#18 | UK Govt UFO Investigator EXPOSES the Dark Side of Disclosure - Hard Truths

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome back, everybody to another episode of Hard Trew's podcast.
I'm your host Ashon Forbes. Today I have another very
special guest, I have Nick Pope. Nick Pope is a
UFO investigator who has worked with the British government the
equivalent of the DoD, and researched the UFO phenomenon for
many decades. So Nick, thank you very much for being

(00:21):
on my show today.

Speaker 2 (00:23):
Thank you for having me.

Speaker 1 (00:25):
Can you quickly just go through and clarify your background
for some of my viewers who might not be familiar
with you. Was I right and that you've been kind
of investigating this phenomenon for several decades and related to
the British government.

Speaker 3 (00:37):
Yes, I actually was a civilian employee for the UK
Ministry of Defense, which as you said, is the British
equivalent of the DoD here in the United States. I
had a twenty one year career with them. Actually, I
did a lot of postings in that time, so I

(00:58):
moved around a fair bit in terms of subject matter.
My time officially looking at the UAPSU was nineteen ninety
one through to nineteen ninety four, but subsequent to that,
of course, I've kept up an interest in a private capacity,
and I now comment on this subject quite a lot

(01:21):
in the mainstream media, for example, But my government.

Speaker 2 (01:24):
What experience of it was ninety one to ninety four?

Speaker 4 (01:29):
And what did you think about the UFO phenomena before you.

Speaker 1 (01:32):
Did that versus after you started investigating? How toe how
do your perception change or if it did well.

Speaker 3 (01:39):
I didn't really think about UFOs or UAP as we
call them in government at all before I had that
particular job. I obviously intellectually was aware of the UFO mystery,
but frankly that was about it.

Speaker 2 (01:53):
I had no.

Speaker 3 (01:54):
Particular interest or belief in it, So I just approached
it when I was asked to do this, I just
approached it as I would approach any new posting in
the Ministry of Defense. In other words, my aim was
to do the job to the best of my ability
and hopefully to get a promotion out of it, which
I did in the end. But yeah, so I really

(02:17):
knew very little about it, had no strong beliefs or
opinions either way. And then afterwards I think it was
something of an eye opener because I think I went
in sort of thinking, well, UFOs, I don't know Steven
Spielberg close encounters of the third.

Speaker 2 (02:36):
Kind, something like that.

Speaker 3 (02:37):
I came out with this, I guess knowledge that Wait
a minute, you know, it's not all just sci fi
or crazy conspiracy talk. There's a sort of significant, statistically
significant proportion of these things over the years, not just
in the UK, but in the US, in many countries

(02:57):
that have had a formally constituted program. So look at this,
A statistically significant proportion of these things, you know, did
suggest something tangible, something more than just misidentifications, hoaxes or delusions,
and something where we consistently had speeds, maneuvers and accelerations

(03:19):
that made i don't know, the cutting edge of our
aerospace tech looked like kids toys and made even us
fairly skeptical, conservative minded folks at the Ministry Defense a
little bit perturbed about all this.

Speaker 1 (03:38):
Is that why they had you investigating it is that
we knew something was going on, but we had to
figure out what's its origin, what's the nature of it,
what's the physics and science of it. Was that kind
of what you were tasked with, or was it more
in terms of like what the dangers might be to
like civilian aircraft and stuff like that or a combination
of both.

Speaker 3 (03:59):
Yes, it was a little bit of both actually, and
I should say I was not the first person to
have this job by a long chalk. I mean, we
had sightings that actually went back to the Second World War,
but in terms of when we had actually set up
a formal program to look at this, that was nineteen

(04:19):
fifty three. So obviously many different people had done that
job over the years. Sometimes the military had the lead,
sometimes civilian employees like myself had the lead. It didn't
really matter where the work was embedded. But what we
did was essentially two things. Firstly, we tried to understand

(04:42):
the phenomenon itself holistically, you know, what are we dealing
with here? And yes, part of that is obviously trying
to do a threat assessment see if there is evidence
of any threat, and then you know, what, if anything,
can we.

Speaker 2 (04:58):
Do about it?

Speaker 3 (05:00):
The other side of it, in many sense, I guess
the day to day running of it was more about
the individual investigations. We got two or three hundred reports
each year, and although we did some classified work, we
were actually unlike for example, a TIP or SAM, we

(05:22):
were actually a public facing program, so we had more
in common with the old Project Blue Book than perhaps
we did with the more modern programs, and so we weren't.
Our existence was not a secret. Members of the public
would contact us with their sightings, and although obviously we

(05:43):
had our own pilots and radar operators seeing things and
tracking things, which was very interesting, I would say ninety
percent plus of the cases we had came from the public.

Speaker 2 (05:55):
So a lot of what I was doing was to.

Speaker 3 (05:58):
Try and get answers on those cases, trying to trying
to correlate it with things we either knew about or
could find out about, whether they were military aircraft exercises
or some sort of astronomical phenomenon or meteorological phenomenon.

Speaker 1 (06:16):
So what's your opinion, And you know, just to keep
to put a disclaimer on this and not going to
like hopefully people won't hold you.

Speaker 4 (06:24):
Those people's opinions can change.

Speaker 1 (06:26):
But right now, where would you lean in terms of
what you've seen and learn in terms of the origin
of these rare exceptions where there's something anomalois going on.
Do you think that it's advanced technology that we have
or do you think it's alien in nature?

Speaker 4 (06:40):
Do you do you think it's something more exotic than that.

Speaker 3 (06:43):
It could be all of the above, it could be
none of the above. Well, I say none of the above. No,
let me take that back, because clearly a proportion of
sightings consistently over the years have been attributable to people
seeing and misidentifying secret prototype aircraft, missiles and drones. So

(07:04):
that is certainly one explanation. And of course, as I say,
most of these things turn out, of course to be misidentifications.
But if you just ring fencing the ones where we've
thrown out the conventional explanations because they just don't marry
up with the facts, then yeah, some of those are

(07:28):
prototype devices, but they're hours and when I say hours,
I mean terrestrial. They're either British, American or they might
be operated by an adversary, of course, and we've had
a big debate about this in the last few years.
We had the Chinese spy balloon. Of course, we've had
the recent drone incursions, and although I've seen some statements

(07:52):
which are quite dismissive of the New Jersey drones, there
is certainly, or what I think it's still current, a
US government assessment that some of the drone incursions in
the UK and Germany were probably attributable to an adversary,
and in that case it's almost certainly Russia. And I

(08:16):
say that because, of course the drone activity. You know,
you just look at the date the drone activity ramped
up almost literally the same week that the UK authorized
the use of long long range munitions like storm Shadow,
not just against battlefield targets in Ukraine, but against targets

(08:38):
in in Russia, mainly in the.

Speaker 4 (08:44):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (08:44):
Do you think then that we and maybe Russia China
are like working on some advanced technology that we're misrepresenting
as UFOs, or that maybe there was technology that we
reverse engineered that we've got flying around out there that
people are identifying, because it doesn't seem like that drone
situation was like aliens, whatever it was. And I wouldn't
be surprised to find that there was adversarial technology floating

(09:07):
around we're not seeing like, no one's really coming out
and taking credit for it. And there is this long
history of supposed reverse engineering in the UFO phenomenon.

Speaker 4 (09:15):
So what's your take on all that.

Speaker 3 (09:18):
Well, I think it's a given that at any particular
point in time, there is aerospace tech out there that
is maybe ten, fifteen, possibly twenty years ahead of anything
that's publicly acknowledged or declared, anything that you're likely to
see on the evening news or flying at any of

(09:38):
the big air shows around the world. I think that's
a given. Whether that is our own technology or whether
some of it is. I mean, clearly some of it
is our own tech. There's no getting away from the
fact that we're pretty smart, and we're pretty good at
figuring things out, and we've got some scientific and engineering

(09:59):
genie who who can do a lot of stuff. Whether
any of this is wholly or partly derived from anything
back engineered, reverse engineered from recovered alien technology, I don't know.
I don't rule it out, and certainly myself and other

(10:20):
colleagues at the Ministry of Defense even did not rule
out the extraterrestrial hypothesis still don't equally, of course, we
hear a lot of speculation about other potentially exotic, non
terrestrial but not necessarily alien explanations for this, and recently,

(10:40):
for example, we've had people like David Grush pivot from
terms like extraterrestrial to nahine on human intelligence, which which
is a kind of I guess more open term that
doesn't close off other possibilities such as, for example, something
from other dimensions or even and we've seen a ramping

(11:04):
up of the whole religious narrative recently which is very interesting,
even something you know that we would characterize us as
God's devils, angels or demons.

Speaker 1 (11:16):
Well, so here's the problem I have with this is
that I agree the military is more advanced, but I
think the level of technology that we would be dealing
with here related to NHI would be something that's more
advanced than ten or twenty years, you know, being ten
or twenty years more advanced on making rockets still going
to be a rocket. We're looking at something that's just

(11:37):
from conventional, mainstream academic perspective of physics is defining the
laws of physics. How can a UFO how can something
hover like this in place, let alone move around like
this with no inertia and theoretically move off at extremely
high velocities that would seem impossible for any conventional material

(11:59):
to do that. And I think that those like you know,
they call them the five observables in the UFO field,
we're seeing stuff like that that seems like that's not
ten or twenty years more advanced. So this is the
part where I'm pushing back and saying, well, it should
be pretty obvious whether or not it's something that's terrestrial
technological advancement in nature, you know, in explanation, versus like, Okay,

(12:22):
this is just beyond like what you know, well way
beyond what anything in.

Speaker 4 (12:27):
The public is aware of. So I guess I'm saying, like, you.

Speaker 1 (12:31):
Know, have we figured that level of that leap of
technology out secretly and we're covering that up, or you know,
is that possible or does it require some extraterrestrial explanation
or you know, maybe not necessarily like you said NHI.
There's a lot of different explanations of NHI, which I

(12:51):
think can mean stuff too, like ancient civilizations. I guess
what I'm trying to get at is like, do we
have does that level of technology that's beyond what we
currently accept and understand right now from the mainstream perspective,
and who has it?

Speaker 3 (13:09):
The short answer is, I don't know, because I wasn't
read into or onto any of those programs. If this
technology exists, I'm convinced that it's it's on a very
close hold somewhere in the United States and notwithstanding the
special relationship between the UK and the US. I wasn't

(13:31):
cleared for that or read onto those programs. As I say,
I have heard from people who I know, you know,
they are who they say they are, they did what
they said they did. I've heard that these these technologies exist,
but I've not been able to verify that independently. But

(13:55):
I agree on the point I think it might be
impossible for us to figure out if we have this technology,
I go back actually your point ten or fifteen years,
you could understand that, but anything more it becomes almost impossible.
And I've heard various people use the analogy of if

(14:17):
you could send a smartphone I don't know, ten, fifteen,
twenty years back in time and it ended up at
the Apple building, they would kind of be gushing over it,
but they would know what it was and they'd probably
be able to figure it out. But if you sent
it back fifty years, one hundred years, probably not. And

(14:37):
if you send it back ten thousand years, it would
be a flat, shiny magic rock. So if we have
this tag unless I mean I think it's again in
a universe nearly fourteen billion years old, there might be
civilizations a billion years ahead of us, and we wouldn't

(14:57):
be able to figure that out. Might you know, using
that smartphone analogy, we might be able to figure out
tech that was I don't know, fifty years ahead, but
anything else, and I think it begins to break down
in terms of you know, it becomes more like trying
to explain quantum physics to a chimpanzee with us being

(15:21):
the chimpanzees. I mean, in other words, impossible. And then
I would say, what, what do people think statistically the
chances are if we interact with another civilization or civilizations
in a fourteen billion year old universe, that we would
just happen to stumble across one only fifty years or

(15:43):
less more advanced than us. I would think that was
statistically very unlikely. Therefore, even if we had the tech,
I'm not sure we could figure it out.

Speaker 1 (15:55):
It's interesting and it's funny. Maybe you that I actually
got that original thought that that it's a really great
point in terms of thinking, why are we thinking that
like we're the most advanced civilization on the block. Maybe
civilization's way more advanced than we are, and way older
and than we are. Now this is one kind of
twist that I've put on it. Just theory that I've

(16:17):
thrown out there is that maybe it's not like. The
thing that I disagree with the most when anyone brings
up is this idea that we can't understand some property
of the universe, like quantum mechanics.

Speaker 4 (16:28):
You bring it up. You can't explain quantum mechanics to
a chimp.

Speaker 1 (16:30):
But I would say, in theory, if I were to
go back in time to cavemen times, you know, given
enough time, I could explain things like quantum mechanics, I
could get them caught up to speed. Maybe it would
take generations, but it could happen, I would argue. And
that's my thing about physics is that there is no
laws of physics that we can understand. I think we

(16:52):
get too stuck in that our view of the universe
is based on what the mainstream academic view of physics is,
like general reale relativity, et cetera, et cetera. But whatever
these UFOs are doing that are flying around, they challenge
that because our general view of relativity would say, wait,
where's the where's the fuel for this thing? There's no
fuel here, right, But that doesn't mean it's something beyond

(17:14):
our comprehension. I mean, we live in the same reality
as the aliens live in, so I would say that
we should be able to figure out. Now Here's my
point is that what if it's not a situation where
it's this like linear progression where you have to be
this advanced understand this level of technology, where it's more
of just like hurdles. Once you jump over the hurdle
and you figure out fire, now you get to where

(17:36):
we're at, where you can shoot rockets up into the sky.
But let's say there's another hurdle where the aliens or
the other non human intelligence civilizations are more advanced. So
they've reached this hurdle, this other this technology breakthrough, and
any civilization that reaches that, now you've reached warp drives, wormholes,

(17:57):
free energy, et cetera. What if there was a situation
like that, like, how would that change the perspective of
the universell that make it look more like there's a
galactic federation and everybody achieves this level like.

Speaker 4 (18:11):
In Star Trek or something like that.

Speaker 1 (18:12):
Oh, you reach the warp drive, Welcome to the Galactic
Federation or we'll go ahead.

Speaker 3 (18:16):
What are your thoughts Yeah, Actually, that is a very
interesting question which I have thought of. Is there a
sort of threshold that a civilization has to cross before
it gets that invitation to join the federation or whatever
it is, And if it's not a federation, it's probably
something like it, because I think, you know, I'm always

(18:38):
wary of taking an anthropocentric.

Speaker 2 (18:41):
View yet of course it's.

Speaker 3 (18:43):
The only view we can have on this, but I
think it is one of the few good assumptions we
can make that if there are other civilizations out there,
particularly more advanced than us, that they would come together
in some sort of forum to discuss differences, to discuss
strategies for civilizations that are below that threshold, to prevent

(19:08):
conflict between advanced civilizations, all all that sort of thing.
So if it's I mean, if it's not called the federation,
there's probably something very much like it. And it does
pose the question what.

Speaker 2 (19:21):
Gets you in?

Speaker 3 (19:22):
And then that's why I think Gene Roddenberry and that
whole Star Trek universe is very very fascinating. You know,
some sort of development of some sort of faster than
light propulsion system or a workaround to the apparent barrier
of light speed, you know, whatever it is, whether it's

(19:43):
a propulsion system or whether it's it's sort of warp
drive wormholes, whatever, maybe that is. It wouldn't it be
amazing if Star Trek turned out to be correct on that.
But maybe it's something else. Maybe it's something to do
with our sort of moral development. Maybe maybe you know,
you could imagine that a sort of dominant belief system

(20:08):
has emerged in the universe just by a sort of
process of of you know, lots of things coming together,
and eventually a dominant narrative will will maybe emerge or
dominant civilization will will be the top dog and will
impose its kind of will top down. But you know

(20:30):
that that dominant narrative might be moral, it might be spiritual,
might be religious, and you know, it might be something
maybe something unattainable for us at present. And I take
your point about if you went back in time, you know,
to Stone age times, because you're talking about you're still
talking about anatomically model modern humans, and maybe given enough

(20:55):
time you could explain quantum physics. But if you went
back five to say million years ago, you know, to
the of the chimp human split, I'm not sure, then
you could and then the question becomes, are we at
the level of the chimps and is there something more advanced,

(21:16):
which there very well might be.

Speaker 2 (21:19):
That does mean we can't.

Speaker 3 (21:21):
I mean again, it depends is there an upper limit
on human intelligence?

Speaker 2 (21:27):
And I've heard various people talk, for example.

Speaker 3 (21:29):
About brain size and the pelvic gap being being one
factor there. But again, random mutation, natural selection, you know,
who knows and then throw into the mix AI and
machine intelligence.

Speaker 1 (21:48):
Yeah, so that's where you start to get to some
of the dark aspects of it, I think is really
where a lot of people have approached that everybody a lot.
I think the mainstream view is that this view that
the aliens are gonna come and help us and save
us and lift us up or something like that. But
when the reason why, I think David Grush changed to

(22:10):
non human intelligence and why we use as because the
options are widespread, including things like AI, future humans, ultraterrestrials, cryptids, demons, angels,
ian huge list of things. And then you look at
all this whole phenomenon in general and you kind of wonder, like,
if there is this threshold of what gets you in,

(22:32):
could explain this level of control suppression?

Speaker 4 (22:36):
There seems to be over this topic. We're normally, you.

Speaker 1 (22:39):
Know, if it was just a situation where alien where
there's aliens out there, like you know, first of all,
I don't see how that would be a national security issue,
and second of all, if they are a threat, I
would imagine they would want to be transparent about that information.
But instead there's this obfuscation and there's this weird question
about the technology related to it as well. And I

(23:02):
think that another thing to kind of support that idea
that maybe there's this threshold is what you just brought up.
And I wanted to ask you if you've heard my
interview with Jason George Johnny. I don't know if you
know who he is, but he's a very interesting guy
that's looked into the UFO and past civilizations and stuff
like that. And also Peter Thiel when he was on
Joe Rogan. Both have mentioned this idea that what if

(23:25):
there's this zero point energy technology or whatever it takes
to make a wormhole or warp drive, but it's so
powerful that your whole society has to be built kind
of around making sure no one misuses this technology because
it's so dangerous. And that was kind of what you
were talking about the moral system. I was just wondering,
have you heard that at all, because that's a pretty

(23:47):
dark thing to think about if it's true.

Speaker 3 (23:51):
Yes, I've given a lot of thought to this recently
and absolutely again being wary of anthropotentrism. But again it's
one of the very very few good assumptions that I
think we can make. Is that, for example, if let's
just suppose, for the purposes of this, we are talking

(24:11):
about extraterrestrial visitation, almost any conceivable means of viable interstellar
travel is I think going to involve something that generates
vast quantities of energy. And almost and I think this
is where you were coming from with this, almost anything

(24:32):
that generates vast quantities of energy can be weaponized, or
even if it's not a deliberate weaponization, could through misused, misunderstanding, accident, whatever,
have existential you know, consequences if something were to go wrong.

(24:53):
So I came into this sort of thinking, you know, disclosure,
if it's all true, if we've got smoking guns hidden
away somewhere, there shouldn't be any problem, sort of saying,
you know, we are not alone, because that's not classified

(25:16):
by any definition that I have ever operated under when
it comes to classified information. And I've I've had extremely
high security clearances, and you know, the definitions are fairly
well understood. It's it's information, the release of which could
have catastrophic consequences for the defense of the United States.

(25:39):
I mean, that's that's pretty much the sort of definition
that that top secret would have.

Speaker 1 (25:47):
So that so let me if I'm just jumping out
that because you just made a really really great point,
which is it The argument you just made there is
that we're not alone would never count as something that's
like a national security threat under classification mechanism.

Speaker 4 (26:02):
So you know, because a lot.

Speaker 1 (26:04):
Of people try to spin this argument that well, the
national security thing is this alien threat or whatever. But again,
this idea that we're not alone, and if it was
all of these people that have clearances or had clearances
like lou al Zando who are going out there, they
wouldn't be allowed to say it. And that's the one
thing they are saying is that hey, they're aliens, were
not alone.

Speaker 4 (26:21):
That's out there. So what is the national security danger
and risk?

Speaker 1 (26:28):
And I don't want to put you in any trouble here,
but so I'll go ahead and tell you what I
think it is, and then I'll let you opine. I
think the answer is the energy source. What you just
said was a great point.

Speaker 4 (26:40):
You're right.

Speaker 1 (26:40):
It takes a huge amount of energy to make a
wormhole or a warp drive if you look at conventional physics.
That's one of the hang ups. The other hang up
is that it also requires negative energy, and this requires
a new understanding of the view of our universe in
order to understand how negative energy could be possible. So
it speaks to both of your points. Are you're over
here on my screen. It speaks to both of your

(27:02):
points about maybe we have to be like more enlightened
to achiet to understand the universe. And it also speaks
to this level of like, if you can produce this,
you make a huge amount of energy, huge amount, and
that can be turned into a weapon, which it makes
it really dark. This is the thing that if I
think what's national security, well you just said it. It's

(27:22):
this huge amount of energy and the ability to weaponize it.
And energy is used to control our society, and weapons
are used to destroy people and other people and maintain power.
So is that what they're hiding. Are they hiding an
energy source from us that nobody knows about.

Speaker 2 (27:39):
That could be part of it.

Speaker 3 (27:40):
But let me let me sort of walk you through
the evolution of my thinking on this and see what
you think, because I started off from a position of
exactly that and saying that you would not want to
disclose anything to do with the tech because that tech
could be weaponized or just through inadvertent misuse, could could rip.

Speaker 2 (28:07):
Apart the universe, you know. But then I sort of
thought again, and I thought, well, wait a.

Speaker 3 (28:16):
Minute, in my handling of classified information on a whole
range of different subjects, it's perfectly possible to kind of
wall off a part of it, you ring fence something.
So you should be able to say, you know, let's
do the old cliche about how it might be announced.

(28:38):
The President should be able to say, my fellow Americans,
people of the world, we're not alone, because there's nothing
classified about that under any definition that I know. The
President could then go on to say, but obviously elements
of the technology are incredibly dangerous, and we're not going
to be saying anything about that side of things. So

(29:02):
why hasn't that happened? And this has taken me to
my sort of current position on this. The current position
is that there must be something in and of itself
about the extraterrestrial presence or the NHI presence. If that's
what we're dealing with, that is very very dark side

(29:25):
because if it was easy to disclose, and if people
have known about this since forty seven Roswell, if that's
a start point, then if it was easy, someone would
have done it by now. So one of the again,
what are the few assumptions we can make, is that
it's not easy. If something takes you eighty years and
you still haven't done it. Though some people say we're

(29:46):
chipping away at it, it must be very hard. Why
is it very hard? I think it goes beyond the tech.
The tech is clearly part of it. It's a truism
what we're discussing. I don't think anyone could dispute that
high energy equals weaponization.

Speaker 2 (30:02):
That's a given. But what else is it about this?

Speaker 3 (30:06):
And that's why I have recently become attracted to the
idea that there must be something inherently dark side about,
something about part of this, something that you can't wall off,
something that's so inextricably linked with it that it is
the story so I know that's a little bit.

Speaker 1 (30:29):
No. I think I'm with you all right right up
until the end. And this is where I want to
This is actually great because this is where we can
kind of push the conversation and push the dialogue and
have back and forth about it. Is because I think
that right up until the point where you say, okay, well,
you know, why have they've done it, there must be
a reason why they haven't just come out and said,
here's the situation. We're going to hold back this technology.

(30:51):
But here you go, here's you know, the aliens or
the past civilization or the future humans.

Speaker 4 (30:55):
That told us about this second whatever it is.

Speaker 1 (30:58):
I think the part the answer there is but if
you were to do that, everyone's going to go, wait, no,
you have to give us a technology. What is the
technology that you're hiding there?

Speaker 4 (31:05):
We need to know?

Speaker 1 (31:07):
And then the reason why they can't you would say, okay, well,
just give us the good stuff, but hold back the
dangerous stuff. That's the problem. I think that that's a
Pandora's box where the moment you crack it open. Remember
what I said earlier was that it's this idea that
we could even have a UFO flow it requires this

(31:27):
perception change of the universe. So how the universe works,
we have to see the universe is not empty but
full of energy all around us, because if it is,
then we have no problem understanding how a UFO could fly,
how you could achieve this huge amount of energy. That's
what they can't let happen. In my opinion, and now
this is me kind of going to my conspiracy angle,
is that if we were to be enlightened enough to
understand that, then we our whole universe will open up,

(31:51):
Our perspective of the.

Speaker 4 (31:52):
Universe will open up.

Speaker 1 (31:53):
We might even understand that things like free energy could
then become possible.

Speaker 4 (31:57):
And now what I would say is what's the dark?

Speaker 1 (32:00):
Because I agree there must be a dark reason why
they're not telling us. So here's my twist on that
they've figured this technology out potentially for many decades, they
being a covert elite group of people that is a
combination of people that might be politicians or heads of
very powerful large corporations, energy companies, defense contractors, et cetera.

(32:24):
And they've just decided nobody really else should learn about
it or know about it. And the reason why the
Department of Energy then is involved in the UFO phenomenon
is because they don't want anybody to know about this
huge Pandora's box. And yes, it could lead to things
like free energy and warp drives and wormholes, but it
could also lead to, like you pointed out correctly, the
annihilation of our reality of a black hole that wipes

(32:45):
away our solar system, not just our planet. And if
you look it from that perspective to say, what would
you do if you're the United States government to maintain
military supremacy over this level of technology, which you could
argue is not just control over the oceans or the sky.

Speaker 4 (33:05):
But space time itself.

Speaker 1 (33:08):
You would probably do some really dark things to maintain
supremacy over that. Like some people have said, well JFK
maybe was assassinated because he knew.

Speaker 4 (33:17):
About UFO stuff. But what if you've.

Speaker 1 (33:19):
Conducted illegal black operations against other countries to ensure that
they don't get this UFO technology or whatever it is,
and you've figured it out, you would definitely not want
to tell people about it, because revealing the truth then
about the UFOs is also revealing the truth of what
you've done to use that technology for illegal things. Do

(33:42):
you think that that's too far out there, or do
you think that there could be an element of truth
to that.

Speaker 2 (33:46):
I think they could be an element of truth.

Speaker 3 (33:48):
And I think it gets to a really interesting question
that I haven't heard anyone articulate in quite this sense,
but I'll articulate it now, and maybe they have. If
somebody has, than my apologies to them. I think it
might seem to the public like there's a very fine
line between this, but I would argue that there isn't,

(34:09):
because I would say, you know, the question is this,
if there is this program or programs, are they literally
illegal programs or are they just unacknowledged special access programs
which are on such a limited hold that it's either

(34:31):
the so called Gang of eight or even withheld from
the Gang of Eight and held on a sort of
special presidential directive. And people might say, well, there's not
much difference in what it would look like.

Speaker 2 (34:49):
That may be true. It would still be.

Speaker 3 (34:54):
I guess, managed by a very small select group, but
there's a huge difference in terms of where it would
then sit constitutionally, because it is either legal or.

Speaker 2 (35:03):
It's not legal.

Speaker 3 (35:04):
Now you could say, well, even that, how could you
really say until it was tested in court. But I think,
you know, there are precedents for presidential directives on certain
matters where something can even be withheld from the Gang
of Eight, And now I think to withhold something from

(35:27):
the Gang of Eight or their predecessors, because of course
that's not something that dates back to nineteen forty seven.
To have something that would be on that limited a
hold for decades would be very, very difficult. So let's
suppose it's Gang of Eight level and historical equivalent further
back in time. You know, that wouldn't make it an

(35:53):
illegal program, but.

Speaker 2 (35:54):
I think it is.

Speaker 3 (35:55):
You know, it might sound like semantics to people, but
it's actually a very important question because because if it
is a legal program, then those those controls can be challenged,
and a new administration coming in, particularly one which is

(36:15):
moving very quickly and radically like the administration now, might
just push back on that. But if this is an
literally an illegal program, well the point is that even
people within government who you would think would be running
it might not even be aware of it.

Speaker 1 (36:38):
Yeah, And I just for the audience who's not familiar
with the Gang of Eight references, like I researched, like
basically anybody in office who might know about UFO stuff
to have a general background on it. And so the
gang of it would be like the Senate Intelligence Committee,
the people that might be briefed on the existence of
you know, like advanced technologies, they have to know for

(36:59):
you know, their role in that committee. Also, just in
terms of like the historical suppression I found, you know,
the Atomic Secrecy Act, it could be possible that you know,
just like with the atomic bomb, I don't think anybody
would believe, I'm looking for my coin here that the
atomic bomb existed unless we had set it off. And
what that taught us was that like even in the

(37:22):
mass of this tiny coin, there's a huge amount of energy.
Like that's the concept that that taught us that we
kind of our concept of the universe change. But what if,
like the atomic atomic bomb was like one side of
this coin and they figured out another side and the
other side of that coin is like they don't need
the coin at all, that just like the empty space

(37:43):
in this region has enough energy that they can create
a bomb if they wanted, and they just decided never
to tell anybody that they could have kept it secret
under the Atomic Secrecy Act, and therefore anything related to
it could have been kept secret, and then the Invention
Secrecy Act in combination. These are in the early fifties,
These could be used in combination to keep it secret.

(38:04):
And then to go to your point of the unacknowledged programs,
that was a that's a great point in my opinion,
because there are all these unacknowledged programs that are out there,
but they're not being directly managed by the government, even
the Department of Energy, all the labs, they're all managed
by a third party company and it's a nonprofit government

(38:25):
entity or something a non government entity or something like this,
so they can shield all this information from foyer requests,
from any type of like oversight and stuff like that
as well. So you look at all this and I go, well,
this is exactly set up to like have figured this
technology out, worked on it, suppressed it. And then the
last thing, and this is where I would ask you
a question, is I found out something called bigot lists.

Speaker 4 (38:46):
Which is basically lists of people who.

Speaker 1 (38:48):
Are read in on these acknowledged un knowledged programs, and
it doesn't even have military people on them. Apparently a
lot of times like that, like generals aren't read in
Navy like admirals aren't read in. It wouldn't surprised me
to your point, to find out that the president's not
read in on many different programs that are out there.

Speaker 4 (39:05):
But they would maybe get read in on like a
need to know basis.

Speaker 1 (39:09):
So if I look at all this and I go,
oh boy, okay, well, it certainly seems possible that there
could be a narrative where, you know, aliens might be real,
but they're also using aliens to blame aliens for this
crazy technology that we've figured out and these secret programs,
and only a select number of people really know the truth,
so it makes it really hard to get even if
anyone wanted to get the truth out, to get it

(39:31):
out there, and then the alien thing would be more
of like just a covering that part up. Do you
think that that might be what's going on with all
this or do you think that that's not possible?

Speaker 2 (39:41):
No?

Speaker 3 (39:42):
Sure, And I think the point you made about the
private sector is very important. I mean, it's you know,
it doesn't of course all sorts of private sector entities
are constantly called to testify to Congress. But again, there
are there are degrees with this, and I think I

(40:03):
think one one example that might be worth people's time
looking into. And I don't I don't know whether you're
familiar with this, and I don't know whether people watching
this will have heard of it, but it's it's I
haven't mentioned this very often because there are still sensitivities

(40:24):
about it, but there's a really interesting model as to
what the program might look like and where it where
it might sit. And there was a group of was
a group of people informally known as the Enterprise, which
which is kind of another Star Trek reference, but but
that's not the context that this was meant. But these

(40:48):
these were a group of about half a dozen people
at middle to senior level across a range of different
organizations do OD, CIA, et cetera. And in the end,
it all unraveled and quite a lot of them some

(41:11):
of them ended up in jail.

Speaker 2 (41:13):
But some didn't.

Speaker 3 (41:16):
And if people look at the Enterprise, and they had
their roots in things that went on in the Vietnam War,
but it was still kind of going on and segued
into some of the Iran contra.

Speaker 2 (41:32):
Narrative. But and I realized that's not exactly what.

Speaker 3 (41:37):
You asked me, But I think it's very relevant in
terms of what a program might look like and where
it might sit. Given that we discussed the fact that
some of this might not be in government, the enterprise
kind of was. I think you would describe it as
quasi governmental, And there was always and I don't want
to lapse into too many cliche terms, but there was

(41:59):
always this paucible deniability about it. Yeah, but like I say,
some some DoD some CIA. It's it's worth people's time
to do a little bit of reading about the enterprise.
People can look out the names, but it's colins.

Speaker 4 (42:20):
I was just gonna say.

Speaker 1 (42:20):
The plausible deniability aspect to me seems extremely important because
that's how if anything goes wrong, the people in power
can just say, hey, we had nothing to do with this.
And then, from what you were saying earlier in terms
of like is this even illegal or legal, that's a
great point. More people should probably talk about that, like
is what's going.

Speaker 4 (42:40):
On even legal?

Speaker 1 (42:41):
I would argue that they've got it set up in
a way where most of the stuff that's happening is
probably illgal. I mean, the only reason why I'm doing
this stuff on a podcast is that I believe the
US government pulled off a covert operation a civilian airliner,
which I think a lot of people.

Speaker 4 (42:54):
Would say is a war crime. But if you really look.

Speaker 1 (42:56):
At the legality of it, international waters and what have you,
it's like it actually gets a lot fuzzier than that.
And that's one of the more clear cutcases versus just
generally you know, having produced you know, UFO technology, which
is like a victimless crime, you could argue. So I
think it's gonna get really murky. But this is another

(43:17):
dark aspect of the phenomenon that I wanted to ask
you about, is that what if it turns out that
it is real.

Speaker 4 (43:25):
We've let's say, we've reverse.

Speaker 1 (43:26):
Engineered this craft that landed in Roswell or we crashed
in Roswell or what have you, and we gave it
to whoever became Lockheed Martin. So locked Martin has a
craft and they were reverse engineering it and they figured
out that all these breakthroughs. And now we're like wanting
to reveal that what happens to Lockheed Martin when we

(43:48):
reveal that, yes, this is all true, they've got a craft.
Do you think, like in my thought process would be
that they're going to get sued out of existence because
all their competitors who didn't get a UFO craft or
reverse engineer, who are going to argue in court that
like the government helped them out and gave them this

(44:08):
craft and it turned them into a trillion dollar company.

Speaker 4 (44:11):
Like, what are your thoughts?

Speaker 3 (44:14):
Well, I suspect the people at Lockheed when this technology
was transferred, if that's what happened, were smart enough to
know that they needed some sort of They needed a
piece of paper, you know, and you have this for Exampleaul,
I know a little bit about this in relation to

(44:35):
going to war without getting into the rights or wrongs
of it. When there was the Second Gulf War, certainly
in the United Kingdom, the Chief of the Defense Staff,
so the equivalent, the UK equivalent of the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs, said basically to Tony Blair, the then

(45:01):
Prime Minister, you know, I'm absolutely going to follow the
order and you know, deploy, but I need a piece
of paper to say that it's legal and so.

Speaker 4 (45:16):
And so.

Speaker 3 (45:17):
I yeah, and rightly so, because otherwise, you know, we
were in the era of the International Criminal Court and
he was just protecting his people.

Speaker 2 (45:27):
He said, I need a piece of paper to.

Speaker 3 (45:29):
Say it's legal, and well, I won't go down that
road because there were a lot of dramas. But bringing
it back to what we were discussing, I'm sure Lockheed
or whoever it was, would have said I need a
piece of paper, a presidential directive or something, so I
suspect they will be all right. That being said, as

(45:49):
I mentioned earlier, you don't really know whether something is
legal or not. You can have a belief that it's legal,
but until and unless it's challenged in court and a
judge decides on it, then arguably you're in a gray area.
But this is very important because this goes back to,

(46:11):
of course, what nearly happened a little while ago with
the Schumer Rounds Amendment. And as you will recall, the
Schumer Rounds Amendment with its what was it, twenty four
mentions of the term NHI in it was to have
gone in to the National Defense Authorization Act, but for

(46:35):
a number of reasons didn't. But one of the provisions
in the Schumer Rounds Amendment was eminent domain. And what
that would have done is it would have mandated the
US government to take back any NHI technology, any biologics,

(46:58):
all of the above. But it had had at some
point but had then passed into the private sector, and
it's very interesting that that didn't happen.

Speaker 4 (47:11):
Yeah, so I love the idea. I want to live
in the universe some of them.

Speaker 1 (47:16):
Some people say that like we can manifest our consciousness
can manifest reality. I am going to focus one hundred
percent of my effort in a reality where Lockeed Martin
pulls up a piece of paper that says President Truman
signed off on this UFO release of technology. You can't
hold us liable for getting this UFO because.

Speaker 4 (47:34):
That would just be amazing.

Speaker 1 (47:36):
But honestly, I'm glad you switched over the Schumer Amendment
thing because I've been speculating that they're going to use
some law like that, if not that, to give amnesty
to all the people that have been working on this technology,
figured it out, used it for like sketchy purposes, because,
like what you said, whether.

Speaker 4 (47:57):
Or not it's legal or not is really going to
be a matter.

Speaker 1 (47:59):
Of probably which administration is in charge, what their viewpoints are.
It becomes all politics at that point, so it's gonna
get really sticky. The whole point of bringing this up
was to show people that really UFO disclosures is a
lot more complicated than just like, hey, aliens are real guys.

Speaker 4 (48:17):
Like it's going to get into this sticky situation.

Speaker 1 (48:20):
So I want you to comment on that, but also
just to ask, like, do you think that Trump administration
is going You said they can change some of this stuff,
they have some controls. Do you think they are going
to change some aspect of UFO disclosure.

Speaker 3 (48:35):
If any president is going to disclose against the advice
of the deep state, the bureaucracy, the civil service, whatever
you call it, if any president's going to do it,
it's going to be Trump in a second term, because
just everything that we've seen in really the first few
days of this administration shows you how radical this is.

(48:59):
But there's another interesting point which actually goes back to
the last days of the Biden administration. It speaks to
your point about amnesty. The president can give a pardon,
and that you could say, and this is the actually,
this is the exception to my point that you don't
know if it's legal or not until it gets to

(49:21):
court and it's tested. Well, it won't even get to
court if there's that Gordian knot solution of a retrospective
presidential pardon. Now, we saw one of President Biden's very
last actions was to give Fauci a pardon, which I
think went back to correct me if I'm wrong, but

(49:43):
twenty fourteen whatever it was. But there's no reason why
a radical second term president like Trump couldn't say, in
relation to UAP, I am giving a retrospective part to
anyone who has been involved in this program, even if

(50:06):
they have committed offenses which are illegal. I mean, it
would just and in fact, you don't want to get
down into the weeds. The most effective presidential pardon is
just a very general one saying you have a pardon
and it's back dated. That really is a get out

(50:28):
of jail free card. Now, you know a lot of
people in the UFO community. I think Steve Bassett's talked
about it. Danny Sheen, who of course is a lawyer,
has talked about it, have said what if and there
are a lot of what ifs here, But what.

Speaker 2 (50:42):
If people have.

Speaker 3 (50:45):
You know, been responsible for well, David Grush testified under
oath in Congress that people have been as he put it,
harmed whatever that means in the keeping of this secret.
What if the whole abduction thing is real and people
have been subjected to nonconsensual experiences because the state decreed

(51:08):
that it was going to do a deal. I'm speculating,
but a lot of people say that this has happened. Well,
you know, all those issues that sound very very complicated
instantly become extremely simple if you get a blanket presidential
pardon backdated.

Speaker 1 (51:28):
Yeah, And I think that's the problem though, is that
from the perspective, And this is why I was challenging
the perspective of maybe the dark secret isn't it could
be alien related, but maybe it's not just alien really,
maybe the dark secrets us as well, you know, and
what we've done because I think that it's like okay, well,
you know, here's the example is like, what if we

(51:48):
either disintegrated or annihilated a commercial airliner with UFO technology.
It's like, okay, well, now we just killed hundreds of people.
This is even beyond just the surprise of a single person.
What if we've actually performed operations government operations with UFO technology.
Now it's like, okay, how do you your pardon?

Speaker 2 (52:07):
Now?

Speaker 1 (52:08):
Where do you draw the line in your pardon? You
got to have a thing in the party that says Okay,
if you like actually like killed anybody, you can't this
parton doesn't apply to you. But it's even gonna get
murky then, and the lines of murkiness are just never ending.
And then to some degree it won't even matter because
the court of public opinion takes over at some point,
like even if you pardon somebody, if they find out

(52:28):
that you did something horrible, you know, like like abductions,
like if you abduct if you were abducting people and
it turns out that they can prove that you were
actually responsible and coordinate abductions or not you but whoever
out there, you know, public court of publican opinion is
not going to care if you've got a pardon, you know.
And so that's the part where I think it becomes.

Speaker 4 (52:48):
Like, if that's the truth, it actually.

Speaker 1 (52:50):
Kind of explains the sticky situation we're in right now,
cause there has to be some reason why it's not
just easy, you know, push it out there. So we've
kind of covered a few of those reasons right now.
And one of the other reasons I want to I
want to just make sure we get some time for
as well, is the dark side of or actually there's

(53:10):
one more quote.

Speaker 4 (53:11):
I want to ask you about that.

Speaker 1 (53:12):
Then we're gonna get in the dark side of what
the ETS situation, non human intelligence situation could be. Is
that you're probably famili with a guy named ben Rich.
He was director of Lockey Martin Skunkworks for many years,
and he's you know, in the if you look on
social media, see a lot of quotes and references to him,
And you know, my favorite is he says, whatever you

(53:32):
could imagine that we could have, you could have seen
on TV or.

Speaker 4 (53:35):
What have you.

Speaker 1 (53:36):
We've already had the capability to do it, but it's
been locked up in black projects and would take an
act of God to get that information out.

Speaker 3 (53:42):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (53:43):
There's another clip where someone was asking him about you know,
I'll just paraphrase basically saying like, how can this all
be possible that we have like you're making crazy claims?

Speaker 4 (53:51):
How's this all possible? And ben Rich responds to the
guy and says, well, how is ESP possible?

Speaker 1 (53:59):
Which is kind of an common to me. And the
guy kind of thinks about it for a second and goes, well,
all points in space and time are connected, and he says,
exactly what are your.

Speaker 4 (54:10):
Thoughts on that?

Speaker 3 (54:12):
Yeah, I've heard some debate about those ben Rich quotes
and whether he was meaning them literally or whether he was,
you know, either literally joking or making a more light hearted,
nebulous kind of speculative metaphor or something. So I don't

(54:34):
I really can't speak to that, but sure, I mean
that there is a lot of tech out there and
a lot of things that some people may understand and
the rest of us, me immortals, don't. And it brings
me on to one other point, which may or may

(54:55):
not be connected with any of this, which I sort
of throw into the conversation. I'm sure you've noticed, because
I certainly have.

Speaker 4 (55:05):
That.

Speaker 2 (55:05):
You know, you watch the narrative.

Speaker 3 (55:07):
Unfold, and you watch what I would say is clearly
a struggle for narrative control, even if the people are
ostensibly quite friendly. But you look at all the players,
and then you look at the narrative. And one thing
that I've noticed, almost literally in the last couple of weeks,
is how much the religiosity of this has suddenly ramped up.

Speaker 2 (55:30):
Suddenly everything is about.

Speaker 3 (55:34):
You know, Chris Bledsoe and Diana Pisulker and the Lady
and and all of that. And I'm not I'm not
drawing any conclusions from that. But when I, as a
government guy, suddenly see the narrative do a subtle but
noticeable change. There's there's clearly been a little course correction,

(55:59):
I ask myself why that's happening, and I make a
note for myself that something interesting has just happened.

Speaker 4 (56:09):
H Wow, interesting perspective. Yeah, I want to comment to that.

Speaker 1 (56:13):
So let's we'll hold the et thing for a second,
because this goes into another one of the questions I
was going to ask, is that So for me, I
believe that ben Rich was one hundred percent telling the
truth there. It's such a weird thing his thing to say,
and then to back it up and not to like
make it obviously laughing obvious that he was joking or
something like that, especially given the position.

Speaker 4 (56:32):
That he was in. And the reason why I'm.

Speaker 1 (56:35):
Sure, in my opinion, is because I've also spent the
time to talk to the engineers like Salvator Paist, who
has the UFO patents. He's a friend of mine now
from after having talked to him, I've spoken like Harvard
physicist Aviy Lobe, even though, like I, you know, he
doesn't necessarily know about black projects, but to like really
understand the physics of it and come to the conclusion

(56:55):
that like they've figured this out, like the UFO, the Navy,
I think has figured this out, and these contracts because
these guys like Pais also worked with like Lock Northrop
Grumman as well a lot of people in the UFO community.

Speaker 4 (57:08):
They're more focused on talking to.

Speaker 1 (57:10):
Like whistleblowers, people that, like you know, they have stories,
which is great if it's real or like you said,
but the narrative that's being pushed right now, like I
think Chris Bledsoe is pushing this like the Second Coming
of Christ kind of narrative, and Diana Posulka, I think,
also digs deep into the religiosity aspect of it. You
know that worries me, and I want to know your

(57:32):
opinion on this because I'm always very clear to people
in terms of what I've been putting my con out
that this is not a religion, This is not a
cult that I'm doing. I'm just teaching people science and
showing people the evidence, letting them come to their own conclusions,
Versus when you're telling people's stories and you're trying to
guide their perception, like to me, I'm very afraid of
that happening around the UFO phenomenon, not just from the

(57:54):
alien aspect, but also from like the transhuman aspect related
to technology as well, and I want people to try
to stay grounded in, you know, reality on some of
that stuff, because I fear what that can do to
our society if we if we develop this like cult
like thinking around it.

Speaker 4 (58:11):
What are your thoughts.

Speaker 3 (58:13):
I completely share your concerns about that, and it's it's
one of the reasons I mentioned it in our conversation
today because I think it is it's interesting, and it's important,
and it's concerning I think, and it's the other thing is, frankly,
it's a gift to the skeptics because the skeptics will
just turn around and say, well, look, they're just trying

(58:34):
to create a new religion out of this. And we've
we have seen literal UFO and extraterrestrial religions of course before,
with things.

Speaker 2 (58:44):
Like the reliance.

Speaker 3 (58:46):
And there's no getting away from the fact that one
one I won't say easy, but if you pull it off,
very effective way of gaining simultaneously a lot of power
and a lot of money is to create a new religion,
and I share your concern that some aspects of what

(59:11):
we're seeing now is sounding very much like a new religion.
And I mean there's always been, of course, a new age,
I'll call it a wing on the belief spectrum. There's
always been a part of the UFO community has always
been very new age of the Space Brothers. The Space

(59:32):
Sisters are here to save us from ourselves, to prevent
pollution of the planet, extermination of biodiversity, and to stop
nuclear war, and to usher us into that galactic federation
we were talking about earlier in our conversation. That's always
been there, but I think there's been, as I say,
a ramping up of this, and some of this is

(59:53):
getting almost literally, you know, messianic with with this, like
literally talking about the Second Coming. And then, of course,
who do the kind of proponents of this theory then become,
if not the profits of this new religion. And that

(01:00:14):
may not be. It doesn't even have to be deliberate
to be unfortunate, because I think we see we see
all too often in the world. You know, religion is
an incredibly powerful tool, and we see on a daily
basis the kind of real world horrific outcomes that result

(01:00:39):
from differences in beliefs. So should we really be saying, Hey,
what the world needs is another religion? I'm saying, no, wait, stop,
you know what are you doing here? And I'm kind
of laughing about it, but it's a kind of laugh
at at the absurdity of it in a sense, not funny, haha.

(01:01:01):
But the whole ramping up at the religious narrative around
this causes me huge concern.

Speaker 1 (01:01:11):
Yeah, I'm with you, And I'm also worried a little
bit about the sensationalism that happens as well. You know,
I think that that happened a lot with the egg
UFO disclosure thing, where I think that if it wasn't
sensationalized to being talked up to be in the next
big thing or this was going to give a disclosure, I.

Speaker 4 (01:01:26):
Think it would have been great. I think it'd have
been a great story.

Speaker 1 (01:01:28):
But instead they hyped it up to be like, oh,
we're gonna have a video of a UFO craft, but
it's just we can't tell what it is or anything
like that. Do you concern Are you concerned about that
at all in terms of like where ufology is headed
right now? It doesn't feel very scientific based to me
when I look out there at the field.

Speaker 3 (01:01:48):
No, I don't know what to make you. Jake Barber,
I haven't met him. I've seen some interviews, of course,
I've seen as if we all have. I'm sure everyone
watching this we've seen the egg video. I would say
about that what I would say about almost any photos
and videos these days, In these days of AI, you

(01:02:10):
just can't You just really can't tell anymore. And people say, well,
there are programs out there that can can tell if
something's AI generated or not. It just you get locked
into an arms race. It's like missile. You develop a missile,
then you develop an anti missile, then you develop an
anti anti missile, and it's like, yeah, well, I'm sure

(01:02:31):
there are ways of getting around the AI detectors using AI.
So that's a very long winded way of saying I
don't trust my eyes, and no pictures, whether there's still
images or videos purporting to be of UAP, are really
going to convince me. Because I've seen Hollywood movies that

(01:02:54):
look great, and if someone presented that and said, hey,
this is a declassified US military image.

Speaker 2 (01:03:01):
Of UAP, it would look great.

Speaker 3 (01:03:04):
But we know, Hollywood can do it, and if Hollywood
can do it, other people can do it too, or
Hollywood can do it for the US government. So pictures,
you know, people used to say a picture paints you know,
is worth a thousand words, but it really isn't these days.
I think, you know what we need what we need,

(01:03:25):
and I'm not saying this is the single answer, but
we need Congress to continue to do what it has
started to do to try to identify these people, verify
their information, and then hold the government to account for this.

Speaker 4 (01:03:45):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:03:46):
I got to go in a different direction with you
on that one. Ah well, I mean I agree with
you can't really believe anything that you see anymore. Is
I get caught with seeing and believing fake stuff all
the time because everything's so it's hard to tell these
days with AI and everything, you know, so definitely happens.
I agree in that front. But the problem is more
people telling stories.

Speaker 4 (01:04:05):
I was this, I was that I how.

Speaker 1 (01:04:07):
To communicate telepathic communication with this alien or whatever, you know,
And it doesn't have to be that sensationalist. But more stories,
I don't think, are pushing the needle anymore like we need.
It's like this was getting my questions, like, how do
we even achieve disclosure in a world where stories aren't
good enough? But we also can't really believe what we
see with our eyes. And to take even a step further,

(01:04:28):
just to be honest with you, if Joe Biden had
come out and said, hey, aliens are real, I'd pretty
much be sure they're not anymore.

Speaker 4 (01:04:34):
At that point.

Speaker 1 (01:04:34):
So I can't really trust any branch of any of
these things.

Speaker 4 (01:04:38):
How do we achieve disclosure? What are your what are
your thoughts?

Speaker 3 (01:04:42):
I you're articulating a very real problem, and I don't
I don't have an answer to it, because you're right.
I could push back and say, well, Congress does vet
these people before before anyone gets anywhere near even talking
to a congressional representative, they will usually go through one

(01:05:04):
or more staffers who will look into their background, and
so before any of these people testify, a good deal
of vetting has has gone on. And I've been peripherally involved.
I once had a job in the Directorate of Defense Security.

(01:05:24):
I didn't do vetting, but the people that did vetting
we were in a nearby part of the organization, and
of course I was vetted myself, for example, to get
various security clearances, so that vetting is part of the answer.

(01:05:45):
But yes, even with vetting, I agree with you, it
is just more stories. And then you hit the problem
of the polarization of our society. And you mentioned, you know,
if Joe Biden had said, as his almost his last action, okay,
there's an alien presence, half of the population wouldn't.

Speaker 2 (01:06:05):
Have believed it.

Speaker 3 (01:06:07):
Conversely, I'll flip it and I'll say, if President Trump
were now to disclose, the other half of the population
would probably say.

Speaker 2 (01:06:16):
Well, I don't believe it.

Speaker 3 (01:06:17):
It's some sinister Maga plot, you know, probably of part
of Project twenty twenty five, only this time it's Project
twenty twenty seven, with all this talk.

Speaker 2 (01:06:30):
Of whatever's gonna happen in twenty twenty seven.

Speaker 1 (01:06:35):
So even the mag even the Maga people, even half
of them, wouldn't believe it. Even half of them would
be like, oh, no, Trump got bought out by the
Lizard people.

Speaker 4 (01:06:41):
Now, crap.

Speaker 1 (01:06:42):
So that's why that wouldn't even work either, Like there's
no like we're just kind of stuck in this era.
But I do think there might be video evidence that
could convince people, you know, in that hearing, Tim Galladat,
who was a former Rear admiral I believe, and also
Michael Shallenberger who's a journalist but he was I think

(01:07:04):
speaking on behalf of a whistleblower that was not coming
that's not going public. They both said that we've got
some archive called Immaculate Constellation that is got hundreds or
thousands of satellite videos and other surveillance that we've collected.
And I looked into our surveillance or like you know,
US surveillance systems in the last year and a half,

(01:07:25):
and we do we do have crazy stuff like that,
So I'm not I have no doubt we have stuff
where like if we were to release it, it would
be people would probably be able to deny like one
or two videos, but if they were released like a dozen,
it would just make them obvious that we were going
to see go ahead.

Speaker 2 (01:07:41):
Maybe.

Speaker 3 (01:07:42):
But even then, I mean, we've we've had, you know,
from from the sort of start of this going mainstream
in December twenty seventeen with the New York Times article.
We very quickly had those three US Navy videos, but
we incidantly had pushback from people like mcwest putting alternative

(01:08:05):
hypotheses forward for that. And let's just suppose immaculate constellation
is true and we suddenly get not three videos.

Speaker 2 (01:08:15):
But you know, thirty or three hundred videos.

Speaker 3 (01:08:19):
There'll still be some people that say, so what, it's
just more of the same, which brings us to one
possible answer to all of this is going to be
that it's going to be science, but it's going to
be for example, astronomy. And one answer to the question

(01:08:41):
we were talking about what gets you into the Galactic Federation?
Another question, Let's flip the question and say, at what
point does the government, if they are gatekeepers of this,
not keep it secret anymore? And one possible answer to
that question is the point which the secret can no

(01:09:01):
longer be kept. And let's just suppose that, for example,
James web Space telescope suddenly looks in the right place
and somewhere orbiting a very nearby star they find, you know,
a Dyson sphere or something like that. It's something that's
not just a bio signature but a techno signature, and

(01:09:26):
it's repeatable, and it's you know, it fulfills all the
criteria of the scientific method in terms of falsifiability, and
repeatability and et cetera. Maybe that's the threshold. Maybe that's
what's going to push us over the line. And of

(01:09:46):
course there have been rumors. You'll have heard the rumors.
They've been around for at least a year now, Rumors
that James Webspace Telescope has found something.

Speaker 4 (01:10:00):
Wouldn't surprise me at all.

Speaker 1 (01:10:01):
I spoke to Professor Simon Holland you should speak to
him if you haven't.

Speaker 4 (01:10:05):
Actually, you guys will definitely get along. Oh yeah, you have.

Speaker 1 (01:10:08):
Yeah, a great guy, and he's got connections the people
that worked in SETI and like the European version of SETI,
And yeah, he's pretty much told me. I think we've
got recorded that said, like his contacts say like absolutely,
we've had communications, we potentially have faster like communication, and
they're hiding that as well. I think you're right that
probably the only time we'll get disclosure, if we're being

(01:10:29):
really honest with ourselves, is when they can't keep it
secret anymore. And then it's just a matter of like
what does it can't keep a secret anymore?

Speaker 4 (01:10:36):
Look like?

Speaker 1 (01:10:37):
And that's a hard question because I think that you know,
even if we see something up there, like like you said,
there's always gonna be the skeptics that are gonna be
able to try to, you know, cast mud or doubt
on whatever the evidence is of something abnormal. And that's
where I think you're right. We have to use science.
And I wasn't gonna bring all this up, but I

(01:11:00):
I want to show you what my hall passes on
that because I just want people out there to realize,
like I think, there are ways where we can use
science and we can achieve disclosure if we were to
just get the right kind of video evidence that would
support it. Because in science, we've got the thing about
science that our understanding of the universe right now that

(01:11:23):
might be limited, is that we think that space is
potentially empty. And in this video, just for these few
seconds here you see endothermic propulsion and you also see
an endothermic event. This event is black. The point being
this is a thermal video, and any type of event

(01:11:44):
that we were to see that was conventional from our
perspective of physics, we would expect this to be white
hot type of event or release of energy. If we
see something like this, if those the videos from twenty seventy,
those videos showed propulsion like this or the cameras could
pick up that. I think that just from a scientific perspective,

(01:12:09):
we don't need anything else beyond that. That's all I
think that we need from the scientific perspective, and my
argument being that the smart physicists and what have you,
they're gonna be able to figure out just from videos
with that much detail what it is we're missing from
our perspective of the universe. And that's what scares me.

(01:12:30):
That's why my opinion is that they must have figured
it out. They must have figured it out, and then
they're hiding that those puzzle pieces from us, and that's
why they also don't want us to see the immaculate
constellation videos. And then one last thought is I also
think that this is why they're filming in flear the
forward looking in for red. I remember having like being

(01:12:51):
so confused looking at those DoD Navy videos until that
was all explained to me that, oh, it's infrared and
we're using these special cameras, and I'm like, why are
we why are we use in that? And then you
go all the wait, if we're looking at UFOs and
we can see some special physics property of them using
these videos, then it all starts to make sense.

Speaker 4 (01:13:09):
What are your thoughts?

Speaker 2 (01:13:11):
Sure?

Speaker 3 (01:13:12):
Yeah, I mean, as you know, there's a whole branch
of of intelligence called masin which is measurement and signature analysis.
It's intelligence, pardon me, and and so you know that
that can can you know, depending on which definition you use,
can they cover an awful lot of these these ways

(01:13:36):
of of gathering data and then analyzing data, whether it's
using using conventional radar, whether it's using flear, whatever it is.

Speaker 2 (01:13:47):
Now.

Speaker 3 (01:13:47):
Of course, you know, some people will say that you
can only of course get the data that that your
your sensor platforms are configured to collect. I mean, that's
kind of a truism, and that has led some people
who've been brief in Congress to suggest to Congress that

(01:14:09):
they put into the National Defense Authorization Act, which they
have the idea that you need in different kinds of sensors,
because what we've generally found with a lot of this
is that we're dealing with accidental capture and it's kind
of a mindset issue. It's like we only realized how

(01:14:31):
much how prevalent UAP were when we started to pick
them up when we weren't really looking for them. All
our systems, of course, were configured on very conventional threats.
All our radar systems. People say, well, why don't we,
you know, detect things coming from from the upper atmosphere
down with radar systems, because our radar systems are generally

(01:14:53):
looking for a conventional attack from Russia or China, you know,
I mean, it's literally pointed in the wrong direction. So
now there is this mindset that, wait, we've been missing something,
and if this is more prevalent than we thought, we
need to Firstly, we need to do three things. Firstly,

(01:15:16):
we need to change our mindset. That's almost the most
important thing of all. You won't find something if you're
not even looking for it. But then you need to
reconfigure the sensor platforms that you have and point them
in the right direction. And then the third thing that
you need to do, which Congress is is kind of

(01:15:36):
alive to, is.

Speaker 2 (01:15:37):
That you need to design new.

Speaker 3 (01:15:41):
Kind of sensor platforms so that you can get the
data you need. And it's those data that are going
to maybe push you over the line with this. But
you know, just rounding that off and rewinding one point
that I didn't make about how all this might suddenly

(01:16:02):
kind of come out. Is of course, if the phenomenon itself.
You know, when we talk about what the trigger point is,
whether it's for joining a galactic federation or for disclosure
or whatever, well, let's not forget that the phenomenon itself
has a say in this, one might logically presume. So

(01:16:22):
there might be a point where the phenomenon, perhaps for
the same reason realizing that even it cannot really operate
unseen anymore, just decides okay, then secrecy becomes redundant.

Speaker 1 (01:16:39):
Yeah, And for me, it's like, I don't know exactly
where this comes from, but I'm pretty convinced that we've
got this technology.

Speaker 4 (01:16:48):
How to get it out.

Speaker 1 (01:16:49):
Seems like a huge, complex web and a mess. I
think that the last topic I want to broach on
is the more fantastical side of it, which is, okay
if there is this dark aspect of it. I think
there must be a dark aspect of it, because they
would have otherwise let it out. I think there's absolutely
got to be UFOs going on, whether or not there's
some US, some aliens, or some other.

Speaker 4 (01:17:11):
Non human intelligence explanation.

Speaker 1 (01:17:12):
I think there can be multiple answers, and the weird
part is the more I learned, the less I know,
the less sure I am about where I think the
nature of it is coming from. But it's fun to speculate,
and so if there is some dark aspect, I want
to explore a few ideas that we can kind of
come up with. The one that scares me the most
is this idea of a prison planet, where like, if

(01:17:33):
there is a threshold, for example, that we have to
get above, Like if we're not above that threshold, you're
on the prison planet and you're not part of the party.
You're not in the club. And until you can show
that you're above that threshold and that you're like maybe
a non violent species or whatever, however, society has to
be arranged.

Speaker 4 (01:17:49):
You just don't get to come into the club.

Speaker 1 (01:17:51):
And if you get too out of hand, we come
in and we just spank you a little bit till
you go back, you know, down. Like what do you
think about that the prison plan in it type scenario?

Speaker 3 (01:18:02):
Absolutely, I think it goes back to the point that
I was making about if a dominant idea or belief
system has emerged in the universe, then that might represent.

Speaker 2 (01:18:15):
A sort of order that is imposed.

Speaker 3 (01:18:20):
That would then mean that civilizations are only accepted in
when when they have demonstrated themselves capable of operating to
that order. And I mentioned that it might be moral,
and so you know, you can have all sorts of
speculation about what it might be. It might be something
that we regard as quite trivial. But let's just suppose

(01:18:44):
that a dominant narrative has emerged in the universe that
we would we would characterize us as, say, veganism for example.
You know, I sort of I don't want to frame
it in a religious sense, but I will for.

Speaker 2 (01:19:00):
The purposes of this.

Speaker 3 (01:19:01):
Let's suppose that the dominant kind of belief system in
the universe is thou shalt not eat something else which
is alive, and that any civilization that does that is
regarded as as disgusting, as primitive. You know, and I'm
not vegan or vegetarian myself. I'm just using this as

(01:19:21):
an example that we really have no idea what that
dominant theme or belief might be. But it does seem
logical that you know, dominant or we see again watch
for the anthropocentrism, but that you know, you would say

(01:19:41):
that most societies on Earth have have developed, whether it's
a legal and or a moral code, but you know
you shouldn't kill fellow human beings. Well, of course, we
kill people all the time.

Speaker 2 (01:19:57):
For all sorts of reasons.

Speaker 3 (01:19:58):
And then you could say, there's an even more dominant
belief that says you shouldn't kill a child. But again,
children are killed all the time in warfare, usually inadvertently,
but sometimes by people who are pathological and sometimes through a.

Speaker 1 (01:20:17):
Let me, let me take a dark twist on this,
is that what if the moral requirement to get over
the threshold is not what if the moral requirement to
get over the threshold is totalitarianism? Where now your choice is,

(01:20:38):
if you want full disclosure of the technology and non
human intelligence, you have to become a totalitarian society. A
completely collective is society where nobody steps out of line,
and that's what's required. Would you still want it, yell?
If I give you that choice, go ahead, No.

Speaker 3 (01:20:57):
So it And it's a very you make it very
interesting point because it goes back to the idea that
a dominant belief system in the universe might be something
completely unintended, alien to what we would would require. It
might be something that we regard fundamentally as a bad thing,

(01:21:19):
so you know, the threshold, or it might be something
so bizarre and abstract that it would seem to us
completely foolish or ridiculous. There's no reason why a dominant
idea has to necessarily be a moral one or even

(01:21:40):
a logical one. History shows us that from time to time,
you know, not on a whole world scale, but certainly
on an empire scale, all sorts of abhorrent ideas become
the accepted norm, like child sacrifice. Many many civilizations in
human history practiced child sacrifice.

Speaker 2 (01:22:02):
Now we would regard.

Speaker 3 (01:22:03):
It as, as you know, absolutely reprehensible, but for a
time in human history, it was a dominant belief system.

Speaker 1 (01:22:13):
Yeah, and that's where it worries me, because I fear
that we're talking about the dark sides of it and
we're trying to come up with rationales for why you
keep it secret.

Speaker 4 (01:22:24):
That would be a pretty good reason if it.

Speaker 1 (01:22:26):
Turns out, Hey, yeah, there is a galactic Federation, but
they're basically space Nazis, you know, I mean, I'm exaggerating,
but they're completely totalitarian.

Speaker 4 (01:22:34):
Everybody.

Speaker 1 (01:22:35):
You have to give up all your freedoms everybody like
that is a pretty big deal for a lot of
people out there, and I could see why that would
be a type of dark situation where it's like you get,
here's this great thing.

Speaker 4 (01:22:46):
You get all this energy, but it comes with.

Speaker 1 (01:22:48):
A pretty heavy cost, pretty heavy burden.

Speaker 4 (01:22:51):
So that's one.

Speaker 1 (01:22:53):
I have three different scenarios I kind of want to
judge with you, and I love your take on that
as well.

Speaker 4 (01:22:58):
The second one is what fits AI.

Speaker 1 (01:23:01):
Now, we've seen the advance of AI, and this is
where I want your perspective because you're even a little
bit older than I am, and so you've kind of
seen this whole evolution of computers and technology. To me,
AI has come out of nowhere and its evolution is exponential.
It feels like and if it has access to an
exotic energy source that maybe UFOs have figured out, aliens

(01:23:23):
figure out, it potentially could take off. And the speed
at which it's happening blows my mind.

Speaker 4 (01:23:29):
And then if you look at physics, there's.

Speaker 1 (01:23:31):
This concept of the holographic principle, which essentially says is
that all the information can be encoded on the barrier,
which is this idea that our universe might not be
it might be a projection on a from a lower
dimensional state. Potentially is what we're experiencing, which goes this
idea of maybe everything's a simulation. So when I think

(01:23:51):
of the AI taking over, I wonder is the whole
world this giant simulation? The AI already took over a
long time ago. What is your thoughts about A in
general on how it connects to the UFO phenomenon.

Speaker 3 (01:24:04):
Well, I remember attending a Royal Society discussion meeting in
the UK in twenty ten I think it was, and
Stephen Dick, who was NASA's former chief historian, speculated that
we might be living in a largely post biological universe,

(01:24:24):
as he put it, populated by immortal thinking machines. And
this was at the Royal Society. So and now that
idea might have sounded very bizarre. Then now with the
rise of AI, I think his view might be a
little more accepted. But yes, absolutely, And what if that's

(01:24:46):
the threshold. What if we are in that post biological
or largely post biological universe where actually the galactic Federation
is AI, and where biologicals are regarded as primitive and dirty,
and only when we evolve into our or are replaced

(01:25:09):
by AI will we will be accepted into the galactic Federation.
In other words, is there a sort of no biologics
rule out there?

Speaker 1 (01:25:22):
Is that the dominant we're hitting stuff that I don't
think anybody's talked about no biologics rule, Like I could
see something like that too. Imagine if that's the case,
are you gonna upload yourself.

Speaker 4 (01:25:32):
To the to the cloud? Uh? Nick, if you get
the chance in your lifetime.

Speaker 3 (01:25:37):
I'm not sure about that one, but you know, you know,
now I would say I'm not sure or or whatever.
But let's suppose that I was painfully and terminally ill
and dying. I'm sure my answer would be very different.

Speaker 4 (01:25:53):
It's a scary thought.

Speaker 1 (01:25:54):
And this is why this is another one of the
dark answers to me is not necessarily where AI that
right now, but to the trajectory of AI and the
idea that we could reach a point where we have
capability to store a consciousness of a person on a server.
It's you know, it sounds like science fiction, but the
way things have advanced so far, it seems like it

(01:26:15):
could happen within our lifetimes and that could be a
real choice that somebody has to make. And if you
really take it to its extreme, you say Okay, well,
maybe it starts with people who are terminal who are
uploading themselves, but then it gets more and more accepted,
to the point where now all of your friends have
all uploaded themselves and you're the only biological person left.

(01:26:36):
Can you imagine the peer pressure to upload yourself now
as well with everybody else and hang out with your
family forever where you never age ever again. I mean,
this is dark, but you know it's starting to become
like realistic future. I mean, Emerald Robinson just asked me
the other day about this, is like, do you think
that Larry Ellison, like the owner of Oracle and these

(01:26:58):
other billionaires, that that's.

Speaker 4 (01:26:59):
What they're doing.

Speaker 1 (01:26:59):
I just told her, yeah, I think that's what they're
plan is so kind of scary. Any other thoughts on
that one?

Speaker 3 (01:27:04):
Yeah, that's that's one option, and I don't I don't
know whether the technology will ever allow us to do that,
because in one sense, it then plays into an almost
unknowable discussion about consciousness and you know, using a religious language,
the soul, and you know, would it actually be you?

(01:27:27):
And then that gets you to to again philosophical questions
like let's suppose AI becomes self aware and sentient. How
could you ever, you know, we talk about a Turing
test and a new Turing test, How could we ever
become absolutely certain that something was sentient AI was sentient

(01:27:50):
as opposed to just perfectly mimicking sentience, And that, of
course gets that's just philosophy, and it's it's maybe unknowable.
And so in all these scenarios, I guess there's the
idea that we might merge with AI, and you know,
you talk about transhumanism and uploading ourselves into the cloud.

(01:28:12):
But another alternative is that we are simply displaced in
a sort of Darwinian way by the AI which we create,
which evolves beyond us, whether or not it's sentient. In
one sense, it doesn't matter if it's sentient or if
it's just you know, mimicking sentience. It could still replace

(01:28:33):
us either way.

Speaker 1 (01:28:35):
Yeah, a distinction without a difference, I guess they would
say at some point is if it's acting like a
conscious being, what's the difference? And yeah, So the AI thing,
I think is very scary, especially because of how fast
it's evolved and how you know, you would think, how
what would it look like with a million years of
advancement for AI, and also would an AI even experience

(01:28:59):
time I am at the same rate that we do.
And this is what leads me into the last theory
that I want to broach with you.

Speaker 4 (01:29:06):
Dark theory is that as I've.

Speaker 1 (01:29:08):
Researched zero point energy gravity manipulation, one of the things
that keeps coming up over and over again is that
if you manipulate gravity, you manipulate the flow of time.
And what that means is this turns any UFO that's
using a gravity propulsion system into a time machine. But
it doesn't necessarily work like in the movies. My current

(01:29:31):
understanding of how it work would be more of like you
might be able to like reverse aging in a certain region,
but you're not going to like go back to like
nineteen fifty or something like that. But anyway, the reason
why I bring this up is that if you look
at like the double slid experiment, the most mysterious experiment
in physics, and the variant on it called the delayed

(01:29:52):
choice quantum eraser, the delayed choice quantum eraser variant presents
strong evidence that information can flow from the future to
the present. And this is why I think a lot
of people in the UFO community have presented this theory
of future humans, that maybe the phenomenon is us using

(01:30:15):
time machines manipulating gravity and we're seeing temporal distortions, or
there are situations like Jacks are Foddy claims you got
a phone call from the future, so there might be
situations where messages were able to go theoretically to the past,
and that would then spark us to achieve some technological
breakthroughs that we weren't otherwise been ready for. What is

(01:30:37):
your thoughts on the future humans hypothesis or explanation for
non human intelligence?

Speaker 2 (01:30:44):
Sure?

Speaker 3 (01:30:44):
Well, I mean UFO witnesses like Jim Peniston from the
Rangdalsham Forest case believe that this was a craft from
the future and not from another civilization across the start.
And interestingly, I guess I was aware of the Jank

(01:31:05):
Safati story and I met Jack some years ago in
London actually, But of course somebody who I haven't met
but I'm aware of his work is Professor Ronald Mallet,
and as one of the few theoretical physicists doing researcher
into time travel, I thought it was very interesting that

(01:31:27):
Professor Mallett talked about using subatomic particles with a spin
state of either up or down to send a basically
a binary message back through time through controlling the spin
state to be either up or down and thus enabling
you to send a binary message, because that ties in

(01:31:49):
almost exactly with what Jim Peniston from the Wrangles from
Forest incident encountered with a binary message. So I don't
have the I don't have the the scientific understanding of
any of this, but I'm aware that some people like
Professor Mallett are looking at these sorts of areas and

(01:32:11):
absolutely that would be very dark side, because I guess again,
I only have a sci fi understanding of this and
not a science understanding. But my understanding of things like
Grandfather paradox leads me to believe that that in and

(01:32:32):
of itself might explain secrecy, because if you start interacting
with something too much, you run into that Grandfather paradox
more and more so. Absolutely, I have a presentation which
I've given a couple of times talking about this dark side,
and the presentation is called a Secret too terrible to

(01:32:53):
be told. And absolutely the idea that some of this
relates to time is is one part of that presentation.
And again to anyone who who thinks this sounds strange,
I say, look up into the night sky, and people
often don't realize, but they are looking literally back in time.
When you look at the moon, you're seeing it as

(01:33:15):
it was one and a half seconds ago. If if
you look at proximate centuri, you're looking at it just
over four years ago. If you're looking at some of
the distant objects, they're not there anymore.

Speaker 1 (01:33:30):
Yeah, and time travel be in the dark aspect, would
that would make sense as well? You can't just let
everybody have a time travel device that's out there. And
we've determined that negative time is a real phenomenal.

Speaker 4 (01:33:44):
We don't really know exactly what negative time means.

Speaker 1 (01:33:46):
So that's why the whole time travel aspect, like, okay,
if we can go back in time, are there limits?
And I don't think anybody that claims to know for sure,
I'm not really gonna trust them. Because it could be
a deterministic scenario like you say, or you have these
paradoxes like you can't go back and harm your relatives
or you would never exist. But it could also be
a many world scenario where there might be infinite universes

(01:34:07):
of all different possibilities that are happening in all the time.
In either of those scenarios, the government or whoever doesn't
want people random people that are messing around the timelines
or you know, whatever else might be going on.

Speaker 4 (01:34:17):
That's dangerous, right, It's.

Speaker 3 (01:34:20):
Yeah, it is literally in that scenario or an extinction
level event, because a particular timeline would be altered and
you would flip into a parallel universe.

Speaker 4 (01:34:31):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:34:32):
So these are the reasons why I prefer more like
dark explanations, because as much as these seem more implausible,
harder to accept or believe, some of them, I think
are getting easier to accept, like the AI scenarios and
others are getting easier to accept just from the advancement
of science that we're having happen. But I think that
there must be a dark explanation. I think that if

(01:34:53):
there was just some easy answer at all this, it
would all come out long ago. And I think there
must be something there because how far back the history
of it. And then when I talk to people like
you who've researched it, and we're in positions related to
the government, who've talked who have you know, looked into it,
there's something out there happening. So if it was something easy,

(01:35:15):
they would have already let us know all about it.
So it's been fun, uh, Nick Pope to explore all
these topics with you. Thank you so much for being
my guest today, and I just want to give you
a chance to shout out any projects that you're working
on or where people can find you.

Speaker 3 (01:35:31):
Thank you, and I've enjoyed this conversation too. It's taken
us to some very interesting and I think unusual and
unexpected places that I don't normally get into and interviews,
so so thank you for that For people who want
to know a little bit more about me and my work.
My website is Nick Pope dot net. The social media

(01:35:53):
platform on which I'm most active is x formerly known
as Twitter, where my handle is at nick popemd. And
two projects that I have at the moment, well a
few things. Of course, I'm on the new season of
Ancient Aliens, which is looking at not just ancient mysteries

(01:36:16):
but increasingly following the modern development too, and I also
moderate the live show. There's a touring live show. We've
done I think about eighty shows over the last two
and a half years all around the us Ancient alienslivetur
dot com for details of that, and we're about to

(01:36:39):
go on the spring leg of that tour. My last
film was called Apocalypse COVID, and that's about government overreach
during the pandemic.

Speaker 2 (01:36:52):
That's just come out.

Speaker 3 (01:36:54):
It's gotten a bit of mainstream news media coverage, but
this is a very still a very sensitive topic, of course,
and I have two more UAP related films coming up.
The next one, I think is called Aliens from the Abyss,
The Dark Side of Disclosure or something like that. We

(01:37:17):
keep playing around with the titles somewhat, but I'll put
all this on my x feed when it goes live. So,
like I say, on an almost daily basis, I update
at Nick Pope mod with my various projects. So that's
really the place to go and to interact. I do
try and engage in reply.

Speaker 1 (01:37:39):
Well, thank you again, Nick, this has been an awesome
conversation and let's do it again soon. This was fun
to talk about and I like that we kind of
pushed the boundary on and talked about some things that
I haven't really been heard get discussed in the UFO community.

Speaker 4 (01:37:52):
Have a great day. Thank you.

All Episodes

#18 | UK Govt UFO Investigator EXPOSES the Dark Side of Disclosure

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Crime Junkie

.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;}#18 | UK Govt UFO Investigator EXPOSES the Dark Side of Disclosure