Kevin Knuth: The Scientific Study of Unidentified Aerospace-Undersea Phenomena (SCU Conference, 2025)

0:00 We all saw Kevin, of course, as a recipient of an award last night. That was, I believe, a surprise for him, and it was indeed well-earned. This man's contributions to the science and study of UAP and many other areas of the sciences, which are tangently related to UAP and actually completely independent. I mean, his area of expertise is broad, and what he brings to this topic is unprecedented. Dr. Knuth is a professor of physics at the University of Albany and the editor-in-chief of the journal Entropy. He's a former NASA research scientist having worked at NASA Ames Research Center in the Intelligence Systems Division designing artificial intelligence algorithms for astrophysical data analysis. His current research interests include the foundation of physics, quantum information, autonomous robotics, the search for and characterization of extrasolar planets, and of course unidentified anomalous or aerial phenomena. He's published over 100 peer reviewed scientific publications and has

1:01 been invited to give over 100 presentations in 18 countries. We're very very glad to have him here presenting today at the 2025 Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies Conference. Please make Welcome, Mr. Kevin Knuth, doctor, Dr. Kevin Knuth. - All right, thank you so much for that kind introduction. All right, first slide, please. Do I get to see the slides here? I don't know how to start it. Oh, now you can. Wonderful, okay, brilliant. So yes, I'm going to talk about the scientific study of UAP and UFOs. And this is a lovely picture made by Open Art AI. And man, if it really was like that, sign me up immediately, right? But that is not what watching for UFOs looks

2:05 like. It looks more like this. where you're in your car because it's raining outside, usually, something like this. This is more what it looks like. It's difficult. It's tedious. It takes time and effort. And we're going to need some guidance to do this. So we're going to look to Skinner for guidance. Wait a minute. Not this guy. This is fiction. We're talking about science, not fiction. Science isn't a TV show. we're gonna look to principal Skinner for guidance and review what science about science there's nothing more exciting than science you get all the fun of sitting still being quiet writing down numbers paying attention science has it all that's the guidance we need that's the thing we need to remember this does not make for for great

3:09 documentary footage when you're actually doing science sitting still being quiet paying attention yes all of it and academic scientists are usually hopefully they're supposed to be trained to know several things first one is we're trained to know what data are and how to handle data properly and we're trained to know what it means to analyze data and how to arrive at conclusions. So data are recorded measurements obtained in a carefully controlled environment by well understood instruments. And these data consist of those measurements and any associated metadata about the equipment, about the environmental state, about the experimental context, all of that's necessary to comprise as the data. An image or a video by itself is not data. You get a picture, a video of a UFO, and you post that on YouTube without any

4:10 context, without any information about the equipment, without any additional information. It's not putting your data out there. That's not what that is. That's showing off. Analysis is the act of making inferences about a model of a physical system from which the measurements were taken. That's what analysis is. Analysis is not, I looked at the image and verified that it's probably an alien spaceship. That's not analysis. The other thing that academic scientists are trained to do is to know when it's safe to share data and analyses with other scientists and know when it's appropriate to share data and results publicly. This is important. Now, data and analyses should be shared with other scientists. We do this for a good reason, because you need to have them look over and test your methodology, the work you've done, and your conclusions. You need to have that checked. We call this peer review often,

5:11 but that's when we write papers, we call it peer review. But when you're actually working with the data and doing the study, you're working with other scientists. And so this is often done with a few trusted colleagues before publication. You wanna have them be trusted colleagues because some people are unscrupulous, even in the sciences. I know that will shock many of you. Scientists can be some of the worst, actually. And they will steal your data and publish it before you do, and all sorts of crazy things. So you have to be careful. And you're trained to be careful. And so, you know, if some scientific group is working honestly with other scientific, then you'll have other scientific groups know about results before they appear on YouTube. If I'm finding out about some interesting scientific study that happened from YouTube, I right away almost don't believe it. I think this is clearly gonna be nonsense. I'm suspicious. And then data and results should not be made public

6:13 until the scientists are absolutely certain of their work and their claims. You want to be sure that that you know what your conclude that your conclusions are correct before you go public with this otherwise really bad things happen and then the last step the next step is to publish the work in a peer-reviewed journal again this is a lot of fun remember this is fun this is the fun part science is exciting sharing is delicate um you should be sharing your work and data and methods with other scientists you trust you want to make sure you trust them and you should be publishing your work in peer-reviewed academic journals that's important what you do not do is you do not publicly present data or information until you thoroughly understand it doing so invites misinterpretation at in the best situations and discrediting in the worst of situations. And once your work's

7:16 been discredited, all of your hard work's just impotent. And you don't want that to happen. Nobody wants that to happen. Failure to share your work with other scientists is not scientific, period. In science it's important to expose your ideas, your data, your methodology to testing by other scientists. this means openly communicating these ideas to other scientists you trust and you restrict this to scientists because presumably they've been trained to behave ethically this is why the trust part matters and they know how to properly manage data and they knew what needs to be done to analyze the data and to test the methodologies very often people find themselves under non-disclosure agreements especially in this field non-disclosure agreements prevent the leveraging of expertise from the scientific community it limits you period and they imply that and

8:19 the biggest problem is that an nda implies that there are other constraints operating that are more important than understanding something or more important than arriving at the truth and i think that this is a big problem in this field ndas are holding back our understanding of an important phenomenon a globally important phenomenon and given the long-standing global nature of the uap question and its potential profound importance understanding should be the number one objective this persistent ignorance about over well over a century at this point is dangerous and unconscionable you can ask people i've asked government officials who supposedly know what's going on to some degree they claim to i've asked how many craft are operating in the earth environment at any given time just give me an order of magnitude is it ten a hundred a thousand ten thousand

9:19 and all i get is a blank stare and then the answer i don't know we don't know we are horribly ignorant about this problem that is potentially world-changing and potentially dangerous not a good idea so scientists have a code of conduct and in fact Jay mentioned this this yesterday he had a I took some notes and I didn't don't remember where they yeah Jay mentioned that it's you know scientists are you know their their their motivations are based on curiosity um rigor and integrity and that's a good way to sum it up into three words that's important um this is a code of conduct that breaks things out a little more in a little more detail the first thing is you pay attention to what other people have done you

10:20 expose your ideas to testing you assimilate the evidence and you openly communicate ideas and tests to others and you play fair these are all important steps and we scientists know what happens when you don't follow these guidelines really bad things happen here's an example that some of you may remember um i remember it vividly because i was a graduate student when this happened cold fusion fusion in a bottle so this all got discredited right and nobody studies it well that's not exactly true some people still study this but very few people and they do it quietly not that much different than what happens with uap studies And the sad part is, is that some aspect of cold fusion actually seems to be real. There's something happening there.

11:20 It's probably not nuclear fusion, but it's something else. And we don't know what it is, still. It's not been, what, 30 years. We still don't know what this is. Why? Because they messed up. They jumped the gun. They actually messed up in multiple ways and got themselves discredited. And once this field's discredited, it's done. It's dead. And we've seen that happen with UAP several times. And we're now entering a period where we are getting some credit. And we are getting some attention. We don't need to be discredited again. So behaviors that are going to lead to being discredited should be very much frowned upon. So what did Pons and Fleischman do wrong? First, they didn't pay attention to what other people have done. Their lack of knowledge about nuclear physics and refusal to collaborate with other experts hindered their study. They didn't test their work very well, although they could have easily done so, and they refused

12:20 to let other scientists look for fusion products in their experiments. And they didn't assimilate the evidence, despite evidence against it, they refused to give up on the idea of fusion, it turns out it's probably not fusion, but it could be something else. Maybe another energy source that we don't know much about. They refused to share their detailed test results with other scientists. And the last one, they broke their agreement with a third scientist who was also studying the effect and they held a press conference and published before he did. They beat him to it. They did a lot of They did every one of these things wrong. They broke a lot of rules and now look where the whole field of cold fusion is, lost. So we don't want that to happen. We need to be careful. So what the rest of this talk is about, the rest of this talk is about step one, pay attention to what other people have already done.

13:22 That's really what I'm going to focus on for this talk. And that's the focus of the paper that we have just published. So here's the paper. I have another link that will lead to the published version. This is the version that's sitting on the archive right now, which I haven't updated with the final version yet. So it's missing the piece on physical evidence. But you can see this is our, we've got a long author list, 34 authors. I'll talk about that in just a minute. And it's been published in a special issue devoted to UAP studies in the Progress of Aerospace Sciences, which is actually a very well-respected journal. It is what's called an impact factor of 11.5. And so, and it's present with two other papers that are notable. One is the UAPX paper, which is the initial

14:22 results from the first field expedition of UAPX to study unidentified anomalous phenomena, first authored by Matthew Shadagas and it's also in this journal issue is a paper by Jacques Vallée, Luc Dini and Jeffrey Mischewski on estimates of radiative energy values and ground level observations of an unidentified aerial phenomenon with physical evidence which skeptics are always complaining about why is there never any physical evidence well they're not paying attention there is um so this paper is unique in many ways um we have 34 authors co-authors in the paper many of those people are here today um i know hussein aliagrama is here somewhere and um i want me people raise their hand in case they're still sleeping

15:26 because i myself am tired um if i had if i was a time traveler i would be the lamest time traveler in existence because i would use it to go take naps true fact um and so there and and let's see laura domine is here today as well and uh richard hoffman's here today i don't know if hakon kyle is physically here and um robert paul is here today and um i'm hoping i'm afraid i'm going to miss somebody matthew chadagas is here today and west waters is here today so we have several co-authors from this paper are here and i'm grateful for the help that everyone gave this was took a lot of work it was basically a year of my life putting this together so we've got 34 authors representing seven nations that we did on purpose as well we want to emphasize that this is a global phenomenon it's not just an american phenomenon it's global and that the scientists from around

16:29 the world are working together um this paper when it was written on for the archive in that format doubles double space lines and that sort of thing comes out to 194 pages it's not a quick read sorry um the published versions double two columns tiny font 58 pages we put in a hundred we put in 506 references how many times have you heard a scientist say well you know you should learn about ufos well there's nothing really to read there's no nothing's ever been done there's nothing to read on ufos well here's 506 references for you get to work um so this is a global effort to understand a global phenomenon. And one of the things that really excites me about science, and I've seen this time and time again, is science unites humanity in ways that no other institution can. That's an aspect of science that I don't think is appreciated.

17:31 It is unifying. I always want to do better, so I'm going to talk about what I regret I didn't do for this paper. We are missing authors and detailed information from work done in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, South and Central America. We weren't able to collect a lot of information about China and Southeast Asia and India. And we are missing discussion about the work from several other individuals. So at the appendix, we talk about certain individuals who've contributed scientific efforts to the study of UAP studies. And there are some people missing there. So this would have required more time, more authors, more coverage, would have made the paper larger, which would have made it unpublishable.

18:31 I am actually shocked that 194-page paper was published in the first place. And it would make it unreadable. so we didn't add those things when we realized they were missing and maybe somebody else will write a version too. I don't think I will. I want to do something else. So I should note that this adds to other earlier and contemporary important work, also summarizing the scientific studies of UAP. Philippe Aylaris has two papers that are very good. There's the paper by Gretchen Stallman, and I don't know if she's here yet, or if she was planning to come. And the book by Michael Swords and Robert Powell and co-authors. I found that that's in bold here, because I found that to be invaluable in putting this paper together. That was extremely helpful.

19:31 And then when I didn't understand something from that book or something, pieces were missing, I was able to talk to Michael Swartz and Robert Powell and they're co-authors on the paper. So they helped fill in those gaps. There's the paper by Beatrix Villa-Royal and her co-author, Kevin Kruski-Yunis, which is a recent paper. And then the paper from the Galileo project from written by Wes Waters. And so these all talk about the scientific studies of UAP as well, so they're also worth reading. So the aims of the paper, the highlights are that UAP are a long-standing global phenomenon. UAP have been observed and studied by engineers, scientists, and astronomers. They have actually tried to study them. That has happened. And there exist several serious academic and private efforts to scientifically study UAP.

20:33 And scientific studies of UAP rely on a diverse array of scientific instrumentation. So these highlights, the one goal of this paper was to dispel myths. There's a lot of myths, especially, that academics have about UAPs. And some of them are, well, it's an American phenomenon that started in 1947. It has, they've never been seen by a real scientist an astronomer, never been certain, certainly never studied by a scientist or an astronomer or an engineer. There's nothing published on them, nothing worth reading or looking at, and it's all just a bunch of nonsense. This is the general idea that a lot of skeptics have about this. And so the goal in this paper was to, and there's never any physical evidence, so these are things that I've heard said time and time again, all of them untrue. And so this paper was basically to um dispel all those myths and in fact um i think i said this to matthew at one point i

21:35 said you know the paper was getting large and he expressed some concern i think i was up to 20 pages or something he was was getting a little large and i said but we got one shot at this you know with the editor so this paper actually came out of um our uapx paper which is in the same The editor-in-chief and the reviewers who had looked at that paper wanted us to add a little section on the scientific study of UAP. And Matthew was working on editing the rest of the paper and he said, "Well, I don't have much time for this. Kevin, can you handle this part?" And I said, "Sure." So I started doing this and I worked on it one evening and found very quickly that I was up to 10 pages. Like, this is no longer a small section, I'm not sure what to do. And so, and it didn't fit into the paper well. I mean, it was hard to paper on our UAPX mission, and where do you stick a section on

22:37 the scientific study of UAPs? It just doesn't flow, it doesn't work right. So we talked, so Matthew's idea was to talk to the editor-in-chief and suggest that if he really wants that, maybe we should write a second paper. And that's basically where this paper came from. So when the paper started ballooning in size, page 20, and we were getting concerned about that, I said look, we've got one shot at this. One shot to really discuss how UAPs have been studied scientifically and what's been done and what's being done. And I said this has to be a knockout punch. this has to be we can't play around here we have to hit and hit hard and so this is so there's the 194 pages with 506 references um the only problem with hitting that hard is maybe no one will read it and the very probably possible

23:39 so yes so we start out the paper talking about um some of the history of this of the study of uap in general and we actually start the discussion in sweden in the 1930s that's where we decided to start it instead of starting in world war ii with 1947. and we cover american efforts we cover world war ii american efforts french efforts we summarize the russian efforts the chinese efforts and summarize physical evidence work that's been done there we summarize a little bit that's been done on submerged objects and we summarized current scientific efforts. That's what the paper basically covers. Now, what about this 1947 business? Why is everybody always hooked on 1947? This is why. This is a histogram from Fletcher's report showing the number of reported sightings per

24:42 day over a four-week period from June 15th to July 15th of 1947 and something rather extraordinary happens. First, if you look at the background rate before June 20th, you find that there are about, there's a lot going on here. Oops, no, let me go back up. All right, so I won't do that yet. So a lot happened this week. You had Maury Island, you have Kenneth Arnold, you have Roswell, you have the San Agustin Plains crash, which I wish I didn't put in here. There's a lot of stuff going on and those aren't even the majority of the sightings. And we included some pictures. This is a picture of Kenneth Arnold with a

25:42 drawing of the objects he saw, along with a photograph that was taken by William Alpert Rhodes in Phoenix. And those craft look similar to me. I thought that interesting, so we included both pictures. But one of the things that Matthew Shadagas and I, of course, both being at UAlbany, worked closely together, and Matthew pointed out that We need more pictures in this paper. This is 194 pages of text. This is boring and hard to read. We need something to break it up, something to get your interest. And he was right about that. And I tried to put in some more UFO pictures. In fact, there was one of the sightings during that week in 1947 was on Catalina Island, actually. And I wanted to include that because we had our Catalina study also in that special issue. We knew they were going to be in the same special issue. And it was a photograph taken by Young of one of the objects that they saw.

26:43 The problem is I couldn't get a good photograph of this. The photograph, the object that they saw, they photographed it at one in the afternoon. Most of the photographs I can find online look like this. This is a negative of the photograph, not the actual photograph. It looks like the negative of the photograph. I'm assuming it was. Otherwise, he's not a good photographer because it's one in the afternoon. There should be a lot more light. And so now what could I have done? I could have inverted it and then thrown it into our paper, but I'm a scientist, and that's disingenuous. I'm messing things up. I'm playing with it. That's not cool. So I did eventually find a photograph that actually looked like the real photograph, but I wasn't able to use that one. It was owned by somebody, and they had copyrighted, so that was a problem. So I found, and trying to find other photographs of UFOs,

27:44 I found this to be very difficult. So this is something that is needed, whether SCU wants to spend some time doing this or not. I will leave that up to anyone who's interested. What's needed is we need some kind of website somewhere that has vetted UFO imagery in videos with some metadata context sources and links. These are some rather good pictures, I think, that I've found in my time working on these things, but it's hard to find good UFO pictures anywhere and you can't trust what you see. So somebody who wants to get into this and show their friends something or other scientists something, they're gonna go online in Google and they're gonna grab a picture of a UFO and God only knows what it is, right? And so I think something like this is needed. So going back to these sightings, which are interesting, so the daily rate of UFO sightings

28:46 is something like seven a day outside of this time period. Yes, the mean is 7.2 plus or minus 6.8. So the plus or minus 6.8 is the uncertainty. So this is basically what we call in statistics is a Poisson process. You basically have a Poisson process of UFO sightings with a rate of about 7. And then all of a sudden you hit June 30th and things take off. And then you go up to, what, 150 a day? 150 sightings a day. Something extraordinary is happening. You want to ask, how extraordinary is this? So statistically, you would measure that against the standard deviation, that uncertainty that you have in your usual rate, that 6.8. And it turns out that this is about 21 standard deviations change. Now those of you who, and actually in our UAPX

29:47 paper, Matthew worked to do this. he wanted to employ a rigorous standard of certainty and uncertainty in our findings and wanted to employ what they use in particle physics, which, correct me if I'm wrong, Matthew, but it should be six sigma, correct? Five. Five sigma. I mean, at least I was erred the conservative way. So it's about five sigma. So in particle physics, a finding is not significant unless it's at least five sigma. This is 21 sigma. This is crazy. What happened in 1947? Now you could argue that there's something sociological happened. People, there were a few UFO sightings and people got all hyped up and sociology, something sociological happened that was significant and that would give you your 21 sigma. But the problem with that is, when you look

30:48 at the lists of the other sightings, these other sightings are remarkable too. Almost any one of these is remarkable. So, on July 3rd, there was a landing of eight large objects with ten witnesses. July 4th, there were 35 objects in three formations with 60 people. Watch this in the sky. A lone disc in the sky seen by 200 people. These aren't people hallucinating or getting excited about a news report that they saw. This isn't sociological. Something special happened in 1947. I don't know what it was. So in Bletcher's paper, you can read about all of these details, and that's great fun to do. There's landings. There's UFOs being seen by pilots of planes. It's pretty significant. And then it drops off again. And about halfway through, actually, when it's peaking, that's when the ridicule starts, and it hasn't stopped since, right?

31:52 In the paper, we did not discuss Roswell. We stayed away from Roswell. Roswell is a very bad thing to talk about, because I don't think anybody really knows what happened there, and we did not want to get into that. Although I do have to mention that the claims of Project Mogul is nonsense. We have data from what happened to Project Mogul. The idea that you've got a weather balloon that's flying at 50,000 feet is going to hang over the same county in New Mexico for weeks and then fall on this ranch is silly. Has anyone ever heard of the jet stream? 50,000 feet, you've got 200 mile an hour winds. How long will it stay in the county? Somebody do the math if you can't if you're a scientist you can't do the math then you need to consult one of your undergrad students. So even if they had launched a balloon in June, which they didn't,

32:55 it would have not been landing on Mac Brazel's ranch. Ridiculous. And Kirkpatrick's Arrow Report would have failed peer review miserably. and he's supposedly a professional scientist. That's a problem, I'm sorry. I was in an interview, somebody asked me what I thought about it, and my frank assessment was that it was as if it was written by a disinterested eighth grader. And I stand by that. I'll quote John Bell, quantum physicist. Professional physicists ought to be able to do better. Oh, I'm backing up. Pushing the wrong button. So we didn't discuss Roswell. We did discuss green fireballs, which I thought were fascinating. I learned a lot writing this report, which

33:57 was great. Through November of 1948 and through 1951, green fireballs were being observed near Albuquerque, New Mexico and Los Alamos. A meteorite expert, Dr. Lincoln LaPasse, headed their study. What he was an expert in was pretty amazing. He could, from witness testimony of a meteorite, plot the trajectory, figure out where the meteorite landed, and he would go find the meteorite. That's what he did for his career. And he almost always found them. He was able to plot trajectories of these green fireballs. first they weren't always going down they're sometimes going up and and the ones that were going down he never found a green fireball never found anything related to that um so he was very clear it was very clear to him that they were not meteors there were other reasons for this most scientists at los alamos had seen them

34:58 edward teller invented the hydrogen bomb had seen them Clyde Tombaugh, discoverer of Pluto, an astronomer, had seen them. Astronomers have seen them. Scientists have seen them. I'm sorry. It's time to grow up and face the facts. Academics, scientists see these things. Astronomers see these things. They had meetings at Los Alamos about them. They were concerned because they were showing up in highly sensitive areas. Some people wanted to insist that they were meteors. We know about meteors. Meteor showers happen when the Earth passes through a debris cloud in space in its orbit around the sun. It'll last for a few days, and it'll stop, and then it'll happen again next year, right? This is how meteors typically work. And they're global. They don't just happen at White Sands Missile Base or in a county in New Mexico.

35:59 They happen everywhere on the planet. can't be meteors. Instead, Teller thought that they were probably electromagnetic phenomena because they didn't make sonic booms or fireballs. And we've heard that before. Aerospace engineers and other scientists have seen them. This is actually a sketch from two NACA engineers. NACA was the National Advisory Committee Aeronautics, the precursor to NASA. One of the they were both at Moffitt Field which is where I worked at NASA Ames Research Center and one of them was a draftsman and they watched this object through binoculars. So this is the drawings by a draftsman who drafts airplane designs. He knows about aircraft. These aren't silly people. J.

37:00 Allen Hynek was a complicated individual. I talk about him a bit. He started out as a debunker and thought that the whole topic was ridiculous. He actually is the one who instigated the swamp gas debacle in Michigan. And he enjoyed his role as debunker. He said, "My own investigations for Project Sign "added to that negative attitude surrounding UFOs. "I do think because I was quite negative "in most of my evaluations. "I stretched too far to give something "a natural explanation." So this is a good quote to read. I won't read through the whole thing, but he eventually changed his mind. But it was clear that he was making up excuses for things that he knew wouldn't be real, weren't physically possible. The US government also did a poor job studying them. This is a great quote from Don Berliner. While the US Air Force unquestionably had the capability to investigate UFOs scientifically, there's no evidence that it ever has done so.

38:01 Published reports and related documents suggest studies were hastily done. Oh, we've seen that already. Each time forced by short-term political considerations and public pressures rather than scientific inquiry. The resulting studies were superficial at best and inept at worst. And that continues on to this day. I hope Arrow will do better now. I'm actually not convinced that much is known about UFOs or UAPs at all by anybody. I've got to finish up 'cause I'm over time. One of the most important studies I found to be the UAP pattern recognition study by SCU. In all the things I've looked at, I think this is probably one of the most important studies that's ever been done, period. It's really impressive. It really gives a lot of insight into what these things might be up to and that they are not normal.

39:01 I'm going to quick mention physical evidence. We included pictures this way because we had a lot of pictures about physical evidence. It was great. UFOs have collided with cars. How many people knew this? there have been UFO collisions with cars. And in the case with Vaila Johnson's car, that car is in a museum. It exists, the physical evidence exists. The work by Phyllis Budinger on angel hair I found to be fascinating. In almost all cases, even when they were, angel hair was observed being emitted by UFOs, by metallic UFOs, even in those cases, The material appears to be an organic polymer similar to caterpillar and spider silk. What is going on with that? I have no idea. Unidentified submerged objects are probably the most ignored aspect of UAPs,

40:03 but they've been consistently reported for more than 150 years. the new book by richard dolan is out and it's great fun to read but there are other older books especially the one from ivan t sanderson the sightings from the 1800s are not that much different than today's sightings those are certainly not russian or chinese can we please stop with this russian chinese nonsense clearly some of them may be today but not all of them please stop um i'm going to skip this this is um a quick discussion of mary kingsley in 1893 not all ufos are alien spacecraft maybe we don't know what they are so this is a sighting in 1893 by an explorer in congo where she had seen a violet ball she actually saw two of them playing with each other um it's a great thing to read and

41:05 she chased one across the river in a canoe and it dove into the water and she watched it descend into the depths so it's not plasma if it's entering water it doesn't make any sense i don't know what it is she thought it was a glowing insect today we have current academic teams i think people know most of these project Testilin, IFEX in Germany, SETI-Kingsland in Ireland, UAlbany-UAPX collaboration, the Galileo project, and Vasco in Sweden. So there's some great work being done now today and there's also private citizen teams as well as well as other organizations and so we talk about all of these in the paper, too. And this is my last slide. I'm done. Great quote from James McDonald. In a scientific world at large is in for a shock when it becomes aware of the astonishing nature of the UFO phenomena and its bewildering complexity. I will leave it at that. Thank

42:08 you very much. there's a link that gets you past the paywall it's good for 50 days all right thank you sorry to go a little over it's 194 page paper indeed we could