James Fowler & Marik von Rennenkampff at the Sol Foundation 2025 Symposium — “Testing ‘Dog Whistle’ Signals to Distinguish UAP Origins”
Source: The Sol Foundation, 2025 Symposium session. Speakers: James Fowler (technologist, President of Compass Tech; Skywatcher) and Marik von Rennenkampff (@MvonRen; Sol Briefing host, former Obama-administration State Department/DoD official). URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_S8sSsN7QE (Sol Foundation channel; published 2026-03-12; ~41:33). Captured: 2026-07-01. OpenAI Whisper (whisper-1) via scripts/speech_to_text_remote.py (auto-chunked/merged); the two speakers attributed by content and merged into turns (they alternate in long blocks — Fowler presents his Skywatcher work; von Rennenkampff moderates and delivers the drone-incursions analysis). Turn timestamps are approximate at speaker changes. Proper nouns normalized from the ASR (e.g. “Seoul Foundation”→Sol Foundation, “Merrick”→Marik, “Van Hurk”→VanHerck, “Kiev”→Kiel, “laken Heath”→Lakenheath). Provenance only. Companion Fowler/Skywatcher sources in the base: fowler-reed-summers-emergent-dogwhistle-part1-2026-01-27 (his fuller Reed Summers interview — dog-whistle mechanics and the UAP-Task-Force origin of the class taxonomy) and psicoactivo-813-fowler-dogwhistle-commentary-2026-01-27 (secondary commentary on that interview). Analysis: fowler-skywatcher-technologist and barber-noc-retrieval-claims. What this is: the fullest public technical account to date of the Skywatcher “dog whistle” methodology, paired with a documented-case analysis of the recent “drone” incursions. Two threads:
Fowler / Skywatcher (the “dog whistle”):
- Origin: as a government contractor running war games, his team had a first UAP sighting at a 2021 event — a fleet of seven that deviated to overfly them. They asked whether ground/air activity had provoked the appearance and set out to refine a repeatable “dog whistle” (discrete signals + radar + gimbaled EO/IR cameras) to provoke and observe UAP.
- Claims: for the first ~2.5-3 years they couldn’t see UAP on radar; after re-tooling they now say they see them on radar “every time.” They claim 11 UAP classes (9 previously revealed; 10-11 now public), roles inferred (transport vs sensor), a Class 2 “Tic Tac” and “Manta Ray” observed hiding behind terrain from their radar, and an electronics-interference field in close proximity. With Jake’s team (Jake Barber) added in 2025 they say they chased ~25 UAP by helicopter, approaching within a couple hundred meters, and that UAP are invisible from the air even at 200m — a safety-of-flight concern. The rig costs millions, requires national authority to operate, and is deliberately “non-scalable.”
- Note: Skywatcher is Jake Barber’s for-profit venture; weight these operational claims accordingly (see Barber page for the contested-credibility context).
von Rennenkampff (the incursions analysis, mostly documented cases):
- Langley AFB, Dec 2023 (17 nights; the four-star ACC commander quoted in the WSJ describing “close encounters”; Glen VanHerck, retired NORAD, on 60 Minutes that jamming failed and objects were not tracked on radar; Sen. Roger Wicker “still mystified”; a NASA WB-57 flown in, reportedly capturing no imagery). Lakenheath/UK (possible forward-deployed nuclear weapons; the 1956 Condon-admitted radar-visual case). Wright-Patterson (shut down for drone sightings; radar reporting up to 17 objects). FE Warren AFB missile silos (2019-2020 “mothership” swarms over Colorado/Wyoming/Nebraska, FOIA “mothership” emails; a 1966 historical parallel with formation flights and red/green flashing lights). Navy swarms, 2019 (the Omaha radar tracks Jeremy Corbell released; USS Gabrielle Giffords off San Diego). An FAA drone-report dataset with reports up to 36,000 ft and an F-16 collision.
- The red / blue / other framework: blue = pro-West/US-made, red = adversary, other = anomalous.
The debate / key claim: Fowler argues the nighttime “drone” incursions (New Jersey, Europe, over bases) are most likely human — a red-bucket adversary — and distinct from the daytime “true UAPs” his team observes (“almost like there’s two different teams”), reasoning that a friendly (blue) actor would not break its own laws and disrupt its own airspace, and that his team has never observed a UAP at night. von Rennenkampff presses the historical parallels (flashing lights, mothership dynamics) that complicate a clean prosaic read. Both converge that the pattern — brazen displays over the most sensitive Western military and nuclear sites, jamming failing, poor radar tracking — is unexplained. Weight: von Rennenkampff’s incursions material is grounded in documented public cases (WSJ, 60 Minutes, FOIA, FAA data); Fowler’s dog-whistle / 11-classes / provocation claims are extraordinary, unverified, and from a commercial UAP venture.
Marik von Rennenkampff [0:00]: The 2025 Sol Foundation Symposium. Good morning, everybody, and what I’d like to do is just provide a quick overview of what James and I would like to accomplish this morning. We’ll hear from James. James will give us an overview of what he’s done, his background, his work with Skywatcher. And then as I think many of you know, there has been a fascinating string of so-called drone incursions over the last several years. And we’ll do a little bit of analysis, maybe even a little bit of a debate on what we may be seeing, who may be responsible. So with that, James, I’ll turn it over to you.
James Fowler [1:05]: Wonderful. Thank you, Marik. So I was in the government, U.S. government, for a long time and retired in 2020. And when I retired, I started running war games for various elements of the U.S. government. And at these war games, various technologies were deployed and we started making observations. In 2021, we’re running a war game. And at the conclusion of the war game, actually the last day, we had our first UAP sighting. Understand at the time, nobody there was thinking about UAPs or thinking about other objects in the sky like drones and airplanes and other things we’re using for the war game. Now when we had this observation, it really made us think, what is that, why is it here, and why did it come here? When we noted the observation, it actually was a fleet of UAPs, there were seven of them, and they deviated their flight trajectory through the area to overfly us where we were running the event, and then ingress and egress right over us. It really made us think, what is that? First of all, everybody was in shock. As a contractor to the government running the program, I went first to the government and said, hey, is this one of yours, is this part of the project that you didn’t tell me about? And of course, the answer was no, nobody knew what it was. But we sat on that through 21 to 22, the next event, and then we started to realize, it came to us, what can we do to perhaps get a more enhanced experience? If the things and actions we were doing on the ground or in the air caused this appearance of these craft, can we refine that process? Can we explore, and in 20, 22, when we run the next event, can we have a more profound experience? Can we see more of them? Can we provoke them? Can we learn from whatever this is? So that began the development of the dog whistle. Now the dog whistle started out as a baseline. We knew what we were doing in 21 when we had the observation. So in 22, we said, what can we do else to what we were doing already to enhance? So the dog whistle is comprised of radar. The radar provides us the ability to observe the UAP. Frankly, for the first three years, we never saw them on radar. We had to change things. We had to make new load sets, bring on the right personnel, the right scientists to make adjustments to our technology. In fact, for the first two and a half years, we didn’t think that they were visible on radar. So we used other tools like signals and direct observations with imaging equipment. So that’s kind of how we grew to refine the dog whistle. Now today, we’ve refined it even further. We use some discrete signals in conjunction with our activities and tactics on the ground. And then the radar enables us to actually now we see everything on radar. Every time we see a UAP, we see it on radar as well. So that really helps us because now we can make more astute observations and actually learn a lot. Fortunately and unfortunately, the process of running these events and using the dog whistle generates tremendous amounts of data. And the unfortunate part of that is that data is expensive. It’s hard to look at the data. It’s an onerous task. So part of our burden at Skywatcher has been, well, we’ve generated lots of data running these fun events. We ran six events in 2024 and five. Between those events, we have a very large pool of data. And the task now is normalizing the data so that a scientist shouldn’t have to be a data scientist, right? A scientist should be able to have the data curated for them to view it, analyze it, and conduct their analysis. And that’s the challenge we have today is there’s vast amounts of data that has to go through that process to be curated so that it can be used internally to Skywatcher and beyond.
Marik von Rennenkampff [5:01]: Excellent. Thank you. Do you want to maybe provide an overview of some of the specific observations that you’ve seen out in the field?
James Fowler [5:08]: Yeah, sure. Actually, let’s continue because we’re going to get really into that in the next couple slides. So observations are increasing. When we first started making observations in 21, we saw one time one fleet of UAPs. But now, if you’d have told me in 2022, 23, even 24, that I would get sent videos from people on cell phones seeing the same things we’re seeing, I wouldn’t have believed you because we never saw a UAP with a naked eye until 2025 at Skywatcher. Up until that point, we’d only observe them on radar and on cameras, high magnification electro-optical infrared cameras. So part of the reason why we never made observations with our own eyes is because they were so far away. A small object, a two, three meter object coming in three to five kilometers away is very hard to see. In fact, a lot of people that see UAPs don’t actually observe the UAP, they observe reflections of the UAP. A lot of UAPs are very reflective, and so you’ll see the sun glinting off of the surfaces of the UAPs as they fly. So now we are receiving direct observations from people with cell phone footage and broad daylight. And this is happening from the Middle East to Europe to the Americas. We receive videos probably two or three times a month, and they’re valid UAP videos. And we know they’re valid because we’ve actually learned, one of my colleagues has learned and discovered a signal that you see when you observe a UAP, and I’ll get into that momentarily. But we’ve learned a lot from the UAP. The concept of SkyWatcher was derived from observation of UAP. UAP have taught us how to see them, how to track them, and how to interact with them. We have interacted with UAP many times. It’s been a bi-directional technological interaction, and we yearn to learn more and to have more direct and directive interactions, and perhaps to see where it goes. And kind of to drive the point home, on the left on that screen, you can see a Shaheed drone, very common in the Ukraine war right now. And on the right, you see a Class 1 UAP. They are not the same. The flight characteristics of the UAPs, they’re just so incongruent with modern technology or understanding of flight characteristics that are available. For modern warfare, from the Porsches and Lamborghinis of modern warfare, such as Anduril and others, all the way to the Model Ts, or maybe even like a Ford Pinto, like the Shaheed might be, right? So there’s just no correlation whatsoever in the flight characteristics that you see.
Marik von Rennenkampff [7:53]: Excellent. And I know Ryan Graves has done a lot of work, just switching gears slightly to the safety of flight issue. Can you talk about that a little bit?
James Fowler [7:53]: Yeah. Can you continue with the slide, actually? So we have observed UAP in direct vicinity of manned aviation. We observe this, frankly, every time we go out. The UAP, the picture right there is actually from 2021. One of the blessings of observing UAP in a technological manner is you’re able to derive their characteristics. And once you know what the characteristics are, you can look through your footage and look through your data and find more observations. So this still image was taken from a video, which after we saw the 2021 sighting of the fleet, we went back and looked, and we actually realized that they’d been around us for the entirety of the day, although we only had one observation where we saw them in a live environment. They actually were already in our data. And so in the process of doing some of the war games, we were looking at commercial aviation flying through or adjacent to our airspace, and we realized very quickly that we had observations of UAP in direct vicinity on radar and camera to manned aviation. That continued with Skywatcher. We tried to drive the point home with some of the footage we put out from Skywatcher where we showed airliners in the background of the UAP. And that was to say, OK, the airline corridor, for example, near El Paso, was quite distant from where we were running the event, one of our events for Skywatcher. But we would watch the UAPs transit the commercial aviation airspace at altitude at flight level 200 and below in those commercial aviation airspaces to arrive to our location. So they are very commonly in manned aviation airspace in close proximity. And there is a disparity here where these things are navigating, operating in our airspace. So as you consider the red, blue, and other, if it’s blue, it’s highly illegal and highly dangerous because if this is a physical craft, the propensity for a mishap is high.
Marik von Rennenkampff [10:00]: And I’ll just jump in just for the benefit of the audience. I think we know what red, blue, and other means. You want to just quickly expand on that?
James Fowler [10:09]: Yeah. So we created some buckets to try to categorize and think about these things. So blue would be the bucket of pro-West, if you will. Perhaps in my mind, it was an American bucket. Hey, this thing might be made in America. That’s what I call the blue bucket. You could expand that to include, I would say, NATO and Europe as well, and nations friendly to the West. The red bucket is obviously those folks that are not friendly to the West. And again, that might be an adversary to the blue bucket, right? So that’s where that fits. And then the other bucket is anomalous observations. The fun ones. Yes.
Marik von Rennenkampff [10:46]: Do you want to maybe take a quick second to talk through the logistics of your equipment, your rig, and run folks at maybe at a high level, what you’re actually using out there in the field?
James Fowler [11:03]: Yeah, sure. So we actually were deploying tens of millions of dollars worth of equipment during the government war games. And we were able to narrow it down through iterations and cause and effect and understanding of, hey, we have kind of a cheat code. We had an observation. We’re doing certain things. We had certain equipment in the on position. So therefore, perhaps that was what triggered the appearance of the fleet of UAP. So we, through iteration, were able to distill that down. Now we’re down to, as I described, discrete signals that we use, as well as a radar to make observations with gimbaled camera systems. Unfortunately, the systems we use cost millions of dollars. It’s very difficult to acquire this equipment. Vendors won’t just sell it to you. You can’t just go knock on their door and say, give me one of these. I want one. Here’s some money. They’re not going to give it to you. And to use this equipment, you have to have national authority. Every nation in Europe and the United States, you can’t just turn this equipment on and use it. You have to coordinate with a like FCC equivalent to be authorized to use that equipment. Or you’re subject to rules and regulations that are pretty strict and will promptly put you in a confined environment. So it’s not something you just go do, which is one of the reasons why sharing the dog whistle isn’t really viable. It’s not scalable. It’s a non-scalable solution. Now we’ve refined it, and we have reduced the equipment requirement to produce the dog whistle. But because of the complexity and expense behind the equipment to own and to do these events, the events naturally become expensive, and it’s difficult to manage. So while we would love to democratize the dog whistle, today we can’t.
Marik von Rennenkampff [12:42]: Understandable. And I’ll just add, from my perspective and a lot of video analysis and data analysis, the key element that’s missing is range, is distance. That allows you to determine speed, for example, which is also very important. And I don’t know a lot of guys that have a radar set, and you do. So I know my big head is kind of in the way here, but that is the key element, is having that distance figure to do that fulsome analysis, which Skywatcher is conducting now. Absolutely. Absolutely. All right. Turn it over to you.
James Fowler [13:10]: So we’ve actually been able to distill down the UAPs into various classes. So we so far have produced 11 classes of UAP. I think until now we’ve only revealed nine. The 10th and 11th, they’re not new additions, although 11 is new publicly, 10 has been around since 22 that we’ve made observations with that. But as we’ve made observations of the UAPs, we’ve actually been able to understand some of their roles and things they might be doing to kind of infer some of the tactics and some of the reasons why they may be doing the things they’re doing. Now it’s still a mystery of how they do what they do, and it’s still a mystery of where they come from. But certain UAP have been observed to conduct transportation. We’ve observed UAPs working together to transport one with another. So perhaps one UAP class might be a delivery vehicle or a transport vehicle, while others might be perhaps a sensor. And so once you understand, OK, hey, here’s an observation of a UAP in transport, you have to ask yourself, why is the payload in transport? Why did it just fly here itself? So then you start to arrive at the conclusion, well, maybe there’s some propulsion limitations. Maybe that sensor isn’t just as capable as transport to arrive in theater and conduct the operation it’s conducting. So it becomes quite the philosophical and tactical exploratory exercise to understand UAP. So for example, the class 2 TICTAC, we’ve observed the TICTAC hiding from us. We’ve observed it at a great distance. We’ve never had the TICTAC on radar, well, directly in a leisurely manner had it on radar, because it’s either beyond the bounds of our equipment or hiding, and I’ll quantify that. In one event we were running, we were on a hilltop in the desert, and the only direction we couldn’t see 30, 40 kilometers out was to the north. We were following other UAPs, seeing other UAP traffic. One of our observers from Jake’s team was actually up on the hilltop to the north and said, oh, wow, there’s a TICTAC sitting there in the sky. And the TICTAC was using the military crest of the ridge to hide from the radar and the cameras that we had. So our primary systems could not see the TICTAC. It was hiding from us behind the hill. We’ve observed other UAPs, like the Manta Ray, do the same thing, in fact, at the same time in the same place in the sky. So were they working together? Why did they decide to hide from our primary systems? What can we infer from that? What does that mean? Do they have the ability to see our radar footprint? Are they observing us observing them? What was their purpose of approximating that close to create that, as I would call it, a close encounter? And that was observed by five or 10 members of the team. And at the same time, we had our equipment malfunctioning. So even if they had been around us and directly over us, we still would not have been able to view them because, as I believe, their existence through their propulsion or their technology, there is a field oftentimes found around them that interferes with electronics. We’ve seen this when they’re in close proximity. Every time we’ve been in close proximity to UAP, we have seen interference. So we’ve chased approximately 25 UAPs. Jake is a stellar pilot, and his associates are stellar pilots. And the addition of Jake’s team in 25 is really quite profound. We learned a lot from the helicopter use and being able to approximate. We’re able to approximate within hundreds of meters, a couple hundred meters of two different UAPs, the Class 2 and the Class 8, and I guess actually the Class 10 as well. And then other UAPs we observed three to four, four to five hundred, four or five hundred meters away on the ground hiding behind the hills. So we have had close interactions. Jake described interactions with the helicopter. That’s the most profound interaction we’ve had with our equipment in terms of safety of flight. It does take a lot of nerve to launch a helicopter to fly something that you cannot see. And that’s perhaps lost on folks that from the air you cannot see the UAPs. At least we have not seen them from the air. And we’ve had four people at a time looking out the glass cockpit windows, taking the doors off, using cameras. And on the ground, as Jake showed a picture earlier this week, on the ground with the radar we can see and track the UAP and the helicopter. And from the ground we can use the camera systems to see the UAP and the helicopter. But from the air we make no observations whatsoever. So are they invisible from altitude? Are they just hard to see from altitude? And that gets into the safety of flight. Because if we’re looking for it, we’re 200 meters away, you know, we’re flying and the guys on the ground are saying, look out your left window, it’s right there. And we’re looking, everyone’s looking, and there’s nothing out the left window. How does that affect an airline pilot? What does that mean to an airline pilot or an F-16 pilot flying their craft in an environment? And there’s UAP, perhaps they’re not observing them. So that’s definitely something to behold and understand in the safety of flight as we start talking about the drone incursions that have been about it. Shall we? Yeah, sure. So this photo on the left there was taken by Jake’s team when we reacted. Skywatcher actually went up to New Jersey during that event. We got weathered out when I got there. I think I got there that night when they took that photo. And then I think it was weathered out the rest of the incursions up through the Christmas season. But somebody did come out in a chat, I think maybe in Alabama or somewhere there in a conference, and said, hey, the drone scare in New Jersey, that was us. And we do have photos, actually video, of what looks like a larger system in a circulating pattern of flight and hovering over Picatinny Arsenal. Perhaps that UAP incursion, if you will, over Picatinny perhaps could be that craft depicted on the right-hand side. Perhaps not. But as we look at the New Jersey UAP events, there is anecdotal evidence that it could be blue. It could be a friendly excursion, if you will. But just because one company flew large Group 3 drones over Picatinny Arsenal doesn’t mean that that accounts for all the other activity. So when President Trump says, I don’t know why they’re not talking about it, it isn’t that special. Like, it’s not mine to share, but there’s something to share here. Perhaps that was the concept. There was some kind of military exercise occurring. But I would offer incongruencies do really abound here. If they were flying over Picatinny in closed airspace, that’s one thing. But if they were flying above 400 feet in manned aviation airspace, air corridors, that’s a problem. That’s illegal. And having worked in the US government for a long time, I can tell you the US government does not normally conduct illegal operations in civilian airspace because it’s dangerous. And most commanders, I dare say all commanders, don’t want to assume that risk. Because if something bad happens, the commander in charge owns that risk and that dereliction, and it’s them who will be prosecuted. They know that. So I find it incongruent that that drone system being used over Picatinny to account for all the observations that were made in and around the New York, New Jersey region during that time frame. Also other incongruencies like assets being deployed to the region to investigate the incursions. Again, if it’s a blue system, why deploy national-level capabilities to look that doesn’t quite fit? It’s a mystery. And it is one of many mysteries that, frankly, have fascinated me.
Marik von Rennenkampff [21:24]: I know we have a predominantly large European audience here. And we had some discussions over the last few days about the so-called drone incursions in Europe. I think a lot of leaders and politicians have pointed the finger at Russia. I think that’s fair. That’s logical. That could be an extension of the hybrid warfare that we know is going on. But as you dig a little bit deeper into what we’ve seen over the last few years, the story gets only more and more interesting. And just to quickly recap, there were incursions in Denmark, which were confirmed. Also in Germany, northern Germany over the city of Kiel. Something that was deemed to be surveillance of critical infrastructure. The Munich airport was shut down, I think, twice in a very short amount of time. Interesting. Fascinating that these incidents keep going. Many of the folks here might be familiar with the Langley Air Force Base incursions in December of 2023, which, frankly, are stunning in their scope and just the brazen nature of what we saw. 17 nights, nearly three weeks. Objects with, and here’s the kicker for me, bright flashing lights. The commander, I believe was a four-star general of air combat command, literally is quoted in this Wall Street Journal article, describing it as close encounters at Langley. That’s the four-star general fighter pilot. That gentleman on the right there, that is Glen VanHerck, a retired general who ran NORAD, the military command that oversees defense for all of North America. And he stated openly on 60 Minutes, which many of you may know is one of our leading news programs, that all jamming attempts failed. All the attempts to take these objects down failed completely. They were not tracked on radar. The other gentleman in that photo is Roger Wicker, senator who oversees the military services in Congress. That’s his oversight bucket. And he said that the Pentagon is, quote, still mystified. This is now, we’re going on almost two years after this incident. And I’ll just quickly note, I think, just as kind of an indication of how perplexed the U.S. government was, the military requested a NASA aircraft to fly in. That’s that funky looking airplane on the bottom left. That’s a WB-57. That is basically a flying camera. And from all I know, no imagery was captured of these objects. So fascinating, fascinating case. Last thing on Langley, Langley is home to the Air Force’s F-22 fighter jet, which is one of the most advanced fighter aircraft in the American inventory. Some actor put on a brazen display over a key national defense site. Tip of the iceberg. This occurred also over U.S. bases in the United Kingdom. We believe, I think it’s fairly well reported now in open source media, that nuclear weapons may be forward deployed at one of these bases, if not now, in the future. Lakenheath. That was a major nuclear weapons depot during the Cold War. I won’t dwell on it, but one of the most compelling historical radar visual cases occurred in 1956 in the Condon. Even the Condon report, which many of you might be familiar with, was forced to admit that this was a genuinely bizarre incident. So this area has seen previous activity, again in the U.K., apparently jamming efforts failed completely. Fascinating. Wright-Patterson, some of you might be familiar with that base. It is referenced frequently in UFO lore. That was shut down due to drone sightings last year. Skeptics have said that all of these drones, quote-unquote drone sightings, are nonsense. These are just misidentifications. They do have a case. I’d say 99%, if not 100% of the imagery that we saw on the news, for example, in New Jersey was indeed commercial jets. I think we’ve seen a lot of footage. I think people who know what they’re looking at can attest to the fact that when folks who only look at their phones finally look up, they’re going to misidentify things. But in the case in Wright-Patterson’s, in this case, there’s radar reporting up to 17 objects in proximity to the base. Base security, I’ll just quote right here, base security reported UAS are turning off their lights and flying past them in close proximity. Again, this is brazen, right? Patterson is a critical military base. It’s a central facility and a key facility for the Air Force. Somebody, again, is putting on quite a brazen display. I don’t know if Chris Lehto is here, but former F-16 pilot, there was actually a collision for two years, at least that we know of. This is documented from the FAA, the Federal Aviation Administration, as a reporting mechanism for drone reports for both the military and civilian pilots to report. This is just a tiny, tiny sliver of the reports that are actually available on that website if folks are interested in taking a look. There are reports up to 36,000 feet. That is commercial airliner altitudes. That is really quite extraordinary. Somebody, again, is playing around in very sensitive airspace. In this case, there was an actual collision with an F-16, so to the safety of flight issue. Wyoming, just last year, this is where things get really interesting and there’s a continuity to what we saw with the recent European incursions in Germany in particular. We saw specific reporting of a, quote-unquote, mothership dynamic. In one case, spoke-like formations with multiple drones branching off of a once-large central mother drone. We see that over and over, and I’ll get into that in a second. This is back in 2019, 2020, as about a two- or three-week window over Colorado, Wyoming, Nebraska, where we had these incidents. Coincidentally, this is close to the 200 nuclear missile silos that are attached to F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming. These sightings were in proximity to those missile silos. Here, there’s a lot of words on the slide, but the bottom line is law enforcement, Kansas State Troopers, and Nebraska Sheriff Deputies, Air Force, and other observers were seeing this mothership dynamic. They’re literally called motherships in the emails that have been released through the Freedom of Information Act. To see this dynamic, this, quote-unquote, mothership dynamic consistently, and here’s where it gets interesting. That was reported just recently, about a month ago, over the Kiel Canal, which is up in northern Germany. It’s quite literally there in black and white. The mother drone dynamic continues. I will quickly wrap up. I think perhaps the most perplexing series of events was over the course of several months, at least from March until late July 2019, there was a series of swarming incidents around U.S. Navy vessels or ships that were remarkably brazen. We’re talking about, these are all documented. These are the flight dynamics that were observed. I want to just quickly, maybe just as perhaps a rebuttal to the skeptics, these are real. This is a radar track. Jeremy Corbell released several videos of just one of these incidents. This is from the Omaha incident in July 2019. All those diamonds, those are all radar tracks. If you listen to the audio, the sailors are perplexed. Very briefly, this video is associated with that same incident. This, to my knowledge, is the best video we have of one of these, quote-unquote, drones. It shows a spherical object. If you do all the math, I won’t get into inverse square law and all the other analytic rabbit holes you can go down, but this thing is moving against 40 knot winds. I’d be happy to talk to anybody offline if you’re interested in the data and how we came to that. Bottom line is, radar tracks, the one video we have of one of these objects shows a sphere moving against strong winds. I’m not a physics major or an aerodynamicist, but that’s a pretty bizarre flight dynamic. By the way, this thing drops into the water a few seconds after that section of the video. I’ll wrap up and I’ll kick it over to you. I just wanted just to note with that spherical form, that shape, that is our own government, the former director and deputy director of the Pentagon’s All Domain Anomaly Resolution Office, the Pentagon’s UFO Office, have stated openly that they are perplexed, that the U.S. government is perplexed by spherical objects, balls of fire, and metallic spheres. The former director called them, quote, metallic orbs in a NASA presentation. And oh, by the way, these have been seen since 1944, 1945, consistently in government reporting. So that was a lot. James, do we have a problem?
James Fowler [31:57]: I think we might. So what’s interesting is, in my team’s work with UAPs, we’ve never made observations at night. There are very distinct windows when we see UAPs in daylight. And we have run operations 24 hours a day. So we’re able to observe when they arrive and when they depart. So we’ve run observations, including running the dog whistle, through the night for weeks, I would say months on end, and never seen a UAP at night. Now is that a limitation of our equipment? Or are they not there? I would offer that, well, they’re not on radar. And like I said, now we see them on radar every time, unless they’re hiding from us. So we don’t know why, but we’ve never made an observation at night. So it’s almost like there’s two different teams, right? You have one UAP element that we observe in daylight. And we have 11 classes of those. Then you have these other elements that are flying at night over west-centric, west-important locations, localities, cities, airports, commercial aviation airspace, military bases, and disrupting operations. Are the UAP classes that we’ve observed prior to and during our Skywatcher efforts, are those the same things that are being observed in New Jersey and over Europe? Maybe. But again, in my opinion, that there’s probably two different things we’re seeing here. And so I think that UAPs that we’ve observed in the daylight are true UAPs. And the things being observed at night, well, that’s a very human characteristic of operations. If these aircraft are capable of flying in the daytime and disrupting bases, why aren’t they doing it? Why choose the night to hide their physical characteristics? So whether it’s red or blue, I’m convinced that it’s one of the two buckets that’s operating these drones, UAPs, over civilian airspace in places that really matter to governments to the west. And if you take that a step further and say, well, why would a blue element fly drones at night and shut down and disrupt their own government’s operations and break their own laws and disrupt their sovereign airspace, I find that highly doubtful that they would do that. Again, commanders in militaries will suffer the wrath of their political leadership for doing those things. So I would offer that the incursions we’re seeing are probably the red bucket. It’s probably not Friends of the West. It’s probably people that do not care about laws, rules, and regulations. Or perhaps it could be in the other bucket. But I would offer, while there have been plenty of nighttime observations of UAPs, the ones we’ve observed have never been at night. So it doesn’t mean that there aren’t UAPs that come at night. So perhaps it is that as well. Regardless, there’s incongruencies in which bucket you try to assign them. And to date, there’s not a way, at least in the unclassified world that I’m aware of, to say which bucket we might be looking at, vice the other one.
Marik von Rennenkampff [35:11]: Very good. You did mention nighttime, and I just want to go back to the historical record, and this is interesting. If you look at number four right there, this is from a, I think, a two or three day series of sightings over missile silos at F.E. Warren Air Force Base, which tracks quite closely with those 2019, 2020 drone incursions over the same exact area. If you look at number four, all reported observations occurred during hours of darkness or near darkness. And then if you look at the flight dynamics, truly perplexing to see formation flights, quote, unquote, high speed movement. This is 1966. There are not a whole lot of DJI quadcopters around then, but really, really fascinating. And we also see at the very top there that well over 100 objects reported, and specifically observers were seeing red and green flashing lights. Interesting. And again, the historical parallel to 2019, 2020. I love this kind of analytic stuff going back into the records and seeing where there may be correlations, but I do want to pick your brain very briefly on the flashing lights. If this is a red actor, that kind of ruins any kind of element of stealth if you’re out there broadcasting your location with bright flashing lights, and that has been reported quite consistently in these most recent interactions. What are your thoughts on that?
James Fowler [36:48]: That’s a good question. We do see a flashing associated with many UAP classes, but we believe a lot of that flashing, at least because we’ve only made daylight observations, is the sun reflecting off of the skin or the vapor that surround UAP. So we don’t know that that’s a luminous effect from the UAP as much as a byproduct of the sun reflecting off. So it’s a good question. I mean, at the end of the day, there’s just not enough data. I will say I’ve been fooled personally running an event where I saw something in the sky at night, because again, we run 24-7 sometimes, and saw something in the sky, it was red and green, and for five minutes I pulled out my phone and I was mesmerized, like, oh my goodness, this is UAP, this is amazing. And then my team keyed up after I asked them to look, and they said, oh yeah, that’s our drone flying that we launched. So my own darn drone fooled me. So in the nighttime, human eyes and sensors are highly inaccurate. And so I’m not dismissing whatsoever what people are reporting, because there obviously are very valid reports, and I’ve seen the data as well. And yes, there are lights and things that are incongruent with manned aviation or drones flying at night at these places. I can only pull from my own experiences and my own knowledge and share the ability to be fooled by those things as well.
Marik von Rennenkampff [38:10]: Absolutely. How are we doing on time, Peter? Excellent. Well, I’ll just quickly kind of maybe start to close out here, and this is a geographic display of what we’ve seen recently. You know, when if you look at the far left, back in 2019, those really bizarre swarming events, literally sometimes over 100 miles offshore with 10, 15 objects, literally circling around warships. Again, that seems to be some kind of a—with flashing lights, I might add, and that’s very well documented. That is a brazen display of something. What it is, I don’t know. Again, you know, in the Pacific, you’re thinking China, but then you have these European incursions. You’re thinking Russia. It is an analytic nightmare to try to figure this stuff out. I’ll quickly just maybe highlight one particular incident that occurred in late July 2019, the USS Gabrielle Giffords, and we talked about this briefly. This is—you can see in the bottom left there, this is well off the coast of Southern California. This is in the San Diego area, which is a major naval air base area, and you had three drones or objects—call them UAPs because we don’t know what they are—that flew quite literally alongside the ship, so basically shadowing it, and I don’t know in this case if they documented lights, but in other cases, you know, you see the shadowing dynamic, and it is, again, with flashing—if there were no lights, that’s probably surveillance, but the flashing lights 100 miles offshore, intriguing to me.
James Fowler [40:03]: Yeah, and I do believe that what we are seeing—I do believe that we have some technologies and some physics in the West, and maybe in the East as well, and other places, that’s beyond conventional knowledge for drones and other craft. You know, Lockheed Skunk Works, I think, is 30 years ahead of anything you see, so if they’re 30 years ahead of the F-22, where are they at now? Are they at craft that you need human brain interaction directly to the craft to fly? Are they using craft that are so spectacular they look like magic to us? And is it possible that our enemies have stolen that technology or replicated it as well? And are we in the middle of a technological Cold War, if you will, between nations deploying diverse technology, and the populace just isn’t waiting for the geopolitical constraints that abound? So that may be what we’re seeing.
Marik von Rennenkampff [40:59]: Yep. Well said. Great. Thank you, everybody. I appreciate it.