UAP Crossfire - Read all about it - UAP News Center on UAP Cross Fire - KGRA Digital Broadcasting Discovery

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:01):
UAPs unidentified anomalist phenomenon. Are theyextraterrestrial, interdimensional time travelers in origin,
or are they simply a result oftop secret military black projects, false flag
alien invasion psyop, drones or otherhuman made aircraft. Joined UFO historian Don

(00:24):
Ecker move on State Director for NewYork, Chris DePerno, retired veteran pilot
command of Coobra, and Welles Deanhost and researcher Martin Willis, as they
discussed the latest news and topics regardingyou aps with a no holds barred approach
on UAP fostering ladies and gentlemen,Welcome to the premiere episode of Crossfire UAP.

(00:58):
My name is Don Ecker. I'mpreviously the director of Research for UFO
Magazine, and since nineteen ninety one, I have been a radio broadcaster that
has basically zeroed in primarily on theUFO phenomenon. Now, our panel is

(01:19):
an illustrious mix of various personalities throughoutthe UFO research field. We have mister
Chris Stapernell, a retired former NewYork police officer. We have mister Martin
Willis, who has been in thisfray for a very long time, and

(01:42):
we have Commander Cobra, who isa military retired aviation pilot and military specialist.
And basically, today we are goingto take a look at one of
the most controversial aspects in current UFOresearch, and that is the topic of

(02:08):
disclosure. Will it or will itnot? Happen? Now, I'd like
to take an opportunity to introduce ourvarious panelists. Mister Chris DePerno, Chris,
uh, take it away. Hey, guys, I'm glad to be
on this panel. Listen, I'mthe skeptic of this group because I'm telling

(02:29):
you there's things that go on withdisclosure that I think is fraud. I
think there's money involved. I thinkthere's black ops secrets that they're trying to
keep from us. So I'm notsure you're ever going to see disclosure because
if you do, there might bepeople going to prison. Mister Martin Willis,
please, Well, you know,I think we've had some sort of

(02:53):
trickle in disclosure in my opinion,you know, like a sort of a
nudge up to it. But anyonethat's paid attention for a long time has
seen, you know, the setbacksand the misinformation, and you know,
we get all primed up for whatwe think is going to happen, and
then we realize, oh, anotherroswell slide situation or something like that.

(03:17):
You know, So I don't reallyknow. You know, I watched this
great film from the nineteen fifties wherea guy that was old then said something
along the lines, I just can'twait for this whole thing to be disclosed.
And I was back in the nineteenfifties and he just as I hope

(03:37):
in my lifetime, and so alot of us have had that. And
I've heard the expression the disclosure witha big D or a small D,
and you know, maybe we've hadsome little bit of movement towards the small
D. But I don't really knowif we're actually moving forward or it's just
more disinformation. And I just don'tknow. Commanded Karbra Well, first,

(04:01):
I want to say a great,big thank you to Bill Skywatcher who got
us all together to bring this together, and Kgra for putting the show together.
It's a great return and I amhonored to be with three of you
on this. I couldn't in theexpression in the flying world, I couldn't
carry your helmet bags when it comesto this subject. I am the far

(04:23):
out on the way out on thebranch guy who looks at this kind of
stuff and gives only the opinion basedon life experience to it. Not a
lot of really cool insider information onthis particular part of UAP. I'm not
able to sit in any of thosekinds of groups, but I am pretty

(04:43):
familiar with the process of what wesee going on. So also a shout
to the greatest audience on the planet. It's great to return to KGRA with
such an esteem group, and it'sbeen a pleasure to do that. I
gentlemen, I guess I'm in violentagreement with you in that I do not
think disclosure as we would define it, because I think to each one of

(05:08):
us, disclosure is a different personalthing. For each person, it's a
different thing. I don't think we'reever going to have disclosure as we would
define it come out. We maysee a reveal, and we may see
some resolution. Okay, I guessI'll start this process off. For well

(05:30):
over twenty years, I was thedirector of research for UFO magazine that was
published here in Los Angeles, California. It was a publication begun by my
wife in nineteen eighty six and herthen business partner, Miss Sherry Start.
I came on board in nineteen eightyeight. Now I came with a background

(05:57):
in investigation. I was a lawngforcementofficer, a police officer, and then
a detective. And when I enteredthis it was kind of, in many
ways, a very tricky transition.On the one hand, investigations I know

(06:18):
very well. On the other hand, it seemed at the time to be
a very fringe topic, except Ihad a very dramatic encounter with the phenomenon.
Now in the early days, Iwas convinced that with just the right
case, just the right witnesses,eventually, among others, the media would

(06:46):
catch on, Oh my god,was I wrong. But the one prevailing
item in this process has always beenthose who have been involved with it have
looked for government disclosure on what theyknew. Now, roughly the thirty five

(07:08):
years that I've been involved in this, I've learned a lot of things.
And one of the things I learnedbecause I've dealt with them. I butted
heads with the Department of Defense,I've butted heads with NASA. I butted
heads with practically every skeptic worth thename of skeptic in this country. And

(07:31):
the one thing that I have learnedis this, and it has recently been
impressed on me once again. Thishas a core secret. The UFO topic
has a core secret, and inrecent years it's been indicated strong evidence that

(07:57):
this core secret is protected by anSAP, which means a special access program.
We can get into the minutia later, but what that means is unless
you have a direct need to know, and that obviously would mean that you

(08:18):
are in the process, the governmentprocess, somewhere, you won't. Recently,
we've discovered in the last couple ofyears that even a flag officer ranked
director of the Defense Intelligence Agency triedto proceed down the path to find out

(08:41):
exactly what does this government, theAmerican government and associated bureaucracies truly know about
this subject, and purportedly he wasshut out of the process. This came
from some very distinguished witnesses. Now, the bottom line is there is something

(09:05):
happening that we are being forbidden fromhearing from, or experiencing or being told
about. Gentlemen, please take itaway, commander, why don't you lead
the charge? Well? Don youtouched upon a number of points that are

(09:28):
I think absolutely crucial to understanding ourfuture debates on the show about events to
go around us. So a specialaccess program or even some higher level that's
put on there, those are afixed by individuals involved in investigation or the

(09:48):
control of the information that's there.So you have that there and they're going
to make decisions on who else canhave it. It exists for a lot
of important reasons, but often italso exists to protect faith in government process,
faith in the institutions that pour portprotection, or the ability for us

(10:11):
as the society that we have herein the States to live. And it
can go off the rails, andI think this is one of those areas
where it's gone off the rails.It's to me, it comes down to
two things. Either, there's nodoubt in my mind you're correct. There
is some basic kernel of understanding knowledge, unassailable fact that has led to this.

(10:33):
It seems to be well cooperated bya number of world governments, regardless
of their ben So it's something thatlikens back to things that we're talked about
in previous movies, television shows,popular press. So there's no doubt about
it to me that it exists.The next part is it's convenient, and

(10:54):
if you have made mistakes, ifyou have fit, it's hard to keep
track of that. And then whatdo you do when it's time to come
clean? How do you come cleanand not cause someone to go back and
go, well, you knew thisall this time, you didn't tell us.
Why there are studies like the RandStudy. I remember talking about this

(11:16):
with Martin a long time back thatthe Rand Study said that you know things
were going to collapse. World religionswould lose their ability to have a moralistic
code for people because if it cameout and was known, and they weren't
saying if it did or didn't,they were just saying if it had become
fact that you know, one ofthose fun think tank kind of things go
on. Well, folks, Ithink we're at that point on the world

(11:37):
stage that you could come out withanything. In fact. I believe that's
why a lot of the things thatwe're seeing going on right now is just
a side show to take us offthe distraction of other events that are going
on that have critical impacts on us. But driving back the need to know
is assigned by someone who decides whois going to be in that circle and
that circle is power and power withoutany check and balance, power correpts,

(12:01):
and there is no check and balancewith this. We have events in the
past that just recently have come tolight in the last decade or so,
nuclear armed bombers that had mishaps wherewe did not tell the citizens where what
it had occurred during that event fora lot of reasons, we didn't want
to give up the fact of deficienciesthat we had in our ability to carry

(12:24):
out the mission for it lose theterrence. So I think that's a good
thing. There's people's lives on it. But there's also a lot of stuff
that goes on around this where peopledo not want to be held accountable for
making a mistake for whatever reason.I don't know why nowadays, because you
make mistakes now and no one getsseems to get in trouble, No one
has to ever resign, no onegets sent away. In fact that they

(12:46):
get good deals. It seems likegot it, but they go to very
interesting second and third careers. TheF thirty five b that we just lost
in South Carolina is a perfect examplewhere I think, in the back of
all this is going on, there'sa group of people releasing information and watching
how it moves around and how itspreads. It's crowdsourcing. It's a form

(13:09):
of intelligence. John, I thinkyou know this better than most of us
on the panel, how this works, where you put subjects out and now
because of our proliferation of social mediaand the way we communicate, how we're
doing this show, how we haveinstantaneous communication going back and forth that people
watch to see where those trends aregoing. And I think they're concerned about

(13:33):
trying to keep our attention on otherthings, not the things that are at
hand that are damerous. So yep, there's good reasons that you have sapp
there's good reasons that you control information, especially folks that are way down on
a point the end of the stick. But sometimes way down on that point
the end of the stick, arepeople doing things that are not in keeping
with what most of the citizens inthis country voted for want, and most

(13:56):
people want at least the honest truthto be thrown out. I personally have
said this to you, all ofyou directly in mass and other forums.
I don't need the government to tellme what I believe on this subject,
but I wouldn't mind some resolution,and I wouldn't mind some clarity on it.

(14:16):
I'm not one that could have myfaith shaken in the process anymore than
it is right now. We're ina very weird time and I don't like
the way the subject is being usedas a distraction to other things that are
going on around us. But ultimatelyback to your question, Don, yes,
there is a root truth. Thereis a foundational issue here, and

(14:41):
it has been controlled from the beginningof its time because we have a group
amongst us, self appointed, thatbelieves they know better than we do press
working away. There's a lot ofthings that Commander Cobra says that I would
I would ad believe that it isright on spot. First of all,

(15:03):
I was a major crimes detective likeyou, Don, I was a detective,
and I believe in following the evidence. That's the way I've always been
built, especially with this subject.Show me the evidence before I make a
determination. That's number one. Numbertwo, I don't think disclosure is going
to be anything because, first ofall, sixty three percent of the United

(15:26):
States people believe in in something flyingaround up there. They have our own
different theories of what it is,but there's no question that they believe that
in the universe, somewhere there's othercivilizations, and there's a good possibility there
they're visiting us, either by timetravel or by interdimensional or they got bases

(15:48):
under the water. Who knows,because we haven't seriously looked at this.
But I will tell you this,by looking at this subject of disclosure,
I don't think it's gonna come.I don't think it's going to come because
I think what they did was takeeverything that they've learned about this and privatize
it. I actually think it's beentaken out of the government's hands in some

(16:10):
respects to make it where people cannotget the answer. So you give it
the Lockheed Martin, you give itthe Boweling, you give it to these
private companies, and they go upyours. We're not gonna give you squat.
Why because they monetize it. Becausethey give billions, not millions,
billions of our tax paying dollars inorder to research this, and they want

(16:36):
that money coming back in. Andso if they can pull that string as
long as they can, they keepgetting the money. And if you see
what the threat the new narrative isthey're not talking about, Well, there
might be civilizations that they could begood, and they change, Well,
there's a threat in our airspace.These people could be threats. This is
a threat. That's a threat.Here's a threat. So do I think

(17:02):
that they are manipulating us? Absolutely? Smander Koba is right on there.
They want to see how we respondto the narratives. Now, I got
to tell you that. What mademe believe that is because how do you
how do you lose an F thirtyfive lightning plane? How do you lose
it? What the guy in thebackyard go, hey, I think it's
something crashing. We didn't lose thatairplane. That's ridiculous, of course not.

(17:30):
You know, we got some ofthe most sophisticated stuff going and God
only knows what what we do havethat they're not telling us. So they
put out just like you said,they do put out narratives to see how
the public reacts. Why, becausethere's a bigger agenda. The UFO field
is a small part of the agendaof what they really want to do to

(17:52):
encompass us, to maneuver us,and we as people are being maneuvered.
I mean, it's plane a day. Police departments used to do it.
Don you know as well as Ido. If we wanted to find a
killer or something like this, wewould put out false information. We would
work the narrative, you know,to the public, so the public kind
of got an idea of where we'regoing with this, or even notify them,

(18:17):
even notify the suspect that he wona large cash award, all that
and pick it up. All thetime. We put out stuff that was
to benefit us in order to getour goal. The government's no different.
They're doing the same thing. Look, I will tell you this, and
I always I was taught by agood old timer. He says, Chris.

(18:40):
Anytime they're showing you the right hand, you better be watching the left
hand because that's where the real dealis. And that's no different from the
government. They have special access projectsgoing on that we will never see why
because they want to weaponize it,monetize it, and be able to make
it for them. The second thingis money, money, money. Anytime

(19:03):
you see white crime, white criminalsand stuff like that. As far as
money money money goes, the whitecrime is amazing. You're not talking millions
to talk of billions of dollars beingso Remember rum Silva said one time we
lost billions of dollars and we don'tknow where it is. How do you
lose billions of dollars in the Departmentof Defense. I just want to note
that that occurred the night before itdoesert storm kicked off. I just want

(19:26):
to throw that. Yeah, yeah, But he goes public before Devin's storm
and he says, hey, folks, we lost billions of dollars, like
you lost a fight dollar bill somewhere'sin the house. Come on, folks,
this is a bunch of Huey andand they're just going to manipulate us
until we say enough and a beastMartin please take it away. Well,

(19:52):
you know, one of the thingsI spoke with Chris Mellen when he first,
the very first got an interest inthis topic. And one of the
questions I asked him was could apresident find out in office, find out
what exactly is going on? Andhe said to me that if they,

(20:14):
if that person or whoever it washe was addressing organization or whatever, actually
knew that they would have to tell, they would have to say it.
But so I always thought this hadto be very compartmentalized and privatized, as
you all are saying. I thinkthere's a lot to that, but I

(20:34):
guess I would have to ask throwtoss this out to anyone that wants to
answer debate it whatever. Does anyoneactually think that there is a part of
the government somewhere that actually knows what'sgoing on? I personally think they probably

(20:55):
do not really know exactly what itis. You know, maybe they're maybe
they'd have evidence to know what itis, but maybe they can't figure it
out. Uh, you know,I think it's a possibility, and I
just wanted to toss that out there. If anyone else wants to talk address

(21:15):
that, do you think they actuallyknow what is going on? Well,
Mark, I've spent everybody wantsn't jumpingon that one, Martin, I spent
the last several years thinking about whatpossibly could this core secret be. Okay,

(21:37):
this has been something that's been onmy plate literally if you get right
down to it, back to thevery beginnings of when my wife and I
were publishing UFO Magazine, and overthose years I have come I've been suffused
with a lot of people's theories ofwhat it could. For example, Roswell.

(22:03):
One of the secrets of Roswell.This is what I was told do
I believe it. I don't know, but human bodies were discovered in the
crash record. I heard that.I heard that there were secret testings going
on human beings by these purported ETS. I've heard other things. At one

(22:27):
point, believe it or not,there was a contingent within the UFO research
field that believed that one group ofETS and there if we're being visited by
one, Ladies and gentlemen, believeme, there's more than just one group

(22:48):
that have dropped by for a visit. I had people telling me that they
were utilizing human beings for sustenance.In other words, we were being cannibal
by certain groups of ETS. I'veheard that over those years there have been
a number of different types of groups. For example, there's a group that

(23:12):
comes by that are very kindly disposedtoward the human race. I've heard other
groups that have come by for scientificcuriosity and they're basically benign, but they
don't care one way or the other. And then I've heard, and this

(23:33):
incidentally came from somebody that basically wouldhave been in the know, that there
is a group of ETS that cameby that are basically still in the vicinity,
that have an amical hatred for thehuman race, and it's because we

(24:00):
have all, in one degree oranother, a psychic ability or talent which
they regard as a threat. Now, with that being said, just yesterday,
is we do this show? Completeda paper that I basically began a

(24:22):
number of months ago on this verything, disclosure and what my ultimate decision
has been about what is truly happening. It's currently being in the proofing process.
I'm going to be releasing it hopefullyvery soon. But one of the
things that I came to the conclusionof why there is this secret is this

(24:52):
in near Earth space? Not justnow, but for a very long time,
there has been an ongoing conflict.You know. Back in July twenty
twenty three, when Congress was holdingits UFOUAP hearings, there was a witness

(25:15):
that came forward, a former militaryofficer that was involved in intelligence matters and
operations by the name of David Grousch. And Grausch made a statement that stuck
with me for a long time,and that statement was that there have been

(25:37):
at least a dozen, perhaps moreof these off world vehicles that have been
picked up by military authorities and others. Now I thought about that. My
god, if any of those craftare extraterrestrial, which means they came from

(25:57):
a different star system them we're talkingabout light years away from planet Earth.
Does it make sense that those technologicalmarbles could come from another star system all
the way to Earth and then suddenlycrash. Didn't make sense. I would

(26:18):
have to believe that their maintenance peopleare some of the best available anywhere in
the universe to keep these things fine. No, but I'll tell you what
does make sense. I'm a combatveteran from Vietnam. Okay, I did
two tours in Southeast Asia, andone thing I saw a lot of were

(26:42):
aircraft that were shot down, shotdown, okay, blown out of the
sky. This made more sense tome. If what Graph said is correct
is true that these things are beingshutdown, now, what would that mean.

(27:02):
That would mean that there are atleast two groups out there that have
a problem with each other, andthat problem is being brought to Earth.
Now. Most of us, let'sface it, the large majority of the
world, ninety nine point nine percentof everybody on the planet probably would think

(27:25):
that's something from a science fiction movie. But what if it's not. Okay?
Now, I was personal friends withmister Ingo Swan. Ingo Swan was
the man that designed the protocols forthe Stargate remote viewing project. This,
incidentally, is a large part ofwhat I talk about in my paper.

(27:49):
And Swan, in nineteen seventy fivewas directed by unknown intelligence people to perform
a rem out viewing session that basicallytook place on the Moon. Swan he
told me this in person, aswell as putting it in his book Penetration,

(28:14):
that he discovered on the far sideof the Moon, the moon that
never faces Earth, what appeared tobe an extraterrestrial base, and while he
was remotely viewing this base, theydetected him, which obviously would mean they
have a tremendous psychic talent. Also, and Swan said, they were not

(28:41):
happy about this. They are notfriendly, and they became quite angry when
they detected me viewing them. Sothe bottom line is we don't truly know
what we don't know, but Ido believe that there are certain individuals in

(29:03):
government that in fact do have afair handle on what is going on,
and they are terrified to their eyebrowsthat this information may hit the public.
Gentlemen, take it away well,First of all, don the jury's still

(29:23):
out with Grush with me because I'lltell you the reason why. Because he
may be a patriot, he maybe a good, great whistleblower. But
here's what I heard from him.There's two things that really stuck with him.
One he said, why, Iheard it from this guy and I
heard it from that guy. AndI saw this paper here, but I
don't have it. And I sawthis paper here but I don't have it.

(29:45):
And I got this picture here butI don't have it. And this
guy told me about this, buthe's not coming forward. And the other
thing about what Grush is that whenhe was asked about Ry and this really
stuck in my mind, he said, I'm not authorized to talk about it

(30:06):
now. If you're a whistleblower andyou want to put this out there.
Roswell is the biggest thing going becausemost people believe in roswell. Most people
believe that something crashed there or shotshot down there, which I tend to
believe it was more shot down thana crash, because if you're coming light
years to hear, you're not goingto get a flat tire or an oil

(30:29):
engine knock or something like that.You know, you've got a sophisticated enough
equipment, you're not really going tocrash. Maybe I'm wrong, but he
says I'm not authorized to talk aboutthat, which means is he was briefed
and said, you need to stayaway from this. You need to stay
away from this. You need toyou can go in this direction, you
can go in this direction. That'smanipulation. That's number one. Number two.

(30:56):
I mean, as far as useat them eating us, I'm going
on a die tomorrow because I looklike warshoe beef, that Japanese beef.
So if I could take some marbleoff of me, I maybe they'll leave
me alone. Incidentally, that wasfrom the original John Lear paper back in
eighty eight. Yeah, so I'mactually I mean, if they looked at
us as cattle, don I thinkby now we would have seen them come

(31:22):
down and heard a whole lot ofus in. I mean, they don't
care. They're forty five thousand yearsof more advanced than us. What they
could care less if we get frightenedor not. I mean, when you
step out an amphile, do youreally care if the answer frightened? Commander?
You sorry to say something, You'reyou're muted there you are, Yes,

(31:44):
sir, I just wanted to jumpand I want to answer your question.
So yes, I think that ultimatelythere are some folks that know.
But on the inside of military andgovernment ops. I have been in the
room, I've been out in thefield. I've been working alongside you know,
very very covert surveillance operations, onlyto bump into somebody else who was

(32:09):
targeted to the same operation that Iwas. Completely different source of money,
completely different source of control of communications. And not always was it done to
have redundancy or depth to cover fora successful mission. Sometimes it was done
because the people at the top callingthe shots retire, die, go away,

(32:31):
forget. They have other intrigues thatgo on. So John going excuse
me, markin going back to yourearlier question, I really think that there
are plenty of opportunities here for peopleto set things into motion. Go away,
and you have redundancy. You havepeople toiling in one area that aren't

(32:57):
aware of people doing something the sameor similar and an other. That's the
nature of our bureaucratic relationship and ithappens everywhere. So Commander, let me
I'd just like to and I apologizefor interrupting, but you hit a point
with me. So what you're sayingis, basically, we have two separate

(33:17):
groups doing the same project. I'dbe happy if it was down to two.
So what a waste of money.So you gotta imagine what kind of
power fraud there is with that,right, no argument there. I want
to get off the I completely amon board with the the money aspect of

(33:38):
this. But getting back in Martin'squestion, John, you made a remark
talking about shootdowns. So if youlook at the difference of something like the
Afghanistan invasion by the then Soviet Union, very very sophisticated aircraft, very very
sophisticated military, regardless of the factgood or bad or otherwise set out a

(34:00):
side. They were very capable,and they went against a group of highly
motivated, very motivated folks that didnot have, especially in the beginning,
the types of technology and never reallyattained the types of technology that would put
them on a one to one footy. And they were highly successful at physically
knocking down all kinds of aircraft becausethey used very basic kinetic weapons that they

(34:25):
had. They used certain things.Now I am going to disagree with the
gentlemen because with over fifteen thousand hoursflying different types of air breathing vehicles.
Nothing anti gravity. I wish nothingthat has hyper drive. I double wish.
Things do go wrong, and thereare options often that go on that

(34:49):
you would send a vehicle that doesnot have the means to return, or
has a very slight means to return, if the furthering of a goal or
a mission was worthy of doing that. We had talks in this country in
the late fifties and early sixties aboutputting a man on the Moon that could
not leave the moon, with thehopes that within a year we could make

(35:09):
a vehicle to go back and getin, because we had to take possession
of the Moon before other countries did. I don't think that other races of
people that exist in this universe maybe altruistic or any more altruistic than we
are. They may be more advanced, they may be more enlightened. If

(35:30):
you look at the family of man, you have folks that are extremely sophisticated,
have an unbelievably wonderful conscious, Theygive up everything, and they live
in near poverty. You have otherfolks that will do anything to acquire power.
I'm talking about different countries, differentgroups of people that we see on
the face of the Earth. Iwould imagine that a similar kind of array

(35:53):
would occur in our galaxy, ifnot the entire universe. I go back
to the expression I don't need tobe confirmed in my belief. It would
be nice to finally get the truthbecause I like truth. I like when
truth comes out because, aside fromthe shock factor, you kind of know
where you stand and you go forwardwith this. But to answer your question,

(36:14):
don and to answer your question tostart this Martin, yes, I
think that shootdown is a very capablething. Sorry, gentlemen. I think
these things could malfunction pretty easily,especially if they had to do something extraordinary
to make the travel possible in areasonable of what we would call a time
constraint, which is a constraint thatwe designed. Time is something that we

(36:38):
do not have a good handle on. It's something that we have created.
As well as the nature of businessand being confused and having other people working
at the same time on the samegoal. Certain groups of people going away
rediscovering something that was already discovered notuncommon, not at least in my experience.

(37:00):
On a much smaller scale. Obviously, than this. Well, I'll
jump in here and just thank youfor that. Everyone, thank you for
that. Uh. And you know, a lot of times when I talk
about the subject, I always haveto back up and say, Okay,

(37:22):
I'm thinking on human terms, butwe have no idea what we're encountering and
what they would do or not do. And so perhaps there's you know,
perhaps Roswell was some type of interferencethey didn't expect from lightning or whatever.
You know. I mean, it'sit's uh, it's really hard to grasp.

(37:45):
But uh. Don you mentioned aboutthe possibility of of you know,
uh being shot at and knocked downthat way, And I had this,
I'm going to see if I pullthat up. I don't even know if
I can. No, I can'tdo it. I tried to do a
screenshot, so I had. Ihad Jonathan Wager on a while ago as

(38:08):
a guest on my show, andhe's only talked about the situation twice.
He was in Peru in nineteen ninetyseven. And let's see, Okay,
I was just told by Bill inthe back room that he can share the
screen. Let me just see ifI can do that again. And I

(38:30):
think the image is totally gone,so it doesn't matter, so sorry about
that. Anyway, The situation wasthat when he came up to this craft,
the first thing that he thought inPeru was that it was hit by
a hawk missile, A kinetic typeof situation you mentioned, Commander, I

(38:50):
believe that they're kinetic. And anyway, with the damage, he's looked at
other craft and it was similar.So he thought that this particular thing that
embedded itself into a cliff, withall this weird liquid coming out, those
changing color stuff like that, hebelieves that that thing was actually hit and

(39:10):
taken down. And when I askedhim, I said, this thing in
the middle of the jungle wedged intoa cliff. It seems like it would
be something impossible to retrieve because therewere a couple of Chinooks or whatever they
were. It came in with theseguys in black camo, and there's another
marine that was talking about a similarsituation. Later. Jonathan's talked about this

(39:37):
since it happened in nineteen ninety seven. Again, he's only talked about it
twice. But he was saying thatthese people came in and I asked him,
I said, what about rescuing thecraft. It seems in the middle
of the jungle wedged into the cliff, and he says his speculation on it
was they weren't interested in the craft, they were interested in what was inside
the craft. So I thought thatwas an interesting Well. I have basically

(40:05):
come down on the fact that veryclose to Earth and perhaps even on Earth,
because back when my wife and Iwere doing UFO magazine, we had
one of our correspondents originally came fromthe Ukraine when it was still under the
Soviet Union, and this individual,Paul Stonehill was his name, did a

(40:32):
lot of worldwide reporting on primarily theUFO situation, and he came out with
several stories that we ended up publishinginvolving what appeared to be okay to the
witnesses that saw this conflict in theskies, primarily in Siberia, literally shooting

(41:00):
between various groups of unidentified flying craft. Now, there was another situation that
stone Hill also reported on where agroup of Russian Soviet UDT specialists underwater demolition
people were at Lake Baikal in theformer Soviet Union doing some type of operation

(41:28):
or mission there when they encountered humanoidbeings beneath the surface of the lake,
one of the Russians foolishly attempted tocapture one of those people. This story
today is fairly well known, andthese unknown humanoids basically ended up attacking the

(41:52):
Russians, killing several, causing severalto surface prematurely where they suffered the bens
and basically showed hostility. Now,perhaps it was only self defense, only
God knows. I don't, butthe bottom line was that some of these

(42:16):
face to face encounters have not beengood. Now, with that being said,
getting back to the conflict aspect ofthis In nineteen ninety one, in
November, I broke a major storyon Larry King Live involving a Soviet probe,
Phobos two that was sent to Mars, launched in July of nineteen eighty

(42:40):
eight, arrived in Mars orbit beganperforming its experiment. At the time was
not known here in the West thatNASA was a very integral part of this
mission. It was not announced then, but during the mission. At the

(43:00):
time, glov Cosmos, the SovietRussian Space Agency, and NASA were contemplating
the possibility of a joint manned missionto Mars, and at that time eighty
seven eighty eight, eighty nine thetimeframe they were looking at was twenty fifteen.

(43:22):
Well, make a long story short. This probe was photographing Mars,
was photographing the Martian moon Phobos,when it took a photograph of a stupendously
huge thing object whatever it was,a long, cylindrical cigar shaped craft.

(43:46):
Okay that then, according to Glaff, Cosmos turned toward their probe, ramming
it. Basically, they destroyed it, and later a few months later I
broke another story, originally on NBC, then on CNN on once again Larry

(44:08):
King Live of a Space Shuttle missionSTS forty eight that clearly showed and I
thought this would be the smoking gun, clearly showed an unknown object a UFO,
rising above the limb of the Earth. And then a few seconds later

(44:32):
on this live video that NASA hadstreamed down, Okay, this was from
a live video, there was abrilliant flash of light that appeared to be
behind the Space Shuttle, and thensomething streaked directly at this UFO. The
UFO took a violent evasive maneuver toget out of the way, then came

(45:00):
circling back. Now, no matterhow you cut it, that was some
type of hostile action I don't thinkthat anything has changed much in those thirty
odd plus years command So why wouldNASA have that as have that allowed to

(45:24):
be photographed. Well, obviously theydidn't know about it at the time.
They would send live feeds, right, I understand the promise of the life
feed decker. My point is wereyou were saying we were the witness between
two different groups in near Earth orbitthat were taking shots at each other.

(45:52):
Well, I have no way ofabsolutely knowing. That's speculation, but somebody
took a shot. I think thatNASA does some things. My favorite one
was the more recent sts when theywere out on their spacewalk and the astronat's

(46:16):
hand just happened to come in frontof b lens at a very interesting time
and then came back up and again. I think sometimes they may be blocking
from view vehicles and things they don'twant us to see. I tend to
think that they're probably terrestrial. Ithink they tend to be something that they're
trying to not show. How we'redoing something in space. The International Space

(46:42):
Station is an interesting effort because everybodywould have to agree to what is going
on there. I don't have anyhard feelings one way or the other.
A lot of the things that Ihave seen attributed to this rival group.

(47:04):
It makes me wonder if if thatis the premise behind why disclosing is so
uncomfortable for world governments to to makethe the announcement because of agreements, treaties,
whatever word you want to use,that are made. You know,
Chris, going back to your remarkand earlier trailing back to Decker about as

(47:27):
a food source, Well, Imean if gathering people up is going to
be a problem, gathering up asmall number and then using them for you
know, for ranching back of abetter term, makes a lot of sense.
It's a lot easier to transport backa small group and then use that

(47:49):
for a breeding stock. I meanthat if we're dealing with a superior intellect,
I would imagine that bringing up largenow might cause a problem. Do
I think that we would easily,going back to the premise of many of
the great shows of sixties, seventies, eighties and nineties, that folks would

(48:10):
line up in our different governmental organsto sign up others for such an adventure.
Sure, I'll go all the wayback to Rod Sterling to serve man.
You know, there's a lot ofthere's a lot of life lesson no
pun intended in that little show,in that particular episode, and it would

(48:32):
explain a lot of other activities thatare going on. Let me ask you
this, commander, and I'm goingto ask this to the entire group.
Here's my question. Do you believewe have the technology that we reverse engineered
like Bob Lazaire says Michael Schratz hasalluded to it space force out there?
Do you believe we have this antigravity technology that we can make crafts similar

(49:00):
to what has been visiting us.Okay, well, before anybody answers that,
let me just make a brief observation. When I got into this field,
the one thing that I did wasresearch the history of UFO research going
back to nineteen, well the nineteenforties. Donald Keyhole, whom I considered

(49:25):
to be the dean of the originalresearch specialist, made a notation in one
of his books that about nineteen fiftyseven fifty eight, one of the original
Nazi rocket scientists, James Oberth,had been brought over here during Operation paper

(49:49):
Clip, and in his last publicaddress to the American press before he went
totally in Communicato, was the factthat he said they were working on gravity
technology and things were coming along nicely. Then pure absolute black. Nothing further

(50:15):
came out about that. So ifyou take o Birth at his word,
and he was one of the premierNazi rocket scientists, if you take him
at his word, we have beenon that path for at least sixty plus
years. Okay, commander, doyou agree with that? Do we have

(50:37):
that technology? To give you thesimple answer, like if you had pulled
me over, yes, officer,there you go. Martin, do you
believe he had that technology? Ithink it's very possible and it would certainly
explain a number of situations that peoplereport. And Donna, obviously you believe

(50:57):
that we have that technology, right, I have talked. I have a
personal friend who is a physicist,and basically I've had a number of conversations
with him about several aspects of this. Number one I asked him, do
you think that we currently have anultra top secret black space force currently in

(51:25):
operation? He thought it was highlyprobable. And how far along are we
really technologically? And he said,well, anything that you see flying today
probably you can add about fifty yearsof additional technology to it that we don't

(51:47):
know about so I would have tosay I would not be surprised Chris at
all. So with that in mind, because we all agree that technology,
some of these things that may beshooting down may be earthly made, maybe

(52:07):
Chinese, maybe Russia. Because remembercommanded Kobra one of the things I were
stuck in my mind and after thinkingabout what you said, you talked about
the tic TACs and the possibility ofthose tic TACs may have been ours when
Fraver was flying and he was talkingabout how they were moving at such things.

(52:27):
That's stuck in my mind, andI'm saying to myself, wait a
minute, if we're that advance oftechnology, that could be our stuff,
that could be the Chinese, thatcould be the Russians who can't leave them
out, you know, and there'sa possibility that we're still in a Cold
war and we're both shooting down ourstuff. What do you think about my

(52:47):
mind that the tic tac is UStechnology. By the way it was flown,
how it interacted, what went on, how it was revealed, I
believe it was also a manned asset. People say, well, there's no
way that an occupant could survive thoseg forces. Because what we do,

(53:08):
and it's part of the discussion thatwe've had here today, we base on
something that we see and say,okay, by our standards, by our
experience, this is what it wouldtake for a vehicle to do this.
There's a really interesting thing in theworld of electronics, and it's been extrapolated
that if the transistor never came along, how would have technology been affected by

(53:34):
that? You would if you didn't. We're he had the ability. Now
you talked about the Russians, thenSoviets could put a much larger payload into
space, and because of their largerpayload, they didn't have to worry about
micro anything. They were able toput large amounts into space, and that's
what they did because getting the footholdwas more important than having technology. So

(53:58):
now we're in the catch up mode, but we can't put as much payload
up, so we now are forcedto figure out ways to miniaturize and to
make lighter or to put more inthe same amount of weight in that capacity.
That kind of impact is how Ithink you need to look at all

(54:19):
these arguments. Obviously, it's nota drive system of anything like it.
It's not an air breathing vehicle.It uses something that you're using a gravitational
control on in my mind, butto me, the next question usually get
Okay, if you think that andthe power source, why aren't we seeing
more of it because it's so probablyprohibitively expensive, so absolutely demanding, and

(54:43):
what we're doing and competing with lotsof other activities that are going on in
a economy of the world, economyof a country that I think there's a
very strong possibility that it's hard tomake this past anything more than than a
few flying articles, especially if it'sanything that's been re engineered or is using

(55:06):
adaptive technology where we've brought that out, and that comes up all the time.
The other part is if you're correct, and I think you are,
that there are other countries with likekind of capabilities and games. You also
have this game where you can't youcan't disturb the table too much. That
makes the other group, who hasthe ability to put a fairly bad annihilation

(55:31):
out, feel that they're going toloose or they are going to have to
succumb to that. So I think, rightly or wrongly, a lot of
the gainsmanship that is played here ishow do you do I remember that in
the eighties or nineties, there wasa study where they were concerned because of
the then refrigerant that if too manypeople in the world all went and got

(55:53):
refrigerators, which would be fantastic,right, it would change the way the
lives of many many people. Itwas going to put too much of a
strain on the atmosphere because of thetype of coolant we were using at that
time. Concerns about ozone, thebelief that this was going to cause it,
how it was going to be milledin mind, and all those things
were going to happen. So therewere groups of people, studies think tanks

(56:16):
that sat there advising the political leadershipof the world why they shouldn't allow this
to happen now because the technology hadn'tbeen cured to that point. Those kinds
of decisions I think are there.I think that it affects this the topic.
I'm not one that believes that wehave a highly super capable space capability

(56:38):
under space force or other activities.I'm not convinced on that one. I'd
like to, but I'm not convincedthat one. Martin. Okay, gentlemen,
we've got less than one minute beforewe've got to go to break.
With that being said, I wouldlike to kind of slide over into a

(57:00):
little bit of a different lane temporarily. Only temporarily. But what you said
about refrigeration, Commander, is veryinteresting because we can also use that argument
today concerning electric vehicles. Not onlydo we need massive amounts of lithium,

(57:25):
if in fact we're going to gothat direction, but we also need the
infrastructure in order to charge those vehicles, which currently today I think we are
sorely lacking. Chew on that fora little bit, Ladies and gentlemen,
we're going to take a break andwe'll be right back with a whole lot

(57:50):
more stick around. Okay, ladiesand gentlemen, we are back with Oh
my heaven, Commander Cobra different,what's the what's the deal there, Commander,
Well, this is ready to takeoff for what we started talking about

(58:12):
food sources, and this is alink back to Martin's incredible audience, their
raw meat kind of reaction to whenmany years ago Martin was so kind to
having on a show as a guestmy parents, which was somewhat similar to
how I am dressed right now,set them all a tither talk about anti

(58:36):
gravity. They were generating so muchpower within the chat rooms. I think
it was melting down cloud servers allover the United States and the world.
And then I decided to play alongwith the kittens and just rolled right in.
So I want you to know thecompletely seriously, you always wear sunglasses
under the dark visor when you're readyto go. That's the game. You

(58:57):
always after you're ready to go.I changed head gear also so well,
two time runner at h at SoutheastAsia, and now you have the desert
storm hat on there. I thinkthat that's very appropriate. Okay, well,
guys, when we when we wentto break I kind of threw some
raw meat out there. There's atremendous Porsche push right now for everyone ultimately

(59:28):
to convert their gasoline driven internal combustionengines to electric vehicles. Now, on
the one hand, I kind ofunderstand that a little bit this maybe this
much. On the other hand,and this is just a personal rant of

(59:53):
mind, but Yeoman, you breezenever ceases to astound me. And what
I mean by that is this planetis approximately best estimate, four and a
half ballion with a b years old. Human race has been here. Well,

(01:00:20):
I'll give it a stretch, Let'ssay a few hundred thousand years,
maybe five hundred thousand years. Thereis some argument that we may go back
even further, but I don't know. But in industry and our great technological
leap forward is only about two onehundred and odd years along since we became

(01:00:47):
the beginnings of industrialized Here we area little over two hundred years later,
worried that the human race may destroythe planet. Now at being said,
what has this planet gone through inthose four and a half billion years.
We've gone through numerous ice ages,We've gone through numerous cosmic impacts, everything

(01:01:15):
from meteorites to comets to asteroids pummelingthe planet. And we today are worried
about the internal combustion engine and plasticbags and plastic straws. I'm here in
California and we think we are goingto destroy the planet because of a few

(01:01:40):
plastic grocery bags. I mean,the you breeze, just it knocks me
on my socks, gentlemen. Please, Well, I didn't. I was
hoping we would stick more to theUFO topic when I took on this show,
to be honest with you, ButI'll see this smartin is simply on
a side. We were talking abouttechnology, and hey, this is our

(01:02:06):
show. We want to take anaside. We can take an aside.
Martin. I think though you arecorrect, but I think that there's a
pretty good tie in when when youwhen the wheel comes around to me here
that well might assuade you a littlebit on this, why this this this
has kind of a fit. Butplease, you were getting ready to say
some go ahead, just well,I think we can affect you know,

(01:02:34):
I understand you're saying what we've beenthrough, but I do believe that we
can affect things. I'm not sosure that electric vehicles are an answer because
it takes a big stretch to getthere. But I do think that we
can make an impact. And yes, the Earth is resilient, it can
be resilient and without us here alsoand you know, I mean, I

(01:02:58):
just think that we we're not doingus any favors with what we how we
treat things in the plastic you mentioned. You know, this is just one
thing we just we're just very selfishand in the moment, that's how I
feel about how we are and thinkabout you know, nuclear power, nuclear
waste, how we have to guardit for you know, a couple hundred

(01:03:20):
thousand years. We don't even knowwhat two hundred thousand years in the past
was, never mind have to worryabout babysitting stuff that we create for our
selfishness for a short period of time. There, I've done my rant and
off the topic of UFOs. Sogo ahead, commander, Yeah, go

(01:03:40):
ahead, commander. Well, no, I'm going to sound a little bit
like a a socialist when I saythis. I think the number one goal
that we should have had as agroup would have been the ability to produce
electricity freely. I think that shouldhave been a commodity like air that we
should have produced enough of let power, since it is the probably the most

(01:04:01):
critical form of energy that we useas a as a civilization. So with
that said, this approach that we'retaking on this particular part, I think
does have kind of a parallel towhat we're talking about in the UFO world.
We're not getting good information. We'rebeing led by very very strange events

(01:04:25):
that go forward on this right now. We're producing, we're saying that we
want to produce a vehicle that actuallycauses you're worried about nuke material, Martin
the materials that we are putting togetherin these vehicles will require almost longer periods
of time, so that when theyare no longer used in the batteries is

(01:04:46):
what I'm referring to have to becustotically cared for in means greater than what
we have right now for nuclear power. So we are going to destroy the
earth to save the earth. Kindof thing never has made much sense to
me. The other part, obviously, I will now flash on to the

(01:05:08):
other side of it, that itseems to me that it's not consistent with
any kind of scientific approach or engineeringapproach. I don't think we should be
using plastic bags in supermarkets. Oiland its production and the different things we
have should be prioritized to what youneed. You need lubricants, you need

(01:05:30):
plastics from medicine, the convenience ofplastic bags. I'm sorry, I just
don't care. It seems rather sillyto me that you would waste it on
one time thing. All the thingsthat we do that are consistent with having
a smart measure to go forward,and I am completely in Martins camp that
there is nothing that we do thatsays to me we are good stewards of

(01:05:55):
what we've been given on this planet, what we go forward with them.
But by ultimate feeling is there's noplan to make this transition. What's driving
these discussions, Well, if youtalk about what Chris is saying, it's
the latest thing to monetize, it'sthe latest thing to make money, it's
the latest thing to control the population. That we're able to do this,

(01:06:16):
we will no longer travel the distancesthat we have taken for granted that we
will travel if we make this transitionto electrical vehicles. It's just not going
to occur. There's no possible way. When in the preceding decades we have
not done to the grid what weshould have been doing. We're losing thirty
five to forty eight percent of theelectricity that we pump into the system.

(01:06:39):
I am a believer that there isnew technology because I've seen it work on
ships that would radically change how wedo it by putting small reactors that are
in the ground that do not causethe kinds of things that we have seen
happen go wrong with big reactors.And we have close to close to eighty
years of technology doing this with veryfew accidents, with very few control issues

(01:07:03):
that go on. So there hasto be something above all this that's driving
it. And that's where I seethe parallels with the kinds of things that
we're talking about with the UAP crossfire, because we're being thrown things to further
cause us to fragment, further causeus to go into smaller balkanized groups getting

(01:07:23):
at each other's throats, would makeit easier for folks that are self appointed
to run this And ultimately, Iwill go one step further. As crazy
as I sound on this one,this is just another thing to keep us
from talking about the phenomena that it'sgoing on around us. This is one
more thing to break down dialogue bycausing us to have another fight on the

(01:07:49):
corner when we should be looking twoor three blocks down the road. Gentlemen.
Wow, Well I want to chimein here. First of all,
Martin, I want to get backa little bit on the UFO with this
type of discussion. One, Ibelieve there's been many civilizations on this earth
besides us that probably had very advancedtechnology. I mean, I don't think

(01:08:14):
that we're the you know, theking of this this earth, this planet,
as far as that goes. AndI believe that we've discovered those technologies,
and some of those technologies would takeus out of the oil based phenomenon
that we're in now. However,I got to agree with Commander that it's
money. If I have looking atback in the seventies, guys, remember

(01:08:39):
when they came out with all thesenew carburetors where gas was going to I
mean, you were going to gofrom nine, you know, nine miles
to the gallon to thirty five milesto the gallon, to fifty miles to
sixty miles a gallon. And whatdid they do. They bought off that
technology and they locked it in asafe and I think the same thing is

(01:09:00):
happening with oil companies today and otherpeople who want that technology and say,
whoa wait a minute, we're goingto give you fifty million dollars and we'll
take that technology if we can.If everybody in this panel agrees that we
can reverse anti gravity, you know, we've got the technology to harness safe

(01:09:24):
energy, there's no question in mymind, but it's locked up because people
are making money. And I'm I'mI've just seen so much corruption in the
world being a police officer, beinga detective that I know people will pay
for that stuff to hide it andwe so they can just drab us with

(01:09:46):
this stuff in order for us todo it. So, going back to
our technology, I believe we havea commander. I believe that it's locked
up and we're now going to seeit until they at their penny's worth out
of it. Well, that's prettydefinitive, and I, gentlemen, I

(01:10:08):
gotta say I agree basically with everyone of you out here. Currently in
California, the price of gasoline justincidentally raised again and we're paying well over
five dollars a gallon. So whenyou talk about value for your dollar and

(01:10:34):
considering what the price of gasoline wasjust two and a half three years ago,
it's astounding. But to get backto the UFO UAP, you know,
and there's something, gentlemen, thatI'd like to get your feelings about,

(01:10:55):
this constant changing of the aim ofthe phenomenon. Back in Keyho's day,
when he first started taking a lookat this, they were flying discs,
flying saucers. The United States AirForce then came out with the moniker

(01:11:15):
UFO Unidentified Flying Objects that seemed tobe good for a long time, and
suddenly once again, it's changed toUAP Unidentified Aerial phenomenon Martin, what do
you attribute that to? Well,they've also now it's unidentified. Isn't it

(01:11:40):
anomalous? They changed it again,Yeah, the acronym. Well, so
this is a good point. I'mglad you brought it up. You know,
my show is called podcast UFO.I started it back when the UFO
Award was cool. But in twentythirteen, I was an a conference in
North Carolina and I met doctor RichardHaynes and I said, uh, doctor

(01:12:05):
Haynes, I would love to haveyou on my show. And we got
into a conversation and he said,oh, your show's called podcast UPHONE.
I said yeah, and he said, well, I really can't come on
there, he says, because weuse the term UAP and UFO has a
bad you know, a bad rap. People think of Little Green men and

(01:12:28):
all that, and so I waslike, oh my god. And then
later on I saw someone else,you know, with something in UFO or
whatever, and you didn't look athim and say, Dick, are you
shipping me? But anyway, uhso kind of that kind of genesse.
Quah Martin, you know, youhave to you have to get up early

(01:12:51):
to have Decker's jennessa qua and thatkind of a situation. Well, so
it was and I thought, youknow, what is it? And I
talked to Leslie Kane about it,you know, and she said at that
time. I talked to her andshe said, yeah, we're just you
know, we are just like shewas part of this UAP movement. Yeah,

(01:13:13):
for me to go to Washington andtalk about it, we really have
to separate that flying saucer UFO mentalityto bring it over to unidentified aerial phenomenon.
That was That was in twenty thirteen. So the switch has been going
on for a while now. Butas I mentioned, they did just change

(01:13:35):
that. But I mean, whathappens someone will say to me, what
does UAP mean a UFO? Youknow, I mean, it doesn't really
go too far. Then the wordcomes back to it's unidentified. That's you
know. I mean, I don'tthink it should be a bad word.
Control the language, Control the people. I don't mean to, you know,

(01:13:58):
go too big onto the conser farrasit's and it's a Japanese rising sundew
rag, not the tinfoil, thetinfoils underneath. I can't see it.
But this is this is a perfectmicrocosm of what we're what we're all experiencing,
I say, going against, butwhat we're experiencing. We keep changing

(01:14:19):
words, but we're not getting downto the discussion. I'm sure that there's
when you you put a level ofsome kind of respectability that if you're a
government agency or a military agency investigatingthis kind of phenomena, what sounds a
lot better than sending ufolks. Imean, you saw it in the congressional

(01:14:41):
hearings. You had senators and congressmenthat were acting like asses with the kind
of remarks of of you know,well, are you talking about these beings?
You know where they like the littlegreen men? You watch it when
there's certain news No commander, no, no, no, they're biologicals today
again, change the words, controlthe conversation, control the people. I

(01:15:04):
get it. It seems pretty obviousto me. My anger flares up with
this. Up until probably three fouryears ago, every time you saw a
network news, especially from the localaffiliate that was covering anything that went on
with it, there would always besome laughter on the set. There would

(01:15:25):
always be some joke, and therewould be the little green man kind of
thing going on now since we hadthe New England UFO show and I got
from Sue the inflatable alien, whichI have kept in my car now for
years, and he moves around withme, he makes deliveries with me.

(01:15:46):
He's gone on the hay pickups.I use that as a means to have
a conversation with a lot of differentfolks about what's going on and what the
experience it is. So instead ofembracing it, if you shift it over
you, well, look what youjust went through. Markin. You were
delegitimized because you're using the term UFO, the acronym. Excuse me UFO,

(01:16:11):
because right now it's UAP and soonit's going to be something else because you're
gonna you're dated, you're not hip, you're not current, you're not talking
about the newest stuff. And it'sthe same bs coming out of the same
people that are that are doing it, and this is nothing new to what
it would. I've watched weapons technologygo through it. We have books of

(01:16:33):
acronyms that we have to differentiate.The same acronym covers five or six different
things. Some of them are aweapon, others are an agency, some
are uh uh are things that you'reconducting. You know how you would do
an investigation, and it has anacronym. It's the same. That's how

(01:16:53):
crazy this is because if you canthrow this terminology, you confer a certain
level of and I think most people'stheir own minds legitimacy, respect or the
big A word authority. I laughat all of this. This is all
nonsense. That we're arguing wing overwhere where we're gonna sit at the table,

(01:17:15):
and not what the meal is.And that's how this has gone on
for ages. I agree with you, Commander. I think you're sitting at
an empty table because if you takethe UFO and UAP and I agree everything
you said. If you if youcontrol the narrative, you're controlling the people,
but also you're diversing it out wherepeople don't get into the meat of

(01:17:40):
the product. And I'll go backto those congressional hearings which I thought were
farces because I watched a head ofthe Naval Intelligence say, we don't have
a good laptop or computer to makea steal shot of this thing. They
showed a picture there. You werethe US under man, you're the head

(01:18:00):
of Naval Intelligence. You just wantto have the most sophisticated stuff. Satellite's
in the sky, they can seelicense plates. And you're telling me you
don't bring to a congressional hearing,and you don't you don't go and get
a sketch artist to take the renditionof it on the whiteboard. I almost
pissed my pants when he said thatyou got a lot of best is.

(01:18:24):
They're seeing that with a straight face, and you have to believe it.
You know. Here, here's here'sa just a little thing to show how
correct you absolutely are, uh inmy paper And if you once it's completed
and you read it, you're gonnanotice that I talked a bit about the

(01:18:46):
Clementine mission. Okay. In Januarynineteen ninety four, NASA in the Department
of Defense Ballistic Missile Agents BMLD wentback to the Moon and completely rephotographed and
remapped the lunar surface. Now thiswas twenty two freaking years after the end

(01:19:15):
of Apollo, which was Apollo seventeenDecember nineteen seventy two. They took with
them the KH eleven spy satellite,okay, or the equivalency thereof a device
that can sit thousands of miles inorbit and can photograph a package of cigarettes

(01:19:44):
where you can read the Surgeon General'swarning on the pack. And they took
an excess of two point five millionphotographs. Now to prove my point,
I went searching for any photographs thatwere released from that mission, Clementine,

(01:20:10):
and literally there's only a handful thatthe DoD and NASA ever released, and
they're all blurry, d resilized,resinized, and blurry to the extreme.
And they want the American public tobelieve that's the best they could do.

(01:20:34):
Pure dog and pony sex show.That's all it is, okay, And
that's basically everything today is that dogand pony sex show and smoking mirrors.
And my question is when the hellare we going to have had enough?
My problem has always been you guysbeen talking about that dinner table, talking

(01:20:59):
about everybody's gonna sit. Well,I never even get an invite because I
have a propensity for calling a spadea fucking shovel. Okay, and people
today hate that straight talk. Welldone. The other part about that that

(01:21:20):
dinner, one of the reasons thatwe're not getting to the meal is because
they came out with the bill beforewe even ordered. Okay, that's another
thing that's slowing us all up.We're seeing money thrown on these things and
you're not getting to the main event. Martin, you look like you were
ready to leap there. Yeah,go ahead, you have some good I

(01:21:44):
wanted to ask Martin a question.Martin, you, I mean you were
at the hearings when you saw someof the stuff that they were saying there.
I mean, you didn't you cockyour head and go, what the
hell is going on with these guys? Are you talking about the witnesses.
I'm no, I'm talking about thewell you were there, whether they had

(01:22:04):
the US Naval Intelligence director and theUndersecretary of State. Correct I was there
when Grush was there. Okay,all right, I didn't catch that.
But I getting back to what youknow, you both said about you know,
the video and the it was ridiculousbecause if you know, that's not

(01:22:27):
the best they have. And thenthey were just making a point, I
think, just to dismiss, youknow, the window dressing stuff, and
to just say or I like,uh, I like when James Fox went
ballistic the other day on who wasit? I forget who it was.
One of the skeptics, Michael Shermerand he basically Michael Shermer started going on

(01:22:50):
about how this looked like this,but then it ended up being explained,
and Fox just interrupted him and hesays, we don't want to hear about
the ones that are explained, youknow, which is so true. It's
such a good point. We wantto go back ones that aren't, you
know, and back to the US. They did try to steer it that

(01:23:12):
way, well, we have anexplanation for this and this and this.
You know, they kind of justkind of muddies the whole thing. Well,
I mean, here one of themMountain out lied because Travis Taylor turned
around and says that triangle that theysaw in the sky, they said,
well, that's a drone. Imean, we took it to analysis,

(01:23:33):
and they've analyzed it, and afterseveral months they just said it's a drone.
So your most sophisticated battleship that youhave couldn't tell with all the radar
and everything that they have, couldn'ttell that was a drone flying in the
sky. We're in bad shape ifthat's actually happened, which I believe is

(01:23:54):
a lie. I mean, obviously, you know, they come up with
this crazy story, but also gettingback to your UFO and UAP narrative.
Notice how the organizations are changing theirname. First they were blue Book and
then they go we discovered years laterthat we got a tip. Now it's
air went the arrow, and nowit's something I can't even pronounce. So

(01:24:17):
you have all the narratives changing,and one of the things they said in
those narratives there is no evidence thatthis is extraterrestrial fitz Fitzpatrick said right in
front of the senators, Well,I got no evidence that this is that
there's uh extraterrestrial involved with this.But you'll get somebody on the record to

(01:24:40):
say we can't explain this. You'llget somebody on the record to say this
is a phenomenon. We need tostudy some more. We need more money,
more money, and security, youknow, uh national security. That
word in absolutely Commander Chris chris Issaid, Chris has said that he's had

(01:25:02):
a problem with Groush from day one. Now I have to basically totally agree
with that because Grush came forward sworeto tell the truth, the whole truth,
So help me, I'm going totell the truth. And then everything

(01:25:23):
he relayed was second and third handinformation that he was told no first hand
information whatsoever. Now my question isthis, where in God's name are those
people that told him this stuff?Okay, granted they'd have to go to

(01:25:46):
a closed hearing. Apparently congress behindclosed doors are authorized to hear a lot
of this stuff. But nobody isscreaming for the principles to be brought forward.
Gentlemen, Why because I think theobjective Decker was met by having this

(01:26:10):
bread and circus routine that went on. Now, I don't know, mister
Grouch, I don't I don't havea feeling one way or the other about
him. He tends he gave methe impression of someone that was sincere in
wanting to try to relay what hethinks he knows or knows or has concluded.

(01:26:34):
But the whole goal was not tohave that follow on. And I
again, Martin, please forgive meas I use this example. We don't
have a clear understanding what the frigis going on with the Ukrainian Russian war
that we are deeply embroiled in,and we know that the closed door secure

(01:26:56):
hearings you hear little reactions on thefrom the congressional leadership. And when I
say Congress. I'm talking about bothparts the Senate and the House of Representatives,
so it doesn't surprise me that weget this. And I go back
to what I believe is the basisfor most of this kinds of reveals that

(01:27:18):
go on is to study what thereaction of people are, how long was
it in social media, how longis it being discussed, and then different
groups latch onto that to use itas a means to control conversation, to
drive opinion to ultimately go I meanagain, I'm not going to single anybody

(01:27:39):
out by name, but some ofthe dumbest remarks that were made on the
F thirty five b or by sittingmembers of Congress, they were absolutely out
their six stupid remarks going on withthis quite honestly, Chris, do you
want to spend the money we're spendingon an airplane that can easily be found?
I don't if it's a stealth airplane, I don't want it to be

(01:28:02):
found. None the prices we're payingfor this. Yeah, but at least
I want us to fight it.No, I don't want to know.
I wanted to get hard to befound. I don't want the Chinese to
fight it. I can tell youthat by it, I mean, let's
face it, let's think I havesomewhere the farcical part of this I don't
want somebody came the Pentagon saying,hey, there's some crash in my backyard

(01:28:28):
without I'm more comfortable with that afterspending one hundred and ten billion, yeah,
one hundred and ten million on thatairplane, Okay, that it can't
be easily found, and that thereasons that stuff on it weren't working was
because they were in the mode toshow that it was flying in a stealth
mode. Okay, that's the part. They didn't make any sense to me.

(01:28:53):
If it showed right up, youknow what the argument would have been,
We just spent one hundred and tenmillion dollars, this airplane went down
and they immediately found it. Whatthe hell's going on? You can't.
I mean, this is the ridiculousnessof this world that we're in. And
that's why I love doing you guys, because I want these angles to come

(01:29:14):
out, because I want people tocritically think. That's the if there's three
other people on this planet, andincluding Skywatcher, the fourth are critical thinkers.
You don't buy it when it comesout you can tell me, hey,
I empathetically feel for this. Iagree with this, but you will
critically think about it. So youknow this. This is a true story.

(01:29:36):
Last night I cooked dinner for mywife and two stories from last night.
We had linguini and pesto with sundried tomatoes. Okay, delicious dinner,
really was. And while I wascooking it. While I was cooking

(01:29:58):
it, and he got real softand squishy, and oh man, I
had garlic in there. I hadolive oil. Truly was delicious. Bottom
line. You know what came tomy mind. I swear to God,
this is the truth. I thoughtof the US Congress while I was stirring

(01:30:23):
that linguini. Now see if youmake the connection. Well, I want
to get back to Grush a littlebit because Commander hit a couple of things
there that I want to touch on. One. I think Grush is a
patriot. Let's face it, therehave been a lot of credible people who
said, this guy is a patriot. He's a really good guy. What

(01:30:45):
do patriots do? Patriots will sayif somebody in the Pentagon or somebody approached
and says, listen, we needyou to put this narrative out here in
the right place, at the righttime. We want you to put this
out there, do this for us, you know, and stuff. He's
not gonna say. No. Thisguy is this guy is a military guy,

(01:31:10):
and he's a patriot, and he'sa good guy. But here's the
one thing, and that that wholething that he said that frightened me.
And I'll tell you why it frightenedme, because Congress didn't jump up and
go what he says that people probablyhave been killed over this UFO subject.

(01:31:30):
I would, holy shit if theyhave silenced people, which we all have
a suspicion of. But I mean, this guy is coming out to Congress
now, one of those Congressmans thatsay that again, you're telling me that
you have information that American people havebeen killed over this subject, murdered.

(01:31:51):
That should have been stopped right there. Well, you see, most people,
most people today, most people todayare unaware that in the immediate aftermath
of the Roswell event, whatever thatevent was, Okay, three things happened

(01:32:11):
in quick succession within the next sixto eight to ten weeks. Number One,
the National Security Act was signed intolaw, now even at the height
of World War Two, and theManhattan project, the most top secret project
ever up to that point, thedesign, development, and ultimate deployment of

(01:32:38):
the atomic bomb. Okay, wedidn't have a National Security Act. The
Central Intelligence Agency was brought into itsexistence, all right, and the United
States Army Air Force was separated fromthe Army and became its own independent military

(01:33:03):
entity. Now, the thing that'smost astounding to me is number one,
the National Security Act, which meansunder the guise of national security, up
to and including premeditated murder may legallybe carried out in the event it is

(01:33:24):
determined to be a threat to nationalsecurity. Most people are totally unaware of
that, and by god, it'sabout time they wake up and smell the
coffee. I agree, Martin.You heard that there. I mean,
they're talking about murder over a UFOphenomenon, right, Yeah, I do

(01:33:45):
remember that. It was kind ofshocking to hear that. And as far
as you know, I think aboutthis, since we're on the topic of
basically the hearings and grush and allthat, you know, people are out
there saying, now, you know, maybe he was It's all misinformation.

(01:34:05):
He was fed misinformation, which ispossible, of course, but at what
end? Why I always try tothink why, why, why could this
be happening? If it's truly happening, what is the motive and how could
it be orchestrated that, you know, forty different people told him these you

(01:34:26):
know, different things, and Igot to follow up on what you just
said. Yeah, all right.Two things. Number one, why gentlemen,
do you think UFOs UAPs or whateverthe glitzy term that we're next week
will come up? Got to changethe criron for the name of the show.
I guess on a weekly or monthlybasis, depending on whatever is in

(01:34:49):
we should crowdsource that. What doyou want to call the show? Crossfire?
What? That's one thing we shouldbe doing. The second, why
do you think that's any different thanany other endeavor that we're going on.
I mean, what Don is notalluded to directly points to, is correct?
That is part of what's there.The second worst piece of legislation,

(01:35:12):
in my opinion, was the PatriotsAct. When that crap came out,
I was I was practically on theend of the point the stick because I
was in uniform and that came out, and I was talking about how much
crap this is. This is soanti us Constitution, anti First Amendment.
What is going on here? Youknow? But you made a remark and

(01:35:36):
Don talked about it. During theManhattan Project when they were picking the flight
crews to fly Little Man, AFat Man and Little Boy Tibbet's group,
they brought them out to a basein Ohio where it has been alluded that

(01:35:57):
many extraterrestrial biologicals. I don't wantto offend Don any further with the not
keeping with the current terminology. Andwhen they had them coming across a flight
line, they left the hangar dooropen, very little crack of the hangar
door, and they had to walkacross this ramp and go into another room.

(01:36:17):
They knew that, you know,they were getting briefed and they're being
screened to see if they could covertheir flying credentials. Were fantastic and in
it was the mock up of anairplane with no propeller, pointy nose,
uh swept wings, all kinds ofstuff, and it was in the back

(01:36:38):
and you know, you're not supposedto see it, and of course these
guys, being the types of peoplethat they are, looked in there.
And then they tracked the people thathad seen it and they actually went after
one guy because during confession, theyfound out that in the confessional or a

(01:36:58):
Roman Catholic, he had made mentionto the priest who had told him in
the confessional how concerned he was abouthow the war was going, Will we
win? Will we prevail over evil? This very human one to one exchange
going under a so called protected religiousrite. Okay, so you figure out

(01:37:19):
how they knew this conversation. Whynot? Because they approached this guy and
they want to know what were youthinking when you tried to assuage the fears
of your priest in the confessional bytelling them about the thing that you had
seen. It was staged. Theywanted to see how far they would go
with viewing this thing knowing that theywere pilots, knowing that they were aircrew,

(01:37:42):
because what he told the priest was, don't worry, we have the
technology. We're going to beat theNazis, were going to beat the Japanese.
We are building planes in technology.Now. I don't know how hard
you guys are going to judge thatkind of disclosure to a priest in a
confessional about something that you had seen. I don't know how far you you

(01:38:06):
know, you you see that asa violation. I'm setting aside that I'm
talking look at the mechanism that wasset up intentionally to try to figure out
if you had a security leak orwhat the the loyalty factor of this was.
These weren't people that hadn't demonstrated theirtheir their skills and their bravery in

(01:38:30):
the face of combat. Nobody justwalked into this particular mission. This was
the high end delivery of probably oneof the biggest things that had gone on
in World War Two. And thiswas the kinds of ways that I think,
very well intentioned as it may havebeen, was looking at did they
kill him? No, as faras we know see but Grecia saying they

(01:38:56):
killed people over UFO tech. Ibut it's not because of UFOs that they're
being killed. If it's happening,they are being killed because they are violating
some portion of what has been discovered, what has been engineered, what is
going on. But this is notan all joking aside. This is not

(01:39:16):
exclusive to this particular area of discussion. This is going on over what I
consider a lot less, much morepedestrian issues are going on. I guess
my issue is that when you sayit in a public form in a congressional
hearing over UFOs and the reaction.You barely get a result from these.

(01:39:43):
And here's the point that here's thepoint that I guess I'm not making well
with you, Chris. It's notthe fact that people didn't react to it.
It's the fact that it takes agroup of us to have the discussion
about where is the outrage? Agree. That's the part that has got my
my dearth about this, because ifyou if you work backwards from this,

(01:40:06):
there have been events UFO, UAP, whatever the term, events that have
gone on that the government has madeas equal a stupid insulting on its face
argument and as going back to withDecker brought up earlier, at what point

(01:40:28):
do you say enough and at whatpoint do we demand it? Well,
I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion thatwe are approaching the point that when we
do get to the point that weare going to make the demand, we're
not going to be allowed to govery far with the demand. I want
to ask Martin's feelings on this.Martin, you were there, I mean

(01:40:49):
when that was brought up, what'dyou think? What was in your mind?
You know, it's the whole day. There was so many things brought
up. You know that that didstand out is you know the couple of
things that stood out that day wasthat in particular. And then also when

(01:41:09):
he was asked about you know,the biologicals found in the craft, and
he kind of said very broadly nonhuman. Now that again he's not a
first hand witness, and to addressthat also, I do believe that the
right away when that article came out. I'm trying to remember it's a German

(01:41:31):
last name. This young kid cameout with an article talking about grushes,
you know, problems with alcohol andyou know PTSD or whatever. When he
went right away when that first cameout, I thought, well, that's
one way to cure someone that mightcome out as a first hand witness is
to you know, push this outthere, you know, the dirty laundry

(01:41:54):
out there, to discourage anyone elsethinking about coming forward. Perfect, I
just gotta grab one thing you justsaid there. Perfect statement you just made.
We just went through twenty plus yearsof war without end goes you know,
feeds for the whole discussion we had. PTSD has gone from something that

(01:42:15):
we you know, you didn't wantto talk about to now as the one
of the most recognizable mental uh notcondition I'm not I'm not using the right
word, but a mental situation thatpeople are are rapidly saying, Hey,
look, we've got to be supportiveof this. I mean, you get
PTSD now for for at all levelsof activity going on, getting your ass

(01:42:38):
chewed out by your supervisor at workor Don Ecker yelling at you at crossfire
UAP. Does kg r A havethe facilities that I'm going to need at
the end of this show. Idon't know, though, Martin, I'm
making on this the timing of this. I actually would feel I would I

(01:42:58):
would have been more concerned if youdidn't see something like that, because it
is, it's scripted, it ispart of the playbook. It is to
throw doubt in there. Folks likeus that have a belief, folks like
us that are convinced that are searchingfor more evidence. We're not going to
be thwarted by this. We'll applycritical analysis to the things that are said,

(01:43:19):
what we would have preferred to haveheard. How it's going to go.
But what about that bigger group inthe middle, who's now worried about
As Don was talking gas prices orthe war in Ukraine or whatever's going on.
If a couple of days later itcomes out that this person is no
longer a reliable witness because we've justfound this out, Well that's ridiculous.

(01:43:44):
Well let's not forget what they did. Okay. In the immediate aftermath's testimony,
someone then floatd the idea that Grouchmight have mental problems. Sure,
he's on the optism scale perhaps,and he had to go see a shrink

(01:44:05):
at one. They tried to tearthe guy down, somebody did, And
that convinces me that he has somethingvalid to say. When I see that
kind of behavior, that tells mesomebody is onto something. What it is
not within the scope of a fewminutes we have left, but that playbook

(01:44:26):
that it's getting old, it's tripein my reaction to it. But I
do look for that, in avery strange way, as affirmation that he
was onto something. And the factthat it wasn't presented in a more legal
way of presenting that information, whereyou didn't have Congressman asking about the situation

(01:44:49):
in the back that briefs on thisperson's background. So now you're telling me
the people that are asking these questions, don't know that his background, don't
know these questions, and then youwait for it to come out later.
Now that that's the part to me, that's the part that doesn't add up
to me in this day and age. You you you're telling me this is

(01:45:12):
all. And then somebody with aGerman last name is the one that puts
the story out online and command commander. Don't you think he knows this too?
I mean, if of course hedoes, he says, hey,
wait a minte, I got adrinking problem, I got a little bit
of autism, I got this,I got that kind of my background.
If he has autists, okay,if he does or he doesn't. God,

(01:45:36):
if this show at the end ofit, I don't look like I'm
the posted child for for this stuff. Okay. But if that's the truth,
he's highly functioning. He's been inwhat he's done, it's more like
an asperger. Wait, it wouldhave been an enhancement, but it was
the cheap shot at the end ofit. And quite honestly, I look

(01:45:58):
for that now as a means totell me that the person's hitting kind of
close to home, that they're ontosomething m interesting. I still think that
part of it is is like yousaid, a playbook. They said they
knew he knew that this was goingto come out after he testified. Well,
he actually talked about he talked abouthis issues with that could Heart interview,

(01:46:25):
but they didn't release all of it. So but he did openly admit
these problems. There you go.So anyway, I don't know how much
time we have left, but Commander, if you don't mind, I'd like
to jump all the way back tothe TIC tact and just just with a
questions. If you do believe it'sa possibility that these things were American made,

(01:46:50):
you know, technology, A coupleof things. First of all,
would you consider the drop that theywitnessed on the radar? I mean,
could anything American made that we knowof at this point stay together without falling
apart with the G force? Andsecondly, why would they put the if
they knew there was an exercise goingon in that area? Do you think

(01:47:15):
that they stage this purposely to seethe reaction? Is that what you're thinking?
Yes? Okay, first part,if you're using the kinds of technology
that we're familiar with and comfortable with, if you're viewing it from your time
on an airliner to thinking, howcould you possibly have this go? This
is not an aerospace vehicle in thesense that it's bending aerodynamics are bending air.

(01:47:41):
This is something else is happening.How do I think that that occurs?
I have my private kind of guessis what it is. But if
you have the kind of power sourceto pull this off, and if you
have the kind of power source thatallows you to in my mind, the
reason you would use an occupant isbecause it has less of a less of
a tail of other things that haveto happen. Because it didn't fly autonomously.

(01:48:04):
It really, to me fluid reactand interact to what was going on
with it on that So that's whyI think if you have that power source,
then you have other means to doit. The human body can take
a lot of g's. They justhave to be in a certain direction and
you will not I mean, you'llfeel physical discomfort, but you won't pass
out, you won't be irruptibly harmed. There are, of course, other

(01:48:30):
times when you make impacts that thatdoesn't work. So the ability for it
to do that and to do that, Yes, I have seen aircraft that
are so far advanced in the scopeof the timeline of what I'm familiar with
that do things that are just absolutelyincredible on that I can easily extrapolate that.
But here's the question, how Ianswer your second part of that market

(01:48:55):
If we have competing programs with othercountries that we don't like, what's the
easiest way to make a statement toshow that we have gotten a couple more
steps down the path to feeling orto having the capability. How do we

(01:49:15):
convince them running that as an exercise, running that against a Navy carrier battle
group, it's physical location to whereit was, to the southwestern part of
the United States, it all convenientlyfits to me. Well, you know,
I saw an East Coast battle groupaviator yep, same thing all right,

(01:49:39):
where one of these devices blew betweenhim and his wingman. Are you
saying they copied top gun Maverick,I guess I'm very uncomfortable with that done.
I'm very m But this aviator wassaying, hey, if there are
is man, would they be doingthat or we're flying at I mean,

(01:50:03):
commander. They went boom right betweenhim and his wingman. Scared hell out
of them, Okay, And Iwas thinking, boy, if anybody would
have twitched when they should have watched. Somebody would have been splattered all over
that tick deck, you know,unless you have a technology that allows you

(01:50:24):
to do that. And that's theother part that tells me that there's very
human occupation going on in there.That maneuver sounds so much like a human
pilot activating that kind of capability,knowing because of how it maybe projects a
barrier around it that would cause theaircraft to tumble away. I could give

(01:50:45):
you countless examples in my mind thatI can conjure up. I'm focusing on
what I consider to be very interestingbehavior of how they show up, where
they showed up, where they wouldbe close to the facilities that would allow
protection of it, a tech inthe and the southeast, the whole complex
that's in the southwest part of theUnited States. So well, gentlemen,

(01:51:09):
we we are now under one minuteleft in this show. I guess this
is the point where we're gonna haveto shut this fascinating discussion off. But
guys, I really look forward tofuture programs with the four of you,
or well, yeah, Bill wouldbe that would be the fourth puppet master

(01:51:32):
in the background, pulling the stringsand check exactly. Now I have two
personalities going, so you know,oh deah brar. Next next time we
get together, you're gonna be autistictoo. Thanks. Great, fine take
away from me. Yeah, Igot PTSD commanders, So there you go.
Hey, this this has been fantastic. Thank you very much, Ladies

(01:51:55):
and gentlemen. We will be backwith more each week. Keep your eyes
pointed up and have a great week. Hmm.

All Episodes

UAP Crossfire - Read all about it - UAP News Center on UAP Cross Fire

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

24/7 News: The Latest

Dateline NBC

The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show

.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;}UAP Crossfire - Read all about it - UAP News Center on UAP Cross Fire