Eliminatus said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

I do admit that this is a bit concerning.

However, in this field, I've long since learned not to throw out someone's entire testimony simply because of one seemingly dubious claim.

That, and he clearly states, multiple times, that his primary goal is to help bring about disclosure. This event - if it happened - could have been a "closed doors" type of thing for any number of reasons... they're still testing their methods, aren't yet ready to invite media, etc.

He's eventually going to have to put up or shut up, though, when it comes to his Skywatcher program, which he seems more than willing to do. We'll just have to wait and see.

---

It's not just one small claim though. It's massive. He's not saying he has some shaky footage or anything. He has blatantly said that he organized a party of top scientists and billionaires to a watch party where his org demonstrated several psionic capabilities of which any one of which would be history breaking and then had German kiddos summon a UAP for everyone to goggle at. All outside of government control and oversight. And that part is HUGE.

This to me says two things. He is confident in his ability to do it, and it should be repeatable. And he is choosing not to do it. He says he proved it to everyone there. Cool. Do it again. Invite news crews from all sides. Get some podcasters there. Anything. Anything at all. Any outside representation who can retell/report. That is what disclosure is.

At this point I have him pegged as another shill to his own ego and probable grifter. I'll eat crow if need be in the future. Till then, I'm a skeptic on this dude. A big one at that. Shut up or put up was at that event he said he did.

ETA: man, on read back I seem terribly angry huh. Oof. I'm really not. I am just not entertaining these grifters as I see them, anymore. Call it exasperation. I don't want reality tv and that is exactly how I saw that big interview initial release. When that clip of Barber aired of him all geared up on a UTV and that sweet action shot of him hopping out of it and using his binos to recon the distant land….covered in fog with visibility maybe 50 ft, I barked out a laugh. What a joke. Call it nitpicky and veering from the topic but the principal of it kills me. If you want to be taken seriously, you can't be doing unserious stuff IMO. Otherwise it just seems they are dressing up a part as best they can. Which always has my defenses up, no matter the topic.

And then this latest development of him saying he can do things….Well, time to perform IMO. Like, now.

---

I'm going to ask again what I asked another poster/skeptic just a couple days ago… why is it that skeptics so often either leave out or completely miss crucial info when ranting/offering their rebuttals? Because this seems to happen damn near every time in this thread, on Twitter, and in the real world too.

In this specific instance, you're straight up wrong about the bolded text above.

In no way is Barber "choosing not to do it" again.

Which tells me you either glossed over the interview or weren't paying attention, because, outside of the goal of eventual disclosure, a crucial component of the interview is Barber talking about his and his colleagues' Skywatcher program, in which they plan to replicate/document/disseminate the results via imminent future attempts. He mentions this MULTIPLE times, is incredibly transparent about it, and then even followed up on Twitter to say that they're not seeking any additional funding for their efforts, as another show of good faith.

Again, the way I interpreted the first event was that it was more of a trial run/proof of concept. Like the equivalent of a "test screening" in the movie industry. But then he CLEARLY states that he and his colleagues have every intention of attempting to repeat the results, document them, and release them to public… for the sole purpose proving to the masses that we're not alone. He even says, "I'll paraphrase the Book of Mathew, 'You will know us by our fruits'" (meaning their talk isn't going to convince anyone, only their actions will) and then immediately follows that by confidently saying, "Prepare to be dazzled."

And I just don't understand how you so blatantly missed all of that, otherwise you wouldn't be saying "he is choosing not to do it" or that he's saying he already "proved" it to everyone. When he's saying the exact opposite in every way.

Now, what I'm saying in response to that - once again - is let him try. Hence why I said, "It's time to put up or shut up." He's stated his and his colleagues goals/intentions and has even given it a time frame (this year). In other words, in no uncertain terms, he's setting himself up to definitively either be proven a success or a fraud, which is something half of these guys never even bother to do.

THEN, if/when he fails to deliver the goods, at that point I will gladly join the chorus, call him out, and look forward to never hearing from him again. Why can't you do the same? Why all this huffing and puffing and completely misconstruing what he's saying? Should he not deliver, there will be plenty of opportunity to complain/gloat in the coming year.

Otherwise, I'll point to the tweet below, and echo that Barber has said he's willing to testify to everything, under oath, in front of congress...

Seeing a lot of unfortunate pushback against Jake Barber and his information, but consider that he has a who's who of ufology backing him, including David Grusch, Ross Coulthart, Garry Nolan (who studied the biological effects), Steven Greer, and Lue Elizondo.

We're unlikely to…

— Cosmic Road (@road_mystery) January 24, 2025

Quote:

---

Seeing a lot of unfortunate pushback against Jake Barber and his information, but consider that he has a who's who of ufology backing him, including David Grusch, Ross Coulthart, Garry Nolan (who studied the biological effects), Steven Greer, and Lue Elizondo.

We're unlikely to find a more solid individual with this much support. I encourage those interested in UFOs to go into his story with an open mind, even if his information goes into some uncomfortable places.

UFO disclosure isn't going to be simple, because UFOs are not simple.

---

TCTTS said:

---

I'm going to ask again what I asked another poster/skeptic just a couple days ago… why is it that skeptics so often either leave out or completely miss crucial info when ranting/offering their rebuttals? Because this seems to happen damn near every time in this thread, on Twitter, and in the real world too.

In this specific instance, you're straight up wrong about the bolded text above.

In no way is Barber "choosing not to do it" again.

Which tells me you either glossed over the interview or weren't paying attention, because, outside of the goal of eventual disclosure, a crucial component of the interview is Barber talking about his and his colleagues' Skywatcher program, in which they plan to replicate/document/disseminate the results via imminent future attempts. He mentions this MULTIPLE times, is incredibly transparent about it, and then even followed up on Twitter to say that they're not seeking any additional funding for their efforts, as another show of good faith.

Again, the way I interpreted the first event was that it was more of a trial run/proof of concept. Like the equivalent of a "test screening" in the movie industry. But then he CLEARLY states that he and his colleagues have every intention of attempting to repeat the results, document them, and release them to public… for the sole purpose proving to the masses that we're not alone. He even says, "I'll paraphrase the Book of Mathew, 'You will know us by our fruits'" (meaning their talk isn't going to convince anyone, only their actions will) and then immediately follows that by confidently saying, "Prepare to be dazzled."

And I just don't understand how you so blatantly missed all of that, otherwise you wouldn't be saying "he is choosing not to do it" or that he's saying he already "proved" it to everyone. When he's saying the exact opposite in every way.

Now, what I'm saying in response to that - once again - is let him try. Hence why I said, "It's time to put up or shut up." He's stated his and his colleagues goals/intentions and has even given it a time frame (this year). In other words, in no uncertain terms, he's setting himself up to definitively either be proven a success or a fraud, which is something half of these guys never even bother to do.

THEN, if/when he fails to deliver the goods, at that point I will gladly join the chorus, call him out, and look forward to never hearing from him again. Why can't you do the same? Why all this huffing and puffing and completely misconstruing what he's saying? Should he not deliver, there will be plenty of opportunity to complain/gloat in the coming year.

---

I could be wrong indeed, but I got the insinuation that control of UAPs by those with powers has been ongoing for a while. And that that event WAS the proof of concept demonstration to those he wanted help from in my eyes. The scientists to corroborate and the billionaires to fund. Maybe PoC means something different in your industry than mine. A PoC is already past the testing phase and is a literal demonstration of the possible. So in my world, a PoC is the put up or shut up event. Companies die regularly if they can't perform during a PoC. So my use of term seems to be different from yours but has a huge implication on the outcome of what we are discussing here. And the the whole he "proved" psionic capabilities at the least to those present is something he directly said himself. No misconstrual there.

And of course everyone is going to let him try. We have no choice on the matter. I mentioned above that I would eat crow and I will add here I will do so here happily. But his claims to date are simply extraordinary, far more so than any other I can recall of someone out the gate. Call it a human failing but to me, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Until then I have nothing but his words to rely on, and I choose to not take them at face value. In the future, maybe that will change. I hope it does. What I don't understand honestly is YOUR need for ME to accept him purely at his word at this time.

Allllll of this to again say, his claims are huge. This is not shaky cam footage stuff. He says we can control UAPs. If that is true, that...that blows my mind. Not even sure I have the words for it honestly. I also do not believe that to be 100% truthful as I stand here now. I have reservations. Given the manner in which I perceived his outbreak into this world, those reservations have not be resolved yet.

ETA: A word and Just deleting some earlier responses so it's not taking up so much space.

TCTTS said:

---

Otherwise, I'll point to the tweet below, and echo that Barber has said he's willing to testify to everything, under oath, in front of congress...

Seeing a lot of unfortunate pushback against Jake Barber and his information, but consider that he has a who's who of ufology backing him, including David Grusch, Ross Coulthart, Garry Nolan (who studied the biological effects), Steven Greer, and Lue Elizondo.

We're unlikely to…

— Cosmic Road (@road_mystery) January 24, 2025

Quote:

---

Seeing a lot of unfortunate pushback against Jake Barber and his information, but consider that he has a who's who of ufology backing him, including David Grusch, Ross Coulthart, Garry Nolan (who studied the biological effects), Steven Greer, and Lue Elizondo.

We're unlikely to find a more solid individual with this much support. I encourage those interested in UFOs to go into his story with an open mind, even if his information goes into some uncomfortable places.

UFO disclosure isn't going to be simple, because UFOs are not simple.

---

---

The one thing I will say that Barber has going for him that I see as a huge positive over all the others, is that it seems everything he is doing is purely outside government control and oversight. I made a point to emphasize that in my earlier response and I feel like I am alone so far in really grasping onto that. If that statement is true, no NDAs, no legal mess, No boss saying "stand down", etc..... That is incredible and something we have not seen in some time from what I can recall from a heavy hitter. He's a free agent it seems like.

Eliminatus said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

I'm going to ask again what I asked another poster/skeptic just a couple days ago… why is it that skeptics so often either leave out or completely miss crucial info when ranting/offering their rebuttals? Because this seems to happen damn near every time in this thread, on Twitter, and in the real world too.

In this specific instance, you're straight up wrong about the bolded text above.

In no way is Barber "choosing not to do it" again.

Which tells me you either glossed over the interview or weren't paying attention, because, outside of the goal of eventual disclosure, a crucial component of the interview is Barber talking about his and his colleagues' Skywatcher program, in which they plan to replicate/document/disseminate the results via imminent future attempts. He mentions this MULTIPLE times, is incredibly transparent about it, and then even followed up on Twitter to say that they're not seeking any additional funding for their efforts, as another show of good faith.

Again, the way I interpreted the first event was that it was more of a trial run/proof of concept. Like the equivalent of a "test screening" in the movie industry. But then he CLEARLY states that he and his colleagues have every intention of attempting to repeat the results, document them, and release them to public… for the sole purpose proving to the masses that we're not alone. He even says, "I'll paraphrase the Book of Mathew, 'You will know us by our fruits'" (meaning their talk isn't going to convince anyone, only their actions will) and then immediately follows that by confidently saying, "Prepare to be dazzled."

And I just don't understand how you so blatantly missed all of that, otherwise you wouldn't be saying "he is choosing not to do it" or that he's saying he already "proved" it to everyone. When he's saying the exact opposite in every way.

Now, what I'm saying in response to that - once again - is let him try. Hence why I said, "It's time to put up or shut up." He's stated his and his colleagues goals/intentions and has even given it a time frame (this year). In other words, in no uncertain terms, he's setting himself up to definitively either be proven a success or a fraud, which is something half of these guys never even bother to do.

THEN, if/when he fails to deliver the goods, at that point I will gladly join the chorus, call him out, and look forward to never hearing from him again. Why can't you do the same? Why all this huffing and puffing and completely misconstruing what he's saying? Should he not deliver, there will be plenty of opportunity to complain/gloat in the coming year.

---

I could be wrong indeed, but I got the insinuation that control of UAPs by those with powers has been ongoing for a while.

Yes... but by a top secret government/military "psionics" group, according to Barber. Whereas Barber's civilian company/initiative, Skywatcher, is brand new/was founded late last year. Barber says they've "been recruiting men and women" from within the legacy UAP and psionics programs and "are forming" a new team (Skywatcher), all of which is funded "through venture capital." In other words, they're still in the process of building out their company, dotting their "i"s, crossing their "t"s, etc.

And that that event WAS the proof of concept demonstration to those he wanted help from in my eyes. The scientists to corroborate and the billionaires to fund. Maybe PoC means something different in your industry than mine. A PoC is already past the testing phase and is a literal demonstration of the possible. So in my world, a PoC is the put up or shut up event. Companies die regularly if they can't perform during a PoC. So my use of term seems to be different from yours but has a huge implication on the outcome of what we are discussing here.

This really doesn't counter anything I've said. Of course they presumably had to show proof of concept, if anything in order to land the venture capital funding. And it sounds like the event was likely part of that. But I can understand, for any number of reasons, why news crews wouldn't be invited to such an event, why they wanted to keep it relatively private, etc. That's an incredibly common practice.

And the the whole he "proved" psionic capabilities at the least to those present is something he directly said himself. No misconstrual there.

You were clearly making it sound like he claimed he had already proven it in a broader sense, to the point where he had nothing left to prove to anyone, wasn't willing to prove it again/show his work, etc. I was simply saying that wasn't at all the case, and that he stated multiple times that he knows he has to walk the walk now.

And of course everyone is going to let him try. We have no choice on the matter. I mentioned above that I would eat crow and I will add here I will do so here happily. But his claims to date are simply extraordinary, far more so than any other I can recall of someone out the gate. Call it a human failing but to me, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Until then I have nothing but his words to rely on, and I choose to not take them at face value. In the future, maybe that will change. I hope it does.

It sounds like they're taking their time to get things right, get the proper personnel in place, be perceived as legit as possible when they do (presumably) reveal their proof/evidence to the public, etc. My only point was that we should give them time to do so, considering how forward/transparent Barber has been so far, before calling him out on message boards and the like.

What I don't understand honestly is YOUR need for ME to accept him purely at his word at this time.

That's not at all what I said. I don't need you to do anything, nor am I asking you to take him at his word. I'm simply saying A) why not save the ranting and raving until after he's potentially been shown for a fraud, given how willing he is to prove himself, and B) it bugs me when skeptics present their arguments using false or misleading info. Being a skeptic doesn't matter to me in the least. In fact, it's healthy, and the back-and-forth often makes for great discussion. It's when you say things like Barber is "choosing not to do it again," when in reality it's the exact opposite. Same as when I pushed back on a skeptic in the thread a few days ago for saying things like UAP crashes/crash retrievals have only ever reportedly occurred in the US, which isn't at all the case. Post your skepticism all you want. All I ask is that you at least do so using the facts as we know them.

Allllll of this to again say, his claims are huge. This is not shaky cam footage stuff. He says we can control UAPs. If that is true, that...that blows my mind. Not even sure I have the words for it honestly. I also do not believe that to be 100% truthful as I stand here now. I have reservations. Given the manner in which I perceived his outbreak into this world, those reservations have not be resolved yet.

ETA: A word and Just deleting some earlier responses so it's not taking up so much space.

---

Eliminatus said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Otherwise, I'll point to the tweet below, and echo that Barber has said he's willing to testify to everything, under oath, in front of congress...

Seeing a lot of unfortunate pushback against Jake Barber and his information, but consider that he has a who's who of ufology backing him, including David Grusch, Ross Coulthart, Garry Nolan (who studied the biological effects), Steven Greer, and Lue Elizondo.

We're unlikely to…

— Cosmic Road (@road_mystery) January 24, 2025

Quote:

---

Seeing a lot of unfortunate pushback against Jake Barber and his information, but consider that he has a who's who of ufology backing him, including David Grusch, Ross Coulthart, Garry Nolan (who studied the biological effects), Steven Greer, and Lue Elizondo.

We're unlikely to find a more solid individual with this much support. I encourage those interested in UFOs to go into his story with an open mind, even if his information goes into some uncomfortable places.

UFO disclosure isn't going to be simple, because UFOs are not simple.

---

---

The one thing I will say that Barber has going for him that I see as a huge positive over all the others, is that it seems everything he is doing is purely outside government control and oversight. I made a point to emphasize that in my earlier response and I feel like I am alone so far in really grasping onto that. If that statement is true, no NDAs, no legal mess, No boss saying "stand down", etc..... That is incredible and something we have not seen in some time from what I can recall from a heavy hitter. He's a free agent it seems like.

---

We're in agreement on this for sure.

Fair enough. I can wait and see what happens. And I will do so. I also will speak my opinion as to what I think has happened/released to date though. Which I will add and admit that I do have an inherent bias that colors my objectiveness to a degree but won't get into here.

So for now, there are two main stream paths here in America I see. The independent one with Barber as the new headliner, and the more typical government disclosure one would normally think of. There will be overlap of course with testimony and whatnot but wondering how much past that. I wonder if the new dream team will seek government support in the future.

What would a full blown independent civilian "disclosure" look like to y'all? Is that phrase even actually possible. I just realize I had not really thought about it before. Or will there need to be at least some level of government support behind it to make it "real " I guess would be the term. To give it the weight needed and make it official?

Re-up, summary of Barber, with many short videos

https://skojecfile.steveskojec.com/p/jake-barber-full-interview-highlights

I'm still curious about the NJ drones. As for the rest of this, too many prophets, second hand information, and stories about what they've seen and, apparently, shown the rich and powerful but not humanity at large, for my taste.

MW03 said:

---

I'm still curious about the NJ drones. As for the rest of this, too many prophets, second hand information, and stories about what they've seen and, apparently, shown the rich and powerful but not humanity at large, for my taste.

---

The psi stuff has taken over the bandwidth currently I think in the enthusiast sphere and the general public could never hope to be kept entertained that long about them. I think we all more or less agreed on that at the height of it.

I guess Aggie Rings are not the secret decoder rings I was hoping they would be as an invite to the underground world. Damn. Bums me out.

Looks like Barber watchlists this thread! Super interested to see what he brings to the table here.

MW03 said:

---

I'm still curious about the NJ drones. As for the rest of this, too many prophets, second hand information, and stories about what they've seen and, apparently, shown the rich and powerful but not humanity at large, for my taste.

---

I'll bet you a crisp $1 bill that it turns out about the same as this strangely similar story a couple years ago.

201920 Colorado drone sightings - Wikipedia

(30 scientists will be involved? How can you not love this stuff? Thanks to David Haith (@wotzitt) for getting these quotes from @dianehennacy.)

Haith: "A neuropsychiatrist recently signed on to work with whistleblower Jake Barber's Skywatcher psionic asset team which hopes to… https://t.co/cB6Kw88dr5

— Joe Murgia (@TheUfoJoe) January 27, 2025

Skywatcher’s objective is to prove it pic.twitter.com/dPO7CQPYiv

— Skywatcher (@SkywatcherHQ) January 28, 2025

Is that a new icon for them? Seems interesting to me. Wonder if it has any actual meaning.

I saw someone guess that it's an HD image of an orb, but who knows.

You should give them a lesson before dismissing them. The testimony and evidence given is impressive.

Eight-gon!!!!

Drones seen flying over New Jersey were "not the enemy" according to the White House.
Press Secretary says they were FAA approved drones for research purposes and also recreational drones.

— Brian Entin (@BrianEntin) January 28, 2025

lunchbox said:

---

Drones seen flying over New Jersey were "not the enemy" according to the White House.
Press Secretary says they were FAA approved drones for research purposes and also recreational drones.

— Brian Entin (@BrianEntin) January 28, 2025

---

hmmmm

The answer does not fully rule out UAP's. And maybe our tech checking them out or researching them.

President Trump has revealed the source of the mysterious drones over New Jersey, saying they were authorized to conduct 'research.'

In the first press briefing of Donald Trump's second administration, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said: 'After research and study, the drones that were flying over New Jersey in large numbers were authorized to be flown by the FAA for research and various other reasons.'
She said information had come 'directly from the president of the United States that was just shared with me in the Oval Office'.

Leavitt continued to explain many of the drones were 'hobbyists, recreational and private individuals' and 'in time, it got worse due to curiosity.'

The statements come months after the first drones appeared in November, soaring above military bases and Trump's golf course in Bedminster sparking fears of foreign threats watching American citizens.
Leavitt assured the public that 'this was not the enemy,' but did not disclose who was using the drones or what type of research was being conducted.

We are being gaslighted …. pains me to say as a rightist advocate of transparency.

See his 2 minute summary video:

https://skojecfile.steveskojec.com/p/uap-interview-roundup-plus-new-briefing

The answer is just enough truth to protect perhaps. They didn't say weather balloon. They didn't make something up. They just say not the enemy. Well, what type of research. What's the source of all drones? We may have sent our technology out to check it out / research and don't want to admit we have that technology publicly. And the unknown UAP that have always been around are not a known threat. Haven't attacked us. So "not the enemy". They observe and "research" - it's all possible.

Their answer seems like an answer you would give in a deposition. They didn't lie. But also didn't give us the deep answer.

Duckhook said:

---

G Martin 87 said:

---

You should give them a lesson before dismissing them. The testimony and evidence given is impressive.

---

I'm willing to give it a shot if you can tell me that the "evidence" I'm going to find is based on rigorous scientific testing methodology. Blind and double-blind testing? The ability to consistently produce the same results from repeated tests? This "evidence" presented in a documented format that has possibly been peer reviewed? Is that what I'm going to find?

---

Not in the first few episodes. Ky Dickens describes the precautions she and her camera crew took during the filming with multiple families to prevent manipulation. But Ky is not a scientist, which she is quite clear about. She describes the filmed sessions as "proof of concept" for a proposed documentary, not scientific research. Despite all the caveats, the sessions are still interesting. The episode you'd be most interested in is #6. In this one, the history of psi research is reviewed. Here's the episode description:

Quote:

---

In this highly anticipated science episode, we explore the rich history of telepathy research in both humans and animals, uncovering groundbreaking studies that challenge the materialist worldview. Leading scientists suggest that consciousness, not matter, may be the fundamental building block of the universeoffering a powerful explanation for telepathy and other unexplained phenomena.

We hear from Dr. Diane Hennessy Powell, whose work on telepathy in non-speakers has spanned over a decade, and from Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, a Cambridge biologist whose career was transformed after learning about a blind boy who could seemingly "see" through his mother's eyes. This discovery led Dr. Sheldrake to study telepathy, particularly in animals, revealing the profound bonds between pets and their owners. Dr. Dean Radin, Chief Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Science, guides us through the history of telepathy research, including the pivotal Ganzfeld studies, which provided strong evidence for the existence of telepathy over the past several decades.

The episode introduces groundbreaking ideas about a new scientific paradigm, where consciousness is viewed as the most fundamental building block of the universe. This shift in thinking could explain many psi phenomena, like telepathy, that the materialist worldview has struggled to account for. By exploring quantum physics, we learn that particles can be connected over great distances, influencing each other instantlyan idea that echoes the potential for human minds to be similarly entangled across space and time. Dr. Marjorie Woolacott, the President of the Academy for the Advancement of Postmaterialist Sciences, also shares how her research supports the idea that consciousness may not be confined to the brain, but rather a pervasive force in the universe.

We also revisit Dr. Sheldrake's research on telepathic connections between animals and their human companions, including an that demonstrated extraordinary telepathic abilities. These examples push the boundaries of conventional science and open the door to a deeper understanding of consciousness and its role in shaping our reality.

As the episode draws to a close, we discuss the limitations of the materialist paradigm and explore alternative theories of consciousness, setting the stage for the next episode, which promises to dive deeper into the remarkable abilities of non-speaking individuals.

---

I think you may be able to just skip to episode 6 without losing too much context. Hopefully, it will be enough to pique your curiosity and give episode 1 a try afterwards.

So it begins

Skywatcher Part I will launch today around 6 PM EST. This marks the start of our journey. Before we share, a few key points:

— Skywatcher (@SkywatcherHQ) January 28, 2025

Does seem like goal posts are already shifting though. On phone so don't want to go through hassle of unthreading it but basically they are cautioning that what they will be showing will NOT be conclusive. We know this sucks. Be patient please. We are gathering more.

Coppell97 said:

---

The answer is just enough truth to protect perhaps. They didn't say weather balloon. They didn't make something up. They just say not the enemy. Well, what type of research. What's the source of all drones? We may have sent our technology out to check it out / research and don't want to admit we have that technology publicly. And the unknown UAP that have always been around are not a known threat. Haven't attacked us. So "not the enemy". They observe and "research" - it's all possible.

---

The answer lends support to my theory that the initial UAP reports were actually sightings of new drone prototypes being evaluated with the help of the Navy. They're bigger than consumer or commercial drones, they fly and sound like aircraft, they are well lit, they have VTOL capabilities and are specifically designed to be operated from Navy vessels, and they're also designed with pivoting wings that could easily confuse ground observers into believing they're seeing multiple types of UAPs rather than a single model. Go see pterodynamics.com.

About the Telepathy Tapes:

Let me again state the fact there is no contest in the academic literature that PSI abilities exist, far beyond random chance. The British man details it. Consistent across time and environment (and yes of course frauds exist)