(Not So) Deep Sh*t on Mysterious Drones in the Skies

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 to talkabout some more deep shit.

(00:30):
How's it going, steve?
Chris, how you doing?
Good, good, I'm not going toeven bother promising that we're
going to get on schedule forepisodes on a regular basis,
because I just feel like anypromises I make in that regard
are not going to hold, because Ithink numerous times I've been
like we're going to get on aregular schedule and we're going
to.
We're going to be really, wewere for a little while and then
and then we fell off.

(00:51):
Things happen, yeah.
So I think for now, what'sgoing to happen is, at least for
the for the time being, we willdo episodes whenever we can do
episodes.
If we can get ahead, we will.
But I don't want to promisethat just because I feel like
our promises are just in vain.

Speaker 2 (01:08):
So, at least that might be true, but with some of
the stuff happening right now,which is December 14th, yeah,
saturday the 14th, right, yeah,yeah, remember that movie.

Speaker 1 (01:19):
Yes, I do.

Speaker 2 (01:21):
I think it was Jeff Goldblum.

Speaker 1 (01:22):
It was yes, right, and another guy.

Speaker 2 (01:24):
Amongst others.
Right, I think somebody thatactually got in trouble.
But anyway, I think Ed BegleyJr Wasn't he in that, but maybe
I'm crazy.

Speaker 1 (01:31):
He was.
I don't think he's the one thatgot in trouble.
I thought he did.
There's another guy too, and Ican picture his face, but I
can't think of.
Anyway, we are in very busy,busy, what's?

Speaker 2 (01:43):
happening.

Speaker 1 (01:44):
Yeah, this has been one of the most active end of
the year, like last month or so,for UFO, the UFO topic, uap,
whatever you want to say andculminating with this, drones.
So why don't we start there andwe'll work our way backwards,
because drones is the mostprevalent of things.

(02:05):
So when did you first becomeaware of this going on?

Speaker 2 (02:08):
Maybe sometime around Thanksgiving or so, maybe a
little bit before that.
I'm trying to remember.

Speaker 4 (02:17):
But at first, it seemed well, what is this?

Speaker 2 (02:20):
exactly, and, as of our discussion right now, it's
gotten to the point where a lotof people, a lot of people, are
wondering what this is.

Speaker 1 (02:28):
Yeah, I don't have a prediction on where this is
going, but I can't see this justgoing away Like no matter what.
The answer is.
Well, let's catch people up,just in case they don't know
what's going on.
Just in case they don't knowwhat's going on.
So this started aboutmid-November, where there

(02:49):
started being reports of large,unidentified drones appearing
during the nighttime in Morrisand Somerset counties of New
Jersey.
And then, around November 18th,there started being more
reports, some described ascar-sized or SUV-sized drones.
Right, you see that a lot.
And then you know, as it gotinto late November, notably

(03:10):
Thanksgiving, which was theoddest thing.
It didn't happen onThanksgiving Day, it happened up
until the day before.

Speaker 2 (03:19):
Is that true?

Speaker 1 (03:21):
Whatever these things are, seemed to take anything,
seem to take thanksgiving off.
Well, everybody needs a break,right, which is again the
weirdest thing.
And then it came.
And then it came right back thenext day.
Um, now sightings are in youknow, a lot of the new jersey
counties bergen county, essex,hunterdon, passaic, sussex and

(03:43):
Warren counties and itsupposedly has spread to New
York City, new York,philadelphia, connecticut.
I've heard some reports aboutCape Cod.
Now, that being said, and Ithink this has been brought up a
few times, everyone's lookingup at the sky, everyone is

(04:05):
looking for these things andthere are probably a lot of
misidentifications of planes andother things that do make sense
.
Like I always say when I do myUFO talks, I always have to
point out that thing.
About 95% to 98% of everythingthat spot can in the air can
have a reasonable explanation.

(04:26):
You know, people misidentifystuff all the time planet, venus
, planes.
I've often said you know you'dbe surprised in the middle of
the day seeing an airplaneflying, but you're catching it
from a weird angle, you know,from like where it's flying in
the sky to where you're lookingat it and the way the sunlight
might be glinting off it canhonestly make you think for a

(04:48):
few seconds that you're seeingsomething really unusual and it
can look like what is that?
And then if you watch it for afew more minutes, then you, oh
okay, I can see it.
Now it's a, it's a plane, butsometimes you know just the
angle.
See it, now it's a, it's aplane, but sometimes you know
just the angle.
So I do know that there's a lotof misidentification of things,

(05:10):
but that's not all of it.

Speaker 2 (05:11):
And um, I would say it's probably not the majority
of it.

Speaker 3 (05:15):
Yeah, look at the just again, I don't know because
every sighting, doesn't?

Speaker 2 (05:19):
they don't show a video of every sighting, but the
some of the videos they'reshowing.
It doesn't look like anythingexcept a large drone Right.

Speaker 4 (05:29):
Yeah, but again I don't, again not every sighting
has a video.

Speaker 1 (05:33):
Right, there's a lot though, what I'm starting to see
on the news channels as Iwatched this yesterday you know,
I've been driving, driving mywife Rosie like crazy because
I've just been like my faceimplanted.
No, like crazy, because I'vejust been like my face implanted
.
No, I can't imagine, chris, youknow like I'm.
I'm going from my phone to myipad and then, you know,
sometimes I have it up on the tvas well and I want to like have
like the different newschannels, because yesterday all
day I was like just monitoringthe cable channels and I've

(05:57):
always said, you know, newsnation does a great job of
reporting this stuff.
But let's face face it, newsNation is like they're a new
cable network.
They're good on them for doingit.
But what the true benchmark isis when do the conventional news
channels CNN, msnbc, fox Newsto a certain extent, and then

(06:20):
CBS, nbc, abc, like those mainchannels are picking this up now
?

Speaker 2 (06:27):
Have you noticed something I have, and it's just
an aside, because we, you know,we say Fox News and we have our
own thoughts on it.
We say different news channels.
Everybody has their thoughts.
Since the last presidentialelection I'm not making this
political I've noticed adifferent tone in the mainstream
news.
It's getting more neutral.
I don't know if you've noticedit, but I have yeah, I think.

Speaker 1 (06:50):
I think that well, I mean, they're gonna have to deal
with with, with theadministration that's coming one
way the other and I guess theydon't want to start off on an
adversarial right, so trying topull back the other thing that's
happening with this.
Um, I mean, you, you like tohope that these kind of topics
don't get politicized, but to acertain extent I take fox news's

(07:10):
coverage of this with a bit ofa grain of salt, only because
they're using it as a greatopportunity to to attack the
current administration.
Do you know, like, oh, yeah.
So that's where I kind of like,okay, it's good that they're
covering it and it's not all ofit, because, again, even with
that there's, they're doing goodwork.
But also there's a little bitof that edge of like okay, you

(07:33):
guys, the only reason why you'rereally hammering on this is
because you see it as anopportunity to attack the
current administration.
But that doesn't explain whyMSNBC, cnn, abc, like all the
like, they're covering it aswell and they're equally
perplexed.
So so I want to play this realquick, because this is John

(07:53):
Kirby and he's the, the WhiteHouse, like the military
spokesperson, and he was askedabout.
Well, he had a press conferenceand he did a little talk on
these drones and this is what hesaid.
This is only about a minutelong.
We'll play this and then we'lltalk about, because this was I
believe this might have beenwednesday, I think when this uh,
wednesday or thursday when,when he made this thing.

(08:13):
So we'll, let's listen to thisnow.

Speaker 4 (08:15):
finally, I just want to add a few comments on the
reports of drone activity hereon the east coast, particularly
in and around new.
We have no evidence at thistime that the reported drone
sightings pose a nationalsecurity or a public safety
threat or have a foreign nexus.
The Department of HomelandSecurity and the FBI are

(08:36):
investigating these sightingsand they're working closely with
state and local law enforcementto provide resources using
numerous detection methods tobetter understand their origin,
using very sophisticatedelectronic detection
technologies provided by federalauthorities.
We have not been able to, andneither have state or local law
enforcement authorities,corroborate any of the reported

(09:00):
visual sightings.
To the contrary, upon review ofavailable imagery, it appears
that many of the reportedsightings are actually manned
aircraft that are being operatedlawfully.
The United States Coast Guardis providing support to the
state of New Jersey and hasconfirmed that there is no
evidence of any foreign-basedinvolvement from coastal vessels
and, importantly, there are noreported or confirmed drone

(09:24):
sightings in any restrictedairspace.
That's it.

Speaker 1 (09:28):
All right.
So first of all, there'sseveral of those boldface lies
there.
What?

Speaker 2 (09:35):
are the lies.

Speaker 1 (09:35):
The lies are.
He said that we have not.
We, along with state and localofficials, have not been able to
corroborate any of thesesightings.
He's gaslighting.
He's basically saying wehaven't been able to corroborate
these sightings.
And when the reporters askedhim about this, he said well,
we're just going off of the cellphone footage.
And it's like well, you don'thave your own footage of it?

(09:58):
He's like nope, we're justworking off of the available
images that people are sendingus.

Speaker 2 (10:05):
It's a lot of.
I don't know if I'd go out andsay call it lies, chris.
It's a lot of wordplay.

Speaker 1 (10:09):
Well, no, because he says that state and local
officials haven't corroboratedit.
But that's in directcontradiction to those state and
local officials who havecorroborated it.

Speaker 2 (10:19):
I think it's disingenuous because I think
what if you listen to his words?
Disingenuous because I thinkwhat if you listen to his words?
We along with.
So you know.

Speaker 1 (10:27):
Yeah, you could make.
Yeah, you could make-.

Speaker 2 (10:28):
That's what they're doing.

Speaker 1 (10:29):
You're right, it is complicated wordplay, but that
one's a little a stretch too farIf he said we, the federal
government-.

Speaker 4 (10:36):
It's very misleading.

Speaker 1 (10:37):
Have not been able to corroborate any of this.
I still find that misleading.
But the fact that he said localand state officials haven't
been able to corroborate this,that's false.
He also said these have notbeen in any restricted airspace,
again in direct contradictionto what has come out of the
actual basis in oh, I agree, innew jersey.

(11:00):
Those actual things have saidwe've had multiple incursions.
So again, what?

Speaker 2 (11:05):
what does corroborate mean?

Speaker 1 (11:06):
so um what he's saying he was saying that
basically none of thesesightings that people supposedly
have of these objects arecorroborated, because the ones
we've looked at we could explainthem all.
So he's really trying to saypeople are overreacting, people
are not seeing something weird,it's just baloney.
And then, well, that caused afirestorm.

(11:28):
From the New Jersey state reps,the mayors.

Speaker 2 (11:33):
So how about the guy?
Right, and we'll just jump toit.
Right, just corroborate, right,because what does that mean to
him?
I'm not sure.
What does it mean?
I don't know, and I don't likeit when the government is trying
to play little fast ones withtheir word play with us.
Right, but the the Senator fromNew Jersey, andy Kim, right, yes

(11:53):
, he says, listen, I was lookingat them myself.
He took a video at least one ofthem so and he said, um, I had
my flight tracker app thattracks all commercial flights
and those things weren't onthere.
That sounds like he'scorroborated the fact that it's

(12:14):
not a commercial flight.
So what is it?
The FAA should know what it is.

Speaker 1 (12:21):
That's the other thing that's getting me about
this whole thing.
It's the feigned incompetence.
It's the feigned well, we don'tknow what it is.
Oh, if only we knew what it was.
Are you telling me, like, whyis it?
Sometimes we get these crystalclear pictures of, like hey, a
Russian jet zoomed by one of ouryou know, one of our Air Force

(12:41):
jets, you know that's happened acouple times.
Or a Chinese, they got tooclose right.
Our you know one of our AirForce jets, you know that's
happened a couple times.
Or Chinese, they got too closeright.
And we see these really crystalclear pictures of you know,
haven't you heard, I know, I'veheard you know different
bragging that?
Hey, you know we have systemsthat could spot a softball from
you know size objects from outerspace, you know satellites, and
like we apparently have allthis massive detection equipment

(13:03):
right in which we spendbillions and billions of dollars
on each year.
But then this happens and theyact like, wow, we just we
haven't been able to get it outthere.
And this was the other thingthat got me.
Wednesday there was a meeting,so the New Jersey locals were
getting, all the people werecalling their elected officials,
and so on Wednesday, thegovernor and the FBI who,

(13:26):
apparently the FBI, was incharge of this investigation of
the drones, right?
So the mayor, I mean thegovernor and the FBI they were
going to have this meeting andthey invited all like 100 and
something mayors of New Jerseyto come, and so a lot of them
did like most of them did.
It was like the most amazingthing.
They said this has neverhappened before, where they got
all of us together in a room.
The governor didn't show up forthat meeting and neither did

(13:51):
the FBI, so they were talking tothe head of the state police,
who had no answers, and so acouple of these mayors walked
out of that meeting.
There was one what was he?
Assemblyman or something likethat.
He was just so funny.
He walked out and he just saidthis was the biggest waste of
time.
I drove two hours to get hereand now I'm going to have to

(14:13):
drive two hours home.
This was the biggest waste offive hours in my life.
This could have been an email.
They brought us all in here tosay that they don't know
anything, and a couple thingsthat came out of that meeting is
, he said, the state police youknow, head of the state police
basically said they had ahelicopter over one of these

(14:34):
drones and they said it was asix foot drone.
They had the helicopter land,come back because, and and they
said that they were worried forthe safety of the helicopter and
the pilots in it.
Right, and then he said a fewminutes later, in that same
meeting, he said, well, if onlywe knew where these things were
coming from.
And they were like, well, whydidn't you just follow it back?

(14:56):
Like, how hard is it to figureout where these drones are
coming from?
And that's the thing.
It's the feigned incompetenceof like, well, there's a small
object.
How are we supposed to do it?
Are you kidding me?
Are you really saying thatthere's no way to track these
objects?
Like it's this?
And they said, okay, we'regoing to give you some great
equipment that's going to help.
And then they said, okay, whenare we going to get this?
Oh, in a couple of days.

(15:18):
Now, I worked at a publishingcompany years ago.
Right, there were times that Ihad to get a pallet of books
from our warehouse in Indiana toa book event in California, and
I was able to get that palletof books there overnight for an

(15:39):
event the next day.
Are you really telling me thatthe federal government could not
have gotten that equipmentthere same day if they wanted to
, wherever the equipment was,unless this equipment is kept on
the other side of the world,and even then it should only
take how long it takes a flightto get from the other side of
the world to here.

(15:59):
It's only going to be so long.
Like it's that feignedincompetence that is just
driving me nuts.
So they're still waiting forthe supposed equipment that's
going to help them.
Why?
Why wasn't that givenimmediately?
First of all, why isn't any ofthe military bases around here?
Like there's no way that theydon't have the ability to track

(16:21):
these things.
There's no way that they unlessthey can.
But if they're saying, well, wejust need the right equipment
to be shipped here, that doesn'tmake any sense.
If you just think about it fortwo seconds, like, wait a second
, you're telling me that that'snot anywhere within a, let's
even say, a six-hour flight.
You really can't get thatequipment here.

(16:42):
We're going to have to waitseveral days for it.
That like there's somethingsmelly about this and I think
everybody's catching it at thispoint.

Speaker 2 (16:52):
Right, just to back up a little bit for someone that
might not have an idea exactlywhat we're talking about.
Between what is it?
Usually it seems to be betweenabout 6 and 11 pm.
It seems that that's when mostof these sightings are happening
, as soon as the sun sets Right.
Yeah, and they are.
When I say they, these drones,the videos I've seen.

(17:16):
They almost look like smalljets small planes.
Right Right, but they're toosmall that a person could be
driving it, driving piloting it.
So they have red and greenlights, correct?
Yes, and there's an issue.
There's a question becausethat's the FAA regulations, but

(17:36):
there's a question as to whetheror not they are in compliance
with the regulations on theselights right, and people are
watching them go back and forth,back and forth, and some people
are seeing them over watersources like reservoirs.
Some people say they see themover.

(17:58):
Well, they were seen in an areaof northeastern part of New
Jersey.
It's called Picatini Arsenal.
It's a military research andmanufacturing facility.
They're seeing them aroundthese types of things, maybe
other things too, and, like wetalked about, it's kind of
spreading across the northeastand, of course, that's causing a

(18:21):
lot of alarm for people becausethey keep seeing these and
nobody has an answer for them.
It's kind of alarming me.
Alarm might not be the rightword, but I'm saying to myself
how far is this going to spread?
What is it?
And to your point about tracingthem, there have been some
discussions that sometimes well,this is the kind of weird thing

(18:47):
they're saying that thesedrones are not giving off a
radio frequency, which isgenerally what has to happen if
they're being done remotely.
There has to be a radiofrequency.
They're not giving one off,which doesn't mean it's alien.
It doesn't mean that, but itmeans it's something
sophisticated and they're sayingbecause it's not giving off

(19:12):
some sort of radio frequency.
I'm not, this isn't my thing,but it's.
They said because of thatthey're difficult to track.
They'd have to actually trackit physically and no one's done
that yet.
But that's another.

Speaker 1 (19:23):
That's another, that's another because it's not
coming up on radar, but that'sanother right, that's another
misleading, that that's the onlyway.
oh, if it's not transmitting,therefore, the only way we can
track it is visually.
Well, that's what they'resaying, right, but there's
multiple ways to track drones.
First of all, there's thesignal that they're, that
they're a lot.
First of all, there's thesignal that, if these drones are
being controlled that's what adrone is A drone is something

(19:46):
that is controlled remotely,which means there has to be a
signal going from whereverthey're controlled from to the
device.
You should be able to detectthat signal.
That's first of all.
Well, maybe, if our militaryshould be able to detect every
signal going, there shouldn't bea secret signal that our

(20:07):
military can't detect, like,that's the thing, it's a signal.
Then there's radar.
There's just regular old radar,so there's that.
Then, of course, there's thething how do we detect the sub?
Remember the what do you callit?
That sub thing that went downto go see the titanic?
Then, right, imploding, right,they did that by sound.

(20:29):
you can detect things via soundso he's not giving off some of
these things, but some of themare giving off you could hear it
in the videos, but then othersare not right, and that's the
thing it's, and sometimes theydon't have the lights on,
sometimes they don't.
Sometimes, and again, somepeople describe these as smaller
drones, but then other peoplesay, well, no, some smaller ones

(20:49):
, but there's other ones thatare described as suv size right.

Speaker 2 (20:53):
So that's the problem .
I think there are drones peoplejust use, right.

Speaker 1 (20:57):
But none of these drones.
Are that no?
no, when they say the small ones, it could be I'm, that people
are, and that's one of thethings the New Jersey officials
are asking for is okay, closeoff all the airspace to all
drones.
Just say hey, for the next twoweeks.
Yeah, why don't they just dothat?
That's a good question, right?
Because that would certainlysolve it.
If you said, okay, as of today,you are not allowed to fly a

(21:20):
drone, and if you caught flyinga drone, drone, we're going to
prosecute you and then waituntil those drones pop up and
say, okay, now they're breakingthe law.
And also there's this line thatkeeps being trotted out about
how these drones are notbreaking the law, but they are.
If you're not supposed tooperate drones at night, like

(21:41):
that's, that's against the rules.
You're not supposed to operatea drone from from sunset to
sunrise.
You're not supposed to operatea drone from sunset to sunrise.
You're not supposed to be doingthat.
And most drones, especiallylarger ones, you're supposed to
file a flight plan with the FAAIf it's over a certain size.
And only the very small drones,like the little ones you can
get at, like Walmart, those arethe only ones that don't apply.
Anything large, certainlyanything the size of an SUV or a

(22:02):
small car, you would be legallyobligated to file a flight plan
and they also, you know, tellme that they can't.
When you say, okay, how come youhaven't taken one of these
things down, they immediately goto well, we can't, can't shoot
it down in a, in a area, youknow, one.

(22:22):
These things have been seen allover.
You're telling me that they'rethey're never seen over an area
where, theoretically, you couldtake it down and it couldn't
hurt anybody.
From what our understanding ofthere have been multiple times
they've been seen over the ocean.
Surely, you could take it downinto the ocean.
It's not going to hurt anybody.
And also, you don't have toshoot a drone down.
There are other ways to get adrone down.
As a matter of fact, themilitary has these really cool

(22:44):
things that are like a signalthat if a regular drone, if you
were flying a regular drone, oreven, like a some you know, a
higher end drone, if you wereflying in a military base, they
can point a thing at it and itit basically kills all signals
going to that drone.
It makes that drone land.
Like they have this technology,they've utilized this
technology.
It's not hard to go look backand see in the last few years

(23:05):
where they've used thattechnology.
Somebody flies a drone, theycatch it right away.
It's the feigned incompetenceof saying, well, well, we just
can't do it, well, we, we, welost.
You know they're not giving offa signal, so I guess the only
way we can do is to track themat home, you know, track them
physically and when, and thenthey shut their lights off and
we can't detect them.
It's, it's not plausible thattwo things, one of two things

(23:31):
either they do know what theyare and they're choosing not to
tell us, or they don't know whatthey are.

Speaker 2 (23:39):
Either one of those is frightening right and I think
that, um, we need to mentionthat there's sight, there are
sightings, um, about things likethis that are now coming in all
over the world, and I'm nottrying to you know again, they
could be um misidentification,whatever it could be because of

(24:01):
people seeing it on the news.
These things happen, but itcan't be every one of them.
They're finding them in theMidwest.
There are military peoplesaying they're seeing it off the
coast of California.
There are reports in England.
There's reports in Germany.
There's reports all around andit's all happening at around the

(24:23):
same time.

Speaker 1 (24:25):
And it's not new.
This is also has been happeningfor a few months now.
Yes, in uk also, um langley airforce base.
End of last year, for 17straight days, drones were over
langley bay, the air force base,like langley, virginia 17 days.
They've never solved that.
2019.
Apparently there was a bigspate of quote unquote drones in

(24:46):
Colorado and those have neverbeen solved.
And how about?

Speaker 2 (24:51):
the time?
Was that the Nimitz?
No, what was the boat?
The ship where they had them atnight, with the night vision
above the drones?

Speaker 1 (25:01):
It was off the coast of California.
Yeah, was that the one?
The?
It just popped into my head andthey said we think those were
drones.
It was off the coast ofCalifornia.

Speaker 2 (25:05):
Yeah, was that the one, the it just popped into my
head and they said we thinkthose were drones, but they
never.
Why were they flying over amilitary vessel?

Speaker 1 (25:14):
The way you, the way the debunkers work and this is
just a very interesting is, youcan take anything in isolation
and come up with a plausibleanswer, and that's one of the
things debunkers do frequently.
They don't actually debunk it.
What they do is they'll look atit and say well, that could
plausibly be this, right,therefore it's solved, right.

(25:34):
No evidence that that's whatthat is.
They just do that.
And it's a similar thing likethis Could you pick any
particular one and say this oneis probably a plane, this one is
probably a plane, this one isprobably that Okay, maybe, maybe
you can, but what do you dowhen the people who filmed it

(25:55):
say no, I have lived in thisarea my whole life.
I have seen many planes comingin.
I know what planes look like.
I, you know.
That's.
The thing is, this is not justbeing taken by any normal people
.
Sometimes you have politicians,sometimes you have drone
experts.

Speaker 2 (26:08):
I've noticed in the news, chris, they're putting
drone experts on, and I thinkthat's what's going to cause a
problem for the government interms of the military, what
they're going to say to theAmerican people, because these
drone experts are basicallysaying these things shouldn't be
happening.
Without an explanation.
None of this should behappening.

Speaker 1 (26:28):
Some are.
Some are downplaying it.
It's very interesting to watchthat.

Speaker 2 (26:33):
Just to watch, just out of 10, if three or four say
this shouldn't be happening, itmakes me say why is it happening
?

Speaker 1 (26:39):
A lot of them say I don't understand why you can't
track these back to its source.
Right, that should have beendone day one.
And the excuse of like well,they just go dark.
We can't detect them.
Oh, we can't.
You know, like, really, likethat can't be.
So I want to play another.
This is one that really gets me.

(26:59):
So News Nation has been coveringthis and last night this is the
one that blew me away, away.
They were talking to one oftheir reporters who saw it, uh,
saw it himself, and what wasreally interesting is is and I'm
not gonna play the whole thingbecause this is a long segment,
but I'm just gonna play thefirst part of it, where they
talk to their reporter.
Then they also talk to twoother people who are normally on

(27:21):
um news nation to talk aboutlike crime and stuff.
So they're like known people tothem who just so happened to
see these, and so we'll hear theone from the first guy.
But then they talked to thisother woman and she corroborates
that.
And then the third guy, who'slike in Tennessee, he says no,
that's not what I'm seeing atall.
What I'm seeing is like he'sdescribing like a saucer shaped.

(27:46):
It's the craziest thing, butlisten to what I haven't heard.
Listen to what this reportersays.
This is just crazy.

Speaker 5 (27:50):
Okay, but wait, get that unexplained phenomena, and
they're not just any witnesses,but three names that we all know
very well.
People that I know well andtrust are my, my friends.
News Nation correspondent RichMcHugh happened to be with New
Jersey police last night, outdoing the job when he spotted
the drones.
We've got Dr Catherine Ramsland, forensic psychologist.

(28:14):
This woman doesn't lie.
She writes the books, by theway, she saw the drones two
nights in a row.
She's known here for taking usinside the mind of serial
killers.
She saw half a dozen drones inPennsylvania.
I also want to welcome ScottRouse, our go-to behavioral and
body language expert.
I know Scott well.
He tells the truth.

(28:35):
He saw the drones overTennessee.
I mean, look at these three,I've all seen them.
What is going on?
I want to start with RichMcHugh, though, because Rich you
were out on the story lastnight.

Speaker 1 (28:53):
Didn't know what to expect.
I take it from there.

Speaker 6 (28:55):
I mean what happened?
He started talking.
This Mike was top.
I've been skeptical of thisstory as a resident of New
Jersey, as a journalist here, Ithought it was going to be some
sort of Yahoo and we would get alaugh out of this in several
weeks.
What happened yesterdaycompletely changed my entire
view on this story.
Earlier in the afternoon I wasout with the Ocean City
Sheriff's Department.
They have a drone unit.

(29:15):
They've investigated thesethings.
What they saw a bunch over theweekend.
We did not see any with them.
Last night I was coming backhome, I got a tip Monmouth
County.
They're spotting them inMonmouth County.
That's where I live.
So I raced up here and I triedto figure out where the picture
was that somebody sent me andsure enough I saw one.

(29:36):
So I trailed it to aneighborhood, dead End Street,
and I got out of my car and Itook my phone out with, you know
, my iPhone, and I couldn'treally capture it.
But I was staring literally atthis drone 200 feet above me,
maybe.
I called our photographer, nick, and I said get up here as soon
as you possibly can meet me atthis location, et cetera.
I tracked a few more to thelocation where we are right now,

(29:58):
over a body of water behind us,and I got to say, brian, over
the next two hours we saw dozensand dozens of these things and
they look like nothing you'veever seen before.
I'm not even sure I'm right incalling them a drone.
You know they looked like theywere fixed wing aircraft.

(30:18):
They had multiple you knowblinking lights.
They did not look anything likea plane, because there's plenty
of planes flying overhead, liketonight.
They're not here.
We're, we're seeing just planes.
Last night it was totallydifferent.
They look creepy and they moveat a different pace.
We tried to even follow acouple.
They went off in the distanceand disappeared.
Uh, it's completely rewired mybrain on this topic and I'm I'm

(30:42):
a believer and we need answers,uh, and we don't have, uh, we
don't have answers and we needsomeone to step up and say here
is what's going on.
Um, because otherwise, likewe're heading down this path in
new jersey, in these states,where, uh, people are just going
to take this into their ownhands yeah, and I'm looking at
your video right now.

Speaker 5 (31:02):
We have it in the middle of the screen.
I know it's tough at night, um,when you're using your eye
filter and it's pitch black.
You said you were near thewater, but so it it's kind of
hard to see, uh.
But you know, we've heard thesereports from people.
But hearing it from you, rich,as our investigative reporter,
knowing you, knowing the kind ofwork you do, it is kind of
freaky to hear you say that it,um, that that you couldn't

(31:23):
identify it.
Describe it a little more.
I mean, how big.
And you know, when I think of adrone, you think of like the.
You know it's got the four.
It's almost like a littlehelicopter with the four rotors.
Are these not?
Do these look different thanthat?

Speaker 6 (31:38):
they look different.
They almost look like like au-shaped or v-shapes.
Uh, they didn't make a sound.
It was, you know, a couplehundred feet above us.
They um, you just didn't knowwhat you were looking at.
It was moving across the skyvery quietly and we were.
We kept saying to each other,like nick and I like what are we

(31:59):
looking at?
Like are you getting the shot?
And what the heck are wefilming?
Um, there's a couple shots youcan see where you can see that
it's fixed wing and it doesn'tlook like a plane, it almost
looks like inverted.
Um, it sounds crazy.
As I say this now, brian, likethat, that's what you're seeing

(32:20):
on the screen.
That's what we were seeingright above our heads and it
happened till about 11 30 atnight and then it started to
like die off and I was like wecan stay out here all night.
But I went to bed.
This is my community.
I've never seen these things inthe sky over my community
before.
I went to bed thinking likethis is wild.
These things are flying overour, over our homes, over our

(32:42):
residences.
There's a military earl whichis a munitions depot, just like
about a mile and a half behindme.
They've reported sightings ofthese things above and they said
they're ready to take action ifthey need to.

Speaker 1 (32:54):
So yeah, I mean, but you can hear in his voice that
he's shook because he's saying Ididn't believe this when this
all started.
And then he sees it with hisown eyes and the thing that
really struck me is he said Idon't know what we were looking
at.
The fact it didn't make a sound, and that's the other thing

(33:16):
that's weird about this.
Sometimes these things makenoise, but sometimes they don't,
and sometimes the noise doesn'tseem right for what it is.
It's just, I don't know whatthis could possibly be.
I don't know.

Speaker 2 (33:36):
Well, I think that it's one of a few things, most
likely One it could be a foreignmilitary, right?
I mean, who would have thatkind of technology?
Maybe Russia or China?
Right, I think there's reasonswhy that's not the case.

(33:58):
I think that it could besomething not of this earth,
that's a possibility, right?
I think that it could besomething not of this earth,
that's a possibility, right.
And it's some sort ofreconnaissance type of deal.
Who knows what exactly ishappening?
And I think there's some thingsthat possibly give that a

(34:19):
little boost.
Some of the reports I've seen.
One report I saw, chris, wasthat they actually saw up to 50
of them coming from the ocean.
Yeah, and so then the coastguard went out there and there's
no reports as to where thesecame from.
Right, so either we're just notbeing I mean, there's two

(34:41):
options one that they can't findwhere it's coming from, or or
two, they're just not going totell you, Right, right?

Speaker 1 (34:46):
And that's also assuming that the government is
a big monolith, which we know itisn't.
The government is not amonolith.
When you say the governmentknows this, the government knows
that there are parts of thegovernment that probably know
what these things are.
Oh yeah, I don't mean thegovernment, but at least the
forward-facing to us, someonethat's the spokesperson of
something telling the Americanpeople, that's crazy too,

(35:07):
because the Pentagon has saidexplicitly they don't think it's
a foreign actor, right, butthey also say it's not them.

Speaker 2 (35:15):
Well, you know what is this?
Their joint statement?
They put out yeah, right, it'smore just wordplay, right when
you read it, and the part aboutit being that they haven't found
any credible evidence that it'sa threat, but they don't know
what it is right.
Well, what does?
that even mean and I those twothings cannot be true but you
can't say I don't know what itis, but I know it's not bad,

(35:37):
right?
Well, how do you know it's notbad if you don't know what it is
?
Well, because it's comfortingto hear that.
Yeah that.
That's really what it is.

Speaker 1 (35:45):
There's no.
Like you're right, Like how canyou say those two things cannot
be true at the same time.
No, you can't say we don't knowwhat it is, who it is, where
it's coming from, what they'redoing.
We have no idea.

Speaker 2 (36:00):
But, on the other hand, we can assure you that
there's no danger and there wasa great because if all, let's
just say they could tell there'sno web, there's no ability to
weaponize those things, whattheir activity could be could be
dangerous to us.
So, like there's no, if youdon't know where it's coming

(36:20):
from, you don't know what it is.
You can't turn around and saynow you can, they're obviously
doing it, but with anycredibility, well, and also, uh,
nothing to worry about.
Yeah, well, I mean it.
Just it seems classic, uh,de-escalation, it's gaslighting
is what it is.

Speaker 1 (36:39):
It's, it's, it's you know what?
Uh, one of the um, new jerseymay.
He had a great point.
He said by their very existencethey're a danger, because these
things are big and they'reflying around above us.
So let's just say they're nothere for malicious intent.
But one of them has mechanicalfailure and plummets to the

(37:00):
earth.
He said that's going to hurtpeople, so you can't tell us
they're not a danger.
Just being up there is a danger, because if one of these things
came down, people could getreally hurt.
So that excuse of they're not athreat, you can't even say that
.
Could you say well, we suspectthey're not an immediate threat.

(37:22):
Okay, sure, but what if just anaccident happens?
Like these things are notbroadcasting, right?
You've told us that.
You've told us that you can'tdetect them.
So doesn't that mean that aplane could hit them?

Speaker 2 (37:32):
It's kind of weird, if you think about it, that if
this was happening in thesummertime, I don't think I
think that there'd be I don'twant to call it hysteria, but I
want to say there'd be a quickeroutcry of people because
everyone's outside all the time,but I do think if this happened
25 years ago, before cellphones and all that there'd be

(37:55):
even more.
There'd be more.
This wouldn't be able to go onthis long.
A lot of people are justconcerned with you.
Know they work at home, theystay home.
There's a lot of people arejust concerned with you, know
they work at home, they stayhome.
There's a lot of people thatjust they don't give a crap
about any of this stuff, and Ithink that.
But as what I mean is there'sstill a point that we're going
to get to, and we're gettingthere right now, and it's just

(38:16):
going to keep amplifying.
If there's no answers here,because there's only so long,
people say, hey, have theyfigured out what's flying above
us?
It's kind of crazy.

Speaker 1 (38:27):
Yeah, and I mean 25 years ago actually.
I'll take issue with that,because I think there have been
UFO flaps and before the adventof cell phones and cameras and
all that, it'd be very easy todismiss.
You can see them trying it nowand the only thing that's
stopping them from being able todismiss it is the fact that so
many people have footage of it.
This is what I've been waitingfor is like something where

(38:48):
multiple people have footage ofthe same event, because a lot of
times you see UFO videos out ofcontext and it's like one video
of something that looks strangeand it's like okay, one video,
I can't.
I'm not going to say it's fake,but I'm also not going to say
it's real.
One video, I can't.
I'm not going to say it's fake,but I'm also not going to say
it's real.
What I need to see is I need tosee six videos from different

(39:14):
angles, from different points ofview, all filming the same
event.
Then you can say, all right, itmakes it harder, like, could it
be faked?
Sure, but you'd have to reallybe good to fake.
You know, six different cameraangles and that's what we're
getting is we're getting massesof cell phone footage.
The other thing that makes ithard is, I think people
overestimate.
They take a picture with theiriPhone, they take a selfie and

(39:36):
or with their Android right, andthey see how good it comes out.
And then they say, well, whycan't you get good pictures?
And if you've ever tried totake your phone and take a
picture of just a plane, trytaking a picture in the daytime
of a plane flying high in thesky.
You've got to zoom in.

(39:57):
And once you zoom in, you haveno control.
You have to hold the like atnight.
You're not going to getanything.
You're not going to get goodfootage of these things with a
cell phone.
And the fact that the governmenthas said the Pentagon has said
well, we don't have our ownfootage, we've just been using
the footage that we've seen.
This has been going on for amonth.
Are you telling me you haven'thad any assets in the air?

(40:19):
You haven't had one of our manysatellites focused on this?
Again, we have satellites.
We've all seen movies wherethey show the government from a
satellite being to zoom in.
And even if you assume some ofthat is a little exaggerated
which I don't think it is, butlet's even assume that it is you
just know what technology isavailable.

(40:41):
Just think about whattechnology is available.
Look at that James Webbtelescope and the shots that
that's getting of, like thingslike we have the power to zoom
in on anything.

Speaker 2 (40:53):
Oh yeah, so I guess.
So how can you not?
How come they haven't done it?
What I meant, what I mean whenI say the uproar would be
quicker, is that there areprivate citizens that are
getting upset.
But I think if you went back 25years, let's say whatever
amount of time you want to say.

(41:14):
I just think that you'd have aquicker response of a larger
group of private citizens.
That's what I mean.
I mean I think that having thevideos is what's part of it, so
maybe it kind of goes back andforth, because I think that's
what's fueling it.

Speaker 1 (41:29):
I think if this were just people saying they saw it
and there wasn't footage, thepeople who saw it would know
they saw something.
Other people would kind ofshrug their shoulder and say you
probably didn't.
It's the footage that's makingother people go.
I'm going to go out and seemyself.

Speaker 2 (41:47):
But there's only so long, chris, it can go.
I'm going to go out and seemyself, but there's only so long
, chris, it can go.
That there's just normaleveryday people and the area
keeps getting larger is what I'msaying.
So if this was a hundred yearsago and you said, from Maine to
Florida, just everyday peopleare seeing these things, it'd be
hysteria.

Speaker 1 (42:02):
I think there'd be a chance you could shut it down.
I think what changes it is themassive of cell phones and the
connectivity, because that's theother thing that's changed All
this together, all of ithappening at the same time.
If this happened 100 years ago,you wouldn't have all of it.

Speaker 2 (42:13):
You couldn't.

Speaker 1 (42:14):
There'd be no central location where everybody would
know it would be these things.
And that's the thing.
That which is making this a lotharder is John Kirby can get up
there and he can say we haven'tbeen able to corroborate it.
And then you immediately cut tonumerous New Jersey police,
state police elected officialswho say no, I myself have seen

(42:38):
these things Well that's part ofwhat I'm.

Speaker 2 (42:40):
That's gonna have to come to a head if this keeps
going on.

Speaker 1 (42:43):
Yeah they're hoping it goes away.
It's what they're hoping, itgoes away Right.

Speaker 2 (42:45):
So if it doesn't go away eventually, the person that
says listen, we haven't beenable to corroborate anything,
the person at the state level,is going to say, then why don't
you come down here and standnext to me while we look at them
?
I mean, it's going to have toeventually happen.

Speaker 1 (43:05):
Why has that not happened?

Speaker 2 (43:06):
Right, I don't know where they are.
Well, come over here, I'll showyou.
I'm standing looking at it.
It's going to get to that pointif it doesn't go away.
And even if it goes away,you're still going to have
enough people that are going towant to know what this was.

Speaker 1 (43:20):
I want to play a little bit of this.
On Fox News, Martha McCallumactually had John Kirby on, and
what you're not going to be ableto because I'm just going to
play the audio.
But what you're not going to beable to see for those listening
is Martha McCallum's face,Because as she's talking and as
he's responding to her, she justhas this incredulous look on

(43:41):
her face like am I hearing this?
But yeah, you're going to heara little bit of this, just
because his word salad is justamazing this is shocking.

Speaker 3 (43:46):
Okay, and I'm not the only person who feels this way.
This was happening at Langley amonth ago.
Okay, these people are notcrazy.
They're seeing these thingswith their own eyes.
This is not normal behavior.
They are not planes that arecoming in one direction and
they're heading into NewarkAirport and then they're landing
.
Okay, we spend $8 billiondollars on defense.

(44:08):
We have the greatestintelligent capability in the
world so how can you stand thereand say to the country right
now gosh darn, we just don'tknow what these are.

Speaker 4 (44:21):
Because I'm not going to lie to you or to the
American people, and I'm notgoing to lie to you or to the
American people and I'm notgoing to say we know something
when we don't, and we wouldnever, ever stoop to think that
an American citizen was crazy ornuts.
Because of what they're seeingand what they're documenting.
We're taking that imageryseriously and we're doing the
best we can to analyze it and weencourage people to come
forward if they have additionalsightings and imagery.

Speaker 3 (44:42):
I want to do the we can to triangulate it, but let
me, I'll be gosh darn if I'mgonna stand up here and make up
stuff that I don't know to betrue.
We don't want you to make upanything.
Um, you know, do you know andyou can't say.
Can you tell me that?

Speaker 4 (44:53):
no, no, I'm telling you, martha, I'm telling you we
don't you don't know every wedon't.
Let me ask you to corroborateevery single sighting.
Some of them them.
We have not all of them andwe're working hard to do that.

Speaker 1 (45:06):
So that was the other thing is he said that he
changed it a little bit therebecause in his initial statement
he said we have not been ableto corroborate any of the
sightings.
But then he was talking toMartha McCallum and he said,
well, we have been able tocorroborate some of the
sightings.
So he and what, like what yousaid.
If this keeps going on, nowthey've promised the special
equipment for a couple of days.

(45:27):
Ok, what happens when a coupleof days pass and you get that
special equipment?
We're hearing from from, we'rehearing from the state police,
we're hearing from sources likeall over the place saying we
cannot detect these things, wecan't lock on to them, we can't
these things, we can't lock ontothem, we can't see them.
And if they, when we get closeto them, the governor he said he

(45:49):
actually said my understandingis these things are highly
advanced and when we get eyes onthem they go dark.

Speaker 2 (45:56):
Yeah, did you see that the Coast Guard ship off
New Jersey?
This was in the Asbury ParkPress, a local newspaper.
That's where apparently thatthey saw these drones coming out
from the water.
I don't want to say they sawthem coming out of the water,
they saw them.
You know, you and I who havebeen researching and talking

(46:19):
about these types of things fora while, the water has a lot to
do with the things we've talkedabout, right, I mean, so they
see them coming from the water.
No one saw them coming out.
I guess I want to differentiatethat that we know of that, we
know of.
And then a Coast Guard ship wentout there and then they said a
Coast Guard official says thattheir 47-foot ships one of their

(46:43):
47-foot ships in the ocean thatwas out there was being trailed
by 12 or 30 of these drones.
I mean, what the hell?

Speaker 1 (46:51):
Yeah, that was actually, uh, one of the
Congress people.
Um mentioned that too, cause hehe said there's another
Congressman who, from New Jersey, you know, and this guy, he
immediately said well, I haveinside sources that are telling
me the the iranians have amothership off the off the coast
I hope that's not the case well, he said that.
And he said I have highly placedsources.

(47:11):
And then immediately thepentagon came out and said no,
there's no evidence of this.
And then, when he was pressedon, he's like well, I didn't say
that, that was it.
I said that was myunderstanding.
You know it's like.
Come on, so let's look at thepossible explanations, right?
First possible explanationhobbyists.
Got to take that off the tableright At this point I didn't
even put that on my list.

(47:31):
I mean, that's what they'vesaid.
Some of these could be hobbyists.
Okay, maybe you could say thatin the very early part of the
day, but there ain't no hobbyistat this point.
That's going to try Like if ahobbyist at this point, that's
going to try like if a hobbyistwas doing first of all,
hobbyists, not going to havedrones the size of suvs, let's
just there.
You can't get them, okay.
And if, even if you could, evenif you could, they're not going

(47:53):
to stay up in the air for hours, and who's going to have all of
these?
Right, and it's not likethere's one, and that's the
thing is, if you say, well,there's a, there could be a
hobbyist if there was one flyingaround.

Speaker 2 (48:02):
Yeah, nobody would even care.

Speaker 1 (48:03):
And then you hear things like well, we saw 50 of
them, we saw 30 of them, we sawthem all over, we saw them all
night.

Speaker 2 (48:09):
And when people are seeing them, chris, they're
seeing them in differentlocations at the same time, so
they're not seeing the same 50.

Speaker 1 (48:17):
Yes, that was a good point that one of the New Jersey
officials said.
He said one of the things Ifind interesting is this is
spreading to other areas butit's not diminishing in the
first areas.
So he's like it started offhere and it spread to this
county and this county and thiscounty, but it's not the same
ones moving, because then wewouldn't have the same sightings

(48:39):
here.
He's like the sightings hereare still happening and they're
spreading.
And then they said, well, thatcould be, maybe there's a
hobbyist club.
That is like coordinating behindthe scenes say now you guys do
it part of my language it's justso stupid and it's okay there's
, that we throw that one out,right then you have a.
What did you, don't I?

Speaker 2 (48:57):
mean, at the end of the day, if it was a hobbyist
club or a concerted effort ofhobbyist clubs or a private
company, by this time they wouldhave come out and said hey,
whoa, it's just us by what we'vealways been told when, whenever
people talk about conspiracytheories, one of the big canards
that's always like trotted outis people can't keep a secret.

Speaker 1 (49:21):
if you couldn't have a conspiracy like that because
people couldn't keep it a secret, if there was a hobbyist club
that was coordinating at thispoint in multiple states,
someone would get wind of that.
A spouse, a girlfriend,boyfriend, you know, a friend of
one of the hobbyists would gowait a second, like it would

(49:41):
leak.

Speaker 2 (49:42):
And you'd have to say , a group of people that decided
that they really like dronesand be part of a hobbyist club,
that they all got together anddecided to vote to scare the
shit out of the Americans.

Speaker 1 (49:55):
Right.
So you got to take that one offthe table, right?
Okay, so we remove that one.
Now you have foreignadversaries.
Right, could be Iran.
It's not Iran.

(50:18):
If Iran had, iran's militarycapability is not what we think
it is to New Jersey.
The same thing with Russia.
If Russia had what is beingdisplayed in this technology,
they would be utilizing it inUkraine.
They certainly wouldn't beflying it over us and the
Chinese.
Same thing.
Like the Chinese, if they'regoing to have advanced things

(50:39):
like this, they're probablygoing to have it in and around
Taiwan, which they've had theireyes on.
So that's the first thing.
Desk, they're probably gonnahave it in around taiwan, which
they've had their eyes on.
So that's the first thing.
Then the second thing is, likeyou said, they don't show up in
the middle of the night.
If these things came out atmidnight and stayed in the air
for a couple of hours, frommidnight to like three or four
am, we probably still wouldn'tknow about it.

Speaker 2 (51:01):
I guess you got to say, you got to wonder why the
time of the day that it'shappening and why only at that
time?
So what?
So I'm, I'm at a loss, I can'tfigure it out.
Could so back to the militarything, the, the, the foreign,
could it be Iran?
I mean, I don't really thinkthey have that type of

(51:22):
technology.
Could they be a proxy forRussia or China?

Speaker 1 (51:28):
Maybe, but what would be?

Speaker 2 (51:29):
the advantages, but what?

Speaker 1 (51:30):
would be.
That's the thing is.

Speaker 2 (51:31):
You have to explain if that they say both of these
countries, the leaders are kindof I don't want to say looking
forward to, but they're notexactly mad that Trump's going
to be the president.
In a lot of the latest articlesthey're talking as if you know,
yeah, we're going to be able towork it out with him, whatever.
Why?

Speaker 1 (51:48):
would they start something now?
Why would they do it now?

Speaker 2 (51:50):
So it doesn't make a ton of sense with that.

Speaker 1 (51:54):
And what would be the objective?
Like, what is your objective,are you saying?

Speaker 2 (52:00):
we're spying.
What are you finding between 6and 11 pm that you can't find
outside of those hours?
So what is?

Speaker 1 (52:07):
it.
It's weird.
So I have a, I have a theory,okay, and it's it's just a
theory I don't have.
This is just my own personalkind of thought process.
One is, I think that some ofwhat we're seeing are military,
because there are things upthere that are weird, but
there's also probably our assetsthat are checking these, but
there's also probably our assetsthat are checking these things
out.
So I think when people see tonsof drones, I think some of them

(52:29):
are our assets trying to keeptabs on this.
But let's just say the weirdstuff Theoretically, if you were
trying to say, listen, we'veand I'm speaking as, like you
know, it sounds sounds crazy.
Like this perspective of anon-human intelligence who's
been here for a long time, whoobserves us, who observes us and

(52:50):
knows you know, says, okay, wegotta, we gotta make ourselves
known, but if we just, like,float our big ships over cities,
these people are gonna freakout, so we gotta ease them into
it.
Uh, they're finally at a pointwhere, so where?

Speaker 2 (53:06):
are the frogs and the boiling water.

Speaker 1 (53:08):
Well, if you think about it, we're at a point now
and the military has kind ofdone this to themselves by using
the drone terms.
You've got to remember it's sointeresting that they started
attaching the word drones tothese.
Uap is the same way when theystarted doing this word play
with UAP, ufos and then theywould say UAP.
But then if you listen to someof the UAP talk up before this,

(53:30):
they would include drones as UAP.
Right, that was kind of theirkind of way of being, like the
shell game.
But all of a sudden then theselegit drones situation came out
and you notice they suddenlydivorced the uap from the drones
.
They don't talk about uap, theyalways just talk about drones.
But not too long ago when theywould talk about uap

(53:54):
unidentified anomalous phenomenasometimes they'd say, well,
these things turned out to bedrones so, because at that point
I guess they might have shiftedfrom uap, because they then
identified.

Speaker 2 (54:04):
But I think what they did.

Speaker 1 (54:05):
Is they backed?

Speaker 2 (54:05):
themselves into a corner.

Speaker 1 (54:07):
Because, what they did is they they're using.
So everyone's used to seeingdrones now.
Right A hundred years ago, ifthis had been happening, people
would be freaking out becausepeople aren't used to seeing
things in the sky.
But over the last bunch ofyears we've gotten used to
drones.
Drones have become sort ofubiquitous.
I to drones.

Speaker 2 (54:22):
Drones have become sort of ubiquitous.

Speaker 1 (54:22):
I gotta be honest, though Do you ever see drones?

Speaker 2 (54:24):
at night.

Speaker 1 (54:25):
Not at night.
No, because you're not supposedto fly them at night.
That's what I mean.
But I'm saying drones.
Do you see them during the day?

Speaker 2 (54:29):
I don't know if you see them that often.

Speaker 1 (54:31):
I've seen them on occasion.
I've seen them on the beach.

Speaker 2 (54:37):
Sometimes you know what's the scenery kind of
pictures.

Speaker 1 (54:38):
They're taking A big thing.

Speaker 2 (54:40):
Now that makes sense.
There's a whole Like a big,nice piece of property.

Speaker 1 (54:43):
Yeah there's a whole thing I've seen.
I know this real estate agentwho does this really cool thing
where they use a drone to dolike a walkthrough of the house
and it's really kind of neatwhere you see it from the
perspective and it like sailsthrough the house, showing you
the floor plan If you're outside, do you just see them going
back and forth.
No, usually you can only dothose in line of sight, that's
what's making?
Those Right, but what I'msaying is is that we're used to

(55:04):
seeing these things, so now youhave.

Speaker 2 (55:07):
We are very used to knowing that they're a thing
Right and nobody really paysmuch attention to them.

Speaker 1 (55:13):
You're correct.
The reason why they're payingattention to them, though, is
one is the anomaly of thenighttime, the anomaly of like
so many, like it's not one.

Speaker 2 (55:21):
I think that's a lot of it.
It's a swarm.

Speaker 1 (55:23):
I think it was just a couple.
It was a couple.
We would know.
If this were one or two, evenweird ones, I don't think this
would be a thing.
No, I think the problem is isit's massive amounts.

Speaker 3 (55:32):
And it's not stopping , and it's happening night after
night after night.

Speaker 1 (55:37):
So my theory is.

Speaker 2 (55:39):
And then someone says can you tell me what that might
be Right?
And everyone that might have ananswer says we don't know, we
don't know, but don't worry.
Over and over and over again.

Speaker 1 (55:48):
We don't know, right, we don't know.
But don't worry, it's okay.

Speaker 2 (55:54):
And Listen, if there was a car every single night
driving down your local highwayyeah, Right, like in your
neighborhood, right Whatever,there's just this car, and let's
say it's driving without lightson.
That's all it's doing.
It's suspicious.
Every night, People wouldn'tput up with it.
You'd say we want to know whatthe hell that is.

(56:15):
Why is this person doing this?
It's not allowed.
That's all it could be.

Speaker 1 (56:19):
Get an officer over here, get an officer over here
to be in the area, and so whenthis thing comes by, you can
swoop in and get it.
This thing has been going onfor a month.

Speaker 2 (56:27):
Well, we've seen it, but we don't know why he's doing
it, or she whoever.
We don't know why they'redriving up and down the street.
We'll keep you posted.
Nobody will put up with that.

Speaker 1 (56:39):
That's just one car.
We don't know what it is, butwe're pretty sure you're okay.
But you'd be like, well, if youdon't know who it is, that's
what's I mean.

Speaker 2 (56:47):
None of this makes sense and the thing about well
we know, we know it's not bad,because they haven't told us so
uh the other thing is we'll keepyou posted.

Speaker 1 (56:56):
they won't do anything until they're forced
into a corner, which is funny.
It's like this has been goingon for weeks and then, all of a
sudden, they get pulled into itand they say well, we're going
to have to get some equipmentover there.
We'll get it to you in a coupleof days.
Why did?
Why weren't you doing this inthe lead up to this?
Why?
Why did you have to wait for usto ask you to do it, for you to
go?
Oh yeah, we should do it.

(57:16):
It's a good idea.
It's because that's how theyoperate they don't do anything,
they just wait.
And then I don't think that'scorrect.

Speaker 2 (57:23):
I think that they do.
I think I think they do.
I just don't think that theinformation they can give us,
that they have at this pointdoes anything except get people
more nervous.
If they, if they knew I don'tthink they know, but I think
they at least know something to.

Speaker 1 (57:40):
If you know what I'm trying to say, yeah, Well, this
is what's interesting is whatI'm hearing from, like a lot of
the reporters on Capitol Hill,is this guy, joe Kalil on News
Nation.
He's really good and one of thethings he said he was
interesting because he's likeI've been up on the Hill for a
long time.
He's like I've interviewed manyCongress people and senators
and so forth.
You can usually tell when theyknow something but they can't

(58:04):
tell you.
He's like you know, you kind ofknow, hey, I asked this
question, and they say, well, wecan't, we don't, they won't
give an answer.
But you know through theconversation that they know
what's going on.
They're just not allowed to sayhe's like that's not the vibe
any of us are getting.
We're getting the vibe thatthey don't know and that's

(58:25):
evidenced by the fact.
Kirsten Gillibrand, senator,chuck Schumer, you know Congress
people, they're all speakingout and saying we need answers.
If they had answers wouldn'tthey be quiet and just, you know
a lot of them would be, wouldbe toeing the line.
No, don't worry about it, it'sfine, but a lot of them are

(58:46):
speaking out too, so they're notgetting the answers that they
can.
State police are saying wedon't know what it is.
Now the Pentagon is tellingreporters that they don't know
what it is.
So one of two things are truethey don't know what it is or
they're bold-faced lying.
Either of those is a problembecause, if it is, our

(59:07):
government, no matter what it is, and a lot of officials have
said this.
I don't agree with this.
But some officials have said ifthe government came out and
said this is us, we're doingsomething, it's for your
protection, don't worry about it.
But it's us, it's us.
And this official was like we'dbe fine with that.

(59:30):
I wouldn't be fine with thatand I think a lot of people
wouldn't be fine with that, butthat was his thesis.
But that's the thing is.
If this were them, they couldtheoretically make, they could
have made this go away by comingout and saying the drones that
you've seen over the top of youare a military.
Those are military.

(59:50):
We can't tell you what they'redoing, it's a national security
thing.
And they probably would havebeen backed up by a lot of the
press.
A lot of the press would goofficials say it's a national
security issue, but I think thatmight create hysteria it
creates more of a hysteria thefact that they haven't given an
answer for weeks.

Speaker 2 (01:00:09):
Well, I think here's, if you want my thoughts on I
think it's either they have noidea what it is right.
Here's my grand it's eitherthey have no idea what it is, or
, when I say they nobody knows,or there's a small group or one

(01:00:32):
department and that's it has anidea what it is and it's not
good, right.
And so when other people, evenin our government, are saying
they don't know what it is,they're being honest but they're
just not being told.
So I think it's either one ortwo things.
One it's in the same group.

(01:00:53):
One there's an imminent threatto the United States from some
foreign actor and this issomehow a response to monitoring
that.
Two the threat's already hereand whatever those things are
are trying to find the threat tothe United States.
I think there's either somesort of protection from the

(01:01:15):
United States or for theAmerican people.
I think it's plausible.
It's plausible.
Yeah, I don't think it's.
You know especially the state ofaffairs, but I think that, or
it's something.
Nobody knows what the F it is.
So an either one to me is verydisconcerting.

(01:01:36):
It's very.
I'm not comfortable with eitherone.
I think I'm more comfortablewith the first one because at
least there's some sort of okay.
There's a bad person trying todo harm.
We're trying to stop it, okay.
The other one is we don't knowwhat the F this is.
Your guess is as good as mine.
It's actually more alarming tome.

Speaker 1 (01:01:59):
You see, this is my problem with that theory, which?
Theory.
The theory that it's us, thetheory that it's okay, well, no,
no, it's not us.

Speaker 2 (01:02:06):
Well, it is us in response to something.

Speaker 1 (01:02:14):
Well, what I'm saying is, if these things were only
showing up over military assetsand they were doing like sweeps
occasionally, you could makethat argument.
You could say you know what?
These things always turn upover military structures and
this, that and the other thingand they do a couple of sweeps.
They're looking for somethingright?
You have these things out wellinto the night, hours and hours
and hours.
And then let's let's, you know,pause on that for a second.

(01:02:36):
These supposed drones, even thebest of drones, the best of
them, are not going to have fourto six hours of well.

Speaker 2 (01:02:47):
that we know about, we saw that rocket, that um,
that, that rocket, that thingthat Russia had, and it started
just shooting things down fromthe sky.
But even then, a lot of thosethings don't the only way you
can what I'm saying is it's atechnology.
Even the United States said wedon't have a real defense to
that, right.

Speaker 1 (01:03:03):
but if, like, they have some drones that could
actually also like, supplementtheir power with solar, like,
but you're not going to getthose at night.
So that's the other thing,right.
Let's say there were militaryassets doing something, again,
why would they be lit up likeChristmas trees, why would they
be showing their lights, whywould they be doing and why

(01:03:27):
would they be flying over?

Speaker 2 (01:03:28):
neighborhoods.
Well, here's why I think I meanI think why it could be.
I'm not saying it is, it'splausible If you were going to
attack, let's say, the northeastof the United States, it's a
high population density area.
You go from Connecticut down toNew Jersey.
One or two types of weaponscould take out a lot of people.

(01:03:49):
Let's say you look at a NewYork City right, and when would
you get the a lot of people?
Let's say you look at a NewYork city right, and when would
you get the most amount of like?
Doing it after supper time isthe time you would do it.
No, no, no, like listen my pointis this, chris neither one of
us know what it is right itdoesn't pass the smell test.

Speaker 1 (01:04:07):
It doesn't it?
You cannot tell me that.
Okay, there's a threat.
Either you know where thethreat's coming at, like you
know what the target is, or youdon't.
If you know what the threat,where the threat is, you're
going to have your stuffconcentrated around there.
If you don't know where thethreat is, you're going to have
your stuff everywhere.

Speaker 2 (01:04:27):
Well, he's going to keep spreading.

Speaker 1 (01:04:28):
But it's not spreading logically.
If, why is it jumping?

Speaker 2 (01:04:33):
It's Well.
What do you mean?
It's going, it's permeating,it's not?

Speaker 1 (01:04:37):
but it's not spreading.
But again, it's not ending.
It's not ending in one placeand starting in another.
It's spreading Like.
I know that it makes sense ifyou think about it like, really
like, if you just kind of saylike, oh, they're looking for
something, they have a threat,they have a threat idea that
something's coming and they'rekeeping it out.
But if you look at how they'redoing, then why are they
spending all night over thisneighborhood and not spending

(01:04:59):
any time over in thisneighborhood?
But then they jump around hereand they jump around here.
It doesn't have that sense ofthey're doing a sweeping pattern
of looking something, althoughsome people describe it as a
sweep doing a sweeping patternof looking something, although
some people describe it as asweep.

Speaker 2 (01:05:13):
I guess you could use the same argument or same
discussion if you said hmm,maybe it's something you know
that is not from a human being,right?
The same discussion could bewell, why are they doing it the
way they're doing it?
What are they getting out ofthis?
Right so, and again it's let'ssay you're thinking it is
something that's of this, rightso.
And again let's say you'rethinking it is something that's

(01:05:34):
not human.
Right, it's difficult torationalize what a non-human
might do with my human mind.
So that in itself is an issue.
But let's say that's all we cando.
Right, that has no, it has noreal rational.
There is nothing rational orsystematic about any of this.

(01:05:56):
So the same types of thingsapply to all the situations.
So do I think it's what I, thatthe United States is protecting
us?
No, I would probably say it's apossibility, but I don't think
it's 50-50.
I do think it's a possibility,though, until there's something

(01:06:17):
that makes me say that's not apossibility.
Just like, could it be Russiaor China?
It could be.
Is that a strong possibility?
No, it's not a strongpossibility, but I think the way
I'm looking at it, chris, isthis I'm looking at it in the
same vein as I'm looking at whatwe're being told.
Hey, I don't know what it is,but I know it's not dangerous.

(01:06:37):
So, which is baloney, right?
So for me to say I don't knowwhat it is, but I know it's not
that I'm not there yet, right?
So to take it off the tablecompletely, is it near the side
of the table?

Speaker 1 (01:06:52):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:06:53):
Okay, but it's not in the center of the table.
No, it's not So-.

Speaker 1 (01:06:57):
If you were gonna make that argument, let's say we
were gonna go with thatargument.
Right, let's say they weredoing that right.
Now you have a week of thisbuildup, this cacophony of
people saying, no, we need toknow what's going on.
You have media getting involved.
You have you know.
You have you know John Kirbygetting grilled on Fox News and
now every reporter who's goingto talk to him, you know they're

(01:07:18):
going to get him, they're goingto ask him about this.
This is going to be asked atevery White House.
Briefing now, like this, isthis is not going away.
No, if this were them, whatever,whatever the reason for it was,
one is, I don't believe thatthey'd be again up there with
lights on, because if they weretrying to, like, protect the
homeland and search forsomething, they'd do it

(01:07:39):
surreptitiously.
They would have quiet drones oras quiet as you can be, running
in stealth mode.
They don't have to have greenand red lights on it.
The only reason why you havegreen and red lights on it is to
be seen.
My theory because I neverreally like finished my thought
on this is and it sounds crazy,but this is my working theory

(01:08:02):
right now If some of thesethings are being operated by
someone other than us andthey're picking this time to
like say, okay, gotta start.
We've been, we've been bouncingaround the edges for a long
time now.
We need to start coming out forsome reason.
There's a reason why I thinkthat that's the case.
But what's the best way to doit?

(01:08:23):
If we suddenly have all ourships, like, hovering over their
cities, they're gonna freak.
But you know, what we can do iswe'll start hovering over their
cities, but we'll do it atnight, so nobody could ever get
a really clear view of whatthey're looking at and we're
going to have red and greenlights because that's what
they're used to, because theysee things in the sky all the

(01:08:43):
time with red and green lights.
But we're going to be differentenough that's going to make
them realize that something'sdifferent about this, but not so
different that it causes panic.
Make them realize thatsomething's different about this
, but not so different that itcauses panic.
We're going to do this for alittle while until it almost
becomes.
There's going to come a point.
Let's just say this keeps goingand going and going.
And let's say the press keepsgoing, what's going on?
And they keep saying we don'tknow.

(01:09:09):
There may come a point wherepeople will just be like, well,
and I haven't done anything yet.
I mean, I guess you know, Ifeel like this is something
that's rolling out to us slowlyand saying we're gonna show up
and we're gonna show up lookingsimilar to what you're used to
seeing in the sky, so we don'thave mass panic, but we're gonna
be different enough that it'sgonna start getting people
thinking about it.

(01:09:30):
And you could do this for awhile and then kind of
transition to make the sightingsa little bit weirder, a little
bit wider, a little bit moreunusual and it would be less
shocking than just suddenlycoming out like in mid-November
and having saucers flying over.

(01:09:50):
But that's the other thing.
Some of these reports are notdrones.
I didn't play that part, but onthat News Nation interview,
when they talked to those threepeople and one of them was the
body language expert that wasthe guy and he's in Tennessee
and when they got to him he saidyou know, because the first guy
, the reporter that we heard hetalked about the drone-looking
things.
And then the other womancorroborated that and said, yes,

(01:10:11):
I saw very similar things.
And then she told her story.
And then they went to the thirdguy and his first thing was
like mine didn't look anythinglike you two are describing.
Mine was completely different.
I'm seeing craft that lookedmore, and he described basically
a saucer shape with lightsaround the edge.
I don't know.

(01:10:33):
I mean, what puzzles me a littlebit is the taking of
Thanksgiving off, and a lot ofpeople have been like well, that
proves it, it's got to be us,because why else would we take
Thanksgiving off?
And I'm like I don't know Ifyou were not us and you'd been
around here long enough.
It's not hard to figure out hey, these people have these days
that are sacred.

(01:10:53):
We're not going to mess withthose, we're going to do it
every day, but on this day thatthey I use sacred as just they
have this day, they celebratethis thing.
It's very strange.
There's a turkey involved andsomething about people coming
and stealing land andcelebrating it.
I don't quite understand it.
But that's their day.
We're not going to do it thatday, and that way people kind of

(01:11:16):
calm down and then immediatelythe next day it comes back, it
starts up.
I know it sounds crazy, but,like everyone's always talking
to, like UFO, you know, likethese aliens, they're coming
from somewhere else and they'rejust here as if it's like
they're fresh off the boat andthey don't know anything,
whereas if they've been here fora while and there's plenty of

(01:11:36):
evidence to suggest thatsomething like that is going on,
then they know us, they knowwhat our customs are, they know
what our reactions are.
They've probably seen 50 yearsof us reacting to different
things.
They've probably gamed this outin their own way and said well,
we know, as a people, we can'tjust show up over their cities.
What we can do is we can stopshowing up over their cities,

(01:12:00):
but in a form that doesn'timmediately freak people out,
but lets them know thatsomething else is going on.
They're taunting.
If the government doesn't knowwhat's going on, these things
are taunting Every night.
They're coming out to say, hey,we're here, you can't do
anything about it.
Hey, we're going to fly aroundfor a while, your authorities
can't track us, your authoritiescan't tell you where we're
coming from, we're not doinganything.
We're not doing anythingharmful, we're just bouncing

(01:12:21):
around.
Look, we're here, we're here,we go away.
We're here, we're here.
Our government doesn't knowwhat's going on, but these
things are not causing a problem.
And then they get revealed assomething.
I think it would be an easiertransition.
I think, like I said, peopleare starting already to get kind
of used to it.
Now you have like watch parties, people going out at night to

(01:12:44):
go see these things.
I'm waiting for them to bearound here.
I heard Cape Cod.

Speaker 2 (01:12:48):
I think, though, I'll again I.

Speaker 1 (01:12:51):
I don't know this.
This is just my theory.
Yeah, yeah, who knows?
I have no idea, could be.

Speaker 2 (01:12:56):
But to me it boils down to one of those two things.
It could be something I'm notthinking about, right, who knows
?
But I would probably go more,not that I'm.
Probably more majority isthinking it's something we don't
know what the hell it is.
Probably more majority is onthinking it's something we don't
know what the hell it is.
I'd be even more there once.

(01:13:16):
Once he thinking it's going tohappen.
Hopefully it doesn't.
Right?
If there are reports other otherplaces in this world, right,
that they said we're seeing themcoming from the water, right,
and we're watching them cometowards us.
I haven't seen that yet.
I've only seen reports ofseeing them over certain areas,

(01:13:37):
right, right, so if we're seeingthe same phenomenon other parts
of the world, well then, yeah,okay, and I think at that point,
but it's starting, I mean we'regetting.
You know what I mean, though.
Like if had a Beijingcorrespondent on CNN saying holy
crap, look, right, then you'dsay, whoa, okay, that is not

(01:13:58):
anything.
It's nothing to do with theUnited States per se, right?
Because at the end of the day,if it's nothing to do with
countries fighting themselves,right, and it has something to
do with some non-human thing,they don't give a shit about the
United States or China.
Why do you say that?
Well, my point is do you reallythink that there's some

(01:14:22):
non-human that differentiatesbetween Russians and yeah, of
course you think so.
You think that they wouldrather go to the United States
than somewhere else.

Speaker 1 (01:14:30):
But they would know the power structure of our
society.
They would know that these arethe players.
So how is this societystructured?
Well, they're divided up intolittle independent nations.

Speaker 2 (01:14:43):
But how would they pick one over the other?

Speaker 1 (01:14:45):
Well, they would just be observing and say what are
the big players?

Speaker 2 (01:14:47):
But why are they not observing the other ones?
How do you know they're not?
Well, there's no reports rightnow.
But but why are they notobserving the other ones?
How do you know they're not?
Well, there's no reports rightnow, but we're not going to get
reports from China?

Speaker 1 (01:14:59):
Sure, we would.
We have Americans there thatare doing reporting, they'd see
it.
But China, really nothing comesout of China media that they
don't want.
No-transcript, all curated from, like the, the government, like

(01:15:23):
it's.
I think we underestimate howchina controls their citizens.
Like chinese citizens don'thave the power to just post
something on the internet forall the world to see.
They don't have access to thesame internet.
They don't have that.
You know they have TikTok, butof course they're limited on
when they can use it.
Right, my understanding is RossCoulthard has reported on this

(01:15:47):
that he's getting reports fromall over the world.

Speaker 2 (01:15:49):
But I'm saying, say, ross Coulthard, there's nothing,
there's no reports of it comingout of the water near Australia
, right?
Well, we don't know that.
Do you know what I mean?
Well, I mean we know that wehaven't seen one.

Speaker 1 (01:15:59):
There's a special tonight on News Nation at 9 pm
devoted to this drones and we'llsee what reporting comes out of
that.

Speaker 2 (01:16:06):
I guess my point is like.
It's like if you could say hey,steve, look, look, my God, look
, they're coming out of thewater.
At Greece, right, right, I'dsay wow.
Italy, whoa Spain, wow, right,you'd say what?

Speaker 1 (01:16:18):
Do you think they'd come out of the water though?
You know what I mean.
But if they come out of thewater in the ocean and then fly
in, they're coming from theocean, we're hearing that, that.

Speaker 2 (01:16:28):
But what I'm saying is, when you but you could say
I'm not arguing, but the timeyou get to by the time you get
to germany, you've gone over abunch of other places, so it's
just germany saying it.
If you came from the water,let's say let's see what happens
.

Speaker 1 (01:16:41):
I that.
What happens is we get this inin like a very like we hear it
happening in the united statesand we say, well, it has to be
something prosaic becauseotherwise, like your argument,
what you know, nonhumanintelligence.
Why would they just be caringabout the United States?
But the reality is.
This is happening all over theworld and has been happening all
over the world, it just hasn'thappened.

Speaker 2 (01:17:00):
Like this is an escalation.

Speaker 1 (01:17:03):
This is building up to something.
So what?
The rumor mill?
And again you can't take therumor mill and again you can't
take the rumor mill as yeah, butwhat I'm hearing through
different, like there's been alot of talk from the different
you know, ufo experts who havesaid different intelligence.
People behind the scenes aresaying there's, there's
something that's coming, there'ssomething what do you mean?

(01:17:25):
but when you say, there's,something that is a problem,
that is hastening thisdisclosure movement.
There's a reason why everybodyhas to be brought up to speed,
and quickly.
It's being done as quickly asit can controlled disclosure.
It's kind of like have you evernoticed that when they let the
UFO stuff out, there's like apumping of the brakes.
It's almost like you couldalmost see it catching kind of

(01:17:49):
momentum, and then there'd bethis pumping of the brakes
catching kind of momentum andthen there'd be this pumping of
the brakes whether thegovernment, you know, will, you
know, have a kind of pour coldwater onto it and, kind of like,
almost try to put the fire out.
They light the fire.
Very provocative statementsabout.
You know ufos are real.
We don't know what these thingsare.
Some seem to demonstrate, youknow, enhanced capability.

(01:18:10):
We're getting the populace usedto the idea.
But before it picks up too muchsteam, then we're pouring cold
water on it, we're putting thefire out again and then we'll
let it smolder a bit and thenwe'll build it up again with
some more hearings and some morethis because they're really
they're they're easing us intoit, because you can't just come
out one day and say, hey, youknow, we've been denying this
thing for 50 years or 70 years,90 years, whatever.

(01:18:32):
We've been denying this thing.
And hey, guess what?
Aliens are here and it's alltrue, they can't just do that
overnight, but they have to doit, that's.
My understanding is that, likethey have to do it, they have to
bring us up to speed, becausethere's going to be a point
where we're going to be broughtup to speed, and so it's either
them, let us in on it, or it'sall going to happen.
It's the difference betweencontrolled disclosure and

(01:18:54):
uncontrolled.

Speaker 2 (01:18:54):
So where do these rumors come from?

Speaker 1 (01:18:56):
That's the thing Different people have said it in
different contexts.
There's a CIA ex-CIA agentnamed John Ramirez who was on,
who was doing like the podcasttour a while back, and he has
been quiet ever since because hedid a bunch of podcasts and
he's like I'm done, I've saidwhat I'm going to say.
If you want to hear what I wantto say, listen to any of my
other appearances.
But he's been talking andsaying that.
He's heard behind the scenesthat there's some sort of

(01:19:18):
calamity that could be, you know, coming in 2020, like again I
2027.
I've heard the date when.
I've heard 2027 thrown around alot.
I've heard 2030.
I've heard between 2027 and2030.
That suppose and again, I'm notsaying this is true, I'm just

(01:19:38):
saying this is the chatterthat's out there that there's
certain segments.
They asked Lou Elizondo aboutit, whether there's something
coming, that there's a reasonfor this, and he didn't deny it.
He just said I can't talk aboutthat.
You know, there's a lot ofpeople who've been asked and
they won't deny it.
They just say I can't talkabout that, I can't get into
that, and it's unclear whetherthey're talking that there's

(01:20:03):
something coming, as if I don'tknow.
I'd like I know this.
This sounds.
I don't know exactly whatthey're saying because they're
not being specific, they'rebeing purposely vague, but the
general vibe is there's a timelimit on this.
Lula Alessandro has said thismultiple times.
We don't have the luxury oftime.
He's said that several timesnow.

(01:20:24):
We've got to get this out.
We've got to get everybody upto speed.
We don't have the luxury ofdragging our heels anymore.
The clock is almost up and itjust seems to be this kind of
quiet thing of like there's areason.

Speaker 2 (01:20:39):
So are you saying, because I'm trying to understand
.
Do you believe, then, thatthere is some aspect of some
group or, however, departmentthat understands what these are,
and that's part of that I thinkthere is, but I think there's
self-serving too.

Speaker 1 (01:21:00):
We've talked about this before.
One of the main reasons I thinkthe secret has been kept is
because I always say whenever Ihear people say, well, why don't
they just tell us, why don'tthey just admit it?
And I say I don't think youreally understand the degree of
crimes that have been committedto keep this secret.
There's real evidence Well,certain is evidence that some

(01:21:23):
segment of the government, ofthe intelligence agencies or
whatever, has lied to Congress,has lied to Congress, has lied
to presidents.
So, right there, that's aviolation, that's treason of the
Constitution.
Like a breaking of theConstitution.
Right, Like they're supposed tobe the checks and balances,
Like you're not supposed to havenon-elected officials making
decisions that should be in thepurview of elected officials and

(01:21:46):
keeping information from thoseelected officials and keeping
them out of the loop.
We've heard this time and timeagain.
A lot of the permanentintelligence people think of
elected officials as temporaryemployees.
Why should we bring them up tospeed?
They're only here for a coupleof years and then they move on
Security.
We can't let them know.
We can't let every Congressperson know.

Speaker 2 (01:22:03):
That's what I mean.
So I'm just wondering do youthink that, like where we sit
today, those, those drones,someone in some department of
some part of this government?

Speaker 1 (01:22:13):
knows, of course.
Okay, all right, somebody knows.

Speaker 2 (01:22:16):
That's what we were talking about earlier, I kind of
feel, but I don't know thateverybody like I don't know that
necessarily, like john kirby atthe pentagon spokesman knows
but I feel like there's someonethat knows, no matter what it is
.
Whatever the plausibility ofthis thing is, including what
you're talking about about itbeing potentially a non-human

(01:22:41):
origin, right, I do believesomebody, maybe one person, has
an idea, or else it wouldn't fitinto.
Hey, we don't have a lot oftime, right, Because that means
somebody knows about sometimeline.

Speaker 1 (01:22:54):
So here's my theory.
Okay, and this is just myworking theory.
We've talked about this before,about whether the question of a
lost civilization, the YoungerDryas catastrophe- that you know
that Grant had talked aboutright.
So we've talked about it and wekeep the two kind of separate
but what if they're not?

Speaker 5 (01:23:14):
what do you mean?
So let's go.
What do we keep?

Speaker 1 (01:23:15):
so let's that, the idea of ufos and aliens, and
that and that whole oh, I don'tso let's just let's go with this
.
So what if that theory iscorrect, that 12 000 years ago,
up to that point, some, thehuman civilization had made it
to some point?
And they say, you know, at somepoint they were sailing the

(01:23:37):
world.
They were, you know, theyweren't technologically advanced
, they didn't have cars andiPhones and things like that,
but they were like, they werecoming along and things were
going, you know, and then all ofa sudden there was this
catastrophic thing that happened.
Some say it was a, some saypole shift, some say solar blast
from the sun.
You know, some say comet theory, but some catastrophe that

(01:24:01):
wiped the board clean.
And it's the type ofcatastrophe that doesn't just
happen once, it's gonna happenanother.
You know, it happens from timeto time, it happens every 12 to
15 000 years.
It happens to the planet,that's not even that much of a
theory, right.
But then it's coming up againthat's and again this is no,
it's.

(01:24:21):
We've had got what?
Five, six ice ages, right.
So this is my theory what ifthat thing, what if that event,
what if that?
Whether it be that comet thatsupposedly broke off or a solar
flare or something that is, youcould know it's coming.

(01:24:43):
Civilization, the?
Whoever built those ancientmonuments?
If you want to say you knowthey built, you know the pyramid
, whatever seemed to really bemaking us pay attention to the
heavens and keeping track oftime, you know the idea that the
sphinx is looking out over leo.
You know the way that thepyramids are, are in this, in

(01:25:05):
the um.
The way they're situated on theground is kind of like
mimicking the Orionconstellation.
There seemed to be this reallything by whoever built those to
say you got to pay attention tothe stars and the planets and
like, there's a reason why we'remaking this point.

(01:25:26):
We didn't just come out of thiscalamity and go, well, let's
just build things up again.
What should we build?
Let's build a couple ofpyramids, right?
They were making a message tosay no, no, no, you got to pay
attention to this thing becauseit's coming around again?
And what if we're coming up onthat, what if we're nearing that
time?
And so whatever is keeping aneye on us and again this is just

(01:25:50):
my theory it's says is sayingokay, this time we're not going
to let them get wiped out.
Last time we were here and theyhad made some progress you got
a lot.

Speaker 2 (01:25:58):
You could have given these things a lot of
personality, but it it makessense to a certain degree.

Speaker 1 (01:26:06):
If you, if why?

Speaker 2 (01:26:08):
the only reason I ask why is what?
Do we give some resource tothese people or these things?
If that's the case, we musthave some benefit.
What's the benefit we give?

Speaker 1 (01:26:19):
The benefit could just be that it could be that
they had a hand in what we are.
I mean we all know that, likewhat made us suddenly be that
jump from, just like kind of youknow, you know.
So you're getting right inthere that jump from just like
kind of you know, you knowyou're getting right in there.
It's a, it's a theory that fitssome of the facts and again, I

(01:26:41):
have no proof of any of this.
This is just my own personalthing.
Am I like married to thistheory?
No, this is just my idlethinking of when I say what
could a possible explanation forwhat's going on be?
What?
What's a possible?
I'm not saying it is theexplanation, I'm just saying
what in my mind would what's anexplanation that kind of fits
the facts all right, and so youhave this.
Seemingly something's been herefor a long time and you can

(01:27:04):
argue about whether it's beenhere since the 40s, but that
that doesn't seem quite right.
It seems like it startedpicking up in the 40s, like when
we started playing aroundatomic wise.
But before that something washere.
Maybe it didn't really care.
Maybe it's not so much thatthey care about us, but maybe
they care about the resource ofthe planet of saying like, hey,
this, this planet, is where werefuel.

(01:27:25):
You know we have to generatehuge amounts of energy to power
our craft and the most efficientway to generate that energy is
by splitting a hydrogen atom.
And yeah, we could go out inspace and we could try to like
collect hydrogen, you know, atvarious places.
But you know what's a reallyefficient way you got this
planet over here?
That's 70% water, mostefficient way we can fly in here

(01:27:47):
, we can go underwater, we cancollect the hydrogen atoms we
need.
We can split them.
We can collect the hydrogenatoms we need.
We can split them, we cangenerate the power to power our
crafts.
We can do all the stuff that wedo.
Do they care about us?
No, do they care about you?
Know whether?
maybe not maybe they just careabout.
Okay, we can't let these guysscrew up the planet.
They're getting.
Things are on edge now.
They're all been fighting witheach other for years and years
and years, but now thatsomething's changed, now there's

(01:28:09):
a point where they're a lotmore of them have these weapons
that literally could could wipethem all out.
So all it's going to take isone person blowing off a nuclear
weapon.
All it's going to take is onenut job and all of a sudden, the
whole world's on fire.
We let them get to this point.
Now we get up.
We got to tamp it down.
We can't, well, we can't, letthese jokers just do it, and so

(01:28:30):
so what?
Are you going to do?
You can't just show up, you gotto kind of like ease them into
it.

Speaker 2 (01:28:33):
Well, there's another way of looking at it.
Maybe there's obviously morethan one way right?
One way is and I would kind oflean on that side is that let's
just say that theory is correctthat we provided resources,
right, we being the planet, notnecessarily us, it's the planet.

(01:28:53):
Right, we're stewards of thoseresources to a certain degree.
So what's the easiest way ofmaking sure those resources
continue would be just toeliminate the humans, Because
all we do is take resources,right?
You could say another theory isthey being this other force.
Force has been watching us fora period of time and over that

(01:29:25):
period of time we've provennothing except the fact that we
can continue to dwindle ourresources and fight over them,
and we've done nothing to makethem more plentiful.
So you could say well, theeasiest way to continue their
resources is to get rid ofhumans, because the planet would
do just fine without us, Right?
We can't do fine without theplanet.
So if I'm just saying, if youlooked at, if you're trying to

(01:29:47):
give this outside force apersonality, that would be the
only frame of reference we have.
Is humanity, right?
There is no other form ofhumanity that's ever said yeah,
you know, like you said,Thanksgiving.
There's no other form ofhumanity that said I know you
guys have these resources, youknow, let's just figure out a

(01:30:09):
way to share them together.
No, we don't do that, Right?
So that's another.
I mean the.
The other, the other side ofthe coin is, if they had that
much power, or, however, force,then they'd say you know what?
We're better off without thesepeople.

Speaker 1 (01:30:27):
That's my pushback on that and I've get.
I get asked this questionoccasionally when I do my UFO
talks and then one of thequestions I get is like do you
think if these things are herethey're a threat?
And one of my answers hasalways been it doesn't make
sense.
Because if your intent was atany point to take us out first

(01:30:47):
of all it's not very hard youwant to take us out?
I'm sure you could release apathogen out and then wipe us
all out without you wouldn'thave to blow up our cities.
You could very easily create adisease that could wipe us all
out.
Why wouldn't they have donethat 90 years ago, 80 years ago,
50 years ago, like if they'dwanted to wipe us out in the?

Speaker 2 (01:31:10):
40s, because I don't think that if you put that
argument together, you'restarting it off with want to
Maybe they're forced to have to,but this is Well, that's a
possibility, and that is apossibility.

Speaker 1 (01:31:22):
Hey, we'll let these things go.
Okay, now we can't anymore.

Speaker 2 (01:31:26):
That's where I.
If that was the case, that'swhere I would be.

Speaker 1 (01:31:29):
But it would be akin to like when we came to the
North America, when theEuropeans came here, right, it
would be akin to them saying hey, you know what?
There's native people here.
We're not going to mess withthem, we're going to let them
advance and we'll decide, oncethey advance far enough, whether
we'll be okay with it.

(01:31:50):
And if they don't advance in away that we like, then we'll
wipe them out.

Speaker 2 (01:31:54):
We probably would have if there wasn't a fight
over resources.
If they just said, because theIndians didn't.
If the Indians which is how itstarted, chris if the Indians
said we're cool with what yougave us, we don't want any more
of these resources it's not whatthey said.
They said wait a minute, you'retaking some of them, we want it
all back.
It wasn't like hey, we got alake here.

(01:32:18):
You guys can have that side,we'll have this side.

Speaker 1 (01:32:20):
It didn't work that way.
I think it was more like hey,we're going to take this and
we're going to push you overthere, and they went over there,
and then we said we're going toencroach a little bit more.

Speaker 2 (01:32:32):
No, it wasn't all that.
And we're going to encroach alittle bit more.
No, that's how, and then movein, but that it was more back
and forth.

Speaker 1 (01:32:37):
But what I'm saying is is that if these things again
, this is just speculative, Imean we've gone funny, we
started out like really beingfactual, but now we've just
going into like Theoreticaltheoretical, which is fun too,

(01:32:59):
but um, and then we'll wrap upthe drone thing at least,
because I think we covered a lotof it.
But just, I don't know, youcould, I mean, I don't have any
knowledge, it's all guesswork.
All I'm saying is that some ofthese things just don't feel
right to me.
It's my gut.
It doesn't feel right if thesethings, if these things,
whatever are and this is theother problem is we talk about
these things as if there's one.
What if this is akin to theEuropeans coming over to the New
World?
There were the Spanish, therewere the French, there were the

(01:33:23):
Portuguese, there were theItalians, like all the nations
kind of had their own objectivesand their own red lines and
their own.
What do they want to accomplish?
What do they want to do?
What is their opinion towardsthe natives?
Some countries were reallyharsh to the natives, a la the

(01:33:44):
Spanish.
There were probably otherEuropean people, like the Dutch.
They weren't quite as bad tothe natives.
You don't often hear about theDutch atrocities, my people.
I'm part Dutch, but I mean youdon't often hear about how badly
the Dutch were to the natives,right, you hear more about the
Spanish, you know, conquistadorsand stuff like that.
So what I'm saying is what, ifthere are multiple things here,

(01:34:09):
like it's not just one non-humanintelligence, it's a bunch,
because that seems to be, thatseems to be, if you take all the
reports of encounters withthings over the years, it's not
one type, it's different types.
There's the small greys,there's the tall nordics,

(01:34:32):
there's the like.
You hear a variety of differentlike types of people visiting
here again, all theoretical,like from reports and stuff.
But my general thought processis I think this, this world is
teaming with life and I thinkwe've been led to believe that
this world is teaming with lifebut the rest of the universe

(01:34:53):
isn't.
That doesn't make any sense.
I think that the universe isactually teaming with life and I
think that we are akin to that,um, that thing, that creatures,
those creatures in your yard as, uh, hedgehogs or or, um, uh,
you know something like that.
You don't want to kill offbecause you don't have any huge

(01:35:14):
animosity to them, but you alsodon't want them screwing around
with your whole yard.
So you kind of fence them inand keep them kind of contained
and you say you know what, we'llkeep them contained and they'll
enjoy their little fenced inarea and they won't cause any
problem.
And when they learn to behavethemselves, when they learn to
play nice with the other animalsin the yard, then we will

(01:35:38):
remove the fence and we will letthem into the yard.
That's what I feel is kind ofhappening.
I feel like we are being fenced.
We are fenced off.
We can only interact with therest of the universe.
We can't go there right.
The furthest we've gone is ourmoon.
I mean, you can certainly arguethat on some perspective, but

(01:36:00):
let's just let's assume for themoment that the furthest we've
gone is the moon.
Right.
The rest of the universe?
We're interacting remotely.
We're using telescopes to lookout.
We're using instruments, we'resending probes out.
We have no firsthand knowledge.
No human has been beyond Plutoto actually see what's out there

(01:36:22):
.
Technology is what's giving usour information.
Is it really out of the realmof possibility that someone far
more advanced than us couldmanipulate what information we
are getting?
Hey, we're using all this, uh,we're using all this instruments
to look at this far planet, notlike we can look, like zoom in

(01:36:43):
on planets or anything, but likewhat do we use?
We use emanations of differentchemicals, different radiation,
like things like that that weuse to figure out what this
planet like, what's going aroundthe star that's way out here we
don't know.
We're using instruments, we'reassuming that the information
that we're getting from thoseinstruments is accurate and
we're using our accumulatedknowledge of what those

(01:37:06):
instruments are telling us toput together a hypothesis of
what that means.
How do we know that all of thatisn't just a load of crap Like?
we can say very arrogantly that,well, of course we know, we
know what you know, that starsystem that we can see with the
Webb telescope and we can seethat it's this, you know,

(01:37:26):
exoplanet.
Like we're starting to hearthings like that, Like, oh,
we've detected possible signs ofthis chemical being on this
exoplanet which could mean life.
Again, we're assuming that ourinterface with the rest of the
universe is as it is and thereality is Well, that's all you
can assume.
That's all you can assume.
But you also could assume that,if we want, let's take this for

(01:37:51):
example right, sentinel Islandoff of India, that island that
has, like, those natives on itthat, like, have not
communicated, right, they arenot cognizant of the fact that
they are protected by thegovernment of India.
The government of India hasships outside the perimeter.
They don't allow any boats toget in there, because one is any

(01:38:16):
people who've gone there, thenatives have killed them.
So you have this force calledthe Indian government which is
keeping those natives safe,because if the Indian government
wasn't there, one country oranother would roll in there with
advanced weapons and wipe themout and say, no, we want this
island.
Who's there?
Oh, it's just some primitivetribe, they don't have anything.

(01:38:39):
All right, let's just move inthere.
We want to mine those mountains, or we want to dig for gold or
whatever.
Let's move in there.
We'll just move the things.
If there's trouble, we'll wipethem out.
Right, what's stopping that?
Well, the Indian government'sstopping that.
Do you think any of theislanders on that island are
aware of the fact that there isthis entity called the

(01:38:59):
Government of India which ispatrolling and keeping the rest
of the world from being able tomess with these, like that's the
thing is, to those natives onthat island-.
Well, they'd know, though, ifthey had the technology, but
they don't, but theirinteraction with the rest of the
world is what they can see.

Speaker 2 (01:39:16):
No, you see what I'm saying, though.
Like if they had drones, let'ssay like we have a telescope or
whatever we shoot out, right, Ifthey had that, they'd see.
You know what is all this?
Then they could form whateverthoughts they had.
I mean, I don't know, but let'ssay they, they're not going to
jump from primitive.
Are you saying there's somebodyprotecting the earth?

(01:39:39):
You're kind of almost talkinglike it's God.

Speaker 1 (01:39:41):
No, what I'm saying is is that if you were an
advanced life form and, like Isaid, I think there's multiple,
I think there's multiple, Idon't think there's just one and
I think there have been reportsof different types of UFOs
sometimes seeming to fight eachother.
There have been reports ofdogfights.

(01:40:03):
There have been reports of like.
It's not like.
These craft of different typesare always like together.
I've never seen that there areplenty of things like that.
There are plenty of reportsagain of like.
Again it's uncorroboratedbecause these are all.
It's not like the military istelling us any of this, but
there have been like it justmakes it feels like it makes
sense.
And I know you can't put humanmotives onto any of these things

(01:40:25):
and maybe that's maybe I'mdoing too, I'm
anthropomorphizing them too much.
But just from a logical, justyour a logical point.
Okay, we, if the you know,residents of sentinel island,
they wouldn't jump fromprimitive spears and stuff.
That's what they are.
They're like wearing likeloincloths and spears.

(01:40:45):
Right, they are very primitive.
They're not going to jump fromthat to telescopes, right,
they're going to go through likeif they started to get
technological and started to hey, they designed a I don't know
how does technology even?
Go.
Like they just started to get alittle bit more mobile.
Right Again, india wouldn't say, okay, we're going to just.

(01:41:07):
Okay, you know what, they'rebuilding up some technology.
Now it's a free-for-all, we'regoing to move.
Okay, you know what, they'rebuilding up some technology.
Now it's a free-for-all, we'regoing to move all our ships and
anybody want to go in there,they're fair game.
They would modulate theirthings accordingly, like, okay,
we still don't want to spookthem, but now we have to move
our ships out just a little bitmore, because now these, these
people have gotten to the pointwhere they have these little
boats and they're going up.
They can't go out very far.

Speaker 2 (01:41:28):
They can only, and it's not not to interrupt you,
but I want to go back on anotherepisode to talk more about
ancient civilizations.

Speaker 1 (01:41:36):
Yes, oh indeed.

Speaker 2 (01:41:37):
But do you?
I find it really interestingsometimes when you like.
So this is one of the lastcivilizations you know.
They have them in the Amazontoo.
Yeah, there aren't many.
None of them that we've everwitnessed have ever tried to
travel anywhere else.
They don't want to, right?
But my point is, if you lookback and let's say, well, how
did this happen?
Well, they must have gottenthese boats and canoes and they

(01:42:01):
went from South America toEaster Island, right, or they
went from here to there, butnone of the civilizations that
you would call more primitiveyou know primitive today have
tried to do that.
Yeah, it's the weirdest thing.

Speaker 1 (01:42:16):
I wonder what they know, though that's what's
really interesting to me andlike it's so crazy that, like
they don't, it's not like theIndian government like goes and
interacts with these people, no,they're keeping the rest of the
world like they don't interactwith them either.
Like they're keeping everybodyaway from them, including
themselves, right?
So like I would love to knowlike what do those?

(01:42:36):
What do those sentinel islandpeople think like?
Do they ever see it?
Do they ever see a jumbo jetflying over right?
Like do they ever see, like thelights in the sky of a sat like
starlink?
Do they ever see, you know, offthe shore?
They see a, you know a boat?
Do, like, what is theircognitive thought process on
what the world is like outsideof their island?

(01:42:58):
Do they have, do they have,theories about it?
Do they have legends about it?
We don't, right?
No, like that's what's sobizarre.
Is you have this?
Like you have this group ofpeople who live on this island
who are cut off from the rest ofthe world by choice.
They don't seem to be like yousaid.
They're not.
They don't seem to be buildingboats and going out there to
explore, and anyone of who doesshow up on their island they

(01:43:19):
kill pretty quickly, right andagain, that could be out of fear
, if anyone knows.
Sure, it's out of fear, but ifanybody really wanted to wipe
them out, it's like okay wecould send a battalion of
Marines with body armor.

Speaker 2 (01:43:33):
Yeah, but nobody wants to do that.

Speaker 1 (01:43:34):
Right, but what I'm saying is that it's not even a
fair fight.
If we wanted to take SentinelIsland, let's remove the Indian
government for a second.

Speaker 2 (01:43:43):
Well the same thing applies kind of in the Amazon.
Those groups of people they'restill doing blow darts or
whatever they're doing.
Those groups of people they'restill doing blow darts or
whatever they're doing.

Speaker 1 (01:43:52):
So what if there are non-human intelligence out there
that if they had their druthersthey would just wipe us out?
Say no it's a nice planet.
I mean, what do we care aboutthese monkeys?
And what if there are otherforms of non-human intelligence?
You have the Indian governmentof the non-human intelligence
who say, no, these people on onearth Island, um, they're

(01:44:15):
primitive, we're going to, we'renot going to mess with them.
We're not going to show up andstart.
You know, we're going to letthem develop on their own.
A lot of the kind of, you know,prime directive kind of talk,
the Star Trek thing of like.
You know, we shouldn't messwith this and let them evolve.
And when they evolvesufficiently and they're ready
to join the rest of the thing,we're here to usher them in and

(01:44:40):
we're not going to let them outuntil they're ready.
We're not going to let them,you know, we're not going to let
them willy-nilly out into theuniverse with their
nuclear-powered vessels andtheir desire to want to fight
constantly with each other.
We're not going to let them outof this little confined space
until they learn to behavethemselves and play well with
others.

Speaker 2 (01:44:58):
But if we needed, wherever these people were, if
we needed any of their resourcesand they were damaging those
resources, there would be adifferent story.
You know what I mean.

Speaker 1 (01:45:11):
I'm sure there are.
I mean, I don't know what whatnatural resources exist on
Sentinel Island?
It would be, actually.

Speaker 2 (01:45:17):
You know what I?

Speaker 1 (01:45:17):
mean it's interesting .
I'm sure we could find out,like now with all our technology
, I'm sure we could have, likeyou could do, what do you call
it, lidar and stuff, right Kindof like figure out like, do they
have, you know?
A mountain.

Speaker 2 (01:45:29):
Put it this way If let's say we need the forests of
the Amazon, we know the planetneeds it right.
And we know we're damaging it onour own, but let's just say it
was.
Some of these primitivesocieties were burning down all
the trees.
People would interfere and say,hey, what are you doing?

(01:45:49):
So you could make someanalogies between possible
things that might be happeningoff New Jersey, new York,
connecticut area and maybe howsomeone might intervene.
Because this is Chris, this issomething that, if it is like
you're hedging towards, if itwas something non-human, this is

(01:46:15):
a statement to be making.
This is basically their stampand their foot down.

Speaker 5 (01:46:20):
It's time.

Speaker 2 (01:46:21):
Yeah, that's what I'm saying, and I don't think it's
something that can just continueon a slow draw.

Speaker 1 (01:46:29):
It's going to accelerate.

Speaker 2 (01:46:31):
Human beings are not and I'm not saying it because
I'm an American, but Americansare just we're kind of
obstreperous people and so we'renot.
There's a point and I thinktechnology has made us a little
more docile, but there's still apoint that people are going to
get to.
If this continues and they'rejust, it'll get to a point where
listening to we don't know whatit is is not an answer.

(01:46:52):
There is a tipping point.

Speaker 1 (01:46:55):
There is a.
This is why I always say aboutdisclosure Disclosure is a
process, not an event.
But it's not a process that'sreally controlled by anyone,
anyone.
Because even those who have theknowledge, let's go by the
theory that they're slowlyreleasing it to the public,
little by little, to kind of getthe public involved, but they

(01:47:17):
don't want to do it too fast.
But even then there's a tippingpoint.
There's a point when enough isout there that the press, that
the people in general go, wait asecond and start connecting the
dots on their own.
At that point you can't controldisclosure anymore.
You can eke out the informationlittle by little.
Hey, we told you for years thatthere was no such thing as UFOs

(01:47:40):
.
Well, now we're telling youthat there are, but we don't
know what they are.
We're really behind the scenes.
You do know what they are, butyou can't tell people that yet
because they're not ready tohear that yet.
You gotta you just gotta meetit out little by little.
Here you go we know a littlebit more, a little bit more
about them.
We're learning information,kind of similar.
That way they're treating thisdrone thing.
We don't know what it is, butwe're working hard to find out

(01:48:02):
when you really kind of knowwhat it is but you can't tell
them yet.
But there comes this tippingpoint, this, this, and I feel
like we're coming up on it verysoon.
I can already see it start tohappen.
As I watched cable news and Iwatched some of these anchors,
you could just see in their eyesthat they were putting the
pieces together.

(01:48:22):
They were just, they werelistening to what they were
being told and what they hadobserved on their own through
like, years of like been exposedto stuff and just suddenly
going wait a second, this likewe have the Pentagon telling us
that there are these thingsflying around that everybody's

(01:48:44):
seeing.
Now it's not like it's like oneperson here or there, it's like
you have elected officials, youhave lots of the public like
outcry.
Now people are going out atnight to go look for these
things.
And it's like you're seeing themost amazing thing I would see,
like on CBS and NBC, likethey'd be talking to somebody
Meanwhile they'd be showing thisdivided screen eight divided

(01:49:04):
screens of cell phones of theseevents.
It's like footage is pouring innow.
It's like it's footage ispouring in now and you could
just see in the eyes of some ofthese, some of these anchors and
stuff, that they're putting thepieces together and they're
realizing like it doesn't makesense.

Speaker 2 (01:49:20):
I was watching news nation, right?
I don't really watch it thatoften and one of the reasons is
I don't want cable.
Yeah.
Right, but I have a YouTube TVfor now.
We got it Cause we were hostingThanksgiving.

Speaker 1 (01:49:30):
Can you watch News Nation on YouTube TV?
Yeah, well, because it's cable,really.

Speaker 2 (01:49:35):
I'm watching, okay, right, and so it's on there,
yeah.
So I was watching it last night, actually getting ready for
this, and that's where theyshowed that guy and he was
talking.
He's from New Jersey himselfand I think you had referenced
him.
I don't remember his name.
And he was showing from thenight before they were talking.

(01:49:57):
And as they're talking, he justpoints up and the camera looks
up and there it is.
So it's just and you could lookat it.
It was certainly look like alittle jet Right.
We all can look at it, it'shard.

Speaker 1 (01:50:08):
It's just so weird.
One of the things they say is,even with like, they say well,
why don't you get your?
And that's the other part, Likecell phones don't do it justice
.

Speaker 2 (01:50:16):
Oh no, Some of these videos are pretty clear.

Speaker 1 (01:50:18):
But they're getting clearer and you have to think
that average citizens aregetting I mean equipment.

Speaker 2 (01:50:23):
So if the video is clear, that means your eyesight
could probably see it evenbetter, because sometimes you
know just to come out is good.

Speaker 1 (01:50:30):
People are getting out there with good equipment
now, yeah, they're seeing it.
But what I'm saying is there'sthis tipping point where
disclosure is going to start.
It's like pushing the boulderup the hill.
The government right now is,like you know the emperor has no
clothes, right, hey, buteverybody.

Speaker 2 (01:50:43):
Can't you see, can't you see all the clothes?
Can't you see that robe?
I don't see it.

Speaker 1 (01:50:49):
Right and I think enough.

Speaker 2 (01:50:50):
People eventually are going to say I don't see it.

Speaker 1 (01:50:55):
We're going to hit a tipping point where disclosure
is an uncontrollable process.
There's going to come a pointwhere even the secret keepers
aren't going to be able to stopit, because everyone's going to
be asking the questions EveryWhite House briefing.
They're going to be grillingabout this.
The press isn't going to let itgo.
What happened at first and Iwas in the habit of watching the

(01:51:18):
daily briefings just to seewhat was it Maybe there'd be one
question on this.
They talk about other stufffirst that start in the Middle
East and then ask some questions.
Maybe some reporter would talkabout this.
It would be quickly brushed offand they'd move on right.
But over the last couple ofdays they don't have that.
On Friday there was no WhiteHouse briefing and there was no
Pentagon briefing.
I don't know if they never haveit on Fridays or if they just.

(01:51:39):
I don't think so because Irarely see them on Fridays.
So I think they seem to havethem just like Monday through
Thursday.
But I noticed like on Thursdaythere was a lot of questions On
Monday.
I expect it to be like this isgoing to be the topic.
If this is still going onMonday and I see no reason why
it wouldn't be this is going.
They're not going to be able tojust give these answers,

(01:52:01):
because now the people are goingto say okay, you told us three
or four days ago that within acouple of days, this high-tech
equipment was going to be there.
So what did you find out?

Speaker 2 (01:52:11):
So what are?

Speaker 1 (01:52:11):
they going to be there.
So, yeah, what's up?
What, what, what did you findout?
So what are they going to saythen?
Well, we still haven't got youknow it's on route.
It's still on the way.
You know, fedex lost it flattire and uh, now we're doing a
tracking on it and uh, you know,if the package is lost we're
just gonna have to ship outanother one.

Speaker 2 (01:52:26):
So it's good like they're only going to be able to
delay, make a whole new thingso long before I Listen.
Guys, we want to take aChristmas break here.

Speaker 1 (01:52:36):
Yeah, what's going to happen?
This is going to be veryinteresting If this is still
going on and it just stops forChristmas and then starts up the
26th again.

Speaker 2 (01:52:43):
I didn't know this about.
It wasn't as big of a newsstory at Thanksgiving as it is
now, so I think if that happened, a lot of people are going to
say what?
Now.
So I think, if that happened, alot of people are going to say
what, and you know honestly, ifthat happened, chris, you'll be
have a group of people that giveher a religious, give it a
religious connection.
That's what's going to happen,the thing I'm struggling with.

(01:53:03):
Maybe it'll stop the whole.
Doesn't Hanukkah start like atthe night on Christmas or
something, or?

Speaker 1 (01:53:06):
Yeah, I don't quite know the timing on that.
Yeah, then it's like a week orsomething.
Yeah, so maybe it'll stop thewhole duration.
Yeah, it'll pick up on newyear's day or whatever that's
supposed to stop.
Yeah, it's true, and maybe itwill suddenly just stop.
What if happened?
What if all the sightings juststopped?
Would it go away?
Like that's the thing is.
Isn't there enough?
Yes, do you think it would goaway?

Speaker 2 (01:53:23):
yes, it would be more apt to go, it would be more
likely.
How's this?
The story does not go away.

Speaker 1 (01:53:28):
The story doesn't continue with the same kind of
legs Right, because without thecontinuing thing the fire would
kind of go off.

Speaker 2 (01:53:33):
You'd have people want to look into it, but the
general American public?
They're on to the next shinything.
Yeah, yeah, that's true.

Speaker 1 (01:53:40):
But what I'm struggling with is what could be
the explanation that doesn'tinvolve non-human intelligence.
That would be sufficient, LikeI'm, trying to think.

Speaker 2 (01:53:52):
Well, that's, I think , maybe the one I said trying to
protect the united states.

Speaker 1 (01:53:56):
But even that would ask like that would open up more
questions.
Yeah oh, I agree, but there'sno resolution to this.
That would just be like, ohokay, and then we move on no,
like there's no like like that'swhat's really, like I'm
struggling with this, like Idon't know where this is going
to go, and I you know I, like Isaid all my thoughts, those are

(01:54:17):
just my personal theories, Justmy, my, my idle musings.
When I think about these things, Do you ever think?

Speaker 2 (01:54:23):
this could be the beginning of Santa Claus making
sure all the kids are doing theright thing.
He's got the drones out.

Speaker 1 (01:54:29):
Yeah, I mean.

Speaker 2 (01:54:31):
I think we're not exploring this possibility.

Speaker 1 (01:54:34):
I think Santa Claus is a very is a very big
possibility.
I don't know, I I just I'mfascinated by this and, like
Rosie keeps asking me like, ohyou, you know, why are you
constantly watching this?
And I'm like this is the most.
And, like I said, I like tolook, I like watching the same
news reports, because I'mwatching every single news
report.
And she's like are you gettingnew information?

(01:54:56):
And I go no, I'm not watchingnews.

Speaker 2 (01:54:58):
So when you say this name, you're watching different
channels.

Speaker 1 (01:55:01):
Meaning.
I'm watching on YouTube, I seethe local, the local channels.
They usually get the best stuffon the local and that's the
thing.
Wpix in New York, which Iremember.
Wpix back in the day with cableTV, when we used to have that.

Speaker 2 (01:55:15):
Phil Rizzuto.

Speaker 1 (01:55:16):
Yeah, out of this area.
There was very few channelsthat we got regularly, but WPIX
was one of them and that was oneof those channels that you know
when I was young and we'd belooking for the fun stuff to
begin, so the talk shows wereover the stupid news, right, and

(01:55:38):
then like around two o'clock inwpix, that like that was one of
those channels you'd go to, butI guess they've been doing
these, like they've been doingthese reports and, um, these are
katie caranda.
There's a reporter there, she'sreally good, and she, she's like
out there and they're cuttingto her and she's like, oh, I'm
out here now and, like you said,there they are right in the sky
.
Like this is happening and it'sspreading and it's getting
worse.
I don't see how this getsresolved and doesn't change

(01:56:00):
everything, no matter what theexplanation is.
Hey, the explanation is thiswas us?
We're up there with these topsecret things hovering over the
cities because we're protectingyou from a threat.
Well, that's going to changeeverything.
Then, all of a sudden, it's likewell, is the threat over?
Is it still up?
Do we have to like oh right,you know so.
Okay, it was.
Uh, it's china, oh my god.
It's russia.
Oh my god, it's.

(01:56:21):
It's iran.
It's a, it's a.
It's another entity.
It's an entity.
We didn't know this.
There's this, you know privateentity out there that somehow
has been able to amass billionsand billions of dollars and
construct these reallysophisticated things that we
don't know about.
But they're human, don't worryabout it, they're us.
That's still going to be likethere is no resolution to this.

Speaker 2 (01:56:43):
There's no explanation that people just go
on their way.

Speaker 1 (01:56:45):
No, matter what, like I keep saying no matter what
the answer to this drone thingis, it's interesting, right
there keep saying no matter whatthe answer to this drone thing
is, it's interesting, right,there is no answer, that's just
a shrug of the shoulders and gooh, that's what it is all right,
now let's move on to the.
You know, isn't the super bowlsoon?
Right like there is nothing.
There is nothing that can comeout, that's going to just make

(01:57:06):
this go away, I agree.
So the question is is how long?
How long can it last?
How, how long can they keep?
What do you think?

Speaker 2 (01:57:14):
How long do you think this can go before it's at a
breaking point?

Speaker 1 (01:57:19):
I think next week.
I think it can't go much pastnext week I think if we get to
Wednesday of next week and thenthe question is and it's still
happening.

Speaker 2 (01:57:28):
If it's continuing, does it continue to permeate?

Speaker 1 (01:57:32):
If it continues to spread, if it spreads at this
current rate, those two thingshappening.

Speaker 2 (01:57:35):
I can't see this lasting.
You can't, I can't see it beingtolerated.
I agree with you.
I think even a week might be along time if it continues
permeating and nobody has ananswer and they're just.
The activity just keeps goingthere was something.
I don't think we could sit herenext Saturday and people still

(01:57:55):
say hmm, I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:57:56):
Yeah, no, this is coming to a head very soon.
The only thing that's givingthem a reprieve is it's the
weekend and they can kind of getaway with.
Well, you know, we're not comeon.
You don't think the Pentagon isworking on the weekend?
We're all off.
Hey, we don't want any enemiesto attack us on Saturday or
Sunday, because that's when allof our stuff goes down.
You know, obviously that's not,we're tired.

(01:58:17):
But people do have thatperception Like it's funny how
we've been so kind of liketrained to think like nothing
happens on the weekends.

Speaker 2 (01:58:23):
Weekends everyone takes it easy, so don't expect
right.
Everyone has the day off on theweekend, except the places I go
to that I need to be servicedLike we never think.
We always think everyone's offon the weekend and then we get
mad if a place isn't open.

Speaker 1 (01:58:35):
So I don't see how this could go much into next
week with the same level, ifit's still happening and if it's
still spreading.
And what's gonna happen whenyou know known reporter, like
known anchor let's notnecessarily what the hell is his

(01:58:56):
name uh, uh, from cnn um whatis that guy's chris?

Speaker 2 (01:59:01):
uh, trapper guy or no , I'm thinking of um.

Speaker 1 (01:59:06):
I can't think he does the new year show on on uh on
uh on cnn.
He does that.
He's there for the New Year's.
He's got that white hair.
Ryan Seacrest, I'm just joking,what is his name?
I can't think of his name.
Anderson Cooper.
Yes, anderson Cooper.
I don't know why I was justblanking on that Anderson Cooper
level of journalist, likesomebody who's well-known, a

(01:59:27):
household name, not necessarilyhim, but someone of that level,
level a name where everyone youmentioned that to knows who that
is big anchor of abc or nbc orcbs, sees them themselves.
So they come on, because thishas already happened a couple
times with reporters the guydavid muir right, like he's kind
of a thing well, that's rightexactly like if he said and you

(01:59:48):
know what I actually like, thatguy I like.

Speaker 2 (01:59:50):
I like aniston cooper too.

Speaker 1 (01:59:51):
They've had a couple of them on where they've had
production assistants who livein Jersey or whatever and be
sitting there and go.
No, I saw it myself On camera.
On camera They'd be sittingthere.
There was one of the people Ithink it was Anderson Cooper and
he was sitting with AndersonCooper.
No-transcript, and here's whatI saw.

(02:00:24):
Oh right and he corroborates allof that and he says no, I saw
and like I said that News Nationreporter.
I already saw Megyn Kelly onTwitter retweeted like that.
And she must know him.
You know she was at Fox, he'sat News Nation.
I'm sure he's been working hisway up.
She knows him apparently, andshe says this is a credible

(02:00:45):
reporter.
He's a good reporter.
I trust him implicitly.
She's probably known his.
He's not someone who's ever sosaying like this guy is saying
it.
This is what's changing, isit's not just that rando that
you can discredit?
You have now congresspeople,senators, journalists Like you

(02:01:08):
have doctors, lawyers, theex-govern you have doctors,
lawyers the ex-governor of newjersey, of new jersey, filming
it over his house.
Like you, have people, andwhat's great about this, too, is
the evidence they give has aclean chain of custody.
Right?
It's not this blurry video thatshows up on twitter or youtube.
That doesn't have anyattributions to it.

(02:01:28):
It's the ex-governor of was itMinnesota?

Speaker 2 (02:01:32):
Well, they might've been, but there was New Jersey
ex-governor too.

Speaker 1 (02:01:34):
So there was like an ex-governor that says, no, I
took this footage.
Here it is.
Here's the metadata.
Oh, you can see on the metadatathat this footage was taken at
this place at this time.
Oh, and here's this otherfootage from this other person
who took place, of the samething.
So now we can corroborate thatthis did happen.
Um, but what's you know?
What's?
No, nobody's answering.
What's the faa say?

(02:01:55):
Right?
Hey, he's been very quiet,right, and that's the thing is,
why is the fbi putting thecharge of these drones?
Shouldn't it be the faa?
Why is it like the faa hascontrol of our airspace?
If these things are operatingand not operating, if they have
pseudo navigation lights on themthe red, green lights that

(02:02:15):
alone is breaking FAA regulation.
I can't just fly a thing upthere and put those lights on
differently and just be like,hey, I'm going to put the red on
this side and the green on thatside, even though it's reverse
on.
You know, like you'rebreaking're breaking you to say
that these drones aren'tbreaking laws yet, so there's
nothing we should do about it,which I have actually heard
floated from multiple people onnews.

(02:02:36):
Still, I was kind of watchingcnn and msnbc last night and as
it got later into the night,they started bringing in the you
know national security peopleand the people who used to work
for the this or that, and theway they would just try to tamp
it down and be like well, wethink this still might be
hobbyists and we think thatthey're not breaking any laws,
they're not doing anything wrong.

(02:02:58):
People have to get used todrones in the sky.
Warfare is changing.
We need to pass different laws.
Like all that gaslighting ofbeing like this is not a big
deal.
They were continuing it andsometimes the anchor would go
along with it.
Sometimes you could just see intheir eyes that they were like
hearing it for the first timeand almost going that doesn't,

(02:03:21):
that doesn't smell right, likethat's.
That's what's changing and Ithink by the end of this next
couple of days there will bemajor television people who
aren't compromised in some wayand you know.
But there's gonna be someonewho comes out and says I saw it

(02:03:41):
and it's just gonna keep going.
I don't have a prediction onwhere this is going to go, but I
keep telling people.

Speaker 2 (02:03:50):
But the other thing too is if activity gets worse
over New York city, I thinkthat's all.
Oh, that's it Right.

Speaker 1 (02:03:57):
That's all it would take.
I'm surprised it hasn'thappened already.
Right, new Jersey, you canalmost like, although New
Jerseyans are like wait, no,what's not just one part of New
Jersey, now it's the whole state.
Now you have the governor, nowyou have this.

Speaker 2 (02:04:09):
But once you have it over New York City.
One of the most recognizablecities in the entire world.

Speaker 1 (02:04:14):
That's where a lot of those major media organizations
are based.

Speaker 2 (02:04:16):
That's what I mean.
It's only going to be so longbefore everyone on their staff
has seen it.
If that's happening, all betsare off in terms of toleration.

Speaker 1 (02:04:26):
The only thing that could shut this off is if it
stopped.
If the sighting suddenly ceasedRight and ceased, I still don't
believe that it would just goaway.
But I think you're right thatthere would be nothing keeping
the fire alive and, althoughthere's some people who wouldn't
let it go, you could get themajority of people to move on to
the next thing, right?

(02:04:46):
The reason why I don't thinkthat's the case is that that
group of people who saw itthemselves and wouldn't let it
go is so big now that I don'tthink.
I think that that population ofpeople the only people who are
poo-pooing- this are the peoplewho don't live there, but not
all of the people that saw.

Speaker 2 (02:05:05):
it will continue to do it.

Speaker 1 (02:05:07):
No, no, no, they won't.
But I'm just saying there'll beenough of a pool of people who
did see it, like I noticed.
There's a lot of people wholike post on social media and
they'll be like they look at thefootage, that's a plane, I know
that's a plane and they live,you know, hundreds of miles away
and they didn't see it, whereasyou ask everybody on the ground
who saw it and will say I know,I know it looks like that, but

(02:05:27):
when you see it in person, youknow it's not a plane.
But that's hard to capture onthis footage because it's at
night and all you're seeing isthe lights.
But when I see it, like yousaid you, in person, you can see
it better with your eyes andyou watch how it moves and you
watch how it and, like I said,if this was the summertime,

(02:05:48):
you'd have a lot more peoplethat would want to be outside.
I wonder if that was a thoughtprocess to why this is happening
.
I don't know Now.

Speaker 2 (02:05:54):
Because, like where it's happening in New Jersey,
it's big beach communities.
So you'd have a lot more peoplethat just want it.
First of all, they just want tobe outside, and then, if this
is happening, is happening.

Speaker 1 (02:06:08):
It's more of an incentive to be outside if I
catch wind that this ishappening anywhere within
driving distance well,everything's within driving but
I'm saying something like youknow, like right now I'm not
going to the cape, like I'm notgoing to drive to the cape to
maybe see him, but if I foundout these things were happening,
you know, a 30 let's say it'ssalisbury beach, you might go
there.

Speaker 2 (02:06:23):
I I think I told you the story earlier so, um, I
can't remember what night it was.

Speaker 1 (02:06:28):
It was early this week, uh, we heard a sound I
went out a sound like a sound oflike a motor or something like
that and I went outside and Ithought I saw a drone.
I was excited.
I was like, oh my god, it's oneof those drones.
Then, after a few seconds ofwatching it, it was a um, it was
a medvac helicopter.
Unfortunately, a woman hadfallen down the stairs at the um

(02:06:49):
blue ocean center at thefestival of trees was there and
unfortunately an older lady had,I guess, fallen down the stairs
and really hurt herself so theyhad to bring in a medvac
helicopter to like, uh, I don't,I don't know what happened with
her.
Hopefully she's all right, butthat's what it ended up being is
.
The helicopter flew over ourhouse multiple times and ended
up landing in the huge parkinglot that's on the corner there,

(02:07:11):
the beach lot basically, andthat's where they oh, speaking
of it.
So anyway, it wasn't a drone,as far as I know.
I've seen a couple of posts ondifferent social media about
drones in this area.
I've also heard somebody saythat they're over the seabrook
atomic plant.
I have not, I mean anytime Ilook there hasn't been anything

(02:07:33):
and of course, like you said,people are looking up in the sky
.
They're misidentifying stuff.
I'm sure there's plenty ofpeople who see a plane and
automatically say it's one ofthose drones, so that's, that's
also muddying the water.
I also think the government hasassets up there also muddying
the water purposefully.
I mean, do I think ourgovernment isn't above?
Let's just say they don't knowwhat's going on.

(02:07:53):
It would also behoove them toput their own assets up there to
just muddy the water, becausethey wouldn't want all the
reports coming back to say, hey,these things are weird.
They would want to be able topoint to some and go see that
one that's a plane, see that onethat's a plane.
See that one that's a plane,that one's a plane, when in
reality it is a plane or it is adrone that looks like a plane,
because they put it up thereright to do exactly that, to

(02:08:14):
calm everybody down.
And that's what a lot of peoplewere afraid of at first.
Like, are you about to gaslightus?
Are you, are you about to showall these things and get
everyone interested, and thenpull off the cover and go see,
see, it was just this.
See that UFO thing, don't worryabout it Because they've done
that before.
I don't think that's happening,but it doesn't feel like this.
It doesn't feel like becausethey would have already done it

(02:08:36):
Like the obfuscation.
I can never say that word.

Speaker 2 (02:08:39):
It's difficult to make such statements that they
don't know what it is, and thenturn around and the same person
say we knew all along.
I don't see that happening.
Because then you lose trustabout everything that's what I'm
saying At this point.

Speaker 1 (02:08:55):
You can't come out and say oh, we were just keeping
it from you, it's really this,you guys, you made us tell you
that's not happening, right.
So either they're going tocontinue with the lie if they
don't know what it is.

Speaker 2 (02:09:08):
Well, it's not a lie.

Speaker 1 (02:09:11):
Well, all right.

Speaker 2 (02:09:13):
They're going to continue with the lie and they
don't know what it is.

Speaker 1 (02:09:14):
I thought you said lie.
I thought you said lie.
Well, I did.
But at some point they're goingto have to say, okay, now we
know what it is.
Because if they say we don'tknow what it is, but we're
looking into it, then it's onlygoing to be a couple more days
when people go okay, what'd youfind out?

Speaker 2 (02:09:28):
I mean it could be true that they just don't know
that could be.
That would be terrifying.
Well, absolutely.
But I'm just saying it could bea reality.

Speaker 1 (02:09:36):
I know this sounds counterintuitive, but out of all
the possible reasons, non-humanintelligent intelligence is
probably the best case scenario,in my opinion, for us, because
any other explanation is notgood, well, any other
explanation means we're on thebrink of something very bad.
If this is a foreign actor,we're in trouble.

Speaker 2 (02:09:59):
No, no, no, Even if this is not a foreign actor.
This is our government If ourresponse to a foreign actor,
there's something big that iseither going to happen or could
happen.
But this is the thing.

Speaker 1 (02:10:11):
If this was us in some capacity yeah, they're not
going to tell everybody, butconstitutionally, some members
of Congress would have to knowin the very least.
The gang of eight there's eightsenators that are basically are
the ones who they have to betold everything.
Right, they don't know, and andthat's that's.

(02:10:33):
The thing is if the governmentwould have come out and say this
is us, even if they were doingwhat you said they were, they
were protecting us.
That's still a big problem ohyeah because in the very least,
chuck schumer should have knownabout it.
Uh, he, you know a couple ofother senators like there's the,
you know marco rubio, those are, those are the members who are

(02:10:53):
on the intelligence committeelike if they don't know what's
going on, that's a problem andthere's no explanation.
There's no world where thegovernment could come out and
say it's us, we were, we'redoing it for a reason, like you
said, then then we're in trouble.
But even if that were true, andeven if they said that we've
thwarted it, it the, thedanger's over, everyone's safe.
Now that still would be a bigdeal, because all of Congress

(02:11:17):
would be like you can't just dostuff and keep it from everybody
.

Speaker 2 (02:11:21):
How come no one's asked Elon Musk if there's a way
to go up and just catch one?
I mean he catches rockets nowthis is what I find very
suspicious too.

Speaker 1 (02:11:29):
Elon Musk runs his mouth about everything.
He hasn't said anything aboutthis he hasn't said anything
about this, and whenever he'sasked about this, he downplays
any kind of idea.
Oh, I didn't know.
He's been asked.
He does he?
Downplays whenever.
I haven't seen any evidence ofUFOs and I have a lot of
satellites up there.
He's full of crap.
Well, again he cannot helphimself, but chime in on

(02:11:52):
everything.
He's been doing it constantlyand he hasn't even mentioned
this.
Trump actually said something toactually shoot it down, right,
but he also it was a goadingkind of thing Like I don't find
it plausible and you know, Idon't find it possible that they
don't know what's going on.

(02:12:12):
You need to tell us or shoot itdown.
That's his way of saying.
No, you have to put up or shutup if you don't know what it is.

Speaker 2 (02:12:15):
Well, I mean, I kind of I don't agree with the man on
a lot of things I agree witheither.
What is it?
And if you don't want to whatit is, knock one of them down
and figure out what it is.

Speaker 1 (02:12:24):
It's not crazy this crap about we can't take it down
because it's under like it'slithium batteries.
I've heard that?
Well, have you also heard thatum?
Just recently, just yesterday Ithink, there was a cable that
went out of, like basically analert from um I don't know if
it's the fbi or whateverbasically saying if one of these
things crashes, the protocol isdon't go near it, call

(02:12:46):
authorities, and there's hazmatum protocol that has to be
followed.
Why?
That's a good question, isn'tit?
They tell you they don't knowwhat it is.
Then they put out.

Speaker 2 (02:12:56):
Maybe they say to to be.

Speaker 1 (02:12:59):
Uh, of course that's cautious, of course what they're
going to say.
But then people are like, waita second, if they're just
regular drones, we don't have toworry about them.
Then why are you sayinghazardous material?
You could go along with thething about calling authorities.
You could like that.
You could say, hey, we don'tknow what these things are,
they're not dangerous, but wedon't know what they are.

Speaker 2 (02:13:15):
Maybe because they're unsure if there's a nuclear
thing or something, I don't know.

Speaker 1 (02:13:20):
But then that's.
The problem is, if there's evena remote possibility that these
things could have hazardousmaterials, then why are you
being so blasé about them beinga bolus?
I don't think they're beingblasé.

Speaker 2 (02:13:29):
But they are.
I don't think they are, Chris.
I think that it comes acrossthat way and I think that they
don't know what else to say.
To try to tamp down any panic,I think no.

Speaker 1 (02:13:43):
I know I understand, but what I'm saying is is that
if you take them at their word,no, I know I understand, but
what I'm saying is is that ifyou take them at their word
which I don't, but I'm justsaying is from the perspective
of the press I do take them attheir word, but their words are
very jumbled.

Speaker 2 (02:13:54):
Right, so I think they, they, they, everything
they say is there's this little.
The door is never open or shut.

Speaker 1 (02:14:01):
It's.
I always tell people you haveto listen to every word.
That's what sometimes I getaccused of being uh like
pedantic because, like you, know, like being very like.
I have to be very specific.
And rosie, rosie will say likeyou're being like, you know like
.
And I said well, I have to bespecific, because if you're not
specific, you're unspecific.
And if you're unspecific, thenthen your words are meaningless.

(02:14:23):
And so you hear the pentagonsay this is their line.
We have no.
The Pentagon, to this date, orArrow, to this date, the all
domain anomaly resolution hasfound no verifiable proof of
extraterrestrial interactionswith this planet.

Speaker 2 (02:14:43):
Okay, so the question is never followed up.
With what unverifiable proof?

Speaker 1 (02:14:48):
have you received?
So, yeah, the right question.
Wait, never get asked.
So verified proof.

Speaker 2 (02:14:53):
What?
What first of all, can youdefine verified proof Exactly?

Speaker 1 (02:14:56):
So are you saying verified proof would be, you
know, a um, a ship that clearlyis marked from Cigna five, nine,
six, that clearly is markedfrom Cigna 596 and has a map to
like, yeah, they don't do it.

Speaker 2 (02:15:10):
You know how do you verify proof.

Speaker 1 (02:15:14):
At what point do you consider it?

Speaker 2 (02:15:15):
verified proof.
At what point do you do adifferentiation between
unverified and verified proof?
They don't run through thesethings with you.

Speaker 1 (02:15:21):
Circumstantial evidence is not the same thing
as verified proof.
So if you have tons ofcircumstantial evidence, and
circumstantial evidence isevidence.
Well, that's the thing.
That's what they say aboutwitness testimony.
Like, where's the evidence ofthis?
All we have is witnesstestimony.
Are you kidding me?
We put people to death overwitness testimony.
So that's the other part of it.
So they say no verifiable proofof extraterrestrial.

(02:15:42):
There again, how do you provesomething is extraterrestrial?
How come they never use theterm and this is what no
reporter has called them on?
Can you say that same set ofline that we have no verifiable
proof of non-human interaction,not extraterrestrial, because
extraterrestrial is a veryspecific thing, saying this

(02:16:04):
thing is from outer space thisplanet.

Speaker 2 (02:16:07):
They play around with that too.
Because, well, they play aroundwith that too.
Because they'll say I thinkthey play around.

Speaker 1 (02:16:11):
They always say extraterrestrial.

Speaker 2 (02:16:12):
I know that I've heard non-human too.
No, they only use non-humanBecause there's no evidence of
non so here's why I say that.

Speaker 1 (02:16:18):
They've never said that Non-human.
The only place you've heardnon-human is in the legislation
where they talk about non-human.
Whenever the pentagon or anygovernment official who was
being asked about it because, uh, they saw the department of
energy lady and she, like,picked up a piece of paper and
read it, you could tell that shewas reading it and it was the
exact same line.
To this date, arrow has foundno verifiable evidence of alien,

(02:16:44):
I mean extraterrestrial rightthing so, but I never say
non-human.

Speaker 2 (02:16:48):
They never actually get asked the question.
No known human.
So you could play around withwords and questions all you want
because you know, you could say, because someone could say
there's no evidence on thisplanet of non-human, I might
believe that I mean I don't seeany evidence, right, but you can

(02:17:10):
.
You know just like anythingelse you'd sit there.
You can ask the questions insuch a manner, one after another
, that you could box them in acorner and nobody were
aggressive Right.

Speaker 1 (02:17:19):
If nobody really does that it was coming, and that's
the thing I was very surprisedby seeing.
We've gone on so long here, butthis is such a great topic
You're talking about thehearings.
No, what I'm talking about isjust when Martha McCallum was on
Fox News, was questioning shewas being aggressive with him
and she was doing the follow-upsand said that exact thing Like
how can you say there's nothreat if you say you don't know

(02:17:43):
what it is?
He still danced around that one, but like that, that's, that's
the big question now.
Yeah, all right.
So so where we stand right now,I can't wait to get home and
like go back to like looking atthis stuff.
I know that a lot of the newschannels, I know that we're
doing like specials, like we'regoing to see over the weekend,
we're going to see a lot ofcoverage.
I'm going to continue to watchall the major news networks and

(02:18:04):
what I was doing is I was had ondifferent like my iPad, my
phone, and I was watching eachof them and at the top of the
hour I was going to cyclingthrough.
I actually was on a pretty goodroll yesterday where I was like
I'd watch CNN and they'd havelike a segment on it, and then
I'd switch to MSNBC and they'dhave a segment on it, and then
I'd switch into Fox and theywould have a segment on it.

(02:18:25):
Sometimes I'd miss the verybeginnings of them.
But it was just on this ramblethe top of every hour I would go
to.
Cnn was kicking it off.
It was the first thing theytalked about, and then MSNBC it
was like the second thing theytalked about or the first thing,
and it just went on real longand same with the Fox News.
It'll be interesting to seewhere that is in all the ABC,

(02:18:51):
nbc, new, in all the abc, nbc,cbs, all the major news
organizations.
We're talking about itconstantly and so this is what's
going to be.
The interesting thing is thereare still probably people out
there who haven't paid attentionto the story yet by the end of
this weekend.

Speaker 2 (02:18:59):
At some point, in all seriousness, the president has
to say something.
Yeah, at some point I.

Speaker 1 (02:19:04):
I can't imagine that we can go very far into next
week.
You have to say something.
The press is going to bedemanding it.
Especially since they said thatapparently the president's been
briefed Because they did askhim has to have been.
They said has the presidentbeen briefed?
They didn't say yes.
What they said was thepresident is aware of the
situation and he's keeping tabson it.
I do not believe that.

Speaker 2 (02:19:27):
It's up to you, but that's Well, I mean, I'm sure he
knows about it.

Speaker 1 (02:19:29):
It'd be weird if he didn't.
I'm sure he does, but is heeven dialed in?
I mean, there's a lot of newsstories basically about the and
I don't want to go down thepolitics thing that the party of
the president is not too happywith him because it seems like
he's detached from everything.
Right, just kind of like is isis on the like link.

(02:19:50):
When I got laid off and then,like the last weeks of having
you know, I knew when I got laidoff way back then and I was
there for another year they kindof railroaded him.

Speaker 2 (02:19:58):
So I think he's probably he's kind of peacing
out, he's like yeah likewhatever guys I'm gonna enjoy my
holidays.

Speaker 1 (02:20:03):
You know I'm gonna pardon some people and just like
play it out and get throughthis, but so that's it.
But let's just assume that hehas been briefed.
Yeah, we can't go far into nextweek, so let's see, we're going
to have to revisit this.
We will revisit this.
I'm away, I'm taking a littletrip and I'm going to be, of
course, following this when areyou going Miami?
Maybe they'll be coming out ofthe water in miami.

(02:20:33):
Supposedly it's in florida.
I'm going to be keeping my eyesopen.
I'm going to be good idea onyour vacation and I want to find
if there's in the next coupledays, like in the you know from
now until like early next week,if I get a whiff of, of
confirmed anywhere that I canget to in, like you know, under
an hour maybe, like in theflorida keys.
What I'm saying around here I'mgonna jump in the car and I'm
gonna go, going to, I want to goand I want to see some of this
stuff Because, again, I've neverseen anything.
Remember that one time wethought we saw something.

Speaker 2 (02:20:54):
Yeah, what was it?
The International Space Station.

Speaker 1 (02:20:56):
Yeah, but we used the tracker, we used the tracker, I
use that story, I tell thatstory all the time be
misidentified.
But but I have to say that, asmuch as I am an advocate for all

(02:21:17):
this stuff, I have never, to myknowledge I mean, maybe I've
seen stuff, but I it wasn't thatapparent I have never seen like
a ufo sighting that was so um,so clear.
Oh, I gotta tell you actuallyit's a similar topic, but I've
been doing these ufo talks,right, yeah, and I was in.
I can't remember where I was.
I want to say it was maybe.
Weymouth.
And I did my talk.
You know it went well.
And then afterwards this oldergentleman came up to me and he

(02:21:38):
said I'll tell you a story.
He said, oh, 40 something yearsago.
And I was trying to figure thatout.
And then it ended up being likethe mid eighties, which made me
sad because I still think ofthe—I still think of like the
80s as like around 20 years ago.
I know it's not even close now.
That made me sad, but anyway,what he said was around
40-something years ago inBillerica.
He said I had three kids, onewas 12.

(02:22:01):
One was five and I think theother one was like three.
And he said they came in andsaid dad, there's a UFO outside
and he's telling me the story.
And he said he's like.
I said, come on, he's like.
I let them.
You know, they grabbed my hand,they're pulling me out there
and I was like sure you'reseeing a UFO.
And he kind of went out there tohumor them.
And then he said I stepped outfront, he goes.

(02:22:23):
I looked up and he goes.
I just watched this thing inthe air hovering in the air.
We all watched it.
It zipped off fast as light ashe was telling me the story.
This is this like hardenedMarine guy.
He was getting choked up.
You could see in his eyes thathe was thinking back to that day

(02:22:46):
and he goes to this day my kidsare all older now, they still
talk about really.
And he said and I said do you Igo?
Do you like what do you thinkit was?
And he goes I don't know, Ijust know it wasn't from here.
And then I said did you eversee anything again?
And he goes no, no.
But I will tell you this.

(02:23:07):
I told my sister about it wholives out in Nevada or something
like that.
And he goes.
When I described it to her, shesaid oh, I know what you're
talking about.
We see these things all thetime.
And he described it to me as if, like he said, it was like
saucer, shaped with lightsaround the edges and spinning.
Remember, I told you about thatinterview on on news nation

(02:23:31):
where they had the three peopleand the third guy says oh my
yeah, yeah, that's what hedescribed as well, exactly that
same thing saucer-shaped lightsaround the edges and spinning.
But what I just found sostriking was this this guy was,
this was not.
This was not some wide-eyed ufonut, right, this was a, like a,
an older gentleman.
He would have been a marine.
He was just, you know, grizzledold veteran and when he was

(02:23:56):
telling me the story he got alittle choked up and he, he was
his like.
He was telling me the story andI could see like that he wasn't
looking at me anymore.
In his mind's eye he wasremembering what he saw and he
says to this day I can still seethat thing.
And he goes I have noexplanation for what I, what I

(02:24:18):
was looking at, because what hewas looking at, according to him
, was this very large lit upcraft in the mid-80s, bill Ricka
, hovering over his house.
And he said, you know,obviously that's pre cell phone
and he didn't, you know,obviously couldn't get a picture
of it.
He said we just stood therewatching it in silence and I was
like how long did it stay there?

(02:24:38):
And he goes.
I don't know, he goes maybe acouple of minutes, but honestly
we don't know Cause we like lostall track of time.
And he said, just the thingzipped off as fast as you can.
And he said that just to thisday he's like I still see that
it just was so striking becauseit was one of the most.
I mean, I get these often whenI do these talks and usually at
least a couple of people willcome up with me and share their

(02:24:59):
different sightings.
But this was one that reallyaffected just me because of just
watching him relive it in hishead.
It was so powerful and I justwas like and I and I also I said
to him I said did you ever liketalk about it?
He goes no, we didn't talkabout things.
It's like I said, I told mysister at one point, but he's
like you know, and that's theother thing that's changing.

(02:25:21):
Well, yeah, now somebody wouldtalk about it.
Think about what's going tohappen now, even let's assume
this goes away but people noware going to talk about things
they see in the sky, like Ithink, this one event, even if
it doesn't continue, which Idon't believe, that for a second
.

Speaker 3 (02:25:36):
But even if this one event doesn't continue that this
event is going to just stop.

Speaker 1 (02:25:40):
But let's just say it does, let's just say it goes
away, let's just say tomorrowthere are no more sightings and
this goes into the history.
But because it did happen,that's going to change people's
perspective, because there arestill going to be lots of people
especially anyone who saw itare still going to look up in
the sky and continuously lookfor it and be a little bit more

(02:26:01):
attentive to what's above, likeif that's the only thing that
comes from all this.
That's enough.

Speaker 3 (02:26:08):
And I think it's going to be way more than that,
that's, that's, that's.

Speaker 1 (02:26:12):
you know, that's my perspective.
All right.
We've gone a long time, but westill have more to cover, though
still, because this is at leasta little bit, and I don't know
how I haven't decided how I'mgoing to put this out, cause, on
one hand, I don't know that Iwant to put out like a huge one,
but also this is such a timelysubject that I don't feel like
cutting this episode and puttingit out and stretching it out
over a week, so what I might dois just put it out as one and

(02:26:33):
just like it is what it is right, you can listen to it at your
leisure.
That's.
The thing is that peoplecomplain sometimes and say well,
we don't like a long podcast.
And I'm like it's a podcast,you can stop it at any time and
come back.

Speaker 2 (02:26:43):
All you go through the whole thing.
We are that engaging.

Speaker 1 (02:26:46):
You can listen to it all at once, or you could like
just listen to it in bits andbobs, but all right.
So real quick about thehearings because we have a lot
of other stuff.
So November 13th.
I think it was.
November 13th Congress.
Actually, let's work backwards.
So the Senate had a hearing.

(02:27:07):
It was just the new head ofArrow, Dr John Kozlowski.
Did you look at that in any ofthat at all?
A little bit, I was a lot onthis.
So two things that really kindof stuck out to me.
One is like the last one whereHedgehog and Kirkpatrick from
Arrow I mean that was not ahearing, that was a briefing One

(02:27:29):
witness, it was just like ahead of arrow.
This guy is less annoying thanthat former head of arrow who
would just constantly poo-poothis stuff.
This new head of arrow is alittle bit more open.
He made some intriguingstatements.
I mean, he basically did admitthere are some cases and he does
the same old thing where hesays you know some of these
cases, um, we've solved some ofthese cases we don't have enough

(02:27:52):
data to solve.
So the same rigmarole, right.
But he did go the one stepfurther and say there are some
cases that he with all hisphysics training cannot explain,
and no one else in thegovernment can explain it either
.

Speaker 2 (02:28:08):
I'd like to see his hearing to explain what's
happening right now.

Speaker 1 (02:28:11):
Yeah, we'll see what's happening, and that's the
other thing.
Do you notice how it'sinteresting that Arrow is not
being brought in on this?
It's weird.
It's not weird, because theydon't want this to be connected
with UFOs, and this is the otherthing I'm sorry to keep you
back, but you'd still want it toat least be unconnected Towards
the end of yesterday, if thatmakes sense, I was actually
seeing the word UFO trotted outon the major network.

(02:28:34):
Oh, I've seen it In connection.
Oh yeah, but it wasn't happeningat first.
At first they were stickingwith drones, Drones, drones,
drones, drones, drones.

Speaker 2 (02:28:48):
They were pretending there was no, no ufo, like.
That's the weird thing aboutthis it does seem to be a drone,
but that doesn't mean it's.

Speaker 1 (02:28:52):
It's not right also a ufo, but we've just had
recently two hearings.

Speaker 2 (02:28:54):
You're right, they're making it.
It has to be one of the almostpretending like it didn't exist.

Speaker 1 (02:28:58):
But that's changing, but anyway.
But go back to it so that theother thing I noticed about that
senate- hearing I don't know ifyou watch any of it the Senate,
I mean the Pentagoncommunications person, susan
Goff, I think her name is.
She's the one in the Pentagonthat anytime you ask a UFO

(02:29:19):
question, she's the one toanswer.
She's like their communicationsperson, right?
Apparently her background is inintelligence, intelligence like
basically counterintelligence,and basically she's her.
She's her like psych option, uh, psych, uh, what do you call it
?
Psychological warfare and stufflike that.

(02:29:39):
That's her specialty.
But she was in frame sittingbehind john dr john koslowski
glaring into the camera thewhole time.
So the message they were tryingto send is hey, we know that
some firsthand witnesses werenot happy when they came to
Arrow, but Arrow's under newleadership and we want to hear

(02:30:00):
from you, please give us anotherchance was what they were
saying.
But if you looked at it on thescreen you would just see her.
Whenever Dr dr koslowskianswered a question, she was
just like watching him.
He could.
He looked nervous at times likehe could see that she was
watching him, like watching overhim to make sure he didn't say

(02:30:20):
the wrong thing.
So then I'll go back a littlebit further.
I think it was earlier thatmonth we had the congressional
hearing with three witnesses,right, right.
I felt it too at the timewatching that hearing.
Something didn't feel rightabout that hearing it.
Just it didn't feel the same asthat hearing last summer with

(02:30:43):
David Grush and Ryan Graves andJohn Fravor Captain Fravor.

Speaker 5 (02:30:49):
What's his name?
David.

Speaker 1 (02:30:50):
David Fravor.
That felt authentic.
That felt real.
This one didn't have the samefeeling.
And then there was some otheroddity to it too.
The beginning of it, they saidhey, michael
Schellenbergerellenberger, thejournalists provided us with
this document about, um, uh,what is it?

(02:31:11):
A majestic constellation?
No, uh, it was an immaculateconstellation, right, but it
wasn't michael schellenbergerwho provided them with the
document.
It was, um, it was jeremy, itwas Jeremy Korbel.
And they said this 12-pagedocument.
And then, when they put thedocument out on the

(02:31:33):
congressional record, it onlyhad 11 pages.
Well, the first page was thisstatement that Jeremy Korbel had
written.
So they misrepresented who hadgiven them the document.
Then Jeremy Korbel came out andsaid because he had been
trumpeting this hearing andsaying, basically, this is going
to be it.
Guys, get ready for it, buckleup.

(02:31:53):
And then the hearing was justlike right and he came out and
said yeah, do you want to knowwhy that was?
We had a first-hand witness forthem.
They didn't want it and theysaid't know, did you watch that
hearing at all?
No, you should watch it.
In the beginning of the hearing, a couple of them said it.
I think Nancy Mace said it andI think Jared Moskowitz said it.

(02:32:14):
We were told not to ask certainpeople certain questions during
this hearing.
This hearing felt way moreorchestrated.
They were told not to ask andthey mentioned it by who?
They didn't say, they just saidwe were.
They said certain people I'dlike to hear that that's the
thing is.
Nobody's asked them.
Certain people didn't want thishearing to happen and then

(02:32:36):
jared.
Jared moskowitz says during hisopening statement that, um, we
were told we can't ask certainwitnesses certain questions.
And then we find out later thatjeremybell said I offered them
a firsthand witness who waswilling to go under oath and

(02:32:57):
tell them firsthand what he knew, and they declined that witness
.
So he's getting the feelingthat it's like they're hemming
it in, that they've used thepressure on some of these
congresspeople who are getting.
I mean, let's face it, who arethe congresspeople who have been
pushing this?

(02:33:17):
Not the higher level ones, it'sall been the lower level ones
Chuck.
Schumer no, but he did thelegislation Right and he spoke
on the floor once, but otherthan that, he hasn't been, not
in Michigan.
He hasn't been going on the newsnetworks talking about it,
right, no, and nobody's askinghim about it.
But what I'm saying is who arethe ones that have?
Luna, burchett, moskowitz yeah,they're not big names, right,

(02:33:44):
they are not the leadership, no,and it seems like they kind of
got hemmed in.
So there was something reallyweird about that hearing,
whereas it just didn't have thesame feeling to it.
It felt more like a performanceshow put on to say, hey, we
said we'd have a hearing.
And here's another hearing.
They had Lou Elizondo.
Did they ask him greatquestions?

(02:34:05):
Not really.
And then they got mad at him atone point when he said I
couldn't.
He said at one point hementioned.
He said I've been told I canonly talk about the things you
know.
I put out my book.
I had to go through the adopterprocess.
You know the approval process.
That is what the Pentagon hascleared me to talk about and
that is all I can say.
And then they kind of took aswipe at him about well, I don't

(02:34:27):
want to hear about people'sbooks and it's like.
But he wasn't pushing his book,he was saying that he's hemmed
in.
But one of the great lines waswhen Lou Elizondo said I had to
sign a document saying that Iwouldn't talk about crash
retrievals.
Have you ever heard him saythat?

(02:34:48):
So then Jared Moskowitz, and hegoes I'm going to put my lawyer
hat on.
He goes tell me about thisdocument you signed.
He's like where were you?
Like, oh, we was in a skiff,okay.
He's like who was there?
He's like were you alone?
He's like no, it was me andsecurity officer.
He's like no, it was me and youknow, security officer.
He's like okay.
He's like were you allowed tohave your counsel?

(02:35:10):
Look at this document.
He's like no, I didn't.
He goes I didn't ask, but Iwouldn't have been able to
because you have to be cleared.
You know this document.
He's like do you havepossession of this document?
Nope, they keep it.
Did the document say Well, youknow?
Did it say you can't talk aboutcrash retrieval?
And he's like yeah.

(02:35:31):
And he's like huh, you can'ttalk about Fight Club if there's
no Fight Club.
And it was such a like, a goodway of putting it is like the
fact that you were had to sign adocument saying you won't talk
about crash retrieval in itselfmeans that there is a crash
retrieval because if there wasno crash retrieval then you

(02:35:53):
wouldn't be asked to sign adocument telling you you
couldn't talk about it, right?
so I think people miss that byhim saying that people don't
miss it.
They're just not thinking.
They're not thinking like youare getting.
It's like when you ask somebodya question and they don't deny
it, they say no comment.
We all know what no commentmeans.

Speaker 2 (02:36:11):
No comment means the answer is yes and I can't say it
well, the answer could be yes,but there might be a lot of
reasons.

Speaker 1 (02:36:16):
I'm not getting into it, like that's usually, but the
answer usually isn't no, right,because if the answer is no,
then you say no, there's nosituation whichever answer but
I'm saying is, if the answer,like if you ask the question, is
there this?
You know, yeah, here's thisquestion, is this true?
And you say no, it's not true,okay, that's unequivocal, right.

(02:36:38):
If you say no comment, thatmeans you can't talk about it.
You can't and sometimes say Ican neither.
I can neither deny, confirm nordeny it.
That's another line, right?

Speaker 2 (02:36:49):
Well, I mean if somebody said is there an
imminent threat that China isgoing to attack the United
States?
Well, yes or no is stillviolating security.

Speaker 1 (02:36:59):
But they would say here's the question, right, John
?
Kirby.
To the certain person, johnKirby who are these drones?
Are they a foreign adversary?
What did he say?
We have no credible evidencethat this is a foreign adversary
.
That's your way of denying it,without necessarily saying no.
Oh, no, but if you were to say Ican't comment on that.

(02:37:21):
That in itself is an answer,because when Well, that makes
people say when is the answerever?
No, that makes people say whenis the answer ever?
Know that they don't just sayno, like if they said hey, are
there?
Um, you know, are there 12 footclowns rampaging through new
york city?

(02:37:41):
Can't comment right.
They'd go no, we've seen noevidence of it.
Even if they're going to bediplomatic, they'd say we've
seen no evidence of it.
Even if they were going to bediplomatic, they'd say no, we've
seen no evidence of it.
But if they said no comment orI can't talk about that, then
you'd be like wait, that's whatI'm saying.
So that and stuff, but anyway,so that was my perspective on
those hearings.
It's worth watching.

(02:38:01):
Let me just say this.

Speaker 2 (02:38:04):
I can't say I didn't watch it.
I did watch some of it.
Yeah, I found what I waswatching and then it was
unfortunate that I was just verybusy at the time that it
happened, so I could go back andlook, because I usually watch
it on YouTube or something.
What I did watch.
I was like this isn't all thatcompelling, you know, it just
seemed you're right, kind oflook a little bit like a dog and
pony show.

Speaker 1 (02:38:25):
Dog and pony show they had that guy from NASA who
he was part of the NASA team youknow and you know he was
talking a lot about.
You know he had some goodinformation where he's saying we
don't need to gather data.
We keep being told we need togather data.

(02:38:45):
Nasa has the data if you canjust get access to it.
That's the other thing peopleforget, like NASA has thousands
and thousands and thousands andthousands of hours of footage
from various space launches.
You could take that right nowand you could put it into an AI
and say, pick out things thatdon't make sense.

(02:39:07):
There was this other and it'skind of going off topic, but
there was this other umastrophysicist lady.
She did something veryinteresting.
She was taking plates from likeuh telescopes, you know plates
of the sky like harvardobservatory has.
Hey, this was the sky, this wasthe star set on you know april
15, you know 1963, and she wasgoing back and looking at it and

(02:39:29):
seeing if there were any thingsthat show up that are then gone
, because if it's a star it'sgoing to be there all the time.
It's not just Generally butgenerally, but it's not going to
be there one day and gone thenext, right Like these so, and
she's finding tons of them.
And then they asked her theysaid well, have you looked at
all the Harvard Observatory?
And she's like there's a largeperiod of time when they

(02:39:50):
destroyed all the plates andthey're like well, why did they
do that?
Who knows, one of the new guywho took over this was back in
the day at the HarvardObservatory For some reason had
all the former plates of theobservatory view of the sky
destroyed, not plates of of the,the observatory view of the sky

(02:40:10):
destroyed, not saved forposterity, but destroyed.
But anyway, that was enough.
That's an off topic, but.
But basically what I'm saying isthat hearing did not.
It had some good parts to it.
I'm not gonna say it was allbad.
It felt less authentic it it itit seemed squandered.
It seemed like the questionsyou could ask those people.
I mean, let's look at thewitnesses.
You had Lou Elizondo, greatMichael Schellenberger.

(02:40:33):
He was a journalist who brokesome stories.
Okay, I'm not saying he wasn't,but he didn't have a lot to add
.
I mean he could say that he hassources that say I mean, one
thing that he did say is thereis a repository of high quality
images, video, right radar tapes, all the things with a chain of

(02:40:57):
custody, a crystal.
The reason why they I mean thisis what, the reason why it's
called immaculate constellationand this immaculate is the
degree of the evidence.
Constellation is that it's aprogram overseeing a bunch of
other programs, but the idea ofImmaculate is that the
information that it has is notthese blurry iPhone videos.

(02:41:22):
It's the stuff from our topweapons platforms.
It's the stuff from our topweapons platforms.
It's evidence that if yourolled it out in front of the
American public and showed itthe discussion would be over.
That's why you're not seeing it, but anyway, that's what came
from it.
And then during the same timeframe Arrow released another UFO

(02:41:44):
report.
That kind of went kind of.
There was two hearings and atthe same time Arrow released
their annual report.
Right, usually around Octoberthey have a UFO report, similar
things they talked about.
You know, again, if you readthe report there are some very
tantalizing bits of it.
Of like you know, there aresome cases that are truly
anomalous, that we cannotexplain with current things.

Speaker 2 (02:42:07):
But then they but nothing grabs the interest of
people like what's happeningover New Jersey.
No, that's the thing it bringsit home, Because when you listen
to the hearings it's like okay,they give you the data, they
give you this and you're right,Like to people that are
interested in it, you say oh,really, yeah, and people are not
.
But when someone's on TV sayingwhat is that thing?
Yeah, and people are not, butyou know, when someone's on TV

(02:42:27):
saying what is that thing?
Yeah, it's like I mean, I don'tknow what they're going to do
if this doesn't get resolved atthe next hearing, because I
think, chris, yeah.

Speaker 1 (02:42:36):
People's patience.
It's like After this, I don'tyou know like I said.
The other thing that I didn'tlike and this was at the Senate
thing is John Kozlowskiapparently said well, apparently
he did say they supposedly,quote-unquote, debunked the
GoFast video.
The one got it, the one that's.

(02:42:58):
That's the one where thething's going across.
Did you lock onto a?
Did you lock some moving target?
No, I took an auto track, thatone, and they said that wasn't
actually.
Again, again, he didn't saywhat it was.
What he said was we think thatit wasn't, uh, going as fast as
that and it wasn't as close tothe water as that.

(02:43:18):
But he didn't explain what itwas.
But it was also dishonestbecause it took that video in
isolation, where the people whowere behind the filming of that
video say well, how does thatexplain the, the bunch of other,
the fleet of other objects thatwe saw?
at the same time so I mean thatwas.
They debunked it, but like thatwas dishonest, like that wasn't

(02:43:38):
really debunking it.
But to the debunk, to thepeople who listen to that stuff
go.
Oh, they explained that onelike no, they didn't explain
that one.
They seem like they explainedthat one Like no, they didn't
explain that one.
They seem like they explainedthat one because they said, well
, it wasn't as close to thewater, it wasn't going that fast
, but they didn't tell you whatit was, they just told you what
they think it wasn't Right andthat was so.

(02:44:00):
Yeah, I was so excited for the,for the stuff coming up in in
November.
When I heard we were going tohave one hearing and then two
hearing and the UFO report, Iwas like, oh my God, here we go.
And then, as each of thosethings happened, I was just like
why did it feel so different?
And then to find out after thefact that, like somebody's

(02:44:20):
putting their thumb on the scale, and then this happened.
That's the other reason why Ito bring it all back.
That's the other reason why Ithink this is something else,
because I almost think like thesecret was ready to come out,
the ball was going to startrolling and it didn't.
And then who's ever behind itsaid all right, we're going to
do this the hard way.
You're not going to, you're notgoing to be open.

Speaker 2 (02:44:41):
The next time we get together.
I think we're going to have alot more answers, I hope.
If I think we're going to havea lot more answers, I hope.

Speaker 1 (02:44:46):
Yeah, if I cannot imagine a world where we don't
have a ton of answers the nexttime we talk.

Speaker 2 (02:44:56):
I can't imagine a world where we don't have a ton
of answers in the next seven to10 days.
The question will be if thiscontinues and it is actually in
other countries, you know, inthe same manner, in the same
degree of footage and, and thesame, how those other countries
will react.

Speaker 1 (02:45:11):
Because they.

Speaker 2 (02:45:13):
They might not react the same way the United States
is reacting.

Speaker 1 (02:45:16):
So it'll be very interesting.
It'll hit that tip.
It could potentially hit thattipping point of just there's no
stopping it at this point, likeif they're I don't know, I just
I just I cannot see.
Like I said, next, in the nextseven to ten days, there can't
be no movement on this story.
There just can't be right.
Either it has to be resolved orif it's still going, all hell

(02:45:39):
is going to break loose.
There's no way the americanpublic is going to put up with
another couple of weeks of likewe don't know, boy, we wish we
could follow these things backto where they come from.
If only we could.
You know what?
We lose sight of them.
We can't.
It's like I said I know I saidthis before, but it's the
feigned incompetence that bugsme.

(02:46:02):
Like why is it?
We can do all this amazingstuff.
They're always bragging.
We're the best military in theworld.
We can, you know, track things.
We can like there's no, we candefend everything.
And then it's like, hey, yougot these huge drones flying
over the country.
Oh, we don't know what they are, we can't follow them back.
Oh, they shut their lights off.

(02:46:22):
How tricky of them.
Does that mean if I want toevade the military, all I need
to do is shut my lights off.
Is that what you're reallytelling me?
You know what?
The cops were chasing that guyin the car, but you know what
happened he shut his lights off,so we lost track of him.
No, of course that's not whathappens.
They can still tell you're there, yeah, we'll see, but anyway

(02:46:45):
we've gone.
This has been a little.
Is this one of our longestepisodes?

Speaker 2 (02:46:48):
It might be, it might just be, it might just be the
longest.

Speaker 1 (02:46:51):
But it's not gonna be the last of the longest.
No, I have a feeling there'sgonna be so much.
There's gonna be a time we'regonna have a lot more.
Yeah, I think I'm gonnaprobably end up just releasing
this as one, because there's nopoint in that.
Like you said, this story isgoing to change in the next week
.

Speaker 2 (02:47:06):
Yeah it could be totally different.
We'll see.

Speaker 1 (02:47:08):
But yeah, so I think we've dissected this one enough.
If you stuck with us for thewhole thing, or even if you took
it in a couple of differentbites, good on you, because
that's a lot.

Speaker 2 (02:47:19):
Well, we've had a lot of good things to say.
I think so.

Speaker 1 (02:47:21):
I think we covered a lot of ground here, but anyway,
we'll be back with more sometimeI'm not going to promise when
Sometime in the future, but wewill.
But until then, I'm Chris andI'm Steve, and this has been
talking about some deep shit.
We'll be you next time.

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 Mysterious Drones in the Skies

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 Mysterious Drones in the Skies

On Purpose with Jay Shetty