UAP Disclosure 2025: Congress, Whistleblowers & The Road Ahead

0:38 Speaker 1: If anyone, all right, welcome back to total disclosure. If you've been following this topic closely, that is UFOs and just you know, kind of the news in general already, you probably know this twenty five was not business as usual. What once lived on the fringe has moved into congressional hearing rooms, national headlines, and mainstream conversation. Whistleblowers went on the record, lawmakers demanded answers, and the word disclosure stopped sounding hypothetical. Tonight, We're going to take a look and take a step back and take a look at the full picture.

1:19 Speaker 1: We're going to break down what actually happened in twenty twenty five from the UFO world to a little bit of politics and world events, because they, let's face it, they do matter. They do matter in this realm when we are trying to get momentum forward in government, in mainstream academia, in mainstream science, we do have to face the consequences of other real world events like wars in Ukraine, wars in the Middle East, assassin assassinations of certain political figures. These are real things that happened.

1:55 Speaker 1: So I'm going to open it up to pretty much anyone. The Evelyn it in the chat, So if you want to pop in give your thoughts. A lot of people do want to pop in, you know, I'll kind of start limiting it to five ten minutes, but I want everyone to be able to, you know, tell their story, tell their side of things. What was their favorite part of twenty twenty five, What was the biggest blunder of twenty twenty five as a UFO community. So I have a few people that I sent this to that will be here throughout the whole thing, and let's get it started.

2:30 Speaker 1: Gene Sticko, I'm actually editing our episode that we just refilmed. I want to say thank you for literally I texted you like four minutes ago. Yeah, well, I love it. I love it.

2:43 Speaker 2: Luckily, I'm not particularly popular, so I'm available.

2:46 Speaker 1: All oh, you're super popular. Yeah, but you didn't fucking tell me the mic was off. So I'm a little upset about that. I literally noticed it. Just anyone who like I said, you weren't there backstage, but I was literally telling you. You know, I was like, because he knows the outlook in here, and I was like, there's so many fucking wires it's hard to start to keep track of them all, but for quality, what I do what I do, So, Jeane, I wanted to start off obviously, I kind of put it in linear linear fashion when I started going through at least the things that that I've been what I would consider the biggest topics.

3:27 Speaker 1: If I miss one, someone please tell me, of course. But January of I don't know if you remember, but right before the new year last year, so twenty twenty four, there was there was the hearings where Elizondo testified, where Schallenberger tests. I went to that one, and that was right before the change to twenty twenty five. That was December twenty twenty four. But then in late January that was when the first trailer for the upcoming UFO documentary, The Age of Disclosure, which is directed by Dan Farah and is now on Amazon Prime for for purchase, for rent, and it featured interviews with thirty four US government military intelligence insiders.

4:12 Speaker 1: These are people in and around the UFO UAP community, and it debuted already at the South by Southwest premire and it positioned itself as a major major cultural event for this disclosure movement. How do you think did meet your expectations The documentary. What did you think of it? And I mean, do you remember when the trailer hit?

4:40 Speaker 2: So well, you know, let's do let's let's talk about time in context. Right. It wasn't until June that I really entered this space, right you know, So so you were you know, you're talking six months. Oh yeah, and during that you know that, So the beginning of twenty twenty five, you know, I was just kind of hanging back. I had finished, you know, publishing the book, and I was just starting to, let's say, explore before you know, I decided to throw my hand into the ringk. So you know, I walked into this and subsequently the six months since, I've been drinking through a fire hose and I've been trying to catch it.

5:22 Speaker 2: And I mean, I feel like we've known each other forever now literally, you know, but it's you know, one hundred and ninety days maybe. Yeah.

5:30 Speaker 1: I actually completely slipped my mind that that that's how long it's felt like. Is it really has been just this year and not even the whole year. But yeah, I kind of just completely glazed over the fact that I had not even met you six months ago, right.

5:48 Speaker 2: I mean, which I think says a lot, right. I mean, it just talks about how fast and how intensely things move. Yeah, right, And and so you know you talk about age disclosure. So when I came through the door, okay, it's it's out there. I know, you know, we I'm aware, but I'm hearing. Well, it's been in there for years. I'm trying to figure out who all these people are, and you know, and and all the rest of it. And it's like you it's you know, literally walking into the bar in the middle of the fight, and you know, like the hell's going on here?

6:23 Speaker 1: Rightkay? So let me I guess, let me rephrase this then, Okay, the trailer dropped. So and that I mean, I don't know if you remember at least watching the hearings when Alizondo testified, but that, like I said, it happened right on the precipice of the turn of twenty twenty five. So you know, the last couple of years for the UFO community, like you said, you know, you came in drinking a fire hose. But for a lot of us, it was a drought. It was a long drought, long time. And now it's like the flood dates have seemed to be kind of opening on it and for people coming in, I do kind of feel bad for for how much you have to catch up on, but for age of disclosure specifically, did you think do you think it has a chance to move any needles?

7:16 Speaker 2: Well? You know, yeah, so short answer yes, why well again for me? And so when did when did it come out? In November?

7:26 Speaker 1: Yeah?

7:27 Speaker 2: Launched? Yeah, so you know, there was I didn't have certainly as long as a wait in anticipation, you know, waiting around for it, but you know, I found it. I think sort of as somebody I guess who was in the middle ground between member of the community and outsider.

7:52 Speaker 2: For me, it was a great contextual piece that was taking all of these things that I've been here about I'm sorry. Yeah, so it was taking all of these different issues and personalities and relationships that I'd been hearing about in all the little camps and whatnot and laying out, you know, laying out the story. Yes, you know, twenty twenty one or twenty twenty three, I knew about the hearings. I had watched them. You know, that was certainly interesting, but it was sort of you know, watched them and moved on, saw whatever news was happening.

8:32 Speaker 2: So Age of disclosure for me was good to as a I guess as a historical marker that brought together the age of modern dis here.

8:50 Speaker 1: Can you hear me?

8:51 Speaker 2: Yeah, I can hear you. Fine.

8:57 Speaker 1: All of a sudden, it just like kind of like switched off. I don't know what happened. No, yeah, keep talking for sec It might it might be me.

9:04 Speaker 2: I don't know why, so the so yeah, like I said, it was, it was good for me. I enjoyed it in that sense because it took bits and pieces I had was aware of prior to jumping into this full throttle as well as the people and and just sort of put the timeline together for me a little bit better.

9:31 Speaker 1: I can't hear it's a I feel like something's getting cross with the HDMI cord. But the something about this dongle that's a funny word, but yeah, this dongle. When I plug at the HDMI and plug my MacBook into an extra screen, it always acts like really funky. It changes my microphone stream yard specifically, not with anything else. And as a person who does a lot of episodes virtually like people think, people like, sometimes it will be like, oh, the like the quality you need to you need to do something about like and I'm like, dude, it's crazy, like it doesn't.

10:12 Speaker 1: I swear to God, I'm not touching anything, and it just will switch itself off and and then it will use like the max speaker and it sounds obviously like a circa nineteen ninety three. I swear, I swear someone's there's like a ghost in here doing something or something.

10:29 Speaker 2: It's it's well, then we have some stuff move or doors open and right and listen.

10:36 Speaker 1: I'll be the first one to throw it out there. I obviously have there. Like I agree, I have a lot of wires. If if everyone I wonder if I have a shot that would like show it this one if I zoomed out a little bit. But there are a lot of wires. So I was just for a while, I was just thinking about, Okay, maybe it's wires getting crossed and it's flipping it like some sort of interference. And then I started thinking about other things that have happened. And I consistently hear people walking above me.

11:08 Speaker 1: But I live on the first floor in my main apartment, so I am so used to hearing people above me that it didn't even register that. Yeah, yeah, yeah, consistently, I'm hearing someone walk the full length of the fucking house. And it didn't dawn on me till like I started putting it all together because the other day, I was sitting here and I was recording an episode. I was video essay, so I had my I was staring deadlock into the No, it was this camera. So I was deadlock staring into the camera, and I could see the fucking door open in the shot.

11:45 Speaker 1: And then I stood up and walked over.

11:49 Speaker 3: To the door.

11:50 Speaker 1: I looked down because obviously my garage like drafts come through, like the paranormal is is somewhere. I kind of draw my line. For the most part, I'm the most skeptical when it comes to the paranormal. Let's put it that way. Okay, I just can't deny it anymore. Something weird's happening in here. Put it all together, dude. I watched that door open. The door was locked downstairs, the groas was shut. There was no windows open, Jeane, you know how cold it is here right now? Yep, there was no window and no draft.

12:25 Speaker 1: Nothing could have pushed that door open with the force that it came open, and I saw it on this on this camera. This camera is tilted a little bit more so you could see through the hallway and if the door open right now, you'd see light come through. And that's essentially what I saw behind me. And I looked and the door just fucking flung open. And I'm just I'm not saying there's a ghost, but something creepy's happening.

12:51 Speaker 2: Well, we'll come over, we'll check it out, we'll investigate.

12:54 Speaker 1: Yeah yeah, so yeah, sorry about that. All twenty minutes of that, just to say that I could hear you for a second. I'm sorry about that. What were you saying? Because all I got was maybe like one sense.

13:08 Speaker 2: Yeah, No, I was just essentially summarizing that, you know, I found Agent Disclosed are useful insomuch as it brought together the last few years and all the bits and pieces I'd been hearing about in a you know, convenient two hour documentary, you know, and so it it it closed the loop, let's say, on things relationships and stuff. I didn't really quite understand who was who and what their relationships were, and you know, outside of hearing it about camps, you know, and whatnot. And then I was like, all right now, I get really understand how all the players from that perspective at least fit together.

13:53 Speaker 2: So I found it. I found it useful as somebody in the the middle ground of yeah.

14:00 Speaker 1: But so do you get the argument because a lot of people in the UFO world, in the Ufo uh culture, if you will, because I don't like, I don't like when people say it's a community, because I mean, it is a community, just like Star Wars fans have community. But there's these like factions that have built up in it. You know, the Doctor Greer like people, the Alizondo people. Not on Alizondo people, because you're either with them apparently I hate them, you love them. I don't know, it's nowhere. There's no in between on that guy.

14:38 Speaker 1: But there's Yeah. So there's like these factions in the in the UFO world, the Ufo community, the culture. So a lot of people in that culture are kind of fed up with the starting Point documentary because essentially that's what it is. It's good for people that are just getting into the topic. However, for Ufo people that know the topic, they know what's going on, they know the law, this doesn't do anything for them. But then again, these documentaries aren't necessarily for us, and I understand that, but most people in the UFO sphere don't.

15:16 Speaker 2: Yeah, sorry, but yeah, I read that.

15:20 Speaker 1: Dan Farrah. It was his introduction to the community, just like you were introduced this year. So for you guys, it is an introduction, and for us on the inside, it's like, well, it's like we're just getting a bunch of false starts.

15:36 Speaker 2: Sorry, right right, yeah, no, definitely, you know, and there was no nobody was pulling any punches that it didn't meet expectations. But you know that became my question, well, who's the audience. And the audience was not this community culture absolutely no, Yeah.

16:00 Speaker 1: I agree, Yeah, it's people and and and I get it, like I get it, and the people that had seen it, like Joe Rogan, they really kind of hyped it up. They got people really like thinking that this was going to be something that that had been not done before. But I kind of argue, and I'm not I'm not saying that Age of Disclosure wasn't a good film, but what I'm saying is I think the phenomenon by James Fox arguably does the same thing for.

16:35 Speaker 4: For the viewer.

16:36 Speaker 1: With more, more, more cases casework, like getting into the cases, not just the testimony of of the same people that have essentially been the the bad person of the UFO

16:55 Speaker 1: disclosure movement, right the government the the because we all like to do that. Now all of a sudden, we've kind of flip flopped for ninety years the government was the enemy. Now if they don't say it, it's not true. Like we've kind of flip flopped in that way as well.

17:12 Speaker 2: Right well, right, and you know, and we I think you know, when you and I sat down last time, we talked about that a little bit, right, like, you know, who's uh, if they're if there's coordinated abductions, who's allowed to be abducted? And why is it you know, a couple of guys out fishing and drinking and not a government official, you know who came up with those rules. Yeah, but you know, as far as the film goes, you're right, there's the you know, in in part of me wonders was it a you know, was it was it a piece for the government or for other people in government to really frame you know, who might not be paying attention, but to say, look, here are your colleagues now in this document entry talking about this stuff and you know, and now you can focus on it, and now you can come to was that part of the the thinking behind what they were going to cover and how they were going to cover it And if they got too much into case work, then they lose the support they're trying to garner as a result of the documentary.

18:27 Speaker 1: And definitely I agree. Well, I guess the sense sense, the sense of me is every film, and you're kind of seeing it now with the disclosure. Like even the scripted Spielberg Disclosure Day film, they're saying, oh, this is going to bring disclosure. So every every big film that comes out is the next one that's going to bring disclosure. First it was a tear in the sky and not focus on the you weren't even around for this, But this is a film that came out. And what they did is they went to Catalina Island and it was this uap X group and it was people that made up the Nimts.

19:07 Speaker 1: It was mostly guys from the Princeton honestly, but the Nimids Battle Group a lot of the guys that had come forward aside from from the pilots because they're kind of separate. H Fravor Dietrich. But this guy Gary, this Kevin Day was the radar guy. They had this group uap X or I can't remember it if that was it x UAP it was uap X but that makes me think Twitter now. But that film was supposed to be so big. It had William Shatner in it, you know, Caroline Corey spent like twenty grand on his appearance to market it as like William Shatner.

19:52 Speaker 1: That was supposed to be disclosure. When that came out, then, you know, the community sets these standards on these films, and they're set their expectation up here only to be never to achieve that there's never going to be a film that that that gets disclosure.

20:10 Speaker 2: No, you're right, and and and they definitely do. I've noticed that as well. Everything set standards everything listen, everything's evidence, everything's groundbreaking evidence. Everything is you know, oh, this is the video. And I've said it in a lot of places. I'm like, I don't think you know, videos and and you know photos are going to be you know, are going to make the government go ah you got me, Oh jeez, this after eighty years, Yeah, this is the one that uh, you know we we just can't hide it anymore.

20:52 Speaker 2: Yeah, so you're right, and and and four For an issue that has been such a long game, it I find it interesting that, you know, and maybe there is people of just a matter of running out of patience, but nobody does look at things as a long game. Nobody is saying, all right, here's here's another piece. Let's put it in context, let's you know, let's explore it, dissect it. Is there anything new we can extrapolate from this that builds the case of what we're trying to get to.

21:33 Speaker 1: And that's the thing, as I think people looking forward to twenty twenty six, what we can do better is instead of building expectations on each documentary to be the one, we need your like you said, we need it to be part of Right, this is part of the movement. This is an extension of the wants and needs of the people inside of it. Right, what's the message we're trying to convey to people, the general public, the person that doesn't hang out on Twitter fucking twenty four to seven and in spaces and and what did I even call them?

22:21 Speaker 1: Fucking seances? The Twitter seances? I die?

22:25 Speaker 2: Well, you know what I mean? And this is the thing, right, there's a lot of a lot of people like to call themselves investigators and researchers and all the rest of it. You start acting like it, right, you know, you have to as excited as you might get about a new piece of information until you properly analyze it until you you know, and and sometimes you may really like it, but it is not telling us anything new, So it's not, you know, waste. But you've got to be ready to let it go and pivot and get back on point, back to your investigation and if you need to circle back to it, you know, as as things are discovered, right, you hear it in every show, in every news broadcast.

23:22 Speaker 2: You've got to let you've got to be led by the evidence. And I think the other issue is that there is not a unified there's not a unified goalpost on what this, you know, where you're trying to go with the evidence? Right? Who are we We're trying to prosecute a case to whom? And we you know, is it the general public? Well, we're certainly not reaching them, is it to you know? And I look at it from my own, you know, my own efforts of what I'm trying to do and you know, where can I go with it and evidence is to get it in front of Congress and these committees, the people who are asking the questions that should open the doors to you know, to disclosure and to make it easy.

24:20 Speaker 2: So it's almost like the community, the people, the researchers, we have to be the folks in the field for the representatives putting this information together. That's problematic because they also don't want to hear from everybody all the time. And I think this is where the conflicts come in about gatekeepers and whistle blowers, and we only hear from government people now, and and that that causes more questions on the on the intent and the legit intimacy of even the people who say they are trying to reach the answers.

25:04 Speaker 1: I agree. And you know, another big, a big, a big thing obviously was the hearings, right the last set of hearings that we had uh with Dylan Borland and all the other guys, so and and and you you you make a good point about the gatekeeping. It does seem that there is a bit of gatekeeping with when it comes in terms of the witnesses that they're willing to put on the on the stand. However, like you said, I don't know if you can avoid that because you kind of have to pick somebody that is from the community, that knows their way around the people that and maybe Corbella and Napp are that.

25:57 Speaker 1: Maybe they are that, but I don't think that, uh, because a lot of people have called them gatekeepers in that sense.

26:03 Speaker 2: Like I'm one of them.

26:06 Speaker 1: Yeah, so a lot of people have been very very vocal in their sense, like listen, you know, you cannot just put up whoever you want, like you can't by definition your gate keeping the members of Congress, but the members of Congress, they also have to be willing to talk with other people. And I know Burlison and guys like like Kim Burchett, Luna, I know they are willing. It's just are they getting to the right people?

26:36 Speaker 2: No, absolutely not. I mean, you know, and and again the at the end of right, it's about the evidence. Right. We got some good stories. We got people who come forward and say this is what I saw. We you know, Grush is a great example, you know, but the where do you go with it next? Okay, well that into a skiff and that you know, becomes secret and nobody has the opportunity to the public, let's say, does not have the opportunity to vet any of this information as well. And so, you know, stories are great, they are not evidence.

27:19 Speaker 2: They are testimony not you know, are there bits and pieces and they would be better if there was an attempt to follow up and contextualize the statements. Right, So Dylan Borland talks about you know, NASA hang or one a m. There's a date, you know what what he sees? All right, let's dive into that, and let's talk to an ask hey, and as what do you do show us records? What do you have going on at that place at such and such a time. Maybe that's happening backstage, but again there's piss poor communication.

28:02 Speaker 1: Yes, and I think everyone thinks that everyone else is doing it and and what we're getting is is kind of like it's like kind of like the JFK thing. It's it's I heard a great quote about like JFK conspiracy researchers, But most of them are just writing books upon other people's books. They don't actually do the research themselves. And when we do piggyback off of each other like that we're kind of just creating the echo chamber that then we have to suffer through. If you will, if you will.

28:39 Speaker 2: You know again, you know, and I won't pick on individuals, but if you are an investigative journalist, then there should be results of your investigation. Your your investigation. When the results of your individu you know, or when you're investigation is leading you to information that somebody else has already brought out, You're you're non investigating anything, you were, you were amplifying. You're just you were taking somebody else's work and you're talking about it.

29:20 Speaker 1: Yeah, because everyone likes to call themselves a researcher or like a like. I know, I'm not a quote unquote researcher. I know what I do is I facilitate because usually what I do is I facilitate discussion, story and give people platform to tell me what happened to them. Right. I like to see myself as like a not obviously, I don't picture myself as art Bell. I don't think anyone would ever be able to live up to that. Maybe Rogan maybe, But I like to think of myself as art Bell esque. Like if someone tells me they're if they're they're a fucking vampire.

29:56 Speaker 1: I'm gonna be like, tell me more. Well, you know, I'm not gonna to try to like make them feel a certain way or you know, tell them there that that didn't happen. I'm like, hey, tell me more.

30:08 Speaker 2: Right, But you're also not going to go into the woods with them at two o'clock in the morning.

30:12 Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, right, So correct.

30:15 Speaker 2: We're the investigative journalists should be out in those woods at two o'clock in the.

30:20 Speaker 1: Morning, exactly. And that is my point. There seems to be a lot of armchair researchers and and your evidence pool cannot just be the Internet and needs to you need to work the field in like, we don't have UFO investigators like Stanon Friedman anymore. We don't have investigators like like George even George Knapp to a degree, right, George, George, just say what you want about him. But the guys traveled for ufology. He's gone to the former Soviet Union but now Russia. Like he's traveled for stories like that.

30:56 Speaker 1: We don't really have that anymore. And and and the context it takes now is like Jesse Michaels and and and it gets turned into a documentary like, well.

31:10 Speaker 2: Now it's tourism. It's it's journalistic tourism to a degree. Right, so you know, everybody goes and makes their rounds down to Peru and finger foks the mummies for a while, and now we're going to Brazil and you know, I mean, and so it's you know, it's it's it's just like this Internet phenomenon of oh I found this great new right, you know, the commercial, oh I found this great new beautiful spot, and then you know, the Instagrammers there and then you you know, look over the shoulder and there's a line of forty other people.

31:47 Speaker 2: You know, it's not some great new secret shot. You're just following what's already there, and you're just retelling the story over and over without a different angle, without bringing new expertise to it. Right. So if you're the journalist and you're like, hey, I'm gonna you know, I've contracted a seven forty seven and I'm flying down a new MRI or whatever, it is, Okay, great, there you go. But again it's just it's just circular, circular reporting, and you run into this and intelligence too, you know, I take more intelligence focused approach to it.

32:30 Speaker 2: Yeah, right, whereas investigators, you're out in the field intelligence. We're looking for signals.

32:36 Speaker 1: Right, right, and you're you're separating noise from the signal, right, and you're you're you're extracting from the noise the signal. So I did say, I'm opening this to everyone. So someone just popped in. I'm gonna let them take give their give their thoughts. I haven't done this in a while like this. Hi brought, is it? Brian?

32:59 Speaker 3: Oh?

32:59 Speaker 5: Yeah?

33:00 Speaker 6: Hi?

33:00 Speaker 3: Ty?

33:00 Speaker 4: I got the invitation from Gene and figured how to pop in.

33:05 Speaker 1: I appreciate that.

33:06 Speaker 4: I hate to crash the party here, but.

33:08 Speaker 1: No, you're not crashing more people to come in. What did you What is your thought on the year of twenty twenty five for Uphology? We started with Age of Disclosure and you you know the congressional hearing that side of things. What was it a good year? Bad year? Indifferent?

33:31 Speaker 4: A lot of people may disagree with me on this, but I'm going to go with good year. We've got a lot more whistleblowers coming out. Uh, a lot more people coming to the front and the foray, including Gene. By the way, UH, a very welcome edition.

33:48 Speaker 2: Now is it?

33:48 Speaker 4: Everything? That we wanted, I would argue, no, I think there's a lot more progress to be made. So you know, we're all looking for that capital D discloser where the president gets in front of the podium, and that that really is probably what we need. I know that you and I have talked about this extensively, and hopefully we get that coming soon. So I say, a good year. Would I consider it great? Exceptional? No, but a good year. I don't think we were step back.

34:24 Speaker 2: Interesting Brian, I'm gonna put Brian on the Brian talks with a lot of interesting people, you know, and and and has a lot of insights into a broad spectrum. So he's a phenomenal resource in and of himself.

34:40 Speaker 1: Really, that's what I'd love to talk about that as well.

34:48 Speaker 3: So I.

34:50 Speaker 1: Twenty twenty five. I think it's interesting. Uh, it was an interesting year. I think a lot of so the the one of the things that I have shifted in my thinking actually this past year. It's funny that you brought it up, is I actually don't I don't know if the president walking up to the podium and delivering that speech, that one that everyone references, right that Steve Bassett says, is coming every single year. Make no mistake. Steve is a good friend of mine. I love him. I actually invited him on so no shame.

35:29 Speaker 1: That's what he does for a living, is he tells people disclosures come in. I get it, but I don't think that that Do you think that's really a possibility, like a like a real a real world scenario, not something from the movies that we've been kind of taught that that is the only acceptable quote unquote capital D disclosure when in fact, I mean if Trump really came to the podium, it would sound off. It wouldn't sound as formal as as we all you know, my fellow Americans, people of the world, you know, we're not alone.

36:08 Speaker 1: It'd be like, you know, fuck China, China's fault aliens are real, Like it would be something crazy like that, right, Like you'd slip it in, but it would be a bunch of fucking other nonsense whirlwinded around it and then somehow it would be like China's fault right, So it wouldn't even sound is good coming from Trump. It'd probably be funnier though, but half the population might not even believe it.

36:35 Speaker 4: Yeah, if I could jump out on that just real quick, you're I think where you're going is exactly right. I think it's gonna be be more on the catastrophic side that the private side, you know, investigators, whether it's something there's one answer that happens that forces the government of the podium. Now that could also come from another government that forces are government in the podium as well. So that's that's more where I'm leaning. If you're going to get capital d's because they're there, their hand has been.

37:09 Speaker 1: Forced that I could see. And but that would again, that would look a little bit different. I think that would be something where it might be Geane, who do you if it wasn't the president delivering it right away, who do you think might step given your career intelligence in the military, who would be the one if it wasn't the president, Who in the cabinet would be able to give a speech about, say a craft that's on its approach, you know, something like that where our hand is forced. Who would be able to make a speech like that?

37:49 Speaker 2: Yeah, you know, I mean I think in Steve Massett says, and I love the term, you know, he calls it the big D disclosure, And I'm like, I like, I like Big D disclosure a lot better. He's right in that sense when it comes right when it comes to the Oval Office, that has the greater impact, you know, on the markets and all the rest of it. If they know it's coming from another source, I think we would see more of the response mechanism set up. So you might we might see a joint press conference, you know, between the Secretary of War in NASA, you know, potentially FEMA if if there's that thing is like, oh, something's going to land, we don't quite know where.

38:45 Speaker 2: Probably looks like it's going to be the middle of the Sahara desert, So it's not going to directly impact us insomuch as you know it's it's going to hit the city streets here. But they will want to demonstrate they are prepared and so that those agencies that would have to go.

39:09 Speaker 1: I ever even thought about that, like you'd kind of have to have some sort of like FEMA organization. Maybe maybe even I don't know if it'd be like u N backed a u N backed organization, but you know.

39:25 Speaker 2: Now that might be kind of the response. Yeah, it might. We might actually say okay, we're going to you know, so it's you know, it looks like something's going on in the middle of this area. All right, we're gonna send you know, a UN peacekeeping force or something like that, right, but on the home front. And I say FEMA because I think FEMA's often overlooked and so much as buried within. You know, all of the THEMA planning documents in its systems and structures, are these our wording around other, you know, other threats.

40:00 Speaker 2: So they talk in terms of or they talk in terms of all hazards, so they might approach it from the the hazard's standpoint and what it is. And I see whistling MIC's in there. I don't know ty if you were familiar with whistling mic No.

40:17 Speaker 1: But I I know that I interviewed Tim Phillips around the time, so we've been intertwined in a way.

40:26 Speaker 2: There you go, here's your chance to say hello.

40:29 Speaker 1: It's good to good to actually speak with you.

40:34 Speaker 7: Yeah, yeah, I say too much.

40:37 Speaker 8: I think Tyan Jean's got the right idea here, though, which is that really the key to this is is strategic planning moving forward. And I don't think we've seen that. Even if you listen to Berlason, whether you like him, or not. He said that everybody in this group basically hates each other and we're gonna have to admit that that's been a problem moving forward. So until we can get all on the same page, we can't really move forward.

41:03 Speaker 7: Normally, it's something like this.

41:04 Speaker 8: You have the old motto of go to where their leader is and taken down.

41:09 Speaker 7: So who is that? You know?

41:10 Speaker 8: Is that eerro is at SSCI, that's the deep state? Whatever you want to say, but it certainly can't be us intertwined because it's almost kind of the sort of stuff you want to keep in the locker room or the clubhouse. You know, we're all going to have our feelings about each other, but that doesn't get us anywhere. So that's just kind of my piece on it is. You know, I think we could move forward, but we have to have a plan in right now it's just not working.

41:39 Speaker 1: Do you think do you guys think that the UAP Disclosure Act as it as as it's been tried to be pushed. This includes things like the amnesty, the the what is that clause? Were you evident domain? Do you guys think anything like that would be able to do the action little job of of facilitating disclosure or would that just be kind of like, I don't know, I try to envision opinions.

42:11 Speaker 8: Yeah, I mean because you know everything, which is what the problem of the community is we only see it from our own view or our own particular situation or experience.

42:19 Speaker 7: But for me.

42:20 Speaker 1: What it would it make you want to come step forward?

42:23 Speaker 8: Well, you know, I offered myself up for the hearings, my full identity, my full face, but my only request was going to be that I went through a polygraph before on anything that I went And my point of that was that my strategic view is that rather than stories you know were forced on mainstream media, is that if you were subject to the same polygraph that determines you know, any intelligence agency, whether it's FBI, d o J, Border Patrol, it's all mandatory for hiring, right, it was the nuclear Code.

42:54 Speaker 8: So rather than and I can tell you this from experience, for some of the people that recovering it, I was getting laugh in a mode gee's over some of the stuff that was said from some of the reporters, defense reporters saying what am I going to do with this? So it's a different scenario. If you can say, well, you know, the guy said that this happened, and you pass the same sort of polygraph that the guy with the nuclear codes did. Well, that gets you pretty far down the path of it has to be covered.

43:21 Speaker 7: And I think it also.

43:22 Speaker 8: Helps the gentlemen that went because they're facing a lot of issues right now, people basically thinking they're crazy or they're lying, you know, that would help them. And I think most of them have been subjected to a polygraph at some point in time.

43:34 Speaker 4: And Mike, these are not your typical polygraphs that you would see back in the day. The polygraphs now that you've gotten the military and everything else are are extremely accurate. Yeah, it was a little more intense.

43:48 Speaker 8: Well, yeah, I'm glad Bryan said that. Because everybody's still stuck on that. Well, they can't be subjected to court. Well, and that may be a good thing to get iving in here on. But lawyers, god bless them, are some of the reasons you can't have a court. It's not necessarily that it's not a you know, like, what's the percentage rate night right now? In course of the innocent people actually winning, you know.

44:07 Speaker 7: What I mean?

44:07 Speaker 1: Right right right?

44:08 Speaker 7: You be better off at ninety seven point five.

44:11 Speaker 1: You know, wait, it's a good point though that you know, polygraphs are not amissible in court as like viable evidence, quote unquote, but every intelligence community, and like you said, every single one of them uses it to determine whether or not and you know you're going to be hired for this, this position, that position, or any position.

44:33 Speaker 8: I mean, I've always stressed the UAPBA reminds me of coming somewhere and saying you're going to play by my rules now, and we don't have that power. Certainly, the UAPA cocks in the house has no power to do that. If you really want to beat someone, you have to play by their rules and still beat them at their game. And this is the method to do that. I mean, that's it's as simple as that. Or you're going to waste a whole year with more whistleblowers, with more trouble, more gofundmes can't find jobs.

45:02 Speaker 8: I mean, let's not do that again.

45:06 Speaker 1: You know, I agree. And one thing I will ask you guys is and this is for everybody. That guy, okay, you can come back if he wants. This year twenty twenty five, one of the things that we did have to worry about is the rise in AI, the rise in AI videos and AI photography, But there seem to also be a rise and a surge in sightings and more viral incidents if you will, you know, And what I find to be troubling is these people aren't really going and reporting these cases anymore, or these sightings. So do we need to start you know, not requiring, but showing people like, hey, go to the go to.

45:54 Speaker 1: As much as I hate, I don't want to say this, report your case, to move on, report it to international UFO bureau. Like should we be investigating cases like we did before?

46:07 Speaker 2: Well, this is yes to so to a degree. And this is also why, you know, touching on what I said earlier, right, we need to be more discerning. So you know, now more now more people are looking upwards. We have more technology available to us to capture it.

46:29 Speaker 2: But you're right inso much as it's not being properly investigated, and everybody just jumps to the conclusion it's a UFO and look at my great UFO footage, and you know wants to get into the you know, get into the discussion. So you know, yeah, I agree, there needs to be some level of discernment. But again, what's one more video going to tell us that we don't know? Right? We already we already agree there should in the sky. We don't know what it is. We already understand it comes in various shapes and sizes.

47:07 Speaker 2: We understand that there are there's a plethora of various phenomenon that is associated with it, whether it's it's atmospheric, whether it's the plasma, whether it's color, all of these things. And so I think, you know, an organization, any organization that is accepting these reports, needs to begin capturing the data and be able to process the data much more effectively. And yeah, we need to, you know, instead of just pushing it out there and then asking everybody to you know, asking them, oh, tell me the story about you putting your head up in the sky and seeing something.

47:54 Speaker 2: You know, there's we've got to be breaking it down a lot more. And I know Jay, that's there. Jay's a Mood Fund investigator himself, or former or close to be former or whatever.

48:05 Speaker 4: Yeah, close to be former.

48:06 Speaker 9: But it's uh, it's still would move on though I still suggest people to go to them.

48:12 Speaker 3: It's it's not.

48:14 Speaker 9: Every everybody has a different a different take on the organization because it's run by volunteers, you know, it's it's a volunteer organization, meaning you have other people involved in it.

48:25 Speaker 5: It's not you know.

48:27 Speaker 9: But regardless, my feelings on this whole thing would be, we have all these organizations out there right now that are collecting this information civilian wise, right. We have you know, the Citizens for Safe Aerospace, we have move On, we have the International UFO Bureau. They're all civilian run, they're all But what is the key that we need to look at here is, like you said, gene is the evidence. We have the databases already. Let's put them together. What's going to happen with move On, Citizens for Safe Aerospace, the International UFO Bureau, and we add all these databases together.

49:10 Speaker 9: The government's already doing it. The civilians should be doing it. We should be doing it. We're already doing it. We have the agencies, but they're spread out.

49:19 Speaker 1: Yeah, like, and make no mistake about it. I think of course, military, commercial, you know, pilots, aviators, those cases do hit different. They hit different. They they strike a different chord with the general public. They're just more they stand alone better. But I feel like we've gotten away from a little bit, we've gotten away from the actual legwork that needs to be done still, Like, just because we know there's multiple types of UFOs, there's multiple types of phenomena, doesn't mean you just stop, you know, collecting data on it.

49:58 Speaker 9: Right, Yeah, one hundred percent, one hundred percent. And my feelings on that would be, you take the data and you don't just stop.

50:07 Speaker 3: You can't.

50:08 Speaker 9: You have to build upon that, meaning you're gonna go out there in the field. You're gonna use instruments to detect these phenomenon happening and correlate it with what you know based off of real science. You have it on the machines, you can see it for your own eyes.

50:26 Speaker 4: You have it detected.

50:28 Speaker 9: Now you have something to go off of and base something else off of and build upon it.

50:33 Speaker 1: Right.

50:34 Speaker 7: Yeah, that's that's big to me too.

50:35 Speaker 8: I Mean, I think all three of you guys have been chiming in kind of on the same thing, which is that we've got to the point where we know military members have seen it. So I know that's a big thing. Kind of like Tys saying, we've got to now what goes past that? Well, people have their different views. But if the whole UFO thing is random, then it's like you spin the globe and you put your finger on wherever it stops.

50:58 Speaker 7: That's the person.

50:59 Speaker 8: So you know, if it's random, then, like I always tell people, I really don't care if the guy has DUIs or whatever his personal life is. It's a random situation. What I want to know is is there anything in your story that I can use to validate it? Right, GPS coordinate state and time stamps, you know that sort of information. Really what we need to be pulling out what you have to move forward with, not what is your background? What bad things do you have in your past?

51:30 Speaker 7: Right?

51:30 Speaker 1: That's a good that That is something I did want to touch on as well. The because of the rise in quote unquote and I and I again, I don't I don't mean any disrespect to anyone when I say this quote the quote unquote whistleblowers. With the rise of UFO whistleblowers has come the rise in you know, picking people's parts of past and using that against them, h to some form or you know, in one way or another, in one form or another, whether it's you know, like you said, this guy's gonna dy, you know, short of going like a wall or like I don't know, like of course, the big the Big three, the trifecta crimes, Like do we really need to be pulling on people's PTSD.

52:25 Speaker 1: I don't really think so unless they are there, unless they're like they've been deemed mentally unstable. I don't think that what anyone is saying is less interesting or less uh verifiable if it does have the data to back it, the evidence to back it.

52:49 Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean I think you know, there's that makes sense. No, it makes perfect Yeah, it makes perfect sense. You know there's and again it's a balance, right, So what you're looking for overall, I think this is what what Mike was getting at, is you know, the consistency of the story, right, and yes, you probably should. You know, you know, things that influence you know, narcotics use. You know that's of alcohol use, the right, the old though we were out drinking, you know, it was two o'clock in the morning and we were drinking.

53:27 Speaker 1: Eh, mushrooms.

53:28 Speaker 2: It's like yeah factor, so you know, and but I think that again, everything has to be you know, within the context and framework of the evidence that is being presented. So yes, certainly when it is, you know, purely just a story and there's no other corroborating verbal, testimonial evidence from anybody that supports your story. You know it again, it's you know, the person doesn't need to be ridiculed, and but yeah, you're more likely to kind of put that off to the side unless you can find other external unrelated to the person, corroborating data.

54:17 Speaker 2: Right, you know, were there are other reports that night in the area, whatever it might be, right, I.

54:27 Speaker 4: Don't mean underruptile what we're what we're also running into is and uh, you know, I got to talk with the plasma physicists quite some times, you know, and I have talked about this as well. Is some of the skin around these crafts that we've got are able to for a period of time, run the plasma around the crash. And so that's what a lot of uh, a lot of the settings that we could be uh, that that people are seeing, that's what it can be, and that plasma can run the other invisible or different colors.

55:02 Speaker 4: You know, this is exactly what I was told. So how how how does one distinguish, oh, hey, this is pretty cool tech that we've got, or is this what U, a non human intelligence is using, and so that's that's kind of becoming a problem now until we get the better detection materials.

55:24 Speaker 2: Well, and I think that goes you know, but and again in the simplest way, that goes into what Jay was talking about. You know your databases, right, because as that data is collected certain colors, certain weather conditions, you you begin to identify some patterns in that. You know, if you begin to see the same thing, same time, same place, you know, does that does that or does that not lean one way or the other of nhi versus prosaic I don't, I don't know, but you know, the the answer is gonna be in that data somewhere that allows that next step to be taken to get closer to those answers.

56:06 Speaker 3: Yes.

56:07 Speaker 4: And part of the problem as well, if you look at the Jacent Stands story. When I talk with him, his alien encounter was looking for tritium. Okay, Well, when I talked to my co owner, the U of the plasma physicists, he needs etherium and tritium for his for his the plasma to work. It's like, okay, wait a minute, now, they could won't be using the same thing, and and and now how would you distinguish one from the other. That's that's going to be a new, a new problem. And and I don't know if a Jay's running into that as well.

56:41 Speaker 4: Well.

56:42 Speaker 2: I think it's just this extension of you know, like Jay and Ty, we're talking about right data tools, the availability of tools, and most importantly people with a skill set to analyze it.

56:56 Speaker 1: Yeah, what do you guys think? Because I talked to Gene about this, You guys obviously weren't here from the beginning, like the backstage, but I did kind of want to talk a little bit about how UFO disclosure, whether we like it or not, can it is affected by certain world events. Now, the two I have in mind are the Charlie Kirk assassination. I think obviously, as twenty twenty five it wraps up, we could probably all admit that that was probably one of the more if not I don't even know how to describe it.

57:45 Speaker 1: Whether you like him, whether you hate him, whether he didn't even really know who he was. I found that hard to believe, but it kind of shocked the world. Few things do that. The Kirk assassination, and then this year I'd say the Epstein files are probably and then the war, the war in Ukraine, in the Middle East. I guess there's four. Sorry I overshot, but those things. The UFO disclosure movement, whether we like it or not, is either intertwined or gets lost in the conversation when we are dealing with things in our backyard.

58:23 Speaker 1: We can't really look the space and care about that when you know genocide is taking place.

58:31 Speaker 8: Yeah, I think it's a good point even to kind of extend that and come back to it. You look at things like Project Bluebook and others or what not. Part of the US tech which she covered a little bit, or is it alien tech?

58:44 Speaker 7: We don't know.

58:45 Speaker 8: That's always been intertwined in hiding what we have. So the same point that Ty's making there now, world events, whether intentionally or not, are also used to take any moment a matter of what we're doing here, and now no one's talking about it. Now the topbout something else. So I mean, it's gonna keep happening. So again, that's where the strategic plan kind of laid out goes into versus just the hype and then it's died off or already onto the next movie.

59:12 Speaker 1: Right, And I don't know if you guys remember this, but you know, even going back right, whether you like him or not, doctor Greer, his disclosure project, the first one when he brought all those people together, like John Callahan of the FAA. I love John because he's a Boston boy. I think he's a Boston boy. He sort of sounds like it. But John Callahan, like the sallases, all of them. That first disclosure project that he did, that that National Press Club event, I mean that had legs, That had legs, and nine to eleven happens fucking a month later, so that takes all the wind out of all that sale.

59:55 Speaker 1: And for the right reason, right, like three thousand people lost their lives on nine to eleven, So you know, it's a rightful kind of pivot by society. But now with the twenty four hour news cycle being what it is, there's a lot of events that are taking place that are really taking the wind out of the sales on the disclosure movement.

1:00:18 Speaker 2: Yeah.

1:00:19 Speaker 8: I mean, if you go back to the strategic plan again, the nine eleven things just so god awful terrible. I don't want to say we're piggybacking it, because that's not what it is, but there's actual concern here. And so then the question is do you then try and jump ahead and have something that's so outrageous, whether it's true or not, you bring more attention in or do you do kind of what we're trying to do here, which is we say we don't know what's in the skies and that could essentially calls another nine to eleven, which is what we do not want to happen.

1:00:47 Speaker 8: And that's kind of where when I talk to Gene and different folks, where we're kind of trying to push this forward with how you also have to approach the military, you know, in these committees to have them listen to you. And that's just kind of what our strategic plan's been.

1:01:04 Speaker 2: Yeah, and there's a certain level of you know, of course immediacy, right, so yes, they're gonna you know, the news of the day is going to going to grab the headline. But I think one of the other issues is that because this, you know, you can go across the board for anybody who has a cause for which they are passionate, right, and if something happens, you know, the week of Earth Day, then everybody who's into Earth Day feels like, oh, our headline, you know, was stolen. We didn't get the share of attention that you know we expected this week, or we oh, we just really had you know, the biggest Earth Day ever, and oh my god, there was you know, an assassination the next day that took it away.

1:01:47 Speaker 2: So, you know, I think, and it's not exclusive to this, but in the same way, we are again culture as a culture or community, we don't we don't operate like activists, right, and every all of these other causes really do communicate the core things consistently enough and present it in a way that I think is the counter to the ever changing news cycle, right, and they just press on, whereas it's like we're standing in line waiting to jump in when we have a moment, we're waiting for somebody else to do something for us and then we'll all, you know, and then we'll run over there, and then we'll run over there, as opposed to being the ones trying to set the agenda like activists do.

1:02:51 Speaker 1: Well. Another thing that was kind of popular this year, and again I I this kind of came to me before the show when I was thinking about it, but I called it, I think I said it's a UFO reporting center because they brought up Skywatcher. A bunch of these groups kind of popped up this year claiming that you know, they they had the the keys to the secret sauce. In this case, it was called the dog Whistle,

1:03:27 Speaker 1: the Jake Jake Barber and and and say what you want about him. I have no ill will, I have no I would love to talk to that guy, I really would. But a lot of promises are made by certain people, and uh no, really results happened a lot of these people. You know, it seems like they're like UFO community tourists and they stop in see if any there's any money to make. Oh not, Okay, we're gonna disavow, we're disbanding.

1:04:01 Speaker 2: They're trying to grab a market share for that's their pets, their pet project. As opposed to us saying, as opposed to the five of us in the room right now, agree and say, you know what we're gonna do twenty We are going to have Disclosure twenty twenty six agenda, and that agenda, these are the five things we want to see out of you know, out of the out of Congress, right and then we have you know, and then we get Matt Laslow running around you know, the halls, and he's pushing it and he's asking about it, and we have you know, we we have somebody who's responsible for right.

1:04:42 Speaker 2: Your senators, yes, your senators voted you know, yeah, they voted positive for the you know, uap to Disclosure Act. We want, you know, follow up, make the phone call, check back in. That's why, you know, that's when it becomes a movement with some measurable criteria, until we set the criteria of the expectation, and we do it in a way that is palatable and digestible and realistic and reasonable. Again for a political right, tell us everything, and you know, wheeld the UFO and alien bodies onto the Washington Monument Mall on Saturday, November eighth is not a reasonable demand.

1:05:27 Speaker 2: Right, Let's let's yeah, stop with our expectationally, put our arms around, set that agenda, get people, get everybody organized and talk, you know, speaking off the same sheet of music in that way, and then we start, you know, measuring stuff. We start saying, well, hold on a second, how does how does this new video get us towards this goal? How does this new thing being proposed get us towards this goal for twenty twenty six. Well, right now we've got a giant we have a giant thing we want to happen, and we want it to happen now, but we don't know how.

1:06:11 Speaker 1: I agree, I agree, we have a couple editions. Sorry, Kyle and Mike disclosure. How you guys doing what was twenty five? Just quickly introduce yourself? And was twenty twenty five a bust or a must?

1:06:28 Speaker 3: Oh? In my opinion, I think it was a bust. We didn't get anything credible, anything worthwhile, or anything to move the needle. Tyler all right, nothing, not one thing. Not one thing. Oh, I know, new whistleblowers came out. Well no, actually, you know what, I take that back, that's not exactly true. Jeane coming out this year with his book from the work his father on a litt date over in the Soviet Union, that is something that will move the needle because it's real work. It was UAP reverse engineering back in the nineteen eighties, and it's credible.

1:07:08 Speaker 3: So that's a real piece of the puzzle. It's not a make believe one. And Jane put it out there publicly for everybody, so Jane, who was also a good friend. It helped to bring out the truth about disclosure for the world to see. That's what we got this year. That really counts as far as I'm concerned.

1:07:31 Speaker 1: I can get on board at that. I have an episode that's coming out with him very shortly. So yeah, if everyone thinks that, then we should be good. No, thank you, Mike so.

1:07:44 Speaker 2: Well, yeah, thanks, but that certainly speaks to the sad state of affairs then.

1:07:49 Speaker 3: In uaph Well, yeah, I guess you could look at it that way, Gene, But you know.

1:07:58 Speaker 2: I previously used finger fucking a sentence on this show, so you know that's the that's where we're.

1:08:03 Speaker 3: At you Oh yeah, no with the mummies. Yeah, I caught that. I was fucking hysterical.

1:08:10 Speaker 8: Yeah, I'll jump in before Kyle gets going that way, he gets his proper time. I'll all be quietly promised, Kyle. But this is this again where people don't really understand what's going on behind the scenes, because the twenty four to seven Twitter, you know, to give you an idea of how things are actually right now, there was a gentleman, you know, I worked with different people that are trying to fund me, like so car and there was a gentleman that dealt with weather modification, trying to get funding, and he was discovering some of u AP sort of readings, actual physical hard evidence radiation readings couldn't get through the Burlson so so Calm connected him to me.

1:08:48 Speaker 8: And this isn't a UFO guy. This is a guy that dealt with nothing like this before. And then I dealt with him. I looked at some of his readings and yeah, I mean there's there's something there. I can't say it's an or ailing, right, but you got said that shouldn't be there with radiation spikes of the domestic sky.

1:09:06 Speaker 7: So set him up to go in. He went spoken too, burtles in the person.

1:09:10 Speaker 8: And then when the FBI UAP team reached out to me, you know, they did ask me if anyone's doing what I'm doing. I wasn't keen to help them out at this point in time. We'll see what happens. But they did mention skywatcher. They felt like skywatchers finding some stuff. But I mean, I can't validate or involve anything they're doing. And then I connected this person through to them. So that's the state of things right now. Is the people who are doing the hearings, the vettings, the choice of who's where I have it such a mess that nobody that actually has what they really should have, some sort of evidence, things that can go in front of people to be studied or looked at, can even get through to any of the UAP caucus.

1:09:52 Speaker 8: I know they say they'll talk to anyone. Good luck, SSCI, good luck, arrow, good luck. And just as you see now with even the FBI, you know u APUFOTEAM good luck. Until that changes, you're gonna see the same thing continue, which is more people platform and people with big stories push them into hearings and so on. This is how bad things are right now. We've got to somehow change this.

1:10:21 Speaker 1: Right, So we kind of like, grow up, guys, enough with the faction bullshit. Let's get together, not you know, maybe not like literally get together, but at least virtually, like, let's get some sort of consensus that we can all get behind.

1:10:40 Speaker 8: We need a new point man. Yeah, that's what we need. I'm just gonna fly out and say it. We need a new point man to have people call and say I've got this. That person can say, okay, you have some things we can actually look at facts, we can send to people with physicists. I just if not, I'm sorry, the story does no good right now. What's happening is that people with the story are being sent to these other people who are supposed to be listening to folks. And you know, it's just not the way you're going to move forward.

1:11:07 Speaker 1: I I I disagree to one part, and that's the point man part. But I do want to get it to Kyle to at least introduce himself. We can get back to that, and and and but again, no disrespect to anything, of course, No.

1:11:24 Speaker 7: Different views are great.

1:11:24 Speaker 8: And that's what's good about what we're doing today is we're showing people you can have different views and still.

1:11:29 Speaker 1: And have a comple walk away from it going Okay, you know what, that was a good point. That was a good point. What that wasn't a good point. But I liked what he said. That's what I like is open discourse. Again, if you if if you want to tell me you're a vampire, tell me more. Just you know, like you Jean said, I'm not going to probably hang out with you after a certain time. You're probably not going to be an in studio guest either. But that is.

1:11:56 Speaker 7: Because Jane told me he was a vampire last time I talked to him.

1:11:59 Speaker 1: Well, ship, Jeane is far too close to me. Kyle, introduce yourself. It was an a buster must.

1:12:07 Speaker 10: It was a can everybody hear me?

1:12:09 Speaker 1: Yes?

1:12:10 Speaker 3: Okay, Rite and Claire, how you doing?

1:12:13 Speaker 10: Myke?

1:12:13 Speaker 4: I just sent how you doing?

1:12:14 Speaker 7: Kyle?

1:12:15 Speaker 10: Good good?

1:12:16 Speaker 11: I just sent you and Gene a very interesting email, A little bit of work I did. It was a bust. There there's been no Select Committee. There's been multiple attempts to to start one. Birchant made a comment one time on a Sean Ryan interview in twenty twenty four, twenty twenty three, that that he had helped Mike Johnson get his position via his vote on the Oversight Committee, and he kind of said, it'll be pretty easy.

1:12:58 Speaker 10: It should be pretty easy to get.

1:13:00 Speaker 11: At one because he owes me and uh, and that got shot down with Mitch McConnell h and another putting pressure on Johnson not to approve it. And then there's been multiple instances after that. Comber stands next to Anna Paulina Luna when they announced the task force and they get a question about subpoena power, and Comber looks over and says, we'll give her everything she needs if she needs that paraphrasing, but uh, something to that extent.

1:13:36 Speaker 10: They go for one. Uh, they get shot down again. They're not gonna give them one.

1:13:41 Speaker 11: They're not gonna they're not gonna get a select committee.

1:13:44 Speaker 10: Which is I think is what it's gonna take.

1:13:46 Speaker 11: And then you have you have every time every time Laslow interviews an Armed Services Committee member or an Intelligence Committee member out of the Senate, they just act completely dumb. And they've heard all of these Uh they've had all these closed door, uh classified testimony from whistleblowers, and yet they act like it's something they never heard of. So they're being completely disingenuous about it and uh dishonest. Uh you I can't imagine how many of those testimonies, Uh Marco Rubio heard.

1:14:24 Speaker 11: Yet when he's asked about it, he just he just lightly gives the explanation that that, well, I've heard for some you know, uh intelligence officials who are either telling the truth or they're crazy.

1:14:40 Speaker 10: Uh, either way, we got a problem.

1:14:42 Speaker 11: And uh uh kind of screws Dan Farrah uh in his comments in the Sean Hennity interview when he was asked about about his role in the in the documentary. I think when when there is a true effort and and most effectively in the Senate on the Intelligence Committee to get somewhere, and they stop calling it drones because that seems to be a new term that they can, uh they can apply to any uh any uap event Uh it's drones, and then make it make it an issue of based security, uh of them flying over bases and they have to look into it and they don't.

1:15:26 Speaker 10: Know what it is.

1:15:27 Speaker 11: But then they know what it is, uh when when they're asked about it and they were FAA approved. So they've got to be honest or legislatively, uh governmentally, we're not going to get anywhere, right.

1:15:40 Speaker 1: I can definitely agree with that sentiment. God, Mike, where are you like a train station? Can you hear me? I I muted at them earlier because I was like, what is there a fucking train going by?

1:15:59 Speaker 4: Not just kidding Mike, Yeah, I think Mike. Mike was in New York, So so it can get allowed there. Yeah, go ahead, that's not a good place. But but here's one concrete well legislatives.

1:16:27 Speaker 1: I think you're cutting in a little bit. Anyone else is he cutting in? Yeah?

1:16:36 Speaker 10: A little better new.

1:16:38 Speaker 4: Yeah, okay, break up. We can provide a clean bill in the House that strengthens the whistleblower protections. And now the key there is to get it brought to the House floor, and that would have to be done via what's called the discharge petition, which Anapolina Luna outlined the mechanics of that when they were voting on the bill to prevent insider insider trading. Okay, now it can still get the torpedo to the Senate, but at least it would be brought to the floor for a vote. And so I think that would be a good first step.

1:17:17 Speaker 4: A clean bill that strengthens the whistlebowarer protections brought to the House via the floor via discharge petition. And I've been screaming this from the rooftops for a while now, but I would imagine a whistling mike that that would allow more people to come forward without fear of repercussions.

1:17:37 Speaker 8: Yeah, there's the kind of parlay into that I've kind of been predicting the future here a little bit for people to see what they're getting into. But you know, even on the NDAA that was proposed here a couple of months ago. They put a clause into that, and as we all know, the NDAA always passes.

1:17:53 Speaker 7: The u APDA hasn't passed year after year.

1:17:56 Speaker 8: In one of the clauses was that they would let individuals who were supposed to get go in and testify know what restrictions they would be under. And really with that, it's probably gonna have to do with is in order to go into that skiff, which didn't happen to me legally, you should at least have a TS, which.

1:18:11 Speaker 7: They always wanted me to get.

1:18:12 Speaker 8: So once you get the TS, then right off the bat, you're going to be, you know, only able to say so many things.

1:18:18 Speaker 7: But what Brian's saying is true. Some of the people I.

1:18:22 Speaker 8: Talked about that reached out to me either wanted to talk to Berlisson or the FBI.

1:18:26 Speaker 7: You ap team.

1:18:27 Speaker 8: Everybody is terrified, especially those with some hardcore evidence in their hands. And then when they get brave enough to call and they can't get through where none answers or email. Again, that system's kind of bogging us down here. So let's start with one thing. What'stle blower protection and then keep going with that.

1:18:52 Speaker 4: So yeah, and yeah, because we're going in to talk to the staffers, and the staffers are beating the info to the intel community. I mean, I can give you many examples. I won't bore you, but that's exactly what's happening.

1:19:08 Speaker 7: M Yeah, he's right.

1:19:11 Speaker 8: I mean, you know I can go in and give GPS coordinates, day time stamps, and you know, you're talking about a committee that no one's going to.

1:19:20 Speaker 7: Come down on them legal wise or whatever. They do.

1:19:23 Speaker 8: They do whatever they want, right, you know, they're not gonna be investigated by the people that are the boss of.

1:19:27 Speaker 7: So, and they do.

1:19:29 Speaker 8: They make some calls to people they know and pull what they need to pull from satellites or whatever else. I mean, they've got everything they need there. Even though as Kyle kind of pointed out, they're playing dumb. They are very well connected. That s SCI Committee is a whole other ball game than the UAP Caucus unfortunately, power wise.

1:19:50 Speaker 1: Yeah, and I mean I think it's gone a little bit under maybe not under the radar, but it doesn't seem to be as front phrasing, front facing as I think it should be. But Mark Rubio in the age of disclosure. He says this line, and it's resonated with me. And I'm paraphrasing because I don't remember the actual quote. But you know, one senator is read in on the project, they give materials to lockeed let's just say Lockheed or Company A, and the next senator knows a little bit less, and their staff knows a little bit less.

1:20:37 Speaker 1: And then the next senator after that is not even read in, you know, at all, and has no idea that that transaction took place between the government and the private contractor. And now the private contractor is essentially, you know, able to just wait terms out and wait people out and continue to profit off of technology and materials that they are getting from government contracts.

1:21:10 Speaker 7: Yeah, a loop, Yeah, I mean even just a step above that.

1:21:14 Speaker 8: You know, when I dealt with cend it around, one of the things he did with on my information is, you know, he brought in the top of the people, he said, people that never been in the same room together in the caps same way, SAPs, and essentially said that they had access to and everything I brought in and they would know whose was.

1:21:33 Speaker 7: Well. So I think it's to.

1:21:34 Speaker 8: The point to where centers don't even necessarily think in really reality that they're even going to be told what it is. So it's even a step above that at this point in time in twenty twenty five and twenty six, I don't even think you're gonna get people admit to it.

1:21:49 Speaker 7: They're just gonna wait out, Yeah, play that game.

1:21:53 Speaker 8: I mean they failed another audit, right, I mean they know they can't be caught. So you know, it's even worse than that I think now, But you're right, I mean there's no.

1:22:00 Speaker 1: Yeah, and when people like you said, when people are giving them locations again, uh, you know, you can only take that so far, Like you can't gene if say, say Lockheed Martin, say I told the government that I worked with Lockheed Martin, I knew of something that they had at this building. How much authority does the government have right now to walk into Lockheed Martin to that specific building and verify the claims that I'm I'm telling them as an insider.

1:22:39 Speaker 2: So you're you're into some tricky territory, right, because if it's a program that the government was working on, then you're the one that's gonna wind up getting rested for revealing classified information. As a you know as a as a I mean you've taken so the company and well no, not no, you know government classified information. So Lockheed itself has what they'll call the position will be Facility Security Officer, right, and that is the person who is the administrative authority for managing the classified government programs that are operating within Lockheed.

1:23:35 Speaker 2: So there were a government employee, I'm sorry, they were a Lockheed employee and the government has allowed them. And within the Facility Security Office, the saves and data system and the tech, all of that has to meet government standards. So it's almost like a little skiff in and of itself, just not to the same degree. So if you were reporting to the government on a project you saw inside of Lockheed and that project is classified, then you've just violated federal law.

1:24:14 Speaker 1: Interesting and can I jump in.

1:24:17 Speaker 4: On that real quick?

1:24:22 Speaker 7: Yeah, yeah, go ahead.

1:24:26 Speaker 4: Oh, I was just gonna say, we had a chat similar to this about a year and a half ago, revealing coordinates not at Lockheed, but at other government facilities, and what we thought was private people got knocks on their door by the FBI for revealing some of these areas. So yeah, we've we've shared coordinates we've got places that that that we know we're at least at one time, if not now, I still active.

1:25:00 Speaker 8: To cover so fast if I can't tie is that you know from the inside of you, if someone's been through it, that's what you're told. I mean, that's what I was told from the lead staffer that was handling the whole UAP investigation SSCI, which is they begged me to go to ERO, and I had no problem. They told me it's a child by fire right and they said no one was wanting to go to ERO. But that's exactly what they explained. You can come into SCI and tell them whatever you want, coordinate to daytime.

1:25:25 Speaker 7: They aren't going whether they can or not. They aren't going to go.

1:25:28 Speaker 8: To those locations physically themselves and knock on the door and ask. They're gonna call ARO in and EURO supposed to report did they go to those locations? What did they find? Which is you listen to what they've said, they did go to some location. I'm not here to vouch for everybody needs everybody knows. But if the system is broke again, you've got a roadblock off to get where you need to get to solve that. So that's the current system is that ERO has to go find it for SSCI or you release it publicly, and like you was saying, you get a knocking to do it right.

1:26:01 Speaker 8: So again, our system that we're pushing forward with the normal plan isn't going to work because from the inside view it's busty.

1:26:14 Speaker 3: Yeah, and Mike, I just want to say that you did good job last night putting up those posts on X about Kesh Patel and the FBI setting up their new anti drone center and how they're not going to be able to accomplish anything because they don't have the right tech to be able to do that. Those are very good points.

1:26:38 Speaker 8: That the FBI, and I'll hand it back to Tie here in a minute. I don't get too far off case, but they have potential right now, people need to know that there is potential. I mean they admitted to me either coming in late.

1:26:52 Speaker 7: It's all this.

1:26:53 Speaker 8: They don't have the inner working that has been proposed with ERRO. Just I'm not going to go too far in the private conversations, but you might as well count as a different organization. So then it becomes could they help us? And they possibly could, but they're at the beginning with the same folks that everyone's already seen at the hearings. And I'm not dogging on them, but they're trying to weigh their way through that into can you find verifiable facts that they can work with, because, as I said earlier, that's how they pushed.

1:27:23 Speaker 7: An investigation forward. So that was kind of my point there, Mike, Yet.

1:27:29 Speaker 3: It was a very good point. Well, oh, go ahead, Tyler.

1:27:35 Speaker 1: Well, also, I forget which member of Congress it was. I think it was Unweaponized most recently. Actually it might have just been I think it was just them all together. It was Luna, it was Burchan, and it was Burlesson on Weaponize. I think it was the episode that aired last week before the Jacques Vallet interview, and they had kind of conceded that future hearings are probably not going to be talked about right now because they don't think that it will move the ball forward. Do you guys, what is your guys' take on and we can introduce I'm sorry, the letters are getting really small for me now.

1:28:21 Speaker 1: I see Joe down at the bottom, But what what is it going to take to actually move the needle forward? Is the next thing going to have to be physical evidence. And if so, what is going to constitute something that will unite debunkers and skeptics and believers alike. Is there something that you see happening in the future, because right now there is a very very very pitted feeling inside of the UFO community. You know, skeptics hop on stories and some of their you know, theories are more outlandish than just alien not alien, but non human intelligence controlled craft or alien reproduction vehicles, whatever you want to call them.

1:29:14 Speaker 1: You know, the Mickwests of the world. I like Mick, but some of those theories are fucking crazy evidence going forward because with the advent of AI and AI video and it's gonna be it's gonna be hard to trust our eyes and what we're seeing.

1:29:35 Speaker 3: Well, burke Chet and that interview said it very clearly. He said, there's no point in putting up a hearing again if we don't have hard evidence to show the American problem in silence.

1:29:47 Speaker 1: All right, well again, and I bring this up. I actually did want to show a video because we were talking about skywark Sky the Skywatcher earlier, and I did pull up the video and I forgot to share it. But this video. I remember when they brought it up. It was supposed to be like this video is that was going to change the landscape of of of the UFO community. And it seems like that is always the tag on these things, and then we're just set up to be kind of disappointed in a way. So it could be a little frustrating.

1:30:25 Speaker 11: But let me, uh understanding from what I understand, of government agency.

1:30:33 Speaker 2: And had him no hold on. I don't know, are you hearing anybody?

1:30:40 Speaker 6: Ily obtained previously unseen video obtained from a secret UAP craft retrieval program. This extraordinary footage clearly shows an egg shaped object dangling in a sling below the belly of the hell.

1:31:13 Speaker 12: Let's slow this down to take a closer look. That's an egg shaped UAP suspended from a one hundred and fifty foot long line. We're told the craft is about twenty feet long, the egg suspended in a cradle. And look how careful the pilot is as they bring their precious cargo into land. Let's freeze frame here to look at one of the clearest images of a UAP ever taken. This is no blurry light in a distant sky. The source of the footage putting themselves at incredible risk to record this UAP retrieval.

1:31:52 Speaker 12: Look at how perfectly smooth the craft is, no markings at all and no visible all means of propulsion or way to see inside. Watch how it rolls, almost graceful as it hits the ground, despite being wrapped in the ropes and canvas from the cradle. As it's dropped for pickup. The UAP's final destination still unknown.

1:32:21 Speaker 1: Oh gosh, so what apparently you guys were talking the ghoast See, I'm telling you guys, the ghost switches my equipment on streamyard the settings. It switches the settings automatically by itself, and I won't know it happened. Usually I won't know what happened. But there because no, I couldn't hear anyone obviously.

1:32:45 Speaker 13: I want to mind weighing in on.

1:32:47 Speaker 1: So we got your stuff like that, We got a lot of whistleblower testimony this year. But but with that we've also got the rise in you know, the skeptic community really pouncing, and you know, the UFO community setting the expectations up here, and then when the video comes out and it's like down here, you know, people are just they have a feeling they get you know, they're investing their lives into this topic most of the time.

1:33:18 Speaker 2: Yeah. Absolutely, I think Joe had something too.

1:33:22 Speaker 1: No, I still can't hear anyone.

1:33:24 Speaker 2: Yeah, that's what I thought.

1:33:27 Speaker 1: It's okay, you guys can just keep talking.

1:33:29 Speaker 2: Yeah, okay, go ahead, Joe.

1:33:31 Speaker 14: I'll think I just wanted to wave in on what he was saying. As far as the new hearing is going, I don't think hearings would hurt by any means. If we want to have more people like Dylan and Jeff and you know, that's all great, I just don't think that is going to move the ball forward. So until we're going to have a subpoena power for the committee to have people like James Lakatsky and able to offer immunity, or it's a pen of people like Glenn gaff me and offer immunity.

1:34:02 Speaker 13: Either that or a whistleblower.

1:34:05 Speaker 14: Coming forward that's not worried about going to jail and uh committee people that aren't afraid to ask him questions. I just don't really see a point and having any more hearings barring anything outside of that.

1:34:18 Speaker 2: Right, where's our where's our snowden? Exactly exactly where's our snow that's like that. He's not he's not even threaten in it. He's just showing up and doing a data dump and you know, blowing the lid off of the whole thing. You know, he's see you know, maybe somebody does want to run off to Russia or maybe you know, maybe there is maybe in this situation, there is no place to run.

1:34:48 Speaker 14: You know, But even in that, I would have a hard time believing that they would prosecute somebody who wasn't spilling things like snow. If somebody just spilled evidence.

1:34:58 Speaker 15: That ets exist without jeopardizing the nuts and bolts of jeopardizing national security, right, the government would look pretty bad in putting somebody in jail that did something like that, not not putting national.

1:35:14 Speaker 14: Security at risk by exposing any kind of technology or or.

1:35:19 Speaker 13: Anything like that.

1:35:21 Speaker 14: And if they did put them in jail, they'd make them a martyr him or her.

1:35:24 Speaker 7: What's kind of everybody's films on?

1:35:26 Speaker 5: Then?

1:35:26 Speaker 7: What would what would our snowdens say?

1:35:28 Speaker 8: Because you know, if you look at like what Gene has in the in the years, it's from Gene that snowed in they aredy you know, passed away or have been retired. If you look into some of the stories you hear in like Dannie Sheehan, that there is a agreement how many abductions they can do with things like that, well, then there should still be a Snowden currently present. So what would the current day presence Snowden say, because obviously the question is is this reverse engineered you know?

1:35:57 Speaker 10: Or not?

1:35:58 Speaker 8: I mean, I guess that's always my curiosity is it didn't have a sighting. That doesn't mean it's not an HI, but is there a snowd in for that?

1:36:05 Speaker 7: You know? You see what I'm getting.

1:36:06 Speaker 2: At that, right exactly? It didn't have to be you know, somebody that got something you know, tangible, right, it's got that That's gonna be the number one thing is that it has to be a photo or video that can stand up to all measure of scrutiny, you know, and and what are the odds somebody got that out? Now? Are there more documents? Yeah, there's probably much more of a document trail. Could there be the you know, the well even even the stuff Nap brought back from Russia that I think is associated with my stuff, right, that's sitting there in the classified world, you know, and that comes out, what does you know what's in there and what exactly does it tell us?

1:36:54 Speaker 2: And what are the consequences of it? You know, And that's and again that's that's why I find into Joe's point, right, you know, okay, that it doesn't jeopardize the national security aspect. And and that's what I don't get quite get is what is the national security aspect? Because it seems everybody has their own version of this same stuff. So you know, we're not we're not talking about the you know, it's it's the you know, the lowest level thing. Is it a series of numbers? Is it a specific formula?

1:37:31 Speaker 2: Is it that oh, to get this to operate, it has to specifically weigh something, you know that it's got to be a minuscule thing that they think is holding the advantage over another country from a national security spectrum, or it's big enough to the fact that, yes, it has been fully developed and exploited and it's reliable and it's you know, and it is weaponized, and we're just sitting on it just in case.

1:38:07 Speaker 1: That's been a problem of mine. David David Grush alluded to this kind of Cold War that's going on, and this this kind of arms race if you will, between you know, superpowers, I would assume, but you know, and I guess the ones that come to mind would be you know, China, UH, Russia, the United States uh, and then you know, throw in a few more maybe maybe Israel, Australia. Not too sure about Australia actually, But to some degree, if there is this underlying Cold War, why haven't we seen any traces of it in a military capacity?

1:38:56 Speaker 1: And maybe we have, but the public just doesn't know about it.

1:39:03 Speaker 2: So are you talking in terms of like if you know, there's a crash that goes down, and you know in the Middle East, are are Russian spetsnaz in US you know, Powa rescue racing to get there first, and why hasn't there been a big gunfight over getting it?

1:39:20 Speaker 1: Well that it makes sense to me because like I've always thought that this is where I've always I've always I think what I've done more appropriately than other people in the community is I'm not afraid to say that for turnishing the UFO reputation because I don't think that that's what we're here to do. But there is certainly if you don't think there's fucking overlap with the people that were blackmailing honey potting. The world's most powerful individuals, the ones that we know about, right, if they're not controlled by the quote unquote deep state, and if those aren't the same people that are suppressing this sort of technological advancement and trying to become some sort of breakaway civilization, you know, if that is their endgame.

1:40:10 Speaker 1: Daniel in a way has testified, you know, part of the part of the Gang of Eight said that there's a you know, a cabal that that has their own army, their own fundraising mechanisms, their own agendas. They're above the law. Like how many times do we have to like there is some some crossover here between the Epstein's and the Ditties of the world. Whoever's controlling them, they're the real people in power. It's not the people we see every day. It's the people we don't see every day, the ones who are really pulling the strings.

1:40:46 Speaker 1: Whoever that is, that's who we're up against. So whoever thought this was going to be an easy fight, I mean, you had another thing coming. But also we shouldn't be able to We shouldn't be afraid to bring up Epstein, to bring up the weird shit that was going on in all these facets of industry. How there seems to be a plant in every industry to you know, gain control over people by blackmailing them or you know, by paying them off, and that we could get into insider trading and you know, lobbying in general.

1:41:22 Speaker 1: Should it be a thing, should try to be able to purchase fucking land next to our nuclear sites? Probably not, like what the fuck are we doing? But people are so afraid to talk about it because it is a little dark and it's not just little green men right that are coming from Zata Reticuli. It brings in a real dark, dark, dark like topic set. And if we've made a deal for abductions, that's not I mean, is no one else seeing the seeing the lines? Is it just me?

1:41:59 Speaker 4: Well?

1:42:00 Speaker 8: Well, I mean I guess there's different views on it obviously, which it was good for today. I mean for me, I think it still kind of comes back to what I was saying about some of these whistleblowers where you spin a globe and you put your finger down whatever there is, it it's random and I don't care a whole lot. I mean there's a certain point where you've got to care, but a whole lot about what their background is or their history is. And that kind of goes into politicians. All these things that you're mentioning and the people you're mentioned in and the politicians even worse, they'll have their human flaws.

1:42:27 Speaker 8: And it's been proven to work. And then Gene could probably speak about there's always a history repeats itself on that and it still works today. So I don't know if it's necessarily intertwined, but the exact same tricks that come from countries. The head of the countries know what they're doing. I mean, this has always been something that's going on.

1:42:48 Speaker 2: Yeah, and I think you know the Tye's point. You know, maybe what he's talking about is you've got the right the political power structure is central. The people behind the scenes that keep that political power machine going are in place for a long time. Then across the broad spectrum of issues and problems and deviances there. So I think what you're talking about, Tiger like, there's the same touch points somewhere, whether it is the Lockheed executives or aerospace or Defense Industrial Complex executives trying to keep things secret or it's a truly secret cabal trying to keep things secret.

1:43:41 Speaker 2: The touch points would be the same at that governmental level.

1:43:46 Speaker 1: Yeah. Well and then you got like, so why was Epstein so interested in free energy?

1:43:53 Speaker 2: Right?

1:43:54 Speaker 1: Why are there these stories that Glainne Maxwell? You know, and I am quoting this from like Jason Georgohnny, I've done research on it myself. I found the story he's talking about. But apparently like there was this one person that that came out and was talking about how she was, you know, at worked worked for Epstein, if you will, and claimed that there was some sort of like genetic program happening there, and Glene Maxwell only her like her like man slaves, slaves if you want to call them that.

1:44:35 Speaker 1: Just like the people she had working around the house. They were all these like Nordic looking guys, and one of them or multiple of them, had gone on record saying that, you know, like when you take a shower, your your hair clogs the drain, they would routinely like have that hair go missing, and they would have you know, their toothbrush go missing. And again you might just hear that story and go, Okay, that's fucking creepy. But I can't help but start thinking about the archetypes that we've heard about in the UFO community, right, the tall, blonde people that look like us, blonde hair, blue eyed.

1:45:15 Speaker 1: I mean, I don't know. Am I crazy? Am I the only one who starts thinking like this? Maybe that's why I'm crazy. I don't know, But I start to see parallels. And there there are other people who claim to see UFOs on the island, on the Epstein Islands. So I'm just saying we shouldn't be afraid to look there just because it might have some dirty consequences.

1:45:40 Speaker 7: And there's the problem trying to look there, isn't it though?

1:45:43 Speaker 1: Yeah, that it's all dirty, it's all dirty. But every I mean, you guys, you got guys like you know, Bill Gates going there. You got guys like Stephen Hawking going there. You just all these all these all these people, all these very influential people. Of course that's the biggest one, like the Clintons, and and but so who has who's pulling whoever's pulling the strings on that operation to blackmail literally the presidents of the United States, Who's perceived as the most powerful person in the world, if the person that's not behind that is, if that's not the cabal, then what is And if that's if that's the cabal, then they're the same people that are suppressing this technology allegedly.

1:46:37 Speaker 1: So why are we connecting this?

1:46:40 Speaker 4: I can say this that when when Dick Cheney passed away, it passed a lot more ripples through the world than a lot of people may know.

1:46:53 Speaker 1: I've heard. I've heard Dick Cheney was very high on the list of of people. And you know, I think most people, most people know that he was kind of like a psychopath, very warmongering type, but you know, others just see him as you know, the vice president in charge when nine to eleven happened, Right.

1:47:20 Speaker 2: Yeah.

1:47:21 Speaker 4: What I was told for my sources too, that that if he tried to get information out of him, you would ask him a question just like we are here, and he would always answer with a question. So it was very hard to squeegee information out of him. I guess, if you will, I.

1:47:36 Speaker 1: Would imagine that guy was rock solid when it came to keeping secrets. I mean that that that dude, I don't know how he slept at night, to be honest with that weight with the weight of that on his shoulders. But again not to get through political about it. But I mean even age of disclosure, I think had said. Maybe I'm wrong, but someone recently had said Dick Cheney was like, you know, obviously posthumously so he can't defend himself. But they said that he was part of like the the UFO Legacy program.

1:48:12 Speaker 1: I can't remember where that's that was said. Maybe because someone can correct.

1:48:16 Speaker 4: You're talking about MAGI twelve magic.

1:48:19 Speaker 14: It was.

1:48:22 Speaker 1: Said, Okay, okay, yeah, so I mean take it for what it is. But other programs didn't come out this year. Immaculate Constellation was one of them. Matthew Brown, another whizzard blower, Yankee Blue came out. What did you guys think about this, these kind of revelations and are they connecting dots through you guys?

1:48:46 Speaker 13: Yeah, from what I've heard, they're pretty old.

1:48:49 Speaker 14: I'm focused on and I much luck I'll have and work with some other people trying to find out the current names of these programs because I think that is key to connecting these dots and holding people accountable, like Glenn Gaffney and some others.

1:49:09 Speaker 13: But I don't know. I just wanted to throw that in there that I think they're pretty dated.

1:49:14 Speaker 14: They just came out recently, but I don't think those programs are active any longer.

1:49:21 Speaker 2: Yeah, I tend to agree. I mean, I think I was having a discussion with Eric Hecker last night and we were, you know, talk about that when when we know something, it's already twenty years old, and the next iteration is already you know, operating secretly that we'll learn about in twenty more years. So it's with these names and things. Yeah, that and listen, and even in the military, right when you you know, they teach you in your POW training, you know, keep your mouth shut for seventy two hours.

1:49:53 Speaker 2: That's how long it takes them to change any information you might know or leak. So at least try to hold out for three days before you blab everything about your mission and next targets or you know, whatever you know so you can't tell me, right, the same thing doesn't happen, if not much more expeditiously when it comes to somebody coming out and giving a name, and they certainly you have to imagine the way what Matthew Brown came out, Right, it's through that pipeline. So they already knew who he was talking to, and you know that already set up the interviews, and so that stuff was long gone by the time it ever hit the airwaves.

1:50:36 Speaker 8: To kind of tie some things together, what Ty saying that Gene and Joe saying the others about who could be controlling this, I mean, that's also one of the reasons that they're probably doing what they're doing, which is keeping it side of because you see how easy it is to get answers and the measures other countries used. And then you get into the actual two questions, which is, what are we talking about. Are we talking about was it in use or we're keeping it a secret that we recovered something in the crash recovery team, or we're talking about we've already got something like getting engineered or reverse engineered and we're keeping secret that we're using it in Michigan or ISR or whatever it is.

1:51:13 Speaker 8: And then which one could you actually get if it's the one that I think Joe's can hand that, now, what's the current name? That's going to be real hard to get answers on. But I think people confuse sometimes both of them, and they're two different things. Whoever, this was at the beginning. I think in mechanism of Jeens records is going to be a different silo than the folks working on stuff now in the project names.

1:51:37 Speaker 7: It's important to keep those separate.

1:51:38 Speaker 1: You know, absolutely absolutely Another thing, does anyone want to jump in on that? Another thing that we did get and something that's been I kind of want to bring up two things at once here, but this really this campaign or three I at lists this interstellar object with a v lobe, but also this real scientific data, this this amazing, amazing uh batch of information. This this uh thing that doctor uh Beatrice Villarel came out with that you know, she submitted her paper. She did she crossed a crossed all the t's, dot dotted all the eyes.

1:52:29 Speaker 1: And that's still not enough. The goalposts being shifted constantly. People want these things, right, they even mark that they're little markers of the UFO movement. And then when we get there all all they just poke holes and everything, So again like what what you know.

1:52:49 Speaker 2: Well, because that's not what they want. They want, you know, they want a ship descending from the sky, landing in in Nordic's walking out, That's what and that's what they want, right, they want.

1:53:03 Speaker 1: A spectacle, a spectacle.

1:53:06 Speaker 2: You know, and when you give them the story of the story of my six month life here right, nobody wants the science behind it. Nobody wants to have to do any work or mental you know, exert any any mental capacity to both understand and articulate it. They just want to look at it and go, ha, see there it is. And it's why I say, even if that ship landed in something walked out of it, people are going to be highly disappointed because, you know, they're not seven foot tall Nordics.

1:53:43 Speaker 4: They're fine out.

1:53:45 Speaker 2: You know, it doesn't meet the fantasy that they've had in their head. They're not walking into this open minded, ready to follow evidence, ready to roll up their sleeves, and anything other than what their reconceived notion of what it's going to be is is going to be a disappointment. And you're right, And Mike, you know, if you're still there, you know you're very close to the Beatrice Villa real issue. Another highlight of the year, right, we didn't think.

1:54:17 Speaker 1: Yeah, I hopefully her and I have talked about uh having her come to the studio in spring time, so I've been working on that. I think that she's definitely got one of the highlights stories of the year, to be honest. Uh, just the if we could start like actually like you know, getting other observatori's data, uh, you know, either around the same time or around the same time and after and we can really like start looking into this. I think this could be one of those avenues that ends up forcing a hand because when you start drawing conclusions of like the d See flyover or any nuclear uh known nuclear incident, when you start drawing those correlations, uh, you got you got a good story, right.

1:55:11 Speaker 8: Strategic planning. Yeah, that's that's important thing. I mean again, it goes into the two different stylos we have. We have what Gene was talking about what they want, which is it lands and then climb out. And that's the only way you would ever get answers, because if the story is there's one crash, were engineered it and now they're technical, you will ever get those answers. You've heard that from Mike Grounds and some Askable interviews where he said he's not going to tell Perston what it is, just.

1:55:36 Speaker 7: So they know, right.

1:55:37 Speaker 8: You've even heard Dathan Burlison who said when he wrote his letter to go get and look at them about a test range. You basically keep our secrets our secret. So unless it is them landing or only this idea of NHI and craft, that's the only way you can tell that story.

1:55:55 Speaker 7: And that's what people are running into where they're having trouble getting past.

1:55:58 Speaker 8: It is all you're running into in the you know, the military industrial complex, and you've got to have a better plan and that would be one where you go back to the beginning and work your way through it.

1:56:09 Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, you It's it's almost like, uh like remember those old video games like uh, not like the new ones, but like old Mario games where you'd fuck up like three quarters of the way in and you'd be like, okay, learn my lesson. Now I know to jump over that next time. So like it's like we need to start doing that. We need to start reassessing and then getting our footing and then running it to that same point and knowing that hurtles going to be there and jumping over it or ducking under it wherever it is.

1:56:42 Speaker 1: You know. Uh, I will say this, I'll say this age of you guys are a lot of a lot of a lot of you in here. If I'm not mistaken. You guys are a lot of the uh Elizondo like you guys are are very much supportive of of Louie Alizondo. Something that recently happened that I did want to discuss was this Project Unity Joe. Was that a source bot? I'm sorry, guys, did I know?

1:57:18 Speaker 3: I think it's pretty funny. You're talking about the patrinker Jay Anderson. Yeah, let's get into that.

1:57:23 Speaker 1: Go ahead, So all right, without making it two vulgar guys, Jay Anderson is not someone I am very familiar with. However, I watched the episode, and Rogan seems to be bringing on people and instead of you know, guys that did come up through the UFO you know, whatever you want to call it, the UFO community, Like Jay did do that, you know, and he did make it onto Rogan. And from what I saw until I started learning more about the situation, granted I was a little green when it came to the background of some of his stuff, I saw it as an accomplishment for the community, like, oh shit, look at that.

1:58:11 Speaker 1: You know, another guy from the UFO community, you know, got noticed by Rogan, got on the biggest podcast. That's good for all of us. But however, there is one part where he starts attacking Elizondo, and I did find that to be a little bit like, oh shit, oh.

1:58:30 Speaker 14: Especially coming from him, who I think, if we're gonna call anybody a UFO hate grew. If there is one on Luela Isondo's side, there is just as much one on the Jay Unity, Red Pandicuala Tupacabra side, So it's two equal halves. From an outside perspective anyway, there is by no means that that side is just these completely innocent people who are being attacked just for being researchers.

1:59:02 Speaker 13: It's a loadable but sorry.

1:59:05 Speaker 3: Ohing're absolutely right, it's complete horseshit. And I'm not on the outside looking in. I am most definitely on the other side with Lou And we know what the trolls, Tupicabo, red Pandacoala and Jay Anderson had been falsely putting bullshit like that out there four years now, and they planned on getting onto Joe Rogan so that they could get clicks and they could push their false narrative and their agenda. And they did it, which is why everyone's talking about it. So they did it, But was it genuinely moving disclosure.

1:59:40 Speaker 3: No, had nothing to do with disclosure highlighting the trolls on Twitter, highlighting all of the anti Lou bullshit, which everything that comes out of their mouth is all a lie, every bit of it, and they wanted to get a worldwide stage, like on the Rogan platform, so that everybody could hear that bullshit. So it was disgusting in my opinion, and I thought Rogan had more common sense than to allow hate speech like that that hasn't been verified or proven and have it put out there blanketly on his podcast.

2:00:15 Speaker 3: Very disappointed in that. And then right after that all happened, we have a sitting member of Congress, Eric Burlison, who is also went on the space with Toopericabra and Red Panda Koala and agreeing with the hate against Lou Alzando, which you know, is really funny because I remember when Lou was down testifying in Congress and he was in Berlison's office. There are plenty of pictures with Burlison with his arm around low. So on one hand, he's, you know, working with Lou and doesn't have any issues, and then now because of the Rogan podcast, he's mimicking what the trolls are putting out there and say, oh, well, that's how I felt all along.

2:00:58 Speaker 3: I agree with that. Really, you schmuck. You are a member of Congress. You shouldn't be taking sides with anybody about any of this shit, especially if we're talking about social media troll wars. A sitting member of Congress, a member of the government should not be getting involved in that, especially if he's going to take a size and push a false narrative, which is what he did. I didn't expect that, but he did it. So now we're dealing with the consequences of that. This was something that people who were not familiar with either side of things, like the public, and they hear their bullshit that they constantly put out there, and now they heard it on the Rogan platform.

2:01:43 Speaker 3: They don't know what's true or not. They're going to take it at face value and believe, Oh, yeah, Lou is a murderer, Lou is a rapist, louis a torturer. All of the things that they put out there constantly. Lou murdered Amy es courage him and his friend kid raped her to death. And you know that is untrue even to the degree where we have a close childhood friend of Amy, es Courages, who came out on Twitter recently and she said, look, Amy was dealing with a lot of mental health crisis issues. She was very dealing with a lot of health issues, physical health issues, mental health issues.

2:02:31 Speaker 3: Her family have been traumatized by all of this. It was unexpected, and she committed suicide, murdered herself and now the trolls are aware of that, but they're ignoring it. And this woman who worked with Amy at the institute and knew her since they were kids together said to Red Panda, Koala, please stop drigging the family through pain. Everything is saying is false and not true. You need to let the family grieve. You need to stop putting false information out. It's just not right. And Red Panda responded there and said, I'll say whatever I want to say.

2:03:15 Speaker 3: It's my right. First Amendment protects me. It's freedom of speech, and I will say anything I want about it. So he pushed back against her, and she was being very nice about it. So, I mean, I don't stomach at tolerate right and wrong.

2:03:32 Speaker 1: Right.

2:03:32 Speaker 14: They don't care what's right or what's wrong or what's the honorable thing to do and not just damn. But there's just so many people on social media who don't who don't really care about that.

2:03:42 Speaker 13: It's all about what gets me clicks.

2:03:44 Speaker 1: Yeah, And like I just I just want to I just want to blanket this by because I see that one of the people that I like, the real one of the people I wanted to especially bring on for a little bit, did just show up. And that is the NASS Chief of Aerospace Medicine, doctor Greg Rogers, who you know, he also came out this year in twenty twenty five. But before I bring him in, I want to wrap this new up, that Lou and j thing up and the end and the community like the anti Lou and the Lou for Lou, I think what we like.

2:04:26 Speaker 1: I don't know how all this shit started. I really don't mean the other if it really does come down to whether you think Lou ran a tip or not, or he was definitely involved in something. Harry Reid acknowledged that. Now, whether you want to poke holes and say that you know that that's all semantics. Lou definitely did something with the government when in terms of studying the phenomenon, you know, from a military standpoint. I I think, I think again, it really does need to come to we need to stop putting people that sit on pedestals on Twitter or x whatever it is now, and they don't go out in the field, they don't research cases, they don't they don't do anything other than spaces, right, which which is helpful, but it's not gonna get any it's not gonna do what I think there.

2:05:28 Speaker 1: They think it's gonna do.

2:05:32 Speaker 3: Oh, they're gonna get clicks from it. And they also far and then my right are they're making niche. I'll tell you something talking about earlier. They they also seem to idolize doctor Stephen Greer. They've put out his information. They have the hood Greer that they created with AI that they play in their videos and put on spaces. They seem to idolize doctor Steve Grid. And we know that uh Luelezondo and Stephen Grid don't see eye to eye and don't get along with each other. So they're on the Stephen Griz side of everything against Louelezondo.

2:06:11 Speaker 3: That's where this originated from, and this is why it's still ongoing. Just saying you know time, Yeah.

2:06:17 Speaker 13: I find that it's a hard.

2:06:18 Speaker 14: I have a hard time believing that they're so supportive of doctor Greer just because of the work.

2:06:24 Speaker 1: That he does.

2:06:25 Speaker 14: I have heard and I think that there is I'm not going to say it, but there is some ulterior motives why they are pushing Griers so hard against lou But anybody.

2:06:37 Speaker 13: Anybody say it, go ahead.

2:06:39 Speaker 3: They're getting paid. They're getting paid from the grid camp. I know that. Oh, we know, we've been. We've been. We've been researching and digging into that, and we're coming up with information. We know they're doing this to get paid. They're not doing it for free.

2:06:52 Speaker 1: Okay. I was gonna say, you can't just say that though and not have evidence.

2:06:56 Speaker 3: Oh no, no, no, we are aware of what's going on behind.

2:07:00 Speaker 1: The Allegedly they're getting paid to spark this controversy.

2:07:07 Speaker 4: Correct read my email.

2:07:09 Speaker 1: Might okay, I will, and of course just protecting myself here, But so allegedly you say this is there is some sort of financial.

2:07:20 Speaker 3: There is there is, They're not. Look, Kylo, they think about it logically for a second. Do you really think for the past four years that they've been running this campaign, they're doing it out of the goodness of their heart? They're working for free. No, they're not. Nobody would nobody would be that fanatical about it. They are definitely getting paid. That's why this ongoing campaign against Louel Azando and all of his friends has been ongoing NonStop the whole time. It still is. It still is.

2:07:50 Speaker 4: And Mike and if I could jump in here ahead, Brian very credible that there were thirty thousand FBI taps on X right now. And and I was told that that's why you need to get off. And if you notice that a lot of the whistleblowers and everything else have left those spaces, they're no longer on X spaces or anything like that. Thirty thousand fbis have So geez, I take that for what's worth.

2:08:19 Speaker 3: Well.

2:08:20 Speaker 1: Introducing a gentleman that I helped bring out. I remember when I was talking to him while he was still employed by the government. Uh and uh, I remember his retirement being a day I looked forward to. And his story is uh, you know, been featured by you know, Jesse Michaels. It's been talked about on pretty much every podcast to some degree. Uh. Greg, how are you doing, brother, brother? You just have brain surgery?

2:08:54 Speaker 13: Yeah?

2:08:54 Speaker 5: Well, fortunately when they opened my skull. They found that I still had a brain, so that made me feel better afterwards.

2:09:04 Speaker 1: I guess it's a yeah, verifiable at this point. But Greg, you you, you and Jane and and some others. You guys were introduced to the UFO world, and I remember having conversations with Greg in particular about Hey, listen, we're gonna do this interview and there's gonna be a lot of people that support you because you're a genuine person, but there's also going to be this other side that's gonna make like that they're going to attack you, and they're going to to to to make you feel a certain way. Try.

2:09:40 Speaker 1: I was like, try not to take it personally. I remember prepping him for that, and it really for him. It didn't happen. He's the only guy I've ever seen who's come out and ninety percent of people are like, yeah, I get behind what that dude say, and he seems genuine. His his resume is fucking impeccable. Greg, Who are you.

2:10:01 Speaker 2: Well?

2:10:02 Speaker 5: I was a senior flight surgeon for the United States Air Force, and while I was serving at the forty fifth Space Wing, the forty fifth Space Wing back in the nineties controlled Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Patrick Air Force Bace, the Eastern Space and Missile Center, and the Eastern Missile Range, along with supporting many operations that were subordinate but co located, such as the Air Force Technical Application Center. We supported the ninth Strategic Reconnaissance Wing with U two's so we did a lot of different things.

2:10:50 Speaker 3: But you know, I do want today I really.

2:10:53 Speaker 5: Thank you for what all you did to get my story told the way I into because you allowed me to do do that. You allowed me.

2:11:15 Speaker 2: Too.

2:11:18 Speaker 1: I think you're breaking up a little bit.

2:11:20 Speaker 5: Say what what I needed, Just say in order. In nineteen ninety two, I was there with.

2:11:34 Speaker 1: Can you see me?

2:11:35 Speaker 2: Okay?

2:11:36 Speaker 5: Is that any better?

2:11:38 Speaker 1: It's a little bit better.

2:11:39 Speaker 5: Yeah, okay, I'll make it real short. While I was being escorted by an E G and.

2:11:47 Speaker 13: G person rushed.

2:11:50 Speaker 1: Yeah, don't rush. You sound a lot better now, sorry.

2:11:53 Speaker 3: Oh okay.

2:11:54 Speaker 5: Well, the E G and G escort took me to three different locations so I could see new operations that had been installed since I'd been to the Cape last. And so when I went to the third building, I got out of the clean room with the escort and because that was all he was going to escort me for. He just quickly took off all of his garments and said, by Doc, see you next time. Well, I was a little bit slower than him. I had a cap on

2:12:32 Speaker 5: lab coat kind of thing, gloves and electric non electrostatic booties because I was going into an area where they were preparing satellites. As I started to leave the preparation area, there was a gentleman there that remembered me because I was the flight flight surgeon, the chief of the flight surgeon office, but I didn't really remember him. He was in an Air Force class A uniform and I could see from his badges that he was a missile person, a missile ear and he said, hey, Doc, I've got something to show you that even you have never seen.

2:13:19 Speaker 5: So I said, okay, show me what it is. He took me inside the office, closed and locked the doors, closed the loovers, and then he went to his computer station. There were four computer stations in this office. He went to his started it up, and then when he got to the video, he said, take a look at this is going to knock your socks off. So he moved to his left so I could move into his seat. So I was looking at a closed circuit television feed and it had no markings on it, classification markings, no time stamp, no date stamp, no location evident.

2:14:05 Speaker 5: But what I was looking at was a hangar, typical military hangar, and inside was a reverse engineered U A P. It was an amazing event. You know, I've detailed it in a number of stories. But as I continued to watch it rotated, It elevated and then rotated, and as it rotated, I saw that on one end it said US Air Force and just above that was the Air Force light insignia. So seeing a flying saucer was unexpected. Seeing a flying saucer with the US Air Force identified on it, with the flight insignia, it was even more surprising.

2:14:59 Speaker 1: Right, And you know, I know you've just given the abridged version, but just I can lead you into it, leads you through it a little bit. When you asked the when you asked him where did this? Where did this come from? What did he say to you?

2:15:17 Speaker 2: Okay?

2:15:18 Speaker 5: Yes, I first asked who made this? And he said, well, I can't tell you that. I said, well, why would we make something that looked like that? And he said, we got it from them obviously meaning aliens. So that's why I believe it was a reverse engineer UAP. It had umbilical tied to it, so it required external electrical power and some other things. So that's why I don't believe it was a real UAP, but it was a contractor or contractor consortium's attempt to reproduced something that they had found at some point.

2:16:07 Speaker 1: Right now, a lot of people, a lot of people know this, but in a gene probably especially on on test craft, they they have these markings on them, usually so that the film, yes film, when you film them, you can keep orientation. They're used for a lot of different reasons.

2:16:28 Speaker 5: But you said that, well, the Apollo Moon Rocket, the Apollo Moon Rocket had black and white markings all over it so that they could tell what the orientation was as the vehicle was lifting off. And if you look at the Space Shuttle, there are black and white markings all over because we want to be able to identify the exact orientation of the vehicle at all times. So this is commonly what is done. And on this vehicle, it it was pearly white, smooth, no panels, no rivets, no door, no window, nothing, of that sort.

2:17:17 Speaker 5: But because of that, they had black rectangles horizontally at the beam from the twelve thirty to two thirty position, the three thirty to five thirty position, the six thirty to eight thirty position, and the nine thirty to eleven thirty position. Then at the three o'clock, six o'clock and nine o'clock position there were vertical black rectangles so that as it was being tested and monitored, you could tell the exact motion of it. As pearly white as it was without the black markings and of course the US Air Force marking on it, it could have rotated, but because it was so pearly perfect, you wouldn't see the motion.

2:18:03 Speaker 5: You put the black rectangles so that as the rectangle's move you can tell what the vehica is doing.

2:18:10 Speaker 1: Right. That makes total sense, And just to give people an idea, I know you don't like to conflate the two, but is there a case that people would know what to kind of identify the shape of the object that you saw.

2:18:31 Speaker 5: Yeah, it was flys saucer, but it was shaped sort of like a squished egg. No propulsion system, if you know, it was just sort of ovoid with everything symmetrical except for the upper surface, where there was a dome with a mass sticking out and the mass was attached to three umbilical lines. So that could have been electricity, it could have been control systems. But uh, because there were umbilicals, that instantly told me that everything on the inside was not fully prepared, because if it was, you wouldn't need umbilicals.

2:19:29 Speaker 1: Right. But okay, so you've you've described it as kind of like what it sounds to me like is like maybe similar to what bobs are described as the sport model esque, like classic you know, lying saucer.

2:19:48 Speaker 5: Yes, if you rounded, if he tried to put his sports Model inside an eggshell and it deformed as it fit in there, that's what it looked.

2:20:00 Speaker 1: Interesting. Interesting, anyone any questions for By the way, Greg was also a chief flight surgeon. The guy's done tons of rescues. He wrote a book about the Challenger disaster. No, not the Challenger disaster, I'm sorry now.

2:20:20 Speaker 5: In ninety five I wrote a book because of the

2:20:25 Speaker 5: great concern that I and many people in the program had because NASA was not sending up a repair kit and every mission had damage to the thermal protection system and so we kept saying, one of these days there's going to be a hole big enough that if you don't repair it in space, they're not going to make it home. And so in ninety five I wrote the book. I had book signings with Buzz Aldrin and Jim Lovell Junior, the commander of Paulo thirteen, and so lots of people within the program knew I warned of this.

2:20:56 Speaker 5: In fact, I talked to one of the members of LOEC from Johnson's Space Center, which is loss of orbiter Entry Capability, and he told me, your book is our worst nightmare. If we lose another crew, it's probably going to be because of what you wrote in your book. Nobody listened. Eight years later, they launched Columbia Phone tile or phone material broke off, struck the leading edge of the left wing, punched an eighteen inch hole through the reinforced carbon carbon and yeah, I don't know why, said they told the crew it was never to worry about the hidden image.

2:21:44 Speaker 5: And then when they tried to go through entry to return to Earth, the twenty three hundred degrees burned through the left wing and we lost the orbiter and crew for exactly what right, So yeah, I said, yeah, so when they eleven?

2:22:12 Speaker 1: Yeah, so Greg your resume. I mean, I think that's why most people resonate with what you saw. But if I don't know, there's any questions, Ram.

2:22:20 Speaker 4: Yeah, I'll go and jump in with one if that's okay. Tight, Doctor Rogers, you said that the craft was was hooked up to a power supply of some sort. Did you know the propulsion mechanism? How how this is working? Did it just take one? I mean, what what did this thing work off of?

2:22:42 Speaker 2: Well?

2:22:44 Speaker 5: I had a visual and audible link so I could see the umbilicals, but I I am only guessing as to what the umbilicals were, so I don't know what the power source was. It had to be external to the craft or they wouldn't have needed done bilicals. But I think it had to be a high voltage electrical system to get the vehicle to fly as it did. Now I have said that there were some electromagnetic discharges while it was operating, and there's other information that I witnessed that I have refused to disclose because I think I understand what was going on.

2:23:38 Speaker 5: But if this vehicle was a testbed model, and they have continued to pursue this kind of propuls If I gave any clues as to what I thought was going on, I could inadvertently disclose those classified information about what they have done with it since that time. So that's something Rogers that you said, I have not and yeah, discuss and.

2:24:11 Speaker 4: You think those lines, aside from power might have been.

2:24:15 Speaker 5: Yeah, there were there were three lines.

2:24:18 Speaker 4: That would have been a water line or anything else.

2:24:21 Speaker 5: Oh, it could have been. I don't know what what was in the lines, so I I could only guess that each one had a different color. So I'm sure they had different functions. But I feel like with the size of the craft and the way it operated, the power source had to be external to the to the vehicle. Because it had that internal you would not have needed that many of the locals. So that's why I believe it was a testbed program. So you know, this is the progression. You know, the analogy that I they is imagine that we could time travel, And we took an F twenty two back to nineteen fourteen and give it to American aeronautical engineers and we said, look, this is the most advanced aircraft there is.

2:25:18 Speaker 5: Honey, get in there. Sorry, my grandson's getting ready to sake of back.

2:25:24 Speaker 4: No, that's fine, doctor Rogers. I guess if you think that there was a lot.

2:25:33 Speaker 5: Do you think I know what I've saying.

2:25:36 Speaker 1: One second, that's.

2:25:36 Speaker 4: Kind of where I want to go.

2:25:39 Speaker 5: Okay, I do not know what the power source was. But let me get back to my example. We take an F twenty two back to nineteen fourteen. We give it to the aeronautical engineers of the United States and say, look, this is so advanced it can defeat anything that anyone flies in the Great War that is coming. Well, the aeronautical engineers from nineteen fourteen look at the thing and say, we build all of our aircraft out of wood. I don't see any wood, and say, oh, well no, we've got special alloys to make up the structural component.

2:26:19 Speaker 5: And then they well, where's the propeller And they say, well, we don't need a propeller, we've got jet engines. Well, they don't understand that. They feel the surface of it and they say, why does it feel so funny, And we say, well, that's radar absorbent material. That way, when radar signals come in to try to detect it, it will deflect and difract the return echoes so that the radar site can't see this, and they say, well, what's radar now? Then in nineteen fourteen they have a product of one hundred years of human design.

2:27:03 Speaker 5: But in nineteen fourteen, there's no way to reproduce an F twenty two. So it's going to take years to try to figure out. They don't know what computers are, you know, they don't imagine what computer chips can do or that. So if they try to reproduce the F twenty two in nineteen fourteen, even though it's human technology one hundred years advanced, it would be absolutely impossible for them to reproduce the F twenty two. Well, if we have captured down UAP and its systems are much more advanced than we're going to have to learn baby steps on the how to reproduce it.

2:28:06 Speaker 5: So let's say figure out how to do this. Since this was ninety two, that was only forty five years to go from we don't know what this thing is to try to figure out, Okay, how can we reproduce it? So in forty five years, maybe they had gotten to this stage, and since then, of course we would progress. But you can't just immediately reverse engineer advanced technology that we don't understand. So that's the kind of thing I think was happening.

2:28:46 Speaker 1: Very interesting. Do you whatever came of Why do you think you were shown this? Because you know, obviously one of my first thoughts was, you know, if I had someone who's superior to me, the only thing that would get me to do what he did to you, because he did breach I would assume he breached some sort of n DA or some some sort of legal legality by showing you this video. So whatever what comes of that avenue.

2:29:24 Speaker 5: Well, let let me explain it like this. I had to go onto the USS Montpelier when it was going through c trials because the executive officer, the second ranked officer on the sub, fell from the sale and got injured. Well, because it was just uh a trip to go out for sea trials, they had an independent duty medical technician on board that just come out of school. He didn't have experience, and so when he saw the executive officer injured, he said, we need help. Well, they had just left Port Canaveral, which is the naval section of Cape Canaveral, and so they said, hey, forty fifth space wing us send us a doctor.

2:30:18 Speaker 5: We need a doctor. Well, I was the fight surgeon of the day, so I was in my flight to I had on Space Shuttle patches and so I went out on the sun Well. I took care of the executive officer, made sure he was stable and being treated, and then they said, we're going out to Lutherra. If you'll pay for your flight back, we'll give you a ride out there. So I said, okay, great. So I got to look through the periscope as we went underwater and did all these things. Well, as they were showing me around the submarine, they got to the sonar room and they said, you know, we don't allow anyone but sown our people in here.

2:31:06 Speaker 5: It's too classified. But then the officer that was with me said, well, if you work with a Space Shuttle, that's okay. Come on in. We'll show you all the stuff. So he was breaking protocol. But you know, if it's human nature, if you're walking on the beach and you find a diamond ring, you're going to pick it up, look at it, and then hold it up and say, hey, everybody, look what I found. So I think he was just so excited that he had seen this video and he knew, you know, I can't show this too much of anybody.

2:31:45 Speaker 5: But here comes Doc Rogers. You know, he works with the Space Shuttle. He does stuff all over the Cape. Most of the people there had special security access only to the areas in which they worked. Because I worked all over Cape Canaveral for a lot of different things, I had like sixteen security badges that I were on a necklace, and so when I'd go to this area, I'd show that badge, and when I went to the other area, I'd show that other badge, and so I went to probably eighty percent of the facilities on Cape Canaveral.

2:32:22 Speaker 5: Well, this guy only had two security badges. Well I had sixteen. So he probably figured out doctor Rogers is working with all this classified stuff. There's no big deal. I want to show any a flying solar. That's all it was.

2:32:46 Speaker 1: Were you. I mean, actually, I don't want to make this like a hard interview, but you know, one of the things I think we discussed was the fact that, like, okay, I want to bring up two things. One, if this video were to surface, if it were to come out through some sort of official channel, would this video be something that drastically changed the course of the disclosure movement. Quote unquote, if the video you saw, whether it was a live or just a cut of it, blue.

2:33:30 Speaker 5: Right, if they saw the flying saucer that I saw, and it was moving and being tested, and so they were doing motions like we're going to check the controls. We'll move it forward and backwards, left and right, and then it tilted to a forty five degree angle, which blew me away because none of the aircraft or helicopters that I ever worked with. I flew attack helicopters, and even F sixteen they could attain a forty five degree angle, but they could not remain in location while doing that, because to fly, you're going to counter the force of gravity.

2:34:14 Speaker 5: Well, this thing reached a forty five degree angle and remained completely stationary. So that told me something about the propulsion system. And I know it was nothing that we could do with any of our craft. If the public saw what I saw, it would be undeniable, absolutely undeniable. There's no way they could say, oh, no, that that's actually a helicopter. No it's not. It's a flying saucer. It's a special.

2:34:48 Speaker 13: Stealth aircraft.

2:34:49 Speaker 2: No, it's not.

2:34:49 Speaker 5: It's a flying saucer. If the public saw what I saw, they would see, yes, we really are working to reproduce a flying saucer, so it would be absolutely undeniable.

2:35:05 Speaker 1: Very interesting. And any of your you don't have to give names, I actually implore you not to. But any of the astronauts you worked around from the days of Apollo or even you know beyond Ever, Yeah, any of them ever suggested to you that they saw things.

2:35:28 Speaker 5: They didn't just suggest it, they told me. Now, then if if they went to uh A briefing and somebody said, have you ever seen an unidentified flying object or UAP, they would say, no, We've never encountered anything like that. And then you go out to dinner, they've had a couple of Bruskies, and all of a sudden they start saying, well, let me tell you what happened on my first mission. And and so they're sitting sitting there telling their stories, and you know, if you ask them the next day at a press conference, they'll say, no, we've never seen anything like that.

2:36:08 Speaker 5: But just like I when I saw that flying saucer, as long as I was employed by the government in any fashion, I wasn't going to tell anybody about it. I didn't tell my wife about it for fifteen years. So I did not disclose it until twenty twenty five, when I retired at the end of April. And so, if I remember, March fourth and fifth was when you released the information, I kept quiet about it, and that's what everyone else did. And so, you know, if I remember correctly, you released the video of me reading my statement, and then the next day you at May fifth, you said, Hey, the story's coming out, and on May eighth, Newsweek was running a story on it, and so it went worldwide.

2:37:04 Speaker 5: You know, I've been on uh podcasts from literally all of the world.

2:37:13 Speaker 1: Yeah, it's been really really cool to see because again I think and again you know, to Jean, I've met Jean and and you know, I just know that the type of person he is. I've been around his his family, uh so to say and I have. I've done that same thing with Greg, and you know, we went I took him to well I didn't take him, but we went to Contact the Desert Desert together and you know, he got to Yeah, a lot of people, you know, wanted to talk to him, and there's just this weird, you know, because I've seen a lot of people come forward and I've seen a lot of people get attacked, and I just it was not something that happened because with Greg they really don't have anything to attack, aside from maybe saying, Okay, what he says is a story.

2:38:11 Speaker 1: It's just another story. Yeah, it is another story. But it's from the chief of you know, Aerospace Medicine of NASA and was also a chief flight surgeon, and you know, so again it brings it brings again what we talked about earlier. It's that these kind of stories are able to stand alone because of the credibility behind the person.

2:38:31 Speaker 2: Exactly, yeah, exactly. And doctor Rogers, it's great to be on here with you, and thank you for your service and thank you for you know, bringing.

2:38:40 Speaker 5: On a lot of the podcasts. I've shown the picture of me and buzz Aldron hoping my book impact Now that was documented all the way back to ninety five, so nobody can say, oh, he didn't really do it. Bes Aldren believed in me.

2:38:57 Speaker 1: He he's a interesting chap.

2:39:01 Speaker 5: He said, I wrote a really good book. He's said it was really good for the space program. And Edick say because Aldren liked it.

2:39:14 Speaker 1: Hell yeah, I've seen the picture too. It's a and heard some of the stories that you've talked about, and I feel like if people knew half of what you had in your head, they just kind of blow their blow their minds. But Gene, you were saying, you were saying something.

2:39:30 Speaker 2: I'm sorry, Yeah, yeah, no, I was just saying, you know, I was happy to have this virtual introduction here with doctor Rogers. And you know myself, I'm the Air Force veteran. I retired to the staff sergeant, and I spend plenty of time in flight surgeon's offices, so I know quite intimately your line of work is on the receiving end. You know, I think it's so important and to speak to you know Tie the point you made and we talked about earlier when it comes to the standalone credibility, but you know, more importantly, it's the value of that story, right, Not only you know, okay, it's a cool story, but it's that little detail like the umbilical right and three umbilicals coming out, and it tells us something about what it is we're exploring, and you know, it adds to the puzzles that we're trying to put together and you know, so for my part, you know, for your awareness, doctor Rogers, I had you know, almost two hundred pages of Soviet reverse engineering of a UFO from my father in law dropping my lap after he died, and that was done during the nineteen eighties.

2:40:46 Speaker 2: So now here we.

2:40:47 Speaker 1: Are good person to look at it actually in the Yeah.

2:40:50 Speaker 2: But you know, and here we are in the nineties and there's craft that are being developed, you know, and they look like they're reverse engineer. They're run with mbilicals. You know, we're putting together the other pieces of the publicly available data, looking at it from the science to have this timeline and this road map of the activities that we're going on. And you know, I think the other important thing, doctor, you know, in your in your testimony,

2:41:26 Speaker 2: does speak to this idea of what we see today and how much of it is is ours? Right, And we talked about this a little bit earlier, ty right. Everybody see you know, or a lot more people see things now they don't necessarily report it, and there is more of a question of what is ours versus what is truly U A P.

2:41:54 Speaker 3: So.

2:41:54 Speaker 2: I mean, it's a great story because it's again. It's a it's a time, it's a time marker, and it is something that allows us to begin discerning what period of things might have been ours versus period of time when it definitely wasn't ours. And I think all that adds to the conversation.

2:42:18 Speaker 1: Absolutely, I really and I love again. I actually, Greg, I really suggested maybe you and maybe we could get him a copy of the papers or the book, because he'd be an interesting person to take a look at it. He knows a ship with three eyes. I know three I OLiS didn't pan out the way that everyone kind of thought it. I'm sorry, Yeah, you're breaking up a little bit.

2:42:46 Speaker 5: I'm sorry, but I didn't hear any audio. Okay, I didn't. I didn't hear any of the audio.

2:42:56 Speaker 1: Okay, that's terrible.

2:43:00 Speaker 2: Probably can't go ahead, close out.

2:43:04 Speaker 5: Okay, I'm not hearing anything. Okay, thanks for having.

2:43:09 Speaker 2: Me, Thank you. It's that damn ghost again. Time I saw I saw is Eric?

2:43:21 Speaker 1: Is Eric?

2:43:21 Speaker 2: Still? Have you ever talked to Eric?

2:43:23 Speaker 1: I've had Eric on the show.

2:43:25 Speaker 2: Oh okay, every Yeah, Eric's Eric's become my morning coffee buddy.

2:43:29 Speaker 1: Yeah he is. I find him to be a very interesting person.

2:43:36 Speaker 2: Fascinating very very very.

2:43:39 Speaker 1: Yeah, and I know what, Okay, I I actually do have a huge fucking problem when people show photos in a congressional setting that, if the story is true from what Lou says, if he was handed that right before he went on to a congressional floor, but you don't just show it there, put it in your pocket, put it in your fuck your pocket, look at it later, like, really diagnose it and verify it. Don't just like you're you're not doing the topic any favors when like, and then you can't just fall back on the idea of well everyone gets to see everything, uh time and a place, brother Lou, I respect you, I respect your service to the country, but wrong place, wrong time.

2:44:39 Speaker 1: I think he admitted it. So you know, we win some, we lose some. But it was a big stage to have a blunder like that. There's no there's no mistaking it.

2:44:51 Speaker 4: Yeah, if I got jumping on that tie. That was not only his first time, that was as the as the second time. Yes, the first one was a chandelier. And I was with Lou the next day and got to talk with him for an hour about that before he went on stage and do one of his tours, and so he says, you know what, I got to own up to it. And I mean we're sitting there with him, his wife, a Jennifer, and his family and everything. And Jeans met him as well. So you know, I'm not I'm not devouching for him or anything else.

2:45:29 Speaker 4: But he owned up to it, and he owned up to it there and and and for that I can appreciate it. Uh but you know, it's a different thing when you shake a man's hand, you look him in the eye and and you know, he says, yeah, it was a mistake. You know, we've all we've all done it. And I got to hint it to him. He did, you know, he went on stage in front of all the people.

2:45:52 Speaker 16: And mm hmm, yeah, exactly what he told me basically, So Andy, and you could take that for what's worth, but but that was my personal experience.

2:46:04 Speaker 4: The day after the chandelier incident, I was literally sitting with him.

2:46:08 Speaker 1: So yeah, I actually met him by chance and completely by chance. I was at the hearing he testified at and I had been in line. I had a seat reserve, so I didn't have to wait in line, but I was there because I was I was making sure Bob Salace got in to the hearing because he didn't have a seat reserved like I did. So I went there and yeah, yeah, but that's beside the point, right, Bob's fucking love him, love him. I walked him into Nancy Mace's office that night and and set aside my time with her for Bob to be able to brief a sitting member of Congress.

2:46:50 Speaker 1: Then I got him into Burlson's office at the most recent hearing. But again, I don't do these things so I can talk about them and go look what I did or look what I'm doing. I just know that that is something that takes the topic a step further, right, it does something for the overall goal. But I was lucky. I wanted to smoke a cigarette because I'm a degenerate. I went outside, and I walked outside of the hearing and they were all just walking in, so I got to meet them all right before they testified, and uh, Lou was lice enough.

2:47:28 Speaker 1: We took a picture with me. I have it on my phone still. It was a wonderful thing. Again, I don't fall into a category of I hate him or love him. I think he's made some mistakes that that suck. But again, we're all human. We are, It's just people. Whether you like it or not, Lou is always always going to be held to a higher standard than me. If I showed that picture, people would be like, uhha, grifter, ah, grifter like that? Would you know? That's it is what it is. It was just sadly the wrong place, wrong time.

2:48:13 Speaker 4: Right, Yes, I would totally agree, and I want you to jump in on this. But before he does, if I can just add one more thing, because there's gonna be people on here talking about this. In the years back, Lou never asked anybody to docs anybody. So if anybody comes up with that in the chat or anything else, I'm telling you I was pretty these conversations I talked to all the people. That was never the case. So if anybody asks that, let's just squash that right now. So I'll turn it.

2:48:44 Speaker 2: Over to Gene. No, I don't have anything to add.

2:48:48 Speaker 8: I'll jump up on that because again it's from the context of looking at stuff from the outside versus them being in the middle of this drama sometimes helps, right. So again, ye, everybody to make mistakes, But what I found interested in looking at from the outside is you know Burleson as well through a video up in one of the last hearings, last briefings, and you know I texted and talked to you about it. I can assure you that video does not show Adeop being hit and flying off and damage. And I visited with him about that.

2:49:23 Speaker 8: There's some shady stuff with that video.

2:49:25 Speaker 7: Let's just leave it there for.

2:49:28 Speaker 1: You know what. Actually I had a very interesting conversation with Greg Rogers about that video because he said it was very odd. Now now anyone can correct me if I'm wrong. I might even be mis paraphrase or misphrasing it. But he had told me, he said, why are they using air to air to ground missiles a hellfire missile on an air if they're really protecting themselves and it's not some sort of training, Why are they using surface to ground missiles for an air to air situation?

2:50:04 Speaker 7: Right, Yeah, there's a.

2:50:06 Speaker 1: Lot of laws.

2:50:07 Speaker 8: There's the biggest thing about that video is that people should know is that video, in different cuts and different links, was being sent.

2:50:17 Speaker 7: To more than Burleson or Burlson's dead drop.

2:50:22 Speaker 8: And so then what you have to ask yourself is why why would these people all be getting different views. Some people got the end, some people didn't. And then who would have that sort of contact, you know, who would have these folkses phone numbers or dead drops on apps that can hide your identity and you can delete it, you know.

2:50:43 Speaker 7: So there's a lot of questions about that.

2:50:44 Speaker 8: With that said, my point was this, which is that then burleson, you know, therop has comment without Loo, and then everybody's kind of just picking size whether you hate Lout or not, versus we look at it from the internal standpoint, which is that this has happened before, some of the people that are in it now both done it and it's probably going to continue. But again I think it's just the drama that takes away from me.

2:51:14 Speaker 7: Are we moving forward or not or not?

2:51:17 Speaker 8: And again I'm just trying to focus on twenty twenty six. You know, people that may get annoying to people, but I'm just like, let's get a strategic plan.

2:51:26 Speaker 7: I'm going on this.

2:51:27 Speaker 2: You know, let's hold everybody to a higher standard.

2:51:30 Speaker 1: Right, Yeah, that's.

2:51:32 Speaker 8: Fine, and everybody can be wrong. Let's, like Jeane said, let's get going on the next thing here.

2:51:36 Speaker 7: You know, yeah, I agree, you know, I.

2:51:41 Speaker 1: And what what baffles me is is, you know, Trump and these guys when they were doing the campaign, and now I really want to make this very specific, when they were on the campaign, they you know, he was anytime it was got up by because this is kind of like the first election that featured podcasting as a as a means to getting to people to the masses, whereas you know, like CNN, and they just don't have those numbers like Rogan has, like Flagrant has, like it seems to be the comedians weirdly that have taken this like political prime time.

2:52:23 Speaker 1: But other than that, when when Trump and stuff are asked about like would they give uh, would they give disclosure a shot? Would they do this? It's always yes. But then a guy like Eric Davis is saying, you know, the only way I'll I'll tell what I know is if I get a presidential pardon. Why who's why aren't we facilitating that?

2:52:45 Speaker 7: Unless it's lizards, Yeah.

2:52:53 Speaker 1: Unless it's lizard people. But Eric, Eric Davis is fucking making crazy claims right on on on the congressional floor, but no one, no one thinks to ask him. Hey, let's talk about those notes that you you're famously known for right, why the why aren't we asking the right questions?

2:53:14 Speaker 8: And that that's kind of my problem is that if you look through even two three years back, it's almost like a one up sort of scenario. And I'm not saying that people aren't telling the truth or they are. I'm just saying each story gets more and more unbelievable, even if it is. And so when you get to the point where you have representatives there and he's saying these different folks Nordic's lizards and how you plank with brothers and ask them how about how tall they are? You get to the point and like I told you, I have to defense people that the writers send me laughing emojis.

2:53:50 Speaker 8: You can't go any higher than that, like what's what? What besides five foot lizards can you present? And if that didn't move the needle, then what you have to do is look more the whole polygraph thing to get some of these people who take serious what you're saying, if it's true, perfectly fine.

2:54:07 Speaker 7: You know That's what I told them.

2:54:08 Speaker 8: I said, I won't sit next to anyone talking about that sort of stuff unless they passed the polygraph, and then I'll buy the first round the bar, right, I mean, we got to get more serious in this.

2:54:20 Speaker 2: I yeah, and you know, and that's why I was talking about the you know, us sending. You know, how do we use a community set the agenda? Right? How do we say in twenty twenty six, right, we want we want a scientific themed hearing. We want a a what the amnesty themed you know hearing? You know, and in that science here, we know, we want to hear from people like you know, doctor Greg. We want a nuclear themed a UAP threat to nuclear or risk to nuclear facilities hearing. And in that hearing, we want the Bob Solace and we want you know, somebody from the DOE and we want somebody from the Department of Defense that can talk about how, you know, how are we protected from this type of phenomenon that's been reported maybe you know, and it doesn't even have to be them acknowledging it, you know, maybe we say, okay, you know it's so humorous, then humorous if there are orbs that appear over nuclear facilities, do we have things in place?

2:55:40 Speaker 2: And you know, and then you can well, how do you know, how would we have that? How would we know? How do you know? You know, those specific things because there's plenty of these subtopics to follow on, right, and we structure them in that way. Now, you know, maybe let's say is unpopular opinion, let's say the lizard people for maybe down the road. Right, But if we can tackle national security in UAP focused science and UAP focused amnesty and whistleblower protections focused, there's three great hearings for twenty twenty six that isn't a hodgepodge of different things or trying to capture everything, but focused tackling, actually tackling the issue with the intent of moving the needle on each one of them.

2:56:44 Speaker 2: And then we know the types of people that need It's not running around looking for somebody to sit in the seat like it's a you know, like it's a concert that the bassoonist hasn't shown up at or something. It's people from agencies, people who have witnessed things, people who have scientific knowledge, people who are legal authorities. I mean, imagine, imagine.

2:57:12 Speaker 7: You get done.

2:57:13 Speaker 11: Ye.

2:57:15 Speaker 8: If you look at how things are right now from what we've been through, you have people who are some of them are nervousness can be understandably you be there testify, they get done or they've done a podcast.

2:57:25 Speaker 7: They say it's ruin their life. They can't find employment.

2:57:28 Speaker 8: Even if you look at the uapacock it's how frustrated some of the representatives got where they're like, oh, I can't ask you that you're going to say, you know, and a gift and this and that. I mean, it's not set up. Well, I'm not trying to say say anything like we can't fix this. I'm just saying the system is not working. To everybody's credit, who's been through this before, well, no one. You know, we've got to say that. But I'll always take better and I think we can definitely learn. Like I was saying the Mario scenario, We've seen what's not working.

2:58:02 Speaker 7: We've got to change some things and get on a restructure playing.

2:58:05 Speaker 8: And if you do look at who Rights and these defense media, you know, Center Rounds even wrote to Defense scoop and op ed the sort of stuff people pay attention to when they cover these hearings. It's the most basic information at all, because there's no way they're going to put stuff in there like these big things that catch fire on Twitter and everybody says, oh my god, how's the mainstream media not covering this.

2:58:26 Speaker 7: Editors let them that's how you know.

2:58:29 Speaker 2: Hey, ty, any of our any of our Massachusetts House seats up for uh intention this year? Maybe maybe maybe maybe we should run?

2:58:37 Speaker 1: Yeah, maybe we should run.

2:58:40 Speaker 2: Maybe we should run. You know, isn't there a disclosure party?

2:58:43 Speaker 8: You'll have to because you know what's funny is if you look at the uap caucus and like just look at the u ap DA, both center rounds and both Earl Center up in twenty six, most of them are up in twenty six for the reelection. And that's something people aren't looking at as well. Some of the reasons some the Senate may not be talking about it and what may happen after the twenty sixth election.

2:59:04 Speaker 1: Okay, last thing, because I do I actually said this was going to be an hour and a half show. Is we're we're touching three hours now.

2:59:13 Speaker 7: I apologize it was double overtime.

2:59:17 Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I know, I know. I'm actually paying everyone to be here. By Lauray, So the bill's going to be a little big. Doctor Rogers was you know, twenty grand just to get him in, you know, just kidding.

2:59:29 Speaker 2: We knew you had that ivy low money.

2:59:31 Speaker 16: Yeah, well June invited me, so he knows me some money.

2:59:36 Speaker 10: Now.

2:59:38 Speaker 1: I don't know how many people are gonna get the av joke, but fuck yeah man, thank you. Uh. By the way, that was right here, the seat, the seat I'm sitting in right now was the same seat, uh that I was told. Whatever, I won't get into that. But we had a year where dates, lots of dates. I mean, I think this happens. I think this has happened for a couple of years now. But dates have been something that people are really focusing on. Chris Bledsoe giving you know his date of Easter twenty twenty six, quoted from his book, you know when the when the eye of the sphinx, No, no, when the star of Regulus is on the gaze of the sphinx, something like that.

3:00:23 Speaker 1: You know, humans will never be the same gene. And in your father in law's work there was mention of like some sort of change in a year, uh, in a specific year. Other military people like Elizondo, uh, like Job Ramirez of the CIA, many others ever talked about twenty twenty seven, including the likes of Jeremy Corbel and all these other guys. So should we take these dates. Seriously, what's going on? Guys?

3:01:00 Speaker 2: Well, I think you know again, yeah, you're right, you're referenced. You know, twenty twenty four, you know, was in my father in law's work, and he talked about this bifurcation of between the oligarchy and the spiritual and fifty percent of society, and and that's sort of what spurred me in twenty twenty four to publish as I did, to be like, let's get this translated best we can. Let's push it out there and get people looking at it. So, you know, yeah, I think I think there is something to it. I don't think I don't think people have the exact knowledge or I should say, the specifics of it.

3:01:43 Speaker 2: And I think in many ways it's it's interpretive, right. So for instance, you know, my father in law's papers talk about the right you know, rises and collapses in the fall of the US and you know the fall of Soviet. Well, it's not that things go away, it's not that it's a disaster. It's the sort of leaving behind, you know, leaving behind the old and moving into the new kind of falls in decline. So, you know, I think when we're looking into materials like that that come out. We've got to be you know, more more interpretive and less dedicated.

3:02:27 Speaker 2: Let's say, you know or well, oh, it said it was going to collapse, and therefore you know there's going to be chaos and it's not might not exactly mean that.

3:02:37 Speaker 7: Right, Yeah, in more spiritual way.

3:02:40 Speaker 8: If you look at when Jeans you know, father in law said that too. I mean, did he make any money on it? You know that's said you got together, he wasn't making money on it. I think you got to analyze it that way. The second part is I remember the ninety nine to two thousand switch for everybody was in panic that the world was.

3:02:56 Speaker 7: I told get shut down.

3:02:57 Speaker 8: Because software code wasn't read to go to thousand, and it was my crash, the electrical system, the banking system, and we did fine. So another thing about dates that are listed way back.

3:03:08 Speaker 1: When I had Dave Wilcox got his start with.

3:03:10 Speaker 8: Yeah, sometimes by the time that date gets he is able to handle what's going on. So you know the dates for twenty seven. There's definitely nothing that I know of coming on. But I would say, if we did things right, I think you could have a lot more answers by the end of as far as anybody spiritual linthin coming back about that, I think it's yeah.

3:03:32 Speaker 2: And just look I mean and just look now, right, look at what people do for attention and do for likes and clicks and to monetize. Right as soon as you come out and say, oh I've got some news in twenty twenty seven, something is happening, you know, then there's somebody's mind spinning right now, like, oh, what's happening. Let's do this, you know, and get so essentially you've given them two or three plans years to plan for whatever it is they want to set up, to be able to you know, whatever grand scheme scam, fraud, or or prank that they want to set up.

3:04:15 Speaker 2: You know, it's like listen, just let's take it as it comes and not not you know, let's not invest too much energy, time and certainly money into any any predictions.

3:04:29 Speaker 8: At this point that ty, I do want to thank you for having this. We held you over time too as well, three hours, so put this on tonight.

3:04:38 Speaker 1: Yeah, man, I really thank you for joining and uh, you know, i'd be definitely I would like to chat more about your specific event.

3:04:49 Speaker 7: Yeah, I'm always around, uh, Jean's always around. We're always welcome, all.

3:04:55 Speaker 1: Right, brother, Well, uh for everyone, where can people find you?

3:04:59 Speaker 2: Guy?

3:05:00 Speaker 1: As jeens, We'll just go around the horn.

3:05:03 Speaker 2: Yeah, either is what Engineering infinitybook dot com that's the website, or I'm on Infinity or on an x as Infinity Disclosed, And I just try to keep everybody updated on things there and I pop into great shows like right here.

3:05:20 Speaker 1: Hey, hey, all right, next up. He hasn't really spoken much, but Brian, No.

3:05:28 Speaker 4: I want to say thank you to Gene for inviting me as well as you Tay. You can find me at Pemble Underscore. Brian, I'm not really out there a whole lot. I try to stay in the background a little bit. I just certain side projects. I worked with John Stewart on the Victory Land interview and he's like that it would be a wonderful discussion one day. But but I've also talked about Gene a lot. I've got some plasitive physics, you know what, contacts and a bunch of other people anyways, so I've had to say in the background a bit, so nobody's the contact being less really really want to but I really appreciate you guys, inviting me.

3:06:09 Speaker 1: Oh, absolutely, any anytime, any any any time now, Mike last.

3:06:15 Speaker 8: But yeah, my photo blacked out, so uh, wherever I show up, I show up like tonight.

3:06:22 Speaker 7: It's about I gotta say.

3:06:24 Speaker 1: I love that. I really do, I really I actually I respect that. To everyone else, Stay humble, stay kind, stay vigilant. We'll see you on the other side. Twenty twenty six, Oh got a lots the top.

3:07:00 Speaker 4: M M.

3:07:21 Speaker 9: Stant had

3:07:33 Speaker 1: Alright, nice ever