Jay Stratton, Travis Taylor

AlienCon: Stratton, Taylor & Knapp – “We’re Here To Help Get To The Bottom Of What In The World Is Going On”

3 Jun , 2023  

“If we don’t know what it is, tell the American people we don’t know what it is. Don’t play these games.” ~Jay Stratton


“We’re here to help get to the bottom of what in the world is going on.” ~Dr. Travis Taylor



If you like what you see on my blog, my Twitter and YouTube Channel and appreciate the time and effort, here are links to my PatreonPay Pal and Venmo. I appreciate any and all support. Without that support, I would struggle to do this as much as I do.


Patreon = https://www.patreon.com/ufojoe

Pay Palufojoe11@aol.com

Venmo – www.venmo.com/u/ufojoe


The following is from the AlienCon conference in Pasadena, California. This interview took place on March 5th, 2023. 


George Knapp (GK): Well, this is a big one here. I’ve really been looking forward to this one for a long time, since I was asked to do it. I’ve just been thrilled by the opportunity to be here to talk to these two guys. This is a special occasion for them to be on here to respond to the kind of questions that I’ve anticipated asking. The first panelist here is somebody you know really well from television, except he doesn’t just play a scientist on TV, he really is a scientist. He’s got multiple PhDs, master’s degrees. He’s been working in classified programs for the Department of Defense since he was a teenager, including becoming the chief scientist for the UAP Task Force. His name is Dr. Travis Taylor.

KLAS Article: “Not Just a TV Scientist: Dr. Travis Taylor’s Deep Roots with NASA, DoD”

GK: The guy he works with now, at a company called Radiance Technologies, is someone he has worked with before at something called the UAP Task Force. The guy who created the UAP Task Force, who was its director. The only person that we know of who worked with AAWSAP, for the DIA…the AATIP program, and then for the UAP Task Force. His name is Jay Stratton.

So let’s get to it. You guys knew, when you decided to go public, when you left the government sector, that, once it became known what you did for the government, you were gonna catch grief. You’ve monitored the UFO world for a while. I mean, you knew it, right? Jay?

Jay Stratton (JS): Absolutely.

GK: Travis, you’re kind of used to it. You’ve been getting it for a number of years. When I made it public last summer, that you were the chief scientist for the UAP Task Force, was there any additional heartburn for you, from that?

Dr. Travis Taylor (TT): Yeah, if I could address that a little bit. I remember one particular headline, something about, “no wonder the Task Force didn’t find anything, they had that ‘Ancient Aliens‘ guy who believes in paranormal stuff.


TT: And basically, that’s what the headline and the article kind of read was, you know? Number one, I hate the word, paranormal. I don’t like use it, I don’t use the word poltergeist, never believed in ghosts, none of that kind of stuff. Instead of saying that I had two PhDs, three master’s degrees, a bachelor’s degree, a professional engineer and licensed in Alabama, thirty years of experience working in intelligence-community systems, NASA systems and DoD systems. Top-Secret SCI clearance, all those things. Instead of any of that, I was that “Ancient Aliens” guy. But you know? Hell yeah, because Ancient Aliens rocks!

(The crowd went wild)

JS: Travis is forgetting one more thing. When I talked to his boss and convinced him to let me borrow Travis, I said, “He can do all that stuff, he’s got all those degrees, he’s great on a whiteboard. He can explain quantum engineering to General Officers, bring it down to the level that everyone can understand it. But also, he can build stuff.” I didn’t use the stuff word.

TT: No, Jay said, “He can build shit.”

JS: Yeah. Take an engineer that can move from the whiteboard, to the barn, and put something together. When we work in reverse engineering, it’s a hands-on business, it’s an applied business and you need that bigger picture.

GK: There’s a story that came out, I don’t wanna dwell on it too much but it just happened, right in advance of this conference here, this get together. And I think it was meant to slap you around a little bit before you came out in public and answered questions about what you’ve done for the government and at Radiance. And it implies that you have colleagues, Jay, at the Pentagon, anonymous colleagues – which I think is pretty piss-poor journalism to go ahead and say…attack your character and your credibility, after a long, distinguished career and an unblemished record, and trusted with high security clearances – that you’re some kind of an alien nut, and the work you did at the UAP Task Force is really to blame for Balloon-apalooza and for NORAD ignoring balloons and drones and things like that for all these years.

Story/article Knapp referenced 👇🏼

Here are a few excerpts from that article by Tom Rogan

A number of personnel speaking to the Washington Examiner on the condition of anonymity say that they believe that the leadership of the now-defunct Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force co-opted reports of what were likely foreign espionage tools involving small balloons or drones in order to characterize them as extraordinary for purposes of personal bias. They believe that military flight crews were sometimes ill-served by the manner in which their witness reporting was later presented by the UAP Task Force as evidence of truly extraordinary, rather than more conventionally explainable, UFOs belonging to a foreign government.

…officials say the Chinese balloons have been a well-known foreign intelligence concern for a number of years. They say that the UAP Task Force, then led by Jay Stratton, was reluctant to confront the balloon UFO consideration. Stratton’s relationship with Tom DeLonge, a musician who established a UFO research group, and his association with research at Skinwalker Ranch (where anomalous phenomena have been reported) also raised concerns with the Navy.

Stratton adamantly resists this characterization and rejects the aforementioned claim of other officials that the UFO task force was primarily focused on air safety. In a statement to the Washington Examiner, he asserted, “No one involved with the Pentagon’s UAP Task Force ever labeled something a UAP, Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, if it was identified as anything known or if it performed in a similar manner to known conventional technology, obviously including balloons. Anyone suggesting otherwise is simply trying to mislead the public into thinking very real UAP are balloons.”

Regardless, one key contention was whether radar returns indicating some UFOs traveling at very high speed (multi-Mach) were truly unconventional UFOs or simply balloons producing bad data returns due to their particular physical profile. Directly knowledgeable personnel convinced of the latter scenario felt ignored by leaders in Congress and the Pentagon when they offered their concerns. They say they believed that the UAP Task Force was diverting government resources to researching truly unconventional UFOs at the expense of addressing Chinese balloons. It bears noting, however, that some UFO reports include military eyewitness sightings of apparently sizable vehicles performing extraordinary maneuvers (with apparently corroborating radar/other sensor recordings of the same object). This type of UFO is not what the complainant sources are referring to.


GK: You wanna talk about that?

JS: Absolutely. The Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force was chartered to study and look at Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, right? It’s in the name. With that, it highlighted a whole lot of gaps across the Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community, and our sensor network and our capabilities on the aircraft. Sometimes better capabilities lead to new problems in that the modern, active electronically scanned array radar, things that are in the front nose of an F-18, an F-15, etcetera, [are] highly sensitive [and] can see a lot of things, and I’m not going into great detail here. But, we really had to learn how to sort the wheat from the chaff and highlight what was unidentified and what could be identified. And the multitude of sensors that we had really kind of needed to be retuned. And I can tell you, absolutely, the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force saw balloons, our pilots were reporting balloons. At any point, when something went from U (Unidentified ~Joe), to being Identified – it became, you know, a balloon, I think, other, traditional kind of counter…UAS or Unmanned Aerial Systems – that became a counterintelligence concern that went over to a completely different group inside the Pentagon, to deal with. The UAP Task Force was not a large organization. We were science and data driven, focused on trying to understand the bigger-picture phenomena. And, to think, that my small group in the Pentagon…

TT: Which didn’t actually sit in the Pentagon.

JS: True.

TT: And I’m gonna jump in and tell you that right now, because you’re too humble to do it, Jay.

JS: Okay.

TT: Because it’s just horseshit. There was one person on the UAP Task Force that sat in the Pentagon. One. We know him, trust him, a very good person (This person has not gone public and I have no idea who he is. ~Joe). And there’s no way there was an unidentified or anonymous source that sat at the Pentagon on the Task Force, that said this is nonsense (The Rogan article didn’t say that any of the sources (“personnel”) were part of the UAPTF. ~Joe). And the other thing…not one single meeting did we discuss poltergeist activity, dire wolves or anything like that. Every single meeting was professional. We would talk about unidentified things in secure areas that shouldn’t be there, looking with sensors, radar, infrared cameras and other equipment that were assets and most of it classified. And it had nothing to do with anything about Skinwalker Ranch, or any of that stuff. So anybody that’s saying things like that, they’re full of it.

GK: Or they made it up.

TT: Or they absolutely made it up. Because I don’t even understand what the point of that is. I mean, we’re here to help get to the bottom of what in the world is going on, and it makes me…and it really concerns me, George, about this Balloon-apalooza. We actually identified that there were gaps in our technology that our radar systems, and so on, were designed to look for ICBMs and fighter planes, and things that moved really quickly, and they had filters to throw that other stuff out. So we wouldn’t see the UFOs if they came in, right? And also, guess what else we wouldn’t see? Balloons. And we actually even talked about that. So to say that we made all this up and it was balloons? I wanna meet that guy out back.

GK: The larger narrative that’s been going on – a lot of it was aimed at your friend, Lue Elizondo – is that a group of you guys…you two, Lue, Chris Mellon, a few others, have pulled the wool over Congress’s eyes. You fooled them into believing there’s an alien threat and that’s why we need to study this stuff. You ever use the term alien in any briefing, anywhere?

JS: I have not. I was very cautious to point out what I knew and what I didn’t know and what I think, and focus on the technologies. 100% of the approach to all the briefings I did with Congress, even over to the White House, was, “Here’s what we’re seeing, and based on what we’re seeing, using multiple sensors: radar, ground-based, air-based, ship-based…my assessment, or my team’s assessment of that.” And as you can imagine, I can’t get into a lot of detail, but the first question is: “Is it us?” The second question: “Is it some other nation?” And if you can’t answer those questions, then what is it? And that’s where the word phenomena comes in. Is it a nuts and bolts thing or is this some new weather…Travis and I spent too much time on ball lightning, trying to understand weather phenomena and other things. Phenomena (Emphasizing that it’s plural ~Joe), right?

The biggest job, I was gonna say a moment ago, was moving the paradigm inside of big government to acknowledge that we’ve got a concern, a complex airspace environment up there that has a lot of things going on. And it’s really easy for an adversary to hide in that complex, airspace environment. But do we have other things going on? And the stigma to think outside the box on other things that these could be, is so hardcore that I had to ease everyone into working through the data to understand, “Hey, we still have questions and here’s why we have questions.” I led an effort to change the AEGIS radar to be able to see UAS and to be able to see quadcopters, because we would miss that, right? You’ve seen plenty of news stories of quadcopters coming near our naval vessels. So we had new things put into the fleet in order to try to detect these things and track these things. And then, with that, you still had some anomalies that we had to work through. But at the end of the day, it was all about the technology and trying to prevent an emerging and disruptive technology, and then attributing that to some thing in order to get to that threat word like we talked about yesterday. The capability plus intent.

TT: There was only one time, on one page, and it was a draft, where the word extraterrestrial, or something like that, was written. And we were writing down a list of what could it be? We started with near peers, and then we said, “If it wasn’t near peers, then it’s some oligarch, or group of oligarchs that pooled their money together and done something.” Then we said, “Okay, mother nature’s invented something that we haven’t seen before,” right? And then we said, “Other than that, the only other bucket we could find is if it was extra-something: terrestrial, temporal, dimensional, whatever.” That’s because it’s just the only other bucket we can think of…an unknown bucket. And we even were nervous about putting that list on the official document, and so we didn’t. We left it as, just unknown. We never put the word alien or extraterrestrial on any memo, document, or anything that went forward, other than a draft between us and the few other members of the team that were reading the draft.

GK: Can you tell me a little bit about the everyday workings of the UAP Task Force? Jay, you put it together. It was something else before it became that, it was formalized. But, how did information come in? Did you have to go out and get it, or did people start sending it to you? Was it like pulling teeth, in general?

JS: It was like building a business, was the analogy I use, because 2018 is when I was tasked to start building it and I knew what I needed. As you stated as I was walking on stage, you know, I’ve been involved in the other programs and knew the mistakes, and the paths that we should never go down. Because again, my job is to focus on that potential threat, potential concern…adversary, disruptive and emerging technologies, right? I keep jumping back to that. But it’s really looking at that technology. So, I knew I had a problem, you know, well before 2018 – because I’ve been doing this so long – of pilots reporting things. So, the first stop I made was, you know, with the aircrew, with a variety of the fleet-concentration centers (Any region of the world where large numbers of Navy ships congregate, such as Norfolk, Va. ~Joe) and talking to them and seeing where we’re at. And do they have data, right? Everywhere, I went…data, data, data.

And basically, that’s my customer. That’s who I’m looking in the eyes every day and saying, “We got this, we’re gonna try to figure out the answer for you.” From there, I gotta start trying to get those answers, so I need capabilities and authorities. And that’s where I went out to all of the, you know, across the intelligence community, to the other services, and walked in the door. And at this point, I was senior enough, rank-wise, that I can get in the door pretty easily. And I would go through the situation with them and make them understand that hey, “Here’s what we’ve got, and I need your help to try to solve this puzzle.” And I walked in knowing what I needed and I had an ask for every organization, just like when I asked to get Travis on the team. And I built out this infrastructure that, at the end of the day, was, you know, it kind of hurt me a little bit, in the recent news media, to hear, “Oh, what we need is an interagency, whole-of-government effort.” Well…I built that. And the government let it go away. And we started over again with the new group called AARO. So it’s frustrating, as a government employee, to go through and try to build up this thing, and [we] finally made what the government needs. And, you know, I’m briefing Congress about this whole government, interagency effort. I’m briefing all the way over to the White House. Everybody knew we had this thing, and it just fizzled away when I went away, when I went back to my regular job.

And I’ll explain that real quick, publicly. I was on rotation as a senior executive in the government and those positions don’t grow on trees. So Naval Intelligence loaned me to the DoD and the Pentagon, to lead the Task Force. That loan had an expiration date of January of 2021. So at the end of that loan date, my boss called me back said, “I need you here to do your job.” So I had to leave, and then, as I left, it’s kind of like, all the momentum fizzled away.

TT: Let me add something to that real quick, because, again, he’s too humble to tell you this. So Jay is a two-star, admiral equivalent. He’s a civilian equivalent of a two-star admiral, that’s his rank. And when Jay was asked to go back to his official, other job, you know, he had two official jobs…that’s just the way the government works. And when he was asked to go back, they didn’t backfill the leader of the (UAP Task Force) group with a two-star, admiral equivalent, they filled it with someone of my rank which is like a full-bird colonel equivalent. In the Army and in the Navy, that’d be a captain. And so, he (Stratton ~Joe) could open doors, right? And when he went in rooms, colonels got him coffee. But now they put a guy who’s been getting coffee in charge of the group. It sounds pretty interesting to me, that it’s almost like we were being led to some sort of a dismantling or a failure.


JS: You know, they called it an insult, right? But the people that I heard back [from], after the fact…the criticism was that I was too proactive. So, in the government, being proactive is apparently a bad thing. But…built that out, George…I got us where we needed to be.

TT: And I’ll tell you, we had many meetings, a lot of times, since I was in Huntsville, and Jay was in Maryland, we had a lot of meetings through classified, video conferences. And there would be three or four people in his office, and he was calling people from different offices around DC, across out to California and Denver, you name it, you just pick places. There were people that were in the different services and agencies, because he built a huge team, where then we had a representative, pretty much from every government agency and office.

Jay: That’s about forty different organizations.

TT: And so, it was a huge group of experts and professionals, every single one of them were professionals. I mean, we even had…we were getting prepared to start our first round of experiments, for example. I can’t go into too much detail about it, but it was one of those things where we were gonna instrument out a thing and fly it around…looking and try to gather data. And I was going to be one of the payload specialists with that mission, and like, the week I was gonna go and do the duct tape, certification and all that stuff, COVID hit, and it just shut down everything. No travel in the government, no this or that. And work from home? How do you do classified work from home?

GK: We know that the UAP Task Force gathered a lot of information, that there was a briefing document. I think it’s publicly known, Jay, that you put that thing together.


GK: A lot of the images and things that you guys studied and analyzed, some of them have come out, many of them have not. How did you get ’em? How hard was it to get ’em? And I’m asking, sort of specifically about, like, [the] Air Force. We know the Navy led the charge on us.

JS: Right.

GK: A lot of the videos and the images that the public is aware of came from the Navy. Don’t see a lot from the Air Force. So, tell me about how you gathered images for this program?

JS: Yeah. Actually, the first image…video I got was from the Air Force, which is surprising now, you know, where we’re at today and some things, and there’s some definite political reasons for the way things ended up. But, reporting…the mission of the Task Force, as I said yesterday in the panel, I said, “Take it seriously, and own it.” Own it is a great example of why, for the first time…George probably dropped his coffee when he saw the response back from the DoD spokesperson saying, “Yep, it’s unidentified.” Right?

GK: I was flabbergasted.


JS: That’s the owning. You know, because if we don’t know what it is, tell the American people we don’t know what it is. Don’t play these games. And reporting…centralized-data repository and the data-focus, science-focus, was a big, big, big drum I beat every day, right? And to get that reporting, you gotta work through the stigma, and to work through the stigma, you gotta handle each service, each organization separately, and differently. Because I was Naval Intelligence, and I had a long-standing relationship with naval aviation, that was my focus. If you were there yesterday, I pointed out, the Navy’s got a big air force, the Navy has an army and the Navy’s army has an air force. We’ve got a lot of aircraft. So I knew, right there, I’ve got half the DoD flying capability. If I built that reporting process and that ability and willingness to report in the Navy and the Marine Corps, then I can ease over to the Air Force because we work so closely together, so often.


The 2019 West Coast Incidents were mentioned a few times during this panel, so if you’re unfamiliar with the controversy, take the time to read about them before moving on.

Transcript – Active-Duty Navy Commander Comes Forward & Witnesses Speak Out On 2019 UFO Swarms: We’ve Never Seen Anything Like This. They Just Seemed To Appear


JS: So I built a formal, reporting process, and some of this has been in the media. But the other thing is, I had this working Task Force. So, data preservation and speed was very important. So, everyone knows, when the 2019 incidents happened, my Task Force was fully functional, pretty much, at this point, and I got a classified email from the carrier-strike-group commander saying, “Jay, we’ve got some UAP.” And I said, “Got it.” I had a guy on board his carrier within a day, in order to start educating, start collecting data, start getting the folks talking, going to each ship, via helicopter, and bringing everything back to DC., immediately. I don’t have to wait for anything. That’s functional. You know, that’s the ability to get out there. And the key is we wanted the data, we wanted to do the analysis, sure. But, to those naval aviators on board the carrier? This is, you know…go back to the 2004 Tic Tac incident, it’s night and day from what those folks had to deal with.


GK: Travis, give me a sense of…did you know much about Jay before you got asked to join the UAP Task Force? And was your answer, “Yes,” or “Hell, yes”?

TT: Well, I’d never met him in my life. I didn’t have any idea who he was. What happened was, the first week I went to Skinwalker Ranch, I had detected some microwave signals that I thought were dangerous and I thought they were bad actors. And since I had security clearance and worked for the Army, I went to our counterintelligence security people and said, “Hey, I think I’ve detected something and I need to talk to counterintelligence.” And that went to another layer, and to another layer, and they ended up saying, “Well, we got someone that you need to brief at the Pentagon.” So I went to the Pentagon to do the briefing, and Jay and another guy walks into the room. I didn’t know who they were. And they said, “Well, tell us what you got.” And we briefed them. And then, after a few minutes, he kind of asked everybody else [to get] out of the room. And it was just he and I, and his other colleague in the room. And then I did happen to notice, though, that he had a copy of one of my books with him. And so, he had done his homework and I had done mine, apparently.

And he started telling me to give him more details about the signals that we were seeing, maybe what they were, and he had me brief some folks. And then he said, “Well, so this is what I’m doing.” And then he told me about UAP Task Force and asked if I would be interested in helping out. And my answer was, “Hell, yes!” It was in another meeting that we were at, probably a couple months later, where he introduced me as the chief scientist. And that was kind of a surprise to me. So I just continued on with what we were doing, and at that point, he said, “Yeah, you should put that in your header on your email.” And I was like, “Well, okay.” And that’s kind of how it worked. And so I worked for him from 2019 to 2021, when you (Stratton) retired, and then I stayed on with the team for another six or eight months, and then I retired.

GK: The West Coast events. I recognize there are limits on what you guys can say, still. Jeremy and I put out some images that the public has now…the whole world has seen.


GK: These pyramids, these green pyramid things that have been explained away as bokeh. Can you address that?

TT: Yes, I can absolutely address that. And you know, and I’m not the only person who has addressed that and looked at it. On the Task Force, we looked at it. We have other data that everybody else didn’t get to see, and I’ll have to leave that at that. But, so…I wanna go off on a tangent for just a second. Has anybody ever heard of the idea of Huxley’s monkeys? So, Huxley…it was attributed to him, but it wasn’t actually Huxley, it was actually a priest that came up with it, but for some reason, it’s attributed to Huxley. As a strawman argument on…that evolution doesn’t need any assistance to happen, is that you can take a roomful of monkeys, a roomful of typewriters – so this is back when they had typewriters – and [if you] give them enough time, they would write all of the words in Psalms, and it’s since been kind of skewed towards all the works of Shakespeare. Doesn’t matter. Some big grouping of words that are put in the right order, with the right punctuation.

New York Zoological Society/Public Domain


TT: And so, Huxley said, “So, your DNA could randomly evolve, and happen just by happenstance, and this is gonna happen, this is gonna happen, this is gonna happen, and so on. And that’s how, you know, it’s gonna happen. Well, it sounds like a good argument. Well, a roomful of monkeys, slapping away at keys, eventually, they would write a full novel. Well, I make all of my graduate students actually work that problem out. And it turns out, that the Universe would have to be 10 orders of magnitude older than it is, for that to actually occur, without some sort of cheating. And so, that’s called a strawman argument. You give someone something that sounds good, and they say, “Oh yeah, I get that.” And then it explains it away.

So, somebody came up with this great idea of saying, “Let’s say there’s a optical distortion that everybody has never heard of. It’s a Japanese word that nobody knows what it means…we’re gonna say bokeh.” And you think, “A flower?” No, it’s not spelled that way! It’s actually a Japanese word that means, like, distortion, it means, you know, blurry. And the idea is, you see photographers use it all the time as an artistic effect, where you take something here, that you wanna take a picture of, you do a slight out of focus, and do a soft focus with the F number (f-stop ~Joe) and it’ll put the things behind you, out of focus, and they will take on the shape of the internal aperture of the optical system. And that’s what bokeh is. So this thing in front of you, that you’re looking at, wouldn’t have this bokeh effect, but everything else, like this, would take on the shape of the aperture [on the] inside. And most apertures nowadays, like the one in your cell phone, is the shape of a stop sign, right? And then they keep that inside so it looks more circular, it looks more like something real.

Well, so the idea (a theory some folks have put forth on #ufotwitter. ~Joe) is that the night-vision goggles that were used, the NVG, the second gen, that was used on the Russell, that SNOOPIE guy had a triangular aperture in it and he had bokeh. Well, maybe you can get one of those and tear it apart, if you want to, but they’re expensive and I don’t wanna tear ’em apart. But, when you look at the actual images, it isn’t…the things in the far field, the stars, are out of focus. They are likely, you know, triangular or trapezoidal, or something along that nature. But you can do that with any type of out-of-focus error. My first PhD, by the way, was in optical science and engineering, and I took so many Fourier transforms of optical images and learned that, to get that PhD, that I was pretty danged good at it. And the one thing I did, was I took the imagery, and I reversed-Fournier transformed it and saw that the thing that was moving, the one object that’s moving, isn’t a star, right? And it’s not out of focus, completely, while the others are. Because there’s actually one frame in this video that is actually in focus and even the stars give you the perfect, it’s called a Bessel sinc square function. It’s a little dot with circles around it. And so it’s in focus for one frame. And then when it goes out of focus, I go, “Okay, now I know what’s happening,” This guy’s focusing the camera on the thing close to him, so they’re seeing it.

Here are a few stills from the video Jeremy Corbell released that show the object in focus but I don’t know if any of these are the frames Taylor is talking about. Thanks to Mike Colangelo for grabbing these.


TT: So the thing up close, does have some sort of triangular shape to it. I don’t know that it’s a pyramid shape, because it’s two dimensional, right? The TV screen is two dimensional.

A Reminder: Here’s the video Taylor is referencing…


TT: And also, when you do heat analysis on it, you see it had bright spots on each corner. I don’t know what that is, I’m just saying it had bright spots on each corner. Should I tell…can I tell the rest of it (looking at Stratton)?

(I believe Stratton gave a look to Taylor, as if to say. “It’s up to you.” ~Joe)

JS: My company did an in-depth analysis on this.

GK: Aw, come on.

JS: We got a lot of answers.

TT: Well…so, we…

(The crowd urged them to share details)

TT: Here’s the problem. And you guys got to understand the sticky situation we’re in. So Jay and I, and a few others, we wrote the security-classification guide when we were on the UAP Task Force, and none of this was classified. None of it was. But then, when we left, the new group (AARO) is going in and trying to backdate and change the classifications of some of the stuff, and it could catch us in a trap. And so, we have to be very careful about where we go with some of it, and it’s just been weird, it’s been really weird.

GK: Let me ask it this way: The work that you guys did, you know, Jay, they get you out at a critical moment, right when you’re just supposed to prepare this report to Congress. [They] pull you out. Doesn’t seem like that was coincidental to me. But your job was to separate wheat from chaff. You’re not looking for drones and balloons, you separate them out. When you can identify a balloon, you take it out, it’s identified.

JS: Right.

GK: Is it fair to say that you had access to a great deal of information that has not been made public, that can’t be, as a matter of national security?

JS: Absolutely. So, you know, the two hats I wore, I was a National-Intelligence-Community-funded senior. So, that means that the Office of Director of National Intelligence paid my salary. Why is that important? It gives me access, under Title 50, to the entire intelligence community, to deal with this issue. And then I sit at the Office of Naval Intelligence, which, you know, my ID card says U.S. Navy on it, which gives me that Title-10 connection, under what’s…the military program. So, I had two hats and that was important because…and a key reason that we do that is to reduce influence. you know? Following 911, there was an Intelligence-Community directive that prevents political influence in intelligence, right? There’s WMD or there’s not WMD, and you can’t have the White House calling over, driving the assessment. You can’t have a service driving the assessment. So, to be a National Intel-funded guy gave me pretty much the menu of options at our disposal. And I mentioned earlier about changing the menu a bit, modifying the menu a bit in order to better see these kinds of things. But, we had a much bigger picture, obviously, you know, when we were briefing all of the seniors, the briefing was very detailed and very…highly footnoted, I guess you could say, right? And Travis knows this. I went over, every time, with Congress or anyone else, with my ducks in a row, right? I would not have gone and briefed Congress that I believe these triangular-shaped objects to be – at least one real and some stars – without my ducks in a row, and be able to answer every question that’s thrown at me.


Debunker Mick West believes the slide that Jeremy Corbell released (shown below) shows only stars. Both Corbell and Knapp say Stratton put together the classified briefing that apparently included this unclassified slide, but Stratton has never confirmed that and when Taylor was asked about about the slide on Twitter, I recall him saying he couldn’t address it because he had signed NDAs. I cannot find that tweet/reply. I think it’s safe to assume that this slide was part of the Stratton briefing/presentation. 


West makes his case in this video…


West appears to be right about that particular unclassified slide (and video) showing all stars and not two unknown, triangular UASas noted at the bottom of the slide. 👇🏼

And if that was actually included in a briefing, I would consider it a mistake. But as West notes, the video he uses in his analysis is different than the video Corbell released and doesn’t show the most important thing: The Corbell video shows at least one moving object which West calls an aircraft or plane. He’s also called the Gimbal and Tic Tac UFOs distant planes so it seems to be his default explanation when debunking.


I don’t know what the object over the USS Russell was, or if it was triangular in shape, but the most important point is that it was flying in restricted/sensitive airspace and it should not be there. Stratton and Taylor have said they had access to other data, which, unfortunately, none of us have seen. Also remember, this was one incident on one ship. For a more extensive look at the July 2019 West Coast events, I’ll once again urge you to read or listen to the interview Corbell and Knapp did with active-duty Navy commander, John “Guts” Gutierrez, which included segments of interviews with sailors on board the USS Paul Hamilton. When judging 2019, I’d make sure to give proper weight to what was said in that interview and what Stratton and Taylor said in this AlienCon interview by Knapp. Also remember, 2019 wasn’t Stratton and Taylor looking for UFOs. According to Stratton, this all started when…

I got a classified email from the carrier-strike-group commander saying, “Jay, we’ve got some UAP.” And I said, “Got it.” I had a guy on board his carrier within a day, in order to start educating, start collecting data, start getting the folks talking, going to each ship, via helicopter, and bringing everything back to DC., immediately.


JS: So, I had access to that, I had other things, as Travis said, you know? The carrier strike group has a multitude of sensors, and, I mean, we have other ways to reach across the government.

TT: Two other optical PhDs.

JS: Yeah, I had to be independent, so I was a lot about, you know, going in with the data and saying, “Hey, I have two other optical PhDs in other organizations look at this, without even knowing the other’s looking at it.” And just keep it completely separate.


Before I move on from Mick West, I just want to show an example of why he should not be trusted to give an unbiased view of anything related to UFOs. In his video showing that the slide features stars, he also said:

“This great-looking example then made its way onto Stratton’s slide, past three people with PhDs in optics, and on to be used briefing high-ranking officials, who then helped to treat new laws and policies, partly because of this identification.”

There’s no evidence the three people (including Taylor) with PhDs had anything to do with that slide. From what I understand, they were asked to look at the moving object, which is not part of that slide. And we have never seen the entire presentation, so it’s impossible to deduce how much weight one slide had on any high-ranking officials who were shown this briefing, which Corbell says, “contains an estimated 10 videos (FLIR and HUD) and about 10-12 photos documenting some of these UAPs.”


JS: So I always tried to go in with that kind of understanding of everything I was briefing so that I’m not trying to…I’m certainly not selling anything and trying to get…it absolutely benefited me in no way, to get more funding, to get more people. It benefited the American people, and that’s what I went in there to do.


GK: I’ll move on from the West Coast incident in moment, but one last question. As it’s been reported, more than a hundred objects floating around, a hundred miles out to sea, over ten Navy ships, a lot of it was photographed. It is a national-security matter, I mean, because we didn’t know where they were from. I mean, that’s a legitimate mystery. I’ve seen amateur explanations by twit-fologists and debunkers, and others, who…they have to assume that you guys, the U.S. Navy, the pilots, the sensor operators, are all pretty stupid because they figured it out at home, and you don’t know. I mean, you do have access to a heck of a lot of other information, and you would still qualify those as UAP? Or do you have an answer that you can share about what was going on with that swarm?

TT: Yep.

JS: I mean, what I’ll say is I chased down everything. So a key access that I had was the ability to say, “It’s not us.” That’s a key access. That’s an authority and a requirement that I put in into my wish list to Congress, early on. They said, “What can make this work?” And I said, “Whoever is leading this effort,” – and I wasn’t pushing myself to lead it, believe me – “needs to know what we know, right? Needs to know what we have, and to be able to rule out us…step one.” And that ruling out us is not easy because you’re talking about DoD, IC, as well as DoE.

TT: Lockheed, the private sector.

JS: Exactly. So I had had this Rolodex of process (May not have said “process” ~Joe), every time we saw something new, of stepping through, to validate that first step, make sure it’s not something of ours that I’m chasing here. And then, I would have, you know, later, as the Task Force was built out, I had another Rolodex that I could use of classified emails and start sending out to learn other capabilities. So, as I said earlier, speed is of essence, right? So having my guy fly out to the carrier and get data and get back as fast as we could, that means the body is still warm. So, I’ve got other sensors and visual capabilities that I could put out there to try to find things. So, having that access really put me in a position to make a qualified answer, assessment to provide across the community in both sides of the government…executive and legislative branches. It was a game changer for a little while.


More on the question of…

Was it our technology that was encountered on the West Coast in July 2019 and was it part of a readiness-assessment test?



On the January 31st episode of “Weaponized,” hosted by Corbell and Knapp, Corbell played audio from interviews he conducted with two witnesses who were onboard the USS Paul Hamilton when the 2019, West Coast incidents took place. The main interview was with John “Guts” Gutierrez (Guts), an active-duty, Navy Commander who has served for 17 years and who has spoke with some of the witnesses.  

~~~Audio of interview with Eyewitness #1 begins~~~

Jeremy Corbell (JC): “What did you think was going on during this encounter series? Did you think this was a test?”

Eyewitness #1 (E1): “So like, we didn’t really think anything of it, other than that it was like the people testing us. Like, purposefully sent out drones to go harass us. So, it’s like the most high-end technology, followed us. And then after the first night, that was pretty apparent that it wasn’t. But like, at the same time, it’s like, ‘Hey, you need to track this more closely. You need to follow them and see where they go afterwards.’”

JC: “Isn’t it typical, though, if that were the scenario, and you were being tested, at some point afterwards, you would be made aware that you were being tested? And whether or not you passed or didn’t pass the test?”

E1: “Yeah.”

JC: “And that never happened?”

E1: “No (laughs), no, because like, it wasn’t a test. Unless there’s like a secret at like the highest level and no one’s told anyone, that wasn’t a test during SWATT. But like, the mindset at the time was test during SWATT, but also looking back, with like, kind of a clear eye, it’s like, that makes no sense to have a test that lasts that long, at night, after a really busy day, when we’re shooting like, live ordnance during the day. It would just get into the safety of like, what we were doing, and it wouldn’t make any sense for them to do that.”

~Audio Ends~

JC: “So, can you explain to us, like, you know, so this is somebody that’s saying…he’s saying it wasn’t a test device, it wasn’t our tech. So explain that.”

Guts: “So, you know, what you hear that individual talking about in the beginning is, you know, at first, that’s kind of the assumption everybody makes, right? Yeah, okay, we’re being tested, you know? They’re sending out drones, the tests are different tactics and procedures to respond to this thing. But then it starts happening night after night. It’s happening at hours that are really, really outside of the hours of testing, if you want to call it that, right? Because you got to remember, these ships are participating in other training events throughout the entire day, okay? And shooting live ordnance, you heard him talk about that. And like I told you before, whenever we shoot live ordnance, that’s a big deal, okay? Certainly, in real-world actions, but also in training, you know? We don’t do that lightly and there’s a lot that goes into that. So, the idea that we would be executing a high-stress, high-level event during the day, and then to be tested with drone swarms in the middle of the night… Because you gotta remember, you got to put yourself in the mindset, in the shoes of these guys back in 2019. This is happening, you know, about 2200 to like, 0300 at night, you know? 10 o’clock at night till about two or three in the morning sometimes, right? And, I mean, is it totally out of the question that we would be tested at that time? No, but when you consider and you heard him…I’m glad you heard him say it: Safety, right? No matter what we’re doing, we’re always gonna operate with a certain level or amount of safety precautions imbued into the training event, so that we don’t do something stupid, or God forbid, get somebody hurt, you know? So you heard him talk about that.

“You heard him talk about how, okay, night one, okay, it’s probably a test. But then, something that you heard him say was that folks higher up in the chain of command started asking, ‘Hey, start gathering all the data that you can about this and feed it up.’ Okay? And who knows, maybe it was a test of our information-gathering capabilities. But that is not something that would be typically done, right? There’s much more important aspects of our tasks and procedures that need to be tested, not how information flows up and down the chain of command. That’s easy. You can easily put a report together and send it up to whoever it needs to get to.”

JC: “Without a hundred objects, with no point of departure or landing.”

Guts: “Exactly. So, night one? Sure, maybe. Night two, three, four, or whatever it is? They realize, okay, this is real and there’s something else going on here. And oh, by the way, again, folks higher in the chain of command are asking for us to stay on this case, you know?”

JC: “So, to go to your point there, is that, okay, first we eliminate [that] this was our technology and it was just a test. It started becoming very apparent to everybody on the ships, you know, whoa, this is real, like, we gotta deal with this. This is not just some, you know, even like a black-projects test, which, by the way, is not something you do, like, you know, in that training area, around… But I’ve talked to people that have encountered black projects, and there is a process.”

Guts: “Oh, there’s a whole process. Absolutely. I haven’t had this happen to me, personally, but I know of guys, personally, who have seen stuff they shouldn’t have seen

JC: “Commander Underwood did and he told me the process.”

Guts: “There ya go. He has, you know, you come across something that you see, that you’re not supposed to see, well, you’re gonna get a call. Especially as an aviator, you know, as soon as you land on deck and you start doing all the necessary paperwork required for any flight, anyway, you’re also gonna get a call from the appropriate intelligence folks and be like, ‘Hey, sorry, I need you to come by the intel shop and you gotta fill out…’ It’s a huge hassle, right? (laughs) And I can imagine that for someone, you know, a civilian, let’s say, ‘Man, I’d love to see something like that!’ No, not really (laughs). It’s kind of a pain in the ass.”

GK: “And at the end of that process, do they say, ‘You didn’t see that’?”

Guts: “At the end of that process, you know, you sign…you agree to whatever paperwork they tell you, that, ‘Hey, you can’t talk about this.’ That didn’t happen with anybody in 2019. Certainly no one that we’ve talked to, and not that I’ve heard of through other channels, either.”

JC: “And also, the head of the Navy was asked about this and made a statement. And they (media) were like: ‘Have you figured this out? Whose are they?’”


JC: “It is undetermined. Everybody we know, involved in this [has said], ‘We don’t know whose these were.’ But let’s just start with eliminating…these were not ours. That’s the consensus of everybody. That’s, to the best of our understanding, that’s…despite their capabilities, they weren’t ours.”

Guts: “Well, it wasn’t a test, as I think is…it certainly wasn’t a test, you know?”



Back to Knapp, Stratton and Taylor

JS: We were really making some momentum before COVID hit. And when COVID hit, like everywhere else in the world, it really put the brakes on. And I think, to this day, that Travis and I would probably still be there doing it, if not for COVID

TT: I’ll add one more thing that you have to think about. Where was this when it happened? Well, all the information you want is in the video that’s been released. I mean, he tells you right where he is. And if you look, you’ve got the time, the date, you got pretty much the GPS coordinates to go. You can get any Stellarium software, any Orrery software, and then you can see exactly what stars you’re looking at, where everything’s going on. And here’s thing: This was happening in an exercise area that was closed off. So what does that mean? It means there’s no airplanes flying around, it means there’s no ships moving around, right? And any ship, there’s like one, but we’re not gonna talk about it.



TT: The point is, there was no platform. And we did an analysis on the best, battery-life cycle, known at the time. If you put it in a quadcopter, or any other super-efficient, lightweight drone, and you flew it, you needed a place to have launched from, that was close enough before the battery would run out. And that would have been outside of the closed-off area. So, one of the things we were concerned about, was…has one of our peers developed battery technology that we don’t have, right? It wasn’t that we were making stuff up, we wanted there to be an alien spacecraft flying around. We worked for the military. We were looking to see why this was happening, why was there something where it shouldn’t be, and how do we figure out what it is and stop it?


On July 27th, 2021, during the 4Bidden Disclosure Conference, Lue Elizondo had this to say about drones. 

Lue: “Let’s look at the best drone technology we have, and I’m gonna be very careful what I say here, make sure I don’t upset anybody back in DC. But let’s say – here’s our little pen again –  this is a drone. There’s two types of drones, for the most part, and there’s other ones as well. There’s hybrids and [inaudible] and whatnot. But you have those that can take off vertically, kind of like a quadcopter, and they can hover and they can loiter around for a little while. And then you’ve got those that are fixed wing and they can fly long range but they have to fly fast enough to create lift and to continue to move. So think of a Predator or something like that. The ones that move fast and fixed wing could fly really far, but they have a very hard time loitering. They have to fly racetracks, they can’t just stop and hover and loiter for twenty, thirty minutes. And just like the quadcopters that can hover, they have a hard-time, loiter ability because you need fuel, and fuel is weight, and weight to a rotary-wing, vertical-lift is the devil. So you want to be as light as possible, and that’s why a lot of these little quadcopters are so light.

“So, if you wanted to launch something over a Navy ship that can hover over the flight deck as has been reported through the [2019] Omaha and the Kidd incidents, then you’re talking about a drone capability that is probably not a fixed-wing, long-range capability. It means it has to be launched from somewhere near by. Even two, three miles, as far as you can with some of the more, if you will, commercially-available, control systems. Even the best military systems you have some much longer capability, but you still have to launch them and you have to recover them, you don’t just let them crash into the ocean because then they can be found, right? So they have to be launched from somewhere and they have to be controlled from somewhere by someone. And there’s an infrastructure, a huge footprint, that is required to do that. You need a trained operator to do it, with enough juice where you can send out a signal to your quadcopter, and your quadcopter can react, and then enough, if you will, payload on this, so it can send the signal back to the operator. The operator knows where the drone is, it’s looking at pictures and all that stuff, and then to be able to fly the drone all the way back.

“So there’s more practical challenges with trying to create something like that. If you’re talking about a fixed-wing drone, that’s a little easier but it’s got to keep moving, it’s got to be moving fairly fast, and it’s not just going to stop and hover. So, therein lies the problem. If you want a loiter, you’ve got to launch it from relatively nearby. Now, the Navy has sea-domain awareness. They are the best at knowing anything that’s in the ocean. These guys know. That’s how we catch these drug runners coming in on these little tiny submersibles that you can barely see. There’s a reason we catch them. So we know, if there’s, let’s say, a Chinese frigate nearby that’s launching drones, we know that. A lot of these ships have transponders on them, AIS. We know, unless they’re squawking black, meaning they’re not transmitting, then we have other ways to find out who’s in our area and we have very high-fidelity radar systems and we have electro-optical systems. So, it’s unlikely. I’m not saying it’s impossible because the Chinese have harassed us before and vice versa, with unmanned, aerial vehicles and aerial systems and by the way, that technology is improving, exponentially, almost every year. So at some point, these things may have that capability that we’re seeing, but right now, they don’t, and that’s the problem. The foreign, adversarial technology isn’t where it needs to be for us to see the things that we’re seeing, it’s not there yet. It might be there in ten, fifteen, twenty years, but it’s not there now. And that’s why this is a problem, that’s why we need to have this conversation because if it’s not U.S. technology, and it’s not foreign, adversarial technology, then whose technology is it, right? I mean we have to have that conversation. You can’t have an intellectual…a truly, objective conversation about this topic, and not introduce that as potentially, potentially part of the calculus.


And a few months before that, on May 20th, 2021, Elizondo had this conversation with researcher, Richard Dolan, about the possibility of drones over Navy ships.

Lue: “When you really look at it, you look at what is required to have something that can hover over the flight of a boat for hours at a time, and not a single one of these have been shot down, not a single one of these have ever been recovered from the ocean, not a single one of them has had a mechanical issue, not a single one has been able to be intercepted.”

Dolan: “It seems insane.”

Lue: “And by the way, we have helicopters on these ships and not a single one has been caught by one of our helicopters or aircraft. You know, okaaaay. But you really got to do a lot of mental gymnastics then, to prove to me that that is some sort of drone technology. I’m not saying it’s impossible. What I’m simply saying is you’ve got to build a case then to prove that. Because at this point, that’s a greater feat than saying it’s a UAP. Really. Because at that point, it’s, ‘Okay, well, we’re really talking about something then that, if a foreign adversary has, is really incredible.'”


Back to Knapp, Stratton, Taylor and the 2019 West Coast Incidents

GK: And how did they appear out of nowhere and then go nowhere and you can track them? You know, that’s also a pretty interesting question.

JS: Right. And it gets incredibly frustrating because, you know, the intel community, it takes exemptions, and it’s like getting a search warrant, almost, to use any kind of intel-community capabilities to look at that close to the United States. So there’s also, you know, kind of work that has to be done ahead of time to make that work. And, you know, someone in the audience is probably thinking, “Oh, well maybe there’s a submarine out there.” You know, if a foreign submarine got that close to the United States, then I failed at every job that I’ve ever had. I mean, that’s…Naval Intelligence would not let that happen.

TT: Well, we would have jumped to, probably, DEFCON 4 or 3 at that point, too, and we didn’t, so.

JS: That’s exactly right.

GK: Jay, you were, as far as I know, the only person who worked for AAWSAP, AATIP and then UAPTF. Is there anybody else that did all three?

JS: (long pause) No.

GK: Sounds like you were the right man for the job. We know that AAWSAP, you know, part of the origin, a colleague of yours, Dr. James Lacatski, visited Skinwalker Ranch, and he had an experience that was pretty weird. But he felt that there were some national-security issues that could be raised there.


On October 14th, 2021, Knapp, Dr. James Lacatski and Dr. Colm Kelleher were interviewed by George Noory on Coast to Coast AM. Lacatski, a DIA physicist and rocket scientist, and program manager for AAWSAP  described his weird experience in detail. Full transcript can be read here.

Lacatski: We went into the ranch manager’s home and sat down. Now, we were having a casual conversation. You know, I’m certainly noticing that there are twelve or more crosses and crucifixes on the wall, and I was thinking, “Hmm, Jim, I wonder if I really should have come here.” But in any case, you know, we’re having a nice conversation and then Bob and the ranch managers went into, I’d best call it a personal finance discussion, which I felt kind of awkward being there. And I kind of went into a daze, you know, just glancing around the room, seeing what’s the lay of the land in the rooms. And then this object appears, floating in the kitchen. Quite distinct. I mean, I looked away from it and it maintained its position and allowed me, I guess, actively allowed me to come back and look at it and examine it more closely. It was not a blurry vision, it was not a speck in my eye. It was there, it was about 18 inches tall, 18 inches wide, floating in the middle of the kitchen. And that kitchen is quite distinct. Its style is 1950s style, so the colors of the tiles are quite distinct.

Noory: Did it look like it just appeared?

Lacatski: It just appeared. It just appeared and it was very sharp. Now, let me give you an exact description, this Möbius strip and all of this. Take a piece of spaghetti about six inches long. I’m just saying, you know, in practical terms, to form a model of it. [Get] it wet or boil it, and let it drop and start bunching up on itself. But at the very end that you’re holding, allow it to droop downwards, and stick out. Now that was super clear, that portion of it. It was a truncated, it was a solid, light yellow and it was surrounded by a different shade of yellow cloud. So, you know, I’m looking at this taking notes of what it looked like and just a few minutes ago, I looked back at my original drawing of it because I wanted to catch the impact. And, as someone, I guess, I noted to someone and they’ve repeated it (Bigelow repeated it to George Knapp), it looked very much like the cover object of Tubular Bells, the album from back, I guess it was in the 80s.


Lacatski: Except it wasn’t chrome, it was yellow, and it was solid. Quite clear and then it got fuzzy as the droopy portion went into the cloud. And that was it. There was nothing that dramatic about it. And that’s when we went into a discussion of, you know, I made the comment, “Well, is this your decorating style?” And Jean said, “Oh, yes, this is my decorating style. Strange, though, but, you know, before you showed up, a cross flew out of the bathroom, horizontally, into the wash basket, on top of the washing machine.” So I’m thinking, “Oh, hmm.” Well that’s when we went back and we went right through where the object was, as we all went back and toured the rest of the house and had further discussions about what was going on there. So it’s not a complex story, but that’s it.

Knapp: Just add some context to this. Jim only made one visit on behalf of the Defense Intelligence Agency to figure out whether there was a justification for a study. He’s there on the ranch for a short period of time, he has an experience, this thing appears in the air, and only he can see it, it’s just for him. And that site, that event is what led to the creation of the program and convinced him that something was really going on. He went back to Washington, talked with Harry Reid and set this thing in motion, designed the program. He’s being too modest, I think.



Back to Knapp, Stratton, Taylor and AAWSAP.

GK:[Lacatski] started a program, Harry Reid funded it, the study began. Travis, you were a pretty big skeptic about the whole thing to begin with, because, I mean, the initial study of that place by Bigelow and NIDS was looking at UFOs, and then it led them into some really strange areas. I know you don’t want to use the word paranormal, but really weird shit that was happening…

TT: Better word.

GK: …in connection with UFO proximity, in principal. You know, none of those NIDS guys, those PhD guys, wanted to be investigating weird, monster/creature sightings. a bulletproof wolf, all that stuff. You can’t write a paper about it, it’s just too darned weird. Jay, was that a limiting factor in your willingness to participate in that and just how weird it got? You’re interested in UFOs and the physics of it, and can this technology be reverse engineered? And then it leads you down paths that are pretty strange.

JS: 100%. As a science-minded guy, it interested me, right? It mean, it pulls you in. But…you know, and  I’ll be clear, we said it earlier, you know, the ranch was part of the DIA effort and it was not part of any of the follow-on efforts.

TT: It was never part of the UAPTF, get that clear. Never.

JS: No. However, the ranch, or, the ranch (said with a British accent), as Nick Pope says. But the big-name program… (Not sure if he said, big-name program” ~Joe) I love Nick, I don’t want to insult him. The things seen out there, to this day – and if you’re watching all the awesome, high-definition, footage that’s been caught out there – are representative of the things that our aircrew are reporting. And that’s the drawback. Now, that’s what has kept me, keeping my eye on the ranch, is that draw of the UAP side of it. The other things that George mentioned, are just strange, collateral effects of being there. And if you were in our previous panel, Travis had a really good explanation of your brain trying to interpret what it’s seeing. And I can tell you, 100%, there are technologies out there that can make you see things, that can make you hear things, and can drive all of these things. And some of those technologies are side effects from their originally-designed purpose, that might be power generation or other things. So, it all ties back to the technology for me. It’s not about chasing anything on the ground. It’s about understanding what’s above our heads, and sometimes in our own oceans.

TT: Yeah, and not to completely redo what I did in the panel just before this, I’ll tell you this. It actually isn’t odd to me. It took me a while to get there, though. You know, when I first read your book, and then Kelleher’s book, and heard the stories, I was like, “What? No!” And then, once I got to really dive in, I measured certain signals, started looking at certain things, did a lot more research into what would it take to do some of these things that could be going on there. And then I realized, especially recently, within the last few months, when we had this experiment where they used the Sycamore Google quantum computer to simulate an ante-de Sitter spacetime…a fake, little model universe, and create a wormhole inside that universe using quantum processors. And they needed the quantum qubits to create the negative energy states that keeps the wormhole open. Entanglement, entanglement is what keeps the wormhole open. Then I realized, so, if there is something in our actual Universe that can manipulate space time, it’s gonna have to do the same thing, and it’s gonna be doing this using quantum entanglement to hold open or create a negative-energy state, so it can bend spacetime. And guess what? Our brains have more quantum processors in it than there are stars in the Universe. Each brain has more quantum processors…a little protein called tubulin. You got trillions and trillions and trillions of them in there, and you’re the most amazing quantum computer there is. And so, if this is affecting spacetime, using a quantum phenomenon, then that’s gonna be putting weirdness into your brain, because your brain is working through the same quantum-entanglement phenomena. And what you’re getting could be noise from whatever the system is, it could be information, but information that your brain has never understood before and has nothing to compare it to. And so it comes up looking like a dog wearing a…a dude with a dog head, smoking a cigarette, wearing a trench coat. I mean, it just it could really be a side effect.

GK: They were smoking cigarettes too, by the way.


TT: Oh, cigarettes, they were smoking cigarettes. Okay. But see, those are patterns your brain understands, and it could have taken this strange information and just stuck on top of it what it could understand, and that’s how you interpreted that reality.

JS: And see, the ranch is important for you because what Travis and I realized is, we retired from the government, our hands are no longer handcuffed. We don’t have the oversight and the rules that we had to live under for so long. We’re on camera now, in an investigation where we can take our knowledge, and potentially show you the results of that, right? And none of that is classified, right? That’s the beauty of it.


GK: I’m gonna go there in a second. Before we leave the government sector behind…you leave, and six months later the report is delivered to Congress and then there’s a public hearing, the first one in fifty-four years.

(Video is cued up to the clip referenced and transcribed below)


GK: And it seemed like they walked back a lot of what you guys had done. Suddenly, the East Coast incidents are bokeh and balloons, the West Coast is drones. Case closed. And then, you know, the transparency that happened while you were there, where the Pentagon would confirm images that they knew were recorded by the Navy, they stopped doing that. And we’ve seen other indications that they’re walking it back. We know that the CIA is not happy about it, we know the Air Force has dragged its feet. And there’s a new organization, AARO, we’d all like to root for it, but a lot of indications that come my way are that, you know, I’m not sure that they’re gonna take it where the public hopes they take it. Can you both address that sort of, where it’s gone since you left? Do you feel that it has regressed in some ways from where you were, where it was when you left?

JS: Well, the fact that the talking point a few weeks ago was we need a whole of government, interagency effort, tells me we don’t have one, right? Yeah, I mean, that just drives me crazy because I put so much work and effort into that and got us where we needed to be as a country. and it was kind of thrown out with the bathwater. Over the years, I had people say, “You’re getting too close. The smoking man’s gonna show up.” The reality is, in over sixteen years of working on this topic, the smoking man never showed up. So, is there a smoking man? But I can tell you that it sure seemed like there was a hidden hand that would shut doors in my face at times, that I had to work around. And I had the personality – I’m trying not to pat myself on the back too much – to get in and people would help me and we would get further and further and further every time. And, it really, really did upset both Travis and I when we were watching that hearing. And I can also promise you that if I were back clinching (Not sure if he said, “clinching” ~Joe) that hearing or front seating that hearing that I could have told them about the Malmstrom incident. I could have told them just about any incident. They just weren’t briefed and prepared to the level that I would have prepped them. And that was a little bit, probably, by design.

TT: It felt like it was by design. When Jay and I were sitting at Radiance in the conference and watching the HIPSI meeting as it was taking place. And when they start talking about the Russell incident. I was like, “That’s not what…we did not brief them that way. That is not what we told them.”


From the May 17th, 2022, HIPSI (House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence) hearing on UAP with Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security, Ronald Moultrie, and Deputy Director of Naval Intelligence, Scott Bray 

Cued up, here… 👇🏼


Audio of Bray’s Comments: Part 1


Deputy Director of Naval Intelligence, Scott Bray: We’ve also made progress in resolving the character of a limited number of UAP encounters. For example, let me show you another video and image taken years apart in different areas. In this video, U.S. Navy personnel recorded what appears to be triangles, some flashing, recorded several years ago, off the coast of the United States. This was recorded while the U.S. Navy ship (The USS Russell ~Joe) observed a number of small, unmanned aerial systems in the area. And importantly, the video was taken through night-vision goggles with a single lens, reflex camera. These remained unresolved for several years.

Several years later, and off a different coast, U.S. Navy personnel, again, in a swarm of unmanned aerial systems, and again through night-vision goggles, and an SLR camera, recorded this image. But this time, other U.S. Navy assets also observed unmanned aerial systems nearby. And we’re now reasonably confident that these triangles correlate to unmanned aerial systems in the area. The triangular appearance is a result of light passing through the night-vision goggles, and then being recorded by an SLR camera. I don’t mean to suggest that everything that we observe is identifiable, but this is a great example of how it takes considerable effort to understand what we’re seeing in the examples that we are able to collect.

In this example, we accumulated sufficient data from two similar encounters, from two different time periods, in two different geographic areas, to help us draw these conclusions. That’s not always the case, though. We recognize that that can be unsatisfying or insufficient in the eyes of many. This is a popular topic in our nation, with various theories as to what these objects may be, and where they originate. And by nature, we are all curious and we seek to understand the unknown. And as a lifelong intelligence professional, I’m impatient. I want immediate explanations for this as much as anyone else. However, understanding can take significant time and effort. It’s why we’ve endeavored to concentrate on this data-driven process, to drive fact-based results. And given the nature of our business, national defense, we’ve had to sometimes be less forthcoming with information in open forums than many would hope.

If UAP do indeed represent a potential threat to our security, then the capabilities, systems, processes and sources we use to observe, record, study or analyze these phenomena, need to be classified at appropriate levels. We do not want, we do not want potential adversaries to know exactly what we’re able to see or understand, or how we come to the conclusions we make. Therefore, public disclosures must be carefully considered on a case by case basis.

Fast Forward to 42:52 into the hearing 👇🏼


Audio of Bray’s and Schiff’s Comments: Part 2


Congressman Adam Schiff: With respect to the second two videos, showing the small triangles, the hypothesis is that those are commercial drones that…because of the use of night-vision goggles, appear like triangles? Is that the operating assessment?

Bray: Some type of drone, some type of unmanned aerial system, and it is simply that that light source resolves itself through the night-vision goggles onto the SLR camera as a triangle.

Schiff: And have we, in order to prove that hypothesis, flown a drone and observed it with that same technology to see whether we can reproduce the effect?

Bray: UAP Task Force is aware of studies that have done that (The follow-up by Schiff should have been, “What studies? Can you get those to me by the end of the week? ~Joe).

Schiff: Ok, Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


Not long after that hearing and Bray making those claims, Taylor was on a Skinwalker Ranch Insider panel and noted that in the ODNI Preliminary Assessment on UAP, released in June of 2021, of the 144 UAP reports examined by the UAPTF, one was explained and that was a deflated balloon. He added:

TT: “Recently, I think we’ve explained, maybe, a second one, as it looks to be stars and a drone. But there’s still something a little iffy about that.”

The related Twitter thread can be read here.


In a blog published by “Liberation Times,” on May 8th, 2023, Pentagon spokesperson, Susan Gough, added some comments about the 2019 events and the alleged triangle-shaped craft above the USS Russell: 

“As noted by Scott Bray, Deputy Director for Naval Intelligence, during a congressional hearing in May 2022, the UAPTF was reasonably confident that the triangles correlated to UAS [Unmanned Aerial Systems) in the area, given that the triangles appeared in videos from different occasions where U.S Navy assets observed a number of small UAS nearby.

“As with all UAP cases it inherited, AARO is reviewing the associated data of past cases within its newly developed analytic framework. These triangles may be a combination of known sources, including UAS, and AARO is using its newly implemented analytic framework to definitively determine the sources and peer review the results before officially closing the case.

“As Mr. Bray also noted during his testimony, we can confirm that the objects observed in this case appeared to the viewer as triangular shapes due to the angle of observation and optical system used. As part of the analytic framework, the source of the lights are currently being reviewed against the star/planet alignment at the time, air traffic and other likely UAS systems. As we have stated previously, there is not one solution for all UAP.”


One more item related to the 2019 West Coast events.

Condorman, who lists himself as an Aerospace Engineer (I’ve interacted with him for several years and have no reason to doubt him), added this in a multi-tweet thread in January of 2022.

I’ve been debating whether to post this or not since there’s all this flak about naming sources. But I decided to do it. If you don’t like unnamed sources, STOP now. Earlier this week I was a testing location and ran into a friend I had not seen since we both worked at LM.

I left [Lockheed Martin] for greener pastures and he left for a government job. I invited him to dinner (gov jobs don’t pay great, lol) and after a few beers (him) and wine (me), I brought up UAP. We started with Tic Tacs and he basically said it was the strangest incident he was aware of.

He then volunteered that he had looked into the east coast sightings and had even visited Mayport Naval Base in 2015. He talked about swarms of spheres, some with pilot-reported cube structures inside of them, and sometimes following a larger craft (Gimbal??)

I was blown away. I then brought up the 2019 west coast incident and inquired if he’d heard of it. He nodded and said it was the SAME. That the same swarms of spheres had flown over our ships for hours over several days. I asked if they had cubes inside and he said they only came out at night so they could not see the cubes, but they gave off the same radar and IR sigs as the east coast. He was sure they were the SAME. He changed the topic after that and we talked about our families and so on. But what a rush.


Back to Knapp, Stratton and Taylor, as TT comments on how he felt after watching the HIPSI hearing with Moultrie and Bray…

TT: And it seems odd. It felt like we’ve been practicing all year and got to the playoffs and we lost like, you know, forty-two to nothing. I mean, that’s how it felt. It was real weird, a kick in the gut. And it’s one of those things that, it seems like…the question is: Why? You know, I’ve never been a believer in conspiracies, but also, I’m not a big believer in coincidences, right? And the fact that, now suddenly, all of a sudden, there’s all these balloon things happening. And, “Oh, we didn’t know how to track it, and the UAPTF didn’t know what they were doing. They’re a bunch of morons, and so, it was all balloons and it wasn’t UFOs.” Well, we told them that you couldn’t chase the balloons until you fixed the damn radars! And so, it really seems very timely, and almost directed, but I can’t bring myself to believe in a conspiracy.

JS: If I got everything on my wish list, we’d be in a much different place right now. Much different.


GK: Congress passed a law that allows whistleblowers some protections to come forward. You guys have heard the same things that I’ve heard about people that have already testified, that wanna testify about legacy programs, about, as crazy as it sounds, crash retrievals, metamaterials, craft that were made by somebody else. You both specialize in reverse engineering, I know you’d like to get your hands on that kind of stuff. You said, Jay, that you had never seen evidence of the hidden hand, but you felt it. You think that such a program could exist in the private sector somewhere, that there could be materials like that, that have been hidden from the public? And same thing for you, Travis.

(Stratton motions for Taylor to go first)

TT: Okay.

GK: Do you have any confidence that the whistleblower testimony that’s happening now will lead us somewhere.

TT: Well, let me take the whistleblower thing first and then think about how you (Jay) wanna answer that first question. And I don’t know how I’m gonna answer that. So, I wanna caution everybody. So, think about this: If there was a legacy program, and I’m not saying I know there was or not. If there was a legacy program, say if there was a Roswell crash, and they had a crash retrieval and reverse engineering program, that was in 1947, if you believe all the stories. And so, in 1947, then, whoever created the Special Access Program for that is long retired and probably dead. And whoever may still have legacy continued the next generation, or whatever, if they were still in that program, inside that SAP, it’s unlikely there were new people put into it much longer than ten or twenty years after that. And so they’re getting really close to aging out. And they signed a non-disclosure agreement for life, if it’s a Special Access Program, unacknowledged. You never, as long as you live, reveal that that existed or you’ll go to jail for the rest of your life, for treason. Or espionage, it wouldn’t be treason. I’m not a lawyer so don’t…it’s a whole different… Or maybe that’s a good thing? I don’t know. Anyway…so there was no way for any of these people to actually tell anybody, because nobody in Congress has any knowledge of any of these unacknowledged SAPs, that can be briefed. So, that’s what the whistleblower clause is for, to create a super caveat, a super-access program that they can brief upwards in classification to, and there would be some elected officials that are briefed into that program so we have elected-official oversight. That doesn’t mean they’ll ever tell the general public, but at least you could be somewhat comfortable in knowing that you had an elected official that was at least doing oversight. As far as I can tell, there’s been no oversight for a long time. So, at least there’s that. But we’ll see what happens.

JS: Basically what I was gonna say (audience laughed). You know, if…if there was something like that, industry is the place it belongs, mostly. And the reason I say that is because industry builds capabilities that make the F-22s and the F-35s and so on, of the world…or, for us. But the problem I have is, if it exists that way, then the oversight and the lack of understanding of the sitting members of Congress, that we failed, or someone has worked around them. So, that’s a concern for me. That’s the heart and soul of the whistleblower protection, but if you don’t understand that whistleblower protection, I need to manage expectations. A whistleblower can walk into Congress in the right room and tell them what they know. That does not declassify that information. That only provides them with insight and other places to potentially turn over some more rocks. It would take the President of the United States to declassify that information and provide it to the American people. So, the whistleblower language is not a bad thing, for sure, but it’s not de-classifying the information.

TT: Well, it wouldn’t have to be the President if he was the original classification authority.

JS: Yeah, whoever owns it.

TT: Whoever created the program is called the classifying authority. The president is the authority, he can declassify any damn thing he wants. But the person who creates the program is called the classifying authority and he or she has the authority to do that, too.

GK: That sounded to me like, “Good luck getting this information out.”

TT: I think that’s what we said, yeah.

GK: We have a few minutes left, sadly. I want to ask about Radiance Technologies. When I saw Radiance. there was two news releases they put out about two hires they did, and I was just flabbergasted. One was about Jay Stratton. And it says he worked in these UAP programs for the federal government and was a reverse engineering specialist.


GK: And then they put out a release that they’d hired Travis Taylor, who’s known for UFO programs and had also worked on classified programs, and they’re gonna work together.


GK: Jay, the reverse-engineer specialist, Travis, the guy who builds things, and you have to wonder: What the hell are you guys doing down there? Are you building flying saucers? Are you taking one apart? Or, what are you up to?

TT: Anybody wants to bring us a flying saucer, we’ll be happy to reverse engineer it for ya.

JS: So we love the company we’re with and in our heart and soul, yes, we’re founded on reverse engineering. And we’re research and development and we are a solution provider for the government, the Intel Community and the Department of Defense. What that means to me and Travis is the flexibility of job description. And our job description is, basically, go do awesome things and provide the Intel Community with an awesome product, or the Department of Defense. And sometimes, that awesome product is a derivation of something else we may have gotten our hands on.

GK: Can the private sector solve this mystery? Can you guys get your hands on proof…the kinds of things that only the government could get in the past? Is that what you want to do?

TT: Well, that’s exactly what I want to do and it’s exactly what my goal is. I think that…Jay always has told me this isn’t inherently a government problem, UFOs are all over the world, if they’re real, right?

JS: The skies are not classified.

TT: And the skies are not classified. That’s the other thing he says, yes. And so, all of you are part of our sensor network. You’ve got a supercomputer with AI access in your pocket. You get something, start spreading it around and show everybody you know. There are some apps coming online with a couple of different small businesses that are creating, like UFO tracking, like chat sort of apps that, if you see something, you can connect to other phones nearby you and tell them to look for it, too. And so you should look for those apps and try to start making use of those. And that’s all private stuff. I think the way you’re gonna get disclosure isn’t going to be from some guy walking up to a podium at the White House, press room or in the Pentagon, it’s going to be from someone like George here, that has found the right data in the open, public world and we’re gonna see it. That’s what disclosure gonna be.

JS: Yep.

GK: One last question. Jeremy (Corbell) made me ask this.


GK: You can’t answer it but I’ll ask it anyway. Have you ever seen the Mosul Orb before we put it out?

JS: I can’t comment.

GK: Ahh! Jay Stratton, Travis Taylor, thank you both, very much. Thank you all. Thanks for coming.

, , , , , , ,


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *