George Knapp -UAP Cover Up by the U.S Government, Mainstream Journalists, and Hollywood Continuous

0:14 Speaker 1: Good evening everyone. You're in the right place at the right time. This is coast to coast am blasting out of the Mahabi desert like a Shiraco, blazing across the land, slamming India Radio like a supercharged nano particle of unobtainium. Greetings from the boldest, bodiest, most outrageous city in the world, the planetary capital of sun, fun, sin, sex and secrets. Mine not so humble hometown, Las Vegas, Nevada. My name is George Napp, your occasional host, designated driver of the airwaves and moderator of Tonight's upcoming cacophonost Cavalcade of conversation.

0:52 Speaker 1: What's shaken out there? Tonight? It seems like a perfect opportunity to take a break from the hustle, bustle, buy and spind run around like a crazy person hyperactivity of the holiday season, kick back, sip a beverage, ponder not only the universe, but the year that's just about done. Twenty twenty two went by in a blur, didn't it, But tonight would take stock of some of what's unfolded this year, try to make some guesses about what comes next, but mainly in the coast to coast vein. That is what's next for our strange little slice of the cosmos, our collective grasp on reality.

1:26 Speaker 1: This week marks five years since the world of UFOs changed forever. Back On December seventeenth, twenty seventeen, the print edition of The New York Times revealed the contrary to all the propaganda that's been force fed to the public about UFOs over decades, that the Pentagon had in fact been studying the subject in secrecy all along. Times told about a program called a tip once headed by Loue Elizondo, with a twenty two million dollars secured by Nevada's senior Senator, Harry Reid. My pal, they got a few things wrong in that story, but the essence of that piece was correct and true.

2:02 Speaker 1: After all the denials and dismissals and public pooh poohing by defense folks and presidents about UFO incidents and cases, they really had been looking at this behind closed doors all along, and Wow, some of what they'd been studying was truly anomalous and unexplained, specifically the tic Tac case. That was the example they used in that New York Times piece that really sold the story, that one that toyed that object, that toyed with our best fighter planes and messed with our best aviators from the USS Nimitz group.

2:33 Speaker 1: There was video that was released, the testimony of Black Ace's pilot Dave Fraverer, statements from Senator Read about the importance of the work that was being done, acknowledgment from Robert Bigelow that his company here in Las Vegas had the contract to do the digging. Everything changed. Other media started digging in and reporting about UFOs too. Suddenly Congress became interested. Cautiously at first, you know, behind closed doors, hearing testimony from aviators and others. Then publicly, and before you knew it, we had an acknowledged UFO investigation, the UAP Task FORSE.

3:07 Speaker 1: They didn't call it UFOs, call it UAP. Gave it a new moniker there. This UAP Task FORRSE went to work, and soon we started hearing about cases they were investigating. And then this year the first public hearing in front of Congress, first public hearing in like half a century, and we heard about a new program that was dubbed AMSOG. That was the name for a while. Then they reshuffled it, gave it a new name arrow or new acronym that is, and now here we are awaiting yet another report to Congress that was due on Halloween.

3:36 Speaker 1: So where is it and what will it contain once it gets released, assuming the public ever gets to see it. So much has changed in five years, and they're more more changers, major changes just this year alone, with promises of big stuff to come, whistleblowers who are supposedly getting ready to step forward, protected witnesses, protected by legislation that's just about to be signed into law by the President. We're hearing about more reports from military folks and intelligence agencies. Where is all this going to lead?

4:06 Speaker 1: It's exciting times. It's exciting stuff as irritating as it might be once in a while. Joining me tonight two of the best UFO journalists in the world. Bryce is Abel, longtime CNN correspondent, a writer, a co host of Need to Know, which is a YouTube video podcast that debuted one year ago. Happy anniversary, Bryce. Bryce's partner in that endeavor is a multi award winning national correspondent from Australia, Ross Coltart, who's broken numerous major UFO stories all over the world over the past five years, along with the best selling book.

4:38 Speaker 1: Both of these guys have been on the show earlier this year, and I promised i'd have him back to help make sense of twenty two at the end of the year. And well, there's so much to cover. We're going to be getting to that in just a few minutes. You know. My first program, my first cost program of this year, started with the guest I've come to know really well. He's had a great career as a hard news reporter for a national netw then he became a muckety muck in television, wrote these scripted programs, including the excellent Dark Skies drama and NBC A lot of you'll remember that.

5:08 Speaker 1: He's written extensively about UFOs, especially over the past five years, and is the co host of Need to Know, an excellent podcast carried on YouTube, co hosted by his friend and colleague Ross Colthard. Bryce is Able as the first host and Ross as the second host. I don't know if they'd agree with that order or not. You know, Ross is one of the best known and most honored journalists in Australia. He's broken numerous big stories around the world, on UFO developments and programs and secrets in this country and his home country and others.

5:39 Speaker 1: Ross was here on the show a couple of months ago. I promised him we'd bring him back to be with Bryce to review the whole year and more. And that time has come. Gentlemen. Great to have you here. Can't wait to get going.

5:51 Speaker 2: George is great to be with you. You know, I don't know that the co host thing. I always think of Ross as the Johnny Carson of Need to Know. McMahon. Yeah, happy to be here, caffeinated, ready to go, excellent.

6:05 Speaker 3: You know.

6:05 Speaker 1: The only boss, the only other guy I wish was with us was would be my pal Jeremy Corbell, but he's working on a secret project at home tonight and so but he sends his regards to you, guys. I want to start with some current events. A little press gaggle what some might call a media gathering and informal briefing held by the Department of Defense to talk about UFO's UAP, and needless to say, the three of us were not invited, not that I would ever expect to be, but if I'd be dishonest if he didn't say it bothered me that none of us, three of us were considered ross.

6:39 Speaker 1: I want to start with you. Let'll give you your take. When you heard that this event was happening, that you were not asked, you didn't know who was asked, you didn't know what the structure was. What did you think, ol.

6:51 Speaker 3: Of George, It's got the whole with of As you know, we're waiting for this UAP report that is statutorily required by your Congress to be tabled in the Congress. It's long overdue, should have been in by the end of October, and I think that what that press conference was was a clear attempt to control the narrative before that report hits the pages. I reckon what you'll see is that report gets dumped just before Christmas, when everybody's winding down for the year, putting their feet in front of the fire, warming up the mulled wine.

7:26 Speaker 3: There's just no interest at that time of the year in covering hard news stories. And it's a deliberate attempt, I believe, a disingenuous attempt by the Pentagon to try to minimize public interest in what I suspect will be an acutely interesting UAP report to.

7:43 Speaker 1: Congress the same question to you bryce the fact that it happened on the very same day, the five year anniversary of that New York Times story, was that odd? What did you make of that?

7:54 Speaker 2: Well, you know, it's a coincidence, and it depends on how you look at coincidences. I think they couldn't possibly have missed their awareness that it was an important day, and I certainly think it is an important day, and I think history will record that as what they actually talked about there. I thought it was disappointing in a lot of ways, but I was encouraged only in one way that they were having it, and I think they should have more of these. I think more people should be invited, and I think the questions should get tougher and people should be pressed for real answers.

8:30 Speaker 2: The only thing I questioned, though, was I think they did say in this transcript. I'm I'm trying to find it right now. I can't. Maybe you guys have read it, maybe you can remember. But I thought that somebody there said that the report that was due on October thirty first would be coming out very soon. Do you guys remember that as well?

8:49 Speaker 3: Yeah, that is the case. They do say that they'll say it comes out very soon. The funny thing about it is they had enough information about it right back, even a few weeks ago, and now brief Julian Barnes of The New York Times about it, and for some obscure reason, the public are being kept in the dark right up to the very busiest time of the holiday season. I just don't think I'm afraid we have to call this for what this is, George. It's an attempt to try to minimize public interest and to control the narrative, and to follow on from what Bryce has been saying.

9:24 Speaker 3: In the actual course of the press conference, I was really struck by how Ron Moultrie, the Under Secretary for Defense for Intelligence and Security, Ron moultry basically kept on talking over Sean Kirkpatrick, who's nominally the boss of the ARROW, the UFO UAP investigation group inside the Pentagon, and so any time a curly question was asked, especially by our chum, Christopher Sharp. For example, from the Liberation Times Daily Mail, Chris Sharp asked about whether or not there was any detection of an ominous object in space.

10:01 Speaker 3: Sean Kirkpatrick's just about to answer, we're all leaning on the edge of our seats, and then Ron Moultrie leans in and says, oh, sources, means and methods, we can't talk about that. I'm sorry. You know, to discuss that would be to reveal our sources, means and methods what a load of cogs want. And I was disappointed that some journal didn't lean in there and say, as you as should at a press conference, Oh, come on, why would it prejudice sources, means and methods to acknowledge what I do know is the case?

10:32 Speaker 3: Because it's coming in through Pine Gap here in Australia, the Joint Facility here in Australia, they are seeing anomalous objects in space. Why couldn't that be acknowledged?

10:43 Speaker 1: I want to remind our listeners that Ron Moultrie, if any of you watched that UFO public hearing before Congress back in the summertime, Maultrie was the DoD guy who sort of took control of that meaning too. And what he did was he sort of set the stage or that hearing by saying, hey, you know, I was a big Star Trek fan. He didn't say Star Trek, but I was a real sci fi fan as a kid, and I might have even worn costumes to parties and stuff. Yuck aty yuck, equating UFOs with sci fi, you know, showing pretty much his colors right off the bat.

11:18 Speaker 1: It was a very subtle thing, but it bothered me.

11:21 Speaker 2: Oh, George, it made Rawson myself just want to tear our fists out of the ceiling. I mean, listening to the May seventeenth, you know, public hearing, which was a congressional hearing, the first in fifty four years, if I'm not mistaken, so on that regard, it was very good, but watching it was such a disappointment. And I have to say Ron Moultrie has become the new bane of my existence. I just it's like fingers on a chalkboard when I have to listen to this guy. But I'll tell you one thing, guys, which I thought was kind of interesting.

11:52 Speaker 2: As I was listening to that and also reading through this transcript, I thought I was getting nostalgic for the days of Blue Book when there was just one group that was investigating UFOs. And you can pronounce it because I just wrote this down from memory. But we've had as at a tip errow currently AIMESOG, the UAP Task Force the UAP JPO, you know, and it's just you ask yourself, why would someone try to confuse what the investigations name of the Even office is. I don't get it. Something and I agree with Ross.

12:28 Speaker 2: Something is going on in terms of pushback. It's not exactly clear, but it's not good.

12:36 Speaker 1: Ross mentioned the name Julian Barnes. I don't know Julian Barnes. I know of him now because of this piece that came out in the New York Times almost two months ago. It was a debunking effort. It was a what you call a pre bunking effort. It was meant to throw cold water on this UAP report before it was written. Now they Fence Department has told us it hasn't been written. Maybe it's finished by now, and they're they're just about done with it. But when he wrote that story, acquoting unnamed sources, the report was not finished.

13:04 Speaker 1: It had not been written, it was still collecting information. Yet they tried to debunk it. And of course Julian Barnes is one of the journalists that was invited to this event, and he asked what I would think to be the key question, what they hoped the headline would be, have you found in the evidence of space aliens? And of course, you know, the Pentagon was only too happy to answer that, no, we don't have any evidence of space aliens. I don't know what that evidence would be, but I suspect that that is the headline that they wanted.

13:29 Speaker 1: And a couple of media outlets, The Drive was one that bid on it and ran with it. Ross your thoughts on that, Yeah.

13:36 Speaker 3: That's exactly what they were trying to do, George. It was all about trying to control the narrative, to make sure that the message that they want is out there before the report that they have to begrudgingly provide to Congress is actually disclosed to Congress. And I just wanted to echo a few of the answers that came through in that press briefing, because even though most of the questions were pretty lame and tame. For example, Oren Lieberman from CNN, he asked about whether there was any indication that these cases or the data that they've gathered is in any way indicative as something that's a threat to US national security or to a military facility or personnel, And do you have any reason to believe that from what you've looked at so far, and Sean Kirkpatrick answered truthfully yes, and then Rob Moultrie God blessons he has runs in quickly and basically says, now, just to clarify, we're still trying to resolve some of these places, and they probably still could be characterized as civilian blooms.

14:39 Speaker 3: It's the old blooms story again. The one thing I did notice is that Ron Moultrie didn't try and crank out that tired old Chinese drone yarn that he pulled back in May in the congressional briefing where he was suggesting that all of the objects that Jeremy Corbell broke the story of art and his brilliant report about videos of range objects hovering over US Navy ships. Around twenty nineteen, there was no more talk from Rom Moultrie, the Undersecretary Defense for Intelligence and Security about Chinese drones.

15:13 Speaker 3: Yes, some of these may be drones. Yes, some of these objects may be explained as drones. But on the record, the Pentagon admitted to the media, and this was the key takeaway, this is a threat to national security because any unauthorized system in the space is deemed a threat to safety.

15:35 Speaker 1: And I thought, good point. I think there was some good stuff to come out of this. Yeah, go ahead.

15:41 Speaker 3: No, that's the key admission, and I think we need to keep on reminding ourselves. When you were doing your summary at the head of the show, George, I was thinking, gosh, we have come a long way in five years. Five years ago, when I tried to sell a story to my television program that you know UFOs are potentially that there is a phenomena that even the Pentagon is acknowledging is real, I would have been laughed out of the news room. Now, mercifully, I can say that the TV network that I work with here in Australia, they're enthusiastic for UAP.

16:14 Speaker 1: Before we leave this topic about this event that was held on Friday, I want to get Bryce, I want to get you to weigh back in on it. But I do want to make this comment. There were some good reporters there, you know. I think probably three of us are ticked off that we weren't even considered for I would now I'd be very surprised if I would ever be invited to something like that, because I'm not considered a good friend of the Pentagon. On the UFO issue. But they did have some good people that Brian Bender, Chris Sharp, you mentioned Owen from CNN who and there's some good stories came out of it.

16:43 Speaker 1: They may have wanted a headline that said no evidence of space aliens. What they got was like The Guardian had a really good piece. Associated Press had one too that basically said, there are hundreds of new cases that came in, they're not explained. And then there was some discussion of crash retrievals. You know they I think they wanted that to be shut down, but the answer was we're looking into it. We're trying to figure out through all the compartmentalized programs whether there's anything to it.

17:07 Speaker 1: Which that's not a headline. I would think that they'd want to have bryce your take on that event and future events. I guess you'd have to agree that everybody should be invited, right well, I mean as.

17:18 Speaker 2: Many as they can get into the room. But you know, I agree with what you just said. Interestingly enough, we were talking about how the Department of Defense would like to control the narrative. But what you were deciding about, George, sort of proves that that's a false hope because once people start asking questions, then one door after another starts getting opened, and controlling the narratives never has worked. I mean, think about it. Nixon tried to control the narrative, the narrative on Watergate, Reagan on Iran, contry, Clinton with Monica, but you know what, it all came out anyway.

17:49 Speaker 2: We may be entering a place where we're close to that. I just wanted to pick up on two quick things that you guys talked about in the last segment. We were talking about how things have changed since twenty seventeen, and they certainly have. But the biggest one for me, and the best and simplest way I can explain it is pre twenty seventeen, when I started talking about UFOs with friends and family, they all kind of looked at me funny and treated me like the drunk uncle at the wedding. And post twenty seventeen they asked me questions.

18:20 Speaker 2: They say, what do you know about this? I saw something on the news. I know you're into this, please explain it to me. So that's a big change.

18:27 Speaker 4: And then the.

18:27 Speaker 2: Final thing, I just wanted to bring up this Chinese drone thing. The reason it's been abandoned is pretty simple, or it's not totally abandoned, by the way, But the reason it needs to be abandoned is if there are Chinese drones out there doing what these uap are reported to be doing up to ten thousand miles an hour trans medium from space to atmosphere. To see that this thing's been going on for seventy five years, there were not Chinese drones in nineteen forty seven, or nineteen fifties or nineteen sixties.

18:58 Speaker 2: That didn't exist, So what would explain the same level of observation back then? And so I think that's why that dog won't hunt much longer. So yeah, I was happy to see this. I was happy to see some of those reporters that you talked about being there. They're good reporters, and good reporters don't take the spin that's dished out to them. They ask questions and they come up with independent conclusions like you do, like Ross does, and like I do, and hopefully many more we'll be doing that in the future.

19:29 Speaker 1: You know, it's I think an indication that good journalism still exists, and good journalism can still change the world, can change things, and I know, you know, at least in this country. Ross, everyone loves to hate the media. The press, our profession is vilified by the right and the left. I don't know if that's true in Australia now, but the New York Times story changed the world. Even though it wasn't one hundred percent accurate. It allowed, in essence, allowed other media to take this seriously and start digging into it.

20:01 Speaker 1: And then you had sixty Minutes and the Washington Post and other media organizations CNN, MSNBC, Fox in a big way. Fox News in a big way has gone after it, and it has changed the world. It allowed members of Congress to go ahead and admit that they're interested in this instead of talking about it only behind closed doors. Ross your take, I agree.

20:22 Speaker 3: I think the interesting thing to lesson for Congress is that they ignore this issue at their peril. I mean, even in my home country here in Australia, I'm stopped frequently now on the street by people who listen to our podcast Need to Know Dot Today, and they basically come in and say, look, you know, I really like the stories that you're doing on Channel seven. There's a real interest in an engagement. But I have to admit George, I'm still very disappointed by the level of media engagement and the kind of the default mockery.

20:53 Speaker 3: I was really shocked that a great paper like the New York Times. I've done stories with the New York Times, and I've seen how much they verify and check sources. But if you're a senior national correspondent, like for example, Julian Barnes, and you're a national security correspondent and you're called into the Pentagon for a quiet briefing with the very senior officials who no doubt briefed him, I suspect Ron Moultrie was one of them. You know, if you're given that kind of briefing, you don't, as we would say in politely in Australia, you don't pee on your source.

21:29 Speaker 3: You basically do the right thing by them. And the difficulty is that for national security correspondents they're compromised on this issue because, as we all know, there's been a long cover up. The cover up is a matter of public record. The Pentagon has been misleading, disingenuous, actively sought to suppress public interest and awareness of the UAP issue. And Bryce, with your knowledge of Hollywood, you know there's been an active attempt through movies and through that retelling of storm is to try to suppress what is actually going on inside the government because at the same time that we're all being fed to public narratives that UAPs are easily explained prosaically, that they're probably were the balloon's probably natural phenomenon.

22:15 Speaker 3: We now know behind the scenes, they never stopped investigating. And my worry is is that we're being said a very deliberate controlled narrative by the Pentagon, and we can't let them stick to this. We need to hold their feet to the fire. I'm genuinely concerned that senators like Jilibrand, Senator Jilibrand of New York, the Marco Rubio, the Republican senator from Florida. You know what, Why on earth aren't these people out there stating their concerns that the UAP report is not yet with the Congress, is not yet publicly available.

22:55 Speaker 3: This is the sort of stuff. We really need to hold their feet to the fire. This battle is not over, and the public out of the people listening, they need to write to the congressmen and the congresswomen and the congressional representatives and say this issue methods, because otherwise it'll be put back in a box for another seventy years.

23:16 Speaker 1: You know that story, That New York Times story by Julian Barnes, the pre bunking story that tried to throw cold water on the pending Up report, is a reminder of what the New York Times has done since the early nineteen sixties, which is crap all over the UFO subject. It's incredibly hostile, overtly hostile. Along with the Washington Post and most of the big newspapers they have been as well. The fact that Leslie Kane, that Ralph bloemathal Helene Cooper were able to get that story on, get it past their editors and get it in even though it had some problems and some pieces that were missing.

23:50 Speaker 1: It's an astonishing thing for them to have done it because it changed the media landscape.

23:56 Speaker 2: Bryce you're thought, George, you know we're talking about journalism here and this narrative. I think one of the problems we have is that journalists themselves are part of the spin anti UAP. We've touched on it here, but let me give you an example that strikes close to your heart. I think Senator Harry Reid died a year ago, basically December twenty eighth of last year, and one of the things Ross and I did in one of our very first shows is we went through all the news coverage of Harry Reid's obituaries and I don't recall finding a single one at the time.

24:33 Speaker 2: Maybe there was one mine, yes, well, yes, but of course you actually know what you're talking about. On that, everyone else managed to write about Harry Reid's life and career and not mentioned the very very important thing that not only was he helpful in investigating UAP, but he talked to you about it. It was something that he was interested into his dying days, and he was passionate about it, And yet they didn't mention that. Now, why is that if a famous person who passes away spends his years out of office interested in a single issue like that, why would that not be part of the story.

25:13 Speaker 2: And it's because those journalists who were in charge of writing that obituary probably didn't even know, and if they did know, they felt the stigma would attach to them if they started writing about it, so they gave it a pass. And I think those days we have to put in our past very quickly.

25:30 Speaker 1: Yeah, Senator Reid came to believe it, came to appreciate that the UFO story, the developments were in fact an important leg of his legacy. It was an important part of his career as a politician. I think it took a while for that to sink in, but he certainly acknowledged that before he passed on. I talked to him about it many times. And of course he and I had a secret conversation about UFOs for more than thirty years. And if it had not been for what he did, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

25:59 Speaker 1: Have been no New York Times story. There would have been no a TIP program, no ASSAP program, no UAP Task Force, or if they had been, it would have been some other name, and we might not have ever heard about it.

26:09 Speaker 2: You know, think about what you just said, though, here's a senator, the Majority leader, who's had a three decade long conversation with you about the topic of UFOs, and it's not a part of looking back over his life and trying to assess what his life and career meant. It's madness, and that says a lot about where we are today. The reason progress is slow and we keep thinking things are being put back in the box. Is because there are people that are trying to do that. Whether they're going to win or not, I think is doubtful, but it doesn't mean they can't slow down the role for a little for a few more years.

26:51 Speaker 1: I want to congratulate you guys again a year of doing the Need to Know podcasts. There is great stuff. I hope people will check it out. They could, you know, review watch them all, twenty five of them that you've done, and in the most recent one you did, you reviewed sort of some of the progress that's happened. And I thought one of the most interesting parts to me was all the people who have come out and said something about UFOs, the prominent people, directors of National Intelligence, the former CIA, had the you know presidents, you know, President Obama.

27:21 Speaker 1: I've got headlines that I saved from back when he was in the White House where they they dumped all over it. They were asked directly, you know, by the public, hey, what get to the bottom of this, what's going on? And they threw cold water on it, saying there's no evidence of any space aliens. You know, move along, folks, nothing to see here. President Obama's come a long way. He's changed. In fact, I was. I got a text from Tom DeLong, friend Tom DeLong, two days ago saying he sent me this note about Obama being involved in a production movie of a movie about Betty and Barney Hill.

27:51 Speaker 1: Now that is quite an about face, and I'm sure when I saw it, I thought, man, this is going to drive my friend Bryce's abel up the wall, because.

28:02 Speaker 2: Well, I'm not going to brief about Obama's interest. I'm glad to see President Obama taking a more active interest in this topic. It's it's absolutely important, and it's it's interesting to me that that after a lot of comments in the past where he's kind of put down the whole UAP topic, he now seems to be addressing it. And as you point out, I can't really speak for what the Obama production company is doing. All I know is from what I read is they're trying to do a Betty and Barney Hill movie, which of course I'm doing myself.

28:36 Speaker 2: So there's that.

28:38 Speaker 1: Well I know, That's what I meant is that you had been working on this and hoping to get something in production for a lot of years. So I thought, oh, man, here comes Obama stealing Brice's Rice's project out from under.

28:48 Speaker 2: I don't think. I don't look at it that way, George. I'm pretty confident and sanguine about this thing. It's a it's a free country. People in Hollywood pursue projects all the time. I don't need to remind any buddy that often projects that are about the same thing will be released at the same time. I mean to think about Armageddon and Deep Impact coming out in the same year and the same season. You know, I'm not worried about it. I've got the rights to the Captured book that was written by Kathleen Martin and Stanton Friedman, and that tells about the life and times of Betty and Barney, and it's important to me that I have that under option.

29:27 Speaker 2: And also I've done my own independent investigations into it and learn some new things. So you know, as I think, as the Obama sit with this a while, I'm fairly sure they're going to come to the same conclusion that I did, which is this isn't the kind of story you want to do without the family side of things, and that means going out and getting the rights. So that's what I've done. And I just think it's not a problem because either they're going to have to go get the rights, in which case they're going to have to talk to us, or they're not.

29:58 Speaker 2: And I'm not going to worry about it. I'm going to continue to make the film that we want to make Captured, and we've had offers. We turned one offer down, We're in conversations with other people, and we've got international interests, and it ain't over till it's over, So you know, let it go on.

30:16 Speaker 1: I mentioned about Ross and the Need to Know episode that you guys bring up a couple of names. Clapper, the former D and I Director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe another one who both of those guys that come out with what we would previously have considered alarming statements about UFOs, current D and I. Averril Haynes, you must have had those kinds of heart to heart off the record conversations with people at that level over the years, and must be some of you must be like a kid at Christmas in that they're now saying these things on the record on camera.

30:50 Speaker 3: That's the amazing thing about it, Georgia. There is this cognitive dissonance between what I'm being told privately by sometimes quite senior people, including in my own government, but also in yours, in the American government, and in the British and French governments, there's an acknowledgment, just a flat, simple acknowledgment, that this phenomenon is a mystery. It's real, it's technology, it's craft, it's not some natural phenomenon that can be easily dismissed. And I do think, you know, it's funny just to echo what you and Bryce have both been saying.

31:24 Speaker 3: There does need to be I think, on this fifth anniversary, a tribute paid to the New York Times and that team Ralph Blumenthal, Lesley Kine, Helene Couper for just doing that bloody story, because it really did. It put things on the map. And I am aware that there is a pushback happening. I'm being warned by my own sources that there is a very determined pushback, that the view has been taken by some in the Pentagon and the intelligence community that yes, okay, the Congress is demanding that we provide them with this information, but we're going to be as tough and as obdurate as possible, and as uncooperative as possible, and we're going to try and use all the classic spin cards that we can use, such as pre release briefings to select media, to try to minimize the coverage that this issue gets.

32:20 Speaker 3: And frankly, Mate, it's not going to work because the level of public interest is enormous. People now know that the jack is out of the box and you can't put it back in the box. And yes, we've got all these senior officials and the Pedagon itself, I mean the admissions that they made that these videos of unidentified aerial phenomena are real. There's a mystery they cannot explain. And that for the most powerful nation on the planet, you know, of all the technology, all of the sense or technology that the US and its allies like Australia you operate not only in the atmosphere but underwater and in the orbit.

33:05 Speaker 3: The fact that we don't know supposedly what these anomalists phenomena are that are displaying technological abilities might use ahead of human science.

33:16 Speaker 1: We were talking in the first hour with my guests Bryce and Ross about pushback, and I can tell you that it's real, but it also it works both ways. There is pushback. I think within the Pentagon by some who want to diminish public interest, congressional interest, media interest. Oh, we can explain those cases. You just got to give us enough time. But I could tell you that there's pushback too, as inquiries are made about crash retrievals, meta materials, craft bodies, things of that sort that I want to touch on in this hour.

33:47 Speaker 1: I think there's probably significant opposition to any of that stuff seeing the light of day, ever, but I can also tell you with a degree of certainty that there is pushback from some of the professionals inside the Pentagon who were part of the early your investigations, osap ATIP, the UAP task Force. They don't want their work to be diminished. They don't want someone to come along and with a wave of a hand say these cases July twenty nineteen off the West Coast, those are just Chinese drones, and they have pushed back to that.

34:15 Speaker 1: When they heard that that is what was underway, they pushed back and defended their work in some pretty heated closed door briefings. That's my understanding. Ross. I want to get your take on where things might go, what you expect from this next UAP report, and whether you are pessimistic or optimistic in general.

34:34 Speaker 3: I'm very pessimistic, to be honest, George, and I try not to be. My natural disposition is to be optimistic that I'm hearing. I mean, the thing that worries me is, like you, I'm talking to people who are thinking about coming forward as whistleblowers, and the message that they've got from the Congress is that key sections of the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act reforms about the UAP issue have been watered done before they were approved by the Congress, notably the fact that there was going to be independent oversight by the Inspector General.

35:10 Speaker 3: We were going to have a kind of an objective party overlooking whether or not whistleblowers were being fairly treated by the arrow the UAP Task Force. And also they've removed the civil right of litigation against reprisals. So anyway, anybody who was a whistleblower who suffered reprisals for speaking art would have had a civil right of to fight back against that reprisal, but that's been removed, and so I do worry that there's been an attempt in the Congress to try to fight back and water down these proposals, and my concern is to make sure that people feel free to come forward.

35:55 Speaker 3: And I had a conversation recently with somebody who told me of a shocking incident. It's an allegation that they saw a helicopter brought down by or in an incident involving a UFO, and they're a direct witness to that incident. They want to come forward to the Congress. They want to tell the Congress what they saw. Now, what do they do At the moment, we're waiting for the President to ratify the legislation, the NDAA laws, which will basically give them some degree of protection. But are they hearing acclamation from the Congress that this is a primary issue that they're concerned about, though they're not.

36:34 Speaker 3: I don't think there's been any spokesperson from the Congress, any congress person speaking since the May fifteenth hearings. We've had our token public hearing and it's gone away. And all of these these members of the Congress, Adam Schiff, who was making a lard noise about it last year, marked a Rubio gillibrand they've all gone very very quiet. The big question in the minds of the people who are thinking about coming forward is why why have they gone quiet what's been said behind the scenes? And I balance that with the fact that I'm also hearing that there may well have been private hearings where people have spoken privately to the Congress, which brings us to the other issue, which is, even if information is disclosed to the Congress, how much are we going to be told?

37:27 Speaker 3: And I don't think we're going to be told a lot. If there are retrieved craft, which is not an impossible possibility, seeing it's featured in the pages of the New York Times itself. If there are retrieved non human technologies that are in the possession of the US government or aerospace called private entities that are holding those on behalf of the US government in order to evade oversight, are we going to be told about it? I don't think we ever will be.

37:58 Speaker 1: I have my questions as well.

38:00 Speaker 3: Well.

38:00 Speaker 1: Bryce. If you are a CEO of a big aerospace company and you'd been given this stuff military passed it on to you to sort of stash it and hide it and maybe analyze it. Fifty years ago, you had this amazing technology that the whole world is interested in, would you just give it back. I wouldn't.

38:17 Speaker 2: No, no, I don't think I would, and I don't think the people that had it would do that. But look, there's a lot of different ways to look at this thing. Ross, by the way, plays the pessimist on need to know, and I play the optimism, which is ironic because I get depressed about the thing as much as anybody. I do think we need public hearings. But you know, one of the things I just wanted to point out because we were talking about it in the last segment and you mentioned how these high level intelligence people are talking.

38:49 Speaker 2: I think that's part of pushback. I mean, in the last year, basically two heads of the CIA and one head of the Director of Natural Intelligengens have spoken out about this. And I'll do this very fast, George, but I just think it's kind of important. We've had somebody speak from the Obama administration, the Clinton administration, and the Trump administration, and I'm just going to give a taste, all right. The Trump administration was d and I John Ratcliffe, who said, we have multiple censors that have been picking up these things.

39:20 Speaker 2: Some of these are unexplained phenomenon and there's actually quite a few more that have been made public. Obama's CIA director John Brennan said, I think some of the phenomenon we're seeing continue to be unexplained. It might, in fact be some type of phenomenon that is the result of something that we don't yet understand and wait for it, folks, and that could involve some type of activity that some might say constitutes a different form of life. That's coming from a CIA director Clinton. CIA director James Woolsey said in the middle of an interview, Well, there was one case in which a friend of mine was able to have his aircraft stop at forty thousand feet or so and not continue operating as a normal aircraft.

40:00 Speaker 2: What was going on? I don't know, does anybody know? So I guess what I'm saying is, I think the pushback doesn't have to come just from our elected representatives who are sitting in closed door meetings in Congress. These guys that spoke out had the highest level of security that we offer, at least I think for CIA and D and I, and they're speaking out about this thing. So I think there are a lot of people who do want to talk about this, and we are getting closer and closer to the day where somebody says something that opens the door a little bit more than can't be ignored.

40:40 Speaker 2: I really don't think those comments can be ignored, and hopefully some but some mainstream journalists might write an article about all these intelligence people who are doing it. But listen, we have work to do. We're not there, but we are further along than we ever were, and we seem to be moving in the right direction.

41:00 Speaker 1: When you talk about like John Brennan and Woolsey, those guys come forward make these astonishing statements. Did they know before and then lie about it or just ignore the topic, or did they not know really and paid to attention while they were at the top of their agencies and only got a briefing later when all the stuff broke out in the news media.

41:19 Speaker 2: What do you think, Well, it's interesting, I think they knew. If you listen to their quotes, it almost sounds like they didn't get the full briefing and that they're just sort of now that they're out of office, they're talking about what they did hear about and so whether they know the final truth or not, it seems unlikely, but they certainly know that something is going on.

41:44 Speaker 1: So ross you think they knew I do, George.

41:48 Speaker 3: It's interesting. I've been having conversations on exactly this issue. I was asking somebody in a position to know presidents briefed, and I was interested. I was trying to find out why Obama has suddenly taken such a close interest. And I've heard different stories. One is that he wasn't briefed while he was president, but he has been briefed after he became president. Because presidents, as you know, are allowed to get top secret briefings, they continue to get briefings on national security issues after they leave office, and then with various CIA directors and various heads of departments, it all boils down to who you are.

42:26 Speaker 3: I mean, there is a cardra of people. I know this sounds like paranoid conspiracy theory nonsense, but there really is a cadra of people whom I think are invested with the knowledge. It's been very carefully kept. And let me devil's advocate for a moment. I'm not the sort of journalist who dismisses out of hands the idea that things need to be protected for reasons of national security. Let's assume, just for a moment that it's true. What the New York Times is written about that there are retrieved non human technologogies and the possession of the United States.

43:03 Speaker 3: I would hope, and I would expect that the United States government would do its level best to achieve military superiority, strategic superiority over any potential enemy by developing that technology, by back engineering it, and by understanding it. And I would keep it secret as long as possible, as long as I could, and when it came to a confrontation with a potential enemy, as sadly we do face with both Russia and China at the moment, both of our countries, I would hope that they'd pull this out of a hat.

43:35 Speaker 3: So the best possible spin that I can put on this is that there is a very good reason for why the United States might be sitting on this issue, why it might be concealing it, because it basically wants to not show its hand. What I don't understand is there's a difference between acknowledging a non human intelligence on this planet and then acknowledging recovered technology. You can do one without acknowledging the other. And that's what I think we should see. That's my prediction for twenty twenty three.

44:07 Speaker 3: If my hope is that we will see some concession from the government that this isn't just anomalist technology in our atmosphere, in all this and underwater, that whatever this is, it's not human.

44:21 Speaker 2: Russ. Let me jump in here and just ask you to expound on one thing here. The idea that Barack Obama would not be briefed on this incredible topic while he was president, but then would be briefed under big secret afterwards just doesn't make sense to me. Why would any rational national security policy say, let's brief the guy about the big secret after he's out of office. Why would they do that?

44:47 Speaker 3: That's a bloody good question, Bryce, But I'm told that's the situation, and it's all about need to know Wellturally, I think I think there are some people in the national security establishment in America who lost site during the Cold War of who runs the government? The people listening to this audio run the government. It's government of the people, for the people, by the people. I studied your Constitution in my law school. One of the things I think is great about America is in shrines in its constitution the government is the people.

45:22 Speaker 3: You the people, The American people have the right. You own this country, it's yours, And sadly, what I think has happened is over the years, especially during the confrontations of the Cold War, a lot was done in the name of national security to suppress things that ought properly to be oversighted by the American people, and I think they have been kept from the Congress, and that's why we're seeing momentum in the Congress. But albeit begrudgingly by the Pentagon and the intelligence community, they are asking hard questions.

45:56 Speaker 3: The only question in my mind, though, is, let's say they do do a briefing to a top Senate Intelligence Committee of team or to the Armed Services Committee. Let's say that's all done in a secure skiff, in a top secret way. Will the public be told? Should the public be told? I worry that, yes, the Congress will get briefed, but I suspect that they may cop the line from the military. Oh, yes, we can't reveal a lot of this stuff for national security reasons, and you know, it's important that the public not be told before.

46:32 Speaker 1: I think that's already true, that's already happened, and that there have been briefings of that nature behind closed doors and classified fort a setting, and that some pretty amazing information has been shared. It's happened already and we haven't heard a peep about it, and I'm not sure we would. Here's my question to you. Let's say that the Congress gets told behind closed doors that the crash retrievals are real, that we've recovered these materials, it's not just bits and pieces of scout metal, but entire craft and maybe bodies, and that you know, they demand some information about where it is.

47:06 Speaker 1: Maybe a delegation goes to take a look at it. Does that answer the big questions I'll ask you first Bryce and then you Ross. Does it tell us where they're from, why they're here, what their interest is in us? Or is it still going to be a mystery after that information gets known by some within the government.

47:26 Speaker 2: Well, I don't think we probably know everything about it. I do think if I was going to make a prediction for twenty twenty three, I think it's possible that we are going to have the acknowledgment of crash retrieval. Your question, and that would be the sort of the game changer that sort of breaks down this wall of silence because you're going to acknowledge crashes, You've got to talk about all kinds of other things. I guess the question is what here's the problem. I believe the government has learned a lot about this over the year years, and they just don't share their work.

48:02 Speaker 2: I mean, that's been the policy since the beginning, and I think that what we're looking for in the future is to get the government to the place where I agree with Ross. You don't have to brief us on national security issues, and there's always room for some classified stuff, but it is time to share their work and at least tell us what their best guess is, because the gentlemen, the truth is between the three of us, the three and negos here tonight. None of us have you know, actually know what is going on.

48:33 Speaker 2: And there are people inside this discovery process who have better theories than we do because they're working with better data. And so that's going to be what happens in the future is the data increases, the theories get better, and then we begin to work together to try to figure out what this is. And that's what I look forward to as the forward progress of twenty twenty three into twenty twenty four.

48:58 Speaker 1: Totally agree. Bright Ross Coltart or my guests will open up the phone lines and the next segment so you can get into this conversation as well. It sort of goes to the kind of perspective that you have, is an optimistic or pessimistic. You know, with that UAP task Force prepared to report for Congress dating back to two thousand and four, one hundred and forty four UFO cases that have been investigated, and of the one hundred and forty four, one hundred forty three were unexplained unidentified, and it wasn't just because they didn't have enough information.

49:30 Speaker 1: Fat you look back at the history of the UFO topic, sometimes the best cases, the ones you have more information about, are the least explainable. Just having more info doesn't mean you automatically explain it the more info you have, and some of them the less you know because it doesn't fit in a known phenomena. So you know, the question is what this next report might be. We already know based on the reports of Friday's event, that hundreds of additional cases have come forward to arrow the current UFO organization with the Pentagon is investigating through and hundreds of those coming in from military witnesses and others.

50:08 Speaker 1: It's going to be hard to explain those away. I think that there are a lot of investigators working on this problem who are honest and really do want to get to the bottom of it and not cover it up, while as there are also people who would like it to all go away. My guests, Bryce's Abel Ross Coulthard are here for one more segment. We'll take some of your calls and see what else is on the minds of our listeners here on coast. We'll be right back. Two world class journalists who cover the UFO subject in detail.

50:35 Speaker 1: Bryce'sable Rouss, Colthart or my guest tonight. Their podcast called Need to Know is terrific. You should check it out. If you haven't seen it before, you could review the twenty five episodes they produced this year. It's good stuff. Let's go to the phone see what's on the minds of our listeners tonight, East of the Rockiest Patrick in Southern Maryland. Hi, Patrick, you're all with Bryce and Ross.

50:55 Speaker 5: Hi guys, thank you for taking my call. I just wanted to say real quick, Bryce Ross, I've watched every single one of your episode. Thank you very much for doing it. I love watching an episode when it's put out. And also, George, thank you for what you do. My question is to Bryce and Ross. Let's say, hypothetically, you guys get read in one day, right, and you get all the answers to the questions that you've ever asked, and you come to the conclusion that the government has been suppressing what they know about UFOs and the phenomena, et cetera for benevolent reasons, and you agree.

51:39 Speaker 5: Would that change what you do? Would it change what you report or what you say?

51:50 Speaker 2: Well, thisess Bryce, I'll jump in. I don't have to be read in the favor some more transparency on this. I'm not saying that I am comfortable with what might be revealed. We don't really know at this point. It might be a threat, it might have a downside, But I just think it's gone on long enough and what is time to see happen is that we own up to it, because at the end of the day, all of us together are smarter than just a few of us, and if we want to get to the real bottom of what this mystery is all about, we're going to have to own up to it and let the world get to work on it.

52:28 Speaker 2: So I'm not the young man I used to be, so I'm eager to see us get on with that in my lifetime because I'd like to I'd like to know. I need to know. And by the way, thank you for all the nice comments about needs to Know. And if people want to hear any of those twenty five episodes, it's need to Know dot today, So thank you.

52:49 Speaker 3: I'll just add to that. I mean, I think if I'm ready, and I'm basically agreeing to what security and intelligence officials would require to be ready to anything, especially something like compartmentalized top secret intelligence, which of course is never going to happen to a journalist, but to be read in you have to sign a non disclosure agreement. You have to essentially agree not to publish certain things. Now I would never do that. No journalist should or would ever agree to such a deal. The closest I've ever come is when I was embedded with American troops in combat zones in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and you'd sign this massive document that basically undertook that you would check first before you publish anything to make sure that you weren't compromising the safety of American soldiers or operational issues.

53:44 Speaker 3: I have no issue with that at all. If you're going to embed or work with military forces, you don't want to compromise their safety. So yeah, I mean, I don't think a read in situation would ever occur for a journal I could just never agree to that.

53:58 Speaker 1: Thanks for the call.

54:00 Speaker 2: But hey, George, I just wanted to point out that, and we don't need to go all into it. But back when I was doing Dark Skies, a couple of guys did show up at the Dark Sky's offices and in essence offer I guess a limited modified reading in of something because they wanted to give us information that we would put into the Dark Sky's program. And I didn't take that opportunity then, and you know, I don't know that I would now.

54:27 Speaker 1: Thanks Patrick for the call. West of the Rockies. Joe ed Bontana, Hi, Joe, what's on your mind?

54:33 Speaker 4: I had, George. I just called in because I wanted to let you know that I was offered a job in our UFO program in the United States by.

54:44 Speaker 1: Whom And what did they say? Hey, we got a UFO program, you want to work for it?

54:50 Speaker 4: No, I had known him while I was in the service. We were both flying F four phantoms together in the service. I got out and flew for the airlines, and he stayed in government service and ended up being the assistant director of the CIA in the Foreign Intelligence Division. Well, and I don't think I should probably say his name or my name, but when I was working in the cursor to the UFO program, which they have, it's kind of a magic program that has all sorts of different things where we have specialized vehicles, we had the normal secrecy channels, and we also had to sign a twenty year secrecy agreement and it was renewable every twenty years.

55:41 Speaker 4: And that's when I was contacted about coming into the UFO program, was on the first anniversary of when I'd left the other program. Was this at Los Alamos Line for the airline for twenty years?

55:54 Speaker 1: Is that Los Alamo's lab?

55:56 Speaker 2: Right?

55:59 Speaker 1: Did they tell you what you had?

56:00 Speaker 3: You? Yes?

56:02 Speaker 4: I would. I would have been doing things very similar to what Barb Lasara was doing.

56:08 Speaker 1: Tell you what, Joe, you don't want to give these names out on the air, but if you wouldn't mind hanging on and speaking to my Galdana there, I would like to reach out and continue the conversation.

56:19 Speaker 4: Okay, yeah, I'll be glad to you guys.

56:23 Speaker 2: I mean I know that I ask you.

56:25 Speaker 3: Can I ask you a question, Joe, I forgive me for interrupting. It's Ross Coultart here. I've spoken to other people like your good self. Can I ask you this if you had joined the program? And I know people who have, and they're loyal, good patriotic Americans, and they do question the level of secrecy that's attached to the technology that they're aware of. If you'd become aware, let's say you'd been briefed into a program to develop anti gravity, and you were aware that, as has been put to me, good science is being hindered by excessive secrecy, would you feel okay about testifying to Congress?

57:07 Speaker 3: How would you feel, as somebody who's stooped in that security world about coming forward and testifying.

57:15 Speaker 4: Well, I believe that we should all feel free enough to try to advance the human race. But if you've signed a secrecy a secrecy agreement that is a top secret code word above top secret, you're really precluded from saying anything, and so therefore you probably can't unless you.

57:39 Speaker 3: Want to say special. That's what's so special about this are Yeah, because it's good men like yourself who are now faced with this dilemma because the legislation allows the top secret compartmentalized intelligence a gag on you speaking to be overruled by the imperatives that the Congress be properly informed. So you are given protections. Everybody in the program is given protections under these excellent new laws. Not as excellent as they could have been, but what Chris Mellan and Lui la Zonda have achieved by pushing for these laws in the Congress is really quite momentous because people with these gags, these national security prohibitions are now able to come forward.

58:26 Speaker 3: And that's what's so exciting.

58:28 Speaker 1: Sure, thanks for the call. Hang on a second that Donald will get some information and maybe you can You and I can continue to talk later. We're going to the Wildcard line. Brendan and Austin. Hi, Brendan, you're on with Bryce and Ross.

58:41 Speaker 6: Hey guys, can you hear me?

58:42 Speaker 1: Yes?

58:44 Speaker 6: Okay, awesome, appreciate it. So I just wanted to say, for anybody who hasn't already, you need to sign up for a Mystery Wire podcasts for anywhere that you haven't already. And I also wanted to say that for any truckers who have been shown anything or seen anything for underground bases or any bases, to contact people at Mystery Wire and tell them your experiences. And the reason I was calling, oh, one more thing, super quick.

59:12 Speaker 2: I have a quick theory.

59:14 Speaker 6: The reason we have they have lights on the UAPs maybe is because that they use AI to measure the distance between the lights so that they can fly really quickly in formation. That's just an idea. But the reason I was calling was because when Snowden, Edward Snowden had released his documents, there was documents in there that were about the FBI that had images that had been debunked of UAPs and UFOs and stuff like that. So yeah, we're talking about pushback. And I was saying, if you go back to the to the files with Edward Snowden, there was pushback with the FBI all the way back then, and we didn't get the full things.

59:57 Speaker 6: We just got the images. But I encourage everybody to look at up.

1:00:00 Speaker 1: Thanks Gaith, Thanks Brendan. Do either of you know of I don't recall what might have been in the Snowden documents about UFO UAP do either of you know.

1:00:10 Speaker 3: I, as far as I know, he said publicly that he looked but didn't find anything, and he strongly doubted that there was anything there because he had super user access to the systems of the NSA, and he says he actively looked for documents inside the UNSA that would link to UFOs and he actually came away skeptical that there were such documents.

1:00:34 Speaker 1: Because he went, well, he didn't find the ass app documents. I guess Thedia didn't share them with an essay then, because they were real. There was a bunch of them. What were you going to say, Bryce.

1:00:44 Speaker 2: I was just going to say, that's how I as Ross was saying that, that's how I remember the story, and I was hoping at the time that he would have found something, but I don't think you did.

1:00:56 Speaker 1: We're going to Bill in Los Angeles. Hey, Bill, how you doing all with Rice and Ross and guests.

1:01:04 Speaker 7: George, you rightly criticized the Washington Post scant coverage of UAPs of late, and as a former mainstream newspaper writer myself, I'd like to note just to balance that that the Washington Post headline on July twenty eighth, nineteen fifty two was approximately, quote air force jets chase saucers over capital unquote.

1:01:26 Speaker 4: That's how far they've.

1:01:27 Speaker 7: They've swallowed the government line since then. And I'd just like to add that I think there's enough objective, empirical evidence and professional witnesses such that we don't need the current labdog media clowns or their government masters like CIA directors of all people to conclude that trans medium aircraft doing fifty eight thousand miles per hour in two thousand and four ain't from our neighborhood.

1:01:58 Speaker 2: I agree with that.

1:01:59 Speaker 3: True.

1:02:01 Speaker 1: Yeah, I think we're all on the same page on that bill. I was also to pointing out the Washington Post had a great story in the seventies about those overflights over the nuclear bases. They broke a story based on FOYA documents, I think about these nuclear bases on the US Canadian border that were visited by UFOs one after another over a couple of week period. So they have done some good stories over the years, but in general they're pretty hostile. Thanks for the call.

1:02:25 Speaker 2: In twenty ten when there was the National Press Club conference where they talked about the overflights at nuclear bases. The Washington Post sent a lifestyle reporter to cover it, and he began his report by talking about the chocolate chip cookies that were served at the press club.

1:02:44 Speaker 1: Yeah, that's the good stuff. I'll tell you what. There's a book by the late Terry Hanson. It's called The Missing Times. Anyone who's interested in the UFO topic or media and how news media have covered this over the years and want to know if they've been complacent or implicit in the cover up. That book is terrific. You can find it. It's not out of print. You can find it on Amazon and a couple other places. So check that out. Try to get one more call in. We're going to South Carolina. Burry, old buddy, old pal.

1:03:13 Speaker 1: How you do it?

1:03:15 Speaker 4: Hey, Hey, George?

1:03:18 Speaker 2: Yes, Oh this Corneese and Alexandria.

1:03:21 Speaker 1: I see, I was going to Burry in South Carolina.

1:03:25 Speaker 2: We'll go to Berry.

1:03:29 Speaker 1: Okay, if we got Barry on the.

1:03:31 Speaker 4: Line, it's still Cornees.

1:03:36 Speaker 1: Thank you, Thanks, Cornelias. We're going to move on. I want to Okay, Bryce and Ross, we got about two minutes left or so, you guys want to talk about anything else that might be coming down the line. What you're looking for in twenty twenty three, Bryce, Well, I think.

1:03:52 Speaker 2: Twenty twenty three, if I think I'm speaking for the three of us, that all of us have our own confidential sources, some of which overlap, although we don't know, but they all seem to be talking about crash wreckage, something Ross and I have discussed. So I actually think that crash wreckage probably is what many of those closed door hearings have been talking about, and I look forward in twenty twenty three to possibly seeing that. But I just wanted to end by just saying we never really talked about all the things that happened in twenty twenty two.

1:04:24 Speaker 2: Here's a quick run. We had the May seventeenth hearing, which was the Congressional hearing. We have a NASA investigation which began this year. We have the October thirty first non report that is about to become a report, and we had the National Defense Act language put in. We even had Alessando declaring that the upology must die.

1:04:48 Speaker 1: So it was a busy year, NASA busy in their next year, Yeah, NASA got involved too, And you know there's another big development. Ryan Graves is heading up an investigation on behalf of the AIAI that I think could be as big as any of these things.

1:05:04 Speaker 3: Yeah perheap, Yeah, I agree. I think the commercial pilots, our friend Ben Hanson's done some fantastic work this year that should be acknowledged on the continuing reports of commercial pilots who are seeing anomalous objects, and despite the debunkers gloriously tying themselves in knots to try and shoot it all down, the simple fact is they're still unexplained. And the other favorite of mine is the ongoing revelations about those strange objects that stalked US warships off the coast of southern California in twenty nineteen.

1:05:37 Speaker 3: They tried to call them Chinese drones. That explanation didn't wash. Ron Moldfey didn't even try that one again this time in the press briefing last week. But the simple fact is that the documents that have been revealed by for example, the Drive and the great work done by Jeremy Corbel, there's objects hovering and flying near Navy vessels that sparked a huge investigation. The Navy investigated it wasn't civilian activity. It wasn't US military operations. There's only two possibilities. Either it's a foreign adversary or it's something else.

1:06:14 Speaker 1: All right on that will end, Ross Altard, Bryce Zabel, thank you guys so much. Need to know if folks haven't heard it, they need to check it out. And please keep me in the loop fellas.

1:06:24 Speaker 2: It's been a pleasure, George, thanks for having us.

1:06:26 Speaker 1: All right, we'll talk to you again.