January 16, 2026 • 46 mins
Captain Ron is joined by Advocate For UFO Transparency Kevin Wright as they discuss his support for whistleblowers, strengthening oversight, and advancing lawful disclosure.
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 (00:05):
Welcome to the iHeartRadio and Coast to Coast AM paranormal
podcast network. This is the place to be if you're
ready for the best podcasts of the paranormal, curious, and
sometimes unexplained.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
Now listen to this.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
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 Premiere Networks, or their sponsors
and associates. We would like to encourage you to do
(00:42):
your own research and discover the subject matter for yourself.
Speaker 4 (00:54):
Hey everyone, it's Captain Ron and each week on Beyond
Contact looks for the latest news and upology, discuss some
of the classic cases and bring you the latest information
from the newest.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
Cases as we talk with the top experts. Welcome to
Beyond Contact. I'm Captain Ron, and today we're speaking with
Kevin Wright. Kevin is an advocate for UAP transparency and
is the founder of Solve Advocacy, an organization which is
dedicated to supporting whistleblowers, strengthening oversight, and advancing lawful disclosure.
(01:27):
His work focuses on navigating the complex intersection of national security,
classified programs, congressional oversight, and public accountability. Hey Kevin, welcome,
How you doing man?
Speaker 5 (01:39):
Thank you, Ron, good to see you. How are you today?
Speaker 2 (01:41):
I'm terrific. You know, one interesting thing doing all this
nonsense that I do, is that there are so many
different people who seem to be drawn to this topic
and they found their own unique lane or aspect of
the phenomenon, all of which play an important role. I
feel like they're each another rick in the wall of
us building an understanding of what's happening, whatever that might be,
(02:05):
as well as fighting the truth embargo to try to
get more governmental disclosure to move forward. You are right
there on the front line of this aspect, working with
individuals who have credible information about UAP related programs so
they could come forward safe and responsibly. Tell us what
kind of stuff you're doing to try to get these
(02:25):
potential whistleblowers protection.
Speaker 5 (02:28):
Sure, well, you're absolutely right there. First of all is
that everyone seems to come at it from a different
angle and from different experiences. And you know how I
got into this was that, you know, I've spent twenty
years in Washington, DC, working in politics, and you know,
I saw that there was an effort here to bring
about disclosure. In one of the ways that I could
participate was bringing my expertise in politics and lobbying and
(02:53):
issue advocacy to the table because there wasn't a lot
of that going on. But to better answer your question,
you know, I work a lot with with New Paradigm
Institute and Danny Sheen. Of course I serve as their
congressional liaison here in Washington, d C. So one of
the things that you know, New Paradigm Institute has been
doing is pushing enhanced the UAP with lower protection legislation
(03:15):
and working with members of Congress to you know, find
a sponsor and co sponsors for that legislation and provide
them better protection so they can come forward and share
with Congress first and then the public second. You know
what it is that they have learned, you know, either
as a first hand you know, whistleblower secondhand, wherever the
case may be, and their experiences inside or outside of
(03:39):
the legacy program.
Speaker 2 (03:40):
Do you think that the UAP Disclosure Act is what
we need to kind of get this the one in
its original form, of course, to help get this through
so that people are protected.
Speaker 5 (03:52):
Well, I mean, the UAP Disclosure Actor UAPDA is an
important and historic piece of legislation. It's sort of a
miracle that is even to begin with, to be perfectly
honest with you, because there was no prove real precursor
to it. It was just suddenly offered there. And you know,
Chuck Schumer, he was then the majority leader, and you know,
sort of muscled it into the National Defense Authorization Act
(04:15):
for bisically year twenty twenty four. And you know that
was really sort of a miracle in and of itself too.
He used a lot of parliamentary tactics and things to
get that done. But you know, the legislation is, you know,
all legislation has little flaws to it. There are certainly
things that people looked at that they opposed. Eminent domain
was one of them. But I think that the aminent
(04:36):
domain is actually rather significant and important to the legislation.
But you know, the fact is that it is legislation
that talks about non human intelligence, talks about technologies of
an origin. Obviously uap N identified an almost phenomena, and
you know it's really rather important and whether or not
(04:57):
that is going to be the vehicle that drives disclosure
forward or not remains to be seen. But as it
goes to you know, whistleblowers, that legislation did offer some
additional protections that are not you know, present in law today,
but it certainly doesn't go far enough. So even if
they did pass the UAPDA into law, they would still
(05:18):
need to add extra protections down the road.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
What's the biggest problem you see for these whistleblowers who
who may know something and even maybe even feel compelled
to reveal it, but they don't because they don't feel
they're free to do so.
Speaker 5 (05:32):
Well, I think there's a number of things that play
here that we've seen from testimony, you know, David Grush
being one of them. But you know, they have a
number of hurdles. They have non disclosure agreements, of course,
they have national security agreements. They have threats, intimidation, lots
of different things coming at them from different angles that
(05:53):
you know, make them feel unsafe to be able to
come forward, whether that's financially, whether that's the threat of imprisonment,
the threat of personal physical harm and other things. So
there's a number of different things that present themselves to
different sorts of whistleblowers as to what their potential vulnerabilities
might be.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
See, that's exactly what I want to get to with you,
is these threats and intimidation tactics. Even if we get
legislation that in theory protects these guys technically and legally,
you know, threats and intimidation, that's not like a legal thing,
that's that's a behind the scenes thing anyway. So wouldn't
they still be faced with these challenges.
Speaker 5 (06:30):
Well, that's certainly a possibility. But the idea would be
here that by providing them extra protections, then they're also
providing the means by which to prosecute people who you know,
may be looking to do them harm, whether that's actual
physical harm or it's just the actual threats intivitation. So
you know, there's a number of things that play when
it comes to that.
Speaker 2 (06:51):
You know, we've heard from many different people like Danny
Sheehan who you mentioned, Steven Greer. There's a bunch of
these guys who have said that there's a bunch of
people waiting in the worlds who want to come forward
and share their story, but they can't because of either
the NDA or the things you mentioned classification programs. Do
you know specific people like this yourself, and if so,
(07:13):
how do they frame it? How do they you know,
say that they can't come forward because.
Speaker 5 (07:19):
I don't actually deal with the whistleblowers in direct contact myself.
You know, that goes through other people, you know, people
like Dani San and you know, I would imagine Ivan
Handle who has represented wells ONDO in the past as well,
and others who are you know, experienced attorneys and helping
them navigate you know, the legal intricacies that are involved here.
But I think that you know, through David Grush's testimony,
(07:41):
through the conversations with others, it's clear that, like I
said earlier, that there are a number of issues at
play here where some of them they just have a
not you know, a an NDA which they don't want
to break because of you know, legal repercussions, whether that
might be financial through you know, a private aerospace defense
contractor or that's you know, the government itself, and then
(08:02):
you have the possibility of imprisonment. So there's a number
of things there, and of course obviously there's also those
threats and intimidation what David Crush had characterized as administrative terrorism.
So there's a number of things here. I think that
depends upon the individual that's involved in what their level
of involvement is, and whether that's with the actual government
(08:23):
or whether that's with a you know, a private contractor
you know, you're.
Speaker 2 (08:26):
Talking about these whistleblower protections, and it just seems to
me like we're talking about transparency and protecting people that
want to share this kind of information. Who would be
against this and why it doesn't seem like it's a
partisan issue at all. Why wouldn't every politician just vote
for this immediately.
Speaker 5 (08:44):
Well, you know, I think that, first of all, you're
right that there's a high level of bipartisanship here, and
it's probably one of the only issues in Washington, DC,
and you know, outside of the Beltway that is actually bipartisan.
I mean, there's a very little agreement on anything these days.
But you know, when you see these hearings, by and large,
you know, Democrats Republicans are working together and you know,
(09:06):
trying to get the most out of these hearings and
the most out of their witnesses. And that's also going
on behind the scenes in the work that they're doing
vetting witnesses, you know, vetting the information that they're receiving
from witnesses and that sort of thing, and their discussions
with people like Jeremy Corbell and others. You know, it's
a very bipartisan as far as why wouldn't theologists vote
for it? You know, you're talking about a very special
(09:27):
car ave out when it comes to UAP whistleboard protections.
And so though the UFO UAP issue has reduced stigma
quite a bit, it's a lot to ask for a
congressman or a congresswoman and congress person to vote for
something that they're not sure is actually real in the
sense that we're talking about a non human intelligence or something.
They might think that it might be a national security
(09:49):
black budget program or something like that. But you know,
not all of them are convinced that what we're discussing
today is actual reality to them. And some of them
are are you really well, i should say, not well
informed at all. You know, their staffs might be a
little bit better, but you know, some of the staff
actors gatekeepers themselves. It's not as easy as just, you know,
we shall vote for whistlebower protections because those usually do
(10:12):
pass with bipartisan level of support. You're having a very
special carve out, which in and of itself is a problem,
but you add on top of that the fact that
we're talking about EUAP NHI, then it becomes even more difficult.
So that's why we need to have something into law
like the uap DA or something like it first that
(10:35):
propels them forward to say, okay, we do have to
have these protections because you know, if we set up
the UAP Records Review Board, for example, they need better
access to information. And the way to do that isn't
simply only through subpoena, because you can subpoena somebody, but
they can also plead the Fifth Amendment, so they also
need those extra protections. So that was, you know, something
(10:56):
that would become you know, part of a sequence of
events that would happen. So the UAP and then perhaps
whistle board protections.
Speaker 2 (11:02):
Okay, Kevin, when we come back, we're going to ask
you about what kinds of evidence these potential whistleblowers may have.
You're listening to Beyond Contact on the iHeartRadio and Coast
to Coast am Paranormal podcast network.
Speaker 6 (11:17):
Thanks for listening to iHeartRadio More Captain Rod and Beyond Contact.
We'll be right back.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
Take us with you anywhere.
Speaker 7 (11:30):
This is the iHeart Radio and Coast to Coast AM
Paranormal Podcast Network.
Speaker 6 (11:41):
Thanks for listening to the iHeart Radio and Coast to
Coast AM Paranormal Podcast Network. Now here's more Beyond Contact
with Captain Rod.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
We're back on Beyond Contact. We're speaking with Kevin Wright
from Solve Advocacy. Ken, what kind of evidence do you
think these whistleblowers most commonly claim exists but maybe the
public hasn't seen yet.
Speaker 5 (12:08):
Well, I think that depends upon the quality of the
whistleblower and whether they have firsthand you know, knowledge that's
something that they have seen for their themselves with their
own eyes or touched with, you know, their own hands,
or if they're a secondhand person who has talked to somebody.
You know, some of these things become hearsaved. And therefore,
if we talk about like a criminal court of law
or even a civil court of law, you know, hearsay
(12:29):
is generally admissible. So it has to do with the
quality of the whistle blower. But you know, I think
what we're talking about here with the first hand witnesses
are people who have been inside of the legacy program
in some shape or form and have been part of
a crash retrieval program, who have been out in the
field and retrieved a craft or pieces of craft, biologics
(12:52):
or bodies or whatever you'd like to call them. And
then obviously, you know, there are other ones who have
seen the photographs, seen video, who have done material analysis,
biological analyzes, and others who have you know, a little
less visibility on the subject, but who have read the report,
say like an autopsy report or something like that. So
(13:14):
there's varying levels there, But I think that we generally
agree that if what we're talking about is all true,
then we're talking about people who have had, you know,
firsthand accounts of hands on experience with a crash atrieval
or reverse engineering program, materials analysis, you know, biological evidence,
DNA testing, that sort of thing.
Speaker 2 (13:35):
Wasn't that the big problem with Grush? A lot of
people said that, you know, he wasn't a first hand
witness to a lot of these things, a lot of
it was secondhand, and that was one of the criticisms
of him.
Speaker 5 (13:45):
Well, yeah, but I think that I'm of the belief that,
you know, David Grush has a lot more to tell
with his experience what he has seen. That's just sort
of an educated guess, of course, but I think he
probably has a lot more that he would like to
share if he were allowed to do so. And I
think that if you were allowed to do so, he'd
probably have much more compelling evidence to produce.
Speaker 2 (14:07):
And I would love to see that happen. What's the
compulsion both a lot of us, I'm sure, brother, what's
the compulsion of these people who want to come forward?
Do you think they want to do it because it's
like this is bigger than us as humans or governments
or whatever, because it's like we all have a right
to know this if there's life in the universe.
Speaker 5 (14:26):
I think that it probably depends upon the individual. I
think there are some that have very altruistic reasons that are,
you know, everyone has a right to know this thing.
You know, you can't classify reality, you know, sort of
that mindset. And then there's others who simply object to,
you know, the way the program has been handled, what
allegations of things that have been done to individuals to
(14:47):
cover this up over the course of the last eighty years.
They have, you know, moral objections moral or ethical objections
to those sorts of things. And then there's also probably
people who look at the issue, you know, from more
of a national security of spirit perspective and think that
if it's true that we've made very little to no
progress in you know, the reverse engineering endeavor, then you know,
(15:08):
part of the reason for that is the stove piping
and the compartmentalization of it. And the only way for
us to make better progress against say, some of our
adversaries like a China or something is for us to
bring this out into the more light of the day
so we can get more you know, sharp minds and
scientists and physicists and mathematicians and things onto the subject
so that we can make more progress. Of course, that
(15:29):
might not be true. We might have made tons of progress,
so there might be other reasons. But you know, I
think it depends upon the individual, what their experience is
and what their worldview is. You know, some of those
people who have obviously tried to keep the secret for
the last eighty years have a much more Machiavelian worldview
where I'm fine having this knowledge, I can handle it,
but I deem you unworthy andable of handling the truth.
Speaker 2 (15:53):
So yeah, I actually I actually can get my head
around that viewpoint too. As sad as that is, I can.
I can imagine if depending and how heavy it really is.
I love that phrasing of you can't classify reality. That's yeah,
that should be writing in a book somewhere. Since this
stuff is so classified and kept secret, do you believe
Congress even fully understands the scope of what they're there
(16:15):
to investigate.
Speaker 5 (16:17):
I don't, And I think that's sort of part of
the problem with trying to convince enough members to you know,
rally around legislation like the UAP Disclosure Act, is that
there are not enough members who know enough, and even
some of the members who do have, you know, quite
a bit of information.
Speaker 6 (16:33):
You know.
Speaker 5 (16:34):
Unfortunately, Marco Rubio is now Secretary of State, not no
longer in the United States Senate, but you know, when
he was in the Senate and a member of Intelligence
Committee and others who are on Armed Services and Intelligence
at the time they were doing these investigations, you know,
stemming from the New York Times article in December twenty seventeen.
You'll notice that, you know, immediately in twenty eighteen and
(16:55):
moving forward, you know, there was UAP stuff in and
the NDA and other pieces of legislation in pretty much
every single year as they investigated, as they learned more.
But at the same time, it's a very limited number
of people who have done that investigation, who have had
(17:15):
those briefings from the professional staff on you know, SASK
and SISSY and on the House side, the House Armed
Services Committee and the House Permit Selectivity on intelligence. So
part of my job over the last year and a
half two years has been two brief members of Congress
and their staff into the reality you know that this
is something that is real that they should take better
(17:35):
attention towards and you know, give serious consideration to, you know,
supporting legislation like this, because the vast majority of them
just have no idea.
Speaker 2 (17:44):
Wow, how do they respond to that when you tell them.
Speaker 5 (17:47):
I think it's kind of shock. And one of the
best pieces of evidence that you can provide to the
member of Congress is what the work is of other
members of Congress. And so when you show them, you know,
the UAP Disclosure Act and who spawns it, especially in
twenty twenty three with then Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and
Marco Rubio and others, of course, Mike Browns used the
(18:07):
co sponsor to meet co sponsor there, so I should
leave him out. But they have to take notice and say, oh,
you know, sort of oh my god, you know this
legislation exists. It comes from the United States Senate. You know,
the majority of leader of the United States Senate was
a signator to this legislation. You know, I have to
think that to at least yes, I have to at
least take a second look and consider what it is
that you're telling me.
Speaker 2 (18:28):
Yeah, it was great that those guys did that, because
that does give it that credibility. Do you think if
we get this act passed, or we get some legislation
through that helps whistle blowers, do you think that I'll
move the needle in the general public, because I feel
like we've had all these prominent people come out already
and go on the record and say that this is real,
(18:49):
but for most people that's not proof and doesn't move
the needle.
Speaker 5 (18:52):
Well, I think that we're seeing over the course of
the last several years, you know, poll numbers showing that
more and more Americans are coming to the realization that
the government knows a whole lot more about the issue
of you know, uap UFOs. Then it has led on
and even more people think that the government has not
been honest with truthful or forthcoming with what it is
(19:12):
that they know. And you know, you see these hearings
and it raises the level of awareness, and then you
get a movie like, you know, The Age of Disclosure
by Dan Farrah and you know, one of the top
selling documentaries on Amazon this fall, you know, starting just
you know, before Thanksgiving, and you know, the level of
awareness is going to continue to increase. But what has
(19:33):
to happen next is we have to have a groundswell
of people who are demanding to have the truth. Not
just you know, a few thousand people who you know,
serve on x or Reddit or something else, you know,
that care very much about the subject. But we've got
to get a whole lot more other people to care
about the subject as well. Because once we do that,
then members of Congress have to really start to listen
(19:54):
and pay attention and do some of the hard work
that they're unwilling to do.
Speaker 2 (19:57):
Right now, it's not going fast enough for me. I'll
tell you, I want people to all stand up and
let's get this thing moving forward. Kevin. This goes beyond
just GFOS, right, Like we're talking about this system in
place of classification and keeping patents secret, and it extends
into energy technologies and propulsion systems, and of course including
(20:18):
technologies of unknown origin, like anything significant they somehow want
to make sure they control it. Doesn't it feel that way?
Speaker 5 (20:26):
Well, it's more than just fuel that way, because that's
what exactly has been going on since you know, the
late nineteen forties or the nineteen fifties with classifying you know,
anything and everything. You know, I think that initially post
World War Two, going into you know, the Cold War,
you know, there was a lot of fear of the
Soviet Union, and so a lot of the ideas that
stem from sitting up national security apparatuses the CIA and
(20:49):
things was well intentioned, but you know, it's just sort
of gotten out of control, and it's easier to go
to you know, the de facto it's classified, it's a
national security issue. It's easier just to just do that
than it is to come out with anything or allow
anything to come out. You know, we have an issue
here where the government can claim national security exemptions for
anything and everything that it wants to and it's basically
(21:12):
impossible to even question that from a political stance because
who wants to question whether something is actually a matter
of national security and potentially put lives in danger. And
then the courts are the same way. They pretty much
always defer, you know, to the executive branch on matters
of classification and national security because they don't want to
be left, you know, sitting there holding the bag if
they're wrong and somebody dies as a result, or you know,
(21:34):
something bad happens, right, So it's an impenetrable legal shield
almost that they use to justify, you know, hiding pretty
much anything from like you said, the patents. I think
right now there's like six one hundred something patents under
secrecy orders, you know, and that has anything to do
with energy, energy distribution, and propulsion manufacturing, all kinds of things.
(21:54):
So you have to question where we might be today
if more of these technologies and and ideas wherever we
see the outlight of day, and that would include you know,
what might be learned or might have been learned from
you know, these cross a tree of h We werecessionary programs.
Speaker 2 (22:09):
One hundred percent. I always think if that information on
each of these things was shared, even not the alien stuff,
just our own development. If we shared it with other humans,
and if they were all working on things together, how
much further would be along When we come back, We're
going to ask Kevin who in the government he thinks
has this knowledge about UFOs and even aliens. Is it
a legacy group? What is it? You're listening to be
(22:31):
on Contact on the iHeartRadio and Coast to Coast AM
Paranormal podcast network.
Speaker 1 (22:43):
The art Belvault never disappoints classic audio at your fingertips.
Go now to Coast to cooastam dot com for full details.
The Internet is an extraordinary resource that links our children
to a ward of information, experiences, and ideas. It also
(23:04):
can expose them to risk. Teach your children the basic
safety rules of the virtual world. Our children are everything.
Do everything for them.
Speaker 7 (23:19):
On the iHeartRadio and Coast AM paranol podcast network. Listen
anytime any place.
Speaker 2 (23:35):
We are back on Beyond Contact, we're speaking with Kevin
Wright from Solve Advocacy. Kevin, obviously you're very convinced that
our government, or at least a small cabal within the government,
does have knowledge about this issue. How do you think
this works? Do you think that there's this tiny faction
that really holds onto this knowledge and they're able to
operate within a special access project that's hidden from the
(23:58):
rest of us. Is it a legacy program that stays
exempt from Congress? How do you think it works?
Speaker 5 (24:03):
Well, I think there's probably a number of things that
play here. You know, they call it the legacy program
because it dates back for so long. It's probably changed,
you know, a number of times over the decades, because
you know, if you believe that the literature on the subject,
that it has come close at least once or twice
to having been exposed, once during an investigation by some
(24:24):
staffers the United States Senate, you know, looking into classified
programs and black budgets and that sort of thing, possibly
once or twice other times as well. And so I
think that you know, it's changed over time and how
it operates, and you know, they learned the lessons from
those times in which it might have almost been exposed
and add extra layers of you know, security classification, that
(24:47):
sort of thing. As to you know, the number of
people that actually know, I don't know that we can
even take a guess at that whether that's you know,
ten people or a thousand people. I think we'd probably
be surprised to know that it's probably more people that
have some not the complete picture, but some piece of
the puzzle, because you have so many different parts of
the puzzle in the different locations working on different aspects
(25:09):
of the entirety of the program. But they just don't
have the thirty thousand foot view where they can see
the whole pictures.
Speaker 2 (25:15):
That blind guy touching an elephant thing, right, it's so compartmentalized.
Everybody just gets a little piece.
Speaker 5 (25:20):
Kind of thing, it seems, right, exactly. It's probably extraordinarily complex.
And you know, there are career bureaucrats who go in
and out of government that go into you know, defense
sector companies in and out of there. You know, they
don't call the you know, the revolving door of lobbying
in those sorts of things for nothing, because it's goes
back and forth both ways. You know, it's been alleged
(25:42):
that someone like a Dick Cheney, you know, played some role.
Some people say that he was at the top of
the pyramid of this. You know, I don't know if
that's true or not, but that would show you that
if that remained true until his death. Then you know,
he outlived lots of arts of the program and stayed
inside of it even though he had left government. And
there you know, it also goes to the fact that
there are very few Electric officials, if any at this
(26:04):
present time, that know, you know much of anything about it,
because they are looked at as temporary employees. Absolutely, they
can lose an election and be gone in two years.
With six years if you're in the Senate, you know
you don't have to worry about them again. So why
divulge any of this sort of information to them?
Speaker 2 (26:19):
No need to know. And then also the way they
ship these things off to these private corporations. Now now
we can't even get them from foyer requests or classifications
because they're in these private companies. I mean, it's really incredible.
This is a way more tangled web, I think than
most people realize. You know, there's so many people I
talk to and they continue to say, well, we still
don't really have proof. And you mentioned agent disclosure, which
(26:42):
I thought was surprisingly good. Here we have very high
ranking people willing to risk their reputation and go on
record with some pretty strong claims. Yet there's many people
that say, at the end of the day, they still
don't have enough proof from that. What do you say
to that.
Speaker 5 (26:57):
I think it's sort of just cognitive dissonance, because you know,
there is lots of evidence, you know, historically from the
nineteen forties forward, that we're dealing with something that is
not explainable by US technology or foreign adversary, you know,
and that really begins directly after World War Two and
the build up the atomic warfare assets of the United States,
(27:18):
you know, right from the beginning, from you know, uranium
mining to enrichment, to building the core pits for you know,
the nuclear bombs, to manufacturing of ICBMs to them being
installed in their silos. There were UFOs or uap whatever
you want to call them, orbs, you know, surveilling what
was going on all through that time period. And you know,
(27:39):
in the late nineteen forties early fifties, China was going
through you know, the cultural Revolution, and they were literally
murdering their scientists and doctors and teachers and things, you know,
so you know, that set them back, you know, at
least a generation, and they didn't have their first nuclear
detonation until I think nineteen sixty four or something. I
could be wrong about that. And then of course, you know,
Russia developed their own nuclear devices not longer after we did,
(28:01):
but you know, they certainly didn't have the capability to
do overflight the United States and just surveillance right over
the top, you know, sensitive nuclear and military installations with impunity.
Of course, that would never have been allowed. There's just
no way that would have been kosher with you know,
whether that was Trueman or Eisenhower or anybody else moving forward,
they would never have allowed that. And of course, you know,
(28:22):
the Russians and nobody else had the technologies to be
able to do that sort of thing. So you know,
we have the evidence dating back to there. And then
we have the nineteen seventy one Australian intelligence assessment that
determined that the stigma and everything else have been built
up around UFOs, and you know, the government of the
United States government saying that these things don't exist was
all just you know, a ruse to cover up the
(28:44):
fact that they were in fact looking to you know,
reverse engineer UFOs at least in terms of their capabilities.
And you've had you know, any number of documents and
witnesses and astronauts and military officials coming forward. So, you know,
the thirty two or thirty four people that came forward
in the Age disclosure, you know, we shtill a plot
all of them, but you know, they were preceded by
(29:05):
an equal amount, if not more, of people the decades
who come forward and said the same exact thing, just
nobody else not paying attention.
Speaker 2 (29:12):
Yeah, that's a great point, man. You know, how are
these guys even able to say what they say? You know,
we hear about all these NDAs and classified programs, but
then you watch a movie like that or some of
these other things, and these very high level guys flat
out say we've recovered alien ships, We've seen the beings.
Wouldn't that alone be classified or under some sort of NDA.
(29:35):
It seems like there's a disconnect to me somehow, Well,
you raise a great point. I think that that raises
a question for a lot of people.
Speaker 5 (29:42):
Is you know, how is it that some of these
people can come forward and say the things that they
can without you know, tripping any wires and then also
at the same time know that there's also you know,
a second wire that they you know, are careful careful
not to trip, of course, and you know so part
of that, of course, is the fact that they have
gone through if they're writing a book or something, they've
(30:03):
gone through, you know, the Department of Publication review to
make sure that whatever it is that they're saying they're
writing about doesn't tripp any wires in terms of classification.
And so the thing about that, of course, is that
when they go through that process and they're allowed to
say certain things, that doesn't mean that Department of Defense,
for some other intelligence agency, the fact review goes through
(30:24):
is saying that what they're saying is true. What they're
saying is that you're allowed to say that that you're
not divulging anything that's inherently classified or something like that.
Of Course, you also have the issue here where you know,
if you want to say something and they deny you
the ability to say something, then that gives it, you know,
extra credibility. So I saw a UFO. I want to
be able to say that. Can I say that? And
(30:45):
then they say, yeah, you can say that. That doesn't
mean that they're saying that you saw one and.
Speaker 2 (30:49):
They're not saying that. That doesn't mean that from somewhere
you said I saw a UFO.
Speaker 5 (30:52):
That's right, But if they said you're not allowed to
say that, then that is you know. That's like when
you ask them a question they say, you know, I
can neither confirm nor deny. You know, so X, y
and Z. That's an admission in of itself, right, So
it's sort of the same type of thing there where
if they were to say you're not allowed to say that,
(31:13):
you know that communication in and of itself isn't classified.
So if they went public with, you know, saying I
asked to say something about such and such and they
said no, you're not allowed to do that, then that
is confirmation in of itself. So it's a very tricky situation.
Speaker 2 (31:27):
It really is. And if there is this small legacy cabal,
let's say, let's say there's a small group you threw
out a number of one thousand people maybe, whatever it is,
how do these programs like Arrow or the previous program
Signed Grunge, Bluebook, any of these things get so manipulated.
It seems like these groups are outside of that legacy program,
(31:48):
and yet they seem to be sort of doing their
bidding and pushing the narrative the way that this group wants.
Speaker 5 (31:54):
Well, I think when it comes to Erro. I mean
they are part and parcel of, you know, the cover
up itself, so they may not be The Arrow Office
was not envisioned by Congress to be part of the
Legacy Program.
Speaker 2 (32:06):
But it was to us that it was exactly to
uncover that. Like they were supposed to be the O,
this was going to be the.
Speaker 5 (32:11):
Transparent They also asked. They also asked if the Fox
to guard the Henhouse. There you go, the Department of
Defense to set up this office right and put in
its own people and do these things. You're essentially just
asking the people who do have access to information and
who do have access to the Legacy Program to install
their own people or influence the people that they're installing,
(32:35):
like doctor Sean ka Patrick for example, who was clearly
not interested in the least about you know, having any
sort of transparency with Congress or the American public. You know,
I don't know if most people know this, but we'll
go back to the UAPDA for just a moment. That
when the UAPDA was introduced, it was passed through the
Senate and added to the National Defense Authorization Act, Department
(32:57):
of Defense and AERO, you know, did a deadline sort
of of the legislation and basically striking out all the
things that they didn't want and adding their notes. And
you know, Sean Kirkpatrick did an interview talking about you
know that they did. They objected to it because this
was the job they were already doing with you the
UAP Records Review Board. They were already essentially doing that,
which was far school and in of itself, of course,
(33:18):
you know, saying that it was a waste of tax
payer money. But you know, they lobby Congress and they
readlined the entire amendment. But one of the things that
they wanted to keep in the legislation was them in
a domain. But they didn't want UAP Records Review Board
to get that information or you know, to use or
exercise the powerment domain. They wanted to kept in the
Office of Eerrow what Aero had said. You know, there
(33:39):
was of course no materials to be had because they
went to the Defense contract as a defense contractor said
doesn't exist, you know, case closed. But why would you
want to keep them in that domain?
Speaker 2 (33:49):
Such obvious bullshit, it really is. I mean, I've got
to be honest with you. When I come back, We're
going to ask Kevin what it'll take to get an
official form of disclosure and more importantly, what the fallout
be if we get that you're listening to Beyond Contact
on the iHeartRadio and Coast to Coast AM Paranormal podcast network.
Speaker 7 (34:13):
Hey folks, producer Tom here reminding you to make sure
and check out our official Coast to Coast AM YouTube channel.
For many of us, YouTube is our go to place
for audio visual media, and we here at Coast to
Coast are happy to share free hour long excerpts of
Coast to Coast AM with you, our loyal fans and
new listeners. Our YouTube channel offers many different Coast to
Coast AM hour long pieces of audio on numerous topics,
(34:37):
including uphology, extraterrestrials, conspiracies, strange creatures, prophecies, and much much more.
There's even a section that includes our most popular uploads,
such as many of the David Polaidi shows on people
disappearing in national parks. To visit or subscribe, just go
to YouTube and type in Coast to Coast AM Official,
or you can simply go to the Coast TOCOASTAM dot
(34:59):
com website and click on the YouTube icon at the top.
It's the official Coast to Coast AM YouTube channel. You're
gonna love this. Just get on over to Coast tocoastam
dot com and start your free listening.
Speaker 3 (35:09):
Now, Hi, this is Sandras Champlain. Ever wonder what happens
when we die? Well, I'm going to make it easier
for you to understand. Join me for my show Shades
of the Afterlife. New shows come out every Friday, so
I'll be looking for you right here on the iHeartRadio
(35:32):
and Coast to Coast AM Paranormal Podcast network.
Speaker 1 (35:44):
You're listening to the iHeartRadio and Coast to Coast AM
Paranormal Podcast Now.
Speaker 2 (35:55):
We are back on Beyond Contact. We're speaking with Kevin
Wright from Solve Advocacy. Kevin, what is it going to
take do you think to get some form of official
disclosure from the government.
Speaker 5 (36:05):
Well, I mean that's a great question. I mean there's
a lot of theories on that. You know, there is
a course, the sort of the lawful and orderly way
which is advocated through by the UAP Disclosure Act. You know,
build a you know, a disclosure campaign or you know
the collection, analysis, compilation, and eventual disclosure of disinformation and
(36:26):
these materials biologics or whatever. It is that you know,
we do have possession of whether that's the government itself
or private defense contractors. There is a course other ways
that this could all come out, and that's more often
referred to as so called catastrophic disclosure, in which you know,
a say at China or Russia, somebody you know, beats
the United States government to the punch and comes out
(36:48):
and says, you know, we have discovered something. We've discovered
something that is a non human intelligence and they are
operating craft and in fact, we've retrieved this craft, we've
reversed engineered it, and now you know, we have mastered
this technology, which would overnight, of course, transfer you know,
geopolitical strength largely from the United States and gravitated towards
(37:10):
a Russia or China as you know, the new superpower
to be reckoned with. So you know, that's one way
it could happen. Of course, in other ways, you know,
somebody does come forward with one hundred percent verifiable information,
and that is something that's irrefutable that the government was going.
Speaker 2 (37:29):
To have to be more than pictures, photos, videos today.
Speaker 5 (37:32):
Something you know, something that's irrefutable, that ill pipe or
an arm. Yeah, yeah, but it is my firm belief
that this is going to happen. It's just you know,
how this happen is the question. But when it comes
to compelling our government to finally disclose information, I think
that goes back to our early discussion, which is the
fact that we need to educate the public more properly
(37:54):
to mobilize them into demanding transparency on this issue, thereby
forcing members of Congress to have to address it and
take it seriously. It finally passed legislation.
Speaker 2 (38:06):
Well, what do you think would be the biggest fallout
if the US government did disclose tomorrow morning.
Speaker 5 (38:12):
Well, I think that depends upon what it is that
is ultimately disclosed.
Speaker 2 (38:15):
But by the fact that extraterrestrials have been here, that
from off world, non humans have been to Earth and
we've interact with them, what's the big fallout?
Speaker 5 (38:23):
Well, I think that depends as well, because I think
there's a number of fallouts that happened. One of them is,
if you know, if there is an energy technology production distribution,
something along the lines of a zero point energy you know,
green energy something or rather, then you know, certainly creates
problems for you know, the oil producing countries like Saudi Arabia,
(38:44):
the Middle East, and it creates problems for you know,
our government in the fact that they've kept you know,
this information secret, relied on fossil fuels, included our environment,
while all along for the last sixty seventy eighty years
we could have had energy. I think that's you know,
a significant problem. I think, you know, some people will
affect in different ways. Some people who already have, you know,
(39:07):
a great distrust of our government will become even more distrustful.
Some will question, of course, religion, depending on what the
answer you know ultimately might be. But I think that
rather than focusing on what the fallout is in terms
of any possible negative consequences, I think we also have
to think about positive consequences when it comes to our government.
(39:28):
The greatest thing that it could do to rehabilitate itself
in the eyes of the public who have very low
approval ratings faith and trust and government is to finally
have a mea culpa and come forward and say, here's
the truth, this is what we're going to do to
rectify that and rebuild your trust in the institutions of
our government, in the media, and religion and everything else.
So that we can move forward as a better people.
Speaker 2 (39:51):
You know, do you think it's possible that the truth
behind this phenomenon that this legacy group is aware of
may be way more complicated than most people really are
ready for, Like it goes way past nuts and bolts
craft and it's onto interdimensional beings or spiritual things or
something like that that might be best kept secret.
Speaker 5 (40:12):
Or No, No, I don't think that's true. I mean
I do think it's I think it's true that it's
far more complicated than just an ET or ets coming
from somewhere else in the Solar system or galaxy universe
coming and visiting us, Because I think, you know, in
some ways, as as strange as it may sound, that
almost seems like the most unlikely explanation in a lot
(40:33):
of regards, because of how strange the overall phenomena seems
to be. The ET hypothesis in and of itself does
not explain or come to even close to explaining all
the various aspects of, you know, the discussion that we're
having about the phenomena itself. It's possible that there are
people that are just going to never believe the truth
(40:53):
no matter what, and there are people you are probably
going to argue about the veracity of the truth when
it finally comes out of pre as we're all very
you know, devisive, peaceable these days. You can't see them
to come to agreement on anything, even when evidence is
presented to us. Yeah, I think it depends upon what
the truth ultimately is. But I definitely think it's far
more complicated than just anyone's simple explanation, and it definitely
(41:17):
goes beyond just sort of nutsymbols, craft and biological entities.
Speaker 2 (41:22):
I agree one hundred percent with that. And as much
as I really genuinely applaud these efforts from people like yourself,
from Danny Sheehan and the New Paradigm Institute and you
know the work of Steve Bassett and everyone pushing for
transparency in our right to know, but at the end
of the day, it just feels to me that we,
(41:43):
like some of these politicians, are on a need to
know basis and have zero need to know. From the
Legacy Program's viewpoint, if there is this small faction that
controls this information, I do not see an upside for
them disclosing it to anyone. I see nothing but potential downside.
What do you think.
Speaker 5 (42:02):
Well, I think under present circumstances, that's at least partially true,
because they don't see an upside inasmuch as they fear
that if the truth would come out, regardless of what
the truth might be, they fear that, you know, they're
going to be held accountable, liable, criminally prosecutable, and that
(42:22):
sort of thing. So for them, for that perspective, it
certainly seems that there is no upside, you know, for
this to come out if they are held in that regard.
So that's definitely, definitely a true statement.
Speaker 2 (42:35):
I think when you were talking earlier about all these
ways that the government or this cabal or the legacy program,
I guess I should say is the way they control
this narrative and they nudge things, and they classify things,
and they secrify things. That's not a word. They make
these patents secret. How do you know who's telling the
(42:58):
truth and that they're not part of a disinformation campaign?
Even somebody like as big as lou Elizondo, for example,
you know there's a chance that he's part of a
disinformation campaign. That's possible, right.
Speaker 5 (43:12):
Well, I mean, I think once you start diving down
the rabbit holes of UFOs and UAP and non human intelligence.
You realize that just about anything is possible. While I
do not think that I was onto another and some
of these other people are engaged in disinformation, I don't
think that's you know, the case. But you asked, essentially,
how can you discern sort of the truth amongst you,
(43:33):
all of what is being said and alleged. And you know,
my personal take on it is that, you know, I
read a lot, I listened a lot, you know, I
observe a lot from what people are saying, what they're writing,
what they're doing, and I don't take any of it
to the bank. I sort of just file it away.
And then the next time somebody says something that references,
you know, something that somebody else has said, you know,
(43:55):
I cross reference it and say, okay, well that makes sense,
or well that sounds like garbage because that doesn't jive
with you know, what so and so said. So, you know,
I just kind of try to keep stock of it
all and just keep it filed away, and then you
sort of build up, you know, a library of information,
you know, in your head and in your own writing,
and these sorts of things, and that sort of evolves
(44:16):
over time and you start comparing notes and you start
to think, okay, this is what actually makes sense, you know,
regardless of what so and so just said on a podcast,
you know, especially somebody new on the scene that nobody's
ever heard of, and they're making you know, rather extraordinary
claims or allegations. You know, sometimes some of it does
line up with other things that people have written and
(44:38):
spoken about, and sometimes you know it doesn't, but you
still file all that stuff away because it might come
up again and you cross reference it and you you know,
check your notes and say, okay, you know what so
and so two years ago said something very similar, and
at that time I discounted it as total garbage. But
you know, now this person has come forward and added
you know, context to it, and so maybe now I
(44:59):
need to actually, you know, I'll go back and consider
what it is that's been said here. Again.
Speaker 2 (45:03):
This is such a convoluted thing. It's there's just so
it's just so complex. If you go to contact in
the desert and there's three thousand people there and you
interview each one of them, they're all going to have
their line on what they believe, what they don't believe,
it's just so tangled, so it's hard to know what's
all really true. Absolutely fascinating man.
Speaker 5 (45:25):
Absolutely, I greatly appreciate you having me on and you know,
happy to do so again in the future.
Speaker 2 (45:30):
Awesome. Absolutely, Thanks everyone for listening. You guys can find
Kevin at Solveadvocacy dot com. You can find me on
Twitter and Instagram at CID Underscore Captain Ron. Stay connected
by checking out contact inthedesert dot com. Stay open minded
and rational as we explore the unknown right here on
the iHeartRadio and Coast to Coast am Varnable podcast Now.
Speaker 1 (46:03):
Thanks for listening to the iHeartRadio and Coast to Coast
Day and Paranormal podcast Network.
Speaker 6 (46:07):
Make sure and check out all
Speaker 1 (46:09):
Our shows on the iHeartRadio app or by going to
iHeartRadio dot com.
Welcome to the iHeartRadio and Coast to Coast AM paranormal
podcast network. This is the place to be if you're
ready for the best podcasts of the paranormal, curious, and
sometimes unexplained.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
Now listen to this.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
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 Premiere Networks, or their sponsors
and associates. We would like to encourage you to do
(00:42):
your own research and discover the subject matter for yourself.
Speaker 4 (00:54):
Hey everyone, it's Captain Ron and each week on Beyond
Contact looks for the latest news and upology, discuss some
of the classic cases and bring you the latest information
from the newest.
Speaker 2 (01:06):
Cases as we talk with the top experts. Welcome to
Beyond Contact. I'm Captain Ron, and today we're speaking with
Kevin Wright. Kevin is an advocate for UAP transparency and
is the founder of Solve Advocacy, an organization which is
dedicated to supporting whistleblowers, strengthening oversight, and advancing lawful disclosure.
(01:27):
His work focuses on navigating the complex intersection of national security,
classified programs, congressional oversight, and public accountability. Hey Kevin, welcome,
How you doing man?
Speaker 5 (01:39):
Thank you, Ron, good to see you. How are you today?
Speaker 2 (01:41):
I'm terrific. You know, one interesting thing doing all this
nonsense that I do, is that there are so many
different people who seem to be drawn to this topic
and they found their own unique lane or aspect of
the phenomenon, all of which play an important role. I
feel like they're each another rick in the wall of
us building an understanding of what's happening, whatever that might be,
(02:05):
as well as fighting the truth embargo to try to
get more governmental disclosure to move forward. You are right
there on the front line of this aspect, working with
individuals who have credible information about UAP related programs so
they could come forward safe and responsibly. Tell us what
kind of stuff you're doing to try to get these
(02:25):
potential whistleblowers protection.
Speaker 5 (02:28):
Sure, well, you're absolutely right there. First of all is
that everyone seems to come at it from a different
angle and from different experiences. And you know how I
got into this was that, you know, I've spent twenty
years in Washington, DC, working in politics, and you know,
I saw that there was an effort here to bring
about disclosure. In one of the ways that I could
participate was bringing my expertise in politics and lobbying and
(02:53):
issue advocacy to the table because there wasn't a lot
of that going on. But to better answer your question,
you know, I work a lot with with New Paradigm
Institute and Danny Sheen. Of course I serve as their
congressional liaison here in Washington, d C. So one of
the things that you know, New Paradigm Institute has been
doing is pushing enhanced the UAP with lower protection legislation
(03:15):
and working with members of Congress to you know, find
a sponsor and co sponsors for that legislation and provide
them better protection so they can come forward and share
with Congress first and then the public second. You know
what it is that they have learned, you know, either
as a first hand you know, whistleblower secondhand, wherever the
case may be, and their experiences inside or outside of
(03:39):
the legacy program.
Speaker 2 (03:40):
Do you think that the UAP Disclosure Act is what
we need to kind of get this the one in
its original form, of course, to help get this through
so that people are protected.
Speaker 5 (03:52):
Well, I mean, the UAP Disclosure Actor UAPDA is an
important and historic piece of legislation. It's sort of a
miracle that is even to begin with, to be perfectly
honest with you, because there was no prove real precursor
to it. It was just suddenly offered there. And you know,
Chuck Schumer, he was then the majority leader, and you know,
sort of muscled it into the National Defense Authorization Act
(04:15):
for bisically year twenty twenty four. And you know that
was really sort of a miracle in and of itself too.
He used a lot of parliamentary tactics and things to
get that done. But you know, the legislation is, you know,
all legislation has little flaws to it. There are certainly
things that people looked at that they opposed. Eminent domain
was one of them. But I think that the aminent
(04:36):
domain is actually rather significant and important to the legislation.
But you know, the fact is that it is legislation
that talks about non human intelligence, talks about technologies of
an origin. Obviously uap N identified an almost phenomena, and
you know it's really rather important and whether or not
(04:57):
that is going to be the vehicle that drives disclosure
forward or not remains to be seen. But as it
goes to you know, whistleblowers, that legislation did offer some
additional protections that are not you know, present in law today,
but it certainly doesn't go far enough. So even if
they did pass the UAPDA into law, they would still
(05:18):
need to add extra protections down the road.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
What's the biggest problem you see for these whistleblowers who
who may know something and even maybe even feel compelled
to reveal it, but they don't because they don't feel
they're free to do so.
Speaker 5 (05:32):
Well, I think there's a number of things that play
here that we've seen from testimony, you know, David Grush
being one of them. But you know, they have a
number of hurdles. They have non disclosure agreements, of course,
they have national security agreements. They have threats, intimidation, lots
of different things coming at them from different angles that
(05:53):
you know, make them feel unsafe to be able to
come forward, whether that's financially, whether that's the threat of imprisonment,
the threat of personal physical harm and other things. So
there's a number of different things that present themselves to
different sorts of whistleblowers as to what their potential vulnerabilities
might be.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
See, that's exactly what I want to get to with you,
is these threats and intimidation tactics. Even if we get
legislation that in theory protects these guys technically and legally,
you know, threats and intimidation, that's not like a legal thing,
that's that's a behind the scenes thing anyway. So wouldn't
they still be faced with these challenges.
Speaker 5 (06:30):
Well, that's certainly a possibility. But the idea would be
here that by providing them extra protections, then they're also
providing the means by which to prosecute people who you know,
may be looking to do them harm, whether that's actual
physical harm or it's just the actual threats intivitation. So
you know, there's a number of things that play when
it comes to that.
Speaker 2 (06:51):
You know, we've heard from many different people like Danny
Sheehan who you mentioned, Steven Greer. There's a bunch of
these guys who have said that there's a bunch of
people waiting in the worlds who want to come forward
and share their story, but they can't because of either
the NDA or the things you mentioned classification programs. Do
you know specific people like this yourself, and if so,
(07:13):
how do they frame it? How do they you know,
say that they can't come forward because.
Speaker 5 (07:19):
I don't actually deal with the whistleblowers in direct contact myself.
You know, that goes through other people, you know, people
like Dani San and you know, I would imagine Ivan
Handle who has represented wells ONDO in the past as well,
and others who are you know, experienced attorneys and helping
them navigate you know, the legal intricacies that are involved here.
But I think that you know, through David Grush's testimony,
(07:41):
through the conversations with others, it's clear that, like I
said earlier, that there are a number of issues at
play here where some of them they just have a
not you know, a an NDA which they don't want
to break because of you know, legal repercussions, whether that
might be financial through you know, a private aerospace defense
contractor or that's you know, the government itself, and then
(08:02):
you have the possibility of imprisonment. So there's a number
of things there, and of course obviously there's also those
threats and intimidation what David Crush had characterized as administrative terrorism.
So there's a number of things here. I think that
depends upon the individual that's involved in what their level
of involvement is, and whether that's with the actual government
(08:23):
or whether that's with a you know, a private contractor
you know, you're.
Speaker 2 (08:26):
Talking about these whistleblower protections, and it just seems to
me like we're talking about transparency and protecting people that
want to share this kind of information. Who would be
against this and why it doesn't seem like it's a
partisan issue at all. Why wouldn't every politician just vote
for this immediately.
Speaker 5 (08:44):
Well, you know, I think that, first of all, you're
right that there's a high level of bipartisanship here, and
it's probably one of the only issues in Washington, DC,
and you know, outside of the Beltway that is actually bipartisan.
I mean, there's a very little agreement on anything these days.
But you know, when you see these hearings, by and large,
you know, Democrats Republicans are working together and you know,
(09:06):
trying to get the most out of these hearings and
the most out of their witnesses. And that's also going
on behind the scenes in the work that they're doing
vetting witnesses, you know, vetting the information that they're receiving
from witnesses and that sort of thing, and their discussions
with people like Jeremy Corbell and others. You know, it's
a very bipartisan as far as why wouldn't theologists vote
for it? You know, you're talking about a very special
(09:27):
car ave out when it comes to UAP whistleboard protections.
And so though the UFO UAP issue has reduced stigma
quite a bit, it's a lot to ask for a
congressman or a congresswoman and congress person to vote for
something that they're not sure is actually real in the
sense that we're talking about a non human intelligence or something.
They might think that it might be a national security
(09:49):
black budget program or something like that. But you know,
not all of them are convinced that what we're discussing
today is actual reality to them. And some of them
are are you really well, i should say, not well
informed at all. You know, their staffs might be a
little bit better, but you know, some of the staff
actors gatekeepers themselves. It's not as easy as just, you know,
we shall vote for whistlebower protections because those usually do
(10:12):
pass with bipartisan level of support. You're having a very
special carve out, which in and of itself is a problem,
but you add on top of that the fact that
we're talking about EUAP NHI, then it becomes even more difficult.
So that's why we need to have something into law
like the uap DA or something like it first that
(10:35):
propels them forward to say, okay, we do have to
have these protections because you know, if we set up
the UAP Records Review Board, for example, they need better
access to information. And the way to do that isn't
simply only through subpoena, because you can subpoena somebody, but
they can also plead the Fifth Amendment, so they also
need those extra protections. So that was, you know, something
(10:56):
that would become you know, part of a sequence of
events that would happen. So the UAP and then perhaps
whistle board protections.
Speaker 2 (11:02):
Okay, Kevin, when we come back, we're going to ask
you about what kinds of evidence these potential whistleblowers may have.
You're listening to Beyond Contact on the iHeartRadio and Coast
to Coast am Paranormal podcast network.
Speaker 6 (11:17):
Thanks for listening to iHeartRadio More Captain Rod and Beyond Contact.
We'll be right back.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
Take us with you anywhere.
Speaker 7 (11:30):
This is the iHeart Radio and Coast to Coast AM
Paranormal Podcast Network.
Speaker 6 (11:41):
Thanks for listening to the iHeart Radio and Coast to
Coast AM Paranormal Podcast Network. Now here's more Beyond Contact
with Captain Rod.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
We're back on Beyond Contact. We're speaking with Kevin Wright
from Solve Advocacy. Ken, what kind of evidence do you
think these whistleblowers most commonly claim exists but maybe the
public hasn't seen yet.
Speaker 5 (12:08):
Well, I think that depends upon the quality of the
whistleblower and whether they have firsthand you know, knowledge that's
something that they have seen for their themselves with their
own eyes or touched with, you know, their own hands,
or if they're a secondhand person who has talked to somebody.
You know, some of these things become hearsaved. And therefore,
if we talk about like a criminal court of law
or even a civil court of law, you know, hearsay
(12:29):
is generally admissible. So it has to do with the
quality of the whistle blower. But you know, I think
what we're talking about here with the first hand witnesses
are people who have been inside of the legacy program
in some shape or form and have been part of
a crash retrieval program, who have been out in the
field and retrieved a craft or pieces of craft, biologics
(12:52):
or bodies or whatever you'd like to call them. And
then obviously, you know, there are other ones who have
seen the photographs, seen video, who have done material analysis,
biological analyzes, and others who have you know, a little
less visibility on the subject, but who have read the report,
say like an autopsy report or something like that. So
(13:14):
there's varying levels there, But I think that we generally
agree that if what we're talking about is all true,
then we're talking about people who have had, you know,
firsthand accounts of hands on experience with a crash atrieval
or reverse engineering program, materials analysis, you know, biological evidence,
DNA testing, that sort of thing.
Speaker 2 (13:35):
Wasn't that the big problem with Grush? A lot of
people said that, you know, he wasn't a first hand
witness to a lot of these things, a lot of
it was secondhand, and that was one of the criticisms
of him.
Speaker 5 (13:45):
Well, yeah, but I think that I'm of the belief that,
you know, David Grush has a lot more to tell
with his experience what he has seen. That's just sort
of an educated guess, of course, but I think he
probably has a lot more that he would like to
share if he were allowed to do so. And I
think that if you were allowed to do so, he'd
probably have much more compelling evidence to produce.
Speaker 2 (14:07):
And I would love to see that happen. What's the
compulsion both a lot of us, I'm sure, brother, what's
the compulsion of these people who want to come forward?
Do you think they want to do it because it's
like this is bigger than us as humans or governments
or whatever, because it's like we all have a right
to know this if there's life in the universe.
Speaker 5 (14:26):
I think that it probably depends upon the individual. I
think there are some that have very altruistic reasons that are,
you know, everyone has a right to know this thing.
You know, you can't classify reality, you know, sort of
that mindset. And then there's others who simply object to,
you know, the way the program has been handled, what
allegations of things that have been done to individuals to
(14:47):
cover this up over the course of the last eighty years.
They have, you know, moral objections moral or ethical objections
to those sorts of things. And then there's also probably
people who look at the issue, you know, from more
of a national security of spirit perspective and think that
if it's true that we've made very little to no
progress in you know, the reverse engineering endeavor, then you know,
(15:08):
part of the reason for that is the stove piping
and the compartmentalization of it. And the only way for
us to make better progress against say, some of our
adversaries like a China or something is for us to
bring this out into the more light of the day
so we can get more you know, sharp minds and
scientists and physicists and mathematicians and things onto the subject
so that we can make more progress. Of course, that
(15:29):
might not be true. We might have made tons of progress,
so there might be other reasons. But you know, I
think it depends upon the individual, what their experience is
and what their worldview is. You know, some of those
people who have obviously tried to keep the secret for
the last eighty years have a much more Machiavelian worldview
where I'm fine having this knowledge, I can handle it,
but I deem you unworthy andable of handling the truth.
Speaker 2 (15:53):
So yeah, I actually I actually can get my head
around that viewpoint too. As sad as that is, I can.
I can imagine if depending and how heavy it really is.
I love that phrasing of you can't classify reality. That's yeah,
that should be writing in a book somewhere. Since this
stuff is so classified and kept secret, do you believe
Congress even fully understands the scope of what they're there
(16:15):
to investigate.
Speaker 5 (16:17):
I don't, And I think that's sort of part of
the problem with trying to convince enough members to you know,
rally around legislation like the UAP Disclosure Act, is that
there are not enough members who know enough, and even
some of the members who do have, you know, quite
a bit of information.
Speaker 6 (16:33):
You know.
Speaker 5 (16:34):
Unfortunately, Marco Rubio is now Secretary of State, not no
longer in the United States Senate, but you know, when
he was in the Senate and a member of Intelligence
Committee and others who are on Armed Services and Intelligence
at the time they were doing these investigations, you know,
stemming from the New York Times article in December twenty seventeen.
You'll notice that, you know, immediately in twenty eighteen and
(16:55):
moving forward, you know, there was UAP stuff in and
the NDA and other pieces of legislation in pretty much
every single year as they investigated, as they learned more.
But at the same time, it's a very limited number
of people who have done that investigation, who have had
(17:15):
those briefings from the professional staff on you know, SASK
and SISSY and on the House side, the House Armed
Services Committee and the House Permit Selectivity on intelligence. So
part of my job over the last year and a
half two years has been two brief members of Congress
and their staff into the reality you know that this
is something that is real that they should take better
(17:35):
attention towards and you know, give serious consideration to, you know,
supporting legislation like this, because the vast majority of them
just have no idea.
Speaker 2 (17:44):
Wow, how do they respond to that when you tell them.
Speaker 5 (17:47):
I think it's kind of shock. And one of the
best pieces of evidence that you can provide to the
member of Congress is what the work is of other
members of Congress. And so when you show them, you know,
the UAP Disclosure Act and who spawns it, especially in
twenty twenty three with then Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and
Marco Rubio and others, of course, Mike Browns used the
(18:07):
co sponsor to meet co sponsor there, so I should
leave him out. But they have to take notice and say, oh,
you know, sort of oh my god, you know this
legislation exists. It comes from the United States Senate. You know,
the majority of leader of the United States Senate was
a signator to this legislation. You know, I have to
think that to at least yes, I have to at
least take a second look and consider what it is
that you're telling me.
Speaker 2 (18:28):
Yeah, it was great that those guys did that, because
that does give it that credibility. Do you think if
we get this act passed, or we get some legislation
through that helps whistle blowers, do you think that I'll
move the needle in the general public, because I feel
like we've had all these prominent people come out already
and go on the record and say that this is real,
(18:49):
but for most people that's not proof and doesn't move
the needle.
Speaker 5 (18:52):
Well, I think that we're seeing over the course of
the last several years, you know, poll numbers showing that
more and more Americans are coming to the realization that
the government knows a whole lot more about the issue
of you know, uap UFOs. Then it has led on
and even more people think that the government has not
been honest with truthful or forthcoming with what it is
(19:12):
that they know. And you know, you see these hearings
and it raises the level of awareness, and then you
get a movie like, you know, The Age of Disclosure
by Dan Farrah and you know, one of the top
selling documentaries on Amazon this fall, you know, starting just
you know, before Thanksgiving, and you know, the level of
awareness is going to continue to increase. But what has
(19:33):
to happen next is we have to have a groundswell
of people who are demanding to have the truth. Not
just you know, a few thousand people who you know,
serve on x or Reddit or something else, you know,
that care very much about the subject. But we've got
to get a whole lot more other people to care
about the subject as well. Because once we do that,
then members of Congress have to really start to listen
(19:54):
and pay attention and do some of the hard work
that they're unwilling to do.
Speaker 2 (19:57):
Right now, it's not going fast enough for me. I'll
tell you, I want people to all stand up and
let's get this thing moving forward. Kevin. This goes beyond
just GFOS, right, Like we're talking about this system in
place of classification and keeping patents secret, and it extends
into energy technologies and propulsion systems, and of course including
(20:18):
technologies of unknown origin, like anything significant they somehow want
to make sure they control it. Doesn't it feel that way?
Speaker 5 (20:26):
Well, it's more than just fuel that way, because that's
what exactly has been going on since you know, the
late nineteen forties or the nineteen fifties with classifying you know,
anything and everything. You know, I think that initially post
World War Two, going into you know, the Cold War,
you know, there was a lot of fear of the
Soviet Union, and so a lot of the ideas that
stem from sitting up national security apparatuses the CIA and
(20:49):
things was well intentioned, but you know, it's just sort
of gotten out of control, and it's easier to go
to you know, the de facto it's classified, it's a
national security issue. It's easier just to just do that
than it is to come out with anything or allow
anything to come out. You know, we have an issue
here where the government can claim national security exemptions for
anything and everything that it wants to and it's basically
(21:12):
impossible to even question that from a political stance because
who wants to question whether something is actually a matter
of national security and potentially put lives in danger. And
then the courts are the same way. They pretty much
always defer, you know, to the executive branch on matters
of classification and national security because they don't want to
be left, you know, sitting there holding the bag if
they're wrong and somebody dies as a result, or you know,
(21:34):
something bad happens, right, So it's an impenetrable legal shield
almost that they use to justify, you know, hiding pretty
much anything from like you said, the patents. I think
right now there's like six one hundred something patents under
secrecy orders, you know, and that has anything to do
with energy, energy distribution, and propulsion manufacturing, all kinds of things.
(21:54):
So you have to question where we might be today
if more of these technologies and and ideas wherever we
see the outlight of day, and that would include you know,
what might be learned or might have been learned from
you know, these cross a tree of h We werecessionary programs.
Speaker 2 (22:09):
One hundred percent. I always think if that information on
each of these things was shared, even not the alien stuff,
just our own development. If we shared it with other humans,
and if they were all working on things together, how
much further would be along When we come back, We're
going to ask Kevin who in the government he thinks
has this knowledge about UFOs and even aliens. Is it
a legacy group? What is it? You're listening to be
(22:31):
on Contact on the iHeartRadio and Coast to Coast AM
Paranormal podcast network.
Speaker 1 (22:43):
The art Belvault never disappoints classic audio at your fingertips.
Go now to Coast to cooastam dot com for full details.
The Internet is an extraordinary resource that links our children
to a ward of information, experiences, and ideas. It also
(23:04):
can expose them to risk. Teach your children the basic
safety rules of the virtual world. Our children are everything.
Do everything for them.
Speaker 7 (23:19):
On the iHeartRadio and Coast AM paranol podcast network. Listen
anytime any place.
Speaker 2 (23:35):
We are back on Beyond Contact, we're speaking with Kevin
Wright from Solve Advocacy. Kevin, obviously you're very convinced that
our government, or at least a small cabal within the government,
does have knowledge about this issue. How do you think
this works? Do you think that there's this tiny faction
that really holds onto this knowledge and they're able to
operate within a special access project that's hidden from the
(23:58):
rest of us. Is it a legacy program that stays
exempt from Congress? How do you think it works?
Speaker 5 (24:03):
Well, I think there's probably a number of things that
play here. You know, they call it the legacy program
because it dates back for so long. It's probably changed,
you know, a number of times over the decades, because
you know, if you believe that the literature on the subject,
that it has come close at least once or twice
to having been exposed, once during an investigation by some
(24:24):
staffers the United States Senate, you know, looking into classified
programs and black budgets and that sort of thing, possibly
once or twice other times as well. And so I
think that you know, it's changed over time and how
it operates, and you know, they learned the lessons from
those times in which it might have almost been exposed
and add extra layers of you know, security classification, that
(24:47):
sort of thing. As to you know, the number of
people that actually know, I don't know that we can
even take a guess at that whether that's you know,
ten people or a thousand people. I think we'd probably
be surprised to know that it's probably more people that
have some not the complete picture, but some piece of
the puzzle, because you have so many different parts of
the puzzle in the different locations working on different aspects
(25:09):
of the entirety of the program. But they just don't
have the thirty thousand foot view where they can see
the whole pictures.
Speaker 2 (25:15):
That blind guy touching an elephant thing, right, it's so compartmentalized.
Everybody just gets a little piece.
Speaker 5 (25:20):
Kind of thing, it seems, right, exactly. It's probably extraordinarily complex.
And you know, there are career bureaucrats who go in
and out of government that go into you know, defense
sector companies in and out of there. You know, they
don't call the you know, the revolving door of lobbying
in those sorts of things for nothing, because it's goes
back and forth both ways. You know, it's been alleged
(25:42):
that someone like a Dick Cheney, you know, played some role.
Some people say that he was at the top of
the pyramid of this. You know, I don't know if
that's true or not, but that would show you that
if that remained true until his death. Then you know,
he outlived lots of arts of the program and stayed
inside of it even though he had left government. And
there you know, it also goes to the fact that
there are very few Electric officials, if any at this
(26:04):
present time, that know, you know much of anything about it,
because they are looked at as temporary employees. Absolutely, they
can lose an election and be gone in two years.
With six years if you're in the Senate, you know
you don't have to worry about them again. So why
divulge any of this sort of information to them?
Speaker 2 (26:19):
No need to know. And then also the way they
ship these things off to these private corporations. Now now
we can't even get them from foyer requests or classifications
because they're in these private companies. I mean, it's really incredible.
This is a way more tangled web, I think than
most people realize. You know, there's so many people I
talk to and they continue to say, well, we still
don't really have proof. And you mentioned agent disclosure, which
(26:42):
I thought was surprisingly good. Here we have very high
ranking people willing to risk their reputation and go on
record with some pretty strong claims. Yet there's many people
that say, at the end of the day, they still
don't have enough proof from that. What do you say
to that.
Speaker 5 (26:57):
I think it's sort of just cognitive dissonance, because you know,
there is lots of evidence, you know, historically from the
nineteen forties forward, that we're dealing with something that is
not explainable by US technology or foreign adversary, you know,
and that really begins directly after World War Two and
the build up the atomic warfare assets of the United States,
(27:18):
you know, right from the beginning, from you know, uranium
mining to enrichment, to building the core pits for you know,
the nuclear bombs, to manufacturing of ICBMs to them being
installed in their silos. There were UFOs or uap whatever
you want to call them, orbs, you know, surveilling what
was going on all through that time period. And you know,
(27:39):
in the late nineteen forties early fifties, China was going
through you know, the cultural Revolution, and they were literally
murdering their scientists and doctors and teachers and things, you know,
so you know, that set them back, you know, at
least a generation, and they didn't have their first nuclear
detonation until I think nineteen sixty four or something. I
could be wrong about that. And then of course, you know,
Russia developed their own nuclear devices not longer after we did,
(28:01):
but you know, they certainly didn't have the capability to
do overflight the United States and just surveillance right over
the top, you know, sensitive nuclear and military installations with impunity.
Of course, that would never have been allowed. There's just
no way that would have been kosher with you know,
whether that was Trueman or Eisenhower or anybody else moving forward,
they would never have allowed that. And of course, you know,
(28:22):
the Russians and nobody else had the technologies to be
able to do that sort of thing. So you know,
we have the evidence dating back to there. And then
we have the nineteen seventy one Australian intelligence assessment that
determined that the stigma and everything else have been built
up around UFOs, and you know, the government of the
United States government saying that these things don't exist was
all just you know, a ruse to cover up the
(28:44):
fact that they were in fact looking to you know,
reverse engineer UFOs at least in terms of their capabilities.
And you've had you know, any number of documents and
witnesses and astronauts and military officials coming forward. So, you know,
the thirty two or thirty four people that came forward
in the Age disclosure, you know, we shtill a plot
all of them, but you know, they were preceded by
(29:05):
an equal amount, if not more, of people the decades
who come forward and said the same exact thing, just
nobody else not paying attention.
Speaker 2 (29:12):
Yeah, that's a great point, man. You know, how are
these guys even able to say what they say? You know,
we hear about all these NDAs and classified programs, but
then you watch a movie like that or some of
these other things, and these very high level guys flat
out say we've recovered alien ships, We've seen the beings.
Wouldn't that alone be classified or under some sort of NDA.
(29:35):
It seems like there's a disconnect to me somehow, Well,
you raise a great point. I think that that raises
a question for a lot of people.
Speaker 5 (29:42):
Is you know, how is it that some of these
people can come forward and say the things that they
can without you know, tripping any wires and then also
at the same time know that there's also you know,
a second wire that they you know, are careful careful
not to trip, of course, and you know so part
of that, of course, is the fact that they have
gone through if they're writing a book or something, they've
(30:03):
gone through, you know, the Department of Publication review to
make sure that whatever it is that they're saying they're
writing about doesn't tripp any wires in terms of classification.
And so the thing about that, of course, is that
when they go through that process and they're allowed to
say certain things, that doesn't mean that Department of Defense,
for some other intelligence agency, the fact review goes through
(30:24):
is saying that what they're saying is true. What they're
saying is that you're allowed to say that that you're
not divulging anything that's inherently classified or something like that.
Of Course, you also have the issue here where you know,
if you want to say something and they deny you
the ability to say something, then that gives it, you know,
extra credibility. So I saw a UFO. I want to
be able to say that. Can I say that? And
(30:45):
then they say, yeah, you can say that. That doesn't
mean that they're saying that you saw one and.
Speaker 2 (30:49):
They're not saying that. That doesn't mean that from somewhere
you said I saw a UFO.
Speaker 5 (30:52):
That's right, But if they said you're not allowed to
say that, then that is you know. That's like when
you ask them a question they say, you know, I
can neither confirm nor deny. You know, so X, y
and Z. That's an admission in of itself, right, So
it's sort of the same type of thing there where
if they were to say you're not allowed to say that,
(31:13):
you know that communication in and of itself isn't classified.
So if they went public with, you know, saying I
asked to say something about such and such and they
said no, you're not allowed to do that, then that
is confirmation in of itself. So it's a very tricky situation.
Speaker 2 (31:27):
It really is. And if there is this small legacy cabal,
let's say, let's say there's a small group you threw
out a number of one thousand people maybe, whatever it is,
how do these programs like Arrow or the previous program
Signed Grunge, Bluebook, any of these things get so manipulated.
It seems like these groups are outside of that legacy program,
(31:48):
and yet they seem to be sort of doing their
bidding and pushing the narrative the way that this group wants.
Speaker 5 (31:54):
Well, I think when it comes to Erro. I mean
they are part and parcel of, you know, the cover
up itself, so they may not be The Arrow Office
was not envisioned by Congress to be part of the
Legacy Program.
Speaker 2 (32:06):
But it was to us that it was exactly to
uncover that. Like they were supposed to be the O,
this was going to be the.
Speaker 5 (32:11):
Transparent They also asked. They also asked if the Fox
to guard the Henhouse. There you go, the Department of
Defense to set up this office right and put in
its own people and do these things. You're essentially just
asking the people who do have access to information and
who do have access to the Legacy Program to install
their own people or influence the people that they're installing,
(32:35):
like doctor Sean ka Patrick for example, who was clearly
not interested in the least about you know, having any
sort of transparency with Congress or the American public. You know,
I don't know if most people know this, but we'll
go back to the UAPDA for just a moment. That
when the UAPDA was introduced, it was passed through the
Senate and added to the National Defense Authorization Act, Department
(32:57):
of Defense and AERO, you know, did a deadline sort
of of the legislation and basically striking out all the
things that they didn't want and adding their notes. And
you know, Sean Kirkpatrick did an interview talking about you
know that they did. They objected to it because this
was the job they were already doing with you the
UAP Records Review Board. They were already essentially doing that,
which was far school and in of itself, of course,
(33:18):
you know, saying that it was a waste of tax
payer money. But you know, they lobby Congress and they
readlined the entire amendment. But one of the things that
they wanted to keep in the legislation was them in
a domain. But they didn't want UAP Records Review Board
to get that information or you know, to use or
exercise the powerment domain. They wanted to kept in the
Office of Eerrow what Aero had said. You know, there
(33:39):
was of course no materials to be had because they
went to the Defense contract as a defense contractor said
doesn't exist, you know, case closed. But why would you
want to keep them in that domain?
Speaker 2 (33:49):
Such obvious bullshit, it really is. I mean, I've got
to be honest with you. When I come back, We're
going to ask Kevin what it'll take to get an
official form of disclosure and more importantly, what the fallout
be if we get that you're listening to Beyond Contact
on the iHeartRadio and Coast to Coast AM Paranormal podcast network.
Speaker 7 (34:13):
Hey folks, producer Tom here reminding you to make sure
and check out our official Coast to Coast AM YouTube channel.
For many of us, YouTube is our go to place
for audio visual media, and we here at Coast to
Coast are happy to share free hour long excerpts of
Coast to Coast AM with you, our loyal fans and
new listeners. Our YouTube channel offers many different Coast to
Coast AM hour long pieces of audio on numerous topics,
(34:37):
including uphology, extraterrestrials, conspiracies, strange creatures, prophecies, and much much more.
There's even a section that includes our most popular uploads,
such as many of the David Polaidi shows on people
disappearing in national parks. To visit or subscribe, just go
to YouTube and type in Coast to Coast AM Official,
or you can simply go to the Coast TOCOASTAM dot
(34:59):
com website and click on the YouTube icon at the top.
It's the official Coast to Coast AM YouTube channel. You're
gonna love this. Just get on over to Coast tocoastam
dot com and start your free listening.
Speaker 3 (35:09):
Now, Hi, this is Sandras Champlain. Ever wonder what happens
when we die? Well, I'm going to make it easier
for you to understand. Join me for my show Shades
of the Afterlife. New shows come out every Friday, so
I'll be looking for you right here on the iHeartRadio
(35:32):
and Coast to Coast AM Paranormal Podcast network.
Speaker 1 (35:44):
You're listening to the iHeartRadio and Coast to Coast AM
Paranormal Podcast Now.
Speaker 2 (35:55):
We are back on Beyond Contact. We're speaking with Kevin
Wright from Solve Advocacy. Kevin, what is it going to
take do you think to get some form of official
disclosure from the government.
Speaker 5 (36:05):
Well, I mean that's a great question. I mean there's
a lot of theories on that. You know, there is
a course, the sort of the lawful and orderly way
which is advocated through by the UAP Disclosure Act. You know,
build a you know, a disclosure campaign or you know
the collection, analysis, compilation, and eventual disclosure of disinformation and
(36:26):
these materials biologics or whatever. It is that you know,
we do have possession of whether that's the government itself
or private defense contractors. There is a course other ways
that this could all come out, and that's more often
referred to as so called catastrophic disclosure, in which you know,
a say at China or Russia, somebody you know, beats
the United States government to the punch and comes out
(36:48):
and says, you know, we have discovered something. We've discovered
something that is a non human intelligence and they are
operating craft and in fact, we've retrieved this craft, we've
reversed engineered it, and now you know, we have mastered
this technology, which would overnight, of course, transfer you know,
geopolitical strength largely from the United States and gravitated towards
(37:10):
a Russia or China as you know, the new superpower
to be reckoned with. So you know, that's one way
it could happen. Of course, in other ways, you know,
somebody does come forward with one hundred percent verifiable information,
and that is something that's irrefutable that the government was going.
Speaker 2 (37:29):
To have to be more than pictures, photos, videos today.
Speaker 5 (37:32):
Something you know, something that's irrefutable, that ill pipe or
an arm. Yeah, yeah, but it is my firm belief
that this is going to happen. It's just you know,
how this happen is the question. But when it comes
to compelling our government to finally disclose information, I think
that goes back to our early discussion, which is the
fact that we need to educate the public more properly
(37:54):
to mobilize them into demanding transparency on this issue, thereby
forcing members of Congress to have to address it and
take it seriously. It finally passed legislation.
Speaker 2 (38:06):
Well, what do you think would be the biggest fallout
if the US government did disclose tomorrow morning.
Speaker 5 (38:12):
Well, I think that depends upon what it is that
is ultimately disclosed.
Speaker 2 (38:15):
But by the fact that extraterrestrials have been here, that
from off world, non humans have been to Earth and
we've interact with them, what's the big fallout?
Speaker 5 (38:23):
Well, I think that depends as well, because I think
there's a number of fallouts that happened. One of them is,
if you know, if there is an energy technology production distribution,
something along the lines of a zero point energy you know,
green energy something or rather, then you know, certainly creates
problems for you know, the oil producing countries like Saudi Arabia,
(38:44):
the Middle East, and it creates problems for you know,
our government in the fact that they've kept you know,
this information secret, relied on fossil fuels, included our environment,
while all along for the last sixty seventy eighty years
we could have had energy. I think that's you know,
a significant problem. I think, you know, some people will
affect in different ways. Some people who already have, you know,
(39:07):
a great distrust of our government will become even more distrustful.
Some will question, of course, religion, depending on what the
answer you know ultimately might be. But I think that
rather than focusing on what the fallout is in terms
of any possible negative consequences, I think we also have
to think about positive consequences when it comes to our government.
(39:28):
The greatest thing that it could do to rehabilitate itself
in the eyes of the public who have very low
approval ratings faith and trust and government is to finally
have a mea culpa and come forward and say, here's
the truth, this is what we're going to do to
rectify that and rebuild your trust in the institutions of
our government, in the media, and religion and everything else.
So that we can move forward as a better people.
Speaker 2 (39:51):
You know, do you think it's possible that the truth
behind this phenomenon that this legacy group is aware of
may be way more complicated than most people really are
ready for, Like it goes way past nuts and bolts
craft and it's onto interdimensional beings or spiritual things or
something like that that might be best kept secret.
Speaker 5 (40:12):
Or No, No, I don't think that's true. I mean
I do think it's I think it's true that it's
far more complicated than just an ET or ets coming
from somewhere else in the Solar system or galaxy universe
coming and visiting us, Because I think, you know, in
some ways, as as strange as it may sound, that
almost seems like the most unlikely explanation in a lot
(40:33):
of regards, because of how strange the overall phenomena seems
to be. The ET hypothesis in and of itself does
not explain or come to even close to explaining all
the various aspects of, you know, the discussion that we're
having about the phenomena itself. It's possible that there are
people that are just going to never believe the truth
(40:53):
no matter what, and there are people you are probably
going to argue about the veracity of the truth when
it finally comes out of pre as we're all very
you know, devisive, peaceable these days. You can't see them
to come to agreement on anything, even when evidence is
presented to us. Yeah, I think it depends upon what
the truth ultimately is. But I definitely think it's far
more complicated than just anyone's simple explanation, and it definitely
(41:17):
goes beyond just sort of nutsymbols, craft and biological entities.
Speaker 2 (41:22):
I agree one hundred percent with that. And as much
as I really genuinely applaud these efforts from people like yourself,
from Danny Sheehan and the New Paradigm Institute and you
know the work of Steve Bassett and everyone pushing for
transparency in our right to know, but at the end
of the day, it just feels to me that we,
(41:43):
like some of these politicians, are on a need to
know basis and have zero need to know. From the
Legacy Program's viewpoint, if there is this small faction that
controls this information, I do not see an upside for
them disclosing it to anyone. I see nothing but potential downside.
What do you think.
Speaker 5 (42:02):
Well, I think under present circumstances, that's at least partially true,
because they don't see an upside inasmuch as they fear
that if the truth would come out, regardless of what
the truth might be, they fear that, you know, they're
going to be held accountable, liable, criminally prosecutable, and that
(42:22):
sort of thing. So for them, for that perspective, it
certainly seems that there is no upside, you know, for
this to come out if they are held in that regard.
So that's definitely, definitely a true statement.
Speaker 2 (42:35):
I think when you were talking earlier about all these
ways that the government or this cabal or the legacy program,
I guess I should say is the way they control
this narrative and they nudge things, and they classify things,
and they secrify things. That's not a word. They make
these patents secret. How do you know who's telling the
(42:58):
truth and that they're not part of a disinformation campaign?
Even somebody like as big as lou Elizondo, for example,
you know there's a chance that he's part of a
disinformation campaign. That's possible, right.
Speaker 5 (43:12):
Well, I mean, I think once you start diving down
the rabbit holes of UFOs and UAP and non human intelligence.
You realize that just about anything is possible. While I
do not think that I was onto another and some
of these other people are engaged in disinformation, I don't
think that's you know, the case. But you asked, essentially,
how can you discern sort of the truth amongst you,
(43:33):
all of what is being said and alleged. And you know,
my personal take on it is that, you know, I
read a lot, I listened a lot, you know, I
observe a lot from what people are saying, what they're writing,
what they're doing, and I don't take any of it
to the bank. I sort of just file it away.
And then the next time somebody says something that references,
you know, something that somebody else has said, you know,
(43:55):
I cross reference it and say, okay, well that makes sense,
or well that sounds like garbage because that doesn't jive
with you know, what so and so said. So, you know,
I just kind of try to keep stock of it
all and just keep it filed away, and then you
sort of build up, you know, a library of information,
you know, in your head and in your own writing,
and these sorts of things, and that sort of evolves
(44:16):
over time and you start comparing notes and you start
to think, okay, this is what actually makes sense, you know,
regardless of what so and so just said on a podcast,
you know, especially somebody new on the scene that nobody's
ever heard of, and they're making you know, rather extraordinary
claims or allegations. You know, sometimes some of it does
line up with other things that people have written and
(44:38):
spoken about, and sometimes you know it doesn't, but you
still file all that stuff away because it might come
up again and you cross reference it and you you know,
check your notes and say, okay, you know what so
and so two years ago said something very similar, and
at that time I discounted it as total garbage. But
you know, now this person has come forward and added
you know, context to it, and so maybe now I
(44:59):
need to actually, you know, I'll go back and consider
what it is that's been said here. Again.
Speaker 2 (45:03):
This is such a convoluted thing. It's there's just so
it's just so complex. If you go to contact in
the desert and there's three thousand people there and you
interview each one of them, they're all going to have
their line on what they believe, what they don't believe,
it's just so tangled, so it's hard to know what's
all really true. Absolutely fascinating man.
Speaker 5 (45:25):
Absolutely, I greatly appreciate you having me on and you know,
happy to do so again in the future.
Speaker 2 (45:30):
Awesome. Absolutely, Thanks everyone for listening. You guys can find
Kevin at Solveadvocacy dot com. You can find me on
Twitter and Instagram at CID Underscore Captain Ron. Stay connected
by checking out contact inthedesert dot com. Stay open minded
and rational as we explore the unknown right here on
the iHeartRadio and Coast to Coast am Varnable podcast Now.
Speaker 1 (46:03):
Thanks for listening to the iHeartRadio and Coast to Coast
Day and Paranormal podcast Network.
Speaker 6 (46:07):
Make sure and check out all
Speaker 1 (46:09):
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
Two Guys, Five Rings: Matt, Bowen & The Olympics
Two Guys (Bowen Yang and Matt Rogers). Five Rings (you know, from the Olympics logo). One essential podcast for the 2026 Milan-Cortina Winter Olympics. Bowen Yang (SNL, Wicked) and Matt Rogers (Palm Royale, No Good Deed) of Las Culturistas are back for a second season of Two Guys, Five Rings, a collaboration with NBC Sports and iHeartRadio. In this 15-episode event, Bowen and Matt discuss the top storylines, obsess over Italian culture, and find out what really goes on in the Olympic Village.
iHeartOlympics: The Latest
Listen to the latest news from the 2026 Winter Olympics.
Milan Cortina Winter Olympics
The 2026 Winter Olympics in Milan Cortina are here and have everyone talking. iHeartPodcasts is buzzing with content in honor of the XXV Winter Olympics We’re bringing you episodes from a variety of iHeartPodcast shows to help you keep up with the action. Follow Milan Cortina Winter Olympics so you don’t miss any coverage of the 2026 Winter Olympics, and if you like what you hear, be sure to follow each Podcast in the feed for more great content from iHeartPodcasts.