(Not So) Deep Sh*t on UFO Cover-Ups and UAP Disclosure

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
I'm Chris, I'm Steve, and we're talking to talk about

(00:31):
some more deep shit.
How's it going, steve, chris,how you doing Good.

Speaker 2 (00:35):
It's been a while since we've recorded.
It has been.
We go through these phases.
Sometimes we're trying to getmore consistent.

Speaker 1 (00:40):
Yeah, the summer, it's always the summertime.
Summer gets really busy forboth of us and it's hard to stay
on track as much as we want to.

Speaker 2 (00:47):
Right, right.
The older I'm getting, it'sgetting a little more, a little
easier.
But you know this year was verycrazy, and as was with you too,
so hopefully we get on a bettertrack here, which I'm sure we
will.

Speaker 1 (00:59):
Yeah, and that's how it goes.
Right In the early parts of ourlives we have so much free time
that we don't know what to dowith ourselves, and then you get
to that middle part where youhave little or no free time,
right, and then eventually youget to the other side where the
free time opens up a little bit.
So hopefully we're both gettingtowards that area yes, I think
so.

Speaker 2 (01:18):
We'll see.

Speaker 1 (01:19):
But yeah, this you know, and but there's so much
we've missed, so much has goneon as far as the topics we love
to discuss over this last coupleof months, so there's a lot to
talk about today.

Speaker 2 (01:29):
Yeah, and I'm excited to talk to you about, and get
your thoughts on, differenttopics, because we were
reviewing prior to recording andsome of us had some of the same
things and some of them alittle different, so there's a
lot going on.

Speaker 1 (01:45):
It's such a great time for this topic.

Speaker 2 (01:46):
Right, right, and some of them a little different.
So there's a lot going on.

Speaker 1 (01:50):
It's such a great time for this topic, right,
right.
So what would you like to talkabout first?
I mean, a good place to startwould be the UAP Disclosure Act.
It was the UAP Disclosure Actof 2023, but now they're trying
to reintroduce it the UAPDisclosure Act of 2024.
They reintroduced thatlegislation and they're trying
to get it in the nationaldefense authorization act, and,
if that goes through, it willestablish a presidential panel

(02:14):
that will review all ufomaterial for release, and, um,
yeah, it's a big deal.
We'll see if that goes through,though.
As of the other day, congresshas left for recess and that is
not in the National DefenseAuthorization Act, so it hasn't
happened yet.

Speaker 2 (02:33):
So I know you well.
At least I believe you know alittle bit more about this than
I do.
I know some stuff about it andI know you do your the talks you
do right.
So I know some stuff about itand I know you do your the talks
you do right.
So I know you probably have tolook into it a little more.

Speaker 1 (02:49):
Yeah, and I follow it on Twitter as well.
That's a good source of stuff.

Speaker 2 (02:52):
What do you think is the major holdup?
What's the pushback?
What is it that you thinkthat's maybe?
What's the official pushback?

Speaker 1 (03:01):
That's a good question.
What's interesting is, no onewill even cop to pushing back
against it.
So when Congress let out,there's this reporter, matt
Laszlo, and he runs this.
I think it's a site called Aska Poll.
Ask a Poll like Ask aPolitician.
Oh, okay he just asked.

(03:21):
So he's done a great job ofgetting politicians to talk to
him about what's going on.
So that's how a lot ofinformation is found out.

(03:49):
So he cornered Mike Rounds, whois one of the co -sponsors of
this legislation, along withChuck Schumer.
So again you have Republicansand Democrats one of the few
topics that they are workingtogether on and basically asked
them about them about.
The word went out oh, it's beengutted again.
That's what people say when itdoesn't make the last year.

(04:11):
It didn't.
It made the authorization, theNational Defense Authorization
Act, but not all of it.
That made it is that all UFOmaterial that every branch of
government has is supposed to bedelivered to the National

(04:33):
Archives by October of this year.
I can't remember the specificdate, but there's a specific
date that every branch issupposed to turn over all their
material to the NationalArchives and there is a
presumption that anything thatis 25 years or older there is an
automatic presumption ofautomatic release, because they

(04:55):
figure anything 25 years orolder.
Why would you?
What could possibly be thereason to hold that back?
There's no, how could you makean excuse that, okay, this
information is 30 years old?
Well, if it's classified.
You can only classify stuff toprotect sources and methods.
What sources and methods werebeing used 30 years ago?

(05:18):
That would still be in usetoday, and so you couldn't
release it.
So the thought process isanything that old.
There's no reason not torelease it.
So the thought process isanything that old, there's no
reason not to release it.
And the National Archives justhad a huge dump of all this
material, so people are goingthrough it now.
That's the thing is, they'renot putting it out piece by
piece, they're putting it out inbulk, and so people are gonna
have to comb through it to findthe treasures.

(05:39):
But as far as what's holding itout, the thought is, or the
rumor is, that there are acouple people who don't want.
They don't want this to moveforward, for whatever reason
they're trying to protect.
I mean, remember we've talkedabout this before If this indeed
has been covered up, crimeshave been committed, like

(05:59):
there's really serious issues.
I think that people, becausethis is UFOs, people don't take
it seriously.
But if you take UFOs out of itand just think about the
implications of some informationbeing kept from Congress and
the executive branch illegallyfor how many years, I mean let's

(06:19):
just say let's start at it inthe late 40s.
So you're talking like 90 years, 70 years.
You know that this informationis I mean, you're talking about
a constitutional crisis Likethis is more than just UFOs.
This could potentially be a bigdeal, and so that's the thought
process is that people don'twant to get caught up in this,

(06:40):
so we'll see.

Speaker 2 (06:43):
But is there a why is it not passing then?
I don't understand.
It's not that it's not passing.

Speaker 1 (06:51):
It's the way these things work.
Legislation is such.
It's such a convoluted process.
So the way these things work isthe House will have their
version of the National DefenseAuthorization Act right, all the
things that they want to fundthe military Right and then the
Senate will have their version,and then they have to get
together in committees and sortof hammer it out.
So it's a one, and so that'swhere the agreements come in.

(07:14):
Everyone's trying to add stuffto the National Defense
Authorization Act.
It's not like the UFO stuff isthe only thing that's trying to
be added.
It's one of a bunch of thingsand they can't add it all, and
so there's a fight in committeeand so that's where it's been
happening is behind the scenes.
Last year there was some wordthat, uh, a representative, mike

(07:38):
turner, from ohio, I believe,who actually represents the
district of right patterson AirForce Base, and if you know, you
know, in UFO lore, wrightPatterson is supposedly the
place where the Roswell bodieswent after they're taken,
they're deep in this stuff andsome defense contractors, and so
if defense contractors havesome of this material from

(07:59):
crashed vehicles, they have avested interest in not losing
their resource and not beingouted.
I mean, there's a lot ofproblems here that I don't think
people are thinking about, likewhat if you're one of these
aerospace companies and namesthat have been thrown out there
by people in the know LockheedMartin, boeing, there's a few

(08:22):
others, basically, and so whatif one of these, one of these
defense industry you knowcompanies got material and this
other one didn't?
And so now flash forward manyyears and the one that got the
material is among the biggestdefense you know, lockheed
Martin and all that and the onethat didn't is out of business.
And now, years later, you findout the government handed one of

(08:45):
these companies material anddidn't hand it to the other.
I mean, you're talking aboutpotential lawsuits, you're
talking about fiscal fraud,people who are investing in that
company.
You have to tell yourstockholders, your shareholders,
all the company resources.
But if this company has hadsecret resources that it's been

(09:06):
exploiting and not telling itsshareholders, that's a problem
too.

Speaker 2 (09:11):
So there's a lot of that's the thing you think,
though, even if this gets passed, you think that that's
something anybody will ever findout that's the question, right
is, you can't predict whatquestions will be asked.

Speaker 1 (09:24):
that's always been a thing that people have said is,
once you open this can of wormsand the press starts actually
taking interest in it, what arethe questions that they're going
to ask?
Are they going to say, okay,you're telling us all this stuff
is real.
When did you know it was real?
Well, we knew.
The government knew in 49, orwhatever.
Okay, or 47, 1947.
Okay.
So for you know, the governmentknew in 49, you know, or

(09:45):
whatever, okay, or 47, 1947.
Okay.
So, for that many years, howmany lies have been told?
How many, how many you know?
Has anyone been hurt or killedto keep the secret?

Speaker 2 (09:55):
That's an allegation that's been made over and over
and over again do you think thatwe'll ever be actually told by
the government that they knewthat things were real, or do you
think?
Sometimes I think to myselfthat maybe we're going to be
told in dribs and drabs, kind ofdripping it to you, but more

(10:20):
along the lines that we'rereally not sure that they're not
real.

Speaker 1 (10:27):
And that's probably not untrue.
There's parts of the majorityof the government probably has
no idea that this stuff is realbecause this stuff's been kept
so locked tight.
The number of people who'vebeen privy to this information
over the years has beenrelatively small.

Speaker 2 (10:42):
You know what I mean, though I wonder if it'll be a
big reveal or it'll be more likewell, we're not as sure as we
thought we were.

Speaker 1 (10:50):
I think they're going to want to pretend like they're
discovering it along with thepeople, like that's going to be
that's what I mean.
That's why everything you hearfrom the government, it pretends
that this issue started in 2004.
Like, if you listen to any ofthe government stuff they've
been putting out, even the UAPreports, when were the first UAP
reports?
2004,?
The Tic Tac incident?
That's it.

(11:11):
They're really pretending thatthis just started in 2000.
Oh, we just discovered thisthing, and that's probably true
for a lot of the government.
I mean, that's the thing whenpeople say the government it's
not one big monolith, it's likeanything else.
There's little individualpockets and these people and
these people and they're alldoing their thing.

(11:32):
But the number of people whowere probably in on this from
the beginning, most of them aredead.
Most of them are not aroundanymore.
So all you have is the fewpeople who kind of took on the
secret, and that number isprobably relatively small and
there's probably someinformation that's just lost.
You know, like informationwe'll never get, just because

(11:55):
only a handful of people knewabout it and those people are
now dead.
So it'll.
One of the biggest holdups toall of this stuff is a lot of it
falls under the 1954 AtomicEnergy Act.
That makes some atomicinformation information about,
about, you know, nuclear bombs,even if you don't get it from a

(12:21):
classified source.
Meaning if two physicists weretalking, there's certain aspects
if they started talking abouthow to make nuclear weapons,
there's certain aspects of itthat the information is born
classified.

Speaker 2 (12:35):
So even if these what does that mean?

Speaker 1 (12:36):
Meaning that if two physicists that didn't have
access to any insiderinformation but were just
figuring stuff out, let's justsay they were like Just your
idea, your idea is already classIf it has to, if it already, if
it has to do with nuclear,certain level of nuclear weapons
, there's an assumption thatit's automatically classified,

(12:57):
even if you didn't.
Yeah, it's one Wait a minute.

Speaker 2 (12:59):
So if I just happen to think of something and I
write it down, that could beclassified Yep, even though I
don't know it and they couldactually.

Speaker 1 (13:10):
So is it a?

Speaker 2 (13:11):
crime, to give away the information even if you
don't know it's classified.
Yes, that's weird.

Speaker 1 (13:15):
Yes, and they couple it with the.
There's an espionage act fromway back.
I can't that.

Speaker 2 (13:21):
yes, that's the thing is people underestimate how,
how, like, well, why don't thepeople in government who know
this just come out and say it,because they could go to prison

(13:42):
for the rest of their life orexecuted, like you say that?
How did it get?

Speaker 1 (13:44):
I wonder how this topic UFO, uap how did it get
interwoven with the Nuclear Act,Because when this was coming up
in the late 40s it reallypicked up right around the same
time nuclear was so there's someconcepts of the two things that
are similar.
Well, let's put it this waylet's take the Tic Tac.
Whatever the power source thatruns on, that it's not unleaded

(14:06):
gas.

Speaker 2 (14:07):
No, and it's probably not nuclear?

Speaker 1 (14:08):
actually, Probably not nuclear either, but it
generates a lot of power.

Speaker 2 (14:14):
Even nuclear power has waste and has some remnants
that something's being used.
But when you watch that Tic Tacvideo it appears as if the
energy is not being releasedanything around that, around
that the unit or the craft,whatever it might be.

Speaker 1 (14:32):
You know it's interesting in.
Luis Elizondo just had his bookcome out, eminent, great book.
I felt, if you, if you haven'tread that, I out there like get
it.
The audio version is reallygood because it's read by Lou.
He has a good way withtransmitting the information,
but the book is very interestingand he talks a lot about that

(14:54):
and actually gives what theirworking theory was on how these
things operate.
It's really interesting.

Speaker 2 (14:59):
But basically, Do you want to tell me?
Yeah, we'll talk about it.

Speaker 1 (15:02):
Yes, it's basically the way it was explained in very
simplistic terms is if you wereable to generate enough energy.
That's the question.
You have to have a lot ofenergy to be able to put a
bubble around a craft and thatbubble would make what's inside
the bubble immune to the effectsof gravity.

(15:23):
Now a lot of people, when theyhear that, just says okay,
that'll make it just float.
No, it's more than just that.
When gravity and time are sointerlinked that if you can
insulate something from gravity,you can also insulate it, in a
certain sense, from time.
So if the craft were to moveinside the craft, time is moving

(15:45):
slightly different, actually alot different than it is if the
craft were to move inside thecraft, time is moving slightly
different, actually a lotdifferent than it is outside the
craft.
So we to us, we see it doingthese crazy things that don't
make sense.
But if you're in the bubble,you're not doing anything that
crazy.
It's just you're moving at sucha fast speed outside the bubble

(16:05):
that people think you're doingcrazy things.
I'm probably not explaining itwell, but there's a theory that
puts it all together and says no, this actually would explain
all the observables theinstantaneous acceleration, the
transmedium travel, everythingabout it is explained with one
simple thing, but the key isenergy.

(16:25):
And so that's, where can youget that much energy?
And I think the theory is isthat if you could access the,
the empty space and hydrogenwater, why are uaps seen around
water a lot?
Well, maybe they use water as away of perpet, you know,
creating the energy that theyuse to do what they do.

Speaker 2 (16:46):
Again, these are all just theories.

Speaker 1 (16:48):
I don't know the truth of this and I don't have
enough of a science backgroundto really dig into it, but it's
interesting how he talks aboutit in the book, and so that's
the key.
So back to the original questionwhy would this stuff be
classified so high?
If you can generate that muchenergy, you can do a lot of

(17:08):
things.
The first things humans wouldprobably do is make something
that goes boom, and if you couldgenerate that much energy, you
potentially could have enoughenergy to destroy everything.
Like that's the thing.
What if this craft reallyrequired people to have like a
perspective and say, okay, wecan generate unlimited energy to
power this craft, but if youturn your your sites to wanting

(17:30):
to make a bomb with thisunleashing, this would be bad
because you could get morepowerful than any nuke that we
have.
They calculated the energyrequired to do some of those
moves of the tic-tac andbasically said the amount of
energy that would be required todo what the tic-tac did is more
than a hundred times of all thenuclear output of the entire

(17:54):
united states for a year that's,that's what I mean.
I did, that's why it can't benuclear it's not, but it's just
that amount of energy.

Speaker 2 (18:01):
So but what do you, chris?
This is, I find it fascinating.
What do you think?
What is the motivation ofdifferent branches or sectors of
the government to the Tic Tac,for example?
Right, we watch it and you saywhat is that?
Right, the people that werethere don't know what it was.

(18:23):
People that watched itafterward don't know what it was
.
People that watched itafterward don't know what it was
.
I'm they're unsure, you know.
Oh, it's light off the oceanit's not light off the ocean
right, um, because that's not.
How would that be classified?
Right um but what's themotivation?
But to not want to figure itout in terms of the government,

(18:45):
like saying that's classified,that's this, that's that.
Do you think they somehow thatthey have an idea what it is?

Speaker 1 (18:51):
Oh, I'm sure, I'm sure there's some who have a
much better idea of what it isthan most.

Speaker 2 (18:57):
Now, why do you think ?
This always fascinates me?
Why do you think that there issome part of the government, so
maybe some agency or something,that has an idea, but there's no
private people that have anidea?
You know like that, have such aclear idea about it?

Speaker 1 (19:18):
Well, we think that, but I mean, if there's defense
contractors involved in all this, let's say, somebody that's a
physicist or something.
Well, but I think a lot becausea lot of physicists haven't even
looked into it.
This topic is so stigmatized,even still you think so.
It's so hard to talk about thistopic.
We are so well-trained to reacta certain way when certain

(19:40):
words are said Paranormal, ufos,ghosts, there's a lot of things
like that that you just meantbringing up in your average
setting and watch people'sreaction.
It's immediate, it's visceral.
They've been so well-trained tomock this that for years you
know reputable scientistswouldn't go anywhere near it.

(20:01):
People who could solve itdidn't want to touch it because
the very topic was likeradioactive, and I mean that in
the general sense like if youtouch this topic, it would ruin
your career, and that's you know.
Back to the the numerous reasonswhy you wouldn't let this out.
What?
What would you say to somebodywho had a sighting years ago and

(20:25):
saw something and everyone saidthey were crazy.
Everyone said what you sawcouldn't, doesn't exist.
The government says it doesn'texist.
You're lying.
That person's life got ruined.
They lost, maybe, their job,they lost their marriage, they
lost everything, right, they mayhave even lost their life.
Now, years later, thegovernment says oh yeah, you
know what these, these thingsare real and we knew about it

(20:45):
and we made the decision to nottell anybody.

Speaker 2 (20:49):
That's why I think that's not going to happen.

Speaker 1 (20:51):
Well, that's the thing is.
That's why it's not going tohappen.
Unless you preempt that bypassing some legislation that
protects Like maybe you have todo a thing.
This is not unheard of.
This is like we've done thisbefore with the intelligence
agencies, basically to say,listen, we need to know what you
did and so we're going to giveimmunity to people who come

(21:14):
forward and talk.
Like that would be the bestthing is to say, all right,
anyone who knows stuff aboutthis, you can come talk to these
specific people.
And if you come out and talk tothese specific people, we'll
forgive anything you may havedone in the course of trying to
keep this secret, because weunderstand that you did it, you
know for ostensibly good reasons, but if you don't come forward

(21:38):
and we find you, then we'regoing to prosecute you to the
fullest extent of the law foreverything you did.
So come forward now, tell uswhat you know and you won't get
punished or don't, and if wefind you, you're going to be in
trouble.
Maybe that would do it, but theproblem is is that you can't
even if you know some of thisstuff, because it's classified,

(22:01):
you can't just wander into youknow some office and talk about
it.
You can only talk about it.
You can only talk about it withpeople who are cleared to know
it.
And that's the other piece ofyou know, people who don't
really understand classificationthink that you know everybody
with a certain clearance canread everything of that
clearance.
That's not true.
You have to have the clearance,but you also have to
demonstrate a need to know.

(22:22):
So there are people who aretheoretically able to get this
level of top secret information,but there's all sorts of stuff
at that level that they don'thave a need to know, so they
don't know it.
So that's the problem you getinto is how do you do it when
these secrets are so wrapped upthat even talking about them,
you're breaking the law?

(22:42):
So you have to do somethingabout that.
You have to give people a pathto say, hey, here's this little
office and here's a handful ofpeople who are cleared to know
everything.
Everything doesn't matter whatit is, no matter, doesn't matter
how high it's, it's, they knowit.
So if you know anything aboutthis stuff, you can come, you
can talk to those people and getit out there.

(23:02):
But that's the.
The hold up is that it'severything just so siloed and
it's hurting the topic actually.
I mean, if if we have crashedcraft and if we haven't
discerned anything useful out ofit, it's because we don't have
the best and the brightestworking on it.
I mean, I I'm not to put downgovernment.
I'm sure government scientistsare really good, but so are

(23:25):
academic scientists and so arecorporate.
You know what I'm saying.
There's a lot of scientists outthere who maybe wouldn't get a
clearance.
Maybe just, you know, maybetheir life they just lived the
kind of life that they wouldn'tget a clearance.
Because, you know, whateverthey had some, whatever they
were a little smoking some potin college or something like
that and or something like that,and so you can't let these
people in.
So it's just, keepinginformation siloed is just not a

(23:46):
good way to-.

Speaker 2 (23:48):
When you say siloed, I kind of know what you mean,
just like in these little things.
The people not communicatingwith each other.

Speaker 1 (23:54):
Hey, these people know, and these people over here
who could help solve theproblem don't have any of the
information of the people overhere, so they can't contribute.
Because that's how scienceworks, right?
Somebody has information,writes a paper on it.
Other scientists look at it,try to prove it or disprove it,
write other papers and somehow,through it all information is
eventually utilized and stuff iscreated.

(24:16):
Now take that discussion away.
This person is only going to beable to take this topic so far
before whatever.
They can't take it any furtherNow.
They need some fresh infusionof information to bring it
further, but they can't discussit with anybody.
So it's just it's putting it,it's kind of putting in these
little pockets, since nothing isever going to happen.

(24:36):
I don't know.
I mean, that's.
The biggest problem, though, isis there's so many cans of
worms that get open with thistopic that they have to do
something preemptive.
They have to pass something tosay we're going to protect
anyone who may have donesomething.
What about the people who mayhave been hurt or killed?

(24:58):
And I know a lot of people arelike that can't happen.
Of course it can.
You don't think the governmentwould kill to protect a secret
if they considered that secretimportant enough.

Speaker 2 (25:10):
Well, I mean, that's the whole.
I mean it's a whole differenttopic, but we did a podcast on
it.
That's the whole premise of theJFK conspiracy that there is
some branch not a branch, butsome group within the government
that did that Right, and evenif they're all dead, even if

(25:30):
none of them are alive, whatabout the damage?

Speaker 1 (25:34):
What if, let's just say theoretically, what if they
were hard proof out there indocuments that basically says,
yeah, our intelligence, usintelligence agencies, some
element of them, had a hand inremoving the president of the
United States by the worst waypossible by having him killed.
Well, how much damage wouldthat do I mean?

(25:56):
Something's got to explain whynobody's ever let these
documents out, and so far in thepast.
Now what again?
Same with the UFO stuff.
What could be in there?
That could possibly everybodywho had any hand in that is long
gone for the most part youmaybe that power kind of
transfers well, that's the thingis the power transfers, then

(26:16):
you're in trouble too, right?
okay, you may not have been theone to plan it, but now you, the
knowledge of that planning,went into your hands and you
kept it secret, just like anyoneelse.
Right, there's actuallysomething really interesting.
There's a man named harold malmalmgren and he was an advisor
to.
He's a fascinating individual.
He basically was an advisor topresidents johnson, kennedy,

(26:38):
nixon, and this is a guy who'sbeen like he's.
He's been in the, in the depthsof power, and he came out on
Twitter and pretty much saidyeah, we have.
I was told years ago that wehave technology from and it's
interesting people like thatgetting into the.
Really, he doesn't have any.
He's alive still.
Yeah, and he's, and he posted onTwitter.
Actually, he posts on Twitterall the time.

(26:59):
He's basically I don't know,he's got to be probably in his
80s, probably right, he's got tobe yeah.
But he was basically sayingyeah, we have this stuff.
And people were going I don'tbelieve you.
And he's like I don't carewhether you believe me or not
and he's like I'm not.
He even says I'm not afirsthand witness.
Again, I was told.
But oh, you were told lies.
Why lies?

(27:21):
Why?
Why?
Why?
You know, I love the, the, thetheory of this is all some sort
of psyop what?

Speaker 2 (27:27):
yeah, so what is I?
Because that I see that all thetime.
Well, they're just trying todistract us from what what
they're trying to distract usfrom the votes in georgia I'm
like come on right, really thisis quite a ruse that there is a
you know these, that navyfighter pilots are chasing these
things, all to get us to notlook at the big picture of money

(27:51):
not being spent on a certainthing in the government it's
just kind of strange.

Speaker 1 (27:55):
You want to talk about a conspiracy theory,
figuring that the government hadenough foresight.
Listen, we're going to startlaying the groundwork for this
alien thing.
I know it's 1940, 47 and we'rejust fresh out of you know,
world war ii and we're gonnastart laying the groundwork for
this alien thing.
I know it's 1940, 47 and we'rejust fresh out of you know,
world war ii and we're justtrying to get our own stuff
going.
But we're gonna pour all thismoney where the money come from.
We're gonna pour all this moneyinto faking these things.

(28:16):
So over the years, maybe Idon't know maybe 70, 80, some
number of years from now we canwhat you know, it doesn't the
the theories that people come upwith we can distract you from
illegal immigration right likelike has the government ever had
problems getting get like?
all they have to do is say theword.

(28:36):
You know the, the terrorismword.
That's all you got to do?

Speaker 2 (28:39):
oh it's it.

Speaker 1 (28:40):
Okay, how many of our rights do we want to sign away?
We'll sign away all of album,like you don't need aliens for
that.
And to figure that you could,you could orchestrate this kind
of thing, why would you do it?
Why would you even start andhow would you keep that a secret

(29:01):
like, oh, we're gonna fake analien invasion, why?
Why are we gonna fake it so wecan take over the world?

Speaker 2 (29:09):
although I really don't think, chris, I think
there's a good amount of people,excuse me, that will always
care a lot about this issue or alot of different issues, right,
but I think there's a lot ofpeople that because I just I was
just thinking the iraq thingafter the uh, you know, we, we

(29:29):
invaded right.
And then, not that long after itall went down, we were told oh
yeah, because there was aninvestigation, right, oh yeah,
that there were no weapons ofmass destruction.
He never had uranium.
It was bad intelligence.
We just I don't know what totell you, whoops.
But even though that happened,and we all most of us at least,

(29:53):
over what 30, 40 years old know,that is what happened Every
single time our country goesinto another war or aids in
another war we go.
Oh, everything you're telling usmust be exactly the way it's
going down we somehow likethere's a lot of people that
think that and in many cases,it's the exact same people who

(30:14):
told us the first line like, hey, we're telling you for sure
that these weapons of massdestruction are in there, so we
got to go in there and get itAll right.

Speaker 1 (30:22):
Tons of blood and treasure, spentons of you know,
blood and treasure spent.
And you know it's not likethings are great over there.
It's like we made more of amess than anything else and lots
of lives lost and lots of moneyspent and just a waste of
everything and it was all fornothing.
And now the same exact people,some of them Okay, I may have

(30:42):
screwed that one up this timeI'm telling you this time we're
going to do it this time.
You're right, we have a shortattention span and that's
partially the media's faultbecause, you know, it's more
interesting what an ex-presidentsaid about a pop star than you
know what's going on in ourgovernment.

(31:02):
It's silly, but we like thesilly, like that's the.
I heard a great thing and Ithink I saw it on Twitter.
I thought it was such aninteresting take.
Somebody said that they had afriend in China who just made a
comment and go, a lot ofAmericans watch the news, right,
that's weird.
And they're like I don'tunderstand, why do you think
it's weird?
And the person said well, inChina we just know the news is

(31:24):
propaganda.
Like that's just well known.
Like most people don't watchthe news because it's just kind
of known that everything you'reseeing on the news is propaganda
.
But Americans don't seem tohave realized that yet.
And it's almost kind of likeyeah, we kind of haven't.

Speaker 2 (31:40):
We realize it about other people's news and we
realize it about news that wedon't agree with.
right, right so we'll say notthe stuff we watch, right say
well, I mean like, let's say,you watch whatever uh, msnbc,
right?
What's on fox?
You say, come on now, that'sall baloney, right, it's all

(32:01):
it's got to be.
It can't be real, right?
Then you, if it's just, youknow the same thing that when
the tables are turned, it can'tbe real.
Well, do you realize thatsomeone's saying the exact same
thing about what you're watching, exactly?

Speaker 1 (32:13):
and propaganda can be very subtle it doesn't have to
be in your face.
It could just be a matter ofpicking and choosing which
stories to cover and whichstories to not cover, or how to
cover them, because Because youcan't cover everything, so much
happens every day everywhere.
But what is cable?
Let's take cable news.
What do they generally do Ifyou watch cable news?
If you turned on any cable newschannel at 8 in the morning and

(32:35):
watched it continuously until 5pm, odds are you saw the same
stories again and again, andagain.
Handful, whatever that number isright, and then, intermixed
with it would be a few newthings.
But generally speaking, there'sthe, the topic du jour, what's
the topic of the day, right, andso they'll talk about it, and
then they'll have talking headson to talk about it.

(32:56):
So you're not really bringingus information, you're bringing
us opinion, like, okay, I'mgonna have this panel of people
now giving us their opinion onwhat we think about, what we're
telling you right and it's likewell, why don't you just stop
telling me what you think aboutit and just bring me more stuff?
right, bring me what?
To tell me more things?
But that's boring, that's not.
Most people won't watch that.

(33:16):
And I guess something else weforget and again it doesn't.
When I say it's propaganda,everybody's oh well, you think
the government's controlling allthe media.
Well, I think they'recontrolling more than you think,
but let's just say they're not.
It's just the system.
It's what news channels don't?
Their main agenda isn't toinform you, it's to get people
to watch.

Speaker 2 (33:35):
Well, you saw what Elon Musk released.
Right, and we know it frompeople that have been in the CIA
that they have closerelationships with large news
organizations.
We know it from people thathave been in the CIA that they
have close relationships withlarge news organizations.

Speaker 1 (33:46):
We know this Project Mockingbird.
Back in the day they werecaught having on the CIA payroll
.
They were caught havingjournalists who were on the
payroll for the CIA.
And this is not information,this is not a conspiracy theory.
This has been proven.
There was all sorts of hearingsback in the day to say, whoa,
whoa, whoa, our intelligenceagencies are getting a little.

(34:09):
You're not supposed to dopsychological operations, psyops
.
You're not supposed to do themon American citizens.
We have no problem you doingthem.
So we have this organizationthat can manipulate the media in
another country and we don'tthink it's ever turned to us.

Speaker 2 (34:26):
we're fine don't worry about it, we're resilient,
we're not gonna right.

Speaker 1 (34:30):
So that's, that's, that's the.
The issue is, I think, thatthere's it's not all uh
malevolent some of it's.
It's just it's the way it works.
Like, hey, we want people towatch our news program.
If we talk, if we deliver realissues to you all day, people
are going our news program.
If we talk, if we deliver realissues to you all day, people
are going to turn it off,because we know a lot of what's
going on in the world is not,it's not fun, it's not good or

(34:53):
it's complicated.
You know a lot of things.
You can't boil it down to athree minute cable news segment.
A lot of things require youhave to talk, you have to the
background, you have to bebrought up to speed on.
You know why we are where weare.
Okay, now let's talk about theissue, but that's a long
conversation.
That's not something we can doin a three minute hit on cable

(35:14):
news.
That's all they want to have.
They don't want to have youknow.
You know Luis Elizondo is outthere doing a book tour for his
book and it's funny to see him.
He's talking about thepossibility that a non-human
intelligence has been visitingthis planet and we have crashed
craft, like all this crazy stuffand I will give you three

(35:36):
minutes, son, I'll give you afive-minute segment.
Maybe we can talk about thisreal quick and with reporters
who are so unversed on the topicthat their questions are
asinine, like I don't know howmany times I've heard the
question over and over and overagain.
Well, well, I mean, there'ssome who say this could be our
own technology.
It's like do I, do we reallyneed to go through this again?

(35:57):
The number of reasons why thisis not our own technology, like
it's been going on since thelate 40s.
We didn't have that technology,russia didn't have that
technology.

Speaker 2 (36:06):
And we've never seen it Right.

Speaker 1 (36:09):
And also we would never test experimental top
secret stuff and just say, hey,what do you want to do with it?
I don't know why don't we flyit near this carrier strike
group and just see what happens?
Don't tell them Right, like youcould possibly have your you
know multi-million dollar thingthat you're experimenting with

(36:29):
could crash or get shot down.
Like you would never test thisstuff near other us assets and
not tell them.
One of the things I talk aboutin my in my ufo talks is how
often training and andrestricted airspace these
objects are seen and it's just anatural thing.
John Kirby at the White Househas said oh, these things have
affected some of our training.

(36:50):
You know, we've trainedBasically saying these objects
pop up and we've had to divertwhere we train but because we
don't know where they're fromwe're not worried about it and
it's just like.
That's absurd.
So like if this nuclearsubmarine popped up in the
middle of, like, uh, the bostonharbor, but it didn't have any
markings on it, didn't have arussian flag or a chinese flag,

(37:13):
would we look out and go well,we don't know what that is, but
you know what we don't know.
It's bad it is.
I don't worry about it, worryabout it.
Right.
There's no other country thatcould be like sending stuff in
our restricted airspace and wewould just go.
We'll move over here then, butfor these objects we seem to do
it.

Speaker 2 (37:26):
And again people Well , at least that's what we're
being told.

Speaker 1 (37:29):
By a lot of different sources, like it's not, they're
admitting.
Yes, I know the governmentalways lies, and so when the
government admits something,yeah, you're not getting the
whole truth, but it's not likethey're trying to serve this
stuff up.
That's.
The other thing is they're notserving this stuff up.
Every bit of information we getfrom them it's clawed out Like
they're being very.
They don't want to release thisstuff.

(37:49):
Even just the fact that theyadmitted it's all true, but then
they don't go out of their wayto talk about it, because why?

Speaker 2 (37:56):
would you?

Speaker 1 (37:56):
Right, you want to tell the American people hey, by
the way, there's these thingsthat fly in and fly out.
We can't stop them.
Well, here's the question thatwould come up.
All right, so if UFOs are true,what about alien abduction?
Is that true?
Are American citizens reallybeing kidnapped by someone else
and being assaulted becausethey're having things done to

(38:18):
them when they're taken Likethat's?
That's a major crime.

Speaker 2 (38:22):
So again I'm I don't know why the alien abduction
part of this whole phenomenonhas never really been something
I'm kind of interested in it,but I don't know why it's not
something that I gravitatetowards because it's disturbing
if you really start to think.

Speaker 1 (38:36):
Maybe that's why I mean if, if you take it, if you
first of all, if you start goingdown that road and looking at
it, uh well, I guess it mightget scary.
It's scary, I mean it's if it'strue, right and again, so are
you telling it's true.

Speaker 2 (38:51):
I find it very hard to believe that the number of
people who have claimed this,that they're all lying, that
they're all like do you thinkthere's anything to it that it
could be purely psychological,and not so much that what they
believe happened didn't happenin their minds, but maybe their

(39:12):
bodies didn't actually goanywhere In some cases?

Speaker 1 (39:14):
I'm sure, that's true .
You know what I'm trying to say.
I'm sure and I'm not saying thedynamic isn't happening.

Speaker 2 (39:20):
So maybe that's true, but I'm wondering, I just
wonder about that.

Speaker 1 (39:26):
That was even so far back as Betty and Barney Hill up
in Exeter, new Hampshire.

Speaker 2 (39:29):
I mean there's some yeah, that's a great story.

Speaker 1 (39:31):
That they weren't.
It wasn't aliens that took them, it was some other kind of
kidnapping in their brains.
You know that in their storythey made this story up, so
there's a couple of things aboutthat that kind of rubbed me.

Speaker 2 (39:43):
The wrong way.
No, that's not what I meant.
What do you mean?
What I meant was maybe there'sactually some sort of I guess
alien type of thing, but theyhave a way of doing something
with you mentally.
They're not necessarily takingyour physical body, but it feels
the same to you.
Do you know what I'm?

Speaker 1 (40:01):
trying to say, yeah, that it's your perceptions, that
what happened?
I mean, how else do you explain?
You know this person goesmissing and they turn up and
they're.
You know, according to theirwatch, more time has passed or
less time has passed than theywere gone.
They were gone five days and forsome reason, you know, their
watch doesn't show that thosestories are crazy, but if you go

(40:23):
back to our early discussion,when you're talking about the
bubble and how these craft wouldwork, yeah, that kind of makes.
You're talking about time.
You're talking about um, you'retalking about insulating a
craft from gravity, which alsoinsulates it from time, which
means that the people in thatcraft uh, time is all over the

(40:43):
place for them, like they take aquick trip and, in their
perspective, a long time couldhave passed.
So how would your society bedifferent?
You know, you see sci-fi aboutlike us having like a galactic.
You know like planets.

Speaker 2 (40:56):
That's apparently that movie.

Speaker 1 (40:57):
Interstellar Right.
So gravity time is a functionof gravity.
Time passes for us on earth atthe approximately the same rate,
because we're all on earth andthe earth is our source of
gravity.
If you want another planet,time would be moving right at a
different rate they even knowthat time moves infinitesimally

(41:19):
faster for birds flying in thesky.
It's not a lot, it's, it's a.
It's it not a lot?
It's not a lot to notice.
It's not like you're going tolose a second or whatever.
It's like the Planck scale,it's even like the seconds
within seconds.
Within seconds it'sinfinitesimal.
But it's there, the clocks onthe International Space Station.
Occasionally they have to berecalibrated because after a

(41:42):
while they're wrong.
Because time is moving slightlydifferent the further you get
away from the gravity source.
So we take it for granted thattime moves.
Like if you were traveling thatway all the time, it would be a
different.
Your society would have to bedifferent.
It would.
You couldn't have it like wehave it where.

(42:03):
Like if you went away for 10years and you came back, you
know your spouse would be 10years old, your kids would be 10
years older.
You know your sibling, who wasyounger than you, is now older
than you because you're gone forthat amount of time.
Um, it would be a totallydifferent ball game, like time
wouldn't, wouldn't be meaning.
When they talk about thesethings as being time travelers,

(42:24):
we always think time travelerslike somebody in the future got
in a time machine to come backhere.
They're all time travelers inan essence, because they're all
moving outside of time.
When they're moving, how do weknow these same crafts aren't
exactly the same crafts thatwere seen in, you know, let's
say the Tic Tac, right, how dowe know that's not exactly the

(42:44):
same craft that we've seenanother time in the forties?
Well, how could that be?
Because time is moving faster.
Is is moving faster outsidethan for them, than in, and
they're traveling around in thisthing.
And so outside the bubble, youknow, many, many, many years
have gone by, but inside thebubble, not that much has gone
by.
I don't even know it's not to bemind boggling Like how, how

(43:05):
would you even interact withanyone else If you went away and
10 years you came back and go?
I was on a little trip in 10years, what's gone?
What did I miss?
Like it would be a few things.
Completely different way ofthinking.
But I think you know we justtake it for granted that time
moves at a certain certain itmoves the same for all of us.
Of course it does.
We're all on earth, we, none ofus are.

(43:26):
You know, if, if, uh, if,reality of mars.
You know people on mars everbecame real?
Um, how would you handlecommunication between the two?
Like time's moving at differentspeeds?
How would you ever handle trade?
How would you ever handle trade?
How would you ever handleanything into relation you know

(43:46):
any kind of relations, becauseon this place time is moving
faster.
What if?
What if time moved faster in inEngland than it did here?
So for every day that passedhere, two days passed in England
.
Let's just say that was thatwas the case.
How hard would it be to haveany kind of like communication
between the two?
All right, I'll get back to youtomorrow and then, all right,

(44:07):
I'm getting back to you tomorrow.
What do you mean get back?
I haven't heard from you in amonth.
Right, oh, it was just a dayfor me, right, like how it would
get so confusing.
You couldn't do it unless youmoved past the ways we do things
, that time and all that stuffmatters.
It's trippy to think about.
And again, I'm not.
I'm not as scientificallyinclined to to be able to speak

(44:31):
about all this stuff, but justmy basic level of knowledge is.
It's interesting.

Speaker 2 (44:36):
Yeah, so all of these things are time travels in a
sense yeah, it's, it's, it's,it's a, it's a fascinating thing
.

Speaker 1 (44:43):
So, aside from Louis Louis Elizondo's book called
Eminent and I highly recommendit you should get it.
The audio is really good.
He puts more clarity on the TicTac incident, puts more clarity
on the Gimbal and Go Fastvideos that were in the 2015
taken on that event.
He just puts more context inthis stuff.

(45:08):
He goes to the videos too, whichI found very useful because I
talk about those three ufovideos in my in my ufo talk and,
uh, he does a good job of goingthrough and explaining each one
and exactly what you're seeingthe, the three that you always
see, the, the ones um, and threeufo videos the um fleer one,
which is that first one thatcame from 2004, yep, and then

(45:30):
the gimbal and the go fast,which came from the 2015 so
when's the gimbal?
uh, the gimbal is the one whereit's rotating.
The guy says it's rotating,right, that one he's chasing,
and that's why they call it thegimbal.
It's because the gimbal issomething that you know.
Yeah, so, and I talked andtalked about the significance of
that, like why is thatinteresting?
Well, because if most things,if they rotate, they're going to
lose altitude because it's liftthat holds them up.

(45:52):
But this object was rotating,but not losing any altitude, and
along with that you can't tellthe source of propulsion and all
that.
Like that first video, the FL,the flare one, there's no audio.
You know what I'm talking about, right, you just see this
object and it's kind of changing.
The screen is changing.
I didn't realize it's becausethe pilot is flipping through
different modes, trying to seeif he can lock on a chad

(46:14):
underwood who's a pilot.
He was trying to flip throughdifferent things.
Let's check here, let's see,like, how can I lock on to this
thing?
And so that's why the screen ischanging in different ways.
But he was like he gives a lotof context on those and says,
well, this is what you're seeing, that you're seeing it's
something that's moving veryfast that we can't lock onto.
It doesn't seem to have a heatsource, it doesn't seem to be
propuls, you know, it doesn'tseem to be being pushed by a gen

(46:36):
engine.
Um, those videos are a lot moreimpressive, but what happens
happens is is they get kind oflumped People first of all.
People say, well, they're blackand white videos, they're not
videos in the sense of, likeyour iPhone video.
They're sensor.
You're seeing sensorinformation.
You're seeing a video of thesensor, so it's not the image

(47:00):
that you're looking at.
You're looking at somethingthat a sensor is trying to
figure out And-.

Speaker 2 (47:05):
What's the name of the video where it was kind of
leaked?
I guess Talk about the BorderPatrol one?
No, we can talk about that one,but I guess what I mean is the
one where they're on the navalship and it looks like the thing
goes into.

Speaker 1 (47:22):
Oh, that one with Splash, splash, that one.

Speaker 2 (47:23):
Yeah, does that have a name?
I can't remember.

Speaker 1 (47:26):
uh, I think the one with the drones, yeah that's
supposed to be drones.

Speaker 2 (47:30):
Is that the nimitz?
Is it?

Speaker 1 (47:31):
uh, no, it's that one , oh, I can't remember.
There's a color, there's onethat, um, I can't remember the
name of it.
There was a one where it showsthis weird thing actually kind
of looks very similar to thething that explored the planet
Hoth on.
Empire Strikes Back.
It does kind of.

Speaker 2 (47:46):
Doesn't it right?

Speaker 1 (47:47):
Yes, and then one of the things it does is it dips in
the water and it comes out ofthe water, doesn't slow down,
doesn't even make an impact onthe water.
That's the other thing.
That's weird, right, is it goesfrom the air into the water but
it doesn't splash.
They say splash in the sense itwent in but it doesn't actually

(48:11):
make any kind of thing.

Speaker 2 (48:12):
And then it comes out and then it splits into two and
it has that look of like thatweird robot thing from You're
talking about, like it was kindof like a probe yeah With arms
little arms hanging off itLooking for things.

Speaker 1 (48:20):
Right, and that's what it looked like, and, of
course, a lot of people take onthat oh, it's, it's.
Yeah, there's a lot of videosout there, and that's that's.
One of the other issues is thatwe're at a point now where
every video that's seen, thefirst thing people are going to
say is well that of them, but Iwill say, if this video has been
floating around for years,that's a different matter, right
?

(48:52):
Because if it's been floatingaround for years and it wasn't
AI that did it, if this is avideo that's, you know, like
some of those alien autopsyvideos or not autopsy,
specifically because that onewas supposedly remember that Fox
had their alien autopsy.

Speaker 2 (49:02):
I remember the buildup to that.
We were in high school or maybea little after high school, I
can't remember.

Speaker 1 (49:07):
I think that has been proven to be a fake, but it's
persisted by those who supportit to say that it's a fake that
was duplicated of an actualthing, because they couldn't
release the actual thing and sothey duplicated it.
But there's some weird footageout there, something called
Skinny Bob.
Have you ever heard of skinnybob?

(49:33):
No, it's this weird like videoof a what looks like an alien
and it's just a it's.

Speaker 2 (49:35):
It's a big-headed alien and it looks like it's
black and white film and kind ofwhat the alien and and it's,
but it's not autopsy.

Speaker 1 (49:40):
It's like an interrogation of this alien and
his eyes are blinking andeverything, and so one of the
things they say about it as well, this was, this was um, this
somebody made.
This is fake and other peoplehave pointed out.
Okay, we can't find any source.
This is from, this is not fromanything, it's not from a movie,
it's not like there's nothingwe can find, and if somebody
created this, they spent a lotof resources to do it, because

(50:04):
it isn't just a dummy lookingthing.
Whatever it is looks reallylike animatronic Like if it's
fake, it's a high qualityanimatronic.

Speaker 2 (50:12):
How long do they?
Can they say?
Can anyone say they know the?

Speaker 1 (50:16):
video has been around .
That's.
That would be interesting.
A bunch of years, I mean, it'sbeen around, it's been out there
floating Skinny Bob.
It's called Skinny Bob.

Speaker 2 (50:30):
I think that's just like.
The nickname is what I'm sure,but what they it.
It looks so good.
Yeah, the official name.
Hey, I'm skinny bob.
What do you call this video?
Well, I mean, I was.

Speaker 1 (50:33):
I think there's a lot of scientific things we could
use, but you know, we've we'velanded on skinny bob but what's
weird is is like you see itseyelids.
Like somebody said, if thissaid, if this is an animatronic,
it's a good one, and why wouldanyone create it and spend all
that money and resources tocreate it?
To make a simple little videothat they just sort of release

(50:57):
out there for what?
Nobody's ever tried to makemoney off of it?
Just to fool people.
You know.
It's like oh yes, are therepeople who go out in the middle
of cornfields and make some cropcircles?
Of course there are.
I mean, there's always peoplewho will.
But how much effort are yougoing to put into that?
I mean, at a certain point,aren't you going to?

(51:18):
You know, you can't just likeall right, I'm going to spend
all this money, I'm going tospend all this money, I'm going
to create.

Speaker 2 (51:23):
Did you find it?
Well, yeah, I did.
There's somebody talking aboutit, but one of the comments here
on this YouTube video is prettyfunny.

Speaker 1 (51:28):
What does it say?

Speaker 2 (51:29):
It says it's not CGI, I was there.
He go by thin Robert, notskinny Bob.

Speaker 1 (51:36):
That's funny.
Yeah, it's funny, but I mean,if you see it, little video and
it's not very long and it lookslike this alien sitting there.
Yes, now watch it move andwatch its eyelids.
I'm sorry for the audiencelistening who cannot see this
right, google.

Speaker 2 (51:52):
How'd you find it?
Google, skinny bob, I justgoogled it.
Yeah, well, no, I put onyoutube.

Speaker 1 (51:56):
I should say yeah so look at it and you and you see
it, and you kind of see it.
There's not much to the video.
No, there isn't, but look atthe way it moves.
Look at the way it moves.
Look at the way its eyelidsmove, look at the way it it has
this look to it.
Is it possible?
It's faked.
Of course it is.
Of course it's possible it'sfaked.

(52:16):
Question is is why?
Why would you fake such a thing?
For what purpose?
Just to put it out there, justto have?
But the majority of people lookat that and immediately say
that's fake.
So what are you accomplishing?

Speaker 2 (52:28):
I'd love to know how old it is.
Yeah, that would help me it.

Speaker 1 (52:31):
Yeah that would help me.
It's been floating around for,like it's one of those things
been floating around for atleast I think at least 10 or 15
years.
It's not, it's not new.
It's been out there, and sothat's the thing.
There's a lot of videos thatare out there that are authentic
.
Problem is that most people aregoing to look at them and in
their mind they're going to say,well, this was just created
because I'm just seeing it now Imean you could say somebody

(52:54):
that was in the movies orsomething could have put that.
Hollywood can do amazing stuff.
We watch it all the time and wesee that amazing stuff.
But here's the question IsHollywood going to do that stuff
?
Just hey, we're going to makethis crazy video and just kind
of release it out there quietly.
No, no, but it could besomebody that works, it could be
.
But again, all this stuff takesresources.

Speaker 2 (53:14):
All this stuff takes no, but if they happen to be
making something anyway, right?

Speaker 1 (53:18):
now.
But that's the thing is, you'dbe able to find a source for it.
Okay, if you could find a moviewhere there was an alien that
looked even if that particularpart wasn't in the movie, but
you could find a movie wherethere was an alien that looked
very much like that in otherthings, then you could say, okay
, this is an outtake from thatmovie and just because you know
this specific scene isn't inthere, it's still, uh, it's

(53:40):
still this from this movie.
But nobody's ever foundanything.
There's nothing, there'snothing out there that has this
animatronic in it.
So you're saying somebodycreated this animatronic, filmed
a few minutes of it and thenwhat Dumped it Got rid of it.

Speaker 2 (53:58):
Yeah, was there an entire video.

Speaker 1 (54:01):
I think that's all the clip that's there and that's
the thing is.
When you look at how some ofthese things came about again
earlier days of the internet, alot of them just kind of
appeared online Like it justappeared.

Speaker 2 (54:13):
Look into that one if you're listening, uh, do
yourself a favor and just lookat it, because I'm just looking
at it.
You're gonna briefly hear aswe're talking and I gotta tell
you, uh, again, I I can't vouchfor.

Speaker 1 (54:24):
Could it be an animatronic?
Yes, it certainly could be,could it's?

Speaker 2 (54:27):
interesting.
There's just this small littleclip.
Yes, I wonder if there's moreto it somewhere I think I've
seen.

Speaker 1 (54:34):
I've seen some, but that's.

Speaker 2 (54:35):
There's been a couple , it's just kind of this thing,
kind of looking around, I meanyeah could it be an?
Animatronic toys are good, yeah, um, but again, I'm not an
expert on the way muscles moveand all that.

Speaker 1 (54:47):
But that's what somebody said, but you notice
what I said about the eyelids,right yeah like wait a minute,
the body is moving right.

Speaker 2 (54:53):
He's moving his arms right Like I don't know.
Is that technically possible tomake some?

Speaker 1 (54:59):
of course it is it would be expensive, it would be,
it would be a lot of work.

Speaker 2 (55:04):
Why would you weird to have this?
I mean again, people do funnythings, but but doesn't it look
like it's old footage?

Speaker 1 (55:11):
Doesn't it look like it's Again?

Speaker 2 (55:13):
you can make something look like that you
could do that.
Now it looks like somethingthat was done in the 40s or 50s.

Speaker 1 (55:19):
Right To me it does.
It's just fascinating.
There he is yeah.
So, that's some of what's goingon.
You're always a wealth ofknowledge, Chris.
This is what I follow.
I follow this stuff every day,I didn't, I know.

Speaker 2 (55:34):
So I thought I followed this, but I never heard
of that.

Speaker 1 (55:37):
It's something I get exposed to.
You know I like Twitter.
I don't.
I don't.
I just started actually gettingon it.
I don't tweet a lot, I don'tinteract a lot because it is,
like most social media, a toxichole.
I made it, I've tried it.
I don't get involved anymore.
There's no value to it.
There's no value to wading inBanter.

(55:58):
There's when people are likeit's just, it's not worth it.

Speaker 2 (56:03):
It's fun to read the comments.

Speaker 1 (56:04):
Yes, and I follow stuff Once.

Speaker 2 (56:06):
I ever sorry to over talk you Once, I ever, if I just
and I've stopped years agobecause, you know, sometimes I'm
just making a funny joke andyou get attacked.
Sometimes you're just saying Ithink this, you get attacked.
I'm just saying to myself, youknow what?

Speaker 1 (56:23):
I don't need this baloney.

Speaker 2 (56:26):
So, but I can tell you something funny, kind of
what we were just talking aboutsecrets and withholding
information.
Know what we were just talkingabout secrets and withholding
information.
I actually um never have reallybeen on twitter x whatever you
want to call it right now I justnever, I don't know why, right,
um, but recently I'm like, yeah, I've been on more after the

(56:46):
story came out that thegovernment was trying to censor
certain information in Twitterregarding, I think it was COVID.

Speaker 1 (56:59):
Facebook admitted the same thing.

Speaker 2 (57:00):
Right, but I guess Twitter, basically after Elon
Musk bought it, they were prettymuch like, yeah, we're not
doing that.
Yeah, that's what he says,right, and that's what kind of
made the story, yeah, and I waslike, oh, all right.
So I started looking at Twittera little more and I was like
you know what?
There seems to be a little moreinformation right to obtain
through twitter than it doesthrough facebook I mean it's

(57:22):
right information, you know butI I like information more than
um I don't know like what.
Here's what I ate last night,right?

Speaker 1 (57:30):
oh, I also like you for posting that.
I like it because it's becausea I don't know what we call it
now that it's called X.
That's the stupidest you know.
Elon Musk, save us from thecapricious whims of billionaires
who takes it over and goes.
I'm going to change the name ofit, okay.
So what is a tweet now?
It needed a better name.
It was.
He named it X because I guessthere was some company that he

(57:53):
started that was I don't knowwhatever.
He had some reason why hewanted to rename it X Now it
would be funny to just name it.
Chirper Didn't think through thenatural question.
It was called Twitter.
You would tweet.
All right, that's pretty stupid, but it is.
We all use it.
So now, what is it?
People have to continuously saywell on Twitter, well X.
Then I continuously say well ontwitter, well x.

(58:17):
Then I tweet.
You know, it's like when princechanged his name to that
unpronounceable symbol and youhad to constantly say the, the
artist formerly known as prince,stop being so damn precious.
Your name is prince.
That alone is whatever you nameyourself prince.
Okay, it was king and queen andjoker, but okay, now I'm going
to change my name to a symboland I guess there was a reason
for that.
Actually, again, I don't.
My understanding is there wassomething, it was a legal thing.

(58:40):
It was some record company.

Speaker 2 (58:41):
It was kind of tied to somebody.

Speaker 1 (58:42):
It was something where a record company, I don't
know.

Speaker 2 (58:48):
It was something to get around ownership of
something.
Maybe they own a percentage ofeverything Of Prince.

Speaker 1 (58:50):
But when he changed his name to a symbol I don't
know something like that buteven then it made it unwieldy
for those of us trying toreference Prince, because you
had to say the artist formerlyknown as Prince, and nobody does
, and so people still callTwitter Twitter.
They'll just say Twitter.
Well, x, formerly known asTwitter.
So you haven't changed the name, you've just made the name

(59:12):
longer.
Now You've made us.
We all have to say more,because we can't just say
Twitter anymore, because what'sTwitter?
It's X now.
Well, it's still tweets.
If you go to twittercom, youstill end up at Twitter.
So it's still there.
People still say tweet all thetime.
It was just, it was anunnecessary change and he just
did it, didn't think it through,just did it.

(59:33):
And it's still not right.
But I do like the platform,just because more information.
That's where I saw that HaroldMalgrim thing.

Speaker 2 (59:42):
What do you do Now?
I don't know much about theplatform.

Speaker 1 (59:50):
I just actually recently started looking at it
again.
What's with this premium thing?
Oh, that you get access to Grok, which is their ai.
Oh, and you can do longertweets.
Um, I guess you're limited tocertain number of characters, I
think 250 characters orsomething like that.
Yep, and then if you go premium, you can um, you can tweet
longer, but honestly, if thingsgo much longer than that, I, I

(01:00:13):
lose.
I lose interest.
I need to, you need to keep itshort, like, like, if that's why
Facebook.
I kind of have gone away fromFacebook because sometimes
people just post way too muchlike a wall of text.
I can't.

Speaker 2 (01:00:25):
I can't do it.
I just can't and I'm sorry ifif anyone's listening that I'm
Facebook friends with.
I kind of go on very rarely now.
And when I go on I'll say, oh myGod, it's everyone's birthday
and I say happy birthday topeople.
But I think because I'm reallynot on that much that when I do
click on I see nothing exceptkind of maybe groups that I like

(01:00:48):
.
I don't even see people'sthings anymore.
So once in a while I say tomyself I wonder if someone
thinks like he's a dink for notliking my stuff.

Speaker 1 (01:00:56):
but I'm not seeing any of it I don't know that
people give it that much thought.

Speaker 2 (01:01:00):
You know, I think one person, chris, say this to me.
This was a few years ago now.
Yeah, they told me that theynoticed I'm not making any of
this up.
They told me that they noticedI wasn't liking their posts.
Oh my God.
And I said, and it just, it waslike this.
I'm very rarely speechless,yeah, and I was just trying to

(01:01:22):
formulate what to say inresponse and all I said was, oh,
I'm sorry, like I didn't knowwhat to say, but later on I was
like I don't, I don't.
I honestly can't think of anytime I've looked at people that
have liked something and thenthought about the people that
didn't Like.

Speaker 1 (01:01:43):
I just never went down that hole, that rabbit hole
of thought.
But if you spend a lot of timeon it, likes are the currency of
social media.

Speaker 2 (01:01:49):
Right, I guess you're right.

Speaker 1 (01:01:50):
So if you spend a lot of time in it, that is
something you obsess over,because it's something that is
how many likes you get is howfar your post gets, how the
reach of your post and all thatstuff.
And you also have to post allthe time because if you don't
post enough when I rarely postnobody sees my stuff Like I can
post something on Facebook andI'm probably not in most

(01:02:11):
people's feeds just because it'sbeen so long, so I've given up
on kind of.
I do it a little bit cause youhave to do it for certain,
certain reasons.

Speaker 2 (01:02:18):
you do it Right.
I post now if I go somewherewith my family or something,
cause I'm like, well, you know,there's other people in my
family that might like to seethis, but it's other than that.

Speaker 1 (01:02:29):
It almost becomes a an obligation, a hassle Right
becomes a?
Um, an obligation, a hassleright.
You got to make sure you poston facebook like I get it.
It's very appreciative thatpeople wish me a happy birthday.
Um, it's nice that's nice butyou know what I if you didn't,
I'm okay with that too.

Speaker 2 (01:02:45):
Like you know, if my birthday came and went and nary
a person said happy birthday,I'm okay with that you know,
before facebook or social media,I should say I was okay not
knowing what someone ate ontuesday night.
I was I.
You know what.
I was okay with it.
Yeah, and you know, I'm okaywith not knowing it.

Speaker 1 (01:03:04):
Now and I'm guilty of it as well.
When we go out we'll take apicture of a you know of not our
food necessarily, but like ifwe like she'll, rosie will
always post like a picture.
Just she gets it out of the way.
Took a picture she'll, she'llthrow it out there and then we
just put the phones away andenjoy.

Speaker 2 (01:03:19):
Everyone does it, yeah no, no, I, the older I've
gotten, I've gotten away withlike away from it, um, but uh,
yeah, I'm just all.
My only, my only thought wasyou know, we were all okay, yeah
, with not having thatinformation.
Right, some days people aregoing to say, hey, do you want
to see pictures of everything?
You know we were all okay withnot having that information.

Speaker 1 (01:03:35):
Right.
Some days people are going tosay, hey, do you want to see
pictures of everything mygrandfather ate?

Speaker 2 (01:03:41):
No, he took pictures.
No one's ever going to ask no,no one's ever.

Speaker 1 (01:03:43):
No, I don't want to see that Now they might want a
picture of your grandfather.
Right, okay, yeah, that's cool,look at him, right, you, he's
playing baseball, uh, but oh,here he is, um, whatever, I
don't know.
Think about how much trash data, like pictures, like even like
everybody knows, everyone canpick up their phone and probably
look at it and flip through andbe like, oh my god, this is

(01:04:05):
random pictures of things thatyou, you took a screenshot, you
don't need it anymore, but justfills up and fills up and fills
up, like we have so manypictures but yet we don't,
because they're most of themaren't printed out, they're all
in the cloud, right?
So if somebody passes away,what?
happens to their stuff, likewhen somebody passes uh, does

(01:04:26):
anyone go?
Like, is all the stuff on theirphone just lost?
Like all the pictures they tookall the things I mean because
you can't you know, unlesssomeone you know, unless you
actually hand it off to someone.
Someone cares enough to go in,but for most people it's like
it's just, it's just out, andeventually the wherever it's
being stored gets shut down orwhatever okay, this person
hasn't like how much of our, oris it all being backed up

(01:04:49):
somewhere?
is there some mass thing that'sjust like collecting all the
information that you know, thecloud all that means is someone
else's computer.
Everybody thinks of it, likewhen people think of cloud.
There's no real cloud, it'sjust a computer somewhere else
that's holding it.
But does that?
Is all that stuff being backedup?
Will somebody show up someday,you know, when this planet is
just a withered husk, and findsome sort of thing and go

(01:05:12):
through and say, oh my God,billions and billions of
pictures.

Speaker 2 (01:05:20):
And most of them are just random pictures of food on
plates.
We don't understand what that'sright.

Speaker 1 (01:05:22):
Somebody's gonna come here and really be able to
piece together.
So actually this takes us toanother topic that is um is uh.
We had a nice episode on uh, onwhether there was an ancient
civilization before us.
You know, know.

Speaker 2 (01:05:35):
Graham Hancock.
I love that stuff.

Speaker 1 (01:05:37):
And he had his first season of Ancient Apocalypse on
Netflix.
Was it two years back?
I think a couple of years back.

Speaker 2 (01:05:44):
It was 21.

Speaker 1 (01:05:44):
I think it was 21.
Get out of here.
Yeah, time moves, yeah, andtalk about time moving fast.
It just moves fast for people.
This is a little bit of asideline, but when you were
young, didn't it seem like thesummer lasted forever?
Oh yeah, didn't it seem like itjust stretched on?
Like you, just you, I don'tknow.
I can remember being young andbeing like multiple, many days

(01:06:06):
of bored, you know, just nothaving things to do, and really
hot summer, like it just seemedendless.
And now, when you're adult, yourealize how quick it is.
You know how how brief a timeit is.
So, yes, it was 21.
I think it was 2021 or 2020.
Now I'm pretty sure it's 21.
Yeah, check it out, but seasontwo is out in october, so it's
actually coming out next month.

(01:06:28):
Um, and he's on the america.
He's in america this time tolook at some stuff, and Keanu
Reeves is with him.

Speaker 2 (01:06:37):
I love that guy yeah 2022.
Oh he's 22.
Okay, almost 22.

Speaker 1 (01:06:43):
That wasn't too long.

Speaker 2 (01:06:44):
November 22.

Speaker 1 (01:06:45):
That's actually pretty good the fact that it
came out in 22,.
And now second season.
He must have gone right to workon season two.
Yeah, it's funny too.
It's funny how they didn'tannounce it, like you didn't.
Nothing was announced untilit's like I kind of like that,
like I kind of like the factthat, like you, didn't hear
anything about it until it'slike, hey, it's coming out in a
couple of weeks.

(01:07:06):
I kind of prefer that ratherthan this long build-up to stuff
.
Right, you know, like to knowcertain movies that are oh,
they're, you know it's going tocome out in three years.
Okay, get back to me in righttwo, I forget.

Speaker 2 (01:07:18):
Then I'm like why was I excited about this?
Yeah, but anyway, that's,season two is coming out, um,
and I think that'll be reallyinteresting I really like the
first season, um, and it was ayou know, because you and I, I
think, like topics like this,yeah, so it was kind of an
overview, but I think it's goodto have exposure.

Speaker 1 (01:07:42):
It was nice to see that it was in the top 10.
I think it was like number oneor two.

Speaker 2 (01:07:45):
I like a little more detail, yeah, but I mean you
have to at least start.

Speaker 1 (01:07:48):
But it was really well received.
Yes, like it was in the top.
It was in the top.
It was in the top of netflixfor quite a while.
Right now it also enraged, um,some academics and stuff.
And you know, am I a hundredpercent convinced?
I don't know that I'm a hundredpercent convinced, but I
certainly think there's.
It's just a theory.

(01:08:09):
I don't know why people get soup in arms.
You know, like, like, grahamHancock is presenting you with a
theory it's just a theory andhe's presenting you with some
data to try to support histheory and a lot of
archaeologists are just so upsetabout that.
Like it's.
I don't know, I don'tunderstand why.

(01:08:30):
You know he makes a good case.
Is it airtight?
No, of course it's not airtight, but he makes a good case.
Is it airtight?
No, of course it's not airtight, but he makes a decent case.
For that there's gotta be someconnection.
It doesn't have to be, but ifyou look at certain things and
cultures that are far separatedby time and distance or both,
and the similarities, it'sinteresting right.

(01:08:54):
I mean it's not I don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:08:56):
I think people should watch that with there's a lot
of things that in differentstructures and different
civilizations that maybe couldbe interwoven, obviously, but
there's a lot of stuff that kindof defies explanation that even
the people that are theso-called experts can't.

(01:09:17):
There's always something theysay well, you know, we think
they don't know.
No no no, you know, and wedon't find the easter island
thing interesting, fascinating,okay, yep, maybe it was erosion.
That's why they buried likewhat's going, why, like, why,
why they?
How did they get there?

Speaker 1 (01:09:35):
How did they get there?

Speaker 2 (01:09:36):
I read that there was a volcano, not that about a
mile away, but a mile is a long,long distance to have all of
those monoliths, whatever youcall those things that were
built and what was the purposeof it.

Speaker 1 (01:09:51):
This is just a lot of stuff Like why is it?

Speaker 2 (01:09:54):
not written down, if they had enough technology,
enough intelligence to, numberone, carve that out Right and
then number two, somehow bringit.
They either brought the rockthere and did it there, or did
it.
You know where they got therock and brought it there.
Right.
So one or the other right.
How do you not have the the youknow wherewithal to like?

(01:10:16):
Tell anyone how you did it.

Speaker 1 (01:10:21):
Well, I mean, maybe just like today, we don't, you
know.
We just assume that theknowledge will always be there.
If you, just if you assume acontinuation, you'll assume that
the knowledge will transfer.

Speaker 2 (01:10:27):
No, I know, but if you wanted to know how to you
know build a desk.
Yeah, right you could find abook Right like plans.
You could find online.
I know that could disappear,but you could find something.

Speaker 1 (01:10:42):
Why would you do it too?
Like cultures who are trying tolike live, like hunt and gather
, and you know, maybe notspeaking specifically about like
the heads, but just in general,like when you go back, go back
to Tepe, you know, like that'sbeen, you know at least 11,000
years, right?
They think more than that,right?
Well, 11,000 years, that's theupper levels, Right?

(01:11:05):
The deeper you go, the older itgets.
They haven't got there yet.

Speaker 2 (01:11:08):
Just by like kind of radar and they're not looking.

Speaker 1 (01:11:12):
That's a big problem.
Right now.
There's actually the buried,reburied parts of it.
It's almost like they don'twant to know.
But okay, hunter-gatherers didthat.
Why and how Wouldn't they betrying to?
You know, I got to hunt, I gotto get food, I got to.
You know, if we're notconstantly, you know, hunting

(01:11:32):
and gathering, we're going tostarve.
All right, everybody, stop.
And we're going to build thisbig monument.
Everybody, stop hunting.
Everybody, stop gathering.
We're just going to, we'regoing to starve.
We're going to build this bigmonument.
Why are we doing it?
I don't worry about it, we'regoing to do it.
And then we're going to bury itBecause it was buried Right the
other.
They know that because there'sa consistency to the way that it

(01:11:54):
was layered, like it wasn't,like it got buried over time or
a windstorm.
It got buried.

Speaker 2 (01:11:59):
I don't think they're sure that the people that built
it buried it.

Speaker 1 (01:12:03):
You don't even right.
And that's the thing is thedifference between knowing
somebody built it and knowingsomebody lived in it are two
different things.
Like you live in this house,lived in it, are two different
things.
Like you live in this house, ifsomeone came across this house
years from now, they would findevidence.
Like if you guys left, theywould find evidence that you
lived here right, but you didn'tbuild it right.
Nobody else built it, you justmoved in.

(01:12:24):
But that's not clear from thehouse, because all anyone is
going to find is your belongings, not necessarily going to find
a thing that says okay, this wasbuilt by this person in this
time.
And we just always assume thatif we come across something and
somebody was living there, wejust automatically assume they
built it and maybe in many casesthey did.
But what if they didn't?
What if they move?

(01:12:44):
What if and I think GrahamHancock talks about this is that
maybe it's the pyramids?
It's not so much.
Maybe that was a site that hasbeen used for so much longer and
it evolved.

Speaker 2 (01:12:58):
The only thing to that argument is I don't think
today, as we sit here, mostpeople can relate in any way to
living in a structure built by adifferent society.
Right, so like, if you thinkabout it, and I can't think of a
time that humans do that.
They don't do that.
That's not something usually.

(01:13:18):
If it's a new society, it's awhole new thing.
Right, they build their ownstuff.
You know, generally, yeah, no,but I mean it doesn't have to be
necessarily the case if there'sstone structures built.
But I'm just saying, like, thesociety we live in now has been
a society for a long time, um,and they kind of always had
houses and you know it's just.

(01:13:39):
But who knows, you know, I don'tknow, I just find it.
You know when they'll say like,okay, the pyramids, and they
think it's because of as a tomb,or they think it's because of
this.
I say to myself if it wassomething that generations of
people were doing that's why Isay I think it's crazy to think

(01:14:02):
it's just people that did allthis all the time.
I sound crazy saying it but ifyou're going to invest
generations into something andno one wrote down, why, what the
hell?
The Egyptians?
They wrote down a lot of things, but not once did they say
here's the definitive reason whywe did this Right.
And they say that there are two, but we've dedicated
generations of our society to it, but no one can figure out why.

Speaker 1 (01:14:26):
The most current theory.
It's so funny.
Every now and then they'll comearound and they'll say well, we
figured out how the pyramidsare built.
We figured out how the pyramidsare built and so years ago, one
of the things they said wasslaves how did they build the
pyramids?
Slaves, Like that answers thequestion how did you move these
huge tons around?
Slaves?
So I guess if you get enoughpeople and you whip them enough,
you can get anything done.
Where did they come from?
Right, and that's the firstthing.

(01:14:46):
But also, like now they'retalking about the Nile.
That don't exist now.
That existed then, as if thatexplains it, Although they were
tributaries.
So that means they were able tofloat these huge blocks down
the.

Speaker 2 (01:14:59):
Thing.

Speaker 1 (01:15:04):
And it's like okay, so maybe maybe they were able to
float the block.
How did they get the block ontothe?
How did they lift it in orderto get it on the raft or
whatever it is they did down?
How'd they get it off?
How did they get it up in theair?
Because, just getting it to thebase of the pyramid, okay, if
you're just starting the pyramid, not a big deal, you just plop
it there.
And you plop it there.
There comes a point where thepyramid is high and so then that

(01:15:25):
next block, you not only haveto get it there but you have to
hoist it, you know there's noevidence of anything and and
right and it's like how wouldthey of a ramp?

Speaker 2 (01:15:34):
Because they say a ramp, but the ramp would have to
be miles long.

Speaker 1 (01:15:37):
And the ramp would have to be strong enough to hold
multiple of these things.
Like you couldn't just make aramp out of sand and then, to
this thousand ton, block up thesand, because you'd crush that
ramp instantly.
So the ramp would have to bemade of such construction that
you'd still see evidence of itnow, because it would have to
have been stronger than thepyramid, because it wouldn't

(01:15:57):
have the thing, the ramp wouldhave to mostly be made out of
stone, right to carry stoneright.
You're not gonna, not gonna usea, you know, a wooden ramp to
carry a thousand pounds.
No, right and so that it'sobvious questions.

Speaker 2 (01:16:13):
If there was more water in the area, there would
be less trees, right.
So it's just.
And if you start asking thequestions, then Graham Hancock
at least asked questions,questions.
He asked the questions.
That kind of inflamed somepeople and that's the kind of
circular issue you get into.

(01:16:34):
Well, why are you asking thatquestion?
You know that's an idioticquestion, yeah, but can you
answer this?
No, because you know, and itjust becomes this whole thing
and yeah they got.
Yeah, I like it.
You know if I like whenintelligent people like on that
topic.
I'm not, you know, any kind ofauthority on that, but people
that are that can just openlytalk about it.

(01:16:56):
That's how you get to solvesomething right, and he's he's
asking questions and he'sproviding a theory.

Speaker 1 (01:17:04):
Here's a theory.
Obviously we don't know,because we weren't there, um,
but I'm just here's a theorythat happens to fit the facts.
What if there was somethinghere before us?
And what if it got wiped out?
And oh, we found no evidence ofthat.
But would you, would you findevidence if something really got
like, if there was waves acrossthis?

(01:17:24):
You know, I think we talkedabout this before, but like the
amount of destruction, how muchevidence would be left?
Like literally talking aboutland that's under sea now, that
used to be above sea.
How much have we looked at that?
Not hardly at all.
Right.
And there's other places, likeyou've seen it in.
A lot more of this stuff'scoming out.
The problem is it's coming outin drips and drabs and it's

(01:17:45):
coming out on this littlewebsite here or there, and you
know people don't pay attentionto that same thing.
The ufo thing to get to bringit circle around to.
That is the information's outthere if you go looking for it,
but most people aren't going tobelieve it until it's delivered
to them by a cnn, abc, nbc,msnbc, fox news or whatever like

(01:18:06):
, until it's delivered to themon a plate as okay, officially,
this is what, how.
Now I'll believe right, but ifyou're going to look, you can
find all the information.
You find some reallyinteresting stuff, like go back
to tepe.
They're planting olive treesand somebody pointed out and
said first of all, you shouldn'tbe planting trees around this

(01:18:26):
stuff because the roots aregoing to destroy it.
And I guess there's somethingyou can't cut down.
It's illegal to cut down anolive tree in turkey.
I don't know that for certainbut that.
But basically, like theaccusation is being made is like
you're tainting this.
Now you don't want to dig it upand find out what it is,
because it opens up questionsthat you'd rather not answer.

(01:18:49):
Why wouldn't you?
I don't know.
That's the question.
Right is, why would you hideinformation?
The only reason why you'd hideinformation is if you have a
vested interest in the, inpeople believing the other story
.
Whatever you know, newinformation is always adds to
things.
So when you, when you know weknow enough, we don't want to
look anymore.
I don't want any newinformation.

(01:19:10):
But that's how we are really.
I mean, we don't humans don'tgenerally like to have our
apricot upset.
I mean, how long did we hold onto the thing that we're the
center of the universe?

Speaker 2 (01:19:20):
Oh yeah, you're right .

Speaker 1 (01:19:21):
And then, finally, you had to give that one up, but
people held on to that for along time.
Oh, the asteroid killed thedinosaurs, and we all take that
for granted now.
But when that theory was firstfloated, the and we all take
that for granted now, but whenthat theory was first floated,
the people who floated thattheory were pilloried.
Pretty bad, and that'sridiculous.
Are you kidding me?

(01:19:41):
An asteroid destroyed dinosaurswhat kind of cockamamie thing
is that?
And they eventually found thecrater, which blows my mind too.
Some of the stuff that they dofind.
It's like how did you figurethat out?
That's what blows my mind aboutsome of this stuff.
Like how did you, did youreally figure this out?
Cause it seems like a lot.
What did you just say?

(01:20:01):
You figured it out, figured itout close enough.
Same thing with the debunkers,with the UFOs If you come up
with a reason, what it might be,everyone just goes, okay,
that's solved, right.
Like, oh, this is a, oh, it's a, it's a balloon.
Okay, it's solved, it's just aballoon and then you start
asking the question All right,how about?
well, let's stop, let's go intothat a little bit more.
How does a balloon fly againstthe wind?
How does a balloon?

(01:20:21):
Where did it go?
How come we didn't speaking ofballoons actually?
Right, that brings us to that.

Speaker 2 (01:20:28):
They Information Act of what that object was, and it
was kind of like a copy of anemail.
It said that I was when I wasreading.

Speaker 1 (01:20:39):
And it said something about they were going to
release it at the time, but thenthey decided not to because it
would start too many questionsDid you see, the picture yes.

Speaker 2 (01:20:44):
It's weird.

Speaker 1 (01:20:45):
It's like a crescent, but that picture has showed up
in other things.
Before you can find older, youcan find older things.

Speaker 2 (01:20:50):
So is it interesting how they shot these things down,
but the other one they let justgo across the whole country.

Speaker 1 (01:20:57):
I talk about that in my talk.
That's actually one of the mainthings in my talk, whereas I
compare it to the balloon.
Because the balloon, wediscovered the balloon, we saw
pictures of it, they showed usit in the air.
They showed us it in they showeda pilot going up flying by in a
plane and taking a selfie.
So you saw the balloon in thebackground.

(01:21:17):
They showed us pictures of it,of it being blown up.
They showed us pictures of thewreckage.
You saw all pictures of thisand then a couple, you know,
some number of days later therewas, there were those three
shoot downs and we saw none ofit.
And when some people would askabout pictures of it, they'd say
, well, they classified, andyou're right, they, why did they
not classify the balloon right?

(01:21:38):
And then you're meant tobelieve well, the three objects
were nothing, they were justhobbyist balloons, all right
classified so one of them tooktwo missiles to take it down,
right, so 275, 70, 750 missiles.
So you spent that taking down aballoon and you can't even show

(01:21:58):
me the balloon.
And then this picture comes outand the Canadian government and
it's released and it's like sothis is a picture of it, if you
want to look it up.

Speaker 2 (01:22:10):
it says a newly released image shows a UFO that
was shot down by a U S fighterjet over Canada.
First, I don't um talk aboutthat.
You know more than I do aboutwhy the U?
S fighter jet was in Canada.
Uh, in 2023, it was shot downin February 11th 2023.
Now, I'm a Star Trek fan andwhen I look at that, I know it

(01:22:32):
sounds weird, but the firstthing that came to mind was the
kind of the big round area ofthe Enterprise.

Speaker 1 (01:22:38):
But I actually think of it like the Cylon ships from
Battlestar Galactica.
Kind of has that look too right.

Speaker 2 (01:22:45):
You're right, kind of that crescent.

Speaker 1 (01:22:46):
If it was going the direction of yeah, it looks like
a.

Speaker 2 (01:22:49):
C yeah Right, In this photograph it's a backwards C.

Speaker 1 (01:22:53):
And are we supposed to believe that's a balloon?
Okay.
It looks nothing like a balloon.
If it's a balloon, it's an oddshape for a balloon.
And also, if it's just aballoon, why was it not released
in the first place, like ifthat's just a balloon?
Why would the Canadiangovernment say we thought about
releasing this but we decidednot to because it would open up

(01:23:14):
too many questions?
I mean, they say that withinthe documentation that was
released like it actually saysthey this had been cleared for
release and then it was decidedthat we're not going to release
it because it'll open up toomany questions.
How does a balloon, in anycontext, open up too many
questions, Like you're admittingright there that it's not a
balloon, cause if it was aballoon there'd be no.

(01:23:35):
We shot down a balloon.
Here's what it looked like andhere's who makes it and here's
where it came from.
Instead, we heard nothing andwe all moved on.

Speaker 2 (01:23:46):
That was a big deal.
We waited for the one thatcrossed the United States proper
.
We waited for it to get acrossthe whole country and into
almost just off the coast Ithink it's South Carolina right
To shoot it down, right.
And then we shot it down andthen we showed the video of them
retrieving it, right.

(01:24:06):
But the one in Canada, theyshot it down over the mainland,
they didn't wait.
Why, I don't know.
No one ever said why, right.
And his Justin Trudeau, theCanadian prime minister at the
time, I think he still is hestill is?

Speaker 1 (01:24:22):
yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:24:24):
He says, yesterday afternoon I spoke with President
Biden and confirmed togetherthat we will continue to do
everything necessary to protectthe sovereignty of our shared
North American airspace, butalso to do everything necessary
to keep our citizens safe.
What does that even?

Speaker 1 (01:24:40):
mean, it's an odd thing to say if it was just a
balloon, right?

Speaker 2 (01:24:45):
Yeah, it's an odd thing to say and why did they
never want to tell anybody?
Because it was all over theplace when the wind flew over
the United States.

Speaker 1 (01:24:57):
Oh, this is China, right, it's just just a weather
balloon, whatever they weresaying, right, which I kind of
don't believe I think, I thinkif, if nobody had ever found out
about it, they would have justlet that thing sail over because
, honestly, it's more of apolitical issue than it really
is a military issue.
There's no information thatthat balloon would have been
able to get that satellites youknow it's like what information

(01:25:19):
is it really get?
But why is it?

Speaker 2 (01:25:21):
so we spy on them.

Speaker 1 (01:25:22):
The ones in Canada.
They spy on us.
Well, that's the question,right, what was?
and if you listen to those earlydays, because they were having
press conferences and things andyou can actually go back off to
do that at some point.
Go back, because I thinkthey're all on youtube.
You can go back and see, likethe state department, like the
white house press briefings andin those couple of days when
that was happening, there was alot and they were very adamant
in the beginning because thepress were trying to immediately

(01:25:44):
say another balloon becausewe'd just come off the chinese
spy balloon thing.
So they kept saying balloon, itwas a good point.
And he really was very adamantto say we're not calling it a
balloon, we're calling it object.
They went out of their waymultiple times to not call it a
balloon and correct the mediawhen the media referred to it as

(01:26:04):
a balloon.
So you went out of your way tosay no, this wasn't a balloon,
it was an object, not a balloonobject, not a balloon object.
And then when it was all done,I was just a couple of everybody
just went okay and moved on.
It's just like but why were youso sure it wasn't a balloon in
the beginning?
And again, if it's just aballoon, why did you not release

(01:26:26):
the pictures?
Okay, we saw this one pictureof the one shot down over the
yukon right.
This was the one in canada.
Why?

Speaker 2 (01:26:31):
do we not have the the wherewithal to just retrieve
it in its state without blowingit up.

Speaker 1 (01:26:38):
They said they couldn't find it, and that was
another thing.
That was weird.
The one in Alaska.

Speaker 2 (01:26:42):
No, no, no I meant while it's in the air.
They said these are smallerthan the ones, than the one I
should say that was over theUnited States.
Why can't we just send upsomething to just get it?
Why do we have to?

Speaker 1 (01:26:54):
shoot it Right because it was not a balloon.
If it was a balloon, especiallyif it was like, not an
important balloon, somebody canfly by in a plane and see what
it is.
That's what I mean.
Like there's no type of balloonthat a trained pilot couldn't
immediately identify as aballoon if they got close enough
.

Speaker 2 (01:27:13):
Yeah, because they said it was some hobbyist.
I'm saying why are you shootingit down right for?

Speaker 1 (01:27:18):
750 000 per missile, and one of them I believe it
might have been this one, butI'm not sure one of them took
two missiles to shoot down.
Look, I missed the first time.
You missed a balloon justwafted the air and you're a
multimillion dollar fighter andyou couldn't shoot down a

(01:27:38):
hobbyist balloon, right?
Why is nobody asking thatquestion?
That's the thing about a lot ofthis is let's just assume that
none of this is real.
Let's just assume that all thisso we have a lot of problems
here.
We have a lot of people seeingstuff that's not real.
We have a lot of people ingovernment swearing that they
saw this stuff.

(01:27:59):
So they're all lying or they'reall crazy, and a lot of them
have high security or both.
We have our fighter jets tryingto shoot down hobbyist balloons
and only being successful 50%of the time.
Like, if it's not true, it'smore problematic than if it is
true, because if it is true, itit explains all these things.

(01:28:20):
If it's not true, then the onlyway you can explain this is
there's a mass psychosis goingon in the highest levels of
government that senators,congress people, generals uh,
ex-cia heads of the CIA,ex-intelligence heads of like
really important people aresaying this stuff, and if it's

(01:28:43):
not true, then we have a really,really, really big problem,
right?
But nobody ever thinks that.

Speaker 2 (01:28:50):
No.

Speaker 1 (01:28:50):
They just go well, it's all made up.
So you're saying all thesepeople made it up, okay, then
that's a problem too.
You know, if every person whosays they've been abducted by
aliens, if they're all making itup, um, that's a problem,
because this is like taking upso much of our, you know, like

(01:29:11):
there's so much.

Speaker 2 (01:29:11):
it's the stories that persist.
That always get me, and theypersist through generations of
time.
Right, there's been stories forthe last thousand years of some
of these things happening.
Right, so you're saying okay isit either different generations
are just picking up on the oldstories?
I don't think so.

Speaker 1 (01:29:32):
So then wouldn't you give Betty and Barney Hill the
credit for all of it, because alot of the stuff they talked
about had never really beentalked about before like when
they go back, you can findstories but like, did they just?
did they just find it in the oldlike you know what I'm saying?
Like they were the first onesin the modern time to talk like
this and now everyone talks likethis.
So are you saying that theystarted like none of this stuff

(01:29:52):
existed?
Stuff existed.
How do you explain it all?
Like it just doesn't.
It doesn't pass the smell testat all, but it makes us feel
better.
So we just okay, it's allexplainable.
And it's like is it?
Is it explainable?
It's, if you, I don't know,it's people's ability to just
not look at something directlyin their face.

(01:30:12):
You know, like that's rightthere and people's ability to
just go.
I don't see it Right.
It's, it's, um, it's I.
I told this story before.
I may have told this storybefore on air, but I always
loved it when I was.
When I was a kid, my olderbrother, mark, was crazy on the
motorcycle and I was you know heloved to take things apart, put
them back together.

(01:30:35):
And he loved to push theenvelope right.
And so I remember being in thebackseat of my parents' car and
we were on our way, I think, toa wedding or a wedding.
We were on our way to somethingwedding related.
I don't remember you know who'swedding or what, but I remember
on the highway and he drove bydoing a wheelie and I came by on
the right side of the vehicleOn the highway doing a wheelie,

(01:30:57):
came by on the right side of thevehicle On the highway doing a
wheelie, probably doing about Idon't know, probably 70 or 80.
He passed us really fast rightDid your parents recognize him.
Oh yeah, then he faded back.
Then he came up on the otherside my parents, neither of them
said a word, neither of themlooked, they just.
But they, of course they did,but they didn't want to

(01:31:19):
acknowledge what they sawbecause there's nothing they
could do about it.
You know, no amount of you needto be careful was going to make
him be care.
He just that's the way he lived, he just lived like so to
acknowledge the problem wouldjust open up a can of worms,
because then they'd be worriedmore.
So instead they chose, and itwas silent.

(01:31:39):
It always strikes me, becausethere was no communication, it
was just an understandingbetween the two.
We're going to ignore this andpretend we don't see it, because
to see it there's no valuethere.

Speaker 2 (01:31:55):
Maybe they've just been down that road so many
times before.

Speaker 1 (01:31:59):
Right, and I always come back to that because I
always think it's so interestingthat people are and people do
that all the time.
They see something that theydon't want to acknowledge
because acknowledging it opensup a can of worms.
Maybe you see something andyou're like okay, now I have to
take action.
And if I take action, it's notgoing to end up well, like.
That conversation was not goingto be.
Like mark, you need to stopdoing wheelies on the highway.

(01:32:20):
Okay, I'll stop.
No, it wasn't he.
He, as a matter of fact, if youcalled attention to him pushing
the envelope, it only made himpush the envelope more.
It's like okay, you want to dothat, now I'm gonna do.
Yep, I don't know what's morethan a wheelie, but like he.
But that's the thing is, it'speople's ability to look at
something right in front of them, clear as day, and just pretend

(01:32:42):
they didn't see it to maketheir life easier.
People do that all the time.
When you point it out and saythis is right in front of oh,
you're crazy right in front ofoh, you're crazy.
You're crazy for pointing thatout.
No, I saw getting angry withyou.
That's the thing is.
When you attack people's, theyhave a way that they see the
world and if you threaten that,if you challenge that, most

(01:33:04):
people don't want to deal withthat because, if you know, let's
take again back to the ufothing.
If you take it to its naturalconclusion, there's something.
Okay, let's say it's true.
Then there's something here thatwe can't stop.
They can come in anytime theywant, they can leave anytime
they want, they can take whoeverthey want.
They can do whatever they wantto that person.

(01:33:26):
They can put them back.
There is nothing that yourlocal, state, federal or world
authorities can do to stop them.
How do you tell a society thatthat's the thing?
Yep, sorry, we're not thehighest on the totem pole
anymore.
When we encounter anotherspecies meaning like animal life

(01:33:47):
, that is in our way we dowhatever the hell we want to to
make sure that we get our wayright.
We don't negotiate with theotters to say, well, we want to
build a bridge here, but we needto talk about this because we
know that you have, this is yourlittle otter habitat.

Speaker 2 (01:34:04):
How do?

Speaker 1 (01:34:04):
you feel about it?
Right, we just do it becausethey're immaterial to us.
But we're used to being the topof that chain.
So what if you have to tellpeople okay, you're no longer
the top of the chain, now you'rethe otter and there's this
thing that's coming through andit's gonna do what it does and
it does not care what you think.
It does not care that you wannastick the police on them or the

(01:34:26):
federal like.
It doesn't, none of thatconcerns it.
Sleep tight, you know.
And that's the other thing is,how do you you can't say that
most people would what are you?
Are you kidding me?
I'm never gonna sleep again.
I'm gonna, you know, like and Ithink we misunderstand that
like it's not just.
Why don't the government justcome out and say it yeah, they

(01:34:49):
have kind of, but are you reallythinking about what would
happen if they did come out andsay it like?
Are you really thinking aboutwhat would happen if they did
come out and say it?
Like you really thinking aboutwhat the downstream effects
would be?
Would anyone ever, you know,would you ever feel safe again
if you knew that at any point,these things could come in and
take whatever they wanted andhave been.
That's the other thing.

(01:35:10):
Right is if these things havebeen going on for years and
there's people who've beenkidnapped and put back or not
right, and you start to like, godown that road, start to look
at disappearances that are neversolved.
Can you, can you chalk a certainamount of them up to you know,
nefarious activities by human?
Of course you can, but if youstart to think of it that way,

(01:35:32):
like like wow, there's a lot ofpeople go missing and never turn
up again, that's it.
It's not like you know, yeah,some people go missing, and
years later you'll see anarticle oh, they found these
bones of this person who wentmissing, and we did find them.
All right, there's a lot ofpeople went missing and have
never turned up again.
Could something have taken themand done something to them?

(01:35:53):
Right, it's horrible to thinkabout, but it's theoretically
possible.
Oh, absolutely so.
People don't want to think that, though, because if you do,
you'll never relax again.
I like your example of yourparents because that's right in
your face right there, it stickswith me, just because I'm a

(01:36:15):
little kid and I was just wow,look at that, look at you know,
like a, the wonderment of it all, like oh my god, can you
believe what he's doing?
And they just didn't want toacknowledge it.
And uh, you know he was a, hewas a madman as far as that
stuff, you know.
And just it's funny that I justalways, I always think back to
that.
Just I don't know it stickswith me for some reason.
No, because it's very trueabout a lot of things and the

(01:36:36):
fact that there was nocommunication between them.

Speaker 2 (01:36:39):
I mean, who knows, there might've been beforehand,
but it was just and the momentFive things might happen before
that.

Speaker 1 (01:36:43):
In the moment.
There was no, there was no.
Hey, we're just gonna ignore it.
It was just, they both chose toignore it in the same way.
Um, unspoken communication.
We're not going to acknowledgethis thing, because to
acknowledge it doesn't addanything beneficial to our life
and just causes more trouble,right, trouble, and of course I
don't.
You know, to me I have noproblem with that, I'm going to

(01:37:04):
talk about that.
You know, I think I probablytalked about that.
The rest of the day pointed outthat, hey, you went by us in a,
in a motorcycle doing a wheelieI'm never one to let stuff sit.
Here's another interesting topic.
Have you heard of the Nazcamummies?

Speaker 2 (01:37:20):
I have, but off the top of my head I can't.
I know I've heard of it.
So just if you explain it justa slight I'll know exactly.

Speaker 1 (01:37:29):
So there are these mummies that were recovered in
Peru.

Speaker 2 (01:37:32):
Yes.

Speaker 1 (01:37:33):
And.
But some people are saying youknow they're hoaxes, or that was
the immediate, uh, reflexivething, and also the guy who
brought them up has some history.

Speaker 2 (01:37:44):
There's been some shadiness the ones that are
smaller there's small andthere's bigger ones.

Speaker 1 (01:37:48):
There's a lot of them .
That's the thing, too, is that,like the smaller ones and
there's bigger ones, there was ameme going around for a while
of it being a cake.

Speaker 2 (01:37:55):
Yes.

Speaker 1 (01:37:55):
Yes, but but the more I'm hearing about this, there's
a lot of scientists who areheading down there and just
being like there's something tothis.
I don't know what it is, but ifthere are hoax, what is the big
the thing is is that they'rethese creatures that I mean
looking fine, because I had likea good breakdown of what the

(01:38:19):
Nazca mummies, let's see theyare.
What is that?
Let's see?

Speaker 2 (01:38:34):
These are the ones that some people are trying to
say the mummies.
They were put together by likeas a doll, but they can't
explain exactly where they gotthe material.

Speaker 1 (01:38:42):
They were reportedly found in the Nazca region of
Peru in 2015.
And uh, the mummified remainsare bodies, but they're not.
They have like a.
They have a weird look to them.
They look like aliens.

Speaker 2 (01:38:59):
Yep.

Speaker 1 (01:39:00):
And there's some question about the DNA.
Now, originally the first thingthat these came out is oh, it's
a hoax, these were juststitched together from animal
parts and human parts.
But as time has gone on that'sbeen kind of like now that these
are old.
So if these were faked, theywere faked old and then buried

(01:39:24):
so like.
The testing that's been done onthem is interesting, because
they think they could date backbetween a thousand and seventeen
hundred years, placing them inthe period of the nazca
civilization.
Um, so if somebody faked itagain, it goes back to that
question of like.

(01:39:44):
Why would you like if you're inancient culture?
and this is also the area thatthe nazca lines, yes, right,
which are those odd, you know?
So, this weirdness in the world.
And now this is just layered ontop of it, and most people,
when they first heard about this, it was immediate Ah, fake.
Same thing with a good UFOvideo comes up, fake Testimony

(01:40:07):
comes up.
They're lying.
It's just the reflexive.
It's that reflexive like andthis was rolled out at a hearing
in mexico.
There was like a ufo hearingand uh, ryan graves, who's one
of the he was in the squadronthat was involved in the 2015
incident that the gimbal and thego faster film.
He wasn't the one to film any ofthem, but he's now has his own

(01:40:28):
organization, americans for safeairspace, where he's trying to,
you know, bring attention tothis.
But he was down theretestifying and he was appalled
because they suddenly rolled hisbody in and it became a big
circus and it just was.
And the guy who kind ofspearheading this there's jamie,
something or other.
Let's Jamie MoussaM-A-U-S-S-A-M-A-S-S-A-N.

(01:40:54):
He's been involved with somethings that you know had a
shadiness to them.
So his pedigree is not cleanand they were supposedly gotten
from like people who were likegrave robbers, like these things
weren't attained normally.
So the government of Peru isgetting involved.

(01:41:15):
So there's a lot of thingsthere that just sort of like
heap on it that make it kind ofquestionable.
But the more information thatcomes out, there's something to
this.
I don't quite know what it isyet, but I think because it's
bodies people don't even want to.

Speaker 2 (01:41:31):
Is there any DNA extractable?

Speaker 1 (01:41:33):
Well, that's the thing is they've I don't know
how much testing has been done.
I know it's been.
Testing has been done down inPeru because, at least so far,
they the Peru, Peruviangovernment, hasn't wanted to let
them go, and so that would bethe solution.
Right Is okay, if these thingsare something, box them up, get
them here to the US, to some ofour, you know, research labs and

(01:41:57):
tell us what's what.
And that's the problem is, isis just, it doesn't seem like,
uh, it's slow going.
But there have been somescientists who have said and
again, these are scientists whoare from the area, are either
from Peru or from Mexico.
So that's the other problemwith that is, it's not
necessarily information that'sgetting to us or getting to us

(01:42:19):
firsthand.

Speaker 2 (01:42:21):
There's something interesting, Chris.
What's that?
It's an article.
I mean, I don't know what youthink about the New York Post,
but Like anything, it's you know.
There's an article that saysthat these Nazca mummies have
fingerprints, but they're nothuman fingerprints, if these are

(01:42:42):
fakes.
So if they know they're nothuman, they must know they're
not something else.
That's the question, right?

Speaker 1 (01:42:47):
It's an interesting story because it's not.
It's still happening, it'sstill going on.
It's just the people's likedefault position upon hearing
this was immediately to rejectit, Like as soon as this came up
.
There were people who were just, who normally are very

(01:43:11):
open-minded about things, butagain, it's that certain area.
Everybody has those certainareas that they just won't dip
into.
You know, when I first startedlooking into this stuff so many
years ago, I wanted to stay inthe realm of physical machines
flying.
I didn't like abductions, Ididn't like crop circles, I

(01:43:32):
didn't like any of the woo stuff.
Because to me, to me, it atfirst it really like I'm exactly
the same but over time, rightyou just you can't escape it.
You can't escape the woo whenyou get into UFOs, Um, and
something I didn't realize.

Speaker 2 (01:43:50):
Let me just go back to these for one second.
The Nazca moments, yeah theycall one of them Maria, and that
body was covered in some sortof earth.
I can't pronounce it, I'm notgoing to try.
It's a type of white powdermade from the sediment, I should

(01:44:11):
say of fossilized algae foundin bodies of water.
It's weird.

Speaker 1 (01:44:19):
It is, and what's interesting too is now what we
know like there's a connectionbetween these UAP and water and
water right Like a hugeconnection.

Speaker 2 (01:44:29):
That's where I was going.

Speaker 1 (01:44:31):
It's funny because it's never been something that.
And people have pointed out,like we know more about our, we
know more about the moon than wedo about our oceans, and people
throw this out a lot oh, we'veonly explored 10% of our oceans,
yeah, and you know where prettymuch all that is?
It's along our coastlines whenyou get out into the middle of

(01:44:54):
the ocean.
First of all, the ocean is sobig that in most cases, like,
unless you're on shipping lines,like two boats could never
really come like, just becauseit's so big.
Right, most times the ocean isnobody's keeping an eye on it.
Well, nobody.
One would think that anysatellites can be seen.
So if there's any activity inthe, the ocean that's got to be

(01:45:14):
picked up by someone, um, butthat's the thing, is our oceans.
This goes back to that idea ofthe power source like what if
they're harnessing the power andthey're using water?
And here's a thought I had theother day um, and I don't know
the answer to this, is theresomething fundamentally
different?
Water that's really deep in theocean, because the pressure

(01:45:36):
would be so much higher, like, Idon't really know.
Like, like is there?
Could it be somethingfundamentally different that
like, yeah, they could, you know, dip in the ocean for whatever.
But it's better if they go waydown, because the pressure would
be bigger?
I don't know you know, andsomebody pointed out once, that
water is a good medium, justbecause the the temperature

(01:45:56):
fluctuations are only going tobe so much if water gets too
cold, it freezes right, and ifit gets too hot, it evaporates
right.
So when you're in water you'reonly have to be within this
range of temperatures.
It's only going to get thiscold because it can't get any
colder, and it's only going toget this hot it can't get any
hotter, whereas if in europe, inthe atmosphere of a planet, it

(01:46:18):
could be all over the place.
So water is the best place forthese things to hide out, just
because it's more manageabletemperature, you know condition
wise but if they're utilize apower source that requires water
in some way.
I mean, are we just an exonstation for these things?

Speaker 2 (01:46:37):
like is this.

Speaker 1 (01:46:38):
It like it's like.
It's like having a gas stationthat's in the middle of nowhere
and there's this little townaround it and like you don't
have much use for the town orthe townsfolk, but if you're
going to come in and fill upyour tank, you got to interact
with them to some degree or, atleast you know, avoid them.
Is it just that that?
Like yeah, maybe we're justlike a truck stop.
We're a truck stop, like arethey indifferent to us?

(01:47:00):
Are they?
Because there's three choicesright, I think lou talks about
this and there's three choicesthey're benevolent, they're
malevolent and they're neutral.
So either they mean us harm orthey're trying to help us.

Speaker 2 (01:47:16):
Maybe they don't give a crap as it stands right now.
I'd say the third one I wouldsay too right, because there
hasn't been any type of otherinteraction as he points out.

Speaker 1 (01:47:25):
As Lou points out, he's like they didn't stop us
from dropping a couple of atomicbombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima
.
They haven't stopped us fromcreating nuclear weapons.
They haven't stopped us fromcreating better nuclear weapons
and more destructive nuclear.

Speaker 2 (01:47:37):
They haven't stopped us from from nuclear weapons
proliferating all around theworld right now they also
haven't given us the keys toright world hunger or anything
like that.

Speaker 1 (01:47:48):
Quite frankly, you know, maybe they think you know
we, maybe they're keeping an eyeon us because they say these
guys crack this thing.
I don't trust them, right.
What's the first thing that wewould do?
We'd build a bomb, right?
And if we had unlimited energy,I mean?

Speaker 2 (01:48:02):
even if they showed you how to make unlimited food.

Speaker 1 (01:48:04):
Right, right, we'd still disinformation from
everyone else, that's.
I mean, how often have we heard, you know, rumors of energy
sources that are not petroleum,or whatever coal you know, and
oh, those are shut down prettyquickly and then you know it's
the realm of conspiracy theory.
But like we hear about itenough, remember, there's

(01:48:24):
somebody back in the day thathad, you know, was touting a
water engine and then they died,right, and that's why so often
these people just die and nobodygoes around to question it,
like, oh, they were working onthis thing and then they died.
And then somebody else wasworking on it and they died, and
it's just like right.

Speaker 2 (01:48:41):
But anyone that because rightfully so, you know,
anyone that is kind of notexactly getting along with putin
, right, when they die, everyonejust goes.
Well, we know what happened.

Speaker 1 (01:48:49):
Right, we did automatically, we automatically,
we all know right.

Speaker 2 (01:48:53):
But if somebody is against somehow the interest of
OPEC, right?
Well, I mean, that could havebeen anything.

Speaker 1 (01:49:01):
Could have been anything right Could have been.
So he has this energy sourcethat's going to wipe out the
profits of all the things, buthe happened to die.
I'm sure there's nothing.

Speaker 2 (01:49:08):
I'm sure there's nothing.
No, it's just a coincidence.

Speaker 1 (01:49:10):
So so the last thing I want to talk about cause this
is interesting too, and theselast two ones, the Nazca mummies
, I can't say I have not done anin-depth look into them.
I maybe maybe we should do thatfor a future episode.
The Nazca mummies Like toreally look in depth.

Speaker 2 (01:49:38):
Like.

Speaker 1 (01:49:38):
I haven't even take a while to gather like you can
gather up, like where the sourceis, but when it first came out,
it was almost universal that itwas some hoax, right.

Speaker 2 (01:49:40):
And then, as time has gone on, it's still around more
.
Yeah, it's like, well, I don'treally know, because at first it
was like what are these little?
Because when they first wereshown, it was always the little
ones, right, right.
And it was like because whenthey said, well, we think these
were dolls that were made inthat society for the children
along, right it sounded likewell, yeah, okay, I could see
how that but, like it's kind ofa creepy doll do we bury our
dolls like like?
is any other society done thatright?

Speaker 1 (01:50:01):
maybe again you can come up with an explanation for
everything, but a lot of timesthe explanation is more
far-fetched than like, like, I,like I keep saying this, like
the excuses they come up withfor what these things could be
like, you have to stretch yourimagination more to make those
make sense.

(01:50:21):
You know, and a lot of timesfacts, uh, you know, I um, don't
come into it, because the headof arrow, which is that dr sean
kirkpatrick, he the I think itwas the gimbal footage because
he said it's glare from the sun.
And then someone pointed out,um, merrick von Rennenkamp, who
is a state department guy whoreally wades in on this stuff

(01:50:44):
and really does a good job.
He pointed out, he goes thesewere filmed at night, there is
no glare of the sun like that.
And even though he correctedhim on that and that a fact,
that is a verifiable fact, thisguy, the head of arrow, then
continued to say that, evenafter having been corrected and
it so like you start to think,okay, you, you're going to say

(01:51:04):
this regardless, you're going tokeep going back to that thing
about it being the sun.
So now we took, but a lot ofpeople will hear that and it
sounds plausible, and so sothey'll go.
Oh, okay, like you said, themummies, first thing, this fake.
These are dolls.
It sounded plausible to you andyou went okay that makes sense,
right, but if you thought aboutit more, you'd go wait a second.

(01:51:25):
Like they made these weirddolls back then, 1,700 years ago
, they stitched togetherdifferent things.

Speaker 2 (01:51:35):
They fabricated different things, and then they
put it in the water so they getall this stuff on it.

Speaker 1 (01:51:42):
And then they did this and they buried it.
For what, oh, they weretricking us.
What?
Like yeah, like that would belike us, like spending all this
money to like bury a timecapsule with all like bad
information in it in the hopesthat 100 years from now,
somebody will dig this thing upand we'll trick them.
Now we'll be long gone, sowe'll get no satisfaction from

(01:52:02):
that trick it will die knowingthat this is a possibility
sometime in the future.

Speaker 2 (01:52:08):
That's why we spent all that time doing it,
especially back even now.
Now it makes no sense Back whenpeople first of all didn't even
live that long right.
Their time and energy needed tobe spent doing productive
things for the society.

Speaker 1 (01:52:24):
They certainly wouldn't think about a couple
thousand years into the futureand say someday, somebody's
going to dig this up.

Speaker 2 (01:52:31):
You know what?
Let's make a lot of these dolls, bury them.
They're kind of all going tolook the same.
Let's take different parts fromdifferent things.
It's going to be hard to figureout how we did this, and we're
just going to make a whole bunchof them.
It's different sizes and we'regoing to be chuckling.
Get some, put them in the waterfor a while, throw for a while.

(01:52:53):
Yeah, let's do this.
Throw everybody off, totallyRight.
Then we'll bury them in theground.

Speaker 1 (01:52:55):
It's like the same excuse for the heads on Easter
Island.
Like it's all a joke, right,like we're going to make these
giant heads and we're going tospread them all over the island.
It's not going to help us atall, zero.
But someday in the distant,distant future somebody is going
to uncover these things andthey're going to be confused.
Okay, let's put on the fullforce of our, of our society.

(01:53:17):
Stop everything Collecting foodover there.
Stop that.
We're going to build theseheads as a practical joke to the
future.
Like it's so absurd.
But yet this people who'd belike that's fake.
Why, like in most hoaxes, whySomebody's really going to spend
all this money making a hoax?
Right, for what?

(01:53:38):
Now, if you find a UFO video, ifyou find a video and then you
can find it from some source,okay, there have been videos
that have been put out there.
Hey, this is a flying saucer.
And then somebody pulls up andgoes, no, this is a scene from
this direct to videotape moviein the 70s and you just played a
clip of it or you took it andyou, you know, you manipulated

(01:53:59):
it in some way.
If you can find the source,great.
But a lot of times people justsay, oh, that's CGI, and
everybody goes, oh okay, andjust moves on.
No, no, it's like CGI, likethat doesn't explain everything.
So so the last topic I want totalk about before we wrap up
this is this rumor and it's justa rumor, it's not substantiated

(01:54:25):
in any way that it's beencoming out through different
sources that the James Webbtelescope has discovered proof
of life on some distant planetsand that information is being
brought to Congress and Congressis being briefed.

Speaker 2 (01:54:45):
All right, so hold on a second.
So before we even get to that,it popped into my head and I was
just verifying if I was correct, right, and I was going to say
this.
And I do.
You remember the episode onbrady bunch when barbie thought
he saw a ufo?

Speaker 1 (01:54:58):
oh, yes, I did, yeah, and greg was one was faking it.

Speaker 2 (01:55:00):
Yeah, I think that's the nexus of why we all think
everything's fake.
Because?
But at least our generation?
But because?
Do you remember that?

Speaker 1 (01:55:07):
he was clever too.
He would.
He would use the clothesline,yeah, to put the sheet out there
.
And then he had a flashlightand I think he had a piece of
cardboard that covered theflashlight enough to make it a
shape.
And then I think there was awhistle, some noise, and he
would do that.
And, yeah, that was a prettygood fake, it was.

Speaker 2 (01:55:27):
But I just think that that's why we all believe.

Speaker 1 (01:55:30):
We all believe, yeah, when they say it's a fake.

Speaker 2 (01:55:33):
So the James Webb Telescope?
I was reading how it had foundsome, not a galaxy, a universe.
I believe that the gas washotter than the stars, so go
ahead what you're saying.

Speaker 1 (01:55:48):
And again what I'm hearing is other people come out
and going all right, this Webbtelescope, it isn't even
possible to like what you'resaying it's doing.
It doesn't do that.
But here's something I findinteresting is and somebody was
pointing this out the timepeople use time on a Webb

(01:56:08):
telescope is like registered.
You can see who's using it.
Who's using it then, who'susing it now.
But there's certain blocks oftime that are classified, and
somebody made a really goodpoint.
They said the James Webbtelescope you cannot use that to
look at anything earth sideLike you.
It's only for looking deep outthere.

(01:56:32):
So what could be classified?
That somebody is looking wayout there certainly has nothing
to do with china or russia oranything like that.
It's not right like we're noteven looking at like, like in
our solar system.
So you can't even say well,it's, it's other countries that
we're spying on, that islaunching stuff.
No, this whole thing is forlooking way out into the depths

(01:56:53):
of space, right?
And yet time on this thing isclassified.
Certain blocks of time are forclassified reasons, and somebody
made a very good point to saywhat could that be?

Speaker 2 (01:57:04):
What do you mean by that?

Speaker 1 (01:57:05):
Meaning that if you look up the James Webb telescope
you can see people have to putin.
That's a resource that peoplecan use in scientific things,
but you have to put in for it,like you can't just take it over
so that telescope has to bedirected to look at certain
things.
So certain people have blocksof time.
Hey, we get this now, so we getto take the telescope and look
at this thing that we'rediscovering.

(01:57:26):
Now we get it over here and weget to look at this thing, but
there's some of the blocks oftime that you can't find out.
Who has it?
Whoever has it, it's secret forsome secret purpose.
But again, if, if they're theycan't look at earth, they can't
look at anything around us,because if you, I guess the
sunlight it would.
The only reason why it works isit's far enough out there and

(01:57:46):
pointing like it's, it's has thedarkness of space can't why
would you what?
what would you be looking at?
That would be classified.
That would be way out in thething.
So what the rumor is.
And this is, again, just a rumorand it's not substantiated in
any way.
It's just coming from a coupledifferent sources, which is why
I find it interesting what arethe sources?

(01:58:08):
Is that just different peopleare saying they're hearing it
from insiders on things?
So nothing official, butbasically saying something along
the lines of something iscoming, what and that's.
I know that sounds crazy, butit's a persistent thing.
That's been said by multiplepeople.
There was this guy, john Ramirez, and he's a CIA guy and he was

(01:58:29):
out for a while and he's kind offaded into the background.
But he'd come out and he wassaying, yeah, and he's kind of
faded into the background, buthe'd come out and he was saying,
yeah, something's happening,something's coming.
There's going to be a time,something is on its way and when
it gets here the cat's out ofthe bag, the secret is up.
The question is how do we breakit to people before that?
So when that happens and hewon't say what it is but and lou

(01:58:52):
elizondo was asked about thisthe same thing, like somebody
asked him and said we're hearingabout something that's possibly
happening.
The date 2027 has been thrownout.
The date 2031 has been thrownout.
There's been something that'sbeen thrown out to say that
something is coming and we knowit's coming, and when it gets
here, the jig is up.

(01:59:15):
Now they're saying that theJames Webb telescope picked it
up, but then, like I said, otherpeople are pointing out and
going well, no, the James Webbtelescope is not going to see an
object.
Object, it's a huge object,it's like a planet size object,

(01:59:35):
but it's not a planet becauseit's it's not tied to anything.
And again, I don't know, butwhen lou elizondo was questioned
about this, all he said was allhe would say is he's, I'm aware
of it and I can't talk about it.
That's what he said.
He said I'm aware of thatdiscussion.
He didn't say he was aware ofthe event.
He just said.
I'm aware that that's beingthat that's a thing that people
are saying.
I cannot talk about it, andthat's interesting when somebody

(02:00:00):
like that says I can't talkabout honestly well, they,
because if it's a no, it's like,because that's the thing.
Is somebody that that mattlaszlo asked, uh, andre carson,
who's a?
Uh, he was one of the ones thatdid one of the first UFO
hearings back.
You know he's a Democrat but acongressperson, right, he's been
in there a long time, so he'slike up in the chain and asked

(02:00:23):
him specifically about that.
Hey, we're hearing somethingthat the James Webb telescope
picked up something coming thisway, something words to that
effect, and Andre Carson said nocomment and kind of walked away
Like.
And so, generally speaking,people think when somebody says
no comment, it means yes,because if it's no, it's just no

(02:00:46):
Like hey Well, wouldn't you?

Speaker 2 (02:00:48):
would you get in trouble for not confirming
something I don't know?
I don't think so becauseDepending on what the wording is
.

Speaker 1 (02:00:52):
So if somebody walked up to somebody and said uh hey,
can you confirm that?
Um, you know aliens that looklike otters or I keep picking
otters are?
Infiltrating our areinfiltrating our sewers.
They'd go no, no, no, like,like, like.
That's so absurd.

Speaker 2 (02:01:12):
I guess you could put it that way.

Speaker 1 (02:01:13):
The answer is no.
But if you asked that and saidhey, we think we heard a no
comment on that, you'd go waitwhat?
Because if it were no, youwould just say no.

Speaker 2 (02:01:23):
Did you hear that waters are coming from another
planet to kill all of us?
No comment, that would make menervous, I guess, if you said no
comment to that.

Speaker 1 (02:01:32):
And so somebody else comment, somebody else make me
nervous, I guess.
If you said no comment to that,and so you know, somebody else
said, well, okay, they, theysaid maybe he just didn't want
to get into it, and so insteadof saying you know, no, it's
just like it's easy to say it'skind of a, it's kind of a wild
thing to talk about, right right.
So if somebody said that not theotters, I mean like the, the,
something coming from anotherplanet, both a while like it,
and then I, and then so it's oneof those things that it's

(02:01:53):
persistent and it's out there,but it's also one of those
things that may have taken on alife of its own.
You know when, like, somebodyputs it out and they just say it
, and then somebody else picksit up and says, hey, I heard
this thing.
And somebody else picks it upand says, well, I heard this
thing.
And so then it gets, and thenso it's like, well, where is the
source?
Where did it originally comefrom?

(02:02:14):
And I don't know.
But there's a couple of peopleout there who are and I can't
think of their names, butthey're out there and they, you
know, and they're basicallysaying, no, I know people who
are behind the scenes.
I can't tell you who they areand you know.
So again, I just mention itbecause it's interesting to see
how stuff like this spreads, andI don't necessarily believe any

(02:02:35):
of it, because it's too easyfor those things to just sort of
pop up and become a life oftheir own, and then you can't
find the source.
You know, it's like thosestories that just sort of come
up and everybody talks aboutthem but nobody can really tell
you when it happened, kind oflike putting razor blades inside
of Halloween candy.

(02:02:55):
It's one of those storiesthat's told, but as far as we
know, there's no documented caseever that anyone's been able to
find of that actually happening.
Or I don't know if you rememberthis from when we were kids, I
don't know.
There's this whole time whenthere's this thing about some
black van driving around andhanding out those temporary

(02:03:16):
tattoos but they'd have LSD onthem.
Yeah, do you remember?
That was like a thing.
I don't know if people didn'tgrow up in this era.
That was the thing, and I justremember we were out constantly
trying to find that when arethese vans?
Um, but as far as we know,they're going to give away drugs
for free, right?
So I was like wait, there's no,like that's never happened.
So where did the story comefrom?

(02:03:38):
The story just came from andthe story was compelling enough
that when it started gettingtold, people kept telling it,
cause it's a compelling story.
But, like you said, exactlylike hey, there are these people
that they're giving away drugs.

Speaker 2 (02:03:49):
Why?
Why are they doing that Just?
Because Because they're goingto spend all this money.

Speaker 1 (02:03:54):
We're going to buy a van, we're going to buy all
these temporary tattoos andwe're going to put LSD on them.
Why are you doing that?
Because we're going to getlittle kids tripping Again.
Why are you doing that?
I don't know?
Because it'll be fun, but it'slike it might be a case of that
where it's just a story.
But I find it interesting thata lot of.
Have you ever heard of LindaMoulton Howe?

(02:04:16):
No, she's a longtimeinvestigator.
She's been out there doinginvestigation on UFOs forever.
She's like one of the names inthat field.
But so these are some of thesepeople who have some degree of
bona fides, and it's somethingthat's continuously repeated,
and so it's interesting justbecause it's always like

(02:04:40):
disclosure.
This is why I bring it up isbecause it wraps up this thing
about disclosure is there's atimer on disclosure, disclosure.
You have to tell people becausethere's going to come a point
where they're going to find outand that's the catastrophic
disclosure.

Speaker 2 (02:04:58):
So do you think, which is what I think?
So, if I believe that, if thisis actually true, so I think
sometimes people will listen tome talk on this or in
conversation they'll thinkautomatically that I 100%
believe.
Let's say, like this story.

Speaker 1 (02:05:16):
Right, right, I don't 100% believe it.

Speaker 2 (02:05:19):
I find it compelling, but no, I try to stay
open-minded, to say what do youhave to say?
It's not true, right?

Speaker 1 (02:05:25):
What if I'm not going to play my life around it?
Right, right.

Speaker 2 (02:05:27):
But I believe that company you work at, a company,
the government, however you wantto look at it, generally
speaking, news about transitionsare not just dropped in your
lap.
They kind of treat people kindof like you treat a frog in
boiling water Little by little,little by little, yeah, and

(02:05:50):
you'll accept it and everythingwill be okay.
So I kind of feel like that'swhat's happening with the whole
thing of UFOs, uaps, however youwant to say it, I think that's

(02:06:15):
what's.
I mean.
If you wanted to look at itthat way, you could certainly
make a very good argument thatwithin the news, the media,
however you want to, but thosewe were talking before we
started um, recording, uh, thepolls just three years ago now,
what there's not.
It's not a vast majority, butthe majority of people believe
that these exist, right, andthey believe that they're
intelligent.
They believe a whole bunch ofthings that 30 years ago they
would have been reversed.

Speaker 1 (02:06:33):
What if they're using the James Webb telescope as a
convenient way to let outinformation that they've known
for a long time?
But they can't cop to that, sothey have to pretend that the
James Webb telescope isdiscovering it?
Oh, we're just discovering thisthing.
Oh my God, there's a planet outthere that we know, that
there's life on it.
The James Webb telescope toldus so, but it's information that

(02:06:55):
we might have known all alongthrough another source.
Well, they have skinny bob.
Yeah, they have skinny bob.
What's going on out there?
That's a freaky thing tellingyou.
Look it up, people, skinny bob.
It is not a very long video andthere's not much to it, but when
you look at it carefully you'relike man.
If this thing thing is fakedand also and I don't know off
the top of my head, but it'sbeen around, so it's not like

(02:07:16):
something that just came outlike the last year or so, like
this is a video that's beenfloating around for a long time.
So if somebody faked it, theydidn't just fake it yesterday,
they faked it a long time ago.
So you have to take that intoaccount.
Yes, something comes out, andtime ago.

(02:07:37):
So you have to take that intoaccount.
Yes, something comes out.
And that's also the reason why,if you notice, the government
makes it very clear.
They try to pretend thisproblem started in 2004,.
Because it's very easy that ifyou start in the 2000s, it's
very easy to say these thingsare drones or these things are
our technology.
It's very easy to say that inthe 2000s.
It's certainly easy to say thatin 2024.
It's just harder to say in the60s and the 50s and the 40s, and
you know, if you go hearingscoming up like that is a fact

(02:08:14):
and you know stuff that's notnecessarily true, like this
James Webb telescope information, all these Nazca mummies who
knows, this could all be a bigfraud.
The Nazca mummies, it's justinteresting.
It's interesting data that'scoming out.
I agree with you, I'm not.
I want to hear it all.
I want to take it in, I want toponder it and consider what if?

(02:08:35):
because it's fun what if right,can you imagine what if the
james webb telescope picked upsomething on its way to us and
like, uh-oh, wait, hey, that's aplanet.
Wait now, today that planet'scloser than it was yesterday.
Well, now it's even closer now.
Oh my god, it just left thatsolar system.
So it's not a planet becauseit's not tied to it is, it's on
its way.
And that, oh, and the otherpiece of the rumor and again
just a rumor is whatever thisobject is, course corrected like

(02:08:59):
change course in a way that acelestial object couldn't
meaning that it was going in onedirection and then change
direction but wasn't there.

Speaker 2 (02:09:08):
I know we're going to wrap up, but wasn't there that
whole thing with the professorfrom Harvard, oh, avi Loeb?
Yes, and it was that objectthat he said and I think other
people did agree with him somedidn't that it was making
maneuvers.
I wouldn't call it a maneuver,but it was behaving in a way

(02:09:28):
that he believed it wassomething that had propulsion.
Yeah Right.

Speaker 1 (02:09:34):
Yeah, in a way that he believed it was something
that had propulsion.
Yeah right, yeah, he, he, um,it's now left our solar system.
So it's really kind of a likeuh, but he's trying to keep out
an eye for another one.
And there was some other objectthat crashed into, crashed into
earth, and he went out and didan expedition out to find um
pieces of it and what he foundwas they found some interesting
um metal.
Metal melted.
Something came off off it andit was stronger than iron,

(02:09:56):
because we know that it didn'tburn up until a certain point
and so it would have to be thematerial strength.
So I guess he's raising moneyto go back out there and see if
he can find a bigger piece of it.

Speaker 2 (02:10:05):
Although now that I'm thinking of it, he called that
thing that kind of went throughthe solar system a probe, right,
he thought it was a.
He said there was his thoughtson it.
Was it possibly could be aprobe?

Speaker 1 (02:10:20):
right.

Speaker 2 (02:10:21):
And it's just interesting.
Maybe it's a probe for whateverthe James Webb telescope is
classified as seeing.

Speaker 1 (02:10:28):
You know, and then the other, the non you know.
One part of it is oh, the JamesWebb telescope saw this thing,
and the other part is maybepotentially.
Is that the James Webbtelescope has detected certain
evidence of certain gases orsomething on distant planets
that would indicate life?
And I also understand, is thatyou know that's more mundane,
like it's funny, there's twostories.

Speaker 2 (02:10:48):
Why would that be classified?
I don't know and that's likeright, and that's the big
discussion is, if we are notalone, although you could see
why it would be classified ifit's something that wasn't going
towards here, because if youtold people I don't know,
there's this big spaceshipthat's coming here It'll be here
in three years.
Right People might just saywell, f this Right.

(02:11:11):
I mean I don't know.

Speaker 1 (02:11:13):
Yeah, no, it's I.
I, you know, I.
I was almost hesitant bringingit up only because there's so so
much scant, so such scantinformation at this point that
it's really like, like this lastone is really just like.
It's really, at this point,just an online rumor and, as we
know, most online rumors arefull of crap.

(02:11:34):
You know it's.
It's.
Very rarely does an onlinerumor turn oh, my god, that was
true.
Usually it's it's so at thispoint, that's all it is.
I just find it interestingbecause the number of people who
are saying it and not just that, but the, the, the caliber of
the who won't say, won't addressit, but seem to indicate that

(02:11:57):
they're aware of it, and if theywere sure that it was crap,
they would say it.
Oh yeah, I've heard that rumor.
That's a couple of these otherresearchers who will only say
they're aware of its existenceas a thing, but they can't talk

(02:12:21):
about it makes me think there'ssomething to it.
Now, it could be something toit in the sense that there's
something to it, but the storyhas been exploded, be well
beyond what it really is, justexaggerated, you know, and
that's why they can't talk aboutit is because if they talk
about it, they'd have to correctWell, there's some kernel of
truth to it, but that's reallyblown out of proportion.

(02:12:41):
But they can't talk about that.
So maybe that's it, but it'sjust interesting, I don't know.
Wow, yeah, so we have had agood discussion here though it's
good to be back.
We need to get back on trackwith uh now that we're out of
summer.
Summer's always just a hardtime for us, just because we're,
you know, so busy with stuff.
But now that, uh, we're gettinginto fall, uh, let's get back
on this and it's been a fun timeyes it's been fun and I may

(02:13:02):
split this up into two episodes.
We'll see, or it might just, Idon't know.
We may just play around withhow we release things because
it's fun, but uh uh, yeah, so,uh, until until the next time we
come back.
Uh, this is chris and I'm steve,and uh, we've been talking
about some deep shit.
We'll be you next time.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Crime Junkie

Ridiculous History

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

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

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

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

Crime Junkie

Ridiculous History

All Episodes

(Not So) Deep Sh*t on UFO Cover-Ups and UAP Disclosure

On Purpose with Jay Shetty