← That UFO Podcast
That UFO Podcast
Jonathan Caplan KC: UFO Secrecy, Majestic 12 and the Case Beyond Reasonable Doubt
01:10:49
Loading summary
Transcript69 lines
- [00:00]
Andy
This podcast is sponsored by Jace Medical. For 250 years, Americans have valued freedom, independence and the ability to take care of ourselves and our families. This fourth Jace Medical is celebrating with a special anniversary offer. Get a Jace case for just $250. The Jace case is a physician curated emergency supply of critical antibiotics and medications designed to help you prepare for travel disruptions, natural disasters, supply shortages, unexpected emergencies and more. The freedom to act begins with preparedness. Visit Jase.com that's J-A-S-E.com and claim your $250 Jase case today through July 31st. Peace of mind is one freedom worth protecting. That's why Jace Medical is celebrating with Liberty Sale Savings through the end of July. Right now, get a year of Jace
- [00:55]
Jonathan Kaplan Casey
plus membership for just $17.76.
- [00:59]
Andy
Norma $359 to enjoy extra savings and 24. 7 access to a first aid helpline. You'll also save on the Jace Case, Jace Trauma, Ivermectin and more tools to help keep you and your family prepared. These special prices end July 31st. Visit Jase.com today that's J-A-S-E.com and save on something that's always worth investing in.
- [01:26]
Sponsor/Ad Voice
Peace of Mind this episode sponsored by She's Byrdie. You know that little wave of relief when someone texts made it home safe? That's exactly the feeling She's Birdie was designed for. The Birdie disc is a clip on personal safety light and alarm made for everyday moments where visibility and attention matter most. Night walks, early morning runs, parking garages, college campuses, dog walks, travel. It features bright flashing LED light modes, a built in flashlight and a 130 decibel siren that can quickly draw attention if something feels wrong. And because it's lightweight, rechargeable, TSA friendly and easy to clip onto jackets, bags, strollers, bikes or keychains. It actually fits into real life without being bulky or complicated. More than 4 million people already trust She'sbirdy. For added peace of mind for the people you care most about daughter, partner, friend, student or parent, this is one of those simple things that can make a real difference. Go to she'sbirdie.com again that's she'sbirdie.com this episode sponsored by She's Birdie. You lock the hotel room door, then check it again and maybe one more time because even the nicest room can feel unfamiliar at night. That's why She's Birdie created Birdie Box With She's Birdie. You can bring peace of mind with you. BirdieBox is a portable travel door alarm for hotels, dorms, Airbnbs and anywhere you stay away from home. Just attach it to the door frame, switch it on and if someone opens the door, Birdie Box blasts a loud siren and flashing alarm to alert you and everyone nearby. Because the best part of travel isn't worrying, it's sleeping soundly. Birdie Box from She's Birdie locking in peace of mind wherever you stay. For safer, more confident travel, visit she'sbirdie.com that's S H-E-S-B-I-R-I-I-E.com at least I was
- [03:21]
Jonathan Kaplan Casey
able to put in the in the book that a craft landed by arrangement in 1994 in Russia. It was met by local militia and that became known in the American by American intelligence. If we were to apply the criminal standard, that is so that you are sure beyond reasonable doubt, believe strongly that we would achieve that burden of proof and demonstrate that proposition. We haven't. We haven't got control of our airspace. It comes and goes at will. This is a real phenomenon. It is a real national security threat and Parliament should be aware of it.
- [03:58]
Andy
My guest today is Jonathan Kaplan Casey, one of the UK's most respected criminal barristers and an author who has spent around five decades studying the UFO phenomenon. Jonathan's interest began in the 1970s when he served on the editorial board of the international journal Flying Saucer Review. Over the years he has met and worked alongside some of the subject's leading researchers, whilst also speaking privately with individuals from intelligence, military and official backgrounds. His new book, not for Disclosure, UFOs the World's Best Kept Secret, examines the evidence for UFOs, the history of secrecy surrounding the subject, alleged crash retrieval programs, Majestic 12, the role of intelligence agencies and what governments may still be withholding from the public. In this conversation we discuss why Jonathan believes the phenomenon could be proven beyond reasonable doubt, his claim that a craft landed by arrangement in Russia, what Britain may know, the limits of disclosure and why he believes humanity may be dealing with with more than one form of non human intelligence. Here is my conversation with Jonathan Kaplan. Kc. Jonathan, welcome to the podcast. How are we?
- [05:17]
Jonathan Kaplan Casey
Thanks Andy, so much. I'm very well and I'm very pleased to be doing this with you.
- [05:24]
Andy
Good to have you on. The book's been out now for quite a few weeks and it's still a bestseller when you go onto multiple different Amazon categories around the world. So congratulations. Not for disclosure. UFOs, the world's best kept secret has been a bit of a smash hit. Jonathan, the title of the book is A statement and not a question. And that's what I want to start. You're not asking whether there is a secret, you are seeing there is one. What evidence gave you the confidence to make such a definitive claim in the first place?
- [05:54]
Jonathan Kaplan Casey
Yes, I am saying it. And you know, the first question a lot of people often ask is, you know, do you believe in UFOs? It's not a question of belief. I've been looking at this subject for 50 years actually since the 1970s. Over that period of time I started out actually on the editorial board of a quite a well known international scientific UFO journal called Flying Saucer Review back in the 1970s, which had some really fantastic editors, correspondents like the young Jacques Vallee and others. And then over that period of time, I've been fortunate enough to meet a lot of the leading researchers such as Stanton Friedman, John Keel, Professor Mack, most of them. And then I think because I'm a lawyer and have this title, I mean, we're ten a penny by the way, King's Counsel. It doesn't mean that much today. I think that's opened a few doors to me and I found that a lot of people have trusted me perhaps where they would be otherwise if cautious about speaking to me. And that's people in, who are working in intelligence services or in other official positions. And I've been able to acquire from them a lot of information which is firsthand about their experiences, their work. Obviously those sources aren't named in the book, but I use quite a lot of that information. And there is absolutely no doubt from the incidences of this phenomenon worldwide. It's not a US phenomenon, it's a worldwide phenomenon. The consistency between people of different cultures and ages, even eras, that this is something real. What it is, whether it's one phenomenon, whether it's more than one phenomenon, where it comes from, those are much more complex questions. But I'm absolutely convinced that this phenomenon exists and that has been kept a secret so far as they've been able to. They've kept the lid on it for at least 80 years.
- [08:18]
Andy
And you mentioned studying this phenomenon for, for the best part of 50 years now. I've heard you on multiple interviews and some folks watching or listening this may have heard some of those. And you've talked about how as a teenager you saw a report on the news of a craft following a passenger plane. If you could just touch on that for me. But then also tell me, when did this Subject change for you from seeing reports on TV that interest you to something more. What took up a level?
- [08:45]
Jonathan Kaplan Casey
Yeah, so that report actually was an item on a BBC television program called Tomorrow's World, which was hosted by a man called Raymond Baxter. And it was a scientific program which the BBC ran and went into many episodes. And this one item was a flying saucer following a passenger plane. And it's odd because in those days this wasn't taken very seriously at all. And to see such an item on a major BBC scientific program was unusual, but it was done actually quite professionally. The piece of. And I was mystified. Something absolutely grabbed me about that item and I was anxious to find out more. You've got to remember, I'm afraid, that the Internet wasn't around in those days, and therefore finding information out about this subject wasn't easy. There were a number of books that were available in public libraries, which you might buy. I was a student, though, couldn't afford that much. But then I. I met a man called Gordon Crichton, who was a very early diet doyen or leader in this field. And he ended up editing Flying Saucer Review, which was a very respected magazine for quite a few years. And I then met people internationally who were researching on this subject, and I began to learn more about this phenomenon. In those days, I think people pretty much had the view this was a nuts and bolts extraterrestrial thing and that we were being visited in structured craft by more advanced extraterrestrial races. But as the years went on, it's quite clear that this phenomenon is much, much more complex, that it probably involves different forms of non human intelligence, not just the extraterrestrial variety. Some of those intelligences I think we do not understand conceptually. Some of them may well coexist and have coexisted with us here as part of our ecology on Earth since the beginning of or before this civilization. There's also apparently quite clearly a dark or paranormal side to this. So there were many different strands. And of course, now of course, the orbs of plasma, which nobody, even the American intelligence services, understand what they are. These are sentient, controlled, sizable balls of plasma, which are seen over many, many sites around the world. So the subject has just become more complex. And I've seen it develop.
- [11:48]
Andy
Why now? Because you've got that five decades behind you of interest and research, and this seems like you could have written this book 10 years ago or potentially 20 years ago. What was it about this particular moment you decided this book had to be written?
- [12:02]
Jonathan Kaplan Casey
Well, I Think if I'd written it 10 or 20 years ago, it's slightly different because I've had access to many, many more people in official positions over the last 20 years. I would say add, you know, two reasons for that. Firstly, reputationally, and this certainly began with the Americans. The subject was so derided. And if you believed in flying saucers or UFOs as they were then known, you were pretty much regarded as an eccentric. Nobody really took the subject seriously. We had the occasional UFO flap in different countries here in England in 1966 when people got excited about it. So reputation. I had to be careful. I'm a lawyer and I. I wasn't quite ready to put myself out there. But I think also there's been a much greater acceptance of the phenomena actually by people. And I will certainly applaud David Grush, who I think about three years ago now even a bit longer, came out and gave that televised interview to Congress. And I think that was a game changer because for an intelligence official to give sworn testimony to Congress that the U.S. government, let's forget for the moment China and Russia, who've got similar programs, but that the US government was in possession of crashed anomalous craft and biologics and had been since the Second World War, that was something quite astonishing. And that went around the world and it captured people's attentions. I think it opened up people's minds to other possibilities. And I felt that so much was coming out now about this subject, a lot of it unreliable. I'm sorry to say that it. I really felt it was important to continue and spark an informed debate. So many intelligent people are interested in this subject, but yet they don't know where to go to access reliable information. There's a thirst to know more about it from reliable sources. And I wanted to write a book, I hope, which would help do that and involve even academia.
- [14:30]
Andy
And you certainly did. And I'm going to say now again, folks, and probably at the end too, the book's wonderful. I've read it and I've also started the audiobook too, on my drives, and I thoroughly recommend it for people of all interest levels in the subject. I think it maps out the basics very well. But then you give all these extra details and nods to things that show you're very well researched across the topic. And this is. This certainly isn't a surface level entry book, which is, which is wonderful and very difficult to do. I feel I'm going to ask you almost a piece of advice here, Jonathan, in this next Question. I'm fortunate to be invited onto to radio and TV shows to discuss UFO developments across the uk. And recently on a debate on GB News, the skeptical position from the panelists was simply there is no evidence. They laughed and scoffed at a lot of what was said and only stories about aliens and spaceships. How do you personally respond to that kind of objection? And how do we move the conversation away from ridicule and towards a more serious, like, assessment of evidence?
- [15:35]
Jonathan Kaplan Casey
Well, I mean, if they mean evidence, well, let's see a spacecraft, let's see an alien. Of course, that's not something that we have access to. So for me, evidence is really in two compartments. First of all, it is witness evidence. Now, witnesses can be mistaken. Some, of course, might be manufacturing their evidence, but hopefully that's not the case very often. But I'm talking about witnesses who would appear to be reliable witnesses, and particularly those who come with training in military or air force matters. But of course, there's many other civilians who, who are reliable witnesses. So that, that's one category, witness evidence. But if it can be corroborated by, let's say, more than one individual. So you've got a group of individuals, if it can be corroborated by a photograph. I know photographic evidence is unreliable today, but for example, take the Phoenix lights. Take the photographs taken over Mexico City during the solar eclipse. Those are examples of many people seeing anomalous objects. So there are two examples, multiple witnesses, photographic evidence. And of course, the best form of evidence, which really cannot be disputed is data. Now, data can be obviously a variety of things. It's usually measurements or recordings on pretty sophisticated equipment. And we have a load of data that has been captured over military sites, on naval vessels, military aircraft. The Nimitz is one such case. Now, the only problem, of course, is that whenever there is data at a major incident, the CIA has almost a policy of going in to seize that data, which is what they did at the Nimitz and its sister ship, the Princeton. But there's other forms of data. There's magnetic readings that are often found at sites, There are indentations that are found at sites and we know in special categories of cases. For example, let's just take sites which store nuclear materials that UFOS have appeared around the world over those nuclear sites and in some cases interacted with them. And so we've got evidence from people who have been working on those sites, both in the United States and Russia and even in the uk. And I will take my hat off at the moment To Stephen Greer, who commenced a project called the Disclosure Project, which encouraged people who were government officials openly to come out and to give testimony about what they had observed on their official duties. And there's a vast amount of people now who've come forward, who are trained, experienced observers who have given extraordinary evidence about what they've seen when on duty, either in nuclear sites, military airfields and other official places. So there is lots of evidence. And if you go to a court of law, by the way, let's remember that somebody can be convicted on the word of one person alone, without corroboration. This is a case which is rich in people telling very similar stories for decades, not just from America, but from around the world. And those stories have hallmarks of similarity which you simply cannot explain away.
- [19:45]
Andy
If this argument was brought to a UK court, humour me for a moment. And they said, finally, you know what, let's put this to bed once and for all. Do we have a non human intelligence interacting with us? Slash, are we alone? Slash, are aliens real? However you want to word it? Do you feel we have a level of evidence that you could go into a court and argue, you know, beyond reasonable doubt that we, we are in touch with another civilization, entities, beings, or are we still falling short of that?
- [20:14]
Jonathan Kaplan Casey
Yes. If we were to take a jury and we were to have a special court hearing on the subject of do UAP, is there evidence that UAPs exist? And if we were to apply the criminal standard, I. E. So that you are sure, beyond reasonable doubt, I believe strongly that we would achieve that burden of proof and demonstrate that proposition.
- [20:41]
Andy
Imagine for a second, then you're leading that case. Have you got perhaps three exhibits you would say are the best examples of evidence for that argument?
- [20:53]
Jonathan Kaplan Casey
Wow, that's quite a lot to choose from. Well, I would certainly choose a mass sighting where there's been many people that have seen the same object and where there's some supporting evidence in addition to their evidence. So I'd probably take the. Maybe the Phoenix Lights or I would take Mexico City is one. I take evidence from people who have mentioned, of course, who've been working at missile sites where UFOs have come in and interacted with those sites as two. And I think I would take as something completely different. And it's an experience we still don't understand, but it's part of the phenomenon. I, I would take a couple of people who've had abduction experiences and who from different countries who are describing incidents that are very, very similar. Those are such strange experiences that for people to have had similar accounts and to have had similar, I would say, physical injuries and who described similar beings. Of course, they're not always the same, but in many, many cases they are. I, I think that category again is probably the third I take, but there are many others.
- [22:21]
Andy
Now, I'm going to ask you, if you put yourself on the other side of the room and the opposing council, what's the biggest weakness in the argument for, for this, this topic, this phenomenon?
- [22:33]
Jonathan Kaplan Casey
I think the biggest weakness is that people will say, well, all right, we've seen and you've got evidence of craft or orbs which are behaving, as far as we know, contrary to the laws of physics as we understand it and are exhibiting a technology which is not currently known, for example, can drop from 40,000ft and stop on the point of a dime, then shoot off at an incredible rate of speed, or do right angle turns and be transversible and go straight into water and go at tremendous speeds underwater. But how do we know that that is not the new technology of the Chinese or the Americans and they're just not telling us? Well, I mean, the answer to that is because we have people who are Air Force pilots, we have people who are insiders who are telling us that this certainly is technology that is way beyond what they have available to them and it simply doesn't exist. I think also this has been going on for so long. It's not just technology today. This is the technology that was observed going back to the 1940s and 50s, and we hadn't even gone to the moon until, you know, the 19, late 1960s. So. And you only got to listen to somebody like Captain Fravor giving evidence to Congress saying, this is absolutely nothing that we've made. I also had, I knew that it was aware of my presence. I knew that it was aware of me. It was doing things that were incredible. It was going to a contact point where I and my fellow pilots were going, a secret contact point 60 miles away. It knew everything we were doing. So, yeah, this is a kind of technology that simply does not exist. It defies our laws of physics. And then there are mathematicians like Eric Weinstein, who are top mathematicians and physicists who would tell you that they know there's only probably 10 theoretical top physicists in the world. None of them would be able to explain this. And therefore there's nobody in government or in private contractors who would be able to manufacture this.
- [25:12]
Andy
You've been on with Ross Coultar over on his NewsNation show. You mentioned him in the book. And you even touch on the book's very recent. You've managed to wonderfully keep it up to date, even in middle of 2026. You reference Ross mentioning last year in 2025, and it kind of started the fallout with him and Bryce Zabel, which there seemed to be some kind of fallout there where Ross came on a show and said that he had been told from a reliable source that the Tic Tac wasn't an NHI technology, but it was Lockheed Martin technology. It was ours. But like you say, you've got David Fravor, who is so vehement in saying, this is not human. I saw it do things that we just cannot do. It defies logical explanation. You're telling us, you know, again, these things drop from incredible heights on a dime. They shoot off at incredible speeds. They decelerate and accelerate. But then Ross comes out and seems to change his mind. What's your take on that sort of situation? That one, Ross changing his mind through a source, but two, that it could be something human?
- [26:19]
Jonathan Kaplan Casey
Well, I wonder if Ross actually would still say that today. And as you say, Fravor was one of those who, who's a witness, said, look, this is absolutely not the case. But I mean, I think logic really defies that statement. Even assuming, which isn't the case, that this technology existed, you would never insert it into the middle of a naval exercise without informing the pilots and the commanders of that exercise. I mean, the risks would be enormous. And it's not just one incident, the Nimitz. I mean, these things have been appearing all over the world. And there's even a rumor that probably more than the rumor. I mean, I think Ross also will tell you in the same breath that he has evidence that a Tic Tac has been recovered in Russia and there were biologics with it and also an advanced energy weapon. So I don't think that evidence quite squares with the information he was, he was given. I think that was quite clearly a counterintelligence piece of misinformation. And we know, I mean that at least when we say we know. I've, I've spoken to people in different areas of the three letter agencies, and this, they're trying to reverse engineer this technology, which they have. They're. I, I can't tell you how successful they've been because I simply don't know. But I do know that they have not been that successful and that they've run up against problems. And I am absolutely certain that David Fraver and others are right, that this technology and this physics is not something that we have available to us today.
- [28:18]
Andy
We're going to get into some of the sections of the book and break some of those down. Before we do that, though, was there anything in your research that you learned that you maybe wanted to include in the book, but for whatever reason, whether it be a legal reason or your own evidential standard, you decided I couldn't include it?
- [28:36]
Jonathan Kaplan Casey
Well, certainly, I mean, legal reasons, actually, I'm happy to say we had no legal, Obviously the book was checked legally. We had no problems. And I wasn't anticipating that, for example, the CIA or any officers were going to sue us because, of course, that would give credibility to the book. Excluding stuff. Yes, a lot. I've been very, very rigorous in excluding material that I am, I feel, either is unreliable or which I believe is strongly unreliable, because I only want to include in their material which I am absolutely comfortable with, and therefore everything in the book I'm comfortable with, with one exception, and there's a, a photograph which may have been misattributed. But apart from that, I'm comfortable with the contents of the book, and I've gone to great lengths to ensure that that is the most reliable evidence that is available to me. Anyway. Stuff that I've excluded. Yes, I obviously rely to some extent on confidential sources. They have told me some things which I would want to include, but I have not been able to include as yet because in doing so it might indicate who that source was, and it's not quite clear to how many people that information was shared and whether it was shared in the same way. So I've had to protect sources. I've only included material which they've agreed I can include. But there's a paperback version due in next summer, or I believe next summer, and I will certainly update it with more current information and any information I felt that I had to exclude to protect sources. In the hardback, I'll just take the
- [30:37]
Andy
opportunity to mention my own book has a paperback coming out in March, so plenty of time before yours comes out. Jonathan, two things. In what which was the photo you believe is perhaps misattributed?
- [30:49]
Jonathan Kaplan Casey
Well, I mean, I, I, so there are a number of photos in there, and there's a photo which I've included which might come, I can't remember the name of the film. I, I, I did say I wasn't able to attribute it, but it was a photograph of a craft and I'm not certain I'd said in the book I didn't know where it's, you know what, what it's, it's impossible to ascertain its pedigree. But apart from that, I'm very comfortable. There's nothing in there that is not genuine. So apart from that one photo of a craft which I might take out of the paperback, everything there is, 100% as far as I'm concerned.
- [31:35]
Andy
And I appreciate you mentioning there were things you couldn't put in because it may damage or harm a source or give away a source. Is there, is there something perhaps you could tell us that you, you believe probably to be true, but you still weren't prepared to put it in and obviously without damaging a source?
- [31:55]
Jonathan Kaplan Casey
Well, there's I give one instance of a craft that landed in Russia by arrangement. I can't. I'd like to have given further details about that, but I can't. And that's one example because it was known to very few people and I don't say any more, but the story behind it's quite interesting.
- [32:26]
Andy
I'd like to thank HIMS for sponsoring this podcast. If weight loss has felt like a losing battle, will this summer can be different. And unlike some of the things we discuss on this podcast, this you don't need to wait for government disclosure before taking the next step. Weight loss by HIMSS offers access to an affordable range of FDA approved GLP1 medications, including the Wegovy Pill and the Wegovy Pen. Through hims, everything happens online. You'll connect with a licensed provider who will determine if treatment is right for you. If prescribed, your medication is delivered directly to your door with no insurance necessary. You'll also have access to 24.7 messaging with your care team, along with an in app lifestyle and nutrition support, including recipes, meal plans, fitness videos, sleep content and more. Ready to reach your goals? Visit hims.comthatufo to get a personalized, affordable plan that gets you that's hmis.comthatufo hims.com thatufo Weight loss by hims is not available in all 50 states. Wegovy is the registered trademark of Novo Nordisk. As to get started and learn more, including important safety information, WeGovy clinical study information and restrictions, visit HIMSS.com yeah, there's so many frustrating conversations in this topic
- [33:46]
Jonathan Kaplan Casey
that and it's frustrating for me to say that, but at least I was able to put in the in the book that a craft landed by arrangement in 1994 in Russia. It was met by local militia and that became known in the American by American intelligence.
- [34:05]
Andy
So without breaching anyone's confidence. Have you had private conversations with people whose positions you believe gave them genuine access to hidden UFO or UAP information?
- [34:16]
Jonathan Kaplan Casey
Yes.
- [34:18]
Andy
Would those be. And in the UK we have this frustrating silence which could point to an incredibly efficient and well run organization because it seems to be rather much moot on the point of UFOs. The US seems to be much more noisy and loud about it. How often do you speak to folks from a UK background who have a lot more knowledge than we know?
- [34:42]
Jonathan Kaplan Casey
Well, I think it's quite interesting the UK background and I think you've got to go back in the book to 1947 and one of the. I think an important new fact in the book which I've never seen anywhere else and I discovered it by going through James Forrestal's diaries. He was the Secretary of Defense at the time of Roswell. Within a week of Truman signing the Majestic 12 directive, which I believe to be correct and true. Forrestal's diary shows that he met with Sir Henry Tizard who was the chief scientific Officer of the Ministry of Defense here in London. And Tizard then met also with Eisenhower, had another meeting with Forestall in America and that preceded a number of meetings with Forrestal and other senior Rafael officers. Tizard then came back to the UK and launched a secret flying saucer working party group at the Ministry of Defense. We had American intelligence coming over to speak to that group and the there was one copy of the report only published and the report says following the American lead, very little publicity can be given to this subject and only one copy of this report will be printed and that's for Sir Henry Tizard. So we can go back to the days of Roswell, the Americans briefing Britain, Tizard coming back and setting up that report. Now since then we have not so far although the UFO subject has been passed between different departments within the Ministry of Defence. And I have no doubt that signals intelligence such as GCHQ maintains a brief in relation to monitoring electronic signatures of UAPs. We don't appear to have a budget or a policy in relation to UAPs. We do have a policy and the Ministry of Defense has a policy to protect the national security of our airspace and our oceans, which is the Royal Navy. But we rely heavily on the Americans and I do not believe not only I know that budget doesn't exist. I've spoken to people in the intelligence services here, very Senior people in MI6 and MI5. This subject never crosses their desk except very occasionally in relation to collating information. But there are groups where member of Five Eyes and we liaise with Americans, we rely very heavily on the Americans. Now interestingly enough, there is no debate, therefore an official debate in this country. I'm quite satisfied of that. There are small pockets of people in the Ministry of Defence and in Signals Intelligence and in our and in Air Force Intelligence who have this brief but a very limited scope with which to work with. But I was contacted, interestingly enough, I won't identify him, by a Member of Parliament who read the book and said look, we really need to do something about this. So I'm hoping that we might be able to arrange a, a parliamentary group and a series of talks to that group and to get this on the parliamentary agenda here because Congress and as you know, particularly the Oversight Committee is doing a lot of work in pressing its government. We are doing nothing here to do that. We're making the occasional Freedom of Information act requests which seem to get nowhere. So I think we've got a long way to go and I think there is material here which we can uncover and we should have Parliament more engaged. This is a real phenomenon, it is a real national security threat and Parliament should be aware of it.
- [39:02]
Andy
So from a UK perspective, do senior officials at various organisations and levels that you have spoken to, do they treat the existence of a non human intelligence as an established fact or do you feel there's an uncertainty behind closed doors?
- [39:18]
Jonathan Kaplan Casey
I can say the people I've spoken to in MI5 and MI6, they have no official opinion at all. It simply is not on their agendas. They're dealing with much more important but worldly intelligence matters and the, and the F. In the Ministry of Defense I'm sure there is a small caucus of people who recognize that fact. In Air Force intelligence limited to one or two Air Force bases, I'm sure there are a few people who have this brief and who have that awareness and they're liaising with their American and other counterparts. But I think the attitude basically is look, this has gone on for so long, we just haven't got the budget to spend on. Doesn't seem to be doing a lot of harm. Although it's appearing we haven't got control of our airspace. It comes and goes at will. People are having a lot of ontological shock from having experiences, whether it's abductions or encounters, but there's no policy to do anything about it. So yeah, I mean that needs to change. I think it's a risk because I think governments should have a contingency plan if this is which it is a real phenomenon then they really ought to have a contingency plan for dealing with what may happen and we simply don't know.
- [40:56]
Andy
Well we know now publicly that the US has been in charge of the COVID up for 80 years plus now and there are multiple different organizations that have been set up over the years. Various documents have come out and leaked. You've got the MJ12 documents with its own section within the book. And the MJ12 documents are often treated as a large and varied collection. They're often treated as one package. Sorry rather than a large collection. And I Wonder which specific mj12 documents do you regard as the most authentic or probably authentic and are there any you are doubtful over or you believe may be fraudulent?
- [41:33]
Jonathan Kaplan Casey
So I've got two new ones in the book. One of them is a meeting at Blair House where President Truman was meeting with people such as the director of the of the Atomic Energy Commission and Eisenhower and others and discussing sharing the majestic issue with the British and the Canadians. That's a document I go into in great detail in the book and I found corroboration from that from David Lilientel's diaries of Princeton who was chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission and president of that present at that meeting. There's another one in the book which is a new CIA document concerning in a. An advanced contact group meeting at Holloman Air Force Base by individuals who are figure a lot in, in the UFO documentation those their key documents. And there was further confirmation of a Holloman landing from Dr. Eric Davis who recently spoke about a conversation he had with President Bush Senior who said look, when I became director of the CIA I was informed that a lap craft had landed but I wasn't allowed to have any further details or see the film because I didn't have a need to know. So I think that document's genuine. What, what does MJ12 do? Yes, I think it's very. I, I've no doubt MJ12 is true. It was formed by Vannevar, Dr. Vannevar, Bush, Forestall and Truman at the end of the Second World War when they discovered that there were crashed craft here that were not of this earth. They were very concerned it posed a threat because they had no idea what the agenda of these craft were, how many there were coming and they had to form a defense strategy with Eisenhower. And these documents show how the subject was taken completely out of the eyes of Congress, then under the control initially of the army, then of the Air Force and then the CIA which was created in 1947, and then finally out of the control of the President himself and between the CIA and private contractors. What documents are important? I think the manual is important. It is a genuine manual. And the manual version in the book shows the pages which aren't often replicated, showing that the one it came from actually Kirtland Air Force Base. There's also a page there where people had to initial when they took the manual out and put their initials in and dates. I think the, what it shows is the scientific and intelligence and military effort in trying to work out these objects and where they came from, what programs they were going to undertake, how they were to keep this actually secret from the public. People were to be intimidated, if necessarily, if necessary, killed, as happened, I'm sure to James Forrestal himself when he ended up at Bethesda Hospital because of mental stress. So it's, it's a record really of how this secrecy came into existence and how it was dealt with by a very nervous executive and military in the very early days. There are some fakes. The fakes, I believe, are not the documents which bear a date and which appear to be documents of the time, but typescript documents which came with some of the tranches of MJ12 documents which were leaked and which had titles such as Truman and Congress. And I've checked a couple of those documents and in one of them Truman is alleged to have been called before a congressional committee and questioned about MJ12. Now, it simply wasn't possible for that to happen because on the date that the document mentions, Truman never went to Washington. I've checked. There were no meetings of those committees. And so those typescript documents which don't bear a date, which aren't communications between MJ12 or intelligence officials I think are bogus. But the rest I believe to be genuine.
- [46:22]
Andy
The book does a wonderful job of documenting many memos and conversations that happened through that 40s, 50s, 60s time period. And when you're looking at this in your research, what do you get? The lay of the land is in the United States behind the scenes, through the military, the government, you know, the Navy, the Air Force, where they're suddenly dealing with this crashed craft in Roswell. And then the various cover ups that come along with that. And there's some, some fascinating conversations to hear back and forward with, folks. I forget the names of the gentlemen, but listening to the audiobook last night, someday, is it Hoover who writes as part of the FBI to ask for, are these saucers real? Yes, they're real. And there's a back and forward, but no, we're not going to give you access. But yes, they're real. We've got limited knowledge. What's happening for you behind the scenes in that kind of couple of decades with this whole subject.
- [47:14]
Jonathan Kaplan Casey
Those are in the very early days when the arm, initially the army was in control, then it passed to the Air Force, then it passed to the CIA and the Air Force. And funny enough, now of course, it's the Navy who are the lead military agency, and Navy Space Command. And that's a lot to do with submersible UFOs. But in those days, those documents are real. Nobody's ever challenged that. That was a request by the army to the FBI and to Hoover to assist in interviewing witnesses who were seeing flying saucers in the 1940s. And Hoover was receiving documents from his agents telling him about the crashes and what the craft were, what the occupants were. And Hoover initial wrote a note on one of them saying, well, tell them I would like to assist the army in providing the FBI agents to go and interview people. But when they recovered Kraft from the Los Angeles incident, we were not allowed access to it, and we have to insist on access. So there was this struggle going on between the army and the FBI and the Air Force in the early days, all of whom were trying to investigate and see what was happening. And then there are many, many other conversations, conversations between officials in Air Force and government. There are quite interesting conversations actually, between in the early days, some private UFO researchers who were contacting scientists who had been involved in the original recoveries. And scientists were prepared at that stage to talk a little more openly and were saying, yes, I was involved, but I left all my papers at the Pentagon. Yes, there were craft, yes, I worked with MJ12, there were biologics, but I. That wasn't my area. So if you go back into the history, which is very important, there are some very interesting accounts showing how the various agencies and scientists were communicating with each other in the very early days before all of these documents actually became swept up and put under lock and key. And that history is fascinating and leads us into Majestic 12, which was obviously a very highly secret organization. But even some of those documents still became available. One is in the. The National Archives. There's another that's been circulating, which was an MJ12 advisory group to the President in 1960s about the atomic plants that had been found in some of these craft. And then, of course, the whole situation becomes more and more and more hidden, even from Congress, as we know and now, of course, there's no documentation. It's all going to be on very encrypted computers. And we're simply not going to get access to what's going on today through that mechanism.
- [50:48]
Andy
Of course, here in the UK we have our very own version of the Roswell event, or at least that level with Rendlesham Forest, frustratingly still happened on a U.S. base involving U.S. personnel. And they can't help but get involved and steal the thunder, can they? But what was your. Your take in your research on. On the Rendlesham incident, the people involved, and what perhaps happened on those nights in December?
- [51:10]
Jonathan Kaplan Casey
Well, I remember that very well, actually, because that was in 1980, and I was on a plane going, going somewhere, and I saw somebody with a copy of the News of the World, which broke the story of Rendlesham. That was the first time that story was broken that a craft had landed close to Rendlesham Air Force Base, and that Colonel Holt, who was the commander in charge of that base, had gone out into Rendlesham Forest with a party of airmen to track it down and, and they had going a. A live tape which they recorded. And he wrote a formal report, of course, in the end to the Ministry of Defense. So there's no doubt about it, his record of that event was passed to the Ministry of Defense and access to that document, his letter, has been obtained. And that, do I quote that in the book, that document is now obtainable. And of course, thereafter, we know that Kraft appeared over Rendlesham and beams of light were shone on the nuclear storage facilities because it was a nuclear base. So I think that's another instance of a nuclear base being visited. But it's a case where a number of senior Air Force officers were able to have a close sighting of that craft.
- [52:42]
Andy
Do you believe it was a genuinely anomalous craft that landed? There are all kinds of explanations over the years, from preposterously people suggesting the lighthouse was shining through the trees and it was all mistaken. And I think we can throw that one out, to be honest. But there's other folks who have said it was a psyop involving the US or uk, you know, Special Forces, to the more common explanation of an alien craft. What's your take on what happened?
- [53:07]
Jonathan Kaplan Casey
You know, I don't believe it was a psyop. And another reason is because we know that Rendlesham has been visited more than once and craft have been over its nuclear storage site. Now, I think. I think they had an anomalous experience and that that was a uap? Yes.
- [53:28]
Andy
Do you believe the British and Americans know significantly more about Rendlesham than has been acknowledged
- [53:37]
Jonathan Kaplan Casey
about the craft, you mean? I don't think so. I think the sighting has been described by those that were there as far as they can. Whether. Of course, one thing you've got to remember is that people who do have close sightings, I won't say always, but very often they go on to have a rather nasty epilogue, and that is that they experience quite a lot of paranormal phenomena. Now, whether any of those witnesses thereafter experienced paranormal phenomena in their homes, I don't know. But for example, the pilots who. Even the pilots who observed the. Who came from the Nimitz and saw the Tic Tac, had paranormal experiences after that, which is almost now something which is not that unusual. It's rather unpleasant, but it's not unusual. So I don't know whether they, those airmen have confided more about what happened to them afterwards, but I don't think NORAD may have some data. The British may have data about the craft from advanced tracking systems, but I'm not sure there's much more to find out.
- [55:02]
Andy
Regarding the title of the book and what you discuss within it, the actual idea of the secret that's being maintained and kept, what's the strongest argument made by those who believe this information should remain secret?
- [55:16]
Jonathan Kaplan Casey
I think the problem is that the blanket was thrown over this right from the very start by the Americans in the 1940s, and no part of the phenomenon at all was to be recognized or acknowledged. I think if you were starting from scratch again today, you would say, well, look, we are reverse engineering craft which we've recovered and we're studying the phenomenon. And there are compelling reasons as to why any new technology which we discover needs to be kept secret from our adversaries or from terrorists, because it could be misused. And I can understand that argument, but I think the fact that the phenomenon has been denied, the reality of it has been denied for so long, has been a travesty and has caused a lot of hurt and damage to a lot of people. Not only have people been intimidated, I would say some have been killed, but people who've had genuine experiences have been ridiculed. They have professionally been damaged by a deliberate campaign to damage their reputations. A lot of people have suffered ontological shock. I mean, I think somebody coming into close contact with an NHI or a craft that has got no official warning about this or recognition of the fact that this exists and has had to live with that without any Professional support I think is outrageous and there are many people around the world who've had to do that and they've gone to private UFO organizations where they have received support. But to know that what has happened is a real phenomenon known to the authorities and to have had that comfort and support I think is something which has been missing and I think which is a real, real sin. Yes.
- [57:35]
Andy
If you remove the military aspect of this, where they're looking to keep hardware, advanced propulsions for, for warfare reasons, what do you think officials would be most afraid the public might learn?
- [57:46]
Jonathan Kaplan Casey
Well, I think having said that, although I should qualify, there's some technology which if they have it, we ought to have, for example, free energy. If they have got free energy from a form of propulsion system which they've managed to work out, then our dependence on fossil fuels would go tomorrow. But obviously it would affect the price of oil and gas, so it affect the markets, I think. I mean, I think anti gravity, you know, that's something which I would hope in some way they could a form of technology they could release ha meshed. Who's somebody I mentioned in the book who's an Israeli scientist who's figured large in, in. In in the space industry, says that we've actually developed into stellar craft which have already gone to Mars. Whether that's true or not, I really don't know. But the Navy space fleet I do know is something which is very highly protected by the Americans and what capacity it has, capability it has, I don't know. Now I'm thinking of technologies which are weapon systems, energy devices, other things which could be used for adverse and dangerous purposes. And I don't know enough about what they've managed to create. But certainly that kind of technology I can see should be kept under wraps.
- [59:24]
Andy
Yes, just expand on the free energy thinking for me because this is one I've brought up many times on the podcast that this idea that we get an NHI craft and we get disclosure or confirmation and all of a sudden energy is free for everyone. Surely we would be paying for a subscription or a device that would have to be manufactured and it could be a cube. You sit in your home and everything gets powered from it. We're not going to get free energy, quote unquote, are we?
- [59:52]
Jonathan Kaplan Casey
No, it's not going to just come out of the air. But I obviously don't know the details of the propulsion system that would give rise to free energy. But yes, I'm sure they would depend on the establishment of some kind of hardware from which we would derive free energy. But I think the importance is it would lessen our dependence on fossil fuels. That's the problem. Point. And all right, we have to pay for it, but it would be much more ecologically advantageous to do that. And there's strong rumors they have it and it's a real. I mean, obviously, how are they going to say where it's come from? That's the trouble.
- [60:35]
Andy
And governments are made up of thousands of people. And these alleged programs have now existed for going back to the forties, perhaps even earlier. Who knows? How can a secret of this scale remain protected for so long? And this is one I've seen argued quite often in recent news programs, even here in the UK when they do talk about uap.
- [60:56]
Jonathan Kaplan Casey
So that is the argument so often put against us. You know, you're conspiracy theorists. This couldn't have happened. Well, the fact of the matter is they've done, they've organized themselves in quite a clever way because what the CIA and the Department of Defense have done is to contract out, often under the atomic energy legislation, which does not permit FOIA requests to contract out to private defense contractors who've got the expertise these subjects. And so it's gone to the private contractors and there's a caucus of people within the CIA and other three letter agencies who know what's going on. How has that secret been kept? Well, if you listen recently to Congressman Eric Burleson, it hasn't been kept that well because he has got insiders in some of the private defence contractors, whistleblowers who are speaking under arrangements with the Oversight Committee and giving them details as to what materials to ask for from these contractors and from the CIA. And Burleson is sending detailed interrogatories to these companies and the CIA asking for materials about these programs. I mean, we also know, for example, from reliable people like Admiral Thomas Wilson that he knows of a special access program that exists. He tried to find out. He was the Joint Chief of Staff's intelligence. He tried to find out from the contractor, was told he wasn't going to be read in, and the Department of Defense warned him off. We know from, you know, from a variety of sources that these special access programs exist. People have kept the secret very largely because of NDAs which they've signed and because they don't want to be prosecuted and because they've been intimidated. One contractor intelligence official, Matthew Sullivan, who was due to give evidence about these programs to the Oversight Committee within two weeks of his date to attend to give evidence, died in mysterious circumstances. Burleson has referred his death to the FBI. So intimidation is still going on today. I know that from people I'm speaking to. I know that people are resigning their jobs rather than be subject and their families subject to this intimidation. They don't want to risk harm to their families. I think it's not just government agents who are intimidating. I think it's the security personnel of these private defense contractors who are possibly operating in a, almost a free zone and are really committing criminal acts. So it's intimidation, it's the threat of being prosecuted that have been the main tools to warn people off from speaking openly about their work.
- [64:24]
Andy
We do seem to be making progress politically in this. I say we, the United States, but also the UFO community. Eric Burleson and co are certainly chipping away bit by bit and it looks like in the last couple of days he seems confident that the NDAA with the whistleblower protections are going to be successful through the Senate. That's already passed the House. So with that, how far do you think the disclosure process as we have it right now will ultimately go and potentially what could it reveal?
- [64:57]
Jonathan Kaplan Casey
Well, I mean, potentially it could reveal any, anything, but I, I must say I'm, I'm doubtful, I'm afraid. I think we're going to get a few more videos, I think we're getting a few more documents. I just don't see that the disclosure process is going to yield crashed craft, biologics and special access programs. Firstly, because this still is the most highly protected secret in the United States. They know that China and Russia have equal technological programs in play and they're just not going to give them any advantage over this because this is dominance. I mean, whatever they've discovered will give them power over their adversaries. And a lot of what they've discovered I don't think will ever come out of the draw unless it is an absolute end game situation. So I don't see those being released. I just don't see it. I think the other concern they have is that I don't think they know what this phenomenon is. I don't think they know its sources, I don't think they know its agenda. And I think to go public and to say that this phenomenon is real, that we, yes, we're not in control of our airspace, we can't protect you, we're not in control of our oceans, that is going to be very destabilizing. And I don't think that's something that the career intelligence officials are going to allow to happen. I know over the years they've held seminars as to what we can and tried people. Hal Putoff was one person who went on one to see what we can disclose, what would be, the effects would be. And as far as I know, by and large those seminars of intelligence officials and invited VIPs have all voted against disclosure of this kind. So I don't see it happening. And I think at the end of the day we've got to look to other sources for disclosure. Anybody can disclose what they found. Private industry, you know, there's wealthy people now who are doing incredible things. They're entering the space program. Musk has got Starlink, there's other people with other facilities. So I don't see it happening. And I think we have to wean ourselves off the idea that we're waiting for the United States government to say this phenomenon exists before we are prepared to accept that it does exist.
- [67:53]
Andy
And after everything you've studied, what do you think personally the UFO phenomenon actually represents?
- [68:01]
Jonathan Kaplan Casey
I think it is a multi source phenomenon or phenomena. I think undoubtedly there are other, there is other intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. That's a mathematical certainty. I think we have been visited by different species from different planetary origins for a very long time and possibly more so since we've had nuclear power and detonated nuclear bombs in the late 1940s. But I think there are other forms of non human intelligence which we simply do not understand and conceptually which we just cannot understand. Our concept of time, of space, of interdimensionality of consciousness is I think, very limited. So for example, there may well be some kind of universal consciousness that interacts with us. There may well be beings that don't have corporeal form that are here coexisting with us. I mean, the Quran speaks of the Jinn, who are these smokeless beings that can be benign or malign. So I think there are many forms of non human intelligence, one of which is extraterrestrial, the others which, which I think may coexist with with us and which have been coexisting with us and, and have been on this planet probably before us.
- [69:44]
Andy
And a final question for me, Jonathan. You've been very good with your time. If you could place one living individual under oath and compel them to answer one question fully and truthfully about the UFO secret, who would it be and what would you be asking?
- [69:59]
Jonathan Kaplan Casey
Well, that is a very good question. And you're talking about a living individual?
- [70:05]
Andy
Yes.
- [70:07]
Jonathan Kaplan Casey
Well, I think it would probably be the direct current director. Any Past director of the research department at the CIA who administers the special access programs. I'm not going to name names, but there's one individual, for example, who stopped the transfer of a craft from Lockheed Martin to Robert Bigelow's facility in northern Las Vegas because Lockheed couldn't make any progress with the craft and Bigelow had some expert private scientists who could or might have been able to. Now that's just one individual who is a director of that department. So they are one of the departments that hold the key. I think it wouldn't be a president because they are career officials, sorry, career employees. So it's got to be career intelligence people. I personally think Henry Kissinger knew quite a lot and was briefed a lot, but nobody ever even asked him the question. So I'd. Yeah, I'd have to go, I think for director of the research department in the CIA and possibly, let me just think. Yes, yeah, I, I think probably equally I would go for the director of the Atomic Energy Commission probably because they're very heavily involved in this subject and those are the people that are going to be having access to the latest material.
- [72:04]
Andy
And is there one particular question you would ask if you only had one?
- [72:09]
Jonathan Kaplan Casey
Yes. What, what, what, what have you done with the crashed craft and in 2026, what have you managed to reverse engineer from the craft that you've had in your possession under these special access projects?
- [72:27]
Andy
Excellent. Jonathan, are you going to be sticking around in the UFO topic? I know you've got a private interest, the books out now, is that something that you plan on being more involved in publicly?
- [72:38]
Jonathan Kaplan Casey
I'm committed to that. I very much want to go out, meet people, talk to people. I think we all have a duty really to have this informed debate, help others to have an informed debate. I mean, I'd like to take this to academia. I'm actually going to go and speak to university and other talks lined up. I think within certain limits. I think it's very important to go to schools. We need to get this on a syllabus with recommended books. There are dark, rather frightening sides to this subject which we don't want to scare young people, children off with but I think, you know, it needs to be taught and I think that we've got to stop waiting and, and for the disclosure moment from the President of the United States, we've just got to get on with it ourselves. Let's put out there reliable information. So let's try and have a academic syllabus about this and let's just bring people together and share what we can.
- [73:50]
Andy
Brilliant. Well, Jonathan, the book is of not for Disclosure. The World's Best Kept Secret by Jonathan Kaplan. Casey. Jonathan, thank you so much for your time. Well done on the book. And I look forward to speaking to you again, hopefully in the future.
- [74:03]
Jonathan Kaplan Casey
I look forward to that. And thank you so much for having me on your show. Thank you.