Okay. So what my takeaway is from that is that the NASA administrator, Jared Isaacman, he's a nice bloke, but he's clearly not very well informed by his staff because he's basically categorically said that NASA has disclosed all of its UAP imagery and data through the Pursue effort, through the Trump administration's UAP releases. Now, I'm not calling Jared Isaacman a liar. He's not telling pork pies. I just don't think he understands what we're talking about when we're talking about UAP data. Because whilst he may very well have searched the archives for anomalous records or items that describe UFO or UAP, there is a huge breadth of information held within NASA which covers the subject of anomalous phenomena, albeit it wasn't titled that. And probably a really good starting point is the Apollo 17 blue lights. A lot of you will remember that one of the items in the Pursue release was a triangular shape of blue lights that were photographed on the horizon in lunar orbit by one of the astronauts on the lunar surface. And the Pursue release, which is NASA UAP VM6, has three dots in a triangular formation in the lower right quadrant of the lunar sky. And importantly, the Department of War — the Department of War, not NASA — conceded that there is no consensus about this anomaly and that preliminary analysis suggests the feature was potentially the result of a physical object in the scene. And it also said in the Pursue release that the government had obtained the original Apollo 17 film for further Department of War and NASA analysis. Now, I guess Administrator Isaacman was probably not very well informed by his staff who were briefing him for these interviews he's been doing in the last few weeks, because he tended to suggest that that is categorically resolved, that what they're going to say is some explanation which says that this has been resolved. It hasn't. And absolutely NASA knows. Yes, there is a possibility. One of the explanations that Jared Isaacman tendered in the interview with Nancy was that those dots could have been caused by radiation, possibly cosmic radiation. And that is a plausible explanation. But we won't know that until that film has been properly examined and until we see a report released by the Department of War and NASA which states categorically whether the marks exist on the original film. And if the marks only appeared during copying and scanning and printing, then that's very easily dealt with. We can basically say, okay, that was clearly a mark that came in during printing.
Another thing they need to look at is what do the marks look like microscopically? And that's something they can only do with their ongoing analysis. Depending on the geometry, particle type, and processing, that dot can appear as a track, a point, a grain cluster, or radiation fogging. And NASA can find that out in collaboration with the Department of War. But we, the public, need to know the results because NASA and the Department of War have promised us those results. So at this time, this is still an unresolved issue. The other question that we need to ask is, do the neighboring frames around that bit of film show those three dots? And if they show movement, a parallax-like movement as whatever the object is tracks across the sky or as the camera moves, then it's very, very hard to dismiss that as cosmic radiation. So these questions need to be answered.
We're not at this stage able to answer that question. One thing that didn't happen was there was no acknowledgement by the astronauts on Apollo 17, for example, that they saw those three blue dots in the lights. They did report lights on the lunar surface, and this is something I would love to see clarified. Is there anything in any of the unreleased documents or transcripts from NASA, of which there are many, which basically say whether or not the astronauts say they saw these blue dots or the dots? There were a lot of unusual light reports. For example, early in the mission, astronaut Ronald Evans reported seeing very bright particles or fragments. And Harrison Schmitt reported at one stage, it's quite a celebrated comment, that the objects that he was seeing were like the 4th of July. But these descriptions probably encompassed other material, tumbling material around the spacecraft. None of those statements concur with the three blue dots image that we see in the Pursue release. So that has to be resolved. Now, I'm going to give this quite a bit of coverage because I want to make the point to NASA that we're prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt that what they've done very clearly is a very narrow search, merely searching their archives for probably UAP, UFO, anomalous. And I'm sorry, that is an unsatisfactory search. That is not the kind of search that we're expecting. And even Mike Gold from NASA's UAP study team, when he did an interview with us in Washington a few weeks ago, he admitted that when their investigations were underway, they were very, very limited in what they were allowed to look at. So I was going to call this the NASA dirty dozen, and I was going to go to town on Jared Isaacman, but as I added up the number of cases that I can talk about where there is clearly still data to be released, I realized it's far more than a dozen. I was going to call it the dirty dozen plus a few more, but frankly, I don't think I can make that work. But for example, it is the case in the Nancy Loo interview, Jared Isaacman made it very, very clear that he believes that they have fulfilled their disclosure requirements.
Now let's go through it. I would certainly not say that all of NASA's available UAP files have been released. That is categorically untrue.
NASA may have released all of the historical records that it has so far identified and selected for Pursue, but that is vastly materially different from saying that all NASA records relevant to UAP have been found and disclosed. Firstly, NASA's own 2023 UAP study, on its own admission, didn't search or assess historical UAP cases. And NASA explicitly admitted that that report was not a review of previous UAP incidents. That has never happened. And I think personally NASA should make that happen because it's clear that the astronauts were seeing and reporting anomalous objects both during the Gemini, Apollo, and space shuttle missions.
Pursue has released NASA material incrementally over several tranches, showing that the NASA material was larger than a single pre-existing UAP file. They'd previously said they had no records, and that was essentially shown, demonstrated to have resulted from inadequate searches. And I was very, very concerned that Jared Isaacman made the assertion that they'd now done all the searches and that this is the end of the matter. It's not, sir. A federal judge has previously found that NASA had not demonstrated that its Kecksburg UFO search was adequate, and NASA itself conceded that its first two searches were inadequate. So they've got form on this. They've got form for essentially misleading a court about the kind of searches that they've done. And frankly, I would have thought that if the president is demanding the release of UAP-pertinent material, a good and honorable administrator like Jared Isaacman would do his level best to go to the absolute 10th degree, 100th degree, to make sure that they do a thorough, thorough search. So let's go through it. Let's have a look at some of this. For example, we know that they've released Apollo 12 transcripts, Apollo 17 transcripts, Gemini 7 transcripts, Apollo 11 technical crew debriefings, Apollo 17 scientific and technical debriefings, Skylab technical crew debriefings, and associated Apollo imagery. This is important. It's great that they've done that. Well done, NASA. That's not the end of it. They've also added Apollo Mercury material, Apollo 12 medical debriefing, Apollo 17 audio, which is good to listen to, Mercury Atlas 9, 8, and 7, and Redstone 4.
But let's go through what they haven't released. Let's go through some of those. Firstly, the Kecksburg litigation. Leslie Kean, a friend and colleague, she was involved in an attempt through the courts to extract details about the Kecksburg crash, so-called, and she filed an FOI request in 2003 seeking NASA records relating to the December '65 Kecksburg incident, Cosmos 96, which was the explanation for what it might have been, Project Moondust, a name Richard Schultheis and NASA, and Fragology files from '62 through '67. NASA initially replied it had no records, which was, I'm sorry, a pork pie, a lie. So they've got form. The federal court eventually found otherwise, and NASA eventually admitted it had done an inadequate search, and the court ultimately held that NASA had not yet met its burden of demonstrating that its search was adequate. Basically, there are still Kecksburg records that have not been found or disclosed, and a court actually found that NASA initially failed to properly act on that federal court direction, apparently because of poor tracking and relocation of the FOIA office, which is appalling. And NASA actually discovered 19 boxes, 19 boxes of files when they did a search. But there are still records that are missing and still have not been obtained.
Let's go through to another case which is more relevant. So, for example, let's talk about the Apollo 12 transcript. The key passage had Alan Bean describing particles of light apparently moving away from the moon, and the crew considered this might be water droplets or something like that. The problem is what NASA has released is only a very, very small four pages from the Apollo 12 transcript. We want to see the entire Apollo 12 transcript. Why is a transcript still suppressed after 60 years? What's going on? There's the technical air-to-ground transcript, which is 1,067 pages. The command module onboard voice transcript, 447 pages. The lunar module onboard voice, 452 pages. There's also an Apollo 12 photographic log index. So missing from the Pursue tranche is all of the contemporaneous audio. They have never released that. Missing is also the complete onboard recordings, the full surrounding transcript, the spacecraft records of its attitude and its trajectory, photographic correlation, any engineering determination about the particles. I mean, that's a classic example.
Next one, the Apollo 17 transcript. I'm not going to go through all of these, but the crew reported seeing bright, jagged, angular fragments, and they speculated about what that might be. Ron Evans, the astronaut, said he was photographing them, and then specifically recorded, 'I will take two pictures about a minute apart, frame 70.' He actually stipulated the frame. This is a direct evidentiary lead. And guess what? NASA's never released it. Pursue has never identified the two frame 70 photographs. It's never identified the magazine or the roll number, the adjacent frames, the exact camera that was used, the lens or the exposure information. It's never identified the trajectory or the attitude correlation. It's never identified any documents relating to a post-flight photographic analysis. There's more. There's 2,461 pages of technical air-to-ground transcript, 746 pages of onboard transcript on the command module, thousands of pages more to be released. This is a high-priority disclosure gap. The astronauts explicitly say that photographs were being taken of the observed objects, and a genuinely complete evidential release should either produce those images or explain why they can't be identified.
One more. I'm not going to bore you all to death with all of the detail, but I, being a complete nerd, have gone through all of the NASA archives released and then looked at what we could obtain from the NASA files. And the comparison is incredible. Let's have a look, for example, at the NASA Gemini 7 bogey, which for the nerds out there is UAPD3/D03A.
The Gemini 7 bogey. This is the famous Frank Borman exchange about seeing a bogey, which is a term for an unidentified object of some kind. The Pursue release has supplied an excerpt from Frank Borman's transcript and an audio excerpt. How nice. Now, that is valuable primary evidence. But NASA's own archival catalog shows there's an enormous Gemini record that has not been released. There are complete air-to-ground onboard transcription volumes, mission reports, full sets of photographs, full sets of technical debriefing, full sets of comm commentary files. So, missing from the Pursue release is full audio surrounding the encounter, full details on the spacecraft's attitude and location, tracking data, separation history of the Titan booster, which is one explanation they might try and use to explain the bogey, NORAD object catalog correlation because NORAD had its own systems monitoring. Any mission control assessment? Any photographs of the alleged object? No photographs have ever been released of the bogey. Why? Any contemporaneous engineering investigation?
This is really important. We know that the transcript and audio that have been released are authentic because, God bless him, the president has released them. The important unresolved question is whether the bogey was identified as debris, booster-related material. If it was, let's release it. Let loose the dogs of good old disclosure. This goes on and on and on, page after page, and I could bore you rigid with what I've found. Time and time again, what we find in the Pursue release is they've only released a fraction of the data involving some of the more interesting anomalous incidents. And dare I suggest they've heavily redacted that data. And I think they're slightly skewing what they're releasing to try and suggest a prosaic explanation. If there's nothing to hide, release all of it. Why can't the public, who paid multiple billions of dollars for the Apollo moon missions and the shuttle missions, why can't the public see all the data? Why is NASA still redacting moon mission data 60 years on from those incredibly historic and incredibly important moments in human history? Why? Why? Why do we still, years on, have to insist that they continue releasing data?
So, one other example. I know I promised I'd stop at three, but there's just one more. Apollo 17 is one of my favorites. And I think the blue dots are significant, by the way, because while Edgar Mitchell wasn't on Apollo 17, he told my friend the spaceman that he saw the blue dots on the lunar surface with his own eyes on multiple occasions. And indeed, I've published in my book, In Plain Sight, photographs of blue dots not only in lunar orbit, but also on flights back to Earth as the command module was linking up with the lunar module to bring Apollo 14 back to Earth. These astronauts saw these blue objects, whatever they are, and indeed some of them acknowledged privately that they perceived them to be physical objects, Edgar Mitchell being one of them. So, I do think it's important that NASA is more open about these so-called blue dots. This needs important exposure. So, let's go to NASA UAPD005/D006, which were the Apollo 17 science and technical debriefings.
The document D6 is interesting because it was initially marked confidential and it was intended to be declassified. The Pursue excerpt contains Schmidt discussing light flashes, including one that he thought was on the lunar surface, but the broader NASA record strongly associates many of these flashes with the cosmic ray visual phenomenon. We know there is a vast amount of missing evidential material. They were doing what's called the ALFMED cosmic ray experiment. That's never been released, the experimental data, which would allow us to confirm whether these were cosmic rays that were causing these images to appear both on the film and in the astronaut's eyes. And by the way, it is possible that these flashes of radiation can generate an image in the human eye. So it is possible, we have to concede, that whatever these images were, they were being developed by some kind of radiation exposure. But we won't know until they release all of the evidential material, particularly the radiation monitor data, the cross-crew comparisons, instrument correlations.
And again, I can't help myself. 007 Skylab. This is, in my view, one of the most important NASA files in the Pursue releases. It contains the Skylab crew's description of the reddish satellite that we've discussed before in previous programs. Owen Garriott, the astronaut on Skylab, said it was much brighter than planets and stars. It had a reddish hue. It showed a roughly 10-second brightness period, suggesting it was rotating. It remained near the spacecraft, very near the spacecraft, for roughly 10 minutes. And it entered darkness only about 5 or 10 seconds after Skylab, suggesting it was tracking Skylab. And it was estimated from that geometry to be only 30 to 50 nautical miles away, which is very, very close in space. And they took photographs.
Then comes the critical sentence, quote from the audio transcript: 'It's all debriefed in terms of time on channel A, so the precise timing and location can be picked up from there.' Now, the NASA documentation confirms that Skylab produced separate technical air-to-ground voice transcriptions and onboard voice transcriptions, for the nerds. That's JSC8476 and 08477 for Skylab 1/3. Those have not yet been provided. We don't have the channel A recording and transcription. We don't have the exact observation and timestamp. We don't have the exact Skylab position and vector. We don't have the satellite catalog search. We don't have the NORAD tracking comparison, the range determination, any optical equipment details, any ground response that identified or failed to identify the object. We don't have any photographs or imagery that were taken. This is a major gap. And the reason why it's important is because we have the timestamp and location on another recorded channel that has not been released. Jared Isaacman, this is the sort of stuff we're talking about. And it goes on and on and on. There's pages of it. I could bore you rigid with it, but I won't.
Thank you so much, Megan. Suffice to say, I thought Nancy Loo elicited from Jared Isaacman an admission that I think he will live to regret. NASA has not revealed all UAP-pertinent material, and it still has a long way to go. I'm genuinely concerned that the administrator may be being misled. One of the other things, too, the Black Vault, our friend John Greenwald, he talked about a NASA FOIA which established that the UAP task force briefed NASA in 2020, and the Navy later released the J. Stratton slide deck that was heavily redacted. So J. Stratton did this briefing. There was a slide deck presented by J. Stratton to NASA. Why did NASA delete the slide deck? Why were images on that slide deck presented by J. Stratton heavily redacted? Most of the photographic evidence slides are blacked out, and two of three potential explanations are heavily redacted. The visible one, the one that we're allowed to see, quite patronizingly, is unknown weather or other natural phenomena. So why, if NASA's been open, why was the slide deck provided by the UAP task force in their briefing to NASA deleted? Why? John Greenwald's FOI shows there were deletions.
So basically, there's no public FOI release that shows that NASA admits that it holds and refuses to release any formal investigation report or astronaut-corroborated anomalous object. But the recurring findings are that these events were logged as debris, ice, window reflections, or physiological flashes. So my point is, Megan, I'm trying to illustrate to the audience that there are incredible quantities of information which may not be entitled 'UAP dark secrets of the deep state inside NASA.' But I don't think that Jared Isaacman is being fully open with the public when he says that all UAP material has been released. I think what he told Nancy Loo may not have been a pork pie, but I think he's very poorly advised.
