WEAPONIZING Former Vet & UFO RESEARCHERS CURIOSITY (Ft. Gene Sticco)

0:11 Speaker 1: Welcome back to a special edition of Total Disclosure the Podcast. I'm here with producer Gene of all of all people. I'm here with producer Jean Sticker, who has been brought on to help the show in various different you know, a bunch of different ways. But he's been helping me produce. And you just wrote this article. And I'm not gonna lie when I say I've been itching for an in person guest because we just got these mic flags and everything's new. It looks better, right.

0:46 Speaker 2: Yeah, listen, it's all about It's all about the brand.

0:48 Speaker 1: And I'm increasing. Remember the other one was smaller, so I've matched We matched them. I just got everything for my birthday, the mic flags. We got a couple of studio stickers for you. But you wrote this article, and I thought we should probably highlight some of the things in it because it's something that I've been talking about for a long time and it's not only nice to see it being brought up by someone else, but by you. And when I knew you were doing it, but I didn't know what I was getting into when I when I read it.

1:18 Speaker 1: So can you just recap your the interactions that led to this because it seems like you and George would would really hit off with given that you're both working at this Russian UFO file like information, like whether it's from this source or that, you know, it seems like something that would be very easily integrated where you guys could at least sit down together and talk.

1:44 Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, I think the you know, the history of it's important. You know, the framing of it is important, and all the rest of it, because I think it's easy to sort of for somebody to instantly go to, oh, sour grapes or you know, of got something out for the guy or whatever. I don't, you know, it's not it's not about that, you know, for anybody that doesn't know the background.

2:09 Speaker 2: Right.

2:09 Speaker 3: I'm didn't come out of this world. I wasn't a fan of this my whole life, the UFOUAP thing, right, Yes, I went and saw et Yes, I saw Close Encounters of the third kind, and then I think, you know, then streamed Ancient Aliens, right, Like, that's the scope of what I knew when my found in law's works dropped in my lap in twenty seventeen or twenty nineteen, So you know, between twenty nineteen and finally making the decision to publish in twenty twenty four, which was driven by a number of things, you know, or research that I had done into these documents, into the science, and how it was aligning with all of the questions everybody seemed to be answered.

3:03 Speaker 3: Right as I started looking at the community, I see all these questions and I'm like, this seems to answer what everybody's talking about.

3:12 Speaker 1: You're like, I have potentially here the outlet or at least a piece of the puzzle of what everyone's talking about. You're like, hey, I have all these you know, you're missing a puzzle piece here that I think I can I can help with. And it seems like you've been outly not rejected. But there's this gate keeping effect that is around the UFO community.

3:36 Speaker 2: Yeah.

3:37 Speaker 3: Absolutely, I mean so it was like, again, you know, as an outsider stepping in, it's like, oh, we need answers, we need answers. I'm like, hey, here's something I think might lead you to some answers. Right, But then I quickly noticed like nobody wanted to do the work right. That became obvious thing Number one, nobody actually wants to do the work. Obvious thing Number two that popped up was when presented with science with mathematics with an explanation, nobody really wants an explanation that isn't what they already think.

4:22 Speaker 3: So I often I'd often describe it like, you know, I would hear something, I'd be like, you know, take a look at it, and you know, run everything and and figure it out, and you know, saying it without saying it's like, oh, you're you know, you're you're kind of right, but for the wrong reasons, and here's some structure to look at and maybe this will help. But then it goes back to problem number two. They actually didn't want to do any of the work. So there's you know, so there was that issue there.

4:55 Speaker 3: So obviously, you know, became again what I was very specific, right, so, as I've told everybody, you know, tried reaching out to the academic community here in the Boston area. Nobody had an interest in sort of taking a look and being like we had some friends who are in the science field who looked at it recognize some things.

5:17 Speaker 2: Great. So obviously Rhodes led right to.

5:21 Speaker 3: George Knapps right as this is the guy who is the you know, Russia files UFO guy brought him back from ninety three, and so you know, send an email, you know, and generally the emails I sent were all the same. Introduced to myself. These landed in our laps after my father in law died. We can't make heads of tails of them. They obviously have something to do with UFOs. Here's a few key screenshots.

5:48 Speaker 1: So you weren't giving him the entire well.

5:51 Speaker 3: I mean, I don't want to send somebody, you know, one hundred megabyte file or whatever, right, but just a.

5:57 Speaker 2: Couple of the key screens. Yeah, exactly.

6:00 Speaker 3: Like again, like with the universities, I didn't send anything that had like the pictures of the drawings of the UFOs. It was purely the math, you know, or or kind of stuff. And and the only part, so you know again, George Knapp, certainly, you know, I can go on and on again.

6:18 Speaker 2: I think anybody I could find who.

6:22 Speaker 3: Is out there positioning themselves as a champion of disclosure that would come up in a Google search, it's reasonable to say I probably sent them an email.

6:33 Speaker 1: Okay, right, So and what do you think you're what do you how did you feel about the response as because you're not you're also not just newbody.

6:43 Speaker 2: Well, thank you, you're not.

6:44 Speaker 1: You're not just like a random dude soliciting like like you know, it's it's there's a there is a difference. I got a background, you have an actual background that if someone took a look at for more than a couple of minutes, they'd be like, actually, we should probably hear this guy out.

7:02 Speaker 3: Yeah, And I would do that, you know, I think I would frame you know, i'd certainly frame the emails, you know, with a bit of that that I'm a you know, I'm a US Air Force veteran, former intelligence contractor. My wife is a professional you know, opera singer.

7:19 Speaker 1: The money's like not your thing.

7:22 Speaker 3: I mean again, it was it was never above it. Core question I was actually trying to ask everybody is does does this work seem to have any role or value to the academic discourse of the issue, or is it purely a neat family heirloom that's it, because I didn't know, again, in this period, if these were this was could just as easily had been something you know, his nighttime hobby, scribbling at the kitchen table. He just liked to do advanced physics and about the UFOs. Yeah, I get because we had no you know, none of this was information that new, right she didn't.

8:11 Speaker 3: You know, she knew her dad had the aerospace background. She knew he worked in uh, you know, Kazakhstan. He did some stuff with bike and omer you know, the cosmoderome in kazakh Stan. But it wasn't anything you know, as she describes it, like she knew he was some kind of plumber, right right, None of this was in our thinking, you know, going forward.

8:40 Speaker 2: Don't. As it became apparent though.

8:43 Speaker 3: That like nobody was gonna let me buy them a cup of coffee and have a look at this stuff and give me an idea, I was like, all right, I need to break this.

8:52 Speaker 2: Down now like an investigator.

8:54 Speaker 3: Now now I'm going to run this as an intel off because again I was already retired, right, I was working on the business side of an ats music opera career, producing you know, operas and concerts and things like that. So I'm like, all right, this will be my thing. So I just started from that, you know, started from square one.

9:16 Speaker 1: I'm like, all right, how am I going to approach this?

9:20 Speaker 2: So here's what I've got.

9:21 Speaker 3: So I just started purely with the documents themselves, right, what was you know, what were indicators of the Soviet Soviet research?

9:33 Speaker 2: Right?

9:33 Speaker 3: What do you look for to say whether something is structured in a in a university way or a scientific way within the Soviet system, because I at least kind of knew the timeframe that he wrote this, or.

9:47 Speaker 1: Is it accurate in that timeframe? Would this be something like that?

9:52 Speaker 2: Right?

9:52 Speaker 3: So are the papers themselves structured in a way that could tell me if they were academic papers, hobbyist papers, or official research papers?

10:04 Speaker 1: Exactly?

10:05 Speaker 3: Right, So that was sort of the starting point in the course of that research, you know, seeing things like the cover sheets, right, that they would use a color coding system on some of the top papers that may indicate classification. So my botherom laws papers had this. The only different colored paper on it was the top piece of paper, which just had handwritten notes, but it was still it was this reddish pink, right, So that was something that they would do. So there were cover sheets, but there was also this sort of colored piece of paper thing.

10:45 Speaker 3: It was a quick visual identifier. You're walking around with this stuff, you know that's classified, it's in some way some.

10:56 Speaker 1: Degree you're dealing with that color coding.

10:59 Speaker 2: Says time, right exactly.

11:01 Speaker 3: So I'm like, okay, so it and it it was beyond what the standard sort of academic model was. So it's like, all right, this wasn't something he did for university. But I didn't discount that right away, because then I started breaking down the science and the theories and the references.

11:21 Speaker 2: And all of that, you know, comparing what was.

11:26 Speaker 3: Known in his university years versus what would have come after the university years, right, So that became another indicator that this just wasn't a purely within you know, the university time things. This was something beyond that, and you know, and so that's sort of the depth and process. Even even you know, some of the papers were yellowed, right, which means they were like like nineteen eighties, they were in a smoke field, right, so you know, they you could see like paper clip markings, which was something I was already aware of.

12:09 Speaker 3: So in the Soviet Union, paper clips and staples and things like that were made were made of steel, and so they would rust when it goes to humid onto the page and leave the rust marks. So there's rust marks from the staples and paper clips and things like that, and that was an old way. Actually, people with fake passports used to get caught using fake Soviet documents because the when they opened them up, if a Western nation produced a fake Soviet document, they wouldn't use the right staples. So when they opened up, like the passport, if they didn't because it's on your body, it's going to build humidity.

12:50 Speaker 3: If they didn't see the rust a red flag.

12:54 Speaker 1: Oh wow wow. So the work okay, So you start, you start formulating a kind of an idea that this isn't just a guy doing work for a university. This is not a guy who's doing some sort of hobbyistic advance physics as a plumber.

13:20 Speaker 2: Well, I mean, you know, right, So again at that point.

13:23 Speaker 1: Now he would do a lot of pro bono.

13:25 Speaker 3: So I can't say I dismissed that, you know, in any early stage, because again I had no point of comparison that you know, could rule it out. So could you have been sitting there in his kitchen with a typewriter? And I guess, But then you know, but then it becomes like why, yeah.

13:49 Speaker 1: I guess. The question with that shift to what did he know to be able to do this as a hobby?

13:57 Speaker 2: Right?

13:59 Speaker 1: Math is you know, very on point. You know, it's it's not it doesn't seem like a creat work of fiction. A work of fiction, you would assume that he would want it to be disseminated to some degree eventually. I don't know. That's just where I go.

14:15 Speaker 3: So that's where we gone into, you know, translating, and so for a long time Natalia was trying to translate a lot of this on her own, which again, you know, I can hand you a physics book right now and ask you to read it to me, ben't exactly the context and things right, So you know, it was sort of the same thing. But from what we could discern, there was very specific language that was being used, right, and it was observational, so you know, the craft itself. He kept calling the UFO the saucer like.

14:50 Speaker 1: He's looking at or in proximity of some degree removed. Maybe I don't know, but he's talking about an object exists, not not like an.

15:02 Speaker 3: Idea, right, not right, And this isn't a you know, oh of a UFO.

15:08 Speaker 1: The it's the there's some there's a there's a physical something. It's not an ideological.

15:17 Speaker 3: Like what it right, and that that's what all of the That's what all the language sort of pointed to, right, was that these he was speaking in absolutes. There wasn't it may do this, it may do that. And then he would be referring to you know, there was a reference that jumped out, you know, that compares it against the uf the and the wording he use essentially is like the large UFO, the mothership that was recently near the sun.

15:50 Speaker 2: You know.

15:51 Speaker 3: So he references another UFO that was recently near the Sun and it was extracting. He's said, says, you know, water hydrogen from the plasma of the sun.

16:07 Speaker 1: Is that something that can happen there's hydrogen.

16:12 Speaker 3: So this became this became the thing of you know, the language was definitive. So then it's like, all right, is this real science?

16:25 Speaker 2: Right?

16:25 Speaker 3: And that's where it started blowing up for me because the idea that I have these documents out of the Soviet Union written in the nineteen eighties by a man who had an aerospace degree but was otherwise.

16:43 Speaker 1: A plumber, and I think it's a cover story, but he's.

16:47 Speaker 3: Done one hundred and nineteen pages of physics, right, and this isn't. Again, all I know is this guy's wrote a bunch of shit with physics and is described bunch of things. Okay, when I start using all the tools available to research and compare, right, multiple ai you know, tools, research and this and that, everything was consistently coming back the same.

17:22 Speaker 2: Right.

17:23 Speaker 3: This is magnetohydrodynamic propulsion. And this is studied by the US Navy and by DARPA, and by DII and by.

17:30 Speaker 2: Air Force Propulsion Labs and SANDIA Labs.

17:34 Speaker 1: All the big all the big time UFO, Sussex.

17:40 Speaker 3: Right now, mind you, this is without inputting that oh I'm researching, you have because I was very careful. Right, this is what this is, what's not front loading. This is here are fifty two scientific domains. Who else has researched these things? Yes, Oh, the NASA BPP pro research this, the DIA, DRDs did this, this, this, and this.

18:06 Speaker 1: So now you're getting not just not just results, but the results.

18:13 Speaker 2: In mind you.

18:14 Speaker 3: Now, I don't know anything about any of these US government programs either. I knew nothing about DRDs or BPP or.

18:22 Speaker 1: Awest that they're the program exactly.

18:29 Speaker 3: So this is why I'm like, there's this is something now on top of that, he had this what we call the twenty twenty four prediction. We've coalked about where he is.

18:41 Speaker 1: Now, break that just before we get into because we'll get into some of the why we're really here talking about this right now as we as the climax of the video, if you will. What is this predictive model?

18:59 Speaker 1: How does it present?

19:00 Speaker 3: So he goes into talking about the navigation and operation of the craft, and there seems to be one of the three elements of controlling the craft is the pilot's ability to tie into this information energy field, and that in order to do that, there's an advancement. In order for humans to do it, there's an advancement we're going to have to go through. And so he starts breaking down how civilizations and societies, the rise and falls and all the rest of it. And so again a lot of it's historical, right, he's making parallels.

19:42 Speaker 3: Okay, you know there's six thousand ear cycles, there's eighteen year cycles, fifty four year cycles, again, all stuff you kind of heard before, but.

19:53 Speaker 2: This time I'm in Now mind you, we're.

19:55 Speaker 3: In twenty twenty and he's talking about in twenty twenty four, and so he's talking about this transition of Earth through the sixth gate of the Orion Belt, which causes this next DNA download.

20:13 Speaker 2: That we all get.

20:16 Speaker 3: Fifty percent of society, there'll be this, Yeah, there'll be this split of fifty percent of society who will erience this right away. And it is this tension between the oligarchy spiritualism and that we are becoming better attuned to the truth and all this sort of shit.

20:41 Speaker 2: Okay, so now mind you. Now we're going twenty twenty one, twenty two, twenty.

20:45 Speaker 3: Three, and he's talking, you know again, it's these waves in this net, and I'm like that. I kept saying, We're like, this sounds a lot like what your dad is talking about.

20:57 Speaker 2: And then it was literally in twenty twenty four where.

21:01 Speaker 3: I was like, we've just got to publish this now because there is something too. By this point, I had began aligning all the projects being the spend. I'm seeing the hearings in twenty twenty three, No, and I'm like, this is exactly what they're talking about. So I mean and again, emails to the UAP Caucus, to all of the representatives.

21:31 Speaker 1: Damn, I wish I had known you that.

21:33 Speaker 3: Unanswered all the rest of it right, because I'm like, this is exactly what they're talking about and they're saying they can't find these programs or they don't know how, and I'm like, this seems to be the roadman. So published it right, did the best translation we could in the time, put it out there. Then I just sat on it and I continued doing the research. And it wasn't until June when I was like, you know what, nobody's gonna help us with this. I guess, you know, let me do a press conference.

22:05 Speaker 3: Well shortly after that we had met. Yeah, and really it was Jim a Rock from move On in Massachusetts, who's a fielding investigator, who was the first one who reached out because I invited him to the press conference that the materials and he's the first one who said it. He said to me, he goes, this is the UFO find of the century. He said, this is the Rosetta Stone. He was like, how is this done? On the front page of the New York Times right now? And you know, and again I'm sitting I'm thinking he's crazy to a degree because I'm like, are you shitting me?

22:42 Speaker 2: Are you?

22:43 Speaker 1: And he's like, Jean, this is this is everything.

22:47 Speaker 2: This is everything is in here.

22:49 Speaker 1: The math, the spirituality parts, the I mean, look at twenty twenty four is a year right like them out. Twenty twenty four was a year we'd gone through the Grush hearings, We'd gone through the Alizondo set of hearings. Right, Arguably, that was the year that people started like the Tucker Carlson's spiritualism came back, the pendulum swung back. People were very like, not anti God or anything, but like for a while there people were like more they were okay with science and they were okay with there.

23:31 Speaker 2: Was a marked difference between fifty percent of the society to the other fifty percent of society and.

23:39 Speaker 1: Gotta go ran scale.

23:42 Speaker 3: And that's when I was like, there has got to be, you know, something to this. So in part so in addition to the press conference, again that was another coincidence, I guess where a video came across my instagram of a nineteen ninety three interview with George nat and you know, in the clip, he's like, I brought these documents back from Russia and they show reverse engineering. I remixed the clip with screenshots of the documents and just wrote in like this George like this, and it's like for four years, five years, I've been trying to you know, I'll emailed you several times.

24:31 Speaker 3: You know this, you know this is what you talked about. So I get a direct message from George he said, I never saw her any email, which is okay, Well, okay, which is okay. You know what of your guy, here's my email, send it to me.

24:51 Speaker 3: And I did, wrote a lovely letter, emailed it, got nothing.

24:58 Speaker 3: In the meantime, Jim A Rock pingdom George. I'm excited to hear you're looking at Jeanstick goes, you know, the these files, and he replied back to I'm curious, but a lot of it's over my head. Okay, great, you know, but again extended out with you know. Essentially, my my ask was if you could take a look at this, you know, if you have any thoughts or are open to you know, a twenty thirty minute conversation, would love to pick your brain.

25:29 Speaker 1: Right, That was it, flaid, you know, just for a minute, no cameras.

25:34 Speaker 2: Thirty minutes.

25:34 Speaker 3: Again, I'm just trying to find out what this is, right, I wasn't on this circuit and trying to promote, you know, My thing was, I'm like, we seem to have congressional representatives who are asking all of these questions. And I'm like, if you take this and ask questions off of this, you're going to get some there's a lot of answers you're going to get. So I'm like in this, in this Patreon to push, thinking like, oh my god, my country needs me. My country needs this.

26:06 Speaker 2: Right.

26:06 Speaker 3: And I also thought, and it's like and if the and and never mind, I was comparing it to Russia stuff and Russia's new physical principles on e MP weapons systems, and and I'm like, if we don't have this, somebody needs to somebody needs to see this. This also matches these Russian patents and things that Putin's saying, you know, and all and all the.

26:32 Speaker 2: Rest of it.

26:33 Speaker 1: It could could even be you know, even UFO related, but national security.

26:38 Speaker 3: Right, I'm like, at the at the at least right right. So, and and again I didn't even get so much as a thank you very much. I mean, whether it's Congress or nap or no much as thank you for the materials. You said, We'll have our experts take a look at him if we need anything.

27:00 Speaker 2: Well, we'll reach out to you.

27:03 Speaker 4: That probably would have satisfied me, because you're like, okay.

27:09 Speaker 3: Okay, out of my hands. They seem to be in the hands of somebody who might know what to do with them, right.

27:15 Speaker 1: But just are you getting a lot of crickets?

27:18 Speaker 2: I didn't not.

27:19 Speaker 3: The only response I ever got was from Nick Pope right by the way and right wishing him the.

27:26 Speaker 1: Best, wishing him the best.

27:27 Speaker 3: He just he is the only one who replied back. And he was like, it looks very interesting. I wish I knew somebody who could help you, right, because I figured maybe he knows a Russian speaking physicist or you you know, he said, but and he just referred me to mof On.

27:43 Speaker 2: Now maybe it's his canned response for everything.

27:46 Speaker 3: But at least at least it was at least it was okay, move on, what's that?

27:51 Speaker 2: And then that then I literally I learned about what Mofon was.

27:54 Speaker 3: I had no idea about any of this, right, So yeah, so now I've sent them off.

28:02 Speaker 2: So I had that.

28:02 Speaker 3: One interaction with George, send them off, don't get anything back. I'd reached out to Robert Hastings, the author Ufoukes UFOs and nukes former Air Force nuke security guy kissmet within a couple of weeks. He wrote back and was like, very interesting, way over my head, I've sent him to David Grush.

28:23 Speaker 2: So I'm like, oh great, who's this David Grush guy? Again? I don't fucking know anybody.

28:30 Speaker 1: And then you're like, oh shit.

28:32 Speaker 3: So then you know, I was like, oh, you know, if you could pass on my name number again, I would appreciate twenty minute conversation.

28:39 Speaker 2: I can kind of let him.

28:40 Speaker 3: Know what what's the law I've gathered from them, and you know, and that's it.

28:47 Speaker 2: Nothing. Nothing. Now.

28:51 Speaker 3: In the meantime, I meet like yourself, Thomas Wessler and my disclosure disclosure tonight they owes me.

28:57 Speaker 2: Tim Ventura had me on APEC right.

29:00 Speaker 3: You know, I was like, I went into this APEC conference and I'm like, I am not smart enough to be here, nor do I know, but it was an opportunity to kind of put it out in front of a lot of people. You know, jaredy Eights and I had a conversation. Jared's like, recognize a lot of this stuff. This was yet, this was big stuff in the Soviet Union, you know, in the eighties and things great, and you know, there were things in it that they found interesting and we're going to be looking closer at so you know, what I was getting was like, okay, so obviously there's these government connections.

29:36 Speaker 2: There's the people in advanced propulsion who seemed to be finding something interesting in them, right, and it's just you know, and it just continued from there. But everybody I spoke with kept saying the same thing.

29:55 Speaker 1: Did you run this by Joe?

29:57 Speaker 2: See this George? Now?

29:59 Speaker 3: You know George Nap, you guys send this to Jeordan. So I'm like, well, I'm trying.

30:07 Speaker 1: It's just this circle of not.

30:10 Speaker 3: So then I'm then I am reading watching videos. Now I'm doing my homework on this Nap and Florabelle character. All right, what's this all about?

30:27 Speaker 1: The reason I wanted to do this is because I wanted to get an outside someone with a background like yours. Tell me what your opinion, an assessment and intelligence looking at the UFO community. I want to you're talking about the hierarchy essentially, the structure. Yeah, tell me what you found.

30:56 Speaker 3: So obviously I heard a lot of things, you know, the word control, disclosure and disclosure, you know, being thrown around control disclosure is a term of art in counterintelligence and in the intelligence community.

31:15 Speaker 1: It's a controlled disclosure of whatever.

31:18 Speaker 2: It is a term of art.

31:19 Speaker 1: It is art Epsteine files. You could argue that the control.

31:23 Speaker 3: Disclosure, right, the tobacco big tobacco industry was a controlled.

31:30 Speaker 1: Disclosure minimize risk, maximize.

31:34 Speaker 3: And then and then that feeds into what's called transition by design, which.

31:39 Speaker 1: Is acclimates the popularity.

31:41 Speaker 3: Social essentially social engineering. Right, so you get to the point that you know, you can't know smoking within twenty five feet of build. Cancer research is a in a sense, a controlled disclosure environment. It is a narrative control, right.

32:01 Speaker 3: I mean, let's go down this with Sidebuyer for an example,

32:07 Speaker 3: when do you think the first case of cancer was discovered? Like, when do you think cancer became a medical issue in your perception?

32:22 Speaker 1: Nineteen twenty eight There I remote viewed it.

32:30 Speaker 3: I don't know, all right, but it makes sense, right, I mean, you'd think it's a twentieth century problem. Here were cancers identified three thousand years ago in humans.

32:43 Speaker 2: Really the first major study was done in the early twentieth century in the UK. And what it was with a particular type of cancer a testicular cancer that was found in chimney sweeps, and that.

33:06 Speaker 1: Became our synergen.

33:09 Speaker 2: That began more and.

33:10 Speaker 3: More research about environmental factors that lead to cancer. It wasn't politicized until the nineteen sixties, damn, when the American Cancer American Cancer Institute was founded. Then it became politicized and it became a business. Cancer research and funding and fundraising became a.

33:44 Speaker 1: Business nonprofits, right, the misuse of funds. The I mean, we could go down a whole rabbit hole.

33:53 Speaker 3: Now from that first identified cancer three thousand years ago to today, how much of it do you think we've cured?

34:04 Speaker 1: Talking about public basics, No, I'm talking about like what I think the government really has all cancers publicly. I bet they say that we've maybe cured up of cancers five five five percent, doesn't they say? Publicly?

34:28 Speaker 3: So yeah, okay, so there's been do you know what the five are? But it's the framing that matters, right, because there's only been this five percent change. But we spent like nine hundred and sixty billion a year.

34:52 Speaker 2: On the problem.

34:54 Speaker 3: The problem that's existed for three thousand years. So the the just the statistical difference between cancer related deaths and the natural increased life longevity is so minute you actually can't say that anything that they cured reduced any deaths and impure statistical probability, so all of you know, but that is a form of narrative control. Absolutely, the government and private sector and institutions use, you know, to cause perceptions. So the same thing now and then I worked in the oil and gas industry.

35:46 Speaker 3: A ton of rabbit holes we can go down there. So this is no different from any of the other ones. This is another issue where narrative control. So I began breaking down that saying, okay, well, now let me understand the players and break down the structures because again you're getting information that's coming from you in all directions.

36:09 Speaker 1: Yeah, it's almost an overlak.

36:11 Speaker 3: Now you have to decipher and discern what actually is being said, right.

36:18 Speaker 2: I did this with Eric Davis. Eric Davis came right out. He said, if you if.

36:22 Speaker 3: You go through all of my interviews, all the answers are there, it spells out exactly what everything is.

36:30 Speaker 2: So I did it.

36:31 Speaker 1: So you watched every interview.

36:32 Speaker 2: So I went through.

36:33 Speaker 3: I scoured and scrubbed and scraped for every interview, every phrase to start piecing things together. I essentially, you know, started doing the same thing around narrative control. So who you know, who is exer what does narrative control look like in this space, and who is exercising it?

36:55 Speaker 1: No, and again with the results shocking, Well.

37:00 Speaker 3: I mean again, they weren't shocking to me in the sense that I had no vested interest in this or I had no predisposition for anything. But when I looked at it, I was like, Okay, this nap in Corbel are the media? Are the disclosure pipeline? And even in the press conference I do with Jim Arek, there's a part where I'm talking about there is a disclosure pipeline, and I break down what that pipeline is. Jim said to me afterwards, He's like, he didn't agree with that at all, and he might have even said it during the press conference, but after I laid it all out, he's like, oh my god, you're right, there is a disclosure pipeline.

37:47 Speaker 2: Yeah.

37:48 Speaker 1: I mean, so we tried to get a guy like Bob Zalis to testify, right, I was talking to the same people that Corbell was talking to, So why weren't we out of all the chairs right.

38:05 Speaker 3: Why didn't bobs alas of a chair guy because his testimony is problematic.

38:10 Speaker 1: Yeah, of course.

38:12 Speaker 3: It's problematic to the narrative that they're trying to control, right, because you look at look at the pattern of whistleblowers and information that comes out right and where it comes out through. Now when you take and essentially nothing can be verified, it's it's unfalsifiable. Yeah, right, Jerry, Again, Corbel's twenty twenty seven prediction is unfalsifiable, no matter what he's able to pivot and say to say, see, this is exactly what I'm saying, right, It's what they do with everything. The lack of the lack of evidence is therefore evidence of you know, a conspiracy.

38:57 Speaker 3: It's like everything else. You know, prove to me you're not gay. I can't prove a negative. Yeah, I can't prove prove.

39:07 Speaker 2: To me you're you know, proved to me you're not an alien?

39:10 Speaker 1: Yeah, can't do that.

39:14 Speaker 3: But this is what this entire system is based on, and everybody eats.

39:18 Speaker 2: It right out.

39:19 Speaker 1: Yeah.

39:21 Speaker 2: Right, it's the nature of the beast, that is what it is.

39:23 Speaker 4: That's fine, This raises the solace you want to finish on solace you want me to.

39:30 Speaker 1: Well, yeah, finish Yeah.

39:32 Speaker 3: So Solace becomes problematic because because it is dealing with nukes and nuclear security, there are there's NATO and ally countries that then have for which we are responsible for the nuclear arsenal right, who they then have a duty of care obligation to follow up on what's been identified as a potential vulnerability that existed.

39:59 Speaker 2: In the US nuclear program. So they're all going to have to answer.

40:04 Speaker 3: The Pentagon has to answer for that. So the Pentagon only has two choices to say, well, we never looked at that, and expose a potential risk that.

40:20 Speaker 2: They never looked.

40:21 Speaker 1: At, which it was arguably worse, which.

40:24 Speaker 3: Is arguably worse than saying yes, we looked into it and we took measures to correct it. Well, how did you know what measures to correct What data do you have that led to? They can't have that conversation because they're not really looking for answers they know because this is a controlled disclosure process. So they can't have Bob Solace interjected. They can't have gene Sticcko and is file other and laws papers interject into the narrative because it causes so many more questions about the things they were already releasing that it begins, they can no longer control it.

41:19 Speaker 3: Then it spirals out of control. Absolutely, and that's the you know.

41:28 Speaker 1: Because they're trying to avoid what these I believe you know the story, but how put off the talks about these think tanks that deemed that disclosure would cause some sort of societal impact, collapse, whatever, And ultimately the cons outweighed the pros and it was tabled at least during the Bush Right. That's probably shifted a bit. I think those same groups think tanks if they're still being deployed, which I think maybe Try would be someone to do that. I think, you know his recent the recent thing that's gone on where he said that he's willing to declassify files.

42:08 Speaker 1: You know, is it a distraction from the Epstein stuff? You know, probably, but most of us can handle two things at once. Anyway, I get to a point where

42:21 Speaker 1: Congress and anyone who Congress, and it's okay to have NAP testify, but you can't have a guy like Salas testified because NAP is again a part of this structure.

42:38 Speaker 2: And NAP didn't bring any evidence.

42:40 Speaker 1: There was nothing new that was brought to anything.

42:42 Speaker 3: So here's the fascinating thing about that. September twenty twenty five, hearing right. I published a book in December twenty twenty four. I'd been again, I know. I sent hard copies to Nancy Mace and I think Birch had, if not Burleson. I sent one to the White House. I sent, you know, with a cover letter and explaining this, I think this is of relevance and importance and blah blah blah. Nothing top of emails and the rest of it. So June twenty twenty five, I have the comp press conference. Have the first interactions with NAP reach out today.

43:20 Speaker 3: So Hastings by mid July has confirmed he put them in the hands of David Grush. Grush said they were interesting, he hadn't seen them, you know. And I made that outreach got nothing back from that. Then I called out NAP on some form or whatever, and I got an email from his from an assistant offering to saying, oh, JEORGI will talk to you on Coast to coast ten thirty pm Pacific, one thirty am Eastern, and I replied back, thank you very much. I'm not that into this that I will that I need to be up at one thirty in the morning.

44:03 Speaker 3: All I was really looking for was like a twenty minute conversation. I'm happy to pre record something.

44:10 Speaker 1: He wanted you to call in to Coast to Coast.

44:12 Speaker 2: He listen. He didn't want he wanted to.

44:15 Speaker 1: He was just setting up.

44:16 Speaker 3: He wanted me to do exactly what I did. I'm chasing, I'm asking these things. I'm calling him out. He says, great, give him. I'll bring him on Coast to Coast. It's one thirty in the morning.

44:29 Speaker 2: For the guy.

44:30 Speaker 3: If he really wants to talk about it, he can talk to me at one thirty in the morning about it, right, So then he can say, well, I offered the guy a slot on Coast to Coast. But even that was weird because you venture, everybody I ever talked to, we always had a pre conversation. Now on of the blue, you're willing to put me on live radio, on a nationwide.

44:56 Speaker 1: Show, nationally syndicated.

44:58 Speaker 3: Nationally syndicated show, without pre vetting anything.

45:05 Speaker 1: That I have.

45:07 Speaker 3: So again, Intel Gene background, it's a setup for something. It's you know, it's not it's not done to help me or give me some kind of answer. I guess is the basic thing.

45:22 Speaker 1: It's you know, well, and it's essentially bringing you into uh, you know, fill a slot of time during his radio show, during him hosting a radio show. It's essentially like, if he does want to come on and talk about it, I'm already hosting this thing. You know, people call in how it's done. Just have him do it like that, and you know, I can say I talked to him.

45:46 Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, exactly, it's not that's not it's not substantive. Yeah again, you know, and and again not that I was looking to spend hours and hours and take the guy's time. But you know, I think a twenty minute conversation. Dared Olan gave me twenty minutes which turned.

46:02 Speaker 2: Into an hour.

46:03 Speaker 1: Alisando's giving you plenty of.

46:05 Speaker 2: Time, plenty you know.

46:08 Speaker 3: So again I found and I said, I'm happy to reschedule, happy to pre record, but again, just a brief conversation would be very helpful. Nothing, no reply. So it was a it was a check the box exercise. So now we're into July twenty twenty five, and now I'm now I'm like, I'm going to start pushing some buttons. Now I'm going to start trying to figure out this narrative control framework. And I'm starting to see pings on my website and media because again you know, little known fact Natt is a as a master's in computer engineering, you know, and she's Russian, so we know how to look at things, let's say, right, so we could see hits coming from what I call Intel community adjacent locations in the US, from numbers from areas that were adjacent to certain facilities, and locations that were disproportionate to the total population of that area.

47:23 Speaker 3: Things not always routed through you know, VPNs and or behind the VPNs. Even you know, I was able to see. So I'm like, all right, there are people definitely watching this. Now I want to see how close they're watching it. And so I did a couple of things on social media because I wanted to test the amplifiers and dampeners. Right if you say X or Y, who responds and how and boom started exactly what I expected. And some people call them bought accounts and whatnot? Again, are these are intelligence run accounts that are both will both support you in order to lure you in and other ones that are just there to push to try and either engage you to get you to do something stupid or at least create discontent, and all the rest of it, and the accounts all have fundamentally the same kind of footprint in background.

48:26 Speaker 3: So it was hilarious when it started happening right right, and I intentionally did and then I took everything down. I actually I shut down the website. I shut everything down on a Thursday, got right, deleted, deactivated the social media accounts, took the website offline.

48:49 Speaker 2: On Thursday. Saturday, the FBI showed up at my door.

48:55 Speaker 3: Right, So that's exactly what I thought would happened, because I'm like, they're watching this, They're trying to see what's going on. And then they showed and I was sitting there and the car pulled up, and my Layla was outside. He was doing the trimming the hedges and things, and he had been following some of what I was doing on Facebook, and so I was telling him and the SUV pulled up. I said, see that suv. Those two guys, I said, they're FEDS. They started laughing and then they got out there telling you.

49:28 Speaker 3: I'm telling you wait. And two minutes later they got out and they came walking. I'm sitting I'm having my smoke and they're like, hi, Eugene. I'm like I am Hi. We're aging so and so with you and my Laylor looked at me and he's like holy shit. And then you know he was like, you know, then trimming the bush? You know, I won't.

49:47 Speaker 2: I wandered up with bushes.

49:48 Speaker 1: But he's not actually turning it on, right.

49:50 Speaker 2: I wound up with something like this at the end because I.

49:53 Speaker 1: Just wait, so the FBI shows up, What is that like? Like you just like you motherfuckers?

50:01 Speaker 2: No?

50:02 Speaker 3: Because again I was expecting it to a degree, right, It's what I wanted to test. Can I get a visit? And I got the visit?

50:13 Speaker 1: Interesting?

50:14 Speaker 2: Right?

50:15 Speaker 1: And you know, do you think they thought they thought you were maybe some sort of Soviet I don't.

50:22 Speaker 2: I think I don't know.

50:25 Speaker 3: You know, again my experience, they wouldn't have sort of tried to categorize.

50:29 Speaker 2: It's see what.

50:30 Speaker 3: This see what's right, get a get a read on this guy. What's this guy's mental state?

50:39 Speaker 2: Is he you know, right? Is he there with a tinfoil on his.

50:41 Speaker 3: Head or you know whatever, It's just go go have a conversation and and let us say report about what you.

50:50 Speaker 1: Think it's an initial like response.

50:53 Speaker 3: So you know, I had previously been in a group that was a private public sector Yeah, a government public private sector joint information thing in the energy sector, and that's sort of the precursor they used to you know, start the conversation, which I had been involved in that fifteen years, you know, all right, whatever, and then also, what are you up to now? I said, well, that's what I thought you guys were here about, and went into the you know, the whole deal, and I said, in matter of fact, I was running all sorts of tests this week to see because I noticed all the you know, intellidjacent things.

51:29 Speaker 3: And then the second the guy was supposed to be the bad cop, you know, it was like, well, what's your background that ill you know, went through my background with him, and then by the end of the Enemy is business card, he was all like, oh okay, you know, and my landlord, he's like, oh my god, you handled that so well how, you know. He was like, He's like, I don't know what I would have done. I was like, this was my life, right, and that's what that's what I got, or that's what what have I realized coming into this space as I did into the UAP world, right, because you all get your you know, your David Grushes and your Alazander's, and you you get them in a certain way, in a framework, delivered to.

52:13 Speaker 1: Your packaged nicely, and you will.

52:16 Speaker 3: And so you have this these this mystique about all of this stuff and government agents showing up at your door and dah da da da da, this is it, right, right.

52:30 Speaker 2: And so if that's what they were trying with me, again, they didn't do that. This was my life. This was my life through the time I retired, every three letter agency in the US around the world.

52:51 Speaker 3: I dealt with people in the intelligence and national investigative and national police forces and the embassies and the Fate Department. And this was my fucking world, right.

53:07 Speaker 2: And it's like and.

53:08 Speaker 3: I I ran in a circle that your David Grush has never had fucking visibility of.

53:18 Speaker 1: It's the and never had You're talking about operations versus management.

53:24 Speaker 3: Not only operations, but but the political side, the politics, the geopolitics of of you know, international trade and and all the rest of it. And you know, so that's when I said, I was like, well, now I'm just gonna fucking call all this out. Now, I'm gonna spell out for everybody exactly what's going on with all of this. Yeah, right now, It's not an easy message to deliver because people are not people are events. They know, they know the deal, they know how all this operates, and they've got the insights.

54:05 Speaker 3: And again they're not totally wrong.

54:09 Speaker 1: Just they're missing crucial to.

54:10 Speaker 2: Missing crucial details.

54:13 Speaker 3: And you know, and again and even for the people online that want to oopooh on things that I do, you know, in the announce So what the hell's Joe merging today? He had some shitty comment to make about what I the article I wrote, the Weaponized Curiosity article and all the rest of it. And I'll be honest with you, and you can use this advertising to me. He comes across like a fucking moron because I understand the psychology behind what he's trying to do, right, And what he actually presents is a taxomogry of his preference of one word over another other.

55:01 Speaker 3: Never actually attacks or has an argument to make against the fundamental structure that I'm presenting.

55:09 Speaker 1: The character part.

55:11 Speaker 3: It's but and it's not even a personal character attack. It's aesthetics. You said this, and then you said that, and he's arguably or you didn't leave out of you know, oh, you said Nat built his entire career on this, and that's not okay.

55:27 Speaker 2: I should have said he built his entire UAP career. Yeah, you're fucking it's you.

55:36 Speaker 1: You're you're, you're you're battling over dimes and dimes.

55:40 Speaker 3: Well, the dollars are flown, right, you're picking up nickels and dimes, while the dollars.

55:44 Speaker 1: Yeah, you're missing that the larger portion here and what that is is And it's kind of weird because and you know, I'm playing the neutral standpalp point because that's you know, where I live, and you know, it's it's hard to see this that like who who are the recurring guests on weaponized like for their panels?

56:07 Speaker 2: Joe rightly, So Joe.

56:12 Speaker 1: He's the well, he's the gate if you are, if you argue, we're talking hierarchy, right and weaponized curiosity, right, which is their motto to weaponize their curiosity in ours as well. So if we do weaponize that, it's not hard to say that. You know, Like I walked onto the congressional floor the only person that was there before me. Can you guess who it was. And there's the optics of it. I've seen it as well, and I think I want and listen again, I'm not saying anything bad, like that's the game, like you said, but just admit.

56:50 Speaker 2: It exactly exactly.

56:53 Speaker 3: That is my whole thing, right and and again nothing I haven't said before. I have no doubt in my mind Corbel Nap myself, I have zero down in my mind. We could sit down at a table and the most fantastic night and fantastic conversation. And I have no doubt that Germany Corbel is probably the amongst the sweetest, most you know, wonderful human beings that walks the planet Earth.

57:30 Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, but he's acting a role.

57:37 Speaker 3: That's he's in a role. And it's like people don't see this is his acting gig, this is the this is the role that he wanted to.

57:50 Speaker 2: He always aspired to.

57:52 Speaker 1: That clip clip there's the clip right right of him during that or is it a two B revolution show where he goes the lie that you the hundred percent fucking lie, yes, that you're gonna be told is a craft is on its toiter And it's like, you're right, it's almost performative.

58:15 Speaker 3: It's all performative. The entire look is performative. If you look at the video, you know video, there was a video he was, you know, when he was a fashion photographer, and he's playing the role of being the fashion photographer when he's when he's doing it in this capacity, he took on the the veteran government guy avatar, so he had you know, he had the T shirts on for a while until I talked about it a little too much and then he doesn't wear the T shirts anymore, military T shirts. But you know, the beard, the look, he could be any veteran owned coffee company, you know, this startup thing, right and he and he talks talk, and he's a handsome guy.

59:01 Speaker 2: He's got those he's he's a beautiful man all around right now exactly.

59:08 Speaker 1: So he's a beautiful man.

59:09 Speaker 2: He's a beautiful man. And I have no doubt he's a beautiful And it just again.

59:16 Speaker 3: For a community that prides itself on allegedly its ability to be insightful, that they don't see its entertainment, it is disclosure theme he is actually, I mean, and and what's even more trouble is, I don't think the politicians recognize it either. That's sort of what gets me concerned because he is he is they're generating disclosure themed content and he is cost playing this you know, avatar of of some kind of operative and it's you know, and again, now it might be all part of the script that he's feeding stuff to Congress, but maybe they maybe that's not happening, and that's just how the storyline goes.

1:00:11 Speaker 2: I hope. But if not, you know, then whoever is the orchestration of this narrative control is super successful because it's actually been able to influence the body politica.

1:00:32 Speaker 1: It's got its way in you know, yeah.

1:00:37 Speaker 3: You know, and and and so then so for the peace and everything, you know, and what I wrote again, it's the it's the structure that I'm really being critical of. Right, everybody's got to make a living. Everyone has their niche, everyone has their thing. But there's that little part of me that says, you know, truth and advertising. Right, take to a stage and talk about how you're the champion of disclosure and transparency, that you want people to come forward, that you know, all the things you are encouraging.

1:01:14 Speaker 3: Don't do that if you are not actually willing to take the evidence, don't do.

1:01:23 Speaker 2: What's the difference between.

1:01:24 Speaker 3: Me, right, I'm a US Air Force veteran, I'm a disabled veteran. I was former intelligence contractor, worked across the private sector. Yeah, you know, respectable position.

1:01:39 Speaker 1: Yes, you don't have any What you don't have is you don't have a.

1:01:42 Speaker 2: I was a whistleblower. I was a corporate whistle blower. No, I know.

1:01:45 Speaker 1: But what you don't have is you don't have a flear UFO video.

1:01:50 Speaker 2: What I don't have.

1:01:52 Speaker 3: Is that I was not actively in the government when the materials dropped.

1:01:59 Speaker 2: In my laugh, Yep, yep.

1:02:02 Speaker 3: What I don't have is that I didn't come through the pre established pipeline.

1:02:10 Speaker 1: Of your stuff happened in the military. So yeah, because what deems So if you're in the military and then gain interest in the topic after your military career, I guess you're less credible than someone who has a sighting.

1:02:25 Speaker 3: I mean, you know, right, you know what's the semantics. It's exactly, it's pure semantics. So it's not you know, none of the evidence is based on the merit of the evidence. It's based upon de side. I mean, look, look, how many you know Jeff Niz Telly right. You know, you'd think he saw the thing and left the Air Force and went to Congress.

1:02:53 Speaker 2: It's like freaking twelve years.

1:02:54 Speaker 3: Yeah, in between that when he you know very much, so he saw something on beazy reporting. You know that's the thing. Because it happened within that structure, then it's able to be controlled and fed through the pipeline.

1:03:11 Speaker 1: Yeah right, it's got guardrails on it, inherently guardrails on it. So what what is your ultimate message with this article? What are you trying to say to people? What was the thesis?

1:03:23 Speaker 3: I mean, the idea is, again, we have to understand the structures that are informing us. If we are, you know, concerned going forward about the information that is going to be coming out whatever it is as a result of the president's directive that this control of information has to be transparent, we have to understand that there is a structure in place. Because in the same way I hear people saying, oh, well, yeah, well, you know, Trump comes up with disclosure, we get to make sure our people are there.

1:03:58 Speaker 3: We need to make sure our well, well who's our people? And some people are like, we need to make sure Jeremy Corbell's there.

1:04:04 Speaker 2: We need to make.

1:04:06 Speaker 1: Oh do we that's dangerous.

1:04:10 Speaker 2: Right, do we? That's what I'm saying. It's you know, it's the Emperor's new crow close to a great degree. Right.

1:04:18 Speaker 3: We have this, Yeah, we have this this illusion of who these people are and what they represent and what they're doing, But it's not actually what they're doing and what their role is, and they are not actually independent of the system which they claim to be investigating. And that's what's laid out in this is the history of NAP as an investigative journalist not truly investigating the entities in which he claims. You know, he's against his work.

1:05:01 Speaker 1: He's usually feeding things to d i A. He's feeding things to the US government that he leaks or that he that he smuggles from Russia.

1:05:11 Speaker 5: Right, I mean that that whole again, the story reeks of of that being a sanctioned intelligence operation.

1:05:24 Speaker 3: Arguably argue, you know, arguing about it. I mean, there's there's there's laws. Number one, there's laws.

1:05:34 Speaker 2: That cover that year in the US and overseas.

1:05:38 Speaker 1: Because is that admitted espionage? Is that would that be admitted espionage but in our favor, But it's still espionage to a degree.

1:05:50 Speaker 2: Correct.

1:05:50 Speaker 3: Okay, and so but if you go through that entire story, right, and you again just break it down east by piece talks about he was followed in Russia. Yes, they were stopped ten times. Yes, he used to set little traps in his room right to see if they were.

1:06:12 Speaker 2: In there in their posts, and they were going through stuff and.

1:06:17 Speaker 1: They were using I would assume that they're using standard detection roots and all the stuff.

1:06:23 Speaker 2: Too, all the stuff he's using, all that stuff.

1:06:26 Speaker 1: You're working with you because you got you actually got in touch with the.

1:06:31 Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, that's it. Let's just stick on the story right, right. So he's under observation, he's having his room searched, he's got thousands of pages of documents. Then he's going to go to the airport, and he just removes the top sheet and throws that out. So if they've been following you, if they've been searching your room when you're not there, you threw out the top sheet that said the papers were classify the night before you gone on the plane to go home.

1:07:10 Speaker 1: Are you believe they would have found that?

1:07:12 Speaker 2: Don't you think they already knew that you had those papers.

1:07:20 Speaker 1: That's a big that's a big hole.

1:07:22 Speaker 3: That's a very big hole. So here comes the other hole. Is this again? This was another piece that ties into the physicist who facilitated NAP's visit two Russia. And yes, Natalia reached out to him and we had a brief exchange with him. So this guy was a senior security advisor to the Russian dooma of the parliament, really right, and he was here in the United States to take a tour of nuclear facilities. So he's what he is connected through the senator to Now Nap says, oh, I'd love to come over there and see what you've got about UFOs, and the guy says, yeah, great, I'll help you set that up.

1:08:12 Speaker 3: And according to Nap, he arranges for this guy to have a salary in an office in Moscow. And then this guy arranges all the meetings with all the Russian generals and these key Russian individuals, again all under the watchful eye who was stopping them ten times, searching his room every day, and this and that. Okay, So now now leaves the United States, goes to Russia under an invitation that is from a top state security official. So you know that, or if you don't know that, pings all sorts of stuff at the diplomatic level, because you're essentially meeting, you know, your meeting with people within the Russian intelligence apparatus that hits the radar, that hits radars.

1:09:14 Speaker 3: Okay, so now everything happens, happens, he comes back, Okay. Then the documents, you know, he does a couple of presentations, doesn't really show anything, tells some stories. The meat of it goes to Bigelow. Big Ogl gets twenty two million dollars. The rest is history. But let's go back to Russia now in twenty twelve. In twelve, Putin enacted a new law that redefined and retroactively became enforceable on what is treason.

1:09:57 Speaker 1: And that's right.

1:09:58 Speaker 3: Yeah, it was particular to a bunch of Russian scientists who had been working with that had been working with Western universities, conferences, you know, other scientists on many of the same scientific domains which reside inside the body of my father in law's work. So I'm not saying it was specific to UFO stuff, but highly coincidental. Again, many of the same scientific domains for my father in law's work. These scientists through the nineties and two thousands were working with other institutions and other scientists on in twenty twelve.

1:10:46 Speaker 3: Who can't criminalize that. So if you gave a speech in nineteen ninety seven or gave a conference presentation in nineteen ninety seven on hyperson on a propulsion, you were going to jail.

1:11:06 Speaker 2: If you weren't.

1:11:07 Speaker 3: So there were a number of scientists who were seventy eighty years old who got thrown in jail. There's one in particular who was in palliative.

1:11:21 Speaker 2: There is that what it's called the answer end of like the hospice.

1:11:25 Speaker 3: Yeah, they dragged him from a hospice into an to put him in jail for collaborating on some research paper with some university or whatever. There's a number of others.

1:11:42 Speaker 1: Who just died, right, They were the lucky ones.

1:11:47 Speaker 3: So riddle me this. And it was all for as Putin considered. These were state secrets that were being given to the West. So riddle me this. I hasn't NAP's contact who's still alive, Still a physicist still works in the Russian government been charged with espionage under this new twenty twelve act because these these scientists just collaborated.

1:12:23 Speaker 1: On hypersonical on science.

1:12:28 Speaker 2: This guy facilitated what was secret classified information put into the hands of an American journalist, then put it in the hands of the Defense Intelligence Agency, and he's still walking around Moscow. So either it was a sanctioned operation or this fucking nothing than that brought back that was secret.

1:13:00 Speaker 1: Both they planted disinformation in it. It was all in operation against NAP or something. But that that's one happened.

1:13:08 Speaker 2: So, you know, so disinformation comes up.

1:13:10 Speaker 3: You know, people accuse me of that, you know, maybe this is Russian inform disinformation to what end?

1:13:17 Speaker 1: Yeah, for yours. I I find that hard to believe because the the mirror, all the things that I had to go right for for it to end up where it was. It just doesn't make sense that that that that would be the outcome there there just as this could be a reverse So well, they know easy, well sorry, they know he's going to give it to the I A right, Let's just assume that they're they're smart and they're like, okay, NAP, you know, he breaks. Just let's say they're they're key on on all this and they can draw the parallels to Snap, Harry Reid, Bob Bigelow.

1:13:57 Speaker 1: They know that this is the journal list who is into this weird stuff is work, you know, working with members of Congress to some degree, and this is a good opportunity to feed them some bullshit. See if it gets to the United States, and you know what I mean, that's counterintelligence, right.

1:14:16 Speaker 3: I mean, you know, to a degree. But then he got twenty two million dollars for whatever, or Bigelow got twenty two million dollars for whatever was in those papers to break down, So obviously what was in them was not wrong. Well right, yeah, So so the now what what could be a possibility is that there was a lot even in the sixties, seventies and eighties, there was a lot of joint USSR US cooperation and this could have been the method by which some of those efforts were then you know, were returned.

1:14:56 Speaker 2: To the US mounted Okay, yeah, made their way.

1:15:00 Speaker 1: So you're saying it's a collaborative effort to some degree, it could be, right, Okay, So but again it's one or the other.

1:15:08 Speaker 2: It's either a sanctioned cooperative effort.

1:15:11 Speaker 1: Or there's nothing in there that's it.

1:15:13 Speaker 2: Or there's nothing in there that's classical.

1:15:15 Speaker 1: Got it. It's pretty right.

1:15:18 Speaker 3: So there's no scenario where now doesn't know he is on a sanctioned operation. Okay, because again you're talking nineteen nineties trying now. One of the other things I'm curious about because he talks about going back to ninety six and nobody wants to talk to him anymore. So what might have happened with that was they took the documents, you know, likely bought all the documents, said oh, well, we're going to have our people work on these, and boy, if there's something, we're going to get you a visa and bring you over to the US.

1:15:56 Speaker 3: You know, that was probably held over a lot of people's heads. Didn't transpire, and when he came back they were like, fuck you, you broke your word, you know, whatever it was. Or when he came back, he came back, they they did it more heavy, heavy handedly and had other you know, CIA people you know with them, and just scared everybody off. They might have gotten a little you know, over rambunctious, as the government will tend to do.

1:16:22 Speaker 2: So, you know. So that's why I say one way or another. So it's not.

1:16:28 Speaker 3: Again, it's non investigative journalism. It's not particularly heroism because you were never under any threat, right really. You know again the late nineties, I was traveling over there and you know, you were you were still fall I was a business but you know a business person, you know, you were still followed and all the rest of it, and you know, had bags searched and you know, and if you had something in there that you weren't supposed to just paid off the.

1:17:06 Speaker 2: You know, customs person. Yeah, you know, well, the.

1:17:10 Speaker 3: Number of times it'd be like you know, you know, normally you go into pass support control and they're like, your passport please. There were some of these places you'd go into and they'd be like, there's a problem with your passport.

1:17:23 Speaker 1: So yeah, I didn't pay yet.

1:17:25 Speaker 3: Before before they ever saw it before you they you even handed it to.

1:17:30 Speaker 2: There's a problem with your passport, right, the problem that.

1:17:34 Speaker 1: Needs to be accompanied by money.

1:17:35 Speaker 3: The problem was they didn't see the money inserted in there as you were handing it to them.

1:17:39 Speaker 2: Got it right, You need to.

1:17:41 Speaker 3: Have it already in there by the time you hand it to them.

1:17:46 Speaker 6: Interesting say, yeah, yeah, I forget where we are, so you know what I mean.

1:18:55 Speaker 3: So again, it's you know, fundamentally, there's you know, this this mythos and everything built you know, built around now in corbel as these again champions of disclosure. But you're you're not you're you're you're not you're you're you're just the outlet. You're you were just the.

1:19:19 Speaker 2: Caroline Leavitt of raw Oh. I mean, if we're being.

1:19:28 Speaker 3: That's it spicy, you're the spokesperson or now it's got a nice dramatic flair to it, right, it's entertainment.

1:19:41 Speaker 2: Yeah, you know. So that's what I'm saying.

1:19:43 Speaker 3: If we're sitting here screaming about right, we're screaming, losing our heads about transparency and people being honest and the government being honest with us, then we should fucking be honest with one another. I agree. Then the people who we depend on for our news should be honest with us about their relationships and their entanglements with these companies, about owning shares into the Stars Academy, and you know, in co authoring books clip that, co authoring books with the company that you know, with representative from the company.

1:20:32 Speaker 2: I mean, that's what I'm saying.

1:20:33 Speaker 3: It's all there, It is all In any other environment, it would be you know, a conflict of interest to end all conflicts of interest, Yeah, right, you know, and and and so that's what I'm saying. So you can't sit there and scream about being the champion of disclosure.

1:20:57 Speaker 2: You can't be.

1:20:57 Speaker 3: I'm going to bring stuff forward and then cherry pick based upon you know, the narrative we get. Well that you can, because that's what happened. They're cherry picking what they're looking at because they only look at what comes from one direction, right right, They only.

1:21:20 Speaker 2: You know, I mean, and this was put and they'll challenge anybody.

1:21:23 Speaker 3: What piece of evidence, what piece of investigative war did either of them do that led to what outcome?

1:21:33 Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, all I could think of is the So if we look at if we go through the timeline, right, we start with the real I think the first clip that they released, like tandomly that went viral quote unquote would be like the Blinking Pyramids, and guys like Mick West have made good cases to have debunked it into some sort of bocup.

1:21:59 Speaker 3: And and we go through I go through this in the article too, because there.

1:22:04 Speaker 1: Are actually really good debunkings for a lot of what Jeremy's putting.

1:22:07 Speaker 3: And there has to be for narrative control for an effective counterintelligence campaign really and and the skeptics that the Bunkers don't necessarily again have to be involved in it. But what it does is it creates by engaging with them, it begins to it actually strengthens the control over the narrative, because then what Corbell is able to do is be like, now they've identified the common enemy. Right now there's a common enemy, and there is a there is a narrative to be sure to avoid. Now let's make sure we don't listen to anything from this.

1:22:51 Speaker 3: You just keep coming this way.

1:22:56 Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a very that's it, right, I didn't even think about that.

1:23:00 Speaker 3: By their being skeptics, this slending credence to anything else, right.

1:23:07 Speaker 1: It's almost like it gives well, oh it's being debated, right, that's really all you remember.

1:23:12 Speaker 3: It's a valid subject, which is good for the whole disclosure movement, because again, as they're controlling, it's like great, their skeptics and there's debate. That means it's that's making it more and more legitimate.

1:23:25 Speaker 1: I gotta ask the question because I've always seen Nap as a pretty altruistic guy, right, Jeremy altruistic in one way, like like like just just like I feel like a stand up guy, right, Like I thought this was my perception pre prior, prior whatever. I'm a new neutral. Right. Let's say say my perception of George is that he's a like altruistic like, well, yeah, he's a good per said right.

1:24:00 Speaker 3: Okay, So what has he done that's in that signaled to you that he is a.

1:24:06 Speaker 2: Good, altruistic, giving person.

1:24:09 Speaker 1: That's I think giving the like being the guy to go out on a limb with the UFO topic in the eighties, While it could have been seen as like a like, uh, get your name out there ploy, he was pretty well known for his investigations into his investigations into the crime aspects. I wouldn't say he was like top tier, but like.

1:24:36 Speaker 2: Known to a degree in Vegas.

1:24:38 Speaker 1: In Vegas, Yeah, but that got the attention of guys like Harry Reid, who did who did end up with a lot of power the Gang eight, right, who were able to strike those deals for that twenty million. But

1:24:56 Speaker 1: it all started with what do you mean all started with up?

1:25:02 Speaker 2: Going back, I'll start with Lear.

1:25:05 Speaker 1: Heye, John Leear did start with John Lear And.

1:25:08 Speaker 2: Who did John Leair work for c.

1:25:10 Speaker 1: I A arguably allegedly.

1:25:16 Speaker 2: No, I mean it's I think it's documented.

1:25:18 Speaker 3: And yeah, yeah right, So it wasn't do you think was an organic story? No, what I'm saying is it wasn't an organic story.

1:25:33 Speaker 2: In the sense of.

1:25:36 Speaker 3: That was having a comra, you know, and that was having a coffee in the diner and somebody said, I met this really interesting guy and that talks all the hue of ocean. And it was a CIA person versua a government contracts who.

1:25:54 Speaker 1: Brought tab it brings.

1:25:56 Speaker 3: In bob Blasire to him and said, hey, here's a story you should do. Here's a story for you. And he reassures him, You're not going to look like an idiot, because there's people behind the scenes who want to start bringing this out and want to start talking about this. We're going to make sure you don't look stupid. Right, You're not get awards. In fact, he's never gotten an award for anything to do with you AP investigations.

1:26:28 Speaker 1: Are you sure he hasn't gotten any, like.

1:26:31 Speaker 2: I mean, maybe move on game award.

1:26:32 Speaker 1: Conscious Life Okay, yeah, I guess that this community loves to get each other award Disclosure Alliance awards, Corbell go.

1:26:43 Speaker 3: On, there, you go just in general terms of you know, investigative reporting and things like that. But so you know, that's what I'm saying, if there was a path towards this controlled disclosure, that was you know you again, we've got to go back to the origin and we got to ask how much of it is, how much of it is is organic? And so it's another thing Napple off and says, well, you know, Corbel, right, they do the work, right, they're the ones who want they've done the work, They've put in the effort.

1:27:20 Speaker 2: There's lots of there's lots of reporters. There are a lot of reporters who put in a lot of work on subjects. Right.

1:27:31 Speaker 3: There's the skeptic as well, who have called and gotten their sources and dependagon who say, you know, it's all bullshit and Louel Azando never worked here and this one never worked there and da da da da dah. Right, and they're like, we can't confirm this thing that but Corbel just take it. Take that denial lass as confirmation. See there's a cover up. They're denying it, so obviously be right right right, So it's again unfalsifiable one way, one way or another. And then make a strong case on top of it, add to the idea that NAP is the gate keeper of you know, he owns the press narrative.

1:28:23 Speaker 1: That's interesting, right.

1:28:29 Speaker 3: Until until twenty seventeen. Until twenty seventeen, you know, you really couldn't.

1:28:33 Speaker 1: He puts the authority on this. Yeah, at least in the medium.

1:28:38 Speaker 2: He designated authority to the go to guy and all the rest of it.

1:28:42 Speaker 3: You know, That's what I'm saying. It's not going to you know, my articles are going to change anything. Dismant.

1:28:47 Speaker 2: No, I don't give it. Listen, God bless them. Listen.

1:28:49 Speaker 3: Personally, I don't know why he's still fucking doing any of it, you know, at his age or whatnot.

1:28:56 Speaker 1: Maybe, you know, do you think he wants do you think.

1:29:00 Speaker 2: I know, that would be the worst thing in the world for.

1:29:03 Speaker 1: Them, like the Greers and stuff. You think the disclosure is not.

1:29:08 Speaker 3: All horrible, horrible, horrible, it's the It's the end of them, It's the end of all of them.

1:29:13 Speaker 1: How do you see that?

1:29:16 Speaker 3: Well, because then they they definitely lose control. Goes mainstream once David Mirror dives into it once, you know, and talking about it, and Neil Tyson whatever the grass.

1:29:31 Speaker 1: Tyson's famously been against.

1:29:34 Speaker 3: It, and now he's talking about it, and you've got Abby Lob trying to raise money. Now you know, for hish, what I'm saying.

1:29:40 Speaker 1: Is, then it goes I don't want to see it goes to.

1:29:45 Speaker 3: The pros, be honest, yep, right, then it comes out of it being a niche. Now we're we're getting out of Triple A ball and we're going into the major leagues. None of them can survive at the fucking major leagues.

1:30:03 Speaker 2: Yeah, none.

1:30:04 Speaker 3: First of all, we're thrown none of them, none of them. None of the stories will withstand the scrutiny.

1:30:10 Speaker 1: Most of the stories.

1:30:12 Speaker 2: Most of the stories won't withstand the scrut.

1:30:15 Speaker 1: And again, I think any good UFL researcher, anyone who's in this field, you gotta know that ninety nine. Like I know a lot of people say ninety five, but let's just say, okay, let's say ninety five, And that's being super generous. Ninety five percent of cases can be explained with a prosaic explanation. That leaves five percent argue out of that five percent that warrants further investigation. Right off the bat knock three more percent off because once you go back the first initial, you know you'll get So now we're down to one or two percent that are truly anomalous.

1:30:55 Speaker 1: But really all it takes is one, right, and I think that's.

1:31:02 Speaker 3: Listen, whether it's whether it's one or it's you know, ten million, it doesn't matter when it's when it is normalized, right, and everybody, the powers that be are going to bring in their own experts and their own people.

1:31:17 Speaker 1: Because to right now get you know, usually most often the guys I see when something on the news gets attention from this topic, they bring in Corbell, they bring in Elizondo and Pope. You know, those three guys are the news guys.

1:31:40 Speaker 2: So but when there's science that comes out of this, and there's materials and this and that, then you got we got to see all the whole new set science, you know, science editors.

1:31:51 Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, you know, and the rest of NASA is going to get involved heavy, right, like it's going to be way past right. Well, so our guys can be involved in.

1:32:01 Speaker 3: So the market, the market share will become substantially deluded. And because again it's going to be all new information. Right, So what everyone here now is going to be doing is going to be trying to They're going to be trying to debunk the new information because it doesn't fit what we've already thought for the last thirty years that I've been in this. You know, people are going to say, you know, no, it's not you know, they're not blue reptilians, they're green reptilians.

1:32:38 Speaker 2: I know it. Whatever, whatever it.

1:32:40 Speaker 3: Is, the aesthetics of it are they if the new information does not match what they already think it should be, they're just going to be get it's just going to stay here getting spun up about it. In the meantime, universities other serious people will take that information and move forward with it, right, and they will relook at the old information and they'll piece it together and say, here is the story, right, taking the old, taking the new, putting it together, here is the story. We're going to take the old, take the new, find the thing that doesn't match, and lose.

1:33:22 Speaker 2: That's it's over it.

1:33:24 Speaker 1: So uh well, so disclosure, what a thing?

1:33:29 Speaker 2: What a thing?

1:33:30 Speaker 1: What a ball of what a can of worms? And honestly, I think the can of worms has been sprung?

1:33:37 Speaker 2: Well I think so. And again, you know, I.

1:33:42 Speaker 1: We'll do more of these sitdowns. Of course.

1:33:44 Speaker 3: You know, here's here's the thing, right, You've got to we've we've got to hold everybody accountable the same amount, right, the same amount.

1:33:56 Speaker 1: We can't we can't cherry pick who we want.

1:34:00 Speaker 3: And people, again, I have no doubt, are absolutely wonderful, marvelous, magnificent human beings in their own right, and they're they're feeding their families and they're doing wonderful things and they're working hard. And not saying any of that, I'm just saying we we should hold one another accountable to the same standard that we you know, and we should be available. And you know, again, I talk with anybody and any sit down, and we'll talk with anybody who challenges I present what I have in the way that I have it.

1:34:42 Speaker 1: You know, you don't think they just see themselves as like above us.

1:34:48 Speaker 3: I don't think they see themselves above us because they don't see themselves as one of us. It's a job, this is their job. Their job is to create entertaining content.

1:35:00 Speaker 1: I will say it. My job is to facilitate stories right on the podcast.

1:35:09 Speaker 3: Right, you're a storyteller, You're a facilitating storyteller.

1:35:12 Speaker 1: And discussions and I'm looking for certain things, but I'm not saying disclosure. Like I know my place and I admit to it, Like I've spent a lot of money to be in this seat right right. My podcast house ads and like we'll do some ad reads and I'm going to put one in this video and we're like, I'm upfront about who I am.

1:35:32 Speaker 3: And again I say the same thing right now. You know, my thing is I think this work, this body of work that my father in law did, is important to the overall conversation and trying to get it out there. I think I'll put it together in a book form, translated it. It's in PDF form. It is also free and obtainable you know online. So maybe we should not, you know, multiple.

1:35:58 Speaker 2: We're going to do.

1:35:59 Speaker 1: We're gonna do like a giveaway thing, right yeah, how are you going to give it away?

1:36:06 Speaker 2: Hold it?

1:36:08 Speaker 1: I think you can't. Yeah, we'll get close up gene stickos Engineering Infinity. So if you like this video or podcast, or leave a rating and a review on the podcast platforms on YouTube, if you comment and like and share, like, if you do those things and just show me that you did it, you know, yeah, out of the comments. Usually I'll just do the comments like you don't have to prove me hope that you guys liked the video, or when you leave our rating, you leave a good rating. But if you do for this episode, we'll make a list of the people and then we'll we'll do like a random drawing, and then we'll get your information.

1:36:49 Speaker 1: We'll send you a copy of the book. We'll send you a TDP Studios sticker like the one on this microphone. We'll also send you patch which is right there, but I can't show you right now. That's a UFO.

1:37:01 Speaker 2: We'll send you some stuff.

1:37:02 Speaker 1: It will send you something, and I'll autograph the book. Okay, all right, I don't want to see him like we're so I want to end on a high note here with everything that's been going on, with with with Trump, with the Epstein files, with disclosure, like what do you see happening? What is your view of the next twelve months? To wrap up?

1:37:23 Speaker 2: I mean again, I think we're you know.

1:37:25 Speaker 3: My view is, I think we will get a lot of new information. I think it will not be anywhere near as intriguing or perhaps even as satisfying as the general community wants and you know, it'll be a lot more of the status quo because there's far too much going on within the next twelve months for there to be any significant earth shattering movement. We're going to get We're going to get some movement. It's going to be incremental. It's going to be glacial twelve months in the grand scheme of this.

1:38:00 Speaker 2: The e.

1:38:03 Speaker 3: In the Ocean game, it's it's a long game. It's a long game. It's generational, you know, it's you know again.

1:38:14 Speaker 1: Unless something like unless some sort of variable takes unless right, what I mean, honest, date, honest, take this fucking war and Iran. But what the hell the guy that ran on no Wars and I hate to get politically here, but the guy who ran on no Wars we've now did you see what? The White House is posting these videos of like they're like Grand Theft Auto cuts of them destroying nuclear Iranian chips and then it says like wasted like it did in Grand Theft Auto. And it's like they're putting together these these edits of like they're like gamifying what they're doing.

1:39:01 Speaker 1: It's insane.

1:39:03 Speaker 2: We did in World War Two.

1:39:07 Speaker 1: This it fuck I know, with like the artists since the propagandists like.

1:39:13 Speaker 2: We did it. We did it when you went to go see a movie.

1:39:17 Speaker 1: Serious, So you're saying this is just the new way of but there's nothing new under the sun.

1:39:23 Speaker 2: When you went to go see the movie. During World War Two, you got a twenty minute Newsrael Today.

1:39:30 Speaker 3: Our boys really messed up those Japs and Nazis. Look at them marking down the aisle. Look at this home that went and we just blew the crap out of it. You you to our boys over there.

1:39:43 Speaker 1: Yeah, it's sad to get people just a modern version. Yeah, you don't think it's a crossing the line of bit

1:39:53 Speaker 1: the line between war and like soul lessness.

1:39:58 Speaker 2: Isn't that every video game that already exists. Yeah, we have, we have.

1:40:02 Speaker 3: We wanted to get on a morality clause of Grand Theft Auto.

1:40:07 Speaker 2: Have you seen the video video? Yeah? No. But what I'm saying, what I'm saying is this is what's this is what? How can you?

1:40:20 Speaker 3: I mean, maybe you are offended in disgusted by Grand Theft Auto.

1:40:25 Speaker 1: It's not Grand Theft Auto's fault. Although I'm really wondering if Rock Star signed off on this.

1:40:31 Speaker 2: It is it is their fault.

1:40:33 Speaker 1: What he means their fault.

1:40:35 Speaker 2: I mean it's because that's what society likes.

1:40:39 Speaker 1: Yeah, well that's that's you could make that argument, absolutely right. But they did another one too. They've done a couple of these edits where they like, oh no, dude, Yeah that was the original one. It had like brave heart speech and then it was them dropping missiles on.

1:40:56 Speaker 2: The You ever see the videos that came out of Pakistan after that.

1:41:01 Speaker 1: Yeah, but people are on a different level then. You know, they were on a they were they wanted it.

1:41:07 Speaker 2: People don't.

1:41:08 Speaker 1: I guess that's a good interact. So no, I mean we wanted it then, but we don't want to know.

1:41:13 Speaker 3: I meant the videos at the back of Sandy's and we're putting out that we're done the jungle jin phrasing nine to eleven, you know, yeah, celebrating it.

1:41:24 Speaker 1: Yeah, but we but we're America. We don't do that. That's what we thought.

1:41:29 Speaker 3: That's what we thought because that are boys and really took it to hero Hito do we we don't do it.

1:41:42 Speaker 1: It's not even tasteful. It's repetitive and boring.

1:41:48 Speaker 2: Okay, I'll give you that.

1:41:51 Speaker 1: What the hell happened?

1:41:53 Speaker 3: I personally before the Team America World Police theme song, mayor God, yeah, that's that's what they should they should be doing.

1:42:05 Speaker 2: Listen.

1:42:05 Speaker 3: I'm less offended by that video than I am of the Biden White House Christmas video.

1:42:15 Speaker 1: I guess. So anyway, I'm just I'm complaining for no reason, but I get it. I mean, it's just I think it's im poor taste. That's me personally, but you know it's it's I don't want to politicize anything, but it's hard to see how like we're also going to get the UFO stuff while we're dealing with Epstein stuff. We're also dealing with a new war and Iran.

1:42:47 Speaker 2: It's like mid terms.

1:42:50 Speaker 1: How are general people going to get excited about UFOs when like heating is rising. That's that's the stuff I see and no one wants. It's just like they think you have are like on everyone's bucket list, I mean checklist, and it's like that's not the reality.

1:43:05 Speaker 2: On anybody's checklist.

1:43:06 Speaker 1: It's not on most people, most people's checklist. Like I get I start talking about UFOs and my coworker's eyes glaze over and it's as like, right, okay, okay, I like.

1:43:18 Speaker 3: That's gonna be the thing, and and it'll come, and it'll come how it comes, and we just.

1:43:22 Speaker 1: Gotta I got excited though when Trump said that.

1:43:26 Speaker 2: It was phenomenal.

1:43:27 Speaker 1: That was a huge, huge moment, sitting like active president because Obama I think he did at the top. Obama obviously right, and again I don't care how we get there as long as we get we get there.

1:43:39 Speaker 2: Again, it's a marathon, but.

1:43:40 Speaker 1: Gee, we'll do another one of these. This is really fun sit down, like a little producers sit down, which I like to say, it's been a great day. Thank you so much for coming. Well, uh, we'll see you on the on the other side.