CHAPTERS
- 0:00 – 1:07
Ryan Graves’ background: Navy F/A-18 pilot and aerospace engineer
Joe sets the stage by asking for Ryan’s credentials and how a trained fighter pilot ended up in the UAP conversation. Graves outlines his engineering education, decade of Navy flying (combat and instructor roles), and that the encounters happened during routine missions—not as a special investigation.
- 1:07 – 2:41
Radar upgrade reveals persistent unknown tracks off the East Coast (2013–2014)
Graves explains that sightings began shortly after the squadron upgraded from the APG-73 to the APG-79 radar. The new sensor capability suddenly revealed many contacts in an area that “shouldn’t have been” populated, creating an immediate flight-safety concern.
- 2:41 – 4:11
Where the encounters happened: offshore military working areas and ADIZ rules
They clarify the operating area geography: starting ~10 miles offshore and extending far out over the Atlantic. Graves distinguishes between military operating areas (not fully restricted) and the broader Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) protections for inbound traffic.
- 4:11 – 7:05
What the radars showed: erratic vectors, racetrack patterns, and ‘stationary in high winds’
Graves describes how fighter radar represents kinematics rather than shape, and how these tracks differed from normal aircraft behavior. Some contacts meandered, some flew efficient racetrack holds, and some appeared perfectly stationary despite high-altitude winds—an especially puzzling behavior.
- 7:05 – 11:39
From ‘broken radar’ to confirmed objects: FLIR correlation and propulsion/heat questions
Once crews slewed sensors to radar tracks, FLIR/IR began showing energy sources at the same locations, making it harder to dismiss as radar artifacts. Graves notes the lack of obvious propulsion (no plume, propellers, or wings) and mixed thermal behavior—often “cold,” sometimes “hot.”
- 11:39 – 17:30
The near mid-air and the ‘cube inside a translucent sphere’ description
A pivotal moment occurs when a flight visually encounters an object at the entry point into the working area, passing between two jets in formation. The lead pilot describes a dark cube inside a clear sphere, estimated roughly 5–15 feet across based on formation spacing.
- 17:30 – 18:46
Day-after-day presence and squadron culture: jokes, focus on mission, and reporting barriers
Graves emphasizes these contacts were present essentially every day—seen on takeoff and still there on recovery—yet the squadron remained mission-focused. Discussion existed, but stigma and workload reduced sustained investigation, and the primary practical takeaway was “avoid and report.”
- 18:46 – 25:36
Formal safety escalation: HAZREPs, NOTAMs, and the ‘maybe it’s classified’ hypothesis
After the near-collision, the squadron submits hazard reports (HAZREPs) that ripple through the fleet, and eventually a NOTAM warns of unknown objects in the area. Graves notes their most probable working assumption at the time: a classified U.S. program operating unsafely—yet even that didn’t fully fit.
- 25:36 – 27:39
Workups off Jacksonville and the Gimbal incident enters the story
During carrier workups near Jacksonville, Florida, Graves says the phenomena appeared there too, suggesting broader prevalence. He connects this period to the now-famous ‘Gimbal’ video recorded by his squadron during training near the Theodore Roosevelt.
- 27:39 – 31:19
Breaking down the Gimbal video: IR mode, apparent rotation, and what can/can’t be concluded
They watch the Gimbal footage and Graves explains the FLIR display: infrared mode, black-hot polarity, and what the image suggests about heat. He’s careful about certainty: the video strongly implies rotation, but without full context and sensor data, definitive claims are limited.
- 31:19 – 37:03
The missing context: formation on SA page, ‘ping’ reversal, and why radar data wasn’t released
Graves recounts how the crew saw a wedge-like formation on the situational awareness (SA) display along with the Gimbal object. He describes an abrupt-looking reversal (‘ping off a wall’) that, in side view, implies a tight vertical U-turn. He also explains why accompanying radar/SA data likely exists but wasn’t made public due to classification of sensor capabilities.
- 37:03 – 49:20
Navy intel debrief reaction and leadership ambiguity: ‘holy shit’ and the admiral’s shrug
Graves describes seeing the tape in a classified intel space with a mixed group of aviators and intelligence personnel. The room’s reaction was stunned uncertainty; an admiral briefly watched and left with minimal comment, which Graves interpreted as possible prior familiarity with the issue.
- 49:20 – 54:35
From stigma to structure: NYT 2017 catalyst, new reporting channels, and AIAA scientific push
The conversation shifts to why the topic became mainstream after the 2017 New York Times story and Pentagon acknowledgments. Graves frames his motivation as aviation safety and highlights the need for scientific-grade sensing and analysis. He discusses efforts via AIAA to create standards/manuals and analysis teams to work with declassified kinematics rather than relying on combat systems alone.
- 54:35 – 2:38:44
Broader implications: trans-medium claims, ‘other’ hypothesis, and Rogan’s AI/ontology detour
They explore why sightings cluster over oceans, the difficulty of underwater sensing, and the technological implications of trans-medium behavior. The discussion expands into big-picture speculation: nonhuman intelligence, interdimensional ideas, and Rogan’s extended theory about humanity midwifing AI and being ‘cultivated.’ Graves stays cautious but acknowledges an ‘other’ category remains in the data.
