Saucer Talk

The Ignatius Space Forum Was No Swing, All Miss

Our latest edition of ‘Saucer Talk’ takes on the disappointing moderation at the Washington National Cathedral, Senator Gillibrand’s new amendment, UFO skeptics, and even The Beatles.

Trail of the Saucers writers Bryce Zabel and David Bates take on the latest surge of UAP news in the Halls of Congress, their favorite stories from a prolific past month, and what’s being worked on now.

David: A couple nights ago, I was sitting here reading and I started feeling like the Stephen Fry cop character in V for Vendetta where suddenly the big picture comes into focus for him. I asked something like, “Am I the only UFO news watcher who is getting a ‘the dam is about to break’ feeling?”

Bryce: You most definitely are not. That doesn’t mean the dam actually is about to break, only that a lot of people who follow the UAP issue feel like it could. But, of course, people have felt that way since Donald Keyhoe in the 1950s and we ain’t there yet.

David: Let’s talk about this year’s Ignatius Forum panel that just ended. It’s supposed to be a prestigious public affairs symposium sponsored by the Washington National Cathedral, and this year’s topic was Our Future in Space. Promising, right? The guests included Harvard astronomer Avi Loeb, and the British Methodist minister and physicist David Wilkinson. You take the other two guests.

Bryce: You also had NASA Administrator Bill Nelson, whose recent public comments about UFOs and the possibilities of extraterrestrial life have raised some eyebrows. The other was Avril Haines, a career intelligence official who serves as Director of National Intelligence and whose office put out the June 25 Preliminary Report on UAP.

David: With a guest appearance by Jeff Bezos. Anyhow, that should be a group of officials who know things. But it was largely up to David Ignatius, the Washington Post columnist who moderated the opening piece with Haines on stage and Nelson by pre-taped answers to set the tone —

Bryce: — which, frankly, Ignatius didn’t manage to do at all. Not even close. He was a disaster and he should feel ashamed by his lack of journalistic integrity and guts that should have been on display. He had Haines there, sitting in the chair across from him, talking openly about the UAP report. He cuts her off, changes the subject, no follow-up. How is that even possible with a topic of this importance?

David: It really makes me wonder how aware he is of the extent of how the UAP discussion is playing out amongst those who are close to it, and by those who are paying attention to it.

Bryce: Ignatius could have let Haines finish her thought, then acted like a real journalist and extended it with a follow up, asking her what she makes of this phenomenon and what’s behind it. That never happened, to say the least. He ran so fast from the topic, I’m just gonna start calling him The Flash.

David: UAP just doesn’t appear to be an issue he’s expressed any interest in and he sure didn’t rock the boat tonight.

Bryce: Based on what I saw, he has to be the least intellectually curious reporter on an issue of this magnitude that I’ve seen in a long time.

David: NASA’s Bill Nelson did come across as being honest and straightforward, and definitely open to ET life out there. That’s probably because he’s had briefings that say they’re here now.

Bryce: And Jeff Bezos was passionate and clear about his dream to bring space to more people so they can save the Earth. Good on him. But the lost opportunity of the night was Ignatius booting the chance to get Haines further on the record about that report. Recall what it said: they are real and have capabilities we do not understand, they’re not Made-in-America, and it’s unlikely that China or Russia makes them. Hello! Do the math, David Ignatius, get curious, put her on the record, break a story, do your job.

David: I think that’s right. As a reporter, he should have at least seen that piece as the breaking news part of the night that he could bring on home. He could have had front page of his own paper. Instead, it was a marginal gabfest.

Bryce: I’m still stunned. Haines came prepared to talk about it, yet there was at least ten times as much time spent invoking Star Trek than UAP. I mean, what the living hell is that all about?

David: If we’d had a drinking game where you took a shot for every Star Trek or William Shatner reference, we’d have been shit-faced before the first hour was up.

Bryce: Honestly, I’ll probably only get through the night by doing it anyway. David Ignatius, man, you really sucked as a moderator today and you’re not the reporter you think you are either. You need to level up.

David: I’m going to write a solo article about the whole thing.

Bryce: Okay, fair enough, moving on to some more interesting news. A name that I would not have imagined playing a role in UAP world is now playing an outsize role and, I’m sorry but I can’t help myself, but David Ignatius probably has no clue about this person. You know who I’m talking about, right?

David: Is this a test?

Bryce: Maybe.

David: Are we talking Senator Kirsten Gillibrand?

Bryce: Exactly. You win a bag of Trail mix and a gold star. Yep, she’s the one who has added a fairly mind-blowing amendment to 2022 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) not only stipulates a new UAP office and investigation, but wants them to look into whether we have any such objects, read crash wreckage, and about physical effects and illness from contact with UAP. I mean, wow. Go Gillibrand.

David: You’re right, it’s not a name that one might associate with this stuff, and it made me wonder how many other members of Congress are basically still in the closet about UFOs.

Bryce: More than we imagine, not as many as we need. I’m sure we’ll be writing more on this one.

David: Yes. So let’s talk about what we have been writing about on Trail for the last month. Maybe we could each talk about something the other guy has written recently that’s made an impression.

Bryce: That would imply we actually read each other’s work.

David: That’s true.

Bryce: I’ll take that jump ball. Well, clearly, my friend, your series of articles you call Twilight of the Skeptics stands out. You’ve been fearlessly analyzing and dismantling some of the arguments that some people in skeptical world make, and calling them out by name. It’s courageous, gutsy, and, if I can be totally honest, a bit like watching a car wreck which is to say that I can’t take my eyes off this stuff. Give people a quick crash course on who you’ve taken on and over what issues.

David: Well, so far it’s largely been Robert Sheaffer, who blogs about “bad” UFOs and who had some of that material thrown into Skeptical Inquirer. He’s been responding to my stuff there, and I think we reached a draw on the Kecksburg UFO case — the man simply doesn’t believe anyone he doesn’t want to believe — but on the O’Hare case, to be candid, I put him down for the count. The case is simply fucking unsolved. It wasn’t a goddamned “hole-punch cloud.”

Bryce: Nice. My head hurts even hearing “hole-punch cloud.” It’s a new generation’s swamp gas.

David: And I’ve also talked a bit about confirmation bias and how that’s a factor even in the skeptical community. Next up will be Mick West and what he calls UFO “conspiracy theories.”

Bryce: Mick West is the big gun, and you’re a brave man. Taking him on will be stellar stuff. I really urge our readers who’ve missed these articles to jump in and start reading.

David: Thanks, man. It’s not like you haven’t taken on your own skeptics. I mean you’ve challenged Neil deGrasse Tyson to a national debate. That’s pretty in-your-face right there. I suspect that by the time it becomes clear, even to him, that such a discussion is ‘legitimate’ in his mind, it really won’t be necessary to even have the discussion. At least not regarding the question of, “Are they ‘real’”? Where’s the debate? Madison Square Garden?

Bryce: Sadly, Neil has not reached out to book a date, or a venue, something said with irony, I’m adding for this transcript. It’s too bad, but I realize from his POV, he probably thinks there’s no need for him to punch down and debate the likes of me, but c’mon, Neil, would it really be so bad to have a civil conversation with another human being about the possibility that life in the Universe isn’t limited to being ‘out there’ but might actually be here now? He’s become the king of the punch lines when he does interviews about this. He really should go longform with somebody who can get into it on a deeper level. Nobody hold your breath on this one, but I’m going to rattle this cage from time to time anyway. I’m talking to you, Neil!

David: Maybe you should challenge Ignatius.

Bryce: Good idea, but what would we talk about? He’s clueless about UAP.

David: I actually gotta say though, the piece you’ve written most recently that stuck with me was the thought experiment about Beatles music and A.I. I mean, you picked just one band, one type of art, but it got the wheels turning about the implications of artificial intelligence for all art. That’s part of what I do, after all, is cover arts and culture up here in Oregon.

Bryce: That makes me smile because it was hardly our most widely read piece here at Trail. I was just trying to find a way in to discuss artificial intelligence and the kinds of changes that might be ahead and the idea of ‘The Beatles Challenge’ came to me. You know I’ve written my own book about the band, so the boys are never far from my mind. Interesting aside, it’s a passion for Beatles music, and particularly Paul McCartney’s work, that George Knapp and I have discovered we share together. We do talk UFOs, but when no one is listening but us, it’s Beatles. The man also has a memorabilia collection that should have its own Vegas museum.

David: Not to stray too far afield, but as long as we’re on The Beatles, I have to say I recently discovered the Abbey Road webcam where you can watch tourists recreating the album cover literally all day long, nearly getting hit by traffic. It’s fun.

Bryce: I would probably be the guy who takes his family there and we all get hit by a truck. Safer for me to watch on a webcam. On the substance of that, Abbey Road, yessir, still my favorite album. I guess I still want more. That’s why I’m hoping A.I. can come to the rescue there.

David: So where is part three of the Lennon UFO sighting? Can we expect that sometime before Disclosure? Because afterward, no one will care.

Bryce: Not so fast. Even after Disclosure, the specifics of the case will be compelling. Ah, yes, the Lennon Trilogy. John Lennon and his secretary girlfriend May Pang had a UFO sighting on August 23rd 1974 that he talked about and wrote about until his last days. So I decided to do a deep dive into it because no one had written the article I wanted to read and I knew I would have to write it myself. I wrote so much that I’ve had to break it into three parts.

David: So what’s your take?

Bryce: My take is in Part Three, he said, encouraging readers. Hey, I got a final question. Who do you think is going to be sitting in the Oval Office when the basic confirmation moment comes to pass?

David: I’m hoping it’ll be Biden because then it’s sooner than later.

Bryce: Well, as you know, I wrote an article last year saying it could be Trump’s ‘October Surprise’ in the last election, done when he thinks he’s losing in order to change the subject. That never happened, maybe because he never really thought he was losing. Now I think that scenario could play out under Biden. I mean, he’s the man who hired Bill Nelson and Avril Haines. You know they’ve told him what they really think and I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s had a little show-and-tell that got his attention. He knows somebody is going to have to do it and whoever does is going to be in the history books forever. Might be Joe. Although if he thinks the supply chain is broken now, wait till he sees what happens when people think we’re getting buzzed by aliens.

David: My Fellow Americans…

Bryce: Exactly.

Here are articles referenced in the above —