Captain Ron sits down with veteran UFO investigator Richard Hoffman to explore six decades of UFO research and its impact on scientific inquiry.
Captain Ron (00:56):
Hey everyone, it’s Captain ron and each week i’d be
Beyond Contact. We’ll explore the latest news in upology, discuss
some of the classic cases, and bring you the latest
information from the newest cases as we talk with the
top experts.
Speaker 1 (01:13):
Welcome to Beyond Contact on Captain RONA. Today we’re going
to be speaking with Rich Hoffman from the Scientific Coalition
for UAP Studies. Mister Hoffman’s worked as a defense coordinator
for over twenty years, working primarily for the Army Material
Command Headquarters, with a variety of companies. He spent over
sixty years investigating, researching, and lecturing on the subject of UFOs.
(01:34):
He’s investigated over a thousand cases and reviewed many of
the cases from MUFON, Project Bluebook and other databases. In
twenty seventeen, Richard and a few others formed the Scientific
Coalition for UAP Studies. This is a think tank comprised
of scientists, industry professionals, academics and researchers who are dedicated
(01:54):
to applying the scientific principles to the study of this phenomenon. Hi,
rich welcome to Beyond Contact. It’s such a pleasure to
have you.
Speaker 4 (02:02):
Oh well, it’s a pleasure being on. It’s good seeing you.
Speaker 1 (02:06):
Good seeing you, sir. Listen, you’ve been looking at this
for sixty years, which is incredible. You know, you guys,
you started in the sixties, which is a great time
because that’s when Betty and Barney Hill came out, Lonnie
Zamora came out, and you had this formation of well
precursor to MOUFON, and you were an early member of that.
Then in twenty seventeen you and four other guys branched
(02:29):
out of Moufon and formed your own separate group. And
that’s the scu that we’re talking about, and that just
happened to be the same year the New York Times
article came out and the formation of to the Stars
and everything really changed in our community. That was really
a watershed year for us, don’t you think.
Speaker 4 (02:48):
Oh, without a doubt. Yeah. I mean to me, I
like this, you know, like from nineteen sixty nine when
the Project Bluebook was terminated to now twenty seventeen, I
call those time periods in there of the scientific dark Ages,
And to me, it was a situation where, you know,
obviously our legs scientifically were knocked out from underneath this.
(03:09):
There’s nothing to it. The National Academy of Science has
blessed it and said that there was nothing. You know,
don’t study it. You know, there’s nothing to it. There’s
no concern for our defense industry to worry about. There’s
no threat, you know, and all this other stuff. Right, So,
I mean, the bottom line that they shut down the
project that they said, yeah, barely at nothing. And if
you think about it, a lot of things like the
(03:30):
nuclear you know, visits and stuff like that by these
objects was going on after Bluebook. Well it was before
it too, but I mean, but afterward there were a
lot of those things that were going on, and there
was no project, if you would, that was allegedly there
doing it right. So then we learned, you know, in
twenty seventeen about this a TIP program and this OFFSET
(03:53):
program that was in existence and had been there from
about the time of two thousand and nine, roughly two
thousand and eight nine. And of course you know, they
were connected with bass over into even Mofon at that time,
you know, and wanting to use Moufon to be able
to collect information on in terms of cases. So it
was all that stuff going on in the background where
(04:14):
you suspected that there was something else going on, but
you didn’t have any confirmation. And then of course then
we hear you know, Lou and then Leslie Kane and
all those people talking about it in the New York Times,
and you’re going to say, yes, there really is something there.
And and then what we started to see even at
that point, and this is like you said that this
is about time we were starting this scientific coalition for
(04:36):
UAP studies. But bottom line was that we started to
see scientists in academia now coming out of the closet
wanting to embrace the topic, wanting to talk about it openly,
wanting to publish papers, and so now they could do it.
You know, there was like top cover the government said
that they’re real. Hey guess what you know, I could
(04:56):
write about it now right exactly.
Speaker 1 (04:58):
You know, your group is comprised of over three hundred
and some scientists worldwide. I understand thirty one percent of
those are PhDs, over fifty six percent have advanced degrees.
So I’m really impressed with this whole idea of your organization.
I really really, it’s right up my alley. But you know,
as big as your group is becoming, it still seems
(05:18):
to me that there’s a large part of the scientific
community that are still not embracing this topic in earnest
what do you think.
Speaker 4 (05:26):
Well, it’s changing, so like you know, now you’ve got
universities like the University of Wurtzburg in Germany, who is
actually being funded by the university to do research. And
then if you take a look at Project Galileo with
Abi Loebe, I mean that’s that’s basically like you know,
Harvard is now out there like looking into the subject.
So we’re starting to see a change in that whole
(05:47):
posture and the stigma around it has changed and it’s
becoming more available to But yeah, there’s always going to
be a stigma. I mean, you’re going to have a
good part of the population. I mean, we still have
even pilots that don’t want to talk about it. You
still have, you know, military people that don’t want to
talk about it and they feel awkward. It’s going to
(06:08):
take a time period before that really changes in our culture.
I guess if you would sure that.
Speaker 1 (06:14):
Just lasted a long time. We’re just coming out of
it now twenty seven. Yeah, you know, I’m glad you
mentioned the Galileo project because I’m a big supporter of
that as well. I just had Avi lob On here recently,
and I think he’s fantastic, and I wanted to ask
you about that. There are very there are a few
of these really high profile scientists that do look at
this subject in earnest for example, a Vi Lobe, Jacques Valet,
(06:36):
help put Off, Gary Nolan, Kevin Kanuuth. There’s a bunch
of these guys. How do you think they impact the
dissemination of information on the topic.
Speaker 4 (06:45):
We just finished up a big paper with Kevin Kanouth
in which we had I think something like twenty co authors.
I was one of them, and it’s now finally getting published.
So I mean, what I’m starting to see more and
more is that papers are being accepted by journals and
the fact that you have now like you know, the
(07:06):
Soul Foundation, which is against you know, focusing on academia
and bringing academia to the forefront, and a lot of
others are doing the same thing. The Society for UAP
Studies is doing the same kind of thing. We’re kind
of doing the same thing as well. So we’re starting
to see that trend. And it’s also going over into
(07:27):
other countries as well. So you’re starting to see now
a collection and work, we’re connecting with other countries like
South America. We’re connecting better with Europe now you know
c S which is the Sigma H Sigma two I
think in which is the CNS is also a part
of the Space program over there. But bottom line is
(07:48):
we’ve used Sigma two, we’ve had we’re already participating in
their conferences and stuff like that, so we’re starting to
see that that changing. It’s just it’s a very positive time.
I think with the attention you’re going to you’re seeing
on the hill. That bottom line is you’re going to
start to see more and more even discussions than what
(08:09):
we’ve even got now going on, which I’m excited about.
Speaker 1 (08:12):
I love it. Do you you’ve been looking at this for
over sixty years now in general? Have you noticed a
change in the phenomenon over that time, Like the belief
system seems to have evolved over that span, hasn’t it.
Speaker 4 (08:26):
So yeah, I mean I definitely in sixty years, I’ve
seen cultural changes. I’ve seen, you know, the topic go
through different kinds of like you know, metamorphoses if you would,
if you think about it in the in my early
days and stuff like that, what you had was a
situation where flying saucers were the rage, you know, and
there were UFOs and okay, well you know what are those?
(08:49):
And you would have all different kinds of people. But
you know, then you had a project that was stood
up project you know, all the different projects, project signed,
project garage, and all those other things that were going on.
But even if you take a look at that time
period and you look at project bluebook cases, they were
only like about twelve thousand over that long period of time. Well,
(09:10):
who who contacts the government, Who trust the government to
be able to for me to tell the story right, So.
Speaker 1 (09:19):
It took me in those times like you mentioned, yeah,
it was way down it was today. They didn’t have
social media, they didn’t have computers, they didn’t have the Internet, that’s.
Speaker 4 (09:27):
Correct, and you know, so now you have is this
change where we’ve got technology that’s creeped up on us
and it’s more capable than ever. So if you think
about it, like then, I didn’t have a cell phone camera,
you know, or anything like that. I barely had a
tape recorder to be able to go and record people.
When I was actually doing my case investigations, I was
usually like having people, you know, use pencils to try
(09:50):
to draw what they saw, right, or something of that nature. Well,
we’ve gone from anecdotal kinds of things with occasionally you know,
a bus brownie camera taking a photo of it to
suddenly now what we’ve got are like way advanced technologies
in the hands of everybody that can now do something
and actually see things in you know, different parts of
(10:12):
the spectrum like you know, my camera will I’ve got
one of these things that can actually do IR. So
I’m infra red. So you’re starting to see more and
more of that creeping in, which is giving us the
fact that it’s not just you know, anecdotal anymore. It’s
actually legitimate people that have recorded something or have a
good device that can do it.
Speaker 1 (10:33):
I like to have that footage and it corresponds with
their story. We have both. We’ve got to take a
break right here. Rich. When we come back, we’re going
to talk to you more about the SCU organization and
how the Condon Report from nineteen sixty nine affected the
scientific community both then and even up till today. Nearly
you’re listening to Beyond Contact on the iHeartRadio and Coast
(10:54):
to Coast AM Paranormal podcast network. We are back on
(11:14):
Beyond Contact. I’m Captain Ron. I have the pleasure of
speaking with Rich Hoffman. Rich, you know you were starting
out investigating UFOs and right in nineteen sixty nine is
when the famous Condon Report was released. Can you tell
us how your thoughts are on how that affected the
scientific community from studying this.
Speaker 4 (11:34):
Well, let me tell you, I think a lot of
us at that time were hoping, much like we’re hoping
today for disclosure, right, So, we were all anticipating the
fact that it was finally going to get some serious treatment.
There was a two year study by the University of Colorado,
and certainly we tried to be able to push the
better cases off to them, which a lot of them dismissed.
(11:54):
And you had Condon out there controlling it and controlling
the narrative on it and probably didn’t, you know, learn
to put this thing aside. So even if you look
at that with the trick memo that was out where
it basically said we’re we’re going to look like we’re
scientific and you know, and all this other stuff and
we’ll come to a conclusion that says that there’s nothing
to it, right, So.
Speaker 1 (12:14):
It wasn’t the conclusion made before they wrote the report completely.
Speaker 4 (12:17):
But bottom line, if you look at like Jacques vilet,
if you look at Heinik and all those people, they
were trying to be able to, you know, give them
the better cases, have them look into them, help them
out any way they could. They were dismissing it. And
so you had Condon going out and basically putting this
big thick document to go this book together, if you would,
on the topic of the results, and the vast majority
(12:39):
of it was like, you know why what’s a sun dog?
How do you get a sun dog? How do you
get a mirage? And all this other stuff, right, and
then you find out that they don’t even account for
thirty percent of the cases that they didn’t look at.
Speaker 1 (12:52):
Thirty percent of the cases are not solved. Even if
it’s not a blue book, they used that as a thing. Well,
project Bluebook was out there, and there’s six percent of
those I think that weren’t solved.
Speaker 4 (13:02):
So here’s this this thing. Thirty percent of the cases
they didn’t they couldn’t even come to a conclusion on.
And so you know, wait a minute. You know you
didn’t do your homework, you didn’t do your job. But
in the beginning of it, I’m going to write this
wonderful executive summary that says it’s all just there’s nothing
to it. So then you have the National Academy of
Scientists Sciences that actually blesses that serious report that’s done
(13:24):
and yay verily, and then you clamp down on any
research that’s done by scientists, and you go in, like
I said, to the dark ages. You know you’re now
you can’t even talk about it in the hallways. You
can’t have water cooler conversation.
Speaker 1 (13:37):
Didn’t they even say it’s a waste of time and
energy for science to investigate it, like they clat out
discourage scientists for doing this exactly.
Speaker 4 (13:45):
It was that emphatic, it was and it was like
and then also to make the claim that there’s you know,
we can’t explain thirty percent of the cases. It means
we don’t know what these objects are, but yet there’s
no threat to national security.
Speaker 1 (13:57):
Rich, they said there’s three we can’t identify. I’d say, hey,
that’s a problem. Yeah, it’s thirty percent. That’s alarming. It
almost is for the other side, if you think about it.
I want to ask you this, Rich, there’s uh you
touched on it in the last segment. How I want
to know how you feel about these other governmental attempts
(14:17):
at studying the subject. As you mentioned, there was Project
Sign and Grunge and Blue Book, you know up until
eight tip. What do you think of those those attempts.
Speaker 4 (14:27):
Well, again, I think in the earlier days it was
a situation where there was almost like a foregone conclusion
that it’s just a waste of time and people are
misidentifying stuff, and so that it really didn’t get a
lot of serious treatment. In my estimation, I think, you know,
you had a couple of congressional hearings like you know,
Gerald Ford had one and stuff like that. You had
(14:47):
a number of other like the Stirruck Committee, you had the
Robertson panel and all these other different kinds of things
where there was attempts to be able to treat it
seriously that were not really well done. Okay, and again,
you know, let me go back to the fact that
that’s the time period when we had largely just anecdotal
(15:08):
testimony testimony, right, and so you can’t do as a scientist,
you can’t do much with just somebody saying, hi, I
saw lights last night.
Speaker 1 (15:17):
You know, what can you do with that? Exactly that much?
Speaker 4 (15:20):
What are you gonna do?
Speaker 1 (15:21):
Right? Yeah?
Speaker 4 (15:21):
Right, So now you’re going to start scientific data. You
need the instrumentation, you need all that technical data that
can look in different parts of the spectrum, that can
listen to infrasound or you know, other kinds of things.
And so now we’re starting to see those use signals
intelligence and measures intelligence that we’re able to now learn
(15:45):
more about these objects than we could before.
Speaker 1 (15:48):
After after all of these programs, you’re referring to then
we come out with a few years ago with Arrow,
which seems like a suspect group with me, haven’t you
guys done something with them? We’re given them some data?
How is that?
Speaker 4 (15:59):
Well? We’re so we’re forging a relationship with EROW. We’ve
been always encouraging the fact that there needs to be
a very serious attempt at looking at this, and so
we’ve been in contact with the various people at ARROW.
We’re actually having a lot of positive, very positive interactions
with them. Now where we had a lot of our
(16:20):
papers that we published were actually we found out that
they were being fed up to the government. So we
were encouraged by the fact that we’re some of our
papers are getting up, like the Limits Report and our
intention study and stuff like that, are starting to get
traction up on the hill and to various other intelligence
services and stuff.
Speaker 5 (16:39):
So we’re excited about that. You’re a start and you’re
encouraged by it. But to me, I hear that you’ve
given the scientific data to ERROW. I’ve had multiple people
on this show.
Speaker 1 (16:51):
Say how they’ve testified the Arrow, They’ve turned in data,
they’ve given all this stuff, and then Ero comes out
and says we have zero evidence for anything anomalous. That
is very suspect and disingenuous to me, and I am
very untrusting of this group. Don’t you feel that way?
If you’ve provided them scientific data, why don’t they say, well,
(17:14):
it’s not conclusive, or we have some interesting things, but
we don’t have it. They flat out deny and dismiss
all of this, and I find it very disingenuous because
we know they’ve been given some things that do show
there’s anomalist things happening.
Speaker 4 (17:29):
Yeah, so what we’re basing our understanding of what Errow’s
got is only on the basis of things that they
can release that are going to be not classified. Okay,
so you’re only getting the take of the things that
I’ve got that I can openly talk about. You’re not
hearing the conversations to the background that are the classified level.
Speaker 1 (17:52):
But isn’t that enough? Don’t you have enough on your
site that shows that there’s stuff happening? Why can they
How can they give a blanket statement that there’s nothing happening.
Speaker 4 (18:00):
I don’t know. I’m not part of those conversations. I
can only speculate on the basis of what’s going on here.
Speaker 1 (18:05):
I mean, are you disappointed when you hear that?
Speaker 4 (18:07):
Yeah, certainly I am. I mean I would I would
like to very much see, you know, what they’re doing
with the information that they’re being given. How are they
treating it? And I don’t have any basis for knowing
that transparency is very important, and we’ve been telling them
all along that they need to be as transparent as
possible without you know, giving over intelligence data and everything
(18:30):
else to the world, right if you if you’re concerned
about adversaries. So I mean, yes, I would like to
see that. And I you know, of course I’m in
the military, so I can go over on the zipper
side and look and see things, and I can do
things where I can see that they’ve been receiving this,
and there’s a whole lot of Air Force videos that
they’ve received, and I can see some of those Air
(18:52):
Force videos, and I’m saying that, well, I agree with
their conclusion because a lot of these pilots are seeing
definitely balloons and various other things that are up in
the air. And if you go back to even my
you know, experience over these years, we are able to explain,
you know, now a little bit more than what we
could even before to where it’s almost almost like maybe
(19:13):
twenty percent of the cases, and then you have to
understand that are identified, but there is a lot more
than that that are basically are on the classified side
that we’re not getting as public citizens. I think that
there they know that there’s something there. They’re waiting for
something that they can get where they can really, like
you know, come forward with it and really do something
(19:35):
about it. I think you take a look at the
actions on you know, Representative Luna and you know exactly.
Speaker 1 (19:42):
I was just going to ask you about that, Ritchie. Yeah,
in February, you know, they formed that new task for
looking into these anomalous secrets and one of them is UAP.
Do you have any hopes for that task force?
Speaker 4 (19:53):
Oh sure, I think that, you know, overall, I think
that I’m looking very much forward to, you know, whether
they can uncover or what they can learn. But again
it comes back to so if I’m talking on the
classified side, what can I come back and tell the public?
And even a Congressman is going to have trouble with that,
because again, clearances are that they’ve got to do something
(20:15):
to make it so that it’s a little bit that
can be a little more transparent without giving up to
the Chinese or the Russians or anything like that, maybe
their secrets. And again I’m sensitive to that because I
work in the DoD and I have a better understanding
than I did before about what you keep quiet about
(20:35):
and what you don’t you know.
Speaker 1 (20:36):
And we’re going to take another break here, Rich. When
we come back, we’re going to talk to you more
about some of these specific studies that you guys have
done over the years recently and get to some of
these scientific conclusions you guys have reached. So you’re listening
to Beyond Contact on the iHeartRadio and Coast to Coast
AM Paranormal podcast network. We are back on Beyond Contact
(21:15):
speaking with Rich Hoffman. Rich, you’ve been looking at this
for sixty years from a scientific perspective. Do you personally
have any conclusions that you could give us that you
feel obviously it’s speculative, but what do you believe? Is
there strong evidence that shows that some of these craft
may in fact be from elsewhere?
Speaker 4 (21:33):
Oh? Very clearly, when you talk about like when we
did the study of like the Nimtz object, you know,
take a look at that you know, when you looked
at the fact that the object was tracked on a
SPY one radar that was on board that princetonship and
stuff like that, that it would have drop from twenty
thousand feet in zero point seven eighths of a second
to stopping above the water.
Speaker 1 (21:55):
This is the tic TAC video, folks, that’s the one
you’re referring to, right And I was going to ask
you about that next, So go ahead, tell us.
Speaker 4 (22:00):
What you know I took to say that. You know
right there, if you date what we did is we
spent you know, nearly two years on studying the thing.
We interviewed eighteen people that were right there in the
in the event space. And you take a look at
the physics that are involved in that. You’re talking about
an object that was going at mop fifty and above.
(22:20):
You’re talking about no sonic boom, no kinetic energy release.
You know, no way in the world that inertia would
would allow anything to survive on the inside of it
that it didn’t destruct in the If you take an
F six, you know, an F eighteen about that same
complimentary size, and you drop it at that speed, it
would disintegrate to the left you know, and everywhere. So
(22:42):
you don’t have any of that with that technology. It’s
clearly a technology that is way beyond where we are
at present time.
Speaker 1 (22:50):
Is there any way this video could be faked or
manipulated or anything else that could be.
Speaker 4 (22:55):
No, you know, you we do the analysis on the
videos and just like you know, and really check to
see if there’s something that backs it up. For example,
even in the Outwood DA case, we’re looking at the
fact that there was actually radar that was going on
at that time that was tracking an object out in
the water where we confirmed that the aircraft was actually military.
(23:16):
We confirmed all that details. So we go into the
ant level, degree and depth on all this stuff and
check this.
Speaker 1 (23:23):
Is the twenty three excuse me, twenty thirteen case from
Puerto Rico where you see it on video that it’s
clearly a trans medium craft because it’s flying through the air,
it goes into the water, comes out of the water
at the same it maintains the same speed, right, that’s
the one you’re referring to. Yeah, yeah, so that’s really incredible.
(23:44):
So we’ve seen other people online kind of debunk these videos.
Do you think that they’re wrong?
Speaker 4 (23:49):
No, So even if you take a look at the
going back to even the Kenneth arnoldays, I think that
there were fourteen types of explanation for what could have
caused those nine objects to have looked the way they yeah,
you know exactly. The other the other thing is that,
you know, there’s a lot of people that want to
(24:10):
say that we didn’t consider parallax. We did. They’re they’re
saying that that you know that, well, William a minute,
you know that we looked at the size, that there
was a reference point, or that it was a balloon
or something of that nature, or it was birds.
Speaker 1 (24:23):
It was.
Speaker 4 (24:24):
We literally had a field engineer who works on the
the ther thermal cameras get the same camera and go
and see what birds look like in the ir in
that mid midwave ir range, there’s no match. When you
take a look at the object going by a pole
(24:45):
that’s out along a highway, that was at night, that
gave you a reference point for its distance and its position,
it was not. Now you’ve got that a lot of
these other people will take a look at it and say, oh,
you’re just seeing a blue and they draw a circle
because of the eye that the aircraft was going around it,
but they dismissed that the aircraft was not going around
it the whole time and was actually heading south, and
(25:09):
that it didn’t line up with that at all because
we went to such depths. There are a lot of
these things we just dismiss and say, well, find let’s
see your paper that you did. Let me see how
you went down to the analyzing frame by frame, pixel
by pixel, and how you did your analysis. And they
don’t do it. They don’t have those.
Speaker 1 (25:28):
Legitimate video and these are legitimate facts that these objects
are traveling at the speeds that you suggest that they are,
that you’ve let’s say, proven that they are according to
the data that you have. Do you think it is
possible that there would be an unacknowledged program somewhere on
Earth that could have these technologies that are just way
beyond what we imagined. We’ve heard quotes over the years
(25:51):
from guys like Ben Rich that claim we’ve got technologies,
you know, fifty years beyond what you can imagine. Do
you think that that’s even possible or do you just
think it’s where do you sit on that?
Speaker 4 (26:03):
So Ley point out to you the fact that if
you look at those five observables, that let Lou talked about, right, Sure,
objects back in the fifties were doing the same thing.
That’s when we had that’s when we had we didn’t
have any advanced technologies. Right, So if objects are doing
the same thing back then, instantaneous acceleration, hovering, a defying glravity,
(26:25):
these things have been doing it all along. So it’s
not like we came across a new technology somewhere and
we’re doing that.
Speaker 1 (26:34):
Well. Doctor Career is one of the people that have
claimed that we’ve figured out anti gravitic technology back to
nineteen fifty three. Do you think that’s possible?
Speaker 4 (26:43):
Well, I think that, you know, there’s certainly been Tee
Townsend Brown, there’s a lot of a whole other scientists
that have been doing that. The pushback that you can
also receive in the scientific community or by industry if
you take a look at that, like you know, even
our who was competing for the telephone, you know, and
the pushback you had to you know, was it a
bell or was it Edison? Who was it? You know,
(27:05):
and and and you know we’re going to so you
probably had pushback. You probably had a lot of like
people trying to keep it on the QT or they
scarfed up that information and you know, did something crazy
like you maybe kill somebody. I don’t know, but but
the bottom line is that, you know, what we’ve done
is we’ve we’ve controlled the narrative and quite frankly, you
(27:28):
could have potentially something that was back in the But
I think that I think we’re getting closer now today
towards a better understanding of how to do this, and
within you know, a matter of you know, a short time,
I think we could ultimately start seeing craft that are
doing this type of thing with no propulsion systems and
stuff like that, and we’ll make it look like a
(27:50):
breakthrough to you know, an understanding.
Speaker 1 (27:53):
Someone’s got thirty seconds with you, and they want to
know what would be the strongest piece of evidence that
you’ve seen over the last sixty years that you feel
speaks to they’re definitely being craft from off planet? Would
what would you think is the strongest piece of evidence?
Is it one of these videos?
Speaker 4 (28:11):
Is it completely the limits case? There? You’ve got multimodal
kind of like technology and data and information. I think
if you look at the nineteen seventy six Tehran incident,
that’s another one of those things where two F four
aircraft that loser navigations. Clearly a jamming kind of thing
that was going on it. Also the object went over
the control tower of the Arab Mirabad Airport and also
(28:34):
interacted with it and did some jamming on the airport.
So there are these excellent cases like this where you’ve
got sensory data or you’ve got exceptionally very credible people.
My aha moment, if you would, is back in the
seventies when I was doing a basically I was called
on a case that involved UFOs the night before in Carrollton, Ohio,
(28:59):
and we had learned about the fact that the farmer
was looking out of his window seeing bottom line that
in the middle of this wheat field there’s a perfect
circular area where the wheat’s gone now you know, And
we’re going like, okay, let’s check it out. And then
we pulled together a whole team to be able to
go out and start to do the analysis. We went
out in seventy foot in diameter circular area where the
(29:22):
ground is baked two feet in the ground. All the
roots from the wheat were all completely vaporized and gone.
All the wheat crop was gone. Then you get out
in the outer perimeter. You start to see a little
stubble that comes up, You see a rotational pattern, and
you also see puffed wheat around the seventy foot diameter
area and you’re standing there looking at it, and you’re
saying like, well, you know it had to come from above.
Speaker 1 (29:45):
Well, what do you think could have caused that? Is
there any other explanation we could have?
Speaker 4 (29:48):
Well? Yeah, I mean because ultimately what you get around
these craft are like a microwave, kind of like microwave
field if you would it’s around so it naturally like
microwave would eat it up, and they have this field
around it where it’s interacting with our atmosphere. And quite often,
(30:09):
you know, people say, well, it looks like it’s not
blurry when I see it or I take a photograph,
its blurry. Well it’s because the field around it is
distorting what it’s actual looks like, right, And it’s also
interacting with our atmosphere. And you get ions that are
going back and forth between this that are being impacted.
They heat up and they even glow sometimes there’s a
(30:30):
glowing and so you start to see that kind of
thing with the objects. And so the same thing here
is when it comes down near the ground is actually
now the field is going underneath the soil. It’s microwaving it.
You know, it’s gone.
Speaker 1 (30:44):
Okay, we’re going to take a quick break here. We’ll
be right back with Rich and we come back where
we ask him more about some of scu’s conclusions and
how they collect their data and where the data will
be coming from in the future. You’re listening to Beyond
Contact on the iHeartRadio and Coast to Coast AM Paranormal
podcast network. We are back on Beyond Contact speaking with
(31:22):
Rich Hoffman. One more case that came to mind is
the rubber duck video from twenty nineteen. Did you guys
look at that? Do you have any conclusions from that
one as well?
Speaker 4 (31:31):
Basically, we came up with it being an unknown because
we could not come up with any irrational explanation for
that object and why it looked the way it did
and how it moved, and it just made no sense whatsoever.
Speaker 1 (31:46):
So there is a percentage of these cases you guys
are looking at that do come out concluded that they’re unknowns.
Oh yeah, okay. As scientists, it seems to me like
the first place to start would be to collect as
much data as you could so that you could you know,
make your conclusions based off of that. So with so
many different repositories for UFO encounters and information, where do
(32:11):
you guys get your data? You know, we have the
National Reporting Center, Mutual UFO Network of course, Center for
UFO Studies, the Black Vault, Institute for Neuadic Studies, Discovery Sciences, Nightcap,
There’s a lot of places people can turn these in.
What do you guys do?
Speaker 4 (32:28):
So we have access to a number of the databases,
you know, things like that you mentioned and stuff like that,
so we’re able to go and pull data like if
we’re doing a historical study like for example, from nineteen
forty five to nineteen seventy five, let’s see how many
objects were around nuclear facilities. What we do is we
go into the data. We get these databases, you know,
(32:50):
we got maybe move on new fork. We bring all
these things together, we put them in and we start
working with them, and we go through and then our
teams go through and analyze it, and we actually have
a criteria that we go through and identify only the
ones that we feel are the best cases because it
was either investigated by somebody or you know that there
(33:12):
were additional other witnesses to it, and so we do
that criteria to cull out the wheat from the chaff,
if you would. So now we got the wheat, and
let’s take a look at what the wheat tells us.
And so that’s precisely what we did with our historical
kinds of studies like the intention study, or if we’re
looking at you know, cases like for example, what kinds
(33:33):
of heating effects do you see in the atmosphere? What
kind of observations have been about that? So again we’re
able to go in the database, we’re able to look
at that look for the cases that are out there
that mention something that they saw something around the craft
like a heating or something. So we start to see
those atmospheric effects. So now we’re actually have a team
(33:53):
of pulling that together. Right, So we’re looking at atmospheric effects,
we’re looking at USO cases, we’re looking at that. But
we’re wanting to transition over into getting into more instrument
and studies on current kind of cases that are going on,
which is why we’re teaming up with like uap X
and bringing them into the fold. We’re also connecting with
(34:13):
other researchers and stuff like that around the world to
be able to do to share their data and to
bring that together so that we can actually have now
scientists that can evaluate it on a multidisciplinary level and
then help help us to craft a paper that is
now acceptable to a journal, and so that helps science
(34:36):
advance into the topic more and we get a better understanding.
Speaker 1 (34:41):
I apologize. Do you think that the fact that there’s
a high percentage of reports that never get reported to
any of these agencies? Is that hurting you?
Speaker 4 (34:48):
Guys?
Speaker 1 (34:49):
If you think we have enough data out there? What
are your thoughts on that?
Speaker 4 (34:52):
So, yeah, you’re absolutely right. In the early days, I mean,
Heinig Yusta and when I listened to him talking Dayton,
Ohio and stuff like that say that one out of
every twelve sightings are reported. I’m sorry, it’s like one
out of every twelve thousand cases. They’re probably right, you know.
I mean, I don’t know how they came up with that,
that’s but I don’t see that that’s accurate at all.
(35:14):
When I give lectures and stuff like that over the
decades that I’ve been doing it, I always ask how
many of you, you know, saw something, how many of
you reported it? And like nobody said did they report it?
Speaker 1 (35:24):
Right exactly that that’s going on for years and years
and years, a lot of researches. Even though we have
thousands upon thousands of cases from move on in these
other places, there are some most of them are not reported.
So that’s true.
Speaker 4 (35:38):
And so again you know, wanting to transition into how
do we go after objects wherever they are and how
do we get scientific data? So, like you know, think
about it. They seem to have some sort of a
connection around nuclear material. They okay, well nuclear material, Well
you can create something where you have something that looks
(35:58):
like smells like it be radioactive that maybe not. And
we’re working on that, and we’re using that to see
if we can’t draw them in and then have all
of that whole area surrounded by sensors and various other things. Right,
So there are ways you can go about it. We
know that they seem to have an affinity around like
even nuclear or a military basis and stuff, so you
(36:19):
could do that. How about military exercises that are going
on in the ocean, Well maybe around that, right, So
you start to see that there’s ways of going about it.
And you and so now if you’ve got a tool base,
then you’re you’re able to take these tools. You could
see it in radar, sonar, widar, you’re looking at it
(36:39):
throughout the different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. That would
be great. How do you now do that with even
beyond visible ranges in terms of you know, what we
see with our eyes, can we listen to acoustics and
see if it’s outside of our range of hearing? And
so if we get those kind of devices out there,
we’re able to go into hotspots, we’ll be able to
(37:00):
collect that data that we want.
Speaker 1 (37:01):
Do you have a guestimat as to what percentage of
these cases of all cases do you think are typically
genuinely anomalous?
Speaker 4 (37:10):
Well, first off, I think that you know, there’s a
whole lot of things that when we call anomaly, right,
So let me tell you about the Earth flight phenomena.
Are you familiar with earth lights? So there’s a phenomena
out there that looks like it often gets reported as UFOs,
which are nothing more than an atmospheric kind of got SpaceX.
Speaker 1 (37:29):
So does There’s a lot of things that people often misidentify.
Speaker 4 (37:33):
But just think about this, this is an eight foot
in diameter glowing ball of gas that moves through the
atmosphere and can and can do incredible speeds and stuff
like that, go up to two thousand feet altitude, and
we know very little about it because we’ve not studied it.
That’s an anomaly that’s out there that we don’t know about,
which can account for a lot of UFO reports, by
(37:56):
the way, but.
Speaker 1 (37:57):
It’s intrustrial explanation to it.
Speaker 4 (38:00):
Sure, yeah, But I guess what I’m trying to get
at is you have to again going back to you
have to separate the weed from the chaff. So you’ve
got to get smarter about knowing, well, this is a drone,
and this is a UFO, this is an earth light,
and this is something. Until those things are studied, are
we know more about them, We’re always going to have
(38:21):
misidentifications by the public and everybody else. Right, So you’ve
got to eliminate the ifos so you can get to
the UFO and.
Speaker 1 (38:29):
The identified ones. Right. Do you feel like some of
these new technologies coming on, they’re building this I think
it’s called the large telescope in Chili or extra large
telescope and Chili that’s coming online and AI itself. Do
you think that will be able to sort through this
data for you? Will that will these new tools really
help propel this movement forward. What are your thoughts on
(38:52):
the new technologies coming on?
Speaker 4 (38:53):
Well, certainly, we actually did one study where we use
machine learning, and so I mean, the more we can
and apply things like AI or machine learning, and as
it continues to advance, the more that we’re going to
be able to go through a large volume of data
and narrow it down into a smaller subset that we
can get something from. So we’re excited about that as well.
(39:16):
I mean, and yes, there are constantly things that are
going on in terms of scientific world. NASA is planning
to go after the UFO and the UAP, so it’s
going to have satellites and various other things that will
help out in doing that. Again, the military has advanced
to the point where it’s got this piece of these
equipment that now are detecting them for the first time
(39:40):
in quantity, So like the twenty fourteen and the limets case. Wow,
we’re starting to see them more. Oh well guess what
more data collection? Right, So I think that as we
continue to go on, we’re starting we’ll start to narrow
down which tools really work for us to be able
to give us some very critical data that we can
(40:02):
work with.
Speaker 1 (40:03):
That’s awesome, Rich, thanks so much for coming on and
sharing with us. People. Check out the SCU website which
is explore SCU dot org. I think this is exactly
what we need in this community, is the rigorous scientific
study of this anomalies, and hopefully we’re getting closer to
find on it. What’s really going on? Right Rich?
Speaker 4 (40:23):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (40:23):
Awesome, Rich, thanks again for coming on. I really really
enjoyed this and I really appreciate you taking the time.
