July 17, 2023 • 61 mins
Are the powers that be hiding the truth about UFO sightings? And why, with ALL the recent developments on the UFO front, does it seem like few in the media or public seem to care?
Chris and Steve are peeling back the layers of obscurity in mainstream media and interrogating the silence around this phenomenon. Is it public disinterest or a deliberate information blockade?
Prepare to have your thoughts on hierarchy upended as Chris and Steve explore the plausible existence of non-human intelligence. Undeniably, this could dethrone us from our lofty pedestal at the top of the species pyramid. Does mankind's destructive power makes us superior or just deadly. To add an exciting twist, we'll play with the idea that humanity might be extraterrestrial in origin. That's some pretty deep shit, right there!
At the threshold of a congressional hearing on unidentified aerial phenomena, Chris and Steve contemplate what a groundbreaking revelation could mean. They discuss how the Pentagon's intimidation tactics against potential witnesses could reshape the narrative, and the implications of a recognized 'higher power' on military industrial complexes.
So get ready for an insightful journey into the intriguing world of UFOs and non-human intelligence. The truth is out there, and (Not So) Deep Shit with Chris and Steve is hell-bent on finding it.
Contact Us:
Twitter: @NotSoDeepShit
Facebook.com/NSDSChrisandSteve
Instagram.com/nsdschrisandsteve
Email: nsdschrisandsteve@gmail.com
Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE, LIKE and LEAVE A REVIEW for the show!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
I'm Chris, I'm Steve and we're talking about some
deep shit.
All right, so you were saying,before we actually begin
(00:33):
recording, that you were sayingyes, I agree with you.
It's.
It's disheartening how no oneseems to care.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (00:41):
But I will tell you what I think is the reason for
it.
The main media has not reallycarried it yet.
News Nation has carried it alot, some newspapers have
carried it, but generallyspeaking TV news has not touched
it.
Every now and then they'll havea story, but they certainly
(01:02):
don't let people know the fullscope of what's going on.
There's an interesting way oflooking at that Right One is.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
I agree with you that they're not carrying it.
That's very obvious.
Speaker 1 (01:14):
Right.
Speaker 2 (01:15):
The second one I always, I always, wonder when
people will say well, that'sbecause the media.
That's because the media Right.
Well, I've always looked at itthat the media gives people what
they want, right, they knowwhat's going to sell, they know
what people are going to tune infor and the fact they're not
carrying it to me maybeindicates they have an
(01:36):
indication that the public isn'tinterested.
Like there's two ways oflooking at it.
One is we're only fed whatwe're fed by the media.
The other let me just probablymore than two ways.
Speaker 1 (01:46):
The other way, of looking at it is the media feeds
us what we want.
I think.
I think that argument can kindof be taken down by just the
fact that News Nation is seeingthe highest ratings that ever
has ever.
Why?
Because it's a niche.
But what I'm saying is there'san interest in this topic, right
, certain Congress people havesaid that they're surprised at
(02:07):
Comer, who is the house.
He's high up there, he's incharge of the committee that's
going to be running thesehearings and he's, he's, he's
the big guy anyway in that, inthat context, and so he wasn't
really a UFO guy.
And they asked him a questionabout it and he said well, you
know, we're going to havehearings and I put some people
(02:28):
in charge of that.
He said I've been verysurprised at the interest in
this topic.
The American people want toknow.
So there's a disconnect betweenwhat you know.
Somebody could make thatargument and say, well, the
media is not covering it, whichmeans it's not of interest to
the people.
But if the people don't knowabout something, how are they
going to know whether it's ofinterest to them or not?
(02:49):
And I think it's not.
It's not that people don't,it's not that people have heard
everything that's going on andsaid I don't care and moved on.
Cause if that was the case,great.
The problem is, most peopledon't even know to the extent
that when I do thesepresentations in front of people
(03:09):
and I say you know, I show them, I show them government getting
involved.
I'm going to do more of that.
But when you put that in frontof people, there's a moment when
you can see it happenindividually.
I've seen it happen to a coupleof people where you can just
you can just tell the wall camedown a little bit and there's a
look on their face for just asecond where they're just trying
(03:30):
to take it in Cause.
This is a topic that we've allbeen trained to treat as a joke.
Speaker 2 (03:37):
Well, yeah, I mean, the more this happens, it opens
itself up to that.
There's another conspiracytheory about all this right
Project Bluebeam.
Speaker 1 (03:46):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
Right, and it's.
It's like playing into thehands of those people.
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (03:51):
They're always going to say that, though, and you
know what?
Two things can be true, andthis, this goes back to these
two things could this goes backto a fundamental thing actually.
Yes, indeed, project Bluebeamcannot be true if, if there are
aspects of it, though, could bethe idea of faking an invasion,
the idea of using it as a threatnarrative.
(04:12):
I think a lot of this comesdown to our binary nature, that
we really need things black andwhite, this or that.
It's good or it's bad, and Iknow I know Luis Elizondo and
some of his interviews that I'dlistened to talks about this,
and it's so true.
(04:33):
It's either real or thegovernment's using it to scare
us this, that or the other thing.
Both of those could be true.
There could be an aspect of itthat's real.
There could be an aspect of itwhere they say, well, let's use
it as a threat narrative.
You know, the things flyingaround in our sky are either
(04:54):
from someone else, not us, orthere are top secret technology
either, or they're probably alittle bit of both.
There's probably things flyingaround out there that people
have seen and reported as UFOs,but actually are our secret tech
.
We kind of know that becausepast ones were reported Like
there's probably that going onas well, and I think everyone
you know puts it in this frameof reference of it's either this
(05:17):
or that.
So if it's this, then we justdiscount that off the table, and
it's just our nature, it's ourhabit.
Watch yourself, how much do youdo that?
I watch myself and I'm doing, Ido it again, I just did it
again.
I just did it again where Ijust I had to take it to the
extremes, not realizing that ifit's somewhere in the middle,
both can be right.
But instead those two sides arearguing about which one is
(05:40):
wrong and which one is right,when really, if they thought
about it, they could say youknow, we're both kind of right
to different degrees.
And this is another one ofthose aspects where there's
something to this tumor.
You know, big name senator, youknow that's as high as you get
up there in the in the hierarchyof the Senate he would not be
(06:02):
backing language like thisunless he knew that this
language was necessary to dowhat it needed to do.
They don't put legislationlegislation like this.
First of all, this was not justcranked out overnight.
They've been working on thisLike there's a background to
this From those of us who watchUFOs.
(06:25):
From our perspective, it's allbeen quiet for a real long time,
even though some of thosepeople who are in the know have
said their stuff going on behindthe scenes, guys, we can't say
what it is, but the wheels areturning, but to a lot of people
on this topic who follow it,nothing was going on, because
we've not heard anything.
(06:45):
And then this legislation drops.
This legislation is startlingin what it says specifically.
First of all, it's called theunidentified anomalous phenomena
disclosure act of 2023.
They're calling it disclosureact.
(07:06):
It has words like non-humanentities.
This legislation is the Senate'sversion of what's going on, the
National Defense AuthorizationAct.
So that's we've talked aboutthat before basically the
National Defense AuthorizationAct.
Every year they have to votethis thing.
The House does a version of it,the Senate does a version of it
(07:28):
, and then they put their headstogether and between those two
versions, a committee will bangout the actual version and then
it gets voted on and then thepresident signs it and that
gives the intelligence agency.
That sort of sets the coursefor the Pentagon intelligence
agencies basically to saythere's an intelligence
authorization act.
So this one, the defenseauthorization act, is more like
(07:49):
defense Pentagon, this is whatyou're gonna do.
This is what you're gonna spendmoney on.
Here are some initiatives,things like that.
All their money is appropriatedin this.
This thing is what gives thePentagon their next year of
funding.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
So this is what is this something?
Is this something that getswritten every year?
Speaker 1 (08:06):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
All right, so it gets written every year.
Is it different every year?
Speaker 1 (08:10):
Yes, it's a different set of priorities, although
it's worth pointing out thatsince 20, I think the 2021,
every year there's been some UAPlegislation in this Defense.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
Authorization Act?
Has there been anything likewhat's being?
Speaker 1 (08:26):
written right now.
Well, this is where thewhistleblower laws came in.
The last time alone, everythinghas been a huge incremental
change.
I think the first one was theone hey, we're setting up an
agency in the Pentagon again tolook at this, and that's where
AIMSOG and then Arrowessentially came from.
Speaker 2 (08:45):
the Defense Authorization Act of saying and
in that act a couple of yearsago.
It was written in there.
They had to have hearing sooften.
Speaker 1 (08:55):
Yes, yes, so this is all that.
That kind of put that in motion.
So this is a major thing.
Now, big names have beenattached with various UAP things
before Kirsten Gillibrand,Senator of New York, and Marco
Rubio of Florida, but ChuckSchumer is like the next.
(09:17):
He's been, he's very senior.
He's very senior, so the factthat he's backing he put his
name on this legislation withthem and it's called the
Unidentified Anomalous PhenomenaDisclosure Act.
So some interesting aspects ofit and I just wanna kind of
quickly go through it and why doyou think it's called that Is?
Speaker 2 (09:40):
there anything in there that gives rise to why
it's called that.
Speaker 1 (09:44):
All federal government records related to
unidentified anomalous phenomenashould be preserved and
centralized for historicalreference.
So first of all, it's sayingany records we have on this
right.
It's saying all records shouldcarry a presumption of immediate
disclosure and all recordsshould be eventually disclosed
to enable the public to becomefully informed about the history
(10:06):
of the federal government'sknowledge and involvement
surrounding unidentifiedanomalous phenomena.
Speaker 2 (10:11):
Does this mean going forward or in back?
Going back?
Speaker 1 (10:14):
Retroactive Retroactively All federal
government records.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
They had something like this before.
Speaker 1 (10:22):
They've moved the ball forward, asking Arrow to go
back to 1945 and put together acomprehensive report, which
they are working on.
But Arrow as an organizationjust got fully funded, like a
month or so ago.
So that's the problem is, sinceArrow got formed in the
Pentagon, they've been kind ofhamstrung by the Pentagon Not
(10:46):
giving them access, not givingthem funding.
Not, oh, you didn'tspecifically say Arrow needs
money, so we're not really gonnagive them their budget this
year and so for the first year.
So they've been very hard forthem to do what they've been
doing because they haven't had abudget or a staff.
They've had a few.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
I think at one point there was like three people in
the office or something likethat, but it wasn't written into
the act how much they'resupposed to be receiving.
Speaker 1 (11:07):
Not explicitly A lot of these things.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
You think that was done on purpose.
Speaker 1 (11:11):
No, it's just what they could get through at the
time.
Every authorization act hashere, we're gonna set this up
and then you gotta give a timeto.
You can't put too much in,because you can only put so much
on their plate.
They probably only had so muchthey could do.
So each time they did it it waslike here's an incremental
change, here's the, here's thehere's Arrow, here's what their
(11:32):
mandate is, and that was to goback to do it.
So this is now saying alldocuments should be presumed
that we're gonna release it.
Basically the same legislation.
Further legislation is gonna benecessary to create enforceable
, independent, accountableprocesses for public disclosure.
Speaker 2 (11:53):
All right.
So right now it's saying to doit, but there's not a lot of
teeth to make anyone do it Right, and so it's please do it.
Speaker 1 (12:01):
It is, and it's a lot's left up to.
Speaker 2 (12:04):
there's been no concentrated effort towards
getting stuff released and thegovernment let's just say you
think it's more ceremonialwriting that kind of stuff.
If there's no enforcement of it, I don't know Well.
Speaker 1 (12:14):
Further, they say legislation is necessary, which
means these are their kind offindings declarations.
This is the first part of thebill where they're talking about
their findings declarations andpurposes basically.
So they're just kind of puttingit on the table.
We're gonna need legislation.
Let's see.
They just talk about restoringproper oversight.
So there's a lot here.
So definitions.
So here are some of the titlesthey're defining in this
(12:37):
legislation Archivist.
The archivist means thearchivist of the United States.
Let's see Close observer.
The term close observer meansanyone who has come into close
proximity to unidentifiedanomalous phenomena, are
non-human intelligence.
That is on page four of thislegislation and where they say
(13:02):
we're going to be in ourdefinitions, we're going to be
referring to something calledthe close observer and we define
close observer as somebodywho's come into close proximity
to unidentified anomalousphenomenon or non-human
intelligence.
Find me another time when theterm non-human intelligence is
included in a piece of Senatelegislation Like that alone
(13:26):
should be making the pressmaking the mainstream press
stand up and just at least go.
Huh, that's weird.
Why would you put this in?
Speaker 2 (13:37):
there.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
Unless you have a reason to believe that.
I mean, I don't think anylegislation is put through
without a specific reason, likethe process of legislation is a
long and grueling process, it'swhat it's not done lightly.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
They didn't put that phrase in there accidentally.
But I think we're going to seeoutside of even this kind of
realm, we're going to see a lotmore of that going forward with
artificial intelligence.
Because I don't know exactlyhow they're going to phrase it.
They might phrase it like thatNon-human intelligence.
Speaker 1 (14:13):
That's really interesting.
Yes, non-human intelligence canalso be, and, yeah, artificial
intelligence, which also onecould say that maybe this is why
all this.
I've heard people say, why now?
Well, you know what thepublic's kind of getting used to
the idea of an intelligencethat isn't us.
And we took it more or less sofar.
(14:36):
Pretty well, so maybe that.
So let's get back to thedefinitions, because some of
these definitions, so the otherthing they want to define is,
what do they mean by non-humanintelligence?
Right?
Speaker 2 (14:44):
okay.
Speaker 1 (14:46):
The term non-human intelligence means any sentient,
intelligent, non-human lifeform, regardless of nature or
ultimate origin, that may bepresumed responsible for
unidentified anomalous phenomenaor of which the federal
government has become aware.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
It's an interesting definition In many ways.
One is the word sentient.
Even his consciousness reallyhas never even fully been
defined, but I think we have anunderstanding what they mean by
sentient, you know?
Yeah, Kind of like what we allbelieve to be.
Speaker 1 (15:25):
We believe we are right and we believe now.
Speaker 2 (15:29):
I think now we know that animals are, it was maybe
it's kind of right maybe acouple hundred years ago, people
didn't think animals were yeah.
Right, maybe more than that,but there was a time that we did
not believe animals weresentient, and now most people do
believe they are they do, andthen they also conveniently
ignore it when it's inconvenientto consider ramifications of
(15:52):
some sentient creatures.
Speaker 1 (15:54):
I'll tell you one food now that I have eaten in
the past and I just kind of Ijust can't do it anymore if for
the most part it is octopusbecause they're intelligent.
I mean way more thanintelligent you know it would be
.
It feels akin to like to likeeating dolphin, kind of thing
(16:14):
Like.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
Isn't it interesting, though, how we decide based on
it almost goes out of that pulpfiction.
Have you seen pulp fiction?
Speaker 1 (16:22):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (16:23):
That whole discussion about personality.
We decide which animals areworthy based on our subjective
belief on their personality orintelligence, and their cuteness
.
Speaker 1 (16:36):
Really really it boils down to how cute it is
right.
Speaker 2 (16:39):
I can't see myself eating an octopus.
Speaker 1 (16:41):
We're not saying anything against that at all, I
don't.
Speaker 2 (16:44):
But you know, chickens, I don't think they're
as smart, so after them, I'mgoing to eat them.
It's, but that's the way we allare.
Speaker 1 (16:51):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (16:52):
And right, and so that's sometimes why I say I
don't think we should thinkanything different if there is
another sentient being that theymight think the same way about
us.
You're not smart enough for youare.
Speaker 1 (17:06):
This really goes back to when I say that I don't
think everyone has reallythought through the implications
of all this not, you know,being interacted with by a
non-human intelligence, I don'tthink people have really
reconciled with if that is true,let's say for the moment that
(17:27):
that is established as truth thefundamental change in our
position of the hierarchy towhich previously we enjoyed the
top spot, where at the topeverything else is some level
below us and we decide theirfates.
(17:48):
We decide, humans decidewhether this animal is
companionship or food.
We decide, you know, we decideeverything about the life forms
beneath us and no one decidesfor us because we're at the top
of that chart.
Now something comes along andit's confirmed.
(18:08):
We move down, possibly a slot,maybe a bunch of slots, what
that does to our psyche.
Then one has to start sayingwhat if one of them decides
where, on the food category asopposed to the or the pet
category?
That you know, when we startthinking about being put in
(18:30):
these boxes, that we put lowerlife forms in, it gets a little
scary, and that you know, I'veheard people say well, if this
is true, why not?
What's the big deal?
It's one of the stupidestquestions I've heard about
letting the public know, likeI've heard so many reporters,
just kind of like it's a stupidquestion.
It's like well, if thegovernment knows about aliens,
(18:52):
why would they keep such a thingsecret?
And you know my reply to thatwould be are you fucking kidding
?
Of course they would want tokeep that secret because our
whole identity as a people isbased on what we've been telling
ourselves for the past.
I don't know how long is that.
We're the only life in thegalaxy, as stupid as that is.
Speaker 2 (19:15):
What do you mean?
Like what do you when you saythat I'm not disagreeing because
I think you're right, but like,so where are you thinking that
the issue would come from us?
Thinking there was someone orsomething more I wouldn't say
necessarily more powerful.
I guess it matters how youdescribe the word powerful,
(19:37):
right, because we are the top ofthe food chain here on this
planet, but we are in the senseof power, in terms of strength,
we're not the most powerful onthe planet.
We just happen to be theshrewdest.
We happen to be the animal thatfigured out how to use tools,
and so we were able to be.
We're the most cunning, right,we've figured things out better
(20:00):
than any other animal, but wenton more powerful than a great
white shark, went on morepowerful than an elephant, in
that sense.
But I think that the power ofintelligence, if there was
something higher than us, theywould be figure things out.
We couldn't, so we would beright and we'd be knocked down.
But what is it you think thatabout us as a people would be
(20:21):
disrupted in our lives.
Knowing that, because I don'tdisagree with you, I'm just
interested in what you think.
Speaker 1 (20:27):
Well, first of all, when I say us, I mean us
collectively because you'reright individually.
Yes, individually, any one ofus could be stepped on by an
elephant or eaten by a greatwhite shark.
But when I say I meancollectively, human.
Humans collectively are themost powerful thing on the
planet.
Speaker 2 (20:43):
Oh right, but it's because of our brain.
Speaker 1 (20:45):
Yes, yes, and because of our technology, because of a
lot of things, but we are theonly species on this planet that
could actually have an effecton the planet itself.
No other species could actuallydo something that could have
destroyed the planet, whereashumans could.
Speaker 2 (20:58):
Some people could say maybe that's evidence that we
don't.
We're actually from aliens,Because if a planet is supposed
to be symbiotic and everything'ssupposed to work with each
other, we're the only species ofanimal or plant or whatever on
this planet that kind of doesn'twork well with everything else.
Speaker 1 (21:21):
Well, we don't work well with ourselves, which is
weird.
So back to your question ofwhat it is that our whole
identity as a people has beenbased off of a couple of tenants
.
One is that and we've talkedabout this in other episodes the
mistaken belief that historystarted with us and has
(21:42):
progressed along a very steadyupward trajectory to us.
Now we started, you know, youknow the story, you know, some
thousands of years ago we hadbeen, as a people, inexplicably
wandering.
You know, instead of settlingdown roots.
(22:05):
We have existed for like197,000 years as a people, but
we just I don't know somecouldn't get our shit together.
But let's say that that's true,even though that doesn't sound
quite right.
But a couple of thousand yearsago, suddenly we said you know
what?
Planting food is a good idea,and from there-.
Speaker 2 (22:21):
And also, let's come up with language.
We did all of it just rightaway.
Speaker 1 (22:25):
Right, we did it all in an evening.
Speaker 2 (22:27):
Like one day planting and and wanna build a city and
build a civilization fromscratch.
Speaker 1 (22:33):
But let's just say let's say they happen that way.
See, that's yeah, but that'sour story, right.
It started there cities,civilizations, wars,
technological advancements, andnow we are where we are.
We're about to step into thestars.
But throughout this whole storywe have been the main players,
to the point where at one point,we thought the entire theater
(22:56):
was built specifically for us inthe little play that we're
putting on.
Speaker 2 (23:01):
Like you mean that we're the only life form in the
world.
Speaker 1 (23:05):
Which has been traditionally.
If you take our timeframe as asociety, that has been the
prevalent belief for most of it,the.
Even the concept that we aren'talone, even the concept that
there was life out theresomewhere, has not been really
in the public view until thelast couple of years.
Speaker 2 (23:26):
Well, most origin stories of all civilizations
counter that.
But then there must have been atime along the way that that
got forgotten, Right?
Speaker 1 (23:36):
Yeah, they free, but it's a something that's been
there from the beginning, but wejust put our own story on it.
The story is us, it's all aboutus, where, if you really think
about it, we've been around byour own accounting, as a people,
in such a small timeframe.
That would be like building anentire city and then, within
(24:03):
that city, which is completelyempty, building a theater, and
during that theater, like at onepoint for a couple of weeks,
you're gonna have this showrunning and then after that show
, well, everything, just youknow, we just leave it, and
that's ridiculous.
It doesn't work that way.
We're part of a larger thing,but in our own story to
ourselves, it's how we identifyas a people.
Speaker 2 (24:28):
It just is Well, I think the history of even how
the earth was formed and howlife forms were formed you're
right, it all gets to thepinnacle of us.
Right.
We are the ultimate endpoint ofall that led to it.
Speaker 1 (24:50):
You're right and it's a point of pride for us.
And now to have that knock down, but not just knock down.
We're not talking about theshock of hey, we're the center
of the solar system, oh, no,we're not.
Oh, we're not.
(25:10):
No, the sun is weak.
We were oh, okay.
All right.
Oh, I guess we're not thecenter, but we're still pretty
damn important.
You know, like that wasconsidered a huge adjustment to
our thinking.
That pales in comparison towhat potentially we would have
to reconcile with.
Speaker 2 (25:31):
What do you think would happen to people's psyche?
What do you think?
I don't know why do you thinkit would be something that's
hidden from us?
If it's in fact, well, it's adestabilizing agent?
Speaker 1 (25:43):
It cannot.
Speaker 2 (25:44):
How so, like, how so.
Speaker 1 (25:47):
Let's just take the basics right.
Let's say that this wassomething that our government
discovered back in 1945.
Let's just say that that's whenour government first became
aware of it.
Right, there's a lot ofevidence that happened a lot
sooner.
But let's just start with that,the documents that have been
(26:09):
found in the archives and things, and this can be backed up in a
variety of ways.
They were concerned about UFOsightings because of the Cold
War.
Right, you know, after WorldWar II, all of a sudden now
we're in a Cold War with theSoviet Union and tensions are
high.
The government did not wannamuddy the waters with whatever
(26:33):
was flying around.
So they had a big kind ofdecision to say we need to
figure out a way to get thispublic to stop talking about
this and just leave it alone.
And that's kinda how theystarted on this thing.
So then it was a securityconcern.
We don't want to reveal this tothe public because there's a
real legitimate security threatthat we're facing and this would
(26:55):
muddy the waters.
So in the beginning you couldmake an argument that the
coverup was for our own good,and then let's move a little bit
more down the path.
It's always gonna be adestabilizing agent.
Because as soon as you tellpeople, hey, are there, these
vehicles that fly?
Unlike anything that we can do,they can do things that we
can't.
Therefore, they have technologyfar beyond us.
(27:18):
They're more advanced.
Okay, Human knowledge.
What has happened every time aadvanced civilization on Earth
has encountered a less advancedcivilization?
Well, we know every time, everysingle time, it has not gone
well for the less advanced.
Speaker 2 (27:39):
It never has, Never has in the history of when we
say it's not going well, it'sgoing very badly.
Speaker 1 (27:45):
Yes, yes, I was, yeah , I was understating it quite a
lot.
But it is.
So now we're the less advanced,okay, so what does that do?
Okay, there's technology nowthat can power everything,
forever, potentially.
Then what the fuck am I goingto work every day for?
Speaker 2 (28:06):
Do you know what I'm saying?
Well, I mean, there's otherreasons to go to work.
Speaker 1 (28:09):
There are, but what I'm saying is is that our entire
subsistence model, of what ofhow we live, is breaking down on
a variety of fronts all at once, and this is just one of the
ways, but it's breaking downsome other ways too, where we're
going to really have toreconcile with what we are and
(28:33):
what our purpose is, because Ithink up till now our purpose
has been just to consume,produce and consume.
Speaker 2 (28:40):
Well, I don't think that's going to change.
Speaker 1 (28:43):
I think it's going to have to because I think the
world is changing, where you canstill produce and consume.
But if you make that the focus,if you make that the thing,
it's breaking down on such avariety of fronts that I just
you know.
Speaker 2 (29:00):
I think that I agree with you, but the only thing I
think I differ with you on is Idon't think that people learning
let's just say they learnedthat in fact, what's being seen,
the UAPs are from a non-humanintelligence, right?
(29:21):
Let's just say we were toldthat and it's unequivocal that
that's the case Number one.
You'd have an argument ifthat's true or not.
If we're being like people dowith coronavirus, with
everything, right, oh yes yes.
So just beyond that though.
Speaker 1 (29:37):
Right, that's hurdle number one.
Speaker 2 (29:39):
That's hurdle number one.
So you're going to have atleast at least 40 to 50% of the
country arguing with each other,right?
No, I mean 40 to 50% arguingwith the other 40.
Speaker 1 (29:49):
Not believing it?
Yeah, refusing to believePeople not caring.
Speaker 2 (29:52):
40, 40, 20 maybe, right, I don't know how it would
work out, right, but you'd havedifferent factions of people.
But I think the inflectionpoint, if you want to use it,
would be if and so I agree thatwhat things would happen would
happen, but I just think therewould be a different time.
(30:13):
That it would happen is if,whatever that intelligence was
exerted its power in someexample, right, then people
would be shaken to their core,but only then.
I just listen.
I was at Mission ImpossibleFriday night, right, big, I will
(30:38):
tell you it was a fantasticaction movie.
Speaker 1 (30:40):
Oh, I bet.
Speaker 2 (30:41):
It was fantastic.
It was so good that I was no, Ididn't go to the bathroom,
right, but when I realized itwas kind of near the end, cause
it was part one this is thesecond part.
Speaker 1 (30:51):
Really, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2 (30:53):
It's part, whatever it was called dead something.
But this isn't a movie review,but I will tell you what it was
one of the best action moviesI've ever seen, I get it Candice
and Tom Cruise.
Speaker 1 (31:02):
I mean the fact that he, the man, knows how to make
movies and he does stunts and hepushes limits, and it's not CGI
.
Somebody's really doing thatusually, tom.
And you gotta give it to him.
Speaker 2 (31:13):
I mean, he's a crazy little guy.
But I gotta give him this.
Yeah, say what you want abouthis personal life, the way he
makes movies I enjoy and they'rethe reason to go to the movies.
But to my point I eventuallycouldn't hold it anymore.
So I got up and I went to thebathroom and I was in the.
I went to a cinema.
It's called XD.
It's actually a little bitbigger than an IMAX, right, so
(31:36):
it's a big theater.
I'm coming back.
It's near the end of the movie,chris.
Half, maybe a little less thanhalf of the theater goers were
on their phones.
I just have this.
I don't have this faith thatpeople care about things.
They don't even care about themovie they paid for.
Speaker 1 (31:57):
Right.
Speaker 2 (32:00):
You know, it's just so.
I think that until you grabsomeone by the shoulders and
shake them, they're not gonnaget to that point.
I think that they will.
I just don't know if they willjust by learning, Cause I think
a lot of people there are a lotof people that say, well, yeah,
what do you think that is that?
Of course that's some thing.
We're not alone in the universe.
But once that thing shows you,just like anything else, once
(32:24):
you realize what you're upagainst, oh my God.
So I think that we think thesame things.
I just think it might happen atdifferent points.
I hope, hopefully, that neverhappens.
Speaker 1 (32:36):
You're right, there is an inflection point.
But let's take it a stepfurther.
Okay, If you're right, if theystart exerting influence on us,
that's when a lot of peopletheir hackles will rise.
But what if you find out theyalready did?
What if-.
Speaker 2 (32:56):
Well then, that might be the same scenario.
Speaker 1 (32:58):
What if the answer to the Fermi you know the Fermi
paradox right, if the universeis teeming with life, where are
they kind of thing right?
Which is, I don't?
Speaker 2 (33:07):
know why that's it's difficult.
Speaker 1 (33:09):
I don't know why.
That's always like touted aslike this Well, this guy's got a
great thinker.
It's like, well, if there, it'sall out there, where is it?
And again, that shows humanarrogance, as if hey, if it was
out there we'd see it, causewe're the best and of course
we'd see it.
And then you say, okay, howabout this first story?
(33:33):
It's out there.
It doesn't want you to see it,so you don't see it, because you
are akin to Let me you know-,but the only-.
You enjoy your analogies.
Can I give you a good analogy?
Speaker 2 (33:46):
Yes, please, please.
Speaker 1 (33:48):
Let's say you discover there's something
living in your yard, there is acolony of small creatures living
in your yard and you cannotkill them.
But you also can't have themrunning havoc in your yard
because, well, in looking atthem a little bit, they tend to
(34:10):
be a little destructive, they'renot good for their own
environment.
So you don't want to let themout into the yard proper, but
you also don't want to just wipethem out because that's a
possibility.
But you say you know what, Ifthey could be socialized in
order to be able to let them outin the larger yard and they're
not gonna fuck up my yard?
(34:31):
Let's see if we can do thatover time.
But the first thing I'm gonnado is I'm gonna isolate them.
I'm gonna make sure that theycan't escape their little when
they are is where they are andthat's fine.
I'm also going to see if, overtime, I can exert some subtle
influence to try to get them tobehave in a way that is more
(34:55):
conducive for me taking off thebarriers and letting them out
into the larger yard.
And to me that's what's goingon here is that any species or
life form that is far moreadvanced than us I don't think
we can conceive in the ways thatthat advancement shows itself,
(35:19):
and I think we typically, invery linear fashion, take what
we have and extrapolate itforward.
Which is why, when you go backto the 80s or the 70s or the 60s
, any movie that showed, orfiction that showed, what the
future would look like, alwaysmiss something obvious, because
(35:39):
all they did was take existingtechnologies and advance them.
We have cars, we have flyingcars, we have whatever it is.
It's a little bit more advanced, but nobody says, well, a
device is gonna come along, thatis gonna be our phone, is gonna
be our life, is gonna be ourconnection to everyone else.
(36:00):
Like, nobody saw that onebecause we don't know what we
don't know.
So back to my point.
We say a technologicallyadvanced, they're gonna be more
advanced from us.
What does that mean?
That probably means that A theycan either be seen Like be seen
like float over our cities ornot be seen at all.
But for some reason, for thelast bunch of years they're kind
(36:25):
of seen.
Okay, that's weird.
You'd think that if they wereas powerful as they are, they
could come and go and we wouldnever even know it.
And sometimes that is the case,but other times we see him.
Now.
Some of that is because ourtechnology has gotten better.
But what if?
Well, there's been.
Speaker 2 (36:43):
I mean is this history that?
Yeah, but what if we're thatcreature in?
Speaker 1 (36:46):
the yard.
So well, we are being isolated,we are being tricked into
saying there's nothing out there, just us.
Okay, let's concentrate on us,then there's nothing out there.
Speaker 2 (36:57):
And for the longest time say the creatures that
you're describing don't see us.
Speaker 1 (37:01):
I'm no, I'm saying is that Our arrogance of the Fermi
paradox?
Speaker 2 (37:06):
if they're out there, why haven't we detected them?
Speaker 1 (37:08):
You know you know why we haven't detected them?
Because they don't want us to.
Well, here's an example we're.
They're showing themselves tous and saying Once you as a
people can figure out what weare, reconcile it and be okay
with it and and not be little,little angry monkeys flinging
nuclear poo at each other, thenwe'll take the barrier off and
(37:32):
then we'll let your species outinto the universe.
But there was, there was justan article the other day that
they up the number of exoplanets, basically saying there's like
5 000 exoplanets, meaningplanets that they think has a
very good chance of supportinglife very similar to us, very
similar ours.
The numbers are just launchingand from zero to where it's at
(37:55):
now and a lot of Not a not avery long period of time and
anyone who's like looks at thenumbers of that and says once
there's one, there's infinite.
Basically, with the size of theuniverse and the age of the
universe, once you admit tothere being one thing that's not
us, suddenly the gates open upand there's potentially Millions
upon millions upon millions ofthings that aren't an example,
(38:18):
and I think it might be a littlemore dire than your the way you
described it.
Speaker 2 (38:25):
For Hundreds and hundreds of years there were
silverback gorillas in Africa.
Speaker 1 (38:32):
Yes, right.
Speaker 2 (38:34):
They were legends from the bushmen that they were
there.
Nobody really believed.
Nobody that wasn't from therebelieved that they existed.
Right, but In order for thereto be bushmen or natives or
however you want us to describeit that knew they were there,
they had to have seen them.
That means there's a goodchance.
(38:54):
The gorillas saw that, saw thepeople, right, right.
The gorillas didn't know whowas visiting them.
The gorillas had no idea.
They just realized what was.
Who was that?
I don't know.
Let's go hide somewhere else.
That's basically their thought,right?
The only time they ever realizedthey were dealing with a force
Stronger than them, it was whenthey were putting a zoo.
(39:16):
So the time comes that a forcecould show itself as being
superior to you, it might be toolate, right, right, and you see
something.
The gorillas saw something theyhad no idea, right, right.
So we could be seeing somethingand just go what is that?
But then there's a point thatcomes it.
(39:37):
It could be bad, right, becauseI'm sure the gorilla that's
sitting in the zoo, they couldbe well taken care of.
It's not the same as sitting inthe jungle, right, right.
Speaker 1 (39:45):
It's that, it's that distinction, that Uh.
Speaker 2 (39:50):
I've heard yeah.
Speaker 1 (39:51):
I've heard people say that if these things could
destroy us tomorrow, if theyturn their eye towards us and
said you know what?
These, these, this life form,this, these, this earth Uh,
these people on it are not worth, not worth saving, they just
suck, um, they could wipe us outtomorrow.
They probably could wipe us outin a way that would preserve
(40:11):
the earth too.
They probably could do it insuch a way that like but you
know real estate's good location, location, location.
We want to keep it, um, but wedon't Want the people.
We could do that.
Speaker 2 (40:22):
Biologically.
But you think about like, like,I was thinking orangutans.
Right, they're, their umHabitats continue to dwindle.
There's something called theyharvest, if a palm oil or
something like that, I can'tremember, I saw something about
it.
Um, now they don't go in.
We don't go in and just destroyEverything that orangutans have
(40:44):
, but, little by little, we dobecause we've decided to do it.
We're superior.
Yeah, so if a superior Uhintelligence was looking at the
earth like that, well, maybe ithappens over time.
Maybe it doesn't happen all atonce, who knows?
I mean, which is very arrogantto think that there is another
force that wouldn't do the samething to us that we do the other
(41:05):
things right now.
Speaker 1 (41:06):
Now there's another, another direction.
This can go in, though.
What if the answer to that, theanswer to that question, is all
right, we're not the greatest.
They're more powerful than us.
They could wipe us out.
Why haven't they?
Maybe?
What if the answer to that isbecause they were responsible
for us being us in the firstplace?
Speaker 2 (41:27):
That's it right?
Oh, but well, we don't wipe out.
We don't wipe out.
Um, certainly she's here onpurpose, right?
Speaker 1 (41:33):
and certainly not anything we create, right?
Not that we've created a lot,but I'm just saying not that
we've created species, but I'msaying that, were we to create
something, we created it for areason.
There are questions as to whyhumans, at a certain point,
there was that you know thatthat link, that leap, there was
that change in our Brain or ourbodies.
(41:56):
There was that there was atrain, there was a change
somewhere that made us kind ofUncivilized, meaning like cave
people kind of thing, like therewas something that happened
that opened up our mind to thepossibilities you could see in
the cave paintings they talkabout it.
I mean, there's evidence thatit has a lot to do with
psychedelics believe it or not.
Speaker 2 (42:14):
This is why we're gonna do eventually, we're gonna
do a whole episode on thatanunnaki.
Speaker 1 (42:18):
Yes, yes, there's a lot, there's a lot to talk about
on on that and it's, some say,relevant to what we're going to
now but but yeah, we've, we'vedrifted off the point just that,
which is fine, but uh, it's.
That's why I say people gonnahave a rough time, because If
the answer is we are thatSpecies in the yard that's being
(42:41):
sequestered, what does that dofor our self-esteem, you know?
All of a sudden it's like youknow, not only, not only do we
have, we as the um, the,whatever this non-human
intelligence Intelligences too,by the way is a lot of times
it's, it's pluralized, like ifwe're thinking it's just one.
The rule is is once there's one, that's probably infinite.
(43:03):
And if you just go into ufolore and look at the different
descriptions, they vary so muchthat we are not just gonna have
to get used to the idea of Athing that's out there besides
us that's more advanced than us.
We're probably gonna have toget used to the idea of a bunch
of things and they could havedifferent competing.
(43:25):
Yes types of Needs or wants, orin the same way that the native
people of the americas, whenthey looked out and saw the
various ships, in their minds itwas, you know, it was one thing
that was common, right, butfrom the other side's
perspective, was it the Dutch?
Was it the French, was it?
(43:46):
Was it the spanish, was it?
You know, there were a bunch ofdifferent countries that were
poking around on north americaand causing, you know, problems
for the inhabitants, but to theinhabitants they were all just
invaders.
So that's the same thing.
So it's.
It's that all of a sudden, we'renot just knocked one peg down.
Potentially, we're knocked sofar down that we're as far down
(44:11):
the list as A.
You know what's a, what's a?
Really, I don't want to insultany life form, but let's just
take a.
You know, on the hierarchy ofwhere we're at, humans are at a
certain level and Field mice areon a certain level.
What if whatever comes above uspushes us down?
(44:32):
So there's the same distancebetween us and them and us and
field mice.
I'm just, that's just anexample, I pulled it, but I'm
just saying what does that dofor us?
That's why I Not everyone isdeep thinkers, not everyone
thinks like this, and you'reright, some people would just go
all right.
But at a certain point peopleare gonna start to ask the
(44:53):
questions, particularly the themore inquisitive and bright
among us are gonna start askingquestions, and those questions
Are gonna make even the peoplewho wouldn't think of those
questions themselves go yeah,what about that?
We're we're nearing a point Idon't know when.
That point is that the presscannot Ignore this topic like
(45:15):
they have.
They've been able, they've hadthe luxury of ignoring it
because the people who are intoit are into it, the general
public.
They care, but they don't careenough To go seek it out.
But it's when it's delivered tothem.
They're interested, but they'renot clamoring for it yet.
Speaker 2 (45:36):
How do you think you get out of that cycle though,
because this gets us out of thatcycle.
Speaker 1 (45:40):
How do people?
Speaker 2 (45:40):
hear about it.
If the news doesn't carry it,they're gonna have to at some
point.
Speaker 1 (45:45):
At some point, enough happens when you start to say
why are we not covering this?
Especially when you look atwhat they are covering and say,
okay, well, you're doing anentire Stories on these things.
This, marco Rubio wasquestioned by Ed on Fox.
What the hell is his name.
Oh, sean Hannity right, and Isaw the clip where he was.
(46:09):
Just like you know, there'sbeen a lot of talk of UFOs.
This is a far out question.
Again, he had to put thatclarification on it.
If you're talking about UFOs,we have to, we have to put the
disclaimer on it that this is acrazy far out topic.
This is a crazy far out topic.
But he said that he said shouldis this?
You know, is there anything tothis?
Basically?
And Marco Rubio goes well, wedon't know yet, but we're.
(46:32):
We're investigating seriousclaims from highly Credentialed
people.
And he said there's one of twothings going on here.
If this is true, it is thebiggest story in all human
history.
And he said that.
(46:52):
And he said the otherpossibility is these people are
lying and they're crazy.
That is a big story as well,because they're in very high
positions of power still.
So that was what he set, thatmarker.
Now, where Sean Hannity takesit from there, I don't know.
But at what point does someonein the press Say, well, it's
(47:15):
starting, but, like the majority, when do they say, wait, hold
on.
That's a huge.
That's a senator withpresidential ambitions.
So is Kirsten Gillibrand.
So you know those two like theyare talking, Chuck Schumer, like
they are talking about thisseriously, taking it seriously.
(47:38):
But do you think?
Speaker 2 (47:39):
that with Mark Rubio saying that on, call that
national news, right?
Do you think that somethingwill come from just him saying
that?
Because it's honestly it should.
Speaker 1 (47:54):
It should, but there's already been a dozen
such things that should have youjust the things that have been
said to sort of blasé.
I don't know that.
If you pointed out some, if youpointed out to most people that
the term non-human intelligenceappears in this, this
legislation, like 25 times, theydon't just say it once it's
(48:18):
listed 25 or something like that, 20 something times they use
the phrase non-humanintelligence, Like at what point
do people stop and go?
This is being taken seriously.
I know I've been trainedthroughout my entire life to
laugh at this and reject thisand ridicule this, but now
there's been a switch and thisis being taken so seriously by
(48:41):
serious people that it all addsto it.
It's at some point and it'sgonna be soon there's gonna be
enough information out therethat the news stations are gonna
have to start reporting it andthen they'll see there's an
interest in it.
And at that point I'm hearinganecdotally that there are many
(49:04):
reporters who are interested,many who are interested, and in
a lot of these quarters that theeditors are just saying nope,
nope, we're not covering thatyet, no, we're not coming out.
Now you have to ask yourselfwhy are they saying that?
It could just be stillwell-trained from the ridicule
that's UFO's silly topic.
Even with everything going on,the brainwashing of people to
(49:27):
consider anything UFOs to beridiculous, that runs deep.
You still see it.
You see it every time it'smentioned.
Among people who don't followthe topic there's still giggles,
Even if they're saying, yeah,I've seen stuff on the news
that's crazy, right, but theystill giggle Because it's so
(49:48):
well-trained.
Or one could say some of thesenews organizations, somebody at
the Pentagon has just said tothem don't pay any attention to
this stuff, it's all garbage.
Hey, we got a good scoop on anew weapon we're rolling out, or
something like that.
A lot of them get their newsfrom the defense industry.
It's a symbiotic relationshipwhere it's as dependent on the
(50:09):
defense agencies for thosescoops that give them good news
to put in as the defense agencyis to a certain extent for them
for whatever message they wannaget out.
It becomes this thing where butwasn't there another viewpoint?
Speaker 2 (50:25):
I guess you could say that if in fact we did have a
threat that the militaryindustrial complex could make
even more money, but I don'tknow.
Speaker 1 (50:37):
It is.
No, you're absolutely right.
But one could really say havethey ever?
They always can find somethingand they always have.
It was communism.
It's terrorism, it's whateverit is.
Now it's white supremacists,whatever it is.
They can find a reason to makeus scared.
You don't need to go to aliensLike you don't need to.
(50:59):
They literally just keep hypingChina and Russia.
Speaker 2 (51:03):
Well, the other way looking at it is if we in fact
there was some force that werealized there was gonna be a
reckoning right.
That we would as a planet kindof all get together and the
might maybe of one country'sindustrial complex wouldn't be
(51:26):
as vast because they'd have tocooperate with all the other
countries.
So the money to be made mightbe less because there isn't as
many contractors like we havehere.
Maybe in China and Russia it'smore governmental than here.
We kind of think of it asgovernment, but most of it is
private contractors working forthe government.
That's where the money is, andin Russia and China it's not,
(51:49):
it's through the government.
So if Russia, china, unitedStates let's say those three,
some of the three biggestplayers right Defense all had to
get together, then thecontractors in this country
would make less money.
That's another way of lookingat it.
Speaker 1 (52:06):
We're gonna have to get over this idea.
Telling humans to get over greed.
It's either get over it or letit take us down the toilet,
because our model is broken.
It's broken, we know it'sbroken.
It's being broken by AI, it's.
There was a very simple calculusHumans could do things to
(52:29):
generate money and money couldbe used to buy stuff, like those
two things just kind of kepteverything going.
And now, all of a sudden,there's a way of work being done
that has nothing to do with us,for most of us.
So all of a sudden, that wholesystem that relied on us, you
can take us out of the equationand it just can't continue.
(52:53):
It just can't because if youjust look at everything, the way
our system is exponentialgrowth.
Every company has to make moreevery quarter, like it can't
keep going.
Unless we get out to the, unlesswe expand, as you know, unless
we get out of this, we'rekeeping all our eggs in one
(53:14):
basket.
This basket called earth getsdestroyed.
Goodbye us.
The only hope of us is toexpand beyond that and then you
can have exponential growth, notwhile we're in the confines of
this planet, fighting over theresources of this planet.
If we get out to out there,there are limitless resources we
(53:37):
could, you know, still keep ourways.
We're just gonna have torethink it a little bit, and it
blows my mind that we're notdoing that.
I don't know.
It's funny because this youhave both things like AI thing,
like all the other things it'sall happening at once and each
one of those is gonna knock apillar out of what we've come to
(54:01):
rely on as a people.
We're gonna have to figure thisout quick, because it's
happening.
We can't stop it.
Speaker 2 (54:08):
So is this act you're talking about here?
Is this now law?
Speaker 1 (54:14):
I believe they just voted.
It was added into the amendment, it was added into the National
Defense Authorization Act.
I believe they just voted on itthe other day and it had a
tough time passing.
It did pass, but it had a toughtime passing because there's
some other political thingsgoing on that Republicans are
putting some other types ofthings in the National Defense
Authorization Act that arepolitical hot buttons for the
(54:37):
Democrats.
But it did pass and theproblems against it had nothing
to do with this specificlegislation.
Speaker 2 (54:44):
So now I believe it's not done, it will be an effect
for the next hearings.
Speaker 1 (54:47):
No, what happens is is that this has to get done the
Senate, and then the House, andthen they have to have a
committee.
There's a lot more.
This is thing usually getssigned by the president in
December.
Speaker 2 (54:58):
So this will still be it won't be an effect Will not.
Speaker 1 (55:02):
But so just a little to a little bit more here.
There is just a little bit moreto highlight in this, because
that was just the very beginning.
But basically it goes on and on.
It's pages and pages and pages.
But they want to put together aboard, basically, of people who
are gonna be answerable to thepresident.
(55:23):
So the president is supposed toput together this board of
people whose job it will be toreview all the documentation and
evidence that the United Statesgovernment has in relation to
unidentified aerial phenomenaand possible non-human
intelligence and basicallydecide what can be let out to
the public.
Like that's huge.
(55:44):
They talk about who's gonna beon this panel?
And again blows my mind.
Speaker 2 (55:52):
Let me find that area , because I would like to see
something placed in one of theseacts that it states, without a
lot of interpretation, whatdocuments or what information
should be disclosed to thepublic, instead of deciding Well
(56:13):
, they're gonna have to be somestandard.
Speaker 1 (56:14):
The standard is national security, so that's
always the standard.
That is the problem is becauseso much of this is locked behind
that.
Speaker 2 (56:23):
It's just such a vague topic.
I mean a vague title.
Speaker 1 (56:28):
It is, it is, but listen to what this panel will
have right.
Shall include one current orformer national security
official, one current or formerforeign service official, one
scientist or engineer, oneeconomist, one professional
historian and one sociologist.
Speaker 2 (56:51):
So that's the We've seen something like that in the
prior law.
Speaker 1 (56:54):
So, and again it's called the Disclosure Act.
There's a lot more to thislegislation.
I need to go through it.
The sociologist goes to thepoint we were discussing as to
Us Reactions to informationRight Is it's being able to take
this and, sociologically, whatit's going to do to us.
(57:18):
Okay, so there's that aspect ofit.
So then we have the hearingscoming up next week, so there'll
be a lot more to talk about onthis, but basically the date for
these congressional hearings.
We've talked aboutcongressional hearings before,
but I've been corrected thatthose really weren't hearings.
What we were watching werebriefings.
(57:38):
When we watched, they called itthe UFO hearings.
They're two guys from thePentagon, right?
Remember that they have thosePentagon guys, right?
But that wasn't really ahearing.
It was a briefing because theywere asking questions and while
technically, they have to tellthe truth, so it's not like.
Speaker 2 (57:53):
Why would I have to hear it if you're asking
questions?
Speaker 1 (57:55):
The difference is when you have witnesses.
Those weren't witnesses, thosewere officials.
Speaker 2 (57:58):
Who are briefing?
Speaker 1 (58:00):
So a true hearing is when you have witnesses who are
sworn in and telling Congresshey, what's going on here?
What did you?
What is your you know?
When they did the AI ones andSam Altman and they were asking
industry professionals and theAI people, you know what?
What's going on with this?
Different questions about AI.
So that's a.
(58:20):
That's a hearing.
What we've seen in the UAPthing have been called hearings,
but really they're just beenbriefings.
We saw Kirk Patrick in theSenate brief, kirsten Gillibrand
as to what Arrow's been up to.
Again, they call them hearings,but they're really not.
This one is going to be ahearing.
They are not going to betalking to people from the
(58:43):
Pentagon, are they going?
Speaker 2 (58:44):
to be telling who is going to testify.
Yes, we will probably hear thethe it's only 10 days away.
Speaker 1 (58:50):
It's 10 days away, about a week before they will
announce the thing.
Okay, they announced thewitnesses Tim Burchett, a
congressman from Tennessee, anda congresswoman, luna, from
Florida.
Those are the two who arerunning the show.
Burchett said something aboutthey wanted to keep their list
of witnesses close to the vestbecause there's already been
(59:10):
attempts by the Pentagon Again,he said this on an interview, so
there are already been attemptsby the Pentagon to intimidate
some witnesses and tell them itwould probably not be a great
idea to testify.
That alone should be gettingpeople's attention.
But okay, going to be pilots,we may see flavor.
You talked about this, ryanGraves, we may.
He wants people who havewitnesses Grush just to talk
(59:38):
about, and somebody will say,okay, but he can't talk about
classified things.
You're not going to getdisclosure in a in a government
hearing.
Again, you're not going to getit there.
What they're going to be ableto do, though, is ask the right
questions.
All this is built aroundsparking the public's interest,
(59:58):
and the public is interested,but getting past that inflection
point that you keep talkingabout, of when does everyone's
eyes turn towards this, and youcannot deny it anymore.
Speaker 2 (01:00:09):
Yeah, so who knows?
But you can have your ownthoughts on it.
Speaker 1 (01:00:12):
This could be the stepping point, because all it
takes is that one story we don'tknow what it is that gets
widely reported.
Speaker 2 (01:00:20):
I just don't know, because last year, in a span of
what?
Three, four days, the UnitedStates military shot down three
unidentified objects.
None of those objects have beenrecovered.
They say, oh yeah, we can't getto it.
(01:00:40):
All this, all that and there'sno follow-up.
What were they?
If you, most people within days, can't?
Speaker 1 (01:00:50):
This is too much.
There's too much for us to careabout everything.
You're right, I couldn't stopthinking about it Because we're
in that realm, but it hasn'tgone away completely.
As a matter of fact, there havebeen questions asked of various
people, because now enough timepasses and people circle back
around.
Whatever happened with thosethings?
Yeah,
I'm Chris, I'm Steve and we're talking about some
deep shit.
All right, so you were saying,before we actually begin
(00:33):
recording, that you were sayingyes, I agree with you.
It's.
It's disheartening how no oneseems to care.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (00:41):
But I will tell you what I think is the reason for
it.
The main media has not reallycarried it yet.
News Nation has carried it alot, some newspapers have
carried it, but generallyspeaking TV news has not touched
it.
Every now and then they'll havea story, but they certainly
(01:02):
don't let people know the fullscope of what's going on.
There's an interesting way oflooking at that Right One is.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
I agree with you that they're not carrying it.
That's very obvious.
Speaker 1 (01:14):
Right.
Speaker 2 (01:15):
The second one I always, I always, wonder when
people will say well, that'sbecause the media.
That's because the media Right.
Well, I've always looked at itthat the media gives people what
they want, right, they knowwhat's going to sell, they know
what people are going to tune infor and the fact they're not
carrying it to me maybeindicates they have an
(01:36):
indication that the public isn'tinterested.
Like there's two ways oflooking at it.
One is we're only fed whatwe're fed by the media.
The other let me just probablymore than two ways.
Speaker 1 (01:46):
The other way, of looking at it is the media feeds
us what we want.
I think.
I think that argument can kindof be taken down by just the
fact that News Nation is seeingthe highest ratings that ever
has ever.
Why?
Because it's a niche.
But what I'm saying is there'san interest in this topic, right
, certain Congress people havesaid that they're surprised at
(02:07):
Comer, who is the house.
He's high up there, he's incharge of the committee that's
going to be running thesehearings and he's, he's, he's
the big guy anyway in that, inthat context, and so he wasn't
really a UFO guy.
And they asked him a questionabout it and he said well, you
know, we're going to havehearings and I put some people
(02:28):
in charge of that.
He said I've been verysurprised at the interest in
this topic.
The American people want toknow.
So there's a disconnect betweenwhat you know.
Somebody could make thatargument and say, well, the
media is not covering it, whichmeans it's not of interest to
the people.
But if the people don't knowabout something, how are they
going to know whether it's ofinterest to them or not?
(02:49):
And I think it's not.
It's not that people don't,it's not that people have heard
everything that's going on andsaid I don't care and moved on.
Cause if that was the case,great.
The problem is, most peopledon't even know to the extent
that when I do thesepresentations in front of people
(03:09):
and I say you know, I show them, I show them government getting
involved.
I'm going to do more of that.
But when you put that in frontof people, there's a moment when
you can see it happenindividually.
I've seen it happen to a coupleof people where you can just
you can just tell the wall camedown a little bit and there's a
look on their face for just asecond where they're just trying
(03:30):
to take it in Cause.
This is a topic that we've allbeen trained to treat as a joke.
Speaker 2 (03:37):
Well, yeah, I mean, the more this happens, it opens
itself up to that.
There's another conspiracytheory about all this right
Project Bluebeam.
Speaker 1 (03:46):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (03:47):
Right, and it's.
It's like playing into thehands of those people.
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (03:51):
They're always going to say that, though, and you
know what?
Two things can be true, andthis, this goes back to these
two things could this goes backto a fundamental thing actually.
Yes, indeed, project Bluebeamcannot be true if, if there are
aspects of it, though, could bethe idea of faking an invasion,
the idea of using it as a threatnarrative.
(04:12):
I think a lot of this comesdown to our binary nature, that
we really need things black andwhite, this or that.
It's good or it's bad, and Iknow I know Luis Elizondo and
some of his interviews that I'dlistened to talks about this,
and it's so true.
(04:33):
It's either real or thegovernment's using it to scare
us this, that or the other thing.
Both of those could be true.
There could be an aspect of itthat's real.
There could be an aspect of itwhere they say, well, let's use
it as a threat narrative.
You know, the things flyingaround in our sky are either
(04:54):
from someone else, not us, orthere are top secret technology
either, or they're probably alittle bit of both.
There's probably things flyingaround out there that people
have seen and reported as UFOs,but actually are our secret tech
.
We kind of know that becausepast ones were reported Like
there's probably that going onas well, and I think everyone
you know puts it in this frameof reference of it's either this
(05:17):
or that.
So if it's this, then we justdiscount that off the table, and
it's just our nature, it's ourhabit.
Watch yourself, how much do youdo that?
I watch myself and I'm doing, Ido it again, I just did it
again.
I just did it again where Ijust I had to take it to the
extremes, not realizing that ifit's somewhere in the middle,
both can be right.
But instead those two sides arearguing about which one is
(05:40):
wrong and which one is right,when really, if they thought
about it, they could say youknow, we're both kind of right
to different degrees.
And this is another one ofthose aspects where there's
something to this tumor.
You know, big name senator, youknow that's as high as you get
up there in the in the hierarchyof the Senate he would not be
(06:02):
backing language like thisunless he knew that this
language was necessary to dowhat it needed to do.
They don't put legislationlegislation like this.
First of all, this was not justcranked out overnight.
They've been working on thisLike there's a background to
this From those of us who watchUFOs.
(06:25):
From our perspective, it's allbeen quiet for a real long time,
even though some of thosepeople who are in the know have
said their stuff going on behindthe scenes, guys, we can't say
what it is, but the wheels areturning, but to a lot of people
on this topic who follow it,nothing was going on, because
we've not heard anything.
(06:45):
And then this legislation drops.
This legislation is startlingin what it says specifically.
First of all, it's called theunidentified anomalous phenomena
disclosure act of 2023.
They're calling it disclosureact.
(07:06):
It has words like non-humanentities.
This legislation is the Senate'sversion of what's going on, the
National Defense AuthorizationAct.
So that's we've talked aboutthat before basically the
National Defense AuthorizationAct.
Every year they have to votethis thing.
The House does a version of it,the Senate does a version of it
(07:28):
, and then they put their headstogether and between those two
versions, a committee will bangout the actual version and then
it gets voted on and then thepresident signs it and that
gives the intelligence agency.
That sort of sets the coursefor the Pentagon intelligence
agencies basically to saythere's an intelligence
authorization act.
So this one, the defenseauthorization act, is more like
(07:49):
defense Pentagon, this is whatyou're gonna do.
This is what you're gonna spendmoney on.
Here are some initiatives,things like that.
All their money is appropriatedin this.
This thing is what gives thePentagon their next year of
funding.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
So this is what is this something?
Is this something that getswritten every year?
Speaker 1 (08:06):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
All right, so it gets written every year.
Is it different every year?
Speaker 1 (08:10):
Yes, it's a different set of priorities, although
it's worth pointing out thatsince 20, I think the 2021,
every year there's been some UAPlegislation in this Defense.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
Authorization Act?
Has there been anything likewhat's being?
Speaker 1 (08:26):
written right now.
Well, this is where thewhistleblower laws came in.
The last time alone, everythinghas been a huge incremental
change.
I think the first one was theone hey, we're setting up an
agency in the Pentagon again tolook at this, and that's where
AIMSOG and then Arrowessentially came from.
Speaker 2 (08:45):
the Defense Authorization Act of saying and
in that act a couple of yearsago.
It was written in there.
They had to have hearing sooften.
Speaker 1 (08:55):
Yes, yes, so this is all that.
That kind of put that in motion.
So this is a major thing.
Now, big names have beenattached with various UAP things
before Kirsten Gillibrand,Senator of New York, and Marco
Rubio of Florida, but ChuckSchumer is like the next.
(09:17):
He's been, he's very senior.
He's very senior, so the factthat he's backing he put his
name on this legislation withthem and it's called the
Unidentified Anomalous PhenomenaDisclosure Act.
So some interesting aspects ofit and I just wanna kind of
quickly go through it and why doyou think it's called that Is?
Speaker 2 (09:40):
there anything in there that gives rise to why
it's called that.
Speaker 1 (09:44):
All federal government records related to
unidentified anomalous phenomenashould be preserved and
centralized for historicalreference.
So first of all, it's sayingany records we have on this
right.
It's saying all records shouldcarry a presumption of immediate
disclosure and all recordsshould be eventually disclosed
to enable the public to becomefully informed about the history
(10:06):
of the federal government'sknowledge and involvement
surrounding unidentifiedanomalous phenomena.
Speaker 2 (10:11):
Does this mean going forward or in back?
Going back?
Speaker 1 (10:14):
Retroactive Retroactively All federal
government records.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
They had something like this before.
Speaker 1 (10:22):
They've moved the ball forward, asking Arrow to go
back to 1945 and put together acomprehensive report, which
they are working on.
But Arrow as an organizationjust got fully funded, like a
month or so ago.
So that's the problem is, sinceArrow got formed in the
Pentagon, they've been kind ofhamstrung by the Pentagon Not
(10:46):
giving them access, not givingthem funding.
Not, oh, you didn'tspecifically say Arrow needs
money, so we're not really gonnagive them their budget this
year and so for the first year.
So they've been very hard forthem to do what they've been
doing because they haven't had abudget or a staff.
They've had a few.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
I think at one point there was like three people in
the office or something likethat, but it wasn't written into
the act how much they'resupposed to be receiving.
Speaker 1 (11:07):
Not explicitly A lot of these things.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
You think that was done on purpose.
Speaker 1 (11:11):
No, it's just what they could get through at the
time.
Every authorization act hashere, we're gonna set this up
and then you gotta give a timeto.
You can't put too much in,because you can only put so much
on their plate.
They probably only had so muchthey could do.
So each time they did it it waslike here's an incremental
change, here's the, here's thehere's Arrow, here's what their
(11:32):
mandate is, and that was to goback to do it.
So this is now saying alldocuments should be presumed
that we're gonna release it.
Basically the same legislation.
Further legislation is gonna benecessary to create enforceable
, independent, accountableprocesses for public disclosure.
Speaker 2 (11:53):
All right.
So right now it's saying to doit, but there's not a lot of
teeth to make anyone do it Right, and so it's please do it.
Speaker 1 (12:01):
It is, and it's a lot's left up to.
Speaker 2 (12:04):
there's been no concentrated effort towards
getting stuff released and thegovernment let's just say you
think it's more ceremonialwriting that kind of stuff.
If there's no enforcement of it, I don't know Well.
Speaker 1 (12:14):
Further, they say legislation is necessary, which
means these are their kind offindings declarations.
This is the first part of thebill where they're talking about
their findings declarations andpurposes basically.
So they're just kind of puttingit on the table.
We're gonna need legislation.
Let's see.
They just talk about restoringproper oversight.
So there's a lot here.
So definitions.
So here are some of the titlesthey're defining in this
(12:37):
legislation Archivist.
The archivist means thearchivist of the United States.
Let's see Close observer.
The term close observer meansanyone who has come into close
proximity to unidentifiedanomalous phenomena, are
non-human intelligence.
That is on page four of thislegislation and where they say
(13:02):
we're going to be in ourdefinitions, we're going to be
referring to something calledthe close observer and we define
close observer as somebodywho's come into close proximity
to unidentified anomalousphenomenon or non-human
intelligence.
Find me another time when theterm non-human intelligence is
included in a piece of Senatelegislation Like that alone
(13:26):
should be making the pressmaking the mainstream press
stand up and just at least go.
Huh, that's weird.
Why would you put this in?
Speaker 2 (13:37):
there.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
Unless you have a reason to believe that.
I mean, I don't think anylegislation is put through
without a specific reason, likethe process of legislation is a
long and grueling process, it'swhat it's not done lightly.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
They didn't put that phrase in there accidentally.
But I think we're going to seeoutside of even this kind of
realm, we're going to see a lotmore of that going forward with
artificial intelligence.
Because I don't know exactlyhow they're going to phrase it.
They might phrase it like thatNon-human intelligence.
Speaker 1 (14:13):
That's really interesting.
Yes, non-human intelligence canalso be, and, yeah, artificial
intelligence, which also onecould say that maybe this is why
all this.
I've heard people say, why now?
Well, you know what thepublic's kind of getting used to
the idea of an intelligencethat isn't us.
And we took it more or less sofar.
(14:36):
Pretty well, so maybe that.
So let's get back to thedefinitions, because some of
these definitions, so the otherthing they want to define is,
what do they mean by non-humanintelligence?
Right?
Speaker 2 (14:44):
okay.
Speaker 1 (14:46):
The term non-human intelligence means any sentient,
intelligent, non-human lifeform, regardless of nature or
ultimate origin, that may bepresumed responsible for
unidentified anomalous phenomenaor of which the federal
government has become aware.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
It's an interesting definition In many ways.
One is the word sentient.
Even his consciousness reallyhas never even fully been
defined, but I think we have anunderstanding what they mean by
sentient, you know?
Yeah, Kind of like what we allbelieve to be.
Speaker 1 (15:25):
We believe we are right and we believe now.
Speaker 2 (15:29):
I think now we know that animals are, it was maybe
it's kind of right maybe acouple hundred years ago, people
didn't think animals were yeah.
Right, maybe more than that,but there was a time that we did
not believe animals weresentient, and now most people do
believe they are they do, andthen they also conveniently
ignore it when it's inconvenientto consider ramifications of
(15:52):
some sentient creatures.
Speaker 1 (15:54):
I'll tell you one food now that I have eaten in
the past and I just kind of Ijust can't do it anymore if for
the most part it is octopusbecause they're intelligent.
I mean way more thanintelligent you know it would be
.
It feels akin to like to likeeating dolphin, kind of thing
(16:14):
Like.
Speaker 2 (16:15):
Isn't it interesting, though, how we decide based on
it almost goes out of that pulpfiction.
Have you seen pulp fiction?
Speaker 1 (16:22):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (16:23):
That whole discussion about personality.
We decide which animals areworthy based on our subjective
belief on their personality orintelligence, and their cuteness
.
Speaker 1 (16:36):
Really really it boils down to how cute it is
right.
Speaker 2 (16:39):
I can't see myself eating an octopus.
Speaker 1 (16:41):
We're not saying anything against that at all, I
don't.
Speaker 2 (16:44):
But you know, chickens, I don't think they're
as smart, so after them, I'mgoing to eat them.
It's, but that's the way we allare.
Speaker 1 (16:51):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (16:52):
And right, and so that's sometimes why I say I
don't think we should thinkanything different if there is
another sentient being that theymight think the same way about
us.
You're not smart enough for youare.
Speaker 1 (17:06):
This really goes back to when I say that I don't
think everyone has reallythought through the implications
of all this not, you know,being interacted with by a
non-human intelligence, I don'tthink people have really
reconciled with if that is true,let's say for the moment that
(17:27):
that is established as truth thefundamental change in our
position of the hierarchy towhich previously we enjoyed the
top spot, where at the topeverything else is some level
below us and we decide theirfates.
(17:48):
We decide, humans decidewhether this animal is
companionship or food.
We decide, you know, we decideeverything about the life forms
beneath us and no one decidesfor us because we're at the top
of that chart.
Now something comes along andit's confirmed.
(18:08):
We move down, possibly a slot,maybe a bunch of slots, what
that does to our psyche.
Then one has to start sayingwhat if one of them decides
where, on the food category asopposed to the or the pet
category?
That you know, when we startthinking about being put in
(18:30):
these boxes, that we put lowerlife forms in, it gets a little
scary, and that you know, I'veheard people say well, if this
is true, why not?
What's the big deal?
It's one of the stupidestquestions I've heard about
letting the public know, likeI've heard so many reporters,
just kind of like it's a stupidquestion.
It's like well, if thegovernment knows about aliens,
(18:52):
why would they keep such a thingsecret?
And you know my reply to thatwould be are you fucking kidding
?
Of course they would want tokeep that secret because our
whole identity as a people isbased on what we've been telling
ourselves for the past.
I don't know how long is that.
We're the only life in thegalaxy, as stupid as that is.
Speaker 2 (19:15):
What do you mean?
Like what do you when you saythat I'm not disagreeing because
I think you're right, but like,so where are you thinking that
the issue would come from us?
Thinking there was someone orsomething more I wouldn't say
necessarily more powerful.
I guess it matters how youdescribe the word powerful,
(19:37):
right, because we are the top ofthe food chain here on this
planet, but we are in the senseof power, in terms of strength,
we're not the most powerful onthe planet.
We just happen to be theshrewdest.
We happen to be the animal thatfigured out how to use tools,
and so we were able to be.
We're the most cunning, right,we've figured things out better
(20:00):
than any other animal, but wenton more powerful than a great
white shark, went on morepowerful than an elephant, in
that sense.
But I think that the power ofintelligence, if there was
something higher than us, theywould be figure things out.
We couldn't, so we would beright and we'd be knocked down.
But what is it you think thatabout us as a people would be
(20:21):
disrupted in our lives.
Knowing that, because I don'tdisagree with you, I'm just
interested in what you think.
Speaker 1 (20:27):
Well, first of all, when I say us, I mean us
collectively because you'reright individually.
Yes, individually, any one ofus could be stepped on by an
elephant or eaten by a greatwhite shark.
But when I say I meancollectively, human.
Humans collectively are themost powerful thing on the
planet.
Speaker 2 (20:43):
Oh right, but it's because of our brain.
Speaker 1 (20:45):
Yes, yes, and because of our technology, because of a
lot of things, but we are theonly species on this planet that
could actually have an effecton the planet itself.
No other species could actuallydo something that could have
destroyed the planet, whereashumans could.
Speaker 2 (20:58):
Some people could say maybe that's evidence that we
don't.
We're actually from aliens,Because if a planet is supposed
to be symbiotic and everything'ssupposed to work with each
other, we're the only species ofanimal or plant or whatever on
this planet that kind of doesn'twork well with everything else.
Speaker 1 (21:21):
Well, we don't work well with ourselves, which is
weird.
So back to your question ofwhat it is that our whole
identity as a people has beenbased off of a couple of tenants
.
One is that and we've talkedabout this in other episodes the
mistaken belief that historystarted with us and has
(21:42):
progressed along a very steadyupward trajectory to us.
Now we started, you know, youknow the story, you know, some
thousands of years ago we hadbeen, as a people, inexplicably
wandering.
You know, instead of settlingdown roots.
(22:05):
We have existed for like197,000 years as a people, but
we just I don't know somecouldn't get our shit together.
But let's say that that's true,even though that doesn't sound
quite right.
But a couple of thousand yearsago, suddenly we said you know
what?
Planting food is a good idea,and from there-.
Speaker 2 (22:21):
And also, let's come up with language.
We did all of it just rightaway.
Speaker 1 (22:25):
Right, we did it all in an evening.
Speaker 2 (22:27):
Like one day planting and and wanna build a city and
build a civilization fromscratch.
Speaker 1 (22:33):
But let's just say let's say they happen that way.
See, that's yeah, but that'sour story, right.
It started there cities,civilizations, wars,
technological advancements, andnow we are where we are.
We're about to step into thestars.
But throughout this whole storywe have been the main players,
to the point where at one point,we thought the entire theater
(22:56):
was built specifically for us inthe little play that we're
putting on.
Speaker 2 (23:01):
Like you mean that we're the only life form in the
world.
Speaker 1 (23:05):
Which has been traditionally.
If you take our timeframe as asociety, that has been the
prevalent belief for most of it,the.
Even the concept that we aren'talone, even the concept that
there was life out theresomewhere, has not been really
in the public view until thelast couple of years.
Speaker 2 (23:26):
Well, most origin stories of all civilizations
counter that.
But then there must have been atime along the way that that
got forgotten, Right?
Speaker 1 (23:36):
Yeah, they free, but it's a something that's been
there from the beginning, but wejust put our own story on it.
The story is us, it's all aboutus, where, if you really think
about it, we've been around byour own accounting, as a people,
in such a small timeframe.
That would be like building anentire city and then, within
(24:03):
that city, which is completelyempty, building a theater, and
during that theater, like at onepoint for a couple of weeks,
you're gonna have this showrunning and then after that show
, well, everything, just youknow, we just leave it, and
that's ridiculous.
It doesn't work that way.
We're part of a larger thing,but in our own story to
ourselves, it's how we identifyas a people.
Speaker 2 (24:28):
It just is Well, I think the history of even how
the earth was formed and howlife forms were formed you're
right, it all gets to thepinnacle of us.
Right.
We are the ultimate endpoint ofall that led to it.
Speaker 1 (24:50):
You're right and it's a point of pride for us.
And now to have that knock down, but not just knock down.
We're not talking about theshock of hey, we're the center
of the solar system, oh, no,we're not.
Oh, we're not.
(25:10):
No, the sun is weak.
We were oh, okay.
All right.
Oh, I guess we're not thecenter, but we're still pretty
damn important.
You know, like that wasconsidered a huge adjustment to
our thinking.
That pales in comparison towhat potentially we would have
to reconcile with.
Speaker 2 (25:31):
What do you think would happen to people's psyche?
What do you think?
I don't know why do you thinkit would be something that's
hidden from us?
If it's in fact, well, it's adestabilizing agent?
Speaker 1 (25:43):
It cannot.
Speaker 2 (25:44):
How so, like, how so.
Speaker 1 (25:47):
Let's just take the basics right.
Let's say that this wassomething that our government
discovered back in 1945.
Let's just say that that's whenour government first became
aware of it.
Right, there's a lot ofevidence that happened a lot
sooner.
But let's just start with that,the documents that have been
(26:09):
found in the archives and things, and this can be backed up in a
variety of ways.
They were concerned about UFOsightings because of the Cold
War.
Right, you know, after WorldWar II, all of a sudden now
we're in a Cold War with theSoviet Union and tensions are
high.
The government did not wannamuddy the waters with whatever
(26:33):
was flying around.
So they had a big kind ofdecision to say we need to
figure out a way to get thispublic to stop talking about
this and just leave it alone.
And that's kinda how theystarted on this thing.
So then it was a securityconcern.
We don't want to reveal this tothe public because there's a
real legitimate security threatthat we're facing and this would
(26:55):
muddy the waters.
So in the beginning you couldmake an argument that the
coverup was for our own good,and then let's move a little bit
more down the path.
It's always gonna be adestabilizing agent.
Because as soon as you tellpeople, hey, are there, these
vehicles that fly?
Unlike anything that we can do,they can do things that we
can't.
Therefore, they have technologyfar beyond us.
(27:18):
They're more advanced.
Okay, Human knowledge.
What has happened every time aadvanced civilization on Earth
has encountered a less advancedcivilization?
Well, we know every time, everysingle time, it has not gone
well for the less advanced.
Speaker 2 (27:39):
It never has, Never has in the history of when we
say it's not going well, it'sgoing very badly.
Speaker 1 (27:45):
Yes, yes, I was, yeah , I was understating it quite a
lot.
But it is.
So now we're the less advanced,okay, so what does that do?
Okay, there's technology nowthat can power everything,
forever, potentially.
Then what the fuck am I goingto work every day for?
Speaker 2 (28:06):
Do you know what I'm saying?
Well, I mean, there's otherreasons to go to work.
Speaker 1 (28:09):
There are, but what I'm saying is is that our entire
subsistence model, of what ofhow we live, is breaking down on
a variety of fronts all at once, and this is just one of the
ways, but it's breaking downsome other ways too, where we're
going to really have toreconcile with what we are and
(28:33):
what our purpose is, because Ithink up till now our purpose
has been just to consume,produce and consume.
Speaker 2 (28:40):
Well, I don't think that's going to change.
Speaker 1 (28:43):
I think it's going to have to because I think the
world is changing, where you canstill produce and consume.
But if you make that the focus,if you make that the thing,
it's breaking down on such avariety of fronts that I just
you know.
Speaker 2 (29:00):
I think that I agree with you, but the only thing I
think I differ with you on is Idon't think that people learning
let's just say they learnedthat in fact, what's being seen,
the UAPs are from a non-humanintelligence, right?
(29:21):
Let's just say we were toldthat and it's unequivocal that
that's the case Number one.
You'd have an argument ifthat's true or not.
If we're being like people dowith coronavirus, with
everything, right, oh yes yes.
So just beyond that though.
Speaker 1 (29:37):
Right, that's hurdle number one.
Speaker 2 (29:39):
That's hurdle number one.
So you're going to have atleast at least 40 to 50% of the
country arguing with each other,right?
No, I mean 40 to 50% arguingwith the other 40.
Speaker 1 (29:49):
Not believing it?
Yeah, refusing to believePeople not caring.
Speaker 2 (29:52):
40, 40, 20 maybe, right, I don't know how it would
work out, right, but you'd havedifferent factions of people.
But I think the inflectionpoint, if you want to use it,
would be if and so I agree thatwhat things would happen would
happen, but I just think therewould be a different time.
(30:13):
That it would happen is if,whatever that intelligence was
exerted its power in someexample, right, then people
would be shaken to their core,but only then.
I just listen.
I was at Mission ImpossibleFriday night, right, big, I will
(30:38):
tell you it was a fantasticaction movie.
Speaker 1 (30:40):
Oh, I bet.
Speaker 2 (30:41):
It was fantastic.
It was so good that I was no, Ididn't go to the bathroom,
right, but when I realized itwas kind of near the end, cause
it was part one this is thesecond part.
Speaker 1 (30:51):
Really, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2 (30:53):
It's part, whatever it was called dead something.
But this isn't a movie review,but I will tell you what it was
one of the best action moviesI've ever seen, I get it Candice
and Tom Cruise.
Speaker 1 (31:02):
I mean the fact that he, the man, knows how to make
movies and he does stunts and hepushes limits, and it's not CGI
.
Somebody's really doing thatusually, tom.
And you gotta give it to him.
Speaker 2 (31:13):
I mean, he's a crazy little guy.
But I gotta give him this.
Yeah, say what you want abouthis personal life, the way he
makes movies I enjoy and they'rethe reason to go to the movies.
But to my point I eventuallycouldn't hold it anymore.
So I got up and I went to thebathroom and I was in the.
I went to a cinema.
It's called XD.
It's actually a little bitbigger than an IMAX, right, so
(31:36):
it's a big theater.
I'm coming back.
It's near the end of the movie,chris.
Half, maybe a little less thanhalf of the theater goers were
on their phones.
I just have this.
I don't have this faith thatpeople care about things.
They don't even care about themovie they paid for.
Speaker 1 (31:57):
Right.
Speaker 2 (32:00):
You know, it's just so.
I think that until you grabsomeone by the shoulders and
shake them, they're not gonnaget to that point.
I think that they will.
I just don't know if they willjust by learning, Cause I think
a lot of people there are a lotof people that say, well, yeah,
what do you think that is that?
Of course that's some thing.
We're not alone in the universe.
But once that thing shows you,just like anything else, once
(32:24):
you realize what you're upagainst, oh my God.
So I think that we think thesame things.
I just think it might happen atdifferent points.
I hope, hopefully, that neverhappens.
Speaker 1 (32:36):
You're right, there is an inflection point.
But let's take it a stepfurther.
Okay, If you're right, if theystart exerting influence on us,
that's when a lot of peopletheir hackles will rise.
But what if you find out theyalready did?
What if-.
Speaker 2 (32:56):
Well then, that might be the same scenario.
Speaker 1 (32:58):
What if the answer to the Fermi you know the Fermi
paradox right, if the universeis teeming with life, where are
they kind of thing right?
Which is, I don't?
Speaker 2 (33:07):
know why that's it's difficult.
Speaker 1 (33:09):
I don't know why.
That's always like touted aslike this Well, this guy's got a
great thinker.
It's like, well, if there, it'sall out there, where is it?
And again, that shows humanarrogance, as if hey, if it was
out there we'd see it, causewe're the best and of course
we'd see it.
And then you say, okay, howabout this first story?
(33:33):
It's out there.
It doesn't want you to see it,so you don't see it, because you
are akin to Let me you know-,but the only-.
You enjoy your analogies.
Can I give you a good analogy?
Speaker 2 (33:46):
Yes, please, please.
Speaker 1 (33:48):
Let's say you discover there's something
living in your yard, there is acolony of small creatures living
in your yard and you cannotkill them.
But you also can't have themrunning havoc in your yard
because, well, in looking atthem a little bit, they tend to
(34:10):
be a little destructive, they'renot good for their own
environment.
So you don't want to let themout into the yard proper, but
you also don't want to just wipethem out because that's a
possibility.
But you say you know what, Ifthey could be socialized in
order to be able to let them outin the larger yard and they're
not gonna fuck up my yard?
(34:31):
Let's see if we can do thatover time.
But the first thing I'm gonnado is I'm gonna isolate them.
I'm gonna make sure that theycan't escape their little when
they are is where they are andthat's fine.
I'm also going to see if, overtime, I can exert some subtle
influence to try to get them tobehave in a way that is more
(34:55):
conducive for me taking off thebarriers and letting them out
into the larger yard.
And to me that's what's goingon here is that any species or
life form that is far moreadvanced than us I don't think
we can conceive in the ways thatthat advancement shows itself,
(35:19):
and I think we typically, invery linear fashion, take what
we have and extrapolate itforward.
Which is why, when you go backto the 80s or the 70s or the 60s
, any movie that showed, orfiction that showed, what the
future would look like, alwaysmiss something obvious, because
(35:39):
all they did was take existingtechnologies and advance them.
We have cars, we have flyingcars, we have whatever it is.
It's a little bit more advanced, but nobody says, well, a
device is gonna come along, thatis gonna be our phone, is gonna
be our life, is gonna be ourconnection to everyone else.
(36:00):
Like, nobody saw that onebecause we don't know what we
don't know.
So back to my point.
We say a technologicallyadvanced, they're gonna be more
advanced from us.
What does that mean?
That probably means that A theycan either be seen Like be seen
like float over our cities ornot be seen at all.
But for some reason, for thelast bunch of years they're kind
(36:25):
of seen.
Okay, that's weird.
You'd think that if they wereas powerful as they are, they
could come and go and we wouldnever even know it.
And sometimes that is the case,but other times we see him.
Now.
Some of that is because ourtechnology has gotten better.
But what if?
Well, there's been.
Speaker 2 (36:43):
I mean is this history that?
Yeah, but what if we're thatcreature in?
Speaker 1 (36:46):
the yard.
So well, we are being isolated,we are being tricked into
saying there's nothing out there, just us.
Okay, let's concentrate on us,then there's nothing out there.
Speaker 2 (36:57):
And for the longest time say the creatures that
you're describing don't see us.
Speaker 1 (37:01):
I'm no, I'm saying is that Our arrogance of the Fermi
paradox?
Speaker 2 (37:06):
if they're out there, why haven't we detected them?
Speaker 1 (37:08):
You know you know why we haven't detected them?
Because they don't want us to.
Well, here's an example we're.
They're showing themselves tous and saying Once you as a
people can figure out what weare, reconcile it and be okay
with it and and not be little,little angry monkeys flinging
nuclear poo at each other, thenwe'll take the barrier off and
(37:32):
then we'll let your species outinto the universe.
But there was, there was justan article the other day that
they up the number of exoplanets, basically saying there's like
5 000 exoplanets, meaningplanets that they think has a
very good chance of supportinglife very similar to us, very
similar ours.
The numbers are just launchingand from zero to where it's at
(37:55):
now and a lot of Not a not avery long period of time and
anyone who's like looks at thenumbers of that and says once
there's one, there's infinite.
Basically, with the size of theuniverse and the age of the
universe, once you admit tothere being one thing that's not
us, suddenly the gates open upand there's potentially Millions
upon millions upon millions ofthings that aren't an example,
(38:18):
and I think it might be a littlemore dire than your the way you
described it.
Speaker 2 (38:25):
For Hundreds and hundreds of years there were
silverback gorillas in Africa.
Speaker 1 (38:32):
Yes, right.
Speaker 2 (38:34):
They were legends from the bushmen that they were
there.
Nobody really believed.
Nobody that wasn't from therebelieved that they existed.
Right, but In order for thereto be bushmen or natives or
however you want us to describeit that knew they were there,
they had to have seen them.
That means there's a goodchance.
(38:54):
The gorillas saw that, saw thepeople, right, right.
The gorillas didn't know whowas visiting them.
The gorillas had no idea.
They just realized what was.
Who was that?
I don't know.
Let's go hide somewhere else.
That's basically their thought,right?
The only time they ever realizedthey were dealing with a force
Stronger than them, it was whenthey were putting a zoo.
(39:16):
So the time comes that a forcecould show itself as being
superior to you, it might be toolate, right, right, and you see
something.
The gorillas saw something theyhad no idea, right, right.
So we could be seeing somethingand just go what is that?
But then there's a point thatcomes it.
(39:37):
It could be bad, right, becauseI'm sure the gorilla that's
sitting in the zoo, they couldbe well taken care of.
It's not the same as sitting inthe jungle, right, right.
Speaker 1 (39:45):
It's that, it's that distinction, that Uh.
Speaker 2 (39:50):
I've heard yeah.
Speaker 1 (39:51):
I've heard people say that if these things could
destroy us tomorrow, if theyturn their eye towards us and
said you know what?
These, these, this life form,this, these, this earth Uh,
these people on it are not worth, not worth saving, they just
suck, um, they could wipe us outtomorrow.
They probably could wipe us outin a way that would preserve
(40:11):
the earth too.
They probably could do it insuch a way that like but you
know real estate's good location, location, location.
We want to keep it, um, but wedon't Want the people.
We could do that.
Speaker 2 (40:22):
Biologically.
But you think about like, like,I was thinking orangutans.
Right, they're, their umHabitats continue to dwindle.
There's something called theyharvest, if a palm oil or
something like that, I can'tremember, I saw something about
it.
Um, now they don't go in.
We don't go in and just destroyEverything that orangutans have
(40:44):
, but, little by little, we dobecause we've decided to do it.
We're superior.
Yeah, so if a superior Uhintelligence was looking at the
earth like that, well, maybe ithappens over time.
Maybe it doesn't happen all atonce, who knows?
I mean, which is very arrogantto think that there is another
force that wouldn't do the samething to us that we do the other
(41:05):
things right now.
Speaker 1 (41:06):
Now there's another, another direction.
This can go in, though.
What if the answer to that, theanswer to that question, is all
right, we're not the greatest.
They're more powerful than us.
They could wipe us out.
Why haven't they?
Maybe?
What if the answer to that isbecause they were responsible
for us being us in the firstplace?
Speaker 2 (41:27):
That's it right?
Oh, but well, we don't wipe out.
We don't wipe out.
Um, certainly she's here onpurpose, right?
Speaker 1 (41:33):
and certainly not anything we create, right?
Not that we've created a lot,but I'm just saying not that
we've created species, but I'msaying that, were we to create
something, we created it for areason.
There are questions as to whyhumans, at a certain point,
there was that you know thatthat link, that leap, there was
that change in our Brain or ourbodies.
(41:56):
There was that there was atrain, there was a change
somewhere that made us kind ofUncivilized, meaning like cave
people kind of thing, like therewas something that happened
that opened up our mind to thepossibilities you could see in
the cave paintings they talkabout it.
I mean, there's evidence thatit has a lot to do with
psychedelics believe it or not.
Speaker 2 (42:14):
This is why we're gonna do eventually, we're gonna
do a whole episode on thatanunnaki.
Speaker 1 (42:18):
Yes, yes, there's a lot, there's a lot to talk about
on on that and it's, some say,relevant to what we're going to
now but but yeah, we've, we'vedrifted off the point just that,
which is fine, but uh, it's.
That's why I say people gonnahave a rough time, because If
the answer is we are thatSpecies in the yard that's being
(42:41):
sequestered, what does that dofor our self-esteem, you know?
All of a sudden it's like youknow, not only, not only do we
have, we as the um, the,whatever this non-human
intelligence Intelligences too,by the way is a lot of times
it's, it's pluralized, like ifwe're thinking it's just one.
The rule is is once there's one, that's probably infinite.
(43:03):
And if you just go into ufolore and look at the different
descriptions, they vary so muchthat we are not just gonna have
to get used to the idea of Athing that's out there besides
us that's more advanced than us.
We're probably gonna have toget used to the idea of a bunch
of things and they could havedifferent competing.
(43:25):
Yes types of Needs or wants, orin the same way that the native
people of the americas, whenthey looked out and saw the
various ships, in their minds itwas, you know, it was one thing
that was common, right, butfrom the other side's
perspective, was it the Dutch?
Was it the French, was it?
(43:46):
Was it the spanish, was it?
You know, there were a bunch ofdifferent countries that were
poking around on north americaand causing, you know, problems
for the inhabitants, but to theinhabitants they were all just
invaders.
So that's the same thing.
So it's.
It's that all of a sudden, we'renot just knocked one peg down.
Potentially, we're knocked sofar down that we're as far down
(44:11):
the list as A.
You know what's a, what's a?
Really, I don't want to insultany life form, but let's just
take a.
You know, on the hierarchy ofwhere we're at, humans are at a
certain level and Field mice areon a certain level.
What if whatever comes above uspushes us down?
(44:32):
So there's the same distancebetween us and them and us and
field mice.
I'm just, that's just anexample, I pulled it, but I'm
just saying what does that dofor us?
That's why I Not everyone isdeep thinkers, not everyone
thinks like this, and you'reright, some people would just go
all right.
But at a certain point peopleare gonna start to ask the
(44:53):
questions, particularly the themore inquisitive and bright
among us are gonna start askingquestions, and those questions
Are gonna make even the peoplewho wouldn't think of those
questions themselves go yeah,what about that?
We're we're nearing a point Idon't know when.
That point is that the presscannot Ignore this topic like
(45:15):
they have.
They've been able, they've hadthe luxury of ignoring it
because the people who are intoit are into it, the general
public.
They care, but they don't careenough To go seek it out.
But it's when it's delivered tothem.
They're interested, but they'renot clamoring for it yet.
Speaker 2 (45:36):
How do you think you get out of that cycle though,
because this gets us out of thatcycle.
Speaker 1 (45:40):
How do people?
Speaker 2 (45:40):
hear about it.
If the news doesn't carry it,they're gonna have to at some
point.
Speaker 1 (45:45):
At some point, enough happens when you start to say
why are we not covering this?
Especially when you look atwhat they are covering and say,
okay, well, you're doing anentire Stories on these things.
This, marco Rubio wasquestioned by Ed on Fox.
What the hell is his name.
Oh, sean Hannity right, and Isaw the clip where he was.
(46:09):
Just like you know, there'sbeen a lot of talk of UFOs.
This is a far out question.
Again, he had to put thatclarification on it.
If you're talking about UFOs,we have to, we have to put the
disclaimer on it that this is acrazy far out topic.
This is a crazy far out topic.
But he said that he said shouldis this?
You know, is there anything tothis?
Basically?
And Marco Rubio goes well, wedon't know yet, but we're.
(46:32):
We're investigating seriousclaims from highly Credentialed
people.
And he said there's one of twothings going on here.
If this is true, it is thebiggest story in all human
history.
And he said that.
(46:52):
And he said the otherpossibility is these people are
lying and they're crazy.
That is a big story as well,because they're in very high
positions of power still.
So that was what he set, thatmarker.
Now, where Sean Hannity takesit from there, I don't know.
But at what point does someonein the press Say, well, it's
(47:15):
starting, but, like the majority, when do they say, wait, hold
on.
That's a huge.
That's a senator withpresidential ambitions.
So is Kirsten Gillibrand.
So you know those two like theyare talking, Chuck Schumer, like
they are talking about thisseriously, taking it seriously.
(47:38):
But do you think?
Speaker 2 (47:39):
that with Mark Rubio saying that on, call that
national news, right?
Do you think that somethingwill come from just him saying
that?
Because it's honestly it should.
Speaker 1 (47:54):
It should, but there's already been a dozen
such things that should have youjust the things that have been
said to sort of blasé.
I don't know that.
If you pointed out some, if youpointed out to most people that
the term non-human intelligenceappears in this, this
legislation, like 25 times, theydon't just say it once it's
(48:18):
listed 25 or something like that, 20 something times they use
the phrase non-humanintelligence, Like at what point
do people stop and go?
This is being taken seriously.
I know I've been trainedthroughout my entire life to
laugh at this and reject thisand ridicule this, but now
there's been a switch and thisis being taken so seriously by
(48:41):
serious people that it all addsto it.
It's at some point and it'sgonna be soon there's gonna be
enough information out therethat the news stations are gonna
have to start reporting it andthen they'll see there's an
interest in it.
And at that point I'm hearinganecdotally that there are many
(49:04):
reporters who are interested,many who are interested, and in
a lot of these quarters that theeditors are just saying nope,
nope, we're not covering thatyet, no, we're not coming out.
Now you have to ask yourselfwhy are they saying that?
It could just be stillwell-trained from the ridicule
that's UFO's silly topic.
Even with everything going on,the brainwashing of people to
(49:27):
consider anything UFOs to beridiculous, that runs deep.
You still see it.
You see it every time it'smentioned.
Among people who don't followthe topic there's still giggles,
Even if they're saying, yeah,I've seen stuff on the news
that's crazy, right, but theystill giggle Because it's so
(49:48):
well-trained.
Or one could say some of thesenews organizations, somebody at
the Pentagon has just said tothem don't pay any attention to
this stuff, it's all garbage.
Hey, we got a good scoop on anew weapon we're rolling out, or
something like that.
A lot of them get their newsfrom the defense industry.
It's a symbiotic relationshipwhere it's as dependent on the
(50:09):
defense agencies for thosescoops that give them good news
to put in as the defense agencyis to a certain extent for them
for whatever message they wannaget out.
It becomes this thing where butwasn't there another viewpoint?
Speaker 2 (50:25):
I guess you could say that if in fact we did have a
threat that the militaryindustrial complex could make
even more money, but I don'tknow.
Speaker 1 (50:37):
It is.
No, you're absolutely right.
But one could really say havethey ever?
They always can find somethingand they always have.
It was communism.
It's terrorism, it's whateverit is.
Now it's white supremacists,whatever it is.
They can find a reason to makeus scared.
You don't need to go to aliensLike you don't need to.
(50:59):
They literally just keep hypingChina and Russia.
Speaker 2 (51:03):
Well, the other way looking at it is if we in fact
there was some force that werealized there was gonna be a
reckoning right.
That we would as a planet kindof all get together and the
might maybe of one country'sindustrial complex wouldn't be
(51:26):
as vast because they'd have tocooperate with all the other
countries.
So the money to be made mightbe less because there isn't as
many contractors like we havehere.
Maybe in China and Russia it'smore governmental than here.
We kind of think of it asgovernment, but most of it is
private contractors working forthe government.
That's where the money is, andin Russia and China it's not,
(51:49):
it's through the government.
So if Russia, china, unitedStates let's say those three,
some of the three biggestplayers right Defense all had to
get together, then thecontractors in this country
would make less money.
That's another way of lookingat it.
Speaker 1 (52:06):
We're gonna have to get over this idea.
Telling humans to get over greed.
It's either get over it or letit take us down the toilet,
because our model is broken.
It's broken, we know it'sbroken.
It's being broken by AI, it's.
There was a very simple calculusHumans could do things to
(52:29):
generate money and money couldbe used to buy stuff, like those
two things just kind of kepteverything going.
And now, all of a sudden,there's a way of work being done
that has nothing to do with us,for most of us.
So all of a sudden, that wholesystem that relied on us, you
can take us out of the equationand it just can't continue.
(52:53):
It just can't because if youjust look at everything, the way
our system is exponentialgrowth.
Every company has to make moreevery quarter, like it can't
keep going.
Unless we get out to the, unlesswe expand, as you know, unless
we get out of this, we'rekeeping all our eggs in one
(53:14):
basket.
This basket called earth getsdestroyed.
Goodbye us.
The only hope of us is toexpand beyond that and then you
can have exponential growth, notwhile we're in the confines of
this planet, fighting over theresources of this planet.
If we get out to out there,there are limitless resources we
(53:37):
could, you know, still keep ourways.
We're just gonna have torethink it a little bit, and it
blows my mind that we're notdoing that.
I don't know.
It's funny because this youhave both things like AI thing,
like all the other things it'sall happening at once and each
one of those is gonna knock apillar out of what we've come to
(54:01):
rely on as a people.
We're gonna have to figure thisout quick, because it's
happening.
We can't stop it.
Speaker 2 (54:08):
So is this act you're talking about here?
Is this now law?
Speaker 1 (54:14):
I believe they just voted.
It was added into the amendment, it was added into the National
Defense Authorization Act.
I believe they just voted on itthe other day and it had a
tough time passing.
It did pass, but it had a toughtime passing because there's
some other political thingsgoing on that Republicans are
putting some other types ofthings in the National Defense
Authorization Act that arepolitical hot buttons for the
(54:37):
Democrats.
But it did pass and theproblems against it had nothing
to do with this specificlegislation.
Speaker 2 (54:44):
So now I believe it's not done, it will be an effect
for the next hearings.
Speaker 1 (54:47):
No, what happens is is that this has to get done the
Senate, and then the House, andthen they have to have a
committee.
There's a lot more.
This is thing usually getssigned by the president in
December.
Speaker 2 (54:58):
So this will still be it won't be an effect Will not.
Speaker 1 (55:02):
But so just a little to a little bit more here.
There is just a little bit moreto highlight in this, because
that was just the very beginning.
But basically it goes on and on.
It's pages and pages and pages.
But they want to put together aboard, basically, of people who
are gonna be answerable to thepresident.
(55:23):
So the president is supposed toput together this board of
people whose job it will be toreview all the documentation and
evidence that the United Statesgovernment has in relation to
unidentified aerial phenomenaand possible non-human
intelligence and basicallydecide what can be let out to
the public.
Like that's huge.
(55:44):
They talk about who's gonna beon this panel?
And again blows my mind.
Speaker 2 (55:52):
Let me find that area , because I would like to see
something placed in one of theseacts that it states, without a
lot of interpretation, whatdocuments or what information
should be disclosed to thepublic, instead of deciding Well
(56:13):
, they're gonna have to be somestandard.
Speaker 1 (56:14):
The standard is national security, so that's
always the standard.
That is the problem is becauseso much of this is locked behind
that.
Speaker 2 (56:23):
It's just such a vague topic.
I mean a vague title.
Speaker 1 (56:28):
It is, it is, but listen to what this panel will
have right.
Shall include one current orformer national security
official, one current or formerforeign service official, one
scientist or engineer, oneeconomist, one professional
historian and one sociologist.
Speaker 2 (56:51):
So that's the We've seen something like that in the
prior law.
Speaker 1 (56:54):
So, and again it's called the Disclosure Act.
There's a lot more to thislegislation.
I need to go through it.
The sociologist goes to thepoint we were discussing as to
Us Reactions to informationRight Is it's being able to take
this and, sociologically, whatit's going to do to us.
(57:18):
Okay, so there's that aspect ofit.
So then we have the hearingscoming up next week, so there'll
be a lot more to talk about onthis, but basically the date for
these congressional hearings.
We've talked aboutcongressional hearings before,
but I've been corrected thatthose really weren't hearings.
What we were watching werebriefings.
(57:38):
When we watched, they called itthe UFO hearings.
They're two guys from thePentagon, right?
Remember that they have thosePentagon guys, right?
But that wasn't really ahearing.
It was a briefing because theywere asking questions and while
technically, they have to tellthe truth, so it's not like.
Speaker 2 (57:53):
Why would I have to hear it if you're asking
questions?
Speaker 1 (57:55):
The difference is when you have witnesses.
Those weren't witnesses, thosewere officials.
Speaker 2 (57:58):
Who are briefing?
Speaker 1 (58:00):
So a true hearing is when you have witnesses who are
sworn in and telling Congresshey, what's going on here?
What did you?
What is your you know?
When they did the AI ones andSam Altman and they were asking
industry professionals and theAI people, you know what?
What's going on with this?
Different questions about AI.
So that's a.
(58:20):
That's a hearing.
What we've seen in the UAPthing have been called hearings,
but really they're just beenbriefings.
We saw Kirk Patrick in theSenate brief, kirsten Gillibrand
as to what Arrow's been up to.
Again, they call them hearings,but they're really not.
This one is going to be ahearing.
They are not going to betalking to people from the
(58:43):
Pentagon, are they going?
Speaker 2 (58:44):
to be telling who is going to testify.
Yes, we will probably hear thethe it's only 10 days away.
Speaker 1 (58:50):
It's 10 days away, about a week before they will
announce the thing.
Okay, they announced thewitnesses Tim Burchett, a
congressman from Tennessee, anda congresswoman, luna, from
Florida.
Those are the two who arerunning the show.
Burchett said something aboutthey wanted to keep their list
of witnesses close to the vestbecause there's already been
(59:10):
attempts by the Pentagon Again,he said this on an interview, so
there are already been attemptsby the Pentagon to intimidate
some witnesses and tell them itwould probably not be a great
idea to testify.
That alone should be gettingpeople's attention.
But okay, going to be pilots,we may see flavor.
You talked about this, ryanGraves, we may.
He wants people who havewitnesses Grush just to talk
(59:38):
about, and somebody will say,okay, but he can't talk about
classified things.
You're not going to getdisclosure in a in a government
hearing.
Again, you're not going to getit there.
What they're going to be ableto do, though, is ask the right
questions.
All this is built aroundsparking the public's interest,
(59:58):
and the public is interested,but getting past that inflection
point that you keep talkingabout, of when does everyone's
eyes turn towards this, and youcannot deny it anymore.
Speaker 2 (01:00:09):
Yeah, so who knows?
But you can have your ownthoughts on it.
Speaker 1 (01:00:12):
This could be the stepping point, because all it
takes is that one story we don'tknow what it is that gets
widely reported.
Speaker 2 (01:00:20):
I just don't know, because last year, in a span of
what?
Three, four days, the UnitedStates military shot down three
unidentified objects.
None of those objects have beenrecovered.
They say, oh yeah, we can't getto it.
(01:00:40):
All this, all that and there'sno follow-up.
What were they?
If you, most people within days, can't?
Speaker 1 (01:00:50):
This is too much.
There's too much for us to careabout everything.
You're right, I couldn't stopthinking about it Because we're
in that realm, but it hasn'tgone away completely.
As a matter of fact, there havebeen questions asked of various
people, because now enough timepasses and people circle back
around.
Whatever happened with thosethings?
Yeah,
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.