3I/Atlas and The Quest for Truth with Prof Simon Holland

In this episode, host UAPLee engages with science filmmaker professor Simon Holland to explore the intriguing interstellar object 3I Atlas, its peculiar characteristics, and the implications of its existence. They discuss the nature of UAPs, the potential for non-human intelligence, and the challenges faced by scientists in a community that may suppress unconventional ideas.

The conversation delves into the military-industrial complex's role in research and the fascinating concept of a sphere network that may protect Earth from external threats. In this conversation, Simon Holland, a filmmaker, delves into the complexities of UAPs, alternate realities, and the intersection of quantum physics and consciousness.

He discusses the phenomenon of remote viewing, the military's interest in UAPs, and the enigmatic Rendlesham Forest case. Holland emphasizes the role of the Department of Energy in UAP research and speculates on the future of disclosure regarding extraterrestrial life. He concludes with a hopeful message about the abundance of life beyond Earth and the importance of staying vigilant about the truth.

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/across-the-pond--6537033/support.

LEAVE US THOSE 5 STAR REVIEWS! THEY REALLY HELP US! 

Visit our website for all the latest and buy Guys books at:
https://www.acrossthepondpodcast.co.uk/

We run on Coffee! Want to buy us one?
https://coff.ee/acrossthepondpod

Join our Facebook group and discuss this episode:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1374944543747219

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
You know, for effect, dear our aliens, our difference is
worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat.
Perhaps we need some outside universal threat to make us

(00:21):
recognize this common bound. Breaking news tonight, Sean Diddy Combs
has been arrested in an unhappy hotel. There's a relation
to some comments that you made on a Facebook page.

Speaker 2 (00:46):
This is a Fox News alert. The Epstein files have
been released.

Speaker 3 (00:51):
Across the Pond.

Speaker 2 (00:54):
You're looking at now, sir. Everything that happens now is
happening for sure.

Speaker 4 (00:59):
Now, good evening, and welcome to another episode of Across
the Pond. You with me up Lee your host, and
I'm back again, and this time we've got some very
interesting news to bring it, and we've also got an
incredible guest as well. We're going to be joined by
Professor Simon Holland, a man of science, a scienceist himself,

(01:21):
as the name suggests, Professor Simon Holland, and also a
filmmaker as well.

Speaker 3 (01:25):
I believe so.

Speaker 4 (01:27):
But we're going to talk about the science aspects of
things tonight. So professor, thank you so much for joining us.

Speaker 2 (01:32):
It's an absolute joy.

Speaker 5 (01:34):
I guess I probably just have to slightly correct your
introduction is that I'm pleased.

Speaker 2 (01:39):
I am.

Speaker 5 (01:40):
I'm a science filmmaker, and I don't have a PhD
in science.

Speaker 2 (01:46):
I taught at the university.

Speaker 5 (01:49):
But but I've spent my entire life working on Horizon,
Tomorrow's World, PBS Discovery Channel, National Geographic And you know
that's so when retied worrying from broadcast science, I have
all these amazing contacts, and you know, my life has
been surrounded by scientists. So there's a whole lot of

(02:12):
really good science films that I like to bring to people.
And you know, and I know how to talk to scientists,
but I mean, you know, I guess I get things wrong.
I make mistakes. I'm not a scientists, but I ask
people who do know.

Speaker 3 (02:26):
Well, scientists get things wrong too, so we don't need to.

Speaker 2 (02:30):
Well, that's the whole point of science, isn't it.

Speaker 5 (02:33):
I mean exactly, You update the science when you get
new data.

Speaker 2 (02:37):
Yeah. No, that's the best thing about science. It's not
a belief system. It's not a religion. One of the
things it's about killing your babies.

Speaker 3 (02:47):
One of the things I love about science is it
is fact.

Speaker 4 (02:49):
It's factual, you know, it's it's data set you know
there's there's too much for me out there.

Speaker 3 (02:55):
It's just conjecture, you know. I like that.

Speaker 4 (02:57):
I like things to I like to know how things were,
can know that the science behind it. I've always had
a fascination with physics, well, pretty much from being an adult. Obviously,
I was like any other child like me, getting distracted
easily at school. You only find out in later life
what you find interested and take a passion in it,
and physics is something for me that I just love.

Speaker 3 (03:16):
I really find it fascinated.

Speaker 4 (03:18):
So the reason why I've got you on to that, Simon,
is to chat about three Eye Atlas. So we've got
this interstellar object that's come into our solar system a
number of months ago.

Speaker 3 (03:29):
It first observed on the first of.

Speaker 4 (03:31):
July, I believe, and it seems seemingly has got weirder
and weirdest since then. I think they hailed it as
a comet initially. I think they're still thinking that now. However,
the more and more the signs come out, and the
more and more things are discovered about this particular object,
the stranger it gets and the more it doesn't look
like a comet. So what's your take on the whole
thing from start to where we are now.

Speaker 5 (03:53):
Well, I absolutely love how it was found, of course,
because I worked with the Atlas team. Three I Atlas,
the third interstellar I Interstellar Atlas Atlas.

Speaker 2 (04:06):
Yeah, hey guys from Atlas. So they are a wide field.

Speaker 5 (04:13):
Asteroid hunter, both in the northern and southern hemisphere. They've
got two telescopes in Hawaii, one in Chile that found
three Eye Atlas, and one in South America, no South
Africa even and so they've got both hemispheres covered. And
what's unique about it is they take four while wide
field pictures every night and anything they pars it, anything

(04:36):
that it doesn't move goes away, and anything that changes
in brightness or moves they find. And this object would
never have been found by anybody else. It's right when
they first spotted there's incredibly fast.

Speaker 2 (04:52):
Moving object and they, you know, it was like what
is it?

Speaker 5 (04:55):
It's right lined up with the center of our galaxy.
So it's covered in stars and if you look at
the original pictures, the star stars start and there there's
one we thing that is hopping across incredible speed, and
that was the clue. Things in our solar system have
a maximum speed. And this definitely was a visitor from Afar.

(05:19):
It was just you know, the speed alone was the
proof that it it had interstellar acceleration and had come
from outside of our Solar system.

Speaker 2 (05:30):
So that's super exciting.

Speaker 5 (05:33):
You know, we kind of assumed that everything outside, I mean,
it's still come from our galaxy, but it's very big
Eric galaxy. We assumed that everything is roughly the same.
But I think that's what's so interesting about a more
and more And the second one that I can't remember
its name, and three ions is that they are bars
of exactly they you know, they are different and we

(05:57):
can't expect it to like a normal comet. Comets come
from the distant bits of our of our solar system,
you know, they or belt or whatever it's called. And
you know they have characteristics. They tend to be friable,
they tend to have they you evaporate as they get
nearer the time, and have a the stick tail.

Speaker 2 (06:18):
This guy is different. This guy isn't from around here.
You know.

Speaker 5 (06:23):
It's it's alien, not like us. You know, it's bad
enough with another age, but for me, it's a monster
from outer space.

Speaker 2 (06:32):
Sorry.

Speaker 4 (06:32):
Yeah, so if we you know, just just to put
it into context for people that maybe are tuning in
and don't maybe don't know what too much about what
we're talking about when we're thinking about comets or where
we're thinking as far as three eye Atlas is concerned,
and what makes it peculiar. The first things that people discovered,
and Avilade mentioned it on a number of times now
and various podcasts that has appeared on, is that the

(06:55):
chances of it coming in at the angle that it's
coming in at as our soul is system, Because usually
things come in like a mowork came from above and
it flew in and then veered off pretty much out
the way it came.

Speaker 3 (07:07):
But then this one's coming in at an angle that's
almost on the ecliptic plane. So it's the chances of it.

Speaker 4 (07:14):
Happening like that a point zero five zero five percent
something of one in five hundred ridiculous. So that was
the first thing that's obviously smells a bit funny. The
second thing, obviously is the comet's tail. Usually, as you
mentioned already, when objects from coming from the outside the
solar system approached the Sun, the gases and whatever else

(07:35):
is omitted comes out behind through solar winds and all
the rest of it.

Speaker 3 (07:38):
This thing has a tail to the front.

Speaker 4 (07:41):
And it's only now starting to show signs of a
tail out the back, which is kind of so I'm
not going to jump to the speculation that this scene
is artificial. Some people do say that, and some people
do firmly stand by the fact that it's a comet.
One thing I heard yesterday that was quite interesting, and
I thought about it before I heard it, and someone

(08:02):
else suggested it as scientists suggested. The fact that once
you start coming into our solar system, obviously you come
into contact with crazy kind of levels of radiation things
that would harm individuals on board a ship per se,
or whatever biological there are on board.

Speaker 3 (08:18):
Said object.

Speaker 4 (08:20):
The fact that this thing's still throwing stuff out to
the front. Could it be a possibility or would we
could we say that it's not within the realms of
possibility that this thing could be creating some kind of
artificial atmosphere ahead of itself to deflect radiation, much the
same as our atmosphere shield. What do you think of
that potentially being theoretical?

Speaker 5 (08:42):
What? I have no idea, but but I mean, but
I think Aveylo really nailed it when he said, you know,
if you showed somebody a weird object from the twenty
first century and you're a caveman, they would look at
it in the you know, the headphones and they would
go black rock. You know, because so at a very

(09:04):
advanced piece of technology, we wouldn't necessarily recognize it.

Speaker 2 (09:10):
We would say comments.

Speaker 5 (09:11):
You know, well it might not be you know, so yeah, No,
the characteristics, as you say, very clearly, it's showing strange outgassing,
the forward tail, some of the chemical signatures, and there's
a lot of interest in it. I mean, every telescope
has been looking at it. I'm sure also radio telescopes

(09:34):
have been listening as if if there's any you know,
emission em frequencies being transmitted from it. That certainly happened
with them more because we were interested to wonder if
you know, it wasn't a mothership gathering data from uh,
you know, from drones or sensors in our solar system

(09:56):
which has been have been monitoring Earth or something, and
it was coming back it was it was picking up
that data. There was no evidence that it was. But
in this case, again it's coming very very close to
you know, the inner planets, which is which is odd.
We have to make it very clear that we are

(10:17):
very lucky that we're going to be on the other
side of the Sun when it zooms past where Earth
would have been, where literally got our sun on between
us and it, which is good.

Speaker 2 (10:29):
But what's it doing?

Speaker 5 (10:31):
I think the first what any signs of it changing course? Uh,
you know, slowing down, doing anything weird, obviously emitting them radiation, uh,
your frequencies or anything would be. And then the other
big thing is how will it transit our star the
Sun and then go off? Is is it on a course?

(10:55):
Is it on a trajectory to go not around there
and go away, but goes around there and goes off
somewhere else.

Speaker 2 (11:01):
You go, Oh, it's under intelligent control.

Speaker 5 (11:05):
There's nothing that we're seeing apart from as you clearly said, it's.

Speaker 2 (11:09):
Choice or or or whatever is.

Speaker 5 (11:13):
You know, whatever powered it into our solar system has
chosen a very direct course to to the more interesting
inner planets.

Speaker 4 (11:22):
Yeah, so there's and again just to just to throw
some more things in there that just make this thing
a little bit more strange. There is one thing that's
been mentioned is the fact that this thing seems to
be creating its own light, not similar with what would
be off I was very interested in, right, and also

(11:43):
another thing that makes them even strange.

Speaker 2 (11:45):
I'm very very bit sure.

Speaker 3 (11:47):
God no, just.

Speaker 2 (11:48):
I when I heard when I heard.

Speaker 5 (11:50):
The light thing, I just went, oh, that is super interesting.

Speaker 2 (11:57):
I think there's a I'm really like you.

Speaker 5 (12:02):
My real passion is a history of physics, and one
of the most interesting aspects of physics are electron decay
and photons. What makes light, And so when anything is
emitting photons we call light, it's going under through a
very very limited number of processes, and the most common

(12:25):
process is that normal matter has become super energized. So
electrons go out to a higher orbit, higher than they
normally like to rest at, and then when they that
energy is lost, they return to their more stabili or

(12:45):
and emit photons. So it implies if the thing is glowing,
it's implying to me that the some energy source in it,
or the speed.

Speaker 2 (12:56):
Of it through space could ease be a photon producer.

Speaker 5 (13:04):
I'm fascinated by anything that makes photons.

Speaker 4 (13:08):
Yeah, and just tying into that what makes it again
that you know, you could say that that's strange in itself.
But then they obviously tied something to that and an
irrational piece of logic, which is, well, this thing must
be of a certain size. So estimations on the size
of this thing were quite big, to say the least
initially maybe you know, rather in the hundreds of kilometers wide.

(13:30):
But and now what they've seen is that this thing
is tiny basically, and they've connected obviously with the amount
of light that's been emitted from this thing and the
consistency of which the light's being emitted, and the size
of this would suggest that whatever is powering this and
something has to be powering it for it to be
making its own light. As you've mentioned, it has to

(13:50):
be producing at least ten gigawa. Now that's quite a
lot of energy, but on something so small, Yeah, what
the hell could that be that's creating that kind of energy?
That isn't our official that we know about with our
current standard of physics.

Speaker 2 (14:03):
Yeah, I think we don't.

Speaker 5 (14:05):
I mean, apart from its energy of transiting, uh, and
it's going very fast, but that if that's the power level,
that's more probably more energy than it would just be
caused by movement, friction and whatever you know, through through space. Yeah, no,

(14:25):
there's it's quite likely that there's some process is going on.
But that's why it's so interesting, because it's not it's.

Speaker 2 (14:33):
Not from around here, it's.

Speaker 5 (14:35):
It's it's you know, it's a it's a visitor from
a from outside of our solar system. So I think,
you know, when we talk about U A p or
UFOs or aliens, I think we we bring a human
terror planet Earth's viewpoint to everything. And you know, like
the amazing announcement today of life, ancient life and more,

(15:00):
which is brilliant, well done NASA.

Speaker 2 (15:04):
We what they have probably.

Speaker 5 (15:07):
Found is ancient, ancient, ancient evidence evidence of bacterial life
on Mars, which is similar to what we see on Earth.

Speaker 2 (15:15):
But I think I think.

Speaker 5 (15:17):
We're we're being blind. We're blind to a bigger picture.
I mean, I really think that that we have non
human intelligence here on Earth, that UAP are real, they're
global and American needs to catch up, which we'll talk about.
But but they're not like anything like us. I think

(15:39):
we are stranger than they are, and I think we're
we can't keep on looking for things that look like
us with five fingers, you know, when we see things
with three fingers in Peru or we see with stuff
in the sky. We have to be more open minded
about you know, the classic quote is our trek, it's

(16:00):
life gym, but not as we know it's We have
to be more open minded.

Speaker 2 (16:06):
Energy.

Speaker 5 (16:07):
Plasma is a conscious being. If you just even make
plasma in your microwave with a grape and you make
an ionized ball of plasma, it takes defensive action. If
you want to go and grab it, it would move away.
Why is it conscious? Is it a living organism?

Speaker 2 (16:28):
What is life? I mean, I think and not.

Speaker 5 (16:31):
I think those big questions are what we should be
asking as the UFO community, and that people are interested
in phenomenon and UAP.

Speaker 2 (16:42):
We have to think.

Speaker 5 (16:43):
They're not aluminum spacecraft, they're not little green men. They're
a phenomenon. They're here, they're global, they're here on Earth,
they always have been.

Speaker 2 (16:53):
And we have to think about it. And you know,
there's lots of clues.

Speaker 4 (16:57):
Yeah there is, there is, and you know, get into
it when we mentioned the hearings anyway, because you know,
I think it's obvious, it's very obvious. I think at
this point that there's there's a cover up of monumental
skills going back decades and decades. That's without question, I
think at this stage. But where does that stop? It's
the question, you know, is it just U a P
Or is there other subjects and technologies and topics that

(17:21):
are within this shroud of suppression. But there's something we
talk about a lot on this podcast is you know,
the secrets that would and could could come tumbling out
if the right people were squeezed, you know, but particularly
to this subject alone, I think, I mean, again, a
lot of us in this, in this, in this, in
this arena know that there's a hell of a lot
more to this than it's been let on.

Speaker 3 (17:42):
The technologies that.

Speaker 4 (17:43):
Are out there and available, you know, I think we
are capable of doing the things that these ships do,
these crafts that people see do, the reverse engineered element
of things. Again, at this stage, I think that's that's
sure given you know the amount of witnesses and people
that have tested to that fact that we've got reverse
engineered craft I think again at this stage that's a given.

(18:05):
So do they know more about the three I atlis situation?

Speaker 3 (18:09):
Who knows? It makes sense not to?

Speaker 5 (18:14):
Right? Right, I'm not hearing The astronomy community are pretty
good although I've recently had this massive worry about how
open SETI are.

Speaker 2 (18:28):
They are being incredibly closed releasing early data.

Speaker 5 (18:36):
They really don't want to say anything speculative or release
stuff which you know is has low probability, which I
think they should and I think but generally the astronomy community,
because it's global, because they need to have telescopes all
over the world looking at.

Speaker 2 (18:56):
Stuff, they share everything openly.

Speaker 5 (19:00):
I'm not hearing on any grapevine from that community that
three I Atlas is is sinister or of of I mean,
I think the astronomy community have really jumped on Avy Lobe.
You know, they you know, they they they don't like
some of the speculation that he's been saying. I do

(19:22):
like him because I think he's you know, the wonderful
things he says, like you know, if you if you
if you open your door and you know, and there's
a rock outside, you know, some neighbor through it at you.

Speaker 2 (19:37):
Well, one day.

Speaker 5 (19:38):
You're going to open the door and you're going to
see a tennis ball, you know, and that that kind
of thinking really, as a filmmaker and as somebody who's
worked in media, that really evokes the understanding of what
it's like to have to possibly have alien contact. And
I think he's doing a great job. Uh No, And

(19:58):
a lot of the science community t are very kind
of closed to any kind of speculative thought whatsoever and
dismiss anything as hope.

Speaker 2 (20:07):
Come, you know, and I think I think we should
be we should we should be open minded about it all.

Speaker 5 (20:13):
And and come, you know, I think the our community,
you know, social media science as I call it, you know,
as asking really good questions about three the outlets. I mean,
I see daily podcasts from the Angry Astronauts.

Speaker 2 (20:29):
You know he.

Speaker 5 (20:31):
You know, yeah, he's great, I mean, nice guy as well.
So I mean, you know, we've been on together, you know,
to talk about things that you know, it's speculative, but
it's a good question. Whereas a lot of a lot
of the more established science channels don't want to do
anything like that. They only want uh peer reviews, article

(20:55):
and new scientists before that comes on their show. Well,
I'm much more brave and to talk about stuff which
is possibly out there and some of it will be
rubbish and some of it might be right.

Speaker 4 (21:09):
So yeah, and you know what I will ask as
well at this point, I will ask this on physics.
Since we're on the topic of science, is there a
feeling within the scientific community with its particularly physics, that
there is some kind of suppressing or suppression placed upon it.
I you know, you hear these stories over the years

(21:31):
of various physicists making breakthroughs and then when they've put
the pattern in their research disappears, and so do they
And it's peculiar, to say the least, going all the
way back to Nicola, Tesla, and there seems to have
been this stop in physics.

Speaker 3 (21:44):
We just hit hit this brick wall.

Speaker 4 (21:46):
And I understand that, you know, to get beyond some
of these theories, there has to be extensive research and
peer reviews and you know, due process. But is there
feeling within the scientific community that there is some kind
of levels of suppress almost the ceiling that's been placed
there that stops them going beyond.

Speaker 2 (22:04):
Definitely there is, oh, yeah, definitely, I mean, yeah, yeah.
Sabine talks about it a lot.

Speaker 5 (22:10):
I mean, and absolutely, you really just don't get funding
unless you toe the line, I mean, and then you
can spend your entire life as a scientist basically just
going from one obvious grant extension to another. And you
know you you try and poke the bear and say
I'm interested in you. Ever, oh yeah, you don't get

(22:32):
funded for that, you know you don't. It has to
be And then the other I think more conspiratorial.

Speaker 2 (22:40):
But I think actually true.

Speaker 5 (22:42):
Thing about physics is physics changed with the Manhattan Project
because physics made a weapon from it turned a blackboard
equation which was no way going to work.

Speaker 2 (22:58):
It was just rubbish.

Speaker 5 (22:59):
But by a lot of resources and a lot of
clever out of the box thinking and getting a lot
of things wrong, they built a bomb. They built a
weapons system based on physics, and the military went, we
want the next one. And I think I think since
Trinity and the Manhattan Project, the military have been the

(23:23):
biggest funder for any research. I see this my contacts
in places like Cavendish Labs and Cambridge I mean, or
even Harriet Watts.

Speaker 2 (23:34):
People I know that all the really big.

Speaker 5 (23:38):
Research is linked to the weaponization of physics.

Speaker 4 (23:43):
Well said it himself, didn't he. And he said it'd
beware the might of the military complex. That is one
of the things he said. And that's posts apparently when
a USA, and again this is just conjecture, the USA
made a deal with NHI in you know, in exchange
in program it said for technology and exchange.

Speaker 3 (24:01):
For human flesh. Essentially, this is what the conjecture is.

Speaker 4 (24:05):
But then a number of years later, actually he said
that would be where the might of the military complex
as a warning to suggest that the military are the
ones that obviously got the Roswell reverse engine the craft
from the Roswell. They didn't know what to do with it,
so they found it out to the aerospace companies, in
this case Lockheed raytheon Grumman, And that I think is

(24:27):
what he meant when he said be where the might
of the military complex, because that technology and the potential
for that technology then laid within the hands of non
non elected officials, which is again what we see today.
You know, we see elected officials are essentially temporary staff.

Speaker 3 (24:43):
They're locked out.

Speaker 4 (24:44):
This is why we're having big issues with the UAP
program right now, because they're just not letting these temporary
staff employees, i e. Prime ministers, you know, Ministers of Parliament, congressmen,
et cetera, et cetera.

Speaker 3 (24:55):
They just won't let them anywhere near it. For that reason.

Speaker 4 (24:57):
It's too valuable information for some. But who's not going
to be an office for more than four years to know.
So there is a conspiracy there. People know about it,
you know. But it's the companies, isn't it. It's the
multinational corporations that have got a lot to answer for
on this with the military.

Speaker 5 (25:14):
Well, there was an enormously clever trick pulled. Is to
stop people asking difficult questions. You move the flying saucer
from the government laboratory and you put it up at
Wharton with BAE Systems. If you're talking about Britain, you
give it to Yeah, or you give it to Locked

(25:35):
Martin and they put it in there in the skunt
works because that they because it's now out of FOI
freedom of information and you can't ask questions. So I mean,
I remember working on a BBC film about with Tony
Blair where he wanted for the first time Britain didn't

(25:56):
get freedom of information for government questions until the Blair government.

Speaker 2 (26:01):
And I remember he Blair going.

Speaker 5 (26:03):
To Washington and coming back and saying, oh, it's it's
all fine, We'll just do the American model. Anything we
want to hide, we'll say, first of all, you can't
have any personal.

Speaker 2 (26:17):
Data, so a lot of information.

Speaker 5 (26:20):
You used to get is now completely gone, so you
can't name who's working on projects, even in government. And
then anything really seecret, we'll just give to the public
private sector. You know that that that special Blair regime
where he did that co production with public and private, so.

Speaker 2 (26:39):
He just hid everything.

Speaker 5 (26:40):
And it was actually I mean, you know alias with
David Clark, who's a really great researcher and is looking
constantly for releases of new information.

Speaker 2 (26:54):
You know, they at the.

Speaker 5 (26:56):
National Records Office whatever it's really called, and you know,
he says it's more locked down now than ever it was.
He could go in there and read a government report
with names and then as a good journalist, contact them,
and you know that's led to you know, that led
to the Calvine disclosure and then the Conduct report also

(27:21):
because you could you could actually nail it.

Speaker 2 (27:23):
On actual people.

Speaker 5 (27:24):
But today all those names are redacted and we're living
in a very closed We pretend we have freedom when
we don't.

Speaker 3 (27:34):
That's true.

Speaker 4 (27:35):
But you know, just to add some more meat on
the bones there, you know, if we're building a picture
of is this thing real? Just for anybody listening in,
where we've got to there at this stage, Yeah, You know,
we know that the military as well, and it's been admitted.
You know, we've had people on like Richard Doty, He's
been on the show and he's admitted of being a
member of the Office of Special Investigations within the US

(27:56):
Air Force and his job was to go and make
sure people were quiet about things and also gave information
about things if they'd had an experience.

Speaker 3 (28:06):
That's something we know about.

Speaker 4 (28:08):
You know that when he and he talks about another
group of people that worked above his office who were
essentially the men in black. This potentially this multinational corporation
of mercenaries that work for the military on behalf of
these aerospace companies. Yeah, he's already mentioned this. He's spoken
about this, and he's spoken about his work, so we

(28:29):
know that the military have stopped people talking about this
and shut it down. Now when you're talking about the
companies that are dealing with this potentially reverse engineered craft
and were tying this into the science community as well,
the physicists that are working on site for these companies,
the BAA systems, you raised, the ons you lockheeds, who
are these people? Because I presume that the physics industry

(28:52):
is a small place. Surely these people know each other,
and why wouldn't they be any sort of peer review
transparency unless they were trying to lock people out. Because
this cannot be about national security. It can't all be
about that. It has to be about something else.

Speaker 5 (29:11):
I think you're literally given a large grant and you're
told to sign this non disclosure and you go and work.
You're very proud to be working on a project which
you know a bit about. It's very compartmentalized, and it's
the big thing, the big the big thing is that

(29:31):
they want it secret. I mean, that's why I continually
get mad at this word disclosure, because it's a very,
very very lasting that you're ever going to get because
the very people who who you want to tell you
we want them to admit what they're doing are never
going to admit what they're doing because you know, they

(29:51):
invented all those terms of secrecy. You know that that's
their whole world. They want to keep the technology to
themselves financially and also militarily and nationally. I mean, they
just don't want it. They don't want to share it
with the members of the public, and we have to

(30:12):
continually ship away at what they're doing and look at
little signs and put little bits together. I mean, the
big picture I'd like to make really clear to everybody
watching this right now is that you ap are real
and they're global and they're not American and NHI. Non

(30:37):
human intelligence has existed on Earth forever and it's not
like you think it. And once you start thinking realizing
that and the United States are just messing around. There's
a lot of reasons why. There's commercial reasons, there's military,
there's national security, but I think there's also religious bigotry

(30:57):
as well in not accepting that we are we do
share a planet with other and with non human intelligence.

Speaker 2 (31:06):
It's here. I mean, I live in France. France is completely.

Speaker 5 (31:09):
Open about it. You know, if I they share all
the data. They even categorize it using the Jacques Valet
kind of close encounters categorization. You can look up where
your neighbors saw something, what they saw, you can go
to the gendarmerie and file a report and.

Speaker 2 (31:27):
It's published publicly.

Speaker 5 (31:30):
And then in Britain, you know, with again the Condine Report,
which was the report written by the only eleven copies
were wherever supposed to be made, were made for very
high up mod officials to close the past UFO cases
and to come to some summary. So when some annoying

(31:51):
MP asked an annoying question to the Minister of Defense,
they can look up what the Condine report says about
UAP and the staggering conclusion is.

Speaker 2 (32:06):
UAP are real.

Speaker 5 (32:07):
Britain said UAP are real in nineteen nineteen fn.

Speaker 2 (32:13):
Nine.

Speaker 5 (32:14):
I mean that's you know, and and with very interesting science.
If you read the very dense, long big contact report
of some conclusions of what it might be even and
it talks about incidents and and and it also says
that it's probably not a threat to national security.

Speaker 2 (32:37):
That was there a big conclusion.

Speaker 5 (32:39):
But well, the United States just needs to catch up
with all.

Speaker 2 (32:43):
Yeah, I mean, yeah, life.

Speaker 3 (32:46):
I agree with you.

Speaker 4 (32:46):
And it's well the rest of the world do as well.
This is obviously a global issue, like you've mentioned, one
thing I will.

Speaker 3 (32:51):
Bring you into though it has to be global based. Yeah, absolutely.

Speaker 4 (32:55):
And one thing, like I said, I'm going to bring
what do you think of the defense faces of Patrick Jackson.
What he's spoking about that's proved, you know, that's his data.
He's shown this, and he's seen the patterns recognized it,
and he's put it out there now for all the
world to see. But when you know that's there, But
then also he heavily links that into what Beatrice Villaro

(33:17):
and Dennis Asberg have been talking about as far as
the transients are concerned, and he thinks that the transients
are these defense sphere systems. But what he's suggesting is,
and again if you haven't seen this, viewers, this is
pretty amazing he's suggesting and shown backed up with data,
that there is a defense this this system of AI

(33:37):
controlled spheres around the Earth that work in fas and
they basically defend the planet from outside threats. And this
is it sounds nuts when I say that, it sounds
like something out of an Independence Day film, but it's
very real. And this thing has been and he's shown
it all over the world, these spheres that turn up
when there is a threat from the outside world or

(33:57):
in the atmosphere up or the lower whatever, and it
and it gets rid of the threat essentially, And it's
linked to Poltergeist and all of these various locations.

Speaker 3 (34:05):
Around the Earth, you know, and again, a real thing.
What do you make of all of that? I'd love
to get your opinion on that.

Speaker 5 (34:12):
Well, I've reached out to Patrick and hopefully that I'll
have him on my YouTube channel talking about it because
I really related to what he said. I don't know
if it's the full answer, but I think he's hit
on such a really interesting idea that it's global. The

(34:34):
often it's related to spherical objects, u AP are often
seen as spheres. I've often said that you ap are
probably plasma based and they're not of our realm, and
they also the sphere network.

Speaker 2 (34:56):
I think it's maybe bigger than that.

Speaker 5 (34:58):
I think it's been around and for probably thousands or
tens of thousands of years. I don't think they've just
arrived to protect us.

Speaker 4 (35:08):
But the interesting thing just to throw in on there,
just on that, well the expression in my mind. One
thing Patrick did say is that this thing seems to
be updating itself. So although you've said that it's been
around a long time, he's also said that the parameters
of the way this thing operates changed with time, has
evolved with time and the technology of humans. So although

(35:29):
it may have been around for thousands of years, who's
controlling it? Oh, who's updating this thing? Is it kind
of human? Because it's been around low human you know.

Speaker 5 (35:41):
So yeah, there's evidence of the spheres or there's evidence
of things exactly like the spheres way before.

Speaker 2 (35:50):
We had any technology.

Speaker 5 (35:52):
So we've really got modern physics and technology, you know,
electromagnetic physics only for a couple of hundred years really now,
and these these spheres and and the type of things
that he's describing.

Speaker 2 (36:09):
Really predate that.

Speaker 5 (36:11):
And but yeah, I mean, is it is it constantly
being updated? Is it there and modifying how it works?
Because I've always been fascinated by how people see waves
of UFOs if you're actually.

Speaker 2 (36:28):
Talking about craft.

Speaker 5 (36:30):
I mean, there was you see a whole kind of
bunch of of balloons, and you see triangles, and you
see saucers, and now you're seeing phenomenon why you know
why they're going in. It's as if there is some
kind of timeline. I think it's probably more about us
and our perception than anything else. But no, I think

(36:54):
I don't totally. I think he's got the full answer,
But I think his questions he's asking are really good,
and I think he's got And I love how it's
linked into boalty Geist.

Speaker 2 (37:10):
And dark ship.

Speaker 5 (37:12):
Yeah, because if I had to guess what all of
this really is. I think it's something not of our realm.
I think it is something that enters our perception system
and our physics, our you know, big state atomic physics
of us being joined together atoms, whereas we are of

(37:35):
course made of sub atomic quantum physics. And we do
have a slight perception of that, but it's only a
fleeting perception. I'm sure that the intelligence just is is
only perceived by us as fleeting glimpses unless it does
weird things and occasionally injures people.

Speaker 4 (37:57):
I think, yeah, Now, one of the things that he said,
and I've got a couple of things to mention on
this because and we could do the whole podcast about
just the speed network alone, I'm sure we could. But
one of the things that he mentions, Patrick Jackson, and
you might be right, you know, he's obviously touched on something.
How deep on that subject is gone, We're yet to
find out. But one of the things he does suggest

(38:18):
is that, you know, the obvious question is if these
things are so advanced, these craft or whatever else that
are coming in and landing and apparently talking to people
and you know, and communicating with humans, if they're so advanced,
why haven't they communicated it or why haven't they shown
themselves to their presence? Because he believes that these things
are controlled by some kind of subterranean intelligent life that

(38:40):
potentially lives underground, because he says, obviously there's another layer
to the sphere network which has to be controlled for underground.
So he made the jump that that's where they must
be underground, whoever's controlling these things. But he said, you know,
people would ask normal people in the street, why wouldn't
they come and speak to us? And the question he

(39:00):
answered that, or how he answered that, was, well, if
you as a three hundred four hundred IQ being, what
could us monkeys up here on the surface offer them.
You know, we don't have anything to bring to the table.
The average person is what sixty to one hundred IQ
at best. You know, we haven't got anything to bring
to the table for these beings. So that is a
fairly good question, a fairly good answer to that question.

(39:23):
If people say, well, why wouldn't they come and speak
to us? What have we got to offer them? Really,
if they've got the means to get here and move
around in and out and seem to slipping an out
of visibility and move around the way they do. What
could they possibly need from us other than the resources
that are maybe on the surface or beneath the ground.

(39:43):
So maybe that answers itself question. What do you think
of that potential theory?

Speaker 5 (39:49):
Yeah, again, I think it touches on a really fascinating
idea that it's it's I don't think.

Speaker 2 (39:58):
They're living in tone under the earth.

Speaker 4 (40:02):
Their minds well, a lot of these transient going into
old mind shafts and volcano.

Speaker 3 (40:08):
That's a connection people have made.

Speaker 5 (40:10):
I think they are actually of Earth. I think the
Earth as a system. I think we have to think
out of conventional physics that we live in.

Speaker 2 (40:22):
I think they are here, They're real.

Speaker 5 (40:25):
They they do interact to us. We occasionally have glimpses
of them. They're they're everywhere. I think we I mean,
I mean, I don't know. I'm just saying what Everything
that I've learned from the UAP community and people talking
about experiences points me in the direction that we are

(40:49):
only occasionally in touch with a different reality that they
are not. They're not aluminum craft, they're not onto the
ground into the cave. They're in a different realm, and
that realm occasionally in special places like Suffolk Rendelsham for example,

(41:10):
or Skinwalker Ranch, or lots of other places around the world.
We shouldn't just talk about those places. Amazing places in
the Far East that have sightings all the time, of
spheres in South America as well, spheres. Talking to Paul Devereux,
who's fascinated this on the on the subject of earthlights

(41:31):
and not earthquake lights, for earthlights, and they're seen globally
and they are a you know, there are physics phenomenon,
and they're intelligent, and they're spherical.

Speaker 2 (41:43):
Ah, and they're very weird. You know.

Speaker 5 (41:46):
He has cases of people seeing one from one side
of the road and people on the other side can't
see it. You know, they seem to have weird kind
of polarized quantum effects. I mean, maybe it's bad use
of the word, but they're you know, there's I really
think we're not alone. I think they're here. They are

(42:06):
part of our very essence. And I think we as
humans are only we as we're learning more about quantum
and consciousness. I think we're beginning to connect and think
out of our far field joint together atoms and we're

(42:27):
realizing that there is a timeless gravityless instantaneous, faster than
the speed of.

Speaker 2 (42:33):
Light, and.

Speaker 5 (42:37):
Non flowing timeline which is out there which we can
connect with. And I think that I think poltygeist, U.

Speaker 2 (42:46):
A P and all of this is part of that.

Speaker 5 (42:51):
I worry about making it incredibly practical. You know, their spheres,
their ai, they live in a cave. I think that's
all right, I think, But I think I think what
his research is doing is found found found connections between
all these But that's how it's back off in making it,

(43:13):
in making it solid.

Speaker 4 (43:15):
Yeah, I mean one of the another piece of interest
in information that he mentioned it showed physically was the
apparent being. He has this light and what he suggests
is that obviously with the seven spectrums of light that
we can see that there's something else visible without outside
of those spectrums of light, and that's this strobe. He

(43:35):
has claims to capture this and it filmed on a
very very high minute frames per second camera. It catches
what seems to be this being coming down towards the
camera taking a look before moving off, and he had
the big.

Speaker 3 (43:47):
Black eyes and he could see it.

Speaker 4 (43:48):
And he showed the data he showed the video and
it's it's peculiar, to say the least.

Speaker 3 (43:54):
But one thing I will mention bringing it back to science.

Speaker 4 (43:58):
Now that he's brought that out and he's mentioned this
and it's out there for everybody to see, you would
have thought, I mean, I don't know, I'm not a physicist,
but you would have thought that the physicist the world
of physics would be going absolutely bonkers right now, because
if I was a physicist, and I'm not a physicist,
but I want to know what the hell these things
are and who the hell's controlling them, where they come from. Yeah,

(44:21):
you thought that the scientific community would be going mental?

Speaker 3 (44:25):
Is there any word of you.

Speaker 2 (44:26):
Would, don't you? But they're not.

Speaker 5 (44:28):
But no, no, no, no, I think there's well because
of the closed mindedness of.

Speaker 2 (44:34):
Of well we talked about earlier.

Speaker 5 (44:36):
I mean, they're very much down a kind of a
physics timeline and you don't rock the boat and you
don't get funded for you know, off the wall kind
of investigations. But there are people out there who are
really good, you know, who actually do do who are
prepared to talk about this, and uh, I mean I'm

(44:58):
I'm an enormous fan fan of Roger Penrose. I mean,
Roger Penrose is a mathematician, but he's gone into.

Speaker 2 (45:06):
Consciousness, which is brilliant because.

Speaker 5 (45:08):
He understands that there is a connection between mathematics, the
quantum mechanics, and consciousness.

Speaker 2 (45:19):
He was blown away when he.

Speaker 5 (45:25):
Found about out about anesthesiology and anesthetics.

Speaker 2 (45:29):
I mean that that was brilliant.

Speaker 5 (45:30):
And is there an actual mechanism in our brain to
connect to a quantum, timeless other realm. As soon as
I'm hearing that, I'm going, yes, makes sense. Possibly it's
starting to make sense. And but what Patrick's doing is
the same what he's you know, he's finding He's asking

(45:53):
questions like frame rate and spectral analysis and all this,
and people do see we all have, you know, we
have premonitions and gut reactions because I think those are real.
I think those are us being connected to announce to
another realm, a timeless realm. You know, there's people out

(46:16):
there who are wonderful at predicting the future. And then
of course talking to remote viewers and the whole remote
viewing propose through Stanford's research and Russell Targan help push
off the way that they actually made it work. Is
because they know that humans can transcend our timeline. The

(46:40):
moment of now is actually the moment of the future
and the past. We can ride in our view a
little bit, especially if something in the future emotionally connects
to the present but it hasn't happened yet, which is
incredibly interesting. We can remember premember an emotional event that

(47:04):
will happen in our future. That That's how Russell Target
explained it to me. You know, remote viewing is about
confirmation to the remote viewer that they got it right,
and they remember in the past that they got something
right in the future. He and he demonstrated that when

(47:25):
he did he did silver futures trading using that very
technique of giving emotional cues to a remote viewer in
the future, and that remote viewer in the present premembered

(47:47):
the trigger that was about to happen in a week's time,
and that trigger was related to the stock market or
silver futures going up or down. Those things the same,
and they've made thousands of dollars.

Speaker 3 (47:59):
It's an interesting one. Remote viewing.

Speaker 4 (48:01):
Yeah, it does work, but you know, there's a lot
of theories out there that two thousand and three we
went into Iraq. There was a lot of speculation and
again it could maybe it may only be conjecture. The
rumors there that a remote viewer found the Ark of
the Covenant and it just so happened it was underneath
bag Dad, And that's the whole rules around the two
thousand and three invasion of Iraq under the guise of

(48:22):
the UN inspectors looking for such a nuclear weapon that
didn't exist. So there is conspiracy about that. I don't
think it's been confirmed by anybody official. I don't think
it ever will be. But there's a lot of there's
a lot of rumors out there, and remote views were
used for that, and again records go back, I.

Speaker 3 (48:39):
Think beyond beyond the nineties.

Speaker 4 (48:40):
Now the CIA being involved using remote views again apparently,
so we've bin Laden was found using a remote viewer.

Speaker 3 (48:48):
Apparently there's been.

Speaker 2 (48:49):
Interesting places definite.

Speaker 3 (48:51):
Yeah, so this is real.

Speaker 4 (48:53):
You know, let's not pretend we're a couple of timfoil
that wearing fools on it. This is again the unclassified
documentation right now, you can go and look at.

Speaker 3 (49:04):
That says they've looked at this stuff. So you know,
I just want to make it very interesting.

Speaker 2 (49:10):
It's real.

Speaker 5 (49:11):
It's not hocum. It's absolutely real and it's going on
right now and for viewers or in Europe, most specifically
in the United Kingdom. The CIA moved remote viewing to
Britain because they were getting to the point where they
were losing funding because some of the more fundamental Christians

(49:34):
in Congress or whoever were funding the CIA didn't like
the idea of busting timelines and they thought it was
slightly demonic and they just said, f off, We'll just
move it offshore because it works. We're getting good enough results.
And so, I mean, I would guess it moved to

(49:57):
Cavisham near Redding and it's still there.

Speaker 2 (50:01):
I mean, it works.

Speaker 5 (50:02):
It's not totally foolproof, but there's some amazing remote viewers
who once you, I think we all can do it.
I think, I mean, that's what Russell said to me.
He said, you know, literally you can set you can
literally do an experiments if you to. Actually you can
actually win the lottery or predict a football result or

(50:25):
anything by following this emotional cue in the future, which
you might if you can tune into your own future,
remember in the present, so you can viewers at home.
You can do this experiment if you want to win
a bet in the when the thing that you're betting

(50:48):
on is finished. You know, say a football match, and
you know the result, which you would get a good
return at a betting shop if you knew the exact
goals for example, not only who won, but the exact
yea they give you say ten to one.

Speaker 4 (51:05):
Practical, let's make this. I'm a Manchester United fan and
we're playing this weekend. Let me get my note, I'll
take some notes.

Speaker 2 (51:12):
You can not no, you can go down.

Speaker 5 (51:16):
So it's it's a it's a bit counter and cherers
of everybody just listen to. You can make money on manchion.
This is from Russell Targ who ran Stargate for Stamford's
research that was picked up by the CIA and turned
into remote viewing and is still working and it does work.

(51:40):
Russell Targe also used it to make hundreds of thousands
of dollars by predicting the futures market on silver. He
will tell you that you email him is an old chap.
He's very friendly, he's good. But you can you can
make money lead today or tomorrow morning.

Speaker 2 (51:58):
You can.

Speaker 5 (52:02):
You can actually win a bet on a big future
game that there might be good odds if you could
predict exactly the result. And this is how you do it, right,
So you you think really a lot tonight about what

(52:22):
the result is, what the actual goals are, and a
number will come to your mind, say four, Okay, so maybe.

Speaker 3 (52:35):
Did you just give that.

Speaker 5 (52:37):
Well yeah, maybe maybe no, but but yes in a
way I did, because no, or you gave it to yourself.
Because what you need to do is go down to
the besting shop and place.

Speaker 2 (52:53):
A bet that it's four nil or four one or whatever.

Speaker 5 (52:56):
You you really think about. You've got these two numbers
and that's the answer to the bet. Then you just
completely forget about it until the game is actually played
and then you know the result, and then.

Speaker 2 (53:14):
You have to.

Speaker 5 (53:17):
Make some very very strong emotional happiness, fear, emotional response
to the number, to the actual number.

Speaker 2 (53:27):
So you have to go out.

Speaker 5 (53:28):
And buy four cakes and eat them all, and that
number four. You have to have an emotional connection with
the number four once the game is played, and that
information will travel back to tonight and then tomorrow morning,
because you remember that the number four is somehow relevant

(53:51):
I don't know why, And it turns out it will
be because you've got a connection in your brain to
an emotional event that will happen in two weeks time.

Speaker 2 (54:01):
Right, Well, I mean I'm.

Speaker 5 (54:02):
Not guarantee I'm not guaranteeing your win, and I think
you have to be good at it and you'll f
up and you will.

Speaker 2 (54:11):
And what Targ says is that you.

Speaker 5 (54:16):
Can't just remember numbers, you can't remember text. You only
remember something that an emotional trigger in your future. So
the way that they did remove viewing was when somebody
was asked an impossible question to answer. The classic one
is the woman asked about the down Russian spyplane in

(54:38):
Africa that was weird.

Speaker 2 (54:40):
Where is it?

Speaker 5 (54:42):
And she said the exact coordinate, She had a thirty
mile circle where she thought it was, and it was.
She was within a k wasn't she Oh totally totally yeah, right,
But Targ explained, and she explained how it worked. When
the play she says where it was. When the plane

(55:02):
in the future was found, she knew where it was.
And she was praised by Jimmy Carter and Russell Targ
and the c i A forgetting it right, an immensely
important part of her career to have a presidential you know,
some amazing woman found the plane president. You know, he

(55:23):
said that publicly on TV, and that big emotional event
in her future she knew about in the past because
she knew where the plane was, because in the future
it happened. That's that's how they explained it to me.
Because the humans have the connection.

Speaker 4 (55:45):
Yes, So it's a case of essentially sitting down almost meditating,
but visualizing the event happening, but connecting that event in
your head with an emotional response. So for instance, say
there was far passages on that plane, you would connect
the fall that number four with an emotional response.

Speaker 3 (56:05):
Is that correct?

Speaker 2 (56:06):
Yeah? Yeah.

Speaker 5 (56:07):
In her case, the emotional response was how brilliant she was,
and she was mentioned by the president and everybody said
it was the plane was found in.

Speaker 2 (56:18):
Namibia or wherever it was found.

Speaker 5 (56:20):
And she got it right well right, So that was like, WHOA,
I got it right. I wonder why I got it right? Well,
because she remembered getting it right in the past.

Speaker 3 (56:32):
So this is what you mean.

Speaker 4 (56:33):
People tie it into the law of attraction, don't they
manifest the station It's a similar ilk.

Speaker 2 (56:39):
Manifestation works totally. Yeah, the same, the same.

Speaker 5 (56:44):
I mean, they might be bad, but you can manifest
something in the future.

Speaker 2 (56:50):
Well you're aware. I mean, we all do it.

Speaker 5 (56:52):
We have a gut reaction, we have a feeling, you know,
we have a premonition. All those words are part of
the vocabulary of humans because we have that ability, and
that ability I think ties into u a P, into Poltygeist,
into the sphere network. That's what I'm saying. I think
remote viewing, it's all connected. And I think I think

(57:16):
we live in an incredibly blinkered world and if we
but we are connected to a wider world and occasionally
the u P will manifest into into our realm fleetingly
or a poultigeist or or and and they're real, they're global,
and and the.

Speaker 2 (57:38):
Military are really really interested in that.

Speaker 5 (57:41):
I mean, my my inside knowledge of Rendalshrom forest is
not a triangular craft in the forest. That's a really
interesting story because that's all the cover story.

Speaker 3 (57:56):
He came on and talked about it.

Speaker 2 (57:58):
Right.

Speaker 3 (57:58):
The further investigation for this is before the new one,
the Caple Criig Cappel Green documentary Green.

Speaker 4 (58:09):
Yeah, yeah, I'm not saying that, but we had and
we went into detail on that to watch he thinks
he thinks there is an event of I think there
were seventeen different events over the course of a couple
of weeks that made up Randallsham. So I'm assuming you've
looked at that and the information that he's released in
the non human book that he released about that. When so,

(58:32):
what's what do you know like in more in detail?
I mean, I'm interested. I'm just interested in that case
in general. So I thought i'd ask.

Speaker 5 (58:38):
It is one of the most complicated cases, and all
that I am beginning, I've it's been a roller coaster
ride from me because I first thought that it was
a prank. It was the lighthouse, the says raise, it
was a UFO, even when none of that is true.

(59:01):
The actual what really happened, and the real big two
questions that people need to ask that most investigators don't
ask is why Randelsham Forest, Why the geography geological, the
geography location of Suffolk? Answered that one? And why December

(59:23):
nineteen eighty Because there's clues in answering those two questions
that reveal an awful lot. And the more that I
have spoken to the witnesses and heard their very non
correlated stories, you know, there's people stand next to each
other and see a triangular flying thing on legs and

(59:46):
see a phenomenon. And they were standing next to each other.
And that's not because there wasn't a triangular craft or
there wasn't a phenomenon. That's because they were they were
messed around.

Speaker 2 (59:57):
With post incidents.

Speaker 5 (59:59):
There were there's a group of people, not Air Force
that Commander Charles Holt says was there who flew in,
including the CIA and other organizations who knew that something
enormous was going to happen.

Speaker 2 (01:00:18):
Did they provoke it?

Speaker 5 (01:00:19):
Possibly or did it just happen? And it possibly is
non human intelligence, but they were so interested in it.
They really knew something big was going to happen in Rendallsham.
And why Suffolk and all the peripheral reports and the

(01:00:40):
witnesses don't add up to something much bigger to that story?

Speaker 4 (01:00:44):
Yeah, I mean what Gary said and alluded to is
the original story. I mean we made the connection basically,
and I made the connection and it didn't disagree with
me that Charles Holt, I can't remember the name of
the other chap now, the one who had the notepad
that came to light and a number of years later.

Speaker 3 (01:01:04):
I can't remember his name of the top of my.

Speaker 4 (01:01:07):
So apparently then two may have been gotten to essentially
by people like Richard Doughty the men in black, because
their stories fluctuated and they were, like you said, there
was the lack of correlation.

Speaker 3 (01:01:20):
But then there was Larry Warren and.

Speaker 4 (01:01:24):
Bestenza as well, and their statements were very interesting because
they well, this is what Gary said. They're the ones
who essentially weren't gotten to and what they had to
say was very interesting on the subject.

Speaker 5 (01:01:39):
Adrian is the most PTSD suffering, poor Chappie I've ever
spoken to. Adrian Bushenda Is absolutely was given. He was
the person that was told by these men in black
and weren't Air Force O s I type people, probably

(01:02:00):
CIA very very experienced people using drugs, using hypnotism, and
using threats. He was told he was showing bullets and
told bullets are ten a penny.

Speaker 2 (01:02:14):
You know you need to you need to change.

Speaker 5 (01:02:17):
He wrote a complete factual description of what he saw
and he was forced to change it and was threatened.

Speaker 2 (01:02:29):
I mean, why what were they covering up?

Speaker 5 (01:02:31):
You mean, if it was just a flying if it
was aliens, how did they know they were going to
be there. Why happening in Suffolk? Who were these people?

Speaker 4 (01:02:42):
If this was a one off case, maybe you'd think, well, okay, right,
maybe it's maybe it's rubbish.

Speaker 3 (01:02:48):
But then when you hear cases from marine.

Speaker 4 (01:02:52):
You know Herrera, the Roderic, the new one, the Roderic
I can't remember, I never forget remember his surname.

Speaker 3 (01:02:58):
But where the Marines your personnel.

Speaker 4 (01:03:00):
And they're out on maneuvers in various places around the world,
one being the jungle, another one being a desert location
in New Mexican desert perhaps, and they've come across and
they've come into clearings where there is big craft hovering
above the ground, no noise, you know, the classic UAP
telltale signs. And then people in blacked out military kit

(01:03:21):
with no paraphernalia, no vehicle registration, no plates, nothing.

Speaker 3 (01:03:27):
And this is something that goes all the way back
to what.

Speaker 4 (01:03:30):
Bastins is talking about, these black, black kit people who've
got no paraphernalia, no badges, no identification, no credentials. However,
we all try and we all agree that they're incredibly
highly trained, probably mercenaries. So that you know, this is
going back decades now up to modern day, which is
the Herrera story is incredible. He suggested that there was

(01:03:52):
trafficking going on and this craft took off that credible speed,
no noise, but there was static electricity essentially in the air.

Speaker 3 (01:03:59):
You could feel it.

Speaker 4 (01:04:00):
And they were threatened at gunpoint by these men in black,
these people.

Speaker 2 (01:04:03):
But they were threatened, right, they were threatened.

Speaker 3 (01:04:05):
Right, So this thing goes all the way back.

Speaker 2 (01:04:08):
No, there's there's a big exactly. Definitely.

Speaker 5 (01:04:13):
The weaponization of UAP is the term. I mean, I
think people have studied it. I think technology has been recovered,
and I think it can be controlled to an extent,
and it's not like it's not what we think. I
think we can make some of the technology work in

(01:04:34):
our physics.

Speaker 2 (01:04:37):
But I think there's a lot of questions.

Speaker 5 (01:04:39):
I said, I'm, you know, talking to physicists like Jack
sur Fatty, He says, the luckied Martin, the darker or idiots,
which is why are you're saying that, Jack? He says, Well,
the real physics is they don't know. They just don't
the real physics of of of time travel, of quantum materials.

(01:05:02):
They're clueless. He says, they're meddling. They might have built
a one or two little Yeah.

Speaker 4 (01:05:07):
That's been corroborated since by Bob Lazar, as you know,
and that was in the nineties, when the early nineties,
and he says they had no idea sure how this worked.
They just sat I mean he worked on the propulsion
did in the particular, and he had there.

Speaker 3 (01:05:23):
He said they had no idea how it worked.

Speaker 4 (01:05:25):
Now, whether you what you know what you mentioned of
Bob Lasar and what you think of him, whether he's
got what he says is not credence, but I believe him.
I just think it's too fantastical to lie about that.
And informations comes to light since then that matches up
to what he said, So it makes sense that, you know,
it adds up to me. But he said that, he
confirmed that. He said they had no idea what they

(01:05:45):
were doing with it. I mean, maybe you could read
sort of engineer. Maybe the metal.

Speaker 3 (01:05:49):
Perhaps in some way you could replicate the.

Speaker 4 (01:05:51):
Alloy, maybe anatomical you know, right perfection, but maybe you
could get sixty percent of the way there. But with
the other stuff, the proportion maybe who knows. I don't
believe we're anywhere near that yet. Really, it doesn't even
sound like these reverse engineer craft that speculatively we have

(01:06:13):
even worked the same way. It works similar perhaps, but
maybe scratching the surface of what these things that they've
got are capable of.

Speaker 3 (01:06:21):
But will we know, Let's bring it back around to
the hearing. That's why we know. That's it's sure. Will
it come out of fish?

Speaker 2 (01:06:28):
Sure?

Speaker 3 (01:06:29):
I mean it's not going to come out from yesterday's hearing.
I don't think it's just a load of stories.

Speaker 4 (01:06:34):
But one thing that is positive from listening to the
questions that we're asked this time, the education seems to
have grown hugely within the congressman that we're asking the questions.

Speaker 3 (01:06:44):
As to the last hearings, it seemed.

Speaker 4 (01:06:46):
To be they were shocked right by it all surprised like, wow,
this is incredible.

Speaker 3 (01:06:50):
They didn't really know what questions to ask.

Speaker 4 (01:06:52):
It felt yesterday that they've done the homework and they
knew the right questions to ask. These whistleblowers and witnesses.
What did you make of hearing?

Speaker 2 (01:07:00):
Sure? I hate them. I think they're stupid. I mean,
I'm very radical on this.

Speaker 5 (01:07:07):
I mean, I think I think it's good that that
that it's been discussed out in public. I suppose I mean,
I just want to put put up my sign saying
catch up America. I mean, I think those things you.

Speaker 2 (01:07:21):
Know that that.

Speaker 5 (01:07:24):
You know that ship has sailed, I mean, I see
I think I think they're playing catch up.

Speaker 2 (01:07:30):
I mean, and they're still covering up so much.

Speaker 5 (01:07:35):
You know it would are they going to beat down
the door of of Lockheed Martin or are they going
to get and and then event you know, or or
or advanced government physics laboratories and the other The other
enormous thing that we have to realize that I've been

(01:07:55):
told is that you need to get this completely out
of the military are still flying around with sticks and stones.
What the real person people you need to ask is
the Department of Energy. Because they were given all the
UFO permissions for research and development post Manhattan Project. Pentagon's

(01:08:20):
got nothing to.

Speaker 2 (01:08:20):
Do with it.

Speaker 5 (01:08:21):
I mean, it might eventually become a weaponization system which
they can use and deploy. And I'm sure they've got
very advanced systems that we.

Speaker 2 (01:08:30):
Don't know about.

Speaker 5 (01:08:31):
Whether they're NHI involved, I maybe, But the people who
really know what's going on in.

Speaker 4 (01:08:39):
The Department of Energy, I think one of the logical
things to do is to follow the money, isn't it really.

Speaker 3 (01:08:44):
I think a.

Speaker 4 (01:08:45):
Well a well staffed doge team could just find out
where the taxpayers money has been funneled to over the
last few decades, because the trillions missing, it's not it's
not a little amount, it's trillions at this stage, So
where's that money to? It has to lead somewhere, So
I think one well staffed independent doge team could find
out exactly right who's running this this little operation and

(01:09:09):
get to the bottom of it. And especially again with
a decent tax audit, you could find out probably from
which aerospace company is the one, you know, really with
a finger on the pust of this topic. But again
it's who's going to ask them questions, because then we
start getting into the realms of the men in black,
the real man in black, that people start disappearing and

(01:09:31):
you know, and it gets to that clandestine area of
the world, which is again very well known and spoken
about in this field and many other fields, and the
scientific field, especially with you know, so many physicisms disappearing
and vanishing. So it comes down to the question, will
we get disclosure from someone in the suit? I don't
think so. What's your opinion on a catastrophic disclosure. So

(01:09:54):
maybe non intelligent presenting itself to us in a very
dram fashion.

Speaker 3 (01:10:00):
Do you think that's likely?

Speaker 2 (01:10:02):
Yeah, I think it is.

Speaker 5 (01:10:04):
I think it's going to be it's going to be
a challenge for humanity. I mean, I personally think that
we've already had it. I think there's there's so much evidence.
I mean, I mean the amount of trouble I got
into last year by uh doing, by saying that breakthrough

(01:10:25):
listeners found a technological signature, and then Cambridge found a
biological signature, and today Nasser found a life on Mars.
Come on, we're not alone in the universe.

Speaker 2 (01:10:41):
Global life's abundant. Of course it is. And it's not
like us. It's something different. I mean, and U A
p are real, they're global.

Speaker 5 (01:10:50):
I think it's more of a but what what what
does the general public want? You know, they want a
flying saucer on the White House on I don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:11:02):
It's it's hard.

Speaker 5 (01:11:03):
It would be incredibly amazing if three I Atlas did
something that had a global effect, a good global effect,
not a bad one on ours, and did some kind
of or some or some NHI made its presence a
bit more clear but oh, it's an interesting one.

Speaker 3 (01:11:28):
I know we've come back around to three. I love it,
love it.

Speaker 2 (01:11:32):
Sure.

Speaker 4 (01:11:33):
The in the coming months, we're saying, well, at the
beginning of October, it will make its closest past to Mars,
won't it, And we'll get a picture of clear images,
the clearest images that will get so far.

Speaker 3 (01:11:45):
Taken.

Speaker 4 (01:11:46):
Sure when it passes Mars from the I can't remember
the name of the what if they've got orbiting Mars
at the minute, but that's what they're going to use
to take the pictures and send them back, so you'll
know more at the beginning of October.

Speaker 3 (01:11:57):
By the end of.

Speaker 4 (01:11:58):
October, it disappears around the back of the sun and
we won't see it again until early December, I believe,
is that correct?

Speaker 3 (01:12:04):
And then.

Speaker 2 (01:12:06):
Yeah, we're very interested in where it's going to go.

Speaker 4 (01:12:11):
So the interesting things that could happen now is we
get an image of this thing, and we do see
some very peculiar, you.

Speaker 3 (01:12:18):
Know, potentially intelligent design on this thing.

Speaker 4 (01:12:23):
I mean, there's a lot of things already we could
discussed earlier on that could magest that this thing is artificial.
But we'll get the images early October. What we're looking
out for. Really, is the course correction, a change of speed,
anything peculiar like that, Yeah, anything that.

Speaker 2 (01:12:39):
Wouldn't be natural.

Speaker 5 (01:12:43):
Well, I think we live in interesting times. I think
we are confirmed that we are not learning.

Speaker 2 (01:12:49):
In the universe.

Speaker 5 (01:12:50):
I think we had yet another confirmation today. You know
that biological bacterial life millions.

Speaker 2 (01:12:57):
Of years ago was not on the on Earth. It
was on Mars.

Speaker 5 (01:13:02):
I think we've we've extra planets have found biological signatures,
and I think possibly there's technological signatures that we're not
being told about and they're keeping very quiet about.

Speaker 2 (01:13:18):
So yeah, we're not alone.

Speaker 5 (01:13:21):
U A, p A are global, They're real, and America
has to play catch up.

Speaker 2 (01:13:25):
That's my position.

Speaker 4 (01:13:29):
So thank you so much. I think I think I
don't think there's any point in continuing. We'll tie a
bowing at that. It was brilliant having met again. Maybe
in October when we get some more information about three
I Atlas. Yeah, we could come back chat about that
because it could potentially get very interesting for sure.

Speaker 3 (01:13:48):
But thank you so much for just.

Speaker 2 (01:13:50):
I think we live in a really interesting time. Yeah.

Speaker 5 (01:13:53):
I think there's loads of breaking news stories. There's there's
more whistleblower I'm going to have.

Speaker 2 (01:14:01):
To push a little bit.

Speaker 5 (01:14:03):
I'm talking to somebody in the next week who is
going to be mind blowing, somebody who had an encounter
that he has kept completely quiet about until he's retired
and he's decided.

Speaker 2 (01:14:15):
To come out. So that's coming up.

Speaker 5 (01:14:19):
Yeah, that's all ex military, very very very respected person
in the in the military world.

Speaker 6 (01:14:28):
Wow.

Speaker 2 (01:14:28):
And he has decided to talk about it and.

Speaker 5 (01:14:34):
It will be on my YouTube channel, Professor Simon YouTube
channel in the next We haven't interviewed him yet, but
he's opened for interview this week, so as soon as
you do it, it'll be I'm hopefully you'll be published
next week or.

Speaker 2 (01:14:49):
In the next ten days.

Speaker 3 (01:14:50):
They like that.

Speaker 2 (01:14:52):
That's going to be.

Speaker 5 (01:14:52):
Big, but there's so many other great stories around.

Speaker 4 (01:14:56):
Yeah, well, you know, like I said, we'll tell Bonnet there.

Speaker 2 (01:15:00):
Thanks guys.

Speaker 4 (01:15:01):
We're going to put Simon's links in the in the
in the bio at the bottom, so please make sure
you like and subscribe all that good stuff if you
want to look at more stuff from Professor Simon Holland
again the links in the bio. Professor, thanks a lot
for jumping on with his this evening. It's been bal
really enjoyed it and look forward to having you back
on again.

Speaker 3 (01:15:17):
Guys greatly, thank you for jumping on. Go on, Simon,
I let you have the final word.

Speaker 2 (01:15:22):
Oh no, thank you. Everybody. Keep your eyes on the skies.

Speaker 5 (01:15:27):
It's all real and you're being and you're being told
a pack of lies.

Speaker 4 (01:15:32):
That's the truth. Take care of guys and IP you
know we'll see you next time.

Speaker 6 (01:15:37):
Bye Byetta.

Speaker 2 (01:17:00):
ATTTT intent content with Fett

Speaker 5 (01:17:11):
Content content on content spectat