December 12, 2023 • 28 mins
Are you ready for a thrilling exploration into the labyrinthine world of UAP legislation? Sure you are!
Join Chris as he dives into the UAP Disclosure Act of 2023 and its dramatic transformation thanks to malicious political machinations. How Senators Chuck Schumer and Mike Rounds' groundbreaking UAP proposal lost its potency, evolving into the seemingly innocuous Subtitle C Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena.
But don't lose hope; momentum is building towards UAP disclosure. Chris tracks the efforts of politicians who are challenging the cloaked resistance to transparency. He also scrutinizes the media's role in this rapidly unfolding narrative and ponder the potential impact of uncontrolled disclosure on society.
So buckle up for this rollercoaster ride into the unknown, as we bring you all the updates on this riveting journey of UAP disclosure and how it can usher in a huge leap forward for humanity.
Original UAP Disclosure Act of 2023 (as passed by the US Senate)
Contact Us:
Twitter: @NotSoDeepShit
Facebook.com/NSDSChrisandSteve
Instagram.com/nsdschrisandsteve
Email: nsdschrisandsteve@gmail.com
Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE, LIKE and LEAVE A REVIEW for the show!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The UAP Disclosure Act of 2023 will be included in
the National DefenseAuthorization Act.
It's been defanged, some wouldsay completely neutered.
What did they change?
What are they passing?
What did they leave out?
And will any of this make adifference?
And what happens next?
Let's talk about it.
Chris here, flying solo onceagain to bring you all an update
(01:00):
on the UAP Disclosure Act of2023.
That legislation was introducedby Senator Chuck Schumer,
democrat from New York, andSenator Mike Rounds, republican
from South Dakota, in the Senateand was going to be included in
(01:22):
the Defense Authorization Act,which is what they pass every
year to fund the military.
So the UAP Disclosure Act wascertainly an ambitious piece of
legislation.
As far as UAPs go UFOs I don'tthink we've ever seen a proposed
(01:43):
law on UAP not that there havebeen many to compare it to that
are this powerful in what theywere attempting to do.
This was the Disclosure Act.
This was called the UAPDisclosure Act of 2023.
So it was proposing disclosureof UAP secrets.
(02:06):
When you looked at the specificprovisions of this proposed
legislation, they werementioning things like non-human
intelligence 20-something times.
They were defining it even tosay what do they mean when they
say that, and it was veryclearly something not of this
(02:28):
Earth.
So the very fact that this waseven put up there by Chuck
Schumer and Mike Rounds is thefact that it was even done is
highly significant.
It was proposing a review boardappointed by the President of
the United States.
Do you think that the SenateMajority Leader was proposing
(02:53):
legislation giving the Presidentof the United States more
authority in a certain areawithout discussing it with him
and his staff?
I mean, it's known that ChuckSchumer at least has, you know,
weekly conversations with atleast the White House, but
probably with President Bidenhimself.
(03:14):
So anyway, the point is is thatthis wasn't coming from just
nowhere and it certainly wasn'tjust a fringe thing that was put
on by some obscure politician.
This was rolled out by the bigguns.
So anyway, that's just to setup the story.
(03:35):
The Senate had already passedthe full wording of the UAP
Disclosure Act.
Now I would highly recommendgoing in getting that.
Google it, you can find it outthere.
It's out there.
It's 60-something pages.
You can see that they werereally detailing how they wanted
(03:56):
to roll this out Now they hadpassed it.
So now it had to be agreed to bythe House, and that's where the
resistance came from theresistance to passing this, or
at least provisions of this.
Most of the major provisions ofthis came from only a few small
quarters, one of them beingRepresentative Mike Turner, from
(04:19):
Ohio.
He represents the area withWright-Patterson Air Force Base.
Wright-patterson Air Force Basehas been a character in the
long story of UFOs for quitesome time.
A significant location isbelieved to be where the Roswell
(04:40):
wreckage was taken immediatelyafter, but that's not the only
time it's come up.
And also Mike Turner has a lotof defense contractor donations,
so him and a few others alsowith similar ties fought this in
(05:07):
the House, and so they had tohave a conference, and what they
could clear goes on the DefenseAuthorization Act, the
Intelligence Authorization Act,the National Defense
Authorization Act the version ofthis act that passed differs
significantly from the Senateversion.
(05:31):
I'm just going to list some ofthe major ways and then we'll
talk about them a little bit.
First of all, it's no longercalled the UAP Disclosure Act of
2023.
That name has been strippedfrom it.
It's now just called Subtitle CUnidentified Anomalous
Phenomena.
Take some of the significanceout of it, for sure.
(05:52):
Definitions the originalversion actually defined
non-human intelligence anddefined technologies of unknown
origin.
So that was stripped.
So there is no mention ofnon-human intelligence.
It mentions UAPs, unidentifiedAnomalous Phenomena, but in a
(06:14):
very generalized way.
The Civilian Review Boardappointed by the President and
would be able to advise thePresident on which specific
pieces of information could bedisclosed to the public and
which should continue to be keptbehind a security firewall.
But it was a civilian boardappointed by the President, of
(06:38):
highly diverse and respectedpeople in their various fields.
So it wasn't just meant to be abunch of Pentagon employees or
defense contractors.
It was meant to be a widevariety of like an economist or
a sociologist or religiousrepresentation or any number of
(07:05):
things scientific, obviously,the different branches.
So that was a really powerfulthing.
Unfortunately, that has beenremoved from this version and is
no longer in there.
Eminent domain, which was goingto give the federal government
(07:26):
the power to take back anymaterials of non-human origin
that may be in the hands ofprivate contractors who took
possession of these physicalcraft, or at least pieces of
(07:46):
craft, after the militaryrecovered them.
That those would still be theproperty of the US government
and that they would have thepower to take that back.
That also was stripped fromthis act.
And lastly, subpoena powers,the review board and they were
(08:09):
going to be the power to callpeople before them and ask
questions of some of thesereported materials and
information on UAP that certainsectors of the military and
intelligence community possessseparately but are unwilling to
(08:32):
share with anyone else.
And there's a lot of thissiloing going on.
So that was another major partof this proposed act is that it
was going to have a civilianbody appointed by the president,
who could look down top viewyou know, top down view of this,
(08:55):
of the entire spectrum ofinformation about UAPs,
everything related, no matterhow secure or locked behind
whatever walls and was they weregoing to be able to advise the
president on hey, the public canknow this, the public, well,
maybe shouldn't know this, butthe presumption it was even
(09:16):
worded in the act that thepresumption would be towards
release.
So they would start with thepresumption that, hey, we can
release this and they would haveto be convinced by you know the
information itself or peoplethat they could subpoena from
those you know departments andsay, hey, why are we keeping
this secret?
I'll give you your case.
(09:36):
So that was, that was takenaway.
So what, what is left?
Well, the one thing they left inwas the archivist of the
National Archives being able tocollect all the UAP information
in a centralized location andpreserve them, index them.
(10:01):
Supposedly there's somegovernment accountability in
there built into there, wherethey'll have to show that
they're not destroying records.
They'll have to be digitallyaccessible and reviewed
periodically.
There are some good things inthere.
(10:21):
There are some positive,positive movement being made
towards disclosure, but anythingsignificant has been completely
stripped by only a few smallindividual representatives Of
(10:42):
the House of Representatives.
Maybe three or four had thepower to turn what was the UAP
Disclosure Act of 2023 into thissubtitle C, unidentified,
anomalous phenomena with reallyno teeth.
So the question you have to askyourself if you are skeptical
(11:04):
that there is anything to thisissue is why would a small
number of politicianspoliticians seemingly beholden
to defense contractors beinclined to stop government
transparency if there's nothingthere to discover?
(11:27):
Because that's been the storyof well, the government for a
long time up until fairlyrecently.
They've come clean to somedegree certainly not to the
degree they should, but more sothan they ever have, mostly
being ignored by the mainstreampress in general.
(11:49):
Yeah, they cover the subjectevery now and again, but
certainly not to the degreewhich things are happening.
The exception to this, ofcourse, is News Nation.
I am not a fan of cable news ingeneral.
I used to watch it a lot andI've come to realize that,
(12:16):
especially with cable news,their main purpose is not
informing me or anyone.
Their main purpose is to keeppeople watching and keep them
glued to the television.
So they're gonna be and this isof all cable news, for the most
part news in general.
They're gonna wanna keep youriled up, angry or afraid, but
(12:41):
they do also cover what's goingon out there to a certain degree
.
And as far as cable newschannels go, I know this is a
ringing endorsement.
I kind of like News Nation.
Yes, it has some of that verytypical cable news partisan,
very editorial, disguised asfactual news.
(13:05):
They have a little bit of that,can't avoid it.
But they do have their straightnews coverage, which isn't too
bad, and they treat the UAPissue as the significant news
story that it is.
They have reporters assigned toit, looking into it, asking
(13:31):
good questions, following thethreads, following the obvious
threads of hey, there's a lot ofhigh level people who are
saying something's going on here.
There is proposed legislationfrom arguably the most powerful
politicians, elected officialsin the Senate, seemingly backed
(13:55):
by the White House, proposing toopen the doors on all that the
government knows about UAPs andit's being blocked.
They're following that threadOn significant UAP news days.
I know such a thing may soundabsurd, but there are such
(14:16):
things, as there have been dayswhen large events have happened,
such as the UAP Disclosure Actand several interviews by David
Grush.
News Nation covers it.
Sometimes they'll have a storyevery hour on UAPs and what's
going on and government movementand politicians, elected
(14:42):
officials, you know, sometimesexperts they bring on to talk
about it.
So I will give them that.
But generally speaking, themedia has not covered this story
yet.
It may be getting to a pointwhere they can't they can't
avoid it.
I mean, there's gonna be apoint where News Nation is gonna
(15:05):
get so much mileage from beingthe only network covering this
and there's obviously a storyhere.
There's obviously somethinggoing on.
No matter what you think it isat, in the end it may not be
nonhuman at all.
(15:25):
I, some are still clinging tothat hope that it Is going to be
us.
Either US technology developedsecretly that's the preferred
option or Some peoplereluctantly kind of say, well,
it could.
Just, you know, could be ouradversaries.
Again, wishful thinking ontheir part, and strange wishful
(15:50):
thinking, because you know, mostsecurity experts for us at
least say that if any of ouradversaries had Technology that
could do these things well, weshould be very, very, very
worried.
So it's a strange thing to hopefor, but there they are still
hoping for it, and you see thisattitude a lot of times in the
(16:14):
Press mainstream press when theytalk about it is, they'll
always ask the question ofwhoever they're talking to.
You know well, don't we thinkthis is our own technology or
technology of China or Russia?
It's funny.
They keep asking that question,even though that specific point
has been Refused by thegovernment multiple times in
(16:36):
multiple different arenas, wherethey say you know, no, it's not
us, it's not us, it's not anypart of us.
The highest authority has saidit's not us and if anyone was
gonna know there was somethinggoing on, it should be them.
It's something else, we justdon't know what.
And that fact hasn't caught theFull attention of most of the
(16:59):
media.
So this issue is picking upsteam.
This Alteration of the UAPdisclosure act is certainly a
blow against full disclosure, oris it?
Maybe it's just a blow againstcontrolled Disclosure, because
that's what this act kind of was.
(17:20):
It was controlled disclosure,very orderly, very measured,
very Structured and had atimeline, and really let's take
our time and make sure it was anolive branch held out to those
who are keeping these secrets,because it being told from the,
(17:40):
from those who are trying to getthese secrets out into the open
, their intent on doing so, andthis was one method, the other
one being what has beenaffectionately referred to as
catastrophic disclosure.
That is a term that's beingthrown around now.
Catastrophic disclosure meaningsimply disclosure of the
(18:08):
presence of nonhumanintelligence interacting with
our planet for some amount oftime and possible possession of
technologies from those nonhumanintelligence by, you know,
parts of private corporations,our space corporations also.
(18:28):
You know a cover-up 70, 90, alot of years.
I mean you can argue about whenthe cover-up started, but there
has been a definite cover-up bysome elements within the
government To hide this, acover-up to keep this away from
people.
At some point that informationis going to start to come out.
(18:51):
The number of whistleblowersmay grow, their position and
Respectability and you know howtheir word is measured the
quality of them may go way up insurprising ways, documents,
pictures, videos, things mightbe released, or at least ones
(19:12):
that are taken, authenticated insome official capacity.
You're gonna start to seemovement on this in a lot of
different ways.
I Think disclosure is stillcoming.
I Think it's coming sooner.
I in full, in an uncontrolledmanner, because of what happened
(19:33):
with this UAP disclosure act of2023.
You could almost see itImmediately.
There was a push in differentquarters to get information out
there.
You know, the Daily Mailpublished another story about a
whistleblower and talking abouthidden non-human craft.
(19:56):
They've had a few of thesestories here and there about
whistleblowers and possiblepossession of non-human tech.
So it's nothing new.
It's not, you know.
It's not as if that was on CNNor, you know, nbc or ABC News or
something like that.
(20:16):
But the story started comingout in different places.
Some politicians started makingnoise as well, particularly the
ones that have been very vocal.
As far as you know, uapdisclosure Immediately
representative Andy Ogles.
(20:36):
He is, you know, moreright-leaning, but he had a very
strong statement right afterbasically saying this is about
taking the deep state to taskfor their refusal to to
declassify what the Americanpeople need to see.
Regarding UAP Jared MoskowitzDemocrat, he's been asking a
(21:00):
very simple question and he putout a statement if none of this
exists, if this is all false,why, at every turn, are there
people trying to stop thetransparency?
That's what piques the interest.
He was brought into it becauseof the reluctance of certain
(21:21):
quarters of the Pentagon toallow information to even get in
the hands of electedrepresentatives.
So that was what piqued hisinterest and as he got more and
more involved and saw theroadblocks that were being put
in front of them for asking thequestions, he got interested.
And I think that's where we'reat now.
(21:44):
I think that the blockage ofthis act, or the key aspects of
this act changing its name,watering it down, blocking
transparency is going to be thething that gets the attention.
Maybe finally, of some you knowinvestigative elements that so
far haven't wanted to look intoany of this.
(22:05):
Maybe they'll actually look andsay, huh, that's strange,
they're blocking this.
They're working very hard andspending a lot of effort to stop
this from happening.
Might there be a story behindthose walls?
So I think that's gonna come.
I think it's already beenhappening for quite a while.
(22:25):
It's been building up.
You're seeing a lot morelegitimate press legitimate
press in parentheses, but whatis considered the legitimate or
mainstream press Cover the story.
A little bit of the snark isbeing removed, not as much as
should, but it's not as bad asit was even five, six years ago,
(22:47):
certainly not as bad as it was,you know, 20 years ago.
So they're starting to cover itand they're starting to be a
huge build-up towardsinformation coming out in an
uncontrolled or back to whatthey call catastrophic
disclosure way.
The question can be asked well,catastrophic to whom?
(23:10):
They made it sound like it'scatastrophic to everybody.
If this information comes outuncontrolled, it will be
catastrophic to everyone.
And you know what?
I'm sure you could make anargument for that.
I'm sure you could say that youknow this would shake our core
institutions to such a degreethat you'd be hard-pressed to
(23:34):
find an individual who wasn'ttheir life wasn't touched in
some significant way by this.
So in that way you could arguehey, it's catastrophic because
it's going to affect everyone.
You know how will religionsreact?
How will you know the stockmarket react?
(23:55):
How will the individuals react?
Will they just accept the fact?
Hey, there is this non-humanintelligence interacting with us
and in the power differential,we seem to be on the low end of
that spectrum?
Will that trouble them?
(24:15):
Will that scare them?
Will they want to go to workthe next day?
Will they want to just get upand go to the office and do
their 40 hours this week whenthey learn that potentially
there is technology, or thepromise of technology, in the
(24:35):
hands of our government, orelements thereof, that could
eliminate the need for oil orwhat burning fossil fuels or
wrecking the environment or anynumber of things that could
improve the quality of life hereon Earth and the implications
(24:57):
that those possibly worldchanging technologies have been
purposefully kept for whateverreason.
Call it national security, callit profit and greed, whatever
bucket you want to put that in,and people are going to be upset
, and all this does have thepossibility of crumbling our
(25:23):
institutions, at least to somedegree.
But I also think that humans ingeneral are resilient and if
pressed, we adapt to change.
Not all of us, not all of ussmoothly, not all of us without
(25:44):
a lot of bumps in the road, butover the long haul we do react
to the change and go with it.
So I think this will be a goodthing.
It will not be without itsnegative points.
No thing, no matter what it is,I think, is ever 100% good or
(26:09):
100% bad.
Even the worst tragedies ofhistory, there was some positive
effect for someone in theequation.
Wherever you find it, no matterhow terrible a thing was, there
was somebody who benefited fromit in some way.
Most things work out that way.
It will be a good thing in theend.
(26:31):
Disclosure will be a positivething for us humanity.
It may not be a positive thingin the short run unless we can
really get up to speed and rollwith the changes fast enough,
(26:54):
because, going back to mystatement about nothing being
good or nothing being badcompletely 100%, then we can
find the good from it, we canturn it into a positive if we
react with the changes.
But until then, I'm going tokeep rattling this cage and
(27:16):
banging this drum and trying tobring information out there to
whoever wants to listen to it,about what's going on with UAPs,
because I think we're in anunprecedented era of progress on
this front.
I think we're going to get tothe point where there's going to
be progress almost constantly,and at what point does that
(27:40):
progress hit a momentum, a pointof no return, where full
disclosure not only becomeslikely but almost inevitable,
and I think we're almost thereand I'm going to continue to
bring you the updates as ithappens, and I'll probably try
to do this on a regular basisbecause, as I said, there's a
(28:00):
lot of news then there will bein 2024 and a lot more to be
said.
So this is Chris signing off.
Until next time, see ya.
The UAP Disclosure Act of 2023 will be included in
the National DefenseAuthorization Act.
It's been defanged, some wouldsay completely neutered.
What did they change?
What are they passing?
What did they leave out?
And will any of this make adifference?
And what happens next?
Let's talk about it.
Chris here, flying solo onceagain to bring you all an update
(01:00):
on the UAP Disclosure Act of2023.
That legislation was introducedby Senator Chuck Schumer,
democrat from New York, andSenator Mike Rounds, republican
from South Dakota, in the Senateand was going to be included in
(01:22):
the Defense Authorization Act,which is what they pass every
year to fund the military.
So the UAP Disclosure Act wascertainly an ambitious piece of
legislation.
As far as UAPs go UFOs I don'tthink we've ever seen a proposed
(01:43):
law on UAP not that there havebeen many to compare it to that
are this powerful in what theywere attempting to do.
This was the Disclosure Act.
This was called the UAPDisclosure Act of 2023.
So it was proposing disclosureof UAP secrets.
(02:06):
When you looked at the specificprovisions of this proposed
legislation, they werementioning things like non-human
intelligence 20-something times.
They were defining it even tosay what do they mean when they
say that, and it was veryclearly something not of this
(02:28):
Earth.
So the very fact that this waseven put up there by Chuck
Schumer and Mike Rounds is thefact that it was even done is
highly significant.
It was proposing a review boardappointed by the President of
the United States.
Do you think that the SenateMajority Leader was proposing
(02:53):
legislation giving the Presidentof the United States more
authority in a certain areawithout discussing it with him
and his staff?
I mean, it's known that ChuckSchumer at least has, you know,
weekly conversations with atleast the White House, but
probably with President Bidenhimself.
(03:14):
So anyway, the point is is thatthis wasn't coming from just
nowhere and it certainly wasn'tjust a fringe thing that was put
on by some obscure politician.
This was rolled out by the bigguns.
So anyway, that's just to setup the story.
(03:35):
The Senate had already passedthe full wording of the UAP
Disclosure Act.
Now I would highly recommendgoing in getting that.
Google it, you can find it outthere.
It's out there.
It's 60-something pages.
You can see that they werereally detailing how they wanted
(03:56):
to roll this out Now they hadpassed it.
So now it had to be agreed to bythe House, and that's where the
resistance came from theresistance to passing this, or
at least provisions of this.
Most of the major provisions ofthis came from only a few small
quarters, one of them beingRepresentative Mike Turner, from
(04:19):
Ohio.
He represents the area withWright-Patterson Air Force Base.
Wright-patterson Air Force Basehas been a character in the
long story of UFOs for quitesome time.
A significant location isbelieved to be where the Roswell
(04:40):
wreckage was taken immediatelyafter, but that's not the only
time it's come up.
And also Mike Turner has a lotof defense contractor donations,
so him and a few others alsowith similar ties fought this in
(05:07):
the House, and so they had tohave a conference, and what they
could clear goes on the DefenseAuthorization Act, the
Intelligence Authorization Act,the National Defense
Authorization Act the version ofthis act that passed differs
significantly from the Senateversion.
(05:31):
I'm just going to list some ofthe major ways and then we'll
talk about them a little bit.
First of all, it's no longercalled the UAP Disclosure Act of
2023.
That name has been strippedfrom it.
It's now just called Subtitle CUnidentified Anomalous
Phenomena.
Take some of the significanceout of it, for sure.
(05:52):
Definitions the originalversion actually defined
non-human intelligence anddefined technologies of unknown
origin.
So that was stripped.
So there is no mention ofnon-human intelligence.
It mentions UAPs, unidentifiedAnomalous Phenomena, but in a
(06:14):
very generalized way.
The Civilian Review Boardappointed by the President and
would be able to advise thePresident on which specific
pieces of information could bedisclosed to the public and
which should continue to be keptbehind a security firewall.
But it was a civilian boardappointed by the President, of
(06:38):
highly diverse and respectedpeople in their various fields.
So it wasn't just meant to be abunch of Pentagon employees or
defense contractors.
It was meant to be a widevariety of like an economist or
a sociologist or religiousrepresentation or any number of
(07:05):
things scientific, obviously,the different branches.
So that was a really powerfulthing.
Unfortunately, that has beenremoved from this version and is
no longer in there.
Eminent domain, which was goingto give the federal government
(07:26):
the power to take back anymaterials of non-human origin
that may be in the hands ofprivate contractors who took
possession of these physicalcraft, or at least pieces of
(07:46):
craft, after the militaryrecovered them.
That those would still be theproperty of the US government
and that they would have thepower to take that back.
That also was stripped fromthis act.
And lastly, subpoena powers,the review board and they were
(08:09):
going to be the power to callpeople before them and ask
questions of some of thesereported materials and
information on UAP that certainsectors of the military and
intelligence community possessseparately but are unwilling to
(08:32):
share with anyone else.
And there's a lot of thissiloing going on.
So that was another major partof this proposed act is that it
was going to have a civilianbody appointed by the president,
who could look down top viewyou know, top down view of this,
(08:55):
of the entire spectrum ofinformation about UAPs,
everything related, no matterhow secure or locked behind
whatever walls and was they weregoing to be able to advise the
president on hey, the public canknow this, the public, well,
maybe shouldn't know this, butthe presumption it was even
(09:16):
worded in the act that thepresumption would be towards
release.
So they would start with thepresumption that, hey, we can
release this and they would haveto be convinced by you know the
information itself or peoplethat they could subpoena from
those you know departments andsay, hey, why are we keeping
this secret?
I'll give you your case.
(09:36):
So that was, that was takenaway.
So what, what is left?
Well, the one thing they left inwas the archivist of the
National Archives being able tocollect all the UAP information
in a centralized location andpreserve them, index them.
(10:01):
Supposedly there's somegovernment accountability in
there built into there, wherethey'll have to show that
they're not destroying records.
They'll have to be digitallyaccessible and reviewed
periodically.
There are some good things inthere.
(10:21):
There are some positive,positive movement being made
towards disclosure, but anythingsignificant has been completely
stripped by only a few smallindividual representatives Of
(10:42):
the House of Representatives.
Maybe three or four had thepower to turn what was the UAP
Disclosure Act of 2023 into thissubtitle C, unidentified,
anomalous phenomena with reallyno teeth.
So the question you have to askyourself if you are skeptical
(11:04):
that there is anything to thisissue is why would a small
number of politicianspoliticians seemingly beholden
to defense contractors beinclined to stop government
transparency if there's nothingthere to discover?
(11:27):
Because that's been the storyof well, the government for a
long time up until fairlyrecently.
They've come clean to somedegree certainly not to the
degree they should, but more sothan they ever have, mostly
being ignored by the mainstreampress in general.
(11:49):
Yeah, they cover the subjectevery now and again, but
certainly not to the degreewhich things are happening.
The exception to this, ofcourse, is News Nation.
I am not a fan of cable news ingeneral.
I used to watch it a lot andI've come to realize that,
(12:16):
especially with cable news,their main purpose is not
informing me or anyone.
Their main purpose is to keeppeople watching and keep them
glued to the television.
So they're gonna be and this isof all cable news, for the most
part news in general.
They're gonna wanna keep youriled up, angry or afraid, but
(12:41):
they do also cover what's goingon out there to a certain degree
.
And as far as cable newschannels go, I know this is a
ringing endorsement.
I kind of like News Nation.
Yes, it has some of that verytypical cable news partisan,
very editorial, disguised asfactual news.
(13:05):
They have a little bit of that,can't avoid it.
But they do have their straightnews coverage, which isn't too
bad, and they treat the UAPissue as the significant news
story that it is.
They have reporters assigned toit, looking into it, asking
(13:31):
good questions, following thethreads, following the obvious
threads of hey, there's a lot ofhigh level people who are
saying something's going on here.
There is proposed legislationfrom arguably the most powerful
politicians, elected officialsin the Senate, seemingly backed
(13:55):
by the White House, proposing toopen the doors on all that the
government knows about UAPs andit's being blocked.
They're following that threadOn significant UAP news days.
I know such a thing may soundabsurd, but there are such
(14:16):
things, as there have been dayswhen large events have happened,
such as the UAP Disclosure Actand several interviews by David
Grush.
News Nation covers it.
Sometimes they'll have a storyevery hour on UAPs and what's
going on and government movementand politicians, elected
(14:42):
officials, you know, sometimesexperts they bring on to talk
about it.
So I will give them that.
But generally speaking, themedia has not covered this story
yet.
It may be getting to a pointwhere they can't they can't
avoid it.
I mean, there's gonna be apoint where News Nation is gonna
(15:05):
get so much mileage from beingthe only network covering this
and there's obviously a storyhere.
There's obviously somethinggoing on.
No matter what you think it isat, in the end it may not be
nonhuman at all.
(15:25):
I, some are still clinging tothat hope that it Is going to be
us.
Either US technology developedsecretly that's the preferred
option or Some peoplereluctantly kind of say, well,
it could.
Just, you know, could be ouradversaries.
Again, wishful thinking ontheir part, and strange wishful
(15:50):
thinking, because you know, mostsecurity experts for us at
least say that if any of ouradversaries had Technology that
could do these things well, weshould be very, very, very
worried.
So it's a strange thing to hopefor, but there they are still
hoping for it, and you see thisattitude a lot of times in the
(16:14):
Press mainstream press when theytalk about it is, they'll
always ask the question ofwhoever they're talking to.
You know well, don't we thinkthis is our own technology or
technology of China or Russia?
It's funny.
They keep asking that question,even though that specific point
has been Refused by thegovernment multiple times in
(16:36):
multiple different arenas, wherethey say you know, no, it's not
us, it's not us, it's not anypart of us.
The highest authority has saidit's not us and if anyone was
gonna know there was somethinggoing on, it should be them.
It's something else, we justdon't know what.
And that fact hasn't caught theFull attention of most of the
(16:59):
media.
So this issue is picking upsteam.
This Alteration of the UAPdisclosure act is certainly a
blow against full disclosure, oris it?
Maybe it's just a blow againstcontrolled Disclosure, because
that's what this act kind of was.
(17:20):
It was controlled disclosure,very orderly, very measured,
very Structured and had atimeline, and really let's take
our time and make sure it was anolive branch held out to those
who are keeping these secrets,because it being told from the,
(17:40):
from those who are trying to getthese secrets out into the open
, their intent on doing so, andthis was one method, the other
one being what has beenaffectionately referred to as
catastrophic disclosure.
That is a term that's beingthrown around now.
Catastrophic disclosure meaningsimply disclosure of the
(18:08):
presence of nonhumanintelligence interacting with
our planet for some amount oftime and possible possession of
technologies from those nonhumanintelligence by, you know,
parts of private corporations,our space corporations also.
(18:28):
You know a cover-up 70, 90, alot of years.
I mean you can argue about whenthe cover-up started, but there
has been a definite cover-up bysome elements within the
government To hide this, acover-up to keep this away from
people.
At some point that informationis going to start to come out.
(18:51):
The number of whistleblowersmay grow, their position and
Respectability and you know howtheir word is measured the
quality of them may go way up insurprising ways, documents,
pictures, videos, things mightbe released, or at least ones
(19:12):
that are taken, authenticated insome official capacity.
You're gonna start to seemovement on this in a lot of
different ways.
I Think disclosure is stillcoming.
I Think it's coming sooner.
I in full, in an uncontrolledmanner, because of what happened
(19:33):
with this UAP disclosure act of2023.
You could almost see itImmediately.
There was a push in differentquarters to get information out
there.
You know, the Daily Mailpublished another story about a
whistleblower and talking abouthidden non-human craft.
(19:56):
They've had a few of thesestories here and there about
whistleblowers and possiblepossession of non-human tech.
So it's nothing new.
It's not, you know.
It's not as if that was on CNNor, you know, nbc or ABC News or
something like that.
(20:16):
But the story started comingout in different places.
Some politicians started makingnoise as well, particularly the
ones that have been very vocal.
As far as you know, uapdisclosure Immediately
representative Andy Ogles.
(20:36):
He is, you know, moreright-leaning, but he had a very
strong statement right afterbasically saying this is about
taking the deep state to taskfor their refusal to to
declassify what the Americanpeople need to see.
Regarding UAP Jared MoskowitzDemocrat, he's been asking a
(21:00):
very simple question and he putout a statement if none of this
exists, if this is all false,why, at every turn, are there
people trying to stop thetransparency?
That's what piques the interest.
He was brought into it becauseof the reluctance of certain
(21:21):
quarters of the Pentagon toallow information to even get in
the hands of electedrepresentatives.
So that was what piqued hisinterest and as he got more and
more involved and saw theroadblocks that were being put
in front of them for asking thequestions, he got interested.
And I think that's where we'reat now.
(21:44):
I think that the blockage ofthis act, or the key aspects of
this act changing its name,watering it down, blocking
transparency is going to be thething that gets the attention.
Maybe finally, of some you knowinvestigative elements that so
far haven't wanted to look intoany of this.
(22:05):
Maybe they'll actually look andsay, huh, that's strange,
they're blocking this.
They're working very hard andspending a lot of effort to stop
this from happening.
Might there be a story behindthose walls?
So I think that's gonna come.
I think it's already beenhappening for quite a while.
(22:25):
It's been building up.
You're seeing a lot morelegitimate press legitimate
press in parentheses, but whatis considered the legitimate or
mainstream press Cover the story.
A little bit of the snark isbeing removed, not as much as
should, but it's not as bad asit was even five, six years ago,
(22:47):
certainly not as bad as it was,you know, 20 years ago.
So they're starting to cover itand they're starting to be a
huge build-up towardsinformation coming out in an
uncontrolled or back to whatthey call catastrophic
disclosure way.
The question can be asked well,catastrophic to whom?
(23:10):
They made it sound like it'scatastrophic to everybody.
If this information comes outuncontrolled, it will be
catastrophic to everyone.
And you know what?
I'm sure you could make anargument for that.
I'm sure you could say that youknow this would shake our core
institutions to such a degreethat you'd be hard-pressed to
(23:34):
find an individual who wasn'ttheir life wasn't touched in
some significant way by this.
So in that way you could arguehey, it's catastrophic because
it's going to affect everyone.
You know how will religionsreact?
How will you know the stockmarket react?
(23:55):
How will the individuals react?
Will they just accept the fact?
Hey, there is this non-humanintelligence interacting with us
and in the power differential,we seem to be on the low end of
that spectrum?
Will that trouble them?
(24:15):
Will that scare them?
Will they want to go to workthe next day?
Will they want to just get upand go to the office and do
their 40 hours this week whenthey learn that potentially
there is technology, or thepromise of technology, in the
(24:35):
hands of our government, orelements thereof, that could
eliminate the need for oil orwhat burning fossil fuels or
wrecking the environment or anynumber of things that could
improve the quality of life hereon Earth and the implications
(24:57):
that those possibly worldchanging technologies have been
purposefully kept for whateverreason.
Call it national security, callit profit and greed, whatever
bucket you want to put that in,and people are going to be upset
, and all this does have thepossibility of crumbling our
(25:23):
institutions, at least to somedegree.
But I also think that humans ingeneral are resilient and if
pressed, we adapt to change.
Not all of us, not all of ussmoothly, not all of us without
(25:44):
a lot of bumps in the road, butover the long haul we do react
to the change and go with it.
So I think this will be a goodthing.
It will not be without itsnegative points.
No thing, no matter what it is,I think, is ever 100% good or
(26:09):
100% bad.
Even the worst tragedies ofhistory, there was some positive
effect for someone in theequation.
Wherever you find it, no matterhow terrible a thing was, there
was somebody who benefited fromit in some way.
Most things work out that way.
It will be a good thing in theend.
(26:31):
Disclosure will be a positivething for us humanity.
It may not be a positive thingin the short run unless we can
really get up to speed and rollwith the changes fast enough,
(26:54):
because, going back to mystatement about nothing being
good or nothing being badcompletely 100%, then we can
find the good from it, we canturn it into a positive if we
react with the changes.
But until then, I'm going tokeep rattling this cage and
(27:16):
banging this drum and trying tobring information out there to
whoever wants to listen to it,about what's going on with UAPs,
because I think we're in anunprecedented era of progress on
this front.
I think we're going to get tothe point where there's going to
be progress almost constantly,and at what point does that
(27:40):
progress hit a momentum, a pointof no return, where full
disclosure not only becomeslikely but almost inevitable,
and I think we're almost thereand I'm going to continue to
bring you the updates as ithappens, and I'll probably try
to do this on a regular basisbecause, as I said, there's a
(28:00):
lot of news then there will bein 2024 and a lot more to be
said.
So this is Chris signing off.
Until next time, see ya.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.