I had a great conversation with Joe on the "Joe Rogan Experience" this week. First off, Joe is a consummate gentleman, and his staff at the studio were a lot of fun to talk to before and after the show. Second, the art and paraphernalia in the studio, which represent the years of interviews he has given, were like being in a museum of eclecticism. So much cool stuff, with, I am sure, a fascinating story behind each. We talked about my lab's work in cancer research at the immune-tumor interface, AI applications in cancer (and the direction of AI in general), and then the scientific way to approach the "reality" or not of fringe topics (reclaiming the work), such as non-human intelligence (AI amongst them). It was a discussion centered on ideas —not conclusions. And how science should be done in frontier realms. Thank you, Joe, for the opportunity! It was a joy from beginning to end. open.spotify.com/episode/5rC… piped.video/watch?v=B7y3qcgS…

I've been advocating for greater transparency around UAP for over a decade. Now, SENATOR Chuck Schumer and Senator Rounds, in a bipartisan fashion, are pushing through and unprecedented Bill that will bring it all out into the light. HOUSE Intel and armed services are trying to block it. The UAP amendment would create an oversight committee of public hard scientists, economists, social scientists, religious leaders, and ethicists to look into this issue. If there's nothing to hide why are the aerospace companies and the DOD trying to kill the bill? Shoutout to Representatives Luna, Gaetz, Moskowitz, and Burchett, and others, in the House for their work on this. This is about the science and the right to understand. Anyone with an interest in good science should advocate for passage of this bill.

If the plot thickened any more, it would become neutronium... <Neutronium is a theoretical substance that is made up of only neutrons> I am very much looking forward to this documentary!

Trust your instincts. I recently had my whole genome sequenced because of the number of cancers I have had over the years. The doctors at Stanford wanted to see if there was anything obvious going on. My first melanoma was at age 33 on my shoulder. 7 since (arguing with the doctor's medical records vs my memory about whether it's 6 or 7), a whole bunch of basal cells, a squamous, and a renal cell kidney cancer (down to one kidney). We got the genetics results a couple of weeks ago, and I am heterozygous MITF E318K nature.com/articles/s41598-0… . It's a dominant autosomal cancer driver. Summary: puts me at risk for melanoma and kidney cancer-- so it all tracks with my history. Add in light skin, reddish hair, and Celtic heritage. Given my family history, it is likely a mutation that occurred only in me, as no one else in the family has the same issues. The biology of MITF is fascinating. Being in the field of cancer research helps me understand how to mitigate risk. So-- a public service announcement. Genetics drives a lot of cancer outcomes. If available-- get your genetics done and see your doctor if you have concerns. It does not go away if you ignore it. The recent melanoma I had (biopsy last Wednesday, diagnosis today) was because I had a sense that a "spot" on my arm was wrong. All good, a bit of snip-snip and it will be taken care of. Another scar-- who cares? I've been at this for 30 years. I'll be perfectly fine... I get checked 3 to 4 times a year. Trust your instincts with cancer. Save your own life. Be open to your friends who might have concerns. Help them feel comfortable getting themselves checked. Cancer caught early can be cancer cured.

The phaser cuts both ways. To claim the evidence shows there is no evidence, the evidence/data must be released. Not releasing the data tells me something is being hidden. No science is ever done, and no claims or conclusions can be made if the raw data is behind a firewall that says, "No entry... Just trust me."

Acceptance of discussions around UAP increases by the week. For instance, I was asked by Robert Harrison, a professor of literature at Stanford University (Robert is the Rosina Pierotti Professor in Italian Literature in the Department of French & Italian), to take part in a podcast on the Stanford University radio station KZSU. (FM 90.1). His podcast "Entitled Opinions" (entitled-opinions.com/) is devoted to literature, philosophy, science, and intellectual history, and this was his first foray into this new territory after some of his students had heard of my lab's Symposium at Stanford in association with the Sol Foundation. I am told the feedback was positive and that they will dare to ask me back again soon 🥳. The discussion was free-ranging and mainly about the current state of affairs around the Congressional/Senatorial laws being fought over around UAP. But next time, to counter a critique from one of the professors in Classics, I will show up with a more directed way of thinking about the issue. 🥸🧐 Apple: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcas… Spotify: open.spotify.com/episode/1Cc…

Meet Dolly... our new baby 2.5 pound Yorkie tyrannosaurus. She already runs the house.

Probably the worst article on the subject matter I've read in many years. Opinion thinly veiled as news. NYT, someone contact your HR department, this guy might be an imposter journalist, or at best is fluffing his handlers at DOD.

So, I have a question for the greater community. If you happened upon a piece of technology not of this earth and discovered something novel (to humans)... could you patent it? One of the tenets of patent law is that the invention should be novel. Clearly... it's not novel since you found it in your backyard (let's say), and someone else already invented it. In the context of patent law, an invention must be novel, non-obvious, and useful to be eligible for a patent. The critical aspect here is that the invention should result from human ingenuity. Discovering something not of Earthly origin and novel to humans does not automatically qualify it for a patent. This is because patents are granted for inventions, which are human-made solutions to specific problems, rather than for discoveries, which are findings of existing phenomena or objects. So-- legal eagles. Is this a correct interpretation? And if so... should anything that HAS been discerned from studying such an object be eligible for a patent? Are there by current law workarounds to this apparent impasse?

People say they want evidence. Short of walking out of an NHI or flying a UAP over Congress in real time, please define what you want to see? I mean it... state what you want? And how you would get it and believe it? I'll give you my approach: So, what Congress is doing is the beginning of a scientific and forensic process. They are collecting verified data (see the UAP amendment), and getting sworn oaths, which will lead to and allow them to invoke investigatory powers. This is both a legal and a political process, but it uses tools of science. As in a scientific process you collect and organize the observations and facts. AARO, as much as some of us might be disappointed at times, still is collating data and will have renewed resources with the UAP amendment. But data will be collected, collated, etc., and expanded upon. A Review Committee will be set up and presumably, a report written as per the amendment. There is no picture, no video, no words anyone will accept anymore without a rich chain of custody of trust. If that's what people want AT A MINIMUM... they will stop complaining, and nitpicking, and support the process. The hearing today invoked the Holman rule and intimations of fraud... meaning attempts to hide materials or obfuscate could lead to charges of obstruction of justice. The retaliations mentioned by Grusch could lead to serious issues for those who initiated them. At the very least shining a light on the process might slow down attempts to hide things deeper and allow access to the information. Anyone truly interested in an answer would support the process. Processes take time. It took us a few billion years to get to this point in life on Earth, so the possible confirmation that it's a bigger Universe than we previously supposed can wait while we let everyone catch up on the story, agree to what is verifiable versus not, and maybe "evolve" in our appreciation of what might be a rewrite of our very place in that reality.

This is their nature to pick at the small things. The big picture and process elude them always... which is why they are who, and what, they are. They've done this again and again. Yet despite their incomprehensible lack of curiosity... the rest of us progress toward understanding the answers to an astounding set of questions. Congress and the Senate are doing this SCIENTIFICALLY. They are starting with the base facts, the original people/pilots who came forward that got this going. As we are all aware, the public-- and many politicians and media-- are not up to speed. At the very least they seek validation. This is the validation process. Graves and Fravor are the "data". David Grusch has provided data publicly and behind closed doors. Congresspeople (Luna and Burchett) provided real-time evidence this morning of DOD obstruction. Graves and Fravor and Lue Elizondo all came forward because they felt the subject matter was not being taken seriously. We begin the process (again) next week. Educating the public, and helping our politicians understand the landscape because THEY ACT ON OUR BEHALF. The critics are what they are <shrug>. They want it all handed to them on a silver platter. To mix metaphors... Let them eat cake. Forward...

As many have mentioned, no mention of David Grusch. Perhaps they don't want to remind anyone that though they were given the opportunity (as was the Washington Post) to run the story they demurred. Once again underscores the bravery of Grusch and others who came before him, while underpinning the journalism of Leslie Kean and Ross Coulthart as being cutting-edge. Cleanup on aisle 5... That said, welcome back into the fold, NYT. Now, let's get to the truth(s) of this matter. Data, not conclusions.

Christmas comes early, even to those (like me) expecting coal in their stocking! Thanks to the eagle eyes of a dedicated colleague, the picture I remember seeing when I was young (9 years old) and which I've referenced in interviews has been found. I've been looking for this for over 20 years... It is the picture (National Geographic fold-out, August 1970) that first gave me an impression of the scale of the universe, and I recall the thoughts that popped into my mind, "I wonder what civilizations have come and gone across such an expanse of space and time? Where are they now?" Many thanks to JK, who found the picture! So... Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah, and joyous Pagan Rituals to you all!

I am deeply honored to be named by the Stanford Medicine Alumni Association this year for the “Arthur Kornberg and Paul Berg Lifetime Achievement Award in Biomedical Sciences.” As a Stanford graduate student in the 1980s, I took a remarkable class in plasmid and phage replication from Dr. Kornberg. I marveled at his incisive manner of teaching complex concepts in science. I learned fundamentals of retroviral gene transfer from postdoctoral fellows and technical staff in Dr. Berg’s laboratory. I was in constant awe of Dr. Berg’s statesmanship on the world stage as a spokesman for science. Arthur Kornberg, M.D. and Paul Berg, Ph.D. were luminaries long before I was a graduate student. Professor Kornberg won the Nobel in Physiology or Medicine for isolating DNA polymerase and demonstrating how it could replicate DNA in a test tube. Professor Berg won the Nobel in Chemistry by showing the first inter-species DNA hybrid of bacterial and eukaryotic viral DNA and replicating it in bacteria. Professor Berg was instrumental in pointing out the dilemmas around recombinant DNA at the foundational Asilomar Conference in 1975, a critical meeting focusing on the ethical uses of rec-DNA technology. Dr. Kornberg’s and Dr. Berg’s efforts deeply touched biomedical sciences and helped patients worldwide. They symbolized science's dual role in fundamental discovery and service to humanity.

Continuing the serious conversation on UAP. Many thanks to Debrief and Micah Hanks for this steady-handed summation. A lot of people helped get to this point, literally over decades. You know who you are and many know who you were. A lot of people will be required to move it forward. You don't even know you will be helping, but together we will help you realize your hand in this. UAP are, as I call it, a Zen question-- no matter the form of the question the answer will be fascinating. thedebrief.org/the-sol-found…

Professionalizing a new field of inquiry and human endeavor takes effort and time. This began literally decades ago through the efforts of many. This culminated more recently with the videos brought forward by Lue Elizondo and Chris Mellon and the NYTimes article by Ralph Blumenthal, Leslie Kean, and Helen Cooper. This includes the efforts of Tom Delonge, the several Navy pilots who have come forward, Dave Grusch, and Karl Nell. Extraordinary efforts by Senators Schumer, Rounds, Gillibrand, Rubio, several house representatives (too many to mention here, but kudos and thanks)... and MANY others are all part of a relay race. We hand the baton off and move forward now in an academic & commercial leg of the race with other groups like ASA, UAP Coalition for Scientific Research, Galileo Project, and many long-standing public legacy organizations. The SOL Foundation thanks Stanford University and Medical School for their unmitigated support in putting together this conference, and we are incredibly thankful to the speakers and participants for their efforts for the conference. Moreover, we immensely thank the film and sound editors Matt Ford, Fritz Kramer, Jan Carson Weatherby, and David West (videography) for making the talks fantastic and the sound so incredibly professional. Special thanks to my lab members and Alexander Boulton (PhD student in Applied Physics) for organizing the graduate student helpers and helping set up the conference. Pass the baton: piped.video/@_SolFoundation/…

Just gonna leave this here today given the recent goings on: piped.video/osC2RzHFBO8

Ask them if there is evidence of craft that maneuver beyond our current capabilities. Don’t let them use the “no evidence of aliens or UFOs” or “it’s just a drone” dodge.

Merry Christmas everyone! 🎅🎄🛸

Ok, so it's my birthday and here's the card I just got at dinner! Since you asked, I'm 21 again.

Yesterday's release from the Inspector General of the Department of Defense on the nation's inadequate coordination of data collection around the examination of the UAP phenomenon should concern any scientist or individual who is interested in the data. dodig.mil/In-the-Spotlight/A…

I think you, Chris Mellon, and all of us are all at the 'gloves come off' stage of negotiation.

Popcorn... check! 10, 9...

Of the thousands of "experts" who could have been asked, he was asked to be there—you know, just randomly—and then randomly assigned to head AARO. Oops.

Thank you, Senator Schumer...

They realize they are up against the wall and HAVE NO EXPLANATION for the observation. So, rather than admit human inadequacy, they use the lazy reasoning of "likely" and ignore all the side context information that disagrees with their conclusion. Weak analysis at best... and these are the people protecting our nation? Science doesn't work with "likely." Once again, AARO draws a conclusion without showing the raw data or methods. Any science journalist who parrots such conclusions is complicit in promulgating "fake science." Can we make "fake science" a thing... like "fake news?"

It's another example of asymmetry being applied. Skeptics demand proof and methods from the claimants, but the DOD gets to give conclusions and no data. The DOD also gets to veto the claimants' ability to provide verified data. Rules for thee but not for me. That's not how science is done.

Ross Unleashed is my favorite version of the multi-talented Ross!!

I fully agree. I cannot see a reason to go to AARO. They have yet to address past issues, provide methods of analysis, etc. for any of their conclusions. That's simply not how science is done. So don't claim the mantle of science when you are not actually practicing it.

Lue... congratulations on such an impressive achievement! It's a true milestone in more than one way. Oh, and thanks for keeping me up all night reading it, darn ya!😇

It's not every day one gets to talk to Stanford Alumni Magazine (class '89) about the possible existence of non-human intelligence. But for those who think it's a question worth asking (and answering), and for those who want to look into the matter further-- I promise you there's an entire... uhm... multiverse of ideas in this arena worth following up on. Especially given the very careful attention the US Senate Intelligence Committee and other members of Congress are taking since the matter has come to the fore after the reporting of Leslie Kean on former United States Air Force officer and intelligence official David Grusch. If as a scientist you've followed my work on the development of advanced technology and bioinformatics for the study of immunology... there's plenty of "preliminary data" worth your time if you can consider all the data on the table. While you are at it... follow the Galileo Project @GalileoProject1 at Harvard University led by friend and colleague astrophysicist Professor Avi Loeb that looks closely at the matter as deeply as do I.

This is something I learned in the "mind game" battles in the halls of academia. If you have the luxury of ignoring your enemy... do so... it destabilizes them. Their earliest critiques usually show a modicum of logic, but as you counter, then ignore them, they descend into formless fury. Then you step right over them and proceed to the goal as they sputter in your wake.

I am incredibly excited about the meeting-- and the "Joe Rogan Experience" interview I did recently on cancer immunotherapy advances, AI & applications in cancer biotechnology, AI itself as a "colleague", and then a segue into more exotic topics (😇) like UAP taken on in a purely scientific manner brought the subject to a mainstream audience. Of course, Joe has had many interviews on the subject, and I briefly highlighted the SOL Foundation and the upcoming meeting in Italy this October.

People need to pay way more attention to Richard Dolan. His work is top-notch.

Kirkpatrick: “Program names? Owners? Anything I can verify”? Translation: “Rename and hide the Programs. Notify Owners they have leaks. Anything I can vilify? Shorter translation: Catch and kill. Many people were too smart to trust AARO and now no one but the duped or willingly complicit will go near it or use it as a reputable source. Whether justified or not, that’s what’s gonna happen. I feel for the people inside who thought they were doing the right thing.

Legitimacy around the subject matter-- and bringing a professional and scientific/sociological and ... dare I say... religious perspective is increasing. Academics are starting to do what matters-- paying attention and not dismissing the subject matter outright. The increasing number of emails and communications from colleagues now beginning to open their eyes to this, and rejecting knee-jerk pseudo-skepticism is astonishing to me. Beware the piqued interest of an academic scorned. 😇

Anecdotal evidence by credible witnesses, especially when they describe similar observations, is data. Some of the most important discoveries in the history of science were not observed under controlled laboratory conditions. They are what one would call, at the least, preliminary data that set the tableau for hypotheses and replicable testing.

I am honored to join the Galileo Project started by Avi Loeb, Professor of Astrophysics, @Harvard University. This research area requires a multidisciplinary effort, patience, and most of all data allowing hypotheses & conclusions that meet the standards of reproducible science.

Go big or go home as a good friend likes to say. You don’t move the ball by standing around deciding if the goal is too far away. Please do note though that I was asked “my opinion”.

It was an honor to have you author this in our series. Put together with other organizations like ASA, Limina, SCU, and Archives of the Impossible (among others), the community is well on its way to populating the academic literature with thought provoking data and foundational research. Oh… and happy birthday Rear Admiral Gallaudet!

DeepSeek: If people can get answers for less $$, they will just ask more questions. For my lab, this means we can do some remarkable things for cancer research with the AI overlay we've been creating to study the rich interactions of how immune system cells interface with cancer. Running it locally with DeepSeek will reduce the price of last week's $200 query down to a few dollars. This is super exciting and enabling. I expect that OpenAI, Google, Meta, Anthropic, etc., will scrutinize DeepSeek's approach and adapt and adopt it as necessary, bringing similar price performance efficiencies. They will also use advanced Nvidia chips to do it faster, so it feels like maybe the economic panic is overwrought. You can bet they are already scrambling. "Competition" combined with ethical, open source continues to impress. But it underscores what others have said about AI—it will bring about advances faster than we can process them. Thomas Malthus in 1729 was right ("An Essay on the Principle of Population"), as was Richard Dawkins later ("The Selfish Gene"). A self-replicating population (or species... or AI) will continually expand to use the available resources. If resources become limited, "organisms" will adapt to become more efficient.

Thanks for watching the videos, Mick. Be sure to "subscribe" to our channel! We are giving out "I saw a seagull" T-shirts to the lucky (Louie) few who win our secret lottery.

MT: It's poorly written, so scrap it. MT: No one called me, so scrap it. How about... "Here are some alternative ideas, especially around the problem areas," and "Oh, I have this rectangular thing in my pocket where I press a button, and it calls people so I can talk to them. Amazing!"

Your efforts Rep Burchett are much appreciated.

Translation: Don't let any evidence out that might prove me wrong. I'll lose my gig editing wiki pages. Release the hounds! The better question is: why was it classified in the first place? Or does your magical cloak of patriotism only activate according to your biases?

I said no such thing.

ChatGPT prompt: "Write a 2022 UAP Report with as few specifics as you can and hide the anomalous findings in a paragraph as an obtuse reference deep in the output".

I'll listen to him when he apologizes and admits all the other times he said otherwise that he was wrong. Until then... meh...

Level up your pet turtle...

This is not a grammar school or year 7 philosophy class—Russell's teapot as a retort is an unambiguous nonsequitur. Russell's tenet does not apply to me or anything I have said here. It applies to you and your article. You have made claims as to AARO's refutation of claims and conclusions. Where are the evidence and methods for AARO's claims? Specifics were provided to AARO. They admitted that. They CLAIMED to have checked them. Ok-- what names, places, contractors, programs, etc., were checked and refuted? In science, even a refutation of a claim requires evidence. See how far you get asking for any of that from AARO, and see if they'll spill any tea your way. In the meantime, put a cozy on that teapot to keep it warm for another day. It really is that easy to understand.

Well, so Ross, you were in effect correct in what you originally stated regarding a leak. So, perhaps Ken would like to put some names on the table to prove what he's saying is correct?

First, you are putting words in my mouth. I "quote-unquote" never said, "Nah looks fake to me". Don't put words in my mouth. If you want to be taken seriously, don't lie. Second... I was given the original data. I looked at it. I realized it would take an enormous amount of effort to go back and recreate the trail of evidence. I put far more effort into this already than you know. You've spent what, 30 minutes looking at a tweet or two and then popping off? If YOU think it's so important, go spend 40 years learning the tools of the trade, learn how science is really done, and then spend a year of your life doing the work. Until then, you are an amateur with an opinion. I won't even offer an opinion because I have said many times I would need to see all the data. I have been explicit in not taking a position. I've just pointed to countermanding evidence. Just because I don't just jump to YOUR conclusion doesn't mean I am accusing anyone of anything. I am just warning people to be very careful if they want to discern the truth here. They didn't do what was needed to verify to a standard of science. There are now at least 2 explicit videos explaining how these things could have been faked (note I used the word "could". The DNA evidence of "nothing we've seen before" is a nothing burger given all the ways that DNA reads can be messed up. You have zero comprehension of what it takes to do real work. You want instant answers. People like you do this field an extraordinary disservice. The reason "real scientists" won't touch this stuff with padded gloves is completely evident in your lack of critical thinking skills. Of course, that's just an opinion, but I don't need peer review to come to that conclusion at least.

It's pretty clear the public has awoken, and the stale approach taken for the last several decades just doesn't work any longer. It won't be easy but keep the pressure on.

This is a great article that you, Matt, and Josh put together. It clearly took a lot of time and effort. This highlights the risk of suppression of information -- which always wants to be 'free'. Your sources y worked on the inside and risked their careers to provide this information. An open question is what provoked them to take this risk? Understanding the psychology of this backdrop will tell you a lot about the components of how the alleged programs are operating.

Mr. Burchett-- your professionalism and patriotism on this issue are commendable at every level.

Whoah...

The first time, about 10 years ago, I sat in a room with Jacques, Eric, Hal, John, colm, Kit, and a few others I looked around the table and realized this group had been central in shaping the narrative of the time. The history they encompassed was rich. What they, and many others, had set in motion resonates today and will echo in the hearing tomorrow. Some time during that meeting I had a slight moment of panic wondering if they would ever see the fruition of their labors. While nothing is certain, I am not worried as much anymore. It's still a marathon but it seems the baton passes to a last leg of the race.

Uhm.... very interesting.

I’m lurking…. Back soon enough. It’s been a fantastic week for the field. And it’s given true professional (and I mean that politely) skeptics something to think about (hopefully).

Thank you, Jake, for doing this.

Long since time for the gloves to come off.

The scientific principles of proof work even in the realm of politics. If the data exists, let's see it. There are no "sides" to this-- only agreeing on whether the data itself is real. Truisms: If you don't ask the question, you won't get an answer. If you exclude a reasonable answer from the way you formulate your question, your question is not well formulated. If you pre-conclude an answer (even the one you want) without asking the question that demonstrates objectively... that's not science either. The most interesting discoveries happen when you look to understand the data point that is "off the curve". Always ask "Why?"

Gaetz’ admissions are extraordinary. Let the skeptics attack him for that and come out of it unscathed,

I have met and traveled with Lue several times. He's the real deal and when what he, Chris Mellon, and many insiders have initiated comes to pass... we will all benefit.

To be clear when I said that I meant that the nuts and bolts "Hollywood alien" concept should be expected to be a far cry from whatever reality might have in store for us. In other words, presupposing the outcome (a variant of debunking) would be a mistake. You know what they say about the word "assume". 😇 By the nature of the word "Alien" means... alien. Beyond ken, outside the realm of human comprehension, divergent, cryptic, impenetrable, ineffable, enigmatic, strange, peculiar, unconventional, etc. Language has many words and turns of phrases for things we don't currently understand because life, for many, is about wonder and discovery of the unknown. I'll put Arthur C. Clarke's "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" up against the expected retort from others of "Extraordinary claims etc" any day of the millennia. Speaking of Sagan, I'll leave y'all with a quote that comes to mind vis-a-vis all the recent commotion from the tech mogul in the movie Contact. clip.cafe/contact-1997/the-p… S.R. Hadden: The powers that be have been very busy lately, falling over each other to position themselves for the game of the millennium. Maybe I can help deal you back in.

Thank you, Klaus. Thanks especially to co-founders Peter Skafish and David Grusch, as well as advisors, for putting together this paper (and the others to come).

Julian Barnes: 1. < dumps text of UAP report into chatGPT > 2. Prompt: heh, chatGPT, summarize this text in a manner that looks like I did investigative journalism. Regurgitate a draft for me that shows I am nothing more than a stochastic parrot. 3. Credulously submit to the editorial board of NYT with no follow-up questions to anyone involved. 4. Gain street cred with DOD so you can get more "exclusives". Of course this is nothing more than sarcasm, supposition, and parody. I don't know for a fact that any of that happened. "Maybe, if, supposition, apparently" and other words implying it's only my opinion and I am not stating a fact. 😇

But I thought some game designer said it was a puddle of water?

Well, I personally have two pieces of it through 2 chains of evidence. The material is so fragile at this point it crumbles easily. I’ve made burnt toast with more resilience. I don’t know of any missile casing so fragile that could have survived transport and loading, never mind the acceleration of being fired. It would be dust before it left the firing tube. Both of my pieces exhibit extreme layering. So, I look forward to Dr. Kirkpatrick’s peer reviewed data, as well as all the other claims he has made. Has he released any data from any of the claims? Did I miss something?

I think I've finally reached #BEBO nirvana (block early block often) where I no longer have negative posts in my threads. < strikes his Tibetan Singing Bowl for evoke a note of peace and harmony >

Agreed, as you and many others have noted, the article was perceived as demeaning veterans and survivors of PTSD and the suffering associated with it. There were, in my opinion, zero redeeming aspects to the article's content-- except that it, despite its intent, ended up strengthening David Grusch's credibility, career, and ethics. The later mistakes, apparently, of the article's author in the Twitter Space created a potential legal morass that many lawyers advising credible news organizations would tag as having significant liability risks. Few reputable news organizations want to be associated with an article that demeans a real medical issue associated with PTSD, veterans, and associated areas. That tells you everything you need to know about the depravity inherent within the Intercept article.

Well, I always wonder why astronomers and astrophysicists are the "go-to" for discussions on UAP. Their expertise is looking at things so far away that most of their conclusions (especially about life) can never be verified. Very safe because you can caveat the heck out of your statements. They will get "signatures". All is well and good, and I am excited about that. But asking an astrophysicist about Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) is like consulting a deep sea marine biologist for advice on desert wildlife. You'd think they'd be excited to talk to alleged makers of supposed craft, who might be able to tell them which of their theories are in the right direction and which are... not. I feel for Dr. Smethurt because I know what it's like to be misquoted and assigned statements you didn't make. Opinions are just that, but newspapers and media turn them into conclusions. Welcome to the club @drbecky_ . Don't worry, the water's tepid.

First, metabunk is a loose collection of non-scientific lay people. In my opinion, it's a third rate Facebook forum. Second, if they have an ACTUAL problem with the data-- go through the results, formulate a non-AI generated paper, get it peer reviewed and have the discussion in an appropriate forum. Have a nice day Mick. You lost this round-- badly.

Nobody in my field who matters pays attention to this nonsense. It's sad that people are this way, but one has to live with it if you want to promote open and careful science. I've always only been about "the question is legitimate", not the conclusion. I'm honored they waste their time on me. They could actually attack someone that they can hurt.

Richard's work was among my "top of the list" long before I got deeply involved in the UAP arena. His books are top-notch academic masterpieces that centered my thinking on the subject long before I had my own ideas. Frankly, most of my "ideas" have their foundations in the writings/thinking of Dolan, Vallee, and Keel. I look forward to "diving" into his latest emphasis on USOs.

Science does not advance by regression to the mean (tending to the average). Like evolution there is an outlier that harbors a solution to new challenges. Defend the outlier, despite the pressure of the statistics. That... over time... leads to progress.

mother ship... 🥳🤣😇

UAP are far more than a phenomena in the United States. Thank you Ms. McCaw for your thorough take on this. Thank you Dr. Skafish for your expert role as Editor, and thanks to the readers for their input.

Be still, my fingers... Be still...

Hmmm... so where did the Top Secret Classified Weapons Programs get their ideas for developing tech that is nowhere present in human science? What is it that guy from the History Channel says? I forget... "I'm not saying it's ____, but it's ____"

You just claimed you want to outlaw everything living in the state of Idaho.

I am leveraging every lever I can to that end. I want whatever that can be brought out made available, pending appropriate vetting. That is not an attempt at a getaway clause. I am in this for “the people”. Just know there are legions of people inside working towards this goal.

When I was an assistant Professor I had the Chairman call me into his office to tell me, “One of the other Professors is uncomfortable that you said you are bringing your…. Uhm… partner… to the Faculty retreat. I’d like you to not bring him.” My question back, “Oh, which Professor is that?” Chairman: “It wouldn’t be fair for me to reveal his name.” I went straight to the Dean’s office to report it. The Chairman denied he said it, said in addition that my science “sucked” despite that his Postdocs were using all my lab’s technologies, and then chairman was forced to step down within a year for that and a series of other missteps he made. This was circa mid 90s.

"Futurism: Yesterday's Ideas, Today!"

And sorry, if they are doing things that make Elon's rockets look like papier mâché kindergarten projects ... why is he not all over this and on his way to Mars?

Science doesn't care whether the claim is extraordinary or not. It simply arbitrates if the evidence is sufficient. The extraordinary claims/evidence meme is pretentious nonsense.

It HAS backfired.

“[The witnesses] conveyed to me [a] lack of trust in [AARO] and the ‘command climate.’” Gee, who was in charge of AARO then? @DoD_AARO

AARO has discredited itself beyond redemption. No one will trust them except to put out disinformation and bad science. Let me pre-debunk their next announcement. They will release only conclusions, no raw data, and no methods. The worst kind of science that is ever done. AARO— prove me wrong. But I know you won’t. You might as well just shut down if you can’t prove me wrong.

Science is about asking questions... carefully, logically, and reasonably. What could be more interesting than looking into the sky and wondering "Is there anyone else out there who knows more about reality than we THINK we do?"

Better late than never, but he still owes a LOT of people an apology for his dismissiveness. He doesn't get a pass on that. That said, he's not an expert on anything any longer at this point... except that admitting he was wrong.

Did you try to get evidence SUPPORTING Dr. Kirkpatrick's claims?

As "real" science is practiced... YOU ARE ALLOWED TO NOT COME TO A CONCLUSION if the data does not support such. Conclusion by government deadline is the worst kind of science. Prematurely concluding has the effect of biasing the interpretation by the unalloyed viewer. Well, duh... that appears to be the goal of AARO.

Many people, with pride, like to think of themselves as "on the spectrum," as neurodiversity has many positive attributes. I can't keep count of the number of people I meet who claim to be "on the spectrum." Great! However, some with Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) can encounter difficulties in life, such as continuing employment. This report details how, with some training and help, some with ASD can productively work well within the job market. This means family members can proudly applaud their success. Lend your voice to the continuing support of such efforts!

George... always been a huge fan of yours and your activism. Happy to personally take you through the issues. David along with Peter Skafish and I started the Foundation. We will be running a symposia at Stanford (where I am a Professor) focused on the pure academics and policy issues for further investigation this November. thesolfoundation.org

So yea let's give rich people tax breaks

I am invested how one approaches questions w/ science. Journalists rarely prove anything w/ logic, and often get away w/ "many say", or quoting some random anonymous source as if that creates a fact. It doesn't. In science, you'd get laughed out of the room.

This is why I think Patrick's findings are so significant. The same pattern of spheres occurs not only in isolation but also near other observed UAPs. People focus on the UAP and try to explain it or dismiss it. They ignore the "signature" of the spheres, which almost acts as an authenticity check.

Being on a 2 year sabbatical (yes I had that much time saved up) gives me plenty of time to explore new avenues. Sabbaticals are meant to refresh and invigorate. I am spending a good deal of that time at MD Anderson in the labs of Pam Sharma and James Allison--the team that brought us cancer immunotherapy and for which Jim received the Nobel in 2018. The last ten years my lab has moved forward development of technologies and machine learning algorithms to explore the tumor immune interface. Hundreds of labs now use our methodologies. Because we emphasize sharing... many other labs are equal now to mine in the methods we developed. That's the point. So my next challenge/horizon is atomic imaging because that is for me the next frontier in biomedicine... along with AI mining of the extraordinary datasets being created (including those that originated in our extended group at Stanford). That I find the idea of NHI materials a motivating factor to get up in the morning and think about developing new technologies on my way to helping patients is just icing on the cake during my sabbatical. I make no apologies for sharing my excitement.