The Third Actor Scenario: Is NHI Influencing Global Geopolitics and World Leaders? | Night Shift with Clint Weldon

Reed: Well, definitely unexpected. You know, I don’t think anybody had it on their bingo card for February of 2026 that this front foot would be ventured forward, and so quite surprising. I think it’s promising. It’s welcome. you know, federal action mandated by the sitting president of the United States to disclose files not just related to UAP and UFOs, but extraterrestrial life, alien life. So, it’s quite a forward front foot. I think there’s a lot to be cautious about. I’m cautiously, I guess, optimistic, but also skeptical as to what the nature of the disclosures will be. 

But you know, it might be a break glass moment, and maybe the best we can expect from this administration is to break glass and let society have access to the tools within. And I think that’s really where my work and passion lies is equipping citizens, society, and the international community with the agency and the toolkit to get in the mix and to make our own discoveries, our own assessments of not just existence, but also active presence, operations in the world and ultimately the scenarios of intent. So that’s been basically my project for the last two years. So I see it as an opening. The question is what do we do with it? 

Where do we take it from here? If we expect this administration and its mandates to the military agencies and the intelligence community to effectively disclose accurately to the global public, I think we’re asked, it’s a fool’s errand. And so I think we have to really take up the charge here to ensure that credible and accurate information is available in the public, that we put pressure on the administration and the government and its various, you know, acting agencies and relevant agencies as Trump has pointed out to not just present anything, but to present quality data that in the presence of well articulated hypotheses might constitute fundamental evidence regarding the nature and reality of the phenomenon and what it is doing in the world so that we can begin to devise a response plan to it.

Clint: It couldn’t have happened at a more appropriate time. You had just wrapped the UAP Tracking and Detection Summit February 7th and 8th, right? And then this conversation breaks into the mainstream in a way that I don’t think anybody really expected. And now I mean it’s most certainly it’s a PR win for the discussion. Did you start getting emails and texts from people that were like are you seeing this? It’s like how did that play out from your end? 

Reed: Oh. Oh, yeah. No, I got a flood of messages on signal and X and LinkedIn and Gmail chat, you know, because I’d been hearing and tracking about, you know, this allegation by a British filmmaker that he had a source that had heard that there was a disclosure speech planned for, I believe, July 8th, and then Laura Trump on a on a pod, pod force one, I believe it was, kind of repeated that. And so it seemed like, I don’t know, is the administration or the inner circle of the administration airing this in kind of a limited hangout fashion to see what the response would be, to see kind of what the pathway for, you know, for greater statements to be made would be? I don’t know. But I didn’t give it much credence. 

And so when it was actually made on, I guess it was Truth Social, I of course, obviously as everybody did, tried to trace this back to its origins, right? So okay, so is this a coordinated effort connected to those statements by the British filmmaker, by Laura Trump? Is this pure reactivity to Obama’s statements, which it seemed to be initially, right?, because on Air Force One, I guess he was asked about Obama’s statements and he you know ventured I don’t how how if he was if he if it was a good idea to do so, but that that Obama presented classified information; he should not have done that. It came from quote “classified information.” So Trump right there validating and verifying essentially those statements that Obama had retracted the day after. 

But as I step back to look at the broader kind of The 2026 Trump-Obama Disclosure “Extravaganza” ecosystem and environment in which this is being done, you know, I see I see the Epstein files rolling out hard and fast with so many redactions that could be unredacted in the form of leaks in the form of of a review by a by a later administration to to unredact those those names. So there’s that you know ravaging the political sphere, you know the power circles, u the real estate and finance communities in which Trump of course has been circulating for many years. And of course you know many in his administration you know might have connectivity to some of that as well. So it could pose a considerable challenge to any acting administration if a large portion of their acting administrators are implicated in something like that. So there’s that, but there’s so much more geopolitically going on. 

And so I wonder if this really is connected to Obama’s statements or more to stage setting and, you know, initial preparations of the battle space geopolitically for other kind of events to take place. I wonder if it’s more reactive to efforts to undermine the administration with the Epstein files covertly, if there’s some sort of surface state, deep state power play going on, and if this is a fightback moment, you know, like a return salvo, which is to say, you know, you come after me. Well, I’ve got the one, you know, silver bullet to come after you. And I think, you know, the UFO issue, I mean, evidence suggests it is possibly the greatest, you know, secrecy ever in in in the history of the modern post-World War II world. And so, the fight to keep it secret has been legended. And, the potential breakdown of that secrecy is a powerful move politically. I worry about that. I think, you know, this could devolve and collapse in many different directions that we do not want, which is why I think to to carry it forward at the level of of data and detection intelligent hypothesis formation, assessing the phenomenon actively as an active agent in the mix I think is all really important right now. 

Clint: Yeah, it’s really hard to trust this moment because everything’s so charged. There’s so much, you know, so politically charged and so emotionally charged and you have an administration that is desperate to change the conversation for sure. I think everybody sees that. I don’t think that…that’s not a a partisan take. That’s just a common sense take. And then into that you have this weird it feel I mean it felt very bumbled. It almost felt like kind of like fumbling to me, like Obama kind of said something that was sort of a throwaway remark and then Trump maybe hadn’t really had the time to absorb it completely in context and just sort of reacted off the cuff. I don’t know if like, if you, I mean you have a pretty extensive circle of people in the UAP community in the research community. What was the vibe as that was rolling out? Were people on board? Were they a little hesitant? 

[cross talk]

Reed: …super hesitant. I mean, in the current context politically to step forward reactively with this issue after all of the deliberate efforts to advance the UAP Disclosure Act and, you know, to generate bipartisan action and support in Congress and in the Senate to advance, you know, a conversation built on credible data and scientific engagement, to have the administration just blow right through all barricades and essentially not just say we’re going to release the files, but in the preparatory comments on Air Force One basically say it’s classified. “He shouldn’t have done it and now here I go. I’m going to presumably do it.” And so it really blows through a lot of the careful deliberate efforts to kind of set up the stage not just for controlled disclosure but for accurate disclosure. And I think we have to walk very carefully into this new arena in which information could come out of the national security state that could be sculpted, curated, of course heavily redacted, and could be released in ways that strategically prefer outcomes for either, you know, the US national security interests, the current administration’s interests or one man and his financial interests. 

You know, I mean, and I’m not singling out Donald Trump in that fashion. I think you know the problem of, you know, what do I call it? Profit, power and prestige with this issue has kept it out of the public purview and has also generated some false information, some proto disclosures that were not accurate; and so, you know we need to guard against that happening again. 

So we need an active…This is the moment, right? If you have a new emerging issue of international affairs, you need a highly active well-educated literate civil society movement to keep governments honest, to keep governments working together and to make this a—as I call it—a whole of humanity approach, not just a whole of government approach because this is species-wide engagement. It is a planetary event, more than an event in, you know, the 20th century history of the US national security state, as many frame it. 

It is a species-wide event and we have to hold it in that light and tackle it with that in mind if we’re going to develop an intelligent response plan. 

Clint: You touched on the geopolitics of it all, and I think that’s one of those things that is front and center now as we watch the old world order sort of crumble and we’re seeing this new reorganization. I wonder if you’ve had time or if in your conversations with other folks at the UAP Summit and in your work when you discuss geopolitics, what should a, the new global position be on this or what might that look like? What, how would you describe what it could look like and maybe what it should aspire to be? 

Reed: Sure. Well, I think there’s a whole kind of spectrum of approaches and responses. One, I think we need to acknowledge and adopt really a third actor scenario as default. It’s not just US/China, US/Russia. It’s US/China and there’s an “and dot dot dot.” And that is, you know, represented by the covert activity and long-standing operation of not just UAP as craft but as a potential source of intelligence with an intelligent intent and strategic goals represented, reflected by their very specific shifts in strategic engagement over the last eighty years. There have been notable shifts in the way UAP have chosen to appear, where they’ve chosen to appear, who they choose to appear to. So there are strong indications of intentful strategic engagement. 

And so we need to begin to step out into that, into that new frontier of war gaming out. You know, what are the possible scenarios of intent? How would they play out? How would they act upon the current geopolitical environment? If there was an intent to seed technologies or transact technologies, to what end? Why? What’s the potential set of endgames that that might reflect? 

And, you know, acknowledging it’s going to be very difficult for us to discern and fully decode the intelligence of a non-human consciousness, however we can assess and decode the real hard implications and kinetic engagements that it is having with us and the ways that that is reshaping global society at the level of, you know, the balance of power, at the level of technology and the way technology is being deployed. 

I often reflect how there are many what appear to be nonhuman moves being made by human actors, by governments, by world leaders. They do not prefer positive human outcomes, national outcomes. 

Clint: What’s an example of that? 

Reed: I think of, you know, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. 

Clint: Yeah. 

Reed: You know, to ultimately claim a swath of yes, mineral rich territory that yes, okay, the Nazis went out of their way on the path to conquer Moscow during World War II, to claim the Donbass because it was so mineral- rich. But, you know, this play has such a poor calculus for Russia geopolitically. 

Clint: I mean, they’ve lost like, what?—200,000 is the least amount of military progress over time at the highest rate of attrition of any war.

Reed: Right.

Clint: Is that right? 

Reed: Right. And I mean the impact on their economy, the brain drain on their tech sector, it’s just, it’s unbelievable. 

Clint: It’s brutal. 

Reed:  It’s brutal. And so who’s driving these actions? What is their calculus? Is that a human calculus? I think it’s worth beginning to ask. You know there are instances of UAP effectively altering consciousness by observers, whether that’s pilots, ground observers, experiencers affecting the way people think, feel and act. 

Now, if there is a technical mechanism or technology that can change perception, that can alter human actions, wouldn’t that be leveraged upon a small cluster of hyper powerful, hyper rich people to, you know, not necessarily do gross harm or to be overtly hostile, but simply to change outcomes. 

And that’s where I think we need to be is, you know, there is a non-human presence. It has its own strategic goals for engagement and it is probably trying to alter and affect the course of our development either individually if you’re an experiencer, nationally if you’re a country, or globally as a species. And we need to begin to account for the potential lines of vulnerability, vectors of penetration by which that presence can influence us, whether that’s neurologically, whether that’s through the introduction of technologies, whether that’s shaping the information space, whether that’s driving us toward AGI, you know, artificial general intelligence essentially governing most human roles that are above bluecollar, you know, making decisions for us. 

So again, it’s not to draw lines of correlation or causation yet. It’s a new space for for intelligent human response planning to the presence of a non-human set of actors. 

Clint: Is it your sense that the…and I want to come back to something you said earlier about the they’ve changed their tactics and behaviors over the years. Is it your sense that the activity that we’re seeing now and the increase in activity that we’re seeing now is tied to some of the technologies that we’re currently rolling out? I mean, it seems like we’re on a break neck research and release kick with AI, and robotics is getting pretty scary, too. It feels like we’re moving towards some kind of a climax where the window for whatever NHI is going to do, that window for them to take action is going to close, at least to a significant degree.

Reed: I can’t, you know, ignore the fact that many have described some of the activities of the phenomenon as representative of a control system. 

Clint: Yeah. 

Reed: And that we are entering a paradigm in which human thought, human action is increasingly controllable through all of these technical technological systems. And so if there’s a singularity with AI, might it be simply a child singularity of a greater singularity, which is our convergence with other forms of intelligence, another technosphere crossing into ours like a ven diagram slowly collapsing into a single sphere where society is engaged, directed, ultimately governed by technologies and intelligences which could be our own? It could be artificial; it could be non-human—we don’t know. There’s so much we don’t know, and we don’t even know the things we don’t know. 

So, but I think, you know, accounting for the third actor—to get back to your question, Clint—what would we do? We have to make UAP an issue of global affairs and the potential engagement with non-human forms of biological life a humanitarian issue. We have to thoroughly converge data sets, right? And any administration, any acting government agency can say anything. It’s narrative still, right? 

And that’s my concern is that we collapse down in the UFO discourse to basically whatever Trump or the administration is saying this week or is not saying. Welcome to the phenomenon and our response to it. It’s what one guy says and doesn’t say. That’s not acceptable to me. We need to urgently broaden this. 

So, okay, fine. If a stepping stone is being given to us such that extraterrestrial life is affirmed not only to exist in the universe to be present on Earth, if there’s actual data presented to substantiate those claims, then fine; that’s a stepping stone to What then? 

And you know this Friday I’m co-moderating a panel with Doctor[s] Garry Nolan, Beatriz Villarroel and Massimo Teodorani to discuss this exact thing. How should science be designing its investigatory and research roadmap to uncover the nature of what NHI may be? And the federal government can say anything they want, right? What is…Science needs valid scientifically valid falsifiable data with which to use to rule things in, rule things out, right? And so if we’re not given that, then we’re still on our own. So I wouldn’t abandon all other courses of action simply because the federal government is imminently about to disclose. I mean, there’s just there’s so many ifs and possible roadblocks there that if anything, we need to accelerate and broaden our societal response. 

So research and science is a key aspect. Data gathering and UAP detection, which is what the conference I just co-hosted was all about…we, you know, we cannot rely on one leader or agency or government. We have to make this a broad international coalition-based effort. 

Clint: I want to talk about the UAP Summit, the Tracking and Detection Summit, and I have it open here and I’m just going through some of the talks that that were hosted just for people who aren’t familiar with in our oceans the current state of unidentified submerged objects with Richard Dolan Ryan Graves on aviation safety and pilot reporting. Rich Hoffman, Adam Yingling talking about tracking and detection methods and signatures. Tell people what is the UAP Summit? What is the mission behind it and and how did it all come together and how was this event? How how how was it attended? 

Reed: It was an amazing event. We had almost 500 people register and we had over 300 attend live a number of sessions. I was blown out of the water by how successful it was, frankly. This event arose out of kind of a two-pronged prerogative. At one level, it’s, again, stemming from the acknowledgement that there appear to be non-human forms of technology present in the Earth planetary system, which means that there’s an intelligence also potentially present, and this technology is acting upon us, whether that’s acting upon our eyes in terms of photons being emitted back to our eyeballs such that we perceive it, all the way to a potential secret arms race for non-human technologies which may be at play, right? And so if that’s the case, then there is an instant concern with regards to territorial sovereignty. Do we control the skies? Do we control the ground? Is the Earth sovereign, a sovereign domain of humanity still? 

And of course, as a species to function and to be sufficiently stable, secure and to survive, you need a certain degree of sovereignty. And of course, you know, territorial incursions—“violations” to quote national security—are all well acknowledged, you know, dimensions to how we might interpret this behavior. 

And so if you can’t detect the the presence of a UAP anywhere, then you certainly can’t track it. If you can’t track it, you can’t monitor it, right? If you can’t do any of that, you can’t generate data that engages science and begins the scientific process of investigation and discovery. And you also cannot identify patterns and trends, hotspots that allow you to get your technologies into the field in the right places in the right times to make further discoveries. And so you’re effectively stymied in your response as a species. 

So the Detection and Tracking summit was all about activating a broad societal capability to detect and to track, to bridge known, well acknowledged gaps in our domain awareness. I know AARO uses that phrase and terminology a lot. I’m basically taking it right out of the palm of their hand and putting it in humanity’s hand. We as a species…

Clint: Take it back.

Reed: Take it back, baby. We as a species have tremendous domain awareness and we are, in fact, sandwiched between domains of zero observability space and the ocean environment. We are, you know, terrestrial mammals grazing on the surface of the land essentially and anything could be conducted upon us, any operation, any scientific study, any attempt to profile, track, gather data, influence the way the herd, the human herd thinks and moves and develops. And so detection is ground zero, really, for our species’ ability both to perceive geopolitics and the third actor scenario, the event taking place, to detect it, to track it, monitor it, etc. So that was one kind of channel of inspiration. 

The other was that there are now only recently technologies available in the commercial private sector that are cost accessible to society to go detect and track UAP on our own. And given the stonewalling by AARO and by, of course you other federal and IC agencies, the fact that technology, the technology to detect UAP exists almost exclusively in the military domain, that to me felt like a convergence. And I went out and I investigated all the groups out there that are currently capable of detecting or tracking UAP and I brought them all together and collaborated with a number of other teams and thought leaders on this. And The Human Institute, the organization that I’m working with to advance humanity’s response to UAP and potential NHI, staffed up, you know, the effort to make this conference a reality. And so we had 35 speakers from across the space. And I was looking through all the transcripts this morning—so many high points, so many fascinating dimensions to this shared.

But just to summarize, you know, basically the ethos is that if we want real answers, we need real data. Data drives disclosure, and detection is the ground zero for data collection, and it’s accessible now. The technology is available. There are experts in the field capable of using it. And their intention is to bring that data into the hands of the public, the scientific community and the decision makers to empower a larger human response. 

Clint: It reminds me a little bit of the post declassification of the remote viewing program that the military and the intelligence communities were working on. And you had these remote viewers who were trained under this program, the Stargate program, that got out into the civilian world and started to kind of explain to people how all that stuff works. Is it your sense that now we’re seeing that sort of from a technical expertise perspective, people who have been associated with efforts to track and categorize these craft getting out and then sharing some of that knowledge with civilian researchers on how to exactly find these things? Is that what’s going on? Or are we just getting better at figuring it out? 

Reed: I think that’s a component. Obviously, there are individuals from, you know, the US DoD and possibly other European military agencies who are out in the public now trying to convey information to all of us that we could then use to better understand the phenomenon. But I think that’s possibly a minority aspect to it. 

The majority aspect is that there is a large community of civilian scientists and citizen scientists, you know, non-technical but engaged and well-informed citizens who are out there making discoveries. And if there were adjustments in how they, you know, calibrate and prepare their technologies, if there were adjustments in the type of data that they capture, if there was a kind of a coalition-based effort to standardize technology to make data interoperable and to converge that in a centralized research accessible fashion, we already have access to the data that could make a groundbreaking not just discovery of UAP, but an assessment of UAP activity. 

Clint: Wow. So you are, you’re describing like crowdsourcing team human. 

Reed: Yes.

Clint: We’re going to just crowdsource this and we’re going to get as many eyeballs on it as we can until we get a pattern that can emerge.

Reed: I, yeah, again, and that is a component of a larger effort. Of course, it’s going to have to involve governments. People might scoff and say, “We’ll never be able to make these discoveries. We will never have the technology possible.” I would encourage you to check out some of the lectures at the Summit because we’re talking about $200, you know, computational systems that can make potentially groundbreaking discoveries of anomalous phenomena.

So, it’s well within the reach of citizens, but again, it is one component of how our species ultimately comes to terms with what’s here and what to do about it. I think citizen or civilian-led UAP detection will be a critical component in corroborating the claims by human authorities—who knows?—someday by non-human authorities. We have to still empower ourselves with a toolkit to understand what’s literally flying above our homes. And there are technical solutions—magnetometers, passive radar kits—that you could put on your roof now or pretty soon that will give you real time insight into literally what is up there.

Clint: And is that right, the real off-the-shelf technology that average people can buy?

Reed: Yes. And in fact, you know, Michael Lebeck of the AIAA, you know, he shared a number of really interesting projects at work. Well, one was a $200 certain type of security camera, the kind you see at the corner of your local Walmart, pointed down. Well, he pointed out that it has actually excellent night vision and could generate pretty breakthrough findings of what’s up above if you just switch it around. And so that’s a $200 camera, you know, that’s out there. There was, there’s also a small environmental sensing device that he mentioned that is on Amazon that sold out during the Summit. Every unit on Amazon just instantly sold out.

There’s…I didn’t even know about that until I heard him say it at the Summit. You know, SkyWatch and Eldon are two projects using passive radar with a roughly $500 consumer accessible box that when connected in a mesh network, which their systems would be able to do, you buy the box for $500, you connect it, they synergize the data, they bring it into an iOS, Android app interface, and you can gain insight into what’s flying over your neighborhood, your city, or a swath of your region. Right?

And in Mitch Randall’s case, who’s the founder of SkyWatch, you know, all he’s basically needing is 10,000 of these $500 boxes to create a comprehensive mesh network over the entire United States…

Clint: Wow.

Reed: …that could detect anomalous kinematics, instantaneous acceleration, loitering over, you know, extremely long durations, right angle turns at high speed, extraordinary G-force maneuvers. James Fowler during, you know, the Summit—many insights from James’ talk and his work with SkyWatcher. But, you know, G-Forces up to 38 have been observed just by their project. And so passive radar is not going to tell you the shape of the object, the size of the object, but it’s going to tell you how it moves. Now there’s already well-established capabilities to deconflict that with, you know, current aircraft in the sky, meteors entering the Earth’s atmosphere and other natural phenomena.

So using all of those deconfliction methods, all of these different consumer accessible detection methods and synergizing the data in one location and then using the human eye and the human iPhone as additional sensors to corroborate technical sensing of UAP, you can create a high probability statement regarding the presence and activity of anomalous objects in the air. And now, and that’s a real-time capability. And so, you know, MUFON is launching an app that’s going to try to engage citizens in real-time UAP detection and reporting.

There’s actually several groups. Eldon has an app. SkyWatch has an app, not to be confused with Skywatcher. Gary Nolan spoke about the current status of Skywatcher, which is going into the field anew now. And of course, we can get into that. Each of these is a rabbit hole to get into…

Clint: Sure

Reed:…but the basic thing is that there are so many eyes looking up, so many iPhones in the pocket, and there are, you know, technologies in the hundreds of dollars which if intelligently deployed and worked together with data characterized and standardized in a certain way and then synergized in one place in a centralized data repository that would have to be governed by some kind of international coalition, a nonprofit architecture to keep, you know, the hands of the DOD out and the corporate space out, right?

We have to ward off these efforts by powerful groups and interests to come in and reclaim that data and basically determine who can see it, who can’t, what’s inside the data set, what’s not. If we can ward off those efforts and keep this in the hands of society, we could generate a capability for real-time UAP detection, I would estimate in months, if not a year. Now, that could play a very big part in helping society corroborate claims.

So, when the FAA says, “Nope, there’s nothing up there but FAA licensed drones and aircraft, etc.”, and yet what the app is saying is that we have multi-sensor, technical detections corroborated by a thousand eyeballs and 500 iPhones of objects going at the following speeds with the following G-forces, loitering in the following ways, patterned activity around which cities, which local sensitive sites, that’s a powerful capability to hold decision makers accountable to tell the truth about the true nature and global scope of the phenomenon.

So it’s a moonshot but it’s all a moonshot right? And so I mean we, you can only give it your best effort. And it’s very clear to me now after the Summit, after hearing from all these groups, all of whom spoke—almost all I should say; we ran out of speaking slots over two days—but the technical expertise and the technology, a thousand percent there; the funding not quite there.

Clint: Do you think that’s an achievable goal? Do you get the sense that…? I have the sense that there’s enough wealthy Silicon Valley types that would like to see some of this technology that the money could be there if the right people asked.

Reed: This is the power of a break-glass moment. If the Trump administration wants to break-glass, you can better bet the tech giants are going to want to get in the game and build their own environmental sensing capabilities. The question though is what governs the cooperative framework between the defense industry, the tech industry, the big tech industry, academia and and the civilian societal space such that it doesn’t just become, you know, a capability of the powerful, the wealthy, the elite and the national security community and is secreted away once again, right? Because of course they have some of these capabilities already. I mean, we’re hearing credible incredible accounts of UAP not just being detected, but taken out of the sky.

And I think, you know, we have to wake up and realize the nature of the game we’re in. I mean, this is a kinetic engagement at this point. So, I’m not a, you know, in la-la land about society beginning to detect this and get all the answers itself from scratch. But I want to build an international, civilian capability that is not competitive with the national security capabilities. I hope it is complimentary to them. I hope it is corroborative.

But ultimately all of it represents our broad international, you know, humanwide response to emerging phenomena and that prevents it from being secreted away once again where it has remained for over eighty years conducting unknown covert operations in ways we cannot account for. And, you know, though some may say, “Well, it’s never done anything to harm anyone. It must be here to help us”, there’s about a thousand grades of possibility in between that gross kind of refrain, that irresponsible assumption.

The phenomenon could be doing things in remote and rural places that it would never want to do in places where we have greater observability, right? I think of South America, Brazil, Sub-Saharan Africa. There is activity in these regions. We have almost no understanding of it. And so do we need UAP detection and tracking there? Absolutely. And so it’s hard to not pursue this when it’s so thoroughly within reach.

The next question is, what’s the appetite? Who wants to really contribute to make that not just a pipe dream but a real operative capability that is generating tremendous amounts of data every second, every minute, every day, which by the way with the emergence of AI and machine learning could be unbelievably rich in terms of returning to us a, quickly, an understanding of what UAP are and what they’re doing.

And so, you know, I just, this is…the thing is if we’re banking on the national security state to disclose, I think we’re setting ourselves up for failure. If we are generating our own capability to disclose the phenomenon both technically and at the level of all the other data sets that are out there from the experiencer data sets which are extremely rich, hundreds of thousands of documented cases, documented meaning personally testified cases in text, audio, video regarding alleged NHI experiences, if we’re not using the first responder data sets, right? and we had a session at the Summit on first responders and homeland security because, you know, first responders, police, fire, medical professionals are often the first line of detection, right? Because they’re engaging with the human being that just made the detection. They literally got the phone call first. And so there’s a ton of testimonial data there.

Again, no single data set is going to reveal the whole of the phenomenon. John and Gerry Tedesco, who spoke at the event, made that very clear. There’s no single sensor that can give us the full answer. We need multi-sensor detection; and one of those sensors is the human experience which, if coupled with technologies, is tremendously powerful because I think that UAP have predominantly engaged society, not the military.

That means society contains the vast amount of data but has the data ever been brought together now with greater permissibility to talk about this topic? I hope, but also of course there will be considerable derision toward this topic with the current administration dealing with the Epstein files, disclosing UFOs right on top of it, right? There is, there’s a considerable risk of this sliding back into the ridicule zone, not into the mainline, mainstream of public discourse.

But if it does go in that direction, then we might begin to be able to hear from tens if not hundreds of thousands of people who have had experiences that have never been recounted. And I mean, I know on my podcast, Emergent, I have the UFO conversation with people all the time, and I hear things from people who…and they tell me, “I’ve never shared this with anyone but my husband”, or “I’ve actually never shared this with anyone but you.” Right? Because I, they feel a hospitable environment in which to express, to get the pressure of sharing an anomalous experience out. And so…

Clint: I don’t know anyone who doesn’t have an anomalous experience. It’s everybody I’ve talked to. That’s what’s so interesting about this topic is that, you know, in broad strokes, people might feel one way or the other about it, but one-on-one…

Reed: Yeah.

Clint: …you get people talking, everybody’s had something strange happened that they can’t quite explain.

Reed: Yeah. It’s very common. And, you know, I think the, a real exigency behind collecting that testimony is, again, if it could be synergized across national boundaries, cultural boundaries, religious boundaries even into one coherent data center, data centralization effort we could begin to ask that data questions where, what countries does the phenomenon do the following activities within? We have all these different craft morphologies, right? Pyramids, Jellyfish, Orbs, Spheres, Cigars. Where do which appear?

If we are ultimately dealing with multiple forms of NHI, multiple interests, are they competitive? And if so, where? In which skies are they competitive? Over which national boundaries? What is the aerospace undersea relationship of the phenomenon, right? Is the underwater truly a staging ground? And what we see in the air above is incidental, is the lesser aspect of the phenomenon? There’s so many questions we could quickly ask using machine learning, a tremendous, a broad data set that it’s too important not to collect.

Clint: That’s what’s so fascinating to me. This part of the conversation is why I get excited about this topic. It’s like you’re talking about at least one but most likely many different types of non-human intelligences that have points of origin. They have some kind of an industrial base. They’re able to produce equipment and deploy it, operate it, inter-communicate with each other, travel vast distances. There’s a culture there. There’s something going on behind the, these experiences.

And I wonder inside the national security apparatus how much we actually know about those things. I mean, sometimes you hear rumors that suggest we know quite a bit. And other times they play it off like there’s nothing to see here. It’s hard to know. Yeah, but yeah, that’s the most fascinating part, isn’t it? Because we have, it does feel like we’ve crossed the Rubicon. Like you, if it was just Trump the other day saying it, it would it would feel like a head fake to get away from the Epstein thing. But because it was Obama and Trump, back to back, and they just don’t get along, it feels like we we it I don’t see how you could go through another presidential election cycle without this coming up in a serious way. Do you think that’s possible?

Reed: I think it’s possible. I think anything’s possible. I think the Trump administration now has a profound burden to bring forward real findings because if they launch this investigation and it finds nothing, if it’s essentially the AARO report, part two…

Clint: Yeah.

Reed: …then it will very clearly be seen and only as a distraction from other political events of the day. It’ll be another crazy statement on the crazy train, right?,…

Clint: Yeah.

Reed:…of recent political action activity. And so I think there is a strong prerogative in their self-interest. I hope they see it in the public or even broad, more broadly, in the human interest to disclose basic fundamentals about the nature of what the phenomenon is in the form of structured craft under intelligent control with non-human biologics and, you know, and more, recovered; those are dimensions that I think we in the UAP community increasingly acknowledge as real.

If that can be broadly acknowledged as real, you have created, you have set the stage for so much that could not begin otherwise without some credible authority with credible data because without the data, it’s all stories. And as Gary Nolan said in the event, “The problem with stories is that stories don’t scale.” I love that quote. There’s so many amazing quotes in this Summit, I’m starting to pull them out. We’re going to get a full report out of them all. We’re releasing also the content of the summit publicly in the spring time frame. So people will be able to watch all these videos for themselves. But the reason I love that statement, “Stories do not scale”, is you can have the most credible story by the most credible person, right? What next? Right?

Clint: Right.

Reed: How do you develop an understanding scientifically of that or an established pattern of activity from that?

Clint: So, let me let’s talk about what next because this is something you’ve touched on a few times about highlighting this issue, collecting civilian data sets, and then I guess the way I’m hearing this is using that to advocate with lawmakers and pressure them to keep the fight and continue being friendly with this topic and releasing information as possible. Am I getting that flowchart right?

Reed: That is one goal, yes, is to provide some civil society pressure upon governments and intergovernmental bodies to advance this in the right way, yes.

Clint: And I mean it seems like at a certain point if you collect enough data and you’re able to keep it on the radar long enough, you do get to a question of what next? Like what do we do once we have this buy in, right?, from lawmakers? And it seems like we’re starting to get that now and there seems to be more movement in that area. Once there is some kind of buy in, given the nature of the geopolitical landscape where it’s you have this new world, United States, China and “other” as you put it, who acts? Who takes action? How is it…? Do you see some kind of like United Nations-based approach? Is there any way that this brings people together in a more cooperative way? I don’t see that happening, but what’s your sense of the “what next?” moment? 

Reed: Yeah, huge, huge topic to explore. So I think I might section it off in four phases. So we first have to demonstrate existence. If NHI do not even exist, there is no response necessary or going, you know…After existence we have to demonstrate presence. We have to demonstrate active presence here. With that active presence, we need to further examine activities. What is being actively done by this form of technology and the intelligence behind it? And then ultimately we need to assess intent. Now I think we can assess intent now at a broad level, devise basically a set of highly probable scenarios counterposed to less probable scenarios, and that can begin to shape the response planning today. So I don’t think it’s like we can’t get to the fourth until we do the first. 

Clint: Yeah. 

Reed: The third until…It’s all now, right? And each level reverse informs the other as they all move forward. But existence needs verification. And that is potentially the most powerful thing that could happen in the next year, which is confirm existence. And of course with existence rapidly comes presence, right? Because how do we confirm existence? Because we recovered the thing here. 

Clint: Yeah. 

Reed: We didn’t see it out there. And so existence follows fast, right? And then the whole dialogue about activity follows quickly thereafter. And this is where the informed UAP community is going to play an enormous part because at any point there could be an effort to sweep under the rug certain aspects of what the phenomenon has reportedly done and to shape perception. 

For example, for example, we hear this 2027 prognostication all the time, right? You know, Ramirez has shared it, Elizando has shared it, we’ve heard it from so many different people and Corbell and others. And, you know, what they are seeming to describe is a narrative about an inbound craft, an inbound object, 3i ATLAS-like. And I wonder if such a thing were detected, if that could not present the perfect scenario, the perfect storm to shape the way the global public sees NHI as not having been here but coming here. 

Clint: Ah!  

Reed: And then everything that happened in the past is either legacy UFO, it’s low credibility, it’s fringe. Or who knows? One NHI could say, “Oh, yes, that was the other form, the other set of forces present. We’re not them. We’re actually coming to prevent them from remaining here or to help you deal with them, etc. The the potential for a psychological operation by either human or non-human forces or interests is just epic and endless without, again, any capability to establish activity. 

And this is where, you know, during the Summit, you know, Richard Dolan presented what I thought was one of the most forward-leaning assessments of the underwater maritime aspect of the phenomenon, giving some clear dimensions to how, you know, USO cases shifted dramatically in 1968. There was a daytime to nighttime shift. There was a high upstick in electromagnetic interference at a certain point. You know, these are provisional statements of shifting patterns of UAP activity. 

Clint: Right, Richard Dolan mentioned that in his USO book that about every decade as military technology got rolled out, it was better than the prior, like from 1960 to 1970 was a big jump from 1970 to 1980, 1990. 

Reed: And he, I think, would later correlate that with the launch of the KH8 Gambit tactical satellite system which dramatically increased the resolution of our sensing of the surface of the Earth, but also of the ocean. And so why the nighttime shift, right? Philippe Ailleris at the Summit described a very important kind of strategic adjustment in how we sense from space and let me, I’m not a technical guy, so let me get the exact language here that he shared. But basically it’s to use synthetic aperture radar, SAR, satellites instead of optical satellites because they can detect, you know, structures in the ocean, on the ocean surface and at a depth that optical sensing cannot do. One of the great problems we have is that a lot of our sensing of the Earth’s atmosphere was not designed to detect anomalies. So there has to be a repurposing effort. 

Clint: Right.

Reed: And interestingly, you know, we’ve already heard from like the head of NorthCom that during a 60 Minutes episode that the military, the DoD actually has considerable domain awareness gaps and that quote, “Our radars were not designed to see small low radar cross-section objects at low altitude.” Well, that’s a problem. This is actually why civilian detection that can rapidly scale, that can be deployed, maybe not nationwide but in certain hotspots quickly at low cost, could actually produce some pretty dramatic results that even the military community might be baffled to see. That might be why a lot of the civilian groups have been probed by military organizations. You know, the Tedesco brothers recounted how in their Nightcrawler RV with their whole telemetry system of UAP detection, they woke up one night to find themselves encircled by black vehicles. You know, why? Well, because if they weren’t going to detect anything of any impact, of any value, if no data was…why…who cares? There’s some guys out there with, you know, night scopes. 

Clint: If it’s not real, what are they doing? They’re just having fun. 

Reed: So I mean, our civilian detection of UAP may be way more dangerous to the status quo than we imagine. 

So, but to get back to your very important question Clint about response. So if we can get past activity…I shouldn’t even say that. If we can further detect and understand the patterns of activity we can improve our intent assessments, and that’s going to be very important to trigger coordinated international responses. 

I myself have recently petitioned one of the top IR schools in the country to let me do a masters in international relations on the UAP issue, and I was excited to see them say yes because I wasn’t sure. It was either going to go one way or the other on that, and they gave me a $50,000 scholarship to pursue it. And I’ve wondered in recent days if they’re thinking, “I can’t wait to engage this guy given what the president is mandating be done.” So, you know, my inspiration is to take it directly into the arena of the intergovernmental, the multilateral community and to, in increments, shift this out of the US centric national security centric gravity that has absorbed it and kept it secret like an ever festering, you know, “dark mass” to use Lue Elizondo’s kind of descriptive, you know, nature of it which is, you know, these secrecies fester, right? It’s like a tumor in the body and it’s going cancerous. Okay, let’s excise the tumor. Let’s understand how the tumor came to be and let’s protect the body from future growths, right?

Clint:  And how much, how many resources are being consumed in service of this project that we don’t know what the scope and scale of it is? We don’t know what the fruits of it are. We really don’t have any idea what, you know, what’s been produced. We can’t even begin to guess because it’s so opaque. 

Reed: Right. 

Clint: It’s this black hole and we just throw billions or trillions of dollars into it and there seems to be no clear return on investment. We just have really great weapons that we never get to see. It’s very weird. 

Reed: Yeah. We don’t get to see them until we do get to see them. And I think there is a path toward conflict between at least the US and China, which I suspect has connectivity to the UFO issue. I know some would find that extremely speculative to say. I have some indications that that’s the case. And you know, if there’s one thing that might derail the biggest story in human history, it’s the biggest conflict in recent human memory. And I think we are on that path already. 

And again, so to your point, Clint, like all the money wasted, right?, on the secrecy apparatus, what about all the money wasted to keep society and the global community unaware and not cognizant of the greatest event in history? Whether it’s by, you know, basically, you know, propelling the science community down the wrong track, whether it’s accelerating our distraction as a species and our inability to sense and to gain domain awareness via other pursuits, right? Because if you’re going to prevent a group, a nation, a world from seeing something, you have to get them to look in another direction and to consume their energies and attention with other pursuits. And so there might be a lot of wasted energy in that direction. 

Clint: I think it represents a really dangerous moment for the existing control regime for this world. The way that we have divided power up, it would, confirmation of Contact with another intelligent organism or race or species would be it would crystallize our origin story. You know, we’re humans. We’re one people from one place. We’re all the same. And I think that that frightens the people who are in control now because they profit off of us being divided and at each other’s throats all the time. If we could come together, that would be very powerful. 

Reed: Yeah. And you know, I mean, how convenient though if alternate theories of origin were posited and evidence preferred to suggest a future human scenario or a cryptoterrestrial scenario or you know, a co-inhabiting ultraterrestrial scenario. Not to say that those are not potentially, you know, viable scenarios. But they would steal away from our human response ability, the ability to discern ourselves as distinct. If NHI comes saying, “We are you or we created you, we seeded you,” right?, all of these narratives, which are already circulating in the information space, in some ways says to me like someone’s trying to prepare the space. 

Clint: It feels that way.

Reed: There’s an operation at hand to shape the way, to pre-shape and prepare the way whatever segment of the population is aware of the phenomenon, the way they see the phenomenon. There’s a very pro ET, antihuman bent that I personally have detected. 

There is a self-obuscation regarding origin which I find very interesting. Like we can’t not associate the UFO phenomenon with every other paranormal psychological, you know, consciousness-based or even, you know, spiritual or divine kind of layer to reality. It’s got to be one thing when it’s like there are compartments here. I mean, structured craft with alien biologics on board is not necessarily connected to demonic possession. It’s not necessarily connected to, you know, to other paranormal phenomena that have been observed. 

And so there’s like a species unwillingness to confront the peak and first layer to what this is presenting us with. And I wonder if it’s because—there’s many reasons—but who wants to respond? Who wants to figure out what to do? Right. And that this is my challenge to the UFO community. I mean, what’s your prerogative? Is it curiosity? Is it being a cosmic explorer? Is it saying f-you to the mainstream? I’m going to go into, you know, alternate realities and not deal with the way life is on Earth right now? I mean, if that’s your prerogative, that’s going to shape how you get into the UFO issue and what path you take through it. 

If your prerogative is that no, this is an evolutionary threshold. We’re coming in contact with layers to the ecology that surrounds our Earth, our humanity. And this threshold could make us or break us as a species. I got to be in it to help us find a way through. That’s more akin to my prerogative. That’s going to reshape how you respond. 

A lot of folks are in this space to understand. Not many are in this space to figure out how humanity should respond, right? I’m all about understanding to equip and to inform response. But if this is a big journey of exploration into understanding the nature of everything, well, you can take a thousand years to do that, but NHI is doing something else over the next year or two or three. And so, we’re late in the game to responding as it is. We’re eighty years into a programmatic engagement—very clear to me. 

Clint: And this is why I love talking to you, Reed. You’re the only person having this conversation. Like, you and maybe Steve Basset, I think, are the only two. I don’t know anybody else who’s talking about this. 

Reed: And that scares the hell out of me, frankly, Clint, because I mean, and that also says to me that there in some cases must be an overt, sorry, covert effort to disequip people from moving from possibility to probability, from probability to assessment, from assessment to taking a position and proposing real actions. No one is proposing intelligent actions as it relates to the pervasive global and soon to be very well-established nature of this phenomenon, right? Shoot, if we can create a mesh network of passive radar across the US and literally day one or week number two, we have data that proves what James Fowler has provisionally described as 15,000 estimated sorties above the US per year of UAP. What this is all…In the UAP Summit is what Ryan Graves estimated as dozens, and I’ve heard it estimated to be much higher, dozens of intercepts of civilian aircraft by UAP, 200 feet or less from the aircraft in the air loaded with passengers. I mean, we could quite quickly generate an intelligence picture as to the quantity, the specific areas locals of interest, the flight paths, the corridors of UAP activity and the potential strategic deployment of different morphologies of craft, right? 

Clint: That is such a beautiful question. I’m sorry to cut you off, but just like that you’re just so on the nose with this. The shape?How often? Where, why? Like what is the purpose? What’s the function of this craft? What does it do? What is it doing to our electronics? What’s it doing to the aircraft? What is it doing to people? And we need to catalog all of this. We need a data set that’s like a solid data set that everybody can look at. I love this. It’s just… 

Reed: So, you know, I mean, there are people like Richard Cloete of Freaking Aliens, which is an environmental sensing startup; don’t be distracted by the name. It’s actually not about freaking aliens, but it’s about environmental sensing. David Hooper of Eldaeon, Mitch Randall of Skywatch, are all demonstrating a basic technical multi-sensor kit that will be publicly accessible financially in which they actually are asking people to reach out now with interest and that would begin to provide that mesh network. 

Clint: So this would be like an open-source thing. Is that the idea?  

Reed: Well, that’s to be determined. I think these are all startups. They all have a, you know, some sort of financial model which they have to fund all of this. I know Mitch Randall wants it more to be philanthropically funded so that it can be for the public kind of effort which I totally respect. On the other hand, it is challenging to get five million dollars, which is exactly the number he needs. 

Others have a business model in which their system will be repurposed or have dual, triple purpose for aviation, for environmental sensing, for autonomous systems and other use cases, and then UAP is kind of secondary. And so that’s another kind of business case. But the goal I think ultimately, the one I’m advocating and I know The Human Institute is working on kind of stitching together the collaborative infrastructure for this, is to frame out what an international civilian-led open-source kind of coalition effort would look like, such that people retain ownership of their data and of their technologies. 

We’re not asking people to just, you know, take one for the team and they have to make it work, but in some way the data can pass through those proprietary systems and go through whatever filtration process is needed to protect, whether it’s PII, personally identifiable information, like MUFON has to do or whether it’s, you know, proprietary technologies, frequencies, etc., as others have to protect, but the data comes to one place. And then we get the public engaged. 

I love James Fowler’s Every Eye, you know, he wants grandma and her iPhone to be one of the sensors. I love that. That’s maximum civilian empowerment. I think that’s fantastic. 

And so, but we need a coalition architecture to stitch it together to overcome the egos and the profit incentives to get all of this to synergize. It’s totally doable. The question is who wants it? You know, it’s like in any sporting event, you know, pro hockey, football, you know, the NBA finals, you’ll hear the newscasters say, “Who wants it more? Who wants to win more?” Right? The DoW and the IC and God knows what the foreign governments of China and Russia are doing. They want it. Look at the operation that they’re conducting to keep this from public view, right? It’s expensive. They’re spending a lot of money and a lot of personnel time to make it happen. What about the civilian side? Who wants it? Do we want to rise out of the novel curiosity in UFOs and become an actor making shit happen? I do. 

And that’s what consumes my week. I want to make it happen. I’m not satisfied to just look at Doomscroll X and look at the last personality conflict between two, you know, two people, two personalities. It’s, you know, you know, great people focus, not on people. Great people focus, not on events. Great people focus on ideas. It’s the idea that this is a path to take, a line to walk, and the capabilities are here. And I think the UAP Summit demonstrated that profoundly to me. 

And so there’s so much, I mean, it’s just every step you take that’s productive if it was the right step reveals ten more steps to take. And I think if anything, we need more people. We need more people in the fight in the coalition. And it’s not just specialists and technologists and scientists. I mean, the power of a willing civilian, it’s pretty considerable, you know. I mean, I’m not a scientist. I’m not a researcher per se, but I am playing a part in helping activate that community, and I’m very happy about that. 

But I’m acting on my own sense of personal calling to do so. So I’m looking now, especially if there’s, with the appeal to authority, if the federal government of this administration is saying, “This is real. It was classified. Let’s take action. Let’s get it out.” If they bring forward real evidence, I’m going to look back to society and say, “Who’s next? Who, then? Who among you all is going to take the next step?” Because I do not think the federal government can take all steps here. They cannot walk us like babies into a new paradigm of the human experience. We have to do that. The religions have to do that. Culture has to do that. Science has to do that. If there’s no willingness to act, I’m not going to blame the government. And ultimately it’s going to come down to whether humanity wants and wills and wants and can respond or not. 

Clint: I feel like we’re so there. I feel like people are there, and it’s been this sort of we’re kind of half pregnant in terms of the government reaction to this or response. It’s sort of like well, it’s kind of real. It people are just waiting for that signal. But if you look at the the numbers on anyone who interviews, like anytime Joe Rogan does an interview about, you know, we’ve talked about this, you’re talking eight, nine, ten, 20 million views in a couple of days, every podcast I’ve seen. I was just talking to someone who works in, out of LA in advertising for big international brands. They have nothing to do with UFOs. It’s not on their radar at all. It’s just something they don’t even have an interest in. But she told me, this is someone who’s the CEO of this agency, she’s like, “Why in the last few days, everybody I’m talking to is asking me about aliens, like across every…just why is this…?” She was asking me to try to enlighten her, and I told her what I, you know, what was going on and it feels like, yeah we have crossed some kind of threshold—what?, I don’t know. And it’s weird because it’s like nothing we expected to see. I think everyone expected this to go down a little bit differently and it’s very messy, right?

Reed: And it will be yeah. I have the same experience. People come to me because they know I’m the UFO guy or the UAP guy. Others have said the same. And so it’s like it’s great. This is where we go from citizen disclosure as a concept to being a citizen discloser—someone who discloses the phenomenon one to one. I have disclosed this to hundreds if not several thousand people personally in literally a sitdown at a restaurant or a cafe or on an airplane or in a lobby of a hotel. And I’m proud of that. Like that’s my disclosure. And I would ask everyone: What’s your disclosure? And of course is it accurate, right? Was it was it done in a way that that allows a person to approach this, you know, in in a positive sense versus to just be put off or 

Clint: You onramp them, in a way… 

Reed: You have to do it in a certain way, and you want to bring credibility and kind of, you know, something of a logic tree to what you present to them so that they can latch on and keep climbing versus they just fall off because you told them some crazy, you know, wild conspiracy that you just saw an X yesterday. That’s not what to disclose. I think we are at this…this is the juncture we’re at. I’m super excited about it. 

One thing I’m launching in the next few weeks, happy to say because it’s been in development for well over a year and a half is this platform called UFOEvidence.com, which the whole team at UFOE, as we call it—there’s roughly eight people working on it—the goal here is to present evidence to the public to onboard them to not just key phenomena, but the specific effects that UAP are increasingly reported to generate, and to help them walk through the evidence, the best evidence in a very methodical fashion, and to understand what makes evidence good and why witness quality is different than evidence quality, and why different effects of UAP, whether it’s kinematics or psychological or physiological or equipment disruption has a different probative weight, probative meaning how much does it prove that an anomaly was present, that the null hypothesis is wrong, that this is something that cannot be explained prosaically? 

Because currently people are just consuming, you know, raw statements and testimony and stories essentially, and they’re just trying to just do the math in their own mind and figure out, “Well, I like him. I like that he has tattoos on his arm. He seems like a good guy. He must be right.” And it’s like, no, no, no, no, no, no. That is not how you, you know, ingest information and down-select to the highest credibility, most substantive forms of evidence that would then help you understand and generate bedrock understanding. 

And so I know this platform, UFO Evidence, is kind of trying to fill that key gap. After the Trump statement it was, I basically told the team we got to get this thing out because here the public is going to say: Where’s the evidence? He and she and see, you know, someone says something happened—where’s the evidence that it’s true? And there’s a lot of evidence out there but we do not interact with it. 

Clint: I saw Hegseth this morning on I forget what show it was, but he was reacting to the order. Some the reporter asked him, “What’s going to happen with this order now?” And he’s like, “Well, we’re complying with it. We’ve got people at the Department who are going through everything.” And, you know, of course, there’s going to be a spin put on it there. They’ll they’ll have their way of releasing it that is, you know, in line with their goals and objectives, I’m sure. But it’s interesting. It’s a weird it’s it’s very weird. It’s very much not what I ever expected it to be like. I think that’s how life goes, right? You think it’s going to be one way and then you just when you live it, it’s like, wow, this is really happening, 

Reed: Right.

Clint: I’m curious. I want to ask you one more question before I let you go and and I’m you mentioned earlier the hard edge to this thing, these craft, you know, they are occupied in some cases. They’re here, they’re doing things. you talked about influence, possible potential influence of our leaders or or various actors throughout the the political system. And I just wonder how much time do you spend thinking about this concept of them walking among us, them having some kind of hand in the dayto-day operations of of normal human activity that is more than what we see in the skies. 

Reed: Mhm. Well, I think you know we have to walk very deliberately and carefully as a society into those, you know, downstream possibilities that might—that might—arise from long-standing presence, activity and intentful engagement. So we need to look at the experiencer data set. Again, that data set, it’s not going to prove anything necessarily, but it’s going to redistribute what is probable and what is improbable; and it’s going to put on the far side of the spectrum a set of very probable scenarios that have more likely taken place than the improbable ones. Then we go look at those and we go get the data we need, even real-time data, even watching current experiencers who are alleging to have, you know, abduction experiences, for example, to better understand the nature of that encounter. 

You basically look at the whole. You devise a hypothesis based on what’s more probable than less, and you go get the data you need to re-substantiate  and to almost like…It’s like looking deeper, looking deeper, looking deeper.

With long-standing presence and engagement with the human population, I don’t see it’s implausible that a non-human form of life could try to adjust us as a species the way we function the you know because thought emotion lead to action lead to interaction, interaction reshapes the nature of events, and events take you down a a a probable course. And so if you want to change the outcome of that course, what would you change? Well, thoughts, emotions. Well, what generates thoughts and emotions? Genetics, biology. Well, why not change biology, right? 

It happens all the time in natural systems that organisms in a competitive fashion competing for living space or resources seek to mimic each other, seek to intervene in their own or others’ respective natural processes and alter the other in some fashion. Have we been altered? It’s a question, and I think we need the data to understand the scope and the depth of penetration into society by whatever the phenomenon is to, again, provide probable scenarios that then further inform how we focus our limited research and data collection abilities. 

And so it will come to light. I know it’ll come to light as narrative. I mean, I’ve already heard it. We all have, right?, that that there is some sort of non-human human among us. Even members of Congress are talking in those terms. We 

Clint: Isn’t that crazy? 

Reed: We heard Matt Gaetz on a podcast a week ago basically saying how that is now circulating in the halls of legislative government. 

Clint: Eric Davis in Congress, you know, I can’t believe what I hear sometimes. It doesn’t feel real. It feels like we’re in a movie, but yet here we are. 

Reed: I think personally it is highly probable that there has been a program to covertly interact with both civilians and military personnel to take them off site to another location and to conduct medical experiments and some kind of reproductive intervention. Now why? What for would that be? 

Again, I step back and look at the larger picture on what would a non-human do to affect or ultimately cause us humans to do something different, knowing that we are a race of seven billion and they’re probably an exploratory force of way less than that if not you know factors below? And so you you can’t take control of the world and redirect it without causing irreparable damage and harm, which doesn’t seem to be the intent here. 

But the intent is not necessarily beneficial. The intent may be may just be very long game, very deep and may be seeking to adjust the way our species expresses itself, whether it’s epigenetically, neurologically, culturally or religiously on a longer time frame than we can effectively detect. 

And so you know why else take people why else not just experiment to understand but to intervene in their natural processes, to change the way their bodies and minds work. Why do that? If it was incidental, if it was observational, you do it and you’re done. How many humans do you need to take to understand the way a human works? 

Clint: Yeah… 

Reed: Hundreds? Thousands? Well, when you look at the experiencer data, it doesn’t look like it is it limited to hundreds or thousands; it looks much more widespread than that. 

You, the UAP Tracking and Detection Summit, obviously based on the name you’re focused on UAP and things happening in the skies. Are you going to expand to look at experiencers and open it up to that in the future? Do you have plans to look at that? 

Reed: Absolutely. I mean, The Human Institute is we are multifaceted in what how we’re tackling this and we already have you know projects and initiatives to better understand the NHI side. one of which is the investigating NHI series which I’m co-chairing with UAP Med and Ted Row, who’s the executive director of UAP Med. There are other data collection and analysis projects we have in the works.

And we’re talking on both sides of the phenomenon. the UAP side which is to say nuts and bolts, you know, aerial primarily aerospace phenomena and the NHI side which is engages a whole other set of soft sciences and disciplines to better understand the human interaction and the consciousness-based nature of this. 

So the UAP Summit, the intent there was really to activate society’s ability to engage with what is technically detectable in our skies and in our oceans. It is in no way to say there are not other dimensions to this or that…I mean, if UAP are in our oceans, well, why? If UAP are flying over cities, why? Right? There’s got to be many layers to whatever that programmatic strategic engagement is that UAP are…potentially have.

And so there has to be a layered approach. I don’t know if we need to, you know, bring it all together and puree it into one kind of thing and make make I think there are there are we can tackle this in a compartmentalized way that will engage different sectors of society in, and activate their responses without making them feel like they’re stepping way beyond their discipline into the fringe, putting at risk their professional relationships their funding sources. We have to honor the fact that the world operates in a layered capacity in a multi-track fashion. So we need to tackle this in ways that work for humanity and advance this on multiple fronts. 

Clint: Step by step for sure. The website is uapsummit.org. People who want to watch the presentations back, they can click watch on demand and watch everything, right? Is that all available now? 

Reed: Yes. Yes, you can. You can pay a small amount to watch on demand now. If you don’t want to pay, that’s totally fine, just wait for it to come out publicly on YouTube, which it will. And I…there is some amazing presentations. I’m blown away by… 

Clint: There really are. 

Reed: Yeah. I mean, Bob McGwier had some great perspectives on USO detection in shallow water using a $200, you know, what do you call…acoustic microphone. Other groups are positing other technical solutions for low cost monitoring in various ways. There’s a lot of data being collected. There’s some fascinating insight. I see you scroll past Rony Vernet there. He’s doing great work on UAP detection in rural areas of Brazil and South America, gaining insight into dimensions that we’re not observing in the US or in Europe. So great, great presentations there. 

Clint: And for people who are, you know, who may not know, these are not like long, rambling interviews like I do here, these are focused presentations with data and slides. Like these are people who are experts in their respective fields delivering to you very, very specific information. So when you watch this, you know, part of what you’re participating in is much more focused than just a collection of people talking in general terms. 

Reed: Yes. And these presentations were by and large prepared for this event. They were prepared to tackle this issue specifically. So they weren’t taken off the shelf of a past conference. They were…many of the speakers responded to the call to really rethink, you know, how to tackle this and how to make the ball move down the field. So it’s definitely not just talk, it’s about action. 

Clint: It was a huge hit. So what’s the next step for the UAP Summit? Where do you go in 2027? 

Reed: Great question. Well, as you’re hinting at, there will be a UAP Summit in 2027. It will be tackling a different dimension of the UAP challenge. And that was always the intention was to basically analyze our whole-species interaction with UAP and figure out where are the pain points? Where’s the point at which we cannot progress? Let’s go right there. Let’s find the right people and let’s progress it. 

So in the time between now and 2027, I know the UAP Summit will be leveraging all of these relationships, all of these, you know, institutional connections to generate some high impact research and findings and work on issues of technology and data and cooperative infrastructure to make this move. Because currently the truth is we have, you know, maybe a dozen, maybe ten groups largely siloed with limited funding doing different things and the data that they generate will not synergize; it will not converge. And the findings will probably not be that dramatic or impactful because the deployment will be very limited. 

So we’re trying to tackle those fundamental issues of calibration, interoperability, cooperative data sharing so that all of these different gears begin to click into each other and move, you know, the engine forward for all of us, while acknowledging that these different groups have different funding pathways and different, you know, kind of programs and objectives. So it’s a challenge. But if there’s enough inspiration to make the ball move, I think we can definitely move it. 

Clint: Reed, we’ve got to wrap it there, but this has been amazing. I love that you’re doing this. This is so inspiring and I love just the make happen attitude. It’s that kind of energy that we we so desperately need. What what would you tell people who want to get involved who don’t know where to start? What should they do? 

Reed: Many things they can do. I would say be a citizen discloser. You know, have the informed UFO conversation with as many people as possible. be that person people come to because Trump is talking about UFOs. Be that be that person. You probably already are. so at that the basic level that.

there’s many important efforts and initiatives underway. So kind of…it’s pick your pick, your play on the ball. Is it science? Is it technology? Is it experiencers? Is it the international side of this? Is it the public media and you know mainstream dialogue or discourse on it? There’s so many ways to help. I know The Human Institute is looking for volunteers and ways, you know, we can get, plug people into these efforts. If you’d like to become a power user and an early adopter on UFOevidence.com, we’re definitely open to that. Just put your email on the homepage and we’ll bring you into that early adopter community. 

And I would say, you know, in general, let’s elevate the debate. Let’s get beyond people. Let’s get beyond events and talk about the key ideas. How should humanity ultimately respond? It’s not that mysterious. The phenomena may be mysterious, but what we do about it is not that mysterious. There’s not that many potential courses of action to propose. So get in the game, assess the phenomenon so that you can go beyond possibilities to be a part of designing the solution. And I think that’s fully within grasp for any informed citizen to be a part of. 

Clint: Outstanding. We’ll leave it there, Reed. Uapsummit.org is the website. Humaninstitute.org is the other website and you can find Reed there and track down all the different projects that he’s working on. Thank you so much, man. This has been…always they are great conversations, but this is, this is a lot of fun. 

Reed: Good. Good. Well, thank you for taking it forward, Clint, in the way that you are and Night Shift.