September 19, 2025 • 42 mins
Join The Captain and George Knapp as George shares what it was like to testify in Congress. Mr. Knapp goes in depth about his feelings on disclosure, and discusses evidence he has seen and uncovered over the years that tells him the phenomena is real.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
You're listening to the iHeartRadio and Coast to Coast DAM
Paranormal podcast network, where we offer you podcasts of the paranormal, supernatural,
and the unexplained. Get ready now for Beyond Contact with
Captain Wrong.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Welcome to our podcast. Please be aware the thoughts and
opinions expressed by the host are their thoughts and opinions
only and do not reflect those of iHeartMedia, iHeartRadio, Coast
to Coast AM, employees of premier networks, or their sponsors
and associates. We would like to encourage you to do
(00:41):
your own research and discover the subject matter for yourself.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
Hey everyone, it's Captain Ron and each week are Beyond Contact.
We'll explore the latest news in ufology, discuss some of
the classic cases, and bring you the latest information from
the newest cases as we talked with the top experts.
Speaker 4 (01:12):
Welcome to Beyond Contact. I am Captain Rona today, where
you are absolutely honored to be speaking with the acclaimed
investigative journalist mister George Knapp. George is the chief investigative
reporter for KLAS TV in Las Vegas, as well as
a weekend host on Coast to Coast AM. He's far
too humble to want to hear this, but he has
won multiple Edward R. Mureau Awards, Peabody Awards, Mark Twain Awards,
(01:36):
Emmy Awards, et cetera, et cetera for his incredible work
in journalism. He has graciously participated in the last couple
of contact of the desert events, and I'm very grateful
for that. His reporting on Bob Blazar in Area fifty
one broke that story wide open for all of us,
and he is with us today because he just testified
before Congress at the UAP hearings, and I thought he
(01:58):
was the perfect choice to do. So. Hey, George, thanks
so much for taking the time. Man.
Speaker 5 (02:03):
Yeah, Captain ron, I salute you. Good to talk to you, Thanks, Bud. Hey,
So this latest hearing was very interesting to me. You know,
the only frustration I felt was the limited time you
guys got. I kept feeling like, man, if they could
just give George seven or eight hours, they would really
have a different understanding of the phenomenon. What was your
takeaway from the hearing, Well, you know, we were given
(02:26):
the parameters going in and everyone was supposed to have
a five minute opening segment, and then there was going
to be as many questions as they wanted, and they
kept going for a couple hours. I know a lot
of people are angry because Representative Luna, the chairperson, cut
me off, but she had to. I mean, I wrote,
I'd still be talking if they had allowed me to continue.
I wrote way more content for that hearing than could
(02:50):
possibly fit in that timeframe. She cut me off at
about seven minutes, so allowed me to go two minutes over.
But she came back around and there were a lot
of questions related to the things that I was going
to testify to. Anyway, I didn't get everything in that
I wanted in, but I got most of it.
Speaker 4 (03:06):
I was honestly very impressed with all of the questions.
People were very much more informed than I anticipated them
to be. That's what I wanted to ask you right away.
Was there something that you didn't get a chance to
get out because of the time constraints.
Speaker 5 (03:19):
Well, there are a couple of things I was going
to say about disclosure. You know, I've always been a
pessimist about disclosure. The glass is not only half empty,
it's bone dry.
Speaker 4 (03:27):
For me.
Speaker 5 (03:28):
I think that they're never going to come clean. They're
never going to admit this stuff, because I think a
lot of them would go to prison. It's possible for that.
So I was going to propose an idea that Robert
Bigelow and I've been kicking around for controlled disclosure, a
limited sort of disclosure where the president comes forward says, look,
they're here, these craft. We've got this stuff. We've collected
(03:49):
it and kept it in secret for a long time.
We haven't figured out the technology. It's all real, folks.
Your suspicions are right, but we can't say more than
that because we there was a legitimate security issue. We
are in a race for this technology against the Russians
and the Chinese and maybe a couple of other nations
as well, and whoever gets that technology win. So accept
(04:11):
my apology. It's all been true, but we can't say
any more than that. I think, you know, the UFO
world would be dissatisfied with that. They'd be screaming and
banging on the table. But some of the possibilities would
be the scientific community, which you know has ignored the
subject because of the stigma, the perceived stigma, would realize, hey,
this is real. It's acceptable now to work on it,
(04:33):
and engineers would work on it. You have our best
scientists who would thus be free to go ahead and
dive in and take a look at it. You know,
our country, the secrecy is so severe. We don't have
our best and brightest scientists and engineers working on this.
There is a reverse engineering program. It's been underway for
at least seventy five years and maybe longer, and we
(04:53):
haven't made much progress because it's within such a small
circle of people. You can't tell anybody about it. So
I think that a limited disclosure, if it came from
this particular president, would go a long way. It would
distract away from other things that he doesn't want to
talk about anyway, I think, And that's what I was
going to pitch. I also had a couple of quotes
(05:14):
from Jay Stratton, who was instrumental in creating AFSAP. He
was instrumental in creating a TIP. He was the first
director of the UAP task forse even before it was
authorized by Congress. He was in charge of it. He
did great work. He has had his own personal face
to face experiences and encounters with whatever this is. And
(05:38):
he gave a couple of statements about look, the real
danger here is that without congressional oversight, we'll go right
back as the same people who kept this secret for
eighty years will keep it secret for another eighty years.
Unless we force their hand and make them cough up
some information or at least admit there's something really to it,
they won't do it. And that's what I really wanted
to get across. But I'll tell you Ron, that committee,
(06:00):
the task force was very impressive to me in that
Number one, they really knew their stuff, they had good questions,
they weren't messing around. All of them or their staffs
had done homework on this. And number two, it was bipartisan.
You have far left Democrats and far right Republicans who
got along and were able to ask questions and be
(06:21):
on the same page on any topic. These days, it's amazing.
But it really was maybe the only issue on which
members of Congress have bipartisan agreement that it's legit and
just should be investigated agreed.
Speaker 4 (06:33):
Number Three, I would add that everybody took it hell serious.
There was no dismissive, derogatory, nothing. Yeah, So that was
interesting and I would be very satisfied if we got
that limited disclosure like that. I think everybody in the
community would feel validated. And again, as soon as you
said that, I immediately thought, well, this would make it
(06:54):
okay for scientists to look at it, and that's what
I want.
Speaker 5 (06:57):
Biglow was really interested in many of the people who
work with him, and the time is right because there
are a lot of people around Trump who are definitely
interested in this. His Secretary of State, former senator has
made many public statements, his Director of the CIA has
made statements about the reality of this and the technology,
and I think the time is right for some progress
(07:17):
to be made there.
Speaker 4 (07:18):
Not to mention his son, yeah, exactly. In your testimony,
you recounted an account from a Russian ICBM base where
a UFO took control of their launch systems, which is
very similar to the nuclear witnesses that we have such
as Bob Sallas, Robert Jacobs and others. Do you think
this is a good approach to get Congress members on
board because it's sort of safe and everyone should be
(07:41):
concerned about this.
Speaker 5 (07:42):
Right, absolutely, I mean that was the point of sharing
that story. It was October nineteen eighty two that ICBM
base was in Ukraine. The missiles were ready and pointed
and targeted at US. If they were fired, world War
II would start and we'd all be going. So this
UFO appears over that base. It splits apart, it merges
(08:05):
back together, It performs in incredible maneuvers. This one on
for a couple of hours, and we know about it
because these documents are brought back from Russia. All of
the witness statements are Russian officers at this key base,
and they all describe what had happened. After being up
there for a couple of hours. Suddenly the launch control
system inside this base lights up, lights up a big display.
(08:28):
Something entered the launch control codes a specific codes in
a specific sequence. The missile fired up and they were
ready to go. The Russians are frantic trying to shut
this thing down. They couldn't do it. I mean, we
are moments away from global catastrophe. The UFO suddenly goes poof,
It's gone. The launch control system goes back to normal,
(08:48):
the missiles disarmed. Basically, they essentially stop their launch control
sequence and Ministry Defense sends a team in. They take
this stuff apart. They can't figure out what had caused
it until they realized the UFO caused it, and it
was sending a message. These might be your most powerful weapons,
but they don't impress us all that much. It's sort
(09:09):
of similar to what's happened here what they call the
Northern tiercases. One base after another visited by UFOs, and
the missiles there were taken off line. They weren't fired up,
ready to go. They were taken off line, so if
there had been an emergency or a conflict, we couldn't
have used them. So, you know, Bob Sallas, Bob Jacobs,
those guys, I mentioned them in my testimony because they
(09:31):
are true Americans. They heeded the call that came forward
to Arrow, told them what they know and what they
had seen and experienced, and they were dismissed like their nutcases.
And it's an insult to those kind of guys who
had legitimate careers, served their country admirably, and they get
left out of the room by Arrow, which is supposed
(09:52):
to be investigating this stuff and taking it seriously.
Speaker 4 (09:54):
And these are bright guys working on nuclear bases. I mean,
it's not like these are clowns. It's a shame, you know.
I found it interesting that Chief Wiggins told of an
account right off the coast of southern California, which you
yourself had been investigating on your documentary series. Seems to
be something happening in that area. And even TikTok was
sort of near there, right, So there's a lot of
(10:15):
activity in that area.
Speaker 5 (10:16):
Yeah, I don't know what it is exactly, but I mean,
you talk to any of these military guys, the Navy
guys in particular, who are out there and stationed in
that general area off southern California and Mexico, and they
see this stuff on a regular basis. Tictac was two
thousand and four. This incident the Chief Wiggins shared with us.
He was on the ship USS Jackson, and they had
(10:36):
four tic TACs four one the first one that they
saw on their radar system and then he saw it
with its eyes, and then he went back into the
radar the central control system, and there were four of
these objects and they left all together. There were four
different points of lights, but it was like they were
one object when it departed, and it was instantaneous. That's
(10:57):
not our technology. What are they doing out there? What
is it that they're interested and why are they showing
themselves Because clearly, if they didn't want us to see them,
we wouldn't see them.
Speaker 4 (11:08):
That's right. We're going to take a break there, George.
We come back. We're going to ask you about the
possible benefits of passing one of these whistleblower protection bills
or the UAP Disclosure Act itself. You're listening to Beyond
Contact on the iHeartRadio and Coast to Coast AM Paranormal
podcast network. We are back on Beyond Contact, Captain Ron
(11:41):
speaking with George Nap. George, what are your thoughts on
a whistleblower protection bill? I know they're talking about introducing one.
If we get something past the truly protected whistleblowers, do
you think we'd see a flood of people come forward.
Speaker 5 (11:54):
I would hope. So, you know, Tim Burchett, Congressman Burchett,
who is a very savvy guy on this committee and
this task course, has introduced such legislation. I think there's
a Senate equivalent, and there's hope that it would be
attached to the larger UAP bill. And it's needed because
there are people, I mean, I'm in touch with them
on a regular basis, Jeremy Corbell as well, guys who
(12:15):
would like to tell a story but are scared legitimately scared.
These three who came forward, the three service members who testified.
It's brave. It's a daunting thing to appear before Congress,
swear an oath. The whole world is watching. You don't
know what you're going to be asked, TV cameras from
all over media, all over the world. It's a daunting thing.
It takes bravery come forward, especially because there is a
(12:37):
strong possibility that you will pay for coming forward and
telling this story, and a couple of them already had.
We didn't hear the full story from Dylan Borland that
will be coming out though soon. There's some limits on
what he can legally say. He'd like to say more,
but he worries that he's going to be targeted for
prosecution or something worse. Matt Brown is the guy who
(12:58):
was sitting behind us at the hearing. He was also
offered as a possible witness, and maybe we'll be will
be a witness and testify in a future hearing. He's
the guy who came up with the Immaculate Constellation documents
a couple of months ago that Jeremy and I put
out on a podcast. He described to us extra legal
things that happened to him and other witnesses who want
to come forward as whistleblowers. They get break ins in
(13:19):
their homes. There are a lot of games. Their phones
are tapped. At his home, there was a break in.
They got IDs and stuff out of his wallet and
his wife's wallet and put him across the couch and
left them there. They took his grandfather's ashes, his urn
and dumped it out by the garbage. I mean, it's
a message, It's an intimidation message. David Grush has had
(13:40):
those kinds of things as far back as Bob Lazar.
They would break into his house, move things around, write
things on the chuck board where he in his laboratory,
and just mess with him, call and make threats, all
kinds of extra legal things that I don't think even
a Whistleblower Protection Act could change, because whoever's doing this stuff,
whoever is trying to shut these people up, threatening their lives,
(14:02):
it's working outside the legal system. It's already illegal. So
I don't know that that would stop. But at least
Congress would be making a statement that we value that
kind of testimony. We want to protect you. Come on in.
We'd like to hear more of it. It's a good
step in the right direction, I think, agreed.
Speaker 4 (14:18):
What about this UAP Disclosure Act itself. You know, as
amazing as that act sounds to me, and Danny's all
excited about it and he thinks it can really do
some great things. I fear even if we get that
act passd I'm afraid that there'll be a little benefit because,
how you aptly pointed out in your testimony at the hearing,
these legacy protectors are farming this et tech out to
(14:39):
private companies like Lockheed and raytheon and whatever right now.
So that's outside of congressional oversight. So we really probably
couldn't get much coverage from Congress anyway, right.
Speaker 5 (14:50):
I think there are ways that this could be tracked
down even if it has been taken outside the government,
which I'm absolutely sure that it has. These companies, these contracts,
big defense contractors, aerospace companies have done for decades what
we ask them to do. And I know I've been
one of those who've been critical of the Lockheeds of
the world on the assumption that they've been hiding this
(15:12):
big dark secret for so long. But that's what they
were asked to do by government, and they've done a
good job of it. I mean, I don't know how
much progress they've made on the technology. They have done
exactly what we've asked, you know. I'm not sure that
they would be willing to give this stuff up after
spending all these decades trying to figure it out. I
don't know if they've been paid for it, but to
ask them just hand it over and face possible prosecution
(15:35):
if they do not cooperate is a big ask. I'd
like to see some way that the Lockheeds of the
world could be given an off rame. As I said,
I think they've done the job we ask them to do.
I don't think we they should be castigated for it.
But there has to be a way that there's a
benefit for them in coming forward with this information and
with the technology and it just admitting it to someone
(15:56):
within the government. I think there are ways to track
this down, maybe financial audits of where money has changed
hands for what program. I suspect there was a congressional
investigator that I interacted with back in the nineties who
thought that that was the case, that tens of millions,
maybe tens of billions of dollars had been funneled away
from legitimate national security programs into this kind of research
(16:20):
to keep it alive without congressional approval, without anyone's approval.
And he told me back then, look when this comes out,
people are going to go to prison. He never found it.
This Congress has not found it yet. But they got
to figure out a way to give an incentive to
the companies have been holding this stuff to go ahead
and cough it up, or at least acknowledge they've got it.
I think that they would like the help. I anticipate
(16:41):
that they would appreciate some assistance on figuring this out.
That's what I testified to with permission from people I'm
close to, is that there was an effort during the
offset program that was based here in Las Vegas, the
DIA investigation, to change hands with some of that material
that Lockheed agreed to hand it over. There's another side
to that agreement with the BASS and as AT people.
(17:04):
There's another side to that deal that has not been
made public that I can't share, but there was something
in it for both of them, and I think we
got to figure out a way to have something in
it for both sides if we're going to expect these
big conglomerates to God just.
Speaker 4 (17:16):
Turn it over, of course, and that's fair. You know.
One of the central points you've said that what's been
documented in government, military and intelligence agency records often contradicts
the public narrative that UAPs are nothing, it's just misidentification.
Could these bills possibly help us to get at least
some more of that documentation out?
Speaker 5 (17:37):
I think so. Here's the thing, and I said it
in the testimony and I've said it before. What hooked
me on the subject was not aliens at Area fifty
one or alien technology. It was the paper trail. As
a journalist, I can't go out in the desert and
find aliens or flying saucers, although I've done that hundreds
of times unsuccessfully. But if paper trail that exists, I
could track that. And that's what hooked me, because it
(17:59):
is very clear that what the Department of Defense now
the Department of War, the CIA, and other agencies say
in public, there's nothing to it. It's not a threat,
we have it under control. Don't worry your pretty little
head in looking at UFOs. Just move along, folks. Nothing
to see here. Is completely contrary to what they said
to each other behind closed doors. Before FOYA existed, for
(18:20):
the Freedom of Information Act was the law of the land,
they would very candidly express, Hey, this stuff is real,
it's from somewhere else. It's not us, it's not Russians.
Where's it from. We think it might be from outer space,
extraterrestrial And they would say that candidly to each other.
At the same time they were saying that to each other,
they told the public something completely different. As I found out,
(18:41):
that's exactly what they did in Russia too, and are
still doing lying to the public about something that they
say behind the scenes. Now, after FOYA became the law
of the land, they got a lot better at hiding stuff.
They no longer wrote these kind of candid statements, clear
statements that this stuff is real, it's from somewhere else.
They couched it in weasel words and wouldn't give it away.
(19:01):
So the more recent documents are probably going to be
harder to get anything good out of. But there's a
giant storehouse of previous documentation, assuming that hasn't been destroyed yet.
That paint's a very clear picture. It's real, it's not us.
We need to get on it.
Speaker 4 (19:17):
They feel somehow to me one step ahead all the time.
You know, this brings me to another frustrating thing for
me personally. George's what about how even in this specific hearing,
Dylan Borland and I think someone else also expressed how
they can't talk about these things in an open session.
They would say, I'll talk to you in a private
skiff to discuss these matters. But then they point out
that the congress members themselves don't have the clearances to
(19:41):
even go to the skiff to hear that information. How
do they even know what to ask?
Speaker 5 (19:45):
It is frustrating, but it's the system we've set up,
and somebody like Dylan who has quite a story to
tell beyond what he could tell there. Dylan has been
through the Ringer, He's been through the ICIG, he's been
to Arrow, He's been in these closed door skiffs type
meetings where he reveals this stuff, and he's worried they're
coming after him. He has a good reason to be worried.
I'll tell you a story that didn't come out of
(20:07):
that hearing. Jeremy has been talking to Dylan longer than
I have, but I've been talking to him for a
couple of years we went back to see him after
the last hearing. The previous hearing in twenty twenty three,
we went to go meet with Dylan and we went
to a secret location. We didn't tell anybody where it
was going to be. We met him in a public
park south of Washington, d C. Not even in the
DC area, and we're going to meet him in this
(20:29):
park early in the morning. We pulled him this park.
Dylan's the only person there, but there's a vehicle. There's
a big black jeep blacked out windows sitting there and
I'm just looking at and I go, you know, I
don't feel comfortable sitting here. This bothers me. Let's go
somewhere else. We drove about fifteen miles away. We found
a little eatery that we're going to have a bite at.
We parked two blocks around a corner from that restaurant,
(20:51):
and then we went in and had a talk and
what we thought was a secure place. We come out
an hour and a half later, there's that same damn
vehicle parked right up against our bunk, our bumper of
our car. It was making it very obvious to us. Then, yeah,
you're being followed.
Speaker 4 (21:06):
How do you like Uh wow, that is incredible. You're
listening to Beyond Contact on the iHeartRadio and Coast to
Coast AM Paranormal podcast network. We are back on Beyond
(21:35):
Contact speaking with mister George Knapp. George, I also find
how strange all of this works. Like we have these
guys like luel A Zondo who will say I can't
say that in a public forum. I can talk, and
then sometimes he kind of does say certain things. Then
you get a guy like hell put Off who's been
pretty silent on this issue his whole life. Then suddenly
he shows up on Rogan and says, actually flat out says,
(21:59):
the US has covered more than ten craft of unknown origin.
Doctor James Lkatski told you that he can say we
recovered a craft, but he couldn't say much else, and
that they told him it was okay to say that.
How does all this happen?
Speaker 5 (22:12):
I don't know exactly what the rules are. I can
tell you this, I've heard those stories from those guys
for a long time. Was not allowed to say it
or report it.
Speaker 4 (22:21):
See you're not allowed to say it. They're not allowed
to say it.
Speaker 5 (22:23):
Nobody's allowed us because a promise I made I made
a promise to his sources. It's a different kind of restriction.
You know, you're sure. You make a promise, you've got
to keep it. If I violated that confidence, I'd be
out of business. You know, nobody's share that with you again.
People like Dylan Borland, they're trying to navigate this as
carefully as they can. They've been threatened, they've been intimidated,
they've been warned you better be careful. They've shared what
(22:45):
they can in skiffs and in certain situations. But there's
a lot more they'd like to say. I don't blame
them for being careful. Now. Why how putoff could then
say that on Joe Rogan? He just might be the
power of Rogan to overcome all resistance, I guess, But
he did. You know, I know that there are people
like those guys, deep insiders, who spent their whole careers
working on this stuff, who would like to say things,
(23:06):
would like to say more. Hall surprised me last year
when he came forward with an admission that he'd been
part of a secret study. A bunch of braining acts
like him were brought together. I think back in the
Bush administration, put in a room given access to all
kinds of information, and given the assignment, is disclosure a
good idea? Should we disclose now? Hypothetical exercise? Well that
(23:28):
a lot of the people who were there were predisposed
to say, yes, yeah, we should. The public has a
right to know. But as they sat there for a
couple of days and kicked around the evidence and evaluated
what the social impact would be, how our institutions were
to react by the end of that exercise, after a
couple of days, they came the conclusion, no, it's not
a good idea because there would be repercussions. There would
(23:50):
be disruptions of social institutions. People think they're ready for it.
We can handle it, we can handle the truth. Well,
are you sure, because what is the truth?
Speaker 4 (24:01):
Yeah? We don't know what the truth is that we're
saying we're ready for.
Speaker 5 (24:04):
Yeah. I mean, you know, I can think of some
pretty dark scenarios that I don't think the majority people
would be ready for, even diehard UFO folks. You know.
I'll also say this, I've been at this for thirty
eight years, and I've been lucky to attach myself and
get to know the smartest people who've worked the longest
on the inside on this issue, I don't know a
single person who can say for sure what it is,
(24:27):
what is the truth? I don't know anybody who knows
it ets, time travelers, interdimensionals, crypto terrestrials, all of the above.
Speaker 4 (24:34):
I don't know even some of the alleged witnesses and
people whose claim contact EAT they've had contact experiences off.
Even someone as famous as Whitley says, I don't know
what it is. He calls them the visitors because he
doesn't have a name for it.
Speaker 5 (24:46):
You know.
Speaker 4 (24:46):
Another aspect of the hearing I really enjoyed was how
several people went at ARROW, including Representative Luna, who went
so far as to call Sean Kirkpatrick a documented liar
and bring into question with the purpose that he was
even at ARROW four. I've always personally felt that Arrow
was not gathering information to share it with the public
or with Congress, but rather just to see what we knew.
(25:09):
What do you think?
Speaker 5 (25:10):
It certainly appears that Arrow is little more than a
counterintelligence program. I mean, I'm sure that there has people there,
including the current director Kozlowski, who do want some answers,
who would like to do an honest investigation but that
organization has been so tainted by the stinch left behind
by Sean Kirkpatrick. You know, honest witnesses like Bob Salas,
(25:30):
like Bob Jacobs, people like that that came forward, gave
their story and then they were dismissed as liars or
fanciful storytellers or grifters, dismissed outright. I don't know anybody
whose story was taken seriously. I can't imagine a whistleblower
or witness ever going to Arrow again, which is a shame, because,
as I said, I think there are people there who'd
like to be doing it. It looks like they were
(25:51):
seeing who would come forward, how much they'd tell, and
now we know who these people are and where they
are because they didn't act on any of that information.
Speaker 4 (26:00):
That's exactly what it seems like, and it makes me
sick to my stomach. It was Grunge sign and Blue
Book all over again. Luna's flat out said she'd subpoena Kirkpatrick.
Do you think she would? But the question does I
fear that, As you pointed out, George, these guys can
lie to protect their classification anyway.
Speaker 5 (26:15):
I think she has a hankering to do exactly that.
I don't know if she'll be given subpoena power or
not by the Oversight Committee chairman or not, but I
think she had a right to be tipped off at Kirkpatrick.
He comes out with this juvenile statement before the hearing,
just as soon as the witness names are announced, where
he attacks her, He attacks the committee, the task force.
(26:36):
He has a nickname Luna's Lunatics. What a thin skin
butt had this guy is why he's been going from
that job almost two years. He comes out and attacks
the witnesses as their fanciful storytellers and they just want
attention or their grifters. Not true one tiny bit for
these guys. They served their country admirably. They're not there
(26:57):
to grift here because they were invited by Congress to
tell what they know. Kirkpatrick uses these names that sounds
like something a seventh grader would say to the kids
out by the tether ball court or something, and is
so thin skinned every time he opens his mouth. It
is further proof that he should never have been given
that job. And the terrible stain that he left on
(27:19):
Arrow might be so deep that it could never be repaired.
It's a shame.
Speaker 4 (27:23):
Oh, I think I think Arrow's done. Who would go
to Errow now, Like you said, nobody, it's a shame.
So we wanted to get to what did you think
of the new Eric Berlasson video. I know you had
been familiar with that case, but now you saw the
video in Congress? What'd you think of that?
Speaker 5 (27:37):
It was every bit as good as we were told
that it was. Jeremy and I have been told about
it a couple of months ago, right after it had happened,
and we were hoping, well, someday maybe we'll get that video.
Well there it was. You know, I've seen some pretty
reasonable explanations, not the typical debunkers who say, well it
looks like a hellfire missile that hit a balloon, all right,
So who authorized sending a hundred thousand dollars hell fire
(27:58):
missile to take out a balloon over Yemen? Number two?
Why did it bounce off? Now I know this. People
have said, oh, it's didn't really deflect. Well, I'm looking
at it with my own eyes. I am not an
image analyst. I don't work these radar platforms or sensor systems,
so I'm not an expert. Don't claim to be, But
it sure as hell look to me like that missile
bounced off and didn't explode, and then the four little
(28:20):
things pop out or three little things and follow along
with this balloon. I mean I was.
Speaker 4 (28:26):
Joking, moving at that rate of speed.
Speaker 5 (28:28):
Yeah, and move with them. We have been told there's
another five minute long video. The whole video is five
minutes longer, and we're told that there is a report
that list that object as a UAP, not as a balloon.
I mean, what kind of balloon is that super duper secret,
hoothy balloon made out of titanium? A led zeppelin? You
(28:49):
know what kind of it was. I don't know what
the explanation is, but I know that the explanations we
heard so far just don't cut it.
Speaker 4 (28:57):
Agreed, Okay. It came up in the hearing that we
may in fact be racing with other countries such as
China and Russia and others to decipher these et technologies,
and perhaps we don't want to reveal anything publicly to
reveal to them what we know. Do you think that's
at least in part the reason for the secrecy.
Speaker 5 (29:15):
Absolutely, I think it is the primary reason for the
secrecy now and it's a reason why we haven't come
forward and leveled with the public. This has been told
to me by a lot of people on the inside.
There's a name that you would know who shared it
this way. Just you can't tell your friends without telling
your enemies. We don't want to admit to Russia and
China that we have this stuff and we're working on
it and racing to figure it out, although they know
(29:38):
we've got it and we know they've got it. You know,
I gave a couple of the names of the people
who now I have not been told directly face to face.
Senator Howry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader. Senator Howard Cannon,
who was a four term senator from Nevada who tried
with Mary Goldwater to get into Wright Patterson to see
the goodies. A guy named al O'Donnell who was the
(29:58):
first general manager Egen g Here in Nevada, oversaw the
Nevada Testing program, the atomic weapons program, and at Area
fifty one. All of them have told me that it's
real and we've got this stuff. And Red even knows
from briefings that he had that the Russians and Chinese
have it as well. Maybe the Israelis and maybe the
ir audiences as well. So, you know, we need to
(30:20):
be honest about it. We need to keep a lid
on what we want to share with the public. But
you can acknowledge in general what the whole world already knows,
certainly the Russians and Chinese know, is that we've got
this stuff and we're trying to figure out how to
reduplicate it.
Speaker 4 (30:33):
It also came up during that that there's this issue
of overclassification. Do you think that that's done intentionally just
to further muddy the waters and make everything difficult to
get to absolutely?
Speaker 5 (30:44):
I mean, you know, there are so many examples of it,
and it's not just in UFOs. It's over classification of
everything because they don't want to answer questions. You know,
it is ridiculous that there is one person in the
entire United States government who is authorized as the spokesperson
for any of these program Graham's dealing with UFOs, one
woman who is a counterintelligence expert. Psychological warfare was her specialty.
(31:06):
She's the belly button through which any answers to the
public Eddy Foyer request must pass. It's preposterous, it's ridiculous.
Speaker 4 (31:14):
It absolutely is. When you think of it on the face,
it's just crazy. When we come back, we're going to
ask George about the name that he gave to Representative
Luna when she asked the group for a name. You're
listening to Beyond Contact on the iHeartRadio and Coast to
Coast Paranormal Podcast Network. We're back on Beyond Contact talking
(31:46):
with the great mister George Nap. George. During this hearing,
Representative Luna asked all of you for a name that
you guys could give her, and you spit out. Glenn Gaffney,
who was the former Director of Science and Technology at
the CIA, what do you think I think he can
provide to Congress?
Speaker 5 (32:01):
What I was told is he was a direct contact
and overseer with a couple of these aerospace companies about
the goodies, where it went, what they were doing with it.
He was the point of contact for CIA Science and
Technology on who did what without material And the reason
it came up was during that AFSAP program, the DIA
program based here in Las Vegas, Robert Bigelow went to
(32:23):
Lockheed and tried to negotiate a transfer of materials. He
had spent a million dollars of his own money at
Bigelow Aerospace to prepare his plant in the event that
had started to receive that kind of material and to
meet certain security standards that was required by the government.
He talked to him. He talked face to face with
this guy, James Ryder, a vice president of Lockheed, longtime guy,
(32:44):
highly respected, who had offered to transfer certain materials that
were hidden at a plant in southern California, give him
to Bass to Bigelow in exchange for something else that
I can't get into. But A he's admitting they've got it.
B he admits that they don't exactly know what it
is or how it was made. More importantly, it appeared that,
(33:05):
for example, it had been made in zero gravity. Whoever
made this stuff did it in a place We don't
have any labs or factories in outer space in zero gravity,
but whoever made it did so. You know, that confirmed
to me that they do have it, they're trying to
figure it out, and they were willing to exchange some
of it for something else that Lackheed needed. What I
was told was that this Glenn Gaffney guy hit the
(33:25):
roof when he found out that Lockheed still had this
stuff and that it was willing to change hands. He
stopped it dead cold, and then the guy that he
was negotiating with, this vice president Lockheed, died and that
was the end of that.
Speaker 4 (33:39):
So I thought it went Bigelow, it would just get
lost in there, just like it is in Lockheed, because
that's a private company as well.
Speaker 5 (33:44):
Bigelow is a guy who demands results. He's not a
patient man. You know. They were able to put us
app together in an incredibly short period of time. They
had fifty full time investigators up and running, they got
their security clearances, and they got to work like that.
If they'd been allowed to continue beyond twenty seven months,
we might have a lot of answers because they created
the world's largest UFO database, two hundred and forty thousand
(34:06):
cases from all over the world. And if they'd allowed
to continue, Jock Bela was going to put an AI
component over it and be able to connect the dots
and all this data. They produce more than one hundred
highly detailed, highly technical papers, not one of which has
ever been released. So Bigelow is a tough guy to
work for. He cracks the whip, and I think if
he'd got that material from Lockheed, we'd have some results
(34:28):
by now, we'd have some answers.
Speaker 4 (34:29):
Man, it's a shame that didn't happen. You know, if
tomorrow the government came clean and said, look, yes, UFOs
are real, and they're not from here, like you said,
a limited disclosure, what's the first question George Knapp would
ask that government.
Speaker 5 (34:41):
Well, I'd like to know where it came from. Do
we have any idea where it's from, Do we have
any idea who made it? And most importantly, what's their plan?
Are they here for good? Are they trying to connect
with us? Have we had communications? Do we have any idea?
Are they a threat in a long run? My answer
would probably be no, But again, nobody really knows. So
I'm really curious about who made it, where they're from,
(35:03):
and what their plan is. That's the core of this mystery.
And I don't expect to have an answer to any
of those things while I'm alive. I hope maybe younger
folks like you might still be around when we hear
some announcement. But not holding my breath.
Speaker 4 (35:16):
I love how in your testimony you said let's just
call them aliens as a placeholder because we don't even
know what we're really dealing with, which I always point
to and I love the way you said that to Congress.
Last year, you did this great six episode documentary mini
series called Investigation Alien on Netflix that explored why they
may be coming here, whatever they or it is. Do
(35:38):
you have a best guess or gut feeling as to
what the phenomenon might be doing here.
Speaker 5 (35:44):
I think we might be an experiment. I think they've
been here basically as long or longer than us. I
think they might have had something to do with us
and our evolution as.
Speaker 4 (35:52):
A species and or seated us maybe right.
Speaker 5 (35:55):
Yeah, something like that. Maybe it did some genetic editing
along the way to give us a little boot here
and there. I don't know where the experiment ends. They
clearly seem to have an interest in us. I mean,
they're also interested in the planet, maybe more interested in
the planet, because that's the message that aliens, these beings
have given to people like Whitley and other contact these
when there is direct communication is look, quit blowing up
(36:16):
nuclear bombs and take care of your planet. I think
long term, they care maybe more about the planet than
they do us, But they're definitely interested in us. They
interact sometimes it's almost like parents interacting with us, and
we're not very good kids either. I really would like
to be around when those answers come in, if they
ever do. Right now, we don't have them.
Speaker 4 (36:35):
I just want to live that long. That's it. You
mentioned it's possible that this is a government siop in
your testimony, because they asked you that question. Do you
think it's maybe a combination of both a little bit
of a syop with genuine UFO activity happening adjacent I do?
Speaker 5 (36:50):
I know that they play games with that mind games
with us. They also take credit for things that they
didn't really accomplish some Oh yeah, that's what that was
us fooling the public. Example, half of all UFO sightings
in the fifties and sixties were US spyplanes like the
U two and the SR seventy one. I'm sorry, that's ridiculous.
The U two Does that look like a flying saucer?
Speaker 4 (37:11):
Does it help how many of those that we have? Yeah?
Speaker 5 (37:13):
Yeah, they're designed not to be seen. They're flown overseas,
not here. I mean the idea that a U two
was going to land in a school yard and hover
over your house or.
Speaker 4 (37:23):
Literally laughable, George, literally laughable.
Speaker 5 (37:26):
They made that story up retroactively. They were like reverse
engineered history, and they've done that with other things that
I heard a story in the Wall Street Journal a
couple of weeks before this hearing that said that whole
Area fifty one thing that was made up, that was us.
We had an Air Force colonel who went out to
Rachel gave them some fake UFO photos because we wanted
to distract attention away from the real secret Inner A
(37:47):
fifty one, the stealth fighter. Well if that was your plan,
just think how that worked out. You think that because
you plant the seed that is alien technology, that people
are not going to be interested in it. They're not
going to be going out there. I mean, we know
what happen because of those stories. They came out at
eighty nine. Every news organization in the world has been
out there, tens of thousands of people out there in
(38:07):
the desert with binoculars and telescopes every single day, Congressional investigators,
all kinds of attention. You think the Russians stopped looking
at Area fifty one because we said it was alien technology,
or would they increase I mean whoever came up with
that proposal, that preposterous idea must have spent the last
part of their Air Force career and Antarctica or something
(38:27):
like that because it was not a very well thought
out plan.
Speaker 4 (38:30):
Right, They did the same thing with Roswell as they
kept changing the story and the explanation as to what
happened to Roswell, they would backward engineer a dumb idea.
Do you have any thoughts about the way people cover
this topic. Yes, the giggle factor has kind of gone
away for the most part, which is wonderful. But now
we have social media and we have a thousand podcasters,
and oftentimes this topic seems to get very sensationalized. I
(38:53):
want to see, how does all of this sit with
you today.
Speaker 5 (38:55):
Well, I'm glad that there's that kind of dialogue that
the public has energized. Segment of the public is energized
and talks about it. A lot of times. It's circular though,
it's the same people talking about the same stuff to
each other. That's why this congressional hearing breaks it out
to a larger audience beyond just UFO world. I remember
when I first got involved in it. You know, there's
a steep learning curve ro on. You know that to
(39:17):
figure all this out, to become familiar with the paper
trail of documents, with the key cases and good witnesses,
it takes time to absorb all that. You know. There
are people who get into this field because they want attention,
there's something missing in their lives. They make stuff up.
There's no standard for what a eufologist constitutes, what you
have to do to be qualified as being one of those.
You don't need a degree to be a ufologist, and
(39:40):
so a lot of people who become prominent in the
field really have no business being considered authorities on it
at all. And then, in addition, the people who keep
this secret, who have confused the public for so long,
are way better at their job than people like I
am at mind because they know their stuff. They know
how to deflect attention, change the subject a dispute, or
(40:01):
put a witness in disrepute, sully their reputations. They're good
at it. While they are on the defensive right now,
they are not down and out. They're dangerous people, and
there's a long way to go before we can break through.
I do get discouraged sometimes by the enmity and nasty
arguments in UFO world. I am on the receiving end
of it every single day of my life. It does
(40:22):
get discouraging if you let it, but you know, this
is a noble cause. I've seen in the last year
and a half that the keepers of these secrets are
still very powerful and very committed to that secrecy. They
enlist major media people, they've had briefings when they're going
to put something out, have briefings for a select group
of reporters who report things like they're just reprinting a
(40:43):
press release, not asking tough questions, just going along with
the flow. People who work in national security, who cover
the Pentagon on the CIA every single day, they develop friendships, relationships,
and they do the bidding of these guys, often because
it's just so much easier to make fun of the
goofy UFO people wearing their you know, tinfoil hats and
(41:04):
goofy beanies and T shirts than it is to do
the hard work. I saw that personally. You know, I
had these stories. I was a legitimate reporter here in
Las Vegas. I still am, I think, and had broken
some big stories, won a bunch of awards but once
I did UFO stuff, suddenly I was alone. I was crazy.
I mean, I got more pushback from my journalism colleagues
here in Las Vegas than ever from the UFO crazies
(41:27):
or debunkers. They could not accept the fact that this
supposedly respectable reporter was treating this topic seriously, and they
pummeled me for years. But they'd never done the work.
They'd never gone out and sitting in the desert. It's
fifty one night after night, year after year. They hadn't
read the books, they hadn't ooied the documents. They hadn't
met the witnesses or interviewed or sp spent time with them.
(41:49):
They hadn't done any of that. It's just easier to
make fun of it, and it's still easier to make
fun of it. But it's changing.
Speaker 4 (41:55):
Well, let's hope. So well. Thanks George, I appreciate you
taking the time today. It was very informative, and thanks
for all your work over the years. I mean, you've
done an invaluable amount of contribution to this and we
all appreciate it.
Speaker 5 (42:05):
Thanks Ron, I'll see you on the trail.
Speaker 4 (42:07):
Absolutely. You can find George at k l a S TV.
In Las Vegas and on his Weaponized podcast with Jeremy Corbel,
and of course you can also hear him on Coast
to Coast AM. You can find me on Twitter and
Instagram at c I T D Underscore Captain Ron. Stay
connected by checking out Contactinthethdesert dot com. Stay open minded
and rational as we explore the unknown right here on
the iHeartRadio and Coast to Coast AM Paranormal Podcast Network.
Speaker 1 (42:38):
Thanks for listening to the iHeartRadio and Coast to Coast
Day and Paranormal Podcast Network. Make sure and check out
all our shows on the iHeartRadio app or by going
to iHeartRadio dot com
You're listening to the iHeartRadio and Coast to Coast DAM
Paranormal podcast network, where we offer you podcasts of the paranormal, supernatural,
and the unexplained. Get ready now for Beyond Contact with
Captain Wrong.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Welcome to our podcast. Please be aware the thoughts and
opinions expressed by the host are their thoughts and opinions
only and do not reflect those of iHeartMedia, iHeartRadio, Coast
to Coast AM, employees of premier networks, or their sponsors
and associates. We would like to encourage you to do
(00:41):
your own research and discover the subject matter for yourself.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
Hey everyone, it's Captain Ron and each week are Beyond Contact.
We'll explore the latest news in ufology, discuss some of
the classic cases, and bring you the latest information from
the newest cases as we talked with the top experts.
Speaker 4 (01:12):
Welcome to Beyond Contact. I am Captain Rona today, where
you are absolutely honored to be speaking with the acclaimed
investigative journalist mister George Knapp. George is the chief investigative
reporter for KLAS TV in Las Vegas, as well as
a weekend host on Coast to Coast AM. He's far
too humble to want to hear this, but he has
won multiple Edward R. Mureau Awards, Peabody Awards, Mark Twain Awards,
(01:36):
Emmy Awards, et cetera, et cetera for his incredible work
in journalism. He has graciously participated in the last couple
of contact of the desert events, and I'm very grateful
for that. His reporting on Bob Blazar in Area fifty
one broke that story wide open for all of us,
and he is with us today because he just testified
before Congress at the UAP hearings, and I thought he
(01:58):
was the perfect choice to do. So. Hey, George, thanks
so much for taking the time. Man.
Speaker 5 (02:03):
Yeah, Captain ron, I salute you. Good to talk to you, Thanks, Bud. Hey,
So this latest hearing was very interesting to me. You know,
the only frustration I felt was the limited time you
guys got. I kept feeling like, man, if they could
just give George seven or eight hours, they would really
have a different understanding of the phenomenon. What was your
takeaway from the hearing, Well, you know, we were given
(02:26):
the parameters going in and everyone was supposed to have
a five minute opening segment, and then there was going
to be as many questions as they wanted, and they
kept going for a couple hours. I know a lot
of people are angry because Representative Luna, the chairperson, cut
me off, but she had to. I mean, I wrote,
I'd still be talking if they had allowed me to continue.
I wrote way more content for that hearing than could
(02:50):
possibly fit in that timeframe. She cut me off at
about seven minutes, so allowed me to go two minutes over.
But she came back around and there were a lot
of questions related to the things that I was going
to testify to. Anyway, I didn't get everything in that
I wanted in, but I got most of it.
Speaker 4 (03:06):
I was honestly very impressed with all of the questions.
People were very much more informed than I anticipated them
to be. That's what I wanted to ask you right away.
Was there something that you didn't get a chance to
get out because of the time constraints.
Speaker 5 (03:19):
Well, there are a couple of things I was going
to say about disclosure. You know, I've always been a
pessimist about disclosure. The glass is not only half empty,
it's bone dry.
Speaker 4 (03:27):
For me.
Speaker 5 (03:28):
I think that they're never going to come clean. They're
never going to admit this stuff, because I think a
lot of them would go to prison. It's possible for that.
So I was going to propose an idea that Robert
Bigelow and I've been kicking around for controlled disclosure, a
limited sort of disclosure where the president comes forward says, look,
they're here, these craft. We've got this stuff. We've collected
(03:49):
it and kept it in secret for a long time.
We haven't figured out the technology. It's all real, folks.
Your suspicions are right, but we can't say more than
that because we there was a legitimate security issue. We
are in a race for this technology against the Russians
and the Chinese and maybe a couple of other nations
as well, and whoever gets that technology win. So accept
(04:11):
my apology. It's all been true, but we can't say
any more than that. I think, you know, the UFO
world would be dissatisfied with that. They'd be screaming and
banging on the table. But some of the possibilities would
be the scientific community, which you know has ignored the
subject because of the stigma, the perceived stigma, would realize, hey,
this is real. It's acceptable now to work on it,
(04:33):
and engineers would work on it. You have our best
scientists who would thus be free to go ahead and
dive in and take a look at it. You know,
our country, the secrecy is so severe. We don't have
our best and brightest scientists and engineers working on this.
There is a reverse engineering program. It's been underway for
at least seventy five years and maybe longer, and we
(04:53):
haven't made much progress because it's within such a small
circle of people. You can't tell anybody about it. So
I think that a limited disclosure, if it came from
this particular president, would go a long way. It would
distract away from other things that he doesn't want to
talk about anyway, I think, And that's what I was
going to pitch. I also had a couple of quotes
(05:14):
from Jay Stratton, who was instrumental in creating AFSAP. He
was instrumental in creating a TIP. He was the first
director of the UAP task forse even before it was
authorized by Congress. He was in charge of it. He
did great work. He has had his own personal face
to face experiences and encounters with whatever this is. And
(05:38):
he gave a couple of statements about look, the real
danger here is that without congressional oversight, we'll go right
back as the same people who kept this secret for
eighty years will keep it secret for another eighty years.
Unless we force their hand and make them cough up
some information or at least admit there's something really to it,
they won't do it. And that's what I really wanted
to get across. But I'll tell you Ron, that committee,
(06:00):
the task force was very impressive to me in that
Number one, they really knew their stuff, they had good questions,
they weren't messing around. All of them or their staffs
had done homework on this. And number two, it was bipartisan.
You have far left Democrats and far right Republicans who
got along and were able to ask questions and be
(06:21):
on the same page on any topic. These days, it's amazing.
But it really was maybe the only issue on which
members of Congress have bipartisan agreement that it's legit and
just should be investigated agreed.
Speaker 4 (06:33):
Number Three, I would add that everybody took it hell serious.
There was no dismissive, derogatory, nothing. Yeah, So that was
interesting and I would be very satisfied if we got
that limited disclosure like that. I think everybody in the
community would feel validated. And again, as soon as you
said that, I immediately thought, well, this would make it
(06:54):
okay for scientists to look at it, and that's what
I want.
Speaker 5 (06:57):
Biglow was really interested in many of the people who
work with him, and the time is right because there
are a lot of people around Trump who are definitely
interested in this. His Secretary of State, former senator has
made many public statements, his Director of the CIA has
made statements about the reality of this and the technology,
and I think the time is right for some progress
(07:17):
to be made there.
Speaker 4 (07:18):
Not to mention his son, yeah, exactly. In your testimony,
you recounted an account from a Russian ICBM base where
a UFO took control of their launch systems, which is
very similar to the nuclear witnesses that we have such
as Bob Sallas, Robert Jacobs and others. Do you think
this is a good approach to get Congress members on
board because it's sort of safe and everyone should be
(07:41):
concerned about this.
Speaker 5 (07:42):
Right, absolutely, I mean that was the point of sharing
that story. It was October nineteen eighty two that ICBM
base was in Ukraine. The missiles were ready and pointed
and targeted at US. If they were fired, world War
II would start and we'd all be going. So this
UFO appears over that base. It splits apart, it merges
(08:05):
back together, It performs in incredible maneuvers. This one on
for a couple of hours, and we know about it
because these documents are brought back from Russia. All of
the witness statements are Russian officers at this key base,
and they all describe what had happened. After being up
there for a couple of hours. Suddenly the launch control
system inside this base lights up, lights up a big display.
(08:28):
Something entered the launch control codes a specific codes in
a specific sequence. The missile fired up and they were
ready to go. The Russians are frantic trying to shut
this thing down. They couldn't do it. I mean, we
are moments away from global catastrophe. The UFO suddenly goes poof,
It's gone. The launch control system goes back to normal,
(08:48):
the missiles disarmed. Basically, they essentially stop their launch control
sequence and Ministry Defense sends a team in. They take
this stuff apart. They can't figure out what had caused
it until they realized the UFO caused it, and it
was sending a message. These might be your most powerful weapons,
but they don't impress us all that much. It's sort
(09:09):
of similar to what's happened here what they call the
Northern tiercases. One base after another visited by UFOs, and
the missiles there were taken off line. They weren't fired up,
ready to go. They were taken off line, so if
there had been an emergency or a conflict, we couldn't
have used them. So, you know, Bob Sallas, Bob Jacobs,
those guys, I mentioned them in my testimony because they
(09:31):
are true Americans. They heeded the call that came forward
to Arrow, told them what they know and what they
had seen and experienced, and they were dismissed like their nutcases.
And it's an insult to those kind of guys who
had legitimate careers, served their country admirably, and they get
left out of the room by Arrow, which is supposed
(09:52):
to be investigating this stuff and taking it seriously.
Speaker 4 (09:54):
And these are bright guys working on nuclear bases. I mean,
it's not like these are clowns. It's a shame, you know.
I found it interesting that Chief Wiggins told of an
account right off the coast of southern California, which you
yourself had been investigating on your documentary series. Seems to
be something happening in that area. And even TikTok was
sort of near there, right, So there's a lot of
(10:15):
activity in that area.
Speaker 5 (10:16):
Yeah, I don't know what it is exactly, but I mean,
you talk to any of these military guys, the Navy
guys in particular, who are out there and stationed in
that general area off southern California and Mexico, and they
see this stuff on a regular basis. Tictac was two
thousand and four. This incident the Chief Wiggins shared with us.
He was on the ship USS Jackson, and they had
(10:36):
four tic TACs four one the first one that they
saw on their radar system and then he saw it
with its eyes, and then he went back into the
radar the central control system, and there were four of
these objects and they left all together. There were four
different points of lights, but it was like they were
one object when it departed, and it was instantaneous. That's
(10:57):
not our technology. What are they doing out there? What
is it that they're interested and why are they showing
themselves Because clearly, if they didn't want us to see them,
we wouldn't see them.
Speaker 4 (11:08):
That's right. We're going to take a break there, George.
We come back. We're going to ask you about the
possible benefits of passing one of these whistleblower protection bills
or the UAP Disclosure Act itself. You're listening to Beyond
Contact on the iHeartRadio and Coast to Coast AM Paranormal
podcast network. We are back on Beyond Contact, Captain Ron
(11:41):
speaking with George Nap. George, what are your thoughts on
a whistleblower protection bill? I know they're talking about introducing one.
If we get something past the truly protected whistleblowers, do
you think we'd see a flood of people come forward.
Speaker 5 (11:54):
I would hope. So, you know, Tim Burchett, Congressman Burchett,
who is a very savvy guy on this committee and
this task course, has introduced such legislation. I think there's
a Senate equivalent, and there's hope that it would be
attached to the larger UAP bill. And it's needed because
there are people, I mean, I'm in touch with them
on a regular basis, Jeremy Corbell as well, guys who
(12:15):
would like to tell a story but are scared legitimately scared.
These three who came forward, the three service members who testified.
It's brave. It's a daunting thing to appear before Congress,
swear an oath. The whole world is watching. You don't
know what you're going to be asked, TV cameras from
all over media, all over the world. It's a daunting thing.
It takes bravery come forward, especially because there is a
(12:37):
strong possibility that you will pay for coming forward and
telling this story, and a couple of them already had.
We didn't hear the full story from Dylan Borland that
will be coming out though soon. There's some limits on
what he can legally say. He'd like to say more,
but he worries that he's going to be targeted for
prosecution or something worse. Matt Brown is the guy who
(12:58):
was sitting behind us at the hearing. He was also
offered as a possible witness, and maybe we'll be will
be a witness and testify in a future hearing. He's
the guy who came up with the Immaculate Constellation documents
a couple of months ago that Jeremy and I put
out on a podcast. He described to us extra legal
things that happened to him and other witnesses who want
to come forward as whistleblowers. They get break ins in
(13:19):
their homes. There are a lot of games. Their phones
are tapped. At his home, there was a break in.
They got IDs and stuff out of his wallet and
his wife's wallet and put him across the couch and
left them there. They took his grandfather's ashes, his urn
and dumped it out by the garbage. I mean, it's
a message, It's an intimidation message. David Grush has had
(13:40):
those kinds of things as far back as Bob Lazar.
They would break into his house, move things around, write
things on the chuck board where he in his laboratory,
and just mess with him, call and make threats, all
kinds of extra legal things that I don't think even
a Whistleblower Protection Act could change, because whoever's doing this stuff,
whoever is trying to shut these people up, threatening their lives,
(14:02):
it's working outside the legal system. It's already illegal. So
I don't know that that would stop. But at least
Congress would be making a statement that we value that
kind of testimony. We want to protect you. Come on in.
We'd like to hear more of it. It's a good
step in the right direction, I think, agreed.
Speaker 4 (14:18):
What about this UAP Disclosure Act itself. You know, as
amazing as that act sounds to me, and Danny's all
excited about it and he thinks it can really do
some great things. I fear even if we get that
act passd I'm afraid that there'll be a little benefit because,
how you aptly pointed out in your testimony at the hearing,
these legacy protectors are farming this et tech out to
(14:39):
private companies like Lockheed and raytheon and whatever right now.
So that's outside of congressional oversight. So we really probably
couldn't get much coverage from Congress anyway, right.
Speaker 5 (14:50):
I think there are ways that this could be tracked
down even if it has been taken outside the government,
which I'm absolutely sure that it has. These companies, these contracts,
big defense contractors, aerospace companies have done for decades what
we ask them to do. And I know I've been
one of those who've been critical of the Lockheeds of
the world on the assumption that they've been hiding this
(15:12):
big dark secret for so long. But that's what they
were asked to do by government, and they've done a
good job of it. I mean, I don't know how
much progress they've made on the technology. They have done
exactly what we've asked, you know. I'm not sure that
they would be willing to give this stuff up after
spending all these decades trying to figure it out. I
don't know if they've been paid for it, but to
ask them just hand it over and face possible prosecution
(15:35):
if they do not cooperate is a big ask. I'd
like to see some way that the Lockheeds of the
world could be given an off rame. As I said,
I think they've done the job we ask them to do.
I don't think we they should be castigated for it.
But there has to be a way that there's a
benefit for them in coming forward with this information and
with the technology and it just admitting it to someone
(15:56):
within the government. I think there are ways to track
this down, maybe financial audits of where money has changed
hands for what program. I suspect there was a congressional
investigator that I interacted with back in the nineties who
thought that that was the case, that tens of millions,
maybe tens of billions of dollars had been funneled away
from legitimate national security programs into this kind of research
(16:20):
to keep it alive without congressional approval, without anyone's approval.
And he told me back then, look when this comes out,
people are going to go to prison. He never found it.
This Congress has not found it yet. But they got
to figure out a way to give an incentive to
the companies have been holding this stuff to go ahead
and cough it up, or at least acknowledge they've got it.
I think that they would like the help. I anticipate
(16:41):
that they would appreciate some assistance on figuring this out.
That's what I testified to with permission from people I'm
close to, is that there was an effort during the
offset program that was based here in Las Vegas, the
DIA investigation, to change hands with some of that material
that Lockheed agreed to hand it over. There's another side
to that agreement with the BASS and as AT people.
(17:04):
There's another side to that deal that has not been
made public that I can't share, but there was something
in it for both of them, and I think we
got to figure out a way to have something in
it for both sides if we're going to expect these
big conglomerates to God just.
Speaker 4 (17:16):
Turn it over, of course, and that's fair. You know.
One of the central points you've said that what's been
documented in government, military and intelligence agency records often contradicts
the public narrative that UAPs are nothing, it's just misidentification.
Could these bills possibly help us to get at least
some more of that documentation out?
Speaker 5 (17:37):
I think so. Here's the thing, and I said it
in the testimony and I've said it before. What hooked
me on the subject was not aliens at Area fifty
one or alien technology. It was the paper trail. As
a journalist, I can't go out in the desert and
find aliens or flying saucers, although I've done that hundreds
of times unsuccessfully. But if paper trail that exists, I
could track that. And that's what hooked me, because it
(17:59):
is very clear that what the Department of Defense now
the Department of War, the CIA, and other agencies say
in public, there's nothing to it. It's not a threat,
we have it under control. Don't worry your pretty little
head in looking at UFOs. Just move along, folks. Nothing
to see here. Is completely contrary to what they said
to each other behind closed doors. Before FOYA existed, for
(18:20):
the Freedom of Information Act was the law of the land,
they would very candidly express, Hey, this stuff is real,
it's from somewhere else. It's not us, it's not Russians.
Where's it from. We think it might be from outer space,
extraterrestrial And they would say that candidly to each other.
At the same time they were saying that to each other,
they told the public something completely different. As I found out,
(18:41):
that's exactly what they did in Russia too, and are
still doing lying to the public about something that they
say behind the scenes. Now, after FOYA became the law
of the land, they got a lot better at hiding stuff.
They no longer wrote these kind of candid statements, clear
statements that this stuff is real, it's from somewhere else.
They couched it in weasel words and wouldn't give it away.
(19:01):
So the more recent documents are probably going to be
harder to get anything good out of. But there's a
giant storehouse of previous documentation, assuming that hasn't been destroyed yet.
That paint's a very clear picture. It's real, it's not us.
We need to get on it.
Speaker 4 (19:17):
They feel somehow to me one step ahead all the time.
You know, this brings me to another frustrating thing for
me personally. George's what about how even in this specific hearing,
Dylan Borland and I think someone else also expressed how
they can't talk about these things in an open session.
They would say, I'll talk to you in a private
skiff to discuss these matters. But then they point out
that the congress members themselves don't have the clearances to
(19:41):
even go to the skiff to hear that information. How
do they even know what to ask?
Speaker 5 (19:45):
It is frustrating, but it's the system we've set up,
and somebody like Dylan who has quite a story to
tell beyond what he could tell there. Dylan has been
through the Ringer, He's been through the ICIG, he's been
to Arrow, He's been in these closed door skiffs type
meetings where he reveals this stuff, and he's worried they're
coming after him. He has a good reason to be worried.
I'll tell you a story that didn't come out of
(20:07):
that hearing. Jeremy has been talking to Dylan longer than
I have, but I've been talking to him for a
couple of years we went back to see him after
the last hearing. The previous hearing in twenty twenty three,
we went to go meet with Dylan and we went
to a secret location. We didn't tell anybody where it
was going to be. We met him in a public
park south of Washington, d C. Not even in the
DC area, and we're going to meet him in this
(20:29):
park early in the morning. We pulled him this park.
Dylan's the only person there, but there's a vehicle. There's
a big black jeep blacked out windows sitting there and
I'm just looking at and I go, you know, I
don't feel comfortable sitting here. This bothers me. Let's go
somewhere else. We drove about fifteen miles away. We found
a little eatery that we're going to have a bite at.
We parked two blocks around a corner from that restaurant,
(20:51):
and then we went in and had a talk and
what we thought was a secure place. We come out
an hour and a half later, there's that same damn
vehicle parked right up against our bunk, our bumper of
our car. It was making it very obvious to us. Then, yeah,
you're being followed.
Speaker 4 (21:06):
How do you like Uh wow, that is incredible. You're
listening to Beyond Contact on the iHeartRadio and Coast to
Coast AM Paranormal podcast network. We are back on Beyond
(21:35):
Contact speaking with mister George Knapp. George, I also find
how strange all of this works. Like we have these
guys like luel A Zondo who will say I can't
say that in a public forum. I can talk, and
then sometimes he kind of does say certain things. Then
you get a guy like hell put Off who's been
pretty silent on this issue his whole life. Then suddenly
he shows up on Rogan and says, actually flat out says,
(21:59):
the US has covered more than ten craft of unknown origin.
Doctor James Lkatski told you that he can say we
recovered a craft, but he couldn't say much else, and
that they told him it was okay to say that.
How does all this happen?
Speaker 5 (22:12):
I don't know exactly what the rules are. I can
tell you this, I've heard those stories from those guys
for a long time. Was not allowed to say it
or report it.
Speaker 4 (22:21):
See you're not allowed to say it. They're not allowed
to say it.
Speaker 5 (22:23):
Nobody's allowed us because a promise I made I made
a promise to his sources. It's a different kind of restriction.
You know, you're sure. You make a promise, you've got
to keep it. If I violated that confidence, I'd be
out of business. You know, nobody's share that with you again.
People like Dylan Borland, they're trying to navigate this as
carefully as they can. They've been threatened, they've been intimidated,
they've been warned you better be careful. They've shared what
(22:45):
they can in skiffs and in certain situations. But there's
a lot more they'd like to say. I don't blame
them for being careful. Now. Why how putoff could then
say that on Joe Rogan? He just might be the
power of Rogan to overcome all resistance, I guess, But
he did. You know, I know that there are people
like those guys, deep insiders, who spent their whole careers
working on this stuff, who would like to say things,
(23:06):
would like to say more. Hall surprised me last year
when he came forward with an admission that he'd been
part of a secret study. A bunch of braining acts
like him were brought together. I think back in the
Bush administration, put in a room given access to all
kinds of information, and given the assignment, is disclosure a
good idea? Should we disclose now? Hypothetical exercise? Well that
(23:28):
a lot of the people who were there were predisposed
to say, yes, yeah, we should. The public has a
right to know. But as they sat there for a
couple of days and kicked around the evidence and evaluated
what the social impact would be, how our institutions were
to react by the end of that exercise, after a
couple of days, they came the conclusion, no, it's not
a good idea because there would be repercussions. There would
(23:50):
be disruptions of social institutions. People think they're ready for it.
We can handle it, we can handle the truth. Well,
are you sure, because what is the truth?
Speaker 4 (24:01):
Yeah? We don't know what the truth is that we're
saying we're ready for.
Speaker 5 (24:04):
Yeah. I mean, you know, I can think of some
pretty dark scenarios that I don't think the majority people
would be ready for, even diehard UFO folks. You know.
I'll also say this, I've been at this for thirty
eight years, and I've been lucky to attach myself and
get to know the smartest people who've worked the longest
on the inside on this issue, I don't know a
single person who can say for sure what it is,
(24:27):
what is the truth? I don't know anybody who knows
it ets, time travelers, interdimensionals, crypto terrestrials, all of the above.
Speaker 4 (24:34):
I don't know even some of the alleged witnesses and
people whose claim contact EAT they've had contact experiences off.
Even someone as famous as Whitley says, I don't know
what it is. He calls them the visitors because he
doesn't have a name for it.
Speaker 5 (24:46):
You know.
Speaker 4 (24:46):
Another aspect of the hearing I really enjoyed was how
several people went at ARROW, including Representative Luna, who went
so far as to call Sean Kirkpatrick a documented liar
and bring into question with the purpose that he was
even at ARROW four. I've always personally felt that Arrow
was not gathering information to share it with the public
or with Congress, but rather just to see what we knew.
(25:09):
What do you think?
Speaker 5 (25:10):
It certainly appears that Arrow is little more than a
counterintelligence program. I mean, I'm sure that there has people there,
including the current director Kozlowski, who do want some answers,
who would like to do an honest investigation but that
organization has been so tainted by the stinch left behind
by Sean Kirkpatrick. You know, honest witnesses like Bob Salas,
(25:30):
like Bob Jacobs, people like that that came forward, gave
their story and then they were dismissed as liars or
fanciful storytellers or grifters, dismissed outright. I don't know anybody
whose story was taken seriously. I can't imagine a whistleblower
or witness ever going to Arrow again, which is a shame, because,
as I said, I think there are people there who'd
like to be doing it. It looks like they were
(25:51):
seeing who would come forward, how much they'd tell, and
now we know who these people are and where they
are because they didn't act on any of that information.
Speaker 4 (26:00):
That's exactly what it seems like, and it makes me
sick to my stomach. It was Grunge sign and Blue
Book all over again. Luna's flat out said she'd subpoena Kirkpatrick.
Do you think she would? But the question does I
fear that, As you pointed out, George, these guys can
lie to protect their classification anyway.
Speaker 5 (26:15):
I think she has a hankering to do exactly that.
I don't know if she'll be given subpoena power or
not by the Oversight Committee chairman or not, but I
think she had a right to be tipped off at Kirkpatrick.
He comes out with this juvenile statement before the hearing,
just as soon as the witness names are announced, where
he attacks her, He attacks the committee, the task force.
(26:36):
He has a nickname Luna's Lunatics. What a thin skin
butt had this guy is why he's been going from
that job almost two years. He comes out and attacks
the witnesses as their fanciful storytellers and they just want
attention or their grifters. Not true one tiny bit for
these guys. They served their country admirably. They're not there
(26:57):
to grift here because they were invited by Congress to
tell what they know. Kirkpatrick uses these names that sounds
like something a seventh grader would say to the kids
out by the tether ball court or something, and is
so thin skinned every time he opens his mouth. It
is further proof that he should never have been given
that job. And the terrible stain that he left on
(27:19):
Arrow might be so deep that it could never be repaired.
It's a shame.
Speaker 4 (27:23):
Oh, I think I think Arrow's done. Who would go
to Errow now, Like you said, nobody, it's a shame.
So we wanted to get to what did you think
of the new Eric Berlasson video. I know you had
been familiar with that case, but now you saw the
video in Congress? What'd you think of that?
Speaker 5 (27:37):
It was every bit as good as we were told
that it was. Jeremy and I have been told about
it a couple of months ago, right after it had happened,
and we were hoping, well, someday maybe we'll get that video.
Well there it was. You know, I've seen some pretty
reasonable explanations, not the typical debunkers who say, well it
looks like a hellfire missile that hit a balloon, all right,
So who authorized sending a hundred thousand dollars hell fire
(27:58):
missile to take out a balloon over Yemen? Number two?
Why did it bounce off? Now I know this. People
have said, oh, it's didn't really deflect. Well, I'm looking
at it with my own eyes. I am not an
image analyst. I don't work these radar platforms or sensor systems,
so I'm not an expert. Don't claim to be, But
it sure as hell look to me like that missile
bounced off and didn't explode, and then the four little
(28:20):
things pop out or three little things and follow along
with this balloon. I mean I was.
Speaker 4 (28:26):
Joking, moving at that rate of speed.
Speaker 5 (28:28):
Yeah, and move with them. We have been told there's
another five minute long video. The whole video is five
minutes longer, and we're told that there is a report
that list that object as a UAP, not as a balloon.
I mean, what kind of balloon is that super duper secret,
hoothy balloon made out of titanium? A led zeppelin? You
(28:49):
know what kind of it was. I don't know what
the explanation is, but I know that the explanations we
heard so far just don't cut it.
Speaker 4 (28:57):
Agreed, Okay. It came up in the hearing that we
may in fact be racing with other countries such as
China and Russia and others to decipher these et technologies,
and perhaps we don't want to reveal anything publicly to
reveal to them what we know. Do you think that's
at least in part the reason for the secrecy.
Speaker 5 (29:15):
Absolutely, I think it is the primary reason for the
secrecy now and it's a reason why we haven't come
forward and leveled with the public. This has been told
to me by a lot of people on the inside.
There's a name that you would know who shared it
this way. Just you can't tell your friends without telling
your enemies. We don't want to admit to Russia and
China that we have this stuff and we're working on
it and racing to figure it out, although they know
(29:38):
we've got it and we know they've got it. You know,
I gave a couple of the names of the people
who now I have not been told directly face to face.
Senator Howry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader. Senator Howard Cannon,
who was a four term senator from Nevada who tried
with Mary Goldwater to get into Wright Patterson to see
the goodies. A guy named al O'Donnell who was the
(29:58):
first general manager Egen g Here in Nevada, oversaw the
Nevada Testing program, the atomic weapons program, and at Area
fifty one. All of them have told me that it's
real and we've got this stuff. And Red even knows
from briefings that he had that the Russians and Chinese
have it as well. Maybe the Israelis and maybe the
ir audiences as well. So, you know, we need to
(30:20):
be honest about it. We need to keep a lid
on what we want to share with the public. But
you can acknowledge in general what the whole world already knows,
certainly the Russians and Chinese know, is that we've got
this stuff and we're trying to figure out how to
reduplicate it.
Speaker 4 (30:33):
It also came up during that that there's this issue
of overclassification. Do you think that that's done intentionally just
to further muddy the waters and make everything difficult to
get to absolutely?
Speaker 5 (30:44):
I mean, you know, there are so many examples of it,
and it's not just in UFOs. It's over classification of
everything because they don't want to answer questions. You know,
it is ridiculous that there is one person in the
entire United States government who is authorized as the spokesperson
for any of these program Graham's dealing with UFOs, one
woman who is a counterintelligence expert. Psychological warfare was her specialty.
(31:06):
She's the belly button through which any answers to the
public Eddy Foyer request must pass. It's preposterous, it's ridiculous.
Speaker 4 (31:14):
It absolutely is. When you think of it on the face,
it's just crazy. When we come back, we're going to
ask George about the name that he gave to Representative
Luna when she asked the group for a name. You're
listening to Beyond Contact on the iHeartRadio and Coast to
Coast Paranormal Podcast Network. We're back on Beyond Contact talking
(31:46):
with the great mister George Nap. George. During this hearing,
Representative Luna asked all of you for a name that
you guys could give her, and you spit out. Glenn Gaffney,
who was the former Director of Science and Technology at
the CIA, what do you think I think he can
provide to Congress?
Speaker 5 (32:01):
What I was told is he was a direct contact
and overseer with a couple of these aerospace companies about
the goodies, where it went, what they were doing with it.
He was the point of contact for CIA Science and
Technology on who did what without material And the reason
it came up was during that AFSAP program, the DIA
program based here in Las Vegas, Robert Bigelow went to
(32:23):
Lockheed and tried to negotiate a transfer of materials. He
had spent a million dollars of his own money at
Bigelow Aerospace to prepare his plant in the event that
had started to receive that kind of material and to
meet certain security standards that was required by the government.
He talked to him. He talked face to face with
this guy, James Ryder, a vice president of Lockheed, longtime guy,
(32:44):
highly respected, who had offered to transfer certain materials that
were hidden at a plant in southern California, give him
to Bass to Bigelow in exchange for something else that
I can't get into. But A he's admitting they've got it.
B he admits that they don't exactly know what it
is or how it was made. More importantly, it appeared that,
(33:05):
for example, it had been made in zero gravity. Whoever
made this stuff did it in a place We don't
have any labs or factories in outer space in zero gravity,
but whoever made it did so. You know, that confirmed
to me that they do have it, they're trying to
figure it out, and they were willing to exchange some
of it for something else that Lackheed needed. What I
was told was that this Glenn Gaffney guy hit the
(33:25):
roof when he found out that Lockheed still had this
stuff and that it was willing to change hands. He
stopped it dead cold, and then the guy that he
was negotiating with, this vice president Lockheed, died and that
was the end of that.
Speaker 4 (33:39):
So I thought it went Bigelow, it would just get
lost in there, just like it is in Lockheed, because
that's a private company as well.
Speaker 5 (33:44):
Bigelow is a guy who demands results. He's not a
patient man. You know. They were able to put us
app together in an incredibly short period of time. They
had fifty full time investigators up and running, they got
their security clearances, and they got to work like that.
If they'd been allowed to continue beyond twenty seven months,
we might have a lot of answers because they created
the world's largest UFO database, two hundred and forty thousand
(34:06):
cases from all over the world. And if they'd allowed
to continue, Jock Bela was going to put an AI
component over it and be able to connect the dots
and all this data. They produce more than one hundred
highly detailed, highly technical papers, not one of which has
ever been released. So Bigelow is a tough guy to
work for. He cracks the whip, and I think if
he'd got that material from Lockheed, we'd have some results
(34:28):
by now, we'd have some answers.
Speaker 4 (34:29):
Man, it's a shame that didn't happen. You know, if
tomorrow the government came clean and said, look, yes, UFOs
are real, and they're not from here, like you said,
a limited disclosure, what's the first question George Knapp would
ask that government.
Speaker 5 (34:41):
Well, I'd like to know where it came from. Do
we have any idea where it's from, Do we have
any idea who made it? And most importantly, what's their plan?
Are they here for good? Are they trying to connect
with us? Have we had communications? Do we have any idea?
Are they a threat in a long run? My answer
would probably be no, But again, nobody really knows. So
I'm really curious about who made it, where they're from,
(35:03):
and what their plan is. That's the core of this mystery.
And I don't expect to have an answer to any
of those things while I'm alive. I hope maybe younger
folks like you might still be around when we hear
some announcement. But not holding my breath.
Speaker 4 (35:16):
I love how in your testimony you said let's just
call them aliens as a placeholder because we don't even
know what we're really dealing with, which I always point
to and I love the way you said that to Congress.
Last year, you did this great six episode documentary mini
series called Investigation Alien on Netflix that explored why they
may be coming here, whatever they or it is. Do
(35:38):
you have a best guess or gut feeling as to
what the phenomenon might be doing here.
Speaker 5 (35:44):
I think we might be an experiment. I think they've
been here basically as long or longer than us. I
think they might have had something to do with us
and our evolution as.
Speaker 4 (35:52):
A species and or seated us maybe right.
Speaker 5 (35:55):
Yeah, something like that. Maybe it did some genetic editing
along the way to give us a little boot here
and there. I don't know where the experiment ends. They
clearly seem to have an interest in us. I mean,
they're also interested in the planet, maybe more interested in
the planet, because that's the message that aliens, these beings
have given to people like Whitley and other contact these
when there is direct communication is look, quit blowing up
(36:16):
nuclear bombs and take care of your planet. I think
long term, they care maybe more about the planet than
they do us, But they're definitely interested in us. They
interact sometimes it's almost like parents interacting with us, and
we're not very good kids either. I really would like
to be around when those answers come in, if they
ever do. Right now, we don't have them.
Speaker 4 (36:35):
I just want to live that long. That's it. You
mentioned it's possible that this is a government siop in
your testimony, because they asked you that question. Do you
think it's maybe a combination of both a little bit
of a syop with genuine UFO activity happening adjacent I do?
Speaker 5 (36:50):
I know that they play games with that mind games
with us. They also take credit for things that they
didn't really accomplish some Oh yeah, that's what that was
us fooling the public. Example, half of all UFO sightings
in the fifties and sixties were US spyplanes like the
U two and the SR seventy one. I'm sorry, that's ridiculous.
The U two Does that look like a flying saucer?
Speaker 4 (37:11):
Does it help how many of those that we have? Yeah?
Speaker 5 (37:13):
Yeah, they're designed not to be seen. They're flown overseas,
not here. I mean the idea that a U two
was going to land in a school yard and hover
over your house or.
Speaker 4 (37:23):
Literally laughable, George, literally laughable.
Speaker 5 (37:26):
They made that story up retroactively. They were like reverse
engineered history, and they've done that with other things that
I heard a story in the Wall Street Journal a
couple of weeks before this hearing that said that whole
Area fifty one thing that was made up, that was us.
We had an Air Force colonel who went out to
Rachel gave them some fake UFO photos because we wanted
to distract attention away from the real secret Inner A
(37:47):
fifty one, the stealth fighter. Well if that was your plan,
just think how that worked out. You think that because
you plant the seed that is alien technology, that people
are not going to be interested in it. They're not
going to be going out there. I mean, we know
what happen because of those stories. They came out at
eighty nine. Every news organization in the world has been
out there, tens of thousands of people out there in
(38:07):
the desert with binoculars and telescopes every single day, Congressional investigators,
all kinds of attention. You think the Russians stopped looking
at Area fifty one because we said it was alien technology,
or would they increase I mean whoever came up with
that proposal, that preposterous idea must have spent the last
part of their Air Force career and Antarctica or something
(38:27):
like that because it was not a very well thought
out plan.
Speaker 4 (38:30):
Right, They did the same thing with Roswell as they
kept changing the story and the explanation as to what
happened to Roswell, they would backward engineer a dumb idea.
Do you have any thoughts about the way people cover
this topic. Yes, the giggle factor has kind of gone
away for the most part, which is wonderful. But now
we have social media and we have a thousand podcasters,
and oftentimes this topic seems to get very sensationalized. I
(38:53):
want to see, how does all of this sit with
you today.
Speaker 5 (38:55):
Well, I'm glad that there's that kind of dialogue that
the public has energized. Segment of the public is energized
and talks about it. A lot of times. It's circular though,
it's the same people talking about the same stuff to
each other. That's why this congressional hearing breaks it out
to a larger audience beyond just UFO world. I remember
when I first got involved in it. You know, there's
a steep learning curve ro on. You know that to
(39:17):
figure all this out, to become familiar with the paper
trail of documents, with the key cases and good witnesses,
it takes time to absorb all that. You know. There
are people who get into this field because they want attention,
there's something missing in their lives. They make stuff up.
There's no standard for what a eufologist constitutes, what you
have to do to be qualified as being one of those.
You don't need a degree to be a ufologist, and
(39:40):
so a lot of people who become prominent in the
field really have no business being considered authorities on it
at all. And then, in addition, the people who keep
this secret, who have confused the public for so long,
are way better at their job than people like I
am at mind because they know their stuff. They know
how to deflect attention, change the subject a dispute, or
(40:01):
put a witness in disrepute, sully their reputations. They're good
at it. While they are on the defensive right now,
they are not down and out. They're dangerous people, and
there's a long way to go before we can break through.
I do get discouraged sometimes by the enmity and nasty
arguments in UFO world. I am on the receiving end
of it every single day of my life. It does
(40:22):
get discouraging if you let it, but you know, this
is a noble cause. I've seen in the last year
and a half that the keepers of these secrets are
still very powerful and very committed to that secrecy. They
enlist major media people, they've had briefings when they're going
to put something out, have briefings for a select group
of reporters who report things like they're just reprinting a
(40:43):
press release, not asking tough questions, just going along with
the flow. People who work in national security, who cover
the Pentagon on the CIA every single day, they develop friendships, relationships,
and they do the bidding of these guys, often because
it's just so much easier to make fun of the
goofy UFO people wearing their you know, tinfoil hats and
(41:04):
goofy beanies and T shirts than it is to do
the hard work. I saw that personally. You know, I
had these stories. I was a legitimate reporter here in
Las Vegas. I still am, I think, and had broken
some big stories, won a bunch of awards but once
I did UFO stuff, suddenly I was alone. I was crazy.
I mean, I got more pushback from my journalism colleagues
here in Las Vegas than ever from the UFO crazies
(41:27):
or debunkers. They could not accept the fact that this
supposedly respectable reporter was treating this topic seriously, and they
pummeled me for years. But they'd never done the work.
They'd never gone out and sitting in the desert. It's
fifty one night after night, year after year. They hadn't
read the books, they hadn't ooied the documents. They hadn't
met the witnesses or interviewed or sp spent time with them.
(41:49):
They hadn't done any of that. It's just easier to
make fun of it, and it's still easier to make
fun of it. But it's changing.
Speaker 4 (41:55):
Well, let's hope. So well. Thanks George, I appreciate you
taking the time today. It was very informative, and thanks
for all your work over the years. I mean, you've
done an invaluable amount of contribution to this and we
all appreciate it.
Speaker 5 (42:05):
Thanks Ron, I'll see you on the trail.
Speaker 4 (42:07):
Absolutely. You can find George at k l a S TV.
In Las Vegas and on his Weaponized podcast with Jeremy Corbel,
and of course you can also hear him on Coast
to Coast AM. You can find me on Twitter and
Instagram at c I T D Underscore Captain Ron. Stay
connected by checking out Contactinthethdesert dot com. Stay open minded
and rational as we explore the unknown right here on
the iHeartRadio and Coast to Coast AM Paranormal Podcast Network.
Speaker 1 (42:38):
Thanks for listening to the iHeartRadio and Coast to Coast
Day and Paranormal Podcast Network. Make sure and check out
all our shows on the iHeartRadio app or by going
to iHeartRadio dot com
The Best of Coast to Coast AM News
Host
George Noory
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com