Discussion With Chief Sean Cahill About Intelligence Whistleblower David Grusch & UFOs | UFO HUB #90 - UFO HUB

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Hey, everyone, Welcome to yourfile live stream. I would say today's
guest as Sean Cahill, but unfortunatelyI'm actually quite honest and not sure what
happened. I've been trying to getall of him, and I have everything
still open, hoping that he wouldjump on. We had set time and
date and everything seemed to be goodand ready, and for some reason,

(00:25):
I just cannot get hold of him. So I apologize. It was this
was definitely not meant to be clickbait, and I'm hoping that he sees any
of my messages I've sent to himand the phone calls, and hoping that
he'll still jump on and we canproceed with the interview. I guess I
really didn't have anything else prepared forany of you, other than maybe just

(00:48):
the open lines to interact with anyone of you that would like to either
call in on Telegram or ask somequestions on the regular chat rooms, whether
it would be on YouTube, Facebook, Twitch, or Twitter. So yes,
like I said, I apologize,I am waiting for him to basically

(01:10):
just log in and because everything seemedto be just fine and ready, and
again I'm really sorry, definitely notclick bait. Forgive me. So if
any of you that are on andjust would like to ask some questions,
please make sure to have three asterisksbefore the question so that that way I

(01:30):
know it's meant for me. Andalso you can join telegram to just talk
to me directly and if and whenSean can log in later on today that
or late not just later on today, just hoping in a few more minutes,
but we'll see what happens. That'salso using telegram as the way that

(01:51):
you can talk to him as well. So right now we have a military
witness to UAP welcome saying here,Hi Sean. Sorry, Shan is not
here right now. I'm really hopinghe logs in here soon because just like
I said, with the interactions we'vehad, there's no way you could forget
this. So other than that,I'm I'm hoping that a lot of you

(02:15):
got a chance to watch the onehour long interview with David Grush that was
on News Nation. I believe,yeah, And sorry, I'm kind of
frazzled and all over the place tryingto trying to figure out what what world
is happening. So if my factsare not coming up very quickly, that's
why. But anyway, and justI'm curious just to hear your thoughts and

(02:39):
just to see what you all thought. I know there were some people online
that had I don't know if thisis what they do regularly, but it's
these YouTube psychologists. So they reada body language and try to kind of
give their perspective on what they thinkthis body language means. The eye roll,

(03:00):
the title lips, that all thesedifferent expressions that when people speak usually
have some kind of meeting to them. So anyway, those are pretty interesting
to watch. But then again,the whole I don't know, I you
know, I mean, it's interestingto hear their perspective, but it's not
a show fire way to know.Oh, okay, they know for sure

(03:22):
he's telling the truth, or okay, they know for sure he's telling a
lie. Okay, we have Ruben. Ruben says no word he said.
And I always appreciate your live streams. Well, thank you. I appreciate
to I'm appreciate all of you beingon. Yeah, I don't know,
I'm I don't want to leave peoplehanging. And I don't know that this

(03:43):
has happened before. I think Imight might have with with Sherry where either
the stream dropped or it was earlyin the day. It was scheduled to
have her on but then she couldn'tand I had to kind of change gears.
But anyway, yeah, I haveI'm basically watching this guype right now.

(04:04):
If he comes through there or onthe phone and uh so we'll we'll
see which whicheveryone comes through. Soif he does come on, I might
just go, um not offline,but basically just have this little We'll be
right back screen and hopefully we canget him on and connected. Half Finn

(04:30):
says hello, hello from from Twitch. Hello as well. I usually don't
have people on Twitch or that manywatching by time each evening. Each time
that have one of these slash streams, it's usually always anywhere between three or
four, so it's a big crowd. But anyway, it's a platform I've
been wanting to expand to in UM. Have been streaming there also, just

(04:53):
so that it's a backup to YouTube. Um. Ruben is asking what are
your th out on the Vegas Aliensincident? Have you seen the videos?
Curious to hear your thoughts. Well, I just don't know when it comes
to seeing I've seen the footage thatyou're talking about and the supposed circles left

(05:17):
and so on, And I'm hopingthat it's not part of a kind of
like they like a craze right whereall the sudden the news announces certain things.
So they announced something happening, andthen all the sudden, you know,
the next thing, you know,everybody's seeing aliens everywhere. It was,

(05:38):
in a way almost easier before whennobody's talking about it, nobody's expecting
anything, and then somebody you know, puts a story out or tells something
about a contact, it's a littlebit more believable. But right after all
the announcements for the interview and allthese other things happening, and the way
the cop was behaving, if youwatch the footage, was a little bit

(06:00):
kind all over the place for me. But it's it's difficult to tell if
if this person is just hoaxing something, you know, or to four attention,
because let's face it, after somany decades of social media, I
think there's a whole I think there'sa whole a group of people that literally

(06:21):
would would do anything for clicks andviews. And so when it comes to
your yourphology and and then you putthose kinds of people together. It's it's
difficult to figure out whether or notto tell the truth. So anyway,
it does all my thoughts. Bradley, Hello, welcome as well. Label,
it's welcome. Yeah, I don'tknow if you. For those of

(06:43):
you just joining now, I'm sorrythat I don't have Sean on yet.
We had everything set up. Ihad everything was agreed upon the time and
when usually I always have my guestscall in or I actually call them prior
to the show, established a connectaction, set everything up so that I
have their screens and the audio andvideo is good for everyone else to watch.

(07:04):
And so he didn't answer when whenI set out the usual call,
and I kept trying and trying,and I haven't heard from him yet.
Like I said earlier, I haveeverything open. I have Skype ready open
and phone as well, so ifhe calls, I'm hoping to get him
in. Otherwise we can just dono open lines for those of the interest

(07:29):
that you can either call on telegramor you can leave leave a message or
a question in any of the chats. So in order to get telegram,
you have to download that on yourphone or the intent or I mean or
the computer. And then of course, joined the r FO hub channel on
Telegram, and you'll be able tosee a voice chat going on there right

(07:53):
now where you can join and speakto me directly. Let's see who else
we have here. Yeah, itwas. I don't know how many of
you had a chance to actually watchthat one hour interview. I don't have.
I had to I had to waituntil they basically had the whole video

(08:16):
available for free because I don't havea news nation. But even then I
didn't watch the whole thing. Iposted on the Telegram group. I posted
a link to the whole forty fiveminute I think it was forty five minute
long interview, and so for thoseinterested to watch it, you can watch
it there and readily available for peoplewatch I think on Twitter. I don't

(08:39):
know if it's made its way onYouTube yet. So Bradley as a question
for Sean, oh, I canat least read it. Question for Sean,
I would love to know, grusciousangle, how come this guy's story
was allowed to be public? Seemsto bit convenient? Is convenient? Is

(09:01):
grush a smoke scream or something else? Well? One of the one of
the reasons too, why I wantedSean on I said, I don't know
to what extent he either knows himor knows him well, so that you
know there's that connection. And Iwanted them to talk to him about David

(09:22):
and then have give all of youa chance to ask Sean about whatever else.
Of course I would love to beable to talk to David directly,
but if you're into this kind ofstuff, unless you have connections and other
things, it's difficult to get ahold of people, especially when you have
something big like that, and eventhen they're not immediately answering any questions or

(09:46):
want to do any interviews. Soanyway, I was able to get a
hold of Sean, and so Iwas hoping to talk to him about about
all of this and whatever else heknows. Just I can also see if
anyone we have some people listen ontelegram, which is fine because that's out

(10:07):
the only so if you are notinteresting watching, you can listen. I
think there might be about ten tofifteen sometimes even twenty second delay between what's
happening and streaming on YouTube versus whatyou're hearing there. But so don't try
to watch on YouTube and listen onTelegram at the same time. They'll throw
you off. So yeah, I'mglad. I'm glad all of you were

(10:33):
able to to join me today withthose who that are watching. And yeah,
I just I just don't know sevento eleven, seven eleven now,
and I've already texted him and calledand I left plenty of messages. I
don't know that sending one more isgoing to help. I'm just hoping that

(10:58):
if and when he gets a chance, he gets succeed this and gets back
to me. But I did wantto show. I did want to start
to show on time so that weall know what's going on. I didn't
want to wait and for example,eight p seven eleven and he's still not
being alive. And maybe for thosewho were waiting wondering what in the world

(11:20):
is going on, at least youget to sit around with me and we
can wonder together. But yeah,I'm glad Ruben asked that question about that.
For those that don't know, it'sbasically, I believe a police officers

(11:41):
camera footage of something green falling,and I'm hoping that that's what Ruben is
referring to. If not, thenI'm sorry if we're kind of mismatch and
communication, and I'm not talking aboutthe same thing, but yeah, that
whole the whole event. I don'tknow, it's there haven't been anymore afterwards,

(12:03):
or at least that I know of, to where of a sudden people
start calling in and reporting and goingout out on YouTube and a video.
Um, you know, they justwould I would hate to have that kind
of influx or that kind of inundationout there, because for those that are

(12:24):
truly seeking, if you have thosethat have been around for a long time
talking and discussing the things that weall have been over the years, and
then you have all that flood ofall that I guess lies or misinformation or
clickbait or whatever you want to callit, that would really suck. It'll
be it'll be difficult to kind offor anyone that's new in, you know,

(12:48):
and new and joining joining this groupof uthologists, it will be difficult
to figure out who do I listento? Or they'll start go down on
the path listen to to one personafter a while, only to realize that
they were being lied to or itwas just a hoax. It seems that

(13:13):
when you think back on crop circles, the crop circles have been having similar
issues too, because some of thesecrop circles are just very awe inspiring When
you see them, it's it's makesyou wonder, how can somebody create something
like that overnight? You know.And when it came out that at least

(13:39):
some of those were created by thesetwo guys and using these wooden planks and
rope and all that sort of stuff, you know, everyone immediately dismissed.
It's like, yep, it's ahoax, all right, nothing, nothing
to look at it anymore. Thosethe new Better never gave up the research.
But it's that kind of thing thatI'm talking about and hoping to avoid

(14:00):
when it comes to at least uphology, especially whether whether this turns out with
David to be a huge nothing burgeror some kind of planning or whatever.
Um. At least I don't know. It at least created some buzz that
I was hoping we could all ridethis wave. Um nope, store checking

(14:24):
nothing from Sean yet. Well,UM, I don't know what is there
anything else? Maybe some of youwould like to discuss. I know you'll
you'll have joined in, and soI don't want to waste your time.
We can we can at least spendthis evening together. Let's see, Bradley
says, Dan, did you manageto watch greish to our presentation at the

(14:48):
National Press Club on Monday? ThatAntarctica excerpt your posts is just like while
yeah, well, um no,I did not get a chance to watch
that either. But let's see.Let me. I'm glad I have my
my web stuff open and let melet's let's play some of that. That

(15:09):
would be at least something worth worthwatching or listening to. All right,
let's get through all these windows here. Maybe one day I don't know when,
but I'll have a producer way theycan just cute this in for me
and we can have a more ofa flawless show. But all right,

(15:35):
let me see. Here's copy thislink and I've been get in here.
All right, what I'm about toI'm glad I had this ready. There
you go, but I'm about toplay this. This This is I found

(15:58):
this online and this was part ofthat Extra Dead Bradley was talking about from
this Griers National Press that he hadgone on And so anyway, let's just
see what he has to say.It's about five minutes long and it's a
new to everything for everyone. Andhere it is. I'm very happy that

(16:23):
you're giving me this attention and thisinformation attention because it needs to get out
to the world. I will start. Since we have to be brief,
I have already given all pertinent informationand supporting documentation to the Senate Intelligence Committee
and arrow they informed me that allof my information will be recorded for public
record and shared with Congress. Itis that important. In twenty and ten,

(16:45):
I was selected to go down tothe South Pole Station in Antarctica for
an entire year by raytheon Polar Servicesas an employee of a third party contractor
for the National Science Foundation. Ifunction in a dual role capacity as a
tradesman and a firefighter. Responsibilities requiredme to be more informed than most of
my crew and offered me complete accessto the facilities. What I learned from

(17:07):
this unique experience needs to be sharedwith the entire world. The technology at
the South Pole Station certainly can dowhat it is presented as its primary purposes,
and unfortunately much more. The icecube neutrino detector is presented as a
passive listening device for the purposes ofthe science as presented. But I'm going

(17:27):
to skip right through the chase folks. I have provided documentation that proves that
the five one hundred and sixty whatthey called dombs that are embedded in the
ice can actually transmit at two thoand forty seven vaults each. That gives
us a long list of things toconsider. It is effectively a multifaceted directed

(17:48):
energy weapons platform that I will listrapidly a few things that it can do.
Vehicle detection. We're learning that theseoff world craft on world craft hours
or other nations are also emitting neutrinos. So this makes the South Pole Station
effectively an air traffic control station forthis new level of equipment that nobody's discussing.

(18:12):
In addition to the ability to detectneutrinos and the exotic vehicles, I
provide a documentation that shows that thisis also a system for faster than light
communications. In the past, GaryMcKinnon has hacked NASA, found the All
World Fleet, the list of captains, and it's apparent that if we have
faster than light vehicles moving throughout thissystem, we're going to need faster than

(18:33):
light communications. This is that facility. Unfortunately, I have other bad news.
The season that I was there twentyten to twenty eleven, we converted
from construction to operations and maintenance inboth the elevated station and the detector array.
Unfortunately, when they first fired itup, that was when we had

(18:56):
the earthquakes in Christchurch, New Zealand. There's two insidental shots before they were
able to target it correctly. Thisis an earthquake generating device as well.
This is the weapons of war thatwe have to deal with now. And
what Raytheon's hiding. There's an ELFsystem at the South Pole station that when
I was arrived, I was toldit was off, dismantled and completely defunct.

(19:18):
In my work, I will rapidlyjust tell you I had to figure
out the circuitry for certain other repairs, and I found that this system is
in fact completely energized, up andrunning and being utilized with the other systems
for nefarious purposes as well. TheAtmospheric Research Observatory in what we call the
clean air sector. I witnessed myselfa very powerful green laser shooting out of

(19:44):
the top of this facility into thecosmos. This, I believe is a
secondary form of long range communications andor a defense system. I am not
saying that we need to be scaredof anything that's out there. But please
understand, Dan, the military industrialcomplex is happy to invest all of your
money in alleviating their fears. Aquestion of power comes into play for all

(20:12):
of these facilities that are present.I assure you I knew what was going
on. I knew the load demandsof the facility, and all of these
new items exceed the demand for thesystems that I was presented. I am
doing due diligence and research. Ibelieve there is either secondary power supply there
that is either nuclear that was theirprior to the start of the Antarctic Treaty,

(20:37):
which prohibits such things, and orthat there is some sort of exotic
power supply system there that is notin the verbiage of the treaty, so
it negates the responsibility to the partiesinvolved. I think that pretty much covers
it for time if anybody, ifanybody wants to find out more, have

(21:00):
a website where all this information isat. For brevity, I'll wrap it
up, but you can go toDeciphering dot TV. I've documented all this
stuff and information is available. Okay, So that was I guess. There
was an excerpt of what was discussedat least from from this gentleman's presentation.

(21:27):
But I'm confused. So obviously I'mno expert when it comes to Ham radio
operation. And I'm also although I'mHam radio you know, licensed, and
I've been into it for a while, I can't say that I know everything.
But when he was talking about ELFcommunications that obviously he was talking about

(21:51):
the other exotic stuff, which isfine, you know, and how that
functions I don't know. But ELFis something that they tried time ago,
um well seventies if not a bitearlier. And this was basically it's like
extremely extreme, extremely low frequency Ibelieve it stands for, and it's it's

(22:12):
within that three two thirty herds range, and it was supposed to basically use
the if I if I remember thiscorrectly, use the resonance of the Earth
to basically then send signals to submarines. And they were working on more efficient
ways trying to figure out, um, you know, kind of what you

(22:33):
know, what would be the bestway to UM to communicate without having the
submarines come up to the surface,which would put them in danger, and
so they would have to have thishuge tether coming out at the back of
the submarine to then basically pick upor send the signals. But if I'm
not mistaken, the way it works, it was so inefficient that within like

(22:56):
half an hour you would you couldonly really send like two or three characters,
you know. And so from whatI understand, there's one in Wisconsin
installation that was kind of set upand it worked for a little bit.
There was huge backlash and they kindof dismantled it. Now I think you

(23:19):
can go there and check it outand look at it. But you know,
other than that, UM, youknow, I don't know why they
would still have an ELF system setup, especially if we're talking about something
that inefficient to to communicate or doany kind of these intricate communications. I
would think it would have to besomething more exotic, so as he's mentioned,

(23:44):
But why they would have ELF inaddition to that that would I'm confused.
I don't know. Okay, letme give me one quick second.
I got a text from from Sean. Okay, sorry for those also only
listening. I'm actually just reading thetext right now, trying to figure out

(24:06):
how it's looking, whether or nothe can still make it. Um.
I think it's probably at this point, just he looks like he's got some
other things going on at at thispoint, I hope we can maybe,
um than to just reschedule it whenhe's more ready, because I don't know
he was just able to respond,but I don't know that he's ready to
get on Skype and be seen andtalk to us. So okay, well,

(24:32):
at least there's there's been an unforeseenhold up, and so that's the
explanation I can give you right now. UM, just different kind of things
going on with work and other thingshe had, we had schedules. So
again, I apologize. I've gotto meet Shanni's pretty cool dude, and
I know he wouldn't do this onpurpose, So when he says he's sorry,

(24:53):
I wholeheartedly believe it. So,UM, I hope for those of
you watching that we can then schedulean interview with him maybe some other time.
I'll see when he would be available, and you'll know when I put
up the live stream link for youto be able to watch it. Then
Okay, let's see. Um letme see if I can now he's saying

(25:15):
he could possibly be on in fourmid so let me put you all on
hold. I apologize for that andwe'll see what what we can work out.
Either I'll come back and it willbe a no, or I'll come
back with him online. So sittight, I'll be right back. All
right. Oh almost hits stop onthe button for for streaming. Okay,

(25:41):
ok, all right, Well Seanis on with me. I'm excited to
be able to tell you that,so we don't have to postpone for another
time. And anyway, so letme bring him in and we can get
to started. Here we go,Sean, how you doing, I'm doing
well? Ada, Sorry, I'mwait. Oh, no problem at all.
I'm glad you'll be able to stillget back to me. And I've

(26:04):
actually got to try out something brandnew today, or at least I should
say brand new to me, becauseI was trying to figure out how can
I still bring you in while youknow, I'm displaying some screen out there
for somebody to you know, tohold tight and wait for you. So
anyway, learn something new every day. So Sean, I'm very happy to

(26:25):
talk to again. And I knowit's been a while. It looks like
you cut your hair since i've seenyou last. Oh. No, Forrest
is going to be distraught because you'renot just some momo anymore. That's a
little inside joke that we had atthe conference because Sean was one of the
keynote speakers there and it was greatpresentation, very well received. So again

(26:47):
I'm glad you were there, Gladwe're able to make it and present.
So Sean, the reason why Iwanted you on today and to basically,
just from your perspective, kind oftalk to us about it, said David
grushru Yes, Okay, Gruce,Okay, David Gruce to basically just uh,

(27:07):
he's kind of new to everyone inin neuphology, at least on our
end here, and so I'm sorrythat I have to talk to you or
ask you to kind of fill inthe gaps. But everyone if yes you've
seen is kind of going crazy.They're either he's a chill or he's the
he's the real deal, and everyoneelse in support or not. Basically,
you know me, I'm your friend, So basically just wanted to hear from

(27:30):
you and what your thoughts are regardingthis this whole thing. And I don't
hope you don't mind if we takesome questions from people later on. Sure,
Okay, first let me say thatDave Gruce is a friend and a
colleague. We've met and we've workedtogether. He has a long and distinguished
career in the United States military andgovernment service, and he was tasked to
investigate this phenomenon on behalf of theUAPTF, and he did so to the

(27:53):
best of his ability. Now,his professional acumen is absolutely up to the
task for this. He made madethe rounds of every aspect of this that
he could, from my understanding,and his conclusions are conclusions that are held
by a great many people who havestudied this in the same manner. So
I find it very strange the amountof people from within the community who have

(28:15):
a bona fide whistleblower who is sayingI have been a party to this investigation.
Yes, the evidence is not asas earth shattering that I'm presenting right
now. However, I do knowwhere to look, and I do know
who to talk to to go andfind these these programs and these get to
the bottom of many of these urbanmyths and legends that surround all of this

(28:38):
this topic. So I find thatvery surprising. The fact is is that
amongst our circles, David Gruce isa highly respected individual, a professional who's
beyond reproach, and the ad hominantattacks and things that have been leveled against
him have been frankly silly. ButI do have to say that within the
last couple of weeks it's and verytelling to me that when I speak to

(29:02):
television producers who are interested in ina response such as this, that the
pre call is UH is excellent,a lot of communication going back and forth,
a great deal of pragmatic understanding.But by the time we get on
the call, the um the interviewerhas has a different slant or you know,
restigmatizing, sticking with the jokes kindof thing. So while we've seen

(29:26):
a lot of very serious UM responseto this, there's still a lot of
the same old, same old goingon, and we need to break through
that to get into a real investigationabout this. Well, you know,
Sean, what I was thinking whenI first saw that and I made the
samement um, you know on theshow here is that so if he was

(29:48):
a somebody not to be listened to, you know, UM, not saying
we should put so much faith intoCongress, but to be to be somebody
that has basically um, oh whatis the word called um deposition by Congress
right to talk to talk to himabout this to be you know somebody then
in uh in intelligence and have allthese higher ups basically listened to him behind

(30:14):
closed doors. You know, thatis the difference that it's like, Okay,
if he's a if he's just nobody, why would they spend the time
even listening to him. You know, that's a fantastic point. Right.
So the fact is that he's passedall those checks and balances, he has
testified for hours in front of Congress, he's past adopts, or he's the

(30:37):
Department of Defense has already indicated thathis complaints are merited. And it's it's
frankly ridiculous. And I'll call itout that people are calling out his his
current profession in real estate, orthe fact that other aspects of this they
are cherry picking and to try toinvalidate the whole thing. Frankly, I
think whomever this opposition is, whetherthey're independent or organized, is running scared

(31:00):
at the moment. Well, soalso, I wanted to when you know
something about why him right, becauseI think I forgive me, I don't
know all the I'm not too familiarwith all the interviews you've done. There
was one that I caught where somebodywas making the argument about the eighty years

(31:22):
nobody coming forward to something, andyou very elequently, you know, corrected
them. You know, I forgotwhat was it? What was it was?
That New Nation was a CBS.I forgot what that was News Nation
with Leland. Okay, And yes, I know exactly what you're where you're
coming from here? Um, whyDave, why now? Etc? The

(31:45):
why now part? As you andI know, as people have studied this,
people have been coming out and havehave unofficially blown the whistle numerous times.
Um, to my knowledge, misterGruc is one of the first people
to enact legal whistle blower protections andposition himself properly to ensure that what he

(32:06):
presented is not invalidated due to leaksor hearsay or entertainment value. First,
so, first of all, whyDave Grus Because he's the first person to
my knowledge that has had the properacumen bona fides and has carried out an
investigation for the United States government andwho understood the Whistleblower Protection Act. So

(32:28):
I think that this was a veryrare set of circumstances. But I also
think that mister Grouser's a crowbar.The fact is is there are people out
there who have information on these programswho don't feel that they would be protected
under these whistleblower acts and things ifthey were to come out with the evidence
that everyone assumed mister Grocer was goingto present. So we need our legislators

(32:54):
and our government to ensure beyond ashadow of the of a out that regardless
of the level of understanding of aprogram, whether it's a special access program,
whether it's something that's just um TSSCI or something like that, these
people, if they feel the sameway that mister Grouse does, that a

(33:15):
a injustice has been done to theAmerican people in the world at large.
These people are waiting to have thoseprotections. They are ready to talk,
you know. Sean, Also regardingthat, I was one thought that came
to mind because because there were somany other subployers that come forward, there

(33:36):
were colonels that were you know,in government, you yourself prior to this,
you know, but I guess thedifference and unless I'm mistaken about you,
because of his connection and because justrecently Congress listened to him and all
of that stuff that was basically pushedthrough Senate and all that you know,
these different built you know regarding youknow, the tik tak and all the

(33:59):
new new angus now that came about. You know. I think that's why
I'm more focused on him as opposedto every other whistle blower does come forward
prior to him. Oh, Iwould agree, and I would I if
I'm wrong, I look forward tobeing corrected. But we have in David
Gruce, an official whistleblower, notjust a person who may have called a

(34:20):
radio station or a television show ora journalist. While those are whistleblowers in
spirit, they're not protected and thatmeans that the legislative process has nowhere for
them to fit in, and they'rethey're very easily discarded. And I think
we've seen that over the course ofeighty years, and I think that's why
it's so pivotal that people like misterGruce do enact these protections and fall under

(34:44):
the legal guidelines of them. Well, Sean, let's I guess, let's
get into some of these questions.Have you know people submit them and see
they might ask something that I don'tknow how to. But as always,
everyone that follows this channel knows,please keep it respectful. If it's something
that um, you know you're tryingto be rude a rude about some things,

(35:08):
obviously I will not ask the question. But everything else obviously is welcome
as long as it's respectful. Soplease, on telegram or on the chat
rooms themselves submit your question. Ifyou're in chat, please put three asterisks
before the question, so that wayI know it's meant for Sean. If

(35:28):
you are in telegram, simply raiseyour hand and I'll bring you in that
way, and Sean will be ableto hear you and talk to you that
way. So while we're waiting forfor actually, I can ask a question
that was done prior. It saysthis was submitted by by Bradley, so
I'll ask you again. I hadread it earlier, says question for Sean.

(35:51):
Would I would love to know,grucious angle, how come this guy's
story was allowed to be public?Seems a bit can be is grouse a
smokescreen for something else. I woulddiscard most of the language used in that
and use different language. There's alot of language indicative of an opinion in

(36:12):
there. I don't believe mister Grucehas an angle. I believe, as
I said earlier, mister Gruce isa professional who carried out an investigation that
he feels needs to be brought toa wider audience, that the checks and
balances in place we're not being attendedto, and that mister Gruce is a
patriot. Mister Gruce's, as Iwill keep repeating, a professional. And

(36:32):
so when he saw the need tosay something, he did, and he
did it the proper way, throughthe proper channel, so that now it's
in front of all of us.Okay, I'm sorry, Yeah, I
know you can't see me. I'mjust kind of skimming through and see what's
what's the next question? I apologize, just a little bit of multitasking him.

(36:53):
So let's see here. Okay,So the next question is from Bradley.
I suck at reading things fast,so it's difficult for me figure out
whether or it's a question I shouldbe asking. He's saying, Sean,

(37:15):
just be real for a second.What kind of protection can be offered when
dealing with a group which has limitlessfunding? In your opinion? Is there
a strong enough mechanism? And thenI'm not aware of the group of limited
less funding that he's talking about.That's an assumption too far for me.

(37:35):
So I think that what I wouldsay is the same thing I would say
to anybody, is that we haveto operate with the tools that we have
within the system that we have.So far, going outside the system has
proved to be a bridge too farfor all of us. So I do
believe that utilizing the system as weare is the right way to go right

(37:57):
And so would there be if anybecause I know I saw it was a
while back that I could be mistaken. I don't know if you know if
you've known this, but there wassomething about his lawyers dropping him at that
time, and I was like,oh, that would suck, Like especially
if you need them right now atthis moment. Can you speak a little
bit about that. I can,and I want to apologize to anybody to

(38:20):
make it a sense that I'm onthis crusade to correct folks or to correct
language. But mister Gruc's lawyers,lawyers did not drop him. The lawyers
that had come alongside that he hadhired to help him through the process of
accessing the whistleblower protection, ensuring thateverything was in the right conduit basically achieved
mission accomplishment for him and therefore there'sno reason for him to continue paying him.

(38:42):
I can assure you that mister Gruchas legal representation that group was there
for a specific purpose. Great,thank you for clarifying that. And so
what what would be basically we've Idon't know how if this would fall in
that same category, but it doesn'tmatter which um um like. So for

(39:04):
example, we've seen maybe okay,I'm not trying to put him in the
same category of you know, let'ssay, um, oh goodness, what
is that guy that's been in Englandfor the longest time he had that website
released all that information? Um GerryMcKinnon, right, and so Asange and
Snowdon, and we see some otherwhistleblowers. What happens to them when they

(39:29):
come out? What's to be expectednow during doing this? I mean,
did he reveal something that would meritmore of a strenuoe response from from whoever
is you know above him? OrI can't speak for the for the motives
or intentive mister Snowden or or misterAssange, or how hard they tried to

(39:49):
utilize the right the right manner toblow their whistles um. But it would
seem to me that based on wherethey are, one being in Russia and
the other being either in custody orin an embassy. I don't call where
he is anymore. They didn't usethe right way, and they turned into
a public spectacle once again, justlike the last eighty years. When that's

(40:09):
done, regardless of the amount offrustration or the inability to it to chip
away at this iceberg, it hasfailed every time before, so I can't
question their intent. Mister Gruc isnot exposing a portfolio of America's assets and
capabilities and things like that. He'sbrought up the fact that when tasked with

(40:34):
an investigation to get the bottom ofa subject, he uncovered something that looked
like it went a lot deeper.This needs to be opened up and needs
more investigators brought in. We shouldn'tbe while we should support mister Gruce,
we shouldn't focus solely on what hesaid. A whistleblower is there to alert
all of our attention to something else. It's not to call the authorities to
the whistleblower only to get an initialreport of there's a fire over there,

(40:59):
there's are over there, or something'sgoing on over there, and that's when
the rest of us respond to thatthreat, so or that issue, not
to paint it as a threat.So we're we're back to this kind of
square one thing where we have achance to do this right this time,
and it's really important that we don'tconspiraalized. I'm not going to come up

(41:21):
with the word but turn it intoa conspiracy. We have the tools to
do this right well, you know, especially especially you know, during this
time when Luis Alixander first came out, I could be mistaken. And I
hope that, you know, becauseI tried my best to know what the
hell I'm talking about. But I'mnot too much into this other aspect of

(41:44):
things, where you know, thenuts and bolts, So i haven't been
in a very long time, soforgive me if my memory is lacking at
that point. But initially they wereall also denying that that program existed,
and then the Pentagon came out andsaid, okay, well we did have
a program. We spent twenty twomillion dollars, you know, and it
seems to me maybe something similar tothis would come out, because they did

(42:07):
come out in the night this Butthen we'll come out and like, okay,
well maybe we do have aircraft andyou know, being bodies and so
on, you know, And Idon't know. I guess it's it's that
game that they always have to play, because that to me, when I
first heard it, I was like, okay, like what's a big deal.
Only later I realized then off theranking and why for example, him

(42:30):
as opposed to Colonel Corso or anyof the other ones that have come before
him, you know, and suchyourself, you know, or Louise,
you know, Alexander, So youknow, why why not just as much
of a big fuss about that.And so I think, I hope,
I hope this is that little wedgein the door. They'll never be removed
and they'll always be staying open untilsomebody opens the door all the way,

(42:52):
you know, or or we juststay at this stalemate. I don't know
what else you call it. Ithink we have a in the door,
I really do, and I thinkwe have it in a way that we
never did before. I think it'sa very it's a very very fragile moment
for folks who really care about uphology. Because if I believe that, if

(43:15):
if push too far that door willclose, but I believe that there are
folks on the other side of thatdoor that want to have this conversation,
want to open it, albeit slowly, right and so for do so you're
just tuning in, we're a bitlater than usual. Excuse me. I'm
still glad that Sean was able tomake it and be able to do this

(43:37):
interview. But we're doing Q andA right now. So if you have
any questions in the chat, pleasemake sure to put three asterixes before the
question so that that way I knowit's meant for Sean. If you're on
telegram, to simply raise your handand I'll patch you through and you can
ask your questions directly. So we'rein that process right now, So now

(43:57):
it would be the time questions youhave asked him now, But like I
said, please keep him respectful andso Sean, what I know this is
like you know, I don't Idon't want to turn this into like hearsay.
But have you had a chance totalk to Louise and Louise Alizondo and
kind of talk to him about thisand what his thoughts are if you can
share any well, it's it's uhnot something I've had to call him to

(44:22):
ask for his response or anything.We've we have both worked with mister gruc
Um, we're both aware of hisacumen and his bona fides. We've talked
about the public response. UM,We've talked about ways that we could,
um, how do I put it, Ways that we could help people who

(44:44):
are jump into a lot of conclusionsbased on apparent logic. You know where
mister Gruce comes from. Why dowe trust him? Those are questions that
we get a lot. So we'vewe've discussed a little bit of that because
for us, it's quite easy.UM, when you serve somebody and get
to know them and or have workedwith them, UM, it's very easy

(45:06):
to track through the network who thepeople with integrity are and who are not
because word gets around UM. Butthat's not something that the general public would
would would enjoy. So therefore allwe have to show them is his record,
and his record is unimpeachable. SoSean, I have a question from
Paul Pauline is asking is it possiblethey're having to come out because oppressing the

(45:31):
government for public awareness. The questionwas if it's is it possible? I
suppose it is. I don't haveany knowledge of that through through channels that
I'm privy to. UM. Ithink a lot of us have seen,
UM, a great deal of rumorout there from Hyamashed, from the from

(45:53):
Israel, and there have been someother folks of UM of rather high stature
who have have made claims. UM, I haven't seen anything on my side
of the fence indicative of any kindof contact like that pressing a geopolitical issue.
UM, is it possible. Absolutely, We're dealing with a very very

(46:15):
widespread phenomenon. And you know,and I don't mean to be silly.
I do understand what one of yourone of your listeners said earlier when they
when they said be real, UM, it's possible. I would love to
know what is really at the bottomof all of this too. UM.
So I think you might have actuallyanswered this question already. Is from Bradley

(46:36):
again basically asking a new opinion.Do you think grucious simonial will turn into
something actionable? I do. Ido. UM. I'm getting very positive
rumblings, uh back from from fromthe Beltway in my networks that this is
being taken incredibly seriously. And thefact is there is a lot of people
just aren't talking about it openly.They're they're gathering him from nation and they're

(47:00):
preparing for the next step. Okay, so when do you think he will
continue speaking on this, I meanto speak on this? Or was this
this one time interview? Is that? Is that pretty much it? Or
will the kind of come out andtalk about it more or or Like a

(47:22):
lot of the interviews that I've oftenseen, it's always the initial interview,
but then it's like the same storybut different networks because they ask him to
retell it. Can you maybe speakon that, please? M I can't
say as what mister Gruci's plans aregoing forward. I believe that, like
a lot of us, he willuse his voice as long as it is

(47:43):
useful. Um A lot of usdon't want to stick around repeating the same
story over and over again. Youand I had to talk about that at
Ozarks, about maintaining a need.You know, don't create a need for
yourself. I don't want to bea pundit, you know. I don't
want to here in ten years youand I having the exact same conversation about
this time, you know, oranything like that. UM. So I

(48:06):
think a lot of that will comedown to how mister Gruc is treated.
Um, I know he has alot of courage. I know he's willing
to stand up to a lot ofnonsense. His home has been broken too,
he's been surveiled, and he's hadthe courage to make it through that
stuff. But sometimes the court ofpublic opinion can be a little bit harsher
than the realities of war for somefolks. So it wouldn't I wouldn't.

(48:29):
It wouldn't be shameful for mister Gructo say that he said enough. But
I believe that with his courage,that he'll stick around for as long as
he's useful. Right. Well,you know, I believe you usually have
a very inquisitive crowd, but I'vehad this one dude. I guess he's
on Twitch. He's just been blowingit up about all kinds of negative things.

(48:50):
So I'm like, I can't,honestly knowing you, I don't want
to even entertain it. You know. It's like, I do want want
him to ask whatever it can possiblyask about. If you're going to be
rude about it, I'm sorry,it's a rung place for that. This
other question I have and I don'tknow what this is in reference to,
if you can answer it or maybegive me a little bit more light,

(49:12):
Robert says, is sean aware thatthe nineteen thirty three Italian ufoe recovery case
was the bunk twenty years ago byCISU and Eduard or Russo I'm aware that
that's some people's opinion. I don'tshare that opinion. A lot of people
claim to have debunked a lot ofthings. A lot of people claimed to
have debunked the tic TAC they didn't. A lot of people have complained the

(49:37):
debunk many things. I don't sharethat opinion. So okay, we see
here. Also wanted to wanted toask about I guess when it comes to
a grouche like, does he haveany kind of protection at all? Or

(49:58):
is the only protection that he hasis the lawyers? You know, um,
because I know you said to breakin and all that sort of stuff.
I mean, is there anything providedfor him or is this just basically
like nope, you're you're on yourown now. Um. I wouldn't discuss
the capabilities of his his protection,um, that would erode his operational security
and that of his family. SoUM, please pardon me if I let

(50:20):
that one go by. Sure,I'm yeah, I'm just again, I
know you can't see me. I'mjust trying to read through some of the
some of these comments here. Um. So also then when um what I

(50:43):
what I was, you know,I was earlier, I was mentioning there
were so many different videos out thereof these analysts that are supposed to be
psychologists and and they're kind of readinga body language and all these different things.
And I don't know if that's helpingor not, you know, but
at least for some reason more thanusual, it was on my on my

(51:04):
my feed, you know, onYouTube, you know, and a lot
of times I can't figure out ifthat's them trying to push something, you
know, or if it's just trulythe algorithm thinking hey you might be interesting
in seeing this, you know.But it was. It was kind of
funny because it's to me, it'salmost like watching human Like it's like watching
human lie detectors, you know,but human can make a mistake of what

(51:29):
that tight tight lips, you know, what they mean, what what I
roll means in that particular context,and all these other things. So,
um, I don't know, there'sso many people that started reading into so
much stuff immediately, Um, Ithink you can only add to the distractions,
Like I'm not trying to make thiswhole thing just sound milk toast and
hey, everybody, let's just allcalm down and see what this goes.

(51:51):
But you know, this is ahuge step, considering how long I've been
into this um for you know,for it to make their news. I
personally for somebody that just would lovefor people to know more, be interested
more in uphology. It was agreat thing to have happened, you know.
And I was just saying also earlierthat it just it might add all

(52:13):
these different people might now add somuch mud to everything that you know,
you can't figure out the truth evenif you want to allow me to say
that I spent the majority of mycareer refining the interview and interrogation techniques.
And before anybody gets up in armsabout the word interrogations, it means to

(52:35):
ask questions, and it's an interview. It's what you do with a victim
or a witness, and an interrogationis what you do with a suspect.
So I don't want them to jumpto any conclusions on the strength of that
word. However, we utilize bodylanguage, we utilize facial expression, we
utilize eye movement and things like thatto try and determine part of the baseline

(53:00):
of a suspect. However, thefact is is that those are not infallible
techniques, and many times it's notuntil after an investigation is complete and all
the evidence is laid out on thetable and even sometimes when the court case
is completed that you get to comparethe results to the initial impressions. And
that's why we know that it's it'snot an exact science. Unless you are

(53:22):
following specific a specific roadmap of interviewand interrogation, it's hard to set up
the baseline for that to make thosedeterminations. So a lot of times just
watching an interview it gives people viewson the Internet, and it gets people
on shows, and it's good fora talking head and an opinion piece,

(53:42):
but the value of that for determiningsomeone's intent is very low in a professional
sense. Sean, will you talkto gru some more in the near future
or just the pass acquaintance be basicallyit for you? There really remains to
be seen. If if Dave needshelp that I can provide, I would

(54:06):
definitely be there for him. We'renot we're not pals. We don't we
don't socialize. UM. We livevery far away from each other. But
if if there was something I couldprovide to help him, I certainly would.
And UM, I think that goesboth ways. UM I have I'm
going to ask the last question first, and then the previous one after that.

(54:27):
Gigi's asking Sean, have you everworked with an extraterish no, with
an experience or abductee to validate them? If so, who, what was
the last part to validate them?To validate them? Yeah? And if
so who? I wouldn't say thatI'm a person that can provide validation to

(54:47):
anybody. UM. I've had myown experiences. I've had a lot of
conversations with other people that UM thatcall themselves experiencers, and UM tried to
find commonality among those. I've reada great deal of things. But I
think a lot of times we anduntil this is solved with authority, the

(55:08):
validity he comes from from within andit comes from each other. I think
we seek out that validity amongst thecommunity, and eventually we have to come
to terms with our own experience onour own. Of course, we're all
waiting for the for the big answersfrom authority. But for a lot of
us, it really doesn't change thefact that these experiences aren't necessarily as linear

(55:32):
and don't make as much sense foreach person. So for those of us
like myself who don't have a definitivemessage that crosses all the boundaries of those
experiences, it's hard for me whenthere are people who are presenting an entirety
of experience and a message and adogma or advice. Because my studies are
looking at all the folks doing that, and very few of them are are

(55:59):
comparable in their continuity and data andthings like that. So UM, I'm
one of those folks left wondering too, how do how do we validate these
experiences? UM, Sean, Idon't know how much you had to do
with this, but this question isfrom Edward says, what happened to to

(56:21):
the Start Academy. Um, Likea lot of folks, I watched that
from the outside. UM, therewas a period of time when I was
considered for a position at TTSA,or that position dissolved around the same time
that UM the breakup happened. UM, I don't have all the details on
it. I do know that,UM, that everybody has has maintained a

(56:45):
good relationship, but it just didn'tseem like. UM if I may in
my opinion that the roadmap that waspresented at TTSA was going to get us
where we needed to get. UMas far as historical change, UM,
that's my opinion. UM, Idon't. I don't hoist that upon anybody
else. UM. It was disappointingfor me, But I do believe that

(57:08):
Louis Alazando, Chris Mellen had allmade the right decision by by moving out
of the infotainment aspect of this andgoing straight for the jugular of government and
UH and leadership. Another question frombut Bradley's asking in your opinion, do
you think gruge testimony will open thedoor for the to come? Will open

(57:32):
the doors I guess for others tocome forward, or will the treatment of
him now determined? This? Doesthat make it be a mixture of both?
UM. A great number of peoplehave have signaled and interest in initiating
the whistleblower protection process. UM.I don't want to say too much more

(57:53):
than that. UM. I thinka lot of people on in that pool,
so to speak, I've been actuallyemboldened by the negative treatment that he
has received, and in fact,it has just given them more cause to
stand up. I don't want toget you in trouble. But this other

(58:13):
person, would he possibly be havesomething to do with with error? Well,
there's no way that I would thatI would give a tidbit to identify
anybody who was who is currently aprotected person. Um, but let me
let me say that there are morethan one. Okay, yeah, no,
I've made my feelings very clear aboutwhen when NASA came out with whatever

(58:36):
they came out with us, likeseriously, like I was telling him,
I said, this is the wholeanomaly and anomalous anomaly and all of that,
you know. I was saying,that's our modern day swamp gas stories,
you know. And and they're like, oh, we're only just moving
forward from today. We will analyzeThey I'm like, what about everything else
has been recorded since? Anyway,don't want to get into it again.

(58:59):
But there was the same guy thatwas he was part of Araki forgetting his
name, he's probably the director.I'm sorry, Patrick, does sounds familiar,
do you? I mean? Isthere more that he wants to share
than than we've heard so far.You know, it's from the outside.

(59:21):
I think a lot of people wemake a lot of assumptions. I think
a lot of us, myself included, have been guided by movies we watched
and stuff like that. But um, we've got a We've got a person
in mid level government, in midmanagement that has been assigned a task,
and usually those tasks are based ontheir skills and their acumen. But we're
looking at a subject where there areno recognized personnel, very few, I

(59:45):
should say, you know lu Alzandoa few other people that we can point
at that are recognized government officials thatcan be considered subject matter experts. Um,
so it's sorry, my dog's tryingto out of the house and he's
breaking my train of thought. Cancan you help me? Can we revisit

(01:00:06):
the question for a second? Iwas basically Kirkpatrick. I was saying,
would there be a chance or isthere something that he might be coming out
with it? He's not saying no, well yes, but I think what
we have to remember is this,he has he has guidelines. Um.
Those guidelines you know, when youreceive orders per se or a or a

(01:00:29):
mission tasking, you're given the confines, the guidelines where you can operate,
who you can operate with, andyou know what your budgetary concerns are,
and things like that, until weknow where mister kirk or a doctor Kirkpatrick
looked. Because if let me putin as a law enforcement individual when we're
when we're first learning how to collectevidence, one of the things that we

(01:00:52):
discuss as an elephant in an envelope, and we say, and what that
does is it proves a concept thatif you're looking for an elephant, not
going to open envelopes in someone's houseand look inside for that elephant. You're
not going to look in a bedsidedrawer or in the breadbox or something like
that. Now, that said,when a person is given an authority to

(01:01:12):
conduct an investigation, they are giventhe guidelines and boundaries of that investigation.
And so I'm sure that doctor Kirkpatrickdid his due diligence within those boundaries.
The question was, and I knowthis sounds silly to a lot of people,
was the information that he needed availableto him and wasn't able to get
to him? And I have seriousquestions about and I think the big breakdown

(01:01:35):
that we should focus on is thatmister Grush was an advisor of the UAPTF.
The UAPTF was succeeded by Arrow.If Arrow did not receive all the
file cabinets and email archives and evidencethat the UAPTF had, why are we
saying that it was succeeded by it. Why if mister Kirkpatrick had mister Grush's

(01:01:57):
information, and if the United Statesgovernment in it believes that his IG complaint
has merit again, why weren't weseeing that? So I don't want to
place the onus on whether he's tellingus something or not. I do want
to give him the benefit of thedoubt of his guidelines. But it seems
clear that he should either know moreor he was not informed. And I

(01:02:21):
think that's what we need to deconflictnow. Yeah, you know, especially
I think um, I feel likeespecially online, there's several different groups to
where you have the very beginners thatare just like what, there's your folks,
because I've actually met if you quiteliterally now like I'm like, yeah,

(01:02:42):
welcome to planet Earth in case youdidn't know this before. And then
there's there's been you know, othersto be like well I've been listening here
and there and I mean quite literally, there's like five different groups. And
it's like when it comes to thesedifferent um you know, because there was
I was thinking, Okay, maybeI didn't like what NASA was doing and
all of that. I thought itwas complete bs. But maybe someone with

(01:03:06):
a different mindset to them that wouldbe mind blowing and then that would get
them going to something. But anyway, I don't know. I'm still I'm
still not forgiving them. There's abig disparity between First of all, I
mean, I guess I don't wantto say top tier or give anybody a
rank system. But you've got peoplewho have experienced and remember their experiences of

(01:03:27):
this phenomenon who have a very definitiveinterest in the subject. You've got people
that may or may not have experiencedthe phenomenon but have an intense love of
the subject, whether it's you know, just a science fiction e love of
it, a curiosity or whatever.There's a whole lot of our population who,

(01:03:51):
pardon my mild bad language, doesn'tgive a damn about this subject.
And I've I've run into a lotof those folks, and I think a
lot of us who are who maybein upology, may be in a bubble
sometimes forgetting Well, it's it's truethat a lot of constituents don't care about
this. UM I don't know whyyet, I have I have my suspicions,

(01:04:15):
But we have a we've got aplace like NASA, National Aeronautic Space
Administration or civilian arm of our ofthe you know, the scientific aspect of
our government. Who knows what insidethat organization. I don't know how secrets
are kept there. You and Ihave watched probably hundreds of hours of International

(01:04:39):
Space Station and Space Shuttle footage,and we've we've become familiar with the fact
that a lot of anomalous objects havebeen caught on camera, that the cameras
are then cut off, that there'snever anything discussed about it. There's the
on sense surrounding people having exposed greenscreen and guy wires on certain things.
None of these things help any ofus trust NASA as an administration. But

(01:05:03):
I think we're back to that whatdoes the administration know and how do the
people individually feel about this subject?Because it seems like you can be presented
all the evidence and go, nah, it's not real, you know,
as some people go that was debunked, and first of all, I'm an
investigator. I never received any trainingin bunking or debunking. Pardon the sarcasm,

(01:05:27):
but we carry out investigations, wecollect evidence, We make officers observations
and actions in a report, andthen leadership takes that evidence and makes a
decision. So I throw the wholedebunking thing out of the window. That's
armchair stuff, right, Okay,Well, sean Um, if there's anything
else you would you would want toadd, please do other than that.

(01:05:48):
I think you know. I wantto thank you for coming on and talking
about this. You're the only onethat I knew that I could reach out
to who's somewhat close to Grouch.But I'm not sure if somehow, if
you don't mind, if there isa connection there, or you can forward
forward him My channel is something seeif he would be interested to come forward.

(01:06:12):
I don't know if there's any legalrepercussions for him doing that right now,
but I would love to talk tohim too. I'll certainly pass the
invitation along. I can't vouch forfor what the results may be, but
allow me to say to your audienceand to the folks that are listening,
that you know you may have seenme a little more on guard tonight,
and you may have seen me berather bold and how quick I was to

(01:06:36):
shoot down the way. Some folksmay have been stating something or not.
But the fact is is we arein a historical period going forward, and
a lot of the people that don'twant this to go forward are going to
mind all of these interviews and they'regoing to be checking all of the commas
and making sure the teas are crossedand looking for any issues that they can

(01:06:57):
cherry pick against this subject. Ithink all of us are on the same
side of the fence. We wantto know what the truth is. We
want to know what was collected overthe last eighty years, and we want
to start somewhere fresh where we canall learn together. So I think less
debunking at this point and more constructiveinvestigating is the way to go for all
of us. So I want tosay thanks, Ann, thank you.

(01:07:18):
Well, you know, I guessyou know this is one of those It's
one of these small, you know, privileges, but that everyone can achieve,
which is like, you know,I'm not trying to keep constantly pushing
the os our conference, but ifthey just came to the os our conference.
You were all over the place anyoneand anyone could talk to you,
and they have been talking to you, you know. And then later on,

(01:07:41):
you know, at different different roomswhere just there's alcohol, we all
sit and talking. I mean,I don't drink, but for those to
do dude for hours and hours,I mean two three o'clock in the morning,
you know. And so for someonewho has something to hide, you
would not be that off guard,you know what I mean. You and
I spent days together and we hadsome very frank conversations that you know,

(01:08:03):
and we caged a lot of thethings we talked about to make sure everybody
in the room understand when we werespeculating, presenting opinion or fact. But
you're absolutely right. I would.I've never been to another UFO conference.
I haven't spoken at another one,but I think I will be returning to
the Ozark's conference, whether I'm speakingor not, because I had a fantastic

(01:08:25):
time. Those were really good folks. The monetization and the nonsense was at
an absolute low level, and thecommunity and informative networking was incredible. It
was a great feeling being there well, because I think everybody else was awesome.
Yeah, I'm glad you were ableto make it because I think it
takes down that barrier between Okay,a person that has watched all kinds of

(01:08:49):
videos from you and has formed anopinion I was supposed to somebody that okay,
i've heard about you, let mego talk to you. That's a
big difference, you know, becausethen all these different attacks are like basically
formed about ten videos watched, youknow, and then each video made you
know, gave you know, gotthem to respond emotionally in a different way.

(01:09:09):
And then of course that comes asa form of attack, as you
know. But if they simply justfor example, came to an event within
you, it was then and eventhen you didn't even need to have a
ticket to come and talk to you, because the whole point of that conference
is that everybody is there. Youknow, you can't get into the hall,
but all the speakers were outside thehall and meeting with everyone and anyone

(01:09:29):
anyway, you know, And sothat right there would would give them that
access to say, Okay, Ihave some questions, can you clarify this
or not? You know, becausethat was the whole reason, the sole
purpose you were there, you know. And and then to just kind of
also the engage from you. It'slike, okay, what kind of person
are you? Because even even likethis, you still can't sense the same

(01:09:50):
same thing than when you are inperson, you know, and then you're
more relaxed, you know, notjust you, but I'm talking about everyone,
and then you know, I mean, look the conversations, I mean,
what was that a group of whatfive, six, seven? I
can't because I know there were howevermany were then that the suite was open
anyone, anyone could just walk inand out. They saw all the different

(01:10:12):
people there, and then just everythingunder the sky was discussed and talked about,
you know, and so that wouldhave been a time for them to
meet and talk, right Instead,it's like, I don't understand this part.
Like earlier today, it's just youknow, just immediately attack, you
know, attack you're you're that.It's like, okay, you're not helping,
you know, if we're really tryingto come to the bottom of this,
it's not helping because there's no conversation. There's just who has a better

(01:10:38):
insult at the end of the day, you know, it's not a conversation.
And so that's that's not a mindsetof somebody to want to get to
the bottom of it. I'm talkingfor those that are acting that way online,
especially towards some of these figures thatare that are on the internet.
If I can say you, I'mnot sure if it was you and I
or Forrest and I who discussed theidea that this is a high and at

(01:11:00):
the end of the highway there's adestination we call a disclosure. And what
disclosure means is something is an answerthat we can all wrap our heads around,
that we all understand and that wecan move forward with. Um.
I think that a lot of us, myself included, take exits early off
of that freeway, little exits ofoutrage where we find a portion of this
that that bothers us so much thatwe kind of let that grow around us

(01:11:21):
and become our mission. But Ithink it's important to get back on the
freeway with that information because unfortunately,there's bigger challenges ahead before that. Before
disclosure, we've we have things totalk about, things to understand together about
consciousness and history and physics and eschatologythat are definitely tied into this subject.

(01:11:44):
It is not just as simple asnuts and bolts and real or not real,
and the sooner we move to real, let's all agree it's real and
then start fighting over everything. Butwe let's leave behind whether or not we're
trying to figure out if it's realor not. All right, Well,
Sean, thank you again. Ireally appreciate it, and everyone else watching,

(01:12:06):
I'm glad you were able to tunein. Sean ended up being able
to come on, and I'm gladhe did and talk to us and answer
some of your questions. So doyour own research, watch things that are
out there. Learn as much asyou can. And for those that actually
wanted to learn and came to askquestions, I'm glad you did, and
I hope you got the answers youwere looking for, or at least that

(01:12:29):
gave you another breadcrumb to follow upfor next time. But anyway, thank
you all of you for joining ustoday. Sean, thanks and you guys
have a good day and I'll catchyou next week Wednesday at seven pm.
All right, they care

All Episodes

Discussion With Chief Sean Cahill About Intelligence Whistleblower David Grusch & UFOs | UFO HUB #90

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark

24/7 News: The Latest

Dateline NBC

.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;}Discussion With Chief Sean Cahill About Intelligence Whistleblower David Grusch & UFOs | UFO HUB #90