run the war game. So by the time we got to free time where I was able to take the majority of the war game participants and go shoulder to shoulder looking for a cartel drone that had crashed in the desert, it had flooded. It was ridiculous. It took us like four or five days to get out there. We get out there. We’re looking. What are we looking for? Four of them were on the same azimuth from our position. We think we know about what valley they’re in. Half the valley is private land. In Texas, you don’t go on private land unless you want to get shot. There’s a lot of complicating factors. So we searched and found nothing.

[96:18] Again, what are we looking for? Is it tetra? Is it a crystal ball? Is it a piece of wreckage? Am I looking for what looks like a kite? What is it going to be found on the ground? And then the Hornet we saw in 2024, we believe it may have crashed. These are all UAPs that started at high level, and last observation was extremely low level. So that one we saw, the last observation we had was about 300 meters altitude, and it started at several thousand meters altitude. So it was probably five kilometers away, about three meters off the ground, and we weren’t able to find it. In fact, we went out in 2025 with a helicopter and searched.

[96:59] Again, like in the other events, when you’re running a war game, you can’t just stop. Right. I mean, is it conceivable these objects came in at that angle and then went behind a hill and just stopped feet above the ground? Completely conceivable. And then took off at ground level, right? Or, I mean, penetrated the ground in some fashion. Yeah, completely conceivable. But we’ve observed them to come to extremely low level, low enough level to be behind hills or small, rolling mountains in our direct vicinity, and it’s just having the manpower and the budget to allocate to go pursue those in a timely manner.

[97:39] Right. Two more big picture questions that will demand some speculation, but I’ll pose them anyway. James, do you believe that there is contact or direct communication with any of these entities, either agreements or perhaps admonitions or ultimatums from NHI? Is it even possible to communicate on such a level with the phenomenon? You know, that’s so far outside my wheelhouse. I don’t know. I can just say somebody’s operating with impunity.

[98:08] We’re seeing thousands and thousands of sorties per year, and I’m basing that on extrapolation. We’ve run operations around the United States. There’s a certain bubble of effect that we can observe UAPs in that. We know that UAPs, we can observe them outside of our bubble, if you will, at distance. You know, see them flying, say, west to east. Say we see a UAP flying west to east, running a dog whistle, maybe off to the north, maneuvering west to east. It gets within a certain distance of the dog whistle, and then it deviates from its given flight path to maneuver south, and then it enters our observable bubble with our sensors, say 20 kilometers to our west, maneuvers right over us, continues 20 kilometers to our east to exit our bubble of effect, and then returns on a north trajectory return on its flight path, and it continues east. So it’s clear to us that that UAP was eastbound. It saw a shiny object.

[99:11] It was dispatched to go check out the shiny object, which is the dog whistle, which is us. So if you extrapolate those knowns out, we’ve come up with over 15,000 sorties a year, and that’s by taking how many we observe in a day when we have observations, when we make observations, and it does vary by day of week and time of day and other factors and locations. We extrapolate all that out, we come up with 15,000 sorties of the slow-moving classes UAPs.

[99:35] So that is a lot of sorties that somebody’s flying with 11 different form factors, right? So it’s not like you have, you know, your Ford variant with all the permutations between a Mustang and a Pinto and an F-250. It’s like Ford and Chevy and, I don’t know, you know, a battleship now. Like it’s just completely divergent from nomenclature, class, form factor. So somebody must be controlling that. Somebody must be directing and deciding how those tools are employed.

[100:10] Somebody must be mandating when you’re in a west to east, you see a shiny object, this is your allowed deviation to go check it out. This is what we want to know, and here’s your mission. That must be being done with these assets and resources. And whoever is doing that is doing it in a manner that is not consistent with friendly relations to the United States or to the west. So if you put that together, if there is an agreement with whoever is controlling these, like it sounds like they’re not abiding by it. They’re doing sneaky things.

[100:40] They’re bumping us in the ribs, and we’re talking about publicly as a government. So it must not be in accordance with whatever, if there was an agreement. Right. Hard to imagine the elected U.S. government sanctioning that kind of activity, those intercepts, that extremely hazardous activity around commercial aviation, you know, airplanes loaded with people. The legal implications, right, the criminality that would be implied. It’s hard to imagine that that’s an agreed upon status quo.

[101:11] So this has been fascinating, James, and we’re going to continue this into part two of the conversation in After Hours and talk more about some of what we might extrapolate from these early findings and these anecdotal observations. What is the larger operation at play, and how do we begin to generate a bigger, more complete intelligence picture regarding what’s in our skies? So look forward to part two. I also just want to say, I know, you know, these are the front lines of what we can observe. This is not to say all that science would like.

[101:46] I mean, this is what’s possible in the field today, but where it can go in the future is quite exciting. To be able to talk about eastbound UAP, to even use a phrase like that, or to talk about flight corridors of UAP or entry and exit out of the water, these are groundbreaking new parameters to the phenomenon that I’m excited that we can begin to even articulate or even conceive of articulating, and that is, in my view, the intelligence picture that we need.

[102:14] So I want to thank James for all of your work on those front lines and that of Skywatcher. If you’re with us watching, be sure to head over to the part two of this conversation with James Fowler, become a YouTube member, a supporter on Patreon, or make a free account over at Forerunner, and you’ll have access to it as well. And so with that, thank you so much for viewing part one of this conversation. I appreciate all those who are in this, a part of this conversation, bringing this into the public, so important right now.

[102:47] Once again, I encourage you to attend James Fowler’s presentation at the UAP Detection and Tracking Summit, which will take place in the evening timeframe, February 7th, in this online conference, and look forward to all that James has to offer there. And with that, I’ll say goodnight and thank you, and I’ll see you in part two of the conversation. All right.