UAP Disclosure 2025: Congress, Whistleblowers & The Road Ahead
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/total-disclosure-podcast--5975113/support.
CONTACT TDP DIRECTLY For Collaboration, Use of Segments/clips, or any other media produced by “TDP” —[email protected]
Special Thank you to all of our PODCAST/YouTube Channel Members for your continued support, and dedication to seeking the truth, together. We can’t do this WITHOUT YOU!
-COPYRIGHT-2020-
Copyright Disclaimer: Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. Total Disclosure Podcast Copyright 2020 and … segments, early access to interviews, and a yearly gift autographed by yours truly!thank you in advance now, Let's explore the unknown together!
Speaker 1: If anyone, all right, welcome back to total disclosure. If
Speaker 1: you've been following this topic closely, that is UFOs and
Speaker 1: just you know, kind of the news in general already,
Speaker 1: you probably know this twenty five was not business as usual.
Speaker 1: What once lived on the fringe has moved into congressional
Speaker 1: hearing rooms, national headlines, and mainstream conversation. Whistleblowers went on
Speaker 1: the record, lawmakers demanded answers, and the word disclosure stopped
Speaker 1: sounding hypothetical. Tonight, We're going to take a look and
Speaker 1: take a step back and take a look at the
Speaker 1: full picture. We're going to break down what actually happened
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty five from the UFO world to a
Speaker 1: little bit of politics and world events, because they, let's
Speaker 1: face it, they do matter. They do matter in this
Speaker 1: realm when we are trying to get momentum forward in government,
Speaker 1: in mainstream academia, in mainstream science, we do have to
Speaker 1: face the consequences of other real world events like wars
Speaker 1: in Ukraine, wars in the Middle East, assassin assassinations of
Speaker 1: certain political figures. These are real things that happened. So
Speaker 1: I'm going to open it up to pretty much anyone.
Speaker 1: The Evelyn it in the chat, So if you want
Speaker 1: to pop in give your thoughts. A lot of people
Speaker 1: do want to pop in, you know, I'll kind of
Speaker 1: start limiting it to five ten minutes, but I want
Speaker 1: everyone to be able to, you know, tell their story,
Speaker 1: tell their side of things. What was their favorite part
Speaker 1: of twenty twenty five, What was the biggest blunder of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five as a UFO community. So I have
Speaker 1: a few people that I sent this to that will
Speaker 1: be here throughout the whole thing, and let's get it started.
Speaker 1: Gene Sticko, I'm actually editing our episode that we just refilmed.
Speaker 1: I want to say thank you for literally I texted
Speaker 1: you like four minutes ago. Yeah, well, I love it.
Speaker 1: I love it.
Speaker 2: Luckily, I'm not particularly popular, so I'm available.
Speaker 1: All oh, you're super popular. Yeah, but you didn't fucking
Speaker 1: tell me the mic was off. So I'm a little
Speaker 1: upset about that. I literally noticed it. Just anyone who
Speaker 1: like I said, you weren't there backstage, but I was
Speaker 1: literally telling you. You know, I was like, because he knows
Speaker 1: the outlook in here, and I was like, there's so
Speaker 1: many fucking wires it's hard to start to keep track
Speaker 1: of them all, but for quality, what I do what
Speaker 1: I do, So, Jeane, I wanted to start off obviously,
Speaker 1: I kind of put it in linear linear fashion when
Speaker 1: I started going through at least the things that that
Speaker 1: I've been what I would consider the biggest topics. If
Speaker 1: I miss one, someone please tell me, of course. But
Speaker 1: January of I don't know if you remember, but right
Speaker 1: before the new year last year, so twenty twenty four,
Speaker 1: there was there was the hearings where Elizondo testified, where
Speaker 1: Schallenberger tests. I went to that one, and that was
Speaker 1: right before the change to twenty twenty five. That was
Speaker 1: December twenty twenty four. But then in late January that
Speaker 1: was when the first trailer for the upcoming UFO documentary,
Speaker 1: The Age of Disclosure, which is directed by Dan Farah
Speaker 1: and is now on Amazon Prime for for purchase, for rent,
Speaker 1: and it featured interviews with thirty four US government military
Speaker 1: intelligence insiders. These are people in and around the UFO
Speaker 1: UAP community, and it debuted already at the South by
Speaker 1: Southwest premire and it positioned itself as a major major
Speaker 1: cultural event for this disclosure movement. How do you think
Speaker 1: did meet your expectations The documentary. What did you think
Speaker 1: of it? And I mean, do you remember when the
Speaker 1: trailer hit?
Speaker 2: So well, you know, let's do let's let's talk about
Speaker 2: time in context. Right. It wasn't until June that I
Speaker 2: really entered this space, right you know, So so you
Speaker 2: were you know, you're talking six months. Oh yeah, and
Speaker 2: during that you know that, So the beginning of twenty
Speaker 2: twenty five, you know, I was just kind of hanging back.
Speaker 2: I had finished, you know, publishing the book, and I
Speaker 2: was just starting to, let's say, explore before you know,
Speaker 2: I decided to throw my hand into the ringk. So
Speaker 2: you know, I walked into this and subsequently the six
Speaker 2: months since, I've been drinking through a fire hose and
Speaker 2: I've been trying to catch it. And I mean, I
Speaker 2: feel like we've known each other forever now literally, you know,
Speaker 2: but it's you know, one hundred and ninety days maybe. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I actually completely slipped my mind that that that's how
Speaker 1: long it's felt like. Is it really has been just
Speaker 1: this year and not even the whole year. But yeah,
Speaker 1: I kind of just completely glazed over the fact that
Speaker 1: I had not even met you six months ago, right.
Speaker 2: I mean, which I think says a lot, right. I mean,
Speaker 2: it just talks about how fast and how intensely things move. Yeah, right,
Speaker 2: And and so you know you talk about age disclosure.
Speaker 2: So when I came through the door, okay, it's it's
Speaker 2: out there. I know, you know, we I'm aware, but
Speaker 2: I'm hearing. Well, it's been in there for years. I'm
Speaker 2: trying to figure out who all these people are, and
Speaker 2: you know, and and all the rest of it. And
Speaker 2: it's like you it's you know, literally walking into the
Speaker 2: bar in the middle of the fight, and you know,
Speaker 2: like the hell's going on here?
Speaker 1: Rightkay? So let me I guess, let me rephrase this then, Okay,
Speaker 1: the trailer dropped. So and that I mean, I don't
Speaker 1: know if you remember at least watching the hearings when
Speaker 1: Alizondo testified, but that, like I said, it happened right
Speaker 1: on the precipice of the turn of twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1: So you know, the last couple of years for the
Speaker 1: UFO community, like you said, you know, you came in
Speaker 1: drinking a fire hose. But for a lot of us,
Speaker 1: it was a drought. It was a long drought, long time.
Speaker 1: And now it's like the flood dates have seemed to
Speaker 1: be kind of opening on it and for people coming in,
Speaker 1: I do kind of feel bad for for how much
Speaker 1: you have to catch up on, but for age of
Speaker 1: disclosure specifically, did you think do you think it has
Speaker 1: a chance to move any needles?
Speaker 2: Well? You know, yeah, so short answer yes, why well
Speaker 2: again for me? And so when did when did it
Speaker 2: come out? In November?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Launched? Yeah, so you know, there was I didn't have
Speaker 2: certainly as long as a wait in anticipation, you know,
Speaker 2: waiting around for it, but you know, I found it.
Speaker 2: I think sort of as somebody I guess who was
Speaker 2: in the middle ground between member of the community and outsider.
Speaker 2: For me, it was a great contextual piece that was
Speaker 2: taking all of these things that I've been here about I'm sorry. Yeah,
Speaker 2: so it was taking all of these different issues and
Speaker 2: personalities and relationships that I'd been hearing about in all
Speaker 2: the little camps and whatnot and laying out, you know,
Speaker 2: laying out the story. Yes, you know, twenty twenty one
Speaker 2: or twenty twenty three, I knew about the hearings. I
Speaker 2: had watched them. You know, that was certainly interesting, but
Speaker 2: it was sort of you know, watched them and moved on,
Speaker 2: saw whatever news was happening. So Age of disclosure for
Speaker 2: me was good to as a I guess as a
Speaker 2: historical marker that brought together the age of modern dis here.
Speaker 1: Can you hear me?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I can hear you. Fine.
Speaker 1: All of a sudden, it just like kind of like
Speaker 1: switched off. I don't know what happened. No, yeah, keep
Speaker 1: talking for sec It might it might be me.
Speaker 2: I don't know why, so the so yeah, like I said,
Speaker 2: it was, it was good for me. I enjoyed it
Speaker 2: in that sense because it took bits and pieces I
Speaker 2: had was aware of prior to jumping into this full
Speaker 2: throttle as well as the people and and just sort
Speaker 2: of put the timeline together for me a little bit better.
Speaker 1: I can't hear it's a I feel like something's getting
Speaker 1: cross with the HDMI cord. But the something about this
Speaker 1: dongle that's a funny word, but yeah, this dongle. When
Speaker 1: I plug at the HDMI and plug my MacBook into
Speaker 1: an extra screen, it always acts like really funky. It
Speaker 1: changes my microphone stream yard specifically, not with anything else.
Speaker 1: And as a person who does a lot of episodes
Speaker 1: virtually like people think, people like, sometimes it will be like, oh,
Speaker 1: the like the quality you need to you need to
Speaker 1: do something about like and I'm like, dude, it's crazy,
Speaker 1: like it doesn't. I swear to God, I'm not touching anything,
Speaker 1: and it just will switch itself off and and then
Speaker 1: it will use like the max speaker and it sounds
Speaker 1: obviously like a circa nineteen ninety three. I swear, I
Speaker 1: swear someone's there's like a ghost in here doing something
Speaker 1: or something.
Speaker 2: It's it's well, then we have some stuff move or
Speaker 2: doors open and right and listen.
Speaker 1: I'll be the first one to throw it out there.
Speaker 1: I obviously have there. Like I agree, I have a
Speaker 1: lot of wires. If if everyone I wonder if I
Speaker 1: have a shot that would like show it this one
Speaker 1: if I zoomed out a little bit. But there are
Speaker 1: a lot of wires. So I was just for a while,
Speaker 1: I was just thinking about, Okay, maybe it's wires getting
Speaker 1: crossed and it's flipping it like some sort of interference.
Speaker 1: And then I started thinking about other things that have happened.
Speaker 1: And I consistently hear people walking above me. But I
Speaker 1: live on the first floor in my main apartment, so
Speaker 1: I am so used to hearing people above me that
Speaker 1: it didn't even register that. Yeah, yeah, yeah, consistently, I'm
Speaker 1: hearing someone walk the full length of the fucking house.
Speaker 1: And it didn't dawn on me till like I started
Speaker 1: putting it all together because the other day, I was
Speaker 1: sitting here and I was recording an episode. I was
Speaker 1: video essay, so I had my I was staring deadlock
Speaker 1: into the No, it was this camera. So I was
Speaker 1: deadlock staring into the camera, and I could see the
Speaker 1: fucking door open in the shot. And then I stood
Speaker 1: up and walked over.
Speaker 3: To the door.
Speaker 1: I looked down because obviously my garage like drafts come through,
Speaker 1: like the paranormal is is somewhere. I kind of draw
Speaker 1: my line. For the most part, I'm the most skeptical
Speaker 1: when it comes to the paranormal. Let's put it that way. Okay,
Speaker 1: I just can't deny it anymore. Something weird's happening in here.
Speaker 1: Put it all together, dude. I watched that door open.
Speaker 1: The door was locked downstairs, the groas was shut. There
Speaker 1: was no windows open, Jeane, you know how cold it
Speaker 1: is here right now? Yep, there was no window and
Speaker 1: no draft. Nothing could have pushed that door open with
Speaker 1: the force that it came open, and I saw it
Speaker 1: on this on this camera. This camera is tilted a
Speaker 1: little bit more so you could see through the hallway
Speaker 1: and if the door open right now, you'd see light
Speaker 1: come through. And that's essentially what I saw behind me.
Speaker 1: And I looked and the door just fucking flung open.
Speaker 1: And I'm just I'm not saying there's a ghost, but
Speaker 1: something creepy's happening.
Speaker 2: Well, we'll come over, we'll check it out, we'll investigate.
Speaker 1: Yeah yeah, so yeah, sorry about that. All twenty minutes
Speaker 1: of that, just to say that I could hear you
Speaker 1: for a second. I'm sorry about that. What were you saying?
Speaker 1: Because all I got was maybe like one sense.
Speaker 2: Yeah, No, I was just essentially summarizing that, you know,
Speaker 2: I found Agent Disclosed are useful insomuch as it brought
Speaker 2: together the last few years and all the bits and
Speaker 2: pieces I'd been hearing about in a you know, convenient
Speaker 2: two hour documentary, you know, and so it it it
Speaker 2: closed the loop, let's say, on things relationships and stuff.
Speaker 2: I didn't really quite understand who was who and what
Speaker 2: their relationships were, and you know, outside of hearing it
Speaker 2: about camps, you know, and whatnot. And then I was like,
Speaker 2: all right now, I get really understand how all the
Speaker 2: players from that perspective at least fit together. So I
Speaker 2: found it. I found it useful as somebody in the
Speaker 2: the middle ground of yeah.
Speaker 1: But so do you get the argument because a lot
Speaker 1: of people in the UFO world, in the Ufo uh culture,
Speaker 1: if you will, because I don't like, I don't like
Speaker 1: when people say it's a community, because I mean, it
Speaker 1: is a community, just like Star Wars fans have community.
Speaker 1: But there's these like factions that have built up in it.
Speaker 1: You know, the Doctor Greer like people, the Alizondo people.
Speaker 1: Not on Alizondo people, because you're either with them apparently
Speaker 1: I hate them, you love them. I don't know, it's nowhere.
Speaker 1: There's no in between on that guy. But there's Yeah.
Speaker 1: So there's like these factions in the in the UFO world,
Speaker 1: the Ufo community, the culture. So a lot of people
Speaker 1: in that culture are kind of fed up with the
Speaker 1: starting Point documentary because essentially that's what it is. It's
Speaker 1: good for people that are just getting into the topic. However,
Speaker 1: for Ufo people that know the topic, they know what's
Speaker 1: going on, they know the law, this doesn't do anything
Speaker 1: for them. But then again, these documentaries aren't necessarily for us,
Speaker 1: and I understand that, but most people in the UFO
Speaker 1: sphere don't.
Speaker 2: Yeah, sorry, but yeah, I read that.
Speaker 1: Dan Farrah. It was his introduction to the community, just
Speaker 1: like you were introduced this year. So for you guys,
Speaker 1: it is an introduction, and for us on the inside,
Speaker 1: it's like, well, it's like we're just getting a bunch
Speaker 1: of false starts.
Speaker 2: Sorry, right right, yeah, no, definitely, you know, and there
Speaker 2: was no nobody was pulling any punches that it didn't
Speaker 2: meet expectations. But you know that became my question, well,
Speaker 2: who's the audience. And the audience was not this community
Speaker 2: culture absolutely no, Yeah.
Speaker 1: I agree, Yeah, it's people and and and I get it,
Speaker 1: like I get it, and the people that had seen it,
Speaker 1: like Joe Rogan, they really kind of hyped it up.
Speaker 1: They got people really like thinking that this was going
Speaker 1: to be something that that had been not done before.
Speaker 1: But I kind of argue, and I'm not I'm not
Speaker 1: saying that Age of Disclosure wasn't a good film, but
Speaker 1: what I'm saying is I think the phenomenon by James
Speaker 1: Fox arguably does the same thing for.
Speaker 4: For the viewer.
Speaker 1: With more, more, more cases casework, like getting into the cases,
Speaker 1: not just the testimony of of the same people that
Speaker 1: have essentially been the the bad person of the UFO
Speaker 1: disclosure movement, right the government the the because we all
Speaker 1: like to do that. Now all of a sudden, we've
Speaker 1: kind of flip flopped for ninety years the government was
Speaker 1: the enemy. Now if they don't say it, it's not true.
Speaker 1: Like we've kind of flip flopped in that way as well.
Speaker 2: Right well, right, and you know, and we I think
Speaker 2: you know, when you and I sat down last time,
Speaker 2: we talked about that a little bit, right, like, you know,
Speaker 2: who's uh, if they're if there's coordinated abductions, who's allowed
Speaker 2: to be abducted? And why is it you know, a
Speaker 2: couple of guys out fishing and drinking and not a
Speaker 2: government official, you know who came up with those rules. Yeah,
Speaker 2: but you know, as far as the film goes, you're right,
Speaker 2: there's the you know, in in part of me wonders
Speaker 2: was it a you know, was it was it a
Speaker 2: piece for the government or for other people in government
Speaker 2: to really frame you know, who might not be paying attention,
Speaker 2: but to say, look, here are your colleagues now in
Speaker 2: this document entry talking about this stuff and you know,
Speaker 2: and now you can focus on it, and now you
Speaker 2: can come to was that part of the the thinking
Speaker 2: behind what they were going to cover and how they
Speaker 2: were going to cover it And if they got too
Speaker 2: much into case work, then they lose the support they're
Speaker 2: trying to garner as a result of the documentary.
Speaker 1: And definitely I agree. Well, I guess the sense sense,
Speaker 1: the sense of me is every film, and you're kind
Speaker 1: of seeing it now with the disclosure. Like even the
Speaker 1: scripted Spielberg Disclosure Day film, they're saying, oh, this is
Speaker 1: going to bring disclosure. So every every big film that
Speaker 1: comes out is the next one that's going to bring disclosure.
Speaker 1: First it was a tear in the sky and not
Speaker 1: focus on the you weren't even around for this, But
Speaker 1: this is a film that came out. And what they
Speaker 1: did is they went to Catalina Island and it was
Speaker 1: this uap X group and it was people that made
Speaker 1: up the Nimts. It was mostly guys from the Princeton honestly,
Speaker 1: but the Nimids Battle Group a lot of the guys
Speaker 1: that had come forward aside from from the pilots because
Speaker 1: they're kind of separate. H Fravor Dietrich. But this guy Gary,
Speaker 1: this Kevin Day was the radar guy. They had this
Speaker 1: group uap X or I can't remember it if that
Speaker 1: was it x UAP it was uap X but that
Speaker 1: makes me think Twitter now. But that film was supposed
Speaker 1: to be so big. It had William Shatner in it,
Speaker 1: you know, Caroline Corey spent like twenty grand on his
Speaker 1: appearance to market it as like William Shatner. That was
Speaker 1: supposed to be disclosure. When that came out, then, you know,
Speaker 1: the community sets these standards on these films, and they're
Speaker 1: set their expectation up here only to be never to
Speaker 1: achieve that there's never going to be a film that
Speaker 1: that that gets disclosure.
Speaker 2: No, you're right, and and and they definitely do. I've
Speaker 2: noticed that as well. Everything set standards everything listen, everything's evidence,
Speaker 2: everything's groundbreaking evidence. Everything is you know, oh, this is
Speaker 2: the video. And I've said it in a lot of places.
Speaker 2: I'm like, I don't think you know, videos and and
Speaker 2: you know photos are going to be you know, are
Speaker 2: going to make the government go ah you got me,
Speaker 2: Oh jeez, this after eighty years, Yeah, this is the
Speaker 2: one that uh, you know we we just can't hide
Speaker 2: it anymore. Yeah, so you're right, and and and four
Speaker 2: For an issue that has been such a long game,
Speaker 2: it I find it interesting that, you know, and maybe
Speaker 2: there is people of just a matter of running out
Speaker 2: of patience, but nobody does look at things as a
Speaker 2: long game. Nobody is saying, all right, here's here's another piece.
Speaker 2: Let's put it in context, let's you know, let's explore it,
Speaker 2: dissect it. Is there anything new we can extrapolate from
Speaker 2: this that builds the case of what we're trying to
Speaker 2: get to.
Speaker 1: And that's the thing, as I think people looking forward
Speaker 1: to twenty twenty six, what we can do better is
Speaker 1: instead of building expectations on each documentary to be the one,
Speaker 1: we need your like you said, we need it to
Speaker 1: be part of Right, this is part of the movement.
Speaker 1: This is an extension of the wants and needs of
Speaker 1: the people inside of it. Right, what's the message we're
Speaker 1: trying to convey to people, the general public, the person
Speaker 1: that doesn't hang out on Twitter fucking twenty four to
Speaker 1: seven and in spaces and and what did I even
Speaker 1: call them? Fucking seances? The Twitter seances? I die?
Speaker 2: Well, you know what I mean? And this is the thing, right,
Speaker 2: there's a lot of a lot of people like to
Speaker 2: call themselves investigators and researchers and all the rest of it.
Speaker 2: You start acting like it, right, you know, you have
Speaker 2: to as excited as you might get about a new
Speaker 2: piece of information until you properly analyze it until you
Speaker 2: you know, and and sometimes you may really like it,
Speaker 2: but it is not telling us anything new, So it's not,
Speaker 2: you know, waste. But you've got to be ready to
Speaker 2: let it go and pivot and get back on point,
Speaker 2: back to your investigation and if you need to circle
Speaker 2: back to it, you know, as as things are discovered, right,
Speaker 2: you hear it in every show, in every news broadcast.
Speaker 2: You've got to let you've got to be led by
Speaker 2: the evidence. And I think the other issue is that
Speaker 2: there is not a unified there's not a unified goalpost
Speaker 2: on what this, you know, where you're trying to go
Speaker 2: with the evidence? Right? Who are we We're trying to
Speaker 2: prosecute a case to whom? And we you know, is
Speaker 2: it the general public? Well, we're certainly not reaching them,
Speaker 2: is it to you know? And I look at it
Speaker 2: from my own, you know, my own efforts of what
Speaker 2: I'm trying to do and you know, where can I
Speaker 2: go with it and evidence is to get it in
Speaker 2: front of Congress and these committees, the people who are
Speaker 2: asking the questions that should open the doors to you know,
Speaker 2: to disclosure and to make it easy. So it's almost
Speaker 2: like the community, the people, the researchers, we have to
Speaker 2: be the folks in the field for the representatives putting
Speaker 2: this information together. That's problematic because they also don't want
Speaker 2: to hear from everybody all the time. And I think
Speaker 2: this is where the conflicts come in about gatekeepers and
Speaker 2: whistle blowers, and we only hear from government people now,
Speaker 2: and and that that causes more questions on the on
Speaker 2: the intent and the legit intimacy of even the people
Speaker 2: who say they are trying to reach the answers.
Speaker 1: I agree. And you know, another big, a big, a
Speaker 1: big thing obviously was the hearings, right the last set
Speaker 1: of hearings that we had uh with Dylan Borland and
Speaker 1: all the other guys, so and and and you you
Speaker 1: you make a good point about the gatekeeping. It does
Speaker 1: seem that there is a bit of gatekeeping with when
Speaker 1: it comes in terms of the witnesses that they're willing
Speaker 1: to put on the on the stand. However, like you said,
Speaker 1: I don't know if you can avoid that because you
Speaker 1: kind of have to pick somebody that is from the community,
Speaker 1: that knows their way around the people that and maybe
Speaker 1: Corbella and Napp are that. Maybe they are that, but
Speaker 1: I don't think that, uh, because a lot of people
Speaker 1: have called them gatekeepers in that sense.
Speaker 2: Like I'm one of them.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so a lot of people have been very very
Speaker 1: vocal in their sense, like listen, you know, you cannot
Speaker 1: just put up whoever you want, like you can't by
Speaker 1: definition your gate keeping the members of Congress, but the
Speaker 1: members of Congress, they also have to be willing to
Speaker 1: talk with other people. And I know Burlison and guys
Speaker 1: like like Kim Burchett, Luna, I know they are willing.
Speaker 1: It's just are they getting to the right people?
Speaker 2: No, absolutely not. I mean, you know, and and again
Speaker 2: the at the end of right, it's about the evidence. Right.
Speaker 2: We got some good stories. We got people who come
Speaker 2: forward and say this is what I saw. We you know,
Speaker 2: Grush is a great example, you know, but the where
Speaker 2: do you go with it next? Okay, well that into
Speaker 2: a skiff and that you know, becomes secret and nobody
Speaker 2: has the opportunity to the public, let's say, does not
Speaker 2: have the opportunity to vet any of this information as well.
Speaker 2: And so, you know, stories are great, they are not evidence.
Speaker 2: They are testimony not you know, are there bits and
Speaker 2: pieces and they would be better if there was an
Speaker 2: attempt to follow up and contextualize the statements. Right, So
Speaker 2: Dylan Borland talks about you know, NASA hang or one
Speaker 2: a m. There's a date, you know what what he sees?
Speaker 2: All right, let's dive into that, and let's talk to
Speaker 2: an ask hey, and as what do you do show
Speaker 2: us records? What do you have going on at that
Speaker 2: place at such and such a time. Maybe that's happening backstage,
Speaker 2: but again there's piss poor communication.
Speaker 1: Yes, and I think everyone thinks that everyone else is
Speaker 1: doing it and and what we're getting is is kind
Speaker 1: of like it's like kind of like the JFK thing.
Speaker 1: It's it's I heard a great quote about like JFK
Speaker 1: conspiracy researchers, But most of them are just writing books
Speaker 1: upon other people's books. They don't actually do the research themselves.
Speaker 1: And when we do piggyback off of each other like
Speaker 1: that we're kind of just creating the echo chamber that
Speaker 1: then we have to suffer through. If you will, if
Speaker 1: you will.
Speaker 2: You know again, you know, and I won't pick on individuals,
Speaker 2: but if you are an investigative journalist, then there should
Speaker 2: be results of your investigation. Your your investigation. When the
Speaker 2: results of your individu you know, or when you're investigation
Speaker 2: is leading you to information that somebody else has already
Speaker 2: brought out, You're you're non investigating anything, you were, you
Speaker 2: were amplifying. You're just you were taking somebody else's work
Speaker 2: and you're talking about it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, because everyone likes to call themselves a researcher or
Speaker 1: like a like. I know, I'm not a quote unquote researcher.
Speaker 1: I know what I do is I facilitate because usually
Speaker 1: what I do is I facilitate discussion, story and give
Speaker 1: people platform to tell me what happened to them. Right.
Speaker 1: I like to see myself as like a not obviously,
Speaker 1: I don't picture myself as art Bell. I don't think
Speaker 1: anyone would ever be able to live up to that.
Speaker 1: Maybe Rogan maybe, But I like to think of myself
Speaker 1: as art Bell esque. Like if someone tells me they're
Speaker 1: if they're they're a fucking vampire. I'm gonna be like,
Speaker 1: tell me more. Well, you know, I'm not gonna to
Speaker 1: try to like make them feel a certain way or
Speaker 1: you know, tell them there that that didn't happen. I'm like, hey,
Speaker 1: tell me more.
Speaker 2: Right, But you're also not going to go into the
Speaker 2: woods with them at two o'clock in the morning.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, right, So correct.
Speaker 2: We're the investigative journalists should be out in those woods
Speaker 2: at two o'clock in the.
Speaker 1: Morning, exactly. And that is my point. There seems to
Speaker 1: be a lot of armchair researchers and and your evidence
Speaker 1: pool cannot just be the Internet and needs to you
Speaker 1: need to work the field in like, we don't have
Speaker 1: UFO investigators like Stanon Friedman anymore. We don't have investigators
Speaker 1: like like George even George Knapp to a degree, right, George, George,
Speaker 1: just say what you want about him. But the guys
Speaker 1: traveled for ufology. He's gone to the former Soviet Union
Speaker 1: but now Russia. Like he's traveled for stories like that.
Speaker 1: We don't really have that anymore. And and and the
Speaker 1: context it takes now is like Jesse Michaels and and
Speaker 1: and it gets turned into a documentary like, well.
Speaker 2: Now it's tourism. It's it's journalistic tourism to a degree. Right,
Speaker 2: so you know, everybody goes and makes their rounds down
Speaker 2: to Peru and finger foks the mummies for a while,
Speaker 2: and now we're going to Brazil and you know, I mean,
Speaker 2: and so it's you know, it's it's it's just like
Speaker 2: this Internet phenomenon of oh I found this great new right,
Speaker 2: you know, the commercial, oh I found this great new
Speaker 2: beautiful spot, and then you know, the Instagrammers there and
Speaker 2: then you you know, look over the shoulder and there's
Speaker 2: a line of forty other people. You know, it's not
Speaker 2: some great new secret shot. You're just following what's already there,
Speaker 2: and you're just retelling the story over and over without
Speaker 2: a different angle, without bringing new expertise to it. Right.
Speaker 2: So if you're the journalist and you're like, hey, I'm
Speaker 2: gonna you know, I've contracted a seven forty seven and
Speaker 2: I'm flying down a new MRI or whatever, it is, Okay, great,
Speaker 2: there you go. But again it's just it's just circular,
Speaker 2: circular reporting, and you run into this and intelligence too,
Speaker 2: you know, I take more intelligence focused approach to it. Yeah, right,
Speaker 2: whereas investigators, you're out in the field intelligence. We're looking
Speaker 2: for signals.
Speaker 1: Right, right, and you're you're separating noise from the signal, right,
Speaker 1: and you're you're you're extracting from the noise the signal.
Speaker 1: So I did say, I'm opening this to everyone. So
Speaker 1: someone just popped in. I'm gonna let them take give
Speaker 1: their give their thoughts. I haven't done this in a
Speaker 1: while like this. Hi brought, is it? Brian?
Speaker 3: Oh?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 6: Hi?
Speaker 3: Ty?
Speaker 4: I got the invitation from Gene and figured how to
Speaker 4: pop in.
Speaker 1: I appreciate that.
Speaker 4: I hate to crash the party here, but.
Speaker 1: No, you're not crashing more people to come in. What
Speaker 1: did you What is your thought on the year of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five for Uphology? We started with Age of
Speaker 1: Disclosure and you you know the congressional hearing that side
Speaker 1: of things. What was it a good year? Bad year? Indifferent?
Speaker 4: A lot of people may disagree with me on this,
Speaker 4: but I'm going to go with good year. We've got
Speaker 4: a lot more whistleblowers coming out. Uh, a lot more
Speaker 4: people coming to the front and the foray, including Gene.
Speaker 4: By the way, UH, a very welcome edition.
Speaker 2: Now is it?
Speaker 4: Everything? That we wanted, I would argue, no, I think
Speaker 4: there's a lot more progress to be made. So you know,
Speaker 4: we're all looking for that capital D discloser where the
Speaker 4: president gets in front of the podium, and that that
Speaker 4: really is probably what we need. I know that you
Speaker 4: and I have talked about this extensively, and hopefully we
Speaker 4: get that coming soon. So I say, a good year.
Speaker 4: Would I consider it great? Exceptional? No, but a good year.
Speaker 4: I don't think we were step back.
Speaker 2: Interesting Brian, I'm gonna put Brian on the Brian talks
Speaker 2: with a lot of interesting people, you know, and and
Speaker 2: and has a lot of insights into a broad spectrum.
Speaker 2: So he's a phenomenal resource in and of himself.
Speaker 1: Really, that's what I'd love to talk about that as well.
Speaker 3: So I.
Speaker 1: Twenty twenty five. I think it's interesting. Uh, it was
Speaker 1: an interesting year. I think a lot of so the
Speaker 1: the one of the things that I have shifted in
Speaker 1: my thinking actually this past year. It's funny that you
Speaker 1: brought it up, is I actually don't I don't know
Speaker 1: if the president walking up to the podium and delivering
Speaker 1: that speech, that one that everyone references, right that Steve
Speaker 1: Bassett says, is coming every single year. Make no mistake.
Speaker 1: Steve is a good friend of mine. I love him.
Speaker 1: I actually invited him on so no shame. That's what
Speaker 1: he does for a living, is he tells people disclosures
Speaker 1: come in. I get it, but I don't think that
Speaker 1: that Do you think that's really a possibility, like a
Speaker 1: like a real a real world scenario, not something from
Speaker 1: the movies that we've been kind of taught that that
Speaker 1: is the only acceptable quote unquote capital D disclosure when
Speaker 1: in fact, I mean if Trump really came to the podium,
Speaker 1: it would sound off. It wouldn't sound as formal as
Speaker 1: as we all you know, my fellow Americans, people of
Speaker 1: the world, you know, we're not alone. It'd be like,
Speaker 1: you know, fuck China, China's fault aliens are real, Like
Speaker 1: it would be something crazy like that, right, Like you'd
Speaker 1: slip it in, but it would be a bunch of
Speaker 1: fucking other nonsense whirlwinded around it and then somehow it
Speaker 1: would be like China's fault right, So it wouldn't even
Speaker 1: sound is good coming from Trump. It'd probably be funnier though,
Speaker 1: but half the population might not even believe it.
Speaker 4: Yeah, if I could jump out on that just real quick,
Speaker 4: you're I think where you're going is exactly right. I
Speaker 4: think it's gonna be be more on the catastrophic side
Speaker 4: that the private side, you know, investigators, whether it's something
Speaker 4: there's one answer that happens that forces the government of
Speaker 4: the podium. Now that could also come from another government
Speaker 4: that forces are government in the podium as well. So
Speaker 4: that's that's more where I'm leaning. If you're going to
Speaker 4: get capital d's because they're there, their hand has been.
Speaker 1: Forced that I could see. And but that would again,
Speaker 1: that would look a little bit different. I think that
Speaker 1: would be something where it might be Geane, who do
Speaker 1: you if it wasn't the president delivering it right away,
Speaker 1: who do you think might step given your career intelligence
Speaker 1: in the military, who would be the one if it
Speaker 1: wasn't the president, Who in the cabinet would be able
Speaker 1: to give a speech about, say a craft that's on
Speaker 1: its approach, you know, something like that where our hand
Speaker 1: is forced. Who would be able to make a speech
Speaker 1: like that?
Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, I mean I think in Steve Massett says,
Speaker 2: and I love the term, you know, he calls it
Speaker 2: the big D disclosure, And I'm like, I like, I
Speaker 2: like Big D disclosure a lot better. He's right in
Speaker 2: that sense when it comes right when it comes to
Speaker 2: the Oval Office, that has the greater impact, you know,
Speaker 2: on the markets and all the rest of it. If
Speaker 2: they know it's coming from another source, I think we
Speaker 2: would see more of the response mechanism set up. So
Speaker 2: you might we might see a joint press conference, you know,
Speaker 2: between the Secretary of War in NASA, you know, potentially
Speaker 2: FEMA if if there's that thing is like, oh, something's
Speaker 2: going to land, we don't quite know where. Probably looks
Speaker 2: like it's going to be the middle of the Sahara desert,
Speaker 2: So it's not going to directly impact us insomuch as
Speaker 2: you know it's it's going to hit the city streets here.
Speaker 2: But they will want to demonstrate they are prepared and
Speaker 2: so that those agencies that would have to go.
Speaker 1: I ever even thought about that, like you'd kind of
Speaker 1: have to have some sort of like FEMA organization. Maybe
Speaker 1: maybe even I don't know if it'd be like u
Speaker 1: N backed a u N backed organization, but you know.
Speaker 2: Now that might be kind of the response. Yeah, it might.
Speaker 2: We might actually say okay, we're going to you know,
Speaker 2: so it's you know, it looks like something's going on
Speaker 2: in the middle of this area. All right, we're gonna
Speaker 2: send you know, a UN peacekeeping force or something like that, right,
Speaker 2: but on the home front. And I say FEMA because
Speaker 2: I think FEMA's often overlooked and so much as buried within.
Speaker 2: You know, all of the THEMA planning documents in its
Speaker 2: systems and structures, are these our wording around other, you know,
Speaker 2: other threats. So they talk in terms of or they
Speaker 2: talk in terms of all hazards, so they might approach
Speaker 2: it from the the hazard's standpoint and what it is.
Speaker 2: And I see whistling MIC's in there. I don't know
Speaker 2: ty if you were familiar with whistling mic No.
Speaker 1: But I I know that I interviewed Tim Phillips around
Speaker 1: the time, so we've been intertwined in a way.
Speaker 2: There you go, here's your chance to say hello.
Speaker 1: It's good to good to actually speak with you.
Speaker 7: Yeah, yeah, I say too much.
Speaker 8: I think Tyan Jean's got the right idea here, though,
Speaker 8: which is that really the key to this is is
Speaker 8: strategic planning moving forward. And I don't think we've seen that.
Speaker 8: Even if you listen to Berlason, whether you like him,
Speaker 8: or not. He said that everybody in this group basically
Speaker 8: hates each other and we're gonna have to admit that
Speaker 8: that's been a problem moving forward. So until we can
Speaker 8: get all on the same page, we can't really move forward.
Speaker 7: Normally, it's something like this.
Speaker 8: You have the old motto of go to where their
Speaker 8: leader is and taken down.
Speaker 7: So who is that? You know?
Speaker 8: Is that eerro is at SSCI, that's the deep state?
Speaker 8: Whatever you want to say, but it certainly can't be
Speaker 8: us intertwined because it's almost kind of the sort of
Speaker 8: stuff you want to keep in the locker room or
Speaker 8: the clubhouse. You know, we're all going to have our
Speaker 8: feelings about each other, but that doesn't get us anywhere.
Speaker 8: So that's just kind of my piece on it is.
Speaker 8: You know, I think we could move forward, but we
Speaker 8: have to have a plan in right now it's just
Speaker 8: not working.
Speaker 1: Do you think do you guys think that the UAP
Speaker 1: Disclosure Act as it as as it's been tried to
Speaker 1: be pushed. This includes things like the amnesty, the the
Speaker 1: what is that clause? Were you evident domain? Do you
Speaker 1: guys think anything like that would be able to do
Speaker 1: the action little job of of facilitating disclosure or would
Speaker 1: that just be kind of like, I don't know, I
Speaker 1: try to envision opinions.
Speaker 8: Yeah, I mean because you know everything, which is what
Speaker 8: the problem of the community is we only see it
Speaker 8: from our own view or our own particular situation or experience.
Speaker 7: But for me.
Speaker 1: What it would it make you want to come step forward?
Speaker 8: Well, you know, I offered myself up for the hearings,
Speaker 8: my full identity, my full face, but my only request
Speaker 8: was going to be that I went through a polygraph
Speaker 8: before on anything that I went And my point of
Speaker 8: that was that my strategic view is that rather than
Speaker 8: stories you know were forced on mainstream media, is that
Speaker 8: if you were subject to the same polygraph that determines
Speaker 8: you know, any intelligence agency, whether it's FBI, d o J,
Speaker 8: Border Patrol, it's all mandatory for hiring, right, it was
Speaker 8: the nuclear Code. So rather than and I can tell
Speaker 8: you this from experience, for some of the people that
Speaker 8: recovering it, I was getting laugh in a mode gee's
Speaker 8: over some of the stuff that was said from some
Speaker 8: of the reporters, defense reporters saying what am I going
Speaker 8: to do with this? So it's a different scenario. If
Speaker 8: you can say, well, you know, the guy said that
Speaker 8: this happened, and you pass the same sort of polygraph
Speaker 8: that the guy with the nuclear codes did. Well, that
Speaker 8: gets you pretty far down the path of it has
Speaker 8: to be covered.
Speaker 7: And I think it also.
Speaker 8: Helps the gentlemen that went because they're facing a lot
Speaker 8: of issues right now, people basically thinking they're crazy or
Speaker 8: they're lying, you know, that would help them. And I
Speaker 8: think most of them have been subjected to a polygraph
Speaker 8: at some point in time.
Speaker 4: And Mike, these are not your typical polygraphs that you
Speaker 4: would see back in the day. The polygraphs now that
Speaker 4: you've gotten the military and everything else are are extremely accurate. Yeah,
Speaker 4: it was a little more intense.
Speaker 8: Well, yeah, I'm glad Bryan said that. Because everybody's still
Speaker 8: stuck on that. Well, they can't be subjected to court. Well,
Speaker 8: and that may be a good thing to get iving
Speaker 8: in here on. But lawyers, god bless them, are some
Speaker 8: of the reasons you can't have a court. It's not
Speaker 8: necessarily that it's not a you know, like, what's the
Speaker 8: percentage rate night right now? In course of the innocent
Speaker 8: people actually winning, you know.
Speaker 7: What I mean?
Speaker 1: Right right right?
Speaker 7: You be better off at ninety seven point five.
Speaker 1: You know, wait, it's a good point though that you know,
Speaker 1: polygraphs are not amissible in court as like viable evidence,
Speaker 1: quote unquote, but every intelligence community, and like you said,
Speaker 1: every single one of them uses it to determine whether
Speaker 1: or not and you know you're going to be hired
Speaker 1: for this, this position, that position, or any position.
Speaker 8: I mean, I've always stressed the UAPBA reminds me of
Speaker 8: coming somewhere and saying you're going to play by my
Speaker 8: rules now, and we don't have that power. Certainly, the
Speaker 8: UAPA cocks in the house has no power to do that.
Speaker 8: If you really want to beat someone, you have to
Speaker 8: play by their rules and still beat them at their game.
Speaker 8: And this is the method to do that. I mean,
Speaker 8: that's it's as simple as that. Or you're going to
Speaker 8: waste a whole year with more whistleblowers, with more trouble,
Speaker 8: more gofundmes can't find jobs. I mean, let's not do
Speaker 8: that again.
Speaker 1: You know, I agree. And one thing I will ask
Speaker 1: you guys is and this is for everybody. That guy, okay,
Speaker 1: you can come back if he wants. This year twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five, one of the things that we did have
Speaker 1: to worry about is the rise in AI, the rise
Speaker 1: in AI videos and AI photography, But there seem to
Speaker 1: also be a rise and a surge in sightings and
Speaker 1: more viral incidents if you will, you know, And what
Speaker 1: I find to be troubling is these people aren't really
Speaker 1: going and reporting these cases anymore, or these sightings. So
Speaker 1: do we need to start you know, not requiring, but
Speaker 1: showing people like, hey, go to the go to. As
Speaker 1: much as I hate, I don't want to say this,
Speaker 1: report your case, to move on, report it to international
Speaker 1: UFO bureau. Like should we be investigating cases like we
Speaker 1: did before?
Speaker 2: Well, this is yes to so to a degree. And
Speaker 2: this is also why, you know, touching on what I
Speaker 2: said earlier, right, we need to be more discerning. So
Speaker 2: you know, now more now more people are looking upwards.
Speaker 2: We have more technology available to us to capture it.
Speaker 2: But you're right inso much as it's not being properly investigated,
Speaker 2: and everybody just jumps to the conclusion it's a UFO
Speaker 2: and look at my great UFO footage, and you know
Speaker 2: wants to get into the you know, get into the discussion.
Speaker 2: So you know, yeah, I agree, there needs to be
Speaker 2: some level of discernment. But again, what's one more video
Speaker 2: going to tell us that we don't know? Right? We
Speaker 2: already we already agree there should in the sky. We
Speaker 2: don't know what it is. We already understand it comes
Speaker 2: in various shapes and sizes. We understand that there are
Speaker 2: there's a plethora of various phenomenon that is associated with it,
Speaker 2: whether it's it's atmospheric, whether it's the plasma, whether it's color,
Speaker 2: all of these things. And so I think, you know,
Speaker 2: an organization, any organization that is accepting these reports, needs
Speaker 2: to begin capturing the data and be able to process
Speaker 2: the data much more effectively. And yeah, we need to,
Speaker 2: you know, instead of just pushing it out there and
Speaker 2: then asking everybody to you know, asking them, oh, tell
Speaker 2: me the story about you putting your head up in
Speaker 2: the sky and seeing something. You know, there's we've got
Speaker 2: to be breaking it down a lot more. And I
Speaker 2: know Jay, that's there. Jay's a Mood Fund investigator himself,
Speaker 2: or former or close to be former or whatever.
Speaker 4: Yeah, close to be former.
Speaker 9: But it's uh, it's still would move on though I
Speaker 9: still suggest people to go to them.
Speaker 3: It's it's not.
Speaker 9: Every everybody has a different a different take on the
Speaker 9: organization because it's run by volunteers, you know, it's it's
Speaker 9: a volunteer organization, meaning you have other people involved in it.
Speaker 5: It's not you know.
Speaker 9: But regardless, my feelings on this whole thing would be,
Speaker 9: we have all these organizations out there right now that
Speaker 9: are collecting this information civilian wise, right. We have you know,
Speaker 9: the Citizens for Safe Aerospace, we have move On, we
Speaker 9: have the International UFO Bureau. They're all civilian run, they're
Speaker 9: all But what is the key that we need to
Speaker 9: look at here is, like you said, gene is the evidence.
Speaker 9: We have the databases already. Let's put them together. What's
Speaker 9: going to happen with move On, Citizens for Safe Aerospace,
Speaker 9: the International UFO Bureau, and we add all these databases together.
Speaker 9: The government's already doing it. The civilians should be doing it.
Speaker 9: We should be doing it. We're already doing it. We
Speaker 9: have the agencies, but they're spread out.
Speaker 1: Yeah, like, and make no mistake about it. I think
Speaker 1: of course, military, commercial, you know, pilots, aviators, those cases
Speaker 1: do hit different. They hit different. They they strike a
Speaker 1: different chord with the general public. They're just more they
Speaker 1: stand alone better. But I feel like we've gotten away
Speaker 1: from a little bit, we've gotten away from the actual
Speaker 1: legwork that needs to be done still, Like, just because
Speaker 1: we know there's multiple types of UFOs, there's multiple types
Speaker 1: of phenomena, doesn't mean you just stop, you know, collecting
Speaker 1: data on it.
Speaker 9: Right, Yeah, one hundred percent, one hundred percent. And my
Speaker 9: feelings on that would be, you take the data and
Speaker 9: you don't just stop.
Speaker 3: You can't.
Speaker 9: You have to build upon that, meaning you're gonna go
Speaker 9: out there in the field. You're gonna use instruments to
Speaker 9: detect these phenomenon happening and correlate it with what you
Speaker 9: know based off of real science. You have it on
Speaker 9: the machines, you can see it for your own eyes.
Speaker 4: You have it detected.
Speaker 9: Now you have something to go off of and base
Speaker 9: something else off of and build upon it.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 7: Yeah, that's that's big to me too.
Speaker 8: I Mean, I think all three of you guys have
Speaker 8: been chiming in kind of on the same thing, which
Speaker 8: is that we've got to the point where we know
Speaker 8: military members have seen it. So I know that's a
Speaker 8: big thing. Kind of like Tys saying, we've got to
Speaker 8: now what goes past that? Well, people have their different views.
Speaker 8: But if the whole UFO thing is random, then it's
Speaker 8: like you spin the globe and you put your finger
Speaker 8: on wherever it stops.
Speaker 7: That's the person.
Speaker 8: So you know, if it's random, then, like I always
Speaker 8: tell people, I really don't care if the guy has
Speaker 8: DUIs or whatever his personal life is. It's a random situation.
Speaker 8: What I want to know is is there anything in
Speaker 8: your story that I can use to validate it? Right,
Speaker 8: GPS coordinate state and time stamps, you know that sort
Speaker 8: of information. Really what we need to be pulling out
Speaker 8: what you have to move forward with, not what is
Speaker 8: your background? What bad things do you have in your past?
Speaker 7: Right?
Speaker 1: That's a good that That is something I did want
Speaker 1: to touch on as well. The because of the rise
Speaker 1: in quote unquote and I and I again, I don't
Speaker 1: I don't mean any disrespect to anyone when I say
Speaker 1: this quote the quote unquote whistleblowers. With the rise of
Speaker 1: UFO whistleblowers has come the rise in you know, picking
Speaker 1: people's parts of past and using that against them, h
Speaker 1: to some form or you know, in one way or another,
Speaker 1: in one form or another, whether it's you know, like
Speaker 1: you said, this guy's gonna dy, you know, short of
Speaker 1: going like a wall or like I don't know, like
Speaker 1: of course, the big the Big three, the trifecta crimes,
Speaker 1: Like do we really need to be pulling on people's PTSD.
Speaker 1: I don't really think so unless they are there, unless
Speaker 1: they're like they've been deemed mentally unstable. I don't think
Speaker 1: that what anyone is saying is less interesting or less
Speaker 1: uh verifiable if it does have the data to back it,
Speaker 1: the evidence to back it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean I think you know, there's that makes sense. No,
Speaker 2: it makes perfect Yeah, it makes perfect sense. You know
Speaker 2: there's and again it's a balance, right, So what you're
Speaker 2: looking for overall, I think this is what what Mike
Speaker 2: was getting at, is you know, the consistency of the story, right,
Speaker 2: and yes, you probably should. You know, you know, things
Speaker 2: that influence you know, narcotics use. You know that's of
Speaker 2: alcohol use, the right, the old though we were out drinking,
Speaker 2: you know, it was two o'clock in the morning and
Speaker 2: we were drinking.
Speaker 1: Eh, mushrooms.
Speaker 2: It's like yeah factor, so you know, and but I
Speaker 2: think that again, everything has to be you know, within
Speaker 2: the context and framework of the evidence that is being presented.
Speaker 2: So yes, certainly when it is, you know, purely just
Speaker 2: a story and there's no other corroborating verbal, testimonial evidence
Speaker 2: from anybody that supports your story. You know it again,
Speaker 2: it's you know, the person doesn't need to be ridiculed,
Speaker 2: and but yeah, you're more likely to kind of put
Speaker 2: that off to the side unless you can find other
Speaker 2: external unrelated to the person, corroborating data. Right, you know,
Speaker 2: were there are other reports that night in the area,
Speaker 2: whatever it might be, right, I.
Speaker 4: Don't mean underruptile what we're what we're also running into
Speaker 4: is and uh, you know, I got to talk with
Speaker 4: the plasma physicists quite some times, you know, and I
Speaker 4: have talked about this as well. Is some of the
Speaker 4: skin around these crafts that we've got are able to
Speaker 4: for a period of time, run the plasma around the crash.
Speaker 4: And so that's what a lot of uh, a lot
Speaker 4: of the settings that we could be uh, that that
Speaker 4: people are seeing, that's what it can be, and that
Speaker 4: plasma can run the other invisible or different colors. You know,
Speaker 4: this is exactly what I was told. So how how
Speaker 4: how does one distinguish, oh, hey, this is pretty cool
Speaker 4: tech that we've got, or is this what U, a
Speaker 4: non human intelligence is using, and so that's that's kind
Speaker 4: of becoming a problem now until we get the better
Speaker 4: detection materials.
Speaker 2: Well, and I think that goes you know, but and
Speaker 2: again in the simplest way, that goes into what Jay
Speaker 2: was talking about. You know your databases, right, because as
Speaker 2: that data is collected certain colors, certain weather conditions, you
Speaker 2: you begin to identify some patterns in that. You know,
Speaker 2: if you begin to see the same thing, same time,
Speaker 2: same place, you know, does that does that or does
Speaker 2: that not lean one way or the other of nhi
Speaker 2: versus prosaic I don't, I don't know, but you know,
Speaker 2: the the answer is gonna be in that data somewhere
Speaker 2: that allows that next step to be taken to get
Speaker 2: closer to those answers.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 4: And part of the problem as well, if you look
Speaker 4: at the Jacent Stands story. When I talk with him,
Speaker 4: his alien encounter was looking for tritium. Okay, Well, when
Speaker 4: I talked to my co owner, the U of the
Speaker 4: plasma physicists, he needs etherium and tritium for his for
Speaker 4: his the plasma to work. It's like, okay, wait a minute, now,
Speaker 4: they could won't be using the same thing, and and
Speaker 4: and now how would you distinguish one from the other.
Speaker 4: That's that's going to be a new, a new problem.
Speaker 4: And and I don't know if a Jay's running into
Speaker 4: that as well. Well.
Speaker 2: I think it's just this extension of you know, like
Speaker 2: Jay and Ty, we're talking about right data tools, the
Speaker 2: availability of tools, and most importantly people with a skill
Speaker 2: set to analyze it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, what do you guys think? Because I talked to
Speaker 1: Gene about this, You guys obviously weren't here from the beginning,
Speaker 1: like the backstage, but I did kind of want to
Speaker 1: talk a little bit about how UFO disclosure, whether we
Speaker 1: like it or not, can it is affected by certain
Speaker 1: world events. Now, the two I have in mind are
Speaker 1: the Charlie Kirk assassination. I think obviously, as twenty twenty
Speaker 1: five it wraps up, we could probably all admit that
Speaker 1: that was probably one of the more if not I
Speaker 1: don't even know how to describe it. Whether you like him,
Speaker 1: whether you hate him, whether he didn't even really know
Speaker 1: who he was. I found that hard to believe, but
Speaker 1: it kind of shocked the world. Few things do that.
Speaker 1: The Kirk assassination, and then this year I'd say the
Speaker 1: Epstein files are probably and then the war, the war
Speaker 1: in Ukraine, in the Middle East. I guess there's four.
Speaker 1: Sorry I overshot, but those things. The UFO disclosure movement,
Speaker 1: whether we like it or not, is either intertwined or
Speaker 1: gets lost in the conversation when we are dealing with
Speaker 1: things in our backyard. We can't really look the space
Speaker 1: and care about that when you know genocide is taking place.
Speaker 8: Yeah, I think it's a good point even to kind
Speaker 8: of extend that and come back to it. You look
Speaker 8: at things like Project Bluebook and others or what not.
Speaker 8: Part of the US tech which she covered a little bit,
Speaker 8: or is it alien tech?
Speaker 7: We don't know.
Speaker 8: That's always been intertwined in hiding what we have. So
Speaker 8: the same point that Ty's making there now, world events,
Speaker 8: whether intentionally or not, are also used to take any
Speaker 8: moment a matter of what we're doing here, and now
Speaker 8: no one's talking about it. Now the topbout something else.
Speaker 8: So I mean, it's gonna keep happening. So again, that's
Speaker 8: where the strategic plan kind of laid out goes into
Speaker 8: versus just the hype and then it's died off or
Speaker 8: already onto the next movie.
Speaker 1: Right, And I don't know if you guys remember this,
Speaker 1: but you know, even going back right, whether you like
Speaker 1: him or not, doctor Greer, his disclosure project, the first
Speaker 1: one when he brought all those people together, like John
Speaker 1: Callahan of the FAA. I love John because he's a
Speaker 1: Boston boy. I think he's a Boston boy. He sort
Speaker 1: of sounds like it. But John Callahan, like the sallases,
Speaker 1: all of them. That first disclosure project that he did,
Speaker 1: that that National Press Club event, I mean that had legs,
Speaker 1: That had legs, and nine to eleven happens fucking a
Speaker 1: month later, so that takes all the wind out of
Speaker 1: all that sale. And for the right reason, right, like
Speaker 1: three thousand people lost their lives on nine to eleven,
Speaker 1: So you know, it's a rightful kind of pivot by society.
Speaker 1: But now with the twenty four hour news cycle being
Speaker 1: what it is, there's a lot of events that are
Speaker 1: taking place that are really taking the wind out of
Speaker 1: the sales on the disclosure movement.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 8: I mean, if you go back to the strategic plan again,
Speaker 8: the nine eleven things just so god awful terrible. I
Speaker 8: don't want to say we're piggybacking it, because that's not
Speaker 8: what it is, but there's actual concern here. And so
Speaker 8: then the question is do you then try and jump
Speaker 8: ahead and have something that's so outrageous, whether it's true
Speaker 8: or not, you bring more attention in or do you
Speaker 8: do kind of what we're trying to do here, which
Speaker 8: is we say we don't know what's in the skies
Speaker 8: and that could essentially calls another nine to eleven, which
Speaker 8: is what we do not want to happen. And that's
Speaker 8: kind of where when I talk to Gene and different folks,
Speaker 8: where we're kind of trying to push this forward with
Speaker 8: how you also have to approach the military, you know,
Speaker 8: in these committees to have them listen to you. And
Speaker 8: that's just kind of what our strategic plan's been.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and there's a certain level of you know, of
Speaker 2: course immediacy, right, so yes, they're gonna you know, the
Speaker 2: news of the day is going to going to grab
Speaker 2: the headline. But I think one of the other issues
Speaker 2: is that because this, you know, you can go across
Speaker 2: the board for anybody who has a cause for which
Speaker 2: they are passionate, right, and if something happens, you know,
Speaker 2: the week of Earth Day, then everybody who's into Earth
Speaker 2: Day feels like, oh, our headline, you know, was stolen.
Speaker 2: We didn't get the share of attention that you know
Speaker 2: we expected this week, or we oh, we just really
Speaker 2: had you know, the biggest Earth Day ever, and oh
Speaker 2: my god, there was you know, an assassination the next
Speaker 2: day that took it away. So, you know, I think,
Speaker 2: and it's not exclusive to this, but in the same way,
Speaker 2: we are again culture as a culture or community, we
Speaker 2: don't we don't operate like activists, right, and every all
Speaker 2: of these other causes really do communicate the core things
Speaker 2: consistently enough and present it in a way that I
Speaker 2: think is the counter to the ever changing news cycle, right,
Speaker 2: and they just press on, whereas it's like we're standing
Speaker 2: in line waiting to jump in when we have a moment,
Speaker 2: we're waiting for somebody else to do something for us
Speaker 2: and then we'll all, you know, and then we'll run
Speaker 2: over there, and then we'll run over there, as opposed
Speaker 2: to being the ones trying to set the agenda like
Speaker 2: activists do.
Speaker 1: Well. Another thing that was kind of popular this year,
Speaker 1: and again I I this kind of came to me
Speaker 1: before the show when I was thinking about it, but
Speaker 1: I called it, I think I said it's a UFO
Speaker 1: reporting center because they brought up Skywatcher. A bunch of
Speaker 1: these groups kind of popped up this year claiming that
Speaker 1: you know, they they had the the keys to the
Speaker 1: secret sauce. In this case, it was called the dog Whistle,
Speaker 1: the Jake Jake Barber and and and say what you
Speaker 1: want about him. I have no ill will, I have
Speaker 1: no I would love to talk to that guy, I
Speaker 1: really would. But a lot of promises are made by
Speaker 1: certain people, and uh no, really results happened a lot
Speaker 1: of these people. You know, it seems like they're like
Speaker 1: UFO community tourists and they stop in see if any
Speaker 1: there's any money to make. Oh not, Okay, we're gonna disavow,
Speaker 1: we're disbanding.
Speaker 2: They're trying to grab a market share for that's their pets,
Speaker 2: their pet project. As opposed to us saying, as opposed
Speaker 2: to the five of us in the room right now,
Speaker 2: agree and say, you know what we're gonna do twenty
Speaker 2: We are going to have Disclosure twenty twenty six agenda,
Speaker 2: and that agenda, these are the five things we want
Speaker 2: to see out of you know, out of the out
Speaker 2: of Congress, right and then we have you know, and
Speaker 2: then we get Matt Laslow running around you know, the halls,
Speaker 2: and he's pushing it and he's asking about it, and
Speaker 2: we have you know, we we have somebody who's responsible
Speaker 2: for right. Your senators, yes, your senators voted you know, yeah,
Speaker 2: they voted positive for the you know, uap to Disclosure Act.
Speaker 2: We want, you know, follow up, make the phone call,
Speaker 2: check back in. That's why, you know, that's when it
Speaker 2: becomes a movement with some measurable criteria, until we set
Speaker 2: the criteria of the expectation, and we do it in
Speaker 2: a way that is palatable and digestible and realistic and reasonable.
Speaker 2: Again for a political right, tell us everything, and you know,
Speaker 2: wheeld the UFO and alien bodies onto the Washington Monument
Speaker 2: Mall on Saturday, November eighth is not a reasonable demand. Right,
Speaker 2: Let's let's yeah, stop with our expectationally, put our arms around,
Speaker 2: set that agenda, get people, get everybody organized and talk,
Speaker 2: you know, speaking off the same sheet of music in
Speaker 2: that way, and then we start, you know, measuring stuff.
Speaker 2: We start saying, well, hold on a second, how does
Speaker 2: how does this new video get us towards this goal?
Speaker 2: How does this new thing being proposed get us towards
Speaker 2: this goal for twenty twenty six. Well, right now we've
Speaker 2: got a giant we have a giant thing we want
Speaker 2: to happen, and we want it to happen now, but
Speaker 2: we don't know how.
Speaker 1: I agree, I agree, we have a couple editions. Sorry,
Speaker 1: Kyle and Mike disclosure. How you guys doing what was
Speaker 1: twenty five? Just quickly introduce yourself? And was twenty twenty
Speaker 1: five a bust or a must?
Speaker 3: Oh? In my opinion, I think it was a bust.
Speaker 3: We didn't get anything credible, anything worthwhile, or anything to
Speaker 3: move the needle. Tyler all right, nothing, not one thing.
Speaker 3: Not one thing. Oh, I know, new whistleblowers came out.
Speaker 3: Well no, actually, you know what, I take that back,
Speaker 3: that's not exactly true. Jeane coming out this year with
Speaker 3: his book from the work his father on a litt
Speaker 3: date over in the Soviet Union, that is something that
Speaker 3: will move the needle because it's real work. It was
Speaker 3: UAP reverse engineering back in the nineteen eighties, and it's credible.
Speaker 3: So that's a real piece of the puzzle. It's not
Speaker 3: a make believe one. And Jane put it out there
Speaker 3: publicly for everybody, so Jane, who was also a good friend.
Speaker 3: It helped to bring out the truth about disclosure for
Speaker 3: the world to see. That's what we got this year.
Speaker 3: That really counts as far as I'm concerned.
Speaker 1: I can get on board at that. I have an
Speaker 1: episode that's coming out with him very shortly. So yeah,
Speaker 1: if everyone thinks that, then we should be good. No,
Speaker 1: thank you, Mike so.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, thanks, but that certainly speaks to the sad
Speaker 2: state of affairs then.
Speaker 3: In uaph Well, yeah, I guess you could look at
Speaker 3: it that way, Gene, But you know.
Speaker 2: I previously used finger fucking a sentence on this show,
Speaker 2: so you know that's the that's where we're.
Speaker 3: At you Oh yeah, no with the mummies. Yeah, I
Speaker 3: caught that. I was fucking hysterical.
Speaker 8: Yeah, I'll jump in before Kyle gets going that way,
Speaker 8: he gets his proper time. I'll all be quietly promised, Kyle.
Speaker 8: But this is this again where people don't really understand
Speaker 8: what's going on behind the scenes, because the twenty four
Speaker 8: to seven Twitter, you know, to give you an idea
Speaker 8: of how things are actually right now, there was a gentleman,
Speaker 8: you know, I worked with different people that are trying
Speaker 8: to fund me, like so car and there was a
Speaker 8: gentleman that dealt with weather modification, trying to get funding,
Speaker 8: and he was discovering some of u AP sort of readings,
Speaker 8: actual physical hard evidence radiation readings couldn't get through the
Speaker 8: Burlson so so Calm connected him to me. And this
Speaker 8: isn't a UFO guy. This is a guy that dealt
Speaker 8: with nothing like this before. And then I dealt with him.
Speaker 8: I looked at some of his readings and yeah, I
Speaker 8: mean there's there's something there. I can't say it's an
Speaker 8: or ailing, right, but you got said that shouldn't be
Speaker 8: there with radiation spikes of the domestic sky.
Speaker 7: So set him up to go in. He went spoken too,
Speaker 7: burtles in the person.
Speaker 8: And then when the FBI UAP team reached out to me,
Speaker 8: you know, they did ask me if anyone's doing what
Speaker 8: I'm doing. I wasn't keen to help them out at
Speaker 8: this point in time. We'll see what happens. But they
Speaker 8: did mention skywatcher. They felt like skywatchers finding some stuff.
Speaker 8: But I mean, I can't validate or involve anything they're doing.
Speaker 8: And then I connected this person through to them. So
Speaker 8: that's the state of things right now. Is the people
Speaker 8: who are doing the hearings, the vettings, the choice of
Speaker 8: who's where I have it such a mess that nobody
Speaker 8: that actually has what they really should have, some sort
Speaker 8: of evidence, things that can go in front of people
Speaker 8: to be studied or looked at, can even get through
Speaker 8: to any of the UAP caucus. I know they say
Speaker 8: they'll talk to anyone. Good luck, SSCI, good luck, arrow,
Speaker 8: good luck. And just as you see now with even
Speaker 8: the FBI, you know u APUFOTEAM good luck. Until that changes,
Speaker 8: you're gonna see the same thing continue, which is more
Speaker 8: people platform and people with big stories push them into
Speaker 8: hearings and so on. This is how bad things are
Speaker 8: right now. We've got to somehow change this.
Speaker 1: Right, So we kind of like, grow up, guys, enough
Speaker 1: with the faction bullshit. Let's get together, not you know,
Speaker 1: maybe not like literally get together, but at least virtually, like,
Speaker 1: let's get some sort of consensus that we can all
Speaker 1: get behind.
Speaker 8: We need a new point man. Yeah, that's what we need.
Speaker 8: I'm just gonna fly out and say it. We need
Speaker 8: a new point man to have people call and say
Speaker 8: I've got this. That person can say, okay, you have
Speaker 8: some things we can actually look at facts, we can
Speaker 8: send to people with physicists. I just if not, I'm sorry,
Speaker 8: the story does no good right now. What's happening is
Speaker 8: that people with the story are being sent to these
Speaker 8: other people who are supposed to be listening to folks.
Speaker 8: And you know, it's just not the way you're going
Speaker 8: to move forward.
Speaker 1: I I I disagree to one part, and that's the
Speaker 1: point man part. But I do want to get it
Speaker 1: to Kyle to at least introduce himself. We can get
Speaker 1: back to that, and and and but again, no disrespect
Speaker 1: to anything, of course, No.
Speaker 7: Different views are great.
Speaker 8: And that's what's good about what we're doing today is
Speaker 8: we're showing people you can have different views and still.
Speaker 1: And have a comple walk away from it going Okay,
Speaker 1: you know what, that was a good point. That was
Speaker 1: a good point. What that wasn't a good point. But
Speaker 1: I liked what he said. That's what I like is
Speaker 1: open discourse. Again, if you if if you want to
Speaker 1: tell me you're a vampire, tell me more. Just you know,
Speaker 1: like you Jean said, I'm not going to probably hang
Speaker 1: out with you after a certain time. You're probably not
Speaker 1: going to be an in studio guest either. But that is.
Speaker 7: Because Jane told me he was a vampire last time
Speaker 7: I talked to him.
Speaker 1: Well, ship, Jeane is far too close to me. Kyle,
Speaker 1: introduce yourself. It was an a buster must.
Speaker 10: It was a can everybody hear me?
Speaker 1: Yes?
Speaker 3: Okay, Rite and Claire, how you doing?
Speaker 10: Myke?
Speaker 4: I just sent how you doing?
Speaker 7: Kyle?
Speaker 10: Good good?
Speaker 11: I just sent you and Gene a very interesting email,
Speaker 11: A little bit of work I did. It was a bust.
Speaker 11: There there's been no Select Committee. There's been multiple attempts
Speaker 11: to to start one. Birchant made a comment one time
Speaker 11: on a Sean Ryan interview in twenty twenty four, twenty
Speaker 11: twenty three, that that he had helped Mike Johnson get
Speaker 11: his position via his vote on the Oversight Committee, and
Speaker 11: he kind of said, it'll be pretty easy.
Speaker 10: It should be pretty easy to get.
Speaker 11: At one because he owes me and uh, and that
Speaker 11: got shot down with Mitch McConnell h and another putting
Speaker 11: pressure on Johnson not to approve it. And then there's
Speaker 11: been multiple instances after that. Comber stands next to Anna
Speaker 11: Paulina Luna when they announced the task force and they
Speaker 11: get a question about subpoena power, and Comber looks over
Speaker 11: and says, we'll give her everything she needs if she
Speaker 11: needs that paraphrasing, but uh, something to that extent.
Speaker 10: They go for one. Uh, they get shot down again.
Speaker 10: They're not gonna give them one.
Speaker 11: They're not gonna they're not gonna get a select committee.
Speaker 10: Which is I think is what it's gonna take.
Speaker 11: And then you have you have every time every time
Speaker 11: Laslow interviews an Armed Services Committee member or an Intelligence
Speaker 11: Committee member out of the Senate, they just act completely dumb.
Speaker 11: And they've heard all of these Uh they've had all
Speaker 11: these closed door, uh classified testimony from whistleblowers, and yet
Speaker 11: they act like it's something they never heard of. So
Speaker 11: they're being completely disingenuous about it and uh dishonest. Uh
Speaker 11: you I can't imagine how many of those testimonies, Uh
Speaker 11: Marco Rubio heard. Yet when he's asked about it, he
Speaker 11: just he just lightly gives the explanation that that, well,
Speaker 11: I've heard for some you know, uh intelligence officials who
Speaker 11: are either telling the truth or they're crazy.
Speaker 10: Uh, either way, we got a problem.
Speaker 11: And uh uh kind of screws Dan Farrah uh in
Speaker 11: his comments in the Sean Hennity interview when he was
Speaker 11: asked about about his role in the in the documentary.
Speaker 11: I think when when there is a true effort and
Speaker 11: and most effectively in the Senate on the Intelligence Committee
Speaker 11: to get somewhere, and they stop calling it drones because
Speaker 11: that seems to be a new term that they can,
Speaker 11: uh they can apply to any uh any uap event
Speaker 11: Uh it's drones, and then make it make it an
Speaker 11: issue of based security, uh of them flying over bases
Speaker 11: and they have to look into it and they don't.
Speaker 10: Know what it is.
Speaker 11: But then they know what it is, uh when when
Speaker 11: they're asked about it and they were FAA approved. So
Speaker 11: they've got to be honest or legislatively, uh governmentally, we're
Speaker 11: not going to get anywhere, right.
Speaker 1: I can definitely agree with that sentiment. God, Mike, where
Speaker 1: are you like a train station? Can you hear me?
Speaker 1: I I muted at them earlier because I was like,
Speaker 1: what is there a fucking train going by?
Speaker 4: Not just kidding Mike, Yeah, I think Mike. Mike was
Speaker 4: in New York, So so it can get allowed there. Yeah,
Speaker 4: go ahead, that's not a good place. But but here's
Speaker 4: one concrete well legislatives.
Speaker 1: I think you're cutting in a little bit. Anyone else
Speaker 1: is he cutting in? Yeah?
Speaker 10: A little better new.
Speaker 4: Yeah, okay, break up. We can provide a clean bill
Speaker 4: in the House that strengthens the whistleblower protections. And now
Speaker 4: the key there is to get it brought to the
Speaker 4: House floor, and that would have to be done via
Speaker 4: what's called the discharge petition, which Anapolina Luna outlined the
Speaker 4: mechanics of that when they were voting on the bill
Speaker 4: to prevent insider insider trading. Okay, now it can still
Speaker 4: get the torpedo to the Senate, but at least it
Speaker 4: would be brought to the floor for a vote. And
Speaker 4: so I think that would be a good first step.
Speaker 4: A clean bill that strengthens the whistlebowarer protections brought to
Speaker 4: the House via the floor via discharge petition. And I've
Speaker 4: been screaming this from the rooftops for a while now,
Speaker 4: but I would imagine a whistling mike that that would
Speaker 4: allow more people to come forward without fear of repercussions.
Speaker 8: Yeah, there's the kind of parlay into that I've kind
Speaker 8: of been predicting the future here a little bit for
Speaker 8: people to see what they're getting into. But you know,
Speaker 8: even on the NDAA that was proposed here a couple
Speaker 8: of months ago. They put a clause into that, and
Speaker 8: as we all know, the NDAA always passes.
Speaker 7: The u APDA hasn't passed year after year.
Speaker 8: In one of the clauses was that they would let
Speaker 8: individuals who were supposed to get go in and testify
Speaker 8: know what restrictions they would be under. And really with that,
Speaker 8: it's probably gonna have to do with is in order
Speaker 8: to go into that skiff, which didn't happen to me legally,
Speaker 8: you should at least have a TS, which.
Speaker 7: They always wanted me to get.
Speaker 8: So once you get the TS, then right off the bat,
Speaker 8: you're going to be, you know, only able to say
Speaker 8: so many things.
Speaker 7: But what Brian's saying is true. Some of the people I.
Speaker 8: Talked about that reached out to me either wanted to
Speaker 8: talk to Berlisson or the FBI.
Speaker 7: You ap team.
Speaker 8: Everybody is terrified, especially those with some hardcore evidence in
Speaker 8: their hands. And then when they get brave enough to
Speaker 8: call and they can't get through where none answers or email. Again,
Speaker 8: that system's kind of bogging us down here. So let's
Speaker 8: start with one thing. What'stle blower protection and then keep
Speaker 8: going with that.
Speaker 4: So yeah, and yeah, because we're going in to talk
Speaker 4: to the staffers, and the staffers are beating the info
Speaker 4: to the intel community. I mean, I can give you
Speaker 4: many examples. I won't bore you, but that's exactly what's happening.
Speaker 7: M Yeah, he's right.
Speaker 8: I mean, you know I can go in and give
Speaker 8: GPS coordinates, day time stamps, and you know, you're talking
Speaker 8: about a committee that no one's going to.
Speaker 7: Come down on them legal wise or whatever. They do.
Speaker 8: They do whatever they want, right, you know, they're not
Speaker 8: gonna be investigated by the people that are the boss of.
Speaker 7: So, and they do.
Speaker 8: They make some calls to people they know and pull
Speaker 8: what they need to pull from satellites or whatever else.
Speaker 8: I mean, they've got everything they need there. Even though
Speaker 8: as Kyle kind of pointed out, they're playing dumb. They
Speaker 8: are very well connected. That s SCI Committee is a
Speaker 8: whole other ball game than the UAP Caucus unfortunately, power wise.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I mean I think it's gone a little
Speaker 1: bit under maybe not under the radar, but it doesn't
Speaker 1: seem to be as front phrasing, front facing as I
Speaker 1: think it should be. But Mark Rubio in the age
Speaker 1: of disclosure. He says this line, and it's resonated with me.
Speaker 1: And I'm paraphrasing because I don't remember the actual quote.
Speaker 1: But you know, one senator is read in on the project,
Speaker 1: they give materials to lockeed let's just say Lockheed or
Speaker 1: Company A, and the next senator knows a little bit less,
Speaker 1: and their staff knows a little bit less. And then
Speaker 1: the next senator after that is not even read in,
Speaker 1: you know, at all, and has no idea that that
Speaker 1: transaction took place between the government and the private contractor.
Speaker 1: And now the private contractor is essentially, you know, able
Speaker 1: to just wait terms out and wait people out and
Speaker 1: continue to profit off of technology and materials that they
Speaker 1: are getting from government contracts.
Speaker 7: Yeah, a loop, Yeah, I mean even just a step
Speaker 7: above that.
Speaker 8: You know, when I dealt with cend it around, one
Speaker 8: of the things he did with on my information is,
Speaker 8: you know, he brought in the top of the people,
Speaker 8: he said, people that never been in the same room
Speaker 8: together in the caps same way, SAPs, and essentially said
Speaker 8: that they had access to and everything I brought in
Speaker 8: and they would know whose was.
Speaker 7: Well. So I think it's to.
Speaker 8: The point to where centers don't even necessarily think in
Speaker 8: really reality that they're even going to be told what
Speaker 8: it is. So it's even a step above that at
Speaker 8: this point in time in twenty twenty five and twenty six,
Speaker 8: I don't even think you're gonna get people admit to it.
Speaker 7: They're just gonna wait out, Yeah, play that game.
Speaker 8: I mean they failed another audit, right, I mean they
Speaker 8: know they can't be caught. So you know, it's even
Speaker 8: worse than that I think now, But you're right, I
Speaker 8: mean there's no.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and when people like you said, when people are
Speaker 1: giving them locations again, uh, you know, you can only
Speaker 1: take that so far, Like you can't gene if say,
Speaker 1: say Lockheed Martin, say I told the government that I
Speaker 1: worked with Lockheed Martin, I knew of something that they
Speaker 1: had at this building. How much authority does the government
Speaker 1: have right now to walk into Lockheed Martin to that
Speaker 1: specific building and verify the claims that I'm I'm telling
Speaker 1: them as an insider.
Speaker 2: So you're you're into some tricky territory, right, because if
Speaker 2: it's a program that the government was working on, then
Speaker 2: you're the one that's gonna wind up getting rested for
Speaker 2: revealing classified information. As a you know as a as
Speaker 2: a I mean you've taken so the company and well no,
Speaker 2: not no, you know government classified information. So Lockheed itself
Speaker 2: has what they'll call the position will be Facility Security Officer, right,
Speaker 2: and that is the person who is the administrative authority
Speaker 2: for managing the classified government programs that are operating within Lockheed.
Speaker 2: So there were a government employee, I'm sorry, they were
Speaker 2: a Lockheed employee and the government has allowed them. And
Speaker 2: within the Facility Security Office, the saves and data system
Speaker 2: and the tech, all of that has to meet government standards.
Speaker 2: So it's almost like a little skiff in and of itself,
Speaker 2: just not to the same degree. So if you were
Speaker 2: reporting to the government on a project you saw inside
Speaker 2: of Lockheed and that project is classified, then you've just
Speaker 2: violated federal law.
Speaker 1: Interesting and can I jump in.
Speaker 4: On that real quick?
Speaker 7: Yeah, yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 4: Oh, I was just gonna say, we had a chat
Speaker 4: similar to this about a year and a half ago,
Speaker 4: revealing coordinates not at Lockheed, but at other government facilities,
Speaker 4: and what we thought was private people got knocks on
Speaker 4: their door by the FBI for revealing some of these areas.
Speaker 4: So yeah, we've we've shared coordinates we've got places that
Speaker 4: that that we know we're at least at one time,
Speaker 4: if not now, I still active.
Speaker 8: To cover so fast if I can't tie is that
Speaker 8: you know from the inside of you, if someone's been
Speaker 8: through it, that's what you're told. I mean, that's what
Speaker 8: I was told from the lead staffer that was handling
Speaker 8: the whole UAP investigation SSCI, which is they begged me
Speaker 8: to go to ERO, and I had no problem. They
Speaker 8: told me it's a child by fire right and they
Speaker 8: said no one was wanting to go to ERO. But
Speaker 8: that's exactly what they explained. You can come into SCI
Speaker 8: and tell them whatever you want, coordinate to daytime.
Speaker 7: They aren't going whether they can or not. They aren't
Speaker 7: going to go.
Speaker 8: To those locations physically themselves and knock on the door
Speaker 8: and ask. They're gonna call ARO in and EURO supposed
Speaker 8: to report did they go to those locations? What did
Speaker 8: they find? Which is you listen to what they've said,
Speaker 8: they did go to some location. I'm not here to
Speaker 8: vouch for everybody needs everybody knows. But if the system
Speaker 8: is broke again, you've got a roadblock off to get
Speaker 8: where you need to get to solve that. So that's
Speaker 8: the current system is that ERO has to go find
Speaker 8: it for SSCI or you release it publicly, and like
Speaker 8: you was saying, you get a knocking to do it right.
Speaker 8: So again, our system that we're pushing forward with the
Speaker 8: normal plan isn't going to work because from the inside
Speaker 8: view it's busty.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and Mike, I just want to say that you
Speaker 3: did good job last night putting up those posts on
Speaker 3: X about Kesh Patel and the FBI setting up their
Speaker 3: new anti drone center and how they're not going to
Speaker 3: be able to accomplish anything because they don't have the
Speaker 3: right tech to be able to do that. Those are
Speaker 3: very good points.
Speaker 8: That the FBI, and I'll hand it back to Tie
Speaker 8: here in a minute. I don't get too far off case,
Speaker 8: but they have potential right now, people need to know
Speaker 8: that there is potential. I mean they admitted to me
Speaker 8: either coming in late.
Speaker 7: It's all this.
Speaker 8: They don't have the inner working that has been proposed
Speaker 8: with ERRO. Just I'm not going to go too far
Speaker 8: in the private conversations, but you might as well count
Speaker 8: as a different organization. So then it becomes could they
Speaker 8: help us? And they possibly could, but they're at the
Speaker 8: beginning with the same folks that everyone's already seen at
Speaker 8: the hearings. And I'm not dogging on them, but they're
Speaker 8: trying to weigh their way through that into can you
Speaker 8: find verifiable facts that they can work with, because, as
Speaker 8: I said earlier, that's how they pushed.
Speaker 7: An investigation forward. So that was kind of my point there, Mike, Yet.
Speaker 3: It was a very good point. Well, oh, go ahead, Tyler.
Speaker 1: Well, also, I forget which member of Congress it was.
Speaker 1: I think it was Unweaponized most recently. Actually it might
Speaker 1: have just been I think it was just them all together.
Speaker 1: It was Luna, it was Burchan, and it was Burlesson
Speaker 1: on Weaponize. I think it was the episode that aired
Speaker 1: last week before the Jacques Vallet interview, and they had
Speaker 1: kind of conceded that future hearings are probably not going
Speaker 1: to be talked about right now because they don't think
Speaker 1: that it will move the ball forward. Do you guys,
Speaker 1: what is your guys' take on and we can introduce
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, the letters are getting really small for me now.
Speaker 1: I see Joe down at the bottom, But what what
Speaker 1: is it going to take to actually move the needle forward?
Speaker 1: Is the next thing going to have to be physical evidence.
Speaker 1: And if so, what is going to constitute something that
Speaker 1: will unite debunkers and skeptics and believers alike. Is there
Speaker 1: something that you see happening in the future, because right
Speaker 1: now there is a very very very pitted feeling inside
Speaker 1: of the UFO community. You know, skeptics hop on stories
Speaker 1: and some of their you know, theories are more outlandish
Speaker 1: than just alien not alien, but non human intelligence controlled
Speaker 1: craft or alien reproduction vehicles, whatever you want to call them.
Speaker 1: You know, the Mickwests of the world. I like Mick,
Speaker 1: but some of those theories are fucking crazy evidence going
Speaker 1: forward because with the advent of AI and AI video
Speaker 1: and it's gonna be it's gonna be hard to trust
Speaker 1: our eyes and what we're seeing.
Speaker 3: Well, burke Chet and that interview said it very clearly.
Speaker 3: He said, there's no point in putting up a hearing
Speaker 3: again if we don't have hard evidence to show the
Speaker 3: American problem in silence.
Speaker 1: All right, well again, and I bring this up. I
Speaker 1: actually did want to show a video because we were
Speaker 1: talking about skywark Sky the Skywatcher earlier, and I did
Speaker 1: pull up the video and I forgot to share it.
Speaker 1: But this video. I remember when they brought it up.
Speaker 1: It was supposed to be like this video is that
Speaker 1: was going to change the landscape of of of the
Speaker 1: UFO community. And it seems like that is always the
Speaker 1: tag on these things, and then we're just set up
Speaker 1: to be kind of disappointed in a way. So it
Speaker 1: could be a little frustrating.
Speaker 11: But let me, uh understanding from what I understand, of
Speaker 11: government agency.
Speaker 2: And had him no hold on. I don't know, are
Speaker 2: you hearing anybody?
Speaker 6: Ily obtained previously unseen video obtained from a secret UAP
Speaker 6: craft retrieval program. This extraordinary footage clearly shows an egg
Speaker 6: shaped object dangling in a sling below the belly of
Speaker 6: the hell.
Speaker 12: Let's slow this down to take a closer look. That's
Speaker 12: an egg shaped UAP suspended from a one hundred and
Speaker 12: fifty foot long line. We're told the craft is about
Speaker 12: twenty feet long, the egg suspended in a cradle. And
Speaker 12: look how careful the pilot is as they bring their
Speaker 12: precious cargo into land. Let's freeze frame here to look
Speaker 12: at one of the clearest images of a UAP ever taken.
Speaker 12: This is no blurry light in a distant sky. The
Speaker 12: source of the footage putting themselves at incredible risk to
Speaker 12: record this UAP retrieval. Look at how perfectly smooth the
Speaker 12: craft is, no markings at all and no visible all
Speaker 12: means of propulsion or way to see inside. Watch how
Speaker 12: it rolls, almost graceful as it hits the ground, despite
Speaker 12: being wrapped in the ropes and canvas from the cradle.
Speaker 12: As it's dropped for pickup. The UAP's final destination still unknown.
Speaker 1: Oh gosh, so what apparently you guys were talking the
Speaker 1: ghoast See, I'm telling you guys, the ghost switches my
Speaker 1: equipment on streamyard the settings. It switches the settings automatically
Speaker 1: by itself, and I won't know it happened. Usually I
Speaker 1: won't know what happened. But there because no, I couldn't
Speaker 1: hear anyone obviously.
Speaker 13: I want to mind weighing in on.
Speaker 1: So we got your stuff like that, We got a
Speaker 1: lot of whistleblower testimony this year. But but with that
Speaker 1: we've also got the rise in you know, the skeptic
Speaker 1: community really pouncing, and you know, the UFO community setting
Speaker 1: the expectations up here, and then when the video comes
Speaker 1: out and it's like down here, you know, people are
Speaker 1: just they have a feeling they get you know, they're
Speaker 1: investing their lives into this topic most of the time.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Absolutely, I think Joe had something too.
Speaker 1: No, I still can't hear anyone.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's what I thought.
Speaker 1: It's okay, you guys can just keep talking.
Speaker 2: Yeah, okay, go ahead, Joe.
Speaker 14: I'll think I just wanted to wave in on what
Speaker 14: he was saying. As far as the new hearing is going,
Speaker 14: I don't think hearings would hurt by any means. If
Speaker 14: we want to have more people like Dylan and Jeff
Speaker 14: and you know, that's all great, I just don't think
Speaker 14: that is going to move the ball forward. So until
Speaker 14: we're going to have a subpoena power for the committee
Speaker 14: to have people like James Lakatsky and able to offer immunity,
Speaker 14: or it's a pen of people like Glenn gaff me
Speaker 14: and offer immunity.
Speaker 13: Either that or a whistleblower.
Speaker 14: Coming forward that's not worried about going to jail and
Speaker 14: uh committee people that aren't afraid to ask him questions.
Speaker 14: I just don't really see a point and having any
Speaker 14: more hearings barring anything outside of that.
Speaker 2: Right, where's our where's our snowden? Exactly exactly where's our
Speaker 2: snow that's like that. He's not he's not even threaten
Speaker 2: in it. He's just showing up and doing a data
Speaker 2: dump and you know, blowing the lid off of the
Speaker 2: whole thing. You know, he's see you know, maybe somebody
Speaker 2: does want to run off to Russia or maybe you know,
Speaker 2: maybe there is maybe in this situation, there is no
Speaker 2: place to run.
Speaker 14: You know, But even in that, I would have a
Speaker 14: hard time believing that they would prosecute somebody who wasn't
Speaker 14: spilling things like snow. If somebody just spilled evidence.
Speaker 15: That ets exist without jeopardizing the nuts and bolts of
Speaker 15: jeopardizing national security, right, the government would look pretty bad
Speaker 15: in putting somebody in jail that did something like that,
Speaker 15: not not putting national.
Speaker 14: Security at risk by exposing any kind of technology or or.
Speaker 13: Anything like that.
Speaker 14: And if they did put them in jail, they'd make
Speaker 14: them a martyr him or her.
Speaker 7: What's kind of everybody's films on?
Speaker 5: Then?
Speaker 7: What would what would our snowdens say?
Speaker 8: Because you know, if you look at like what Gene
Speaker 8: has in the in the years, it's from Gene that
Speaker 8: snowed in they aredy you know, passed away or have
Speaker 8: been retired. If you look into some of the stories
Speaker 8: you hear in like Dannie Sheehan, that there is a
Speaker 8: agreement how many abductions they can do with things like that, well,
Speaker 8: then there should still be a Snowden currently present. So
Speaker 8: what would the current day presence Snowden say, because obviously
Speaker 8: the question is is this reverse engineered you know?
Speaker 10: Or not?
Speaker 8: I mean, I guess that's always my curiosity is it
Speaker 8: didn't have a sighting. That doesn't mean it's not an HI,
Speaker 8: but is there a snowd in for that?
Speaker 7: You know? You see what I'm getting.
Speaker 2: At that, right exactly? It didn't have to be you know,
Speaker 2: somebody that got something you know, tangible, right, it's got
Speaker 2: that That's gonna be the number one thing is that
Speaker 2: it has to be a photo or video that can
Speaker 2: stand up to all measure of scrutiny, you know, and
Speaker 2: and what are the odds somebody got that out? Now?
Speaker 2: Are there more documents? Yeah, there's probably much more of
Speaker 2: a document trail. Could there be the you know, the
Speaker 2: well even even the stuff Nap brought back from Russia
Speaker 2: that I think is associated with my stuff, right, that's
Speaker 2: sitting there in the classified world, you know, and that
Speaker 2: comes out, what does you know what's in there and
Speaker 2: what exactly does it tell us? And what are the
Speaker 2: consequences of it? You know, And that's and again that's
Speaker 2: that's why I find into Joe's point, right, you know, okay,
Speaker 2: that it doesn't jeopardize the national security aspect. And and
Speaker 2: that's what I don't get quite get is what is
Speaker 2: the national security aspect? Because it seems everybody has their
Speaker 2: own version of this same stuff. So you know, we're
Speaker 2: not we're not talking about the you know, it's it's
Speaker 2: the you know, the lowest level thing. Is it a
Speaker 2: series of numbers? Is it a specific formula? Is it
Speaker 2: that oh, to get this to operate, it has to
Speaker 2: specifically weigh something, you know that it's got to be
Speaker 2: a minuscule thing that they think is holding the advantage
Speaker 2: over another country from a national security spectrum, or it's
Speaker 2: big enough to the fact that, yes, it has been
Speaker 2: fully developed and exploited and it's reliable and it's you know,
Speaker 2: and it is weaponized, and we're just sitting on it
Speaker 2: just in case.
Speaker 1: That's been a problem of mine. David David Grush alluded
Speaker 1: to this kind of Cold War that's going on, and
Speaker 1: this this kind of arms race if you will, between
Speaker 1: you know, superpowers, I would assume, but you know, and
Speaker 1: I guess the ones that come to mind would be
Speaker 1: you know, China, UH, Russia, the United States uh, and
Speaker 1: then you know, throw in a few more maybe maybe Israel, Australia.
Speaker 1: Not too sure about Australia actually, But to some degree,
Speaker 1: if there is this underlying Cold War, why haven't we
Speaker 1: seen any traces of it in a military capacity? And
Speaker 1: maybe we have, but the public just doesn't know about it.
Speaker 2: So are you talking in terms of like if you know,
Speaker 2: there's a crash that goes down, and you know in
Speaker 2: the Middle East, are are Russian spetsnaz in US you know,
Speaker 2: Powa rescue racing to get there first, and why hasn't
Speaker 2: there been a big gunfight over getting it?
Speaker 1: Well that it makes sense to me because like I've
Speaker 1: always thought that this is where I've always I've always
Speaker 1: I think what I've done more appropriately than other people
Speaker 1: in the community is I'm not afraid to say that
Speaker 1: for turnishing the UFO reputation because I don't think that
Speaker 1: that's what we're here to do. But there is certainly
Speaker 1: if you don't think there's fucking overlap with the people
Speaker 1: that were blackmailing honey potting. The world's most powerful individuals,
Speaker 1: the ones that we know about, right, if they're not
Speaker 1: controlled by the quote unquote deep state, and if those
Speaker 1: aren't the same people that are suppressing this sort of
Speaker 1: technological advancement and trying to become some sort of breakaway civilization,
Speaker 1: you know, if that is their endgame. Daniel in a
Speaker 1: way has testified, you know, part of the part of
Speaker 1: the Gang of Eight said that there's a you know,
Speaker 1: a cabal that that has their own army, their own
Speaker 1: fundraising mechanisms, their own agendas. They're above the law. Like
Speaker 1: how many times do we have to like there is
Speaker 1: some some crossover here between the Epstein's and the Ditties
Speaker 1: of the world. Whoever's controlling them, they're the real people
Speaker 1: in power. It's not the people we see every day.
Speaker 1: It's the people we don't see every day, the ones
Speaker 1: who are really pulling the strings. Whoever that is, that's
Speaker 1: who we're up against. So whoever thought this was going
Speaker 1: to be an easy fight, I mean, you had another
Speaker 1: thing coming. But also we shouldn't be able to We
Speaker 1: shouldn't be afraid to bring up Epstein, to bring up
Speaker 1: the weird shit that was going on in all these
Speaker 1: facets of industry. How there seems to be a plant
Speaker 1: in every industry to you know, gain control over people
Speaker 1: by blackmailing them or you know, by paying them off,
Speaker 1: and that we could get into insider trading and you know,
Speaker 1: lobbying in general. Should it be a thing, should try
Speaker 1: to be able to purchase fucking land next to our
Speaker 1: nuclear sites? Probably not, like what the fuck are we doing?
Speaker 1: But people are so afraid to talk about it because
Speaker 1: it is a little dark and it's not just little
Speaker 1: green men right that are coming from Zata Reticuli. It
Speaker 1: brings in a real dark, dark, dark like topic set.
Speaker 1: And if we've made a deal for abductions, that's not
Speaker 1: I mean, is no one else seeing the seeing the lines?
Speaker 1: Is it just me?
Speaker 4: Well?
Speaker 8: Well, I mean I guess there's different views on it obviously,
Speaker 8: which it was good for today. I mean for me,
Speaker 8: I think it still kind of comes back to what
Speaker 8: I was saying about some of these whistleblowers where you
Speaker 8: spin a globe and you put your finger down whatever
Speaker 8: there is, it it's random and I don't care a
Speaker 8: whole lot. I mean there's a certain point where you've
Speaker 8: got to care, but a whole lot about what their
Speaker 8: background is or their history is. And that kind of
Speaker 8: goes into politicians. All these things that you're mentioning and
Speaker 8: the people you're mentioned in and the politicians even worse,
Speaker 8: they'll have their human flaws. And it's been proven to work.
Speaker 8: And then Gene could probably speak about there's always a
Speaker 8: history repeats itself on that and it still works today.
Speaker 8: So I don't know if it's necessarily intertwined, but the
Speaker 8: exact same tricks that come from countries. The head of
Speaker 8: the countries know what they're doing. I mean, this has
Speaker 8: always been something that's going on.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I think you know the Tye's point. You know,
Speaker 2: maybe what he's talking about is you've got the right
Speaker 2: the political power structure is central. The people behind the
Speaker 2: scenes that keep that political power machine going are in
Speaker 2: place for a long time. Then across the broad spectrum
Speaker 2: of issues and problems and deviances there. So I think
Speaker 2: what you're talking about, Tiger like, there's the same touch
Speaker 2: points somewhere, whether it is the Lockheed executives or aerospace
Speaker 2: or Defense Industrial Complex executives trying to keep things secret
Speaker 2: or it's a truly secret cabal trying to keep things secret.
Speaker 2: The touch points would be the same at that governmental level.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well and then you got like, so why was
Speaker 1: Epstein so interested in free energy?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 1: Why are there these stories that Glainne Maxwell? You know,
Speaker 1: and I am quoting this from like Jason Georgohnny, I've
Speaker 1: done research on it myself. I found the story he's
Speaker 1: talking about. But apparently like there was this one person
Speaker 1: that that came out and was talking about how she was,
Speaker 1: you know, at worked worked for Epstein, if you will,
Speaker 1: and claimed that there was some sort of like genetic
Speaker 1: program happening there, and Glene Maxwell only her like her
Speaker 1: like man slaves, slaves if you want to call them that.
Speaker 1: Just like the people she had working around the house.
Speaker 1: They were all these like Nordic looking guys, and one
Speaker 1: of them or multiple of them, had gone on record
Speaker 1: saying that, you know, like when you take a shower,
Speaker 1: your your hair clogs the drain, they would routinely like
Speaker 1: have that hair go missing, and they would have you know,
Speaker 1: their toothbrush go missing. And again you might just hear
Speaker 1: that story and go, Okay, that's fucking creepy. But I
Speaker 1: can't help but start thinking about the archetypes that we've
Speaker 1: heard about in the UFO community, right, the tall, blonde
Speaker 1: people that look like us, blonde hair, blue eyed. I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't know. Am I crazy? Am I the only
Speaker 1: one who starts thinking like this? Maybe that's why I'm crazy.
Speaker 1: I don't know, But I start to see parallels. And
Speaker 1: there there are other people who claim to see UFOs
Speaker 1: on the island, on the Epstein Islands. So I'm just
Speaker 1: saying we shouldn't be afraid to look there just because
Speaker 1: it might have some dirty consequences.
Speaker 7: And there's the problem trying to look there, isn't it though?
Speaker 1: Yeah, that it's all dirty, it's all dirty. But every
Speaker 1: I mean, you guys, you got guys like you know,
Speaker 1: Bill Gates going there. You got guys like Stephen Hawking
Speaker 1: going there. You just all these all these all these people,
Speaker 1: all these very influential people. Of course that's the biggest one,
Speaker 1: like the Clintons, and and but so who has who's
Speaker 1: pulling whoever's pulling the strings on that operation to blackmail
Speaker 1: literally the presidents of the United States, Who's perceived as
Speaker 1: the most powerful person in the world, if the person
Speaker 1: that's not behind that is, if that's not the cabal,
Speaker 1: then what is And if that's if that's the cabal,
Speaker 1: then they're the same people that are suppressing this technology allegedly.
Speaker 1: So why are we connecting this?
Speaker 4: I can say this that when when Dick Cheney passed away,
Speaker 4: it passed a lot more ripples through the world than
Speaker 4: a lot of people may know.
Speaker 1: I've heard. I've heard Dick Cheney was very high on
Speaker 1: the list of of people. And you know, I think
Speaker 1: most people, most people know that he was kind of
Speaker 1: like a psychopath, very warmongering type, but you know, others
Speaker 1: just see him as you know, the vice president in
Speaker 1: charge when nine to eleven happened, Right.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 4: What I was told for my sources too, that that
Speaker 4: if he tried to get information out of him, you
Speaker 4: would ask him a question just like we are here,
Speaker 4: and he would always answer with a question. So it
Speaker 4: was very hard to squeegee information out of him. I guess,
Speaker 4: if you will, I.
Speaker 1: Would imagine that guy was rock solid when it came
Speaker 1: to keeping secrets. I mean that that that dude, I
Speaker 1: don't know how he slept at night, to be honest
Speaker 1: with that weight with the weight of that on his shoulders.
Speaker 1: But again not to get through political about it. But
Speaker 1: I mean even age of disclosure, I think had said.
Speaker 1: Maybe I'm wrong, but someone recently had said Dick Cheney
Speaker 1: was like, you know, obviously posthumously so he can't defend himself.
Speaker 1: But they said that he was part of like the
Speaker 1: the UFO Legacy program. I can't remember where that's that
Speaker 1: was said. Maybe because someone can correct.
Speaker 4: You're talking about MAGI twelve magic.
Speaker 14: It was.
Speaker 1: Said, Okay, okay, yeah, so I mean take it for
Speaker 1: what it is. But other programs didn't come out this year.
Speaker 1: Immaculate Constellation was one of them. Matthew Brown, another whizzard blower,
Speaker 1: Yankee Blue came out. What did you guys think about this,
Speaker 1: these kind of revelations and are they connecting dots through
Speaker 1: you guys?
Speaker 13: Yeah, from what I've heard, they're pretty old.
Speaker 14: I'm focused on and I much luck I'll have and
Speaker 14: work with some other people trying to find out the
Speaker 14: current names of these programs because I think that is
Speaker 14: key to connecting these dots and holding people accountable, like
Speaker 14: Glenn Gaffney and some others.
Speaker 13: But I don't know. I just wanted to throw that
Speaker 13: in there that I think they're pretty dated.
Speaker 14: They just came out recently, but I don't think those
Speaker 14: programs are active any longer.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I tend to agree. I mean, I think I
Speaker 2: was having a discussion with Eric Hecker last night and
Speaker 2: we were, you know, talk about that when when we
Speaker 2: know something, it's already twenty years old, and the next
Speaker 2: iteration is already you know, operating secretly that we'll learn
Speaker 2: about in twenty more years. So it's with these names
Speaker 2: and things. Yeah, that and listen, and even in the military,
Speaker 2: right when you you know, they teach you in your
Speaker 2: POW training, you know, keep your mouth shut for seventy
Speaker 2: two hours. That's how long it takes them to change
Speaker 2: any information you might know or leak. So at least
Speaker 2: try to hold out for three days before you blab
Speaker 2: everything about your mission and next targets or you know,
Speaker 2: whatever you know so you can't tell me, right, the
Speaker 2: same thing doesn't happen, if not much more expeditiously when
Speaker 2: it comes to somebody coming out and giving a name,
Speaker 2: and they certainly you have to imagine the way what
Speaker 2: Matthew Brown came out, Right, it's through that pipeline. So
Speaker 2: they already knew who he was talking to, and you
Speaker 2: know that already set up the interviews, and so that
Speaker 2: stuff was long gone by the time it ever hit
Speaker 2: the airwaves.
Speaker 8: To kind of tie some things together, what Ty saying
Speaker 8: that Gene and Joe saying the others about who could
Speaker 8: be controlling this, I mean, that's also one of the
Speaker 8: reasons that they're probably doing what they're doing, which is
Speaker 8: keeping it side of because you see how easy it
Speaker 8: is to get answers and the measures other countries used.
Speaker 8: And then you get into the actual two questions, which is,
Speaker 8: what are we talking about. Are we talking about was
Speaker 8: it in use or we're keeping it a secret that
Speaker 8: we recovered something in the crash recovery team, or we're
Speaker 8: talking about we've already got something like getting engineered or
Speaker 8: reverse engineered and we're keeping secret that we're using it
Speaker 8: in Michigan or ISR or whatever it is. And then
Speaker 8: which one could you actually get if it's the one
Speaker 8: that I think Joe's can hand that, now, what's the
Speaker 8: current name? That's going to be real hard to get
Speaker 8: answers on. But I think people confuse sometimes both of them,
Speaker 8: and they're two different things. Whoever, this was at the beginning.
Speaker 8: I think in mechanism of Jeens records is going to
Speaker 8: be a different silo than the folks working on stuff
Speaker 8: now in the project names.
Speaker 7: It's important to keep those separate.
Speaker 1: You know, absolutely absolutely Another thing, does anyone want to
Speaker 1: jump in on that? Another thing that we did get
Speaker 1: and something that's been I kind of want to bring
Speaker 1: up two things at once here, but this really this
Speaker 1: campaign or three I at lists this interstellar object with
Speaker 1: a v lobe, but also this real scientific data, this
Speaker 1: this amazing, amazing uh batch of information. This this uh
Speaker 1: thing that doctor uh Beatrice Villarel came out with that
Speaker 1: you know, she submitted her paper. She did she crossed
Speaker 1: a crossed all the t's, dot dotted all the eyes.
Speaker 1: And that's still not enough. The goalposts being shifted constantly.
Speaker 1: People want these things, right, they even mark that they're
Speaker 1: little markers of the UFO movement. And then when we
Speaker 1: get there all all they just poke holes and everything,
Speaker 1: So again like what what you know.
Speaker 2: Well, because that's not what they want. They want, you know,
Speaker 2: they want a ship descending from the sky, landing in
Speaker 2: in Nordic's walking out, That's what and that's what they want, right,
Speaker 2: they want.
Speaker 1: A spectacle, a spectacle.
Speaker 2: You know, and when you give them the story of
Speaker 2: the story of my six month life here right, nobody
Speaker 2: wants the science behind it. Nobody wants to have to
Speaker 2: do any work or mental you know, exert any any
Speaker 2: mental capacity to both understand and articulate it. They just
Speaker 2: want to look at it and go, ha, see there
Speaker 2: it is. And it's why I say, even if that
Speaker 2: ship landed in something walked out of it, people are
Speaker 2: going to be highly disappointed because, you know, they're not
Speaker 2: seven foot tall Nordics.
Speaker 4: They're fine out.
Speaker 2: You know, it doesn't meet the fantasy that they've had
Speaker 2: in their head. They're not walking into this open minded,
Speaker 2: ready to follow evidence, ready to roll up their sleeves,
Speaker 2: and anything other than what their reconceived notion of what
Speaker 2: it's going to be is is going to be a disappointment.
Speaker 2: And you're right, And Mike, you know, if you're still there,
Speaker 2: you know you're very close to the Beatrice Villa real issue.
Speaker 2: Another highlight of the year, right, we didn't think.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I hopefully her and I have talked about uh
Speaker 1: having her come to the studio in spring time, so
Speaker 1: I've been working on that. I think that she's definitely
Speaker 1: got one of the highlights stories of the year, to
Speaker 1: be honest. Uh, just the if we could start like
Speaker 1: actually like you know, getting other observatori's data, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: either around the same time or around the same time
Speaker 1: and after and we can really like start looking into this.
Speaker 1: I think this could be one of those avenues that
Speaker 1: ends up forcing a hand because when you start drawing
Speaker 1: conclusions of like the d See flyover or any nuclear
Speaker 1: uh known nuclear incident, when you start drawing those correlations, uh,
Speaker 1: you got you got a good story, right.
Speaker 8: Strategic planning. Yeah, that's that's important thing. I mean again,
Speaker 8: it goes into the two different stylos we have. We
Speaker 8: have what Gene was talking about what they want, which
Speaker 8: is it lands and then climb out. And that's the
Speaker 8: only way you would ever get answers, because if the
Speaker 8: story is there's one crash, were engineered it and now
Speaker 8: they're technical, you will ever get those answers. You've heard
Speaker 8: that from Mike Grounds and some Askable interviews where he
Speaker 8: said he's not going to tell Perston what it is, just.
Speaker 7: So they know, right.
Speaker 8: You've even heard Dathan Burlison who said when he wrote
Speaker 8: his letter to go get and look at them about
Speaker 8: a test range. You basically keep our secrets our secret.
Speaker 8: So unless it is them landing or only this idea
Speaker 8: of NHI and craft, that's the only way you can
Speaker 8: tell that story.
Speaker 7: And that's what people are running into where they're having
Speaker 7: trouble getting past.
Speaker 8: It is all you're running into in the you know,
Speaker 8: the military industrial complex, and you've got to have a
Speaker 8: better plan and that would be one where you go
Speaker 8: back to the beginning and work your way through it.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, you It's it's almost like, uh like remember
Speaker 1: those old video games like uh, not like the new ones,
Speaker 1: but like old Mario games where you'd fuck up like
Speaker 1: three quarters of the way in and you'd be like, okay,
Speaker 1: learn my lesson. Now I know to jump over that
Speaker 1: next time. So like it's like we need to start
Speaker 1: doing that. We need to start reassessing and then getting
Speaker 1: our footing and then running it to that same point
Speaker 1: and knowing that hurtles going to be there and jumping
Speaker 1: over it or ducking under it wherever it is. You know. Uh,
Speaker 1: I will say this, I'll say this age of you
Speaker 1: guys are a lot of a lot of a lot
Speaker 1: of you in here. If I'm not mistaken. You guys
Speaker 1: are a lot of the uh Elizondo like you guys
Speaker 1: are are very much supportive of of Louie Alizondo. Something
Speaker 1: that recently happened that I did want to discuss was
Speaker 1: this Project Unity Joe. Was that a source bot? I'm sorry, guys,
Speaker 1: did I know?
Speaker 3: I think it's pretty funny. You're talking about the patrinker
Speaker 3: Jay Anderson. Yeah, let's get into that.
Speaker 1: Go ahead, So all right, without making it two vulgar guys,
Speaker 1: Jay Anderson is not someone I am very familiar with. However,
Speaker 1: I watched the episode, and Rogan seems to be bringing
Speaker 1: on people and instead of you know, guys that did
Speaker 1: come up through the UFO you know, whatever you want
Speaker 1: to call it, the UFO community, Like Jay did do that,
Speaker 1: you know, and he did make it onto Rogan. And
Speaker 1: from what I saw until I started learning more about
Speaker 1: the situation, granted I was a little green when it
Speaker 1: came to the background of some of his stuff, I
Speaker 1: saw it as an accomplishment for the community, like, oh shit,
Speaker 1: look at that. You know, another guy from the UFO community,
Speaker 1: you know, got noticed by Rogan, got on the biggest podcast.
Speaker 1: That's good for all of us. But however, there is
Speaker 1: one part where he starts attacking Elizondo, and I did
Speaker 1: find that to be a little bit like, oh shit, oh.
Speaker 14: Especially coming from him, who I think, if we're gonna
Speaker 14: call anybody a UFO hate grew. If there is one
Speaker 14: on Luela Isondo's side, there is just as much one
Speaker 14: on the Jay Unity, Red Pandicuala Tupacabra side, So it's
Speaker 14: two equal halves. From an outside perspective anyway, there is
Speaker 14: by no means that that side is just these completely
Speaker 14: innocent people who are being attacked just for being researchers.
Speaker 13: It's a loadable but sorry.
Speaker 3: Ohing're absolutely right, it's complete horseshit. And I'm not on
Speaker 3: the outside looking in. I am most definitely on the
Speaker 3: other side with Lou And we know what the trolls, Tupicabo,
Speaker 3: red Pandacoala and Jay Anderson had been falsely putting bullshit
Speaker 3: like that out there four years now, and they planned
Speaker 3: on getting onto Joe Rogan so that they could get
Speaker 3: clicks and they could push their false narrative and their agenda.
Speaker 3: And they did it, which is why everyone's talking about it.
Speaker 3: So they did it, But was it genuinely moving disclosure. No,
Speaker 3: had nothing to do with disclosure highlighting the trolls on Twitter,
Speaker 3: highlighting all of the anti Lou bullshit, which everything that
Speaker 3: comes out of their mouth is all a lie, every
Speaker 3: bit of it, and they wanted to get a worldwide stage,
Speaker 3: like on the Rogan platform, so that everybody could hear
Speaker 3: that bullshit. So it was disgusting in my opinion, and
Speaker 3: I thought Rogan had more common sense than to allow
Speaker 3: hate speech like that that hasn't been verified or proven
Speaker 3: and have it put out there blanketly on his podcast.
Speaker 3: Very disappointed in that. And then right after that all happened,
Speaker 3: we have a sitting member of Congress, Eric Burlison, who
Speaker 3: is also went on the space with Toopericabra and Red
Speaker 3: Panda Koala and agreeing with the hate against Lou Alzando,
Speaker 3: which you know, is really funny because I remember when
Speaker 3: Lou was down testifying in Congress and he was in
Speaker 3: Berlison's office. There are plenty of pictures with Burlison with
Speaker 3: his arm around low. So on one hand, he's, you know,
Speaker 3: working with Lou and doesn't have any issues, and then
Speaker 3: now because of the Rogan podcast, he's mimicking what the
Speaker 3: trolls are putting out there and say, oh, well, that's
Speaker 3: how I felt all along. I agree with that. Really,
Speaker 3: you schmuck. You are a member of Congress. You shouldn't
Speaker 3: be taking sides with anybody about any of this shit,
Speaker 3: especially if we're talking about social media troll wars. A
Speaker 3: sitting member of Congress, a member of the government should
Speaker 3: not be getting involved in that, especially if he's going
Speaker 3: to take a size and push a false narrative, which
Speaker 3: is what he did. I didn't expect that, but he
Speaker 3: did it. So now we're dealing with the consequences of that.
Speaker 3: This was something that people who were not familiar with
Speaker 3: either side of things, like the public, and they hear
Speaker 3: their bullshit that they constantly put out there, and now
Speaker 3: they heard it on the Rogan platform. They don't know
Speaker 3: what's true or not. They're going to take it at
Speaker 3: face value and believe, Oh, yeah, Lou is a murderer,
Speaker 3: Lou is a rapist, louis a torturer. All of the
Speaker 3: things that they put out there constantly. Lou murdered Amy
Speaker 3: es courage him and his friend kid raped her to death.
Speaker 3: And you know that is untrue even to the degree
Speaker 3: where we have a close childhood friend of Amy, es Courages,
Speaker 3: who came out on Twitter recently and she said, look,
Speaker 3: Amy was dealing with a lot of mental health crisis issues.
Speaker 3: She was very dealing with a lot of health issues,
Speaker 3: physical health issues, mental health issues. Her family have been
Speaker 3: traumatized by all of this. It was unexpected, and she
Speaker 3: committed suicide, murdered herself and now the trolls are aware
Speaker 3: of that, but they're ignoring it. And this woman who
Speaker 3: worked with Amy at the institute and knew her since
Speaker 3: they were kids together said to Red Panda, Koala, please
Speaker 3: stop drigging the family through pain. Everything is saying is
Speaker 3: false and not true. You need to let the family grieve.
Speaker 3: You need to stop putting false information out. It's just
Speaker 3: not right. And Red Panda responded there and said, I'll
Speaker 3: say whatever I want to say. It's my right. First
Speaker 3: Amendment protects me. It's freedom of speech, and I will
Speaker 3: say anything I want about it. So he pushed back
Speaker 3: against her, and she was being very nice about it. So,
Speaker 3: I mean, I don't stomach at tolerate right and wrong.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 14: They don't care what's right or what's wrong or what's
Speaker 14: the honorable thing to do and not just damn. But
Speaker 14: there's just so many people on social media who don't
Speaker 14: who don't really care about that.
Speaker 13: It's all about what gets me clicks.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And like I just I just want to I
Speaker 1: just want to blanket this by because I see that
Speaker 1: one of the people that I like, the real one
Speaker 1: of the people I wanted to especially bring on for
Speaker 1: a little bit, did just show up. And that is
Speaker 1: the NASS Chief of Aerospace Medicine, doctor Greg Rogers, who
Speaker 1: you know, he also came out this year in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five. But before I bring him in, I want
Speaker 1: to wrap this new up, that Lou and j thing
Speaker 1: up and the end and the community like the anti
Speaker 1: Lou and the Lou for Lou, I think what we like.
Speaker 1: I don't know how all this shit started. I really
Speaker 1: don't mean the other if it really does come down
Speaker 1: to whether you think Lou ran a tip or not,
Speaker 1: or he was definitely involved in something. Harry Reid acknowledged that. Now,
Speaker 1: whether you want to poke holes and say that you
Speaker 1: know that that's all semantics. Lou definitely did something with
Speaker 1: the government when in terms of studying the phenomenon, you know,
Speaker 1: from a military standpoint. I I think, I think again,
Speaker 1: it really does need to come to we need to
Speaker 1: stop putting people that sit on pedestals on Twitter or
Speaker 1: x whatever it is now, and they don't go out
Speaker 1: in the field, they don't research cases, they don't they
Speaker 1: don't do anything other than spaces, right, which which is helpful,
Speaker 1: but it's not gonna get any it's not gonna do
Speaker 1: what I think there. They think it's gonna do.
Speaker 3: Oh, they're gonna get clicks from it. And they also
Speaker 3: far and then my right are they're making niche. I'll
Speaker 3: tell you something talking about earlier. They they also seem
Speaker 3: to idolize doctor Stephen Greer. They've put out his information.
Speaker 3: They have the hood Greer that they created with AI
Speaker 3: that they play in their videos and put on spaces.
Speaker 3: They seem to idolize doctor Steve Grid. And we know
Speaker 3: that uh Luelezondo and Stephen Grid don't see eye to
Speaker 3: eye and don't get along with each other. So they're
Speaker 3: on the Stephen Griz side of everything against Louelezondo. That's
Speaker 3: where this originated from, and this is why it's still ongoing.
Speaker 3: Just saying you know time, Yeah.
Speaker 13: I find that it's a hard.
Speaker 14: I have a hard time believing that they're so supportive
Speaker 14: of doctor Greer just because of the work.
Speaker 1: That he does.
Speaker 14: I have heard and I think that there is I'm
Speaker 14: not going to say it, but there is some ulterior
Speaker 14: motives why they are pushing Griers so hard against lou
Speaker 14: But anybody.
Speaker 13: Anybody say it, go ahead.
Speaker 3: They're getting paid. They're getting paid from the grid camp.
Speaker 3: I know that. Oh, we know, we've been. We've been.
Speaker 3: We've been researching and digging into that, and we're coming
Speaker 3: up with information. We know they're doing this to get paid.
Speaker 3: They're not doing it for free.
Speaker 1: Okay. I was gonna say, you can't just say that
Speaker 1: though and not have evidence.
Speaker 3: Oh no, no, no, we are aware of what's going
Speaker 3: on behind.
Speaker 1: The Allegedly they're getting paid to spark this controversy.
Speaker 4: Correct read my email.
Speaker 1: Might okay, I will, and of course just protecting myself here,
Speaker 1: But so allegedly you say this is there is some
Speaker 1: sort of financial.
Speaker 3: There is there is, They're not. Look, Kylo, they think
Speaker 3: about it logically for a second. Do you really think
Speaker 3: for the past four years that they've been running this campaign,
Speaker 3: they're doing it out of the goodness of their heart?
Speaker 3: They're working for free. No, they're not. Nobody would nobody
Speaker 3: would be that fanatical about it. They are definitely getting paid.
Speaker 3: That's why this ongoing campaign against Louel Azando and all
Speaker 3: of his friends has been ongoing NonStop the whole time.
Speaker 3: It still is. It still is.
Speaker 4: And Mike and if I could jump in here ahead,
Speaker 4: Brian very credible that there were thirty thousand FBI taps
Speaker 4: on X right now. And and I was told that
Speaker 4: that's why you need to get off. And if you
Speaker 4: notice that a lot of the whistleblowers and everything else
Speaker 4: have left those spaces, they're no longer on X spaces
Speaker 4: or anything like that. Thirty thousand fbis have So geez,
Speaker 4: I take that for what's worth.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 1: Introducing a gentleman that I helped bring out. I remember
Speaker 1: when I was talking to him while he was still
Speaker 1: employed by the government. Uh and uh, I remember his
Speaker 1: retirement being a day I looked forward to. And his
Speaker 1: story is uh, you know, been featured by you know,
Speaker 1: Jesse Michaels. It's been talked about on pretty much every
Speaker 1: podcast to some degree. Uh. Greg, how are you doing, brother, brother?
Speaker 1: You just have brain surgery?
Speaker 13: Yeah?
Speaker 5: Well, fortunately when they opened my skull. They found that
Speaker 5: I still had a brain, so that made me feel
Speaker 5: better afterwards.
Speaker 1: I guess it's a yeah, verifiable at this point. But Greg,
Speaker 1: you you, you and Jane and and some others. You
Speaker 1: guys were introduced to the UFO world, and I remember
Speaker 1: having conversations with Greg in particular about Hey, listen, we're
Speaker 1: gonna do this interview and there's gonna be a lot
Speaker 1: of people that support you because you're a genuine person,
Speaker 1: but there's also going to be this other side that's
Speaker 1: gonna make like that they're going to attack you, and
Speaker 1: they're going to to to to make you feel a
Speaker 1: certain way. Try. I was like, try not to take
Speaker 1: it personally. I remember prepping him for that, and it
Speaker 1: really for him. It didn't happen. He's the only guy
Speaker 1: I've ever seen who's come out and ninety percent of
Speaker 1: people are like, yeah, I get behind what that dude say,
Speaker 1: and he seems genuine. His his resume is fucking impeccable. Greg,
Speaker 1: Who are you.
Speaker 2: Well?
Speaker 5: I was a senior flight surgeon for the United States
Speaker 5: Air Force, and while I was serving at the forty
Speaker 5: fifth Space Wing, the forty fifth Space Wing back in
Speaker 5: the nineties controlled Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Patrick Air
Speaker 5: Force Bace, the Eastern Space and Missile Center, and the
Speaker 5: Eastern Missile Range, along with supporting many operations that were
Speaker 5: subordinate but co located, such as the Air Force Technical
Speaker 5: Application Center. We supported the ninth Strategic Reconnaissance Wing with
Speaker 5: U two's so we did a lot of different things.
Speaker 3: But you know, I do want today I really.
Speaker 5: Thank you for what all you did to get my
Speaker 5: story told the way I into because you allowed me
Speaker 5: to do do that. You allowed me.
Speaker 2: Too.
Speaker 1: I think you're breaking up a little bit.
Speaker 5: Say what what I needed, Just say in order. In
Speaker 5: nineteen ninety two, I was there with.
Speaker 1: Can you see me?
Speaker 2: Okay?
Speaker 5: Is that any better?
Speaker 1: It's a little bit better.
Speaker 5: Yeah, okay, I'll make it real short. While I was
Speaker 5: being escorted by an E G and.
Speaker 13: G person rushed.
Speaker 1: Yeah, don't rush. You sound a lot better now, sorry.
Speaker 3: Oh okay.
Speaker 5: Well, the E G and G escort took me to
Speaker 5: three different locations so I could see new operations that
Speaker 5: had been installed since I'd been to the Cape last.
Speaker 5: And so when I went to the third building, I
Speaker 5: got out of the clean room with the escort and
Speaker 5: because that was all he was going to escort me for.
Speaker 5: He just quickly took off all of his garments and said,
Speaker 5: by Doc, see you next time. Well, I was a
Speaker 5: little bit slower than him. I had a cap on
Speaker 5: lab coat kind of thing, gloves and electric non electrostatic
Speaker 5: booties because I was going into an area where they
Speaker 5: were preparing satellites. As I started to leave the preparation area,
Speaker 5: there was a gentleman there that remembered me because I
Speaker 5: was the flight flight surgeon, the chief of the flight
Speaker 5: surgeon office, but I didn't really remember him. He was
Speaker 5: in an Air Force class A uniform and I could
Speaker 5: see from his badges that he was a missile person,
Speaker 5: a missile ear and he said, hey, Doc, I've got
Speaker 5: something to show you that even you have never seen.
Speaker 5: So I said, okay, show me what it is. He
Speaker 5: took me inside the office, closed and locked the doors,
Speaker 5: closed the loovers, and then he went to his computer station.
Speaker 5: There were four computer stations in this office. He went
Speaker 5: to his started it up, and then when he got
Speaker 5: to the video, he said, take a look at this
Speaker 5: is going to knock your socks off. So he moved
Speaker 5: to his left so I could move into his seat.
Speaker 5: So I was looking at a closed circuit television feed
Speaker 5: and it had no markings on it, classification markings, no
Speaker 5: time stamp, no date stamp, no location evident. But what
Speaker 5: I was looking at was a hangar, typical military hangar,
Speaker 5: and inside was a reverse engineered U A P. It
Speaker 5: was an amazing event. You know, I've detailed it in
Speaker 5: a number of stories. But as I continued to watch
Speaker 5: it rotated, It elevated and then rotated, and as it rotated,
Speaker 5: I saw that on one end it said US Air
Speaker 5: Force and just above that was the Air Force light insignia.
Speaker 5: So seeing a flying saucer was unexpected. Seeing a flying
Speaker 5: saucer with the US Air Force identified on it, with
Speaker 5: the flight insignia, it was even more surprising.
Speaker 1: Right, And you know, I know you've just given the
Speaker 1: abridged version, but just I can lead you into it,
Speaker 1: leads you through it a little bit. When you asked
Speaker 1: the when you asked him where did this? Where did
Speaker 1: this come from? What did he say to you?
Speaker 2: Okay?
Speaker 5: Yes, I first asked who made this? And he said, well,
Speaker 5: I can't tell you that. I said, well, why would
Speaker 5: we make something that looked like that? And he said,
Speaker 5: we got it from them obviously meaning aliens. So that's
Speaker 5: why I believe it was a reverse engineer UAP. It
Speaker 5: had umbilical tied to it, so it required external electrical
Speaker 5: power and some other things. So that's why I don't
Speaker 5: believe it was a real UAP, but it was a
Speaker 5: contractor or contractor consortium's attempt to reproduced something that they
Speaker 5: had found at some point.
Speaker 1: Right now, a lot of people, a lot of people
Speaker 1: know this, but in a gene probably especially on on
Speaker 1: test craft, they they have these markings on them, usually
Speaker 1: so that the film, yes film, when you film them,
Speaker 1: you can keep orientation. They're used for a lot of
Speaker 1: different reasons.
Speaker 5: But you said that, well, the Apollo Moon Rocket, the
Speaker 5: Apollo Moon Rocket had black and white markings all over
Speaker 5: it so that they could tell what the orientation was
Speaker 5: as the vehicle was lifting off. And if you look
Speaker 5: at the Space Shuttle, there are black and white markings
Speaker 5: all over because we want to be able to identify
Speaker 5: the exact orientation of the vehicle at all times. So
Speaker 5: this is commonly what is done. And on this vehicle,
Speaker 5: it it was pearly white, smooth, no panels, no rivets,
Speaker 5: no door, no window, nothing, of that sort. But because
Speaker 5: of that, they had black rectangles horizontally at the beam
Speaker 5: from the twelve thirty to two thirty position, the three
Speaker 5: thirty to five thirty position, the six thirty to eight
Speaker 5: thirty position, and the nine thirty to eleven thirty position.
Speaker 5: Then at the three o'clock, six o'clock and nine o'clock
Speaker 5: position there were vertical black rectangles so that as it
Speaker 5: was being tested and monitored, you could tell the exact
Speaker 5: motion of it. As pearly white as it was without
Speaker 5: the black markings and of course the US Air Force
Speaker 5: marking on it, it could have rotated, but because it
Speaker 5: was so pearly perfect, you wouldn't see the motion. You
Speaker 5: put the black rectangles so that as the rectangle's move
Speaker 5: you can tell what the vehica is doing.
Speaker 1: Right. That makes total sense, And just to give people
Speaker 1: an idea, I know you don't like to conflate the two,
Speaker 1: but is there a case that people would know what
Speaker 1: to kind of identify the shape of the object that
Speaker 1: you saw.
Speaker 5: Yeah, it was flys saucer, but it was shaped sort
Speaker 5: of like a squished egg. No propulsion system, if you know,
Speaker 5: it was just sort of ovoid with everything symmetrical except
Speaker 5: for the upper surface, where there was a dome with
Speaker 5: a mass sticking out and the mass was attached to
Speaker 5: three umbilical lines. So that could have been electricity, it
Speaker 5: could have been control systems. But uh, because there were umbilicals,
Speaker 5: that instantly told me that everything on the inside was
Speaker 5: not fully prepared, because if it was, you wouldn't need umbilicals.
Speaker 1: Right. But okay, so you've you've described it as kind
Speaker 1: of like what it sounds to me like is like
Speaker 1: maybe similar to what bobs are described as the sport
Speaker 1: model esque, like classic you know, lying saucer.
Speaker 5: Yes, if you rounded, if he tried to put his
Speaker 5: sports Model inside an eggshell and it deformed as it
Speaker 5: fit in there, that's what it looked.
Speaker 1: Interesting. Interesting, anyone any questions for By the way, Greg
Speaker 1: was also a chief flight surgeon. The guy's done tons
Speaker 1: of rescues. He wrote a book about the Challenger disaster. No,
Speaker 1: not the Challenger disaster, I'm sorry now.
Speaker 5: In ninety five I wrote a book because of the
Speaker 5: great concern that I and many people in the program
Speaker 5: had because NASA was not sending up a repair kit
Speaker 5: and every mission had damage to the thermal protection system
Speaker 5: and so we kept saying, one of these days there's
Speaker 5: going to be a hole big enough that if you
Speaker 5: don't repair it in space, they're not going to make
Speaker 5: it home. And so in ninety five I wrote the book.
Speaker 5: I had book signings with Buzz Aldrin and Jim Lovell Junior,
Speaker 5: the commander of Paulo thirteen, and so lots of people
Speaker 5: within the program knew I warned of this. In fact,
Speaker 5: I talked to one of the members of LOEC from
Speaker 5: Johnson's Space Center, which is loss of orbiter Entry Capability,
Speaker 5: and he told me, your book is our worst nightmare.
Speaker 5: If we lose another crew, it's probably going to be
Speaker 5: because of what you wrote in your book. Nobody listened.
Speaker 5: Eight years later, they launched Columbia Phone tile or phone
Speaker 5: material broke off, struck the leading edge of the left wing,
Speaker 5: punched an eighteen inch hole through the reinforced carbon carbon
Speaker 5: and yeah, I don't know why, said they told the
Speaker 5: crew it was never to worry about the hidden image.
Speaker 5: And then when they tried to go through entry to
Speaker 5: return to Earth, the twenty three hundred degrees burned through
Speaker 5: the left wing and we lost the orbiter and crew
Speaker 5: for exactly what right, So yeah, I said, yeah, so
Speaker 5: when they eleven?
Speaker 1: Yeah, so Greg your resume. I mean, I think that's
Speaker 1: why most people resonate with what you saw. But if
Speaker 1: I don't know, there's any questions, Ram.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I'll go and jump in with one if that's okay. Tight,
Speaker 4: Doctor Rogers, you said that the craft was was hooked
Speaker 4: up to a power supply of some sort. Did you
Speaker 4: know the propulsion mechanism? How how this is working? Did
Speaker 4: it just take one? I mean, what what did this
Speaker 4: thing work off of?
Speaker 2: Well?
Speaker 5: I had a visual and audible link so I could
Speaker 5: see the umbilicals, but I I am only guessing as
Speaker 5: to what the umbilicals were, so I don't know what
Speaker 5: the power source was. It had to be external to
Speaker 5: the craft or they wouldn't have needed done bilicals. But
Speaker 5: I think it had to be a high voltage electrical
Speaker 5: system to get the vehicle to fly as it did.
Speaker 5: Now I have said that there were some electromagnetic discharges
Speaker 5: while it was operating, and there's other information that I
Speaker 5: witnessed that I have refused to disclose because I think
Speaker 5: I understand what was going on. But if this vehicle
Speaker 5: was a testbed model, and they have continued to pursue
Speaker 5: this kind of propuls If I gave any clues as
Speaker 5: to what I thought was going on, I could inadvertently
Speaker 5: disclose those classified information about what they have done with
Speaker 5: it since that time. So that's something Rogers that you said,
Speaker 5: I have not and yeah, discuss and.
Speaker 4: You think those lines, aside from power might have been.
Speaker 5: Yeah, there were there were three lines.
Speaker 4: That would have been a water line or anything else.
Speaker 5: Oh, it could have been. I don't know what what
Speaker 5: was in the lines, so I I could only guess
Speaker 5: that each one had a different color. So I'm sure
Speaker 5: they had different functions. But I feel like with the
Speaker 5: size of the craft and the way it operated, the
Speaker 5: power source had to be external to the to the vehicle.
Speaker 5: Because it had that internal you would not have needed
Speaker 5: that many of the locals. So that's why I believe
Speaker 5: it was a testbed program. So you know, this is
Speaker 5: the progression. You know, the analogy that I they is imagine
Speaker 5: that we could time travel, And we took an F
Speaker 5: twenty two back to nineteen fourteen and give it to
Speaker 5: American aeronautical engineers and we said, look, this is the
Speaker 5: most advanced aircraft there is. Honey, get in there. Sorry,
Speaker 5: my grandson's getting ready to sake of back.
Speaker 4: No, that's fine, doctor Rogers. I guess if you think
Speaker 4: that there was a lot.
Speaker 5: Do you think I know what I've saying.
Speaker 1: One second, that's.
Speaker 4: Kind of where I want to go.
Speaker 5: Okay, I do not know what the power source was.
Speaker 5: But let me get back to my example. We take
Speaker 5: an F twenty two back to nineteen fourteen. We give
Speaker 5: it to the aeronautical engineers of the United States and say, look,
Speaker 5: this is so advanced it can defeat anything that anyone
Speaker 5: flies in the Great War that is coming. Well, the
Speaker 5: aeronautical engineers from nineteen fourteen look at the thing and say,
Speaker 5: we build all of our aircraft out of wood. I
Speaker 5: don't see any wood, and say, oh, well no, we've
Speaker 5: got special alloys to make up the structural component. And
Speaker 5: then they well, where's the propeller And they say, well,
Speaker 5: we don't need a propeller, we've got jet engines. Well,
Speaker 5: they don't understand that. They feel the surface of it
Speaker 5: and they say, why does it feel so funny, And
Speaker 5: we say, well, that's radar absorbent material. That way, when
Speaker 5: radar signals come in to try to detect it, it
Speaker 5: will deflect and difract the return echoes so that the
Speaker 5: radar site can't see this, and they say, well, what's
Speaker 5: radar now? Then in nineteen fourteen they have a product
Speaker 5: of one hundred years of human design. But in nineteen fourteen,
Speaker 5: there's no way to reproduce an F twenty two. So
Speaker 5: it's going to take years to try to figure out.
Speaker 5: They don't know what computers are, you know, they don't
Speaker 5: imagine what computer chips can do or that. So if
Speaker 5: they try to reproduce the F twenty two in nineteen fourteen,
Speaker 5: even though it's human technology one hundred years advanced, it
Speaker 5: would be absolutely impossible for them to reproduce the F
Speaker 5: twenty two. Well, if we have captured down UAP and
Speaker 5: its systems are much more advanced than we're going to
Speaker 5: have to learn baby steps on the how to reproduce it.
Speaker 5: So let's say figure out how to do this. Since
Speaker 5: this was ninety two, that was only forty five years
Speaker 5: to go from we don't know what this thing is
Speaker 5: to try to figure out, Okay, how can we reproduce it?
Speaker 5: So in forty five years, maybe they had gotten to
Speaker 5: this stage, and since then, of course we would progress.
Speaker 5: But you can't just immediately reverse engineer advanced technology that
Speaker 5: we don't understand. So that's the kind of thing I
Speaker 5: think was happening.
Speaker 1: Very interesting. Do you whatever came of Why do you
Speaker 1: think you were shown this? Because you know, obviously one
Speaker 1: of my first thoughts was, you know, if I had
Speaker 1: someone who's superior to me, the only thing that would
Speaker 1: get me to do what he did to you, because
Speaker 1: he did breach I would assume he breached some sort
Speaker 1: of n DA or some some sort of legal legality
Speaker 1: by showing you this video. So whatever what comes of
Speaker 1: that avenue.
Speaker 5: Well, let let me explain it like this. I had
Speaker 5: to go onto the USS Montpelier when it was going
Speaker 5: through c trials because the executive officer, the second ranked
Speaker 5: officer on the sub, fell from the sale and got injured. Well,
Speaker 5: because it was just uh a trip to go out
Speaker 5: for sea trials, they had an independent duty medical technician
Speaker 5: on board that just come out of school. He didn't
Speaker 5: have experience, and so when he saw the executive officer injured,
Speaker 5: he said, we need help. Well, they had just left
Speaker 5: Port Canaveral, which is the naval section of Cape Canaveral,
Speaker 5: and so they said, hey, forty fifth space wing us
Speaker 5: send us a doctor. We need a doctor. Well, I
Speaker 5: was the fight surgeon of the day, so I was
Speaker 5: in my flight to I had on Space Shuttle patches
Speaker 5: and so I went out on the sun Well. I
Speaker 5: took care of the executive officer, made sure he was
Speaker 5: stable and being treated, and then they said, we're going
Speaker 5: out to Lutherra. If you'll pay for your flight back,
Speaker 5: we'll give you a ride out there. So I said, okay, great.
Speaker 5: So I got to look through the periscope as we
Speaker 5: went underwater and did all these things. Well, as they
Speaker 5: were showing me around the submarine, they got to the
Speaker 5: sonar room and they said, you know, we don't allow
Speaker 5: anyone but sown our people in here. It's too classified.
Speaker 5: But then the officer that was with me said, well,
Speaker 5: if you work with a Space Shuttle, that's okay. Come
Speaker 5: on in. We'll show you all the stuff. So he
Speaker 5: was breaking protocol. But you know, if it's human nature,
Speaker 5: if you're walking on the beach and you find a
Speaker 5: diamond ring, you're going to pick it up, look at it,
Speaker 5: and then hold it up and say, hey, everybody, look
Speaker 5: what I found. So I think he was just so
Speaker 5: excited that he had seen this video and he knew,
Speaker 5: you know, I can't show this too much of anybody.
Speaker 5: But here comes Doc Rogers. You know, he works with
Speaker 5: the Space Shuttle. He does stuff all over the Cape.
Speaker 5: Most of the people there had special security access only
Speaker 5: to the areas in which they worked. Because I worked
Speaker 5: all over Cape Canaveral for a lot of different things,
Speaker 5: I had like sixteen security badges that I were on
Speaker 5: a necklace, and so when I'd go to this area,
Speaker 5: I'd show that badge, and when I went to the
Speaker 5: other area, I'd show that other badge, and so I
Speaker 5: went to probably eighty percent of the facilities on Cape Canaveral. Well,
Speaker 5: this guy only had two security badges. Well I had sixteen.
Speaker 5: So he probably figured out doctor Rogers is working with
Speaker 5: all this classified stuff. There's no big deal. I want
Speaker 5: to show any a flying solar. That's all it was.
Speaker 1: Were you. I mean, actually, I don't want to make
Speaker 1: this like a hard interview, but you know, one of
Speaker 1: the things I think we discussed was the fact that, like, okay,
Speaker 1: I want to bring up two things. One, if this
Speaker 1: video were to surface, if it were to come out
Speaker 1: through some sort of official channel, would this video be
Speaker 1: something that drastically changed the course of the disclosure movement.
Speaker 1: Quote unquote, if the video you saw, whether it was
Speaker 1: a live or just a cut of it, blue.
Speaker 5: Right, if they saw the flying saucer that I saw,
Speaker 5: and it was moving and being tested, and so they
Speaker 5: were doing motions like we're going to check the controls.
Speaker 5: We'll move it forward and backwards, left and right, and
Speaker 5: then it tilted to a forty five degree angle, which
Speaker 5: blew me away because none of the aircraft or helicopters
Speaker 5: that I ever worked with. I flew attack helicopters, and
Speaker 5: even F sixteen they could attain a forty five degree angle,
Speaker 5: but they could not remain in location while doing that,
Speaker 5: because to fly, you're going to counter the force of gravity. Well,
Speaker 5: this thing reached a forty five degree angle and remained
Speaker 5: completely stationary. So that told me something about the propulsion system.
Speaker 5: And I know it was nothing that we could do
Speaker 5: with any of our craft. If the public saw what
Speaker 5: I saw, it would be undeniable, absolutely undeniable. There's no
Speaker 5: way they could say, oh, no, that that's actually a helicopter.
Speaker 5: No it's not. It's a flying saucer. It's a special.
Speaker 13: Stealth aircraft.
Speaker 2: No, it's not.
Speaker 5: It's a flying saucer. If the public saw what I saw,
Speaker 5: they would see, yes, we really are working to reproduce
Speaker 5: a flying saucer, so it would be absolutely undeniable.
Speaker 1: Very interesting. And any of your you don't have to
Speaker 1: give names, I actually implore you not to. But any
Speaker 1: of the astronauts you worked around from the days of
Speaker 1: Apollo or even you know beyond Ever, Yeah, any of
Speaker 1: them ever suggested to you that they saw things.
Speaker 5: They didn't just suggest it, they told me. Now, then
Speaker 5: if if they went to uh A briefing and somebody said,
Speaker 5: have you ever seen an unidentified flying object or UAP,
Speaker 5: they would say, no, We've never encountered anything like that.
Speaker 5: And then you go out to dinner, they've had a
Speaker 5: couple of Bruskies, and all of a sudden they start saying, well,
Speaker 5: let me tell you what happened on my first mission.
Speaker 5: And and so they're sitting sitting there telling their stories,
Speaker 5: and you know, if you ask them the next day
Speaker 5: at a press conference, they'll say, no, we've never seen
Speaker 5: anything like that. But just like I when I saw
Speaker 5: that flying saucer, as long as I was employed by
Speaker 5: the government in any fashion, I wasn't going to tell
Speaker 5: anybody about it. I didn't tell my wife about it
Speaker 5: for fifteen years. So I did not disclose it until
Speaker 5: twenty twenty five, when I retired at the end of April.
Speaker 5: And so, if I remember, March fourth and fifth was
Speaker 5: when you released the information, I kept quiet about it,
Speaker 5: and that's what everyone else did. And so, you know,
Speaker 5: if I remember correctly, you released the video of me
Speaker 5: reading my statement, and then the next day you at
Speaker 5: May fifth, you said, Hey, the story's coming out, and
Speaker 5: on May eighth, Newsweek was running a story on it,
Speaker 5: and so it went worldwide. You know, I've been on
Speaker 5: uh podcasts from literally all of the world.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's been really really cool to see because again
Speaker 1: I think and again you know, to Jean, I've met
Speaker 1: Jean and and you know, I just know that the
Speaker 1: type of person he is. I've been around his his family,
Speaker 1: uh so to say and I have. I've done that
Speaker 1: same thing with Greg, and you know, we went I
Speaker 1: took him to well I didn't take him, but we
Speaker 1: went to Contact the Desert Desert together and you know,
Speaker 1: he got to Yeah, a lot of people, you know,
Speaker 1: wanted to talk to him, and there's just this weird,
Speaker 1: you know, because I've seen a lot of people come
Speaker 1: forward and I've seen a lot of people get attacked,
Speaker 1: and I just it was not something that happened because
Speaker 1: with Greg they really don't have anything to attack, aside
Speaker 1: from maybe saying, Okay, what he says is a story.
Speaker 1: It's just another story. Yeah, it is another story. But
Speaker 1: it's from the chief of you know, Aerospace Medicine of
Speaker 1: NASA and was also a chief flight surgeon, and you know,
Speaker 1: so again it brings it brings again what we talked
Speaker 1: about earlier. It's that these kind of stories are able
Speaker 1: to stand alone because of the credibility behind the person.
Speaker 2: Exactly, yeah, exactly. And doctor Rogers, it's great to be
Speaker 2: on here with you, and thank you for your service
Speaker 2: and thank you for you know, bringing.
Speaker 5: On a lot of the podcasts. I've shown the picture
Speaker 5: of me and buzz Aldron hoping my book impact Now
Speaker 5: that was documented all the way back to ninety five,
Speaker 5: so nobody can say, oh, he didn't really do it.
Speaker 5: Bes Aldren believed in me.
Speaker 1: He he's a interesting chap.
Speaker 5: He said, I wrote a really good book. He's said
Speaker 5: it was really good for the space program. And Edick
Speaker 5: say because Aldren liked it.
Speaker 1: Hell yeah, I've seen the picture too. It's a and
Speaker 1: heard some of the stories that you've talked about, and
Speaker 1: I feel like if people knew half of what you
Speaker 1: had in your head, they just kind of blow their
Speaker 1: blow their minds. But Gene, you were saying, you were
Speaker 1: saying something.
Speaker 2: I'm sorry, Yeah, yeah, no, I was just saying, you know,
Speaker 2: I was happy to have this virtual introduction here with
Speaker 2: doctor Rogers. And you know myself, I'm the Air Force veteran.
Speaker 2: I retired to the staff sergeant, and I spend plenty
Speaker 2: of time in flight surgeon's offices, so I know quite
Speaker 2: intimately your line of work is on the receiving end.
Speaker 2: You know, I think it's so important and to speak
Speaker 2: to you know Tie the point you made and we
Speaker 2: talked about earlier when it comes to the standalone credibility,
Speaker 2: but you know, more importantly, it's the value of that story, right,
Speaker 2: Not only you know, okay, it's a cool story, but
Speaker 2: it's that little detail like the umbilical right and three
Speaker 2: umbilicals coming out, and it tells us something about what
Speaker 2: it is we're exploring, and you know, it adds to
Speaker 2: the puzzles that we're trying to put together and you know,
Speaker 2: so for my part, you know, for your awareness, doctor Rogers,
Speaker 2: I had you know, almost two hundred pages of Soviet
Speaker 2: reverse engineering of a UFO from my father in law
Speaker 2: dropping my lap after he died, and that was done
Speaker 2: during the nineteen eighties. So now here we.
Speaker 1: Are good person to look at it actually in the Yeah.
Speaker 2: But you know, and here we are in the nineties
Speaker 2: and there's craft that are being developed, you know, and
Speaker 2: they look like they're reverse engineer. They're run with mbilicals.
Speaker 2: You know, we're putting together the other pieces of the
Speaker 2: publicly available data, looking at it from the science to
Speaker 2: have this timeline and this road map of the activities
Speaker 2: that we're going on. And you know, I think the
Speaker 2: other important thing, doctor, you know, in your in your testimony,
Speaker 2: does speak to this idea of what we see today
Speaker 2: and how much of it is is ours? Right, And
Speaker 2: we talked about this a little bit earlier, ty right.
Speaker 2: Everybody see you know, or a lot more people see
Speaker 2: things now they don't necessarily report it, and there is
Speaker 2: more of a question of what is ours versus what
Speaker 2: is truly U A P.
Speaker 3: So.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's a great story because it's again. It's
Speaker 2: a it's a time, it's a time marker, and it
Speaker 2: is something that allows us to begin discerning what period
Speaker 2: of things might have been ours versus period of time
Speaker 2: when it definitely wasn't ours. And I think all that
Speaker 2: adds to the conversation.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, I really and I love again. I actually, Greg,
Speaker 1: I really suggested maybe you and maybe we could get
Speaker 1: him a copy of the papers or the book, because
Speaker 1: he'd be an interesting person to take a look at it.
Speaker 1: He knows a ship with three eyes. I know three
Speaker 1: I OLiS didn't pan out the way that everyone kind
Speaker 1: of thought it. I'm sorry, Yeah, you're breaking up a
Speaker 1: little bit.
Speaker 5: I'm sorry, but I didn't hear any audio. Okay, I didn't.
Speaker 5: I didn't hear any of the audio.
Speaker 1: Okay, that's terrible.
Speaker 2: Probably can't go ahead, close out.
Speaker 5: Okay, I'm not hearing anything. Okay, thanks for having.
Speaker 2: Me, Thank you. It's that damn ghost again. Time I
Speaker 2: saw I saw is Eric?
Speaker 1: Is Eric?
Speaker 2: Still? Have you ever talked to Eric?
Speaker 1: I've had Eric on the show.
Speaker 2: Oh okay, every Yeah, Eric's Eric's become my morning coffee buddy.
Speaker 1: Yeah he is. I find him to be a very
Speaker 1: interesting person.
Speaker 2: Fascinating very very very.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I know what, Okay, I I actually do
Speaker 1: have a huge fucking problem when people show photos in
Speaker 1: a congressional setting that, if the story is true from
Speaker 1: what Lou says, if he was handed that right before
Speaker 1: he went on to a congressional floor, but you don't
Speaker 1: just show it there, put it in your pocket, put
Speaker 1: it in your fuck your pocket, look at it later, like,
Speaker 1: really diagnose it and verify it. Don't just like you're
Speaker 1: you're not doing the topic any favors when like, and
Speaker 1: then you can't just fall back on the idea of
Speaker 1: well everyone gets to see everything, uh time and a place,
Speaker 1: brother Lou, I respect you, I respect your service to
Speaker 1: the country, but wrong place, wrong time. I think he
Speaker 1: admitted it. So you know, we win some, we lose some.
Speaker 1: But it was a big stage to have a blunder
Speaker 1: like that. There's no there's no mistaking it.
Speaker 4: Yeah, if I got jumping on that tie. That was
Speaker 4: not only his first time, that was as the as
Speaker 4: the second time. Yes, the first one was a chandelier.
Speaker 4: And I was with Lou the next day and got
Speaker 4: to talk with him for an hour about that before
Speaker 4: he went on stage and do one of his tours,
Speaker 4: and so he says, you know what, I got to
Speaker 4: own up to it. And I mean we're sitting there
Speaker 4: with him, his wife, a Jennifer, and his family and everything.
Speaker 4: And Jeans met him as well. So you know, I'm
Speaker 4: not I'm not devouching for him or anything else. But
Speaker 4: he owned up to it, and he owned up to
Speaker 4: it there and and and for that I can appreciate it.
Speaker 4: Uh but you know, it's a different thing when you
Speaker 4: shake a man's hand, you look him in the eye
Speaker 4: and and you know, he says, yeah, it was a mistake.
Speaker 4: You know, we've all we've all done it. And I
Speaker 4: got to hint it to him. He did, you know,
Speaker 4: he went on stage in front of all the people.
Speaker 16: And mm hmm, yeah, exactly what he told me basically,
Speaker 16: So Andy, and you could take that for what's worth,
Speaker 16: but but that was my personal experience.
Speaker 4: The day after the chandelier incident, I was literally sitting
Speaker 4: with him.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I actually met him by chance and completely
Speaker 1: by chance. I was at the hearing he testified at
Speaker 1: and I had been in line. I had a seat reserve,
Speaker 1: so I didn't have to wait in line, but I
Speaker 1: was there because I was I was making sure Bob
Speaker 1: Salace got in to the hearing because he didn't have
Speaker 1: a seat reserved like I did. So I went there
Speaker 1: and yeah, yeah, but that's beside the point, right, Bob's
Speaker 1: fucking love him, love him. I walked him into Nancy
Speaker 1: Mace's office that night and and set aside my time
Speaker 1: with her for Bob to be able to brief a
Speaker 1: sitting member of Congress. Then I got him into Burlson's
Speaker 1: office at the most recent hearing. But again, I don't
Speaker 1: do these things so I can talk about them and
Speaker 1: go look what I did or look what I'm doing.
Speaker 1: I just know that that is something that takes the
Speaker 1: topic a step further, right, it does something for the
Speaker 1: overall goal. But I was lucky. I wanted to smoke
Speaker 1: a cigarette because I'm a degenerate. I went outside, and
Speaker 1: I walked outside of the hearing and they were all
Speaker 1: just walking in, so I got to meet them all
Speaker 1: right before they testified, and uh, Lou was lice enough.
Speaker 1: We took a picture with me. I have it on
Speaker 1: my phone still. It was a wonderful thing. Again, I
Speaker 1: don't fall into a category of I hate him or
Speaker 1: love him. I think he's made some mistakes that that suck.
Speaker 1: But again, we're all human. We are, It's just people.
Speaker 1: Whether you like it or not, Lou is always always
Speaker 1: going to be held to a higher standard than me.
Speaker 1: If I showed that picture, people would be like, uhha, grifter, ah,
Speaker 1: grifter like that? Would you know? That's it is what
Speaker 1: it is. It was just sadly the wrong place, wrong time.
Speaker 4: Right, Yes, I would totally agree, and I want you
Speaker 4: to jump in on this. But before he does, if
Speaker 4: I can just add one more thing, because there's gonna
Speaker 4: be people on here talking about this. In the years back,
Speaker 4: Lou never asked anybody to docs anybody. So if anybody
Speaker 4: comes up with that in the chat or anything else,
Speaker 4: I'm telling you I was pretty these conversations I talked
Speaker 4: to all the people. That was never the case. So
Speaker 4: if anybody asks that, let's just squash that right now.
Speaker 4: So I'll turn it.
Speaker 2: Over to Gene. No, I don't have anything to add.
Speaker 8: I'll jump up on that because again it's from the
Speaker 8: context of looking at stuff from the outside versus them
Speaker 8: being in the middle of this drama sometimes helps, right.
Speaker 8: So again, ye, everybody to make mistakes, But what I
Speaker 8: found interested in looking at from the outside is you
Speaker 8: know Burleson as well through a video up in one
Speaker 8: of the last hearings, last briefings, and you know I
Speaker 8: texted and talked to you about it. I can assure
Speaker 8: you that video does not show Adeop being hit and
Speaker 8: flying off and damage. And I visited with him about that.
Speaker 8: There's some shady stuff with that video.
Speaker 7: Let's just leave it there for.
Speaker 1: You know what. Actually I had a very interesting conversation
Speaker 1: with Greg Rogers about that video because he said it
Speaker 1: was very odd. Now now anyone can correct me if
Speaker 1: I'm wrong. I might even be mis paraphrase or misphrasing it.
Speaker 1: But he had told me, he said, why are they
Speaker 1: using air to air to ground missiles a hellfire missile
Speaker 1: on an air if they're really protecting themselves and it's
Speaker 1: not some sort of training, Why are they using surface
Speaker 1: to ground missiles for an air to air situation?
Speaker 7: Right, Yeah, there's a.
Speaker 1: Lot of laws.
Speaker 8: There's the biggest thing about that video is that people
Speaker 8: should know is that video, in different cuts and different links,
Speaker 8: was being sent.
Speaker 7: To more than Burleson or Burlson's dead drop.
Speaker 8: And so then what you have to ask yourself is
Speaker 8: why why would these people all be getting different views.
Speaker 8: Some people got the end, some people didn't. And then
Speaker 8: who would have that sort of contact, you know, who
Speaker 8: would have these folkses phone numbers or dead drops on
Speaker 8: apps that can hide your identity and you can delete it,
Speaker 8: you know.
Speaker 7: So there's a lot of questions about that.
Speaker 8: With that said, my point was this, which is that
Speaker 8: then burleson, you know, therop has comment without Loo, and
Speaker 8: then everybody's kind of just picking size whether you hate
Speaker 8: Lout or not, versus we look at it from the
Speaker 8: internal standpoint, which is that this has happened before, some
Speaker 8: of the people that are in it now both done
Speaker 8: it and it's probably going to continue. But again I
Speaker 8: think it's just the drama that takes away from me.
Speaker 7: Are we moving forward or not or not?
Speaker 8: And again I'm just trying to focus on twenty twenty six.
Speaker 8: You know, people that may get annoying to people, but
Speaker 8: I'm just like, let's get a strategic plan.
Speaker 7: I'm going on this.
Speaker 2: You know, let's hold everybody to a higher standard.
Speaker 1: Right, Yeah, that's.
Speaker 8: Fine, and everybody can be wrong. Let's, like Jeane said,
Speaker 8: let's get going on the next thing here.
Speaker 7: You know, yeah, I agree, you know, I.
Speaker 1: And what what baffles me is is, you know, Trump
Speaker 1: and these guys when they were doing the campaign, and
Speaker 1: now I really want to make this very specific, when
Speaker 1: they were on the campaign, they you know, he was
Speaker 1: anytime it was got up by because this is kind
Speaker 1: of like the first election that featured podcasting as a
Speaker 1: as a means to getting to people to the masses,
Speaker 1: whereas you know, like CNN, and they just don't have
Speaker 1: those numbers like Rogan has, like Flagrant has, like it
Speaker 1: seems to be the comedians weirdly that have taken this
Speaker 1: like political prime time. But other than that, when when
Speaker 1: Trump and stuff are asked about like would they give uh,
Speaker 1: would they give disclosure a shot? Would they do this?
Speaker 1: It's always yes. But then a guy like Eric Davis
Speaker 1: is saying, you know, the only way I'll I'll tell
Speaker 1: what I know is if I get a presidential pardon.
Speaker 1: Why who's why aren't we facilitating that?
Speaker 7: Unless it's lizards, Yeah.
Speaker 1: Unless it's lizard people. But Eric, Eric Davis is fucking
Speaker 1: making crazy claims right on on on the congressional floor,
Speaker 1: but no one, no one thinks to ask him. Hey,
Speaker 1: let's talk about those notes that you you're famously known
Speaker 1: for right, why the why aren't we asking the right questions?
Speaker 8: And that that's kind of my problem is that if
Speaker 8: you look through even two three years back, it's almost
Speaker 8: like a one up sort of scenario. And I'm not
Speaker 8: saying that people aren't telling the truth or they are.
Speaker 8: I'm just saying each story gets more and more unbelievable,
Speaker 8: even if it is. And so when you get to
Speaker 8: the point where you have representatives there and he's saying
Speaker 8: these different folks Nordic's lizards and how you plank with
Speaker 8: brothers and ask them how about how tall they are?
Speaker 8: You get to the point and like I told you,
Speaker 8: I have to defense people that the writers send me
Speaker 8: laughing emojis. You can't go any higher than that, like
Speaker 8: what's what? What besides five foot lizards can you present?
Speaker 8: And if that didn't move the needle, then what you
Speaker 8: have to do is look more the whole polygraph thing
Speaker 8: to get some of these people who take serious what
Speaker 8: you're saying, if it's true, perfectly fine.
Speaker 7: You know That's what I told them.
Speaker 8: I said, I won't sit next to anyone talking about
Speaker 8: that sort of stuff unless they passed the polygraph, and
Speaker 8: then I'll buy the first round the bar, right, I mean,
Speaker 8: we got to get more serious in this.
Speaker 2: I yeah, and you know, and that's why I was
Speaker 2: talking about the you know, us sending. You know, how
Speaker 2: do we use a community set the agenda? Right? How
Speaker 2: do we say in twenty twenty six, right, we want
Speaker 2: we want a scientific themed hearing. We want a a
Speaker 2: what the amnesty themed you know hearing? You know, and
Speaker 2: in that science here, we know, we want to hear
Speaker 2: from people like you know, doctor Greg. We want a
Speaker 2: nuclear themed a UAP threat to nuclear or risk to
Speaker 2: nuclear facilities hearing. And in that hearing, we want the
Speaker 2: Bob Solace and we want you know, somebody from the
Speaker 2: DOE and we want somebody from the Department of Defense
Speaker 2: that can talk about how, you know, how are we
Speaker 2: protected from this type of phenomenon that's been reported maybe
Speaker 2: you know, and it doesn't even have to be them
Speaker 2: acknowledging it, you know, maybe we say, okay, you know
Speaker 2: it's so humorous, then humorous if there are orbs that
Speaker 2: appear over nuclear facilities, do we have things in place?
Speaker 2: And you know, and then you can well, how do
Speaker 2: you know, how would we have that? How would we know?
Speaker 2: How do you know? You know, those specific things because
Speaker 2: there's plenty of these subtopics to follow on, right, and
Speaker 2: we structure them in that way. Now, you know, maybe
Speaker 2: let's say is unpopular opinion, let's say the lizard people
Speaker 2: for maybe down the road. Right, But if we can
Speaker 2: tackle national security in UAP focused science and UAP focused
Speaker 2: amnesty and whistleblower protections focused, there's three great hearings for
Speaker 2: twenty twenty six that isn't a hodgepodge of different things
Speaker 2: or trying to capture everything, but focused tackling, actually tackling
Speaker 2: the issue with the intent of moving the needle on
Speaker 2: each one of them. And then we know the types
Speaker 2: of people that need It's not running around looking for
Speaker 2: somebody to sit in the seat like it's a you know,
Speaker 2: like it's a concert that the bassoonist hasn't shown up
Speaker 2: at or something. It's people from agencies, people who have
Speaker 2: witnessed things, people who have scientific knowledge, people who are
Speaker 2: legal authorities. I mean, imagine, imagine.
Speaker 7: You get done.
Speaker 11: Ye.
Speaker 8: If you look at how things are right now from
Speaker 8: what we've been through, you have people who are some
Speaker 8: of them are nervousness can be understandably you be there testify,
Speaker 8: they get done or they've done a podcast.
Speaker 7: They say it's ruin their life. They can't find employment.
Speaker 8: Even if you look at the uapacock it's how frustrated
Speaker 8: some of the representatives got where they're like, oh, I
Speaker 8: can't ask you that you're going to say, you know,
Speaker 8: and a gift and this and that. I mean, it's
Speaker 8: not set up. Well, I'm not trying to say say
Speaker 8: anything like we can't fix this. I'm just saying the
Speaker 8: system is not working. To everybody's credit, who's been through
Speaker 8: this before, well, no one. You know, we've got to
Speaker 8: say that. But I'll always take better and I think
Speaker 8: we can definitely learn. Like I was saying the Mario scenario,
Speaker 8: We've seen what's not working.
Speaker 7: We've got to change some things and get on a
Speaker 7: restructure playing.
Speaker 8: And if you do look at who Rights and these
Speaker 8: defense media, you know, Center Rounds even wrote to Defense
Speaker 8: scoop and op ed the sort of stuff people pay
Speaker 8: attention to when they cover these hearings. It's the most
Speaker 8: basic information at all, because there's no way they're going
Speaker 8: to put stuff in there like these big things that
Speaker 8: catch fire on Twitter and everybody says, oh my god,
Speaker 8: how's the mainstream media not covering this.
Speaker 7: Editors let them that's how you know.
Speaker 2: Hey, ty, any of our any of our Massachusetts House
Speaker 2: seats up for uh intention this year? Maybe maybe maybe
Speaker 2: maybe we should run?
Speaker 1: Yeah, maybe we should run.
Speaker 2: Maybe we should run. You know, isn't there a disclosure party?
Speaker 8: You'll have to because you know what's funny is if
Speaker 8: you look at the uap caucus and like just look
Speaker 8: at the u ap DA, both center rounds and both
Speaker 8: Earl Center up in twenty six, most of them are
Speaker 8: up in twenty six for the reelection. And that's something
Speaker 8: people aren't looking at as well. Some of the reasons
Speaker 8: some the Senate may not be talking about it and
Speaker 8: what may happen after the twenty sixth election.
Speaker 1: Okay, last thing, because I do I actually said this
Speaker 1: was going to be an hour and a half show.
Speaker 1: Is we're we're touching three hours now.
Speaker 7: I apologize it was double overtime.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I know, I know. I'm actually paying everyone
Speaker 1: to be here. By Lauray, So the bill's going to
Speaker 1: be a little big. Doctor Rogers was you know, twenty
Speaker 1: grand just to get him in, you know, just kidding.
Speaker 2: We knew you had that ivy low money.
Speaker 16: Yeah, well June invited me, so he knows me some money.
Speaker 10: Now.
Speaker 1: I don't know how many people are gonna get the
Speaker 1: av joke, but fuck yeah man, thank you. Uh. By
Speaker 1: the way, that was right here, the seat, the seat
Speaker 1: I'm sitting in right now was the same seat, uh
Speaker 1: that I was told. Whatever, I won't get into that.
Speaker 1: But we had a year where dates, lots of dates.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think this happens. I think this has
Speaker 1: happened for a couple of years now. But dates have
Speaker 1: been something that people are really focusing on. Chris Bledsoe
Speaker 1: giving you know his date of Easter twenty twenty six,
Speaker 1: quoted from his book, you know when the when the
Speaker 1: eye of the sphinx, No, no, when the star of
Speaker 1: Regulus is on the gaze of the sphinx, something like that.
Speaker 1: You know, humans will never be the same gene. And
Speaker 1: in your father in law's work there was mention of
Speaker 1: like some sort of change in a year, uh, in
Speaker 1: a specific year. Other military people like Elizondo, uh, like
Speaker 1: Job Ramirez of the CIA, many others ever talked about
Speaker 1: twenty twenty seven, including the likes of Jeremy Corbel and
Speaker 1: all these other guys. So should we take these dates. Seriously,
Speaker 1: what's going on? Guys?
Speaker 2: Well, I think you know again, yeah, you're right, you're referenced.
Speaker 2: You know, twenty twenty four, you know, was in my
Speaker 2: father in law's work, and he talked about this bifurcation
Speaker 2: of between the oligarchy and the spiritual and fifty percent
Speaker 2: of society, and and that's sort of what spurred me
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty four to publish as I did, to
Speaker 2: be like, let's get this translated best we can. Let's
Speaker 2: push it out there and get people looking at it. So,
Speaker 2: you know, yeah, I think I think there is something
Speaker 2: to it. I don't think I don't think people have
Speaker 2: the exact knowledge or I should say, the specifics of it.
Speaker 2: And I think in many ways it's it's interpretive, right.
Speaker 2: So for instance, you know, my father in law's papers
Speaker 2: talk about the right you know, rises and collapses in
Speaker 2: the fall of the US and you know the fall
Speaker 2: of Soviet. Well, it's not that things go away, it's
Speaker 2: not that it's a disaster. It's the sort of leaving behind,
Speaker 2: you know, leaving behind the old and moving into the
Speaker 2: new kind of falls in decline. So, you know, I
Speaker 2: think when we're looking into materials like that that come out.
Speaker 2: We've got to be you know, more more interpretive and
Speaker 2: less dedicated. Let's say, you know or well, oh, it
Speaker 2: said it was going to collapse, and therefore you know
Speaker 2: there's going to be chaos and it's not might not
Speaker 2: exactly mean that.
Speaker 7: Right, Yeah, in more spiritual way.
Speaker 8: If you look at when Jeans you know, father in
Speaker 8: law said that too. I mean, did he make any
Speaker 8: money on it? You know that's said you got together,
Speaker 8: he wasn't making money on it. I think you got
Speaker 8: to analyze it that way. The second part is I
Speaker 8: remember the ninety nine to two thousand switch for everybody
Speaker 8: was in panic that the world was.
Speaker 7: I told get shut down.
Speaker 8: Because software code wasn't read to go to thousand, and
Speaker 8: it was my crash, the electrical system, the banking system,
Speaker 8: and we did fine. So another thing about dates that
Speaker 8: are listed way back.
Speaker 1: When I had Dave Wilcox got his start with.
Speaker 8: Yeah, sometimes by the time that date gets he is
Speaker 8: able to handle what's going on. So you know the
Speaker 8: dates for twenty seven. There's definitely nothing that I know
Speaker 8: of coming on. But I would say, if we did
Speaker 8: things right, I think you could have a lot more
Speaker 8: answers by the end of as far as anybody spiritual
Speaker 8: linthin coming back about that, I think it's yeah.
Speaker 2: And just look I mean and just look now, right,
Speaker 2: look at what people do for attention and do for
Speaker 2: likes and clicks and to monetize. Right as soon as
Speaker 2: you come out and say, oh I've got some news
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty seven, something is happening, you know, then
Speaker 2: there's somebody's mind spinning right now, like, oh, what's happening.
Speaker 2: Let's do this, you know, and get so essentially you've
Speaker 2: given them two or three plans years to plan for
Speaker 2: whatever it is they want to set up, to be
Speaker 2: able to you know, whatever grand scheme scam, fraud, or
Speaker 2: or prank that they want to set up. You know,
Speaker 2: it's like listen, just let's take it as it comes
Speaker 2: and not not you know, let's not invest too much energy,
Speaker 2: time and certainly money into any any predictions.
Speaker 8: At this point that ty, I do want to thank
Speaker 8: you for having this. We held you over time too
Speaker 8: as well, three hours, so put this on tonight.
Speaker 1: Yeah, man, I really thank you for joining and uh,
Speaker 1: you know, i'd be definitely I would like to chat
Speaker 1: more about your specific event.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I'm always around, uh, Jean's always around. We're always welcome, all.
Speaker 1: Right, brother, Well, uh for everyone, where can people find you?
Speaker 2: Guy?
Speaker 1: As jeens, We'll just go around the horn.
Speaker 2: Yeah, either is what Engineering infinitybook dot com that's the website,
Speaker 2: or I'm on Infinity or on an x as Infinity Disclosed,
Speaker 2: And I just try to keep everybody updated on things
Speaker 2: there and I pop into great shows like right here.
Speaker 1: Hey, hey, all right, next up. He hasn't really spoken much,
Speaker 1: but Brian, No.
Speaker 4: I want to say thank you to Gene for inviting
Speaker 4: me as well as you Tay. You can find me
Speaker 4: at Pemble Underscore. Brian, I'm not really out there a
Speaker 4: whole lot. I try to stay in the background a
Speaker 4: little bit. I just certain side projects. I worked with
Speaker 4: John Stewart on the Victory Land interview and he's like
Speaker 4: that it would be a wonderful discussion one day. But
Speaker 4: but I've also talked about Gene a lot. I've got
Speaker 4: some plasitive physics, you know what, contacts and a bunch
Speaker 4: of other people anyways, so I've had to say in
Speaker 4: the background a bit, so nobody's the contact being less
Speaker 4: really really want to but I really appreciate you guys,
Speaker 4: inviting me.
Speaker 1: Oh, absolutely, any anytime, any any any time now, Mike last.
Speaker 8: But yeah, my photo blacked out, so uh, wherever I
Speaker 8: show up, I show up like tonight.
Speaker 7: It's about I gotta say.
Speaker 1: I love that. I really do, I really I actually
Speaker 1: I respect that. To everyone else, Stay humble, stay kind,
Speaker 1: stay vigilant. We'll see you on the other side. Twenty
Speaker 1: twenty six, Oh got a lots the top.
Speaker 4: M M.
Speaker 9: Stant had
Speaker 1: Alright, nice ever
Apple Podcasts
Castbox
Castro
Goodpods
Moon FM
Overcast
Pocket Casts
Podbean
Podcast Addict
Podcast Republic
Spotify