Gun Slinger Jesse Michels, vs Michael Shermer's Shadow

“I want you to debunk harder.”—Jesse Michels

Having just finished watching the Michael Shermer interview conducted by American Alchemy host, Jesse Michels I have to say that Michels never ceases to amaze me. By appearance, he seems like a scruffy looking, tee-shirt wearing kid (“the kid” is my nick-name for him, replacing John Greenewald) who has no business interviewing the caliber of

By Frank Warren The UFO Chronicles © All Rights Reserved 7-14-2026

guests he has on his show. Nothing could be further from the truth. (Also I believe he’s 45.)

In short order one gets past his incongruous appearance and becomes entranced by his intellect and amazing recall, citing facts and sources thereof in a blink of an eye—he’s a gunslinger! ©The UFO Chronicles. All rights reserved.

Since stepping into the alternative media landscape in the early-to-mid 2020s, Michels has evolved into one of the most compelling visual chroniclers of the modern UFO / UAP disclosure movement. Operating his American Alchemy platform as a bridge between Silicon Valley’s venture capital class and the outer edges of "heretical" science, he initially carved a niche through intense, long-form intellectual deep dives into alternative quantum physics and non-materialist theories of consciousness. However, as the political and military landscape shifted around black-budget defense legacy programs, so did Michels' lens. He radically upscaled his production values, transitioning from standard remote interviews into cinematically sharp, on-the-ground investigative mini-documentaries.

Aside from interviewing heavy hitters like UFO and Nukes expert Robert Hastings, Dr. Hal Puthoff and Dr. Jacques Vallée, what truly sets Michels apart is his unique ability to track down and sit face-to-face with the paradigm's most fiercely protected—and highly polarizing—figures. His evolution from an online podcaster to a major investigative force became undeniable as he secured high-profile, on-location access to elusive names like former intelligence official David Grusch and or Aldo Rebelo, the former Brazilian Minister of Defense (now candidate for president of Brazil) whom Michels interviewed in an exclusive segment regarding claims of alien contact and the Brazilian government's knowledge of the phenomenon.

By 2025, his boots-on-the-ground journalism and rigorous, analytical style culminated in a massive mainstream crossover, landing him a guest spot on The Joe Rogan Experience followed by an incredibly rare cross-examination of Rogan himself regarding secret aerospace history. For a general public trying to separate signal from noise in this dizzying modern era of UFO disclosure, Michels has proven that alternative media isn't just watching the news happen—it’s actively digging it up.

Some UFO enthusiasts who viewed Jesse Michels’ conversation with Michael Shermer on American Alchemy will no doubt come away with the notion that it was just the typical Yin and Yang, skeptic vs (so-called) believer that some of us old-timers are so familiar with, particularly with Shermer. Yes, we see that. Shermer repeatedly issued his oh so familiar, knee-jerk prosaic explanations for various UAP /UFO reports/cases that Jesse cited. However, it was so much more.

For those unfamiliar: Michael Shermer is a science writer, historian of science, and founder of Skeptic magazine who has spent decades challenging Ufology from a skeptical, evidence-first position. In June 2026, he was named to the newly formed UAP Science Advisory Council, where he is expected to bring that long-standing critical perspective to the study of unidentified anomalous phenomena. He is also the author of Truth: What It Is, How to Find It, Why It Still Matters.

In the span of almost 3 ½ hours the discussion expanded well beyond Ufology, delving into the JFK assignation, MK-ULTRA and the philosophy of how uncertainty becomes science and much more.

The back ‘n’ forth for me was an intriguing, intellectually stimulating and an entertaining debate. Often times scholarly given the obvious intellect between the two, but I see that as a good thing. Expanding one’s horizons, making people think and looking into opposing views should be the goal.

Although the old Michael Shermer was evident, Jesse did something I think that no other debate opponent has done with him—he got his head shaking in the affirmative, evoking the reply, “I agree” on a few occasions. Hard to disagree when Jesse often times was simply arguing that extraordinary events require further investigation. (Opposed to seeing aliens in your soup.) In the same vein, Jesse pointed out a quote that Shermer used in an article he penned in Scientific American, writing, "If we are to take seriously the scientific credo to keep an open mind and remain agnostic when the evidence is indecisive, we should not shut the doors of perception."

Shermer admitted, “I wrote that.” [citing the phrase from William Blake’s The Marriage of Heaven and Hell in the article.]

Jesse pointed out the irony in regards to Shermer citing that quote (in the article) and his long term position as a hardcore skeptic stating, “… I think you're running from your shadow. You're a secret mystic.”

One thing that jumped out at me, to my surprise, Michael Shermer was seemingly ignorant to a few of the cases that Jesse cited, Russian nuke related UFO events and Gary McKinnon as two examples. Perhaps I’m showing my own built in bias in that I assume renowned skeptics that regularly poo-pooh Ufology are omniscient in regards to noted UFO cases given their stalwart positions on the topic. I’ve always argued that the best Ufologists are skeptics, as skepticism is the life partner of the scientific method because it acts as the ultimate quality-control filter, ensuring that no hypothesis is accepted as fact until it survives rigorous testing and is backed by reproducible evidence.

The episode is not really about whether “aliens are here.” It is about how much weight to give recurring, unresolved UAP reports when governments, pilots, and researchers keep saying the same thing: some cases remain unexplained after review. In the interview, Shermer accepted that there are anomalies and that alien life elsewhere in the universe is plausible, but he drew a hard line between that and visitation on Earth. In the conversation about the Nimitz/Tic-Tac Incident specifically, Shermer declared, “This never happened with that UAP. So whatever the story is, 80,000 feet to sea level—oh my god. Okay, you're wrong.”

Michels pushed back, stating, ... "but that's the point. It's flying in ways that defy our current physics. And so that means we should study it and figure out if some future physics might be able to explain it, or if that's not what happened.”

That split mirrors the current institutional posture. NASA’s 2023 UAP study said the phenomenon is a serious scientific question but that there is not enough high-quality data to draw firm conclusions about its nature. The Pentagon’s (controversial) AARO has likewise treated UAP as a documentation and resolution problem, not a proof-of-aliens problem.

Sans the exceptions noted above, Michael Shermer stuck with his boiler plate, prosaic explanations for UFOs / UAP by ordinary causes, e.g., balloons, (man-made) aircraft to sensor issues, perceptual mistakes and natural phenomenon, etc. Not a frivolous stance of course, as it’s common knowledge that the high majority of sightings, reports, etc., can be assigned a pedestrian explanation. This pattern goes always the way back to Project Sign analysis of cases beginning in 1947 and continues to date with AARO’s own annual reporting. But as James Fox has stated, “those [cases/reports] aren’t the one’s we’re concerned with!”

Michels’ strongest argument was not “therefore aliens,” but “therefore unresolved.” He leaned on cases often cited by UAP advocates: the 2004 Nimitz encounter, nuclear-site incidents, and reports that seem to involve radar, trained observers, and unusual behavior in restricted airspace. It’s evident in my view, that he is trying to move Shermer from blanket dismissal toward a more open category of “extraordinary terrestrial” or “non-human” possibilities.

That is where the debate gets sharper. Michels is not wrong to note that some cases are more evidentially interesting than casual sightings. AARO’s public posture also leaves room for unresolved reports; the office’s 2024 report says 757 new UAP reports were received in that period alone, with the total cases under review exceeding 1,600 as of June 1, 2024. The point is not that unresolved means extraterrestrial. The point is that unresolved means unresolved.

The real weakness in the exchange is that both sides sometimes talk past the data. Shermer treats most anomalies as instances of base-rate noise, while Michels often jumps from “credible” to “deeply suggestive.” Emphasis should be put on the middle ground, i.e., better sensors, better metadata, better reporting discipline, and less mythology. Given all the nascent official UFO / UAP official investigative bodies, the UAP Science Advisory Council headed by Avi Loeb as the latest, one would think that—that would be common place.

Conversely, because the UAP field is full of emotional overreach. Some enthusiasts read every anomalous blip as aliens and some skeptics treat every unresolved case as a failure of human discipline rather than a signal that some fraction of events exceed our current understanding. The interview lands in that tension and of course never fully resolves it.

For a general audience, the cleanest reading is this: Shermer is strongest when he insists on standards of proof, and Michels is strongest when he insists that some cases deserve more than reflexive dismissal. The conversation does not prove extraterrestrial visitation, but it does show why UFOs / UAP remains a live issue in science, journalism, and national security.

In summary, although Jesse labels it a (at times ugly) debate, which by default implies a winner and a loser—that’s not my takeaway. I see it as a spirited discussion between two intelligent, educated, informed individuals making their respective cases. Yes, the old business as usual Shermer came to the table, but for me there were some pleasant surprises. To Jesse’s credit he didn’t dive into the deep-end of the pool (i.e., aliens); he repeatedly proclaimed that these highly unusual, initially unexplainable events deserve further investigation. For the record this stance does two things: it gives a “it can’t be, therefore it isn’t” skeptic no place to go. Their knee-jerk responses can’t be used and don’t apply. Secondly, is establishes common ground. Everyone agrees that there is Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon and or Unidentified Flying Objects. That’s the starting point.

See Also:

	Friedman vs Shermer
	Stanton Friedman [and Michael Shermer] Talks UFOs On The Larry King Show
	UFO Skepticism at a Crossroads: What Michael Shermer Leaves Out About UAP

REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE