The Congressional Hearing on UAP: Key Takeaways and Implications

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Welcome to Not Top Secret, a podcast about all
things paranormal, conspiraciesand out of this world, from UFO
sightings and alien encountersto government coverups and
mysterious phenomena.
We'll leave no stone unturnedin our search for the truth.
So grab your tinfoil hat andjoin us on our journey into the
weird, the strange and the justplain bizarre this is Not Top

(00:23):
Secret with your host.

Speaker 2 (00:25):
JC, hang on In there.
Yeah, I just did a doublewhacked the splash, like
normally we'll flash through.
I think that's what knob Creek160.

Speaker 1 (00:33):
How much for that 100 ?
That's not yeah.

Speaker 2 (00:38):
Okay, it's probably just 100 and tastes like 100.
I feel the sting of that.
My favorite lately has beenVictor's.
Victor's bourbon, that's whatshit.
I have another one.
What smoke wagon Little rye.
Not a big fan of the rye, butit's.
It does spice here.
I always relate rye as a mixer,yeah, so I used to use it for I

(01:01):
used to think I liked high WestAmerican Prairie and then, after
having other ones and goingback to that, did not enjoy it,
because it's like a blend, likea mix of different bourbons, I
guess, and I figured maybe theygive it a smoother kind of
overall, but it just felt, feltflat and kind of cheap.

Speaker 1 (01:18):
Sometimes the blends are the really good ones.
They can be on that whistle pig.
The Wyoming edition is a blendand it's pretty good, but that
four roses that you weredrinking, yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:30):
Oh, that's a bottle of that and that was the small
batch.
Yeah, that's tip top.

Speaker 1 (01:34):
Yeah, I think that was legit.
I put it up there.
I kind of related it a lotsimilar to the Woodford Reserve.
I really enjoyed that.
So yeah, but next time I'llbring some mixtures.
We'll try that.
That's my go to.
Is that knob crate and that,unfortunately that's the nine
year and can't find the 12 yearhere in town?
Oh, really, probably all getshipped down the Denver.

(01:55):
So well, that and bangs, Iguess, or out of stock.
I'm ridiculous.
You're not supposed to mixenergy drinks and whiskey.
Nope.

Speaker 2 (02:03):
That's only for cucks .
Hey, it's been like nine monthssince we did one of these.
Absolutely, you picked a hellof a time to go get married and
go run off to Scotland and Well,it's open to the UFOs in
Scotland.

Speaker 1 (02:14):
Yeah, Just saw some really awesome sites.

Speaker 2 (02:16):
No, it's a great time to take nine months off when
it's probably the mostsignificant period of time in
this topic, like in the last 80years.
Yeah, you're welcome.

Speaker 1 (02:23):
Yeah, we're finally back on night shift.
Yeah, for the rest of this week.
Yeah, exactly.

Speaker 2 (02:28):
So we've got to wrap this up.
Do it now, try to get it lastweek.
And then there was heat stroke.
It was a whole thing.

Speaker 1 (02:34):
Next month I'm going to Ohio for a week.
So what right, pat, don't worryabout it.
Okay, you're a cop.

Speaker 2 (02:41):
I don't talk to cops.
Yeah, yeah, man, that hearing.
I mean me and one of thecoworkers we bored the hell out
of the boss, listened to thewhole thing.
Two and a half hours, watch thewhole thing.
It's the second time I satthrough and watched it.
Obviously we're kind of biasedfans of the topic.
It's interesting to follow theconversation around it.
So quick summary just this pastweek there was a actual UAP

(03:04):
hearing in Congress.
They've had one, pretty muchwhat the last two years, but
they've all been kind of PRcampaigns really reflecting the
all domain, aerial or the whatis it all domain?
Anomaly resolution office orarrow.
I'll just start calling itarrow from there.
Arrow, it's these confusingacronyms.

(03:25):
That's part of the.
I think it's part of employee,but it's really just modern day
blue book and without using toomuch of a shorthand, blue book
was the original kind of formalUFO investigation after the kind
of cultural, cultural interestbecame at a fever pitch back in
the fifties and sixties.
As time went on and after theyclosed, it kind of the
government line was like we haveno interest in this topic, we

(03:46):
have nowhere to go, there's nothreat, there's no, nothing.
It's nothing.
You can see a lot more of thescorn, derision, dismissal and
ridicule kind of come outregarding this topic.
You had things from thenineties, the Air Force Roswell
reports, which are completedismissals, complete puff pieces
, and you see the same thingwith arrow.
You can really see that as well, without like kind of jumping

(04:07):
all over the place, becausewe're talking about the hearings
.
We're talking about theallegations from the hearings
from David Grush and then thekind of corroborating witnesses
of Dave Fravor and Ryan Graves,the two pilots which I you know
without rambling right off thebat.
But that's what we're here for.
You know, I was real hesitantafter having seen Grush's
testimony on the Coltardinterview and the article in the

(04:27):
debrief.
He's obviously the star witnessin this case because it's like
for people that follow the topic, hearing in a formal government
environment, someone withreally high level type
credentials that was reallyentrusted with, I mean, as far
as going to the presidentialdaily briefing, this is a legit
dude, unimpeachable.
Thus far, I mean, his testimonyhas been out there for just

(04:49):
about two months and there'sbeen nobody anywhere, whether it
be the formal Pentagon group oreven the spokesperson or
anybody, that can come out andspeak ill of the dude.

Speaker 1 (04:59):
He was with the.
Let's see, he was with theNational Geospatial Intelligence
Agency 14 years as anintelligence officer in the Air
Force and basically one of themost well-read in people that
you could get like.
He's not maybe not well read in, but he had the ability to be
read into any program that is aspecial access program, the SAPs

(05:22):
and the CAPs.
He could be read into any ofthem so long as he had a need.
But this guy is, he's one ofthose guys in the intelligence
community that otherintelligence officers kind of
strive to be.
You know they try, they want toget, yeah, and you don't hear
these guys go public often.
No, no, they're very, they'rekind of reclusive life and when
they do something they kind ofcome around like Christopher

(05:44):
Mellon and stuff like that andthey kind of just fade away.
They go from the militarysector to in the intelligence
sectors and then they just kindof fade into the civilian,
private contractor sectors.
But they don't, they don't wanttheir name out there.
No, that's the thing about themis they don't want everybody to
know who they are.

Speaker 2 (06:01):
I think it's endemic to the culture, because you have
to basically keep your mouthshut for everything that you're
involved with to some degree.
And anytime you see a guy likehim, or even, like we talked
about last time, Lou Elizondo oreven Christopher Mellon when
you hear them talk in public, itreally feels like they're
threading a needle of what theycan say and implying just the

(06:22):
right amount without breakingany type of oath that they have.
So they still remain credible,which is why neither of them or
any of them are in jail, butanyway.
So Grush, super highly credibleintelligence cat.
He comes out back in early Junewith now I'm just going to
start calling them the greatRoss Colthart.
I mean, it's reallyunprecedented what he's done for
this topic he follows ourTwitter too, by the way.

(06:43):
Oh, I think we'll shout out toRoss, the great Ross Colthart.

Speaker 1 (06:46):
I don't think he listens to the podcast.
No, probably not.
I think he follows our Twitterpage.

Speaker 2 (06:49):
No, from the land down under the great Australian
journalist Colthart fantasticbook in plain sight, another
great kind of entry point foranybody that's kind of a
neophyte to the topic betweenthat and the Dolan books.
But Grush comes and talks toColthart, as well as Leslie Kane
and Ralph Blumenthal, who arealso famous, infamous, notorious

(07:10):
or well regarded with the realarticle that started the whole
kind of 180 in this topic and tokind of cliff notes what he
said.
He's basically saying outrightthat, based on his experience,
investigation and speaking toother people that he had a
history with whose ownreputations are in impeachable

(07:32):
for him, the US has operatedwhat we suspected was a crash
retrieval program ofunidentified aerial phenomenon
UFOs.
That goes back at least to the1933, which he said was passed
over from Italy via the Vaticanto here.
It really sounds highlyconspiratorial when you kind of
abstract it like that, but it'sreally the most plausible of all

(07:54):
the conspiratorial angles whenit comes to this.
That, yeah, that's the coresecret.
The core secret is they havethe very minimum recovered
anomalous craft without evenlike identifying the nature of
it, the location where it camefrom.
I think I said this in the firstepisode, like when we kind of
talked about, our thesis beingthat at some point in the early
20th century some recovered andthe totality of the evidence

(08:16):
really points to something likethat, even if you weed through
disinformation and whatnot,although the muddying of the
waters, that's the case.
But yeah, grushy comes out andhe basically hits those three
bullet points that were reallythe next step for capital D
disclosure.
It's known in the field, whichis basically like when there's a
form of acknowledgement bygovernment entities, somebody of
a high repute that comes outand says, yeah, this is for real

(08:37):
, we've engaged by a non humanintelligence for the past X
number of years.
It's all legit.
And here's the kind of totalityof circumstances to use in
parlance of our profession.
So he acknowledges crashretrievals, he acknowledges
reverse engineering, heacknowledges it kind of being
fed through defense contractorsand also acknowledges bodies
slash biologics, as he called itin the hearing.

Speaker 1 (08:58):
Yeah, non human biologics, non human biologics.
Which that's telling on?
It's a non human biologics.
You can't get any closer tosaying extraterrestrial, no.

Speaker 2 (09:06):
And it makes you wonder what and it's
understandable why people areskeptical.
I mean, especially in this kindof political climate, I think a
lot of people end up readingabout the hearing through
whatever their echo chamber is,whatever their algorithm feeds
them.
I don't know how many peoplehave actually sat down and
watched the two and a half hours, but it's really kind of
compelling when you have likediametrically opposed political

(09:30):
opponents.
Like AOC and Matt gets on thesame panel, both asking
compelling questions withoutattacking each other's
credibility what they would inany other type of hearing.

Speaker 1 (09:39):
Not one, not one comment.

Speaker 2 (09:42):
Not one jab or not?
No, not one.

Speaker 1 (09:44):
And that I know that's.
That is hard for both of themto do, because you watch any
other hearing and you'll seethem.

Speaker 2 (09:48):
You can see them.
So they're sparring, for sure,they're sparring, yeah.

Speaker 1 (09:51):
And these guys together, I mean as
professionals, professional toget in, and it was.
It was awesome that it'scrossing those party lines and
seeing a true bipartisan effort.
Yeah, we don't see anymore, noBipartisan F shirts.
They're gone.
You know, it's not just oneDemocrat, it's not just one
Republican.
This is multitudes comingtogether and saying hey, no,

(10:13):
this is, this is big, we got totake care of this.

Speaker 2 (10:16):
It's what he said, but it was also what was kind of
not said, and by not said notjust in what he said hey, I have
to talk to you in a classifiedsetting regarding this.
I can have all these specificsthat we could talk about in a
classified setting but alsoeverything that was not said in
terms of the confrontationalnature or the trying to impute
what he was saying.
It's really a reflection,because this also just passed

(10:39):
yesterday, which we were goingto talk about at some point, but
they had made the NDA amendment, which is essentially not
essentially.
It's exactly calledunidentified anomalous
phenomenon disclosure.
That's the title of theamendment.

Speaker 1 (10:51):
Yeah, that's, that's checkmate Like, in my opinion
and I'll put forth this was putforward by Senator.

Speaker 2 (10:57):
Chuck Schumer also bipartisan as well, because it's
Schumer and Schumer on there,you have, forgive me, was
Schumer and Mike Brown's Senator, mike Brown, south Dakota.

Speaker 1 (11:07):
And then you even had some more that were involved
there, with Senator Marco Rubio,senator Christian Gillibrand,
todd Young, senator MartinHeinrich.
I mean Republicans andDemocrats coming together once
again.
Yeah, and it's actually be kindof telling in how serious of a
subject this is.

Speaker 2 (11:26):
Well, even if it's just ego, even if it's just ego,
like we should have oversightof this topic and somebody cut
us out Absolutely, you know Iwould yeah.
And even if it's just, like Isaid, ego, you know, even if
you're in the pocket of adefense contractor which has
been some allegations of some ofthese guys that have blocked
certain things not a politicalexpert, not in a position to

(11:47):
commentate on that.
But so we've hit a few things,we've hit Grush, we've hit the
hearing a little bit and we'vehit the amendment.
I guess, since it's been ninemonths, since we've probably got
new listeners.
We kind of sum up how we gothere, because, even if it's kind
of repetitive for people inthis community or people that
are fans of this topic, I thinkthe hearing itself has gotten a

(12:10):
lot more attention than anythingelse has in the last nine
months, 10 months, five yearssince 2017.
So it's do a quick cliff notes,kind of sum up of where our
kind of narrative thread beganand kind of follows.
So it really starts, ashilarious as it is to say, with
that rock star, tom DeLong.
Right, yeah, blink 182.

(12:31):
Absolutely Potpunk phenomenonand music exists, exactly it,
which is just makes this thebest timeline ever.
Even if I'm not a fan of thattype of music like, the guy is
obviously talented.
He's got multiple musicaloutlets that are super
successful.
Also a fan of the topic tellsstories of how when he'd be on
the tour bus reading all thesetypes of books and kind of put

(12:52):
pieces together, he somehow endsup getting a group of advisors
no-transcript, this wouldnormally be dismissed, as you
know total bullshit, like you'retelling me these high level
guys or that he'd be used fordisinformation, which is always
a possibility.
So he alleges he got a group ofadvisors.
Basically, the way thishappened was he had a friend of

(13:15):
a friend that wanted him toperform at a skunkworks or up
here not maybe not perform uphere at a kind of skunkworks
family day, which I guess issomething that they do annually,
where they allow family membersto come out outside of one of
their central locations inCanada or Canada, california,
same thing Out of one of theircentral locations in California.

Speaker 1 (13:34):
They kind of go out there and allow them to get the
closest they can to these typeof classified topics, and we've
talked about this in a personalsense, because my wife, her
grandmother, worked for ET,which was a smaller subsidiary.
It extended to them too andthey did the same thing and they
got t-shirts and stuff likethat.
Yeah, so they basically createdguidance chips and stuff like
that.
They were the chip side of itand they got t-shirts and stuff

(13:57):
like that from it and in fact,somewhere around here she still
has one of those shirts and thefirst time I saw it I was like
wait a minute, I recognize someof those names on that shirt?

Speaker 2 (14:06):
Where did you?

Speaker 1 (14:07):
get this.
And then she told me and it waskind of an interesting little,
you know she grew up there inthe valley in San Francisco in
that area and stuff.

Speaker 2 (14:16):
So family days are real.
Family days are real,guaranteed Number one.
So he basically he gets askedto kind of appear at this thing
because one of the people'sdaughters is a big fan Cool.
He says, yeah, I'll do that ifI get five minutes to talk with
this, this one particular guy Idon't remember the guy's name
off the top of my head and Idon't remember if he mentioned
it in his interview.
Basically, if you want to goverify this or kind of go to the

(14:36):
source for when he told thisstory, it's I believe it's a
March 2016 episode of Coast toCoast.
If you use your Google flu, youshould be able to find it using
Tom DeLong, Coast to Coast 2016.
You may have to be the Coast toCoast insider to hear the full
episode, but I'm sure there aresome.

Speaker 1 (14:53):
It's probably on YouTube.

Speaker 2 (14:55):
Probably on YouTube, probably some are mighty, are
made ways to access that withoutthe paywall.
But he tells a story where hewants to talk to this guy, long
story short, through a series ofinteresting events that really
culminate with him having ameeting with an unnamed general
at an airport in California aswell.
What, basically?
The general sits down with himand tells him hey, it was the

(15:16):
early Cold War and we found alife for him.
And then he will often, formost people, he'll most people
lose the plot when he startsgoing beyond that, because I
think he ends up getting aheadof beyond where most people
would experience ontologicalshock, like it gets back to
ancient human history and youget a lot of the kind of
parallels to the narratives fromlike ancient aliens and those
types of researchers.

Speaker 1 (15:37):
Dives a huge, huge diamond to God, religious aspect
of it, multi gods and stufflike that.

Speaker 2 (15:45):
So it starts with him and there's a reason why we
start there because nobodybelieved the guy.
He had a notoriously badoccurrence on Joe Rogan, where
Rogan really kind of pressed him, and it was a whole lot of the
same thing, honestly, a lot ofwhat you saw at the hearing as
well, where it's like I can'ttalk about that or I can't say,
or this type of another thing,which always makes this field
just a hall of mirrors.
And who's going to believe arockstar anyway?

(16:06):
Exactly, you know.
And well, it turns out about ayear later the fall of 2017,
they come out, they have a pressconference.
I say they, that's going to bekind of our core group of who's
kind of been pushing this leaprecently.
So you have Tom DeLong.
They have a presentation thatwas shot in Seattle but
broadcast live all over theinternet where they basically
announced a company or anonprofit scientific foundation

(16:29):
type deal called to the StarsAcademy of Arts and Sciences and
their kind of ideas to kind ofpush this disclosure on the
topic to a further degree.
They want to develop aspacecraft, they wanted to
produce media to kind of furtheracclimate and stuff.
Yeah, exactly to furtheracclimate.
But that's not the interestingpart.
The interesting part is thekind of panel of people that he
had that were on board with this.

(16:50):
He had Lou Elizondo, formercounter Intel guy, for blue was
the army.
Then he ended up working at thePentagon itself and he was the
head of the program that theybasically announced was a thing
around that date because theyhad that.
And then they had the LeslieCain Blumenthal article that
came out the New York Times inDecember 2017 where they
basically acknowledged hey, thisUS government had a secret
program that was looking at UFOs.

(17:11):
Long story short, that's whatthey had.
And then three videos got atthe time they were called leaked
.
They were all three wereclearly from gun cam footage,
had a lot of FLIR thermalimaging nicknamed, which we'll
call, if we reference them later, be go fast, gimbal and tic tac
.
Tic tac being among the mostcompelling, go fast or gimbal

(17:31):
being among the mostcontroversial.

Speaker 1 (17:33):
Right and then go fast kind of being.

Speaker 2 (17:35):
It could really be anything.
Go fast is just up there, butit's fun to watch.
It is it could be anything it'sfun to if you take it at face
value and listen to the audio.
That's it, the audio you needthe audio to make it Perfect.
And everybody was.
I remember, I remember this.
Everybody was skeptical, asthey should be, when these
videos came out, because theaudio didn't sound right to them
, didn't sound authentic.

(17:55):
But as time went on, more andmore details arose that kind of
validated everything.
So you had Lou Elizondo comesout with Tom DeLonge and goes
hey, basically I used to work inthe government, I just resigned
, which he did, I just resignedand the phenomenon is real.
So that's like the baby stepforward where it's a complete
180.
From what?
When I say that, like we saidlast time, when we said the

(18:16):
government, we don't mean it hasone monolithic entity that
moves and you know,synchronicity with itself.
It's just an easy parlance touse when referring to elements
of that establishment, becausethere's no way that thing moves.
It moves like a glacier.
So there's no way to say thatthis is like.
I'm not an Illuminati guy, I'mnot saying that like that's the
way everything goes.
I think it's more factionalthan that.

(18:37):
But anyway, he comes out andsays this shit is real, which is
again a complete 180.
It's always been dismissed, hasit like?
At that point it's hard to putyour mind in the mindset of that
era where it was like modernopinion was.
It was all bullshit, like itwas all rednecks that saw things
in the sky and their cows aregetting abducted and you know

(18:59):
people were getting anal probedand all these kind of ridiculous
side stories, which are allbased on elements of people that
probably had real experiences.
But then that's the twist,that's the if you want to use a
formal term to it.
That's the kind of Mockingbirdangle was a real thing in the
70s and probably still exist now, like you can guarantee it
still exists.

Speaker 1 (19:17):
You can guarantee We'll get into.
Mockingbird was a project thatwas basically to disinform
people using the media.
They got the media in theirpockets and so we know that that
still happens.

Speaker 2 (19:28):
Yeah, it came out, I believe was in hearings in the
70s, where it was like this isfucking illegal, like CIA is a
foreign intelligence gatherer.
It's not supposed to be doingany type of intelligence ops on
US citizens, which I thinkanybody at this point in the
cynical age of 2023, we go.
That's bullshit, like you know.
So anyway.
So you have Lou Elizondo, headof ATIP or OSAP element.

(19:49):
There's a lot of dispute overthe minutiae of names.
I happen to think, in myopinion, as important as that is
like, and we think, johnGreenwald over at the Black
Vault for kind of really pushingwhat he can get out of that
specific angle, the specifics ofthat is important, in my
opinion, and the totality ofeverything, I think Lou,

(20:10):
representing the disclosure camp, for easy discussion,
representing the disclosure campis important enough as it is
intent beyond that, because,well, the intent, I mean he
plays the, he plays the threatangle, like this could be a
threat or this is a threat.
If we can't identify what theseare, if we can't engage with
what these are.
These things defy everythingthat we know about aerodynamics,

(20:32):
physics, you know biologicalforms reacting to G forces, like
all this type of thing.

Speaker 1 (20:37):
Obviously, we're a military industrial nation.

Speaker 2 (20:40):
Well, and he's a military guy.
He's a military guy Worked atthe Pentagon.

Speaker 1 (20:43):
Military industrial nation leads our nation, it's
one of the biggest profiteers inour nation.
I mean it makes sense toaddress as a threat and hey, it
could be yeah, it could be yeahno one's saying it's not?
There's also that side of it,that it's.
It needs further investigation.

Speaker 2 (20:58):
Yeah, no, I think that you'll see certain
personalities will play well,it'll take sides.
It's factional like anythingelse.
It's partisan, like anythingelse.
The UFO field is, we'll get tothat.
So you have Elizondo comes out,says shit is for real.
You also have guys that are upthere with them.
So you have Hal Putoff,legendary scientist character
that's always been around thesefringe topics and it's going

(21:19):
back to the 70s.
You got things that are just acomplete mind bender, like
remote viewing.
You have Project Stargate,which was, you know, kind of
assertions and kind ofleveraging that kind of
consciousness element intointergalactic communication.
As wild as that sounds Becauseguys been associated with that a
real brilliant cat.
There's a few differentpresentations that he's had that
have been online that are justkind of him talking.

Speaker 1 (21:42):
With enough evidence to enough evidence to compel you
to believe Exactly Like.
It's not just this, isn't justa crazy whack, no, this guy.
Enough evidence to show youthat, hey, we can do this stuff.

Speaker 2 (21:51):
Yeah, legit scientists as well.
So you have him, and then Lou,and then you have Chris Mellon,
who's a former.
Obviously comes from the MellonBlack Medicine Dynasty, famous
elite level family.
He is a, but I always screw uphis actual title.
He'll be the formerundersecretary of defense for
intelligence, I believe.

Speaker 1 (22:11):
Director.
Was it the director ofintelligence?
He was the undersecretary fordirector of intelligence.

Speaker 2 (22:15):
I think High level cat for the Pentagon.
We'll, we'll confirm the actualtitle.
He's involved there.
He again validates that.
They have its wholepresentation.
And then you also have SteveJustice from Lockheed Martin.

Speaker 1 (22:30):
He was the deputy assistant secretary of defense
for intelligence underneathClinton and Bush.
Okay.

Speaker 2 (22:36):
So a minimum eight year experience in high levels
of the annals of the Pentagon.
And then you have a defensecontractor cat and they all kind
of come out.
They really dance around it inthat presentation they go, oh,
it's for real.
They show a few pictures, theydrop those three videos.
Some of those pictures havesince been, for all intensive
purposes, debunked.
You have one of the otherfamous Batman balloon.

(22:58):
I think that was during thatpresentation.
There's another one that's kindof unknown, which really also
brings back like the importanceof identifying unknowns right,
like how tricky it can bebecause they do look like
compelling.
But when you find Occam's razorlevel associations it's like
okay, more likely than not,that's probably a balloon, that
it isn't.
You know alien spacecraft.
So anyway, the still threadsthrough with Tom DeLong, these

(23:19):
five and two, and then JimSemivan, cae guy.

Speaker 1 (23:23):
Oh yes, Also very interesting in his, his
introduction into the stars.

Speaker 2 (23:27):
Yeah, interesting dude If you dig deep on him in
terms of when he's done.
I'm a big podcast listener,probably more so than a book
reader, but there's still a goodway to grab information.
You listen to a lot of hisappearances.
He'll kind of dance around andhe thinks one of them is pretty
personal, so he won't reallytalk about it but basically an
experiencer, which is kind ofthe modern politically correct

(23:50):
way to call abductee or a closeencounter of the third kinder.
Typically they call it anexperiencer.
So you have all theseintelligence cats, all these
high level bureaucrats basicallythat come out and say, hey,
this shit's for real.
And Tom DeLong is there in thecenter of it.
After that kind of disastrousRogan appearance which I think
was after two of the stars wasannounced, he kind of fades to

(24:10):
the background.
They have the article in 2017 inthe New York Times where again
they validate this hey, it wascalled a glowing or is in black
money which is basically saying,hey, the Pentagon was looking
at this stuff secretly throughthis period of time.
Ultimately, it was a smallbudget.
Ultimately it was kind ofinsignificant.
I think what you see here issomebody identified that there

(24:32):
was something going on, withoutknowledge of what grudge is
alleged, which we'll get to.
So I think it was somethinglike hey, these are unknowns.
Our guys are encountering thesethings all over the place, both
in the East Coast, the WestCoast.
They're seeing things in fleetslike.
Dave Fraver sees a tic-tac typecraft which is basically a
capsule, looks like a pillthat's zipping all over the
place, going up to 80,000 feet,dropping back down to a few

(24:54):
hundred feet off the water.
They're seeing something underthe water, completely anomalous
type of encounter.
You have Gimble, which is stillunidentified.
It's not a jet.

Speaker 1 (25:03):
It's obvious.

Speaker 2 (25:04):
It's not when you're watching it.
It's not a jet.

Speaker 1 (25:06):
It's interesting watching this thing rotate yeah,
and that's where it gets thename Gimble is due to its
rotation.
While it's in the air, it'sbasically moving in a way that
you would never see conventionalcraft move.

Speaker 2 (25:19):
So you have December 2017, the big kind of bombshell
that's like government wasactually looking at this, which
was a complete 180.
Like we've said, probably atnausea at this point complete
180.
And there's big gap of silencekind of let the dust settle and
then I believe it was 2018,about six months later, maybe

(25:39):
2019.
There's another follow uparticle in the New York Times,
not a whole lot of eventful kindof more follow up information,
but they actually talked toanother cat, eric Davis, and
he's another one that's beenassociated in that kind of
circle and that circle did havea name for a while without
convoluted the topic.
We'll just leave that foranother point.
But he's another high levelphysicist, super reputable dude.

(26:01):
Basically validates in there.
They had a quote I believe theyquoted him where it was not made
on this world, something alongthose lines.
So New York Times drops thatkind of quote and it kind of
dies with a whimper.
There's no kind of momentumafter that.
It's been a few years on andoff and then, like in 2020, you
see the Navy update thereporting guidelines or like,
hey, here's the pipeline forreporting when you have these

(26:22):
sightings Because people aregoing hey, we have these air
safety issues, which people toreport it better, and they're
going yeah, we should also ahuge step forward in terms of
acceptance.
And then in 2020, the Pentagonbasically comes out and says,
hey, here's the three videos.
They release them formally.

Speaker 1 (26:36):
They were.
Yeah, they knew they werealready out there.
They've been getting tons ofquestions about them and so it
was kind of one of those like,if we want to shut this up and
get people to stop asking, we'rejust going to release the
videos.
And they didn't have.
I mean, they're still to thisday.
You can still go on theDepartment of Defense's webpage
for Naval Intelligence I believeit is and right there on their
webpage you go to their, totheir press section and download

(26:57):
section and download the videos.
I have all three of them on myphone.

Speaker 2 (27:00):
Just all of the watch .

Speaker 1 (27:01):
Yeah, for sure, they're also on our YouTube
channel, yeah.

Speaker 2 (27:05):
So you have a period of what?
Four years at that point, seven, eight, nine, eight, about
three years, so 2020.
Now they're officially released, we've got our timeline correct
, and then there's a lot ofbureaucratic kind of back and
forth, a lot of kind of socialdiscussion, people debating the
validity of these.
Most of this kind of happens onUFO Twitter, as it's called,
which is just the kind of circleof people that are involved in

(27:26):
this discussion.
There's a lot that we'reglossing over here, and the kind
of big thing that really standsout in all of this was the
Clinton email leaks fromWikiLeaks.

Speaker 1 (27:34):
That was 2016,.
Right, the Podesta emails.

Speaker 2 (27:38):
I don't remember I think the emails were from that
period of time, but I don'tthink they came out until after
the New York Times article,because or at least until it was
2016.

Speaker 1 (27:49):
It was the presidential campaign, that's
right.
We released the head of theemails from the Democratic
National Committee.
Thanks, kelly Chase.
Yeah, with the UFO rabbit hole.

Speaker 2 (27:58):
Yeah, she's got just a lot of awesome legalized.
Literally just opened the bookand found it Okay, so that was
2016.
Obviously, a contentiouspresidential election.
Long story short, the leaksvalidate that Tom DeLong was
talking to people who he claimedhe was talking to, and it
actually kind of leaked thenames of two of the generals.
You had, oh man, their namesare skating General Michael

(28:19):
Kerry.
Michael Kerry.

Speaker 1 (28:20):
Yeah, and General Neil McCaslin McCaslin.
Yeah, mccaslin, and.

Speaker 2 (28:24):
Kerry.
That's right, Two high levelAir Force cats that have
basically been engaging withthis guy behind the scenes.
And if you look at kind of thenarrative thread of those emails
, reading between the lines,seeing what they're writing,
it's clear that there was anintent to bring this topic to
the forefront.
And I think if you also lookback at that period of time, you

(28:44):
go find all appearances byHillary Clinton herself where,
easily jumping to a conclusionthat she would have been the
disclosure president In thefield, you find somebody that is
going to make that announcement.

Speaker 1 (28:55):
that's your disclosure person, which Bill
had already tried and got shotdown.
Unfortunately, due to atechnical error, our audio cut
out and we went from talkingabout Clinton to the blue room,
which was a location at WrightPatterson.

Speaker 2 (29:08):
Which is just a nickname that was alleged to be
the room where they housed a lotof this kind of retrieved
material whether it be biologicsor craft debris, at Wright
Patterson, which happens to bethe location for the Air
Materials Command at the time,which I think they now call
Foreign Technology Division.
He famously and there's videoof Goldwater saying this

(29:32):
specifically like relaying thestory.
It's not like something like oh, I heard from a friend of a
friend of a friend that he triedto do this, but he's come out
and said it directly where hecalled this guy hey, can I go
there?
I have clearance and the guywho was not known to have a
temper with him, loses his mind,tells me don't ever fucking ask
me that again and hangs up.
So every time somebody getsclose throughout history, if you

(29:53):
look into that, they get shutdown.

Speaker 1 (29:55):
And it's still occurring to this day.
Just happened what just a fewmonths ago with Matt Getz and
Representative Luna, and theyall went to Eglin Air Force Base
.
Eglin Air Force Base, they hadheard some rumors that this
might be where some of the stuffis stored, or that they had
evidence of such and they showedup and they tell Representative

(30:17):
Luna, you don't have theclearance for this.

Speaker 2 (30:20):
I think it was.
I guess it did have theclearance.
I think it was videos.
Yeah, videos, absolutely yeah,it was videos, and Getz did have
the clearance.

Speaker 1 (30:26):
He was allowed to see it, but Representative Luna
wasn't.
You know, as a representativeshe wasn't allowed to see it.
And is Getz?
Is he one of the members of theEight?
No, I don't think so.

Speaker 2 (30:37):
But he's on one of the oversight committees.
Again, we're not politicalexperts.
I'd probably make a lot moremoney if I was, yeah,
commentators and whatnot.
But he'll reference that in thehearing what he saw and how
it's not able to be.
You know, an issue withanything that even remotely
resembles something that's humantechnology.
Everywhere somebody turns,everywhere somebody tries to get

(30:58):
close to that topic, they getshut down.
So you get 2020,.
Pentagon officially releasesthose three famous videos Go
Fast, gimbal and Tic Tac, and,as between 2017 through 2020 and
still ongoing.
Then you have pilots that areinvolved with those incidents
that come out and kind ofcorroborate what they saw, add

(31:20):
further detail.
Always go look up the encounterRyan graves had.
Always go look up with David.
Fravor saw, and then, I believe, detrick was also a favor.

Speaker 1 (31:30):
Alex Detrick was a favor with the tic-tac incident.
They end up appearing on 20 or60 minutes and if you, if you
don't know these, these, theseguys are F-18 fighter pilots
flying some of the most advancedaircraft that we have out there
.
I mean, I myself, personally,I'm a huge fan of the F-18, so I
think that it's probably andmaybe it's not the same as the
F-35 or the F-22, but hey, it'sadvanced and it's, it's badass.

(31:54):
It's the backbone of any type offighter fleet has been for
quite a minute and they are partof the black ace is one of the
top Flight squadrons there is,and these guys aren't they're
not new pilots.
These are, these are seasoned,well decorated pilots, you know.
But yeah, these are, these are,these are people we should be
trusting and we do trust.
Yeah, these are the people whoare the backbone of, well, the

(32:18):
naval flight squadrons, likeWould you say trust?

Speaker 2 (32:22):
I think Not to put word, you know, but I think what
you mean is Associate theirobservations with absolute, with
plausibility, as opposed toyeah, because they're not.
They're not framing a narrative, this thing.
We saw some shit that'sunidentified.

Speaker 1 (32:34):
Yeah, yes.
And that in that yes, that iswhat I mean by my own interest
is that these guys are there,they know what they're they,
they know what theirobservations are.

Speaker 2 (32:41):
So when they see something that they can't tell
you what their observation, isright, that should be something
to take note of yeah, becausethat's I mean again, based on my
understanding, that's a reallyhuge part of becoming a pilot in
general is being able toidentify other aircraft, even
commercial.
I would imagine that would bekind of key.
If you're gonna have munitionson a aircraft that you're gonna

(33:01):
shoot at, something, you shouldbe able to identify what the
fuck it is right.
So Videos released 2020.
The narrative kind of broadensthe breadth, the details
involved with those threeincidents kind of get fleshed
out.
And then 2021 you have a 60minute special, which is again
another mainstream, kind ofBringing this topic to the

(33:23):
forefront.
You got Elizondo on there.
You got Alex Dietrich on therefor the first time when she came
out.
You have Ryan Graves on there,I believe again, I think it's a
favor, but him as well and theyall kind of Tell their angle of
the story and Lou still playsthe threat angle.
Again, understandable,especially in a mainstream
context.

(33:43):
Understandable because it's anunknown and I think the phrase
you hear, david Grush, yousometimes it's an unknown,
unknown.
There's a another documentarythat happened, I think it was in
the 2008, 2009 era, completelyunrelated to this topic, but you
hear that term a lot.
It's an actually anintelligence term and unknown.
They have different like levelsof that.
There's, like known unknown,which is something we know what

(34:03):
it is, but we don't know itsintent.
Or there's an unknown unknownwhere there's nothing we know
about it at all.
I think they were using that inthe context of a lot of what
was going on.

Speaker 1 (34:11):
I've never heard that .

Speaker 2 (34:12):
So that's interesting .
No, yeah, it was a Rumsfeld.
Donald's rumfield, famously,was in that documentary I can't
remember who else was.
It's been a minute so I've seenit.
But it was primarily about kindof the intelligence they were
gathering during the G water,the global war in terror, and
how they had to identify certaintypes of things, and I think it
was kind of playing through theangle of drone warfare, which
is super controversial and stillis, but more so at the time.

(34:35):
But, yeah, it's understandablewhen you have some that's an
unknown, unknown to frame itthrough the veil or frame it
through the lens of being athreat, understandable,
especially from it.
It's the defense establishment,so that's 2021, 2022.
You end up gettingwhistleblower protections in the
NDA, which is going.
Another former let was reallythe first real, like Significant

(34:57):
legislation that I rememberhappening with regards to this,
aside from what the Navy haddone in their policies with
recording, and aside with kindof the more acceptance in the
defense area, words Like, hey,you could totally tell us if you
see one of these things, do itthis way or send it through this
group, or I Believe around thistime is when you have Marco
Rubio getting involved, werethey form up the UAP task force,
which is around 2022, 2021which Mark Mark Rubio is.

Speaker 1 (35:22):
He is one of them.
Yes, yeah, yeah, he is.
So what's the game?
A?
The game of eight within theSenate is basically they're more
the senior Senate members whoare part of the intelligence
information that gets gatheredand brought to Congress,
probably part of the oversightcommittee.
Yeah, so you have some of theolder guys like Mitch McConnell

(35:42):
and Chuck Schumer he cameJeffries, kevin McCarthy these
are all people who have been init for a minute, know what
they're doing, but it's your,it's career policy.
You're your lead members of thepermanent select committee on
intelligence and Then two moremembers of the select committee
on intelligence and then youhave your, just your, your lead

(36:03):
Senate leadership, like said,mitch McConnell, chuck Schumer,
kevin McCarthy, jeffries.
So, yeah, these guys being thegang of eight, though they're
supposed to be briefed on prettymuch all of this stuff yeah,
they don't.
They get.
The past is what it is.
You know, you have all thosepeople that they're read in on a
need to know basis, right, andwhen you're ready and you, you

(36:25):
only get read into exactly whatyou need to know.
So you might be read in andstill not have the entire
picture, because I only have asmall glimpse of it exactly.
Supposedly, the gang of eightis supposed to be read in on all
of this stuff they're supposedto be given that for that total.
Yeah, they're supposed to begiven up as soon as they come in
, they're supposed to be giventhis debrief and they're
supposed to say, hey, this iswhat all this is, this is where

(36:47):
it is, this is what's going on,and then it's supposed to be
that way.
They have kind of an idea, whensomething's brought forth to
them, how they play it withinthe Senate.
Okay, hey, no, this is ours, soI can, these guys can drop this
and let it go, that kind ofthing, or this is something that
needs further looking at.

Speaker 2 (37:03):
Such and that's kind of what forms a part of the
backbone of grush's allegations.
His whistleblower campaigncomplaint is that these projects
have been secret fromcongressional and other
governmental oversight.

Speaker 1 (37:15):
Yeah, even even these guys who should know don't well
, we don't, allegedly, we don'tknow yes, with the gang a?

Speaker 2 (37:21):
we truly we don't know.
We don't know.
But I would say I thinkcongressional is fair to say
most of them aren't trackingwhen you have a committee.

Speaker 1 (37:27):
Rubio stepping forward and Schumer Two members
of the gang of eight and whenthey're coming forward and
they're saying, hey, there'ssomething going on here that
it's further and he's lookedinto it, he's further warrant.
You know, we got Schumerputting forth that amendment and
, yeah, if you go back throughand you look at like Rubio's,
his press briefings and hisTwitter page and stuff like that
and he's huge on it too yeah,you can almost make the

(37:50):
conclusion that they're not readin on everything that they're
supposed to be read on.

Speaker 2 (37:54):
And that Would really piss me off if I was, and you
hear whispers of somethingthat's going on.
Maybe it's.
There has to be a rumor mill inthat kind of culture.
There has to be absolutely Imean I'm gonna use the parlance
of that swamp there has to berumor mills.

Speaker 1 (38:09):
There's a lot I mean if it exists in your common
workplace.
You know it exists, a hundredpercent 100%.

Speaker 2 (38:15):
So timeline so you have 21 and 2021, 2022 in that
era I don't have the dates rightin front of me, but that's when
you have your amendments.
Like it was nicknamed, theGillibrand amendment, which was
co-sponsored by Rubio, if Iremember correctly which is
basically adding whistleblowerprotections, and they had
specific verbiage in there thatrelated to this topic
specifically.

(38:35):
So it's basically hey look, ifyou work in one of these secret
projects and you sign an NDA,you're gonna have an opportunity
to come forward and tell yourstory, to blow the whistle on
what you've been involved with,with no repercussions.

Speaker 1 (38:47):
It's saying we should say that it wouldn't be a
public.

Speaker 2 (38:50):
No, no be a closed door yeah, closed door within a
class fighting in Setting askiff, a secret compartmented
information facility.
You'd have to go through theproper channels to avoid right
repercussion types which rumorsof killings for decades or even
mental terrorism.
The first story that comes tomind is Paul Benowitz, who was
famously kind of engaged byRichard Dodie of the Air Force

(39:13):
office of special investigationsback in the early 80s, late 70s
, if I remember correctly.
Basically Dodie engages CliffsNotes, engages Benowitz, kind of
Lee eggs him on, eggs him on,with him thinking, oh you got
alien spacecraft, let us knowwhat you got, this type of thing
.
And long story short, through alot of engagements they had
with him, the guy ends up goingnuts and not to make light of

(39:35):
mental health issues, but heends up being committed and ends
up dying in a mentalinstitution right just through
these types of engagements.
Like the types of things theywould do with this dude would be
like going into his house whenhe wasn't there, moving
furniture around and othernefarious things they lead him
on.
This is kind of where you seethe the spark of the famous

(39:55):
Dulce myth.
I consider it a myth at thispoint, having dove into it
really hard back in around 2011,2012.
But the Dulce was a allegedunderground facility in
northeaster or northwestern NewMexico.
Rick Dodie would fly Benowitzover this Arch, leta Mesa, and
show him like.
See that?
That's where the specialoperations are going.

Speaker 1 (40:17):
How much money do you have to?
Yeah, when you, when yourgovernment, it's it's no big
deal, they know throw this guyin a helicopter yeah, pretending
to be his friend, and take himout and fly him over this, the
Dulce Mesa, and lie to him.
Well, yeah, and that's thediscredit one guy.

Speaker 2 (40:33):
We're talking Threats lost my narrative thread here.
We're talking threats.
Talking no, we're good Talkingthreats of keep it the secret.
Anytime hits the somebody getsclose, they hit the wall of
information.
Talk about the backbone ofgrushes, allegations, where it's
like these people aren't awareof what this topic is.

(40:53):
Speaking of the gang of a, forexample.
They may or may not know, butdefinitely congressional
oversight hasn't been a factor.
Too many opportunities forleaks in that context.
So we're talking around 2022.
They they being primarilyKirsten Gillibrand and Marco
Rubio Come out and haveprovisions for whistleblowers
and these types of arenas tocome forward, tell their story

(41:13):
in a classified setting To beable to give forth what they
know regarding this topic.
Give it about a year andprobably a little less, because
if you listen to Colt Hart andLeslie Kane when they talk,
after their articles and theirinterviews come out that they
talk hey, we've been talking tothis guy for a long time.
You know kind of establishinghis credentials and everything
like that.

(41:34):
And that's where the value ofhaving actual legitimate
journalists and when I saylegitimate, I've been a
technique as opposed to wherethey come from right, if they're
known for publishing in the NewYork Times or they're known for
being on Australia in 60minutes, that's all good for
like a mainstream audience,which is important to kind of
get that engagement where you'relike, hey, it's a recognizable
face or a recognizable name or aor a marquee.

(41:55):
That means something to me.
There's value in that, which isreally, really important when
it comes to this topic Becauseit's been fringe for so long.
Like hearing these types oflegitimate or.
I shouldn't say legitimatehearing these types of articles
and interviews that addlegitimacy through a venue which
is normally dismissed.
This topic is exceptionallysignificant, so amendment goes

(42:20):
through.
Few months after that, mostlikely, grush ends up talking to
a few of these different peopleand tell them this story and
then ultimately culminates UntilJune of 2023 when he comes out
and has this big interview onnews nation.
I mean, I took time off work towatch this thing.
Don't worry, our sergeantdoesn't listen to this.
No, definitely not.
I Was compelling, like I meanit, like this is what you'll see

(42:46):
on UFO Twitter.
It is what you'll see withanybody that has like real I
don't say high-level, but likeKnowledgeable discussion on this
topic is well, he's not sayinganything new.
Well, not to us.
Anybody that's been a nerd forthis stuff for 10, 15 years has
always heard oh yeah, the US hasrecovered alien spacecraft.

Speaker 1 (43:05):
I mean it's not new, but you know it is confirmation.
Yeah, it makes you, it kind ofmakes you feel good.
It's confirmation that you know.
I want to say like, hey, I'mnot crazy.
Yeah, it's kind of like when wetalk about how, like finally
running into each other, yeah,you know, just coincidentally
ended up working.
Yeah, but You're not crazy.
No, it's like oh yeah, no, andso that's a, it's a confirmation

(43:27):
for you and it's that feelsgood.
But this is more for the peoplewho are coming into it.

Speaker 2 (43:32):
They don't know well, yeah, and I think when it comes
to grush and then the hearingsas well, I think the thing I've
seen the most in discussion iswhy now?
Like what happened, why now?
But I don't think it's a whynow, because this has been going
on for at least till 2017.

(43:52):
It's been a slow kind of eventhrough.
That really sum up with thetimeline that we did where it's
like.
It started in 2016 with TomDeLonge saying he talked to
these people and a tip, and thenall this type of thing over the
last five or six years which,in from a political standpoint,
you know, we say why now?

Speaker 1 (44:08):
and I have had other people who that I know, who have
personally said to me that,yeah, this is all it sounds like
a sigh.

Speaker 2 (44:14):
This is a sigh.

Speaker 1 (44:14):
This is a cover and this is to just kind of to look
at the shiny.

Speaker 2 (44:18):
Yeah, look at the shiny toy over here, yeah and if
you go back to those leakedemails, this predates that like
that's it exactly does theintent to bring this topic
legitimacy, bring it to morepublic, for fright it, for light
or for forefront.

Speaker 1 (44:33):
That's the word I'm thinking.

Speaker 2 (44:34):
Yeah bring it to, the more forefront has been going
on, you know concerted effortssince at least 2016, and so I
think it predates that, and mycouple shut downs to oh it's a
sigh up, or it's this or it'sthat.
Number one people don't need tobe distracted, they're
distracted.
No, I think by saying it.
To sigh up is only for peoplewho live on social media, where

(44:57):
they see the factional argumentsand the verbal combativeness
24-7, where they think everybodyin their existence is only
caring about these specificpolitical issues, not saying
don't care about those big deals, but that's not no no and like.
So I don't buy the sigh up angle.
I buy that there's a narrativethread that's trying to be sold

(45:21):
and I think for me the mostplausible narrative thread is If
we play the threat angle, thatmeans that we show we're doing
our job right and I you knowwhat.
If they kept it secret sincethe 1930s, more specifically
since 47, because that wasprobably the earliest leak when
it came to this with RoswellCompletely 100% understandable.

(45:45):
I mean, tensions are high nowand it hasn't been a World War
three yet.
Now, if you think of thecontext of that period of time
where there's less accessinformation, you just get out of
a grueling multi-year globalconflict the threat of communism
, which is a hundred percentthreat In any context of time.

(46:07):
But that threat is just loomingaround the corner.

Speaker 1 (46:11):
You have to keep a public docile straight away from
the end of the World War two.
Yeah, we knew that the nextbiggest threat came from
communism.
Yeah, we knew that Russia andor the USSR, they would be our,
our next biggest threat.
And what do we lead into as welead into small wars with
communism, we go into Vietnamand we go into Korea, we deal

(46:35):
with these small wars, all thewhile basically trying to stop
the threat of the larger threatof Communism with Russia, which
then evolves into the Cold War.
And so the you have, the people, the people who grew up in the
Cold War know exactly what we'retalking about is that that was,
that was a.
It became an everyday way oflife, but it was.
It was a constant, loomingthreat.
Yeah, and then here we areagain.

(46:57):
You couldn't have little greenmen on top of that.
No, no, no, you would.

Speaker 2 (47:00):
You almost had to control the narrative it almost
got, I think again using theterm them and these broad kind
of analogies.
It's just for the easiest sakeof discussion.
It's not to suggest a AnIlluminati level scale
conspiracy of control, but it's.
They Would have to shut thatdown because it almost Hit it.

(47:23):
What did hit a fever pitch?
I mean they had to start BlueBook in 69.
Was it 69?
I think it was before 69 theyhad a couple other projects, but
it might have maybe was ended.

Speaker 1 (47:31):
It's signed in your garage.

Speaker 2 (47:32):
Yeah, interesting part about those is one pops up
right after fucking Roswellhappens.

Speaker 1 (47:37):
It's like Well, and they ran.
That the thing was is it wasbasically all the same Mm-hmm
project is just one was just aball that it would be exactly.
Next person would come in, oreven the same person Would come
in.
It was just oh, we're gonnarename this and that's it.
That is a common trend.
Yeah, within the intelligencecommunity, that happens all the
time is in.
Presidents will do it just thatwhen they'll say, hey, the new

(47:59):
name, the new codename for this,yeah, is this.
And and why?
Yeah, well, is it becausesomebody got wind of it and
you're just trying to control it?
Or is it just because you wokeup one day and you're like you
know what sounds better thanmajestic?
Yeah, zodiac.
Yeah, zodiac sounds way cooler.
Who knows it could be?
Yeah, but it is.
It is interesting that you knowProject, a blue book.

(48:22):
It started in 1952.
Okay, it was in the 60.

Speaker 2 (48:25):
Okay, that's what it was, so yeah it's 52 to 69.
So that's when you got your kindof fever pitch in terms of the
public consciousness, where youget engagement from Media, comic
books, I mean you have allthose famous movies that come
out from that time.
They did the earth the store,the day the earth stood still or
the world's both the movie andthe Radio broadcast, all this

(48:47):
type of thing hate, a feverpitch.
And there's that famous.
It's hardly almost notunsettling but it's kind of.
It's kind of ironic hearing thetone of the Air Force in the
50s I Forget the general's name,but you'll see that clip in
every history channel, ufodocumentary, every, just every

(49:10):
documentary about it, where hebasically says that there's been
credible observers that observerelatively incredible things.
It's a famous press conferencewhere it's basically like the
thread of this topic has beenconsistent throughout the
decades, which Just credits thishearing now being a Psyop,

(49:31):
general John Sanford, if Iremember correctly.
Yeah, that's definitely him.
Yeah, he had the pressconference and it was 52, I
believe was where basically youhear a really consistent
Acknowledgement of what pilotsare seeing.
You have hate.
You have credible people thatare seeing relatively incredible
things.
They're always downplaying itagain, they being that easy

(49:54):
discussion term, but it's beingdownplayed to that angle and
even to this day, where is theAir Force?
Like?
Where's the Air Force?
Silent, completely silent, like.
I mean, grush is the closestthing to hearing the Air Force
talk that we've had, and once hecome out and say retired,
retired, and what's he say?
Crash, retrievals and bodies,yep.
Now the other criticism.

(50:17):
Okay, before we get to that, sowe've talked about the current
narrative thread, the currentbackground timeline.
Why now I'm saying it's not?
Why now I'm saying it's abouttime it's here, it is.
It's about time it's got tothis point through a gradual
progression, at least since 2017, if not before that.

(50:39):
There's long been rumors of acultural acclimation where it's
like, okay, you got to adapt thepublic through media and these
types of things to acceptance ofthe topic.
Maybe it would have been a casein the 1940s and 50s, but
people these days are toocynical.
I mean, there's a meme that'salready going around of a couple
of Wojcaks hanging out by theUFO and they're like hey, look,
I'm here and the Wojcaks likedude, I got a lot of stuff going

(51:01):
on right now Like the apathyaround it is real significant.
So why now?
I don't think it's part of theconversation.
I think there's beenincremental steps, progressively
, and this kind of backs up atheory that Richard Dolan has
put forth, where this kind ofwarring factions without

(51:21):
sounding melodramatic warringfactions within the program, as
it's kind of known as theprogram being the reverse
engineering of the controllingof the extraterrestrial issue,
whether it be Machestic orZodiac or however you want to
call it.
For ease of discussion, I likeusing the term control group.

(51:44):
Whoever the control group maybe, it's been.
They're likely competingfactions in there, which has
always been the case.
Anytime you research into it,you'll see.
Going back to Donald Kehoe backin the 50s where he was one of
the first big military guys thatwas writing books about this, I
mean he really came out and hadbooks flying saucers are real

(52:06):
right when it was.
That was the common parlance atthe time and basically
validating that.
What people are saying is thisand that there was elements
within the government that werespecifically addressing this
issue, whether it be Machesticor Zodiac or the control group,
whatever it may be called.
So there's always been a, and Ithink even he put forth that

(52:27):
there were elements within therethat wanted to make it public.
The rumor was forestall, theold Defense Secretary defense
from that era was in thatelement and he famously passed
away outside of Bethesda MedicalHospital in Maryland, I believe
allegedly suicide, havingplummeted from a multi-high

(52:47):
story window From like the 12thfloor of this building, from the
12th floor after he had beenouted from his position.
Yeah, exactly, allegedly havinga mental break.
But the subsequentinvestigations showed scuff
marks outside the window, or Isaid inside the room, by the
window, suggesting not soeloquently that maybe there was

(53:11):
a scuffle and he was tougher onthat floor.

Speaker 1 (53:14):
Just happened to have stepped off the floor for that
moment.

Speaker 2 (53:17):
And it sounds oddly serendipitous with a jail in New
York and a famous pedophiledealer, jeff, jeffrey, jeff,
something, jeff, somethingsounds familiar.
I've seen him kill himself.
But anyone that yeah, sothere's been warring factions is
kind of the theory.
So that's why you'll see adifferent narrative from the

(53:40):
Pentagon front office versuswhat a whistleblower is saying.
That counters that.
And if you watch Grush talk, hedoesn't come off as somebody's
making this stuff up Like.
He doesn't come off that way,like even if you just go by your
gut, you listen to the guy talk, he seems like a decent dude,
kind of a nerd, like he says hehas a degree in physics.

(54:03):
He speaks very articulate.
He really does thread theneedle when it comes to
classifications and that's whatI loved about that hearing was I
think a lot of lay people willkind of be like oh man, he just
said I had to talk to class bysitting.
Nothing new came out of this,but almost I think I mentioned

(54:23):
it before where it's almost moreof what they don't say or what
he doesn't say that validatesthe answer to the question.
So if you ask this specificquestion, do aliens exist?

Speaker 1 (54:34):
and you go, hey, we're going to have to talk in a
private setting.
Yeah, exactly, To me that's ahey, there's, there's something
there.
I can't say it's not a percent,but there's something there,
right, and that's.

Speaker 2 (54:45):
I think that circles back to what we had said nine
months ago, which, even if itisn't little green men, or even
if it isn't interdimensional, oreven if it isn't nonhuman
intelligence, even if there wasa physics breakthrough that
happened in the mid 20th century, where they basically were able
to harness gravity to createthese types of vehicles, that
would just defy all laws ofknown aerodynamics and physics,

(55:08):
that's still rad.

Speaker 1 (55:09):
Do you want to?
You want me to tell you howthat?
I know that that isn't the case, though.
Yeah, yeah, we keep thingssecret, but when did we see the
stealth bomber?
When did that?
When did we find out about it?
Yeah, 80s and the 80s.
We find out about it when hegets used.
Right, we would have alreadyused this stuff.
Yeah, we wouldn't have held itback.

(55:30):
Yeah, I think we would haveused it.

Speaker 2 (55:32):
Yeah, they revealed those shortly before those early
runs and the Gulf War, yeah,and they just famously went over
Baghdad and just bombed thefuck out of it.
Yeah, exactly yeah.

Speaker 1 (55:42):
We would have.
This would have been revealedto us, especially right now.
What are we facing right now iswe're dumping how many billions
of dollars well, I don't knowwhat we're at now into a war
with Ukraine.
If we had this technology, thewar would be over.

Speaker 2 (55:57):
Well, I think that's that same idea is why Russia
doesn't have it right.
That's why it's not a Russiantech.

Speaker 1 (56:05):
That's why it's not Chinese tech.

Speaker 2 (56:08):
I don't think.
I mean, I think this conflictwould have been well and over
with if they had a Trump card oftechnology that was anti-graver
, successfully reverseengineered alien tech which I
think is where you start gettingto the muddy waters of
disinformation, where the muddywaters of disinformation, which

(56:32):
is just a final way to put it.
So that's our timeline.
It hasn't been why.
Now it's more.
For me it's more, it's abouttime.
Absolutely, it's beenincremental.
If you follow the topic reallyclosely, it's been little baby
steps and you're going to hearLou Elizondo back in 2017, 2018.

(56:53):
And I think even back as far asTom DeLong.
He tells of an engagement thathe had with a bunch of men in a
room where he says the way thistopic moves forward is when
people like this in a room likethis get together and decide to
move the ball down the field,and I think that's a great
analogy is moving the ball downthe field.
It's been small moves towardsdifferent lines of scrimmage

(57:16):
where it's really significantaccomplishments, and I think the
biggest one has been at thishearing, because you look at the
tone of the hearing, you lookat the content of the hearing.
The only person that had anysense of dismissal was Miss Fox,
who was the older lady whostarted interrupting Grush, not

(57:39):
even sure what her motive wasthat not even single, not sure.

Speaker 1 (57:42):
It was almost like.
It was like I hate, I have toget up and go to this thing, I
don't want to be here, and thenI just I'm going to get my piece
in now.

Speaker 2 (57:47):
You know which, yeah, which kind of it was
disrespectful is what I thought.
Yeah, it adds.
It also adds credence to howsignificant the tendrils of
ridicule have been on the topicbecause, even like she looks
like a very experienced woman orwhatever it may be where she
doesn't want to be taken for afool Right, which is

(58:09):
understandable.
When you hear people that arelike, oh, it's a Psyop, or it's
this or it's bullshit, orthey're trying to like a sleight
of hand magician where they'retrying to have you watch the
left hand so you don't know whatthe right hand is doing.
It's all a good sense to have,but it's also not wanting to get

(58:30):
duped, which is fair.
But in the totality ofeverything, in the small little
incremental steps, it's more, inmy opinion, it's about time, in
some ways said last time aswell, which I think is still
apparent now is you go back tothe late 90s, early 2000s, post
X files, because this topic gotbig again in the 90s after the

(58:54):
mid 80s books about Roswell andthen the Pentagon reports which
successfully kind of quashed itfor most mainstream people.
Hey, they put out this bigweighty tone of total nonsense
which completely doesn't makeany sense with regards to what
was actually observed by thepeople that were first hand
witnesses.
Why is the fringe UFO nerdfield so important to disinform,

(59:18):
unless there was somethingthere?

Speaker 1 (59:20):
Yeah, and we've talked about that personally and
you know me, is it?
Who are you discreditingExactly?
I mean, are you discreditingthe guy that everybody else has
already said hey, you sound likea moon?
Yeah, you're one of thosepeople you know, because I still
get that.
Where people are like, oh, youbelieve in UFOs, well yeah, the
absolute.

Speaker 2 (59:37):
Yeah, I do.
Well, there's not a luxury ofdisbelief anymore.
No, no, like it's too much, no,and I think that's.
I think that's the mostsignificant change in terms of
not getting super spiritual withit, like the public
consciousness.
I think that's the biggestchange is that it's went from oh
, it's total bullshit to OK,they're seeing something weird,
but it could be.

(59:58):
All these number of differentthings, it's like avoiding
everything else, but most likelywhat it could be.
And I say most likely becausethese same types of encounters
have happened since before 2017,have happened since before
2000,.

Speaker 1 (01:00:13):
since 80s, 70s going back to World War Two
Historically, we can even saybefore 1930, which is that's a
long shell in this, in thishearing is 1930s, but even
before then.
You know, there's art andthere's there's writings of this
stuff.
But supposedly in 1930 in Italythey got a crash and then this
came out in this hearing is thatthis, this crashed ship was

(01:00:37):
retrieved, it was put into ahangar by Mussolini and the
Vatican gets wind of it, whichthey would.
It's Italy, yeah, vatican getswind of it.

Speaker 2 (01:00:46):
They were just like oh, it's not US, they were out
in Italy.

Speaker 1 (01:00:48):
Instantly they just they went straight, snitch Yep
and the US what the Vatican'shelp, swoops in and got their
hands on it this craft, which isthat's got to be no easy feat.
I don't know, and I don't knowthe specifics of it.
I don't know if the Vaticansaid, hey, let us hold on to it,
we'll take care of this, yeah,or what.
But I've also heard some thingsof people who have, who have

(01:01:09):
talked about this supposed crashthere, that when the US got it,
it was still in a hangar nearthis little town where it
crashed.
So it sounds to me more likethey just said, hey, this is
where it's going to be, go getit.

Speaker 2 (01:01:20):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:01:22):
And whatever happened happened we did.
So that brings us to ourcurrent timeline of we got these
UAP hearings that just came out.
But just before this, back inFebruary, when we released our
first episode, right after wereleased our first episode,
something happened.

Speaker 2 (01:01:38):
This super compelling .
So you have February 2ndChinese spy balloon gets
identified over Montana.
Long story short.
I know I said that probably ahundred times, but essentially
they end up shooting it down andit becomes a nothing bit, but
like within days there was liketwo other incidents.
There was one in like Alaskaand somewhere else in the
Midwest and then over the NorthSlope up in Alaska.

(01:02:00):
North Slope in Alaska.
There were some over Canada andthere were some over the
Midwest in the United States.

Speaker 1 (01:02:05):
I believe you're the Great Lakes or something like
that.

Speaker 2 (01:02:07):
Lake here in yeah, and they're like hey, we also
found these unidentified objectsand it immediately got lumped
in with Chinese spy balloons.
Here's the big red flag for me.
Here's some of the descriptions.
February 12th Wall StreetJournal F 16 shot down object
over Lake here on quote shapedlike an octagon and I altitude
it approximately 20,000 feet.

(01:02:28):
February 14th, cnn.
There's no guarantee ofrecovery.
Here's the narrative of thesetypes of things going hard.
Sean McGillis, spokesman forthe Royal Canadian Mount Mounted
Police.
We are working very hard tolocate them.
There's no guarantee we will.
The terrain of the Yukon israther treacherous right now, so
it could pose some significantchallenges to us in terms of
recovery efforts.

(01:02:49):
The same could be said aboutwhat's taking place in Lake
Huron.
The marine conditions are notconductive at the moment, or
conducive not conducive at themoment, but nice enough on that.

Speaker 1 (01:03:00):
The first missile these are aim nine sidewinder
missiles that they launched fromI believe it was an F 15 over
Lake Huron that travels at Machtwo, okay, and it has a range of
22 miles and it's one of themost advanced missiles and
expensive oh yeah, we're talking$380 to $400,000 a missile and

(01:03:23):
one of the most accuratetargeting missiles that you can
use.
And the first one missed, yeah,they hit it.
With the second one, however,they said we haven't been able
to locate this over Lake Huron.
But you know what they did saythat they retrieved the first
missile that missed.
Now you're telling me that youcan retrieve a missile that hits
the water and maybe it didn'thit the water at Mach two, but

(01:03:46):
if it probably hit it, at leastdoing Mach one, there's nothing
left of that missile.
But they said they retrieved it.
Yeah, but they didn't retrievewhat they shot down.

Speaker 2 (01:03:55):
No, and I remember that week specifically.
It was super exciting becauseyou're like, wait, so you're
getting again.
Mainstream does have value interms of the public
consciousness, despite thedispute of the credibility of
the media.
That week was super excitingbecause you were seeing just a

(01:04:15):
flurry of activity.
You had three unknowns thatwere shot down over three
different areas up north justfollowing this Chinese spy
balloon.
So it was a perfect scapegoatfor that topic.
They shoot them down, theyrecover the missile.
There were claims like you havehere.
February 14th, CNN reported that, like I said before, that they
had difficulty recovering it.
They started to build thatstory.

(01:04:37):
White House press briefing theMonday after she says there's no
indication.
The A&A is an extra trust.
Real activity with these recenttakedowns Wanted to make sure
that the American people knewthat.
All of you knew that and it wasimportant for us to say that
from here because we've beenhearing a lot about that.

(01:04:57):
Go on.
February 16th, the IntelligenceCommunity's current assessment
of these three objects were mostlikely balloons tied to private
companies, recreationalresearch institutions.
Okay, fine, Super embarrassingIf all the hoopla around three
identifiers that they ended upshooting down in the period of
February turned out to be hobbyballoons, which ended up being

(01:05:18):
like the dismissal at the end.

Speaker 1 (01:05:19):
Right, you follow the narratives.
You just used two hundred andten million dollar jets with
four hundred thousand dollarmissiles to shoot down a
hobbyist balloon Wasn'tidentified as such, through the
optics, that's embarrassing, ifthat's the case.

Speaker 2 (01:05:32):
And then?
If it was the case, where's thefucking footage?
Like you'd see a 24 hourturnaround from those Reaper
drones that are flying over theUkraine, where a Russian jet
would crash into it to take itout of the sky.
There's the footage, instantlyreleased unclassified.

Speaker 1 (01:05:47):
No issue MK9 like to sell Russia.
Just, they dumped fuel in frontof our drone, or one of them
actually.
He actually hits it.
Yeah, he's trying to screw withit.
He's trying to get in front ofit and he's trying to wash it
out.
And he actually hits it at onepoint and it drops this drone.
Yeah, and instead turn around.

Speaker 2 (01:06:04):
Where's the footage of the shootouts of the three
unknowns?
And we're not even suggestingthat these three are actual UAP
type phenomenon, right, et Craftor whatever it is.
But it's oddly suspicious whenyou look at the totality, where
it's like, hey, these threeweird things that happened Don't
get to see what they arebecause they're hobby balloons,
it doesn't matter.

Speaker 1 (01:06:23):
Their go to is that they don't release the footage
because it will give away thetechnologies used within these
cameras.
And when you have somebody likethe ones we've already seen,
the ones from the F 18s thatcame from Fravor and Dietrich
and Graves yeah, you know, we'vealready seen these, these
footages, and it didn't releaseanything spectacular.

(01:06:43):
Now, in the case that, hey,they, maybe they upgraded their
missile systems or guidance,whatever it is, you can still
redact a video easily and allyou have to do is cover and edit
that one spot.
Yeah, it says, hey, we'retracking this at whatever and
show them.
You know, like I said, they'regoing to put out these, these
Reaper videos, right away.

(01:07:04):
Yeah, but they won't put outthese of these, these balloons.
And not only that, but I believe, like the senator of Alaska,
she hasn't even seen the footage.
It's her state.
Yeah, she's never even seen thefootage.
Well, it's funny, you sayballoons.
And they also claim that, likeI said, they claim that nothing
has been retrieved yet from anyof these shootouts.
Not one thing was retrieved yet.
We retrieved the one, theChinese one right after it

(01:07:26):
dropped.

Speaker 2 (01:07:27):
Exactly.
I don't buy that.
They're unretrievable.
Some of the follow on to that Ithink it was March 16th yeah,
it was March 16th when the USreleased the footage of the jet
crashing into the drone.
And then on the March 27ththere was another follow up
story where it's the Pentagon'srefusing to release the footage.
This is by Daily Mail, tabloidin the UK, but still some valid

(01:07:50):
information here.
These footage of three UFOsshot down over Alaska by the US
US fighter jet Sidewindermissiles.
Despite admitting that thewreckage or images of the
wreckage exist, there'scurrently not any footage that
we can release.
Imagery remains classified.
I have not received anyinformation.
Appreciate timeline of change,classification, refusal to

(01:08:11):
handle the images and startcontrast, the speed release of
the photo taken by the Air Force, the legend spy balloon as well
as the Russian jet crashinginto the drone she said balloon
One of the Reddit users US andHolt had mentioned.
On March 28th he made a pointthe DOD edited the transcript of

(01:08:31):
the press briefing on the threedowned object.
So normally after a pressconference the Pentagon or the
DOD will post a transcript ofthat interview.
You can read it thereappropriately.
But he had picked up.
He or she had picked up on anedit to that key part of the
briefing.
So General Van Herk's statementinitially said so I'm not going
to categorize them as balloons.

(01:08:53):
And then he found the editwhich was changed to so I'm not
going to categorize theseballoons as balloons.
To these balloons I'm not goingto categorize them as balloons.
And they change it to theseballoons.
Look, could be you in error,could be Ask the.
But those specific words, themas and these really really

(01:09:14):
telling.
It's the little things.
And this is again incremental.
It's when you say why now?
It's not why now it's beenincremental.
Even if these shoot downs inFebruary were all innocuous,
it's still an element of theengagement and a validation of
unknowns being a threat,whatever it may be.

(01:09:36):
You're telling me that a craftcan go from 80,000 feet to 100
feet off the water is the sameas a fucking balloon, not a
balloon Dropping?

Speaker 1 (01:09:45):
We're not talking.
Gaining altitude, no it we'redropping altitude and stopping
Stopping before we hit the water.
And then we're rocketing off.
We're taking off faster than anF-18 can keep up with it.
We're showing it's those, thefive observables, that
instantaneous acceleration.
I was surprised they didn'treference that.
I was too.
Yeah, I alluded to it a littlebit but they never strictly

(01:10:08):
mentioned it and I think thatthat's because the five
observables is kind of it's morewell known because of, like Lou
on that side of these are thefive observables.
I don't believe that they wantto admit to having any sort of
observables that would dictatethat Now, arrow might.
But hey, we're getting someweird info out of arrow with Dr.

Speaker 2 (01:10:29):
Kirk Pack Okay, before we okay, but now we get
to the current time.
All right.
So we've talked.
We've talked about the hearing.
We talked about the timelinethat got us here.
We talked about why it's notwide.
Now it's about time.
Get to the hearing.
Take it super seriously.
Everybody involved asks.
Really, if you really readbetween the lines on a lot of

(01:10:49):
the questions, it's clear thatsome of these folk have more of
an idea than what the hearingwill allow for them to
articulate.

Speaker 1 (01:10:58):
Oh, yeah, they ask very, very well pointed and
directed questions.

Speaker 2 (01:11:02):
And again, like we've said, it's more of what he's
not saying by him being grush.
It's more of what he's notsaying that is so telling or he
defers to a classifiedenvironment.
But he's doubled down on someof the most serious allegations
the crash retrievals, locationsof recovered craft and locations
of biologics All taken superseriously.

(01:11:24):
There's no ridicule.
And again, like we said before,probably the most
unprofessional of the group wasMs Fox, which was kind of
frustrating with herinterruptions.
So you have that landmarkmoment.
That hearing is huge.
This NDA amendment that was putforth by the Majority Leader,

(01:11:45):
schumer, senator Mike Rounds,the NDA amendment, the
unidentified anomalousphenomenon disclosure amendment
to the NDA literally just passedyesterday I think.
Now we're recording on the 29th, so it would have been the 27th
that it was passed.
Some of the verbiage in here isexceptionally specific.
I'm just going to read a few ofthese quote for quote.

(01:12:10):
So you got the introduction bySchumer and I believe this is in
the bill itself.
It's kind of his pressstatement after they wrote this
amendment.
This is directly from theMajority Leader.
For decades many Americans havebeen fascinated by objects
mysterious and unexplained andit's long past time they got
some answers.
American people has a right tolearn about technologies of

(01:12:32):
unknown origins, non-humanintelligence and unexplicable
phenomena.
We are not only working todeclassify what the government
has previously learned aboutthese phenomena, but to create a
pipeline for future research tobe made public.
I'm honored to carry out thelegacy of my mentor and dear
friend, harry Reid, and fightfor the transparency that the
public has long demandedsurround these unexplained

(01:12:54):
phenomena and then followedaround by Senator Rounds.
Our goal is to assure quote ourgoal is to assure credibility
with regard to the investigationor record keeping of materials
associated with unidentifiedanomalous phenomena and UAPs.
Relevant documents related tothis issue should be preserved.
Providing a central collectionlocation and reputable review

(01:13:16):
board to maintain the recordsadds to the credibility of
future investigations.
Just these press statements saythey say everything.
It basically they sayeverything without saying it.
They say there's been acover-up.
They say that we have moreinformation than has been known

(01:13:36):
publicly.
They say that something that Ifind really interesting is the
association of record keepingmaterials and relevant documents
should be preserved, whichimplies a historical
significance to the historicalresearch that would need to be
preserved.
Absolutely, there's ahistorical element to that the

(01:13:59):
title of it, like we said,unidentified anomalous
phenomenon disclosure act of2023.
I've highlighted a few thingshere, but the verbiage is really
important.
Legislation is necessarybecause credible evidence and
testimony indicates that thefederal government, that federal
government unidentified aerialphenomenon records exist that
have not been declassified orsubject to mandatory

(01:14:20):
declassification review, as setforth in executive order 13.526,
due in part to exemptions underthe Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as well as overbroadinterpretation of
transclassified for nuclearinformation, which is also
exempt from mandatorydeclassification, thereby
preventing public disclosureunder existing provisions of law
.
I think in our first episode wehinted at maybe the Atomic

(01:14:44):
Energy Act or the Department ofEnergy or the Atomic Energy
Commission, all of which are thesame Yep.
Atomic Energy Act, I believe,was what was the impetus for the
Atomic Energy Commission, whichwas obviously, once they had
nukes and nuclear power and thescience behind that had an
element that was there toclassify all the technology
behind that, which I happened toreflect or mirror Colthart's

(01:15:07):
thought on this.
When it comes to disclosure,it's like nobody's saying that
you got to reveal all theschematics no, please don't.

Speaker 1 (01:15:14):
No, don't, we don't need that.
I mean, we need some, but wedon't need that.

Speaker 2 (01:15:19):
It's the same idea with nuclear technology.
Everybody knows nukes exist.
Everybody knows that they dothis, everybody knows the
devastating effects.
They don't know how to buildone.
It's the same idea.
Yeah, we can know that NHI,nonhuman intelligence, exists.
Yeah, we have their crashretrieval.
Yeah, we have it recovered.
Here's what it looks like,here's what it does, but here's

(01:15:40):
not.
We're not going to tell youexactly how it works or what we
figured out thus far.
That's a fair assessment.
A few other definitionsControlled disclosure campaign
plan I love that.
Yeah, controlling authoritymeans any federal state, local
government, department, agency,committee, commission,
commercial company, academicinstitution, private sector

(01:16:00):
entity and physical position oftechnologies of unknown origin
or biological evidence ofnonhuman intelligence.
Agency program means allfederal state, local government,
commercial industry, academic,private sector endeavors to
collect, exploit and reverseengineer technology of unknown
origin or examine biologicalevidence of living or deceased
nonhuman intelligence thatpredates the date of the

(01:16:20):
enactment of the act.
Nonhuman intelligence the termnonhuman intelligence means any
sentient, intelligent, nonhumanlife form, regardless of nature
or ultimate origin, that may bepresumed responsible for
unidentified anomalousphenomenon or of which the
federal government has becomeaware.
Cut and dry.

Speaker 1 (01:16:36):
We're jumping in the definitions that there's a
reason for their existence.

Speaker 2 (01:16:41):
They're there, they need to know podcast with Ross
Colthart and Bryce Zabel, bryceZabel being a Hollywood producer
famous for making a short livedbut awesome show, dark Skies
from the early 90s Awesomepodcast.
These guys are like really thetip of the spear, because of
Colthart primarily, but reallythe tip of the spear when it

(01:17:05):
comes to discussing this topic.
They had a title their lastepisode or the one before the
last, because they did a sum upof the hearing as well, but the
one before that Schubert knowssomething the verbiage in this
law.
This amendment makes thatabundantly clear the specificity
of the definitions, thespecificity of what they're
looking for, the specificity ofwhat they mean by UAP, what they

(01:17:29):
mean by nonhuman intelligence.
This is like I think it's 60,some odd pages, 64 page
amendment and I've onlyhighlighted something from the
first five or six pages withdefinitions.
This all substantiates and kindof had my own ego or kind of
substantiates.
Basically, what our thesis hasbeen is that at some point

(01:17:51):
during the mid 20th centurysomething was recovered of
anomalous origin which has beensecretly studied, reverse
engineered, tried to beevaluated further.
Crash retrievals were recovered.
The question is, how far havethey got?
So you have the amendment thatpassed just a couple days ago.

(01:18:12):
You have the hearing thathappened just last week.
Was it that week or was it thisweek already?
Yeah, it was a 26, which isthis week.
I feel it's been a hell of a wewere still working.
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:18:24):
I stayed up to watch it?

Speaker 2 (01:18:25):
Yeah, exactly.
So in this week you got thehearing that passed, or the
hearing that happened, you gotthe amendment that passed, and
now we get back to the theory ofwarring factions.
July 21st, so a week before thehearing, sean Kirkpatrick of
Arrow has an eight minute puffpiece on ABC News.
I say puff piece not as aninsult, even though it is

(01:18:48):
because it is but he basicallydownplays everything that
Gruscha said continually,everything that has been alleged
to be going on for decades, butalso kind of plays into the
angle is like, hey, wouldn't itbe cool if we did find this
stuff?
That's kind of like the bestoutcome of what I'm doing right.
There's some specifics of Arrowthat are not widely considered

(01:19:11):
when you talk about theirclearance and their purpose.
Their purpose isn't to identifythe origins of UAP.
It's not to identify secretprograms of UAP.
Their goal is to be arepository of military reports
so somebody sees something.
It's supposed to go to Arrow sothey can pad statistics and
provide complete PR campaigntype reports.

Speaker 1 (01:19:36):
And I'm not well versed in title 10 and title 50.
And I can't give you the fulldefinition of them, but I can
tell you that you know that thattitle 10 basically gives him
the ability to receive thisclassified information, as you
said, a repository.
He can receive it and they cango.
Okay, this is what we think itis, but title 50 being the

(01:19:58):
important one that would say,hey, I'm read into this, or I
can be read into these programsto determine what is going on
here.
And, from what I understand,Arrow doesn't have that title 50
.

Speaker 2 (01:20:10):
They have title 10.
Title 10, I think, is themilitary provision.
Title 50 is the intelligencecommunity provision, which is a
lot more info which is likepretty significant.
I mean here.
I just pulled it up right now.
So, speaking of SeanKirkpatrick, he had that eight
minute puff piece that was onABC News where they're kind of

(01:20:31):
like yeah, you know, we're outhere looking at this thing.
We haven't seen anything likethat.
He's playing that angle andthis is what.
When I say we, that's what wethink.
When it comes to warringfactions, you really clearly
have, if you go talk to thefraud office at the Pentagon,
their PR person, susan Go, willsay, hey look, arrow has

(01:20:53):
received no reports, becauseArrow is the only official body
that deals with this topic.

Speaker 1 (01:20:57):
Speaking of which, Susan Go published her thesis
paper on the evolution ofstrategic influence, which is a
very classy way of saying PsyOps.
So if you want to talk aboutPsyOps, this woman in front
office wrote the book on PsyOps.
In fact, if you look up thecurrent way that military does
PsyOps, now she is, you know,referenced numerous times in how

(01:21:21):
to do it.
So anyways, susan Go comesforward, says we have nothing.

Speaker 2 (01:21:26):
Yeah, she, well, it differs to Arrow, yeah Right,
and says, hey, arrow hasn'treceived any of these things.
Sean Kirkpatrick wrote astatement on July 27th, so a day
after the hearings.
It's like 10 paragraphs, three,six, okay, well, except the
whole thing's on our Twitter.

Speaker 1 (01:21:44):
I'm glad it made us want to look.

Speaker 2 (01:21:45):
Okay, so we posted it .
So definitely go through andread it line by line.
A few of the highlights isbasically he's attempting to
completely discredit Dave Grushnot surprising, based on what
Grush has alleged.
Quote this is Kirkpatrick'sstatement Quote I'm deeply
disappointed at the denigrationof arrows, dedicated men and

(01:22:05):
women hailing from theDepartment of Defense, the
intelligent community and civilpartners who are pouring their
hearts out working this issue onthe behalf of Congress.
Arrow has the authorities andresources necessary to execute
this mission.
To be congressional intent and,as we stated before, arrow
welcomes anyone with knowledgeof these allegations or programs
to talk with us in a safe,secure and appropriately cleared

(01:22:26):
environment.
Rest assured, arrow will followthe data wherever it leads, not
their purpose.
Sure Right, like I mean the nowcaveat, I'm not sure if the
whistleblower legislation, thespecific laws in there, are
saying to whistleblowerprotections from 2022, not sure

(01:22:46):
if they're saying to report itto Arrow or not.
To be fair, off top of my headthat could be correct, but my
understanding of thecongressional intent was Arrow
of Arrow was to gather thesereports that military pilots
have engaged with to assess thetotality of the issue at hand.

Speaker 1 (01:23:06):
Yeah, it was to make a.
Basically, we're going toreceive these, we're going to
give you that central processingcenter that has been asked for
numerous times.
That was never given it's.
We're going to give you thecentral processing center and
we're going to look at it andwe're going to make a
determination.
But it wasn't to tell, it wasto make a determination on can
we identify this or not,identify this, not to

(01:23:29):
investigate it further afterthat point Exactly, and that's
good I mean, that was one of themain complaints that Ryan
Graves had at the hearing waslike, hey, there's no reporting
mechanism.

Speaker 2 (01:23:41):
It's fair that should be there.
But anyone with even anarmchair understanding of the
history of this topic knows thatassessing whether or not these
engagements are legitimate is acomplete waste of time.
Engagements are legitimate.
There's something that'sengaging with your pilots.
There's something that's beengauging the species.

(01:24:02):
There's something more andwe're on the cusp of a special
epitome not a special epitome, aspecial epitome.

Speaker 1 (01:24:15):
As I put it, we're at a convergence point.

Speaker 2 (01:24:17):
Yeah, I tried to over speak it.
Yeah, a convergence point.

Speaker 1 (01:24:21):
And that's just that's how I look at it is.
We're at a convergence pointbetween us and that NIH, yeah or
NHI, sorry.

Speaker 2 (01:24:33):
NHI yeah, nhi HR yeah .

Speaker 1 (01:24:35):
That's and it's.
It still goes back to that whenyou talk to people about this
and you're like how do you notcare?
And they're like is thereanything I can do about it?

Speaker 2 (01:24:45):
No, no, I mean, even when we were listening to the
hearing the other day, Iremember hearing the boss she
goes have they said there'saliens?
Yet and it's really.
It is that simple.
But between the lines yeah,they have.
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:25:02):
Yeah, I mean, and well, and even even outside it
on the line, not even in betweenthe lines on the line.

Speaker 2 (01:25:09):
Yeah, we've recovered non human biologics from these
crashes Like one of theinteresting little nuances that
came out of this is that nowjournalists have been going Okay
, well, let's hit up LockheedMartin.
They're blanket statement Ithink we're just regarding UAPs
should be referred to the USgovernment.

Speaker 1 (01:25:29):
Yeah, not, they're not going to answer anything
unless they have a, unless theyand that's part of this the, the
amendment, amendments, and infact, actually one of the things
that I thought was reallyinteresting is that basically
the government could seize it.
Yeah, the government can seizeit, but that's, richette gets

(01:25:49):
Luna Moskowitz.
They all signed together on toa and this was yesterday, now
two days ago, because it's aftermidnight a letter to Speaker
McCarthy's asking for a creationof a select committee to
address the UAP issue and thecommittee would have the ability
to subpoena individuals andorganizations that would have to

(01:26:11):
come before Congress andtestify.
So you go to Lockheed Martinand you go to Skunkworks or you
go to any of these in G, any ofthem you know.
Then all these names get thrownaround in this, but they're not
going to say anything.
But when they get testified,when they have to testify, when
they get subpoenaed, and thenthey're playing.
That's a dangerous game is,especially when there's the

(01:26:32):
proof is there that they havereceived items or they have
received stuff for them.
They don't want to be caughtlying.

Speaker 2 (01:26:39):
No, and that's why it's always interesting when you
talk about governmental secrecyand we've said it.
When it comes to the hearing,where it's almost more of what
he can't say than what he can.
That makes it so compelling.
He says just enough to get theintent across, but you hear the
same thing throughout history.
I mean even if, like, the greatkind of watermark for this is

(01:26:59):
the Wilson Davis notes, whichessentially reflect this exact
thesis, which is that I think hewas at outside what each E&G,
the Admiral Thomas Wilson,doesn't say what aerospace
company he's referring to, but aaerospace company been in the
process of first engineering.
It says on the notes that he'lldeny it if he's asked about it.

(01:27:19):
He's been asked about it sincethe notes got leaked.
Obviously he's denied it, butthat doesn't really validate
anything, is green wall pointsout.
It's like, of course he'll denyit.
It's total bullshit.
But in the notes, being in thenotes doesn't validate that.
Him denying it is anauthentication of truth.
I think the more validation ofit is Eric Davis, so I can't
comment on that, which is thesame thing as everything,
because he's not saying it's notrevealing classified

(01:27:41):
information, but there's animplication that there's
classified material within thatdocument, which means he can't
speak about it.

Speaker 1 (01:27:47):
What's great, though, is that rush coming forward
with graves and with flavor andthe way that they did.
Those were the two or the three, basically, that just set the
course, so everybody was kind ofworried about the the
whistleblower protections is inhow much would they actually
protect them?
And I think that now that thesethree have come forward and

(01:28:08):
done what they've done, we canget people like Eric Davis to
come forward to Congress andtestify things like that.
I mean, I'm still hopeful thatBob Lazar goes it myself.
He made a statement today.
I don't know if I did.
I didn't see that, and I sawsome other things that people
saying that it doesn't need tocome testify because the guys
already done polygraphs, and Igot into an argument on Twitter.
So you know, I won the SpecialOlympics.

Speaker 2 (01:28:30):
Well, no, like I think NAP talked about that, I
think him and Corbel mentionedlike hey, what are we going to
see this prior to the hearing?
We're going to see Lazar thereand basically Lazar is like I
basically didn't want to.
You know, he's not required togo to the hearing, he's not
required to be a whistleblower,but like he's like why would I
go validate and talk to thesepeople with all that they've
done?

Speaker 1 (01:28:48):
It's his assortment, I will say, though he is
required now Because Mr Lazarhas made claims to holding over,
alluded to never make claims 15.

Speaker 2 (01:29:00):
Okay, okay.

Speaker 1 (01:29:02):
Read between the lines he's alluded to, taking
this element 115 from there andconducting experiments I believe
that that now says that he hasto relinquish it.
Relinquish it to Congress ornotify them of its existence.
Yeah, so I don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:29:17):
That's something that's the other.
Irony is, even if Bob Lazar isfull of shit, we still wouldn't
be here without him.

Speaker 1 (01:29:24):
No, no, no, the guys and I believe them, I do.
And the guy is, he'sinstrumental, it's like you know
, it's kind of like you know.
Corbel yeah, I don't.
I'm not the biggest fan in theworld of Corbel.
I love George Knapp.
Yeah, Not the biggest fan ofCorbel.
Right has nothing to do withwhat he's released and stuff
like that.
I think he kind of jumps thethings a little fast sometimes,

(01:29:44):
but he is instrumental, he is.
I mean it's amazing.
So I mean I will all even say itright here is thank you Jeremy,
yeah, and thank you George forbringing us what you have, and I
mean George, even bringing usMr Lazar beforehand.
And so thank you to Mr Lazar.

Speaker 2 (01:29:59):
And he's had to take the vaccine a few times too.
All of them 2017, like I thinkhe's mentioned.
It is like you know he wastalking to the same people.
He had heard rumblings becausehe had been friends with Bigelow
Robert, Bigelow, BigelowAerospace.
Harry Reid was of Nevada.
He's, you know, had a goodworking relationship with all
those cats and then when theDecember 2017 article came out,

(01:30:20):
he knew, or he felt like hewould take a backseat, or
whoever was dealing with thetopic was like, hey, look, if we
have another one of thesestories from the UFO guy in
Vegas talking about this type ofthing, it's not going to have
the same impact.
If you have a non related forumlike the New York Times
published an article like that,yeah, and it sucks, because
Knapp has been so instrumentaland kind of keeping this alive.

(01:30:43):
He's been huge.
Anybody who's listened to Coastto Coast?
I mean he's the right.
George that should have takenover.
But yeah, we've rambled on.
It's a wonderful time to bealive.
It's a hell of a point inhistory to be a part of.
There will be more hearings, Isuspect, september confirmed.

Speaker 1 (01:31:00):
I mean it's not exactly confirmed, but they've
said that the upcoming Septemberhearings yeah, so I don't know
that that's official on thebooks.
But that is the that is what Iwas realistic dream with this as
go.
I mean I want to say, Bob, likeI really that's really awesome
but realistic.

(01:31:23):
Oh, I mean, do they have to bethere by force?
Do they have to be therebecause they want to be there?
Yeah, because that's a bigdifference is that there's some
people that I think need to betestifying in front of Congress
that probably don't want to bethere, I think, if there's
another one, I think you'll seeLou.
Lou is on that.
He's on that.
I want to see Lou up there.

(01:31:43):
I think you'll see Lou.

Speaker 2 (01:31:44):
Elizondo, I hope you'll see Eric Davis and I hope
there's an unknown and anunknown being one of Grush's
peers, one of the first handersthat spoke to him to give him
these reports and the rumorsbeen and I say rumor because
obviously nobody outside of thepolitical circle can validate or

(01:32:06):
hasn't spoken to these peopleindividually.
A few journalists, likeColthard and Keane likely have,
based on what their statementshave been.
There's a lot of these peoplethat have been involved in these
legacy programs that aretalking.
Even going back as far asColthard's book in Plain Sight,
he had talked to a lead Navyscientist whose credentials are

(01:32:28):
also verifiable, that validatedthe existence of the program,
but even saying that he at thatpoint hadn't put eyes on any of
the stuff, but he knew itexisted, he knew it was in
process, and that's the case.
Like it's, there's no stoppingit now, there's no putting the
toothpaste back in the tube, soto speak, like the cat is out of
the bag.
Every, every idiom you want tothrow at it.
That's what it is.

Speaker 1 (01:32:50):
What about McCasland?
I mean, that's about GeneralMcCasland.
Yeah, he was the head of theback engineering program.
Yeah, for technology divisionand so if there was anybody who
was involved, if there wasanybody that has an email.

Speaker 2 (01:33:01):
What's going on?

Speaker 1 (01:33:02):
100% the Wickey Leeds , the pedestrian emails.
If there's anybody who knewwhat was going on, it's him.
He was.
He was one of those members.
I mean it kind of goes intothat is is we've talked about
the control group of.
You know, in the past it wasreferred to as magic, and then
it's been referred to as zodiacand it's had a bunch of other
names along the way, and it'sthese 12 members that evolve.

(01:33:23):
Well, that control group weknow still exists.
So if that control group exists, who's going to be in it?
I would say the head of theback engineering program.
It would probably be one of thetop ones.
So that'd be another like that.
That would be a good one.
Yeah, let's see from the AirForce.
Yeah, and that's the problem.
Those is when the Air Forceisn't gonna.

(01:33:44):
They won't give an ounce.
The Air Force is they maybethey can't.

Speaker 2 (01:33:49):
That's the other question is, maybe they can't,
maybe the securityclassifications, the requirement
, the lockdown of the topicprevents that from happening.
I mean, there could be again.
We're all human and I happen tobe a little more of an optimist
where I think most people areinherently good.
But when you get to a politicalsphere, you have to adjust your
statistics.
The high level, military seer,you have to adjust your specific

(01:34:11):
, your statistics for whoreaches that.
Echelon, like most normal people, have no interest to being a
general.
Most normal people have nointerest to being a politician,
but most normal people are goodpeople.
When you get to an area ofpower like that, you have people
that are just fired up and wantto do good, and then you also
have sycophantic, sociopathicpeople that are just in pursuit

(01:34:34):
of power for whatever the nextrung maybe, and so that's always
a challenge when you get tothat area, anytime you start
talking that way, it comes offreal conspiratorial.
But if you take a step back andthink about it, I mean politics
, like I, have no interest, likemost normal people that might,
you know, be qualified to dosomething like that, no interest
in becoming a congressperson orbecoming president or anything

(01:34:56):
like that.
It's always been like one ortwo in your class as a kid is
like oh, I want to be presidentsomeday.
Okay, good for you.

Speaker 1 (01:35:01):
Yeah, you know that kid, yeah, I have no interest.

Speaker 2 (01:35:04):
You know why would I want that?
Exactly no, it's like or justno general interest.
You know like you say so.

Speaker 1 (01:35:11):
I don't just want Lou to testify, though.
Yeah, I want to say this welive in Wyoming.
We are literally three hoursaway from Lou.
Oh geez, I want Lou to comedown here and I want him on the
podcast.

Speaker 2 (01:35:23):
Lou, when your book is done, come promote it with
our three listeners, not notjust when the book is done.

Speaker 1 (01:35:29):
I want to talk to Lou as soon as he can.
I will buy dinner and cigars,lou.
We'll go to the ribbon shop.
We can go to the one in Casper,we can go to the one in Buffalo
.
I prefer the Buffalo one myself.
It's better, it's the originalto me.
Yep, we'll smoke some gars,drink some good whiskey.
Bring the whiskey and thecigars.
You don't have to forwarddinner, you don't have to do
that Nothing.
We got you covered 100%.

(01:35:51):
In fact, we probably won't evenrecord anything because we're
just going to be eating somenice tasty steaks and drinking
whiskey.
But yeah, we got to get LouWell right on.
So but yeah, anyways, we're atan hour and 45 minutes now and I
got to get up super earlybecause I'm going to a Rockies
game tomorrow, so I got to godown to Denver.

(01:36:11):
So watch my losing team.

Speaker 2 (01:36:12):
I was going to lose some more.
Have fun watching them lose tothe, you know the red, the A's.

Speaker 1 (01:36:16):
Yeah, I mean, if they lose to Oakland I'm going to be
pretty upset, but thanks, Imean that's awesome, thanks for
coming over.
Oh, yeah, I mean it's abouttime we did this other episode.

Speaker 2 (01:36:27):
Wimbledon put it off for a year, almost so the most
important, significant ninemonths of period like and I know
and behold.

Speaker 1 (01:36:33):
I went and got married and had to go on a
honeymoon, stuff like that.
Oh yeah, it was amazing.
It was awesome so.

Speaker 2 (01:36:39):
But hey, if you like what we're doing, rate like all
that shit on all the platforms.
Spotify, give it a rating.
Help us give us some feedback.
Send us some feedback onYouTube, instagram, twitter,
whatever, if you like what we'redoing.
You got positive, negativefeedback.
I ramble too much.
Whatever it may be, send it.
That engagement always helps.

(01:37:00):
Please share this with yourfriends and family.
It's just a side hustle.
You know a couple fans.

Speaker 1 (01:37:06):
It's not even a hustle.
We're not making money.
I'm losing money.
We're not making 100% hustles.
You should always make somemoney.
We're not making money.

Speaker 2 (01:37:11):
No, that wasn't much, yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:37:13):
So help us out, you know, give us a share.
And you know, if you gotsomebody that, if you somebody
who's even expressed interest,or even somebody hasn't
expressed interest in it, andyou've heard this far and it's
gotten you this far, you'reobviously still interested,
you're obviously still a littlehooked on the subject.
And so if you have a friend ora family member that's like, oh,
did you hear about this?

(01:37:33):
Put them on to us, let it, youknow.

Speaker 2 (01:37:35):
You know if and if you're a complete neophyte, if
you're completely new to thistopic and you need your crash
course, go watch.
The phenomenon by James Foxshould be on all the other
platforms.
It was free there for a while.
It's from 2020.
It's all up to date.
He's one of the most prolificand kind of I say, middle of the
road in terms of likeconspiratorial bent, but he's

(01:37:58):
one of the most kind of down toearth, does his research, the
most down to earth UFOdocumentarian that there is.
He's awesome.
The phenomenon is point A tostart his other ones.
Out of the blue, I know what Isaw and moment of contact moment
of contact I would say for last, because it does require the

(01:38:20):
biggest kind of leap of faith,so to speak.
But the phenomenon and out ofthe blue.

Speaker 1 (01:38:26):
So once you watch a phenomenon out of the blue, that
leap of faith is no longer agap is a lot shorter.
You start putting this stufftogether and you're like oh okay
, I got it.
Yeah so, james Fox, awesome job, dude Awesome.

Speaker 2 (01:38:40):
Great place to start.
If you're a reader, go readRichard Dolan's two books, the
UFOs and the natural securitystate, volumes one and two.
They are weighty tones but he'sa trained historian Again takes
a really calculated approach tothe historical nature of the
topic.
Leslie Cain's book UFOs,generals, pilots and government
officials go on the record RossColthart in plain sight.

Speaker 1 (01:39:03):
Kelly Chase is inside the down the rabbit hole UFO
rabbit, ufo rabbit, and she hasa book that's out there and I'll
plug this one because I got thebook sitting right here in
front of me.
She makes it really enjoyableto read it that way.
So if you're one of thosepeople and you just you like the
more entertaining side of it,kelly Chase does an awesome job,
amazing research.
I don't know how much researchshe does to do one podcast

(01:39:24):
episode and then she's condensedthis all down into her books
and right now she's just volumeone.
I look forward to getting thesecond one for them.
But yeah, if you're one ofthose people, read that book.
That is an awesome book.
Really breaks down the tombedalong side of things.

Speaker 2 (01:39:40):
Right on.

Speaker 1 (01:39:41):
All right guys, all right.
Thanks for joining us.
Yep, thanks for tuning in tothis episode of not top secret.
We hope you enjoyed the showand learned something new.
Don't forget to subscribe, rateand review us on your favorite
podcast platform.
We'll be back with anotherepisode packed with fascinating
information, secrets andweirdness.

(01:40:02):
Until then, stay curious, askthe hard questions and keep your
eyes on the sky.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Crime Junkie

24/7 News: The Latest

Stuff You Should Know

.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;}The Congressional Hearing on UAP: Key Takeaways and Implications

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;}Crime Junkie

24/7 News: The Latest

Stuff You Should Know

All Episodes

The Congressional Hearing on UAP: Key Takeaways and Implications

Crime Junkie