(Not So) Deep Sh*t on UFO Disclosure - (Part 2) - (Not So) Deep Sh*t with Chris & Steve

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

(00:25):
and we're back again to talkabout some more deep shit.
Hey, steve, chris, how youdoing?
Good?
This is part two of our UAPcatch-up episode.
Yeah, there's a lot to talkabout, so much we're going to
dive right into it.
So last episode we talked aboutthe UAP Disclosure Act and what
happened to that, and a littlebit of the talk on the Senate
floor happened to that, and alittle bit of a talk on this on

(00:47):
the senate floor.
Now we're going to talk about aconference that happened
recently, uh, earlier this year,so it's called the salt
conference.
Okay, it's a um salt.
It's a global investmentplatform that connects
institutional asset owners withinnovative asset managers and
technology entrepreneurs.
So it was founded in 2009 bySkybridge Capital and it

(01:09):
operates as an independententity and their mission is to
drive prosperity and innovationby linking investment capital
with intellectual capital.
So it's a conference where themoney people come to learn about
what technological what's outthere, what's on the horizon,
what's what's being talked about, what are good investment,

(01:30):
future investment opportunities.
Because once money starts, onceinvestment, people start to see
that there's potential andmoney in a, in a in a certain
thing, then energy goes towardsit, then, then, then it starts
to become a thing.
So there was this conference,and so last year, when they had
the conference, dr gary nolan,who is an immunologist from

(01:52):
stanford, he got on stage andbasically they asked him they
have a little part at the endwhere they do they talk about uf
, ufos actually and he got upthere and he basically said, you
know, now there's somethinggoing on.
So this year it was supposed tobe dav David Grush, the UAP
witness from the hearings, thewhistleblower.
Yeah, they call him awhistleblower but he's really

(02:12):
not.

Speaker 2 (02:12):
I mean, that's how everybody knows him.

Speaker 1 (02:14):
Yeah, they use the term whistleblower too liberally
.
Whistleblower is someone whocomes out, kind of almost like
illegally, to say, hey, this isgoing on, where you consider a
lot of these people, witnesses,because they're going through
the process.
But, regardless, he wassupposed to be in attendance but
he had to cancel due toscheduling conflict.
So in his place was ColonelCarl Nell, so Retired right,

(02:41):
he's retired.
He was, yeah, he's a majorhitter, he's retired right, he's
retired, he's a major hitter.
He's basically been in themilitary since like the late 80s
or actually probably sooner.
But then he was in differenttechnology Lockheed Martin, all
the different three-letteragencies.
So I'll let him say it himself,because I have clips of this.

(03:03):
So we're going to play each ofthese clips and kind of go
through himself, because I haveclips of this.
So so we're going to play eachof these clips and kind of go
through.
But this happened earlier thisyear in front of you know, a
large gathering in new york cityof money people, in other words
, these are the people who drivestuff when, when, uh, when
technology starts, when newtechnologies emerge.
These are the people first,people to be putting money into
it to to make it happen so youand I were not invited to this.

(03:26):
We are not invited to this yet.
No, it's a.
This was.
This was far beyond.
Actually, this was done um.
This, this organization I'mtrying to find what um, I can't
remember his name.
There's a particular uh ummoney guy that that started this
.
But but regardless, all right,so I'm going to play the first
part.
So at the end of thisconference again, a lot of the

(03:48):
conference speeches wereinvestment people getting up and
talking about some newtechnology that's coming or some
new innovations and trying todrive capital to the right
places, right?
So at the end of the conferencethey had this talk and so we'll
kind of go here, all right, solet's play the first part.

Speaker 4 (04:08):
Hello everyone, thank you for coming this evening.
I'm glad that we are the finaltalk of this year's SALT event
and I'm very excited to discusswhat I consider to be one of the
most consequential questions ofour lifetime, which is are we

(04:28):
alone in the universe?
And I'm very lucky to have CarlNell here joining me for this
conversation.
Carl, thank you so much forcoming, and Anthony and AJ over
at SALT, thank you so much forhosting this.
So, carl, maybe to begin canyou share a little bit about
your background, who you are andperhaps why people should care

(04:51):
what you say.

Speaker 3 (04:53):
Sure Well, thanks, alex.
It's a pleasure and honor to behere.
It's a fantastic event and I'mglad to see a large bunch of
folks that stuck it out to theend for this talk.
So I was fortunate.
I had a four-year ROTCscholarship to Penn.
I graduated with a degree inelectrical engineering.

(05:13):
The Army sent me overseas to dosingle-core engineering projects
.
So I did a lot of strategiccomm projects in Europe.
I ended up working in ArmySpace Command.
I commanded a satellite groundstation war trace to the Joint
Chiefs.
I spent some time atWright-Patterson Air Force Base.
The Army ultimately sent me toget a master's in mechanical

(05:34):
engineering, a master's instrategic studies.
Graduate work in computerscience.
I was on track to stay in but Idecided that I wanted to pursue
more of a technical career.
So I got out and ended upworking at Bell Labs, which was
a fantastic place.
Unfortunately, I was thereduring the trivestiture that
folks may be familiar with,where the company got split up.

(05:56):
I left Bell Labs and ended upworking in Lockheed Missiles and
Space.
I worked at Northrop Grumman.
I've ran strategic technologyprograms in the defense industry
, worked for a lot of thethree-letter agencies.
Ultimately was a deputy chief ofstaff or deputy CTO for a $2
billion company.

(06:16):
I was a vice president, generalmanager of a Northern
Virginia-based R&D firm.
I stayed in the military in thereserve.
I commanded at every gradelevel through brigade.
I was fortunate to stand up theArmy's newest expeditionary MI
brigade.
I was the deputy chief of stafffor combatant command.
Ultimately, this experiencesort of combined to give me the

(06:40):
opportunity to come in andadvise Army Futures Command the
largest reorganization in theArmy Reserve since really 1973,
on how the Army could be moreeffective.
And my last assignment wasinvolved with the UAP Task Force
, which maybe is the mostapropos for this discussion.

Speaker 1 (07:02):
All right, so those are his bona fides.
Does he sound pretty qualified?
Yes, I mean, this is a guy who,like you just heard, he's
worked with all the three-letteragencies.
He's done satellite stuff.
I mean, our satellites are oneof the most secret.
The number of people who haveaccess to our satellite data is
very small.
That's a very vaulted.

(07:23):
Actually, david Grush wasanother one that was in that
kind of position, but, like,this is high.
This is a guy.
Now he's speaking in front of aroom full of investors, people
who know, who just heard his bioand have just, you know, it
sounded impressive to us, but itprobably sounds way more
impressive when you know whatall those things are.

(07:43):
Right, right, there's specificsin there that are like whoa,
one of those would be a big youknow, a big part on somebody's
resume.
It just goes on and on with him.
He's done it all Right.
So one could say okay, so ifthere's something going on, he'd
be in a very good position toknow about it.

(08:03):
Okay, so we set up his bonafide.
So now let's.
Now let's get to the meat of itand so, carl, here's.

Speaker 4 (08:09):
Here's the million dollar question do you believe
that a higher form of non-humanintelligence has visited this
planet?

Speaker 3 (08:18):
right.
So non-human intelligenceexists.
Non-human intelligence has beeninteracting with humanity.
This interaction is not new andit's been ongoing, and there
are unelected people in thegovernment that are aware of
that.

Speaker 4 (08:34):
And so, Carl, that is quite a bold statement.
I'm wondering, and I'm curioushow confident are you that that
is true?

Speaker 3 (08:45):
There is zero doubt, there is zero doubt.

Speaker 1 (08:47):
There is zero doubt, so that's kind of huge.
I mean again, one could say,well, it's just somebody saying
it, but it's not just somebodysaying it, it's somebody who's
been in all those situations.

Speaker 2 (09:01):
Now, something to consider too is he said that
there wasn't really an uproar inthe crowd of these technologies
.
People that really understandtechnology, yeah.
It wasn't like whoa, whoa, whoa.

Speaker 1 (09:14):
I think a lot of them were expecting it, because, I
mean, that's what the talk was,right.

Speaker 2 (09:17):
But yes Again, if there was a retired colonel with
these qualifications in theprivate and military industries.
That just said that I justwould expect kind of maybe like
some confusion.

Speaker 1 (09:32):
Yeah, and you're right.
It's almost like okay, whatelse?
All right, so what else does hehave?
Okay, let's hear more.

Speaker 4 (09:41):
And Carl, what evidence have you seen?
What was the moment where youdeveloped this level of
conviction?
Because what you're saying isextremely consequential and very
important and I know that a lotof people here even perhaps,
may not believe that statement.

Speaker 3 (09:57):
Right?
Well, probably a better way toask that is, how can the folks
in the audience come to the youknow, a common understanding of
what this phenomenon is, and sothere's sort of two tracks here.
One is from first principlesand another is actually from the
data.
So let's take a look at thedata so we can look at some

(10:19):
folks that have very high-levelaccess to information, like Paul
Hellyer, who was the defensechief for Canada, has come out
and said the same thing.
We look at Ham Eshed, the headof Israel's or former head of
Israel's Space Force, has saidthe same thing.
Chris Mellon, deputy AssistantSecretary for Intel SAPCO, has

(10:42):
essentially said the same thing.
Lou Elizondo has said the samething.
David Grush has said the samething.
David Grush cleared forpresidentially level material.
So you're looking at peoplethat are in a position to know
this and they're telling you thesame thing.
You could take a look at theGang of Eight in the Senate and
in Congress congress.

(11:02):
So there's two members of thegang of eight, marco rubio and
senator truck schumer thatsigned up to the uap disclosure
amendment last year thatbasically said they're not being
told the truth and we need topush forward on that so a couple
of things there.

Speaker 1 (11:19):
One is he asked what evidence?
And he kind of changed carnell,changed the question and said
how can people kind ofunderstand what's going on?
So a lot of people, uh, a lotof detractors, were like, well,
he didn't give us any evidence,he just mentioned names of other
people.
He can't tell you what he knows, he would go to jail again.
We gotta remember this secretis up there with nuclear and

(11:43):
that is not a.
We're not just making that up.
If you go back and look at theNuclear Energy Act, the Atomic
Energy Act of like 1954 orsomething I think it was around
then it states in therebasically it puts UFOs in that
category of that secret.
So he says, okay, how can youunderstand what's going on of

(12:05):
that secret?
So he says, okay, how can youunderstand what's going on?
Basically, here are some reallyhigh up people who are in a
position to know this andthey're telling you the same
thing.
So very interesting If he'sgoing to pick people right, he's
not just going to pick randompeople who said something
similar.
He's going to pick people heknows are speaking the truth.

(12:29):
So he mentioned Chris Mellon,he mentioned Lou Elizondo, he
mentioned David Grush.
It's the earlier ones.
He mentioned Paul Hellyer.
Paul Hellyer is a formerCanadian minister of national
defense and he was out of officeand he came out and said public

(12:50):
statements that UFOs areextraterrestrials, that there's
an alien presence on this planetthat has lasted thousands of
years, that the government knowsabout it and has been aware of
the presence, and that they'vebeen suppressing technology and

(13:10):
advances like we're just talkingabout advanced technology that
could change the world is beingsuppressed by the governments.
And he became a big advocacyfor disclosure.
Um he he did speeches where hecalled it a cosmic conspiracy
involving the suppression ofknowledge about extraterrestrial
civilizations and advancedtechnologies.
So Carl Nell said hey, paulHellyer is telling you the same

(13:32):
thing.
Well, paul Hellyer said a lotmore than we just have a few
crash saucers.
He said some what wasconsidered at the time crazy-ass
stuff, but now Carl Nell ispointing to him and saying no,
you should listen to him.
There was another name he threwout Haim Eshed.
He was the former head ofIsraeli's space security program

(13:55):
, a very respected scientist,and there were headlines in
2020-ish where he came out andhe said similar things to paul
hellyer, but he also addedthere's a galactic federation
that has been in contact withvarious governments around the
world, including the unitedstates and israel, and according

(14:19):
to him, this federationconsists of multiple different
extraterrestrial species who areworking together.
Uh, he says there are secretagreements.
Sounds like stat trek.
Right and his bona fides again.
This is not just some joker.
This was the former head ofisraeli space program and he

(14:45):
hasn't really talked about itsince he came out and made that
statement.
Then he's kind of gone quietand he doesn't say anything more
on it.

Speaker 2 (14:51):
But like he says, that's not even the craziest of
what he said, I want to say I,my memory is that he said that
um, we knew about it too right.

Speaker 1 (15:01):
Yeah, the united states knows about it, says
israel knows about it.
He says there's a base on marswhere american astronauts and
extraterrestrials work together.
I mean, this is far out stuff.
That's saying and if you lookup the, you know articles from
this and I find one.
I'll link some in the shownotes just so you can go check
it out and see.
I mean it's it sounded likecrazy talk and that was how it

(15:24):
was kind of treated in 2020.
Again, that's still post-2017,with a New York Times article,
but that's still a road too far.
Right, at this point, we'rewilling to talk about UFOs and
aliens.
We're not willing to talk aboutsome other things like
abductions and even peopletalking about bodies and things

(15:50):
like that make certain peopleuncomfortable in government.
They just want to stick to UFOs,non-human presence.
Let's just stick with that,let's not get bogged down.
But I mean, again Colin Nelsoncomes out and says okay, these
are the people who you should belistening to, this Canadian
minister who said that, and thenthis Israeli head of their

(16:12):
space command who said there's abase on Mars, there's a
galactic federation, there'sWell, how do you?
He also said that the delay indisclosure is not all of our
choice.
He says that theextraterrestrials themselves
have requested that theirexistence remain concealed from

(16:33):
the public until humanity isready to accept and understand
their presence.
He implied that a currentglobal climate and societal
structures are not yet preparedfor such a revelation, and he
also claims that advancedscientific endeavors and
technological innovations thatare known to a select few within

(16:55):
the scientific and militarycommunities and being withheld
from everyone else.
So I mean, that's the part ofthis that blows the mind.
Now, if you just heard this guytalk and he talks, all right,
these are the other people weresaying chris mellon and lou
elizondo, and you know, david,and you know just okay, but the

(17:15):
first two people he mentionedhave said some outlandish stuff
which, which carl nell colonelcarl nell, who has commanded
every level up to brigade, whohas access, like you wouldn't
believe has pointed to these twoindividuals to say they're
telling you the same thing.

(17:35):
Right, listen to them.
That's extraordinary, like… Idon't think people realize how
extraordinary that is.
He's basically putting hisreputation behind what they have
claimed, and what they'veclaimed sounds so outlandish.

(17:56):
Like you said, it sounds likeStar Trek, a galactic federation
.
Are you kidding me?
That is Star Trek.
Right, you know it's what doesthey have a prime directive too
that they're not supposed tointerfere Apparently.
So Maybe they do Apparently.
So If they made the request,hey, you're not ready for us yet
, you're not ready for us, soyou can't tell your people

(18:17):
because they'll freak out.
That's something I mean.
How do you respond to that?
Well, I mean.

Speaker 2 (18:22):
What do you think?
So we have this individual,colonel Nell, on top of all
these other people saying this.
And then there was a recentnews article that Harvard
researchers have found that, youknow, one of the explanations
for the intelligent life couldbe that they are in fact living

(18:46):
on this planet already.
They've been here, they've beenhere.
They've been here right.
Or they're at least here, and Ithink sometimes we, as humans,
our frame of reference is whatwe are, right.
So when we say, oh, where couldthey be?
Well, it doesn't necessarilyhave to be exactly the way we
view biology, right, so that's adifferent road road, but this

(19:08):
is mind-blowing stuff actually.
And, um, how matter of factright it is.
When these individuals talkabout it, they're not saying, oh
, it's like listen to some crazyperson, they're just no, it
doesn't mean they're telling thetruth, it doesn't mean that.
But but you know, when you seeenough why people those levels
speaking the same thing, right,you know, you start to say to

(19:30):
yourself maybe we should lookinto this?

Speaker 1 (19:32):
Have they all decided just about now to throw their
careers in the toilet by makinguncorroborated wild speculation
claims?
Have they all just decided atone time.
I've had a really solid career.
I've really built up a goodreputation.
I think I'll just throw that inthe trash by making up some
crazy stuff.

Speaker 2 (19:46):
Well, sometimes people will say things about the
David Grush.
Right you know, and well youknow, he's maybe selling a book
or he's going on tour.

Speaker 3 (19:53):
You know, they say that about all these people
right they do.

Speaker 2 (19:56):
You know what kind of career, though?
He's thrown away.
If he decided not to sayanything, he could consulting.
He's not going to make thatkind of money.
Now he because of what he didright he's just not going to um.
He stepped down, he gave up.
That that's what I mean, right,so it's not a I.
I can't find the incentive todo it.

Speaker 1 (20:19):
That's a personal gain yeah, the problem is is
that it's always used.
The fact that anyone tries tomonetize it in any way is always
used to sort of invalidatetheir argument.
But this is the system we have.
You've got to pay your billstoo, right, luis Elizondo who?
Unless they find us free energy, right, unless they find us
free energy, in which case a lotof people are going to be like

(20:40):
I'm not going to work tomorrow.
Screw that.

Speaker 2 (20:42):
Oh yeah, why would I?

Speaker 1 (20:43):
go to work tomorrow when you could power my house
for free, right you know.
So that's.
The other problem is thedisruption, is not?
Some of it's going to be likepeople refusing to just go back
to work, like good littlecitizens.
Are you kidding me?
You just told us that there's agalactic federation that's
visiting us with unlimitedenergy and could basically fix

(21:03):
all our ecological problems, andyou just want me to go back to
my nine to five.
Are you serious?
But that's the thing is luisalessandro.
He has a book coming out inaugust.
He's been working on this along time it's actually been.
He had to go back and forth.
I mean, the government has toclear everything he says.
Just because they clear itdoesn't mean they endorse it.
It just means that he's notsaying anything.
He's not supposed to.
He's not going to jail, so he'ssupposed he's been going back

(21:25):
and forth with the manuscript,but that's coming out in August,
and there's some people thatsay, well, he has a book coming
out, so he's making it up forthe book.
Does that mean anyone who doesanything that makes them money?
They're full of crap becausethey're making money, right?
So the only people who can getengaged in these things are
people who are independentlywealthy and don't need to make

(21:46):
money.
That's kind of elitist, right?
Only the rich and powerful canget involved in these things,
because anyone else is going tostill have to pay bills and so
they're going to have tomonetize it in some small way,
and that invalidates theirargument.
You know what I'm saying?
It's a clever way thatdebunkers who are against UFOs
will try to make it a topicthat's ridiculous but not

(22:09):
actually grapple with the actualevidence.
They're going to attack thepeople who are saying it.
Oh my God, they're just takinga secondhand information.
All right, colonel Cornell,okay, he's got a great resume,
but he's offering no proof.
He's getting up in front ofthis.
They asked him how he knowsthis to be true, and I think

(22:29):
everyone wanted him to say, well, we have this and we have this
and we have this, but he can'tsay that, right, because he'll
go to jail.
It doesn't matter how much ison his resume If he breaks the
rules of what he's supposed tosay and what he's not supposed
to say, he will go to jail.

Speaker 2 (22:48):
And he does not want to go to jail, so he said it
without saying it.
Do you think they'll ever besomebody that just says it?
I think so, and then everyone'sgoing to wonder why you're
putting this person in jail well, that's the thing is.

Speaker 1 (22:56):
Right is is, if what are you doing is if somebody
does come out and say it, andthen they try to put them in
jail, well then that validateswhat they're saying, because
they wouldn't put them in jailif they were just making up
stuff.
But right it's kind of a yeah,it's a catch-22 again this is.

Speaker 2 (23:10):
I wouldn't want to be the one testing the waters, put
it that way.
But nobody wants to be.

Speaker 1 (23:14):
That's what it is and that's what's keeping everybody
cautious.
I mean they, they, what aboutsomebody?

Speaker 2 (23:19):
you know, like this guy um nell right, when he's
much, much older, is there isthere maybe?
They get worried aboutsomething else happening to
their legacy or their family,yeah, and that means I mean
their wealth, their, pensionyeah.

Speaker 1 (23:34):
Right If you've been in your military your whole
career you have a pension,transfers to your wife.
I mean, you're right, there's alot of different but there have
been many aging military people,particularly with Roswell, who
come out towards the end andsaid stuff and they disregarded.
You know, if you're stillsomeone who has doubts about

(23:54):
this, look at someone with thehead of the CIA in the early
days After they left the CIA.
What became of them?
A couple of them kind of wentinto UFO advocacy.
One in particular, astronomer,j Allen Hynek.
He was connected with Blue Book.
He was the one that debunked alot of these things.
He was the one that came upwith swamp gas.
Yes, blue Book.

(24:23):
He created a UFO organizationbecause he realized there was
something to it and he basicallycame out and said, no, all the
interesting cases they wouldn't.
Let us put it in that report Ihear a lot.
Well, if this was true,somebody would come out and say
it.
Right, people have been comingout and saying it forever.
It's just, every time they do,they're dismissed.

(24:44):
It's kind of a way of just notdealing with it.
Right, it's like well, we won'tbelieve the UFO thing until
someone of prominence comes outand tells us it's true.
But as soon as someone ofprominence comes out and says it
, they're now smeared as a UFObeliever and their word is not
worth anything.
So it's that catch-22.

(25:05):
How do I tell you it'shappening if every time somebody
comes out to tell you it'shappening, you say, well, I
can't listen to them.
Now, when is someone withcredentials going to come out?
Well, here's another guy withcredentials.

Speaker 2 (25:14):
Yeah, but he believes in UFOs.

Speaker 1 (25:16):
So obviously he's crazy, not that person.
So it's, we met somebody else.
Yeah, it's a no win situation,but anyway, let there.
There was more to say.
So that's sort of an overviewof some of the data.

Speaker 3 (25:29):
From a first principle standpoint.
What's so unusual about thisrealization?
There's billions of stars inthe galaxy.
Life here evolved in 500million years, which is
basically a blink of an eye.
We found planets around everystar that we've looked at.
It's likely that the universeis full of life.
If you look at the SETI programin particular, the SETI program

(25:52):
has all the same assumptionsthat you would accept and
probably make with respect tothis topic, except that they
believe that non-humanintelligence is transmitting
signals here, but at the sametime, like we're not
transmitting signals.
Signal SET is doesn't transmitsignals, and the only signals
that are actually broadcast, ofhigh enough power into space for

(26:12):
somebody to pick up, come frombroadcast television and
ballistic missile early warningsystems, which, you could argue
our technology is moving awayfrom.
We're going to satellite, we'regoing to fiber.
Broadcast tv is a thing of thepast, and if you get to some
state where society is stable,maybe we don't need ballistic
missile early warning system.
So so the other guy is probablynot going to transmit, but what

(26:35):
the other guy may do is comehere if that's possible to do,
and there's there's physicsmodels that suggest that that
may be possible.

Speaker 1 (26:42):
All right, so so that's interesting.
So first of all he says how?
Why is this surprising to anyof us?
There are billions of stars,billions and billions of planets
.
The universe has been around along time.
There's no way there's notother life out there, and if
they've had this much time longenough, they could come here by

(27:05):
conventional means.
That, even if it would take along time, if they've been
around that long, right?
So first of all he's saying whyis this surprising to anyone?
Obviously, if you just thinkabout it for two seconds you'd
go.
That's a pretty big universe.
There's a lot of planets outthere and, as you know, we're
finding more.
Right Now they're saying whenwe were in school we were taught

(27:26):
to believe planets like Earthwere pretty rare.
Right, probably we're the onlyone.
The universe is dead.
Now they're pretty muchadmitting that every solar
system has at least one planet.
That's in the Goldilocks Atleast, at least.

Speaker 2 (27:43):
Possibly others, depending on the exact
specification.

Speaker 1 (27:44):
And that's not galaxies, that's solar systems,
solar systems of which there areso many in a galaxy and so many
galaxies like the numbers areso mind-boggling that it's
impossible to think there isn'tlife.
Then he says I love this.
He takes a swipe at seti right,because what has always been

(28:07):
our search for extraterrestrialintelligence, it's been the SETI
program.
We're listening for radiosignals Because, hey, we do
radio signals and TV signals.
So if there's anothercivilization out there, they
must do it too, so we can getthose.
But, as you know, colonel Nellpoints out out how long did we

(28:27):
use signals?
I mean in the early 1900s.
We don't use it anymore now.
We're, all you know, streamingand cable, and so if somebody
were listening for our signals,it's only a very narrow window
that they would have gottenanything.
If they started too early, wedidn't have radio yet.
If they started too late, we'vealready moved, you know.
Or tv signals, we've alreadymoved past that.

(28:49):
So I love that, because he'scalling seti out as this kind of
useless.
It is useless.
This is what your governmentgives you right to.
Let you say oh, chris, there,we are looking into this, seti's
looking into this, and theyhaven't found anything yet.
So I guess there's nothing.
I looked at so I'm.

Speaker 2 (29:07):
This says that in the milky way alone.
Scientists estimate there couldbe 60 billion planets alone in
the milky way with habitablezones capable of supporting life
, considering the vast number ofgalaxies researchers estimate
about 50 sextillion, which I'mnot sure.
Research estimate about 50sextillion, which I'm not sure.

(29:28):
Sextillion potentiallyhabitable planets in the
universe.
So I mean that's a big jumpfrom when you and I were in
elementary school.

Speaker 1 (29:35):
Yes, the bar keeps moving.
As you notice, life keepsgetting closer.
When we were young in schoolthere's no life out there, we're
it.
There's no evidence, it's acold dead universe.
And then, slowly but surely, ohyou know what, there might be
planets out there that have.
There might be solar systemsout there that have planets that
can support life.
Oh, there definitely are.

(29:56):
Oh my God, they're in everysolar system.
Like it's gotten close, nowthere might be life on the moon
of Jupiter.

Speaker 2 (30:03):
Like you see these headlines this is kind of like,
if you look back right, bringingit close, somebody lived on
hawaii, uh, three thousand yearsago, right, right, I don't know
, just making the numbers up tothem.
That's the world.
Right, the world.
Is your island.
Right, the what's happeningother places?
You have no idea because thereisn't anything else.

(30:23):
Right, you can't travel thereeasily, I can't get there and I,
you know you're getting a boatfrom hawaii.
You know, it probably was along, long time that people said
this is it right?
And that's kind of where wewere.
We're still there, we are.

Speaker 3 (30:39):
We know that we now?

Speaker 2 (30:40):
we know, you know, maybe, okay, we know there's
land over there, but there can'tbe anybody there living.
And because we're, we're it,you know, and it's just we keep
doing it.

Speaker 1 (30:49):
We always do that, and we, we know these things
exist.
Like I've never been to China,I know China exists, right,
there's evidence, there's no,I've never seen it, I've never
set foot on it, I've never laideyes on the Great Wall myself,
so it could all be crap Then,well, how do you explain all the
people, the Chinese people?

Speaker 2 (31:11):
Well, maybe they're you know like you can but there
was a time it's ridiculous thatyou probably wouldn't have known
China existed.

Speaker 1 (31:15):
You wouldn't have known because, yeah, exactly
when you know, when we didn'treally know much of the world
beyond where we were.
So it's very interesting thathe points that out.

Speaker 2 (31:23):
It's weird though that people use that argument,
you know because I mean it justgoes to the old thing, the old
saying you only know what youknow, Yep, and if you don't have
that information, well, youcan't contemplate it.

Speaker 1 (31:35):
Some things you got to take on evidence.
I have to take on evidence thatChina exists, even though I've
never seen it myself.
There's substantial evidence,there is some footage of it that
such a place exists.
Right, could be fake though itcould, how do I know that's
China?
You know it could be anotherplace that they're just telling
me it's China.

Speaker 2 (31:50):
Well, I mean, if there was a video footage of
another planet with life on it,it would have a much different
weight.

Speaker 1 (31:56):
It's right, it's hard .
I mean, it's not the exactcorrelation, because we know
something exists if there'senough proof of it, well, it
exists.
But I love him calling out SETIthat's basically his way of
saying like that's crap, guys,it's outdated.
It never was.

Speaker 2 (32:16):
I mean, it was an attempt.
It never was serious.
I don't look at it.
I don't know if every scientistthat was behind it thought it
was going to be a fool.

Speaker 1 (32:27):
Oh no.
No, I'm sure there's some, Idon't.
In any cover-up there's alwayspeople who are being earnest and
they don't know they're part ofa cover-up.
Not every person who's involvedin a cover-up knows it.

Speaker 2 (32:34):
They're doing their job I mean, if you think about
it when it was, when it firstwas developed, it was an idea
let's shoot out some way radiowaves.
See what we get for a responseright, but it's just.

Speaker 1 (32:43):
And then at that time we couldn't imagine ourselves
not using, you know,transmission.
Well, how else would we get TVand radio?

Speaker 2 (32:52):
It would be like trying to talk to somebody now
and saying there's going to be atechnology that makes the
internet outdated.
Right People would say what areyou?

Speaker 1 (32:59):
talking about?
Right, couldn't even imagine it.
It's going to happen.
So that's the thing is.
Okay, maybe SETI waswell-intentioned when it was
created, but at this point weknow we don't even use signals
anymore, right?
And then he said something veryinteresting.
He said the only things that weproduce that could go out there

(33:20):
to be detected are TV signals,which we're doing less of, and
the early warning ballisticmissile systems which transmit.

Speaker 2 (33:29):
And he said oh, what is that exactly Basically?

Speaker 1 (33:31):
the nuclear.
You know all the.
When a nuclear war happens, wedetect a launch.

Speaker 2 (33:37):
Oh so, this isn't something that gets.

Speaker 1 (33:39):
Not something.
But that's why he says you know, maybe we'll get to a stable
point where that technologyisn't even necessary anymore, if
we're not on the brink of war.
So I thought that wasinteresting.
So anyway, let's hear a littlebit more.

Speaker 4 (33:50):
Okay, and Carl, I mean, what you're saying is
extremely consequential, andyou've referenced other people
that have said the same thingthat also have similar
credibility.
There's similar reasons for whywe should believe many of these
folks.
Yet the government itself hasnot formally disclosed.
They've been very reluctant todo that.
Why, why do you think that isso?

Speaker 3 (34:13):
there's six basic reasons.

Speaker 1 (34:14):
Oh, this is very interesting.

Speaker 3 (34:15):
Again, you could draw this out from first principles.
There's a national securityreason, there's the lack of a
plan, there's the potential forsocietal disruption, there's the
possibility that there's somenon-public agreement.
There's the potential forsocietal disruption, there's the
possibility that there's somenon-public agreement, there's
the potential for misdeeds andthe desire to cover up misdeeds
and there's just the basicorganizational intransigence and

(34:35):
lack of priority that might beassociated with the topic.
So all these things are factors.
The issue is that really thenational security issue subsumes
all the others, and so there'san opportunity maybe to contract
the national security issuesimilarly to what was done with
nuclear weapons and nuclearenergy, such that nuclear energy

(34:56):
is not necessarily classifiedand is available to the public.
But lack of a plan and thepotential for societal
disruption are key ingredientsthat would prevent any
responsible leader from comingforward with information that
they don't have the means toaddress in a responsible way.
It would be irresponsible to dothat.

Speaker 1 (35:14):
Yeah, so he pretty much what we talked about
earlier, which was there's anumber of reasons why they
wouldn't tell you, right?
You?
Know, there's any number and helisted them all off.
You know fear of societalbreakdown, trying to cover up
misdeeds, trying to know, justnot.
You don't want to, you don'twant things to change.
Nobody wants things to change.
Everybody wants things to stay.
If they're good, stayessentially the same huge change

(35:37):
scares people.
So I thought that wasinteresting, but we already
covered that.
But we'll go on a littlefurther okay.

Speaker 4 (35:42):
So so what you're saying is that you have absolute
conviction that a higher formof non-human intelligence has
visited this planet, that thereare factions within our own
government that know about this,yet we still don't have a plan
and they may represent asecurity issue.
This may pose a threat tohumans, yet you still believe

(36:05):
that we should disclose.
Is that right?

Speaker 3 (36:08):
Correct Right.
So there's really three reasonsthat trump all those others, and
those others are basicallyvalid, like I said.
So the first issue is the moralright.
The government exists for andby the people, and so the nature
of reality is fundamentally notgovernment information.
People have a right to know theworld in which we live, and the
pursuit of happiness requiresthat knowledge.

(36:29):
So that's sort of the firstkind of overarching
philosophical foundation forthis.
But you know, as a corollary tothat, if there are misdeeds that
were done, then they need to beremediated.
If there's lack of properoversight, which is suggested by
some of the whistleblowers,that needs to be remediated.
So the first issue is the moralissue.
The second issue is being in areactive mode is never

(36:53):
preferable to being in aproactive mode.
So reactive mode is basicallytrying to prevent disclosure,
but failing that, you might geta situation where you have
catastrophic disclosure thatcreates all the problems that
you were trying to prevent.
So a more balanced middle pathof controlled disclosure is the
best way to do this, which isagain an argument for some

(37:15):
amount of disclosure.
And the third part is simplysocietal advance and global
competitiveness.
More brain trust needs to bebrought into this topic in order
to make progress and to improvesociety, and and so all three
of those things together, trump.
The six other reasons fornon-disclosure.

Speaker 1 (37:35):
I like that when he says you know the nature of
reality.
The nature of reality is notgovernment information, we need
to.
If this is a fact, if we arejust but one planet of others
and there's others out there we,the people, should know about
it.
That's not like well.
That would be like to use ourearlier example when the

(37:57):
government found out there was aChina, they kept it from
everybody.
Oh, there's nothing over there.
Ah, don't worry about it.
Nah, there's no other people.
You could only do that for solong, because eventually there's
going to be, you know, chinese.

Speaker 2 (38:07):
Japan actually did that for a long different, like
a different era of their countrywhere they pretty much didn't
let anybody in.

Speaker 1 (38:15):
Right, and they wanted to just pretend they were
the only ones and you could dothat for a little while, right,
but like there would be a pointwhere you couldn't do it anymore
.
You know, you couldn't deny theexistence of China if Chinese
people start showing up andsaying we're from China.
They told us China it doesn'texist, you know.
So I like that that he saysthat and he just basically says
points out there are morereasons to tell people.

(38:37):
There are good reasons not totell everybody.
We get it.
There are also these reasonsthat you should tell the moral.
And then the idea ofcatastrophic disclosure.
This information cannot becontained forever.
I mean, it certainly can't becontained if the others, whoever
they are, decide to fly over abig city and just unveil
themselves, although it soundslike they don't want to do that.

(38:59):
But I mean, if this informationcomes out in an uncontrolled
way, then you're going to getall the things you're trying to
avoid in the first place.
So you're better off releasingit slowly and acclimating
everybody to it.
So when the final shoe drops,it's not pandemonium, right?
So there's more here.
Let's continue.

Speaker 4 (39:20):
And what do you think happens if we don't disclose?
I know you mentioned this ideaof catastrophic disclosure.
Maybe disclosure may be forcedupon us.
How do you think about that?

Speaker 3 (39:34):
So the situation is usually thought of as a binary
state.
It's like an all or nothing,and people have sort of argued
this.
But anybody paying attentionrealizes the government has
already indicated thatunidentified anomalous phenomena
are real.
They're not ours and they'renot our adversaries.
The Pentagon has said that,like for people that are paying
attention, like that shoealready dropped.
So for a lot of people, theythink that the second shoe to

(39:57):
drop is this is non-humanintelligence, and maybe the
conversation stops there, likethe president comes out and says
you know, there's non-humanintelligence.
The truth is that that willprecipitate this crescendo of
other questions that maybe thegovernment's not ready to answer
.
That will court, if notprecipitate, potential negative

(40:18):
ramification for society, and so, as an example of this, I would
actually point to somethingfrom the ancient past the Bronze
Age collapse.
So Eric Klein, princetonUniversity 2015, wrote a very
interesting book called 1177 BC,the year that civilization
failed, and so this is wellknown to current scholarship

(40:40):
Within a single lifetime, all ofthe very effective ancient
civilizations of the Bronze Agefailed due to a confluence of
reasons that are not necessarilyfully understood today.
So we're talking about Egypt,the Hittite Empire, the Minoan
Empire, the Minasian Empire, theBabylonian Empire.
All these civilizations failednever to return, other than,

(41:02):
let's say, egypt.
And so these were highlysophisticated civilizations with
highly developedinfrastructures, highly
developed administrative states.
They were globalist, in a sense, very similar to today in terms
of the known world, the knownNear East.
They were economicallyinterdependent, they had both
diplomatic ties and commerceties, and yet these

(41:23):
civilizations failed in a singlelifetime because of stressors
that these civilizationscollectively could not address
within the timeframe.
And so if we look at oursociety today, one might argue
that it's similarly fractured,similarly under economic stress,
similarly under cultural stressas well.

(41:44):
You know, fractured, uh, andfragile diplomatic situation.
It mirrors very much thisscenario, yeah, and.
And so, for a responsibledecision maker, that is
certainly a factor that'sinteresting.

Speaker 1 (41:58):
He talks about that.
You know all thosecivilizations that within one
lifetime just failed, right?
That is very interesting.

Speaker 2 (42:04):
Like thought that yeah there was a point where,
like the population of theplanet, too, had like plummeted
to such a small degree, we wereclose to being extinct it is
interesting, nobody really has adefinite, definitive reason why
, um, the bronze age ended just,and then it just became kind of
um, like a kind of a darkperiod.

Speaker 1 (42:24):
Yeah, real dark period, yeah because and and all
those civil not like you saidthose civilizations went under,
never to return.
You know, maybe that was alittle too um, uh, a little too
deep for, like, I think at thatpoint people were like, why are
you talking about that?
He's saying that aliens madethe civilizations collapse.
But no, he's not saying that.
What he's saying is is that theidea that civilizations could

(42:47):
be out there, that acivilization could be going
along seeming like everything'sgood and then stuff happens that
it can't control and thatcivilization crumbles, has
happened in the past, and so,and I think maybe he's alluding
to, uh, holding a civilizationtogether.

Speaker 2 (43:04):
Right is is not easy.

Speaker 1 (43:08):
You can't let things that could blow it up come out
uncontrolled.
I mean, if these facts are real, they're going to come out.
If they come out in anuncontrolled way, a catastrophic
disclosure, yes, society couldcrumble.
I mean, it's not out of therealm of possibility

(43:38):
no-transcript.

Speaker 4 (43:48):
A whole thing.
So that's you know.
But he's just saying, okay,this has happened before.
Anyway, I thought that Ithought that was interesting,
and a few more, and and so I Iguess, when you say that, um,
are you implying that perhaps weas a society may not be ready
for disclosure, or or are yousaying that we may not be able
to defend ourselves against thisother force?

Speaker 3 (44:02):
so there's sort of different viewpoints on you know
, whether people are ready to,you know, deal with this
phenomenon and you know popularculture is kind of infused with
this stuff.
Roswell became a meme a longtime ago.
We got programs on ancientaliens, skinwalker Ranch, all
this stuff.
I guess I would draw an analogy, though, for people believe in

(44:22):
a certain faith tradition,whatever that faith tradition is
, and hold to that and subscribeto that in a very serious and
devout way and sort of pose thequestion.
Even for folks of that ilk andI would count myself as one if
you're confronted with thereality of your religious belief
system, like the reality of themetaphysical, an angel, a

(44:46):
messenger from God, what haveyou?
That's going to be a sea statechange in your way of dealing
with reality, right, even thoughyou already believe it right.
So it's one thing to believeand it's another to know, and I
think in this context thisphenomena has an analogous, the
potential for an analogouseffect both on the individual
and on society.

Speaker 1 (45:07):
Wow, so that's a good point.
That is a difference betweenbelieving and knowing Like you
could believe in a certain thing.
There are probably people outthere who say they believe there
are aliens and UFOs and if itwas ever proven, those same
people would have a hard timeaccepting it, even though they
believe in it, because there's a, a.
There's a difference betweensaying I believe in something
and seeing it in front of you.

(45:27):
Oh, and I thought that wasinteresting that he picked that
religion too, because, like Isay, there's the more I look
into it, there seems to becorrelations.
There seems to be.
I mean, if our religionsweren't directly influenced by
extraterrestrials of some sort.
They certainly had some sort ofimpact on it, even if it's just

(45:50):
a side impact on it, in thatthings that were them were
attributed to religious eventsand they weren't involved.

Speaker 2 (45:58):
Well, it's interesting, Chris, that all
ancient civilizations andcivilizations today, and it's
funny how they said that there'sa possibility that maybe
they're already here.
There's a possibility thatHarvard study that maybe they're
living subterraneously.

Speaker 1 (46:16):
In our oceans.

Speaker 2 (46:17):
Yeah, that, generally , though, all religions, the
good guys are from the sky andthe bad guys are from down below
, true, just about everyone,yeah, everyone, I mean maybe
them, and it goes variousdegrees of good and bad, right,
but, um, you know, the good guysare never on in the ground,
right, but it's always right.

(46:39):
Angels, you can go, you can gothrough it.
Uh, make a lot of parallelsbetween religion and, um, this
phenomenon that we're discussingI've also heard it said too.

Speaker 1 (46:46):
It makes would make total sense that these things
would go in the ocean.
Because water if you are on adifferent planet from yours,
water is the best thing, becausewater can only be so cold
before it freezes and it canonly be so hot before it
evaporates.
So your, your, your temperature, uh range is smaller in the

(47:08):
water than it is on the, in theatmosphere, that's true, where
it could be fiery, you knowright, crazy, or it could be
freezing cold, but with waterit's kind of more in more stable
and it would be the easiestplace to be, uh, concealed,
concealed, right, because?
we can't.
We can't really get down deepin our ocean, as different
events have shown us in recentpast.

Speaker 2 (47:30):
The number of people in the water is so much smaller
than the number of people onland.

Speaker 1 (47:36):
Right and we only have like what small 10% maybe
of our ocean floor studied.

Speaker 3 (47:42):
It's a very small percentage.
We don't know much about it, Imean at least publicly.
I'm sure the military knows alittle bit more of our ocean
floor.
Uh, study, it's a very smallpercentage.

Speaker 1 (47:44):
We don't know much about it, I mean at least
publicly.
I'm sure the military knows alittle bit more, but they have a
whole problem here.
But anyway, with a couple more,and then we'll wrap this one up
but?

Speaker 4 (47:51):
but do you think that the phenomena, this non-human
form of intelligence, representsa threat to humanity?

Speaker 3 (47:59):
so.
So this is a good question too,and some of the other folks have
sort of framed things in thatin that light, and I guess I
would suggest that if we're, theuniverse is governed by
conservation laws, and it'sprobably reasonable to assume
the laws of nature that weunderstand apply everywhere.
We may have incompleteunderstanding undoubtedly we do

(48:20):
of these laws, but they're sortof homogeneous and they apply
throughout the universe, and sothose laws are governed by
conservation rules.
There's conserved quantities,and so this reality really
forces a Darwinian typecompetition in order to survive,
and so it's reasonable toassume any other civilization
that's evolved has come upthrough the same darwinian

(48:42):
evolutionary process.
So I think it's naive to expectcomplete altruism until and
unless you get to a post, astate of post-scarcity, where
you essentially have no, uh, youknow, physical needs, uh, that
were kind of encumbered with inin in this universe, and so in
some it's the economics of thefuture that are going to

(49:04):
determine whether there'scooperation, competition or some
sort of symbiosis, and informthe intention.
But to assume either malintentor complete altruism I think is
somewhat naive.

Speaker 4 (49:19):
Yeah, so it sounds like what you're saying is it's
impossible to know the trueintentions of a higher
intelligence.
We may be competing for thesame scarce resources.

Speaker 1 (49:28):
We may not be right, we may be almost irrelevant from
them, irrelevant to them, andthey may be acting
altruistically, although wecannot safely assume that agree
because I think if, if you didget to a point of free energy,
you know something unlimitedenergy that that takes a lot of
um, maybe it's not everything,but it takes a lot of the onus

(49:49):
off to to compete you know, whathe's saying is is that we can
assume that the universe workson similar principles, in that
resources and there are limitednumber of resources and they get
, you know, consumed.
I believe this was the plot ofuh independence day, where that
with it, they came here, wouldsuck us dry of resources and
destroy us and then move onright.

(50:10):
Um, but they're saying you know, saying you know, we got to be
cautious.
We can't assume altruism, butwe also shouldn't assume hostile
intent.
It could be somewhere in themiddle like it's probably where
it is just like most thingscould be.
You know, they they're not stripmining our resources at least
they don't appear to be, um, butthey're not here as our saviors

(50:30):
, yeah, and, and maybe theresources that they need are
ones that either we don't missor we're not utilizing like it's
been.
It's been theorized that maybe,um, maybe, water is where they
recharge their engines, becauseit's something to do with
hydrogen and all.
I mean.
There's ways of approaching it.
We could say well, maybethere's a reason why.
Maybe what they're here tocollect isn't gold and silver or

(50:54):
oil.
It's something that we're notutilizing.
So they're taking it and it'shaving no effect on us because
we don't actually do anythingwith it.
But, anyway, I thought that wasan area I just want to.

Speaker 4 (51:06):
And so I guess I'm curious if we continue down this
disclosure path, do you believethat disclosure is inevitable?

Speaker 3 (51:12):
So, again, people that sort of look at this topic
and study it and there have beensome, some good examinations on
this from a historicalstandpoint realized that like
we're not in really a new state,like this sort of disclosure
emphasis has come and gone overtime, and so this is not the

(51:32):
first time we've arrived at thisstage.
I would suggest that maybe thepeak of this current cycle
happened last December with theSchumer Amendment, and then it
got rolled back and was defeatedin the House, and so it remains
to be seen, you know, if theprocess is going to continue.
One hopes and can maybe draw alittle bit of confidence that

(51:53):
maybe this will come around, isthe colloquy that Senator
Schumer and Senator Rounds hadback in December After their
amendment got killed.
They basically went on theSenate floor and articulated
their rationale for thelegislation, and I think Senator
Schumer, to quote him, almostsaid it was a travesty that this

(52:14):
did not pass.
So this is, you know, abipartisan colloquy on a topic
that I guess most people wouldprobably consider fringe, and
yet these two senators felt theneed to do that and to double
down on their desire to see thisthrough.
Yeah, so hopefully we'll seemaybe a reintroduction of some
version of that this, theNational Defense Authorization

(52:37):
Act that basically mirrored allthe ones that were taken out.
He had the review board.

Speaker 1 (52:55):
In there he had the eminent domain.
What else did he have?
There was a few others.
He had a couple of, butbasically all ones to strengthen
the UAP thing.
He had a couple of, butbasically all ones, to
strengthen the UAP thing.
Unfortunately, the committeethat decides what gets in the
legislation did not pick up anyof those.
But that doesn't mean that theywon't end up there, because the
process continues.
So it's possible that theSenate could put them in so

(53:17):
either side could put them in.
So he tried, robert Garciatried he's a Democrat.
He tried on the House sideno-transcript to it and

(53:51):
everybody did that.
That's not going to happen thistime.
I don't think so.
It can't.
It's just the internet didn'texist then.

Speaker 4 (53:56):
So all right, a few more here yeah, I mean, I think
the one thing that I don't fullyunderstand that I'd love to get
your thoughts on, carl.
I mean, if we assume that ahigher form of non-human
intelligence has been visitingthis planet, if we assume that
some of the statements made byfolks like Dave Grush are true,
that we have crashed materials,and if we assume that those

(54:17):
craft that we may have exhibitcharacteristics that defy our
current understanding of physics, exhibit characteristics that
defy our current understandingof physics, it would seem that
that technology would provide anincredible strategic advantage
to whatever nation ends upreverse engineering at first,
and so to me, that would implythat there is a race happening

(54:40):
to reverse engineer this andthat this topic would be a top
priority.
Do you agree with that?

Speaker 3 (54:46):
So I think some of what you say is a reasonable
conclusion to be drawn, and I'vesuggested something similar in
past statements.
The point here, though, is togo from a pre-disclosure to a
post-disclosure world, maybe twostable states that are
separated by an unstable middleground, and so how you make that
transition again, you know,this speaks to the concern about

(55:09):
this catastrophic disclosure,and this has come up in sort of
arms regulation too, mutuallyassured destruction.
However much we don't like, itis sort of a stable kind of you
know, geostrategic regime.
You know, the Reagan eradefense shield idea is also a
very stable scenario, but to gofrom one to the other is very

(55:31):
unstable, and so this topic sortof mirrors that.

Speaker 1 (55:35):
It kind of mirrors what you said earlier about
nuclear weapons.
Right, better that everybody,better that not everybody, but
better than more than one nationstate have them in order to
kind of keep the peace, whereasif only one nation-state has it
and everyone else is subjugated,they can do whatever the hell
they want, right, becausethey'll say well, we have the
big weapons and nobody else doesso.

(55:57):
I also like how he asked can weassume there's a race happening
among the nations to like whocan get, who can unlock this
technology first?
He doesn't say, he says youcould, you could infer that with
a reasonable conclusion.
That's his way of saying yeah, Ican't tell you that it is, but
that's a reasonable conclusion.

Speaker 2 (56:17):
You might be on to something.

Speaker 4 (56:18):
Yeah, so I thought that and this is the last bit
here and we'll wrap it up- yeah,and I know you and I were
talking earlier about this ideathat in order to really
understand the phenomena, it'slikely that we have to further
our understanding of realityitself.
And I guess I'm wondering I canimagine a future where we

(56:38):
acknowledge and we know thatthere is a higher form of
non-human intelligence, yet westill don't truly understand the
phenomena, we still don't trulyunderstand reality.
And so I guess I'm wondering doyou think that we'll ever truly
understand what's going on, orif part of the game, part of the
journey, part of life itself isoperating in an environment

(56:59):
where at least part of it isfundamentally unknowable to us?

Speaker 3 (57:03):
So this is a totally philosophical, epistemological
question, right, really?
About the nature of knowledgeitself, right, like how can we
know what we know and how can webe sure about what we know, I
guess, personally, I subscribeto the idea that there is an
ultimate truth and that humanitybeing, you know, created in the
image of a higher power isendowed with the quality to

(57:24):
pursue an understanding of that,and so part of our objective in
this existence is to seek thatout and try to understand that
ultimate truth to a greater andgreater degree, and this would
be a component of that,obviously.

Speaker 4 (57:41):
Well, carl, I really appreciate you taking the time
to chat with us today.
Obviously.
Well, carl, I really appreciateyou taking the time to chat
with us today.
I'm hopeful and optimistic thattogether maybe we can move the
ball forward here and furtherour understanding of what is
really going on, because Icertainly agree with you, I
think it is very consequentialthat we figure this out.
So thank you again for coming,thank you again to Salt for

(58:02):
hosting us and thank you againfor coming, thank you again to
salt for hosting us and thankyou all for listening.

Speaker 1 (58:06):
That's.
I like that because he'sbasically saying you know it's,
it's, it's common, it's not,you're not going to.
This is we're going to findthis out.
It's, it's our goal to find,it's our destiny to find this
out.
Like we can't be kept in thedark forever, our sense of being
able to pursuit of happiness,we need to know.
Like we need to know what theworld really is, can't keep it

(58:28):
hidden forever.

Speaker 2 (58:29):
Right, and I mean there really is no information
that is unknown forevergenerally.

Speaker 1 (58:37):
Yeah, I mean, everything comes out so.
So what I find interesting iswhen I think about disclosure
and I might I might do a littlea little episode on this on my
own, but I've been thinkingabout it a lot.
You know, disclosure is not anevent.
Everybody thinks a disclosureis when the president comes out
and announces to the world hey,there's UFOs.
Disclosure is a process.
That's probably the end of theprocess, like at that point

(58:59):
everybody knows.
But if you're being smart andyou want to roll this out, it
could not be the end of theprocess.
Well, it could be, but it'stowards the end, when everybody
knows, at that point you're,you're, you've disclosed, yes,
but before that, when noteverybody knows, you're in
different stages, and so thequestion is how do you let some
of the population know while notletting all of the population

(59:21):
know?
Because if you're letting youthink that's how it would have
to go, well, I think it's justgoing that way, naturally.
How do you do that, though,with the way information Well,
who's the first group of peoplewho are more likely to know is
the military, because when yousee all these high level
military people come out likeColonel, right, his resume is

(59:42):
impressive to us, but if you'rein the military and you know
what all those things mean, it'sprobably way more impressive.
Like you and I don't know everylittle thing of like when he
says I was, you know this, I wasthat, and we're like, oh, that
sounds impressive.
We don't actually know what itis Right, but somebody who knows

(01:00:05):
what that is goes oh my God,carl Nell, are you kidding me?
He's a, a colonel, he's, he'shad access that you know, only
few people have.
He's, you know.
So it's almost like that'shappened is more likely military
people who look at the peoplewho are saying it and hold them
in high regard are going, wow,there's really something to this
, whereas the general public isgoing, all right, that's sounds
impressive.
But it can also not beimpressive.

(01:00:25):
Oh, you were in the army, wereyou in the motor pool?
It's like you could make itnon-impressive.
But those who know know.
So that's the first group thatyou have to let know.
Another group you have to letknow is religious people, a
little harder, but again, youcan't tell one group without
potentially telling all thegroups.

(01:00:47):
But one way you can do that isyou modulate the message through
the voice that's going to bemost believed by the group
you're trying to reach.
So military is going to befirst anyway, because it's
military people who are comingout.
So military people are going tohear other military people and
know oh my God, there's someone.
I should listen to.

(01:01:07):
General public, some are goingto believe it, some are not.
This seems like the next stage.
This seems like the.
Now we got to tell the moneypeople.
So we get this guy up in frontof money people and say, hey,
this is going on, and again youraverage citizen might hear it
and go all right, there was somefinancial convention and some
guy from the military saidthere's UFOs, okay, I still
don't believe it.

(01:01:27):
Whereas the people in the roomwith him and go oh my God, this
guy is a heavy hitter and hejust told us that.
And last year when I came here,there was a Stanford
microbiologist who said it veryplainly.
So that, to me, is the way youget like the general populace.
They're the last ones you needto get on board.
They're the most troublesomebecause they're the ones that,

(01:01:48):
when they learn, could throwthings off the rails if
everybody rebels and they're notgoing to believe until the
media tells them.
A lot of people are not goingto believe it until CNN or MSbc
or fox news or whatever it iscomes on and says, hey, this
stuff's real.
And that's kind of the lastthing you want to happen because

(01:02:11):
you want everyone else in place, right?
Because if you have, ifreligious people know, if
military people know, if themoney people are already
comfortable with it.
Then when the general populacefinds out, it's a little easier
to deal with because you're nottrying to calm them down.
While you're trying to calm themilitary down and the religious
people down and the moneypeople down, you've already
taken care of them, not all ofthem, but the ones that matter,

(01:02:33):
and so you're letting the peoplein last.
That's my theory anyway.
I don't think it's necessarilyplanned.
I just think that's the wayit's rolling out.
Is it's just?
Different groups are getting itand, little by little, and
other groups are hearing it aswell, but they don't know that
the message is right becausethey don't see.
You know who the speaker is?

Speaker 2 (01:02:48):
I don't know, that's my thought anyway, you could
also look at it.
I think that is a pretty goodtheory, but I think it doesn't
have to be linear.
You could have more than onething happening, of course.
Yeah, right, the generalpopulation.
With the way information isbeing disseminated, you could be

(01:03:09):
say that we're beingconditioned to accept.

Speaker 1 (01:03:10):
Yeah, and maybe we have been for a long time.
Maybe we have been for a verylong time.
I find it very interesting thatum steven spielberg is getting
back into a ufo alien movie ohreally 2025 and he's calling it
an event picture.

Speaker 2 (01:03:26):
What are you talking about?
Oh, like, that movie's going tobe about an event.

Speaker 1 (01:03:31):
Not necessarily.
Is that what you mean?
The movie itself is an event,like, if you think about it,
spielberg hasn't been directlyinvolved in any of these things
since, like Close Encounters ofthe Third Kind and ET, any
movies that amblin entertainmentdid or any documentaries on
ufos.

Speaker 2 (01:03:48):
Spielberg's name was like attached because he's the
company right, but or you meanhis direct involvement in a
movie, but he didn't have todirect it.
He didn't direct it.

Speaker 1 (01:03:59):
He might have been, you know, involved he directed
other types of things.
You're right, and this is thefirst time he's coming back to.
Hey, I'm gonna do it an alienufo movie and it's gonna be an
event picture, meaning that themovie itself is an event.
It's not.
It's not that the movie's basedon an event necessarily, I
think.
It's just that, like this isgonna be a big deal.
I got because I'm not justcranking out a movie, I'm gonna
put it out quietly.
There's gonna be some pomp andcircumstance and I'm thinking to

(01:04:21):
myself all right, do you know,something like do you know that
by then jay allen hynek, who wementioned earlier, was in close
encounters of the third kind?
He was among the scientists, hedid a cameo and he was among
the scientists who were waitingthere at the end when the ship,
you know, when they were alllooking at the ship, and he has
connections spielberg hasconnections with people who are

(01:04:43):
in the know.

Speaker 2 (01:04:44):
He had somebody kind of play his part.
I have a feeling he knows.

Speaker 1 (01:04:47):
Yeah, he had somebody else, but it's just interesting
that he he's someone who, ifsomeone in the entertainment
industry is going to know, I'dput Spielberg pretty high on
that list.
Yeah.
He has a lot of credibility andjust the fact that he's picking
now to get back into it.
Yeah, to get back into it.
Yeah, I'm going to put out aUFO, alien picture and it's
going to be an event.
It's not just going to be ETpart two or Close Encounters
part two.

(01:05:08):
He's going to break new ground.
Who knows, maybe he's going todip into the taboo topic of
abductions, which we'll talkabout at some point.

Speaker 2 (01:05:17):
But I mean, that's Nobody really talks about that.

Speaker 1 (01:05:19):
It's because the implications of it are scary.

Speaker 2 (01:05:22):
Well, I mean, the implications are that we can't
be protected.

Speaker 1 (01:05:26):
Right, and how do you tell people that?
That's another one of thosequestions.
So aliens and UFOs are real?
Government?
You're telling us that, right?
What about abductions?
Are those real?
Yeah, I guess they are Allright.
So there's something coming andtaking citizens and you can't
protect us, right?
Yeah, I guess that's kind of it.
There's no way to tell you thefirst part without you inferring

(01:05:46):
the second part, and that'sagain going to lead to collapse.
I find this all to beinteresting.
Yeah, there was more, but Ithink that's a good place to
kind of end this episode.

Speaker 2 (01:05:57):
We're hitting the-.
We went over a lot of stuff andthere's a lot more to go over.
So we and there's a lot more togo over.
So we're going to have to comeback to this soon, I think.

Speaker 1 (01:06:04):
Yeah, I think I like what we've been doing lately.
Like you suggested, we take alittle break from UFOs because I
know sometimes people out thereyou know I love UFOs and I'll
talk about it all the time, butpeople want some variety and I
understand and there's lots ofinteresting things to talk about
and some of them even touch onthe UFO subject without
necessarily being right there.
I'd love to talk aboutSkinwalker Ranch at some point.
I'd love to talk aboutabductions and just look into

(01:06:27):
that a little bit and cropcircles.
That's another interesting one.

Speaker 4 (01:06:30):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:06:30):
Well, crop circles is such a visual medium.
I feel like that might be oneif we ever go over to video.
Right, do some video, becauseyou need to see some of this
stuff.
Yeah, just talking about itit's not the same.
Can't really describe a reallygood circle, but I don't know.
I think this was good.
I hope you're out there.
You know that it opened yourmind up a little bit to say that
there's something going on.

Speaker 2 (01:06:49):
Oh, there's definitely something.
What it is is open right now.

Speaker 1 (01:06:53):
There's something going on here what it is ain't
exactly clear as the song saysbut no, it's, I don't know.
There's a man with a ray gunover there telling me to beware
ray gun.
Anyway, anyway, uh, anyway,that was good, good discussion
and, uh, we look forward todoing it again and until next
time, I'm this is chris and I'msteve, and this has been some

(01:07:14):
deep shit.
We'll be you next time.

All Episodes

(Not So) Deep Sh*t on UFO Disclosure - (Part 2)

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Crime Junkie

Ridiculous History

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

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