The Age of Disclosure- UFO Documentary First Reaction & Review!

0:14 Speaker 1: Welcome to the age of disclosure.

0:25 Speaker 2: The American people are ready.

0:28 Speaker 3: To receive the truth.

0:34 Speaker 4: Humanity is not the only intelligence in the universe.

0:36 Speaker 5: Humanity is not the only intelligent species.

0:39 Speaker 2: We are absolutely not alone.

0:41 Speaker 1: Non human intelligence exists.

0:42 Speaker 5: UAPs are real, they're here, and they're not human.

0:47 Speaker 2: I spent twenty five years as a senior official with the CII.

0:50 Speaker 5: I worked on a highly classified UAP program. Twenty eight years as an astrophysicist. I served as the fourth Director of National Intelligence, Director of Aviation Security in the National Security Council.

1:01 Speaker 3: The one star Admiral after thirty two years of service.

1:03 Speaker 6: Able that come forward with this, I feel like they've taken their life in their own adies.

1:09 Speaker 5: I was recruited to a highly sensitive government program that investigated unidentified aerial phenomenon.

1:16 Speaker 6: For over sixteen years on behalf of the US government, I worked as a senior intelligence official on the unidentified aero phenomenon topic.

1:23 Speaker 5: We learned that the US government was involved in a long running secret war with other nations to collect and verse engineer vehicles not made by humans.

1:35 Speaker 6: I have seen with my own eyes non human craft and non human beings. The first country that cracks the code on this technology will be the leader for years to come. China has established its own version of the UAP Task Force.

1:53 Speaker 3: Do you think for a second that they wouldn't consider using it to achieve their ends of nomination?

1:58 Speaker 6: This is similar to the Manha. This is the atomic weapon on steroids.

2:03 Speaker 3: This is so secret, very very few people in our entire government that can allowed access to it. Even presidents have been operating on a need to know basis, but that begins to ramp out of control.

2:15 Speaker 1: It's not acceptable to have secret parts of government that no one ever sees.

2:19 Speaker 7: You better be careful about a government doesn't trust you speak because there's no telling what they'll pull on you.

2:26 Speaker 5: This is the biggest discovery in unionistry. You had information being locked away that could change the trajectory for species.

2:35 Speaker 4: It has so many beneficial impacts, including clean energy.

2:43 Speaker 3: We should have disclosure today, We should have disclosure tomorrow.

2:50 Speaker 7: The time has come.

3:01 Speaker 5: What else you want to know?

3:15 Speaker 1: Welcome back to Total Disclosure, hosted by myself Ty Roberts. Today, I'm here to talk about my review and my first reactions to Age of Disclosure, the new film that just hit theaters in three cities, LA, DC, New York pretty standard for like a limited release. It was also shown at south By Southwest I think a year ago at this maybe maybe a little under a year ago. Some people got to see it at that south By Southwest convention, which is really really cool. But the movie finally finally made its debut for the public on Amazon Prime.

4:01 Speaker 1: It was a I mean, I'm just gonna start with this. This is gonna be spoiler free for the most part. I don't even know if you can spoil a movie like this, can you? I don't know, can you? Can you spoil a movie like this? I don't know. I'm gonna do my I'll do my best to not like talk about anything that actually happens in the film that like people would be pissed about. I don't think there's anything. Maybe there's a couple lines, maybe maybe a couple like key lines of dialogue, but I don't even have any of the quotes like that.

4:38 Speaker 1: So anyway, it's gonna be pretty generalized. I'm gonna go into some of the things I liked about it, some of the things I didn't like about it, some of the things that I thought were a bit redundant, And you know, if you want to chime in, I will definitely be queuing in the chat. So please if you can help support the show, you can become a member, become an asset, gain your classification, gain access to early access videos, podcasts, no ads or anything like that, or send a super chat and that's always a good way of helping monetarily.

5:11 Speaker 1: If you can't help monetarily, that's okay. Not everyone can like share subscribe, and that's the best way to really help the show, as well as maybe rating it on podcast platforms like Apple or Spotify. All Right, with that being said, I want to start diving into my review. So first couple of things I wrote down and I have a lot of notes for this which are a little bit sloppy. Not sloppy, but I have this. So when I was working on Pop Culture Corner and doing a lot of those movie reviews, I built out this like system because I would have to.

5:51 Speaker 1: I would go to movies all the time and I would have to review them. I actually had a deal with the theaters in the area, the Boston area Showcase Cinema if anyone is in New England. It's a local chain, but it's one of the biggest chains in the world, it's like in the top ten. So I had to deal with showcase cinemas and I'd go and review movies and then I would review them from inside the theater. So I ended up building out this kind of like what I would consider as like a checkpoint list, but I made one for documentaries as well, because I'm not gonna bore you with that shit.

6:29 Speaker 1: But I built out this thing so I use that for age of disclosure. And I calculated a review score from one to ten, not rookie scores if anyone watches Barstool Pizza reviews, so there's always a decimal. I've never given a perfect score. For instance, I think the highest score I've ever given was a nine point something like a nine point two nine point three. So, just before I get into all of it, that's the backstory. I've never given higher than a nine point three on any film. I don't think any film has ever been perfect.

7:04 Speaker 1: I think Oppenheimer was like eight point nine on My Thing, which is pretty fucking high. So yeah, with that being said, I want to go through some of the stuff. I think it was very clear from the trailer what this movie was going to be and what this movie was always going to be. Was was a retelling of the narrative that has been set forth and what was set forth into that twenty seventeen via the New York Times article. Most people remember this as probably the start of modern day ufology. It was written by Leslie Keane, Ralph Blumenthal, and Helene Cooper.

7:45 Speaker 1: The title was Glowing Ore is a Black Money the Pentagon's mysterious UFO program. Now, in this report or bombshell article, if you will, we got in introduced to some key players in what we were told was a UFO investigation program. Till that point in twenty seventeen. You have to remember that the only on the books program that we had known was Project Blue Book. Right, Everyone in the UFO community, in the field, the big players, the UFO talking heads, if you will, they always had this notion that there was a program.

8:28 Speaker 1: It was just not public It wasn't public facing like Project blue Book. And after the Conduit report kind of shut or put the gabage on UFO reporting, the stigma started to set in. And then we found ourselves with fifty years of denial, fifty years of cover ups, fifty years of silence, if you will, from government in general, like the US government, and then in seventeen. It was really actually in twenty sixteen, late twenty sixteen, because I think the article published in December of twenty seventeen, so that's right on the new year line, So it was really late twenty sixteen.

9:13 Speaker 1: Rumors started swirling that there was this guy, he was involved in something, and he was coming forward, but no one really knew exactly what until that day December twenty seventeenth, December twenty sixth, December sixteenth, twenty seventeen, it ran. I remember it was a Sunday, and then on the Monday it ran in the actual like hard copy of the time, and I still have that somewhere in my files. We were introduced to Lou Elizondo, a gentleman named Lou Elizondo, and the program a Tip, the program a Tip as it was presented to us in that article, and I should Brian Bender from Politico also was reporting on this, and I should bring that point up as well.

10:09 Speaker 1: So Brian Bender reported on it for Politico. Kind of launched at the same time that The Times, No pun intended took the lead. It was obviously the bigger outlet, but Politico has literally had the same access and essentially the same story they were telling to the public. So twenty seventeen changed the modern UFO disclosure movement. However, however, and so it did set the tone, and it started this kind of like crescendoing house of cards right starting to fall, if that makes sense, or like dominoes starting to fall.

10:53 Speaker 1: But it was all set centered around the Nimts, the two thousand and four Knimts encounter with David Framer, Alex Dietrich, Chad Underwood. Uh. And most people will know this footage very very well. So that footage came out with the twenty seventeen New York Times article. Along with it, Alizondo and Chris Mellon had snuck it out of the Pentagon quote unquote, uh, you know, recounting, not from Lou's book. At least that's how it's framed, is they snuck the footage out. They like to find some loophole.

11:32 Speaker 1: It wasn't classified, but it wasn't for public eyes. So there it was a little bit of gray. Uh. And all of a sudden there's a resurgence in the UFO world, like the UFO community acknowledgment of this program a TIP, which stands for the advanced Oh Jesus, why am I doing this now, advanced Aerospace threat Iification program. But then what we later find out is ASAPP was the actual mother program. That was the advanced Maybe I'm god Jesus, Advanced Aerospace Weapons Systems UP Application program. I might have one of those words wrong, like anomalous or aerospace, but yeah, that was a TIP.

12:24 Speaker 1: And ASAP turns out a TIP was a moniker, an unclassified moniker for ASAP. So I'm just like a little confused. Because so the twenty seventeen New York Times article comes out, it positions a TIP, It positions Alizondo at the forefront, however, and I think it did a lot of good. It really did. However, this like threat a threat narrative emerged with Alizondo. Everything was national security everything, and I get it, he's a counter intel guy. I think it'd be stupid if our government and it wasn't looking at this as because you can't.

13:03 Speaker 1: There's a thin line between indifference, indifference and malevolency, right, So I think it'd be very stupid to not look at UFOs who are breaching nuclear sites as a threat However, they have shown, they have shown a much higher capacity than I think is ever being let on. Humans seem to be the issue the aggressors in the situation. It's no secret that, you know, even in this film they talk about it with Roswell. The cover up kind of started there, right, CIA is born out of that, you know, a few months later, or not even a few months, I think six barely six months go by before the National Security Act is passed by true and by the time Eisenhower gets involved, he's warning us about the military industrial complex.

14:08 Speaker 1: Right, Blue Books now you know there. But you know, no one's ever really sure what Project Blue Books, like actual motivation was. Were they hiding things? I think the general consensus is yes. So I bring all this up for a reason because the twenty seventeen New York Times article, for all the good it did, there was some major flaws that were in the article. For instance, a tip was not the program that was awarded the twenty two million dollars. That was a program called ASAP. That was a program run by James Lakatski.

14:44 Speaker 1: That was a program that was funded or was under the Bigelow team. Bigelow was awarded the contract. So Harry Reid goes to a couple members of the Gang eight and Daniel Ineway is one of them. Forget who the other person is. So Daniel in a way gives a very good speech maybe some of you will know it, where he talks about that there's a government that we don't see. They act above the law. They have their own fundraising recoganisms, their own army, their own navy, and so he's one of them. Him and Senator Harry Reid, who at the time held a very very high ranking position in government, went to them decided we're going to put twenty two million dollars aside and we are going to essentially create this Black program.

15:37 Speaker 1: This Black Program was AWESAP and it was going to study everything that you can think of, from the paranormal to I mean, it was mainly a UFO investigation program, but a lot of their work was out of Skinwalker Ranch. Bigelow was known for this right. He had bought in Skinwalker Ranch and some other properties. Bigelow's name is tied to nids now NIDS. If you start looking at the roster of NIDS, you'll start seeing a lot of names that seemed to pop out again in the twenty seventeen article, but spun a different way again.

16:15 Speaker 1: This is why I bring it up because I'm very confused. So I want to start with this because this is what my main confusion comes from. Because the New York Times never issued a retraction. Leslie Keene, Ralph Fluenthal, Lane Cooper, and even Brian Bender to a degree. I think he even went on some shows and did like they've all talked about how the os APP was the real program they knew about ASAPP at the time when they broke the story in the Times and Politico. So why wasn't Why was that omitted? Why was that omitted?

16:48 Speaker 1: What was a tip? And who was Aleiszando? Because from what I gat, I mean, there's been so much The Pentagon has come out saying Alexondo had no responsibilities. Obviously Harry Reid said that's bullshit, and Harry Reid, I'm inclined to believe. But what was a tip? Really, it seems to have been a moniker for us APP in the unclassified areas when they went up for Special Access program status. They didn't want to let people know they were studying ghosts and shit at Skidwalker Ranch so they kind of lamanized the program name to a tip and that was what they showed people, right, They just didn't want anything coming back because remember at the time, you know, this was really stigmatized.

17:39 Speaker 1: So this movie centers around that same story. But if we agree that that story has flaws in it, what are we doing here? Like Corbell for instance, this is another thing that grinds my gears. Corbell he knows el Aleixando. I have no doubt that Alexando is involved to some degree. I think Jay Stratton has Gune on the record saying that that is the case. But was it funded? Is the is? And if it wasn't funded, if if whatever incarnation of Alexando's work with UFOs, if it wasn't funded, Honestly, I'd give him more credit for splitting his time for free.

18:22 Speaker 1: So I just don't understand why there's this conflation between what os App was what Jim Lakatski has told us in books like Skinwalkers at the Pentagon written by George Knapp, James Lakatski and Colem Keller her So there's this big narrative divide that I just don't understand. Like I don't get it The New York Times has it wrong. If what Lakatski says is true, if what George Knapp says is true. Right, But they seem to just overlook this and be like, oh, well, it's not even a big deal. Oh and it kind of is a big fucking deal, especially when everyone in this movie, all of their lower thirds, said that they were advisors to a tip, from Eric Davis to how put Off to Gary Nolan, all of them, they were all advisors to a tip.

19:12 Speaker 1: I had no fucking idea. I had no idea that that was the case. What was a tip in that case? Because if it wasn't funded, the twenty two million dollars went too asap. By the time that a tip in Alizondo came in, there was virtually no money left. They were going up to get more money. And that's when Harry Reid had had lost his poll. And and I think James Clappers, even the one that denied it, and now he's even in this film, Like, I just I'm just having some fucking real hard time like battling this in my head.

19:50 Speaker 1: So I just I just want to know what the truth is. I'm not saying I really did want to start this because I think it's a high point of my own contention that I don't understand what a tip was, what Elizondo was working on. I understand what Jay Stratton was working on was the UAP Task Force. He seems to be the common thread through all of the programs up until Arrow, and it's you know, I think he was helped build the foundation for ARROW and then backed out like almost immediately. So and there's been some controversial things that Jay and Eric Davis have been on record saying about Elizondo.

20:28 Speaker 1: So I'm not and again I don't want to sound like an Alexando hater. I'm not an Alexondo hater. He's a patriot. I read I read his book three but audible. I didn't read it. I hadn't listened shared to me three different times because I wanted to make sure I'm getting these these things right. But again, you start seeing these the same names, the same names pop up every single time, every program, anytime there's money studying UFOs, the same name show up. Help put off Eric Davis carry Nolan to some degree like you're it's it's it's very clear, and maybe they are the best at what they do.

21:10 Speaker 1: I have no no quarrel with that. It's just those same people like Elizondo, like hal put Off, they start to they they start to worry me. It seems they have their their feet on both sides of the line. They want to tell you more, but they can't. They're obligated by their NDAs and their oath to the country. They'll then they'll even I mean, they'll dangle the carat right in front of you and say you're gonna wish someone told you this sooner. Like that was like one of the lines in the movie. I was like, what the fuck did I did you just say that?

21:51 Speaker 1: Oof? God, the movie was really well done. It was really well done. Really the style like no scary alien cutaways, no X Files theme. It took the subject seriously, very like deadly seriously. And I like that, I really do. I think that's the way that we need to head. And I think that really like caught on with James Fox as the phenomenon, which arguably for me for me scored hire for me personally. I like the case studies and the actual data and the actual witnesses. That's what I like. Now what we hear have with Age of disclosures is interesting, and I think it was framed like this from the trailer that it was going to be, you know, thirty four people from the government telling you what they know about UFOs.

22:47 Speaker 1: Except here's the catch. They're only telling you, They're only telling us what they can tell us. So at what point do you say that this is the dood ap proof version of disclosure? And again that is that a bad thing? Maybe not? Is that the only way we get disclosure? Maybe is everything a threat? I don't know, I don't know. I think I think the scaring people part of it. It's a dangerous line, and I know this is a serious thing, right especially to these people like Alizondo to how to Eric Davis, to all of them their patriots first, and I'm okay with that, but don't dangle the carrot.

23:38 Speaker 1: I feel that that's very disingenuous. I feel I feel like if if you were in the topic, if you knew the UFO community lore, if you will, this movie wasn't. It didn't really bring anything new. James Clapper maybe maybe maybe that was a new thing,

24:01 Speaker 1: But again he was only on screen for a limited time, so I know, things get left on the cutting room floor. But why we're certain things left on the cutting room floor is my question. That's my question first and foremost the ASAP stuff, La Katski. They all know about the bigger picture. Why are we not hearing about it? Why are we only hearing from a Tip? And Alizondo this movie, He's definitely the main character, make no mistake about it. Alizondo is the core of the story. And again I am not saying that's a bad thing.

24:35 Speaker 1: What I am saying is there's all these questions that people have that haven't been answered. So and again you know Leslie Kane, Ralph Blumadal and I'm what I fear is that most people like Corbel, like Nap, like like Leslie Kane, who have been in this subject for whatever and have reputation to uphold. They've built a living on this narrative that was set fourth in twenty seventeen. So they may have conversations with Jim mccatsky. He might tell them directly that ASOPP was the program that was awarded the twenty two million dollar contract, that a Tip was a moniker, an unclassified moniker for us UP.

25:24 Speaker 1: They may tell you all these things, but then they just let them me. I feel like it's they don't want the UFO disclosure movement to be hurt in any way, so they don't want to admit that anything's wrong. And I've had a problem with this for so long, so long, because if we can't admit when we're wrong, when we're talking about the most complex, the most existential question of our lie lie lifetimes of human humanity, of global histy, if we can't admit we're humbly wrong, Oh boy, we are starting bad so again.

26:08 Speaker 1: This movie is really well done. I got to give Dan Farrah credit all the players that he was able to assemble. I mean that's a feat and the amount of credible qualified individuals. It's amazing to see. It really is, you know, well rounded. I think from civilian airspace all the way to the military encounters and UFOs and nukes. I liked seeing that ufone, UFOs and nukes were were talked about. My friend Bob Salice was was interviewed for this film. U He was on screen for like two minutes. They talked about Malmstrom and I get it.

26:45 Speaker 1: You know, movies have got run times, and I think even in so Dan Farrah also did a Rogan interview the day that it came out, and he had said that he had like a four hour director's cut of this Age of Disclosure film, and then you need to start. I'm just I'm very interested to see what they'll do with that. There's got to be so much stuff that they recorded with Clapper, like with and and Clapper, I have a real issue with just as a person. He's been known to perjure himself to Congress. Oh like so and then told us that he gave us the least hurtful truth or something to that degree, like the least impactful lie, and that's how he like and I and I again, I understand this whole government world is is dicey.

27:41 Speaker 1: It's dicey. You don't want to go to jail, you don't want to break an NDA, you don't want to commit treason. All of that stuff is so acceptable, But just say it, Just say it, give it to us up front, right, don't call yourself a whistleblower if you've gone through DoD prepublication, because that's not a whistleblower. Again, so that these terms get thrown around a lot, and I think that's what we need to be careful because it's it's it's not lying, it's exaggerating or conflating. And like the skeptics, they're already so good.

28:24 Speaker 1: The debunkers are already they're they're so talented. If you give them a reason, they're gonna poke holes in this whole fucking thing. And then until they are shown the physical evidence that everyone wants right, they're never going to change their mind and they're going to continue to be opposition.

28:47 Speaker 1: And when someone as credible as what I you know, a nuclear launch control officer, comes out and says, hey, something's weird is happening, Like Mario Woods. Mario Woods was featured in his Age of Disclosure, albeit for only a couple of minutes. They didn't get into a lot of cases. It was a lot of a generality about the topic of UFOs. How there was a tip which tried to do the right thing and tried to study UFOs. It got caught up in the bureaucracy. He couldn't get the job done from the inside, so he had to resign, and he had to resign to continue his mission.

29:25 Speaker 1: And this is Alisando, of course, and that's the story that we've been fed. And again you look at nids right, look at nids, Look at the big low era, then jump and fast forward to a tip and then to TTSA, and then and so on and so forth. You see the same people telling the same stories. So again, it's not I don't think Age of Disclosure was anything new for anyone who knows the topic. And if they're, if they're, if their goal was to get to the general public, that's cool, that's great. I'm glad. I'm very glad actually,

30:13 Speaker 1: but are they gonna watch it? I know it's I think it's currently ranked one on on Prime. But again, the UFO community and like the people it touches, I think are it is a lot more than it was, say two thousand and four when the Nimbit's happened. But it's not. It's not the consensus by any means. It's a small group in the grand scheme. And if it's if Age of Disclosures purpose is to get to the general audience slapping a twenty five dollars tag on it, that's a rough deal. I don't People won't even go to the movie theaters anymore if it's not a fucking Marvel movie or some big action blockbuster summer blockbuster.

30:59 Speaker 1: You think they're gonna pay twenty five dollars for this movie? Who I mean? And I'll give it to Dan. He did say in that interview with Rogan that he showed it to many streamers and all of them watched it. They liked it, but they declined they didn't want to pick it up. Why is that? I don't know. Do I think Dan is a bad person? No? I think he made a great fucking movie. It just was marketed a certain way, and it used certain monikers and labels. For instance, I hope I won't get in trouble, but I'll put off a tip.

31:41 Speaker 1: Chief Scientists Eric Davis a TIP scientific advisor. Were the advisors to a tip? Or were the advisors to us UP? I know they were connected to NIDS and Bigelow, so I know, and we know from skinwalkers at the Pentagon that they were connected to us APP. But what is a tip? No one seems to be able to define a tip for me because it was not the pro and it shouldn't be like terrible thing to say it was not the program that was awarded twenty two million dollars. We know that that was us HAP. Are we saying it was the same program.

32:28 Speaker 1: Lakatsky says, no, Elizondo has said no, So that leaves me with a huge flaw right from the jump.

32:41 Speaker 1: And I don't know, you know, I'll probably get ridiculed for even saying that, but it it. It's hard for me to tell someone to watch something when I know that there is some sort of inaccuracy in it. The twenty seventeen article did a lot of good. It set us on the path we're on today. I argue we wouldn't have this conversation right now if it wasn't for said article. But no retractions ever made. No one ever talks about it, and if you talk about it, you get silenced. It's weird. It's weird. Now, am I saying?

33:28 Speaker 1: Am I on this side or the other? I'm not. I'm not saying that I listen to everybody. I still if doctor Greer puts out a movie, I buy it because I hear everybody out I am observing, and I'm simply stating what I'm observing. The A tip and the AWSEP thing. I would like to be a little bit more defined because I think it's a big deal. I think it's a big deal, and on the surface, I think it's to most people they would say, oh, it's harmless. But again, like the New York Times article, it is fundamentally untrue.

34:07 Speaker 1: Ass Up was the program that was awarded the twenty two million, and if that was omitted on purpose, While not false, it completely disregards a huge portion of this core story building off that threat narrative, the national security concern. It's dicey. It's dicey, but understandable for storytelling and to get people motivated. Sometimes you got to scare them a little to get them motivated. I just want people to know what should motivate, Like, do I think we should be scared of UFOs? No, I don't.

34:54 Speaker 1: I don't. They've if they wanted to, and us we wouldn't have gotten out of the the Stone Age right or at any time, they could just hurl an asteroid from the belt at us and boom reset. The apes of thermonuclear weapons are gone. Start again. The optic in UFO sightings with nuclear data and more nuclear testing. That concerns me. That concerns me, so I think, But again, I think there's a lot of good things in the movie. I'm starting there because I'm starting there. It's my main contention point. It's really my only contention point.

35:43 Speaker 1: I like hearing from these guys. How put Off again goes into it that he was in the in the Bush era. He was on this panel if you will, or this think tank, and this is something I really really want to dig into. He was in this stinc tank from the George Bush era where they were apparently deciding on whether or not to do some sort of disclosure. And they were broken up into small groups. And these are leading scientists, they were contractors. Anyone worth their salt in any of these related or touching fields was brought in for this.

36:23 Speaker 1: How put Off was one of them. I'm sure there was plenty others of names that you would know if you heard them that was involved, but just haven't come forward yet.

36:36 Speaker 1: And they were given the task to find out what would be would it be positive or negative? Like overall, to disclose the information that UFOs are a thing, that we are not alone in the universe, and that we have acquired material, whether it be from Roswell, from Corona, from was that one in Italy, Magenta, whether wherever it's from, We've acquired biologics of a non human intelligence. Could this be what our ancestors were referring to as gods or angels and demons? I think that's because that's another thing to talk about in the movie.

37:23 Speaker 1: They were surprised that people's religious beliefs came into play. I don't find that odd at all. I think if someone's a hardcore religious person and you tell them you're digging into UFOs at Skinwalker Ranch, they might not want to hang around you anymore. And haven't we proven or Lakatski and all them proven that they might be right in having that mindset, the hitchhiker effect, a Vanda syndrome, all that shit. You got to ask, are we all talking about the same thing and we're just us in different words?

38:00 Speaker 1: Because that's what it looks like to me. Angels And like what I find it'd be a great case is James Fox and moment of contact, the being smelled like ammonia or what the fucking brim fire? What is that word? Someone in the chat? No, what is it smells like rotten eggs? Ammonia? No, no, no, no, whatever. So the being smelled like this, and it's exactly and it had red eyes and when the girls saw it. They thought it was a demon because it had red eyes and it smelled like sulfur. Thank you, sulfur, surf sulfur.

38:48 Speaker 1: No one actually helped me. I picked it up. So I think that's a very good case in showing that, like, are we just conflating the two like angels and demons and aliens just using different words. I think that. I think that the probability is high. It's very very high. If I think there's if there's one thing that we can all agree on, no matter what side of the aisle you're on, no matter what faction of disclosure you're in, I think we can all agree that evil exists. Evil exists,

39:32 Speaker 1: and it is tangible when you when you get around it.

39:38 Speaker 1: I don't know, And so a lot of people like Gary Nolan has specifically worked in that area, and uh like the effects from being around UFOs, cancer, damage to the eyes, like like retinal burns, skin u skin diseases, skin cancer again, just cancer in general. But you look at cases like Jim Peniston at Rendelsham weird, Travis Walton weird, Right, so aage of disclosure doesn't really get into any of the truth like cases, but they do touch on some of the nuclear ones. Bob Jacobs, I gotta ask, has anyone ever heard that Terry Lovelace story, because that is not the one the story that I know about Terry.

40:36 Speaker 1: I when I had heard Terry was in the movie, I was like, Oh, that's odd. He doesn't seem to fit the bill and no, no offense to him, but his case doesn't really line up with the others, at least what they were going for. And then he tells this kind of like mundane story of seeing a giant craft. Not that not seeing a giant craft's mundane, but in terms of like the ran picture a grand scheme of it, it seemed just didn't I don't know, it wasn't the Terry lovely story that I was used to. Maybe he said multiple and I just didn't know.

41:12 Speaker 1: Stylized as far as tone, tone was fantastic. This movie felt like it flew by for me. The pacing, the tone, the editing all so like top of the line, and that's what I'm excited for. Do you guys think that this movie could actually move the needle? When someone asked me that, I said, probably not, but I think the phenomenon, I think word of mouth for that movie was what really made that film successful, generally successful, The Doctor Greer one unacknowledged, Like there's a word of mouth spread on those films.

42:07 Speaker 1: So do I think that will happen here with age of disclosure potentially with guys like Rogan and them plugging in as much as they are. Yeah, it probably will get seen by a lot of people. So there is and there's even whispers now of like a presidential advisory board being implicated or I'm not implicated initiated. So and I think Trump could be I tweeted about this the other day last night. In fact, where if I was in my second term and I was known for like going against the grain, like he is going against like the deep state, if you will, quote unquote, we might have an actual shot with this guy to step up to the podium and at least and it might not come in the way and this is the thing, It might not come in the way that everyone's prophesied before.

43:07 Speaker 1: He might be on the podium talking about something and then slip it in slip and by slipping in, I mean like it wouldn't just be a press conference that UFOs exist, like, it would be something else, and then I don't know, maybe I'm wrong about that, but I just it won't be like pure disclosure moments like that moment. It won't be the my fellow Americans. You know, I feel like I picture I always picture Barack Obama. I'm saying that my fellow Americans. Trump doesn't say my fellow Americans and speetures.

43:40 Speaker 1: I don't think like we're not alone. We never were something like that. But h I've had a lot of fine looking boys come up and tell me that UFOs are real, saying his Trump voice be hilarious, fucking hilarious, but people wouldn't believe him just because he's Trump. I think. So it would have to be like a unified NATO effort. Maybe even maybe if you can get the United States and Russia to do it at the same time. I think you have a real disclosure there. So you know, maybe if if Trump were to do it, pulled the trayer on it, maybe Putin would follow, right, maybe maybe President She would follow, So then they could be more open about their subjugation and exploitation efforts, because again, you can't tell your friends about telling your enemies.

44:32 Speaker 1: So if everybody knows that everybody knows. Well, then we're back on evil. I'm not evil equal playing field. So there's a lot of people in this movie. Like I said, totally, I think it works very well. I think the message that they're trying to send is that there's a legacy UFO program. And Lakatski, in the recent episode of Weaponize, had been asked this but from Jeremy Corbel, and I think I know now why he asked it. The timing wasn't the timing was not coincidence, but he asked Lakatski had he been read into any other legacy UFO program.

45:15 Speaker 1: And Lakatski, doing what a good former DIA officer would do, he deflects and says, I can't answer that, but here are my clearances. I held a cute clearance. That's public information. I think he's trying to say yes, right, He's trying to say yes in the way that they do. I think Lakatski was read in on the legacy UFO program, the one that is the bad guy in age of Disclosure, because they're like the ones that are apparently putting hits out on Alizondo. That's crazy. If that's true, that's crazy.

46:00 Speaker 1: Like no one Alizondo like, I think he could hold his own as a counter intel guy. Probably knows what's up, probably as like a bunker of his own somewhere. So I but putting the head on that guy from the legacy UFO program. If that's true, that's wild right, Because now we're talking and he says it in the movie. I'm not gonna spoil this because I told it, told you I wouldn't. He says something in the movie at the end, fucking wild, wild wild, and he says it with a straight face. Anyone who knows the movie will know what I'm talking about.

46:40 Speaker 1: But what he says that the United States is able to do to its citizens if needed, if they pose a threat. Ooh man. So if he ends up in the Potomac, I guess we know what happened. And maybe he was genuine. I really like there's one. So anyone who knows Alexando knows that he's a five observables guy. Did he My favorite part of this movie was the way that they conveyed that it was like Alexander teaching it. It was the funniest thing I'd ever seen of my fucking life. I laughed so hard. But I will say with with some of the issues that I had, like I said, and and some of the issues that I had, I think I've already got over them.

47:33 Speaker 1: That's it's really all of it. It's the off SAP a tip thing. That is where I'm like, we, I think we need more clarity. So Dan Farra puts together Age of Disclosure. Alissando is the main character. Elisondo testified, I was there, testified before Congress. Will not say anything that will not well, will not say anything that the d D has not approved him to say him. Hal put Off and Eric Davis are involved in the program to some degree and are trying to tell us that there's another legacy program that has been performing crash retrieval programs.

48:17 Speaker 1: David Grush has talked about this,

48:21 Speaker 1: what's that other guy? J Jake Barber has talked about this. Michael Herrera has talked about this. Now Lakatski, if you want to say it, has talked about this, that there's a legacy UFO program. So if there's one thing that I think I took from it is that the legacy UFO program is something that like whether it's ConA blue or something different, not not ConA blue. Why did I say that? Whether it's something we've never heard of before or something that we might have heard of through other people. So another thing that was left out of Age of disclosure was the amacic consolation stuff.

49:04 Speaker 1: They did have a good I think it was in the probably was in the film at one point, but was then taken out because it seemed like they had a clear in when they started talking about this moment that Alexander testified. Now, I'm it's fine, it's funny because I met Alexander outside of the hearing that day. I didn't see any cameras with him, not cameras that were because they had some footage in this movie from those hearings that I'd never seen before, particularly the Alexander walking in right. But I was out there when he walked inside.

49:46 Speaker 1: I had left the room because I had got my seat in the hearing, and I had left and then walked outside, and all the witnesses were there out there, and you can kind of see it in the film. They're all out there like talking to each other, and that's when Ali Zonda starts walking in. Unless they redid that for like dramatic effect, which would be fine making movies is sometimes you know, you didn't get everything the first run, But there was some footage in there that I loved that was like from the hearings itself.

50:21 Speaker 1: And there's one moment where like David Framer like winks at the camera. That was fucking brilliant. Whoever edited that moment brilliant. So they must have been filming this for a long time in secret. I think what he said on the Rogan interview is around four years. So this film, this has been being filmed for four years while that's happening, Eric Davis and all of them, the UAB Disclosure Fund, they go to Congress that other time. A lot of that got included in the film. So I just want to know what got left on the cutting room floor.

51:04 Speaker 1: I would see if they could maybe do like a follow up or like maybe even like a director's cut. I think would be cool to show us some like the uncut interviews, like like like Bob Sallas, Bob Jacobs, Mario. I think they probably only had like a little bit of screen time in the actual cut, but you have to assume that they filmed like thirty forty minute interviews with these guys, So I'd be willing to see those or I'd want to I'd definitely be willing to pay for some sort of director's cut that like incorporated more of those interviews.

51:42 Speaker 1: But again, you know, I think Dan was doing what Dan was telling the story that he was told that he was, like Alexander's the main character. Alexander tells that story. So if you're going in expecting to hear something different, I guess you won't. You probably won't see anything new, but what you see, what you will see is is a director that has worked on some amazing films, Ready Player one being one of them. He's worked with Spielberg that when those people start taking it seriously, what this movie is is a very serious take on the national security implications of UFOs existing and breaching our nuclear sites and our most sensitive facilities.

52:40 Speaker 1: They definitely want to get that message across. They definitely got the message across. My issue with that is, I think it's one side of the story. Why are these things breaching our nuclear sites is a much better question. I don't think they're there to blow us up. I think we're fundamentally the problem. Human beings are the problem. Too aggressive, too emotional, That's why I waited to do this review. I was gonna do it the night at Friday night when it came out, right after I watched it. But I was so like dialed to ten that I knew I wouldn't.

53:27 Speaker 1: It would have come off wrong, and I don't want that. A lot of really cool what I will say that Marco Rubio, Marco Rubio, Jay Stratton, Eric Davis how put off probably worse standouts the main characters they got probably the most screen time, Gary Nolan, Tim Gradat, Jeff new To Telly trying to go through my head right now. A lot of them are in it great stuff. Like the amount that they were throwing at you was so overwhelmingly like like these guys that they're putting in front of you, the credibility that is instituted just by their you know, cvs.

54:21 Speaker 1: We're talking decades in decades and decades of service to this country. Whether it was a in a capacity that was you know, in the military or intelligence is different. But they had it all star studed cast, star studed cast. But and they did start talk about some cool stuff how they think, like what the what the main theory that they have is for how these things work and or how they operate, how they not how they work, but how they how they do, what they do, why we observe them, you know, seemingly defying physics.

55:02 Speaker 1: I don't think they are defying physics, but seemingly banking a ninety deg return, which would turn any human into putting. To quote Helt put Off, I can't do the fravor wink, but they definitely got I think they're onto something there. And what I really like is that they didn't get into like specifying whether it was aliens or something interdimensional. A lot of talk about like Andre Carson was in this. Andre Carson brings up some of the USO stuff, and that again, that's where they go at. Tim got at.

55:41 Speaker 1: I just think we could have gone in a little deeper, which would have been cool. It would have been cool. But I get it. Run time, you have to get it to a place like as a filmmaker, you need to lock it in and you need it to be digestible, and you need there to be a story arc, like a through to through story arc, right, and a message that you're trying to send. And the message I think the film is trying to say is that these things are real, and I agree with that and that that we need to that it warrants further investigation.

56:21 Speaker 1: I agree with that, it's just the people that are telling it to you. That

56:30 Speaker 1: you know, if you have any biases that you're gonna it's you're not gonna want to watch it. Like if you don't like Alizondo, you're not gonna want to watch it because you're not gonna believe them. You already have a preconceived notion to not I don't I like the guy, So you know, I I can watch it and kind of remove myself from that and still ask the questions that need to be asked and at least take something from it. I thought it was, like I said, very interesting that they talked about the religious aspect and how that played a big part.

57:06 Speaker 1: Like Jay Stratton specifically was very very like stunned by this. They couldn't believe that they were getting pushed back from religious fundamentalists. If you weren't getting pushed back from religious fundamentalists, I'd have a weird I'd have a much bigger issue with that. I have a much bigger issue with that because that that's like, because that that would mean like even they don't believe it's true. But so yeah, a lot of the TTSA people, So you see Chris Mellon Elizondo, uh and with TTSA, you know how how put off Eric Davis, Travis Tailor Travis Taylor was another one.

57:55 Speaker 1: They are all involved in some degree on the other side of the line, and their allegiance is to the safety of this nation, which is commendable. Of course I want to be safe. I live in this country. But what I just don't like playing both sides. I don't like when people play both sides bothers me And I get why you can only say what you can say legally, but don't don't tell me that something's gonna happen. And I'm gonna wish I knew sooner. Wish I knew what, wish I knew? What? What am I not preparing for?

58:43 Speaker 1: What are we not preparing for? It's upsetting, It really is. It's upsetting. But I really liked Under Carson and brought up a lot of the USO stuff. I think that Richard Dolan, if anyone does want to dive into us Richard Dolan is one of the best people for that. A lot of good people in the movie. Again, like I said, Gary Nolan, and I think I've gone through Bob Jacobs, Jay Straw and not technically Ross Coultart, but he was in it. They did touch on the grush stuff, which I find I didn't. I feel like they didn't touch enough on the grush stuff.

59:29 Speaker 1: I was wondering why maybe that would be in a sequel or something. But I like the movie. I like the movie. I like the movie. I do. I do. So what I gave it, what I talited out as with with some of the problems that I had and some of the not some of the things I liked, it ended up peeing uh, seven point nine out of ten. So that was my final score was seven point nine out of ten, which is a great score. The Phenomenon came out like eight point four from James Fox.

1:00:09 Speaker 1: That same day that Age of Disclosure came out, which you'll have to see if you want to know the ins and outs. Again, I don't want to go into too much detail about what was talked about so without just being general. Like the legacy UFO program, which I think they get into a lot of cool stuff with that and how it's broken down. I think all of us have had this inkling that the CIA was the main proponent or the overseer, and then under that was Department of Energy, right, Department of Energy, A lot of things like Department of Energy, I think is a very unique one because when like Grush talked about this, and I think it was the Jesse Michaels the see Michael's video after his Coultart interview, but he was talking about the classification process for the atomic secrecy and anything that emits a radiological signature is born classified.

1:01:14 Speaker 1: So the Air Force, the Department of Energy, CIA, and then private contractors. I mean somewhere in there is the legacy UFO program a name of or maybe several programs, but there's definitely crash retrieval happening. What do they have in their possession? I think Rubio brings up a lot of great stuff in this movie about how that stuff can run away in the long term, right because government gives it to the contractor.

1:01:54 Speaker 1: Senator is only senator for so long. The next guy comes in, he has a frack of the knowledge the first guy started with, and then the the guy that comes in after that guy has zero percent knowledge and never knew that this thing existed that they gave to the contractor. So then the contractor just doesn't say anything and they keep exploiting the technology, and then they come out to the public and you know, they got this breakthrough, this breakthrough, you know, fiber optics if you want to use an example, or the transistor.

1:02:31 Speaker 1: All these things have been rumored, maybe even AI rumored to have been reverse engineered from alien or not alien, but non human technology. And with some of these crashes, biologics came with them. Grush. I believe Grush. I believe Grush, Everyone believed. Everyone seems to have the same notion of Grush, So I find that to be kind of comforting. But then there's other people on the other side, on the other like Debunker side that saw his you know, he had a couple like mental issue mental breakdowns PTSD, and they like that that's all that that's the nail in the coffin for them.

1:03:20 Speaker 1: Nothing he ever says will be true to them because they've already convinced themselves that this is bullshit. And that's the problem. We're facing a lot in this community, and it sucks. It's a lot of stories without the average person who can't sit around and fully your shit to you get like you, they're expected to take your word. I mean, and and and when it comes to al Zondo, like, dude, you're literally a disinformation person. That was your job, but now everyone's just supposed to blindly like believe it.

1:04:08 Speaker 1: And I think the general person doesn't like wouldn't have to be lied to to convince them that we're not alone. I think if you surveyed one hundred people fifty years ago, maybe sixty years ago, ninety nine out of one hundred would have said we were alone. I think if you take that same survey today, ninety nine will say we're not alone. That the statistical improbability of the vastness of the cosmos, the sheer scale an age of the known universe, there's such if we're alone. I think that's arguably fucking scarier, arguably scarier than the cosmos teeming with life.

1:05:01 Speaker 1: So I guess my main contention, like I said, with this, is the is the the bigelow stuff, right, the big old stuff. And then people like Carbel, oh Jesus he was young in that picture. Corbel, who seem to know both sides, but don't pick one, not not pick one, but enlighten us, Like you can't interview Lukatski and ask the things that you ask him and then like call Alizondo up and be like, hey, dude, we're dudes, we're besties. I mean, you can, but people take note of that shit. And I think that's where our problem is right now, is like you you either have to be with Alizondo or you're against him, and that that's again another thing that's a dangerous place to be.

1:05:51 Speaker 1: And he is the main character of this story. He's the main character of the New York Times article. He's the main character of that show Investigate whatever that he did on with National Geograph? Uh is it National Geographic that he did it with? Maybe unidentified? That show, he's the main character on that. So if you had seen all that stuff, none of this will be new, none of the people will be new. The way the information is presented is in a really cool way and in a modern, very serious way. So that's the difference.

1:06:32 Speaker 1: And I think if we can rally around that aspect of it, we might be able to push the ball forward. And uh, I think in the movie they call for the amnesty aspect, and I'm just wondering like why this, and then the amnesty and the what's the other thing, the the domain, the domain or they can seize everything. The government can like seize shit,

1:07:08 Speaker 1: like people like Jacques Vallet have raised question about that and concern about that of that domain aspect where the government can just seize things because if we give them that right back, or if we give that ability to our government, they never have to give you an explanation on why they're seizing what you have, and they could just say, well, we have we have it on good authority that it's non human and we need it, and we're going to seize this this technology that you have, this material that you have, and they don't have to give you an excuse.

1:07:50 Speaker 1: It's that's part of it. So that is why the UAP Disclosure Act had a lot of problems. People had a lot of problems with that part of it and the amnesty part. But I do think we're gonna have to meet the legacy programs halfway, maybe not full amnesty, but only for those who come forward and tell the truth. Right those people, maybe given that you didn't murder somebody to keep this secret, you should be safe, right, you should be safe at least not have your life taken away. But if you engaged in activity that harmed, hurt or killed people to cover this secret up, there's no amnesty for you.

1:08:42 Speaker 1: Whether you get it here on earth or in the next life, there's no amnesty. You will be punished sooner or later. The universe works in very funny ways like that. So if anyone out there, if you are part of this and you are like this, I'm not talking to Alixander, but all of them, anybody that makes a clean that UFOs are real, if they are lying or embellishing, yeah, it will hurt us. You're only gonna have to answer to one person, and that's yourself. And if you want to lie to become famous or to get like Dan Farr to do a thing about you, I mean, that's your prerogative, but at the end of the day, you will answer for it eventually.

1:09:46 Speaker 1: So I just don't think it's worth it if that is what you are doing. That's to anyone, any UFO quote unquote whistleblower, if you're not telling the truth, you're only hurting yourself. You're just lying to yourself and you're making the rest of the people in the community. You look stupid. We'll pay a price, but we'll move forward. You will have to answer for that, whether it's to your God or do you whatever, the universe or the simulators, You're gonna fucking answer for it. I want to trust guys like Gary Nolan.

1:10:26 Speaker 1: I want to trust guys like how put off in Eric Davis. I want to trust Elizondo. I want to trust Tim Goddet. I do trump Tim Gott I do. I want to trust these people, and maybe that's maybe that's my blind spot that I want to believe and if anyone is taking advantage of that want that I have to believe. I mean, I've seen something. I've seen things that I can't explain. I know it's real, but whether what you're you everyone, the modern disclosure narrative is real, whether that part of it's real, or if it's just a way to see chaos, get people riled up and then maybe get some funding.

1:11:19 Speaker 1: Like what was it all for? Are they about to like false flag us? Are they about to trick us and think into an alien invasion to unite humanity? Doesn't seem so far fetched all of a sudden,

1:11:42 Speaker 1: But I wanted to watch a couple of clips, not of the movie. We'll get immediately taken down. But I recommend watching it. I recommend, I recommend paying the money. I'm watching it. It's a good movie if you if you like if you're in the disclosure, like, if you have any vested interest in not vested, if you have an interest in disclosure, you'll like the movie. You'll like it. It's good. It's very well done. The score is immaculate as well. That was something I needed to bring up. That's what rose it to like point.

1:12:19 Speaker 1: I don't want to say how much it rose it, but that that rose the score of the film for me was the the score. The music of the movie was really good, really really good. But I wanted to watch why have You? I wanted to watch part of this apparently Grush one on Fox News. I haven't watched it yet, so I wanted to see maybe we canna watch together. They might demonetize this video because of that. But after that, I'll start going through reading some of the comments. If anyone, I mean, if you want to ask something or let me know what you thought of the movie, maybe we're gonna have a quick recap of that, like did you guys think it was overall good.

1:13:02 Speaker 1: I thought it was good. I thought it was great. I just have a couple issues, just a couple issues. Let me know, let me know what you think. I bet people are. I mean, I'd be interested to see what like Veted that dude is saying and uh Polarity. Those are two people that I've been paying attention too lately, not paying attention to because I think they are right, but they're doing something right. Sorry, I gotta share this here. It is boom. So I haven't watched this yet, but David Grush, who was part of Age of Disclosure, not a huge part, but he went on Fox News with Brett Bear and did the interview.

1:14:00 Speaker 1: So I just want to watch a couple of minutes of it with you dudes, with you peeps.

1:14:05 Speaker 2: Welcome back to the special report.

1:14:08 Speaker 1: Let me know what you thought of Age of Disclosure. If you can send a super chat, come a member. Really really helps. And I'm gonna be doing so many more live streams now that the internet is fixed. Here one of my cameras died, so I'm just back to one angle. But I'm really like gonna start building out and doing more of these live shows. Yeah, but final takeaways for Age of Disclosure. I think, at least for what I'll say about it is I have some issue with some of the things that are some of the background and some of the details, but I think the overall effort was really well done.

1:14:44 Speaker 1: It was probably done with a good intent on Dan Fower's part. I think he's a very very talented filmmaker, and if you know, guys like him continue to make movies in this realm of the topic. I think the sky's the limit, and I think the moon the needle could be moved. I'm already hearing people taught whispering about a presidential presidential investigation into this, So I mean it's getting people talking, it's doing its job. I guess let's check out this. Check out this interview GRESHI. Where was that op that he was supposed to do?

1:15:25 Speaker 2: Continue our series looking at unidentified anominalists anomalists say that easy what many people still call UFOs UAPs with the director of the Age of Disclosure. It's a new documentary out about a suspected government cover up over UAPs for decades, which they used Tonight and select theaters around the country. Is also available on Prime Video it's.

1:15:51 Speaker 1: Powerful, just gonna be careful.

1:15:53 Speaker 2: In thirty four former and current government officials, including witnesses who have testified before Congress. Earlier, we spoke with another whistleblower who is now a Congressional Task Force member on the UAP subject.

1:16:07 Speaker 8: If you believe we have crashed craft stated earlier, do we have the bodies of the pilots who piloted this craft?

1:16:14 Speaker 7: Biologics came with some of these recoveries?

1:16:17 Speaker 2: Yeah?

1:16:20 Speaker 3: Were they?

1:16:20 Speaker 1: I guess human or non human? Biologics?

1:16:24 Speaker 7: Non human?

1:16:24 Speaker 2: Well, let's get some insight into the UAP discovers and what Congress is trying to do about it.

1:16:32 Speaker 1: Do I have the wrong interview here? Guys? Is the Grush interview really only seven minutes?

1:16:40 Speaker 2: Ing US now retired Air Force Major David Grush, who has been a whistleblower on the subject of UFOs, UAPs and government transparency. He's a special advisor now to the House UAP Task Force. Thanks for being here, think you're having on Brett. So since then, people say, where is the evidence? What's happening? Why don't we know more? Right now almost two years later.

1:17:04 Speaker 7: Well, certainly the last administration didn't didn't help in My hearing, of course, was during the last administration, and they were not exactly super transparent on this issue unfortunately. But now that the task force has been created, I've been able to guide the members within the boundaries of what they're actually clear.

1:17:24 Speaker 1: When people, as from the most recent.

1:17:29 Speaker 2: Lit I just say, there's a lot out there. There's a lot of people talking about encounters. There's a lot of people talking about videos, and we've seen a lot of that. Can we just cut it down to you believe that we have encountered alien beings and that they've come to Earth, and that we know about it as a US government.

1:17:50 Speaker 7: That seems to be a case I don't like to characterize necessarily where they came from. There are definitely some kind of non human sentience, but it is true, believe it or not. We've recovered the vehicles and we actually have physical proof. And I was actually partially cleared into some of those activities. It was beyond the oral testimony provided to me. I actually had partial access to the data and actually read the intelligence reports resulting from those programs with your own eyes.

1:18:18 Speaker 1: Saw it.

1:18:18 Speaker 2: Yes. And so when people say this is kooky, this is out there, there's nothing to back it up.

1:18:26 Speaker 4: I don't seek for other parts of the government, but I can tell you NASA, which I speak for, is open and transparent with our data.

1:18:36 Speaker 3: Do you believe what mister David Cross said or is lying?

1:18:42 Speaker 5: Where's the evidence?

1:18:44 Speaker 4: What do you say?

1:18:45 Speaker 7: Certainly members of this current administration are very well aware of this reality. Certainly the current president is very knowledgeable on this subject, and I trust his leadership on it, and I think he's assembled in an a team cabinet, and I really belie leave if Trump wants to be the greatest president and the most consequential leader likely in world history, he certainly has to knowledge the capabilities and understanding of some of these sensitive government transparency issues.

1:19:12 Speaker 4: I have access, but and I speak to people about it. I've had actually meetings on it. People that are very smart and very solid have said they believe there is something out there, and you know, it makes sense that they could be. I've never been convinced, even despite that, you know, I just for some reason it's.

1:19:30 Speaker 6: Not my thing.

1:19:31 Speaker 2: So you think, one he knows, and two he's open to transparency on UAPs.

1:19:36 Speaker 7: He certainly is very well informed on this issue.

1:19:39 Speaker 2: Leave it at that.

1:19:40 Speaker 7: I don't want to get ahead of what the president might want to reveal. Personally.

1:19:43 Speaker 2: There's been a role to cover this up, you're saying, through administrations, and there have been people who have been threatened and told not to testify.

1:19:53 Speaker 7: I was physically threatened even before I sent in my Intelligence Community Inspector General report under the previous administration. I actually had to go and seek legal protection that way because I was, you know, literally in fear, both professionally and in my personal life.

1:20:07 Speaker 2: And when you mentioned in that testimony of recovering the pilots or or remains non human, that's something that you saw as far as the intelligence with your eyes.

1:20:18 Speaker 7: Yes, And it is a very uncomfortable even for me now as as somebody who's seen and experienced it, even talking about it, because it's so outside a normal person's worldview to understand that there is this biological sentience set have piloted these crafts that don't necessarily look one hundred percent like you and I.

1:20:39 Speaker 5: Or their pictures where there there were, yes, there were.

1:20:42 Speaker 2: When I said another planet or from outer space, you said not, we don't know where they're from. It's an interdimensional what are we talking about.

1:20:51 Speaker 7: I've talked to a lot of i'll called graybeards on the program that is a subject of hot debate on origin. I've as at else.

1:21:00 Speaker 1: Just think of like Eric Davis with like a Gandolf Beard.

1:21:10 Speaker 1: Someone make that with AI. I just have it Eric Davis, but be Gandolf. Uh. That's exactly what interest.

1:21:17 Speaker 7: Of physics formally as well in my background, I leave an open mind on what the origin is. Certainly there is the extra terrestrial hypothesis, and they could be coming from elsewhere off Earth, but I don't usually go there because I did not see that data, and I'm not conversant in the high confidence theories that the US government had.

1:21:38 Speaker 8: I'm not aware of any remains that the Department has of, you know, any signs of extra terrestrial beings or activity or technology.

1:21:48 Speaker 1: You say, we the US government note, Okay, see what she just said. We, And this is the same thing that Kirkpatrick an Arrow take note that they often do. Why are they leaning into that word extra terrestrial specifically, because if they have not determined, if they really don't know where they're from, which that's what it seems to be, no one wants to label it, at least from like the grush side. They don't want to label it. They don't know. But then the government turns around and says, we have no proof of extraterrestrial whoa, whoa, whoa.

1:22:33 Speaker 1: No one said that it was just under the extraterrestrial banister or banner. It could be future humans, it could be interdimensional. Like you. Again, this might be a case of you might not be lying. There is no proof that it's extra terrestrials per se. Could be coming from our fucking ocean. Right, that's not extraterrestrial, that's ultra terrestrial. So are they just lying to us by using the correct wording? I think that's fair to ask.

1:23:08 Speaker 2: But there are many other governments around the world.

1:23:11 Speaker 7: Did they know they have their own programs? And like I said two and a half years ago, we have been in arms race with our peer competitors, you know, namely Russia and China, and they have their own programs in this regard. And I was actually able to view a body of intelligence that discussed adversarial programs. And I'll leave it at that.

1:23:30 Speaker 2: We've recovered things, you say, yeah, bodies and physical remains. Was there a sense that the motive of whether how they got here, what they were doing. Was it peaceful? Not peaceful?

1:23:43 Speaker 7: We've seen a mixed bag of activity and motive and intent why they're visiting. That's once again that gets into our assessments. Not necessarily, we can't quite understand the intent of some of the sentience and why they're visiting. Could it because as we have interesting genetic material on Earth, we're a Jurassic Park tourist attraction for them? Could be a myriad of reasons.

1:24:09 Speaker 2: For the other people who are coming out, you say to them what you've obviously faced, intimidation, You talked about harassment. There are reports that others have.

1:24:19 Speaker 7: To I say that there's hope. Certainly Congress values with the blower information right now, and certainly I believe there's an appetite with the administration to do the right thing on this as well. And there's some other things that are happening behind the scenes that I'll let the administration discuss when they're ready.

1:24:39 Speaker 2: Okay, Well, we appreciate your time and we'll follow every element. It's fascinating. Thanks.

1:24:45 Speaker 4: Hey, Sean Hannity here, Hey, click here to subscribe to Fox News YouTube page.

1:24:52 Speaker 1: Is that really the whole interview? That was the whole thing.

1:25:06 Speaker 1: That was the whole thing. It was there more that I'm just like, is that just like a clip? Anyway? Yeah, that was kind of cool. Maybe we could play is maybe there's a clip of Dan Farah on Rogan that we could play. I thought that was going to be at least fifteen minutes to round out. So anyway, what is the poll at on on on YouTube? I have a poll put out forty two votes. Okay, did you enjoy the new documentary by Dan Farah age of disclosure? Sixty percent said yes, fourteen percent said no, twenty six percent said more of the same.

1:25:50 Speaker 1: It was okay, I think that's fair. That's fair, that's a very fair. Again, that's kind of where I'm at. Sixty percent kind of lines up like really well with not really because my score is like a seventy nine out of one hundred if it's based on like seven to seven pointing out of ten. So I guess I was a little higher than the audience. But I thought it was well done. I thought like the editing it was really really well done. Uh specifically the score magnificent, some of the content choices. Again, I think we're on the right track, We're on the right track.

1:26:35 Speaker 1: Make no mind, make no mistake, make no mistake about it. I don't think that Alessando's a bad person. I don't whether and I don't. People want to say he is, but I don't think that's true. I don't think. I don't think any of those people are bad people. I just wonder what they're actually what they actually know. Oh and I don't know. I don't want to get into that because that's gonna it's just it's just gets into speculation, just gets into murky waters. I would I really want to hear a lot of these people, you know, if they want if there's something we need to know, someone, someone's got to break the rules, all right.

1:27:24 Speaker 1: And it seems that that I don't I don't know. I don't know, because again you get into other territories. I'm not asking anyone to go to jail for life for me so and for for for my benefit of information. But I think that is a crime against humanity to know that we're not alone, to have murdered people, to be actively exploiting or connecting with a non human intelligence, and not telling the public where the ones, at least in the UNI. It states our tax money is paying for this stuff. It's like classifying black holes.

1:28:10 Speaker 1: You can't do that. You can't classify reality. It's it doesn't work that way. That's an overreach, and it's it's it's it's an overreach, and it's it's I would assume breaking some sort of law

1:28:31 Speaker 1: a crime against humanity. Maybe I don't know if that's a real punishment, if that's actual law, but it's it's very frustrating to as someone tell you that or imply that something is like, we're headed for something and were we were gonna want to wish we knew sooner that that that that hurt me. That hurt me. So I don't know. I I thought, like I said, I thought the movie is great. I just think I think going forward,

1:29:17 Speaker 1: going going forward, I would love to see Dan jump into some actual cases, whether it be military like like tiktak and you know, do that that angle like talk about military UFO siding specifically. That's fine, that's so fine. I would love to see him tackle that. Uh, he probably, I'm from the Rogan interview he did, there was a few people he talked to that backed out of the movie for fear of their reputation. Or fear of what the reprisal of being in the film. So, I mean he's made connections. Now, so where is this guy gonna land?

1:30:05 Speaker 1: Right? Where is this is he gonna it'd be interesting to seek. It's a good case study, I suppose in itself. It seems when people get the UFO bug, they get the book and then it overtakes like everything, and that's all they want is the answers, and they dedicate their life to their life, life in their livelihood to finding answers.

1:30:36 Speaker 1: And it's it's it's weird. It's a weird subject like that. Not many other subjects do that or niches, right aside from maybe like reli religion, I mean, that's not a niche. That's a way of life. Is That's what the UFO world seems to be. It's like a way of life, right, So be interesting. See how how deep the rabbit hole that Dan Ferry just opened for himself, See how far he'll go with it he apparently he wants. He's already working with Jay Stratton on a movie about his life, based on his life. This is all from the Rogan interview if you want to check it out.

1:31:20 Speaker 1: He's working with a remote Viewer on a Remote Viewing film, as well as the Jay Stratton stuff, and then one other maybe it was the follow up to Age of Disclosure I'm thinking of because I know they did discuss like doing something like that, which I think would be fantastic, whether it's a director's cut or a direct sequel with some of the stuff that you couldn't use from the first film. That Like, what I really dislike about movie making is there is stuff that gets left on the cutting room floor.

1:31:51 Speaker 1: Some of that stuff's gold, it's just you had better material to run with, so sometimes you never even see that stuff. And that's a game. Most filmmakers will end up make using it to a degree, right,

1:32:08 Speaker 1: most like documentary filmmakers, I think we'll end up using it like if they you know, like Greer made all the unacknowledged he made the movie, but then he'd like released all the interviews on the YouTube channel. That's a good way to do it, actually, take nope, take nope, that's a good way to do it, all right, guys. Oh yeah, there's a favorite Underwood who began who In my opinion, they were the first domino that really if you think about it, if you track it linearly modern disclosure, the modern disclosure movement as we see it now, or as we look at it now, I would say the Tiktac case is right up there with Roswell, in which case I mean, in which I will say, in the age of disclosure, they do talk about Roswell and how it was real.

1:33:03 Speaker 1: So they take that. I mean, they took us a chance. There a stance there which I think you know it's it's in the context, right the people that are telling you this, they should be trustworthy. You should be able to take what they say it to the bank, unless they're trying to sighop you. Of course, do we know that that's the case. I don't know. I don't know. If I knew, trust me, I wouldn't be having such an internal dilemma when when I'm watching these movies, I would just pick a fucking side and lean into it.

1:33:44 Speaker 1: You make more that way. But here I am still with my questions. So uh yeah, I'd like to I'd definitely like to see all the uncut interviews. What do you guys think, any comments? I should get to Gene my man Jeane just throwing the ten dollars around with no actual text to quote, thank you Gene, love you him and that will be coming on soon that we'll probably do it live. Maybe we'll do it live. I have the camera switcher and stuff. Now we can do it live. It'd be fun. It's a clip of a longer Oh so that's seven minutes.

1:34:24 Speaker 1: That was just a clip because it did feel like it was cutting at weird places. So was that just a clip? And there's a long David Crush interview that I'm not that I didn't see. I'm not going to play any more of it. I think seven minutes is a good amount to play. What you'd think the reactions it was an hour? What that was it? We're not alone, scooby doo, all right, thank you guys. Yeah, that is the that was the interview. Uh, that's fucking crazy. Seven minutes. Yeah, a lot of it isn't here here.

1:35:15 Speaker 1: That's what I felt like. I know a lot of other people are like, dude, there's a bunch of fucking white guys telling you about disclosure, and I'm like, dude, that is not how I saw that. But I mean, Andre Carson is not white. That's one person, Marco Rubio, that I don't think is white. I think he's like, yeah, it's a lot of old white guys in ufology. Get used to it. There's a lot more people coming on board now though, so the old dimers, like the people that have been in it long enough long I should say, yeah, predominantly white, white males.

1:35:52 Speaker 1: But it's not like that anymore. So please don't use that, please please anyway, let me know in the comments if you're watching in the future, I would like to hear your thoughts on age of disclosure. I think it might. I think it has a chance to actually to do some good. I think it has a chance. I had a bunch of notes. I didn't even really go through. Wait, I went through Lakatski in all sap, hate Tip, James Clapper's perjury to Congress, all the witnesses really one to three minutes of screen time.

1:36:33 Speaker 1: Well, the rest was kind of just the New York Times article narrative set forth at twenty seventeen. You can't have it both ways. You can't be wrong and celebrate said story. And I went over all this aside from some mentions and quick clips, I think I got to everything. It does set the stage. Oh no, no, so it sets the stage for what comes to next. The only direction I can see would be physical evidence. That's the only thing that I think would unanimously silence critics and intrigue. Science is physical evidence, so logically doubt for me.

1:37:17 Speaker 1: If the advancement in this topic is to happen, physical evidence needs to come out. I know that there's other things that constitute as physical evidence that exist already, but we need something for the general public, like from straight from the government, them saying this is from Roswell or this is from Magenta like they need to say it and give it to us. It can't be like an I beam from Roswell that we know had inscriptions on it that we're similar to hieroglyphics. Can't be that, right, be something different and you see to be from the government to us.

1:38:03 Speaker 1: Here's some fucking physical evidence. Boom. We're not alone. End of story, right. Let some labs do some samples on it, show them all it's real. Move on, get the train moving. Whoever can do that will be in every history book ever written ever again, unless we were wiped out in some catastrophe, but it might even be written about in the aliens books. Now we're part of that history. We know that they're there, so you immortalize yourself. So someone's in the working in the black programs and fancies a stroll through YouTube all the time, you know, every once in a while, and checks out what UFO people are talking about, because you know, you working on a UFO and you really just want to get it off your chest.

1:38:57 Speaker 1: We're waiting, all right, thank you everyone, become an asset if you want early access. Uh my episode with You a PPD came out over the weekend with Mary and Robin Dave Rich. Uh they from Arizona. I will say this episodes fantastic. The video it was too big, too too big for one upload, so I fucked. I got to re upload it into two halves again, well into four halves, and then yeah, it's really weird. So I'll get working on that tomorrow. But people who are coming on are interesting, interesting people.

1:39:44 Speaker 1: John Borrows is one of them. These are the guests that are coming next. And if you like, if you want to become a member and get these early. Sometimes I upload them weeks in advance for people early in ad free access, and sometimes I let let the members watch me record so like you'll see the fuck ups and everything, or like the pee breaks and everything. I should say, not really fuck ups, but if you want to see it and it's raw form at like in like that kind of way, join the membership. It really helps you pay what you want and everyone gets the same benefits.

1:40:16 Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm working on sending out some stickers to people that are members as well, like show stickers, because I've been buying some die cut ones and they'll also be given those away just a random people throughout like the next couple of months, as well as some other things I've been buying, like doing that oh you can't see it anymore, the hats and stuff. I've been playing around with some of the designs and yeah, so I just want to give some of that stuff away. All right, Guys likes here subscribe.

1:40:43 Speaker 1: Let me know what you thought of Agent disclosure in the comments below. As Elvie's it was real fun and uh, the show would not exist without the viewers. You guys make everything worth it, truly, and I mean that from the bottom of my heart. Whether you're Ski or debunker, if you're a part of the UFO community, you make it all worth it. We're all in this together. Over and out

1:41:59 Speaker 2: Hmm.