December 29, 2025 • 16 mins
Guest Host George Knapp and UFO Panel guests Jeremy Corbell, Joe Murgia, Danny Silva, and Ryan Robbins discuss the US Government's UFO/UAP taskforce, the UFO/UAP hearings and each weigh in on if the government will make progress with UFO/UAP disclosure in the near future.
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 (00:00):
Now here's a highlight from Coast to Coast AM on iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
Gentlemen, before we move on from political topics related to UAP,
let's stick with Congress for a minute. You know, Representative
Luna is chairperson of the Secrets Task Course, and I'm
sure people there are those who doubted whether she was
up to the job. She wanted it, Burchett, Burlason, some
other members of the House who want an oversight committee
(00:26):
in particular, wanted to keep probing into the UFO UAP topic.
And then somebody gives the ok for the Secrets task
Horse and said, oh, by the way, here's some other
secrets you could dig into, JFK, RFK, MLK, the Epstein files,
Havana syndrome, and just piled it on. It seemed to
me that they were trying to make that committee fail.
(00:48):
But Luna, whatever you may think of her, she's pretty feisty,
and I think she did make some progress on JFK records.
Epstein thing is still you know, up in the air.
I'd say that whatever files are being released or grudgingly so,
UAP hasn't made any progress that we know of, but
you know, at least having it in the public eye
(01:09):
and having a hearing shows that Congress is somewhat interested
in it, and it's okay for the public to be interested.
I'd like to get your take on the overall effort
by those members of Congress and the Secrets Task Force,
whether you have any faith in them having an ability
to make a difference in the time ahead. Jeremy, why
don't you starts if you deal with them quite a bit.
Speaker 3 (01:32):
Yeah, the intelligence agencies and the keepers of the UFO
secret should fear Congress because Congress is fired up. They
are no nonsense, people like Representative Luna, Representative Birchet, Representative Burlson.
They're just the three that are public that you know about.
There's a lot of people also in Senate that are
working to get this information forward, and no one's going
(01:53):
to relent. The more that they're stonewalled, the more angry
they get. And I am happy about their anger. So
I really do feel like as long as we keep pushing,
and as long as people like that keep pushing, then
we're gonna squeeze as much as we can out of
our government. But they're letting us get They want us
to know UFOs are real. They want us to know
(02:15):
that much at this time, which is really wild to me.
But the question is how far can we get? Well,
we need people like Tolcy Gabbert walking into the CIA
saying give me everything you got. I mean, that kind
of move is the way we're going to make progress.
Speaker 2 (02:30):
Danny. So, I don't know how much of the hearing
you watched, but what were your thoughts sitting at home?
Are these guys going to have any success? Were you
rooting for them? Or were you disgusted or discouraged?
Speaker 4 (02:43):
I love the hearings, They're amazing. It was great to
see some guy named George there. It was really amazing.
I get my pessimistic side sometimes takes over, and of
course I do defer to Jeremy and you join because
you guys are so involved. But sometimes I just wondered,
(03:03):
you know, do they have the abilities to get things done?
Speaker 3 (03:07):
Is?
Speaker 4 (03:08):
Do they create this Secrets Task Force as kind of
just to throw a bone to the public, and can
they actually do it? Can the government investigate itself? I mean,
I get pretty pessimistic about these.
Speaker 1 (03:21):
Kind of things.
Speaker 4 (03:23):
I don't have a lot of faith, and just politicians
in general, they kind of scare me sometimes they they're
more transparent. Now we see them speaking on social media,
and that almost makes me even more worried because I
see some of the things that they're saying. Sometimes, on
the other hand, it's really great to see them interested
in talking about the subject. So I do have a
(03:43):
lot of mixed feelings, and sometimes I feel kind of
pessimistic about it.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
Ryan, I don't know if you watched all the hearings
or not. What encouraged me most is they're passionate. The
people that ask these questions are passionate, and it's that
we keep mentioning the three Republican members. But there were
Democrats there. All of them were passionate as well, and
they're all on the same team. I mean, I think
some of there were some Washington observers who worried that
(04:08):
Representative Crockett as the ranking Democrat on there might cause
some trouble or turn it into a partisan fight, but
it was. They were all on the same page as
earlier the hearings were. It may be the only bipartisan
issue ever. But is that an issue for you? Is
it something to applaud or are you discourage that they're
(04:28):
ever going to get anywhere?
Speaker 5 (04:30):
I think they keep I think they need to aggressively
continue to pursue having hearings. I think that Eric Burlison
and Annapolina A Luna kicked around the idea that, well,
maybe we should stop doing hearings because we lack the
subpoena powers to force people to testify. But I don't
think they should stop doing hearings. I think they should
aggressively continue to pursue them because it keeps the UFO
(04:52):
topic in the zeitgeist, it leads to coverage by the media,
and I think it indirectly pressures the current administration UH
to be reminded that the American public have a hunger
to learn about whatever truths there are about this topic,
and and hearings are public, they're official, they have gravitas,
(05:16):
and and it's a it's a constant reminder to the administration,
to the American people and even to our to our
governmental agencies that you have to you got to stop
misleading the public on this topic because people are coming
forward and they're contradicting your narrative. And that's what we've seen, right,
that's what we've seen. We We've had about what four
major hearings since the New York Times article dropped before
(05:38):
that was fifty years of the Congress saying that nothing
about the UFO issue, so so so the youth. So
the hearings definitely are strategic, and I think that if
they stop, we're going to be in a worst off situation.
Speaker 2 (05:54):
Joe, same question to you. In this sense of the
intentions of the members that we saw at that hearing,
they seem honest to me. I mean, their interest seems real.
But I wonder if the higher ups in Congress chairpersons
of this committee or that committee are merely giving paying
lip service to getting to the bottom of it, giving
enough rope to the members, but knowing in the end
(06:15):
they're not going to make any progress. What do you think?
Speaker 6 (06:18):
Yeah, that may very well be the case. And I
think the hearings have been excellent, and yeah it's bipartisan,
but let's face it, the best questions have been asked
by the Republicans. They seem the most, the most educated
going into the hearings. One quick thing that we talked
(06:39):
about earlier, and Jeremy just mentioned on the Tulsa Gabbard
front in April, she had her team show up unannounced
at a CIA archival facility and said, we're taking these
documents give them to us. Now, that's exactly you know,
that's an amazing When I read the article, I'm like,
this is amazing. This is exactly what we need with
(07:00):
the UFO files. I don't know if we're going to
get that, but that would be that's a precedent for
what we need. As far as Congress. The one thing
that bothers me about the hearings is what Representative Burling
said Burlison. Burlison said recently, he said, going forward in
the next hearing, we want people who have new information.
(07:21):
You know, people have mentioned doctor James Lukatski to us,
but we're told he's not going to say anything new
that he hasn't said in his books and his interviews. Well,
if James Lukatski can go in under oath in front
of the American people in the world, raise his hand
and talk about what's in skin walkers at the Pentagon,
(07:45):
that would be a huge deal. He has to be
he said, Well, he's not. Burlson said, he's not. Lukowski's
not a priority. He needs to be number one priority
because we all know, I'm pretty sure we all agree
UFOs are not just nuts and bald, and that's what
Asap found out, and that needs to be told. That
story has not been told yet in the mainstream national media.
(08:08):
And I really want to get him on record. You know,
he's getting older. Get him on record. The next hearing
must have Lukowski.
Speaker 2 (08:15):
Well, I'll agree with you on that. I think if
he repeated what's been printed, it would be astounding because
most people haven't seen it.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
That book.
Speaker 2 (08:25):
I don't know how many copies of that book have sold,
but it certainly isn't probably fifty thousand. You know, in
a country of hundreds of millions of people, I doubt
that a third of Congress has read it. If he
would confirm what he has written in those books or
to other media, the major media who do not try
to talk to him, do not try to interview him,
(08:47):
who have not read the book. If he said what's
already on the record that was approved through the doptor process,
to say, it would be a really big deal. Jeremy,
what do you think.
Speaker 3 (08:56):
Yeah, Well, if she's going to go hunting places down
and kicking indoors, Tulci Gabert should go to a multi level,
multi agency, multi decades. Storage facility at Wright Patterson Air
Force Base first level is described to me as a
museum of paper and archive on the UFO projects and programs.
(09:18):
That is actual information, and she could go kick in
that door, go to Wright Patterson and find that museum
of paper, because that should have everything that we have
ever accumulated on the UAP issue.
Speaker 2 (09:31):
Let's talk about Marco Rubio for a moment. One of
you mentioned him earlier. You know, he made some very
dramatic statements when he was a US Senator, was deeply involved,
was pushing opening doors, and was promising action, and I
take him as being sincere. He's been less vociferous on
the UAP issue since he's been the Secretary of State,
(09:51):
but he and a lot of people around Trump are
very interested in this and had said going into the
you know, inauguration day of the beginning of this administration,
we're going to really bust this open. I mean a
bunch of them, some on the record and several others
behind the scenes, whispering in the years of people like me,
(10:14):
where is it? I mean, you know, Trump has said
he's going to open the files on this. He's going
to open the files on that Epstein, for example, not
a very good example. When he asks answers questions about
the issue, it seems like he's amenable to it. Then
he says, well, I don't really believe the witnesses are pilots,
and it seems like his interest is about two centimeters
(10:36):
deep if it's real at all. I'm not counting on
him or holding my breath waiting for Trump to open
the files or reveal anything. Certainly not. In making a
dramatic statement the equivalent of disclosure, I'll start in the
reverse order, Joe, then Ryan, than Danny, then Jeremy. What
(10:56):
do you think about what Rubio has said? Plus the fact?
And he walked it back a little bit since his
comments in the Age of Disclosure movie came out.
Speaker 6 (11:08):
I don't think he walked it back. I think when
he said I was selectively edited. I actually believe that's
what happened, because in the movie Age of Disclosure, it
talks about he mentions Roswell and he's like, you know,
people think that when a president gets in the office,
he can immediately say take me to Roswell, show me
the bodies, show me the craft. And I'm pretty sure
(11:30):
he was given a hypothetical there, because it almost sounds
like he's like, yeah, Roswell happened. You know, it's kind
of like a given. I don't think he said that.
He said it was like two or three years ago.
They interviewed him, and back then he was saying the
same things that he's saying now. And it really bothers
me because he back then a few years ago, he
was interviewed by Joe Khalil of News Nation and he's like, look,
either these people are telling the truth or they're crazy.
(11:54):
It's like he says the same thing now, it's like,
either it telling the truth or they're crazy. I don't
know if they're credible or not. And then he says
they are credible. So he's going back and forth on
that stuff. Listen, they're not crazy. Stop saying that they
may be wrong. Maybe they were fed in misinformation because
they're not firsthand witnesses. Except for Groush. You did talk
(12:16):
with Brett Baer about seeing, you know, photos of craft
and bodies and intelligence reports. But Rubio is Rubio read
in as the as the acting National Security Advisor. You
would think he is read in. Maybe he is, and
these unacknowledged access unacknowledged special access programs. He's not allowed
(12:37):
to admit it, so he's I guess he would be
lying because he has to, or they're giving him plausible
deniability and saying you don't want to know that, because
when you're asked and you don't know it, then you
can truthfully say I just don't know if they're credible
or not. I haven't seen it, so I know some
people think he has been read in as far as documents,
(13:00):
intelligence reports, and then as far as going the full
Monty and bringing him in and showing him stuff. I
don't think that's happened, but I don't know. I really
don't know how to judge it.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
Brian, the same kind of question about Rubio, his interest level,
his credibility, and the larger question of would you think
that the people around Trump would get him to go
ahead and make some sort of a statement. Yeah.
Speaker 5 (13:22):
I think he was selectively edited, but I don't think
everything he said during that documentary was selectively edited. For example,
he spoke about the fear of strategic surprise and likened
it to the attack on Pearl Harbor and how the
UFO topic could lead to problems such as adversaries learning
how to duplicate this technology before the United States does so,
(13:45):
He's obviously has a lot of gives a lot of
credence to this topic. He never would have agreed to
be part of a documentary about UFOs if he didn't
give give a lot of credence to it. He said
multiple times as Senator, you know there's objects flying over
our installations. We don't know what they are. We should
learn what they are. And so I think he needs
(14:06):
to follow up on that if he was emphasizing that
we don't know what they are and we should learn
what they are. So great, Now you're the Secretary of State.
What are you going to do? How are you going
to contribute to that transparency? Your boss is Donald Trump?
What are you going to tell him to persuade him
to be transparent with the public. You said it was
important to be transparent with the public, and now you're
(14:26):
in a position to contribute to that. So are you
going to do that? And you know not only that,
I mean we have Tulta Gabbard who said she wants
to get to the bottom of it and share it
with the American people. The director of the Central Intelligence
Agency is currently John Ratcliffe, he has gone up to
the line prior to being the director of the Central
(14:49):
Intelligence Agency, He's gone up to the real close to
the line saying these are not from adversaries, these are
not from the United States. I mean, he said that explicitly.
The only thing he didn't say is they're alien. But
he basically said. He didn't basically say, he explicitly says it.
The American government military cannot duplicate these technologies, and they
cannot they cannot fight against these technologies. He's basically said it.
(15:13):
And then Jade Vance, the Vice President, has said I'm
obsessed with the UFO issue. I want to get to
the bottom of it. So how is it possible You
have all these people in the Trump administration who are
talking about the importance of the topic, saying the American
people have a right to know what's going on and
we're going to look into it, and the Trump administration
is doing nothing. I don't know how that's possible. It's
to make us all very angry.
Speaker 2 (15:33):
Danny, we got about a minute before go to a break.
Sorry to cut you short, but would you like to
weigh in on that one too?
Speaker 4 (15:40):
Yeah, you know, I think as far as the selective editing,
you know, the Secretary of State Margat Rubio basically accused
the producer Dan Farrah of kind of underhanded editing not
to put words in his mouth. And there's one way
Dan Farrah can either kind of show everyone what happened. Really,
he's the Rubio interview as an entirety as a whole,
(16:04):
and let us decide for ourselves. Anything less of that
I think probably does hurt the credibility of the film
a little bit. But I am still interested in what
Rubio has to say and what he's going to do
for the future. I don't have a lot of faith
in Trump disclosing necessarily, but who knows what will happen.
And I think if all these people like Ryan's that
(16:25):
are interested around him, it is positive movement.
Speaker 1 (16:29):
Listen to more Coast to Coast AM every weeknight at
one a m. Eastern and go to Coast to coastam
dot com for more
Now here's a highlight from Coast to Coast AM on iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
Gentlemen, before we move on from political topics related to UAP,
let's stick with Congress for a minute. You know, Representative
Luna is chairperson of the Secrets Task Course, and I'm
sure people there are those who doubted whether she was
up to the job. She wanted it, Burchett, Burlason, some
other members of the House who want an oversight committee
(00:26):
in particular, wanted to keep probing into the UFO UAP topic.
And then somebody gives the ok for the Secrets task
Horse and said, oh, by the way, here's some other
secrets you could dig into, JFK, RFK, MLK, the Epstein files,
Havana syndrome, and just piled it on. It seemed to
me that they were trying to make that committee fail.
(00:48):
But Luna, whatever you may think of her, she's pretty feisty,
and I think she did make some progress on JFK records.
Epstein thing is still you know, up in the air.
I'd say that whatever files are being released or grudgingly so,
UAP hasn't made any progress that we know of, but
you know, at least having it in the public eye
(01:09):
and having a hearing shows that Congress is somewhat interested
in it, and it's okay for the public to be interested.
I'd like to get your take on the overall effort
by those members of Congress and the Secrets Task Force,
whether you have any faith in them having an ability
to make a difference in the time ahead. Jeremy, why
don't you starts if you deal with them quite a bit.
Speaker 3 (01:32):
Yeah, the intelligence agencies and the keepers of the UFO
secret should fear Congress because Congress is fired up. They
are no nonsense, people like Representative Luna, Representative Birchet, Representative Burlson.
They're just the three that are public that you know about.
There's a lot of people also in Senate that are
working to get this information forward, and no one's going
(01:53):
to relent. The more that they're stonewalled, the more angry
they get. And I am happy about their anger. So
I really do feel like as long as we keep pushing,
and as long as people like that keep pushing, then
we're gonna squeeze as much as we can out of
our government. But they're letting us get They want us
to know UFOs are real. They want us to know
(02:15):
that much at this time, which is really wild to me.
But the question is how far can we get? Well,
we need people like Tolcy Gabbert walking into the CIA
saying give me everything you got. I mean, that kind
of move is the way we're going to make progress.
Speaker 2 (02:30):
Danny. So, I don't know how much of the hearing
you watched, but what were your thoughts sitting at home?
Are these guys going to have any success? Were you
rooting for them? Or were you disgusted or discouraged?
Speaker 4 (02:43):
I love the hearings, They're amazing. It was great to
see some guy named George there. It was really amazing.
I get my pessimistic side sometimes takes over, and of
course I do defer to Jeremy and you join because
you guys are so involved. But sometimes I just wondered,
(03:03):
you know, do they have the abilities to get things done?
Speaker 3 (03:07):
Is?
Speaker 4 (03:08):
Do they create this Secrets Task Force as kind of
just to throw a bone to the public, and can
they actually do it? Can the government investigate itself? I mean,
I get pretty pessimistic about these.
Speaker 1 (03:21):
Kind of things.
Speaker 4 (03:23):
I don't have a lot of faith, and just politicians
in general, they kind of scare me sometimes they they're
more transparent. Now we see them speaking on social media,
and that almost makes me even more worried because I
see some of the things that they're saying. Sometimes, on
the other hand, it's really great to see them interested
in talking about the subject. So I do have a
(03:43):
lot of mixed feelings, and sometimes I feel kind of
pessimistic about it.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
Ryan, I don't know if you watched all the hearings
or not. What encouraged me most is they're passionate. The
people that ask these questions are passionate, and it's that
we keep mentioning the three Republican members. But there were
Democrats there. All of them were passionate as well, and
they're all on the same team. I mean, I think
some of there were some Washington observers who worried that
(04:08):
Representative Crockett as the ranking Democrat on there might cause
some trouble or turn it into a partisan fight, but
it was. They were all on the same page as
earlier the hearings were. It may be the only bipartisan
issue ever. But is that an issue for you? Is
it something to applaud or are you discourage that they're
(04:28):
ever going to get anywhere?
Speaker 5 (04:30):
I think they keep I think they need to aggressively
continue to pursue having hearings. I think that Eric Burlison
and Annapolina A Luna kicked around the idea that, well,
maybe we should stop doing hearings because we lack the
subpoena powers to force people to testify. But I don't
think they should stop doing hearings. I think they should
aggressively continue to pursue them because it keeps the UFO
(04:52):
topic in the zeitgeist, it leads to coverage by the media,
and I think it indirectly pressures the current administration UH
to be reminded that the American public have a hunger
to learn about whatever truths there are about this topic,
and and hearings are public, they're official, they have gravitas,
(05:16):
and and it's a it's a constant reminder to the administration,
to the American people and even to our to our
governmental agencies that you have to you got to stop
misleading the public on this topic because people are coming
forward and they're contradicting your narrative. And that's what we've seen, right,
that's what we've seen. We We've had about what four
major hearings since the New York Times article dropped before
(05:38):
that was fifty years of the Congress saying that nothing
about the UFO issue, so so so the youth. So
the hearings definitely are strategic, and I think that if
they stop, we're going to be in a worst off situation.
Speaker 2 (05:54):
Joe, same question to you. In this sense of the
intentions of the members that we saw at that hearing,
they seem honest to me. I mean, their interest seems real.
But I wonder if the higher ups in Congress chairpersons
of this committee or that committee are merely giving paying
lip service to getting to the bottom of it, giving
enough rope to the members, but knowing in the end
(06:15):
they're not going to make any progress. What do you think?
Speaker 6 (06:18):
Yeah, that may very well be the case. And I
think the hearings have been excellent, and yeah it's bipartisan,
but let's face it, the best questions have been asked
by the Republicans. They seem the most, the most educated
going into the hearings. One quick thing that we talked
(06:39):
about earlier, and Jeremy just mentioned on the Tulsa Gabbard
front in April, she had her team show up unannounced
at a CIA archival facility and said, we're taking these
documents give them to us. Now, that's exactly you know,
that's an amazing When I read the article, I'm like,
this is amazing. This is exactly what we need with
(07:00):
the UFO files. I don't know if we're going to
get that, but that would be that's a precedent for
what we need. As far as Congress. The one thing
that bothers me about the hearings is what Representative Burling
said Burlison. Burlison said recently, he said, going forward in
the next hearing, we want people who have new information.
(07:21):
You know, people have mentioned doctor James Lukatski to us,
but we're told he's not going to say anything new
that he hasn't said in his books and his interviews. Well,
if James Lukatski can go in under oath in front
of the American people in the world, raise his hand
and talk about what's in skin walkers at the Pentagon,
(07:45):
that would be a huge deal. He has to be
he said, Well, he's not. Burlson said, he's not. Lukowski's
not a priority. He needs to be number one priority
because we all know, I'm pretty sure we all agree
UFOs are not just nuts and bald, and that's what
Asap found out, and that needs to be told. That
story has not been told yet in the mainstream national media.
(08:08):
And I really want to get him on record. You know,
he's getting older. Get him on record. The next hearing
must have Lukowski.
Speaker 2 (08:15):
Well, I'll agree with you on that. I think if
he repeated what's been printed, it would be astounding because
most people haven't seen it.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
That book.
Speaker 2 (08:25):
I don't know how many copies of that book have sold,
but it certainly isn't probably fifty thousand. You know, in
a country of hundreds of millions of people, I doubt
that a third of Congress has read it. If he
would confirm what he has written in those books or
to other media, the major media who do not try
to talk to him, do not try to interview him,
(08:47):
who have not read the book. If he said what's
already on the record that was approved through the doptor process,
to say, it would be a really big deal. Jeremy,
what do you think.
Speaker 3 (08:56):
Yeah, Well, if she's going to go hunting places down
and kicking indoors, Tulci Gabert should go to a multi level,
multi agency, multi decades. Storage facility at Wright Patterson Air
Force Base first level is described to me as a
museum of paper and archive on the UFO projects and programs.
(09:18):
That is actual information, and she could go kick in
that door, go to Wright Patterson and find that museum
of paper, because that should have everything that we have
ever accumulated on the UAP issue.
Speaker 2 (09:31):
Let's talk about Marco Rubio for a moment. One of
you mentioned him earlier. You know, he made some very
dramatic statements when he was a US Senator, was deeply involved,
was pushing opening doors, and was promising action, and I
take him as being sincere. He's been less vociferous on
the UAP issue since he's been the Secretary of State,
(09:51):
but he and a lot of people around Trump are
very interested in this and had said going into the
you know, inauguration day of the beginning of this administration,
we're going to really bust this open. I mean a
bunch of them, some on the record and several others
behind the scenes, whispering in the years of people like me,
(10:14):
where is it? I mean, you know, Trump has said
he's going to open the files on this. He's going
to open the files on that Epstein, for example, not
a very good example. When he asks answers questions about
the issue, it seems like he's amenable to it. Then
he says, well, I don't really believe the witnesses are pilots,
and it seems like his interest is about two centimeters
(10:36):
deep if it's real at all. I'm not counting on
him or holding my breath waiting for Trump to open
the files or reveal anything. Certainly not. In making a
dramatic statement the equivalent of disclosure, I'll start in the
reverse order, Joe, then Ryan, than Danny, then Jeremy. What
(10:56):
do you think about what Rubio has said? Plus the fact?
And he walked it back a little bit since his
comments in the Age of Disclosure movie came out.
Speaker 6 (11:08):
I don't think he walked it back. I think when
he said I was selectively edited. I actually believe that's
what happened, because in the movie Age of Disclosure, it
talks about he mentions Roswell and he's like, you know,
people think that when a president gets in the office,
he can immediately say take me to Roswell, show me
the bodies, show me the craft. And I'm pretty sure
(11:30):
he was given a hypothetical there, because it almost sounds
like he's like, yeah, Roswell happened. You know, it's kind
of like a given. I don't think he said that.
He said it was like two or three years ago.
They interviewed him, and back then he was saying the
same things that he's saying now. And it really bothers
me because he back then a few years ago, he
was interviewed by Joe Khalil of News Nation and he's like, look,
either these people are telling the truth or they're crazy.
(11:54):
It's like he says the same thing now, it's like,
either it telling the truth or they're crazy. I don't
know if they're credible or not. And then he says
they are credible. So he's going back and forth on
that stuff. Listen, they're not crazy. Stop saying that they
may be wrong. Maybe they were fed in misinformation because
they're not firsthand witnesses. Except for Groush. You did talk
(12:16):
with Brett Baer about seeing, you know, photos of craft
and bodies and intelligence reports. But Rubio is Rubio read
in as the as the acting National Security Advisor. You
would think he is read in. Maybe he is, and
these unacknowledged access unacknowledged special access programs. He's not allowed
(12:37):
to admit it, so he's I guess he would be
lying because he has to, or they're giving him plausible
deniability and saying you don't want to know that, because
when you're asked and you don't know it, then you
can truthfully say I just don't know if they're credible
or not. I haven't seen it, so I know some
people think he has been read in as far as documents,
(13:00):
intelligence reports, and then as far as going the full
Monty and bringing him in and showing him stuff. I
don't think that's happened, but I don't know. I really
don't know how to judge it.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
Brian, the same kind of question about Rubio, his interest level,
his credibility, and the larger question of would you think
that the people around Trump would get him to go
ahead and make some sort of a statement. Yeah.
Speaker 5 (13:22):
I think he was selectively edited, but I don't think
everything he said during that documentary was selectively edited. For example,
he spoke about the fear of strategic surprise and likened
it to the attack on Pearl Harbor and how the
UFO topic could lead to problems such as adversaries learning
how to duplicate this technology before the United States does so,
(13:45):
He's obviously has a lot of gives a lot of
credence to this topic. He never would have agreed to
be part of a documentary about UFOs if he didn't
give give a lot of credence to it. He said
multiple times as Senator, you know there's objects flying over
our installations. We don't know what they are. We should
learn what they are. And so I think he needs
(14:06):
to follow up on that if he was emphasizing that
we don't know what they are and we should learn
what they are. So great, Now you're the Secretary of State.
What are you going to do? How are you going
to contribute to that transparency? Your boss is Donald Trump?
What are you going to tell him to persuade him
to be transparent with the public. You said it was
important to be transparent with the public, and now you're
(14:26):
in a position to contribute to that. So are you
going to do that? And you know not only that,
I mean we have Tulta Gabbard who said she wants
to get to the bottom of it and share it
with the American people. The director of the Central Intelligence
Agency is currently John Ratcliffe, he has gone up to
the line prior to being the director of the Central
(14:49):
Intelligence Agency, He's gone up to the real close to
the line saying these are not from adversaries, these are
not from the United States. I mean, he said that explicitly.
The only thing he didn't say is they're alien. But
he basically said. He didn't basically say, he explicitly says it.
The American government military cannot duplicate these technologies, and they
cannot they cannot fight against these technologies. He's basically said it.
(15:13):
And then Jade Vance, the Vice President, has said I'm
obsessed with the UFO issue. I want to get to
the bottom of it. So how is it possible You
have all these people in the Trump administration who are
talking about the importance of the topic, saying the American
people have a right to know what's going on and
we're going to look into it, and the Trump administration
is doing nothing. I don't know how that's possible. It's
to make us all very angry.
Speaker 2 (15:33):
Danny, we got about a minute before go to a break.
Sorry to cut you short, but would you like to
weigh in on that one too?
Speaker 4 (15:40):
Yeah, you know, I think as far as the selective editing,
you know, the Secretary of State Margat Rubio basically accused
the producer Dan Farrah of kind of underhanded editing not
to put words in his mouth. And there's one way
Dan Farrah can either kind of show everyone what happened. Really,
he's the Rubio interview as an entirety as a whole,
(16:04):
and let us decide for ourselves. Anything less of that
I think probably does hurt the credibility of the film
a little bit. But I am still interested in what
Rubio has to say and what he's going to do
for the future. I don't have a lot of faith
in Trump disclosing necessarily, but who knows what will happen.
And I think if all these people like Ryan's that
(16:25):
are interested around him, it is positive movement.
Speaker 1 (16:29):
Listen to more Coast to Coast AM every weeknight at
one a m. Eastern and go to Coast to coastam
dot com for more
The Best of Coast to Coast AM News
Host
George Noory
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
NFL Daily with Gregg Rosenthal
Gregg Rosenthal and a rotating crew of elite NFL Media co-hosts, including Patrick Claybon, Colleen Wolfe, Steve Wyche, Nick Shook and Jourdan Rodrigue of The Athletic get you caught up daily on all the NFL news and analysis you need to be smarter and funnier than your friends.