CHAPTER 17: THE CORE INTERCEPTORS

December 26, 2025

CHAPTER 17: THE CORE INTERCEPTORS

BY STEVE DOUGLASS

One of the most important interventions along my path came from Mark, who helped steer me away from unreliable voices—figures like Doty, whose notoriety often overshadowed verifiable substance—and toward sources of a very different caliber. That guidance mattered more than it might seem at first glance.

In the black world, who you listen to is as important as what you hear.

Mark didn’t point me toward loud personalities or self-promoters. Instead, he directed me toward individuals—some already familiar to me—who were quietly respected by those inside the system. These were people who didn’t need to exaggerate their proximity to classified programs because their credibility was already established among peers who understood the stakes.

What set these sources apart was not just access, but judgment. Many had close relationships with insiders, and some had direct ties to what might be called the “secret of secrets”—programs and knowledge so sensitive that even acknowledgment carried weight. Yet they spoke carefully, responsibly, and often indirectly, understanding that preservation of truth sometimes requires restraint rather than disclosure.

That distinction—between noise and signal—became a defining lesson. The most reliable voices in the black world rarely demand attention. They earn it quietly, over time, through accuracy, consistency, and respect for boundaries.

Looking back, Mark’s guidance wasn’t about steering me toward better stories. It was about steering me toward better standards—and in a field shaped by secrecy, that may be the most valuable navigation of all. Mark said, "If you want to be heard above the rabble, surround yourself with the best minds out there. Surround yourself with credibility."

The Core

Aviation history isn’t shaped only by pilots, engineers, and aircraft designers. It’s also shaped by the writers, analysts, and historians who interpret flight for the world. Among these influential figures is a loose but powerful group often thought of as the “Core Interceptors”—writers and thinkers who intercepted raw aerospace data, classified programs, and experimental ideas, translating them into clear, compelling narratives for the public.

Names like Jim Goodall, John Andrews, Stuart Brown, Phillip Patton, William Scott, Bill Sweetman, and Peter Merlin stand at the center of this tradition. Let's go down the list.

Jim Goodall "The Great One": The Keeper of Black Aviation

Jim Goodall is legendary among aviation enthusiasts. Often described as the world’s foremost authority on “black projects,” Goodall spent decades researching classified and experimental aircraft. What sets him apart is trust—he earned the confidence of pilots, engineers, and program insiders who rarely spoke publicly.

Goodall’s work helped bring attention to aircraft like the SR-71 Blackbird and other advanced programs long before they were widely understood. His writing balances technical depth with a sense of wonder, reminding readers that secrecy and innovation often fly side by side.

When people talk about “black aviation”––the hidden world of classified aircraft, secret test sites, and programs that officially do not exist––Jim Goodall is one of the first names that comes up. His reputation wasn’t built on speculation or rumor, but on decades of patient, disciplined research and a rare ability to earn trust inside the most secretive corners of aerospace.

Goodall spent years building relationships with test pilots, engineers, maintainers, and program managers. This access didn’t come from sensationalism. It came from respect. Sources knew that Goodall would get the details right—or not publish them at all.

That restraint became one of his defining traits. He understood that in black aviation, knowing when not to write is just as important as knowing what to reveal.

Jim Goodall is inseparable from the SR-71 Blackbird. While many writers praised its speed and altitude, Goodall focused on the people behind it: the pilots who flew at the edge of survivability, the crews who maintained an aircraft that leaked fuel on the ground but became airtight at Mach 3, and the engineers who solved problems no one had faced before.

His work helped cement the Blackbird not just as a technological marvel, but as a human achievement—one born of discipline, risk, and relentless iteration.

Goodall’s influence extends far beyond aircraft that have been officially revealed. He was among the earliest writers to hint—carefully—at programs that later became public knowledge. His approach was never to announce secrets, but to contextualize what must exist based on observed test activity, known physics, and historical precedent.

This analytical style made his writing invaluable. Readers learned how to think like aerospace insiders, rather than simply consuming dramatic claims.

Goodall often explored not just aircraft, but process—the Skunk Works philosophy of small teams, rapid iteration, and accountability. He highlighted how innovation thrives when bureaucracy is minimized and engineers are trusted.

In doing so, he influenced more than enthusiasts. Young engineers, military officers, and program managers absorbed these lessons, applying them far beyond aviation.

One of the strongest indicators of Jim Goodall’s credibility was his close personal relationship with true aerospace insiders—most notably Ben Rich, the legendary second director of Lockheed’s Skunk Works. Rich was not merely a source; he was a gatekeeper of some of the most sensitive aviation knowledge of the Cold War era. The fact that he trusted Goodall speaks volumes.

Ben Rich was famously cautious about information. He understood secrecy as a strategic necessity, not a branding exercise. For someone like Rich to open up—even selectively—required confidence that the listener understood context, consequence, and responsibility. Goodall earned that confidence over years of careful listening, technical understanding, and discretion.

Their relationship allowed Goodall to gain insight into the thinking behind advanced programs, not just their outcomes. He learned how Skunk Works leaders weighed risk, managed innovation under pressure, and navigated the tension between secrecy and progress. This perspective gave Goodall’s writing a depth that speculation alone could never achieve.

Importantly, Goodall never treated these relationships as trophies. He didn’t name-drop for effect or hint recklessly at what he knew. Instead, he used the insight to sharpen his judgment—knowing when a rumor made sense, when a claim violated physics, or when silence was the correct response.

In many ways, the Goodall–Rich relationship represents the ideal bond between insider and historian: mutual respect, shared seriousness of purpose, and an understanding that aviation history is something to be protected as well as told.

This trust is why Jim Goodall’s work continues to stand apart. He wasn’t just reporting on the black world—he was quietly welcomed into its outer circles, and he honored that access with integrity.

Jim Goodall’s legacy lies in credibility. In a field crowded with exaggeration, he became a signal amid the noise. His writing proved that mystery doesn’t require hype, and that the most compelling stories often emerge from restraint and precision.

For many of us Interceptors, Goodall wasn’t just a writer—he is THE mentor, teaching how to observe carefully, verify relentlessly, and respect the boundary between curiosity and responsibility

John Andrews

While writers like Jim Goodall documented aviation’s most secret achievements in words, John Andrews of the Testors Model Corporation helped translate those same ideas into something tangible—scale models that quietly educated and inspired an entire generation.

John Andrews played a key role at Testors during a period when interest in advanced and classified aircraft was growing, but reliable public information was scarce. Testors became known for releasing kits of aircraft that were barely acknowledged—or not officially acknowledged at all—forcing the company to operate in a narrow space between public curiosity and responsible restraint

The significance of Andrews’ work lies in understanding that these models were not simply toys. They were interpretive artifacts. When Testors released kits of aircraft like stealth fighters or speculative advanced designs, they reflected careful research, educated inference, and an awareness of what could be shown without crossing lines.

In many cases, these kits represented the first time the public encountered the shapes and concepts of aircraft that would later become well known. For young enthusiasts, engineers-in-training, and aviation fans, a Testors box could spark curiosity that led to a lifetime interest in aerospace.

Like Goodall, Andrews operated with an understanding that credibility mattered. Testors’ advanced aircraft kits often aligned surprisingly well with later disclosures, suggesting that Andrews and his team were not guessing blindly. They were listening carefully, observing patterns, and applying informed judgment.

This placed Andrews in a unique position—not a journalist, not an engineer, but a translator between the classified aerospace world and the public imagination.

The legacy of John Andrews at Testors isn’t just measured in sales or kit numbers. It’s measured in influence. Many aerospace professionals today trace their earliest inspiration to building a Testors model that hinted at a future aircraft no one could fully explain at the time.

In that sense, Andrews belongs alongside the Core Interceptors. He intercepted ideas rather than documents—shapes, rumors, trajectories—and turned them into something people could hold in their hands. Quietly, responsibly, and with lasting impact.

Stuart Brown, "The Minister of Words": Engineering Meets Clarity

Stuart Brown brought an engineer’s mindset to aviation journalism. His strength lay in explaining how and why aircraft worked, not just what they looked like or where they flew. Brown’s writing made complex systems—avionics, propulsion, materials—accessible without oversimplifying them.

For readers who wanted to understand the logic behind aerospace design decisions, Brown acted as a guide through an otherwise intimidating technical world.

If Jim Goodall revealed what existed in aviation’s hidden world, Stuart F. Brown explained how it worked. Brown occupied a rare position in aerospace writing—someone who could move comfortably between engineering rigor and clear, readable prose. His work appealed not just to enthusiasts, but to professionals who recognized that he understood the machinery at a fundamental level.

Brown approached aviation as an engineer first and a writer second. Rather than repeating manufacturer claims or abstract performance figures, he worked from first principles—aerodynamics, propulsion, structures, and systems integration. When Brown described an aircraft, the reader didn’t just learn its specifications; they learned why those specifications mattered and what trade-offs made them possible.

This method allowed him to cut through hype. If a design choice violated physics or ignored operational reality, Brown could spot it immediately—and explain it without drama or arrogance.

One of Brown’s greatest strengths was clarity without dilution. Advanced topics like fly-by-wire systems, composite structures, or propulsion efficiency were explained in a way that respected the reader’s intelligence. He didn’t oversimplify; he structured his explanations so readers could follow the logic step by step.

For students and young engineers, his writing often served as a bridge between textbook theory and real-world application.

Like other Core Interceptors, Brown earned credibility through accuracy and restraint. Industry professionals read his work because they knew it wouldn’t misrepresent their field. That trust granted him access—not necessarily to classified information, but to honest technical discussion, which is often just as rare.

His reporting reflected the realities of engineering programs: schedule pressure, budget constraints, and the inevitable compromises that shape aircraft long before first flight.

Where Goodall dealt with secrecy and advanced concepts, Brown grounded the conversation. His work provided the technical framework that made black programs intelligible once they emerged. Readers who understood Brown’s explanations were better prepared to understand why stealth aircraft looked the way they did, or why certain performance limits were unavoidable.

In this sense, Brown acted as a stabilizing force—ensuring that aviation storytelling remained connected to engineering reality.

Stuart F. Brown’s influence persists in how serious aviation journalism is practiced today. His legacy is visible whenever a writer explains not just what an aircraft does, but why it was designed that way.

Among the Core Interceptors, Brown represents the discipline of engineering itself—quiet, methodical, and unforgiving of shortcuts. His work reminds us that the most impressive aircraft are not miracles, but the result of deeply informed decisions made under real constraints.

Phillip Patton: Aviation as Culture

Phillip Patton approached aviation from a different angle. Rather than focusing solely on performance numbers or secret programs, he explored how flight intersects with culture, design, and human ambition. His essays treated aircraft as symbols—expressions of national identity, technological confidence, and even artistic vision.

Patton reminded readers that airplanes don’t exist in isolation; they reflect the societies that build and fly them.

Where many aviation writers focus on performance, secrecy, or engineering, Phillip Patton asked a different question: What does flight mean? His work stands apart because it treats aviation not merely as technology, but as a cultural artifact—one that reflects national ambition, design philosophy, and the human desire to transcend limits.

Patton rarely led with speed, altitude, or thrust-to-weight ratios. Instead, he examined form, symbolism, and intent. He wrote about how aircraft look because of the ideas embedded within them—how stealth reshaped aesthetics, how supersonic flight altered design priorities, and how aerospace programs reveal what societies value at a given moment in history.

This approach gave readers a richer understanding of aviation as a living expression of culture rather than a catalog of machines.

Patton brought a design critic’s sensibility to aviation writing. He paid close attention to lines, proportions, materials, and interfaces, drawing parallels between aircraft, architecture, industrial design, and even art. This made his work accessible to readers who might not have an engineering background but still wanted to understand why aircraft evoke such powerful emotional responses.

In Patton’s hands, a fighter jet could be analyzed the same way one might analyze a modernist building—through purpose, constraint, and aesthetic consequence.

Unlike writers who focused primarily on institutions or hardware, Patton often centered the human experience of flight. He explored how pilots perceive space, speed, and risk, and how those perceptions influence design decisions. His essays acknowledged that aircraft are not abstract objects—they are flown by people with limits, instincts, and fears.

This humanistic approach made his writing especially resonant and enduring.

Within the Core Interceptors, Patton served as a counterweight to pure technical analysis. Where Bill Sweetman questioned claims through physics and doctrine, and Stuart Brown through engineering logic, Patton questioned them through meaning and intent. He asked whether a design truly aligned with its mission, its cultural moment, and its users.

That broader lens prevented aviation storytelling from becoming purely mechanical.

Phillip Patton’s influence is subtle but profound. He expanded the vocabulary of aviation writing, proving that aircraft could be discussed in terms of philosophy, culture, and design without sacrificing seriousness. His work invited readers to see flight not just as a feat of engineering, but as a mirror of human aspiration.

In the Core Interceptors constellation, Patton represents interpretation at its most reflective—reminding us that every aircraft carries an idea as well as an engine.

William Scott: The Insider Reporter

William Scott is known for deep reporting grounded in industry access. Writing extensively about defense aviation and space programs, Scott had a talent for connecting policy decisions, budget realities, and engineering outcomes.

His work helped readers understand that aircraft development is never just about speed or stealth—it’s also about politics, economics, and long-term strategy.

If the Core Interceptors had a home base, it would be Aviation Week & Space Technology—and William Scott was one of its most authoritative voices. While others specialized in black programs, engineering theory, or cultural meaning, Scott operated at the center of gravity of the aerospace world, where industry, government, military requirements, and technology intersect.

Aviation Week has long been more than a magazine. It is a signal intelligence node for aerospace—read closely by defense officials, program managers, engineers, and policymakers worldwide. Information published there doesn’t merely describe the industry; it can influence perception, funding, and strategic direction.

Writing for such a publication requires discipline, accuracy, and judgment. William Scott exemplified all three.

Scott’s reporting focused heavily on defense aviation, space systems, and advanced military programs, but his real strength was context. He understood that aircraft do not exist in isolation. Every design decision is shaped by budgets, doctrine, alliance politics, and long-term strategy.

Rather than sensationalizing new systems, Scott explained:

Why a program existed

What problem it was meant to solve

What constraints shaped its final form

This made his work essential reading for professionals who needed to understand not just what was happening, but why it mattered.

Like Jim Goodall, Scott benefited from deep insider access—but of a different kind. His sources often included senior military officers, aerospace executives, and program officials. That access came with responsibility. Aviation Week could not afford speculation or exaggeration, and Scott’s writing reflected that seriousness.

He knew how to publish meaningful insight without compromising sources or overstating certainty—a skill that defined the highest tier of aerospace journalism.

Scott excelled at explaining how emerging technologies—stealth, sensors, networking, propulsion, and space-based assets—fit into broader operational concepts. His articles helped readers understand how airpower was evolving, not just technologically, but doctrinally.

In this way, Scott served as a translator between:

Engineers and operators

Inside military sources
Industry and government
Tactical systems and strategic outcomes

Within the Core Interceptors framework, William Scott represents institutional authority done right.

Where Goodall explored the edges of secrecy and Peter Merlin preserved experimental history, Scott documented the living, breathing aerospace enterprise as it made real-world decisions under pressure.

His legacy is credibility at scale—proof that serious, careful journalism can thrive even in an environment shaped by secrecy, competition, and politics.

Bill Sweetman: The Strategic Analyst

Bill Sweetman is widely respected for his analytical rigor. He didn’t just describe aircraft; he evaluated their real-world effectiveness. Sweetman often questioned hype, testing claims against physics, combat doctrine, and historical precedent.

In an era of marketing-driven defense narratives, Sweetman’s skepticism played a crucial role in keeping aviation journalism honest and grounded.

No subject better illustrates Bill Sweetman’s analytical discipline than his long engagement with the idea commonly referred to as “Aurora.” More than any other aviation writer, Sweetman demonstrated how to examine rumors of advanced aircraft without surrendering to hype—or dismissing possibilities outright.

“Aurora” was never just a rumored aircraft. It was a placeholder concept—a name attached to unexplained budget lines, sonic phenomena, and test-range activity that did not align neatly with known programs. For many writers, this became fertile ground for sensational claims.

Sweetman took a different path.

Rather than asking “Does Aurora exist?” he asked:

What missions would justify such an aircraft?
What technologies would be required?
What evidence aligns—or fails to align—with known aerospace realities?

That shift in framing changed the conversation entirely.

Sweetman’s work on Aurora is notable for what it refused to do. He did not claim insider confirmation. He did not offer dramatic renderings or definitive timelines. Instead, he applied physics, operational doctrine, and historical precedent.

He examined:

The feasibility of hypersonic propulsion concepts
The strategic need for high-speed reconnaissance post–SR-71
Budgetary and organizational signals within defense planning
The limits of sensor and materials technology at various points in time

If a claim failed one of those tests, Sweetman said so—plainly.

Sweetman’s skepticism was not dismissive; it was constructive. He acknowledged uncertainty while insisting on standards of evidence. This approach earned him respect from both enthusiasts and professionals, because it mirrored how serious aerospace decisions are actually made.

In the Aurora discussion, Sweetman became a stabilizing force—preventing the topic from collapsing into either conspiracy or complacency.

More than any specific conclusion, Sweetman’s writing on Aurora taught readers how to think about black programs. He demonstrated that secrecy does not suspend physics, budgets, or strategy—and that even the most classified aircraft must leave indirect traces that can be evaluated responsibly. Not to mention, Bill has a wickedly dry sense of humor. One of the funniest people on the planet. Bill also has the best bullshit filter in the business.

Within the Core Interceptors, Bill Sweetman represents analytical integrity under uncertainty. Where Jim Goodall relied on trusted human access, and William Scott reported from institutional centers, Sweetman worked from observable reality—testing claims against what must be true for them to work.

In the end, Sweetman’s legacy regarding Aurora is not an answer, but a framework. He showed that mystery can be approached seriously without being exploited—and that responsible aviation journalism is as much about restraint as revelation.

Peter Merlin: The Historian of the Edge

Peter Merlin carved out a unique niche by documenting experimental aircraft, test pilots, and research facilities—especially those associated with high-risk, high-speed flight. His historical work preserves stories that might otherwise disappear, from X-planes to little-known test programs.

Merlin’s writing bridges past and present, showing how today’s aerospace advances rest on decades of experimentation and risk-taking.

If Jim Goodall revealed the existence of the black world and Bill Sweetman analyzed its logic, Peter Merlin documented its history. Nowhere is that clearer than in his definitive work on Area 51—“Dreamland.”

Merlin didn’t chase rumors; he preserved records, timelines, and human stories that might otherwise have vanished into secrecy.

Before Merlin’s work, Area 51 existed largely as myth—an unstable mix of leaked facts, speculation, and pop culture exaggeration. Dreamland changed that. Merlin approached the subject as a professional aerospace historian, grounding his work in declassified documents, flight-test records, interviews, and archival research.

The result was transformative. Area 51 became understandable not as a conspiracy symbol, but as what it truly was: a remote, pragmatic flight-test site built to support risky, revolutionary aircraft programs.

Merlin’s emphasis was always on flight testing—the realities of pushing aircraft beyond known limits. He documented how programs like the U-2, A-12, SR-71, and later experimental platforms were tested incrementally, often at great personal risk to pilots and engineers.

He also is a self-proclaimed aviation archaeologist, his hobby finding the crash sites (of things that go down in the night) and by unearthing pieces of them, documenting them in materialistic terms.

In Merlin’s telling, the black world was less glamorous—but far more impressive.

One of Merlin’s most important contributions was highlighting the people and systems that made secret flight possible: logistics crews, radar operators, chase pilots, maintenance teams, and range controllers. Dreamland showed that secrecy is not just classification—it’s an entire ecosystem that must function flawlessly.

This human-centered approach aligns Merlin closely with Goodall, but with a historian’s discipline rather than a journalist’s immediacy.

Merlin occupies a rare position: he writes at the moment when secrecy begins to lift, but memories are still alive. His work captures first-hand accounts before they disappear, anchoring them to official documentation where possible.

In doing so, he prevents aviation history from becoming distorted—either by official silence or by exaggerated storytelling.

Within the Core Interceptors, Peter Merlin represents continuity and preservation. Where others intercept ideas, programs, or analysis in real time, Merlin ensures that once the curtain lifts, the record is accurate and complete. Merlin's Dreamland is the reality check concerning all things Area 51.

Dreamland is not just a book about Area 51. It is a model for how classified aerospace history should be written—carefully, respectfully, and with deep technical understanding.

Merlin reminds us that the black world is not built on mystery for its own sake. It is built on test cards, runways, telemetry, and people willing to work in silence so progress can occur.

Why the Core Interceptors Matter

Together, these writers formed an informal but powerful intellectual framework for understanding modern aerospace. They intercepted raw information—sometimes fragmented, sometimes secretive—and transformed it into insight. Their work educated enthusiasts, informed professionals, and inspired future engineers and pilots.

In a time when attention spans are short and hype travels fast, the legacy of the Core Interceptors reminds us of the value of careful research, technical literacy, and thoughtful storytelling.

My place in the Core

Every ecosystem of discovery has someone who listens when others are speaking—and someone who looks up when others are looking straight ahead. I am both. Among the Core Interceptors, I occupy a singular role: the interceptor of the wires, the man who listened to the airwaves, watched the skies, and quietly documented what passed unnoticed by most.

It took me some time but I was eventually able to understand that the black world speaks—just not in press releases. It speaks in radio traffic, telemetry quirks, call signs, patterns, and anomalies. Where others hear noise, I hear structure. I listen patiently, systematically, and obsessively, building a picture from fragments that on their own meant very little.

This wasn’t guesswork. It was my own disciplined observation. Logging frequencies, noting changes, correlating activity across time and geography—I've always treated radio as a historical record unfolding in real time.

Always Looking Up

If the wires told part of the story, the sky told the rest. I've been asked, why am I seeing all these things that others do not? That's because I'm known as someone who always looked up—camera ready, awareness tuned. Again and again, I have managed to capture photographs of aircraft and activity that were never meant to be seen publicly. Not to say I haven't had help.

What made this remarkable wasn’t luck. It was preparation. Sometimes, with Mark's inside help, I knew exactly when to look, where to look, and what mattered. The images I captured weren’t sensational; they were contextual. They provided visual confirmation that something real was happening beyond official narratives.

Documentation Over Drama

One thing I never did was chase attention. I monitor and document. I pride myself on being meticulous, cumulative, and patient. Each log entry, recording, and photograph becomes a data point—useless alone, powerful together. Yes, I had my detractors, but as Mark told once me, "Consider them the noise that lets you know you are on the right track. Don't engage, stay your course and consider the source."

This approach earned me quiet respect. People who understood the black world recognized that I wasn’t trying to expose secrets irresponsibly. I'm just good at pursuing and preserving evidence—ensuring that when history is eventually written, it would rest on more than memory and rumor.

The One Who Pulls It All Together

I sincerely hope my greatest contribution is synthesis. I connect the dots, linking radio intercepts to flight activity, photographs to schedules, patterns to programs. I've never claimed certainty where none existed—but I also don't ignore what is plainly observable. What drives me is an explanation or at least a partial understanding of what I encountered as a young boy in Ohio.

The Invisible Thread

In this sense, I hope to serve as the connective tissue among the Core Interceptors. I've always been a great networker and facilitator. My role was never to replace them, nor to compete with their authority or expertise. Instead, my work complemented Goodall’s insider trust, Sweetman’s analytical rigor, Merlin’s historical preservation, and Scott’s institutional reporting. Where they provided structure, interpretation, and credibility, I focused on gathering the raw signals—the fragments that existed before context.

Radio traffic. Patterns. Timing. Sky activity. Anomalies that didn’t announce themselves but repeated just often enough to matter. Sometimes years would go by without seeing or talking with Mark and that was also true with collecting anymore data. There were years when except for airliners the airwaves and skies were as boring as watching traffic on I-40, but then when I'd least expect it, wow. More good pieces of the big puzzle would fall into my lap. I combed through thousands of hours of recording the radio signals on military and commercial aviation frequencies and embedded in the mundane something extraordinary would make itself known, even if it was for a fleeting few seconds.

On their own, these signals meant very little. Together, they hinted at something real. Somewhere in that accumulation—between noise and silence—was truth.

But there is one more figure in this constellation. The last Core Interceptor is also the least visible.

Mark Hendricks

Mark was definitely an insider. I tried so many times to figure out who or what he worked for. Every time I thought I had it nailed down, he’d say something that sent me down a completely different path.

He was incredibly patient with me. I asked a million questions, most of which he couldn’t answer. Instead of shutting me down, he’d turn it back on me — make me look inward, drop a small clue, and gently push me in the right direction.

A few things were obvious. He was very smart — I’d even say brilliant. He had a solid grasp of the black world and how it really worked. I could ask yes‑or‑no questions, and he’d answer as honestly as he could without violating whatever secrecy oaths he was under.

He was also funny, grounded, and clearly had real insider experience. One area where we could talk as equals was radio interception technology. Although he had decades more experience than me, he never talked down to me. We talked about everything — not just the black world, but ordinary things too: politics, marriage, kids, figuring out how to live in the modern world while making sense of the past.

We shared a love of history and science, especially astronomy and physics. No subject was off limits, except his true identity.

I once asked him why he chose me to talk to, why he trusted me. He said, “Because you’re one of the rare types who isn’t satisfied with what they’re feeding us. You have a sense the truth is out there, but are frustrated that you can’t see it yet plus you see through the hype, the egos and disinformation. You sense something greater than it all and that drives you.

He was right. He also told me to patient and play the long game. All good things to those who wait.

Mark understood that the black world does not reward impatience. I know that truth rarely arrives as a revelation; it emerges as alignment—when observation, timing, and restraint converge.

Everything I needed was already there. The signals existed. The patterns repeated. The sky spoke. The wires carried meaning.

I just had to be smart enough—and disciplined enough—to put it together.

And by doing so, I would discover that the invisible left traces—and that those traces would not be lost.

UP NEXT - THE OUTER CORE