(Not So) Deep Sh*t on More NewJersey Drone Madness and UFO Disclosure

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
I'm Chris, I'm Steve, and we're talking about some
deep shit, and we're back totalk about some more deep shit.

(00:30):
Hey, steve, what's going on?
Chris, how you doing Not toobad.
It's been a little bit since werecorded it has, but here we
are.

Speaker 2 (00:36):
Yeah, we're back at it, Happy to be here.

Speaker 1 (00:39):
And so much has gone on.
I think our last episode, ourlast long episode, we talked
about the drone situation.

Speaker 2 (00:47):
We did, and it was kind of at its height.

Speaker 1 (00:49):
It was, and I really I was so sure that there was no
way that that was going to goaway completely.

Speaker 2 (00:55):
And here we are, I was gobsmacked.

Speaker 1 (00:57):
It's funny, it was right.
Right as the Christmas seasonstarted it went away, and you
kind of understood that, becauseChristmas and you know it
stopped around Thanksgiving,which I thought was weird.
And then it kind of did stopagain on Christmas, right, and
you didn't hear much of it, atleast you didn't hear about it.
And then I mean it's stillgoing on, like that's the crazy

(01:18):
part of it, it's not over.

Speaker 2 (01:21):
It must be much less now, though, right.

Speaker 1 (01:27):
Depends who you talk to.
I mean, if you talk to some ofthe, some of the mayors in new
jersey are still talking about,well, let's, let's give a brief
overview, just if, in casepeople listening to this, this
saga, I will we'll say itstarted november 2024.
I mean it, it had been going onsooner than and I think they
said in 2017.
There was like several weeks ofsomething over Langley.

(01:48):
Yes, right, so these dronethings have been going on for a
while, but it captured thepublic's attention kind of
November, and that's when theUnited Kingdom there was
unauthorized drones over four USAir Force bases in the United
Kingdom RAF Lakenheath, rafMildenhall, raf Feltwell and RAF

(02:12):
Fairford and they had small,multiple unmanned aerial
vehicles getting over the bases.
And this is the same thing thathas happened in other places,
right, it's supposedly happenedin December in Germany, and then
it started happening overJersey, right, which is, which

(02:36):
is crazy.
So, and a lot of them were inthe area where military bases
were.
I mean, there are militarybases and stuff in Germany, in
Germany, in New Jersey, right,so it was over that and, yeah,
it became quite a few and, likewe talked about, people saw
misidentified things.
You know, everybody was lookingup at the sky, everybody was

(02:59):
looking for these drones.
So a lot of people looked upand saw a star, or saw a regular
aircraft, or you know, I'vebeen tricked multiple times.
We get tricked once by whatended up being a medvac
helicopter, just because at adistance and with the cloud
cover it looked so different.
Um, and another time, in miami,we thought we saw something but
ended up just being planescoming in because of the weird

(03:20):
cloud cover, because of the waythe lights of the plane bounced
off of the clouds, it made itlook very weird.
So there was a lot ofmisidentification.
But, that being said, therealso were very reputable
witnesses like state police,state officials, state officials

(03:41):
I guess the New Jersey policehad a whole unit out there
trying to apprehend one of thesethings and couldn't do it.
It went dark.
One of the congresspeopletalked about the National Guard

(04:07):
sorry, the Coast Guard sayingthat there was like a whole
bunch of them shadowing one oftheir ships.
So so while you can say there'speople who like brush this
entire thing off to hysteria,there was a little bit of that.

Speaker 2 (04:12):
At the core, something was going on here,
right.
Right, and when you talk aboutit, chris, just the fact that
the coast guard said what theysaid about being kind of chased,
I know there was the policewhat was the name of that police
, the town but there was thepolice at the beach basically
saying they saw them coming fromthe water.
So there's just some weirdthings that never have been

(04:36):
explained, right.

Speaker 1 (04:38):
Right, and so you know, in like early December,
there were significant sightings.
In early December there weresignificant sightings, hunterdon
County in New Jersey.
Witnesses described largedrones operating in groups up to
30.
And then around the 11th, newJersey lawmakers met with
security officials and askedquestions and I remember they

(05:08):
came out of that meeting verydisillusioned, like we got no
answers and during this wholetime, uh, the faa, the fbi, um,
you know, state police,obviously, like every federal
and state organization that wasasked about these drones, said
we don't know what they are like, like.
You have to remember that thatthat statement was said over and
over again under oath and stuff.

(05:29):
There was a hearing at thatpoint, remember there was some
sort of hearing and FBI wasasked about it and I think even
the FAA was asked about it andthey said no, we don't know what
these things are.

Speaker 2 (05:38):
That's why it makes me uncomfortable.
They said we don't know whatthey are, clearly Right.
Then the Trump administrationsaid they were cleared by the
FAA, which those two thingscan't live in the same universe.
Right, and so if it was clearedby the FAA, why in December,

(06:02):
was there a House IntelligentCommittee closed-door briefing?
So none of these things can allexist at the same time, right?

Speaker 1 (06:10):
I remember one of the New Jersey lawmakers saying
that, saying if there's nothingto this, why were they in a
closed-door briefing for liketwo and a half hours?

Speaker 2 (06:19):
Right.
What could they possibly have?
What did you talk about?
I'm sorry to overspeak you, butwhat did you talk about?
What could you possibly have?
What did you talk about?
I'm sorry to overspeak you, butwhat did you talk about?
What could you possibly?
Talk about we talked aboutsomething that we all know about
.
That's been cleared.
It doesn't make any sense.

Speaker 1 (06:29):
And that's the thing too is like, towards the end,
you know, john Kirby, thespokesman for the Pentagon under
the previous administration,was saying up and down, these
are not us, these are not, youknow.

(06:52):
And reporters were trying togive them an out, like well, is
this a private concern operatingNot that we know of?
Is this some department?
No, is this testing, like thepress wanted them to say?
Oh no, this is something verynormal, here's what it is.
And the press kept getting kindof almost annoyed that they
weren't getting that, theyweren't getting anything right.
And then trump said, you know,hey, you know, weird that
they're not telling you what'sgoing on.
Uh, I'll tell you what's goingon.

(07:13):
And so wait till we get inthere and I'll tell you what's
going on.
We really weren't told well, andwhat's weird too is when he got
in there and then or maybe itwas before that, he was having a
meeting and there were someother governors, republican
governors, and right there inthe press, in front of the press
, a bunch of them startedtelling stories.
Well, we had him in Oregon, wehad him in this in Virginia,
like it's a concern, it's aconcern.
So then he gets in office, alittle time passes and then all

(07:39):
of a sudden the White Housespokesperson comes out and said
I just just you know somethinglike the full quote.
I might add it in here, butit's like something like I just
came from the president and youknow, the drones that were
operating over New Jersey wassomething like.
They were lawful drones.
They didn't say they wereoperated by the FAA, they said
they were approved by the FAAfor and this was my favorite

(07:59):
part of the quote it was likefor research and other purposes.
That's clear as mud and noreporter in that.
In the press briefing room nota single one asked the question.
Wait, hold on.
But the FAA testified underoath that they did not know

(08:20):
anything.
So are you saying that theylied under oath or they did not
know anything?
So are you saying that theylied under oath or they didn't
know about?
Like, explain to us how this iswhat the answer is.
When you were telling us whereeverybody was telling us up and
down it, it wasn't.
Nobody asked that question andit just quietly went away.
Even though, again, the youknow new officials, I still see

(08:44):
a couple of the mayors out theresaying, no, this is still
happening, not at the frequency,it was not at the frequency it
was, but it's still happening.

Speaker 2 (08:54):
Of course, I will tell you, even if it's not
happening.
Let's just say Right, itstopped.
I believe that it is stillhappening.
What it is, we don't know.
So when we say it is it right.
But even if it just stopped,that doesn't take away from the
fact that we don't know what thehell it was right, what is this
, and it's just.
You know, we're just on to thenext thing, the next shiny

(09:15):
object kind of I guess I don'tknow right, but I saw these
videos.
Um, some of them well, I don'tknow what it was.
Some of them, well, I don'tknow what it was.
Some of them, it was clearlysomething quite large for a
drone, right, it wasn't justsomething you or I could have
put up there, right, Clearly,you could look at them.
So maybe that was one out ofevery 10 videos, but it was

(09:39):
still there.
What is that?

Speaker 1 (09:41):
Not to mention the ones that didn't even look like
aircraft, but look like or, andthere's a couple of those make
me actually more nervous theones that where it looks like an
aircraft, then it looks like anorb, then it looks like an
aircraft and it looks like anlike there's.
There's been a couple out there.

Speaker 2 (09:54):
I don't like that and I that if I saw that myself,
that would make me nervous thepeople who've seen these things.

Speaker 1 (10:03):
And again you run into this problem.
Right Person sees it, so ifthey just watch it, they get a
pretty good account of it.
But then they tell you that andpeople say, well, where's the
proof?
You saw this, supposedly allright, where's the proof?
Okay, that's the first category.
Then the second category is Isaw this.
I had the presence of mind tograb my phone and try to record

(10:23):
it.
This presence of mind to grabmy phone and try to record it.
This is a message to all of youout here listening.
No matter how hard you try,you're not going to capture what
it really looks like throughyour iPhone or your Android.
You're going to get a pictureof it, but you're you know that
that's not going to give you thesame visual as a person who
looked up and saw it, becausethe camera is going to be, you

(10:45):
know, little bits of light aregoing to, especially the fact
that these things have a lot oflight on them at night.
You know, take your camera andgo out and point it at night
your phone camera at somethingwith lights on it.

Speaker 2 (10:56):
Was there being oncoming car?
Just point it at a street light.

Speaker 1 (10:58):
Right, and look at how the image is distorted, how
that just that little bit oflight makes it so none of the
videos are going to be great.
And then, of course, you havethe added problem is that every
time somebody sees a video, thefirst thing that comes out of
people's mouth is well, that'sai, that's, that's cgi, with no,
no knowledge of.
And even though a lot of thesepeople can say, no, you can see

(11:20):
the metadata like.
I can show you that the theoriginal from my phone that
shows the metadata when it wasfilmed, how it was.
You know, there are people whoare taking this seriously, who
are looking into that, andpeople who don't take it
seriously, just sort of brush itall off and go nah, those are
all faked, all right.
How do you explain the factthat experts have looked at them
and said, no, this was a videotaken from this phone, this is

(11:41):
what it captured.
And then they find otherexplanations.
So it's Just.

Speaker 2 (11:46):
I'm just saying, though, just the fact that our
own government says we have noidea what.
They are right.
And then the same government.
It's the same government, it'sjust a different person in
charge of the executive branch,that's all it is.
Everybody's the same, the FAAis the same.
They say, oh wait, yeah, but oh, we approved it.

(12:10):
Well, okay, so you didn't knowwhat it was.
You now have approved it.
What is it?
We're not gonna tell you, right, I don't need anybody debunking
anything, because it's justthere in front of you.
Something is happening, becauseit's something, because FAA
wouldn't have approved nothing,or did?

Speaker 1 (12:30):
the FAA also approve the ones flying over the UK.
How is that?

Speaker 2 (12:35):
Did the FAA approve the ones that were flying over?
Like you said, Langley, Rightthat there are reports that they
tried to bring those down andthey failed at it.

Speaker 1 (12:45):
Same thing we heard about the New Jersey drones.
They tried various methods touse anti.
There are anti-drone technology.

Speaker 2 (12:51):
They flew above them, and then the thing would just
shut its lights off and take adifferent course.

Speaker 1 (12:58):
Actually it's funny because the direct term they
said was go dark, but thatdidn't just mean it shut its
lights off.
What?

Speaker 2 (13:05):
does that mean, it meant?

Speaker 1 (13:05):
it vanished from all visual.

Speaker 2 (13:07):
They couldn't see it.
They couldn't see it On radar.
You mean, they couldn't captureit.

Speaker 1 (13:10):
It went dark completely.
So it means that it evaded alltheir functions.
And there are your normalcommercial drones operate, you
know, by a signal, right, asignal from wherever you're
controlling the drone to thedrone.
So the technology exists toblock that signal.
Like there are jammers that youcan get you know they're cell

(13:33):
phone jammers, but they're notsupposed to have them.
But like it is very easy tohave technology, hey, there's a
drone flying around, well, wepoint this thing at it which
shoots out a, um, you know awave that disrupts the
communication.
Now that drone all of a suddendrops to the ground because the
signal it's getting to say flygoes away.
Like they can kill the power ofdrones.
Like there's a have all thisanti-drone technology that does

(13:55):
work, but not on these things.
It didn't work, you're right,not any of them and I guess it
it.

Speaker 2 (14:01):
It boggles my mind.
I don't.
Our podcast is generally light,right, we try to have a good
time.
I have a really nice time doingthis, but it boggles my mind,
chris, that people can live in aworld where the government can
tell you.
They know what it is flyingabove you.
They're not going to tell youwhat it is, but don't worry

(14:22):
about it.
What the heck are you talkingabout?

Speaker 1 (14:29):
You got things flying over me and my family.
What is this?
Well, especially when yourinitial thing you said was you
didn't know what they were.
So your first line was I don'tknow what's flying over you and
your family, but don't worryabout it.

Speaker 2 (14:38):
Then it was like well , we know we, we, we know I mean
they were approved.

Speaker 1 (14:42):
Yeah Well, what are they?
I can't tell you, but don'tworry about it.
And then people say well, youknow, this is the other issue
with this the word drone gotattached to these objects and
that's how we started this,right.

Speaker 2 (14:56):
And it sounds very Right, and some of them it's
non-aggressive, it just soundseasy.
You know drone.

Speaker 1 (15:04):
But when they say it's a drone the size of an SUV,
that's not a drone anymore.

Speaker 2 (15:08):
Some people said like a camper, right.

Speaker 1 (15:11):
So that's not a drone .
If there is an object the sizeof a camper or SUV or whatever
that is flying, that's not adrone, that's a craft.
Now you can argue is it aremote, a remote operated craft?
Okay, is there somebody inthere?
Okay, you can argue that, butyou can't call it a drone.

(15:31):
A drone is, you know, by mostaccounts, a smaller unmanned
vehicle that's operated remotely.
That is a drone, operatedremotely.
That is a drone.
But if you're seeing theselarge objects flying in the sky,
the reason why they attach adrone to it and this is
interesting, this is the waythey kind of get around this
stuff is is I'm not saying theyknow what it is, or maybe some

(15:54):
people know what it is, but theway they kind of keep it kind of
frosty is they call them drones.
Why is the um arrow theall-domain anomaly resolution
office?
Why are they not involved inthe investigation?
Well, we don't investigatedrones.

Speaker 2 (16:11):
Really.

Speaker 1 (16:11):
But there have been other cases.
Why aren't you?

Speaker 2 (16:13):
investigating when the government says we don't
know what this is.
But there have been other casesthat they've debunked.

Speaker 1 (16:19):
That turned out to be , according to them, some sort
of aerial vehicle, so obviouslythey do interact with them.
They're in the air.
They weren't doing it becausethey knew what they were Right.
They don't want Arrow to getinvolved because Arrow would
make people go wait a second isthis a UAP?

Speaker 2 (16:34):
You know it's mind boggling because it's in the sky
.
Maybe people don't pay as muchattention.
I'm not sure.
Can you imagine, chris?
Just you know you live up atthe, you live at the beach.
Wherever neighborhood you livedin, right, there was just cars
driving around with no lights onor something, and nobody knew

(16:56):
what they were doing everysingle night.
What are they doing?
And they only showed up atnight.
And they only showed up atnight.
You don't know what they are.
Why are they here?
And then the local police saywe don't know, we don't know
where they're coming from, wedon't know how to stop this from
coming into your neighborhood.
People wouldn't put up with it.
No, they would not.
They just wouldn't in any otheraspect.

(17:17):
But you know they're told.
Well, it's in the.
I don't know.
You know if it's a socialexperiment to see what people
put up with, I think peoplefailed.

Speaker 1 (17:26):
Yeah, I think it did.
Or maybe it was excessive ifthe theory was hey, we put stuff
up in the air above people'sheads to make them worry, but
then we tell them not to worryand eventually they stop
worrying, and of course you know.
The other thing is remember,the FAA put a restriction on
drone flights.

(17:46):
I mean, the FAA put in a no-flyfor a bunch of days, right, why
would they do that if they hada….
If they gave it prior approval.
If they were FAA approved andagain….

Speaker 2 (17:57):
None of it makes any sense it doesn't make any sense.

Speaker 1 (17:59):
And it doesn't make any sense to why that was the
answer, because that was theanswer we were getting from the
previous administration, afterthey initially said they didn't
know what it was Right.
And then the story morphed towell, they're approved, and
hobbyists and misidentifications, don't worry about it.
Basically, you're not seeingwhat you say.
You're seeing Like, that wasthe gaslighting, right, right.

(18:20):
And then the nextadministration came in and said
well, we're going to stop thegaslighting and then proceeded
to gaslight, right.
So my general theory and again Idon't is they're being told a
like, they're being told oh,don't worry, it's FAA-approved.
We discovered it wasFAA-approved stuff.

(18:40):
Not that they know that it'sFAA, it's just to make it go
away.
Because, honestly, like you,like you said before, if you
start thinking about this stuff,it it should get worrisome.
Yeah, no matter what they are.
Because if they're fa approveddrones, well, how are they
operating?
Like, how are these big, hugedrones that seem to fly for a

(19:04):
long period of time?
Where are they coming from?
We can't detect where they'recoming from where are they going
?
what they're up to and then getinto the orb thing, because
that's where it gets.
Really weird is when people sayand they see drones and they
see orbs, some people have takenvideos of drones interacting
with orbs.
Really, I haven't seen thatsome of the drones that are up
there are probably US assets.
People have taken videos ofdrones interacting with orbs.

Speaker 2 (19:25):
Really, I haven't seen that.

Speaker 1 (19:26):
Some of the drones that are up there are probably
US assets that are up therebecause there's something else
up there, I'd hope.
That they're trying to.
Right.

Speaker 2 (19:34):
I'd hope.
Right, I hope they're not someother foreign asset.
That's unlikely.
I believe it's very unlikely.

Speaker 1 (19:40):
They're ridiculous.
And that was what got evenweirder too when that some
congressperson was like oh, hewas told by reliable sources
there's an Iranian mothershipoff the coast and it's like Iran
is not sailing, a ship off theAtlantic Ocean that somehow is

(20:02):
evading detection from our coastguard, from our navy Wow, that,
our Navy, wow, those tricky andflying drones.
In First of all, why would theydo that?
Like, why are you going to dothat?
You're just going to like, whywould any nation do that?
If you had that technology,maybe you'd be utilizing it.
You certainly wouldn't beturning lights on and going hey,

(20:22):
look at us, catch me if you can.
Like you wouldn't do that.
I mean, I suppose you know atsome level they're using it as a
test of whatever.
All right.
So if that's the case, let'ssay that's the case.
It's China, china's doing it,but our government doesn't want
to admit it.
But if our government knew thatit was China, like knew for

(20:46):
100% that it was china, likeknew for 100 that it was china,
you don't think that actionwould be taken.
You don't think it'sprovocative to be flying
unidentified aircraft over overour military bases, like the
absurdity of this just defiescomprehension.
Like there's no world in whichwe could could stop something
that's flying over our militarybases.

(21:06):
But we wouldn't Like if wecould stop it we would.
We're not, so obviously wecan't, and they've admitted as
such and nobody's worried.

Speaker 2 (21:18):
It's weird.
I mean, there was that theother thing that was being
floated around, that they weretrying to detect a nuclear
weapon.
Did you hear that one?

Speaker 1 (21:25):
Yes, and then what was funny about that is is a
couple like Ryan Graves came outand he said I talked to the
people who, if that were thecase, they would be involved,
and none of them are deployed.
I've heard that, like they'reall, they're all just, you know,
at home doing their regularthing and like if this were
going on, I wouldn't be able toget in touch with these people

(21:48):
because that's what they'd be.
They're the ones who aretrained to do such a thing, but
yet they're all chilling.
So it's obviously not that.
And again, all right, if thatwere the case, then it would
resolve right.
If they, let's say they werelooking for a nuclear thing,
either they were going to findit or it was going to do

(22:08):
whatever somebody was going todo with it.
Neither of those thingshappened.
And the weirdness of just likeit's, a couple of New Jersey
lawmakers were like these thingscome out as soon as it gets
dark.
They don't come out before dark, it's after it gets dark and
they stay out until like 1 or 2in the morning and when most

(22:29):
people go to bed you know atthat point most people are in
bed most of the time they all goaway.
So they want to be seen,because if they didn't want to
be seen, they'd be coming out at1 o'clock in the morning when
most people were in bed and afew people who were out probably
wouldn't notice anything.
Oh, and they probably wouldn'tturn their lights on because

(22:49):
these drones apparently a lot ofthem were silent.
Some made noises, some madenoises that didn't make sense.
Remember that You'd hear some ofthem be like.
It made the noise like it hadpropellers, but it didn't seem
to have propellers, which iseven weirder.
It's like masquerading Like,which is even weirder.
It's like masquerading.
Like I said last time, asabsurd as I think this sounds

(23:10):
and we're going to get moreabsurd as this episode continues
but as absurd as it sounds, Ithink some small number of those
things were some sort ofsomething from somewhere else
that was masquerading to somedegree to look like our tech, to
just sort of like I don't know,just sort of kind of expose us

(23:31):
to it.

Speaker 2 (23:32):
What do you mean?

Speaker 1 (23:32):
Tell me what you mean .
This is something that a lot.
There's been a lot of cases ofUFO sightings where, like
sometimes the UFO or sometimesright after they see like
military craft, but they don'tmake sense.
There've been a couple of likesightings where, okay, well then
then a helicopter went by butit didn't make noise like a
helicopter, but it looked like ahelicopter.
It seemed to look like ahelicopter Like this.

(23:55):
Look at this, chris, right.

Speaker 2 (23:56):
Just look in this headline from CNN December 21st
Drones continue to buzz over USbases.
The military isn't sure why orhow to stop them.
How is that not something thatconcerns everyone?
Right, and we just say, well, Imean, they told us it's.

Speaker 1 (24:17):
FAA approved Right.

Speaker 2 (24:18):
Well, how does that live in the same world where the
military doesn't know what itis over their own base?

Speaker 1 (24:24):
It's just double talk continually it's very
disheartening how people acceptthe double talk, though yeah
like, like I, I, you know, Ibefore we were chatting before
um, before we hit record, but Iwas saying, you know, one of the
things is the news.
It seems that the major let'swe'll just say the major
networks, right, are perfectlyhappy to not cover this because

(24:46):
it's too weird.
Right, it's too weird, it's.
It was an interesting story fora little bit, but then, you
know, okay, real world politics,real world events, they'd
rather cover this because this,you know, started out as weird
objects in the sky, but then itwas starting to get really
strange.

Speaker 2 (25:02):
And hey, listen, I don't want to talk about why
something's flying over themilitary base.
Let's just yell at each otherabout, right, certain people
playing certain sports.
Let's just yell him, right, Imean that's, that's the thing,
right.

Speaker 1 (25:14):
Who cares?

Speaker 2 (25:15):
you know when you're dealing with something.
To me, that's could be whoknows what it could be in terms
of how it's affecting us as evenjust as humanity, right, right,
but no, we're going to yell ateach other about something else.

Speaker 1 (25:31):
Well, but like what?
If the answer is like let'sjust you know, let's just kind
of suppose for a second right?
What would be a logical answerfor the answers that we've
gotten?
First answer was we don't knowwhat it is, don't worry, right?
Why would you say that?
Well, if you didn't know whatit is, you're gonna be truthful.
You're saying don't worrybecause we don't want people to
worry.
Well, I mean, but you reallyshouldn't be telling them not to

(25:52):
worry, because you can't sayyou don't know what it is, but
don't worry about it in the samebreath, right?
But then the story changes.
We know what it is.
Uh, they're approved, don'tworry about it, right?
Why would you say that?
Because it's still going on andpeople were starting to get, as
you know, starting to getagitated.
You know, as the story grew,people were really stuck wait,
hold on what's going on.

(26:12):
So then the story became no,don't worry about it.
Trump said hey, when we get inthere, we're going to tell you
what's what.
Well, what if he got in and theanswer he was given was we
don't know what this, we don'tknow where it's coming from.
Do you want to tell people?
Hey, I checked into this.
Yeah, I guess we don't knowwhere they're coming from, we

(26:33):
don't know who's doing this, wedon't know where these things
fly from, we don't know wherethey fly to, we don't know what
they're doing while they're upthere.
You're probably better offgoing.
Oh, I guess I should just fallback on.

Speaker 2 (26:45):
Knowing all that, American citizens, if I were you
, I'd be, worried Like no one'sgoing to say that.

Speaker 1 (26:50):
And that's the thing and this has been said before
one of the major reasons why theUAP topic.
You know, if what is going onseems to be, you know what we
think.
Well, do you think thegovernment wants to come out and
say that, hey guys, there'sthings flying around, we can't
stop, they come and go as theyplease.

(27:10):
Yeah, any questions.
And then one person's questionwill go wait, okay, you're
saying these things are real.
So what about alien abductions?
Oh yeah, those are real.
Wait, so American citizens,citizens all over all of the
world?
Okay, just worry.
Taking it will put back nothinganyone can do about it.
They can do with you what theywish and return you or not

(27:33):
return you as is, as is, their,you know, preference.
Um, yeah, sleep tight, enjoy,relax, like there's no world in
which you can do that.
No, so it's understating.
We'll pause for the.
Is it the garage door?

(27:56):
yeah now it's going up like.

Speaker 2 (27:58):
So I don't know like it may go down, she'd leave.
What's she doing?
I I heard a door close.

Speaker 1 (28:05):
Somebody coming in maybe.

Speaker 2 (28:07):
It was a car door.
We'll have to cut the spot out,obviously.

Speaker 1 (28:10):
Oh yeah, I'll trim this whole section out, yeah.

Speaker 2 (28:14):
She didn't say she was leaving anywhere, but she
doesn't have to fucking run itby me.

Speaker 1 (28:18):
That's true.
She might have just gone out todo something.
All right, I feel like as soonas I start talking, the garage
door is going to go down, right.
But yeah, there's no world inwhich you want to make that.
That.
You know.
Admission, you know Sorry,there's nothing.
So like I get it right, you getit, and we knew that was going

(28:42):
to happen.
What goes up must come down, orelse critters will get in the
garage.
That's true alright, it's goingto be good now so, yeah, there's
no world where you want to makethat, that admission.
So it makes sense.
Right, it does make sense, butit's still.

(29:04):
You know, when the White Housesaid, oh, they're authorized by
the FAA, most press wereperfectly happy to let that one
go.

Speaker 2 (29:16):
Right, but this is what keeps us talking right,
because there's always somethinghappening that we're really not
begin be.
We're not given the entireexplanation now.
And this is just one more thinghow many is it going to take
before people say what's goingon here?

Speaker 1 (29:33):
And and it's funny too, because that was in in like
late January that the whitehouse gave that statement.
And then, in like mid February,a general Gregory uh, good,
good, oh, like a lot again, andlike mid-February, a General
Gregory Godot, commander ofNORAD and US Northern Command.
He reported that 350 dronedetections occurred over 100

(29:55):
military installations in theprevious year, so 2024.
Right, so, he said, in 2024,over one 350 drones over 100
military installations.
And he advocated for expandingthe authorities.
Because that was the otherweird thing, right?
Hey, these drones are over themilitary bases.
Well, why didn't you shoot themdown?

(30:16):
Oh, we're not allowed to whatit's like.
No, if it's under, you know,we're not allowed to shoot them
down, we need the authority toshoot them down.
Wait a second.
So you're telling me themilitary didn't have the
authority, that if someunidentified object flew over
one of our bases, did not havethe authority to take it out?

(30:38):
Are you really telling me that?
Are you telling me that if itdidn't have, like, a Chinese
flag or a Russian flag orIranian iranian flag on it and
it hovered over, they would go?
Nope, guys, our hands are tied,we just can't take these things
down, just let it hang up therelike no, it'd be taken down.
In moments something doesn'tmake sense.
It's because they can't take itdown, like that's the thing is.
They have to say they're notallowed to take it down because

(31:00):
otherwise the question would bewhy didn't you take it down?
The answer they don't want tosay is well, we tried, we just
can't Like.
We tried to disrupt it, itignored it.

Speaker 2 (31:10):
I would think listen, I'm not a military person I
would think that if there'ssomething in the air approaching
a military base, they know it'scoming before it gets there.
I would hope right, I mean I'mnot, but again, I hope that
that's what happens.
So you think at some point theywould try to identify what it
is before it gets there.

Speaker 1 (31:29):
Right.

Speaker 2 (31:30):
And during that time of being unable to identify it,
you might ask who you need to tosay what do we do now if this
thing gets here?
We don't know what it is.
We keep trying to communicatewith it.
You think that kind ofconversation would happen.
Maybe it's I'm in a dream state, but that seems reasonable to
me.

Speaker 1 (31:50):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (31:50):
Right, like if, if there's something coming that we
don't know, even at an airportthey try to talk.
They don't just let planes justcome in that they don't know
what they are.

Speaker 1 (32:02):
Every object come in that they don't know what they
are.
Every object, right.
As soon as it gets in near anairport, every object needs to,
you need to know where it'sgoing and what, because that's
how think.
Well, as we know, we had somethings happen recently, right,
some horrible air crashes whenthat helicopter hit the plane,
and I mean that that's horrific,right just, you'll hear about
how united states, like alaska,like russia, tries playing games

(32:26):
.

Speaker 2 (32:26):
Every once in a while They'll get a little closer
than they should.
You'll hear that in the news.
And we went up and intercepted,right, what did you?
And that's when we know who.
It is Right, you wouldn'tintercept something you don't
know what it is.
It seems you'd be even on ahigher alert, right?
It just doesn't make sense.

Speaker 1 (32:41):
The other thing that never makes sense is when that
happens.
We see it.
They show it all over the news.
Hey, look, here's the guncamera footage of this Russian
MiG that came, that buzzed ourcockpit.
Look at that, you can count therivets on the side of the thing
.
And then there's a UAP thing.
Oh, we just don't have any goodpictures of it.
I don't know the other otherthing too, and this is something

(33:03):
to consider.
The thing I hear a lot is well,these drones are new drones.
Technology is new.
Commercial drone technology isrelatively new.
The military has had drones forquite some time.
They were using drones onceusing drones like desert storm
right, like they were high-endmilitary drones that did that

(33:25):
kind of thing At that point,like no regular consumer could
ever have hoped to have such athing.
But like most technology, overtime it gets cheaper, right?
So when drones were just amilitary thing, you don't think
at the same time they developedcounter drone technology,
because if they developed itthen it's conceivable an enemy

(33:48):
could develop it and, as amatter of fact, it's likely.
Once somebody developssomething, it's likely that
their adversaries are going todevelop it, because there's all
sorts of espionage and thingsget stolen and ideas get out
there, or just knowing that sucha thing is possible can make it
like oh, they figured out a wayto do X.
Well, well, we have smartpeople figure out what you know

(34:09):
and then, through a little bitof spying and a little bit of
this and a little bit of that,next thing, you know, other
countries are having this.
That's why they want to a lotof times.
They want to keep technologysecret is because they don't
even want the enemy knowing wehave it, because once an enemy
knows we have it, then they knowit's's possible, and once they
know it's possible, they canpossibly do it.
So anti-drone technology hasbeen around for a long time.
Right, but what do we hear whenall this drone stuff happens?

(34:32):
Well, this stuff is really new.
We don't have the this, wedon't have the that.
I think I said it last time.
Our federal government pretendsto be either really competent
or really incompetent, dependingon what they need at the time,
and for some reason, the pressjust sort of goes with it
without really oh, you don'thave the things to the authority

(34:53):
, you don't have the things inplace.
Yeah, I can believe that.
Yeah, that's the story.
And then other times it's likedon't worry, we know everything
where the government, you knowwe, you know we're watching,
we're protecting the oh yeah,yeah, we can rest easy, cause
they're protecting us.
Well, they're not reallyprotecting us very well If they
can't detect these drones.
Like we operate in that thingwhere both things are true.

Speaker 2 (35:13):
Right, Excuse me, we we're going to get to a place
that we're going to be able tomake sure no one crosses our
southern border, because we'llbe able to monitor it, but we
don't know what the heck's up inthe sky.

Speaker 1 (35:29):
They're on a drone, though.

Speaker 2 (35:31):
I don't know what it is.

Speaker 1 (35:34):
No, so that story has yet to be completed.
What I'm waiting for it'shappened to some degree.
There's a YouTube channelcalled Project Fear.
Okay, I haven't heard of it theymostly do ghost stuff, where
they go to haunted locations.
They have high quality camerasand stuff.

(35:54):
So they had two specials wherethey one was from December and
one just came out earlier wherethey spent a couple of nights in
New Jersey and they had liketwo teams with decent cameras
and they went out to some of thehotspots and they got some
interesting footage and they,you know, right there on the
thing that, okay, look at thoselights, what do you think those
is?
Oh, we look at the flighttracker, oh, it's a plane coming

(36:15):
in.
So there was a bunch of onesthat they showed where they like
, okay, here's this light thatwe filmed, that's weird.
And here's the flight trackerat the time totally empty.
And look at the light, like,there's some weird ones that
they got.
And they also were showingweird ones.

(36:36):
There's an app called Enigmawhich you can download, that
basically you can upload a UFO.
Like if you saw a UFO UAP andyou took a video of it, you can
use this app to upload it andthen say, hey, I saw this,
here's the location, here's theyou know, and so this app keeps

(36:56):
track of all that.
Okay, what's it called?
Enigma?
Enigma, and so I think it'slike an Enigma Labs that runs it
.
And now there's someallegations that, oh, that app
is that organization is theintelligence agencies, because
they want you reporting UFOthings to them.
They want to know about it.
But regardless they are, it isopen for people to.

(37:19):
When you're on the app, you canactually look at other ones
that happen in your area andstuff like that.
So I've only played with it alittle bit, but I'm saying is is
that so they do?
So there are others too, likethere are other people with good
equipment and this thing hasbeen going on for a while.
So I have to imagine that outthere and people are probably
doing it and still putting the,that we're going to see some

(37:40):
things come out where people arelike hey, I spent a month and I
took the best quality equipment, night vision cameras and all
this stuff, and here's what Iyou know here.
So I'm still waiting.
There's more to be said on this, I think.
I think it's not over yet.
I think the FAA story was justto hey, we got to get people to
stop talking about this now,because if people start talking

(38:02):
about this, they're going tostart asking questions and it's
a slippery slope right it's.
I always say that disclosure,catastrophic disclosure, is that
thing that'll happen whenenough people catch on that
something's happening and enoughpeople really grasp like the

(38:22):
scope of it that's when.

Speaker 2 (38:25):
What do you mean?
Well, like, let's say, when you, when you say catastrophic
disclosure, what do you meanwhen you say that?

Speaker 1 (38:30):
So and these are concepts that are thrown around
out there among the people whoare working to get this
information out to the publicthey say there's a couple of
ways that disclosure can happen.
Disclosure can happen in anorganized fashion where we very
methodically and logically letthe public in on the fact that
this stuff's going on, but wecan't dump it all in their laps.
We have to get them tounderstand that this is going on

(38:58):
and then get them to see slowly, kind of like it started right.
Slowly, kind of like it startedright.
It started when the USgovernment said hey, uap are
real.
Like numerous governmentofficials all up and down the
thing, like anyone who looksinto this topic and I say this
all the time anyone who looksinto this topic sees how much
there is.
But somebody who doesn't lookinto this topic at all and

(39:20):
brushes it off with like a waveof the hand oh, they explain
those drones, there's noevidence whatever.
Leave me alone.
This ain't happening.
But anyone who's looked into itsees that.
If you look how many senators,how many congress people, how
many government heads of thisour current secretary of state

(39:42):
Rubio, has said many thingsabout this basically said, said
we're talking to whistleblowers.
We're talking to people who saythis is what we're dealing with
Tulsi Gabbard, the new DNIdirector of national
intelligence she's open to thisthing.
John Ratcliffe, who's now goingto be the head of the CIA he's

(40:02):
another one who has made publicstatements saying we are looking
at these objects that areflying around out there, that we
like it's happening, right, butthe general public hasn't taken
it in, right.
Like, you hear the drone storyand the UAP story, but those are
two separate things, becausethe drone story is about drones

(40:24):
and all this uap stuff that'shappening behind like congress
has been four congressionalhearings, five congressional
hearings, a bunch of things.
That's uap.
This is a drone story.
That's why they're not bringingthose together, because if you
brought those together, if rightout of the gate, the drone
story was being, they weren'tcalling it drones, they, they
were calling them UAP.

(40:45):
Like, change the wording onthat.
Hey, there are all these UAPover New Jersey.
There are UAP unidentified,anomalous phenomena that are
flying around New Jersey andover military bases, and we have
an organization in the Pentagonthat is called Arrow and they
look into this stuff.
You've seen them at the varioushearings where they talked
about alien bodies.

(41:05):
Like, once the public puts allthat together and people really
get it, that's when you can havecatastrophic disclosure,
meaning catastrophic things canhappen.
People will panic.
How do you account for thefuture?
How do you predict the futurewhen, all of a sudden, you've
been thrown this freaking what.
There's a non-humanintelligence here messing with

(41:26):
us.
Yeah, what stocks do you buynext year?
I don't know.
Like how do you?
You know what I'm saying?
Like this is.
I don't think a lot of peoplegrasp how big of a deal this is.
Like.
If this is true and I don'tknow, don't know personally, but
I mean just looking at theevidence, I'm pretty convinced.

(41:47):
But let's, whatever, if this istrue, this is the biggest story
of ever, ever.
Like there's no story in humanhistory that's bigger than this,
bigger than a non-human end.
You know, like it doesn'tmatter what story is going on in
the world.
There's a lot of importantthings going on in the world,
but the fact a lot of importantthings going on in the world,
but the fact that we are notalone and not only are we not
alone, that other thing or otherthings are here and have been

(42:11):
like that's the biggest storyever, but that's scary as crap.

Speaker 2 (42:15):
So that's what I'm saying is is that yeah, and
that's something that I thinkpeople will not will not accept
until it's in front of theirface.

Speaker 1 (42:23):
And even then not.

Speaker 2 (42:25):
Maybe not, because at that point you might have a
debate as to you know, how arewe supposed to relate with these
, whatever.
Let's just say you're right.
Let's just say this is all trueand there is some other being
to relate with.
I think you'll have a debatewith people on being to relate
with.
I think you'll have a debatewith people on how to do that.

(42:47):
I mean, I just as you should,right, right, and you'll have
people that you know they'rejust going about their business.

Speaker 1 (42:55):
I'm not comfortable if there is a non-human
intelligence wanting to interactwith us.
I'm not entirely comfortablewith our emissaries being
military.
Do you know what I'm saying?
Like, because you know, ifyou're a hammer, every problem
is a nail right, and so that'swhat our military is for.
I mean, you know, I'm notagainst the military.
Their job is to break stuff andblow up stuff, right, defend

(43:19):
stuff, but let's face it, theirjob at its is to to break stuff
and blow up stuff.
I don't want them being theemissaries of a non-human
intelligence, right, I don't.
I don't want.
I want you know thinkers, Iwant you know world leaders I
know you're not world leaders,not politicians.
I want, like actual people withskills, like it's high-end

(43:43):
sociologists, psychologists,economists, like people who
actually understand how stuffworks and say, okay, how can we
integrate this in?
There's also the X factor ofwhatever this thing is itself,
right, I mean, as a lot ofpeople say this, if these beings

(44:03):
non-human intelligence,whatever the hell they are if
they wanted to blow up theirspot, they could do it tomorrow.
What do you mean?
Blow up their spot?
If they wanted to justbasically say we're here, they
could fly over every city in themiddle of the daytime with
these huge ass crafts thatmostly are seen.
You know what I'm saying?
Like, think of the sightings,the various sightings that
happen.
Right, you see the phoenixlights.

(44:23):
This big craft flies overphoenix in 1997, right, what?

Speaker 2 (44:27):
if that happened today.

Speaker 1 (44:28):
What if a big craft flew over phoenix, arizona, like
it happened?
Then you wouldn't just have a,you know, and there was a decent
amount of footage you can goout on youtube.
You can see a lot of footage ofthat, right.
How much would you have now,though, especially if that was a
prolonged thing, that wasn'tjust one, that was like a big
object that flew over, likeeverybody would have footage of
it, right.

(44:49):
So, whatever this thing is, ifthey wanted to like, hey, we're
here, your government can't tellyou we're not here because
we're just going to, we're justgoing to hover over everything.

Speaker 2 (45:00):
Well, I mean, if you think about it, they already,
but they're doing it quietlylike right.

Speaker 1 (45:06):
In a weird way, they're doing it seemingly with
a concern for the effects,because if they didn't care they
would just be in the middle ofthe daytime and people would
probably lose their crap right?

Speaker 2 (45:21):
yeah, it's hard to.
It's hard to even have a anactual discussion, I mean we're
having one but about motives,because you don't know what
someone's trying to, someone,something or whatever is trying
to even accomplish so it's hardto know what's the motivation it
is, but you can.

Speaker 1 (45:40):
You can make a at least a reasonable hypothesis of
motive based on action.
Right, we can't judge theirmotive because we don't know
their motive, but we know theiractions.
And their actions seem to be tobe seen, but not too much To be
there, but not too much Becausethey seem.

(46:04):
You know UFO sightings, uapsightings happen, they tend to
be there, but not too muchbecause they seem.
You know ufo sightings, uapsightings happen, they tend to
be fleeting, they tend to bequick, they tend to be generally
like very, not generallyprolonged, not, you know.
Again, what would happen if bigass craft started hovering over
our major cities.
Well, I think most people wouldthink about, like Independence

(46:26):
Day, like, can you imagine if,like a big, huge craft like the
size that flew over Phoenix,arizona, was hovering over the
White House, was hovering overNew York, was hovering over LA
and just hovering there?
Like people would lose theircrap because our media,
everything we do, is like hey,independence day, and when that

(46:47):
happened it didn't end well forus.
Like, our media basically tellsus anything If there's aliens,
you know we're the nativeAmericans and the aliens are the
Europeans.
There's no calculus with nativeAmericans and come out on top
on that, right In that, in thatset there was no.
Yeah, if you're the indigenouspeople and technologically

(47:09):
superior, possibly like muchmore technologically superior,
but even a little bit, even ifit's just a little bit
technologically superior, thatprobably is not going to bode
well From what we oops From whatwe know about anything any
relation we've ever had in thehistory of our humanity.

Speaker 2 (47:28):
That's the way it's always gone.
So again, that might not be amotivation of some other being
or something, but we only knowwhat we know, right.

Speaker 1 (47:38):
But the fact that they haven't annihilated us
Gives some hope.
I mean, it means that that'snot top priority for them, right
?
If that was top priority forthem, they would have done it.
They certainly wouldn't havewaited for us to become more
technologically a challenge,right?
I mean, let's say that they'refar ahead of us, um, and they

(48:00):
could beat us now.
Right, they could destroy usnow, but they'd probably take
some hits, even if it's justminor, right?
I mean, our technology, ourgovernment, our military
technology is so good.
You know, we have nukes, wehave microwave weapons, laser
weapons.
We have all these things thatwe didn't have 50, 60, 70 years

(48:21):
ago.
If these things were here andtheir eventual goal was to wipe
us out, if that was theireventual goal, they would have
done it already, cause there'sno world where you go.
Well, let's give them a coupleof decades to build up, build up
their technology.
Let's give them time to recoverour craft and, you know, glean

(48:43):
some technological advancementfrom our like.
There's no Well you're.

Speaker 2 (48:47):
You're talking as if time is static forever.
This is true, right?
We don't know.

Speaker 1 (48:51):
This could be.
Well, we'll get to this when wetalk about the, our next topic.
But I mean this idea of eventhis idea of crashes.
It's getting kind of put on itshead that oftentimes, you know,
up until this point we werelike, oh, ufos are coming here
and crashing and we'rerecovering them.
And then that brings up theobvious question, the stupid

(49:13):
question in my mind well, ifyou're flying, you know light
years and they get here, howcome they crash?
Well, I mean, it is a question,but it's kind of not, because
it's like, well, obviously, mostlikely, most likely let's just
be logical the craft that, thecraft that you're seeing,

(49:34):
probably didn't travel thousands, millions of light years.
Like we wouldn't do that, likeit's just you would, if I guess
you could, because these objectsseem to have like multi-purpose
.
But let's just say, for the sakeof you could say, okay, but
maybe what they're coming herein first, or what they came here

(49:54):
in because they're here now.
So they don't necessarily needcraft that can fly billions of
light years, they just needcraft that can fly here because
they're here now.
But you'd think that they'dcome over in something different
, right of light years.
They just need craft that canfly here because they're here
now, um, but you think thatthey'd come over in something
different?
Right, they did.
But even if they didn't, um,the explanation too is that okay
, well, no, no, vehicle isinfallible, you know.

(50:17):
Sure you can say, oh, they canfly, you know thousands of light
years to come here.
Well, well, how do they crash?
They crash like any vehiclecrashes, because if you're
coming thousands of light years,that's great, but you're
probably not encountering muchbecause space is pretty open and
that's.

Speaker 2 (50:34):
I mean I keep did you see how they found that there
may actually be wormholes?
Did you see that that was kindof a theory by Einstein, maybe a
hundred years ago, a littleless, and now they're saying
that that actually might be real?
Have you seen that?
Yeah, science fiction isbecoming reality very quickly.
So I mean, maybe somethingdoesn't have to travel as far as

(50:58):
you think.
If that's the case, right, andI agree with you.
You know, when a um, abattleship comes in um, it's not
the battleship that then goesand has the planes that take.
You know they have, you knowthey're capable of doing
something else.
So, yes, I agree with you, butit's just it.

Speaker 1 (51:19):
You could conceive of a world where okay, let's say,
these things came from somewhereelse, they didn't have to come
in the very same ships that theyare flying around here and they
could come in something elseand then be flying ships that
only need to fly, you know, orthey could be coming from you
know, because, like you said,maybe because of wormholes
folding space, I mean, there'sall sorts of talk like real talk

(51:41):
, like not just science fictionytalk, but like real physics
talk about, well, how could sucha thing be possible with the
laws of physics?
And there are ways, right,there are ways of theoretically
folding space or encasing craftin a bubble that you could be

(52:04):
making very normal, veryreasonable maneuvers Outside the
bubble.
You're seeing it at a differentclip and what you're seeing
looks like it's doing crazystuff.
Maybe time is meaningless forthese people, because even just
normal space travel, like, let'sjust say that someday we're
able to travel through spaceinto different planets.

(52:25):
How would we ever deal with thefact that time moves
differently based on what planetyou're on?
Yeah, like, like, how would youever like?
They kind of brush past thisand all like Star Trek, star
Wars, like all the all thesci-fi.
I love Star Wars, I considersort of space fantasy more Right
, but but anyway, they kind ofbrush past the fact that, well,

(52:47):
but like, this planet, like timewould move differently.
So how would trade work, howwould diplomatic relations work?
How would all that work if onthis planet four administrations
went and on this planet ithasn't the same administration
has been in.
But this planet, because time isactually moving differently,

(53:10):
it's not just like a time, it'snot like on Earth where it's a
time zone thing, where it's well, everybody's on the same time.
It's just the other side of theworld, it's the next day, but
it's not really the next day,it's now.
It's just because of the timezones, but we're all actually
operating in the same time.
Like it's not, it's an illusionthat there's different time

(53:32):
zones, it's just they're on theother side of the planet, so
it's operating differently, butif I call them it's-.

Speaker 2 (53:38):
We all age the same way.

Speaker 1 (53:39):
Right, because we're all on planet Earth and the
International Space Stationloses a little bit of time.
It has to be the clock on theInternational Space Station, but
it's not by a lot.

Speaker 2 (53:49):
It's not, but it's a little.
When they come back, it's notgoing to change their versus
everyone else that hasn't donethat, but if you, went far
enough out.

Speaker 1 (53:59):
Theoretically, you could go there and back and come
back and a thousand years wouldhave passed on earth, right,
you know like?
So that's the thing.

Speaker 2 (54:05):
So what if?
I think that's a mind-bogglingthing for most people to think
about.

Speaker 1 (54:09):
It is and then now, if you say, okay, now these
craft are outside of timebecause they they insulate, the
craft is insulated from theeffects of gravity, meaning
insulated from the effects oftime, meaning while they're
flying the craft, they'reoutside of all of that.
So, theoretically, wow could itbe like.
But the same craft that theysaw in 1876 and the same craft

(54:34):
they saw in 23 ad is the samecraft we're seeing in 2024,
because it's outside of time andit's popping in when it needs
to and like and other thing thatand these are all mind-boggling
concepts, but they're realconcepts is that time is not
linear in the sense that's anillusion.
That linear time is kind of anto put this framework in with

(54:56):
our very narrow perspective,which is why you get questions
like oh, they're flying here,how did they crash?
It's more than that.
It's like this.

(55:17):
It's that's what this deal is.
This deal is if this was justphysical aliens coming from a
physical place and popping inand saying hi, it would be
shocking, but we could adjust.
I think the more I hear stuff,the more I see what's coming out
.
It's a lot weirder than that.

(55:38):
So I think that's a good placeto head on to our next topic,
which is this recentwhistleblower.
Anything, anything, more to sayon the drones?

Speaker 2 (55:45):
Well, the only thing I'll say we said a lot.
The only thing I was thinking,Chris, is there's stories about
how we've reacted through theyears, Like there's that famous
newspaper article about a battlein Los Angeles at the beach,
right, and we were shooting atit, right.
So you know, if we areconstantly being aggressive,

(56:09):
maybe that explains why.
You know, maybe they're nottrying to be so in our face.
We've never actually tried torelate with any of these
sightings in a friendly way.
We're always chasing them orshooting at them or doing
something.
We're never just saying, hey,what's going on?

(56:30):
We've never done anything,except that in terms of military
.

Speaker 1 (56:33):
Well, that's the thing, right.
And as we move on to this nexttopic, that's where that all
falls on its head, because I hadbeen led to believe that,
actually, I think most peoplewho research this topic really
had, if you had asked me sixmonths ago and said what's
happening with?
Well, uaps are checking us outor doing their thing.
We are occasionally shootingthem down or they're crashing

(56:56):
through other methods.
And if you don't think thingscould crash through other
methods, I mean and again, thisis all speculation, but it's
speculation that the roswellcrash might have been caused not
by the thunderstorms, whichdon't make really sense, but
that we were doing nucleartesting at that time.
Right, and what happens whenyou launch, when you fire off a
nuke?
We, back in the late 40sparticularly like we're blasting

(57:19):
off nukes quite a lot right inthe middle of the desert and
stuff right to test them, whichis scary when you think about
that right that first nuke whenthey, when they weren't 100,
sure that it wouldn't light theatmosphere on fire, but they did
it anyway yeahthat's kind of messed up, but
anyway, that shoots off an emp,an electromagnetic pulse.
So if it doesn't matter howthese craft operate, probably an

(57:44):
electromagnetic pulse wouldmess with them, right?
So that's what I've been led tobelieve.
But now it's almost like well,maybe that's not it, because
I've heard, maybe there is someof that.
But I've also heard them referto some of these recoveries not
as crashes but as donations.

Speaker 2 (58:02):
I've heard that, yeah , so that's the thing crashes,
but as donations.

Speaker 1 (58:06):
I've heard that, yeah , so that's the thing.
So so, if so, we're led tobelieve that it was all military
, it was all aggressive.
But now it's starting to soundlike maybe it's not all
aggressive, like it is our.
It is our military doing it,and some of it is aggressive.
And that's also the question ofwhen you say interacting with
it.
What if there's multiple?
it's right, I mean it doesn'tnecessarily have to be all the
same, you're right, I mean, whenyou like, I always use the

(58:27):
analogy of of, like the americas, when the europeans first got
here, right, you had the dutch,you had the french, you had the
um spanish, you had the english,you had a bunch of different
ones here.
They're all human, but theywere different entities,
different, you know, and theyall had their own motives, their
own agendas.
They didn't always get alongwith each other particularly

(58:49):
well and their interaction withthe natives of the land were
different, depending on who theywere.
Universally, it all ended uppretty bad, but not all of them
had bad intent, right, I mean,some were.
I think the Spanish were prettyhorrible.
The English weren't that great,I don't know.
Were the Dutch?

Speaker 2 (59:10):
I don't think they were fantastic.

Speaker 1 (59:11):
I don't think they weren't fantastic, but they also
weren't quite as but they alsowere smaller power, so they were
also kind of had to keep.
So that's the thing is, theycould afford to be a little bit
more friendly with the natives,or actually probably needed to
be a little bit more friendlywith the natives, because they
couldn't fight them at the sametime as they fought the other

(59:31):
powers which were much morepowerful than them.
So there could be this wholething where there's like and it
seems to be again, if you goback and look at the whole
database, it seems to be morethan one thing here, right, and
some of them could be, you know,more kindly inclined towards us

(59:53):
.
Some could be less kindlyinclined and some of them could
be just, you know, whatever,like totally ambivalent, like
whatever they're there.
You know, we have to deal withthese creatures because they're
on this planet.
We won't mess with them.
They won't mess with us.
They get in our way, though.
We'll take care of them, andthat's the thing, right?
What if that's the case?

(01:00:16):
What if there's so?
Then all of a sudden, it's likewell, you can't just say
interacting with this non-humanintelligence, because if there's
multiple and they all got theirown particular spin on it.
Then maybe we're interactingwith one and maybe others we're
not interacting with.
Maybe the ones that are doingthe abductions are not ones that
we're on particular, but thereare others that we have some

(01:00:39):
rudimentary.
Remember the David Grushquestion, right when Luna asked

(01:01:01):
Grush in that hearing and saidno, sorry, it wasn't Luna.
It was Nancy Mace and she saiddoes the US government did that
in public and that's long in thelore that supposedly,
supposedly, all this UFO coverup comes from from.
Was it Truman that put in a youknow, an executive order that

(01:01:22):
basically moved all this stuffoff the books and kind of kept
it quiet?
But supposedly there was alanding in an Air Force base.
Supposedly, if you believe someof the lore, there have been
interactions between us andsomeone else to some degree.
Right, who knows?
I mean who knows?
But that's the thing.

(01:01:43):
Are we ready for that box ofcan of worms?
Are we ready for that can ofworms to open?

Speaker 2 (01:01:51):
No.

Speaker 1 (01:01:52):
I mean, that's the thing, but would we ever be
ready?
No, so you just got to do it.

Speaker 2 (01:01:57):
I don't think.
I think, if this is somethingthat eventually is going to
happen, right, that's thepremise of everything we're
talking about, right, right, Ijust think, eventually it's
either going to be somethingalong the lines of ripping the
band-aid off or the people thatare trying for us to not know

(01:02:22):
will be forced.
It's.
It's going to be one or theother.
I I don't think it's, chris,something that you could
certainly look at all the thingsthat are happening and make an
argument that we're kind of likethe frogs in the boiling water.

Speaker 1 (01:02:35):
Right.

Speaker 2 (01:02:35):
But I just don't see it.
I don't see where there's again for us, for them, to tell
people without being forced intoit.
We'll find out, I guess,eventually, hopefully.

Speaker 1 (01:02:50):
I think that the thought process would be it's
only a matter of time beforethis comes out, especially now,
where-.

Speaker 2 (01:02:57):
Oh, I agree with you, but what's the incentive for
doing it before you have to?

Speaker 1 (01:03:03):
Because you could do it controlled.
That's the idea of controlleddisclosure that's the difference
between controlled disclosureand catastrophic disclosure or
uncontrolled disclosure um.

Speaker 2 (01:03:13):
My opinion is there's no such thing as controlled
disclosure I think just the factthat the way our government is
set up, we constantly havedifferent administrations.
It's difficult to keep that ina continuum right.

Speaker 1 (01:03:24):
Right, because as soon as the administration
changes, priorities change andstuff.
But like you can only docontrolled disclosure up to a
certain point, because there'sthat tipping point, there's that
moment where a majority of thepopulation understand that this
is real.
It's crazy and when we're notnear there, we're not the thing

(01:03:46):
is is that you can't tell,because it could happen in an
instant, and that's the thing is.

Speaker 2 (01:03:51):
It's oh, it's a fuse, but at that point it's almost
not, you know.
Yeah, the cat's out of the bagright and it's it's.

Speaker 1 (01:03:58):
I think of it as a fuse of indeterminate length,
and you know the fuse is burningand you know at some point it's
going to go off and that's whendisclosure is either going to
be enough people are going to beout and comfortable with the
idea that when the public getsinto it, there'll be enough
trusted, you know, individuals,trusted organizations, trusted

(01:04:24):
you, whatever to come out andsay they're there, don't worry,
here's all the stuff we'vefigured out about this.
So this is all new to you, butit's not new to us.
Here's what we know.
I don't think there is that, Idon't think there's a controlled
plan.
And then you have these Xfactors, like what we're about
Jake Barber, who we're about totalk about, who you know, or
Abby Loeb says the sky is notclassified.

(01:04:52):
Technology is getting to thepoint now where you don't need
and, and also the others,whatever these others are, and
and I think you know it's beensaid, you know pretty by some
people who, you know, claim toknow whatever these things are.
They don't respect the USgovernment's kind of like
dominion over this topic, likewe like to think.
Well, we're not going to knowanything until the government

(01:05:12):
decides to tell us what we needto know, but do we really need
them to tell us?
Does the government need totell us that Alaska exists?
No, we know that does, becausewe've seen enough evidence to
you know, even if you haven'tbeen to Alaska or been to China,
you've seen enough evidence toknow that China exists right,
I've never been there.

Speaker 2 (01:05:33):
What do you think we would do as an American society
if Russia came out and said hey,look at this evidence.
We're pretty sure that we'vehad contact.
Now, right?
I just wonder.
You think we'd say that'spropaganda?
I just wonder what Right?

Speaker 1 (01:05:54):
You know what?
I'm actually less worried aboutRussia.
I'm actually more worried aboutChina.
The reason being is that China,because of their you know,
their form of government, ofgovernment.
They're basically a dictatorship, right?
Their people are kind ofstaying in line to a certain
degree, as much as we know.
Right?
So the negative effects ofdisclosure would probably affect

(01:06:19):
China less than it would affectus in a free society where
people would react in crazy ways.
But let now let's move overchina, because the chinese
government kind of has controlof everything, right, I mean
most, most of the mostbusinesses.
They're not necessarily ownedby the government, but they
don't, you know, they don't domuch without the government

(01:06:40):
saying yes or no, right, right?
So they have a greater controlover their population, right?
So the negative effects ofdisclosure would affect China,
in my mind, would affect themless, not necessarily not affect
them at all, but it wouldaffect them less.
Here is where we'd have theproblem, because of what do you
think?

Speaker 2 (01:06:59):
the problem would be?
Why do you think it wouldaffect differently?

Speaker 1 (01:07:02):
People losing their minds and and and things
breaking down.
Because, because in a freesociety, so much relies on the
social contract, like there isno, so much relies on our
understanding that these thingsbecause, really, when you think
about it, if everybody rebelledall at once, the, the most

(01:07:24):
powerful government in the worldcouldn't stop Like it couldn't
stop things from falling apart.
If everything falls apart atonce, right, let's say, the
stock market crashes and peoplelose their minds and panic
because, oh my God, there's somepossibly malevolent, non-human
entity here, I'm going to startstacking guns, I'm going to
start hoarding toilet paper andI mean we saw a little taste of

(01:07:44):
this right in 2020 when peoplegot panicked.
Right, you can't do anythingwhen your population starts to
panic because you don't havefull control.
You can't.
You can try.
You can try to, you know, kindof tamp down in places, but you
don't have full control, soyou're never going to be able to
really tamp it down and movethat over to China.
China can tamp that stuff downa little bit better because they

(01:08:09):
already have full control ofthings.

Speaker 2 (01:08:10):
Well, every society that I know of on this planet,
that's a civilized society,right?
If you, if the majority of thepopulation, or even a major
minority of the population,stops working, the whole system

(01:08:30):
collapses, right, right.
So I think, even in China, youknow, if you people get scared
enough that they stopped working, that's the whole thing.
The whole thing collapses in onitself.

Speaker 1 (01:08:42):
Right, and the world is so interconnected now, right.
That that's the thing, is, ifyou?

Speaker 2 (01:08:45):
had one society do that's, it's just like dominoes.
They'd all start doing itbecause that you're right.
Things would start panicking.
That would be the end, and Ithink that that could be a
motivation to not discloseimmediately.
If that's how, if that's whatyou're thinking you disclose in
my.

Speaker 1 (01:09:05):
You disclose in a certain order.
This has always been my kind ofthought process on it.
You can't tell everybody atonce.
One is because that causesproblems, you know, if everybody
knows at once.

Speaker 2 (01:09:19):
And also when you say that, though, what do you mean?
When you say you can't telleveryone, because they're kind
of, if you listen to these,these hearings, there are people
telling everyone at once.

Speaker 1 (01:09:28):
But why is everybody not taking it in?
Because it's not messaged tothem.
Right, like, like.
If you think about what do youmean?
You can put information out andyou can't stop people from
hearing it, but you can directit towards a particular type of
people with a little forethoughton how you roll it out.
And you roll it out by havingpeople who they.

(01:09:50):
So here's my example.
First, people you need to get onboard and say we need to bring
everybody up to speed.
Right, we know this stuff'shappening.
We need everybody to know.
First people we need to knoware the military.
We need the military tounderstand that this is real.
So how do you do that?
Well, you get a lot of militarypeople who, when we look at

(01:10:11):
somebody like Colonel Nell orDavid Grush or Luella Zondo,
right, we can appreciate to somedegree their credentials.
But if you're a military person, person, you probably
appreciate it more because youunderstand.
You understand what all thatstuff means.
So when you see david gresh'suh cv and you see carl nell's cv

(01:10:35):
and you see the type of peoplewho are coming out and saying,
no, this stuff's real, man, thisstuff's real.
The normal person hears louelizondo, he's a
counterintelligence agency.
That doesn't mean anything tome, but somebody, somebody in
the military who knows yeah, Iworked with him on this
operation.
I know him, I know the type ofjobs he's had.
I know the type of people whohave the type of jobs he's had.

(01:10:55):
I understand his voice hasweight and I'm not using Lou
specifically, but I'm justsaying anybody who, any of the
people in the military who arecoming out and being used, kind
of say hey, this is happening.
Those are the people who arekind of, they're the ones who
are kind of taking it in firstso who do you?

Speaker 2 (01:11:15):
were you saying that?
Um, we need um taylor swift totell us well, no, it's.

Speaker 1 (01:11:20):
It's that that's who you do first and that's been
happening for a while.
Then what's the next people youhave to bring in?
Religious.
You got to bring the religionin because you, because they're
going to be a big part ofholding people together.

Speaker 2 (01:11:32):
It's funny you say that Cause I actually, the more
this is going on, they thinkthere's a connection between the
different things we're talkingabout it is, but let's just so.

Speaker 1 (01:11:41):
But a lot of people, when this comes out, are going
to start to lose their mind.
But the Catholic Church hasalready come out and said they
have no problem with the fact,basically saying if there's a
non-human intelligence, they canbe children of God just like us
and that doesn't like.
The Catholic Church has alreadybasically come out and said
well, we're not concerned ifthere are aliens, that doesn't

(01:12:03):
disrupt our worldview at all.
Our aliens, that doesn'tdisrupt our worldview at all.
So they'll be very important tocalm Catholics down.
So, as the religions take it in, now they're in place to help
calm the masses.
And then, who's the last?
Before you let everybody elsein, there's one more sector of

(01:12:23):
people that you should let in.
What's that?
That's the financial, becauseyou've let the military in and
you've got the religious.
You know institutions, and notall of them, not across the
board, but you've had messagingthat is going to touch them,
whereas the normal people?
Again, you can't stop normalpeople from hearing it, but it's

(01:12:45):
not calibrated to them.
So some people take it in andbelieve it, like us, and other
people don't take it in anddon't believe it.
The number of people I run intoon a daily basis who still deny
that any of this is happening.
Blows my mind Like I still getpeople saying to me you believe
in UFOs.
That's the stupidest questionI've ever heard in my entire
life.
Blows my mind Like I still getpeople saying to me you believe

(01:13:06):
in UFOs.
That's the stupidest questionI've ever heard in my entire
life.
There's no believing in UFOs.
We know that UFOs like theyexist now, like it's been
admitted by everybody thatthere's something.
You can argue about what it is,but you can't argue that there
isn't something.
So now we've let the militaryin, now we've let the religious

(01:13:27):
people in.
But that's happening now toowith the financial people.
Now the hedge funds like this,the high-end financial people,
are getting briefed and gettinglet in on the secret.
Now, when the bulk of peoplehear it and they start to panic,

(01:13:47):
you'll have the military peoplebeing like no, we got this, we,
you know you're right.
Then you get the religiouspeople going no, don't, don't
panic, it's there, you know,that's okay.
And then you get the financialpeople going we prepared for
this, we're all ready for the,the instability that's going to
happen when you guys take thisin, when there's like when?

Speaker 2 (01:14:08):
how could they?

Speaker 1 (01:14:09):
I don't understand how you could ever be ready you
can't be, you can never be 100ready, but you can at least
soften the blow.
And that's the thing aboutdisclosure you can never predict
it.
You can never say, if we rollit out this way, it's all going
to be fine.
Because, as I said, disclosureis a fuse of indeterminate

(01:14:30):
length that can blow at any time.
And they will come that pointwhere the bulk of society go
wait, hold on.
Holy crap, this is real, isn'tit?
And that's when you'll need themilitary, that's when you'll
need the religious people andthat's when you'll need the
financial people.
I'm not saying they'll all be,I'm not saying it's a big cabal,

(01:14:52):
I'm just saying you get thosepeople kind of on your side,
kind of, hey, we need to protectthe, not the status quo quo,
it's the wrong way of saying it,but we need to hold society
together.
So we have the, we have thosethree branches of kind of like
society, and you know you couldsubdivide a lot more, but but
that's generally it right.
So now all the financial peopleare kind of getting let in the

(01:15:14):
salt conference, right, we, wewatch those.
Yeah, right, that's a huge.
Your average person doesn'tknow crap about what the salt
conference is because they'relike well, what is that, you
know?
And it's like well, if you're afinancial person, if you're
hedge funds, like you know whatthat conference is?
That's put on by that AlexCrocus guy and it's you know,

(01:15:37):
he's the one who does theinterviews on the thing.
But basically it's bringinghigh net worth individuals in
and saying, hey guys, thisexists, there's going to be
opportunities, there's going tobe research and development by
private companies into non-humantechnology, probably some of
which will take decades tounravel.

Speaker 2 (01:15:58):
I think it's kind of arrogant on some level to think
that there's some opportunity orsomething to control.

Speaker 1 (01:16:04):
That's unfortunately the society we live in.
Oh, I know that.

Speaker 2 (01:16:07):
But I just think that that's not.
I don't think that's going tobe a reality.
I think it might actually bethe other way around.
But I just don't see this, asyou know, the next you know, oil
baron.
I just don't see.
I don't see, probably not.
If this is true, I don't seethis as a resource to exploit.

Speaker 1 (01:16:29):
I think it's, it's much larger than that it is, and
I hope, and and when you know,I hope, the financial people,
some of them, are into exploit.
Let's just face it oh yeah, justlike some of the military
people are in to uh to conquer,and some of the military people
are in to conquer and some ofthe religious people are in to
convert.
Right, you have the zealots inmilitary, you have the zealots

(01:16:52):
in religion, you have thezealots in finance.
You got them right, then youhopefully have a hopefully not
insignificant amount of peoplewho are reasonable, those
reasonable, the military peoplewho are like, not everything is
a target to be shot at.
You know we need to defer tosome, you know, diplomacy
whatever it is.
And then you have the religiouspeople are like, okay, we need

(01:17:15):
to figure out how to integratethis into our worldview so it
doesn't disrupt, you know,people's faith.
And then you have the financialpeople who are like I want to
find a way to not to monetize it, not to suck it dry, but to
make it a viable thing, to makeit a thing that now is a plus on
society instead of a minus.
So maybe people stop working.

(01:17:37):
Society breaks down in one way.
But then all of a sudden it'slike, hey, do you want to train
to be, you know, psychic,psionic, whatever communicators
like?
Or you want to sign up to helpus just understand this
technology?
Like there's opportunities fordevelopment.
I don't know.

(01:17:58):
Like I said, that's just mytheory.
But again it all comes down tothat thing of you can't, you
can't 100% predict it.
You can prepare for the best,you can try to ready the
battlefield and say, when peopleget it, we have, you know,
hopefully, things in place.
We're going to make theannouncement on, you know, on a
friday night and we're going toshut this.

(01:18:20):
You know we're going to havethe stock market is going to be
shut down for the following twoweeks because we can't have
volatility.

Speaker 2 (01:18:29):
Well, even just that, chris, I mean if people had
their money in stocks, and butif everything was?

Speaker 1 (01:18:33):
frozen.
That's the thing is.
If you freeze it and sayeverything is frozen, nothing is
happening.
That would create panic.
Everything is going to createpanic.
You cannot change everybody'sworldview and not create panic.
That's the thing is there's noway.

Speaker 2 (01:18:46):
Well, that's what I'm trying to say.

Speaker 1 (01:18:48):
This is an omelet.
We're going to break some eggs.

Speaker 2 (01:18:50):
Yeah, at that point all bets are off, because you
just don't know how people aregoing to react.
I think that, in a vacuum, theonly way you could possibly
introduce something themagnitude that you're talking
about and not create lastingpanic would be maybe if there

(01:19:19):
was whatever technology thereexisted that you know, whatever
this we're dealing with I haveno idea Right Showed people a
way that, that the resources,that, because basically, we all
work because the resources arelimited.
That's why everyone works.
Right, because you have to payfor resources to live, right,
scarcity, right.

(01:19:39):
I mean, you want to live a nicelife, that's what people want,
but at the end of the day, youknow you want the heat on Well,
that's a limited resource.
You want to drink water?
That's a limited resource.
You want to eat food?
That's a limited resource,right, so you got to pay for it.
Right, if there was a way thatthat human beings were shown
that?

Speaker 1 (01:19:57):
no, in fact need or have any limitation to them,
right, so they really don't haveany value, just your your
ability to collect them islimited.

Speaker 2 (01:20:09):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, but generally speaking, if you want
to eat, you'll be able to eat,right, don't worry about it.
You want to breathe?
You can breathe.
You want to drink water?
You can drink water.
You want to eat, you need this.
You can have it.
There's no price on it becauseit's not limited.
There's actually.
It's unlimited, right, right soif a resource is unlimited, it
has little value, right so.
But again, that would turn theworld on its head too.

(01:20:30):
It's going to have to, right.

Speaker 1 (01:20:31):
If zero point energy and that's part of the goal of a
lot of this right Is that ifthese craft are operating like
they seem to be, they obviouslyhave access to a large
storehouse of energy.
Right, it's been calculatedSome of these maneuvers that
these vehicles do, the amount ofenergy required to do that

(01:20:53):
maneuver outstrips every nuclearreactor on Earth for a year,
generating power, and some ofthe maneuver you know.
So, some of these things that.
So if zero point energy is athing, and eventually you gotta,
you gotta be careful how youtransition into it, you just
can't open up the, open up thegate and say, okay, everybody,

(01:21:14):
energy's unlimited, great forthat person who wants to heat
their home or, you know, heattheir swimming pool or whatever.
Do you want that person who'strying to build a bomb and
saying, really, I have access tounlimited energy, I can build
quite a big bomb if I have a lotof energy.
And that's the other part ofthis technology which seems to
be part and parcel of it is youalso have to be concerned that

(01:21:37):
if the wrong people knew how toexploit this technology, it
could go really bad, reallyquick, right, right.
So it needs to be kept inresponsible hands, but it's not
like we don't have someexperience in doing that right.
We kind of have that withnuclear weapons, right.

(01:21:58):
We don't want to let every TomDick and Harry have a nuclear
weapon, because it's kind ofunderstood that nuclear weapons
should be in the hands of andagain, you can argue whether
they really are the best peopleto be.
But for certain United States,certain big world governments,
have access to nukes, whereasthe smaller ones we don't

(01:22:19):
necessarily want Iran gettingnuclear power, we don't want a
bunch of others, right?

Speaker 2 (01:22:25):
We generally don't want the more volatile Right.

Speaker 1 (01:22:28):
Because you never know what they're going to do.
And and and and so, and that'sjust nuclear right, and that's
considered destructive enough toblow up.
But now what if there's a typeof energy that's unlimited, that
, literally, if you wanted to,if you wanted to, if you tapped
into this energy and youutilized it in the wrong way?
you could blow up the planet, asabsurd as that sounds.

(01:22:51):
We watch Star Wars, we watchthe Death Star blow up a planet.
We say that's not reallypossible, right, how much energy
would that thing need toproduce?
But now, if you have unlimitedenergy, well, you could produce
enough energy to blow up aplanet.
And there's unstable people,right and so so that's the thing
is, that's another problem.
But all of this comes down tosay there's a million reasons

(01:23:15):
not to disclose.
But the problem is is thatthere's one main reason why you
have to disclose is that's gonnacome out at some point, and
you'd rather it come outcontrolled to some degree.
You're not going to be able tocontrol every aspect of it, and
there are going to be transitionpains, um, and and quite big

(01:23:37):
transition pains, like, likesignificant pains, but you're
not going to avoid them, becauseif you try to avoid them, it's
just going to come out in a waythat is going to cause all those
things that you're, all thosethings that you're worried about
are sure to happen if you don'thave a plan.
So that's why I'm saying is, Ithink, I'm trying to think who

(01:23:58):
coined this term?
I think it was, um, oh, what'shis name?
Uh, have you heard of StevenBassett?
No, oh, what's his name?
Have you heard of StephenBassett?
No, he's one of the UFO.
He runs like a UFO organization, but he's one of those people
who's just been in the game fora long time and he's actually.
Maybe it wasn't him, no, Ithink it was actually Richard

(01:24:21):
Dolan and Bryce Zabel.
In their book After Disclosure,they said that disclosure of
UFOs is impossible butinevitable, meaning that it's
impossible that it can happen.
But it's also inevitable thatit's going to happen because
it's a reality and so we have toprepare for it.
And not everybody agrees.
Some people are like yourmindset that there's never going
to be a good time to do this.

(01:24:42):
There's never going to be agood time to do this.
The problem is is that there'sa lot of people who think, no,
we got to do it now because ifwe don't, it's going to be done
to us.
We can't control.
We could say the US isn't goingto say anything, but, like you
said earlier, we can't controlChina, we can't control Russia.

Speaker 2 (01:24:56):
Oh, and I don't know, chris, which which is, let's,
let's just say, one of the twohave to happen, right?
I don't know which is better,because you know there's a lot
of things that try to getplanned and then you know a
plan's great until you getpunched in the face.
So you could plan out adisclosure and it still goes

(01:25:19):
sideways.
So I don't know what's better.

Speaker 1 (01:25:22):
To me, knowledge is always better than ignorance.

Speaker 2 (01:25:24):
I mean, you can say ignorance is safe, no, no, no,
no, what I'm saying is you coulddisclose in what you believe to
be a control fashion.
It could go sideways.
Oh yeah, you could have it.
Just you have to say somethingbecause of circumstances and
that could go sideways, oreither one could go smooth.
So you just don't know untilyou do it.

Speaker 1 (01:25:48):
Well, don't know until you do it.
Well, I say that the differencebetween controlled disclosure
and catastrophic disclosure.
But the reality is, is thatcontrolled disclosure is an
illusion.
Right, you can only control itup to a point, and, like I keep
saying, that point is wheneverybody knows, and what you
can't control it anymore andwhat you're.

Speaker 2 (01:25:59):
The premise, though, on a controlled disclosure is
that the people that aredisclosing it know everything
about it, so that is arrogant aswell.

Speaker 1 (01:26:08):
So there could be more to it than the people
disclosing even know Well that'sthe thing it doesn't have to be
that we know everything andwe're going to tell you.
It's like, here's what we know.

Speaker 2 (01:26:17):
I understand.

Speaker 1 (01:26:17):
Here's what we can't tell you and here's what we need
to learn together.
And you know, one of thelimitations to this is, Ben,
when you have something that'ssuper secret and you can't bring
that many people in on it, thenyou can't bring the best and
brightest into it.
Right, Because if you, if youknow to know about the UFO

(01:26:38):
secret, you have to have a high,high, high security clearance.
Right, it's only those peoplewho get access to it.
Well, you got a lot of greatminds out there that, for one
reason or another, are not goingto get a security access.
They're just not going to.
You know, they've been.
They might be great minds, butthey're not.
They're not going to get asecurity access.
So now you can't bring thosepeople in.

(01:27:00):
So the main reason fordisclosure, above and beyond
just letting everybody know hey,this is the nature of reality,
this is real Like this.
You can't hide.
It's not the government's rightor responsibility to keep the
nature of reality away from thehuman race.
Like, that's egotistical, Likewe're going to keep this away

(01:27:21):
from you because we're trying tohold society together.
Well, that's not your call.
It's not like you're trying.
This is a fundamental realityof our world.
It's our right to know it.
It's not any government's rightto hide it for whatever
purposes.
Whether they want to saythey're noble or not, you can
tell yourself that all day longYou're keeping the fundamental

(01:27:44):
reality away from people.
People would operatedifferently.
There's no way to do this andnot be painful.
It's going to be painful.
Every change is painful.
What if I?

Speaker 2 (01:27:55):
mean because we want to talk about that guy, jake
Barber, right, and there's onepart of his story that I don't
know what about.
What it was about it, but itwas.
It was interesting the way hedescribed how he felt, right,
and I don't know if he used thewords, but it came across as a

(01:28:18):
religious experience.

Speaker 1 (01:28:19):
Very much so.

Speaker 2 (01:28:20):
Right, so I have a theory.
Now it's a theory.
I'm not saying I, I subscribeto it, but what if there is some
sort of, as we would say,religious and I want it's.
It's you.
You already sound kind of odd,we're talking about it that way,
but I mean, every civilizationthat we know in this world says

(01:28:46):
that things emanated from thesky.
Right, it's every singlecivilization.
That's what they say.

Speaker 1 (01:28:53):
Christianity says the same thing, right?

Speaker 2 (01:28:56):
What if there was something to that?
Of course and I'm just throwingout a theory and that
disclosure included usunderstanding that that's all
real right and the way weinteract with each other is more
important than the assets wecollect, right?
That itself would changesocieties on on their head
because people would say what amI doing right?

(01:29:17):
Why am I working 60 hours aweek when the the real thing is
this?
well it it goes deeper than thatBecause we kind of as societies
, we always look at religion asa thing right, that's right Now.
I'm not saying I'm a super, I'mnot a super religious person,
but we say hey, we know the 10commandments say this Right.
But you know, if we did thatall day, nobody would make any

(01:29:38):
money.

Speaker 1 (01:29:38):
It's all built on faith.
There's no, there's no.
But if you found out that yourfaith was a hundred percent real
, like you, you're supposed todo that.
Like like that's the, that'sthe.
Well, that's like it's.
It's a question that's beenasked before.
Like what if we knew a hundredpercent what happens after we
die?
Like what if, what if we knew,like without question, that, hey

(01:29:59):
, when you die, your die, your,you know your essence go, you
know your essence goes back intothe pool, whatever and you were
, you know, whatever you, you,but it's, it's transitory, like
it's this, what we're here, whatwe have here is not, is not
reality, it's just what you'reexperiencing and you die, and
then you know you can come backor whatever.

(01:30:20):
What would that do to all thepeople who now you know this for
a hundred percent now?

Speaker 2 (01:30:25):
right, that's what I mean.

Speaker 1 (01:30:29):
So you have all these people who, what if you're not
having a great life here?
Like what if you know your,your life is not working out the
way you want it to be, eitherfrom your own actions, others'
actions, just where you wereborn, who you were, you know
right, Anything right, but youknew a hundred percent that if
you ended your existence here,without question you go on in a
much more enlightened, betterway, Right?

(01:30:51):
What the hell would happen?
Would there be, like masssuicides?
Well, I mean, that's one way oflooking at it If you knew a
hundred percent, if you knowlike, like right now, what keeps
people from doing it is thatpeople don't know Like they.
Some people kill themselvesthinking that they're releasing
their spirit or whatever, butnobody knows for certain.
But what if you did know forcertain?

(01:31:11):
What if it was a?
So it would just you.

Speaker 2 (01:31:15):
You couldn't stop people I was looking at it more
of how people would treat eachother.
Yeah, knowing, you know, if youjust knew, like if every story,
which a lot of stories in termsof religion, are kind of the
same, they're kind of the same.

Speaker 1 (01:31:31):
They read well Diana Pasalka, who's a, you know she
did a religious, basicallyreligious studies right.
And she had a PhD in this andshe you know she's one of those
people has access to the Vaticanvaults and yous and high-end
academic religious studies.
She's not religious herself,she just studies the Catholic

(01:31:53):
Church and has gone through alland she came to the UFO thing
through religion because shestarted to hear about these UFO
things which she usually justdiscounted, to hear about these
UFO things which she usuallyjust discounted.
And then, as she went into it,she started looking at those
accounts and looking at in theVatican the records of religious

(01:32:13):
experiences that are basicallysanctioned by the Vatican,
saying you know, this did happenand seeing that the difference
between those and what peoplecommonly call UFO encounters is
really not that different.
And what if?
That's the answer, like what if?
And I'd say it's looking moreand more like it is what if?
Our religions?
Because all our religions, asdifferent as they are, they all

(01:32:36):
kind of have a core.
That's kind of at the core it'skind of the same right and what
is the core of a lot of them?
This world is transitory.
You know, like all of thatstuff, like this is not.
You know this is not truly it.
You know it's in the Bible it's.
You know you're getting life onearth but then you go to the.
You know you go to heaven orwhatever, and spend eternity.

(01:32:57):
You know, no matter how good aplace is, if you're there for
eternity, eventually it'd beboring.
No matter there for eternity,eventually it'd be boring, no
matter how good it is.
You know, and and not to getoff on jag on this but like that
doesn't even make sense fromlike a just a logical
perspective.
It's just like, okay, I'm gonnacreate this wonderful thing
called the soul and in thisuniverse that lasts basically
billions and billions andbillions and billions and

(01:33:19):
billions of years.
But I'm gonna create this thingto be used for, I don't know,
know, 70, 80, maybe even less,depending if there's an accident
, and then I'm just going to putit in this place and just let
it and just create a new oneLike one is again.
you know, I mean, wouldn'theaven eventually get really
crowded if every living beingthat ever existed who went there

(01:33:42):
?
And of course some people gothe other direction but like
wouldn't both those places getreally crowded?

Speaker 2 (01:33:46):
I mean that's if it's a place, but it could be
interdimensional, which isanother thing they keep with the
Jake Barber thing.

Speaker 1 (01:33:53):
I'm stumbling, I'm dumbing it down, right, it's not
a place, cause even a lot oftimes they think you know that's
not a place, it's a differentstate.
But even in that thing, like itdoesn't make sense that there
would be this state or thisplace that you would just spend
the rest of eternity in, because, again, what, there has to be a
purpose to it.
Because, no matter what, howenlightened you are, no matter
how good it is, let's say it'sthe best place ever, that'd be

(01:34:16):
great for 50 years, 100 years, athousand years, you know, 10
000 years.
Wouldn't there come a point?
I think about um, groundhog day.
Yeah, right, the evolution ofbill murray during that movie.
He realizes that the day justkeeps repeating.
So at first he enjoys it, heexploits it, he, you know, he

(01:34:36):
uses it for his owngratification and it's not
really doesn't come acrossclearly in that movie, but if
you pay attention, he's in thatloop for a long time, right, I
mean, he has the, he developsdifferent skills that those
skills alone would take if youdid it one day at a time.
I mean it seems like he, he wentthrough that day like 10 000
times, not just like they onlygive you a bunch of them, right,

(01:34:57):
but at first he starts toexploit it, but then all that
becomes like meaningless, right?
It's kind of like using cheatcodes on a game, right, if you
ever play a video game, you usecheat codes.
It's really fun at first andthen after a while, most times
when I've used cheat codes on agame, eventually I just put that
game down and never touch itagain, because all the mystique
is gone, because you can doanything.

(01:35:18):
There's no.
So that's kind of like the sideend of that is like eventually
there'd be, but that's so anyway.
What if all our religions comefrom basically this non-human
intelligence interacting with usand saying here are these
creatures, you know.

(01:35:41):
I mean, right, why did wesuddenly among all the creatures
on this planet?
Why did we suddenly make thatflip and all of a sudden be more
advanced?
Right, there's that, that, thatwow signal.
Like what is it that in our dna?

Speaker 2 (01:35:56):
that well, there's something right.
There's some part of our dnathat doesn't exist anywhere else
on this planet, right?

Speaker 1 (01:36:03):
right.
Why are we so like?

Speaker 2 (01:36:04):
it's weird so, because there isn't any other
life form on the planet that cansay that except us.
It's, you know and I know Imight sound like a nut right now
, but it's scientific that wehave some parts of our DNA that
don't relate with anything elsealive on this planet that's ever
been alive on this planet Ever.

Speaker 1 (01:36:27):
The problem is right there, there, what you just said
you felt the need to say I knowI sound like a nut because
we've been so ingrained to thinkthat all these ideas are nuts
when, in reality, when you startto think about it and go take
away the take away the stigma ofall this stuff, and then you
start to think about it and gotake away the stigma of all this
stuff, and then you start tothink about it and it makes
perfect sense, like, of course,this universe is huge.

(01:36:50):
This universe has been around along time.
You know, as long as thisplanet's been around.
It's still only a blip of time.
So, of course, there's plentyof time for other beings to be
out there.
There's plenty of time for themto get here.
That bull crap about, oh, evenif they are out there, they
couldn't get here.
Of course they could.
The universe is so old and so,like, even through conventional

(01:37:13):
means, even if you don't take anaccount away of like breaking
the rules, somebody could havegotten here long ago just
because they'd been aroundlonger.
Right, like it all makes sense.
But we're so ingrained to talkabout oh, that makes us sound
like a nut, that makes us soundlike a conspiracy theorist that

(01:37:33):
night, like we are soconditioned to not think that
way that we have to apologizewhen we do right.
But what you're saying is notlike you said.
It's all scientific, it is so.
So let's just say for themoment, let's not go down the
road of they had something to dowith our creation, because
that's a whole other.
That's a whole other cat.
I think is a great but, butwe'll do that another time but

(01:37:55):
let's just say that, yeah, froma very simple thing, they came
across us right and they saidhey, here's this.
Um, you know, race of people.
They have potential, right.
They right they're smartmonkeys, right, they seem to be
like building stuff and likethey have potential.
But we can't just let them justlike go, because we gotta give

(01:38:16):
them some.
We should give them somestructure, some framework, so
they don't eat each other alive.
So what do you do?
You give us religion.
Now, did it work perfectly?
No, of course not.
Nothing ever does, because youknow you take tenets of most
religions and it's probablypretty good.
It's the stuff that was addedon later by, let's face it,

(01:38:37):
people in order to control, andI mean, that's basically what
you know.
Even if you have the Bible andyou have the parts that are like
legit, right, legit happen thestory, whatever it is.
But then you have those otherparts that were massaged and
thing, and you know there aremany books of the bible that are
included.

Speaker 2 (01:38:55):
Right, because at the core of it, the ten
commandments.

Speaker 1 (01:38:58):
Guys, it's pretty cool well, maybe the coveting
thing is like, you know, there'sa couple of them, but like, but
like it's certainly but I meanat the end of the day, a society
probably is better if I'm notcoveting someone else's wife,
right, that's true, you knowwhat I mean.

Speaker 2 (01:39:10):
I'm just saying like Like, but your neighborhood
works better if you don't dothose things.

Speaker 1 (01:39:14):
It really comes down to.
Don't be a dick.

Speaker 2 (01:39:16):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:39:17):
Like it's really that's really Pretty, stop and
go when I be a dick if I didthis and if the answer is yes,
don't do it and you know it'sfunny, I'm not going to get
religious, but after nine 11,right, those of us that can
remember it.

Speaker 2 (01:39:36):
Right, I know, because it's crazy how it's been
so long but those, those of usthat can remember it for the
first few months after nine 11happened, people talk still
about how nice everyone was toeach other.
Right, and it was a greatfeeling.
Yeah, we all felt great, yeah,right.

Speaker 1 (01:39:54):
Everyone did.
It was a tragedy, but everybodypulled together.

Speaker 2 (01:39:56):
That's what I mean.

Speaker 1 (01:39:57):
Everybody's like everybody was on the same side.

Speaker 2 (01:39:59):
Yeah, everyone was polite to each other, everyone
was nice to each other.
Everyone was nice to each otherright, and we remember it to
this day, right?
We remember that, that, thatthat moment of time, why?
Probably because that's howwe're supposed to be to each
other, right, I mean, that's whywe remember it because that's
when we're at our best right butthen what happens?

Speaker 1 (01:40:18):
it gets corrupted by generally.
You know, hey, how can I usethis crisis, this tragedy, to
further my agenda, right?
And that's what happened.
And that's when oh wait, youknow.
Then there's the wars, andpeople against the wars and
people for the wars, and peoplefighting and people arguing and

(01:40:38):
stuff like that.
But you're right, in thoseearly days, when it was just a
tragedy, everybody was on thesame side.
No politicians sniped at eachother because it was like, hey,
dude, this isn't the time, Like,put that stuff aside, right, I
don't know that.
That.
And you can argue about whetherthat could even happen nowadays
, right, because now a tragedyhappens and both sides are just

(01:40:59):
pointing at the other side andsaying they are the cause of it.

Speaker 2 (01:41:02):
Right, they're the blame.

Speaker 1 (01:41:03):
So, but you know so.
So there, you have that.
So, if so, let's just say inthe very you can make a very
strong argument that if there'sa non-human intelligence here,
they had some hand in creatingor facilitating the creation of
our major religions.
That fact alone is cataclysmicto our like.

(01:41:26):
Just that alone, we're going tohave to rethink everything.
Right Cause then?
you're going to have people gowait a second.
Hold on, hold on, hold on.
But it's like, so what?
You're freaked out that anon-human intelligence gave us
our religion.
Isn't that what it was in thefirst place?
You just call them angels.

Speaker 2 (01:41:42):
And well, I think the react it would be wait a minute
.
This isn't just a fable, right,wait a minute.
This is how I'm supposed to bethere is really.

Speaker 1 (01:41:51):
There is really a reckoning like hey guys, it's
real man, when you get to theend of your existence, you have
to be held account to what youdid right and you gotta you know
and you can believe this or notbelieve this, but I've, you
know, I've heard some people whotalk about these things and had

(01:42:14):
various experiences.
You know, I take it all in,whether I 100% believe it, but I
like the sound.
Of it is basically you'recalled to account for everything
that you've done and I've heardin some cases you know,
supposedly and again, who thehell knows, but that you that
you are, that you go througheverything that you did to
others as the person you did itto oh boy, and you have to
really come into.

Speaker 2 (01:42:34):
Where is that?
Yeah, that's an interesting,you know, that's scary.

Speaker 1 (01:42:38):
That's just basically .
But, but that's it.
That that now.
Okay, this is what you did,right.
This is what you did wrong.
Now you got to go back in thegame and now the only way you
can be in the game and it be anhonest game is you got to.
You can't know it's a game,right?
You can't know, like we talkedabout this a little bit in the
um uh, whether it's a uh,simulation, right same kind of

(01:43:01):
idea is you can't know it's asimulation.
Because if you know it's asimulation, you're going to
treat it like a simulation.
Like when you play a video gameand you know you're in a video
game and you do all sorts ofcrazy stuff, right, if you
didn't know it was a video gameand you treated that video game
as if it were life, you'doperate differently.
There's a mode I know this isoff topic, but there's a mode of

(01:43:23):
playing some video games whichis like the extreme, like a
hardcore mode, where youbasically you know most video
games you die and then you comeback to life, right.
But there's some hardcore modeswhere it's like, no, you get
one life, you die, the game'sover.
So you could be 50 hours intothis game that takes a hundred
hours to finish and if you die,you have to you stop, delete and

(01:43:49):
start over from the beginning,right, and it's a hardcore mode,
that people.
But but it makes you thinkdifferently.
Right, you're not gonna,because in a regular video game
you're like I'm gonna try this.
If it doesn't work, I'll justgo back to my previous save and
try it again, whereas if youdidn't know, and so that's the
thing is right.
So so that's the idea.
Is that?
What if that is how it's allabout?
You're right.
What if we knew?
And then, all of a sudden, itwas like so you better start

(01:44:10):
paying attention to how youtreat people, cause you're going
to have to be called an accountfor all of that.

Speaker 2 (01:44:16):
And some religions I don't know if it's Buddhism,
hindu, clear, maybe it's both.
How you are in your presentlife, you'll then be
reincarnated.
Basically, your energy comesback in another form, and
whatever form you come back, youeither go up the ladder or down

(01:44:38):
the ladder, and how nice, yourlife is Right.
So there's that too.
That's another little wrinkle,Like maybe you'd say, oh my god,
if I am crappy to people,they're going to come back as
this horrible existence I don'twant to do that.

Speaker 1 (01:44:51):
What if you came back as a victim of the worst thing
you did to somebody else?
Oh my god.
So like what if like it throughyour life and it's like, okay,
so what was the worst thing youdid?
Oh you, you trafficked humans.
Okay, your next life you'regonna be on the other end of
that.

Speaker 2 (01:45:05):
Well right, so how?

Speaker 1 (01:45:06):
you're gonna experience life as it is to be.
That's not to say that everyperson is trafficked, is
deserves it because they did.
But I'm just saying like thatidea of like what if you come
back as a victim of the worstthing you did to someone else?
Right, you know that would behard, like you're right knowing
this stuff could that changesociety more than just unlimited

(01:45:27):
resources?

Speaker 2 (01:45:27):
It just might, it might.

Speaker 1 (01:45:28):
And just the whole fact of and we've talked about
this and then we'll move on toour next subject but just the
fact is that, if you knew that,you know we're not, we're not
like separate entities on thisrock called earth.
We're all, we're all humans.
We entities on this rock calledearth.
We're all, we're all humans.
We're all on the same side,right?
We're all kind of like.
If we could get on the samepage and stop looking at

(01:45:50):
ourselves as like russians andchinese and americans and this,
and muslims and christians andlike no, it's just, let's well,
is that whole thing?

Speaker 2 (01:45:57):
there's that whole thing of?
Maybe there's a um generalconsciousness, if you heard that
theory like maybe I mean who,but it could be that those types
of things are, you know,they're game changers.

Speaker 1 (01:46:10):
And they're things that we discuss theoretical, and
so what if you knew, liketaking it from the theoretical
and the belief structure?
And like, some people believeit, some people don't.
Some people think that when youdie, that's it.
It's like that everything aboutNobody knows, right.

Speaker 2 (01:46:27):
I don't know how you believe one or the other.

Speaker 1 (01:46:29):
Well, what's funny is that those people often call
them say they're not religious,but they are.
It's just your religion is thateverything is science, right,
like it's just another religion,right, right?
So this person's religion is if, when you get to the end of
this life, there's an afterlife,and this person's religion is
that there's not an afterlife,but you come back as something
else.
And then there's this thirdgroup who looks at those two

(01:46:52):
groups and goes sillysuperstition.
I know that it's just one anddone.
We're just neurons andchemicals and when we die,
that's it.
They make themselves soundsuperior, but in reality they're
just another belief structure.
That their belief structurehappens to just really focus on

(01:47:14):
not believing anything.
But it's still a beliefstructure.
So don't give in your high andmighty horse about being an
atheist.
A lot of young people I knowmyself at one point I was
atheist, agnostic at one point.
Everybody who's, or most peoplewho go through that kind of you
know, intellectual discoverycome to that certain point.

(01:47:35):
You know, and then you end upsomewhere in the middle.
But it's just like it's justanother belief structure.
But what if all that guessingwere taken away?

Speaker 2 (01:47:43):
Well, you know, and I'm not gonna structure, but
what?

Speaker 1 (01:47:45):
if all that guessing were taken away.

Speaker 2 (01:47:47):
Well, you know, and I'm not going to we want to move
on to this other guy but whenyou talk science, religion, I
just think there has to be anoverlap between them.
Only because when you get tothe base of matter that we know
about, right, at the end of it,the basis is basically electrons
.
Where do electrons come from?

(01:48:09):
Nobody knows.
They just say, oh well, youknow, it's matter that was
created.
The big bang?
Well, the big bang's a theory,right, and a show and a show
right, a pretty, you know kindof comical, but okay.
So all matter is comprised ofan element that you don't know

(01:48:30):
where it came from.
See, that's science, right, andI'm not disputing the
scientific method.

Speaker 1 (01:48:37):
God forbid somebody call you a science denier.

Speaker 2 (01:48:39):
I am not a science denier.

Speaker 1 (01:48:41):
But you realize, at some core level it's all
bullshit.

Speaker 2 (01:48:44):
The foundation of where, of how you explain.
Everything cannot be explained.
It's just guesses, it'seducated guesses.

Speaker 1 (01:48:53):
It's the same with any science.
Now you can prove repeatabilityand stuff like that.
Obviously, you know science isreal and when you can repeat
things.
But also science is also insome cases bullshit, because
sometimes it's a theory and it'sa theory that's backed up by
fact and sometimes, when thereare facts that don't comport to

(01:49:15):
your theory, it's easier toignore the facts than to work
them into your theory untilthere's enough facts that it
becomes so.
Science wore up and down.
At one point the Earth was thecenter of the universe, right.
Science wore up and down at onepoint that there was the center
of the universe, right.
Science wore up and down.
You know various things, right.
Science wore up and down that.
Did you know?
Washing your hands?
There's no need to wash yourhands.
There's no little like there'sno little tiny things ridiculous

(01:49:37):
.
that's crazy talk you should,you know, trust the science, and
then it's like oh wait, wait,there are germs.

Speaker 2 (01:49:44):
Washing your hands does matter, saying trust the
science goes against science,because the only way you
continue to prove science is byquestioning science.

Speaker 1 (01:49:52):
You don't trust science.
You trust religion.
Science, you prove Science, yourepeat Science, you demonstrate
hey, I think, if you do this,this happens.
Yeah, prove it.
Okay, here I'm doing this, seethat happen, and I do it again.
I did this, that happened.
Wow, do it a bunch more times.
I did, hey, this guy over here,he did it too.
This guy over here, he did weall do this and that happens.

(01:50:15):
I guess that's science, not heythis happens.

Speaker 2 (01:50:22):
That's not science.

Speaker 1 (01:50:24):
That's belief and that's what you know.
And, unfortunately, humans, welike to pat ourselves on the
back and some of us like to saywell, we're above that belief
structure, we're serious people.
We're scientists, some of itsure, some of it just belief,
with a different coat of paintslapped on it.

(01:50:45):
That's all it is.
That's all it is.
So you know we'll have to comeback to this because this topic
and I have a feeling we'll bebrought back to this topic just
as more stuff comes out.
But so we got to get to thiswhistleblower.
All right, we talk aboutwhistleblowers a lot here.
We've talked about you know.
But this recent guy who cameout again through NewsNation

(01:51:06):
who's doing amazing, you knowone of the networks.
They're a newer cable network.
If you're not familiar withNewsNation, they're probably in
the very high spectrum of yourcable box, right?
They're not in the main numbers.
You're not going to find them.
Next, I have to put a search inRight, searching right.

(01:51:27):
But I will say I can't.
As I often say in my ufo talks.
When I talk about news nation,I say I cannot vouch 100 for
their like non-ufo coverage.
Right, in many ways theyoperate like a any cable news
network I would say they'reslightly right leaning they're,
yeah, although they're not asright leaning as fox.

Speaker 2 (01:51:42):
No, no, no, that, no, no, no.
That's why I say slightly.

Speaker 1 (01:51:44):
Yeah, they have a nice balance to them and I pay
attention because for a while Iwas watching them a lot, just
because I was watching a lot ofthe UFO stuff.
And they do a decent job ofseparating hey, we're delivering
you facts, here are the factsas we know it.
Delivering you facts, here arethe facts as we know it.

(01:52:07):
And they do a decent job ofsaying, hey, this guy is gonna
give you some facts and thenhe's gonna spout his opinion
about those facts, or thiswoman's gonna, you know, this
person's gonna spout theiropinion.
But they do a decent job.

Speaker 2 (01:52:15):
But anyway, regardless, I know he got, I
know he got kind of kicked offcnn, but I like that, I like the
way that guy uh como oh yeahthere's something about the way
his.
I like the way he delivers.

Speaker 1 (01:52:24):
He's got a very everyman kind of thing, and it's
fun to see those who neverwould have touched the UFO topic
.
Chris Cuomo would not havetouched this topic when he was
on CNN.

Speaker 2 (01:52:38):
No.

Speaker 1 (01:52:38):
And he would have probably made derogatory
comments about it.
Now he has it.
So, news Nation, they do areally good job.
They put resources into thistopic.
They have somebody on CapitolHill who frequently reports on
it and asks the questions, andthey hired a journalist named
Ross Coulthard, an Australianjournalist who is doing

(01:53:01):
independent UFO research, andhe's a journalist that was
looking into this stuff.

Speaker 2 (01:53:05):
I do like him.
He does great.

Speaker 1 (01:53:07):
He loves listening to himself.
He's a very, very, yes, he'sAustralian, but they hired him
full time so he's been bringingout stuff like left and right.
He's the one who brought outDavid Grush one of the people
because there was also anarticle that came out at the
same time, but he was the onewho brought out this new one.
So the man's name is JakeBarber.
He's a US Air Force officialand he has a very colorful

(01:53:30):
background and he's had somehigh credentialed people step
forward, including David Grush,and say, no, he is who he says
he is, and basically there's atwo and a half, there's a two
and a half.
So News Nation had a specialwhere they rolled out his story
and it was an hour special withcommercials, so it was about 40

(01:53:52):
minutes and they talked about alot of stuff.
After that, news Nation did putout on YouTube the full two and
a half hour interview with thisguy, jake Barber.
He has since done another twoand a half three hour interview
with Jesse Michaels and he'sdone a few.

(01:54:12):
I think that might be it, buthe's doing more.
But anyway it's worth watching.
He claims to be a firsthandwitness that in his professional
you know occupation with the,you know, with the military.
He eventually became a military, uh like a contractor, but he

(01:54:33):
was still like working for thegovernment, even though he
didn't appear to be.
It's really interesting story,you got it's really.
He goes through and talks aboutbasically how he was trained in
certain things, kind of quietlyin the army and then, or in the
military, rather than it was inthe army specifically, I know
he did the Air Force.
He was trained in certainthings and then he had to go out

(01:54:55):
in the private sector and learnthose things, pretend to learn
those things as if he didn'talready know it.
I thought that was reallyfascinating that they had he had
learned in the military to fly.
Know it?
I thought that was reallyfascinating that they had he had
learned in the military to fly.
Yep, and he technically was anair, an aerospace mechanic, but
also during the time he learnedto fly and then when he got out
but there was no record of himhaving learned these things.

(01:55:16):
So when he got out he then hadto go to flight school and
pretend to learn to fly so hecould be in a position to do
what he needed.
He was like a dark ops, blackops operator kind of thing, and
he flew a helicopter and hewould pick up high-value targets
.
Sometimes they were ourexperimental craft that crashed,

(01:55:40):
sometimes they were adversariescraft vehicles that crashed,
and there were some amount oftimes where he went and picked
up something that he says andothers say that was clearly
non-human.
All right, so that's where thestory starts, right, his

(01:56:01):
background, and News Nationshowed a very brief clip of what
looked like an egg-shapedobject being suspended from a
helicopter.
You really couldn't see much,and I think a lot was made that,
hey, we're going to show yousome never-before-seen video,
and okay, if you trust theprovidence of the video, it's
interesting.
If you don't, though, peoplelook at it and go what the hell

(01:56:22):
am I looking at?
So it's that, but that's notwhere the story gets weird in
this interview, and I don't knowif I can do it all justice.
Basically, he says that you know, uh, that they summon these
uaps this is where it gets weird, this is where this is where it
always goes and you can't avoidit.

(01:56:44):
And but you do.
And I I think I was sayingearlier that like and this is
true of a lot of people when youfirst get into the ufo topic,
you're all about physical craft,physical evidence.
You don't want to hear aboutcrop circles, you don't want to
hear about abductions, youcertainly don't want to hear
about telepathy and telekinesisand all sorts of woo-woo stuff.

(01:57:05):
You just want it to be physicalaliens flying from Planet X and
coming here and that's okay.
But as you get into this topic,that stuff comes in, it just
does.
You cannot avoid it.
There's crossover, live with it, avoid it, there's crossover,
live with it.
So what Jake Barber basicallyalleged and um, and he again he

(01:57:31):
didn't just allege this in in an, you know he had some, you know
his, his background wasconfirmed, that he is who he
says he is.
You know he had.
You know, basically, that theyhave.
This is going to sound crazy.
I say you know, just like I saidbefore, I have to say this that
there's a method, throughmeditation, that they have

(01:57:51):
psionic assets who are able tomentally summon these craft and
that's somehow.
That's sometimes how we getthem, not that they crash, that
they are brought to land bypsionics is what they call it.

(01:58:12):
What's psionics?
It's funny, you know, it's alot of people like I've never
heard that term before, but Iplayed dnd and dungeon dragons,
so that psionics has been likeit's meant, it's mental, it's,
it's okay, it's.
Psionics is just another wordfor telepathy, telekinesis,
being able to move things withyour mind, being able to
communicate with your mind, allthat you would call it psychic

(01:58:35):
powers.

Speaker 2 (01:58:35):
Oh, it says the study of psychic powers.

Speaker 1 (01:58:37):
It says psionics is kind of like a more.
If you didn't want to saypsychic, you'd say psionic, it's
the study of psychic powers.
You'd say psionic and it soundsit's more yeah, it's the study
of psych, psychic.
So.
But basically that there's thatthey and and so he has come out
with.

Speaker 2 (01:58:52):
Oh, was psionics like with the wizards, is that?

Speaker 1 (01:58:56):
No, psionics was more mind stuff, so, like I always
knew it from the Dungeons andDragons, kind of like, in
Dungeons and Dragons there'sobviously magic, right Right.
But then there was this otherkind of okay, if you wanted to
have those kinds of powers butyou didn't want it to be magic,
there was this other subset ofthey could be psionics.

Speaker 2 (01:59:11):
Okay.

Speaker 1 (01:59:12):
And you know some people didn't like mixing
chocolate with their peanutbutter and if they fantasy
fantasy.
They wanted to just have any.
I want to have wizards.
I don't mind of psychics orwhatever, so it's kind of
controversial, but I I just knewthat term psionics and, but to
a lot of people it's the firsttime they're hearing it.

Speaker 2 (01:59:32):
I just had been exposed to it.
Anybody played dnd, was it?
Just it was a word theyprobably played right, but now
it's like coming back.

Speaker 1 (01:59:34):
Yeah, I'm listening, but it was like you know, at one
point there's like a you know aspecial handbook for that, like
psionics handbook.
You can have all these mindpowers, whatever it's.
Just it's a way of bringingthat in.
But, yeah, and so he's come outand he says, all right, I get
it, this stuff sounds crazy.
Right, I'm telling you this.
He did a, he testified to theSenate Select Committee for

(02:00:00):
Intelligence and it was supposedto be a two-hour uh briefing
and he was there four and a halfhours.
Um, now, when you say that Ibriefed the senate uh
intelligence committee, itdoesn't mean you brief the
politicians, you you you briefedtheir people, their lawyers
there.
That's usually how they insulate.
They don't let you know.
Not every congress I mean asenator or congressperson or

(02:00:22):
whatever is necessarily sittingin the room there.
It's their staffers are hearingthis, because then they can
selectively let the politiciansin on what they need to know.
But anyway, and so he came outand said basically that they
have him, along with otherpeople who were in the program,
and those people to come out butare coming out, have created

(02:00:43):
this organization which is beingfunded by, like, private equity
groups, including that AlexCrocus guy who is the one who
runs that SALT.
Remember I told you bringingthe financial people in.
Well, they created thisorganization called Skywatcher
and, according to Jake Barberand this is what he's saying
he's saying watch, in thecurrent months, we're not asking

(02:01:11):
money, we funded.
We don't need money fromeverybody, anybody, we are fully
funded.
We are putting together a thing.
What we're going to show you,we're going to demonstrate how
you can do this, how you cansummon, how it can be summoned
to bring these things to us.
And they just had some sort oflike conference was invite, only
that, apparently, like a lot ofwealthy people, a lot of like
the movers and shakers in thefinance, you know area, went to

(02:01:35):
and they demonstrated it for it.
Ross Coulthart was there, hetalked about it a little bit,
that he saw what was anything.
They summoned yeah, they have,like, they have stuff and
they're going to be rolling itall out.
So supposedly, I mean he saysquite clearly the hell he says
quite clearly this is going tobe, and he claims that they're
working with the government.
He's not doing it on his own,he's like we're working with

(02:01:56):
selected things.
So no, no, but what I mean?

Speaker 2 (02:01:58):
what would you be doing if you watch that?

Speaker 1 (02:02:03):
that's the question, right right, he claims that in
the coming months I really hopeit's something that can be
watched, because it sounds crazy.

Speaker 2 (02:02:09):
It does sound crazy.

Speaker 1 (02:02:12):
And that's the thing about this.

Speaker 2 (02:02:13):
I've heard a lot of other crazy things that turn out
to be all right.

Speaker 1 (02:02:18):
It's so nuts.

Speaker 2 (02:02:21):
So you're saying that one person, or does it have to
be some collective?

Speaker 1 (02:02:26):
it's, they train people for it.

Speaker 2 (02:02:28):
This is just my point is like do they have to do it
together?

Speaker 1 (02:02:31):
yeah, usually they have more than one person doing
it, okay and, um, usuallythey're, a lot of times they are
indigenous people because theyare more like you can be trained
in this.
There was something called thegate program, I guess, back in
the day, where young giftedchildren were like tested for
various like whether they havelike mental acuity or whatever

(02:02:52):
in a lot of schools I guess, andsome people went into this
program and were and it was kindof like a training, for this
kind of stuff sounds likestranger things.
It's weird.
It again like the video theyshowed of this egg object.
Right, it's an egg, it's anegg-shaped object and Jake
Barber made-.

Speaker 2 (02:03:10):
How did they get the video?
Did they explain that?

Speaker 1 (02:03:13):
No, that video did not come from Jake Barber.
They were showing that videoRight.
Ross says we got it.
We can't, obviously can't say,because they're not supposed to
have it.

Speaker 2 (02:03:20):
So basically, it was leaked to them, kind of like the
way Corbell got some of hisvideos.

Speaker 1 (02:03:24):
But basically he said you know obviously what do you
think of when you think of anegg spaceship.

Speaker 2 (02:03:30):
I think of Mork and Mindy Right.

Speaker 1 (02:03:34):
He made very strong indications that that was
purposeful.

Speaker 2 (02:03:39):
Really.

Speaker 1 (02:03:40):
That it was purposeful making the egg the
method of conveyance for Mork,because it's long been alleged,
and even confirmed in some cases, that the intelligence agencies
for a long time have had theirfingers in the Hollywood pie.
Yeah, that's always been a thing, because occasionally they hey,
we want such and such depictedin a certain way, we want such

(02:04:03):
and such depicted in a certainway.
We want such and such.
We just, you know, this is howyou kind of, again, if you think
for two seconds, if you have asociety and you're among the
people running a society, areyou just going to let stuff
happen or are you going to trythe best of your ability to kind
of manage stuff Right?
People say I don't like livingin a managed reality.
We're always living in amanaged reality.

(02:04:24):
We're always living in amanaged reality.
It's just right now we'reliving in a badly managed
reality.

Speaker 2 (02:04:29):
That might be true.

Speaker 1 (02:04:30):
But it's always going to be managed.
A non-managed reality meansthat everybody has access to
everything.
You can't run a society thatway.
You have to demarcate certainthings right.
So the thought process is whywould Mork there was nothing
about him that why?
Why was an egg his?

(02:04:50):
Yeah, oh, it's funny.
Okay, why was that chosen?
Okay, it's funny all right, Iget it.
But what if you knew that was afact?
And you knew that there werecraft of that shape?
How do you make it not a thing?
Well, you take something that'sreal and you put it in a
fictional content and concept.

(02:05:12):
Right and now, whenever peoplesee that or hear that, they're
going to roll their eyes and gothat's mork for mork.
That's fiction.
Of course it is.
Don't worry about it, as absurdas that sounds.
Now, egg, why would it?
Why would a craft be?
yeah egg shape, because that'sone of the most aerodynamic
shapes like, if you look, if youlook into it because of the way

(02:05:35):
it's, everything about it itmakes it makes sense that if you
were going to have a craft,it's that kind of shape, know,
you hear about the cigar shape,you hear about the tic-tac
that's all kind of in thategg-ish kind of, you know kind
of.
So basically that's one part ofit is that you know, a lot of
this stuff that's going to becoming out is going to sound

(02:05:57):
like fiction and you may haveeven heard it in fiction, but
that doesn't mean it's not real.
It just means that you've heardit in fiction but that doesn't
mean it's not real.
It just means that you've heardit in fiction and you could
have heard it, because itbecomes this weird.
He said he coined this term,which I thought was kind of
funny.
He's like when you takesomething that's fiction, when
you take something that's realand you put it in fiction, he's

(02:06:17):
like you kind of you take factand you make it fiction, then
you kind of it becomes thisweird thing of sort of like
faction I thought that was kindof funny where it's like if
people hear egg-shaped craft,they're going to say Mork for
Mork and they're going to notpay any more attention to it.
So that's what's going on.
There's a two and a half hourinterview.
It's worth the watch because,like I said, it's they go into

(02:06:40):
all that stuff in more depth.
One of the things I thought wasreally fascinating was all
right, here's the question howcome he can talk about it and
he's like he tells this story ofhow they the DOPSER process.
That's the, the, the where youhave to, if you're going to, if
you have top secret clearanceand you're going to talk about

(02:07:00):
anything that has to do with youknow stuff.
You have to submit it all toadopter review.
David Grush had to do this.
So everything David Grush saidhe had put in for adopter review
and had been cleared for him tosay that's why some things he
said he couldn't answer LouElizondo was the same way he put

(02:07:21):
in for adopter clearance.
Anybody who has a classified um, you know, classified level has
to put in for this.
So what he did this is this isa fascinating story.
I just re-heard this thismorning.
When I listened to it, theypretended to be creating a work
of fiction.
Now he had it.
It was coming through himbecause the reason why a adopter

(02:07:44):
process is done is the person.

Speaker 2 (02:07:47):
So what process can you explain?

Speaker 1 (02:07:48):
The adopter.
That's the process of hey, thisis what I'm going to say out
loud.
Take a look at it.
Oh, you can't say this.
You can't say this, you can'tsay this Right.

Speaker 2 (02:07:56):
That's why they did that.

Speaker 1 (02:07:58):
So, but it's a slip.
It's a weird thing, because ifthey tell you you can't talk
about something, that's kind ofadmitting that there's something
to it, right?
So what he did was and he tellsthe story how how they said he's
like how are you able to talkabout this?
He's like well, this is what wedid.
I put in adopter, hey, I'mgoing to be I.

(02:08:25):
I think they did it as episodesof a show.
It wasn't going to exist and sohe did.
Here's the first 10,000 wordsof this is the first episode of
the show, and what he did is heworked in stuff that he knew was
classified and knew that wouldbe yanked.
Stuff that he knew wasclassified but it was still out
in the public domain.
Stuff he knew didn't know wasclassified but it was still out

(02:08:49):
in the public domain.
Stuff he knew didn't know wasclassified but knew was crap,
right.
And then other stuff that he,like he knew it was a test to
see some of his suspicions.
It was kind of doingcounterintel, because this was
his job in the military, was RedForce.
He would be the guy who wouldact as the enemy in training and
try to outthink our guys.

(02:09:09):
He would be the guy who wouldbe doing kind of
counterintelligence kind ofstuff, and he was doing that
against the federal government.
So he was basically saying,okay, now when I get the thing
back, oh, they said I can't talkabout that.
Oh, they said I can't talkabout that.
And then they had other stuffwhere he said other stuff that
they would take stuff they knewand would make logical
conclusions to almost goingfishing and saying, hey, here's

(02:09:34):
this thing we're gonna talkabout.
They don't know, it's true.
But if they come back and say,well, you can't talk about that,
ding, ding, it's true, becauseif it wasn't true you wouldn't
care if I said it.
So it's true, because if itwasn't true you wouldn't care if
I said it.
Right, so it was reallyinteresting.
So he's able to talk about whathe's able to talk about.
But he kind of tricked them ina way, because some of the
things that he said he was goingto talk about they the Dopster

(02:09:57):
review, which is fairly, it'snot like the people you send it
to know everything.
They have to send it to therespective people like, hey,
he's talking about this.
Oh, this is run by the CIA.
So I better send it to the CIAand say, hey, can you talk about
this?
This part is run by the NSA.
Hey, nsa, he's talking aboutthis.
So the trick is is that if thepeople running the Dobson Review

(02:10:19):
don't know something's real,because such a thing is so off
the books that it's not nobodyknows it exists, then the doctor
people can't tell him not totalk about it.
Therefore, when he puts in hisrequest and says, well, I, I
said I was going to talk aboutthese things and they didn't
mark this, he can't get introuble for saying it gotcha.

(02:10:41):
So it was really clever the wayhe did it.
And he did it in such a waythat it it won, it freed up some
things for him to talk aboutthat would normally would have
been not able to be talked about, because and and then also
answered some questions for him,because he had his own
questions, because, again, he'sonly.
He describes himself as beinglike the.

(02:11:01):
He's the fingers of theoperation.
You know he's the one on theground doing this stuff and he
talks about how.
You know, between the fingersyou have, you have the shoulder
and you have the brain which istelling the shoulder what to do,
and then the shoulder and he'slike but in between the shoulder
and in the fingertips you gotthe, you got the elbow, and if
the elbow has its own ideas ofwhat to do.
Then the shoulder it'sbasically explaining how a lot

(02:11:22):
of these things work.
That it's like, and he realizedthat he was being used on
things that weren't sanctioned,things that weren't, and there
was cases of and gone down.
And private aerospace hasrecovery teams and the
government, secretly, hasrecovery teams and there have

(02:11:56):
been cases where two recoveryteams converged on an object at
the same time and shots werefired.
Really, two people weresupposedly killed and again,
this would have been somethingthat would have been completely
covered up, that those twoindividuals who were killed,
their families, would have neverbeen told that they died doing

(02:12:17):
what they were doing, becausethe whole thing's secret.
So there's a lot to this and inthe coming months, skywatcher
is going to be in concert withsome agencies of the government
and rolling out.
Basically, you know, here'sproof, here's proof.

(02:12:37):
This is going on Like.
So there's those saying that inthe next you know couple of
months, stuff's going to becoming out.
That is going to make ourprevious conversation kind of
moot because it's going to.
It's going to, it's going totip the thing.
But yeah, what are yourthoughts on his, on his, what

(02:12:58):
are your thoughts on his whole?
You know what his claims were.

Speaker 2 (02:13:03):
Well, I like I said, like we talked about a little
earlier, I was kind of struckthe way he said he kind of
thought was it when they wereretrieving the egg?
He said he was flying theobject, yeah, and he had this
kind of felt like it wascommunicating with him, but not
words, but feelings that kind ofwell, either one or two things

(02:13:27):
are happening.
One, the guy's out of his mind,or two it happened.

Speaker 1 (02:13:31):
To him at least.
He wasn't sure at the time.

Speaker 2 (02:13:32):
he said he said he almost wanted to cry.
He started to cry and he waslike am I having a breakdown?

Speaker 1 (02:13:38):
Yeah, and this whole idea of these UAP being
connected with consciousness.
This has been like a newer kindof thing that's been talked
about.
It's seeming more and more likethat's the thing.
Consciousness is the way thesecraft are controlled.

Speaker 2 (02:13:57):
I've heard Well, I mean yes, but how are they
communicating?
And then the question would bewho's communicating?
Do they think they'recommunicating with one person,
or do they think they'recommunicating with what some
people describe as a collectiveconsciousness?
Of human beings.
They're not necessarily it'sreally kind of like, kind of
it's weird Big brain kind ofstuff.

Speaker 1 (02:14:16):
They're not necessarily communicating with
who's in the craft.
They're communicating withwhatever's controlling the craft
and the craft in some cases isnot being flown.
I mean, whatever's controllingthe craft and the craft in some
cases is not being controlled,is not being flown.
I mean, there's a lot to thisthat you know, the little gray
aliens, right, the little, theone, the traditional gray aliens
that you see right thereeverywhere, right, big, big eyes
, you know, um, there's been alot of talk about like what,

(02:14:41):
what you know, are those us?
Is that what the human wouldeventually become if you go in
the future?
And there's other people,there's others who say and again
, I can't answer this stuff, butI cannot say this supposedly in
cases where said beings wererecovered and autopsies were
done, that those things do nothave stomachs, that those things

(02:15:01):
do not eat, and those, thoseare, in essence, biological
robots.

Speaker 2 (02:15:07):
That's what I was going to say.

Speaker 1 (02:15:07):
We are at the point now, humans are at the point now
.
We're just about at that point,right, we're almost there where
we can construct, we can putgenes together and DNA and all
that stuff.
Theoretically we could do thatif you had the funding and stuff
to do it.
But it is theoreticallypossible that idea that those

(02:15:28):
gray aliens are not what thisthing is, they're the emissary,
they're the fingertips of thisthing that we're interacting
with, but we're not interactingwith it.
We're interacting with what it'schoosing to send, it's
biological robots that it sendsto do the interacting because

(02:15:52):
maybe, I mean, it's going to getreally weird, but maybe what
those things are, we couldn'teven conceive them.
What if we couldn't even, likeI said, dimensional, like?

Speaker 2 (02:16:02):
what if we couldn't even see them?
I mean because we know what if?

Speaker 1 (02:16:05):
what?
Here's a scary, we know there acertain light we can't see what
if these things are all aroundus?
that's what I mean.
Can you imagine if, like, canyou imagine, if that's the
answer if you have to tellpeople at some point like hey,
yeah, and uh, oh, by the way,these things are everywhere,
like everywhere, like they'reprobably right next to you right
now and they're doing their ownthing and they're not paying
any attention to you becausethey're in another phase of
existence.

(02:16:25):
But if they wanted to payattention to you, which they do
sometimes, they could.
Um, so when you're sitting onthe toilet, theoretically
there's an alien who could lookat you if he wanted to, and he
could be looking at you and go Ilook at that thing like maybe
we live in a version of thatmovie.

Speaker 2 (02:16:39):
They live right, right where that's another one.

Speaker 1 (02:16:43):
Did that like, could that have been just kind of like
hey guys, this is what's goingon.
I'm going to let you.
I'm going to put it in a movie,though, because that way, when
you hear that's really going on,you're going to go that's they
live.

Speaker 2 (02:16:54):
I saw that Roddy Roddy, right Piper.

Speaker 1 (02:16:56):
Yeah.
And the longest fight scene,remember it does.
And every time you think thefight's wrapping up, then all of
a sudden it starts up again.
It's like a street fightwrestling match.
Oh my God, that's a great moviethat I saw that not too long
ago, but yeah, so, yeah, this.
That's the thing about thisright Is yeah.
But if he'd come out and it hadjust been, hey, I was one of

(02:17:19):
the ones recovering the craftand here's my story and like, if
you had everything and left outall that psionic stuff, there's
a lot of people who would bemore comfortable with it,
because that's what made a lotof people uncomfortable, like.
A lot of people are like Idon't know, I don't know, I
don't believe in that stuff, andit's like okay, I don't know, I
don't believe in that stuff,and it's like okay, but in

(02:17:39):
another way.
I'm like okay, but if that washis experience, it would be
inauthentic to not say that justbecause you're afraid, like all
of this stuff, either you're inor you're out.
Like, where are you going todraw the line, are you?

Speaker 2 (02:17:54):
non-human.
I'm not drawing a line.
I'm not drawing a line, just mymind.
When someone says that, I sayokay, that needs to be verified
to me.

Speaker 1 (02:18:05):
That's all I'm just saying the general, like where
does one draw the line?
I can believe in aliens andUFOs, but this part is a road
too far.
It's like, at what point areyou starting to go?
It's like do you believethere's UFOs?
Okay, there are UFOs.
Do you believe there's aliens?
Well, I guess if there are UFOs, there have to be aliens.
Okay, so do you believe thealiens could be abducting people

(02:18:26):
?
Well, I guess.
If they're aliens and they flyUFOs, I guess by the transitive
properties, I guess that has tobe true.
Okay, so now these things arecontrolled Once you get on there
.

Speaker 2 (02:18:35):
It's just like it's a slippery slope.
The rest of it, you can atleast relate it with other parts
of your life, right?
When someone says I can thinkabout it and those things come
to me, right, it's like you know, most people say to themselves
what are you, aquaman, like?
How are you doing this when?

(02:18:55):
Because no one's experiencedthat in any other aspect of
their life.

Speaker 1 (02:18:59):
We have been again kind of indoctrinated with the
idea that stuff isn't real.
But then you go back and youlook at old CIA files and there
was a project called Stargatewhere they trained remote
viewers.
And they said, they saw the moonand they said they saw Mars.
Mars and this isn't CIAdocuments, the moon too, though
the moon too, but they said thatMars from a million years ago,

(02:19:20):
right, and in the CIA documentsthat are declassified, it talks
about like yeah, we had a remoteviewer and looked at Mars and
saw, you know, ruins there andthings like that, and like so.

Speaker 2 (02:19:32):
And then they found now they just found this thing
with like a square, Do you see?

Speaker 1 (02:19:36):
this yeah, nature does not do right, and they know
that water.

Speaker 2 (02:19:39):
Yeah, now they know, water did flow.

Speaker 1 (02:19:42):
It's the same thing.
Life is just getting closer andcloser, like, like I always say
, when we were kids, no life inthe universe, right, they said
cold and dead were the onlything.
And then I said, oh, maybethere's life on distant planets,
but we can't get there.
Now it's like, well, there'slike now.
It's like well, it could belife on you know, microbe life
on, you know, jupiter's, one ofJupiter's moons.
It could have been.

(02:20:02):
Yeah, there could have beenmicrobe life on Mars.
It's like getting closer andcloser it's getting.
This is all part of the process.
This is all part of thedesensitization process.
It's been going on for a while.
I'm not saying it's 100% likeorganized, but it's the general
desensitization process whereyou get people comfortable oh,
you're not comfortable with theidea of non-human life.

(02:20:23):
Okay, there's non-human lifeout there, way out there.
Okay, you're comfortable withthat.
Okay, now it's a little closer.
Now it's a little closer.
Now it's an O tier, you know,and you hope that by the time
you get to the point where yousay it's here, you've warmed
people up and it's that samekind of thing where, like, some
of this stuff just gets so weird.

Speaker 2 (02:20:43):
So weird, but well, it's not as yes, it does, but
it's not as weird as it could beIf you didn't take the other
thing before it.

Speaker 1 (02:20:55):
You know what I'm trying to say.
Yeah, it's.

Speaker 2 (02:20:58):
It's like you keep.
There are some jumps that arekind of further than others, yes
, but they're in succession kindof and it comes a certain point
we're in for a penny and for apound.

Speaker 1 (02:21:05):
like it comes a certain point where it's like if
I'm going to believe a, b, cand d, then I I can't by all
rights reject efg and h out ofhand.
I, I mean, I don't have tonecessarily believe them, but
you've gotten me this far andthis is where the evidence is
leading.
I guess I'm all in Right and sothat's the it's.

(02:21:26):
It's a funny watching the like,the evolution of of this topic,
but that's the scary part is inthe mainstream.
That's the only part I questionis like I said earlier, we're
not all there yet.
I still have to.
I still have to have stupiddiscussions with people about
whether this stuff even exists,and at that point I'm like I

(02:21:49):
don't know what to tell you, man.
But how much is going to comeout before you realize there's a
there there?
How many politicians, how manyhigh-ranking politicians, how
many projects are you going tosee?
How much billions of dollars doyou see our military putting

(02:22:10):
into this stuff before you say,obviously there's something to
it.
They do this nice little tricktoo, like with the Stargate
program.
Right, oh, the CIA looked atremote viewing and they shut the
Stargate program.
Right, oh, the CIA looked atremote viewing and they shut the
Stargate program down.
Guess, it didn't work.
And most people will tell youprograms are shut down all the
time.
All that means is that theyshifted over to a new name.

(02:22:30):
No intelligence agency is goingto stop using a method that
works, and certainly ouradversaries are not going to
like, are not going to not use amethod that works.
So you don't think that Russia,you don't think that China has
their own remote viewingprograms.

(02:22:51):
You're deluding yourself, doyou not even think the U?
S still has remote view?
Of course they do.
The Stargategate program, whichwas the remote viewing process,
you know program that we toldyou about, that got shut down
and then the press goes oh, Iguess it, there was nothing to
it.
Yeah, I guess so, and it's likeno.
Well, the question is, doesthis program still exist under a

(02:23:13):
different name?
Oh, we can't tell you that, butdon't worry about it, you know
that's the thing is like.
So now, okay, if yourgovernment is putting time and
effort and money into remoteviewing, there must be something
to it.
What the hell does that mean?
Right, does that mean that?
And does that mean that thereare people right now who are
trained and are sitting in aroom and looking at, um, you far

(02:23:38):
away places and gettingintelligence from it?
I guess it does.
That stuff's real.
What the hell does that changeeverything?
What do you mean?
Again, it's that acceptance ofwhat if you found all this like
what if?
What happens, when everyoneaccepts and realizes that that
stuff isn't just fantasy?

(02:23:58):
That I mean, and one of theit's hard to prove, prove.

Speaker 2 (02:24:01):
I think that those has to be demonstrated still
exist.
It's hard to prove um and I itwhen I say hard to prove, um,
let's just say there is aprogram right now and there's
someone doing remote viewingright and it's not necessarily
always going to be to look atanother planet plan.
It could be to look something inthis, something on this planet,
those methods like we've talkedabout before would be

(02:24:25):
classified and no one's going totalk about them.
Because that method might havetold somebody I mean it's kind
of outlandish, but maybe it toldsomebody where Osama bin Laden
was.
I mean, who knows?
But if that's what someone'susing it for, for they're never
going to tell you and and and atwhat point?

Speaker 1 (02:24:43):
if you know about this process, there must be
protection against it.
Right, could you have your own,maybe not remote viewers, but
remote uh blockers?
Right?

Speaker 2 (02:24:53):
could there be people ?

Speaker 1 (02:24:54):
who sit there and basically just go.
Our job is to mentally keep outother remote viewers.
It's like a sci-fi movie andagain, this stuff sounds
ridiculous but it's looking, youknow.
So anyway, jake BarberSkywatcher is the name of the
organization I highly recommend.

(02:25:14):
I'll, if I I'm going to try toput the link to the.

Speaker 2 (02:25:18):
I want to look a little more up, Cause I I don't
know a lot about that skywatcherprogram.

Speaker 1 (02:25:23):
It's brand new, he like it's an organization and
again it's.
You know a lot of people like,oh grift, and it's like they're
not asking for money.
They're not saying they don'twant your money, they there are
deep pockets who are lookinginto this stuff because, again,
the money people are gettingthis is the last stage of the
military was first, the religionwas second, not to say they're

(02:26:01):
all there.
But you know, and now you'rebringing the money people in to
be able to keep, or anygovernment is not going to be
able to keep this secret nowthat private individuals um have
the ability to do this andsupposedly this is a skill.
This is not some specializedthing that you that supposedly
this is something that every oneof us has the capacity to learn
how to do.
Some people may have moreaptitude for it and some people

(02:26:23):
may have more of a penchant forit, but it's like any learned
skill, right?
I mean, you'll have people whoare really great at baseball and
just have an innate talent forbaseball, but anyone can learn
to play baseball.
They may not be the greatestbaseball player, but if they
learn the game and learn how toplay it, they can play it fairly

(02:26:43):
well.
And it's the same thing withthis.
This is just a skill like anyother skill.

Speaker 2 (02:26:50):
I wonder what it's rooted in, only because I always
thought that remote viewing hadsomething to do with the
collective consciousness ofpeople, and that's how you see
things but I'm not sure how yousee things on Mars.

Speaker 1 (02:27:06):
It's more than the non locality of everything like
that.
Time and space are anartificial construct and really
at its core, fundamental, andreally at its core fundamental,
everything is happening at onceand everywhere is everywhere at

(02:27:26):
once.
You know?

Speaker 2 (02:27:27):
kind of thing that's like wasn't that a movie?
Yeah, I didn't see it, but Iheard it was good.

Speaker 1 (02:27:32):
It's again.
It's getting at thisfundamental, like our
understanding of our universeand our place in it is so
elementary and fundamental.
And we like to think that we'reso advanced and we like to, but
I feel like a certain whole partof our existence has been kind
of kept from us.
I often say I think over theyears we've been artificially

(02:27:57):
led to believe that the world issmaller, more understood and
less mysterious than it reallyis.
And I think over time it's kindof been that you know again,
it's just that general.
How do you keep a society inline?
Well, you don't want thesociety to know that there's
anything to be learned.

(02:28:17):
Like, hey, we know everything,don't worry about it, you just
produce and consume.
Yeah, don't worry, your prettylittle heads.

Speaker 2 (02:28:23):
Those are the tenets of society because we understand
everything.

Speaker 1 (02:28:26):
We've mapped every inch of this planet, we know
everything about it.
We know everything about everyother planet and we know how the
universe works and we know thatthese phenomena do exist.
These phenomena do not exist,so don't worry about them.
And it's like okay, but butmaybe not.
Maybe the world we've been kindof taught to exist, there's

(02:28:46):
more to it and the stuff ispressing a lot of those buttons
and there's a lot of even ufopeople who are like whoa, whoa,
whoa, whoa, whoa.
I did not sign up for this again, I'm okay with physical craft
flying from planet x and cominghere.
If you start talking aboutpsionics and summoning, you know
, remote viewing and all thisstuff, uh, I can't get on board.

(02:29:10):
And jake barber basically saysI don't know what to tell you.
He's like he.
He can tell he's religiousbecause he quotes the bible a
lot and one of the things he'slike, he's like to quote one of
the Bible verses.
He's like you'll know us by ourfruits, basically saying don't
have to believe what I'm tellingyou.
We're going to show you.
And he's like we're doing it.
We've been doing it, we've beenworking on this for years and

(02:29:35):
we're rolling it out now.
We're not just starting this.
This has been in operation, forthis has been in progress for a
long time and now sky watcheris rolled out.
You can look it up and see andthey're they're saying they're
going to be totally transparentand that they have, and you know
again, they demonstrated thisfor select individuals and

(02:29:55):
they're not ready to roll it outto the public yet, but the
eventual plan is we're going toroll it out, we're going to show
you, we're going to demonstratein no uncertain terms this is
how you do it, this is how yousummon one of these crafts.

Speaker 2 (02:30:08):
And here it comes and you're going to make it land.
Now that's a really tall.

Speaker 1 (02:30:14):
You know that's a really big claim.
Right Proof's going to be inthe pudding.

Speaker 2 (02:30:19):
I want to see it.

Speaker 1 (02:30:21):
I do too.
I do too.
The dangerous part about thisstuff, though, is the fact that
a lot of people now you know.
Have you heard of CE5?
Dr Stephen Greer, You've heardof him?

Speaker 2 (02:30:30):
right, yes.

Speaker 1 (02:30:36):
That's his like.
Ce5 is basically what they'retalking about here, which is
basically the idea of puttingyourself into trance and getting
to a state of mind and beingable to summon.
He's been talking about thisstuff for years and most people
just kind of roll their eyes andgo and stuff's ridiculous.
And now all of a sudden youhave jake barbara coming out
going no, he's, he's beentalking about this stuff, he's,

(02:30:57):
we've been doing this, butbasically that's what CE5 is.
So again, it's not somethingthat is impossible to learn.
There are people out theredoing it and there's a lot of
other people cautioning andgoing whoa, whoa, whoa.
Just because you know thisthing exists, don't start
messing with it.
Now Jake Barber says that, hey,everything that they've
interacted with has been greatand, like he said and as other

(02:31:18):
people say, you know, verysimilar to the spirit thing.
You know you don't necessarilyopen up the conduit.
You can't always count thatwhat's going to come through is
going to have your best interestat heart.
And it's a similar thing withthis is now kind of getting
worried because there's a lot ofpeople now who know, okay, this
is real, this is something thatcan be done.

(02:31:38):
Now I want to learn how to doit.
And being cautioned and saying,listen, you could do it, you,
you could learn how to do it.
Just beware, because you don'tnecessarily people who have
these kind of experiences.
It's not one done.
Usually you maybe hear aboutskywalker, um, skywalker ranch,
um, skinwalker Right, skywalkerthat's the Skywalker Ranch is

(02:32:01):
where Lucas makes does his thing.
Skinwalker Ranch this issupposedly the hitchhiker effect
, where sometimes people haveexperiences there and then it
follows them home, it latchesitself.
Wow, and these are not thingslike a lot of people who have
these experiences.
They're like, they're not allfun and games.
They're not.
They're not all great.
You know, know, and you got tobe careful about this stuff.
This is messing with stuff, youknow.

(02:32:23):
So there's that other danger ofonce this stuff really gets out
there in the public, are peoplegoing to be like trying this on
their own and could it causemore problems.

Speaker 2 (02:32:33):
So it's a lot, there's a lot another, another,
uh, another, um possibility of aconnection between a religious
thing and something else,because it sounds like that, it
sounds like communion.

Speaker 1 (02:32:46):
It sounds exactly like that, right?
So anyway, we'll have more tosay on this at a later time, I'm
sure.
As evidence come out, we'llcertainly be talking about it
here.
So the last thing I want totalk about the last thing, and
we'll do this relatively quicklyand wrap this up.
We'll keep this.
We'll keep this.

Speaker 2 (02:33:02):
Because this last thing could be another two hour
discussion.

Speaker 1 (02:33:14):
I won't be.
Task force, that is.
It operates under the um, let'ssee, it operates under the
authority of the house committeeon oversight and government
reform and it's called the taskforce on the declassification of
federal secrets.
And so trump uh signed anexecutive order uh 146, and he

(02:33:39):
signed that on January 23rd 2025.
Luther king jr uh, as well asum, the unidentified anomalous

(02:34:08):
phenomena, they say ufos andusos, unidentified submerged
objects, yep, uh, as well as afew other things like 9-11 and
covid.
So supposedly they're going tobe declassifying stuff.
So the first thing that thetask force is looking into is
supposedly the JFK files intotal are going to be released
and this task force is going tohave they're going to have they

(02:34:29):
operate under that committee onoversight, so they don't have
subpoena power, but the overallcommittee has it and the
committee Jay Comer, I think wasthe is the guy who, right.

Speaker 2 (02:34:40):
He basically said they have our support and you
know when the documents arereleased is everyone have access
to them?

Speaker 1 (02:34:48):
So supposedly when they're released they're going
to everybody's going to haveaccess to them and they're going
to hold hearings.
I mean it's kind of crazy, anna, pauline and Luna said in the
first press conference.
They said the first thingthey're going to tackle is the
John F Kennedy assassination andthere's strong indications that
the the original, you know theWarren commission was wrong.
Well, I want to see that.

(02:35:09):
And they and she said rightthere, she said the strong
evidence and we're going to beshowing this.

Speaker 2 (02:35:13):
Something about the.
They're saying there was strongevidence, two shooters more
than one shooter.
So did they say two or morethan one, they said more than
one.

Speaker 1 (02:35:20):
At least two shooters .
Well, they said two shooters.

Speaker 2 (02:35:23):
But like Listen, if there's something in there that
it's not just you're saying, itcould be that that's in it's-.

Speaker 1 (02:35:31):
It's kind of almost like the worst kept secret.
It's kind of well like, it'skind of well understood by those
who've looked at it that whatwe're probably going to find out
is the intelligence agencies,the CIA, had something to do
with it.
Well, that would be Becausethey were already caught for
doing stuff like that in othercountries.

Speaker 2 (02:35:46):
I know that.
But that's killing a president,I know.

Speaker 1 (02:35:48):
And that's the thing right Is that's why it's been
kept secret, like a lot ofpeople say, like why these files
supposedly have beendeclassified time and time again
, but there was a certainsubsect of them that every
president has chosen to defer.
That any president at any time,from Bush Bush you know Bush

(02:36:12):
one, you know elder Bush toClinton, to W Bush, to Obama, to
Trump I mean all of them, likethey could have declassified
them, and every one of them bothparties have decided to defer.

(02:36:32):
And even Trump in his firstfour years, he was looking at
opening them up and Mike Pompeo,who I believe was head of CIA
at the time, advised him andsaid you know what, you're
better off, we should keep thisstuff secret.
And he deferred.
And he said okay, and he keptit secret.
So I think what we're going toend up finding out is that our

(02:36:52):
intelligence agencies hadsomething to do.
We talked, we did a wholeepisode on this at JFK.

Speaker 2 (02:36:56):
I really hope not.

Speaker 1 (02:36:57):
I think it's inevitable.
And you know what?
Don't be surprised if there isa link between this and UAP.
There's strong indications thatin those waning days before
what, one of the things JFK wasdoing before he went to Dallas
and didn't come back is he wastrying to rein in the CIA.

Speaker 2 (02:37:20):
Well, that's yeah.

Speaker 1 (02:37:21):
And one of the topics he was looking at was UAP.

Speaker 2 (02:37:24):
Oh.

Speaker 1 (02:37:25):
And he made some, you know, like again, like what?
This you can't, we gotta letthis he.
Actually there's someindication that JFK wanted us to
share with the Soviets and worktogether on this UAP thing and
that the intelligence agency islike no, no, no, no, no, we're
not doing that.

(02:37:45):
And then he got murdered andthen everybody moved on.
So again, I'm not saying it's100%, but there are strong
indications that there's aconnection between that.
And then you're going to findout about Senator Robert F
Kennedy, right?
I mean yeah, I still thinkthere's like something up sir
hanser like like there'ssomething there, and what if you

(02:38:06):
find out?

Speaker 2 (02:38:06):
martin luther king like all three, all three crazy
lone gunmen, yeah yeah, and whatif you find out our
intelligence agencies?
I mean, that's now well,because I mean, if you look at
it, I know we're gonna, we'regonna not talk about it for a
while, but those three peoplethat were killed, if they
weren't killed, you kind oflooking at, you wonder sometimes

(02:38:30):
how societies would have gone.
They were very, you know, verymuch revolutionary kind of
people in terms of their, their,how they were viewing things
going forward.

Speaker 1 (02:38:42):
I would love to see a world is.
You know, I often think aboutlike alternate timelines and
that idea of like you change onething and I would love to see,
if I had like what changes.
We'd like to see how thingscame up.
Obviously, one is like I'd loveto see how the world would have
unfolded had you knowedy andand senator robert kennedy and
martin luther king, like whathow would the world have

(02:39:03):
unfolded if they did not dieright?
the other one I think would bereally interested is what would
happen if christopher columbus'sthree ships just sank before
they got here.
Like, like, like, like.
How much longer would it havebeen before they attempted that
again, and what?
How would that change things?
right like like would it stillhave?

(02:39:24):
Like would still have when theyeventually got here, um, or
like what?
What would happen if, like, Idon't know what would happen if
every ship that tried for a longtime got like axed and like
nobody ever?
And the, the cultures over herewhich you know, initially we
were led to believe were prettyprimitive and savage.
But now they were not at all,they just were different.

(02:39:46):
And if their society had beenallowed to advance-.

Speaker 2 (02:39:50):
Oh, I thought of that , Chris, myself.
Yeah, like what would happen.
Where would we be if the Mayansjust they just went in their
own direction, right.
What type of technology wouldthey have come up with?

Speaker 1 (02:40:03):
Probably.

Speaker 2 (02:40:03):
Except, you know, because everyone's pretty much
Western civilization now, right,right.

Speaker 1 (02:40:07):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (02:40:08):
So what if China was just allowed to be China,
without Western influence?

Speaker 1 (02:40:13):
And it's interesting because if you think of China as
a very good example, becausefor the longest time they did
separate themselves and it had aprofound effect on how
different they are from us theyactually insulated themselves
yeah and they and so wherethey're, where they're different
from us, is very apparent bythe fact that, well, they look
kind of sequestered for thelongest time, right.
They're not so different anymorenow, because now they've been

(02:40:35):
kind of integrated in, right.
So that would be fascinating.
But you're right, I think, Ithink.
I just feel like right now isjust an era of uncovering of
secrets and I think in the nextclient list would Epstein.
Everyone wants that.
That's supposedly on the talkat two, Right and does that
change the power structure?

(02:40:55):
Like you, just wonder how theorigins of COVID all this and
and what's really surprising isthe 9-11 files, like what is
there?
And I mean I'm sure you'veheard some of the conspiracy
theories and they're interesting.
Is there anything to any of?

Speaker 2 (02:41:15):
that.

Speaker 1 (02:41:15):
Right.
I mean, it's easy to say no,it's easy to be like no, of
course not, that's a conspiracytheory.
But like, well, this task forceis looking at it.
There's obviously files thathaven't been declassified about
9-11.
So there's some facts thathaven't been out there.

Speaker 2 (02:41:32):
It was a conspiracy theory that COVID came from a
lab in China.
Now it's almost becomingreality, common knowledge that
that's what happened.
Right yeah.

Speaker 1 (02:41:46):
So you know, Today's conspiracy theory is tomorrow's
fact.

Speaker 2 (02:41:49):
It's easy just to say oh, that's a conspiracy theory.
Well, we've talked about that,yeah.

Speaker 1 (02:41:53):
Anybody who uses the term conspiracy theory go back
and research where that eventerm came from and realize that
every time you use it, you'rejust doing what you're told
Because, honestly, there areconspiracies all over the place.
Conspiracies happen all thetime and sometimes they're
discovered, sometimes they'renot.
Sometimes they're discovered atthe time, sometimes they're
discovered years later,sometimes they're never

(02:42:14):
discovered because all thepeople who were in the
conspiracy died without tellinganyone and people were just left
to wonder well, what happenedin this case?
Right, and the idea thatconspiracy theories can't happen
and like, oh, that's aconspiracy theory, because that
would be weird.
I think I saw a thing is likeat the rate we're running out,
the rate we're going throughconspiracy theories, we estimate

(02:42:34):
we'll be out of them by 2028because they all would have been
like oh no, that was proventrue, and that was proven true.

Speaker 2 (02:42:40):
You know what the covid went to all?

Speaker 1 (02:42:42):
the time.

Speaker 2 (02:42:43):
Um well, we were doing gain of function research.
Yeah, it's like okay.
So at first I didn't even knowwhat that meant.
Yeah, did you?
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (02:42:50):
I.
I knew pretty early on, becauseit's a euphemism gain of
function it means giving thedisease, gaining more function
of the disease.
Yeah, so you wanted to killmore people.

Speaker 2 (02:43:02):
Yes, that's the gain of function.
Yeah, the function was to killpeople.

Speaker 1 (02:43:07):
Well, it gets even worse now, right, so why were
you even doing that?
But it doesn't even stop withthat Now.
I mean, it's looking seriouslyand again, this is not a
conspiracy.
This is being reported now thatit's looking very clear like
Lyme disease might have been asimilar thing.

Speaker 2 (02:43:22):
Yes, that Lyme disease just didn't-.
That was a conspiracy theory.

Speaker 1 (02:43:24):
That didn't just pop up.
It came up because they were.
A lab in Connecticut wasmessing with things they ought
not have messed with, and that'swhy it's called Lyme disease,
because it was like Connecticutright the first time they found
it.
Yes, and it may not have been.

Speaker 2 (02:43:41):
They were coming up with a way of transmitting a
virus or, however, bacteria,through an insect they could use
during war.
That's a conspiracy theory.
But where did it?
Why did it just start?

Speaker 1 (02:43:55):
Well, whatever, and the fact that you have you know
the fact also not to go too muchdown a road of this is, but you
know they're finding, you knowthe ice under the ice of
Antarctica and stuff you knowthey can find.
You know viruses and thingsthat have been locked in ice for
you know, and in some casesthey're, they're unthawing these
things and messing around withthem.

Speaker 2 (02:44:11):
Yeah, and it's like you do realize that right.

Speaker 1 (02:44:15):
You do realize that this like nobody has any
immunity to that stuff becausethat that particular virus has
not been on the planet for likewhatever, and god forbid that.
Get out, and don't you peoplelearn from your mistakes?
No wonder why, if there's anon-human intelligence that
they're not 100% sure of us.
I'm not 100% sure of us like weare.
Just, we're just angry littlemonkeys that mess with things

(02:44:37):
that ought not to be messed with, you know.
So, um, so, anyway it.
It's remains to be seen wherethis goes, uh, but supposedly
they're having, you know, thefirst hearings are going to be
jfk and supposedly they're goingto be, you know, moving through
the things and releasing things.
And I gotta tell you, betweenthis declassification thing and

(02:44:57):
between skywatcher and just justeverything that's going on, I
keep saying, you know, I, Ipersist.
We are on the inevitable marchtowards disclosure.
Nobody can predict when it'sgonna happen.
It's, it's gonna happen thoughit's it's not.
You can't put it back, and youjust can't put it back in the,
in the, in the bottle.

(02:45:17):
You can try and you can try toshut it down, but too much has
already come out and now youhave too many people who are
already going.
Wait a second, okay, so stuff'sflying to the sky.
All right, I can detect it too.
I don't need the military, Ican, you know, you can get.
This wasn't always possible,right In the sixties and the
seventies, even the eighties.
Yous, you know the.

(02:45:39):
You couldn't get that kind oftechnology, you know, reasonably
priced.
But now, you can you know, nowpeople go on amazon and buy
something that'll detect, likeyou know, all sorts of things,
so you can't stop this.
It's it's.
If it is true, it's going tocome out, and if it's not true,

(02:46:01):
even that's the biggest story ofthe millennia.
That's the fact that this, ifall this stuff ends up not being
true, that's a bigger storythan if it is true.
The fact that you know how itwas that we all thought this was
true.
If it wasn't.

Speaker 2 (02:46:15):
Do you know what I'm saying and why and how?

Speaker 1 (02:46:17):
like, what explains it then?
Like, okay, say, if you take anon-human intelligence off the
table, how do you explainsightings of craft since you
know the late 40s?
You gotta explain them somehowof apparent non, you know.
If it isn't a non-human entityintelligence, you gotta explain
it somehow.
You know.
Imagine if it's like abreakaway civilization, like

(02:46:37):
basically, like at some pointsomebody went underground.
You know like there's a millionof those talks.
But all right, we're almost atthe three-hour mark.
This is probably a good placeto stop.
So for a while we were doinghour episodes and we're trying
to be really good, but now weget together so infrequently
that I just put it out.

Speaker 2 (02:46:56):
We got to get the frequency up.

Speaker 1 (02:47:02):
I got to say, if you don't like three hour episodes,
I recommend listening to it inour increments, and then you can
have yourself three one hourepisodes.
Chris, you're groundbreaking.
It's good, all right, so.
But yeah, we're gonna have alot more fun stuff to talk about
because there's a lot going on.
Yes, but every time we gettogether there's just so much
UAP stuff to talk about.
But we will.
We will at some point begetting to all this stuff.

(02:47:23):
That's not.
We have stuff on a list thatjust we've never gotten to.
I think we've talked abouttalking about hollow earth, and
that's been just keep gettingpushed down just because stuff
comes up.

Speaker 2 (02:47:31):
Maybe it has something to do with this.
We'll find it.

Speaker 1 (02:47:37):
But until next time, I'm Chris and I'm Steve and
we've been talking about somedeep shit.

(02:48:17):
We'll be right back you.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Crime Junkie

Ridiculous History

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}(Not So) Deep Sh*t on More NewJersey Drone Madness and UFO Disclosure

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Crime Junkie

Ridiculous History

All Episodes

(Not So) Deep Sh*t on More NewJersey Drone Madness and UFO Disclosure

On Purpose with Jay Shetty