UNITED STATES HAS BREACHED THE INSIDE OF A UFO- Jim Lecatski- Colm Kelleher & George Knapp- SPECIAL PRESENTATION

0:00 Speaker 1: Okay, but the real men in black? Are we talking about humans or non human intelligence? So what is the real men in black compared to just government agents being, you know, interrogating people.

0:12 Speaker 2: I think there's enough evidence in the literature to indicate that the phenomenon may be associated with some cases of what we call men in black.

0:25 Speaker 3: But what are they?

0:28 Speaker 4: Secrets?

0:29 Speaker 5: Cover ups and strange phenomena.

0:31 Speaker 1: UFOs and ideas that challenge reality itself, all these mysteries, all this time, We're ever going to get to the bottom of these.

0:39 Speaker 5: My name is George Knapp. I dig into news stories that others can't or won't.

0:44 Speaker 1: I'm Jeremy Corbel, and for some reason people tell me things they probably shouldn't.

0:50 Speaker 3: And this is we weaponize.

0:55 Speaker 1: All right, you guys, welcome to weaponize. We had some technological problems. I'm going to blame that on George Napp. But we have a great episode with doctor James Lukatski doctor Colin Kelliherb talking about the UFO programs and their new book which is inside the US Government cover UFO program Initial Revelations.

1:13 Speaker 3: So jumping on in with all you all, here we go.

1:17 Speaker 6: Jim Mkatski.

1:19 Speaker 7: It's so great to have you and column here to talk about as APP for the benefit of our audience that does not understand the difference between ASAPP and a TIP. Your new book inside the US government covert UFO program initial revelations really draws a distinction. And it's not bashing a TIP. It's not going after lou Elizondo or showing differences, But there were distinct differences between those two programs. Can you outline for our audience, those who are not aware of what each of those acronyms mean, what the difference was.

1:52 Speaker 8: Well.

1:53 Speaker 6: The Advanced Aerospace Weapons System Applications Program was basically created between myself and Senator Read at the Defense Intelligence Agency. It was a twenty two million dollar program. It had the capability of going five years. We completed our objectives in two years. You might say it was test of various components of a UFO UAP paranormal research program. Right from the beginning. It included all aspects of both the UFOs and the paranormal in relationship to UFOs. It was a contract that would put out on the Internet.

2:46 Speaker 6: It had a quick turnaround because of the funding mechanism. The first year was ten million dollars. The second year was twelve million dollars and gut it out. We had numerous interested parties who wished to bid on the contract, but following the regulations, it first had to go to small businesses. Well, the only small business we found small businesses that were capable of bidding on it, but they chose not to. Bob Bigelow's bass created specifically and that was so important to DiiA specifically to address our needs in this program.

3:33 Speaker 8: And when I say needs, we.

3:35 Speaker 6: Used a new method of putting out this request for proposal. We did not tell the contractor the bidder what to do. We said, this is what we wanted achieved, how would you do it? And that's how this program was created and had specifically all the right components.

4:00 Speaker 1: Let me back up a little bit, just for our listeners, people that are listening, and also just for the visual audience here, doctor Lekatski. First of all, in December twenty seventeen, the world learned that there was a UFO study program and that was funded for twenty two million dollars. They heard that that program was called a TIP. But what you've told us is that no, you ran the program. The DIA for studying UFOs and it was called Awest Advanced Aerospace Weapon System Applications Program. So you're talking now about a government study, a UFO program studying all the physics and the nature of UFOs up to date.

4:41 Speaker 1: And so you're kind of coming forward with these books with doctor kellaher and George Knapp, and you're laying it out for people.

4:48 Speaker 3: This is what we did, this is how we did it.

4:51 Speaker 1: We don't want it to get messed up, you know, we want to tell you what happened.

4:56 Speaker 3: It's a big deal. It's a big.

4:58 Speaker 1: Deal that you're speaking to us right now, as you know, someone from the DIA who studied the UFOs. So, I guess the question for me, you know, for me, very simple audience kind of might want to know, is that when that came out December twenty seventeen and you didn't see, you know, your program named there. I mean, what is that? What does that feel like? Are you doing this because you want to clarify the record to the.

5:22 Speaker 6: Public exactly, and we stated that clearly and skin Walkers at the Pentagon we want to clarify the record. Now we're giving the details of the record. Now the thing is is a tip. The name itself. I did not create that name, but it was created for a specific reason. I don't think that's ever been printed. It was done, yes, since Senator Reads's letter asking for special access program. That's been out in the press for what five years now? But where did the need for different name come from? It came from which took me by surprise when I saw the funding someone in other words, the notification of funding that yes, DIA was getting this money.

6:14 Speaker 6: It was on a piece of paper that had highly classified programs listed on the rest of the paper, and someone in Congress put secret on the program name. And it's very abbreviated contents that were on that document. I did not want to get us crossways with any security considerations. I wanted a different name. Now, I believe that who we called Axelrod or perhaps Luellason, or perhaps some of their coports, and maybe all of them came up with the name a tip. That name would have been a great problem for DIA.

7:00 Speaker 6: Because OSAP routed the money to the Defense Warning Office of da period, it had to be that name. So the contract may have been called that too, because that's what we put the open solicitation that can still be found on the internet. And I've repeated in skin Walkers at the Pentagon of a concise amount of material as to what we requested. But that's where the name a tip came from. A tip was something that was necessary to be proceeded with on military cases. Lou handled that I was not proven because it was mainly spun up as I was getting ready to retire.

7:54 Speaker 6: I will say this though, that when I left, all of our references were electronically specifically scanned in electronically at DiiA. Now I can't say what happened in the years since I retired in twenty sixteen. It could have been at they're purge, but they weren't physical records. So I don't see why there is a problem and people asking for them except for the fact, and this is why these books are required. Most of them were proprietary. Remember they were monthly reports from the contractor and specialized studies.

8:40 Speaker 6: They had people's names, contractor names, the facilities that were being bought and constructed, They had security information. They had all of this and I have already told I wasn't asked to have these documents clean for release. But the proprietary information is so much, I said preemptively, I wouldn't take on that job. It's just too much. We're doing it in this manner so the public knows what went on in that program within the constraints of security. I hope that answers your question. Because a TIP was a specialized, small program.

9:33 Speaker 6: It had access i'm sure to funds that I also had access to, but use on this program of where we can go out and let's say, review facilities at DIA. I used them to review missile contractors, in other words, so I could learn the nuts and bolts. But money i'm sure was available for a TIP nowhere near twenty two million dollar.

10:00 Speaker 3: That's really helpful.

10:01 Speaker 1: So George, we're talking about that, like how ATIP kept its legs because it was heroic an attempt to kind of continue it. The fact there was money available wasn't out of the twenty two million, and we're making that clear. It was misreported in the New York Times. You know, however, it is nice to know that, you know, somehow how they got, you know, any funding to do the work they were doing.

10:24 Speaker 6: Yes, and I was aware of some of the programs that the cases that they were looking into, and I can say without going into detail because it's classified endeavor. I was fascinated by one of their cases because it's a repeat from the sixties. And if you go through our databases, you're going to see cases where people playing Wait a minute, I saw the same UFO when I was twenty years younger, and those cases kind of fascinate me. How how can that be? At least are we talking about time machines? Well, what are we talking about?

11:07 Speaker 6: But you will find that another fascinating point of our huge database is it would be the equivalent of us going out for a drive in our car and every car and truck we meet on the road is of a different design. I mean to me that that's an interesting insight because when people make up charts and we have a nice one of all the configurations of the UFOs, and those are main configurations, like triangle. There are very many variants of triangles, it's like, how can this be? I mean, it's like, certainly we're doing things exactly the opposite.

11:51 Speaker 6: In the auto industry, every suv looks like every other suv. You have to look at the name badge in order to tell what what brand is. That I like it or I dislike it, but right now I like them all mainly because they all look alike.

12:09 Speaker 8: In the UFO is totally the opposite.

12:13 Speaker 7: There's one particular UFO design that gets discussed in the book that you reveal and if you blink.

12:22 Speaker 4: You'll miss it.

12:23 Speaker 7: But it's maybe the most controversial and important piece of information that this book conveys. You say something at the beginning of chapter nine about a craft of unknown origin that our government access finally access the inside. Can you share with us what's in the book and is there anything else you can add to that?

12:46 Speaker 6: Well, what's in the book is an exact statement of the event that occurred in the let's say, in a congressional facility. There was more to it, considerably more to that discussion about what this situation was. We can't go into that because it's and when I mean Colin and I, yes, we know about it. People are interested in it, I'm quite sure. But security has to trump everything else. A lot of things can be said this book, as with Skinwalkers at De Pentagon, I keep flashing. The book basically was reviewed by the Department of Defense, were released and approved.

13:41 Speaker 6: The wording that's in it the wording. If we varied that wording, we get back. This was a seven month review. This was quick. DoD on Skinwalkers at the Pentagon took fourteen months to review that book, and there was I agree with all of the changes on both of these books I agreed with except for one. I made the fatal mistake of complimenting the help from a non DoD organization, and it was WHOA, we can't do that. We've got to align that out. And so that was the only thing that was a straight line OUTDOD helped us reward things by their security regulations, and so you're getting as much as we can, say, Jeremy.

14:34 Speaker 3: Hold on, hold on, hold on.

14:36 Speaker 1: So for our audience, this listening is George is dropped in Adam Baum because it was dropped.

14:40 Speaker 3: In the book. So audience is just listening.

14:42 Speaker 1: I'm going to read you something beginning of chapter nine, at the conclusion of a twenty eleven meeting in the Capitol Building with a US Senator and an Agency under secretary, let Katski, the only one of the books authors present post a question. But this is where it gets good, he stated, meaning you, doctor Lakatski, that the United States was in possession of a craft of unknown origin and had successfully gained access to its interior. This craft had a streamlined configuration suitable for aerodynamic flight, but no intakes, exhaust, wings, or control surfaces.

15:23 Speaker 1: In fact, it appeared not to have an engine, fuel tanks, or fuel. Now there's the next part, which I'll read in a minute. But what this is is you're officially allowed to tell us that the United States government has in its possession a craft of unknown origin and you were able to access the inside.

15:42 Speaker 3: Is that correct?

15:44 Speaker 8: The wording that you're you read is correct. Ah, you're going beyond the wording.

15:51 Speaker 3: No, I'm not, I'm not.

15:51 Speaker 1: I'm asking you did that mind happen?

15:54 Speaker 3: And is it true? And it's true?

15:58 Speaker 1: You're telling us you told us because you were allowed to tell us that our government has a UF on it's possession and has been able to access the inside of it. Right, Yes, well.

16:12 Speaker 8: I was allowed to tell you.

16:14 Speaker 6: Let me show in the back of the book.

16:15 Speaker 3: This is George. Yes, we translate George.

16:20 Speaker 7: Let's let's try another tack. How do we know it's a craft and not a doorstop? We accessed it. It has no engine, it has no wings, no, no, no fuel.

16:29 Speaker 2: It doesn't. We don't know that it travels.

16:32 Speaker 7: Do we know it's a craft or it's just a rock?

16:36 Speaker 6: George, You're you're going into the further discussion that occurred that day. All right, we can't. We can't go there, but let me tell you we're going to try to cover that in the future. But it's it's delicate. It's it's it makes it. I've described and here look primitive.

17:00 Speaker 3: Of Why is it delicate? Why is this topic?

17:03 Speaker 1: The United States government has a uf PHONEUS possession and we've been reverse engineering it.

17:07 Speaker 3: You've done admitted. Why is it delicate?

17:11 Speaker 8: The details you I'm old school.

17:15 Speaker 6: I'll use the term I won't use the term adversary competitor as the as the way we describe we are surrounded maybe not surrounded, but hopefully uh not so by our enemies and our enemies. You can be sure they're listening to this show right now. You can be sure that they were monitoring us out. You can be sure that perhaps they had employees, hopefully not in GIA, but in the contractor part that was we're giving out information for I am, I am I know that. So the thing is is we can't say anything more than what we've been approved to say.

18:08 Speaker 6: And there's insight to this, but I want to, I want to, I want to shift it just slightly, but it shows my point. Skinwalkers at the Pentagon and Initial Revelations, if I might use the shorter title on this new book has not what I would call zingers in it, but has some interesting doors that have not been even mentioned.

18:36 Speaker 8: One why was this program started?

18:40 Speaker 3: Two?

18:42 Speaker 6: Why was this program ended? And we've raised this partially and skin Walkers at the Pentagon did it end? Also, we had a chapter in skin Walkers at the Pentagon where we met with a high level Brazilian official at a meeting, started introducing some of our cohorts, and no one ever asked us.

19:05 Speaker 8: Why did you have that meeting? What was so important about that meeting?

19:10 Speaker 6: You know, there's a lot of material in there that, as Kit Green, Doctor Kit Green, one of our consultants on the OFFSET program, said, read between the lines that applies both to skin Walkers at the Pentagon and Initial Revelations. Read between the lines. Now you may come to the wrong conclusions. And I can tell you on the topics I just raid read. You don't have enough information to come to the correct answers.

19:42 Speaker 1: Okay, so so why sorry, go ahead, go ahead, Jeremy. So, so why why did the you're asking one big question people should ask is why was the UFO program started? Maybe you can't tell the full story, but give us a hint. Why was the UFO program started? You said, that's important.

19:59 Speaker 6: I can't do that without without documenting more in getting approval.

20:05 Speaker 3: I mean, you just can't do that. I know, Jeremy.

20:09 Speaker 6: You and I have met previously several times, and you want the bottom line. But the bottom line may not. Let me just give you the bottom line may not be what you anticipate. In other words, there may be no bottom line. There may be multiple bottom lines. And we've got a lot of work. You know, if ARROW is going to move forward from this point, they've got a lot more work to do.

20:39 Speaker 1: Why One of the questions that you pose to us just now was why was the program started? Okay, you can't answer that. But another question you're saying people should ask is why did you do all the defense intelligence reference documents? So can you answer that? Why did you do all those past intelligence reference documents?

21:02 Speaker 8: And the answer is no, I can't answer that.

21:04 Speaker 6: Because that that would that that would be an answer that would just floor people.

21:12 Speaker 8: Really, yes, the real answer.

21:16 Speaker 6: And by the way, I I don't know whether there's ever been real criticism, but they're kind of has by the nature of some of these topics. We solicited the input for the topics for the thirty eight papers from Air Force Intelligence, CIA, naval intelligence, and ground intelligence. That those are the topics they chose to do, but they were completely legitimate at the time, and by the way, they're pretty close to state of the art right now. Okay, So that's one thing I would like to say about the timing of our program, or the timelessness.

22:04 Speaker 6: If this program ast you know, the physics would have been different back in the in the fifties and sixties, or if this was being done in the two thousand and seventies and eighties. What is being covered in this book and what an Arrow has been mandated to do by Congress is timeless. In other words, you will be doing the same thing regardless of the time frame. It's just that I'm sure configurations, if there are any further configurations there could possibly be of craft will be available in the future.

22:43 Speaker 6: But you know, triangles have been seen back into the sixties, and I'm sure we'll be seen into the future. Flying saucers. Even craft that look like something from the Jetsons have been seen, you know, the alling saucer with a big bubble on it with with occupants. That's all the same. In other words, if if if you look at as At and study what's in aus At and try to answer some of the questions, you're you're you're not wasting your time. In other words, there there there there's a timelessness to it.

23:28 Speaker 3: All right.

23:28 Speaker 1: So we hit some we hit some technical problems, which is not strange for us, but we got we got George Knapp here on the phone, and we're just getting uh, you know, back down to the point. So George was asking you help me. This guy Lakatski, he's being a little dodgy as a reporter.

23:45 Speaker 3: I can't nail him down.

23:46 Speaker 1: We're talking about why these why our government would or why he can't talk more about this. So Jared, I don't know how about George.

23:55 Speaker 5: Well, Jim is the rocket Gibraltar. He's not going to answer that question for you. If he's decided not to answer it, he's not gone out. I was thinking maybe there's another way in we can go around the corner here. Let's start with column column. This book is so much different from skin Walkers at the Pentagon, and that was not an idle decision.

24:16 Speaker 4: Jim had used the phrase.

24:18 Speaker 5: Earlier in this conversation nuts and bolts, which you will recall. You and I were kicking around ideas for a possible title for.

24:27 Speaker 4: The book, and nuts and bolts.

24:28 Speaker 5: Came up, but we didn't think that having the word nuts in a UFO book was a good idea.

24:35 Speaker 3: You know. The point is, you know that.

24:38 Speaker 5: First Skinwalkers at the Pentagon had a lot of weird stuff, and people think, well, maybe we made a mistake by including all those stories of strange paranormal type events that were highly criticized, But in fact that was part of the focus of os APP. Why this different approach to this time? What distinction is.

24:58 Speaker 4: Being made here?

25:01 Speaker 2: Well, the critical part of ALLSAP that we tried to convey in skin Markers at the Pentagon was that there were two fundamental parallel tracks that ALLSAP ran on. The first one was the examination of UFO performance, and you know, the UFO performance part was getting all of the data from eyewitnesses plus deploying sensors into the field in order to gather data on the performance of UFOs. That was track number one, and track number two was what effects do UFOs have on humans? That was a parallel track that from the get go, ALLSAP decided unambiguously to run both tracks in parallel.

25:53 Speaker 2: Skin Walkers at the Pentagon focused a lot of its reporting on the second part, which is the effects of UFOs on humans, so that, you know, to summarize that book, we looked at a variety of effects on humans that included medical effects. We documented several medical effects, pathological effects, physiological effects you know, people people having weird metallic tastes in their mouth, sometimes hair loss, and a whole bunch of other things. We documented psychological effects, and then we also documented paranormal effects.

26:33 Speaker 2: So all of these under the rubric of you know, effects on humans were reported in skin Walkers of the Pentagon. A lot of the pushback that we got from that book was that these guys were using taxpayers' money to camp out on Skinwalker ranch and you know, basically document dogmen, dino beavers, and a whole bunch of other weird stuff, Whereas in fact that was only a very minor part of the entire ASSOP program. So the purpose of the second book is to balance that whole thing out, and so we we unambiguously focus the reporting on the initial you know, initial revelations.

27:21 Speaker 2: The second book on the nuts and bolts aspects of the UFO phenomenon, which was half of what OSOP was doing. So the purpose of the second book is really to look at the UFO performance angle strictly from the from only the performance angle, you know, things things like you know, lift propulsion, power generation, spatial temporal translation, configuration, a whole bunch of other aspects of UFO performance that is translatable into theoretical physics eventually into engineering. So that's really that.

28:06 Speaker 5: In the only other interview you've given about the OFFSET, you had said that the dirts essentially established.

28:14 Speaker 4: A baseline for analysis.

28:16 Speaker 5: It's a baseline of here's what humans are known to be able to do, here's what we think humans.

28:21 Speaker 4: Will be able to do in fifty years.

28:24 Speaker 5: And when we look at UFO cases that you do in great detail in this book, it is clear that this is technology that we certainly didn't have fifty years ago, that we don't have now, and it's not even clear we will.

28:36 Speaker 4: Have fifty years.

28:37 Speaker 5: Hence this is a nuts and bolts UFO book and it was a nuts and bolts UFO program.

28:44 Speaker 2: Correct, Yes, absolutely correct.

28:48 Speaker 6: Now. The thing is is there have been again on the internet. Because anything can be said on the internet, it seems.

28:57 Speaker 8: Factual or not.

28:58 Speaker 6: Well, one thing that it's not factual is d I a knew what it was getting into in regard to both aspects that column, uh to just describe to you and let me end my statement right here. We had no choice but to pursue both aspects.

29:24 Speaker 9: Why I said, I ended it again. Hey, let me tell you, Jeremy, you cannot compete with some of the offers that have been made to me. I'm joking now, but this is factual. Airplane tickets, UH, speaker presentations, UH, car rentals, hotel rooms pay for you just can't compete.

29:52 Speaker 1: With all that I've done that.

29:57 Speaker 3: But you know what always I am.

30:01 Speaker 1: I am way more handsome and way more charming than any of those.

30:05 Speaker 3: Just spill the thing.

30:06 Speaker 6: The thing is that the bottom line is what they all want. And then when I hear the phone of the being clunked on me, is when I say I cannot go beyond what is stated in the book. Now, of course, now there are two books. I can't go beyond that, because.

30:25 Speaker 3: That's okay. You gave us a great one.

30:27 Speaker 1: You told us US government is interested in UFOs is studying, UFOs has been studying UFOs is reverse engineering. UFOs has one and got inside of one.

30:34 Speaker 8: Oh, thank you, thank you.

30:36 Speaker 1: That's okay. So let me ask you about some current events here. I really want to get your opinion on this. So as we know, we're out in Congress and you saw like everybody else, and in fact, I mean, I'll spill the beans a little bit myself. We were hoping you were going to testify in front of Congress. You didn't, but David Grush did. So I want to ask you your opinion. Here's a guy who said that he was looking at reverse engineering programs, black budget programs and has provided a whistleblower statement through the Presidential Protection Act.

31:08 Speaker 1: Came forward and told us all these things that he believes them to be true from his investigations into forty witnesses, and that has been corroborated by being labeled urgent and credible by our Inspector General of Intelligence. What David Grush said, So, what are your thoughts on David Grush and what he said at that hearing.

31:29 Speaker 6: I don't know mister Grush, never met him. I was asked almost forbade him the same question by a congressional office to me a telephone conversation, and I said, I don't have a comment. What he's saying is credible. Now let me do say one thing that I never witnessed. And I don't know if Colin ever witnessed this, but I never saw any one I would consider illegal activities. I saw security procedures that are paramount, but not illegal activities. So I don't concur with that. But it's reasonable what he's saying.

32:14 Speaker 6: And that's what I told. Okay, it's reasonable.

32:17 Speaker 1: It's reasonable that we have UFOs reverse engineering, that there are biologicals, so they cover biologicals.

32:25 Speaker 8: Because I can't say anything about that.

32:29 Speaker 3: Why can't you say you don't know or.

32:33 Speaker 8: I can't say anything about that, Jeremy.

32:36 Speaker 1: Okay, No, that's great, that's great. So just another question, if you ever.

32:41 Speaker 6: Are loaded with questions because someone criticized me, gave me a three rating on skinwalkers at the Pentagon, why do they read this one. They said, it's textbook like. Well, in a sense they are. They are a learning instrument and one thing. And I don't know if I discussed this with you, Colin, but I was going to put like a textbook questions in the back of each chapter, what did you know? What do you think? And what do you just further? Now, I wasn't going to give an answer sheet to them, but basically, I think that people really need to delve deeper into the books they have.

33:22 Speaker 6: And you know, I personally love hard copies, but at some point it's going to be hard to flip back and forth. You obviously are well doing it well, Jeremy, I always had trouble on an electronic copy of flipping back and forth.

33:37 Speaker 8: I like hard copies.

33:39 Speaker 1: Well, yeah, for sure. Well listen, however you get the information out, it's great. So let me ask you this though. The big the big question with David Grash was they're like, well, he didn't see a ufone. Now you're in a meeting in the Capitol Hill and you're telling them we have a UFO, we've gotten inside of it.

33:54 Speaker 3: Did you see it? Your sound answer that okay, But if the answer was no, oh, you could answer that right.

34:02 Speaker 6: No, that goes back to something that occurred a similar question, very similar to your question, and wasn't asked by you, but it was asked to call him and he said we found no smoking gun. That is the standard answer word to give is. So I could say no, and it's still not be the truth. So the thing is is security is paramount. We followed the rules and there's a good reason, a good reason to follow them.

34:37 Speaker 1: Yeah, you can't tell me that good reason. We've talked about that. You can't give me a reason. You can't give me that good reason. But you're alluding to a really good reason why you can't tell me more about biologics, UFOs exploitation. You could only say what you said. I get that. I wish you could give me a good reason because it makes me very suspicious. It makes people like me very suspicious, Like what is it?

35:00 Speaker 4: Is?

35:01 Speaker 3: The reason? So dark? So dis.

35:05 Speaker 6: If you want my opinion on that, I see no darkness at all here. Basically, there was some considerable write ups on the Skinwalker at the Pentagon that our program was stopped due to religious concerns from the far right. Well, if there were, I knew nothing about that I saw no evidence of that being true. But people can say whatever they want on the internet, apparently, and that that was not that was not. I did not witness any of that, and I think that that's come up in some of these congressional here.

35:50 Speaker 3: Georgia saying somebody in.

35:52 Speaker 5: Skin Walker's at the Pentagon, and column has backed this up.

35:57 Speaker 4: In public statements. Both of you indicated that you.

36:00 Speaker 5: Were on the trail of reverse engineering, crash saucer, meta materials, weird stuff. You went knocking at different places and the door was slammed in your face. That sounds like you were looking for exactly what we're talking about right here.

36:15 Speaker 4: Is that wrong?

36:17 Speaker 6: Of course not that was part of the program. But I'm saying the door being slammed in our face wasn't because of suspected demonic activities within this at all. In fact, I would say there's evidence that this is something of a nature that well, I better not say much more. It's if full human capabilities were known to us right now. It is not such something that we need to fear, and I do not. I just don't believe it. Maybe I'm influenced by my Catholic faith. I don't know. But I'm optimistic. I think everything heads toward good.

37:10 Speaker 3: What do you mean by if full human capabilities were.

37:13 Speaker 6: Understood any Uh, We'll get into.

37:19 Speaker 8: That later, at some later point.

37:21 Speaker 6: But our capabilities is call him well knows, he's probably an expert in all of these areas more so than me is. Our capabilities are are are have never been fully revealed, and we're still learning. We've done a long way to evolve.

37:42 Speaker 3: Still, George, what were you saying?

37:46 Speaker 5: Well, there are two questions I've asked, and neither one of them were answered. But the first one was were the dirts established as a baseline, because that's.

37:54 Speaker 4: What has been said before. They were a base.

37:59 Speaker 6: That's still other babilities are yes, through baseline.

38:03 Speaker 2: Well, they're a baseline, but also the purpose of them was to project forty to fifty years out in the future in terms of the best known project projections by the sort of the best people at hand. So they were a baseline, but they were also projecting into the future so that there would be an attempt to look at UFO performance and then mary those to the projections, the baseline projections.

38:37 Speaker 5: All right, Well, the second part of the question was do we not in fact reporting skinwalkers at the Pentagon that you guys went knocking on doors asking about these materials, the materials, and I'm assuming we're talking about crash saucer type stuff that was part of what the best Plant was modified to receive. That was part of the contract that where you were, you were asked to paired to receive your materials that you never got and you went looking for them and that's when the door was slammed in your face.

39:06 Speaker 5: Colum am I characterizing that incorrectly.

39:09 Speaker 2: Well slightly because the people who were moving forward on that were not They were working with the ASSOP program, but they weren't part of the allstop program.

39:25 Speaker 4: And George incorrect that you guys are looking for stuff.

39:30 Speaker 8: Remember George's multiple doors.

39:34 Speaker 6: There are always multiple ways of doing things. So just because a door was slammed in our face, Uh, is that a common expression that we're using? Is that all we can say? Remember, I and Colin became this are experts at taking higher classification material and describing it at lower classifications. There is no contradiction between the two. It's just that the lower classification isn't complete. And I can tell you there's a lot of material here in both books. It's not complete and it can't be at this point.

40:19 Speaker 5: Okay, well we've dodged the question. Yeah, pursuing this material?

40:26 Speaker 4: Were you trying to find this?

40:28 Speaker 6: You know there's part of your question is there's material and there's material? Are you talking about material to be investigated, in other words, pieces falling off flying saucers or are you talking about full blown craft?

40:52 Speaker 8: You know, there's a big difference, and.

40:56 Speaker 6: I'm not so sure that I would ever characterize it that we were constructing facilities in order to look at full blown craft. I mean, again, we're talking about a commitment of money. Bob Bigelow went over well, over and well and beyond commitment to the contract. I mean we stopped tracking adia his losses at one point five million dollars. Now, is he going to be constructing large facilities? There's a lot of statements that have been made on the internet that partially ring true but ultimately aren't really true.

41:41 Speaker 6: I mean, that's a large commitment of money on his part, and as a contractor, he's responsible for having his supplying the facilities, not the government.

41:53 Speaker 3: Right, but didn't he revert? Didn't he retro fit big Low Aerospace?

41:57 Speaker 1: I mean, doctor Kelliher, maybe you could talk about this, but didn't he retrofit Bigelder Aerospace in hopes to gain either some materials or full craft. You've already told us that we have a full craft that we got inside it that we've been reverse engineering within our government. Didn't he want to be part of that and get some altary.

42:15 Speaker 2: Part of the contract was that, you know, DA wanted a facility security clearance bestowed on some of the buildings associated with Bigeler Aerospace Advanced Space Studies, and so in order to be accredited to achieve that facility security clearance, a lot of retrofitting was necessary. So you know, the National Security Agency got involved, and all of these audits happened on a very regular basis. So you had to dot the eyes across the t's. That was a part of the requirements of the contract that we we have to perform.

43:02 Speaker 2: That's a very different thing from you know, building a hangar outside Wright Patterson Air Force Base in order to receive a craft. I mean, we were mandated by the contract in order to adhere to facility security clearance requirements.

43:22 Speaker 3: Okay, so let me let me just go one last time.

43:25 Speaker 1: So basically, David Grush, what he told us, you both feel that that information is credible?

43:30 Speaker 3: Right? Is that what you I knew implied.

43:32 Speaker 6: It gets credible. But I'm simply saying he worked with someone that I know and trust as the UAP Task Force leader, and I think you should take his statements now, whether whether whether or not, if we could just take a moment here, I have observed to call him something that is I'm looking at it, particularly in regard to UFOs and the parent normal. There are people who have written, have talked about things they are absolutely wrong about, but they totally believe it. I mean, you can't call them liars, they totally believe it.

44:27 Speaker 6: Now, how many of those people that David Grush came across are fit in that category? I could name a list of them right now, but I won't. I mean, obviously I respect their opinions, but I know what they're saying is false. So it's a phenomenon now. I certainly hope that does not spread across all topics on the Internet, because we're in big trouble if that's the case, because that means people are it's delusional the correct word. I'm not a psychiatrist or a psychologist. I don't know what it is.

45:07 Speaker 1: Yeah, but hold on because we don't have grash here to talk about. He talks about program names. He talked about program names. He talked about holding locations of UFOs, which you've already admitted that we've got them and we've been exploiting them. So he's talking about things that are very tangible and physical people that worked on UFOs those programs.

45:26 Speaker 3: So part of the forty witnesses that came more to him.

45:30 Speaker 1: Are people that actually work on these legacy UFO programs, which he says exists. We've talked about it all, the four of us have talked about it. We know UFO legacy programs have existed, whether or not you can talk about it or not, we know that they existed. So just to give you know, kind of looking at what he said, he's saying that there are individuals with direct, firsthand experience. It's not opinions that can be wrong or right about. It's whether or not these programs existed, and we have these crafts we've been working on.

45:57 Speaker 6: Okay, and I have seen in multiple cases what I would call can only call forged documents.

46:06 Speaker 1: Okay, so there's another thing we should talk about. So you have what do you mean by that?

46:11 Speaker 6: The forged there there, there, there there, There are documents talking about programs, uh that are not legitimate.

46:22 Speaker 1: Documents within intelligence servers, within your industry. There are forged documents inside of our government's inte you know, or what are you talking about just on the internet?

46:35 Speaker 3: Are you talking.

46:39 Speaker 1: Really? How how could that happen? Forged documents with inside our intelligence agency?

46:46 Speaker 6: Uh?

46:47 Speaker 8: They even cover this on an X Files episode.

46:50 Speaker 6: Every special access program has a counter intelligence officer. That's their job. You know, it's it's their job. So you know, you might say, well wait a minute, gym and the column or counter intelligence soft nom or not. You know, there's no reason to be but if you're in a program you have you have that person either assigned to you or you bring him in. And there's a source of forged documents right there. Have your read your listeners and readers go back through the UFO history and you'll see fingers pointing to others that again I won't name them, that hey this is all fabricated, and.

47:42 Speaker 1: Yeah, like Rick Dodi, that's what you're talking about. Maybe you can't say, oh, hold on. Here's George, Here's George. He's gonna say sorry, Go ahead, George.

47:50 Speaker 5: Which counter intelligence officer wrote this in skin Markers at the Pentagon?

48:00 Speaker 6: Fifty three?

48:01 Speaker 5: Yeah, Nasha Mover and Jim Bell began knocking on doors beyond DHS to connect with quote the keepers of the secrets in at least two other agencies.

48:12 Speaker 4: In these meetings, which took place June.

48:14 Speaker 5: July twenty eleven, Sasha, Jim and colleagues were treated rudely and harshby Bell and.

48:21 Speaker 4: Mover were repeatedly told no and hell no.

48:24 Speaker 5: This left them convinced that advanced technology was sequestered under government supervision at aerospace contractor facilities. As a result, the DHS facilities to HARP, Department of Homeland Security officials became very hesitant and even fearful of moving forward. Perhaps these two only belatedly realized the unique, game changing and earth shattering nature of the biggest secret ever kept by the United States is that counterintelligence stuffer?

48:54 Speaker 4: Did you two guys write that?

48:57 Speaker 6: Well, we wrote that and was approved by the Pentagon and by DHS. But the thing is is that that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about playing out and out forged documents that are shown as proof of something, and it's been applied to us, app too that there are documents. I want to emphasize something I said on my first and only interview. It was a closed program. It operated very similar to a SAP. The director, the director of Analysis, and my office chief and of course division chief knew about this program.

49:41 Speaker 6: No one else did.

49:43 Speaker 2: Now.

49:43 Speaker 6: I was also protected by the stovepipe nature of that. I did not have to address political type questions. I was insulated. But they were too. There was no one else else. People in the surrounding cubicles didn't know. Nothing was purposely being hit. It was a closed stovepipe system and it needed to be.

50:12 Speaker 8: It needed to be operated that way.

50:15 Speaker 6: What I'm talking about here is documents that have risen up in the meantime that are out and out forgeries. Again, I'm not saying why this was done. I'm saying officially, if this was a counterintelligence effort.

50:35 Speaker 8: It probably wasn't a very good one.

50:38 Speaker 6: But the thing is is there there's phony material out there, and I we have no reason to do that. And that's why you know, we were questioned in the review of Skinwalkers at the Pentagon. Why did we list all the references? Why because we have a real reference. Is whether or not, you know, people can see that because of all the material that's the proprietary information in those references is another situation. But the thing is is we live. We we have our references, and they're not fabrications. They exist, and they exist both in and outside of diat What I.

51:27 Speaker 4: Was trying to get into is a mass.

51:30 Speaker 5: During that period, you confronted the keepers of the secrets. You were on the trail of what the keepers of the secrets have?

51:36 Speaker 4: The biggest secret in the history of.

51:38 Speaker 5: The US government is how we described it in this book. What do we tell we're talking about bits and pieces of mental Here are your crew, your team offs app?

51:49 Speaker 4: Was us on the trail of that stuff? Right?

51:51 Speaker 10: I mean?

51:52 Speaker 4: And are we wrong about that? Is that counterintelligence?

51:55 Speaker 5: Or did you come to believe that we really do have this stuff?

52:00 Speaker 6: Well?

52:01 Speaker 2: I can tell you, George that as you know, those events in twenty eleven occurred after the OSSAP program was shut down, so ASSAP was officially sort of stopped in terms of funding being received in September of twenty ten. By December of twenty ten, we had a ninety day no cost extension and at that stage the program was over. There was a lot of interaction between different departments and different agencies subsequent to that regarding additional funding. What you are referencing in the skin Walkers at the Pentagon occurred after the ASSAP program officially was terminated, and it involved a lot of negotiation and back and forth between different organizations.

52:57 Speaker 2: One of those organizations that we worked with was DHS, as it says in that book, and those those elements within DHS did their own version of due diligence, and that's what's being referenced in that book.

53:13 Speaker 1: I think what George is getting at is that you guys have already explained that you have gone off, you know, after the people that are guarding these secrets that you did, find that they're storing this stuff somewhere else. I mean is that, George, is that your your point is that they've already said.

53:30 Speaker 5: I think that they believe that those goods exist somewhere hidden in the bawels of defense contractors by the elements of the US government.

53:39 Speaker 4: They think they're real.

53:41 Speaker 5: The period that column is describing is when Jim and Colum and some of their colleagues were trying to find a new home for a version of US.

53:48 Speaker 4: That is that correct.

53:50 Speaker 2: That is correct.

53:52 Speaker 1: So on one hand, you're telling me there's this info even within intelligence servers and systems where you can cover up your programs. But you're also tell me UFOs, our government knows that's why you did all those dirds, and that we have them. We've been inside of one of them. You've admitted it.

54:07 Speaker 6: Now.

54:08 Speaker 1: I don't know that anybody from from ADA, from your level of the intelligence agency running a UFO program, has ever admitted publicly before that we have a UFO and have been inside of it, have been able to get inside of it.

54:20 Speaker 3: That's a big deal, you guys.

54:23 Speaker 8: Well, that still doesn't address Georgie's question.

54:27 Speaker 3: You know, you're not addressing any of those questions. We're not okay, hi to your dodgy.

54:37 Speaker 5: No, Maybe we take a different tack and try to talk about the book and the general chairman, maybe and try to circle back. We've mentioned about Arrow a couple of times, Jim, you and Colin have both said in limited.

54:52 Speaker 4: Number of interviews that you you believe.

54:54 Speaker 5: That the data warehouse that was established by US app the biggest UFO data warehouse in existence that we know of that it was now it was subsequently being put into use by US government agencies.

55:08 Speaker 4: Is ERROW one of those agencies?

55:10 Speaker 5: And if it is, have they reached out to you and column.

55:14 Speaker 1: Or can you say, because Arrow using the database that you guys created from AWSAP the largest UFO database in history. Jacques Vallet worked a lot with you guys on that is Arrow using that.

55:26 Speaker 3: Have they reached out to you about that.

55:30 Speaker 6: On that particular issue, No, they have not, But I know that the originator of you know, the lead of the UAP task Force from whence.

55:47 Speaker 8: Arrow evolved, did have it.

55:50 Speaker 6: So as for using it, it's it's more of a tool to get broad trends. I mean, obviously my broad trend observation, as every car on the road is different if you look at the UFO database. Uh.

56:08 Speaker 8: In other words, models don't.

56:11 Speaker 6: If there's if multiple craft are seen at the same time, yes they can be duplicates, but in general everything is different.

56:21 Speaker 8: That's something you use the database for. Also, what do you.

56:26 Speaker 3: Make of that? What do you make of that? In general? Sorry? But what do you make of that?

56:29 Speaker 6: What you make of that? I mean there there's some indications of what I could say, but but I won't say yet. I don't. I think that that's odd. And uh, why is everything dissimilar? You know you have to that's you have There are a lot of things that you have to question here. Why did why have? I mean in regard to Skinwalker Ranch, you've seen nothing yet thing I mean, Uh, you'd be flabbergasted at some of the occurrences there. And yes, there is documentation for these why what for? For what purpose?

57:14 Speaker 6: And and uh, I think it's very dangerous to commit to an answer, uh that someone knows the solution or what's occurring.

57:24 Speaker 8: I think it's why is it?

57:27 Speaker 2: I can also going back to George's question, I can answer that also from my perspective. You know, as you know George, the transition that occurred between the U A p t F and the various iterations of the U A p t F, that the transition to A O I M S G, and then ultimately to A A R O occurred under a completely different leadership and completely different circumstances than the original UAPTF. So I was I was interacting with members of the ua PTF on a sort of a consultant informal consultant basis, and I know for a fact that they had access to the the electronic version of the ASAP database.

58:28 Speaker 2: However, the transition that that occurred in the leadership of the u a PTF was very abrupt, as we know, and the you know, the the transition that ultimately led to the formation of the AOI MSG was very abrupt, and the leadership transferred into the USDI. So once the leadership transferred into the USDI, AOI MSG ultimately became a r O. And under those two leaderships of the USDI, I have no personal knowledge that the full ASSOP database was used by AOIMSG or by AAR, but I do know it was used by UAPTF.

59:22 Speaker 5: I think we're dodging another bullet here. I was trying to figure out if Arrow had reached out to you guys. Jim indicated that Arrow has not reached out about the database, but they didn't say he doesn't say whether Arrow has reached out at all. I would think there are a few people in the world that have more expertise on this issue than Column and Jim, And I'm just curious.

59:42 Speaker 4: If I were running Arrow, I would want to talk to you guys.

59:45 Speaker 5: Have they reached out and tried to just establish a line of communications.

59:48 Speaker 6: Or are you able to say the reach out was on an unclassified network?

59:55 Speaker 8: I would give you the answer yes for me.

1:00:01 Speaker 3: Was it doctor Kirkpatrick, you guys, or was it somebody from his office?

1:00:05 Speaker 6: Oh? Now here, Jeremy's getting back to Uh, it was it was a person from his office in a position to reach out. I can say that that as based on his background and his position, it was a proper contact.

1:00:24 Speaker 8: Yes.

1:00:27 Speaker 1: So so you guys, the OFFSET program is the largest acknowledged UFO program to the to the public, to the American public. But we know there were other and our other UFO programs, and we'll get into the r other because on camera you guys talked with me about that. This study continues, we'll get into that. But as far as legacy UFO programs, like what is your understanding of that? Like David Grush talked about it, it's now public that there were these things. Have you ever had experience with that?

1:00:55 Speaker 1: Jim, have you been part of a of a UFO program a legacy I.

1:01:01 Speaker 8: Couldn't say yes or no on that.

1:01:03 Speaker 6: What I can say is that I am describing that which I was involved with, and that was AWSAP, And I have always said you must do what ASAP did. You've got you have no choice but to do all aspects of what ASAP did. Now you might call it, well, is that fortunate we did the right things? Well, actually, looking back, yes it was. I'm kind of surprised. We did what you need to do. But any program that is truly looking into UAP paranormal has to do what we did and what we did and now I'll put in another thing or may still be going on.

1:01:51 Speaker 1: Okay, So so as far as future looks at the UFO topic, the know ASAPP it ended in the form that we know it. But you have said to me and George on camera, we just haven't put that footage out yet, both of you, that the program continues just under a different guy. It's a different name. So that's what you're saying.

1:02:08 Speaker 8: You're saying that too, Arrow.

1:02:11 Speaker 3: Look, I know, no, don't play with me with the ERAW thing. It's got to be something. Now, what was it?

1:02:17 Speaker 6: What is it? Chapter Chapter two. The comparison between the two. The only difference between us APP and what has been mandated by Congress for Arrow is the high cost sensors.

1:02:32 Speaker 8: We couldn't afford that. Now we describe in the book.

1:02:36 Speaker 6: In chapter in chapter what is it eighteen the integrated sensor package. Yes, we had our own design for a sensor package. And there are other other individuals entities that were interested in placing their own sensor packages us.

1:03:03 Speaker 3: Like NASA, like another agency like who.

1:03:06 Speaker 8: No, I can't say, he'd say.

1:03:11 Speaker 6: Would have been the same equipment, while they may have had resources that we did, and ours was kind of something we could place at multiple locations experience.

1:03:22 Speaker 1: Okay, so let me just ask you. Both of you can answer this. This is just your opinion. So we know that Project Blue Book ended in nineteen sixty nine and they said nothing to see here and move on. We do not believe that the UFOs pose a national security threat. We now know that that was a lie just because of AWSAP. Even if you don't admit another legacy program, we know that we were studying UFOs and funding it.

1:03:44 Speaker 3: Well, let me ask you this.

1:03:45 Speaker 1: That excuse that was given back in nineteen sixty nine with the closing a Project Blue Book that they don't believe there's any national security threat. I can't imagine a world where the DIA would be funded for the Defense Warning Office for something like AWSAP if they didn't believe that there was a national security threat. So my question is, to you, do you believe UFOs represent a national security threat?

1:04:11 Speaker 8: Well, lack of knowledge always can I mean directly a direct threat?

1:04:23 Speaker 3: Well is a direct That's why there's.

1:04:25 Speaker 6: Something that you can do something about or not do something about. Or there's so many qualifiers to this question and to the answer. It's almost like we're getting into an endless Uh.

1:04:40 Speaker 2: Well, I can I can step in here because that question has been posed to me multiple times. And you know, threat has two components. One is capability and the second.

1:04:56 Speaker 2: And we had they also program generated gobs of data on UFO capability. We generated almost nothing on UFO intent. And unless you have both, and I was lectured pretty strongly by one of the one of the consultants to ASSAP, you cannot make the case that without without data on intent, you cannot make the case that these objects are a threat to national security. What you can say is that they are a threat to human health, and we made that statement in at the end of the ASSAP program. We we generated a fairly large summary of all of the data that pointed in that direction, including medical injury cases, including a lot of pathological cases and physiological cases.

1:05:57 Speaker 2: And yes, we did say that UoS are a threat to human health. Are they a threat to national security?

1:06:05 Speaker 3: We do not know.

1:06:06 Speaker 2: We did not assimi accumulate any data regarding UFO intent.

1:06:13 Speaker 3: I'm going to pull George here.

1:06:15 Speaker 1: George, so reading their book, you know over the last few days they talk a lot in the book, you guys talk a lot about cholaris in Brazil and how for decades that human beings were being physically harmed to the point of death, so from UFOs, and that they're military studied. It is this like a case and that also asap you're going to reveal in a future book did actually do an in depth investigation about claris. So my question is, okay, maybe not national security, but in this case, the UFOs, we're fucking people up.

1:06:47 Speaker 1: They were hurting them to the point sometimes to death. So you're are you telling me with your book and all this information that UFOs do pose a physical threat a lot of times to people like in Brazil.

1:07:00 Speaker 10: Yes, yes, absolutely, and and that's and that's one of the reasons that we were trying to complete the database in regard to Brazil, and UH, it's simply that that if that was occurring here in the US, let me tell you, every day you'd see a front page article.

1:07:22 Speaker 6: Uh that did not occur. But you know, there's there's I don't want to go into something I'm unfamiliar with. It is an aw sap in nature, but there's there's current problems now in in uh in South America. You know, and you probably know more about that, Jeremy about uh what appeared to be again threats. H.

1:07:46 Speaker 3: Yeah, you hear that, but you know it's not as study. Yes, you guys.

1:07:51 Speaker 6: Clariss and UH and the surrounding areas correct.

1:07:55 Speaker 1: But that so anybody, yeah, anybody that reads your guy book. Just so our audience knows. Basically, there's a bunch of dedication of pages into these bizarre events in Brazil.

1:08:07 Speaker 3: They were studied by the Brazilian.

1:08:09 Speaker 1: Military where these UFOs for decades were harming, murdering, burning, messing up human beings.

1:08:16 Speaker 3: This is not just like oh, these great space brothers.

1:08:19 Speaker 1: This is something that there was really devastating these communities and left them in terror.

1:08:23 Speaker 3: So I suggest people check this out.

1:08:27 Speaker 2: I would agree with you, Jeremy, and I think even beyond the Brazilian cases, I think we accumulated enough cases within the United States to say that you know, if you're in the wrong place at the wrong time in terms of proximity to UFOs, in terms of proximity to blue orbs, that you can come off the worst. You'll have a lot of symptoms that mimic radiation sickness. For example, you know, metallic tastes in the mouth, sunburn, earn your hair, stars falling out. We documented these cases, and if you add that to the events in Kolaris, you can make the statement that UFOs are really bad for your health.

1:09:17 Speaker 5: I would also ask you, you know, I think the strength of this new book is the is the examples that you guys use that we use to document and demonstrate certain principles why why, engineering principles, physics principles, of.

1:09:33 Speaker 4: How strange this technology is, how advanced it is.

1:09:36 Speaker 5: One of the cases that comes up is a military case, and i'd remind our listeners that you know, the tic TAC case was an asapp a BASS investigation.

1:09:45 Speaker 4: It started with ASTAP.

1:09:47 Speaker 5: Later on, iterations of other UFO programs looked into it, but OSTAP started that investigation off and you had another investigation into a military encounter at Lincoln Heat. Colin, can you share with our listeners what are some of the details about the Lincoln heat case and what stood out that made it interesting to you?

1:10:07 Speaker 2: Well, I think it was mostly because it was a again, it was a military uh uh situation with R the R A. F. Lakenheath got got a bunch of known unknown signals regarding something that needed to be checked out. There were two two fighter jets that came very very close and personal with an object that had no aerodynamic surfaces that looked like basically, uh, you know, the raw ingredients of a meteor. It was tracked both on the ground and by the fighters and they they made several passes with this and they had communication, constant communication with ground control, and you know, the upshot of this thing was that an object was flying it did not seem to react to their presence.

1:11:07 Speaker 2: They came up close and personal, they had visual confirmation, they had radar confirmation, you know, in other words, instrumented and censor confirmation of this object. And it was a nowhere near as spectacular as the Dick DAC but it was certainly an unknown flying object in the vicinity of r f R A f Lakenheath and very similar to you know, one of the things that we sort of focused on in the book was correlating some of the some of the aspects of UFO performance like lift and propulsion, power generation, spatial temporal translation.

1:11:55 Speaker 2: And we we generated a bunch of different cases from the historical literature. And you'll notice a lot of those cases are old cases. So one of the things that you know, a lot of modern cases are thrown up against is you know, these could be drones, these could be you know, these could be sort of you name it, either commercial drones or Chinese spy drones or whatever. But you know, back in the nineteen fifties or nineteen sixties, a lot of these cases are pretty pristine. And you know, I'm thinking, for example, of the RB forty seven case that we cite in this book, which is an absolute classic case that Brad Sparks investigated and a lot of write ups.

1:12:47 Speaker 2: AI double A actually did a write up on it, and this was a classic case of RB forty seven aircraft down in Texas Louisiana area that was flying electronic countermeasures equipment and had this visual sighting instrumented sighting radar sightings of of this UFO that essentially outgone them, out maneuvered them. And this was all the way back in July of nineteen fifty seven, so you cannot say this was a Chinese high speed drone. And the level of documentation on that case really is illustrative of the properties that we cite in the ASSOP study regarding Lift.

1:13:34 Speaker 4: Kim kit Lekaskey, same sort of question.

1:13:37 Speaker 5: I know we're sort of hair splitting here on the terms of national security threat. But when you have these unknown objects dancing around over our basic Lincoln.

1:13:46 Speaker 4: Heath or interacting with the in the area of the.

1:13:50 Speaker 5: Nimits in the Princeton, flying around with impunity, it's not attacking US cities. It's not using laser beams to wipe out New York or Washington, DC.

1:14:00 Speaker 4: So maybe it's not.

1:14:01 Speaker 5: Considered a strategic threat, but it certainly has to be considered of interest to our national security interests when it shows such an ongoing fascination with military facilities, personnelity equipment.

1:14:15 Speaker 8: Don't go yes, But the thing is is.

1:14:23 Speaker 6: We're investigating them, probably properly now It's true that the Lakenheath incident did not involve near collision one since two thousand and fourteen fifteen perhaps involved more of that, but again probably not delibered. So yes, you should be investigating that. It's more or less interference in flight. You certainly wouldn't want an airliner to have one of these be sucked into an engine intake. They're they're rather large relatively speaking, So yes, it should be investigated. And that's why I believe ARROW exists right now, is that's a starting point as for investigating many of these civilian cases.

1:15:27 Speaker 6: It needs to be done. Doesn't need to be done by the government. I believe the contractors are fully capable, but there needs to be certainly a database that needs to be upkept and also constructed properly. I think column hasn't mentioned this yet, but we do mention in this book. More than mention. It's a couple of chapters. The Valie Davis system of categorizing. You know, you can have a database and it's a bunch of data. Unless it's categorized properly and be able to be searched on. Then then you can see trends.

1:16:11 Speaker 6: And that's what that's what we did with the Capella database, the Capella Bass database. So yes, it's huge, but it's it is searchable.

1:16:26 Speaker 3: I want to read something from your book.

1:16:28 Speaker 1: So when you talk about future work in your book, you make eight suggestions, a couple of which are established a data facility liaison, you know, for operations, collect and analyze uncorrelated target data, which would be from like Norad right. This is something that a friend of mine and George is a journalist named Chris Sharp, has really dug into, which is he's getting information from them.

1:16:51 Speaker 3: Well, we don't keep any UFO data.

1:16:54 Speaker 1: We do keep uncorrelated target data, though where do they put that? So you would like to see all that come in be able to analyze what they call unincorrelated data, which is things that do propel through the sky with intention, but we don't. We can't correlate it to our own craft. So you'd like to see that data come in in future studies. But one thing you said, it would you when you guys gave the eight different suggestions for future work, you talk about collection of oral and written histories.

1:17:25 Speaker 3: Now let me just read you what you wrote. Two sentences.

1:17:28 Speaker 1: It says collect under appropriate security caveats, oral and written histories from individuals with first hand exposure to apparent exotic technologies and or circumstances surrounding the same. This would include seeking out and contacting military and civilian personnel, scientists and engineers, and companies that they already have had access to first hand data concerning novel technologies. So in writing that, you got to know that there are corporations, companies, military individuals who have direct first at experience in this exploitation program or programs.

1:18:08 Speaker 6: But you're reading something exactly that was in the both proposal and which I don't think will ever be released, the proposal from BASS and also the program planning documents for the startup of us APP.

1:18:26 Speaker 8: That's direct wording from that. That was a hope that we could do that.

1:18:31 Speaker 6: So I wouldn't I wouldn't say, in other words, I wouldn't put too much of well, that's a that's a statement based upon knowledge, but a statement based upon desire.

1:18:43 Speaker 8: In other words, that those are exact words from the document.

1:18:48 Speaker 6: I should say. You know, since SATP Skinwalkers that Tenagon was a compilation document. It was written on our new book. We tried to keep with editing. Of course, we needed the editor edit the grammar and the spelling. We tried to keep as close to the original language that was in our documentation that DIA received. And the reason for that is I want your listeners and the readers of this document to understand they're in the same management shoes or position that we were. This is the document that really came in.

1:19:34 Speaker 6: So I wouldn't put too much into the statement you read because it was used as a plan. And as I said, these plans never came to fruition, mainly because one, the core items were completed in the two years, and two.

1:19:56 Speaker 8: It would have required more money and more personnel.

1:20:00 Speaker 3: To do them.

1:20:01 Speaker 1: Okay in five five, fine, But Jim, like, do you think the American public deserves to know about the ultimate reality the fact that there are appear to be non human intelligence flying spacecraft or something.

1:20:18 Speaker 8: And that's whys we're doing these books.

1:20:22 Speaker 3: We're trying so you believe the American public has a right to know within.

1:20:26 Speaker 6: The security limits. Within security limits, security comes first. But the thing is is national security comes first. But that's why we're assembling these books, and we're trying to accurately assemble them based on real references that may or may not be available to the public, but you're getting direct extracts from these these references.

1:20:56 Speaker 1: No, it's it's great. I just wanted to see where you stand on that UAP transparency or not. I mean, we've got a am, I a disclosure advocate.

1:21:04 Speaker 8: The answer is no.

1:21:07 Speaker 3: What's the difference in your difference is security?

1:21:10 Speaker 6: You know there's certain things. Oh and now, now if this involves security plus Because having come from the contractor world in the first half of my career, I can say if there's heavy investment of contractor capital, their overhead money into technologies, and they've been given these technologies, they're going to hang on to them. It's just like, hey, wait a minute, We've invested a lot of our personal resources into research.

1:21:47 Speaker 8: And that can apply to every topic.

1:21:50 Speaker 6: It's going to be difficult to pry loose technology when something's been given over and a private company has invested there money, their stockholders' money into research. So that's an entirely different aspect. But ours is security. We're trying to least for you.

1:22:09 Speaker 1: But but does it doesn't it drive you crazy? I mean I get it, there's security. I get it that private companies were given something, have invested a lot of money. But isn't this topic kind of bigger than these issues that those two issues, the fact that we're we might not be alone.

1:22:25 Speaker 6: WHOA, Yes, But I think that we can convey that through the proper method, and that's what we're trying to do.

1:22:35 Speaker 3: Okay, So you are trying to convey that in the proper way.

1:22:40 Speaker 5: I'm not.

1:22:40 Speaker 6: I'm not going out there and and and uh and interviewing with everybody, uh to say what I really feel. Uh.

1:22:52 Speaker 3: No, it was hard to get you to do this. I mean, I can testify, you're not.

1:22:57 Speaker 6: When people hang up on me when I say, can offer me all of is, But I'm not going to say anything more than what's been approved.

1:23:07 Speaker 1: So let me get back to George here. So George, what do you think you are we cracking the egg here with Jim and Collins not even.

1:23:13 Speaker 4: Coming not coming close. Let here's another tack we could take.

1:23:19 Speaker 5: Jim, doctor Caskey, you know, I believe that you have made it clear that you were in contact with Congress. I know that you were asked about testifying and you declined. Do you feel that telling Congress all of what you know would constitute a possible threat that you know, A mutual friend of ours, of mine and yours and columns has said it many times, you can't tell.

1:23:45 Speaker 4: Your friends without telling your enemies.

1:23:47 Speaker 5: Well, do you think that telling Congress the low down on things that you really know but can't say here would would represent a likely threat? That that would be that information would be linked to our adversary as enemies.

1:24:02 Speaker 8: That's my personal belief. I mean, there's two things I said.

1:24:07 Speaker 6: That's in response to your mention of Congress contacting me one and I repeated this to multiple folks. I don't want to get involved in what would appear to be a three ring circus right now. It's it's just it's too much for me. That's why I'm devoting and I don't want. I don't get involved in answering things in Twitter which I easily could, or read it which I easily could. I wanted to be documented in these DoD approved books. That's my method of saying what I have to say. Do I have a lot more that I could say and that will be seen perhaps if it's approved.

1:24:51 Speaker 6: Yes, I mean, I I can tell you with skin Walkers at the Pentagon, they had a number of comments that I felt were were legitimate security observations that it needed to be changed. But did the stories still come through? Absolutely?

1:25:10 Speaker 2: Yes.

1:25:11 Speaker 6: You mean, what's the old saying there's more than one way to skin a cat, whatever that means, But there's there's just there are multiple ways of doing it, and we're trying to calum and I and George are trying to. Now George is good at pushing, and so are you. You know, push the limits, push the limits. Well, we can write whatever we want, but if it doesn't get behind by dopster d O D review, then you know, we're kind of wasting our time. I think we know what our red lines not to cross. And going to Congress would be a red line to me personally because I talk too much.

1:25:54 Speaker 6: I say too much, but I purposely cut it off right here.

1:26:00 Speaker 1: I just well, what if you what if you were subpoena though, I mean, you know they're trying to do that in Congress. They're trying to subpoena people and say, hey.

1:26:09 Speaker 11: Doctor, you know you's about doctor the case?

1:26:17 Speaker 1: Okay, but hold on, if you're a subpoenaed and asked to tell and have to tell the truth, you're under oath, right, would you tell.

1:26:25 Speaker 6: The old phrase, let's cross that bridge when we come to it.

1:26:30 Speaker 1: Okay, George, I'm laughing so hard right now, George, I wish you were on video. So, George, I was thinking, do you have a I want to bring column into something that was written in the book. It sounds like something Calin has tried to answer from me before. It's about the nature of the phenomenon itself. So let me read that, George from the book.

1:26:48 Speaker 3: Cool. Okay, guys.

1:26:51 Speaker 1: So when we're talking about what we know about UFOs, George and I have talked about this a bunch of what do we know? Okay, we know that UFOs represent a huge amount of Y in a small amount of space.

1:27:01 Speaker 3: That's that's been proven. However, what do we really know?

1:27:04 Speaker 1: And you guys have something in your book that is just it's just a couple of sentences or one sentence. It was so profound to me and I want to hear you guys elaborate on it. It says everything works as if UAP were the product of a technology that integrates physical and psychic phenomenon and primarily affects cultural variables in our society through the manipulation of psychological and physiological parameters in the witness in the witnesses. Can you guys expand that's a huge statement, Can you expand on that?

1:27:44 Speaker 3: Well?

1:27:45 Speaker 2: I know that a lot of that that statement comes at least from my personal experience with spending hundreds of days on Skinwalker Ranch. And as we've gone over before, you know, Skinwalker Ranch had both nuts and bolts objects, shiny metallic objects. It also had a plethora of very unusual phenomena. There was a lot of evidence that was gathered and some that I saw personally involving the manipulation of perception. And so there's a lot of really good work and really good documentation regarding the manipulation of perception by people like Jacques Vallet.

1:28:38 Speaker 2: You know, even Whitley Strieber has written in his latest book there's a lot to do with manipulation of perception. So a technology that is both influential in terms of you know, leaving an imprint on the ground that you can extrapolate that this thing weighed two and a half tons to altering people's psychic makeup. There's really no contradiction there. I mean, you've got to be able to harness and work with ambiguity if you're working with the UFO topic at all, because putting them into one box, you know, the nuts and bolts box or only the psychic box, just doesn't work.

1:29:22 Speaker 2: You've got to you've got to balance the idea that a technology can manipulate human perception and even from a long term perspective, manipulate human cultural phenomena as well as you know, operate as a machine. So you've got to You've got to hold those two balls in the air, and if you're not capable of doing that, you should not be looking at UFOs.

1:29:50 Speaker 3: Yeah, it's you know a.

1:29:54 Speaker 5: Lot of people have filed Foyer requests. Uh, you know, based on skin Walkers. It depending on We listed all those reports that were produced by Osapp and Bass and you know there's some great stuff, as we know.

1:30:08 Speaker 4: But you know, people right to the d i A and the responses they get is we don't have it. Well, there is no such report.

1:30:16 Speaker 5: For example, there's an analysis that is referenced in skin Markers at the Pentagon about an analysis of.

1:30:23 Speaker 4: Tic TAC for example, that case and a few others. DA's answer is we don't have it. It doesn't exist. Do you suspect that those documents will ever be made public?

1:30:36 Speaker 6: That particular one, as you probably already know, it was a complete document analyzing a tic tac object and a spherical object, and it was done based on bass capabilities at the time. It actually is well, the way it was written was it had that plus background material on the tic tac and I would say that there was information in there that was personal information, not proprietary information. We were using commercial software. Will that document ever be released, I don't know. We can do pieces of it in a future book, but the analysis tool that was being used was state of the art at the time, and you need the color aspect of it well, as probably your.

1:31:42 Speaker 8: Listeners and readers know.

1:31:43 Speaker 6: Color is kind of expensive in any book, especially books that are reaching the size that we're doing. So will it reach They have the document, whether they destroy it, How do you destroy an electronic document? That's unclear whether they would be willing to go through removing the personal information.

1:32:14 Speaker 8: I don't know.

1:32:15 Speaker 6: I can't speak to that. The wording is probably wrong that the document doesn't exist. Yes it does. I mean you had it in your hand. But the thing is is as for the public ever seeing the full document. Again, there's the color problem.

1:32:37 Speaker 3: Well, hold on, hold on, said George.

1:32:38 Speaker 1: He just said, oh, does the document exist, meaning one hundred and forty plus page analysis of the TikTok that the world has never seen, generated by the spherical object. Yeah, generated and the spherical object generated by the DA you know, famously. George would have loved to given that, you know, as a submission to Congress famously. But the thing is is, Jim Jim Lukowski just said, George, you had that in your hands.

1:33:03 Speaker 3: It exists.

1:33:03 Speaker 1: So if the d i A Is telling us some document doesn't exist, but you had it in your hands, George, what does that mean for the fate of the document? Couldn't that just go out to the public. Then if they don't admit it exists, there's.

1:33:15 Speaker 6: The there's the problem of having that personal information in there. Someone has to scrub it.

1:33:24 Speaker 8: It is d i A's job.

1:33:27 Speaker 3: George would be willing to scrub.

1:33:28 Speaker 1: It, that's George, George, George. Okay, that was a rhetorical question, Jim. So George, just tell us what your thoughts are here.

1:33:37 Speaker 4: Well, I could not.

1:33:39 Speaker 5: It's not my document to release, and I wouldn't release it without permission from the people that allowed.

1:33:47 Speaker 4: Me to see it, So I just couldn't do that. But because if I were to do that, I would never get access to documents again of that nature. So I can't do it. But I'd be happy to do it if if somebody gave me the green light.

1:34:01 Speaker 1: Yeah, if people weren't going to have problems. Well, so column back to this basic thing. You've tried to talk with me before about the physical and the psychic nature UFOs, and you're saying, look, you got to be prepared for both if you're going to investigate this. But that statement that you guys wrote in your book, it really is something I think people really need to pay attention to. You're saying that everything works as if UAP were the product of a technology that integrates physical and psychic phenomenon.

1:34:28 Speaker 3: But then you say, and.

1:34:29 Speaker 1: Primarily affects cultural variables in our society through manipulation of psychological and physiological parameters. What do you mean manipulate cultural variables? I'm sorry, I'm obsessed with this quote.

1:34:43 Speaker 2: Well, do you want to take that gim because I've already answered it.

1:34:47 Speaker 11: Well, the cultural variables, don't we see that occurring right now?

1:34:58 Speaker 11: What do you mean your answer?

1:35:00 Speaker 6: You see that basically, Uh, there's a well, I got it. I got something to really reference and it'll it'll be another little bombshell of mind.

1:35:15 Speaker 3: But you're going to answer my question about a question.

1:35:18 Speaker 8: What is the purpose of the men in black?

1:35:21 Speaker 3: We that is a question.

1:35:23 Speaker 6: We have encountered the men in black, the.

1:35:27 Speaker 8: Legitimate ones you legitimate ones.

1:35:32 Speaker 2: You have?

1:35:33 Speaker 8: I didn't say me, but the answer the answer is yes.

1:35:39 Speaker 3: What do you mean? The legitimate people who are.

1:35:43 Speaker 6: Are are gaming gaming knowledge of the men in black? But what is the purpose of the men in black? Is it to draw attention away from the UFO phenomenon or using reverse psychology draw attention to it and the paranormal?

1:36:01 Speaker 8: Of course, what is the purpose?

1:36:05 Speaker 6: It could be They're polar opposites the answers that's always been the men in Black.

1:36:13 Speaker 8: Dissuade.

1:36:14 Speaker 6: Do they knowing human psychology?

1:36:17 Speaker 10: Do they?

1:36:17 Speaker 6: Or do they do exactly the opposite? They draw attention to the phenomenon. And that's what I mean in my answer to you, I wanted to use an example of manipulating cultural variables that they're drawing attention. Hey, this really exists. Now you can also go off on the side a little bit is say, are we in the realm, because I've talked to multiple people about this, are we in the realm of what we would consider demonic influence? Have we crossed into that that's a cultural variable too, operating at the same level.

1:37:00 Speaker 6: We We've got to consider all this. That's why I think this is such a wonderful topic because you've got all these things you still have to consider, and you know it's now I'm going to be long gone and call them. Probably will be long gone and you'll be long gone and they'll still be exploring all this and not have all the answers. But that's that's the manipulation from my point of view of Hey, get interested in this stuff. It's real, and don't just jokingly. You know, like the term dino beavers.

1:37:35 Speaker 8: You know, uh.

1:37:39 Speaker 6: That Juliet and Colum saw a dino beaver. No one's say any that's just created to make a joke about about our efforts. But this is a real phenomenon. Accept it as such and you'll see that that's was part of what d IA did. Collect. Data collect, data collect that the intel communities are great at doing that. But that's an answer to your question. And there's so many aspects of cultural manipulation, and I think it's positive manipulation.

1:38:15 Speaker 6: Using an eye again an old expression. The train has left the station. No, it hasn't. These books are proof of people can still get on the train. But those who laugh and joke don't bother getting on the train because you know, you just you're not learning anything from the experience.

1:38:38 Speaker 3: So George, doctor Katzie, just gave us a good answer.

1:38:41 Speaker 1: But I didn't notice when he was telling us that he said something about the real men in black and that he's actually met him or something.

1:38:47 Speaker 3: Can you just we can't let that go now that you set.

1:38:50 Speaker 6: To let it go, yeah, to let it go. But now the false men in black. Now, there was an incident, and I'm not going to go into the incident, but Colin is aware of this. There was an incident of a false man in black. And let's assume they were working for some government agency. What they've never known and never has been revealed, is the person they were interview obtained a gun. He was so afraid of them he was ready to shoot it out. If they made the wrong move, it would have been a disaster. It would have come back on us in some way.

1:39:30 Speaker 6: I'm sure because I was asking an interview once, what was your greatest fear during us up? And it was like, it's tomorrow and the next day, because there was always something that was happening that would come back and we had to fix. But we've never revealed that that this person was so afraid of the false man in black that he had a gun TechEd into his waistband under his sweatshirt.

1:40:01 Speaker 3: Were you guys the postman going into it? It was another governmental agency, we.

1:40:08 Speaker 6: Were We followed all the rules.

1:40:10 Speaker 8: We don't know, you don't know who.

1:40:14 Speaker 6: You can you can trace back so far, but you can't. If it was a counter intel operation by some organization, then it would could have. I mean, that was a bad decision on their part. Bad They shouldn't have pushed this fella to that point where he was ready to resort to violence in defense and he was in his own home being potentially threatened.

1:40:40 Speaker 2: Well, you know, I think there's a long history also of especially back in the sixties and seventies. I think everybody is aware of this, of the Air Force Office of Special Investigations having people out there trying to dissuade witness is from talking to the media threatening them in I think in the fifties and sixties threats we're much more overt than they would be now. But I think there's this multiple arenas of men in black, all of which are sort of mutually supportive in driving paranoia in witnesses and in the field in general.

1:41:29 Speaker 2: And a lot of these are multiple agendas for different reasons, and some of them are mimicking the real men in black, some of them are the real men in black. It's a I think it's one of these. I would class it as another example of what I call bidirectional mimicry.

1:41:48 Speaker 1: Okay, but the real men in black? Are we talking about humans or non human intelligence? So what is the real men in black compared to just government agents being you know, interrogating people.

1:42:00 Speaker 2: I think there's enough evidence in the literature to indicate that the phenomenon may be associated with some cases of what we call men in black.

1:42:12 Speaker 3: But what are they?

1:42:15 Speaker 2: Well, there are parts of the phenomenon.

1:42:17 Speaker 3: Okay, so not just government agents walking around.

1:42:21 Speaker 2: Well, there's government agents that are also at the same time, in parallel working on you know, on intimidating witnesses.

1:42:32 Speaker 1: I know, but I'm not talking about the government. I'll talk about what you're calling the real men in black.

1:42:36 Speaker 2: So you're like, I'm saying that they're part of the phenomenon. Okay, I think there's enough. I think there's enough data in the literature, especially if you go back all the way to the nineteen fifties to corroborate that statement.

1:42:51 Speaker 1: Even in the eighteen hundreds there was a phenomenon like that. If you read John Kill's Trojan Horse Operation Trojan Horse, there's in the eighteen hundreds there's version of the men in buck Well. George, I am highly frustrated, as always when I talked with doctor Kellaher and doctor mcatsky.

1:43:07 Speaker 3: So what do you think, George, where does this go from here?

1:43:11 Speaker 4: Well, there's a lot of great stuff in this book.

1:43:12 Speaker 5: I mean, you know, part of a lot of criticism that came at us from skinwalkers at the Pentagon is too much.

1:43:18 Speaker 4: Wu, It's just too weird. And I always thought, you know, I was proud.

1:43:23 Speaker 5: Of what we did with that, and because it followed the evidence where it led, and the people who were involved with os appt with Bass and some of their allies looked at this without self censorship. They didn't decide, hey, this is an interesting UFO case, but it's got this weird poltergeist aangle, so we're going to toss that out.

1:43:45 Speaker 4: They had the courage to.

1:43:46 Speaker 5: Include it because it was necessary to look at the big picture, and that was where we started. But the skinwalkers that depending on this book narrows down the focus, people have complained and griped and bitched and moaned that they want data.

1:44:00 Speaker 4: Here's some data.

1:44:01 Speaker 5: Here's the principles that are laid out in those brds that started off the OFFSET program, that the baseline projections of what we know now and what we hope will happen fifty years down the road, and that it has examples, real life examples, solid UFO cases from government files that were investigated and that remain really perplexing that in each of those cases, a gem and column have really definitely used to demonstrate a particular engineering principle, a physics principle, indicating that these things are real, that they are beyond our capabilities, There were certainly way beyond our capabilities when they happen, and that there's a genuine mystery here and it is again, I think, in very great detail demonstrates why this is a legitimate topic for investigation, that there's real things to consider, that there's physics and engineering, nuts and bolts, and the case after case that demonstrates that this is a legitimate inquiry as it.

1:45:03 Speaker 8: Can't very good.

1:45:08 Speaker 2: Totally agree, George.

1:45:09 Speaker 3: I guess we're on the right track. George. We're getting a double thumbs up here.

1:45:14 Speaker 1: Look, guys, I really appreciate I think if I take I have to kind of think about the people watching or listening to this. If I could take one thing away other than reading your book, which I suggest people do, but if I could take.

1:45:25 Speaker 3: One thing away that really struck me.

1:45:28 Speaker 1: It is the first time in history I think that we have somebody of your uh, doctor Katskiv, of your kind of depth within the Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and within the UFO program that you ran for the Defense Intelligence Agency that stated, and I quote, the United States was in possession of a craft of unknown origin and had successfully gained access to its interior interior. So you personally know about a UFO that we got access inside of. I have to assume, doctor Lakatski, that you've seen this bad boy, you don't got to answer me, but I'm going to make that assumption unless you tell me otherwise.

1:46:08 Speaker 1: You also say that this craft had a streamline configuration suitable for aerodynamic flight, but no intakes, exhaust, wings, or control surfaces. So if I had to take something away from all this, you've just made the admission that our government is reverse engineering. If we got inside of it, were reverse engineering UFOs.

1:46:31 Speaker 8: You see, I'm not speaking at all. I'm not going beyond what it was what you read from the book.

1:46:41 Speaker 3: Okay, well, thank you very much. I do appreciate that you did put that in the book.

1:46:46 Speaker 1: Look, we have doctor Eric Davis in the New York Times saying craft you know, not made here on Earth. There are individuals like you have come out and pushed the envelope a little bit, and I thank you for that, even if you can't speak further from the book that it's huge admission. That'll be the title of the YouTube video and that's a huge admission.

1:47:06 Speaker 3: What do you think, George.

1:47:07 Speaker 5: I'd also say this is that I know that people in the UFO world will be listening to this pulling their hair out.

1:47:13 Speaker 4: Because Jim is very careful and what he says.

1:47:16 Speaker 5: The fact is that that is why that is a big reason why he's been trusted with this Information Distartment, that he doesn't go blabbing and talk and reveal things.

1:47:24 Speaker 4: That he's not supposed to talk about.

1:47:26 Speaker 5: And that's why I suspect he will continue to be trusted by our government, and hopefully there's going to be a future investigation or maybe one underway right now that he would be allowed to know about. I know, it does get frustrating that we have the hair split and dance around certain of these cases and incidents and information, but you know, that's part of who he is and why he got that job, you know. So it's great always to talk with Jim on or off the record, and with Column of course, they've helped me understand this big white world so much, and even though they've shared things with me that I can't say publicly, it has helped me so much in understanding who else is completely full of cramp out there.

1:48:12 Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, for sure. Well, thank you guys so much.

1:48:15 Speaker 1: I mean, you know, I think that with the limited things you can say, people should read your book and start to understand a little bit more about what ASP did and how it did. It what the thought process was. I do appreciate that. And for you know, just coming on the show and for help guiding. As George said, you know what he knows is sometimes BS just from kind of getting to understand where you guys are coming from.

1:48:37 Speaker 3: So thank you for all this.

1:48:51 Speaker 6: Never had so few.

1:48:53 Speaker 3: I have so much to tell, but would say so that

1:48:59 Speaker 1: Following this webinized presentation of Jeremy Corbell, George Napp, Dark Horse Entertainment and Cadence thirteen studios available now for free on the Odyssey app or wherever you get your shows