REAL vs FAKE: Engineer's Guide to UAP Footage

Show Transcript

There's an interesting and important thing to understand here: you actually have no choice but to make it a disc shape. And nobody even knew—even a few years ago, they didn't look for this, so they didn't know to put it in when they were faking a UFO. Does this configuration look familiar to you?

Kind of, kind of. Do you know why? Do you know where from? Tell me, tell me, please. Bob Lazar—Sport model.

Chad, Dave, thank you so much for being here. How are you guys? Good, good. Before we get into your research of your evidence supporting warp drive physics in real-world UAP events, I'd first like to get to know a little bit about the both of you—how you got involved in this topic and your background. Chad, let's start off with you.

Well, I am an experiencer, and I'm also an engineering technologist—mechanical. Um, I figured out—I discovered by shock that I was having experiences about 19 or 20 years old. And then, um, about 10 years ago I started going to MUFON conferences, and Kathleen Martin, who was the leader of the Experiencer Research Team at the time, um, after getting to know her for two conferences in a row, she convinced me to join MUFON. And so I was working with them, volunteering with them for quite some time, and then I started writing a book which expanded and turned into two books. And uh, so I've been on a leave of absence for the last couple years writing these books.

And Dave, what about yourself? Well, I'm also an engineer of sorts. I'm an electronic and electrical senior engineer and technologist. And uh, I met Chad about—well, like you said, when he started hooking up to MUFON, because I was also in MUFON Canada. I've been in MUFON Canada for 15 years. I'm the National Director Emeritus—I ran it for four years during COVID, that was pretty tough. And so I met Chad when he joined and got to know him very well. In fact, on our MUFON team, I appointed him as our Experiencer Research Team Manager because he had great rapport with people who were trying to report their experiences. So we teamed up on a number of issues, one is a software program that we're developing, but more so we're just so fascinated by UAPs and what we can discover. And I travel the world—it's called the Center for the Scientific Study of Atmospheric Anomalies, or CSSAA for short.

And it was Chad one day called me up and said, "I think I see something funny behind a UAP in a video." And sure enough, for the first time ever I froze the video and started looking and I said, "Chad, you're absolutely right—figure out what it is." And he went off and went way into it uh, with me encouraging him and helping him do some of the research and stuff, but basically Chad is the one who came up with the actual final response. And that's why we published the book. And uh, so that's—so we've known each other for more than 10 years.

With all the things that you've mentioned, all the things that you are already alluding to, I have a lot of questions as you can probably guess. But I'm aware that you prepared a presentation that I think might answer a lot of my questions, so I'm ready when you are. On this, go for it, Chad.

So to start out with, um, uh, we had watched a video—it was the UAP over Colombia. It was a Saturn-shaped craft, and we noticed the background clouds were moving, and that's when we realized there was gravitational lensing going on. But I started writing a document for the MUFON Journal, and I wanted to be able to properly display what the spatial warp would look like so I could show how light would be bending as it went through this spatial warp.

Now this is the Alcubierre shape function. Uh, I didn't write this—this is his formula. Basically what it works out to is: the formula on the left, you put in a point in space uh, from some distance from the center of a warp drive, and it'll tell you how much that point in space will be pulled either towards the center of the warp drive or pushed away from the center of the warp drive.

So what you see here essentially is a disconnected two-hemisphere. You can see that along the horizontal, the lines don't line up properly and it's creating two downward-pointing V's. And um, there's a slight problem in here and I'll show you what we did to fix it in a second here. And uh, there's the disconnect. And so a really good example I heard once that explains what gravity is and how it functions is: imagine taking a block of wood, drilling two holes through it, uh, threading some string through it, and then tying it to a doorknob. Now the block of wood represents you, the doorknob represents a mass in space like the Earth. You take the string that's closer to you and you pull it apart, and that'll actually force the block of wood away from you and towards the doorknob. So basically gravity is the spatial warp in the same manner—acts like a lever effect on every molecule simultaneously in your body, forcing you down towards the ground.

If I had to come up with an elastic shape function—because space is elastic, it's going to bend back towards from the larger expansion below a UAP, and then it's going to contract or come back around to the contraction above the UAP. And so you need an upward-pointing V-shape to create that gravitational acceleration which will counteract Earth's gravity. In this case, this is what a UAP would look like if it was just hovering in place, hovering in the sky and not moving.

There's an interesting and important thing to understand here. Um, this is a round shape, and so when you're trying to maximize the internal storage of a vehicle using an Alcubierre warp drive, um, you actually have no choice but to make it a disc shape. Yeah, you could make it a triangle or you could make it a Tic Tac, but you won't maximize your internal space. If you're doing scientific exploration and you want to pack as many people, as many instruments in, and all that stuff, you're going to maximize your space and make it a round disc. So with that being said, it is absolutely no accident that the vast majority of medium-sized UAP that people have seen over the last 70-odd years happen to be disc-shaped craft.

We didn't just put dots on a page. The mathematical formulas created a scatter plot diagram, so these dots you see that come up with the actual answer are based on Alcubierre's formulas and Chad's interpretation of the exact output of that formula. So these are not things that we've made up, okay? So if you plot space-time and space compression and other factors, you basically get this graph that proves what we're about to continue to prove to you right now.

So this is a slide I found online, and what it shows here is the Earth is on the right side. There's a galaxy in the center of the screen, and on the left is another type of galaxy called a quasar. The galaxy's warping space, and as light is coming up passing it, it gets bent like a giant lens, and then it converges back down towards the Earth. Um, this is what gravitational lensing is, and when you look through it, you're seeing the center of the quasar in four different locations.

Putting that into perspective of how would that work with a UAP, so I've taken the same type of um, orange lines that represent the spatial warp, and I've showed it around a small UAP that's between a camera in the sky and a building on the ground. So there's contracted space above and there's expanded space below, and you can see the dotted or the dashed lines show how the light is being bent upwards towards the camera—the vantage point. On the left in image A, you're seeing what that building would look like to the camera, and you can see how the roof line is actually bent both above and below the UAP. On the right is a simulation of a black hole. It's a much stronger gravitational lensing effect, but it shows essentially what's going on as something that is bending space as it travels in front of something else. That background object is going to be warped and give a visual signature that there's a spatial warp happening around it.

So those are what we call Einstein rings, so that is based on Einstein's theories. So here we have three rows of images. So the top row, row A, is still images from the FOIA-released Aguadilla UAP video. Row B, the center one, is a computer-enhanced video uh, where they've removed noise. And then row C is a diagram showing how the light would bend in each of those cases.

So the right-hand image is where it's about to pass over top of a line, then in the middle it's passing over top of the line, and then the left one is where it's just about past the line. And this is a painted line on the tarmac of the airport. You can see in both the original and the computer-enhanced that the background line is being disrupted and disturbed as the UAP is passing in front.

I have a question just for a moment because Dave spoke about the Einstein rings in a previous image that you shared. How does the gravitational lensing around UAPs differ from the Einstein rings we observe in astronomical phenomena?

Same theory, different scales. Uh, it'll be very close. It won't be as strong of a bend—it'll be more subtle. Um, and then it'll be an object like the black hole—the bend is symmetric around it, where in the UAP the bend is going to be different below versus above because there's a contraction versus an expansion.

So this one is another set of still images from the Aguadilla, and this time it's actually passing in front of a roof line of a building north of the airport. Now you can see here on the right-hand side, it's about to—yeah, right-hand side, it's just starting its pass in front of a linear feature. The middle one is it's halfway passing the linear feature on the roof, and then the left-hand side is just past that linear feature. So the top row is the FOIA-released images. Um, the second row is I've enhanced the contrast of the FOIA images, and then the bottom one is a computer-enhanced image.

And so you can see as it's passing from right to left, there's this—hoping you can see my mouse—but there's this line here where it actually dips down. The roof line is actually being bent down like that black hole in a simulation. And um, if this was an ordinary balloon, um, it would not be able to bend light around it like what you're seeing here.

How come you're seeing the bend in only a few of the images and maybe not all of them?

When the object is sitting or kind of on top of that line, so what's going on is as it's just passing this line, the line is slightly bending. And then as it gets a little bit more in front of that line, the feature becomes more bent. And then when it gets to here, the line doesn't bend anymore because it's going straight through the middle of the spatial warp.

So then do you think it would be a reliable signature to identify authentic UAP footage?

If you think of it having a warp bubble or a circle of influence around the craft, you're going to affect the bottom and you're going to affect any lines behind the top. But as you hit the center, you're basically blocking the view and light is not reflecting off that object to your eye or your camera. So you get a lot more when—the bottom and not as much when it's lower for the top. But we actually have the videos and stuff, and we explain it a lot better in the book with a lot of pictures. But you know, it depends on how far away you are from the background and how much light is reflecting off the background towards your eye or the camera. In this case, your eye is the camera. Um, so it's all based on reflected light, and of course we're bending light. And you know, we can't bend light unless you go through a time dilation or a space bubble—we'll just call it a space bubble for now.

I've done a lot of CGI myself professionally, and I've taken two different courses on CGI. Uh, CGI uses what is called light ray or ray tracing, so it simulates the path of light. If you want to get light to bend like this in a computer CGI, you have to intentionally put in what is called a helper object—in this case it would be a lens object behind the UAP in your CGI world to try and make the light bend. But you'd have to know the Einstein theory of spatial gravitational lensing and the Alcubierre theory and combine them together to know exactly how to make sure the light passes through and matches up with the theories.

Now there is some literature on the internet, um, but it's not well known and it's not something easily found. So we're not the first to say UAPs will create gravitational lensing. I believe Kenneth Knuth was the first one in a presentation in 2021 to show this very gravitational lensing in the Aguadilla UAP video. But I believe it was 2001 the first time someone ever actually wrote down that they think—and published a paper saying they think UAPs may be bending light or might bend light.

So to go a little further, we're going to show you some historical pictures that showed the same thing before computers, before CGI graphics. And nobody even knew—even a few years ago, they didn't look for this, so they didn't know to put it in when they were faking a UFO. So I have seen thousands of cases through MUFON Canada and others, and I can tell right away if they're fake or not. So your answer to your question is: is this proof that it's a real UFO or UAP? The answer is yes. This is a very distinctive signature.

All right, so the next one actually is we wanted to go over how um, several skeptics have said that the Aguadilla might be a balloon or might be a sky lantern. Well, when you look at it—yeah, when you look at it and you think, well, it could look like a balloon. But if you don't know what a balloon looks like to an IR camera, you won't have any idea.

Image A is a latex balloon circled in red and a Mylar balloon circled in blue. B and C, you can see the red circled latex balloon is almost perfectly transparent—it looks like a soap bubble. And that's with the camera only feet away from it. At a distance, you wouldn't even be able to see a latex balloon. Now the other one circled in blue and then again on the right in D and E is a Mylar balloon, which actually turns out to be a perfect mirror—a perfect near-circular mirror for IR light and the way that an IR camera would see it.

If looking from above as is the case with the Aguadilla, D shows what visible light of this happy birthday Mylar balloon, but E, the bottom right, shows it's reflecting the cold sky from above. If that Aguadilla video was of a Mylar balloon, it would have been a perfect white object and not a dark black object. It's the opposite color of what a Mylar balloon should look like.

Next image is two screen captures from a video created by Dave Falch. He's another IR camera specialist—that's all he's been doing professionally for the government for his entire career. He had someone in a helicopter fly over a residential area and he released a latex balloon. And you can't see it unless he points it out, which you can see in image B in the lower left as it's passing in front of a car that is white. There's no way that the Aguadilla could have been either a latex balloon or a Mylar balloon because either you wouldn't have been able to see it at that distance or it's the wrong color.

A sky lantern, which Dave Falch also filmed with an IR camera—this is the only image I could find of what a sky lantern looks like through an IR lens. Now it's dark black just like the Aguadilla, so I could see some skeptics going, "Okay great, it's a sky lantern." But there's a hitch in the video. What we identified—and I've blown it up here—is as the UAP passes in front of dark background objects, there's this really bright white formation above the UAP. And lower right C, I have done a color change to emphasize what we're seeing. Red is hot—being black—and white is now shown as blue being cold. So there's a very cold object shown above every time it passes in front of something that's darker, which means that a sky lantern cannot produce a cold object around itself. So whatever the UAP was, it was not a sky lantern, which means that when the skeptics including AARO went and stated that we think it's a balloon or a sky lantern in parallax, um, that was their best guess, but it's not a balloon and it's not a sky lantern because all three cases do not match what was captured in the video.

When Kosloski gave that explanation just a few months ago, I know it went under a lot of people's skin trying to explain away the Aguadilla incident as parallax and providing almost no data to back that up. When you guys saw that presentation and the paperwork that came out for it, what was going through your minds during that time, knowing what you know now and what you're presenting to us here today?

That's a very good question. We had published a two-part paper on gravitational lensing specifically about the Aguadilla video in the MUFON Journal, and that was two parts—was July and August. And then we started hearing in September rumors on—AARO was looking into the Aguadilla and that it might be parallax. And I'm thinking, oh yeah, we triggered them. And so when it came out in November, I'm like, I think our article got under their skin and they reacted to it and they said, "Quick, we've got to explain this away." That was my thinking. That was my reaction.

And I had a very simple, very fast thought that came through my head the minute I listened to that. It was swamp gas and weather balloons to—today, drones, right? It was so pat of an answer. And you're right, Christina—no evidence whatsoever, no justification. And he was like, "Do your presentation and that's it, we're all out of here." There was no questions, there was no nothing. There was nobody else in the room. So swamp gas and weather balloons.

So the last part to that I'll say is, um, what I noticed was he didn't do it under oath. There was no swearing of an oath, so he was free to misrepresent if he so chose, which brings up the next slide.

I believe what they did was at very best confirmation biased. Um, and basically this is a nice description from Britannica, but the part I'd like to highlight here is: people are especially likely to process information to support their own beliefs when an issue is highly important or self-relevant. Um, people will ignore things that are uncomfortable for them and ignore evidence, and their bias overrides the facts.

I was asked recently about confirmation bias and could I be suffering from confirmation bias. And so I did a little study. I asked ChatGPT to do a review of all the published data on UAP for both skeptics and researchers and trying to determine if either side is suffering from confirmation bias. And the answer was affirmative—yes. I asked it to compare skeptics versus researchers, and both sides unfortunately do fall for bias. It seems that the skeptics—the real hardcore, very public ones—it's either it's there, period and story, every single case. In the case of the UAP researchers, um, some of us do get overly enthusiastic about our pet discoveries and cling on to them far too long when evidence comes up to prove otherwise. So both sides suffer from bias unfortunately, but we need to be able to learn how to put that aside and evaluate using proper scientific evaluation methodologies.

Well, do you have any advice on ways to combat confirmation bias for both believers and skeptics from your own personal experiences and your own research?

Yeah, I do. Um, when I first started doing this research on gravitational lensing, I discovered a video. Um, it was supposedly taken from the cockpit of a fighter jet, and it showed a UAP flying by, and there was some things going on around the object. And it turned out—um, and I'd done a presentation on it, and I was pretty convinced it was gravitational lensing—but I finally was able to track down the original source of the footage, which was all over YouTube, and it was put up on TikTok by a guy who does videos from Flight Simulator. And it turned out it was an add-on to a Flight Simulator package, and that's what it was. And I'm like, "Okay, this is not a UAP. This is a flight simulator modified for the fun of it." And someone put it up and right in his thing said that this was taken from Flight Simulator. But others were like, "Oh no, this can't be Flight Simulator, it's too real looking." And it's splattered all over YouTube now. And I'll admit I fell for it for a couple of months, but when I found the original and confirmed that it was CGI—or I wouldn't call it CGI, I would call it a flight gaming engine thing—um, there was one thing I did discover through my work with this is if you run your imagery through a gaming engine, the gaming engines don't use ray tracing. They use a just-in-time rendering which can distort background objects. So unfortunately there is a possibility that if it's run through one of these game renders, an object will look like it's distorting background objects.

So going on to the next slide, um, I wanted to highlight this very cold object that was above the Aguadilla UAP, and it's what we call a vapor cone. Now I've blown it up here to show it, but A, B, and C on the left are almost frame by frame. I believe there's a few frames between each one of these to show that that white object is deforming over time as it's moving along. And this white cloud can be either to the left of, directly above, or to the right of the UAP. It all depends on the speed of the UAP, any wind, um, and the angle of the camera as well.

So what is this vapor cloud and how is it forming? So with the Alcubierre formula, space above the craft and slightly left in this case—so it's counteracting Earth gravity and a slight angle to create a forward motion—that contraction above the UAP is creating a compressed bit of space. But as it's moving through the air, there's a pocket of air there. The way I'll describe it is: as one cubic foot of air suddenly finds itself inside a compressed space, that compressed space actually is relative—it's maybe 10 cubic feet of space. So that air is suddenly finding itself in a much larger pocket of space, and it's going to expand, and it's going to expand very rapidly. When that happens, it's something called adiabatic cooling. And so this adiabatic cooling is how our air conditioners work. Jet aircraft also have a vapor cone, and they create a shock wave, and that shock wave is a decompressed zone which also causes the adiabatic cooling effect. And so if there's enough vapor in the air and the temperature drop is high enough, that vapor will condense into droplets and form a temporary visible cone. In the case of a jet aircraft, it's going to be on the back end of the aircraft as it's traveling between 0.8 and 1.2 Mach. In the case of a UAP, um, I've noted it's at speeds as low as 100 miles an hour, and another video which you'll see shortly that is a much higher speed.

And then Sky Watcher, when they put out their second video—Mr. Barber's group—um, they identified and put some images in their second video identifying there appears to be some kind of cloud or vapor around it.

We were talking earlier about gravitational lensing causing the distortion of what a UAP would look like. So Rex Heflin took some photos—I believe it was 1968. He took four photographs. You can see in a blowup that the UAP is slightly blurred—or sorry, C is slightly blurred—but lower left B, there's a double overlap and I'll talk about that in a sec. And then D on the right shows a smoke ring that was left behind as it rapidly departed. So we don't know where exactly it went. Um, it might even be—there's a little dot here in the corner, left-hand corner, that might even be it as it's rapidly departing. Theoretically, we believe this smoke ring was actually a vapor cone left behind as it rapidly departed.

While we're actually talking about this, because Rex took some fantastic photos—maybe some of the best during that time—but over the decades we have seen different photographs of different shaped craft. Do you think these UAP shapes like discs and triangles and spheres and all the other ones—do you think they suggest varied propulsion mechanisms, or are they just different applications of the same fundamental technology?

Different applications of the same fundamental technology. So for example, the Tic Tac—you'd have two warp drives instead of one. In the case of a triangle, you'd have three or more. In the case of a boomerang, you might have five or more. And so you can actually create these different shapes. It's like helicopter craft that we manufacture. The smaller helicopters have a single blade above and a small tail rotor. But when you get into the large helicopters that are transporting cargo or large numbers of people, they've got two helicopter blades and they're much longer and they're more cylindrical in shape. So size dictates function dictates the number of warp nacelles you have in it.

This was posted on TikTok. Um, there's no name to this particular video, um, but it shows a large disc approaching an aircraft, then disappears very rapidly. So I've gone and stabilized it. It lasts 10, 11 seconds. Left is stabilized, left original is right. What I noticed when I broke it down is the craft is actually moving slightly left and right, and it's also slightly dipping up and down as it's moving. There's a few very clear instances of background spatial warping—background gravitational lensing happening here. The spatial deformation is much less above than it is below. And then right here it's really interesting—watch this little piece here. Right there, that thing bends and moves quite a bit. And then there's another one here.

I've moved forward, so uh, there's the link for everybody—they can see the full five-minute video. Um, that's how long it took to do this full examination. This is a manual stabilization that I did to show just what's going on with the background objects as the UAP is passing in front of these particular objects. You can see on the right over here there's some changing here, and then as well in the lower left.

Now as it's—and this is another example where it's passing in front of a background feature, and you can see the background feature becoming momentarily blurred as it passes in front. And this one is the most interesting part as it rapidly departs. You can see there's this white cloud in the last two frames forming in front of it as it leaves. So what is that white cloud?

On the left is I took my original Excel spreadsheet spatial deformation and I applied a compression algorithm to it to color code it to show parts of the space where there's expansion up to two and a half times and contraction down to less than 1%. And so this pink and magenta coloration of the highest point of spatial contraction in front of the UAP, assuming it's traveling horizontally—you can see that same shape. It's a one-to-one correlation.

Let's suppose that someone did create this as a CGI and they knew they had to warp the background, or they used a video game render which accidentally warped the background. The difference here is this vapor cloud forming in front of the UAP as it disappeared. It's not a lens flare because you can see the lens flares on the left and right of this object. This is not touching it. It's in front of it as it's rapidly departing. Nobody knew until the publication of my book that they were supposed to add in a white cloud in front of it just as it rapidly retreats away from the aircraft.

That's really interesting. Have you seen similar anomalies with other UFO videos—a little cloud showing up?

We've seen it in three: the Aguadilla, the Sky Watcher, and this one. And I'm going over thousands and thousands—tens of thousands of hours of video that we've shot around the world of UAPs when we were out doing skywatches to see if we missed this little thing. Because we didn't know to look for it, and we have some UAPs that literally disappeared just like this one right in front of our eyes. And we've caught quite a few of them on video. So we have thousands of hours to go through. Um, we got to pull out the archives, and that's the other reason I've asked Chad to join us in our group CSSAA. And we can talk more about that later if we have time. But anyways, we're going to start reviewing all these, and then we're going to be putting them up on our website. It's not up yet, but cssaa.org will be up, and we're going to start sharing this all publicly. Um, and we've got people around the world who are also being contributing their UAP videos that they've shot.

There's quite a lot of people who go out and do sky watching, but there's only a few that have incredible instruments and capability of actually capturing these things. We have all that, and it's unbelievable how much we travel. When we go on an airplane to go somewhere, we are probably taking 300 pounds of equipment. Gets costly because we got to put it all in baggage.

I think we've spent over a quarter of a million dollars now on our equipment, and it hasn't stopped. Because I've got so much behind me—these are more detection and recording devices as opposed to video or photographic only. We've now expanded the entire realm. So when CSSAA travels, uh, we have infrared, near-infrared, ultraviolet, full spectrum, visible light, night vision, just to name a few. We also have some other video systems that I'm not going to get into that right now. Some of them are specially designed by me using security systems, security cameras. So we're expanding the video site, and we're expanding now the detection system all the way to the point where now I'm making a passive radar to detect UAPs. So there's so much going on over the next year or two—uh, this website is going to be filled with all the proof you could ask for.

Okay, yeah. This is your classic flying saucer, and I'm about to go over taking Alcubierre's formulas and progressing it to the next natural step. Um, what I did is I took a standard 30-foot diameter warp drive shown as a red ring, and I placed a smaller warp ring inside it, showing it as orange and blue—orange being that this one is turned on and blue as it's turned off. And what I discovered was that they add up. And so what you see here is, um, on the lower left you can see that the spatial warp is bulging and larger than it is on the right. So if you have three smaller warp rings inside the larger warp drive, you can create an asymmetric shape to your warp drive, which allows you to then have flight control capabilities. So if you turn the orange one on, your craft will tilt slightly to the right. And then if you turn the larger ring on at the same time, now you can get a gravitational acceleration that moves you counter to Earth gravity but also slightly forward. And that's why it's tilted.

Going to the next set of photos: the Trent photo, which is McMinnville—Paul Trent photographed this disc with a protrusion above in 1950. And then Rouen and a pilot took a photo of a similar shaped make/model disc, also tilted. And what I've done is I've taken that Excel spreadsheet overlay and I've placed it on top of both photographs. And now you can see why these craft were tilted—because they need to be tilted just like a helicopter needs to be tilted in flight.

And then this one is the Trent photos. So there's four really good photographs, and I've blown them up and zoomed them in. And the first two photos as it was traveling from right to left, I believe which was west, you can see the same overlay shows the same asymmetric warp causing the craft to bulge more on the left and be more contracted on the right.

So again, these three photographers didn't know about Alcubierre's warp drive theory, didn't know what we were going to come up with with this nested warp nacelle flight control theory. And the simplest explanation is all three photographers took photos of real discs actually using Alcubierre warp drive systems. They could not have known they needed to tilt them. They did not know they needed to make them asymmetric in shape. Um, they didn't know any of that.

Yeah, and if the Trent daddy was faked, um, he would have built a symmetrical disc-shaped object and it would not have shown up as warped in the first two photos. And the Trindade one is actually a really interesting case because it was photographed from a Brazilian Navy vessel—48, I believe it was 48 people on board all saw the craft. They all saw it fly over the island and come back, and then a two-year investigation was done by the Brazilian Navy, and then the president of Brazil released it to the public. It was very clearly a real incident. If the photographer tried to fake these photos, then how did he get an entire Navy vessel to collaborate with him?

And over the last few decades, we're getting a lot more blurry photos, a lot more hazy photos. Do you think that has to do with the exotic propulsion and the cameras not being able to capture it properly? What do you think is the theory behind that?

I think it has everything to do with the propulsion system. Um, I like the saying that the UFO photos are too blurry to be usable, or if they're too crisp they're obvious fakes. And I think the reality is if they're crisp they're fakes. If they're blurry, they're real. Because the Alcubierre system, especially if you're oscillating it for flight safety reasons, it's going to be blurred.

Well then how does that apply to the video that you just showed and then going into detail and zooming it in? That looked very crisp. So how would you explain that?

It did because it was high enough that it didn't need to oscillate the system. When you're low to the ground, you want to oscillate it so that you don't fly into the ground. But when you're high up, you don't need to oscillate it. So you turn the oscillating off.

That's an interesting point to make. Keep in mind too, guys, we're looking down at it, okay? And the warp repulsion and the distortions caused by the warp bubble are mainly underneath it. Yeah, that's true too. So that's why for once we got a clear video. So all of the videos, we're looking up at them, right? That one, we were looking down. Changes everything.

Yeah, and that warp bubble underneath it was severely affecting the background objects as it passed in front. When I first saw that, Christina, I said, "Oh, another fake, it's too crisp." You know—blurry it's real, crisp it's fake—until we started looking at it again, and it fit the pattern of being a real UAP based on what we have put out in this book that Chad did all this incredible mathematical research and stuff.

Now we keep calling it the Alcubierre warp drive because we don't know what else to call it. You could call it an alien warp drive. We just like the fact that we've proven Dr. Miguel Alcubierre to be correct in the theory of warp drive, and this proves it. And we can't build a warp drive, as you know—we don't have the energy required to do the actual machine at this point. And I'm saying at this point. So we haven't got it yet.

In 2021, Dr. Harold "Sonny" White published a paper. He was working on the Casimir effect, and he built a configuration that he thought might be effective, and he accidentally discovered a micro-warp bubble about four micrometers in size. So we're talking smaller than a human hair. So on the left-hand side is the Alcubierre theoretical metric, in the middle is the metric recorded by Dr. White in his paper, and on the right-hand side is an image. This basically represents the 3D printed setup he had created to try and take effect of the Casimir effect. And then at the end of the paper he proposed the next step would be to take several of these micro-warp nacelles and place them in a row to see if it would increase the size of the warp bubble.

The theory is you can generate power from the Casimir effect, and we believe what's going on is the Casimir effect is generating that power that is required to create the micro warp bubble. We can't scale it up, um, so we have to create a nesting effect. And this works on the micro level and at the macro level. I've replaced the original image with large rings with micro warp bubbles nested in a cone shape to create large, usable warp nacelles.

So you're going to have a daisy-chained center column—this is your main warp nacelle system—and then you're going to have three or more secondary warp nacelles that you're going to use for flight control reasons. And they're placed inside a gimbal which you can turn horizontally.

Does this configuration look familiar to you? Kind of, kind of. Do you know why? Do you know where from? Tell me, tell me, please. Bob Lazar. Sport model. Exactly.

He didn't know about the warp drives and claimed they were anti-gravity propulsion units. Same theory, same idea. Difference is he called this a waveguide and these were gravitational amplifiers. They're all gravitational amplifiers, and you just turn the lower ones on and off or up and down as you need to to affect your flight control capabilities. And because it's a cone shape, the lower ones amplify the cone or the warp bubble from the upper one, which then encompasses the entire craft. Very cool.

Bob's description is theoretically possible according to the Alcubierre theory taken to the next logical level. And the Alcubierre equation and the Alcubierre drive and the conversation about it didn't come out until the late '90s. I mean, it was way after Bob Lazar. He published '96, wasn't it?

Yeah, no, he published what—1996. And Bob Lazar was early '80s.

'89, late... yeah, '89. So Alcubierre came out I believe '96. Six years. Wow. Yep, it's impressive.

Yeah, no, I feel really good about this. I feel really like—um, it was actually Bob Lazar's description that gave me the impetus to insert a small warp nacelle inside a large warp nacelle and see what would happen. If I had not seen what he had done, I might not have done that.

Chad, Dave, thank you so much for being on the show today. I feel like we covered so much in a short period of time, and yet it simply wasn't enough. If you want to continue learning about their research and the things that they covered, you can read it in their book "Hidden in Plain Sight." I will place that link in the description box below for you because it is a very interesting read. And what's very special about this particular book is the amount of detail these authors go into and tell you how they got that answer. They're not a Kosloski, okay? They don't say just take my word for it. They provide all the data, they provide the photographic evidence as well, and there's even links. Because it's not—it's more of like a scientific paper than like a nice little novel to cozy up to in bed, right? It's definitely requires some good brain power when you're really, really thirsty for knowledge on this information.

Where can people find you online? Where can they buy your book before we end today's show, Chad?

Yeah, Chad, you can say that. But you just mentioned something—we actually produced this whole thing as a scientific paper to get it published. We don't have PhDs, so it wouldn't be published. So we wrote the book. So yes, you are—it's more like a science paper. It actually was peer-reviewed. Um, the first—the first MUFON Journal, peer-reviewed by five scientists. And then we tried to put it through a MUFON Journal—not sorry, another UFO journal—and it was peer-reviewed by two PhD scientists. They approved it, but because we're not PhDs—we're engineers—and we wrote it like an engineering document, they could tell and they said we can't publish this because they're not PhDs.

Tell them about your new website Chad, and cssaa.org will be up later this year. But tell them about the other one you've put up now.

Yeah, my other one is trueexperiences.ca. Um, on that you'll see the links to my, uh, this book and my future book for September—or not September—for summer. And um, and a blog that I've started as well called "Warped Realities." And that link will also be in the description box below.

Guys, thank you!

If you enjoy the strange and the mysterious—UFOs, the paranormal, and cryptids—this channel is for you. So make sure to subscribe as I do three videos right here every single week, and hit that notification bell so you do not miss any of the bonus content I post right here.