Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
I'm Chris, I'm Steve,
and we're talking about some
deep shit, and we're back totalk about some more deep shit.
(00:27):
How's it going, steve?
Chris, how you doing?
Very good, very good indeed.
We're on a roll.
Here we are, we are I'm excited, yes, and we're in the throes
of summer, which is nice, thewarm weather.
We love that, yes, I do, and wehave exciting topics to talk
about.
What do we got today?
So, yes, I do, and we haveexciting topics to talk about.
What do we got today?
So we're going back to thetopic you and I both love, which
(00:48):
is UFOs, uap.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
We have to give an
update.
Speaker 1 (00:50):
There's a lot going
on.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
Yes, and we've had
some episodes on different
subjects, which is nice to dosometimes, but I always like
coming back to this.
Speaker 1 (00:59):
Yeah, we definitely
want some variety.
It can't be all UFO, althoughyou know I could talk about ufos
always, but there's otherinteresting stuff, so it's we're
gonna add those in and then theufo stuff will come about as
there's developments, as thereare to talk about today.
Yeah, so where did we leave offfrom the ufo saga?
Last was at the end of lastyear, right, it's when we were
(01:21):
kind of kind of the last time wetalked about.
Yeah, I think you're right, andthat was when we were kind of
kind of the last time we talkedabout it.
Yeah, I think you're right, andthat was when the UAP
Disclosure Act had been proposedin the Senate to attach it to
in the House and the Senate toattach it to the National
Defense Authorization Act, whichis every year they pass this
huge omnibus bill that funds themilitary.
(01:44):
Here's all the stuff we'regoing to spend money on and they
were putting this thing incalled the UAP Disclosure Act,
and I think I did a littleepisode about it, talking about
all the.
I think we might have done anepisode together where we talked
about it, but I think I did asolo thing where I kind of went
over some of the provisions ofit.
So it's out there if you wantto go back and listen to it.
(02:05):
But that was it passed, but notin its full form.
Explain that, okay.
So let's talk about what it wasfirst, because it's important.
So the UAP Disclosure Act wasproposed by Senator Chuck
Schumer and Senator Mike Rounds,a Republican.
(02:27):
So I mean Schumer's, you knowspeak, I'm not Schumer's the
what is he in the Senate?
He's the Minority leader.
Yeah, yes, the minority leader.
I mean, he's a big name in theSenate, yeah, and Mike Rounds as
well.
So the fact that these twopoliticians of that high caliber
came in and were proposing thisNow, they weren't the only ones
(02:49):
.
The sponsors of this were ChuckSchumer and Mike Rounds, and
Marco Rubio and KirstenGillibrand and Senator Todd
Young, a Republican, and SenatorMartin Heinrich, a Democrat.
So this is again completelybipartisan Very, very rare to
see these days.
Speaker 2 (03:08):
And the purpose, my
understanding of this whole
beginning of all this was thepoliticians that we're talking
about, and others maybe thatwe're not talking about,
believed there was enough goingon that they thought the
military wasn't telling themeverything they wanted to know.
Speaker 1 (03:26):
Right, right.
They were saying hey, listen,there's something hiding,
they're hiding something?
Speaker 2 (03:29):
What's going on?
Whatever it might be, you needto tell us.
Speaker 1 (03:33):
Right, Because
although there's been evidence
that has come out to the public,those hearings and things like
that behind the scenes, I'mhearing that senators and
congresspeople are hearing a lotmore.
Speaker 2 (03:51):
Again hearing that
senators and congresspeople are
hearing a lot more right again,not everything but basic.
One of the basic elements is umthe military isn't its own
entity.
It works for the government.
Speaker 1 (03:55):
So you have to answer
questions as to what's
happening.
It's kind of basic.
Yes, and they are.
You know, politicians, thatsenators and and congresspeople
are getting very upset that itseems like they're getting and
run around them, that themilitary and intelligence
organizations are not tying themin to what's going on here.
Speaker 2 (04:12):
Well, it's been a
long time that that's been the
dynamic.
Speaker 1 (04:15):
Yes.
So this was their attempt tosay, all right, we're going to
get all this out in the open orat least start the process.
So, okay, so some of theprovisions One of the main
things was they wanted to getall the UFO data, uap data, you
know whatever they want to callit from all the different
(04:36):
agencies to one place being theNational Archives.
So all the different brancheshave been instructed now,
because that provision did pass,they have to give all their
information to the nationalarchives and I believe the drop
dead date is sometime in octoberof this year, so they had that
(04:57):
much time to get it together.
And the other part of it wasthat there's a presumption of
release for documents that areolder than 25 years.
What does that mean?
That the thought process isthat there's no reason why the
public shouldn't be able to seedocuments that are 25 years old
(05:17):
and older.
Speaker 2 (05:18):
Now is the caveat
always unless there's a national
security, unless there's anational security thing.
So it doesn't matter how old itis right now.
Speaker 1 (05:25):
The hard part about
this is there are other things
that this legislation wassupposed to do that was supposed
to be included, that was goingto help with that, and one of
them was a um?
Uap review board which wasgoing to be made up of
hand-picked individuals,nominated by members of the
Senate, I believe, and wouldhave to go through confirmation
(05:50):
like any kind of position, andthey had certain people from
military, certain people fromintelligence, certain people
from sociology, economics.
Basically, there was aprovision to say it had to be a
wide range of people who wouldhelp advise the president on
which documents to release andwhich documents to keep hidden,
(06:14):
but the president would have thefinal say on any document.
So while getting the recordstogether that survived.
Unfortunately, the recordreview board part was pulled.
Another part that was in it wasa whole part about a controlled
disclosure plan.
(06:36):
That's the mind-blowing partabout this legislation.
If you're listening to this,google that.
Go and Google the UAPDisclosure Act and read, check
out what the full bill was,because if you see this, they
mentioned the term non-humanintelligence like 20 something
times.
They define it.
They have the definition.
They can define non.
(06:57):
The legislation definednon-human intelligence as any
sentient, intelligent, non-humanlife form, which suggests
official consideration of thepossibilities that UAPs could be
related to non-human entities?
Wait a minute.
Speaker 2 (07:15):
The second part.
I didn't get.
Speaker 1 (07:17):
I'm basically saying
that it's presumed that these
objects are flying around arenon-human, that there's
something other than us here,like it's coming out and saying
it basically.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
Are they assuming it
or are they saying it's a
possibility?
Speaker 1 (07:33):
They're saying that
that's the evidence that needs
to be released.
Again, we're not going to knowuntil we know, right Until it's
out.
And there's still a hugeportion of the public who
doesn't even believe this stuffis real.
You know it's still and there'sstill a huge portion of the
public who doesn't even believethis stuff is real.
You know it's still.
We're still fighting that whole.
Is it real thing where for mostpeople in the know, that
question has been asked andanswered?
(07:54):
It is?
Speaker 2 (07:56):
I think a large
amount of people, while they
might not just say that theybelieve any kind of phenomenon
in the sky as a result ofnon-human intelligence, I do
believe that there's a lot ofpeople that believe I'm kind of
rambling, but I think there area lot of people that now kind of
(08:19):
say, well, they think it's apossibility?
Speaker 1 (08:22):
yes, and obviously
not every everyone and it's.
Nowadays it's a lot easier tofind things that aren't that in
the sky.
I mean, there's more satellitesand stuff circling the earth
than at any other time.
There's more space launches andthings.
Other countries are doingthings as well.
There's just more stuff in theair, which has been why the
(08:43):
military and has been verycareful I'll say the pentagon
has been very careful to framethe whole UAP thing as 2004
onward.
If you notice that that's reallythey're pretending that it
started there, because then it'sa lot easier to say, oh well,
these ones were drones or theseones were a plane.
(09:03):
It's easier to say that in 2024, harder to say that for the
ones in the 40s and the 50s andthe 60s and the early 70s.
You know we didn't havecommercial drones, we didn't
have as many things flyingaround, so there's a reason why
(09:23):
they come at it like this.
So, so that that is a big thingthey talk about.
Um, the review board.
I was going to say what else?
Eminent domain, that wasanother clause that was in there
, basically saying that ifprivate industry has possession
of non-human technology, thatthe federal government owns that
(09:47):
and the federal government cantake it back and compensate them
for it, but it's the federalgovernment that owns it.
That's one of the provisionsthat caused the most
consternation among some people.
Um, actually the owner ofskinwalker ranch, um, brandon
fugal, um and a few othersopposed the legislation on that
(10:09):
grounds because they didn't likethe way it was worded.
That that made them worriedthat the government was going to
come in and take you knowanything.
They?
Oh that's connected, we'retaking it.
I don't know.
I think it should be.
I don't know if the wording'slike this, but it really should
specify if the?
U the US government recovered it, because I think that's the
problem is, if governmentresources recovered craft or
(10:31):
wreckage or whatever, and what'sbeing claimed is that it's been
put in private aerospace, whichis why it's hard to get at,
because it's not, you're notable to Freedom of Information
Act.
It's hard to get at becauseit's not, you're not able to
Freedom of Information Act.
It's protected from all thecountermeasures in government
that we have.
It's protected because theymoved it over to private
aerospace and the number ofpeople who know about this stuff
(10:53):
is very small, and so that'sthe thing is that it's hard to
get at, and so this legislationwas trying to address that and
say no, no, no.
If you're private aerospace andyou have something that the us
government recovered, you got togive it back.
It's ours and you know, we'll,we'll, you know, give you
something for it, but we're notgoing to let you keep it, and so
(11:14):
that was the other other partof it, um, so anyway.
So that was all going to be.
There was a lot more to it, butthat was the main things and it
got.
They say it got gutted, it gottrimmed.
There was some resistance inthe house.
The way this works is the househas their version, the senate
has their version and then,where it differs, they have to
(11:37):
come together in some sort ofcommittee.
The committee comes togetherand kind of hashes it out.
So when the house was hashingit out, there's still some
question as to who the opponentswere.
But there were some powerfulopponents that were able to
strip many of the the mostprovocative measures from it,
but they couldn't kill it alltogether.
So while the review board wastaken out, while eminent domain
(11:59):
was taken out, while the youknow, the whole control
disclosure plan was taken out,the core core of it, which was
hey, all the records have to beat the archives by October and
start to take out a provisionsuch as eminent domain- if there
(12:30):
wasn't, you know, and not justreward it, take it out.
Speaker 2 (12:36):
If there wasn't
something to this, right it's.
You know.
If you were making a rule thatI couldn't do, something that I
just was never going to do, Iwouldn't fight you about it, you
know.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
Yes, I mean,
obviously, if there's nothing to
hide, then what's the problem?
If there's no, if there's nonon-human tech, then the fact
that it's written in legislationthat non-human tech can be
confiscated by the governmentshouldn't matter.
All right, we don't have any're right?
And?
And the congress people there'sa couple of them, um, I know,
(13:07):
um, I think there's a guy namedturner.
I, I think ohio maybe, butthere's a couple who have been.
They've been pointed out asbeing like, hey, there's, these
are the ones who are trying tostop it, and all of them have
big ties to, uh, aerospace, oh,okay, and you know and even like
in, and one of them, rightpatterson air, for air force
(13:28):
bases in their district.
And so right patterson is oftenwhere they say a lot of things
end up or have ended up in thepast.
So that's the problem is.
Is that, yeah, there's peoplelike, oh, it didn't go through.
Well, you're right, why wouldthey?
Why would they resist that ifthere's nothing to hide?
So when this legislation wentdown, it's not dead, it's just
(13:50):
they trimmed it.
They're going to try again.
I mean, they're going toattempt to put those provisions
back in.
So very interesting.
So after the legislation gotkilled, senator Schumer and
Senator Rounds did what's calleda colloquy on the Senate floor.
(14:12):
What was the purpose of it?
So a colloquy is a that waythey can have a discussion
between the two on the floor foreverybody to hear, but it
doesn't have to go through theSpeaker of the House or the
President of the Senate.
(14:33):
It's sort of like here's alittle conversation we're having
here, just sort of talkingthings out, and they do it for
like it's showboat reasoning.
You know it's hey, we want tobring this topic out, so we're
going to have a little, andoftentimes that's between two
members of the same party.
You know, hey, I want to talkabout this, and here's another
congressperson or senator Inthis case it was a Republican
(14:56):
and a Democrat so I want to playsome clips of it because I it's
so important.
So this happened days after they.
The legislation was kind ofcurtailed, and so Chuck Schumer
got up and he on the Senatefloor and this was televised.
You can find this on YouTubeand it's out there and all that.
They discussed it, and so we'lllisten to little parts of that
(15:17):
and then we can we can talkabout each bit.
So I'm going to start off here.
This is the beginning.
Speaker 3 (15:22):
Thank you, mr
President.
So I see my friend, senatorRounds, is on the floor and ask
him to engage in a colloquy onan important set of provisions
in the NDAA that deals withtransparency, trust and
government oversight theUnidentified Anomalous Phenomena
Disclosure Act that he and Ico-sponsored and portions of
(15:44):
which we will pass in the NDAA.
I say to my friend thatunidentified unanimous phenomena
are of immense interest andcuriosity to the American people
.
But with that curiosity comesthe risk for confusion,
disinformation and mistrust,especially if the government
(16:04):
isn't prepared to be transparent.
The United States government hasgathered a great deal of
information about UAPs over manydecades but has refused to
share it with the Americanpeople.
That is wrong and additionallyit breeds mistrust.
We've also been notified bymultiple credible sources that
information on UAPs has alsobeen withheld from Congress,
(16:27):
which, if true, is a violationof the laws requiring full
notification to the legislativebranch, especially as it relates
to the four congressionalleaders, the defense committees
and the intelligence committee.
So the bill I worked on withSenator Rounds offered a
common-sense solution.
Let's increase transparency onUAPs by using a model that works
(16:49):
.
By following what the federalgovernment did 30 years ago with
the JFK Assassination RecordsCollection Act.
They established apresidentially appointed board
to review and release theserecords, and it was a huge
success.
We should do the same here withUAPs.
Speaker 1 (17:07):
So that's.
I mean that's pretty strongwording.
I mean he basically is sayingthey have information that stuff
is being kept from Congress andbreaking the law.
Speaker 3 (17:17):
Oh absolutely.
Speaker 2 (17:18):
I mean, he says that
plainly right.
I mean that's and that's.
He says that's the motivationfor doing the disclosure, right.
Speaker 1 (17:24):
I mean that's pretty
and that's, he says, that's the
motivation for doing thedisclosure, Right?
I mean that's pretty that againyou're talking about Chuck
Schumer, You're not talkingabout, you know, some Congress
person who's only been in oneterm.
I mean, this is, this is aheavy hitter in the Senate,
always has been since since hismentor, and it's interesting,
you know who his mentor was, whowas from Las Vegas, it was.
(17:48):
Oh, why am I blanking on nevada?
Yeah, nevada that's right.
Speaker 2 (17:51):
Um, oh, now you got
me yeah, we gotta look this up
harry reed, harry reed.
Speaker 1 (17:55):
So his mentor was
harry reed, who also was very
big on this topic, right, and sohe's sort of taken over.
Since harry reid passed, youknow, left the senate and then
passed away, he's taken overthis thing.
So so that was the beginning ofit.
And again I just want to pointout he says right out they have
information that things arebeing kept from congress and a
(18:19):
violation of the law.
That that's huge, you know,know.
So I don't play a little bitmore and Senator from South
Dakota.
Speaker 3 (18:29):
I yield.
Speaker 4 (18:29):
Thank you and I thank
my colleague, the Democrat
leader, for the opportunity tospeak to this particular issue
today.
This is an issue that that Ithink has caught the attention
of the American people and mostcertainly the lack of
transparency on the matter,which is of real interest to a
lot of the folks that havewatched from the outside.
(18:51):
It brings together, I think, anotable parallel in the
withholding of information aboutitems that are in the
government's possessionregarding, in this particular
case, the assassination ofPresident John F Kennedy.
That same approach bygovernment in terms of the
(19:13):
possible withholding ofinformation brings more
questions and more attention tothe issue of the assassination,
attention to the issue of theassassination.
We wanted to take that sameapproach with regard to how we
could dispel myths,misinformation about UAPs, about
unidentified flying objects,unidentified objects that simply
(19:36):
have come to the attention ofthe American people.
Congress did pass legislation30 years ago requiring the
review and release of allrecords relating to that
historic tragedy, theassassination of john kennedy,
which has led to the release ofa great deal of information.
The uap disclosure act wasclosely modeled on the jfk
(20:00):
records act.
Speaker 1 (20:03):
And you know how
fortuitous we just talked about
JFK recently and it was modeledafter that.
So I've heard people say, okay,well, the JFK documents, you
know that didn't really work.
We still don't have an answerright.
And so I've heard a lot ofpeople compare the two because
obviously they modeled it afterand if you think about it, it's
(20:24):
not a fair comparison because weknow the assassination took
place, we all saw it.
Disclosure is of what happened.
Speaker 2 (20:38):
So if you move it
over to the UFO topic, Well, the
disclosure really is what theirinvestigation was at the end of
the day.
Well, the disclosure really iswhat their investigation was.
Speaker 1 (20:45):
At the end of the day
, If you move it over to the UAP
topic, it would be akin tosaying well, we have to admit
that the assassination tookplace.
Do you know what I'm saying?
Like once you say theassassination took place, which
it did, because we all know ittook place.
The records are trying to digthat up.
But if you move that over tothe UFO topic, the assassination
taking place is.
There are UFOs.
Speaker 3 (21:07):
Well, yeah, there is
something to investigate, right.
Speaker 1 (21:10):
So just that alone,
that admission is, is
significant even if we don'thave all that.
There is something, see, thehardest thing we're up against.
Speaker 2 (21:20):
I kind of feel like
they're admitting that they.
Speaker 1 (21:22):
They've admitted it.
They've admitted it so openly.
Speaker 2 (21:25):
The only people who
don't believe it are the, the,
the, you know the masses whodon't believe it because the
news hasn't told them yet well Ithat nobody disputes, I think,
even in the government, evenpeople that have testified so
(21:45):
far, um, at the hearing, that,well, you know the few hearings
they've had.
Um, military people, um, they,there are a percentage, there is
a percentage that are indeedunidentified, anomalous,
anomalous, however you want tophrase it, they're there.
I think that what Americanpeople might be trying to do as
(22:12):
a parallel, I guess, is well,you know, they released these
documents on JFK and we stilldon't know exactly who it is.
Well, you're right, thatprobably is never going to
happen, because I truly do notbelieve there are people in the
government that are protectingpeople that killed John F
(22:33):
Kennedy.
I don't think that's a thing.
I think, if those documentsexisted, that said, oh look,
there's no document, that justpoints to the person that did it
.
Speaker 1 (22:40):
I think there's
documents, though, that point to
the organization that theintelligence agencies, and
that's what they're trying toprotect.
Speaker 2 (22:46):
You're right about
that.
But regarding how you wouldswitch it to UAPs, no, I don't
think you're uh documents thatnecessarily, you know, say yes,
uh, we, we have been hiding thisfrom the american people and,
(23:06):
and here's why I think you'llfind documents.
I mean, if there's, if, godalmighty, if they do actually
have, um, non-human intelligence, well, okay, that's a smoking
gun, right.
I don't know if you're going tofind the same smoking gun with
the john f kennedy documents.
This is all I'm trying to say.
Like you can find if, ifthere's an inventory of
(23:26):
non-human intelligence, okay,there's a document that says
that, right.
I don't know if you're going tofind a document that says, oh,
by the way, these people in thecia put it together, I don't
know if you're going to findthat I know there's something
though you know what I'm tryingto say.
Speaker 1 (23:39):
There's some sort of
document that the president, all
presidents, have refused torelease.
I mean, that's the thing is whenhe says 30 years ago, you know
this, this legislation wentthrough saying, hey, you gotta
release it all, like the uapdisclosure act.
The final uh, you know arbiterof whether things are released
or not is the president of theunited states and, for some
(24:01):
unknown reason, clinton, bush,obama, trump like they've all
decided to push it off and kickthe can.
I think bush senior as welllike going back to when that
legislation kicked in?
Yeah, it should have all beenreleased.
But every president since hasbeen like shit off and kick the
can.
I think bush senior as welllike going back to when that
legislation kicked in?
Yeah, it should have all beenreleased.
(24:22):
But every president since hasbeen like, well, some of the
stuff, no, and what else wouldbe in those documents except the
answer?
Because only the answer couldembarrass like what?
What else could it be?
Speaker 2 (24:37):
I mean, we know
everything else, right, yeah,
there's so many ways you couldlook at that one and that's not
the podcast.
But I always wondered with that, when they say national
security because that's thecatch-all right, yes, of course.
Either it's they know who didit and they didn't do anything
about it, or there was a factionof our own government that did
(24:59):
it.
Speaker 1 (24:59):
And they found out
after the fact.
Speaker 2 (25:00):
And they found out
after the fact, and either one
isn't good for American peopleto know, right?
So I really can't think ofanother option.
But someone else might think ofone, and with this one I can
certainly say yeah, if you'vebeen lying to people point blank
and having the information thatthe same thing you're saying to
(25:20):
my faces is, you're saying it'snot true and you holding
documents that say it is true,right well, you've.
Speaker 1 (25:27):
you've shaken the
foundation of our belief in
anything you say true, yeah, andthat's, and that's part of the
problem and we'll you know,that's a common theme we keep
coming back to is that when, notif?
Speaker 2 (25:39):
when this information
is acknowledged by the populace
, it's out the informationinformation's out you know you
were citing the thing they'retalking about of, of of stages.
Right, you don't start talkingabout stages of things.
It's just an odd thing to talkabout, uh, when you, if you're
talking about something that youdon't think exists.
Speaker 1 (26:00):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (26:01):
Why would I have to
do it in stages?
Speaker 1 (26:03):
Right, it's very
obvious there's something, so
we've got a couple more parts ofthis, but again, it's
fascinating.
Again, this took place on theSenate floor this was there for
reporters, for media to see, butthey don't seem to be
questioning.
They don't seem to goquestioning.
They don't seem to go.
Huh, that's interesting.
But why is this important?
It's important there's a lot ofthings going on.
(26:26):
They don't do colloquies on thesenate floor about all of them,
right?
They pick this.
So that means that senatorschumer and senator rounds must
feel pretty strongly about thisto do that.
Remember there was a time whenno elected official would even
talk about ufos or even pretend.
I mean that that sunk uh denniskasinich, uh his political
(26:49):
presidency back in.
I think it was like the 2008time, or whatever he was uh, yes
he, he, he was, he had seensomething, and all he said was
yeah, we saw something in theair and I don't, couldn't
identify it.
And all of a sudden, he wascrazy and they.
So the fact that you haveimportant senators like this
talking about it alone is huge.
So anyway, we'll go on a littlebit further.
Speaker 3 (27:11):
It's beyond
disappointing that the House has
refused to work with us on allthe important elements of the
UAP Disclosure Act during theNDAA conference, but
nevertheless we did makeimportant progress.
For the first time, theNational Archives will gather
records from across the federalgovernment on UAPs and have a
(27:32):
legal mandate to release thoserecords to the public if
appropriate.
This is a major, major win forgovernment transparency on UAPs
and it gives us a strongfoundation for more action in
the future.
Speaker 4 (27:42):
I agree, sir, and I
think probably the most
significant shortcomings that Ithink we need to visit about as
well shortcomings of theconference committee agreement
that are now being voted on werethe rejection, first of all, of
a government-wide review boardcomposed of expert citizens,
presidentially appointed andSenate confirmed, to control the
(28:04):
process of reviewing therecords and recommending to the
president what records should bereleased immediately or
postponed, and a requirement, asa transparency measure, for the
government to obtain anyrecovered UAP material or
biological remains that may havebeen provided to private
(28:24):
entities in the past and therebyhidden from Congress and the
American people.
We are lacking oversightopportunities and we are not
fulfilling our responsibilities.
Speaker 1 (28:38):
I mean, that's pretty
straightforward.
Speaker 2 (28:39):
It's very
straightforward.
It's just the end of what hesaid.
It's a strange thing to juststart talking about on the
Senate floor.
I mean, I say strange, Chris,you and I have known each other
a long time.
If when we were kids, if youheard this, we would be like, oh
my God, this is crazy becauseit's just, it's mind blowing yes
(29:02):
.
And the fact that you can sayit now and not be mind blowing
yeah Says something.
I don't know what it saysbecause it's.
Speaker 1 (29:10):
It's amazing how many
people don't internalize any of
this Right and if you ask themabout it, it's almost like they
don't even know most of thisstuff took place, any of this
right, and if you ask them aboutit, it's almost like they don't
even know most of this stufftook place.
I do you know talks about ufosand frequently I will, you know,
ask the ask the, you know theattendees and say you know.
After I show them clips of thehearings and the press
conferences and like thesignificant things that have
(29:31):
happened in the last few bunchof years, and I say how many of
you knew about this?
And very few do.
And I say, well, isn't thatinteresting?
Like the major hearing tookplace that people under oath
said some really mind-blowingstuff.
Under oath, meaning that ifthey're lying they go to go to
jail.
Um, nothing, you know.
You know, like why is the mediaso reluctant?
(29:52):
When the media covers this,they still cover it as if, well,
we don't know yet, we're notquite sure, and it's never a
deep dive.
It's never a deep dive.
It's never a deep dive becausethey don't want to, because it's
too weird.
It's too strange, but anyway,we'll just get to the final end.
This is the last part, and thenthey wrap it up and then we'll
go over it.
Speaker 3 (30:20):
Well, I'd like to
echo what my friend, senator
Rounds, has said today and onmany occasions.
It's essential we keep workingon our proposal to create an
independent, presidentiallyappointed review board that can
oversee UAP classified recordsand create a system for
releasing them, whereappropriate, to the public.
Again, as the Senator has said,it's the same method used for
the JFK records and it continuesto work to this very day.
It is really an outrage theHouse didn't work with us on
(30:41):
adopting our proposal for areview board, which, of course,
by definition here is bipartisanin the Senate.
Now it means thatdeclassification of UAP records
will be largely up to the sameentities that have blocked,
obfuscated their disclosure fordecades.
We will keep working.
I want to assure the Americanpeople, senator Rounds and I
(31:02):
will keep working to change thestatus quo.
And before I yield finally tohim, I'd like to just
acknowledge my dear friend, thelate Harry Reid, a mentor, who
cared about this issue a greatdeal.
So he's looking down andsmiling on us, but he's also
importuning us to get the restof this done, which we will do
everything we can to make happen.
Speaker 4 (31:25):
I agree with my
friend and colleague.
To those who think that thecitizen review board that would
have been created in our UAPDisclosure Act, that it would be
unprecedented and somehow wouldgo too far, we note that the
proposed review board was veryclosely modeled on the review
board established in the JFKAssassination Records Act of
(31:46):
1992, which has successfullyguided the release of records to
the American public on anothervery sensitive matter of high
interest to the American people.
And it does one more thing thatwe really need to recognize,
and that is that there is, webelieve, information and data
that has been collected by morethan just the Department of
(32:08):
Defense, but by other agenciesof the federal government as
well, and by allowing for anoutside, independent collection
of these records, we can makeprogress in terms of dispelling
myths and providing accurateinformation to the American
people.
Speaker 3 (32:24):
Again, I thank my
colleague and pledge to work
with him and other bipartisancolleagues in the future to
build upon what we've achievedin the conference report.
We encourage our colleagues tojoin us in the further
investigation of this issue andin advancing legislation that
will complete what we'veaccomplished in this NDAA.
And I yield the floor.
Speaker 1 (32:45):
So that's, I mean,
pretty amazing that that was on
the floor of the Senate.
Speaker 2 (32:50):
Oh yeah, I mean, they
didn't mince words that you
know.
Speaker 1 (32:53):
other other agencies
are hiding things.
They're saying that there is acadre of people somewhere in the
government that is breaking thelaw by doing these things and
keeping it away from Congress,people and senators they're
supposed to have oversight.
Speaker 2 (33:09):
I think, chris, that
if you spoke to most people,
even if you didn't care aboutthis particular topic, right, if
you ask them, do you think thatAmerican people should have the
information?
I think most people would sayyes, yes, right, yeah.
So I really think some of thesepoliticians should be called to
the carpet by theirconstituents because saying no,
(33:32):
why you got to answer thequestion.
Why are you saying no to thisRight?
If you have an actual goodreason, I'll listen to it.
If you don't, the people thatvoted for that person should
have something to say about it.
Because what you're?
Saying?
No to american people findinginformation?
Speaker 1 (33:49):
most people are not
against that true, um, but again
, I think a lot of people stilldon't think this is real right,
right and and so.
So they just sort of say theydon't even care.
They just yes, they should bemad at any of this, like that
this legislation is beingblocked by certain people, but
that happens all the time andyou know people are mad about
all sorts of legislation gettingblocked by either side.
(34:11):
But when people come back tothis they go well, there's
nothing to this, so this is alljust a waste of time.
Then why wouldn't you?
if there was nothing tosomething, I'd say open the
shades, let's look at it yes andand also, if there's really
nothing to this, why are allthese big politicians really
putting themselves out for this?
I mean, that's a like you said30 years ago if a politician to
(34:31):
talk like this, we would havebeen blown away, they also would
not have been a politician forlong.
No like it, they would have.
Like dennis kasinich, found out, once you're associated with
the ufo topic doesn't matterwhat your interaction is, once
you're associated with it.
He was called all sorts ofnames in the press and you know
that was the end of his end ofhis run you know right.
(34:52):
So it's just, it's strange.
It's it's weird that we'restill at this place where I have
to have this conversation withpeople about if there is
something to this, like we'renot even to the conversation of
what it is.
There's still people who likethey don't quite believe it.
Oh, it's still all nonsense.
Are you kidding me?
With everything that's going on, you really still think it's
(35:13):
nonsense.
But that's the problem is that alot of these cases they don't
know about these things, andpeople are often, if they don't
know about it, apparently itdidn't happen.
And so when I mentioned to somepeople, there's almost like this
disbelief, like, well, ifyou're telling the truth and
this really was on the floor ofthe Senate, it doesn't help.
And this is the other part ofit is that one of the other
(35:44):
things that happened towards theend of the year or early this
year was the UAP Arrow, which isthe all-domain anomaly
resolution office that had beenopened up by the Pentagon to
research these things, put outtheir historical part, one of
their historical report, inwhich they really echoed a lot
of what Project Blue Book didback in the day in pouring cold
(36:09):
water on this and really sayingthat oh, there's not much to
this dishonest report andmultiple people have come out,
you know in the government, andsaid wait a second.
There's some obvious things inthis report that don't seem
right and it seemed like anotherattempt to just sort of put
this back away and make everyand it actually kind of worked
(36:31):
in a way, because a lot of mediareported on.
Oh, you know, they had a reportcome out and they said that you
know, this is probablymisidentification and and if
they had more information theycould probably solve all these.
And as usual, what they do isthey point to a few specific
cases and look at this one, thisone looks weird, and now we
found out it was this.
Ah see, it's okay.
And in all the hearings andstuff they used to say that the
(36:53):
all domain anomaly resolutionoffice didn't care about
anything that was explainable,they only cared the anomalous.
But every time they put out likestatements and and things like
that, they end up showing ussomething that appears anomalous
but ends up being prosaic andthat sort of gives what being
like being something common,something they can just say oh
you know, this was a plane, thiswas a, this, this was that, and
(37:15):
they did a good job of pouringcold water on it.
And Sean Kirkpatrick, who wasthe head of Arrow, he has left
Arrow and, weirdly enough, youknow he's gone to work for.
He's gone to work for some lab,you know on the defense side or
something.
You know his he landed in aplace that's very interesting as
far as career wise, In terms ofusing some information he might
(37:37):
have, or just he made.
You know he did.
He did the job he was hired todo, which was pour cold water on
this and the media is takingthe.
You know a lot of media istaking the bait Not all of it.
There's still some media who'sgoing at this and it's just
quieted down now because we'rein the midst of an election and
there's a lot of other things.
There's several wars going onout there and there's a lot
(38:01):
happening right now, so UAPshave sort of taken a backseat,
and you know it's understandable.
Speaker 2 (38:04):
I just don't
understand anyone that has the
knowledge that there are thingsbeing witnessed that can't be
explained.
Okay, that's that's.
There's no denying that, right?
Everyone admits that.
How many?
That's?
That's, there's no denying thatright, everyone admits that.
Um how many?
That's up for debate.
(38:24):
Um how you would be in in anyway, now I could see being
indifferent, but in any waysomehow against finding out what
it might be is weird it's.
Speaker 1 (38:35):
It's weird, but it's
also understandable when you
think about how this disruptsthe worldview.
I think people underestimate howbig a deal this would be if it
really became confirmed thedisclosure, if the president
walked out to a podium and saidto the American people, I have
(39:00):
something important to tell you.
Here's what's going on.
You know, there's a non-humanlife form that is interacting
with us, visiting this planet,and I don't know, maybe, maybe
we don't know their intentions,we don't know what they're up or
, if they do, they're not sayingyou.
I mean, it wouldn't just belike people hear that and go all
(39:20):
right and then go back to it.
Would it would cause somepeople?
Might, some people would, butit's the next questions, it's
the.
It's not that.
It's the next questions whichwould start to cause problems.
Well, how long has this beengoing on?
How long did you know about it?
Why was this kept from us?
How did you keep this from us?
(39:42):
I think that's another thingthat people are often not
thinking through.
If this secret has been kept,if this secret has been kept,
crimes have been committed tokeep it, witnesses have been
committed to keep it, witnesseshave been intimidated, maybe
(40:03):
witnesses have been killed.
Speaker 2 (40:04):
Well, I mean, you're
going a little far there, no,
I'm not going a little far.
Speaker 1 (40:09):
It's amazing to think
that hasn't happened.
If there's a secret that thegovernment doesn't want to get
out and they want to keep itsecret, they want to keep it
under wraps, whatever thatsecret is.
You don't think our government,or any government, would kill
to keep something that theyconsidered important under wraps
.
Of course they would.
They do it all the time.
(40:29):
They don't.
They don't publicize it, but weknow it happens, right?
I mean, is there anyone outthere who doesn't think that
intelligence agenciesoccasionally we see it in movies
all the time and we just acceptit.
Oh, in this movie the cia tookout the like.
We see it and we go, yeah, thatprobably happens.
But then when you say, well, doyou think it actually happened?
Well, that's now, that couldn'thave happened.
Why wouldn't it happen?
Speaker 2 (40:48):
because it's against
the law well, I see what you're
doing.
I mean, it's no.
Speaker 1 (40:52):
No, I'm not arguing
it's ridiculous to assume that
hasn't happened, and if they'vekept the secret under wraps,
they've certainly done illegalthings.
In the very least, they've keptit from congress.
Speaker 2 (41:02):
That alone is is
illegal, against the
constitution the one thing thatI've always thought, though and
uh, it doesn't.
You know, it's just somethingthat comes into my head uh, with
the jfk or maybe now at uap,sometimes you ever wonder as an
(41:22):
individual, I want to knowexactly what happened with JFK.
As an individual, I want toknow exactly what's happened
with UAPs.
As a society, are we better offknowing or not knowing?
That's a very philosophicalquestion, but it's kind of
interesting.
It's an argument to be made,right, because you and I, we
know individually, yeah, but thedynamic of our lives in terms
(41:45):
of you know how society works,doesn't change.
But if everyone has thatinformation, because you know,
people act differently in groupsthan they do individually,
right?
Speaker 1 (41:54):
So that's a
philosophical question but it's
something that I think maybebeing considered by people maybe
not always nefarious is what Imean no, and I think that that
has been discussed about whetherthere should be disclosure of
this, and I mean I think yes fora variety of reasons.
And later in the show or in thesecond half, we'll hear some
(42:16):
stuff that will towards this,but half we'll hear some stuff
that will towards this, but it'sit's such a fundamental change
that you can understand why ifthere were people who knew it
was going on would be reluctant.
Here's this.
Here's another question thatmight come up.
Okay, all right, these objectsobviously are able to operate in
ways that ours.
Can.
(42:36):
They have access to technologythat we don't?
Is the government ever going toadmit that they recovered some?
Well, what have you learned?
Is there a power source that wedon't know about?
I mean, obviously, if thesethings, calculations were done
you know they talk about the TicTac and the maneuvers that, the
Tic Tac incident in 2004, themaneuvers that that made, and
(42:58):
they've done calculations tofigure out how much energy would
be required to make themaneuvers that were witnessed,
that object making and theydetermined it was more energy
than all the nuclear plants onour planet could harness at one
time Like the amount of energyis mind-blowing.
(43:20):
So, if they have access to thatkind of energy, there's two
questions, I guess, or twotracks to go on.
One is if there's that kind oftechnology out there that exists
.
Well, are people going to belike oh well, here's this
game-changing technology, freeenergy or whatever it is that
could power this planet for 100years without breaking a sweat,
(43:42):
that could power this planet for100 years without breaking a
sweat.
Well, I guess I'm going to justhope to keep working my 9-to-5
job and hope that some of thattechnology gets available on
Amazon so I can buy it.
You know what I'm saying.
There's going to be thisquestion to be like well, what
Wait?
Are you telling me that oil isnot needed, if combustion
engines is not the way to go, ifthere's better power sources
that would change life on thisplanet completely, like if you
(44:06):
didn't have to burn fossil fuelsanymore to create energy?
Speaker 2 (44:10):
Oh, yeah, that would
change everything.
Speaker 1 (44:12):
Now, it would change
it in a good way, but for some
people that would not be a goodway.
Speaker 2 (44:16):
Oil companies
wouldn't be happy.
It really wouldn't changethings in a good way for people
that own the rights to theenergy.
Speaker 1 (44:27):
Right, of course, if
you owned an oil company and
your oil company was about tobecome obsolete because there
was this new form of energy thatdidn't require a melted
dinosaur or whatever we'resaying oil is.
Yeah, that's not very good.
And then there's the other partof it.
Okay, do you want anyone elseon this planet to have access to
(44:50):
unlimited power?
Because power is power.
Like, if you can generate thatmuch power to generate to move a
craft, what if you generatedthat same amount of power to
create a bomb, to move a craft?
What if you generated that sameamount of power to to create a
bomb?
I mean, if you're really tappinginto energy and the thought
process is that it'sgravitational, there's something
(45:10):
to be said there about gravity.
Um, our science, that's whatbob lazar said.
He did.
A lot of this stuff isvindicating bob lazar and, for
those who don't know, bob lazarcame out in the in the 90s and
he claimed to have worked atarea 51 and that he, um, you
(45:32):
know, was brought in to look atsome craft that we recovered
reverse engineer, try to reverseengineer it and things that he
said was it was gravitationaland our, our science, really
looked into gravity in the 50sand if you look at what happened
, you're led to believe therewas, it was a dead end and then
all research was was curtailed.
(45:53):
But anyone who looks into thatgets a visit from our national
security.
There's something to grab, likethere's something to that.
So now do you want that energyin the hands of our enemies?
Like you can easily see whythat would make us nervous,
right?
I mean, if everybody has tocreate bombs using the same
technology, then we're all kindof on equal footing, you know
(46:14):
well, it's one anotherphilosophical way of looking at
it is if you had unlimitedenergy, that was free.
Speaker 2 (46:23):
I don't think any
energy is free, all right.
And even if you could figureout a way to harness something,
you, the technology used toharness, it, costs something
yeah, but right, but doesn'tmean it costs something.
Speaker 1 (46:34):
If the energy itself
is free and all you're paying
for is the harnessing of it,that cost would be nominal when,
when, spread out well, unlessother people could figure out
how to do it too.
Speaker 2 (46:44):
Right.
But that's the thing.
If I'm the one that figured out, you've read about that thing
where they think they might havefound these Dyson stars right,
if you're the one that knows howto figure that out, I mean, not
everyone's going to be able todo that.
That's something like an ElonMusk could figure out, if it was
a real thing, how to do it.
So now you got one person, onegroup owning, so it's, I don't
(47:05):
know exactly, but having thatkind of energy, let's just say
it was free.
I don't even know if you needcountries anymore, because
you're now.
No one's fighting overresources, right, maybe you're
fighting over water, unless youcould figure that out.
But if there was, let's say,unlimited heat or electricity or
(47:28):
you know a big, this changeseverything.
Speaker 1 (47:50):
Like it's.
I think it's such a profoundchange that it's so
mind-bogglingly.
It changes everything.
It puts into question ourpolitical system, puts into
question our economic system,puts into question our society.
You know just everything abouthow we're doing things.
This could disrupt it, and soit's obvious why some people
would be uncomfortable with this, um, with letting this out.
(48:10):
I mean, there's a reason whysome people would have decided
to say you know what?
This is a secret that's bestkept from everybody.
Um, because you can't tell yourfriends without telling your
enemies.
I mean, that's, that's onething, right?
I mean I'm sure they're allworried about other countries
getting this technology, and howdo you tell the people?
But let's take, compare it tonuclear.
(48:30):
We know nuclear power exists,we know it's possible.
How exactly you do it is keptpretty secret and the materials
needed to do it are hard toobtain.
So it's not like somebody canjust be like oh, I can build a
nuclear reactor.
I mean you have to have theknowledge to do it and you also
(48:51):
have to have the ability and theresources.
So it could be a similar thing,right?
Why can we not know this exists?
Yes, I understand you don'twant everyone to know how to
build a nuclear reactor in theirbasement.
As a matter of fact, I readsome article about some guy.
I can't remember where this was, but he was caught and he had
built himself some little kindof nuclear reactor.
(49:11):
And he had been powering hishouse for 20 years or something
like that, and they caught him.
I don't know the full detailsof it, but I mean, why couldn't
you tell people that thetechnology is there and it does
exist?
Speaker 2 (49:30):
you, we just can't
tell you how it works, or is
that the problem is, once youknow it exists, is it easier to
figure out?
Well, here's a philosophicalquestion.
Right are we?
Are we safer with severalcountries having nuclear power?
Are we safe with just onecountry having nuclear power?
So, um, I I would say we'resafe with more than one country.
Yeah, I think that's prettymuch the thought process, right,
yeah, if you had one, you'dhave an overlord Right right.
Speaker 1 (49:52):
You have to have the
multipolar, because that keeps
everybody in check, right Isthat you hope that those who
have nuclear weapons are atleast responsible enough to know
that there ain't no coming back.
If you press that button Right,if it gets to that point, right
, if you do it, I can do itRight, and whoever?
Speaker 2 (50:10):
does it first None of
us want to do it, nobody's
winning.
Speaker 1 (50:12):
It's going to be a
game set, match Right.
Speaker 2 (50:15):
Everybody's going to
be wiped out equally so the
argument that, militarily, itwould be beneficial to not have
another country with thattechnology.
I get it, but it's verydictatorship sounding to me.
It's not something that is, youknow, a cooperative in the
world.
Now you could say, well, wedon't want Russia to get it,
(50:39):
yeah, but you have it Right.
Speaker 1 (50:42):
So you're not using
it.
Speaker 2 (50:43):
So like are you
saying that we're just morally
superior?
It becomes that.
It becomes kind of this weirdargument and you know that's
another piece of it.
Speaker 1 (50:50):
It's not all up to
the United States.
I mean, the United States is aprime driver of a lot of this
stuff, but there are othercountries who have information.
Yeah, and if either russia orchina ever decides to step out
first, I would think that that'sa, that's a uh consideration,
(51:10):
like all right, we don't want totell people.
But what we don't want more iswe don't want our enemies to
tell people.
Do you want the the, you know,the chinese government or the
russian government to be like,hey, they announced to the world
that the non-human intelligence, they're taking the lead on
this.
Like we would not want that.
Right, we want to be the leaderon that.
So there's that too.
(51:32):
Is I almost feel like you canpush, you can kick this can down
the road a little bit, but yougot to be careful, because if
you kick it down the road toomuch, another country might see
the benefit of being that leader, and once they step out and
they're that leader, it's hardfor us to get that back.
You want us to be the ones whobreak it to the world and we're
(51:56):
able to keep our friends incheck, and there's a reason why
UK isn't going out andannouncing it.
In australia and othercountries like that we have some
influence, but it's thecountries we don't have
influence on, like china andrussia and some others.
What if one of them comes outand says you know, and it's
again?
It's already kind of startingin a small way.
I mean, other countries arestarting to have hearings.
(52:17):
Japan just had some sort of youknow, group looking into it,
like other governments arestarting to talk about it more.
So it's coming, it's just it'sa slow roll.
Speaker 2 (52:26):
Now keep this in mind
, too, when they say that there
could be biological remnants, orbiological however they word it
right.
I had sent you that articleright.
Right now, here on earth, weare putting human tissue on
(52:51):
robots, basically, right.
So, just because they, it's notout of the realm of possibility
that and someone that somecivilization that's advanced
already knows how to do thatright, and so what they're
sending here isn't even a realperson, right?
So to say, well, how could areal person do this?
Well, maybe it isn't even areal person, right?
Maybe it's a humanoid who knowswhat it is.
But the fact they're talking,yeah, about biologics yeah, I
(53:14):
mean 50 years ago.
It's not something that gotspoken about, but you'd laugh at
it.
What are you talking aboutright now?
Now, wait a minute.
My science fiction addiction asa kid is real.
Yeah, what are you talkingabout here?
You found biological.
You don't just listen.
I don't know about you, butmost things I've done in my life
.
I don't get into detail of allthese contingencies, of things
(53:37):
that are just never going tohappen in my head Right right,
it just doesn't.
Speaker 1 (53:41):
You don't do this.
You don't put a lot of energyinto something that's not real.
Yes, there seems to be a lot ofenergy being put into this by
people who would know.
Speaker 2 (53:49):
And I mean did
anybody ever tell you what Santa
Claus's waist size was?
Not me, cause it's never beenpublished, right, right, because
it's not, it's a fantasy, right, right, right.
So you didn't get into thedetails of his shoe size, right?
But this is very detailed.
Speaker 1 (54:02):
Yeah, there's
something to be said that
they've done such a good job ofmaking this topic laughed at
that it's hard to come back fromthat Like you still fight, that
You're still up against thatwhen you know there are still
news reports when they bring thesubject up, even talking about
(54:24):
something serious, the newsanchors cannot help themselves
but like laughing a little bitand chuckling and feeling
uncomfortable talking about this.
Speaker 2 (54:33):
I'd say once in a
while it doesn't seem to be as
much anymore.
Speaker 1 (54:36):
It's going down.
Speaker 2 (54:37):
Generally, it's more
likely than not.
Speaker 1 (54:39):
That's how it is
Right and it's just because
we're so ingrained with it.
This is all nonsense, butpeople in the know, who are
important, seem to be takingthis seriously.
So we have two choices.
We can believe that all of themare delusional or being tricked
(54:59):
, or are just stupid and fallingfor it.
Or we can say, all right, ifthat's not it, what's the only
other explanation?
There's something to this.
Those are the two choices.
Either it's all hooey or it'snot.
If it is all made up, then wehave a problem, because we have
(55:23):
a significant number of peoplein high positions in our
government who are putting a lotof energy into this thing.
So if it doesn't exist, whatthe hell are they doing?
And then, of course, if itdoesn't exist, what is it?
What is the answer?
And what has the governmentbeen spending all this money on?
Because they're spending moneyon.
You know something?
They had a UFO task force backin the day.
You know that's what the atipwas found out to be.
(55:45):
You know that they had anorganization they were putting
money into this.
Shouldn't we be concerned ifit's?
Speaker 2 (55:50):
if it's not, real,
it's got to be something to this
right?
Speaker 1 (55:54):
um, and you know,
another part of this is so high
that there are elements that youcan't even talk.
If you know about this stuff,you can't come out and say it,
and I think that's a bigstumbling block too is that
they're waiting.
I hear a lot of people saying,well, when are they going to
(56:15):
shoot?
You know somebody to come outand show us the pieces, and it's
like you don't realize howsecret they're keeping this.
I've heard that in somequarters, when this is discussed
, they don't even take notes.
I've heard, actually, um, therewas a professor that was making
some uh, inroads with likeintelligence people, and the
intelligence people had said tothem that, uh, there's something
(56:37):
called pencils down when thistopic is discussed in those, in
those small cadres of people whoknow about it, when this topic
is discussed, in those smallcadres of people who know about
it, when this topic is discussed, pencils go down.
This is just.
We just talk.
There's nothing committed topaper, nothing committed to
anything that anyone could gettheir hands on, and that sounds
ridiculous.
But I mean, a lot of cultureshave that oral tradition that
(57:00):
used to be very common is that,you know, cultures would pass
their thing down with stories.
It's a similar thing thatthey're doing in our government
to keep this secret.
Speaker 2 (57:08):
When people right,
when they have that.
Well, if it was there, whydidn't they just show us?
Well, we're talking about itright now.
Ask yourself why they're notshowing you Now so they put it
in place for the JFK.
Why are they not showing youall the documents?
Speaker 3 (57:25):
There's something
that they don't want you to know
.
Speaker 2 (57:29):
That's why they're
not giving it to you.
Now, it could be a good reason,a bad reason and a different
reason.
Whatever it is, there is areason they don't want you to
know it, and that is a fact.
You know it for it's just,there's no denying it.
And that is a fact, we know itfor the it's just, there's no
denying it.
There's an act that saysthey're supposed to do it and
there's a provision why theydon't have to.
They enact that provision oncertain documents time and time
(57:51):
again.
So for you to then for not you,but anyone to then turn around
and say well, I mean, if therewas a UAP thing, they would just
give it.
No, I mean, how many timesyou're going to, how many times
you're going to see that that'snot the way this works?
Speaker 1 (58:04):
The government never
gives out information it doesn't
have to.
I mean, that's the thing is.
Have you ever known thegovernment to be like volunteer
information?
That would embarrass them, orthis is the ultimate
embarrassment Again, if if thisis true, I firmly believe it is
Crimes have been committed,misdeeds have been done.
Maybe some of the people whoare responsible for those are
(58:27):
gone and dead.
You can't exact any kind ofretribution against them because
they're gone, but there'ssomebody who's kept it going.
Speaker 2 (58:39):
Well, here's a way of
looking at it, too, right?
I mean, you could say everyonecould say everyone's got their
own thoughts on, like, what'sgoing on with Israel and Hamas,
right?
But I'm just using it as anexample.
I for one think it's difficultto expect a really good
negotiation between Israel andHamas only because most of the
major players in the world seemto fall on the side that once
(59:04):
this is finished and this can behopefully resolved sooner than
later the situation there.
Nobody really wants Hamas to bethe leadership in Gaza anymore,
right?
Except maybe Hamas.
So I always wonder how do youexpect a negotiation with a
(59:24):
group that knows the resolutionis their demise, right?
Speaker 1 (59:28):
So in and who else
could?
If they're the onlyorganization that could
conceivably be part ofleadership, what are you gonna
say?
That none of them.
Maybe the organization itself,but are you gonna say that none
of the people who are in thatorganization can have anything
to do with being the leader?
Then you're going to remove allthe possible leaders that could
help you yeah, why?
(59:48):
Would they resolve who is goingto negotiate?
Speaker 2 (59:50):
They're not going to
Right.
So I kind of look at that interms of governments, because if
it is what maybe you and Imight think it might could be
right, and let's say, you couldget unlimited resources, maybe
there's a way they could showyou, hey, we can desalinate, we
can do this with water, youdon't have to worry about this.
(01:00:10):
Let's just say that wassomething right.
If governments revealed it atsome point, there's not going to
be that many governmentsbecause there's not going to be
that much fighting about thestuff.
They might be fighting overland and stuff, but maybe I
don't know, right.
But you're asking entities toreveal information that, at the
(01:00:33):
end of the day, could be theirown demise, right?
So it's not going to work.
Speaker 1 (01:00:37):
Right If you're a
defense contractor and you have
access to this technology andyou're using it to develop
weapons which is probably whatthey're doing right which that
alone should make entire partsof our society.
Who's going to?
If you're part of that, ifyou're part of the little
section that's going to get doneaway with, your incentive is to
say, well, let's push this off.
Maybe it has to happen at somepoint, but I'd rather it happen
(01:01:16):
when I'm no longer here, because, but somebody is going to have
to pay the bill, right?
So we're going to wrap this oneup here.
It's part one here, because youknow I, but you know somebody's
gonna have to pay the bill.
I don't know right, but so we,you know.
So let's, we're gonna wrap thisone up here.
It's part one.
When we come back in part two,um, you know, we have more more
to say on this.
There's some uh specific uhconferences that have happened.
There's a lot that's happenedrecently.
I'm gonna play some clips, butwe're gonna wrap this up here
(01:01:38):
and we'll come back again.
So until uh, until next time.
I'm Chris and I'm Steve, andthis has been some deep shit.
We'll be you next time.