Interview with Robert Powell: SCU, UAP science and public evidence standards
Director of Scientific Coalitio for UAP Studies
Interview on 6/2/26 (transcribed by ai):
RM McLaren: Hey, Robert, how’s it going?
Robert Powell: Hi, how are you doing?
RM McLaren: Good. I’m grateful to talk to you. Let me just do you mind if I start recording?
Robert Powell: Sure, go ahead.
RM McLaren: Okay. Okay.
Robert Powell: And we’re not doing a broadcast, right? This is just for…
RM McLaren: It’s not live, but what I would like to do is post it to my new YouTube channel, just so that I can also link to the article, and anybody can watch it and see the transcript if they want to.
Robert Powell: All right, that sounds fine.
RM McLaren: All right, thank you. so… I know you run the SCU, the Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies. I read your bio a little bit, but if you’d do me and all of us a favor and give us a little background about yourself and how you got to this topic, I’d appreciate it.
Robert Powell: Okay, sure. Yeah, I got involved in the topic back in 2006. I had retired early, and so I made this list of things I wanted to do, and one of them was to. revisit the UFO subject based on my… when I read Alan Heineck’s book, The UFO Experience, back, gosh, when I was a teenager.
RM McLaren: Okay.
Robert Powell: And so I did that. And so I joined MUFON to kind of figure out, OK, what’s going on? And, … after about 2 years, it didn’t take long, you know, I came to the realization there’s really something to this, and it deserves a scientific investigation.
RM McLaren: Mm-hmm.
Robert Powell: And, … So that’s what got me started. MUFON itself, I just didn’t feel like there was enough science involved in it. And so that’s why I created the, myself and several other individuals who created the SCU, Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies in 2017.
RM McLaren: Mm-hmm.
Robert Powell: And it’s grown since then until today where there are about 420 members.
RM McLaren: Amazing.
Robert Powell: Probably 32% of them roughly have PhDs. When you count master’s degrees, it’s up around 58%.
RM McLaren: Wow.
Robert Powell: The most common degree is engineering.
RM McLaren: Mmhm.
Robert Powell: Followed by astronomy, physics. so it’s, … you know, a lot of people with scientific backgrounds in SCUs, and that’s very different.
RM McLaren: Stupid.
Robert Powell: from 20 years ago. Because 20 years ago. You just couldn’t have gotten people. with academic and science backgrounds, you’ve probably heard of what they call the invisible college that Heine created, right? That’s the way it was back then. So things have really changed a lot since then.
RM McLaren: Right. Yeah. Right, yeah. Mm-hmm. Yeah, so that… that’s a perfect segue, … you… so what we’re going to talk about today is disclosure in general. I want to get your opinion on the evidence, and a question that I have is if it’s speeding up, because there’s a lot of news recently. And then I’d love to talk about Hynek. and Neil deGrasse Tyson recently wrote a very skeptical book, that seems to repeatedly make the argument that there’s no scientific evidence that any… no science… no public. available scientific evidence that any UAP could be interpreted as non-human intelligent artifacts or uses the word alien a lot. So I would ask, are you qualified and is your group of researchers qualified to assess the evidence? And then, yeah, that’s a good starting point.
Robert Powell: Yeah, so your question is, do you want me to come in on Tyson or about you want me to come in on. Our ability to assess the evidence or?
RM McLaren: Yeah, we can jump into Tyson’s book in a bit. But yeah, first, are you and are the members of the SEU qualified to assess the evidence?
Robert Powell: Oh, yeah. Absolutely. I mean, SU, we have a lot of university professors. You know, people with their PhDs in astrophysics, physics, astronomy.
RM McLaren: Mm-hmm. Yeah.
Robert Powell: So any evidence that’s available. We have individuals, you know, capable of assessing. Now, you know, different individuals within SCU have different views of the subject, right? Some may feel that.
RM McLaren: Mm-hmm.
Robert Powell: There’s not sufficient evidence yet. Dude. you know, for example, draw the conclusion that we have some type of intelligence beyond human intelligence that sometimes operates in our atmosphere, right? You may find some people within SCU would say, no, I’m not there yet. And then there’s other people within SCU, other scientists who will say.
RM McLaren: Mm-hmm.
Robert Powell: I am there, right? So it’s going to vary within the organization.
RM McLaren: Absolutely.
Robert Powell: But as we use our policy is that we’re going to scientifically investigate the subject matter, right? And different people have different. It takes different levels of scientific evidence to convince them.
RM McLaren: Okay. … and so I’ll just double back real quick while it’s still fresh. You read the book when you were a teenager, and you mentioned that for 20 years it sounds like you’re suggesting there was a stigma where well valet says that in in the book, the Invisible College, that scientists had to work in private because there was a stigma. That made it difficult for academics and researchers to hold any sort of public interest in UAP. So was it… I guess, what was it like to read the book as a teenager and then have a career in research? being curious about UAP and possibly extraterrestrials.
Robert Powell: Well, so for me, right, and just growing up, I was always curious about everything, not just that, but, and that’s why I got into the semiconductor industry, because that was like state of the art, you know, at the time, so it was great.
RM McLaren: Hmm. No.
Robert Powell: I never felt stigma about wanting to study the UFO subject, right? For me. after I’d read Hynek’s book, it was more of a question of, right, you finish your education, you get married, you have your children, you know, life grabs you, and… that’s what you spend your time on. Once I retired early, then that’s when I engaged with the UFO subject. That was in 2006.
RM McLaren: Hmm.
Robert Powell: So, … for myself personally, the stigma’s never been an issue, but I know it’s an issue for some people, right? Especially an academic that’s at a university.
RM McLaren: Right. John Mack sure got a lot of difficulty up. And I just asked Avi Loeb. He said he didn’t quite have the same troubles.
Robert Powell: Yeah. Right.
RM McLaren: I’m sure he’s grateful about that. so you just mentioned you worked in semiconductors, and we talked about ballet. I read in, I think it was the Invisible College recently, he felt like Colonel Corso was a credible witness. in a lot of ways, but the claim that, semiconductors were reverse engineered from a Roswell crashed vehicle was, unlikely.
Robert Powell: No, that’s that’s totally untrue. Yeah. I mean, I I was involved in semiconductors from very early on.
RM McLaren: Mmhm.
Robert Powell: from… I know this is… information probably doesn’t make sense to your audience, right? But a 9 micron… transistors to when I left the industry, they’re sub-micron, right? I mean, and that was careful work.
RM McLaren: Yeah, the long way.
Robert Powell: years after years of people, you know, slowly improving the process. So it’s not something that we got from anywhere else.
RM McLaren: Yeah, it seems to be, … Well documented that the transistor was already in production or basically discovered before Roswell.
Robert Powell: Right. And I can, I can say fairly confidently having reverse engineered. competitors’ products, right?
RM McLaren: Mm-hmm.
Robert Powell: that… If we ever did have a craft from another advanced civilization.
RM McLaren: Yeah.
Robert Powell: The odds of us being able to reverse. engineered are between zero and nil.
RM McLaren: Yeah, I I that’s sounds reasonable. Okay? So then, you said that within Su, some scientists there. It sounds like you’re all curious about the question, but some don’t think that there’s enough evidence to conclude that some. non-human intelligent craft are in our atmosphere, and other members do. what’s your position on that question?
Robert Powell: Well, I mean, I’ve studied for 20 years, so for me, it… there’s no single incident, right, that drives my conclusion. But the overall 20 years of study I’ve done on… on the subject, I’m convinced. Right, and when I say I’m convinced, I’m… everything shades of gray to me, right? I can… Because that’s what you do in science. Nothing’s black and white.
RM McLaren: Absolutely.
Robert Powell: But if I had to bet money right now. on the question of, do we have an advanced intelligence that sometimes operates in our atmosphere, I would bet that the answer is yes.
RM McLaren: Mm-hmm. Yeah. so if, like, if the most confident you could be would be the belief… I imagine most people just assume that the sun will come up tomorrow, they’ll wake up and the earth will still be here, if that’s…
Robert Powell: Right, right.
RM McLaren: If that’s totally convinced and a zero is some other opposite of an update, where do you think you would land on that?
Robert Powell: Right. Oh, I’m probably somewhere between, I don’t know, 95 to 99% confident. that that’s the case.
RM McLaren: Wow, okay. and so I’m sure there’s much more than you can share in, a few minutes, but what are some, what’s some of the evidence that leads you to that conclusion?
Robert Powell: Well, to me, the key piece of evidence that, well, there’s maybe… Several, but one is just the length of time.
RM McLaren: Mm-hmm.
Robert Powell: that the phenomenon phenomenon has existed right. It it actually began not in 1947, as you normally hear. It began in 1942 with the Foo Fighters during about the middle of the Second World War.
RM McLaren: Sure. Mm-hmm.
Robert Powell: And if you actually look at the data, you see, you know, just like noise, right? Because there’s always going to be a little noise, so you see a little noise, and then you see this blip that starts in 1942, and it never goes back.
RM McLaren: Mm-hmm.
Robert Powell: So, that’s an indication something has changed, something’s happened, right? And the scientific part that drives me to that conclusion is…
RM McLaren: Mm-hmm.
Robert Powell: that we have evidence of objects. with extreme acceleration.
RM McLaren: Yeah.
Robert Powell: in our atmosphere, and apparently without interacting with the atmosphere. So, that’s something we don’t have the capability. Well, because, in terms of linear acceleration.
RM McLaren: Right. Yes.
Robert Powell: Our jets can’t do more than maybe two G forces. Now, they can do 8 to 10 if you’re doing, right, curvature, but just pure linear acceleration.
RM McLaren: Mmhm.
Robert Powell: Very limited. And these objects have demonstrated hundreds of G-forces of, you know, just straight linear acceleration. So that convinces me. And that is all… Inductive reasoning. But deductively.
RM McLaren: Yep.
Robert Powell: It’s not something that would be unexpected, right? If if you look at the number of exoplanets.
RM McLaren: Mm-hmm.
Robert Powell: If you look at our own technology and our ability to identify life on other planets.
RM McLaren: Yep.
Robert Powell: a civilization 50 to 100 years more advanced than us, they know we exist. There’s no doubt in my mind about that. I’m 99.9% sure. Any intelligent life.
RM McLaren: Right.
Robert Powell: We’ll know that we exist here. So then it’s just a question, can they get here?
RM McLaren: Mm-hmm.
Robert Powell: Right? It’s the only issue. So to me, from a scientific point of view. It wouldn’t make sense to be looking for that.
RM McLaren: Yeah, yeah, and that’s one of the statements that Tyson makes in his book, is that UAP often are described as.
Robert Powell: Right.
RM McLaren: flying incredibly fast, faster than the sound barrier, silently, and then making extreme acceleration, like turning at right angles, going from zero to really fast, or really fast to zero. And so he says, if someone sees that, they’re probably. misinterpreting it, and then you just brought up how they… how craft could travel, incredible distances, and the Age of Disclosure films. Answer to both of those questions would be that they use a warp bubble, some sort of warp technology. They’re actually —. changing space-time as they move through it.
Robert Powell: And that is just pure guessing on our part.
RM McLaren: Oh.
Robert Powell: There… I don’t know how… we could reliably. anticipate how those craft move, right? We could come up with some theories, right? And that’s one, some type of warp bubble. Another, for example, would be if they could, if they have the ability to reduce their own inertial mass to zero.
RM McLaren: Mm-hmm.
Robert Powell: Right? And if you were capable of doing that, then that would explain a lot of what we see. So there’s — but how do you do that? As far as we know, we don’t even know that it’s necessarily possible.
RM McLaren: Yeah, that’s a great question. Mm-hmm.
Robert Powell: to reduce your inertial mass. … But… There have been people who’ve thought about it and tried to look into that.
RM McLaren: Hmm.
Robert Powell: Thank you.
RM McLaren: Yeah. And another thing Tyson says later in the book is that he’s possibly ETs could be higher dimension, have have more spatial dimensions than we do, in which case they could move through space. in ways that we can’t. Although he doesn’t cite that as evidence in in the.
Robert Powell: Right, that’s just kind of a wild theory he probably has. But I thought he had, or at least I thought I’d heard that he had suddenly changed his mind because of the recent government.
RM McLaren: Yeah, yeah.
Robert Powell: Information releases.
RM McLaren: Yeah, so that’s what got me to start the article, is because there was some, interviews with him where he’s saying he feels like.
Robert Powell: That’s the best one.
RM McLaren: things have changed since there’s been credible witnesses and Congressional testimony. And then I read his entire book, and it seems to be the clearest public position that he has is that. the conversation has changed, but the evidence hasn’t. And because of the conversation, he wanted to write the book. But I can pull some quotes if you’re interested. It seems to be the case that… in one interview, he said he’s not, … He’s dealing with the subject seriously. He’s not trying to I’m paraphrasing, infantilize anybody, but when you read the book, it’s still. clearly skeptical and, comes to the conclusion that there’s just. My interpretation is no public evidence to even. consider that some UAP could be technological artifacts of extraterrestrials.
Robert Powell: So, and this is purely conjecture on my part, but I doubt that Tyson has seriously studied the subject. And if there’s nothing wrong with being skeptical, I’m skeptical. But there’s a.
RM McLaren: Yep.
Robert Powell: There’s a difference to me between.
RM McLaren: Mm-hmm.
Robert Powell: dismissing a subject based on on what you read in the public newspapers or or hearing on the media than actually studying the subject and then dismissing it right. And I mean in depth study.
RM McLaren: Right. Mm-hmm.
Robert Powell: of the subject, not just. You know, like me.
RM McLaren: Right, some of his… some of his claims in the book seem to imply that he didn’t look too deeply. for example, he… at one point, he says that, there’s… nobody witnesses crop circles being made, and whether you believe people who make the claim. there are actually people who claim they’ve seen crop circles being made by orbs and things like that in videos. And there’s some other points that it seems like he’s asking questions, but not necessarily providing the answers. And then Avi Loeb pointed out in our interview that. … Abhi, for example, has published over a thousand… scientific papers, and the last time Tyson published was almost 2 decades ago. And so. So that’s where the question comes up, like, who’s qualified? Because Tyson makes a claim we should listen to scientists, but which scientists? Because, . I’m talking to you and you represent an organization that’s a group of scientists. Avi Loeb is one of the most eminent astrophysicists in the world, and it seems like you all are saying that we should look closer at the UAP phenomenon instead of suggesting that there’s no evidence.
Robert Powell: Right, right. That’s my view of it. Can we pause for a minute? I need to do something. I could be right back.
RM McLaren: Absolutely. Let me just. paused. And…
Robert Powell: Okay, yeah, I’ve got a quick request from my wife, and I’ve been doing interviews all day, so…
RM McLaren: Okay. All right. Thank you, sir.
Robert Powell: interview now, but I’ll be right back.
RM McLaren: Okay, thank you so much.
Robert Powell: It’s not my wife’s favorite subject.
RM McLaren: Okay. I understand. So it sounds like your time might be limited. Do you want me to try to thin the list of questions and pick out a few that might be the most important?
Robert Powell: Yeah, but I think we’ll be okay on time. But yeah, go ahead.
RM McLaren: Okay, so my next question is, do you think disclosure is speeding up? And in this last month, we’ve had the two releases from the Pursuit Portal. We also had the Disclosure Foundation released a FOIA document that was declassified from. the Nsa. And then the National Archives just received some documents from the FBI, and they’re about to receive some documents from the Air Force. And then next month we have a capital steps event being organized by some politicians. And then there’s the disclosure Forum at the end of next month at the end of June. Sorry. Both of those are in June, and then disclosure day is coming out, and Spielberg has said in the trailers that he believes. ET is visiting, and we need the proof.
Robert Powell: Yeah, so, … That’s an interesting question. I think if you look at it longer term.
RM McLaren: Mm-hmm.
Robert Powell: Then I would say, yes, disclosure is slowly coming about. But. In terms of these recent releases.
RM McLaren: Hmm.
Robert Powell: I have not seen anything in any of these recent two batches that should change any scientist’s mind about UAP.
RM McLaren: Yep. Hmm.
Robert Powell: which is why I’m a little bit curious why Tyson would have thought that things had changed because of this, and he’s considering his position, because there’s nothing I’ve seen. In these two batches that would convince me. I mean, there’s a lot better information. prior to what they’ve released.
RM McLaren: Yeah, I think he was… so the book was definitely in production well before the month of May. Maybe he was aware, that, you know, more information was gonna come out, but I think the quote I have that’s the most representative of how. He might feel is he did. an interview with AP News, and he was talking about the congressional hearings, and he said, when I saw it hit that level, I realized I have something to contribute. So I think from the multiple interviews I’ve read, the clearest thing we can say is that he’s engaging the topic more, especially in the form of the book. But I don’t think he’s changed his position of skepticism.
Robert Powell: Ah, okay.
RM McLaren: I requested an interview, he didn’t respond, but a publicist said that he’s unavailable, so I don’t think I’m gonna hear from him directly.
Robert Powell: Yeah. Yeah, yeah, no, I guess my view is I don’t, I don’t. I doubt that he studied the subject enough to make. an educated comment either way, right, that there is UAP or that it’s not.
RM McLaren: Mmhm. Yes.
Robert Powell: UAP represents an intelligence of some sort.
RM McLaren: Hmm. Is there anything he gets right about his skepticism and evidence in UAP?
Robert Powell: Yeah, yeah, there’s some things that I agree with the mom. For example, you should be basically skeptical from the beginning. Evidence is required, right? Ah. you know, all of those, I think he gets right. So, you know, I don’t have a disagreement there. Where I have the disagreement is… He he he mostly uses ridicule. In a rhetorical type way.
RM McLaren: Mm-hmm.
Robert Powell: to try to make his points right, which that’s not science.
RM McLaren: Hmm.
Robert Powell: So in. in science, the first thing you have to do is study the subject, and learn and understand that subject inside and out. If you… if you approach the subject.
RM McLaren: Yeah.
Robert Powell: With already making a decision that this is ridiculous, then what’s the point, right?
RM McLaren: yeah, and the question of ridicule has definitely come up a lot. I think that was… that’s part of the historical comparison to Sagan and Hynek, and just how… ridicule. I’m not claiming he’s using ridicule, but it definitely comes up in the conversation whether ridicule is used as a way to stigmatize the UAP question. And if you’d like to say more on that, you can. If not, I can move on to the next question.
Robert Powell: Yeah, no, that, I mean, that’s, … That’s kind of… Yeah, there, there is some similarity to Sagan, I mean, right, like when he uses the statement, you require extraordinary evidence.
RM McLaren: Hmm.
Robert Powell: Well, evidence is evidence. When you put the word extraordinary in front of evidence, now you’ve got this meter that someone can say, oh, that’s not enough extraordinary for me, right? Or no, that’s still not enough extraordinary.
RM McLaren: Yep. Sure.
Robert Powell: That’s all rhetoric. Evidence is evidence. You either have it or you don’t.
RM McLaren: Yes. In the book, he goes on and on about how he wants to see the body. So… and then part of what I’m addressing in the article is that…
Robert Powell: What if there are no bodies?
RM McLaren: What if there’s no bodies? And also, if… if David Grush is correct, then the whole point of having… Congressional testimony is to convince the government to release the body. Grush cannot personally produce a body. I want to pull up the exact quote.
Robert Powell: Yeah. I mean, in science. to establish that you have a more advanced intelligence operating in your atmosphere. Doesn’t require that you have bodies. Yep.
RM McLaren: Yeah, right. … let’s see…
Robert Powell: Although I know that with the media, right, that’s much more exciting, which is perhaps why he discusses, you know, bodies.
RM McLaren: Yes. I want to… Okay, so the existence of aliens on Earth has an uncounted number of believers, even though nobody has ever credibly brought forth an alien for examination by astrobiologists and other scientists.
Robert Powell: Okay.
RM McLaren: Until that happens, like it or not, alien visitation will remain a belief system like any other. So he seems… his extraordinary evidence is… seems to be an extraterranean…
Robert Powell: A dead alien body or a live alien in handcuffs. That’s kind of sad.
RM McLaren: Yeah. You. And I imagine it’s frustrating for a lot of people to hear. So do you think there’s, … so that’s part of what the article is about, is the historical connection. Is there anything else you want to say about that, to Hynek and Sagan? because… when I posed… when I posed this to Avi Loeb, he said, you cannot make… I can’t make that analogy because… Sagan was a practicing scientist and Neil deGrasse Tyson isn’t. Nonetheless.
Robert Powell: That who was not, he said, who was not a practicing scientist?
RM McLaren: … he said that Sagan was, and Tyson isn’t, so it’s not particularly a good analogy. However, I think that there’s some corollary to how.
Robert Powell: Oh, yeah.
RM McLaren: Sagan would debate with Hynek in public and in print. And now Tyson is a media representative for UAP skepticism, while others like yourself and Abby Loeb are publicly saying that we should take a closer look.
Robert Powell: Yeah, I mean, I would probably agree with Avi on that. I mean, I don’t… I mean, maybe there’s some practicing science that Tyson’s doing, right? I don’t know, because I haven’t examined, you know, what all is he doing, but the impression I get.
RM McLaren: Mmhm.
Robert Powell: you know, from listening to him, and what I know of him is that he’s not a practicing scientist. While Avi, for example, is, you know, is a practicing scientist, Sagan was a practicing scientist, and. Also was Allen Hynek.
RM McLaren: Hmm. So maybe an imperfect analogy.
Robert Powell: Yeah. I mean, it’s not perfect, but I understood what you were trying to get at, which so I thought it was okay question.
RM McLaren: Okay. So what kind of data would move the UAP conversation beyond belief and skepticism? If Tyson needs a corpse, an alien corpse, what data are you hoping to get?
Robert Powell: Yeah, so I don’t need the alien corpse. Here’s what I think would really push.
RM McLaren: Yes, sir.
Robert Powell: The science further. on U8P. If you make the assumption we’re dealing with an intelligence. far beyond us, then you have to say, okay, what are the characteristics that differentiate us in that intelligence, right?
RM McLaren: Yes.
Robert Powell: And so, if there’s a craft in the atmosphere, it has to be doing something that we cannot do, and we have to be able to prove it’s doing that, right? So, I think the best way to do that.
RM McLaren: Mm-mm. Mm-hmm.
Robert Powell: is… By involving academia and the scientific community. And Congress really needs to appropriate significant funding for that to be done.
RM McLaren: Mm-hmm.
Robert Powell: Right? So kind of along the area that Avi’s approaching, right, which is trying to develop automated camera systems. That you calibrated very carefully. You know exactly how they work. And you capture.
RM McLaren: Yes.
Robert Powell: Ideally, here’s what you would want to capture. You would want to capture. an object in the atmosphere on multiple camera systems, say one here, one a mile away. and that you triangulated. So that you know the speed of the object.
RM McLaren: Right.
Robert Powell: and the acceleration of the object, and you’re able to detect any atmospheric interaction. And if you do that, and you get… 2 to 3 times where you have an object that’s accelerating, you know, order of magnitude beyond what we can do.
RM McLaren: Mm-hmm.
Robert Powell: At speeds that should generate extreme heat in the lower atmosphere, and they don’t.
RM McLaren: Mm-hmm.
Robert Powell: Well, then you’ve got a sign of a technology that’s far advanced of us. It’s operating in our atmosphere, right? Now you won’t know where it came from. Right? Or who, you know, where the source is, but you would know it wasn’t a human source, right? And that it was far more intelligent than us, because that’s…
RM McLaren: Mm-hmm.
Robert Powell: to do. you know, to accelerate at 100 G’s through the atmosphere is far beyond our. capabilities.
RM McLaren: Mmhm. Yeah. So we can detect even well, you said 2 to 3. If we can detect ideally at least 3 objects that have unknown characteristics, then that takes the conversation to an entirely number.
Robert Powell: Yeah, that takes it to a new level. Whoever does that work is going to write papers on it, and there’ll be debate and criticism on those papers. Which is why you need to have characterized your equipment so that you can defend everything about. You know the data that you collect, because what we have today with the military is. Well, the people operating the equipment don’t necessarily, you know, understand in detail how it’s working. And then when you try to understand exactly how that piece of equipment’s working, well, you can’t find out the details because it’s all classified national security. So you really have to understand your sensing equipment and be able to access the information on that sensing equipment.
RM McLaren: Mm-hmm.
Robert Powell: If you’re going to do something like this.
RM McLaren: Hmm. Yeah. So that brings me to my next question is — and I’ve got three more after that, if that’s OK. Do any known UAP cases deserve serious scientific study? Do you know of one or more cases that we should really all be looking at closer?
Robert Powell: Sure. Yeah, the ones that I think are probably some of the strongest one is the 2004 Nimitz incident, right?
RM McLaren: Mm-hmm.
Robert Powell: And we wrote a… Gosh, almost a 200-page report on that incident. And what I think is the most striking part of that incident is within a 24-hour period of time, you have three examples that indicate extreme acceleration.
RM McLaren: No.
Robert Powell: on that incident.
RM McLaren: Mm-hmm.
Robert Powell: Right? One is when the the radar operator indicates the object moves a certain distance in a certain period of time.
RM McLaren: Mm.
Robert Powell: The second is the video.
RM McLaren: Right.
Robert Powell: Where the object moves suddenly to the left. And the third is the statements from four of the naval flight officers, right, that were in those two jets. Fravor. … Alex.
RM McLaren: There are two. Was it right?
Robert Powell: You know, Dietrich and the and the other two all indicate that this object, which was basically not moving fast at the time, right? It it’s moving up while Fraber’s jets moving down towards it. So they’re moving a few 100 miles an hour, which is not an extreme speed.
RM McLaren: Mm-hmm.
Robert Powell: And then suddenly the object stops. tilts in a certain direction, and it takes off and is gone in one to two seconds. And all four of these guys state that, and right, you have them at two different altitudes making this call.
RM McLaren: Multiple sensors.
Robert Powell: So for an you can actually calculate just trigonometry. How… fast, and how much acceleration it would require for an object that’s in the size range of 15 to 60 feet. to disappear from your eyesight in one to two seconds. And that takes an extreme speed and acceleration. To give you an example, if you go to an air show.
RM McLaren: Mm-hmm.
Robert Powell: And this is a jet that’s already at maximum speed as he’s flying by. It takes him 12 to 14 seconds from when you first see him to when he disappears.
RM McLaren: Hmm.
Robert Powell: So imagine an object that disappears in one to 2 seconds. So I think that is, that is actually. probably one of the best cases now, and the problem is. The government had radar data. Right? Because they picked up this object, and they vector the jets to it. Yet.
RM McLaren: Hmm.
Robert Powell: Where did that radar data go? And… And there were ship logs on the USS Princeton.
RM McLaren: Mm-hmm.
Robert Powell: at the National Archives, and in the two months that this happened, October and November. Those ship logs are gone.
RM McLaren: Mmhm.
Robert Powell: So… That’s the problem with trying to use military data.
RM McLaren: Right. And when evidence disappears.
Robert Powell: Yeah. But but that’s a a very good case. Another very good case is the gimbal incident, right?
RM McLaren: Mmhm.
Robert Powell: Those pilots are indicating when you hear their voices, they say, oh, we can also see them on the ASA. Look, there’s a whole fleet of them.
RM McLaren: Mm-hmm.
Robert Powell: Well, that’s their radar system. So where is that data, right? So there’s —. There’s a lot of good cases that could be analyzed better, right? But. To truly get the good data. We… we’re gonna have to do it for cases in the future, and they can’t be the military, because… The data always gets taken away because of national security.
RM McLaren: Hence the Galileo project and other projects. Yeah.
Robert Powell: Yeah.
RM McLaren: Okay, well, thank you. And then that also leads to the next question. So Tyson, near the end of the book, cites Arrow and NASA. They both release statements concluding that there’s no evidence for. … UAP being… alien artifacts, technology. How do you respond to the Arrow and the NASA statements?
Robert Powell: Well, in science, you always have to define your terms, right? So the question is, what type of evidence is required to draw that conclusion? NASA doesn’t tell you. An arrow doesn’t tell you. Now, Tyson does tell you he wants a dead alien body, or he wants a live one in handcuffs, so that’s what he defines as requiring the evidence, right? But seriously, I mean, even for NASA and Arrow.
RM McLaren: Mm-hmm.
Robert Powell: you should not. And and I I’m really surprised NASA made that statement without. stating what they would need to see, right? So when they say we have seen no evidence of extraterrestrial activity in our atmosphere, well, what kind of evidence do you define as indicating that, right?
RM McLaren: Right, and… mm-hmm.
Robert Powell: Okay. Because otherwise. It’s meaningless if they don’t define what they’re looking for.
RM McLaren: Right, and I think that, you know, when organizations like SCU say, we’ll take a look at the Nimitz encounter, then they could assess that and make a rebuttal if they wish, but… And. It seems like there should be a list of evidence that they did assess.
Robert Powell: Yeah, just like if NASA says, we have found no evidence of life on Mars, right? Okay, so what was the criteria for that, right? Because now in this case, we’re looking for bacteria and some indication that bacteria. might exist on Mars. Right? In that case they’re going to tell you. Here’s our criteria, right? We need to see carbon dioxide gas. We need to see this, this, this.
RM McLaren: Mm-hmm. Yes.
Robert Powell: But they they don’t do that with the ET question.
RM McLaren: Hmm.
Robert Powell: And they should, because that’s what you always do in science.
RM McLaren: All right, all right, thanks.
Robert Powell: And I I think the reason they they may not have is because of the way the media and the public looks at this right? If you know. And so they’re they’re really just trying to avoid the question.
RM McLaren: Yeah. Yes.
Robert Powell: And the easiest way to avoid it is just say, oh, I haven’t seen any evidence. Right? And the media doesn’t isn’t sharp enough to say, well, hold on. What do you define as required evidence? Do you need to see a spacecraft land on the White House lawn? Or is, you know, seeing extreme acceleration sufficient for you?
RM McLaren: Yeah.
Robert Powell: Or do you need to see 3 cases of extreme acceleration? What exactly do you need to see?
RM McLaren: You know.
Robert Powell: To convince you.
RM McLaren: Yeah, what’s the standard of proof?
Robert Powell: Right.
RM McLaren: And your answers are just perfectly leading to each next question. So what should journalists ask scientists or UAP researchers that they usually do not ask?
Robert Powell: Yeah, and I don’t have a good, simple answer on that one, RM. I think what I would like to see journalists do is really educate themselves on the subject sufficiently that they’re not fooled by questions, by answers such as.
RM McLaren: Mm-hmm. Okay.
Robert Powell: Haven’t seen the evidence of ET activity in our atmosphere, right? And we’ve looked everywhere and we haven’t seen it. They need to be able to make up those follow-up questions, such as, okay, can you give us your evidence, your definition of what you would need to see? We would like to hear that, right? But it just…
RM McLaren: Yeah. Yes.
Robert Powell: everything is just quick soundbites today, so there’s no, you know, there’s no deep thinking into the… it’s just like these last two batches of government. releases right? Everything’s redacted. The media thinks it’s really cool that there’s some great information here. But there’s when you really look at it. There’s nothing there.
RM McLaren: Yeah. Mm-hmm. Right, like, the chandelier video, it’s, it’s, super compelling, but we’re missing a lot of contacts, contacts.
Robert Powell: they. Yeah. Yeah, it’s… I mean, there’s some that are interesting, right? Like the…
RM McLaren: Mm-hmm.
Robert Powell: That set what they call the instant acceleration.
RM McLaren: Yep.
Robert Powell: That’s interesting. But to be able to prove that, you need a better quality video where you can break it down frame by frame.
RM McLaren: Mm-hmm.
Robert Powell: So that you can determine. Did that sudden acceleration occur because we just turned off the lock? Right? The camera stopped following it. Or did the sudden acceleration occur? Before. that, in other words, the acceleration’s what caused the camera to lose block. But you can’t truly… tell that just by looking at that video. And then, of course, the other question is. Whoever was taking that video was their radar data, right? Because the radar data would tell us if there was a sudden increase in speed.
RM McLaren: Right, yeah.
Robert Powell: But we don’t. We don’t get that. So that would have been… I would like to see journalists ask the government, okay, so you took this, where’s the radar data?
RM McLaren: Mm-hmm.
Robert Powell: Right.
RM McLaren: Yeah, absolutely. If I get a chance, I’ll definitely ask that question.
Robert Powell: Yeah. And and why? Why is every picture taken from 5 miles away? Right? I suspect because these are all. You know Reaper drones that are taking these.
RM McLaren: Mm-hmm.
Robert Powell: videos. And and so they’re always, you know, they’re out at 20,000 feet looking at an object. You know, five, six miles.
RM McLaren: Mm-hmm. Hmm. Okay. And then, what should the public understand about SU’s approach to UAP evidence? What more do we need to know about what y’all do?
Robert Powell: Our approach is is that we always use the scientific process, and we have peer review when we write papers or reports that we give to the public. So if if we have a report, for example. on any, you know, any particular case, such as the Nimitz incident, for example. not only was it written by Tier 3 scientists, but we had several other scientists who reviewed it, and, you know, which we call peer reviewing, and verified that. What was said makes, you know, basic sense.
RM McLaren: So you’re going through an empirical process, not just buying them off. Yeah.
Robert Powell: Yeah. Yeah.
RM McLaren: Okay. and then is there anything else you’d like to share right now?
Robert Powell: you know, the only thing I would, you know, one thing I’ll mention, RM, is that. This whole thing about national security and secrecy, and we have to redact everything. The industry that I was involved in semiconductors, right?
RM McLaren: Thank you.
Robert Powell: If you think about that and what the capabilities that exist today because of that, whether it’s AI, missile launch systems, all of that. If our industry was just beginning in existing today, it would all be classified as under national security because. of this fear that someone else is going to learn what we’re doing. Yet. We didn’t do that, right? And yet the United States. still stay leaps ahead of everyone else. And that’s because when you have an open science, right, that everyone can contribute in, then you learn much more and you learn much faster. And national security doesn’t become an issue like it does on everything today. So I think the semiconductor world is an excellent example of how we drove science.
RM McLaren: Yeah, but…
Robert Powell: to its current state, and we did not have to do it in secrecy.
RM McLaren: Okay, so it sounds like you’re saying maybe we should have an open science approach to UAP.
Robert Powell: Absolutely. Yeah.
RM McLaren: That is one thing Loeb and Tyson seem to agree on, is that they think the public’s ready to know. If the government has conclusive evidence that non-human intelligence is interacting with the planet.
Robert Powell: Yeah.
RM McLaren: Is the public ready to know?
Robert Powell: Yeah, and the other part to that is the national security concern by our government, right? And I’ve talked to the guys in the government about why do you have this, right? And it’s because of this fear. The fear that. If China or Russia were to somehow figure out.
RM McLaren: Yep.
Robert Powell: the technology behind one of these that they would leap them forward way beyond us, right? Which if that happened, that would probably be true. But that’s what makes them keep everything close together.
RM McLaren: Yeah.
Robert Powell: to the vest. And it’s a sad state of affairs when you think about it, because if you really are dealing with an intelligence from another world, here we have this little world with 200 different nation states all fighting among themselves and worried about learning about this. other civilization because someone else might get an edge on someone else. And it’s just sad.
RM McLaren: Yeah, it does seem very sad. Well, thank you so much for your time today, Robert. I’ll email you the article and the video when it’s public.
Robert Powell: Yeah. All right. I enjoyed talking to you, Aaron.
RM McLaren: I enjoyed talking to you too. Have a nice night. Bye.
Robert Powell: All right. Take care. Bye-bye.