← The Chris Cuomo Project
Loading summary
Transcript38 lines
- [00:00]
Chris Cuomo
I can prove to you it is no longer a close call that our government knows that there are things in the air that shouldn't be there. I'm Chris Cuomo. Welcome to the Chris Cuomo Project. I don't care if you call them UFOs or UAPs. The difference in nomenclature is just a distraction from the fact that the transparency is not there. And I've got two guys who know what they've seen, who know what's going on, and who know what you aren't being told. And here is a spoiler alert. It ain't about little green men and it doesn't need to be. It's about billions of dollars and thousands of incursions that have not been explained. Jake Barber James Fowler Military civilian Both sides projects observations dealing with government, dealing with politicians. They know the deal of what's in the air and from where it comes. And I wanted their perspect perspective. Do you? Let's get after it. Hey fellas, how you doing?
- [01:17]
James Fowler
Good morning. Well, how are you?
- [01:18]
Chris Cuomo
Jake? If you want to start just in terms of laying out why, you know, what you know, what have you seen, what have you experienced?
- [01:25]
Jake Barber
Okay. Yeah. So for the past 30 years I've been involved with the government both in an official and unofficial capacity. You can say starting as an enlisted man in the United States Air Force and then transitioning to the broader intelligence community as a contractor shortly thereafter. And was put to work in a number of different ways. My work was very diverse and specialize in security and transportation and specifically. Well, I spent a lot of time in the California desert working on the range and a number of test facilities where the US Government and its private partners play with all their research and development and test weapon systems and resilience to weapon systems, transportation, a number of things. And so I became part of a couple, several specialized teams and task force, namely recovery teams, crash recovery teams. And the mission of the crash recovery team was not specialized or you wouldn't, you wouldn't set up a team like that just to go out and get exotic material or UFOs or UAPs. You set up a crash recovery team for anything that might interface with the ground forcibly and handle with it, handle it appropriately and, and be able to handle it and take into account all the variety of scenarios that might be presented when a number of things hit the ground from both a HAZMAT perspective, a security perspective and sensitive information or classified perspective. And so we did a lot of work, recovered a lot of things and we saw a lot of interesting things in the sky working out there. And you know, the, the two cases that I brought forth that, that I'm comfortable talking about that I think are of interest and of import to both the public and the government or what most people know now is the egg and the egg gone. And those were the, probably the two most interesting and compelling experiences that lead us to that other category where it doesn't seem man made. It's not, it's not U. S Military and it's not adversarial that we can detect and it's just weird, man. It's just anomalous. So the, those two objects were things that our team was dispatched on and recovered. I had very, very limited experience with it just from a transportation standpoint. Flew in with a helicopter at night, picked it up, flew it about, you know, 20 miles, dropped it off at another location and then my work was done. The interesting work takes place after that. And so both the egg and the egg on were things that were covered in, in that setting. I had a very emotional, surprisingly emotional and spiritual experience with, with the egg gone that I've told that story publicly a couple times now and I really don't like going into the details of it because it's, I wouldn't say traumatizing, it's just kind of emotionally exhausting. But that, that particular incident changed my life and I, I feel like things have been different ever since then. Personally, there's something about that evening that, that had a spiritual impact on me and has been a challenge. At first it was quite a challenge because I carry so much responsibility. I have a lot of practical responsibilities. My, my local mission of operating helicopters and communications and then just to my team at large for being able to conduct myself in a pressure, professional and level headed way and you know, during dealing with things that are otherworldly and having them touch you personally, it's not that, not typically, not the right headspace when you're focused on practical matters, in dealing with things in a very objective. And when you're trying to rely on your training, which is more of your professional reflexes when you're doing work. So that led me down a path, you know, my. I never really had a. Like the moments themselves were. Because you're in that mindset. I get the question a lot like, you know, what was it like to realize we're not alone? Or did you have an aha moment? And I. That aha moment is something that's evolving. It's a, it's a sloping experience. It's not a switch that Got flipped for me. And we're still exploring that. And yeah, so that was, that's how I ended up becoming a voice and realizing later when the disclosure movement really kicked off 2017, 2018, we were tracking that movement, trying to figure out to what extent we should be involved, if at all. And we're paying very close attention to the movements in Congress and the testimony given by people like David Grush and Lou Elizondo and trying to figure out what play to make and what the risk reward ratio and situation was for us coming forward. And that still is something we're trying to calculate. It's not, it's not an easy thing to really put your finger on, but it's something we try and keep a pulse on as to the risk reward scenario for coming forward. And part of what makes that very challenging is the lack of guidance and oversight on the topic as a whole. Because, you know, as a patriot, I consider myself altruistically patriotic and altruistically concerned with national defense. And that means even in cases where there isn't clear guidance or oversight, I still take that to heart and try to figure out what the right move is. And that can be difficult at times.
- [08:18]
Chris Cuomo
Why do you think that what you learned, what you believe, you now understand that you didn't before because of your experiences limits what you say. My responsibilities to be in the moment and to use my skill set. Why hasn't it just made you richer and, you know, more expansive, let's say, in your understanding. Why is it a limitation?
- [08:46]
Jake Barber
I would say in the moment, when you're doing something that is as demanding as operating a helicopter at night, you're running three radios at a time, every foot in hand is doing something different. And you are, you are relying on a combination of motor skill as well as processing information like the headspace. There has to be one that's very clear, pragmatic and focused things that can distract you from that. You know, actually it's, it's a standard procedure for pilots and anyone operating sensitive equipment. We do what's called a hazardous attitude inventory before we operate. And it's basically like a pre flight checklist for yourself, for your. For the human factor, which is one of the most important parts of any system. Let's call this system an aircraft. Everyone, I'm sure, understands that before you fly, you kick the tires and check the oil and make sure the aircraft is airworthy. Well, but most people don't think about the importance of making sure the pilot, the human, is airworthy. And so a hazardous Attitude inventory test is one place where we take into account what are known as those psychological or aeromedical factors. And there's a number of classic cases there or classic categories within your personal inventory that you take into account. And so the last thing you want to do is be spiritually emotional in any, any regard. You don't want to be overly emotional, you don't want to have any emotion that pulls you from your center. And you certainly don't want to be having some transformative like interdimensional borderline metaphysical experience while you're sitting in the seat of, of an aircraft. And so it limits me in that localized incident where you're out operating like you want to make sure you're, you're well fed, you're well slept, you don't have to pee, you're not hungover, you're not sick. I mean all those things are things that would, would make you unairworthy for a particular operation. And so having one of the most emotional and spiritual experiences in my life while sitting in the seat of a helicopter, flying in the mountains at night alone. They don't fly a helicopter. That's usually most circumstances you have two pilots on board. I wasn't, I was a single pilot operating a twin engine complex helicopter. And so you know, you, you need to have clarity in that moment. And so it just localized in that instance. It was very challenging. Now that being said, in all other aspects of my life, I don't think that experience has proven to be enhancing rather than degrading. And that certainly has been a benefit as opposed to a limitation.
- [11:48]
Chris Cuomo
That is a very good and fulsome answer, my brother. Thank you very much for it. James, are you still there and awake?
- [11:56]
James Fowler
I am listening to the enthralling story there. So yeah, nice to meet you Chris and team. So happy to be here. So James Fowler is my name. I was in the military for a long time, spent most of my time in SOCOM. Retired in 2020 as a sergeant major. Really got after a lot of different things, deployed to a lot of crazy places. But I never did anything with UAPS or anything on this topic whatsoever in my military career. That actually separates me a little bit from Jake and other folks that you may speak with. And then all my information has been gleaned and learned and understood as a civilian, as a contractor to the government, or on my own without any government interaction whatsoever. So in 2021 I was running a war game for the US government. And at that war game I had tens of millions of dollars of Defensive equipment and tens of millions of dollars of offensive equipment. That equipment included government and commercial classified unclassified systems. And we are arrayed in a force on force war game for two weeks at a time to a month at a time. So during the course of that initial war game in 21, we had some sightings of some anomalies. We were convinced that perhaps those anomalies were related to the IC intelligence community or the government. So we treated it as such. We were very careful with that information. We kept it very quiet, which is why you've never heard from you before and never seen this before. Between 21 and 22 we decided what if. Actually we thought to ourselves, what if this isn't a US government capability? What if this is an adversary or another capability? So between 2021 and 2022 we did a lot of open source research, a lot of analysis, introspectively thinking through what did we do in 21 to bring this attention to us and can we replicate it in 22 and can we enhance the attraction that we get in 2022? And the answer was yes. So in 2022 we ran another war game. We've roamed one every year, more than one sometimes. And in 22 we had much more exotic display of technology from whoever's flying and craft. In 21 we only had seven that we saw in one sortie or one formation. In 22 we saw over 250 UAPs in varying sorties from 1 to 3 and upwards. So that started the effort again. We kept this very quiet because we thought perhaps we're at a war game, maybe they're war gaming us. But the trouble with that is we couldn't figure out what the feedback mechanism would be. In 2023 we started sharing our data openly with the government. In fact, in 2024 we were contracted by the government to collect UAP data. You should note that in commercial and government spaces you will never be contracted for anything to do with UAPs. It's just not the way it works. From Jake's story, talking about other things, other contracts than UAPs, the same thing went for my team. We were not contracted for UAPs. We were contracted for other activities, with UAPS being the actual desire. But there were other inputs as well. So we have nine classes of UAPs we've identified. These classes include signals intelligence. They include radar cross sections, airspeed, altitude, times of day when they appear, and also visual observations in multiple bands. So we use electro optical or daylight cameras. We use infrared, middle wave and shortwave Infrared cameras. And with these tools we're able to attract the UAPS with a custom capability that we've enhanced over the last five years. We have a 100% success rate. That doesn't mean that when we use the dog whistle, that pooch or, you know, Fido comes and sits at our lap and wags his tail and waits for us to talk. No, when we use a dog whistle, we have to wait a certain amount of time after we start using it, continuously use it over a certain number of hours or days, and then the UAPS will be there at a certain time after we begin the operation. We have tested, done blind testing in terms of, used the same equipment without the dog whistle and had no reaction by UAPs, no observation for over a week. We did that more than once. So we're very, we're extremely confident that our dog whistle is responsible for calling in the UAPs. So in 2024 was our last event that we did for the government. And the word Skywatcher actually was the COVID term for our technology that we developed between 2022 and now that we began when we were frustrated with the military industrial complex, status quo, pre golden dome concepts of air defense and air intelligence. So we started designing our own technology that's actually over engineered. It's designed to detect things that cannot be seen in the sky, namely UAPs. And as a byproduct, you actually detect stealth, hypersonic, supersonic and regular threats to the airspace. So Skywatcher technologies, actually a technology inspired by UAPS that we wouldn't have even thought of or thought to build without UAP observations. And we've taken those lessons, learned and distilled them down to a new product and new capability that will revolutionize air defense and air intelligence Systems. So in 2025 we started our company, Skywatcher Technologies Corporation. Jake and I are both founders and partners there. And at Skywatcher we continue with the same events I used to run for the government, except these are commercially run. Now we run one event per month and at those events we continue to get more data. The difference is that now we have a helicopter and we have other tools so we can chase the UAP. I personally have chased about 15 UAPs and approximated to one within about 200 meters last month. So that's, that's what I know. We have definitive data, we have definitive knowledge. We have no clue who or what's flying these. I'm really on the fence between which entity we are observing when we observe it. But I'm firm in My belief that there's a blue bucket, probably made in America, there's a red bucket, maybe made in China or Russia, and there's another bucket that we don't know where they're from. And I'm confident that we're viewing all three of those in our airspace. And one key thing to note here, Chris, is these observations occur in broad daylight in the middle of US Air traffic. So some of the videos we've released, we purposefully put air traffic in the background so people can understand this isn't happening where there's no airplanes or no commercial aviation anywhere. So this is happening in broad daylight right next to national international air corridors, sometimes in them. So we've observed from being at altitude with these UAPs that we cannot see them from the. From the air. So it's our belief that these things are commonly around commercial aviation. In fact, we have photos and videos of UAPS in proximity to commercial aviation from our first sighting in 21, and that continues. So whoever's operating these, if it's blue, is highly illegal. They are not squawking ads, B. They're not adhering to international norms of air traffic. And if it's red, we should be terrified because that would mean that one of our adversaries has impunity in our airspace and can enter airspace at their discretion, at their time and at their location of choosing. And not only don't our forces detect it, they don't counteract it. And I will tell you, I am in constant communication with our government. I've sat with our government for the last five years in skiffs and asked them, give me an NDA, tell me to shut up, tell me that this is ours, and I will. I'm a patriot. I'll protect national security, and I will stop. Nobody has taken me up on that offer with the same breath. I've told them, don't tell me anything because I'm going to talk about this one day. And I don't want to be tied down by NDAs to the government unless. Unless you have something you want to share. But so my mind is polluted. I'm free to pontificate and think through things because I hold no oath to secrecy on this topic. And I will tell you that from my observations, I don't believe our government has a clue who this is. And if they do know, it fits into the red or the other category. I would say almost certainly the observations we have, if they are blue, they're very limited.
- [20:18]
Chris Cuomo
Support comes from one skin. Now, I am a 54 year old guy who's got a look, look as good as they can. I got to do the most with the little that God gave me. And I'll tell you what doesn't help. Signs of age, wrinkles, creeping of skin. That's why you use one skin. OneSkin is the first and only skin longevity company to target cellular senescence. Okay? That is aging at the cellular level. And what they have is a proprietary peptide, okay, OS01. And the science shows that it decreases lines and wrinkles.
- [21:01]
Jake Barber
How?
- [21:01]
Chris Cuomo
I have no idea. I just take it and it works. And I know a lot of other people share the same experience. One Skin is the world's first skin longevity company. By focusing on the cellular aspects of aging, One Skin keeps your skin looking and acting younger, longer. You can get started today just like me with 15% off using code CUOMO at ONESKIN CO. 15% off if you go to Oneskin Co and use the code Cuomo. Now they're gonna ask you where you heard about them. Please say you heard about them from me on the Chris Cuomo project. Especially now with summer upon us, you gotta take care of your skin. They've got a whole line of products that will help you reduce the effects of the sun without all the grease and the nastiness and the overwhelming fragrances that come on. So much of the stuff that we use in the summertime, One Skin, your future self will thank you. So let's drill down on this third bucket. When you say you don't know who they are, Jake, the third bucket. I'm assuming you agree, seeing how this is your partner in terms of the analysis of the bucket structure, what is the definition of the third bucket for you?
- [22:34]
Jake Barber
Well, you know, we've all heard Lou talk about the five observables. That's a good place to start. And it's, it's actually something pretty significant, which is, you know, it's a good way to think about is rungs on a ladder. As we're ascending this ladder to discovery, our first rung, or the first thing we're trying to achieve through our discovery framework, which is our scientific framework, starting at a low level and then proceeding to a level of scientific discovery where we can identify what this is. That first rung is to prove that it's truly anomalous. And that's no small thing. We don't throw that term around. It's like a, as a broad brush to paint across everything in this guy that's not an airplane or helicopter. So some very, some things you know, right away is, you know, are they showing up? Is there a radar cross section or signature? Something that's interesting. How does it look? What does it look like to the visual eye? What does it look like to the, to all the different things, styles and types of sensors we have? And is there disparage, is there just, are there disparities between what the visual eye picks up and what the instrumentation picks up? I mean, you start to rule out things pretty quickly. You can start moving towards that other bucket pretty quickly. When you look at things that are only show up in one, or let's just say not all of the observation means, because any conventional aircraft that would fit in the other two buckets should, should at least show up. You should be able to see it with your eye and you should be able to see it on radar. You should be able to see it in thermal EO ir. And some of the things, when we start moving towards that bucket, some of the first things we observe are it looks different or it's not even visible. A lot of the times there are things that will show up on radar that you can't see with the naked eye because it's moving too quickly. And this is part of our challenge when we, to get any type of imagery on these, on these objects is where do you point the camera and then most of the camera or observation equipment. You start with a pretty broad field of view. And at the range and speed some of these objects move, if they are objects, and some things are more just like lights. We don't know if they're tangible objects or not. Their heart with that broad view, you have to be able to pick them up and then you have to be able to zoom and concentrate your observation equipment to a smaller space to get more pixels on target is a term we use. And when they move quickly or they're not visible to the naked eye, it's hard to, it's hard to advance your observation equipment or to get more refined data. Speed is another one. So things that move at speeds that are supersonic or hypersonic, that don't make a sonic boom, things that move in, in contradiction to what the laws of gravity and classic physics would allow us to do, is something that can get you put in that bucket. But even something that just looks weird, I mean, that we should be able to define with this team, with the experience we have, the equipment we have and the processes we have, we should be able to identify things in the sky pretty quickly. So it's actually exciting to at least label something Unidentifiable or even anomalous. That's, that's the first step. Origin and who it is, is it red, blue or other is not something, it's not a conclusion we, we jump to. We're excited when we actually find something in the sky with any of our equipment and then not be able to define what it is. That's a big deal for, for this group.
- [26:38]
Chris Cuomo
James, what do you think the ratio is with government transparency in terms of what they don't know versus what they don't want to show?
- [26:52]
James Fowler
That's a really hard question, Chris, and I'll kind of lay it out for you. And let me start actually from a super macro view before we go into a tight zoomed in enhanced view. If you look at how many US national labs there are, there's over 375. There's close to 400,000 civilians working for the US government in national labs. Whether they're UARCs, FFRDCs, or other labs doing work for the government and classified projects. Their budgets are approximately $90 billion a year. I would ask what are these labs doing? Are these labs developing new, advanced technology? For me to believe that the UAPS are observing are man made of human origin, long ago I came up with the conclusion that they would have to, had to have started many years ago, probably in the 40s or 50s, perhaps they could have taken the scientists and engineers from the Manhattan Project and from Operation Paperclip, when the United States squarely owned the most smart people in the world, if you will, the most intellectually capable group of men and women in existence were here and then they formed the national labs. From there, I would offer what we're observing are technologies that are at least one generation ahead of anything we have. So if you're looking at propulsion, telemetry, cloaking technology, stealth technology, it's all well ahead of what's observable or known in the public sphere. And I can tell you I'm an ISR expert and the methodologies being used don't match anything I would know to be viable for technology use in a deployment scenario. Meaning the UAPs that fly past us and approximate us don't, don't use traditional ISR tactics. There's never an orbit, there's never a, a obvious tactic that we would use against our enemies as per normal tactics. So having said that, it's really hard to believe that it's ours. So the, the, the, the, the disparity between how much is ours or how much is man made, how much is Other is really hard to see through. But for certain there's, there's probably all three categories in play here.
- [29:12]
Jake Barber
I'd like to add real quick too. I mean beyond that, if, if our government, if we're gonna, you know, put them in one giant bucket and assume there's some cohesive and cooperative entity, which they aren't, they wouldn't be spend, they wouldn't be setting up programs like osap, the Office of Arrow. If you look at the mission statement of Arrow, it's actually very similar to ours in Sky Watcher. Like they I. OSAP was specifically set up to study UFOs. And I'm going to go back to that classic acronym because it's just, just as good as uap. And at the time that was the acronym. I mean the government wouldn't be spending money in hiring experts and putting out requests for proposals for folks that could help look into the subject matter of what the heck is going on in the sky. You know, AERO specifically is. It was set up to look in, to investigate the UAP and provide a mechanism for reporting UAP and taking a rigorous scientific approach to discovering what it is. So, you know, the spirit of the Office of Arrow is quite, for guys like us because that mission is something we're passionate about and capable of looking into. But there's, there's a lot of challenges that have become clear the last couple of years since Arrow has been stood up. Which is why we feel strongly that the private sector and autonomous organizations like ours stand a good chance to actually be the method for ushering in this new era when it comes to disclosure. And we have to have the government involved because for better or worse, our institutions and our offices within government are those who we pay to be responsible and who we vote to be responsible for handling issues like this when it from a secure security standpoint and a public safety standpoint. So again, the fact that the government at large has invested a lot of money and recruited a lot of talent to specifically look into the subject matter of UAP and ufo, which is that other bucket is evidence itself. Because you would have to ask yourself what would be an alternate explanation for, for standing up those offices and, and issuing funding through contracts to the private sector if they knew what was going on.
- [31:37]
James Fowler
So, so can I add to that real quick Chris, before we leave the stop stream? Because there's something I left out of mine which is, as I told you, I've met with the government many times and many skips for many different agencies on this topic, bringing them data Briefing them, showing them PowerPoints, giving the government data. I've given the government over a terabyte and a half of UAP data, specifically and explicitly for these classes of UAPs. This includes radar data, imagery data, signals intelligence. All the above has been given to the government. When I have gone to offices whose core mission is UAP studies, it's really hard for me to discern if they are purposefully being incompetent or if there's a big bureaucratic problem, you know, blockage in the way, stopping them from being effective. I have been to national labs who are supporting this effort and the same thing that I find in the D.C. region is folks asking the wrong questions, not studying this, not taking it seriously. And if they are taking it seriously, again, I don't, I'm not quite sure if it's masked or purposeful incompetence or true incompetence. I have a hard time believing it's, it's purposeful because the people are very smart and very capable apparently. But when I tell the government I have a terabyte and a half or two terabytes of data to give you, a lot of times they can't even take it. They're like, hey, how do we get this in a skiff? Hey, can you send me a link? They ask all the silly questions about how they can even ingest our data. And it's been extremely frustrating. We have recognized from the beginning this has to be a public private partnership. This cannot be done by the commercial sector, and clearly it can't be done by the government sector. So it has to be a pairing for authorities with the FCC and FAA to collect the data and run operations to the government. Bringing bespoke tools. There are things that we need in a relationship to proceed and be successful here. And I would offer is extremely frustrating when we see people publicly in public hearings stating they want this data, that they want this information, and then we go to meet with them, we put on a suit and tie and show up at Capitol Hill and we get met with, well, this staffer was interested, so he came, but the other staffer wasn't, so they didn't. We get a lot of back and forth and him hawing and no true actual sit down and discussions, even in an unclassified format to share and help them understand what's unfolding in our country.
- [34:03]
Chris Cuomo
Support comes from Shopify. When I started the podcast, man, it's scary. I'm not entrepreneurial by nature. I started to have ideas of how I wanted to monetize ideas and products and find ways to crowdstrike source contributions, get money together. And I realized once I started to have my own challenges, I looked around at the marketplace of what I was using when I shopped online and more and more I found a familiar coincidence. More and more of the businesses that I chose to use because of the efficiency and kind of the whole sell through process were using Shopify. So. So turn your big business idea into Ka Ching Shopify on your side. Sign up for your $1 a month trial and start selling today at shopify.com Chris C. Go to shopify.com Chris C. What is it? Shopify.com Chris See why? Because it's not just about your business, it's about the business behind your business. And what you need to do is to help people who come to you get all the way through to checkout. And that's where Shopify excels. Okay, so then we have the moment where President Trump comes in, says enough of this no transparency stuff. We are going to tell you what we know. And his lady comes out and says the same shit that Biden's lady said. What does that tell you, James?
- [35:48]
James Fowler
It tells me we have a problem in our bureaucracy that it takes a presidential candidate saying something extreme that apparently probably was not able to live up to. We will see. We have three and a half more years, I think, to find that out. But why does it take the President saying that or trying to make efforts? Why does it take an executive order when we have a bureaucratic process who's mandated to expose to the public what is going on here and that has not occurred. So something is very wrong with our country if that is the case, that we have to rely upon one individual to see through the smoke and mirrors.
- [36:21]
Chris Cuomo
Well, what is the chance, Jake, that the answer is, oh, it's all explainable. They're all just this exploding corporate and consumer and individual drone market. Helicopters and fixed wings and some, some careful editing by folks at home to drive superstition.
- [36:47]
Jake Barber
Yeah, I would say the first answer to that is because it's a public, it's a public safety issue and there are laws being broken. So especially when we get into some of the incursions we experienced. I know New Jersey's gotten a lot of spotlight, but there's, there's been a lot of that going on for years prior to that over military bases that James and I are keenly aware of. And just from, to make it real simple like these craft are not, a lot of the times are not operating in compliance with federal aviation regulations, which, which have to do with the faa, they are not reporting, they are not in, in communication, they're not under the command and control of air traffic control centers. And so collision avoidance, it's a real simple thing. They're the faa and our airspace is very organized and very well managed for good reason. And so, I mean, it's still surprising, I think, to everyone to, to say something like, you know, flying in planes is the safest means of travel. It's scary to people because we're, we're flying. Right. But it's safer than driving your car down the road. And that's because our air very well managed through the faa. So when you, when you have objects or phenomenon, which is a broader category in the air that aren't being reported to pilots that are operating their, sometimes general aviation like civilian owned aircraft, you've got a problem. And not only is there a problem for the, the public which is operating their privately owned aircraft, but if there is a collision now that's a problem for everyone on the ground because gravity takes over now. You have things crashing and causing damage to people and property, which at its core is a, is a public safety issue. And so there are laws being broken. And so when laws get broken in the faa, the FBI should step in and open a case and begin investigations. And we don't see a lot of that happening either, which is very strange.
- [38:54]
Chris Cuomo
Is it strange though? See, that's my point is it can't be that they're spending this much money working with special operators and don't know what's flying over military bases. Can't be. So it has to be one of two things. They know and don't want to say, or they don't know and know how bad that looks. So they don't want to say. It can only be one of those two things.
- [39:22]
James Fowler
So, Chris, if I may on that, if you take the Jersey drone problem, for example, the government, I think is really at a crossroads where if it's red, which is my personal belief, that the majority of sightings in New Jersey have been probably Chinese drones and maybe even Chinese UAPs, right? They, they are operating with impunity in our airspace. And if they are being operated by Chinese military or government officials, most would, most would consider that an act of war. So I think our government is really torn in the fact that if this is red that's operating in our territory, if it is China or Russia or somebody else and they know it and they talk about it publicly, then they have to React otherwise, admit that others are in our airspace and we are not stopping them. Conversely, if it's other, we have the exact same problem. Hey, we cannot protect you. We are not able to alert you or deter this. It's in our airspace. So I would offer that the government's really in a rock and a hard place. If they come out and speak about what's going on publicly, directly, then they are shown to be incapable, and it shows the limits of our capacity to defend ourselves. And I would offer, perhaps the tariffs that are going on aren't just about tariffs and trade. Perhaps we are seeing an escalation, the beginning of a cold war, because our government cannot say this publicly. Perhaps instead they're using policy to deter on the front, while in the back, they're having private conversations explicitly laying out go, no go areas.
- [41:00]
Jake Barber
You know, guys, we, we had a moment last month, or if you, if people were paying attention. I haven't seen many conversations on this, but we had a moment when Zelensky was speaking to Trump and they were letting the cameras roll. Vance was there. It was a very raw moment that was interesting to say the least. But during that conversation, if you notice, there was a point where I saw Trump get most irritated and agitated, and that's when Zelensky was pushing back a little bit and speaking to one of our greatest attributes as a nation, which is simply our geography, like our geography has been a big part of what has kept us safe for forever. And there was a moment because of our oceans and our. And our skies. Those, those two domains are becoming a liability for us. There was a moment there where Zielinski said, you know, well, you're protected by your oceans, but we know that's a problem. Something to the effect that, that that's not. That's going to be a problem for. And you know that you, you're no longer safe when it comes to your oceans and airspace. And Trump got really heated and cut him off and told him to shut up. So that told me that there, there is some insecurity with that that at least Zielinski and probably everyone else is, is aware of. And that might be speaking to some of the things that folks are talking about now. There's an article that came out this week about the Chinese submarines that can release drones from underwater. So there might be really be things going on like that where our leadership is not wanting to. One, not wanting us to know that they don't have a handle on this and they don't want to have mass panic.
- [42:58]
Chris Cuomo
I don't know, James. I have a hard time believing that Trump would be that deep into something like this and not be talking about it. I know people talk about it. It's not about exposing you guys to political analysis. But the idea of he's playing 4D chess or whatever it is, it's not been my experience. My experience is that he is very obvious about what's going on. And if he had something to say about this, I don't think he would be so quiet so long. We've never seen him practice that in anything else.
- [43:31]
James Fowler
Yeah, so that's really hard to say. I'm not inside the administration. I have no insights into what's going on behind closed doors. And everything I have right now is opinions and observations based on the knowledge we have and the conversations we've had. What I can say is the technology we're seeing does not fit anything that is publicly known to exist. And when I say publicly known to exist, I'm talking about propulsion, stealth, cloaking, fuselage technology. Everything we're seeing is impossible to exist with today's current public knowledge of technology. So is disclosure more about disclosing secret physics, like Eric Weinstein says, or is disclosure more about little green men? And I tend to lean on disclosure right now, especially from our government, is probably going to be more about physics. And the reason why is one plausible explanation for why we have been exposed to this technology so that we can expose the fact that the physics supports these capabilities, thus starting a new age in physics publicly and new technology developments in physics leading to an improvement in our current status quo. So perhaps our role here at Skywatcher is, frankly, to observe and report and to begin the reverse engineering of what is being seen. But I would offer, if that is the case, we're going to be 50 years behind any government because that activity had to have started at least in the 50s or 60s, and progressed to what we're seeing now, probably in the 90s, early 2000s. So perhaps that's what's going on, is disclosure is to softly show the world that this technology exists by disclosing to us that the physics behind it exists. Because what we're seeing, as I said, is completely unexplainable, I don't think.
- [45:22]
Jake Barber
You know, Trump did sign an executive order that that led us to the Golden Dome initiative. And near the end of the things, one of the last things they speak to that we're trying to get a handle on with that effort is defense against other next generation attacks. So to me, that speaks to another bucket from their perspective and they're leaving that pretty wide open. And I think that is the Trump administration and everyone that's been put to task since, since he took office is taking this seriously and is admitting that there is another category.
- [46:03]
Chris Cuomo
Listen, I think there has to be another category and it has to be that he has been informed of what the restrictions and barriers are and he has determined that there's just not enough in it for him. And I don't mean that as a criticism, but that. All right, fine, whatever. This is not why I was elected. This is not what I'm into anyway. And they just moved on. And his person, person came out and said, oh yeah, all those things are fixed wing aircraft and other kinds of drones and stuff. And it's exactly what the Biden people said.
- [46:38]
Jake Barber
So he is one guy, the President has to trust everyone below him in the executive and we have to trust everyone else to be doing their job. So I can't imagine for it to be something that we're going to rely on Donald Trump to wake up and think about every day. I can't imagine all the things he has to consider and to give this attention to. For him to be the primary responsible party for dealing with this just doesn't make sense. So I think he's delegating and trusting that everyone else whose job it is to look into this is going to be responsible for it. I think it's more that than it is him keeping secrets.
- [47:20]
Chris Cuomo
I don't think it's him keeping secrets at all. I think that there's just, there's nothing in it for him right now to buck what he's being told. And you know, same thing with the disclosure of the Kennedy stuff and the King stuff and the Epstein stuff is that he's got other people doing it. They are not primary concerns for him. So he doesn't buck the system. But if we were to get hit by a drone, guess what would change all of it. So I wonder if we're just an attack away from this culture of secrecy and non transparency changing because of a horrible situation.
- [48:03]
James Fowler
So, so Chris, I don't think we're one attack away. We're one mishap from an aircraft away from this being exposed. If this is, you know, my which bucket fits into blue, red or other. If a craft crashes and is picked up and is observed and it has Chinese writing on it, that's going to be a big deal. And if it's picked up and it has weird characteristics nobody can explain and fits the other category again, it's going to be a big deal no matter how you cut the cake. We are one mishap away from this being a very public acknowledged and discussed in every home conversation. And so I really hope we're able to get ahead of that. We have told the government when we met with them, look, we want to want a public private partnership. We want to expose you to our technology, we want to expose you to our findings in the immediacy of collecting it. And thus far we've had very limited success in those conversations. And we've told the government, you can either be part of the solution as we unravel this or you can read about it in the newspapers when it happens. And we've invited them and we continue to invite. We have that open invite now that we'd love to work with the government to secure aerospace, understand what is going on and help unravel and expose the red or the other category if that's what needs to happen.
- [49:19]
Chris Cuomo
Support comes from American Financing. I gotta tell you, prices been high, still high, credit card debt all time high and a lot of us are getting trapped here even in America. American Financing can help, especially if you're a homeowner and they can help help you by paying off high interest debt by using the most solid thing in your life, your home's equity. Their mortgage consultants are salary based. What does that mean? There's no incentive for them to upsell you or to put you in a loan that doesn't make sense. Their customers save an average of $800 a month when they call and let American Financing help them. You may be able to close in as fast as 10 days. You may be able to delay up to two mortgage payments if you create more savings up front. They've helped hundreds of thousands of homeowners create meaningful savings and it's reflected in their reviews on Google. Just take a look. So call today 866-8899-2866-8889-4242 or you can go to americanfinancing.net chromo and nmls 182334 www.nmlsconsumeraccess.org do you think that all this reporting that News Nation has been doing has really made any difference? And the reason I ask is, you know, we're doing it because we think there's a responsibility and that government transparency matters and is a very communicable issue and infection in government that if they're not transparent about one thing, they're not going to be transparent. About anything. But when I look at the people who are on the commission, the committee about this, I don't see any real players in Congress. There's none of the leadership. And I feel like they still don't take this seriously, Jake. They see it as like kind of a freak show.
- [51:24]
Jake Barber
I think News Nation has been vitally important. I think you guys would be surprised to learn how many people in government on Capitol Hill are on their phones watching podcasts, watching the news. There's a bit of like, you know, are. They're like closet fans of the subject matter. That has been my experience. There's a lot of conversations, lots of people having beers in and around Capitol Hill having conversations about it. And they are paying attention to this 100% they are. And they're just. It's also. News Nation is, I think, has the same opportunity and responsibility we do at Sky Watcher is we are autonomous. We are free from the constraints of bureaucracy and politics and distraction. And when people, when people don't have the safety and security, you know, for us, this, this goes back to like the risk reward ratio for any whistleblower coming forward or anybody wanting to touch the topic. Unless there is financial protection, legal protection and physical protection. When any of those core things in any situation are threatened for a human being, they're not going to touch it with a 10 foot pole. And it can be one or any combination of those three things. And for us, we're in a unique position now with Sky Watcher where we're financially independent, we feel reasonably physically safe, Men in black haven't showed up. As James has talked about. No one is telling us to stop right now. And then legally, you know, it'd be nice to have more protection, but we do feel, you know, legally covered in what we're doing. And News Nation is the same. And so I think we, our autonomy should not be taken lightly. And so some of the other news platforms don't seem to have the autonomy in those three categories that News Nation and Sky Watcher has.
- [53:24]
James Fowler
Can I add on to that real quick? It's important also to understand that because of our autonomy, we have the best of both worlds. We're able to go sit in a skiff with the government, present them information, findings, get their feedback to a limited degree, and then go out in the field and continue at the same time. We're able to operate with industry, industry experts, scientists, academia, physicists, and have them review what's going on and in real time give us updates on what they think we're seeing. And why it matters. Our hands are not tied and we can operate in these circles in this manner. The, the challenge we have is, you know, this is a very risky, taboo topic, right? This, this was not what I was doing full time until very recently. And even now it's not not full time, it's it. We're growing into it. But before now I inherited nothing but risk by even talking about this. Risk to government contracts, risk to commercial contracts in my businesses, personal risk and angst of am I saying the right things? Am I talking to the right people? Am I doing the right thing? So that's a lot of risk. And I think that corporate entities, other media outlets view the same thing as this is just risk. And with such risk, why should we continue? Well, something is violating our airspace daily, probably year round with impunity. I'd say that's a very big deal. And I think that we have to address it. And I think that trumps any kind of risk to one's personal reputation or corporate entity to understand what that means and quantify the risk to our nation.
- [55:01]
Chris Cuomo
I appreciate you fellows. I am always a call away to help advance understanding and push for transparency. And I appreciate the work you're doing.
- [55:10]
Jake Barber
Michael, nice to see you out there. Nice to see you got a podcast. Now, I think these long form discussions are important and that News Nation is important.
- [55:25]
Chris Cuomo
Look, I don't know why the government isn't telling us all it can, but I know it isn't. And I don't think it's about having a Martian in a room. I think it's about what they believe they need to do as a duty to you and what they believe you don't deserve to know. And I don't accept that. So now you are armed with more information and perspective that should be driving your demand, your insistence for more transparency. That's the issue for me. The high priests of journalism and in politics can laugh it off. You're worried about Martians? No, I'm worried about billions of dollars that go into programs that you feel you don't have to explain. And yet you tell me there's nothing to know. That's bullshit. Thank you very much for subscribing and following here. Thank you for wearing your independence and getting your free agent gear. Thank you for joining my substack. If you don't want the podcast with advertisements and if you want all of the philosophy, long Covid understanding and techniques for you for your own treatment and your own diagnoses and my fitness journey and what works for me and what doesn't. All for just five bucks a month.
- [56:41]
Jake Barber
Cheap, cheap, cheap.
- [56:43]
Chris Cuomo
Please subscribe and I'll see you at News Nation, 8p and 11p every weekday night. Let's get after it.