I thought, you know, this is the ultimate, and then all of a sudden it rotated and there was US air force on it.

So no, this is the ultimate.

There may be some physics that I just simply do not understand, but the electromagnetic discharges did not seem to relate to the motion that I witnessed from the craft itself.

I strongly believe that it was a reproduction vehicle, probably owned by a defense contractor such as Rockwell or Lockey.

Martin Marrietta, I want to thank doctor Rogers once again for taking this time to share his insights and experiences.

I know it's not easy to be a whistleblower, so I'm very happy to share this.

Chris Later, Welcome to Later Files.

Today, doctor Rogers is back for a special Q and A session answering your questions directly giving deeper info into his first hand account, and sharing insights on space medicine, secrecy and the bigger picture of disclosure.

Thank you for being here again, Doc Rogers.

How are you doing today, sir?

Doing fine?

First question from Guy Lauren, did you ever treat any NASA patients who sustained injuries possibly due to U A P effects or strange exposure.

I would say, no, Okay, I've treated patients that were exposed to chemicals and ionizing radiation, but not due to exposure for UAPs or non human.

Intelligence or anomalous effects.

I guess.

So you didn't treat anything where they didn't know the source of the injury.

No, we pretty much knew the source of all of the injuries that I dealt with.

Excellent.

Next question, how large was the craft you saw in nineteen ninety two and can you describe its exact shape, surface, and markings.

Sure?

In fact, do you have the reconstruction that you showed on the previous video.

Yes, so I'll show it right now so the audience can.

Oh, okay, yeah.

I think that's the best attempt anyone has done to recreate what I saw.

The vehicle was about twenty foot wide.

I would estimate the reason I did that was because there were a couple of gentlemen off to the lower left on the video, and there were three guys over to the middle section on the far right, and so comparing their bodies to the craft, I would say it was probably twenty foot wide eight to ten feet tall, not including the mast.

There was a mast at the top of the dome and then umbilicals that went from the mast offscreen in an upward fashion.

But it's an amazing craft to see.

And then, you know, like I testified before, I thought this is the ultimate, and then all of a sudden it rotated and there was US Air Force on it, So no, no, this is the ultimate.

So it was pretty crazy.

And you said it was in a regular air forced hangar.

Was it in like an F sixteen size hangar?

Yeah, and F sixteen would fit there.

In F thirty five HH three helicopter, which is what I was flying in most often there any of the helicopters.

It looked like just a typical military hangar.

Any aircraft could have been inside and I wouldn't have been surprised.

Next question, were the electromagnetic effects you observed?

Were they similar to any known propulsion or energy systems you've encountered in aerospace, medicine oreering.

Okay, they were absolutely not.

When I saw the electromagnetic initiation of activity, it was completely different from anything I had seen within the Air Force or NASA, and there were a lot of puzzling aspects of it.

One of the things that I've tried to figure out, Okay, what's the meaning of it?

There were not the electromagnetic discharges at all areas of the spacecraft at any given time.

There were only a few of them, but they could be anywhere on the surface of the vehicle.

And even if as it was rising, even as it was rotating three hundred and sixty degrees clockwise, three sixty counterclockwise, and then moving left and right, forward and back, and then into a forty five degree angle of attack, the location and number of electromagnetic discharges never seemed sufficient to be the source of the motion of the craft.

You know, if I was going to expect something, for instance, as it was levitating, I would expect more electromagnetic discharges being on the under surface in order to lift the craft.

But that was not at all what I saw.

There were very few discharges under the craft, and most of them were actually on the upper surface.

So there may be some physics that I just simply do not understand, but the electromagnetic discharges did not seem to relate to the motion that I witnessed from the craft itself.

Okay, And if anyone in the audience wanted to go back, you can watch the original interview link in the description, and Doc Rogers goes into much more detail on how we saw this video in the first place, So check that out.

So next question, why do you think it had external umbilicals and what might they have been providing.

Well, there's not that many choices of why there were umbilicals.

The umbilicals were present because something inside the craft was insufficient for flight operations.

If all energy sources were in, you would not need to supply energy from the outside.

So I would expect that one of the umbilicals was an energy source, whether there's electricity or something else.

If you had all of the craft mechanical controls internal, you would not need to feed any through the external umbilicals.

I can't say what was in the umbilicals, but the first thing that occurred to me was, first of all, electricity.

If this craft needed a lot of energy to perform as I saw it happening, I would expect that one of those umbilicals, at least maybe two of them were busy supplying the energy for the craft to move, especially as I saw a number of electromagnetic discharges.

You know, if you were powering the craft and you had a nuclear source on board, you would not need power supplied as long as the nuclear source was sufficient to provide the amount of energy required.

If the source was either not available or non functional to the level required for operations, then I would feel certain that at least one of the mbilicals was electricity.

So I can only guess as to what all it was, But it brings up the question of whether or not this was an actual UAP that we had not been able to operate effectively, and that's why we required umbilicals.

But I I strongly believe that it was a reproduction vehicle, probably owned by a defense contractor such as Rockwell or Lockeed Martin Marriott.

It wasn't Lockeed Martin at that time because Lockeed and Martin Marriott it did not combine until nineteen ninety five, so it could have been one or more of the defense contractors that owned the craft.

And I don't believe it had been turned over to the Air Force ship.

I saw none of the personnel that I would have expected for security if that was a UAP and it was an actual UAP that we were activating, I would have expected security personnel all over because I had been around other spacecraft that we were preparing to launch, and especially if it was NSACIA DoD missions.

The security was extremely tight and there were security personnel all over, and I saw no security personnel there at all, So that's another factor in why I think it was a contractor owned vehicle.

Yeah, you said there's not that many options for the cabling.

Seems like you have three options that I can think of.

One would be power, second would be control systems, and then telemetry.

But you're probably getting telemetry right there just videoing the craft.

But if that electronic electrostatic anti gravity system that they're using is interfering with signals in and out of the craft, maybe that's why you need like a telemetry and control system cable.

One of the ways to monitor the craft was simple put up a closed circuit TV camera so you could watch it.

Well, guess what, that's what I was looking at.

So it I just have to believe that those three umbilicals were present because they had developed the craft to a certain point, but not a point to where it was autonomous.

So you know, it's the difference between a toy that is attached to a battery pack and a toy that is radio controlled.

It's also interesting you brought up the contractor as well, because I worked in the Air Force.

I actually worked with contracts.

I oversaw a Lockheed Arrow contract and I had asked, we had asked, the government asked to get software from Lockheed Main Aerospace, but the smaller subsidiary, Lockheed Aero could not get the software from the main Lockheed because they're different companies.

It's actually a subsidiary of the larger Lockheed company, and they did not have access to the data which was originally government owned.

They would not share it across these two companies.

If you look, there's many subsidiaries of Lockheed.

My favorite is Helicopter Support Operations.

Seems like that's just a perfect place to hide one of these programs.

Well, the contractors that I dealt with, especially at the KATE, were many and varied, and if it was information owned by the US Air Force, we would share with all of the contractors generally speaking.

However, if one of the contractors owned a piece of information, then it was considered proprietary, so they did not have to share it because they owned it.

And then also something that a lot of people don't realize was that if it's proprietary information.

You do not have access through the Freedom of Information Act.

Okay, that is very interesting.

It's also frustrating at the time because it was of sixteen software actually owned by the government.

But when we got it back from one of these companies, inside the code they wrote in I believe it was Boeing Boeing proprietary software, and the government paid them to make the changes to the software that the government provided, but it came back with proprietary information.

I'm sure they all did this.

And then the security guards.

I hadn't thought of that as well.

But there was a lack of security inside and all of your previous experience, do you expect there to be security inside the hangar?

Uh when when we were dealing with like n ro O h uh d I A C I A type missions, they had security everywhere.

You could not go anywhere.

You know, they were watching for anyone trying to take any parts out that they were looking for anyone who might sneak a camera in because cameras were strictly forbidden even on all of Cape Canaveral.

As soon as you enter the gate, it said pro photography is prohibited except for authorized personnel.

You couldn't even take a picture on the cape of the seashore with without authorization.

So, uh, the secure purity was extremely tight.

And if there were people standing around a vehicle that was ultra classified, to my experience, there's gonna be security people there.

They're going to be checking you as you go in, checking you as you go out, make sure you don't try to sneak out any of the material or parts or anything of this sort, and the monitoring would be intense.

And I didn't see any evidence of anything like that, and I just have to feel that that was the reverse engineering craft.

Next audience question, did you see any signs of a crew compartment or do you think it was likely unmanned during the test?

Well, there was absolutely no evidence of a door or window into the craft.

The surface of it was completely smooth on its lower surfaces, upper surface, and through the dome.

Now that doesn't mean it wasn't there.

There.

There could have been something that I simply was unable to see, but I saw nothing that that made me think that.

And then also if you have three umbilicals going in, that tells me that that craft isn't really ready for full operations.

So if I was worried about the electrical systems or anything like that, I'm not putting a human being in there.

So the you know, one of the umbilicals could have been all of the control mechanisms, so that someone from the outside could control all of the functions of the vehicle without having to be inside it.

Great points.

This is from awakening to reality.

Do you know the name of the person who showed you the footage?

Have you spoken to the person since and would you be willing to.

I did not recognize him at the time.

I have not seen him since I do not know his name.

If I knew his name, I would not put it out anyway, because I have seen times when someone inadvertently mentioned somebody and the next thing you know, something's going on.

I have a sort of self example of that.

We went out on one mission and it was on a Saturday, and I was at home, so I grabbed my video camera and I took it along with me on the search and rescue mission.

We found the victims pretty far out to see, like ninety miles out to see, and so I videotaped the rescue of them.

When we dropped them off at the airport at the helipad for the hospital.

We went back to our parking area outside the forty first year rescue squadron, and there were a number of people who were reporters, and it had involved Cubans trying to get to America from Cuba, so you know, it was a much more interesting rescue than before.

Well, I gave my a few little answers and then I had for my car.

Well, the pilot in command did not like speaking to the media, and so they were sort of all over him, and he said, well, I don't know why you're talking to me.

Doc Rogers over there has video of the whole thing, and they said video boom.

And so I was already getting in my car and they were circling me, and I tried to say, look, you know, I don't know anything, leave me alone.

So as I backed out, they ran out there.

And so the televisions people that they had bands with these things on top so they could transmit it was CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN.

Well, as as I leave the parking lot, all four of these bands are following me.

Okay, So I stopped at the hospital and dropped off my flight surgeon and rescue kit, and I told the people, hey, you got to see this.

I've got all of the news people following me.

And they said, oh yeah, sure.

I said no, no, I'll tell what come come to the door here, and when I drive, I will drive past this area real slow, and you can see these people are following me.

So I drove past the hospital door and there they are all four of these television vans.

Well, I called my wife and said, you know, I'm coming home.

If there's anything outside, you might want to clean it up because ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN are going to be at our house.

And she said, oh, come on, no, I'm telling you this is going to happen.

So I drove drove around slow and on the way home, I took extra turns just to mess with them.

And uh, finally I pulled up at my house and pulled into the parking lot and here they are.

These four television vans are at my front door part there, and they have people out knocking on the door saying we want your video.

Well, the General lived right across the street from us, and so you know, in about ten minutes, I got a phone call and General Morrell said, what's going on over there.

Why are these fans over there?

Said, well, we went out to do this rescue and someone told them that I had a video, and he said, well, if it's on an air force craft, aircraft, you can't release that video.

I said, well, sir, I'm not trying to, but they're here, and he said, well, I'll tell you what.

I'll send a public affairs officer over and you will turn the VHS tape to him.

You know, this is back when VHS was big.

So next thing I knew, the colonel that was head of public affairs showed up at my door.

I handed it to him.

He went off, so like an hour hour and a half later he came back and he gave me my video, but he gave copies of the tapes to each of those networks and so next thing, you know, this entire video is on the news and it said official US Air Force video.

And I was in there, well it's say US official US video when I took it.

But it ended up getting widespread.

And we had guys that were preparing for the next Shuttle launch and they were over at the Bengerer, Morocco site, and so they had just come back and as they're walking through the hotel, Atlas has had this big screen TV right next to the opening to the elevators.

So as they're walking along, all of a sudden, one of the guys looked over and said, Hey, that's Sergeant Inch.

That's our helicopter.

Why is it on CNN International?

And so they all stopped and watched, And then when they got back, they said, man, you guys were seeing all over the place, but we watched your the report with your video over in Marrakesh, Morocco.

Well, all of this started because the pilot said, uh, you know, he wanted to get rid of him, so he said, hey, doc Rogers over there has video.

And as soon as they heard video, they went crazy.

So I'm you know, it's real easy to dump on somebody without realizing it.

I don't think that pilot meant to dump on me the way he did, but as soon as he mentioned video, my goose was cooked.

Another question was why do you think that major decided to show it to you in the first place.

Oh, I've thought about that a lot.

First of all, I think he wanted to impress me.

Being the chief of Aerospace Medicine, I was able to go to most of the locations on Cape Canaveral, whereas the average person was only cleared to go into their own work area, so compartmentalized security.

One of the other things was that there were lots of stuff because we supported the Space Shuttle, you know, I would sometimes go out locally with some of the astronauts and do all kinds of things, and so those storylies got around and so that you know, people I didn't know it asked me, what was it like to have dinner with an astronaut?

Well, we all ate the same food, so okay, you know this this one time, this is a funny story.

But I'd gone out, we'd been having a meeting, and so at lunch we decided to go out to Taco bell I won't say the name of the astronaut so he doesn't get dumped on.

But it was busy and the lines were sort of winding back around before you could get up to where you order.

Well, just ahead of us, there was a middle aged guy, a little bit heavy, he had very little hair left, but he was with this young lady that was probably twenty three, and you know, was attractive, and so he was really trying to impress her, and he was talking loud enough that we had to hear him, whether he wanted to or not.

And he was saying, I had breakfast with the mayor of Sadllite Beach this morning.

I told the mayor, you know, and he's going on and on about this.

So after four or five minutes, you know, we're winding around, and I'd had enough of him.

So I looked over at the astronaut and said, hey, where did you have dinner when when you got back from space?

And he said, oh, President Reagan had to set the White House, so we got to eat at the White House.

And so he went on for just a minute or two.

Well, as soon as he shut up, so did this other guy.

We did not hear anything about the fact that he had to eat and breakfast with the mayor of Satellite Beach.

And then, to make it worse, as they were getting their food, the girls stopped went over to my friend and said, can I have your autograph?

So he signed the autograph, and the middle aged guy that had been trying to impress the girl was completely quiet.

He went over and sit down and minded his own business.

Well to a certain extent, humans like to share information when I was aboard the USS mont Hillier, I was in my NASA flight suit, but I wasn't really supposed to be there.

I'd only been brought on board because of an injury.

But because I worked with a space shuttle, they said, well, you know, we really shouldn't be showing you the sonar room because it's classified, but we want to show you what we can do.

So they took me in there, and that was technically a secure violation, but in the military that kind of stuff happens all the time.

And so this guy had something that he said, you've never seen this before, and when he took me in, they're sure enough, I hadn't seen it before.

But you know, if you were out on the beach and you walked along and you found a ring in the sand, you go back to the people you're with and say, hey, look, here's the ring that I found.

Why would you do that?

Well, you want to share with them.

So I think part of it was to try to impress me specifically, but part of it was also, wow, look at the ring I found in the beach.

This is this is really something.

Well, it's not a ring on the beach, it's a flying saucer.

So if you know, he had to think, well, doc's got at least as good as the clearances I do, so I'll go ahead and show him this thing.

That is an interesting point that a flight doc would have much better clearance across all these compartmentalized areas, more than your normal pilot.

Not that you necessarily need to know from a technical aspect, but you do need to know in order to treat the people that work in those areas.

You know, at Luke Air Force Base, when I was receiving training for the F sixteen, the flight surgeons from that flight surgeon clinic flew the F sixteen and the F fifteen that was also there.

Well, I was only there to fly F sixteen, so I asked one of the guys, Hey, jenn, I just go sit in the F fifteen and have somebody show me what everything is.

And they said, sorry, you have the clearance, but you don't have the need to know.

Can't take you over there.

So even on the same base, I could not get in, and yet the flight surgeon for the squadrons flew both aircraft.

Okay, I see, so there's still strange rules in the military.

I remember with compartmentalization.

So in nineteen ninety two, was there any NASA or DoD policy about discussing anomalist craft sightings or did you hear anything at all about UAPs.

I did not hear any formal briefing, but I knew very well that on the rare occasion that someone brought it up, it was the discussion was quickly stopped, and that was not something that was encouraged.

In fact, it was a conversation that would be immediately stifled.

So I did not need a formal briefing to realize you don't mention UFOs.

And that was that NASA or you noticed that throughout the military.

NASA and the Air Force.

You know, for NASA they did not want the astronauts talking about anything even remotely related to UAPs, and the Air Force was the same way.

You look, even today, the Navy authorized the release of the FA eighteen Super Hornet videos, and they allowed three of them to be released.

How many have the Air Force released?

No?

Nothing, So even today they don't want to discuss UAPs, even before Congress, so the Air Force has not released any videos, They have released no evidence.

If that is true.

In twenty twenty five, you would have to imagine what was it like in nineteen ninety two.

So yeah, I was seriously considering that if I had spoken about the flying saucer that I saw, that could possibly be a career ending event.

Okay.

This leads into the next question.

Looking back, would you have handled the decision to stay silent any differently?

No?

Yeah, like you explained that, there is no way that in nineteen ninety two I was going to tell anybody what I saw wasn't going to happen if it wasn't for the twenty seventeen New York Times article that they released and the subsequent discussions by the Navy.

These things are real, and the congressional hearings being held in Congress, where very valid people that I have great respect for have gone forward and said, look, this is what is going on.

If it weren't for all of that, I probably wouldn't be speaking about it right now.

This is from kat Zaj.

Did you ever encounter or witness other craft of unknown origin besides the craft and the hangar?

I did not.

Okay, I really liked this question.

How similar was the craft you saw to Bob Lazar's sports model description?

Okay, well, boy, that is an interesting question.

If you took the sports model and you sort of rounded all of the surf, because there were no lines of distinction anywhere on the craft, but if you sort of added styrofoam to the outside and made everything smooth, it would be extremely similar to the sports model that Bubblazar described.

An audience member also reminded me that Bob Azar said the sports model had US Air Force markings.

Well, all all flight models that are authorized for contractors to build are always going to have US Air Force and US Air Force markings.

You know, when the YF twenty two and YF twenty three were having their flyoffs, those were not owned by the US Air Force.

They were owned by the contractor consortiums.

Yet they still had US Air Force and they still had US Air Force markings.

And so neither the YF twenty two nor the YF twenty three was actually owned by the Air Force.

They were owned by the contractors.

When the Air Force decided we will accept the YF twenty two, the consortium owning that had to go back and then make all of the changes needed to turn it from an experimental craft to the product that would actually be flown by US Air Force pilots, and so it took a couple of years and they had to make a number of modifications, and then when it was finally built to an acceptable level, the US Air Force purchase the F twenty twos and have flown the F twenty twos, but the US Air Force never owned the YF twins or the YF twenty three.

I included that those pictures of the yfs in the original interview, do you believe the tic TAC encounters recorded by Navy pilots are from the same origin or technology line?

That is conceivable?

Now, then imagine that you have a circle.

Now, then as long as it's a perfect circle, it's round on both ends.

Now that if you take that and you just insert a longitudinal section of the same heighth as the circle, it extends it out.

And so imagine that all of this is material made of the same type as the more rounded sections in between, you would have a straight segment with the rounded ends.

And so all you have to do is extend the space, which gives more room for a possible pilot, flight guidance, propulsion, electrical systems, and all of that.

So this vehicle may not have been big enough to put all of that in.

You stretch it out and have a connection here.

That gives a lot more space within the vehicle.

All of a sudden, all of the stuff that was being fed by umbilicals might be internal, So that would be a possibility.

The only thing is that, aside from its appearance, it demonstrated anomaloist activity because of what it was capable of doing in flight.

So the vehicle I saw was inside a hangar.

You could not see it fly four hundred miles an hour because it would have run into a wall.

I really can't say whether I think that might be the same technology that I saw expanded by you know, twenty years or whether or not it was an actual UAP and was beyond our capabilities.

My gut instinct was that that was a real UAP and it was beyond their capabilities.

Okay, these next few questions are actually about human factors and space medicine.

The audience really liked several of your stories.

From the first interview.

We found out a lot about spaceflight.

Once humans were up there for extended peereriods of time, you know, in the Mercury days, for instance, we did not have any instances of significant space motion sickness in the Gemini, we really didn't either.

When we got to Apollo and there was space inside that they could move around, that that was when we started to really see, honest to goodness, space motion sickness.

And then with the Space Shuttle.

With this, with the increased amount of internal space and capacity, it became very common.

About two thirds of all astronauts that went to space in the Space Shuttle got space motion sickness.

But we didn't see it at all in Mercury.

And how bad is space motion sickness?

Does it go on for days or is it just a few hours.

Well, it's sort of like saying, you know a person got COVID.

Well, there are some people that had a few sniffles for twenty four hours.

There are some people who had respiratory involvement and it took them two weeks to get better.

There were some people who died from COVID, which is a permanent type change.

The severity of the space motion sickness is impossible to predict.

Most of it resolves within twenty four to forty eight hours, but there are still some people that can have it for multiple days.

Okay, this question is interesting.

What genetic or physiological changes have you observed in astronauts after long duration spaceflights?

Okay, well, I did not observe it myself, but I think the case of the two twins was a perfect example of this.

I believe it.

This Mark that stayed up for more than a year while his brother only stayed up for a few weeks.

At the end of both of their trips, they did genetic studies, and from the report that I heard, the genetics of the brother that had stayed in space for more than a year had been altered by cosmic.

Rays and ionizing radiation and other kinds of things, to the point that while the DNA would say, yes, these are close brothers, it no.

Longer said these are genetic twins.

So there were enough changes in the DNA that according to the DNA study, you know, they didn't really look like genetic twins as much anymore.

In the same vein from this question in your medical opinion, could proximity to such UAP craft propulsion fields mfs could that cause injury or health effects in humans?

Absolutely, we know that from all of the studies that we did.

In trying to say what's going to happen to our astronauts in space.

You know, there were commonly known effects such as gloss of bone density, muscle atrophy, and so forth, but there were also other kinds of things that occurred.

Every time we sent up a radioisotope, thermal electric generator, nuclear reactor for a deep space probe, we would try to launch those as soon as they got into orbit, because the are t G, even with its shielding, was giving a slight radiation exposure to the astronauts in the crew compartment until they got that thing launched.

Uh.

We had a case where we had I believe, two astronauts that spent eight minutes in an EVA at spacewalk, and they traversed the South Atlantic anomaly, and they received more radiation during those eight minutes than the rest of the crew experienced in the entire space flight.

So there's there's lots of things that we see from this.

We we know how chemical factors can cause genetic changes.

We know how ionizing radiation can do it.

We even see effects with microwaves.

You know.

A quick story sort of about that was that when I was in Germany, I would have to give medical talks to the military personnel.

And one of the things I had to do for the guards was to seriously try to explain to them, yes, you're warmer when you stand in front of the radar.

It's minus five degrees outside.

If you stand in front of the radar, it's warmer, but you're getting microwaved.

You're causing changes in your body.

It's not a good idea.

But when you're standing outside freezing and one of the guy says, well, I'm going to go stand where it's warm, they go stand in front of the radar systems and they're getting microwaved, but it's warm and they're freezing their toes off.

There's just all kinds of things that happened that most folks never even consider.

I lived in Turkey for three years, and I thought it was interesting there.

They believe that microwaves are bad for food, for you to ingest irradiated food, so they actually don't use microwaves if at all.

Well, the truth of the matter is that microwave heating is not the same as heating on a stove.

But the people who would really be able to determine that were the people who were doing studies on whether or not they found any deletarious effects when you used microwaves.

And guess what, most of the research was done by the companies that were making microwaves, so they sort of had a predetermined outlook before they started this Daddy.

And there was one question right away when we posted the first interview.

One audience member argued, there was no digital system that could actually digitally record the video you said happened.

What do you think of that statement?

I would say he did not work for the Advanced Systems of the United States Air Force back in ninety.

Two, so there was definitely digital systems.

We had technology that wouldn't be released to the plub for ten or fifteen or twenty years.

Yeah, it's funny to me.

It's like the younger generation now that goes back and says we never went to the Moon.

Well, they don't even think about the concept of what happened.

In nineteen sixty nine.

When Apollo eleven launched, astronomers could watch their spacecraft as it traversed the distance between Earth and the Moon.

If these astronomers from all over the world were watching the spacecraft go to the moon, guess what, we really went to the moon.

This was during the height of the Cold War.

If the Soviets had been able to track the vehicle and it did not go to the Moon, they would have been all over the place sat Americans are lying.

But when you can actually watch the vehicle as it's traversing the distance to the moon, yes, we really went there.

But people today who really don't know what we were doing back then on Apollo ten we went to the moon.

We didn't land on the moon, but we went to the moon.

And guess what they saw the spacecraft go all the way to the moon.

They saw the radar signatures.

And if the Soviets had seen that we had not really sent Apollo ten to the moon, they would have blasted it everywhere.

Apollo nine went to the moon.

Well, guess what we saw the spacecraft go all the way to the moon.

The Soviets would love to have said that Americans are lying, But astronomers could use their big telescopes to watch the spacecraft travel to the moon.

And so when people today are saying things like that, they have no idea what was going on back in nineteen sixty nine.

So you know, you know, you talk to them and you say, did you still ride horses to work.

Well, no, you know, we went to the moon.

We had cars, you know, we had helicopters, we had four phantoms.

You know, we had lots of technology that you may not believe that we had back then, but we had the technology.

But when you know, several people have said you couldn't have seen it.

The computers were not capable of showing that.

Are you kidding me?

I was sitting there watching the computer.

I know I saw it.

I know the computer capability was there because I watched it.

But I watched it for a lot of other things.

You know, we had the same kind of systems for all of our launch vehicles, including the Titan, the Atlas, the Delta, along with the Space Shuttle.

So we had capabilities of all kinds of stuff.

And so somebody today may say, well, you know, they still had to ride bikes to get to work because you know, the horse and carriage got stuck in the mud or something.

But that is not what was going on in nineteen sixty nine, and it certainly isn't what was going on in nineteen ninety two.

I was there, so I know.

So yeah, I'm not even going to discuss it further because it's not worth.

It, And we even brought a cart of the moon and drove it around.

From my own experience, I took astronautics as well as aeronautical engineering at the Air Force Academy and then my own investigations, I think the most difficult part is actually leaving the atmosphere of the Earth.

The Earth is such a dense body.

Gravity on the Earth is very high because the Earth is made mostly out of lead, a very heavy element, and just from dealing with lasers and weapon systems and electronic attack, atmosphere attenuates everything.

It's just a huge pain dealing with a dense atmosphere such as the Earth.

So if you combine the heavy gravity of Earth and combine it was with a thick atmosphere, then I think the most difficult part is actually leaving the Earth.

So once you get away from the Earth, out of the atmosphere, out of the heavy gravity, well your problems decrease dramatically.

I think the biggest problems you have out in space is really dealing with thermal control and sun radiation.

But once you deal with the heat and the actual radiation and keeping the air inside the spacecraft, I think once you deal with that, the math is actually quite simple, and then from there it deals with simple geometry and basic astrophysics.

So I think a lot of people just don't understand the most difficult part is just getting away from the Earth.

But once you get away from the Earth, everything is more simple by order of magnitude.

And then once you land on the Moon, what's the most difficult part of landing on the Moon?

Seems like the most difficult part is the dust, the fine particulate the regolith, So I think that's the most difficult part of the Moon.

Especially since the regolith is so spiky.

It's sharp and gritty and causes lots of problems.

Gravity exists everywhere.

When a spacecraft like the Space Shuttle is on orbit and the astronauts appear weightless, it's not because there's no gravity there.

The reason they appear weightless is that you are falling at the Earth at the same speed as the spacecraft around you.

The gravitation of Earth keeps the Moon from flying away, the gravitation of the Sun keeps the Earth from moving away.

The only way you can work in microgravity for the Space Shuttle is that if you launch and obtain an orbit at a certain height and a certain speed, for instance, two hundred and ten miles at seventeen five hundred miles an hour.

As soon as the main engines cut off, you begin to fall.

But the curvature of the fall and the curvature of the earth are exactly the same, and that's why it has to be so specific that at this altitude you have to be on this speed, and so you fall toward the Earth.

I've heard astronauts say that when you get main cut off, it's like you're standing on an elevator and the floor falls out and you start to fall.

But if it's a seventeen day mission, you fall for seventeen days, and so gravity is there.

But we're having to exactly match the fall of the spacecraft and the fall of the astronauts aboard with the curvature of the earth.

If it's too steep, you're going to re enter the atmosphere and crash.

If it's too fast at that altitude, you will begin to gain altitude, and over seventeen days, instead instead of being a two hundred and ten miles, you're now out at three hundred and forty miles because you have lengthened the orbit each time you circulated because you were going too fast.

So it's a very delicate balance to be.

You know, that's why astronauts say on orbit instead of in orbit.

If you're in orbit, you can be in any kind of orbit you want.

But each mission for the Space Shuttle had to be on a specific orbit this altitude, this speed.

If you match it exactly, you'll have a stable circular orbit.

So gravity is still working now.

One of the other things that I think most people don't understand is that when they had the translunar insertion burn, they had an escape velocity from Earth of twenty seven thousand miles.

But through the entire time they were traveling to the Moon, they were going uphill because they were fighting gravity, so they kept slowing and slowing and slowing and slowing, and at the interface between the lunar gravity and the Earth's gravity, they had slowed down to like eight thousand miles an hour.

So you know, two days ago they were twenty seven thousand miles an hour.

Now they're down to eight thousand miles an hour.

But once you pause past that interface, you begin to speed up because now the mass of the Moon has a gravitational force that will increase the speed because you're starting to fall again, and so by the time the astronauts would get into lunar orbit, their speed increase significantly.

Okay, final few questions, Doc Rogers.

If called to testify before Congress, what would be your core message?

It's real.

We have a bunch of people who have said it's real.

Particularly, I would relate to David Grush because he said I did not personally see UAPs, but I spoke to lots and lots of people who have, and I've read reports, and so he tells all of those reports that he had because he was working for the NRO, he was working for the intelligence community, so he had access to lots and lots of information far beyond what I would know.

The one advantage I have is that he said there are people who have seen reverse engineered craft.

Well, when he said that, I thought, well, that's me.

I actually saw a reverse engineered aircraft.

So while he has to talk about it from the second persons standpoint, if I actually spoke to Congress, I would say, look, I saw this.

No one told me about it.

I saw it with my own mark one eyeballs.

I hope you do speak in front of Congress stock Do you think the secrecy around ups is more about national security or protecting corporate advantage.

I think it's both of those plus a lot of other things.

When we were going to invade Normandy, we made a big effort to make it look like we were really attacking Calais.

So for our adversaries, we sometimes provide them with a lot of information, but that information could be entirely false, and so we're wanting to mislead them.

So there are going to be times when we provide information but that information is false and it's fault on purpose.

If a company has a capability that they have gained, or let's put it this way, if government scientists found a discovery from the study of UAPs, what are you going to do with it?

If you say, well, we want this company to be able to produce this effect from it, and we give the technology to that company, but there are twelve other companies that we don't share that information with.

As soon as it comes out that this company is making all this money because the United States government preferentially selected this company, every one of the other companies are going to be suing the government for everything.

We've got.

Well, does that mean that we have to give every piece of evidence to every company?

Well, you know, that's a really difficult decision, and so most people who have not worked with contractors and realize the competition between them.

If you give a leg up to one company, you've got to deal with it.

Once we decided to send up Coca Cola to Space because Coca Cola came and said, we want to be the first off drink in Space.

Will you let us do that?

And they said, well, you know you're going to have to come up with a dispensing mechanism.

You just popped the top of a can and the internal pressure is going to cause it to spray everywhere, so you'll have to come with a dispensing mechanism.

Once you come up with a dispensing mechanism, that'll be great.

We'll just charge you for the weight.

And they said, well, you know, if we had like a six pack seventy two ounces of how much would that cost us?

And sixty nine thousand dollars they said, we spend more than that for a commercial at the Super Bowl.

We'll send two of them.

Everything was fine until about six months before the mission, and then all of a sudden, Pepsi Cola found out that Coca Cola had been authorized by NASA to be the first soft drink in space.

So they filed a lawsuit against NASA.

And then the next thing you know, rc Cola, doctor Pepper, everybody's filing lawsuits.

Companies from overseas that make their own cola are filing lawsuits against NASA because they did not give a competitive bid for the action we were taking.

And so something as simple as well, we'll send up some Coca Cola, No, we ended up with a whole bunch of lawsuits.

So you can imagine what the UAB topic would bring if that was just coke go into space.

Well, if there was a capability that one company earned twelve billion dollars and the other companies earned nothing from the technology, what do you think their board of directors are going They're going to sue NASA and the government for everything we've got.

So how do you think public knowledge of this technology would change the world.

Every time we improved technology in some fashion, there's always a repercussion.

During the Manhattan Project, one of the scientists accidentally discovered polytetraflora ethylene and it was such a stable component that they could coat particles and elements within the nuclear weapon with polytetraflor ethylene and they would remain stable and non corrosive, because a lot of the nuclear materials very corrosive.

So at the time, polytetrafloor ethylene was one of the most guarded secrets on this entire planet.

You know, I think it was like five or six years later they found some other things that were better for it, so they said, well, we'll go ahead and release the polytetraflor ethylene.

And so the company that owned the rights to it said, well, what can we do with it?

And they said, what if we put it on a pan so that you can fry eggs without it sticking.

So they said, okay, well we'll call it teflon, and so what had previously been one of the most classified products on Earth became the teflon skillets that we were frying our eggs with.

Every technology is going to have benefits, there are side effects.

Well.

Polytetrafloor ethylene as well as all of those things, are also the products that are making the pfoas that are permanent chemicals that are found all over our planet.

You can go to Antarctica draw blood from a penguin and they've got pfoas in their bloodstream.

It's everywhere.

How are we ever going to get rid of it?

Well, truthfully, we're not.

But at the time that we released teflon to be used on skillets, we had no idea the effect that we would have sixty seventy years later with these persisting chemicals pfoas that we can't get rid of.

But we also don't know exactly how dangerous they are.

There are no easy answers.

That's a great analogy.

Thank you so much, douc Rogers for all your experience and your knowledge and for the courage to speak out on this topic.

Thanks your time coming on the show.

Well sure, now, then if you still know somebody that can get me an F sixteen flight, I would sure getting back in the cockpit, because retiring from flying is a difficult thing to give up.

Check my rolodex, see what I can come up with.

Yeah.

Well, the one thing on my bucket list that I never did was I wanted to land and take off from a carrier on a smooth seed during the middle of the day.

Now then I don't want to do it at night.

I don't want to do it.

You're in a storm.

You know.

The Apollo or the Space Shuttle astronauts routinely said that landing on a carrier at night is far more differenticult than anything they did with the Space Shuttle.

Seems like it wouldn't be that hard, to be honest, Like they always complain about landing on the carrier.

It was dark, it was raining.

But in the Air Force we talked about fighting.

That's what I liked.

And the Navy guy has always talked about landing.

The difference is, you know, first of all, they're naval aviators.

They will claim that aviators are better than pilots, but every time you take off, you don't know if you're going into combat.

You may think I'm likely to get into a dogfight with a MiG over Baghdad in nineteen ninety one.

Well, for the naval aviators, every time they take off, they know they've got to land on that carrier and the space is so small that they've got to hit.

There have been monitors put on naval aviators, and you know, it doesn't matter how experienced you are for a night landing in weather.

Their heartbeats go crazy.

You know, they're sitting there at one hundred and fifty beats per minute as they're coming down there because of the stress they're under.

You know, when the Navy astronauts said, look flat out, it's harder to land on a carrier at night in weather than anything we do as a space shut on, I believe them.

You know.

I was in the Air Force, and I hate to give credit to the Navy, but that that is a more difficult task.

Yeah, I can't do it.

I can't be that hard, all right, Doc, have a great thank you, sir, No, you have one too, Okay, couldn't help myself slightly tongue in cheek.

I did have a friend, a famous Canadian pilot.

He was in exchange to Alaska sugar licine, and he had five thousand fighter hours, et cetera.

And he did actually get to land on a carrier like Doc Rogers his dream.

And it was interesting because he practiced on the land.

They have a little carrier drawn out on a runway carrier strip and he practiced with a pilot in the back, instructor pilot.

That's normal when you go to learn some new skill normally and then he went out to the carrier to actually do the first practice landings for real on the carrier, and he said it was interesting because in the ready room he was counting around and there just weren't enough pilots there.

He was thinking, you know, where are the instructor pilots, But there weren't any instructor pilots.

They flew the student pilots alone.

So your first flight landing on a carrier, at least for Sugar Lacine, was solo.

So you're doing it alone, no instructors in the back.

So I think that does highlight how dangerous it is.

So it probably is dangerous.

But again that's what the Navy pilot's talk about is landing, and in the Air Force we only talked about, for the most part, was fighting.

But that wraps up the special follow up Q and A with doctor Gregory Rogers.

I want to thank doctor Rogers once again for taking the time to share his insights and experiences and having the courage to speak out.

Like you said, he knew people their careers.

Ended his previous book, we highlighted the first interview was actually taken down.

The publisher removed it as soon as he came out with his story.

So I also want to thank all of you the Later Files audience for sending in such thoughtful and challenging questions.

It really added a lot of depth and I thought it was really great for the interview.

So our first interview with doctor Rogers became the most watched video on this channel or the year, and it's clear from your engagement and curiosity that this is a conversation that matters, and I think it does.

If you found this interview valuable, please make sure to like, share, and subscribe so you don't miss out on future discussions and as always, keep asking questions, keep seeking the truth, and stay tuned for more Lato files.

If you want to support my channel further my work, then please go to patreon dot com, forward slash Chris Lato and sign up.

It's five dollars a month really helps, or you can become a YouTube member like all these fine people.

Thank skin, have a great rest of your day, peace,