Steve Bassett On The HILL: UFO Truth Embargo & Disclosure Efforts

0:15 Speaker 1: Welcome to other disclosure across our platforms, where we explore the mysteries of the unknown, from sightings to conspiracy theories. We dive deep into the unexplained occurrences in our skies. If you're passionate about exploring the unknown and are intrigued by the possibility of non human intelligence, then you're in the right place. Don't forget to smash that like button share with your friends, your family, the Grays, just not with the CIA. All right, subscribe, stay up to date, click the bell so you don't miss any podcasts or videos that we have to offer.

0:47 Speaker 1: We have a bunch of cool little segments coming out from the UAP hearing that was on November thirteenth. Oddly enough, tonight we're supposed to have Chrisy Newton on the show. She came down with a bit of a sickness. So I called a good friend of mine and asked him to come on the show for about the hundredth time over the course of the time total disclosures it existed. I also had the pleasure of meeting him in person for the first time on November thirteenth at those UAP hearings, and he was a part of our closed door meeting with Rob Salice and Nancy Mace.

1:28 Speaker 1: Mister Stephen Steven, that's it all right, Steve, Welcome back.

1:41 Speaker 2: Steve to my friends. Yes, Tyler, Hi, it's great to be with you.

1:46 Speaker 1: Yeah. So listen, I wanted to start this off because

1:53 Speaker 1: as great as the things that you and I have been working on together, you know, the no remember thirteenth hearings, everything that happened, all that went away super quickly, and all that people are talking about right now is these drone swarms. Now, I just want to get your intake on that before we dive into the to the real subject and real disclosure efforts. What's going on?

2:21 Speaker 2: Well, to be sure, the developments from the hearings and on the thirteenth and nineteenth haven't gone away. They're out there, and where they're out there is media coverage. As you know, I have a print media archive and I'm logging any articles and there have been dozens and dozens of articles and those are not going away. But obviously there's a whole lot else happening in the world in the US right now, so we go with the flow. But in our world, in the et issue, things are happening as well. And I've been watching the drone thing kind of slowly unfold.

3:00 Speaker 2: There's always been things like that happening, the odd sighting here there, whatever, they turn up online, lights in the sky, things like I get it. I don't spend a lot of time with that. ET's have been proven. They're here, non human tech, whatever hell you want to call them. My job is not to prove it. It's already proven. My job is to help get the confirmation from our president, which is what opens everything up. Big deal. Okay, But

3:28 Speaker 2: there's something that has emerged now that's gone on for several years, that is now really requires some attention and an analysis, and it is being referred to because there's always got to be a named for these things, drone swarms. So we'll call them drone swarms. Now, drones are amazing. They continue to get more amazing all the time. You may have seen recently a display drone display. There was some holidays and it might be I think it was in China. Several thousand drones were launched, operating on GPS right technology that allows them to keep precisely positioned, and they're creating amazing displays in the sky changing and forming.

4:20 Speaker 2: Now it's not like a it's not like a holograms. It's essentially they're acting like pixels of light, and yet there are thousands of them working in pure concert. I have to assume the wind conditions were absolutely zero. I can't imagine doing this in a win. But they're impressive. Okay, good, we get it. The drones that are being referred to here are essentially non piloted craft. If there's a pilot, it's not a drone. That's real simple. Okay. It can be. It can have an entity or a person controlling it from afar, or it can be pre programmed to f without a third party person or individual directing it.

5:04 Speaker 2: But if there's no pilot in it, it's a drum. Okay. So that's straightforward. So what is unusual about what's happening and why it may be a big, big deal. Is that not simply because people are paying attention. Because video of everything now can get put on the net instantly and spread. If something's going on, somebody's filming it. It's turning up somewhere great usually isolated stuff, nothing profound, but images and video of these swarms have been making their way into the public domain. Going back a number of years.

5:43 Speaker 2: One of the earliest examples of the phenomena that we are talking about tonight, or swarms of drums around ships.

5:51 Speaker 1: Ships.

5:52 Speaker 2: Yeah, it is a destroyer, and it came up. It turned up. People were saying, what is it, what's going on? The usual confusion, government saying that there's nothing to this usual stuff and it could be fake and so forth. All right, fine, I noted, it moved on, there were other matters to attend it. But then more events started happening. As we get closer, they seem to be spreading drone swarms, not just about ships, but are around bases, military bases, other sensitive facilities. And the reason and the government has admitted it.

6:25 Speaker 2: Right, there's these swarms and saying, well, why on earth would the government do that? Well, we're not talking that. This is a new time. And so if something is swarming around a base, unless that base is in the middle of the desert, there's other communities around it, there are people living near it, and they got everybody's got cameras and they film everything they see. And so these swarms have been filmed by citizens and so naturally that gets up on the net, and what are you going to do? Well, the government does the best you can.

6:55 Speaker 2: In this case, the best you can is we don't know what they are right right? Wow, So let's know. I started thinking about that and going, wait a minute, let's just apply some basic logic to this, and where does that basic logic take us? And I recently to this morning. It's interesting that you got in touch with me, I posted to my Twitter account. Please follow and join Paradigm Research Group dot org. They handle us at Steve Bassett and I posted a rather lengthy post. And what I'm gonna do is I'm gonna read you the post because it says much more concisely what I can freelance to you right now.

7:35 Speaker 2: So I think this will be pretty easy to follow. People will get it. Here's what I posted this morning. All right, here is a suggested logic train regarding a recent phenomena. One Those with a need to know within the US government have known about a technological non human presence in our world for decades. I think that's absolutely proven fact. Two devices of either human or non human origin, referred to as drones are swarming US military ships, bases, and other sensitive areas. That is fact three, this is not permitted, and such objects, if known to be of human origin, would be shot down or captured.

8:21 Speaker 2: That I believe is absolutely true. Certainly happy to discuss it. Number four, let me finish the whole thing. The destruction or capturing of these objects is not being reported. That is true right. Number five. Therefore, the objects are of non human origin and aggressive action toward them is either viewed as dangerous or useless. Case closed. And then I posted this. Now this leads to the most important aspect of the phenomena, why is it happening? And here the logic train has to pause and speculation begins.

9:00 Speaker 2: In that regard, I offer this consideration. The time frame of this extraordinary new development closely corresponds with the passage of four pieces of UAP legislation and a series of UAP related congressional briefings. In other words, the collapse of the truth embargo. If in fact, this recent phenomenon is connected to the disclosure process, it is worth considering these events are a message from this technological non human presence, get it done. And I Twitter attached this or you know attached this tag.

9:38 Speaker 2: This rather to Nancy Mace, Tim Burchett Paulina Luna, Darren Moskowitz, Jamie Raskin, Growthman, Mark Warner, Senator Schumer, Marco Rubio, Senator Jillibrand, Mike Grounds, Eric Burlison, Representative Ogles and Journey Ownst Representative Garcia, Representative Carson, and represent in AOC because I followed them all and I wanted that to turn up in their notifications box. Yes, now you see my thinking on this. What are your thoughts?

10:13 Speaker 1: Well, I just wanted to say the oh why is my camera? So I just well, I just wanted to say that anyone who so I have I have commercial drones, and if you get into say, say you're flying your drone and you come into contact with any restricted airspace any at all, the drone takes itself over and returns to sender. So any commercial drone.

10:45 Speaker 2: Will not.

10:47 Speaker 1: Will not be able to fly into restricted airspaces of any kind, whether it's just restricted as as you know, for an airport or a military base or this or that government research facilities. So the ones that are being seen around bases and ships, those are the ones that I find to be the most compellent.

11:11 Speaker 2: Of course, now, of course the drone has to be programmed to respond to certain texts that are connected to these spaces, which literally triggered that response. Now you could take that out of it software, so it wouldn't do that. Let me give you an example. About six or seven years ago, somebody was having some fun with the drone here in DC and it got away from them, right, and it flew over the White House. That person was arrested and was able to explain this was an accident and so forth. All right, now this is just a little drone.

11:46 Speaker 2: Let's be clear. If you go and read the reports, and I have the articles up on my website, Powerdigresearchgroup dot org. Go to the media archive under resources. They are being described by the people shooting the film as of different sizes small up to the size of a car. Right, I assure you a commercial drone the size of a car would be very very expensive. And the bigger the drone, the more of a problem you would have. Fly a drone the size of a car over the White House, my friend, and you're going to be charged with a serious crime, and if you don't have a damn good lawyer, you're going to jail for a number of years.

12:25 Speaker 2: And so again, there is a fundamental logic to this that leads to the conclusion that I'm talking about until we know more. Now, a video did turn up which I had not been able to analyze. I mean, I don't analyze this stuff hasn't been analyzed or taken apart too much. But it purports to show an attempt to shoot these things down to no avail. Again these days, what do you say to that other than there's a logic to it, because if they could shoot them down, they would, and if it pointless, they're not going to do it.

13:01 Speaker 2: They're not going to be firing stuff all over the place out of say a base right knowing that they can't hit them, and have the shells what landing somewhere in the community, landing on somebody's barbecue. So again that's logical. But is that film valid? I don't know. But something profound is going on, and it's not just going on here. It's happening in the UK, it may be happening in dozens of nations. If it's happening in China or Russia, I think it's fair to say they're not going to talk about it.

13:30 Speaker 2: You're not going to get film on that On Twitter and that's being held. And if it's true, if that should leak out that like China, Russia, other countries that we haven't heard from yet are getting the same phenomena, then you've got something along the lines of what happened in the movie Close Encounters of the Third kind. One are the greats of all time, And there was a moment when everybody in the world was hearing a tone, right, or at least huge portions of the world, we're hearing the same tone, and they were reacting to it.

14:01 Speaker 2: Now, that was very benignish. This is not. But again, they're not attacking the base, they're not destroying the ship. And let me be clear, if anybody's paying attention to the Ukraine War knows that the vast majority of hardware, tanks and motorized vehicles that are being destroyed in that war being destroyed by drones. Drones, you know, they're militarized tones with explosives, and so a couple of drones like that could seek a billion dollar destroyer, right, And so the idea that they're just well, you know, they're not doing anything, this is film them.

14:37 Speaker 2: Yeah, let's don't talk about this, please, folks, don't insult our intelligence and so something big is going on. And if it in fact is the case, that the ETS are going out of their way now, not to mention just drone swarms. You've got sightings all over the damn place. People are filming and filming and filming faster than I think people can concoct, you know, and you know, AI could be helping some of this, but overall, the sense is something is heading somewhere. There is a huge build up of engagement.

15:09 Speaker 2: Why I would speculate that the ETS are either anticipating that we're just about to end the truth embargo and the world is about to learn formally finally that they've got company, or they are tired of waiting and for one reason or another they're trying to goose the process. That's just a thought I'm putting out now.

15:31 Speaker 1: What I find to be I don't know if I am drawing conclusions here, but I find it very, very peculiar that after the hearings on November thirteenth, you know, you and I we went took that closed door meeting with Nancy Mays. Obviously the military angle, the nuclear angle that was on full display, and all of a sudden drones are swarming, not well, yeah, let's say swarming growing off. Yeah, they're showing up everywhere and flying with impunity right seemingly.

16:16 Speaker 2: But it's been going on for years. I mean, it's been going for years, so I'm not I wouldn't want associate a special connection there. They've been going on for some time. And and but look, I don't you know, I don't know how closely the ET's monitor what's going on. I don't think they're reading my Twitter post. But the fact that is that one of the most significant developments is sixty years after the events took place, actually fifty fifty five years after the events took place in which our ICBM missiles are shut down in the presence of a uap UFO ET whatever I want to call it, and thirty years after some of the officers present firsthand when it took place.

17:04 Speaker 2: Finally, the Congress is looking at this seriously. Finally, and you might say, oh my god, what could be more important than nuclear missiles being shut down by a read for reasons that are not connected to a human source. Why hasn't this been all over the place? Good question? And the answer is actually not complicated. There's been a lot of things that have happened regarding this phenomena over the years, right and witnesses have come forward, documents have turned up, and this and that and everything else, and all of it was irritating to the Department of Defense, irritating to the managers of the truth Embargo.

17:44 Speaker 2: But overall, they obviously were able to deal with it. They hadn't, we wouldn't still have a truth inmbargo to this day. But there is one set of events and one set of witnesses that pose the greatest challenge to the truth Embargo and always have. That is the Sack based commanders and others who were present to the tampering of our nuclear weapons systems, the shutting down of our ICBMs, interfering and intercepting gummy warheads at eight thousand miles an hour, filmed by an Air Force officer who came forward, and so forth.

18:17 Speaker 2: These witnesses are extraordinarily challenging, and so the DoD Department of Defense had a real problem with respect to those witnesses. And so how did how is it that we haven't heard? Here's the best answer I can give you. I know some of these people I've talked to the lead witness, the person who has kept this going, and that of course is Robert Sallas. I've read the fundamental book UFOs and Nukes by Robert Hays and seeing the doc and so forth, and I can say that they haven't been threatened in any anyway.

18:59 Speaker 2: That's really serious. Bob Sallas came forward in nineteen ninety four because after holding onto it for nearly thirty years, the vast majority of the many hundreds, if not a couple thousand people have been well hundreds that have been witnessed to first hand shutdowns, are not coming forward. They were probably told absolutely don't do this. But the early cases, well, the Air Force was, you know, kind of I guess caught off guard. The Air Force did do things like assign all of the security guys to the four parts of the Earth, right, just get them all separated.

19:33 Speaker 2: But what are they going to do? Well, the sack based officers were honoring their NDAs and so they weren't saying anything. And then eventually, as if there were any shutdowns later on after the mid sixties, Air Force was ready move in boom bam baa boom nothing. Okay, So how many shutdowns we've had. We don't know, but Robert Sallas in nineteen ninety four, god bless them, filed an FLIA or in that period, maybe prior to ninety four, he filed that a FOYA quest to the Air Force looking for information regarding that time frame and things happening in that time frame without mentioning UFO, without mentioning UAP.

20:12 Speaker 2: And what he got back, being that he was there confirmed what he happened to him happened without actually saying it, and so he viewed that is essentially freeing him up from his NDA. Not that that was clear. It wasn't, but he felt it. What and off he goes, and he comes forward waiting for the Air Force to show up. They didn't. Right now, again, this is ninety four, We're starting to move forward. A lot's happening in the early nineties. We could go into that, but you know, of course so and Steven Scheff and Roswell and everything else is going on in that period.

20:50 Speaker 2: They didn't stop him, And so off Bob goes, and for the next thirty years he is leading a group of people that want to testify. But how is it that they haven't been able to? And the answer that I give now is this Department of Defense could not They had limited options dealing with these sack based officers, whether it's Shindelli or Jamison or Arsalas Figel or whatever. What do you do? You can kill them in which case case problem solved. You could you could destroy them reputational wise to scrace tony stuff.

21:27 Speaker 2: Yeah, problem solved. Right. Uh. They could disappear right now, which you could. You could put them into detention, put them in a concentration camp somewhere okay. Uh, or you could buy them off right, come in and just give them lots of stuff to be quiet. All of those we're not going to work, right because you started killing off sack based officers like that, it would cause a catastrophic reaction and the Strategic Air Command they would be going. It would be a mutiny. It would just be a mess.

22:00 Speaker 2: It would be catastrophe. Didn't do it right trying to buy them off. These guys are honorable people. They would have probably gone to the press and shown them the offer. Okay, So what did they do, and this is something that people need to pay close attention to. They ghosted them, yes, all right? And what only mean by ghosted a lot of people know what that is, a lot of people, don't. You just pretend they don't exist. You don't talk about it, you don't respond to it, you don't respond to them. You just they don't exist.

22:30 Speaker 2: And so if the press calls up, somebody ask a question about I don't know what you're talking about. You know about Bob's hollice, I'd never heard of them.

22:39 Speaker 1: Whatever.

22:40 Speaker 2: They just just grows nothing, nothing to do anything. And the media went along with it. Okay, And as long as the media we're willing to go along with that, not press, which would required investigative journalism, which the media is not done, deliberately not done as part of the truth in Bargo, I guess you could say, then you get by. And they've gotten by for thirty years, in spite of a major documentary, a major book by Hastings, three more books by Bob Sallas, a press conference in twenty ten in the National Press Club, another press conference with media attending in the National Press Club twenty and nineteen.

23:16 Speaker 2: Okay, other articles turning up here and there. They've managed to not have to deal with it until now, finally, of Bob Sallas and you and me and others the nuclear witness testimony is now in the House all right. First of all, in the twenty nineteen press conference, Bob Salas arrived with a set of witness statements and affidavits from about eleven or twelve individuals. A couple of them were not related to shutdowns or nuclear tampering, and so I pulled those out and I delivered a hard copy set too hard copy sets to every appropriate members of the House Subcommittee Oversight Subcommittee.

24:04 Speaker 2: One was submitted by hand walked in the office right. The other one was mailed into a particular staffer, So you have two coming in two different directions. And I also included in the I sent in an emailed in a file a file copy, so there's three versions of this AFFI David witness statement set in ten offices. Then I distributed the hard copy to all seventeen offices of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and then then sent in a electronic file of those same documents to individuals individuals in the House Intel offices, along with links to right the book the documentary.

24:51 Speaker 2: Some articles about Bob and their full three hour testimony in twenty thirteen, which included Jamison, Shindeli and Salas and some other witnesses.

25:06 Speaker 1: A bunch of great witnesses, John Collen I believe from the FAA.

25:11 Speaker 2: Right, Well, that was in the FAA. I mean, well, it was the City hearing disclosure. There were forty two witnesses from ten countries and they were in eight different sets, right, ten different sets over five days. But the set there was a three hour set that was for nuclear weapons tampering, okay, And all that testimony was sent to them. The links to all that testimony is now in the offices of seventeen twenty seven members of the House and Senate, not just any twenty seven, but those that have been engaging this issue.

25:47 Speaker 2: And as it happens, because you were able to get a meeting with Nancy Mace, and you made the decision Bob come along because he was in town for the hearing, and then decided probably Steve should come along, we were able to sit down with her. And I can talk about this because that video is out there, right. We were not asked. If there was nothing out there, I would not be talking about it as a matter of courtesy the way you deal with members of Congress. But because it is, I'm able to say this and.

26:15 Speaker 1: You're there when she said that, you know, like she never, not once did she say, you know, cut out, cut this out.

26:25 Speaker 2: But even if she hadn't said that, if you go to meet with a member, they agreed to talk to you, right, you can go on and go right to the press and say everything, but they're not going to talk to you again. In other words, there's certain protocols, but you once that video was out, protocol, no problem. And so it is out there on the web, and in the interview, which is out there on the web, she says, I would love to have the nuclear witnesses testify. And I can assure you everybody on the Intel Committee has seen that statement from her.

26:57 Speaker 2: And so the next hearing, barring some dramatic shift, the next hearing is going to include clear weapons shut down witnesses. And there's enough. I think we could easily get six or seven together, most of which would be sack based officers. So that hearing, that's that's that's ballgame.

27:20 Speaker 1: Now.

27:20 Speaker 2: Look, I think I think that just a hearing of the nuclear weapons witnesses might not force disclosure from not say force trigger disclosure from the president, but he could. But certainly if they were part of a twenty witness set testifying in a committee for a week, that would do it. And I'm starting to change my view about this as well. Namely, I felt that a Senate hearing was what was needed. It had to be a Senate Intel Committee hearing twenty witnesses, perhaps even the Senate Noarm Services Committee.

27:53 Speaker 2: But I'm beginning to think that if they are if the House Oversight Subcommittee held that major hearing, not a half a day a week, right, which they can do as long as the chairman of that committee agrees Matsy Mason can put it together. If they if they were to hold that would also set the president and maybe only one serious hearing a day long for nuclear shutdown witnesses would do the trip. And so we are closing in. But we are also in the middle of a massive political uh I describe it, it's like it's like we're in a political washing machine right now.

28:36 Speaker 2: The people's careers are on the line. That though people have been elected or not elected, that's resolved, but there is just a huge amount of developments that are breaking that have great consequences, and so it's not likely, highly unlikely that a hearing of any kind other than maybe bringing one person up for a quick meeting like Jillibrandton to do between now and the end of the year, and then after the new Congress takes over, well, that's kind of a change to see change. Everybody kind of knows who their assignments are.

29:11 Speaker 2: Could they hold one in January? Probably not, because there's only seventeen days from the new Congress to the inauguration, So that puts us into the next administration. That puts us into early February. At that point, the Republicans control the House and the Senate and the White House. They can do anything they want. And the members of Congress that are leading the disclosure process right now are majority Republicans, conservative Republicans, and so I see that coming together very quickly. There is no reason that the new president is going to shy from this issue.

29:55 Speaker 2: He's already spoken to it, not in depth, he said he would address it et CE and so I am anticipating a major hearing and disclosure either in February, late February, or early March.

30:09 Speaker 3: Uh.

30:09 Speaker 2: And I I cannot wait for that hearing, which I think will happen first and Bob Sallas being at that table and I will be in that room, whatever it takes, and that's going to be a major day in the history of the country.

30:21 Speaker 1: You know, I'll be there with you, man, and and

30:27 Speaker 1: after after bomb and say a few or the other sestify.

30:35 Speaker 1: Do you think that Congress can look any further? I mean, the nuclear implication is so devastatingly gut wrenching and scary that in my mind that's I mean, that's enough to force someone's hand.

30:56 Speaker 2: Well, let me let me, let me step you back a little bit. It's no longer gut wretching and scary. The fact that nuclear weapons have been shut down has put out on the net in books and documentaries for twenty some years or more. I assure you that in the process of the Congress getting up to speed on this issue, right, they were informed that this is one of the aspects of the phenomena. So they're not just learning this for the first time. The issue is whether they're going to engage it right. And so when these witnesses sit down to testify, I already know what they're going to say.

31:36 Speaker 2: When asked a question, what do you think was the rationale behind the shutting downs of these missiles? And I believe every single one of them is going to agree. It was not a threat, it was a message. It was a message that these weapons are flightly ill advised. Nothing good is going to come from these You're going to destroy a great deal of your civilization. We consider that to be wasteful. And another message less obvious, but obvious to me if you've been in this field long enough, and that is, if you were keeping these weapons around, I mean, you'd get rid of them, because obviously blowing yourself each other up is not.

32:18 Speaker 2: But if you're keeping them around just to be safe, because you might need to use them against us, because everybody's an enemy to y'all, don't bother because you can't.

32:30 Speaker 1: Right.

32:31 Speaker 2: They're toys, they're nothing to us, and so don't use that as a rastion. Now, if you want to get rid of them, don't don't. Don't don't use us as an excuse. Get your rid of them. And so that's that's I think the message that the Congress is going to get not fear, not gut wrenching, and if anything, people will be thrilled to learn that there is this. I mean, in a formal way, broadway confirmed way that that there's an aspect to our dilemma right now that could be a solution, namely, can shut these things down right, we don't have to use them, or you know, they might help us shut them whatever.

33:05 Speaker 2: And there was just a reason to feel that maybe you wouldn't up living in a post apocalyptic, post nuclear wasteland wandering around like they do and walking dead right, trying to find food and killing zombies. So it's a positive things. That's why I see this.

33:22 Speaker 1: Yeah, because to me, like every single time, no matter how many times I hear it, when I hear Bob's testimony, it turns my stomach inside out. And I just don't understand how anybody, let alone someone who has a vested interest in national security to any degree, could hear his testimony and be like, yep, not taking him seriously.

33:51 Speaker 2: Well, he was taken seriously in the citizen in run Disclosure twenty thirteen. I assure you it got a lot of response. But and I you know, we deliver a full set of that to every single member of Congress in late twenty fourteen ahead of the campaign of Hillary Clinton to be president, because I already knew about her connection to the issue, and so every office had this, so it's not like it just hasn't been around. But again, it is absolutely the most difficult evidence and testimony that the Truth Embargo would have to face.

34:29 Speaker 2: And therefore they've gone to They've done everything they can short of awfulness again because these are sack based officers and not just civilians, to not let it trigger the truth Embargo or the end of the truth in Bargo and so disclosure. But that's about done. I mean, it's just about over. So they're gonna be dealing with this soon. It has to be soon also because they are very old and they're very worried. Some have already died so are not in good health, meaning that there they've been waiting them out right.

35:06 Speaker 2: Think of that, that's that's a wonderful thought. Yeah, they'll just all die, you know, sill. But eventually they're gonna die, and the truth and bargo will last on forever, I don't think. Okay. So that's where we are right now. It's an extraordinary time and I'm I'm both I'm optimistic and also pessimistic because with respect to the foreign affairs and and wars overseas, really serious with respect to the political damage in America really serious, and so it's hard to get too carried away. As I've said many times, I believe that ending this truth and bargo, triggering this paradigm shift may be the what the doctor ordered to reset ourselves and start turning away from the world of our historical intentions and start fixing things.

36:04 Speaker 2: I'm not worried anything else they could do that. Frankly, nothing you know this could do it. And so for me, disclosure isn't just oh, we finally know the truth. Isn't that wonderful. Maybe they'll tell us what the ETS are up to. It is much more than that. It is entering a new paradigm where we can actually bring some order to chaos and fix some of the worst things that we have created, solve some of the worst problems we've created for ourselves, and bring some order to this world. Not not you know, my order, I just mean logic and productivity.

36:40 Speaker 1: Yeah, we would look at each other, not as you know Russian. I mean there would still be that nationality, of course, I assume, but you know, I think people would have a greater found appreciation for their neighbor right, It's no longer about being Russian, Chinese, or American. It's about being human and once.

37:05 Speaker 2: So we are, we are. There are other intelligent beings. They're not like us, but they're intelligent, more intelligent than us, more sophisticated than us. But we are all of a part. Right. They're there and we're here, and so we are part of a human race. They are not, but we can interact with them. Okay, now this is not completely true. I think there's some overlap here, but this sense of oneness is much more easily to manifest, will be more easy to manifest in a post disclosure world. Going to war over a different color of skin, or a different point of view about God, or a different point of view about ethnicity, or over pieces of land God forbid.

37:51 Speaker 1: Over fucking resource, right like oil in the ground.

37:57 Speaker 2: Well yeah, I mean, I mean, if any thing could justify a war, it's fundamental resources. In other words, if one country owned all of the water, I assure you they would have a problem. But the fact is that our wars have been more to limit resources by destroying production value, destroying environmental circumstances, undermining industry, and so forth. If it wasn't for that, we probably would have very little problem with resources. Now. So war literally is the number one problem with being able to develop resources, not to mention the vast amounts of money that are diverted from developing resources and managing the human race's needs in order to build submarines, airplantes, aircraft carriers, nuclear weapons, and so forth.

38:41 Speaker 2: And so essentially we are our own worst enemy and there is just ultimately no logical reason to go to war about anything other than it's a habit. And the trick it is, it's like, you know, we're addicted to war, okay, and so how do you end an addiction? Well, you go into what you going too therapy?

39:01 Speaker 1: Okay, rehab?

39:03 Speaker 2: You go into rehab, all right, and you what is rehab? Rehab? First of all, you're kind of forced to change your behavior under certain constrictions, and then you talk to people, you kind of work things out, and you get a different worldview, a different point of view about yourself, and ultimately you get to a disappoint where you can make a decision, I need to get off the mere heroin, right go or whatever. Disclosure is kind of like that, Uh, it's like, uh, whoa you there's this huge thing that's just happened.

39:36 Speaker 2: You need you need to think about this. You need to you need to re examine yourself, your country, civilization. Uh, and maybe you need to talk to some teas, right, little therapy something like that. And if you can change your perspective, look inward, look outward, you might decide you don't you want to get that monkey off our back? War? Right? Let me tell you. Heroin kills, cocaine kills. They all kill nothing kills like war nothing, okay, war number one killer. There is right other than just you know, growing old and we're addicted to it.

40:10 Speaker 2: And so again that's how I see post disclosure.

40:14 Speaker 1: I have a I have a question that I've it's it's okay, God, good time. Yeah, I know, but it's a like I said, it's a risky risky. Yeah, it's a bit okay. So I've been thinking lately and it got me a little bit down a rabbit hole. I'm not gonna lie, but I started thinking about whether or not the same people that are behind people like Epstein, Diddy, right, the people who are employing those people two do what they did collect you know, information on high profile people to be able to uh effectively blackmail them.

41:13 Speaker 1: Uh don't you think those might be the same people that are hiding the most advanced tech. No, you don't think that.

41:22 Speaker 2: Yeah, no, no, Look, we humans have many vices, we have many problems, we have we have many troubles, and so uh yeah we yeah, you don't. They don't need to be connected. Uh And there is no no connection there. There is. There are abuses in every endeavor, whether it's corporations or military, or intelligence or entertainment industry and so forth. There's always some people within them doing ridiculously awful things, but no, not connected. I think one of one of the reasons the truth in Barber was lasted this long is that the vast majority of the people that have managed it and conducted the research and the investigations, the monitoring of ET's and everything else, are basically good people.

42:07 Speaker 2: They're working for the government, they're national security well paid, but they're good people with families, and they're not deviants, right, They're not criminals. That's one of the reasons the truth embargo has lasted. It's not a criminal enterprise, though one could look at it that way. It's a national security matter, just like the management of our triad nuclear defense system is a national security matter. Some people think it's criminal that we have nuclear submarines and all the oshes of the world that could, you know, have a hiccup or something and launch a missile by mistake.

42:40 Speaker 2: And so because they're basically good people that are doing this, they have honored their nondisclosure agreements, they have kept the faith, have kept their mouth shit in many cases, and the vast majority of them have taken what they know about the et presence to the grave. So that is another reason why it's been so successful. If these peopleeople were devian criminals, it would have collapsed a lot long time ago.

43:04 Speaker 1: I suppose that makes sense. And like you said, you're right. And I hate to say this to about any you know, I hate to say this to whoever's trying to wait mister Sallas out, but I hate to break it to you. He's eighty four and I was with that guy from four am to eight pm and he didn't skip a beat. Right, He's marching forward the strongest I've ever seen.

43:31 Speaker 2: But I don't want to test his endurance. The other witnesses are not well, may not be able to come to the hearing, or maybe they could come to the hearing, but not of the interview, but they could always be interviewed by zoom and so it has to be now. We're never going to have a better chance than now. And I am quite ready to see disclosure take place under this new president. Keeping in mind, right, it's nonpartisan, always has been, and always will be. That doesn't mean the person that are involved in it could be very partisan, but the issue itself is nonpartisan.

44:13 Speaker 2: And furthermore, if our president were to confirm in late February after a hearing that clearly this is all true and the UAP Disclosure Actor is going to help get all of this out and you're going to learn everything in a reasonable length of time, other heads of state will join in within days. Major countries, they'll somebody come forward and say, oh, yes, we can confirm that. And if they're asked, well, why did you go first? Because we're not the leading military power in the world, we're not the leading economy in the world, all right.

44:45 Speaker 2: We depend on the United States in countless ways, and therefore we felt it was inappropriate for us to cut in line. Most people are going I get it, I get it right, understand, no problem, and so they will all join in. It will very quickly be a very global thing. Now, one of the great things that one of the cool questions, if I were a betting man, you know, I could put a bet up on FanDuel, how many days will it take for Shijingping if our president goes first to confirm it, how many days for putin one, five, eight, ten, twelve, whatever.

45:21 Speaker 2: Because they they will as major powers, major nuclear powers, and the China being the second biggest economy in the world, They're going to think very carefully about what it means to them if they confirm the et presence to their people. But I think they have no choice and they don't want to be left behind, and so I fully expect it be fully global within a couple of weeks, and therefore it's it's even less partisan, right it becomes a global.

45:50 Speaker 1: Issue, right. I guess my biggest fear is that even though it is a very very bipartisan issue, and that's something that we all stress all the time. We've both seen hearings happen in front of us and you can see the bipartisan nature of it. But people that you would never be in the same room are able to have conversations together about this topic. But if Trump, specifically, Trump is the one to step up on the pedestal and say, we're not alone, guys. I worried that a lot of the country simply wouldn't believe it just because it's him.

46:36 Speaker 1: They would say he's trying to pull one over on them. But if other countries started coming forward after that, I think that would kind of buck that that notion.

46:46 Speaker 2: You don't have to worry. I assure you that if President Trump comes forward, it'll either be after a major hearing in the House or Senate, which is going to be filmed worldwide and seen by millions and millions of people, me demately, followed by a major hearing in the House or Senate with ten, fifteen, twenty witnesses that'll go worldwide. And so the issue about oh, do we want to believe this person over another, it's a non issue. And would he try to politicize it? I would be quite shocked. I just don't think so.

47:18 Speaker 2: It would be difficult to do and not necessary. There's so many other things that could be politicized. There's no need to politicize this one. And it is the very nature of it is such that it remains insulated from that and That is one of its most endearing qualities and one of the reasons why disclosure is so important. We have something before us that has been denied for seventy seven years, in which every person on the planet and every country on this planet could how would you say, engage in a nonpartisan way.

47:54 Speaker 2: Is there's nothing like it to bring us together. It will bring us together in ways that nothing, absolutely nothing else could. Now that doesn't mean everybody will just suddenly get along. It just means that immediately. Now, Reagan tried to express this in a more traditional way. I got it. Consider the time. He was making the point. If there was a real alien threat and call it that from out there, would we not all come together. So it's the same concept, but in a more traditional human way, humans, as I say, being addicted to.

48:28 Speaker 1: War, right without the threat.

48:30 Speaker 2: So but he's sort of right, except that he can't be right because if there was a true fet from them, we might be able to come together. But it wouldn't matter, okay, because we're doomed, all right, we you know, not everybody's science not everybody understand you know, spends a lot of time they do watch science fiction movies. God knows, but let me be clear, we have no chance against an interstellar civilization. We probably even have left chance again interdimensional civilization, we simply don't.

49:02 Speaker 2: It's not even a fair fight. It's hopeless. So trying to think about it that way is utterly pointless. Now people might try to use that fear to make money, to get you know, funding for you know, more weapons and stuff, but increasingly they're going to be called out. I'm sure that a certain amount of national defense has been supported by the concern in the early days that there could be a threat there. Let's let's put even more money into our nuclear defenses, whatever. But overall, as time has gone by, that has become less and less logical and even absurd, And so I don't think they were putting much money in the budget right now to cover the et threat.

49:42 Speaker 2: Anybody with half of the brain and working in government right now would understand that interstellar civilization is not a fair fight. It's not even close. We would have no chance. Now if we were to build starships, if we were to put nuclear weapons on them, or other weapons, we could put up a fight and maybe even do some damage, except, of course, they're not stupid enough to ever let us do that.

50:11 Speaker 1: Hence Jacobs.

50:14 Speaker 2: They are not going to let us build starships and put nukes on them. And that's the reason why I think there is a limit to their patients, That there is a timeframe of which they are not going to go past. So they're willing to sort of go along with our intransigence, but at some point they're going to step in. If we don't get this done, we can destroy ourselves and that would be sad, but and they might regret it, but they're not going to let us build starships and put nukes on them because of some prime directive nonsense, no way.

50:42 Speaker 2: And so they're depending upon where we are technologically, and I happen to think we're very far along right on figuring out how to move around at great speeds. That time frame is short, and so now it's really less about yea, well, in other words, if if we if we as we get close to building starships, they will force the action. In other words, they will simply say, okay, enough is enough. The next thing, you know, we got ships everywhere, right, We're getting messages in our emails, you know, from the ets, look guys, something like that, and that that would be fine, right, that's okay, except we're at risk of nuclear war every day, and unless they're willing to intervene on that, before we get to those starships, we blow ourselves up, right.

51:29 Speaker 2: And so there is this dynamic kind of two dynamics operating, and I sort of have a sense of how it's going on, but I don't know what the ETS think about it. I'd love to find out one day, but I think I have an idea of the time frame dynamics that are playing out here.

51:46 Speaker 1: UH.

51:47 Speaker 2: And if I'm right, it's a good thing, because either we're going to disclose or they're going to disclose. And the only serious unknown that we can't be sure about is the nuclear war shoe. Will a nuke get used? And if a nuke gets used in any way, will we be able to handle it? And I've and I've have I posted on this, UH, I sort of posted on this. Uh. In other words, here's here's a here's a simple option, here simple possibility which is highly realistic due to the normalization of this issue and and and the use of these weapons, and because of the frustration of the Ukraine war nuke putin clears his the commander of the Ukraine forces to fire a nuclear shell, nuclear tactical nuclear shell into an area, not necessarily a city, but into an area in the Ukrainan hell territory, and mom, okay, it will be a sizeable explosion.

52:57 Speaker 2: It will not be like Kiroshima Nagasaki about a tactical nuke, but it will be a nuke. Everybody will know it, right, They're instantly recognizable. Yes, in which case he says, look, we got to either you sue for peace and we get this resolved, probably in our favor, or we'll use another one. Now that would be extremely persuasive, and I assure you he is being advised to do that. The question is that respond NATO in the US, if a single tactical weapon is used, do we step back and say, let's discuss this, right, what are your intentions?

53:36 Speaker 2: You're thinking will do this again? You know a lot of you know a lot of a lot of Yellen screaming and writing and what have you call a meeting in the UN Security Council. Are we going to do that? Or are we going to authorize the Ukraine to use a tactical nuke? You know, quid pro quote tip for tech stuff that we nicely delivered to them and say you do that on their side now, in the standard tradition of human warfare, if that's what you do, and so we do attack and he does attack, or it could be even worse than that.

54:09 Speaker 2: It could trigger a sense of paranoia and upset to such a degree that any one of the nine nuclear nations does something they would regret.

54:18 Speaker 1: Because they think, hey, if it's popping up there, I mean.

54:24 Speaker 2: I don't know, you just don't. We don't want to know. But we we've lived through our entire life, unless you're older than seventy eight, you've lived your entire life in a situation where nobody will use a nuke because they would end up being destroyed too, mutual issure destruction. We have never tested that theory except in fiction. There have been a number of very good books and movies about this. When a nuke gets used and what happens next, It always ends bad, always ends bad. Okay, So we never tested it.

54:56 Speaker 2: We're getting close to testing it, and so I consider it this issue absolutely neck and neck side by side with the disclosure issue. I feel that both have to be addressed, and I do what I can. I'm not an expert in nuclear Harma mess A not an expert in war. I know I have degrees from army colleges or whatever the hell. I'm simply a citizen who is aware of this to a degree that many people are and trying to assess it as somebody that would be a victim of it. Someone thought about it, and the two things are very much in parallel.

55:35 Speaker 2: If they were not going to be in parallel, somehow they would somehow be on two different threads. That possibility ended the day or the evening that the ETS turned off our nukes. At that point they wedded these two issues together forever, and dealing with the duality of this is critical to those that are trying to understand it didn't.

55:59 Speaker 1: If I'm mistaken and I'm taking and out of the ballpark, then I'm sorry, but it didn't. Robert Hastings say that every nuclear facility in the United States has been visited at least once by something unknown.

56:18 Speaker 2: I doubt that he might have said it's possible. There's no way he can know. There's just no way he can know. We have many, many nuclear facilities, and you would have to have some way of examining the history of all of them. So he might have said, it's likely that everyone has been visited. Certainly many have, and that's enough. Okay, it's not just nuclear shutdowns. They turn up right at places, and they don't have to shut things down, but they turn up around our ships or aircraft carriers, all of which are nuclear and so forth.

56:53 Speaker 2: They're interested in nuclear nuclear stuff. Supposedly they turned up over Chernobyl. I can believe that. I think they would be concerned about a Chernobyl, just a regular nuclear plant, no big deal. But their interests that are dropping of those bombs in Japan as opposed to testing one. It works, but let's don't build another one for God's sakes, and let's get a treaty going where no other country will. We decided to go ahead and drop them on two cities full of men, women and children. We sent a message to them was clear.

57:29 Speaker 2: And everything that happens after that, after August two thousand, I mean nineteen forty five, everything is affecting and connected to their behavior since. And I look forward to one day learning that firsthand from ets themselves, either directly or because they're communications they're having, or some sort of record that's provided to us. There is a record out there, I believe and they have of why they've done what they've done, the whole scope of it and everything else. And I would think one day we'll actually get to see that record, and boy that'll be I'll make the one hell of a Netflix series.

58:08 Speaker 1: Oh my god. Yeah, I mean, think about all the questions that you know, because let's say that the ancient astronaut theorists are correct and these they've been coming here throughout civilization. Yeah, I mean, that could be the key to our origin story. Not only that all the things that we would learn, the gaps we could fill in in our own history, but to learn about their history and who their Albert Einstein was, who got them you know, I think that would just be It would just be like you said earlier.

58:46 Speaker 1: I think it is the only thing. It's the only topic in the world that touches every single person and could fundamentally change how every single person thinks about themselves in the cosmos to.

59:02 Speaker 2: One degree or another. There is some extraordinary possibilities ahead of us, and even the next five to ten, fifteen years, I may have a good ten I from lucky, and so it would be great. I mean, it would be wonderful to start learning these things. And they probably have records and information going back a long ways. I mean, they may even be able to give us detailed information about developments on this planet millions of years ago. They may be able to explain completely and have information about the events of twelve thousand years ago.

59:38 Speaker 2: What was that event, what was that flood, how did it get caused, what were the effects, what civilizations existed prior? All of this is possible. I mean, look, you can you could store unbelievable amounts of terabytes on something in the size of a you know, not a phone, but maybe I'm looking for a bri box right right, Uh, And that's us. They could easily, in a reasonable amount of space, have the ability to store unbelievable amounts of information about the history of this planet that they could deliver on a disk.

1:00:13 Speaker 2: You know, we'd probably need AI to access it, but you know, the history of our planet could be literally in a file in the hands of extraterrestrials waiting for us to review, if we can get past this problem of not believing they exist.

1:00:29 Speaker 1: Right, what was that quote? It came from a supposed meeting between extraterrestrials and the government, you know, one of those Eisenhower meetings or something. But the general, whoever the human was, said, what's in it for me?

1:00:52 Speaker 2: And that Corso has a story that he filmed. He actually filmed this, and he was to leave it to his grandchildren, and after that his book came out and everything else. He talked about this. I don't know if the film was ever shown. If it exists, it's in the hands of his son. But the story is pretty cool. Which he was working out at the base, I forget. He was working at one of the major facilities sort of White Sands could and White Sands are in that area, and a craft was on the ground, unable to leave because we had full operating eight radar systems and it was blocking it.

1:01:32 Speaker 2: Meaning it's probably as a less technologically advanced craft than we were seeing these days. But as we know, some of the early vehicles were more prone to crashing. What crashed at Roswell wasn't even a saucer, it was a semi aerodynamic chevron. In any event, he couldn't leave, and so he literally confronts Corso out there in the middle of nowhere. Supposed he was kind of near a cave and said, look, could you please check that radar so off? And Courso said that, well, what's in it for me? Right?

1:02:05 Speaker 2: And the answer was a new world if you can take it. A great quote. It's a great story. If it's not true, it's still a great story. I like to believe it's true. But yeah, what's in it for us? If we get rid of these nukes and give up any idea of taking them into space? Right in a way we can go star to star? What's in it for us? A new world if we.

1:02:30 Speaker 1: Can take it, you can take it.

1:02:32 Speaker 2: It's great, A new galaxy in a sense. The galaxy is large, but even just the nearest around, there's about one hundred and fifty or more stars you could see in the sky by eye, and about two thousand right with a little bit of help. So just in the nearest around, pretty interesting area that technically could be all available to us fairly soon. A new world if we can take it. And some of the more constructive and cool versions of the future we've seen in some sci fi movies pretty much represented in many of the Star Trek films right order, reason, people getting along, purpose and everything, though they've got to have the usual shoot them ups and that crap.

1:03:20 Speaker 2: The great appeal of Star Trek in Roddenberry was that he was showing either directly because they would film the facilities and so forth on the planet, but also in the ship itself representing society right as people working together, getting along together, no biases and so forth, operating and cooperating to a common purpose. That's why that thing was so popular, Not because of the proton torpedoes, right, It was that. And if you strip all the torpedoes out of there, and the Balkans and this, and not the Bokens, but the so called enemies of the federation, So you take that out and you just go to the basic message that could be in our future because the the the war stuff that we were seeing in those sci fi movies and even Star Trek I don't think that's happening.

1:04:22 Speaker 2: Why because once you get to a certain level of technology, it's you're not about proton torpedoes. You can raise all matter of havoc and for what purpose to do? What to get a little territory in a galaxy that has two hundred million stars to get resources when there's asteroids out there with all the gold we'd ever need in our entire lifetime. So I think I think that's an absurdity. But the cooperative futuristic collaborations that we see in the Star Trek series is definitely a possibility and where we could go.

1:04:57 Speaker 2: But we're not taking our baggage with us, And all of that is coming to a head right now at this time, and Capitol Hill where you and I just hang out hung out, and boy, I'm so blessed. I mean, I I had a lot of mistakes and failures in my life that prevented me from maybe going off and becoming hot stuff here, hot stuff there. But yet all of those missed opportunities led to my being able to be involved in this and living a long enough to be involved, and for that I am greatly appreciative.

1:05:34 Speaker 1: I'll think, you know, I think I told you that morning that I don't now. What I've always always respected about you is that you've never sought fame, glory, the riches of you know, grifting the UAP community.

1:05:59 Speaker 2: You, I mean, nobody should grift. But you know, I need funding, and I've gotten funding, but it is getting the funding is absolutely secondary to advancing the issue.

1:06:11 Speaker 1: And now that's my point is far too many people are too concerned about their name appearing in the headline that it hinders some of the effort. And I think

1:06:29 Speaker 1: what we did that day because in the hearing, you know, you could arguably say that the hearing was was it groundbreaking or shattering stuff? No, not necessarily.

1:06:42 Speaker 2: It kept the.

1:06:42 Speaker 1: Ball moving forward. But that same night, Bob Salas got to do something that he's been waiting fifty years to do, and that's to tell someone who's a sitting member of Congress about his about what happened to him at mal Air Force Base.

1:07:01 Speaker 2: The closest he'd come thirty years, the closest he'd come was he did give a two hour interview to Arrow right arow Sheldon. He asked them, He asked, Erro, did you did you present it to the Air Force? Did you pass what I just told you onto the Air Force? And they said, yeah, the Air Force just said is nothing to it. But that's as far as he'd gone until he sat down with Mace the Air Force. One of the reasons the Air Force has stayed out of this, and they really have if you if you look at the last number of years, they going all the way back to two thousands of the day.

1:07:32 Speaker 2: They don't want to do that because the Air Force has got the biggest planing to do, all right, They've really got a major public relation problems. NASA's got a pretty substantial amount of the Air Force, and they they, you know, they, I think their attitude is, look, just you know, eventually we're going to have to answer for all this stuff, but until then, we're just going to stay out of it. Your job, right, we have important jobs, right, defending the country everything else, but we're not going to step into this because the moment we step in, right immediately, we're opening ourselves up to questions.

1:08:04 Speaker 2: And they don't want to answer those questions. And so, yeah, even even as late as two years ago, when confronted with Bob's report through error, they're going, yeah, it's and so I get it, I get it. But the Air Force needs to understand that it will have to account for every single thing it has ever done on this issue, going all the way back to sign okay and Grudge in the whole nine yards, all the way back. It's going to have to count for everything because this is not the kind of history you can go well, you know, it's like the Civil War.

1:08:40 Speaker 2: Happen, you got to it's not worth covering. Just forget about it, don't write about it. We'll move on. No, this is going to be covered by historians for a thousand years. It's going to be covered in the minutest detail. Every fact that we can, they can get, they're going to get unless they're completely hidden, never known. Everything else is going to come out and the ability of and this has occurred in an era unlike the Civil War, when the access to information is magnitudes greater. Uh, And so yeah, it's all going to be accounted for and the Air Force will have to answer for it all.

1:09:12 Speaker 2: I would prefer that they would get going sooner, but the fact is we don't need them. It's going to happen. They can just sit there and do nothing. It's right.

1:09:22 Speaker 1: Well, we'll be knocking on their doors soon enough. Well that's yeah, that's what I mean. So Okay, So we've talked about we've talked about the drones, we've talked about what you think now that that you know, the the UAP Disclosure Act in its original form didn't get put through and things were kind of delayed a little bit you've kind of talked about what you think is being set up. What are your expectations. I know people ask you this before every New year, but what are your expectations for twenty twenty five?

1:10:04 Speaker 4: At a minimum, barring a nuke happening in the Middle East or an invasion of Taiwan, whatever, barring something of that magnitude, things are pretty much teed.

1:10:19 Speaker 2: Up for the president. I left to take action right away, and if he does, it won't take long to get this done. Because once the President demonstrates to his aides, which will be conveyed to the Republican members of the House and Senate, that he wants to move I assure you they'll move fast. He didn't have to go public. He didn't have to go public and say I'm gonna do this, I'm gonna do that. He might by all just conveyed the interest book. Let's get this done, and that hearing can come together just like that.

1:10:55 Speaker 2: If he acts unilaterally, I recommend he doesn't. Then of course the hearings will follow, if only because they have to follow, but only because it's essential that the president will be back up right in a Republican House and Senate. It's not gonna leave him hanging out there. I mean, well, the President said, there's eteasier, but I don't know, you know, in this committee here, I don't know. Now they're gonna have to back them up immediately. So either way, it's about to being Bata band. And so technically we should be in a post disclosure world no later than the end of March, barring again something that I mentioned happening, which could at any time.

1:11:31 Speaker 2: There's awful stuff going on, but it can get even worse, and if it does, then this will be sidetracked for a certain way.

1:11:39 Speaker 1: Do you think that because he said it on multiple episodes of various podcasts, Because the unconventional thing that Donald Trump did do, which I will give him credit for, is he did go on a lot of these podcasts that have a far greater reach than mainstream does Joe Rogan, Sean Ryan All, and he's been very vocal about how you know that the UFO subject isn't really his thing, but he thinks that there should be more transparency, and you know, from the things he's been told, you know he wants to get that all out there.

1:12:21 Speaker 1: So I guess everyone's question is what is stopping him from.

1:12:26 Speaker 2: Well he's not well, yeah, no, I mean he's never got he never gives a fulsome response. Right. He said things like I'm going to release the UFO files and the JFK files, and he said other things. If you take everything, and somebody probably should do this, if you take everything, every answer he's given to every UFO question, which is he's gotten a good ten or twelve or thirteen of them, and you just put them all together, you would have pretty substantive statement there. Now. Hillary Clinton spoke to the issue repeatedly during her campaign.

1:12:56 Speaker 2: I made sure that I'll take all the credit, except not all the credit, some credit for that. But she didn't win, right, she spoke to it, and people around her spoke to it in a way that has not happened in this case. However, this is not a typical situation. And so but he's not he's he's clearly the door is open, right And Nancy Mace is, you know, committed to doing this, and she's a Republican and he's a Republican, and so I mean it, you know, just put two and two together. Right now, the left has got to decide they want to keep dragging their feet that the left has made big mistakes on this issue, and they've made mistakes politically.

1:13:41 Speaker 2: Did the left for whatever reason, just didn't have a lot of respect for podcasts. Big mistake, Okay, uh. And they've they've they've not given this this issue the attention they should not, not not not some some have, but overall, the Republican have been out in front of this issue for most of the last twenty some years. That is one of the great mistakes that the Democrats or the progressives have made in the history of their existence. I hope that they'll make up for it. Okay, they need to get on board.

1:14:14 Speaker 2: I've tried to meet with Raskin, can't get there right. Bumped into Warner accidentally at the rest trime. But all I can do with my business card. On the other hand, I just sat down with Nancy Minks. I'll probably sit down with maybe Burchardson again. The Republicans are out in front of this issue and that doesn't make it partisan. It just means that the other side has not gotten the proper sensibility. Obviously, I Danny, she and all the people in this field are more than happy to help the Democrats and the Progressives get on board and get totally up to speed on this.

1:14:53 Speaker 2: Bernie Sanders, Okay, we're happy to do that, right, but at this point you just have got it. You haven't figured it out. Uh. And I kind of know the reason for this. Uh Pepe progresses are there. Their their worldview is very much about service, very much about justice, equality, things like that. No, no, nothing shocking there, and they dealer with a lot of these social issues and they're very passionate about them. The environment, I could run through the mall, but most people you know exactly what I'm talking about.

1:15:30 Speaker 2: That's kind of who they are. That's fine, that's great, we need people to do that. But the trouble is they're so wedded to these issues that the et thing, because it was ghettoized and and uh uh and stigmatized by the true uh, they wouldn't touch it. And they because they didn't. It wasn't a matter I was it true or not true. It was it was stigmatized, and their other issues were were so important that they felt that engaging in this issue would undermine their ability to do all that righteous work, the stuff that they really care about, save the whales, whatever, the environment.

1:16:06 Speaker 2: And that's how one of the reasons that truth in Bargo succeeded. Stigmatizing and ghettoizing an issue has many effects which tend to service the secrecy and the left. The progressives fell victim of that stigma, and I've seen it over and over again. They're not nearly as transactional, and so they just didn't want to harm their other causes and so let somebody else deal with this. Well, it's going to work out that well that way, they've still got time to get on board big time. Right now, keep in mind that Chuck Schumer and Mark Warner have played a very important role, and Chuck Schumer made one of the most significant maneuvers in the history of this issue with the UAP Disclosure Act, which he brought out in July fourteenth of twenty and twenty three.

1:16:56 Speaker 2: And so again, it's not all or none. And so in a sense, if you're looking at the progressive side of our politics and the left Democrats, whatever, Chuck Schumer has done something huge. Is it enough to make up for all the transigent and the rest of that political arena. No, but it's substantive, and so it's not it's not all or nothing. Both sides have made their contributions. But right now it's it's out of balance, and I think it would be helpful if that balance were corrected and the Dems and the Progressives got fully on board this non artisan issue where they can work with Republicans without you know, you know, pulling out knives and guns.

1:17:43 Speaker 1: And honestly, I think now this is just you know, observing, but I think that if people like the general people, because we need in the community, the UFO community, we need to remember that these UAP hearings, they're not necessarily aimed at us, the people who know the case isn't tied to note. No, for the general public, the low information voter, if you want to call it that, the low information citizen who is you know, works a nine to five and just doesn't have time. They have kids, they have this so you know, what they see on the news, that's that's their world, right, So that's part of it.

1:18:28 Speaker 2: That's part of it. But there's other groups that are very important that these hearings are targeting. Who am I talking about other politicians?

1:18:35 Speaker 1: This is true.

1:18:35 Speaker 2: Academic scientists, all of which have buyin large state, been pushed out of the issue by the stigma they want these people to get involved. And if you're a politic, another politician or a scientist, you're not going to get involved because you get a newsletter from move On. But if you see Air Force officers testifying in front of a congressional committee, you're going to be going. Now, So what's my excuse here? So so that the hearing is multiple, there's multiple reasons you hold people and you have hearings under oath in front of Congress.

1:19:08 Speaker 2: It is one of the most important functions in a democracy. It has many, many effects and impacts, and it's essential. And one of the reasons that the Truth in Bargo is one of the many reasons has lasted as long is that the Defense Department and the managers of the Truth and Bargo up until twenty twenty three have managed to hold the number of hearings to two you know, since for seven right, so hey, when now we've had eight in the last four years and so not when right? So again they've they've pretty much as I've said many times, and we probably should wrap this up because it's getting laid here.

1:19:43 Speaker 2: But but the Truth Embargo managers have lost They just don't know it yet, okay, but there soon they will know, yea, but they're already.

1:19:54 Speaker 1: They're exerting their last efforts to see if they you know, because they're gonna They're gonna fight till the last minute until they finally can't fight anymore. But I do want to ask you this, because you're right, we do need to wrap it up, because you know, we have a lot of work that we still need to do. But in the hearing on November thirteenth, following a I mean, let's call it what it is, a pretty earth shattering hearing that featured David Grush and the other pilots, we saw what both hearings can be right now.

1:20:36 Speaker 1: We saw three witnesses with highly credible, decorated credentials give their testimony and the impact it made David grush bombshell testimony. Do you think that in November thirteenth hearings they chose the wrong witnesses?

1:20:58 Speaker 2: No, No, they're fine. They were excellent. There were some others they might have liked to have gotten, but they got four very good witnesses across the broad spectrum. By the way, if somebody wants to see what major hearings in front of the Congress would be like and you go on YouTube and go to the citizen hearing on Disclosure channel.

1:21:18 Speaker 1: I wish I was there.

1:21:20 Speaker 2: The five days of testimony of forty two witnesses before six former Menagers of Congress under Makos and you'll get a picture of it, and please do. It costs seven hundred thousand dollars to put on. It was the biggest project that I've ever done. I had some help, of course, but it was an idea that I had come up with and the money turned up miraculously and we got it done. It was not easy. It was tough. But my record of it was completely filmed. It was live streamed to thousands of people, and then the entire record, all thirty hours, was delivered in the DVD set to every single member of Congress.

1:21:57 Speaker 2: And that was late twenty fourteen. But that it's now ten years ago, and so you know, it's let me. We we have seated the ground well and so when the crop starts growing, it's going to grow very fast. And it's if it's taken long. Hey, That's the way it is on issues like this, whether it's rights, women's rights, gay rights, whether it's the end of the colonial system and the independence for India and other countries if it's certainly you know, gun control no nowhere, nuclear arms reduction nowhere.

1:22:34 Speaker 2: I mean, these things take a long time.

1:22:37 Speaker 1: What did Nancy say at the end of our meeting, Things in DC do not happen quickly.

1:22:44 Speaker 2: Yeah. Right. On the other hand, they can't. We handford the luxury of them taking ludicrous amounts of time. All right, there is a limit. Right. Democracy is slow for a reason, and it was set up that way by the originators. Okay, I get that, and I understood. Unfortunately, the world now moves so fast that the system can't keep up, and this is a problem that needs to be solved. But we're not in the problem solving business much anymore, and so we need to create a democracy and tweak it so that it can deal with a rapidly changing world.

1:23:23 Speaker 2: This is not seventeen seventy nine. Okay, but we haven't done that among so many of the things we haven't done. So, yeah, she's right, things move slow in Washington. I get it. But the simple truth is they now move too slow, and so I'm hoping that Representative Mace will understand that and not slow down, keep charging forward. She's in the process of making history at an extraordinary level. I wish her nothing but the best, but I hope that she shares it with the other members of the committee, of course, as well as the Senate and what have you.

1:23:59 Speaker 2: Extent it remains by partisan. Everyone wins that that.

1:24:04 Speaker 1: I guess that's one last thing that we need to address together.

1:24:08 Speaker 2: People.

1:24:09 Speaker 1: The one negative comment I guess that you could say we got from that the closed door hearing is there are a few people that thought that Nancy didn't seem like she was energized. But you and I were in the room. She was energized.

1:24:28 Speaker 2: I don't know why she was energized. She should have been exhausted.

1:24:32 Speaker 1: She should I mean, my god, they were.

1:24:36 Speaker 2: No, she had a long day, so we did. We all so to the extent that she demonstrated energy at all. That give you an idea. Now, this this this woman is lean and mean, looks like you can run a marathon backwards. So yeah, no, no, there's there's plenty. There's plenty of energy. Before we go, I want to mention something that's important. This by this time tomorrow my the front of my my website, Paradigm Research Group dot org. Well, finally, I'm one of the truly great procrastinators of the twentieth century.

1:25:09 Speaker 2: That if they would let me put my Wikipedia page back up, which I've been blocked on for like eighteen years, then I would I would highlight that truly one of the great procrastinators. It will reflect tomorrow that PRG is now a nonprofit five O one C three. It is changing its mandate, its mission and what have you to reflect where we are and that week and now people can donate tax deductible contributions, which is good and it's the end of the year, and so it's a good time, so Paradigm Research.

1:25:40 Speaker 2: But the page is not quite done, but it will be up by this time tomorrow for sure.

1:25:45 Speaker 1: Beautiful. And so you're still doing the Hollywood Disclosure Alliance Paradigm Research. Paradigm Research Group is now becoming a five oh one C three nonprofit.

1:25:58 Speaker 2: It is it is one, yeah, it is.

1:26:01 Speaker 1: You're working on the new website.

1:26:03 Speaker 2: Region Disclosure Alliance is a nonprofit too, accept donations Hollywood Disclosure Alliance dot org. I'm supporting the Contact in the Desert. I've been to help to produce that for a couple of years. Contacting the Desert is about to become a nonprofit. Okay, so yeah, it turns up, it'll be a five O one C three. And of course the new Paradigm Institute, which I support Danny Shean wants, is a five oh one C three. I'm not directly involved with the Soul Foundation, which is out of Stanford, or the UAP Disclosure Fund out of San Francisco, but they are also nonprofits five oh one C three, and then Disclosure Fund is five oh one C four.

1:26:38 Speaker 2: I'm happy to help them anyway. And so what you're seeing is the emergence of nonprofit entities dealing with this issue in sophisticated ways as we approach disclosure in a country that is filled with billionaires. I mean they're coming out of the work, okay. I mean you go to the bar, You're sitting there having a drink. What do you do? I invest? Oh, how you doing well? I'm worth two point nine billion. So it's like it's like in any moment some of these billionaires they go, you know, I know I need I got eighteen condos, you know whatever, I've been to space with Bezos, whatever, But wow, this is the biggest issue in the world.

1:27:13 Speaker 2: I could put some serious money into that and be part of that right and help these organizations and drop a couple of mill here and a couple of meal there.

1:27:22 Speaker 1: And boom and be remembered for ever.

1:27:24 Speaker 2: Reaching that point. It's only a matter of time because think about millionaires in philanthropy. It's it's everyone has their reasons. Every organization have their reasons for doing it. They have issues, and they have agendas. But one of the agendas is feeling good. They like to feel good. They like to feel they're doing the right thing and they're helping out, and that is very much connected to the issue that they choose. And so if they give fifty million dollars to cancer research or children's hospital, yeah, let's be honest, it's very fulfilling.

1:27:56 Speaker 2: It makes you feel good. That's one of the reasons they do it well. Giving money to the disclosure process, helping us to engage this thing, get it done, and the post disclosure world. It's only the biggest issue in the history of the human race. And so if I'm a billionaire, I want to be involved. Okay, So I think we're reaching the point where a lot and we're going to go. You know, I got a few bucks for that, and when that happens, it just helps to ensure that that not only is the truth and Barber going to end, but also that a larger a larger spectrum of people and organizations are going to be involved in the post disclosure world and not shut out.

1:28:33 Speaker 2: Right, We're going to have the resources to engage it. We have been denied those researchers, primarily by the stigma of that the government have successfully created the intellectual ghetto that's just about gone. So now if the resources turn up, there's a lot of very smart people that wrote those books back behind me and did the documentaries, and you've interviewed a lot of smart people that if they had the resources, could be very, very useful and productive in this par change. And so I'm feeling good about that and I look forward to to that happening.

1:29:06 Speaker 1: All right, And Steve, just so you can remind people where can they follow you on social media?

1:29:14 Speaker 2: Yeah, well, Twitter at Steve Bassett or Paradigm Research Group. I'm also on Facebook Steve Bassett again, but also i have Paradigm Research Group. Also I'm on LinkedIn, Uh not on TikTok or Yeah, I'm on LinkedIn. I mean you're on You're.

1:29:32 Speaker 1: On TikTok, but you're just not on it.

1:29:35 Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't know how to deal with TikTok and the same thing I probably should be. I probably should be. Oh, I just signed up for Blue Skuy, So now I'm on Twitter in Blue Sky. And of course, you know, one's like a Mount Everest and the other is like a mole hill. But but it's fun to see, you know, some new follower turning up on Blue Sky.

1:29:56 Speaker 1: Hell yeah.

1:29:57 Speaker 2: And why am I on these things? Simple? I'm an act I'm trying to reach people. It's not making a political statement, and so I'll be on anything that makes sense. And hell, I don't know. By the way, the US government, God bless it may be about to outlaw TikTok in the United States, and I'm dying to see how that's going to go. I'm trying. I'm thinking, you know, they have to deal with with issues and activist groups. How are they going to handle I don't know, fifteen million teenagers, you know, chasing them down the street, screaming and yelling, standing out in front of the Pentagon.

1:30:32 Speaker 2: I'm just just curious we're going to handle that?

1:30:35 Speaker 1: Right? Because they I mean, they make their living off of that.

1:30:39 Speaker 2: So other than that, they live on TikTok And we're talking to kids, so they're about to take TikTok away. That's like telling, you know, every kid in the country, there's no Santa Claus. This is not but whatever they're thinking about it. What can I say? Government does what it does matter. It could be worse. A lot of times it's just funny. Sometimes it's not funny. Right now, there's a lot of not funny stuff, but whatever. Social media has been critical to the success of the disclosure movement and.

1:31:13 Speaker 1: And I honestly I think I think if me and you one year from today, the sixth of December, one year from today, I think you and I are going to be having a radically different discussion after the things that we've seen for the p from the prior year, which we're about to engage. And I look forward to working with you as much as possible. And I can't wait until we can share with people, you know, the the news and what we're what we're trying to kick start. So thank you Steve for for being someone that I can I can look up to, who I can talk to, and who I can bounce ideas off of or just you know, vent You've always been super respectable with your time, your effort, and and like I said, your your your your willingness to lend an ear or a hand.

1:32:11 Speaker 1: So, uh, we stand on the shoulders of giants, not just you, but myself.

1:32:15 Speaker 2: I stand on the shoulders of giants. Yes, right, dude. And you're part of the podcast army, and I'm always there for my podcast army. So whenever, uh, your viewership is going to go up, everybody's viewership is going to go up, and we're all gonna have a great year. I I let let's hope that twenty five, right is the greatest year of our life could very well be.

1:32:37 Speaker 1: And then yep, and and and and again. You know, even to be have that small part in it, it just feels it ignited something new inside of me and I haven't been able to get to to I just want more. I want more of it. I want to be in those rooms more. And it's it's it's it's it's in talkicating so yes, nuts to everyone out in the community, get out there and and and whether it's contacting Congress uh and letting them know that that you want more done from your local representative. Do it. Uh, don't just sit on Twitter or TikTok all day and and and and post about how we're not getting anywhere.

1:33:21 Speaker 1: Get out there and do something, because I promise it feels good.

1:33:25 Speaker 2: Once they do it with TikTok. All you TikTok people come over and follow me on Twitter. You know, That's all I can say. I look, I got a zip man. Thanks for being a great evening. And Tyler, you call if you have any needs anytime.

1:33:40 Speaker 1: Yeah. Actually I do want to talk about contact in the desert, but I'll tell I'll.

1:33:44 Speaker 2: Let's chatat all right, I'm gonna hit it.

1:33:50 Speaker 1: And to everyone out there, and I'm gonna get Steve Audias, who doesn't have to listen to me ramble. But to everyone out there in the podcast world, just know that I truly appreciate you guys.

1:34:01 Speaker 2: Uh.

1:34:01 Speaker 1: We've been seeing skyrocketed numbers ever since I got We're left for Washington, the the increase and coverage of the podcast views, uh streams, it's all been up. So thank you guys so much. You guys are truly one of the best audiences out there, and I I really just want to keep delivering the best content possible for you to keep that momentum going, to keep that pressure going. But we can only do that one way, and that's if we get a little bit of help and support from you guys, the viewers. So if you can, you know, sign up for membership.

1:34:42 Speaker 1: It's for less than a whopper or a big Mac, you know. Per month you can get access to early interviews, podcast segments, clips, all that good stuff, plus a yearly gift after one year consecutive membership autographed by me. It's your choice from the store that we have and that's another way. Great way to support the show is buying something from our merch store or sending a super chat. If you can't do any of that, sharing the show and subscribing is just as good, and it's free and it takes twenty seconds.

1:35:15 Speaker 1: With that being said, you know what it is, give it a thought. Let me know what you think below and what should we expect in twenty twenty five for UFOs, aliens ets, interdimensional beings, non human intelligence, et cetera, so on and so forth. You rash this guy, you never know what might fly? Bye, I have to coordinate this so so awkward when you don't have like a Jamie to do it for you. People don't understand, so I have to like try to red terrible outro, have a good night.

1:35:51 Speaker 3: Guys mustn't

1:36:33 Speaker 2: And that's